9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party respondent in the said petition. Evidence as adduced by both the parties. The Tribunal have that Mahant Puran Dass was not a hereditary office holder and had no locus standi to maintain a petition under Section 8. The Tribunal also held that he institution in question is a Sikh Gurudwara within the ambit of Section 16 (2)(iii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved thereby, Mahant Puran Dass filed an appeal under Section 34 of the Act before the High Court or Punjab Haryana. As per the requirement of the said Section the appeal was heard by two learned Judge of the Court. One of them, namely Justice K.S. Tiwana agreed with the Tribunal and held against the appellant. The other learned Judge, namely, Justice Yadav took a contrary view and held that the appellant in the High Court was a hereditary office holder and that the Institution in question was not a sikh gurudwara. In view of the difference of opinion, the case was referred to a third Judge. Justice J.V. Gupta concurred with the opinion expressed by Justice Yadav and held that the appeal should be allowed. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. It should be mentioned here that during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jab Haryana 64 and pointed out that succession to Mahantship was from guru to chela and therefore Puran Dass was a hereditary office holder. Similarly on the second question, the learned Judge has made particular reference to Ex. R-14 which is the crucial document being the title deed of the Institution and on the basis of the entries therein held the Institution is not a Sikh Gurudwaras. Hence, the criticism made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. 7. As regards the applicability of Section 98 (2) C.P.C. , it is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the contention was not raised at any stage before the arguments in this appeal. It has not been raised even in the Special Leave Petition. There is also no merit whatever in the said contention. The provisions of Section 98 (3) have obviously been overlooked by learned counsel for the appellant. As per that sub-section, nothing in Section 98 shall be deemed to after or otherwise affect any provision of the Letter Patent of any High Court. Admittedly the High Court or Punjab has Letters Patent. Clause 26 of he Letters Paten provides that in the event of difference of opinion between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Ex. R-14 itself contains the following Pedigree table : By Caste : Sadh Udasi : Khem Dass Amar Dass Jodha Ram Harsewak Ram Gain Dass Jawahar Dass After Jawahar Dass his chela Puran Dass succeeded. When he passed away, his chela Bhagwant Dass was nominated and on his death his chela Pritam Dass became the Mahant. Thus the office of Mahant was devolving from guru to chela in accordance with an established usage and custom. 9. The necessary averments have been clearly made in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition filed by Puran Dass under Section 8 of the Act. In support of the said pleading, nine witnesses have been examined including Puran Dass. That evidence has been accepted by Justice Yadav and Justice Gupta. We do not find any error in their doing so. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination so as to discredit their evidence. The only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the requirement of Section 2(4)(iv) are not satisfied in the present case. According to learned counsel under the said Section there should be a devolution by hereditary succession or nomination by the office holder for the time being. According to learned counsel, the nominat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the Institution is a Sikh Gurudwara. The Tribunal has held that the Institution satisfies the requirements of S.16 (2)(III) of the Act. Under that sub-section two conditions must be satisfied :(1) The Institution was established for use by Sikhs for purpose of public worship; (2) The Institution was used for such public worship by Sikhs both before and at the time of the presentation of the petition under Section 7 (1) of the Act. Unless both conditions are fulfilled, the Tribunal cannot declare it to be Sikh Gurudwara. 15. In Lachhman Das and others versus Atma Singh and others AIR 1935 Lahore 666 it was held that both matters should be proved separately and when user of the Institution only has been established, it is not a necessary inference that it was established for the purpose of public worship by the Sikhs. 16. It is quite evident from the language of Section 16 (2) that the burden of proving an institution to be a Sikh Gurudwara is on the person who asserts the same. Significantly in this case, none of the sixty persons who presented t he petition under Section 7 (1) has chosen to enter the witness box and give evidence in support therefore. There is no expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shradhs are performed and Ram Navami festivals are celebrated. Gola Sahib and Murti of Baba Siri Chand are worshipped. (PW-10). (f) There is no Nishan-Sahib. (g) No proof of public worship by sikhs. 20. The appellant relies on the evidence that the Guru Granth Sahib is worshipped. That circumstance alone is not helpful to the appellant. It is contended by the appellant that the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the respondent were disbelieved on some points by Yadav, J. and they ought to have been disbelieved completely. There is no substance in the contention. It is open to any Court to sift the deposition of any witness and accept a part thereof while rejecting the other part. 21. In Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and others versus Harcharan Singh, air 1934 Lahore 1. a Division Bench held that where a grant was made to an Udasi sadh so that he might found a village in a desolute place and establish a langar for feeding sadhus, the land or muafi was not granted to a Gurudwara. 22. In Bawa Ishar Dass and others versus Dr. Mohan Singh an d others AIR 1939 Lahore 239, the Court found that mahants of the institution were all along udasis and ceremoni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
