Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing T.V. Mahalinga Iyer vs State Of Madras And Anr. on 6 August, 1980

The Commissioner vs Sri. V. Varada Ganesa Perumal on 14 December, 2011

24. Accordingly, the points are answered to the effect that the trial Court did not consider the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in T.V.Mahalinga Iyer v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 2036 that so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, there is an initial presumption that a temple is a public one and the trial Court was not justified in not giving specific finding as to when and in what manner the plaintiffs' ancestors started enjoying the properties concerned and the trial Court in the wake of evidence showing that nobody knows as to when the temple originated, was not justified in holding that the said temple is a private one.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Jammi Raja Rao vs Anjaneyaswami Temple Valu Etc on 6 March, 1992

In T.V. Mahalinga Iyer v. The State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 2036, It has been observed that so far Tamil Nadu is concerned there is initial presumption that a temple is a public one, it being up to the party who claims that it is a private temple, to establish that fact affirmatively and this initial presumption must be rebutted by clinching testimony and the crucial question is as to whether the public worship in the temple as of right. In the instant case, we find that the said presumption, instead of being rebutted by the appellant, is reinforced by the entries in the Inam Registers as well as by the oral evidence of DWs 1 to 4 with regard to public having free access to the suit temple for the purpose of worshipping the deity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Bala Shankar Mama Shankar Bhattjee And ... vs Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State on 17 August, 1994

In T.V. Mahalinga Iyer v. State of Madras, AIR (1980) SC 2036, it was held that crucial question is as a whether the public worship in the temple as of right. Ordinarily, there may not be direct evidence regarding the exercise of such right by the general public and an inference has to be drawn from a wealth of circumstances. The dedication to the public need not be by a deed and may be spilt out of the circumstances present. The right of the public to worship is also a matter of inference. The initial presumption with regard to temples in South India is that they are the public temples, rebuttable by clinching testimony: The temple, in question, in that case, was held to be a public temple.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 38 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M.S.V. Raja & Anr vs Seeni Thevar & Ors on 14 August, 2001

It may also be mentioned that the suit temple is built on parampokh. Though building of temple on a parampokh land by itself may not be conclusive evidence of it being a public temple but in the absence of other evidence as in the present case, who found or established the temple, it may be a circumstance pointing in favour of it being a public temple. According to the learned Judge, the decisions referred to and relied on by the courts below to draw inference that the Rajus must have constructed the temple was not correct. This Court in T.V. Mahalinga Iyer vs. State of Madras and Another [(1981) 1 SCC 445] referring to the very provisions of the Act has held that so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned there is initial presumption that a temple is a public one, it being up to the party, who claims that it is a private temple, to establish that fact affirmatively. Of course, this initial presumption must be rebutted by clinching testimony in order to establish that a temple is a private temple. In the same judgment the very situation of temple on Government property was also taken as a piece of evidence in support of a public temple. In the case on hand, as already stated above, there was neither pleading nor clinching evidence as to who founded the temple and as to how the temple belonged to the appellants. It is also on record that the temple was constructed on paramokh land. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the appellants have failed to establish that the denomination of Rajus constructed the temple. Thus, when both the courts below concurrently erred in recording a finding with no evidence to support that the suit temple belonged to religious denomination of Rajus and not a public temple, the High Court was right in upsetting such finding. In our view the appellants have miserably failed to rebut the initial presumption that it is a public temple. Hence we agree with the High Court in recording a finding that the suit temple is a public temple.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - S V Patil - Full Document

By Its President vs Tiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkam ... on 18 December, 2024

c) Turning to the dispute as to whether the suit property is a public temple or not, the plaintiff, has asserted in his pleadings that the temple in the suit property is a denominational temple in clause 6 of its __________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 30 S.A.(MD) No.735 of 2015 draft scheme, where as the plaintiff has suggested that worshipping and performing special poojas are confined only to the two sects of the Nadar community now litigating, and nowhere it is said the public have a right of worship. Reading clause 11 of the draft scheme submitted by the plaintiff along with the description of the temple in the plaint it would only indicate that the public has every right of access the temple, which will immediately bring into operation of Section 92 CPC. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.V.Mahalinga Iyer vs. State of Madras and another [(1981) SCC 445].
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document
1   2 Next