<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1972 (5) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173761</link>
    <description>A shrine initially shown to be private does not become a public temple merely because outsiders worship there or make offerings. Dedication to the public must be proved from the totality of circumstances, including the institution&#039;s origin, continuity of family management, existence of dedicated property, and whether public worship is as of right. Here, the private origin of the Mandapam, its continued control by the Thoguluva family, and the absence of endowed property weighed against public dedication. Occasional public participation and temple-like physical features were insufficient. The Mandapam was treated as a private religious endowment, not a public temple.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:32:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (5) TMI 62 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173761</link>
      <description>A shrine initially shown to be private does not become a public temple merely because outsiders worship there or make offerings. Dedication to the public must be proved from the totality of circumstances, including the institution&#039;s origin, continuity of family management, existence of dedicated property, and whether public worship is as of right. Here, the private origin of the Mandapam, its continued control by the Thoguluva family, and the absence of endowed property weighed against public dedication. Occasional public participation and temple-like physical features were insufficient. The Mandapam was treated as a private religious endowment, not a public temple.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>