Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Article 96 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 109 in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
K.P.L.S. Palaniappa Chettiar vs Sreemuth Devasikamoney ... on 22 March, 1917
10. Now let us consider the question whether the deed of lease is valid or not. Before considering the question, we are of the view that it is necessary to refer to some of the decisions cited before us. In the case before the Privy Council in PALANIAPPA CHETTY v. SREEMATH DEVASIKAMONY PANDARASANNADHI (ILR 40 Madras 709) the facts were that one of the appellants applied to the then Shebait of a temple for the grant of perpetual lease of the property belonging to the temple at the rent of Rs.1-8-0 per annum for the purpose of erecting buildings for an annathanam mutt, and the lease was granted and the subsequent Shebait questioned the alienation made by his predecessor on the ground that the alienation was in respect of absolute interest in a portion of the immovable property dedicated to the services of the temple for the purposes of charity. In the factual situation, the Privy Council held that the powers of a Shebait are similar to the powers of a manager for an infant heir to charge an estate belonging to the infant and the power can be exercised in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. The Privy Council also held that the actual pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted or the benefit to be conferred upon the estate are the things to be regarded.
Bawa Magniram Sitaram vs Kasturbhai Manibhai on 6 December, 1921
This principle was approved of and acted upon by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in 49 I.A.54 (Bawa Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Manibhai). In the case before us the recitals in the document are certainly ambiguous. But regard being had to the long lapse of time between the date of the leases and that of the present proceedings and the conduct of successive shebaits, it would not be wrong, I think, to make a presumption in favour of the lessee. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined to hold that the leases were for legal necessity."
Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jieu Thakur vs Pratapmal Bagaria And Others.(Civil ... on 14 March, 1951
It is no doubt true, as observed by the Supreme Court in ISWAR GOPAL v. PRATAPMAL BAGARIA that if all the original parties to the transfer and those who could have given evidence on the relevant points such as legal necessity have passed away, a recital consisting of the principal circumstances of the case assumes importance and cannot be lightly set aside. We have already noticed various decisions of this Court, the Calcutta High Court and the Privy Council where it was held that recitals of necessity for alienation contained in ancient documents would be sufficient evidence to support the deeds and actual proof of the necessity which justified the deed is not essential to establish its validity.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959
Section 9 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Chockalingam Pillai And Ors. vs Mayandi Chettiar on 13 August, 1896
"The Madras High Court held in 19 Mad.485 (Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar) that although a manager for the time being has no power to make a permanent alienation of a temple property in the absence of proved necessity for the alienation, yet the long lapse of time between the alienation and the challenge of its validity is a circumstance which entitles the Court to assume that the original grant was made in exercise of that extended power.