9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Whether the Guru Granth Sahib could be treated as a juristic person. 2. The validity of the mutation of the name of Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh based on Faraman-I-Shahi. Issue 1: Whether the Guru Granth Sahib could be treated as a juristic person: The Supreme Court examined whether the Guru Granth Sahib could be considered a juristic person, which would allow it to hold and use gifted properties. The court noted that Sikhism, with its deep-rooted reverence for the Guru Granth Sahib, treats it as a living Guru. The court discussed the concept of juristic persons, which are entities recognized by law to have rights and duties, similar to natural persons but created through legal recognition. The court referenced various legal precedents and scholarly texts to illustrate that juristic persons can include institutions, funds, or objects of religious significance, such as idols or mosques. The court emphasized that the Guru Granth Sahib, revered and worshipped in gurdwaras, holds a unique position in Sikhism, akin to a living Guru. It noted that the Guru Granth Sahib is central to Sikh worship and is treated with the same reverence as the ten Sikh Gurus. The court concluded that the Guru Granth Sahib meets the criteria to be recognized as a juristic person, capable of holding property and being a subject of legal rights and duties. Issue 2: The validity of the mutation of the name of Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh based on Faraman-I-Shahi: The court examined the validity of the mutation of the name of Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh, which was challenged by the respondents. The mutation was based on Faraman-I-Shahi issued by the ruler of the Patiala State in 1921, directing that land pertaining to any Dera should not be considered the property of any Mahant but should be entered as belonging to the Dera under the management of the Mahant. The court found that the mutation was not solely based on Faraman-I-Shahi but was the result of a detailed enquiry conducted by the Revenue Officer, who recorded evidence and statements from villagers and the respondents' ancestors. The enquiry established that the disputed land was gifted for public charity and was meant for providing food and comfort to travelers. The court held that the mutation was valid and that the respondents had no personal rights over the property, which belonged to the Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person and upheld the validity of the mutation of the disputed property in its name. The court set aside the judgment of the High Court, which had held otherwise, and allowed the appeal, affirming the orders passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents' claims over the disputed property were rejected.
|
