Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Judgment of Bombay High Court Parsi Panchayat Case-1909

    Transféré par

    Sampath Bulusu
    370 vues121 pages
    1903, Mr. R. D. Tata of the House of Tatas married a French lady, who was a Christian, at Paris; and on his return to India, Mr. Tata brought his wife to Bombay. After their taking up residence in Bombay, Mrs. Tata was duly admitted into the Zoroastrian faith by the performance of the "Navjote" ceremony, according to the religious rites and usages of the Parsis. On the conversion of the lady from Christianity to Zoroastrianism, Mr. Tata claimed that, by virtue of the performance of the Navjote, his wife had become a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian faith, and as such was entitled to participate in the benefits of the charitable and religious trusts and institutions of the Parsis. He claimed that she was entitled to enter all Parsi fire temples; and on her death, she would have the right to have her body deposited in the "Dakhma", or Parsi Towers of Silence. This claim made on behalf of a Christian convert to Zoroastrianism created an uproar in the community, and there was strong opposition among the orthodox classes to the claims made on behalf of the convert. Meetings were held and resolutions passed, mainly with the support of the orthodox section of the community, to the effect that Mrs. Tata, not being a Parsi, was not entitled to the rights claimed on her behalf by her husband, even though she had embraced the Zoroastrian faith. As a result of these resolutions, the defendants in the suit, who were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat in charge of the Parsi charitable funds and institutions, issued certain notifications. Correspondence followed between the solicitors of the trustees and the solicitors of Mr. Tata, which ultimately led to the suit. In the suit, along with other leading and wealthy Parsis, Mr. Tata was also joined as a plaintiff (6th plaintiff); but curiously enough, Mrs. Tata herself, on whose behalf this legal battle was commenced, was not joined as a plaintiff. The defendants were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat who were in charge of and managed and controlled the charitable institutions of the community. Two reliefs were claimed in the suit: (1) that the defendants were not validly appointed trustees of the charitable trusts; and (2) for a declaration that the Zoroastrian religion enjoined proselytisation of aliens into their faith; that the moneys and properties in the hands of the defendants were dedicated by the founders of the trusts for the benefit of all Zoroastrians, and accordingly all Zoroastrians, including aliens duly converted into the faith, were entitled to the benefits of these funds and institutions, including their right to enter and worship in the fire-temples, and to have their bodies after death deposited in the Towers of Silence, according to the custom of the Parsis. The defendants contended inter alia that the intention of the founders of these charitable trusts was to make provision for the benefit of the members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian faith, and not for alien converts to Zoroastrianism; and that such converts had never been within the contemplation of the settlers of the trusts. They further submitted that the Parsi community comprised only (1) descendants of the original Persian immigrants into India professing the Zoroastrian faith; (2) Iranian Zoroastrians residing in Iran, who came and settled, temporarily or permanently in India; in other words, the Irani Parsis; and (3) children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers. In brief, according to the contentions of the defendants, voicing the views and sentiments of orthodox Parsis, a Parsi like a poet is born, not made. In view of the importance and complexity of these questions, the Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins constituted a special Division Bench of two judges; and the suit came on for hearing before this Division Bench of Davar and Beaman, JJ. in 1909. Lowndes with Basil Scott, Advocate-General, P. J. Padshah, F. S. Talyarkhan and F. P. Talyarkhan appeared for

    Titre original

    Judgment of Bombay high Court Parsi Panchayat Case-1909

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    1903, Mr. R. D. Tata of the House of Tatas married a French lady, who was a Christian, at Paris; and on his return to India, Mr. Tata brought his wife to Bombay. After their taking up residence in Bombay, Mrs. Tata was duly admitted into the Zoroastrian faith by the performance of the "Navjote" ceremony, according to the religious rites and usages of the Parsis. On the conversion of the lady from Christianity to Zoroastrianism, Mr. Tata claimed that, by virtue of the performance of the Navjote, his wife had become a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian faith, and as such was entitled to participate in the benefits of the charitable and religious trusts and institutions of the Parsis. He claimed that she was entitled to enter all Parsi fire temples; and on her death, she would have the right to have her body deposited in the "Dakhma", or Parsi Towers of Silence. This claim made on behalf of a Christian convert to Zoroastrianism created an uproar in the community, and there was strong opposition among the orthodox classes to the claims made on behalf of the convert. Meetings were held and resolutions passed, mainly with the support of the orthodox section of the community, to the effect that Mrs. Tata, not being a Parsi, was not entitled to the rights claimed on her behalf by her husband, even though she had embraced the Zoroastrian faith. As a result of these resolutions, the defendants in the suit, who were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat in charge of the Parsi charitable funds and institutions, issued certain notifications. Correspondence followed between the solicitors of the trustees and the solicitors of Mr. Tata, which ultimately led to the suit. In the suit, along with other leading and wealthy Parsis, Mr. Tata was also joined as a plaintiff (6th plaintiff); but curiously enough, Mrs. Tata herself, on whose behalf this legal battle was commenced, was not joined as a plaintiff. The defendants were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat who were in charge of and managed and controlled the charitable institutions of the community. Two reliefs were claimed in the suit: (1) that the defendants were not validly appointed trustees of the charitable trusts; and (2) for a declaration that the Zoroastrian religion enjoined proselytisation of aliens into their faith; that the moneys and properties in the hands of the defendants were dedicated by the founders of the trusts for the benefit of all Zoroastrians, and accordingly all Zoroastrians, including aliens duly converted into the faith, were entitled to the benefits of these funds and institutions, including their right to enter and worship in the fire-temples, and to have their bodies after death deposited in the Towers of Silence, according to the custom of the Parsis. The defendants contended inter alia that the intention of the founders of these charitable trusts was to make provision for the benefit of the members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian faith, and not for alien converts to Zoroastrianism; and that such converts had never been within the contemplation of the settlers of the trusts. They further submitted that the Parsi community comprised only (1) descendants of the original Persian immigrants into India professing the Zoroastrian faith; (2) Iranian Zoroastrians residing in Iran, who came and settled, temporarily or permanently in India; in other words, the Irani Parsis; and (3) children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers. In brief, according to the contentions of the defendants, voicing the views and sentiments of orthodox Parsis, a Parsi like a poet is born, not made. In view of the importance and complexity of these questions, the Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins constituted a special Division Bench of two judges; and the suit came on for hearing before this Division Bench of Davar and Beaman, JJ. in 1909. Lowndes with Basil Scott, Advocate-General, P. J. Padshah, F. S. Talyarkhan and F. P. Talyarkhan appeared for

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    370 vues121 pages

    Judgment of Bombay High Court Parsi Panchayat Case-1909

    Transféré par

    Sampath Bulusu
    1903, Mr. R. D. Tata of the House of Tatas married a French lady, who was a Christian, at Paris; and on his return to India, Mr. Tata brought his wife to Bombay. After their taking up residence in Bombay, Mrs. Tata was duly admitted into the Zoroastrian faith by the performance of the "Navjote" ceremony, according to the religious rites and usages of the Parsis. On the conversion of the lady from Christianity to Zoroastrianism, Mr. Tata claimed that, by virtue of the performance of the Navjote, his wife had become a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian faith, and as such was entitled to participate in the benefits of the charitable and religious trusts and institutions of the Parsis. He claimed that she was entitled to enter all Parsi fire temples; and on her death, she would have the right to have her body deposited in the "Dakhma", or Parsi Towers of Silence. This claim made on behalf of a Christian convert to Zoroastrianism created an uproar in the community, and there was strong opposition among the orthodox classes to the claims made on behalf of the convert. Meetings were held and resolutions passed, mainly with the support of the orthodox section of the community, to the effect that Mrs. Tata, not being a Parsi, was not entitled to the rights claimed on her behalf by her husband, even though she had embraced the Zoroastrian faith. As a result of these resolutions, the defendants in the suit, who were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat in charge of the Parsi charitable funds and institutions, issued certain notifications. Correspondence followed between the solicitors of the trustees and the solicitors of Mr. Tata, which ultimately led to the suit. In the suit, along with other leading and wealthy Parsis, Mr. Tata was also joined as a plaintiff (6th plaintiff); but curiously enough, Mrs. Tata herself, on whose behalf this legal battle was commenced, was not joined as a plaintiff. The defendants were the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat who were in charge of and managed and controlled the charitable institutions of the community. Two reliefs were claimed in the suit: (1) that the defendants were not validly appointed trustees of the charitable trusts; and (2) for a declaration that the Zoroastrian religion enjoined proselytisation of aliens into their faith; that the moneys and properties in the hands of the defendants were dedicated by the founders of the trusts for the benefit of all Zoroastrians, and accordingly all Zoroastrians, including aliens duly converted into the faith, were entitled to the benefits of these funds and institutions, including their right to enter and worship in the fire-temples, and to have their bodies after death deposited in the Towers of Silence, according to the custom of the Parsis. The defendants contended inter alia that the intention of the founders of these charitable trusts was to make provision for the benefit of the members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian faith, and not for alien converts to Zoroastrianism; and that such converts had never been within the contemplation of the settlers of the trusts. They further submitted that the Parsi community comprised only (1) descendants of the original Persian immigrants into India professing the Zoroastrian faith; (2) Iranian Zoroastrians residing in Iran, who came and settled, temporarily or permanently in India; in other words, the Irani Parsis; and (3) children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers. In brief, according to the contentions of the defendants, voicing the views and sentiments of orthodox Parsis, a Parsi like a poet is born, not made. In view of the importance and complexity of these questions, the Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins constituted a special Division Bench of two judges; and the suit came on for hearing before this Division Bench of Davar and Beaman, JJ. in 1909. Lowndes with Basil Scott, Advocate-General, P. J. Padshah, F. S. Talyarkhan and F. P. Talyarkhan appeared for

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 121
    . ‘ ashes = 1 THE PARSI PUNCHAYET. GASE,, “ oe t. In the High Gourt of Gudicature at ombay, Suit No. 689 OF 1906. 1 SIk DINSHA MANOCKJI PETIT AND OTHERS - - - - + VS. "gi JAMSETYL JERJERBHOY ap oTHeRs - - - - Defendants. ; : JUDGMENT OF 4 THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE DAVAR. Delivered Friday, 27th November, 1908, PRINTED AT THE BOMBAY GAZBTTE BLECTRIC PRINTING WORKS, 1908. ‘ Suir No, 689 oF 1906. Sir DINSHA MANOCKJI PETIT aND OTHERS’. - oh Plaintifs. ¥S. SiR JAMSETJI JEEJEEBHOY AND OTHERS - - - « - Defendants. . Crave: Bevan f JUDGMENT. Tae seven Plaintiffs in the suit are members of the Parsi community of Bombay. They profess the Zoroastrian religion. The five Defendants are also members of the same community and profess the same religion. The Parsis in India are descendants of a body of Persians who were, about 1200 years ago, compelled to leave their Fatherland owing to religious persecution at the hands of the Mahomedans. This body of Persians, after taking refuge in Kobistan and afterwards in the Isle of Ormus, eventually made their home in India, and at the present time Bombay is their principal headquarters. Since their advent into India they have continued to follow the religion of their forefathers, and wherever they have settled in any appreciable numbers they havo built for themselves Atash Behrams, Agiaries, and Dare Mehers for the performance of their religious worship and tho observance of their religi- ‘ous rites and ceremonies and erected Dokbmas for the disposal of their dead according to the dictates of their religion. Their places of worship are ordi- narily spoken of as Fire Temples and their Dokhmas as Towers of Silence. ‘The word Parsi derives its origin from Pars or Fars, a province in Persia, from which the original emigrants came to India, Wherever thoy have settled, whether in largo numbers or small, they have always formed a community of their own, and We have thus the Parsi community of Bombay, of Surat, of Navsari, .and several other places all over India. In the present case the Court is concerned with the Parsi community of Bombay. No authentic record exists as to when the Parsis first came and settled in Bombay, but it seems fairly well established that a small number of thom were settled in the Island some time before it was ceded by the Portuguese to the British as a portion of the dowry of Princess Catherine on her marriage with King Charles If in 1668. They continued to inhabit the Island of 3 They say that their predecessors in office had a right to fill in vacancies and that thoy had continued to do so for over fifty years, and they submit that this arrangement has worked satisfactorily for all these yeqrs and that therefore it should not be disturbed and no scheme should be framed either for the appointment of Trustees or for the administration of the Trust Properties and Funds. ‘This is the first branch of the case. The other branch of the case involves issues of far greater importance and has caused considerable stir and excitement amongst the Parsi community of Bombay. The Plaintiffs say the Zoroastrian religion not only permits bu; enjoins conversion of aliens to that faith. ‘They claim that certain of the Pro- perties and Funds now in the possession of the Defendants were originally dedi- cated by the Founders or Donors for all Zoroastrians, and that all Zoroastrians, ineuding those who originally were born in another faith but are subsequently converted to Zoroastrianism, are entitled to the use and benefit of those Funds and Properties. Amongst the Properties the Plaintiffs pick out as being in- tended for the use and benefit of all Zoroastrians, including converts to that faith, are the five Towers of Silence at Malabar Hill, certain Sagdis and Nasa. khanas erected and maintained in connection with those Towers, and the Godavara Agiary. They also claim that such converts are entitled to parti cipate in and have the benefit of the “Fund for carrying the dead bodies of all Zoroastrians to the Towers of Silence.” They further contend that the Trust Deed of the 25th of September, 1884, mentioned in their plaint either contains Wrong declarations of Trust or that the interpretation put by the Defondants on those declarations is wrong, and they pray for a declaration hy this Court that the ‘Trusts contained in that Deed, so far as they relate toat least throo Dokhmas, Sagdis, and Nasakhanas, are ultra vires and void in to far as they differ from the original Trusts, and they ask for the ascer- tainment and declaration by the Court of the real ‘Trusts on which these Properties are held. The Defendants deny that the declarations of Trusts contained in the Deed of 1884 are either uléra vires or void, and they further deny that such declarations of Trusts differ from the original Trusts. They contend that the intention of the Founder or Endower of the Trust in respect of each one of the Properties and Funds was to found or endow such Trusts for members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian religion anit not for persons converted to that faith —such converts never being atany time within the contemplation of such Founder or Endower. The Defendants have contenddd before us that although the religion promulgated by Zoroaster contemplated conversion, the Parsis ever since their sottlement in India

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi