temple. The further fact that the features of the temple would clearly indicate that it is not a public temple, but a private one meant ... name of the temple itself and the essential requirement even to claim that the temple was a private temple, the fact that there
favour of the
view that the temple is a public temple. The true
character of the temple may be decided by taking into
consideration diverse ... other
temples, it is a strong circumstance in favour of the
conclusiveness of public temple. The origin of the
temple, when lost in antiquity
Institutions (or Temples) came under the Palace Department were called as "Palace Muzrai Temples." Since then, the said Temples exclusively under the Administration ... Maharaja as they have to be construed as Private Temples. The temples are not private, on the other hand, they are public temples
evidence that the Temple is a
public temple and is not controlled or managed by any one
particular denomination. The Temple receives ... Temple is admittedly paid Tashdiq by the State,
and if such Tashdiq is paid by the State, the Temple cannot
be a private temple
temple was a public temple or a private temple, Although the temple was a private temple, the evidence disclosed that the Pujari Lakshmana Goundan ... case, the temple would clearly be a public temple. If a temple is proved to have originated as a public temple, nothing more is necessary
Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple, Rep. By ... vs State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Secy., ... on
Temples or Vaishnavite Temples, only a person who learnt the necessary rites and mantras conducive to be performed and recited in the respective temples ... perform homa and ritualistic forms of worship in public or private temples. Consequently, there is no justification to insist that a Brahman or Malayala Brahman
Association had renovated the
temple apart from constructing Maramma temple, which was
about 100 metres away from the Hanumanta Devaru temple. The
Association was also ... functions
at these temples and had sought to produce material in support
thereof. It was denied that the temple was private property and
the defendants
Gopal Krishna S/O Dr. H K Ram Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on
Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
Author: H
