SHIROMANI GURUDWARAPRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR versus SHRI SOM NATH DASS AND ORS

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 29-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHIROMANI GURUDWARAPRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR 
A 
v. 
SHRI SOM NATH DASS AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHARAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 7( 1 ), 8 & 10-Endowed Prop-
erty-Claiming it to be declared as Gurdwara-Mutation in revenue records 
B 
in the name of Guru Granth Sahib in 1928 in presence of ancestors of 
respondents-The property was given in trust to the ancestors of respondents 
C 
who did not perform their ob.ligation-Entry in revenue records challenged for 
the first time before High Court-Plea that entry in the revenue records were 
void since 'Guru Granth Sahib' was not a juristic person-Held, claim of 
respondents not maintainable, since Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person 
and on endowment never reverts even to the donor. 
Juristic Person-When donor endows for any institution, it necessitates 
the creation of a juristic person-When there is endowment of charitable 
purpost;, it can create institutions like a church, hospital gurdwara etc.-But it 
gains the status of juristic person when it is recognised by the society as such-
D 
Whether 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a juristic person-Held, Yes: 
E 
Status of juristic person-In absence of manager-Mere absence of 
manager would not negate the existence of juristic person-It may be proper 
and advisable to appoint a manager while making any endowment, but in its 
absence, it may be done either by the trustees or the courts in accordance with 
law. 
The property in dispute was gifted to the ancestors of the respond-
ents, the Mahants, in charity by some villagers in the name of 'Gurugranth 
Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deb'. The Mahants sopped performing 
their duties as Mahants and got the land mutated in their names. At the 
instance of one 'R' and others and in compliance with a 'Farman-i-
Shahi', the property was mutated in the name of 'Guru Granth Sahib 
Barajman Dbaramsbala Deb' and the names of the ancestors of the 
respondents was removed from the revenue records vide Exbts. P 8 & 9 
of 1920AD and 1926AD. 
705 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
About 56 people of districtPatiala moved petition under Section 7(1) 
of Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 for declaration that the property was a sikh 
Gurdwara. The respondent, filed a composite petition under Sections 8 and 
1() of the Act, challenging the petition u/s. 7(1), claiming therein that the 
place being a Dera of Udasian was managed by them and their predeces-
sors. The petition was referred to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal (Tribunal). 
The appellant, SGPC, denied the place to be Dera of Udasi, claimed it to be 
a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs, where 'Guru 
Granth Sahib' was the only object of worship. The appellant also chal-
lenged the Locus Standi of the respondents. In the cross-examination the 
respondents admitted that they were neither performing any public wor-
ship not managing the property. The Tribunal rejected the petition u/s. 8 on 
the ground that they had no Locus Standi in view of their admission in the 
cross-examination. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the 
High Court. 
In petition u/s. 10 the appellant stated that the property was of 
'Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib' and the respondents 
and their predecessors were only its managers and had no personal rights 
in it. The Tribunal, in 1978, rejected the petition u/s. 10 holding that the 
disputed property belonged to the appellants. The respondents filed appeal 
before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal. 
The appellant, filed a suit against the respondent for possession of the 
building and the land, which was decreed in favour of the appellant Re-
spondent filed an appeal against the same. 
Appeals filed by the respondents were heard together by the High 
Court. The respondents for the first time challenged the validity ofExbts. P 
8 and 9, before the High Court, contending that the entry in the revenue 
record was void as Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person. There was 
difference of opinion between the two judges of the High Court, on this 
point Justice 'T' was of the opinion that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic 
person and dismissed the FAOs upholding the judgment of the Tribunal. 
Justice 'P' dissented on the point, but did not decide the matter on merit. 
The matter was referred to the third judge who agreed with the view of 
Justice 'P'. 
The FAOs against came before the same DB for f

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