Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict On Masjid Committee's Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 18 Suits
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on an application filed by Shahi Idgah Masjid (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the deity and the Hindu parties concerning Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.Though the Court reserved its verdict in the matter in the open court after...
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on an application filed by Shahi Idgah Masjid (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the deity and the Hindu parties concerning Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute.
Though the Court reserved its verdict in the matter in the open court after the conclusion of arguments on May 31, a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain reopened the case and posted the matter for hearing to give Masjid Committee's Advocate Mohammad Pracha another chance to address the Court.
The Court decided to hear Advocate Pracha after the Masjid Committee filed an application before the bench, praying that its right to an audience not be obstructed in any manner.
Appearing for the Masjid Committee on June 6, Advocate Pracha made threefold arguments:
Firstly, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi has concluded the arguments on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, advanced on behalf of the defendants, and, therefore, the hearing on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC stands concluded.
Secondly, his right to the audience should be protected in view of the unruly behaviour of learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the hearing on May 30, 2024, and videography of further court proceedings should also be conducted.
Thirdly, since the suit concerns the plaintiffs and defendants, there is no provision allowing the Court to appoint any person or lawyer as Amicus Curiae.
In view of this, the Court at the outset, RESERVED its verdict on the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
So far as the argument to protect the right to an audience of Advocate Pracha was concerned, the Court observed that the same relates to further hearing in the matter.
The Court also noted that since certain allegations are made against counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, their versions are also required to be heard on this issue. Therefore, the Court decided to take up the issue after the order on the maintainability of the Suit was pronounced.
So far as Advocate Pracha's argument that the appointment of Amicus Curiea is not in accordance with the law is concerned, the Court said that an application for removal of Amicus Curiea is already pending consideration. In view of that, this issue shall also be taken up after the order on the maintainability of the Suit is pronounced.
Lastly, the Court also took on record an application moved by one Ashutosh Pandey, who appears in person, praying for a direction that only true contents of the orders to be passed by the Court in the matter should be published in the Newspapers and print media and not otherwise. However, the Court decided to consider the application at the "appropriate stage".
With this, the Single Judge finally reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of the masjid committee filed under Order VII Rule 11 (challenging the maintainability of janmabhumi suits) and the arguments raised by the Hindu plaintiffs, including the diety. The Court started hearing the masjid committee's objections in February this year.
Arguments made before the Court
Before the Court, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura) primarily argued that the suits pending before the HC were barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.
Challenging the maintainability of the Original Suits no 6, 9, 16 and 18 (inter alia seeking removal of Shahi Idgah), Advocate Ahmadi argued that the plaintiff has, in the plaint, admitted the compromise of 1968 and the fact that the possession of the land (where Idagh is built) is under the control of the Mosque management and therefore, the suit, would be barred by the Limitation Act as well as the Places of Worship Act as the suits also admit the fact that the mosque in question was built in 1669-70.
"The compromise was entered into in 1967, which is admitted even in the suit, hence, when they filed suit in 2020, the same would be barred by the Limitation Act (3 years)...Even if it is assumed that the Mosque was built in 1969 (after the compromise), even then, the suit can not now be filed as it would be barred by the Limitation Act. Over 50 years of delay...It is an old cause of action, as it can't be said that they were refused entry to the premises only in 2023 when they admitted that the disputed property had been under the control of the Mosque management since 1968-69" she contended.
Advocate Ahmadi further argued that if the assertion in the complaint that the Mosque was constructed after the 1968 compromise is deemed accurate, then how can they claim in the suit that they learned about the compromise in 2020?
Importantly, she also argued that a prayer of permanent injunction can be granted only to a person in actual possession of the property on the date of suit. Since the plaintiffs do not have the Mosque, they can't pray for a permanent injunction.
"The plaint admits the possession of the management of the Mosque, however, since the suit is for a declaration without seeking the consequential relief of possession, it would barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act...An injunction can't be sought by them without the plaintiffs' being in the possession of the disputed property." she submitted
She strongly contended that whosoever objects to the character of a Waqf Property (whether or not Shahi Idgah Mosque is so) has to be decided by the Waqf Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred by law.
In its application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) [for rejection of plaint] r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee argued that the suits pending before the High Court admit that a Mosque existed after 1968.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs have argued that it is Waqf's nature to encroach on any property, change its nature, and convert it into Waqf property without ownership, and this kind of practice cannot be allowed. It has also been argued that the provisions of the Waqf Act will not apply in this case because the disputed property is not Waqf property.
It was also argued that the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1958 provisions apply to the entire portion of the disputed property. Its notification was issued on 26 February 1920, and now the provisions of Waqf will not apply to this property.
Hindu plaintiffs were represented by Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shanker Jain, Reena N Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Hare Ram Tripathi, Prabhash Pandey, Vinay Sharma, Gaurav Kumar, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Saurabh Tiwari, Siddharth Srivastava, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashvinee Kumar Srivastava and Ashutosh Pandey (in person).
The dispute in brief
The entire controversy relates to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.
In May last year, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, allowing the transfer application filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others.