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.