Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)
Poonam Chand By L.Rs. And Ors. vs Laxmi Narain on 28 March, 1988 cites

Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir And Ors on 21 December, 1979

In other words, what the defendant No. 1 pleaded was that although a disciple of the Mahant succeeds him as Mahant but a ceremony of installation by the community of Mahantas of the same religious fraternity is required to make, him the Mahant of the Math As has been observed in Krishna Singh's case (supra), there are instances of maths in which Mahantship descends from Guru to Chela but the general rule is that the maths of the same sect in district or Maths having a common origin are associated together-the mahant of these acknowledging one of their members as a head who for some reason is prominent; and on the occasion of the death of one the others assemble to elect a successor out of the disciples of the deceased, if possible or if there be none of them qualified then from the Chelas of another Mahant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 88 - A P Sen - Full Document

Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer And Others vs Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer And Another on 27 April, 1961

22. As has already been stated above, the trial court had held that the defendant No. 1 Laxminarain was not adopted as Chela by Mahant Prem das How ever, the first appellate court has reversed this finding of fact given by the trial court. Mr. Murli Manohar Vyas appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that the District Judge has reversed the finding of the trial court without considering all the circumstances on which the finding was based and therefore, the finding of the District Judge is not binding on this Court and' should be set aside and that of the trial court restored. As observed in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and Ors. v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer and Anr. (530), it is well settled that the High Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact however, gross the error might seem to be. In that case, their lordships held that the High Court was in error in reversing the finding the District Judge, which was one of fact that the Emberumanar temple was neither subordinate to nor part of the Althinathalwar temple and no office holder of the former could, therefore, become office bearer of the latter Thus how so ever, erroneous the finding of fact on the question whether Mahant Premdas adopted Laxminarain defendant No. 1 as his Chela might be, this Court in second appeal has no jurisdiction to interfere in that finding of fact. I, therefore, refuse to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the District Judge that the defendant No, 1 was Chela of Mahant Premdas.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Vikrama Das Mahant vs Daulat Ram Asthana & Ors on 15 February, 1956

32. As to the competence of the plaintiff's to file the suit even on the footing that they were not de jure trustees but only de facto trustees, it may be, stated that it is well-settled that the ordinary rule that the persons without title and who were mere intermeddlers cannot sue as of right is clear. But where public trusts are concerned, courts have a duty to see that their interests and the interests of those for whose benefit they existed are safeguarded. The courts must possess the power to sustain proper proceeding by them in appropriate case and grant the relief in the interest of and for the express benefit of the trust imposing such conditions as may be called for. Therefore a person who has been de facto in possession and management of a math and its properties for a long time claiming to be its trustee under the decree of the court, valid or invalid, has sufficient interest, to maintain proceedings for the warding off a cloud cast by the defendant's action and the interest of the Math See: Vikarmadas Mahant v. Dash Ram Asthana paras 14 to 16 per Jagananthadas, J.)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ramalingam Pillai And Ors. vs Muthayyan, Minor, By Guardian ... on 6 April, 1914

The same view was reiterated by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ramlingam Pillai v. Yahilingam Pillai (supra) It was for the defendant No. 1 in the instant case to allege and prove the custom about succession as Mahant in this religious institution and not for the plaintiffs. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, he has clearly admitted that this Gaddi of the Bagichi was of Ramanuj Bairagi cult. He also unequivocally admitted that prior to him no Grahasti became Mahant of this Bagichi. It is important to note that this religious institution was established about 100 years or 125 years before the institution of the suit. Marriage by itself is not a disqualification, but the initiation of a married man' must be preceded by the entire and permanent separation from his wife and by the giving up of all worldly ties. This is the rule in all ascetic foundations where the members have to take the vow of celibacy. In my view, the trial court was right that the defendant No. 1 being married and having not separated from his wife and having not renounced the worldly order, was not qualified to become Mahant of this Bagichi in which only celibates' have all along been the Mahants since it is founded. I do not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the District Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1