Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.56 seconds)
Narendra Prasad vs Ramnath Goenka (Deceased) on 9 March, 2018 cites

Kishtappa Chetty vs Lakshmi Ammal on 11 January, 1923

In The Official Receiver of South Arcot, this court has specifically held that Krishnappa Chetty v. Lakshmi Ammal cannot be considered to be good law. In fact Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that the word Trust cannot be given an expanded meaning as in English Law and the Limitation Act drawn after the Indian Trust Act does not give an expanded meaning to the word.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar ... vs V.R.L.S.T.R.M. Chidambaram Chettiar on 27 April, 1943

In Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai v V.R.L.S.T.R.M. Chidambaram Chettiar, reported in (1943) 56 LW 479, yet another Division Bench of this Court had held that the English equitable rules cannot be safely applied to the extend plain meaning of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. Therefore, the concept of trust cannot be extended beyond the enactments viz., The Indian Trust Act as well as Indian Limitation Act. From the evidence that is available in the form of Exs.127, P145, P148 and P177, the annexure to Ex.C145 and the oral evidence of P.W.1, I am unable to conclude that that there was in fact a trust created in favour of either Raja Mohan Prasad or his heirs and Ramnath Goenka was a trustee and he was in possession of the property in his capacity as a trustee of the properties purchased by him. In view of the above, I am constrained to conclude that there was no valid trust created and the 1st defendant was not holding the properties in trust for the heirs of Raja Mohan Prasad, therefore issues Nos.2, 4 and 11 are answered against the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Official Receiver Of South Arcot, ... vs V.Rm.K.M.M. Kulandaivelan Chettiar ... on 15 August, 1945

Explanation.For the purposes of this section any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of the property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof. 48.1. Mr.P.C.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would rely upon the judgments of this Court in Krishtappa Chetty v. Lakshmi Ammal reported in XVII LW 467, S.R.Varadarajulu Naidu v. The Papansasam Labour Union, Ambasamudram and others, reported in 81 LW 630, Aiyapillai v. Shenbaga Nadar Reported in 76 LW 690, and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil, Alagar Koil by its Executive Officer v. Government of Tamil Nadu by its Collector, Anna District, Dindigul, reported in 2004 (1) LW 647, Insofar the judgment in Krishnappa Chetty is concerned, I have already adverted to the fact that this Court in subsequent decisions in The Official Receiver of South Arcot v. V.Rm.K.M.M.Kulandaivelan Chettiar, reported in (1946) 59 LW 725 and in Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, Devakottai v V.R.L.S.T.R.M. Chidambaram Chettiar, reported in (1943) 56 LW 479, have held that the English principles of trust cannot be imported and the language of Section 10 must be strictly construed.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next