<?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>1992 (12) TMI 223 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183935</link>
    <description>Dedication of private property to a religious endowment may be proved orally or inferred from conduct, and an admission in prior litigation treating the shop as temple property could bind a successor-in-interest unless satisfactorily explained. The earlier finding was therefore required to be reconsidered on remand. In a public temple, worshippers are beneficiaries and have standing to challenge an unauthorized alienation of immovable temple property by the manager, so the suit for declaration that the sale deed was void was maintainable. The judgment was set aside and the question of dedication was sent back for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:33:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 223 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183935</link>
      <description>Dedication of private property to a religious endowment may be proved orally or inferred from conduct, and an admission in prior litigation treating the shop as temple property could bind a successor-in-interest unless satisfactorily explained. The earlier finding was therefore required to be reconsidered on remand. In a public temple, worshippers are beneficiaries and have standing to challenge an unauthorized alienation of immovable temple property by the manager, so the suit for declaration that the sale deed was void was maintainable. The judgment was set aside and the question of dedication was sent back for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>