Hearing In Shri Krishna Janmasthan Case Completed
Hearing in Shri Krishna Janmasthan case completed, the verdict on May 19, demand is to hand over 13.37 acres of land to the trust.
On Thursday, the hearing was held in the court of District Judge Rajiv Bharti on behalf of advocate Ranjana Agnihotri in the Shri Krishna Janmasthan case of Mathura.
The plaintiffs demanded the cancellation of the agreement made by the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, the Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee.
While the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee also presented their arguments and demanded dismissal of the suit.
After hearing all the parties, the decision was reserved in the court. Now the verdict will be pronounced on May 19.
Lucknow resident advocate Ranjana Agnihotri has filed a suit demanding that the entire 13.37 acres of land be handed over to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust by removing the Shahi Masjid Idgah from the Shri Krishna Janmasthan complex.
On Thursday, the matter was heard in court for about two hours. During this, Secretary of Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee Tanveer Ahmed was also present.
Plaintiff’s argument.
Advocates of the plaintiffs Harishankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain said that the land of Shri Krishna Janmasthan is in the name of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust.
Whereas the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan had entered into an agreement with the Shahi Masjid Idgah Committee in 1968.
The institution does not have the right to compromise, so this agreement should be canceled and the entire land should be given to the trust.
Sunni Central Waqf Board said this-
Advocate GP Nigam, appearing for the Sunni Central Waqf Board, said that the plaintiff was not to file a revision in the form of a suit in the district judge’s court, but to file an appeal.
The first appeal was filed but it was converted into revision, it is not fair. Hence this argument is not maintainable.
Side of Shahi Masjid Idgah.
Advocate Neeraj Sharma, appearing for Shahi Masjid Idgah, said that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in the lower court, but from there the suit was dismissed saying that the plaintiff had no right to file a suit.
In some cases in which the order of the court was cited in the lower court, the copy of the order was not kept. Order is placed by typing only.
This is not valid. Even this suit is not maintainable under the Worship Act 1951.
The settlement was done in 1968, where was the plaintiff’s side for so long, there is no justification to file a suit after so many years of settlement. Therefore this suit should be dismissed.
