2003 (9) TMI 816 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Effect of prior judgment on the current case.
2. Determination if the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara.
3. Relief sought.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Effect of Prior Judgment on the Current Case:
The Tribunal addressed whether the prior judgment in Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr [1967]2SCR739 barred the current proceedings. The Tribunal held that the previous judgment did not preclude its jurisdiction to decide the petition under Section 7 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The High Court and Supreme Court upheld this view, indicating that the prior judgment did not operate as res judicata in this context.

2. Determination if the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara:
The Tribunal initially found that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, noting that it was established by Sikhs and used for worship of Guru Granth Sahib. However, the High Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal did not specify under which clause of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 the institution fell. The High Court noted that the Committee failed to prove the essential ingredients required under Section 16(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the onus was on the Committee to prove that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara. The Court reiterated that Nirmalas are not Sikhs and that the mere presence of Guru Granth Sahib does not make an institution a Sikh Gurdwara.

3. Relief Sought:
The High Court and Supreme Court both concluded that the institution in question was not a Sikh Gurdwara. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment and emphasizing the importance of the representative suit under Section 92 of CPC, which binds all interested parties. The Court noted that the findings in the representative suit are conclusive and prevent re-litigation of the same issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, confirming that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara and that the prior judgment did not bar the current proceedings. The onus of proof was correctly placed on the Committee, and the appeals were dismissed.