S.G.P. COMMITTEE versus M.P. DASS CHELA (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 30-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.G.P. COMMITTEE 
A 
v. 
M.P. DASS CHELA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
APRIL 30, 1998 
[G.N. RAY AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 98(2) and (3). 
Appeal-Division Bench-Difference of opinion between two Judges-
Reference to a third Judge-Requirement that difference of opinion should C 
be on a point of law-Held not applicable to High Courts governed by Letter 
patent-In such High Courts matter can be referred to a third Judge on a 
difference of opinion between two Judges even on a point of fact. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Appeal-Difference of opinion between two Judges-Reference to a 
third Judge-Third Judge neither writing a detailedjudgment nor referring 
to evidence elaborately-Merely concurring with one Judge-Validity of 
Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925: Sections 2(4) (iv), 7(1), 8, 14(/), 16(2) 
D 
~u 
E 
Religious lnstitution-Gurudwara or Dera of Udasi Sadhus-
Determination of-Held on facts that institution in question not a Gurudwara-
Essential requirements for proving that Institution was a Gurudwara-Onus 
to prove-Lies on the person who asserts that the Institution is Gurudwara. 
Hindu Lav.~Mahant-Hereditary office-Determination of 
Some worshippers of Gurudwara Dera Lang Shri Guru Granth Sahib 
F 
of Village Sardargarh, District Bhatinda filed an application under Section 
7(1) of the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925. Pursuant thereto the Governor of 
Punjab issued a notification dated 7th August, 1984 under Section 7(8) of G 
the Act P, a Mahant, filed an application under Section 8 which was fonvarded 
to the Sikh Gurudwaras Tribunal under Section 14(1). The Mahant claimed 
that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurudwara but is was a Dera of Udasi 
Sadhus. 
The Tribunal held that (i) Mahant 'P' was not a hereditary office holder H 
119 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A and had no locus standi to maintain a petition, (ii) the Institution in qu~stion 
was Sikh Gurudwara within the ambit of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. 
'P' preferred an appeal under section 34 of the Act before the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana. One of the Judges constituting the Division 
Bench agreed with the Tribunal and held against the appellant. The other 
B Judge took a contrary view holding that Mahant was a hereditary office 
holder and that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurudwara. As there was a 
difference of opinion between the two Judges of the Division Bench, the 
matter was referred to a third Judge who concurred with one of the Judge.s 
of the Division Bench that appeal of the Mahant should be allowed. 
C Consequently appeal of the Mahant was allowed and order of the Tribunal was 
set aside. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee preferred appeal 
before this Court. 
In Appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(1) the Reference to the third Judge was violative of Section 98(2) of the Code 
D of Civil Procedure, 1908 because no point of law was involved in it; (2) the 
Judgment of the third Judge should be set aside in limine because he has 
not considered the materials on record independently and has only expressed 
his concurrence with one Judge without giving any reasons therefore; (3) 
there was overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the institution was 
a Sikh Gurudwara; and (4) under section 2(4) (iv) of the Act there should 
E 
F 
be a devolution by hereditary succession or nomination by the office holder 
for the time being. The nomination of a Chela by the bhek after the death 
of office holder will not fall within the scope of succession; nor can it be said 
to be hereditary succession. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD·: 1. The reference to the third Judge in this case on a difference 
of opinion between two Judges of the Division Bench is not in any way vitiated 
and does not suffer from any infirmity. As per sub-section (3) nothing in 
Section 98 C.P.C. shall be deemed to alter or otherwise affect any provision 
of the Letters Patent of any High Court. Admittedly the High Court of Punjab 
G has Letters Patent. Clause 26 of the Letters Patent provides that in the event 
of difference of opinion between two Judges as to the decision to be given on 
any point it shall be heard upon that point by one or more of the other Judges 
and the case must be decided on the basis of the majority opinion. 
[125-F-H; 126-A-B) 
H 
(lmmidiserti) Dhanaraja and another v. Moti/a/ Daga and another, 
, 
S.G.P. COMMITTEE v. M.P. DASS CHELA 
121 
AIR (1929) Madras 641;

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