S.S.DEWAN,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. The tribunal has held that the institution was a Dera of Udasi Sadhus and not a Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of Section 16 (2) (iii) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act) and accepted the petition with no order as to costs.
(2.) MORE than 50 persons claiming to be the residents of village Ghurani Kalan, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, in which the institution is situate, applied to the Government to have the institution taken as a Sikh Gurdwara. They claimed that the institution is known as Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib. The State Government issued a notification No. 1108-G-P dated March 29, 1963, under S. 7 (3) of the Act. The respondent who is the Mahant of the institution forwarded a petition to the Government under S. 8 of the Act that he was a hereditary office-holder of this Dera, that the institution described as Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib was in fact an Udasi institution in which succession had been from guru to chela and that it was not a sikh Gurudwara within the meaning of S. 16 of the Act. The Government forwarded this petition to the Tribunal for disposal under S. 14 of the Act. Notice was issued to the Committee to enquire whether it wanted to be made a party. The Committee was impleaded and the Tribunal raised the following issues:-1. Whether the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder? 2.Whether the institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara? Shri Gurcharan Singh, one of the members of the Tribunal, in his judgment dated (sic) Dec. , 1965, held that the institution was a Dera of Udasi Sadhus and not a Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of S. 16 (2) (iii) of the Act and accepted the petition with costs. Shri Sarup Singh, the other member of the Tribunal differed from the judgment delivered by Shri Gurcharan Singh, Shri Shamsher Bahadur who was the President of the Tribunal agreed with the findings given by Shri Gurcharan Singh, member of the Tribunal and by a majority decision, the petition was allowed with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Committee filed F. A. O. No. 180 of 1966, through Shri G. S. Aulakh, Advocate.
(3.) SHRI Narinder Singh, the learned counsel for the Committee, urged that the majority decision of the Tribunal is wrong on both the issues. He contends that there has been deviation from the line of succession and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to see how the succession has taken place. Reference may be made to pedigree table Ex. P. 3 attached to the settlement file for the years 1960-61 Bkt. According to this pedigree table, first Mahant of this institution was Brahm Lal and thereafter the office devolved on to Chela Salig Ram. Salig Ram was succeeded by Atma Ram. Atma Ram was followed by Bhagat Ram. Bhagat Ram died on Sept. 17, 1952, and was succeeded by his Chela Ishar Dass (now petitioner ). The objection of Shri Narinder Singh with regard to the succession of the petitioner is that he was nominated to the office and it cannot be said to be a case of succession to the office, Both of these contentions are not well founded.;