Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing K.M. Senthivel Pillai And Ors. vs Kulandaivel Pillai And Ors. on 2 December, 1968

Sri Sai Baba And Ors. vs M.L. Hanumantha Rao on 20 July, 1977

In Senthilvel Pillai v. Kulandaivel Pillai (1970) 83 L.W. 472, Srinivasan, J. speaking for the Bench expressed the view that where an idol has been installed, even if it happens to be a private family idol and the family endows property for the upkeep of the idol and for the performance of poojas and the like, the idol as a distinct entity becomes the owner of the property and, thereafter, the donors, the members of the family have no surviving power to take away the properties from the idol.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.L. Hanumantha Rao vs Sri Sai Baba, Represented By Its ... on 28 April, 1972

In Senthilvel Pillai v. Kulandaivel Pillai (1969) 82 L.W. 472, Srinivasan, J., speaking for the Bench expressed the view that where an idol has been installed, even if it happens to be a private family idol and the family endows property for the upkeep of the idol and for the performance of poojas and the like, the idol as a distinct entity becomes the owner of the property and thereafter the donors, the members of the family, have no surviving power to take away the property from the idol.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sowcar Gopaldas Dwarakadas vs The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms on 6 November, 2009

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.C. Rajappa, by relying on a decision of the Division Bench reported in 1970 Vol.II MLJ Pg. 555 (K.M. Senthilvel Pillai and Kkulandaivel Pillai) contended that if all the members agree to put an end to the trust and share the properties among themselves, the same was permissible and by consensus of members of the private trust, they can modify the terms and conditions of the Trust to suit their convenience. The question which arose before the Honourable Division Bench in the above judgment was whether the Trust created by one Ammani Ammal was valid and whether it was put to an end, but not in the manner stated by the 1st defendant therein. In fact, the Honourable Division Bench held that there appears to be no room for doubt that the dedication in the said case, if it can be called such, was in the nature of a private trust and that position is not seriously controverted by the plaintiff/appellant therein. Thereafter, the Honourable Division Bench proceeded to analyze the broad distinction between the public and private trusts and held that public trusts are trusts constituted for the benefit of either the public at large or of some considerable part of it answering to a public description, while private trusts are trusts wherein the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individuals who are or who may be definitely ascertained. Therefore, we find that the decision in the case of "K.M. Senthil Pillai Vs. Kulandaivel Pillai" cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case and it does not advance the case of the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1