Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak

7/25/2019 Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak

1/22

1

Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak ... vs Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors on

29 March, 2000

Author: MisraBench: A.P.Misra, M Rao

PETITIONER:SHRIOMANI GURUDARA PRABANDHA! "OMMITTEE, AMRITSAR#s.RESPONDENT:SHRI SOM NATH DASS $ ORS.DATE O% &UDGMENT: '()*+)'***BEN"H:A.P.Misra, M.&aanna-ha Rao

JUDGMENT:

MISRA, J.

The question raised in this appeal is of far reahin! onsequenes and is of !reat

si!nifiane to one of the "a#or reli!ious follo$ers of this ountr%. The question is:

$hether the Guru Granth Sahi& ould &e treated as a #uristi person or not' If it is, then

it an hold and use the !ifted properties !i(en to it &% its follo$ers out of their lo(e, in

harit%. This is &% reation of an endo$"ent li)e others for pu&li !ood, for enhanin!

the reli!ious fer(our, inludin! feedin! the poor et.. Si)his" !re$ &eause of the

(i&ratin! di(init% of Guru Nana)#i and the *+ sueedin! !urus, and the $ealth of all

their teahin!s is ontained in Guru Granth Sahi&. The last of the li(in! !uru $as Guru

Go&ind Sin!h#i $ho reorded the santit% of Guru Granth Sahi& and !a(e it the

reo!nition of a li(in! Guru. Thereafter, it re"ained not onl% a sared &oo) &ut is

re)oned as a li(in! !uru. The deep faith of e(er% earnest follo$er, $hen his pure

onsiene "eets the di(ine underurrent e"anatin! fro" their Guru, produes a

feelin! of sarifie and surrender and i"pels hi" to part $ith or !ift out his $ealth to an%

harit% "a% &e for !urd$aras, dhara"shalas et.. Suh partin! spiritualises suh

follo$er for his spiritual uplift"ent, peae, tranquilit% and enli!htens hi" $ith resultant

lo(e and uni(ersalis". Suh donors in the past, raised nu"&er of Gurd$aras. The%

!a(e their $ealth in trust for its "ana!e"ent to the trustees to su&ser(e their desire.

The% e-peted trustees to faithfull% i"ple"ent the oeti(es for $hih the $ealth $as

entrusted. hen selfishness in(ades an% trustee, the ore of trust starts lea)in! out. To

stop suh lea)a!e, le!islature and ourts step in. This is $hat $as happenin! in the

a&sene of an% or!anised "ana!e"ent of Gurud$aras, $hen trustees $ere either

"is"ana!in! or atte"ptin! to usurp suh trusts. The Si)h Gurd$aras and Shrines At


2/22

'

*/00 12I of */003 $as enated to "eet the situation. It see"s, e(en this failed to satisf%

the aspirations of the Si)hs. The "ain reason &ein! that it did not esta&lish an%

per"anent o""ittee of "ana!e"ent for Si)h !urd$aras and did not pro(ide for the

speed% onfir"ation &% #udiial santion of han!es alread% introdued &% the refor"in!

part% in the "ana!e"ent of plaes of $orship. This $as replaed &% the Si)h

Gurd$aras At, */04 15un#a& At No. 6 of */043 under $hih the present ase arises.

This At pro(ided a le!al proedure throu!h $hih !urd$aras and shrines re!arded &%

Si)hs as essential plaes of Si)h $orship to &e effeti(el% and per"anentl% &rou!ht

under Si)h ontrol and "ana!e"ent, so as to "a)e it onsistent $ith the reli!ious

follo$in!s of this o""unit%.

A&out 47 persons of (illa!es 8ilaspur, Ghodani, Dha"ot, 9apran and 8uani situated in

the 2illa!e 8ilaspur, Distrit 5atiala "o(ed petition under Setion 1*3 of the said At for

delartion that the disputed propert% is a Si)h Gurd$ara. The State Go(ern"ent

throu!h Notifiation No. *+0 G.5. dated *;th Septe"&er, */70 pu&lished the aforesaid

petition in the Gao$e(er, appellant =o""ittee hallen!ed the lous

standi of the respondent to file this oetion to the notifiation. The appellants ase $as

under Setion 6 and oetion ould onl% &e filed &% an% hereditar% offieholders or &%

0+ or "ore $orshippers of the !urd$ara, $hih the% $ere not. The Tri&unal held that

the petitioners &efore it 1respondents here3, ad"itted in their ross e-a"ination that the

disputed pre"ises $as &ein! used &% the" as their residential house that there $as no

oet of $orship in the pre"ises, neither the% $ere perfor"in! an% pu&li $orship nor


3/22

+

the% $ere "ana!in! it. So it held the% $ere not hereditar% offie holders, as the% neither

"ana!ed it nor perfor"ed an% pu&li $orship. Thus, their petition under Setion 6 $as

re#eted on /th ?e&ruar%, */74 &% holdin! that the% ha(e no lous standi. A!!rie(ed &%

this the% filed first appeal &ein! ?A@ No. ;+ of */74 $hih $as also dis"issed &% the

>i!h =ourt on 0;th Marh, */7, $hih &ea"e final. Thereafter, the Tri&unal too) the

petition under Setion *+ in $hih the stand of SG5= $as that the land and the

&uildin!s $ere the properties of Gurd$ara Sahi& Dhara"shala Guru Granth Sahi& at

8ilaspur. The respondents and their predeessors alon! $ith their fa"il% "e"&ers had

all alon! &een its "ana!ers and the% had no personal ri!hts in it. The Tri&unal fra"ed

t$o issues:

1*3 hat ri!ht, title or interest ha(e the petitioners in the propert% in dispute'

103 hat ri!ht, title or interest has the notified Si)h Gurd$ara in the propert% in dispute.

The Tri&unal deided &oth issue No. * and issue No. 0 in fa(our of present appellants

and held that the disputed propert% &elon!ed to the SG5=. Thus respondents petition

under Setion *+ $as also re#eted on ;th Septe"&er */6. Tri&unals onlusion is

reprodued herein&elo$:

The a&o(e disussion sho$s that the respondent=o""ittee has &een suessful in

&rin!in! its ase ri!htl% in =lauses *6 1*31a3 and *61*31d3 of the At and has &een

suessful in dishar!in! its onus as re!ards issue no. 0 and the issue is, iala is the

o$ner of the propert% in dispute onsistin! of Gurd$ara &uildin!, the pla

of $hih is !i(en in the Notifiation No. *+0 G.5. dated *;./.76 at pa!e 040 and the

a!riultural land "easurin! **4 8i!has *0 8is$as the detail of $hih are !i(en in the

op% of Ja"a&andi for the %ear */4447 A.D. attahed to the a&o(esaid Notifiation at

pa!e 040/ and is o"prised of hasra Nos. ;47 "in, ;4, ;4*, 7;; and ;40 &earin!

ha$at No. 07 hatauni nos. 40; to 40.

A!!rie(ed &% this, respondents filed first appeal &ein! ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6. Durin! its

penden%, the SG5= on the &asis of final order passed &% the >i!h =ourt in ?A@ No. ;+

of */74 a!ainst the order of the Tri&unal re#etin! Setion 6 appliation, filed suit No. /;

of *// a!ainst the respondents under Setion 04A of the At for the possession of the

&uildin! and the land. The respondents ontested the suit &% raisin! oetion a&out

"isdesription of the propert% in the plaint and also raisin! an is


4/22

e a&out #urisdition sine the ino"e fro" the !urd$ara $as "ore than Rs. B,+++C per

annu" for $hih a o""ittee $as to &e onstituted &efore an% suit ould &e filed. @n

ontest, the said suit of SG5= $as dereed and respondents oetions $ere re#eted,

a!ainst $hih the respondents filed ?A@ No. 0 of */6+. The >i!h =ourt (ide its order

dated **th ?e&ruar%, */6+ direted this ?A@ No. 0 of */6+ to &e listed for hearin! alon!

$ith ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6. It is also rele(ant to refer to, $hih $as also stated &% the

respondents in their petition &efore the Tri&unal, that a notifiation under Setion / of

the At $as pu&lished delarin! the disputed !urd$ara to &e a Si)h Gurd$ara.

It is neessar% to !i(e so"e "ore fats to appreiate the ontentions raised &% the

respeti(e parties. In #a"a&andi E-. 5* of */7*70 8, 1$hih $ould &e */+; AD3

Man!al Dass and Sunder Dass, 8ha!at Ra" sons of Gopi Ra" ?aqir Udasi $ere

"entioned as o$ners in possession of the land. The% had also "ort!a!ed part of this

land to so"e other persons. This (illa!e 8ilaspur $here the disputed !urd$ara e-ists

for"ed part of the erst$hile 5atiala Estate. The then ruler of the 5atiala Estate issued

?ar"an

Shahi dated *6th April, */0*. Its ontents are quoted hereunder:

In future, instrutions &e issued that so lon! the appoint"ent of a Mahant is not

appro(ed &% I#lasI)has throu!h Deori Mulla, until the ti"e, the Mahant is entitled to

reei(e tur&an, sha$l or 8andhan or Muafi et. fro" the Go(ern"ent, no propert% or

Muafi shall &e entered in his na"e in the re(enue papers.

It should also &e "entioned that the land $hih pertains to an% Dera should not &e

onsidered as the propert% of an% Mahant, nor the sa"e should &e sho$n in the

re(enue papaers as the prope

% of the Mahant, &ut these should &e entered as &elon!in! to the Dera under the

"ana!e"ent of the Mahant and that the Mahants shall not &e entitled to sell or

"ort!a!e the land of the Dera. Re(enue Depart"ent &e also infor"ed a&out it and theorder &e !a


5/22

/

Dhara"shala Deh. This $as &ased on the enquir% and e(idene produed &efore hi".

In this "utation proeedin! $hih led to the "utation (ie further held that

At"a Ra" and others ould not ontro(ert the aforesaid assertion "ade &% the

(illa!ers. So, &ased on this enquir% and e(idene on reord, he ordered the "utation, in

the na"e of Guru Granth Sahi& 8ara#"an Dhara"shala Deh &% deletin! the na"e of

At"a Ra" and others fro" the olu"n of o$nership of the land. >e further o&ser(ed,

so far as the question of appoin"ent of Mana!er or Mohat"i" $as onerned that it

$as to &e deided &% the Deori Mualla as the ase a&out this $as pendin! &efore the

Deori Mualla. Si"ilarl%, in the other "utation No,. 7/B $hih is E-. / in 0th Ma!har

*/6B 1*/07 AD3 also, "utation $as ordered &% re"o(al of the na"e of Narain Dass,

8ha!at Ra" sons of Gopi Ra" in fa(our of Guru Granth Sahi& 8ara#"an Dhara"shala

Deh. Sine that date till the filin! of the petitions &% the respondents under Setions 6

and *+ of the At entries in the o$nership olu"n of the land ontinued in the na"e of


6/22

0

Guru Granth Sahi& 8ara#"an Dhara"shala Deh and no oetion $as filed either &%

the anestors of respondents or respondents the"sel(es.

It $as for the first ti"e oetion $as raised &% respondents throu!h their ounsel &efore

the >i!h =ourt in ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6 re!ardin! (alidit% of E-. 5 6/ ontendin! thatthe entr% in the re(enue reords in the na"e of Guru Granth Sahi& $as (oid as Guru

Granth Sahi& $as not a #uristi person. The ase of the respondents $as that the Guru

Granth Sahi& $as onl% a sared &oo) of the Si)hs and it $ould not fall $ithin the sope

of the $ord, #uristi person. @n the other hand, $ith (ehe"ene and fore learned

ounsel for the appellant, SG5= su&"its that Guru Granth Sahi& is a #uristi person and

hene it an hold propert%, an sue and &e sued. @n this question, $hether Guru

Granth Sahi& is a #uristi person, a differene arose &et$een the t$o learned #ud!es of

the 8enh of the >i!h =ourt. Mr. Justie Ti$ana held, it to &e a #uristi person and

dis"issed &oth the ?A@s, na"el%, ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6 and 0 of */6+ upholdin! the

#ud!"ent of the Tri&unal. @n the other hand Mr. Justie 5unhhi, 1as he then $as3

reorded dissent and held, the Guru Granth Sahi& not to &e a #uristi person, &ut did not

deide the issue on "erits. The ase $as then referred to a third #ud!e, na"el%, Mr.

Justie Ti$atia $ho a!reed $ith the (ie$ of Mr. Justie 5unhhi and held the Guru

Granth Sahi& not to &e a #uristi person. After reordin! this findin! the learned #ud!e

direted that the ?A@ "a% &e plaed &efore the Di(ision 8enh for final disposal of the

appeal on "erits.

The question, $hether Guru Granth Sahi& is a #uristi person is the "ain point $hih is

ar!ued in the present appeal to $hih $e are alled upon to ad#udiate. It is rele(ant to

"ention here that after ad#udiation of the question $hether the Guru Granth Sahi& is a

#uristi person, the "atter a!ain $ent &a) to the sa"e 8enh $hih a!ain !a(e rise to

another onflit &et$een Justie Ti$ana and Mr. Justie 5unhhi. Justie Ti$ana held

on "erits that "utations $ere (alid and respondents had no ri!ht to this propert%. 8ut

Mr. Justie 5unhhi held to the ontrar% that the "utation $as in(alid and this propert%

$as the pri(ate propert% of the respondents. Thereafter, the said ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6

and ?A@ No. 0 of */6+ $ere plaed &efore the third #ud!e, na"el%, Justie J.8.Gupta,

$ho onurred $ith the (ie$ ta)en &% Mr. Justie 5unhhi, as he then $as. >e reorded

the follo$in! onlusion:

in (ie$ of the findin!s that Guru Granth Sahi& is not a #uristi person, and that the

notifiation issued under setion / $as not onlusi(e, in (ie$ of the ?ull 8enh


7/22

Jud!"ent of this =ourt in Mahant 9ahh"an Dass =hela Mahant Moti Ra"s ase

1supra3, the findin!s of the Tri&unal are lia&le to &e set aside. The Tri&unal "ainl% &ased

its findin!s on the "utations, E-hi&its 5.6 and 5./, $hih are in the na"e of Guru Granth

Sahi&, sine Guru Granth Sahi& is not a #uristi person, an% "utation a santioned in its

na"e in the present ase $as of no onsequene. There is no other o!ent e(idene

e-ept the said "utations relied upon &% the Tri&unal in that &ehalf. Si"ilar $as the

position as re!ards the &uildin!. In that &ehalf, the Tri&unal relied upon the notifiation

issued earlier. The sa"e &ein! not onlusi(e, there $as not other relia&le e(idene to

onlude that the &uildin! for"ed part of the Si)h Gurd$ara, notified under Setion. In

these iru"stanes, I onur $ith the (ie$ ta)en &% M.M.5unhhi, J. in the order dated

Dee"&er *7, */67.

The foundation of his deision on "erits is &ased on the findin! that Guru Granth Sahi&

is not a #uristi person and hene E-s. 56 and 5/, the "utations in its na"e $ere not

sustaina&le. The present appellants preferred Speial 9ea(e 5etition No. 6+B of */66

in this =ourt, $hih $as dis"issed in default on *7th No(e"&er, *//4 and its

restoration appliation $as also dis"issed on */th Au!ust, *//7. In this petition it $as

speifiall% stated that the present =i(il Appeal No. B/76 of */6 is pendin! in this

=ourt. >o$e(er, it is si!nifiant as $e ha(e said a&o(e, the #ud!"ent of Mr. Justie

Gupta onurrin! the #ud!"ent of Mr. Justie 5unhhi, as he then $as, $as "ainl% on

the &asis that the "utation in the na"e in fa(our of Guru Granth Sahi& 8ara#"an

Dhara"shala Deh $as (oid in as "uh as Guru Granth Sahi& $as not a #uristi person.Thus the foundation of that deision rests on the question $hih $e are onsiderin!.

The ru- of the liti!ation no$ rests on the question, $hether Guru Granth Sahi& is a

#uristi person or not. No$, $e proeed to onsider this issue.

The (er% $ords Juristi 5erson onnote reo!nition of an entit% to &e in la$ a person

$hih other$ise it is not. In other $ords, it is not an indi(idual natural person &ut an

artifiiall% reated person $hih is to &e reo!nised to &e in la$ as suh. hen a person

is ordinaril% understood to &e a natural person, it onl% "eans a hu"an person.

Essentiall%, e(er% hu"an person is a person. If $e trae the histor% of a 5erson in the

(arious ountries $e find surprisin!l% it has pro#eted differentl% at different ti"es. In

so"e ountries e(en hu"an &ein!s $ere not treated to &e as persons in la$. Under the

Ro"an 9a$ a Sla(e $as not a person. >e had no ri!ht to a fa"il%. >e $as treated li)e

an ani"al or hattel. In ?renh =olonies also, &efore sla(er% $as a&olished, the sla(es


8/22

2

$ere not treated to &e le!al persons. The% $ere later !i(en reo!nition as le!al persons

onl% throu!h a statute. Si"ilarl%, in the U.S. the AfrianA"erians had no le!al ri!hts

thou!h the% $ere not treated as hattel.

In Rosoe 5ounds Jurisprudene 5art I2, */4/ Ed. at pa!es */0*/B, it is stated asfollo$s:

In i(ili


9/22

(

Sal"ond on Jurisprudene, *0th Edn., B+4 sa%s:

A le!al person is an% suet"atter other than a hu"an &ein! to $hih the la$

attri&utes personalit%. This e-tension, for !ood and suffiient reasons, of the oneption

of personalit% &e%ond the lass of hu"an &ein!s is one of the "ost note$orth% feats ofthe le!al i"a!ination.

9e!al persons, &ein! the ar&itrar% reations of the la$, "a% &e of as "an% )inds as the

la$ pleases. Those $hih are atuall% reo!nised &% our o$n s%ste", ho$e(er, are of

o"parati(el% fe$ t%pes. =orporations are undou&tedl% le!al persons, and the &etter

(ie$ is that re!istered trade unions and friendl% soieties are also le!al persons thou!h

not (er&all% re!arded as orporations..If, ho$e(er, $e ta)e aount of other s%ste"s

than our o$n, $e find that the oneption of le!al personalit% is not so li"ited in its

appliation, and that there are se(eral distint (arieties, of $hih three "a% &e seleted

for speial "ention.

*. The first lass of le!al persons onsists of orporations, as alread% defined, na"el%,

those $hih are onstituted &% the personifiation of !roups or series of indi(iduals. The

di(iduals $ho thus for" the orpus of the le!al person are ter"ed its "e"&ers

0. The seond lass is that in $hih the orpus, or oet seleted for personifiation, is

not a !roup or series of persons, &ut an institution. The la$ "a%, if it pleases, re!ard a

hurh or a hospital, or a uni(ersit%, or a li&rar%, as a person. That is to sa%, it "a%

attri&ute personalit%, not to an% !roup of persons onneted $ith the institution, &ut to

the institution itself.

B. The third )ind of le!al person is that in $hih the orpus is so"e fund or estate

de(oted to speial uses a harita&le fund, for e-a"ple or a trust estate.

Jurisprudene &% 5aton, Brd Edn., pa!e B;/ and B4+ sa%s:

It has alread% &een asserted that le!al personalit% is an artifiial reation of the la$.

9e!al persons are all entities apa&le of &ein! ri!htanddut% &earin! unitsall entities

reo!nised &% the la$ as apa&le of &ein! parties to a le!al relationship. Sal"ond said:

So far as le!al theor% is onerned, a person is an% &ein! $ho" the la$ re!ards as

apa&le of ri!hts and duties.


10/22

1*

9e!al personalit% "a% &e !ranted to entities other than indi(idual hu"an &ein!s, e.!. a

!roup of hu"an &ein!s, a fund, an idol. T$ent% "en "a% for" a orporation $hih "a%

sue and &e sued in the orporate na"e. An idol "a% &e re!arded as a le!al persona in

itself, or a partiular fund "a% &e inorporated. It is lear that neither the idol nor the

fund an arr% out the ati(ities inidental to liti!ation or other ati(ities inidental to the

arr%in! on of le!al relationships, e.!., the si!nin! of a ontratF and, of neessit%, the

la$ reo!nises ertain hu"an a!ents as representati(es of the idol or of the fund. The

ats of suh a!ents, ho$e(er 1$ithin li"its set &% the la$ and $hen the% are atin! as

suh3, are i"puted to the le!al persona of the idol and are not the #uristi ats of the

hu"an a!ents the"sel(es. This is no "ere aade"i distintion, for it is the le!al

persona of the idol that is &ound to the le!al relationships reated, not that of the a!ent.

9e!al personalit% then refers to the partiular de(ie &% $hih the la$ reates or

reo!niistorial Jurisprudene, Brd Edn. At pa!e B4 desri&es

person:

e "a%, therefore, define a person for the purpose of #urisprudene as an% entit% 1not

neessaril% a hu"an &ein!3 to $hih ri!hts or duties "a% &e attri&uted.

Thus, it is $ell settled and onfir"ed &% the authorities on #urisprudene and ourts of

(arious ountries that for a &i!!er thrust of soiopolitialsientifi de(elop"ent

e(olution of a fitional personalit% to &e a #uristi person &ea"e ine(ita&le. This "a% &e

an% entit%, li(in!, inani"ate, oets or thin!s. It "a% &e a reli!ious institution or an%

suh useful unit $hih "a% i"pel the ourts to reo!nise it. This reo!nition is for

su&ser(in! the needs and faith of the soiet%. A #uristi person, li)e an% other natural

person is in la$ also onferred $ith ri!hts and o&li!ations and is dealt $ith in

aordane $ith la$. In other $ords, the entit% ats li)e a natural person &ut onl%

throu!h a desi!nated person, $hose ats are proessed $ithin the a"&it of la$. hen

an idol $as reo!nised as a #uristi person, it $as )no$n it ould not at &% itself. As inthe ase of "inor a !uardian is appointed, so in the ase of idol, a She&ait or "ana!er

is appointed to at on its &ehalf. In that sense, relation &et$een an idol and She&ait is

a)in to that of a "inor and a !uardian. As a "inor annot e-press hi"self, so the idol,

&ut li)e a !uardian, the She&ait and "ana!er ha(e li"itations under $hih the% ha(e to

at. Si"ilarl%, $here there is an% endo$"ent for harita&le purpose it an reate


11/22

11

institutions li)e a hurh, hospital, !urud$ara et. The entrust"ent of an endo$ed fund

for a purpose an onl% &e used &% the person so entrusted for that purpose in as "uh

as he reei(es it for that purpose alone in trust. hen the donor endo$s for an idol or

for a "osque or for an% institution, it neessitates the reation of a #uristi person. The

la$ also iru"sri&es the ri!hts of an% person reei(in! suh entrust"ent to use it onl%

for the purpose of suh a #uristi person. The endo$"ent "a% &e !i(en for (arious

purposes, "a% &e for a hurh, idol, !urd$ara or suh other thin!s that the hu"an

fault% "a% onei(e of, out of faith and onsiene &ut it !ains the status of #uristi

person $hen it is reo!nised &% the soiet% as suh.

In this &a)!round, $e find that this =ourt in Saran!ade(a 5eri%a Mata" Anr. 2s.

Ra"as$a"i Goundar 1dead3 &% le!al representati(es, AIR */77 S= *7+B, held that a

Mutt $as the o$ner of the endo$ed propert% and that li)e an idol the Mutt $as a #uristi

person and thus ould o$n, aquire or possess an% propert%. In Mas#id Shahid Gan#

@rs. 2s. Shiro"ani Gurd$ara 5ar&andha) =o""ittee, A"ritsar, AIR */B6 9ahore B7/,

a ?ull 8enh of that >i!h =ourt held that a "osque $as a #uristi person. This deision

$as ta)en in appeal to the 5ri(% =ounil $hih onfir"ed the said #ud!"ent. Sir Geor!e

Ran)in o&ser(ed:

In none of these ases $as a "osque part% to the suit, and in none e-ept perhaps the

last is the fititious personalit% attri&uted to the "osque as a "atter of deision. 8ut so

far as the% !o these ases support the reo!nition as a fititious person of a "osque asan institutionapparentl% h%postatiindu denotin! an% !od is "erel%

a "ode throu!h $hih his faith and &elief is satisfied. This has led to the reo!nition of

an idol as a #uristi person.

In Deo)i Nandan 2s. Murlidhar @rs, AIR */4 S= *B, this =ourt held:

In 8hupati Nath S"rititirtha 2s. Ra" 9al Maitra, I9R B =al *06 1?3, it $as held on a

onsideration of these and other te-t that a !ift to an idol $as not to &e #ud!ed &% the

rules applia&le to a transfer to a sentient &ein!, and that dediation of properties to an


12/22

1'

idol onsisted in the a&andon"ent &% the o$ner of his de"oinion o(er the" for the

purpoe of their &ein! appropriated for the purposes $hih he intends. Thus, it $as

o&ser(ed &% Sir 9a$rene Jen)ins =.J. at p. *B6 that the pious purpose is still the

le!atee, the esta&lish"ent of the i"a!e is "erel% the "ode in $hih the pious purpose

is to &e effeted and that the dediation to a deit% "a% &e a o"pendious e-pression of

the pious purposes for $hih the deiation is desi!ned. 2ide also the o&ser(ations of Sir

Ashutosh Moo)er#ee at p.

*44. In >indu Rel!ious Endo$"ents 8oard 2. 2eerara!ha(aharlu, AIR */B Mad 4+

1G3, 2aradahariar J. dealin! $ith this question, referred to the deision in I9R B =al

*06 1?3, and o&ser(ed:

As e-plained in the ase, that purpose of "a)in! a !ift to a te"ple is not to onfer a

&enefit on God &ut to onfer a &enefit on those $ho $orship in that te"ple, &% "a)in! it

possi&le for the" to ha(e the $orship onduted in a proper and i"pressi(e "anner.

This is the sense in $hih a te"ple and its endo$"ents are re!arded as a pu&li trust.

In So" 5ra)ash Re)hi 2s. Union of India Anr., */6* 1*3 S== ;;/, this =ourt held that

a le!al person is an% entit% other than a hu"an &ein! to $hih the la$ attri&utes

personalit%. It $as stated: 9et us &e lear that the #urisprudene &earin! on orporations

is not "%th &ut realit%. hat $e "ean is that orporate personalit% is a realit% and not an

illusion or fititious onstrution of the la$. It is a le!al person. Indeed, a le!al person is

an% suet"atter other than a hu"an &ein! to $hih the la$ attri&utes personalit%.

This e-tension, for !ood and suffiient reasons, of the oneption of personalit%is one of

the "ost note$orth% feats of the le!al i"a!ination. =orporations are one speies of

le!al persons in(ented &% the la$ and in(ested $ith a (ariet% of attri&utes so as to

ahie(e ertain purposes santioned &% the la$.

This =ourt in Ho!endra Nath Nas)ar 2s. =o""issioner of Ino"e Ta-, =alutta, */7/

1*3 S== 444, held that the onserated idol in a >indu te"ple is a #uristi person and

appro(ed the o&ser(ation of est J. in the follo$in! passa!e "ade in Manohar Ganesh2s. 9a)sh"ira", I9R *0 8o" 0;F

The >indu 9a$, li)e the Ro"an 9a$ and those der(ied fro" it, reo!nises not onl%

inorporate &odies $ith ri!hts of propert% (ested in the =orporation apart fro" its

indi(idual "e"&ers &ut also #uridial persons alled foundations. A >indu $ho $ishes to

esta&lish a reli!ious or harita&le institution "a% aordin! to his la$ e-press his


13/22

1+

purpose and endo$ it and the ruler $ill !i(e effet to the &ount% or at least, protet it so

far at an% rate as is onsistent $ith his o$n Dhar"a or oneption or "oralit%. A trust is

not required for the purposeF the neessit% of a trust in suh a ase is indeed a

peuliarit% and a "odern peuliarit% of the En!lish 9a$. In earl% la$ a !ift plaed as it

$as e-pressed on the altar of God, suffied it to on(e% to the =hurh the lands thus

dediated. It is onsistent $ith the !rants ha(in! &een "ade to the #uridial person

s%"&olised or personified in the idol. E"phasis supplied

Thus, a trust is not neessar% in >indu 9a$ thou!h it "a% &e required under En!lish

9a$.

In fat, there is a diret rulin! of this =ourt on the ruial point. In 5rita" Dass Mahant

2s. Shiro"ani Gurd$ara 5ra&andha) =o""ittee, */6; 103 S== 7++, $ith referene to

a ase under Si)h Gurd$ara At, */04 this =ourt held that the entral &od% of $orship

in a Gurd$ara is Guru Granth Sahi&, the hol% &oo), is a Juristi entit%. It $as held:

?ro" the fore!oin! disussion it is e(ident that the sine qua non for an institution &ein!

a Si)h !urd$ara is that there should &e esta&lished Guru Granth Sahi& and the $orship

of the sa"e &% the on!re!ation, and a Nishan Sahi& as indiated in the earlier part of

the #ud!"ent. There "a% &e other roo"s of the institution "eant for other purposes &ut

the ruial test is the e-istene of Guru Granth sahi& and the $orship thereof &% the

on!re!ation and Nishan Sahi&.

Train! the ten Si)h !urus it reords:

The% $ere ten in nu"&er eah re"ainin! faithful to the teahin!s of Guru Nana), the

first Guru and $hen their line $as ended &% a onsious deision of Guru Go&ind Sin!h,

the last Guru, suession $as in(ested in a olletion of teahin!s $hih $as !i(en the

title of Guru Granth Sahi&. This is no$ the Guru of the Si)hs.

-- --

The holiest &oo) of the Si)hs is Guru Granth Sahi& o"piled &% the ?ifth Master, Guru

Ar#an. It is the 8i&le of Si)hs. After !i(in! his follo$ers a entral plae of $orship, >ari

Mandir, he $anted to !i(e the" a hol% &oo). So he olleted the h%"ns of the first four

Gurus and to these he added his o$n. No$ this Sri Guru Granth Sahi& is a li(in! Guru

of the Si)hs. Guru "eans the !uide. Guru Granth Sahi& !i(es li!ht and sho$s the path


14/22

1

to the sufferin! hu"anit%. here a &elie(er in Si)his" is in trou&le or is depressed he

reads h%"ns fro" the Granth.

hen Guru Go&ind Sin!h felt that his $ordl% so#ourn $as near, he "ade the fat )no$n

to his disiples. The disiples as)ed hi" as to $ho $ould &e their Guru in future. TheGuru i""ediatel% plaed fi(e pies and a oonut &efore the hol% Granth, &o$ed his

head &efore it and said:

The Eternal ?ather illed, and I raised the 5anth. All "% Si)hs are ordained to &elie(e

the Granth as their preeptor. >a(e faith in the hol% Granth as %our Master and onsider

it The (isi&le "anifestation of the Gurus. >e $ho hath a pure heart $ill see) !uidane

fro" its hol% $ords.

The Guru repeated these $ords and told the disiple not to !rie(e at his departure. It

$as true that the% $ould not see his &od% in its ph%sial "anifestation &ut he $ould &e

e(er present a"on! the halsas. hene(er the Si)hs needed !uidane or ounsel,

the% should asse"&le &efore the Granth in all sinerit% and deide their future line of

ation in the li!ht of teahin!s of the Master, as e"&odied in the Granth. The no&le

ideas e"&odied in the Granth $ould li(e for e(er and sho$ people the path to &liss and

happiness. 1E"phasis supplied3 The aforesaid onspetus (isualises ho$ Juristi

5erson $as oined to su&ser(e to the needs of the soiet%. ith the passa!e of ti"e

and the han!es in the soiopolitial senario, olleti(e $or)in! instead of

indi(idualised $or)in! &ea"e ine(ita&le for the !ro$th of the or!anised soiet%. This

!a(e "anifestation to the onept of Juristi 5erson as an unit in (arious for"s and for

(arious purposes and this is no$ a $ell reo!nised pheno"ena. This olleti(e $or)in!,

for a !reater thrust and unit% !a(e &irth to ooperati(e soieties, for the suess and

i"ple"entation of pu&li endo$"ent it !a(e rise to pu&li trusts and for purpose of

o""erial enterprises the #uristi person of o"panies $ere reated, so on and so

forth. Suh reations and "an% others $ere either statutor% or throu!h reo!nition &%

the ourts. Different reli!ions of the $orld ha(e different nulei and different

institutitonalised plaes for adoration, $ith (ar%in! oneptual &eliefs and faith &ut all

$ith the sa"e end. Eah "a% ha(e differenes in the perepti(e oneptual reo!nition

of !od &ut eah reli!ion hi!hli!hts lo(e, o"passion, tolerane, sarifie as a hall"ar)

for attainin! di(init%. hen one reahes this di(ine e"pire, he is &eholden, throu!h a

feelin! of uni(ersal &rotherhood and lo(e $hih i"pels hi" to sarifie his $ealth and

&elon!in!s, &oth for his o$n &liss and for its &ein! useful to a lar!e setion of the


15/22

1/

soiet%. This sprouts harit%, for pu&li endo$"ent. It is reall% the reli!ious faith that

leads to the installation of an idol in a te"ple. @ne installed, it is reo!nised as a

#uristi person. The idol "a% &e re(ered in ho"es &ut its #uristi personalit% is onl% $hen

it is installed in a pu&li te"ple.

?aith and &elief annot &e #ud!ed throu!h an% #udiial srutin%. It is a fat ao"plished

and aepted &% its follo$ers. This faith neessitated the reation of a unit to &e

reo!nised as a Juristi 5erson. All this sho$s that a Juristi 5erson is not roped in an%

defined irle. ith the han!in! thou!hts, han!in! needs of the soiet%, fresh #uristi

personalities $ere reated fro" ti"e to ti"e.

It is su&"itted for the respondent that deisions of ourts reo!nised an idol to &e a as

#uristi person &ut the% did not reo!nise a te"ple to &e so. So, on the sa"e parit%, a

!urd$ara annot &e a #uristi person and Guru Granth Sahi& an onl% a sared &oo). It

annot &e equated $ith an idol nor does Si)his" &elie(e in $orshipin! an% idol. >ene

Guru Granth Sahi& annot &e treated as a #uristi person. This su&"ission in our (ie$ is

&ased on a "isoneption. It is not neessar% for Guru Granth Sahi& to &e delared as

a #uristi person that it should &e equated $ith an idol. hen &elief and faith of t$o

different reli!ions are different, there is no question of equatin! one $ith the other. If

Guru Granth Sahi& &% itself ould stand the test of its &ein! delared as suh, it an &e

delared to &e so.

An idol is a Juristi 5erson &eause it is adored after its onseration, in a te"ple. The

offerin!s are "ade to an idol. The follo$ers reo!nise an idol to &e s%"&ol for God.

ithout the idol, the te"ple is onl% a &uildin! of "ortar, e"ent and &ri)s $hih has no

saredness or santit% for adoration. @ne reo!nised as a Juristi 5erson, the idol an

hold propert% and !ainfull% enlar!e its offers to "aintain itself and use it for the &enefit

of its follo$ers. @n the other hand in the ase of "osque there an &e no idol or an%

i"a!es of $orship, %et the "osque itself is onferred $ith the sa"e saredness as

te"ples $ith idol, &ased on faith and &elief of its follo$ers. Thus the ase of a te"ple

$ithout idol "a% &e onl% &ri), "ortar and e"ent &ut not the "osque. Si"ilar is the

ase $ith the =hruh. As $e ha(e said, eah reli!ion ha(e different nulei, as per their

faith and &elief for treatin! an% entit% as a unit.

No$ returnin! to the question, $hether Guru Granth Sahi& ould &e a Juristi 5erson or

not, or $hether it ould &e plaed on the sa"e pedestal, $e "a% first ha(e a !lane at


16/22

10

the Si)h reli!ion. To o"prehend an% reli!ion full% "a% indeed &e &e%ond the

o"prehension of an% one and also &e%ond an% #udiial srutin% for it has its o$n

li"itations. 8ut its sil(er linin! ould easil% &e pi)ed up. In the Si)h reli!ion, Guru is

re(ered as the hi!hest re(erential person. The first of suh "ost re(ered Gurus $as

Guru Nana) De(, follo$ed &% sueedin! Gurus, the Tenth &ein! the last li(in!, (iistor% of the Si)hs &% ush$ant Sin!h, 2ol. I, pa!e B+:

The o"positions of the !urus $ere al$a%s onsidered sared &% their follo$ers. Guru

Nana) said that in his h%"ns the true Guru "anifested >i"self, &eause the% $ere

o"posed at >is orders and heard &% >i" 12ar Asa3. The fourth !uru, Ra" Das said:

9oo) upon the $ords of the True Guru as the supre"e truth, for God and the =reator

hath "ade hi" utter the $ords: 12ar Gauri3. hen Ar#un for"all% installed the Granth in

the >ari"andir, he ordered his follo$ers to treat it $ith the sa"e re(erene as the%

treated their !urus. 8% the ti"e of Guru Go&ind Sin!h, opies of the Granth had &een

installed in "ost Gurd$aras. Kuite naturall%, $hen he delared the line of suession of

!urus ended, he as)ed his follo$ers to turn to the Granth for !uidane and loo) upon it

as the s%"&oli representation of the ten !urus.

The Grant Sahi& is the entral oet of $orship in all Gurd$aras.

It is usuall% draped in sil)s and plaed on a ot. It has an a$nin! o(er it and, $hile it is

&ein! read, one of the on!re!ations stands &ehind and $a(es a fl%$his) "ade of Ha)s

hair. orshippers !o do$n on their )nees to "a)e o&eisane and plae offerin!s of

ash or )ind &efore it as the% $ould &efore a )in!: for the Granth is to the" $hat the

!urus $ere to their anestors the Saa 5adsah 1the true E"peror3.

The (er% first (erse of the Guru Granth Sahi& re(eals the infinite $isdo" and $ealththat it ontains, as to its le!iti"a% for &ein! re(ered as !uru:

The ?irst (erse states: The reator of all is @ne, the onl% @ne. Truth is his na"e. >e is

doer of e(er%thin!. >e is $ithout fear and $ithout en"it%. >is for" is i""ortal. >e is

un&orn and selfillu"ined. >e is reali


17/22

1

The last li(in! !uru, Guru Go&ind Sin!h, e-pressed in no unertain ter"s that

heneforth there $ould not &e an% li(in! !uru. The Guru Granth Sahi& $ould &e the

(i&ratin! Guru. >e delared that heneforth it $ould &e %our Guru fro" $hih %ou $ill

!et all %our !uidane and ans$er. It is $ith this faith that it is $orshiped li)e a li(in!

!uru. It is $ith this faith and on(ition, $hen it is installed in an% !urud$ara it &eo"es

a sared plae of $orship. Saredness of Gurud$ara is onl% &eause of plae"ent of

Guru Granth Sahi& in it. This re(erential reo!nition of Guru Granth Sahi& also opens

the hearts of its follo$ers to pour their "one% and $ealth for it. It is not that it needs it,

&ut $hen it is installed, it !ro$s for its follo$ers, $ho throu!h their o&eisane to it,

santif% the"sel(es and also for runnin! the lan!er $hih is an inherent part of a

Gurd$ara.

In this &a)!round, and on o(er all onsiderations, $e ha(e no hesitation to hold that

Guru Granth Sahi& is a Juristi 5erson. It annot &e equated $ith an Idol as idol $orship

is ontrar% to Si)his". As a onept or a (isionar% for o&eisane, the t$o reli!ions are

different. Het, for its le!al reo!nition as a #uristi person, the follo$ers of &oth the

reli!ions !i(e the" respeti(el% the sa"e re(erential (alue. Thus the Guru Granth

Sahi& it has all the qualities to &e reo!nised as suh. >oldin! other$ise $ould "ean

!i(in! too restriti(e a "eanin! of a #uristi person, and that $ould erase the (er%

#urisprudene $hih !a(e &irth to it.

No$, $e proeed to e-a"ine the #ud!"ent of the >i!h =ourt $hih had held to theontrar%. There $as differene of opinion &et$een the t$o Jud!es and finall% the third

Jud!e a!reed $ith one of the differin! Jud!es, $ho held Guru Granth Sahi& to &e not a

Juristi 5erson. No$, $e proeed to e-a"ine the reasonin!s for their holdin! so. The%

first erred, in holdin! that suh an endo$"ent is (oid as there ould not &e suh a

#uristi person $ithout appoint"ent of a Mana!er. In other $ords, the% held that a #uristi

person ould onl% at throu!h so"e one, a hu"an a!en% and as in the ase of an Idol,

the Guru Granth Sahi& also ould not at $ithout a "ana!er. In our (ie$, no

endo$"ent or a #uristi person depends on the appoint"ent of a Mana!er. It "a% &e

proper or ad(isa&le to appoint suh a "ana!er $hile "a)in! an% endo$"ent &ut in its

a&sene, it "a% &e done either &% the trustees or ourts in aordane $ith la$. Mere

a&sene of a "ana!er ne!ati(e the e-istene of a #uristi person. As pointed out in

Manohar Ganesh 2s. 9a)sh"ira", I9R *0 8o" 0;, 1appro(ed in Ho!endra Nath

Nas)ars ase, */7/ 1*3 S== 4443 referred to a&o(e, if no "ana!er is appointed &% the

founder, the ruler $ould !i(e effet to the &ount%. As pointed in 2id%apurna Tirtha s$a"i


18/22

12

2s. 2id%anidhi Tirtha S$a"i @rs., I9R 0 Mad. ;B4 1at ;43, &% 8hash%a" A%%an!ar,

J. 1appro(ed in Ho!endra Nath Nas)ars ase, */7/ 1*3 S== 4443 the propert% !i(en in

trust &eo"es irre(oa&le and is none $as appointed to "ana!e, it $ill &e "ana!ed &%

the ourt as representin! the so(erei!n. This an &e done &% the =ourt in se(eral $a%s

under Setion /0, =5= or &% handin! o(er "ana!e"ent to an% speifi &od%

reo!nised &% la$. 8ut the trust $ill not &e allo$ed &% the =ourt to fail. Endo$"ent is

$hen donor parts $ith his propert% for it &ein! used for a pu&li purpose and its

entrust"ent is to a person or !roup of person in trust for arr%in! out the oeti(e of

suh entrust"ent. @ne endo$"ent is "ade, it is final and it is irre(oa&le. It is the

onerous dut% of the persons entrusted $ith suh endo$"ent, to arr% out the oeti(es

of this entrust"ent. The% "a% appoint a "ana!er in the a&sene of an% indiation in the

trust or !et it appointed throu!h =ourt. So, if entrust"ent is to an% #uristi person, "ere

a&sene of "ana!er $ould not ne!ate the e-istene a #uristi person. e, therefore,disa!ree $ith the >i!h =ourt on this ruial aspet.

In ords and 5hrases 5er"anent Edition, 2ol. *;A, at pa!e *7:

Endo$"ent "eans propert% or peuniar% "eans &esto$ed as a per"anent fund, as

endo$"ent of a olle!e, hospital or li&rar%, and is understood in o""on aeptane

as a fund %ieldin! ino"e for support of an institution.

The further diffiult% the learned Jud!es of the >i!h =ourt felt $as that there ould not

&e t$o Juristi 5ersons in the sa"e &uildin!. This the% onsidered $ould lead to t$o

#uristi persons in one plae (i


19/22

1(

Ne-t it $as the reason of the learned Jud!es that, if Guru Granth Sahi& is a Juristi

5erson then e(er% op% of Guru Granth Sahi& $ould &e a Juristi 5erson. This a!ain in

our onsidered opinion is &ased on erroneous approah. @n this reasonin! it ould &e

ar!ued that e(er% idol at pri(ate plaes, or arr%in! it $ith one self eah $ould &eo"e

a Juristi 5erson. This is a "isoneption. An idol &eo"es a #uristi person onl% $hen

it is onserated and installed at a pu&li plae for pu&li at lar!e. E(er% idol is not a

#uristi person. So e(er% Guru Granth Sahi& annot &e a #uristi person unless it ta)es

#uristi role throu!h its installation in a !urud$ara or at suh other reo!nised pu&li

plae.

Ne-t su&"ission for the respondent is that Guru Grant Sahi& is li)e an% other sared

&oo), li)e 8i&le for =hristians, 8ha!$at Geeta and Ra"a%ana for >indus and Kuran for

Isla"i follo$ers and annot &e a Juristi 5erson. This su&"ission also has no "erit.

Thou!h it is true Guru Granth Sahi& is a sared &oo) li)e others &ut it annot &e

equated $ith these other sared &oo)s in that sense. As $e ha(e said a&o(e, Guru

Granth Sahi& is re(ered in !urud$ara, li)e a Guru $hih pro#ets a different pereption.

It is the (er% heart and spirit of !urud$ara. The re(erene of Guru Granth on the one

hand and other sared &oo)s on the other hand is &ased on different oneptual faith,

&elief and appliation.

@ne other reason !i(en &% the >i!h =ourt is that Si)h reli!ion does not aept idolatr%

and hene Guru Granth Sahi& annot &e a #uristi person. It is true that the Si)h reli!iondoes not aept idolatr% &ut, at the sa"e ti"e $hen the tenth !uru delared that after

hi", the Guru Granth $ill &e the Guru, that does not a"ount to idolatr%. The Granth

replaes the !uru henefor$ard, after the tenth Guru.

?or all these reasons, $e do not find an% stren!th in the reasonin! of >i!h =ourt in

reordin! a findin! that the Guru Grant Sahi& not a Juristi 5erson. The said findin! is

not sustaina&le &oth on fat and la$.

Thus, $e unhesitantl% hold Guru Granth Sahi& to &e a Juristi 5erson.

Ne-t hallen!e is that the &asis for "utatin! of the na"e of Guru Granth Sahi& 8ira#"an

Dhara"shala Deh, &% deletin! the na"e of the anestors of the respondents, &ased on

?ara"anIshahi issued &% the then ruler of the 5atiala State dated *6.;.*/0* is lia&le to

&e set aside, as this ?ara"aniShahi did not diret the reordin! of the na"e of Guru


20/22

'*

Granth Sahi&. ?or read% referene the said ?ara"aniShahi is a!ain quoted

hereunder:

In future, instrutions &e issued that so lon! the appoint"ent of a Mahant is not

appro(ed &% I#lasIhas throu!h Deori Mualla, until the ti"e, the Mahant is entitled toreei(e tur&an, sha$l or 8andhan or Muafi et. fro" the Go(ern"ent, no propert% or

Muafi shall &e entered in his na"e in the re(enue papers.

It should also &e "entioned that the land $hih pertains to an% Dera should not &e

onsidered as the propert% of an% Mahant, nor the sa"e should &e sho$n in the

re(enue papers as the propert% of the Mahant, &ut these should &e entered as

&elon!in! to the Dera under the "ana!e"ent of the Mahant and that the Mahants shall

not &e entitled to sell or "ort!a!e the land of the Dera. Re(enue Depart"ent &e also

infor"ed a&out it and the order &e !a


21/22

'1

state"ent $as that this land $as !i(en to the" $ith lear diretion that the% should use

it for pro(idin! food and o"fort to the tra(ellers 1Musafran3 passin! throu!h the (illa!e.

The% further !a(e e(idene that their forefathers !a(e it in the na"e of Guru Granth

Sahi& 8ira#"an Dhara"shala Deh. In spite of this, At"a Ra" and others and their

predeessors did not perfor" their o&li!ations. @n the ontrar%, $ith o&lique "oti(es

the% !ot this disputed land entered in their na"e in the re(enue reords $hih $as an

atte"pt to usurp the propert%. The Re(enue @ffier after enquir% held that At"a Ra"

and other anestors of respondents ad"itted that this land $as !i(en $ithout "a)in!

an% pa%"ent and $as speifiall% "eant for pro(idin! food and shelter to the tra(ellers

$hih funtion the% $ere not perfor"in!. It $as onl% after suh an enquir%, he ordered

the "utation &% orderin! deletin! of the na"e of At"a Ra" and others. ith referene

to the question of appoint"ent of a "ana!er, he reorded that this had to &e deided &%

Deori Mualla, $here suh a ase a&out this $as pendin!. Si"ilar $as the position in theother "utation proeedin!s a&out $hih an appliation $as also "ade to the Re(enue

@ffier, $here the na"es of Narain Dass, 8ha!at Ra" sons of Gopi Ra" $ere deleted

and aforesaid na"e $as "utated resultin! into E-. /. So, the "utation of na"e $as not

&eause of diretion issued &% the ?ar"anIShahi. So no error ould &e said to ha(e

&een o""itted, $hen E-.6 and E-./, (io$e(er, $e find that the third Jud!e $ho onurred $ith Mr. Justie 5unhhi

&ased his findin! on the !round that Guru Granth Sahi& $as not a #uristi person hene

entr% E-. 6 and / $as in(alid. 8ut one the (er% foundation falls, and Guru Granth Sahi&

is held to &e a #uristi person, the said findin! annot stand. Thus, in our onsidered

opinion there $ould not &e an% useful purpose to re"and the ase. That apart sine this

liti!ation stood for a lon! ti"e, $e thin) it proper to e-a"ine it ourself.

9earned senior ounsel for the respondents $ho ar!ued $ith a&ilit% and fairness said

that in fat the onl% question $hih arises in this ase is $hether Guru Granth Sahi& is a


22/22

''

#uristi person. E-a"inin! the "erits $e find that the "utation in the re(enue papers in

the na"e of Guru Granth Sahi& $as "ade as far &a) as in the %ear */06, in the

presene of the anestors of respondents and no oetion $as raised &% an%&od% till

the filin! of the present oetion &% the respondents as aforesaid under Setion 6C*+ of

the */04 At. This is after a lon! !ap of a&out fort% %ears. ?urther, this propert% $as

!i(en in trust to the anestors of respondents for a speified purpose &ut the% did not

perfor" their o&li!ation. It is also settled, one an endo$"ent, it ne(er re(erts e(en to

the donor. Then no part of these ri!hts ould &e lai"ed or usurped &% the respondents

anestors $ho in fat $ere trustees. >ene for these reasons and for the reasons

reorded &% Mr. Justie Ti$ana, e(en on "erits, an% lai" to the disputed land &% the

respondents has no "erit. Thus an%, lai" o(er this disputed propert% &% the

respondents fails and is here&% re#eted. e uphold the findin!s and orders passed &%

the Tri&unal a!ainst $hih ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6 and ?A@ No. 0 of */6+ $as filed.

?or the aforesaid reasons and in (ie$ of the findin!s $hih $e ha(e reorded, $e hold

that >i!h =ourt o""itted a serious "ista)e of la$ in holdin! that the Guru Granth

Sahi& $as not a #uristi person and in allo$in! the lai" o(er this propert% in fa(our of

respondents. Aordin!l%, this appeal is allo$ed and the #ud!"ent and deree passed

&% the >i!h =ourt dated */;*/64 and in ?A@ No. ;;/ of */6 and ?A@ No. 0 of */6+

are here&% set aside. e uphold the orders passed &% the Tri&unal &oth under Setion

*+ of the said At in Suit No. ;;/ of */6. Appeal is, aordin!l%, allo$ed. =osts on the

parties.

S.9.5. 1=i(il3 Nos. 0B4B7 of */6/:

The "ain question raised in these speial lea(e petitions is the sa"e as has &een

raised in =i(il Appeal No.B/76 of */6, $hih $e ha(e disposed of toda%. In (ie$ of

this, the point raised &% the petitioners in this petition is unsustaina&le for the sa"e

reasons and is therefore dis"issed.

Documents

Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak