Supreme Court Of India
MAHANT HARNAM SINGH
Versus
Gurdial Singh
Decided On : February 24, 1967
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 92 - INTEREST IN TRUST - SIKH GURUDWARA - NIRMALA SADHUS - NOT SIKHS - NO INTEREST IN TRUST - SUIT NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, claiming to represent owners of land and residents of village Jhandawala, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to remove the defendant from the office of Mahant of a Gurdwara. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had no interest in the trust. The High Court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiffs had an interest as Sikhs and that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had no interest in the trust as they were not Sikhs. The court found that Nirmala Sadhus, to which the defendant belonged, were not Sikhs and that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs had an interest in the trust as required by Section 92 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs did not have an interest in the trust as required by Section 92 of the CPC because they were not Sikhs. The court found that Nirmala Sadhus were not Sikhs and that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the High Court, and restored the decree of the District Judge.
Judgment
BHARGAVA
( 1 ) THIS appeal under certificate granted by the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh, has been filed by Harnam Singh appellant against a decree passed by the High Court, decreeing a suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after setting aside the dismissal of the suit by the District Judge, and removing the appellant from the office of the Mahant of an institution described in the plaint as gurdwara Jhandawala. The suit was brought by two plaintiffs after obtaining permission from the Advocate-General. One of the plaintiff-respondents, Ishar Singh, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. However, in view of the nature of the suit, no objection was raised before us about the maintainability of this appeal on this ground and, consequently, we refrain from dilating on this aspect.
( 2 ) THE respondents claimed in the plaint that there is one Guru Granth Sahib at village Jhandawala in the name of Gurudwara Jhandanwala which is managed by Mahant Harnam Singh appellant as a Mahatmin, and that he is in possession of the Dera and agricultural land belonging to Guru Granth Sahib, Gurudwara, Jhandawala. The Gurudwara was alleged to be a public religious place which was established by the residents of the village, and it was pleaded that this religious institution was a public trust created by the residents of the village for the service of the Public to provide food to the visitors from the Lungar (free kitchen) to allow the people to fulfil religious beliefs and for worship etc. The plaintiff-respondents stated that, in the capacity of representatives of owners of lands situated at village Jhandawala and of residents of village Jhandawala, they submitted an application for permission to institute this suit on the ground that the appellant was indulging in various undesirable activities and was misusing the funds of the trust which justified his removal from the office of the Mahant. The respondents claimed that, in their capacity of representatives of the owners of the land situated at village Jhandawala and of residents of village Jhandawala, they were entitled to institute this suit under S. 92, C. P. C.
( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the appellant on various grounds, amongst which the principal one, which we are concerned, is that the plaintiff-respondents had no such interest in this public trust as would entitle them to institute the suit. At the initial stage, the appellant did not admit that there was a public trust in existence at all, but the trial Court held that the institution was a public trust of a religious character; and that finding was not challenged on behalf of the appellant before the High Court. The two principal grounds, on which the dismissal of the suit by the District Judge was sought to be justified before the High Court, were that the plaintiffs-respondents had no right to institute the suit under S. 92, C. P. C. , for want of interest in the trust, and that the respondents had failed to prove that the appellant had indulged in any such activities as would justify his removal from the office of the Mahant.
( 4 ) IN this appeal, we heard learned counsel for the parties on the first question as to whether the plaintiffs-respondents had any such interest in this trust which could entitle them to institute the suit under S. 92 C. P. C. As has been mentioned above, in the plaint the claim was that the plaintiffs were interested in the capacity of representatives of the owners of the land situated at village Jhandawala and of residents of village Jhandawala. On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, the pleading was that this Gurdwara was established as a public trust on behalf of the residents of the village, but, during the course of evidence, even the plaintiffs, themselves admitted that, before the residents of the village donated any property at all to this institution, the institution was already in existence. According to the plaintiffs, the institution
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.