https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190504 A Hindu religious institution was treated as a public temple on the basis of historical grants, the 1934 Firman and the parties' conduct, while the Vallabha sect was not shown to require worship only in a private temple. The Tilkayat's role was held to be custodial rather than proprietary, so the Act's regulation of temple administration did not infringe protected property rights or amount to acquisition. The legislation was also found to preserve essential worship and ritual while regulating secular management through a Board, making most challenged provisions valid; only the qualification aspect of the Goswami-related rule was not sustained. en-us Mon, 21 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:51:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190504 A Hindu religious institution was treated as a public temple on the basis of historical grants, the 1934 Firman and the parties' conduct, while the Vallabha sect was not shown to require worship only in a private temple. The Tilkayat's role was held to be custodial rather than proprietary, so the Act's regulation of temple administration did not infringe protected property rights or amount to acquisition. The legislation was also found to preserve essential worship and ritual while regulating secular management through a Board, making most challenged provisions valid; only the qualification aspect of the Goswami-related rule was not sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190504