Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.47 seconds)

Haji Mahammad Nabi Shirazi And Ors. vs Province Of Bengal And Ors. on 6 August, 1941

28. In my judgment the fact that that uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion, e.g., Shias or even a subseet of Shias, would not make any difference in the matter and would not make the wakf a trust of a private character. The observations in the following oases, and many others which I need not refer to, support the view I am taking : Puran Atal v. Darshan Dass ('12) 34 All.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Ramanasramam By Its Secretary G. ... vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 12 December, 1959

Mr, Shastri has, in view of the decisions gone so. far as to assert that if all the members of the family to which an endowment belongs renounce Hinduism and choose to throw the family idol into the water of the Ganges and themselves enjoy its property, no outsider can raise any objection to that course: Shastri's Hindu law, page 491. The Allahabad High Court had, on the other hand, occasion to define what a public endowment was in the case of Puran Atal v. Darshan Das, ILR 34 All 468. Therein Chamfer J. remarked :
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Dhoribhai Dadabhai Patel vs Pragdasji Bhagwandasji on 24 January, 1938

9. That there is practically free public access for purposes of worship the evidence clearly shows. Defendant asserts that he has technically a right to exclude anybody and even to close the temple. But he admits that unless a person misbehaves he would have no reason to evict him from the temple and that he has never closed the temple for the whole day. One of his witnesses Trikambhai says the Mahant may prevent an objectionable person from entering the temple. Otherwise he does not prevent anybody nor has he got a right to do so. The use of the temple is not apparently restricted to persons professing the kaivalya panth, but even if it were, the temple might still be a public temple. It was held in Mahant Puran Atal v. Darshan Das (1912) I.L.R. 34 All. 468 that although the main purpose of the trust was to support fakirs of a particular sect, viz. the Nanakshahi fakirs and to spread the religion founded by Nanakshah, nevertheless it should be held to be a trust for public purposes within the meaning of Section 92.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1