# ' v. MAHANT PREM DASS - **Citation:** [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1099 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2009-02-24 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2002 - **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, V.S-. Sirpurkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-mahant-prem-dass-25502 - **Pages:** 46 ## Headnote Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925: ~ -f Sections 7(3), 8, 16(2), 34-lnstitution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan held to be a Sikh Gudwara c by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal - High Court held that the institution was used as Dera of Bhagat Bhawan and was in ~ fact an Udasi Faqir Institution and as such was not a Sikh Gurdwara - On appeal, Held: Having gone throUgh the details ~ of the evidences, it is seen that the findings recorded by the D -' High Court are correct - All through the institution continued as an Udasi Institution. The Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal held the institution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan to be a Sikh Gurdwara. On appeal, the High Gourt held the E institution as a Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan and was in fact an Udasi Faquir Institution and as such was not a Sikh ... Gurdwara. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. In view of the Exhibit R-10, it is clear that F the Institution was established prior to 1665 A.O. by an Udasi Faqir Surat Ram, who had received donation from the Ruler of the then Patiala State and the said Institution then was governed by a chain of Udasi Mahants without G break in the tradition of succession from Guru to Chela "'->{ ..., and Mahant Mangal Dass was in the same tradition. [Para 44] [1143-C] 2. The Institution was only known as a Dera or Dera 1099 H 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A Sadhan or Mausooma Dharamshala Sadhan and it gave ~ _,(_ the impression that it was a charitable Institution for poor faqirs and traveJlers, as also offered shelters to them and the Mahants, who governed the Institution, were noble persons. [Para 44] [1143-D] B 3. There is voluminous documentary evidence to show the grant of Muafi (remission) of revenue. The land was already granted to the- Udasi Faqir in his personal capacity and he had become the owner thereof and the ~ c Institution was used by Udasi Faqirs and Sadhus; which tis clear from the reference in the revenue papers to the I effect "Well of Sadhus or Well of Mahantawala" etc. [Para ·· 44] [1143-F] ~ 4. There is ample evidence to establish the pedigree D tables as Khandan Sadh Udasin and Patti Sadh Udasin. [Para 44] [1143-G] ~ 5. There is .no evidence that this was a Sikh Institution from· its inception till today or the Sikhs had any say in the matter of appointment of Mahants. [Para 44] [1143-H] " E 6.Significantly, there is no evidence of there being a ; ' regular Granthi in the Institution, there existed even a 1 Nishan Sahib. There was no further evidence that the Sikh religious ceremonies were ever held or there is Katha or ). F Parvachan in a congregation. [Para 44] [1144-A) 7. It is established from the evidence that Guru Granth Sahib, though was kept, did not have a fixed place for its Parkash and the versions on the placement of Guru Granth Sahib is contradictory. [Para 44] [1144-B] G 8. Even a single worshipper out of the original 57 applicants, ever turned up to support the cause of the ~,.... "' appellant. [Para 44] [1144-C] 9. There was clear evidence that there was Gola H Sahib, Murti of Baba Siri Chand, Smadhs of earlier SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1101 i V. MAHANT PREM DASS. j Mahants and other objects of worship like photographs A etc. and Guru Granth Sahib was only kept as a book of reverence.[Para 44] [1144-D] 10. Baba Siri Chand, who was the son of the first Sikh Guru, was an Udasi and Udasi Sect grew up parallel with 8 the Sikh religion. [Para 44] [1144-E] 11. It is further established that all through, the Institution continued as an Udasi lnstitution.[Para 44] [1144-F] Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr. 1936 Privy C Council 93; Uttam Oas Che/a Sunder Das Vs. Shitomani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar 1996 (5) SCC 71; Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors. AIR1984 SC 1059 and Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee AIR D 1984 SC 858 - referred to. Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State o ## Text _Characters 0–39,809 of 98,402. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39809 for what follows._ [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1099 ~ SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE A , ' V. MAHANT PREM DASS Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2002 FEBRUARY 24, 2009 B (TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S-. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925: ~ -f Sections 7(3), 8, 16(2), 34-lnstitution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan held to be a Sikh Gudwara c by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal - High Court held that the institution was used as Dera of Bhagat Bhawan and was in ~ fact an Udasi Faqir Institution and as such was not a Sikh Gurdwara - On appeal, Held: Having gone throUgh the details ~ of the evidences, it is seen that the findings recorded by the D -' High Court are correct - All through the institution continued as an Udasi Institution. The Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal held the institution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan to be a Sikh Gurdwara. On appeal, the High Gourt held the E institution as a Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan and was in fact an Udasi Faquir Institution and as such was not a Sikh ... Gurdwara. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. In view of the Exhibit R-10, it is clear that F the Institution was established prior to 1665 A.O. by an Udasi Faqir Surat Ram, who had received donation from the Ruler of the then Patiala State and the said Institution then was governed by a chain of Udasi Mahants without G break in the tradition of succession from Guru to Chela "'->{ ..., and Mahant Mangal Dass was in the same tradition. [Para 44] [1143-C] 2. The Institution was only known as a Dera or Dera 1099 H 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A Sadhan or Mausooma Dharamshala Sadhan and it gave ~ _,(_ the impression that it was a charitable Institution for poor faqirs and traveJlers, as also offered shelters to them and the Mahants, who governed the Institution, were noble persons. [Para 44] [1143-D] B 3. There is voluminous documentary evidence to show the grant of Muafi (remission) of revenue. The land was already granted to the- Udasi Faqir in his personal capacity and he had become the owner thereof and the ~ c Institution was used by Udasi Faqirs and Sadhus; which tis clear from the reference in the revenue papers to the I effect "Well of Sadhus or Well of Mahantawala" etc. [Para ·· 44] [1143-F] ~ 4. There is ample evidence to establish the pedigree D tables as Khandan Sadh Udasin and Patti Sadh Udasin. [Para 44] [1143-G] ~ 5. There is .no evidence that this was a Sikh Institution from· its inception till today or the Sikhs had any say in the matter of appointment of Mahants. [Para 44] [1143-H] " E 6.Significantly, there is no evidence of there being a ; ' regular Granthi in the Institution, there existed even a 1 Nishan Sahib. There was no further evidence that the Sikh religious ceremonies were ever held or there is Katha or ). F Parvachan in a congregation. [Para 44] [1144-A) 7. It is established from the evidence that Guru Granth Sahib, though was kept, did not have a fixed place for its Parkash and the versions on the placement of Guru Granth Sahib is contradictory. [Para 44] [1144-B] G 8. Even a single worshipper out of the original 57 applicants, ever turned up to support the cause of the ~,.... "' appellant. [Para 44] [1144-C] 9. There was clear evidence that there was Gola H Sahib, Murti of Baba Siri Chand, Smadhs of earlier SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1101 i V. MAHANT PREM DASS. j Mahants and other objects of worship like photographs A etc. and Guru Granth Sahib was only kept as a book of reverence.[Para 44] [1144-D] 10. Baba Siri Chand, who was the son of the first Sikh Guru, was an Udasi and Udasi Sect grew up parallel with 8 the Sikh religion. [Para 44] [1144-E] 11. It is further established that all through, the Institution continued as an Udasi lnstitution.[Para 44] [1144-F] Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr. 1936 Privy C Council 93; Uttam Oas Che/a Sunder Das Vs. Shitomani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar 1996 (5) SCC 71; Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors. AIR1984 SC 1059 and Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee AIR D 1984 SC 858 - referred to. Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499; Lachhman Das & Others Vs. Atma Singh & Others AIR 1935 Lahore 666; Bishan Dass E , Vs. Gurbax Singh AIR 1934 Lahore 63, Prem Dass Vs. Labh Singh & Ors. AIR 1934 Lahore 130; Guiab Dass Vs. Fauza Singh AIR 1937 Lahore 826; Baba lshar Das Vs. Or. Mohan Singh and Others AIR 1939 Lahore 239; Ram Parshad & Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors. AIR 1931 Lahore 161 and Brahm Das Vs. Tarlok Singh & Ors. AIR 1937 Lahore 273 - referred to. F Case Law Reference II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499 referred to 1936 Privy Council 93 referred to 1996 (5) sec 11 AIR 1984 SC 1059 referred to referred to Para 4 Para 15 Para 16 Para 19 G H A B c 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS AIR 1935 Lahore 666 referred to AIR 1934 Lahore 63 referred to AIR 1934 Lahore 130 referred to AIR 1937 Lahore 826 referred to AIR 1984 SC 858 referred to AIR 1939 Lahore 239 referred to AIR 1931 Lahore 161 referred to AIR 1937 Lahore 273 referred to [2009] 2 S.C.R. Para 19 Para 22 Para 22 Para 22 Para 25 Para 26 Para 29 Para 29 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2002 - From the Judgement and Order dated 02.07.2001 of the D Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. 45 of 74. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Adv. Mehul Sharma, Madhu Moolchandani, Advs. with him for the Appellants. E P.K. Palli, Sr. Adv., A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Rekha Palli, F Advs. with him for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. An appellate judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, allowing an appeal under Section 34 of· the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), upsetting the judgment passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the G Tribunal' for short) is challenged before us by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SGPC' for short). While the Tribunal had declared an institution allegedly known as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" to be a Sikh Gurdwara, by t.he aforementioned H judgment of the High Court, the said Institution was declared SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1103 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] not to be a Sikh Gurdwara. It was instead held that the Institution A ~. was used as a "Dera" of Bhagat Bhagwan and was, in fact, an "Udasi Faqir institution", and as such, was not a Sikh Gurdwara. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us. 2. One Hamir Singh and 57 others, residents of Village B Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab, filed an application to the Punjab Government under Section 7 of the Act for a declaration that an institution allegedly known as • "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan", being a Sikh Gurdwara. It was alleged that the said Institution owned 389 c bighas and 10 biswas of land, which was situated in villages Ladda and Dhuri and that some of the said lands were covered by the buildings. On the basis of this application, a notification No. 557-G.P.-61-H.G. dated 9.6.1961 was published in the Government Gazette by the Punjab Government in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act, and the notice of the same was also D lo served on one Mahant Mangal Dass on 6.7.1961. This Mahant Mangal Dass was a Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass, who was claimed to be a hereditary office-holder. He moved a petition dated 25.2.1963 under Section 8 of the Act before the State Government of Punjab, claiming that the Institution was "Dera E Bhagat Bhagwan" and was being wrongly described as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" in the ;;_ aforemenHoned application by Hamir Singh and 57 others. It was pointed out that the said "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" was located at Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District F Sangrur, Punjab. It was asserted that it was not a Sikh Gurdwara as claimed in the application, but was an "Udasi Faqir institution". It was further claimed by Mahant Mangal Dass that after the death of his Guru Mahant Bishan Dass, he being the Chela, was appointed as Mahant of this Dera in accordance with the G ---\ Udasi rites and, therefore, in charge of the Dera for the last 42 J. years and further that he was managing the Institution till that date. It was further alleged that out of the lands described in the original application, land admeasuring 32 bighas and 12 biswas ... comprised in Khasra Khewat No. 303/496 and 497 as detailed H 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A in Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, situated at Village Ladda i and the house located at Dhuri town, was his personal property and did not belong to the "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". ltwas also pointed out that the petitioner Hamir Singh & 57 others were mostly fictitious persons and had moved the application with B ulterior motives and, therefore, the notification issued under Section 7(3) of the Act by the State Government, was illegal and void. The State Government in turn, forwarded this application·to the Tribunal for its adjudication under Section 14 ~ of th~Act. c 3. The Tribunal served notice of the petition, bearing No. 164 of 1963 to SGPC and the other respondents in terms of the provisions under Section 15 of the Act. Very significantly, Hamir ~ Singh and 57 other respondents, who had moved the original .application, never turned up to support the application or oppose D the claim of Mahant Mangal Dass, Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass. The litigation was, therefore, carried on only at the instance of SGPC, who claimed the said Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. A written statement dated 29.7.1963 was filed by the SGPC and it was claimed that the said Institution was a ' ' E Sikh Gurdwara., as it was established for the use of Sikhs, and was used as a place of public worship by Sikhs all along in terms of the· provisions of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. It was additionally claimed by way of amendment that the Institution J was established in ·the memory of Sikh Guru Bhagat Bhagwan. F It was further claimed by way of subsequent amendment that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara because of the traditional visits of the first and sixth Gurus to the Institution, so that the lnstituti6n came within ·the purview of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act. The last amendment was dated 1.6.1964. On 3.6.1964, G Mahant Mangal Dass also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition under Section 8 of f.. the Act, to the effect that he was a hereditary office-holder. -. However, by Its order dated 4.8.1964, this application of amendment was rejected by the Tribunal. The TribuRal struck H . tWo Issues: .\ ~ ' -- ..\ SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1105 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] "(i) Whether the petition is a hereditary officeholder? (ii) Whether the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara under Clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section 16(2) of the Act?" The Tribunal treated Issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and held vide order dated 9.3.1965, that the petitioner was a hereditary o~ice-holder, there being sufficient oral evidence to support the same. 4. Mahant Prem Dass in his capacity as a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass had filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No~ , 367 of 1966 before the High Court, for quashing the notificatipn dated 9.6.1961. However, that Writ petition was not pressed and was disposed. of by the order dated 17.8.1971. It was conceded that the Petition was covered by the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court in Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499. It was pointed out to the Court that an appeal against the said judgment was still pending in the Supreme Court and a clear statement was made that the counsel was not ·· conceding regarding correctness of the Full Bench Judgment However, since the High Court felt bound by the said Judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 5. TheTribunal, thereafter proceeded with the trial in which the only issue was as to whether the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara under Clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section 16(2) of the Act. 6. Regarding this Issue, the SGPC conceded that Section 16(2)(ii) was not attracted, and that claim was not pressed by the SGPC. The SGPC, however, persuaded its case under Section 16(2)(iii) & (iv) of the Act. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that-the term "Dera" and "Gurdwara" were interchangeable terms and were used as such. The Tribunal further held in its order dated 10.10.1973 that the existence of Mahant and that Mahant was Udasi, was immaterial. The A B c D E F, G H 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A Tribunal, ultimately held that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, J. considering its history, to the effect that Bhagat Bhagwan, in whose name the Institution stood, though was initially a Sanyasi, but had 'become a Sikh after meeting the seventh Guru, Guru Har Rai and continued to live as a Sikh Missionary preaching B Sikh religion. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that since Bhagat Bhagwan himself was a Sikh, the Institution which was established in his memory, would remain a Sikh Institution, even if some of the Mahants deviated from Master's ~ path and described themselves as Udasis. It was, therefore, c held that the Institution fell within the ambit of Section 16(2)(1V) of the Act, and as such, was a Sikh Gurdwara. The objection petition filed under Section 8 by Mahant Mangal Dass was, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment of the Tribunal was not / unanimous, inasmuch as one of the three Members of the D Tribunal Shri A.L. Bahri had differed with the conclusions drawn by the majority and held that it was not proved that the Institution )\ was ever used as the public place of worship of Sikhs or even . . . . at the time of issuing of notification in the year 1961. It was further held that the objection petitioner had successfully proved that E the institution was established by Shri Surat Ram and that the Muafi was also granted in the name of Shri Surat Ram and since times immemorial, the Institution had been under the management of Udasi Mahants, which had been so described in several documents. It was also held by Shri Bahri that the .4: succession to the Office of Mahant had been from Guru to Chela F and idol of Baba Siri Chand, Ball of Ashes and Smadhs were the objects, which were being worshipped in the Institution. The Learned Member also further held that the mere fact that 'Guru Granth Sahib' was kept or recited in the Institution, would not make it a Sikh Gurdwara. G 7. A First Appeal No. 45 of 197 4 came to be filed before )- ,.... the High Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who was a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass and had succeeded him after his death. The Division. Bench of the High Court rejected the Appeal and H held that Mahant Mangal Dass had never claimed to be ._ SHIROMANI ~URUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1107 V. MAHANT PREM PASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] "hereditary office-holder" nor was there any averment reg'arding A his being a "hereditary office-holder", and since the respondent Mahant Mangal Dass has failed to prove himself as "hereditary office-holder" and had also failed to state about the custom of inheritance, the petition under Section 8 itself, was not competent. It m.ust be stated here that the High Court did not go B into the merits of the matter. 8. A Special Leave Petition was preferred before this Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who had succeeded Mahant Mangal : ·Dass .. This Court by its o~der dated 8, 12.1994 allowed the Civil c ·Appeal and the matter was remanded to the High Court to dispose of original First Appeal No. 45 of 197 4 on merits and .· in accordance with law. This order of this Court is extremely important and we would refe~ to the same in the subsequent · part of this judgment. After the matter came back to the High Court, the same was dealt with in details by the High Court, and D ultimately, the High Court allowed that appeal by the impugned judgment dated 2.7.2001. It was held by the High Court that the respondent Mahant was a hereditary office-'holder. On merits, and on reconsideration of-documentary and oral evidence, the High Couit further came to the conclusion that the Institution was·. ·E not a Sikh Gurdwara, but was a Udasi Dera, called "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". It is this judgment, which has fallen for consideration before us, now. 9. Shri Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, firstly, contended that durrng the F pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, the SGPC · had taken an objection that the Objection Petition filed by Mahant Mangal Dass under Section 8 was not maintainable, since in that Petition, Mahant Mangal Dass had not alleged that he was a hereditary office holder of the Institution in question. The G Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that while the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Mahant Mangal Dass had applied for amendment of his Objection Petition under Section 8 and had tried to introduce following:- H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. .A "Th.e petitioner is a hereditary office-holder. The rule of succession in this Dera is that the Chela succeeds the ). ~- . Guru. after his death. The custom of the Dera from the beginning is that ·the Guru has a right to ·nominate his successor out of the Chela and in the absence of such B nomination, the Chela succeeds with the approval of the Bhekh." It is further pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel ·. that when this application was moved before the Tribunal, the ~ c Tribunal felt that there was no need to amend the Petition, since the averments already made in the Objection Petition clearly indicated that Mahant Mangal Dass was claiming to be a . hereditary office-holder and the mere absence of the specific expression in the averment, did not matter. However, when the · matter came for the first time before the High Court, the objection D was taken· by the appellant - SGPG that the Petition under ' .,. Section 8 was not competent on account of absence of specific \ averment by Mahant Mangal Dass that he was a hereditary office-holder. The High Court had also dismissed the appeal, holding that in the absence of specific averment, Mahant Mangal E Dass had not locus-standi to file an Objection Petition under Section 8 of _the Act. The_ Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, invited out attention to the order of this Court, whereby, the appeal filed by Mahant Mangal Dass was allowed. The Learned .4. Senior Counsel then pointed out at the specific observations F made by this Court to the following effect:- "If th~ High Court felt that the Tribunal was not right in refusing the amendment, the proper course was to allow the amendment and thereby,· cure the defect and then decide the matter on merits, since the evidence was G already before it. We, therefore, set aside the order of the )- High Court by allowing this appeal and remit the matter to >- .~ ...... the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits." The Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that when H the matter went back to the High Court and High Court decided --\ SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1109 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.] the matter, disagreeing with the majority view of the Tribunal by A ... i holding that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, the High • ---1 Court; however, did not consider the question of amendment, which was refused by the Tribunal nor the issue regarding Mahant Mangal Dass being hereditary office-holder, was ever decided. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, if this Court B had remanded the matter to High Court for dispos.al of appeal on merits, the High Court was, therefore, bound to deCide the issue initially framed by the Tribunal regarding the hereditary .;. office-holder's status of Mahant Mangal Dass. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the order of this Court could not be c treated to mean that the order of the Tribunal on that issue, was -! to be treated as final. It was pointed out that" SGPC had specifically challenged the finding in the first round before the High Court and High court had allowed that objection and had dismissed the petition under Section 8 holding that·there was D -> no specific averment regarding the petitioner being a hereditary 'I J, ~ office-holder. The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contended very strenuously that even if this Court had allowed the Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court and had directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits,the High E Court had to decide both the issues. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, this Court had left open the issue whether Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office-holder.According > to the Learned Senior Counsel, that issue, therefore, remained ____,. undecided. and leaving. that issue undecided, the High Court clearly had breached. the remand order of this Court. The F Learned Senior Counsel further argued that under Section 8 of ---< the Act; the Objection Petition could be filed only and only if ' Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office-holder and, therefore, the question of his status wenf to the very root of the matter. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that since the High G '-'( ~. Court has not given any finding on that issue, the matter needs a remand. 10. The Learned Senior Counsel further argued that Mahant Mangal Dass had not only filed the Objection Petition H ~ .1 ~ ,, I "' 1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A under Section 8, but had also filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the > ,.,. .,. notification and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the High • Court by a speaking order and after notice to the parties. The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, argued that if the Writ B Petition was dismissed after notice to the parties by a speaking · order, hence the order dated 17 .8.1971 passed by the High Court; dismissing the Writ Petition operate as Res.-Judicata and; therefore, the. matter could not have been allowed to proceed l furthe~. ~ .-- c 11. The Learned Senior Counsel then argued that though I Mahant Mangal Dass had claimed to be hereditary office-holder ,.-- ) on the basis of a custom, since there was no specific issue framed on the existence of the custom, the SGPC was gravely : ~ prejudiced, inasmuch as, it could not lead the evidence on the I'; •. D ' issue. "" ~ 12. As regards the second issue regarding the status of n the Institution as a Gurdwara, the Learned Senior Counsel 11e--- . extensively criticized the appreciation by the High Court of the E documentary, as well as the oral evidence. He pointed out that f the original donee Su ram Ram was not mentioned as an Udasi ., Faqir in Exhibits P-1 to P-7 and R-10 to R-13 and, therefore, those documents could not be relied upon to hold that he was ~ >---- an Udasi Faqir. Similarly, the Learned Senior Counsel suggested .t. that those who succeeded Surat Ram, could not be held to be rF t:- Udasi Sadhus·. Exhibit P-2, P-4, P-5, p.;5 and P-7 were l ·extensively dealt with bythe Learned Senior Counsel to show I r-- that these documents were self-serving documents, made during \- )- the lifetime of Mahant Mangal Dass and· in none of them, the ) Sadhus mentfoned in Exhibit 'P-5 Pedigree-table, were G described as Udasis. The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, J I urged that that the appreciation of evidence by the High Court !- of the documentary evidence, was perverse. The Learned I )><': I Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that mere description of a person as a Chela could not lead to the conclusion that he r H succeeded his predecessor on account of his being a Chela. ' ,_ ,/ .. -f .l. ~ ~ -~ ...... , ~ SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1111 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 13. Inviting our attention to the oral evidence, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that the evidence led on behalf of Mahant Mangal Dass PW-1, Kishan Singh PW-2, Mokand Singh PW3, Kehar Singh PW-4 and Karam Parkash PW-5 was extremely suspicious and could not be relied upon by the High Court. Various so-called admissions and statements in the witness were relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel to hold that the evidence could not have been relied upon. The Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the use of the word "Dera" for the Institution was also of no use to the Mahant, as the word "Dera" was synonymous with the word "Gurdwara". He further pointed out that the holy book 'Guru Granth Sahib' was always . kept open in the Institution, the land for which was donated by Maharaja Ala Singh. The Learned Senior Counsel further argued that Mahant Bishan Dass, in his application for being appointed as the Mahant of the Dera, had described himself as "Bihangam Sadh" and not "Udasi Sadh" and had assured the authorities that 'Guru Granth Sahib' was being recited in the Dera as before. The Learned Senior Counsel further suggested that in his statement, Mahant Bishan Dass had never suggested that there were any other objects of worship in the Dera besides 'Guru Granth Sahib'. It was further commented that there was no succession from Guru to Chela in this Institution and in fact, while recommending the appointment of Chela Bhagat Ram, it was emphasized that he knew "Gurumukhi" very well and was well versed in performing the 'path' (recitation) of Guru Granth Sahib. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the High Court missed all these facts. The Learned Senior Counsel also urged that the documents did not show any reference to any.other object of worship like Gola Sahib, Smadhs and pictorial images of Baba Siri Chand, and it clearly emerged from the documents that the 'Guru Granth Sahib' was the only object of worship there. He pointed out that even the evidence of Mahant Mangal Dass was silent on there being a Smadhs, Gola Sahib or pictorial images. Similar comments were made in respect of the evidence led on behalf of Mahant Mangal Dass in support of the objection. The Learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on A B c D E F G H , " . ; . . ' ~. ·11-12 . SUPREME coyRT REPORTS'. • [2069] 2:$.C.R. A . the. ora.1 e_vidence led on beh.alfof SGPC ~nd more. particularly, on .Rw-·a Jang $ingh, .R.W-9 Sadhu Singh,· R\IV-1.0 Sarwa·n Singh; ~~ho; were the local people, .. 'and also. the persons in ~μthority c;md who had ,insisted. that the 611ly ~bject of wors_hip in the ·institution was 'Guru Grim_th Sahib'. and that the Sikh Festivals ~B Puranmashi and Kartik were celebrated there. Reference were also made.to evidence:ofRW-11.13~1Vl(ant Singh, RVV~12 Cho\a :S.i_ngh, RW-13 inci~r,Siri~h .• as .also RW-14.Nachh~tar·Singh, who ~II asserted ·about t~e S_ikhs visiting the· Gurdwar~ and ·celebrating the Sikh fe·stivals. Evidence of RW-15·1shar Singh c w~s also relied upon to suggest the celebration of the birth and .death annivers.ary of the firstGun.i of Sikhs and Shrads of the first and the· tenth Guru of Sikhs took place in the· Institution. It was urged that despite the unc_hallenged testimony· bf the witne$~13s from the village itself and the adjoining villages, the 0 High Court had erred in rejecting the evidence, on the ground that the mere keeping of 'Guru Grarith Sahib', by itself; would not make the Institution, a GurdWara. The· Learned Senior Ct?Lihsel further suggested that the Hig.h C9urt had misread the evidence of pw.:.5 regarding the placement of Smadhis. , .. ~ : .. E 14. Lastly, arguing on Clause (iv) of Section 16(2), the F G H ·Learned Senior Counsel referred to the historica.I aspect and the six hi~torical works such as _:. {i) . The Sikh religion by Max Arthur M~cauliffe · . . (ii) Shri Gurpartap Suraj Granth (iii) Twarikh,Guru Khalsa (iv) • Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia . (v) Guru Udasis Mat Darpan and · (N- ) documentary evidence regarding Muafi and the proceedings in , respect of Muafi contended in Revenue Office Volume-VII of ... \ H the year 1932 B.K. (1875A.D.). wherein, Surat Ram was shown + .. .... " '. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1117 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] as a grantee, while Maharaja Sahbi Ala Singh is recorded as A·'- grantor. The total land donated to the Institution ment.ioned is 464 Bighas 16 Biswas and that the 44 Bighas and 15 Biswas_ of land, which was.found in excess of the original grant, was. recommend_ed to be forfeited while the rest of the lanq measuring 420 Bighas 16 Biswas was suggested to. be B continued with "Dera". in question for· its upkeep. The ofder passed by Dewan in this behalf was also referred to, along ,with· the order of Wazir Sahib and· the order of Hazoor Anwar. The. other documents referred to were the Jamabandi (Exhibit P-2) for the year 1962-63 B.K. (1905-06A.D.) of Village Ladda, Tehsir c .. Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, wherein, under the Column of · ownership, it was noted· "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-lhtmam (under the management of} Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant Sadh Udasian". ~xhibit P-4, which was a pedigree-table, was also referred to by the High Court along with Exhibit P-5, which D is a copy of Revenue Inquiry File. Exhibit P-5 mentions the names of Muafidars, who had been in possession from the date of grant of Muafi. The names read thus:- (i) Surat Ram . (ii) Bhola Ram E (iii) Sham Dass -. . . (iv) Nanain Dass (v) Brahm Dass F . (vi) Brahm Basant (vii) Brahm Sarup (viii) Bi.shan Dass . . G This document.Exhibit p:.5 is of date 23.6.1906A.D. "Fhe '.· High Cqurt also noted Exhibit P-3, which was a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of Mahant Mangal'Dass Chela Bishan Dass on the death of Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Saru'p. It was noted that this mut_ation was sanctioned ·an 28.6.191B H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R A A.O. This document clearly showed that for the first time, Mahant tc Mangat Dass Chela Bishan Dass took over the management -+ of Institution, and it was he, who had find the objection under Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the High Court noted that he was the 9 1 h Mahant in the order of succession. After his death, he was B represented by his Chela Mahant Prem Dass. It was further noted from Exhibit P-1 dated 13.1.1909 that it was during the regime of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh that Muafi was granted in favour of Dera .Bhagat Bhagwan and at that time, the "Dera" A was under the management of Mahant Bishan Dass. The High c Court also referred to the document Exhibit R-11, which is a Statement of Mahant !3ishan Dass, wherein, it was maintained A-- that his Guru had enjoyed the Muafi of the land in terms of the ~· order dated .23.6.1906 of the Commissioner and that his Guru had died and had left behind two Chelas, namely, himself and D one other called Malook Dass, who was blind. He had also further underta'ken. to remain of a good character and carry on the conditions of the Muafi. It was in this Statement that the existence of Guru Granth Sahib,. remaining open in the Dera, was mentioned. it was pointed out in the Statement further that the E "Dera" was of celibate Sadhus.