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

1952 Supreme(Mad) 179

BASHEER AHMED SAYEED
C. P. Kunhambu Nair – Appellant
Versus
Kunnuntara Vadakka Veetil Ambu – Respondent


Advocates:
M.K. Nambiar for Petitioner.
A. Achuthan Nambiar for Respondent.

Judgment.-

Mr. M.K. Nambiar appearing for the petitioner is seeking to revise the order of the learned District Judge of South Kanara whereby he declared that the pending proceedings in O.P. No. 26 of 1951 stood automatically transferred to the appropriate Court or authority and that they should be deemed to be pending before that Court or authority by virtue of section 103(j) and (k) of Act XIX of 1951, the new Hindu Religious Endowments Act.

O.P. No. 26 of 1951, was originally filed under section 84(2) of the Hindu: Religious Endowments Act II of 1927, praying that the District Court might set aside the order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board that the Vishnoorthi Temple of Cheemani village, Kasargod taluk, was a private temple within the meaning of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. When this petition was pending before the learned District Judge of South Kanara the old Act was re-enacted as Act No. XIX of 1951. In the old Act section 9(3) defined Court as meaning the District Court. Under the new Act which came into operation on the 29th September, 1951, by a notification, section 6(1) and (2) defined the Court as the City Civil Court instead of the High Court and as sub-C












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