Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Ramanasramam By Its Secretary G. ... vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 12 December, 1959

The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... vs G. Veluchamy And Ors. on 18 February, 1987

In Sri Ramanasramam v. Commr.; H.R. & C.E. , it was held that the Madras Act XIX of 1951 is intended to apply only to religious institutions and endowments which are exclusively Hindu in character. The connotation of a temple as defined in the Act consists of the following two component parts, viz., it must be an exclusively Hindu institution and it must be exclusively a place of Hindu public religious worship. A temple must conform to Agama Sastras or by immemorial public usage must have come to be regarded as a place of public religious worship notwithstanding its non-conformance with the Agama Sastras. The Samadhi described as Mathru-bootheswarar temple is an adjunct to the Ramanasramam and is certainly hot the core around which the Asramam grew. This institution is a composite institution and in accordance with the founder's universal outlook is open to devotees of all religious. It stands to commonsense also that no exclusively Hindu shrine would be an appenage of a cosmopolitan Ashrani and where "persons of other religion were consistently paying homage at the shrine. The building of a Samadhi or a tomb over the remains of a person and the making of the provision for the performance of Gurupooja and other ceremonies in connection, with the same is not recognized as charitable or religious purposes according to Hindu Law. It has become settled law that a Samadhi by itself and not treated as a fitting object of public Hindu religious worship for over a long period does not evolve into a temple.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The State Of Madras By The Secretary, ... vs The Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar ... on 26 July, 1960

That decision of a Division Bench is authority binding on us. Even had we been convinced that the test of exclusiveness formulated by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., with reference to both Hindu charitable endowments and Hindu religious endowments was not correct, we could only have referred the question for determination by a Full Bench, as the determination of that question necessarily involves an examination of the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in Ramanasramam v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Choritable Endowments, Madras (1932) I.L.R. 60 Cal. 452 at 473 (KB.), which accepted that test as correct. We are not convinced that that decision requires reconsideration by a Full Bench. Normally that should have sufficed to reject this appeal. We shall, however, examine the question at issue, as if it were res Integra. Was the test of exclusiveness formulated and applied by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., correct? To constitute a Hindu public charitable endowment within the scope of Act XIX of 1951 is it necessary that the benefits of the endowment should be confined exclusively to Hindus?
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

S. Kannan And Ors. vs The All India Sai Satnaj (Registered) By ... on 28 February, 1973

In Sri Ramanasramam by its Secretary, G. Sambasiva Rao and Ors. v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras (1960) a M.L.J. 121 : I.L.R. (1960) Mad. 922. Ramaswami, J., and Anantanarayanan, J., as he then was, had to consider the question whether Mathrubootheswarar temple a component part of Ramanasramam at Thiruvannamalai is a temple as contemplated by Section 6 (17) of the 1951 Act. Ramaswami, J., who delivered the leading judgment after referring to three authoritative works on Hindu Religiuos Endowments namely (1) Pandit Pran Nath Saraswathi's Hindu Law of Endowments, (2) P. R. Ganapathi Ayyar's Hindu and Mohammadan Endowments and (3) B.K. Mukherjee's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust and some of the decisions including the one of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., referred to above, came to the conclusion that The evidence in the instant case showed that this institution, is a composite institution and is in accordance with Sri Ramana Maharishi's universal outlook making his Asramam open to devotees of all religions--The contributions came also largely from non-Hindus--It stands to commonsense also that no exclusively Hindu shrine would be an appendage of a cosmopolitan Asramam, and which would have been totally inconsistent with Sri Ramana Maharishi's teachings and life.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Soundharathammal vs The Tiruchirapalli Mavattam ... on 30 April, 1976

The same view was taken in yet another case, viz., Ramanasramam v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras and it was held that a samadhi by itself and not treated as a fitting object of public Hindu religious worship for over a long period, does not evolve into a temple At first sight, therefore, it appears that the appellant is on a form ground when she contends that Sri Suruliandavar is only a samadhi and not a temple in the known sense of the word. For the respondent two features were pointedout to contend that these rulings would not apply to the facts of the instant case, viz. : (1) that the samadhi was not of an ordinary individual but of a saint; and (2) in any event, the samadhi had, by subsequent treatment, evolved into a temple. The evidence discloses that Sri Suruliandavar had divine powers and a large number of people had devout faith in him and used to go to him to get relief, succour and peace of mind. There is therefore some force in the contention of the respondent that the samadhi we are concerned with is not that of an ordinary human being, but of a saintly person and therefore, the deification of such a person in a tomb would stand on a higher footing than building a samadhi for an ordinary individual.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - S Natarajan - Full Document

Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam vs The Commissioner on 30 January, 2013

18.The learned Senior counsel also referred to a judgment of a division bench of this court in Sri Ramanasramam Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras reported in (1960) 2 MLJ 121. In that case, the question came up for consideration was whether Ramanasramam at Tiruvannamalai is a temple as defined under Section 6(17) of the HR&CE Act, 1951. Ramaswami, J., in that case held as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Ram Narsu Gore And Ors vs Sudarshan Gir Ganesh Gir Died Th Lrs And ... on 21 August, 2017

Learned Counsel also cited the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Ramanasramam, by its secretary G. Sambasiva Rao and others vs. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras ( AIR 1961 Madras 265) ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 02:16:20 ::: 12 FA NO.3032 OF 2016 to submit that the dedication of a property for worship at Tomb is not sanctioned by Shastriac practices and is not valid amongst the Hindus. Learned Counsel further submitted that nothing is brought on record by the original applicant that the Service Inam of the subject land was made for benefit of any sect of the society or that some obligation was annexed to the ownership of the Inam land held by the disciples of Govindgir Maharaj. According to the learned Counsel, in such circumstances, the question whether the Math is a public trust or private trust does not arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P R Bora - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

The term "religion" whatever its best definition, clearly refers to certain characteristic types of data (beliefs, practices, feelings, moods, attitudes etc.). It primarily involves some immediate consciousness of transcendent realities of supreme personal worth vitally influencing life and thought, expressing themselves in forms which are conditioned by the entire stage of development reached by the individual and his environments and tending to become more explicit and static in mythologies, theologies, philosophies and scientific doctrines. Ramanasramam v. Commissioner for Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, AIR 1961 Mad 265 (269).
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Special Commissioner And vs Saadhu Seenimalai Thambiran Swami on 5 June, 2014

He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1961 Madras 265 (Sri Ramanasramam by its Secretary G.Sambasiva Rao and Others Vs. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras) to contend that unless Prana Pratishta is performed, spiritual 13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.29 of 2003 descent cannot be invoked at such a place. Even if there is a Linga installed, it can only be symbolic and it can never be construed to be a place of public religious worship.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next