<?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>1921 (3) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188266</link>
    <description>Property dedicated for a religious community may constitute a charitable trust where the mosque, tomb, offerings, surplus funds and connected assets are applied to community religious purposes. The mosque was treated as a religious endowment under the control of the community head in an official capacity, and the tomb gifts and gulla collections were held impressed with a charitable obligation. The court also accepted that the Mullaji Saheb was established as Dai-ul-Mutlak on the evidence of succession and recognition, but rejected the contention that spiritual exaltation or claimed universal ownership removed legal accountability. The office therefore carried trusteeship and accountability in law, while existing management was largely left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:59:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1921 (3) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188266</link>
      <description>Property dedicated for a religious community may constitute a charitable trust where the mosque, tomb, offerings, surplus funds and connected assets are applied to community religious purposes. The mosque was treated as a religious endowment under the control of the community head in an official capacity, and the tomb gifts and gulla collections were held impressed with a charitable obligation. The court also accepted that the Mullaji Saheb was established as Dai-ul-Mutlak on the evidence of succession and recognition, but rejected the contention that spiritual exaltation or claimed universal ownership removed legal accountability. The office therefore carried trusteeship and accountability in law, while existing management was largely left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 1921 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>