JUDGMENT

Monroe, J. - Jagat Ram filed a petition under Section 10, Sikh Gurdwaras Act, seeking a declaration that he was the owner of one-half of certain lands described in the petition which had been included in a notification under the Act as claimed in a petition under Section 7 of the Act to be the property of the Gurdwara Thamji Sahib. The petition came up for hearing before the Tribunal, but before any evidence was taken, the petitioner stated that he did not wish to prosecute the petition and requested that it might be dismissed.

2. The objectors claimed that in the circumstances they were entitled to a declaration that the property in suit was the property of the Gurdwara. The Tribunal refused to make this declaration and dismissed the petition. For the refusal to make the declaration the learned President relied on the judgment of Addison, J., in Management Committee Gurdwara v. Indar Singh 1933 Lah. 1041 (a petition under Section 5). I do not think however that this decision is an authority for the proposition stated by the learned President, that if a petitioner does not prove his case his petition should be dismissed without going into the case set forward on behalf of the other side. Addison, J., in referring to the question whether the property then in suit was dedicated to the golden temple, said:

This question therefore no longer remains to be decided. The question does not arise, as it is settled by the compromise in the petition.

3. The learned President referred also to another decision of the same learned Judge on appeal from a judgment of the Tribunal, in which a petition under Section 5 relating to Bunga Mananwala, claimed as the property of the golden temple, had been dismissed. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld, but the appeal did not involve the question whether the Tribunal had fully discharged its function in dismissing the appeal only; the only point decided was that the petitioner had failed to establish a claim. Addison, J., has no doubt in more than one case drawn attention to the difficulty which now arises, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, he has never expressed an opinion on the point now before us, nor has this point arisen in any appeal in this Court. The practice of the Tribunal has not been entirely consistent; Skemp, J's view, as stated in the judgment before us, has not been universally followed by other Presidents. The question must there fore, be treated as one not governed by authority; and it is to be regretted that it has Come before a Court of appeal without any representation of the respondent. The grounds of appeal set forth fully, even tautologically, the position taken up by Mr. Bhagat Singh, counsel for the appellants; and I would here particularly refer to the first ground as showing precisely what is the question before us:

that the tribunal was wrong in not deciding the issue whether the property in dispute belongs to Gurdwara Thamji Sahib.

4. The petition under Section 10 of the Act, on which these proceedingis were founded, was not the first step and in order to appreciate the appellant's case I find it necessary to refer to the earlier provisions, which lead upto Section 10. Section 7(1) authorizes the presentation of a petition to the Local Government by fifty or more Sikh: worshippers of a Gurdwara, praying to have the Gurdwara declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara; Section 7(2) requires that any such petition shall be accompanied by a list of all rights, titles or interests in immovable properties situate in the Punjab inclusive of the Gurdwara and in all monetary endowments yielding recurring income or profit received the Punjab which the petitioners claim, to belong within their knowledge to the Gurdwara. Section 7(3) provides for the publication by the Local Government by notification of the petition and the list of properties. Section 8 provides for a petition by certain persons in the nature of a counter petition claiming, that the Gurdwara is not a Sikh Gur