Syed Shah Muhammad Kazim vs Syed Abi Saghir And Ors. on 6 July, 1931
833 : (1918) M. W. N. 786; Zemindar of Kalahasti v. Ganapatni Iyer 48 Ind. Cas.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)Documents citing
Raja Damara Kumara Thimma Nayani ... vs P.R. Ganapathi Iyer, Secretary, ... on 1 November, 1916
Mohamed Ghouse vs Mohamed Yusuf And Anr. on 21 November, 1975
In such a nebulous and uncertain state of affairs, the contradictory findings of the Court below that even though misappropriation has not been proved, there are circumstances which throw suspicion on the conduct of the defendant and the accounts maintained by him appears to be unjustified and is not based on acceptable evidence. This is not a case in which the Court categorically finds that the defendant was encumbering the trust properties by systematically incurring expenses beyond the limits of its income. There is no express finding either that the continuance of the defendant as trustee would endanger the interest of the institution. As was pointed out by our Court in Zamindar of Kalahasti v. Ganapathi Iyer (1918) M.W.N. 555 : 48 I.C. 897 : A.I.R. 918 Mad. 56(2):
Panchanadam Pillai And Ors. vs Parvati Ammal And Ors. on 4 January, 1927
I may also refer to Veeraraghava Thathachariar v. Srinivasa Thathachriar [1912] 23 M.L.J. 134, Zamindar of Kalahasti v. Ganpathi Iyer [1918] M.W.N. 555, Muhommad Wahab Hussain v. Abbas Hussain A.I.R. 1923 Patna 420, and Dharam Dass v. Sadho Prakash [1917] 40 I.C. 177
1