Letters Patent procedure and Sikh Gurudwara status: third Judge reference upheld, but the institution was not declared a Gurudwara.

A High Court reference to a third Judge was upheld because Section 98(2) CPC did not displace the Letters Patent procedure for resolving a split between two Judges. The respondent's predecessor was treated as a hereditary Mahant, since the evidence showed succession by established custom from guru to chela, with nomination by the Bhek where needed, giving locus standi to maintain the petition under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. However, the institution was not proved to be a Sikh Gurudwara, as the statutory requirements of establishment and user for Sikh public worship were not established and the record instead supported an Udasi endowment and Udasi management. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a reference to a third Judge in the High Court was invalid for non-compliance with Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the predecessor of the respondent was a hereditary office holder having locus standi to maintain the petition under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. (iii) Whether the institution was a Sikh Gurudwara within Section 16(2)(iii) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Issue (i): Whether a reference to a third Judge in the High Court was invalid for non-compliance with Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The Code provision was held not to control the High Court where the Letters Patent governed a difference of opinion between two Judges. The majority view treated the Letters Patent as permitting reference of the point of disagreement to another Judge and the case to be decided according to the majority opinion. The objection to the reference was also found to be without merit on the facts and in law.

Conclusion: The reference to the third Judge was valid and the challenge based on Section 98(2) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the predecessor of the respondent was a hereditary office holder having locus standi to maintain the petition under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Analysis: The office of Mahant was found to devolve from guru to chela according to established custom and usage. The material on record showed a consistent scheme of succession through chelas, with nomination by the Bhek where necessary. That mode of succession was treated as hereditary succession within the meaning of the Act, and the petitioner was therefore entitled to maintain the proceeding.

Conclusion: The predecessor was a hereditary office holder and had locus standi to file the petition.

Issue (iii): Whether the institution was a Sikh Gurudwara within Section 16(2)(iii) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Analysis: The statutory test required proof that the institution was established for use by Sikhs for public worship and was so used before and at the time of the petition. The burden of proving those ingredients lay on the party asserting Sikh Gurudwara status. On the evidence, the institution was shown to have been founded for an Udasi endowment, to have been managed by Udasi mahants, to have succession from guru to chela, and to contain features inconsistent with Sikh Gurudwara status. The documents relied upon by the appellant were held insufficient to establish the statutory requirements, while the settlement records supported the contrary conclusion.

Conclusion: The institution was not a Sikh Gurudwara.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was correctly reversed by the High Court, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where succession to a Mahantship is governed by a settled custom of guru to chela devolution, and the statutory ingredients of establishment and user for Sikh public worship are not proved, the institution cannot be declared a Sikh Gurudwara; a High Court governed by Letters Patent may also resolve a difference of opinion by reference to another Judge notwithstanding Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---