JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff, instituted Civil Suit No. 216 of 1989, before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul & Spiti, who was then exercising the powers of Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu, H.P., and, in the afore civil suit, the plaintiff had espoused for the grant, of the hereinafter extracted decree, against the contesting defendants :-

“It is therefore prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that defendant No.1 is not legally appointed Kardar or Bahtamam of Guru Granth Sahib Bhunter and the transfers of the property of Guru Granth Sahib by Shri Uttam Singh defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and other if any is void, and inoperative and are also not legal and for the interest and legal necessity of Guru Granth Sahib and as a consequential relief the defendants be restrained from raising any sort of construction over the suit land i.e. khasra No. 511/920939 in any manner through a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and in case the defendants succeed in raising construction during the pendency of the suit then a decree for possession after demolition of the structure raised thereon by the defendants with costs of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice”.

The learned trial Court through a verdict, made thereons, on 18.6.1993, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The reason for its dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, became comprised in the factum, of one Maghi executing a valid Will in favour of defendant No.1, wherethrough, she appointed him as Kardar of the suit property. Moreover, the further reason which prevailed, upon, the learned trial Court, to make a verdict of dismissal upon the suit (supra), became comprised in the factum, that the disputed purported Gurudwara rather not carrying any of the imperative elements, for its being construable, as a Gurudwara, inasmuch as, there being no Granthi nor any Pathi therein(s), besides in the purported Gurudwara no langar(s) being organized, nor there being thereins or in the premises of the said Gurudwara, the imperative Nishan Sahib. Consequently, the learned trial Judge concluded, that the suit property, since its inception, though became purchased by one Ishwar Singh, in the name of Guru Granth Sahib, however, for lack of the afore elements rather significatory, of the sacred book, if kept inside the Gurudawara rather being open to the public, to hence make collective worship thereto. Therefore, the holy Guru Granth Sahib, though in whose name the suit property is reflected in the revenue record, as owner thereof, yet, with the elements supra of public worship thereof, for the reasons supra, being amiss, thereupon, the “holy book” being construable to be kept only for the personal worship of the afore Ishwar Singh, and, thereafter for the personal worship of his surviving spouse(s), and, or for the successively validly appointed Kardars.

2. As aforestated, since the Will of Maghi became declared by the learned trial Judge, to be a validly executed testamentary disposition, and, also when defendant No.1 was construed to be a legatee or Kardar, of the suit property, hence the learned trial Judge concluded, that the contesting defendant No.1 alone, rather holds the right to ensure the protection of the property owned by Shri Guru Granth Sahib, and, also holds an exclusive right to perform personal worship, of, the “sacred book”.

3. The aggrieved plaintiff instituted, against the afore verdict of dismissal, of, civil suit (supra), a Civil Appeal thereagainst before the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., and, the learned first appellate Court, through its verdict, made on 6.6.1997,upon, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1993, allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, and, decreed the plaintiff’s suit rather in the hereinafter extracted manner:

“In view of my findings on point No.1, above, the present appeal succeeds and the same is accepted. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court