Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Mariamman Temple vs The Sub Registrar And Others

Madras High Court|04 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
2. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an application under Section 34 of H.R & C.E Act would lie in respect of the relief sought for in the present writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks permission to file an application under the said provisions of H.R & C.E Act by the present trustee.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection for granting permission to the petitioner to file an application under Section 34 of H.R & C.E Act.
4. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the present trustee of the temple, the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate authority under Section 34 of the H.R & C.E Act. No costs.
04.10.2017 Index : yes/No Internet : Yes http://www.judis.nic.in gsk To
1. The Sub Registrar, Registration Office, Vadalur, Cuddalore District.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Cuddalore-1.
V.PARTHIBAN,J.
gsk W.P.No.11999 of 2006 04.10.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Mariamman Temple vs The Sub Registrar And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
04 October, 2017
Judges
  • V Parthiban