Decided on April 26,1950

Ralla Appellant
Managing Committee Gurdwara Respondents


Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of two second appeals, R.S.A. No. 2162 of 1946, Ralla v. The Managing Committee Gurdwara, Anandgarh and R.S.A. No. 190 of 1948. The Managing Committee Gurdwara, Anandgarh v. Ralla. In both the appeals the point in controversy is the same.
(2.) TWO suits were brought by the Plaintiff. The Managing Committee Gurdwara, Anandgarh against the Plaintiff, one for possession of land measuring 53 kanals 3 marlas, khewat No. 3, khatauni No. 348 and other for possession' of 41 kanals 10 marlas of land in the same, kheivat and the same khatauni, but bearing different khasra numbers. Under Section 3, Sikh Gurdwaras Act, a notification dated 12 -3 -1927, was issued wherein certain rights in regard to these properties wore claimed. In regard to these properties the claim was 'ownership and right of cultivation' (malkiat wa haq kasht). It was also claimed that the Gurdwara was a maufidar with regard to these lands. Objections were then put in by certain persons, with regard to ownership by those claiming to be landlords and with regard' to occupancy rights by one Chanda Singh, whose objection was that he was the occupancy tenant of the land and had the right, to cultivate the same, and the third by cert: ragees. Claims with regard to proprietary rights were admitted and were so declared those of Chanda Singh and the ragees plain rights of occupancy were dismissed. An appeal to the High Court also failed.
(3.) THE first suit brought by the Managing Committee Gurdwara, Anandgarh, was for possession on the allegation that the Gurdwara had occupancy rights in the land and the Defendant had taken forcible possession six or seven years before the suit and he was, therefore,' merely a trespasser. The suit was resisted by the Defendant on the ground that he was a tenant under the proprietors of the land and that the Gurdwara had no right of occupancy. Plea of limitation was also raised. The only two issues framed in this case were: 1. Is the suit within time? 2. Is the Plaintiff an occupancy tenant of this laud and is entitled to eject the' Defendant?;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.