M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN
Karthick – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment – Respondent
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner, challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 04.07.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.2338 of 2014, has come before this Court with the present writ appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.
3. Facts in brief, leading to the filing of the writ appeal are set out thus:
3.1. Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, was established by one Pandi Kodangi and he was in administration of the temple during his life time as its founder. A suit was filed in O.S.No.383 of 1973 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai, seeking to frame a scheme and accordingly, a scheme came to be framed on 20.06.1973, according to which, one Sangan Poosari was one of the hereditary trustees of the temple. The second respondent is his natural daughter. Since the said Sangan Poosari could not participate in the temple administration and pooja services because of his illness and therefore, he had executed a deed of settlement on 13.05.1992 relinquishing his rights in the temple in favour of the fifth respondent.
3.2. The said
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1]).
Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
State of H.P v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.
Chettimai C.Nanjappa Chettiar v. S.M.Kuppuswami Chettiar reported in 1985 (2) MLJ 154
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Geetha Kasturirangan reported in 2010 (1) CWC 942
M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., v. Jahan Khan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.