Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Ramachandran vs The Commissioner on 9 April, 2008 cites

Raj Kali Kuer vs Ram Rattan Pandey on 7 April, 1955

69. The second decision cited in Raj Kali Kuer's case, is on a set of facts where the hereditary rights of Pujari or Archaka was involved and the question arose as to whether a female could be appointed as a trustee by inheritance and in that context, the Honourable Apex Court held that a female also could inherit the hereditary trusteeship and perform pooja through her proxy and as such, it is having no application to the case on hand and no more elaboration is required.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

M.S.V. Raja & Anr vs Seeni Thevar & Ors on 14 August, 2001

In the fourth decision in M.S.V.Raja's case, the facts concerned that there was a factual finding to the effect that from time immemorial, the religious denomination of a community of Raju of Singarajakottai were administering the temple and among them, the trustees were elected. However, Pandarams were engaged to perform pooja as Poojaris and those Pandarams claimed hereditary trusteeship, but it was negatived. In those circumstances, the Court ultimately held that the suit temple is a public temple and the management of the suit temple with the religious denomination of Rajus and the relief of declaration and injunction so far it relates to worship in pooja according to usage by Pandarams in the temple is rejected. But, here, absolutely my above discussion would show that the facts are entirely different that the plaintiffs have not proved that they are hereditary trustees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - S V Patil - Full Document

Madana Palo And Ors. vs The Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 15 September, 1937

68. The first decision cited supra in Madana Palo's case, of this Court is relating to the case where a grant was given to an individual and to his successors by the Inam Commissioner and thereupon, the dispute arose among the descendants and in that context, this Court held about the rights of the hereditary trustees to continue. Here, my above discussion would highlight that the facts are entirely different and the plaintiffs have not proved that at any point, their ancestors are the trustees of the suit institution and as such, there is no question of hereditary trusteeship would arise.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1