In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, which challenged the maintainability of 18 suits brought by Hindu worshippers and the deity concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in Mathura. Justice Mayank Kumar Jain found all 18 suits to be maintainable, clearing the way for them to be heard on their merits.
The High Court’s decision comes after the Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), questioning the maintainability of the suits. The single-judge bench had reserved its verdict on June 6 after hearing arguments from both sides.
Announcing the verdict in open court, Justice Jain stated that the suits brought by the Hindu worshippers and the deity are not barred under the Limitation Act, the Places of Worship Act, or any other relevant laws. This rejects the main argument made by the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, which had claimed that the suits were barred by these laws and the Specific Relief Act.
The Hindu plaintiffs argued that no property in the name of Shahi Idgah is listed in government records and that the mosque is occupying the land illegally. They also contended that if the property were a Waqf property, the Waqf Board should identify the donor of the disputed property. They asserted that the Acts in question do not apply to this case.
The Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee argued that the suits acknowledge a 1968 compromise agreement and that the mosque has been in possession of the land since it was built in 1669-70. They claimed that this acknowledgment barred the suits under the Limitation Act and the Places of Worship Act, which restricts the alteration of the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947.
The Masjid Committee also argued that a permanent injunction can only be granted to those in actual possession of the property. Since the Hindu plaintiffs do not possess the mosque, they cannot seek a permanent injunction. They filed for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, citing the admission of the mosque’s existence post-1968.
The Hindu plaintiffs countered that the disputed property is not a Waqf property and that the Waqf Board has a history of encroaching on properties and converting them into Waqf properties without proper ownership. They also argued that the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1958 applies to the disputed property, making the Waqf Act inapplicable.
Background of the Dispute:
The controversy centres on the Shahi Eidgah mosque, which was allegedly built during the Mughal era after demolishing a temple at Lord Krishna’s birthplace in Mathura. In 1968, a compromise agreement allowed both the temple and the mosque to operate, but the validity of this agreement is now under scrutiny. Litigants seeking various forms of relief have challenged the agreement, claiming a right to worship at the disputed site and calling for the mosque’s removal.
In May of the previous year, the Allahabad High Court transferred all pending suits related to this dispute from the Mathura court to itself, based on a transfer application by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others.
The Hindu plaintiffs were represented by a team of advocates including Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shanker Jain, Reena N Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, and others. This ruling marks a significant step in the ongoing legal battle over the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, allowing the suits to proceed and be judged on their merits.
