Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)Babu Gurukkal vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 1 October, 1963
The judgments cited on the side of the plaintiffs' do support the contention that when a member of a particular family alone was exercising rights of trusteeship, it will fall under the category of hereditary trustee. Vide, the unreported decision in O. S.A. No. 79 of 1951 by a Division Bench of this Court (1951 M.W.N. (S.N.) pages exp. P. IX) and in all the three decisions in Babu Gurukkal v. Commissioner Jor Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments Board (1964) 1 M.L.J. 384; Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department v. D. Rajagopalat 84 L.W. 764 : A.I.R. 1972 Mad.
Venkataraman vs L.A. Thangappa Gounder on 15 February, 1971
105; and Venkataraman v. L.A. Thangappa this Court has taken the view, that when in respect of a temple for the past three generations the members of the family of a person had managed the affairs of the temple, it must be held that the trusteeship was hereditary in the family of that person. The above ratio clearly applies to this case.
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu ... vs D. Rajagopala Ponnapoondar And Ors. on 23 April, 1971
The judgments cited on the side of the plaintiffs' do support the contention that when a member of a particular family alone was exercising rights of trusteeship, it will fall under the category of hereditary trustee. Vide, the unreported decision in O. S.A. No. 79 of 1951 by a Division Bench of this Court (1951 M.W.N. (S.N.) pages exp. P. IX) and in all the three decisions in Babu Gurukkal v. Commissioner Jor Hindu Religious and Charitable, Endowments Board (1964) 1 M.L.J. 384; Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department v. D. Rajagopalat 84 L.W. 764 : A.I.R. 1972 Mad.
M.S. Madhava Rao And Ors. vs D.V.K. Surya Rao, Member Of The ... on 2 April, 1953
5. Mr. M. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellants urges that in this case, there is no gainsaying that the two families of the plaintiffs alone have been exercising the rights as trustees right from 1865 and no other person had at any point of time caused any hindrance to the right nor that that was ever questioned. Having regard to the long usage of exercising the trusteeship it must be held that the plaintiffs have established their right as hereditary trustees. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that merely because none of the documents filed described the predecessors of the plaintiff as periathanakarar or adheenakarthar, their rights could not be characterised as hereditary trustees, is not correct. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel cited an unreported decision in O.S.A. No. 79 of 1951, of a Division Bench of this Court (1954) M.W.N. 141 (S.N.), wherein it was held that when the evidence showed that for a period of at least 70 years, there had been three trustees in the temple, one trustee from each of three families, this was sufficient to establish the hereditary right. Likewise in - V. Ramddos and two others v. K. Hariumantha Rao 21 M.L.J. 952 : (1913) I.L.R. 36 Mad.
1