<?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>1967 (9) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191044</link>
    <description>Property transferred to a Municipality for continued use as shelter for sadhus, saints, religious mendicants and visitors to a samadhi was held subject to a public trust; the transfer deed showed a public purpose, and the Municipality could not divert the property to municipal use. Persons connected with the samadhi were an uncertain and fluctuating body constituting a section of the public, so the trust was religious and charitable within the Act. Earlier civil and survey proceedings did not bar the public trust inquiry because they did not determine the beneficiaries&#039; rights in a representative capacity. The Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner were competent to proceed and support registration of the trust.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:48:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191044</link>
      <description>Property transferred to a Municipality for continued use as shelter for sadhus, saints, religious mendicants and visitors to a samadhi was held subject to a public trust; the transfer deed showed a public purpose, and the Municipality could not divert the property to municipal use. Persons connected with the samadhi were an uncertain and fluctuating body constituting a section of the public, so the trust was religious and charitable within the Act. Earlier civil and survey proceedings did not bar the public trust inquiry because they did not determine the beneficiaries&#039; rights in a representative capacity. The Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner were competent to proceed and support registration of the trust.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>