Struggle for Hindu Existence

*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.

‘Sunni Central Waqf Board made a fraud on Krishna Jamabhoomi – Shahi Idgah compromise in 1968’

Krishna Janam Bhoomi

1968 compromise on Shahi Idgah ‘fraud’ by Sunni Central Waqf Board: Hindu side tells court.

HTND | Prayagraj | May 15, 2024::The Hindu side told the high court that the decades-old compromise was a “fraud” orchestrated by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee.

Expanding on its earlier argument that the decades-old compromise in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute was not valid, the Hindu side on Wednesday told the Allahabad High Court that the compromise was a “fraud” by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the mosque committee.

The counsel for the Hindu side also submitted that the property belonged to the deity Katra Keshav Deo for over a millennium and a “chabutara” (platform) was constructed as Idgah after desecrating Lord Krishna’s birthplace in the 16th century.

The submissions were made during the hearing on a plea challenging the maintainability of the suit that seeks the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque and restoration of the temple.

The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on applications moved under order seven rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code moved by Muslim side challenging the maintainability of suits.

Advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, appearing for the Muslim side, reiterated in the court that the suit is barred by the limitation that a compromise can be challenged within three years. She submitted that the two parties had entered into a “compromise” on October 12, 1968, and the said compromise was confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974.

The Hindu side counsel last week argued that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and Waqf Act are not applicable in the case. They submitted that in the claimed compromise the deity was not a party nor a party in the court decree passed in 1974.

“The owner of property is a deity, but the deity was not made party in the compromise, hence it is not a valid compromise,” the counsel said.

Hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday.

__Courtesy: Hindustan Times & ANI.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 9,060,638 hits

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on WordPress.com

Go back

Your message has been sent

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

  1. Sajal Majumdar's avatar
  2. Unknown's avatar
  3. hinduexistence's avatar