Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Raghav Dass Chela vs Rajinder Parkash And Another on 14 December, 2012 cites

Brahma Nand Puri vs Neki Puri on 24 November, 1964

The State of Punjab, (the Thakur Dwara though situated in the State of Haryana was originally situated in undivided Punjab), does not have any established or codified rule of succession to the office of a Mahant? Each institution has its own peculiar rule of succession. If the grantor has laid down a particular rule of succession the rule has to be given effect to but if the grantor has not laid down a rule of succession, the custom or usage followed by a particular institution shall prevail. The office of Mahant is usually elective and not hereditary, but a Mahant may nominate a successor subject to its confirmation by his fraternity, commonly known as the Regular Second Appeal No. 2194 of 2000 -11- Bhekh. A person who alleges a particular custom or usage would be required to prove such a custom or usage, as a question of fact. A reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat v. Girija Nandan Bhagat, AIR 1972 SC 814, Amar Parkash and others v. Parkasha Nand and others, AIR 1979, SC 845, and Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri since deceased represented by Mathra Puri and another, AIR 1965 SC 1506.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 46 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Sital Das vs Sant Ram And Ors. on 8 April, 1954

Though, no doubt, the usage of one institution is no guide to that of another, it may be mentioned that in regard to the succession of the Mahantship, of a Thakurdwara belonging to the Ram Kabir Sect of Hindu Bairagis in district Jullundur in the Punjab this Court held in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606, that the usage required an appointment by the fraternity before a person could become a Mahant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 135 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Mahant Amar Parkash & Ors vs Parkasha Nand & Ors on 19 January, 1979

The State of Punjab, (the Thakur Dwara though situated in the State of Haryana was originally situated in undivided Punjab), does not have any established or codified rule of succession to the office of a Mahant? Each institution has its own peculiar rule of succession. If the grantor has laid down a particular rule of succession the rule has to be given effect to but if the grantor has not laid down a rule of succession, the custom or usage followed by a particular institution shall prevail. The office of Mahant is usually elective and not hereditary, but a Mahant may nominate a successor subject to its confirmation by his fraternity, commonly known as the Regular Second Appeal No. 2194 of 2000 -11- Bhekh. A person who alleges a particular custom or usage would be required to prove such a custom or usage, as a question of fact. A reference in this regard may be made to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat v. Girija Nandan Bhagat, AIR 1972 SC 814, Amar Parkash and others v. Parkasha Nand and others, AIR 1979, SC 845, and Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri since deceased represented by Mathra Puri and another, AIR 1965 SC 1506.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1