Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew vs Sushila Bala Dasi And Others on 16 November, 1953

Sathyanarayan Bagla vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 14 July, 1980

41. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi , where Mr. Justice B.K. Mukherjea observed that the dedication might be either absolute or partial. The property might be given out to an idol or it could be subjected to a charge in favour of the idol. The question whether the idol itself could be considered to be the true beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the heirs or specified relative or the testator for their upkeep or that on the other hand these heirs should be considered to be the true beneficiaries of the property subject to a charge for the upkeep of worship expenses of the idol was a question which could only be settled by a conspectus of the entire provision of the will. But, in that case, the right of residence given to the shebaits did not, it was held, detract from making the dedication an absolute trust. The Supreme Court observed that the right given to the servant did not detract from the absolute character of the dedication. The right in this case, if it be called a right and not a privilege, merely was given as human ministrant to the divine deity.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Ram Ratan Lal vs Kashinath Tewari And Ors. on 29 July, 1965

The learned Single Judge rightly relied on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Mt. Sushila Bala Dasi, AIR 1954 SC 69 to the effect that merely because a Shebait acted contrary to the terms of his appointment or in breach of his duties as Shebait he could not claim adverse possession against the idol. Such conduct on the part of the Tewaris would amount to breach of their duties as Shebaits of the deity.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Nirmala Bala Ghose And Another vs Balai Chand Ghose And Ors on 29 March, 1965

In a recent judgment of this Court in Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi and Others(1) it was observed. that the question whether the idol itself is the true beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the heirs of the testator, or the heirs are the true beneficiaries subject to a charge for the upkeep, worship and expenses of the idol, has to be determined by a conspectus of the entire deed or will by which the properties are dedicated and that a provision giving a right to the Shebaits to reside in the premises dedicated to the idol for the purpose of carrying on the daily and periodical worship and festivals does not detract from the absolute character of a dedication to the idol.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 84 - J C Shah - Full Document

M.Samudi vs –

Again in Sree Sree Wshwar Sridhar Jew vs. Kst.Sushila Bala Dasi and others it has been held by the Supreme Court that no shebait can, so long as he continues to be the sevait, ever claim adverse possession against the idol and that no dealing of his with the property dedicated to 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.25908/2024, etc. Batch the idol could afford the basis of a claim by him for adverse possession of the property against the idol. Therefore, in view of these decisions and in view of the admitted status of the 3rd defendant in connection with the temple, I am of the view that neither he nor his successors-in-title the 1st and 2nd defendants herein, can prescribe against the deity by adverse possession and thereby get title.”
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

M.Samudi vs –

Again in Sree Sree Wshwar Sridhar Jew vs. Kst.Sushila Bala Dasi and others it has been held by the Supreme Court that no shebait can, so long as he continues to be the sevait, ever claim adverse possession against the idol and that no dealing of his with the property dedicated to the idol could afford the basis of a claim by him for adverse possession of the property against the idol. Therefore, in view of these decisions and in view of the admitted status of the 3rd defendant in connection with the temple, I am of the view that neither he nor his successors-in-title the 1st and 2nd defendants herein, can prescribe against the deity by adverse possession and thereby get title.” 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.25908/2024, etc. Batch
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Smt. Chandravati vs Shivaji Maharaj And Ors. on 6 November, 1967

14. On the facts stated above I am further of opinion that till the life time of Smt. Gomti, Smt. Gomti nor her donee Sri Dwarka Prasad nor Smt. Chandrawati could assert adverse possession against the deity, vide Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi, 1954 SCR 407 at 416 = (AIR 1954 SC 69 at P. 73) wherein the Supreme Court has approved of the following observations of Rankin C. J. in the case of Surendrakrishna Roy v. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani, ILR 60 Cal 54 at p. 77-AIR 1933 Cal295 at 304 :--
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next