Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict On Masjid Committee's Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 18 Suits

The Allahabad High Court today 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 concerning Mathura's Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute. All 18 suits contain a common prayer seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the 13.37-acre complex it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple in Mathura. Additional prayers include seeking possession of the Shahi Idgah premises and demolition of the present structure.A bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain 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.Before the Court, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah (Mathura) primarily argued that the suits pending before the HC are barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963. Appearing for the Mosque committee, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi contended that in the majority of the suits pending before the HC, the plaintiffs are seeking the right to the title of the land, which was the subject matter of a compromise arrived at in 1968 between Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah, dividing the disputed land and asking the 2 groups to stay away from each other's areas (within the 13.37-acre complex), however, the suits are specifically barred by law (the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963 as well as the Specific Relief Act 1963).On the other hand, the Hindu plaintiffs argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah is in the government records, and the same is occupied illegally. It was also said that if the said property is a Waqf property, then the Waqf Board should tell who donated the disputed property. It was also argued 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), 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.For context, the limitation period for instituting civil suits is three years from the date the cause of action arose."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 submittedShe 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...

Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict On Masjid Committee's Plea Challenging Maintainability Of 18 Suits

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags