Next Friend of Deity Can’t Be Removed Merely for Filing Parallel Suits – Allahabad High Court Upholds Representation of Shri Krishna Lala Virajman

“Removal of Next Friend of a Deity Requires Proof of Adverse Interest or Dereliction of Duty — Filing of Multiple Suits Not Sufficient Ground” - In a significant pronouncement on the legal framework surrounding the representation of deities in civil litigation, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application seeking the removal of the next friend representing the deity Shri Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman in a high-profile title suit concerning the Shahi Idgah–Janmabhoomi dispute in Mathura.

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, in Original Suit No. 7 of 2023, held that the mere filing of parallel suits or the institution of proceedings by the same next friend in other forums, even if undesirable, does not constitute a legal ground for removal under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC, which governs the removal of next friends representing minors or deities.

The Court ruled that no sufficient cause was made out under the provisions of Order 32 Rule 9, and emphasized that the deity, being a juristic person and perpetual minor, must be represented in litigation through a legally valid and continuous next friend.

“Representation of Deity Must Be Consistent — Substitution is a Drastic Step Requiring Clear Prejudice”

The suit was originally instituted by the deity Shri Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman, through next friend Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur, along with four other plaintiffs including the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust and Ajay Pratap Singh, a prominent litigant and legal researcher. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and sought injunctive relief over the disputed land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah, Mathura, stands.

Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 had moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking the deletion and substitution of the next friend of the deity, alleging that Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur had acted against the interest of the deity by instituting other suits, supporting conflicting impleadment applications, and pursuing publicity through the media.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court observed: “On perusal of provisions of Rule 9… it is quite clear that a next friend can only be removed on grounds mentioned in said provision… Applicants have failed to show sufficient cause which would make it expedient for removal of next friend.”

The Court reiterated that filing of other suits or impleadment applications does not, by itself, demonstrate misconduct or adverse interest, unless the applicants could prove prejudice to the deity or that the next friend was connected with the opposite party.

“Judicial Discipline May Discourage Multiplicity, But It Does Not Mandate Substitution of Validly Instituted Representation”

The Court recognized that the same next friend representing the deity in multiple suits, including a fresh suit filed in Mathura and another in Agra, may not be ideal from the standpoint of judicial economy, but noted that it does not meet the legal threshold required for removal. Justice Mishra observed:

“Only on the ground that the next friend… has filed a separate suit… and got an impleadment application filed by a female deity… he has destroyed the structure of the present suit — this fact alone cannot justify removal.”

The Court distinguished between internal disputes among co-plaintiffs and legal disqualification of a next friend, cautioning that litigation strategy differences or institutional rivalries cannot form the basis of removing a next friend unless they demonstrably harm the proprietary or spiritual interest of the deity.

“Deity as Juristic Person Must Be Protected Through Stable Legal Representation”

Quoting foundational precedents on representation of deities, including Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133 and Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar, (1999) 5 SCC 50, the Court affirmed the principle that a deity, being a perpetual minor and juridical entity, must be represented either by a shebait or a suitable next friend.

Referring to Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, AIR 1925 PC 139 and M. Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2019) 18 SCC 1, the Court reinforced the rule that a legally instituted next friend cannot be displaced lightly, especially at the instance of rival trustees or private individuals seeking to assert control over the suit or the deity’s interests.

“Continuity of representation of the deity is essential to safeguard the proprietary and spiritual rights of the deity… substitution of next friend would violate settled legal principles…”

“Allegations of Misrepresentation or Conflict Must Be Supported by Conclusive Evidence”

The applicants had accused Kaushal Kishore Thakur of representing multiple parties in different suits, making contradictory statements, and acting in his personal interest rather than that of the deity. They cited his alleged expulsion from the Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Janamsthan Seva Sangh Trust, as well as the filing of suits with other individuals and trusts.

However, the Court held that these allegations, even if serious, were not sufficiently supported by evidence to justify removal under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC. The judgment makes it clear that false statements, if proven, may have consequences elsewhere, but cannot lead to substitution of a next friend unless it is shown that such conduct has compromised the interests of the deity in the pending suit.

Justice Mishra held: “The applicants have failed to show that the next friend is in any manner connected with the contesting defendants or that he has failed to do his duty… The cause shown… does not appear to be sufficient.”

“Parallel Claims May Proceed, But Not at the Cost of Stability of Representation”

The judgment acknowledged that the filing of multiple suits related to the Shahi Idgah–Janmabhoomi dispute by different groups of plaintiffs, including various temples and trusts, may result in overlapping claims, but reiterated that judicial consistency cannot be compromised by allowing substitution of a validly instituted next friend based on factional disagreements or litigation politics.

Referring to the jurisprudence in Bal Krishna v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 153 and K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1082, the Court noted:

“Multiple plaintiffs may maintain separate suits in respect of the same subject matter if their cause of action and reliefs are distinct… provided such proceedings do not disturb validly instituted representation of the deity.”

Court Declines Substitution of Next Friend, Upholds Continuity of Representation

In summary, the Court held that:

• The representation of the deity through Shri Kaushal Kishore Thakur is valid.

• No sufficient cause has been established for his removal under Order 32 Rule 9 CPC.

• Internal differences among plaintiffs or multiple suits filed do not constitute legal grounds for deletion.

• Continuity in representation of the deity is essential and protected under settled jurisprudence.

“Removal of next friend 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 under Section 151 CPC seeking deletion of the current next friend was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed with the existing array of parties.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025