Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Virupakshayya Shankarayya vs Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru on 21 March, 1995

Sainath Mandir Trust vs Vijaya W/O Vithalrao Mandale And Ors. on 27 March, 2003

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also relied on judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Virupakshayya Shankarayya v. Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru, . In my view, the ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, because the Apex Court, after considering the facts of that case, the Court had come to the conclusion that the said suit which was filed in the case before the Apex Court was hit by provisions of Section 50 and 51 of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - V M Kanade - Full Document

Church Of North Of India vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors on 3 May, 2005

In Virupakshayya Shankarayya Vs. Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru [1995 Supp (2) SCC 531], this Court categorically held that the suit for recovery of possession of property as validly appointed Mathadhipati is hit by Sections 50 and 51 of the Act. The matter might have been different if the suit was not for declaration or injunction in favour or against the public trust or where the plaintiffs are not beneficiaries either.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 97 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rajendra Singh vs . Zahoor Ahmad And Others on 1 April, 1950

As far as the question of admissibility of the judgment of 1885 under Section 42 of Evidence Act is concerned, reference may be made to the Supreme Court authority reported in "Virupakshayya Shankarayya v. Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru" AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 2187. In the said case the dispute was regarding Padadayya 199 of the Math. There was an earlier decision of Privy Council of the State in that regard. The Supreme Court held that even though explanation VI to Section 11 C.P.C. was not attracted as in the earlier litigation present plaintiff was not party however earlier judgment was admissible under Section 42 of Evidence Act. Reversing both the judgments of the courts below the Supreme Court passed the judgment in accordance with the earlier judgment of Privy Council of the State. It is therefore held that judgment of 1885 suit, admissions and assertions made or omitted to be made in the pleading of the said suits are admissible under Section 42 Evidence Act as well as Section 13 read with Section 42 of the Evidence Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Govindasamy (Died) vs Gowthiya Sangam on 15 May, 2007

In support of this proposition, learned counsel refers also to Virupakshayya Shankarayya V. Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 531). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: (Omitted) The above judgment of the Supreme Court places the matter beyond doubt. Even if the judgment of this Court in the prior proceedings cannot be treated as a judgment in rem, it can certainly be treated as a precedent inasmuch as it decides the character of a temple. It should be noticed that the question whether a temple is a private or a public one is essentially between the persons who claim it to be private temple and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Once as between them the said question has been decided one way or other, that should be treated as a precedent in a subsequent case if the question arises between some third parties and one of the parties to the earlier proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - K M Ram - Full Document
1   2 3 Next