“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

J U D G M E N T

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Bench Judgment of the High Court in Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs.

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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,

9

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.

10

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.   

11

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

12

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.

13

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.”    

14

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

15

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

notification, as held in Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr. reported

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

16

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

Das  Chela  Sunder   Das  Vs.  Shiromani  Gurdwara  Parbandhak

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

17

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.

Referring  to  a  decision  in  Lachhman  Das  &  Others  Vs.  Atma

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).

18

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,

Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors. Reported in AIR 1984 SC 1059,

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

19

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

20

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

21

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.   

22

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

Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mahant Kirpa Ram & Ors.  Reported in  AIR

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

23

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

Vs. Gurbax Singh reported in AIR 1934 Lahore 63, Prem Dass Vs. Labh

Singh & Ors.  Reported in  AIR 1934 Lahore 130 and  Gulab Dass Vs.

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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.

25. The High Court noted that in  Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani

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

28

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.

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

29

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

done by the Privy Council in the Case of Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant

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

30

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

31

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

referred to a decision of Lahore High Court in case of Baba Ishar Das Vs.

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.

32

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.”

33

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

Ram Parshad & Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors. reported in AIR 1931

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

decision in  Brahm Das Vs. Tarlok Singh & Ors. reported in  AIR 1937

34

Lahore 273 and held that it had no similarity with the facts of the present

case.  The case of Baba Ishar Das & Ors. Vs. Dr. Mohan Singh & Ors.

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

Hem  Singh  &  Ors.  Vs.  Basant  Das  &  Anr.  reported  in  1936  Privy

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,

35

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.

36

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

37

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

38

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,

39

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

40

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 &

Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana

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

41

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

42

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

43

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

44

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,

45

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

Privy Council in the Case of  Hem Singh & Ors. Vs. Basant Das & Anr.

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

Sunder   Das  Vs.  Shiromani  Gurdwara  Parbandhak  Committee,

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.   

46

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

then relied on the ruling in the case of  Bishan Dass Vs. Gurbax Singh

(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

47

Senior  Counsel  invited  our  attention  to  the  judgment  in  the  case  of

Shiromani  Gurdwara  Prabandhak  Committee,  Amritsar  Vs.  Mahant

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.”

48

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.

49

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

50

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

reported in the case of Ram Parshad & Ors. Vs. SGPC, Amritsar & Ors.

(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

51

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

52

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

Ishar Das Vs. Dr. Mohan Singh and Others, which judgment was noticed

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

53

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

54

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.

55

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.

56

57