Fit Person - Judgment Search Results

inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Vs. Amirthammal,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2003)1MLJ435

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The appellant was appointed as a fit person of the suit property by the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act (H.R. & C.E. Act)-respondents

Thiru.Gnana Vignesh Vs Fit Person / Takkar,

Court: Chennai

Matched in: Parties Thiru.Gnana Vignesh Vs Fit Person / Takkar,

A.R.Santhanakrishnan Vs Fit Person

Court: Chennai

Matched in: Parties A.R.Santhanakrishnan Vs Fit Person

P.M. Matcharani Vs. The Fit Person/Deputy Commissioner and Others

Court: Chennai Madurai

Matched in: Parties P.M. Matcharani Vs. The Fit Person/Deputy Commissioner and Others

Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam by Fit Person Vs. Kasthuriam ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2006)2MLJ281

Matched in: Parties Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathaswamy Devasthanam by Fit Person Vs. Kasthuriammal

The President, Nunakadu Panchayat, Nunakadu Vs. Arulmigu. Selliamman T ...

Court: Chennai

Matched in: Parties The President, Nunakadu Panchayat, Nunakadu Vs. Arulmigu. Selliamman Thirukovil, by its Fit Person, Ezhilur Village, and Another

M. Natanam Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitab ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1999(3)CTC657

second respondent is the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Thillai Kaliamman Thirukovil, Chidambaram while the first respondent is the fit person appointed for the said temple. There is some controversy with respect to the very status of the writ

Selvaraj Nadar Vs. Aruppukottai Agraharam, Pattabiramaswami Koil Durga ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1995)1MLJ406

of the benefit after attaining the majority may in itself be a sufficient act of ratification. If a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim

Muthusamy Gounder and 13 ors. Vs. Arulmigu Varadaraja Perumal Temple a ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 1997(1)CTC410; (1997)IIMLJ340

observed that in spite of the same, the said presumption can be rebutted by contra evidence by the person claiming kudivaram interest in the land. As a matter of fact, in dealing with the merits of the

Muthusamy Gounder and ors. Vs. Arulmigu Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Rep ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1997)2MLJ340

observed that in spite of the same, the said presumption can be rebutted by contra evidence by the person claiming kudivaram interest in the land. As a matter of fact, in dealing with the merits of the