PIARA SINGH Vs. GURU GRANTH SAHIB MADNIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this appeal relates to the property left behind by Mangal Singh son of Sobha Singh of Village Madnipur, who died issueless and without a widow on 28th February, 1964. The appellants got the mutation of this property sanctioned in their names on 3rd April, 1964. Alleging that prior to his death, on 1st January, 1964, Mangal Singh had executed a will (Exhibit P. W. 1/1) in favour of Shri Guru Granth Sahib installed in the Gurdwara Sahib Madnipur, the respondents assailing the validity of the mutation, brought the suit for possession. The defendants in contesting the suit did not admit that any will had been executed by Mangal Singh and also objected that the suit was not maintainable in its present form. Both these pleas have been rejected by the Courts below and the learned Additional District Judge has affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the will Exhibit P. W. 1/1 was duly executed by Mangal Singh. Though it has been observed that Shri Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person, the suit has been held to be maintainable on behalf of the remaining plaintiffs, one of whom is Gurdwara Sahib Madnipur.

(2.) IN this second appeal against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 8th September, 1966, the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the will Exhibit P. W. 1/1 was executed by Mangal Singh while he was in good health and possessed of sound disposing mind, being a finding of fact, has not been challenged and the only contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are: (1) That Shri Guru Granth Sahib and Shri Gurdwara Sahib Madnipur are not juristic persons and as such the suit was not maintainable; and (2) that the will having been made in favour of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, which is neither a juristic person nor capable of holding property, is not valid.

(3.) BOTH the courts below have held that Shri Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic person, but in holding that the suit was maintainable, they have pointed out that besides Shri Guru Granth Sahib, there are two other plaintiffs in the suit, namely, Shri Gurdwara Sahib Madnipur and Gujjar Singh, and they are competent to sue. It cannot be disputed that Gujjar Singh being a natural person could institute the suit. The appellants' objection to the locus standi of Shri Gurdwara Sahib Madnipur to sue is untenable as it is now well settled that a Gurdwara is a juristic person. This was so held by Harbans Singh, J. , (as his Lordship then was) in Shri Guru Granth Sahib Khoje Majra v. Nagar Panchayat Khoje Majra, (1969) 71 Pun LR 844. It was ruled that a Gurdwara is a juristic person which can own property and can bring a suit in its name to protect the property owned by it through its manager. Reliance in this connection was placed upon the following observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahant Lacahman Dass Chela Mahant Ishar Dass v. State of Punjab, ILR (1968) 2 Punj 499 (FB): "from the above discussion of the law on the subject it is clear that though juristic personality carrying with it the locus standi to institute a suit or initiate an action in a Court of Law necessarily depends on the procedural and municipal law of a country, it has all along been recognised by jurists and by the highest Courts than an institution in the sense of fictitious corporation composed of an idea or a purpose such as a Mutt for purposes germane to the same, and such as a mosque for the purposes of Muslim worship can exist in the eyes of law wholly independently of and separate from the property belonging to such an institution i. e. , independently of the building of the Mutt or the building of the mosque itself. It is, therefore, nothing strange that the Punjab Legislature while using the word 'gurdwara' in some parts of the Act intended therein to refer to the institution of the Gurdwara and not to the physical Gurdwara of brick and mortar. "