Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

RIJU PRASAD SARMA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Section 25A and the 2012 Rules are valid and do not infringe upon the customary rights of the Bordeori Samaj and Dolois to elect the Head Priest. Management of secular and religious affairs remains with the Bordeories and Dolois; the statutory committee's role is limited to overseeing annuity and grants. The exclusion of women and Deories from voting under existing custom does not arise from State action and is not unconstitutional. The Debutter Regulation, 1998, lacks legal sanction. Claims of equality for Deories and locus standi of Debutter Board are rejected. Judiciary is not 'State' for…

Source excerpt

  • Scope of section 25a of assam state acquisition of lands act, 1959
  • Religious customs and equality
  • Validity of rules for management of temple
  • Definition of 'state' under article 12
  • Locus standi of debutter board
Read case analysis
Property law

HARYANA WAKF BOARD versus MAHESH KUMAR

Where a dispute regarding the nature of property—whether it is Wakf property or not—arises after the commencement of Haryana Wakf Act, 1995, the Tribunal constituted under the Act has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue; Civil Courts' jurisdiction is barred by Section 85, and the present suit filed after the Act's commencement is not saved by exception under Section 7(5).

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of civil courts
  • Wakf tribunal jurisdiction
  • Interpretation of haryana wakf act
Read case analysis
Religious and charitable endowments

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus SRI SRI LAKSHMI JANARDAN THAKUR AND ORS.

The High Court failed to properly consider relevant documents and factual position, and did not address all materials pertinent to determining public/private nature of the endowment. The matter must be remitted back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Distinction between public and private endowment
  • Land ceiling for religious and charitable trusts
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

NELLOR MARTHANDAM VELLALAR AND ORS. versus THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS AND ORS.

The Vellala Community does not constitute a religious denomination as they do not possess common faith or religious tenets distinct from the larger Hindu community, nor have they established or exclusively administered the temple; prior acceptance of trusteeship by non-community members amounts to waiver of any claimed rights; hence, the appellants are not entitled to protection under Article 26 or Section 107.

Source excerpt

  • Definition of religious denomination
  • Temple management
  • Waiver of fundamental rights
Read case analysis
Hindu law

BABA CHARAN DASS UDHASI versus MAHANT BASANT DAS BABAJI CHELA BABA LAXMANDAS UDASI SADHU

Allahabad Society validly called the congregation for appointment of the head of the Math after the demise of last appointee, Ramji Dass, and validly appointed the respondent as Madathipathi. Commissioner's powers under Section 60 are limited to temporary custody/protection of Math properties and cannot regularise nor appoint a permanent head. No valid appointment of Nagendra Dass as head; only acted as agent/mukami. Appointment procedure must follow founding deed unless validly justified otherwise.

Source excerpt

  • Appointment of madathipathi (math head)
  • Devolution of headship
  • Role of commissioner under t.n. hindu religious and charitable endowments act, 1959
Read case analysis
Hindu law

T. LAKSHMIKUMARA THATHACHARIAR versus COMMISSIONER, H.R.C.E. AND ORS.

Section 64(5)(a) of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, read with Section 118(2)(a), confers jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner to modify or cancel a scheme originally framed by the court under previous legislation, including schemes framed under Section 92 CPC, as the power to modify such schemes was specifically provided for and preserved in the later legislation; there is no unconstitutional nullification of court decrees.

Source excerpt

  • Modification of scheme
  • Jurisdiction under religious endowments law
  • Constitutional validity
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SH. A.S. NARAYANA DEEKSHJTULU ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Abolition of hereditary rights of Archakas and other office holders, prescribing qualifications, regulating service conditions including transfers, and abolition of shares in temple income are matters of secular management and social welfare reforms, not essential religious practices, and do not violate Articles 25 or 26; impugned provisions are constitutional and valid.

Source excerpt

  • Freedom of religion
  • Abolition of hereditary rights
  • Secular activities
  • Appointment of office holders
  • Qualification of archakas
  • Right to shares in temple income
Read case analysis
Customary law

HIS HOLINESS DIGYA DARSHAN RAJENDRA RAM DOSS versus DEVENDRA DOSS

Since Rajendra Ram Doss was found not to be a North-Indian Brahmin, he could not succeed as Mohunt by the immemorial custom of the Mutt; Devendra Doss, as the senior-most disciple of the last accepted Mohunt (Chetandoss) and a North-Indian Brahmin, is entitled to succeed.

Source excerpt

  • Succession to mohuntship
  • Doctrine of estoppel
  • Customary rules regarding religious office succession
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KAKINADA ANNADANA SAMAJAM ETC. versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HYDERABAD & ORS.

The office of a hereditary trustee who holds only a bare right of management, without beneficial interest, does not constitute property within Article 19(1)(f) or Article 31; even if it were property, the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable and justified in public interest.

Source excerpt

  • Hereditary trusteeship
  • Definition of property under constitution
  • Reasonable restrictions under article 19
  • Management of charitable and religious institutions
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.