Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.48 seconds)The Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952
Section 15B in Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Biswanath Chowdhury And Ors. vs Shyam Sundar Chowdhury And After Him ... on 29 September, 1992
The Division Bench of this Court in an earlier decision in Bairagi Das v Sri
Dandas Mohapurus and others, 31(1965) C.L.T. 533 also expressed similar view, which has been
quoted with approval by the Division Bench in Biswanath Chowdhury's case.
Kali Kinkor Ganguly vs Panna Banerjee And Ors on 16 August, 1974
Whenever a religious institution is founded, the founder becomes the Sebait of the Deity and
the Sebaitship vests in him until the same is disposed of by any arrangement made by the founder by
which a different mode of devolution of the said right is possible. If the sebatiship remains undisposed
of, it is heritable like any other property and descends to his heirs and successors in due course. The
right of appointing shebaits or directing a different mode of devolution of the sebaitship is limited to
founder only and is not available to be exercised either by the sebaits or their successors. In this case,
the Puri Gajapati has founded the temple and has created the sebaiti rights and obligations. Normally,
the arrangement made by the Gajapati shall follow, but it appears that in recent times, the Hindu Law
of religious endowment has recognised certain exceptions to the same. In order words, it has been
recognised that in certain circumstances, sebaiti rights can be transferred. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kali Kinkor Ganguly's case (supra) has relied upon the Tagore Law Lectures delivered by
Dr. B.K.Mukherjea, which is published by the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts First
Edition. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that although sebait right is heritable like any other
property, it lacks the other incident of proprietary right viz. capacity of being freely transferred by the
person in whom it is vested. The reason is that the personal proprietary interest, which the sebait has
got is ancillary to and inseparable from his duties as a ministrant of the deity, and a manager of its
temporalities. As the personal interest cannot be detached from the duties the transfer of sebaitship
would mean a delegation of the duties of the transferor which would not only be contrary to the
express intentions of the founder but would contravene the policy of law. A transfer of shebaitship or
for the matter of that of any religious office has nowhere been countenanced by Hindu Lawyers.
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Magulu Jal And Ors. vs Bhagaban Rai And Ors. on 15 April, 1975
25. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") provides that
the Courts shall, subject to the provisions therein contained in the Code, have jurisdiction to try all
suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In
Explanation I, it has been provided that a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested
is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of
questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Explanation II provides that for the purposes of this
section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or
whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. This provision was taken note of by the Full
Bench in Mangulu Jal and others v. Bhagaban Rai and others, 41(1975) C.L.T. 526 (F.B.). The Full
Bench of this Court has held that the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily inferable. The
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide an issue is excluded only when it is barred either expressly or
by necessary implications by virtue of provisions of a statute.