MAHANT JAWALA SINGH CHELA OF MAHANT BISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE v. THE SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE, AMRITSAR

37Copy pinpoint37. We also find that the Tribunal and the High Court have

MAHANT JAWALA SINGH v. SHIROMANi GURDWARA 119

PRABHANDHAK COMMITIEE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

.not given due weightage to the evidence, oral and documentary' A produced by the appellant. Appellant, Jawala Singh, who appeared as PW-8 and seven witnesses examined by him consistently stated that the institution, that is, the Dera was established by Nirmala faquir and Baba Bishan Singh was its .first Mahant. The report of Tehsildar, Phul dated 16 Sawan B. Saliflvat 1941, I report of the Revenue Superintendent dated 18 Har Samvat 1956, report of Nazar in Mahkama Aliya ljlas dated 18 Bhadon, Samvat 1956, order dated 28th Bhado Samvat 1956 passed by Mahkama Aliya ljlas and the order passed by the then Maharaja Sahib on 24 Kartik Samvat 1956 show that c Maharaja Bharpur Singh had given 56 Ghumaons of land to Bhai Bir Singh in Sammat 1913. It is also borne out that in Samvat 1914, the land In-both the patties was given by Maharaja Bharpur Singh to Bhai Bir Singh on periodical lease. In the report of Tehsildar, Phul it was noted· that there is no 0 mention regarding the ownership but inquiry from Lambardar revealed that the ownership was of Bhai Bir Singh who was shown as Nirmal Sadhu. In the report of Revenue Superintendent, there is a mention of dera on the land and as per the instructions given by the government on 29th Poh Samvat 1954, the entry in the column of ownership was to be made in the name of Dera Granth Sahib as per the desire of real owners. It was also indicated that the Sadhus residing in the dera shall have no right to sell and mortgage the land. The muafi was granted by Maharaja Bharpur Singh for dharamarth i.e., to meet expenses of Sadhus and poor. The last order passed by the Maharaja shows that entry regarding ownership of the Dera was to be made as proposed at the time of settlement. Unfortunately, the High Court brushed aside the documentary evidence produced by the appellant by recording one line obs~rvation that his counsel could not establish its relevance. In oi..;· view, while hearing the appeal, it was duty of the High Court to have adverted to the various documents ahd then determined their relevance.

38Copy pinpoint38. The findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High H

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A Court on the question of use of the institution for worship by Sikhs are too sketchy. The only statement made by the witnesses examined by the respondent was that sometimes the residents go for worship of Guru Granth Sahib. In our view, in the absence of any evidence to show that the institution was B established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship, the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to declare it to be a Sikh Gurdwara by simply relying upon the entries in the revenue records or the fact that Prakash of Guru Granth Sahib is done and on some occasion people come to worship Guru Granth c Sahib and the High Court committed serious error by dismissing the appeal.

39Copy pinpoint39. Since we have held that the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court are legally unsustainable, it is not necessary to deal with argument advanced by the le& ... _J D coumsel with reference to Section 4 of the 1991 Act.

40Copy pinpoint40. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment as also the order passed by the Tribunal are set aside. As a sequel to this, the declaration made by the Tribunal that E the institution in question is a Sikh Gurdwara is also set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed.