HC clears path for Krishna Janmabhoomi vs Shahi Eidgah Mosque legal suits
Garbha Griha shrine (left) behind the Eidgah (centre) and entrance of the Keshavdeva temple (right), 1988 (Photo: Wiki)
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed the plea filed by Shahi Idgah Masjid under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute case in Mathura.
This plea challenged the maintainability of 18 suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking the restoration of the Lord Krishna temple in the place where the Shahid Eidgah mosque currently stands. This ruling marks a crucial moment in the ongoing legal battle, setting the stage for the 18 suits to be evaluated.
Background of Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute
The dispute centres around the Mughal-era Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura, alleged to have been built after the demolition of a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna. In 1968, a compromise agreement was brokered between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, allowing both places of worship to coexist. However, the validity of this agreement is now under scrutiny, with various parties seeking relief in courts regarding Krishna Janmabhoomi.
Litigants argue that the compromise agreement was fraudulent and legally invalid. Many claim a right to worship at the disputed site and seek the mosque’s removal.
Last May, the Allahabad High Court consolidated all suits pending before the Mathura court concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, following a transfer application filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others.
Allahabad High Court ruling
The ruling, delivered by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, determined that all 18 suits were maintainable, allowing them to be heard on their merits. This decision follows the reservation of the verdict on June 6, after hearing the plea from the Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee.
According to a report by LiveLaw, Masjid Committee, challenging the maintainability of the Original Suits, had argued that the plaintiffs had acknowledged the 1968 compromise, indicating that the land where the Idgah is built has been under the mosque management’s control. Consequently, they argued that the suits were barred by the Limitation Act and the Places of Worship Act, as the mosque was constructed in 1669-70.
Justice Jain, however, emphasised that the suits filed by the Hindu worshippers were not barred by the Limitation Act or the Places of Worship Act. This judgment rejected the primary argument of the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, which contended that the suits were barred under the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.
Representing the Hindu plaintiffs were advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shanker Jain, Reena N Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Hare Ram Tripathi, Prabhash Pandey, Vinay Sharma, Gaurav Kumar, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Saurabh Tiwari, Siddharth Srivastava, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashvinee Kumar Srivastava, and Ashutosh Pandey.
First Published: Aug 01 2024 | 5:51 PM IST
