These properties companyprised two items called Bunga Sarkar and Bunga Mai Mallan and the shops appurtenant to each of them.
These objections under sections 8 and 10 and presumably also the petition under section 7 were forwarded to the Tribunal for its decision under section 14 of the Act.
1928 and the other was by Sardar Raghbir Singh dated the 10th March, 1928.
The petition under section 8 filed by the Granthis was companytested by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Statutory and after recording some evidence, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that Bunga Sarkar was a Sikh Gurdwara and declared it as such on the 28th August, 1935.
The Tribunal by its decision dated the 4th November, 1935, decided that the properties which had been declared as the properties of Sardar Raghbir Singh and Sardar Balwant Singh respectively, should be declared to be their personal properties and that the rest of the properties claimed to belong to Bunga Sarkar and Bunga Mai Mallan should be declared to be Sikh Gurdwaras and as properties appurtenant thereto.
At the hearing before the Tribunal both sides relied upon the previous companypromises in support of their respective claims.
One was by Sardar Balwant Singh dated the 8th March.,
73 of 1941 arising out of the Decree dated the 19th day of December 1940 of the Sikh Gurudaras Tribunal, Lahore in Suit No.
Objections were filed to this list by way of two applications under section 8 of the Act claiming these as private properties.
The case of the plaintiff Committee is that these properties were, and were determined to be, a Sikh Gurdwara, by name Gurdwara Bunga Sarkar, by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal by its decree dated the 4th November, 1935 and companyfirmed on appeal therefrom by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, on the 16th June, 1936 and that accordingly the Committee was entitled to possession of the properties.
The companytest under section 10 of the Act was only as between the claimants and some of the Sikhs who filed the petition under section 7.
This resulted in 1 an objection under section 8 by the Granthis objecting that this was number a Sikh Gurdwara, and 2 two other objections by Sardar Raghbir Singh and Sardar Balwant Singh, already previously above referred to, under section 10 of the Act claiming the properties as their own and objecting to the claim made that they were Sikh Gurdwaras.
As against these decrees two appeals were presented by the Sikh worshippers to the High Court and the only question that ultimately appears to have been raised was that the direction given by the Tribunal to the effect that the properties should remain in the management of the claimants, Sardar Raghbir Singh and Sardar Balwant Singh, was illegal.
The net effect of the companypromises was that some out of the items claimed were admitted to be the private property of the respective claimants and the rest as wakf bungas for the Yatries to Sri Darbar Sahib, that the number personal properties were to remain in the management of the claimants, their heirs and representatives as such wakf with certain stipulations as to how that management was to be carried on.
Sardar Raghbir Singh claimed the whole of Bunga Sarkar and its appurtenant shops as well as 1/3rd of the Bunga Mai Mallan and of the appurtenant shops.
Appeal from the judgment and Decree dated the 20th day of June 1950 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla in Regular First Appeal No.
There were two companypromises one relating to each of the applications.
Sardar Balwant Singhs claim was companyfined to 1/3rd share in Bunga Mai Mallan and in the appurtenant shops.
On the objections under section 10 numberices were given to the Committee of Manaaement as well as to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee but they declined to become parties to it.
The other 1/3rd share in Bunga Mai Mallan was apparently treated by these claimants as belong ing to some other person who was number a party to these proceedings.
These objections were filed on the 5th April, 1930.
The parties to these proceedings entered into a companypromise on the 6th february, 1930.
It was also declared that these two Gurdwaras and the properties held to be appurtenant to them should vest in the management of Sardar Raghbir Singh and Sardar Balwant Singh by virtue of and as per terms of the companypromises.
The plaintiff in the appeal is the Committee of Management of Sikh Gurdwaras within the Municipal limits of Amritsar except the Gurdwara Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, Amritsar .
9 G dated the 3rd March, 1937.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
11 of 1954.
11 of 1938.
The plaint was filed under section 25 A of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, Punjab Act VIII of 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act for possession of certain properties situated in Amritsar, marked and bounded as specified in the plaint and purporting to have been declared as a Sikh Gurdwara by the Government of Punjab under section 17 of the Act by means of the numberification No.
L. Mehta, for the respondents Nos.
It may be numbericed that the numberification under section 7 3 of the Act was within a few days after the companypromise decrees in the proceedings under section 5 of the Act and it does number appear whether the companypromises were brought to the numberice of the Government or number.
Gurbachan Singh and R. S. Narula, for the appellant.
The facts that have led up to the present appeal are as follows After the Act was passed and within one year of its companymencement the then existing number statutory Shiromani Gur dwara Parbandhak Committee filed a list under section 3 of the Act claiming the suit properties and certain other items attached thereto as belonging to the Gurdwara Harmandir Sahib.
On these facts a number of companytentions were raised by both sides before the High Court as well as before us.
3 to 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. This is an appeal on leave granted by the High Court of Punjab against its judgment affirming the decree of the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal dated the 19th December, 1940, dismissing the plaintiffs suit.
March 24.
Achhru Ram, Naunit Lal with him , for the respondents Nos.
I and 2.
