1977 Supreme(P&H) 98

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, Harbans Lal and S.P.Goyal JJ.
Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand
Versus
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar
First Appeal First Order No. 52 of 1966,
Decided On : JUNE 3, 1977

Headnote:

SIKH GURUDWARAS ACT, 1925 - SECTION 7(3), 8, 10, 12, 14(2), 16(2)(III) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER VI, RULE 17 - PETITION U/S 8 - AMENDMENT - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL - HEREDITARY OFFICE-HOLDER - LOCUS STANDI - SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADINGS - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL - BURDEN OF PROOF - ESTABLISHMENT OF SIKH GURUDWARA.

Fact of the Case:

A notification was published by the Punjab Government under Section 7(3) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, concerning Gurdwara Sahib Dharamsala Bhai Ki. Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand filed a composite petition under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act, claiming that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but an Udasi Dera, and that he was its Mahant. The petition was forwarded to the Tribunal by the Government. Mahant Purna Nand and Mahant Budh Dass filed applications claiming to be the legal representatives of Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand. The Tribunal allowed both applications subject to all just exceptions. The Tribunal framed two issues: (1) whether the deceased Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand was a hereditary office-holder, and (2) whether the institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara. Mahant Purna Nand filed an application for amendment of the main petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to incorporate that Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand was a hereditary office-holder. The Tribunal allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs. The Committee contested the amended petition and raised a preliminary objection that the amended petition had set up a new case and was not maintainable. The Tribunal held that the petition was maintainable and that Mahant Jiwan Mukta Nand was proved to be the hereditary office-holder. However, on the issue of whether the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, the Tribunal held that it was a Sikh Gurdwara and dismissed the petition. The appellants, Mahant Purna Nand and Mahant Budh Dass, filed an appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow amendment of the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the discretion conferred on the Tribunal under the rule was properly exercised. The Court also held that the averments in the petition were sufficient compliance with the requirements of law and that the petition, as originally framed, could not be held to be an incompetent petition or that the petitioner had not alleged regarding his locus standi to make the petition. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in holding that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara and that the onus of proving that the Gurdwara was a Sikh Gurdwara was on the respondent, which it had failed to discharge.

Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to allow amendment of the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 2. Whether the averments in the petition were sufficient compliance with the requirements of law? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including Order VI, Rule 17, are applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, subject to the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to allow amendment of the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in appropriate cases. 2. The petition must show the locus standi of the petitioner and must have the necessary pleadings. The pleadings in a petition need not be restricted to a particular and rigid expression. So long as the pleadings in a petition can warrant the conclusion that the petitioner was a hereditary office-holder, the petition will have to be held to be competent and maintainable. 3. The onus of proving that a Gurdwara is a Sikh Gurdwara is on the party asserting it. The mere fact that the holy book of Guru Granth Sahib is installed in the institution does not lead to the conclusion that it is a Sikh Gurdwara.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the petition of the appellants under Section 8 of the Act was accepted, and it was declared that the institution in question was not a Sikh Gurdwara.