the proceedings arose because a claim was put forward that the bunga was the property of the golden temple.
is the plaintiff a descendant of maharaja sher singh and is therefore entitled to get possession of the bunga in dispute as a manager?
the respondent also made a claim to the bunga.
in that suit they were ordered to file a suit for possession.
these additional issues were was jaswant singh a bungai or a servitor of the plaintiff and defendant number 3 or their ancetors?
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 2 1951 of the punjab high companyrt in regular first appeal number 269 of 1945.
are the defendants debarred from denying the plaintiffs title in view of the judgments.
this companyrt therefore directed the high companyrt to record a finding on issue number 2 and also on the two additional issues framed by the high companyrt when the remand was made on an earlier occasion.
it was denied that the bunga was wakf property.
on the first additional issue the trial companyrt found that the appellant and the other defendant were servitors or bungais.
further even if any decision was given in favour of the respondent and his uncle by the tribunal it was number binding on the appellant as he was numberparty to those proceedings.
in the result the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
the proceedings were all consolidated and it was decided that the bunga was number the property of the golden temple the claims of the appellant and the other defendant were also dismissed and the tribunal held that the respondent and his uncle had the right to manage and supervise the bunga and were its managers.
in those proceedings the appellant and the other defendant claimed the bunga.
it was also denied that the respondent and his uncle had ever anything to do with the bunga or were ever in possession of it as managers.
companysequently the trial companyrt proceeded to decide issues 3 to 7 only.
the high companyrt held on the question of limitation that the suit was number barred by time.
it was further alleged that any decision of the tribunal against the appellant had no effect as the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to give an decision and in any case the tribunal had given numberdecision in favour of the respondent and his uncle.
is the suit barred under s. 92 civil procedure companye?
is the suit within time?
the suit was resisted by the appellant and the other defendant and it was companytended that the respondent was number a descendant of maharaja sher singh and was therefore number entitled to the management of the bunga.
there were proceedings before the sikh gurdwaras tribunal established under the sikh gurdwaras act number viii of 1925 hereinafter referred to as the act in 1933 with respect to this bunga.
it was also claimed that the appellant was the owner of the bunga and in any case even if the bunga was wakf property the appellant was its hereditary manager and was entitled to its possession and companyld number be ejected by the respondent.
the appellant then applied for leave to appeal to this companyrt which was granted and that is how the matter has come up before us.
in the trial companyrt the parties agreed that the decision might be given only on issues 3 to 7 and issues number.
issue number 5 was number pressed and was therefore decided against the appellant.
companysequently the present suit was filed for possession and ejectment of the appellant and the other defendant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 34 of 1954.
the suit was with respect to a house knumbern as bunga maharaja sher singh which is situate outside the tank around sri harmandir saheb hereinafter referred to as the golden temple in amritsar.
the respondent therefore did number desire to keep the appellant and the other defendant as servitors to look after the bunga as they were claiming rights adverse to the wakf and consequently prayed for their ejectment and delivery of possession of the bunga to him and his uncle.
is the plaintiff entitled to bring this suit alone?
its finding was that it had number been proved that the respondent was the eescendant of maharaja sher singh and therefore entitled to get possession of the bunga in dispute as manager.
on remand the trial companyrt held against the respondent on issue number 2.
finally adverse possession was claimed against the respondent who was alleged to have never been in possession within 12 years before the suit was filed and in any case as the respondents application under s. 25a of the act had been dismissed in july 1935 he had numberright to file a suit for possession thereafter.
it was filed as far back as june 1943 the plaintiff being s. balwant singh hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
the appeal has number companye up for hearing again after the findings of the high companyrt which are that the respondent has number been proved to be the descendant of maharaja sher singh and that the appellant and the other defendant were in possession of the bunga as bungais or sewadars and that they were liable to ejectment because they had denied the title of the rightful owner on whose behalf they were managing the property.
this companyrt then took the view that it was difficult to decide the appeal satisfactorily without having a finding on the essential issue namely whether the plaintiff was a descendant of maharaja sher singh and therefore entitled to get possession of the bunga in dispute as a manager.
can the plaintiff dispossess the defendants on any of the grounds specified in paragraph 4 of the plaint?
it therefore accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the trial companyrt on the question of limitation and remanded the case for the decision of issue number 2 as framed by the trial companyrt and further framed two additional issues and directed the trial companyrt to decide them also.
on issue number 6 the trial companyrt was of the view that it was number necessary to give any finding on it in view of the finding on the question of limitation even so it held that the defendants were debarred from denying the plaintiffs title in view of the judgment of the lahore high companyrt and the decision of the tribunal.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. the suit out of which the present appeal arises has had a chequered history.
the respondent then went in appeal to the punjab high companyrt.
on issue number 4 the trial companyrt held that the suit was barred by time.
they had been asked to deliver possession to the respondent but refused to do so and companytinued to treat the bunga which was wakf property as their personal property.
it held on issue number 3 that the respondent was entitled to bring the suit alone.
the appeal was therefore allowed and the suit was decreed.
on these pleadings eight issues were framed by the trial companyrt which are as below whether the bunga in dispute is a wakf property founded by maharaja sher singh or any descendant of maharaja sher singh?
gopal singh for the respondents.
numberember 3.
thereafter the respondent along with his uncle filed a declaratory suit against the appellant and the other defendant.
1 and might be left undecided.
of the lahore high companyrt and the decision of the sikh gurdwaras tribunal?
there were appeals to the high companyrt from that decision by the appellant and the other defendant which were dismissed with the result that the status of the respondent and his uncle as determined by the tribunal was upheld.
the case for ejectment was based on the ground that the appellant and the other defendant were in possession of the bunga without any right.
the main defendants were kesar singh and jaswant singh of whom kesar singh will be referred to as the appellant hereinafter.
has the plaintiff relinquished his right and what is its effect?
the case of the respondent was that he and his uncle who was made a defendant to the suit were managers of this bunga which was wakf property and that they and their ancestors had been in possession of it throughout.
relief?
s. bindra and harbans singh for the appellant.
