1996 (5) TMI 431 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of parties in the appeal.
2. Determination of whether the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara.
3. Locus standi of the petitioner as a hereditary office holder.
4. Interpretation of pleadings under Section 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.

Summary:

1. Substitution of Parties:
The Supreme Court permitted Gurdev Dass, claiming to be the Chela of Uttam Dass (deceased appellant), to be brought on record without deciding the rival claims between Gurdev Dass and Kesar Dass, who is already on record.

2. Determination of Sikh Gurdwara Status:
The institution in question, located in village Kanganpur, Sangrur, Punjab, was disputed as to whether it is a Sikh Gurdwara. The scheme of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, categorizes Gurdwaras and provides procedures for their declaration. The Tribunal must first decide if the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara as per Section 16 before addressing other issues.

3. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
Mahant Uttam Das filed a petition u/s 8 claiming the institution was a Dera of Udasis, not a Sikh Gurdwara. The Tribunal initially decided that Uttam Das was a hereditary office holder. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the petition lacked specific averments about the custom or usage of succession, thus failing to establish locus standi.

4. Interpretation of Pleadings:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's strict interpretation of pleadings under Section 8, which required detailed averments of custom and usage for succession. The Court noted that substantial compliance with the pleading requirements should suffice, as established in previous Full Bench decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal had adequately determined the line of succession and the nature of the institution based on evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and reinstated the Tribunal's decisions, affirming that the institution is not a Sikh Gurdwara and recognizing the hereditary office holder status of Uttam Das. The appellant was awarded costs.