IMPORTANT POINT
When the Dera was maintained for an entirely distinct sect known as Nirmalas Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs, mere fact that at some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera cannot lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the followers of sikh religion.

Headnote:Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 7(1), 8, 9, 10, 14, 16(2) and 18(1)(g)-Civil Procedure Codes 1908 -Section 92-Petition u/s 7(1) made by 60 persons, worshippers for declaring that institution in question situated in revenue estate of Jhandawala district Bhatinda to be a Sikh Gurdwara-Counter petition filed u/s 8 by one H claiming that the institution was a Dera Bhai Saida Ram-It was stated the Dera had been in possession of Nirmala Sadhus for generations-All signatories to petition u/s 7(1) had earlier filed civil suit u/s 92 Civil Procedure Code for removal of H from Mahantship which was dismissed by trial Court-Conclusions of trial Court were affirmed by the Supreme Court in judgment reported as Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1415-Whether petition filed u/s 7(1) is maintainable considering judgment of Supreme Court-(No).
       Held : This Court in Harnam Singh s case (supra) came to the conclusions that Nirmalas are Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs and consequently in the mere capacity of followers of Sikh religion residing in the concerned village cannot be held to have an interest as to entitle them to institute a suit under Section 92 of CPC. In other words, there was a categorical finding that Nirmalas are not Sikhs. It was held that the Dera was maintained for an entirely distinct sect known as Nirmalas Sadhus who cannot be regarded as Sikhs. It was also held that mere fact that at some stage there was a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera cannot lead to any conclusion that the institution was meant for or belonged to the followers of Sikh religion. These findings were rendered in a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC. Decisions taking the contrary view that Nirmalas are Sikhs per se lose significance. The factual findings relating to the nature and character of the institutions, specifically found on an elaborate review of the governed legal principles as well, and which have reached finality cannot be re-agitated and the same is precluded on the principle of Issue estoppel also. As has been rightly contented by learned counsel for the respondents decisions rendered on the peculiar fact situation specifically found to exist therein cannot have any irreversible application. (Para 17)
       A suit under Section 92 CPC is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the parties named in the suit-title but all those who share common interest and are interested in the trust. It is for that reason that Explanation VI to Section 11 of CPC constructively bars by res judicata the entire body of interested persons from re-agitating the matters directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 CPC. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These appeals by Special Leave arise from a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Before the High Court appeals were filed challenging the order dated 9.11.1981 passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short the Tribunal ) in Petition Nos. 119 and 121 of 1962.

2. Synoptical resume of the factual position is as follows:

Acting on a petition under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (in short the Act ) made by 60 persons, who claimed to be worshippers, for declaring that the institution in question (known as Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib) situated in the revenue estate of Jhandawala district Bhatinda to be a Sikh Gurdwara, the Government of Punjab published a notification No. 1216-G.P., dated 23rd June, 1961 under Section 7(3) of the Act describing the said institution as a Sikh Gurdwara. When the petition under Section 7(1) was notified, Mahant Harnam Singh, Chela Narain Singh, Nirmala Sadhu the original respondent (who has died in the meantime and is represented by legal representatives) filed a counter petition under Section 8 of the Act claiming that the institution in dispute was not a Sikh Gurdwara but it was a Dera Bhai Saida Ram. Similar petition under Section 8 of the Act was also moved by 58 persons of the Dera alleging that the institution in dispute was not a Sikh Gurdwara. Both these petitions were forwarded by the State Government to the Tribunal for disposal. In the two petitions Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee ) was arrayed as the respondent.

3. Stand of Harnam Singh was that the Dera was not established in the memory of any Sikh Guru or in commemoration of any incident in the life of any of the Ten Sikh Gurus or in memory of any Sikh Martyr, saint or historical persons and never been used for public worship by Sikhs. On the other hand, the institution was established by Bhai Saida Ram who was a Nirmala and it came to be known as Dera Bhai Saida Ram. The Dera had been in possession of Nirmala Sadhus for generations and all the Mahants had been Nirmala and by succession devolved from Guru to Chela subject to confirmation by Nirmala. Gurdial Singh and Ishar Singh, Lambardars of village Jhandawala who were also signatories to a petition under Section 7(1) had earlier filed a civil suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC ) in the Court of District Judge, Bhatinda for his removal from Mahantship and the same was dismissed on 31.3.1956. It was held that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara and the Sikhs had no interest in it. It was a Dera of Nirmala Sadhus. In appeal, High Court reversed the conclusions. In further appeal the conclusions of the trial Court were restored by this Court; by judgment dated 24.2.1967. Said judgment is Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. (AIR 1967 SC 1415).

4. In this present proceeding Mahant Harnam Singh referred to the said judgment and opposed maintainability of the petition under Section 7(1). The judgment was one in rem and operates as res judicata was his stand. These pleas were countered by the Committee. The Tribunal framed the following issues on 18.1.1971:

(1) What is the effect of the judgment of this Court, copy marked Exhibit P-1, on the merits of the case?

(2) Whether the institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara?

(3) Relief.

5. Issue No. 1 was treated as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal vide its order dated 8th March, 1977, held that the judgment of this Court in Mahant Harnam Singh s (supra) does not bar the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the Claim Petition under Section 7 of the Act. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court and this Court without any success.

6. Issue No. 2 was taken up for adjudication and the same was answered in favour of the Committee. It was held that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 904

Cases Referred (6)