Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.48 seconds)
S. Rajagopal vs C. M. Armugam & Ors on 3 May, 1968 cites

Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani vs Moreshwar Parashram And Others on 15 February, 1954

For the same principle, reference was also made to a decision of this Court in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and Others (3) . Neither of these two cases, in our opinion, is applicable to the present case, because, in both those cases, though the persons concerned had started professing religious beliefs different from those of orthodox Hindus, they still continued to be Hindus. The Mysore High Court in its decision took notice of this fact by holding :
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 142 - V Bose - Full Document

Goona Durgaprasada Rao Alias Pedda Babu ... vs Goona Sudarsanaswami And Ors. on 27 October, 1939

two classes. The First set of cases are those where this question was examined for the purpose of determining the rules of succession, the validity of marriages, or the legitimacy of children. Such cases which have been brought to our notice are : Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari and Others(1), Gurusami Nadar v. lrulappa Konar (died) and Others(2), Mrs. Agnes Dorothy Vermani v. Mr. Bryant David Vermani(3), and Goona Durgaprasada Rao alias Pedda Babu and Another v. Goona Sudarsanaswami & 28 Others(4). In addition, reliance was also placed on the Report of proceedings of the Appellant Side dated 8th November, 1866 printed at page vii of the Appendix in Vol. III of the Madras High Court Regorts. The second set of cases consist of recent judgments of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madras in election petitions arising out of the general elections of the year 1967 itself. In order to rely on these judgments, learned counsel produced before us copies of the Gazettes in which those judgments have been published.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Punjab Rao vs D. P. Meshram & Others on 26 October, 1964

We do not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the, evidence which has been given on behalf of the appellant to prove all these facts enumerated above - Almost all of them are supported by documentary evidence. The only question that needs consideration is whether these facts establish that, at the time of the general election in 1967, the appellant was professing Hindu religion. The word "profess" used in paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order, 1950 came up for interpretation by this Court in Punjab Rao v. D. P. Meshram & Others(1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

B. Shyamsunder vs Shankar Deo Vedalankar And Ors. on 14 July, 1959

In the present case, therefore, we agree with the finding of the High Court that the appellant, on conversion to Christianity, ceased to belong to the Adi Dravida caste and, consequently, the burden lay on the appellant to establish that, on his reverting to the Hindu religion by professing it again, he also became once again a member of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste, Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellant on a decision of the Mysore High Court in B. Shyamsunder v. Bhaskar Deo Vedalankar and Others(2) to urge that on charge of religious belief, a person does not automatically cease to be a member of the caste in which he was born.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1