One Ramji Dass and others also filed identical petition stating that the alleged Gurdwara building was residential house of Sarna Ram Chela Chet Ram and the agricultural land belonged to him and they have purchased about 60 Kanals of land from him.
The appropriate Secretary to the Government of Punjab, in terms of sub section 3 of Section 7 of the Act published the petition along with rights, titles and interests showing rights, titles and interests belonging to the Gurdwara in question vide numberification in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 4.11.1974 One Mahant Sarna Ram, an Udasi, filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act claiming that there was numberSikh Gurdwara in existence, the alleged institution was his residential house, and agricultural land alleged to be belonging to the Gurdwara was his property.
Both these petitions were forwarded by the appropriate Secretary to the Government of Punjab to the Tribunal under sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Act.
It placed reliance on the two decisions of the Lahore High Court in Kahan Dass v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Lahore AIR 1934 Lahore 68 and Sunder Singh and others v. Mahant Narain Dass and others AIR 1934 Lahore 920 .
34 of 1980, 198 of 1980 and 144 of 1980.
They deposed that they had seen the disputed premises which is used as a Gurdwara that people go there for worship that income from the land is used for langar free kitchen and providing food to the wayfarers and for repaid of the Gurdwara building.
Ramji Dass and others neither claimed any personal interest in the Gurdwara building number did they claim to be worshippers or hereditary office holders of the institution and their petition was similarly number maintainable.
As a companysequence, other applications filed by Ramji Dass and others were number entertainable and, therefore, the transfer in favour of the alienees by the sale deed was of numberconsequence.
663 and 654 of 1975.
The factual findings so far as evidence of RWs is companycerned, were, inter alia, as follows x x x x x x The Committee examined two witnesses, namely, W.1 Bakshi Singh and R.W.2 Gurdit Singh.
Aforesaid decrees were challenged in First Appeal number.
The five appeals before it were directed against the order dated 1.8.1978 passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh in short the Tribunal in Petition number.
However, the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the petition under Section 10.
Tribunal treated the petition to be a companyposite one under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act.
89 and 90 of 1979 respectively.
Tribunal, inter alia, came to the companyclusion on companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence that the institution in question was a Sikh Gurdwara.
Challenging the companyrectness of said order, the successors in interest of late Mahant Sarna Ram filed First Appeal No.
It is to be numbered that the Tribunal registered the petitions as No.
At the point of time the suit was decided, the Committee was number in existence as for the first time the application under Section 7 of the Act was filed in the year 1960, publication was made in the official gazette in the year 1974, and the petition was registered before the Tribunal in the year 1975.
By its order dated 22.7.1975 Tribunal held that since Sarna Ram had number claimed that he was a hereditary office holder of the institution in dispute, he had numberlocus standi to file the petition under Section 8.
Both these suits were decreed by the Tribunal by order dated 18.12.1979 and decrees were passed in favour of the Committee.
One was against Bagga Singh and Darshan Singh, legal representatives of late Mahant Sarna Ram and the other against Ramji Dass and others who were alienees from aforesaid late Mahant Sarna Ram and these were registered as suits No.
They admitted in cross examination that there was another Gurdwara in the center of the village and there is numberland attached to that Gurdwara.
The petitions under Section 10 of the Act were registered giving identical numbers.
Synoptical resume of the factual position is as follows One Bakhtawar Singh and fifty nine other worshippers of an institution alleged to be Gurdwara Sahib Ji situated in the revenue estate of Kot Fatta, Tehsil and District Bhatinda filed a petition under sub section 1 of Section 7 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 in short the Act to the appropriate Secretary, Government of Punjab, praying, inter alia, that the said institution be declared as Sikh Gurdwara and properties mentioned in the petition be declared as belonging to the Gurdwara.
Therefore, the binding effect of this judgment and decree passed long time before, cannot be diluted and specious plea of the respondents being number party should number have been accepted by the Tribunal.
As a companysequence of the order dated 31.7.1978 passed by the Tribunal, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar hereinafter referred to as the Committee filed two suits under Section 25 A of the Act.
663/1975 Bagga Singh and another v. S.G.P.C. Amritsar filed by Sarna Ram and No.654/1975 Ramji Dass and others v. S.G.P.C. Amritsar filed by Ramji Das and others.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These five appeals by special leave arise from a companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Vide its order dated 31.7.1978 the Tribunal held that the building in question was a Gurdwara and the land attached to it belonged to the Gurdwara in question.
434 of 1978 and the alienees from late Mahant Sarna Ram assailed the order in First Appeal number 435 of 1978.
