News Uttar Pradesh (U.P) by Uttar Pradseh Samachar
Sewa (UPSS NEWS)
Allahabad
High Court, Lucknow Bench, Ayodhya Case Verdict
|
|
Last update: 09/30/2010. Time 19.45 IST,
Ayodhya cace |
|
Source: Sarvesh Kumar Singh,
U.P.Samachar Sewa Hindi News Agency |
|
|
1
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.
2
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.
********* |
|
1 GIST OF THE FINDINGS by
D.V.Sharma J.
BRIEF SUMMARY
Subject matter of the decided cases
OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh
Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No.
4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and
others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of
1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs.
Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil
Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases
were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice
constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire
all area of the
disputed property and the suits were
abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this 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.
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
The instant suit has been filed for
declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through
amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443
years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash
grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. 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.
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.
2
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.
On the basis of the report of the
Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious
nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under
the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act,
1958. The Apex Court in
Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the
President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766
at para 21 directed
the Government of India to maintain such
national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the
Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24
of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural
heritage of this country .
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. The Court
dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;
O.O.S. No.
4 of 1989
Issues No. 1 and 1(a)
1. 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? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) 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?
Decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
3
Issues No. 1(b)
1(b) Whether the building had been
constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing
the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.
1(A). Whether the land adjoining the
building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on
the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as
alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 1(B)a
1-B(a). Whether the building existed at
Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot
Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate
of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)”
Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583
belonging to
Government.
Issues No. 1(B)(b)
1B(b).Whether the building stood
dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(c)
1-B (c ).Whether the building had been
used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers
from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(d)
1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has
been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying
the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim
community? If so,
its effect?
4
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order
dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28
2. Whether the plaintiffs were in
possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed
from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. 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?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have
perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. 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?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has
ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs
were never in its
possession?”
These issues are decided against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 3
3. Is the suit within time?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of defendants.
Issues No. 5(a)
5(a) Are the defendants estopped from
challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the
administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision
of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?
(This issue has already been decided in
the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned
Civil Judge).
Issues No. 5(b)
5(b). Has the said Act no application to
the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to
the right of their
worship?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of defendants.
5
Issues No. 5(c)
5(c). Were the proceedings under the
said Act conclusive?
(This issue has already been decided in
the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned
Civil Judge.)
Issues No. 5(d)
5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII
of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel
for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil
Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).
Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)
5(e). Whether in view of the findings
recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to
the effect that, “No
valid notification under section 5(1) of
the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in
respect of the property
in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central
Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid
finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and
limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Both these issues are decided against
the Plaintiffs.
Issue No. 6
6. Whether the present suit is a
representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims
and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
Issue No. 7(a)
7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass,
plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of
Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
6
Issue No. 7(b)
7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the
Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit
for and on behalf of
any such mosque?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 7(c)
7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in
the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community,
including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying
the title of the
Muslim community, including the
plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so,
its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 7(d)
7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit,
title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion
thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281
of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and
others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in
suit?
Decided against the plaintiffs and this
judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the
defendants in suit.
Issue No.9
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid
notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May
22/25, 1990).
7
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)
11. Is the property in suit the site of
Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
13. Whether the Hindus in general and
defendants in particular
had the right to worship the Charans and
'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of
worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the
place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have
been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of
right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of
the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the
Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property
in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said
places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of
worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute
continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). 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?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.12
12. Whether idols and objects of worship
were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22nd
and 23rd December,
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the
plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In
either case, effect?
Idols were installed in the building in
the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.
8
Issue No.17
17. Whether a valid notification under
Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936
relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(This issue has already been decided by
the learned Civil
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).
Issue No.18
18. What is the effect of the judgdment
of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others
Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court
2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st
April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of defendants.
Issue No.19(b)
19(b). Whether the building was
land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of
Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.19(d)
19(d). 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?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 19(e)
19(e).Whether the building in question
could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it
was surrounded by a
9
graveyard on three sides.
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No.19(F)
19(F).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?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.20(a)
20(a). 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 Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so,
its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.20(b)
20(b). 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?
Suit is not maintainable and the issue
is decided in favour
of the defendants.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the suit is bad for
non-joinder of alleged deities?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
10
Issues No. 23 & 24
23. If the wakf Board is an
instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit
against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under
Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board
being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity
sponsering the case of
particular community and against the
interest of another
community)”.
Issues are decided against the
plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 26
25. “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?”
26. “Whether Muslims can use the open
site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood
thereon has been
demolished?”
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 27
27. “Whether the outer court yard
contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether
they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the
main temple?”
Yes, issue is decided in positive.
Issue No.16 & 22
16. To what relief, if any, are the
plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be
dismissed with special costs?
Plaintiffs are not entitled for any
relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
11
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad and others
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.
Accordingly the injunction has been
sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State
Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and
stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable
restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons
(i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal
character and (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.
Finding of the court issue wise is as
follows;
O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 2 and 6
1. Is the property in suit the site of
Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram
Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in
suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque
constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in
1528A.D.?
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.
Issues No. 3, 4 & 7
3. Has the plaintiff any right to
worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in
suit.?
12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have
Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession
of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?
Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been decided
in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)
9. Is the suit barred by provision of
section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to
the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present
suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said
act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its
effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P.
Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of
plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?
Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c,
5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,
17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989
has already been
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad)
18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of
1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of
defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)
5(a) 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.?
5(b) Was it decided against the
plaintiff.?
Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of
Original Suit No. 4 of
1989.
Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583
belonging to
Government.
13
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)
5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge
of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the
present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?
Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d
and issue no. 8 in
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein
these issues have been
decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 13
13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal
Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under
section 80 C.P.C. ?
Decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Is the suit barred by proviso to
section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of defendants.
Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)
11(a) Are the provisions of section 91
C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of
consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the
plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if
not its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
Issue No. 12
12. Is the suit bad for want of steps
and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans
Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under
section 80 C.P.C. ?
Withdrawn, no finding is required.
14
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of
defendants.?
NO
Issue No. 10
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?
NO
Issue No. 16 & 17
16. Are the defendants or any of them
entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the
plaintiff entitled. ?
Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief
claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.
15
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna
Prasad Singh & Ors.
The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara,
alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are
worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple
may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State
Government.
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.
Finding of the court issue wise is as
follows;
O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 5 and 6
1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with
idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?
5. Is the property in suit a mosque made
by Emperor Babar
Known as Babari masjid ?
6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by
Emperor Babar for
worship by Muslims in general and made a
public waqf
property?
Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b),
1B(b), 12, 19(d),
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues
have been decided in favour of
defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8
2. Does the property in suit belong to
the plaintiff No.1 ?
3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by
adverse possession for over 12
years ?
4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get
management and charge of the
said temple ?
16
8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs
extinguished for want of
possession for over 12 years prior to
the suit ?
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.
Decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16
7(a) Has there been a notification under
Muslim Waqf Act (Act
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property
in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?
7(b) Is the said notification final and
binding ? Its effect.
16. Is the suit bad for want of notice
u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b),
5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25
and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been
decided against the
plaintiffs.
Issue No. 9
9. Is the suit within time ?
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)
10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice
u/s 80 C. P.C.
10(b) Is the above plea available to
contesting defendants ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No. 11
11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of
necessary defendants ?
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S.
No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
17
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit not maintainable as
framed ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No. 17
17. (Added by this Hon'ble Court order
dated 23.2.96) “Whether
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati
Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a
religious denomination
following its religious faith and per
suit according to its own
custom.”
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit properly valued and
Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)
Issues No. 12 & 13
12. Are defendants entitled to special
costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?
No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the
plaintiff entitled ?
Suit is Dismissed.
18
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989
Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri
Rajendra Singh & Ors.
The instant suit was filed on behalf of
the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi 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.
This Court is of the view that place of
birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is 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 . 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.
Case has been decided on the basis of
decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in
1999(5) SCC page 50,
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar,
Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552,
AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs.
Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others & other
decisions of Privy Council
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as
follows:
O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989
19
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are
juridical persons?
2. 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?
6. 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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22
9. Was the disputed structure a mosque
known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could
be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in
paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure
claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing
Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. 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 ? If so, its
effect ?
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.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in
favour of the
plaintiffs.
ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24
15. Whether the disputed structure
claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only,
regularly for offering
20
Namaz ever since its alleged
construction in 1528 A.D. To
22nd December 1949 as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 &
2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25
of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes,
have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession
as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. 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?
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.
Above issues are decided against Sunni
Central Waqf
Board and Others.
Issue No.17
17. Whether on any part of the land
surrounding the structure
in dispute there are graves and is any
part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?
Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order
dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.23
23. 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 ?
Decided against the defendants and in
favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly
identified and described
21
in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7) Whether the defendant no. 3, alone
is entitled to represent
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not
competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of
the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the
“Shebait” of Bhagwan
Sri Rama installed in the disputed
structure ?
Decided against the defendant no.3 and
in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.
Issues No.19
19. Whether the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties,
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the
additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Suit is maintainable.
Issue No.20
20. 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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendant no.3.
Issue No.21
21. 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
?
22
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.
Issues No. 26 & 27
26. Whether the suit is bad for want of
notice under Section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4
and 5?
27. Whether the plea of suit being bad
for want of notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by
defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.
Issue No.25
25. Whether the judgment and decree
dated 30th March 1946
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not
binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs
?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No.29
29. Whether the plaintiffs are precluded
from bringing the
present suit on account of dismissal of
suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the
Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No.28
28. Whether the suit is bad for want of
notice under Section 65
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as
alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against defendants
no. 4 and 5.
23
Issue No.18
18. Whether the suit is barred by
Section 34 of the the Specific
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of
the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and
also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of
defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of
defendant no. 5 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4
3(a) 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 as alleged by
the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified
on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?
3(b) Whether the same idol was
reinstalled at the same place on a
chabutra under the canopy?
3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at
the disputed site on or after
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order
dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?
3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered
in the affirmative, whether
the idols so placed still acquire the
status of a deity?”
(4) Whether the idols in question had
been in existence under the
“Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time
immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional
written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No.11
(11) Whether on the averments made in
paragraph-25 of the
plaint, no valid waqf was created in
respect of the structure in
24
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No.12
(12) If the structure in question is
held to be mosque, can the same
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34
and 35 of the plaint?
Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.13
(13) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the
defendants.
Issue No.30
30. To what relief, if any, are
plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs. |
|
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.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. |
|
GIST OF THE FINDINGS by Sudhir Agarwal J. |
|
(Relevant paragraphs containing
result/directions issued)
4566. In the light of the above and
considering overall findings of this
Court on
various issues, following directions
and/or declaration, are given which in
our view
would meet the ends of justice:
(i) 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
Janamsthan
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 7 to
this
judgment.
(ii) 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. It is, however,
made clear that for the purpose of share
of
plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction
the area which is covered by (i) above
shall
also be included.
(iii) The area covered by the
structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF
GG HH
in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (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 Nirmohi
Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall
be entitled to possession thereof in the
absence of any person with better title.
(iv) The open area within the outer
courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix
7)
(except that covered by (iii) above)
shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara
(defendant
no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it
has been generally used by the Hindu
people
for worship at both places.
(iv-a) 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. It
is also made clear that while making
partition by metes and bounds, 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.
(v) 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. For this
purpose the concerned parties may
approach
the Government of India who shall act in
accordance with the above directions and
also as contained in the judgement of
Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi
(Supra).
(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and
partly final, to the effect as said
above (i to
v) 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
to
the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya
Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar,
Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.
(vii) 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.
4571. 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.
(From the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal)
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Suit-4
1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in
favour of plaintiffs.
2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in
negative. The plaintiffs have failed to
prove that the building
in dispute was built by Babar or by Mir
Baqi.
3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27
(Suit-4) are answered in affirmative.
4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in
affirmative and it is held that the fact
that the land in
dispute entered in the records of the
authorities as Nazul plot would make
things difference.
5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered
being irrelevant.
6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that
building in question was not exclusively
used by the
members of muslim community. After
1856-57 outer courtyard exclusively used
by Hindu and
inner courtyard had been visited for the
purpose of worship by the members of
both the
communities.
7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in
negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.
8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in
negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.
It is held that Suit-4 is
barred by limitation.
9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since
1856-57, i.e., after the erection of
partition wall the premises in
outer courtyard has not been shown to be
used/possessed by muslim parties but so
far as the
inner courtyard is concerned it has been
used by both the parties.
10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered
against the plaintiffs.
11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in
favour of defendants and Hindu parties
in general.
12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22
(Suit-4), are answered in negative.
13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) is not pressed
by the defendants, hence not answered.
14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in
favour of plaintiffs subject to that
issue 6 (Suit-3) is also
decided in favour of defendants
(Suit-3).
15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs
and against the
defendants.
16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in
negative. It is held that there is
nothing to show that Mahant
Raghubar Das filed Suit-1885 on behalf
of Janamsthan and whole body of persons
interested
in Janamsthan.
17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) is answered in
affirmative, i.e., in favour of
plaintiffs (Suit-4).
18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in
negative to the extent that there is no
admission by Mahant
Raghubar Das plaintiff of Suit-1885
about the title of Muslims to the
property in dispute or
any portion thereof. Consequently, the
question of considering its effect does
not arise.
19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are
answered in negative, i.e., against the
plaintiffs and muslims in
general.
20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that
the place of birth as believed and
worshipped by Hindus his the
area covered under the central dome of
the three domed structure, i.e., the
disputed structure in
the inner courtyard in the premises of
dispute.
21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since
the suit is liable to be dismissed being
barred by limitation.
22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) is answered in
negative holding that no valid
notification under Section 5(3)
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 was issued.
23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-It is held that
the decision of the Apex Court in Gulam
Abbas Vs. State of
U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does
not affect findings on issue 17 (Suit-4)
and on the
contrary the same stand supported and
strengthen by the said judgment.
24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that
the premises which is believed to be the
place of birth of
Lord Rama continue to vest in the deity
but the Hindu religious structures in
the outer
courtyard cannot be said to be the
property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in
affirmative to the extent that the
building was land locked
and could not be reached except of
passing through the passage of Hindu
worship. However,
this by itself was of no consequence.
26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that
Hindus were worshipping at the place in
dispute before
construction of the disputed structure
but that would not make any difference
to the status of
the building in dispute which came to be
constructed at the command of the sole
monarch
having supreme power which cannot be
adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to
be constituted
or formed much after, and according to
the law which was not applicable at that
time.
27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are
answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as
the first part is concerned, is answered
in affirmative. The
second part is left unanswered being
redundant. In the ultimate result the
issue is answered in
favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
29. Issue 20(a) being irrelevant not
answered.
30. Issue 20(b) (Suit-4)-It is held that
at the time of attachment of the
building there was a
Mutawalli, i.e., one Sri Javvad Hussain
and in the absence of Mutawalli relief
of possession
cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are
before the Court in the capacity of
worshippers.
31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) is decided in
negative, i.e., in favour of the
plaintiffs. The suit is not bad for
non-joinder of deities.
32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held
that neither the Waqf Board is an
instrumentality of State
nor there is any bar in filing a suit by
the Board against the State. It is also
not a 'State' under
Article 12 of the Constitution and can
very well represent the interest of one
community
without infringing any provision of the
Constitution.
33. Issues 25 and 26 (Suit-4)-Held that
as a result of demolition of the
disp0uted structure it
cannot be said that the suit has
rendered not maintainable. Nothing
further needs to be
answered.
34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that
plaintiffs have failed to prove their
possession of the disputed
premises, i.e., outer and inner
courtyard including the disputed
building ever.
Suit-1
1. Issue 1 (Suit-1)-It is held that the
place of birth, as believed and
worshipped by Hindus, is the
area covered under the central dome of
the three domed structure, i.e., the
disputed structure in
the inner courtyard in the premises of
dispute.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-1)- It is held that the
idols were kept under the central dome
of the disputed
structure within inner courtyard in the
night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 and
prior thereto the
same existed in the outer courtyard.
Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was
filed the said
idol existed in the inner courtyard
under the central dome of the disputed
structure, i.e., prior
to the filing of the suit. So far as the
Charan Paduka is concerned, the said
premises existed in
the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is
confined only to the inner courtyard,
question of existence
of Charan Paduka on the site in suit
does not arise.
3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held
that plaintiffs have right to worship.
The place in suit to the
extent it has been held by this Court to
be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if an
idol is also
placed in such a place the same can also
be worshipped, but this is subject to
reasonable
restrictions like security, safety,
maintenance etc.
4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and
11(a) (Suit-1) are answered in negative.
5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit
1885 was decided against Mahant Raghubar
Das and he was
not granted any relief by the respective
courts, and, no more.
6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in
negative. The defendants have failed to
prove that the property
in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor
Babar in 1528 AD.
7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in
negative, i.e., against the defendants
muslim parties.
8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in
negative. Suit is not barred by proviso
to Section 42 of Specific
Relief Act, 1963.
9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour
of plaintiffs (Suit-1).
10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in
favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).
11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered
against the plaintiffs.
12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs
of Suit-1.
13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in
affirmative.
14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1)
are answered in negative, i.e., in
favour of the plaintiffs
(Suit-1).
15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become
redundant after dismissal of Suit No. 25
of 1950 as withdrawn.
16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is
declared to have right of worship at the
site in dispute
including the part of the land which is
held by this Court to be the place of
birth of Lord Rama
according to the faith and belief of
Hindus but this right is subject to such
restrictions as may
be necessary by authorities concerned in
regard to law and order, i.e., safety,
security and also
for the maintenance of place of worship
etc. The plaintiffs is not entitled for
any other relief.
Suit-3
1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered
in negative.
2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are
answered in negative, i.e., against the
plaintiffs.
3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in
negative. The defendants have filed to
prove that the property
in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor
Babar in 1528 AD.
4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence
answered in negative.
5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are
answered in negative, i.e., in favour of
plaintiffs and against
the defendants in Suit-3.
6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in
negative.
7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in
favour of plaintiff. It is also held
that a private defendant cannot
raise objection of maintainability of
suit for want of notice under Section 80
CPC.
8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided
in negative, i.e., in favour of
plaintiffs.
9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is
not entitled for any relief in view of
the findings in respect of
issues 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19.
10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in
affirmative. It is held that the suit as
framed is not
maintainable.
11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in
affirmative, i.e., in favour of
plaintiffs (Suit-3).
12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in
favour of plaintiffs. Nirmohi Akhara is
held a Panchayati Math
of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagi, is a
religious denomination following its
religious faith and
pursuit according to its own customs.
However, its continuance at Ayodhya is
found sometime
after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.
Suit-5
1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in
affirmative. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 both are
juridical persons.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as
it is not necessary for the dispute in
the case.
3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in
affirmative. The idols were installed
under the central dome
of the disputed building in the early
hours of 23rd December, 1949.
4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and
24 (Suit-5) are answered in affirmative.
5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28
(Suit-5) are answered in negative.
6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in
negative. The idol in question kept
under the Shikhar existed
there prior to 6th December, 1992 but
not from time immemorial and instead
kept thereat in the
night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.
7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs
(Suit-5).
8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against
the defendant no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.
9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against
the plaintiffs.
10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.
It is held that suit is not
barred by limitation.
11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that
the muslims atleast from 1860 and
onwards have visited the
inner courtyard in the premises in
dispute and have offered Namaj thereat.
The last Namaj was
offered on 16th December, 1949.
12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title
of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished
nor the question of
reacquisition thereof ever arise.
13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in
negative, i.e., against the defendants
no. 3, 4 and 5.
14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered
being unnecessary for the dispute in the
case in hand.
15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in
negative, i.e., against the defendants
no. 4 and 5.
16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that
the place of birth as believed and
worshipped by Hindus his
the area covered under the central dome
of the three domed structure, i.e., the
disputed
structure in the inner courtyard in the
premises of dispute.
17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in
affirmative. It is held that the
judgement dated 30.03.1946 in
Suit No. 29 of 1949 is not binding upon
the plaintiffs (suit-5).
18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are
answered in negative, i.e., in favour of
plaintiffs (Suit-5).
19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.
20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly
decreed in the manner the directions are
issued in
para 4566.
Gist on some point
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.
2. 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.
3. 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
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.
ISSUES FRAMED
Suit-4 :
Issue No. 1:- 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? If the
answer is in the affirmative-
(a) 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?
(b) Whether the building had been
constructed on the site of an alleged
Hindu temple after
demolishing the same as alleged by
defendant no.13? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 1-B(a) :-Whether the building
existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year
1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known as
Ram Kot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate)
Ayodhya? If
so its effect thereon?
Issue No. 1-B(b) :-Whether the building
stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the
plaintiffs?
Issue No. 1-B(c) :-Whether the building
had been used by the members of the
Muslim community
for offering prayers from times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 2 :-Whether the plaintiffs
were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were
dispossessed from the same in 1949 as
alleged in the plaint?
Issue No. 3 :- Is the suit within time?
Issue No. 4 :-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?
Issue No. 5 :- (a)Are the defendants
estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as
a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff no.1 in view of the provision
of 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of
1936?
(b) Has the said Act no application to
the right of Hindus in general and
defendants in
particular, to the right of their
worship?
(c) Were the proceedings under the said
Act conclusive?
(d) Are the said provision of Act XIII
of 1936 ultra-vires as alleged in
written statement?
(e) Whether in view of the findings
recorded by the learned Civil Judge on
21.4.1966 on issue
no.17 to the effect that “No valid
notification under section 5(1) of the
Muslim Waqf Act ( No.
XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect
of the property in dispute”, the
plaintiff Sunni Central
Board of Waqf has no right to maintain
the present suit?
(f) Whether in view of the aforesaid
finding, the suit is barred on account
of lack of
jurisdiction and limitation as it was
filed after the commencement of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Issue No. 6 :-Whether the present suit
is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of
the Muslims and defendants representing
the interest of the Hindus?
Issue No. 7 :- (a) Whether Mahant
Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No.
61/280 of 1885 had sued
on behalf of Janma Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
(b) Whether Mohammad Asghar was the
Mutwalli of alleged Babri Masjid and did
he contest
the suit for and on behalf of any such
mosque?
(c) Whether in view of the judgment in
the said suit, the members of the Hindu
community,
including the contesting defendants, are
estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community,
including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so,
its effect?
(d) Whether in the aforesaid suit, title
of the Muslims to the property in
dispute or any portion
thereof was admitted by plaintiff of the
that suit? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 8 :-Does the judgment of case
No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant Raghubar Dass
Vs. Secretary
of State and others operate as res
judicata against the defendants in suit?
Issue No. 9 :- Deleted vide order dated
May 22/25, 1990
Issue No. 10 :-Whether the plaintiffs
have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged
in the plaint?
Issue No. 11 :-Is the property in suit
the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
Issue No. 12 :-Whether idols and objects
of worship were placed inside the
building in the night
intervening 22nd and 23rd December 1949
as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint
or they have
been in existence there since before? In
either case, effect?
Issue No. 13 :-Whether the Hindus in
general and defendants in particular had
the right to worship
the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and other
idols and other objects of worship, if
any, existing in or
upon the property in suit?
Issue No. 14 :-Have the Hindus been
worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or
Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of
right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 15 :-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?
Issue No. 16 :-To what relief, if any,
are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
Issue No. 17 :-Whether a valid
notification under Section 5(1) of the
U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No.
XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
Issue No. 18 :-What is the effect of the
judgment of their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in
Gulam Abbas and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2198
on the
finding of the learned Civil Judge
recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Issue No. 19(a) :-Whether even after
construction of the building in suit
Deities of Bhagwan Sri
Ram Virajman and the Asthan, Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the
property in suit as
alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and
the said places continued to be visited
by devotees for
purposes of worship? If so, whether the
property in dispute continued to vest in
the said Deities?
Issue No. 19(b) :-Whether the building
was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing
through places of Hindu worship? If so,
its effect?
Issue No. 19(c) :-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?
Issue No. 19(d) :-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?
Issue No. 19(e) :-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?
Issue No. 19(f) :-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?
Issue No. 20(a) :-Whether the Wqaf 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 Mutwallis were allegedly Shia
Mohammedans? If so,
its effect?
Issue No. 20(b) :-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?
Issue No. 21 :-Whether the suit is bad
for non-joinder of alleged Deities?
Issue No. 22 :-Whether the suit is
liable to be dismissed with special
costs?
Issue No. 23 :-Whether the Waqf board is
an instrumentality of State? If so,
whether the said
Board can file a suit against the State
itself?
Issue No. 24 :-If the Waqf Board is
State under Article 12 of the
Constitution? If so, the said Board
being the State can file any suit in
representative capacity sponsoring the
case of particular
community and against the interest of
another community?
Issue No. 25 :-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
Issue No. 26 :-Whether Muslims can use
the open site as mosque to offer prayer
when structure
which stood thereon has been demolished
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the courtyard
contained Ram Chabutara, Bhandar and
Sita Rasoi If so,
whether they were also demolished on
6.12.1992 along with the main temple?
Issue No. 28 :-Whether the defendant
no.3 has ever been in possession of the
disputed site and the
plaintiffs were never in its possession?
Suit-1 :
Issue No. 1 :- Is the property in suit
the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandra Ji?
Issue No. 2 :-Are there any idols of
Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka situated
in the site in suit?
Issue No. 3 :-Has the plaintiff any
right to worship the 'Charan Paduka' and
the idols situated in
the site in suit.
Issue No. 4 :-Has the plaintiff the
right to have Darshan of the place in
suit?
Issue No. 5(a) :-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
and others?
5(b) Was it decided against the
plaintiff?
5(c) Was the suit within the knowledge
of Hindus in general and were all Hindus
interested in
the same?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the
present suit by principles of res
judicata and in any other
way?
Issue No. 6 :- Is the property in suit a
mosque constructed by Shanshah Babar
commonly known as
Babri Mosque, in 1528 A.D.?
Issue No. 7 :-Have the Muslims been in
possession of the property in suit from
1528 A.D.
continuously, openly and to the
knowledge of plff and Hindus in general?
If so, its effect?
Issue No. 8 :- Is the suit barred by
proviso to Section 42 Specific Relief
Act?
Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit barred by
provision of Section 5(3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13
of 1936)?
9(a). Has the said Act no application to
the right of Hindus in general and
plaintiff of the present
suit , in particular to his right of
worship?
9(b). Were the proceedings under the
said Act, referred to in written
statement para 15, collusive?
If so its effect?
9(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P.
Act 13 of 1936 ultra vires for reasons
given in the
statement of plaintiff's counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper no. 454-A?
Issue No. 10 :-Is the present suit
barred by time?
Issue No. 11 :-(a) Are the provisions of
section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit? If so, is the
suit bad for want of consent in writing
by the Advocate General?
(b) Are the rights set up by the
plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91
CPC? If not, its effect.
Issue No. 12 :-Is the suit bad for want
of steps and notice under Order 1, Rule
8 CPC? If so, its
effect?
Issue No. 13 :-Is the suit no. 2 of 50
Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of
notice under Section 80 CPC.
Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit no. 25 of 50
Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor Ahmad
bad for want
of valid notice under section 80 CPC?
Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit bad for
non-joinder of defendants?
Issue No. 16 :-Are the defendants or any
of them entitled to special costs under
Section 35-A
C.P.C.
Issue No. 17 :-To what reliefs, if any,
is the plaintiff entitled?
Suit-3:
Issue No. 1 :- Is there a temple of
Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of
the plaint.
Issue No. 2 :-Does the property in suit
belong to the plaintiff no.1?
Issue No. 3 :-Have plaintiffs acquired
title by adverse possession for over 12
years?
Issue No. 4 :-Are plaintiffs entitled to
get management and charge of the said
temple?
Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in suit a
mosque made by Emperor Babar known as
Babari Masjid?
Issue No. 6 :-Was this alleged mosque
dedicated by Emperor Babar for worship
by Muslims in
general and made a public waqf property?
Issue No. 7 :- (a) Has there been a
notification under Muslim Waqf Act Act
No. 13 of 1936)
declaring this property in suit as a
Sunni Waqf?
(b) Is the said notification final and
binding? Its effect?
Issue No. 8 :-Have the rights of the
plaintiffs extinguished for want of
possession for over 12
years prior to the suit?
Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit within time?
Issue No. 10 :-(a) Is the suit bad for
want of notice u/s 80 C?
(b) Is the above plea available to
contesting defendants?
Issue No. 11 :-Is the suit bad for
non-joinder of necessary defendants?
Issue No. 12 :-Are defendants entitled
to special costs u/s 35 CPC?
Issue No. 13 :-To what relief, if any,
is the plaintiff entitled?
Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit not
maintainable as framed?
Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit property
valued and court fee paid sufficient?
Issue No. 16 :-Is the suit bad for want
of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of 1936?
Issue No. 17 :-Whether Nirmohi Akhara,
plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama
Nand sect of
Bairagis and as such is a religious
denomination following its religious
faith and persuit according
to its own custom?
Suit-5:
Issue No. 1 :-Whether the plaintiffs 1
and 2 are juridical persons?
Issue No. 2 :-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?
Issue No. 3 :- (a) 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 as alleged by
the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified
in their statement under Order 10 Rule 2
C.P.C.
(b) Whether the same idol was
reinstalled at the same place on a
Chabutara under the canopy?
(c) Whether the idols were placed at the
disputed site on or after 6.12.1992 in
violation of the
courts order dated 14.8.1989 and
15.11.91?
(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered
in the affirmative, whether the idols so
placed still acquire
the status of a deity.
Issue No. 4 :-Whether the idol in
question had been in existence under the
“Shikhar” prior to
6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph 44 of the additional
written statement of
defendant no.3?
Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in
question properly identified and
described in the plaint?
Issue No. 6 :- 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?
Issue No. 7 :-Whether the defendant no.3
alone is entitled to represent
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the
suit not competent on that account as
alleged in paragraph 49 of the
additional written statement of
defendant no.3?
Issue No. 8 :- Is the defendant Nirmohi
Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan Sri Ram
installed in the
disputed structure?
Issue No. 9 :-Was the disputed structure
a mosque known as Babri Masjid?
Issue No. 10 :-Whether the disputed
structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations
contained in paragraph 24 of the plaint?
Issue No. 11 :-Whether on the averments
made in paragraph 25 of the plaint, no
valid waqf was
created in respect of the structure in
dispute to constitute it as a mosque?
Issue No. 12:- Deleted vide order dated
23.02.1996.
Issue No. 13 :-Whether the suit is
barred by limitation?
Issue No. 14 :-Whether the disputed
structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was
erected after
demolishing Janma Sthan temple at its
site.
Issue No. 15 :-Whether the disputed
structure claimed to be Babri Masjid 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?
Issue No. 16 :-Whether the title of
plaintiffs 1 and 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the written statement of
defendant no.4? If yes, have plaintiffs
1 and 2 reacquired
title by adverse possession as alleged
in paragraph 29 of the plaint?
Issue No. 17:- Deleted vide order dated
23.02.1996.
Issue No. 18:-Whether the suit is barred
by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act
as alleged in
paragraph 42 of the additional written
statement of defendant no.3 and also as
alleged in paragraph
47 of the written statement of defendant
no.4 and paragraph 62 of the written
statement of
defendant no. 5?
Issue No. 19 :-Whether the suit is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties, as
pleaded in paragraph
43 of the additional written statement
of defendant no.3?
Issue No. 20 :-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?
Issue No. 21 :-Whether the idols in
question cannot be treated as Deities as
alleged in pragraphs
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?
Issue No. 22 :-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?
If so, its effect?
Issue No. 23 :-Whether the judgment in
suit no. 61/280 of 1885 filed by Mahant
Raghubar 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?
Issue No. 24 :-Whether worship has been
done of the alleged plaintiff Deity on
the premises in suit
since time immemorial as alleged in para
25 of the plaint?
Issue No. 25 :-Whether the judgment and
decree dated 30th March 1946 passed in
Suit No. 29 of
1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs
as alleged by the plaintiffs?
Issue No. 26 :-Whether the suit is bad
for want of notice under section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the plea of suit
being bad for want of notice under
Section 80 CPC can be
raised by defendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 28 :-Whether the suit is bad
for want of notice under Section 65 of
the U.P. Muslim
Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5? If so, its effect.
Issue No. 29 :-Whether the plaintiffs
are precluded from bringing the present
suit on account of
dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. State) of the
Court of Munsif Sadar,
Faizabad?
Issue No. 30 :-To what relief, if any,
are plaintiffs or any of them entitled? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|