The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
unarayanadas wrote:A bold editorial that calls for judicial restraint: Needless commentary. It also advises the Supreme Court to "show greater restraint" in dealing with the subject.
It the recent times we are hearing too much lose words from the Judges mouths. This is the latest case of showing scant respect of the 3 judges of the Allahabad High Court who has given the judgement. I wonder if the SC judges have bothered to read the judgement of the trail court before the making comment orally which they know will be widely reported.
Further i will give a situation : Say 100 acres land is there on which several people are making claims in the court. Claims are for the full site. All of them submitted their documents and evidence. On examination if was found that some of them have title for the parts of the land only and none has title for the entire land. Now what should court do? Dismiss all the suits as no one could prove their title for the entire 100 acres or give title to the extent of their rights for which the court found evidence. The principle of ending the litigation at some point of time requires the courts to select the second path. I do not agree with the judgment as for it gives 1/3rd site to muslims but the comments of the SC that no one wanted the juddgement is nothing more that uninformed comments.
The Supreme Court’s order staying the judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the title suit on Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi has been largely welcomed. Munsif writes in an editorial on May 11: “the Allahabad high court had taken six decades to give its judgment on Ayodhya’s controversial title suit issue. The Supreme Court took a few months in rejecting this judgment. At the ground level, it is significant because soon after expression of a sense of satisfaction at the Allahabad judgment, opposition to it had started. The manner in which it had ordered a division of the site violated the principles of justice.”
Siasat, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “the Supreme Court, by ordering status quo on the Ayodhya site and permitting worship has only tried to contain the intensity of the dispute. The ends of justice would have been fully met if it had ordered the stoppage of worship in the makeshift temple while ordering status quo... The Supreme Court has also provided the possibility of a judgment based on sentiments.”
The Supreme Court’s order staying the judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on the title suit on Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi has been largely welcomed. Munsif writes in an editorial on May 11: “the Allahabad high court had taken six decades to give its judgment on Ayodhya’s controversial title suit issue. The Supreme Court took a few months in rejecting this judgment. At the ground level, it is significant because soon after expression of a sense of satisfaction at the Allahabad judgment, opposition to it had started. The manner in which it had ordered a division of the site violated the principles of justice.”
Siasat, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “the Supreme Court, by ordering status quo on the Ayodhya site and permitting worship has only tried to contain the intensity of the dispute. The ends of justice would have been fully met if it had ordered the stoppage of worship in the makeshift temple while ordering status quo... The Supreme Court has also provided the possibility of a judgment based on sentiments.”
The Urdu press is of the Muslims, by the Muslims and for the Muslims. Therefore its views or as in the case of Siasat, belligerence, is no surprise. However one should be wary of the sanctimoniouness of the pseudo-secular brigade and its fellow travellers in the media. In spite of voluminous archaelogical and historical evidence about the existence of the temple being brought out during the hearing in the trial court they continue to crow that the HC judgement was delivered on faith rather than facts.
Expressing satisfaction over the apex court order, counsel representing Hindu Maha Sabha said, "Nobody prayed for it (partition of land into three parts). Everybody wanted full land. Our stand continues that entire Janmabhoomi premises belongs to the Hindu Maha Sabha."
NEW DELHI: The Babri Masjid demolition is just an incident and there is nothing famous or infamous about it, the Supreme Court today said while listing CBI's plea for levelling charges of criminal conspiracy against senior BJP leader L K Advani, Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray and 18 others to March 27.
"What is famous about it. It was an incident which happened and parties are before us. It is not famous or infamous," a bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad said when the Additional Solicitor General said at the beginning of the proceeding that the matter is related to "famous" Babri Masjid demolition case.
I humbly disagree. It was historic in that SDRE Yindoos FINALLY stood up and demonstrated backbone after 1000 years of oppression. Their is no significance to a mosque at that site other than to show Yindoos who's boss. Now if we can change names of Indian cities named after mass murderers I will really be happy.
Tejas/N Rao
First we should change the name of our country from India to Bharat. Once that is done then we need to
(1)change the names of cities like Ahemdabad to Karnavati
(2)change the street names e.g. Aurangzeb Road, to say, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg which no one can object to.
(3)remove all signs of British Colonialism in India (Bharat) e.g. Gateway of India in Mumbai. This was constructed to welcome King George. Why is this monument still not destroyed? This should be replaced with a grand statue of Shivaji Maharaj. In Kolkata, Victoria Memorial and Shakespeare Sarani should be renamed after Netaji Bose and Swami Vivekananda. In Delhi, we must remove a colonial name like Connaught Place and rename it as Paramvir Vikram Batra Chowk.
(4)personal computer users should be able to use any Indian language on their computers and for texting on mobile phones. This will help all those who do not know English. I understand that only 2% of the Indian population knows English. This will help us to preserve our languages and boost our commercial activities through use of mother tongues.
^^^ The above changes are cosmetic. And one can argue, "whats in the name? Changes must be more profound...etc"
However, the above changes will herald more profound changes because they impact the perception. Icons, names, memorials, ...etc define a nation's (and its people's) self-image(in terms of culture, language, heroes, religion, values...etc) which in turn indicate the path that the nation will take.
So, I believe that the above changes, though apparently superficial, will herald an era of taking the Indian state closer to the Indic roots. The Indian state is still, in most respects, a continuation of British raj(in terms of policies or outlook). So, I whole-heartedly support the above suggestion.
To add to the above suggestions:
India needs to highlight heroes of Independence movement apart from Gandhiji. One way of doing it is to have portraits of other freedom fighters on currency notes along with Gandhiji. Say, Rs 5(Bhagat Singh), Rs 10(Chandrashekhar Azad), Rs 20(Lala Lajpat Rai), Rs 50(Ram Prasad Bismil), Rs 100(Subhash Chandra Bose), Rs 500(Bal Gangadhar Tilak), Rs 1000(Mahatma Gandhi).
Gandhiji's Ahimsa message and his way of 'fighting' for freedom needs to be tempered with the views and methods of other freedom fighters.
LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ordered an inquiry into lapses in the security of three judges who delivered the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case on September 30 2010. The court has also directed the Centre and governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to take immediate steps to provide adequate security to the judges. The next date of hearing in this case is July 18.
The court issued order after UP's anti-terror squad (ATS) informed court that activists associated with the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) may attack the three Judges.In the statement submitted before the court by Rajiv Sabbarwal, deputy inspector general (DIG), ATS, submitted that during the course of investigation, even in the months of March and April, 2012, it was found that the judges who decided Ram Janamabhoomi case are still under continuous threat and the SIMI activists are in process to constitute a fresh module to assault the judges.The statement given by Sabarwal also revealed that there was an imminent threat to the life of the judges.
The ATS submitted the statement in response to the previous order of a division bench of the High Court comprising Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya. The bench had issued order on a petition filed by advocate Ranjana Agnihotri in connection with the threat preception to the judges and advocates associated with the case. The three judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict are Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice SU Khan and Justice DV Sharma.
Justice Agarwal, in fact, was stopped by anti-social elements in Ghaziabad in July 2011. The judge, who was in his car, escaped a possible assault and had revealed that he had no police escort with him during the incident. The judge informed in writing to the authorities concerned about the incident.
Justice Sharma, who is now in Uttarakhand for an assignment, had also made a written complaint to the UP high court registrar that he was not being provided adequate security by the Uttarakhand government . Justice Khan, however, has refused any security cover.
It was also revealed during the hearing that for the past one year, the Registrar General of the High Court has been continuously informing state government officials about the developments.
However, on behalf of the state government, HP Srivastava, additional chief standing counsel, informed the court that the letter of Justice Sudhir Agarwal was received by the state government on May 23, 2012 along with the letter dated May 19, 2012 sent by the Registrar General.
On the other hand, Balwant Rai, additional superintendent of police, security, has informed the court that after filing of the present writ petition and keeping in view the threat precept, the state government had decided to provide Z-category security to all the three judges, provided them with two gunners along with an escort round the clock.
After hearing the statements, the high court directed UP government to hold an inquiry keeping in view the contents of the letter on security lapse of Justice Agarwal and submit a report to this court. Further, the court directed that the DIG, ATS, UP and the UP home secretary would review the security requirement of the judges in view of an enhanced threat perception. Also, the court said that keeping in view the incident happened with Justice Agarwal and after discussing the matter DIG, ATS, UP, and other officers present, it would be appropriate to provide two escorts to the judges concerned.
The court also directed that though Justice Khan had declined to accept any security, the additional director general of police, security, UP, should meet the judge personally and apprise him about the threat perception to take future course of action. The bench directed the state of Uttarakhand to provide Z category security to Justice Sharma immediately.
The government of India was also directed by the court to issue appropriate order or circular to all the states in the country to provide Z category security to the three judges during their movement outside UP. The security provided to the three Judges would not be withdrawn except with prior permission of chief justice of Allahabad high court.
The officials have also been asked by the court to personally meet the three judges and find out whereabouts of their residences and that of their family members for security arrangements. Officials have also been directed to hold a meeting to find out if more security, other then what was discussed in the court, was required in view of threat precept.
The court also directed the registrar general to consult chief justice/senior judge and strengthen the security arrangement on court campus and implead government of Uttarakhand through its home secretary and government of Madhya Pradesh through secretary, home, and inspector general of police, ATS, as respondents.
Shankaraa wrote:Tejas/N Rao
First we should change the name of our country from India to Bharat. Once that is done then we need to
Lets keep the name India as it pisses off the pakis no end.
Our Constitution refers to 'India that is Bharat'. Why the wise men who wrote our Constitution did this is not clear. It is like saying, 'I named my son Rama. My neighbour calls him, Babu. So I will call my son, Babu that is Rama'!
It shows a portrait of Guru Dutt Singh. He was the city magistrate of Faizabad who played a major role in installing a statue of Ram in the Babri Masjid on Dec. 22, 1949, according to his son. It is the same picture that hangs in his family’s living room today.
Under the portrait, it reads, in Hindi: “The one who on Dec. 23, 1949, showed his determination and courage when Lord Ram appeared in Ramjanmabhoomi,” the Hindu name for the site. It notes that when Mr. Singh was ordered to remove the idol by “the Delhi government that trod on the fatal path of Muslim appeasement,” he resigned instead. “He lives with his immortal legacy among countless Hindus as a result of this courageous work,” it adds. It says Mr. Singh lived from 1894 till 1971.
The Supreme Court in New Delhi admitted their appeals and has ordered the digitization of tens of thousands of documents. The papers, many of which are in Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu and Persian, will have to be translated, the court said. There is no indication when hearings may start; a verdict may yet be years away.
Aside from Mohammad Hashim Ansari, the Muslim tailor, all the individual litigants involved in the original filings are dead.
Bhaskar Das remains the legal representative of the Nirmohi Akhara, the sadhus who say they have traditionally protected Ram. He is the third head of the order to represent the sect in the suit. Now 85 years old, he is suffering from an assortment of medical ailments. He spends his days chanting Ram’s name.
Otherwise, a new generation is taking up the fight.
After the death in 2002 of Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who served as Ram’s “next friend” in one of the Hindu suits, Triloki Nath Pandey, a Vishwa Hindu Parishad activist, became Ram’s new “next friend.”
Mohammed Waqar, 35 years old, is the son of Haji Mahboob Ahmad and grandson of Haji Phenku, one of the original Muslim defendants.
Mr. Waqar recently returned to Ayodhya from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where he worked for a multinational company. He says he will take up the court case when the time comes.
“As a Muslim, I know what masjid means to me,” he said in an interview.
And in a nation of 1.2 billion that is about 80% Hindu, the majority has not consistently run roughshod over Islam or any of India’s other religions – as it could potentially have done given the country’s feeble law-enforcement apparatus and Ayodhya’s appeal to Hindu nationalists.
In 1991, the government enacted a law that made it illegal to change the character of a place of worship to another religion. The act exempted only the Babri Masjid.
Every day, a small team of priests at the makeshift temple cares for the idol of Ram Lalla and other statues that have been added since 1949.
The first priest arrives at around 5:30 a.m. He opens the temple curtain then chants, “Gods, wake up, wake up!” He rings a small bell and puts the idols in a sitting position.
He changes their overnight clothes, bathes them with flower perfume, water and sandalwood, and dresses them. There is clothing of different colors for each day. He places a tilak, or holy mark, on their foreheads then a silver crown on their heads before offering them sacred smoke from burning incense sticks. After, he presents them with a breakfast of “peda,” a sweet made of milk. Lamps are lit. Hymns are sung.
A few hours later, Mahant Satyendra Das, the chief priest, leaves his house and is driven in an SUV to the site. He bows at the temple’s entrance and gently touches the floor of the wooden platform where the idols sit. He takes some sandalwood, adds a dab of water, and puts a mark on his own forehead.
He lights incense and waves the stick in a circular motion around the idols, singing: “From the heart of God is the moon, the sun is from His eyes, the wind and the life are from His ears and the fire is from His mouth.”
He chants silently until more food is brought for the deities. Then the idols have a 90-minute nap.
Shortly after sunset, another priest offers evening food and puts the deities to sleep. He places them horizontally and removes their crowns. He gives them cotton pillows to rest on and tucks them in under small blankets.
A revisit to the Judgement by Lucknow Bench of High Court. We have dealt with many of the so called Historians eminent or otherwise in these pages.
Worth reading.
And in Conclusion
Clearly, the expertise of eminences has been exposed. If such a thing had happened in physics or chemistry or medicine or accounting, the concerned person would have been taken to task by their professional associations. Unfortunately, the social science disciplines in India are under the grip of Left charlatans and they are not accountable to any. It is important that they are made accountable. Many of the things they said hardened positions on both sides, and they cannot now wriggle out and claim what they said was not their expert opinion.
Their respective universities would do well to initiate action against them or take other disciplinary steps to improve the reputation of the profession of historian. The textbooks written or edited by them for schools and colleges should be revoked and other books of less eminent — but more honest — historians should be prescribed
They need to be made accountable and brought to book, howsoever highly networked or “eminent” they are. Is the HRD ministry, and various universities, listening?
The author is Professor of Finance and Control, IIM Bangalore, The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.
Mohammed Waqar, 35 years old, is the son of Haji Mahboob Ahmad and grandson of Haji Phenku, one of the original Muslim defendants. Mr. Waqar recently returned to Ayodhya from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, where he worked for a multinational company. He says he will take up the court case when the time comes.
“As a Muslim, I know what masjid means to me,” he said in an interview.
Some people call such mosques triumphal mosques....
Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon adviser on Islam who now briefs organizations on the Islamic movement's true goals, told HUMAN EVENTS that type of victory is the objective of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mosque's sponsor.
"Among other things, it's to establish a triumph by establishing its mission of 'Dawa,' just like Rauf's book suggested when published in its original title," said Coughlin. "I also think it's close to the nature of what it is to open a mosque. It opens up a seat of government. When a mosque is open, there's a claim of territory. When you open a mosque it establishes Islamic law within the purview of the mosque. There is a history of Islam putting up mosques that are associated with claims of victory."
One example, he said, is the Cordoba Mosque, which Muslims constructed on top of a Catholic church after conquering Spain and imposing Islamic rule in 784.
A.J. Noorani described Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, the authors of "Freedom at Midnight" as 'travelling salesmen of history!' You too fit the bill.
In a country where propaganda agents of Marxist mass murderers and rapist goons pass off as "eminent historians", it is refreshing there are folks that dare to stand up and speak the truth...hats off to them..
The author is Professor of Finance and Control, IIM Bangalore, The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.
Chaanakya ji I tried to read the thread history to find out why would the views of the aforesaid organisation be important at all to warrant such a disclaimer.
Basically I dont gives a rats a_s for what IIM Banglore thinks on the subject. But I would like to find out why was this caveat needed. Request your help.
unarayanadas wrote:In spite of voluminous archaelogical and historical evidence about the existence of the temple being brought out during the hearing in the trial court they continue to crow that the HC judgement was delivered on faith rather than facts.
Problem is that the whole jurisprudence is based on a bunch of western legal maxims most of which have nothing to do with justice and a lot of which can easily be made to conflict with each other. I enjoy this rather dark humour otherwise, but I do admit that w.r.t. the actual delivery of justice, this is one friggin sick system we have adopted. Even as it is, a sick system too could have worked had the rot not been at the top/head.
Knowing this fully well Kongis got a Muslim judge on the case and the Muslim groups having smelt the blood are still baying for blood.
As for Hindus this ideally should have less to do with the place as such and more to do with bringing about a Hindu consciousness of this temporal world. Dharmaarth puru hona chahiye tha but looks like for the Hindus bringing about a change in consciousness is being treated only as a side show instead a lot more emotional effort is given to actual site itself. Raja Ram is effectively getting outside our collective consciousness and into history books.
As for actual land case we need to continue with the legal efforts at a much more deeper level. Personally I have not kept myself abreast of the developments though I wish I could.
--------------------------------------
Also Re. somebody pointed out about the Cordoba Mosque in Spain. Following is what wiki has to say about the significance of Cordoba Mosque in Popular culture (obviously Islamic Popular culture).
In popular culture
Muhammad Iqbal, who is considered as one of the founding fathers of Pakistan and its national poet, visited the Great Mosque of Córdoba in 1931–32. He requested the authorities to offer adhan at the mosque. The deep emotional responses that the Mosque evoked in him found expression in the immortal poem called The Mosque of Cordoba. Iqbal saw it as a cultural landmark of Islam and described it as:[24]
"Sacred for lovers of art, you are the glory of faith,
You have made Andalusia pure as a holy land!"[14]
The proposed name for the Mosque proposed on World Trade Center site probably reminded everybody of this. Hein ji?
I request admins to rename the thread as Ram Janmabhoomi Devalaya verdict: news, discussion. The word Devalaya is crucial
The court verdict gave 67% land to RJB people and 33% people to BM people. Thats because judges were scared that 100% is given to either side, then the losing side would go on a large scale arson. So they gave a compromise.
Solution? We should cancel them judgment via Parliament or better via referendim and give 100% to RJB and no mosque in 200 meters from periphery. The cost of alternate land and construction should be given to wakf by National Hindu Devalaya Prabandhak Committee , which will come when NHDPC act is passed.
And it is sad that KJB Devalaya issue and KV Devalaya issues are not raised by BJP, VHP , RSS leaders at all. We activists should raise those issues soon without waiting for leaders
Temple and teerathsthaan - each one and everyone- should not be burdened with government intrigues. Sacredness and mahimaa of each is for bhaktganh also to upheld and revere.
The Babri Masjid was unauthorisedly demolished and the culprits must be brought to book under the rule of law. But in law, a temple and a mosque cannot be considered on a par as far as sacredness is concerned. This is the fundamental truth constantly being evaded on the Ayodhya issue.
T.R. Andhyarujina is a highly respected and accomplished lawyer who is very skilled in court craft. His major point in his Op-Ed [“A Verdict that legitimises the Masjid demolition,” The Hindu, Oct.5, 2010] is that the 8,700-plus pages judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya dispute implicitly condones the 1992 demolition of the Babri Mosque structure because the Court did not take judicial notice and draw adverse inference [in fact no reference] against the directly or de facto affiliated parties (in the litigation before the Bench) in that destruction.
I do not dismiss this point because the structure was indeed unauthorisedly demolished and therefore the culprits and the planners of this demolition, whoever they are, have to be brought to book to uphold the rule of law. For this purpose, there is an ongoing criminal case in a special CBI-designated Sessions Court.
In this context, the question is whether every court will have to take judicial notice of this alleged illegal violent event even after the Supreme Court of India has taken such notice. Mr. Andhyarujina himself quotes the Supreme Court judgment [reported in (1994) 6SCC376] in which the court, while absolving the Hindus as a community of the blame, nevertheless held that “Hindus must bear the Cross for it.” This was an extraordinary judicial observation and has profound implications for all communities whenever religious premises are destroyed.
The fact nevertheless remains that throughout the last several centuries, Hindus have deeply held as sacred as Ram's birthplace that exact spot where the Babri Masjid once stood. This is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings.
In 1885, for example, Mahant Raghubar Das, in a Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed in the Court of the Faizabad Sub Judge against the Secretary of State for India (who was based in London), prayed for permission to build a temple inside the perimeter of the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March 18, 1886, but in his Order the Sub-Judge, an Englishman, stated: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.” Since the British as policy never sought to disturb the communal and social status quo in India as evidenced, for example, on the ‘Sati question,' the judge took the easy way out and dismissed the suit.
TEMPLE DID EXIST
It is now well established by GPRS-directed excavations, done under the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below where that Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari who had killed the demon king Dasanan [Ravana]. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) confirmed these findings on investigations that were directed by the High Court.
A fundamental question arises: Can a temple and a masjid be considered on a par as far as sacredness is concerned? Relying on two important apex judgments that hold the field today, the answer is: No. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam religion, according to a majority judgment of a Constitution Bench of India's Supreme Court (op.cit. 1994), whereas according to the House of Lords, U.K. (1991), the temple is always a temple even if in disuse or ruins.
In the famous Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case [reported in (1994) 6 SCC 376], the Supreme Court of India observed: “It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah … and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where namaz can be offered “ [para 80].
The Constitution Bench then rejected this contention, stating: “The correct position may be summarised thus. Under Mohammedan law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”(para 82).
Thus what was wrong with the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that it was unauthorised by law and hence a criminal offence. Otherwise any government can deprive Muslims of the Babri Masjid, which would be lawful if the government decides to do so in the interest of public order, public health and morality (Article 25 of the Constitution). This is the position in Islamic law as well since in Saudi Arabia the authorities demolish mosques to lay roads. Even the mosque where Prophet Mohammed used to pray was demolished.
NATARAJA STATUE CASE
A temple however is not in the same category as a mosque in law. When I was Union Law and Justice Minister, this question of the status of a temple – even if in ruins or without worship – came up before me in November 1990 in a case of a smuggled-out bronze Nataraja statue that was up for sale in London. The Government of India under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had decided to file a case in the London trial court in 1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced to a temple in ruins in Pathur, Thanjavur district. A farmer named Ramamoorthi had unearthed it in 1976 while digging mud with a spade near his hut.
When the news spread, touts of an antique dealer reached Ramamoorthi, paid a small sum, and smuggled it out to London, where in 1982 it was sold to a private company. In turn, the buyer sent it to the British Museum for appraisal and possible purchase. By then the Government of India was on to it and asked the British government to take action. The Nataraja idol was seized by the London Metropolitan Police, the company sued the police in court for recovery, but lost the case. An appeal was filed in the Queens Bench, which was dismissed on April 17, 1989. The buyer company went to the House of Lords.
On February 13, 1991, when I was Union Law Minister, the landmark judgment dismissing the buyer's final appeal [see (1991) 4 All ER 638] was delivered. The Bench consisting of Justices Purchas, Nourse, and Leggatt concluded: “We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja” [page 648 para g]. Thus a disused temple in ruins became a party, and we as Siva bhaktas as de facto trustees thus recovered the Nataraja idol.
No such ruling anywhere in any court exists for a mosque for the simple reason that a mosque in Islam is just a facilitation centre for reading namaz, and has no essentiality for Islam as a religion.
It can therefore be demolished and/or shifted in India under the Constitution as any building can — but of course authorisedly for a public purpose such as public health, public order or morality. The Union Government is committed by virtue of its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in 1994 to do so if it is found that a temple structure exists below the mosque site. It must hence perform now and deliver on its commitment on oath sworn in the Supreme Court.
This is the fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute that is being constantly evaded by those criticising the Allahabad High Court Judgment.
Why not RAISE the issue now without waiting for BeeJayPee etc? If it is raised nationwide without party affiliation, the tsunami may be enough to make a difference.
Temple, scrapping Mandal, uniform civil code and tossing 370 should be done in one sweep, so that the rioters don't need to come out separately for each. Would be a good time also to institute travel to Pakistan (free or even govt-sponsored, or we can collect funds for the bus tickets) w/o passport or visa. One way.
Go ahead, start the Petitions and awareness campaign. Frankly, I was unaware that the RJB issue was STILL dragging out. Yes, police protection should be withdrawn for the judges since they are evidently not doing their job.
was stopped by antisocial elements but escaped without any harm
a few citzens dared to exert their Right To Free Expression and ask him what he was doing to earn his pay and privileges.
It is sad that the RJB campaign is painted as a Bee Jay Pee issue. This is one of many things that makes those traitors who have jumped ship and gone to the Yoo Ess etc to wonder what exactly the Resident Patriots do with their ample spare time that is of any use to anyone but their own convenience. This is clearly a citizen's issue, should not be a political issue.
Start the movement, reject all political affiliations, dare Hindus to join and speak up. U may be amazed.
BTW, December 6th is just three days away. That was when the demolishment happened. Still remember seeing it on TV. Cable TV was just making inroads to our small town in Kerala. Doordarshan kept on blabbering that every thing was intact, where as BBC was showing the situation in the ground pretty much live. This statement from Hashim Ansari looks "interesting" is all what I can say.
Sachin wrote:BTW, December 6th is just three days away. That was when the demolishment happened. Still remember seeing it on TV. Cable TV was just making inroads to our small town in Kerala. Doordarshan kept on blabbering that every thing was intact, where as BBC was showing the situation in the ground pretty much live. This statement from Hashim Ansari looks "interesting" is all what I can say.
He has very little say in the matter. This is a matter that concerns the ummah and they will not agree.
The lower court had given 2/3 for the land to the Hindus and 1/3 to the Muslims. AFAIK the Hindus are going to the upper court for 100% of the land. So is he saying that he will not challenge this claim or that they are good with 1/3 of the land.
Sunni Central Board Of Waqfs vs Gopal Singh Visharad And Others on 30 September, 2010
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.
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?
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka' and the idols situated in the place in suit.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?
NO
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?
NO
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
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.
15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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 in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
(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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 4 and 5.
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.
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 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.
unarayanadas wrote:Can someone post links to the full judgements of the three judges?
The links are there in the earlier pages of this thread. The site though appears to be down. I hope someone has a copy. I lost all those pdfs when i lost my hard drive
ramana wrote:There are deeper reflections in the GDF version of the thread, which is for registered members only.
Could we perhaps by any chance move the gdf thread to the strat forum but keep it locked? Will be easier for reference?
- A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that they do not wish to question the authorship of the summary of the ASI report
- "The report in question has an author and we are not questioning the authorship," Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties, said
NEW DELHI: The Muslim parties on Thursday took a U-turn on questioning the authorship of the 2003 report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and apologised to the Supreme Court for wasting it's time in the Ayodhya land dispute case.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that they do not wish to question the authorship of the summary of the ASI report.
"It is not expected that every page is to be signed. The authorship of the report and the summary need not be questioned. If we had wasted my lords time, then we apologise for
that. There is no point going into that.
"The report in question has an author and we are not questioning the authorship," Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties, said.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also representing the Muslim parties, questioned the ASI report saying every chapter is attributed to an author but the summary has not been attributed to anyone.
The bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said that Dhavan in his opening remark has said that he has not forfeited his right to question the report but the evidences cannot be discredited after being accepted by the court.
At the outset, the bench asked both Hindu and Muslim parties to specify the time frame for completing the argument saying that there will not be any extra day after October 18.
"There will not be any extra day after October 18. It will be miraculous, if we deliver the judgement in four weeks in the matter, " Chief Justice Gogoi said.
The court asked the Muslim parties to wrap up their arguments on the ASI report during the course of the day.
It said there are holidays in October and only one advocate of the four Hindu parties will be allowed to give rejoinder arguments.
