Allahabad HC Permits Representative Suit On Behalf Of Lord Shri Krishna Devotees Against 'Entire Muslim Community Of India' In Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi Matter
|An application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was filed seeking permission to treat the suit as a representative action on behalf of all Krishna devotees.
The Allahabad High Court, in Krishna Janambhoomi case, allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, in the manner that the plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna who may be interested in the suit, against the entire Muslim community of India.
The Suit sought to declare the entire premises of Shri Krishan Janambhoomi at Mathura belonging to the plaintiff deities in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants including the entire muslim community of India. The Plaintiffs, in the present case, are Bhagwan Shri Krishna (Thakur Keshavdev Ji Maharaj Virajman) at Shri Krishna Janambhoomi and Asthan Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mathura) with other idols.
A Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed, “As prayer made in application Order 1 Rule 8 CPC appears to be somewhat ambiguous, therefore, the relief is liable to be modified in the operative order in exercise of powers under Order 1Rule 8(1)(B) vested in the Court in the following manner: 43.1 The application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is allowed in the manner that the plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna who may be interested in the suit, against the defendant no. 1 to 6 and the entire Muslim community of India.”
Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh represented the Plaintiffs, while Advocate W.H. Khan represented the Defendants.
Case Brief
In the present case, the Defendant No. 1 is the Committee that alleges itself to manage the unauthorized super structure at Janambhoomi Mathura on behalf of and for the benefit of all the persons of Muslim community of India having the same interest. While other Defendants were the local Muslims at Mathura.
Thus, the Plaintiffs prayed for permission to sue and deal the suit in the representative capacity against all persons of Muslim Community of India having same interest through Defendant nos. 1 to 6 representing on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons of Muslim community of India having the same interest under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
The Suit was filed regarding the disputed structure standing at the superstructure claimed to be Idgah mosque and it was pleaded that neither it a valid mosque nor it is a valid waqf, as the dedication of “deity property” for creation of wakf is impermissible both under Hindu law as well as under Islamic law.
It was contended by the Plaintiffs that if the Plaintiffs are permitted to sue and deal the suit in representative capacity against all the persons of Muslim Community of India, the entire Muslim community will be bound by any decree if passed in this case.
Lastly, it was submitted that a decree passed in the representative suit binds not only the parties thereto, but all those who are interested in suit property.
While the Defendants submitted that Plaintiffs can seek permission for himself to sue in their representative capacity. However, the Plaintiff cannot demand that he be permitted to force the Defendants to defend themselves in the representative capacity.
Further, it was also submitted that the Defendants cannot be forced to accept strangers as their representatives especially when the Defendants were categorically refusing to accept them as their representatives as no member of the Muslim community nor the Defendants have filed any application under Order I Rule 8 to seek permission to sue or defend the suit is a representative capacity.
Court’s Analysis
With regard to the cause of action, the Court opined that the cause of action arises in favour of Plaintiffs on each and everyday when the Defendants enter into the part of suit premises only on daily basis and interfere in the peaceful worship of Lord Krishna by devotees at the superstructure.
The Court referred to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and noted that under Rule 8 (1)(a), the Plaintiff may, with permission of Court file representative suit where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit and in clause (b) the Court may direct that filing of representative suit where conditions of Order 1 Rule 8 (a) are applicable, on behalf of, or for the benefit of all persons so interested.
The Court opined that the large communities of Hindus to which the plaintiffs claim to be belonging to cannot be said to be homogeneous in terms of its devotion and faith just in one or common god, goddess, idol or deity, in as much as the community of Hindus maintains its faith, reverence in divergent gods, goddess, deities, some believe in idolatory, some believe in formless god like Arya samajis.
“However, amongst them there are large number of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna in India and across the globe on whose behalf and for their benefit the permission sought by the plaintiffs to contest and deal with the suit in representative capacity against the contesting defendants is acceptable”, added the Court.
It was also highlighted that a public notice was issued by orders of this Court in November,2024 in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran in respect of application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC wherein it is stated that the plaintiffs have file the above titled original suit on behalf of Hindu devotees in general in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC against the defendants
The Court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in the manner that the Plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of devotees of Lord Shri Krishna who may be interested in the suit, against the defendant no. 1 to 6 and entire Muslim community of India.
Further, the Court directed that the notice regarding the same be issued in a National Newspaper.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Muslim side’s contention that the suits filed by Hindu litigants relating to the dispute over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjacent mosque violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act -and were thus not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Application was allowed by the Court.
Cause Title: - Bhagwan Shri Krishna (Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj) Virajman & Ors V. Anjuman Islamia Committee Of Shahi Masjid Idgah & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates P.V. Yogeshwaran, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, Madhav Jain, Tejas Singh
Defendant: Advocates W.H. Khan, Tasneem Ahmadi, Mahmood Pracha and Nasirruzaman, Hare Ram, Pranav Ojha