Chennai Court March 1890 Judgments
Natesa and ors. Vs. Ganapati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad103
1. In Appeal No. 108.--The respondents brought this suit to remove the appellants and three others from the offices of dharmakartas and worshippers in the temple of Saba Nayakar at Chitambaram in South Arcot. Both parties to this appeal belong to a class of Smarta Brahmans called Dikshadars who, from time immemorial, have held both offices in that institution which is one of considerable antiquity and renown in Southern India. About 250 families of Dikshadars reside at Chitambaram, and the nett income of the temple, which is derived from general offerings, is their recognized means of livelihood. According to their usage every Dikshadar becomes entitled, on marriage, to take part in the management, to do puja or perform service in the minor shrines, and to share in the emoluments of the institution. He is, however, considered not qualified for performing service in the principal shrines, until he is twenty-five years old and initiated in a ceremony called Diksha. There are five princip...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanasawmy, a Minor by His Natural Father and Next Friend Venkatara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ40
ORDERShephard, J.1. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff (appellant), that, apart from the theory that the plaintiff's adoption was ' a conditional one, the plaintiff was entitled to the property of his adoptive father, notwithstanding the latter's will executed after the adoption, and that in fact there was no evidence what the adoption was conditional. And further it was argued that the defendants, having denied the adoption and not raised in the written statement the contention now urged on appeal they were not competent to raise it now. In support of this argument, we were referred to the case of Mahomed Buksh Khan v. Hosseini Bibi where the Judicial Committee expressed the opinion that the plaintiff seeking recover property conveyed by a deed of gift purporting to be executed Riert self should not have been permitted at the same time to allege that the deed was a forgery and that the execution of it was obtained by undue influence. Mr. Bhashyam Iyengar contended that simila...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›