Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Badri Nath & Anr vs Mst. Punna (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 15 February, 1979

Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Th. Lr. . vs State Of Kerala . on 13 July, 2020

“The temple of Shrinathji at Nathdwara holds a very high place among the Hindu temples in this country and is looked upon with great reverence by the Hindus in general and the Vaishnav followers of Vallabha in particular. As in the case of other ancient 51 Affirmed in Badri Nath v. Punna, (1979) 3 SCC 71: Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Chorone Requitte, (1979) 3 SCC 409 52 (1964) 1 SCR 561 Civil Appeal No. 2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc. Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 107 - Cited by 1 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Shri Thillaiamman Devasthanam ... vs P. Thillainayagam And P. ... on 29 April, 2008

In Badri Nath v. Punna , the Supreme Court had held that in the instant case the right of the baridars to share offerings made to the deity was restricted to four sub-castes of Thakars and although to begin with baridars did not perform any duties in return, certain obligations were superimposed on the right in subsequent years. The right to receive a share in the offerings thus became subject to the performance of onerous duties. But then these duties were not in nature priestly or requiring a personal qualification. On the other hand all of them were of a non-religious or secular character and could be performed not necessarily by the baridar personally but by his agents or servants so that their performance boiled down to mere incurring of expense.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Bhuri Nath And Ors. vs State Of J&K And Ors. on 10 January, 1997

In a private litigation between Baridar holders, this Court in Badri Nath's case (supra) had held that though the right to receive a share in the offerings was subject to performance of those duties, none of them was in nature priestly or required a personal qualification. All of them were of non-religious or secular character which could be performed by the Baridar's agents or servants incurring expense on his account. When the right to receive the offerings made at a temple in independent of an obligation to render services involving qualification of personal nature such a right is heritable as well as alienable. The right of the baridars cannot be equated with the right and duties of a shebait. The Baridars are not managers of the Shrine in the sense that a shebait is in relation to a temple in his charge. The right to a share in the offerings being a right coupled with duties other than those involving personal qualification and being heritable property, it will descend in accordance with the dictates of the Hindu Succession Act in supersession of all customs to the contrary in view of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 113 - Cited by 34 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Shri U.N. Bhardwaj vs Shri Y.N. Bhardwaj & Ors on 18 October, 2010

26. Another noteworthy aspect is that Badrinath (supra) was concerned with the Bari rights of a female Hindu, in respect of the Mata Vaishno Devi shrine, near Jammu, which is also a renowned seat of Shakti or Devi worship, like the temple in this case. All the Courts had decisively overruled the contention that obligation to worship were tied up with the Bari rights; they also held that female Hindus could enjoy those rights, which were a species of property. The ratio of that decision, and the earlier judgments discussed previously, apply squarely, to negative the plaintiffs' contentions.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 11 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Bhuri Nath & Ors. Etc. The Sewa Committee ... vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 10 January, 1997

In a private litigation between Baridar holders, this Court in Badri Nath's case (supra) had held that though the right to receive a share in the offerings was subject to performance of those duties, none of them was in nature priestly or required a personal qualification. All of them were of non-religious or secular character which could be performed by the Baridar's agented or servants incurring expense on his account. When the right to receive the offerings made at a temple is independent of an obligation to render services involving qualification of personal nature such a right is heritable as well as alienable. The right of the baridars cannot be equated with the right ad duties of a shebait. The Baridars are not managers of the Shrine in the sense that a shebait is in relation to a temple in his charge. The right to share in the offerings being a right coupled with duties other than those involving personal qualification and being heritable property, it will descend in accordance with the dictates of the Hindu Succession Act in supersession of all customs to the contrary in view of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is seen that Section 2 gives over-riding effect to the Act over any contrary law or any scheme of the management, decree, custom, usage or instrument. The Act, therefore, abolishes the customary right or duty of service as Baridar and the receipt of offerings being conditioned upon performing Pooja, he loses the right with cessation of performing service. Right to receive offerings, by operation of Section 19(1) of the Act has ceased. The question is; whether the State controls the vesting of the properties and the Board is a controlled Corporation within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? By operation of Section 6, the Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and seal with a right to sue or be sued by or in the name of the Board. The sum total of properties are of and vest in the Shrine. The management of the Shrine and the Shrine Fund stood vested in the Board under Section 4. The appellants had the fundamental right to property guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Though the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 which came into force w.e.f. June 29, 1979, deleted Article 19(1) (g) and Article 31 by operation of Sections 2 and 6 thereof, they would still be available to the residents of the Stat of Jammu and Kashmir.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 26 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Shri Thillaiamman Devasthanam vs P.Thillainayagam on 29 April, 2008

In BADRI NATH Vs. PUNNA (AIR 1979 SC 1314), the Supreme Court had held that in the instant case the right of the baridars to share offerings made to the deity was restricted to four sub-castes of Thakars and although to begin with baridars did not perform any duties in return, certain obligations were superimposed on the right in subsequent years. The right to receive a share in the offerings thus became subject to the performance of onerous duties. But then these duties were not in nature priestly or requiring a personal qualification. On the other hand all of them were of a non-religious or secular character and could be performed not necessarily by the baridar personally but by his agents or servants so that their performance boiled down to mere incurring of expense.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Bhuri Nath & Ors. Etc. The Sewa Committee ... vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 10 January, 1997

In a private litigation between Baridar holders, this Court in Badri Nath's case (supra) had held that though the right to receive a share in the offerings was subject to performance of those duties, none of them was in nature priestly or required a personal qualification. All of them were of non-religious or secular character which could be performed by the Baridar's agented or servants incurring expense on his account. When the right to receive the offerings made at a temple is independent of an obligation to render services involving qualification of personal nature such a right is heritable as well as alienable. The right of the baridars cannot be equated with the right ad duties of a shebait. The Baridars are not managers of the Shrine in the sense that a shebait is in relation to a temple in his charge. The right to share in the offerings being a right coupled with duties other than those involving personal qualification and being heritable property, it will descend in accordance with the dictates of the Hindu Succession Act in supersession of all customs to the contrary in view of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is seen that Section 2 gives over-riding effect to the Act over any contrary law or any scheme of the management, decree, custom, usage or instrument. The Act, therefore, abolishes the customary right or duty of service as Baridar and the receipt of offerings being conditioned upon performing Pooja, he loses the right with cessation of performing service. Right to receive offerings, by operation of Section 19(1) of the Act has ceased. The question is; whether the State controls the vesting of the properties and the Board is a controlled Corporation within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? By operation of Section 6, the Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and seal with a right to sue or be sued by or in the name of the Board. The sum total of properties are of and vest in the Shrine. The management of the Shrine and the Shrine Fund stood vested in the Board under Section 4. The appellants had the fundamental right to property guaranteed by Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Though the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 which came into force w.e.f. June 29, 1979, deleted Article 19(1) (g) and Article 31 by operation of Sections 2 and 6 thereof, they would still be available to the residents of the Stat of Jammu and Kashmir.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham vs Thirugnanasambandam ... 1St on 12 September, 2014

; 1911 (1) MU 952 (V.Rama Das and others Vs. K.Hanumantha Row); 2003(2) CTC 408 ( Arulmighu Kumbeshwarar Koil, Kurinjipadi Vs. The Commissioner, H.R&C.E. Dept.); 1964 (2) SCR 647 ( Ahmad Adam Sait Vs. M.E.Makhri) ; 1965 (1) SCR 815 ( CIT Vs. Mr.P.Firm Muar) ; AIR 1979 SC 1314 ( Badri Nath Vs. Punna); AIR 1979 SC 1682 ( Profulla Chorone Vs. Stya Choron); AIR 1972 Mad 119 (Venkataraman Vs. Thangappa Gounder); 1974 (2) MLJ 406 (The Commissioner, HR&CE Vs. Vaihinath Gurukkal and Others); 1964 (1) MLJ 384 (Babu Gurukkal Vs. The Commissioner, HR&CE Board) ; 99 LW 675 (Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar Vs. S.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar); 1964 (2) MLJ 560 (Muthuswami Gurukal vs. Ayaswami Thevar) ; 1951 (2) MLJ 232 (Andavar Vs. Periathambi Padayachi) ; AIR 1981 Patna 339 (Sitesh Kishore Vs. Ramesh Kishore); AIR 1936 PC 318 (Ganesh Chunder Vs. Lal Behaly); 2010 (8) SCC 423 (Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs. Surenda Oil and Dal Mills); 2001 (10) SC 619 (State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N.Sahani and Others); 97 LW 562 (Margachari, V.K. Vs. M.R.Krishnaswami Mudaliar, etc.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham vs Thirugnanasambandam ... 1St on 12 September, 2014

; 1911 (1) MU 952 (V.Rama Das and others Vs. K.Hanumantha Row); 2003(2) CTC 408 ( Arulmighu Kumbeshwarar Koil, Kurinjipadi Vs. The Commissioner, H.R&C.E. Dept.); 1964 (2) SCR 647 ( Ahmad Adam Sait Vs. M.E.Makhri) ; 1965 (1) SCR 815 ( CIT Vs. Mr.P.Firm Muar) ; AIR 1979 SC 1314 ( Badri Nath Vs. Punna); AIR 1979 SC 1682 ( Profulla Chorone Vs. Stya Choron); AIR 1972 Mad 119 (Venkataraman Vs. Thangappa Gounder); 1974 (2) MLJ 406 (The Commissioner, HR&CE Vs. Vaihinath Gurukkal and Others); 1964 (1) MLJ 384 (Babu Gurukkal Vs. The Commissioner, HR&CE Board) ; 99 LW 675 (Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar Vs. S.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar); 1964 (2) MLJ 560 (Muthuswami Gurukal vs. Ayaswami Thevar) ; 1951 (2) MLJ 232 (Andavar Vs. Periathambi Padayachi) ; AIR 1981 Patna 339 (Sitesh Kishore Vs. Ramesh Kishore); AIR 1936 PC 318 (Ganesh Chunder Vs. Lal Behaly); 2010 (8) SCC 423 (Shalimar Chemical Works Limited Vs. Surenda Oil and Dal Mills); 2001 (10) SC 619 (State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N.Sahani and Others); 97 LW 562 (Margachari, V.K. Vs. M.R.Krishnaswami Mudaliar, etc.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document
1   2 Next