Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
MEHAR SINGH & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/1999
BENCH:
M.J.Rao, A.P.Misra
JUDGMENT:
M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) No.12083
of 1984. The Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 1984 has been
preferred by the appellants against the judgment of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in FAO No.170 of 1972 dated
2.6.1982. The High Court, by the said judgment, confirmed
the Award of the Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal, Punjab dated
20.1.1972 in Petition No.143 of 1963 whereby the claim of
the appellants being successors of one Bhai Arjan Singh
filed under section 5(1) of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925
(hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was partly allowed and partly
dismissed.
The Civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12083 of
1984 is filed against the order dated 10.7.1984 in FAO
No.44/75 and that relates to possession under section 25 of
the Act. It is admitted that it depends solely on the
result of CA No.1921 of 1984. The Gurudwara Sahib Padshahi
Chhemi was declared to be a Sikh Gurudwara, under the
notification of the Punjab Government No. 1211 dated
20.7.59 and figures at Serial No. 325 in Schedule I of the
Act. Thereafter, by notification No.162 Y.P. dated
19.1.1962, issued under section 3(2) of the Act, the list of
rights, titles and interests were claimed as belonging to
the Gurudwara. That notification contains a list of
agricultural lands and other properties claimed by the
Gurudwara. After the said notification was published, Bhai
Arjan singh (since deceased) put forward his claim by
petition under section 5(1) of the Act. The petition was
forwarded to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The
Tribunal after conducting an inquiry and receiving evidence,
allowed it in part in respect of some properties and
dismissed the petition in other respects. In the petition,
the said Bhai Arjan Singh contended that one half of the
land mentioned in Part No.2 (pp.212, 214) of Notification
No.162 dated 19.1.62, entered in the revenue record in the
name of Langar Ji Sahib, was owned by Sri Arjan Singh as
trustee for the Langar,( the kitchen) while the other half
was owned personally by him and Kartar Singh etc., according
to shares specified in the Jamabandi. He contended that no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
part of this land standing in the name of the Langar
belonged to the Gurudwara. The other contention was that in
the Maufi in Part 3 of the Notification and in the Langar in
Part No.4, the Gurudwara had no rights (except in the Diwan
Khana). It was further contended that the property
mentioned in Para I-A of the Petition was donated by the
petitioner’s ancestors for the use of the Langar for members
of "all communities" and that he and his ancestors were
functioning as hereditary trustees. One half of the land
which was in the name of the Langar Ji Saheb in the revenue
record was set apart for running the Langar for the use and
benefit of all and Sundry and that the Langar was not
constructed for the benefit of the Sikh Community alone.
The major portion of the property described as Langar
comprised of the residential house, Bare and Khras owned and
possessed by the petitioner, though the Langar was also
being run in a portion of it. The petition traced his
ancestry to Bhai Rup Chand who founded the village Bhai Rupa
but contended that neither the petitioner nor his ancestors
were ever Mahants of the Gurudwara. The Gurudwara was
having a separate Mahant or Granthi. The petitioner, as
trustee of the Langar, acquired title to the land. The
Gurudwara and the Langar were separate entities. The
Gurudwara never exercised any control over the Langar. The
petitioner, Bhai Arjan Singh, therefore, prayed that the
properties in Parts 2, 3 and 4(excepting the DiwanKhana in
Part 4) be declared as not belonging to the Gurudwara. The
Gurudwara, filed a written statement on behalf of the
respondent Committee on 8.4.63, denying the above
allegations and contending that all the properties -whether
recorded in revenue accounts in the name of the Langar or in
the names of the sharers, belonged to the Gurudwara, that
the petitioner and his ancestors were holding the land and
other property as Mahants of the Gurudwara Sahib and that
the Langar and the Gurudwara were a single entity and both
were being run by the Gurudwara. On the pleadings, the
Tribunal under the Act framed the following point for
consideration:
"Does the property in suit vest in the petitioner or
in the notified Sikh Gurudwara?"
The petitioner Arjan singh examined himself as PW6 and
adduced evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and filed Ex. P1 to P20.
The Gurudwara Committee examined RWs 1 to 10 and marked Ex.
R1 to R12. The spot was inspected by the President and the
two members of the Tribunal in 1966 and inspection notes
were prepared on 5.9.66. The petitioner died pending
proceedings before the Tribunal and the appellants were
brought on record in his place. The Tribunal had also
issued notice to the State of Punjab The Tribunal, in its
award, went into the history of the Gurudwara from the time
of Bhai Rup Chand as chronicled in Macauliff’s Sikh Religion
(Vol.41 pp.149-151) as to how upon the advice of the Sixth
Guru, Guru Govind Singh, Bhai Rup Chand ( the ancestor of
the appellants ) left the village Tukland and founded the
new village Rupa. The Guru directed him to establish a
congregation in village Rupa and asked him to spread Guru
Nanak’s doctrines. He also directed that a KItchen be
established for the Sikh devotees. At pages 152-153, it is
stated that this Gurudwara was built by Bhai Rupa Chand and
his father, to commemorate the visit of the 6th Guru. The
guru laid foundation of the village on Baisakh Sambat 1688.
The Tribunal also referred to Siri Gurpartap Suraj Granth
(known as Suraj Prakash) at pp. 3129 to 3134 & 3139 to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
3133, vol. 9 Ch II) written by Bhai Santokh Singh.
Reference was made to Encyclopedia of Sikh Literature by
Bhai Khan Singh at p.783. The petitioner, Arjan Singh as
PW6 made various admissions in his cross-examination. The
Tribunal referred to Ex. P6, (copy of Robkar of Regency
Council, Nabte) dated 27 Har Sambat, 1937B.K. in File
No.1487, Ex. P8 (Copy of extract from Register of Maufis
pertaining to village Rupa, Exs. P12 to P13 the certified
copies of the mutations 445 and 3464, Ex. P14 extract of
Jamabandi for 1952-53 of the village, Ex. P15 Fard Intkhab
for 1952-53, Ex. P16 and P17 being Jambandhis for Sambat
1984-85 of the village, and to Ex. P18 copy of Jambandhis
for Sambat 1962. The Tribunal held that indeed the
petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest were the Mahants of
the Gurudwara and that the petitioner’s case to the contrary
was false. Ex. R2 the pedigree included the names of
Dargah Singh and Prem Singh described as Mahant Gadi Nashin.
Ex. R3 is a copy of the Tehquiquate Abadi, Ex. R4 is a
copy of Joint statement of Bhai Dargah Singh and others, Ex.
R5 is a copy of the Ishare Lambardarn dt. 16 Har Sambat,
1941, Ex. R6 is a copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar
attached to Maufi file No. 16 of Rupa Village. Ex. R7 and
R8 relate to the Maufi and Ex. R8 is a report of the Asst.
Settlement Officer, Ex. R9 copy of pedigree, and Ex. R-10
copy of Jamabandi of 1962-63, Ex. R11 of 1952-53. The
Tribunal on the above evidence held that petitioner’s
ancestors were Mahants of the Gurudwara, that the Langar was
also built at the direction of the guru and was an integral
part of the Gurudwara, and that the Langar was mentioned in
every document immediately after any reference to the
Gurudwara. It observed that the Gurudwara and the Langar
formed an integral unit. It observed:
"There is unanimity of opinion among the historians
that the Sikh Gurus made the Langar an integral institution
of the Sikh Church by insisting that any one high or low,
who wanted to see them had first to accept Guru’s
hospitality by casting with his disciples in one row."
The Tribunal then observed that the mere description
of the Langar as owner in the revenue records was of no
help. It said:
"The mere fact that the land in dispute is entered in
the revenue papers in the column of ownership as belonging
to the Langar does not in any way establish that the Langar
Ji Sahib was an independent separate entity."
The Tribunal further held that the Abadi intervened
between the Gurudwara and the Langar building was not
correct. Exs. P10, P11, P19, P20 did not support any such
contention. On the other hand, it held that the wall was
built by Bhai Arjan Singh separating the Gurudwara and the
Langar. It observed:
"These entries clearly indicated that the Langar and
the Gurudwara were located in one and the same number and
that this Langar had nothing to do with the house of the
then Mahant Dargah Singh which was admittedly situate in
No.148."
The brick wall was put up in between the two, much
later, sometime in 1960 by the appellants while previously
there was passage from which one could reach the Gurudwara
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
from the Langar. The Tribunal held that a claim could be
made under section 5(1) claiming property as personal
property and not necessarily as a trustee. The Tribunal
also observed: "The object of the grant of the land and the
Maufis had everything to do with the running of the Langar
in perpetuity in the said Gurudwara." It accepted that land
which in the revenue records was registered in the names of
the appellants could not be treated as property of the
Langar Ji or the Gurudwara but that other properties
belonged to the Gurudwara. In the result, the Tribunal
allowed the petition in part and dismissed it in other
respects, holding as follows:
"In view of the discussion above, we hold that the
petitioner has failed to prove that the property in dispute
vests in him in any of his personal right or capacity. We
further give a declaration that the building mentioned in
Part No.1 and Part No.4 of the Notification No.162-GP, dated
19.1.1962 of which the plans appears at pages 25, 27 and 29
of the said notification and the agricultural land specified
in terms 1 to 12 of part No.2 entered in the revenue record
as being owned by Langar Ji Sahib of which details are given
at pages 223 to 266 of the said Gazette, belong to the
notified Gurudwara abovementioned and vest in its as such.
This declaration will, however, not apply to the residential
house of deceased Mahant Arjan Singh shown towards the west
in the plan of the Gurudwara building at page 25, nor this
declaration will extend to the agricultural land, which
stood in the personal names of Bhai Arjan singh (deceased)
and other share holders at the time of the publication of
the said Notification. The Muafi claimed in Part No.3 also
vests in the notified Gurudwara."
The petition was disposed of accordingly. It will
thus be seen that in respect of land, said to be one half of
the agricultural land, which stood in the personal names of
Bhai Arjan Singh and other shareholders at the time of the
notification, it was held that it cannot be covered by the
declaration of title in favour of the Gurudwara under the
notification.
Appeal was preferred to the High Court by Bhai Arjan
Singh’s heirs for an order in respect of the balance of the
land or property. But no appeal was preferred by the
Gurudwara. The Tribunal’s findings were affirmed, on
appeal, by the High Court and the appeal filed by the
appellants was dismissed. It is against this judgment that
this appeal, by special leave, has been preferred. In this
appeal, it was contended by the learned senior counsel for
the legal heirs of Bhai Arjan Singh Sri P.C. Jain that the
property which was shown in the Jamabandi in the name of
Langar Ji must also be declared as not belonging to the
Gurudwara. It was contended that the Langar and the
Gurudwara were independent entities and what was registered
in the name of the former could not be treated as belonging
to the Gurudwara merely by placing reliance on the
historical background of the case. There was no material to
treat the Langar Ji as an integral part of the Gurudwara.
The Langar was independently established by Bhai Rup chand,
the original founder and his successors and the appellants
should therefore be allowed to use that property as trustees
of the Langar Ji.
On the other hand, Sri Hardev Singh, learned senior
counsel for the Gurudwara contended that the Tribunal and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
the High Court rightly held that the Langar Ji was an
integral part of the Gurudwara and that the properties
standing in the name of the Langar Ji were rightly treated
as the properties of the Gurudwara and notified as such.
There was ample evidence in this behalf apart from
admissions of the appellant’s ancestors. The point that,
therefore, arises for consideration is: whether the
findings of the Tribunal and the High court that the Langar
Ji was part and parcel of the Gurudwara and that the
properties standing in the name of the Langar Ji belonged to
the Gurudwara are correct? At the outset, we may point out
that normally, in exercise of this Court’s Jurisdiction
under Article 136 findings of fact concurrently arrived at
by the Tribunal and the High Court will not be interfered
with by this Court unless there is a clear error of law or
unless some important evidence has been omitted from
consideration. In the case before us, the Award of the
Tribunal was passed by a panel of Members of whom the
President was a retired Judge of the High Court (Sri Justice
Gurdev Singh) and another was a senior bureaucrat (Sri Dev
Raj Saini, P.C.S.). then was a third member Sri Joginder
Singh Rekhi. We have already referred to the evidence
relied upon by the Tribunal and those findings have been
affirmed by the High Court.
Before referring to the evidence, we have to refer to
the broad shift in the stand of the appellants by their
learned senior counsel who appeared before us. The stand is
in sharp contrast to the pleading of the petitioner Bhai
Arjan Singh before the Tribunal and their case in the High
Court. While in the petition, Bhai Arjan Singh asserted
that none of his predecessors had any connection with the
Gurudwara, it was conceded before us and rightly so that
they did have connection with the Gurudwara but it was
contended that that would make no difference. In our view,
once this concession is made - and rightly made on the
available material that the appellants’ predecessors were
Mahants of the Gurudwara, the appellants’ case gets totally
weakened. We shall elaborate this aspect. If Rup Chand and
his successors have admittedly acted as Mahants of the
Gurudwara and when it is accepted that Rup Chand and his
successors established the Gurudwara and the Langar (the
kitchen) at the direction of the Sixth Guru, it is to be
prima facie accepted that,- placed in a fiduciary position
as they were,- it requires very strong evidence to prove
that they kept or intended to keep the Langar, (the kitchen)
as a separate unit distinct from the Gurudwara. It requires
strong proof that while the Gurudwara was meant for those
who followed the tenets of Sikhism, the Langar which was so
near to the Gurudwara was constructed not exclusively for
the Sikh community but was meant for all and sundry. In our
view, if the Langar was constructed simultaneously with the
Gurudwara or within reasonable proximity in point of time
with the Gurudwara, - as directed by Guru Govind Singh, the
Sixty Guru - a strong presumption arises that it was meant
only for the devotees who would attend the Gurudwara and was
not meant to be an independent unit for catering to the
needs of all communities, - and not merely confined to the
Sikh Community. In our view, there is no evidence to show
that the founders contemplated two separate entities, the
Gurudwara for the Sikhs and the Langar for everybodyelse.
Further, once the appellant’s counsel is compelled to give
up the plea that those who managed the Langar Ji had nothing
to do with those who managed the Gurudwara, the basis for
treating the Langar Ji and its properties as separate from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
the Gurudwara becomes completely shaken. There is one more
basic flaw in the appellant’s contention. The appellants
have already succeeded before the Tribunal to the extent of
a large chunk of the agricultural property standing in
revenue accounts in their personal names. This is said to
be almost one half. Now the appellants want to claim the
balance of the property as having been owned by the
LangarJi, and they want to claim that land as trustees of
the Langar Ji. The result would be that the Gurudwara, the
main Trust, would be left with no agricultural land
whatsoever for its upkeep. In our view, the founders of the
Gurudwara and their successors Mahants would never have
intended to acquire all the property for the Langar Ji and
none for the Gurudwara. In fact, the registration of some
lands in the personal names of the trustees is a very recent
event. Be that as it may, that part of the Tribunal’s Award
has now become final. But so far as the balance of the
property is concerned, if the appellant now accepts that
those who managed the Gurudwara and those who managed the
Langar Ji were the same persons for several generations,
then the case of the appellant that the same trustees
acquired distinct properties for separate trusts requires
very strong evidence particularly when, as a matter of
history and custom, every Gurudwara establishes a kitchen to
serve those devotees who come to the Gurudwara for worship
and who stay over. At one stage, learned senior counsel for
appellants wanted to contend that LangarJi was a private
Trust and not a public trust but this contention was given
up. Such a plea would be totally unacceptable in view of
the admissions in the petition itself that the kitchen was
to serve the community at large. The limited plea was that
the Langar was not confined to those who go to the Gurudwara
but the kitchen was open to all and that it was not an
appendage of the Gurudwara. Having referred to the serious
weaknesses of the case of the appellants, we shall briefly
refer to the material on which the findings against the
appellants are based. We shall first refer to the oral
evidence. The petitioner (Bhai Arjan Singh) admitted in his
cross- examination that the village Rupa was founded by Rup
Chand at the direction of the 6th Guru, and that thereafter
the Gurudwara was constructed. This admission is in fact
contrary to what PWs1 to 5 stated. They asserted on the
other hand that the kitchen was started not at the direction
of the 6th Guru but was started independently by the heirs
of Rup chand, - Prem Singh & Mahant Singh. It was also
admitted by PW 6that the 6th Guru desired Bhai Rup Chand
should start a free kitchen. PW-6 stated that only ‘some
land’ was set apart for the kitchen (But now be says entire
land is divided between the kitchen and the family and there
is nothing for the Gurudwara). PW-6 admitted he was running
the kitchen for over 50 years but was not maintaining any
accounts of the income from the land attached to Langar Ji
Sahib. He admitted that the 6th Guru appointed Bhai Rup
Chand as Mahant of the Gurudwara.
The witnesses for the Gurudwara RWs 1 to 10 stated
that the Gurudwara and the Langar Ji were being run by the
same persons as one unit al along. Only about 5 years
earlier (i.e. 1960) a wall was constructed by Bhai Arjan
Singh to separate the Gurudwara from the Langar Ji. Coming
to the documentary evidence, the strong evidence contained
in the books of history, particularly, Macauliff’s work
which shows that both the Gurudwara and the Langar were
built almost simultaneously at the behest of the Sixth Guru,
goes against the appellants. The Gurupratap Suraj Granth
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
also supports this view. These documents totally go against
the appellants’ case.
The appellant has placed reliance on Ex. P2 (Revenue
decision of13 Kartak 1970 Samvat) regarding the mutation of
the Maufi as divided into shares. (Now, it is admitted
Maufi was resumed in 1957). Ex.P3 also relates to Maufi.
Ex.P4 is an order with regard to Abadi of Rupa village. Ex.
P6 is the order in a suit for share of crop of the Maufi
land (of course described as Dharam Arth.)(translated as
Religious purpose). It shows the land was divided into
three shares one for plaintiff(Mahtab Singh), another for
defendant (Prem Singh) and a third share to Langar Ji (free
kitchen). Prem Singh, defendant, brother of plaintiff, was
described as Sajde Nashin (holding of office) and as
managing the Langar. Ex. P7 is the copy of the Register
Maufiat. It states that the Muafi was permanently granted
by the Minister "till the Langar is in existence". Ex. P8
is the copy of Muafi, column 8 states that the holders of
the Maufi are Bhai Ka, children of Bhai Rup Chand. Col.11
refers to the remarks of the Asst. Steelement Officer -
that Maufi was given to the children of Bhai Rup Chand.
Column 12 refers to Dharam Arth,(Religious purpose). It
reads:
"Maufi is for Dharam Arth. and for Langar Sahib."
In our view, Col. 12 of Ex. P8 cuts at the case of
the appellants for it describes that the Maufi land was
granted conjointly for religious purposes as also for
purposes of the kitchen. Two points emerge from Ex. P-8,
one that the Gurudwara and the Langar were treated as one
unit and that the Maufi was granted jointly for the
religious purposes of the Gurudwara and for the
religious-cum-charitable purpose of the Langar Ji for
feeding the devotees who visit the Gurudwara for religious
purposes. Col.13 says the Maufi is permanent for Dharam
Arth.(religious purpose) and that the Langar is still being
run. Ex. P9 is an order relating to a dispute with the
State of Nabhas. Ex. P11 is the Khasra, Ex. P12 is the
Mutation register shows lands registered in name of Langar
Ji as owner and referred to the possession of the heirs of
those who died. But curiously, in Ex. P13, in the column 4
relating to the name of the owner, Langar Ji is omitted and
the shares of the shareholders-appellant’s predecessors are
mentioned, while the cultivator’s column 5 is shown as
Langar Ji. Col.9 relating to owners says cultivation is by
Langar Ji. Ex.P14 is the Fared Inttakeb and shows the name
of owner of Langar Ji. Col. 5 shows Maufi property is in
possession of owner. It says in the Jamabandi of 1952-53,
that the shares are divided between the Langar Ji & Arjan
Singh equally. Ex. P15 is the Fared Inthekhab and
describes the owners as Narain Singh etc. while it
describes Langar Ji as cultivator. Ex. P16 is the
Jamabandi of 1984-85 Samat and shows the name of Jang Singh
as owner and Langar Ji as cultivator. Ex. P18 is the
Jamabandi of Samat 1962, shows Jang singh as owner and
Langar Ji as cultivator. Ex. P20 is Khasra giving details
of the locations. Thus, Ex.P-8 runs contrary to the
appellants’ case while the other documents are inconsistent
with Ex.P-8 and also inconsistent with each other. We shall
next refer to the documents produced on behalf of the
Gurudwara. Ex. R2 extract of file 453 contains the
decision dt. 20 Katik Sambat 1941 BK. In that the pedigree
was given and Bhai Dargah Singh, son of Prem Singh was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
described as Mahant Gaddi Nashin & Bhai Dargah Singh
admitted that he was himself the Mahant Gaddi Nashin. He
also "admitted that the Sarkarwale and built a Gurudwara in
commemoration of the visit of the 6th Guru", Guru Gobind
Sahib and that he was the Mahant of the Langar. Ex. R3 the
Tehquiquate Abadi shows that the Gurudwara was built by Rup
Chand at the behest of the Sixth Guru and Bhai Rup Chand was
the Mahant. Ex. R4 is a joint statement of Bhai Dargah
Singh & others in file No.453 and there it is admitted that
the
"Sixth Guru came to village Bhai Rupa for the second
time after the village was founded and stayed for 2 month,
at the place when there is a Dharamshala of the Langer."
Ex. R5 is the copy of the Ishare Lambardarn dated
1941 and it shows that all the four Lambardarns stated that
the Guru appointed Bhai Rup Chand as a Mahant of the
Gurudwara and the entire land in the village went into his
possession. Ex. R6 relates to the Maufi and states that it
relates to the LangarJi of which Arjan Singh was Mahant, the
grant was conditional upon the existence of the Langar Ji.
Maufi is started in Col.12 to be for Dharam Arth. Ex. R9
is a pedigree showing Arjan Singh as Mahant. Ex. R10
Jamabandi to 1962-63 showed Langar Ji as owner. Ex. R11
Jamabandi to 1952-53 showed LangarJi as owner of 1/2 through
Mahant. Ex. R12 shows LangarJi as owner. Thus, the above
material produced by the respondents and, in particular,
Macauliff’s Sikh Religion (Vol.4, PP.149-151) prove that the
plea in the petition that the ancestors of petitioner (i.e.
upto Rup Chand) had no connection with Gurudwara was totally
false and that the village was founded by Rup Chand,that at
the direction of the Sixth Guru, the Gurudwara was built,
then a Dharamshala and Langar were also built at his
direction. In his second visit, the Sixth Guru came and
stayed in the Dharamshala for two months. These facts
clinchingly establish that the Gurudwara and the Langar came
up almost contemporaneously and the same persons were in
Management of both as Mahants for several generations. The
only inference that could then be drawn would be that they
both formed part of single unit and it was never the
intention of the Sixth Guru or of Bhai Rup Chand that the
Gurudwara and the Langar should be different entities. It
was never their intention that each should have a separate
Mahant - or each should have separate lands for their
respective purposes. Evidence also proves that the Maufi
was also a grant to the Langar Ji and not to any
individuals.
It is true that in revenue accounts, the land is
described as belonging to Langar ji or is shown as sub-
divided but once it is established that Langarji is an
appendage of the Gurudwara, then all these lands standing in
the name of Langar Ji must be treated as coming under the
purview of the Act. The evidence also shows that somewhere
recently in 1960, Bhai Arjan Singh built a wall and closed
the Arch through which devotees were going from the
Gurudwara to the Langar. In our view, the Tribunal was
right when it held as follows:
"The reason for claiming the Langar alone is quite
obvious. It appears that as land in dispute throughout
stood in the name of Langar ji Saheb in the revenue papers,
the petitioner thought it expedient to claim the same with
the motive of appropriating its income and produce. In view
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
of the historical importance of the notified Sikh Gurudwara
in question, it cannot be imagined that the same could be
without an institution of the Langar which is so essential
for such importance places of homage."
For the aforesaid reasons, we are clearly of the view
that the award of the Tribunal was based on ample material -
historical as well as other documentary and oral evidence.
No relevant document was left out of consideration. The
High Court was right in affirming the award. There are
absolutely no merits in the appeals. Both appeals are
dismissed. Civil Appeal No.1921 of 1984 is dismissed with
costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.