http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3348-3349 of 1993

PETITIONER: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee                          

RESPONDENT: Mahant Harnam Singh C. (Dead), M.N. Singh & Ors.                 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/2003

BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

       These appeals by Special Leave arise from a common judgment of a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Before the High  Court appeals were filed challenging the order dated 9.11.1981 passed by  the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short the ’Tribunal’)  in Petition Nos.119 and 121 of 1962.  

       Synoptical resume of the factual position is as follows:

       Acting on a petition under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act,  1925 (in short the ’Act’) made by 60 persons, who claimed to be  worshippers, for declaring that the institution in question (known as  Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib) situated in the revenue estate of Jhandawala  district Bhatinda to be a Sikh Gurdwara, the Government of Punjab  published a notification No. 1216-G.P., dated 23rd June, 1961 under  Section 7(3) of the Act describing the said institution as a Sikh  Gurdwara. When the petition under Section 7(1) was notified, Mahant  Harnam Singh, Chela Narain Singh, Nirmala Sadhu the original respondent  (who has died in the meantime and is represented by legal  representatives)  filed a counter petition under Section 8 of the Act  claiming that the institution in dispute was not a Sikh Gurdwara but it  was a Dera Bhai Saida Ram. Similar petition under Section 8 of the Act  was also moved by 58 persons of the Dera alleging that the institution  in dispute was not a Sikh Gurdwara. Both these petitions were forwarded  by the State Government to the Tribunal for disposal. In the two  petitions Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred  to as the ’Committee’) was arrayed as the respondent.  

       Stand of Harnam Singh was that the Dera was not established in the  memory of any Sikh Guru or in commemoration of any incident in the life  of any of the Ten Sikh Gurus or in memory of any Sikh Martyr, saint or  historical persons and never been used for public worship by Sikhs. On  the other hand, the institution was established by Bhai Saida Ram who  was a Nirmala and it came to be known as Dera Bhai Saida Ram. The Dera  had been in possession of Nirmala Sadhus for generations and all the  Mahants had been Nirmalas and by succession devolved from Guru to Chela   subject to confirmation by Nirmala. Gurdial Singh and Ishar Singh,  Lambardars of village Jhandawala who were also signatories to a petition  under Section 7(1) had earlier filed a civil suit under Section 92 of  the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ’CPC’) in the Court of  District Judge, Bhatinda for his removal from Mahantship and the same  was dismissed on 31.3.1956. It was held that the institution was not a  Sikh Gurdwara and the Sikhs had no interest in it. It was a Dera of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Nirmala Sadhus. In appeal, High Court reversed the conclusions. In  further appeal the conclusions of the trial Court were restored by this  Court; by judgment dated 24.2.1967. Said judgment is Mahant Harnam Singh  v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1415).

In the present proceeding Mahant Harnam Singh referred to the said  judgment and opposed maintainability of the petition under Section 7(1).   The judgment was one in rem and operates as res judicata was his stand.  These pleas were countered by the Committee. The Tribunal framed the  following issues on 18.1.1971:

(1)     What is the effect of the judgment of this  Court, copy marked Exhibit P-1, on the merits of the  case?  (2)     Whether the institution in dispute is a Sikh  Gurdwara? (3)     Relief.

       Issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal vide  its order dated 8th March, 1977, held that the judgment of this Court in  Mahant Harnam Singh’s (supra)  does not bar the jurisdiction of the  Tribunal to decide the Claim Petition under Section 7 of the Act. The  order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and this  Court without any success.  

       Issue No.2 was taken up for adjudication and the same was answered  in favour of the Committee. It was held that the institution was a Sikh  Gurdwara. Tribunal came to hold that the institution in dispute was  originally established by Sikhs and the object of worship was Guru  Granth Sahib because majority of the villagers were Sikhs and Nirmalas  are Sikhs. With reference to Section 16 of the Act, the Tribunal took  note of the conditions which were required to be fulfilled before any  institution could be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara. But it did not opine  as to under which clause of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 the  institution in question falls.  

       Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the High Court was  moved in First Appeal. The High Court felt that the Tribunal had lost  sight of the decision in Harnam Singh’s case (supra). In fact in that  case the two plaintiffs who were signatories to the petition under  Section 7(1) of the Act had obtained permission from the Advocate  General for instituting a suit under Section 92 of CPC against Harnam  Singh. It was claimed in the plaint that there was one Guru Granth Sahib  at village Jhandawala, Tahsil and District Bhatinda which was managed by  Mahant Harnam Singh as a Mahatmim and he was in possession of the Dera  and agricultural land belonging to Guru Granth Sahib which was a public  religious place and was established by the residents of the village and  it was a public trust created by the residents of the village for the  service of the public to provide food from the lunger, to allow the  people to fulfil religious beliefs and for worship etc. The plaintiffs  in their capacity as representatives of owners of land situated in the  village and the residents thereof claimed that they were entitled to  file a suit under Section 92 of CPC. Mahant was the defendant and he  took the stand that there was no such interest in the public as to  entitle them to institute the suit. This Court noticed that the trial  Court and the High Court gave a concurrent finding that all the Mahants  of the Institution from Bhai Saida Ram to Mahant Harnam Singh  have been  Nirmalas.  The trial Judge held that such Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs  and that the institution was not a Sikh institution. The High Court  disagreed with such conclusions and held that Sadhus Nirmalas are a sect  of the Sikhs and consequently the Sikhs had interest in the institution  as it was a Sikh Gurdwara. High Court thus found that the plaintiffs had  interest as required under Section 92 of CPC. They were Sikhs and the  institution was a religious institution of Nirmalas Sadhus who were a  section of the Sikhs. The nucleus according to the High Court was by way

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

of donation of land by the residents of the village. This Court on  appeal held (i) Nirmala Sadhus are not Sikhs; (ii) the mere fact that at  some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera in dispute cannot  lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to  the followers of the Sikh religion. The Dera was maintained for entirely  a distinct sect known as Nirmala Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs.  Consequently in their mere capacity of followers of Sikh religion in the  village the plaintiffs could not be held to have such interest as to  entitle them to institute a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.   The  institution was held to be not belonging to the followers of the Sikh  religion.

High Court noted that Section 16 of the Act provides the manner  in which a Gurdwara can be held to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The onus to prove  whether the institution in dispute was a Sikh Gurdwara is on the  Committee. The Committee was required to prove the essential ingredients  of either of the Clauses (i) to (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of  the Act. The Committee did not plead or prove as to which of the clause  cover the case at hand. The Tribunal was not justified in its  conclusions. Merely because in some of the revenue records it was  indicated that there was exemption from payment of land revenue they did  not even remotely suggest that the institution in dispute was  established for use of Sikhs for the purpose of public worship.  Accordingly, it was held that the institution in dispute was not a Sikh  Gurdwara.  

       In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the Committee  submitted that in the earlier case the basic issue whether the  institution was a Sikh Gurdwara was not considered. Nirmalas are Sikhs  as was held in several decisions and the essential ingredients necessary  for coming to a conclusion that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara have  been established beyond a shadow of doubt by ample oral and documentary  evidence adduced by the Committee.  The onus has been wrongly placed on  the Committee. On the contrary, since the respondent was taking the  stand that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, the onus was on him  to establish so. According to him, by a long series of decisions  rendered nearly seven decades back it was observed that Nirmalas are  Sikhs. When Guru Granth Sahib was worshipped in any institution makes it  Sikh Gurdwara, the onus having been wrongly placed, the judgment of the  High Court gets vitiated.  Merely because the Manager of the institution  was a Nirmala that does not affect the institution from being a Sikh  Gurdwara. The entries in the revenue records have been erroneously over- looked. The decision in Hem Singh and Ors. v. Basant Das and Anr. (AIR  1936 PC 93) on which reference was placed to ignore the entries was  rendered in a different factual context and has no application.  Reference was made to the following decisions: Ram Kishan v. Bur Singh  and Ors. (AIR 1934 Lahore 39), Sohan Das v. Bela Singh and Ors. (AIR  1934 Lahore 180), Sajjan Singh v. Ishar Singh and Ors. (AIR 1934 215),  Bisakha Singh v. Pt. Socha Singh (AIR 1937 Lahore 7), Gurmukh Singh v.  Risaldar Deva Singh and Ors. (AIR 1937 Lahore 577), Gulab Das v. Foja  Singh and Ors. (AIR 1937 Lahore 826).

       It was submitted the question of onus in any event lose  significance, when on consideration of the materials on record the  Tribunal came to hold that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.

Responding to the aforesaid pleas, it was submitted by learned  counsel for the respondents that there was no occasion for the matter  being adjudicated by the Tribunal in the earlier round, because the  Tribunal was not in existence and for the area in question it was  constituted in 1963. It was dissolved in October 1966 when the matter  was pending before the High Court, and was re-constituted in February  1970. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter once  there was an adjudication under Section 92 of CPC. The implications of a  representative suit have to be taken note of. The High Court has rightly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

placed the onus on the Committee to establish that the institution was a  Sikh Gurdwara. It was categorically recorded by this Court that Nirmalas  are not Sikhs and the Institution is not a Sikh Gurdwara. That being the  position, the High Court’s judgment has no infirmity. Additionally, the  decisions referred to by learned counsel for the appellants as regards  the nature of the institution were rendered in different factual set up  and on the facts involved in the case it was held that the institution  was a Sikh Gurdwara. Factual difference in the present case makes those  decisions inapplicable. Even if it has been held in some of the  decisions that Nirmalas are Sikhs or the onus was on the plaintiffs  under Section 7 of the Act, they are no longer good law in view of what  has been stated by this Court.  

In order to appreciate the rival submissions birds eye view of the  pivotal provisions is necessary.  They are Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 14,  16(2) and 18(1)(g), and read as follows:-

Section 7: Petitions to have a gurdwara declared a  Sikh Gurdwara- (1) Any fifty or more Sikh worshippers  of a gurdwara, each of whom is more than twenty-one  years of age and was on the commencement of this Act  or, in the case of the extended territories from the  commencement of the Amending Act, resident in the  police station area in which the gurdwara is situated,  may forward to the appropriate Secretary to Government  so as to reach the Secretary within one year from the  commencement of this Act or within such further period  as the State Government may by notification fix for  this purpose, a petition praying to have the gurdwara  declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara:

Provided that the State Government may in  respect of any such gurdwara declare by notification  that a petition shall be deemed to be duly forwarded  whether the petitioners were or were not on the  commencement of this Act or, in the case of the  extended territories, on the commencement of the  Amending Act, as the case may be, residents in the  police station area in which such gurdwara is  situated, and shall thereafter deal with any petition  that may be otherwise duly forwarded in respect of any  such gurdwara as if the petition had been duly  forwarded by petitioners who were such residents:

Provided further that no such petition shall be  entertained in respect of any institution specified in  schedule I or schedule II unless the institution is  deemed to be excluded from specification in schedule I  under the provisions of Section 4.

(2) List of property claimed for the gurdwara and of  persons in possession thereof to accompany a petition  under sub-section       (1) A petition forwarded under  the provisions of sub-section (1) shall state the name  of the gurdwara to which it relates and of the  district, tahsil and revenue estate in which it is  situated, and shall be accompanied by a list, verified  and signed by the petitioners, of all rights, titles  or interest in immovable properties situated in Punjab  inclusive of the gurdwara and in all monetary  endowments yielding recurring income or profit  received in Punjab, which the petitioners claim to  belong  within their knowledge to the gurdwara the  name of the person in possession of any such right,  title or interest, and if any  such person is insane

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

or a minor, the name of his legal or natural guardian,  or if there is no such guardian, the name of the  persons with whom the insane person or minor resides  or is residing, of if there is no such person, the  name of the person actually or constructively in  possession of such right, title or interest on behalf  of the insane person or minor, and if any such right,  title or interest is alleged to be in possession of  the gurdwara through any person the name of such  person shall be stated in the list; and the petition  and the list shall  be in such form and shall contain  such further particulars as may be prescribed.  

(3) Publication of petition and list received under  sub-sections (1) and (2)-   On receiving a petition  duly signed and forwarded under the provisions of sub- section (1) the State Government shall as soon as may  be, publish it along with the accompanying list, by  notification, and shall cause it and the list to be  published, in such manner as may be prescribed, at the  headquarters of the district and of the tahsil and in  the revenue estate in which the gurdwara is situated,  and at the headquarters of every district and of every  tahsil and in every revenue estate in which any of the  immovable properties mentioned in the list is situated  and shall also give such other notice thereof as may  be prescribed:

       Provided that such petition may be withdrawn by  notice to be forwarded by the Board so as to reach the  appropriate Secretary to Government at any time before  publication, and on such withdrawal, it shall be  deemed as if no petition had been forwarded under the  provisions of sub-section (1).

(4) Notice of claims to property to be sent to persons  shown in the list as in possession- The state  Government shall also, as soon as may be, send by  registered post a notice of the claim to any right,  title or interest included in the list to each of the  persons named therein as being in possession of such  right, title or interest either on his own behalf or  on behalf of an insane person or minor or on behalf of  the gurdwara:  

       Provided that no such notice need be sent if the  person named as being in possession is a person who  joined in forwarding the list.  

(5) Effect of publication of petition and list under  sub-section (3)- The publication of a notification  under the provisions of sub-section (3) shall be  conclusive proof that the provisions of sub-sections  (1), (2), (3) and (4) have been duly complied with.

Section 8: Petition to have it declared that a place  asserted to be a Sikh Gurdwara is not such a gurdwara  â\200\223 When a notification has been published under the  provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 7 in respect  of any gurdwara, and hereditary office-holders or any  twenty or more worshippers of the gurdwara, each of  whom is more than twenty-one years of age and was on  the commencement of this Act or, in the case of the  extended territories, on the commencement of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Amending Act, as the case may be, a resident of a  police station area in which the gurdwara is situated  may forward to the State Government, through the  appropriate Secretary to Government so as to reach the  Secretary within ninety days from the date of the  publication of the notification, a petition signed and  verified by the petitioner, or petitioners, as the  case may be, claiming that the gurdwara is not a Sikh  Gurdwara, and may in such petition make a further  claim that any hereditary office holder or any person  who would have succeeded to such office holder under  the system of management prevailing before the first  day of January, 1920 or, in the case of the extended  territories, before the Ist day of November, 1956, as  the case may be, may be restored to office on the  grounds that such gurdwara is not a Sikh Gurdwara and  that such office-holder ceased to be an office-holder  after that day:

       Provided that the State Government may in  respect of any such gurdwara declare by notification  that a petition of twenty or more worshippers of such  gurdwara shall be deemed to be duly forwarded whether  the petitioners were or were not on the commencement  of this Act or, in the case of the extended  territories, on the commencement of the Amending Act,  as the case may be, resident in the police station  area in which such gurdwara is situated, and shall  thereafter deal with any petition that may be  otherwise duly forwarded in respect of any such  gurdwara as if the petition had been duly forwarded by  petitioners who were such residents.  

Section 9: Effect of omission to present a petition  under section 8- (1) If no petition has been presented  in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 in  respect of a gurdwara to which a notification  published under the provisions of sub-section (3) of  Section 7 relates, the State Government shall after  the expiration of ninety days from the date of such  notification, publish a notification declaring the  gurdwara to be a Sikh Gurdwara.

(2) Effect of publication of a notification under sub- section (1)- The publication of a notification under  the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be conclusive  proof that the gurdwara is a Sikh Gurdwara, and the  provisions of Part III shall apply to the gurdwara  with effect from the date of the publication of the  notification.  

Section 10: Petition of claim to property including in  a list published under sub-section (3) of Section 7 â\200\223 (1) any person may forward to the State Government  through the appropriate Secretary to Government, so as  to reach the Secretary within ninety days from the  date of the publication of a notification under the  provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 7, a petition  claiming a right, title or interest in any property  included in the list so published.  (2) Signing and verification of petitions under sub- section (1) â\200\223 A petition forwarded under the  provisions of sub-section (1) shall be signed and  verified by the person forwarding it in the manner  provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

1908), for the signing and verification of plaints,  and shall specify the nature of the right, title or  interest claimed and the grounds of the claim.  

(3) Notification of property not claimed under sub- section (1) and effect of such notification â\200\223 The  State Government shall, as soon as may be, after the  expiry of the period for making a claim under the  provisions of sub-section (1), publish notification,  specifying the rights, titles or interest in any  properties in respect of which no such claim has been  made, and the notification shall be conclusive proof  of the fact that no such claim was made in respect of  any right, title or interest specified in the  notification.  

Section 14: Tribunal to dispose of petition under  sections 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 â\200\223 (1) The State Government  shall forward to a tribunal all petitions received by  it under the provisions of sections 5, 6, 8, 10 and  11, and the tribunal shall dispose of such petitions  by order in accordance with the provisions of this  Act.  

(2) The forwarding of the petitions shall  be  conclusive proof that the petitions were received by  the State Government within the time prescribed in  sections 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 as the case may be, and in  the case of a petition forwarded by worshippers of a  gurdwara under the provisions of Section 8, shall be  conclusive proof that the provisions of section 8 with  respect to such worshippers were duly complied with.    

Section 16(2): If the Tribunal finds that the gurdwara  â\200\223

(i)     was established by, or in memory of any of the  Ten Sikh Gurus, or in commemoration of any incident in  the life of any of the Ten Sikh Gurus and was used for  public worship by Sikhs before and at the time of the  presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of  Section 7; or

(ii)    owing to some tradition connected with one of  the Ten Sikh Gurus, was used for public worship  predominantly by Sikhs before and at the time of the  presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of  Section 7;  

(iii)   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 Section 7; or

(iv)    was established in memory of a Sikh martyr,  saint or historical person and was used for such  worship by Sikhs, before and at the time of the  presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of  Section 7; or  

(v)     owing to some incident connected with the Sikh  religion was used for such worship by Sikhs, before  and at the time of the presentation of the petition  under sub-section (1) of Section 7;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

the tribunal shall decide that it should be declared  to be a Sikh Gurdwara, and record an order  accordingly.  

Section 18(1)(g): Presumption in favour of a Notified  Sikh Gurdwara on proof of certain facts when a claim  to property is made by an office-holder â\200\223 In any  proceedings before a Tribunal, if any past or present  office-holder denies that a right, title, or interest  recorded, in his name or in that of any person through  whom claims, in a record of rights, or in an annual  record, prepared in accordance with the provisions of  the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ( 17 of 1887), and  claimed to belong to a Notified Sikh Gurdwara, does so  belong, and claims such right, title or interest to  belong to himself shall, notwithstanding anything  contained in section 44 of the said Act, be a  presumption that such right, title or interest belongs  to the gurdwara upon proof of any of the following  facts namely â\200\223

(a)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(b)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(c)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(d)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(e)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(f)     x       x       x       x       x       x

(g)     the devolution of the succession to the right,  title or interest in question from an office-holder to  the successor-in-office as such on two or more  consecutive occasions.  

In Pritam Dass Mahant  v.  Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak  Committee (AIR 1984 SC 858), it was held as under:-

                       x       x       x       x       x       x "Temples are found almost in every religion but  there are some differences between the Sikh temples  and those of other religions.  The Sikh Gurdwaras have  the following distinctive features:

(1) Sikh temples are not the place of idol  worship as the Hindu temples are.  There is no place  for idol worship in a Gurdwara. The central object of  worship in a Gurdwara is Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the  holy book.  The pattern of worship consists of two  main items: reading of the holy hymns followed by  their explanation by some learned man, not necessarily  a particular Granthi and then singing of some passages  from the Holy Granth.  The former is called Katha and  the second is called Kirtan.  A Sikh thus worships the  Holy Words that are written in the Granth Sahib, the  Words or Shabada about the Eternal Truth of God.  No  idol or painting of any Guru can be worshipped.

(2) Sikh worship in the Gurdwara is a  congregational worship, whereas Hindu temples are  meant for individual worship.  A Sikh does the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

individual worship at home when he recites Gurbani  daily. Some scriptures meant for this purpose are  Japji, Jaap, Rahras, Kirtan Sohila. Sangat is the  collective body of Sikhs who meet every day in the  Gurdwara.

(3)     Gurdwara is a place where a copy of Guru  Granth Sahib is installed. The unique and  distinguishing feature would always be the Nishan  Sahib, a flagstaff with a yellow flag of Sikhism  flying from it.  This serves as a symbol of the Sikh  presence.  It enables the travellers, whether they be  Sikhs or not, to know where hospitality is available.  There may be complexity of rooms in a Gurdwara for the  building may also serve as a school, or where children  are taught the rudiments of Sikhism as well as a rest  center for travellers.  Often there will be a kitchen  where food can be prepared though langar itself might  take place in the yawning.  Sometimes the Gurdwara  will also be used as a clinic.  But its pivotal point  is the place of worship and the main room will be that  in which the Guru Granth Sahib is installed where the  community gathers for diwan.  The focal point in this  room will be the book itself."

The sine qua non for an institution, to be treated as Sikh  Gurdwara, as observed in the said case, is that there should be  established Guru Granth Sahib, and the worship of the same by  congregation,  and a Nishan Sahib.   There may be other rooms of the  institution made for other purposes but the crucial test is the  existence of Guru Granth Sahib and the worshippers thereof by the  congregation and Nishan Sahib.   

Unless the claim falls within one or the other of the categories  enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 16, the institution cannot be  declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara.

       These aspects have been highlighted in Shiromani Gurdwara  Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Bagga Singh and Ors. (2003 (1) SCC  619).  

       In S.G.P. Committee v. M.P. Dass Chela (dead) by Lrs. (1998 (5)  SCC 157) it was held that in terms of the requirement of Section 16(2),  the onus to prove that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara lies on the  person who asserts the same. That being the position, the Committee  which asserted that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara has to prove the  same. The High Court has therefore rightly held that the Tribunal  wrongly placed the burden of proof on the respondents herein. Judgments  to the contrary rendered and relied upon by the appellants are no longer   good law in view of the last noted decision. Similarly, this Court in  Harnam Singh’s case (supra) came to the conclusions that Nirmalas are  Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs and consequently in the mere  capacity of followers of Sikh religion residing in the concerned village  cannot be held to have an interest as to entitle them to institute a  suit under Section 92 of CPC. In other words, there was a categorical  finding that Nirmalas are not Sikhs. It was held that the Dera was  maintained for an entirely distinct sect known as Nirmalas Sadhus who  cannot be regarded as Sikhs. It was also held that mere fact that at  some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera cannot lead to any  conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the  followers of Sikh religion. These findings were rendered in  a suit  filed under Section 92 of CPC. Decisions taking the contrary view that  Nirmalas are Sikhs per se lose significance. The factual findings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

relating to the nature and character of the institutions, specifically  found on an elaborate review of the governing legal principles as well,  and which have reached finality cannot be re-agitated and the same is  precluded on the principle of ’Issue estoppel’ also. As has been rightly  contended by learned counsel for the respondents decisions rendered on  the peculiar fact situation specifically found to exist therein cannot  have any irreversible application.  

       A Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in (Bhai) Kirpa Singh v.  Rasalldar Ajaipal Singh and Ors. (AIR 1928 Lahore 627) observed that the  enactment of the Act and the issue of a Notification made under the  provisions of the Act declaring the Gurdwara to be a Sikh Gurdwara do  not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with an appeal  against the decree of the subordinate courts passed in a suit under  Section 92 of CPC. in respect of Gurdwara whose  appeal was pending when  the Act came into force or the Notification was issued. As the factual  scenario indicated above amplifies, in the original round, when a  representative suit was filed, the Act was not in operation to the area  when the Institution is established. Therefore, the declaration made by  the Civil Court is of considerable relevance.    

       As observed by this Court in R. Venugopala Naidu and Ors. V.  Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 444) a suit under  Section 92 CPC is a suit of special nature for the protection of public  rights in the public trust and charities. The suit is fundamentally on  behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It  is for the vindication of public rights. The beneficiaries of the trust,  which may consist of public at large, may choose two or more persons  amongst themselves for the purpose of filing a suit under Section 92 CPC  and the suit-title in that event would show only their names as  plaintiffs. Can we say that the persons whose names are in the suit- title are the only parties to the suit? The answer would be in the  negative. The named plaintiffs being the representatives of the public  at large which is interested in the trust, all such interested persons  would be considered in the eyes of law to be parties to the suit. A suit  under Section 92 CPC is thus a representative suit and as such binds not  only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who share common  interest and are interested in the trust. It is for that reason that  Explanation VI to Section 11 of CPC constructively bars by res judicata  the entire body of interested persons from re-agitating the matters  directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92  CPC.  

       Judged in the background of the legal parameters and the factual  matrix highlighted above, the appeals are without merit and deserve  dismissal which we direct. Costs made easy.