S.N.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) RFA No. 1322 of 1980 (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Bhupinder Singh and others) and RFA No. 1614 of 1980 (Bhupinder Singh and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar and others) are directed against the same impugned judgment dated 2.5.1980 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals and the parties are the same, therefore, these are being disposed of by one judgment. The parties would be referred to as per their status in RFA No. 1322 of 1980.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar (in short the Committee) filed a civil suit against the respondents under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (in short the Act 1925). The version of the plaintiff/appellant was that it was managing the Gurdwara known as Gurdwara Sahib Dera Baba Natha Singh of village Kapurgarh. It was declared as Sikh Gurdwara vide notification dated 23.6.1961 published under Section 7(3) of the Act, 1925. Notification was also issued by the Government of Punjab under Section 10(3) of the Act, 1925 on 31.1.1974 declaring the suit property to be the property of the Gurdwara under reference. No claim was filed by the respondent or anybody else. Since the Committee was entitled to its possession, therefore, the civil suit was filed under Section 28 of the Act, 1925. The version of the defendant-respondents was that the plaintiff-appellant Committee was not managing the Gurdwara under reference. The property in dispute belongs to the Dera of Natha Singh. It was not a Gurdwara. The appellant-Committee has got no locus standi to manage the suit property nor it has any locus standi to file the civil suit. It was denied if the Dera under reference was declared as a Sikh Gurdwara under the Act, 1925. The alleged notification was void, illegal and ultra vires. The publication of the notification under Section 7(3) of the Act, 1925 was admitted, but it was alleged to be without jurisdiction. It was pleaded that no opportunity was granted to its Mahant Ran Singh to file objections. The notification is also bad in law for the reason that proper representation as prescribed by law, was not made before the Government. The signatures of 16 persons were forged. It was denied if the property belonged to the Sikh Gurdwara or it was so declared under the Act, 1925 or if the appellant-committee was entitled to its possession. It was a Dera property and the Dera was founded by His Highness, Maharaja of Patiala. After its first Mahant Mohinder Singh was removed, Mahant Ran Singh was appointed to be the manager of the Dera. Said Mahant Ran Singh had appointed Bhupinder Singh defendant-respondent as its Mahant vide Will dated 28.2.1949. Mahant Ran Singh had also leased out the land to the extent of 5/6th share for a period of one year by patanama on 22.4.1962 and thereafter a lease deed for 99 years was executed by him on 24.7.1962 in favour of the defendant-respondents. Therefore, the possession of Bhupinder Singh respondent was only that of Mahant after the death of Mahant Ran Singh but also as a lessee. Defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 were also lessees in possession.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that if it is taken that Mahant Ran Singh had no right to lease out the disputed property to the respondents, then they have become the owners by adverse possession being in its possession for a period of 12 years continuous, adversely exclusive, peacefully, openly, notoriously and unequivocally. They enjoyed hostile possession qua the true owner. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also disputed. The jurisdiction of the Court under Act, 1925 was also denied. It was also pleaded that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.;