Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

G. JAYALAKSHMI & ORSversusARULMIGHU PAZKHIKANCHIYA VINAYAGAR & ITS TEMPLE

2009 INSC 95528 July 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over whether a shop property belonged to a public temple or to private parties. The temple had previously been declared a public temple in earlier litigation, but the nature of the disputed property was unclear. The Court held that the character of the temple property and the shop p

C.R. JAYARAMAN & ORS.versusM. PALANIAPPAN & ORS.

2008 INSC 147718 December 2008Dismissed

The appellants claimed that three temples built by their ancestor before 1890 were private family temples and sought a declaration to that effect. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board appointed non‑hereditary trustees, prompting the appellants' mother to file a writ petition, which was dismissed, and a s

DEVADOSS (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusVEERA MAKALI AMMAN KOIL ATHALUR

1997 INSC 7979 December 1997Dismissed

Dr. Devadoss (deceased) claimed ryotwari patta on land in Thanjavur district, asserting Kudikani cultivation rights, while the Veera Makali Amman temple claimed ownership under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Inam Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal and the Madra

SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL (DEAD) THROUGH MUTHUSUBRAMANIS GURUKKAL AND ORS.versusPATTESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM PERUR BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

1992 INSC 3348 December 1992Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether ryotwari pattas for service inams in Perur village should be issued to the individual service holders or to the Patteswaraswami Devasthanam, the original grantee of the inam. The Settlement Tehsildar had directed pattas to the service holders under Section 8(2)(ii) of the Madras Inams

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2014 INSC 9026 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the administration of the Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram, claimed by the Podhu Dikshitars, a Smarthi Brahmin community, as their religious denomination. The High Court had earlier dismissed the State's order appointing an Executive Officer under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search