LexKESAR SINGH versus BALWANT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 325 (P. B. KESARSINGH v. BALWANT SINGH GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Sikh Gurdwaro-Tribunal's decision regarding claims to property-Binding nature- Civil Court, if can go behind-Sikh Gurdwara& Act, 1925 (8 of 1925), ss. 25A, 36, 37. Limitation-Adi1erse possession-PosBP.8Bion as servants- It' hether adverse-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arl8. 142, 144. In 1933 there were proceedings before the Sikh Gurdwa- ras Tribunal under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, for d~termining whether the bunga in suit was the property of the Golden Temple. In these proceedings K and J claimed to be owners of the bunga and B claimed that he was the descendant of Maharaja Sher Singh and as such was entitled to the bunga as a manager. The Tribunal rejected the claims of the Golden Temple and of K and J and held that the bunga was wakf property under the management of the descendants of Maharaja Sher Singh. Subsequently, B brought a civil suit for possession of the bunga by ejectment of K and J on the ground that they being servants or servitors of the wakf had forfeited their right of residence as they were claiming rights adverse to the wakf. K and J resisted the suit mainly on the grounds that B was not competent to maintain the suit as he was not a descendant of Maharaja Sher Singh and that they had pres• cribed title by adverse possession. Held, that ss. 36 and 37 of the Act barred K and J from raising the question before the Civil Court whether B was a descendant of Maharaja Sher Singh. The Act had given full powers to the Tribunal to decide, not merely the claim of the Sikh Gurdwara, but also of all the rival claimants before it. Section 36 barred any court from questioning anything done by the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under the Act. Section 37 barred any court from passing any order or decree or executing any order or decree if the effect of doing so was inconsistent with decision of the tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal that the bunga was wakf property and that the descendants of Maharaja Sher Sin!(h were the managers had becomr, final. The claim of B that he was a descendant of Maharaja Sher Singh was never challenged before the Tribunal and its decision was given at the instance of B. Held, further, that the suit was not barred by limitation either under Art. 142 or Art. 144 of the Limitation Act. Kand 1961 Nor;ember 3, 1961 Kesar Si11th v. Balu·a11t Singh Wandwo J. 3::!6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. J ,..,ere in possession as servants or servitors and their possession was permissive. From the decision of the Tribunal it was clear that no hostile title was set up by Kand J against B at any time before the proceedings of 1933, "' such the suit which was filed in 1943 could not be barred by limitation. CrvIL APPELLATE J URISDIC'l"ION: Civil A ppca 1 No. 34 of 1954. Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated July 2, 1951, of tho Punjab High Court in Regular :First A ppcal No. 269 of 1945. N. S. Bindra and l/arbans Singh, (or the appellant. Gopal Singh, for the reRpondents. 1961. November 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivored by WANCIIOO, J.-Thc suit out of which the present appeal arises has had a chequered history. It was filed as far back as June 1943, the plaintiff being S. Balwant Singh (hereinafter rderred to as the respondent). Tho main defendants were Kesa.r Singh and Jaswant Singh, of whom Kesa.r Singh will bu referred to as the appellant hereinafter. Tho suit was with rospect to a house known as bunga 1l:laharaja Sher Singh which is situate outside tho tank around Sri Harmandir Saheb (hereinafter referrcred to as the Golden Temple) in Amritsar. The case of the respondent was that he and his uncle who was made a defendant to the suit were managers of this bunga which was wakf property and that they and t.heir ancestors had been in posses- sion of it throughout. There were proceedings before the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal established under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, No. VIII of 1925, (hereinafter referred to ae the Act) in 1933 with respect to thiR bunga. The proclledings arose because a claim was put forward that the bunga was the property of the G<Jlden Temple. In those procoedings the a ppe II ant and the other defendant claimed the bunga. The respondent also made a , • I .. II• • (ll s.c.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 327 claim to the bunga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.