JUDGMENT

Bhide, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., with reference to a religious institution named "Guru Sar Satlani" situated at a distance of about 13 miles from Amritsar. According to the plaintiffs' allegations the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara, i.e., a place of public worship for the Sikhs and constitutes a trust for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature. Plaintiffs claimed interest in the trust as "members of the Sikh community" and "worshippers of the Gurdwara," and sued for the removal of the defendant Bhai Kirpa Singh from the management of the Gurdwara on the ground that he is a man of loose character and has committed breaches of trust by mismanaging the Gurdwara, maladminis tering its properties, misapplying the income, misappropriating its funds, and by otherwise misbehaving and misconducting himself in a manner, which has injured and scandalized the Sikh community and worshippers of the said Gurdwara. Plaintiffs also claimed certain consequential reliefs including the settlement of a scheme for the future management of the Gurdwara. Defendant flatly denied the charges of misconduct and maladministration brought against him and further pleaded that the institution was meant for Nirmala Sadhus only and that the plaintiff's not being Nirmalas had no interest therein. As regards the properties said to have been maladministered he claims that they belonged to him personally and none had any right to oust him therefrom. Defendant denied at first even that the Nirmalas are Sikhs, but later on modified that position and stated that the Nirmalas were a sect of Sikhs, but distinct from the rest of the Sikh community: vide pp. 14 and 23 of part 1 of the Printed Paper Book.)

2. The material issues in the suit were as follows:

1. Whether the Guru Sar Satlani is a general Sikh Gaddi as distinguished from a Nirmala Sikh Gaddi and whether the plaintiffs have any interest in it and are as general Sikhs entitled to maintain the suit? 2. If so, is the property attached to the institution the property of the institution and as such is a trust property created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature or is it the personal property of the defendant? 3. In the former case, is the management of the defendant unsatisfactory and is the defendant an undesirable person, who should be removed from the Gaddi; 4. To what other reliefs are plaintiffs entitled?

3. A mass of oral and documentary evidence was produced by both the parties, and the suit which was instituted on 24th July 1921, was eventually decided by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, in plaintiff's favour on 5th October 1922, after a trial extending over a year. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge found the charge of misconduct against the defendant to be proved, directed his removal and appointed a committee for the further management of the institution consisting of seven members, including the successor of the defendant, who was to be chosen in accordance with the custom and tradition of the Nirmala Bhek (i.e., order or fraternity) in consultation with the leading and representative Sikh Sewaka of the ilaqa. The defendant Kirpa Singh was only allowed Rs. 75 per mensem by way of maintenance.

4. From the above decree both parties have preferred appeal to this Court. During the pendency of these appeals, the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, came into force and the Gurdwara in dispute was notified as a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 3 of the Act.

5. Under Sub-section 4, Section 3 of the Act, the notification is conclusive proof that the Gurdwara is a Sikh Gurdwara and the provisions of part 3 of the Act come into operation as regards its management. Under that part, the management of every notified Gurdwara must vest in a committee constituted under the Act. It appears that such a committee was constituted in due course and has taken over charge of the Gurdwara. The decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge as regards the