1955 (3) TMI 51 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
3. Validity of the proceedings under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
4. Binding nature of the compromise decree dated 17-6-1933.
5. Ownership of the suit properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Appeal:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competence of the appeal, arguing that the order of the High Court was not a final order within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution. It was contended that since the trial court had already decreed the suit in favor of the respondent and no appeal was filed against that decree, the appeal was incompetent. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted the certificate under Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, read with Article 133 of the Constitution. The High Court's judgment was considered a final order because it finally determined the rights of the parties regarding the ownership of the property. The decree passed by the trial court after remand was subject to the result of this appeal, making the appeal maintainable.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellant argued that the claim to the suit property should have been put forward as an objection under Section 10 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, and that the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. The respondent contended that the determination of whether a property is a private property or constitutes a Gurdwara is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdiction must be brought about by specific provisions in the Act. Section 29 of the Act, which was relied upon to argue the exclusion of jurisdiction, did not apply to the present case as the alleged Gurdwara was not notified under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. Validity of the Proceedings under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925:
The proceedings under Section 7 of the Act were questioned for their validity. The High Court had concluded that the notification under Section 7(1) was inconsistent with the claim made under Section 3(2) and that the building in dispute was private property. The Supreme Court, while leaving the applicability of Section 10 open, found it unnecessary to express an opinion on the validity of the proceedings under Sections 7 and 10, as it did not affect the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this case.

4. Binding Nature of the Compromise Decree Dated 17-6-1933:
The compromise decree dated 17-6-1933, passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, admitted the property as belonging to the Raja but held it in trust for the benefit of pilgrims. The trial court was directed to determine whether this compromise decree was binding between the parties to the present suit. This issue was left open for further consideration by the trial court.

5. Ownership of the Suit Properties:
The primary question on the merits was whether the properties in the suit belonged to the plaintiff as claimed. The trial court was directed to take further evidence and submit findings on whether the properties belonged to the plaintiff and whether the compromise decree of 17-6-1933 was binding between the parties.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to take further evidence and submit findings on the issues of the binding nature of the compromise decree and the ownership of the suit properties. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld, and the appeal was deemed maintainable. The preliminary issues were resolved, and the case was remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the law.