SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE versus MAHANT HARNAM SINGH C. (DEAD), M.N. SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 805 · Decided: 16-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE 
A 
V. 
MAHANT HARNAM SINGH C. (DEAD), M.N. SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Section 16(2)-Sikh Gurdwara-Mean-
ing of-Facts to be proved-Held, an established Guru Granth Sahib, 
worship by congregation and a Nishan Sahib must be proved. 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Section 7-Sikh Gurdwara-Declaration 
of an institution as-Onus of proof-Held, lies on the person who asserts 
that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara. 
B 
c 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 92-Public Charities-
Representative suits-Judgment in-Effect of-Held, all those. who D 
share common interest in the trust are bound by the judgment-
Estoppel. 
Some persons, claiming to be worshippers, filed a petition under 
Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaring an E 
institution as a Sikh Gurdwara. On notification of the application, the 
respondents and certain other persons filed a counter petition under 
Section 8 of the said Act claiming that the institution was not a Sikh 
Gurdwara. The respondents claimed that the Dera was established by 
a Nirmala Sadhu and had been in possession of the Nirmala Sadhus F 
for generations; all the mahants of the Dera were Nirmalas; and none 
of the conditions laid down in Section 16(2) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 
1925 were fulfilled. The respondents also claimed that in a civil suit 
filed under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure earlier by few of the 
signatories of the present petition along with others, this Court in 
Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1415 G 
held that the Nirmala Sadhns are not Sikhs and that the institution did 
not belong to the followers of the Sikh religion. The findings arrived 
at by this Court were binding on the parties. 
The .petitions filed under Section 7(1) and 8 were forw~rded to H 
805 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal held that the institution was 
a Sikh Gurdwara without returning a finding as to under which clause 
of Section 16(2) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 the present case fell. 
The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. The High 
B Court held that the onus to prove that the institution was a Sikh 
Gurdwara was on the appellant. The appellant had to demonstrate 
under which clause of Section 16(2) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 
the case fell. The appellant failed to do so. Therefore, setting aside the 
order of the Tribunal, the High Court held that the institution was not 
a Sikh Gurdwara. Hence this appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. Unless the claim falls within one or the other of the 
categories enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Sikh 
Gurdwaras Act, 1925, the institution cannot be declared to be a Sikh 
D Gurdwara. The sine qua non for an institution to be treated as Sikh 
Gurdwara is that there should be established Guru Granth Sahib and 
the worship of the same by congregation and a Nishan Sahib. 
[819-H, 820-A, 819-Gj 
E 
Pritam Dass Mahan! v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit-
tee, AIR (1984) SC 858 and Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit-
tee, Amritsar v. Bagga Singh and Ors., [2003) I SCC 619, relied on. 
2. The onus to prove that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara lies on 
the person who asserts the same. That being the position, the appellant 
F which asserted thatthe institution was a Sikh Gurdwara has to prove the 
same. The High Court has therefore rightly held that the Tribunal 
wrongly placed the burden of proof on the respondents. [820-B-C] 
S.G.P. Committee v. MP. Dass Che/a (dead) by Lrs., [1998) 5 SCC 
G 157, relied on. 
H 
3. A suit under Section 92 Code of Civil Procedure is a suit of 
special nature for the protection of public rights in the public trust and 
charities. The suit is fundamentally on behalf of the entire body of 
persons who were interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of 
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE 1•.MAHANT HARNAM SINGH C., M.N. SINGH fPASA VAT. J.I 807 
public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust, which may consist of public A 
at large, may choose two or more persons amongst themselves for the 
purpose of fifing a suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure 
and the suit title in that event would show only their names as plaintiffs. 
The named plaintiffs being the representative of the public at large 
which is interested in the trust

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