SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR versus BAGGA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 03-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIROMANI OURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, 
B. 
c 
AMRITSAR 
v. 
8AOGA SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 2002 
[SHIVARAJ V. l>A TIL AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, J925: 
Sections 8, 9 and JO-Application uls JO-Treatment of as composite 
application ulss 8 and JO-Propriety of-Held not proper as both the Sections 
operate in different fields-Notification uls 9 does not exclude application 
u!s JO. 
D 
J 6(2)-Sikh Gurdwara-Character-Determination of-Held, the sine 
qua non/or an institution to be treated as Sikh Gurdwara is that there should 
be established Guru Granth Sahib, worship of the same by congregation and 
a Nishan Sahib-Reading of Guru Granth Sa~ib, by Udasi, -who may also 
follow some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion by itself is not 
decisive of character of the institution. 
E 
The property in question had been declared to be in absolute ownership 
of 'S'-an 'Udasi'. Petition under Section 7 of Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was 
filed for declaration of the institution in question as Sikh Gurdwara and 
property in question as the property attached to the Gurdwara. 'S' filed petition 
under Section 10 of the Act claiming that the alleged institution was not a 
F Sikh Gurdwara but his residential house and the land ~lleged to be belonging 
to Gurdwara was his property. Another petition by the alienees of 'S' under 
Section 10 of the Act supported the case of 'S'. Tribunal treated the petitions 
as a composite one under Sections 8 and 10 and rejected both the petitions 
under Section 8 as not maintainable and in respect of the petitions under 
G ·Section 10 it was held by the Tribunal that the building in question was a 
Gurdwara ·and the land attached to it belonged to the Gurdwara. 
H 
Against the judgment of the Tribunal legal representatives and alienees 
of'S' filed appeals. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, as a 
consequence of the order of the Tribunal, filed suits under Section 25-A of 
482 
• \ 
r
SHIROMANIGURDWARA PARBANDHAKCOMM. , .. BAGGASINGH 
483 
the Act, one against the legal representatives and another against alienees of A 
'S'. Decreeing the suits and dismissing the appeals the Tribunal held the 
institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara; that presumption attached to the entries 
in ,Jamabandi under Section 44 ofihe Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was 
rebutted by the presumption under Section 18(l)(g) of the Act; and that 'S' 
had no right, title or interest in the land which belonged to the Gurdwara and B 
thus the transfer in favour of the alienees by the sale deed was of no 
consequence. 
On appeal, High Court held that the application was not a composite 
one under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act but the same was under Section 10 
and artificial bifurcation made by the Tribunal was not proper; that the entries C 
in the documents on record showing 'S' and his Guru from 'kaum' of"Sadh 
Bairagi" do not warrant any presumption that mere passing from Guru to 
Chela was indicative of its religious character; and thaj the Judgment in suit 
of 1949 was relevant under Section 13 of the Evidence Act , 1872. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that with the Notification D 
under Section 9 of the Act, petition in Section 10 was excluded; that entries 
showing 'S' acquiring the property by succession from his Guru established 
that the property was a religious property; that petition under Section 10 was 
misconceived; that conclusion of the Tribunal that the petition was composite 
one under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act and its observations that the petition 
was incompetent had attained finality; that presumption under Section 44 of E 
the Revenue Act was rebutted in view of Section 18(l)(g) of the Act; that since 
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee was not a party in suit of 1949, 
the decision in suit did not operate as res judicata; and that there was no 
material to show that 'S' belonged to 'Udasi' order. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Sections 8 and 10 of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 operate in 
different fields. While Section 8 deals with the nature and character of the 
institution, Section 10 deals with adjudication of right, title and interest of 
F 
the applicant. Since they operate in different fields, it cannot be said that an . G 
application under Section 10 was excluded when notification under Section 9 
was issued by the Government. (495-F, G( 
2. High Court was not in error in holding that 'S' belonged to Udasi 
order. The same is clearly e

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