Date post: | 10-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | arpconsultant2874 |
View: | 229 times |
Download: | 1 times |
of 32
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
1/32
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 whoseorders 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 anyspecified 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 mosqueHindu 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 injoint possession of the entire premises in dispute. 9. That
even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus wereusing 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 jointpossession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place
beneath theCentral dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth
place of Lord
Ram.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=joint%20possessionhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=joint%20possessionhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=joint%20possession8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
2/32
2. 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 thestage 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 BC 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 becompensated 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.
( Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued )
4566. In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on variousissues, 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
3/32
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 andcenturies. 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 thatcovered 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 ofouter 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 ofIndia.
(v) The land which is available with the Government ofIndia acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993
for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of theproperty 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 thispurpose 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 SpecialDuty, 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.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Indiahttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/India8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
4/32
( From the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal )
(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 birthof 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-5under 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 (defendantno. 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 atboth places.
(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than onethird (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 byallotting 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 sothat 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
5/32
Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).
(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to v) ispassed. 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 SpecialDuty, 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 decreedpartly. 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 thingsdifference.
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 ofboth 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
6/32
9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the erection of partition wall the
premises inouter 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 thedefendants.
16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held that there is nothing to show that
MahantRaghubar 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 disputeor
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 andmuslims in general.
20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped byHindus 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
7/32
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 tothe 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 isanswered 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 ofworshippers.
31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is not
bad fornon-joinder of deities.
32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held that neither the Waqf Board is an instrumentality ofState 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
8/32
34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the
disputedpremises, 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., thedisputed 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 andprior 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 onlyto 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 toreasonable 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 ofSpecific 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
9/32
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 theplaintiffs (Suit-1).
15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 aswithdrawn.
16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have right of worship at the site indispute 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 notentitled 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
propertyin 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 andagainst
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 Mat
of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its religious faithand
pursuit according to its own customs. However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found
sometime
after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
10/32
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
domeof 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 thenight 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 notbarred 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 lastNamaj was
offered on 16th December, 1949.
12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished nor thequestion 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
11/32
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 bea 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 JosephTieffenthaler 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 structurein the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.
Other Original Suits no. 3 of 1989 and 4 of 1989 are barred by limitation.
ISSUES FRAMEDSuit-4 :
Issue No. 1:- Whether the building in question described as mosque in the sketch mapattached 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
theplaintiffs?
Issue No. 1-B(c) :-Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim
communityfor 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 weredispossessed 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
12/32
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 thedefendants?
Issue No. 5 :- (a)Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character of property
in suit asa 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
CentralBoard 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 ofthe 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 suedon behalf of Janma Sthan and whole body of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
(b) WhetherMohammad Asgharwas the Mutwalli of alleged Babri Masjid and did he
contestthe 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 Muslimcommunity,
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 anyportion
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
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Mohammad-Asgharhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Mohammad-Asghar8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
13/32
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 inthe night
intervening 22nd and 23rd December 1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or
they havebeen 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
worshipthe 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 JanamBhumi 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 onthe
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 ofBhagwan 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 bydevotees 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
14/32
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
thebuilding 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 MeerBaqi who
was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwallis were allegedly ShiaMohammedans? If so,
its effect?
Issue No. 20(b) :-Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the
allegedMutwalli 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 thesaid
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, thesaid 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 dismissedas no
longer maintainable
Issue No. 26 :-Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer prayer whenstructure
which stood thereon has been demolished
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the courtyard contained Ram Chabutara, Bhandar and Sita Rasoi
If so,
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
15/32
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 theplaintiffs 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 Hindusinterested in
the same?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of res judicata and in any
otherway?
Issue No. 6 :- Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shanshah Babar commonly
known asBabri 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 thepresent
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,
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
16/32
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 ofsection 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, itseffect?
Issue No. 13 :-Is the suit no. 2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad bad
for want ofnotice 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 BabariMasjid?
Issue No. 6 :-Was this alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for worship by
Muslims ingeneral 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
12years 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?
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
17/32
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 persuitaccording
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 isnot 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 theplaintiff 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
thecourts 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 writtenstatement 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 ofdefendant no.3?
Issue No. 8 :- Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of Bhagwan Sri Ram
installed in thedisputed 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 theallegations
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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
18/32
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 1528A.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
inparagraph 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 inparagraph 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
paragraph43 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 factsand 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
pragraphs1,11,12,21,22, 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, beliefand 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 theprinciples
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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
19/32
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 of1945 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 thedefendants 4 and 5?
Issue No. 27 :-Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under Section 80
CPC can beraised 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?
1
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 othersVs. 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 toacquire 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 1961and 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 damagedin 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
20/32
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 ofIslam. 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 Courtpage 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 onlyin 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 dismissedthe 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 templeafter 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 inpara 2 of the plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 1(B)a1-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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
21/32
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 Muslimcommunity for burying the dead bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?
4Issue 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 theplaintiffs were never in its possession?"
These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 33. 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 inparticular, to the right of their worship?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
5Issues 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 thelearned Civil Judge.)
Issues No. 5(d)
5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as alleged in written
statement?
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
22/32
(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", theplaintiff 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. MuslimWaqf Act,
1960?
Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issue No. 66. 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 hecontest 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 theMuslim 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.99. 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)
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
23/32
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, existingin 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 sincetimes 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 suitas 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 theHindus 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 nightintervening 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.
8Issue 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 insuit 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 thefinding 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 passingthrough 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
24/32
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 accountthe 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 MeerBaqi 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 filea 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 ofparticular community and against the interest of another community)".
Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 2625. "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. 2727. "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)
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
25/32
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 includingthe 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 61. 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 & 73. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka' and the idols situated in the
place in suit.?
124. 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 28of 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-viresfor 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
26/32
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
27/32
Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is dismissed with easy costs.
15
OOS No. 3 of 1989Nirmohi 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 plaintiffby 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 theplaint ?
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 theplaintiffs.
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 yearsprior 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) declaringthis 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. 99. 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
28/32
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.
17Issue 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.
18O.O.S. No. 5 of 198 9 (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 thenext 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 birththat 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 presentevery 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. NathjiBhogilal 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?
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
29/32
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 friendand is the suit not competent on this account ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 229. 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, itseffect ?
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 theMuslims 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 writtenstatement 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 suitsince 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 structurein 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.2323. 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 21in 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
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
30/32
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
31/32
Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4
3(a) Whether the idol in question was installed und
er the central dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early hours ofDecember 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 thecanopy?
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 writtenstatement 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 wascreated 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.3030. 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.
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 achild.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at anyshape 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.
8/8/2019 Text of Ayodhya Erdict
32/32
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 massiveHindu 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 otherobject 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 thedisputed 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 thatthe disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the
tenets of Islam.
Courtesy: http://www.rjbm.nic.in/
Read more: Text of Allahabad high court order on Ayodhya dispute - The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-
holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWan
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWanhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWanhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWanhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWanhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWanhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslims-Hindus-Nirmohi-Akhara-are-joint-holders-of-disputed-site/articleshow/6659163.cms#ixzz111SliWan