Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.39 seconds)
Sadananda Pyne vs Harinam Sha And Anr. on 16 September, 1949 cites

Ramchandra Martand Waikar vs Vinayak Venkatesh Kothekar on 29 June, 1914

If it were justifiable, to make from the mere fact that the judgment contains a translation of the text in which Acharyya has been translated by the word 'preceptor', the deduction that in their Lordships' considered view, Acharyya in the list of heirs means 'spiritual preceptor", in general, it would be even more justifiable to deduce from the passage in Ramchandra v. Vinayak, 41 I. A. 290 : (A.I.R. (1) 1914 P. C. 1) quoted above, that the Privy Council held there that the 'spiritual preceptor' in the list of heirs is that person in whose house the man lives as a pupil and who initiates him into the mysteries of the Vedas.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Sambasiva Pillai And Ors. vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 28 January, 1921

38. Nor can I find any assistance from the decision in Sambasiva v. Secy, of State, 44 Mad. 704 : (A. I. R. (8) 1921 Mad. 537), on which reliance was placed by the learned trial Court. That was a case where the Crown claimed the property of a Sudra ascetic, as escheated, on failure of heirs, and the defendant claimed to be an heir, as a "Sishya". The main contention on behalf of the Crown was that the rule of law making Sishya an heir, had become obsolete. The High Court rejected this contention, and held that the defendant was entitled to inherit as a Sishya. It was not disputed there that the defendant was the Sishya of the deceased. This decision can clearly be of no assistance for our present purpose.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1