Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.01 seconds)
Irrumathirumala Nallanchakravarthi ... vs Irumathirumal Nallachakravarthi ... on 30 December, 1967 cites

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955

In a larger sense, it may be a right to practise the profession. Viewing the right of an office of priesthood and the rights attached to it was envisaged by the Bombay High Court, it does not satisfy that definition of property. The priest has no right to compel any person, family or caste to receive his services nor conversely can be person, family or caste compel the priest to give his services or ministrations. The right of the priest is only a right to receive fees or perquisites if his services are accepted by persons who are under no obligation to accept them. In such a view, the right of the priest is nothing more than a chance or a prospect of having particular customers and it cannot be said to be a right to property. (Vide the decision in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 327 - Full Document

Tholappala Charlu vs Venkata Charlu And Ors. on 30 April, 1895

So is the case in Tolappala Charlu v. Venkata Charlu, (1896) ILR 19 Mad 62, where another Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Collins, C. J. and Parker, J. held that the suit by the plaintiff as Anagundi Raja guru to be entitled to a declaration of his right to the hereditary office of priest of Samayacharam was not cognisable by a Civil Court. The bench posed the question whether the priestship of Samayacharm is an office for which suit will lie in a Civil Court, and in answering this question, it distinguished most of the cases cited before it on the ground that as the priestship was not attached to any particular temple or place and no specific pecuniary benefit was attached to the office, the only emoluments being voluntary contributions, which the duties of the office were to exercise spiritual and moral supervision over people who were a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country, a suit would not lie in a Civil Court as no such supervision over people who wear a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country, a suit would not lie in a Civil Court as no such supervision over the members of the caste can be enforced by law, it being entirely within the option of each individual member of the caste whether he will submit to it or not.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Gour Mani Debi vs Chairman Of The Panihati Municipality ... on 16 June, 1910

34. The Calcutta view is set out in Gour Moni Debi v. Chairman of Panihati Municipality, (1910) 14 Cal WN 1057 at p. 1061 where Sir Asutosh Mookerjee, J., another eminent Judge of this country learned in Shastras sitting with Teunon, J., considered the right of a Hindu lady, a member of a degraded Brahmin class known as Mariporahs, to officiate in a specified burning ground at the cremation of all dead bodies brought there, and of the right of the Municipal Corporation to create an exclusive right of such character in favour of a member of that class of Brahamins. The plaintiff alleged that she had the hereditary right in the family to the performance of those ceremonies which she was getting performed by her husband as her agent. While observing that the view of that Court has been that a suit by a person claiming to be entitled to a religious office of the description alleged in that suit, against an usurper is a suit of a civil nature, and that a similar view was also taken by the Bombay High Court though a contrary view has apparently been maintained in Madras. Mookerjee, J., posed a further question, namely, whether it is a right enforceable in law, and answered it in the negative. After examining a large number of cases of the different High Courts, viz., of Allahabad, Bombay, Agra, Madras and of his own Courts, and after referring to the Hindu Law texts, the learned Judge observed at page 1064:
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next