The Hindu party involved in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case informed the Allahabad High Court that neither the Sunni Central Waqf Board nor the mosque committee has provided any documents regarding the ownership of the disputed property to date.

The counsel representing the Hindu side also stated that there are no electricity connections registered under the names of the Waqf Board and the mosque committee, alleging that they are illegally using power. Additionally, an FIR has been lodged against them by the electricity department.

The Allahabad High Court heard arguments regarding the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque near the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. The case, concerning the suit's maintainability, was heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, who scheduled further proceedings for May 20.

The Hindu side argued that the compromise claimed to have been made in 1968 between the two parties was fraudulent, orchestrated by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee.

They further asserted that the property has been under the ownership of the deity Katra Keshav Deo for over 1,000 years. According to their submissions, the birthplace of Bhagwan Krishna was demolished in the 16th century, and an "Idgah" was constructed on the site in its place.

Advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side via video conferencing on Wednesday, reiterated to the court that the suit is time-barred.

She stated that the two parties had reached a compromise on October 12, 1968, which was subsequently confirmed in a civil suit resolved in 1974. Ahmadi pointed out that the legal timeframe to challenge a compromise is three years, yet the current suit was filed in 2020, rendering it time-barred.

She further argued that the suit seeks possession following the removal of the Shahi Idgah structure and restoration of a temple.

Ahmadi pointed out that the prayer in the suit indicates the presence of the Idgah structure, with the mosque management committee currently in possession of the site.

The Hindu side previously contended that the suit is maintainable and that the question of non-maintainability can only be determined after presenting evidence. They argued that the Muslim side's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, questioning the suit's maintainability, should be rejected.

The Hindu side's counsel further stated that the deity was neither involved in the purported compromise of 1968 nor mentioned in the court decree of 1974.

Additionally, they argued that the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which allegedly made the compromise, lacked the authority to enter into such an agreement.

Image source: India Today