In the case of Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Eidga case in Prayagraj, Mathura, the Hindu side on Monday countered the Muslim side's contention in the Allahabad High Court that the dispute pertains to Waqf property.
The property in question was a temple and "after forcibly taking possession of it they started offering namaz, but by this, the character of the land cannot be changed", the counsel for the Hindu side argued, adding that it was not a chattel property and Waqf Act does not apply on this.
The court said, since it is not Waqf property, this court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Muslim side had raised questions on the maintainability of the case, claiming that the disputed Shahi Idgah Mosque is a Waqf property and thus only the Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case and the civil court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, who was hearing petitions on maintainability of the case, fixed April 30 as the next date of hearing.
Responding to the arguments of the Muslim side, the Hindu side said that the trial is maintainable and the non-maintainable petition can be decided only after leading evidence.The counsel submitted, “The plea in respect of application of the Places of Worship Act as well as the Waqf Act can be determined only by the evidence of the parties in the suit and while hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure "A decision cannot be taken."
Earlier, Vishnu Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, had said that just by saying that there is now a mosque on that property, the Waqf Act will not be applicable.
The religious character of a property cannot be changed merely by demolishing it. He further said that it has to be seen and decided whether the alleged conveyance deed is valid or not.
He had argued, "If the property is not a valid Waqf property, then it will not be a valid Waqf. All these things have to be seen during the trial and thus the present suit is maintainable."
The property in question was a temple and "after forcibly taking possession of it they started offering namaz, but by this, the character of the land cannot be changed", the counsel for the Hindu side argued, adding that it was not a chattel property and Waqf Act does not apply on this.
The court said, since it is not Waqf property, this court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Muslim side had raised questions on the maintainability of the case, claiming that the disputed Shahi Idgah Mosque is a Waqf property and thus only the Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the case and the civil court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, who was hearing petitions on maintainability of the case, fixed April 30 as the next date of hearing.
Responding to the arguments of the Muslim side, the Hindu side said that the trial is maintainable and the non-maintainable petition can be decided only after leading evidence.The counsel submitted, “The plea in respect of application of the Places of Worship Act as well as the Waqf Act can be determined only by the evidence of the parties in the suit and while hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure "A decision cannot be taken."
Earlier, Vishnu Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, had said that just by saying that there is now a mosque on that property, the Waqf Act will not be applicable.
The religious character of a property cannot be changed merely by demolishing it. He further said that it has to be seen and decided whether the alleged conveyance deed is valid or not.
He had argued, "If the property is not a valid Waqf property, then it will not be a valid Waqf. All these things have to be seen during the trial and thus the present suit is maintainable."
