JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J. - This appeal under Section 34 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1925) is directed against the order dated 26.10.1973 of the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal Punjab at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby by majority judgment (rendered by Honble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President, and S. Joginder Singh Rekhi, Member), it had dismissed the petition filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1925 by Mahant Mangal Dass, who died during the pendency of the proceedings and is represented by Mahant Prem Dass as his legal representative. 2. One Hamir Singh and 57 others claiming themselves to be worshippers of the Institution known as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" submitted a written application dated 10.2.1960 to the Punjab Government under Section 7 of the Act for getting it declared as Sikh Gurdwara. It was averred by them that 389 Bighas 10 Biswas of land and the buildings situated at Villages Ladda and at Dhuri also belong to the said Institution. Notification No. 1138-G.P. dated 9.6.1961 in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act was published in the Government gazette in this regard. Notice of the same was served on Mahant Mangal Dass on 6.7.1961 vide letter No. 557-G.P.-61-H.G. (Gurdwara) 1310 dated 30.6.1961. Mahant Mangal Dass Chela Mahant Bishan Das a hereditary office- holder moved a petition dated 25.2.1963 under Section 8 of the Act to the State Government of Punjab claiming that "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" wrongly described as "Gurdwara Sahib, Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" located at Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur is not a Sikh Gurdwara. His assertion is that "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" is an Udasi Faqir Institution. After the death of Mahant Biswan Dass, he being his chela was appointed its Mahant in accordance with Udasi rites. For the last 42 years and till the date of filing of this petition he has been managing this Institution. With regard to the land measuring 32 Bighas 12 Biswas comprised in Khasra Khewat No. 303/496 and 497 detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 situated at village Ladda and the house located at Dhuri town, he claimed the same to be his personal property and not that of "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". With regard to the land measuring 32 Bighas 12 Biswas comprised in Khasra Khewat No. 303/496 and 497 detailed in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 situated at village Ladda and the house located at Dhuri town, he claimed the same to be his personal property and not that of "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". His further stand is that most of the signatories of the petition allegedly moved by Hamir Singh and others who were arrayed in the petition as respondents, were fictitious persons and for that reason the notification issued under Section 7(1) of the Act by the State Government was illegal and invalid. The State Government in turn forwarded this application to the Tribunal for its adjudication under Section 14 of the Act. 3. The Tribunal served notice of the petition bearing No. 164 of 1963 to Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as SGPC) and other respondents in terms of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Hamir Singh and 57 other respondents did not contest the petition. While traversing the stand of the petitioner, SGPC justified the notification issued under Section 7(3) of the Act in its written statement dated 29.7.1963. It was pleaded that the Institution in question is a Sikh Gurdwara because it was established for the use of Sikhs and had been used as a Sikh place of public worship by the Sikhs all along in terms of the provisions of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. The additional stand taken in the written statement, which was allowed to be amended vide order dated 23.11.1964 of the Tribunal is that the Institution was established in the memory of Sikh Guru Bhagat Bhagwan. In order to defeat the claim of the petitioner the respondent further got the written statement amended to take the plea that the Institution in question is a Sikh Gurdwara because of the traditional visits of first and sixth Gurus to this place so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act. This amendment was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1.6.1964. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for decision by the Tribunal :- (1) Whether the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder ? (2) Whether the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara under clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Section 16(2) of the Act ? 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for decision by the Tribunal :- (1) Whether the petitioner is a hereditary office-holder ? (2) Whether the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara under clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Section 16(2) of the Act ? 4. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary and vide order dated 8.3.1965 was answered in favour of the petitioner. He was held to be a hereditary officer- holder. This order of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court vide order dated 26.10.1983. The Tribunal while dismissing the petition under Section 8 of the Act by majority judgment returned the following findings :- (i) SGPC had conceded that provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case and for that reason the claim was not pressed under this clause. Apart from that there was no material to establish that owing to the said traditions common with the 10th Guru the Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship. (ii) This Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of worship and also at the time of the presentation of the petition in terms of provisions of sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. (iii) Bhagat Bhagwan and his descendant Baba Surat Ram, who founded and established the Institution in dispute known as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" located within the Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur were both Sikh Saints and that this Dera was established by the latter in memory of Baba Bhagat Bhagwan, who was a Sikh Saint and a historical person within the purview of Section 16(2)(iv) of the Act. The other member of the Tribunal Shri A.L. Bahri (later on Honble Judge of this Court), differed with the majority view and arrived at the following conclusions:- "From these established facts, it cannot be held that the Institution in dispute was being used as public place of worship by Sikhs at the time of issuing of the notification in the year 1961. On the other hand, the petitioner has successfully proved that the Institution was established by Surat Ram and that the Muafi was also granted in the name of Surat Ram and since times immemorial the Institution has been under the management of Udasi-Mahants, who have been described as such in the several documents referred to above and that succession to the office of Mahant has been from Guru to Chela and that the Moorti of Babi Siri Chand, ball of ashes and Smadhas are being whorshipped in the Institution. The mere fact that Guru Granth Sahib is also kept or recite(d) in this Institution would not make Udasi Institution a Sikh Gurdwara. Thus, I hold further that the respondent- SGPC has failed to prove that the Institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara and that the Institution dispute as Udasi Institution." 5. The appellant-petitioner feeling aggrieved from dismissal of his petition on the basis of the majority judgment of the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance scrutinised the evidence, oral and documentary, minutely. 7. It was fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the contesting-respondent that the claim of SGPC made in the written statement that the Institution owing to some tradition connected with one of the 10 Sikh Gurus was used for public worship predominantly by Sikhs as a place of worship before and at the time of presentation of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1925 is not supported by any evidence on record and for that reason finding recorded by the three members of the Tribunal against the SGPC in this regard has not been challenged by it by filing any appeal or cross-objection. Even otherwise we find that the evidence on record fully justifies the rejection of the stand of the respondent in this regard. 8. Even otherwise we find that the evidence on record fully justifies the rejection of the stand of the respondent in this regard. 8. In this appeal challenge to the majority judgment of the Tribunal has been made by the learned Counsel representing the appellant primarily on two grounds, namely :- (i) that the majority decision of the members of the Tribunal that Institution in question is a Sikh Gurdwara is not only against the weight of evidence adduced on record but is based on conjectures drawn by misreading of the evidence; and (ii) that the conclusion drawn in the majority judgment that both Bhagat Bhagwan and Baba Surat Ram were Sikh Saints is in conflict with their other findings recorded in the judgment. 9. Stoutly opposing the submissions made, the counsel representing contesting respondents has submitted that the judgment rendered by the majority of the Tribunal is supported by not only the evidence on record but also historical data noticed in the judgment. 10. Before adverting to the evidence produced on record, it is a prefatory necessity to notice the relevant provisions of the Act which have bearing on the controversy. "Section 16(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force, if in any proceeding before a Tribunal it is disputed that a gurdwara should or should not be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara, the Tribunal shall, before enquiring into any other matter in dispute relating to the said gurdwara, decide whether it should or should not be declared a Sikh Gurdwara in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2). (2) If the Tribunal finds that the gurdwara (i) to (ii) xx xx xx xx (iii) 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 Section 7; or (iv) was established in memory of a Sikh martyr saint, or historical person and was used for public worship by Sikhs, before and at the time of the presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of Section 7; or (v) xx xx xx xx the Tribunal shall decide that it should be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara, and record an order accordingly." The reading of the above provisions leave no manner of doubt that before an Institution can be declared as a Sikh Gurdwara, the following requirements must be proved :- (i) that the Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of worship; and (ii) that it was being used by the Sikhs for public worship both before and at the time of the presentation of the petition under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1925. 11. In case Lachhman Das and others v. Atma Singh and others, AIR 1935 Lahore 666, it was laid down that both the above noted requirements are to be proved separately and where only user of the Institution has been established, the other inference that it was established for the purpose of public worship by Sikhs cannot be drawn. Explaining the ambit of provisions of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act it was held in case Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Mahant Kirpa Ram and others, AIR 1984 SC 1059 that in order to bring the case under Section 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 further that it 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 that in order to attract Section 16(2)(iii), both the conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. The use of the conjunctive and clearly imports that in order to attract Section 16(2)(iii), both the conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. Not only that it must be satisfactorily established that the Institution was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship but also that it was used for such worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of presentation of the petition. 12. Another aspect that has to be kept in view while evaluating the evidence on record, is that the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act have expressly cast the burden of proving necessary requirement on the person who asserts the Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. In case Hem Singh v. Basant Dass, AIR 1963 Privy Council 93, it was observed that the Institution in suit was established for use by Sikhs for the public worship may be proved by any class of evidence permitted under the Evidence Act but in order to succeed the evidence which the party adduces must prove it and the circumstances that Institution is an old one does not absolve him from giving suitable and sufficient proof though it is a fact which has to be taken into account while evaluating the evidence. 13. Coming to the evidence, it has to be noticed at the outset that none amongst Hamir Singh and 57 other respondents, who had moved the application under Section 7(1) of the Act have chosen to support their stand by appearing in the witness box nor they have produced any evidence, oral or documentary in this regard. Even no explanation from their side has come on record for keeping themselves away during trial proceedings of the case. 14. During the course of arguments it was not disputed before us that there is no evidence to indicate as to on which date and in which year this Institution was established. The necessary consequence would be that the evidence adduced on the file is wanting to show that the Institution was established for use by the Sikhs for public worship. The only other course left for us is to draw inference arising from the evidence produced on record. 15. The main document which puts some light as to the proximity of the time to the existence and nature of the Institution is Ex.R.10. The only other course left for us is to draw inference arising from the evidence produced on record. 15. The main document which puts some light as to the proximity of the time to the existence and nature of the Institution is Ex.R.10. It is an extract from the file containing decision recorded in the Muafi enquiry proceedings in respect of Maufiat contained in the Revenue Office Volume-VII of the year 1932 R.K. (1875 A.D.) which was kept at serial No. 28 of the record room of Revenue Sadar, Patiala. The name of Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh is recorded as grantor and that of Surat Ram has been mentioned as grantee. In the document the name of Brahm Das Faqir is described as its occupant. The total land donated to the Institution mentioned is 464 Bighas 16 Biswas. The order of Dewan Sahib recorded therein further shows that 44 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which was found in excess of the original grant was recommended to be forfeited while the rest of the land measuring 420 Bighas 16 Biswas was suggested to be continued with the Dera in question for its upkeep. This recommendation was subject to the final orders to be passed by the authorities. Thereafter the file was placed before the Minister and ultimately before his Highness the Maharaj Sahib who approved the recommendation and then passed the final order on Ashad 26, 1935 B.K. (1878 A.D.). 16. It would be appropriate to notice the recommendations and orders of various authorities in detail, at the risk of repetition, in order to find out the import of the grant. The recorded relevant portion reads as under :- "No. 388 Name of Taluka : Sherper Name of Revenue Estate : Ladda Name of the Donor : Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh Bekunth Maratib (deceased) Name of the Donee : Surat Ram Faqir Presently in possession : Brahm Dass Faqir Description of Sanad : 464 Bighas 16 Biswas Area of the land at present: Rs. 500/- Ghalla (grain) annually. Order of Nizamat : Muafidar has stated that Muafi in respect of 420 Bigha Khan land was granted in the regime of Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh Sahib Bahadur Bekunth Maratib in favour of Surat Ram. Numberdars and Patwari verify this fact. As per current measure the land came out to be 464 Bigha 16 Biswas Khan. 500/- Ghalla (grain) annually. Order of Nizamat : Muafidar has stated that Muafi in respect of 420 Bigha Khan land was granted in the regime of Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh Sahib Bahadur Bekunth Maratib in favour of Surat Ram. Numberdars and Patwari verify this fact. As per current measure the land came out to be 464 Bigha 16 Biswas Khan. Keeping in view the possession for long time, 420-0 Bigha Khan land may be granted Muafi and 44-16 Bigha land be forfeited. Order of Dewan Sahib : With regard to this Muafi, Nazim Sahib has opined that 420-0 Bigha land may be granted Muafi and 44-16 Bigha land may be forfeited. In this regard, Nazim Sahib and (illegible) ascertained the facts about the position of Dera and it has come to know that this dera is situated in the village and it is Pukhta one. Sawara Siri Guru Grant Sahib remains Parkash (open). In order to continue the Muafi as before, the opinion of Naib Sahib has been obtained. An enquiry has been got conducted as to how the opinion was given against the instructions. This file (illegible)..... (torn)..... Muafi relating to the Dera. Sawara Siri Guru Granth Sahib remains Parkash (open) at Dera. Therefore, 420 Bigha-0 Biswa land is fit to be granted Muafi in accordance with the rules entered in Book for the year 1886 Sambat and opinion of Nazim Sahib till the existence of this Dera in its present form. Naib Sahib has given opinion....... (illegible)..........., it is wrong. In my opinion also, this land measuring 420 Bigha is fit to be granted Muafi till the existence of this Dera in its present form and the land measuring 44 Bigha 16 Biswa may be forfeited. Therefore the file be put up before Aalin Wizarat and Ijlas Khas for favour of orders. Dated 18th Bhadon, 1935 Sambat. Order of Wazir Sahib : From Mehkma Wizarat. Be put up in Ijlas Khas. Dated 29th Bhadon, 1935 Sambat. Corresponding to September 4, 1878. Order of Hazoor Anwar : Compliance be made in respect of the opinion of Nazim Sahib for which Dewan Sahib has given his consent. Dated 26th Asauj, 1935 Sambat. Land which has been granted Muafi : 420 Bighas 0 Biswa Forfeited land : 44 Bigha 16 Biswa" 17. Dated 29th Bhadon, 1935 Sambat. Corresponding to September 4, 1878. Order of Hazoor Anwar : Compliance be made in respect of the opinion of Nazim Sahib for which Dewan Sahib has given his consent. Dated 26th Asauj, 1935 Sambat. Land which has been granted Muafi : 420 Bighas 0 Biswa Forfeited land : 44 Bigha 16 Biswa" 17. Coming to the other documents notice has to be taken of the relevant portion of the Jamabandi Ex.P.2 for the year 1962-63 B.K. (1606-06 A.D.) of village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur. Under the column of ownership name of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtman (under the management of) Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant Sadh Udasian resident of village had been recorded. The land has been shown to be under self-cultivation of the persons whose names have been recorded under the column of ownership. Ex.P.4 is the pedigree-tabe recorded during Bando-Bast (Settlement) which took place in the year 1962-63 B.K. Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam (under the management of) Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant, caste Sadh Udasi has been recorded. Ex.P.5 is the copy of review inquiry file in respect of Muafi of land situated in Revenue Estate of Ladda recorded as Mausooma Brahm Dass Muafidar. It was decided on Fagun 16, 1962-63 B.K. (June 23, 1906 A.D.). It further gives the names of the Muafidars who have been in possession from the date of grant of Muafi. Their names read as under :- 1. Surat Ram 2. Bhola Ram 3. Sham Dass 4. Narain Dass 5. Brahm Dass 6. Brahm Basant 7. Brahm Sarup 8. Bishan Dass 18. This document contains the names of Muafidars in order of succession right from the founder Surat Ram upto Bishan Dass who was the 8th Mahant. Ex.P.3 is the mutation of inheritance which was sanctioned in favour of Mahant Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass on the death of Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Sarup. Under the column of ownership the name of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Sarup, caste Sadh Udasian is recorded. It is also mentioned in this very document that the mutation was sanctioned on June 28, 1976 B.K. (1919 A.D.). This document clearly shows that for the first time Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass took over the management of the Institution. It is also mentioned in this very document that the mutation was sanctioned on June 28, 1976 B.K. (1919 A.D.). This document clearly shows that for the first time Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass took over the management of the Institution. As is evident from mutation Ex.P.3 Mahant Mangal Dass, who had filed the petition under Section 8 of the Act, had succeeded Mahant Biswan Dass as his Chela in the year 1976 B.K. He is thus the 9th Mahant in order of succession. After his death in the year 1960-61 he is represented by his Chela Mahant Prem Dass in this petition. 19. Sanad Muafi dated 13.1.1909 Ex.P.1 shows that during the regime of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, on the recommendations of the members of Council of Regency, State of Patiala, Muafi was granted in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan. This Dera at that time was under the management of Bishan Dass. This position came to be recorded during enquiry proceedings, investigation and review which was undertaken in respect of Muafi granted during the first settlement. 20. The other connecting documents which have a bearing qua the controversy is Ex.R.11 which is the copy of the statement of Muafidar. This statement was recorded on file No. 374 dated 3.2.1964 B.K. decided on 3.3.1964 B.K. The proceedings relating to the inheritance of Muafi of Mausooma Dera Sadhan situated in village Ladda which was under the Mohatimship of Brahm Sarup deceased is in favour of his Chela Bishan Dass. Bishan Dass in his statement, during these proceedings, has maintained that his Guru had enjoyed the Muafi of the land in terms of the order dated 23.6.1906 of the Commissioner till the existence of Dera Sadhan as the Muafi had been conferred on him. He has also stated that his Guru Brahm Sarup had died on Fagun 26, 1963 B.K. and left behind two Chelas viz. himself and the other known by the name of Malook Dass. According to him Malook Dass was blind and as the Muafi stood in the name of the Dera and his Guru had been enjoying the same as Mahant of the Dera, therefore, he stated that Muafi should continue as it was during the time of his Guru. He had further undertaken to remain of good character and carry on the conditions of the Muafi. He had further undertaken to remain of good character and carry on the conditions of the Muafi. It was also stated by him that Guru Granth Sahib remains open in the dera and accommodation and food is provided to the travellers coming to the Dera and the income of Muafi was spent on the poor. He also stated that he was unmarried and the Dera is of celibate Sadhu (unmarried Sadhus). Ex.R.12 is another copy of the statement of Mahant Biswan Dass. In this document the Institution has been described as Mausooma Dharamshala Sadhuan. Ex.R.13 is the copy of the joint statement of Gulab Singh, Harbans Singh and Jaswant Singh, Lambardars made before the Settlement Superintendent which was recorded in file No. 374 dated Jeth 3, 1964 B.K. In their statement they had stated that Muafi land situated in Ladda belonged to Mausooma Dharamshala Sadhuan which was under the management of Brahm Sarup deceased. They further stated that Brahm Sarup deceased of Dera Sadhan was enjoying Muafi so granted. They supported the case of Bishan Dass, who succeeded Mahant Brahm Sarup as his Chela. They also vouchsafed that accommodation was being provided for shelter to travellers and poor people. Food was also served to them. In addition Granth Sahib always remained open. 21. Ex.P.6 relates to the substitution of the new entry which came to be recorded in the year 1964 B.K. It is a mutation relating to the rights of Shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Khewat/Khewana Mazkoor. In column No. 9 the name of the owner and other details recorded read Shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Khewat Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Mazkoor without disturbing earlier entries. This document shows that the change was incorporated to bring on record the name of Chela Bishan Dass in place of Brahm Sarup. Reference has also been made in this document in regard to the gift of some land which belonged to Mangal Dass made in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam, Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass, caste Sadh Udasi. 22. Ex.P.7 is the Pedigree-table of the owners of Patti known as Sadh Udasi bearing family No. 70. The name of Brahm Basant followed by his Chela Brahm Sarup Chela Bishan Dass and Chela Mangal Dass have been mentioned therein. 23. 22. Ex.P.7 is the Pedigree-table of the owners of Patti known as Sadh Udasi bearing family No. 70. The name of Brahm Basant followed by his Chela Brahm Sarup Chela Bishan Dass and Chela Mangal Dass have been mentioned therein. 23. Turning to the other documents produced on record, Ex.P.8 is the mutation in respect of the land gifted by Ralla Jat on Baisakh 27, 1917 B.K. in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan which was under the management of Mangal Dass. At this stage notice has also to be taken of Ex.R.1, which is the statement of Mahant Mangal Dass made before the Tehsildar on 23.3.1998 B.K. (1941 A.D.). This document shows that Mahant Mangal Dass had affirmed that he considered Amar Dass Chela Bhagat Ram to be fit person for the management of Dera Ladda. He has further stated that Amar Dass was well versed in Gurmukhi (Punjabi) and recites the Path of Maharaj Sahib very well. Ex.R.2 is a joint statement of Lambardars who were present along with Mahant Mangal Dass. They too support the stand taken by Mahant Mangal Dass. 24. Ex.R.14 is the pedigree-table of the owners recorded in ownership file (Misal Haqiat) during the settlement which took place in the year 1957-58 A.D. It shows that name of the Patti has been recorded as Sadh Udasi. It also mentions the name of Brahm Saup followed by Bishan Dass Chela Mangal Dass. Ex.R.16 is the Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 B.K. (1907-08 A.D.). It carries the description of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam, Caste Sadh Udasi in column No. 5. In column 6, the cultivation is recorded as Khud Kashat (self- cultivation). Entry has also been made in respect of Sadhan Wala Chah. It is also mentioned that this land is in respect of Muafi. Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 B.K. corresponding to 1910-11 is Ex.R.17. It carries similar entries in the column of ownership as recorded in Jamabandi Ex.R.16. Ex.R.18 is the jamabandi for the year 1957-58 A.D. wherein the name of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan under the management of Mahant Mangal Dass Chela Mahant Biswan Dass is recorded in the column of ownership and the land has been to be shown under the self-cultivation of the owner. Reference has also been made to land Gair Mumkin Well Mahantwala in this document. 25. After this Jamabandi, the notification dated 9.6.1961 Ex.R.19 came to be issued. Reference has also been made to land Gair Mumkin Well Mahantwala in this document. 25. After this Jamabandi, the notification dated 9.6.1961 Ex.R.19 came to be issued. Admittedly, there is no document on record as Ex.R.3 and documents Exs.R.4 to R.9 have been excluded from consideration by members of the Tribunal being not relevant to the issue raised in these proceedings. 26. From the detailed discussion of the above documents, statements of Mahants and Lambardars recorded during the mutation and inquiry proceedings for continuance of Muafi, the position which emerges is as under :- (i) The reading of document Ex.R.10 clearly brings out that original Muafi grant was made by Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh in favour of Surat Ram Faqir. At the same time, this document does not fix the period when the grant was made. The necessary conclusion in this regard has to be drawn from the factum of death of Maharaja Sahib Aala Singh which is recorded as August 28, 1765 A.D. at page 80 in Mahan Kosh by Karam Singh. Therefore, it would be legitimate to draw an inference that Muafi/grant was made to Surat Ram prior to August 28, 1765 A.D. which means that it was definitely made more than 113 years prior to the date of decision recorded in order and about more than 200 years earlier to the time when the present controversy arose. (ii) Upto the time the order was passed by his Highness (Hukam Hazoor Anwar) on Asasauj 26, 1935 B.K. it has to be taken that Muafi was given to Surat Ram in his personal capacity and continued to remain in possession of his successor chelas undisturbed without changing the character of Muafi. It is for that reason the rights of Brahm Dass Faqir, who was in possession of the Dera and the land were not interfered with. Rather it was recorded that he would continue to remain in possession and enjoy the same. While granting Muafi notice was also taken of the rules entered in the book for the year 1986 Sambat (1928 A.D.). (iii) No doubt, the Institution has been described as Dera in document Ex.R.10 but significantly it was not recorded as Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan. Rather, it has to be taken that it is Baba Surat Ram who had established Dera after the grant of Muafi in his favour. (iii) No doubt, the Institution has been described as Dera in document Ex.R.10 but significantly it was not recorded as Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan. Rather, it has to be taken that it is Baba Surat Ram who had established Dera after the grant of Muafi in his favour. In the other documents discussed in detail above, which were subsequent to the period mentioned in document Ex.R.10, it is clearly brought out that Dera has been described as Dera Sadhuan in some documents and Dharamshala Sadhuan in other documents. From the time when settlement took place in the year 1962 B.K. this Dera has been described as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan. According to the stand of the contesting respondent reference made to the Dera in these documents has to be construed as Gurdwara because Sawara Guru Granth Sahib remained open in this Dera. It is for this reason it has been contended that not only in the orders of the concerned authorities during the enquiry proceedings relating to mutation but also in the statements of the witnesses recorded during the proceedings for sanction of mutation of inheritance it has been persistently re-affirmed that Sawara Guru Granth Sahib remains open and the ability of the person managing the Dera to recite Guru Granth Sahib and to perform other necessary rituals had also been taken into account while sanctioning the Muafi from time to time. Strength was also sought from the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No. 446 of 1962 decided on November 9, 1964 which was noticed in S.G.P.C., Amritsar v. Mahant Kirpa Ram and others, AIR 1984 S.C. 1059 (supra), wherein it was observed that the Dera in many cases was synonymous with Gurdwara. At the same time, on facts the Institution was held to be Dera of Udasi Pir which was described in the order. In the present case it is clear from the documents that Muafi was not granted in the name of Guru Granth Sahib. The majority members of the Tribunal had given utmost importance to the factum of "Sawara Guru Granth Sahib" remaining open in order to draw a conclusion that the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara. This approach of the Tribunal totally ignores the other evidence on record noticed earlier. Mangal Dass in his statement Ex.R.1 which he had made before the Tehsildar on 23.3.1998 B.K. had described himself as a Mohatmim of Dera Ladda. This approach of the Tribunal totally ignores the other evidence on record noticed earlier. Mangal Dass in his statement Ex.R.1 which he had made before the Tehsildar on 23.3.1998 B.K. had described himself as a Mohatmim of Dera Ladda. Merely because he as well as three Lambardars, whose statement is Ex.R.2, have also certified about the capability of Mahant Amar Dass to recite the Paath of Maharaja Sahib and also his ability to perform Dhoop-Deep at the Dera would not in any manner even remotely justify the conclusion that they have accepted this Dera as Sikh Gurdwara. Rather, this evidence fully supports the stand of the petitioner that even upto that stage authorities have accepted the stand of Mahant Mangal Dass that he was Mahant of Dera Ladda and that Dera was of Udasi Sadh. (iv) Ex.R.11 is the other statement of Mahant Biswan Dass recorded in the mutation file relating to the muafi of the Dera. He has maintained that muafi has been granted in favour of Dera of Sadhus so long as Dera exists. He has also stated that reading of the Guru Granth Sahib would continue in the Dera as before and the food would also be served at the said Dera. His statement sought further re-inforcement from the statements of Harnam Singh and Jaswant Singh who have described the Institution as Mausooma Dharamshala Sadhuan. They too have accepted that Guru Granth has its Parkash in the Institution. It cannot be ignored that these documents had come into existence near about in the year 1907 A.D. which would mean that the position was accepted even after the lapse of 150 years of the original grant. In the other documents consisting of Jamabandi Ex.P.15 to P.17 land has been recorded as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan in the column of ownership under the management of Bishan Dass. In the Jamabandi, Ex.P18 for the year 1957-58 A.D. the entries recorded the ownership of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan under the management of Mangal Dass. It is totally inconceivable that the authorities would have allowed to record this Institution as Dera if factually it was Sikh Gurdwara at that time. Even otherwise keeping and reciting of Guru Granth Sahib in the Udasi Institution is not an uncommon feature which has been noticed in several cases. It is totally inconceivable that the authorities would have allowed to record this Institution as Dera if factually it was Sikh Gurdwara at that time. Even otherwise keeping and reciting of Guru Granth Sahib in the Udasi Institution is not an uncommon feature which has been noticed in several cases. Reference in this regard may be made to Arjun Singh and another v. Indar Dass and others, AIR 1934 Lahore 13; Arjan Singh and another v. Harbhajan Das, AIR 1937 Lahore 280 and Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Mahant Kirpa Ram and others (supra). It would be worthwhile to notice the factual position as discussed in Joginder Singh and others v. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 185, wherein at page 188 para 13 it was stated that "the fact that in the statement of Brahma Nand it is mentioned that Granth Sahib was recited in the Dera and the fact that no other object of worship was mentioned in the said statement or in the statements of the other villagers can be easily explained. The proceedings in which those statements were made were instituted by the State to find out if the Muafi was to be continued or not. The Institution was situated in the erstwhile Patiala State which was a Sikh State. In his anxiety to secure the continuance of the muafi, Brahma Nand must have thought it inadvisable to mention any other object of worship in the Dera and confined his statement to the fact that Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib was done in the Dera. So far as the recitation of Granth Sahib in the Institution in dispute is concerned it is well known that the Udasis used the same sacred writings as the Sikhs and the recitation of Guru Granth Sahib in Udasi Dera is a very common feature. With respect to a similar statement, their Lordships of the Privy Council in Hem Singh v. Basant Dass (supra) observed :- "Comment has been made that the only references to worship are to the reading of Granth, but these are directed to showing the diligence and worthiness of the applicant. With respect to a similar statement, their Lordships of the Privy Council in Hem Singh v. Basant Dass (supra) observed :- "Comment has been made that the only references to worship are to the reading of Granth, but these are directed to showing the diligence and worthiness of the applicant. Before inference can be drawn from the absence of any reference to other forms of worship, one must remember that they might well have seemed both unnecessary and tactless when the backing of Sikh officials and persons of local influence was being sought." The ratio of the above mentioned case would also apply to the facts of the present case as well. In the given circumstances observations made in the cases Gurmukh Das v. Partap Singh and others, AIR 1934 Lahore 319; Jowand Singh v. Surat Singh and others, AIR 1934 Lahore 344; Puran Das Chela v. Kartar Singh and others, AIR 1934 Lahore 398; Arjan Singh and another v. Harbhajan Das, AIR 1937 Lahore 280 (supra), Ram Kishen Das v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and another, AIR 1937 Lahore 290, which were relied upon from the side of the respondent, would not advance their case as the facts of those cases were entirely different than the facts of the present case. (v) From the documents Exs.P.5, P.7 and P.14, it has been brought out that the succession to the Institution has been from Guru to Chela. Document Ex.P.5 not only gives the details of the Maufidars commencing from Surat Ram upto Bishan Das but also acknowledges that they have remained in possession of muafi land from the time of the grant. In Pritam Das Mahant v. S.G.P.C., AIR 1984 SC 858, it has been observed that where in an Institution the succession was from Guru to Chela and the founder of the Institution was an Udasi Saint that will be a circumstance to reject the claim that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara. In this case as well as the succession to the Institution has been from Guru to Chela and for that reason stand of the respondent carries no conviction at all. (vi) There is overwhelming documentary evidence consisting of documents Exs. In this case as well as the succession to the Institution has been from Guru to Chela and for that reason stand of the respondent carries no conviction at all. (vi) There is overwhelming documentary evidence consisting of documents Exs. P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 to P.7 and R.10 to R.18 to establish that not only original donee Surat Ram was an Udasi Faqir but the subsequent chelas who followed him and who were Mahants of the Dera in question were Udasi Sadhus. In the revenue record in Ex.P.1 the name of Maufidars has been mentioned as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam (under the management) Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Sarup Sadh Udasi. Ex.P.2 is the Jamabandi for the year 1962-63 B.K. wherein Mohatmim of the Dera Bhagat Bhagwan has been described as Brahm Sarup Chela Bishan Basant caste Sadhu Udasian. Pedigree tables Exs.P.4 to P.7, which were prepared during the period of first settlement not only mentioned the name of Patti Sadh Udasi but also records the name of Bhagat Bhagwan Ba- Ihtmam, Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant, caste Sadh Udasi. This position is also reflected in the mutation dated 28.6.1976 B.K. and another Mutation Ex.P.6 dated 28.6.1964 B.K. as the Mahant has been described as Sadh Udasi. In the revenue record name of Patti has been mentioned as Sadh Udasi. It is no longer in dispute that Udasis are not Sikhs. It was observed in Pritam Dass Mahant v. S.G.P.C., AIR 1958 SC 858 at page 866 para 40 that it is well established that Udasis are mid-way between Sikhs on the one hand and Hindus on the other. The distinction between Udasis and Sikhs was discussed elaborately in the above mentioned case as well as subsequent case S.G.P.C., Amritsar v. Mahant Kirpa Ram and others (supra). Surprisingly enough, the majority members of the Tribunal have even gone to the extent of observing that none of the 8 incumbents mentioned in the Pedigree table given in Ex.P.8 have been described as Udasis while ignoring the other documents noticed above which conclusively prove that they belong to Udasi Sect. To overcome the above position, two fold arguments were addressed from the side of the respondent. To overcome the above position, two fold arguments were addressed from the side of the respondent. Firstly it was contended that this is a common feature in many Sikh Gurdwaras that Mahants of Udasi Sect have been managing the same as have been observed in Bishan Dass v. Gurbax Singh, AIR 1934 Lahore 63; Prem Dass v. Labh Singh and others, AIR 1934 Lahore 130; Gulab Dass v. Fauza Singh, AIR 1937 Lahore 826 but that reason alone would not justify the conclusion that Institution is not a Sikh Gurdwara. Secondly, it was urged that because of the persecution of Sikhs by the Mohammedan Rulers Udasi Mahants were allowed to manage the Sikh Gurdwaras. This stand of the respondent cannot be accepted because it is against the weight of evidence on record. The cumulative effect of the above discussed documentary evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the Institution in question was an Udasi Institution and not a Sikh Gurdwara. Same position is spelled out from the oral evidence led on the file by the parties. 27. Reverting to the oral evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that initially Pritam Singh (RW-1), Bhal Singh (RW-2), Hamir Singh (RW-3), Jang Singh (RW-4) were examined from the side of the respondent and Mangal Dass (PW-1), Kishan Singh (PW-2), Mokand Singh (PW-3), Kehar Singh (PW-4), Karan Pakash (PW-5), Nachhattar Gir (PW-6) and Chhota Singh (PW-7) were examined by the petitioner in support of the first issue which related to the petitioner being hereditary officer-holder. Evidence of both the parties in respect of this issue was completed on 6.1.1965. The material facts which have gone unchallenged upto this stage testified by Mangal Dass (PW-1) were that Baba Surat Ram was the original founder of the Dera; after Surat Ram, the succession had always been from Guru to Chela; he was nominated to Gaddi one week before the death of Bishan Dass by the assembly of Udasi Bhekh; on the 7th day after the death of Bishan Dass, a turban in token of installation was given to him by the Bhekh in the presence of village community; there was no Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib at that time and that he had been Mahant of this Dera for the last 46 years. Kishan Singh (PW-2) in certain terms stated that Mahant of this Dera is chosen by the Bhekh of Udasis of Bada Khara. Kishan Singh (PW-2) in certain terms stated that Mahant of this Dera is chosen by the Bhekh of Udasis of Bada Khara. Mokand Singh (PW-3) vouchsafed about this Institution as Udasi Institution. According to him after the death of Guru, Chela succeeds him as per the custom. Kehar Singh (PW-4) too stated that this institution is an Udasi Dera. Karan Parkash (PW-5) as per his own showing is an Udasi Bhekh of Bada Khara. He has described the petitioner as Udasi of Bada Khara. 28. Pritam Singh (RW-1) has fully supported the stand of the petitioner as he stated that Dera is of Udasi fraternity and the succession is from Guru to Chela. Bahal Singh (RW-2) came out with version that panchayat consists of Sikhs and Hindus which appoints Mahant of this Dera and at the same time he denied that succession of this Institution is from Guru to Chela. Hamir Singh (RW-3) testified about the appointment of the petitioner as Mahant of the Dera by village Panchayat. Jang Singh (RW-4) has no personal knowledge in respect of the Institution. Balwant Singh (RW-5) in his deposition stated that on the death of Bishan Dass, the village community had temporarily appointed the petitioner as Mahant, he being the proprietor of the village. His perception of Bishan Dass is based on the fact that he had seen him keeping long Kesh and Beard. At the same time, he did not care to find out whether he was an Udasi or a Sikh. Bhag Singh (RW-6) was not present on the occasion when the petitioner was made the Mahant of the Institution. Joginder Singh (RW-7) had no knowledge with regard to the appointment of the petitioner as Mahant of the Dera. 29. The discussion of above evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the version given by the witnesses examined from the side of the petitioner that the Institution was an Udasi Dera and succession to this Institution was from Guru to Chela was not challenged at all. This position was even admitted by Pritam Singh (RW-1) in his deposition while the testimony of rest of the witnesses is of no help to the respondent in this regard. Therefore, it can be safely said that upto this stage even the witnesses of the respondent had not disputed the stand of the petitioner that the Institution was an Udasi Dera. 30. Therefore, it can be safely said that upto this stage even the witnesses of the respondent had not disputed the stand of the petitioner that the Institution was an Udasi Dera. 30. It is subsequently that a shift in the stand was taken by the respondent when it realised the significance of issue No. 2 after the decision of issue No. 1 was rendered on the basis of evidence discussed above. Coming to the other evidence of the parties, Nachhattar Gir Chela Sarasti Gir (PW-6) testified about the existence of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan, Smadh, Gola Sahib and Moorti of Baba Siri Chand as objects of worship in this Dera. He also explained that Smadhs of Mahants were located across the Phirney and not within the precinct of the Dera. Further, according to him, Gita Parkash and recitation of other books was also done in the Dera. At the same time, he definitely maintained that there was no regular Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib though it was kept in the Dera. Chhota Singh (PW-7) took pains to emphasise that the Mahants of this Dera were buried in this Dera and there was about 10 to 11 Smadha in this Dera. He also referred to the worship of Moorti and Ashes in the Institution though as per his own admission he had seen only one portrait in the Dera which was either earthen or of stone. He claimed that he is a Sikh by faith but has been visiting the Dera for worship as had been done by other Sikhs and public at large because Mangal Dass used to recite Guru Granth Sahib. He also stated that ashes in the form of Dhuni were collected at one place in the Dera. Mohinder Singh (PW-8) has testified that Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan is of Udasi Sadhus. Further, according to him Moorti of Bhagat Bhagwan, Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Institution. He has also noticed the Smadhs of Mahants of the Dera located in the Dera. His testimony was not challenged on any count in his cross-examination. Hira Singh (PW-9) is a Brahim and not a Sikh. He had not only noticed the garland around the Moorti but also maintained that Gola Sahib and bal of ashes were placed in front of a moorti on a table. His testimony was not challenged on any count in his cross-examination. Hira Singh (PW-9) is a Brahim and not a Sikh. He had not only noticed the garland around the Moorti but also maintained that Gola Sahib and bal of ashes were placed in front of a moorti on a table. He had also noticed Smadh located across the Phirney and further admitted that Guru Granth Sahib, which is brought on Manji Sahib, is recited in this Institution occasionally. Another important fact disclosed by him during his testimony is that no Nishan Sahib is there in this Institution. 31. Lekh Ram (PW-10) is also Brahmin by caste and is a worshipper of Ramji and Krishanji. According to him, he is an Udasi Sadhu. His stand is that the Dera in dispute is of Udasi Sadhus. The moorti of Baba Siri Chand and Gola Sahib are worshipped in this Dera. Guru Granth Sahib is also kept there. It is only when any person wants to perform the Paath of Guru Granth Sahib in this Dera then Sri Guru Granth Sahib is brought from outside and recited in this Dera. He admitted that he must have performed 3 or 4 Paath of Guru Granth Sahib in this Dera. Other fact disclosed by him are that in this Dera visitors are fed Langar run in this Dera. 10-11 Smadhs are also there in this Dera though they are located outside the Dera and that Shradh of Bhagat Bhagwan is performed in this Dera. His other assertion is that there is one Smadh of Bhagat Bhagwan located in the Dera itself and Gurpurab or other Sikh festivals are not celebrated in this Dera. He has also explained that room located on the right side of the entrance of Dera is not meant for the display of Guru Granth Sahib though cots are kept there. Mahant Sewa Ram Dass (PW-11) is the Mahant of Dera Jaswanda of Udasi Samprada of Bhagat Bhagwan which is located 40 miles away from the Institution in dispute. He claimed that he has been visiting this Dera for the last 20 years during the time when Mangal Dass was its Mahant. His version is that Moorti of Baba Siri Chand and Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Dera. He claimed that he has been visiting this Dera for the last 20 years during the time when Mangal Dass was its Mahant. His version is that Moorti of Baba Siri Chand and Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Dera. He has also testified with regard to the existence of one Smadh of Baba Surat Ram founder of the Dera in one room of the Dera. He has also stated that 5 others Smadhs are also located under one roof. He has further stated that he has not noticed the Nishan Sahib in this Dera. He has never seen Guru Granth Sahib being worshipped in this Dera. Bhagat Ram (PW-12) is the Mahant of Dharam Das which is situated in village Bada Pind, Tehsil Balachaur which is also a Dera of Udasi. He had visited the Dera in dispute many times during the last 25 years during the period of Mahant Mangal Dass. He has noticed Baba Siri Chand, Gola Sahib and Smadhs as objects of worship in this Dera. According to him room of Baba Siri Chand is located on the right of the Dera while the Smadhs of the founder is on its left side which is inside the room. The other 5-6 Smadhs are under one room and are situated outside the Dera at the distance of 30 yards. He has never seen Nishan Sahib over the Dera in dispute. He has maintained that Guru Granth Sahib is not worshipped in this Dera and has even not seen the Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib in the room located towards the right side of the gate of the Dera. 32. Kartar Singh (PW-13) is the Draftsman, who after visiting the Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan at Ladda had prepared the site plans Exs.P.13/A, P.13/B and P.13/C at the asking of the Mahant of the Institution. He had noticed one Smadh in the Dera which has been shown in the site plan Ex.P.13/A. Ex.P.13/A is in respect of a separate building located on a distance of one foot away from Dera. He also stated that one Smadh each was noticed by him at two places and four in another room. He admitted that the room marked X which he has described in the plan "Mahants sleeping room" contains 3 volumes each of Guru Granth Sahib. He also stated that one Smadh each was noticed by him at two places and four in another room. He admitted that the room marked X which he has described in the plan "Mahants sleeping room" contains 3 volumes each of Guru Granth Sahib. When he visited this Institution he did not find any article of Aarti in room marked W. In the other room described as Kota in the plan Ex.P.13/B, he has shown the placement of utensils and gunny bags. 33. To dislodge the evidence examined from the side of the petitioner, the respondents have examined witnesses RW-8 to RW-18. Jang Singh (RW-8) stated that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the only object of worship in this Gurdwara from the time immemorial and in particular Sri Guru Granth Sahib used to be worshipped in this Gurdwara on Puranmashi in the month of Kartik in connection with celebration of Sikh festivals. He had often been visiting gurdwara and had gone there on Akhand Path in the month of Phagun of last year. He claimed that there are 3-4 rooms and Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is located in the left side of the entrance. He categorically stated that no Smadh was noticed by him either inside or outside the Institution. 34. Sadhu Singh (RW-9) admitted that he had never gone inside the Institution and for that reason could not give details of the number of rooms in the Institution. His assertion that there may be Smadh within the precinct of the Gurdwara is based on assumption. 35. Sarwan Singh (RW-10) deposed that Guru Granth Sahib is the only object of worship in this Gurdwara and the Sikhs visit this Institution at the time of Bog ceremony of Dashmi and Puranmashi day in the month of Kartik. He had visited this Gurdwara 15 to 20 times. He had noticed 4 to 5 rooms in this Gurdwara but no Smadh was seen by him inside or outside the Gurdwara. At the same time, he stated that Parkash Asthan is located in right side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. 36. Balwant Singh (RW-11) had visited this Institution many a time. He stated that there are about 7 or 8 rooms in this Institution and the Parkash Asthan is located on the left side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. At the same time, he stated that Parkash Asthan is located in right side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. 36. Balwant Singh (RW-11) had visited this Institution many a time. He stated that there are about 7 or 8 rooms in this Institution and the Parkash Asthan is located on the left side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. He also testified that there are about 5 volumes of Sri Guru Granth Sahib which are kept open. He admitted that Smadhs of the Mahants are located outside the Gurdwara but could not say that these Smadhs are in the land of the Gurdwara. Soon after he corrected himself by saying that these Smadhs are situated in the Shamlat land. 37. Chhota Singh (RW-12) has stated that he had visited the Gurdwara in question many a times as his residence is located nearby. According to him there are 8-9 rooms in the building. The Parkash Asthan is located on the left side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. He has not seen any Smadh in the Gurdwara and to re-inforce his statement, he stated that "in fact I have not seen any Smadh in the Gurdwara. People say that there are Smadhs outside the village." 38. Inder Singh (RW-13) is a resident of village Akohi Sahib which is located at the distance of 2 miles from village Ladda. He claimed that he had been visiting this Institution for worship as the birthday of Guru Nanak Dev is celebrated on Gurpurab day in this Institution. At the same time, he admitted that he has been seeing Mangal Dass-petitioner for the last 45 years or so but he could not say whether he is an Udasi Sadhu. Further according to him there is no Smadh in the premises of the Institution. In cross-examination he further admitted that he had visited the Institution in dispute only once. His further assertion is that Parkash of Holi Guru Granth Sahib is performed in a room located on the first floor. 39. Nichhattar Singh (RW-14) testified that he was a resident of village Bhalwan which is situated at a distance of about 5 miles from this village. He deposed that Holy Guru Granth Sahib is placed in this Institution in a room located on the ground floor. He has not seen any Smadh of any Mahant either inside the building or outside the Dera. He deposed that Holy Guru Granth Sahib is placed in this Institution in a room located on the ground floor. He has not seen any Smadh of any Mahant either inside the building or outside the Dera. He admitted that he is a member of S.G.P.C. and had never known the petitioner to be Udasi Sadh as he has been taking him as a Sikh. 40. Ishar Singh (RW-15) is a resident of village Benra which is about one mile away from village Ladda. According to him, the Holy Guru Granth Sahib is the only object of worship kept in this Institution and Gurpurab is celebrated in this Institution on the birthday and death anniversary of the first Guru. He has not noticed any Smadh in the premises. The Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is done in a room located by the side of the entrance of the Institution. The petitioner as per his understanding may be a Sadhu. 41. Dr. Ganda Singh (RW-16) has admitted that he has not visited any of the Institutions established by Baba Bhagat Bhagwan. He has not uttered a word that he has seen the Institution in dispute. Therefore, he has no personal knowledge with regard to the nature of the Institution. 42. Shamsher Singh Ashok (RW-17) had edited Mahan Kosh and other Punjabi manuscripts but he had not visited the Institution in dispute. Therefore, his testimony is not of any hope with regard to the factual position of the Institution. 43. During the course of arguments it was pointedly urged by learned Counsel representing the petitioner that the Tribunal has not properly considered the statements of the witnesses examined from the side of the petitioner and also from the side of the respondent and the discrepancies which affected the credibility of the witnesses examined from the side of the respondent were totally ignored without any discussion and for that reason the findings of the majority members of the Tribunal recorded against the petitioner deserves to be rejected. In order to appreciate this submission notice has to be taken of the findings of the Tribunal. In order to appreciate this submission notice has to be taken of the findings of the Tribunal. After discussing the statements of Nachhattar Gir (PW-6), Chhota Singh (PW-7), Mohinder Singh (PW-8), Bira Singh (PW-9) and Lekh Ram (PW-10), the following conclusion was drawn :- "In view of the above admission of PW-6 to PW-10, no further proof, in our opinion, is needed for establishing the second requisite as to the user before and at the time of filing of the petition of the said Institution by the Sikhs for their public worship. However, the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent-Committee further amply shows that the said second requirement has also been fully established beyond an iota of doubt." 44. Thereafter evidence of respondent Jang Singh (RW-8) and Sadhu Singh (PW-9) and Balwant Singh (RW-11) and RW-10 to RW-15 were adverted to and the conclusions drawn thereafter read as under :- "The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain facts in the statements of RWs to show that there were some discrepancies in their statements and hence their credibility was open to doubt. We have carefully considered this submission of the learned Counsel and find that the evidence of the above witness is consistent and corroborative of each other on all the material points and their testimony has wholly proved beyond any manner of doubt that this Institution was used for public worship by the Sikhs before and at the time of the presentation of the petition, under Section 7(1) of the Act. The petitioner not only failed to allege any other mode of worship in his petition but has also failed to prove the same by any sufficient and cogent evidence. The assertions made by some of the PWs that Smadhis, Gola Sahib and pictorial image of Baba Siri Chand are the objects of worship in this Institution have no basis and seem to be an after-thought as noticed already. None of the documents placed on the record by the parties even remotely refers to the Smadhi worship or the worship of Gola Sahib or Moorti of Baba Siri Chand. Besides the statements of the above discussed RWs regarding the Sikh mode of worship upto date in the said Dera found full support and corroboration from the deposition of PWs-6 to 10 as already noticed earlier." 45. Besides the statements of the above discussed RWs regarding the Sikh mode of worship upto date in the said Dera found full support and corroboration from the deposition of PWs-6 to 10 as already noticed earlier." 45. It would be noticed from the above conclusion that the majority members of the Tribunal have misdirected themselves while appreciating the evidence adduced on the record and totally ignored the relevant evidence while arriving at the conclusion that the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara within the purview of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act of 1925, as would be seen for reasons stated hereinafter :- (i) It has come in the statements of the witnesses examined from the side of the petitioner that the Institution is an Udasi Dera and Surat Ram, the original founder of the Dera, was an Udasi Sadhu and the succession has always been from Guru to Chela which fact was even admitted by Pritam Singh (RW-1). Jang Singh (RW-8) had taken shelter of the plea of ignorance because he stated that he cannot say whether the petitioner is not an Udasi Sadhu. He has no guts to deny this fact. Balwant Singh (RW-11) has admitted that petitioner was Chela of Bishan Dass and at the same time stated that he is not an Udasi Sadhu. Chhota Singh (RW-12) has also stated that petitioner has succeeded Mahant Bishan Dass. Bishan Dass, who was an Udasi Sadhu, was the Mahant of this Dera. Inder Singh (RW-13) has no doubt stated that the petitioner was not an Udasi Sadhu. While Nachhattar Singh (RW-14) took a vague stand as he came out with the version that he had never known petitioner to be an Udasi Sadhu. Ishar Singh (RW-15) had no face to deny that the petitioner was an Udasi Sadhu and again came out with the explanation that he does not know about it. The statements of these witnesses have been referred to again in order to show as to what extent these witnesses of the respondent can go to take a contrary stand which was not even taken by the witnesses examined by them earlier. Therefore, from the evidence brought on record it is fully established that the Institution is an Udasi Dera and the succession to the Institution has been from Guru to Chela. Therefore, from the evidence brought on record it is fully established that the Institution is an Udasi Dera and the succession to the Institution has been from Guru to Chela. (ii) From the statements of the witnesses examined by the petitioner and noted earlier, it is manifest that they have taken a consistent and persistent stand that Guru Granth Sahib was recited in this Dera though not as a regular feature but on occasions as per requests made by the worshippers and sometime on Puranmashi day in the month of Kartik or on the occasion of Gurpurab. On the other hand witnesses examined from the side of the respondent have maintained that the Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is being regularly done in this Institution and during the course of their testimony they have described this Institution as Gurdwara. This Institution being a Dera of Udasian there is no justification to discard the statements of witnesses examined from the side of the petitioner that Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is not a regular feature. Even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is regularly performed in the Institution that would not per se establish the Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. Rather, we have already noticed in earlier part of this judgment that keeping and reciting of Guru Granth Sahib in the Udasi Institutions is not an uncommon feature. (iii) Sadhu Singh (RW-8), Sarwan Singh (RW-10), Balwant Singh (RW- 11), Chhota Singh (RW-12), Inder Singh (RW-13), Nachhattar Singh (RW-14) and Ishar Singh (RW-15) have stated that only Holy Guru Granth Sahib is worshipped in the Institution in dispute. The reliability of their version in this regard is open to doubt because Jang Singh has stated that Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib is performed in the room on the left side of the entrance, while Sadhu Singh has not gone inside the Institution. Sarwan Singh has stated that Parkash Asthan is located on the right side of the entrance of the Institution. According to Balwant Singh and Chhota Singh, Parkash Asthan is situated on the left side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. Inder Singh has totally contradicted the statements of above mentioned witnesses because he admitted that Parkash of Holy Guru Granth Sahib is in a room on the first floor. According to Balwant Singh and Chhota Singh, Parkash Asthan is situated on the left side of the entrance of the Gurdwara. Inder Singh has totally contradicted the statements of above mentioned witnesses because he admitted that Parkash of Holy Guru Granth Sahib is in a room on the first floor. So is the stand taken by Nachhattar Singh because he too maintains that Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib used to be done in a room on the ground floor but now a days on the first floor. Ishar Singh has not given the exact location of the room where Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is done. When the witnesses of the respondent maintain that only object of worship in the Institution is the Parkash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib then it is expected of them to know the exact place where it is so performed but strangely enough they have given contradictory statements in this regard. No doubt Lekh Ram (PW-10) has also stated that whenever Guru Granth Sahib is brought outside it is towards the right side of the entrance of the Dera but he has explained that room is not meant for the stay of Guru Granth Sahib. Therefore, his statement is of no help to the respondent in any way. So is the case of testimony of Bhagat Ram, who has also stated that he has not seen the Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib which is towards right side while entering the Dera. Apart from this, the stand taken from the side of the respondent that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the only object of worship in this Institution is belied from the overwhelming evidence on record. (iv) Nachhattar Gir (PW-6) has clearly stated that object of worship in this Dera is the Smadh, the Gola Sahib and Moorti of Baba Siri Chand. Chhota Singh has also stated that moorti and ashes are worshipped in this Institution and Mahants of this Dera are buried in the Smadhis. He has also stated that he had only seen one portrait in the Dera and the ashes have been collected at one place and are in the form of Dhooni. The statement of Chhota Singh has not been challenged in any manner in his cross-examination with regard to the facts testified by him. He has also stated that he had only seen one portrait in the Dera and the ashes have been collected at one place and are in the form of Dhooni. The statement of Chhota Singh has not been challenged in any manner in his cross-examination with regard to the facts testified by him. Therefore, merely because Nachhattar Gir has stated that the Smadhis are not within the precincts of Dera but across the Phirney would not in any manner affect the veracity of the statements with regard to the existence of Gola Sahib and Moorti of Bab Siri Chand. Even the testimony of Mohinder Singh with regard to worship of moorti of Baba Siri Chand and Gola Sahib and Smadhs in the Institution was not assailed in his cross-examination. He has also stated that whenever they visit Dera they bow before the moorti and about 10 or 11 Smadhs of the Mahants. The very fact that no efforts were made to seek any further basis for deposition in this regard is indicative of the fact that this position has been accepted by the respondent. The stand of Bira Ram to the extent that the moorti with garland around its neck, Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Institution and that Gola Sahib and bal of ashes are placed in front of the moorti on a platform i.e. Chowki was not questioned and dislodged from the side of the respondent is sufficient to destroy the case of the respondent. In fact in his answer to the Court question, he has further explained that Khartals are kept in one room where Guru Granth Sahib is recited occasionally. The version of Lekh Ram (PW-10) that moorti of Baba Siri Chand and Gola Sahib are worshipped in this Institution has gone unchallenged from the side of the respondent and for that reason deserves acceptance. The statements of Mahant Sewa Dass and Mahant Bhagat Ram are pointer to the fact that moorti of Baba Siri Chand, Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Dera. The statements of Mahant Sewa Dass and Mahant Bhagat Ram are pointer to the fact that moorti of Baba Siri Chand, Gola Sahib and Smadhs are worshipped in this Dera. Mahant Sewa Dass has also stated that one Smadhi of Surat Ram, who was founder of Dera, is in one room of the Dera and he is further corroborated by Kartar Singh, Draftsman who has stated that one Smadh has been shown by him in the site plan Ex.P.13/A. Therefore, in the face of the position explained in the statements of the witnesses, the stand of the witnesses examined by the respondent that only place of worship in this Institution is Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib as such cannot be accepted. (v) The most crucial fact which have great bearing on the stand of the respective parties is that there is no Nishan Sahib in the Dera. Mahant Sewa Dass and Mahant Bhagat Ram, PWs. have so stated in their statements, which statements were not questioned in their cross-examination. Therefore, it is firmly established that there is no Nishan Sahib in this Dera. 46. The above circumstances totally negate the stand of the respondent. The Honble Supreme Court in case Pritam Das Mahant v. S.G.P.C. (supra) had the occasion to notice the distinctive features of a Sikh Gurdwara and basis for establishment of an Institution as Sikh Gurdwara. Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment are as under :- "13. Temples are found almost in every religion but there are some differences between the Sikh temples and those of other religions. The Sikh Gurdwaras have the following distinctive features : (1) Sikh temples are not the place of idol worship as the Hindu temples are. There is no place for idol worship in a Gurdwara. The central object of worship in a Gurdwara is Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book. The pattern of worship consists of two main items; reading of the holy hymns followed by their explanation by some learned man, not necessarily a particular Granthi and then singing of some passages from the Holy Granth. The former is called Katha and the second is called Kirtan. A Sikh thus worships the Holy Words that are written in the Granth Sahib, the Words or Shabads about the Eternal Truth or God. No idol or painting of any Guru can be worshipped. The former is called Katha and the second is called Kirtan. A Sikh thus worships the Holy Words that are written in the Granth Sahib, the Words or Shabads about the Eternal Truth or God. No idol or painting of any Guru can be worshipped. (2) Sikh worship in the Gurdwara is a congregational worship, whereas Hindu temples are meant for individual worship. A Sikh does the individual worship at home when he recites Gurbani daily. Some scriptures meant for this purpose are Japji, Jaap, Rehras, Kirtan Sohila. Sangat is the collective body of Sikhs who meet every day in the Gurdwara. (3) Gurdwara is a place where a copy of Guru Granth Sahib is installed. The unique and distinguishing feature would always be the Nishan Sahib, a flagstaff with a yellow flag of Sikhism flying from it. This serves as a symbol of the Sikh presence. It enabled the travellers, whether they be Sikhs or not, to know where hospitality is available. There may be complexity of rooms in a Gurdwara for the building may also serve as a school, or where children are taught the rudiments of Sikhism as well as a rest centre for travellers. Often there will be a kitchen where food can be prepared though langar itself might take place in the yawning. Sometimes the Gurdwara will also be used as a clinic. But its pivotal point is the place of worship and the main room will be that in which the Guru Granth Sahib is installed where the community gathers for diwan. The focal point in this room will be the book itself. 14. From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the sine qua non for an Institution being a Sikh Gurdwara is that there should be established Guru Granth Sahib and the worship of the same by the congregation, and a Nishan Sahib as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. There may be other rooms of the Institution meant for other purposes but the crucial test is the existence of Guru Granth Sahib and the worship thereof by the congregation and Nishan Sahib. It is not necessary that there must be a granthi in a Gurdwara. There may be other rooms of the Institution meant for other purposes but the crucial test is the existence of Guru Granth Sahib and the worship thereof by the congregation and Nishan Sahib. It is not necessary that there must be a granthi in a Gurdwara. Any learned person can read Guru Granth Sahib and explain to the congregation." Taking into account the facts brought on record in that case, it was held that the following facts disapprove the stand of S.G.P.C. :- (a) There are smadhis on the premises of the Institution; (b) There are idols and photos of Hindu deities and also of Baba Siri Chand; (c) Bhai Bhathu was an Udasi Saint; and (d) Succession was from Guru to Chela. 47. What has been described above, the same is the position brought out in the evidence on record from the side of the petitioner. Undoubtedly the Institution in question is not a Sikh Gurdwara. Therefore, on the basis of the detailed examination of the material on record, we are of the view that both the essentials of Sections 16(iii) of the Act that the Institution in question was established for use by Sikhs for the purpose of worship and was used by the Sikhs for public worship both before and at the time of presentation of the petition as laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1925 are not proved on record. 48. Coming to the other issues raised in the appeal, to prove the requirement of Section 16(2)(iv) of the Act of 1925 both the parties have not only examined oral and documentary evidence but primarily sought to support the stand from the facts of history as are available in the books authored by various persons. Necessary ingredients of clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act of 1925 are as under :- (a) That Institution was established in the memory of Sikh martyr, saint or historical person; and (b) That the Institution was used for public worship by Sikhs before and at the time of presenting the petition under sub-section (ii) of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1925. 49. The ingredient (b) noticed above is common to prove the requirement of clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 16. 49. The ingredient (b) noticed above is common to prove the requirement of clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 16. In the petition filed by Mahant Mangal Dass under Section 8 of the Act definite stand has been taken by him that Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi Saint and the Institution was established in his memory. This stand of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent. Therefore, centre of the controversy is around the issue whether Bhagat Bhagwan was a Sikh saint or an Udasi saint. At the first instance, the matter needs to be examined from the historical point of view as propounded by both the sides. Hazards to rely on a historical research to decide such like question before the Court of law have been noticed by the Privy Council in case Hem Singh v. Basant Dass (supra) wherein it was observed at page 101 as under :- "Their Lordships are well aware that for the purpose of historical research and criticism upon such subjects, the procedure of a Court of law is not ideal; but when they are asked to hold that this Institution was established for use by Sikhs, their answer must be that from what the evidence in this case discloses (no such probability can be discerned)." 50. Majority as well as minority members of the Tribunal have relied heavily on the observations made by Max Arthur Macauliffe Treatises on the Sikh religion. The relevant portion on which reliance has been placed is incorporated at page 288, Volume-IV of the book tilted "The Sikh Religion" wherein life of Guru Har Rai, who was the seventh Guru has been detailed. Reference has also been made to Shri Bhagat Bhagwan in the following terms :- "There was a Sanyasi called Bhagwan Giri, who, in order to obtain spiritual consolation, went to visit the Guru in Kiratpur. The Guru advised him to proceed to Dera Baba Nanak and join the Udasis there. This was tantamount to ordering Bhagwan Gir to relinquish his sect, for the Sanyasis worship Dattatre, while the Udasis have as their Guru Sri Chand, the eldest son of Guru Nanak. The Mahant at Dera Baba Nanak at that time was Mehar Chand, the great-grandson of Guru Nanak. The Guru commended Mehar Chand as a man of piety. Bhagwan Gir acted on the Gurus advice. The Mahant at Dera Baba Nanak at that time was Mehar Chand, the great-grandson of Guru Nanak. The Guru commended Mehar Chand as a man of piety. Bhagwan Gir acted on the Gurus advice. He prostrated himself before Mehar Chand, and received from him initiation, and the name Bhagat Bhagwan, or saint of God. Bhagwan Gir then travelled in various countries as a missionary, but without any success. He was not wanting in energy or eloquence, but no one would heed him or listen to his exhortations. Disheartened he returned to Mehar Chand to report his failure. Mehar Chand told him that, if he had desired to become a priest, he ought to have received initiation from Guru Har Rai who was the real Guru, and to have solicited his orders before proceeding on his mission. It was, however, not yet too late, Bhagat Bhagwan might even now go to the Guru and crave his blessing. On appearing before the Guru, Bhagat Bhagwan began to weep and repent of his error in not having asked his permission before he had set up as a teacher. The Guru cheerfully pardoned him, and said that he had now become acceptable in Gods court. The Guru directed him to go to Hindustan and reform its people. He was not to hide his light, but put it in a conspicuous place to illumine mens minds. The Guru promised that he should be everywhere well received, and that his preaching should be heartily accepted. Bhagat Bhagwan proceeded on his mission and irrigated with the water of his instruction the dried and shirvelled hearts of his Hindustani hearers. His disciples are now prosperous land-owners in the north of India." 51. Majority and minority members of the Tribunal have also referred to the events recorded relating to the relevant period in Sri Guru Partap Suraj Granth popularly known as "Guru Parkash". This Granth was compiled by Kavi Churamani Bhai Santokh Singh in 1943 A.D. It records the various incidents touching the lives of Sikh Gurus, their disciples and other eminent Sikhs who contributed and propagated the teachings of the Gurus recorded in poetic composition. While making reference to Bhagat Bhagwan it has been stated that he was Bhagat Gir Sanyasi. This Granth was compiled by Kavi Churamani Bhai Santokh Singh in 1943 A.D. It records the various incidents touching the lives of Sikh Gurus, their disciples and other eminent Sikhs who contributed and propagated the teachings of the Gurus recorded in poetic composition. While making reference to Bhagat Bhagwan it has been stated that he was Bhagat Gir Sanyasi. During the course of his country-wide sojourn, he also came to Punjab and observed that the masses worshipped seventh Guru Sri Har Rai Sahib ji as representative of God. His interaction with the people of Punjab endured him so much that he charted his future course of life to become a saint if he was blessed with Darshan of the Guru in the form and figure of Chaturbhuj (four armed deity). His meeting with seventh Guru recorded in verses in the books extracted in the judgment under challenge clearly brings out that he was motivated to meet Baba Mehar Chand a direct descendant of Guru Nanak Dev who was gifted with the divine power. After meeting Mehar Chand at Dera Baba Nanak, he got "Satnam Mantra" and Udasi dress from him. His name was changed from Bhagat Gir to Bhagat Bhagwan. Subsequently be visited different parts of the country for preaching the path and teachings of Guru but was unsuccessful which in turn made him return to Baba Mehar Chand to report his failure in the mission undertaken by him who again guided him to go back to seventh Guru to seek clarity of his misgivings. Thereafter he met seventh Guru and this meeting brought transformation in him. He was accepted by the Guru in Sikh fold which put him on the path of preaching Sikh religion. 52. The text recorded in this book further reveals that wherever he stayed, he constructed a Kutti (the place of abode) to enable the followers to remember Guru Har Rai Sahib. He also initiated the masses to follow the path of Guru. He travelled extensively in the eastern regions of the country to explain the tenets of Sikhism. 53. Taking notice of the reference made to Bhagat Bhagwan in in other books, the minority member of the Tribunal observed as under :- "The learned Counsel for the S.G.P.C. has also referred to a book known as "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya" published in 1959. 53. Taking notice of the reference made to Bhagat Bhagwan in in other books, the minority member of the Tribunal observed as under :- "The learned Counsel for the S.G.P.C. has also referred to a book known as "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya" published in 1959. At pages 185 to 216 of this book the meeting of Bhagat Bhagwan with the 7th Guru has been described as given in another book known as, "Mehima Parkash" written by Baba Sarup Dass Bhalla which version is almost the same as given in "Suraj Parkash". At page 191 of the book, "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya", the genealogical table of the family of Bhagat Bhagwan is given. According to it, Bhagat Bhagwan was succeeded by his Chela Baba Tikka Ram, who was succeeded by his Chela Baba Tola Ram and so on. Reference was then made to the book, "Udasi Mat Darpan". It was compiled in the year 1923, by Baba Brahma Nand Udasi, wherein at pages 91 to 98 the description of Bhagwan Gir has been given as below :- "A gosain Sadhu by the name of Bhagat Gir accompanied by a big contingent of his followers came to this part of the country for having Darshan of Goddess Hinglaj. When he reached near the Dera of Guru Nanak, a famous Udasi Faqir, he wanted to test the divine powers of his congregation. Shri Dharam Chand Ji a grand son of Guru Nanak was residing in the Dera at that time and he sent his emissaries to greet and serve food to the said Sadhus. Bhagat Ji asked them to first fill his Chipi (mendicants pot) and serve the rest to the members of his contingent. Food including Krah Parshad was put in large quantity in the Chipi but the same, obviously due to the miraculous powers of the Bhagat, could not be filled. At this Dharam Chand Ji arrived at the spot and after uttering the name of Vaheguru, himself put an iota of Krah Parshad in the Chipi and the same was full to the brim. Bhagat Gir was deeply impressed by this divine power of the grandson of the Guru. At this Dharam Chand Ji arrived at the spot and after uttering the name of Vaheguru, himself put an iota of Krah Parshad in the Chipi and the same was full to the brim. Bhagat Gir was deeply impressed by this divine power of the grandson of the Guru. Bhagat and his party kept awaking throughout that night in front of the Dera of Guru Nanak and to their great surprise, they saw that the Goddess Hinglaj also appeared there of her own accord and paid homage to the Gurus place. Seeing this miracle, the Bhagat decided to change his old name, dress and creed and became a chela of Dharam Chand after adopting the name of Bhagat Bhagwan, he came to be called Nanak Shahi Sadhu. His Gurbhais, chelas and other followers also came to be known as Nanak Shahi Sadhus..........." 54. It was further observed that the reference to Bakhshish of Baba Bhagat Bhagwan in the book "Guru Tirath Sangrash" compiled in 1883 and published in 1884 has not been shown to be that of Guru Har Rai but was Bakhshish of some of the other Guru and that of Dharam Chand. The reason which prevailed upon the minority member of the Tribunal in not accepting the version of the contesting respondent are categorised as under :- "(i) "The pedigree table given in this book "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya" does not tally with the pedigree table mentioned in the revenue record, copies of which are Exs. P.4 and P.5 which carries a presumption of truth under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act. Moreover the book "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya" was published by S.G.P.C. in 2016 B.K. corresponding to 1959 A.D. which is one by interested party. Even otherwise, it has been recorded that Bhagat Bhagwan was succeeded by his Chela whereas succession through Chela to Sikh Saint is unknown. In this book Bhagat Bhagwan has been described as Udasi Sadhu. (ii) The detailed account relating to Bhagat Bhagwan in the books "Sikh Religion" published and compiled in 1883, "Suraj Parkash" and "Mahima Parkash" is similar with regard to the meeting of Bhagat Gir as noticed earlier does not indicate that his meeting with seventh Guru had made him a Sikh or a disciple of the seventh Guru. (ii) The detailed account relating to Bhagat Bhagwan in the books "Sikh Religion" published and compiled in 1883, "Suraj Parkash" and "Mahima Parkash" is similar with regard to the meeting of Bhagat Gir as noticed earlier does not indicate that his meeting with seventh Guru had made him a Sikh or a disciple of the seventh Guru. (Emphasis supplied) (iii) There is nothing in the historical books "Mahima Parkash" and "Suraj Parkash" that Guru Bhagat Bhagwan preached Sikhism. Merely construction of Kutti at the places where he visited is not indicative of Preaching Sikhism. The book "Guru Tirath Sangrash" published and compiled in 1883 contains the reference to the Bakhshishes but there is no reference to the Bakhshish given to Bhagat Bhagwan by Guru Har Rai ji and for that reason the conclusion can be drawn that Bhagat Bhagwan was not a Sikh. (iv) Dealing with the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent, it was observed as under :- "It was also contended by the counsel for the S.G.P.C. that the version given in the book, "Udasi Mat Darpan" that Bhagat Bhagwan became Chela of Siri Chand is historically incorrect as Siri Chand had died in 1682 whereas Guru Har Rai Ji was born in 1687. His contention is that Bhagat Bhagwan met Guru Har Rai Ji, who got the Gaddi in 1644 A.D. and Siri Chand had died by that time. His argument seems to be correct that in case Siri Chand had died and Guru Har Rai Sahib got the Gaddi in the year 1644 A.D. and Bhagat Bhagwan came to the side of Punjab during the reign of Guru Har Rai Ji, but this does not mean that Bhagat Bhagwan became Sikh by meeting Guru Har Rai Ji." (v) The followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had formed a separate Udasi Sect which amply shows that Bhagat Bhagwan did not preach Sikhism. 55. On the basis of above conclusions a definite finding was arrived at by the minority member that Bhagat Bhagwan was not a Sikh saint. Reliance was also placed on the observation made in case Bawa Ishar Das v. Dr. Mohan Singh and others, AIR 1939 Lahore 239 and it was held that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had claimed him to be Udasi as far back as in the year 1938 which fully supports the case of the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the observation made in case Bawa Ishar Das v. Dr. Mohan Singh and others, AIR 1939 Lahore 239 and it was held that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had claimed him to be Udasi as far back as in the year 1938 which fully supports the case of the petitioner. No fault, in our view, can be found with the above conclusions drawn by the minority member of the Tribunal. 56. Entirely converse has been the approach of the majority members of the Tribunal in this regard. They have taken notice of the account relating to Bhagat Bhagwan given in book "Siri Guru Panth Sahib" written by Gyani Gian Singh and "Twarikh Guru Khalsa" Volume-I published by the Language Department of Punjab in 1970. Dealing with Bhagat Bhagwan in the later book in para 8 at page 622 of the book, it is stated as under :- "In 1707 B.K. Bhagat Gir Gusain Mahant of Bodh Gaya while going for Darshan of Jawalamukhi alongwith his followers and other Mahants heard about the fame of the Guru and halted at Kiratpur. He decided in his mind that in case the Guru, whom the Sikhs regard as an Avtar, gave him Darshan in the form and figure of Vishnu Ji and treated him with some good food, then he will regard Guru Ji as passed (possessed ?) of Supernatural powers. It is written in Ressnaumi, (9th chapter) when they came for Darshan they saw Guru Ji as an exact figure of Vishnu Ji and they were treated with Karah Parshad. After hearing the second address of Guru Ji, their minds turned towards the Guru like the mind of cuckoo and they fell at the feet of Guru Ji and prayed for being accepted as Sikhs. Guru Ji after seeing their intense devotion and faith gave them Charanamrit and administered them Satnam (True name) and addressed them as thus :- "Bhagat Bhagwan Dargahi Parwan". From that very moment Bhagat Gir became to be known by the name of Bhagat Bhagwan and he and his companions all became Sadhus of Guru Ghar. They have 360 Deras in Patna District and the main seat of Bhagat Bhagwan is in Danapur. They remained with Guru Ji for sometimes enjoyed Satsang and learnt Sikhi maryada i.e. Sikh-way of life. They have 360 Deras in Patna District and the main seat of Bhagat Bhagwan is in Danapur. They remained with Guru Ji for sometimes enjoyed Satsang and learnt Sikhi maryada i.e. Sikh-way of life. Instead of going to Jawalamukhi they performed the pilgrimage of Dehra Baba Nanak and after meeting Bedi Mehar Chand, went back to their own country-side and spread Sikhism far and wide." 57. Description of Bhagat Bhagwan narrated in verses recorded in "Panth Parkash", published in 1935 B.K. (1871 A.D.), refers to the visit of Bhagat Gir Sadhu to Kiratpur. On the basis of reference given in "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithya" and tradition as mentioned in "Mahima Parkash" written by Baba Sarup Dass Bhalla, it was concluded that ancient account tallies in all material aspects with the version given in "Suraj Parkash" and Macauliffes Sikh History. While taking cue from the narration given in "Guru Udasi Mat Darpan" written by Udasi Sadhu Pandit Brahma Nand reliance has been placed in respect of the account given in Mahan Kosh Volume IV written by Bhai Kahan Singh of Nabha. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the majority members of the Tribunal in this regard and the same reads as under :- "The learned author of this work claims to have spent about 15 years on collecting the material for compiling the Kosh which was finally published in 1930. According to this account Bhagat Bhagwan whose real name was Bhagwan Gir Sanyasi and who was a famous Sadhu in Bihar and east became a Sikh of Guru Har Rai Sahib. Again according to the narration given at page 750, Volume I of this Mahan Kosh, Baba Siri Chand was born in Bhadon 1551 Sambat (1494 A.D.) and died in Assuj 1660 Sambat (1612 A.D.) at page 3320, Volume 4 of the said Mahan Kosh, a table is given in respect of the Bedi Wansh of Guru Nanak, showing his various descendants upto date. According to this table Baba Dharam Chand, the grand-son of Guru Nanak was born in 1523 A.D. and died in 1618 A.D. According to Macauliffe, Guru Har Rai Sahib, the 7th Sikh Guru was born in Magh Sambat 1687 (1631 A.D.) and he closed his eyes in Divine pleasure and attained the eternal rest in Kartik 1718, that is, 1661 A.D. This era clearly corresponds with the period when Baba Mehar Chand was alive and was acting as a Mahant of Dera Baba Nanak on the strength of these dates and facts, it can be safely concluded that the theory of Udasis claiming Bhagat Bhagwan as Chela of Baba Siri Chand or Baba Dharam Chand, could not stand the test of historical analysis and research and thus stands completely negatived. In this connection, a reference can be made to a very relevant date given at page 225 of the above mentioned "Darpan" by Pt. Brahma Nanad above mentioned. Under the caption "Asthan Ladda, Post Office Dhuri, Patiala Estate", it is stated that the said shrine was founded by Baba Surat Ram in Sambat 1732 B.K. (1675 A.D.). This date also lends considerable support to the contention put forward on behalf of the committee that Bhagat Bhagwan and his followers were initiated into the Sikh fold by the 7th Guru Shri Har Rai Sahib and not into the Udasi fold by Baba Siri Chand. The counsel for the committee also emphasized that the author of the "Darpan" who had persistently tried to give tainted and distorted version of the Sikh history, had admitted this much at least that Bhagat Bhagwan alongwith his Chelas grand-Chelas and other followers adopted the path of Guru Nanak and thereafter they all became to be known as Nanak Shahi Sadhus, in other words, Bhagat Bhagwan and other members of his contingent all became converts to Sikh religion, and thereafter acted as preachers and missionaries of their new faith." 58. The majority members also dealt with the Sixth Bakhshishes mentioned by author of "Guru Udasin Mat Darpan". The majority members also dealt with the Sixth Bakhshishes mentioned by author of "Guru Udasin Mat Darpan". The author had claimed Bakhshishes to be of the Udasi order and at the same time had stated at pages 521-524 of the said book that Bakhshishes of Suthre Shahi and Sangat Sahib was conferred by seventh Guru while Bakhshishes of Jit Mal and Bakhat Mal were conferred by the tenth Guru and that of Mihan Shahi was conferred by the ninth Guru. The majority members pointed out that the only departure that the author has sought to make from the popular book is in respect of the Bakhshish of Bhagat Bhagwan and gave prominence to the note wherein it was recorded that according to some of the writers this Bakhshish was also conferred by Shri Guru Har Rai Sahib. This conclusion was drawn despite the fact that no reference was made to the writers who had provided the basis for note so recorded. Attention of the members of the Tribunal was drawn to the observation made in the case Ram Parshad and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and others, AIR 1931 Lahore 161. An effort was made by the majority members to explain that the observation recorded that "these Bakhshishes were conferred more or less indiscriminately" were made and taken notice because of the fact that Sangat Sahib had been included as Sikh Gurdwara in Schedule-I appended to the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. This was done in order to show the basis for distinction made in the four Dhunas of the Udasis. Support was also sought from the observation made in case Brahm Das v. Tarlok Singh and others, AIR 1937 Lahore 273 in order to indicate the importance of the conferment of the Bakhshishes on the Sikh Saints in Mihan Sahib. On the basis of above noticed circumstances, it was concluded that Bhagat Bhagwan, after receiving blessings from the sixth Guru, became a Sikh historical person and Sikh Saint. This conclusion, in our view, is based on his misreading of historical data extracted from the books and cases referred to above. 59. Before proceeding further we would advert to the cases, reference to which has been made above. This conclusion, in our view, is based on his misreading of historical data extracted from the books and cases referred to above. 59. Before proceeding further we would advert to the cases, reference to which has been made above. In Ram Parshad and others v. S.G.P.C., Amritsar and others (supra), the dispute related to the religious Institutions situated at Manak in Lahore District, which as per the stand of one party was a Gurdwara and the same was described by the other party as Dera of Bhai Prithi Sahib. This Institution had about 700 acres of land attached to it and supported a Langar, providing food, to Udasis and others. On the marked day every year a fair used to be held which was attended by large section of people on the first day of Hindu month of Magh. 60. Another question raised from the historical point of view was focussed on the sub-divisions of Udasi order. The relevant observations are contained at page 164 which read as under :- "It appears that there were four dhunas and six bakhshishes, the connection between the two however now being made clear. The dhunas, said to have been founded by Chelas of Gurditta, were called after Baba Almast, Babas Hasna, Phul Ji and Gobind Ji. Some of these were at one time Sikhs, but the very fact that they joined the Udasi order would indicate that they no longer remained Sikhs. The subject has been examined by the learned President of the Tribunal at two places in his judgment (Part I, p. 259, lines 10 to 23 and from p. 261, line 36 to p. 262, line 41). As stated there, the general conclusion is that, on the one hand, the fact of some dhunas being founded by persons who were originally Sikhs is of no great importance, and on the other hand bakhshishes were conferred more or less indiscriminately and do not help towards an answer of the question before us." 61. The above observation leaves no manner of doubt that the conferment of Bakhshishes was not given any prominence to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the Institution was a Gurdwara which was established for the use by Sikhs for the purpose of arriving at a finding where Gurdwara was established in memory of the Sikh Saint and is used for the pubic worship by the Sikhs. Basically, on the facts adduced on record it was held that Dera of Prithi Parshad Manak was not a Sikh Gurdwara within the purview of Section 16(2) of the Act of 1925. 62. Coming to the case of Brahm Das v. Tarlok Singh and others (supra), dispute agitated was whether the Institution was a Gurdwara of Baba Mihan Sahib so as to claim it as Sikh Gurdwara or it was an Udasi Institution. One of the questions raised was as to whether Guru Baba Mihan Sahib was a Sikh historical person and it was in his memory after his death that this Institution was founded. The dissenting member of the Tribunal has admitted that in the historical work he was called as Sikh but at the same time he felt that he must have become as an Udasi as his followers were Udasis. It was noticed in the judgment that Mihan Sahib, who had been described as a Sikh was blessed by Guru Teg Bahadur and was given a robe of honour while it was promised to him that he should be a Mahant or superior of a religious order. The Guru put his hand on his head and blessed him and presented him with a bullock, a drum and a banner to grace his new position. There was a detailed account of Mihan Sahib in the Sri Guru Panth Parkash of Giani Gian Singh at page 1055 where it was mentioned that he was called Rama Deva and was a Waterman or bhishti. He used to serve his Guru as noted in this judgment and further visited the tenth Guru Gobind Singh at Anandpur Sahib. The Guru was so pleased with him that he gave him half of his own turban and further restored the drum which was taken away from him initially. Therefore, a finding was recorded that he was not only blessed by the ninth but also by the tenth Guru of the Sikhs. Another definite finding recorded is that there is nothing to show that Mihan Sahib was ever an Udasi and rather it was conclusively established that he was a Sikh who made converts to Sikhism, and was blessed by the ninth Guru. In these circumstances, the Institution in question was held to be Sikh Gurdwara. 63. The facts of these cases have no bearing whatsoever qua the facts of the present case. 64. In these circumstances, the Institution in question was held to be Sikh Gurdwara. 63. The facts of these cases have no bearing whatsoever qua the facts of the present case. 64. Coming to the other case Bawa Ishar Das v. Dr. Mohan Singh and others (supra), the plaintiffs, who were Udasi Sadhus, had filed a suit after seeking permission under Section 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to claim that Dharamsala known as Baba Sidqi Das in Gujranwala city was an Udasi Institution as it was found by the Udasis. In this case Baba Ishar Das, Chela of Mahant Jai Parkash was the last Mahant. After he died, defendants No. 1 to 4, and the father of defendant No. 5, took possession of the Dharamsala and its attached properties as trustees. Apart from other things one of the pleas taken by the plaintiffs in that case was that worship in the said Dharamsala should be conducted in future according to the rites of Bhagat Bhagwan of Udasi Sect. A petition under Section 8 of the Act of 1925 was also filed. After analysing the evidence brought on record the pertinent observation made in the judgment reads as under :- "There is no doubt that all the evidence in this case is of a partisan nature and not very trustworthy, but it has been established that the Mahants have all along been Udasis, that the Institution was an Udasi monastery, that the Guru Granth Sahib was read there by the Udasi Mahant and that Sikhs may have attended these readings but that all other ceremonies, observed by Udasis and Hindus, were performed at the Institution. It cannot be held from the mere fact that the Udasis also read the Guru Granth Sahib, a book which they do venerate, that the Sikhs should be associated in the management of this genuine Udasi Institution. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Arjan Singh v. Inder Das, 1543 Lahore 247 that the Udasi order constitutes a separate sect, distinct from the orthodox Sikhs and that though they have retained many Hindu beliefs and practices, yet in the wider sense of the term they may also be Sikhs. They occupy an intermediate position between strictly orthodox Sikhs and Hindus. They occupy an intermediate position between strictly orthodox Sikhs and Hindus. The Udasis are in fact a monastic order in their origin and are followers of Baba Siri Chand, son of the first Guru. Though they worship smadhs, etc. they do reverence the Granth Sahib without completely renouncing Hinduism. They are often in charge of the village Dharamsala or Gurdwara, which is a Sikh Institution, but in other cases the Sadh and his chelas constitute a monastery or college. Owing to their intermediate position, it is possible for Udasis to be in-charge of a Sikh Gurdwara, properly so-called, but it does not follow that the Institution is a Sikh Gurdwara and not a true Udasi Institution merely because the Guru Granth Sahib is read. In fact, it cannot be said that the Sikh religion was founded as such until the time of the tenth Guru, whereas Udasis separated themselves about the time of the death of the first Guru. The subject has also been discussed by their Lordships of the Privy Council; see Hem Singh v. Basant Das, 17 Lahore 146. At page 168 their Lordships said : "Parallel with the growth of this movement there seems from the time of Siri Chand, Nanaks son, to have been 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 to the veneration of smadhs or tombs, and continued the Hindu rites concerning birth, marriage and shradh....... 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." On these authorities, it is clearly established in the present case that this is an Udasi Institution and that the Sikhs have nothing to do with it except that they may have gone there to listen to the reading of the Sikh scriptures, which is also done by the Udasis." 65. The significance of the above judgment cannot be ignored because it was judicially accepted as far back as in 1939 that the stand of the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan that he was an Udasi was correct. The significance of the above judgment cannot be ignored because it was judicially accepted as far back as in 1939 that the stand of the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan that he was an Udasi was correct. An effort was made by the counsel representing the contesting respondent to come out of the force of the above mentioned judgment primarily on the ground that filing of the suit by the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to conduct worship in future in accordance with the rites of Bhagat Bhagwan would not justify a conclusion that Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi and not a Sikh. The ultimate finding recorded in the above judgment was sought to be brushed aside because in the above mentioned case no material was placed on the record to support the plea taken by the plaintiffs that Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi and moreover if the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had chosen to follow the different path than of their master by describing themselves as Udasis as is made out from the judgment that would not in any manner support the stand of the petitioner. We find hardly any merit in the submission made. The very base of the suit filed by the plaintiffs was that they should be permitted to carry on the worship in the said Dharamsala in accordance with the rites of Bhagat Bhagwan and the definite finding of the Bench was that the Institution was an Udasi Institution and Sikhs had nothing to do with it except that they may have gone there to listen to the reading of the Sikh scriptures which is also done by Udasis. Therefore, in view of the above position of law, there is a definite merit in the stand taken by the petitioner in this case. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the historical data and above judicial pronouncement negate the conclusions arrived at by the majority members of the Tribunal. 66. Reverting back to the oral evidence led by the parties in respect of this controversy, at the first instance, we would notice the evidence of Dr. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the historical data and above judicial pronouncement negate the conclusions arrived at by the majority members of the Tribunal. 66. Reverting back to the oral evidence led by the parties in respect of this controversy, at the first instance, we would notice the evidence of Dr. Ganda Singh (RW-16), Shamsher Singh (RW-17) and Randhir Singh (RW-18), who are claimed to have been experts in Sikhs History, having acquired knowledge on the basis of research carried out by them, which is reflected in the various books authored by them. Dr. Ganda Singh (RW-16) in the course of his testimony had claimed that he was conferred the degree of Ph.D. by the Punjab University in History and had got the degree of Doctorate of Literature from Aligarh University. He had worked as Director Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala as well. He had been the Principal of Khalsa College, Patiala from 1952 to 1963 and had remained in service of Pepsu Government as Director of Archives of Patiala and also Head of the Department of Sikh History at Khalsa College, Amritsar during the period from 1931 to 1949. He has also pointed out about the various books authored by him. According to him Baba Siri Chand was founder of Udasi Bhekh and Baba Gurditta was the only Chela of Baba Siri Chand. According to him Baba Gurditta was the eldest son of Guru Hargobind. Baba Gurditta had four chelas, who were Baba Phul, Baba Almast, Baba Gobind and Baba Hansa. He has also stated that there are four Dhunas known after these Chelas. Baba Almast established a Dera in Nainital District and this Dera is called as Nanak Matta and this Institution was so known because Guru Nanak had visited this place and the founder of this Dera followed the precepts of Guru Nanak. With regard to other Chelas of Baba Gurditta they had established Deras in different places, but could not render account in respect of these Deras because of lapse of memory on his part. While describing Bhagat Bhagwan, he has narrated about the knowledge which he gathered from the books i.e. "Glossary of Castes and Tribes Vol. III, Pages 479-80 (Rosa Edition); Macauliffes Sikh Religion Vol. IV Pages 288-89, Gurpartap by Bhai Vir Singh Vol. IX pages 3574-79; Gurpartap Vol. While describing Bhagat Bhagwan, he has narrated about the knowledge which he gathered from the books i.e. "Glossary of Castes and Tribes Vol. III, Pages 479-80 (Rosa Edition); Macauliffes Sikh Religion Vol. IV Pages 288-89, Gurpartap by Bhai Vir Singh Vol. IX pages 3574-79; Gurpartap Vol. V. page 1331 and Bhai Randhir Singhs work known as "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia" published by the S.G.P.C. Despite knowledgeable background, it is somewhat surprising that his own research work had not been able to pin-point what was the preaching of Bhagat Bhagwan. It would be relevant to notice here the statement made by him in cross-examination which reads as under :- "I do not know who was the preceptor (Guru) of Bhagat Gir when he was Sanyasi but he was a follower of Dutta Traya though he had lived long before Bhagat Giri. Bhagat Bhagwan was not a Chela of Baba Siri Chand directly. I have written no historical book on Udasis as such I have not seen any painting of Baba Bhagat Bhagwan and cannot say whether he had long keshes and grew beard. Bhagat Bhagwan might have had Chelas but I have not come across their names in any book except Bhai Randhir Singhs wherein he has given names of the Chelas but I do not recollect them. I have not come across any writing wherein Bhagat Bhagwan is stated to have met directly Baba Siri Chand going to pilgrimage of Devi (Goddess). Nor did I find that Baba Siri Chand adopted Bhagat Bhagwan as Chela. I cannot say whether Bhagat Bhagwan was an Udasi by faith. I cannot give details how he received his spiritual perception (Guidance) from Guru Har Rai and Baba Mehar Chand and then again from Guru Har Rai. He was in fact a Sikh by faith as the Sikhism then was. I have not come across any writing of Bhagat Bhagwan. I do not know where he died. The same is my reply about his age. I cannot say off hand without referring to the books whether the 6th Guru visited Ladda. The same is my reply regarding the 7th Guru I have not visited any of the Institutions established by Baba Bhagat Bhagwan." 67. His admission about the facts which have come in his cross-examination clearly indicate that his statement is not of any help to support the stand of the respondent. 68. The same is my reply regarding the 7th Guru I have not visited any of the Institutions established by Baba Bhagat Bhagwan." 67. His admission about the facts which have come in his cross-examination clearly indicate that his statement is not of any help to support the stand of the respondent. 68. Shri Shamsher Singh Ashok (RW-17) has sated that he had studied upto F.A. standard of the Punjab University and claims to be conversant with six languages, namely. English, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Hindi, Persian and Urdu. He was appointed as Research Scholar of Sikh History in the Sikh National College, Lahore in 1943 A.D. After partition of the country he came to Amritsar and then to Patiala. The Patiala Durbar appointed him a Lexicographer-cum- Translator in the Punjabi Department from where he retired in 1963. Thereafter, he joined S.G.P.C. as Sikh History Research Scholar in 1964 A.D. He claims that he has written in all 36 books on Sikh History, Punjabi Culture, Punjabi, Hindi and Religious Literature. He has also edited one Volume of Mahan Kosh. He has explained in his statement that after Mughal period the management of the Sikh Gurdwaras remained with the Udasi Sadhus. According to him Bhagat Bhagwan to begin with was a Sanyasi of Giri Sect and was commonly known as Bhagwan Gir. He has claimed that Bhagat Bhagwan was a Sikh of seventh Guru and was appointed by the Guru to preach Sikh faith. It was on account of Bakhshish from seventh Guru that Bhagat Gir became Bhagat Bhagwan. His admission of certain facts in his cross-examination had clearly shown that his own work has not led anywhere to the teaching of Bhagat Bhagwan. The relevant portion of his statement made in cross-examination reads as under :- "I cannot say if Bhagat Bhagwan was going for Darshan of the Devi when he met Baba Siri Chand. In fact Baba Siri Chand died before the time of the 7th Guru. I cannot refer to any history book in which the meeting of Bhagat Bhagwan with Baba Siri Chand is recorded. The Bakhshish given by the 7th Guru to Bhagat Bhagwan is mentioned in Mahan Kosh by Bhai Kahan Singh. I have not seen the Institution in dispute so far. I cannot say as to who established the Institution in dispute and when." 69. The Bakhshish given by the 7th Guru to Bhagat Bhagwan is mentioned in Mahan Kosh by Bhai Kahan Singh. I have not seen the Institution in dispute so far. I cannot say as to who established the Institution in dispute and when." 69. The above statement leaves no manner of doubt that despite his claim of scholarly background, his research work is totally failing so far as Bhagat Bhagwan is concerned. 70. Randhir Singh (RW-18) had been doing the research in Gurbani and written various books on the life of Guru Nanak and other Gurus named in his statement. He is also the author of the book known as "Udasi Sikhan Di Vithia" and his articles have been incorporated in the book known as "Parkash Darshan". His account of meeting of Sanyasi Sadhu Bhagat Bhagwan with seventh Guru is based on the book published by Pandit Brahma Nandji Udasin besides other books "Mahitma Parkash", "Twarikh Guru Khalsa", "Panth Parkash" as noticed earlier. Admittedly, he has not seen the Institution in dispute. One can gather about his strong belief when he stated in his cross-examination that he does not agree with the decisions taken by the High Court that Udasis are not Sikhs. He has also stated that he has not seen any writings of Bhagat Bhagwan. With these features in his evidence, no reliance can be placed on his statement to resolve the present controversy. 71. Out of the remaining evidence adduced from the side of the respondent, witnesses RW-1 to RW-7 have not stated that the Institution in question has any connection with Bhagat Bhagwan. It is Jang Singh (RW-8), who stated that Gurdwara Sahib Bhagat Bhagwan was founded by Bhagat Bhagwan who became Sikh during the time of the seventh Guru. He also maintained that Bhagat Bhagwan used to preach the doctrine of Sikh faith. He claimed that he has acquired this knowledge about this fact from his ancestors who used to say Bhagat Bhagwan had announced his intention to build Gurdwara in the memory of sixth Guru who had visited Ladda. Thereafter, collections and donations were made from the villagers for the said purpose. It was somewhat surprising that he did not know the name of sixth and seventh Gurus. Who were the ancestors had not been specified in his testimony. At the time, his statement was recorded he had given his age as 55 years. Thereafter, collections and donations were made from the villagers for the said purpose. It was somewhat surprising that he did not know the name of sixth and seventh Gurus. Who were the ancestors had not been specified in his testimony. At the time, his statement was recorded he had given his age as 55 years. Therefore, understandably he has no personal knowledge with regard to the facts stated by him in respect of the establishment of the Institution. Sadhu Singh (RW-9) stated that this Institution was established in the memory of seventh Guru and at that time Bhagat Bhagwan had become Sikh. Even Sarwan Singh (RW-10) has also testified that Bhagat Bhagwan had become a Sikh at the time of seventh Guru but he too could not tell the name of sixth Guru. No basis with regard to the establishment of the Institution in the memory of the sixth Guru has been given by him in his statement. Therefore, the statements of both the above stated witnesses carry no conviction. Balwant Singh (RW-11) explained that he had heard that Bhagat Bhagwan had become a Sikh during the time of seventh Guru and so is the stand taken by Chota Singh (RW-12). According to Chota Singh admittedly Sri Har Gobind was the sixth Guru but he had no knowledge about the name of seventh Guru. From this statement, it is apparent that his stand that this Institution was founded in the memory of the visit of sixth Guru has no basis. Inder Singh (RW-13) has not fared in any manner better than other above noted witnesses. According to him, he gathered from his ancestors that sixth and seventh Gurus had visited Ladda and the Institution was founded in the memory of Bhagat Bhagwan. No effort was made by him to clarify as to what was the source of his knowledge in this regard. The testimony of Nichhattar Singh has to be examined with extra care because he is a member of the S.G.P.C. Understandably he has supported the stand of the respondent when he stated that the Institution was founded in the memory of Bhagat Bhagwan, who was a Sikh of seventh Guru Har Rai. He has not tried to disclose on what basis he has attributed the establishment of the Institution by Bhagat Bhagwan in the memory of sixth Guru. He has not tried to disclose on what basis he has attributed the establishment of the Institution by Bhagat Bhagwan in the memory of sixth Guru. The statement of these witnesses by no stretch of imagination advances the case of the respondent. 72. As regards the witnesses examined from the side of the petitioner, we have already stated that testimony of Mangal Dass (PW-1), Kishan Singh (PW-2), Mokand Singh (PW-3), Kehar Singh (PW-4), Karam Singh (PW-5) wherein they have described the Institution as Udasi Dera, had not been assailed during the course of their cross-examination. In their statements Nachhattar Singh (PW- 6), Chhota Singh (PW-7), Mohinder Singh (PW-8), Bira Ram (PW-9), Lekh Ram (PW-10), Sewa Dass (PW-11) have described the Institution in dispute as Dera Bhagat Bhagwan, who was an Udasi Sadhu. Hardly anything could be elicited in their cross-examination from the side of the respondent to discredit their testimony in this regard. These witnesses have testified even with regard to the nature of the Institution as Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan which is an Institution of Udasian. Thus, we find no reasons to discard the evidence led by the petitioner/appellant in support of the stand taken in the petition by him. 73. In the final analysis, we have come to the conclusion that on the date of presentation of the petition, the Institution was used as Dera of "Bhagat Bhagwan". Under the circumstances it has to be held that the Institution in dispute is an Udasi Institution as maintained by the petitioner and not a Sikh Gurdwara. 74. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and set aside the majority judgment and accept the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act of 1925 and declare that the Institution in question is an Udasi Institution and not a Sikh Gurdwara. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.