KESAR SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which the present appeal arises has had a chequered history. It was filed as far back as June 1943, the plaintiff being S. Balwant Singh thereinafter referred to as the respondent). The main defendants were Kesar Singh and Jaswant Singh of whom Kesar Singh will be referred to as the appellant hereinafter. The suit was with respect to a house known 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 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. There were proceedings before the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal established under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act No. VIII of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in 1933 with respect to this bunga. The proceedings arose because a claim was put forward that the bunga was the property of the Golden Temple. In those proceedings the appellant and the other defendant claimed the bunga. The respondent also made a claim to the bunga. The proceedings were all consolidated and it was decided that the bunga was not 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. There were appeals to the High Court 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. Thereafter the respondent along with his uncle filed a declaratory suit against the appellant and the other defendant. In that suit they were ordered to file a suit for possession. Consequently the present suit was filed for possession and ejectment of the appellant and the other defendant.

(2.) 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. They had been asked to deliver possession to the respondent but refused to do so and continued to treat the bunga which was wakf property as their personal property. The respondent therefore did not 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.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the appellant and the other defendant and it was contended that the respondent was not a descendant of Maharaja Sher Singh and was therefore not entitled to the management of the bunga. It was also denied that the bunga was wakf property. 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. It was further alleged that any decision of the tribunal against the appellant had no effect as the tribunal had no jurisdiction to give any decision and in any case the tribunal had given no decision in favour of the respondent and his uncle. Further even if any decision was given in favour of the respondent and his uncle by the tribunal, it was not binding on the appellant as he was no party to those proceedings. 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 could not be ejected by the respondent. 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 respondent's application under S. 25A of the Act had been dismissed in July 1935, he had no right to file a suit for possession thereafter.