In Brief
The appellant claimed a Gurudwara was his private property, arguing a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which protects public rights) was not maintainable. However, the Court found that the appellant's father was a Mohtmim (manager, not owner) of the Gurudwara, and that villagers had donated approximately 14 kanals of land to it—an admission made by the appellant himself. The Court held that this established the Gurudwara as public property in which the public has rights, making the suit maintainable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.