9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Guru Sar Satlani is a general Sikh Gaddi as distinguished from a Nirmala Sikh Gaddi and whether the plaintiffs have any interest in it and are as general Sikhs entitled to maintain the suit? 2. If so, is the property attached to the institution the property of the institution and as such is a trust property created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature or is it the personal property of the defendant? 3. In the former case, is the management of the defendant unsatisfactory and is the defendant an undesirable person, who should be removed from the Gaddi? 4. To what other reliefs are plaintiffs entitled? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Nature of Guru Sar Satlani and Plaintiffs' Interest The plaintiffs alleged that Guru Sar Satlani is a Sikh Gurdwara and constitutes a trust for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature. They claimed interest as "members of the Sikh community" and "worshippers of the Gurdwara." The defendant denied these claims, stating that the institution was meant for Nirmala Sadhus only and that the plaintiffs, not being Nirmalas, had no interest in it. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their locus standi to maintain the suit. The evidence showed that the Nirmalas, who manage the Gurdwara, have drifted towards Hindu practices and are distinct from the general Sikh community. The plaintiffs, being Akalis, did not establish that they were worshippers of the Gurdwara or had any real interest in it for the purposes of Section 92, Civil P.C. Issue 2: Property of the Institution The plaintiffs claimed that the properties attached to the Gurdwara were trust properties maladministered by the defendant. However, the court noted that there was no specification of these properties in the plaint, making the issue practically meaningless. The defendant claimed the properties as his own, and no attempt was made to elucidate what the properties in dispute were. Therefore, no specific finding could be arrived at regarding the title to any particular properties or their maladministration. Issue 3: Management and Conduct of the Defendant The plaintiffs accused the defendant of mismanaging the Gurdwara, misapplying its income, and misappropriating its funds. The Senior Subordinate Judge initially found the charge of misconduct against the defendant to be proved, directed his removal, and appointed a committee for the future management of the institution. However, due to the conclusion on the plaintiffs' lack of locus standi, this issue was not further discussed. Issue 4: Other Reliefs The plaintiffs sought the removal of the defendant and the settlement of a scheme for the future management of the Gurdwara. However, with the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, coming into force and the Gurdwara being notified as a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 3 of the Act, the management of the Gurdwara vested in a committee constituted under the Act. This rendered the decree regarding the management of the Gurdwara infructuous. Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their locus standi to maintain the suit. The plaintiffs did not establish that they were worshippers of the Gurdwara or had any real interest in it. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the suit was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
