Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (3.45 seconds)
Documents citing Mahant Harnam Singh, Chela Ofbhai ... vs Gurdial Singh & Anr on 24 February, 1967

L.M.Menezes vs Rt.Rev.Dr.Lawrence Pius on 22 December, 2003

In the decision reported in (Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another) AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1415 their Lordships referred to AIR 1919 Madras 384 to come to a conclusion that "Mere residence in a village where free kitchen is being run for providing food to visitors does not create any interest in the residents of the village of such a nature as to claim that they can institute a suit for the removal of the Mahant."
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

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

144 (146) 441 439 74 Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183 509 474 75 Kunju Kasavan Vs M.M. Philip, I.C.S. and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 694 625 76 Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another (2004) 6 SCC 254 666, 673, 675 596, 606, 607 77 Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789=1977(2) SCC 88 457 449 78 Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 471 454 79 Laxmi Raj Shetty and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1988(3) SCC 319 154, 158 116, 119 80 M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659 311 249 81 Ma Fatima and others vs. Momin Bibi and others, AIR 1929 Rangoon 211 143 112 82 Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 502 471 83 Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, 2002(2) SCC 85 517 481 84 Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu and others (2004) 7 SCC 181 666, 676 596, 608 85 Mahant Girjanand Bhagat Vs. Bhagwan Bhagat and others AIR 1967 (Patna) 101 75 68 86 Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SC 1415 512 477 87 Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) VS. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC 481 424 428 88 Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras and Anr., 1952(1) MLJ 557 520, 522 485, 487 89 Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355 462, 463 450, 451 90 Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 (Patna) 264 (FB) 485 461 91 Midnapur Zamindari Company Limited Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1922 PC 241 406 413 92 Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144 468 453 93 Mohammad Sher Khan Vs. Bharat Indu AIR 1928 All 59 412 417 94 Mohan Lal Vs Anandibai and others, 1971 (1) SCC 313 688 623 95 Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee and Ors. AIR 1953 SC 65 524 488 96 Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple) (4) SCC 286 294, 298 241, 243 97 Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103 297 242 98 Musa Vs. Manilal (1905) ILR 29 Bom 368 566 519 99 Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 1927 ILR (VIII) 384 437 434 100 Nagubai Ammal and others Vs B. Shama Rao and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 692 624 101 Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712 312 249 102 Nana Tukaram Jaikar Vs. Sonabai Mahadav and others AIR 1982 Bom.
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M.G.Devasahayam vs Sir John D'Monte Trust on 19 August, 2011

20. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in T.R.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Parameswaran Unni [ILR 42 Madras 360] and the decision of the Division Bench in Vaidyanatha Iyer Vs. Swaminatha Iyer [AIR 1924 PC 221(2)] were both referred to by the Supreme Court in Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh [AIR 1967 SC 1415]. While doing so, the Supreme Court cited the opinion expressed by Sir.John Wallis, CJ (which led to a reference to the Full Bench in T.R.Ramachandra Iyer). It reads as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

G.V.Selvam vs G.V.Sampath on 29 September, 2015

Likewise, in Mahant Harnam Singh case also, the parties have gone in for trial and thereafter, the matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it has been observed that the plaintiffs were not interested persons and that mere residence in a village where free kitchen is being run for providing food to visitors does not create any interest in the residents of the village of such a nature so as to claim that they can institute a suit under Section 92 C.P.C.. Therefore, I am of the view that the above decisions are not presently applicable at the stage of considering the leave application.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - K R Baabu - Full Document

Sahil Mittal vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 17 December, 2007

9. Learned Counsel for the State and the SGPC submitted that the population of Sikhs should be taken to be equal to the members of electoral college for voting in the SGPC elections, as mere declaration by any citizen that he was a Sikh, was not enough to treat him as a Sikh. The expression Sikh as commonly understood may also include several other sects such as Udasis, Nirmalas etc, which were not covered by the definition of Sikh under Section 2(9) of the 1925 Act and the impugned notification was justified on that basis and the question whether Sikhs were not minority in the State of Punjab involved a question of fact, which could not be gone into by this Court. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Privy Council in Hem Singh and Ors. v. Basant Das and Anr. AIR 1936 Privy Council 93, judgment of Lahore High Court in Ram Parshad and Ors. v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and Ors. AIR 1931 Lahore 161, holding that Udasis were not Sikhs for the purposes of 1925 Act and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahant harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 805, holding that Nirmala Sadhus were not Sikhs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Harl Bhagwan Sharma And Ors. vs Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple ... on 15 February, 1984

As for Mahant Harnam Singh's case, it may be noticed that the only allegation made in the plaint was that a Langar used to be run in the charitable institution in question where free kitchen was provided to visitors. The suit had been brought by some Lambardars and residents of the village. It was nowhere stated that the free kitchen was being run for the general residents of the village Jhandawala, who could as of right claim to be fed in the langar. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that mere residence in a village where free kitchen is being run for providing food to visitors does not create any interest in the residents of the village of such a nature as to claim that they can institute a suit for the removal of the Mahant. It may be thus noticed that in all these three cases the interest of the plaintiffs, if any, was somewhat remote or contingent and not substantial and existing. However, the position in the instant case is quite different inasmuch as the plaintiffs are not only votaries of Sanatan Dharam and believers in Idol worship but they are residents of the same town, namely, Delhi in which the endowment in question is situate. It may be patient to notice here that Shri Anil Kumar Mehra, plaintiff No. 3, is a resident of 10196, Jhandewalan Mandir, itself. While browsing through the array of parties in the plaint, I find that several defendants, viz., 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26 and 35 are also residents of the same locality called "Jhandewalan Mandir." As stated above, defendants 21 and 22 are the contesting defendants in the other suit No. 447/82. Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs that they have subsisting interest in the proper management of Jhandewalan Devi Temple and other temples and Dharamshalas forming part of its estate control be brushed aside lightly on the facile plea that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and as such it must be rejected under order Vii rule 11 Civil Procedure Code . The court must look to the substance and not mere form of the averments made in the plaint.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

P. Sivagurunatha Pillai And Anr. vs P. Mani Pillai (Died) And Ors. on 19 June, 1984

Such is not the Situation in this case, However in Harnam Singh v Gurdial Singh, , the Supreme Court, while considering tile question of the nature of the interest under S. 92. C. P. C. to sustain a suit there under, pointed out that mere residence in a village where free kitchen is being run for providing food to visitors does not create any interest in the residents of the village of such a nature as to claim that they can institute a suit for the removal of the Mahant. The Supreme Court observed as follows (at p. 1417 of AIR) "The nature of the interest that a person must have in order to entitle him to institute a suit under S. 92.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next