Krishna Janmabhumi Case | Its 'Religious Character' To Be Determined In Trial; Govt's 1920 Notification Indicates Pre-Aurangzeb Temple Existence: Allahabad HC

In a significant verdict, the Allahabad High Court today DISMISSED the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petition filed by the Mathura-based Shahi Eidgah (mosque) committee challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by Hindu worshipers and deity Shri Krishna Virajman, in connection with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in Mathura. A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found the 18 suits, primarily seeking the removal of the mosque from the 13.37-acre disputed complex, to be MAINTAINABLE, paving the way for them to be heard on their merits. In its 155-page Judgment, released at around 6 PM today, the Court categorically rejected the Masjid Committee's primary contention that the suits pending before the HC are barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963. Regarding the Places of Worship Act 1991, the Judge observed that the Act does not define 'religious character' and that to apply this Act, the religious character of a place of worship must be determined, which is not barred by the Act. The Court emphasised that religious character is crucial for deciding the Act's applicability, and it can be decided by considering the Plaintiffs' claims and supporting documents (during the trial). “In the present proceedings, the question of religious character is a mixed question of facts and law. This Court is of the opinion that the religious character of the suit property cannot be determined, at this stage. It can only be decided by framing issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after taking oral and documentary evidence to be led during the trial.” Significantly, the Court also considered the Notification of November 1920 issued by the Lt. Governor, United Province, Agra and Oudh, declaring the place of the temple at Katra Keshav as a 'protected monument'. Here it may be noted that the said notification records that the temple of Keshav Dev existed there and was dismantled to be utilized as a mosque of Aurangzeb. The said notification declared the portion of the Katra mound, on which, formerly stood a temple of Keshav Dev, which was dismantled and the site utilized for the mosque of Aurangzeb, to be a protected monument. Based on this notification, the Court took a prima facie view that “the above notification indicates the existence of a temple of Keshav Dev prior to its demolition. After the demolition, the site was utilized as the mosque of Aurangzeb” In this regard, the Court also found substance in the plaintiffs' argument regarding the principle of 'first in existence' or 'prior in existence' being the determinative factor for deciding the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1991. “The arguments of learned Senior Counsel, Sri C. S. Vaidyanathan, that 'once a temple, always a temple' is a judicially recognized principle of law and learned Counsel, Sri Satyaveer Singh, that 'resolution always stays alive' (संकल्प हमेशा जिंदा रहता है, और यह कभी मरता नहीं है)) are also indicative of the religious character of the property as temple,” the Court noted (emphasis supplied). Against this backdrop and considering the averments made in the plaints, the documents brought on record, and the arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties, the Court opined that at this stage, the plaintiffs' suits do not appear to be barred under any provision of the Act of 1991. Regarding the applicability of the Waqf Act, 1995 as a bar to the suits, the Court noted that the defendants claimed that the property in question had been declared as waqf property as per the Government Gazette Notification dated 26.02.1944, Part VIII (issued by the Secretary, Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, United Provinces, Lucknow). However, the Court observed that the defendants could not bring on record any information to corroborate that the suit property was ever called 'Idgah Masjid Aalmgiri', and even in their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the defendants did not mention the waqf number of the property. The Court also noted that the present superstructure came into existence on the basis of the compromise dated October 12, 1968, and during several rounds of litigation prior to the institution of Suit No. 43 of 1967, nowhere was it pleaded that the suit property was a waqf property. In view of the foregoing observation and the averments made in the plaint, the Court, prima facie, determined that the Notification of 1944 does not relate to the suit property. Thus, the court held that, at this stage, it cannot be assumed that the suit property was notified as a 'waqf property' under this Notification. “In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, averments made in the plaint and the legal proposition referred by the rival parties, it cannot be assumed that the suit property is a waqf property. All the facts and ...

Krishna Janmabhumi Case | Its 'Religious Character' To Be Determined In Trial; Govt's 1920 Notification Indicates Pre-Aurangzeb Temple Existence: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags