Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Unknown vs Arulmigu Kayaroganaswamy ... on 28 March, 2024 cites

Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi vs Duddukuru Subba Rao on 10 May, 1957

27. The principle laid down in Dasaratharami Reddi case was followed by this Court in S.P.Kailasha Bhattar V. Secretary to Government and Anr, (1968) 81 LW 33, and the Supreme Court in Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy V. P.K.Thoppur Chettiar and Ors, (2020) 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 26 S.A.No.236 of 2013 SCC 96. Applying the said principle to this case, in order to claim that the property belongs to the temple, the temple should have shown a complete dedication in favour of the public charitable trust, namely the temple itself. In this particular case, as I have already pointed out, though the Inam Fare Register states, as found in the S.T.A. Proceedings, that the property belongs to Thriumeni Chetti Dharmam, the questions of when the Dharmam was created and what are the terms of the Dharmam had not been answered through evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 56 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

S.P. Kailasa Bhattar vs Secretary To Government, Revenue ... on 26 April, 1967

27. The principle laid down in Dasaratharami Reddi case was followed by this Court in S.P.Kailasha Bhattar V. Secretary to Government and Anr, (1968) 81 LW 33, and the Supreme Court in Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy V. P.K.Thoppur Chettiar and Ors, (2020) 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 26 S.A.No.236 of 2013 SCC 96. Applying the said principle to this case, in order to claim that the property belongs to the temple, the temple should have shown a complete dedication in favour of the public charitable trust, namely the temple itself. In this particular case, as I have already pointed out, though the Inam Fare Register states, as found in the S.T.A. Proceedings, that the property belongs to Thriumeni Chetti Dharmam, the questions of when the Dharmam was created and what are the terms of the Dharmam had not been answered through evidence.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Idol Of Sri Renganathaswamy Rep By Its ... vs P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam ... on 19 February, 2020

27. The principle laid down in Dasaratharami Reddi case was followed by this Court in S.P.Kailasha Bhattar V. Secretary to Government and Anr, (1968) 81 LW 33, and the Supreme Court in Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy V. P.K.Thoppur Chettiar and Ors, (2020) 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 26 S.A.No.236 of 2013 SCC 96. Applying the said principle to this case, in order to claim that the property belongs to the temple, the temple should have shown a complete dedication in favour of the public charitable trust, namely the temple itself. In this particular case, as I have already pointed out, though the Inam Fare Register states, as found in the S.T.A. Proceedings, that the property belongs to Thriumeni Chetti Dharmam, the questions of when the Dharmam was created and what are the terms of the Dharmam had not been answered through evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu Etc vs Ramalinga Samigal Madam Etc on 1 May, 1985

29. In view of the fact that patta had been granted in favour of the temple in the S.T.A proceedings, the present second appeal is triggered. It is no longer res integra that grant of patta does not mean that the temple becomes the owner of the property and there is no bar on the Civil Court to go into the issue of title independently. This issue has been settled by several judgments, but I refer to two of them alone, namely State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ramalinga Swamy Madam, (1985) 4 SCC 10 and T.K.Ramanujam Kavirayar (died) vs. Sri-la-Sri Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avergal, 1988 (2) LW 513. These judgments make it very clear that patta granted under the Inam Abolition Act is for the purpose of collection of revenue by the Government. This is by virtue of the fact that the words “for the purpose of this Act” are found under Section 64 C of Act 30/63.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 141 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Nellaiyappa Pillai vs Thangama Nachiyar And Ors. on 14 December, 1897

32. In the facts of this case, the alleged gift executed by the Thirumeni Chettiar in favour of the temple has not been proved. On the contrary as stated above Ex.B1, Ex.B2, Ex.B6 to Ex.B8 and Ex.B19 to Ex.B22 point out that it is only a kattalai. If it is only a kattalai, then a suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable. The temple, having spent money towards the performance of the kattalai, is always entitled to recovery of the amount spent together with interest from the person in occupation of the property charged with kattalai. This position was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court in Nellaiyappa Pillai V. Thangama Nachiyar and Ors, (1898) 8 MLJ 119.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Manicka Vachaka Desika Gyana Sambanda ... vs A. Vaithilinga Mudaliar And Ors. on 18 April, 1922

42. Consequently, while allowing the appeal, I will grant a decree of charge over the property. A charge to the effect that the persons in occupation of the property proportionately would have to bear the expenditure towards the performance of the aforesaid ubayam and rtul;rid for Kayaroganaswamy temple at Nagapattinam. This is a covenant running in the land. I would read Ex.B2 as a covenant running https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 23 of 26 S.A.No.236 of 2013 in the land and therefore, even there is a transfer from the existing defendants to any 3rd party, the temple will continue to have a charge over the same. Further I desire to add that the income from the said property must be used only for the purpose of the said ubayam and rtul;rid. The same does not per se belongs to the temple or the deity, it solely belongs to the kattalai and it can only be used for that purpose, see Manicka Vachaka Desika Gyana Sambanda V. A.Vaithilinga Mudaliar and Ors, (1923) 18 LW 247.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1