The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the SGPC challenging the High Court's finding that an institution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan was not a Sikh Gurdwara but an Udasi Faqir Institution. The Court upheld the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the institution's history, succession, and worship practices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[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 thatF 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]
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1100
~ ,(
t-
I
~
" ; ' 1
F
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
~
~
E
6.Significantly, there is no evidence of there being a regular Granthi in the Institution, there existed even a Nishan Sahib. There was no further evidence that the Sikh religious ceremonies were ever held or there is Katha or Parvachan in a congregation. [Para 44] [1144-A)
).
G
H
~,....
"'
i
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1101 V. MAHANT PREM DASS.
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]
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.
j
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
| IIL.R.1968 (2)Punjab | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| & Haryana499 | referredto | Para4 | G |
| 1936Privy Council93 | referred to | Para15 | |
| 1996 (5)sec11 | referred to | Para16 | |
| AIR 1984SC1059 | referred to | Para 19 |
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1102
B
A
c
| AIR 1935 Lahore666 | referred to | Para 19 |
|---|---|---|
| AIR 1934 Lahore63 | referred to | Para 22 |
| AIR 1934 Lahore 130 | referred to | Para 22 |
| AIR 1937 Lahore 826 | referred to | Para22 |
| AIR 1984SC858 | referred to | Para 25 |
| AIR 1939 Lahore239 | referredto | Para 26 |
| AIR1931Lahore161 | referred to | Para29 |
| AIR 1937 Lahore273 | referred to | 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, Advs. with him for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
F
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1103 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
---\
...
~.
•
lo
;;_
J.
not to be a Sikh Gurdwara. It was instead held that the InstitutionA 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.
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1104
i
c
~
A in Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, situated at Village Ladda 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.
~
J
f..
-.
B
SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1105 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
.\
A
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.
~
-- ' ..\
c
D
E
F,
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1106
J.
A Tribunal, ultimately held that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, 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 Tribunal Shri A.L. Bahri had differed with the conclusions drawn D 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 Ethe 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 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.
~
)\
.4:
G
H
)- ,....
._
SHIROMANI ~URUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1107 V. MAHANT PREM PASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
"hereditary office-holder" nor was there any averment reg'arding 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 into the merits of the matter.
A
B
F
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1108
It is further pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel ·. that when this application was moved before the Tribunal, the Tribunal felt that there was no need to amend the Petition, since c 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 Senior Counsel then pointed out at the specific observations F made by this Court to the following effect:-
F
"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 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."
G
).
~-
~
.,. ' \
.4.
)-
>- .~ ......
The Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that when Hthe matter went back to the High Court and High Court decided
... i • ---1
--\
.;.
-!
-> 'I J, ~
> ____,.
---< '
'-'( ~.
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1109 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
the matter, disagreeing with the majority view of the Tribunal byA holding that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, the High 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 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 F clearly had breached. the remand order of this Court. The 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 HighG Court has not given any finding on that issue, the matter needs a remand.
H
~
,, .1 ~
I "'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1110
> ,.,. .,.
•
l ~ .--
I ,.-) : ~ I'; •. ' ~ "" n
11e---
., f ~ >----
.t. r- t:l I r-- )-)
J I I !- )><': I
r ' ,_
c
,/
-f
.l.
~
~
-~ ~ ...... ,
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1111 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
, "
\
. ' ~.
·11-12 . SUPREME coyRT REPORTS'. • [2069] 2:$.C.R.
l-
F
G
{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<i) · Mahankosh . . . . . . . ' '. . . th ' ... . . Heavy'}eliance is placed on page 288 of the 4 Volume of the Sikh Religion by Mecaul_iffe, whereby, a StOrY appears about Bhagwan Gir. According· to this Story : · " · "
H
"" ..
SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1113 /. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
~
j
"Bhagwan Gir went to visit the Guru in Kiratpur, who A advised him to proceed to Dehra Baba Nanak and join ·.the Udasi there. It was suggested that Baba Siri Chand, the elder son of Guru nanak had established sect of Udasis. It reveals from the Story ttiat the Mahant at Dera Baba · Nariak Mihr Chand was the great grandson of Baba B Nanak, . who adv.ised Bhagwan Gir and ·initiated him into . . . ' . . . . . . Sikhism and gave him the name Bhagat Shag.wan. It was this Bhagwan Gir, who then traveled, but without any success: He came·back to Mihr Chand to report his failure, when he was told by Mihr Chand that he should ·have c received initiation from Guru Har Rai, who was the real Guru and advised him to go to the Guru and crave for his . blessings. Thus, Shagat Bhagwan went to Guru Har .Rai and started weeping in repentance. He was then cheerfullypardoned by the Guru and he was directed to go: the D Hindustan and reform its people."
c
According to the Learned ·counsel, this Bhagat Bhagwan was an inspiration behind the Institution,· in whose name the Institution was named as "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". Similarly; · the Learned Counsel also relied op 'Gurpartap Suraj Granth', E which also has given the history of Bhagat Bhagwan, originally known as Bhagwan Gir, Sanyasi. It gives similar history as given. in Mecauliffe's book of bistory. The Learned Senior Counsel also relied on other text books and pointed out that the Tribunal had taken note of all these authorities to work in its majority F judgm~nt a·nd had rightly held the Institution to be a Gurdwara: The Learned Senior Counsel also heavily relied on the evidence of two Sikh historians, namely, Dr. Ganda Singh RW-16, Shamsher Singh RW-17, as also on the evidence of Randhir Singh RW-18. The Learned Senior Counsel also commented G upon the High Court, rejecting such weighty oral evidence .
E
F
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1114
~
I- ; ~ ,...,
A parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 9.3.1965 had unanimously held that the succession to the Gaddi of Mahantship is proved from Guru to Chela and all the Mahants had been Udasi Sadhus, and SGPC had not challenged this order, though an appeal is \ . provided under the Act. The Learned Counsel went on to argue B that SGPC possibly realizing the importance of the decision on Issue No. 1, then moved an application for amendment that the Institution was also a Sikh Gurdwara under the provisions of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act, as having been established to commemorate the visit of the first and sixth Gurus of Sikhs, which cclaim was given up. SGPC again moved a second application, seeking amendment to take up the plea tha the Institution had been established in the memory of Sikh Saint and historical person, namely, Bhagat Bhagwan and was used for public worship before and at the presentation of the petition under D Section 7 of the Act. The Learned Counsel pointed out that initially, the SGPC had claimed that the Institution had been establisheq for use by Sikhs for the purposes of public worship and was used for such worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petitioner, however, the SGPC had also to prove ,its continuous user from the date of its E establishment till the date of notification, as held in Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr. reported in 1936 Privy Council Page 93. According to the Learned Counsel, the SGPC had miserably failed to prove the same. The Learned Counsel suggested that the High Court was absolutely right in holding, F on the basis of document?ry and oral evidence, that th~ SGPC had miserably failed to prove the continuous and present exclusive user by the Sikhs nor had it been able to prove that this Institution was established in the memory of any Sikh Saint.
G 16. The Learned Counsel pointed out that as regards the first argument by Shri Jaspal Singh regarding first issue of hereditary office-holder, the issue stood concluded by this Court's judgment and it could riot nowbe reopened. The Learned Counsel also argued that this stand was not argued before the High Court nor was any application moved by the SGPC before
H
~
. .\
t
.0:
}-
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1115 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
\
~ the High Court to that effect, after the remand made by this CourtA and, therefore,. this issue could not be gone into now. The Learned Counsel further suggested that in view of the ruling of this Court in Uttam Das Che/a Sunder Das Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar reported in 1996 (5) sec 71, the issue will not now be allowed to reopened. B
B
/,.
t
~
E
F
"""'
--. '
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1116
.,.
A
were Sikh Saints is in conflict with their other findings recorded in the judgment.
)
Referring to a decision in Lachhman Das & Others Vs. Atma Singh & Others reported in AIR 1935 Lahore 666, the High Court noted that before an Institution can be declared as a B Sikh Gurdwara, it must be proved:-
c
The High Court was, undoubtedly, right in its observations, Dsince sub-Sections (iii)& (iv) has common factors and that is the establishment of the Institution by Sikhs for the purpose of worship and its continuous use by Sikhs for public worship. The High Court also referred to another decision of this Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. EMahant Kirpa Ram&_Ors._Reportedin_AIR 1984_SC1059, wherein, it was held that it must not only be established that the Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of . public worship, but further it must be established that it was used for such worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petition. The High Court then commented upon Section F 16(2)(iii). The High Court also noted that the.burden to prove necessary requirement was on the person, who asserts the Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The High Court also further noted that the original applicants, namely, Hamir singh & 57 Others had not entered the Witness Box, nor had they produced G any evidence, oral or documentary.
20, The High Court then went on to discuss, firstly, the documentary evidence regarding Muafi and the proceedings in respect of Muafi contended in Revenue Office Volume-VII of Hthe year 1932 B.K. (1875A.D.). wherein, Surat Ram was shown
~
-t
lr
~ ~- >-
) , ... \
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
(iii) Sham Dass -. (iv) Nanain Dass
(v) Brahm Dass
E
F
. (vi) Brahm Basant
(vii) Brahm Sarup
' .. . . "
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
[2009] 2 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1118
tc
A-- ~·
A A.O. This document clearly showed that for the first time, Mahant 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 1 9 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" was under the management of Mahant Bishan Dass. The High cCourt also referred to the document Exhibit R-11, which is a Statement of Mahant !3ishan Dass, wherein, it was maintained 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 one other called Malook Dass, who was blind. He had also further D 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 "Dera" was of celibate Sadhus. The High Court also further E refrred to Exhibits R-12 and R-13, which were the Statements of some connected persons, wherein, it was wouchsafed that the Muafi fand situated in Village Ladd a belonged to Mausooma Dharmshala Sadhuans, and which was, under the management of deceased Brahm Sarup. Exhibjt P-6 was also referred to, F which refated to the substitution of the new entry, being a mutation relating to the rights of Shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Khewat/ Khewna Mazkoor. The mutation was in favour of Che·Ja Bishan Dass. Exhibit P-7 another pedigree-table, which substantiated the case of the objections. The other document, which was G referred to by the High Court, was Exhibit P-8, which was the mutation in respect of the land gifted by Ralla Jat in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan. Exhibit R-1 was also referred to, being Statement of Mahant Mangal Dass, who considerdAmarDass Chela Bhagat Ram to be fit person for the management of Dera HLadda. Exhibit R-14, which was referredtolater on was also a
-+
A
~
~ ~
._
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1'119 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR. J.]
..
k
..
pedigree-table, mentioning the name of Brahm Sarup followedA by Bishan Dass Chela Mangal Dass. It was also noted by the High Court at that juncture that the Tribunal had not considered the documents R-4 to R-9. The High Court, therefore, deduced that the original Muafi was made to Surat Ram and secondly, the Muafi was given to Surat Ram in his personal capacity and B it continued to remain in possession of his successor Chelas undisturbed without changing the character of Muafi and it is only for that reason, that the rights of Brahm Dass Faqir, who continued in possession of the Dera and the land, were not interfered with. Thirdly, the High.Court came to the conclusion c that the Institution, throughout was described in Exhibit R-10 as Dera, which was established by Baby Surat Ram after the grant of Mu aft in his favour. The High Court also noted that it was after the settlement in the year 1962 B .K. that the Dera was described as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan. D
D
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '
[2009] 2 S,C.R.
f
A . referred to the documents Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 to P-7 and R-10 to R'-18 to establish that not onlY;was original donee . Surat. Ram an Udasi Faqir, but, the subsequent Chelas also, who followed him and who were Mahants of theDera in question, · were Udasi Sadhus .
. B
F
F -. _23 .. we must, t thi.s juncture, refr to the, findings of the Hig~ Court as regards the oral evidence led by the parties, a~ ttie rriajor portion of th~ High Court'sfudgme'nt ls'c'.levoted to the appreciation oftne oral evid~_nce. \fVe nave already refe'rred to the. comments made by the Snri Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior G. Cour'ls.el, appearing on behalf ofth.e Appellant, as·a·1so Shri P.K. Palli,, Learned Senior G6unse'1 appearing on behalf of the respondeht. We must appreciate that the High Court has gone _··into· intricate details of the· ~vidence,. Commenting on, the. evidence of P(V-1 Mahant Mangal qass, the j-iigh Court noted -H ·that his· claim, i.e., 'Baba Surat Ram was the original founder of
; ~ '
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1121 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
the Dera and after Surat Ram, the succession had always been A from Guru to Chela', has gone unchallenged. He had also asserted that he was nominated to.the Gaddi one week before the death of Mahant Bishan Dass by the assembly of Udasi th . Bhekh and on the 7 day after the death of Mahant Bishan Das$., a turban was presented to him in token of installation by the B Bhekh in the presence of village community. It must be noted that he remained a Mahant for good long 46 years. The tradition 6f _appointing a Chela was also deposed to by PW-2' Kishan Singh, PW-3 Mokand Singh, PW-4 Kehar Singh, as also PW-5. Karan Parkash. As if this was not sufficient, Pritam Singh, who c was examined as RW-1 on behalf of the SGPC, also supported the stand of the petitioner that Dera was of Udasi fraternity and · the succession was from Guru to Chela. The High Court has .. appreciated th.e evidence of RW-2 Bahal Singh, RW-3 Hamir Singh and RW-5 Balwant Singh and ultimately recorded a D finding that the Institution was an Udasi Dera and the succession to this Institution was from Guru to Chela.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 2 S.C.R.
1122
A They both had deposed about bowl of Ashes in front of the Idol ori a table. The High Court has also spoken about Smadhs located across the Phirney and also noted that Guru Granth Sahib was recited in the Institution occasionally. PW-9 Hira Singh had also asserted that there was no Nishan Sahib (Flag) B in the Institution. PW-10 Lekh Ram had specifically asserted, as noted by the High Court, that the Institution was not meant for display of Guru Granth Sahib, and PW11 Mahant Sewa Ram Dass, who was the Mahant of Dera Jaswanda of Udasi Samprada of Bhagat Bhagwan, claimed that he had been c visiting the Dera for last 20 years and he saw the idol of Baba Siri Chand and also further asserted that· Gola Sahib and Smadhs were being worshiped in that Dera. He also asserted that five other Smadhs were also located under one roof. He had also never seen Nishan Sahib (Flag) in the .Dera nor he D had ever seen Guru Granth Sahib, being ever worshiped in that Dera. Evidence of PW-12 Bhagat Ram was also commented upon, which was to the same effect regarding 5-6 Smadhs, being there under one roof and there being no Nishan Sahib (Flag) in the said Institution. Similarly, evidence of PW-13 Kartar E Singh, who was a Draftsman, was also referred to, who asserted that there was one Smadh in Site Plan (Exhibit P.13-A) in respect of a separate building, which was only one feet away from the Dera. The witnesses, who were examined by the respondent, were then referred to by the High Court, who were RW-8 to RW-15, being RW-8 Jang Singh, RW-9 Sadhu Sini.:k,, F RW-10.Sarwan Singh, RW-11 Balwant Singh, RW-12 Chhota Singh, RW-13 lnder Singh, RW-14 Nachhattar Singh, and RW15 lshar Singh. One of these witnesses, PW-9 had never gone inside the Institution and could not give the details of the number of rooms. There was obvious contradiction in the evidences of G RW-10 Sarwan Singh and RW-11 Balwant Singh as regards· the 'Parkash Asthan'. Significantly, PW-11 admitted the existence of Smadhs. One of the witnesses, RW-13 lnder Singh admitted in the cross-examination that he had visited the Institution-in-dispute only once and that the Parkash of Holi Guru H Granth Sahib was performed in a room located on the first floor,
F
G
" •
J
I
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1123 V MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
.i
..
.+
which was the case of nobody. His evidence was in directA contradiction with the evidence of RW-14 Nachhattar Singh. The High Court then commented on the findings by the Tribunal by referring to those findings and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the majority members of the Tribunal had misdirected themselves while appreciating the oral evidence on record and B had totally ignored the relevant evidence while arriving at conclusion that Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara within the purview of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. In support of this, the High Court went on to record its reasons, whereby, the High Court held that the evidence of the respondent, itself suggested that the c Institution was an Udasi Dera and the succession to the Institution was from Guru to Chela. Regarding the Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib, the High Court noted that it was not a regular feature and it was only occasionally being done, but that by itself, would not establish that it was a Sikh Gurdwara. Commenting upon the D evidence of RW-8 to RW-15, the High Court found that their versions could not be relied upon due to inter-se contradictions in their versions regarding the placement of Guru Granth Sahib. The High Court found that they have given their own versions, which are contradictory to each other. The High Court also found E that some of the claims that there was an Idol of Baba Siri Chand, · Gola Sahib and Smadhs in the Dera and they were being worshiped in the Dera, have gone unchallenged and, therefore, those claims deserved acceptance .
• ...
Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee reported in AIR 1984 SC 858, the distinctive features of the Sikh Gurdwaras were described. They are that there is no idol worshiped in a Gurdwara and the central object of worship is Guru Granth Sahib. The pattern of worship is reading of the holy G hymns followed by their explanation by some learned man and · then singing of some passages from the holy Granth, the first being Katha and the second being Kirtan.- The High Court noted the second feature to be the congregational worship such as Japji, Jaap, Rehras, Kirtan Sohila Sangat and that is normally H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R
1124
E
.~
It was on this account that the High Court ultimatefly recorded a finding that the respondent could not prove their case F under Section 16(2)(iii) to the effect that the Institution in question was established for the use of Sikhs for the purpose of worship and was used by the Sikhs for public worship, both before and at the time of presentation of the petition.
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1125 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Institution was used for public worship by Sikhs before and at A the time of presenting the petition. In that view, the mere fact that the Institution was established in the memory of a Sikh martyr or a Saint, would not by itself, be enough to answer the issue under SeGtion . : 16(2)(iv) in favo"ur of the appellant. However, the . High . Court did not stop at .that and discussed the historical B 9spect in. great details. Insofar as that part is concerned, the High Court noted that it was a common case that this lnsti.tution . was established in memory of Bhagat Bhagwan: The High Court, therefore, posed itself a question a$ towhether Bhagat Bhagwan was a Sikh Saint or an Udasi Saint. The High Court, therefore, c went into the historical aspect, as was done by the Privy Council in·the·Case·of Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Ahr. (cited supra). The High Court made a reference to Page 288, Volume-IV of the book titled 'The Sikh Religion" by Max Arthur Macauliffe and noted the story, which we had already referred D to in the earlier part of the judgment. According to the story Bhagat Bhagwan met Mahant Mehar Chand at Oera Baba Nanak and' got "Satnam Mantra" and Udasi Dress from hini, but since he was unsuccessful in his mission, he returned to Baba MeharChand, who directed him to the 7jh Guru, and after meeting_ the ~th Guru, he started preaching Sikh religion. The E High Court also made a reference to the history given by the minority member of the Tribunal from a book known as "Udasi · Sikhan di Vithya", published in ·1959, and more particularly, Pages 185-216, as also another Book called "Mahima Parkash",written by Baba Sarup Dass Bhalla. It is suggested F that the h.istory given was almost ,the same, as given in the book "Su raj Parkash". The genealogical table of the family of Bhagat Bhagwan, as .it appeared in"Udasi Sikhan di Vithya", was also referred to and a reference was also made to the book "Udasi Mat Darpan", compiled in the year 1953 by Baba Brhma Nand G Udasi. A reference was made to Pages 91-98, giving the description of Bhagwan Gir. A story was then quoted as to how Bhagwan Gir was deeply impressed by miracle shown by Dharam Chand Ji and how he could see the Goddess 'Hinglaj' and that he decided to change his name and became a Chela H
·- -
SUPREl'viE COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1126
1
~
A of Dharam.Chand Ji.The minority member found, as was noted by the High·Court, that the pedigree table in "Udasi Sikhan di Vithya" did not tally with the pedigree table mentioned in .the Revenue Record, which carry the presumption of correctness under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act. The minority member B also noted that the book "Udasi Sikhan di Vithya" was published by SGPC in 1959A.D. ltwas also noted by the minority Member that even in this Book, Bhagat Bhagwan was c:!escribed as Udasi Sad.hu. Secondly, the minority Member of the Tribunal found that the detailed account relating to Bhagat Bhagwan in cthe books "Sikh Religion", .published and compiled in 1883, "Suraj Parkash" and "Mahima Parkash", was similar, however, it was not indicated anywhere that he had become Sikh or a disciple . . of the ih Guru. The minority Member ~ had also found that in "Mahima Parkash" and "Suraj Parkash", there was nothing D. to suggest that Bhagat Bhagwan preached Sikhism. It was also found from the book "Guru Tirath Sangrahey" compiled in 1883, that there was nci reference to any Bakhshish, being given to Bhagwan Gir by Guru Har Rai Ji. The Learned minority Member also found that though, according to "Udasi Mat Darpan", Bhagat EBhagwan became a Chela of Baba Siri Chand, it might be not · a correct history, as Baba Siri Chand had already expired before 1644 A.O., when Guru Har Raj Ji got the Gaddi. However, the Learned Member deduced that from that alone, it could not be said that Bhagat Bhagwan became Sikh by meeting Guru Har Rai Ji. Lastly, the Learned Member held that the followers of F Bhagat Bhagwan had formed a separate Udasi Sect, which suggests that Bhagat Bhagwan did not preach Sikhism. The minority Member then referred to a decision of Lahore High - Court in case of Baba lshar Das Vs. Dr. Mohan Singh and Others reported in AIR 1939 Lahore 239,wherein, it was held G that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had claimed him to be Udasi, as far back as in the year 1938. The High Court accepted . these findings of the minority Member of the Tribunal.
1-
..
'°'
I-' ~
+- '{"<! '
21. The High Court, then referred to the approach of the Hmajority Members of the Tribunal, which was based on the Books
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1127 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
"Siri Guru Panth Parkash" and ''Twarikh Guru Khalsa". The High A Court had given the whole story, which took place in 1707 B.K., according to which Bhagat Gir Gusain, Mahant of Bodh Gaya, while going for Darshan of Jawalamukhi alongwith his followers and other Mahants, heard about the fame of the Guru and met him. He saw Guru Ji as an exact figure of Vishnu Ji and fell at B the feet of Guru Ji and prayed for being accepted as Sikh. A further reference was also made to the story that from that very moment, Bhagat Gir became to be known by the name of Bhagat Bhagwan and his companions all became Sadhus of Guru Ghar and that they had 360 Deras in Patna District and the main seat C of Bhagat Bhagwan was in Danapur. Bhagat Bhagwan did not go to Jawalamukhi and then after meeting Bedi Mehar Chand, went back to his own country-side. The High Court, then quoted the finding by the majority Member, in which reference was made to "Mahan Kosh", wherein, it was mentioned that Baba Dharam Chand, the grandson of Baba Guru Nanak was borne in 1523 D A.O. and died in 1618A.D. The finding also makes a reference to Page 225 of the Book "Darpan" by Pandit Brahma Nand and goes on to hold in the following fashion:-
"ln other words, Bhagat Bhagwan and other members of his contingent all became converts to Sikh religion and, thereafter acted as preachers and missionaries of their new faith."
E
"these Bakhshishes were conferred more or less indiscriminately".
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1128
,..
)
l r I
G
A
A Lastly, the High Court recorded a finding that the conclusion dr~wn by the majority members of the Tribunal that Bhagat Bhagwan after receiving blessings from Sixth Guru, became a. Sikh historical person and Sikh Saint, was based on misreading of historical data extracted from the books and B cases.
F
~
~
:).
Jr.
"The significance of the above judgment cannot be ignored because it was judicially accepted as far back as in 1939 that the stand of the followers of !3hagat Bhagwa~ that he was an Udasi was correct"·
Ultimately, the ·High Court came to the conc!usion:-
"Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the historical date and above judicial pronouncement negate the conclusions arrived at by the majority members H of the Tribunal."
f- ~
~
,
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1129 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
J
j
The High Court then again went on to consider the oral A evidence led on behalf of the SGPC and that of RW-16 Dr. Ganda Singh, RW-17 Shamsher Singh and RW-18 Randhir Singh, who were claimed to be the experts in the Sikh history. The claim of RW-16 Dr. Ganda Singh was that Baba Siri Chand was the founder of Udasi Bhekh and Baba Gurditta was the only Chela of Baba Siri Chand, who was the eldest son of Guru8 Hargobind. The witness stated that Baba Guruditta had four Chelas, namely, Baba Phul, Baba Almast, Baba Gobind and Baba Hasna and that there were four Dhunas known after these Chelas. According to him, Baba Almast had established a Dera c in Nainital District called as Nanak Matta, as Guru Nanak had visited that place, so also other Chelas of Baba Guruditta had established Deras in other Districts. Of course, the witness could not give the details of those other three Deras. The witness relied on the books, i.e., Glossary of Castes and Tribes Vol. Ill pages 479-80, Macauliffe's Sikh Religion Vol. IV Pages 288-89, D Gurpartap by Bhai Vir Singh Vol. IX Pages 3574-79, Gurpartap Vol. V Page 1331 and Bhai Randhir Singh's work known as "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia", published by SGPC. However, the High Court has referred to the cross-examination of RW-16 and noted his admission that he had not written any historical book E on Udasis and had also .not seen any painting of Baba Bhagat Bhagwan and, therefore, could not say whether Bhagat Bhagwan had long Kesh. (hairs) and grew beard. He also admitted that Bhagat Bhagwan might have had Chelas, but, he · could not come across their names in any book, except Bhai F Randhir Sing h's book, and he could not recollect the names of those Chelas. He categorically admitted that:-
"I cannot say whether Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi by .faith and I cannot give details how he received his spiritual perception from Guru Har Rai and Baba· Mehar Chand G and then again from Guru Har Rai."
.., .J
He also admitted that he had not come across any writing of Bhagat Bhagwan nor did he know where Bhagat Bhagwan died. It is on this ground, that the High Court rejected the testimony of Dr. Ganda Singh. '
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1130
A
A 30. Referring to the evidence of RW-17 Shamsher Singh, the High Court referred to the cross-examination, wherein, he admitted that he could not say if Bhagwan Bhagwan was going for Darshan of the Devi, when he met Baba Siri Chand. He claimed that Baba Siri Chand died before the time of the 7th B Guru and he could not refer to any history book in which the .meeting of Bhagat Bhagwan with Baba Siri Chand was recorded. He also admitted that he had not seen the Institution in dispute noL he could say that who had established the Institution and when. The High Court, therefore, discarded his ctestimony. As regards the evidence of RW-18 Randhir Singh, the High Court noted that he had not seen the Institution in dispute and further commented that he did not agree with the decision taken by the High Court that Udasis were Sikhs. This witness had also admitted that he had not seen any writings of Bhagat D Bhagwan and, therefore, the High Court refused to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness. As regards the other oral evidences led on behalf of the SGPC, namely, RW-1 to RW-7, none of them had stated that the Institution had any connection with Bhagat Bhagwan, excepting RW-8 Jang Singh, who maintained that Bhagat Bhagwan had become Sikh and · E used to preach the doctrine of Sikh faith. Referring to t.he evidence of RW-9 Sadhu Singh, RW-10 Sarwan Singh, RW-11 Balwant Singh, RW-12 Chhota Singh, RW-13 lnder Singh, as also RW-14 Nachhatar Singh, the High Court rejected their evidences on merits. As regards the witness Nachhatar Singh, F his evidence wa~ discarded on the ground that he was itself a member of the SGPC and was, therefore, an interested witness. The High Court again referred to the evidence of thewitnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners and came to the conclusion that on the date of presentation of the petition, the Institution G was used as Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan and was an Udasi Institution and not a Sikh Gurdwara. The High Court, thus allowed the appeal.
H
.
).
);-
~ ~ ..
~ -'
''*
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1131 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
....
.,
)
A
documentary evidence, oral evidence, as also the historical background of the Institution.
D
-~
.,
E
r;=
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1132
f
A evidence led on behalf of SGPC and the reasons given by the High Court to reject the same. After all, as per the established law, the parameters of Section 16(2) (iii) antj (iv) of the Act were ·bound to be proved. The High Court has gone in great details systematically in appreciating the evidence in the light of the B provisions of Section 16(2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act.
,.
...
~.
,,.,
.. <
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1133 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-f
.1
-""
J.
~ ;>
Section 2 thereof. The State Government publishes the sameA in the manner provided in Section 7(3) of the Act and is also obliged to serve notices to the persons shown in the list, who are in possession of the properties included in the list of properties under Section 7(2) of the Act. This is obviously with the purpose to provide an opportunity to the persons interested B in the said property. It is theri that Section 8 comes into play, under which a petitioner can raise objection, however, he has to be a hereditary office holder or such objection can be raised by twenty or more worshippers, who have to assert that the Gurdwara in respect of which the notification is published under c Section 7(3) of the Act, is not a Sikh Gurdwara. Once such objection is raised by either a hereditary office holder or by twenty or more worshippers, then the further process begins of deciding the issue as to whether such Gurdwara or:lnstitution is a Sikh Gurdwara, for which a Tribunal is provided in the Act. The Tribunal then gives an opportunity to lead the evidence and D proceeds to decide after a full trial, as to whether a particular institution is a Gurdwara or not. That is on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal. The Writ Petition which was filed, was challenging the validity of the said notification. The notification was ultimately held to be valid on the basis of the E Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, as decided in Mahant Lachhman Dass'& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499. Now, ifthe notification is held to be valid, that by itself, would not defeat the claim of the respondent because the said notification F is merely a first step to decide as to whether a particular institution is a Gurdwara or not. A full fledged trial then proceeds and it is only then, an institution is declared as a Sikh Gurdwan:i. It is, therefore, obvious that even if the notification is held to be valid, that only legalizes the further procedure before the Tribunal. We are dealing with a situation, where the said notification was G held to be valid in the sense that the State Government had validly and correctly issued the notification; but that by itself, did not canter the status of a Sikh Gurdwara on the institution covered in the said notification under Sedion 7(3) of the Act. The argument, therefore, must be rejected. H
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1134
A
•
A 36. The Learned Senior Counsel then urged that on the question as to whether Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office holder, no opportunity was given to the SGPC to prove that he was not such an office holder. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that on this issue, in the first round of litigation, B the Punjab & Haryana High Court had dismissed the whole objections raised by Mahant Mangal Dass on the ground that he had not claimed himself to be a hereditary office holder-of the institution. The Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that that judgment of the High Court was set aside by this Court c. with the observations, which we have quotedinpara 9 of this judgment. Even a cursory look at those observations would convince us that this Court had already closed that issue. In fact, when Mahant Mangal Dass had filed an amendment application, the Tribunal had felt that there was no need to amend the petition, D since the averments made in the objection petition had clearly indicated that Mahant Mangal Dass had claimed himself to be a hereditary office holder. It so happened that the High Court, however, took the view that Mahant Mangal Dass had not specifically claimed himself to be a hereditary office holder in Eprecise words and, therefore, his objections under Section 8 of the Act, were not maintainable. It is only on that short ground that the High Court had dismissed the appeal, which order was passed against the judgment of the Tribunal. On an appeal, this Court set aside that order and held that if the High Court had felt the Tribunal was not right in refusing the amendment, it should F have allowed the amendment and cure the defect and then decide the matter on merit, since all the evidence was available before the High Court. This Court, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter for disposal of the appeal on "merits". It is, therefore, clear that this Court had G directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits and not on the technical question as to whether there was a declaration by Mahant Mangal Dass of his status as a hereditary office holder. We are, therefore, convinced that the question of the status of Mahant Mangal Dass was put to the rest by this Court. H However, even if we were to accept the contention raised by
G
H
)
~.
"- >
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1135 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
'
--'·
•
I ;>
the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we do not find A such contention having been raised before the High Court that Mahant Mangal Dass was not a hereditary office holder or at least had not claimed to be the one. We have very carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court. It is totally silent about any contention. The Learned Senior Counsel very fairly B conceded that such issue was not raised by the High Court, however, he pointed out that it was the duty of the High Court to go into that issue or at least give an opportunity to the appellant SGPC to oppose the amendment. There is not even a whisper before the High Court to that effect also. In fact, after the remand, c it is clear that the SGPC had never bothered to raise the issue before the High Court. Shri Palli, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that at no point of time was this contention ever canvassed before the High Court. It will, therefore, not be possible for us to entertain D the contention raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that any prejudice was caused to the SGPC by the High Court, not providing any opportunity to introduce an amendment in reply to the stand taken that Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office holder since such opportunity was never E sought for.
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
, [2009) 2 S.C.R.
A judgment is devoted to that question. We are satisfied with the appreciation of the evidence on that question.
E
H
)
~
,.
SHI ROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1137 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
~
~ ~
A
purpose of public worship and was also used for such worships by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petition under Section 7(1) of the Act.
B
I
"32 ..... The High Court fell into an error in construing the pleadings under Section 8 on the strict standards set out c in Hari Kishan Case. When the appellant had placed the line of succession from Guru to Chela, he automatically meant t~at he was basing his claim on custom and usage, reflective from such long course of conduct and traditions."
This would water down the requirement of the strictD pleadings and the question of a specific plea regarding the petitioner being a hereditary office holder, would also to be pushed to the background.
E
F
G
H
I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1138
'
A village for their own benefit and the same was carrying on religious and charitable tasks and further, the purpose for which the Institution was founded, was the worship of Granth Sahib. This @uthority would be of no consequence, since the factual situation is different and there are clear findings on the fact that B this was an Udasi Institute and that the succession was from Guru ti::> Che la as per the proved custom. It was also tried to be impressed upon us that the High Court was swept away, as the Institution was described as a Dera and that it was contraindicative of the Institution being a Gurdwara. The Learned cSenior Counsel invited our attention to the judgment in the case of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors. (cited supra). In fact, this judgment was heavily relied upon by Shri Pa Iii, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, also as this judgment is totally Dagainst the appellant herein. Likeinthe present case, the two identical issues were framed in this case also, however the Court endorsed that there was no evidence to show that the Institution was established for the use of Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. It was also observed that Udasis formed an EindependentSect, they do venerate Sikh scriptures and, therefore, in the Institution of Udasi Sect, one can visualize reading of G ranth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures, but, that itself is not decisive of the character of the Institution. The High· Court also observed that on the contrary, where the succession was from Guru to Chela and those Gurus were F followers of lJdasis faith and the Institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhe'kh and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion, such things were completely destructive of the character of the Institution as Sikh Gurdwara. In our opinion, the High Court had correctly relied upon this authority. There is G no doubt that there is a reference in Para 13 to the following effect:-
'"Dera' in', many cases was synonymous with 'Gurdwara', a description of the institution as Dera of Udasi Bhekh would certainly have a distinct connotation showing that it
H
,,,
~ 'f".'I
\
A
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 1139 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
'
was an Udasi institution as recognized by the highest State A authorities."
The contention that the High Court was swept away because of the reference of this Institution as a 'Dera', therefore, clearly appears to be incorrect. On the other hand, this authority B would go long way in establishing that where Institution is established by Udasis, where there was a Guru and Chela Custom and where it is not proved that the Institution was established by the Sikhs for the Sikh worship and it continued to be so till the date of the Notifiction, the Institution could not be c said to be Gurdwara. In the present case, all the factual material led before the Court suggests in favour of the respondent.
_.
...
-. ;<.
1140 ' SUPREME COURT -REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
t
A respondent, we have no hesitation in. accepting the plea put forward by the respondent. It was tried .to be suggested that: (1) Guru Granth Sahib has been the only object of worship; (2) no documents made any reference to any other object of worship like Ball of Ash.es (Gola .Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images B of Baba Siri Chand in the objection petition under Section 8 of the Act; (3),there is no mention of Ball of Ashes (Gola Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images of Baba Siri Chand; and (4) Mahant Mangal Dass had nowhere stated as a witness that there were Ball of Ashes (Gola Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images cand that those objects or anyone of them were the objectof worship. We have already referred to the aforementioned oral evidence led on behalf of the respondent and we are convinced tl:lat none of these four factors can be said to be established in favour of the appellant. In our opinion, therefore, insofar as the Dquestionof establishment of the Institution and the practices therein are concerned, the High Court is absolutely right in recording its findings. It would be only repetition on our part to refer to the oral evidence or for that matter, the documentary evidence all over again and we desist from doing it. In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is absolutely correct, E insofar. as this issue is concerned. Lastly, Shri Jaspal Singh urged thatthe Institution was clearly proved to be covered under Section 16(2)(iv) of the Act. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that there was no reason to disbelieve the historical facts contained in the 6 treatise, which were authored by the authorities F of Sikh religion. In fact, our attention was invited to a decision reported in the case of Ram Parshad c!s Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors. (cited supra), wherein the book Sikh religion by Max Arthur Macauliffe has been described as the best authority of all in Sikh history. The story,. which we have already G referred to in the ~arlier part of the judgment from Macauliffe treatise, as also the various incidents described in Gurpartap Suraj Granth were relied on by the Learned Senior Counsel, so also the incidents as described in Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia and Guru Udasis Mat Darpan were relied and reiterated by the H Learned Senior Counsel. The Learned Senior Counsel also
'f
•
....
J,, >
{ ..
..,. -ii
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAKCOMMITTEE 1141 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
'
""
urged that the oral evidence of the scholars like RW-16 Dr.A Ganda Singh, RW-17 Shamsher Singh and RW-18 Randhir Singh should not have been lightly set aside by the High Court.
, ~
t-
[2009) 2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1142
1
A evidence regarding the grant of land to Shri Surat Ram and thereafter, the succession from Shri Surat Ram right up to Mahant Mangal Dass, which has been painstakingly established by the respondent. Once the Institution is held to be an Udasi Dera with the features like Smadhs, Gola Sahib etc., being in B existence in the said Institution, further, once it is established that the.order of succession was governed by a custom that is from Guru to Chela, there is no question of our going into the historical aspect arid when we compare the historical aspect with the hard evidence led on the record, we would choose to cprefer the evidence so led. Insofar as the historical reference is concerned, Shri Palli pointed out that the High Court had, not only discussed this aspect, but had given good reasons. It was pointed out that there were some incorrect references, for example, in Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia, it was mentioned that DBhagat Gir, who later became Bhagat Bhagwan, had met7th Guru. The Learned Senior Counsel argued that this cannot be historically correct, as Guru Har Rai, the ih Guru was born in 1631 A.O. and died in 1666 A.O. and, therefore, Bhagat Bhagwan could not have been met him. Shri Palli also heavily re.lied on the authority reported in AIR 1939 Lahore 239 Baba E lshar Das Vs. Dr. Mohan Singh and Others, which judgment . was noticed by the High Court. We have seen the jud.gment. It undoubtedly supports the. respondent. Shri Palli further urged that the High Court .. had relied upon the bo_ok Guru Jirath Sangrahey, which mentions that Bhagat Bhagwan was neither F a Sikh saint nor a historical person, rather he joined the Udasin Sect, go.t the Udasin dress and initiation from Mehar Chand, the great grand.son of the first Guru. The Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that same account is given even in the book Sikh Religion by .Macauliffe. The Learned. Senior Counsel also G pointed out that the SGPC had miserably failed to bring on record any writing of Bhagat Bhagwan as a Sikh saint. It also . had failed to point out any Institution, set up by Bhagat Bhagwan or his.followers to be a Sikh Gurdwara, though in the historical accountS, it was stated that he had created about 300 Institutions. H From this, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that the High Court
.,,
. l
,I._
... .r ' j I- •
~ )-I
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITIEE 1143 V. MAHANT PREM DASS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the InstitutionA was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but an Udasi Dera.
~-
D'
;j
F
G
~ .;
H
f
..1I
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
1144
.~
I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
B
c
D
E
'.,
· the appellant.
.,
---
F .. no merits and must be dismissed with costs. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
"
)..
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
-t· .,. . t
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the institution known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhawan is a Sikh Gurdwara under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925?
Whether the institution was established for the use of Sikhs for public worship and was actually so used?
Whether the institution was established in memory of a Sikh saint or historical person?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr.Referred¶52
Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr. 1936 Privy Council 93
Uttam Das Chela Sunder Das Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, AmritsarReferred¶52
Uttam Das Chela Sunder Das Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar 1996 (5) SCC 71 · Who else cites this
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors.Referred¶52
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1059 · Who else cites this
Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak CommitteeReferred¶52
Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee AIR 1984 SC 858 · Who else cites this
Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶54
Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499
Lachhman Das & Others Vs. Atma Singh & OthersReferred¶54
Lachhman Das & Others Vs. Atma Singh & Others AIR 1935 Lahore 666 · Who else cites this
Bishan Dass Vs. Gurbax SinghReferred¶54
Bishan Dass Vs. Gurbax Singh AIR 1934 Lahore 63 · Who else cites this
Prem Dass Vs. Labh Singh & Ors.Referred¶54
Prem Dass Vs. Labh Singh & Ors. AIR 1934 Lahore 130 · Who else cites this
Guiab Dass Vs. Fauza SinghReferred¶54
Guiab Dass Vs. Fauza Singh AIR 1937 Lahore 826 · Who else cites this
Baba Ishar Das Vs. Or. Mohan Singh and OthersReferred¶54
Baba Ishar Das Vs. Or. Mohan Singh and Others AIR 1939 Lahore 239 · Who else cites this
Ram Parshad & Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors.Referred¶54
Ram Parshad & Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors. AIR 1931 Lahore 161 · Who else cites this
Brahm Das Vs. Tarlok Singh & Ors.Referred¶54
Brahm Das Vs. Tarlok Singh & Ors. AIR 1937 Lahore 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
Mahant Prem Dass
Tarun Chatterjee
V.S. Sirpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
