Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan

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 birthplace 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 birthplace of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birthplace 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 birthplace 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.

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.

Ayodhya site is Lord Ram’s birthplace: Justice D.V. Sharma

 

Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict, based his order on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to say that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

The property in the suit is the site of the birthplace of Lord Ram and the Hindus have the right to worship at the site, he said.

The ASI had in a statement before the court said that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.

Justice Sharma’s key observations are:

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

* The place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Ram as a child. The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.

* The disputed building was constructed by (Mughal emperor) Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.

* The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same.

* The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of Dec 22-23, 1949.

* A suit filed in 1989 by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and others vs Gopal Singh Visharad and others and another suit filed in 1989 by Nirmohi Akhara and another vs Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others, are barred by time.

* It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

No proof mosque was built in Babar’s reign: Justice Sudhir Agarwal

Justice Sudhir Agarwal, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya judgment, in his order differed with his colleague Justice S.U. Khan that the mosque at the disputed site was built in the reign of Mughal emperor Babar.

‘The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar,’ said Justice Agarwal.

He observed that the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birth place of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus.

‘It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants,’ he said in his order.

Some key observations of Justice Agarwal are:

* The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.

* The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be 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 to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed. But it is clear that it was constructed before the visit of missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766-71.

* The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure – a Hindu temple.

* The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of Dec 22-23, 1949.

* The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara.

* The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places.

* The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 shall be made available to the concerned parties in such a manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry and exit for people without disturbing each others rights.


Leave a Reply

3 Comments on "Full Judgement on Babri Masjid and Ayodhya Ram janambhoomi"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
wasiuddin khan
Guest

the wordict of justice shaarma showed his biasness against a particular community. He have to maintain the decoram of judiciary

Adhya
Guest

Indians have never partitioned themselves or their country by their religions. It is the people who do claim to rule and
represent them are comfortable in encouraging to sustain a perpetual secular-communal divide in Indian polity for theor
electoral gains. Be it Hindus or the Muslims……..No one has the right to agree or disagree with the court verdict. It is those
political outfits who rule this country have the final say by which the actions and reactions are guided or misguided.

shabs
Guest

can muslim use this place for religious practice?
can islamic law allows them to hear , see, smell, praise, any other religion, in the premise
can islamic law allows them to construct mosque
can muslim become greedies after conquering the land
can any body thinks that the muslims of india were original turkis, arabs or original muslim, can they ever practiced original islamic culture
whether the muslims of south are muslims by their blood

wpDiscuz