Competency of the petitioner, if called in question, has to be pronounced upon first, because once it is held that the reason moving the petition under S.8 of the Act is not competent to file the petition, then there is no petition before the Tribunal to be decided and, therefore it is not necessary to proceed to decide the question as to whether the institution in question is or is not a Sikh Gurdwara.

1. The State Government on receiving a petition under S.7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, hereinafter referred to as the Act. seeking a declaration that the institution known as Gurdwara Sahib Padshahi Naumi, Sadhan at village Nanhera, Tehsit and District Patiaia, be declared a Sikh Gurdwara and after issuing a notification in terms of S.7(3) of the Act, issue a notice to Dharam Dass petitioner, appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), under S.7(4) of the Act. The petitioner, in turn, filed a petition under S.8 of the Act seeking a declaration that the institution in question asserted to be a Sikh Gurdwara was not such a Gurdwara.

2. The Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal appointed in terms of S.12 of the Act on receiving the petition of the petitioner on being forwarded to it by the State Government under S.14 of the Act tried the same. On the basis of the pleadings, the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, framed only one issue viz., whether the Gurdwara in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara ? as the preliminary objection that the petition was incompetent because the petitioner has not specifically averred that he had moved the application as a hereditary office-holder was not pressed in view of the contents of paragraph 4 of the petition by the counsel for the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar, hereinafter referred to as the respondent- S. G. P. C., on 15-11-1962. However, later on, by elder dated 29-7-1964, the Tribunal framed the second issue viz. Whether the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder ?

3. The Tribunal decided both the issues against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent-S.G.P.C.Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court in appeal.

4. The Division Bench, before whom the appeal (F. A. O.216 of 1975) came up for hearing, by its order, dated 1-11-1985. referred the appeal to be decided by a Larger Bench. That is how this appeal is before us.

5. It is authoritatively settled by a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in Mahant Tehl Dass V/s. S. G. P. C., ILR 1979 2 Punj and Har 131, that competency of the petitioner, if called in question, has to be pronounced upon first, because once it is held that the reason moving the petition under S.8 of the Act is not competent to file the petition, then there is no petition before the Tribunal to be decided and, therefore it is not necessary to proceed to decide the question as to whether the institution in question is or is not a Sikh Gurdwara. Hence it is the question of the competency of the petitioner to move the petition under S.8 of the Act that is to be dealt with first.

6. Under S.8 of the Act, any hereditary office-holder, inter alia, is competent to move the petition. The petitioner has allegedly moved the present petition in that capacity. In order to see as to whether the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder, it would be necessary to know as to what the expression hereditary office-holder means. This expression comprises two meaningful words hereditary office and holder . The expression hereditary office has been defined by Cl. (iv) of Sub-Sec. 4 of S.2 of the Act in the following words : "2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - * * * * * * * * * * * * (4) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (iv) Hereditary office means an office the succession to which before the first day of January, 1920, or, in the case of the extended territories, before the Ist day of November, 1956, as the case may be, devolved, according to hereditary right or by nomination by the office-holder for the time being, and hereditary office-holder means the holder of a hereditary office." It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Mahant and Manager of the institution in question and so was his predecessor Karan Parkash and, therefore, the petitioner, or for that matter his predecessor Karan Parkash, has to be considered to be the o