Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, the Hindu petitioners have submitted that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not apply to the case, as the nature of the disputed structure is yet to be determined.
![[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] Hindu Side Tells HC Application of Places of Worship Act Not Apply in Disputed Structure](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-98.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
Allahabad: On Monday (20th May): The Hindu petitioners in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura have made an argument before the Allahabad High court. They have submitted that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, applies only in the case of an undisputed structure and not in the case of a disputed structure which is the current situation.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain is currently hearing applications (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) from the Muslim side regarding the maintainability of the suits. The hearing will continue on Tuesday.
The Hindu petitioners have further argued that the character of the structure in question is still to be decided and can only be done so through the presentation of evidence in the case. They have stated that an “illegal construction on a temple cannot bar the institution of suit” and that all these aspects need to be decided on the merits of the case.
“An illegal construction on a temple cannot bar the institution of suit. All this to be decided in suit itself on merit. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 (regarding maintainability of suits) can only be decided after framing issues and offering evidence from parties,” the counsel for the Hindu side submitted.
The Hindu petitioners have also challenged the 1968 compromise entered into by the parties, stating that it cannot be considered at the stage of deciding the application on the maintainability of the suit.
Earlier, the Muslim side submitted before the court that the suit was barred by limitation due to a compromise reached on October 12, 1968. According to this compromise, the disputed land was given to the Intezamia Committee of Shahi Idgah, and this agreement was confirmed by a civil suit decided in 1974.
They argued that the limitation period to challenge a compromise is three years, but the suit was filed in 2020, making it barred by limitation.
The counsel for the Hindu side argued that the suit is maintainable and that the plea regarding non-maintainability can only be decided after evidence is presented.
The Hindu side’s counsel referenced a 1980 Supreme Court judgment in the Manik Chand vs Ram Chandra case, which stated that while a minor cannot enter into a contract, under Hindu law, a minor can do so through a guardian. They argued that this principle also applies to a deity.
Additionally, the Hindu counsel asserted that in the 1968 compromise, the deity was not a party, nor was it involved in the 1974 court decree. The compromise was made by the Sri Janm Sewa Sansthan, which they argued was not authorized to enter into any compromise.
Background
The Management Trust of Shahi Masjid Idgah in Mathura argued in court that the lawsuits demanding the mosque’s removal are not legally valid, pointing to laws that protect the mosque. Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, stated that the mosque has been acknowledged as existing since before 1968, challenging the grounds of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The matter followed a 1968 agreement between the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the mosque’s management, which settled the land dispute between them. Advocate Ahmadi mentioned that it’s too late for this agreement now, and even in the worst-case scenario where the mosque was built after 1968, time limits would prevent the lawsuit from proceeding.
The lawsuit also revisits historical claims that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb destroyed a temple to build the mosque in 1669. Ahmadi argues that this point itself proves the mosque’s existence beyond that date, limiting legal action due to time constraints.
Furthermore, the legal challenge includes debates over the Places of Worship Act, with some plaintiffs arguing against its constitutionality. However, Ahmadi maintains that constitutional issues cannot be introduced in private legal disputes and that only those who possess property can seek legal protection for it.
As the court postpones further discussions, the legal and historical complexities of the dispute between Krishna Janmabhumi and Shahi Eidgah Mosque are becoming more evident.
During the proceedings, Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, the counsel representing the Muslim Community, presented her arguments via video conference, claiming that the suit is time-barred.
They further asserted that the suit was filed to obtain possession of the land after the “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque and to restore the Katra Keshav Deo temple, as well as to seek a permanent injunction.
The plea in the suit acknowledges the existence of the mosque structure and states that the committee of management is currently in possession of it.
Read Previous Reports on Krishna-Janmabhoomi Case
