Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
The Commissioner vs Arulmighu Kottar Ezhava Oor cites

S. Ramaswami Poosari vs The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments ... on 20 August, 1934

“Reference was made in the judgment to the decision of Viswanatha Sastri J. in Ramaswami v. Board of Commissioner Madras Hindu Religious Endowments reported in (1950) 2 MLJ 511, where on account of the long public religious worship what were originally memorials for heroes or martyrs had subsequently developed info-temples and came to he recognised as temples.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Veluswami Goundan vs Dandapani Minor By Next Friend And ... on 11 January, 1946

(AIR 1946 Mad 485), for the position that the building of a Samadhi or tomb over the remains of a person and the making of the provision for the performance of Gurupoojas and other ceremonies in connection with the same, cannot be recognised as charitable or religious purposes according to Hindu Law.” When the Courts had rendered a categorical finding that the Samadhi is not temple and Samadhi cannot be recognized as charitable or religious purposes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/36 A.S.(MD).No.197 of 2016 according to Hindu Law, the contention of the defendant in the present case is against such propositions laid down by the Courts in the aforesaid judgments.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Committee Of Management Of Institution ... vs President Of Board Of Commrs. For Hindu ... on 4 March, 1954

In Bodendraswami Mutt V. President of Hindu Religious Endowments Board reported in (1955) 2 MLJ 60, it was held that a Samadhi of a holy man and a saint cannot ordinarily evolve into a temple for public religious worship and that the mere presence of idols of Gods, and recognised deities in the Matam round the Samadhi and the festivals which have grown up around such Samadhi inevitable in the case of all tombs of saints and great men in this country, would not bring it within the definition of a temple and that a Samadhi is not a temple. We have already referred to the Supreme Court decision in which it was held that the dedication of property for worship at a tomb is not sanctioned by Shastraic practices and is not valid amongst Hindus.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Hindu Religious And Charitable ... vs N. Sivarawajan Nadar And 3 Others on 21 November, 2000

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the contention of the defendant that in Tamil Nadu all temples are presumed to be public temple and the person claiming the temple is private ought to prove the same is private temple is only based on the presumption and judgment rendered in N. Sivarawajan Nadar case and other judgments rendered based on the said presumptions cannot be relied on.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document
1