# SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE v. THE SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE, AMRITSAR

- **Citation:** [2011] 2 S.C.R. 69
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-01-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6386. of 1983
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/singh-dead-through-legal-representative-v-the-shiromani-gurdwara-prabhandhak-27458
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925:
s. 7(1 ), 8 and 16(2)(iii) - Declaration of an institutionGurdwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a Sikh Gurdwara -
.
.
8
c
Challenge to - Tribunal and the High Court holding that the
institution is a Sikh Gurdwara - Sustainability of - Held: Not
D
sustainable - Findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High
.Court on the use of the institution for worship by Sikhs too
sketchy :"" In the absence of any evidence to show that the
institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose
of public worship, the Tribunal did not h!lve the jU(isdiction to
E
declare it to be a Sikh Gurdwara - Tribunal simply relied upon
the entries in the revenue records or the fact that Prakash of
Guru Granth Sahib is done and on some occasion people
come to worship Guru Granth Sahib - More so, fifty.:three
persons who filed petition uls. 7(1) for declaring the institution
F
as a Sikh Gurdwara did not support their plea - There was
assertion by some· of the petitioners who filed petition uls. 8
seeking declaration that Dera was not a Sikh Gurdwara that
their signatures were obtained by fraud - Respondent,
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee who
impleaded itself and contested the petition filed u/s. 8, was G
silent on the twin requirements of s. 16(2)(iii) and did not
examine any of them - Thus, order passed by the Tribunal
as upheld by the High Court declaring the institution as a Sikh
Gurdwara set aside.
69
H
70
SUPREME COURT R:PORTS
(2011] 2 S.C.R.
A
ss. 16(2)(iii) and 7(1) - Declaration of an institution as a
Sikh Gurdwara - Conditions to be fulfilled - Held: A person
seeking such declaration must satisfy the Tribunal that the
institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose
of public worship and that the same was used as such before
B and at the time of presentation of the petition u/s. 7(1) - These
two conditions are required to be fulfilled separately and
conjointly and unless that is done, the Tribunal cannot declare
an institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara - Onus to prove that an
institution is a Sikh Gurdwara lies on the person who asserls
c the same.
Fifty three persons claiming to be Sikh worshippers
submitted a petition to the State Government under
Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaring
the Gurdwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib situated within the
D revenue estate of village Jalal, Tehsil and District
Bhatinda as a Sikh Gurdwara. Thereafter, separate
petitions were filed under Section 8 of the Act. One of the
petition was filed by the appellant, the hereditary office
holder of the said Dera praying that the said Cera may
E not be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara. The State
Government forwarded the petitions to the Tribunal. The
Tribunal issued notices to all the persons who had
submitted a petition under Section 7(1) but none of them
appeared to contest the petitions filed under Section 8 of
F the Act. The respondent-Shiromanl Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee got itself lmpleaded as party to
the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. They filed
a written statement questioning the maintainability of the
petition filed by the appellant. The Tribunal relying on the
G entries contained in the revenue records held that the
institution is a Sikh Gurudwara. The High Court upheld
the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant
filed the instant appeal.
H
Allowing the appeal, the Court
MAHANT JAWALASINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
71
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE
HELO: 1.1 Before the Tribunal can declare an
A
institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 15(2)(ili)
of the Sikh Gurdwara's Act 1925, it must be satisfied that
(a) the institution was established for use by Sikhs for the
purpose of public worship, and (b) was used for such
worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation
B
qf the petition under Section 7(1). These two conditions
are required to be fulfilled separately and conjointly and
unless that is done, the Tribunal cannot declare an
institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. [Para 22]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,712 of 103,607. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39712 for what follows._

[2011) 2 S.C.R. 69
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH CHELA OF MAHANT BISHAN
A
SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
V.
THE SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK
COMMITIEE, AMRITSAR
(Civil Appeal No. 6386. of 1983)
JANUARY 12, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925:
s. 7(1 ), 8 and 16(2)(iii) - Declaration of an institutionGurdwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a Sikh Gurdwara -
.
.
8
c
Challenge to - Tribunal and the High Court holding that the
institution is a Sikh Gurdwara - Sustainability of - Held: Not
D
sustainable - Findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High
.Court on the use of the institution for worship by Sikhs too
sketchy :"" In the absence of any evidence to show that the
institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose
of public worship, the Tribunal did not h!lve the jU(isdiction to
E
declare it to be a Sikh Gurdwara - Tribunal simply relied upon
the entries in the revenue records or the fact that Prakash of
Guru Granth Sahib is done and on some occasion people
come to worship Guru Granth Sahib - More so, fifty.:three
persons who filed petition uls. 7(1) for declaring the institution
F
as a Sikh Gurdwara did not support their plea - There was
assertion by some· of the petitioners who filed petition uls. 8
seeking declaration that Dera was not a Sikh Gurdwara that
their signatures were obtained by fraud - Respondent,
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee who
impleaded itself and contested the petition filed u/s. 8, was G
silent on the twin requirements of s. 16(2)(iii) and did not
examine any of them - Thus, order passed by the Tribunal
as upheld by the High Court declaring the institution as a Sikh
Gurdwara set aside.
69
H
70
SUPREME COURT R:PORTS
(2011] 2 S.C.R.
A
ss. 16(2)(iii) and 7(1) - Declaration of an institution as a
Sikh Gurdwara - Conditions to be fulfilled - Held: A person
seeking such declaration must satisfy the Tribunal that the
institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose
of public worship and that the same was used as such before
B and at the time of presentation of the petition u/s. 7(1) - These
two conditions are required to be fulfilled separately and
conjointly and unless that is done, the Tribunal cannot declare
an institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara - Onus to prove that an
institution is a Sikh Gurdwara lies on the person who asserls
c the same.
Fifty three persons claiming to be Sikh worshippers
submitted a petition to the State Government under
Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaring
the Gurdwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib situated within the
D revenue estate of village Jalal, Tehsil and District
Bhatinda as a Sikh Gurdwara. Thereafter, separate
petitions were filed under Section 8 of the Act. One of the
petition was filed by the appellant, the hereditary office
holder of the said Dera praying that the said Cera may
E not be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara. The State
Government forwarded the petitions to the Tribunal. The
Tribunal issued notices to all the persons who had
submitted a petition under Section 7(1) but none of them
appeared to contest the petitions filed under Section 8 of
F the Act. The respondent-Shiromanl Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee got itself lmpleaded as party to
the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. They filed
a written statement questioning the maintainability of the
petition filed by the appellant. The Tribunal relying on the
G entries contained in the revenue records held that the
institution is a Sikh Gurudwara. The High Court upheld
the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant
filed the instant appeal.
H
Allowing the appeal, the Court
MAHANT JAWALASINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
71
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE
HELO: 1.1 Before the Tribunal can declare an
A
institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 15(2)(ili)
of the Sikh Gurdwara's Act 1925, it must be satisfied that
(a) the institution was established for use by Sikhs for the
purpose of public worship, and (b) was used for such
worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation
B
qf the petition under Section 7(1). These two conditions
are required to be fulfilled separately and conjointly and
unless that is done, the Tribunal cannot declare an
institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. [Para 22] [103-G-H; 104A-B]
C
Lachhman Dass and Ors. v. Atma Singh and Ors. AIR
1935 Lahore 666; Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak
Committee, Amritsar v. Bagga Singh (2003) 1 SCC 619,
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Mahant
Harnam Singh (2003) 11 SCC 377; Shiromani Gurdwara
D
Parbandhak Committee v. Mahant Prem Dass (2009) 15
sec 381 - referred to.
1.2 The onus to prove that an institution is a Sikh
Gurdwara lies on the person who asserts the same. If E
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee comes
forward to· support the plea or espouse the cause of the
one who files petition under Section 7(1) that the
particular institution is a Sikh Gurdwara and is liable to
be declared as such under Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act,
F
then the burden to prove the two conditions is on the
Committee. If it fails to fulfill either of the conditions, the
Tribunal does not get the jurisdiction to declare the
institution as a Sikh Gurdwara. [Para 23] [104-E-G]
Sh/r.)mani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v.sss G
Mahant Pretfl f1ass 2009 (15) SCC 318 - relied on.
Kirpa Singh v. Ajaypa/ Singh AIR 1930 Lahore 1;
Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdiya/ Singh AIR 1967 SC 1415;
Pritam Dass v. Shiroirlani Gurdwara p~1Jandhak Committee . H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A (1984) 2 SCC 600; Mahant Dharam Dass v. State of Punjab
(1975) 1 SCC 343; Shlromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak
Committee v. Mahant Kirpa Ram (1984) 2 sec 614; Uttam
Das v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (1996)
5 sec 71 - referred to.
B
2.1 Nona of the fifty-three persons who submitted
petition under Section 7(1) of the Act for declaring the
Institution In question as a Sikh Gurdwara responded to
the notice issued by the Tribunal or appeared before It
C to support their plea. Rather, some of them filed petition
under Section 8 asserting that their signatures were
obtained by fraud and at least four of them filed affidavits
in support of that assertion. It is a different thing that they
did not pursue the petition filed under Section 8, which
was dismissed in default and the Tribunal erroneously
D discarded the affidavits by observing that they were not
examined by the appellant. As a matter of fact, it was for
the respondent to examine those fifty-three persons or
at least some of them. Unfortunately, the Tribunal and the
High Court did not direct their attention towards this
E important omission and decided the matter by relying
upon the oral evidence of those who were not party to
the petition filed under Section 7(1) and the revenue
records produced by the respondent. [Para 32] [115-80]
F
2.2 The written statement filed by the respondent was
conspicuously silent on the twin requirements of Section
16(2)(iii) of the Act. In the written statement filed on behalf
of the respondent, it was pleaded that Gurdwara in
dispute was established in the memory of Baba Kharak
G Singh, who was a Sikh saint or in the alternative it was
established by him for worship by Sikhs and has been
so used by Sikhs, that the case falls either under Section
16(2)(iii) or 16(2)(1v) [erroneously written as 16(2)(3) or
16(2)(4)] and that existence of Samadhl does not alter the
H
MAHANT JAWALASINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
73
PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE
nature of the Institution. In the amended written statement,
A
the case originally pleaded was given up and an
altogether new case was set up by asserting that the
Gurdwara In dispute was built In the memory of the visit
of Tenth Guru who came to this place from Dina and
Lohagarh and stayed there for some time and that the
B
Gurdwara Is being used as a place of worship by Sikhs
on account of the traditional visit of Tenth Guru. Although,
in the amended written statement reference was not
made to Section 16(2)(1v), the averments contained
clearly suggests that the respondent wanted the c
institution to be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara with
reference to that Section. A casual reference was also
made to Section 16(2)(iii) by incorporating the following
words: "or in the alternative under Section 1 G(2)(iii)" [Para
33] [115-E-H; 11GftA-C]
D
2.3 The Tribunal did not accept the· plea of the
respondent that the Gurdwara was built in the memory
of the visit of Tenth Guru and held that Section 16(2)(iv)
is not attracted in the case. The Tribunal then adverted
to the two conditions required to be fulfilled before an
E
institution can be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. As a
result to this, the Tribunal made detailed analysis of the
evidence produced by the respondent and held that the
institution was established by Baba Kharak Singh, a Sikh
gentleman of piety and prestige in the illaqa for the Sikhs
F
for the purpose of pubic worship of Shri Guru Granth
Sahib. While recording the said finding, the Tribunal
overlooked the fact that in the amended written statement
th 0 respondent had altogether given up the plea that
Baba Kharak Singh was a Sikh saint and Gurdwara in G
dispute was established in his memory or in the
alternative it was established by him for worship by
Sikhs. The High Court altogether discarded the plea that
Baba Kharak Singh had founded the institution by
observing that there was no ev!~:mce of any type; oral
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A or documentary of the time of establlshment of the
institution pointing to the purpose of its establishment.
These contradictions in the findings of the Tribunal and
the High Court are too prominent to be overlooked. [Para
34] [116-C-G]
B
2.4 The Tribunal and the High Court also became
oblivious of the fact that even though in the amended
written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, an
alternative plea was taken for treating the institution in
C dispute as a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 16(2)(iii), but
no foundation was laid for raising that plea inasmuch as
there was no averment that the Gurdwara was
established in the particular year by the particular
individual or a group of persons for use by Sikhs for the
purpose of public worship and was used for su"n
D worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation
of petition under Section 7(1 ). The manner in which the
Tribunal analyzed the avidence produced by the parties
gives an impression that it had assumed that a specific
case had been set up by the respondent in the context
E of Section 16{2)(iii) of the Act. In the absence of basic
pleadings, the Tribunal was not, at all, justified in
examining the issue whether the Gurdwara is a Sikh
Gurdwara within the meaning of Section 16(2)(iii) and the
findings recorded by it with reference to twin
F requirements embodied in that section are liable to be
treated as non est. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of
the High Court also overlooked this fatal flaw in the case
put forward by the respondent and thereby compounded
the grave error committed by the Tribunal. [Para 35] [116G Ii; 117-A-D]
H
2.5 The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the
High Court demonstrate how mis-directed consideration
of the issues raised by the parties resulted in recording
of patently erroneous conclusions and miscarriage of
MAHANT JAWALASINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
75
I
• PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE
justice. A reading of the Tribunal's order shows that it A
recorded satisfaction with reference to first part of Section
16(2)(iii) primarily by relying upon the entries made in
khata.unis and jamabandis in which Guru Granth Sahib
is described as the owner of land and Baba Bishan Singh
Chela of Baba Guiab Singh is shown as non-occupancy/
B
gair maurisi tenant. The Tribunal also attached
considerable Importance to use of the words "Deh
Hazah" after the words Guru Granth Sahib and Gurdwara
Sahib and the fact that muafi was granted in perpetuity
on 14th Phagan;Samvat ·1912 for the purpose of meeting c
the expenses of Dhup .Deep and also for serving food etc.
to Sadhus and wayfarers on their visit to the institution.
Another factor relied upon by the Tribunal was that the
institution was established by Baba· Kharak Singh, who
was a dedicated Sik_h and this was done by him for the 0
p~rpose of public worship of Guru Granth Sahib. In this
process, the Tribunal completely lost sight of the fact that
all the witnesses examined on behalf. of the respondent
spoke about establishment of the .institution in dispute in
the memory of the visit of Tenth Guru and his stay in the
E
village for a few days on his way from Dina to Lambwali
and none of them said a word about establishment of
F
· Gudwara by Baba Kl)arak Sln_gh. The High Court
altogether discarded the theory that the Gurdwara was
established by or in the memory of Baba Kharak Singh.
The revenue records produced by the respondent did
show that Guru Gralith Sahib was recorded as owner, but
neither ttfe khataunis nor jamabandis could be made
basis for recording a finding that the institution was
established for use by Slk.hs for the purpose of public
. worship. The· entries in the. revenue records· may be G
relevant for determining title and possessoiy rights over
lands mentioned therein but the same could not be relied
upon for recording a finding that the in.stitutiQn to which
land belongs was established by the particular Individual
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 2 S.C.R.
A for a. particular purpose. The emphasis placed by the
Tribunal and the High Court on the entries made in the
different revenue records and the fact that Muafi was
given for meeting the expenses of Dhoop Deep was
clearly misplaced. Both the Tribunal and the High Court
B appear to be obsessed with the idea that when Guru
Granth Sahib is recorded as the owner of land in the
khatauni and the jamabandis and Prakash is being done
in front of Guru Granth Sahib, the institution must have
been established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of
c public worship and was used for such worship by Sikhs.
D
This approach was clearly erroneous and the findings
recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court, though
concurrent are liable to be set aside being contrary to the
law laid down by this Court. [Para 36] [117-E-H; 118-A-G]
2.6 The Tribunal and the High Court have not given
due weightage to the evidence, oral and documentary
produced by the appellant. The appellant, JS-PW-8 and
seven witnesses examined by him consistently stat~d
that the institution, that is, the Dera was established-==by
E Nirmala faquir and Baba Bishan Singh was its first
Mahant. The various report show that Maharaja Bharpur
Singh had given 56 Ghumaons of land to Bhai Bir Singh
in Sammat 1913. It is also borne out that in Samvat 1914,
the land in both the patties was given by Maharaja
F Bharpur Singh to Bhai Bir Singh on periodical lease. In
the report of Tehsildar, Phul it was noted that there is no
mention regarding the ownership but inquiry from
Lambardar revealed that the ownership was of Bhai Bir
Singh who was shown as Nirmal Sadhu. In the report of
G Revenue Superintendent, there Is a mention of Dera on
the land and as per the instructions given by the
government on 29th Poh Samvat 1954, the entry in the
column of ownership was to be made in the name of Dera
Granth Sahib as per the desire of real owners. It was also
H . indicated that the Sadhus residing in the Dera shall have
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
77
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE .
no right to sell and mortgage the land. The muafi was A
granted by Maharaja Bharpur Singh for dharamarth, to
meet expenses of Sadhus and poor. The last order
passed by the Maharaja shows that entry regarding
ownership of the Dera was to be made as proposed at
the time of settlement. Unfortunately, the High Court B
brushed aside the documentary evidence produced by
the appellant by recording one line observation that his
counsel could not establish its relevance. While hearing
the appeal, it was duty of the High Court to have adverted
to the various documents and then determined their c
relevance. [Para 37] [118-H; 119-A-G]
2.7 The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the
High Court on the question of use of the institution for
worship by Sikhs are too sketchy. The only statement
made by the witnesses examined by the respondent was D
that sometimes the residents go for worship of Guru
Granth Sahib. In the absence of any evidence to show
that the institution was established for use by Sikhs for
the purpose of public worship, the Tribunal did not have
the jurisdiction to declare it to be a Sikh Gurdwara by E
simply relying upon the entries in the revenue records or
the fact that Prakash of Guru Granth Sahib is done and
on some occasion people come to worship Guru Granth
Sahib and the High Court committed serious error by
dismissing the appeal. The declaration made by the F
Tribunal that the institution in question is a Sikh
Gurdwara is also set aside. [Paras 38 and 40] [119-H; 120A-C-E] .
Banta Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Dasvi Patshai and G
another Civil Appeal No. 446 of 1962 decided by S.C. on
09.11.1964; Ram Parshad and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Comm(ttee, Amritsar and others AIR 1931
Lahore 161; Arjan Singh and another v. lnder Dass and
another AIR 1934 Lahore 13; Maghar Singh and others v.
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 2 S.C.R.
. A Hardit Dass AIR 1935 Lahore 879; Santa Singh and others
v. Puran Dass and others AIR 1936 Lahore 216; Hardit Dass
v. Gurdit Singh and another AIR 1936 Lahore 819; Dial
Singh v. Bhagat Ram and others AIR 1936 Lahore 822;
Hamam Dass v. Kartar Singh and another AIR 1936 Lahore
B 825; lshar Dass v. Bhagwan Singh and another AIR 1936
Lahore 841; Mukand Singh v. Puran Dass AIR 1936 Lahore
924; Arjan Singh and another v. Harbhajan Dass and another
. AIR 1937 Lahore 280; Hem Singh and others v. Basant Dass
and others AIR 1936 PC 93 - Referred to.
c
Case Law Reference:
. AIR (1931) Lahore 161
Referred to
Para 13
AIR (1934) Lahore 13
Referred to
Para 13
D . AIR (1935) Lahore 666
Referred to
Para 13 and
22
AIR (1935) .Lahore 879
Refe~red to
Para 13
AIR (1936) Lahore 216
Referred to
Para 13
E
·AIR (1936) Lahore 819
Referred to
Para 13
. AIR (1936) Lahore 822
Referred to
Para 13
AIR (1936) Lahore 825
Referred to
Para 13
F
AIR (1936) Lahore 814
Referred to
Para 13
AIR (1936) Lahore 924
Referred to
Para 13
AIR (1937) Lahore 280
Referred to
Para 13
'
G·
AIR (1936) PC 93
Referred to
Para 13
AIR (1967) SC 1415
Referred to
Para 13,25
and 26
c2003) 1 sec 619
Referred to
Para 22 and
. H.
30
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHI ROMANI GURDWARA
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE
(2003) 11 sec 377
Referred to
Para 22
c2009) 1 s sec 381
Relied on
Para 23
AIR (1930) Lahore 1
Referred to ·
Para 24
79
(1984) 2 sec 600
Referred to
Para 26 and
27
(1975) 1 sec 343
Referred to
Para 26 and
. 27
(1984) 2 sec 614
Referred to
Para 27
(1996) s sec 11
Referred to
Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6386 of 1983.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.09.1982 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First
Appeal No. 380 of 1972.
Sarvesh Bisaria, P.C. Sharma, Dr. Sita Ram Sharma (for
S. Usha Reddy) for the Appellants.
Jaspal Singh, Alok Prakash, Madhu Mooichanda~i for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against
judgment dated 13.9.1982 of the Division Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court whereby the appeal preferred by
Mahant Jawala Singh (the appellant herein), who died during
A
B
c
D
E
F
the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and is now G
represented by his legal representative against the order
passed by Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the
Tribunal') declaring Gurdwara Sri Guru Granth Sahib situated
within the revenue estate of village Jalal, Tehsil and District
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Bhatinda as a Sikh Gurdwara was dismissed.
2. Fifty-three persons claiming to be Sikh worshippers
submitted a petition to the State Government under Section 7(1)
of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short, 'the Act') for
8 declaring the institution in question as a Sikh Gurdwara was
published in the Punjab Government Gazette vide notification
No.385-G.P. dated 25.1.1963 issued under Section 7(3) of the
Act. In response to the aforesaid notification, four separate
petitions were filed under Section 8 of the Act. One of the
petitions was filed by the appellant. In paragraphs 2, 3 and 5
C of his petition, the appellant averred as under:
D
E
F
G
H
'"(2) That the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder of the
said Dera and is above 21 years of age and is thus entitled
to forward this petition under Section 8 of the Act.
(3) That the said Dera now described as Gurdwara Sri
Guru Granth Sahib in the above-said Notification is not at
all a Sikh Gurdwara. It was not established by or in memory
of any of the ten Sikh Gurus or in commemoration of any
incident in the life of any of the ten Sikh Gurus or in memory
of any Sikh Martyr, Saint or Historical person and has
never been used for public worship by Sikhs owing to any
tradition connected with any of the ten Sikh Gurus or the
Sikh religion nor was established for use by Sikhs for
. purposes of public worship at any time before or at the time
of the presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 of the Act. In short none of the ingredients
mentioned in Section 16 of the Act applied to the said
Dera.
On the other hand, the institution in question is only
· a Dera known as 'Wada Dera Jalal'. It was founded and
established by Baba Kharak Singh, a Nirmala Sadhu long
long ago. Baba Kharak Singh was a religious and pious
person and was very much revered in the Haqa. He
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHI ROMANI GURDWARA ·
81
PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] ·
established the said Dera to serve as a resting place for
A
Nirmala Sadhus and to impart religious teachings to the
disciples. It was. neither established for use by Sikhs for
the purpose of public worship nor was it used for such
worship by the Sikhs at any time. The said Dera is partly
a religious and partly a charitable institution of a private . 8
nature. Guru Granth Sahib Ji is held in great reverence by
the Nirmalas. Therefore, the same is opened in one room
of the Dera for recitation to the Nirmala Sadhus - The
Samadhies of the previous Mahants also exist which are
also the objects ofworship by the disciples of the previous c
Mahants. The said Dera is not a Sikh Gurdwara, but is only
a Nirmala institution. Nirmalas are not Sikhs as defined in
.
/
the said Act.
(5) That the signatures of the persons on the petition under
Section 7(1) of the Act were obtained by the employees
D
of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee,
Amritsar fraudulently representing that the Shiromani
Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar was going to
request the Punjab State· Government to grant annual .
Jagirs to all the religious institutions situate in erstwhile
E
Pepsu, hence they should subscribe their signatures on the
paper. Most of the signatures are only bogus. As a matter
of fact, the said persons, never applied for declaring the
said Dera to be a Sikh Gurdwara."
F
3. Of the remaining three petitions, two were filed by
different sets of the worshippers of the institution. The fourth
petition was filed by some of the persons whose names
appeared in notification dated 25.1.1963. They claimed that
·their signatures were obtained by fraud and prayed that the G
Dera in question may not be declared as Sikh. Gurdwara.
4. All the petitions were forwarded by the State
Government to the Tribunal constituted under Section 14(1) of
the Act. The Tribunal issued notices to all the persons who
originally moved the State Government under Section 7(1) but
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A none of them appeared to contest the petitions filed under
Section 8. Respondent - Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak
Committee got itself impleaded as party to the proceedings
pending before the Tribunal and filed written statement
questioning the very maintainability of the petition filed by the
B appellant on the ground that he was not a hereditary officeholder and the petition does not disclose the custom relating
to devolution of Mahantship in this Gurdwara. In paragraph 3
of the reply, the following averments were made:
c
D
E
"Para No.3 is right, in this respect that Baba Kharak Singh
is a Sikh saint and the Gurdwara in dispute was
established in his memory or in the alternative it was
established by him for worship of Sikhs and has been so
used i.e. for worship by Sikhs. The case falls either UIS.
16(2} (3) or 16(2} (4) .. This is a Gurdwara which is a public
religious and charitable institution. Existence of Samadhi
does not alter the nature of the institution."
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
fo~lowing preliminary issue:
"Whether the petitioner is .a hereditary office-holder of the
institution in dispute? OPP"
6. On 2.3.1965, Shri Charan Singh, Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent stated that he does not want to
F contest the status of the appellant to file petition under Section
8 of the Act as a hereditary office-holder because there are two
other petitions to be decided on merits. Accordingly, the
preliminary issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
G
7. On the same day i.e., 2.3.1965, an application was filed
on behalf of the respondent for amendment of the written
statement by substituting the original paragraph 3 with the
following:
H
"The institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara built in
memory of a visit of the 10th Guru who came to this place
MAHANTJAWALA SINGH v. SHI ROMANI GURDWARA
83
PRABHANDHAK COMMITii:E [GS. SINGH\ll, J.]
I
"'.
from Dina and Lohgarh and stayed here for some time.
A
This Gurdwara was built in memory of that visit and is being
used as a place of worship by Sikhs. on account of the
traditional visit of the 10th Guru and is therefore, being .
worshipped by the Sikhs or in the alternative under Section
16(2) (3)."
B
T.he amended written statement was also filed along with
the application for amendment.
8. By an order dated 31.3.1965, the Tribunal granted leave·
to the respondent to amend the .written statement and framed
C
the following issue:
"Whether the. institution in dispute is a, Sikh Gurdwara7"
9. The appellant examined himself and seven other
witnesses. He also produced documentary evidence in the form
D
of Exhibits P-1 to P-31. On behalf of the respondent, six
witnesses were examined and eighteen documents marked
Exhibits R-1 to R-18 were produced.
10. The Tribunal first considered the question whether the
E
institution could be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara because the
same was established to commemorate the visit of 10th Guru,
Shri Guru Gooind Singh Ji to village Jalal and .answered the
same in negative by recording the following observations:
" ........... In this connection, he placed reliance on the
F
statements of RW-1, Mal Singh, RW-2 Santa Singh, RW3 Gurnam Singh, RW-4 Balbinder Singh, RW-5 Jagir
Singh, RW-6 Baga Singh, who have all deposed that
according to the tradition, the 10th Guru visited village Jalal
on his way from Village Dina to village Lambra of LambG
wali. The Ld. Counsel also referred us the same books of
History for substantiating his said contention. But when
confronted with narration to the contrary in quite a large
number of historical works, relied upon and referred to. us
by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, .S. Charan Singh did
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 2 $.C.R.
A
not press this plea any further. There is evidently not
enough evidence on the record either factual or historical
from which it may be concluded that this institution has any
connection with the visit of 1 Oth Guru to this place. Under
the circumstances, we feel constrained to hold that the
B
provisions of Section 16(2) (iv) are not attracted to the
facts of the present case. The plea taken by the
Respondent Committee regarding the establishment of this
institution in memory of the visit of Tenth Guru to this place
is, therefore, rejected."
c
11. The Tribunal then considered the question whether the
institution could be treated as a Sikh Gurdwara under Section
16(2) (iii) of the Act, analysed the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the parties and held that the institution
is a Sikh Gurdwara. For recording this conclusion, the Tribunal
D mainly relied on the entries contained in the revenue records
i.e. Exhibit R-1 (Khatauni of village Jalal), Exhibit R-2 (copy of
Jamabandi pertaining to years 1981-85 BK), Exhibits R-3 and .
R-4 (certified copies of Jamabandies for the year 2000-2001),
Exhibit R-5 (certified copy of an extract from the register of
E Muafi and Pensions pertaining to village Jalal), Exhibit R-7
(copy of the revised entries from the register of Muafi of village
Jalal), Exhibit R-6 (certified copy of the pedigree table of vi!Jage
Jalal), Exhibits R-8 and R-9 (certified copies of the statements
of Bhaktawar Singh Lambardar and Mahanl Bishan Singh
F recorded on 9.11.1985 BK in Muafi File No.9), Exhibit R-14
(attested copy of an application made by Dial Singh
Lambardar and some other proprietors of village Jalal dated
12, Bhadon, Sammat 19.41 from file No.192 decided on 11 Asuj,
1941 (1884 A.D;), Exhibit R-18 (copy of the Jamabandi for the ,
G year 1969-70 A.O.) and observed:
·
H
"T.hus from the documents placed and proved on the file
on behalf of the Respondent Committee, it comes
abundantly evidence that from its very inception, Guru
Granth Sahib has been ceremoniously opened and recited ~
L., ~
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
85
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
in the said institution which has throughout been.described
A
as a Gurdwara in the oldest as well up to date revenue ·
record pertaining to its lands and Muafi ................. The
presence and Parkash of Shri Guru Granth Sahib in Dera
in question is clearly mentioned in this document which
also incorporates the request and recommendation of the
8
village proprietors to the effect that the land should be
entered in the name of the Dera Granth Sahib. The counsel
also argued that none of the documents marked Exhibit
P-1 .to P-31 in any way supported the claim of the
Petitioner regarding Nirmala Character of the institution.
C
On the other hand most of the Petitioner's documents
themselves show that the Muafi of this institution was
granted for the purposes of Dharam Arth and that the
incumbents of this institution were all "Bhais" and not .
Nirinala Sadhs as now all~ged by the Petitioner. Among
0
Sikhs the title "Bhai" is generally meant and used for the
most learned and venerable one's who are supposed to
be well versed in Sikh Scriptures, literature and history. It
is also worth mentioning here that none of the documents
exhibited on behalf of the Petitioner suggest any other
mode or object of worship in the said institution, at any
E
stage of its existei1ce. The plea of Samadhworship seems
to be clearly an afte~ thought and appears to have been
. introduced solely for the sake of casting doubt on the claim
of the persons who have claims this institution to be Sikh
Gurdwara."
F
12. The Tribunal noted the argument made by the counsel
for the respondent that. there is a statutory presumption
regarding correctness of the entries in the record of rights and
observed:
• .................. As the Petitioner has not been able to rebute
the presumption the entries in the Jamabandi Exhibits R1. R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-18 showing Guru Granth Sahib
Wakia Deh Hazah and Gurdwara Sahib Wakia Deh Hazab
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R. .
A
as the executive owner of the landed property attached to
the institution, must be presumed to be correct. There
seems to be much force in this argument of the counsel. It
is now for the Petitioner to satisfy us how far he has
succeeded in rebutting the said presumption."
B
13. The Tribunal also referred to the statements of the
witnesses examined by the appellant and held that the same
were not sufficient to discard the evidence produced by the
respondent to show that the institution was in fact established
as a Sikh Gurdwara for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public
C worship. The Tribunal was also of the view that the affidavits
(Exhibits P7 to P10) of Ginder Singh, Gurjant Singh, Nand
Singh, Jiwan and Harnam Singh, who stated that their
signatures on the petition filed under Section 7(1) of the Act
were obtained by fraud cannot be relied upon because they
D were not examined as witnesses. The Tribunal then considered
the argument that the Dera was established by Baba Kharak
Singh, who was a Nirmala saint and rejected the same by
observing that no documentary evidence was produced to
prove this fact. The argument of the appellant that the use of
E the word 'Dera' in various documents is indicative of the fact
that it was not a Gurdwara was rejected by the Tribunal by
relying upon the judgments of this Court in Banta Singh v.
Gu.rdwara Sahib Dasvi Patshai and another (Civil Appeal
No.446 of 1962 decided on 9.11.1964) and three unreported
' F judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court wherein it
was held that 'Dera' and 'Gurdwara' are interchangeable terms.·
The Tribunal distinguished the judgments of the Lahore High
Court in Ram Parshad and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and others AIR 1931 Lahore
G 161; Arjan Singh and another v. lnder Dass and another AIR
1934 Lahore 13; Lachhman Dass and others v. Atma Singh
and others AIR 1935 Lahore 666; Maghar Singh and others v.
Hardit Dass AIR 1935 Lahore 879; Santa Singh and others v.
Puran Dass and others AIR 1936 Lahore 216; Hardit Dass v.
H Gurdit Singh and another AIR 1936 Lahore 819; Dial Singh v.
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v.SHIROMANI GURDWARA
87
PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
Bhagat Ram and others AIR 1936 Lahore 822; Harnam Dass A
v. Kartar Singh and another AIR 1936 Lahore 825; lshar Dass
v. Bhagwan Singh and another AIR 1936 Lahore 841; Mukand
Singh v. Puran Dass AIR 1936 Lahore 924; Arjan Singh and
another v. Harbhajan Dass and another AIR 1937 Lahore,2~0
and of the Privy Council in Hem Singh and others v. Basfoit . e
Dass and others AIR 1936 PC 93 and distinguished the same ·
by observing that the factual matrix of those cases was
substantially different. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the
appellant that the institution was established by Nirmala Sadh
and distinguished the judgment of this Court in Mahant Hamam c
Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another AIR 1967 SC 1415 by
making the following observations:
"But we do not see what benefit can be derived therefrom
by Petitioners, in view of the overwhelming documentary
evidence which repeatedly describe this institution to be D
a Sikh Gurdwara, where Guru Granth Sahib has been the
object of worship throughout its existence. There is no an
iota of evidence to show that the building mentioned as
para 4 of the Notification No.385 G.P. dated 25th January
1963 was ever established as a Nirmala instit!Jtion. The
E
gift of the land was never made to Bhai Bir Singh
individually or for his personal use. It is also not mentioned
in any of the documents that the institution.was established
for being used as Nirmala monastery or college or for the
purposes of Smadh-worship or anything of that type. If F
anything, the statement of the previous manager Bhai ·
Bishan- Singh in the year 1928 A.O. copy marked Exhibit
R-9 closed the matter in regard to his religion as well as
in regard to the nature of the institution. He declared in
unequivocal terms that he was a Sikh Jat and further that G
he 'l>?.s merely a manager or mahant of Gurdwara Sahib.
In our opmion, the Petitioner has not been able to make
-- out any case regarding the Nirmala character of the
institution._.::-On the other hand, on the basis of the
documentary evidence discussed above, we feel. inclined H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 2 S.C.R.
A
to hold that this institution was established by Baba Kharak
Singh. A Sikh gentleman of piety and prestige in the lllaqa
for use by Sikhs for the purposes of public worship of Sri
Guru Granth Sahib, the holy Sikh Scripture."
8
14. In the end, the Tribunal considered whether the
requirement of user of the institution by Sikhs for the purpose
of public worship was satisfied and held:
c
D
E
F
G
H
"Next coming to the second requirement as to the user
before and at the time of the presentation of the Petition,
we have mainly to draw material from the oral evidence
adduced on behalf of the parties. It is conceded by all the
PWs that the village is a Sikh Proprietory village and the
major part of the population of the said Village belongs to
the Sikh faith. PW-7, Sampuran Singh and PW-R Jawala
Singh Petitioner have further recorded that there is no other
Sikh Gurdwara in the revenue estate of village Jalal. The
consistent evidence of the Respondents witnesses is, that
the object of worship in the said Gurdwara is Shri Guru
Granth Sahib and nothing else. RW-1 Mal Singh has
deposed that Guru Granth Sahib is the only object of
worship in the institution and Sikhs comes to pay
reverence in this Gurdwara on account of tradition
associated with it. In cross-examination he says that the
Chhota Dera of lsher Singh has nothing to do with the
institution in dispute. RW-2, Santa Singh says that the
Sikhs of the village come to pay reverences to the
Gurdwara due to the tradition. In cross-examination, he
says that he has not noticed any Smadhi in the Gurdwara
but on the back side in the cremation ground there are
some Samadhis. RW-3 Gurnam Singh states that Shri
Guru Granth Sahib is the object of worship in this institution
and that the Petitioner who is a follower of the Sikh faith
is a Granthi and Mahant of this Gurudwara now. He has
further mentioned that the Petitioner has started wearing
saffron colour clothes for the last five or six months. RW-
MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHIROMANI GURDWARA
89
PRABHANDHAK COMMllTEE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
4, Balbinder Singh says that the Sikhs come to worship
A
this institution where Holy Granths is the object of worship.
He also states that the birth day of 10th Guru is celebrated
as a Gurpurab in the institution in dispute. In crossexamination, he asserts that there are no Smadhis on the
premises of the institution, but there may be Smadhis of
B
some persons in the cremation ground of the village, which
is at the back of the village institution. Towards the end of
the cross-examination, .he says that he visits the institution
in dispute fortnightly or monthly and he last visited it about
15 days prior to his coming to the witness box. RW-5 Jagir c
Sigh has stated that the institution in dispute is a Sikh
Gurdwara where Sikhs go to worship and pay reverence.
According to this RW, Mahant Sishan Singh was a Sikh
and the Mahants, who preceded him were also Sikhs like
him. RW-6, Saga Singh has deposed that the Sikhs who
0
predominate the village go to the institution for worship
where the object of worship is Guru Granth Sahib.
· According to RW Saga Singh, Mahant Sishan Singh was
a Sikh. In cross-examination, he was confronted with the
writing marked Exhibit RW-6/1 but he explained that the
statement which he made in the Court of Subordinate
Judge, Phool, related to another institution which was
described as Dera Jawala Singh.
E
In fairness to Mr. Sajjan Singh, we must also notice his last
submission regarding the Nirmala nature of the institution
F
in the light of certain passages occurring at pages 172 to
181 of the Gurmukhi book 'Nirmal Panth Darshan' Volume
Ill, written and published by Mahant Dial Singh of Mahabir
Nagar, New Delhi.