UTTAM DAS CHELA SUNDER DAS versus SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 5 · Decided: 20-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
UTTAM DAS CHELA SUNDER DAS 
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE, 
AMRITSAR 
MAY 20, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 & Punjab Act No. 1 of 1959-0imitable 
institution-Nature of-Whether Sikh Gurdwara or Dera of Udasis-Recital 
A 
B 
of Guru Granth Sahib by Udasis without renouncing Hinduism, in front of C 
Sikh con!Jlegation--,.Held, Udasi is a Sect distinct from Sikh-Reciting of Gum 
Granth Sahib by Udasi in front of Sikh congregation, by itself is not enough 
to declare the institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara unless proved that it was 
established for use by Sikhs and for the pwpose of public worship & was used 
for such wo,,·hip. 
D 
Sections 16, 8 and 9 (1) Nature of institution (2) Lncus standi of 
petitioner-Preference in decidinfjHeld, niarginal note/caption to Section 16 
is the foremost pointer that the issue of nature of institution has to be decided 
first and other questions later . 
Section J{;r-Marginal notes/captions--He/d, are not 1nere Slt1plusage, 
but are pmt and parcel of legislative exercise and the language employed 
therein provides key to the legislative intent-Interpretation of Statutes. 
E 
Section 9-Applicability of-Failure of petition u/s 8 on the IJl·ound of 
Locus Standi---Held by High Cowt that the failure would tantamount to filing F 
no petition & legal consequence u/s 9 would follow-Held, the fact that the 
petition u/s 8 was received, oust.< the applicability of Section 9. 
Sections 8 & 2( 4)(vi)-'Hereditary office holder'-Pleading and proof 
of~n the facts, held proved. 
G 
A charitable institution, located within revenue estate of a village, 
which was within erstwhile Malerkotra State. The State merged into the 
State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU). In 1956, PEPSU 
merged with the State of Punjab, where Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 stood 
enforced. The Act also extended to the village territory vide Punjab Act No. H 
5 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1of1959. 
B 
54 Worshippers of the institution moved a petition u/s 7(1) of the 
Act, to the State Government praying for declaration of the institution as 
Sikl1 Gurdwara. 
Appellant filed petition to the State Government, u/s. 8 of the Act, 
stating that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but was a Dera of 
Udasis, originally founded by 'B' which was succeeded by the Chelas from 
Guru and that he succeeded as Chela and was hereditary office holder of 
the Dera and thus competent to file the petition. He stated that the 
C 
institution never used the Sik11 mode of worship. There were sign posts of 
previous Mahantas and Geeta and Ramayana were recited. The petition 
also mentioned the names of all the successors. 
The petition was forwarded to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal. The 
D Tribunal issued notice to the respondent Shiromani (iurd\vara 
Prabandhak Committee. The respondent challenged the status of appel-
lant as hereditary oflice holder on the ground that mode of succession \Vas 
not disdosed in the petition. It also challenged his locus standi to file the 
petition and also countered the succession from Guru to Chela and stated 
that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara. 
E 
The Tribunal framed the issues 
: (1) whether appellant was 
hereditary office holder, (2) whether the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara. 
The Tribunal treated issue No. l as a preliminary on the basis of the 
judicial dicta of Punjab & Haryana High Court and High Court vide order 
F 
dated February 8, 1973 held appellant as hereditary ollice holder. 
The Tribunal in its order dated October 19, 1972, came to the 
conclusion, on the basis of the pleadings in the petition u/s. 8 arnd on the 
evidence recorded, inclusive of revenue records of the state, that the 
succession to the oflice of rvJahantship in the institution in question. hadl 
G been by devolution from Guru to Chela according to hereditary right, even 
though Bhekl1 had assembled and given turban to the last Mahant (the 
appellant), but not as an appointing authority and rather in the allir-
mance, according to the wishes of the predecessors in the office. On may 
5, 1973, it decided the second issue and held that the institute was not a 
H Sikh Gurdwara. 
' 
' 
lJITAMDAS CHELASUNDER DAS v. SHIR OMAN I GURUDARAPRABANDHAKCOMMIITEE 
7 
.; 
The respondent Committee filed first appeal before High Court only A 
;. 
against the order dated May 5, 1973 and not against the order daled 
February 8, 1973, but inserted a ground 

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