http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

MAMO AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHRI GURDWARA GAINB^AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/1999

BENCH:

S.P.Kurdukar, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri

JUDGMENT:

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAPRI, J.

The judgment sna decree under challenge In this

appeal, by special leave, were passed in Second Appeal No.

1044 of 1378 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana,

Chandigarh, on December 16, 1987. The appeal arises out of

the suit filed by respondent No.l (referred to in this

judgment as 'the plaintiff) against the appellants and

respondent Nos.S to 4 who are the legal representatives of

one Pritam Singh (referred to in

this judgment as "the defendants') for recovery of

possession of agricultural land measuring 160 Kanals 16

Marlas situated at village Salbehra tehsil district Patiala

(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land' ).

On April 22, 1969, the suit was filed on the basis of

title of the plaintiff. The suit land originally belonged

to one Ram Singh who gifted the same in favour of Gurdawara

Sahib in 1951 while it was being held by Pritam Singh as a

mortgagee. Later, the mortgage was redeemed by Ram Singh

and the suit land was mutated in the revenue records in the

name of Gurdwara Sahib but it continued in the possession of

Pritam Singh. After declaration of Gurdwara as a Sikh

Gurdwara, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabanohak Committee, Amritsar,

filed asuit against the local Committee for recovery of

possession of the suit land which was under "its control and

management. That suit was decreed on December 1, 1964. In

execution of the decree actual possession of the suit land

could not be taken from Pritam Singh, instead only symbolic

possession was given to Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak

Committee. The plaintiff was notified by the Punjab

Government in 1965. It then initiated proceedings against

Pritam Singh before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for

recovery of rents. On October 31, 1968, the claim was

dismissed holding that Pritam Singh was neither the

mortgagee nor the tenant of the suit land. Sometime

thereafter the said Pritam Singh died and the present suit

was brought against the defendants on April 22, 1969.

The suit was resisted by the defendants denying the

ownership of the plaintiff, the knowledge of the earlier

suit and taking of symbolic possession of the suit "and from

the said Pritam Singh. It was pleaded that the suit was

barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras

Act, 1925 and that till his death Pritam Singh was in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

possession of the suit land and thereafter they had been

adverse possession thereof, so the title of plaintiff, if

any, extinguished.

On considering the entire avidence on record, the

trial court held that under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras

Act the suit was beyond limitation and that the defendants

would be deemed to be in adverse possession from 1952 'and

for that reason also the suit was barred by limitation.

Thus, the suit was dismissed on November 4,1974. -.

The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the

Additional District Judge, Patiala. The Appellate Court

framed the following additional issue No.9-A and called for

finding from the trial court.

"9-A. Whether the defendants are in adverse

possession of the property in dispute and if so, since when

and what is its effect?"

The trial Court returned the finding that;;- the

defendants failed to prove adverse possession of the suit

land. That finding was accepted by the First Appellate

Court and it was held that under the Limitation Act the suit

was not barred. However. agreeing with the trial court

that under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act the suit was

barred, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on

March 8, 1978,

The plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 1044 of 1378 in

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the

correctness of the judgment and decree of the First

Appellate Court. The High Court took the view that the suit

was based on title and not on disposseessior so it was for

the defendants to prove that they became owner of the suit 1

and by adverse possession which they failed to do; it

expressed agreement with the finding of the first Appellate

Court that the suit was not barred under the Limitation Act

and held that on the ground of limitation prescribed in

Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, the plaintiff could

not be non- suited. The High Court thus allowed the Second

appeal ana dscreed the suit on December 16, 1987. It is

against that judgment and decree that this appeal is

filed.

Mr.Ashok K.Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant

, contended that under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act,

the period of limitation prescribed under the special Act

alone would apply and in view of the provision of Section

28(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. the suit ought to have

been filed within ninety days of the notification dated

November 1, 1962 but it was filed on April 22, 1969 so it

was clearly barred; that the High Court wrongly held that

the suit was within limitation under the Limitation Act and

allowed the Second Appeal.

Mr. Hardev Gingh, learned senior counsel for the

first resoondent, argued tnat the suit contemplated under

Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act was earlier filed

against tne local Committee and that the present suit was

filed on the basis of the title, therefore, it would te

governed by the Limitation Act and that in view or findings

of the courts below the suit was riqhtly held to be within

limitation by the High Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

On. the con tentions raised at. the hearing and in

the written submissions of the learned counsel, the

following question falls for consideration : is the

period of limitation specified in Section 28 of the

Sikh Gurdwaras Act applicable to the suit filed by the

plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of the suit

land?

Here, it will b@ useful to read Section 28 of the Sikh

Gurdwaras Act, 1925 which is extracted hereunder:

"28. Suits for possession of undisputed property on

behalf of Notified Sikh Gurdwaras -

(1) When a notification has been published under the

provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 or of sub-section

(3) of Section 10, the committee of the gurdwara concerned

may bring a suit on behalf of the gurdwara for the

after the date of the publication of such

notification."

Section 28 deals with suits for recovery of possession

of undisputed property on behalf of the notified SiKh

Gurdawaras. Under the scheme of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act a

consolidated "list of the gurdwaras and the properties

thereof 'was published and claims, if any, were entertained

within the prescribed time. Where no claim was made under

sub-section (2) of .Section 5, a notification was issued

under sub-section (.3) of Section 5 specifying that no claim

was made in respect of the right, title or interest in any

property cautioned .therein and such a notification is

conclusive proof of the fact that no such claim was made in

respect' of any right, title or interest in the

gurdwaras and the properties specified in the notification.

So also is the position in respect of a notification issued

under sub-section (3) of Section 10 regarding -properties

included in the list published under sub-section (.3) of

Section 7. The properties included in the said

notifications are treated as undisputed properties under-

Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act..

How, a plain reading of the provision extracted above

shows that sub- section (i) of Section 28 enables

the committee of the gurdwara concerned to bring a

suit on behalf of the gurdwara for the possession of any.

property, a proprietary title which has been specified in

such notification subject to two conditions - (1) that the

gurdwara .concerned is entitled to immediate possession of

the property, in question and (2) it. is not in possession

thereof at the date of the publication of such notification.

Sub-section (2) of Section 28 has three, limbs: the first

provides that such a suit shall be instituted in the

principal court of. original jurisdiction in which the

property' in question is situated; the second prescribes a

period of limitation of ninety days for bringing the suit

(commencing from the date of publication of notification

referred to in sub-section (1) or from the date of

constitution of the .committee whichever is later "} and the

'thircy dec'la.rss the consequence of

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

failure to insfitute such a suit within the said

Deriod of ninety days :and mandates that no subsequent suit

on .' beha'ifo^ the gurdwara for possession of the property

shall be instituted in any court except on. the ground of

dispossession of 'the gurdwara after the date of the

publication (ration of such notification. For a suit of

this nature no period of limitation is prescribed thereunder

so "it will be governed by the Indian Limitation Act,

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the suit

land is a notified property. The suit contempated under

sub-section (1) of Section 28 was brought within the period

specified in sub-section (2) against the local committee of

the gurdwara which was managing the suit land. That suit

was decreed. In execution of the decree passed in that suit

symbolic possession was obtained from Pritam Singh as he was

not a party to the suit. We have perused the original

record. The report of the bailiff in execution proceedings

did mention that symbolic possession of the suit land was

given to the decree holder. No material was placed before

the Courts below by the defendants to show that Pritam Singh

challenged handing over of symbolic possession or claimed

any right or title in the suit land in execution proceedings

and that was upheld. It was only after ths said Pritam

Singh denied the tenancy and the Assistant Collector 1st

grade held that he was neither the mortagagee nor the

tenant, the plaintiff brought ths present suit against the

defendants for recovery of possession of the suit land.

This suit is of the nature referred to in the third limb of

sub-section (2) of Section 28, referred to above. On the

premise that it was only after the publication of the

notification that the cause of action arose to the

plaintiff, it filed the suit for racovery of the suit-land.

The first Appellate Court as

well as the High Court held that the defendants did

not perfect their title by adverse possession and this

finding remained unchallenged.

From the above discussion, it follows that the period

of "limitation of ninety days mentioned in Section 28 1s not

applicable to the present suit, so it cannot, therefore, be

said to be barred by limitation specified therein. The suit

falls within the third limb of sub-Section (2) of Section 28

to which period of limitation specified in the Indian

Limitation Act applies. The first Appellate Court and the

High Court have held that the suit is not barred under

Limitation Act. The High Court has, therefore, rightly

decreed the suit of the plaintiff. We find no illegality in

the judgment and decree under appeal. The appeal falls and

it 1s accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the

case without, costs.