Places Of Worship Act Is Not Applicable To Krishna Janambhoomi Suit: Read Judgment Of Mathura District Court
Justice Rajeev Bharti of the Mathura District Court on Thursday while allowing the revision plea of the Shri Krishnabhoomi held that the suit to remove the Shahi Idgah Masjid built on the land of Krishna Janambhoomi is maintainable.
The Revision plea was filed assailing the 2020 order of a Civil Court as the Court had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the Plaintiffs, being the devotees/worshippers of Lord Krishna have no right to file the suit, while the Plaintiffs asserted their right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The Revision Petition was filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and Asthan Shrikrishna Janam Bhoomi through their next friend Ms. Ranjan Agnihotri contending that land measuring 13.37 acres shall vest in the deity Lord Krishna Virajman.
The Court while adjudicating upon all the issues directed the Trial Court to pass the appropriate order upon the appreciation of all the evidence.
The Judge held that a worshipper as the next friend of the deity can file suit for the restoration and re-establishment of religious rights of the deity.
The Court also observed that the provisions of The Places of Worships (Special Provisions) Act 1991 will not apply to the case by virtue of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. In this context, the Court observed –
"With regard to the entire property of Katra Keshav Deo, whether Shri Krishna Janma Bhoomi Seva Sangh had the power to enter into compromise with Trust Masjid Eidgah is a matter of evidence which can be determined only on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties during the trial."
"Hence, in light of the discussions made above and the legal tenets on the mentioned question, this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are not applicable by virtue of section 4 (3)(b) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991," Justice Bharti held.
The Court while adjudicating upon the issue that whether the compromise Judgment and Decree passed in the Civil Suit was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion held, "It is noteworthy to mention that the determination of these facts are possible only during the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties to the suit."
Thus, the Court gave the following final observations –
- The Revision filed against the order of the Civil Judge is maintainable;
- Worshipper as the next friend of the deity can file suit for restoration and re-establishment of religious rights of the deity;
- The provisions of The Places of Worships (Special Provisions) Act 1991 would not be applicable;
- Whether the compromise Judgment and Decree passed in the Civil Suit was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion is a matter to be determined by the Trial Court;
The Court also held that the impugned judgment suffers from the manifest error of law and the same is liable to be set aside.