IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.820-C of 2008 in RSA No.1334 of 1987 Date of decision: 19.02.2010 Mahant Ishar Dass ..Appellant Versus Mangta and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate with Mr.V.S.Rama, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocate for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI. J (ORAL) CM No.820-C of 2008 No reply has been filed. Consquently, this Civil Miscellaneous Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the appellants are impleaded as LRs of appellant-Mahant Ishar Dass, for the purpose of prosecuting this appeal. It is further made clear that the impleadment would not entitle the applicants to claim any right in property of Mahant Ishar Dass and any such claim would be decided in appropriate proceedings. RSA No.1334 of 1987 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that the entire property in dispute is a religious Trust. Admittedly, at one point of time, the property was of religious character. Maharaja Ranjit Singh gave a Muafi to one Mahant Jiwan Dass. Thereafter, at one stage, a dispute arose with the SGPC and in that CM No.820-C of 2008 -2- in RSA No.1334 of 1987 dispute also, the Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal held that the property was a Dera of Udasi Sadhus. Both the Courts, however, held that even though the property may have been religious at one time, it had since degenerated into personal property since it was being inherited by natural heirs in shares. When this appeal was filed, no question of law was proposed. However, vide C.M. No.819-C of 2008, the following questions were proposed:- (i) Whether the civil court can give a decision contrary to the decision given by Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal in view of Sections 36 and 37 of Sikh Gurdwara Act ? (ii) Whether a civil suit filed by a Mahant of a religious institution seeking declaration that the suit land is a Wakf Property belonging to Dharamshala Baba Udasi Bari Sangat Duna Balu Harna Dhuna is maintainable even though allegedly on some part of suit land the pssession is of defendants ? (iii) Whether in view of judgment passed by Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal holding the land to be of Udasi, Civil Court can still ignore the same by relying upon the entries in Jamabandis even though the entries in Jamdabandis are only for fiscal purposes and are rebuttable and are not conclusive proof of ownership and possession ? (iv) Whether on the basis of entry in Jamabandis the verdict of Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal that the inheritance is from Guru to Chela can be otherwise proved ? CM No.820-C of 2008 -3- in RSA No.1334 of 1987 (v) Whether while passing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned courts erred in law and fact and misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record as also the mandatory and settled proposition of law ? (vi) Whether a land belonging to a religious institution which has so been declared to be a religious institution by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal is to be inherited from Guru to Chela i.e. upon the Mahant of the Institution to the exclusion of natural heirs ? However, today the only question of law proposed by learned counsel is that the judgment of Sikh Gurudwara Tribunal was binding statutorily and thus, the religious nature of the property could not be changed. In my opinion, the learned Appellate Court rightly held that even though the property may have been religious property at one stage, yet a perusal of the subsequent record revealed that it had degenerated into personal property. It would be seen that after one Narain Dass, who died in 1892, the property was inherited by his son Nihal Dass and after Nihal Dass, his sons viz. the present parties also got married and occupied the land as ordinary tenants in equal shares. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. It would be seeen that question Nos. (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) are overlaping questions. Once it is held that property though may CM No.820-C of 2008 -4- in RSA No.1334 of 1987 have been belonged to a religious sect at one point of time yet has degnerated into private property, question Nos.(i), (iii), (iv) and (v) do not arise. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. February 19, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE