Ayodhya verdict

Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.

ISSUES FOR BRIEFING

1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan

Ram?

The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of

birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the

spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a

child.

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.

2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When

was it built? By whom?

The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year

is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it

cannot have the character of a mosque.

3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a

Hindu temple?

The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old

structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological

Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive

Hindu religious structure.

4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the

night of December 22/23rd, 1949?

The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed

structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.

5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?

O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs

U.P ., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others

and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri

Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.

6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner

and outer courtyard?

It is established that the property in suit is the site of

Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the

right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object

of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also

established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in

dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as

a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.

After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the

deities were installed inside the disputed structure on

22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in

exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping

throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed

structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that

the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it

came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is

the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.

Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be

2.

a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly.

However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar

in 1528.

In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult

3.

to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but

this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph

Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.

4. The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-

Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.

5. The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure

in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.

Other Original Suits no. 3 of 1989 and 4 of 1989 are barred by limitation.

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

2. 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.

3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi 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.

8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well

as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early

hours of 23.12.1949.

13. 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.

Order:-

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.

source:http://www.rjbm.nic.in/