Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Appropriation of Endowments Rules
Section 11 in The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Dwarkanath Bysack And Anr. vs Burroda Persaud Bysack on 1 April, 1878
See - 'Dwarkanath Bysack v. Burroda Persaud Bysack', 4 Cal 443 (E) and - 'Rupa Jagashet v. Krishnaji', 9 Bom 169 (F). So far as the textual Hindu law is concerned what acts conduce to religious merit and justify a perpetual dedication of property therefore is fairly definite. As stated by the learned author Prananath Saraswathi on the Hindu Law of Endowments at page 18-
M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao Sahib vs State Of Madras on 27 August, 1965
26. The judgment reported in M.R. Goda Rao Sahib Vs. The State of Madras2 is also not applicable because it merely says,
"In order that there may be an endowment within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the settlor must divest himself of the property endowed."
Veluswami Goundan vs Dandapani Minor By Next Friend And ... on 11 January, 1946
27. The judgment reported in Veluswami Goundan v. Dandapani3 is not relevant in view of the judgment of Supreme Court (1 supra).
Ramanasramam By Its Secretary G. ... vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 12 December, 1959
The judgment reported in Ramanasramam Vs. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras4 is also in conformity with the judgment of Supreme Court in 1953 SC 491 (1 supra) and in fact it relied on it.However, we are tempted to reproduce paras 37 and 38 of the judgment :
Saraswathi Ammal And Another vs Rajagopal Ammal on 20 October, 1953
17. An argument was made that creation of a Samadhi and perpetual settlement of property for worship of a tomb, is invalid therefore it could not be at all termed to be an endowment. The main judgment on which reference is placed is reported in Saraswathi Ammal and another V. Rajagopal Ammal1 wherein the Supreme Court was considering the earlier three judgments of the Madras High Court and a Full Bench of Madras High Court had held,
"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 believed by them to redound to their spiritual benefit, and that the validity of such endowments have been recognized by the Courts.