Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Sri Thirupuranthakaswamy Devasthanam ... vs V. Sundaresa Mudaliar And Ors. on 28 July, 1981 cites

Tiruvengada Varadachariar And Ors. vs Srinivasa Iyengar And Ors. on 2 August, 1972

17. More than one Division Bench decision of this Court above referred to, had proceeded on the basis that the entire plaint must be taken as a whole to find out the nature of the suit, and if substantial or main reliefs involved therein would not come within the ambit of powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63, but if incidental issues or reliefs prayed for therein, fall within the scope of that section; then the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit, and also decide on these incidental aspects which could be otherwise canvassed before a Deputy Commissioner. It is not the nature of the words in the para dealing with reliefs prayed for in the plaint which will be determinative of the character of the suit, but the contents of the plaint in conjunction with the reliefs asked for have to be taken into account. The nature of defence put forth is immaterial. The Division Bench in T. Varadachariar v. Iyengar , had taken into account the defence taken in the written statement.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi vs Duddukuru Subba Rao on 10 May, 1957

This was also entered in Ex. A33, a register maintained under Section 38 of Act 11 of 1927. For Faslis 1347 and 1345, kist had been paid in the name of the temple under Ex. A32. D.W. I had stated that the income from the property was being utilised for twice a month, from and out of the income derived from these items of properties. Having admitted that in the will the lands have been given for and the entire income being intended to be spent only for the said purpose; as pointed out in Dasaratharami Reddy v. Subba Rao 1957 S.C.J. 835 : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 797, the conduct of the parties in user of the property would show the extinction of the private secular character of the property and a complete dedication made to charity, and true intention is made out by the above said expression as extracted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 56 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

N. Tirumalayappa Pillai Alias N.T. ... vs P. Ramasubramania Pillai And Ors. on 17 December, 1969

Learned single Judge of this Court in Tirumalayappa Pillai v. Ramasubramania Pillai , had not touched upon the aspects of possession and mesne profits asked for in the said suit, and therefore, the said decision cannot be pressed into service by defendants. Plaintiffs have not only asked for declaration of title and possession, but also for accounting and future profits. Last three of them cannot be granted by the Deputy Commissioner. When all these reliefs are taken together, in the suit the nature of endowment arises for consideration but it is an incidental aspect in the context of several other larger issues which come up for consideration and which cannot at all be considered by Deputy Commissioner.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors vs K. Shanmugam Pillai And Ors on 4 May, 1972

As held in S.S. Pillai v. K.S. Pillai , when entire income from the property is intended to be used for the purpose of charity, then the dedication is complete. The trial Court held that the non-production of the account books affects the case of plaintiff, but when for seven decades, first defendant and his ancestors have been managing the affairs of the temple as trustees, they are only responsible for the custody and proper handing over of account books, and therefore, on this score alone, ownership rights to these items could not have been recognised in first defendant when they belonged to third parties who had not stated as to why strangers are to get them. The unconvincing plea of kattalai having been created for 'prathosham', runs counter to the admission of D.W.1 that it was for"
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 118 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Ponniah Nadar And Ors. vs Chellian Nadar And Ors. on 10 March, 1969

This was followed in Ponniah Nadar v. Chellian Nadar , but the Division Bench in T. Varadachariar v. S. Iyengar , has taken the view that in some matters which fall under Section 63, the Board may not be interested, and that there may be cases in which even though the Board is not impleaded as a party, still rival claims between the parties could be decided by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 63.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next