You may also like...
-
Answers to the Issues : I concur with the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the issue No.1 in the Original Suit that the suit is maintainable. I concur with the findings of the Trial Court that the order made in O.A.No.34 of 1995 and O.A.No.37 of 1985 are final. I answer the issue No.3 in the Original Suit that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration. I answer the issue No.4 in the Original Suit that the second defendant is the Hereditary Trustee of the first defendant, endowment. I answer the issue No.5 in the Original Suit that the plaintiff is also entitled for recovery of possession from the second defendant. As far as the damages and quantum are concerned, opportunity is given for the plaintiff to comply by way of an application for quantification of the damages as to be recovered. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court does not need any interference. The Result: In the result, this Appeal Suit in A.S.No.397 of 2010 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.12.2022 Index : yes Speaking order grs To The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., grs Pre-Delivery Judgment in A.S.No.397 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 14.12.2022 [1] 2011-2-L.W. 1 [2] (2006) 1 SCC 257, para No.7
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 30, 2022
-
-
மனுதாரர் ரங்கராஜன் நரசிம்மன், 1998ம் ஆண்டு உயர் நீதிமன்றம் பிறப்பித்த தீர்ப்பில் சமஸ்கிருதத்தில் தான் அர்ச்சனை செய்ய வேண்டும் என தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளதாகவும், கோவில்களில் பின்பற்றப்படும் ஆகம விதிப்படியான நடைமுறைகளை மாற்ற முடியாது எனவும், மத விவகாரங்களில் அரசு தலையிட முடியாது எனவும் வாதிட்டார்.
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 3, 2021
