Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Remove Next Friend of Deity in Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah Title Dispute, Holds No Adverse Interest Proven Under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra dismissed an application moved by plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 in Suit No. 7 relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah title dispute, which had sought to replace Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur Ji @ Kaushal Singh Tomar as the next friend of the deity, Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman. The Court observed that removing a next friend under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC is an exceptional step, justified only when it is shown that the representative acts against the deity’s interest—a threshold not met in this case. The proceedings continue over claims of ownership and injunction concerning the Shahi Idgah Masjid property in Mathura.
The dispute arises from a civil suit concerning ownership and control over the property on which the Shahi Idgah Masjid stands in Mathura. The plaintiffs sought a declaration recognizing the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman and associated trusts as owners of the disputed property, along with a permanent injunction against interference. The suit was instituted on behalf of the deity through Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur Ji @ Kaushal Singh Tomar acting as the next friend of the deity.
Plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 later filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking the removal of Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur as the next friend of the deity and his substitution with Ajay Pratap Singh. They alleged that Kaushal Kishore Thakur acted against the interest of the deity by representing it in other related suits, supporting contradictory claims, and engaging in conduct that, in their view, undermined the structure of the present suit. They also submitted that Thakur’s earlier membership in the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust had been terminated, and thus he was no longer eligible to represent the deity.
The applicants referred to documents including resolutions of trusts, copies of plaints from related suits, and extracts of media reports to support their allegations. They contended that the existing next friend had failed in his duty to safeguard the interest of the deity and had instead acted for personal or rival interests.
Opposing the application, counsel for Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur argued that the representation of the deity through him was valid under Order 32 of the CPC, which recognizes a deity as a perpetual minor and requires representation through a next friend. It was submitted that his role was not dependent on membership in any trust and that the applicants’ allegations were unfounded and unsupported by evidence.
The Court recorded that “Order 32 Rule 1 CPC provides that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor.” The Court noted that a next friend need not be a legal guardian but must be free of adverse interest against the minor.
The judgment observed: “In present context Rule 9 of Order 32 is relevant… where the interest of the next friend of a minor is adverse to that of the minor… or where he does not do his duty… application may be made… and the Court, if satisfied of the sufficiency of the cause assigned, may order the next friend to be removed accordingly.”
On the applicants’ claim that filing of multiple suits amounted to misconduct, the Court observed: “Only on ground that the next friend with some other co-plaintiffs has filed a separate suit in respect of subject matter of present suit… he has destroyed the structure and nature of present suit. However, this fact cannot be denied that filing of multiplicity of suits in connection with same cause or matter in controversy is a great bottleneck in the early disposal of main suit(s).” The Court held that such multiplicity, while undesirable, does not per se establish adverse interest warranting remova
Justice Mishra further stated: “In present case it cannot be conceded that the interest of the said next friend is adverse to that of deity or he is in any manner connected with the contesting defendant so as to make it unlikely that the minor’s interest will be protected by him or he fails to do his duty in the suit in instant case.” Accordingly, the Court concluded: “Applicants have failed to show sufficient cause which would make it expedient for removal of next friend.”
Based on the above reasoning, the Court issued the following final directive: “Consequently the grounds taken in application are not sufficient for removal of next friend which is 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 application is hereby dismissed with the above observations.” The Court directed that the matter be listed on 9 October 2025 at 2:00 PM along with leading OSUT No. 01 of 2023.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiffs: Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Shri M.P. Singh Gaur, Shri Amit Kumar, Shri Damodar Singh, Shri Devendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Leena Srivastava, Shri Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, Shri Manish Kumar, Shri Naman Kishor Sharma, Ms. R.U. Rinki Renu, Shri Rana Singh, Shri Sachin Singh, Shri Satya Pal, Ms. Suman Srivastava, Shri Sunil Singh, Shri Vivekanand Yadav.
For the Defendants: Shri Afjal Ahmad, Shri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Shri Hare Ram, Shri Nasiruzzaman, Shri Pranav Ojha, Shri Punit Kumar Gupta.
Case Title: Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman and Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and Others
Case Number: Original Suit No. 7 of 2023
Bench: Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
