Ayodhya Verdict<br />Excerpts from recent Allahabad High court Judgment<br />30th Sep. 2010 : INDIA<br />
OOS No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of 1989 were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad.<br />Thereafter on the request of Stat...
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others Versus Gopal Singh Visharad ...
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)Defendants<br />On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were filed a...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1 and 1(a)<br />Whether the building in question described as mosque in the sketch map a...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1(b)<br />Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temp...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1(B)(c)<br />Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community f...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28<br />Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 7(b)<br />Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged Babari Masjid and did he c...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 12<br />Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the building in the nigh...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 11, 13, 19(c)<br />Is the property in suit the site of JanamBhumiof Sri Ram Chandraji?<b...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 19(b), 19(d)<br />Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached except by p...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 19(e), 19(f)<br />Whether the building in question could not legally be a mosque as on p...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 20(a)<br />Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was not a...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 20(b)<br />Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged Mutw...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 25 & 26<br />“Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by the plaintiff, ...
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 27<br />“Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabootra, Bhandar and SitaRasoi? If...
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others<br />The instant suit has been filed...
O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 : Issues No. 1, 2 & 6<br />Is the property in suit the site of JanamBhumi of Shri Ram Chandra Ji?<br ...
O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 : Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)<br />Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of 1885 in...
OOS No. 3 of 1989NirmohiAkhara& Anr. VersusShri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Others.<br />The suit was filed by NirmohiAkhara, al...
O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 : Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8<br />Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No1 ?<br />Have plain...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989)Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. VersusSri Rajendra Singh & Ors.<br />The instant s...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 1, 2 & 6<br />Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?<br />Whether the sui...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 3(a),3(b),3(c),3(d),4<br />Whether the idol in question was installed under the central ...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 9, 10, 14 & 22<br />Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri Masjid ?<br />Whe...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 15 & 24<br />Whether the disputed structure claimed to be BabriMasjid was always used by...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 20<br />Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.  21, is void on the f...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 21<br />Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities as alleged in paragra...
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 23<br />Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by Mahant Raghuber Das in ...
Appendix 7: Site Plan with marking by Court<br />
Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571			………1<br />It is declared that the area covered by the central dom...
Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571			………2<br />The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E...
Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571			………3<br />A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the e...
Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan    ……1<br />The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.<b...
Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan    ……2<br />That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and SeetaRasoi had come into existence and H...
Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan    ……3<br />That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place b...
Summary……….………………1<br />The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram<br />The year of construction of disputed building...
Summary……….………………2<br />O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 & 4 of 1989 are barred by time.<br />The disputed area is divided in Hindus, ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ayodhya Verdict

970 views

Published on

Excerpts from recent Allahabad High court Judgment about Ram Temple dispute at Ayodhya in India

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
970
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
47
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ayodhya Verdict

  1. 1. Ayodhya Verdict<br />Excerpts from recent Allahabad High court Judgment<br />30th Sep. 2010 : INDIA<br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4. OOS No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of 1989 were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad.<br />Thereafter on the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to High Court and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.<br />Government of India decided to acquire all area of the disputed property and the suits were abated.<br />Thereafter the apex court directed High Court to decide the case as per judgement in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.<br />
  5. 5. OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others Versus Gopal Singh Visharad and others<br />Plaint case in brief is that <br />About 443 years ago Babur built a mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury for maintenance of Babari Mosque.<br />It was damaged in the year 1934 during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.<br />The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of possession beyond the period of limitation.<br />
  6. 6. OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)Defendants<br />On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I. report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of religious nature.<br />On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped from times immemorial.<br />
  7. 7. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1 and 1(a)<br />Whether the building in question described as mosque in the sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs?<br />When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant No. 13?<br />Decided in favour of defendants<br />
  8. 8. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1(b)<br />Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged by defendant No. 13 ?<br />Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs on the basis of A. S. I. Report.<br />
  9. 9. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 1(B)(c)<br />Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community for offering prayers from times immemorial ? <br />Decided against the plaintiffs.<br />
  10. 10. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28<br />Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit up to 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint?<br />Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants?<br />Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint?<br />Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?<br />“Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession?”<br />These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.<br />
  11. 11. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 7(b)<br />Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged Babari Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of any such mosque?<br />Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.<br />
  12. 12. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 12<br />Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the building in the night intervening 22nd/23rd December, 1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?<br />Idols were installed in the building in the intervening night of 22/23rd December, 1949.<br />
  13. 13. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 11, 13, 19(c)<br />Is the property in suit the site of JanamBhumiof Sri Ram Chandraji?<br />Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular had the right to worship the Charans and 'SitaRasoi' and other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in or upon the property in suit?<br />Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the building in question? If the finding is in the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?<br />Decided against the plaintiffs.<br />
  14. 14. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 19(b), 19(d)<br />Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached except by passing through places of Hindu worship? <br />Whether the building in question could not be a mosque under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it did not have minarets?<br />Decided against the plaintiffs<br />
  15. 15. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 19(e), 19(f)<br />Whether the building in question could not legally be a mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a graveyard on three sides ?.<br />Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in question cannot have the character of Mosque under the tenets of Islam?<br />Decided against the plaintiffs<br />
  16. 16. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 20(a)<br />Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalli were allegedly Shia Mohammedans?<br />Decided against the plaintiffs.<br />
  17. 17. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 20(b)<br />Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for possession?<br />Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour of the defendants.<br />
  18. 18. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 25 & 26<br />“Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no longer maintainable?”<br />“Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer prayer when structure which stood thereon has been demolished?”<br />Decided against the plaintiffs<br />
  19. 19. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 : Issues No. 27<br />“Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabootra, Bhandar and SitaRasoi? If so whether they were also demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”<br />Yes, issue is decided in positive.<br />
  20. 20. O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others<br />The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.<br />Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the defendants including the State Government to not disallow the plaintiff to touch the deity.<br />State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.<br />The suit was dismissed for the reasons<br /> (i) no valid notice was given,<br />( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and <br />(iii) the State Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan of the deity.<br />
  21. 21. O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 : Issues No. 1, 2 & 6<br />Is the property in suit the site of JanamBhumi of Shri Ram Chandra Ji?<br />Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His CharanPaduka’ situated in the site in suit.?<br />Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?<br />Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been decided in favour of defendants and against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.<br />
  22. 22. O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 : Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)<br />Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of 1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others ?<br />Was it decided against the plaintiff ?<br />Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989.<br />Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to Government.<br />
  23. 23. OOS No. 3 of 1989NirmohiAkhara& Anr. VersusShri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Others.<br />The suit was filed by NirmohiAkhara, alleging that right from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.<br />Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.<br />The defendants have contested the claim and this Court found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff failed to prove the case.<br />
  24. 24. O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 : Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8<br />Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No1 ?<br />Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12 years ?<br />Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the said temple ?<br />Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of possession for over 12 year prior to the suit ?<br />Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.<br />Decided against the Plaintiffs.<br />
  25. 25. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989)Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. VersusSri Rajendra Singh & Ors.<br />The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram JanmBhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.<br />This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram JanmBhumiis a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as a child. <br />Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.<br />
  26. 26. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 1, 2 & 6<br />Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?<br />Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?<br />Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this account ?<br />Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.<br />
  27. 27. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 3(a),3(b),3(c),3(d),4<br />Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early hours of December 23, 1949 ?<br />Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a chabootra under the canopy?<br />“Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after 6.12.92 in violation of the courts orders.<br />If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”<br />Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the “Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial ?<br />Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.<br />
  28. 28. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 9, 10, 14 & 22<br />Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri Masjid ?<br />Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the plaint ?<br />Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babari Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?<br />Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? <br />Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d), 19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.<br />Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the plaintiffs.<br />
  29. 29. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 15 & 24<br />Whether the disputed structure claimed to be BabriMasjid was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To 22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?<br />Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in paragraph 25 of the plaint?<br />Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.<br />Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf Board and Others. <br />
  30. 30. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 20<br />Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no. 21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?<br />Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant no.3.<br />
  31. 31. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 21<br />Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?<br />Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 4 and 5.<br />
  32. 32. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 : Issues No. 23<br />Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge, Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?<br />Decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.<br />
  33. 33. Appendix 7: Site Plan with marking by Court<br />
  34. 34. Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571 ………1<br />It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janmasthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7to this judgment.<br />The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. <br />The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in Appendix 7) SitaRasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of NirmohiAkhara(defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the absence of any person with better title.<br />
  35. 35. Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571 ………2<br />The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) shall be shared by NirmohiAkharaand plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship.<br />It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. If some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.<br />The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without disturbing each others rights. <br />
  36. 36. Judgment of Justice Mr. Sudhir AgarwalPara 4566 & 4571 ………3<br />A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect.<br />For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute.<br />In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4 are dismissed. Suit-5 is decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.<br />
  37. 37. Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan ……1<br />The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.<br />It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.<br />No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.<br />Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.<br />That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/ believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.<br />That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. <br />
  38. 38. Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan ……2<br />That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and SeetaRasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.<br />That in view of the above gist of the finding both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.<br />That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.<br />That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.<br />
  39. 39. Judgment of Justice S. U. Khan ……3<br />That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.<br />That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.<br />That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.<br />
  40. 40. Summary……….………………1<br />The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram<br />The year of construction of disputed building is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus it cannot have the character of a mosque.<br />The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old Hindu religious structure.<br />The idols were kept in the disputed structure in the night of 22/23.12.1949<br />
  41. 41. Summary……….………………2<br />O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 & 4 of 1989 are barred by time.<br />The disputed area is divided in Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara as the joint title holders of property premises.<br />The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by meters and bounds.<br />Status quo as prevailing till date shall be maintained for a period of three months unless the court order is modified or vacated earlier.<br />

×