Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) The sole question which calls for consideration by the Full Bench in the present appeal is the scope and ambit of S. 87(1)(a) and (b) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act), which is reproducd below: ''87(1) Every Committee shall consist of five members out of which one at least shall be a person belonging to the scheduled castes and shall be constituted as follows:-- (a) The Board shall nominate the members, with their written consent, of the committee of the Gurdwara or Gurdwaras, whose gross annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, who shall be residents of the district in which the Gurdwara or one of the Gurdwaras to be managed by the Committee is situated: Provided that the Board may, if it so decides, instead of nominating the members, manage the affairs of any such Gurdwara itself in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (b) The Committee of Gurdwara or Gurdwaras, whose annual monetary income exceeds Rupees 3,000 shall consist of four elected members and one member nominated by the Board who shall be resident of the district in which the Gurdwara or one of the Gurdwaras to be managed by the Committee is situated. If in the election, the required number of members is not elected, the board may nominate such number of persons as have not been elected so as to complete the Committee for such a Gurdwara or Gurdwaras; provided that the person or persons so nominated shall be the resident or residents of the district in which the said Gurdwara or Gurdwaras are situated.''
(2.) Before embarking upon the interpretation of this provision. the facts and the background of the case may, briefly, be narrated. A suit under S. 28 of the Act, for the possession of the Gurdwara Sahib Padshahi Daswin (hereinafter called the Gurdwara) and agricultural land specified in the plaint, was filed by a Committee of management on behalf of the Gurdwara. According to the averments in the plaint, the Gurdwara was a notified Sikh Gurdwara under the Act and a Committee of management for the same had been nominated and notified in the Government Gazette dated April 12 1963. The said Committee by a resolution dated May 6, 1963, authorised its President and the Vice-President, Bharpur Singh and Bhura Singh, respectively, to institute the suit. This suit was contested by Mahant Kesar Singh defendent (now respondent), and a number of contentions regarding the limitation, valuation for the purpose of Court fee and the jurisdiction etc. were raised, which are not relevant for the purpose of the present controversy. The relevant contention was that the plaintiff Committee was not entitled to sue. This formed the basis of issue No. 5. On this issue, evidence was led by both the sides. The District Judge, Bhatinda, who tried the suit, arrived at the conclusion that the Committee of management through which the suit had been filed, had been constituted not only for the Gurdwara,, but for two Gurdwaras, namely, the Gurdwara, in question, and the Gurdwara Naumi Padshahi Maisar Khana and that the annual gross income of the two Gurdwaras having the same Committee of management was far in excess of Rupees 3,000/-. Consequently, it was held that the constitution of the Committee was invalid inasmuch as the same had been nominated under subclause (a) to sub-section (1) to S. 87 of the Act, whereas it ought to have been elected-cum-nominated as provided under sub-clause (b) to sub-section (1) to S. 87. In view of this finding, it was held that the plaintiff Committee had no locus standi to file the suit and the same was dismissed. This was challenged through appeal vide Regular First Appeal No. 165 of 1966. Goyal, J., vide his order dated March 7, 1977, agreed with the finding and the interpretation of the relevant Provisions of the Act by the learned District Judge and was of the opinion that the decision in R. F. A. No. 374 of 1965 (Jalaur Singh v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar) decided on Oct. 28, 1975 (Punj), interpreting S. 87(1)(a), of the Act to the following effect, required reconsideration by a larger Bench: ''This apart, it is patent that S. 87(1)(a) visualises an income accruing to or coming into the hands of the institution as such It was appellants' own case that in fact they were in possession of and entitled as a matter of right to the proper-ties attached to the Gurdwara and obviously they had never tendered any income accruing from the said property to the Institution or the Managing Committee thereof. Consequently, it is patent that on the pleadings of the parties, the Gurdwara as such and its Managing Committee were receiving no income whatsoever from the properties for the possession whereof they had instituted the present suit. This fact finds further support from the virtually unchallenged averments in the resolution Exhibit P. 3 which mentioned that Mahants were in possession of the properties attached to the Gurdwara mentioned in the list and the Shiromani Parbandhak Committee was not receiving any income from them. It is thus evident that in the particular case the Income to the Gurdwara being virtually "non-existent, the respondent Committee was perfectly entitled to constitute itself as the Managing Committee thereof under Section 87(1) of the Act.''
(3.) The appeal was then referred to the Division Bench comprising of Gurnam Singh, J., and myself. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, vide our order dated July 19, 1977, we were of the view that the matter, in controversy, was important enough to be considered by a still larger Bench. It was in these circumstances that the case has been referred to the Full Bench.;