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

1952 Supreme(Mad) 311

RAGHAVA RAO
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board – Appellant
Versus
Gangamma – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Seshachalapathi for Appellant.
C. Kondiah and B. Lakshminarayana Reddi for Respondents.

Judgment:

There are three temples situated in Adoni with reference to which a declaration was sought by the respondent before me that they were not temples as defined by section 9, sub-clause 12 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act but private institutions for private worship for the benefit of herself and all the members of the families to which she (P.W.1) belongs - the Hyati family as it is described in the records and the Court family with which the Hyati family was connected by marital ties. The respondent before me succeeded in her application to the District Court under section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act although she had failed before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board in the enquiry which preceded the petition in the District Court.

The entire material relevant to the decision of the matter before me lies in a short and narrow compass. The oral evidence given before the District Court consisted of that of the petitioner before it as P.W.1 and seven witnesses on the opposite side. The report of the Assistant Commissioner of the locality for the Endowments in question was also put before the Court as a document which came into existence as a resu







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