Important Point
Gurudwara Dera Lang Shri Guru Granth Sahib in village Sardargarh, Tehsil & District Bhatinda is not Sikh Gurudwara within meaning of Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925.

Judgment

Srinivasan, J.-Leave granted.

2. This proceeding had its origin in an application by 60 persons claiming to be worshippers of Gurudwara Dera Lang Guru Granth Sahib situate within the revenue estate of village Sardargarh, Tehsil and District Bhatinda under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Act’). Under the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 7 of the Act, the Governor of Punjab issued a Notification No. 1301-GP dated 7th August, 1984 published in the Government gazette alongwith a list of rights, titles and interests in properties said to belong to the said Gurudwara. One Mahant Puran Dass filed a petition under Section 8 of the Act with the State Government which was forwarded under Section 14(1) of the Act to the Sikh Gurud­waras Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh. Mahant Puran Dass claimed that the institution was not a Sikh Gurudwara but it was a Dera of Udasi sadhus. The Tribunal impleaded the appellant herein as party respond­ent in the said petition. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. The Tribunal held that Mahant Puran Dass was not a hereditary office holder and had no locus standi to maintain a petition under Section 8. The Tribunal also held that the institution in question is a Sikh Gurudwara within the ambit of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act.

3. Aggrieved thereby, Mahant Puran Dass filed an appeal under Section 34 of the Act before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. As per the requirement of the said Section the appeal was heard by two learned Judges of the Court. One of them, namely, Justice K.S. Tiwana agreed with the Tribunal and held against the appellant. The other learned Judge, namely, Justice Yadav took a contrary view and held that the appellant in the High Court was a hereditary office holder and that the Institution in question was not a sikh gurudwara. In view of the difference of opinion, the case was referred to a third Judge. Justice J.V. Gupta concurred with the opinion expressed by Justice Yadav and held that the appeal should be allowed. Consequently the appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. It should be mentioned here that during the pendency of the said appeal. Mahant Puran Dass died and in his place Mahant Bhagwant Dass who was his chela came on record as legal representative.

4. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment of Justice Gupta occurring with that of Justice Yadav. During the pendency of this proceeding the respondent Mahant Bhagwant Dass died and in his place Mahant Pritam Dass has been substituted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced three main conten­tions:

(a) The matter should not have been referred to a third Judge in the High Court and such reference is violative of Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him there was no point of law which arose for consideration and in any event no point of law was framed or stated by the learned Judges who expressed different opin­ions. In as much as the matter was referred to a third Judge without following the procedure in Section 98(2) C.P.C. the reference to the third Judge was a nullity and the appeal before the High Court ought to have been dismissed as there was no majority taking a view differ­ent from that of the Tribunal.

(b) Secondly, it is argued that Mahant Puran Dass was sic a hereditary office holder and had no locus standi to maintain the petition under Section 8 of the Act.

(c) The third contention is that the Institution is a Sikh Gurudwara and there is overwhelming evidence on record to prove the same.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even without considering any of the above three contentions, the judgment of the third Judge, namely, Justice Gupta deserves to be set aside in limine as he has not considered the materials on record independently and he has only expressed his co