Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
C.G.Suri, J.
Jathedar Sadhu Singh
Versus
Charan Singh
Second Appeal No. 1497 of 1965,
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1971
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 92 - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS WORSHIP - NECESSITY OF ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SANCTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 92(1)(H) - RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS - ABATEMENT OF APPEAL ON DEATH OF PARTIES - PUNJAB VILLAGE COMMON LANDS (REGULATION) ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4 - VESTING OF SHAMILAT LANDS IN GRAM PANCHAYAT - EXCEPTION FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, Sikh proprietors of a village, filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, who was in charge of the management of an institution known as Dharamsala, Dera, or Gurdwara of Baba Jaimal Singh, from removing the Guru Granth Sahib from the institution and interfering with the rights of the Sikh community to maintain the holy book and offer religious worship. The defendant denied the installation of Guru Granth Sahib in the institution and claimed that the institution was dedicated to the Radhaswami faith.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit fell within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the sanction of the Advocate General before a suit can be filed in relation to a public trust of a religious or charitable character. The court found that the institution was a public trust of a religious or charitable character and that the plaintiffs had not obtained the necessary sanction from the Advocate General. The court also held that the appeal had not abated with the death of certain parties, as both sides were litigating in a representative capacity. The court further held that the institution was excepted from the definition of shamilat deh under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and therefore did not vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the sanction of the Advocate General before a suit can be filed in relation to a public trust of a religious or charitable character. 2. Whether the appeal has abated with the death of certain parties. 3. Whether the institution is excepted from the definition of shamilat deh under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and therefore did not vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the rule of ejusdem generis to interpret Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for a general clause allowing suits for any other matter concerning a public trust of a religious or charitable nature. The court found that the common trait running through the specific clauses (a) to (g) of Section 92(1) was the prevention of breaches of public trusts and the proper administration of such trusts. The court held that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs, which sought to prevent a breach or conversion of the trust by the person in charge of its management, fell within the ambit of Section 92(1)(h). 2. The court held that the appeal had not abated with the death of certain parties, as both sides were litigating in a representative capacity. The court noted that the right to worship is a civil right, but it is not an appendage of the ownership of any property and can be independent of the views and beliefs of one's forefathers. The court found that there were persons on either side to continue the litigation in a representative capacity. 3. The court held that the institution was excepted from the definition of shamilat deh under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as it was a place of worship. The court noted that the institution was used for religious activities, such as sat sangs, shabads, simran, bhajans, and dyan, and that it was dedicated to the Radhaswami faith. The court found that the institution was therefore not subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which vests shamilat lands in the Gram Panchayat.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to the lack of the Advocate General's sanction.
1. This second appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a dispute between the parties over the proper administration of an institution situated in village Balsarai near Beas in Amritsar District and variously known as Dharamsala, Dera or Gurdwara of Baba Jaimal Singh. Shri Charan Singh defendant-respondent No. 1 is at present in charge of the control and management of the institution. The property attached to the institution and in the occupation of respondent No. 1 is shown in a plan filed with the plaint. A very small portion of this area, shown by green colour in this plan, has been described by the plaintiff-appellants as Darbar Sahib and is said to house the holy book (Guru Granth Sahib) of the community professing the Sikh religion. The suit was originally instituted by five Sikh proprietors of village Balsarai but two other proprietors of the village belonging to the same community were added as plaintiffs in an amended plaint filed later on. Three persons claiming to belong to the Radhaswami faith or sect had been impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 on their application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff-appellant No. 1 and defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have died during the pendency of this appeal had no steps have been taken to bring their legal representatives on record within the time allowed by law. The question how far the proceedings have thereby abated would be discussed further on in this judgment.
2. The suit, as now framed, is for the grant of a permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendant No. 1 from removing the Guru Granth Sahib from the institution and from interfering with the rights of the Sikh community of maintaining the holy book in the Darbar Sahib and of offering religious worship and reciting Guru Granth Sahib and holding religious congregations and Sat Sang in the premises. It has been alleged in the plaint, amongst other things, that in the year 1897 A. D. the proprietary body of the village had gifted and dedicated 11 kanals and 16 marlas of shamilat land to a sage by the name of Bhai Jaimal Singh who used to practice spiritual sadhna at this place. He was a man with great spiritual attainments and was held in high esteem by the residents of the village. The dedication was in the name of Guru Granth Sahib and was for the purposes of a Dharamsala to be run and managed by Baba Jaimal Singh. Mutation order, copy Exhibit P-5, had been duly attested on 14-6-1897. The devolution of the office of the head of the institution has been by will from the last holder to the next and Baba Charan Singh, respondent No. 1, is the fourth head of the institution in the line of succession. He is described to be a man of the world, lacking in dedication and true spirit of his predecessors. He is described to have started using the Dera in general and Darbar Singh in particular for the purposes for which these had not been originally dedicated. He is giving out that the maintaining of Guru Granth Sahib and access to the institution of persons professing the Sikh religion depends on his sweet will and discretion. He has started interfering with the rights of these persons to recite Granth Sahib and to hold religious congregations in the institution. Hence this suit seeking to original purposes and objects of the dedication.
3. Defendant respondent No. 1 had denied in the written statement filed by him that Guru Granth Sahib had ever been installed in the institution. The mutation order attested in 1897 was said to have wrongly described the dedication to be in favour of Guru Granth Sahib and the necessary correction of entries was described to have been made in 1921 without objection by any one concerned. A mutation about the correction of these entries, copy Exhibit D-1/P-3, was said to have been attested in an open gathering of the village on 16-5-1921. Thereafter the institution is being described in the revenue records as Gurdwara of Baba Jaimal Singh dedicated to the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
