Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Prattipati Dandaiah And Anr. vs Nori Venkatrama Dikshitulu, Managing ... on 12 May, 1953

Srinivasa Reddiar And Ors. vs P. Krishnaswami Reddiar And Ors. on 10 September, 1954

It was further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Magistrate acting under Section 87, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act cannot be considered to be a tribunal within the meaning of Article 227. We have no hesitation in overruling this contention. Applying any of the well established tests it must be held that the Magistrate acting under that section is a tribunal, a judicial tribunal. There is a dispute as to possession between the trustees on the one hand and the persons in possession en the other hand, and the Magistrate has to decide on the rights of the trustees to immediate possession. The Magistrate has to decide Judicially whether the requirements of Section 87 have been complied with. It is sufficient to refer to the decisions in -- 'P. Dandaiah v. Venkatarama 'Dikshitulu'.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Uppaluri Venugopalakrishna Rao vs Co-Operative Sub Registrar And Anr. on 20 June, 1977

A Magistrate is a judicial officer and the legislature must be presumed to know that he follows the rules of judicial procedure. Before a Magistrate can direct delivery, the conditions laid down in Section 87 should be complied with. Unless a notice is given to a party affected, the Magistrate may be misled or the necessary facts may not be brought before him. It may be that the certificate Is a forgery, it may be that the petitioner is not a person who has been appointed by the Commissioner as a trustee. Many circumstances can be visualised where it would be necessary for the aggrieved party to appear end put forward his case before the Magistrate.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1