Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (4.83 seconds)

Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi And Ors. vs Somasundara Mudaliar And Ors. on 26 October, 1893

2. In explanation of the nature of the dispute in this case, it may be stated at the outset, that in the temple (as in similar other temples in South India) there are inter alia, four or five well-defined periods of daily worship, for the due performance of each of which an endowment or kattalai exists, the name of the particular kattalai being indicative of the period of worship with which it is associated. Thus at the temple there is an early morning worship, a midday worship, an evening worship and a midnight worship, called ardhajama kattalai. The dispute in this case relates to the last-named kattalai. As is explained in the judgment of the High Court in this appeal, the term "kattalai" as applied to temple endowments in Southern India signifies a special endowment for certain specific religious services in the temple. In this sense the word "kattalai" is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple itself. In the case of some important temples the sources of their income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance and each endowment is placed under a special trustee and specific items of expenditure are assigned to it as legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Each of such endowments is called a "kattalai", and the trustee who administers it is called a "kattalaigar" (see Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Somasundara Mudaliar (1893) I.L.R. 17 Mad. 199 and 200).
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar on 5 July, 1921

33. It was argued before their Lordships, relying on certain observations of this Board in the case of Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. 302, 326, 327 : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 629, that inam proceedings do not create any dedication, they are instituted simply with the object of investigating titles to hold lands revenue-free as belonging to valid endowments. It is further urged that the gifts in this case were made long before the inam proceedings; the purpose of the gifts must therefore, it is urged, be gathered from established usage and practice.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 149 - Full Document

The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Srinivasa Chariar And Ors. on 7 August, 1916

35. It is true that when the terms of the grant are available, the inam title deeds are not evidence as to the effect of the grant, which must depend upon the language used in the instrument and the circumstances of the grant itself; the deeds in such a case of the Inam Commissioners confer no higher title than was originally granted (see Secretary of State for India in Council v. Srinivasa Chariar (1920) L.R. 48 I.A. 56, 67).
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Mahammad Mazaffar-Al-Musavi vs Jabeda Khatun on 21 January, 1930

50. The other case relied upon was Mohammad Mazaffar-al-Musavi v. Jabeda Khatun (1930) L.R. 57 I.A. 125, 130, where the rule was affirmed relating to the presumption of a lawful origin in support of proprietary rights long and quietly enjoyed as it was explained in an earlier case by Lord Buckmaster, (Bawa Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Mani-bhai (1921) L.R. 49 I.A. 54 : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 584) in the following terms (p. 59):
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Ramanathan Chetti vs Murugappa Chetti on 24 May, 1906

49. Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti (1906) L.R. 33 I.A. 139, 143 : S.C. 8 Bom. L.R. 498 was a case where an unbroken period of nineteen years' usage was in pursuance of an arrangement between members of a family : the existence and legality of the arrangement were denied. This Board held that the evidence of nineteen years' continuous usage was conclusive evidence of the fact of such arrangement and that the arrangement was not improper and could not be avoided except by proper proceedings instituted for that purpose. In the present case no such arrangement is in evidence with which the possession or enjoyment of the appellants' family could be said to have commenced. The only arrangement mentioned is the compromise between the members of the family to which the endowment was not a party.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1