Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.89 seconds)
Ravanna Koovanna Karuppannan Ambalam ... vs Vana Pana Tirumalai Ambalam And Ors. on 27 October, 1961
cites
C. Kunhamutty vs Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar And Ors. on 11 September, 1934
(8) After the Supreme Court approved the decisions of this Court in Kunhamutty v. Ahmad Musaliar, ILR 58 Mad 204 (AIR 1935 Mad 29), Draiviasundaram v. Subramania, ILR (1945) Mad 854: (AIR 1945 Mad 217) and Velusami Goundan v. Dandapani, 1946-1 Mad 1 LJ 354: (AIR 1946 Mad 485), in their pronouncement in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, , on the question of the validity of an endowment of properties for the purpose of a samadhi by a Hindu it is no longer open to dispute. that the provisions in Ex. A-1 setting apart properties for the erection of a tomb or samadhi over the grave of Nallamuthu Ambalam and for the maintenance of the samadhi or the nandavanam around it, or the services connected with the samadhi like lighting naivedyam etc., are not valid under the Hindu law.
Veluswami Goundan vs Dandapani Minor By Next Friend And ... on 11 January, 1946
(8) After the Supreme Court approved the decisions of this Court in Kunhamutty v. Ahmad Musaliar, ILR 58 Mad 204 (AIR 1935 Mad 29), Draiviasundaram v. Subramania, ILR (1945) Mad 854: (AIR 1945 Mad 217) and Velusami Goundan v. Dandapani, 1946-1 Mad 1 LJ 354: (AIR 1946 Mad 485), in their pronouncement in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, , on the question of the validity of an endowment of properties for the purpose of a samadhi by a Hindu it is no longer open to dispute. that the provisions in Ex. A-1 setting apart properties for the erection of a tomb or samadhi over the grave of Nallamuthu Ambalam and for the maintenance of the samadhi or the nandavanam around it, or the services connected with the samadhi like lighting naivedyam etc., are not valid under the Hindu law.
Saraswathi Ammal And Another vs Rajagopal Ammal on 20 October, 1953
(8) After the Supreme Court approved the decisions of this Court in Kunhamutty v. Ahmad Musaliar, ILR 58 Mad 204 (AIR 1935 Mad 29), Draiviasundaram v. Subramania, ILR (1945) Mad 854: (AIR 1945 Mad 217) and Velusami Goundan v. Dandapani, 1946-1 Mad 1 LJ 354: (AIR 1946 Mad 485), in their pronouncement in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, , on the question of the validity of an endowment of properties for the purpose of a samadhi by a Hindu it is no longer open to dispute. that the provisions in Ex. A-1 setting apart properties for the erection of a tomb or samadhi over the grave of Nallamuthu Ambalam and for the maintenance of the samadhi or the nandavanam around it, or the services connected with the samadhi like lighting naivedyam etc., are not valid under the Hindu law.
Santona Roy vs The Advocate General on 26 February, 1920
(22) The next contention of Mr. Natesan was that the principle of the doctrine of cy pres would apply here and consequently the properties endowed for the samadhi should be allowed by us to be utilised for the education charity. The first objection to this argument is that the doctrine of cy pres would apply in this country only to wills and not to deeds or settlements or transfers inter vivos. It was pointed out that though it was assumed that the cy pres doctrine would apply to deeds he basis for such assumption is really erroneous. Mr. Natesan referred to the leading case in Santona Roy v. Advocate General of Bengal, ILR 48 Cal 124: (AIR 1921 Cal 389), and endeavoured to show that the authorities relied on by Mookerjee J. in support of his proposition that the preponderance of authority in England was to restrict the application of the cy pres doctrine only to gifts by wills and not to gifts by deeds were really not authorities on that point but merely contained obiter dictum of eminent judges.
Nori Venkata Rama Dikshitulu And Ors. vs Ravi Venkatappayya And Ors. on 22 August, 1958
(24) But, Mr. Natesan brought to our notice another decision in Venkata Rama Dikshitulu v. Venkatappayya, , which, according to him, supported his contention. There, there was no written document showing how the property had been gifted, but the Inam Register of 1868 described the property as Dharmadayam. The learned Judges in that case ruled that the cy pres doctrine applied to all transfers other than testamentary where a general charitable intention could be found to exist. Really this is no authority for the contention that the cy pres doctrine could be applied to gifts inter vivos. How far this rule is nullified by the law as to trusts founded upon a general charitable intent will be discussed by us presently, but, it is enough for our present purpose to say that his decision is no authority for the contention of Mr. Natesan that the cy pres doctrine had been applied in India to gifts inter vivos.
1