Public Gurudwara vs. Private Property: Supreme Court Rules on Religious Trust Management

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs. Joginder Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Others, focusing on whether a Gurudwara in Ambala was a public place of worship or private property. The case revolved around the management of the religious institution and the application of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which governs the filing of suits concerning public charitable and religious trusts.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the respondents filed a suit regarding the management of a Gurudwara in Village Pilkhani, Tehsil & District Ambala. The respondents argued that the Gurudwara was a public place of worship, allowing free access to devotees, and required a proper management scheme under Section 92 of the CPC.

According to the plaintiffs, a Managing Committee was formed to oversee the administration of the Gurudwara. However, after the death of the appellant’s father, who had been managing the Gurudwara, the respondents claimed that the appellant failed to properly maintain the institution. As a result, they sought a court-mandated management scheme.

The appellant, Bhupinder Singh, argued that the Gurudwara was private property owned by his father and subsequently inherited by him. He contended that the public had no legal right to access the Gurudwara, making the suit under Section 92 of CPC invalid.

Legal Issues Considered

Whether the Gurudwara was a public place of worship or private property.
Whether a suit under Section 92 of the CPC was maintainable.
Whether the failure to obtain prior permission from the court for filing the suit under Section 92 invalidated the entire proceedings.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Bhupinder Singh)

The petitioner presented the following arguments:

The Gurudwara was private property, not a public place of worship.
The public had no legal right to interfere in its management.
The respondents failed to obtain the necessary permission from the court before filing the suit under Section 92, rendering the case invalid.
Under the law, leave from the court is a precondition for maintaining a suit under Section 92, and the absence of such leave vitiates the entire proceedings.

Arguments by the Respondents (Managing Committee Members)

The respondents countered the petitioner’s claims with the following points:

The Gurudwara was a public place of worship, as it allowed free access to devotees.
The appellant’s father acted merely as a Mohtmim (manager), not as an owner.
The villagers had donated 14 kanals of land to the Gurudwara, proving its public nature.
Even if leave under Section 92 was not explicitly granted, the suit was contested on its merits, and the appellant never objected to this issue during the trial.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After examining the legal provisions and arguments, the Supreme Court made the following key observations:

Under Section 92 of the CPC, a suit related to a public trust can only be filed with the court’s prior permission.
The grant of leave is a necessary precondition for filing such a suit.
Failure to obtain prior permission from the court cannot be presumed, and such an oversight should normally invalidate the suit.
However, in this case, the appellant never objected to the issue of leave during the trial.
The appellant fully participated in the legal proceedings and even presented evidence on the merits.
The Gurudwara was not private property but a public place of worship, as villagers had donated land for its upkeep.
The lower courts had correctly framed a management scheme for the Gurudwara, ensuring that an elected body would oversee its administration.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower courts. It ruled that while failure to obtain leave under Section 92 was a legal defect, the appellant had waived his right to challenge it by participating in the proceedings without raising objections.

The Court noted:

“Though legally the appellant is right that the suit could not have been instituted without taking leave, yet in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to continue this appeal.”

The Court emphasized that its ruling was based on the unique facts of the case and should not be treated as a general precedent.

Implications of the Judgment

For Religious Institutions: This ruling reinforces that places of worship open to the public are considered public trusts and cannot be claimed as private property.
For Civil Procedure: The case underscores the importance of obtaining prior permission before filing suits under Section 92 of CPC.
For Trust Disputes: The judgment highlights that legal technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive justice.
For Future Litigants: If a party fails to object to a procedural defect during the trial, they may lose the right to challenge it later.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as an important ruling in matters of religious trust management and the procedural requirements under Section 92 of CPC. By dismissing the appeal while acknowledging the procedural defect, the Court balanced technical legal requirements with the need to ensure proper administration of religious institutions in the public interest.

Petitioner Name: Bhupinder Singh.
Respondent Name: Joginder Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Ambala, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 18-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bhupinder Singh vs Joginder Singh (Dead Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category