K.S. Tiwana, J. - Sixty-one worshipers of the Gurdwara Sahib Siri Guru Granth Sahib situated in the revenue estate of Nangal Kalan, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda, presented a petition under Section 7 (1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, hereinafter referred as the Act, to the State Government also with a list of rights, titles and interests in the properties claimed to belong to the Sikh Gurdwara. The State Government published notification No. 2425-G.P. dated 21st October 1960, in the Punjab Government Gazette. Notice was issued to Sawan Dass Mahant of the Dera. 2. Sawan Dass submitted a petition under Section 8 of the Act to the State Government stating that the institution is a Dera and not Gurdwara. It was organized by his Dada Guru Jawahar Dass. The land belonging to the Dera was gifted by his Guru Bala Dass in the time of his Dada Guru Jawahar Dass. It was the personal property of Bala Dass and was mortgaged for Rs. 1800/- which was got redeemed by Jawaher Dass in his own name. After the death of Bala Dass, the villagers formed a committee. He was later appointed the Mohtmin by Government. It was ancestral property of the Dera and did not belong to the Gurdwara. 3. The petition was forwarded to the Sikh Gurdwara. Tribunal, herein after referred as the Tribunal, by the government for decision. During the pendency of the case before the Tribunal, Sawan Dass died and Sarup Dass was brought in his place as his legal representative. 4. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, hereinafter referred as the Committee, was made a party. In the written statement the Committee raised a preliminary objection that as the petitioner was not a hereditary office-holder, he could not maintain the petition and that as the property has been claimed as a private property, the petition did not lie. On merit the contentions of the petitioner were denied. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues in the case - (1) Whether Shri Sawan Dass deceased was a hereditary office holder and as such, was entitled to maintain the petition ? (2) Whether Sarup Dass, legal representative of the deceased, is a hereditary office-holder and is entitled to continue the claim ? (3) Whether the petition is maintainable ? (4) Whether the Gurdwara in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara ? 6. The Tribunal after recording evidence decided issue No. 1, 2 and 3 against the petitioner and dismissed the petition. He went to the High Court in appeal against the dismissal of this petition. The High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case back for decision on issue No. 4. This issue was decided against the petitioner by the Tribunal and his petition was dismissed with costs. Sarup Dass is again before this Court in this F.A.O. 7. Shri Tehal Singh Mangat, the learned counsel for the appellant at the outset raised an argument that the notification published under Section 7(3) of the Act does not relate to this institution, which is a Dera, and for that reason the Tribunal could not declare this Dera as a Gurdwara, as has been done in this case. He has referred to the notification under Section 7(3) of the Act, in which it is mentioned as Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib. According to him, in the revenue records, the institution is mentioned as Shri Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass of this village ba-i-htman Sham Dass Chela Bala Ram Sadh Udasi. According to Shri Mangat, the notification pertained to a separate institution. On going through the record and evidence we do not accept this contention of Shri Mangat. The witnesses examined by both the sides agreed that Jawahar Dass was the founder of this institution. The Committee's witnesses stated that Jawahar Dass was brought from village Deluana at the initiative of the residents of the village Nangal Kalan and was made the Granthi of this institution. The P.Ws on the other hand stated that Jawahar Dass founded the Dera. The worshipers of this institution submitted Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 A.D. with their petition under Section 7(1) of the Act in which the entry in the ownership column is "Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Dera Baba Jawahar Dass Waqia Deh Haza ba-i-htman Sham Dass Chela Bala Ram Sadh Udasi-(Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Dera Baba Jawahar Dass situated in this village under the management of Sham Dass Chela Bala Dass Sadh Udasi). Exhibit P.2 is the Jamabandi of the year 1962-63. In column No. 5 of this Jamabandi, which relates to cultivation, the entry is, "Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass situated in this village under the cultivation of Jawahar Dass Chela Kanshi Ram Qaum Sadh Udasi of the village, occupancy tenants under Section 5(1) of Act No. 16 of 1887". Since the land belonged to Basant Singh Biswedar and Guru Granth Sahib only the occupancy rights in the land, it was for that reason that the aforesaid entry in the cultivation column came to exist. The description of the land given in Jamabandi Exhibit P-2 and in Jamabandi for the year 1957-58, which was published in the notification under Section 7(3) of the Act is the same. Khasra Numbers in both the Jamabandi tally with each other. The worshipers were thus, it is clear, referring to this very institution as the Gurdwara, in the establishment of which Jawahar Dass figured prominently. Whatever little doubt could be said to be there, was removed by Dalip Singh PW5, when he stated :- "This Dera is called Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib". The witnesses for both the parties were referring to this very institution in their evidence. Even the plan of this very building was published in the notification and no objection to it was taken by the petitioner in the petition, or at the trial before the Tribunal. There is thus no doubt the identity of the institution as was sought to be created by Shri Mangat. 8. The other question requiring notice is whether the institution in question answers the purpose and use as contained in Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. The institution is not very old and the RW.s had a clear memory of it when Jawahar Dass was brought by Kishan Singh from village Deluana at the intiative of the Panchayat of village Nangal Kalan and made incharge of the institution. Land was acquired in the name of the institution. Exhibit R.1 is the earliest Jamabandi for 1960-61 Bk. In it, Basant Singh is shown in the ownership column. In the cultivation column, the entry is "Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass situated in the area of this village under the management of Jawahar Dass Chela Kanshi Ram Qaum Sadh Udasi of the village, occupancy tenants under Section 5(1) of the Act 16 of 1887. The second Jamabandi Exhibit P.2 of 1962-63 Bk. referred to above, has the same entry as in Exhibit R.1 and Exhibit P.2 except that in place of Jawahar Das, his Chela Sawan Dass is entered. Exhibit R.3 is a copy of the Jamabandi, the entry is Shri Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass of the village under the management of Sham Dass Chela Bala Dass Quam Sadh Udasi. The change in the ownership was due to the acquisition of the property rights by Guru Granth Sahib. The entries in the revenue record show that the land stood in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass right from the very start. This gives an indication that the institution was established for the purpose of public worship by the Sikhs, otherwise this could not be the position in the entries of the revenue record. The other factors brought out from the oral and documentary evidence also support this conclusion. Village Nangal Kalan is predominantly inhabited by the Sikhs. All the nine Lambardars of the village are Sikhs. Exhibit R.5, mutation No. 443 shows that Kalu Singh son of Fateh Singh gifted the land in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass. Kalu Singh undisputably was a Sikh. The petition also contains that Bala, Tiwana Jat, who later become an Udashi and Mohtmim. FAO No. 29 of 1973 of this institution gifted his land in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Dera Baba Jawahar Dass. It is not contradicted on the side of the petitioner that Bala not a Sikh before he coverted himself to an Udashi. It is admitted that Bala has gifted the land before becoming Udasi. The fact that village Nangal Kalan is predominantly inhabited by the Sikhs and that the land was gifted in the name of the Gurdwara land further support to the conclusion that the institution was established for the public worship by the Sikhs. 9. The next comes the question whether the institution was used for the purpose of public worship by the Sikhs after its establishment and uptil the date of filing the petition under Section 7(1) of the Act. The statement of Dalip Singh P.W.5 is reproduced as under :- "Some time the villagers have a path of Guru Granth Sahib performed when there is a Sadhu in the Dera. The Parkash used to be performed in the Dera. There is a Guru Granth Sahib in the Dera. There is a Smadh in this institution as well. The Smadh is at a distance of 5 to 7 Karams from the building. The people of the village go and worship Guru Granth Sahib whenever there is a Parkash of it. This has been the practice since Jawahar Dass founded the institution. Free food is provided to persons who visit the Dera on occasions. One Pritam Dass lives in the Dera and performs the reading of Guru Granth Sahib. This Dera is called Gurdwara Granth Sahib. The Guru Granth Sahib has its Parkash in the Chobara of the Dera" Dalip Singh P.W.5 has clearly stated that people of the village go and worship Guru Granth Sahib in this institution. There is Parkash of it and this practice has continued since Jawahar Dass founded this institution. If Guru Granth Sahib was not ceremoniously installed and was not being read and worshiped there, then these facts could not find mention in the statement of Dalip Singh P.W.5, The statement of Dalip Singh gives support to the statement of the R.Ws. when they state that Guru Granth Sahib is recited in this institution regularly and publically and it is the only object of worship. As held in the previous paragraphs, this institution was founded for the purpose of public worship by the Sikhs. When that is the position, Guru Granth Sahib, in which the Sikhs have faith, has to be the only object of worship, Chanam Singh P.W.3 is the Granthi, who is now performing the duties by reciting Guru Granth Sahib. The R.Ws. the correct when stated that public worship of Guru Granth Sahib was going on in this institution. The mere fact that there is another Gurdwara in the village is not such a fact which can go against the respondents. There can be more than one institution of a kind in a village or at a place for public worship by the followers of that particular faith. 10. Last of all reference was made about the public worship of the Smadhs. The Smadhs are stated to be of Jawahar Dass must have been built after his death. There cannot be any question of its worship at time of the founding of the institution. Sham Dass died during the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal. The more existence of the Smadhs, even if built, does not pose any problem and it can not be held that those were the main objects of worship. 11. Jawahar Dass was an Udasi Sadh. It was argued by Shri Mangat that he funded a personal Dera. He according to Shri Mangat could not establish an institution for the public worship by the Sikhs. There is no evidence on the record that it was a personal Dera of Jawahar Dass. The revenue record and the evidence discussed in the earlier paragraphs point to the contrary that it was an institution founded for the public worship of Guru Granth Sahib by the Sikhs and that Guru Granth Sahib was the main object of worship. Regarding the other argument that Jawahar Dass could not establish an institution for the worship of Sikhs does not sound credible in this case. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Udasis have been managing the Sikh institution. They at one time were treated as the Sikh priests. The law is well settled that the presence of an Udasi as the head of the management of a Sikh institution does not change its character of a Sikh Gurdwara. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there is not a semblance of evidence in favour of the claim of the appellant that institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, as defined in the Act. The institution completely answers the requirements of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. The appeal having no merit is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.