Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
The Pensions Act, 1871
Bolo vs Koklan on 3 July, 1930
The decision in AIR 1930 PC 270 (Mt. Bolo V. Mt. Koklan) was followed.
Sri Mahant Paramananda Das Goswami vs Radhakrishna Das And Ors. on 26 March, 1926
Following the decisions in (1903) ILR 26 Mad 113 (Kidambi Raghavachariar v. T. A. N. Raghavachariar) and AIR 1926 Mad 1012 (Parmananda Das Goswami v. Radhakrishna Das), it was held that Article 120 applies to suits to recover possession of an office which is not hereditary and where the properties are attached to the office whether by way of endowment or by way of emoluments, the right to possession of the properties goes with the right to the possession of the office and that if the right to sue for recovery of possession of the office is barred, the right to recover possession of the property is also barred.
Section 34 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajagopala Naidu And Ors. vs Ramasubramania Ayyar And Ors. on 7 December, 1934
In AIR 1935 Mad 449 (Rajagopala v. Ramasubramania) the suit was filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the five groups of inhabitants of, the village to recover possession of the village temples and the properties stated to be their endowments.
His Holiness Digya Darshan Rajendra Ram ... vs Devendra Doss on 6 November, 1972
In (Rajendra Ram v. Devendra Doss), relied on by the respondents, it was held that the custom of the religious institutions must be re-established after the death of the interloper. Chetandas was held to he an interloper who was entitled to become Matadhipathi after the death of the previous Mahant according to the custom of Thirupathi Mutt. According to the custom, the senior most disciple of the previous Matadhipathi had to succeed to the Gadi. But there was also the other qualification that he must be a North Indian BTahmin. Chetandas was held to be the interloper but he functioned as Matadhipathi by argeement between the rival contenders to the office after the death of the last Mahant. Rajendradas claimed to be the senior most disciple of the last validly installed Matadhipathi. The rival contender to the office was the seniormost disciple of the interloper, Chetandas. But Rajendradas was disqualified since he did not fulfil the other condition, namely, of being a North Indian Brahmin. Hence, the seniormost disciple of Chetandas was held to be entitled to succeed to the Gadi. If Rajendradas had been a North Indian Brahmin, the Supreme Court would have upheld his claim. Hence, in the present case, if Sivalingiah is considered to be an interloper then, the nomination of defendant-1 made by him will not be valid. Defendant-1 cannot claim to succeed to the patta of the suit mutt on the basis of his nomination by the interloper, Sivalingiah. After the death of the interloper Sivalingiah, the custom governing the suit mutt must be restored according to the principle laid down in the above decision, Hence, the office of Pattadhikari is to the filled as though there was no nomination of the successor by the last validly installed Pattadhikari, namely, Virupakshiah.