http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHANT KIRPA RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/03/1984

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, A.P. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1059            1984 SCR  (3) 372  1984 SCC  (2) 614        1984 SCALE  (1)572

ACT:      Sikh Gurdwaras  Act, 1925  Section 16(2)(iii)-Gurdwara- Tests  for   determination  of-To   be   shown   institution established for use by Sikhs for public worship.      Sikhs and Udasis-Distinctions-What are.

HEADNOTE:      A group of persons residing in a village and professing the  Sikh   religion  made   an  application  to  the  State Government  to   declare  the   religious   and   charitable institution described in the application as a Sikh Gurdwara. This application  was published  in the  Officer Gazette and respondent No.  1 filed  objections under  section 8  of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 contending that the institution was not a  Sikh Gurdwara  and that  he was entitled to raise the said contention  because he was the holder of the hereditary office of mahant of the institution.      The application  was forwarded  by the State Government under section  14 to  the Sikh  Gurdwara Tribunal which held that the  respondent was the hereditary holder of the office of mahant  of the institution and that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara and was governed by the Act.      The respondent  thereupon filed  an appeal  in the High Court which held that the institution was set up by a mahant for commemorating  the memory  of his Guru and that the land on which  the institution was set up with the grant of Muafi had been donated by a Muslim ruler. After considering of the entries in  the land  records, the  High Court  further held that institution  was not only serving as a Gurdwara for the worship of  Granth Saheb  but was  also used  as a  Dera  or lodging house or Sadhus or Faqirs of the Udasi Sect and that there was  a duality  of faiths in the institution. The High Court concluded  that the  institution was  catering to  the religious views  and beliefs  of both  the sects amongst the local population  and that  the Tribunal  was  in  error  in declaring that  the institution  was a  Sikh Gudrwara  which would permit  one of  the  communities  to  appropriate  the institution to  its exclusive  use and  to deprive the other community or sect from the dual use to which the institution has been  put ever  since it was founded or established. The High Court,  consequently allowed  the appeal  and set aside

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the declaration made by the Tribunal.      Dismissing the further appeals to this Court 373 ^      HELD: 1.  The appraisal  of the  evidence by  the  High Court is  correct and  unexceptional. The evidence discloses that the  institution in question was not shown to have been established for  use by  Sikhs for  the  purpose  of  public worship and  therefore one  of the  material conditions  for attracting section 16(2)(iii) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was not  established. It  is immaterial  that at the time of presentation of the petition it was along with the followers of Udasi Sect used for worship of Granth Sahib by the Sikhs. [382E-F]      2. In order to bring a case under section 16(2)(iii) of the Act it must not only be established that the institution was established  by Sikhs  for the purpose of public worship but was  used for  such worship  by Sikhs  before and at the time of  the presentation  of the  petition. The  use of the conjunctive ’and’  clearly imports  that in order to attract Section 16(2)(iii)  both the conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. [380A-B]      Gurmukh Singh  v. Risaldar  Deva Singh & Ors., AIR 1937 Lahore 577, allowed.      3. Udasis  form an  independent sect : They do venerate Sikh Scriptures.  Therefore, in  an  institution  of  Udasis sect,  one   can  visualise   reading  of  Granth  Sahib  or veneration of  Sikh scriptures.  That itself is not decisive of the  character of  the institution. If the succession was from Guru  to Chela  and those Gurus were followers of Udasi faith and  the institution  was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion  that   would  be  completely  destructive  of  the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdwara. [381E-F]      Mahant Daram  Dass etc.  v. The  State of Punjab & Ors. [1975] 3  SCR 160  Hem Singh  & Ors. v. Basant Das and Anr., AIR 1936  PC 93  at 100  and Pritam Dass Mahant v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak  Committee, C.A.  No. 1983 of 1970 dated 16.2.84 referred to.      In the  instant case, there is no evidence to show that the institution  was established  for use  by Sikhs  for the purpose of  public worship.  Though the  institution may  be established by anyone may be a Sikh or follower of any other faith, but  it must  be established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. The original grantor was a Muslim ruler but there is nothing to show that when Gulab Das Faqir of Udasi Sect established the institution, he did it for use by Sikhs  for the purpose of public worship. Later on as the majority of  the population of the village were followers of Sikh religion  and as  Udasis also  venerate  Granth  Sahib, reading of  Granth Sahib  may have  commenced and therefore, generally speaking  people may  describe, and revenue record may show  it to  be Gurdwara,  but  that  would  neither  be decisive of  the character of the institution nor sufficient to bring  the institution  within Section  16(2)(iii) of the Act. [380D-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 1685- 1686 1971      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated 8.1.1971  & 14.11.1969  of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

374 in S.C. Appeal No. 96 of 1970 & First Appeal No. 59 of 1964.      M.N. Phadke and Harbans Singh for the Appellant.      Harbans Lal, Urmila Kapoor, Kamini Jaiswal, Nishi Puri, Shahsi Kiran and Tehal Singh Mangal for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI,  J.   Whether  a   religious  and/or  charitable institution situated  in village Mahal Khurd, Tehsil Barnala of Sangrur District is a Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of the expression  in the  Sikh Gurdwaras  Act, 1925 (’Act’ for short) is  the subject  matter of  controversy  between  the parties in this appeal by special leave.      About 56  persons residing  in village  Mahal Khurd and professing  Sikh   religion  made   an  application  to  the Government of  Punjab on  December 23,  1960 requesting  the Government to  declare  the  institution  more  particularly described in  the  application  as  a  Sikh  Gurdwara.  This application was  published in the Official Gazette whereupon Mahant Kirpa  Ram respondent  No. 1 (’respondent’ for short) filed objections under Sec. 8 of the Act contending that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara and that he was entitled to   raise that  contention because  he was  the  holder  of hereditary office of mahant of the institution.      The application was forwarded under Sec. 14 to the Sikh Gurdwara  Tribunal   set  up   under  the  Act.  Upon  rival contentions the Tribunal framed two issues as under:           "1. Is  the petitioner  a hereditary office holder      of the Gurdwara?           2. Is the Gurdwara in dispute a Sikh Gurdwara?"      The Tribunal  by its  judgment  dated  January  21,1964 answered Issue  No. 1  in favour  of the  respondent holding that he  was a  hereditary holder of the office of mahant of the institution.  On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara and is governed by the Act.      The respondent  preferred F.A.O.  No. 59 of 1964 in the High Court  of Punjab  and Haryana at Chandigrah. A Division Bench of  the High Court held that the institution upset was by Gulabdas  for commemorating  the memory of his Guru named Jad Guru. The 375 High  Court   further  held  that  the  land  on  which  the institution was  set up  with the  grant of  Muafi had  been donated by  a Muslim  ruler named  Rai Kala  of Rai  Kot  in favour of  Mahant  Gulabdas.  It  was  also  held  that  the succession to  the office  of mahant  is from Guru to Chela. After referring  to various  entries in the land records, it was held  that way back in 1861 the institution was not only serving as a Gurdwara for the worship of Ganth Saheb but was also used as a Dera or lodging house for Sadhus or Faqirs of the Udasi Sect and that there was a duality of faiths in the institution. After taking all the aspects into consideration the High  Court concluded  that the  institution in question was catering  to the religious views and beliefs of both the sects amongst  the local  population and that therefore, the Tribunal was  in error  in declaring  that  it  was  a  Sikh Gurdwara which  would  permit  one  of  the  communities  to appropriate the  institution to  its exclusive  use  and  to deprive the  other community  or sect  from the  dual use to which the institution has been put ever since it was founded or established.  Accordingly, the  High  Court  allowed  the appeal and set aside the declaration made by the Tribunal.      Original  applicants   moved  the   High  Court  for  a certificate  under   Art.  133(1)   (a)  and   (c)  of   the Constitution which  was numbered  ss S.C.A.  No. 96 of 1970. The High Court on receipt of a report as a result of enquiry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

directed by  it, by its order dated January 8, 1971 rejected the application  for certificate both under Art. 133 (1) (a) and (c).  Thereupon the  original applicants filed these two appeals by  special leave;  one against  the decision of the High Court  reversing  the  decision  of  the  Tribunal  and another against  the order  of the  High Court rejecting the application for certificate.      Mr. M.N.  Phadke, learned  counsel who appeared for the appellant urged that if on evidence the appellants (original petitioners) are  in a position to show that the institution was established  for use  by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and  was used  for such worship by Sikhs, before and at the  time of  the presentation of the petition under sub- section (1)  of Sec,  7. the  institution would  be  a  Sikh Gurdwara as  contemplated in  Sec. 16(2)  (iii) of  the Act. Proceeding along it was urged that there is evidence to show and even  the High  Court has not found to the contrary that the institution  was established  for use  by Sikhs  for the purpose of  public worship  and was used for such worship by Sikhs before  and at  the time  of the  presentation of  the petition under sub-section (1) of Sec. 7 376 and therefore  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  some  other members belonging  to some other faith or sect also venerate the institution  it would  not detract from the character of the institution nor would it be destructive of the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdwara.      Sec. 16(2)  (iii) of  the Act  provides  that  ’if  the tribunal finds  that the gurdwara was established for use by Sikhs for  the purpose  of public  worship and  was used for such worship  by Sikhs,  before  and  at  the  time  of  the presentation of  the petition  under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7, the tribunal shall decide that it should be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara,  and record  an order accordingly.’ ’Sikh’ is defined in  Sec. 2(9)  of the  Act to  mean  ’a  person  who professes the  Sikh religion,  or was  known to  be  a  Sikh during his  lifetime.’ If a dispute arises as to whether any particular person  is or  is not  a Sikh  the  outcome  will depend upon his willingness to subscribe to a declaration as prescribed  in   the  Act.   Amongst  Sikhs,  there  can  be Amritdhari Sikhs  and Sahjdhari Sikhs. One can be said to be a Patit  if he  being a  Keshdhari Sikh  trims or shaves his beard or keshas or who after taking amrit commits any one or more of the four kurahits.      The  first   question   is:   whether   it   has   been satisfactorily established  that the  institution was set up by Sikhs  for the purpose of public worship and was used for such  worship   by  Sikhs.   The  Tribunal  found  that  the institution is  an old one and no direct oral or documentary evidence regarding  the purpose  for which it was founded is available. Reliance  was placed on the copies of the revenue records, to  show  how  the  institution  was  described  in Government land records. On appraisal of the entries, it has been concurrently  found that  the institution was set up by Mahant Gulabdas upon a grant of land made to him. It appears a Sanad  was issued  but it was lost when the Mahrattas over ran this part of the country. The High Court then traced the origin of  village Mahal  Khurd and  recorded a finding that the first settlers came to that area in the beginning of the 18th Century  and amongst  them were Bir Pal, Garib Dass and Bhoja. They  cleared the forest land and started cultivating the land. The High Court then examined what area of land can be cultivated  with the  help of one pair of bullocks. After asserting the  probative  value  of  Kafiat  Dehi  or  Wajah Tasmias, Ext.  P-21, and  P-22 the High Court concluded that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the muafi  i.e. exemption  from payment  of land revenue had been granted  to the  institution from  the time village had first been  founded about  200 years before the records were prepared, but these records. 377 do not  help in  asserting the  purpose for  which muafi was granted  or  the  purpose  for  which  the  institution  was established. This  conclusion was  not  commented  upon  and deserves to  be accepted  as reasonable  inference from  the evidence.      Mr. Phadke  however invited  as  to  examine  jamabandi entries and  on the  strength of them attempted to urge that since remote  past the  entries describe  the institution as gurdwara.      Ex. P-1 is a will dated May 10, 1958-executed by Mahant Rashi Ram by which the respondent was appointed as his chela with a  right to  succeed to  the office  of mahant  of this institution. This  is a document of recent origin and is not of much  assistance. We  may next turn to Ext. P-2 dated the 25th Baisakh,  1927 corresponding  to  1871  A.D.  It  is  a decision recorded  in a  muafi enquiry proceeding in respect of land  admeasuring 206  Bighas and 16 Biswas then found to be in  possession of  the institution.  It recites  that the land was  given to  Gulab Dass Faqir by Rai Kalha of Rai Kot real donee  being his  Guru known  as Jad  Guru who  is  the muafidar. It  was also  found that  entries in Inam register show that  the land  admeasuring 120 Bighas has been entered in the name of muafidar and that area of land remained muafi to the muafidar with the approval of Rai Nizam Sahib and the remaining land  measuring 86  Bighas and 16 Biswas which was in excess of grant should be resumed to the Government after obtaining the approval of the Diwan Saheb. Two things emerge from Ext.  P-2, that  the original muafi grant was made by a Muslim ruler  in favour of Mahant Gulab Dass Faquir of Udasi sect  who   appears  to  have  set  up  the  institution  to commemorate the  memory of his Guru, Jad Guru. These earlier entries do  not support  the claim advanced on behalf of the appellants that  the institution was set up by Sikhs for the purpose of  public worship. On the contrary, the institution appears to  have been  set up  by Gulab  Dass, a follower of Udasi sect and succession to the office of Mahant is by Guru to Chela.      Reference was  next made  to Exts.  P-7 and  P-8  which appear to  be  statements  of  Lambardars  and  Patwaris  in question answer  form which  show that they heard from their ancestors that  the muafi  had been  granted by Rai Kalha to Baba Gulab  Dass by  way of Punarth for meeting the expenses of the  Dera and  Bal Bhog  Parshad Granth Sahib. Relying on these statements  it was urged that at the time of recording the statements on April 19, 1872 Granth Sahib was being 378 venerated in  the institution and the grant was for Bal Bhog Parsad of  Granth Sahib.  There statements  suffer from  the vice of  hearsay evidence in as much as the reference to the Granth Sahib  for the first time appears in these statements not based  on any  personal knowledge  but of  what they had heard from  their ancestors.  Ext.  P-8  purports  to  be  a statement of  the then  Mahant Ram Dass Muafidar Faqir Udasi of the  year 1873.  It shows that the muafi land was granted by Rai  Kalha of  Rai Kot to Bawa Gulab Dass his great grand Guru for  Bhog of  Granth Sahib  and for the expenses of the Dera and  Faqirs. Mr.  Phadke urged  that the Mahant himself has admitted that the grant was for Bal Bhog of Granth Sahib and that  this admission concludes the point. The High Court declined to treat this admission as conclusive on the ground

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

that the  admission was  made more  than a century after the original grant  and establishment  of  the  institution  and three or  four generations had intervened and the Mahant was talking about  facts which  had  happened  long  before  his birth. These in our opinion, are relevant considerations for not treating the admission as conclusive more so because the earlier entries  do not  either refer  to the institution as Gurdwara or  make any mention of the worship of Granth Sahib therein.      Mr. Phadke then invited our attention to Ex. P-18 being on order  of Ijlas-I-Khas  Committee of the State of Patiala at the  relevant time,  according approval to the succession to the  office of  Mahant of  the institution. In this order dated June 10, 1937 the institution was described as:           "Prem Das  Mahant of Dera of Udasi Bhekh (Gurdwara      Sahib) situate  at Mahal  Khurd Tehsil  Barnala  having      died  on   18.10.1982,  the   Administrative  Committee      recommends appointment  of Rikhi  Ram Chela  of  Narain      Dass as Mahant on the condition set out in the order."      This order  was signed  by  Her  Highness  Maharani  of Patiala,  the  then  Prime  Minister  and  Revenue  Minister amongst others.  Mr. Phadke  emphasised that the institution apart from  being described  as Dera  of Udasi Bhekh is also described as  Gurdwara Sahib  and therefore,  it would  show that was back in 1937 the State authorities had accepted the institution to  be a  Gurdwara. We  are not impressed by the submission  for  the  obvious  reason  that  the  expression ’Gurdwara’ is  in the  bracket and primarily the institution is described  as Dera of Udasi Bhekh. Conceding that the use of the expression 379 ’Dera’ does  not militate  against the  institution being  a Sikh Gurdwara as held by this Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No.  446 of 1962 rendered on November 9, 1984 wherein Sarkar, J.  speaking for  the Court  observed that ’Dera’ in many cases  was synonymous  with a ’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  recognised by the highest State authorities. The expression  ’Gurdwara Sahib’  in the bracket may at best indicate that  the Granth  Sahib was  also venerated  in the institution.      Mr. Phadke  never drew our attention to Ext. P-23 being an extract  from the register of mutations relating to Mauza Mahal Khurd  dated September,  27 1984.  The entry under the column name  of owner’  with description  reads: "Shri  Guru Granth Sahib  situate in  the Gurdwara  of the village under the management  of Rikhi Ram chela Partap Dass Faqir Udasi’. In  fact,   these  entries  appear  to  have  been  made  in implementation of  the order  of the Ijlas-I-Khas and has no independent probative  value. Ext. P-24 is a similar extract dated October  1,1959 and  does not  advance the case of the appellants any further.      Not much  reliance was  placed on the oral evidence led by the  parties and  therefore we  refrain from referring to it.      On the  evidence as  herein discussed, the question is: whether  the   view  taken   by  the  High  Court  that  the institution catered  to worship  by people  belonging to two different faiths  namely, Udasis and Sikhs is reasonable and proper or calls, for interference?      In  our   opinion,  the  view  of  the  High  Court  is reasonable, proper  and  just  on  the  evidence  placed  on record. There  is evidence  to  show  that  Gulab  Dass  who founded  the   institution  was   an  Udasi   Faqir.  It  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

satisfactorily established that the succession to the office of Mahant  is from  Guru  to  Chela.  It  appears  that  the expression ’Gurdwara’ qualifying the Dera of Udasis Bhekh in the  Government   records  at  a  much  later  date.  It  is established that the original grant was by a Muslim ruler in favour of  a Faqir and Sadhu of Udasi sect. On this evidence atleast a  negative conclusion  would satisfactorily  emerge that the  appellants have  failed to  prove that  it was  an institution set  up for  use by  Sikhs for  the  purpose  of public worship.      It must  be conceded  that nearly  a century  after the setting up  of the  institution, Granth  Sahib was venerated and read in this 380 institution. Does  it provide  conclusive evidence  that the institution was set up and used for public worship by Sikhs? In order  to bring  the case  under Sec. 16(2) (iii) it must not only be established that the institution was established for use  by Sikhs  for the purpose of public worship but was used for such worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of the presentation of the petition. The use of the conjunctive ‘and’ clearly  imports that  in order  to attract Sec. 16(2) (iii), both  the conditions  must be cumulatively satisfied. Not was  only that  it must  satisfactorily established that the institution  was established  for ‘use’ by Sikhs for the purpose of  public worship  but was used for such worship by the Sikhs  before and at the time of the presentation of the petition. It  was so  held in  Gurmukh Singh v.Risaldar Deva Singh &  Ors.(1) and  it our  opinion  that  represents  the correct interpretation  of Sec.  16(2) (iii).  In this  case there is  no evidence  to  show  that  the  institution  was established for  use by  Sikhs for  the  purpose  of  public worship. It  must be  conceded that  the institution  may be established by  anyone, may  be a  Sikh or  follower of  any other faith, but it must be established for use by Sikhs for the purpose  of worship.  One can therefore, ignore the fact that the  original grantor  was a Muslim ruler Rai Kalha but there is  nothing to  show that  when Gulab  Dass Faquir  of Udasi sect established the institution, he did it for use by Sikhs for  the purpose  of public  worship. Later  on as the majority of  the population  of the  village was follower of Shikh religion  and as  Udasis also  Venerate Granth  Sahib, reading of  Granth Sahib  may have  commenced and therefore, generally speaking  people may  describe and  revenue record may show  it to  be  Gurdwara  but  that  would  neither  be decisive of  the character of the institution nor sufficient to bring the institution within Sec. 16(2)(iii) of the Act.      It  is  at  this  stage  necessary  to  point  out  the distinction between  Sikhs and  Udasis. In  the past  it was attempted to  be urged that Udasis are a mere order of Shikh preachers and  that  there  is  no  difference  between  two faiths. In  fact it was urged that they are not two separate faiths but  two separate  interpretations of the same faith. Repelling this  contention way  back in  Hem Singh & Ors. v. Basant Das and Anr.(2) It was observed as under : 381           "Indeed  the   Udasis  do   not  appear  to  their      Lordships to  have  been  a  mere  order  of  mendicant      preachers among  the Sikhs.  Nor can  it be held proved      that they  were merely  Sikhs who had lapsed into Hindu      practices. On  the contrary, they appear to have a long      and  independent   history  as   a  separate   sect  or      persuasion occupying  a position  somewhere between the      Sikhs and  the  orthodox  Hindus.  The  differences  in      belief as  well as in practice between Sikhs and Udasis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    deserve to  be  described  as  serious,  extensive  and      inveterate and some were outwardly striking."      At another stage it was observed that since the time of Siri Chand,  the founder  of  Udasi  sect  there  came  into existence a  sect of  Udasis who while using the same sacred writings as  the Sikhs,  kept up  much more of the old Hindu practices, followed asceticism, were given to the veneration of  Samadhs   and  tombs  and  continued  the  Hindu,  rites concerning birth,  marriage and Shradh. It was also observed that the  Udasis so  far as  the matter  can be  decided  by beliefs and practices, are, from the point of view of Sikhs, schismatics who  separated  in  the  earliest  days  of  the movement and  never merged  thereafter. It would thus appear that Udasis  form an independent sect. They do venerate Sikh scriptures. There  fore, in  an institution  of Udasis sect, one can  visualise reading  of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh  scriptures.   That  itself  is  not  decisive  of  the character of  the  institution.  On  the  contrary,  if  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  that  would  be  completely destructive of  the character  of the  institution  as  Sikh Gurdwara. In  a very recent decision of this Court in Pritam Dass Mahant  v. Shiromani  Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee(1) it has  been held  that mere  reading  of  Granth  Sahib  or veneration  of  Sikh  scriptures  is  not  decisive  of  the character of  the  institution  because  Udasis  are  midway between Sikhs  on the  one hand  and Hindus on the other and that the  Udasis also  venerate Granth  Sahib. Earlier  also this view  has been consistently taken by this Court as will appear from the decision of this Court in Mahant Dharam Dass etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors:(2) 382           "They  do   not  subscribe  to  idol  worship  and      polytheism, nor  do they  have  any  Samadhi  in  their      shrines. The  teaching of Sikhs was against asceticism.      They believe in Guru Granth Sahib, which is a Rosary of      sacred poems,  exhortations etc. During the time of the      Sikh Gurus,  the  Gurdwaras  were  under  their  direct      supervision and  control  or  under  their  Masends  or      missionary agents. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh      the Panth is recognised as the corporate representative      of the  Guru on  earth and thereafter they were managed      by the  Panth through their Granthis and other sewadars      who were  under direct  supervision of the local Sangat      or congregation.  During Mahraja  Ranjit  Singh’s  time      Sikhism became  the religion  of the  State  and  large      estates and  Jagirs were granted to the Gurdwaras apart      from the  Jagirs which  had been earlier granted during      the  Mughal  period.  The  position  of  the  Gurdwaras      changed during  British regime. The Mahants who were in      charge of  the Sikh  Gurdwaras could  either be  a Sikh      Mahant or Udasi Mahant."      It thus  clearly appears  that  the  appraisal  of  the evidence by  the High Court is correct and unexceptional and weight of  the evidence  discloses that  the institution  in question was  not shown  to have been established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and therefore one of the material  conditions for  attracting Sec.  16(2)(iii) of the Act  is not  established. It  is immaterial  that at the time of  presentation of the petition it was, along with the follower of  Udasi sect  used for worship of Granth Sahib by the Sikhs.  We broadly agree with the view taken by the High Court Therefore  these appeals  fail and  are dismissed with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

costs. Hearing fee in one set. N.V.K.                                    Appeals dismissed. 383