Case: S.G.P.Committee, Amritsar Vs. Shri Som Nath Dass

gazetted. 30. It was also submitted that it was not known whether this Farman-I-Shahi was administrative in nature or was issued as a sovereign. If it was administrative it could not have the same force of law. 31. We have examined this Farmani-I-Shahi. It does not direct the authorities to mutate the name of `Guru Granth Sahib. It merely directed, the revenue authority that till Mahants appointment is approved by Deors Mulla, no property or Muafi received by a Mahant should be entered in his name, in the revenue papers. Further the land of any Dera should not be considered to be that of Mahant. This was only a directive which is protective in nature. In other words it only directed that they should be done after ascertaining the fact and if the land was of the Dera it should not be put in the name of Mahant. In other words, it stated - enquire, find out the facts and do the needful. The mutation in the case before us was not on account of this Farman-i-Shahi but was made because of the application made by one Rulia Singh and others of village Bilaspur to the Patwari, and mutation was done only after a detailed enquiry, after examining witnesses and other evidence on the record, which resulted into Ex.8 and Ex.9. In the said proceedings number of witnesses appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that their ancestors gifted this disputed land for charity (Punnarth) for the benefit of public, who were the proprietors and was merely entrusted to the ancestors of the respondents for management. The claimants had no rights over it. Admittedly they did not receive this land for any payment nor for any service rendered by them to such donors. Their statement was that this land was given to them with clear direction that they should use it for providing food and comfort to the travellers (Musafran) passing through the village. They further gave evidence that their forefathers gave it in the name of `Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh. In spite of this, Atma Ram and others and their predecessors did not perform their obligations. On the contrary, with oblique motives they got this disputed land entered in their name in the revenue records which was an attempt to usurp the property. The Revenue Officer after enquiry held that Atma Ram and other ancestors of respondents admitted that this land was given without making any payment and was specifically meant for providing food and shelter to the travellers which function they were not performing. It was only after such an enquiry, he ordered the mutation by ordering delecting of the name of Atma Ram and others. With reference to the question of appointment of a manager, he recorded that this had to be decided by Deori Mualla, where such a case about this was pending. Similar was the position in the other mutation proceedings about which an application was also made to the Revenue Officer, where the names of Narain Dass. Bhagat Ram sons of Gopi Ram were deleted and aforesaid name was mutated resulting into Ex.9. So, the mutation of name was not because of direction issued by the Farman-i-Shahi. So no error could be said to have been committed, when Ex.8 and Ex.9, viz., mutations were recorded. Farman-I-Shahi if at all may be said to have led to the enquiry but it was not the basis. 32. This takes us to the last point for our consideration. After the said difference of opinion between two learned Judges, Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi did not decide the case on merits though the other Judge Mr. Justice Tiwana, held on merits in favour of the appellants, i.e., that the property belonged to Gurdwara. When the case again returned to the same bench for decision on merits there was again difference of opinion. It was again referred to the third judge who concurred with Mr. Justice Punchhi. Against this the appellants filed special leave petition in this court which was dismissed for default as aforesaid. However, we find that the third Judge who concurred with Mr. Justice Punchhi based his finding on the ground that `Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person hence entry Ex.8 and 9 was invalid. But once the very foundation falls, and Guru Granth Sahib is held to be a juristic person, the said finding cannot stand. Thus, in our considered opinion, there would not be any useful purpose to remand the case. That apart since this litigation stood for a long time, we think it proper to examine it ourselves. 33. Learned senior counsel for the respondents who argued with ability and fairness said that in fact the only question which arises in this case is whether Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person. Examining the merits we find that the mutation in the revenue papers in the name of Guru Granth Sahib was made as far back as in the year 1928, in the presence of the ancestors of respondents and no objection was raised by anybody till the filing of the present objection by the respondents as aforesaid under Section 810 of the 1925 Act. This is after a long gap of about forty years. Further, this property was given in trust to the ancestors of respondents for a specified purpose but they did not perform their obligation. It is also settled, once an endowment, it never reverts even to the donor. Then no part of these rights could be claimed or usurped by the respondents ancestors who in fact were trustees. Hence for these reasons and for the reasons recorded by Mr. Justice Tiwana, even on merits, any claim to the disputed land by the respondents has no merit. Thus any claim over this disputed property by the respondents fails and is hereby rejected. We uphold the findings and orders passed by the Tribunal against which FAO No. 449 of 1978 and FAO No. 2 of 1980 was filed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]If we trace the history of a Person in the various countries we find surprisingly it has projected differently at different times. In some countries even human beings were not treated to be as persons in law. Under the Roman Law a slave was not a person. He had no right to a family. He was treated like an animal or chattal. In French Colonies also, before slavery was abolished, the slaves were not treated to be legal persons. They were later given recognition as legal persons only through a statute. Similarly, in the U.S. thes had no legal rights though they were not treated as chattel. In Roscoe Pounds Jurisprudence Part IV, 1959 Ed. at pages, it is stated as follows : In civilized lands even in the modern world it has happened that all human beings were not legal persons. In Roman law down to the constitution of Antoninus Pius the salve was not a person. He enjoyed neither rights of family nor rights of patrimony. He was a thing, and as such, like animals, could be the object of rights of property. .... In the French colonies, before slavery was there abolished, slaves were put in the class of legal persons by the statute of April 23, 1833 and obtained a somewhat extended juridical capacity by a statute of 1845. In the United States down to the Civil War, the free Negroes in many of the States were free human beings with no legal rightsIf, however, we take account of other systems than our own, we find that the conception of legal personality is not so limited in its application, and that there are several distinct varieties, of which three may be selected for special mention ..... 1. The first class of legal persons consists of corporations, as already defined, namely, those which are constituted by the personification of groups or series of individuals. The individuals who thus form the corpus of the legal person are termed its members... 2. The second class is that in which the corpus, or object selected for personification, is not a group or series of persons, but an institution. The law may, if it pleases, regard a church or a hospital, or a university, or a library, as a person. That is to say, it may attribute personality, not to any group of persons connected with the institution, but to the institution itself... 3. The third kind of legal person is that in which the corpus is some fund or estate devoted to special usesa charitable fund, for example or a trust estate... Jurisprudence by Paton, 3rd Edn., pages 349 and 350 says : It has already been asserted that legal personality is an artificial creation of the law. Legal persons are all entities capable of beingall entities recognised by the law as capable of being parties to a legal relationship. Salmond said : So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties.... ......Legal personality may be granted to entities other than individual human beings, e.g. a group of human beings, a fund, an idol. Twenty men may form a corporation which may sue and be sued in the corporate name. An idol may be regarded as a legal persona in itself, or a particular fund may be incorporated. It is clear that neither the idol nor the fund can carry out the activities incidental to litigation or other activities incidental to the carrying on of legal relationships, e.g., the signing of a contract; and, of necessity, the law recognises certain human agents as representatives of the idol or of the fund. The acts of such agents, however (within limits set by the law and when they are acting as such), are imputed to the legal persona of the idol and are not the juristic acts of the human agents themselves. This is no more academic distinction, for it is the legal persona of the idol that is bound to the legal relationships created, not that of the agent. Legal personality then refers to the particular device by which the law creates or recognizes units to which it ascribes certain powers and capacities. Analytical and Historical Jurisprudence, 3rd Edn. At page 357 describes person: We may, therefore, define a person for the purpose of jurisprudence as any entity (not necessarily a human being) to which rights or duties may be attributed21. Now returning to the question, whether Guru Granth Sahib could be a Juristic Person or not, or whether it could be placed on the same pedestal, we may first have a glance at the Sikh religion. To comprehend any religion fully may indeed by beyond the comprehension of any one and also beyond any judicial scrutiny for it has its own limitations. But its silver linning could easily be picked up. In the Sikh religion, Guru is revered as the highest reverential person. The first of such most revered Gurus was Guru was Guru Nank Dev, followed by succeeding Gurus, the Tenth being the last living, viz., Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is said that Adi Granth or Guru Granth Sahib was compiled by the Fifth Guru Arjun and it is this book that is worshipped in all the gurudwaras. While it is being read, people go down their knees to make reverential obeisance and place their offerings of cash and kind on it, as it is treated and equated to a living Guru. In the Book A History of the Sikhs by Kushwant Singh, Vol. I, page 307 : The compositions of the gurus were always considered sacred by their followers. Guru Nanak said that in his hymns the turn Guru manifested himself, because they were composed at His orders and heard by Him (Var Asa). The fourth guru, Ram Das said: Look upon the words of the True Guru as the supreme truth, for God and the Creator hath made him utter the words (Var Gauri). When Arjun formally installed the Granth in the Harimandir, he ordered his followers to treat it with the same reverence as they treated their gurus. By the time of Guru Gobind Singh, copies of the Granth had been installed in most Gurdwaras. Quite naturally, when he declared the line of succession of gurus ended, he asked his followers to turn to the Granth for guidance and look upon it as the symbolic representation of the ten gurus. The Granth Sahib is the central object of worship in all Gurdwaras. It is usually draped in silks and placed on a cot. It has an awning over it and, while it is being read, one of the congregations stands behind and waves a flywhisk made of Yaks hair. Worshippers go down on their knees to make obeisance and place offerings of cash or kind before it as they would before a king for the Granth is to them what the gurus were to their ancestorsthe Saca (Sacha ?) Padash (the true Emperor). The very first verse of the Guru Granth Sahib reveals the infinite wisdom and wealth that it contains as to its legitimacy for being revered as guru : The First verse states : The creator of all is One, the only One. Truth is his name. He is doer of everything. He is without fear and without enmity. His form is immortal. He is unborn and. He is realized by Gurus grace22. The last living guru, Guru Gobind Singh, expressed in no uncertain terms that henceforth there would not be any living guru. The Guru Granth Sahib would be the vibrating Guru. He declared that henceforth it would be your Guru from which you will get all your guidance and answer. It is with this faith that it is worshipped like a living guru. It is with this faith and conviction, when it is installed in any gurudwara it becomes a sacred place of worship. Sacredness of Gurudwara is only because of placement of Guru Granth Sahib in it. This reverential recognition of Guru Granth Sahib also opens the hearts of its followers to pour their money and wealth for it. It is not that it needs it, but when it is installed, it grows for its followers, who through their obeisance to it, sanctify themselves and also for running the langar which is an inherent part of a Gurdwara23. In this background, and on over all considerations, we have no hesitation to hold that `Guru Granth Sahib is a Juristic Person. It cannot be equated with an `Idol as idol worship is contrary to Sikhism. As a concept or a visionary for obeisance, the two religions are different. Yet, for its legal recognition as a juristic person, the followers of both the religions give them respectively the same reverential value. Thus the Guru Granth Sahib it has all the qualities to be recognised as such. Holding otherwise would mean giving too restrictive a meaning of a `juristic person, and that would erase the very jurisprudence which gave birth to it24. Now, we proceed to examine the judgment of the High Court which had held to the contrary. There was difference of opinion between the two Judges and finally the third Judge agreed with one of the differing Judges, who held Guru Granth Sahib to be not a Juristic Person. Now, we proceed to examine the reasonings for their holding so. They first erred, in holding that such an endowment is void as there could not be such a juristic person without appointment of a Manager. In other words, they held that a juristic person could only act through some one, a human agency and as in the case of an Idol, the Guru Granth Sahib also could not act without a manager. In our view, no endowment or a juristic person depends on the appointment of a Manager. It may be proper or advisable to appoint such a manager while making any endowment but in its absence, it may be done either by the trustees or courts in accordance with law. Mere absence of a manager negative the existence of juristic person. As pointed out in Manohar Ganesh v. Lakshmiram, ILR 12 Bom 247 (approved in Yogendra Nath Naskars case, 1969(1) SCC 555) referred to above, if no manager is appointed by the founder, the ruler would give effect to the bounty. As pointed in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami & others, ILR 27 Mad. 435 (at 457), by Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. (approved in Yogendra Nath Naskars case, 1969(1) SCC 555) the property given in trust becomes irrevocable and if none was appointed to manage, it will be managed by the court as representing the sovereign. This can be done by the Court in several ways under Section 92, CPC or by handing over management to any specific body recognised by law. But the trust will not be allowed by the Court to fail. Endowment is when donor parts with his property for it being used for a public purpose and its entrustment is to a person or group of persons in trust for carrying out the objective of such entrustment. Once endowment is made, it is final and it is irrevocable. It is the onerous duty of the persons entrusted with such endowment, to carry out the object of this entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through Court. So if entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of manager would not negate the existence a juristic person. We, therefore, disagree with the High Court on this crucial aspect. In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 14A at page 167 :Endowment means property or pecuniary means bestowed as a permanent fund, as endowment of a college, hospital or library, and is understood in common acceptance as a fund yielding income for support of an institution. As we have said above, Guru Granth Sahib is revered in gurdwara, like a `Guru which projects a different perception. It is the very heart and spirit of gurudwara. The reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books on the other hand is based on different conceptual faith, belief and application28. One other reason given by the High Court is that Sikh religion does not accept idolatry and hence Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person. It is true that the Sikh religion does not accept idolary but, at the same time when the tenth guru declared that after him, the Guru Granth will be the Guru, that does not amount to idolatry. The Granth replaces the guru henceforward, after the tenth Guru. For all these reasons, we do not find any strength in the reasoning of High Court in recording a finding that the `Guru Granth Sahib not a Juristic Person. The said finding is not sustainable both on fact and law. Thus, we unhesitantly hold `Guru Granth Sahib to be a Juristic Person29. Next challenge is that the basis for mutating of the name of Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh, by deleting the name of the ancestors of the respondents, based oni issued by the then ruler of the Patiala stated dated 18.4.1921 is liable to be set aside, as thisi did not direct the recording of the name of `Guru Granth Sahib30. It was also submitted that it was not known whether thisi was administrative in nature or was issued as a sovereign. If it was administrative it could not have the same force of law31. We have examined this. It does not direct the authorities to mutate the name of `Guru Granth Sahib. It merely directed, the revenue authority that till Mahants appointment is approved by Deors Mulla, no property or Muafi received by a Mahant should be entered in his name, in the revenue papers. Further the land of any Dera should not be considered to be that of Mahant. This was only a directive which is protective in nature. In other words it only directed that they should be done after ascertaining the fact and if the land was of the Dera it should not be put in the name of Mahant. In other words, it statedenquire, find out the facts and do the needful. The mutation in the case before us was not on account of thisi but was made because of the application made by one Rulia Singh and others of village Bilaspur to the Patwari, and mutation was done only after a detailed enquiry, after examining witnesses and other evidence on the record, which resulted into Ex.8 and Ex.9. In the said proceedings number of witnesses appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that their ancestors gifted this disputed land for charity (Punnarth) for the benefit of public, who were the proprietors and was merely entrusted to the ancestors of the respondents for management. The claimants had no rights over it. Admittedly they did not receive this land for any payment nor for any service rendered by them to such donors. Their statement was that this land was given to them with clear direction that they should use it for providing food and comfort to the travellers (Musafran) passing through the village. They further gave evidence that their forefathers gave it in the name of `Guru Granth Sahib Birajman Dharamshala Deh. In spite of this, Atma Ram and others and their predecessors did not perform their obligations. On the contrary, with oblique motives they got this disputed land entered in their name in the revenue records which was an attempt to usurp the property. The Revenue Officer after enquiry held that Atma Ram and other ancestors of respondents admitted that this land was given without making any payment and was specifically meant for providing food and shelter to the travellers which function they were not performing. It was only after such an enquiry, he ordered the mutation by ordering delecting of the name of Atma Ram and others. With reference to the question of appointment of a manager, he recorded that this had to be decided by Deori Mualla, where such a case about this was pending. Similar was the position in the other mutation proceedings about which an application was also made to the Revenue Officer, where the names of Narain Dass. Bhagat Ram sons of Gopi Ram were deleted and aforesaid name was mutated resulting into Ex.9. So, the mutation of name was not because of direction issued by the. So no error could be said to have been committed, when Ex.8 and Ex.9, viz., mutations were recorded.i if at all may be said to have led to the enquiry but it was not the basis32. This takes us to the last point for our consideration. After the said difference of opinion between two learned Judges, Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi did not decide the case on merits though the other Judge Mr. Justice Tiwana, held on merits in favour of the appellants, i.e., that the property belonged to Gurdwara. When the case again returned to the same bench for decision on merits there was again difference of opinion. It was again referred to the third judge who concurred with Mr. Justice Punchhi. Against this the appellants filed special leave petition in this court which was dismissed for default as aforesaid. However, we find that the third Judge who concurred with Mr. Justice Punchhi based his finding on the ground that `Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person hence entry Ex.8 and 9 was invalid. But once the very foundation falls, and Guru Granth Sahib is held to be a juristic person, the said finding cannot stand. Thus, in our considered opinion, there would not be any useful purpose to remand the case. That apart since this litigation stood for a long time, we think it proper to examine it ourselvesd senior counsel for the respondents who argued with ability and fairness said that in fact the only question which arises in this case is whether Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person.Examining the merits we find that the mutation in the revenue papers in the name of Guru Granth Sahib was made as far back as in the year 1928, in the presence of the ancestors of respondents and no objection was raised by anybody till the filing of the present objection by the respondents as aforesaid under Section 810 of the 1925 Act. This is after a long gap of about forty years. Further, this property was given in trust to the ancestors of respondents for a specified purpose but they did not perform their obligation. It is also settled, once an endowment, it never reverts even to the donor. Then no part of these rights could be claimed or usurped by the respondents ancestors who in fact were trustees. Hence for these reasons and for the reasons recorded by Mr. Justice Tiwana, even on merits, any claim to the disputed land by the respondents has no merit. Thus any claim over this disputed property by the respondents fails and is hereby rejected. We uphold the findings and orders passed by the Tribunal against which FAO No. 449 of 1978 and FAO No. 2 of 1980 was filed.