Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.70 seconds)Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments ... vs V.N. Deivanai Ammal By Power Of Attorney ... on 25 August, 1953
9. It is relevant at this stage to refer to the Bench decision in Madras H.R.E. Board v. Deivanai Ammal where Sri Veda Vinayakar Temple at No. 187, China Bazaar Road, Madras, was held to be a private temple in spite of the following broad features on which the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board relied.
Deoki Nandan vs Murlidhar on 4 October, 1956
In Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (1957) S.C.J. 75 : (1956) SCR. 756 : (1967 1 An.W.R (S.C.) 28 : (1957) 1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 28, the Supreme Court held that a religious endowment must be held to be private or public, according to the beneficiaries; thereunder are specific persons or the general public or sections thereof. On a consideration of the will of the founder, the user of the temple by the public, the ceremonies relating to the dedication and other facts relating to the character of the suit, temple, it was held in that case that the Thakurdwara of Sri Radhakrishnaji in Bhadesia was a public temple.
Sarat K. Mitra vs Hem Ch. Dey And Ors. on 8 February, 1960
Some of the reliefs claimed in this suit, namely, the removal of the appellants from trusteeship and framing a scheme will clearly fall under Section 64 of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act XXII of 1959. The learned Advocate for the contesting respondents relied on the decision in S. K. Mitra v. H. C. Dey (1934) 67 M.L.J. 788 : L.R. 61 LA. 405 I.L.R. 58 Mad. 91 : A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 230, where it has been held That the fact that some of the reliefs cannot be granted because of the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot disentitle the, plaintiff to get other reliefs, which can well be claimed in an ordinary suit. It has been pointed put in that case that the reliefs claimed in the suit and concerned in the lease granted by the trustees in that case are substantial and that the case in respect of the same is clearly distinct and separate from the rest of the reliefs claimed which required sanction under Sections 92, Civil Procedure Code.
Section 64 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 93 in Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
V.K. Kelu Achan vs C.S. Sivarama Pattar Karikar And Ors. on 17 October, 1927
In V.K. Kelu v. C.S. Sivarama Pattar A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 879, it has been held that there is no presumption of law or fact that a temple in Malabar is either public or private, and that it will depend on the facts proved in each case.