Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Ramalingam Alias Karuppanna Koundar vs Peria Kali Goundan And Ors. on 6 March, 1947 cites

Ramanathan Chetti vs Murugappa Chetti on 12 August, 1903

It is important to note that the Privy Council did not say that the decision in Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti (1906) 16 M.L.J. 265 : 33 I.A. 139 : I.L.R. 29 Mad. 283 (P.C.) was inapplicable to public trusts. All that their Lordships said was that it was " unnecessary to decide that point" as they rested their actual decision on the peculiar nature of the endowment before them. It follows that the provisions made an the scheme under consideration that each hereditary trustee should act as a managing trustee in rotation for two years is valid.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Board Of Commissioners For Hindu ... vs Palaniandi Muthirian on 17 September, 1943

7. It was next urged that neither the Board in settling a scheme under Section 63(1) nor the Court in dealing with a scheme under Section 63(4) had power to fix turns of management by trustees, and, indeed, it was suggested, generally, that any system of management in rotation among joint trustees of a public trust was illegal as it involved a suspension of the other co-trustees during the turn of the managing trustee. Reliance was placed on a recent decision of Sir Vere Mockett, O.C.J., and Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J., reported in Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Palaniandi (1944) 1 M.L.J. 82 : I.L.R. 1944 Mad.534. The decision no doubt appears at first blush to support the contention, but on a closer examination we are satisfied that the case turned on its peculiar facts and has no application. There were four hereditary trustees and two non-hereditary trustees in that case, and the scheme settled by the Board provided, inter alia, that The temples.... and their endowments shall be administered by the hereditary trustee in rotation, each functioning for one fasli, and two non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Board.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Promotha Nath Mitter vs Manmatha Nath Mitter And Ors. on 25 July, 1924

that counsel for appellants, in distinguishing Nubkissen Mitter v. Hurrischunder Mitter (1816) 2 Morley's Digest 146 and Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti (1906) 16 M.L.J. 265 : 33 I.A. 139 : I.L.R. 29 Mad. 283 (P.C.), which were relied on by this Court, pointed out that the first case related to the endowment of a family idol, and that might possibly have led to a mixing up of the facts of the two cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishnamacharlu vs Rangacharlu on 4 March, 1892

Reference may also be made in this connection to a recent case reported in Krishnamacharlu v. Rangacharlu (1942) 2 M.L.J. 687 : I.L.R. 1943 Mad. 409. Though no question of management in rotation was involved, it was there held that it was competent to the Board to appoint one of several trustees of a public temple whether hereditary or non-hereditary to be the, managing trustee for a period, if the powers of the general body of trustees were not thereby taken away.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1