# SHIROMANI GURUDWARAPRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR v. SHRI SOM NATH DASS AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2000] 2 S.C.R. 705
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2000-03-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1987
- **Bench:** M. Jagannadharao, A.P. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shiromani-gurudwaraprabandhak-committee-amritsar-v-shri-som-nath-dass-and-ors-17391
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 7( 1 ), 8 & 10-Endowed Property-Claiming it to be declared as Gurdwara-Mutation in revenue records
B
in the name of Guru Granth Sahib in 1928 in presence of ancestors of
respondents-The property was given in trust to the ancestors of respondents
C
who did not perform their ob.ligation-Entry in revenue records challenged for
the first time before High Court-Plea that entry in the revenue records were
void since 'Guru Granth Sahib' was not a juristic person-Held, claim of
respondents not maintainable, since Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person
and on endowment never reverts even to the donor.
Juristic Person-When donor endows for any institution, it necessitates
the creation of a juristic person-When there is endowment of charitable
purpost;, it can create institutions like a church, hospital gurdwara etc.-But it
gains the status of juristic person when it is recognised by the society as suchD
Whether 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a juristic person-Held, Yes:
E
Status of juristic person-In absence of manager-Mere absence of
manager would not negate the existence of juristic person-It may be proper
and advisable to appoint a manager while making any endowment, but in its
absence, it may be done either by the trustees or the courts in accordance with
law.
The property in dispute was gifted to the ancestors of the respondents, the Mahants, in charity by some villagers in the name of 'Gurugranth
Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deb'. The Mahants sopped performing
their duties as Mahants and got the land mutated in their names. At the
instance of one 'R' and others and in compliance with a 'Farman-iShahi', the property was mutated in the name of 'Guru Granth Sahib
Barajman Dbaramsbala Deb' and the names of the ancestors of the
respondents was removed from the revenue records vide Exbts. P 8 & 9
of 1920AD and 1926AD.
705
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 2 S.C.R.
About 56 people of districtPatiala moved petition under Section 7(1)
of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaration that the property was a sikh
Gurdwara. The respondent, filed a composite petition under Sections 8 and
1() of the Act, challenging the petition u/s. 7(1), claiming therein that the
place being a Dera of Udasian was managed by them and their predecessors. The petition was referred to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal (Tribunal).
The appellant, SGPC, denied the place to be Dera of Udasi, claimed it to be
a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs, where 'Guru
Granth Sahib' was the only object of worship. The appellant also challenged the Locus Standi of the respondents. In the cross-examination the
respondents admitted that they were neither performing any public worship not managing the property. The Tribunal rejected the petition u/s. 8 on
the ground that they had no Locus Standi in view of their admission in the
cross-examination. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the
High Court.
In petition u/s. 10 the appellant stated that the property was of
'Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib' and the respondents
and their predecessors were only its managers and had no personal rights
in it. The Tribunal, in 1978, rejected the petition u/s. 10 holding that the
disputed property belonged to the appellants. The respondents filed appeal
before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal.
The appellant, filed a suit against the respondent for possession of the
building and the land, which was decreed in favour of the appellant Respondent filed an appeal against the same.
Appeals filed by the respondents were heard together by the High
Court. The respondents for the first time challenged the validity ofExbts. P
8 and 9, before the High Court, contending that the entry in the revenue
record was void as Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person. There was
difference of opinion between the two judges of the High Court, on this
point Justice 'T' was of the opinion that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic
person

## Text

_Characters 0–39,911 of 72,103. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39911 for what follows._

SHIROMANI GURUDWARAPRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR
A
v.
SHRI SOM NATH DASS AND ORS.
MARCH 29, 2000
[M. JAGANNADHARAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.]
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 7( 1 ), 8 & 10-Endowed Property-Claiming it to be declared as Gurdwara-Mutation in revenue records
B
in the name of Guru Granth Sahib in 1928 in presence of ancestors of
respondents-The property was given in trust to the ancestors of respondents
C
who did not perform their ob.ligation-Entry in revenue records challenged for
the first time before High Court-Plea that entry in the revenue records were
void since 'Guru Granth Sahib' was not a juristic person-Held, claim of
respondents not maintainable, since Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person
and on endowment never reverts even to the donor.
Juristic Person-When donor endows for any institution, it necessitates
the creation of a juristic person-When there is endowment of charitable
purpost;, it can create institutions like a church, hospital gurdwara etc.-But it
gains the status of juristic person when it is recognised by the society as suchD
Whether 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a juristic person-Held, Yes:
E
Status of juristic person-In absence of manager-Mere absence of
manager would not negate the existence of juristic person-It may be proper
and advisable to appoint a manager while making any endowment, but in its
absence, it may be done either by the trustees or the courts in accordance with
law.
The property in dispute was gifted to the ancestors of the respondents, the Mahants, in charity by some villagers in the name of 'Gurugranth
Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deb'. The Mahants sopped performing
their duties as Mahants and got the land mutated in their names. At the
instance of one 'R' and others and in compliance with a 'Farman-iShahi', the property was mutated in the name of 'Guru Granth Sahib
Barajman Dbaramsbala Deb' and the names of the ancestors of the
respondents was removed from the revenue records vide Exbts. P 8 & 9
of 1920AD and 1926AD.
705
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 2 S.C.R.
About 56 people of districtPatiala moved petition under Section 7(1)
of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaration that the property was a sikh
Gurdwara. The respondent, filed a composite petition under Sections 8 and
1() of the Act, challenging the petition u/s. 7(1), claiming therein that the
place being a Dera of Udasian was managed by them and their predecessors. The petition was referred to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal (Tribunal).
The appellant, SGPC, denied the place to be Dera of Udasi, claimed it to be
a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs, where 'Guru
Granth Sahib' was the only object of worship. The appellant also challenged the Locus Standi of the respondents. In the cross-examination the
respondents admitted that they were neither performing any public worship not managing the property. The Tribunal rejected the petition u/s. 8 on
the ground that they had no Locus Standi in view of their admission in the
cross-examination. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the
High Court.
In petition u/s. 10 the appellant stated that the property was of
'Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib' and the respondents
and their predecessors were only its managers and had no personal rights
in it. The Tribunal, in 1978, rejected the petition u/s. 10 holding that the
disputed property belonged to the appellants. The respondents filed appeal
before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal.
The appellant, filed a suit against the respondent for possession of the
building and the land, which was decreed in favour of the appellant Respondent filed an appeal against the same.
Appeals filed by the respondents were heard together by the High
Court. The respondents for the first time challenged the validity ofExbts. P
8 and 9, before the High Court, contending that the entry in the revenue
record was void as Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person. There was
difference of opinion between the two judges of the High Court, on this
point Justice 'T' was of the opinion that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic
person and dismissed the FAOs upholding the judgment of the Tribunal.
Justice 'P' dissented on the point, but did not decide the matter on merit.
The matter was referred to the third judge who agreed with the view of
Justice 'P'.
The FAOs against came before the same DB for final disposal on
H
merits wherein Justice 'T' held the mutations to be valid and that respond-
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMIITEE v. SOM NATH DASS 707
ents had to right on the property. Justice 'P' held the mutations to be
invalid and that the property was the private property of the respondents.
Further holding that there cannot be a juristic person without appointment
of a manager; and that there cannot be two juristic persons i.e. the
'Gurdwara' and 'Guru Granth Sahib' in the same building; and that if
Guru Granth Sahib is juristic person every copy of it would be juristic
person; and that since Sikh religion does not accept idolatry Guru Granth
Sahib cannot be a juristic person. On reference, the third judge concurred
with the view of Justice 'P'.
In appeal, the respondents contended that courts have recognised an
idol as juristic person and not a temple. On this parity a Gurdwara cannot
be a juristic person and Guru Granth Sahib is like any other sacred book
and the same cannot be equated with idol nor does Sikhism believe in idol
worshipping; and that the mutation in the name of 'Guru Granth Sahib
Birajman Dharamshala Deb, based on the Farman I Shahi is liable to be set
aside as the same did not direct the recording the name of 'Guru Granth
Sahib'.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Juristic person may be any entity, living, inanimate,
objects or things. It may be a religious institution or any such useful unit
which may impel the courts to recognise it. This recognition is for subserving
the needs and faith of the society. A juristic person like any other natural
person is in law, is also conferred with rights and obligations and is dealt
with in accordance with law. In other words the entity acts like a natural
person but only though a designated person, whose acts are ·processed
within the ambit of law. [720-G-H; 721-A]
Roscoe Pound's Jurisprudence Part IV, (1959) Ed. pages 192-193;
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LXV, Page 40 and Volume VI Page 778;
Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition, 305; Jurisprudence by Paton, 3rd
Edn., pages 349 & 350; Analytical and Historical Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition
at page 357, referred to.
1.2. Where there is any endowment for charitable purpose it can
create institution like a church, hospital, gurudwara etc. The entrustment
of an endowed fund for a purpose can only be used by the person so
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 2 S.C.R.
A
entrusted for that purpose in as much as he receives it for that purpose
alone in trust. ·when the donor endows for an idol or a mosque or for any
institution, it necessitates the creation of a juristic person. The law also
circumscribes the rights of any person receiving such entrustment to use it
only for the purpose of such a juristic person. The endowment may be given
B
for various purposes, may be for a church, idol or gurudwara or such other
things that the human faculty may conceive of, out of faith and conscience
but it gains the sfatus of juristic person when it is recognised by the society
as such. (721-C-D]
Sarangadeva Peri ya Matam & Am: v. Ramaswamy Goundar (dead) by
C
legal representative, AIR (1966) SC 1603; Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak
Committee, Amritsar, AIR (1938) Lahore 369; Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar &
Ors., AIR (1957) SC 137; Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Am:, (1981)
1 SCC 449; Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta,
[1969) 1 SCC 555 and Manohar Ganesh v. Lakshmiram, JLR 12 Born. 247,
D
referred to.
Pritam Dass Mahant v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee,
[1984) 2 sec 600, relied on.
1.3. Faith and belief cannot be judged through any judicial scrutiny.
E
It is a fact accomplished and accepted by its followers. This faith necessitated creation of a unit to be recognised as a 'Juristic Person'. All this
shows that 'Juristic Person' is not roped in any cirde. With the changing
thoughts, changing needs of the society, fresh juristic personalities were
created from time to time. [725-H; 726-A]
F
2.1. Itis not necessary for 'Guru Granth Sahib' to be declared as a
·juristic person that it should be equated with an idol. When belief and faith
of two different religions are different, there is no question of equating one
with the other. If 'Guru Granth Sahib' by itself could stan.d the test of its
being declared as such, it can be declared to be so. [726-C]
G
2.2 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a 'juristic person'. It cannot be equated
with an idol as idol worship is contrary to Sikhism. As a concept of
visionary for obeisance, the two religions are different. Yet, for its legal
recognition as a juristic person, the followers of both the religious give them
respectively the same reverential value. Thus the Guru Granth Sahib has
H
all the qualities to be recognised as such. Holding otherwise would mean
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITIEE v. SOM NATH DASS 709
giving too restrictive a meaning to a 'juristic person', and that would erase
A
the very jurisprudence which gave birth to it. (728-D-E]
A History of Sikhs by Khushwant Singh, Vol. I, Page 307, referred to.
2.3. No endowment or a juristic person depends on the appointment
of a manager. It may be proper or advisable to appoint such a manager
while making any endowment but in its absence, it may be done either by
the trustees or courts in accordance with law. Hno manager is appointed by
the founder, the ruler will give effect to the bounty. The property given in
trust becomes irrevocable and if none was appointed to manage, it will be
managed by the 'court as representing the sovereign'. This can be done by
court in several ways under section 92, CPC or by handing over management to any specific body recognised by law. But the trust will not be •
allowed by the court to fail. Endowment is when donor parts with his
property for it being used for a public purpose and its entrustment is to a
person or group of persons in trust for carrying out- the objective of such
entrustment. (728-G-H; 729-B-C]
YogendraNathNaskarv. Commissioneroflncome Tax, Calcutta, (1969)
1 SCC 555 ; Manohar Ganesh v. Lakshmiram, ILR 12 Born. 247 and Vidyapurna
Tirtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami & Ors., ILR 27 Mad. 437, relied on.
2.4. Once endowment is made, it is final and it is irrevocable. It is the
onerous duty of persons entrusted with such endowment, to carry out the
objectives of this entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence
of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through court. So, if
entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of manager would not
negate the existence of a juristic person. (729-D]
2.5. 'Gurdwara' and 'Guru Granth Sahib' are no two 'juristic persons' at all. In fact both are so interwoven that they cannot be separated.
B
c
D
E
F
The installation of 'Guru Granth Sahib' is the nucleus or nectar of any
Gurdwara. If there is no Guru Granth Sahib in a Gurdwara it cannot be
termed as Gurdwara. When one refers a building to be ~ Gurdwara, he
G
refers to it so only because 'Guru Granth Sahib' is installed therein. Even if
one holds a Gurdwara to be a juristic person, it is because it holds the
'Guru Granth Sahib'. (729-F-G]
Ram Jankijee Deities and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Others, (1999) 5
sec 50, relied on.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 2 S.C.R.
2.6. Every 'Guru Granth Sahib' cannot be a juristic person unless it
takes juristic role through its installation in a Gurdwara or at such other
recognised public place. [730-D]
2.7. Though it i.s true that Guru Granth Sahib is a sacred book like
others but it cannot be equated with the other sacred books in that sense.
Guru Granth Sahib is revered in Gurdwara, like a Guru which projects a
different perception. It is the very heart and spirit of the Gurdwara. The
reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books on the
other hand is based on different conceptual faith, belief, and application.
[730-E-F]
2.8. It is true that Sikh religion does not accept idolatry but, at the
same time when the tenth Guru declared that after him the Guru Granth
will be the Guru, that does not amount to idolatry. The Granth replaces the
Guru henceforward, after the tenth Guru. (730-G]
3.1. No error could be said to have been committed, when Ex.8 and
Ex.9, viz. Mutations were recorded. The mutation was not on account of
Farman-i-Shahi but was made because of the application made by 'R' and
others, and mutation was done only after a detailed enquiry, after examining witnesses and other evidence on the record, which resulted into Ex.8
and Ex.9. Farman-i-Shahi if at all may be said to have led to the enquiry but
it was not the basis. (732-F]
3.2. Any claim to the disputed land by the respondents has no merit.
The mutation in the revenue papers in the name of Guru Granth Sahib was
made as far back as in the year 1928, in the presence of the ancestors of
respondents and no objection was raised by anybody till the filing of the
present objection by the respondents. This is after a long gap of forty years.
Further, this property was given in trust to the ancestors of the respondents
for a special purpose but they did not perform their obligation. It is also
settled that once an endowment, it never reverts even to the donor. Then no
part of these rights could be claimed or usurped· by the respondent's
ancestors who in fact were trustees. {733-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1987
Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.85 of the Punjab and Haryana
H
High Court in F.A.O. No. 449 of 1978.
•
--
---
...
- .
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMIITEll v. SOM NATH DASS [MISRA, J.]
711
M.S. Gujaral, Ujagar Singh, Harbans Lal, Hardev Singh, Ms. Madhu
A
Moolchandani, Ms. B.K. Brar, Ms. Shobha, S.K. Mehta, Ashok K. Mahajan,
A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, P.N. Puri, Atul Sharma, D.D. Sharma, Dhruv
Mehta, Aman Vachhar, D.P. Sharma, Narinder Singh and R.K. Aggarwal for
the appearing parties.
The Judgnient of the Court was delivered by
MISRA, J. The question raised in this appeal is of far reaching
consequences and is of great significance to one of the major religious
followers of this country. The question is: whether "the Guru Granth Sahib"
could be treated as a juristic person or not? If it is, then it can hold and use
the gifted properties given to it by its followers out of their love, in charity.
This is by creation of an endowment like others for public good, for enhancing
the religious fervour, including feeding the poor etc. Sikhism grew because of
the vibrating divinity of Guru Nanakji and the 10 succeeding gurus, and the
wealth of all their teachings is contained in 'Guru Granth Sahib'. The last of
the living guru was Guru Gobind Singhji who recorded the sanctity of "Guru
Granth Sahib" and gave it the recognition of a living Guru. Thereafter, it
remained not only a sacred book but is reckoned as a living guru. The deep
faith of every earnest follower, when his pure conscience meets the divine
under-current emanating from their Guru, produces a feeling of sacrifice and
surrender and impels him to part with or gift out his wealth to any charity may
be for gurdwaras, dharamshalas etc. Such parting spiritualises such follower
for his spiritual upliftment, peace, tranquility and enlightens him with resultant
love and universalism. Such donors in the past, raised number of Gurdwaras.
They gave their wealth in trust for its management to the trustees to subserve
their desire. They expected trustees to faithfully implement the objectives for
which the wealth was entrusted. When selfishness invades any trustee, the core
of trust starts leaking out. To stop such leakage, legislature and courts step in .
This is what was happening in the absence of any organised management of
Gurudwaras, when trustees were either mismanaging or attempting to usurp
such trusts. The Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act 1922 (VI of 1922) was
enacted to meet the situation. It seems, even this failed to satisfy the
aspirations of the Sikhs. The main reason being that it did not establish any
permanent committee of management for Sikh gurdwaras and did not provide
. for the speedy confirmation by judicial sanction of changes already introduced
by the reforming party in the management of places of worship. This was
replaced by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab Act No. 8of1925) under
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 2 S.C.R.
A
which the present case arises. This Act provided a legal procedure through
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
which gurdwaras and shrines regarded by Sikhs as essential places of Sikh
• ,
worship to be effectively and permanently brought under Sikh control and
management, so as to make it consistent with the religious followings of this
community.
About 56 persons of villages Bilaspur, Ghodani, Dhamot, Lapran and
Buani situated in the Village Bilaspur, District Patiala moved petition under
Section 7(1) of the said Act for declaration that the disputed property is a Sikh
Gurdwara. The State Government through Notification No. 1702 - G.P. dated
14th September, 1962 published the aforesaid petition in the Gazette including
the boundaries of the said gurdwaras which were to be declared as Sikh
Gurdwaras. Thereafter, a composite petition under Sections 8 and IO of the
said Act was filed by Som Dass son of Bhagat Ram, Sant Ram son of Narain
Dass and Anant Ram son of Sham Dass of Village Bilaspur, District Patiala,
challenging the same. They claimed it to be a dharamshala and Dera of
Udasian being owned and managed by the petitioners and their predecessors
since the time of their forefathers and that they being the holders of the same,
received the said Dera in succession, in accordance with their ancestral share.
They also claimed to be in possession of the land attached to the said Dera.
They denied it to be a Sikh Gurdwara. This petition was forwarded by the
Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal". In reply to the notice, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak
Committee, hereinafter referred to as "the SGPC" (appellant), claimed it to be
a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs for their worship,
wherein "Guru Granth Sahib" was the only object of worship and it was the
sole owner of the gurdwara property. It dertied this institution to be an Udasi
Dera. However, appellant Committee challenged the locus standi of the
respondent to file this objection to the notification. The appellant's case was
under Section 8 and objection could only be filed by any hereditary officeholders or by 20 or more worshippers of the gurdwara, which they were not.
The Tribunal held that the petitioners before it (respondents here), admitted in
their cross-examination that the disputed premises was being used by them as
their residential house that there was no object of worship in the premises,
neither they were performing any public worship nor they were managing it.
So it held they were not hereditary office holders, as they neither managed it
nor performed any public worship. Thus, their petition under Section 8 was
rejected on 9th February, 1965 by holding that they have no locus standi.
Aggrieved by this they filed first appeal being FAO No. 40 of 1965 which was
SHJROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITI'EE v. SOM NATii DASS [MISRA, J.]
713
---
also dismissed by the High Court on 24th March, 1976, which became final.
A
......
Thereafter, the Tribunal took the petition under Section 10 in which tJie stand
of SGPC was that the land and the buildings were the properties of 'Gufdwara
Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib' at Bilaspur. The responden~s and their
-
predecessors along with their family members had alf along been its managers
and they had no personal rights in it. The Tribunal framed two issues:
B
"(1) What right, title or interest have the petitioners in the property
in dispute?
(2) What right, title or interest has the notified Sikh Gurdwara in the
property in dispute."
c
The Tribunal decided both issue No. 1 and issue No. 2 in favour of
•
present appellants and held that the disputed property belonged to the SGPC.
Thus respondents' petition under Section 10 was also rejected on 4th September 1978. Tribunal's conclusion is reproduced hereinbelow:
"The above discussion shows that the respondent-Committee has
D
been successful in bringing its case rightly in Clauses l8 (l)(a) and
18(1)(d) of the Act and has been successful in discharging its onus
as regards issue no. 2 and the issue is, therefore, decided in favour
of the respondent-Committee and against the petitioners.
E
For the reasons given above, it is held that the petitioners have
failed to prove that they have got any right, title or interest in the
--
property in dispute and issue no. 1 is decided against them and this
/
petition is dismissed with costs. However, it is declared that the
institution in dispute, namely, Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru
Granth Sahib, situated in the revenue estate of Balapsur, Tehsil
F
-
Sirhind, District Patiala is the owner of the property in dispute
consisting of Gurdwara building, the plan of which is given in the
Notification No. 1702 G.P. dated 14.9.68 at page 2527 and the
agricultural land measuring 115 Bighas 12 Biswas the detail of which
are given in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 A.D. attached
G
to the above-said Notification at page 2529 and is comprised of
Khasra Nos. 456 min, 457, 451, 644 and 452 bearing Khawat No. 276
Khatauni nos. 524 to 527."
--
Aggrieved by this, respondents filed first appeal being FAO No. 449 of
1978. During its pendency, the SGPC on the basis of final order passed by the
H
A
B
c
D
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 2 S.C.R.
High Court in FAO No. 40of1965·~gainst the order of the Tribunal rejecting
Section 8 application, filed suit No. 94 of 1979 against the respondents under
Section 25-A of the Act for the possession of the building and the land. The
respondents contested the suit by raising objection about mis-description of
.
the property in the plaint and also raising an issue about jurisdiction since the
income from the gurdwara was more than Rs. 3,000 per annum for which a
committee w_as_to be constituted before any suit could be filed. On contest, the
said suit of SGPC was decreed and respondents' objections were rejected,
'against which the respondents filed FAO No. 2of1980. The High Court vide
i.ts order dated 11th February, 1980 directed this FAO No. 2 of 1980 to be
iisted for hearing along with FAO No. 449of1978. It is also relevant to refer
to, which was also stated by the respondents in their petition before the
Tribunal, that a notification under Section 9 of the Act was published d<!£laring
the disputed gurdwara to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
It is necessary to give some more facts to appreciate the contentions
raised by the respective parties. lnjamabandi Ex. P-1of1961-62 BK, (which
would be 1904 AD) Mangal Dass and Sunder Dass,. Bhagat Ram sons of Gopi
Ram Faqir Udasi were mentioned as owners in possession of the land. They
had also mortgaged part of this land to some other persons. This village
Bilaspur where the disputed gurdwara exists formed part of the erstwhile
Patiala Estate. The then ruler of the Patiala Estate issued Farman-e-Shahi dated
E
18th April, 1921. Its contents are quoted hereunder:
F
G
"In future, instructions be issued that so long the appointment of
a Mahant is not approved by ljlas-1-khas through Deori Mulla, until
the time, the Mahant is entitled to receive turban, shawl or Bandhan
or Muafi etc. from the Government, no property or Muafi shall be
entered in his name in the revenue papers.
It should also be mentioned that the land which pertains to any
Dera should not be considered as the property of any Mahant, nor the
same should be shown in the revenue papers as the property of the
Mahant, but these should be entered as belonging to the Dera under
the management of the Mahant and that the Mahants shall not be
entitled to sell or mortgage the land of the Dera. Revenue Department
be also informed about it and the order be gazetted."
On Maghar 10, 1985 BK (1920 AD) at the instance of Rulia Singh and
H
others the patwari made a report in compliance with the aforesaid Farman-e-
-
'\
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE v. SOM NATH DASS [MISRA, I.]
715
Shahi for the change of the entries in favour of "Guru Granth Sahib Barajman
Dharamshala Deh". This was based on the enquiry and evidence produced
before him. In this mutation proceeding which led to the mutation viz., Ex.
P8, Narain Dass, Bhagat Ram and Atma Ram Sadh appeared before the
Revenue Officer and stated that their ancestors got this land which was gift
in charity (Punnarth) by the then proprietors of the village. This land was
given to the ancestors of the respondent for the purpose that they should
provide food and comfort to the travellers passing through this village. In the
same proceeding Kapur Singh, lnder Singh Lambardars and other .rightholders of the said village also stated that their fore-fathers had given this land
in the name of "Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh" under the
charge of these persons for providing food and comfort to the travellers. But
Atma Ram and others, ancestors of respondents were not performing their
duties. This default was for a purpose, which is revealed through the last
settlement that they got this land entered in their personal names, in the
revenue records against which a matter was pending before Deori Mualla in
A
B
c
the mutation proceedings. Based on the evidence, the Revenue Officer after
D
enquiry recorded the finding that Atma Ram and others admitted that this land
had been given to them without any compensation for providing food and
shelter to the travellers which they were not performing. He further held that
Atma Ram and others could not controvert the aforesaid assertion made by the
villagers. So, based on this enquiry and evidence on record, he ordered the
mutation, in the name of "Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh" by
deleting the name of Atma Ram and others from the column of ownership of
the land. He further observed, so far as the question of appoinment of Manager
or Mohatmim was concerned that it was to be decided by the Deori Mualla
as the case about this was pending before the Deori Mualla. Similarly, in the
other mutation No. 693 which is Ex. 9 in 27th Maghar 198'3 (1926 AD) also,
mutation was ordered by removal of the name uf Narain Dass, Bhagat Ram
sons of Gopi Ram in favour of "Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala
Deh". Since that date till the filing of the petitions by the respondents under
Sections 8 and 10 of the Act entries in the ownership column of the land
continued in the name of "Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh"
and no objection was filed either by the ancestors of respondents or respundents themselves.
It was for the first time objection was raised by respondents through
their counsel before the High Court in FAO No. 449 of 1978 regarding validity
E
F
G
of Ex. P 8-9 contending that the entry in the revenue records in the name of
H
A
B
c
D
E
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 2 S.C.R.
Guru Granth Sahib was void as Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person.
The case of the respondents was that the Guru Granth Sahib was only a sacred
book of the Sikhs and it would not fall within the scope of the word, 'juristic
person'. On the other hand, with vehemence and force learned counsel for the
appellant, SGPC submits that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person and hence ·
it can hold property, can sue and be sued. On this question, whether Guru
Granth Sahib is a juristic person, a difference arose between the two learned
judges of the Bench of the High Court. Mr. Justice Tiwana held, it to be a
juristic person and dismissed both the FAQs, namely, FAQ No. 449 of 1978
and 2 of 1980 upholding the judgment of the Tribunal. On the other hand Mr.
Justice Punchhi, (as he then was) recorded dissent and held, the Guru Granth
Sahib not to be a juristic person, but did not decide the issue on merits. The
case was then referred to a third judge, namely, Mr. Justice Tiwatia who agreed
with the view of Mr. Justice Punchhi and held the Guru Granth Sahib not to
be a juristic person. After recording this fmding the learned judge directed that
the FAQ may be placed before the Division Bench for fmal disposal of the
appeal on merits.
The question, whether Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person is the
main point which is argued in the present appeal to which we are called upon
to -adjudicate. It is relevant to mention here that after adjudication of the
question whether the Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person, the matter again
went back to the same Bench which again gave rise to another conflict
between Justice Tiwana and Mr. Justice Punchhi. Justice Tiwana held on
merits that . mutations were valid and respondents had no right to this
property. But Mr. Justice Punchhi held to the contraiy that the mutation was
invalid and this property was the private property of the respondents.
F
Thereafter, the said FAQ No. 449 of 1978 and FAO No. 2 of 1980 were
placed before the third judge, namely, Justice J.B.Gupta, who concun-ed with
the view taken by Mr. Justice Punchhi, as he then was. He recorded the
G
H
following conclusion:
" ... in view of the findings that Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic
person, and that the notification issued under section 9 was not
conclusive, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in
Mahant Lachhman Dass Chela Mahant Moti Ram's case (supra), the
fmdings of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside. The Tribunal mainly
based its findings on the mutations, Exhibits P.8 and P.9, which are
in the name of Guru Granth Sahib, since Guru Granth Sahib is not
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITIEE v. SOM NATI! DASS [MISRA, J.]
717
a juristic person, any mutation a sanctioned in its name in the present
A
case was of no consequence. There is no other cogent evidence except
the said mutations relied upon by the Tribunal in that behalf. Similar
was the position as regards the building. In that behalf, the Tribunal
relied upon the notification issued earlier. The same being not
conclusive, there was not other reliable evidence to conclude that the
B
building formed part of the Sikh Gurdwara, notified under Section.
In these circumstanc_es, I concur with the view taken by M.M.Punchhi,
J. in the order dated December 16, 1986."
The foundation of his decision on merits is based on the finding that
Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic person and hence Exs. P8 and P9, the
C
mutations in its name were not sustainable. The present appellants preferred
Special Leave Petition No. 7803 of 1988 in this Court, which was dismissed
in default on 16th November, 1995 and its restoration application was also
dismissed on 19th August, 1996. In this petition it was specifically stated that
the present Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1987 is pending in this Court. However,
D
it is significant as we have said above, the judgment of Mr. Justice Gupta
concurring the judgment of Mr. Justice Punchhi, as he then was, was mainly
on the basis that the mutation in the name in favour of "Guru Granth Sahib
Barajman Dharamshala Deh" was void in as much as Guru Granth Sahib was
not a juristic person. Thus the foundation of that decision rests on the question
which we are considering.
The crux of the litigation now rests on the question, whether Guru
Granth Sahib is a juristic person or not. Now, we proceed to consider this
issue.
The very words "Juristic Person" connote recognition of an entity to be
in law a person which otherwise it is not. In other words, it is not an individual
natural person but an artificially created person which is to be recognised to
be in law as such. When a person is ordinarily understood to be a natural
person, it only means a human person. Essentially, every human person is a
person. If we trace the history of a "Person" in the various countries we find
surprisingly it has projected differently at different times. In some countries
even human beings were not treated to be as persons in law. Under the Roman
Law a "Slave" was not a person. He had no right to a family. He was treated
like an animal or chattel. In French Colonies also, before slavery was
abolished, the slaves were not treated to be legal persons. They were later
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 2 S.C.R.
A
given recognition as legal persons only through a statute. Similarly, in the U.S.
the African-Americans bad no legal rights though they were not treated as
chattel.
B
c
D
E
F
G
In Roscoe Pound's Jurisprudence Part IV, 1959 Ed. at pages 192-193,
it is stated as follows:-
"In civilized lands even in the modem world it has happened that all
human beings were not legal persons. In Roman law down to the
constitution of Antoninus Pius the slave was not a person. "He
enjoyed neither rights of family nor rights of patrimony. He was a
thing, and as such, like animals, could be the object of rights of
property." .... In the French colonies, before slavery was there abolished, slaves were "put in the class of legal persons by the statute of
April 23, 1833" and obtained a "somewhat extended juridical capacity" by a statute of 1845. In the United States down to the Civil War,
the free negroes in many of the states were free human beings with
no legal rights."
With the development of society, where an individual's interaction fell
short, to upsurge social developments, cooperation of a larger circle of
individuals was necessitated. Thus, institutions like corporations and companies were created, to help the society in achieving the desired result. The very
constitution of State, municipal corporation, company etc. are all creations of
the law and these "Juristic Persons" arose out of necessities in the human
development. In other words, they were dressed in a cloak to be recognised
in law to be a legal unit.
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LXV, page 40 says: .
"Natural person. A natural person is a human being; a man, woman,
or child, as opposed to a corporation, which has a certain personality
impressed on it by law and is called an artificial person. In the C.J.S.
definition Person it is stated that the word "ferson," in its primary
sense, means natural person, but that the generally accepted meaning
of the word as used in law includes natural persons and artificial,
conventional, or juristic persons."
H
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. VI, page 778 says:
-
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE v. SOM NATI! DASS [MISRA, J.]
719
"Artificial persons. Such as are created and devised by human laws
A
for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic."
Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., 305 says:
"A legal person is any subject-matter other than a human being to
which the law attributes personality. This extension, for good and
sufficient reasons, of the conception of personality beyond the class
of human beings is one of the most noteworthy feats of the legal
imagination ....
Legal persons, being the arbitrary creations of the law, may be
of as many kinds as the law pleases. Those which are actually
recognised by our own system, however, are of comparatively few
types. Corporations are undoubtedly legal persons, and the better
view is that registered trade unions and friendly societies are also
legal persons though not verbally regarded as corporations ..... If,
however, we take account of other systems than our own, we find that
the conception oflegal personality is not so limited in its application,
and that there are several distinct varieties, of which three may be
selected for special mention ....
1. The first class of legal persons consists of corporations, as
already defined, namely, those which are constituted by the personification of groups or series of individuals. The dividuals who thus
form the corpus of the legal person are termed its members ...
B
c
D
E
2. The second class is that in which the corpus, or object selected
F
for personification, is not a group or series of persons, but an
institution. The law may, if it pleases, regard a church or a hospital,
or a university, or a library, as a person. That is to say, it may attribute
personality, not to any group of persons connected with the institution, but to the institution itself....
G
3. The third kind of legal person is that in which the corpus is
some fund or estate devoted to special uses - a charitable fund, for
example or a trust estate ... ".
Jurisprudence by Paton, 3rd Edn., page 349 and 350 says:
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 2 S.C.R.
"It has already been asserted that legal personality is an artificial
creation of the law. Legal persons are all entities capable of being
right-and-duty- bearing units-all entities recognised by the law as
capable of being parties to a legal relationship. Salmond said: 'So far
..
as legal lieory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law
regards,"!;~ capable of rights and duties ....
... Legal personality may be granted to entities other than individual
human beings, e.g. a group of human beings, a fund, an idol. Twenty
men may form a corporation which may sue and be sued in the
corporate name. An idol may be regarded as a legal persona in itself,
or a particular fund may be incorporated. It is clear that neither the
idol nor the fund can carry out the activities incidental to litigation
or other activities incidental to the carrying on of legal relationships,
e.g., the signing of a contract; and, of necessity, the law recognises
certain human agents as representative.s of the idol or of the fund. The
acts of such a.gents, however (within limits set by the law and when
they are acting as such), are imputed to the legal persona of the idol
and are not the juristic acts of the human agents themselves. This is
no mere academic distinction, for it is the legal persona of the idol
that is bound to the legal relationships created, not that of the agent.
Legal personality then refers to the particular device by which the law
creates or recognizes units to which it ascribes certain powers and
capacities."
Analytical and Historical Jurisprudence, 3rd Edn. At page 357 describes
"person":
"We may, therefore, define a person for the purpose of jurisprudence
as any entity (not necessarily a human being) to which rights or duties
may be attributed."
Thus, it is well settled and confirmed by the authorities on jurisprudence
and courts of various countries that for a bigger thrust of socio-politicalscientific development evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic
person became inevitable. This may be any entity, living, inanimate, objects
or things. It may be a religious institution or any such useful unit which may
impel the courts to recognise it. This recognition is for subserving the needs
and faith of the society. A juristic person, like any other natural person is in
-
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITIEE v. SOM NA1H DASS [MISRA, J.]
721
law also conferred with rights and obligations and is dealt with in accordance
with law. In other words, the entity acts like a natural person but only through
a designated person, whose acts arc processed within the ambit of law. When
an idol was recognised as a juristic person, it was known it could not act by
itself. As in the case of minor a guardian is appointed, so in the case of idol,
a Shebait or manager is appointed to act on its behalf.