Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | 'Pauranic Illustrations Considered Hearsay Evidence': Allahabad HC Rejects Deity-Radharani's Impleadment Plea

The application, moved through next friend (Advocate Reena N Singh), claimed that the applicant (Deity-Shriji Radha Rani) is the legal wife and is the feminine form of the plaintiff in suit no. 7 (Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman) and together, they both are worshipped as DEITIES since time immemorial, and they both hold the disputed land comprising 13.37 acres.

The applicant (Deity Shriji Radha Rani) claimed joint ownership of the disputed property with Plaintiff No. 1 (Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman), based on references in various Purans and Sanhitas describing Shriji Radha Rani as the soul of Lord Krishna. 

Against this backdrop, it was contended that the applicant is a necessary and proper party to the suit and her impleadment is essential for complete justice under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

However, a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra rejected the application, observing that the applicant is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit and that it is not expedient to implead her in suit no. 7.

The bench noted that the applicant, who sought impleadment as a party to the suit no. 7, could not demonstrate any evidence or binding authority in support of her claim in the disputed matter, which is claimed by the plaintiffs as birth place of lord Krishna and where, at present, the Shahi Idgah Masjid is situated.

The Court added that the applicant's claim is based on 'Pauranic' illustrations, which are generally considered 'hearsay' evidence as such illustrations are based on narrative and not on direct testimony. 

“The claim of the applicant as a joint holder of property in dispute together with plaintiff no. 1 is based on some reference in various Purans and Sanhitas wherein Shriji Radha Rani is considered as soul of lord Krishna. The Pauranic illustrations are generally considered as hearsay evidence in legal context. In the case of Pauranic illustrations, these are graphic representation of story and events and truth of events, they depict, is usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony. There is no evidence in support of the claim raised by the applicant that the applicant is entitled as joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres and property of the applicant is also involved in suit property claimed by the plaintiff no. 1 as birth place of lord Krishna,” the single judge observed. (emphasis supplied)

The court, however, added that if in future, the applicant comes with any concrete evidence in support of the claim that the applicant was a joint holder of the suit property, the question of impleadment may be considered at the appropriate stage.

For context, the plaintiffs in suit no. 7 claim that Sri Krishna's birthplace temple, situated in Mathura, has been encroached since the year 1669-70 by the Shahi Idgah Masjid management.

The suit, presently pending before the HC along with 17 other suits, seeks removal of the illegal encroachment in the premises of Sri Krishna birth birthplace temple, which is now known as Shahi Eidgah Masjid (erstwhile Jama Masjid).

In the plea seeking impleadment, the counsel for deity Shriji Radha Rani claimed she is the legal and spiritual consort of Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman. Reliance was placed on scriptures like the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Narada Pancharatra Samhita, Garga Samhita and others, which describe her as Krishna's soul and feminine form.

It was asserted before the bench that both deities jointly own the 13.37-acre disputed land at Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura, where encroachments by the defendants have blocked access to devotees, and they have also damaged temple structures.

However, the other plaintiffs in the suit no. 7 opposed the applicant's impleadment on the grounds that the averments in her application are against the plaint averments and facts will destroy the nature and structure of the suit.

It was also contended that the suit relates to birth birthplace of Lord Sri Krishna, and there is no right of Radha Rani in the birthplace of lord Sri Krishna, and all questions of the suit can be decided without the impleadment of Radha Rani.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court rejected the application as it noted that there is no evidence in support of the claim that the applicant is entitled as joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres and that the applicant's property is also involved in suit property claimed by the plaintiff no. 1 as birth place of lord Krishna.

“This Court finds force in the objection raised by some of the parties to the suit in regard to impleadment application filed on behalf of Shriji Radha Rani on 11 considering the ground taken in application on touchstone of law with regard to necessary and proper party as stated above. There is no averment in the impleadment application that there was a temple of Radha Rani in the property in dispute,” the bench noted as it rejected the application.

In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been challenged in the fresh suits by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque's removal.

In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the dispute.

This transfer order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.

In December, 2023, the High Court allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque. In January, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the order. Subsequently, this stay was extended.