Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi vs Duddukuru Subba Rao on 10 May, 1957
Therefore, the principle
in M.Dasaratharami Reddi Vs. D.Subba Rao reported in AIR 1957 SC 797 is
applicable to trust and the same is not applicable to this case. Here, there
was complete divestiture. As per the terms without any alienation of the
properties, the obligator has to do charities mentioned. From that, it is
clear that the entire income from the property after paying the revenues
charges which remains available can be used for the temple festival. If
anything is available, then only it can be appropriated by the persons
interested for the doing the charity activities. As per the terms of the
partition deed dated 21.01.1921, obligation to do the religious charities are
created. The obligators are the respondents. They never treated either
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.131 of 2015
Trustee or beneficiary. They are obligated to discharge the same.
Therefore, it is not partial dedication and it is the absolute dedication and
complete divestiture of the property for doing the specific endowments.
Hence, this Court considering the march of law holds that this is the
specific endowment and hence, the finding of the learned judge is not in
accordance with law
Idol Of Sri Renganathaswamy Rep By Its ... vs P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam ... on 19 February, 2020
22.7.3. The said principles further
elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2020
(17) SCC 96 [Sri Renganathaswamy v. P.K.
Thopulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam
Annandhana Trust] and held that whenever a
deed created an obligation on the executant’s
descendants to fund the charitable activities out
of the income of the property dedicated, only
presumption is that he had a clear intention to
divest himself and his descendant of the property
and endowed it for continuation of charitable
activity with complete destiture and relevant
portion as follows:
M. Radhakrishna Gade Rao Sahib vs State Of Madras on 27 August, 1965
22.7.1.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
M.R.Goda Rao Sahib Vs. State of Madras
reported in AIR 1966 SC 653 held as follows:
The Idol Of Sri Renganathaswamy vs J.Sriram on 13 April, 2023
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Idol of Sri
Renganathaswamy, Vs. J.Sriram and others reported in 2023 2 LW 577,
has held as follows:
M.J.Thulsiraman vs Commissioner, Hindu Religious And ... on 19 November, 2019
“By the instrument the settlors certainly
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc(MD)No.131 of 2015
divested themselves of the right to receive a
certain part of the income derived from the
properties in question. They deprived themselves
of the right to deal with the properties free of
charge as absolute owners which they previously
were. The instrument was a binding instrument.”
22.7.2. The said principle of that case that
the deed which provided for a charge on the
properties for the payment of money amount to
divestment reiterated by the latest Hon’ble three
member bench of Supreme Court in 2019 (8) SCC
689 [M.J.Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowment Admn.,] with further
elaboration of principle held that the rock
inscription made in the year 1834 with specific
clause of utilization of certain amount for feeding
of Brahmins during the festivals of Thiruvottiyur
and Mylapore and for other charity expenses
amount to a clear divestment of the right to
receive a certain part of income and clearly
amount to specific endowment in the following
paragraph :-
1