Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Chockalingam Pillai And Ors. vs Mayandi Chettiar on 13 August, 1896

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors on 9 November, 2019

―... The other case relied on was Mahammad Mazaffar-al- Musavi v. Jabeda Khatun (AIR 1930 PC 103) where the rule was affirmed, relating to the presumption of a lawful origin in support of proprietary rights long and quietly enjoyed, as it was explained in an earlier case [Chockalingam Pillai v Mayandi Chettiar ILR 19 Madras 485] by Lord Buckmaster…But it was explained in the same case that this rule is applicable where there is absence or failure of actual evidence. The presumption, it was stated, of an origin in some lawful title which the courts have so often readily made in order to support possessory rights long and quietly enjoyed, arises where no actual proof of title is forthcoming, and the rule has to be resorted to because of the failure of actual evidence. In the present case, where there is ample and convincing proof of the nature of the grant, the object of the endowment and the capacity of the persons claiming the user and enjoyment, the rule can hardly have any application.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 174 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Muna Muhammad Rowther And Ors. vs K.R. Muthu Alagappa Chettiar Panchayat ... on 29 November, 1917

We have next the case in Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Ghettiar (1896) I.L.R. 19 M. 485 which was overruled by the Privy Council in Mayandi Ghettiar v. Chockalingam Pillai (1904) I.L.R. 27 M. 291. In that case the High Court reversed the judgments of the two lower Courts in Second Appeal. The defendants in support of their claim produced two leases granted in 1813 which entitled the grantees to hold the lands permanently for all time to come by right of "ulavadi kani," and in the muchilikas subsequently executed by the defendants who claim under these leases they were described as ulavadai mirasidars. The Judicial Committee in their reversing judgment appear to have been of opinion that the leases of 1813 were of questionable validity and could not be relied on. On the other hand, they laid great stress on the fact that the dharkast or application pursuant to which the muchilika was taken by the Collector described the two applicants as purakudis of the assessed lands in the village owned by the temple, and on the facts that in it they undertook to pay the revenue for one year and asked that a dharkast izara for one year might be granted in their names. The inferences to be drawn from these facts were not counterbalanced in their Lordships' opinion by the fact that in the muchilika the two executants were styled ulavadai miras. On the materials before them and with reference to the observations of the Subordinate Judge, their Lordships treated the words ulavadai miras as of doubtful signification.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Godasankara Valia Raja vs Tharappan Vareed on 2 December, 1960

That the original lease deed, Ext. A, was not returned to the lessee on taking Ext. B, is but a slender circumstance, notwithstanding the reliance on a similar circumstance, along with more weighty reasons, in Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar, ILR 19 Mad 485, which was a case of a preexisting permanent right, and not of a lease terminable at any time. There is nothing then, in these surrounding circumstances which militates against my conclusion.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Pratap Mull Bagaria And Anr. vs Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jiew Thakur ... on 25 August, 1943

12. The Madras High Court held in Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar ('96) 19 Mad. 485. that although a manager for the time being has no power to make a permanent alienation of a temple property in the absence of proved necessity for the alienation, yet the long lapse of time between the alienation and the challenge of its validity is a circumstance which entitles the Court to assume that the original grant was made in exercise of that extended power.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Rep. By ... vs Garuda Venkata Rao (Died) By Lrs. And ... on 12 October, 2006

21. In Bawa Magniram Sitar am v. Kasturbhai Manibhai L.R. Vol. XLIX 49 Indian Appeals p. 54 the Privy Council followed Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar I.L.R. 19 M. 485 wherein it was held that although the manager for the time being had no power to make a permanent alienation of temple property in the absence of proved necessity for the alienation, yet the long lapse of time between the alienation and the challenge of its validity is a circumstance which enables the Court to assume that the original grant was made in exercise of that extended power, and held that:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bawa Magniram Sitaram vs Kasturbhai Manibhai on 6 December, 1921

In the case of Chockcalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar (1896) I.L.R. 19, Mad. 485 it was pointed out that although the manager for the time being had no power to make a permanent alienation of temple property in the absence of proved necessity for the alienation, yet the long lapse of time between the alienation and the challenge of its validity is a circumstance which enables the Court to assume that the original grant was made in exercise of that extended power. Their Lordships have no hesitation in applying that doctrine to the present case. If in fact the grant was made by a person who possessed the limited power of dealing under which a shebait holds lands devoted to the purposes of religious worship, yet none the less there is attached to the office in special and unusual circumstances the power of making a wider grant than one which enures only for his life. At the lapse of 100 years, when every party to the original transaction has passed away, and it becomes completely impossible to ascertain what were the circumstances which caused the original grant to be made, it is only following the policy which the Courts always adopt, of securing as far as possible quiet possession to people who are in apparent lawful holding of an estate, to assume that the grant was lawfully land not unlawfully made.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next