Dalip Singh vs Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 1021

2003(7) Supreme 355
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Dalip Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sikh Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7418 of 1993
Decided on 15-10-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.K. Palli, Sr. Advocate, Rajiv K. Garg and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Hardev Singh, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocate.

Headnote:Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925-Sections 7(3) and 10(3)-Formation of Sikh Gurdwara and properties dedicated to such Sikh Gurdwara-Title suit by appellant that suit property did not belong to Gurdwara as appellant had purchased suit land by registered deed in 1957 from respondent No. 2 and 3-Notification to be published under Section 7(3) of the Act with list of properties claimed for Gurdwara-Objections if any filed by any person are to be decided and if there was no objection, notification under Section 10(3) of the Act to be issued which shall be conclusive proof of fact that there was no such claim-Documents to show that suit property was included in list of properties in notification under Section 7(3) of the Act issued in 1932-Failure to produce notification under Section 10(3) of the Act by itself did not lead to necessary conclusion that suit property belonged to appellants predecessor-Onus was upon appellant to prove title in suit properties either under general law of succession or tenancy law which they failed-Appeal was without merit.
Held : There are documents to show that the suit property was included in the list of properties in the notification dated 19.2.1932. If anybody had filed any claim in respect of these properties, there would have been an adjudication and only after the adjudication, the notification under Section 10(3) would have to be issued. It is not the case of the appellant that Jeeta Singh, the alleged predecessor-in-interest of Bhola Singh made any claim over any of the properties included in the list forming part of the notification under sub-section (3) of Section 7. True, the notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 10 serves as a conclusive proof of the fact that no claim was made in respect of any right, title or interest in any properties specified in the notification. But, the failure to produce the notification issued under Section 10(3) by itself does not lead to the logical or necessary conclusion that the landed properties which are being claimed by the appellants were not the properties of Gurdwara, but they were the private properties of Jeeta Singh and Bhola Singh. It is for the appellants who had filed a suit for the declaration of the title to prove that Bhola Singh acquired right, title or interest over the suit properties either under the general law of succession or tenancy law. The appellants utterly failed to prove the same and this flaw cannot be got over by relying on the fact that the notification under Section 10(3) was not produced. The appellants who had filed a suit for declaration of their title could not produce any document to prove that the suit properties had been later divested from the ownership and management of the Gurdwara Jeeta Singh Wala, Lohara. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-This appeal is against the Judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 2245 of 1978. The appellants were Plaintiffs in a suit filed for declaration of the title in respect of 64 canals and 8 marlas comprising Khatauni Nos. 1361 to 1364 and 11 canals and 9 marlas comprising Khatauni No. 1746 in village Dheleke, Tehsil Moga in Punjab. The appellants contended that they had purchased this land by a registered sale deed from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in June 1957. The first respondent is Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee (hereinafter being referred to as "SGPC"). The appellants alleged that SGPC had no title or right over the suit property. The appellants prayed that the first respondent be restrained from taking possession of their property. They alleged that the suit property originally belonged to one Jeeta Singh and he was an occupancy tenant whose rights devolved on Bhola Singh who was father of the second respondent and husband of the third respondent. According to the appellants, Bhola Singh became the absolute owner of this land by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952.

2. The case was contested by the first respondent SGPC. First respondent raised the following contentions : Jeeta Singh did not have any title over this property and consequently Bhola Singh also did not acquire any right from him. There was an earlier litigation as suit No. 859 before the Sub-Judge, Moga and Jeeta Singh was party to that suit and by Judgment dated 15.6.1943, it was held that the first respondent was the owner of the land. Bhola Singh was an office holder under the managing committee of Gurdwara Jeeta Singh Wala, Lohara, and he was managing the land in that capacity. As he began to misuse his powers, an application was filed against him under Section 142 of Sikh Gurdwara Act before the Judicial Commission and the same was allowed. As Bhola Singh had no right, title or interest on the land; the gift, if any, executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was invalid and void.

3. On these allegations, several issues were framed. The suit was ultimately decreed on 20.12.1958 and the learned Sub Judge held that Jeeta Singh was not the original owner of the property and the title of suit property vested with the first respondent - SGPC. It was held that the title in respect of the suit property never passed on to Bhola Singh.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court framed two issues and these issues related to the question as to whether Bhola Singh was the owner of the suit property and whether the gift deed executed by him in favour of the respondent Nos. 2. and 3 was valid or not and remitted the matter to the trial court for decision on those issues. In view of the issues framed by First Appellate Court, the trial Court again examined the question and gave a finding that Bhola Singh was not the owner of the suit land and the gift deed executed by him in favour of his son and wife had no effect so far as rights of the first respondent herein are concerned. The Lower Appellate Court on receipt of the decision on the two issues framed by it, reconsidered the appeal on merits and held that the suit was liable to be dismissed. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the appellants herein were not bona fide purchasers for value and they were not entitled to get the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act. Against this decision, the appellants again filed appeal before the High Court and their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

5. We heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.K. Palli who appeared on behalf of the appellants and learned Senior Counsel Shri Hardev Singh, who appeared on behalf of the first respondent.

6. One of the main contentions urged by the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document