The Hindu side in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute in Prayagraj, Mathura on Monday said the Places of Worship Act, 1991 applies only in the case of undisputed structures and not in the case of disputed structures, as is the case at present. suit.
In the present case, the character of the structure is still to be decided and has to be decided only from the evidence, it said.
“There cannot be a ban on prosecution of illegal construction on a temple. All this should be decided on merits in the trial itself.The application under Order 7 Rule 1 (regarding maintainability of the suit) can be decided only after framing of issue and production of evidence from the parties,” said the counsel for the Hindu side.
On the question of the settlement reached in 1968, it was submitted that I cannot be seen present at the stage of deciding the application on maintainability of the suit.
Earlier, the Muslim side had submitted before the court that the suit was invalid due to limitation as both the parties had reached a settlement on October 12, 1968.
It states that by that agreement the land in dispute was handed over to the Shahi Idgah Management Committee and the said agreement was confirmed in a case decided in a civil suit in 1974.The statute of limitations to challenge a settlement is three years, but the suit was filed in 2020 and thus the current suit is barred by statute of limitations, it was argued.
The case is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications filed by the Muslim side regarding maintainability of the trials (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC). The hearing will continue on Tuesday also.
The counsel for the Hindu side argued that while the case is maintainable, a decision regarding non-maintenance can be taken only after the evidence.
The counsel for the Hindu side cited the Supreme Court judgment passed in 1980 in Manik Chan vs. Ram Chandra case, according to which, although a minor cannot enter into a contract, under Hindu law a minor can enter into a contract through a guardian. Can enter.
The lawyer said, the same thing will be applicable in the case of Devta also.It was further submitted that Deity was not a party to the alleged agreement of 1968, nor was he a party to the court decree passed in 1974.
The lawyer said that the said agreement was made by Shri Janam Seva Sansthan, which had no authority to enter into any agreement.
In the present case, the character of the structure is still to be decided and has to be decided only from the evidence, it said.
“There cannot be a ban on prosecution of illegal construction on a temple. All this should be decided on merits in the trial itself.The application under Order 7 Rule 1 (regarding maintainability of the suit) can be decided only after framing of issue and production of evidence from the parties,” said the counsel for the Hindu side.
On the question of the settlement reached in 1968, it was submitted that I cannot be seen present at the stage of deciding the application on maintainability of the suit.
Earlier, the Muslim side had submitted before the court that the suit was invalid due to limitation as both the parties had reached a settlement on October 12, 1968.
It states that by that agreement the land in dispute was handed over to the Shahi Idgah Management Committee and the said agreement was confirmed in a case decided in a civil suit in 1974.The statute of limitations to challenge a settlement is three years, but the suit was filed in 2020 and thus the current suit is barred by statute of limitations, it was argued.
The case is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications filed by the Muslim side regarding maintainability of the trials (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC). The hearing will continue on Tuesday also.
The counsel for the Hindu side argued that while the case is maintainable, a decision regarding non-maintenance can be taken only after the evidence.
The counsel for the Hindu side cited the Supreme Court judgment passed in 1980 in Manik Chan vs. Ram Chandra case, according to which, although a minor cannot enter into a contract, under Hindu law a minor can enter into a contract through a guardian. Can enter.
The lawyer said, the same thing will be applicable in the case of Devta also.It was further submitted that Deity was not a party to the alleged agreement of 1968, nor was he a party to the court decree passed in 1974.
The lawyer said that the said agreement was made by Shri Janam Seva Sansthan, which had no authority to enter into any agreement.
