The highlights of the Order are as under: 

1. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no.42 of 1991):

…. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, it is clear that right to worship is a civil right and any interference in it will raise a dispute of civil nature and under Section 9 of C.P.C., Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide such case involving such a dispute. In the present case, the plaintiffs are demanding right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman at the disputed property, therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Further, according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they were worshipping Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993, they were allowed to worship the above mentioned Gods only once in a year under the regulatory of State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August, 1947. Therefore, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act.

B- Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Section 85 of The Waqf Act 1995:

…. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case because the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf created at the disputed property and relief claimed in the suit is not covered under Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Hence, suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.

C- Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983):

….From the perusal of above mentioned provisions of the Act, it is clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act regarding a suit claiming right to worship idols installed in the endowment within the premises of the temple, or outside. Therefore, defendant no.4 failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanth Temple Act, 1983.

In view of the above discussions and analysis, I have come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no.42 of 1991), The Waqf Act 1995 (Act no.43 of 1995) and the U.P. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983) and the application 35C filed by the defendant no.4 is liable to be dismissed.

Related Laws & Other References

• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
• Uttar Pradesh Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983
• The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust” Tagore Law Lectures by B.K. Mukherjea fifth edition (A.C.Sen) published by Eastern Law House

Judgments Cited & Relied Upon:

• M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das popularly known as Ayodhya Case reported in 2019 (15) SCALE
• Urvashiben and another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi 2019 All. C.J. 445,
• Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003(1) SCC 557
• Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal 2017(5) SCC 347
• Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel Vs. Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara 2019 (10) SCC 226
• Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat 2021 SCC Online SC 565
• Kisan Rice Mill Karhal District Mainpuri and Ors. vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and Ors.
• V. Gururaj Reddy & Anr. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. 2015(1) SCC 331
• Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors. 2006(3) SCC 100
• Kamala & Ors. Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa & Ors. 2008(12) SCC 661
• Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Anr. 1977 (4) SCC 467​
• M/s Frost International Ltd. v. M/s Milan Developers and Builder Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 All. C.J. 1102
• D Ramchandran v. R. V. Janki Raman 1999 (3) SCC 367
• Sri Bapu Lal Mansukh Lal Thakkar Vs. The Additional District Judge (on 6th July, 2005)
• Guruvayur Devaswom Board- (G.D.B.) DBP No.21 of 2021; 21st June, 2022
• Ugam Singh v. Kesari Mal 1970 (3) SCC 831
• M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. v. Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr. 1995 Supp. (4) SCC
• Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors 1999 (5)
• Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra ILR (1909) 37 Cal 128
• Siddiq (Ram Janam Bhumi Temple) v. Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC Page 266
• M. Ismail Faruqui and Others v. Union of India and Others (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 360
• Ballabh Das & Anr. v. Nur Mohammad & Anr. AIR 1936 Privy Counsel 83
• Bhimabai Mahadev Kambekar (Dead) Through L.R. v. Arthur Import and Export Company and Others (2019) 3 Supreme Court Cases 191
• Prabhagiya Van Adhikari, Awadh Van Prabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors.
• Syed Mohammad Salie Labbai by LR. v. Mohd. Hanifa by LR, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2155
• Sagir Khan & Anr. v. Maqsood Husaain Khan & Anr. 2015 (5) AWC 4862
• Board of Waqf West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum & Anr. 2011 All. C.J. 989
• Shamsuddin & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
• Ramesh Gobindram through L.R. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726
• Bhawar Lal & Anr. v. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf & ors. (2014) 16 SCC 51
• Ajodyha Prasad v. Addl. Civil Judge Moradabad 1995 All. C.J. page 1159
• Board of Muslim Waqf Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan & Ors. 1979(2) SCC 468
• Siraj Ahmad @ Sirajuddin and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and other 2020(1) CAR 109 (All.) [Full PDF Judgment].