Shiromani Gurudwara
Prabandhak Committee Vs. Mahant Prem Dass [2009] INSC 403 (24 February 2009)
Judgment
"REPORTABLE"
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2002 Shiromani
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee .... Appellant Versus Mahant Prem Dass ....
Respondent
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
1.
An
appellate judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High
Court, allowing an appeal under Section 34 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short), upsetting the judgment passed
by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal' for
short) is challenged before us by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
(hereinafter referred to as `SGPC' for short). While the Tribunal had declared
an institution allegedly known as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat
Bhagwan" to be a Sikh Gurdwara, by the aforementioned judgment of the High
Court, the said Institution was declared not to be a Sikh Gurdwara. It was instead
held that the Institution was used as a "Dera" of Bhagat Bhagwan and
was, in fact, an "Udasi Faqir institution", and as such, was not a
Sikh Gurdwara. It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.
2.
One
Hamir Singh and 57 others, residents of Village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla,
District Sangrur, Punjab, filed an application to the Punjab Government under
Section 7 of the Act for a declaration that an institution allegedly known as
"Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan", being a Sikh Gurdwara. It
was alleged that the said Institution owned 389 bighas and 10 biswas of land,
which was situated in villages Ladda and Dhuri and that some of the said lands
were covered by the buildings. On the basis of this application, a notification
No. 557-G.P.-61-H.G. dated 9.6.1961 was published in the Government Gazette by
the Punjab Government in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act, and the notice of
the same was also served on one Mahant Mangal Dass on 6.7.1961. This Mahant
Mangal Dass was a Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass, who was claimed to be a
hereditary office- holder. He moved a petition dated 25.2.1963 under Section 8
of the Act before the State Government of Punjab, claiming that the Institution
was "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" and was being wrongly described as
"Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" in the aforementioned
application by Hamir Singh and 57 others. It was pointed out that the said
"Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" was located at Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil
Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab. It was asserted that it was not a Sikh
Gurdwara as claimed in the application, but was an "Udasi Faqir
institution". It was further claimed by Mahant Mangal Dass that after the
death of his Guru 3 Mahant Bishan Dass, he being the Chela, was appointed as
Mahant of this Dera in accordance with the Udasi rites and, therefore, in
charge of the Dera for the last 42 years and further that he was managing the
Institution till that date. It was further alleged that out of the lands
described in the original application, land admeasuring 32 bighas and 12 biswas
comprised in Khasra Khewat No. 303/496 and 497 as detailed in Jamabandi for the
year 1958-59, situated at Village Ladda and the house located at Dhuri town,
was his personal property and did not belong to the "Dera Bhagat
Bhagwan". It was also pointed out that the petitioner Hamir Singh & 57
others were mostly fictitious persons and had moved the application with
ulterior motives and, therefore, the notification issued under Section 7(3) of
the Act by the State Government, was illegal and void. The State Government in
turn, forwarded this application to the Tribunal for its adjudication under
Section 14 of the Act.
3.
The
Tribunal served notice of the petition, bearing No. 164 of 1963 to SGPC and the
other respondents in terms of the provisions under Section 15 of the Act. Very
significantly, Hamir Singh and 57 other respondents, who had moved the original
application, never turned up to support the application or oppose the claim of
Mahant Mangal Dass, Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass. The litigation was, therefore,
carried on only at the instance of SGPC, who claimed the said Institution to be
a Sikh Gurdwara. A written statement dated 29.7.1963 was filed by the SGPC and
it was claimed that the said Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, as it was
established for the use of Sikhs, and was used as a place of public worship by
Sikhs all along in 4 terms of the provisions of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act.
It was additionally claimed by way of amendment that the Institution was
established in the memory of Sikh Guru Bhagat Bhagwan. It was further claimed
by way of subsequent amendment that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara because
of the traditional visits of the first and sixth Gurus to the Institution, so
that the Institution came within the purview of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act.
The last amendment was dated 1.6.1964. On 3.6.1964, Mahant Mangal Dass also
moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition
under Section 8 of the Act, to the effect that he was a hereditary
office-holder. However, by its order dated 4.8.1964, this application of
amendment was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal struck two Issues:
"(i) Whether the
petition is a hereditary office-holder? (ii) Whether the institution is a Sikh
Gurdwara under Clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section 16(2) of the Act?"
The Tribunal treated
Issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and held vide order dated 9.3.1965, that the
petitioner was a hereditary office-holder, there being sufficient oral evidence
to support the same.
4.
Mahant
Prem Dass in his capacity as a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass had filed a Writ
Petition, being Writ Petition No. 367 of 1966 before the High Court, for
quashing the notification dated 9.6.1961. However, that Writ petition was not
pressed and was disposed of by the order dated 17.8.1971. It was conceded that
the Petition was covered by the Full 5 State of Punjab reported in II L.R.
1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499. It was pointed out to the Court that an
appeal against the said judgment was still pending in the Supreme Court and a
clear statement was made that the counsel was not conceding regarding correctness
of the Full Bench Judgment. However, since the High Court felt bound by the
said Judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
5.
The
Tribunal, thereafter proceeded with the trial in which the only issue was as to
whether the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara under Clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of
Section 16(2) of the Act.
6.
Regarding
this Issue, the SGPC conceded that Section 16(2)(ii) was not attracted, and
that claim was not pressed by the SGPC. The SGPC, however, persuaded its case
under Section 16(2)(iii) & (iv) of the Act. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the term "Dera" and "Gurdwara" were
interchangeable terms and were used as such. The Tribunal further held in its
order dated 10.10.1973 that the existence of Mahant and that Mahant was Udasi,
was immaterial. The Tribunal, ultimately held that the Institution was a Sikh
Gurdwara, considering its history, to the effect that Bhagat Bhagwan, in whose
name the Institution stood, though was initially a Sanyasi, but had become a
Sikh after meeting the seventh Guru, Guru Har Rai and continued to live as a
Sikh Missionary preaching Sikh religion.
The Tribunal,
therefore, came to the conclusion that since Bhagat Bhagwan himself was a Sikh,
the Institution which was established in his 6 memory, would remain a Sikh
Institution, even if some of the Mahants deviated from Master's path and
described themselves as Udasis. It was, therefore, held that the Institution
fell within the ambit of Section 16(2)(IV) of the Act, and as such, was a Sikh
Gurdwara. The objection petition filed under Section 8 by Mahant Mangal Dass
was, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment of the Tribunal was not unanimous,
inasmuch as one of the three Members of the Tribunal Shri A.L. Bahri had
differed with the conclusions drawn by the majority and held that it was not
proved that the Institution was ever used as the public place of worship of
Sikhs or even at the time of issuing of notification in the year 1961. It was
further held that the objection petitioner had successfully proved that the institution
was established by Shri Surat Ram and that the Muafi was also granted in the
name of Shri Surat Ram and since times immemorial, the Institution had been
under the management of Udasi Mahants, which had been so described in several
documents. It was also held by Shri Bahri that the succession to the Office of
Mahant had been from Guru to Chela and idol of Baba Siri Chand, Ball of Ashes
and Smadhs were the objects, which were being worshipped in the Institution.
The Learned Member also further held that the mere fact that `Guru Granth
Sahib' was kept or recited in the Institution, would not make it a Sikh
Gurdwara.
7.
A
First Appeal No. 45 of 1974 came to be filed before the High Court by Mahant
Prem Dass, who was a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass and had succeeded him after
his death. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the Appeal and held
that Mahant Mangal Dass had never claimed 7 to be "hereditary
office-holder" nor was there any averment regarding his being a
"hereditary office-holder", and since the respondent Mahant Mangal
Dass has failed to prove himself as "hereditary office-holder" and
had also failed to state about the custom of inheritance, the petition under
Section 8 itself, was not competent. It must be stated here that the High Court
did not go into the merits of the matter.
8.
A
Special Leave Petition was preferred before this Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who
had succeeded Mahant Mangal Dass. This Court by its order dated 8.12.1994
allowed the Civil Appeal and the matter was remanded to the High Court to
dispose of original First Appeal No. 45 of 1974 on merits and in accordance
with law. This order of this Court is extremely important and we would refer to
the same in the subsequent part of this judgment. After the matter came back to
the High Court, the same was dealt with in details by the High Court, and
ultimately, the High Court allowed that appeal by the impugned judgment dated
2.7.2001. It was held by the High Court that the respondent Mahant was a
hereditary office- holder. On merits, and on reconsideration of documentary and
oral evidence, the High Court further came to the conclusion that the
Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but was a Udasi Dera, called "Dera
Bhagat Bhagwan". It is this judgment, which has fallen for consideration
before us, now.
9.
Shri
Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
firstly, contended that during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the
High Court, the SGPC had taken an objection that the 8 Objection Petition
filed by Mahant Mangal Dass under Section 8 was not maintainable, since in that
Petition, Mahant Mangal Dass had not alleged that he was a hereditary office
holder of the Institution in question. The Learned Senior Counsel pointed out
that while the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Mahant Mangal Dass had
applied for amendment of his Objection Petition under Section 8 and had tried
to introduce following:- "The petitioner is a hereditary office-holder.
The rule of succession in this Dera is that the Chela succeeds the Guru after
his death. The custom of the Dera from the beginning is that the Guru has a
right to nominate his successor out of the Chela and in the absence of such
nomination, the Chela succeeds with the approval of the Bhekh."
It is further pointed
out by the Learned Senior Counsel that when this application was moved before
the Tribunal, the Tribunal felt that there was no need to amend the Petition,
since the averments already made in the Objection Petition clearly indicated that
Mahant Mangal Dass was claiming to be a hereditary office-holder and the mere
absence of the specific expression in the averment, did not matter. However,
when the matter came for the first time before the High Court, the objection
was taken by the appellant - SGPC that the Petition under Section 8 was not
competent on account of absence of specific averment by Mahant Mangal Dass that
he was a hereditary office-holder. The High Court had also dismissed the
appeal, holding that in the absence of specific averment, Mahant Mangal Dass
had not locus-standi to file an Objection Petition under Section 8 of the Act.
The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, invited out attention to the order of
this Court, whereby, the appeal filed by Mahant Mangal Dass was 9 allowed. The
Learned Senior Counsel then pointed out at the specific observations made by
this Court to the following effect:- "If the High Court felt that the
Tribunal was not right in refusing the amendment, the proper course was to
allow the amendment and thereby, cure the defect and then decide the matter on
merits, since the evidence was already before it.
We, therefore, set
aside the order of the High Court by allowing this appeal and remit the matter
to the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits."
The Learned Senior
Counsel further pointed out that when the matter went back to the High Court
and High Court decided the matter, disagreeing with the majority view of the
Tribunal by holding that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, the High Court,
however, did not consider the question of amendment, which was refused by the
Tribunal nor the issue regarding Mahant Mangal Dass being hereditary office-
holder, was ever decided. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, if this
Court had remanded the matter to High Court for disposal of appeal on merits,
the High Court was, therefore, bound to decide the issue initially framed by
the Tribunal regarding the hereditary office-holder's status of Mahant Mangal
Dass. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the order of this Court could
not be treated to mean that the order of the Tribunal on that issue, was to be
treated as final. It was pointed out that SGPC had specifically challenged the
finding in the first round before the High Court and High court had allowed
that objection and had dismissed the petition under Section 8 holding that
there was no specific averment regarding the petitioner being a hereditary
office-holder. The Learned Senior Counsel, 10 therefore, contended very
strenuously that even if this Court had allowed the Special Leave Petition
against the order of the High Court and had directed the High Court to decide
the appeal on merits, the High Court had to decide both the issues. According
to the Learned Senior Counsel, this Court had left open the issue whether
Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office-holder. According to the Learned
Senior Counsel, that issue, therefore, remained undecided and leaving that
issue undecided, the High Court clearly had breached the remand order of this Court.
The Learned Senior Counsel further argued that under Section 8 of the Act, the
Objection Petition could be filed only and only if Mahant Mangal Dass was a
hereditary office-holder and, therefore, the question of his status went to the
very root of the matter. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that since the High
Court has not given any finding on that issue, the matter needs a remand.
10.
The
Learned Senior Counsel further argued that Mahant Mangal Dass had not only
filed the Objection Petition under Section 8, but had also filed a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
validity of the notification and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the
High Court by a speaking order and after notice to the parties. The Learned
Senior Counsel, therefore, argued that if the Writ Petition was dismissed after
notice to the parties by a speaking order, hence the order dated 17.8.1971
passed by the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition operate as Res-Judicata
and, therefore, the matter could not have been allowed to proceed further.
11.
The
Learned Senior Counsel then argued that though Mahant Mangal Dass had claimed
to be hereditary office-holder on the basis of a custom, since there was no
specific issue framed on the existence of the custom, the SGPC was gravely
prejudiced, inasmuch as, it could not lead the evidence on the issue.
12.
As
regards the second issue regarding the status of the Institution as a Gurdwara,
the Learned Senior Counsel extensively criticized the appreciation by the High
Court of the documentary, as well as the oral evidence. He pointed out that the
original donee Suram Ram was not mentioned as an Udasi Faqir in Exhibits P-1 to
P-7 and R-10 to R-13 and, therefore, those documents could not be relied upon
to hold that he was an Udasi Faqir. Similarly, the Learned Senior Counsel
suggested that those who succeeded Surat Ram, could not be held to be Udasi
Sadhus. Exhibit P-2, P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7 were extensively dealt with by the
Learned Senior Counsel to show that these documents were self-serving
documents, made during the lifetime of Mahant Mangal Dass and in none of them,
the Sadhus mentioned in Exhibit P-5 Pedigree-table, were described as Udasis.
The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that that the appreciation of
evidence by the High Court of the documentary evidence, was perverse. The
Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that mere description of a person as a
Chela could not lead to the conclusion that he succeeded his predecessor on
account of his being a Chela.
13.
Inviting
our attention to the oral evidence, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that the
evidence led on behalf of Mahant Mangal Dass PW-1, Kishan Singh PW-2, Mokand
Singh PW-3, Kehar Singh PW-4 and Karam Parkash PW-5 was extremely suspicious
and could not be relied upon by the High Court. Various so-called admissions
and statements in the witness were relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel to
hold that the evidence could not have been relied upon. The Learned Senior
Counsel pointed out that the use of the word "Dera" for the
Institution was also of no use to the Mahant, as the word "Dera" was
synonymous with the word "Gurdwara". He further pointed out that the
holy book `Guru Granth Sahib' was always kept open in the Institution, the land
for which was donated by Maharaja Ala Singh. The Learned Senior Counsel further
argued that Mahant Bishan Dass, in his application for being appointed as the
Mahant of the Dera, had described himself as "Bihangam Sadh" and not
"Udasi Sadh" and had assured the authorities that `Guru Granth Sahib'
was being recited in the Dera as before. The Learned Senior Counsel further
suggested that in his statement, Mahant Bishan Dass had never suggested that
there were any other objects of worship in the Dera besides `Guru Granth Sahib'.
It was further commented that there was no succession from Guru to Chela in
this Institution and in fact, while recommending the appointment of Chela
Bhagat Ram, it was emphasized that he knew "Gurumukhi" very well and
was well versed in performing the `path' (recitation) of Guru Granth Sahib.
According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the High Court missed all these facts.
The Learned Senior 13 Counsel also urged that the documents did not show any
reference to any other object of worship like Gola Sahib, Smadhs and pictorial
images of Baba Siri Chand, and it clearly emerged from the documents that the
`Guru Granth Sahib' was the only object of worship there. He pointed out that
even the evidence of Mahant Mangal Dass was silent on there being a Smadhs,
Gola Sahib or pictorial images. Similar comments were made in respect of the
evidence led on behalf of Mahant Mangal Dass in support of the objection. The
Learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the oral evidence led on behalf of
SGPC and more particularly, on RW-8 Jang Singh, RW-9 Sadhu Singh, RW-10 Sarwan
Singh, who were the local people and also the persons in authority and who had
insisted that the only object of worship in the Institution was `Guru Granth
Sahib' and that the Sikh Festivals Puranmashi and Kartik were celebrated there.
Reference were also made to evidence of RW-11 Balwant Singh, RW-12 Chota Singh,
RW-13 Inder Singh, as also RW-14 Nachhatar Singh, who all asserted about the
Sikhs visiting the Gurdwara and celebrating the Sikh Festivals. Evidence of
RW-15 Ishar Singh was also relied upon to suggest the celebration of the birth
and death anniversary of the first Guru of Sikhs and Shrads of the first and
the tenth Guru of Sikhs took place in the Institution. It was urged that
despite the unchallenged testimony of the witnesses from the village itself and
the adjoining villages, the High Court had erred in rejecting the evidence, on
the ground that the mere keeping of `Guru Granth Sahib', by itself, would not
make the Institution, a Gurdwara.
The Learned Senior
Counsel further suggested that the High Court had misread the evidence of PW-6
regarding the placement of Smadhis.
14.
Lastly,
arguing on Clause (iv) of Section 16(2), the Learned Senior Counsel referred to
the historical aspect and the six historical works such as:- (i) The Sikh
religion by Max Arthur Mecauliffe (ii) Shri Gurpartap Suraj Granth (iii)
Twarikh Guru Khalsa (iv) Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia (v) Guru Udasis Mat Darpan and
(vi) Mahankosh Heavy reliance is placed on page 288 of the 4th Volume of the
Sikh Religion by Mecauliffe, whereby, a Story appears about Bhagwan Gir.
According to this
Story:- "Bhagwan Gir went to visit the Guru in Kiratpur, who advised him
to proceed to Dehra Baba Nanak and join the Udasi there.
It was suggested that
Baba Siri Chand, the elder son of Guru nanak had established sect of Udasis. It
reveals from the Story that the Mahant at Dera Baba Nanak Mihr Chand was the
great grandson of Baba Nanak, who advised Bhagwan Gir and initiated him into
Sikhism and gave him the name Bhagat Bhagwan. It was this Bhagwan Gir, who then
traveled, but without any success. He came back to Mihr Chand to report his
failure, when he was told by Mihr Chand that he should have received initiation
from Guru Har Rai, who was the real Guru and advised him to go to the Guru and
crave for his blessings. Thus, Bhagat Bhagwan went to Guru Har Rai and started
weeping in repentance. He was then cheerfully pardoned by the Guru and he was
directed to go the Hindustan and reform its people."
15 According to the
Learned Counsel, this Bhagat Bhagwan was an inspiration behind the Institution,
in whose name the Institution was named as "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan".
Similarly, the Learned Counsel also relied on `Gurpartap Suraj Granth', which also
has given the history of Bhagat Bhagwan, originally known as Bhagwan Gir,
Sanyasi. It gives similar history as given in Mecauliffe's book of history. The
Learned Senior Counsel also relied on other text books and pointed out that the
Tribunal had taken note of all these authorities to work in its majority
judgment and had rightly held the Institution to be a Gurdwara. The Learned
Senior Counsel also heavily relied on the evidence of two Sikh historians,
namely, Dr. Ganda Singh RW-16, Shamsher Singh RW-17, as also on the evidence of
Randhir Singh RW-18. The Learned Senior Counsel also commented upon the High
Court, rejecting such weighty oral evidence.
15.
As
against this, Shri Palli, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent, supported the judgment of the High Court and pointed out that
initially, Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue and on appreciation of
evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 9.3.1965 had
unanimously held that the succession to the Gaddi of Mahantship is proved from
Guru to Chela and all the Mahants had been Udasi Sadhus, and SGPC had not
challenged this order, though an appeal is provided under the Act. The Learned
Counsel went on to argue that SGPC possibly realizing the importance of the
decision on Issue No. 1, then moved an application for amendment that the
Institution was also a 16 Sikh Gurdwara under the provisions of Section
16(2)(ii) of the Act, as having been established to commemorate the visit of
the first and sixth Gurus of Sikhs, which claim was given up. SGPC again moved
a second application, seeking amendment to take up the plea tha the Institution
had been established in the memory of Sikh Saint and historical person, namely,
Bhagat Bhagwan and was used for public worship before and at the presentation
of the petition under Section 7 of the Act. The Learned Counsel pointed out
that initially, the SGPC had claimed that the Institution had been established
for use by Sikhs for the purposes of public worship and was used for such
worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petitioner,
however, the SGPC had also to prove its continuous user from the date of its
establishment till the date of in 1936 Privy Council Page 93. According to the
Learned Counsel, the SGPC had miserably failed to prove the same. The Learned
Counsel suggested that the High Court was absolutely right in holding, on the
basis of documentary and oral evidence, that the SGPC had miserably failed to
prove the continuous and present exclusive user by the Sikhs nor had it been
able to prove that this Institution was established in the memory of any Sikh
Saint.
16.
The
Learned Counsel pointed out that as regards the first argument by Shri Jaspal
Singh regarding first issue of hereditary office-holder, the issue stood
concluded by this Court's judgment and it could not now be 17 reopened. The
Learned Counsel also argued that this stand was not argued before the High
Court nor was any application moved by the SGPC before the High Court to that
effect, after the remand made by this Court and, therefore, this issue could
not be gone into now. The Learned Counsel further suggested that in view of the
ruling of this Court in Uttam Committee, Amritsar reported in 1996 (5) SCC 71,
the issue will not now be allowed to reopened.
17.
As
regards the establishment and user of the institution, the Learned Counsel took
us through the documents, to which we have already made reference and urged
that the High Court was correct in relying on the old records, wherein, there
is a clear reference to Mahant Brahm Dass as a Faqir Udasi. The Learned Counsel
pointed out that it was clearly established and rightly so followed by the High
Court that there was a custom of succession from Guru to Chela.
18.
Regarding
oral evidence also, the Learned Counsel heavily relied on the evidence tendered
by objector and assailed the evidence led on behalf of the SGPC. Lastly, the
learned counsel asserted that the Judgment of the High Court dismissing the
writ petition filed by Mangal Dass could not be held as Res Judicata.
19.
The
Division Bench of the High Court, in its well-considered judgment, went on to
record the history of the Marathon litigation, which began right from 1960 by
way of an application filed by Hamir Singh and 57 18 others. After dealing
with the facts in general regarding the history, the High Court noted the basic
two contentions on behalf of the respondent Mahant Prem Dass. These contentions
were:- (i) that the majority decision of the members of the Tribunal that Institution
in question is a Sikh Gurdwara is not only against the weight of evidence
adduced on record, but is based on conjectures drawn by misreading of the
evidence; and (ii) that the conclusion drawn in the majority judgment that both
Bhagat Bhagwan and Baba Surat Ram were Sikh Saints is in conflict with their
other findings recorded in the judgment.
Singh & Others
reported in AIR 1935 Lahore 666, the High Court noted that before an
Institution can be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara, it must be proved:- (i) that
the Institution was established for the use of Sikhs for the purpose of public
worship and was actually so used.
(ii) that it was
being used by the Sikhs for public worship, both before and at the time of
presentation of the petition under Section 16(2)(iii).
The High Court was,
undoubtedly, right in its observations, since sub-Sections (iii) & (iv) has
common factors and that is the establishment of the Institution by Sikhs for
the purpose of worship and its continuous use by Sikhs for public worship. The
High Court also referred to another decision of this Court in Shiromani
Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, wherein, it was held that it must not only be
established that the Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the
purpose of public worship, but further it must be established that it was used
for such worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the
petition. The High Court then commented upon Section 16(2)(iii). The High Court
also noted that the burden to prove necessary requirement was on the person,
who asserts the Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The High Court also further
noted that the original applicants, namely, Hamir singh & 57 Others had not
entered the Witness Box, nor had they produced any evidence, oral or documentary.
20.
The
High Court then went on to discuss, firstly, the documentary evidence regarding
Muafi and the proceedings in respect of Muafi contended in Revenue Office
Volume-VII of the year 1932 B.K. (1875 A.D.), wherein, Surat Ram was shown as a
grantee, while Maharaja Sahbi Ala Singh is recorded as grantor. The total land
donated to the Institution mentioned is 464 Bighas 16 Biswas and that the 44
Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which was found in excess of the original grant,
was recommended 20 to be forfeited while the rest of the land measuring 420
Bighas 16 Biswas was suggested to be continued with "Dera" in
question for its upkeep. The order passed by Dewan in this behalf was also
referred to, along with the order of Wazir Sahib and the order of Hazoor Anwar.
The other documents referred to were the Jamabandi (Exhibit P-2) for the year
1962- 63 B.K. (1905-06 A.D.) of Village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District
Sangrur, wherein, under the Column of ownership, it was noted "Dera Bhagat
Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam (under the management of) Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant Sadh
Udasian". Exhibit P-4, which was a pedigree- table, was also referred to
by the High Court along with Exhibit P-5, which is a copy of Revenue Inquiry
File. Exhibit P-5 mentions the names of Muafidars, who had been in possession
from the date of grant of Muafi.
The names read thus:-
(i) Surat Ram (ii) Bhola Ram (iii) Sham Dass (iv) Narain Dass (v) Brahm Dass
(vi) Brahm Basant (vii) Brahm Sarup (viii) Bishan Dass This document Exhibit
P-5 is of date 23.6.1906 A.D. The High Court also noted Exhibit P-3, which was
a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in 21 favour of Mahant Mangal Dass Chela
Bishan Dass on the death of Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Sarup. It was noted that
this mutation was sanctioned on 28.6.1919 A.D. This document clearly showed
that for the first time, Mahant Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass took over the
management of Institution, and it was he, who had find the objection under
Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the High Court noted that he was the 9th Mahant in
the order of succession. After his death, he was represented by his Chela
Mahant Prem Dass. It was further noted from Exhibit P-1 dated 13.1.1909 that it
was during the regime of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh that Muafi was granted in
favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan and at that time, the "Dera" was under
the management of Mahant Bishan Dass. The High Court also referred to the
document Exhibit R-11, which is a Statement of Mahant Bishan Dass, wherein, it
was maintained that his Guru had enjoyed the Muafi of the land in terms of the
order dated 23.6.1906 of the Commissioner and that his Guru had died and had
left behind two Chelas, namely, himself and one other called Malook Dass, who
was blind. He had also further undertaken to remain of a good character and
carry on the conditions of the Muafi. It was in this Statement that the
existence of Guru Granth Sahib, remaining open in the Dera, was mentioned. It
was pointed out in the Statement further that the "Dera" was of
celibate Sadhus. The High Court also further referred to Exhibits R-12 and
R-13, which were the Statements of some connected persons, wherein, it was
wouchsafed that the Muafi land situated in Village Ladda belonged to Mausooma
Dharmshala Sadhuans, and which was under the management of 22 deceased Brahm
Sarup. Exhibit P-6 was also referred to, which related to the substitution of
the new entry, being a mutation relating to the rights of Shamlat Deh Hasad
Rasad Khewat/Khewna Mazkoor. The mutation was in favour of Chela Bishan Dass. Exhibit
P-7 another pedigree-table, which substantiated the case of the objections. The
other document, which was referred to by the High Court, was Exhibit P-8, which
was the mutation in respect of the land gifted by Ralla Jat in favour of Dera
Bhagat Bhagwan.
Exhibit R-1 was also
referred to, being Statement of Mahant Mangal Dass, who considered Amar Dass
Chela Bhagat Ram to be fit person for the management of Dera Ladda. Exhibit
R-14, which was referred to later on was also a pedigree-table, mentioning the
name of Brahm Sarup followed by Bishan Dass Chela Mangal Dass. It was also
noted by the High Court at that juncture that the Tribunal had not considered
the documents R-4 to R-9. The High Court, therefore, deduced that the original
Muafi was made to Surat Ram and secondly, the Muafi was given to Surat Ram in
his personal capacity and it continued to remain in possession of his successor
Chelas undisturbed without changing the character of Muafi and it is only for
that reason, that the rights of Brahm Dass Faqir, who continued in possession
of the Dera and the land, were not interfered with. Thirdly, the High Court
came to the conclusion that the Institution, throughout was described in
Exhibit R-10 as Dera, which was established by Baby Surat Ram after the grant
of Muafi in his favour. The High Court also noted that it was after the
settlement in the year 1962 B.K. that the Dera was described as Dera Bhagat
Bhagwan.
21.
The
High Court did note the arguments on behalf of the SGPC that there was a reference
to the Sawara Guru Granth Sahib remaining open in this Dera. Relying again on
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak 1984 SC 1059 (cited supra), the High Court held
that the Tribunal had ignored the other evidence like the Statement of Mahant
Mangal Dass made as Exhibit R-1 and had wrongly held that that factor alone
could be held decisive in holding that the Institution was a Gurdwara. The High
Court also noted that the documents referred to like Exhibit R-11, were very
old documents, beginning from 1907 and in other documents like P-15 to P-17,
the land was recorded as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan under the management of Mahant
Bishan Dass. It was noted by the High Court that it is totally inconceivable
that the authorities would have allowed to described it as a "Dera",
if actually it was a Sikh Gurdwara. The High Court also went on to consider
Jamabandi Exhibit P-18 for the year 1957-58 before coming to this conclusion.
The High Court also held on the basis of Exhibits P-5, P-7 and P-14 that the
succession was from Guru to Chela.
Lastly, the High
Court referred to the documents Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4 to P-7 and R-10 to
R-18 to establish that not only was original donee Surat Ram an Udasi Faqir,
but, the subsequent Chelas also, who followed him and who were Mahants of the
Dera in question, were Udasi Sadhus.
22.
The
High Court has considered the mutation record right upto 1976 and ultimately
came to the conclusion that on the basis of the documentary evidence, it was
clear that the Institution was a Dera of Udasi Mahants and was being
consistently recorded as such. The High Court also refuted an argument that it
was a common feature in many Sikh Gurdwaras that Mahant of Udasi Sect were
managing the same as held in Bishan Dass Fauza Singh reported in AIR 1937 Lahore
826. However, the High Court held that for that reason, the Institution could
not be held a Sikh Gurdwara.
The second argument
that there was a persecution of Sikhs by the Mohammdean Rulers and, therefore,
the Udasi Mahants were managing the Sikh Gurdwaras, was also rejected by the
High Court, being against the weight of the evidence on record. The High Court
ultimately held in respect of the documentary evidence that the cumulative
effect of the documentary evidence, left no manner of doubt that the Institution
was an Udasi Institution.
23.
We
must, at this juncture, refer to the findings of the High Court as regards the
oral evidence led by the parties, as the major portion of the High Court's
judgment is devoted to the appreciation of the oral evidence.
We have already
referred to the comments made by the Shri Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the Appellant, as also Shri P.K. Palli, Learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
We must appreciate
that the High Court has gone into intricate details of the evidence. Commenting
on the evidence of PW-1 Mahant Mangal Dass, the High Court noted that his
claim, i.e., `Baba Surat Ram was the original founder of the Dera and after
Surat Ram, the succession had always been from Guru to Chela', has gone
unchallenged. He had also asserted that he was nominated to the Gaddi one week
before the death of Mahant Bishan Dass by the assembly of Udasi Bhekh and on
the 7th day after the death of Mahant Bishan Dass, a turban was presented to
him in token of installation by the Bhekh in the presence of village community.
It must be noted that he remained a Mahant for good long 46 years. The
tradition of appointing a Chela was also deposed to by PW-2 Kishan Singh, PW-3
Mokand Singh, PW-4 Kehar Singh, as also PW-5 Karan Parkash.
As if this was not
sufficient, Pritam Singh, who was examined as RW-1 on behalf of the SGPC, also
supported the stand of the petitioner that Dera was of Udasi fraternity and the
succession was from Guru to Chela. The High Court has appreciated the evidence
of RW-2 Bahal Singh, RW-3 Hamir Singh and RW-5 Balwant Singh and ultimately
recorded a finding that the Institution was an Udasi Dera and the succession to
this Institution was from Guru to Chela.
24.
Commenting
on the evidence of PW-6 Nachhattar Gir Chela Sarasti Gir and PW-7 Chhota Singh,
the High Court noted that there were Smadhs, Gola Sahib and Idol of Baba Siri
Chand as objects of worship in the Dera and there used to be Gita Parkash and
recitation of other books in the Dera. At the same time, there was no regular
Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib, though it was kept in the Dera. The assertion by
PW-7 Chhota 26 Singh was also noted that there were 10 to 11 Smadhs in the
Dera and that there used to be worships of Idols and Ashes in the Institution.
This witness has also stated that Ashes in the form of Dhooni were collected at
one place in that Dera. Similarly, PW-8 Mohinder Singh had testified that Dera
of Bhagat Bhagwan was of Udasi Sadhus and that there was idol of Bhagat
Bhagwan, Gola Sahib and Smadhs, which were being worshiped in that Institution.
The High Court noted that this claim of PW-8 Mohinder Singh remained
unchallenged. The High Court also commented upon the evidence of PW-9 Hira
Singh, as also the evidence of PW-10 Lekh Ram, who were Brahmin by Caste. They
both had deposed about bowl of Ashes in front of the Idol on a table. The High
Court has also spoken about Smadhs located across the Phirney and also noted
that Guru Granth Sahib was recited in the Institution occasionally. PW-9 Hira
Singh had also asserted that there was no Nishan Sahib (Flag) in the
Institution. PW-10 Lekh Ram had specifically asserted, as noted by the High
Court, that the Institution was not meant for display of Guru Granth Sahib, and
PW-11 Mahant Sewa Ram Dass, who was the Mahant of Dera Jaswanda of Udasi
Samprada of Bhagat Bhagwan, claimed that he had been visiting the Dera for last
20 years and he saw the idol of Baba Siri Chand and also further asserted that
Gola Sahib and Smadhs were being worshiped in that Dera.
He also asserted that
five other Smadhs were also located under one roof.
He had also never
seen Nishan Sahib (Flag) in the Dera nor he had ever seen Guru Granth Sahib,
being ever worshiped in that Dera. Evidence of PW-12 Bhagat Ram was also
commented upon, which was to the same effect regarding 5-6 Smadhs, being there
under one roof and there being no Nishan Sahib (Flag) in the said Institution.
Similarly, evidence of PW-13 Kartar Singh, who was a Draftsman, was also
referred to, who asserted that there was one Smadh in Site Plan (Exhibit
P.13-A) in respect of a separate building, which was only one feet away from
the Dera. The witnesses, who were examined by the respondent, were then
referred to by the High Court, who were RW-8 to RW-15, being RW-8 Jang Singh,
RW-9 Sadhu Singh, RW-10 Sarwan Singh, RW-11 Balwant Singh, RW-12 Chhota Singh,
RW-13 Inder Singh, RW-14 Nachhattar Singh, and RW-15 Ishar Singh. One of these
witnesses, PW-9 had never gone inside the Institution and could not give the
details of the number of rooms. There was obvious contradiction in the
evidences of RW-10 Sarwan Singh and RW-11 Balwant Singh as regards the `Parkash
Asthan'. Significantly, PW- 11 admitted the existence of Smadhs. One of the
witnesses, RW-13 Inder Singh admitted in the cross-examination that he had
visited the Institution- in-dispute only once and that the Parkash of Holi Guru
Granth Sahib was performed in a room located on the first floor, which was the
case of nobody. His evidence was in direct contradiction with the evidence of
RW- 14 Nachhattar Singh. The High Court then commented on the findings by the
Tribunal by referring to those findings and ultimately, came to the conclusion
that the majority members of the Tribunal had misdirected themselves while
appreciating the oral evidence on record and had totally ignored the relevant
evidence while arriving at conclusion that Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara
within the purview of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. In 28 support of this,
the High Court went on to record its reasons, whereby, the High Court held that
the evidence of the respondent, itself suggested that the Institution was an
Udasi Dera and the succession to the Institution was from Guru to Chela.
Regarding the Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib, the High Court noted that it was
not a regular feature and it was only occasionally being done, but that by
itself, would not establish that it was a Sikh Gurdwara. Commenting upon the
evidence of RW-8 to RW-15, the High Court found that their versions could not
be relied upon due to inter-se contradictions in their versions regarding the
placement of Guru Granth Sahib. The High Court found that they have given their
own versions, which are contradictory to each other. The High Court also found
that some of the claims that there was an Idol of Baba Siri Chand, Gola Sahib
and Smadhs in the Dera and they were being worshiped in the Dera, have gone
unchallenged and, therefore, those claims deserved acceptance.
Gurdwara Prabhandhak
Committee reported in AIR 1984 SC 858, the distinctive features of the Sikh
Gurdwaras were described. They are that there is no idol worshiped in a
Gurdwara and the central object of worship is Guru Granth Sahib. The pattern of
worship is reading of the holy hymns followed by their explanation by some
learned man and then singing of some passages from the holy Granth, the first
being Katha and the second being Kirtan. The High Court noted the second
feature to be the congregational worship such as Japji, Jaap, Rehras, Kirtan
Sohila Sangat and that is normally done daily. The third feature of the
Gurdwara is the Nishan Sahib (a yellow Flag of Sikhism flying from it), which
serve as a symbol of Sikh persons. This Nishan Sahib enables travellers,
whether they are Sikhs or not, to know that the hospitality is available at
this place.
There has to be a
kitchen, where food can be prepared (Langar).
Sometimes, Gurdwara
could also be a clinic. However, its pivotal point is the place of worship and
the main room would be the one in which Guru Granth Sahib is installed and
where community gathers for diwan.
25.
Therefore,
in Para 14 in the said judgment, as noted by the High Court, this Court held
that the sine-qua-non for an institution being a Sikh Gurdwara is that there
should be established Guru Granth Sahib and the worship of the same by the
congregation, as also the Nishan Sahib. The High Court, therefore, noted that
the claim of the SGPC could not be accepted on account of the four facts, they
being:- (a) There are Smadhs on the premises of the Institution.
(b) There are idols
and photos of Hindu deities and also of Baba Siri Chand.
(c) Bhai Bhathu was
an Udasi Saint.
(d) Succession was
from Guru to Chela. It was on this account that the High Court ultimately
recorded a finding that the respondent could not prove their case under Section
16(2) (iii) to the effect that the Institution in question was established for
the use 30 of Sikhs for the purpose of worship and was used by the Sikhs for
public worship, both before and at the time of presentation of the petition.
26.
Regarding
the claim under Section 16(2)(iv), the High Court correctly noted that it was
essential to prove that the Institution was established in the memory of Sikh
martyr, Saint or historical person and further that the said Institution was
used for public worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presenting the
petition under Sub-Section (ii) of Section 7(1) of the Act.
The High Court had
already held that it was not proved that the Institution was used for public
worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presenting the petition. In that
view, the mere fact that the Institution was established in the memory of a
Sikh martyr or a Saint, would not by itself, be enough to answer the issue
under Section 16(2)(iv) in favour of the appellant.
However, the High
Court did not stop at that and discussed the historical aspect in great
details. Insofar as that part is concerned, the High Court noted that it was a
common case that this Institution was established in memory of Bhagat Bhagwan.
The High Court, therefore, posed itself a question as to whether Bhagat Bhagwan
was a Sikh Saint or an Udasi Saint. The High Court, therefore, went into the
historical aspect, as was Das & Anr. (cited supra). The High Court made a
reference to Page 288, Volume-IV of the book titled "The Sikh
Religion" by Max Arthur Macauliffe and noted the story, which we had
already referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. According to the story
Bhagat Bhagwan met Mahant Mehar Chand at Dera Baba Nanak and got "Satnam
Mantra" and Udasi Dress from him, but since he was unsuccessful in his
mission, he returned to Baba Mehar Chand, who directed him to the 7th Guru, and
after meeting the 7th Guru, he started preaching Sikh religion. The High Court
also made a reference to the history given by the minority member of the
Tribunal from a book known as "Udasi Sikhan di Vithya", published in
1959, and more particularly, Pages 185-216, as also another Book called
"Mahima Parkash",written by Baba Sarup Dass Bhalla. It is suggested
that the history given was almost the same, as given in the book "Suraj
Parkash".
The genealogical
table of the family of Bhagat Bhagwan, as it appeared in "Udasi Sikhan di
Vithya", was also referred to and a reference was also made to the book
"Udasi Mat Darpan", compiled in the year 1953 by Baba Brhma Nand
Udasi. A reference was made to Pages 91-98, giving the description of Bhagwan
Gir. A story was then quoted as to how Bhagwan Gir was deeply impressed by
miracle shown by Dharam Chand Ji and how he could see the Goddess `Hinglaj' and
that he decided to change his name and became a Chela of Dharam Chand Ji. The
minority member found, as was noted by the High Court, that the pedigree table
in "Udasi Sikhan di Vithya" did not tally with the pedigree table
mentioned in the Revenue Record, which carry the presumption of correctness
under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act. The minority member also noted that
the book "Udasi Sikhan di Vithya" was published by SGPC in 1959 A.D.
It was also noted by the minority Member that even in this Book, Bhagat Bhagwan
was described as Udasi Sadhu. Secondly, the minority Member 32 of the Tribunal
found that the detailed account relating to Bhagat Bhagwan in the books
"Sikh Religion", published and compiled in 1883, "Suraj
Parkash" and "Mahima Parkash", was similar, however, it was not
indicated anywhere that he had become Sikh or a disciple of the 7th Guru. The
minority Member had also found that in "Mahima Parkash" and
"Suraj Parkash", there was nothing to suggest that Bhagat Bhagwan
preached Sikhism. It was also found from the book "Guru Tirath
Sangrahey" compiled in 1883, that there was no reference to any Bakhshish,
being given to Bhagwan Gir by Guru Har Rai Ji. The Learned minority Member also
found that though, according to "Udasi Mat Darpan", Bhagat Bhagwan
became a Chela of Baba Siri Chand, it might be not a correct history, as Baba
Siri Chand had already expired before 1644 A.D., when Guru Har Raj Ji got the
Gaddi. However, the Learned Member deduced that from that alone, it could not
be said that Bhagat Bhagwan became Sikh by meeting Guru Har Rai Ji. Lastly, the
Learned Member held that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had formed a separate
Udasi Sect, which suggests that Bhagat Bhagwan did not preach Sikhism. The
minority Member then Dr. Mohan Singh and Others reported in AIR 1939 Lahore
239, wherein, it was held that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had claimed him
to be Udasi, as far back as in the year 1938. The High Court accepted these
findings of the minority Member of the Tribunal.
27.
The
High Court, then referred to the approach of the majority Members of the
Tribunal, which was based on the Books "Siri Guru Panth Parkash" and
"Twarikh Guru Khalsa". The High Court had given the whole story,
which took place in 1707 B.K., according to which Bhagat Gir Gusain, Mahant of
Bodh Gaya, while going for Darshan of Jawalamukhi alongwith his followers and
other Mahants, heard about the fame of the Guru and met him. He saw Guru Ji as
an exact figure of Vishnu Ji and fell at the feet of Guru Ji and prayed for
being accepted as Sikh. A further reference was also made to the story that
from that very moment, Bhagat Gir became to be known by the name of Bhagat
Bhagwan and his companions all became Sadhus of Guru Ghar and that they had 360
Deras in Patna District and the main seat of Bhagat Bhagwan was in Danapur.
Bhagat Bhagwan did
not go to Jawalamukhi and then after meeting Bedi Mehar Chand, went back to his
own country-side. The High Court, then quoted the finding by the majority
Member, in which reference was made to "Mahan Kosh", wherein, it was
mentioned that Baba Dharam Chand, the grandson of Baba Guru Nanak was borne in
1523 A.D. and died in 1618 A.D. The finding also makes a reference to Page 225
of the Book "Darpan" by Pandit Brahma Nand and goes on to hold in the
following fashion:- "In other words, Bhagat Bhagwan and other members of
his contingent all became converts to Sikh religion and, thereafter acted as
preachers and missionaries of their new faith."
28.
A
reference is then made by the High Court to the finding by the majority members
of the Tribunal, based on Sixth Bakhshishes mentioned by the author of
"Guru Udasin Mat Darpan" stated at pages 521-524, where, a claim was
made that the Bakhshishes were of the Udasi order.
The Division Bench
held that the conclusion was drawn despite the fact that no reference was made
to the writers, who had provided the basis for the note. A reference was then
made to the attempt made by the majority members of the Tribunal to explain the
observations recorded to the effect:- "these Bakhshishes were conferred
more or less indiscriminately".
Lastly, the High
Court recorded a finding that the conclusion drawn by the majority members of
the Tribunal that Bhagat Bhagwan after receiving blessings from Sixth Guru,
became a Sikh historical person and Sikh Saint, was based on misreading of
historical data extracted from the books and cases.
29.
Thereafter,
the High Court proceeded to consider a few cases like Lahore 161 and held on
the basis of the observations made therein that the conferment of the
Bakhshishes was not given any prominence to arrive at a conclusion as to
whether the Institution was a Gurdwar established for the use of Sikhs. It was
further noted that in this case, the Dera of Prithi Sahib was not a Sikh
Gurdwara. The High Court, then considered the 35 Lahore 273 and held that it
had no similarity with the facts of the present reported in AIR 1939 Lahore 239
was also considered with reference to the observations made in that case and
also the Privy Council decision in Council Page 93, and came to the conclusion
that on the basis of what had been held in these cases, the present Institution
was an Udasi Institution and Sikhs had nothing to do with it. The High Court
further commented:- "The significance of the above judgment cannot be
ignored because it was judicially accepted as far back as in 1939 that the
stand of the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan that he was an Udasi was
correct."
Ultimately, the High
Court came to the conclusion:- "Under the circumstances, we have no
hesitation to hold that the historical date and above judicial pronouncement
negate the conclusions arrived at by the majority members of the
Tribunal."
The High Court then
again went on to consider the oral evidence led on behalf of the SGPC and that
of RW-16 Dr. Ganda Singh, RW-17 Shamsher Singh and RW-18 Randhir Singh, who
were claimed to be the experts in the Sikh history. The claim of RW-16 Dr.
Ganda Singh was that Baba Siri Chand was the founder of Udasi Bhekh and Baba
Gurditta was the only Chela of Baba Siri Chand, who was the eldest son of Guru
Hargobind. The witness stated that Baba Guruditta had four Chelas, 36 namely,
Baba Phul, Baba Almast, Baba Gobind and Baba Hasna and that there were four
Dhunas known after these Chelas. According to him, Baba Almast had established
a Dera in Nainital District called as Nanak Matta, as Guru Nanak had visited
that place, so also other Chelas of Baba Guruditta had established Deras in
other Districts. Of course, the witness could not give the details of those
other three Deras. The witness relied on the books, i.e., Glossory of Castes
and Tribes Vol. III pages 479-80, Macauliffe's Sikh Religion Vol. IV Pages
288-89, Gurpartap by Bhai Vir Singh Vol. IX Pages 3574-79, Gurpartap Vol. V
Page 1331 and Bhai Randhir Singh's work known as "Udasi Sikhan Di
Vithia", published by SGPC. However, the High Court has referred to the
cross-examination of RW-16 and noted his admission that he had not written any
historical book on Udasis and had also not seen any painting of Baba Bhagat Bhagwan
and, therefore, could not say whether Bhagat Bhagwan had long Kesh (hairs) and
grew beard. He also admitted that Bhagat Bhagwan might have had Chelas, but, he
could not come across their names in any book, except Bhai Randhir Singh's
book, and he could not recollect the names of those Chelas. He categorically
admitted that:- "I cannot say whether Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi by faith
and I cannot give details how he received his spiritual perception from Guru
Har Rai and Baba Mehar Chand and then again from Guru Har Rai."
He also admitted that
he had not come across any writing of Bhagat Bhagwan nor did he know where
Bhagat Bhagwan died. It is on this ground, that the High Court rejected the
testimony of Dr. Ganda Singh.
30.
Referring
to the evidence of RW-17 Shamsher Singh, the High Court referred to the
cross-examination, wherein, he admitted that he could not say if Bhagwan
Bhagwan was going for Darshan of the Devi, when he met Baba Siri Chand. He
claimed that Baba Siri Chand died before the time of the 7th Guru and he could
not refer to any history book in which the meeting of Bhagat Bhagwan with Baba
Siri Chand was recorded. He also admitted that he had not seen the Institution
in dispute nor he could say that who had established the Institution and when.
The High Court, therefore, discarded his testimony. As regards the evidence of
RW-18 Randhir Singh, the High Court noted that he had not seen the Institution
in dispute and further commented that he did not agree with the decision taken
by the High Court that Udasis were Sikhs. This witness had also admitted that
he had not seen any writings of Bhagat Bhagwan and, therefore, the High Court
refused to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness. As regards the
other oral evidences led on behalf of the SGPC, namely, RW-1 to RW-7, none of
them had stated that the Institution had any connection with Bhagat Bhagwan,
excepting RW-8 Jang Singh, who maintained that Bhagat Bhagwan had become Sikh
and used to preach the doctrine of Sikh faith. Referring to the evidence of
RW-9 Sadhu Singh, RW-10 Sarwan Singh, RW-11 Balwant Singh, RW-12 Chhota Singh,
RW-13 Inder Singh, as also RW-14 Nachhatar Singh, the High Court rejected their
evidences on merits. As regards the witness Nachhatar Singh, his evidence was
discarded on the ground that he was itself a member of the SGPC and was,
therefore, an interested witness. The High Court again referred to the 38
evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners and came to the
conclusion that on the date of presentation of the petition, the Institution
was used as Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan and was an Udasi Institution and not a Sikh
Gurdwara. The High Court, thus allowed the appeal.
31.
We
have deliberately noted the findings of the High Court, as the High Court has
gone into the details of the documentary evidence, oral evidence, as also the
historical background of the Institution.
32.
Shri
Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants
SGPC tried to take us through the evidence, however, in our limited task, it
would not be for us now to re-appreciate the whole evidence, oral, as well as
documentary. The extent of evidence, which was led before the Tribunal and
discussed by the High Court, was voluminous and in our opinion, the High Court
has correctly appreciated the same. The High Court has also dealt with the
logic and the reasonings given by the Tribunal and has pointed out as to how
the majority opinion of the Tribunal went wrong in holding this Institution to
be a Sikh Gurdwara. We must record our satisfaction at the detailed approach of
the High Court to the evidence, both oral, as well as, documentary, as also the
historical document, as was presented before the Tribunal.
33.
Referring
to the oral evidence, the only complaint of the Learned Senior Counsel was that
the evidence of scholars like Dr. Ganda Singh, Shamsher Singh and Randhir Singh
was not given weight by the High 39 Court. In our opinion, the criticism is
not correct. The High Court has not only referred to the evidence of these
three witnesses, but has dealt with, in great details and has given its reasons
as to why the evidence of these three witnesses could not be accepted. The most
important fact that strikes us is the total apathy shown by the original
applicants (57 in Nos.), none of whom came in support of the application or for
opposing the objection filed by Mahant Mangal Dass. Again, insofar as the oral
evidence led on behalf of the respondent, the same was dealt with in details by
the High Court and, therefore, we would not take up the task of re-appreciating
the said evidence. Considering the overall treatment given by the High Court to
that evidence, we are of the clear opinion that the High Court has not
committed any error in drawing the inferences on the basis of oral evidence led
on behalf of Mahant Mangal Dass. We are also satisfied with the approach of the
High Court in appreciating the oral evidence led on behalf of SGPC and the
reasons given by the High Court to reject the same. After all, as per the
established law, the parameters of Section 16 (2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act
were bound to be proved. The High Court has gone in great details
systematically in appreciating the evidence in the light of the provisions of
Section 16(2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act.
34.
We
would revert back to the comments made by Shri Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior
Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, specifically in relation to the
appreciation of evidence aspect, in the further course of our judgment.
However, we do not find any reason to take a different view, 40 in view of the
detailed findings by the High Court on the evidence and we endorse the same.
35.
This
takes us to the specific points raised by the Learned Senior Counsel, which we
propose to deal with specifically. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that Mahant
Mangal Dass had earlier challenged the notification dated 9.6.1961 under
Section 7 of the Act by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the said notification. That
was Writ Petition No. 36 of 1966 and it was dismissed by the High Court by a
speaking order and after notice to the parties. The Learned Senior Counsel,
therefore, argued that the said dismissal judgment dated 17.8.1971 would
operate as res-judicata and hence, the notification would become final. We do
not agree with the contention raised, firstly because this contention was not
raised even before the Tribunal or thereafter, in the appeal filed before the
Division Bench of the High Court. It is for the first time that the said
contention is raised which is not permissible. This is apart from the fact that
even on law, the contention is not correct, as the challenge to the
notification was not on merits. Under the scheme of the Act, under Section 7
(1), if a petition, seeking to have a Gurdwara declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara,
comes by fifty or more Sikh Worshippers of a Gurdwara, the same is forwarded to
the appropriate Secretary of the Government with the necessary details of the
property, as provided in the sub-Section 2 thereof.
The State Government
publishes the same in the manner provided in 41 Section 7(3) of the Act and is
also obliged to serve notices to the persons shown in the list, who are in
possession of the properties included in the list of properties under Section
7(2) of the Act. This is obviously with the purpose to provide an opportunity
to the persons interested in the said property. It is then that Section 8 comes
into play, under which a petitioner can raise objection, however, he has to be
a hereditary office holder or such objection can be raised by twenty or more
worshippers, who have to assert that the Gurdwara in respect of which the
notification is published under Section 7(3) of the Act, is not a Sikh
Gurdwara. Once such objection is raised by either a hereditary office holder or
by twenty or more worshippers, then the further process begins of deciding the
issue as to whether such Gurdwara or Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara, for which
a Tribunal is provided in the Act. The Tribunal then gives an opportunity to
lead the evidence and proceeds to decide after a full trial, as to whether a
particular institution is a Gurdwara or not. That is on the basis of the
evidence led before the Tribunal. The Writ Petition which was filed, was
challenging the validity of the said notification. The notification was
ultimately held to be valid on the basis of the Full Bench judgment of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court, as decided in Mahant Lachhman Dass &
499. Now, if the
notification is held to be valid, that by itself, would not defeat the claim of
the respondent because the said notification is merely a first step to decide
as to whether a particular institution is a Gurdwara or 42 not. A full fledged
trial then proceeds and it is only then, an institution is declared as a Sikh
Gurdwara. It is, therefore, obvious that even if the notification is held to be
valid, that only legalizes the further procedure before the Tribunal. We are
dealing with a situation, where the said notification was held to be valid in
the sense that the State Government had validly and correctly issued the
notification, but that by itself, did not confer the status of a Sikh Gurdwara
on the institution covered in the said notification under Section 7(3) of the
Act. The argument, therefore, must be rejected.
36.
The
Learned Senior Counsel then urged that on the question as to whether Mahant
Mangal Dass was a hereditary office holder, no opportunity was given to the
SGPC to prove that he was not such an office holder. The Learned Senior Counsel
urged that on this issue, in the first round of litigation, the Punjab &
Haryana High Court had dismissed the whole objections raised by Mahant Mangal
Dass on the ground that he had not claimed himself to be a hereditary office
holder of the institution. The Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that
that judgment of the High Court was set aside by this Court with the
observations, which we have quoted in para 9 of this judgment. Even a cursory
look at those observations would convince us that this Court had already closed
that issue. In fact, when Mahant Mangal Dass had filed an amendment
application, the Tribunal had felt that there was no need to amend the
petition, since the averments made in the objection petition had clearly 43
indicated that Mahant Mangal Dass had claimed himself to be a hereditary office
holder. It so happened that the High Court, however, took the view that Mahant
Mangal Dass had not specifically claimed himself to be a hereditary office
holder in precise words and, therefore, his objections under Section 8 of the
Act, were not maintainable. It is only on that short ground that the High Court
had dismissed the appeal, which order was passed against the judgment of the
Tribunal. On an appeal, this Court set aside that order and held that if the
High Court had felt the Tribunal was not right in refusing the amendment, it
should have allowed the amendment and cure the defect and then decide the
matter on merit, since all the evidence was available before the High Court.
This Court, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the
matter for disposal of the appeal on "merits". It is, therefore, clear
that this Court had directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits and
not on the technical question as to whether there was a declaration by Mahant
Mangal Dass of his status as a hereditary office holder. We are, therefore,
convinced that the question of the status of Mahant Mangal Dass was put to the
rest by this Court. However, even if we were to accept the contention raised by
the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we do not find such contention
having been raised before the High Court that Mahant Mangal Dass was not a
hereditary office holder or at least had not claimed to be the one. We have
very carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court. It is totally
silent about any contention. The Learned Senior Counsel very fairly conceded
that such issue was not raised by the High 44 Court, however, he pointed out
that it was the duty of the High Court to go into that issue or at least give
an opportunity to the appellant SGPC to oppose the amendment. There is not even
a whisper before the High Court to that effect also. In fact, after the remand,
it is clear that the SGPC had never bothered to raise the issue before the High
Court. Shri Palli, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
pointed out that at no point of time was this contention ever canvassed before
the High Court. It will, therefore, not be possible for us to entertain the
contention raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that any
prejudice was caused to the SGPC by the High Court, not providing any
opportunity to introduce an amendment in reply to the stand taken that Mahant
Mangal Dass was a hereditary office holder since such opportunity was never
sought for.
37.
Shri
Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also further contended
that there should have been an issue on the custom, by which Mahant Mangal Dass
claimed to be a hereditary office holder. The Learned Senior Counsel argued
that there was no specific issue framed on the existence or otherwise of such
custom. In our opinion, the criticism is incorrect. In fact, the question was
well covered in the first issue. This takes us to the other contentions raised
on the first issue. Shri Jaspal Singh contended that in effect, the first issue
was not decided by the High Court at all. We fail to understand the implication
of the argument. In fact, we have quoted the High Court judgment extensively
only to show that the High Court has considered regarding the status of Mahant
Mangal Dass 45 being a hereditary office holder and a major portion of the
High Court's judgment is devoted to that question. We are satisfied with the
appreciation of the evidence on that question.
38.
Opposing
the contentions of Shri Jaspal Singh, Shri Palli, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the Tribunal, vide order
dated 9.3.1965, had unanimously held that succession to the Gaddi of Mahantship
was proved from Guru to Chela and all the Mahants had been Udasi Sadhus and
Mahant Mangal Dass had fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of the Act
and was held to be hereditary office holder. Shri Palli pointed out that this
order was not appealed against. Shri Palli pointed out that it is then that the
appellant SGPC introduced an amendment and claimed the institution to be a Sikh
Gurdwara even under the provisions of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act (which stand
was of course given up later on). Not only that, but the SGPC moved a second
application, seeking amendment to take the plea that the institution had been
established in the memory of Sikh Saint and historical person, namely, Bhagat
Bhagwan and was used for public worship before and at the time of presentation
of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act.
According to the
Learned Senior Counsel, this was necessitated because the finding that the
succession to the Gaddi of Mahantship in the institution was from Guru to Chela
and that Mahant Mangal Dass was a hereditary office holder, would have proved
fatal to the claim of the SGPC that this institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.
According to the Shri Palli, it is, therefore, 46 totally a new claim was made
under Section 16(2)(iv) that this institution was in the memory of a Sikh Saint
and historical person, namely, Bhagat Bhagwan. Our attention was drawn by Shri
Palli to the decision of the reported in 1936 Privy Council Page 93 (cited
supra), holding that the burden to prove a particular institution a Sikh
Gurdwara, lies on the person, who claims it to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The Learned
Senior Counsel further rightly argued that thereby, the SGPC was seeking to
change its initial claim that this institution was established for the use of
Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was also used for such worships by
Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petition under Section 7(1)
of the Act.
39.
As
regards the requirement of the strict pleading regarding the objector being a
hereditary office holder, this Court in Uttam Das Chela Amritsar (cited supra)
in para 32, has held:- "32. ....The High Court fell into an error in
construing the pleadings under Section 8 on the strict standards set out in
Hari Kishan Case. When the appellant had placed the line of succession from
Guru to Chela, he automatically meant that he was basing his claim on custom
and usage, reflective from such long course of conduct and traditions."
This would water down
the requirement of the strict pleadings and the question of a specific plea
regarding the petitioner being a hereditary office holder, would also to be
pushed to the background.
40.
Shri
Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants then severely commented
upon the findings of the High Court and tried to suggest that the documentary
evidence was wanting or at least was not sufficient to hold in favour of the
respondent on issue No. 2. The oral evidence led on behalf of the respondent
was severely criticized by the Learned Senior Counsel along with the
documentary evidence. The Learned Senior Counsel also urged that the evidence
was not sufficient to hold that the succession in this Institution was from
Guru to Chela and that it was an Udasi Institution. It was also tried to be
urged that even if Mahant Mangal Dass or his predecessors were held to be
Udasis, it could not be destructive for the case of the SGPC, since the Udasis
have always been a feature common to many Sikh Gurdwaras. The Learned Senior
Counsel (cited supra). In that judgment, there is a clear finding that the
Institution was founded by the inhabitants of the Sikh village for their own
benefit and the same was carrying on religious and charitable tasks and
further, the purpose for which the Institution was founded, was the worship of
Granth Sahib. This authority would be of no consequence, since the factual
situation is different and there are clear findings on the fact that this was
an Udasi Institute and that the succession was from Guru to Chela as per the
proved custom. It was also tried to be impressed upon us that the High Court
was swept away, as the Institution was described as a Dera and that it was
contraindicative of the Institution being a Gurdwara. The Learned 48 Senior
Counsel invited our attention to the judgment in the case of Kirpa Ram &
Ors. (cited supra). In fact, this judgment was heavily relied upon by Shri
Palli, Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, also as this judgment is
totally against the appellant herein. Like in the present case, the two
identical issues were framed in this case also, however the Court endorsed that
there was no evidence to show that the Institution was established for the use
of Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. It was also observed that Udasis
formed an independent Sect, they do venerate Sikh scriptures and, therefore, in
the Institution of Udasi Sect, one can visualize reading of Granth Sahib or
veneration of Sikh scriptures, but, that itself is not decisive of the
character of the Institution. The High Court also observed that on the
contrary, where the succession was from Guru to Chela and those Gurus were
followers of Udasis faith and the Institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh
and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion, such
things were completely destructive of the character of the Institution as Sikh
Gurdwara. In our opinion, the High Court had correctly relied upon this
authority. There is no doubt that there is a reference in Para 13 to the
following effect:- "'Dera' in many cases was synonymous with `Gurdwara', a
description of the institution as Dera of Udasi Bhekh would certainly have a distinct
connotation showing that it was an Udasi institution as recognized by the
highest State authorities."
49 The contention
that the High Court was swept away because of the reference of this Institution
as a `Dera', therefore, clearly appears to be incorrect. On the other hand,
this authority would go long way in establishing that where Institution is
established by Udasis, where there was a Guru and Chela Custom and where it is
not proved that the Institution was established by the Sikhs for the Sikh worship
and it continued to be so till the date of the Notifiction, the Institution
could not be said to be Gurdwara. In the present case, all the factual material
led before the Court suggests in favour of the respondent.
41.
Shri
Palli, Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the fact that before the
High Court, it was conceded by the appellant that there was no evidence to
indicate as to on which date and in which area, the Institution was
established. He also invited our attention to the earliest document, which was
Exhibit R-10, which was as old as 1932 B.K. = 1875 A.D. Shri Palli, therefore,
pointed out that the subsequent documents also mention the word `Dera' and
sustain the case of the respondent that the Institution got the grants from the
Maharajas and the record was as old as about 113 years, suggesting that it was
an Udasi Institution. The other documents have also been referred to by Shri
Palli in details, to which we have already made reference earlier. The
voluminous documentary evidence, as also the oral evidence, which has been
thoroughly discussed by the High Court, in our opinion, was sufficient to hold
that the Institution was not a Gurdwara, but an Udasi Institution.
42.
Shri
Jaspal Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also extensively
commented on the documentary evidence and tried to suggest that the High
Court's treatment of this documentary evidence was not satisfactory in view of
the detailed discussion by the High Court of the documentary as also the oral
evidence and further, in view of the fact that we, ourselves, are convinced of
the truthfulness of the claim by the respondent, we have no hesitation in
accepting the plea put forward by the respondent. It was tried to be suggested
that: (1) Guru Granth Sahib has been the only object of worship; (2) no
documents made any reference to any other object of worship like Ball of Ashes
(Gola Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images of Baba Siri Chand in the objection
petition under Section 8 of the Act; (3) there is no mention of Ball of Ashes
(Gola Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images of Baba Siri Chand; and (4) Mahant
Mangal Dass had nowhere stated as a witness that there were Ball of Ashes (Gola
Sahib), Smadhs and pictorial images and that those objects or anyone of them were
the object of worship. We have already referred to the aforementioned oral
evidence led on behalf of the respondent and we are convinced that none of
these four factors can be said to be established in favour of the appellant. In
our opinion, therefore, insofar as the question of establishment of the
Institution and the practices therein are concerned, the High Court is
absolutely right in recording its findings. It would be only repetition on our
part to refer to the oral evidence or for that matter, the documentary evidence
all over again and we desist from doing it. In our opinion, the judgment of the
High Court is absolutely correct, insofar as this 51 issue is concerned.
Lastly, Shri Jaspal Singh urged that the Institution was clearly proved to be covered
under Section 16(2)(iv) of the Act. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that there
was no reason to disbelieve the historical facts contained in the 6 treatise,
which were authored by the authorities of Sikh religion. In fact, our attention
was invited to a decision (cited supra), wherein the book Sikh religion by Max
Arthur Macauliffe has been described as the best authority of all in Sikh
history. The story, which we have already referred to in the earlier part of
the judgment from Macauliffe treatise, as also the various incidents described
in Gurpartap Suraj Granth were relied on by the Learned Senior Counsel, so also
the incidents as described in Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia and Guru Udasis Mat Darpan
were relied and reiterated by the Learned Senior Counsel. The Learned Senior
Counsel also urged that the oral evidence of the scholars like RW-16 Dr. Ganda
Singh, RW-17 Shamsher Singh and RW-18 Randhir Singh should not have been
lightly set aside by the High Court.
43.
As
regards these oral evidences, Shri Palli, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, however, strongly urged that RW-16 had not made any research on the
life and history of Bhagat Bhagwan nor he had written anything about him. He
pointed out that in his evidence, RW-16 had admitted that he did not know who
was Guru Bhagat Gir and he could not say whether Bhagat Bhagwan was Udasi by
faith. He did not even know about the death of Bhagat Bhagwan. Insofar as RW-17
is concerned, Shri 52 Palli pointed out that this witness had not visited the
Institute, he did not even know about the 300 Kendras established by Bhagat
Bhagwan. As regards the last witness RW-18, who was the author of Udasi Sikhan
Di Vithia, the Learned Senior Counsel urged that this book was published by
none else, but the appellant SGPC and it was authored by the witness in the
year 1959 on the eve of the application of the Act to the concerned area. The
Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that insofar as the evidence of these
three witnesses was concerned, the High Court was right. Though it will not be
our task to re-appreciate the evidence, the approach by the High Court to the
evidence of the witnesses is undoubtedly correct, therefore, we would not give
more importance to the oral evidence led by these witnesses, claiming themselves
to be the scholars of Sikh faith. At any rate, we would give more weight to the
documentary evidence, which has been brought on record and which documents are
as old as about 113 years. In fact, from those documents, a detailed discussion
of which is to be found in the earlier part of this judgment, as also the
judgment of the High Court, it is clear that this Institution was an Udasi
Institution in the memory of Bhagat Bhagwan and owes its name to Bhagat
Bhagwan. Even if that is so, there is no evidence to suggest that this
Institution was in the memory of Bhagat Bhagwan. It may be that the Institution
is called Dera Bhagat Bhagwan, but what is more important is the documentary
evidence regarding the grant of land to Shri Surat Ram and thereafter, the
succession from Shri Surat Ram right up to Mahant Mangal Dass, which has been
painstakingly established by 53 the respondent. Once the Institution is held
to be an Udasi Dera with the features like Smadhs, Gola Sahib etc., being in
existence in the said Institution, further, once it is established that the
order of succession was governed by a custom that is from Guru to Chela, there
is no question of our going into the historical aspect and when we compare the
historical aspect with the hard evidence led on the record, we would choose to
prefer the evidence so led. Insofar as the historical reference is concerned,
Shri Palli pointed out that the High Court had not only discussed this aspect,
but had given good reasons. It was pointed out that there were some incorrect
references, for example, in Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia, it was mentioned that
Bhagat Gir, who later became Bhagat Bhagwan, had met 7th Guru. The Learned
Senior Counsel argued that this cannot be historically correct, as Guru Har
Rai, the 7th Guru was born in 1631 A.D. and died in 1666 A.D. and, therefore,
Bhagat Bhagwan could not have been met him. Shri Palli also heavily relied on
the authority reported in AIR 1939 Lahore 239 Baba by the High Court. We have
seen the judgment. It undoubtedly supports the respondent. Shri Palli further
urged that the High Court had relied upon the book Guru Tirath Sangrahey, which
mentions that Bhagat Bhagwan was neither a Sikh saint nor a historical person,
rather he joined the Udasin Sect, got the Udasin dress and initiation from
Mehar Chand, the great grandson of the first Guru. The Learned Senior Counsel
pointed out that same account is given even in the book Sikh Religion by
Macauliffe. The 54 Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the SGPC had
miserably failed to bring on record any writing of Bhagat Bhagwan as a Sikh
saint. It also had failed to point out any Institution, set up by Bhagat
Bhagwan or his followers to be a Sikh Gurdwara, though in the historical
accounts, it was stated that he had created about 300 Institutions. From this,
the Learned Senior Counsel urged that the High Court was absolutely right in
coming to the conclusion that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but an
Udasi Dera.
44.
In
our opinion, Shri Palli is undoubtedly correct in his criticism. We have also
gone through the details of the evidences, though it was not our task to
re-appreciate the evidence. As we have already held, we are fully satisfied
with the findings recorded by the High Court. To conclude the matter, we hold:-
1. that in view of
the Exhibit R-10, the Institution was established prior to 1665 A.D. by an
Udasi Faqir Surat Ram, who had received donation from the Ruler of the then
Patiala State and the said Institution then was governed by a chain of Udasi Mahants
without break in the tradition of the succession from Guru to Chela and Mahant
Mangal Dass was in the same tradition.
2. that the
Institution was only known as a Dera or Dera Sadhan or Mausooma Dharamshala
Sadhan and it gave the impression that it was a charitable Institution for
poor 55 faqirs and travellers, as also offered shelters to them and the
Mahants, who governed the Institution, were noble persons.
3. that there is
voluminous documentary evidence to show the grant of Muafi (remission) of
revenue. The land was already granted to the Udasi Faqir in his personal
capacity and he had become the owner thereof and the Institution was used by
Udasi Faqirs and Sadhus, which is clear from the reference in the revenue
papers to the effect "Well of Sadhus or Well of Mahantawala" etc.
4. that there is
ample evidence to establish the pedigree tables as Khandan Sadh Udasin and
Patti Sadh Udasin.
5. that there is no
evidence that this was a Sikh Institution from its inception till today or the
Sikhs had any say in the matter of appointment of Mahants.
6. Significantly,
there is no evidence of there being a regular Granthi in the Institution there
existed even a Nishan Sahib. There was no further evidence that the Sikh
religious ceremonies were ever held or there is Katha or Parvachan in a
congregation.
7. that it is
established from the evidence that Guru Granth Sahib, though was kept, did not
have a fixed place for its Parkash and the versions on the placement of Guru
Granth Sahib is contradictory.
8. that even a single
worshipper out of the original 57 applicants, ever turned up to support the
cause of the appellant.
9. that there was
clear evidence that there was Gola Sahib, Murti of Baba Siri Chand, Smadhs of
earlier Mahants and other objects of worship like photographs etc. and Guru
Granth Sahib was only kept as a book of reverence.
10. that Baba Siri
Chand, who was the son of the first Sikh Guru, was an Udasi and Udasi Sect grew
up parallel with the Sikh religion.
11. It is further
established that all through, the Institution continued as an Udasi
Institution.
45.
We
are, therefore, convinced that the appeal filed has no merits and must be
dismissed with costs. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
......................................J.
(Tarun Chatterjee)
......................................J.
(V.S. Sirpurkar)
New
Delhi;
February
24, 2009.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3