Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (3.63 seconds)Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
P.V. Bheemasena Rao And Anr. vs Sirgiri Peda Yella Reddi And Ors. on 8 January, 1954
In the absence of
positive and proper evidence to the contrary such
declaration must possess supreme importance.
It is significant that the Roman Catholic Mission in the
plaint as, it was originally filed had said that the office
of the archaka was remunerated by the income of lands in
dispute and by the income from other sources. However, when
the decision sub nom. P. V. Bheemena Rao v. Yella Reddi of
the High Court of Madras was reported in (1954) 1 M.L.J. 384
it pleaded by an amendment that the inam was a personal
inam. As the High Court in the judgment under appeal points
out, there was litigation between the Bhattars and the Roman
Catholic Mission and the evidence we have discussed, must
have been known to the Mission when the original plaint was
filed. The fact that their plea was that this was an inam
for remunerating the office of the archakas represented a
true reading of these documents. The Inam Fair Register
speaks of the inam as Devadayam and reads it as permanent.
If the inam was to a Brahmin personally it would have been
shown as 'Brahmadayam' and 'hereditary'.
V. Seethayya vs P. Subramanya Somayajulu on 14 February, 1929
The account shows that from the total assessment of 96 Pons
O fanoms and 15 thuddus, the poruppu was only 19 Pons 2
fanoms and' 3 thuddus. Again in Ex. A-5, which is an
extract of the Inam Account of Manigiri village of 1217
fasli i.e., five years later, the heading was Inam Enquiry
Mauje (village) Manigiri". Now the, word Mauje is used in
respect of villages in which there are, cultivators owning
cultivable lands. This has been so held for a long time
[See Venkata Sastrulu v. Sitharamadu,(1) per Sadasiva lyer,
J. and Sethayya v. Somayajulu.](2) In the remarks column the
poruppu amount payable is stated and it almost corresponds
to the poruppu earlier mentioned, and there is a further
mention of the service of the temple. The pattas exhibits
A-6 to A-8 of the years 1856, 1857 and 1860 also speak of
sournadayam manibam poruppu which is revenue payable in
money at a concession The inamdars did not themselves claim
in the Inam enquiry any-thing more than the melwaram rights
and in Exts. A-10 and A-1 1, which are the Inam statements
(1862) and the Inam Fair Register dated September 25, 1863.
the Stalathar Poruppu Manibam is again mentioned and the
Inam were registered in the names of Bhattars as the
Sthaniks of the temple.
A.R.R.M.V. Arunachellam Chetty vs Venkatachalapathi Gurusvamigal on 26 June, 1919
In Arunachalam
Chetty and Others v. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal(1) the
utmost importance was attached to the Inam Fair Register,
the preparation of which was described as a great act of.
State.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Ors. on 22 September, 1959
In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwala v. Gopal
Vinayak Gosavi(2) this Court held, accepting the finding of
the Inam Commission, in the absence of other evidence, that
the grant was to a Devasthan and constituted a Devasthan
Inam.