JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—This appeal by Special Leave is. directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 23rd September, 1975.

2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants filed a claim petition under sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the appellant Harnam Singh was the Manager of Baba Daya Chand Dharamsala situated in village Phaphre Bhai Ke. The appellants alleged that the land khasra Nos. 345, 1861, 1047, 1053 and 1054 measuring in all 76 bighas and 7 biswas was attached to the Dharamsala Baba Daya Chand and was not the property of the Gurdwara Sahib Phaphre Bhai Ke. The claim was contested by the Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (respondent). The contention of the respondent was that the disputed land was the property of Gurdwara Sahib as entered at SI. No. 393 in Schedule I of the Act. On the pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed.

1. What right, title or interest, if any, has the Dharamasala Baba Daya Chand, in the property in dispute?

2. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file this petition?

3. What right, title or interest, if any, has the notified Sikh Gurdwara concerned in the property in dispute?By a majority judgment theTribunal held that the claim had been substantiated neither by the appellants nor the respondent. The petition would stand dismissed with a declaration that the property claimed by the appellants was not the property of the Gurdwara notified under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the Act. However, one of the Members of the Tribunal recorded a dissenting judgment and he was of the view that the property in dispute had been proved to be belonging to Gurdwara Sahib which is a scheduled Gurdwara and that Dharamsala Baba Daya Chand has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute.

3. Both the parties aggrieved against the judgment of the Tribunal filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court by its judgment dated 23rd September, 1975 allowed the appeal filed by the Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and dismissed the appeal filed by Harnam Singh and another. The appellants have, now, come before this Court against the judgment of the High Court.

4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the notified Gurdwara known as Gurdwara Sahib and mentioned at Sl. No. 393 in Ist Schedule of the Act was a different institution from Dharamsala Baba Daya Chand and there was no evidence on record to link the lands in dispute to the notified Gurdwara. It was contended that the High Court committed an error in interpreting the provisions of S. 5 of the Act. The land in dispute had been shown in the revenue records as owned by Dharamsala Sri Guru Granth Sahib while the Gurdwara notified was another institution known as Gurdwara Sahib notified at S1. No. 393. The High Court committed an error in holding that the land in dispute was muafi land. It was contended that there were following four patties in the village :

(i) Muafi Patti;

(ii) Phapheri;

(iii) Man Patti;

(iv) Balaul Patti;

A major portion of the land has been donated by Patti Balaul and this belies the case of the respondent that the land was a muafi land donated to Swara Granth Saheb of Bhai Behlo. The High Court further committed an error in holding that Bhai Behlo was founder of this institution. In this regard, it was further contended that the very name of the Dharamsala as "Dharamsala Baba Daya Chand" falsifies the stand taken by the respondent that Bhai Behlo was the founder of this institution. Baba Daya chand was born after many years of the death of Bhai Behlo. It was also pointed out that there was a separate Gurdwara in the village known as Gurdwara Bhai Behlo and the Dharamsala in dispute was a separate institution.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the High Court after thoroughly considering the oral and documentary evidence on record rightly held