Lahore High Court
Rangi Lal, J.
Committee of Management of Gurdwaras - Appellant
Versus
Committee of Management of Dharamsala Peshawaris & Ors. - Respondents
Decided On : 01-02-1935
JUDGMENT
Rangi Lal, J. - An institution known as Dharamsala Peshawaris in Amritsar, was claimed as a Sikh Gurdwara. The members of the Peshawari community in Amritsar, i.e., persons whose ancestors had migrated from Peshawar to Amritsar, contended by means of a petition under Section 8, Sikh Gurdwaras Act, that the dharamsala was founded for the good of the Peshawari community residing in and resorting to Amritsar and was used for social gatherings and that no public worship was carried on there. Two Nirmala Sadhs, named Sewa Singh and Tara Singh, claimed to be the hereditary office-holders of the dharamsala and contended that the institution was founded by their spiritual ancestor, Sawaya Singh and was not a Sikh Gurdwara. The Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal declared that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara. The Committee of Management of Gurdwara at Amritsar Jhas filed two appeals, one against the Peshawari community and the other against the two Nirmala Sadhs mentioned above. Both, appeals will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The point for decision before the Tribunal was whether the institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was Used for such, worship by Sikhs before and at the time of the presentation of the petition. The findings of the Tribunal are as follows. (1) It is not proved that the institution was founded by Sawaya Singh for the purpose of public worship by Sikhs. The probability is that it was founded, by the Peshawari community and that Sawaya Singh who came from Peshawar, was its first mahant. (2) In the earlier years the mahants dealt with the property attached to the institution as they liked, but the Peshawari community have asserted their rights at least since 1890 and are now in complete control. (3) Guru Granth Sahib is worshiped in the institution. (4) The place has been used not only for public worship but also for social functions like marriage parties, funerals, etc. (5) Besides Guru Granth Sahib there are other objects of worship, namely, the smadh of Sawaya Singh and two sacred trees. Other religious books besides the Guru Granth Sahib have also been read there. Smoking has frequently taken place within the premises and Hindu ceremonies like tonsure, hawan and shudi have also been performed there.
3. The chief finding against the Committee of Management of Gurdwaras is that the institution was not founded for public worship by Sikhs. There is no direct evidence to show for what purpose the institution was founded. It is however beyond dispute that the first mahant was Sawaya Singh, a Nirmala Sadh, from Peshawar, and that he was succeeded by his spiritual descendants Sujan Singh, Bhan Singh, Dharam Singh and Hira Singh in turn. It is also clear that upto the time of Dharam Singh, the mahant for the time being practically dealt with the property attached to the institution without any interference by the Peshawari community. In 1869 Dharam Singh appointed one Devi Singh as a servant and the latter executed an agreement to the effect that he would serve the travellers and sadhs coming to the dharamsala and would make over to Dharam Singh all the offerings made there. There is no reference to any public worship in this agreement. It shows that the institution was more or less of a secular character intended mainly for the accommodation of travellers and sadhs. The reference to offerings does not necessarily mean that any public worship was regularly carried on there. Devi Singh did not undertake to perform any religious ceremonies at all. On the death of Dharam Singh, one Buta Singh claimed to succeed to the mahantship, and brought a suit against Hira Singh who was in possession. Hira Singh pleaded that the dharamsala was under the control of the Peshawari community which had confirmed his appointment as mahant. In that case one Bhai Gurdit Singh who was a member of the Municipal Committee of Amritsar and apparently had special means of knowledge, deposed that all
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.