MAMO AND ANR. versus COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHRI GURDWARA SAHIB AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 01-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR, S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAMO AND ANR. 
v. 
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT 
SHRI GURDW ARA SAHIB AND ORS. 
DECEMBER l, 1999 
[S.P. KURDUKAR AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 5(3), 10(3) and 28-Suit for 
possession of undisputed notified property based on title-Challenged on the C 
ground of limitation-Earlier suit instituted within limitation in respect of 
same property decreed-Symbolic possession obtained-No right or title 
claimed in respect thereof in execution-Held, on the facts the limitation 
prescribed in S.28 of the Act would not apply to the latter suit-Limitation 
specified in Sec. 29(2) of the Limitation Act would apply-Limitation Act, 
1963-Section 29(2). 
D 
Respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed a suit for possession of disputed land 
against the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4, legal representatives of P 
and defendants in the said suit. The suit land originally belonged to R who 
gifted it in favour of Gurdwara Sahib while it was being held by P as 
mortgagee. The mortgage was redeemed by Rand the suit land was mutated 
in revenue records in the name of Gurdwara Sahib. The Gurdwara was 
declared as Sikh Gurdwara and the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak 
Committee filed a suit against the local committee for recovery of possession 
of the suit land which was decreed but in execution it could only get symbolic 
possession and the actual possession remained with P. Upon being notified, 
respondent. No. 1 initiated proceedings against P before the Assistant 
Collector for recovery of rents which was dismissed holding that P was neither 
the mortgagee nor tenant of the suit land. 
Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed the said suit which was dismissed on 
the ground that the suit was beyond limitation under Section 28 of the Sikh 
Gurdwaras Act and also under the Limitation Act since the defendants were 
deemed to be in adverse possession. In appeal filed by respondent No. l, the 
first appellate court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 
28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act but not under the Limitation Act as the 
defendants had failed to prove adverse possession of the suit land. Respondent 
117 
,., 
E 
F 
G 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.<;:.R. 
A No. 1 filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was allowed holding 
that the suit was based on title and that the second suit was not barred by 
limitation prescribed in Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. Hence, this 
appeal by the defendants. 
The appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation under 
B Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act as it was not filed within ninety days 
from the date of notification. 
Respondent No. 1 contended that the suit contemplated under Section 
28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act was earlier filed against the local committee; 
and that the present suit was based on title governed by the Limitation Act 
C and in view of the finding of the courts below, the suit was within limitation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
HELD : 1. The properties included in the notifications under sub-section 
(3) of Section 5 or sub-section (3) of Section 10 are treated as undisputed 
properties under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. Sub-section (1) of 
D Section 28 enables bringing of a suit on behalf of the gurdwara in respect of 
such notified properties subject to two conditions-(1) that the gurdwara 
concerned is entitled to immediate possession of property in question and (2) 
it is not in possession thereof at the date of the publication of such notification. 
Sub-Section (2) of Section 28 prescribes a period of limitation of ninety days 
E for bringing the suit and mandates that no suit on behalf of the gurdwara for 
possession of the property shall be instituted after the expiry of the said period 
except on the ground of dispossession of the gurudwara after the date of the 
publication of such notification. For a suit of this nature no period oflimitation 
is prescribed thereunder and so it will be governed by the Indian Limitation 
F Act. (122-C-F; 123-A] 
2.1. There is no dispute that the suit land is a notified property. The 
suit contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 28 was brought within the 
period specified in sub-section (2) against the local committee of the 
gurudwara which was managing the suit land. That suit was decreed. In 
execution of the decree passed in that suit symbolic possession was obtained. 
G No material was placed before the courts below by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.