SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1939 Supreme(SC) 46

LORD MACMILLAN, SIR GEORGE RANKIN, M.R.JAYAKAR
BABU BHAGWAN DIN – Appellant
Versus
GIR HAR SAROOP – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants:Hy. S. L. Polak & Co. Solicitors for respondents: James Gray & Son.

Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (No. 79 of 1937) from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court (October 23, 1934) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow (February 22, 1932), and affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Malihabad, Lucknow (February 28, 1933).

The main question in this consolidated appeal was whether the respondents, as the descendants of one Daryao Gir, were entitled to the property in suit, the Sri Bhaironji temple, in Lucknow, together with land and houses adjacent thereto, as their personal private estate, or whether the property was impressed with a trust of a public religious character.

The nature of the suits out of which the appeals arose, the facts and the decisions of the Subordinate Judges appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Chief Court of Oudh (Nanuvutty and Zia-ul-Hasan JJ.) in one judgment covering both appeals, held that the temple property was not impressed with a public trust, but was the private property of the joint Hindu family of which the respondents were members.

1939. July 18, 20. Subba Row for the appellants. T. B. W. Ramsay for the respondents.

Oct. 10. The judgment of their Lordships was de







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top