Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing His Holiness Sinha Sri Vythilinga ... vs Sir T. Sadasiva Aiyar And Ors. on 8 August, 1928

T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai And Anr. vs The Board Of Commissioners Of The Hindu ... on 2 September, 1949

In that case, Kumaraswami Sastri J. sitting on the original side of this Court, passed a decree declaring that the Act did not apply to the properties endowed for a temple which had disappeared long before the Act came into force and granting an injunction restraining the Board from exercising any of the powers conferred by the Act in respect of that endowment; Vythilinga Pandaru Sannadhi v. Sadasiva Aiyar, 55 M.L.J. 605: (A.i.r. (15) 1928 Mad. 1272).
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Nityananda Panigrahi vs Basudeb Patra And Ors. on 13 February, 1970

In another case reported in (1928) 55 Mad LJ 605 = (AIR 1928 Mad 1272), Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. T. S. Aiyar some reference has been made to Act 1 of 1925. The point that had arisen for consideration before Kumaraswami Sastri J. on this occasion was as to whether Section 7 of Madras Act 2 of 1927 was ultra vires. When we come to discuss that section it will clearly appear to be a section to validate certain actions under the earlier Madras Act (Act 1 of 1925). The learned Judge, however, did not decide as to whether Madras Act 1 of 1925 was an invalid piece of legislation. He noticed the contention and proceeded to assume that conclusion. In his own language the matter is expressed thus:--
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.A. Jaleel Sahib vs Seeniappa Ramaswami Mudaliar And Co., ... on 5 September, 1950

This rule indicates that a Court can direct addition of another party under two circumstances; either the name of any person, who ought to have been joined originally, was not added as a party or where the presence of a party is absolutely necessary to enable the Court to come to an effective and complete adjudication upon the question involved in the suit. The position that there is no jurisdiction in a Court to add a party in any other case cannot be seriously disputed. See Mullah, 11th Edn., p. 517 and also the decision in 'Ramakrishnayya v. Satyanarayana', AIR (16) 1929 Mad 291 : (116 IC 137); 'Vaithilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Sadasiva Aiyar', AIR (13) 1926 Mad 836 : (50 Mad 34) and 'Devendra Kumar v. Mt. Batasi Bai', AIR (21) 1934 Nag 228: (148 IC 720). Now what I have to consider is whether the petitioner can come within either of the two alternatives mentioned in Order 1, Rule 10 (2). Admittedly the respondent in this case cannot come within the first alternative laid down in that Sub-rule (2). The only question is whether he is a person whose presence is necessary for an effective & complete adjudication of the matters in dispute. I do not think his presence is necessary for any effective and complete adjudication of the matters in dispute. It cannot be said his presence is necessary for any effective and complete adjudication of the matters in dispute in this case. Even in the application for being added as a party he does not mention that there is something in the matter which cannot be decided without his being a party to the application. All that he alleges in the application is that, if for any reason, the petitioning creditor does not choose to proceed with his petition diligently, he would be willing to go on with that application. On these allegations in the affidavit, it cannot be said that' his presence is absolutely necessary for deciding whether the debtor should be adjudicated an insolvent or not.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sri Iswarananda Bharathi Swami Of Ednir ... vs The Board Of Commissioners For Hindu ... on 4 March, 1931

5. There is no doubt that a dispute had arisen between the plaintiff on one side who maintained that the institution was his private : property, and the Board on the other which claimed that the institution was a math within the definition of the Act. The. Board was, therefore, competent to decide the dispute under Section 84(1) of the; Act : see Sri Vaithilinga Pandora Sannadhi v. Sir T. Sadasiva Aiyar (1928) 55 M.L.J. 605 at 611. The argument was directed to showing that the Court's jurisdiction to entertain this suit is not ousted by Section 84(2). A number of cases have been cited in support of the proposition that an enactment providing that the decision of a special tribunal upon a particular matter shall be final does, not import a total exclusion of the Court's jurisdiction over the matter.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Thayoth Puthiyapurayil Ayisomma vs Choolat Puthiyapurayil Kunhali And ... on 16 August, 1956

The decision in Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Sadasiva Aiyar, 55 Mad LJ 605: (AIR 1928 Mad 1272) (B) is instructive. The basis of the decision in this case is that it is within the competence of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board to deter-mine whether a math or temple is one to which the Act applies, and where there is a dispute between the trustee or Matadhipathi and the Board the Act gives the Board the power to determine this question subject to the right of the trustee to apply to the court to modify or set aside the decision of the Board. There is nothing in this decision to countenance the view that even when the dispute is not with the Board, but there is a dispute between two private parties, the ordinary civil court has no Jurisdiction to decide the dispute, but it is only the Board which is competent to decide it. There is no such express or implied bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court in Section 84 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

N.K.R.M. Rajagopala Chettiar vs Hindu Religious Endowment Board And ... on 8 December, 1933

2. Apparently the question of the status of the temple was raised by the present trustee-petitioner for the purpose of getting the decision of the Board. Mr. Rajah Ayyar has taken the point that in the circumstances there was no dispute within the contemplation of Section 84. But it is conceded that the Board can initiate a dispute by challenging the status of a temple and can decide the question against the trustee who asserts that it is not a public temple or that it is an excepted temple, as the case may be : Vythillinga Pandara Sannadhi v. T.S. Sadasiva Ayyar 1928 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1