TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appeal therefrom to the High Court the dismissal by the trial court was restored by a Single Judge in 1941. Against this there was a Letters Patent Appeal to a Bench. That appeal was first heard by a Bench which, after hearing the matter and coming to some tentative conclusions, on the points raised before them, made an order dated 16-6-1941, adjourning the hearing of the appeal to a later date for reasons set out therein. For one reason or other this appeal could not be taken up for a considerable time. It ultimately came up for final disposal before a Bench of the High Court in the year 1950. The learned Judges, by their judgment dated 20-6-1950, gave certain findings on the preliminary issues raised and as a result thereof reversed the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the appeal and returned the case back to, the trial Court for proceeding in accordance! with law . It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal has been brought to this Court. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised before us at the outset that this appeal is incompetent and that the provisions under which leave was granted by the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... management of the Bunga would be with the Local Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee subject to the previous eon-sent, in writing, of the Raja and subject also to the general advice and directions of the Raja, that the letting out of the shops and the ejectment of the tenants therein would rest with the Raja and that the income from the shops would be made available for the expenses of the Bunga. It may be mentioned here that a Bunga is a hostel where pilgrims, coming from various parts of India, to pay a visit to the Golden Temple, stay . (See -- 'Gurdwaras Committee, Amritsar v. Indar Singh', AIR 1933 Lah 1041 (A), quoting from -- 'Mehr Singh v. Sochet Singh', AIR 1916 Lah 98 (B). It may be noticed that in the above proceedings the suit properties were claimed only as properties belonging to the main Gurdwara Darbar Sahib and not as by themselves constituting a Sikh Gurdwara and that the claim was compromised by admitting the title of the Raja but with an arrangement that the same should be held for the benefit of the pilgrims to the Darbar Sahib. Quite apart, however, from these proceedings, there appear to; have been certain prior proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff in possession of the property in suit other than the shops? 2. If this is not proved, can the suit proceed in the present form with respect to the above property? 3. Has not this Court jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Is the suit barred by time? On issues Nos. 1 and 2, the Court held that a suit for declaration with regard to the property in dispute at the instance of the plaintiff was maintainable. But it decided issues Nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court, while maintaining the finding of the trial Court, on issues Nos. 1 and 2, held in favour of the plaintiff also on issues Nos. 3 and 4 and consequently remanded the case to. the trial Court for proceeding according to law and disposing of the case on its merits. As already stated, the appeal to the High Court was in two stages, first before a single Judge and thereupon by way of appeal under the Letters Patent. The findings in favour of the plaintiff so far as issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned do not appear to have been contested any further in the High Court. The controversy was confined to the question of jurisdiction raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Gurdwara situated in Punjab, inclusive of the Gurdwara, and the names of the persons in possession thereof. Section 3(2) provides that on receiving any list the Provincial Government shall publish a notification that the Gurdwara to which it relates is a Sikh Gurdwara and shall also later on publish a consolidated list showing the properties mentioned in the various lists that may be received under Sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) if Section 3 provides for notice of the claim, as appears from the consolidated list, to such of the persons named therein as being in possession. On the publication of the notification and of the consolidated list under Sub-section (2), the provisions of Part III relating to administration are applied with effect from the date of the publication. Now Section 5 provides that on the publication of a notifications of Section 3(2) and within ninety days thereafter any person claiming a right, title or interest in any property included in the consolidated list except a right, title or interest in the Gurdwara itself may forward a petition to the Provincial Government. Where, no such claim is received under Section 5(1), then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of deciding all the claims made in accordance with the above mentioned provisions of the Act, the Provincial Government may from time to time constitute one or more Tribunals. Section 14 enjoins that the Provincial Government shall forward to a Tribunal all petitions received by it under the provisions of Section 5, 6, 8, 10 or 11 and that the Tribunal shall dispose of such petitions, by order, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus it may be seen that these sections in Part-I taken with Schedules I and II of the Act provide broadly for (1) determination and notification of what are Sikh Gurdwaras, (2) determination of what are the properties which belong to , each of these Sikh Gurdwaras, (3) determination of compensation for office-holders of such. Gurdwaras for loss they may sustain on the notification of the Gurdwaras as Sikh Gurdwaras, and (4) setting up of Tribunals for the disposal of various claims relating to the above disputes. Section 34 provides for an appeal to the High Court from the determination by a Tribunal. Sections 29, 30, 31 and 37 indicate the demarcation of jurisdiction relating to these disputes as between the Tribunals under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or continue any suit or proceeding in so far as such suit or proceeding involves-- (1) any claim to, or prayer for the restoration of any person to an office in a Notified Sikh Gurdwara or any prayer for the restoration or establishment of any system of management of a Notified Sikh Gurdwara other than a system of management established under the provisions of Part III; (2) any claim to, or prayer for the restoration of any person to an office in or any prayer for the restoration or establishment of any system of management of, any Gurdwara in respect of which a notification has been published in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 unless and until it has been decided under the provisions of Section 16 that such Gurdwara should not be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara . Section 29 (1) has obviously no application since the disputed property in this case has not been notified under Section 9 of the Act and is not a ' Notified Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of the Act. This is not disputed. It is pointed out that it is Section 29(2) which applies to the case since a notification under Section 7(3) has been published in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the present case, it will at best lead to the anomalous situation of the exercise of the Civil Court's jurisdiction being barred or stayed indefinitely, and interminably. It is to be noticed that the language in Section 29 viz., no court shall entertain or continue any suit or proceeding is not of adequate amplitude to effectively exclude the jurisdiction of the Court but that it only prohibits its exercise unless and until a specified issue is decided under Section 16 (presumably by the Tribunal). The effect of Section 29(2) being, not to exclude jurisdiction, but to operate only as a limited stay until a specific issue is determined by the Tribunal, we cannot hold that it applies to a case like the present one where there is no scope for the determination of such an issue by the Tribunal under the prescribed machinery of the Act, with reference to the situation that has transpired in the case. The exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a suit or an issue which is normally within its competence can be brought about only by clear and unambiguous language or by the necessary implication thereof. 9. It is desirable to notice, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 10 open, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the questions involved in conclusions Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the High Court and they are accordingly vacated. Conclusion No. 3 remains to be considered and it is based on Section 37 of the Act. In view of the course we are proposing to adopt, it is unnecessary to deal at this stage with the effect of Section 37 on this case with reference to the previous history. All that we need say at present is that the learned Judges, Laving remanded the suit and certain issues of fact on the merits still remaining to be determined, should not have virtually concluded the decision of the suit by a finding of the nature which they have recorded. We accordingly vacate also conclusion No. 3 of the learned Judges and leave it open for further consideration. 12. As has been stated at the outset, the suit lias been disposed of in the Courts below only on the preliminary issues. The only one of the preliminary issues which survived up to this stage was the one relating to jurisdiction. We have now held finally that, on the facts of this case, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit which has been inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the judgment of the High Court appealed against does amount to a final order. But it is further urged that since a decree has already followed upon this remand in favour of the plaintiff and since no appeal has been filed as against the decree so passed, that determination has now become conclusive and prevents us from dealing with this appeal and setting aside or modifying the judgment of the High Court and making a fresh remand to that Court ourselves. We are not able to accept this contention in the circumstances of this case. The application to the High Court for leave to appeal was filed on 23-9-1950 and leave was granted on 18-7-1952. The decree of the trial Court after remand was passed, in between, on 4-12-1951. The decree must, in the circumstances, be taken to be subject to the result of this appeal. In our opinion this case falls within the principle recognised by. the Privy Council in --'Shama Purshad v. Hurro Purshad', 10 Moo Ind App 203 (PC) (C), and not that in -- 'Nanganna Naidu v. Venkatapayya', AIR 1923 PC .167 (D). 14. We accordingly direct the trial Court to take such further evidence as may be necessary and submit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
