Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Saraswathi Ammal And Another vs Rajagopal Ammal on 20 October, 1953

R. Shanmugha Sundaram vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And ... on 20 June, 1991

After referring to the decision in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal , a Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramanasramam v. Commissioner H.R. & C.E. , observed that as samadhi over one who comes to be regarded as of the Illuminate or even the tombs of heroes may evolve in course of time as a shrine of Hindu Public religious worship, as was held in the Board of Commissioners for H.R & C.E., Madras v. Narasimham A.I.R. 1939 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

The Asst. Commissioner vs Maha Tejo Mandala Sabha on 21 December, 2009

74. With the aforesaid evidence we could see that the conduct of Guru pooja at the samadhi has been admitted by P.W.3 himself which were spoken through by the witnesses of the defendant also. In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st defendant Sabha would be very much relevant for the purpose of deciding the case. As laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 1953 SC 491 in between Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal it has been clearly laid down as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

M. Kesava Gounder (Died) And Ors. vs D.C. Rajan And Ors. on 21 June, 1974

As Jagannadhdas, J., says in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal (1964) 1 S.C.J. 271 : 45 I.T.R. 229 : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 491, that if any purpose is to be claimed to be a perpetual dedication on the ground of religious merit, it must be shown to have a shastraic basis so far as Hindus are concerned. If as is sought to be made it is stated that for paying respect to the father or to venerate an ancestor by erecting a statue and by making an endowment for it without public benefit should be treated as a practice which is of later origin, it must at least be alleged, shown and proved that such trusts have obtained wide recognition and constitute the religious practice by a large majority of the generality of the Hindu public or the community in particular. This has not been established in this case. Again as pointed out by the Privy Council in the Chinese case cited above, to accept the clause relating to the erection and maintenance of the memorial of the father would mean to encourage the mischief of making property inalienable unless for objects which are useful or beneficial to the community. Thus, the grant and the allied clauses in Exhibit A-1 to erect a statue for the father cannot be accepted by us as a pious or charitable duty on the part of the son, in accordance with Hindu notions. It fallows from the foregoing that as the first three clauses in Exhibit A-1, do not constitute a Hindu public religious endowment or a private Hindu religious endowment, the grant, therefore, in so far as this portion of Exhibit A-1 is concerned fails, as the bequests are void, unlawful and unenforceable.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sri Gedela Satchidananda Murthy (D) By ... vs Dy. Commnr., Endowments Deptt., A.P. & ... on 15 May, 2007

This Court in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal has approved those decisions of the Madras High Court. Jagannatha Das, J., who spoke for the court said (at p. 289) : "We see no reason to think that the Madras decisions are erroneous in holding that perpetual dedication of property for worship at a tomb is not valid amongst Hindus.""
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And Hazrat ... on 15 October, 1969

The dominant object of the dedication was thus the Akhara and the Asthan of God Shiva and Mahavir, spoken of in the will of Rahas Kaur, was only an adjunct to the Akhara. There is evidence, no doubt, to show that pooja and Shringar of the two idols were performed. But that apparently was because the idols once installed could not be left unworshippe On these facts we are inclined to take the view that the dominant object of the dedication was the Akhara and the said idols and the tasweer were installed only to attract persons of both the communities to the Akhara and to provide for them the facility for invoking the divine benediction before they participated in wresting. As laid down in Saraswathi Ammal's case(1), it is on this foot in that the validity or otherwise of the trust has to be considered. It must be made clear at very outset that although the will of Rahas Kaur provided that persons who are to manage the trust were to be in the first instance her son, Mangli Prasad, and later (1) [1954] S.C.R. 277.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jogendra Nath Naskar And Anr. on 5 April, 1963

Jagannadha Das J. in the case of Saraswati Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, held that the ground of religious merit, though lacking in public benefit but having Shastric basis, is sufficient. The principles, namely, that the religious purposes according to Hindu Law are not confined to purposes which are productive of actual or assumed public benefit ana that they must be determined according to Hindu notions, were recognised and affirmed by his Lordship in the said decision. Gajendragadkar J. in delivering the judgment in the case of 1957 SCR 1122: (S) AIR 1957 SC 797 holds that no instrument or grant is necessary for the purpose of dedication of property to charity and to religious or charitable purposes. Conduct of the parties and user of the properties may be sufficient.
Calcutta High Court Cites 95 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next