LUCKNOW: In the Krishna Janmabhoomi - Shahi Eidgah title dispute case, the Allahabad High Court has rejected the Hindu side’s plea to implead deity Shriji Radha Rani in the case on the grounds that "Pauranic illustrations are considered hearsay evidence.”
The Court said that Shriji Radha Rani was not a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the case, and if she was included, it would change the basic nature of the title suit.
The plea was filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by advocate Anil Kumar Singh Bishen, who represented Shriji Radha Rani through her “next friend” Reena N Singh.
The applicant had urged the court to make Shriji Radha Rani a joint plaintiff in Original Suit No. 7 of 2023, which was filed by Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman and others against the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee.
The suit pertains to 13.37 acres of land in Mathura, which the plaintiffs claim is Lord Krishna’s birthplace.
They claim that the Shahi Idgah Masjid was illegally built during the Mughal period by demolishing this holy site. The plaintiffs have presented historical records, reports from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and references of Hindu scriptures to support their claim demanding the removal of the structure.
In her plea, Shriji Radha Rani’s side argued that she was deeply connected with Lord Krishna and was his eternal consort; she also had the rights over the disputed land.
They referred to religious texts like the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Narada Pancharatra Samhita, and Skanda Purana to substantiate their argument that she was the “soul of Lord Krishna” and therefore she should be considered a co-deity with equal ownership.
However, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra did not accept this religious argument as a legal right.
The Court made it clear that religious stories cannot prove legal ownership over land in the court of law. The court said: “The Pauranic illustrations are generally considered as hearsay evidence in a legal context. In the case of Pauranic illustrations, these are graphic representations of story and events and the 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 a joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres and the property of the applicant is also involved in the suit property claimed by the plaintiff no. 1 as birth birthplace of lord Krishna.”
The Court also noted that there was no temple of Radha Rani on the disputed land, and there is no legal proof to show that she had any ownership or share in the property.
Interestingly, while Plaintiff No. 1, represented by Kaushal Kishor Thakur, did not oppose Shriji Radha Rani’s addition to the case, the other plaintiffs were against it.
They said that including her would go against the main purpose of the suit, which is only focused on Krishna Janmabhoomi and not about Radha Rani.
They also told the Court that Radha Rani is already included in a different ongoing case in the civil court, so she should not be made a party again in this matter.
The Court agreed and said that adding Radha Rani to the case would only make the issue more complicated and might delay the proceedings. It stressed that unless there was a clear legal or ownership claim, such applications cannot be allowed.
With that, the High Court dismissed the application and posted the matter for next hearing of the main suit for July 4, 2025.