Judgment

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) THIS appeal has arisen from the judgment and order dated 10/08/1978 passed by a division bench of Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No. 252 of 1963.

(2) THE appellant, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as SGPC) is a product of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State government of Punjab received a petition under Section 7(1 of the Act from Sikh worshippers of a Gurdwara, numbering more than 50, qualified residence-wise to so apply, praying for the Gurdwara to be declared a Sikh Gurdwara. As per requirement of Ss. (2 of Section 7 of the Act, the name of the Gurdwara given was Gurdwara Sahib Bara situated in the revenue estate of village Balian, Tehsil and District Sangrur. A list of properties said to be belonging to the Gurdwara was also given, besides the names of the persons who were in possession of those properties. As required, under Ss. (3 of Section 7, publication of the petition under Section 7(1 and the list of the properties provided under Section 7(2 were notified on 1/11/1960 and notices under Section 7(4 were sent to the persons in possession of the properties, said to belong to the Gurdwara.

(3) THE respondent Mihan Singh (now dead and represented) moved a petition under Section 8 of the Act before the State government claiming that the said Gurdwara was not a Sikh Gurdwara, and that he was a hereditary officeholder of the institution. The objection under Section 8 of the Act was forwarded to the Sikh Gurdwara tribunal constituted under Section 12 of the Act for decision. The tribunal, thereafter, conducted a civil trial declaring on 7/04/1963 that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, dismissing the objection-petition preferred by Mihan Singh. On reappreciation of evidence in appeal, the High court allowed the objection of Mihan Singh rejecting the claim set up for declaring the institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The effort in this appeal is to have the order of the tribunal restored.

(4) D.S. Tewatia, J., who spoke for the High court bench, in the judgment under appeal, painstakingly took into account each and every piece of evidence; the evidence predominantly being oral, and drawing proper inferences therefrom and went on to reverse the judgment and order of the Sikh Gurdwara tribunal. On going through the High court judgment we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, disinclined as we were to disturb findings of fact. Sardar Ujagar Singh, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant SGPC, however, goaded us to proceed with the appeal as, according to him, Section 16(2(iii) had neither been properly construed nor had the evidence been appreciated within the parameters of Section 16(2(iii) of the Act. Having understood the submission by his arguments and having pondered over the matter, we proceed to express our views.

(5) THE scheme of the Act was so designed, firstly to put certain places of Sikh worship, about which no substantial doubt existed, straight away in Schedule 1. The procedure to achieve that objective was available in Section 3 of the Act and by a public declaration, as conceived therein, the scheduled Gurdwara stood proved conclusively to be a Sikh Gurdwara whereafter the management and control of it was to vest in the bodies referred to under Part III of the Act. Whether any institution not included in Schedule I should or should not be placed for management under the provisions of Part III was left to be determined upon a petition duly made by 50 or more worshippers within a prescribed period attracting objections and those being determined by the Sikh Gurdwara tribunal. It is on the finding on essential facts that the tribunal could make a positive declaration whereafter the objective of applying provisions of Part III of the Act could be achieved. The case in hand is of the latter category and that