SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. BUNGA MADRASSA SIKH GURDWARA UNDER THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, TAKHAT DAMDAMA SAHIB, TALWANDI SABO, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BHATINDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these cases are connected. While the regular second appeal is against the concurrent decrees for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff, the civil writ petitions are in respect of orders passed by the revenue authorities determining the mense profit in favour of the plaintiff and in some matters where adjudication has been direction to await the decision. CWP Nos.865, 869 and 1525 of 2008 are at the instance of the petitioners against the determination of mense profit, while CWP Nos.914, 791 and 888 of 2000 at the instance of the respondents-plaintiff. The whole issue will revolve on the entitlement only of the plaintiff to secure possession of the property from the defendant appellant, who admittedly is in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff is described in plaint as Bunga Madrassa Sikh Gurdwara under the control and management of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Takhat Damdama Sahib, Talwani Sabo, Tehsil and District Bhatinda. The description of the property is set out only because the contest is on the frame of suit and the adjudication of whether the plaintiff is a "juristic person", who could claim the reliefs.

(2.) The case comes up for discussion not merely on the issue of ownership but the entitlement of the plaintiff to maintain the action. The plaintiff has brought upon itself the obstacles initially, by the way the plaint had been drafted and how the plaintiff made attempts during the course of the trial to improve the situation by seeking to make certain amendments which were denied to it. It would, therefore, be necessary to examine the issues at their peripheries before we approach the core issue of ownership. Originally, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 32 of the SGPC Act for transfer of the suit pending in the Court for deciding the claim relating to the notified Sikh Gurdwara on the ground that the property really belonged to the Takhat Damdama Sahib, Talwani Sabo and that since the said Takhat Damdama Sahib was a notified Gurdwara, it should be forwarded to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Court dismissed the application holding that the suit had been filed only by Bunga Madrassa through its Manager and not Takhat Sri Damdama Sahib. Bunga Madrassa itself was not a notified Sikh Gurdwara and consequently, the suit could not be prosecuted before the Tribunal. Finding that there was an error in claiming the property to be the property of Bunga Madrassa, the plaintiff again filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and wanted to amend the cause title differently as Gurdwara Sahib, Damdama Sahib and Bunga Madrassa. This amendment was also rejected by a finding that the attempt was to bring a new plaintiff instead of Bunga Madrassa. The plaintiff had not taken any steps to modify this order and the suit came to be prosecuted in the same manner in which it was originally drafted. The learned counsel for the appellant would bring at the forefront of the arguments the non-maintainability of the suit at the instance of Bunga Madrassa, contending that 'Bunga Madrassa' is merely a 'rest house' for pilgrims travelling to Harmander Sahib. It cannot hold any property by itself. The learned counsel would also contend that if Bunga Madrassa through the petitioner to be termed as a Sikh Gurdwara under the control of SGPC, SGPC is a body corporate and the suit cannot be instituted without an appropriate authority through a resolution authorizing the institution of the suit.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would contend placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and others Versus Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh and others, 1955 AIR(SC) 576, that explained the word "Bunga". The judgment held "a Bunga is a hostel where pilgrims coming from various parts of India to pay a visit to the Golden Temple, stay". The Hon'ble Supreme Court was deciding the case in a private suit filed for declaration by Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Singh, the Raja of Poonch that the house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh and shops appurtenant thereto were his own private property and they did not belong to the Sikh Gurdwara. The suit had been dismissed in the year 1938 on certain preliminary issues which were reversed in first appeal and remanded to the trial Court. On a second appeal against the order, the High Court dismissed it. The dismissal of the trial Court was restored and against the said judgment, there was a LPA to a Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and returned the case back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law and it was this decision that was a further challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All along the case had, therefore, been only on preliminary issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction in relation to a declaration that the particular property was a Sikh Gurdwara or not. The objection was with reference to Sections 16 and 32 of the SGPC Act. Dealing with Section 32, the Court held that admittedly the Gurdwara was not a notified Gurdwara and, therefore, Section 32 would not apply. Referring to Section 29 of the Act that deals with exclusion of jurisdiction of the Courts, the Court held that exclusion is not of adequate amplitude to effectively exclude the jurisdiction of a Civil Court but only prohibits its exercise "unless and until" a specified issue is decided under Section 16 of the Act. Section 29(2) was, therefore, not a bar to exclude the jurisdiction completely of a Civil Court but operated as a limited stay until a specific issue is determined by the Tribunal. The Court found that there was no clear bar for entertaining the suit. The issue was never concluded by the judgment that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to declare the plaintiff's alleged entitlement to the property.