‘A. SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK ___- 7 ss COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR © ‘ s ‘ 4 go 2 “y ¥ bs ’ * March 29,9984 . _ ID. A. DESAI, A. P. SEN AND v. BALAKIRSHNA ERD, J5.] Sg Me Sikh eiFenw Act, 1925 Section 16(2N iti) ~Curdwara—Teits for determina- - , C ~ tion of -To be shown institution established for use by Sikhs for public worship. Sikhs and Udasis—Distinctions—What are. A ‘group of persons residing in a village afd professing thé Sikh religion ' made an application to the State Government requesting the Government to- 3 . declare the religious and charitable institution described’ in the application as a pondent No..1 filed objections under section 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 x,
' D Sikh Gurdwara. This application was published in the Officiaf Gazette and res- . -
* contending that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara and that he was entitl- ed to raise the said contention because he was the holder of the hereditary Office ae “ mahant of the institution.
od a)
> ‘The application was forwarded by the State Government under ‘section 14
. to the Sikh.Gurdwara Tribunal which held that the respondent was the heredi- - tary holder of the office of mahant of the institution and that thet institution was a Sikh Gurdwara anit was governed by the Act.”
~The respondent, thereupon’ filed an appeal, in the High Court which hetd .
“that the institution Was set up’ ‘by a mahant for commemorating the memory-of hig Guru and that the land on which the institution was set up with the gtant of Muafi had been donated by. a Muslim ruler. After considering of the entries ‘in the: land records, the High Court further held that institution was not only serving as a Gurdwara for the worship of Granth Saheb but was also used as a Dera or lodging house or Sadhus ‘or Faqirs ‘of the Udasi Sect and that ° there was a duality of faiths in the institution: The High Court conciuded that G__ .the institution was catering to the religious views and beliefs of both the sects ; “amongst the local population ‘and that the ‘ribuaal was in error in declaring that the institution was 4 Sikh Gudrwara, which would permit one of the com- mymities to appropriate “the institution to its exclusive use and to deprive the other community or sect from the dual use to which the institution has been put evet since it wag founded or established. The High Court, consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the Speintationt made by the Tribunal.
HH.
¢
- Dismissing the further pipes © this Court ,
“ t t Oe .
$.G.P.C. ¥, / MAHANT KIRPARAM - 373
HELD : 1. The appraisal of the esflence by the High Court is correct and . unexceptional. The evidence discloses sthat the institution in question was not
_ shown to have ‘been established for’ use by Sikhs for the purpose of public
F naill
~ worsnip, and therefore one of the material conditions for attracting section, 16(2, (ii) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was not established. It is immaterial that at the time of presentation of the petition it was along with the followers.
of Udasi-Sect used for worship of Granth Sahib by the Sikhs. [382E-F] ,
2. Inorderto 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 of the presentation of the petition. The. use of the conjunctive ‘and’ clearly: imports thatin order to attract Section 16(2)(iii} both the ene must be cumblatively satisfied. [380A-B}
Gurmukh Singh v. Risaldar Deva Staal & Ors., “AIR 1937 Lahore S77, . "allowed,
. ’
‘ e
3. Udasis form an independent sect : They do eeuerate Sikh Scriptures.
“Therefore, in an institution of Udasis sect, one can visualise reading of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures. That itself is not decisive of the character -of the institution. If the succession _was from Guru to Chela and those Gurus “were fellowets of Udasi faith and the institution. was known as Dera of Udasi
Bhekh ‘and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion that -would be completely destructive of the character of the institution as ok ‘Gurdwara. {381B-F] :
Mahant Daram Dass etc. v. The Staté of Punjab & Ors. [1975]3 SCR 160 Hem Singh & Ors. y. Basant Das aud Anr., ATR 1936 PC 93 at 100. and Pritam Dass Mahant v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, C. A. No. 1983 of 1970 dated 16.2. 84 referred to. - P=
In the jnstant- case, there is no vitesse to show that ‘the institutidn was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. Though the ‘institution may be established by anyone may be a Sikh or follower of any other “faith, but it must be’ established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public wor- ‘ship. The original grantor was a Muslim ruler but there is . nothing to show ‘that when Gulab Das Fagir of Udasi Séct established the institution, he did it ‘for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. Later on as the majority ofthe population of the village were followers of Sikh religion-and as Udasis also
‘wenerate Granth Sahib, reading of Granth Sahib may have commenced and therefore, generally speaking people may describe, and revenue record may
- show it to.be Gurdwara, but that would*neith:r be decisive of the character of the institution nor sufficient to bring the institutionewithin Section 62K (iii)
vot the Act. [380D-F]
. Civit APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil “Appel Nos. 1685-1686 ss 7“ °
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated | 1.1971 & 14.11. 1969 of the Punjab and* Haryana High Court iy) SUPREME COURT REPORTS Dae
‘ _ in S.C, Appeat No. 96 of 1970 & First Appeal No.59 of 1964,
M. N, Phadke and Harbans ‘Singh for the ‘Appellant.
9° Harbans ‘Lal, Urmila Kapoor, Kamini Jaiswal, Nishi Puri, _ Shahsi Kiran and Ti chal Singh Mangal for’ the Respondents.
--The hidpinent of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J, Whether a lafitBlna ‘and/or charitable institution: situated i in. village Mahal Khurd, Tehsil Barnala of Sangtur District. is a Sikh: Gurdwara -within the meaning of the expression in the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (‘Act’ for short) i is the subject ;matter of . controversy between the parties in this app2al by special leave.
' About 56 persons residing i in village Mahal Khurd and profes-sing Sikh religion made an. application to the Government of Punjab- - on December 23, 1960 requesting the Government to declare the institution more particularly described in the application asa Sikh Gurdwara. This application was published in. the Official Gazette whereupon Mahant Kirpa Ram, respondent No. | ‘respondent’ for
- . short) filed objections under Sec. 8 of the Act contending that. the institution was not a Sikh. Gurdwara’ and-that he was entitled to raise that contention because he was the holder of hereditary office of mahant of the institution. - . | i The* application was forwarded under Sec. 14 to the Sikh Gurdwata Tribunal set up under the Act. Upon rival contentions. the Tribunal framed two issues as- ‘under: | .
cy, Is the eeiioner: a hereiay office holder of the. Gurdwara?
2. Is the Gurdwara i in dispute’: a Sikh Gurdwara?” | A
The Tribunal 5 by its judgment dated January 21, 1964 answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent holding that he was a hereditary holder of the. office of mahant “of the.institution. On Issue No. 2, thé Tribunal held that the institution is. a Sikh, Gurdwara and is governed by the Act. : ,
The respondent preferred F.A.O. No. 59 of 1964 in the Hight Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigrah. A. Division Bench of the High Court held that the institution upfset. was by Gulabdas for canillemorsting the memory of his Suny named Jad Guru, ‘The y-
$.G.P.C, P, MAHANT KIRPARAM (Desai, J.) 375
High Court further held that the land on which the institution was
- set up with the grant of Muati had been donated by a Muslim ruler
‘Damed Rai Kala of Rai Kot in favour of Mahant Gulabdas, It was:
-also held that the succession to the office of mahant is from Guru to —
‘Chela. After refercing to various entries in the land records, it was cheld that way b&ck in 1861, the institution was not only, serving as a
OA
Gurdwara for the wo ‘ship of G-anth Saheb but was also used as a B
Dera or lodging house.for Sadhus or Fagirs of the Udasi Sect and ‘that there was a duatity of faiths in the institution. After taking all
, the aspects into consideration, the High Court concluded that the institution in question was catering to the religious views and beliefs of both the sects amongst the local population and that therefore, |
‘the Tribunal was in error in declaring that it was a Sikh-Gurdwara
_ which would permit one of the communities to appropriate.the .
. institution to its exclusive use and to deprive the other community or sect from the dual use to which the institution has. been put ever Since it was founded or established. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration made. by.the _ Tribunal.
é
Original applicants moved the High Court for a certificate “yinder Art. 133(1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution which was numdered as 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 order dated January 8, 1971 rejected the application for certificate both under Art. '133
(1) (a) and (c). Thereupon the original applicants filed these two — -appeals by special leave; one against the decision -of the High Court — reversing the decision ofthe Tribunal and another against the order -of the High Court rejecting the application for certificate,
Mr. M.N.. Phadke,- learned counsel who appeared for the appellant urged that if on evidence the appellants (original petitioners) ‘are in a position to show that the institution was. established for use
- ‘by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was used for such worship by Sikhs, before and at the time of .the presentation of the "petition under sub-section (1) of Sec, 7, the iastitution’ would be a ‘Sikh Gurdwara as contemplated 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 found to the coatrary that the institu- ‘tion was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was used for.such worship by Sikhs, before and at the time
'-of the presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of Sec. 7
»
«
>
376 ; _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS _ [1984] 3 Scr.
_ and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that some other members belonging to some other faith or sect also venerate the institution, it would ng detract from the character of the institution nor would it be destructive of the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdwara. 7
Sec: 16(2) (iii) of the Act provides that ‘if thé teibonal finds that the gurdwara was established for usé by Sikhs] for the purpose of public worship and was.used for such worsh{p by Sikhs, before —
+ and at the time of the presentation of the petition under sub-sec. (1 of Sec. 7, the tribunal shall. decide that it should be declared to be a
Sikh Gurdwara, and record an order accordingly.’ ‘Sikh’is defined. - in Sec. 2(9) of the Act to mean ‘a person who professes the Siklr religion, or was knewn to be a Sikh during his lifetime.” If a dispute arises-as to whether any particular person is or is not a Sikh, the —
‘outcome will depend upon his willingnéss to subscribe to a declara- tion as-prescribed in the Act. Amongst Sikhs, there can be Amritdhari Sikhs and Sahjdhari Sikhs. One can-be said to be a Patit if he being: a” ‘Keshdhari Sikh trims or shaves his beard or keshas or who after taking amrit commits any one or more of the four kurahits. ee
The first question i is: whether. it fi been satlddvonotity established that the institution was set up by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship and was used’ for such worship by Sikhs. The Tribunal
: found that’ the institution is an old one _and no direct oral or docurnentary evidence ‘regarding the purpose for which it was. » .¥ounded is available. - Reliance was placed on the copies of the revenue records, to ‘show how the institution was described in
Government land records. On appraisal of the entries, it has beer . concurrently found -that: the institution was set up by’ Mahant ~
Gulabdas upon a grant of land made to him. It appears a Sanad was issued but it was lost.when the Mahrattas over rap this part of
‘the: country. The High Court then traced the origin of village ‘Mahal Khurd and recorded a finding that the first settlers came tor _ that area in the beginning of the 18th Century and amongst them were Bir Pal, Garib Dass and Bhoja. They cleared the forest land _ and started cultivating 1 the land. The High Court then’ examined what area of land can be-cultivated'with the help of one pair of -
* bullocks, After asserting the probative value’ of Kafiat Dehi or Wajah Tasmias, Ext. P-21 and P-22, the High Court concluded that the muaffi.e. exemption from payment of land -revenue had. been — granted to the institution from the time village had first been founded ~ about 200 years before the seconds were prepared, but these records | rad
$.G.P.C. ¥. MAHANT KIRPARAM (Desai, J.) . SIF
.
do not help in asserting the purpose for which muafi was granted or “ . the purpose for which the institution was established, This conclu- © sion was not commented upon and deserves to be accepted as reasonable inference from the evidence.
a . a BY - Mr. Phadke however invited as to examine jamabandi entries . and on tlie strength of them attempted to urge that since remote past the entries describe the ifstitution as gurdwara.
; Ex. P-1 is a will dated May 10, 1958—executed by Mahant _ Rashi Ram by which the respondent was appointed as his chela with a tight to succeed to the office of mahant of this institution. - This is a document of recent origin and is not of much assistance. We may next turn to Ext. P-2 dated the 25th Baisakh, 1927 corresponding to 1871 A.D. It is a decision recorded ina muafi enquiry proceeding in respect of land admeasuring 2b6 Bighas and 16 Biswas then found to be in possession of the institution. It recites that the land was givento Gulab Dass Faqir. by Rai Katha of Rai Kot real donee”
being his Guru known as Jad Guru who lis the muafidar. It was | also found that entries in Inam register show that the land admeasuring 120 Bighas has been entered in the name of muafidar andthat 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 excess of grant should be resumed to the Gover- nment afier obtaining the approval of the Diwan Saheb. Two things - emerge from Ext. P-2, that the original muafi grant was made:by 2 Muslim ruler in favour of Mahant Gulab Dass Faquir of Udasi sect who appears to have sct up the institution to commemorate the memory of his Guru, Jad Guru. These earlicr entries do not - support the claim advanced on behalf of the appellants that the institution was set up by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. On the contrary, the institution appears to have been set up by
. Gulab Dass, a follower of Udasi sect and sutcession to the office of Mahant is by Guru to Chela. , Reference was next made to Exts. P-7 and P-8 which appear to be statements of Lambardars and Patwaris in question answer form which show that they heard from their ancestors that the muafi had , been granted by Rai Katha to Babs Gulab Dass by way of Punarth for meeting the expenses of the Dera and Bal Bhog Parshad Granth Sahib.* Relying on these statements it was urged that at the time of recording the statements on April 19, 1872 Granth Sahib was being
G :
378° SUPREME COURT REPORT'S of {198413 so.
venerated in the iastitution and the grant was for Bal Bhog i
- of Granth Sahib. There statements suffer from the vice of hearsay evidence in as much as the reference to the Granth Sahib fo, the first time appears in these statements not based On ANY persona) knowledge but of what they had heard from their ancestors, py, P-8 purports to be a statement of the then _Mahant Ram Dasg Muafidar Faqir Udasi of the year 1873. It shows that the muag
‘ land was granted by Rai Kalha of Raj Kot to Bawa Gulab Dass hig great grand Guru for Bhog of Granth Sahib and for the expenses of | s the Dera dnd Fagirs. Mr. Phadke urged that the Mahant. himsejp .
- has admitted that the grant was for Bal Bhog of Granth Sahib ang
Ff: - “Prem Das Mahant of Dera of Udasi Bhekh therein. = % that this admission concludes the point. The High Court declined to tteat this admission as conclusive on the ground that the admis.
‘sion was made more than a century after the original grant and.
establishment of the institution und three or four generations had
_jntervened and the Mahant was talking about facts which had .
happend long before his birth. These, in our opinion, are relevant considerations for not treating the admission as conclusive more so because the earlier entries do not either refer to the institution as Gurdwara or-make any mention of the worship of Granth Sahib —
Mr. Phadke then’ invited our attention to Ex. P-18 being on order of Ijlas-l-Khas Committee of the State of Patiala’ at the relevant time, according ‘approval to the succession. to the office of - Mahant of the institution. In this order dated June 10,: 1937 the
- instutition was described as:
(Gurdwara Sahib) situate at Mahal Khurd Tehsil Barnala -~ having died on 18.10.1982, the Administrative Committce’
recommends appointment of Rikhi Ram Chela of Narain -
Dass as Mahant on the condition set out in the order.” ;°
This order was signed by Her Highness Maharani of Patiala, the then Prime Minister and Revenue Minister amongst otifers. Mr. Phadke emphasised that the institution apart from being .described as Dera of Udasi Blekh is also described as Gurdwara Sahib and, therefore, it would show that way back in 1937 the State authorities had accepted the institution to be a Gurdwara. We are not impres-, sed by the submission for the obvious reason that the expression Gurdwara’ is in the bracket and primarily the institution istdescribee as Dera of Udasi Bhekh.: Conceding that the use of the expressio?
“€
S.G.P.C, ¥, MAHANT KIRPARAM (Desai, J.) 379
“Dera’ does not militate against the institution being a Sikh Gurdwara 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 the 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- ‘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 Ext. P-23 being an “extract from the- register of mutations rélating to Mauza Mahal Khurd dated September 27,.1984. The entry underthe column “name of owner’ with description reads: “‘Shri Guru Granth Sahib~ Situate in the Gurdwara :of the village under the management of Rikhi Ram chela Partap Dass Faqit Udasi’. In fact, these entries appear , to have béen ‘made ia implementation of the order of ‘the Tjlas-I-Khas and has no independent probative value. Ext. P-24. isa similar extract dated October 1; 1959 and dace not advance ‘the case of the appellants any further. '
Not much reliance was placed on the oral evidence led by the
“parties and therefore we reffain from referring to it.
On the evidence as herein discussed, the question is: whether .
. ‘the view taken by the High Court“that the institution catered to
‘worship by people belonging to two different faiths, namely, Udasis -and Sikhs is reasonable and proper or calls, for interference?
In our opinion, the view-of the High Court. is reasonable, Proper and just on the evidence placed on record, There is evidence ‘to show that Gulab Dass who founded the institution was an Udasi Fadir. It is satisfactorily established that the succéssion to the office of Mahant is from Guruto Chela. It appears that the expression
“Gurdwara’ qualifying the Dera of Udasis Bhekh in the Government records at a much later date. It is established that the original grant ‘was by a Muslim ruler in favaur of a Faqir and Sadhu of Udasi sect.
. ‘On this evidence atleast a negative conclusion would satisfactorily emerge that the appellants have failed to prove that it was an’
anstitution set up for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship.
It: must be coriceded that nearly a century after the setting: up of the institution, Granth Sahib was venerated and read in this
“
-
* 380. SUPREME COURT REPORTS» (1984) 3 S.CR-
Institution, -. Does it provide conclusive evidence that the institution was set up and used for public worship. by Sikhs? In order to bring the case under Sec. 16(2) (iii) it must not only be 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
~ vr ter
‘Dd
™ nn
G.- and at the time of the presentation of the petition. The use of-the conjuctive ‘and’ clearly imports that in order to attract Sec. 16(2} (ii), 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 6f 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 Singh v.Risaldar Deva Singh & Ors.) and it our opinion that ~* represents the correct interpretation of Sec. 16(2) (iii). In this case
‘ there isno evidence to show. that the institution was established for use ‘by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. It must be conce-: ded that the institution maybe established by anyone, may be a Sikh or follower of any other faith, but it must be established for use by -
- Sikhs for the purpose of worship. One can therefore, ignore the fact that the griginal grantor was a Muslim ‘ruler Rai Kalha but
- there is nothing to show that when Gulab Dass Faquir of Udasi‘sect established the institution, he did it.for use by Sikhs for the. pur-
~ pose of public worship. Later on as the majority of the population of the village was follower of Shikh religion. and as Udasis also
_ Venetate Granth Sahib, reading of Granth Sahib may have com-: menced and therefore, generally speaking. people may describe and, revenue record may show it to be Gurdwara but that would neither be decisive of the character of the institution nor sufficient fo: bring the piste within Sec. aan of the Act.
It j is atsthis stage necessary to point -out the: distinction between Sikhs and Udasis. In the past it was attempted to be urged. that Udasis are 4 mere order of Shikh preachers and that there is no difference between two faiths. In fact it was urged that ‘they are, not two separate faiths but two seperate interpretations of the -same:
faith’ Repelling this contention way back in Hem Singh & Ors, BM,
~ Basant sah and Anr.@) It was observed as under ;
(1) AIR 1937 Lahore 577. 2) AIR 1936 PC 93 at 100, a se aim
S.G.P.C, ?, MAHANT KIRPARAM (Pesai, J.) 381
“Indeed the Udasis do not appéar. to their Lordstiips to have been a mer¢order of mendicant preachers among the Sikhs, Nor canit be held: proved that they were merely 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 Sikhs and the orthodox Hindus, The . differences in belief as well as in practice between Sikhs and Udasis deserve to be described as serious, extensive and inveterate and some were outwardly ‘striking. ae s
At another stage it was observed that since the time of Siri Chand, the founder of Udasi sect there came into existence ‘a sect of Udasis who, while using the same sacred writings as the Sikhs, kept up much more of the old Hindu practices, followed asceticism, were given tothe veneration of Samadhs and tombs, . ‘and continued ‘the Hindu, -rite# concerning birth, marriage and Shradh. It was also observed that the Udasis so far as the matter can be decided by beliefs and practices, are, from the point of view of Sikhs,.schismatics who separated in the earliest days of the movement and never merged thereafter. It would thus appear that Udasis form an independent sect. They do venerate Sikh scriptures. Therefore, in an institution of Udasis sect, one tan visualise reading of © Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures.-That itself'is not decisive of the character of the institution. On the contrary, if the succession was from Guru to Chela and these Gurus were followers of Udasis faith and the institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh and they followed some‘of the practices’of Hindu traditional religion that would be completely destructive of the character of the institution. as Sikh Gurdwara. In a very recent decision of this Court in Pritam Dass Mahant v. Shirgmani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Cont ' mittee) jt has been held that mere reading of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures is not decisive of the character of the institution because Udasis are midway between, Sikhs on the one hand and Hindus on the other and that the Udasis also venerate - Granth Sahib. Earlier also thi§ view has been consistently taken by. this Court as will appear from the decision of this Court in Mahant a: ‘ Dharam Dass etc. v.-The State of Punjab and Ors +?) ; (1) C.A. Eo. 1983 of 1960 dated 16.2.84 —Q) [1975] 3S.C.R. 160 at 168
382 _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 35.0R.
They do not subscribe to idol worghip and oly:
. theism, nor do they have any Samadhi ivf theic shrines. The teaching of Sikhs was against asceticism. They believe in Guru Granth Sahib, which is a Rosary of sacred poems, exhortations etc. During the time of the Sikh Gurus, the Gurdwaras were under their direct supervision and control or under their Masends or-missionary agents. After the death of
Guru Gobind Singh the Panth is recognised as the corporate ‘ ‘representative of the Guru on earth and thereafter they were managed by. the Panth through their Granthis and -other sewadars who were under direct supervision of the local . Sangat or congregation. During Mahraja Ranjit Singh’s time Sikhism became the religion of the State and large estates and Japirs ‘were granted. to the Gurdwaras, apart from the Jagirs which had been earlier granted duting the Mughal period. The position of the Gurdwaras changed during British regime, The Mahants who were in charge of the Sikh
“"“Gurdwaras . could either. cbe a Sikh Mahant or Udasi *.
Mahant.”
It thus clearly appears that the appraisal Of the eiidenee by the High Court is correct and ‘unexceptional and weight of the . evidence discloses that the institution in question was not shown to _ have been established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public woiship and therefore one ofthe material conditions for attracting
Sec.” 16(2)(iii) of the Act is not established. It is immaterial that at the time of presentation of the petition jt was, along with the follower of Udasi sect used for worship .of Granth. Sahib by the.
Sikhs. We broadly dgree with the view taken’ by the High Court Therefore these appeals fail and are. SRS with costs. Hearing fee in one set. : :
N.V.K. > Appeals dismissed.
¢