[Krishna Janmabhoomi] ‘Provisions of Suit by or Against Minor to Apply in Case’: Hindu Side to Allahabad HC

The Hindu side Yesterday (May 24th) submitted before the Allahabad High Court that the provisions which deal with procedures regarding a suit by or against a minor will apply in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura as the deity is a perpetual minor.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

PRAYAGRAJ: The Hindu side presented its arguments before the Allahabad High Court, asserting that the legal provisions concerning suits involving minors are applicable to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura.

This claim is based on the belief that the deity, Bhagwan Keshav Dev, is considered a perpetual minor.

“The provisions which deal with procedures regarding a suit by or against a minor will apply in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura as the deity is a perpetual minor,”

-the Hindu side submitted.

The Hindu side further emphasized that the current suits have been filed on behalf of the deity through a next friend, and therefore, the filing of these suits is lawful. They stressed that the legitimacy of the suits must be determined after the framing of issues and the collection of evidence from all concerned parties.

The counsel elaborated,

“The maintainability of the suits has to be decided after framing of issues in and taking evidence from the concerned parties.”

Highlighting the deity’s perpetual minor status, the Hindu side argued that Order XXXII of the Civil Procedure Code, which pertains to suits involving minors, is relevant in this context.

“The deity is a perpetual minor and, therefore, the provisions of Order XXXII of Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the procedure regarding suit by or against a minor, will apply,”

-they argued.

The court, presided over by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, has postponed the hearing to Monday. The matter at hand involves applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the Muslim side, challenging the suits’ maintainability.

Earlier, the Hindu side contended that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is only applicable to undisputed structures and not to disputed ones like the current case.

“The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 will apply only in case of an undisputed structure and not in case of a disputed structure, as in the present case,”
they submitted.

They further argued that the nature of the structure in question must be determined based on evidence presented in the suit.

“The character of the structure is still to be decided in the suit and it is to be decided only by evidence,” the Hindu side emphasized.

The counsel for the Hindu side asserted,

“An illegal construction on the temple cannot bar the institution of suit. All this has to be decided in the suit itself on merit.”

Conversely, the Muslim side argued that the suit is barred by limitation due to a compromise reached on October 12, 1968, where the disputed land was handed over to the Intazamia committee of Shahi Idgah. This compromise was upheld in a civil suit decided in 1974.

“The suit is barred by limitation because the parties had entered into a compromise on October 12, 1968. By that compromise, the land in dispute was given to the Intazamia committee of Shahi Idgah. The said compromise has been confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974,”
the Muslim side submitted.

Additionally, the Muslim side highlighted that the suit seeks possession after the removal of the Shahi Idgah masjid structure, the restoration of the temple, and a permanent injunction. They argued that the existence of the masjid structure and its management committee’s possession necessitates the application of the Waqf Act.

“The suit has been filed for possession after the removal of the Shahi Idgah masjid structure, for the restoration of the temple, and for a permanent injunction. The prayer in the suit shows the structure of the masjid is there, and the committee of management is in possession of the same,”
they said.

They further contended,

“In this way, a question/dispute has been raised on waqf property and thus the provisions of Waqf Act will apply… It is the waqf tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear the matter and not a civil court.”

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Krishna Janmabhoomi Case

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES