Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 188 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Deoki Nandan vs Murlidhar on 4 October, 1956

Bihar State Board Of Hindu Religious ... vs Bhubneshwar Prasad Choudhary & Anr on 9 April, 1974

We find ourselves unable to agree, with the learned Judges of the High Court. We are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court proceeds from failure to appreciate the effect of the judgment of this Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (1956 SCR 756). In that case the dedication of the properties was not as complete and as categorical as in the present case. Only in the absence of male issue, the entire immovable property was to stand endowed in the name of the deity. Half of the income from the properties was to be taken by the two waves of the, testator for their maintenance during their lifetime. If a son was born to the testator then the properties were to be divided between the son and the temple. A committee of four persons was appointed to look after the management of the temple and its proper-ties, and of these, two were not the relations of the testator. The committee "may appoint the testator's nephew as Mutawalli by their unanimous opinion". The documents in the present case are only slightly different in that they provide for the members of the family. being shebaits. But the panches are all outsiders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Varghese Paul vs Baselius Marthoma Didymus on 6 May, 2010

referred to herein-before. The ratio of all the decisions laying down the distinction between private trust and public trust is that in private trust, the beneficiaries are specified and ascertained individuals or ascertained or ascertainable group of individuals. But, in a public trust, the beneficiaries are the public generally. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thomas v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 363), which was rendered, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others (AIR 1957 SC 133) is to the effect that even when the beneficiaries of a given trust are the believers of a particular religious faith, whose identities cannot be ascertained, then also, the trust will be a public one and not a private one. According to this decision, the numerical strength of the beneficiaries, has some relevance in determining the nature of the trust whether public or private. We are mentioning this only to say that if it is FAO. 235/09 etc.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Sri Gedela Satchidananda Murthy (D) By ... vs Dy. Commnr., Endowments Deptt., A.P. & ... on 15 May, 2007

"20. An attempt appears to have been made in the trial court to establish that certain ceremonies, such as Sankalpa, Pratistha and Utsarga, were performed at the time when idols were installed in the temple. In the case of temples Pratistha and not Utsarga, if established, would indicate dedication to the public. (See Kane's History of Dharmasastras, Vol. 2, Part II, 892 to 893 and Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar). Unfortunately for the appellant Board, there was no clear evidence of the particular ceremonies performed at the time when Gaibi Ramdasji installed the idols except a general statement from the respondent that when idols are installed in temples Pran Pratistha is generally performed. Support for a dedication to the public was also sought from the fact that the idols were installed permanently on a pedestal (Sinhasan) and the temple was constructed on grounds separate from the residential quarters of the Mahant. In the first place, such factors are also found in private temples and Mutts, and therefore, are not conclusive. In the second place, there was the evidence that the Mahant's residential quarters are in fact not separate from the temple premises."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State vs Man Singh And Ors. on 15 February, 1974

THEdistinction between a private and public trust has been explained in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others, and in Halsbwy (ib.) at pages 209 and 228. Briefly, in the case of the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals: in the latter they are the public in general or an appreciable class thereof. Public benefit is the overriding test. Without a doubt the trust constituted by the testator is of a public nature as all the specified charities are for the benefit of the community or an appreciable part of it. This ousts the Trusts Act, and also section 34. However, the petition filed by the trustees would be maintainable under a different Act. The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act 1920. Under section 7 of that Act the trustees 'of an express or constructive trust created or existing for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature' may apply by a petition to the court for its 'opinion, advice or direction' respecting any question affecting the management or administration of the trust property. Thus there is a provision under which the petition would lie. I have entertained it under that provision as I am not willing to reject it on a mere technical ground, especially as the public interest is involved. Nor do I think it necessary, in the circumstances of the present case, that the trustees be driven to institute a suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Vidyawati And Another vs Ram Janki And Others on 24 April, 2019

55. To sum up, I have no hesitation to hold that finding recorded by the court below while deciding issue No.4 that Lal Man merely expressed desire to construct Dharmshala and there was no dedication, is wholly perverse and is, therefore, set aside. The conclusions so reached by me is based on detailed discussion made in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment which clearly establishes that dedication of suit property for Dharmshala and dedication of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for construction and maintenance of Dharmshala, are evidenced by registered Will deeds dated 22.05.1924 and 30.06.1924 (Ex.12 and 13), the registered sale deed of the suit property dated 08.07.1924 (Ex.10), the notice given by plaintiff Mata Prasad dated 30.05.1972 (Ex.32), copies of books of accounts, paper No.131ga and 132ga/11 relating to the year 1972-1973 and 1973-1974, copies of Dharmshala account for the year 1968-69, cash-book of the year 1969-1970, (paper No.315ga, 316ga, 317ga and 318ga), application for sanction of map submitted to the Municipal Board (Ex.7 and Ex.14), oral evidence of DW-1- Mahadeiya, wife of Ram Krishna, DW-2 Ramesh Chand, DW-3 - Jagannath Dixit, PW-1- Harish chandra Gupta and rent receipts being paper No.56C, 205C, 206C and 207C, the surrounding circumstances, intention of the testator Lal Man and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Ji N. Desai (supra), Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another (supra), Kuldeep Chand and another (supra), Malayammal (supra), Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi (supra), Dayal Chand (supra), K.S.Palanisami (Dead) through Legal Representatives (supra), Deoki Nandan (supra), Tilkayat Sri Govindlalji Maharaj (supra). The relevant portions of the aforesaid judgments have already been reproduced in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S P Kesarwani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next