In the ongoing legal battle concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case, the Hindu side presented its arguments before the Allahabad High Court on Thursday, emphasising the failure of the Sunny Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee to provide any documents regarding ownership of the disputed property.
According to the counsel for the Hindu side, neither the Waqf Board nor the mosque committee has furnished any property documents to date.
Furthermore, it was asserted that they do not have any electricity connection in their name, suggesting illegal usage of power. An FIR has also been lodged against them by the electricity department.
These revelations were made during the hearing of a plea challenging the suit seeking the "removal" of the Shahi Idgah mosque, which is situated adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, who has scheduled further hearings for May 20.
In earlier proceedings, the Hindu side argued against the validity of a compromise allegedly made between the two parties in 1968, labelling it as a "fraud" perpetrated by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee.
They contended that the property rightfully belongs to deity Katra Keshav Deo for over a millennium. Additionally, it was asserted that the birthplace of Lord Krishna was demolished in the 16th century, and an "Idgah" was constructed in its place.
On the other hand, the Muslim side argued that the suit is barred by limitation, citing a compromise supposedly reached in 1968 and confirmed in a civil suit in 1974.
According to them, the suit filed in 2020 exceeds the three-year limitation period for challenging such a compromise. They also highlighted the suit's prayer for possession after the removal of the Shahi Idgah structure and the restoration of a temple.
The Hindu side countered these arguments, asserting the maintainability of the suit and contending that the question of non-maintainability can only be determined after presenting evidence.
They opposed the Muslim side's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which questions the suit's maintainability.
It was also argued by the Hindu side that the deity was not involved in the compromise of 1968 or the court decree of 1974, emphasising that the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which allegedly made the compromise, lacked the authority to do so.
These legal complexities underscore the intricate nature of the ongoing legal proceedings.
Follow us
