Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea to include Radha Rani as a party in the Krishna Janmabhoomi case. The Court said religious texts can’t prove legal land rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah case, the Allahabad High Court has rejected a plea to make Shriji Radha Rani a party in the ongoing suit.
The Court said that Radha Rani is not a necessary or proper party to be added in the case, and if she is included, it will change the basic nature of the suit.
This plea was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by advocate Anil Kumar Singh Bishen, who represented Shriji Radha Rani through her “next friend” Reena N. Singh.
The application wanted to make Radha Rani a joint plaintiff in Original Suit No. 7 of 2023, which was filed by Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman and others against the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee.
The main issue in this suit is about the 13.37 acres of land in Mathura, which the plaintiffs say is Lord Krishna’s birthplace. They claim that the Shahi Idgah Masjid was illegally built during the Mughal period over this holy site. The plaintiffs have presented historical records, reports from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and Hindu scriptures to support their demand to remove the structure.
In her plea, Radha Rani’s side argued that she is deeply connected with Lord Krishna, and as his eternal consort, she also has rights over the disputed land. They referred to religious texts like the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Narada Pancharatra Samhita, and Skanda Purana to say that she is the “soul of Krishna” and therefore should be considered a co-deity with equal ownership.
However, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra did not accept this religious argument as a legal right. The Court made it clear that religious stories cannot prove legal ownership over land in the court of law.
“The Pauranic illustrations are generally considered as hearsay evidence in legal context. In the case of Pauranic illustrations, these are graphic representation of story and events and truth of events, they depict, is usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony. There is no evidence in support of the claim raised by the applicant that the applicant is entitled as joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres and property of the applicant is also involved in suit property claimed by the plaintiff no. 1 as birth place of lord Krishna”,
-the Court held.
The Court also noted that there is no temple of Radha Rani on the disputed land, and there is no legal proof to show that she has any ownership or share in the property.
Interestingly, while Plaintiff No. 1, represented by Kaushal Kishor Thakur, did not oppose Radha Rani’s addition to the case, the other plaintiffs were against it. They said that including her would go against the main purpose of the suit, which is only focused on Krishna Janmabhoomi and not about Radha Rani.
They also told the Court that Radha Rani is already included in a different ongoing case in the civil court, so she should not be made a party again in this matter.
The Court agreed and said that adding Radha Rani to the case would only make the issue more complicated and might delay the proceedings. It stressed that unless there is a clear legal or ownership claim, such applications cannot be allowed.
With that, the High Court dismissed the application and scheduled the next hearing of the main suit for July 4, 2025.
Case Title:
Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman And 4 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board 3a And 3 Others.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Krishna Janmabhoomi Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
