LexDALIP SINGH AND ORS. versus SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DALIP SINGH AND ORS. A v. SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE AND ORS. OCTOBER 15, 2003 [K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN AND P. VENKA T ARAMA RED DI, JJ.] B Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925-Section 2(3), 9(1), 10(3) and 142- Dedication of property to Sikh Gurdwara-Appellants purchased suit property ji·om other two respondents, who acquired their rights from B- C B had acquired rights from J, the occupant tenant-Appellants filed suit for declaration of title against respondent-SGPC-SGPC relied on a judgment in an earlier suit, holding SGPC owner of suit property-Suit decreed in favour ofSGPC-First Appeal dismissed-High Court dismissed Second Appeal-Held, failure to produce notification under Section I 0(3) does not lead to the logical or necesswy conclusion that suit property being D claimed by appellants were not properties of Gurdwar~ but private properties of J and B-Appellants failed to prove that B acquired right, title or interest in suit property either under general law of succession or tenancy law-Sale deed in favour of appellants did not confer any title on them-Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietwy Rights) Act, E 1952-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 41. The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title praying that respondent - SGPC be restrained from taking possession of suit property. The appellants had purchased suit property from the other F two respondents. B, the father and husband of the other two respondents had allegedly become absolute owner of the suit property under provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. These rights had devolved upon B from J, who was the occupant tenant of the suit property. The title of J over the suit property was disputed on the basis of an earlier litigation, which held G SGPC to be the owner of the land. Therefore, B also did not acquire any right from J and consequently the other two ~espondents acquired no rights in the suit property. The suit was decreed in favour of SGPC. First Appeal and thereafter Second Appeal in the High Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. H 775 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Appellants contended that the suit ·1roperty never belonged to SGPC; that no Sikh Gurdwara was for.aed by dedicating the suit property; that no notification under Section 10 (3) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was published after notification under Section 7 (3) was published including the suit property and thus there is no B conclusive proof of no claim over the suit property; that in these circumstances the suit property can never be considered as property of the Sikh Gurdwara; that SGPC ought to have filed a suit to settle disputes in respect of any property notified as property of the Sikh Gurdwara; that B had transferred the suit property to the other two respondents but when a decree had been passed against him, he had C no rights, therefore, transfer was' not binding upon the other ·two '· respondents and consequently the appellants are also not bound by the decree; and that there are series of revenue records. to show that suit property was being cultivated by B and all relevant entries show that SGPC had no right to possession of the suit property. D Respondent - SGPC contended that notification under Section 7 (3) of the Act was published on 19.2.1932, mentioning the suit property, followed by a notification under Section 9 (1) of the Act showing that the suit property belonged to Gurdwara Jeeta Singh E Wala, Lohara, although a notification under Section 10(3). of the Act could not be produced. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD : I. There are documents to show that the suit property was included in the list of properties in the notification under Section 7 (3) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 dated 19.2.1932. If anybody had filed any claim in respect of these properties, there would have been an adjudication and only after the adjudication, the notification under ,... Section 10 (3) would have to be issued. It is not the case of the appellant G"" that J the alleged predecessor-in-interest of B made any claim over any of the properties included in the list forming part of the notification under Section 7 (3). Undoubtedly, the notification issued under Section 10 (3) serves as a conclusive proof of the fact that no claim was made in respect of any right, title or interest in any properties specified in H the notification
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.