( .·. n

Slkh Gurdwaras .Act; 1925 Section 16~2)(iii)-Gurdwara-Tests /ordetermina.' If on of -, Tv be s.hown irititution established /or use by Sikhs for pu/)lic\lorship. ·

Sikhs and Udasis-Di$/incdcms-What are.

. •·

' .

~ .

A'group of persons .reiding. in .a village and profssing the Sikb r~Jigion made an application to t11e State Government requesting the Government -to declare the religious and ..charitabla institution described in the appliCation at a Sikh Gurdwara. . This application was puNishe~ in the Officiai Gazeue and res poodent No._l filed objections under section 8 of 1he Sikh Gurdwars Act, 19is eontendil1g that the institution was not Sikh Gurdwara and tha1 he was eiuit1 ed to raise the said con'teritiorrbeca!Jse be was the hold.!r of'the hereditary ffice

f mahant of the insit~1ion. . '

The application was forwarded by the State Gvernment undr ··ectio~ t4 to the' Sikh.Gurdwara Tribunal which held tJ:tat th! respondent as the beredi ta-ry holder of the office of mahant of the institution and that the institution w~ ~-~ a Sikh Gurdwara ang was governed by the_ Act. ·

. The respo,1dent, thereupon flied an a.ppeal. in the High Curt which\etd' _that the institution 's set upby a mahant for commemorat.ing the memory of

hiS Guru and that the land o~ wbic; h the institution was set upwhh the grt of Muafi had been donated by. a .Muslim ruler. After considering of [be

etries . in the land records; the High Court fur'thr he!<\ that institution was not only sering as a Gu(d\ara for the worship of Granth Saheb but was also us~ as a Dera or lodging house or Sadhus 'or Faqirs 'of the Udasi Sect and 'that .4.. . there was a duality of fait he;. in the institution; The High Court conciuded lhac - the institution was catering to .th~ religious fews and beliefs of both the sects m.ongst the local pop, ulali.on and that the .. Tribunal was n error in declaring~ that the institution was a: ... Stkb Gudrara, wh1ch woufd permit one of the com. •

'• '

munities to approtiate the institutioo to its exclllsive use and to cleprive the other community or sect frorn the dual use to which the institution has been put evet since ft wa'\ founded or estabtished. Th:: High ourt, coJ_lsequently aUowed the appeal and set aside the cia ration made. by l)e Tribuna 1.

 Dismising the further. appeals this Court , - '

' ... ,., . . . .

 ..

\ . .

S.G.P.C. v. MAllAl'lT KIR.PAR.AM .. • .. . . - 373 • HJ;!LD : 1. The appraisal of the evidence by the High Court is correct and .

nexcetional~ 'fhe evidnce discloses .that the insdtution in question was not $hown to hve been c:.stablished for' use by Sikhs for the purpose of public

wonip• and therefore one of the material conditions for attracting section;

J6{2, till) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was not established. It is immaterial

that at .the time of. presentation oftbe petttion 1t was along with tli.e followers .

<Jf Uasi.Sect used foi. worship of Granth .Sahi~ by the. Sikhs. (3.82EFJ .·

2. In orper .to bring a case under .section 16(2}(iii) of the Act it must not ·.only be established .that the institution was established by Sikhs-for the purpose -of public worship but was used for such worship by Sikhs before and at the time

<>f the presentation .of the petition. 1he. ue of the corijunciive •and' 'clearly .imparts that in order to attract Secton l6(i)(iii) both the conditions must be . • cumulatively satisfied. [380A-.B] ·

Gurmukh Singh v. Risaldar Dtva Singh &: Ors .• AIR 1937 Lahore S77, .ajlowed, '

3. Udasis form an independent sect ·: They do venerate Sikh Scrip'ture!l. 'Therefore, in an institution of Udasis sect, one can visualise reading of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures. Tbat itseff is ot decisive oft he character -<>f tb'e fnstitution. If the succession . was from . Guru to Chela and those Gdrus were f.Uowets of Udasi faith and the institution. was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh 'and they followd some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion 'that would be completely destru:tive of the character of the institution as Sikh . . ) .Ourdwara. f381E-FJ

Mahant Daram Dass tic. v. The Siate of Punjtlb & Drs.

[19~~] 3 SCR 160 .Hem Singh & Ors. v. Basapt Das aud.Anr., Al~ 1936 PC 93 at IOO.and Pritam l I.Da1s Mahant v: Shiromani Gurdwara Prabha, dak Comm(ttu, C.A. No. 1983 of

'1970 dated 16.2.84 referred to. • . ·

In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that 'the institution was ·(!Stablished for use by Sikhs for the pmpose of public worship. Though the

-totitution may be established by anyone may be a Sikh or follower of any other ·faith, 'but it mu.st established for use by Sikhs for the purp.ose of public wor-

.. ship. "{'he original' grantor was a Musllm ruler put there is . nothing to show that when Gulab .Das Faqir of Udasi Sect .estl'blished the instituton, be did it

~ 'for use bY Sikhs for the purpose of public \VOrship. Later on as the majority of

..the population of the village were followers of Sikh religion -and as Udasis also , venerate Granth Sahib, reading of Granth Sahib may have commenced and •(herefore, generally speaking people may describe, and . revenue record may -show it to be' Gurdwara, btit that would neithr be decisive of the character of

th~ institution nor sufficient to bring the institution•within Section 16(2)(iii) ·-'t)f the Act. [3SODF]

• ClVlL APPELLATE .JU.RI.SDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1685-16S& • n97I .,. •

Appeals by Specialleav~ from the Judgment and.On1er dated

~.1..1971 & .t4.Jl.l969 cf th• Punjab and' Haryana Hiah Courj

I .If

t .•..

... =-···

~/-, ... :

- • ih S.C. Appei- No. 96oi 1970 & First Appeal No. 59 of 1964 ..

-IJ •

-. ' .. . . . ..

. ., . ' Harbans La/, Urmi/a Kapoor, Kamini Jaiswal, Nishi Puri,..

Shahsi Ktran and Thal Singh Mmigal for' the Rspondents.

 - The Jtidginent of the Curt Wits dlivered by

DESAI, J, Whether a. religious and/or charita-ble institution~ situated invillage Malial Khurd~- Tehsil armila 0f Sangtur District.

is a sikh.· duf(fwaia wii~1n the meaning of the expression in the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 ('Act' for short) is the subject matter_ o1

cBtitroversy between .the parties in this app!al by speciaiierve. . - About 56 persons residing in village Mahal Khurd and profess-ing Sikh religion made an: application to the G<)vermnent of Punjab -on December 23, 1960 requestip.g the GJvernment lo declare the institution more particularly described in the application as a. Sikh Gurdwara .. This aJ?plication_ was publi3hed jn.the Official Gazette-: \vhereupon Mahant Kirpa Ram, respondenJ No: 1. ('respondent' for short) flied <?bjections unde_r Sec._ 8 of tpe Act contending_ tha~. the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara a-nd 1hat he was entitled te>

raise tliat confentidn because he -was the holder of hereditary . office of mahant of the. institution ..

' The• application was forwarded under Sec. 14 to the Sikll- Gurdwata Tribunal st up undet the Act. Upon rival contentions.

the Tribunal framed two issues asunder:

i' . ,· ~'1. Is the petitioner a herditary office holder of the. Gurdwara?

- 2 .. Is the Gurdwara in dispute a Sikh. Gurdwara?'' .__.

The Tibunal by its judgme.nt dated Jpuary 21 1964 answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the re$pondent holding that he was a hereditary hlder of the ffice of mahant ftof Ule institution .. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the institution is, a Sikh. Gurdwara-and , is govered by the Act. · ·

The resp_ondentprefered F.A...O. No. 59 of 1964 in the Hig ..

H Court f Punjab and Haryana at Chandigrah. A Division Bench of . the High Court held that the in-stitution uplsct was by Gulabdas for commemorating the memory of his Guru named Jad Guru. The

' '

S.G.P.C. V. MAHANT K~RPARAM (Desai, J.) 375

~- . .High Coqrt furth.er held that the land -on which the instftution was A

' et up with the grant of Muafi had been donated by a Muslim ruler

. named Rai Kala of Rai Kot in favour of Mahant Gulabdas• It was

. .2lso held. that the succes; bn to the office of mahant is from Guru to Ch.:Ja. After ref.!rring to varioJs entries in the land records, it was , held that way b!ck in t861, t!le ins.titution was not only serving as a UlJ_rdwara" for the W.) ship of G anth Saheb but was als~ sed as a

..... .Dera or l'odging house.for sadhusor Faqirs or the Udasi Sect and that there w•lS a Jua:ity of faiths in the institution. After taking all .the aspects into comideration, the High Court concluded that the . . institut1on.in question was cater.ing to the religious views and beliefs

 u

• 0f bot~ the sects amongst the local pop'ulation and that therefore,. C "the Ti.buna.J was in. error in declaring that it w.1~ a Sih Ourdwara

Ill

. which. would permit one of the commu.nities .to appropriate.the

institution to its exdusiv~ use and to deprive the other community ..or sect fro~ the dual u>e to which the institution has .. been pnt evr ·:Since. it wa~ founded or established. Accordingly, the High Court • .allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration made. by. the

Tibunal. · p

Original applicants moved the High Cort for a certificate ··.under Art. 133(1) (af and (c) of the Constitution which was num- .bered lS S:C.A. No .. 96 of 1970. .The High Court on receipt of a

:.report as a result of enquiry directed by it, by its ordf!r dated January

I ' L • 8, 1971 rejected the application .for certificate both under Art. 133 (1') (a) and (c). Thereupon the original appli_cants led these two . ·

.· ~H?Pals by speciaJ leave; one against the. decision -of the High Court reversing the decision of the Tribuna1 and another against the order of the High Court rjecting the applicaton 'for certificate,

Mr. M.N .. Phadke; learned couDsel who appeared. for the . appellant urged that if on evidence the app.eUants (original petitioners) are in a position to show that the institut}on ws -established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was used for such . worship 9Y Sikhs, before and at the time of . the presentation of the

pe.tition under subsection (I) of Sec, 7, the i1.1stitution would be a Sikh Gurdwata as conte.mplated in Sec. 16(2) (iii) of the Act.

Proceeding along it was urged that there is evidence to show .and even the High Court has not round to .the co.1trar.y .that the. institu- tion was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worsip and was used for .such worship by Sikhs, before and at the time . ' -cf the presentation oi the petition undet sub-section (l) .of. Sec. 7

376 SUPREME COURT ltEPORTS . [1984] 3 s.c.lt ..

-..(

, A.

. and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that some other members '

belonging to some other faith or sect also' venerate the institution, it. would nw detract from the character of the institution nor would iti be destructive of the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdw.ara .. .

Sec; 16(2) (iii) of th~ Aciprovides that 'if ifi! tribunal finds- . that the gurdwara was established for use by Sikhs) for the purpse

of public worship and was used for such worsi\fp by Sikhs, bfo; re" )!- . and at the time of the presentation or the petition. tinder sub-sec. (l)t

of Sec. 7, the tribunal shall. decide that it should be declared to be a' • Sikh Gurdwafa, and record an order accordingly.' 'Sikh 'is define<! . .in Sec~ 2(9) of the Act to mean 'a person who professes the Sikli

religion, or was kn&wn to be a Sikh during his lifetime/ If a disputdarises as to whether any particular person is or is not a Sikh, the: outcome will depend upon his. willingness to subscribe-to a declara.L tion a'S-prescribd in the Act. Amongst Sikhs, t)lere can be Amritdharr Sikhs-and. Sabjdhari Sikhs: One can-be said to be a Patit if he being 1

a:Keshdhari Sikh trims or shaves .his beard or kcshas or who afternking arit commits any , one pr more of the four kurahits ...

The first questin is: whether .it has bee-n satisfactorily est.abli- .1ihed that the institution was set UP. by Sikhs for the purpose of public== • worship and was used fhr sch ; orship -by Sikhs. The Tribunal' found tht the institution is an old one and. no director.al or ·

dbcmentary evidence . regar'ing the purpse for which it wa!i.. . founded is available. . Reliance was p1aced on the cop'ies of thd-

- evenue records, to 'sho~ how the institution was described in 1'.- . Government Jand records. On appra_isal of the entries, it has beea

concurrently found :that the institution was set up by' Mahnf Gulabdas upon a grant of land m1de to him. It appears a Sanad was issued but it was los{ when the Mahratta-, over ran this part . of

~ 1he. countzy. The High Court 'then .traced the origin of village

Mahl Khurd and recorde_d a finding that the first settlers camt: tc>r G. . tltat area in the beginning of' the 18th Centu'ry and amongst them

were Bir Pal, Garib Da5s and Bhoja.. They . cleared the forest _land , , arid started cultivating he land. The High o-.mrt then.exammed

what area of land can b.ecultivated 'with the help of one pa1r of

~ :bullocks~ After asserting the pr9bative value' of Kafiat-Delzi or

. -w.Qjah. Tasmif1s, Ext. P-21 and F-22, the High ourt concluded that

B,. the muaft'i.e. exemption from payment of land -revnue had. been iran ted to the institution froiiJ. the time village had fil'$t been , founded .\)out 200 years before the .ttcords were prepared, but these record!~

; . •

.. ..

S.G.P.C. v. MAHANT KIRPAR AM (Desai, J.) 377 .

do not help in assciog the purpose for which mu.afi was granted or , the purpose for 'which the institution was established. This conclu- A sion was not commented upon , and deserves to be accepted a~

rcasonaplc inference from the evidence.

. . .. .

Mr. Phadke ho\'lcvcr invited s to xamine jamrrbandi entries and on tlfe strength of them attempted to urge that since remote past the entries describe the iihtitution as gurdwar~. .n-.

, Ex. P~ l is a will dated .May 10, 1958-exccuted by Mahant . Rasi!i Ram by which the respondent was appointed as his chela with a right to succeed to the office of mahant of tbis institution.• . This is a document of recent origin and is not of much assistance. We may next turn to Ext. P-2 datc'd the 25th Baisakh, 1927 corresponding to 1 ~71 A. D. It is a decisipn recorded in a muafi enquiry proceeding in respect of'land admeasuring 2b6 Bigha~ and 16 Biswas then found to be in possession of the institution. It recites that . the land was given to Gulab Dass Faqir . by Rai Kalha of 'Rai Kat real donce:-

bcing his Guru known as Jad Guru who ris the muafidar. It was also found that entries in lnnm register show that the land admensuring J 2J Bighas has been entered in the name of muafldar .and tbat area of land remained muafi to the muafidar with the approval of Rai Nizam Sahib and the remaining land measuring 86 Bighas and 16 Biswas which was in cx.cess of grant should bt! resumed to the Gover

nmcnt afta ohtaining the approval of the Diwun Saheb. Two things ' emt:rge from Ext. P-2. that the original munfi grant wns made by a "Musltm rukr in favour of M:thant Guh\b Dass Faquir of Udasi sect who appears to have set up the institution to commemorate the

memory of his' Guru, Jud Guru. These earlier entries do not support tbe claim ndvanced on behalf of the <rpcllants that the

in:>titution was set up by Sikhs for the purpose ,.of public worship.

Oo the contrary, the institution appcnrs to hnve been set up by . Gulab Da!ls a follower of Udac; i sect and sutccssion to the office of •, l\hlhant i'i by Guru to Chd.t. . .

Rt:frcnce Wa!: next made to Exts. P 7 nnd P8 which appear to be statements of Lambardars nnd P.nwaris in question answer form which show that they hcnn.l from their ancestors that the munfi had, been granted by Rai Knlha to Baba Gulab Doss. by way of Punartlt for meeting the expcnse:s of the D-:ra nnJ D; tl Bhog Parshad Granth Sahib. • Relying on these statc:mcnts it. wns urg(d that at the time of rccordio& lh~ r.tt\!mcnts on April 19. 187~ Granth Sahib was being

• I

. \

J. l '. ; i ', '

I '

. ·. . .. . .. •

378' : .

. .

SUPREMB COURT JtEPOR.lS

. :(1984}3 S.C.R· . .. . . ' ' . . vcnerat'd in the io.stitution and the grnt ws for Bal Bho~ Prd , .• . ·.A-·· of Granth Sahib. There statcmcts suer from the vice of hearsay evidence i!1 as 111uch.as the reference tothe Granth Sahib . for the first time appears in these statements not based on any penon i .

knowledge-but of wha~ thy had heard from _their_ ancestor~: Ex~ . . .

P"~S . purports to be a statement of the then ·. Mahant Ram Dass . : ·.s Muafidar faqir Udasi of the_year 1873. It' shows that the muafi . . . laod was granted by Rai Kalha of Rai Kot to Baw~ Gulab Dass his · . .·. great'grand Guru fo~. Bhog of Gnmth Sahib and for . the e:xpen.ses of .'

. . the Dera and Faqirs. Mr. Phadke urged that the Mahan't. himdr ..

 < has admitted that the grant as for Bal Bhog of Granth Sahib nnd : • ~- that this admission cooo1udes the point. ··· Th~ 1-:ligh Court: declined . . .C to ttct this ad'mission as conclu>ivc on th.-: ground thl.t the admis- .... . . sion wns made more than a century afrcr the originnl grnnt and .

establishment of the institution und three or four generations had . . . . jntcrvencd and_ the Ma.hant was talking about fcts . which had

. bappend tong before his irth. These, in our opinion, are relevant l> considerations for. not treating the admission as 'conclusive more so

because the carli::r .entries do not either r.:fe{ to th; in.stitution as Gurdwara or.m1ke any nentilm of the worship of Granlh Sahib therein. .·

Mr. Phauke then' invited our attention to Ex. P-18 being on E order of ljlasY-Kh<ts Committee of the State of Patiala at 'he rele·

f \ '30t time, :\CCording 'approval to the successionto the offic~ of '

Mahant of the institution. In this order dated June 10, 1.937 tb~

- instutition WJS described as: ' ·· .. . . ''Prem o'as ~-tahan't of oera of Ud.asi Bhc.l.:h • (Gurd wara Sahib) situate at MahaJ Khurd Tehsil Barnala : having died on 18.10.1982, the Administr; tive Committee · recommends appoint.ment of Rikhi Ram Chela of Narain .

Dass us Muhunt on the condition set out in the order.;• : •

. . •G :rhis order wus 'signed by Her Hihne ss Mharani -f Patiala,· the thc:u Prime Minister and Revenue M inistcr n'mongst otltrs. Mr.

Phadke emphasised that the institution apart fron\ bing ·.described as. Dera of Udasi Bhdh is also de!scribcd as Gurdwara Sahib and. therefore, it would show that WJ.Y back in 1937 the State nuthtJrities 'U had ac_~(ptcd the institution to be a Gurdwara. \Ve are not irnpres,

ied by the submi~ion for lb¢ obvious reason that the expression . 'Gurdwura' is in the bracket and primarily th~ institution is:dccribcd .. as era o( U~<lsi Bhckh.. C'onceding that the use of the txprcssion ·

< ·•

s.G.P.C. v. ~AHANT KiRPARAM (Desai, J.) 37'j.

- . OCoera' does not militate against the institut1on being a "Sikh Gut A dwara as held by this Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No. 446 --of 1962 rendered on November 9, 1984 wherein, Sarkar, J ... speaking for tbe Court observed that. 'Dera' in many cases was synonymous :with a 'Gurdwara', a description of the institution as Dera of Udas'

'Bhekh would certainly have a distinct connotation Showing that it. was an Udasi institution as recognised by the highest State authori-

. B. ties. . The expression •Gurdwara Sahib • in the bracket may at best indicate .that the Granth Sahib was also venerated in the institution.

Mr. Phadke never drew our attention to xt. P-23 being an e-,; tract from the,. register of mutations relting to Muza Mah.al Khurd dated September 27, . 1984. The entry under the column ·· .. name of owner' with description rads: "Shri Guru G:anth Sahib -situate in the Gurdwlra :of tl1e village under the management of

Rikhi Ram chela Partap Dass Faqir Udasi'~ '.Jn fact, these entries

apear : to have been 'made in implementation of the order of the Jjlas-1-Khas and has no independent probative value. Ext. P-24 i.s a similar eK.tract dated October 1; t959 and doesnot advance the ase of the appllants. any further.

Not much reliance w'as placed on the .oral evidence led by the .parties and therefore we refrain fro1n .. refcrring to it.

On the evidence as herein discu5sed, the question Is: whether . . . ·he view taken by the High Court "that the institution catered to

w_orship by people belonging o two different faith~ , . naine.Iy; Udasis :.and Sikhs is reasonableand proper or calls, for inte.rferenc~7

In our opinion, the view . of the High Cour't. is reasdn_<ble, prop:!f and jut on the evidence placed on record, There is evidence to show that Gulab Ihs who founded the institUtion Whs an Udasi ·Fattit. It is satisfacto-rily es"tablished that the succession to the office -of Mahant is from Guru 1o Chehr. H appears that the express'ion ., G.urqwa'ra' qualifying he Dera of Udasis B.hekh in "the Government

records at a much later date. It is established that tne origina1 gra'nt' was by a Musliin ruler in favaur of a P:1qir and S1.dhu 6f Uda'i sect. . On' this evdence atle'ast a negative con.c1usio~ would satisfactorily

emerge that the appellants have , failed to prove that t was an :institution set up for use y Sikhs-for the purpose of publi~ worshp.

It must be conceded that nearly a centu'ry after the setth1g up . r the institutio:1, Granth Sahib was venerated and read in this

• # F.

• 380.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [1984] 3 s.c .. R ..

istitution. ·.Does it provide conclusive evidnce that the institution was set up and used for public worspip by Sikhs? In order to bring the case UJ1der Sec. l6Ci) (iii) it must not oly be established that .. the institution was established for use. by Sikhs for the purpose of

public worship but was used fo:r such worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of the presentation of the petition. The use of ·-the . conjuctive 'and, dearly imports that in order to attract Sec. 16(2)-

. (iii), both the conditions must be cumulatively satisfied.

Not was only that it must satisfactorily established that the institution was established for use by Sikhs for' the 'purpose of public worship . . .- but was used for such worship . by the Sikhs before and at the time of the presentation of the petition. It was so held in . Gurmukh Singhv.Risaldar Del'a Singh'& Ors.(1) and it our opinion tbatrepresnts the correct interpretation of Sec.._ 16(2) (iii). In fhis case- ' there. is no' .evidence to show tha.t the institt}tion was established for useby Sikhs for the purpose ofp\lblic wor§.hip. It must be conce-· ded hat th~ institution mal; be established by anyene, may be a Siz -

or follower of any other faith, but it must be establihed for use by- -Sikhs for the prpose of .wqrship. One can therefore,. ignore the

fact hat th~ Q_riginal grantor was a Muslim. ·ruler Rai Kalha bu~ there is nothing to show that when aulab Dass Faquir of Udasi sect established the institution, he did itfor .use by Si.khs for the pur- . pose of.public worship.

Later on, as the majority of the population of the village was follower of Shik-h religion. a:nd as Udasis a1S'<>· Ventate Granth Sahib, reading of Qranth Sahib may have com-.-

me:pcd and 'therefore, generally speaking-_ people may describe and. revenue record may snow .it to .be Gurdwara but that would neither be decisive of the character of the-institution no_r sufficient to .bring: the institution within Sec. 16(2)(iii) <?f the Act .

It is at this stage necessary to point -opt the distinction between Sikhs nd _ Udasis. In the past ft was attempted to be urged· that Udasis are a mee order of Shikh preaqhers and that'there is no

differenc~ between two faiths. - In fact it was urged that they are. not 'two separate faiths 'but two seperate interpretations _of the -sae: faith.: Repelling this contention way back i~ Jfem Singfz. &. Ors. v.; . Basm1t Das and 1hr.e>. It was observed as under ;

(l) AIR 1937 Lahore 577 • . (2) AIR 1936 PC 93 at 100. . '.

I .

.. __..,.

. '

S.G.P.C. V. MAHANT ~IRPARAM (Desai, J.) 381

"Indeed tlle Udasis do .not appear. to their Lordsliips to.have been a merorde'r of mendicant preachers among the

Sikhs. Nor can it be held proved that they were merejy Sikhs who had lapsed into Hindu practices. On the con- . trary, they appear. to have a long .and independent history as a seperate sect or persuasion occupying a position some- . where between the Sikns and the orthodox Hindus. The

differences in belief as well as in practice between Sikhs and

Udasis -deserve to be described s seriou~, extesive and inveterate and some were outwardly striking.'~· ·

• . .

At another stageit was observed that since tbe time of Siri Chapd, the founder of Udasi sect there c.ame into existence a sect of Udasis who, wbile uing the same sacre~ writings as the Sikhs; kept up much more of the 6Jd Hi11du practices, foiiowed

asceticism, were given to the veneration of Samadhs and tom.bs, . =and continued .. the Hindu, rite' concerning birth, niar!iage _and

Sbradh. It was also obse-rved that the Udasis so far as the lnatter can be decided by beliefs and pn!ctices, are, from the point of view • of Sikhs, schisatics who separated in the earliest days of the movemen! and never merged thereafter. It wo.uld thus appear that Udasis form an independent sect. They do venerate Sikh scriptures. There fore_, in an institution of Udasis sect, one ean visualise r'eading of - Granth Sahib or . veneration of Sikh scriptur.es. That itselfis hot decisive of the character of the insthution. On the contrary, jf the

j • succession was from Guru to Chela and th@se Gurus we.re followers ' . of Udasis faith and the institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh an~ they followed some of tha practicesof Hindu traditional ·

re]igion that would be completely destructive of the character of the institution. as Sikh Gu1dw(\ra. In a. very recent decision of this Court in Pritam.Dass Mahant v. Shirr; mani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Com• mitteeP> it has been held that mere reading of Gfanth Sa:hib or yencration of Sikh scriptures is not decisive of the characer of the institution because Udasis are midway between, Sikhs . on the one

hnd "and Hindus on the other !lDd that the Udasis also venerae Granth Sahib. Earlier also thi~ view has been consistently take_n. by, this Court as will appar from the .decision of this Court in Mahm1t - Dh.aram Dass etc. ~."The State of Punjab and Ors :(~) ·

(1) C.A. Eo. 1983' of 1960 dated 16.2.8-4 (2)" [1975] S.C.R. 160 at 168

:B

. ~-

'F

'- 382

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1984] 3 S.C.R

''They do not subcribe to idol worihip and poly- . .theism, nor do _they have any Samadhi ilf their shrines. The teaching of Sikhs was against asceticism. They believe in Guru Grarith Sahib, which is a Rosary of sacred poems, exhortation!ietc. Duriag the time of the Sikh Gurus, the ·

Gurdwaras were under their irect supervision and control or under their Mascnds or missionary agents. After the death of Guru Gobind Singh the Panth is recognised as th~ corporate ' repres'entative of the Guru on earth and thereafter they were managed y tbe Panth through tht.ir Graotliis and .other sewadars who were under direct supervision of the lcal San gat or congregation~ During Mahraja Ranjit Singh's time Sikhism became the religion of the State and large estates and Jagirs were granted. to the Gurdwaras, apart from the Jagirs

which had been earlier gra-nted dUTing the Mughal period.' The position 6f the Gurdwaras changed during British regime. The Mahants who wwe in charge o.f the Sikh . tiurdwaras .could either:. be a Sikh Mahant or Udasi .•

Mahint." ·

. .It thus clearly appear~ that t'he apprisal of the evide.nce .by . the Hlgh Court fs correct and . unexceptional and-weight of the evidence disCloses that ihe institution in questi'on was not shown to . have been estblished for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public wotship and therefore one of'the material conditions for attracting Sec.:l6(2)(iib of the Act is not'estab)ished. It is immaterial that at

• • • • • ' the time of presentation of the petition jt wM;· along .with the follower of Udasi sect used for worship . of Granth .Sahib by the Sikhs. We broadly. agree with the view taken by the Hih . Court 'therefore these appeals fail and are. dismi!!sed with costs. Hearing fee 'in one set. •

N.V.K.

.. ,.

. '