Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing T.P. Srinivasa Chariar vs C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar on 6 April, 1922

Vadlamudi Sastrulu And Ors. vs Thalluri Venkataseshayya And Ors. on 30 November, 1927

Having regard to the fact that in the case of a temple or a chatram the trustee himself has no beneficial interest in the property of the institution and may, therefore, be-regarded as a trustee within the strictest meaning of the term and remembering' that in the case of mutts the head of a mutt has got larger powers than those of the manager of a temple and has some beneficial interest in the income of the endowments and therefore it may be said that he is not a bare trustee, it seems to me that the decision in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Ayyar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 123 must be confined only to the case of a mutt which was actually the subject of the decision and cannot be applied to the case of temples or chatrams in view of the later decisions of the Privy Council in Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappo Mudaliar A.I.R 1922 P.C. 325 and Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mohamad Mustappa Maracayar A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 175 already referred to. If there is alienation such as sale, there can be no question of the alienation being valid during the lifetime of the person who made it and of the cause of action arising for his successor when the succession opened. In all such cases it makes no difference whether Article 134 or Article 144 applies. It is not matter of importance whether the manager of a temple or chatram can be properly described as trustee, for if Article 134 does not apply Article 144 would apply and there would be adverse possession from the date of the alienation; but where instead of having a sale we have got a permanent lease it is possible to say that the lease is not entirely void, but is binding on the original lessor for the rest of his lifetime and it is not binding only on his successors.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Kishan vs Jagannathji And Ors. on 27 September, 1951

302 (P.c.), it has already been pointed out that in their general characteristics the institutions in southern India are almost identical with similar institutions in northern India and in the Bombay Presidency. The manager of an endowment, who is designated as a 'dharamkarta , is not a 'shebait' or a 'pujari' of a shrine or a head of the 'Math'. He is literally and no more than the manager of a charity, and his rights are never of a higher legal category than that of a mere trustee, vide Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa, Mudaliar, 49 Ind. App. 237 (P.C.).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shripatprasad Beharilalji ... vs Lakshmidas Dungarbhai Barot on 9 November, 1922

20. [His Lordship then turned to an examination of usage and practice of the usage and after discussing at great length the documents and other evidence bearing on the point summed up his conclusions as follows:] I have now dealt with the main facts of the case. I regret the details this has involved, because there is a risk alike for the Judge as for counsel and litigant in the details obscuring the relevant principles Case Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar (1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 237, 240, 244 : 24 Bom. L.R. 1214. But the arguments presented to us have been both able and earnest, and in deference to those. arguments and to the importance of the case to this large sect, I have preferred to give a detailed judgment. After carefully weighing those arguments and the facts before us, I have come clearly to the conclusion that the learned Judge was correct in holding that apart from Nam Vero and Bhets the Acharya was a trustee of the suit properties for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature. Consequently in my judgment the Appeal No. 62 of 1919 of the Acharya on this part of the case fails and should be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Ors. on 22 September, 1959

It may also be pointed out that the appellant maintained no separate accounts for these properties, and made no distinction between them and the other properties to which we have referred earlier. A trustee must not mix private property with trust property, because if he does so, he undertakes a heavy burden of proving that any particular property is his, as distinct from the trust. See Lewin on Trusts, 16th Edn., p. 225. To the same effect re the observations in Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar [(1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 237].
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 215 - Full Document

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavibalajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Others on 22 September, 1959

-namely, the failure to join the deity as a party and also not waking a distinction between one, 805 kind of property and another. Here too, the High Court should not have expressed any opinion adverse to the deity, without the deity being a party. The same has to be said of items 3 to 10 in the first part of Sch. A annexed to the plaint and three survey numbers of Belatgavan, Deolali and other jat inams. No useful purpose will be served in examining in detail the evidence relating to these properties in the absence of the deity. It may also be pointed out that the appellant maintained no separate accounts for these properties, and made no distinction between them and the other properties to which we have referred earlier. A trustee must not mix private property with trust property, because if he does so, he undertakes a heavy burden of proving that any particular property is his, as distinct from the trust. See Lewin on Trusts, 16th Edn., p. 225. To the same effect are the observations in Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar (1). The result is that the declaration which the appellant sought in his suit that the temple, the deity and plaint properties were all of private ownership, was rightly refused by the Courts below. The trial Judge gave a declaration that defendants 1 to 4 are en titled to custom ary worship and maintenance. Strictly speaking, such a finding was not necessary in a case of this character, and other matters concerning rights of individuals should not have been gone into in a suit filed under s. 5(3) of, the Act. The appellant is partly to blame. He set up a case of private ownership with all rights centred in himself, and defendants 1 to 4 therefore not only raised the plea that the appellant was a mere manager but also asserted their rights in the property. We think that the Courts below might have refrained from pronouncing upon the rights of the defendants, because all that they had to do was to decide whether the property was trust of a public nature. We, however, do not wish to give any direction in the matter, because the suit, as a whole, as laid by the plaintiff has been dismissed, and to make any observations might lead to further litigation, which is not in the interests of the deity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 63 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Shiva Nath Prasad vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 1 July, 2005

In Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar (supra) the Privy Council held that, "When property proved to have been originally trust propertyis claimed by the trustee as his own, the onus is upon him to establish the legitimacy of his personal acquisition by the clearest and most unimpeachable evidence." In the present case the trustees, particularly Mr. Lodha and the petitioner have, on the contrary, attempted to suppress the very existence of the five trusts and the charitable endowment in favour of the three charitable institutions. In the application for grant of probate they have concealed existence of five trusts created by late MPB and PDB in 1988 thereby creating three charitable institutions. Considering the affirmative obligation of the trustees to explain their conduct, the plea of mens rea and absence of criminal breach of trust is totally misconceived. Moreover, mens rea cannot be decided by this Court at this stage in this revisional application seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. Mens rea is an issue of fact which requires to be inferred from the evidence, both oral and documentary including circumstantial evidence which is not permissible for this Court to assess at this stage. Prima facie there are sufficient ingredients or elements of criminal breach of trust. There is no ground for quashing the criminal proceeding and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code is itself an abuse of the process of Court and the revisional application requires dismissal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Padma Rani Ghosal vs Panchkari Ghosal And Anr. on 17 March, 1977

The Privy Council in AIR 1922 PC 325, Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar have observed that where the discoverable orgin of property shows it to be trust property the onus of establishing that it must have illegitimately come into the trustee's own right does not rest upon the beneficiaries. Upon the contrary, the onus is heavily upon the trustee to show by the clearest and most unimpeachable evidence the legitimacy of his personal acquisition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B C Ray - Full Document

Nirmal Chandra Banerjee And Anr. vs Jyoti Prosad Bandopadhya And Ors. on 12 March, 1941

The distinction between a dharmakarta and a shebait or mohunt was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar ('22) 9 AIR 1922 PC 325, where it was said that the position of a dharmakarta was not the same as that of a shebait of an institution or the mohunt or head of a mutt. "These functionaries," their Lordships observed, "have a much higher right with larger powers of disposal and administration and they have a personal interest of a beneficial character."
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1   2 3 Next