In a significant ruling with potential implications for the pending suits before the Allahabad High Court regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in Mathura, the High Court today DISMISSED the plea of Shahi Idgah Masjid filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This plea challenged the maintainability of 18 suits filed by the deity and Hindu worshippers. (Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge from Masjid Committee)
With this decision, a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found all 18 suits to be MAINTAINABLE, paving the way for them to be heard on their merits.
It may be noted that the Single Judge had reserved his verdict on June 6 after hearing the plea from the Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee questioning the maintainability of the suits.
Pronouncing the verdict in open court, the Court, while reading the operative part of the Judgment, said that the suits of the Hindu worshippers and the deity are not barred under the Limitation Act or Places Of Worship Act, etc.
With this, the Court rejected the primary argument made by the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura) that the suits pending before the High Court are barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.
On the other hand, the Hindu plaintiffs had argued that no property in Shahi Idgah’s name is in the government records, and the same is occupied illegally. They had also argued that if the property is a Waqf property, the Waqf Board should tell who donated the disputed property. They also submitted that the Acts of Worship Act, Limitation Act, and Waqf Act are not applicable in this case.
Challenging the maintainability of the Original Suits no 6, 9, 16 and 18 (inter alia seeking removal of Shahi Idgah), the Masjid Committee had argued that the plaintiffs have, in their 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.
For context, the limitation period for instituting civil suits is three years from the date the cause of action arose.
Importantly, the Masjid Committee had also argued that a prayer of permanent injunction could 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.
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 had strongly argued that the suits pending before the High Court admitted that a Mosque existed after 1968.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs had 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. They also argued that the provisions of the Waqf Act would not apply in this case because the disputed property is not a 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, 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 contend that the compromise agreement was fraudulent and invalid in law. Many of them claim a right to worship at the disputed site and 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. (Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge from Masjid Committee)
#airr #news #airrnews #channel #Legal #case #India #court #highcourt #supremecourt
.){kind=link}