Krishna Janmbhumi-Shahi Idgah dispute maintainable, argues Hindu side in Allahabad High Court

Prayagraj: The Hindu side submitted Tuesday in the Krishna Janmbhumi-Shahi Idgah dispute in the Allahabad High Court that the suit is maintainable and the plea regarding application of the places of worship Act and the waqf Act can only be determined by evidence.

The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), moved by the Muslim side regarding maintainability of suits.

Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

The court fixed April 22 as the next date of hearing.

In reply to the arguments raised by the Muslim side, the counsel for the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jain, submitted that the suit is maintainable and the plea regarding the application of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 as well as the Waqf Act, 1995 can only be determined by evidence by the parties in suit and cannot be decided while hearing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Jain said the waqf Act will not apply merely by saying that now a mosque exists there. The religious character of the property cannot be changed merely by demolishing it.

He further submitted that it has to be seen and decided whether the alleged waqf deed is valid or not. All these things have to be seen in trial and thus, the present suit is maintainable, Jain said.

On the question of limitation, he said the present suit has been filed well within time. The alleged compromise of 1968 came to knowledge of the plaintiff in 2020 and within three years of knowledge, the suit has been filed, he said.

Jain further submitted that it was also said if the Sibayat or trust is negligent and not performing its duty, the deity can come forward through the next friend and can file suit. In such a case, the question of limitation does not arise, he added.

Earlier, arguing on behalf of the Muslim side, Taslima Aziz Ahmadi had appeared through video conference and submitted that the suit is barred by limitation.

According to her, the parties had entered into a compromise on October 12, 1968 and the said compromise has been confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974. The limitation to challenge a compromise is three years but the suit has been filed in 2020 and thus, the present suit is barred by limitation, she argued.

She further submitted that the suit has been filed for possession after the removal of structure of Shahi Idgah masjid as well as for restoration of the temple and for 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, Ahmadi said.

She said in this way, a question or a dispute has been raised on the waqf property and thus, the provisions of waqf Act will apply. In such cases, it is the waqf tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear the matter and not a civil court, she added.

Ahmadi argued that the suit is not maintainable as it is barred by the provisions of the waqf Act as well as the places of worship Act.