Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Goona Durgaprasada Rao Alias Pedda Babu ... vs Goona Sudarsanaswami And Ors. on 27 October, 1939

G.J.Tamilarasu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2018

7. The reasoning on which this decision proceeded is equally applicable in a case where the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after their conversion and on his subsequently embracing Hinduism, the members of the caste to which the parents belonged prior to their conversion accept him as a member within the fold. It is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste is a social combination of persons governed by its rules and regulations, it may, if its rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member just as it may expel an existing member. The only requirement for admission of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance of the person by the other members of the caste, for, as pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyanger, J. in Durgaprasada Rao Vs. Sudarsanaswami, AIR 1940 Mad 513 : ILR 1990 Mad 653 : (1940) 1 MLJ 800,, "in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme judge" (emphasis supplied). It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts would not become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, but he would become such member, if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

K.P. Manu,Malabar Cements Ltd. vs Chairman,Scrutiny Commt .V.C.Cert. on 26 February, 2015

After referring to various authorities, namely, Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari10, Muthusami Mudaliar v. Masilamani (supra), Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar11, Rajagopal v. Armugam12, Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswami13, Vermani v. Vermani14, Durgaprasada Rao (supra) and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. 9 (1984) 2 SCC 112 10 ILR 9 Mad 342 11 1934 MLJ 389; AIR 1934 Mad 630 12 (1969) 1 SCR 254 13 (1971) 1 SCR 49 14 AIR 1943 Lah 51: 205 IC 290 18 Moreshwar Parashram15, came to hold as follows:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968

two classes. The First set of cases are those where this question was examined for the purpose of determining the rules of succession, the validity of marriages, or the legitimacy of children. Such cases which have been brought to our notice are : Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari and Others(1), Gurusami Nadar v. lrulappa Konar (died) and Others(2), Mrs. Agnes Dorothy Vermani v. Mr. Bryant David Vermani(3), and Goona Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedda Babu and Another v. Goona Sudarsanaswami & 28 Others(4). In addition, reliance was also placed on the Report of proceedings of the Appellant Side dated 8th November, 1866 printed at page vii of the Appendix in Vol. III of the Madras High Court Regorts. The second set of cases consist of recent judgments of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madras in election petitions arising out of the general elections of the year 1967 itself. In order to rely on these judgments, learned counsel produced before us copies of the Gazettes in which those judgments have been published.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 94 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Principal, Guntur Medical College, ... vs Y.Mohan Rao on 6 April, 1976

The reasoning on which this decision proceeded is equally applicable in a case where the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after their conversion and on his subsequently embracing Hinduism, the members of the caste to which the parents belonged prior to their conversion accept him as a member within the fold. It is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste is a social combination of persons governed by its rules and regulations, it may, if its rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member just as it may expel an existing member. The only requirement for admission of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance of the person by the other members of the caste, for, as pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., in Durgaprasada Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,"in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme judge". (emphasis supplied). It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts would not become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, but he would become such member, if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 59 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

G. M. Arumugam vs S. Rajgopal & Others on 19 December, 1975

These observations of Varadachariar, J., were approved by Mockett, J., in Durgaprasada Rao v. Sudarsanaswami(1) and he pointed out that in the case before him, there was no evidence of the existence of any ceremonial in Vada Baligi fishermen community of Gopalpur for readmission to that community. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., also observed in the same case that "in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme judge". (emphasis supplied). The same view has also been taken in a number of decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts in election petitions arising out of 1967 General Election.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 75 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

S. Anbalagan vs B. Devarajan & Ors on 5 December, 1983

Mookett and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, JJ. in Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami(4) observed that a convert from the Baliji caste to Christianity, on reconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community and where there was no evidence about the necessity for expiatory ceremonies, it was hardly right for the court to erect a barrier which the autonomy of the caste did not require, simply because, in some other community expiatory ceremonies were thought necessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 31 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next