S.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE scope and the nature of the statutory presumption raised under section 3(4) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, has been the primary subject of debate in this first appeal, directed against the order of the Tribunal constituted under the said Act. This issue arises from the facts detailed hereinafter.
(2.) A notification declaring the institution in dispute, namely, Gurdwara Sahib Padshahi Dasmi (Gosayan) to be a Sikh Gurdwara was duly published on the 25th of August, 1959. Thereafter in pursuance of the provisions of sub -section (2) of section 3 of the Act, the Governor of Punjab published a consolidated list, of rights, title and interests claimed to belong to the said Gurdwara, -vide the notification dated the 9th of December, 1959. The Appellant Mahant Sahib Singh through his son Gursewak Singh moved a petition under section 5(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act for a declaration that he being the chela of Mahant Lal Singh, his predecessor -in -interest was consequently the owner and manager of the property which was included in the list of properties attached to the notification abovesaid. According to this petition Dera Shri Guru Granth Sahib (Gosayan) situated in the revenue estate of Pathrala in the Bhatinda District had been founded by a Gosain Mahant. It was averred that the object of worship in this Dera was the Samadh, though it stood admitted in paragraph 2 that Guru Granth Sahib was also placed therein. This, according to the petition, had been wrongly described in the notification as Gurdwara Sahib Padshahi Dasmi (Gosayan) and that the property in fact belonged to the Dera of which Sahib Singh was the owner and the manager being the Mahant of the said Dera. The petition above -said moved by the Appellant was contested on behalf of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee on the assertion that the property belonged to the Gurdwara which has been scheduled and the question whether it was a Dera or a Gurdwara was no longer justiciable. It was further claimed that the properties in fact belonged to the Gurdwara which was not a Dera.
(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal the sole question agitated was whether the right, title and interest in the Gurdwara and the properties vested in the petitioner or the respondent. In dismissing the petition with costs the Tribunal, as is usual in such cases, mainly relied on the documentary evidence of the revenue records which in fact had been produced by the Appellant himself. The Tribunal also closely appraised the evidence adduced by the parties and noticed on the basis of both documentary and oral evidence that the position taken up on behalf of the Appellant was inconsistent as he had described himself as the owner of the Dera whereas the revenue record produced by him did not show even a semblance of any claim as the personal owner of the properties. It was noticed that in the argument, the counsel for the petitioner had confined his claim merely to the management of the Dera. In a well reasoned judgment the Tribunal held that the only institution in dispute was the Sikh Gurdwara and as regards the claim of the personal ownership it found as follows : To conclude, there is no evidence of any kind that the petitioner is the owner in his own right to the properties which are included in the list of properties of 'Gurdwara Sahib Padshahi Dasmi (Gosayan)' at serial No. 352 in Schedule I of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.;