https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173243 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. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173243 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173243