Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Tholappala Charlu vs Venkata Charlu And Ors. on 30 April, 1895

Pandit Channu Dat Vyas vs Babu Nandan on 8 April, 1910

9. A number of cases have been cited: none of them closely resembles the case before us. In the view which we take, it is unnecessary to refer to the majority of these cases. The case which perhaps most nearly resembles the present case is that of Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata Charlu 19 M. 62. In that case the plaintiff as Anangundi Raja Gaur claimed to be entitled to the hereditary office of Samayacharan, which was not connected with any particular temple and no specific pecuniary benefit was attached to it. The duties of the office were to exercise spiritual and moral supervision over persons wearing certain caste-mark in a certain tract of country. The defendants claimed the office and had collected voluntary contributions in the character of the holders of such office. It was held that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ramachandra Tripathy vs Maguni Tripathy on 28 March, 1950

677), and Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata Charlu, 19 Mad. 62 : (5 M. L. J 209), A distinction has however been made as regards cases where the ministration of priestly services amounts in law to "property" or to an "office". Explanation to Schedule of the Civil P. C., recognises that a right to property or an office may be one. of a civil nature, notwithstanding that it may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to the religious rights or ceremonies. While therefore a right to officiate as a priest of a particular community or in a particular locality has not been normally recognised as offending against the general right of the public or of the members of a community to choose whomsoever they may like for purposes of spiritual ministration, such a right has been recognised where it amounts to an office attached to an institution such as a temple. Religious and priestly offices attached to temples and the like institutions have been in vogue in the country by long-standing custom and are recognised by law as a species of property. The restriction thereby implied, if any, on the freedom of choice of a priest or other religious minister by the person requiring ministration is one that is in the larger interests of orderly and disciplined administration of such institutions. An office so attached to an institution may exist whether with or without emoluments and whether the emoluments incidental thereto are gratuitous or obligatory. When the question whether there is such an office is in issue, the fact that there are emoluments of a non-gratuitoua character payable out of the funds of the institution, has generally been considered as relevant though the absence thereof is not always decisive.
Orissa High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Irrumathirumala Nallanchakravarthi ... vs Irumathirumal Nallachakravarthi ... on 30 December, 1967

So is the case in Tolappala Charlu v. Venkata Charlu, (1896) ILR 19 Mad 62, where another Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Collins, C. J. and Parker, J. held that the suit by the plaintiff as Anagundi Raja guru to be entitled to a declaration of his right to the hereditary office of priest of Samayacharam was not cognisable by a Civil Court. The bench posed the question whether the priestship of Samayacharm is an office for which suit will lie in a Civil Court, and in answering this question, it distinguished most of the cases cited before it on the ground that as the priestship was not attached to any particular temple or place and no specific pecuniary benefit was attached to the office, the only emoluments being voluntary contributions, which the duties of the office were to exercise spiritual and moral supervision over people who were a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country, a suit would not lie in a Civil Court as no such supervision over people who wear a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country, a suit would not lie in a Civil Court as no such supervision over the members of the caste can be enforced by law, it being entirely within the option of each individual member of the caste whether he will submit to it or not.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Sri Bhashyam Konayamma, Minor, By Her ... vs Sri Bhashyam Rangacharayulu, Minor, By ... on 14 March, 1928

In Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata Charlu 18 M. 62; 5 M.L.J. 20D; 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.)748 the plaintiff as Anangundi Raja guru claimed to be entitled and sued for a declaration of his title, to the hereditary office of priest of Samayacharam. The defendants claimed the office and had collected voluntary contributions in the character of the holders of such office. In holding that the suit will not lie the learned Judges, pointed out that the office was not connected with any particular temple and that no pecuniary benefit is attached to the office, the only emoluments being voluntary contributions, while the duties of the office are to exercise spiritual and moral supervision over people who wear a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1