Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Saraswathi Ammal And Another vs Rajagopal Ammal on 20 October, 1953 cites

C. Kunhamutty vs Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar And Ors. on 11 September, 1934

Hence notwithstanding that the major portion of the income may have to be spent for Gurupooja and annadhanam in connection with the annual sradh, it is clear that the domi- nant purpose of this dedication was the samadhi kainkariyam, that is to say, that worship of and at the samadhi (tomb). The validity or otherwise, therefore, of the dedication must be determined on that footing and not as though it was a dedication for the performance of the annual sradh on a sub- stantial scale or for annadhanam as such. Nor does it make any difference in this case that the surplus is contemplated to be utilised for educational purposes. That surplus is contigent and indefinite as well as dependent on the uncontrolled discretion of the 2nd defendant as to the scale on which he chooses to perform the samadhi kainkariyam. The validity, therefore, of such a dedication as was made under Exhibit D-8 for the worship primarily connected with the tomb of a deceased person falls to be considered. As already stated the Madras High Court has pronounced against it in a number of cases, viz., Kunhamutty v. Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar and two other(1); A. Draivaisundram Pillai v. N. Subramania Pillai(2) and Veluswami Goundan v. Dan- dapani(3). It has been brought to our notice that the said High Court in a case which came up for its consideration subsequent to the judgment in the present case felt that the (1) I.L.R.58 Mad.204 at 2ll.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

A. Draviasundaram Pillai vs N. Subramania Pillai on 24 January, 1945

Hence notwithstanding that the major portion of the income may have to be spent for Gurupooja and annadhanam in connection with the annual sradh, it is clear that the domi- nant purpose of this dedication was the samadhi kainkariyam, that is to say, that worship of and at the samadhi (tomb). The validity or otherwise, therefore, of the dedication must be determined on that footing and not as though it was a dedication for the performance of the annual sradh on a sub- stantial scale or for annadhanam as such. Nor does it make any difference in this case that the surplus is contemplated to be utilised for educational purposes. That surplus is contigent and indefinite as well as dependent on the uncontrolled discretion of the 2nd defendant as to the scale on which he chooses to perform the samadhi kainkariyam. The validity, therefore, of such a dedication as was made under Exhibit D-8 for the worship primarily connected with the tomb of a deceased person falls to be considered. As already stated the Madras High Court has pronounced against it in a number of cases, viz., Kunhamutty v. Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar and two other(1); A. Draivaisundram Pillai v. N. Subramania Pillai(2) and Veluswami Goundan v. Dan- dapani(3). It has been brought to our notice that the said High Court in a case which came up for its consideration subsequent to the judgment in the present case felt that the (1) I.L.R.58 Mad.204 at 2ll.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Muthukana Ana Ramanadhan Chettiar vs Vada Levvai Marakayar And Ors. on 28 February, 1910

The learned Judges of the Madras High Court appear to have made the Full Bench reference above noticed on an argument before them that erection of tombs for deceased persons and endowment of properties for the upkeep thereof and for the performance of worship thereat were common amongst Hindus of certain communities and that it is believ- ed by them to redound to their spiritual benefit, and that the validity of such endowments have been recognised by the courts. But the case that they referred to is Muthu Kana Ana Ramanatham Chettiar v. Vada Levai Marakayar and Other(1), which relates to Muslims and it may well be that the position is, as stated therein, amongst Muslims. We have been referred to a statement at page 223 of P. R. Ganapathi Iyer's Hindu and Mohamedan Endowments, 2nd Edition, wherein it is stated-
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

The Board Of Commissioner For The Hindu ... vs Pidugu Narasimham And Ors. on 15 February, 1938

In so far as this statement relates to tombs of Hindus, we are unable to find any support from our knowledge and experience. There have been no doubt instances of Hindu saints having been defined and worshipped but very few, it at all, have been entombed and we are not aware of any prac- tice of dedication of property for such tombs amongst Hindus. Such cases, if they arise, may conceivably stand on a different footing from the case of an ordinary private in- dividual who is entombed and worshipped threat. The case reported as The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Pidugu Narasimliam and others(2) has also been referred to. It is a somewhat curious case furnishing an instance where images of as many as 66 heroes who were said to have been killed in a war between two neighbouring kingdoms in the 13th century were installed in a regular temple and systematically worshipped by the public for several centuries and inam grants therefor made during the Moghul period. With reference to the facts of that case, the learned Judges were inclined to hold that the worship was religious. This, however, is a case of a grant from a sovereign authority and in any case is not an endow- ment for worship of a tomb. In the three Madras cases in which it was held that the perpetual dedication of propertv by a Hindu for performance of worship at a tomb was not vaild, there was no suggestion that there was any widely._ accepted practice of raising tombs and worshipping thereat and making endowments therefor in the belief as to the reli- gious merit acquired thereby. In the present case also, no (1)I.L.B. 16 Mad 4. 424 at 446. (2) [1939] 1 M.L.J. 134.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1