Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Tiruvambala Desikar Gnana Sambanda ... vs Chinna Pandaram Alias Manikkavachaka ... on 20 December, 1915

Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal vs His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi ... on 19 October, 1973

The, Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the decision in Tiruvambala Desikar v. Manikkavachaka Desikar(2) Was inapplicable to resolve the controversy here for the reason that Achariya Abishegam ceremony which invested the junior head there with certain spiritual powers was admittedly not performed in the instant case. It was submitted by Mr. Gupte for the respondent that the foundation of the decision in the above case was the finding in that case that there was the ceremony of Achariya Abishegam on nomination and that had the effect of investing the junior head with certain spiritual powers and as the nomination of the appellant was not attended with Achariya Abishegam, the nomination did not invest the appellant with any spiritual capacity so as to make the nomination irrevocable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 15 - K K Mathew - Full Document

His Holiness Sri-La-Sri Ambalavana ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By The ... on 28 April, 1982

The observations of Seshagiri Ayyar, J., in Tiruvambala Desikar v. Chinna Pandaram 30 M.L.J. 274 : (1915) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 177, were quoted with approval and it was held by the Supreme Court that the Head of the Mutt is entitled to appoint a Junior Pandarasannadhi, that this Junior has a recognised status, that he is entitled to succeed to the headship if he survives the appointer,...that for good cause shown he can be removed, and that it is not open even to the head of the mutt to dismiss him arbitrarily.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

His Holiness Kasiviswanatha Pandara ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu

The observations of Seshagiri Ayyar, J., in Tiruvambala Desikar v. Chinna Pandaram 1915 30 M.L.J. 274 : I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 177, were quoted with approval and it was held by the Supreme Court that the Head of the Mutt is entitled to appoint a Junior Pandarasannadhi, that this Junior has a recognised status, that he is entitled to succeed to the headship if he survives the appointer,...that for good cause shown he can be removed, and that it is not open even to the head of the mutt to dismiss him arbitrarily.
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Ramprapanna Ramanuj Das vs Sudarsan Ramanuj Das on 5 August, 1960

In the present case, it has been admitted on both sides that the successive Mahants had exercised their rights of nomination of their successors and it is not the appellant's case that he would ipso facto become the successor by virtue of his being initiated as a Chela if no nomination was exercised in his favour. Admittedly in the present case the plaintiff was initiated as the Chela and his nomination was subsequent thereto and it is not a case where the nomination as the successor was followed by certain ceremonies in confirmation of that nomination. For the appellant, reliance had been put on ILR 40 Mad 177 : (AIR 1917 Mad 578), Tiruvambala Desikar v. Chinna Pandaram in the Courts below and the same was also relied on before me. In that case their Lordships held :
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Balasubramania Gurukkal vs Sankara Gurukkal And Ors. on 19 September, 1988

10. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari draws my attention to the decision in "Tiruvambala Desikar Guana Sambanda Pandra Sangadhi Avargal and Anr. v. Chinna Pandaram Alias Manikkavachaka De sikar and Ors. 4 L.W. 306: (1915)I.L.R. 40 Mad.177, and argues that in the case of dismissal of the junior Pandarasannadhi of the Dharmapu-ram Adhinam Mutt it was held that for want of notice of the charges alleged against him or an opportunity for making his defence thereto, the dismissal order was void and inoperative in law. But on going through the Judgment 1 find that the facts therein are quiet different from the facts in our case. This difference could be seen from the observation in that Judgment at page 190 that; "The nomination and ordination of a junior Pandarsannadhi is the customary manner of providing for the line of succession in mutts of this kind and it is not shown that the Pandar sannadhi has any power of arbitrary dismissal, while on the other hand it has been held, in a previous suit relating to the instruction that he may dismiss for good cause". Then it is stated that:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kothandaramasami Naidu vs Pappammal on 4 March, 1924

3. Several points are raised. First, it is said that the right of management of trust property is not capable of devise or inheritance. It seems to me that prima facie there might be a good deal to be said against both the validity of appellant's original position in 1894 and that of the compromise decree. It is not easy to see how the possession of Letters of Administration to a deceased man's private estate can entitle the holder to become trustee of property which the deceased had alienated in trust. Nor is it obvious, how, assuming that appellant's possession and management as trustee were valid in 1912, he could legally consent to share that possession and management with another. It may be that the compromise decree can be explained as an appointment of the brothers as alternate "trustees by the Court. But however, that may be, this is an application in execution and it is not open to a party to question the validity of the decree which is binding on the parties to the suit till it is set aside, just as much as if it had been passed after contest. Tiruvambala Desikar v. Chinna Pandaram 34 Ind. Cas.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kothandaramaswami Naidu vs Pappammal on 4 March, 1924

3. Several points are raised. First, if said that the right of management of trust property is not capable of devise or inheritance. It seems to me that prima facie there might be a good deal to be said against both the validity of appellant's origins position in 1894 and that of the compromise decree. It is net easy to see how the possession of Letters of Administration to a deceased man's private estate can entitle the holder to become trustee of property which the deceased had alienated in trust. Nor is it obvious, how, assuming that appellant's possession and management as trustee were valid in 1912, he could legally consent to share that possession and management with another, It may be that the compromise decree can be explained as an appointment of the brothers as alternate trustees by the Court. But, however, that may be, this is an application in execution and it is not open to a party to question the validity of the decree which is binding on the parties to the suit till it is set aside, just as much as if it had been passed after contest. Tiruvambala Desiker v. Chinna Pandaram (1916) 40 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1