Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing K.P.L.S. Palaniappa Chettiar vs Sreemuth Devasikamoney ... on 22 March, 1917

Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt Rep. By Its ... vs Panchapakesa Iyer on 1 October, 2004

10. Now let us consider the question whether the deed of lease is valid or not. Before considering the question, we are of the view that it is necessary to refer to some of the decisions cited before us. In the case before the Privy Council in PALANIAPPA CHETTY v. SREEMATH DEVASIKAMONY PANDARASANNADHI (ILR 40 Madras 709) the facts were that one of the appellants applied to the then Shebait of a temple for the grant of perpetual lease of the property belonging to the temple at the rent of Rs.1-8-0 per annum for the purpose of erecting buildings for an annathanam mutt, and the lease was granted and the subsequent Shebait questioned the alienation made by his predecessor on the ground that the alienation was in respect of absolute interest in a portion of the immovable property dedicated to the services of the temple for the purposes of charity. In the factual situation, the Privy Council held that the powers of a Shebait are similar to the powers of a manager for an infant heir to charge an estate belonging to the infant and the power can be exercised in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. The Privy Council also held that the actual pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted or the benefit to be conferred upon the estate are the things to be regarded.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Buddu Satyanarayana And Ors. vs Konduru Venkatappaiah And Ors. on 15 December, 1948

220) Varadachariar and Burn JJ. did not question the correctness of the decision in Palaniappa Chetty v. Devasikamong Pandarasannadhi, 40 Mad. 709 (A. I. R. (4) 1917 P.C. 33) on the assumption that the arrangement in that case amounted to a permanent assignment or appropriation of the trust properties by the trustee. The learned Judges held that on the evidence on record in the case before them, they were unable to hold that the existing arrangement must be viewed as an 'alienation' of trust property or that it was entered into by a person with the limited powers of a trustee, The learned Judges based their judgment on the mamool arrangement which might have come into vogue when the state was exercising sovereign powers and not merely the limited powers of a trustee over the institution. On that assumption, the learned Judges inferred a permanent arrangement entered into by a person who was competent to do so in the exercise of his sovereign powers. It is not necessary to canvass the correctness of that decision but it is enough to state that that decision has no application to the facts of the present case, as in this case, the permanent arrangement pleaded is one that was entered Into between the trustee and the archakas and as we have already pointed out the trustee had no power to enter into any such agreement. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Iyer relied upon an unreported decision of Sir John Wallis C. J. and Srinivasa Iyengar J. in appeal No. 283 of 1924 on the file of this Court. In that case a trustee filed a suit for recovery of the property in the possession of the archakas on the ground that the property wag the temple property. The case of the defendants was that the properties were endowed specifically for archaka service. It was proved in that case that the archakas were in possession of the lands from time immemorial. There was no other documentary evidence to show the nature of the grant or the circumstances under which the grant was made. In that state of evidence, the learned Judges presumed a legal origin, namely, that the property was specifically endowed for archaka service and that the archakas were the trustees of that endowment. That decision has no application to the present case and the facts of the present case do not warrant any such presumption. For the aforesaid reasons, we cannot presume, on the facts, any permanent arrangement as such grant was beyond the powers of the trustee and also because the possession of the properties by the archakas can be attributed to a reasonable and temporary arrangement subject to periodical adjustments which would certainly be within the competence of the trustee.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemraj Dattubuva Mahnubhao vs Nathu Ramu Mahajan on 1 February, 1935

4. The question was next considered by the Privy Council in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Sreemulh Devasikamoney , P.C.. That was a case of a grant of a permanent lease by a shebait of debottar lands, but it is, I think, clear that the Privy Council treated the powers of such a shebait as being on the same footing as the powers of a manager of a minor's estate. The relevant passages in that case appear on pages 576 and 577.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

V. Parthasarathy Aiyangar And Ors. vs Doraiswami Naicker And Anr. on 15 November, 1922

2. There is no difficulty to my mind in including the trustees of temples mosques and other religious endowments within the definition of "landlord" in Section 2 of Madras Act No. 111 of 1922 as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the' land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section pr vides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of atenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant "sough to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small land as the interest of the landlord in the land and all other-interests which he can convey under any power What are the interests which he can convey under any power? If they s.gmfy easements and other subsidiary interests, it would have been easy for the Act to so describe them. If the title to the land is intended to be included, has a trustee power to convey it? In Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemalh DevasLhmoney PandaraSannadht (1917) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 709 709 at p. 715 : 33 M. L. J. 1 (P.C.)
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu And Ors. vs Archakam Bokkasam Govindacharlu And ... on 7 August, 1934

There is again no question here of the alienation being intended or calculated to alter the form of worship Venkatarayar v. Srinivasa Aiyangar (1872) 7 M.H.C.R. 32 or effecting anything repugnant to or inconsistent with the very nature and purpose of the endowment, Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Devasikamony Pandarasannadhi (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. 147 : I.L.R. 40 Mad. 709 : 33 M.L.J. 1 (P.C.).
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Sundarmani Devi And Anr. vs Rupei Dei And Ors. on 30 August, 1955

On the strength of these two decisions as also on the observation of the Judicial Committee in the case of -- 'Palaniappa Chettiar v. Sreemuth Devasikamoney Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 33 (E), Mr. De contends that to constitute necessity or benefit justifying an alienation there must be shown an actual pressure on the estate and tie alienation can be justified only as a protective or defensive measure.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1