Jagannadhadas, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by leave granted under Art. 133 of the Constitution read with Ss. 109 and 110 and O. 45, R. 2 Civil P. C. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in 1938 by the respondent herein, Raja Shiv Rattan Dev Sing, Raja of Poonch against (1) Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, (2) Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and (3) 57 Sikhs, for a declaration to the effect that a house known as Bunga Raja Dhian Singh in Amritsar and four shops appurtenant thereto, two of which are close to the Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Darbar Sahib, belong to him and are his private property and that they are not a Sikh Gurdwara. The suit which was filed in 1938 was dismissed by the trial Court on certain preliminary issues and that dismissal was reversed on first appeal and the suit was remanded. On second appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial court was restored by a Single Judge in 1941 Against this there was a Letters Patent Appeal to a Bench. That appeal was first heard by a Bench which, after hearing the matter and coming to some tentative conclusions, on the points raised before them, made an order dated 16-6-1944, adjourning the hearing of the appeal to a later date for reasons set out therein. For one reason or other this appeal could not be taken up for a considerable time. It ultimately came up for final disposal before a Bench of the High Court in the year 1950. The learned Judges, by their judgment dated 20-6-1950, gave certain findings on the preliminary issues raised and as a result thereof reversed the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the appeal and returned the ease back to the trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law". It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal has been brought to this Court.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised before us at the outset that this appeal is incompetent and that the provisions under which leave was granted by the High Court were inapplicable to the case, inasmuch as the order of the High Court appealed against is not a final order within the meaning of Art. 133 of the Constitution. It may also be mentioned that at the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Attorney-General mentioned to us that since the passing of the order of the High Court in 1950 returning the case for further disposal, the trial Court has disposed of the case, there having been no stay and that the suit has since been decreed in favour of the present respondent and that inasmuch as no appeal has been filed against that decree, this is an additional ground by reason of which the appeal is incompetent. A certified copy of the judgment of the trial Court on remand has been since placed before us and we have heard further arguments on this preliminary objection in the light thereof. This will be dealt with at the end of this judgment.
(3.) The present litigation arises out of certain events relating to the suit property which arose out of the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (Punjab Act VIII of 1925) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act came into force on 1-11-1925. Under S. 3(2) of the Act, the Provincial Government issued a notification on 13-12-1927, with reference to a claim made and list forwarded to the Government under S. 3(1) alleging that the suit properties belong to the Sikh Gurdwara, Harmandir Sahib (Darbar Sahib). Three persons including the present respondent filed objections thereto under S. 5(1) of the Act, each claiming the properties as his own. The objections of the other two, viz., Nikka Singh and Suchat Singh were, in course of time, either withdrawn or ultimately dismissed. The objection by the respondent, Raja of Poonch, came up for consideration before the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, constituted under the Act. There was a compromise between the Raja and the Local Committee of the Gurdwara and as a result thereof a decree was passed by the Gurdwara Tribunal on 17-6-1933, in terms of the compromise. The substance of that compromise was that the property (Bunga and the Shops) were admitted to be the property of the Raja, but that the Bunga, excluding the shops would be a waqf for the use of the pilgrims to the Darbar Sahib, that the income from the shops would be spent in the interests of the Bunga, that the management of the Bunga would be with the Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee subject to the previous consent in writing, of the Raja and subject also to the general advice and directions of the Raja that the letting out of the shops and the ejectment of the tenants therein would rest with the Raja and that the income from the shops would be made available for the expenses of the Bunga. It may be mentioned here that a Bunga is "a hostel where pilgrims, coming from various parts of India, to pay a visit to the Golden Temple, stay". (See - 'Gurdwaras Committee, Amritsar vs. Indar Singh, AIR 1933 Lah 1041 (A), quoting from -'Mehr Singh vs. Sachet Singh', AIR 1916 Lah 98 (B). It may be noticed that in the above proceedings the suit properties were claimed only as properties belonging to the main Gurdwara Darbar Sahib and not as by themselves constituting a Sikh Gurdwara and that the claim was compromised by admitting the title of the Raja but with an arrangement that the same should be held for the benefit of the pilgrims to the Darbar Sahib. Quite apart, however, from these proceedings, there appear to have been certain prior proceedings under S. 7 of the Act initiated on an application by 57 Sikhs dated 24-10-1926, claiming these very properties as by themselves consitituting a Sikh Gurdwara. The Government issued a notification dated 23-7-1929, under S. 7(3) of the Act. In the list attached to the application under S. 7(1) with reference to the provisiona of S. 7(3) of the Act, the property was shown as being in possession at the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak committee, Amritsar. Therefore, apart from the general notification, there does not appear to have been any service of individual notices under the provision of S. 7(4) of the Act. Objections, however, were filed under S. 10 of the Act, by the two persons, Nikka Singh and Suchet Singh, who had previously filed objections to the notification under S. 3(1). Both these objections appear to have been ultimately dismissed for default or non-prosecution more or less in the same way as their prior objections under S. 5(1). The Raja-the present plaintiff filed no objection under S. 10 claiming the alleged Gurdwara as his private property. This was presumably because he had no specific notice of this claim under S.7: There was no objection filed to the notification under S. 8 by any person. Notwithstanding the absence of any such objection no notification under S. 9 was issued by the Government. It may be mentioned that from the date of the compromise in 1933 up to some time in the year 1937-1938, the compromise appears to have been acted upon smoothly between the parties. It is stated however, that some trouble arose between them as a result of which probably, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee moved the Provincial Government for issuing notification under S. 9 of the Act. On 5-7-1938, the Provincial Government wrote a letter to the Raja asking him if he had any objection to the notification under S. 9 of the Act declaring the suit properties as a Sikh Gurdwara. The Raja strongly objected to any such notification being issued. Thereupon the Government refrained from issuing any notification under. S. 9 of the Act and referred the Raja to the Civil Court on 2-11-1938. That is the genesis of the suit out of which the present appeal arises.;