DALIP SINGH AND ORS.versusSIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE AND ORS.

                       DALIP SINGH AND ORS.                                 A
                                    v.
   SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE AND ORS.

                          OCTOBER 15, 2003
                                                                            B
   [K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN AND P. VENKA T ARAMA RED DI, JJ.]

       Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925-Section 2(3), 9(1), 10(3) and 142-
 Dedication of property to Sikh Gurdwara-Appellants purchased suit
property ji·om other two respondents, who acquired their rights from B- C
 B had acquired rights from J, the occupant tenant-Appellants filed suit
for declaration of title against respondent-SGPC-SGPC relied on a
judgment in an earlier suit, holding SGPC owner of suit property-Suit
decreed in favour ofSGPC-First Appeal dismissed-High Court dismissed
Second Appeal-Held, failure to produce notification under Section I 0(3)
 does not lead to the logical or necesswy conclusion that suit property being D
 claimed by appellants were not properties of Gurdwar~ but private
properties of J and B-Appellants failed to prove that B acquired right,
 title or interest in suit property either under general law of succession or
 tenancy law-Sale deed in favour of appellants did not confer any title on
 them-Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietwy Rights) Act, E
 1952-Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 41.

     The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title praying that
respondent - SGPC be restrained from taking possession of suit
property. The appellants had purchased suit property from the other F
two respondents. B, the father and husband of the other two respondents
had allegedly become absolute owner of the suit property under
provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietary
Rights) Act, 1952. These rights had devolved upon B from J, who was
the occupant tenant of the suit property. The title of J over the suit
property was disputed on the basis of an earlier litigation, which held G
SGPC to be the owner of the land. Therefore, B also did not acquire
any right from J and consequently the other two ~espondents acquired
no rights in the suit property. The suit was decreed in favour of SGPC.
First Appeal and thereafter Second Appeal in the High Court was also
dismissed. Hence this appeal.                                           H
                                    775
    776                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A        Appellants contended that the suit ·1roperty never belonged to
    SGPC; that no Sikh Gurdwara was for.aed by dedicating the suit
    property; that no notification under Section 10 (3) of the Sikh
    Gurdwara Act, 1925 was published after notification under Section 7
    (3) was published including the suit property and thus there is no
B   conclusive proof of no claim over the suit property; that in these
    circumstances the suit property can never be considered as property
    of the Sikh Gurdwara; that SGPC ought to have filed a suit to settle
    disputes in respect of any property notified as property of the Sikh
    Gurdwara; that B had transferred the suit property to the other two
    respondents but when a decree had been passed against him, he had
C   no rights, therefore, transfer was' not binding upon the other ·two '·
    respondents and consequently the appellants are also not bound by the
    decree; and that there are series of revenue records. to show that suit
    property was being cultivated by B and all relevant entries show that
    SGPC had no right to possession of the suit property.
D
         Respondent - SGPC contended that notification under Section
    7 (3) of the Act was published on 19.2.1932, mentioning the suit
    property, followed by a notification under Section 9 (1) of the Act
    showing that the suit property belonged to Gurdwara Jeeta Singh
E   Wala, Lohara, although a notification under Section 10(3). of the Act
    could not be produced.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

F           HELD : I. There are documents to show that the suit property
      was included in the list of properties in the notification under Section
      7 (3) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 dated 19.2.1932. If anybody had
      filed any claim in respect of these properties, there would have been
      an adjudication and only after the adjudication, the notification under
 ,... Section 10 (3) would have to be issued. It is not the case of the appellant
G"" that J the alleged predecessor-in-interest of B made any claim over any
      of the properties included in the list forming part of the notification
      under Section 7 (3). Undoubtedly, the notification issued under Section
      10 (3) serves as a conclusive proof of the fact that no claim was made
      in respect of any right, title or interest in any properties specified in
H the notification. However, the failure to produce the notification issued
DALIP SINGH v. SIKH GURDW ARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE                 777

under Section 10(3) by itself does not lead to the logical or necessary A
conclusion that the landed properties which are being claimed by the
appellants were not the properties of Gurdwara, but they were the
private properties of J and B. Appellants had filed a suit for tile
declaration of the title and it was for them to prove that B acquired
right, title or interest over the suit properties either under the general B
law of succession or tenancy law. They utterly failed to prove the same
and this flaw cannot be got over by relying on the fact that the
notification under Section 10(3) was not produced. They could not
produce any document to prove that the suit properties had been later
divested from the o"'.nership and management of the Gurdwara Jeeta
Singh Wala, Lohara. [782-B-G)                                              C
      2.1. The suit properties as alleged by appellants originally belonged
to J as occupancy tenant and were inherited by B. J was the Mahant
of the Gurdwara and B was not his son or legal heir and there is
nothing in the evidence to, indicate that he had inherited the property D
from J. The oral evidence adduced in this. case also completely
negatives the case set out by the appellants. Appellant was also not
aware of the nature of the rights enjoyed by B over the property. The
witnesses examined on the side of the appellants admitted that B was
~~e Mahant of the Gurdwara and his Guru was J and that the suit E
property belonged to Gurdwara. Evidence shows that the case set up
by the appellants was not true. SGPC had initiated the proceedings
before the Tribunal against B, which was compromised. Some of the
records were destroyed and SGPC could not produce the certified
copies of such records. However, the statement in the compromise
petition to which B was admittedly a party, cannot be eschewed from F
consideration. [782-B-H, 783-A-D)

     2.2. SGPC filed an application under Section 142 of the Act
calling upon B to surrender the possession of the properties.
The Commission rendered its Judgment on 20.12.1958 and in that
proceeding, it was mentioned that SGPC had entered into a compromise G
on 5.4.1943. [783-E-F)

     2.3. There is no document to show that B acquired any title over
the suit property. The proceedings before the Judicial Commission also
would only show that he was an office-holder of the Gurdwara and H
    778                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A he was removed from office in 1951 and consequently, he was directed
    to vacate the office and hand over the properties including the suit
    lands. (783-G-H, 784-A]

          3. Some of the documents produced show B as the eultiivator of
B   the properties. This is not sufficient to prove that the occupancy right
    or the title of the suit property vested in B. These revenue records are
    quite consistent with the fact that B .must have been in poss·ession of
    this property as an employee or manager ofthe·Gurdwara. The entires
    in the revenue records by itself cannot prove the title to the property
    unless it is supported by other evidence. [784-B-CJ
c
         4. It is proved by satisfactory evidence that the suit property
    belonged to the Sikh Gurdwara and the appellants failed to prove that
    their predecessors-in-interest, namely, the other two respondents
    acquired any title from B. Coi~sequently, the sale deed in favour of the
D   appellants did not confer any title on them in respect of the suit
    properties. [784-D]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7418 of
    1993.

E       From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.92 of the ·Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2245 of 1978.

          P.K. Palli, Rajiv K. Garg and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants.

F         Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. : This appeal is against the Judgment
  of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 2245
G of 1978. The appellants were Plaintiffs in a suit filed for declaration of the
  title in respect of 64 canals and 8 marlas comprising Khatauni Nos. 1361
  to 1364 and 11 canals and 9 marlas comprising Khatauni No. 1746 in
  village Dheleke, Tehsil Moga in Punjab. The appellants contended that
  they had purchased this land by a registered sale deed from respondent nos.
H 2 & 3th June 1957. The first respondent is Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak
    DALIP SINGH r. SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE [BALAK.RISHNAN, J.]   779

    Committee (hereinafter being referred to as "SGPC"). The appellants A
    alleged that SGPC had no title or right over the suit property. The
    appellants prayed that the first respondent be restrained from taking
    possession of their property. They alleged that the suit property originally
    belonged to one Jeeta Singh and he was an occupancy tenant whose rights
    devolved on Bhola Singh who was father of the second respondent and B
    husband of the third respondent. According to the appellants, Bhola Singh
    became the absolute owner of this land by virtue of the provisions of the
    Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952.

          The case was contested by the first respondent SGPC. First respondent C

.
'
    raised the following contentions : Jeeta Singh did not have any title over
    this property and consequently Bhola Singh also did not acquire any right
    from him. There was an earlier litigation as suit no. 859 before the Sub-
    Judge, Moga and Jeeta Singh was party to that suit and by Judgment dated
    15.6.1943, it was held that the first respondent was the owner of the land.
    Bh.ola Singh was an office holder under the managing committee of D
    Gurdwara Jeeta Singh Wala, Lohara, and he was managing the land in that
    capacity. As he began to misuse his powers, an application was filed
    against him under Section 142 of Sikh Gurdwara Act before the Judicial
    Commission and the same was allowed. As Bhola Singh had no right, title
    or interest on the land; the gift, if any, executed in favour of the respondent E
    nos. 2 & 3 was invalid and void.

          On these allegations, several issues were framed. The suit was
    ultimately decreed on 20.12.1958 and the learned Sub-Judge held that Jeeta
    Singh was not the original owner of the property and the title of suit F
    property vested with the first respondent - SGPC. It was held that the title
    in respect of the suit property never passed on to Bhola Singh.

          Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the First Appeal
    before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court framed two
    issues and these issues related to the question as to whether Bhola Singh G
    was the owner of the suit property and whether the gift deed executed by
    him in favour of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 was valid or not and remitted
    the matter to the trial court for decision on those issues. In view of the
    issues framed by First Appellate Court, the Trial Court again examined the
    question and gave a finding that Bhola Singh was not the owner of the suit H
    780                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A    land and the gift deed executed by him in favour of his son and wife had
     no effect so far as the rights of the first respondent herein are concerned.
     The Lower Appellate Court on receipt of the decision on the two issues
     framed by it, reconsidered the appeal on merits and held that the suit was
     liable to be dismissed. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the
B    appellants herein were not bonafide purchasers for value and they were not
     entitled to get the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of the Property Act.
     Against this decision, the appellants again filed appeal before the High
     Court and their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the
     same, the present appeal is filed.

c         We heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.K. Palli who appeared
     on behalf of the appellants and learned Senior Counsel Shri Hardev Singh,
     who appeared on behalf of the first respondent.

          One of the main contentions urged by the appellants' Counsel is that
D the suit property never belonged to first respondent SGPC and no Sikh
    Gurdwara was formed by dedicating the suit property. According to the
    appellants, in the absence of notification under Section 10(3) of the Sikh
    Gurdwara Act, 1925, the suit property can never be considered as property
    of the Sikh Gurdwara.
E
         In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to some
   of the provisions of Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, to find out as to how a Sikh
   Gurdwara is formed and the properties are dedicated to such Sikh
   Gurdwara. The procedure can be briefly summarised as follows. Section
 F 7 of the Act says that any fifty or more Sikh worshippers of a Gurdwara
   each of whom is more than twenty-one years of age, may forward an
   application to the appropriate Secretary to Government praying to have a
   Gurdwara to be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara. This petition shall be
   accompanied by a list of properties claimed for the Gurdwara. The list shall
   contain all the details regarding the title and interest in respect of those
.G properties. The list shall be in such form and shall contain all particulars
   of the properties prescribed under the Act and rules and on receiving the ,.
   petition along with the list of properties, the Government shall publish it
   in the prescribed manner. '!"he State Government may also publish such
   notice as may _be prescribed under the Act. The petition filed may be
 H withdrawn, by notice, at any time before the publication. In case any person
                             /                                                  .
DALIP SINGH 1·. SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.) 781

claims a right on any of the properties included in the list, he can file his A
objections as per the provisions of the Act. When a notification is published
under sub-Section (3) of Section 7 in respect of any Gurdwara, a resident
in the police station area in which the Gurdwara is situated, may forward
to the Government within ninety days a petition verified and signed by him,
or petitioners as the case may be, claiming that any hereditary office holder B
or any person could have succeeded to such office holder. If no petition
or objection is filed under Section 9 claiming any right over the Gurdwara,
and if no petition has been presented in accordance with Section 8 pursuant
to the notification published under the provisions of sub-Section (3) of
Section 7, the Government shall after expiration of ninety days from the
date of such notification publish a notification, declaring the Gurdwara to C
be a Sikh Gurdwara. As regards the properties dedicated to the said Sikh
Gurdwara, any person may forward to the State Government within ninety
days from the date of publication of notification under the provisions of
sub-Section (3) of Section 7 a petition claiming the right, title or interest
in any property included in the lists so published. Sub-Section (3) of D
Section 10 which is the relevant section for the purpose of this appeal,
states that after the expiry of the ninety days for making a claim regarding
any right, title or interest in respect of any property included in the list
published under Section 7(3) Notification, the State Government shall
publish a notification. If any claim is made, such claim will be dealt with E
in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. Even if there is no
claim in respect of any property included in the list, there shall be a further
notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 and this notification shall
 be conclusive proof of the fact that there is no such claim in respect of
 any right, title or interest in the properties specified in the Notification F
under sub-Section (3) of Section 7.

       The contention of the first respondent was that the suit property was
one of the items of property included in the list published under sub-
section (3) of Section 7 Notification on 19.2.1932 and exh. D-5 notification
showed that it was a Sikh Gurdwara and the properties contained in the G
list attached to the Exhibit Notification were the properties of the Gurdwara,
namely, Gurdwara Jeeta Singh Wala Lohara. The details of the properties
in notification show that Khasra No. 484, 490 and 493 are included. There
was another notification, also under Section 9(1) of the Act issued on
March 13, 1936. It is true that the first respondent could not produce any   H
    782                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A document to show that there was a notification under Section 10(3) of the
    Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. The contention·ofthe appellants' Counsel is that
    a notification under sub-Section (3) of Section IO is the only conclusive
    proof to show that the suit properties belonged to Gurdwara Jeeta Singh
    Wala, &ohara and in the absence of such notification, the claim of the first
B   respondent is to be negatived.

           We do not firid much force in the contention urged by the Counsel
    for the appellants. There are documents to show that the suit property was
    included in the list of properties in the notification dated 19.2.1932. If
    anybody had filed any claim in respect of these properties, there would
C   have been an adjudication and only after the adjudication, the notification
    under Section 10(3) would have to be issued. It is not the case of the
    appellant that Jeeta Singh, the alleged predecessor-in-interest of Bhola
    Singh made any claim over any of the properties included in· the list
    formingpart of the notification under sub-Section (3) of Section 7. True,
D   the notification issued under sub-Section (3) of Section 10 serves as a
    conclusive proof of the fact that no claim was made in respect of any right,
    title or interest in any properties specified in the notification. But, the
    failure to produce the notification issued under Section 10(3) by itself does
    not lead to the logical or necessary conclusion that the landed properties
E   which are being claimed by the appellants were not the properties of
    Gurdwara, but they were the private properties of Jeeta Singh and Bhola
    Singh. It is for the appellants who had filed a suit for the declaration of
    the ti!le to prove that Bhola Singh acquired right, title or interest over the
    suit properties either under the general law of succession or tenancy law.
F   The appellantc; utterly failed to prove the same and this flaw cannot be got
    over by relying on the fact that the notification under Section 10(3) was
    not produced. The appellants who had filed a suit for declaration of their
    title could not produce any document to prove that the suit properties had
    been later divested from the ownership and management of the Gurdwara
    Jeeta Singh Wala, Lohara.
G
          According to the appellants, the suit properties originally belonged
    to Jeeta Singh as occupancy tenant and were inherited by Bhola Singh.
    Jeeta Singh was the Mahant of the Gurdwara. Bhola Singh was not his son
    or legal heir and there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that he had
H   inherited the property from Jeeta Singh. The oral evidence adduced in this
DALIP SINGH"· SIKH GURDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE [BALAKRISHNAN. J.]     783

case also completely negatives the case set out by the appellants. Even the A
appellant who was examined as PW3 was not aware of the fact that this
property belonged to the Gurdwara. He was also not aware of the nature
of the rights enjoyed by Bhola Singh over this property. The witnesses
examined on the side of the appellants admitted that Bhola Singh was the
Mahant of the Gurdwara and his Guru was Jeeta Singh and that the suit B
property belonged to Gurdwara. The evidence of PW-5 shows that the case
set up by the appellants was not true.The first respondent had initiated the
proceedings before the Tribunal against Bhola Singh. The matter was
compromised and Exh. CX/1 is the compromise statement. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants strongly contended that there is nothing in C
evidence to show that this compromise was filed before the Tribunal and
the same was accepted and a decree was passed. It seems that some of the
records were destroyed and the first respondent could not produce the
certified copies of such records. Be that as it may, the statement in the
compromise petition to which Bhola Singh was admittedly a party, cannot D
be eschewed from consideration.

      The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further contended that
under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, the first respondent
could have filed a suit to settle the disputes if any, in respect of any property.
notified as the property of Sikh Gurdwara. It was argued that in the absence E
of such a suit, the claim of the first respondent is to be negatived. The first
respondent herein filed an application under Section 142 of the Act calling
upon Bhola Singh to surrender the possession of the properties. The
Commission rendered its Judgment on 20.12.1958 and in that proceeding,
it was mentioned that the first respondent had entered into a compromise F
on 5.4.1943. According to the appellant's Counsel, Bhola Singh had
transferred the property to his wife and son on 6.6.195'/ but when a .decree
had been passed against Bhola Singh, he had no right over the property
and, therefore, the transfer deed executed by him is not binding on
respondent nos. 2 & 3 and consequently the appellants herein are also not G
bound by the said decree. It is important to note that there is no document
to show that Bhola Singh acquired any title over this property. The
proceedings before the Judicial Commission also would only show that he
was an office-holder of the Gurdwara and he was removed from office in
1951 and consequently, he was directed to vacate the office and hand over H
                                                                                     t

    784                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the properties including the suit lands~
           The appellants lastly contended that there are series of revenue
    records to show that the suit property was being cultivated by Bhola Singh
    and all the entries in these records show that the first respondent had no
B   right to possession of property. Reference was made to series of documents
    produced by the appellants. It is true that in some of the documents
    produced by the appellants, Bhola Singh is shown as the cultivator of these
    properties. This is not sufficient to prove that the occupancy right or the
                                                                                     t
    title of the suit property vested in Bhola Singh. These revenue records are
    quite. consistep.t with the fact that Bhola Singh must have been in
C   possession of this property as an employee or manager of the Gurdwara.
    The entries in the revenue records by itself cannot prove the titlP- to the
    property unless it is supported by other evidence.

          In the instant case, it is proved by satisfactory evidence that the
D   property· belonged to the Sikh Gurdwara and the appellants failed to prove
    that their predecessors-in-interest, namely, respondent nos. 2 & 3 acquired
    any title from Bhola Singh. Consequently, the sale deed in favour of the
    appellants did not confer any title on them in respect of the suit properties.
    The "appeal is without any merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
                                                                                     t
E         While leave was granted in· favour of the appellants, this Court
    directed the appellants to dl:lpOsit Rs. 25,000 annually before the Additional
    Senior Sub Jl!dge, Moga, till the disposal of the appeal. If any such amount
    has been deposited by the appellants, pursuant to the Order passed by this
    Court on 13.12.1993, the first respondent would be entitled to get the
F   refund of the same with interest if any accrued thereon. The appeal is
    dismissed, and parties to bear their costs.

    A.Q.                                                      Appeal dismissed.