Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute | 'No Sufficient Cause Shown' : Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea To Remove Next Friend Of Deity In Suit 7

A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the grounds taken in the application were not sufficient for removal of next friend, which, he said, was a 'drastic' action and can only be taken when it is proved that the next friend is acting against the interest of the deity.

For context, suit no 7 is one of the 18 civil suits presently pending before the HC pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhumi title dispute. In this suit, declaratory relief has been sought to the effect that the plaintiffs be declared as owner of disputed property on which Shahi Idgah Masjid situates. The plaint also prays for relief of permanent injunction in respect of disputed property.

Briefly put, Plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 had moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of the name of Kaushal Kishore Thakur as next friend of the deity (plaintiff no. 1), and for substitution of Ajay Pratap Singh as the next friend.

It was submitted that Thakur's conduct was against the interest of Krishna Lalla, that he had filed a separate civil suit in Mathura along with Advocate Reena N. Singh and that he was attempting to 'destroy' the nature and structure of present suit.

It was further alleged that Thakur had been removed from the membership of the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust and was misusing his position.

On the other hand, Advocate Reena N. Singh, appearing for plaintiff no. 1, opposed the application and submitted that deletion of the name of the next friend of deity is impermissible under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC, as the deity is always a minor and can only be represented through a next friend.

She argued that Thakur had represented the deity in his individual capacity as resident of 266 Madhav Vilas, Vrindavan, and not in the capacity of a member of any Trust. It was further contended that creation of parallel committees or rival plaintiffs cannot disturb a valid representation of the deity, who is a juristic person.

She places reliance on precedents including Pramathanath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925), M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019), Deokinandan v. Murlidhar (1956) and Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar (1999) to argue that once a representation of deity is validly instituted, it cannot be displaced by subsequent rivalries or formations.

Court's observations

After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court examined the provisions of Order 32 CPC relating to suits by minors and the removal of next friends.

Justice Mishra observed that Order 32 Rule 9 CPC permits removal of a next friend only where the interest of the next friend is averse to that of the minor, or where he fails to do his duty, or other sufficient cause is shown.

The Court concluded that the applicants had failed to show that the interest of the next friend was adverse to that of the deity, or that he had failed in his duty.

"Applicants have failed to show sufficient cause which would make it expedient for removal of next friend. The cause shown in application for deletion of next friend which is in essence, a prayer for removal of next friend does not appear to be sufficient", the order said.

Thus, the plea was dismissed.