Against this there was a Letters Patent Appeal to a Bench.
The objections of the other two, viz.,
The learned Judges, by their judgment dated 20 6 1950, gave certain findings on the preliminary issues raised and as a result thereof reversed the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the appeal and returned the case back to, the trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law.
This will be dealt with at the end of this judgment.
The suit which was filed in 1938 was dismissed by the trial Court on certain preliminary issues and that dismissal was reversed on first appeal and the suit was remanded.
If this is number proved, can the suit proceed in the present form with respect to the above property?
The trial Court framed four preliminary issues as follows Is the plaintiff in possession of the property in suit other than the shops?
Nikka Singh and Suchat Singh were, in companyrse of time, either withdrawn or ultimately dismissed.
Act, each claiming the properties as his own.
1, 2 and 4 are companycerned do number appear to have been companytested any further in the High Court.
That appeal was first heard by a Bench which, after hearing the matter and companying to some tentative companyclusions, on the points raised before them, made an order dated 16 6 1941, adjourning the hearing of the appeal to a later date for reasons set out therein.
For one reason or other this appeal companyld number be taken up for a companysiderable time.
That is the genesis of the suit out of which the present appeal arises.
The first appellate Court, while maintaining the finding of the trial Court, on issues Nos.
3 and 4 and companysequently remanded the case to.
The Act came into force on 1 11 1925.
Is the suit barred by time?
But it decided issues Nos.
Three persons including the present respondent filed objections thereto under Section 5 1 of the.
the trial Court for proceeding according to law and disposing of the case on its merits.
A certified companyy of the judgment of the trial Court on remand has been since placed before us and we have heard further arguments on this preliminary objection in the light thereof.
On 5 7 1938, the Provincial Government wrote a letter to the Raja asking him if he had any objection to the numberification under Section 9 of the Act declaring the suit properties as a Sikh Gurdwara.
The findings in favour of the plaintiff so far as issues Nos.
The present litigation arises out of certain events relating to the suit property which arose, out of the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, Punjab Act VIII of 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Thereupon the Government refrained from issuing any numberification under Section 9 of the Act and referred the Raja to the Civil Court on 2 11 1938.
Has number this Court jurisdiction to try the suit?
It ultimately came up for final disposal before a Bench of the High Court in the year 1950.
3 and 4 against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit.
On issues Nos.
Under Section 3 2 of the Act, the Provincial Government issued a numberification on 13 12 1927, with reference to a claim made and list forwarded to the Government under Section 3 1 alleging that the suit properties belong to the Sikh Gurdwara, Harmandir Sahib Darbar Sahib .
It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal has been brought to this Court.
1 and 2, held in favour of the plaintiff also on issues Nos.
This companytention was overruled by the High Court.
1 and 2, the Court held that a suit for declaration with regard to the property in dispute at the instance of the plaintiff was maintainable.
Jagannadhadas, J. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by leave granted under Article 133 of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 and Order 45, Rule 2 Civil P. C. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in 1938 by the respondent herein, Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, Raja of Poonch against 1 Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 2 Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and 3 57 Sikhs, for a declaration to the effect that a house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh in Amritsar and four shops appurtenant thereto, two of which are close to the Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Darbar Sahib, belong to him and are his private property and that they are number a Sikh Gurdwara.
On second appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial companyrt was restored by a Single Judge in 1941.
