Court : Chennai
One Shantha, wife of late Venkatarama Naidu; one Sasikala, wife of Thiru Venkatesan and daughter of late Venkatarama Naidu; and one Rajalakshmi, wife of Thiru Srinivasan and daughter of late Venkatarama Naidu have filed CRP No.3067 of 2007 challenging the order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2003. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruvannamalai has filed CRP No.1840 of 2008 challenging the very same order dated 30.7.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Trust O.P.No.1 of 2003. 3. The relief sought for in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same. Hence, by consent, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up for disposal together. 4. Thiru V.Murali and Thiru V.Narasimhan, the respondents 1 and 2 in CRP No.3067 of 2007 and respondents 2 and 3 in CRP No.1840 of 2008 are the sons of Tmt.Shantha, the first revision petitioner in CRP No.3067 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj13; 1972()WLN709
Kan Singh, J.1. This is an appeal bythe defendants directed against the 'judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) end. inter alia, raises the question whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 29 of the Raiasthan Public Trusts Act. 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The suit was filed on 27-8-1962 by the Panch Mahesihwaris of Chittorgarh and it concerns a temple known as Shri Laxmi Narainii's temple situated at Chittorgarh. It was for an injunction requiring the defendants Jagan Nath and Laxmi Lal to hand over certain articles of the temple which were in their custody as Puiaris of the aforesaid temple and further refrain from performing the work of 'Sewa 'Pooia' in the temple.Stated in brief the plaintiffs' case was that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari Community and was being managed through their Panch as. The latter had employed the defendants for performing the 'Sewa Pooia' at the temple an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1975Ori8
Patra, J. 1. The petitioner who is a resident of Cuttack and is a tax-payer of various taxes levied by the State Government has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Orissa to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of the State for renovation of the tanks of Markanda, Narendra and Sweta-ganga at Puri. It is stated in the petition that these tanks are held in high reverence by the Hindu public who use then, for religious purposes and periodical religious rites of Lord Jagannath of Puri are performed there. Spending of money from out of the funds of the State for renovation of these tanks amounts to maintenance of the Hindu religion which is forbidden by Article 27 of the Constitution and it is consequently alleged that the State Government cannot incur the expenditure. 2. The State in its counter-affidavit contends that the tanks in question are used by the general public for bathing an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1973Raj322; 1973()WLN448
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as mesne profits,2. The suit was filed by the Managing Committee of the Shahi Jama Masjid, Merta City. The mosque known as the Shahi Jama Masjid is said to have been constructed by the Muslim Emperors of Delhi. It is a massive building. It has a solid platform and comprises heavy arches, domes and lofty minars. It is a protected ancient monument and is tinder the supervision of the Archaeological Department According to the plaintiff, there are a large number of shops appurtenant to the mosque.3. The subject-matter of the litigation is a small strip of open land 51/2 X 41/2 situated on the back side of the mosque towards the south of the western corner of the main building. It is sandwiched between two shops. According to the plaintiff, the strip of land in question was in the ownership and possession of the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Management Committee had been ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with petitioner possession of an extent of 7 acres of land in S.No.1099, Ootamalai Village, Hoigenekkal Taluk, Dharmapuri District without recourse to the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act (57 of 1961).O R D E R1. Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the notice issued by the 2nd respondent for leasing out the land of Temple to the extent of 7 acres in possession of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is the cultivating tenant of 7 acres of land in S.No.1099 of Ootamalai village, Hogenekkal Taluk. The land admittedly belong to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 25 years and is regularly paying the lease rent.3. The petitioner as per the pleadings in the affidavit has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1.The defendants in the suit are the appellants as well as the revision petitioners herein. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision petitions are filed against the order of injunction granted by the trial Court against the defendants / appellant / revision petitioners not to alienate their properties, till the disposal of the suit, ordering impleadment of the Temple as a party to the suit and amending the particulars in respect of Court fee in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.363 dated 09.04.2010, which contemplates that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is liable to pay only Rs.100/- as a Court fee, respectively. 2.The case of the respondent / Trust herein, who has filed the suit for declaration is that the property to the extent of nearly 15.35 acres of land belongs to a Trust stated to have been created in the year 1975 and the Trust has been in possession of the property and subsequently, when they came to know that the defendants have attempted to put u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition (MD).No.4364/2009 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in D.Dis.R.P.35/2008 D2 dated 3.4.2009 which was delivered to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 confirming that part of the order of the 2nd respondent permitting the 3rd respondent to file an application under Section 64(1) of the H.R.&C.E. Act made in R.C.8881/2007/B1/20.6.2008 and quash the same.Writ Petition (MD).No.4365/2009 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in R.Dis.A.P.34 of 2008 D2 dated 3.4.2009 which was delivered to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 reversing the order of the 2nd respondent, directing the 3rd respondent to approach the Civil Court made in R.C.8881/2007/B1/dated 20.6.2008 and quash the same.ORDER1. Both these Writ Petitions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J The issue involved in all these matters is being intrinsically inter-connected, all were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In all these matters the challenge is with regard to constitutional validity of Sections 78, 79(3) and 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959) (in short “the HR & CE Act”) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1996 as well as by amended Act 28 of 2003 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. 3. The appellants and the petitioner in W.P.No.20487 of 2010 claim to be the tenants / lessees in occupation of the land belonging to the Temple concerned for the past several years. According to the appellants / petitioner, while they are in lawful occupation, the authorities of the HR & CE Department had issued notice purported to be under Section 78(2) of the HR & CE Act to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Admittedly, without offer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The appellant Math was the plaintiff in a suit (C.S.No.2/1983) filed against the respondents 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2) and two others on the file of the Madras High Court. The appellant math situated in Tirunelveli, claims to be the owner of property bearing No.16, Chandrabanu Street, Komaleeswararpet also described as Komaleeswaranpettai, Chennai (described in the first schedule to the plaint) known as Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam and several idols including those of Goddess Meenakshi, Lord Vigneshwara, Lord Murugan installed therein (described in the second schedule to the plaint), together referred to as the `suit property'. 2. The plaint averments in brief are: The appellant is a Math established several centuries ago at Tirunelveli by Swami Anavaratha Soundaraja Perumal. The Mathadhipathi of the Math is elected for life by the Viswakarma community. In the year 1922, a suit (OS No.58/1922 as the file of the Sub-court, Tirunelveli) was filed for framing a scheme for regulating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This Appeal Suit is focussed by the original defendants 1, 2 and 4 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1995, passed in O.S.No.471 of 1988 by the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Appeal Suit would run thus: The plaintiff filed the suit, seeking the following reliefs - “(a) declaring that the plaintiff temple - viz. the Idol of Sri Viswanathaswamy temple at Manathattai Village, Kulithalai, is a private temple belonging to 4 families namely Vembu Iyer and others and consequentially granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and subordinates and other officials from interfering with the administration of plaintiff by way of bringing the suit coconut trees in public auctio...
Tag this Judgment!