Krishna Janmabhoomi title case: HCrejects plea against deity's next friend

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has dismissed an application filed by Hindu side plaintiffs (second and fifth) in the suit of Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah title dispute cases seeking the removal of Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur Ji alias Kaushal Singh Tomar as the next friend of the first plaintiff — the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman.Dismissing the application, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the grounds taken in the application were not sufficient for the 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.The seventh suit is one of the 18 civil suits at present pending before the high court pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi title dispute. In this suit, declaratory relief has been sought to the effect that the plaintiffs be declared as owner of the disputed property on which Shahi Idgah Masjid is situated. The plaintiff also prays for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property.The second and fifth plaintiffs had moved an application under section 151 of civil procedure code (CPC) seeking deletion of the name of Kaushal Kishore Thakur as the next friend of the deity (first plaintiff), 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, as he had filed a separate civil suit in Mathura along with advocate Reena N Singh to "destroy" the nature and structure of the present suit. It was alleged that Thakur had been removed from the membership of the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust as he was misusing his position. On the other hand, advocate Singh, appearing for the first plaintiff, 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 a 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 placed 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.The court examined the provisions of order 32 of civil procedure code (CPC) relating to suits by minors and the removal of next friends. Justice Mishra observed that Order 32 Rule 9 CPC permits the 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 by the court in its order dated Sept 26.