JUDGMENT

Coldstream, J. - In a petition presented to the Local Government under Section 7, Sikh Gurdwaras Act, a prayer was made to have a Gurdwara known as Rang Mahal in Gurdaspur town declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. On the petition being notified Tarlok Nath, the Mahant in charge of the institution, submitted a counter-petition under Section 8 of the Act, claiming that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but a Hindu temple containing a Lingam and Hindu idols used for worship by the Mahant's family and resorted to for tonsure ceremonies by Hindus. This petition was duly forwarded to the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal under the provisions of Section 14 for disposal. It was opposed by the Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbhandhak Committee and two of the signatories to the petition under Section 7. The Tribunal decided that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara. Against this decision the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee (to whom I will refer hereafter as the objectors) have appealed.

2. The objectors' case was that the institution fell within each of the four definitions of a Sikh Gurdwara contained in Clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), Sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the Act. The judgment of the tribunal was delivered by the President, Hilton, J., with whom one of the members R.S. Lala Dwarka Parshad concurred. The third member did not deliver any judgment. The learned President held that the petition must fail because the objectors (on whom the onus of proving that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara was rightly laid) had not proved that the institution was used for public worship, either predominantly or otherwise, by Sikhs at the time when the petition under Section 7 was presented. He also held it not proved that the institution was established owing to a tradition connected with the Sikhs, or that it had been established for public worship by Sikhs, or that it had been established in memory of a Sikh martyr, saint or historical person, or that it was used for public worship by Sikhs owing to some incident connected with the Sikh religion.

3. Before us it is not contended that Clause (iv), Sub-section 2 of Section 16, is applicable to the institution. It is argued that the institution comes within the definitions in Clause (ii), (iii) and (v) and that the decision of the tribunal, that it does not, is against the weight of the evidence documentary and oral. As regards Clause (ii), it is pointed out that the learned President has misread this clause which does not require that the institution was founded owing to some tradition connecting it with one of the Sikh Gurus but merely that owing to such a tradition it was used for public worship predominantly by Sikhs. We have been taken through the whole of the evidence by counsel who have addressed us at length upon every aspect of the case.

4. The institution is one of two in Gurdaspur presided over by the descendants of Dip Chand, an Udasi Brahman, who was alive in the early part of the 18th century. He had two sons Harsaran Das and Narain Das. The descendants of Narain Das, who was the younger, have been in possession of an institution known as the Jhulna Mahal, a Sikh Gurdwara, included in Schedule 1, Sikh Gurdwaras Act. The descendants of Harsaran Das, the senior branch of the family, have been Mahants of the Gurdwara Rang Mahal, the subject of the present dispute, the gaddi passing according to the rule of primogeniture from father to son. For many generations the Mahants called themselves Udasis but latterly they have been described simply as Brahmans. A pedigree table of the Mahants is given in the judgment of the tribunal. Both institutions have been famous places of worship. When the country came under British rule, the Mahants were in possession of a number of muafis in different villages, the most important being a jagir of half of Gurdaspur. Some of these revenue assignments were resumed by Government in 1882 (with effect from 1880) those in Gurdaspur, Ojla and Halla alone