Bharat Rakshak

3628. PW-24 Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who was appointed on adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there is no archaeological evidence to show either existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The statements made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness of his knowledge in the subject:

“I never visited Ayodhya” (E.T.C.)


“I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur's reign.” (E.T.C.)


“ Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for
this, I do not have any knowledge of Babur.I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd para of editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Shangh for the first time raised the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama's birth place. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the afore-said preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school.” (E.T.C.)

“The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion. A book written by me (exhibit 63) was not written in series; instead, it was published in series. This series is called 'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know whether there is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times Series', which is only for the criticism of religious organizations. It is true that a book titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags' has been published under this series, but I have not read this book.” (E.T.C.)

“Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'. I have no knowledge of a book 'The Question of Faith' under this very series, nor have I read it. I know under which series the aforesaid book was published. Faith has nothing to do with archaeological history. I do not properly remember that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or not. I remember names of two members comprising the editorial board of this series, first of them being Prof. Romila Thapar and the other being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do not remember names of the rest of members. It is true that Sarvapalli Gopal ji is also a member of the editorial board of this series.” (E.T.C.)

“I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is of Communistic thought or not. But Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has written editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila Thapar was a professor at Jawahar Lal Nehru University. In this very University was Shereen Ratnagar also, who was a teacher.” (E.T.C.)

“I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an archaeologist.”(E.T.C.)

“It is true that I have not seen the disputed building as yet. I did not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also did not make physical investigation of basalt stone.” (E.T.C.)3650


“My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only on any article. My finding is based on materials written in
this connection and given in the book(paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89, and chiefly on the photograph (paper
no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by Prof.B.B.Lal near the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also correct
to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm Bhumi: Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct.” (E.T.C.)

“Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63).” (E.T.C.)

“ It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss Shereen Ratnagar.” (E.T.C.)

“It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant Tiwari, who drew figures for me in my book, went ahead with the drafting as I wished. Laxmi Kant Tiwari was a skilled draftsman.I never even visited Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

“The main objective of my research was to see whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not.” (E.T.C.)

“As per my research, initial signs of human population in Ayodhya are found from the 6th -7th century BC.” (E.T.C.)

“I know that there was Islamic population from the 13th century to the 15th - 16th century.” (E.T.C.)

“On the basis of the source material which I used and studied in course of my research, I speak of the disputed structure as Babri Masjid. I did not make any research to see whether it was Babri Mosque inasmuch as it was not a subject of my research. It is correct to say that I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid on the basis of that very source material.” (E.T.C.)

“It is correct to say that I term the disputed structure as Babri Mosque on that very source material on which others term it as such. For this very reason I term it as Babri Mosque, otherwise its being Babri Mosque is not a subject of my research.” (E.T.C.)


“It is correct to say that I do not believe those persons who termed the disputed sructure as Rama Janm Bhumi; for this very reason I have not described it as such, and as a matter of fact it was not a subject of my research.”(E.T.C.)

“ Since it was not the issue of my research to see whether these stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not 3653
make any research on them, and for this very reason I did not make any research to see whether they may be of the
temple. . . . It is true that human figures are engraved on the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46.” (E.T.C.)

“The subject of my knowledge is archaeology and my speciality is in field archaeology under it and in stratification method under field archaeology." (E.T.C.)


“I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist. He has also deposed in this litigation. I have knowledge of it also.” (E.T.C.)


“ I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with her also. . . . . . From her articles it appears that she is influenced by Marxism.” (E.T.C.)


“I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also influenced by Marxism. . . . . .I know Sri R.S.Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav, D.P. Agarwal, S.C. Bhattacharya, N.C. Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also have talks with them." (E.T.C.)


“Our objective was to study or discover whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not. My objective did not have any relation to the structure above the ground. Whatsoever materials had been discovered by that time was, in my opinion, sufficient to derive a conclusion as to whether there was any temple below the structure or not.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that by observing materials discovered through excavation I will not be in a position to tell whether there was a temple or a mosque.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that I am of communistic thought.”(E.T.C.)

“ I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did not get any degree or diploma in archaeology.” (E.T.C.)


“As per my study and knowledge, the disputed structure was subsequent to the 12th century AD.”(Page 78)


“The map given in the supplement is, in my opinion, a primary source. I did not enquire as to whether the map given in the supplement is correct or not.” (E.T.C.)

“Primary source of my book is paper no.118C1/36.”(E.T.C.)

3629. A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and beyond that made no further or other study/research etc.. Only on that basis, he wrote a book, and analyzed the belief of the people whether the disputed structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished before its onstruction. The own admissions and clarification this witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this witness is short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to qualify as an opinion of an Expert which may be considered relevant on a fact in issue, by this Court.

On behalf of the pro-mosque parties i.e. Muslims, PW 13-Dr. Suresh Chandra Mishra, PW-15 Dr. Sushil Srivastava, PW-18 Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, PW 20 Prof. Shirin Musvi have been examined as Experts (Historians); PW 16-Prof. Suraj Bhan, PW 24 Prof. D Mandal, PW-27 Prof. Shereen F. Ratnagar, PW-28 Dr. Sita Ram Roy, PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon, PW 30 Prof. R.C. Thakran, PW 31 Dr. Ashok Dutta, PW 32 Dr. Supriya Varma and DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid have been examined as Experts (Archaeologists).

On the other hand pro-temple parties i.e. Hindus have examined, OPW-9 Dr. Thakur Prasad Varma, OPW 11 Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal, DW-13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur as Expert (Historians); OPW 10 Dr. K.V.Ramesh and OPW 15 Dr. M.N.Katti as Experts (Epigraphist); OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta, OPW-17 Dr. R. Nagaswami, OPW-18 Arun Kumar, OPW 19 R.D.Trivedi and DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava as Experts (Archaeologist).

(A) Existence of Temple & Demolition :
The questions are whether there existed a temple before the alleged construction of disputed building which was demolished and thereafter the building in dispute was constructed. Here issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4) and 14 (Suit 5) need be answered.
“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 ?” “Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site ?”

He had worked in the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology. He is graduate in Ancient Indian History Culture and Archaeology, Doctorate in Indian Ancient Paleography (Bhartiya Puralipi Shastra); Post Graduate Diploma in Numismatic. He was plaintiff no.3 in Suit 5 having been impleaded after the death of Sri B.N.Agarwal and was pursuing the aforesaid suit as next friend of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 but recently on his own request, has been replaced. He came to depose about the faith of Hindu public that Lord Rama was born at the disputed place at Ayodhya where a mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple. However, the disputed place has continuously been worshiped by Hindus having a special and peculiar importance. According to him Ram Janam Bhumi temple was initially constructed by Vikramaditya of Ujjain and thereafter it used to be renovated as and when it was required. In 1032-33 AD Salar Masood demolished the temple and thereafter was killed on 14th June, 1933 AD in the battle at Baharaich. A new temple was constructed during the reign of Govind Chandra of Garhwal Dynesty in 12th Century but the same was also damaged after about 17/18 years. It was again constructed by King Anaychand of Garhwal Dynasty but then demolished by Mir Baqi, Commander of Babar in 1528 AD.

These facts he has written in "Ayodhya ka Itihas Avam Puratatva Rigved Se Abtak" Exhibit No.3 (Suit 5) wherein last
chapter 11 has been written by Dr.S.P.Gupta and rest by him. The said book and some of the facts stated therein, we have already discussed while considering the issues relating to date of construction of the disputed structure. OPW 9 admitted that Salar Masood never came to Ayodhya and he mistook the place 'Ajudhan' with 'Ayodhya' though 'Ajudhan' is in the State of Punjab. That being so, his statement that demolition was made by Salar Masood at Ayodhya in 1032-33 has proved wrong.

admits of teaching Numismatic, Epigraphy, Paleography and Scriptology. Sometimes he also taught history since the department is of Indian History. He admits that the period of Ancient History was only upto 1206 AD. Some relevant extract from his statements in his cross examination need be refer herein to consider the reliability of the opinion of this expert (Historian):

“I have read history from very ancient times up to 12th century.”(E.T.C.)


“I am mainly a historian. I have the knowledge of ancient scripts too. . . . . . . . . . . . George Beular has named as 'Brahmi' the script which was in prevalence in the time of Ashoka. . . . . . . . . . I can read the 'Brahmi' script of the Ashokan time very well. The 'Brahmi' script of the Ashokan period does not at all correspond with the Greek script.'. ”(E.T.C.)

“What is written in para 13 of my affidavit originates from the view of Martin that the pillars of black stone have been taken from any temple perhaps built by Vikramaditya.”(E.T.C.)

“By the time I had filed my sworn statement I did not know who Martin was and when, where and in which language his book, from which the aforesaid two pages were extracted, was published.”(E.T.C.)

“My claim is only for the disputed premises. By the disputed premises I mean 'the building and the whole land lying inside its outer boundary wall.”(E.T.C.)

“. I have cited the battles having taken place on 10 occasions; I have made mention of them taking them to be
partially correct. . . . . . . . . . On this point I have not separately carried out any research to ascertain how 3659
much truth was there. . . . The book of Typhen Thaler is in French language, about which book I do not know. But
I have read its English translation. I do not know whether English translation of his book was published anywhere or not, but I have gone through the English translation of the pages related to the Ayodhya matter in that book.”(E.T.C.)

“Para 23 of the plaint was shown following which the witness stated – What is contained in first six lines of this paragraph is partially correct and partially incorrect. The submission in para 23 of this plaint saying that ‘Mir Baqi demolished the temple built by Vikramaditya’, is not correct.”(E.T.C.)

“ that Lord Sri Rama embodied himself as an incarnation of Vishnu. It certainly means that as son of Dashrath Rama took birth from the womb of Mother Kaushalya.”(E.T.C.)

“Palaeography has been my speciality. . . . . . . . . . . I am an expert only in Brahmi script.”(E.T.C.)

“The place beneath the central dome of the disputed building, is traditionally recognised to be Ram Janmsthali, and this tradition never changed. But under an agreement people began to perform ‘Pooja-Archana’(worship & prayer), treating Ram Chabutra as Ram Janmsthali and in this way, I think that the tradition believing Ram Janmsthali to be beneath the
central dome continued.” (E.T.C.)

“I also know that it had been built after demolishing a temple.” (E.T.C)


“It would be wrong to say that Mir Baqi built a mosque at the disputed site without demolishing any temple because all the historians, who have mentioned about Babri mosque or Ayodhya, have unequivocally mentioned that Mir Baqi had built a mosque over there after demolishing a temple named Janmbhumi. So far as the length-breadth, shape-form and area of that temple is concerned, no research work was possible on the same because it made archaeological excavation extremely necessary in the vicinity of the disputed site.” (E.T.C)

“I have not written the book ‘Ayodhya Ka Itihas’ as a research paper an instead as a popular book and have quoted certain references so that the readers may get the opportunity to cross check them.” (E.T.C)

“The administration of the Awadh province in the 17th -18th century was carried out from a fort built over a part of Ramkot and in the period of Nawabs-Wazirs, it was called ‘Qila Mubarak’.” (E.T.C)


“I have nowhere found any reference of Babar visiting Ayodhya and demolishing the temple.” (E.T.C)


“In my view, evidences of worship of Rama are found in 1st, 2nd century AD i.e. in the Kushana period as well, because a broken record, found at Kaushambi, contains reference of installation of ‘deity of Ram Narayan’. Besides this, reference is found of Rama’s worship by Prabhawati Gupta, queen of Vakatak dynasty, at Ramtekak near Nagpur in 5th century AD in the Gupta period. . . . It is my firm belief that the worship of Ramchandra as an incarnation of Vishnu, was prevalent in the general public much before 1 BC.” (E.T.C)

“The reference of Martin made by me in the said paragraph of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, is limited to the extent of Babar demolishing this temple and raising a mosque in its place, which had been mentioned by Martin . . . . . . . . . . . The fact mentioned as ‘Salar Masood had come to Ayodhya in 1032-33 and had destroyed the Janmsthal temple’ in para-15 of affidavit of my examination-in-chief , is now considered wrong by me . . . . . . . . . . . After looking at para-16 of his affidavit, the witness stated that the fact mentioned in it as ‘the need for its construction arose because it had been destroyed 70-80 years ago’, also stands nullified, as already stated by me about Salar Masood. . . . . . . . . The destruction of temple in the year 1528, is not written anywhere, and it is only my presumption.” (E.T.C)

3632. Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal OPW-11 Retired Professor since 1997 had specialization in "Modern Indian History". In para 2 of his affidavit, he says that his studies and teaching was in the subject of 'Modern History'. On the basis of various Gazetteers etc., details whereof are given in para 8 of his affidavit, he gave opinion that Ram Janam Bhumi temple was demolished by Babar, using its material, the mosque was constructed. This opinion is solely based not on his research but on the basis of the studies of various Gazetteers:

“From all the gazetteers read by me, I have arrived at the conclusion that Hindus have been regularly offering worship at the disputed site.” (E.T.C)

He further said: “In the books and gazetteers read & seen by me, it is mentioned that a platform was built by the Hindus at the disputed site, over which worship used to take place.”(E.T.C)


“I am an expert of modern Indian history. Broadly the modern Indian history concerns the British empire. This period falls between the year 1757 to 1947. . . . I have no special study about the history of 16th century.” (E.T.C)

3633. In view of his own statement that he has no expertise with respect to the period during which he alleged that the said disputed building was constructed, in our view, his statement in this respect cannot be considered to be opinion of an Expert, which can be treated to be relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

Although everyone agrees that there are no winners and losers, and this is a continuing process that will culminate in the Supreme Court eventually … there have been certain Muslim voices of concern …

In a judicial process you'll have verdicts of this nature, and ultimately, unless the verdict attains finality, I don't think one party should feel triumphant and the other party should feel despondent. Remember, many a time the trial court verdict is affirmed, or completely set aside. So we don't know what the Supreme Court is going to do. So for one party or the other to feel sad or despondent or feel triumphant I feel is completely inopportune and shows a lack of maturity.

All three judges have accepted that under the mosque is a Hindu temple. Two of them have accepted that that temple was specifically demolished. That seems to be based on a disputed and controversial ASI report …

First of all, many of us have not read the judgment, not analysed the evidence. For us therefore to say that the ASI report is right or wrong would not be appropriate ... Historians have made those statements, but in the ultimate analysis, the Supreme Court will definitely look ... remember, this is the first appeal. In normal circumstances, these matters are not decided by the High Court. But there was a special dispensation. The High Court was charged with the responsibility of doing so. So when it comes up in appeal, the Supreme Court is going to look at each issue of fact and law meticulously — especially of fact. Because if the facts like whether there was a temple underneath — one judge has said there was a non-Islamic structure, that is, a Hindu temple — what does that mean? Is every non-Islamic structure a Hindu temple or is it a Hindu temple? Whether it is a non-Islamic structure or not?

Is there a possibility that when both these issues — the Ramjanmabhoomi janmasthan issue of faith, and this issue of whether there is a temple underneath based upon a disputed ASI report — that in both these instances the Supreme Court may say “these are not issues the court will go into” and actually say “we refuse to adjudicate on them”?

Anything is a possibility. The Supreme Court may affirm the judgment, the Supreme Court may completely set aside the judgment, the Supreme Court may do something else. I don't know.

At least two of the judges have accepted the Ramjanmabhoomi itself as a deity. How do you respond to that?

Again, that's a very, very complex legal issue. Because remember, the Ram lalla was placed in 1949 in the sanctum sanctorum. Whether that act by itself translates this into a deity or not I don't know. So there again the Supreme Court will apply its mind and decide. But quite frankly, all these issues, as I said, are highly complex, highly charged, and therefore the Supreme Court will be very, very careful and meticulous in analysing the judgment and coming to a conclusion consistent with the Constitution and the laws.

The problem with the solution proposed by the High Court is [that] its decision is not the final decision, none of the parties will want to accept the High Court advice at this stage. They will all want to go to the Supreme Court in the hope they could do better?

I don't know. That's again prognosticating as to what the parties will do. But I would imagine that the parties aggrieved will go to the Supreme Court, the matters re-agitated in the Supreme Court and a decision taken. And remember, this particular judgment involves complex issues far beyond our conversation … For instance, the issue of possession. Who has possession of the site? And what date of possession are you talking about? What is the concept of possession in 17th century India or 16th century India when it all happened?... What are the prescriptive rights under the law of ownership in the 21st century? Do those prescriptive rights apply to 16th century India? What is the concept of ownership in the context of a place of worship?…

It's interesting you should raise this issue of ‘possession' because one of the grounds, if not the primary ground, which the High Court has come up with for this three-way split is the argument that at different points in time these three parties had possession. Does someone get possession just because you worship at a site?

Well, this is the issue. Supposing ... [you] go to a peepal tree and worship underneath. And some sadhu sits there under the peepal tree and thousands of people come and walk around it and worship. So who is in possession?

OK, so that sadhu cannot say “I possess the peepal tree because I worship under it.”

Oh yeah, who is in possession at that point? And what does possession mean? The essential element of possession is a right to egress and ingress — a right to enter, and not let someone to enter.

Is that not inherent when you worship at a particular site?

No, under the Indian Constitution you cannot prevent ... I can go to a gurdwara and pray in front of the Guru Granth Sahib. No one can prevent me.

So, even though you have the right to enter and leave, you do not have possession there just because you worship there.

I don't have possession. The gurdwara may actually own the land, in which case they possess it and they have ownership over it. But when you talk about the Babri Masjid or you talk about a temple or prayers in the 19th century, or the 15th-16th-17th century, what is the concept?

You said something fundamental ... what you're saying is that just because Party A or Party B happens to worship — perhaps for decades — at a particular site does not give that party possession of that site.Thappadspeak

Right. Because these are two suits for title. Remember, title is based on two things: one, ownership which is a prescriptive right established under the law, and two, possession. Now you can say long-term possession entitles me and my community to pray here.

But you can't say… the fact that I've prayed here gives me possession?

Right. That's another issue. That'll be decided by the court. That applies to both communities. If there is a mosque there or there was a mosque there for a long period of time, somebody can say that till 1949 or till 1992 there was a mosque. Right?

So I've prayed there for a period of time, why should I not be entitled to pray there? Right? That's another issue that the Supreme Court will have to decide. And the Hindu community will say “No, but way back in the 19th century we were also praying here. So there is an established practice of our prayers.” So therefore, these are issues that the Supreme Court will have to decide on.

And the fundamental, key thing that you have just made clear for us is that the fact that you prayed somewhere for a long period of time does not give you possession.

It may give you the right to continue to pray there, but not possession. Maybe, maybe not ...

In going into that, the Supreme Court may either validate the three-way split or negate it ...

The court may say a number of things. The court may say “none of you have established your title”; the court may say “one of you has established your title”, as the court has said now. The court may say “two of you have established title.” I don't know what the court will say, but remember, these are title suits, which means you are claiming ownership. Ownership is a very complex judicial concept.

And what principles will be applied of ownership in the context of the fact that the mosque was built way back in the 16th century?

3634. DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur was working as Reader and incharge Head of the Department of History in
Varshneya College, Aligarh. He is M.A. (History) and in English Literature and Ph.D. on the subject of "Hindu Resistance during Saltanat Period" awarded in 1975 from Agra University. His statement was also similar to OPW-9 and in para 13 and 14 in the affidavit dated 8th April, 2005 he has stated that according to his studies and knowledge, the then existing temple at Ram Janam Bhoomi was demolished and thereafter Mir Baqi got a construction made using the material of the temple. He also said that traditionally and as per the belief of Hindu, since time immemorial the place in dispute is being worshiped as birthplace of lord Rama. In his cross-examination, he said:

"Hindu Resistance During Sultanate Period" the medieval history period from the year 1206 to 1526, was the topic of my research." (E.T.C.)

"I have faith in Ayodhya on account of being Hindu and it being the birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)

<snip>
"The Gahadwal dynasty people obtained the legacy from Rashtrakutas, . . . . It is so said that Govindchandra Dev had renovated the Janmbhumi temple at Ayodhya, this is the historical fact. This Govindchandra Dev is the same, who was a king of Gahadwal dynasty. As an authentic evidence in this behalf, an incomplete inscription has been found, . . . . . This inscription has been found in Ayodhya at the site of Janmbhumi. . . . This inscription is over red stone. . . . . . . From the
inscriptions mentioned in the citations given by Dr. Roma Niyogi in her book, it is clear that Shiva temple, Vishnu
temple and Buddhist temples were built under the patronage of Gahadwal rulers. . . . . . . . As per evidences,
the last ruler of Gahdwals was Harishchandra son of Jaichandra. Despite defeat of Jaichandra, the rule of Harishchandra extended over a quite big area from the year 1194 to 1236. This Jaichandra is the same, who existed in the period of Gauri and Prithviraj Chauhan." (E.T.C.) ( This is important to mention here that the expert here mentions about the inscription found at the site during excavation , i.e. after demolition of the Disputed Structure. The first concerete proof that there could be a temple built by some King prior to the DS)

<snip>

“At a time when Babar was grappling with very tough circumstances after being defeated at Samarkand and Phargana, Shah Safavi of Iran had promised help to him with certain conditions, to which Bahar had agreed. . . . . . . . . Babar embraced Shia sect due to the pressure of circumstances. Babar later embraced the Sunni sect.” (E.T.C) ( Could be that Babar was a Shia when he probably got the DS constructed through his Shia Commander, but as Shia's have not claimed the ownership, let it rest here. Suffice it to say that when confronted with members of other faith , members of Islam would not take different stand. May be when it is decided that it is a Mosque, they would rekindle the claim)
<snip>

“Because of there being no fort at Ayodhya Babar resided in a camp outside the city of Ayodhya between 28th March 1528 and 2nd April 1528. . . . As an invader Babar took over the reigns of Delhi from Ibrahim Lodi and could not go forward in the region of Rajasthan from there, and with a view to subjugate the Afghan rebels in the region of Ayodhya he came as an invader, and no rule could be established here too. Contemporary references suggest that his representative Mir Baqi went away from here a year and some months later.” (E.T.C)

“The attention of the witness was drawn to para-13 of the affidavit filed in the Examination-in-Chief and on going through it he stated- It mentions of a construction having been raised by Mir Baqi, Commander of Babar at the temple situate at Sri Ramjanam Bhumi located in Ayodhya; in this respect Dr. Radhey Shyam has written in his book titiled Babar. Dr. Radhey Shyam is an acknowledged author. He has been a Professor in the History Department at the University of Allahabad.
Alamgirnama contains a reference to the effect that a Chabutra situate at a place called Sri Ramjanam Bhumi was demolished and after the said demolition a mosque was constructed from its debris. . . . The aim of this act was 3673
mainly to demolish the place of the temple and to construct such a building thereat as could be utilized for personal
use. From the materials used in the new construction, it appears that the earlier building belonged to the time of
Govind Chandra of the Gahadwal dynasty. . . . .
<snip>
(E.T.C)

“I had stated Satrakh to be Ayodhya on page-17 of my statement; I had stated so in reference to Cunningham.
It is true to say that a place called Satrikh is presently situated in Barabanki district. 'Satrakh' and 'Satrikh' are
the names of one and the same place.” (E.T.C)

“The reason of Babur's embracing the Sunni sect again was that his political and administrative position had got consolidated a great deal in Kabul and he had established himself as an independent ruler in that region; hence, there was no justification for him to have been under the ruler of Iran.” (E.T.C)

“The words 'the debris of the temple' have been used in the last two lines of. . . . . . . . . Para 13. By the said words I mean that Kasauti stones have been used. Images are engraved on them. Whichever pillars have been used, are as they were. I have stated this thing on this basis. This information of mine is based on references to them in many books.” (E.T.C)

“On the disputed site, prior to the building demolished by Mir Baqi, there was a temple renovated by Govind Chandra of the Gahadwal dynasty.” (E.T.C)


The reign of Gahadwals spanned nearly 100 years. This rule was from circa 1085AD to circa 1100 AD. After 1100 AD the rule of a particular king came to an end but that of the Gahadwal dynasty continued till 1225-1226 AD. . . . . . At the end of the rule of Gahadwals, the ruler at Delhi, Iltutmish, appointed his son governor of Awadh for the Awadh region.” (E.T.C)

“I am a lecturer in history. I teach Medieval Indian History. . . . . 22 students have so far attained Ph.D. degrees under my guidance.” (E.T.C)

“Medieval Indian History has been a subject of my study.Medieval Ancient History also comprises the reign of Mughals.” (E.T.C)

“In the time of Mughals, Awadh was not under the control of Babur. Babur had authorised Mir Baqi for this region and had appointed him to handle its situation. As per contemporary references obtained from here, that he stayed here for about one year three months and after that he went back. In the time of Humayun too, this region was not under the control of Mughals. In the time of Akbar this region in its entirety was under the control of Mughals as a province.” (E.T.C)

“I have a special study on the Medieval History from 1206 AD to 1757 AD.'' (E.T.C)

“From 1206 to 1757, Delhi has been under the reign of Muslim rulers themselves.” (E.T.C)

“After the battle of Chanderi, Babur proceeded towards the present day Uttar Pradesh region, where Baizid and Babban were Afgan chieftains who had declared themselves independent. At that time Baizid was the independent ruler of Kannauj and Awash regions. . . . . . Babur came to Lucknow via Kannauj. In a way, he conquered Kannuaj. Across the Saryu river, Babur camped 2-4 miles away from Ayodhya. . . . . .Before the arrival of Mir Baqi Ayodhya had been under the control of Baizid. Mir Baqi was the commander of Babur; Babur had sent him to exercise administrative and military control over Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

“There in nothing in any book suggesting that Mir Baqi was ever engaged in any struggle with anybody with a view to to have control over Ayodhya. . . .Mir Baqi was not locked in any battle with the Hindu kings.”(E.T.C)

“Mir Baqi had met Babur in 1529; after that he did not come back to Ayodhya. As per my knowledge, the 1529
meeting between Babur and Mir Baqi had taken place at Sambhal.” (E.T.C)

“Whatever is written by Prof. Irfan, Prof. Athar Ali and Prof. Shirin Musvi and about whatever they have researched, cannot be easily ignored in the academic circles."(E.T.C)

“Only on the basis of Cunningham's write-up I have stated Satrikh and Ayodhya to be one and the same place. . . . . . I have not read any book written by Cunningham.”(E.T.C)

“I have not read the report of Cunningham. I have just seen his references in Elliot and Dowson's book.”(E.T.C)

“From the report of Cunningham it appears that Satrikh and Ayodhya are not names of one and the same place.” (E.T.C) ( contradicting himself)

“After its construction in 1528 AD, this structure has constantly been in the possession of Muslims from the time of Babur to that of Aurangzeb. I do not have the knowledge as to whether or not the disputed structure has constantly been in possession of Muslims after the time of Aurangzeb and prior to 1857 AD. I have nowhere read in the history books, about whether Hindus have ever been in possession of the disputed structure up to the English period. The building of the disputed structure has been in possession of Muslims between 1528 AD and 22nd / 23rd December, 1949 but nothing can be said about whether it has been used as mosque or not.” (E.T.C)

“The historical books from 1528 AD, that is, the year of construction of the disputed building up to 1855, have no mention of the chabutra constructed in the outer courtyard of the disputed building. . . . . . . . . No evidence is available in history about the offering of namaz or about performing pooja.” (E.T.C)

“My above-mentioned statement to the effect that Shahabuddin Ghori came to Kannauj from Punjab is incorrect; rather, it is true that he returned to his country Ghor from Punjab. Shahabuddin Ghori did not come back to Hindustan again. Shahabuddin Ghori never attacked Kannauj. My above statement about Kannauj having been attacked by Shahabuddin Ghori and the army of that place having been defeated by him, is incorrect because Shahabuddin Ghori did not even got to Kannuaj and he returned to his country from Punjab.” (E.T.C)

“Both Muhammad Ghori and Shahabuddin Ghori are one and the same person."(E.T.C)

"All this description is of 934 hizri. According to the Gregorian calender, this should be of the year 1529. . . . . . .
.In the incidents of 13th June, there is mention about presence of Baqi of Tashkand before Babar along with army of Awadh. . . . . . . . . It implies that when Babar reached Dalmau, Baqi of Tashkand was left behind in Ayodhya because Baqi remained in Ayodhya for about one year three four months." (E.T.C)

"Besides the above inscription, there is no other reference in the book of Athar Abbas Rizvi regarding demolition of any temple in Ayodhya." (E.T.C)

"Prof. S.R. Sharma has expressed his opinion in this behalf on basis of the inscription, which is paper no. 282C-1/2 and 282C-1/3."It is written in the book of Dr. R. Nath that the site of Babri Masjid is undoubtedly and clearly the place where Hindu temple was built, which was originally built on the banks of Saryu in Ramkot, and where articles of Hindu
temples had been used in building the same. It has also been mentioned in it that it can be said with firm conviction that it was not built over virgin land." (E.T.C)

"Ayodhya is a pilgrimage, is the birthplace of Rama and the disputed site is Janmsthan and I accept this on basis of customs.At present, it not possible for me to point out the exact birthplace of Ramchandra on basis of my memory."(E.T.C)

"According to the belief of Hindu religion, Ramchandra was born six thousand ago as son of king Dashrath, as an incarnation of 'Vishnu'. Whether the remains of six thousand years old building or buildings are present in Ayodhya or not, can be told only by archaeologists." (E.T.C)

"At present the disputed site is situated in Ayodhya. . . . . . . This site is situated over a mound . . . . . The area of
the disputed site is extensive." (E.T.C)

". . . . According to few historians, the medieval history of India commences from 1206 AD and goes upto 1757 AD, i.e. till the battle of Plassey of 1757. I have deeply studied the medieval history of India only upto 1707 AD." (E.T.C)
<snip>
"Babar took Ayodhya in his possession after defeating Baizid. . . . . . I and other persons also, consider Sri S.R. Sharma to be a recognized historian. . . . . . . . I agree that no evidence is found that Babar had ever demolished Hindu temples or had suppressed Hindus only on basis of religion." (E.T.C)

"Mr. Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi has only given translation of the said inscription, but has not given any comment. It is on the basis of the said Hindi translation of the inscription by Mr. Athar Abbas Rizvi, that my opinion has been formed that a temple existed over there prior to the building built by Mir Baqi. It is the first three lines of the Hindi translation of the above inscription, as given by Mr. Rizvi in his translation, which form the basis for me saying that the said inscription mentions about existence of temple prior to the structure built by Mir Baqi. I am not making any other inscription of that building, the basis of me saying so, and this very inscription has been made the basis by other historians such as Dr. R. Nath, Dr. Radheyshyam, Prof. S.R. Sharma, to say that the disputed structure was not built by Mir Baqi over virgin
land." (E.T.C)

"By Janmbhumi, I mean the place which is the disputed land, and not the Ramjanmsthan temple, Sita Rasoi situated in north across the road. . . . . According to belief, Sri Rama was born at the Janmbhumi as an incarnation of Vishnu. Birth is synonymous to incarnation. It is not that birth took place here and incarnation at another place. According to my knowledge, Sri Rama was born beneath the three domes of the disputed structure, and the same is considered to be Ramjanmbhumi. . . . . . . . On basis of belief, faith and tradition, I consider the land beneath the three dome structure to be Ramjanmbhumi. My statement regarding belief, faith and tradition, has already been recorded.. . . . Ramjanmbhumi has more importance because Rama has been considered as incarnation of Vishnu and this importance has been continuing since time immemorial." (E.T.C)

3635. A perusal of the above statements and in particular that of PW 16(Dr. Suraj Bhan), 20 (Professor Shirin Musavi in her), OPW 9(. Thakur Prasad Varma) and 6, the Court finds opinion of the Expert Historians so varying that no definite conclusion can be drawn therefrom. However, on one aspect, some of the experts of both the sides were unanimous that if an excavation is made at Ayodhya, at the disputed site or near it, more relevant facts may be available which would help this Court to arrive at a just conclusion. This became more important in view of the fact that a stone inscription, sought to be relied by the plaintiffs (Suit-5), was claimed to have found on 6/7 December, 1992 from the debris of the demolished disputed structure. It is a stone inscription of 115 cm. X 55 cm. size having several lines engraved in a language which is not decipherable atleast by this Court. The experts say that it is written in Sanskrit but the script is slightly different or at least a little difficult being much older. Under the orders of the Apex Court, ink estampage (Paper No.203 C1/1) was prepared. This estampage was deciphered by Dr. K.V.Ramesh, a renowned Epigraphists, whose competence, in fact remained undisputed by all the parties. This translation/text is Exhibit 2 Suit 5 (Register 29, Page 5-25). In first two pages, the epigraphist has made his comments and observation and then there is sanskrit and English text and English translation. 3636. Dr. T.P.Verma and Dr. S.P.Gupta substantially relied on the translation of the contents of the said stone inscription asserting that there was a huge Vishnu Hari Temple at the site in dispute which was demolished and thereafter disputed building was constructed in 1528 AD. Some dispute arose about the correct translation made by Sri Dr. T.P.Verma and Dr. S.P.Gupta. Ultimately expert's translation was obtained by plaintiffs (Suit-5) from Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh-O.P.W.10 (Exhibit No.2, Suit 5) (Reg. 29, Page 5-25).

Manny wrote:Another interesting article

Why the Ayodhya judgment is a landmark

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/oct/ ... ndmark.htm

The point is that the self-proclaimed 'intelligentsia' want to use Ayodhya, which they portray as the 'original sin' of Hindus, as their excuse for supporting Muslim intransigence in all issues.

Never mind that the judgment is an absolute slap on the faces of the 'intelligentsia': Their desperation shows; the mask is slipping and the claws are coming out.

......

Given the fact that almost Hindu-Buddhist-Jain shrines in northern India [ Images ], Pakistan, and Afghanistan, were destroyed and/or converted to mosques, by Occam's Razor it is highly likely this happened in Ayodhya as well.

As people like the intrepid Koenraad Elst have pointed out, there was never any question about the authenticity of the Hindu claim about the birthplace of Rama. In particular, medieval Muslim historians fully endorsed this claim.

In fact, they celebrated the construction of the mosque structure precisely for that reason, because it was one of the holiest of Hindu shrines, and forcibly taking it over was an assertion of Muslim military -- and by implication, religious -- superiority over Hindus. Imperial British courts accepted this logic too.

This happy state of affairs lasted up until 1989, when a group of Left-leaning academics -- who grandly call themselves 'eminent historians' -- created the entire problem by simply trashing any and all Hindu claims outright.

In a fair system, they should be called to account for the hundreds of deaths and the massive human suffering that their mischief has caused.

They are the ultimate culprits, along with the undoubted agents provocateurs who chivvied people on to raze the disputed structure in 1992.

It would not be outrageous to wonder if they are guilty of sedition.

Second, courts are not manned by coldly logical automata. They are staffed by real humans, susceptible to prevailing opinion, and sensitive to other factors.

There is pressure on the judges to conform to what amounts to the official religion propagated by the Government of India -- a strange animal called 'secularism'.

This includes an imagined narrative that Muslims are, will be, and have always been, oppressed by Hindus.

This is a fiction assiduously cultivated by the GoI's propaganda machine as well as the English-language media, and it has become an article of faith: An example of a gigantic collective delusion that periodically afflicts populations. (The famous Dutch tulip bubble is another example of the extraordinary madness of crowds.)

This sentiment, along with the understandable hope on the part of politicians to appeal to vote-banks, is endemic.

For instance, the government of Kerala [ Images ] allotted Rs 5 crore (Rs 50 million) recently to Pakistan for flood relief. The calculation, with elections looming, is that this will appeal to Muslim voters. The fact that it insults Muslims by insinuating that they are all pro-Pakistan seems to escape the bountiful ones.

The appeasement is especially ironic considering that Kerala has become a centre of jihadi violence and money-laundering. There is the Christian professor whose hand was chopped off on vague accusations of blasphemy, whose 'punishment' was allegedly decided by an extra-judicial Sharia court, not the law of the land.

(G) Issues relating to Deities, their status, rights etc.:
1683. In this category comes issues no. 12 and 21 (Suit-4); and, 1, 2, 3(a), 6 and 21 (Suit-5).

1684. Issues no. 12 (Suit-4) and 3(a) (Suit-5) involves common facts and consideration. Similarly issues no. 1 and 1

(Suit-5) and issues no. 2 and 6 (Suit-5) are common:
“Issue No. 1 (Suit-5):-
Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?

Issue No. 21 (Suit-5):-
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?

Issue No. 2 Suit-5):-
Whether the suit in the name of Deities described in the plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through plaintiff no.3 as next friend?

Issue No. 6 (Suit-5):-
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. 21 (Suit-4):-
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged Deities?

1920. The term 'next friend' has been used in Order 32 Rule 1 CPC. This brings into picture Order 32 Rule 1 CPC which reads as under: "1. Minor to sue by next friend.- Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor. Explanation.- In this Order, "minor" means a person who has not attained his majority within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875..

1921. Meaning of the expression "a next friend" in Order 32 Rule 1 CPC came to be considered in Amar Chand Vs. Nem Chand AIR (29) 1942 All.150 where an Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble Braund J.) observed : "The expression "a next friend" originally denoted the person through whom an infant acts …. but in modern times it has come to assume a technical meaning of the person by whom a minor or an infant, as the case may be, is represented as a plaintiff in litigation..

1923. About the procedure of filing a suit..Court said: "..It says that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in that suit shall be called his next friend. From that it is quite clear that a person who does, in fact, institute a suit in the name of a minor becomes his next friend...

1925. For the purpose of procedure, recourse was taken to Order 32 CPC but not accepted by this Court in Doongarsee Shyamji vs. Tribhuvan Das, AIR 1947 All 375 observing where the Shebait of a temple has done something which is obviously adverse to the interest of the institution, the Court may allow a disinterested third party to file a suit, but such a suit must be filed in the interest of the foundation or the deity, as the case may be....Division Bench of this Court in Bihari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and another AIR 1961 Allahabad 73 holding that the person who has beneficial interest in the temple property can take steps to see that the temple property is preserved to the idol and may file a suit for that purpose as the next friend of the deity, bringing the suit in the name of the deity himself...


Court didn't think a deity is a minor in an earlier case -

1926. This Court in Dongarsee Syamji Joshi (supra) held : "The analogy of a deity being treated as a minor is a very imperfect analogy and we cannot carry it far enough to make O. 32, Civil P.C. applicable..... "The result of accepting the argument of learned counsel would be that any person can constitute himself as the next friend of a deity and file a suit in the name of the deity for possession of the property by the dispossession of a de facto sebait who may be managing the property and looking after the deity to the satisfaction of everybody and get hold of the property in the name of the idol till such time as he is dispossessed again by somebody else. We are not prepared to hold that such is the law that any third person can constitute himself as next friend and file a suit and claim an absolute right to possession of the property simply because he has filed the suit in the name of the deity." "An idol, though it is a juristic person, is in charge of its sebait who, for all practical purposes, represents it. But there maybe cases where the right of the sebait and the right of the idol are at conflict and in such a case it may be that the idol may bring a suit for the vindication of its rights through a disinterested third party as its next friend. We do not think we can accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that an idol has no right of suit at all, though we agree with him that a suit in the name of the idol can be filed only in the interest of the idol and not with the object of getting hold of its property by the person purporting to act as next friend." (para 13)

1929. It was contended in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj etc. AIR 1985 All. 228 that no suit through next friend is maintainable unless an application is filed seeking leave of the Court to sue as a next friend of the idol. The Court found that no such procedure is prescribed in Order 32. .... true that the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy AIR 1955 Cal 624 and Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur V. Gopinath Das (supra) in which it was held that if anybody else other than Shebait has filed suit on behalf of of the idol, he must be appointed as next friend by the Court on filing of such an application by him, have been dissented by this Court and it pointed out contradictory authorities of the Calcutta High Court in Annapurna Devi (supra).

1930. Dealing with the right of deity to file suit, the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan (supra) in para 18 and 19 of the judgment said : “18. The third point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants in connection with the maintainability of the suit is that in the present case Atma Ram did not apply for leave of the Court to sue as a next friend of the idol and as such the suit filed by him was not maintainable.... 19. It{precedent enunciated before this point} indicates that no appointment is necessary, if the suit is filed by a worshipper. Here Atma Ram has joined the suit as worshipper also. Thus the maintainability of the suit remains unaffected. Apart from this, in Ram Ratan Lal v. Kashi Nath Tewari, AIR 1966 Pat 235 and Angoubi Kabuini v. Imjao Lairema, AIR 1959 Manipur 42 it was held that such an appointment is not necessary.

1931. As a proposition of law we are inclined to express our respectful agreement with the above view taken in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan (supra) and learned counsel for the parties could not place before us any binding authority or otherwise material to pursue us to take a different view.

{1930-1936 == Too much legalese about trusts and trustees and next of friends and who can sue and when. Please read and post if you can make sense. }

1937. Some of the judgments, which we have already referred, show that the same were given by holding that a Deity does not suffer any disability as it is not minor, in order to argue that Order XXXII, Rule 1 has no application, drawing a parallel with Section 6 of the Limitation Act. An attempt was made that the Deity having been held not a minor for the purpose of Section 6 of the Limitation Act and therefore for the purpose of Order XXXII, Rule 1 C.P.C. also it cannot be treated to be a minor and that provision will have no application.
{Total bouncer. Frankly I didn't understand anything in the last few pages}

{Please read paras 1938-41 for a detailed quotation of various lower, high court judgements in various cases dealing with how an idol can have property, how it can be sued, how it can itself be property and how agents can sue on behalf of the idol. Very interesting but not quotable. They will need to be read in full to make sense and hence I have avoided quoting from therein.}

1941.... The High Court further said that Thakur Ji can be the subject of possession and adverse possession. This wide proposition again is difficult to accept. A person, whether legal or natural, by itself can be subject of possession or adverse possession is a bit difficult to understand. The property of an idol or deity may be subject of possession and adverse possession in law if it is so permissible but the deity itself, in our view, cannot be said to be subject of possession and adverse possession in the manner it is being said and here also what we have observed with respect to the concept of idol as property can be read here also.

Ok. So here comes the NEWSWORTHY part (:P) Since not very many of us are lawyers, I'm going to go ahead and quote liberally here so that we can follow discussions and learn from various judgements in this regard.

Idol as Perpetual Minor Adverse and Adverse Possession -

1942. The Orissa High Court held, "An idol is no doubt in the position of an infant as it can act only through a sebayat or a manager." Having said so, it proceeded further to observe that there is no authority to show that this infant can be treated to be a perpetual infant so that transaction by or against him will not be governed by Limitatin Act. It further proceed to hold that " The doctrine that an idol is a perpetual minor is an extravagant doctrine as it is open to the sebayat, or any person interested in an endowment, to bring a suit torecover the idol's property for devottar purposes." (Reliance for the said proposition has been placed on Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das (supra) and Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Bhubaneswari Thakurani AIR (2) 1933 Cal. 295). The Court further observed:
(i) An idol can also acquire rights by adverse possession just as much as there can be adverse possession against the idol. [Anand Chandra Vs. Brojalal (supra)]
(ii) A suit by the idol or the manager of the idol on behalf of the idol for recovery of possession must be brought within 12 years from the date of alienation.
(iii) An idol is as much subject to the law of limitation as a natural person and cannot claim exemption on the ground that he is a perpetual infant, nor is a Hindu deity to be regarded as a minor for all purposes. (reliance is placed on Anantakrishna v. Prayag Das I.L.R (1937) 1 Cal. 84 (iv) A idol cannot claim exemption from the law of limitation. (reliance is placed on Surendrakrishna Roy Vs. Ishree Sree Bhubneswari Thakurani (supra) as confirmed by Privy Council Bhubaneswari Thakurani Vs. Brojanath Dey AIR (24) 1937 PC 185)

1943. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision on Orissa High Court in Jagannath vs. Tirthnanda Das AIR 1952 Orissa 312 where following Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao (supra) the Court expressed its opinion against treating idol as perpetual minor and said in para 11: "......But it is well-settled that an idol cannot be regarded as a perpetual minor and the special protection given to a minor does not apply to an idol. The protection of a minor against the negligent actings of a guardian is a special one and statutory provision has been made for safeguarding a minor's interest."

1944. In Tarit Bhusan Rai and another Vs. Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur (supra) the Court said: “In view of the religious customs of the Hindus which have been recognised by Courts of law a Hindu idol like a juristic person under the English system has been vested with the capacity of holding properties and with the powers of suing or being sued (Ibid). A juristic person under the English system has no body or soul. It has no rights except those which are attributed to it on behalf of some human beings. The lump of metal, stone, wood or clay forming the image of a Hindu idol is not a mere moveable chattel. It is conceived by the Hindus as a living being having its own interests apart from the interests of its worshippers. It is a juristic person of a peculiar type..points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol are .. have the capacity of owning property.. incapable of managing their properties and protecting their own interests.. properties of both are managed and protected by another human being.. manager of a minor is his legal guardian and the manager of an idol is its shebait..powers of their managers are similar.. have got the right to sue.. bar of S. 11 and Order 9, R. 9, Civil P.C..
points of difference- are: (1) A Hindu idol is a juristic or artificial person but a minor is a natural person. (2) A Hindu idol exists for its own interest as well as for the interests of its worshippers but a minor does not (3) The Contract Act (Substantive law) has taken away the legal capacity of a minor to contract but the legal capacity of a Hindu idol to contract has not been affected..(4) The Limitation Act (an adjective law) has exempted a minor from the operation of a bar of limitation but this protection has not been extended to a Hindu idol... it is clear that there is some analogy between a minor and a Hindu idol but the latter is neither a minor nor a perpetual minor. Although in law an idol has the power of suing it has no physical capacity to sue. This absence of physical capacity is perhaps referred to by the Judicial Committee when they said in 31 I.A. 203 that the right of suit is not vested in the idol. Who is then entitled to exercise the idol's power of suing? This is a matter of substantive law: Its (idol's) interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would in such circumstances on analogy be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir: 52 I.A. 245. “The manager of the estate of an infant heir” apparently means the legal guardian of an infant. The powers of the legal guardian of an infant include the power to sue on behalf of the infant. The shebait of a Hindu idol is its manager n law. On the analogy of the power of the legal guardian of an infant the shebait of a Hindu idol has the right to sue on behalf of the idol, for the protection ofits interests. In this sense it may be said as was said by the Judicial Committee in 31 I.A. 203 that the right of suit vests in the shebait.” (page 103)

1945. All these propositions as laid down, wide as they are, we find difficult to subscribe. Once it is held that an idol is in position of an infant, we fail to understand as to how it is infant or minor for one purpose and not for another. .. To that extent, deity, once a minor, will continue to be treated as minor for all purposes and we find no authority to show as to how and in what circumstances and why there can be a distinction..If by nature of thing, a deity is such kind of minor which can never attain majority, this by itself would not deprive it from protections or therwise which are available to a natural minor….If there comes a question of unauthorized possession of some other's property by an idol, this would have to be through some natural person. The benefit may ultimately go to the idol if such unauthorized possession completes the statutory period of limitation to be converted into a title, but that does not mean that it has been done by the idol on its own inasmuch if a suit for eviction is to be filed before expiry of period of limitation... Similarly, the property of an idol, if unauthorizedly possessed by a person there can be two types of cases; where a caretaker, i.e, Shebait or whatever name it is called is available, but does not take any action allowing the unauthorized possession by another person to continue for the period of limitation resulting in extension of rights of the minor to the property,if inaction on the part of Shebait or caretaker, as the case may be, is not found to be collusive, fraudulent or eliberate mismanagement of the property of the minor, one may raise the plea of limitation but we have serious doubt in successful representation of such right for the reason that for claiming adverse possession an open hostile possession to the knowledge of owner is an integral constituent of the plea of adverse possession. Such a knowledge to the owner of the property, i.e., idol cannot be perceived for the reason such a knowledge to the minor's inaction on his part is not recognised in law. It is this distinction which has been pointed out by the Privy Council in the case of Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwira Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 67 Ind. App. 251 at p.264 (P.C.) where the plea of legal person qua a mosque has been turned down by the Privy Council observing that unlike a Hindu idol a mosque cannot be held to be a juristic personality or a legal person in law. The Court held the Mosque as property and, therefore, capable of adverse possession. ….Regarding the juristic personality of the idol, virtually there was no difference but regarding the statute of idol as a minor or perpetual minor, there appears to be some difference among various Courts. The Apex Court in Bishwanath Vs. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji (supra) has made it clear that a Hindu idol enjoy status of a minor. There is no restriction in such declaration that such concept of minor of the idol should be understood in a restricted manner and it would be a minor only for certain purposes and not for other purposes. In the light of the above discussion, respectfully we are of the view that the wider observations of the Orissa and Calcutta High Courts cannot be concurred by us.

1946. The matter thus now stand settled by the Apex Court in Bishwanath & another Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhli & others (supra) holding the Deity a minor, all the judgments which have taken a different view of the High Courts or Privy Council cannot be treated to be a good law or a binding precedent.

1949. We, therefore, answer Issue No. 1 (Suit-5) insofar as it relates to plaintiff no. 2 (Suit-5) that it is juridical persona and can sue or be sued through a next friend. However, this is subject to our further answer to the issues relating to birthplace of Lord Rama at disputed site in affirmance which we shall discuss separately.

1950. We could have answered about plaintiff no. 1 (Suit-5) also at this very stage but we intend first to consider the Issues No. 12 (Suit-4) and 3 (a) (Suit-5) and to find out their effect, if any, on the status of plaintiff 1 (Suit-5) and then shall give our final opinion thereon.

A_Gupta wrote:chaanakya, are photographs of the stone inscription available? In general, are photographs of the artifacts introduced into evidence available?

3671. Considering lot of material, some of which discussed above, as well as relevant facts, it was found expedient by this Court to have a scientific investigation at the disputed site but without disturbing the position of the "makeshift structure" in respect whereto a status quo order was operating in various proceedings including the suits.

3672. What lie underneath? This question is of extreme complication ranging in a period of more than 500 years’ of history. No clear picture emerges from various history books etc. In fact, the contemporary record did not answer the issues, one or the other way, with certainty but some record, authored after about 200 years i.e., 18th Century, state about existence of temple, its demolition and the construction of the disputed building, while some well known historians dispute it and some history books are silent. The case of muslim parties was that the mosque was constructed on an unoccupied, vacant land.

3673. Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary steps and strategy. In the peculiar circumstances, this Court decided to appoint an Expert body for scientific investigation, well recognized in the field of archaeology/history and ordered ASI
to go for excavation at the site in question and submit report. The question formulated for ASI, was “whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and a mosque was constructed on the disputed site”.

As a historian how would you interpret the judgment?

I do not think the contesting parties made a prayer for partition of land. They asked for a decision on the title. If the communities want to live together in peace, well, that is good for the country, but there is something called justice. {what about justice to Hindus } My only apprehension is that as far as compromise is concerned, the political parties, who are backing some of the litigants, are not going to allow it to happen.

Do you feel that the Bench did not go into the details of the historical and archaeological evidence?

I wish they had taken historical evidence into consideration. Several archaeologists and historians like the late Suraj Bhan, Shireen Ratnagar, R.C. Thakran and Suvira Jaiswal were called to depose before the court. What happened to all the evidence presented by them? History should have played a role. When something is decided on the basis of faith, then history takes a back seat.

As far as the verdict of history is concerned, if you go back in time, before 1528, there is evidence of several religious groups who had a claim on Ayodhya. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang wrote that there were 3,000 Buddhist monks and hundred monasteries and only 10 devas or temples belonging to the brahmanical religion. Buddhism was dominant in Ayodhya in the seventh century. The first and fourth Jain Tirthankaras were born in Ayodhya. Even now Ayodhya remains a holy place for Jainas. There is strong evidence of Muslim presence since the 12th century onwards. Sufi saints visited Ayodhya from the 12th century – one of them was Qazi Qidwatuddin Awadhi, who came from Central Asia and is said to have been a disciple of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer. There are many Sufi shrines in Ayodhya. Thus, there is evidence of Buddhist presence, Jain presence and a Muslim past dating to the 12th century. I don't understand how can all this evidence be dismissed and the assertion made that this place was the birthplace of Ram.

Ayodhya was not even a pilgrimage centre before the 17th and 18th centuries. There is a reference to Ayodhya in Skanda Puranas called ‘Ayodhya Mahatmya'. The composition of this text stretches over 300-400 years with lots of interpolations and contradictions. There are at least a hundred verses devoted to the place where Ram ascended to heaven, the swargadwaar, located on the banks of the river Sarayu and only 10 verses referring to his birthplace, but not the site of his birth.

The three historically attested Ram temples are in Madhya Pradesh, belonging to the 12th century. Tulsidas' Ramcharitamanas does not specify the locale of Ram's birth; neither does he refer to the destruction of a temple to build a mosque. If we travel further back in time, in the 11th century, there was a minister of the Garhwal king [who ruled over the Awadh region] called Bhatt Lakshmidhara. He wrote a book called Krityakalpataru, which has one section on the Tirthas, called Tirthavivechankanda. This does not mention Ayodhya as a centre of pilgrimage.

If the Garhwal kings did not mention it in the 11th century, how can it be said to be a pilgrimage centre or the birthplace of Ram? In fact, Prayag was a more important centre of pilgrimage. There was no Ram temple in the whole of Uttar Pradesh before the 17th century, to which period belongs Kanakabhavan, or Kanakamandapa, but if one goes to north Bihar and the Nepal Terai, in Janakpur, there is a temple dedicated to Sita, constructed in 1898.

Suvira Jaiswal (PW 18), during cross examination, though tried to mislead by observing that according to her
research, she found several places claiming birth place of Lord Rama at Ayodhya, but when asked as to which are those places, she could not reply and said that she don't know.

3623. Normally, the Court do not make adverse comments on the deposition of witness and suffice it to consider whether it is credible or not but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in this particular case considering the sensitivity and the nature of dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of statements, and the material got published by the persons claiming to be Expert Historian, Archaeologist etc. without making any proper investigation, research or study in the subject.
3624. This is really startling. It not only surprises us but we are puzzled. Such kind of statements to public at large causes
ore confusion than clear the things. Instead of helping in making a cordial atmosphere it tend to create more complications, conflict and controversy. Such people should refrain from making such statements or written work. ( anybody listening) They must be extremely careful and cautious before making any statement in public on such issues.

3625. The people believe that something, which has been said by a learned, well studied person, would not be without any
basis. Normally they accept it as a correct statement of fact and affairs. Normally, these persons do not find a stage where their statement can be scrutinized by other experts like a cross-examination in a Court of law. In legal terminology, we can say that these statements are normally ex parte and unilateral. But that does not give a license to such persons to make statements whatsoever without shouldering responsible and accountable for its authenticity. One cannot say that though I had made a statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from others that I have uttered. No one, particularly when he claims to be an expert on the subject, a proclaimed or self styled expert in a History etc. or the facts or events can express some opinion unless he/she is fully satisfied after his/her own research and study that he/she is also of the same view and intend to make the same statement with reasons.

3626. We do not know how much damage such kind of statements have already caused, but, if any, that has already been done. At this stage we can only hope and trust that the intelligentsia of this country particularly those who are experts in any discipline, shall live more responsible life, and before expressing any opinion or statement of fact particularly when that involves an extra ordinary sensitive matter, due care and caution shall be practised

“The subjoined stone inscription is engeaved on a rectangular stone slab, the written area roughly covering
an area of 115 cms X 55 cms. The slab as at present extant is diagonally broken in two leading to the loss of a couple of letters in almost every line. Besides, the first and last two lines have suffered heavy damage resulting in the loss of many letters. All in all, the loss of letters have proved a handicap to epigraphists and Sanskritists in the matter of
fully interpreting the contents of the text. Nevertheless, the overall purport and the crux of its import are clear beyond
doubt. In the first instance a hurriedly prepared estampage, and in recent times, a high quality estampage as well as
some photographs were all provided by Dr. S.P. Gupta Chairman, Archaeological Society of India, New Delhi for
which I am highly thankful to him.

The text of the inscription is written in fairly chaste Sanskrit, the orthographical features being regular for the period to which the inscription belongs, namely the middle of the 12th Century A.D. The inscription is not in any way dated, but may be assigned, with confidence, to the middle of the 12th Century on palaeographical grounds as well as the internal evidence provided by the inscriptional text in question.

But for the opening salutation to Siva at the very beginning, the entire text of the inscription is composed in Sanskrit verse of fairly high literary excellence. As has been stated above, the palaeographical and orthographical features are normal for the period to which the inscription belongs, viz, the middle of the 12th century A.D. This was an important period of transition from classical Sanskrit to the North Indian vernaculars. This can be easily identified in contemporaneous inscriptions, including the present one, in the confusion in the use of class nasals and anusvara, and in the employment of the sibilants and palatals

As for the contents of the text, it is fully reflective of medieval vanity as far as the eulogies of the heroes mentioned in the inscription are concerned. The most important internal historical information we get from this epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra, obviously of the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a fairly vast empire from 1114 to 1155 A.D.

Verse 1 is entirely lost. Verse 2, which is badly mutilated, refers to Trivikrama and, hence, may have been composed in praise of Lord Visnu. Verse 3, which is also badly damaged, seems to allude to the near-total decimation of the warrior clans by Bhargava-Parasurama. Verse 4 refers to the emergence of a Ksatriya family, heroes born in which successfully resurrected the decadent warrior clans. According to Verse 5, in that noble family was born the beloved of the people, Mame. Verse 7 speaks of his detachment from mundane things while Verse 8 informs us that he bequeathed his realm and wealth to his son Sallaksana. Verse 9 to 14 contain conventional praises showered on this Sallaksana in which the poet has displayed a high level of poetic imagination. Verse 15 refers to the birth of his son whose stunning resemblance to
his father was the talk among the people. Verse 16 refers to this son as Alhana and credits him with retrieving the past
power and glory of his family. While the next two verses (17 and 18) contain his conventional praise, verse 19 gives
the information that his nephew, Meghasula by name, as superseding a certain Anayacandra and obtaining the
Lordship of Saketa-mandala through the grace of the senior Lord of the earth, Govindacandra, While verse 20
lauds the military might of this hero, verse 21 gives the important information that, in order to ensure his easy
passage into the heavens, Meghasuta built a lofty stone temple for the god Visnu-Hari. From verse 22 we learn that
he, who was responsible for the stability of Govindacandra's empire, was succeeded by the younger Ayusyacandra as the Lord of Saketa-mandala. Verse 23 contains his conventional praise. According to verse 24, he set up residence in the city of Ayodhya, which was adorned with lofty abodes, intellectuals and temples, and added to the entire Saketa-mandala thousands of small and big water reservoirs. Verse 25 and 26 contain more conventional praises of Ayusyacandra. Verse 27, which is partly damaged, alludes to the well-known episodes of Visnu's incarnations as Narasimha, Krsna, Vamana and Rama. The badly damaged verse 28 refers to a King (probably Ayusyacandra) as warding off the danger of invasion from the west (i.e. from the invading Muslim forces). Verse 29, which is incomplete, mentions the king Ayusyacandra.

The reference to Saketa-mandala is interesting. It is well known that North India. Just as in the case of the South, was divided into administrate divisions called mandalas (see the word mandala in the indices to H.C. Ray's monumental two-volume work 'The Dynastic History of Northern India', II edn.' 1973, Delhi)”

3640. It would be appropriate to refer some extracts of the statement of OPW 10:

"While deciphering the inscription I have shown square brackets with numbers and star marks to indicate the numbers of the verses calculated by me although that number is not mentioned in the inscription." (Page 20)

"The first two pages and the top portion of page No. 3 of my report have the introductive part of my observations. In other words it may be termed to be as an introduction part of my report." (Page 21)

"According to me, the period of the inscription in question can be dated back to the 12th century and wherever I have used specifically the period around middle of 12th Century, I meant that it was from about 1130 to 1170 A.D. If once I have used the period around middle of the 12th Century, it will remain the same even if I subsequently refer it to as 12th
Century." (Page 29)

"After 2000-2001 I had studies many facsimiles of inscriptions of Gahadwala rulers, namely, Chandradeo, Govindchandra and Vijaychandra. I compared all such facsimiles with the estampage of the inscription in question from palaeographical point of view. I did not deem it necessary to mention in my report specifically hat while comparing the estampage of the inscription in question with other facsimiles." (Page 37)

"It is not correct to say that till 13th century, for temple, the word 'Devalaya' etc. but not Mandira was in use. . . . . It will not be correct to say that up to 12th century, the word 'Mandira' was not being used for temples but for human dwellings." ( Page 44)

"My translation regarding verse 22 appears to be defective as it does not make the position clear regarding succession of Alhana and Ayusha Chandra. In my opinion, the correct translation of verse 22 of the inscription in question would be that Ayusha Chandra, son of Alhana occupied the position of Meghasuta as chieftain of Saketa Mandala." ( Page 46)

"It is clearly mentioned in verses 19 & 24 of the inscription that Ayodhya was the headquarters of Saket Mandal. Since the Raja of Saket Mandal was residing in Ayodhya." (Page 51)

"Inscription specifically states that Ayushya Chandra was residing at Ayodhya when he was the ruler of Saket Mandal." (Page 52)

"The temple referred in this inscription was constructed by Meghasuta but the inscription was got written by his successor. There is a gap between the period of construction of the temple and the inscription." (Page 53)"

. . . which the temple built by Meghsuta was in existence when his successor Ayushya Chandra got this inscription engraved." (Page 54)
"The inscription is engraved for the main purpose of recording the construction of the Vishnu Hari temple by Meghasuta and the excavation of thousands of wells, tanks, reservoirs, etc. by Ayushya Chandra." (Page 65)

3641. From the above inscription, the following facts we can safely infer:

(A) There existed a temple of Vishnuhari at Ayodhya in 12th Century A.D.
(B) It was constructed by a Ruler of Garhwal Dynasty i.e. by Meghasuta.

3642. The inscription giving this information became available in December 1992 actually pertain to 12th Century
A.D. Its genuinity and authenticity could not be doubted though it was argued on behalf of the Muslim parties that the manner in which it claimed to have been obtained cannot be decisive to hold that it was fixed in a building existing at the disputed site. The stone inscription therefore by itself cannot be decisive to hold that Vishnuhari Temple existed or was constructed at the disputed site.

3643. OPW-9 and 11, the authors of the book “Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatwa” ( Paper No. 289 C1) admitted several inaccuracies in the translation of the aforesaid stone inscription, they had published. They also admitted unequivocally whatever has been translated by Dr.Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh- OPW 10, that is the most authentic and must prevail.

3644. In the meantime, Prof.D.Mandal PW-24 also published a book expressing his opinion that if further excavation is made at the site in dispute, it may be helpful to find out whether there existed any earlier religious structure of
Hindus or not.

Exhibit 63 (Suit-5) (Register 30 Page 7-98) also Exhibit D-26 (Suit-5) is a photocopy of a Book titled as
“Ayodhya Archaeology After Demolition” by D. Mandal first published in 1993, reprint in 1994 by Orient Longman Limited, Haidrabad

It appears to have been written to counter the claim of some experts with respect to the site in dispute based on the stone inscriptions claimed to be recovered in December 1992 as also report of Sri B.B. Lal wherein he mentioned to have found some pillar bases during his excavation made in 1975-76.

3647. Shereen Ratnagar has tried to give an idea about the merits and demerits of the process of excavation, ascertainment of historical facts and also justification of a report or comments of a person, who himself has not gone in field archaeology vis-a-vis report of a person who has actually conducted excavation. The concluding two paragraphs may be referred as under: “It must be reiterated that in excavation we actually destroy stratigraphic context without which the antiquities we find make little sense. At any excavation therefore, regular trench diaries; accurate drawings of sections and planning of walls, floors, or hearths; photography; and the management of multiple notebooks recording strata
numbers and description and their corresponding batches of small finds are as important and as challenging as the
actual digging, as these allow for re-examining of the data at a later stage when new finds, new techniques of analysis
and new methods are developed in the subject. The data of archaeology do not simply lie in the ground awaiting
recovery when they will 'speak for themselves;, it is when we excavate and record, when we make out typologies and
classifications, that we generate date.

The importance of excavation records will become evident when it is pointed out that even professional archaeologists cannot visit every excavated site. It is the excavation reports which they read with critical care; it is the report, its drawn and photographed sections and the chapter invariably entitled 'stratigraphy', which enable the seasoned field excavator to distinguish the various features, the authentic from the inauthentic data and evaluate the stratigraphic skills of the excavator and thence the valid from the invalid conclusions. Such review and reanalysis of previously gathered information (artefacts, photographs and other records) by scholars not present at or involved with the original dig, is entirely valid and accepted in archaeological research.”

Mandal, the author of the book, who has also deposed his statement as PW 24, on page 16 of his book (Register 30, Page
36), says:
“Evidence gathered from archaeological excavations at the site will be of vital importance making it pertinent to discuss the extent to which archaeology science can help resolve the question. Admittedly, archaeological cannot answer questions relating to faith, or questions such as whether Rama was an historical figure, or problems about locating his birthplace. However, archaeology can answer with a considerable degree of certainty, many questions about various past activities of people, for which material evidence is available. It is for this reason that archaeological research continues and is of importance.”

though Prof. B.B. Lal's finding of a pillar bases and wall during his excavation in 1975 could not be disputed but the author refute that those structures did not belong to an erstwhile temple as claimed, and tried to justify his conclusions on page 39-40 of his book (Pages 65 to 66 Register 30) as under:
“The analysis of all the strands of information from Discovery 1 reveals that:
1. That various structural remnants claimed to be the vestiges of 'pillar bases' are not contemporaneous. They belong to at least five different, sequential structural phases (rebuilding episodes).
2. It is highly probable that the so-called pillar bases are actually the remnant portions of walls of different structural phases.
3. This rules out the possibility of there having been one structure raised on a series of pillars.
4. There is clear indication in the trench of the existence of at least two rooms or room clusters or parts of buildings belonging to two different phases, but with the same general layout and construction methods.
5. Constructed as they are of brickbats laid haphazardly, the so-called pillar bases were certainly not capable of bearing the vertical load of large-sized stone pillars, as has been suggested (RB-MH Pt II) and frequently reiterated.
6. The contention that a 'pillared building' was raised in the eleventh century A.D. is absolutely baseless. No structural feature or artefactual find points even in a circumstantial manner to a date approaching the eleventh century. Instead, what is firmly suggested for the poorly built structure unearthed in the trench, is a date between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries A.D.3708
7. We can only surmise that the much publicized sherds of Islamic glazed pottery were found in all the deposits
associated with the five structural phases. If this surmise is correct, then the use of this pottery was simultaneous with
the habitation of the structure (through all five rebuildings of reparis). A time span of up to three hundred years that is
indicated by this pottery, is quite consistent with the remains of the five occupational deposits, associated with
the sequential structural phases, i.e., with the depth of material found. Such a discovery is fairly common in
archaeology.
8. The discussions above reveal the selective manner in which some archaeologists had cited the archaeological finds to argues for the existence of a temple. (In the process, the stratigraphy was paid scant attention). No reference has been made by Y.D. Sharma et al. In NAD, n.d. to the total range of pottery found in the trench. A study of this should be undertaken urgently. Attention must be paid to the ordinary red ware of everyday use associated with the de luxe glazed pottery, as also to other minor antiquities. These will shed light on the function of the structure, for example, whether it was any ordinary house with, say, cooking utensils, or not a residential structure devoid of domestic artefacts of
everyday use.”

3650. The author suggested that the said structures might have been the residuance of some building of the period
between 13th to 15th century. The author could not dispute the existence of some structure beneath the disputed structure but refuted the claim that it was a massive temple of 11th or 12th century and instead suggested that it could have been structure of 13th to 15th century.

3651. Be that as it may, one thing is very clear that there is not even a whisper in the entire work that there could have been possibly a structure like Idgah or Kanati Mosque underneath the disputed structure over which the disputes structure was constructed, though this book was published as long as in 1993.

"AYODHYA ARCHAEOLOGY AFTER DEMOLITION” has opined as follows:- “However, archeology can answer with a considerable degree of certainty, many questions about various past activities of people, for which material evidence is available. It is for this reason that archaeological research continues and is of importance. It is believed that sufficient archaeological material is available regarding the temple-mosque issue, pre-empting the need for further excavations at Ayodhya.” (page 16)
He further states that “Archaeology does not generally deal with super structures, as these seldom remain standing and awaiting excavation. All that usually remains of structures is their foundations. It may well be that demolition notwithstanding, the remains of the foundations of the walls of the mosque are still in situ.” (page 52) ( Page 2/350 of ANN-III)

In the meantime before excavation, the Archaeological Survey of India will survey the disputed site by Ground-Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology and obtain the report with the aid including financial assistance by the Central Government of India.Dt. 01.8.2002

“1. In general terms, the main georadar features detected by the present survey are “anomaly alignments” across the main platform, north and south of the Sanctum Sanctorum extending to the Ram Chabutra area, the high amplitude “ringy sequence” towards the sough, and the mound structures to the east.

2. In their cross-section appearance and their areal pattern, the “anomaly alignments” may correspond to a wall foundation of some sort. In the Ram Chabutra area, the crossing patterns of those alignments and the different stratigraphic units from where they ((emerge)) suggest that they belong to successive construction periods rather than being contemporary to one another. As mentioned earlier, similar indications of successive structures are shown in other areas of the site such as shown on the example radar cross section 2 (Annex-D).

3. The ((ringy) and high amplitude)) sequence in the southern portion of Ram Chabutra area extends across the fences to the east to the main platform area to cover a rather large area. This sequence may be indicative of a flooring structure of some sort, possibly stone slabs if its origin is ancient.

4. A third type of buried structures covers the entire eastern boundary of the site. It consists of buried mound structures with some internal texture or structure indicative of collapsed material. Similar types of anomalies have been detected to the south-west area just before the terrain slopes down.

5. Many small discrete anomalies have been detected at various depths – from 0.5 to 5.5 meters. Some of those anomalies appear to line up in some directions but could not be detected on some survey lines between them. As such they have been referred to “discontinuous alignment” on the geophysical interpretation map of Annex. A. They may correspond to pillars alignment, broken up sections of wall foundations or fortuitous patterns of independent objects or natural features.

6. In the zones of reworked material or rubbles indicated on the map, little penetration was achieved as the signal was
severely scattered in those units. It is possibly that some of the trends or alignments stopping in those zones actually also
extend further.

7. In the slope area to the west, which is undulating, filled with rubbles and steeply dipping, only small anomalies were
detected at relatively shallow depths. They appear to line up somewhat as indicated on the map; however, the wider line
spacing and the poor data quality, on account of ground conditions in this area, due to bad coupling of the antenna
with the ground, makes this interpretation difficult. This area as explained earlier is a debris zone where heterogeneous
material was apparently dumped from the upper platform and the origin of those detected anomalies could also be debris.

8. We are also showing some indications on the map relative to the radar signal that are most probably related to
geological factors such as dipping layers, recent fill sequence and zones of higher soil conductivity. They are part of the
geophysical interpretation.

9. In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects, in general a variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in depth that could be associated with ancient and contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as provided by archaeological trenching”.

In para 9 of the report it is clearly stated that the exact nature of the structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring etc. can be confirmed by excavation.Learned counsel for the parties have filed objections to the report submitted by Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.) Limited.

The present excavation report deals with the excavation carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India during March-August 2003 at the disputed area of Rama-Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid located between Latitude 26º 47' 43.6” to 26º 47' 45.0” N and Longitude 82º 11' 31.1” to 82º 11' 39.9” E and around within the fifty feet limit.

The clay has been used for manufacturing bricks, tiles and pottery and “Inter-bedded with them also occur bands of kankar which is an irregular concretion of impure calcareous matter.......
This calcareous mater has been used thoroughly in the past for lime making as well as in the form of structural blocks of
buildings.

Excavation at the deputed site of Rama Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003. During this period, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow, 82 trenches were excavated to verify the anomalies mentioned in the report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking up the excavations. A

Summary of the Results

“Excavation at the deputed site of Rama Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid was carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India from 12 March 2003 to 7 August 2003. During this period, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow, 82 trenches were excavated to verify the anomalies mentioned in the report of the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey which was conducted at the site prior to taking up the excavations. A total number of 82 trenches along with some of their baulks were checked for anomalies and anomaly alignments. The anomalies were confirmed in the trenches in the form of pillar bases, structures floors and foundation though no such remains were noticed in some of them at the stipulated
depths and spots. Besides the 82 trenches, a few more making a total of 90 finally were also excavated keeping in view the objective fixed by the Hon'ble High Court to confirm the structures.

The result of the excavation are summarized as hereunder:- ( I will be excerpting only important points in the summary. For clarity I have indicated the period with each para as they appeared in the report body but not indicated before the para)

Period -I (NBPW)
The Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) using people were the first to occupy the disputed site at Ayodhya. During the first millennium B.C. Although no structural activities were encountered in the limited area probed, the material culture is represented by terracotta figurines of female deities showing archaic features, beads of terracotta and glass, wheels and fragments of votive tanks etc. The ceramic industry has the collection of NBPW, the main diagnostic trait of the period besides the grey, black slipped and red wares. A round signet with legend in Asokan Brahmi is another important find of this level. On the basis of material equipment and 14 C dates, this period may be assigned to circa 1000 B.C. To 300
B.C.
Period-II( Sunga ,second-first century B.C.)
The Sunga horizon (second-first century B.C.) comes next in the order of the cultural occupation at the site. The typical terracotta mother goddess, human and animal figurines, beads, hairpin, engraver etc. The stone and brick structure found from this level mark the beginning of the structural activity at the site.

Period-III( Kushan, first to third century A.D.)
The Kushan period (first to third century A.D.) followed the Sunga occupation. Terracotta human and animal figurines,
fragments of votive tanks, beads, antimony rod, hair pin, bangle fragments and ceramic industry comprising red ware represent the typical Kushan occupation at the site. Another important feature of this period is the creation of large sized structures as witnessed by the massive structure running into twenty two courses.

Period-III( Gupta fourth to sixth century A.D.)
The advent of Guptas (fourth to sixth century A.D.) did not bring any qualitative change in building activity although the period is known for its Classical artistic elements. However, this aspect is represented by the typical terracotta figurines and a copper coin with the legend Sri Chandra (Gupta) and illustrative potsherds.

Period-IV( Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.)
During the Post-Gupta-Rajput period (seventh to tenth century A.D.), too the site has witnessed structural activity mainly
constructed of burnt bricks. However, among the exposed structures, there stands a circular brick shrine which speaks of its functional utility for the first time. To recapitulate quickly, exteriorly on plan, it is circular whereas internally squarish with an entrance from the east. Though the structure is damaged, the northern wall still retains a provision for pranala, i.e, waterchute which is distinct feature of contemporary temples already known from the Ganga-Yamuna plain.

Period-V(early medieval period eleventh-twelfth century A.D.)
Subsequently, during the early medieval period (eleventh-twelfth century A.D.) a huge structure, nearly 50 m in north-south orientation was constructed which seems to have been short lived, as only four of the fifty pillar bases exposed during the excavation belong to this level with a brick crush floor. On the remains of the above structure was constructed a massive structure with at least three structural phases and three successive floors attached with it.

Period VI (Early Medieval-Rajput level)
The architectural members of the earlier short lived massive structure with stencil cut foliage pattern and other decorative motifs were reused in the construction of the monumental structure having a huge pillared hall (or two halls) which is different from residential structures, providing sufficient evidence of a construction of public usage which remained under existence for a long time during the period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level-twelfth to sixteenth century A.G.).

It was over the top of this construction during the early sixteenth century, the disputed structure was constructed directly resting over it. There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50 x 30 m in north-south and east-west directions respectively just below the disputed structure. In course of present excavations nearly 50 pillar bases with brick bat foundation, below calcrete block stopped by sandstone blocks were found. The pillar bases exposed during the present excavation in northern and southern areas also give an idea of the length of the massive wall of the earlier construction with which they are associated and which might have been originally around 60 m (of which the 50 m length is available at present). The centre point of the length of the massive wall of the preceding period which could not be excavated due to presence of Ram Lala at the spot in the make-shift structure. This area is roughly 15 x 15 m on the raised platform. Towards east of this central point a circular depression with projection on the west, cut into the large sized brick pavement, signify the place where some important object was placed. Terracotta lamps from the various trenches and found in a group in the levels of Periods VII in trench G2 are associated with the structural phase.

Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level)
In the last phase of the period VII glazed ware sherds make their appearance and continue in the succeeding levels of the next periods where they are accompanied by glazed tiles which were probably used in the original construction of the disputed structure. Similarly is the case of celadon and porcelain sherds recovered in a very less quantity they come from the secondary context. Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods, but skeletal remains noticed in the trenches in northern and southern areas belong to the period IX as the grave pits have been found cut into the deposition coeval with the late disputed structures and are sealed by the top deposit.

It is worthwhile to observe that the various structures exposed right from the Sunga to Gupta period do not speak either about their nature of functional utility as no evidence has come to approbate them. Another noteworthy feature is that it was only during and after Period IV (Gupta level) onwards upto Period IX (late and post Mughal level) that the regular habitational deposits disappear in the concerned levels and the structural phases are associated with either structural debris or filling material taken out from the adjoining area to level the ground for construction purpose. As a result of which much of the earlier material in the form of pottery, terracottas and other objects of preceding periods, particularly of Period I (NBPW level) and Period III (Kushan level) are found in the deposits of later periods mixed along with their contemporary material.

The area below the disputed site thus, remained a place for public use for a long time till the Period VIII (Mughal level) when the disputed structure was built which was confined to a limited area and population settled around it as evidenced by the increase in contemporary archaeological material including pottery. The same is further attested by the conspicuous absence of habitational structures such as house-complexes, soakage pits, soakage jars, ring wells, drains, wells, hearths, kilns or furnaces etc. from Period IV (Gupta level) onwards and in particular from Period VI (Early
Medieval-Rajput level) and Period VII (Medieval-Sultanate level).The site has also proved to be significant for taking back its antiquarian remains for the first time to the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. (1250 ± 130 B.C.) on the analogy of the C14 dates.

The lowest deposit above the natural soil represents the NBPW period and therefore the earliest remains may belong to the thirteenth century B.C. Which is confirmed by two more consistent C14 dates from the NBPW level (Period I), viz. 910 ± 100 B.C. And 880 ± 100 B.C.) These dates are from trench G&. Four more dates from the upper deposit though showing presence of NBPW and associated pottery are determined by Radio-Carbon dating as 780 ± 80 B.C., 710 ± 90 B.C., 530 ± 70 B.C. And 320 ± 80 B.C. In the light of the above dates in association with the Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) which is generally accepted to be between circa 600 B.C. To 300 B.C. it can be pushed back to circa 1000 B.C. And even if a solitary date, three centuries earlier is not associated with, NBPW, the human activity at the site dates back to circa thirteenth century B.C. on the basis of the scientific dating method providing the only archaeological evidence of such an early date of the occupation of the site.

The Hon'ble High Court, in order to get sufficient archaeological evidence on the issue involved “whether there was
any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site” as stated on page 1 and further on P. 5 of their order dated 5th March, 2003, had given directions to the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where the GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which could be structure, pillars, Foundation walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by excavation.

Now, viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

After going through the report and considering the objections raised bt the rival parties HC ordered that the report would be subject to objections and evidence of the parties. ( Order dated 3.2.2005 of HC page 49/350 of ANN-III)

interestingly, after excavating five levels of the structure, each comparing a flat surface of lime-surkhi mortar having calcrete blocks below it, a squarish block of the same material component but with well polished surface
measuring 1.55 m in north-south x 1.48 m in east-west orientation protruding out of the fifth level was found and
after cutting the fifth level a chamber was noticed over whose projecting western part the above mentioned block
was found fixed, probably indicating some place of importance. Towards north of the 'Ram-Chabutra' the floor
of the outer courtyard of the disputed structure within the outer enclosure was exposed having a platform attached to
it in the western side which was approached through a step. Remains of brick structures, floors and working levels
below it were encountered. It seems that the area, particularly in the north eastern side of the disputed structure was low lying and therefore, it was filled up with debris to nearly 4 metres deep to reclaim the part for eastern extension. Stratified deposits were found below this filing which belong to the early two or three centuries of the Christian era

The appearance so far of eleven squarish of circular structural bases having brickbats at the base with two
rectangular blocks of calcrete stone over three or four courses of brickbats are significant as some of which are
sealed directly by the original floor attached to the disputed structure. The same type of the structural bases, with a sandstone block at their top having encasing of sandstone slabs/pieces on its four sides, were found in the northern area also, where eight trenches have been opened up so far. An interesting feature of these structural bases is that each one of it is located at a distance of 3.30 to 3.50 m 245(from centre to centre).

5. The total deposit of about 10.80 m thick, was divided into 9 cultural periods namely (1) Period-I (Northern Balck Polished Ware Level referring to period prior to 200 B.C.) (2) Period-II (Sunga Level referring to 200 B.C. to 100 A.D.) (3) Period-III (Kushan Level referring to 100-300 A.D. (4) Period-IV (Gupta Level 400-600 A.D. (5) Period-V (Post Gupta Rajpur Level 700-1000 A.D. (6) Period-VI (early Medieval-Pre Sultanate Level 1100-1200 A.D. (7) Period-VII (Medieval Level 1200 to the beginning of 1600 A.D., (8) Period-VIII (Mughal Level and (9) Perood-IX (Late and Post Mughal Level).

The Period-V (Post Gupta-Rajpur Level) is said to have yielded a “Subsidiary Circular Shrine from baulk of Tr. Nos. E 8 and F 8 (figure 24 and 24-A of Vol.1), which according to ASI was built around 1000 A.D. And could be associated with Lord Shiva, as the shrine had water-parashute (parnala) towards north, resembling with chirenath brick temple of Shrawasti (U.P.), circular Shiva Temples near Rewa in M.P. At chardreha and mason, belonging to 950 A. D. and temples at Kurari and Tindauli in District Fatehpur

The ASI says on page 41 of Vol. 1 that Period-VI, evidenced a massive north-south oriented brick wall (No. 17), markedly inclined towards east) in Tr. No.D-7, E-2, E-1 and ZF-1, possibly built around 1100-1200 A.D. Period-VII is said to have evidenced existence of a massive wall-16 in north-south orientation having length of about 150 feet, and also pillar bases towards east of this wall. The ASI says that a column based massive structure might have been raised on wall-16 and the 50 pillars, bases of which were noticed. This wall-16, which according to ASI was built around the end of 12th Century A.D., was having niches (Mehrab) facing towards east and was above the level of wall-17 (page-68). In sub-period-B of Period -VII there was found “a circular depression”(ghata shaped) (see plate 67) made by cutting the large brick pavement having the diameter of 1.05 m with a rectangular projection of 0.46 x 0.32 m towards west in the centre of the pavement, (if the central point was calculated on the basis of extent of length of wall-16 or wall-17 and longitudinal length of the alignment of pillar bases from north to south) suggesting as if the place was of importance (see page-42 of Report).

Southern foundation wall-6 of disputed structure was found, resting over two pillar bases of earlier period (pillar base No. 34, 35, plate No.30 and also see page 52 of Vol.1). This wall-6 had three courses of clacrete blocks. It was taking turn at south-east corner forming wall-7 of eastern side of southern chamber of structure-3. Wall-7 in front of southern chamber of the disputed structure-3, rested over three pillar bases of the earlier period (see figure-6 of Vol.I). Width of this Wall-7 was 1.54 m with entrance to southern chamber having a gap of 2.65 m. Wall-8 that is northern
wall of southern chamber of the disputed structure was 8.3 m. in length with an entrance to central chamber. The ASI could not probe into the site of central chamber, due to its close proximity to makeshift temple of Ram Lalla.

A_Gupta wrote:chaanakya, are photographs of the stone inscription available? In general, are photographs of the artifacts introduced into evidence available?

J Sudhir Aggrawal
(page 3/251 of Vol 17)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-17.pdf
PW 29, Jaya Menon, is co-author of the objections filed on behalf of PW 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report.

Sri Mohd. Hashim..against the nomenclature of various artifacts recorded during excavation and says
""Confusion can flow from the manner in which the articles found from excavation, are named....It is not proper to name any broken, incomplete and un-clear figurine, as a human or animal figurine only on basis of imagination....
Hence, it is prayed that provision be introduced according to rules to give proper names only when actual and clear figurines are discovered."

"this complaint is mischievous and worthless. The ASI experts identify such item/artifacts which ordinary people cannot. If only clear items were to be named, no expert would have needed."


3683. A much more detailed complaint along with six sketch diagrams is submitted on 21st May, 2003 by Sri Haji
Mahboob one of the defendant (Suit-3). It says that in Trench G2, digging has been made in such a way so as to create
squarish structural base instead of a floor.
......
A.R.Siddiqui, who at that time was incharge of ASI team, explained the matter whereupon following note put by two
Observers on 21st May, 2003:

4. Entire area of Trench G2 has not been excavated hence objection in this regard is premature. Recording and photography of exposed area has been done. Photography of the entire trench will be done after the excavation is complete.

....


Trench Observer Sri S.K.Sharma has recorded the proceedings
as under:
"Date – 16-05-03
Trench No. - G2

.......
A floor of lime surkhi with 3 cms of thickness was on plan which was removed. Another floor 1B of lime and surkhi was encountered and removed after recording. A floor of brick bat was exposed. It might be the packing material for the above floor. Below the brick bat ashy earth was noticed with kankar and this layer (1) was removed partially in the southern part only. A wall already on the floor 1 was left. It divides the Trench in two parts northern half and southern half.

....
A structure of brick bats and rectagonal in shape was encountered during digging. It has two calcreate stone kept side by side. It seems to be a pillar base already exposed in many trenches.

.....
thereafter it appears that further digging in G2 Trench was made by Z.Ali, Assistant Archeologist and his notes in Site Note Book 32 (Page 21 to 49) are for the period 17th July, 2003 to 2nd August, 2003.

3701. We have also examined the above complaint from the record. The excavation of Trench G2 commenced on 16th May, 2003. The recording of the proceedings by Sri S.K.Sharma, Trench Supervisor has already been mentioned
above. This digging continued under the supervision of Sri Sharma for four days i.e. 16th May, 2003, 17th May, 2003, 18th
May, 2003 and 20th May, 2003. On all these four days, as per day to day register, the parties or their nominees, as the case may be, were present and had signed the said register
...
Mahboob, in his own oral statement, has admitted that he is not a technical man. Obviously, the said complaint must have been prepared by someone else who had not taken the responsibility nor the name of such person has been disclosed. It is a bit surprising that upto four days of digging, when Haji Mahboob and Mohd. Hashim Ansari were throughout present and signed day to day register, but did not find anything wrong. However, a well technically advised complaint was made on the very next day i.e. 21st May, 2003.

3703. The two witnesses PW-29 Dr. Jaya Menon and PW-3768 32 Dr. Supria Varma claim to have made the complaint of creation of pillar base by ASI people to the muslim parties. On page 79, PW -32 Dr. Supriya Varma has said:
"These complaints were filed by Dr. Jaya Menon and me. These complaints were handed over to muslim parties and
their counsels."
3704. PW-32, Dr. Supriya Verma was present at the site on the following dates:(a) 5th April, 2003 to 12th April, 2003, (b) 11th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003, (c) 22nd June 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and (d) 8th July 2003 to 19th July, 2003
3705. PW 29 Jaya Menon has given the period when she was present at the site, in para 2 of her affidavit, as under:
(a) 26th April, 2003 to 2nd May, 2003, (b) 20th May, 2003 to 31st May, 2003 (c) 22nd June, 2003 to 27th June, 2003 and
(d) 19th July, 2003 to 26th July, 20033706.

Therefore, at Trench G2, between 16th May, 2003 to 19th May, 2003, according to the own admission, PW 29 was not present. Similarly at trench ZF1, PW 32 was not present (29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003). PW 29 in para 13M(i) of the affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 has asserted that she observed Trench ZF1 from 29th to 30th April, 2003, noticed creation of pillar base and made a complaint.

(a) PW 16, Surajbhan
“In my opinion, the ASI Report had a feature not amenable to criticism. It was that they (the excavators) have discovered many walls and floors and some pillar bases beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute evidence.” (E.T.C.)

“Rather, only the Islamic structures of the Sultanate period were beneath the mosque.” (E.T.C.)

“When the attention of the witness was drawn to second and third lines below period-7 (medieval level) on page 41
of volume-1, he stated – It is not correct to place this structure between the 12th century and the 16th century;
rather its construction followed the structure of wall no. 17 in the Sultanate period itself. To attribute this structure to
the medieval period is certainly correct in a broad sense; but since the medieval period is also taken to have many
phases, I will place this structure in the later part of the Sultanate period” (E.T.C.)

“When the attention of the witness was attracted to a circular subsidiary shrine … Figures 24 and 24A, he stated – It is correct to say that the semi-circular construction which is mentioned here is same as stated above to be in these trenches. Broadly speaking, I think it proper to call this period early medieval period. I do not have any arguments contradicting this structure being attributed to that period.” (E.T.C.)

“On being shown plate nos. 59 & 60 of the report, the witness stated that it was the in-situ photograph of the circular shrine found along with structure 5A at time of excavation. It is correct to say that a drain is visible in north orientation of plate no.60. This construction is prior to the Islamic period.” (E.T.C.)

Such decorated stones were built from the Gupta period to the Sultanate period.

“There appear to have been some actual pillar bases on the north on which pillars etc. may have been standing and the roof may also have been based.” (E.T.C.)

“On being shown Plate No.-48, the witness stated that a round shaped construction is visible in this plate, which
has been termed as pillar base by the excavator.

The report contains reference to the effect that out of approximately 180 identified anomalies, only about 40 structures had been physically traced out. The sections of few alleged pillar bases can also be seen. Out of the pillar bases sections found, I have seen few.” (E.T.C.)

“The alleged 50 pillar bases shown by ASI, are not on the same floor and are also not related to the same period.” (E.T.C.)

The sand stone structures in north from the boundary of the mosque, appear to be pillar bases. The ASI has also
mentioned in its report that it had clearly dug out about 12 pillar bases.” (E.T.C.)

it is true that these constructions, which have been termed pillar bases, are visible in- situ at the excavation site. The pillar base nos. 1 & 5 of plate no.37 and the pillar base no.1 of plate no.38, reasonably appear pillar bases to me.” (E.T.C.)
( so Pillar bases are found on the spot and not created as alleged by other experts)
“The wall no. 16 has not been built by Babar however, the sculptured stones used in it, are certainly the stones used in old structures. During those periods where there was lack of either financial means to build structures with new materials or aesthetic sense of that kind, all such materials were used, which were easily available at low cost.” (E.T.C.)
( A new theory, invaders were poor so they reused in-situ materials.)


“The portion beneath wall no.16 is plastered. It shows that it is the wall of some building. The wall no. 16 has been used as foundation of wall no.5. There was a partly independent foundation of wall no. 5 towards west and in some of the trenches, the wall no.16 appears as foundation of wall no. 5.” (E.T.C.)
Seventeen courses of bricks are visible in it and stone slabs are also visible beneath these bricks in the foundation. These stone slabs are in form of foundation of this wall.” (E.T.C.)

“It is correct to say that wall no. 05 is on rest against wall no.16.” (E.T.C.)

“ On the site I saw wall no.16 and wall no.17. From the north to the south wall no.17 is roughly stated to be nearly
50 metres in length. Wall no.16 is also stated to have nearly the same length. Except for certain deviations these two
walls are in up and down positions nearly in the same alignment.” (E.T.C.)

“I have not carried out any research or study on my own regarding the period calculation of wall nos.23 to 27. I have no objection on the period calculation of these walls, as made by ASI.” (E.T.C. ) ( In third deposition he goes on to boject these ASI conclusions which he agrees here)


“Wall nos. 1 to 15 are walls of the courtyard of the disputed structure.

. The wall no.21 has been shown in north-east of the circular shrine. The wall no. 21 has possibly been shown about 1½-2 meters longer in figure 3A.” (E.T.C.)

However, I do not have any objection in ASI terming it to be of the Gupta period. Whether the wall no.26 is older than wall no.25 or not, is not clear only from perusal of this figure. However, it is possible that this wall is earlier to wall no.25, because I had seen wall of earlier period over there in the trench. ASI has shown it to be of Kushana period, and I have no objection in it.” (E.T.C.) ( so no objection in periodization)

“The wall no.28 is in trench J-3. It is so mentioned in the report that this concrete stone wall is of the Shunga period. I have no objection about such period calculation.” (E.T.C.)

“Looking at plate no.127 only of the report, the witness stated – A broken figure of elephant made of baked soil is visible in the photograph of this plate. In the Vedic religion, elephant was a vehicle of Indra; but in Hinduism, three main deities – Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh – are not associated with elephant. Nevertheless, Hinduism is a vast religion and it has various branches, and as it has developed considerably, animals, plants etc. may be found as important religious emblems somewhere or the other or in some community or the other. This terracotta is not associated with the structures of the Sultanate period prior to the Babri masjid.” (E.T.C.) ( So a figurine is found.)

“ It is correct to say that several remains associated with Hinduism have been discovered from the excavations of particular strata of Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

“Whatever has been shown by the excavators, was definitely present in the excavation i.e. that portion appears to be in-situ.” (E.T.C.)(So he confirms that SASI has not brought any materials from outside)

“I agree with the report of ASI about the remains of temple, to the extent that these remains may have been of some temple” (E.T.C.) ( A good way of telling that there used to be a temple)


“The photograph of the inscription lying upside down, must have been taken inside the trench. By ‘upside down’ I mean that the writing of the inscription was towards the lower part and the unwritten part was upwards. When I entered the trench, the inscription was facing the lower side. I had only tried to verify whether anything had been inscribed over this stone or not.” (E.T.C.)

“It is correct to say that lime mortar was found to have been used in the 3rd century AD during the Kushana period
in Takshshila and Pakistan, but its use was very limited.” ( So he agrees that Lime mortar were used even during pre mughal, pre sultanate period, though limited.)

“After looking at plate nos. 22 & 23 of ASI report Vol.-2, (the witness) stated that in both the photographs decorated
stones can be seen to have been re-used. They have been used in the upper part of the foundation of wall-5. Plaster
is visible in plate no.-22.

“The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11th & 12th century. I have no objection in determination of period calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.)

“I feel that the VII period should be fixed during the Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed date of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so far. According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north India is considered from the 13th century. According to me, the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started in the 13th century and the period VII in the 16th century. . . . Actually it be wrong to term them as two periods. They are only the remains of two buildings, which were built and saw their end during the Sultanate period. The structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI, is a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is of subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in the similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan etc., which is entirely different from archaeological remains and house construction pattern of period V.” (E.T.C.)

“I have objection regarding the period of wall nos.16 and 17, as worked out in the period calculation. I consider it to be wrong. I had no objection about the period calculation in respect of the other walls.” (E.T.C.)

“Question- From your reply it is clear that you have no objection about the period calculation made by ASI in respect of wall nos. 1 to 15 and 18 to 28. What you have to say in this behalf?
Answer- I have no objection regarding the period calculation of structures and walls except for the period calculation made in respect of structures subsequent to period 6 & 7.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned in the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255) and
page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab Jilani.”(E.T.C.) ( So complaints of plaintiff against ASI that these items were not mentioned in reports/registers by ASI are not correct)

“It is true that glazed ware & glazed tiles were being made in India even prior to the Sultanate period, but they
were very less in number and different from the glazed ware & tiles of the Sultanate and Mughal period.” (E.T.C.) ( Now this is funny. Expert says that Glazed wares were available even before Sultanate period while Plaintiffs are claiming it to be proof of islamic habitation on the site. They also claimed that Ayodhya is Kudh Mecca and equally Holy to Muslims)

“The semi-circular structure in plate nos. 59 & 60, is a bit after the main structure of Babri mosque. Brick wall is also visible in these plates. Both of them have been marked in the same period-5, in the ASI report. I am unable to dispute the period given by ASI, because I have not seen the evidence related to it. … From perusal of these plates it appears that successive constructional activity must have existed at the disputed site, if their dates are correct. From perusal of these photographs, it is also clear that the brick wall is in-situ i.e. at its original place.”(E.T.C.)

3823. P.W. 16, Prof. Surajbhan, in his third appearance, has deposed in the matter of ASI report and the said statement is contained in Parts 3 and 4 (paras no. 135 to 556) of his oral deposition. He claim to have actually visited the site of excavation for a period of three days in June, 2003 when the excavation was continuing:
“ When excavation was going on at the disputed site in Ayodhya. I went to the site of excavation for three days.” (E.T.C.)

“When I went to the disputed site in June 2003, I was accompanied by Dr.Mandal, Dr.Shireen Ratnagar and Dr. Sita Ram Rai, a retired director of archaeology, who had come from Patna.” (E.T.C.)
I have appeared to discard or reject the report of ASI and its department, through my evidence.” (E.T.C.)

“I have drawn the conclusion that the conclusion of ASI is wrong.” (E.T.C.)

“I have come to give my estimate about this excavation report of Ayodhya and also to tell that the conclusion of this report regarding existence of any temple beneath the Babri mosque, is baseless.” (E.T.C.) ( So what happened to his earlier statement which we saw just a while ago. )

“Question- Your first appearance in this court to give evidence was as a archaeologist or historian?
Answer- Besides being an Archaeologist, I am also a historian because archaeology is a historical science and as such when I appeared before this court, I appeared to give my evidence on this topic in entirety.” (E.T.C.) ( We have already seen the fate of his deposition as expert historian and closely analysed his experience and learning both as historian and archaeology, which did not pass muster as an expert. But who will tell them. He still claims to be expert

“Every worthwhile archaeologist is also a historian. History is a detailed science with archaeology being its branch. When I came to give evidence as a historian, it did not mean that I had come without the knowledge and method of archaeology.” (E.T.C.) ( Well that is certainly true, but unfortunately court did not think him worthwhile either as historian or as archaeologist. It was the legal procedure that kept him in reckoning)

“I went there, when much excavation had taken place. However, at that time excavation was being carried out in few new trenches. When I went there, excavation was being carried out in trench no. G-7. Excavation in E & F series trenches was also being carried out at places. Earlier also the excavation was being carried out at places in J, K series.” (E.T.C.)

“As an expert, I examined the sample of three days excavation, their pottery yard,” (E.T.C.)

“My article is also included in the magazine ‘Against Communalisation of Archaeology- A Critic of the ASI Report’, published by institution named Sahmat. Its title is ‘Bad Method, Poor Result-A Critic of ASI Report’.” (E.T.C.)
“Safdar Hashmi Memorial is a trust, which is called Sahmat in brief. I am not a member of Sahmat, but I do take part in many of its activities.” (E.T.C.)“Sahmat also publishes a magazine, whose name I am not able to recollect at present. Few articles of mine have been published in this magazine as well.” (E.T.C.) ( So here is the Sahmat connection as some member pointed out)

3824. In respect to certain fields he also clearly admitted his lack of expertise and experience as under: ( certainly court is not impressed)

“I have no academic qualification in architectural science and instead it is based on my experience and general study.”

“I am not an expert in numismatics.” (E.T.C.)

“I have not actually seen the glazed tiles & glazed ware found from the excavation site,” (E.T.C.)

We have already seen Court thrasing his statement , an archaeologist who has not learning in the field, nor a formal training)

3825. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan filed his affidavit dated 20.03.2006 in support of the objections filed on behalf of plaintiff 1 (Suit-4) against ASI report.

The conclusions drawn by ASI alleged to be bound and it says that they have adopted a defective methodology and biased assumption (vide para 4 of the affidavit). Then general allegations in para 14 has been made that the report, on the whole, lacks scientific rigour, objectivity and professional integrity and such trend and tendency in Indian Archaeology may pose a serious challenge not only to the world of historians but also to those citizens who are interested in truth and nothing but the truth. ( Its heavy hammer of the court, he must be smarting under its impact)In his cross-examination PW 16, however, said:

“Generally, scholars are in agreement on the use of some terms such as N.B.P.W., Shunga, Kushan, Gupta. But the term like 'post-Gupta-Rajpoot era' is not in vogue. The term 'Early Medieval – Sultanate' is also not in use. In the afore-said chart, the Mughal period is shown separately from the medieval period. It is also not in vogue because the Mughal period is only a part of the Medieval Period.” (E.T.C.) So a so so expert in history is raising objection about periodization)

“ In determination of some dates, Carbon-14, coins and potteries have been used.” (E.T.C.)

“But an error perceptible in this report is that they have shown weakness in obtaining some crucial evidences or in analysing them and have given too much stress on some evidences so as to infer wrong findings and have not made
any critical analysis of them. On the other hand, some other vital materials, which hold special significance to
this problem, have been either ignored or suppressed, so that they may be able to establish their preconceived
findings. I take these very methods to be faulty and term these presumptions as biased.” (E.T.C.) ( allegation of bias is raised against ASI)

“It is correct to say that many a time a single period may have various strata and at other times different periods may be indicative of different strata. Only the physical remains provide a base for the reckoning of a cultural period.” (E.T.C.

“Answer:- The section cutting has been done in a very fine manner in the excavation of Ayodhya, though there may be
lacuna at several places in stratification.” (E.T.C.)

“Only after study it will be known whether those findings are correct or not.” (E.T.C.) ( so he did not study before accusing ASI of Bias)

“It is better that periodization is done numerically and on political and economic grounds. Several dynasties and several royal lineages will be covered in this chronological order. But periodization based on several royal lineages has many limitations. The ASI in its report has not proceeded with the reckoning of time merely on the basis of royal lineages. It has given the name of NBPW period on the basis of archaeological materials and those of medieval period, later or post Mughal periods etc., on historical basis. The ASI, in this report, have certainly given the names of Kushan period, Shunga period, Gupta period, later Gupta period, Rajpoot period and Mughal period, which are related to dynasties/royal lineages or
cover such dynasties/royal lineages. But the report contains certain conclusions in which no line of separation is seen
between the early medieval period and the Sultanate period. In cultural chronology, trade & commerce and general social structure by themselves are not indicative of any separate period or of any political and economic system.” (E.T.C.)
Well earlier he was saying that these periods are shown separately which is wrong and now...

“In the total excavation period, I stayed there for three days. . . . . ASI may have carried out recording in the trenches during the excavation. However, to the best of my knowledge recording of glazed ware, glazed tiles & bones was not carried out properly for about one month from the beginning of excavation till the order of court. I had only studied the stratography of trenches and archaeological remains and had partially seen the drawing being made there but had not seen the trenches note book & daily register. I did not see any excavator writing the site note book at the site. I know that Supervisor’s note book & antiquity register etc. have been prepared but I have doubt that the Supervisor has written the dairy at time of excavation. I also have doubts about the antiquity register that it has not been written in the manner it should have been written and appears to have been prepared subsequently according to requirement of court. This doubt is my own and I have also gathered information in this behalf. This information was given to me by Dr. Mandal, Mr. Thakran, Shirin Ratnagar and many other persons who were present there. When I looked at it, I found that the recording was not in the manner, as is done in usual excavation. To the best of my knowledge, out of the said
three persons from whom I received the information, Mr. Thakran must have stayed at the disputed site for a long
duration. . . . . . . . In the period of my stay at the excavation site, I came to know that after the excavation, 3939
the antiquities were entered in the evening in the daily register and probably signatures were also obtained. I did
not see the Supervisor’s note book being written, which is written by the Supervisor at the trench and instead at time
of my visit to the trench I used to find some of the Supervisors sitting a side the trench. From this, it appeared to me that all the Supervisors were not equally serious excavators.” (E.T.C.)

“The excavation takes place from top to bottom. These days the period determination takes place from bottom to top. ...The carbon dating is considered a scientific technique of absolute dating, but it has its limitation.” (E.T.C.)

“Question- I had specifically asked whether in archeology, the century wise period calculation has been considered to
be reliable or not, which has not been clearly replied by you?
Answer- If the century wise period calculation does not match with cultural period calculation or the calculation of
socio-economic & cultural structure, then we do not use it. In archaeology, there is no yardstick for fossistic period calculation.” (E.T.C.)

“I have read the complete ASI report. The ASI has made the period calculation on basis of these three viz. dynasty, century and layer. However, the main basis of period calculation has been neglected in few periods such as the period nos. 6 & 7 have been decided contrary to facts on basis of pre-conceived ideas and have been ante-dated, which only reflects on lack of knowledge in archaeology or the motive.The ASI has used the C-14 technique for period calculation. However, it is incorrect at many places. In its report, the ASI has given a chart at many places regarding the carbon dating samples and its conclusion thereon.The witness was asked whether he agreed or not with the carbon dating and conclusions contained in Appendix 1 page 273 ASI Vol. 1. … and sample no. 2, 3, 4B and 5B. The witness stated that this question should be put to ASI because there is no mention of any cultural period or any particular layer of any particular trench, from where these samples had been taken and as such none other than the excavator would be able to decipher this incomplete appendix.
Question- Has the ASI made any mention about the said four samples in its report or not?
Answer- It must have been mentioned, but it should have been written in appendix.

Question- You have not studied the trench and layer, with which the samples given in this appendix are related to,
due to which you are unable to give a specific reply regarding the result of C-14 and are only stating about the
appendix being incomplete. What you have to say in this behalf?
Answer- The suggestion on making the archaeological excavation reports clear and comprehend-able, amounts to avoiding the issue. Actually whenever any archaeologists prepares report on his excavation, it is meant for publication so that people may get new information or knowledge. However, not only in the appendix of this report but at many other places as well, where the list of antiquities has been given, the information about the period and level of any particular
antiquity has not been given. This deficiency is clearly visible in photographs and drawing. I do not know how to
accept this report as authentic. It is wrong to say that I have not studied the report.
Question- It has been mentioned in the ASI report as to from where the samples were taken and to which layer were they related to. What you have to say in this behalf?
Answer- These dates must have been mentioned at appropriate places by ASI, according to its wisdom.The ASI has marked the sixth period in 11th & 12th century. I have no objection in determination of period calculation of I to V by the ASI, because it is not related to the present dispute.” (E.T.C.) “I feel that the VII period should be fixed during
the Sultanate period after period VI. However, no fixed date of both these Sultanate periods, is not available so
far. According to my studies, the Sultanate period in north India is considered from the 13th century. According to me,
the VI period came first in the Sultanate period and the period VII followed. It is possible that the period VI started
in the 13th century and the period VII in the 16th century. ...Actually it be wrong to term them as two periods. 3946
They are only the remains of two buildings, which were built and saw their end during the Sultanate period. The
structure of wall no. 17, said to be related to period VI, is a prior structure and only the structure of period VII is
of subsequent period, Sultanate period. It can be seen in the similarity of diagnostic remains, their walls, floor, plan
etc., which is entirely different from archaeological remains and house construction pattern of period V.” (E.T.C.)

“The period of Sultanate period has already been determined by the historians, as falling between 1206 AD to 1526 AD. It is not a topic of my research” (E.T.C.) ( then why he is objecting to m the periodization)


3826. About periodization PW 16 has made a very vague statement and failed to provide any proper reason to challenge the same. On page 244, PW-16 has simply said that there are some conclusions in the report which do not give any clear cut line of separation between the early Mughal period and Sultenat period. Regarding the allegations of lack of professional integrity, objectivity, scientific rigor, pursuing defective methodology and biased assumption, we find on the contrary, predetermined attitude of the witness against ASI which he has admitted. Even before submission of ASI report and its having been seen by the witness, he formed opinion and expressed his views against ASI. He said:

“It is true that my conclusions and views on certain issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the submission of ASI’s report in court.” (E.T.C.) ( well that is called intellectual dishonesty. He has formed his view even before the report and accuses ASI of bias)

“Consequent to submission of ASI’s report in the matter and the claim that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, I and Prof. Irfan Habib had given this statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple. If this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above statement.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that I have been making comments and expressing my opinion over excavation of Babri mosque and the articles etc. written over it. It is true that the institution Sahmat had recognized me and had invited me on number of occasions to comment in this behalf.”(E.T.C.)

“In my view, this report had been given to the parties in last of August or beginning of September, 2003. I got to
read the report after about 1-1½ weeks.I had read ASI’s report in September, 2003. Prior to submission of ASI’s report I had given my opinion on few issues related to the disputed site. ...It is true that I had formed my opinion prior to submission of ASI’s report. I have been expressing my opinion regarding the disputed site, since the year 1990. This opinion of mine that there was no requirement of excavation to resolve the dispute, had been expressed by me earlier.” (E.T.C.)

3828. He visited excavation site during the course of excavation only for three days but even during that period did
not make any proper study of the finds, but has tried to blame ASI. It is evident from his own statement:

“I went to the disputed site in June 2003 in course of the excavation.” (E.T.C.)

“I could not see the data which was packed in packets and access to which was permitted even by the court, inasmuch
as I could not get the facility in this respect. By the expression 'not getting the facility', I mean that we wanted to see the materials of some trenches but the A.S.I. and people of other side insisted that they can show the materials only from an end; for which I did not have time. In this respect I did not give my objection in writing but held discussion there.” (E.T.C.)

“ (Himself stated) I could not see the materials in the pottery yard because old materials and those of a subsequent period were lying in mixed forms in several trenches. They were not distinctly classified, nor was there anybody to tell us in this regard. I did not make any objection of mine in writing in this respect also.” (E.T.C.)

“Since I was at the disputed site for only three days, I myself did not move any objection.” (E.T.C.)

“I did not see the day- to-day register, which pertains to the present excavation. My knowledge is based on the ASI
report and on the study which I had done during my three-day-stay there.” (E.T.C.)

Question:- Supposing that you have an on-the-spot inspection of the excavation site of Ayodhya and you are shown the afore-said figure-3A (page 48), a plain question I would like to ask you is whether you can say that this key plan is properly prepared and can be understood?
Answer:- After making an on-the-spot extensive study in regard to the excavation this plan can be understood and 3953
its mistakes, if there be any, may also be detected.” (E.T.C.)

“When I went to the pottery yard to make study on potteries, I did not find potteries arranged in a classified manner. Potteries were lying there in a mixed form, hence it was not possible to make their study in a limited period. Nobody forbade me from observing the potteries in the pottery yard but no archaeologist was also there to help me in my study. …... I had tried to see them along with antiquities but remains were not shown to us. I have already stated about it.” (E.T.C.)


“I have no knowledge whether glazed ware was found or not in the excavation on 13th June, 2003, when I was present there, and on the contrary it was my curiosity to see the glazed ware found there, if any. . . . . . . We had demanded to see the glazed ware. Since I was involved in inspection of trenches at the excavation site, I did not demand the glazed ware over there. Nobody intimated me on that day about discovery of any glazed ware at that place. The day-to-day register was not prepared in my presence on 13th June, 2003.” (E.T.C.)

“It is true that the details of glazed ware are mentioned in the day-to-day register dated 13.06.2003 (page 255) and page 256 bears the signature of Mr. Zafaryab
Jilani.” (E.T.C.)

(b) PW 24, D. Mandal:
"It is true that both still-photography and videography were carried out at time of excavation. The drafts-man had been maintaining the location i.e. the place, angle and depth of the place where artefact was found during excavation at the disputed site. The drafts-man surveys the site to be excavated and determines the place to be excavated, the place & size of the trenches to be dug up and numbers them. In the present matter also, similar action was taken but the drafts-man did not determine the place, number and size of the trenches to be dug up and instead it was decided by the archaeologist carrying out the excavation, who was also the team leader."(E.T.C.)

"Prior to excavation, photography is also done of the upper surface of the excavation site." (E.T.C.)

"I do not think that during my stay, the archaeologists had built any pillar etc. In my presence, nothing took place such as the said archaeologists building something secretly or forcibly. During the excavation, I had seen that the articles found in excavation were separated." (E.T.C.) ( so it was alie that ASI tried to create evidence or excavate in some manner as to create impression of pillar bases and that they did not planted artefacts)

"It is true that a concrete floor construction of 9 metre x 9 metre size was found beneath J-5, J-6, G-5, G-6. The extension of that very floor was found in Trench G-7." (E.T.C.)
So the floors were not separate but only extension . Ideally they would belong to contemporaneous period as reported by ASI. Other experts had contended that both were different and later one belonged to sultanate period, which is kind of obvious if you want to prove the existence of Islamic structure beneath the DS)
"I have carefully studied the A.S.I. Report from the angle of stratigraphy. Stratigraphy is the backbone of any excavation." (E.T.C.)

"The post 6th BC period, is called post-Gupta period. The Medieval period of Indian History is considered to be from last of 12th century to the beginning of 13th century. The beginning of Sultanate period is considered to be 1206 AD." (E.T.C.)

"There are two methods of periodization in excavation. The first is stratification, the second is the mutual relation of the remains found with the stratification. I am of the view that both these methods form basis of periodization as also the methods. In archaeology, period determination is also made on basis of dynasties, if relevant remains are found. It is correct to say that there are three methods of periodization in archaeology. The first is layer-wise, second is dynasty-wise and third is century-wise. It is correct to say that century-wise periodization is a recognised and scientific method of archaeology. As an archaeologist, I agree that there is a chapter related to century-wise periodization. I have studied this chapter. Periodization has been done in the A.S.I. Report on basis of all the three methods i.e. layer-wise, century-wise and dynasty-wise period. It is not that in period determination, the A.S.I. has mentioned all the three methods separately." (E.T.C.) ( so ASI has followed accepted methods of periodization which are not mutually exclusive, hence this objection also goes)

"From archaeological point of view the layer, dynasty and century methods can be divided in two parts. The first being relative dating method and the other being absolute dating method." (E.T.C.)

"Carbon dating and other methods fall under absolute dating. Carbon dating is a scientific method of periodization. Usually the date determined by Carbon dating, is considered correct." (E.T.C.)

"Comparatively I would consider absolute dating to be more authentic between relative dating and absolute dating. It is correct to say that the period determined on basis of Carbon dating is authentic." (E.T.C.) SO report in this aspect is also correct.

"In the excavation in question, the A.S.I. had maintained all three–Day-to-day Register, Site Notebook and Antiquity Register. The details of work done on each day of excavation and the prima facie description of articles found during excavation, were entered in the Day-to-day Register. The details of antiquities, as they appeared prima facie, were entered in the Antiquity Register. The Site Notebook was maintained trench-wise." (E.T.C.) ( this complaint of not maintaining the record is refuted by their own witness)

"In the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, I have also taken the Day-to-day Register maintained by A.S.I. as a basis. I did not deem it necessary to peruse the Site Notebook and Antiquity Register, which are essential records of excavation, because sufficient material was available for study from the A.S.I. Report and Day-to-day Register." (E.T.C.)

"I was not able to go inside and inspect any layer of Trench J-3, and had carried out observation from outside. I had inspected Trenches J-4 and J-5 as well. It is true that a brick floor was found towards east in front of J-3, J-4 and J-5, which was about 1¼ metre below the upper surface of the excavation site. I did not study these square bricks. A similar brick floor was found at the same depth below Trenches J-1, J-2 & K-1, K-2, which are in north of traveler's gangway. I do not recollect as of now whether the excavation in Trench J-3 had been carried out upto the natural soil or not." E.T.C.)

"A massive wall was found in the northern part of the disputed site, which was in the north-south direction. The length of that wall was probably 50 metres and I do not properly remember its breadth. However, this wall was very thick, and was about 1.60 metres in thickness. Another wall was found under this massive wall, which was in north-south." (E.T.C.)

"On basis of the A.S.I. Report and my own spot inspection, I have arrived at the conclusion that large scale structural activities were carried out at the disputed site during the Kushana period and Gupta period."(E.T.C.)

"The details of structures found at the disputed site, have been given by the A.S.I. in Figure 3 & 3A of its report volume. I agree that the structures found at the disputed site and mentioned in Figure 3 & 3A, are at the disputed site. The A.S.I. has mentioned four floors in its report, with which I agree." (E.T.C.)

"The period of Layer Nos. 3 & 4 of Trench G-7 shown in the chart at page 27A of A.S.I. Report volume-1, has been correctly shown as early medieval Sultanate. I agree with it." (E.T.C.)

"The period of Layer 5 & 6 of Trench G-5 has also been given correctly as early medieval Sultanate. It would be correct to say that Layers 3 & 4 of G-7 and Layers 5 & 6 of Trench J-5, were contemporary. The Floor Nos. 4 & 3 of J-5, J-7 were of the same level." (E.T.C.)

"Figure-1 at page 13A of Volume-1 of A.S.I. Report, is a contour map. I agree with the same." (E.T.C.)

"In my view, this circular shrine would be of the Gupta period." (E.T.C.) Well others claimed it is Budhist)

" After looking at Plate-15 of A.S.I. Report Volume-2, the witness stated that five different structural phases appear in it. It is correct to say that visibility of eastern view of Ramchabutra, is written below Plate-15." (E.T.C.)

"It is correct to say that many levels existed from the upper surface to the surface of the base. As appearing in
Plate-15, there are four different levels besides the upper surface. It is also correct to say that each layer has lime-
surkhi mortar and are full of calcrete blocks. It is not correct to say that a square stone piece is visible in the second level. From top to bottom in Plate No.15, a small square shaped platform, made-up mainly of lime, is visible in the ground level of second layer. Its thickness would be about 4-5 inches. I have no knowledge that this square place was used as 'Vedi' of 'Yagyashala' (altar). In this behalf I would like to say that no archaeological evidence has been found about this place being the 'Vedi' of 'Yagya' (altar). I neither know the meaning of 'Yagya' nor of 'Vedi'." (E.T.C.)

"I remained at the excavation site from 10th June, 2003 to 15th June, 2003. At that time, most of the excavation work was in conclusion stage. By that time most of the important structures had been exposed and most of the sections had been explored. Only structures had been exposed during my stay at the excavation site, and no movable archaeological remain had been found over there during my stay." (E.T.C.)

"Birbal Sahni Institute is a recognised institution of Carbon-Dating. I agree with the period of NBPW given by A.S.I. in its report as Period-1 from 6th BC to 3rd BC." (E.T.C.)

"At page-39 of the A.S.I. Report, the period of Kushana level has been determined from first to third century AD as Period-3, with which I agree. The Gupta level is mentioned under it as Period-4 and its period has been determined from 4th to 6th AD, with which I agree." (E.T.C.)

The pillar bases visible in these isometric view given by A.S.I., have not been verified by me from the disputed site." E.T.C.)
"Floor-1, is the floor of the disputed structure. The Floor-2 lies to east of Floor-1, in which all the pillar bases and structures have been shown in the report. . . . . My disagreement is not regarding the wall, but I do not agree with the pillars shown attached to Floor-3. Floor-4 lies to east of three, and I agree with the wall and structures attached to it." (E.T.C.)

"I have studied about Wall Nos. 16, 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D. Wall Nos. 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D are not contemporary of Wall No. 16. I consider the Wall No. 16 to be of the Sultanate period. It began in 13 AD." (E.T.C.)

"The existence of Wall No. 5 is partly in north of the makeshift structure and similarly in south of the makeshift structure." (E.T.C.)

"A decorated stone has been fixed in Wall No. 17. This decorated stone is floral motif. It is used in Hindu temples. Wall No. 17 is of the Gupta period. It is of the period between 4th to 6th AD." (E.T.C.)

"The outer wall in western side of the disputed structure, is visible in Plate No. 22. It is in-situ photograph of the spot. I cannot tell whether this wall is known as Wall No. 5 or not. A piece of decorated stone is visible in this wall, which has a crocodile figurine over it. It is also used in Hindu temples." (E.T.C.)

"I agree with the layer 5A mentioned in A.S.I. Report. It is non-Islamic structure. A 'Parnala' (gargoyle) is possibly not there in Stupa. Then stated that I do not have knowledge of the fact whether there is a 'Parnala' (gargoyle) or not in a Stupa." (E.T.C.)
This parnala is an essential element of temple . Circular shire is admitted and with this parnala not found in Stupa as we shall see later admitted by other experts make this structure as shiva temple. It was a practice in these areas , during Gupta period to have mini temple of other deity along with the main shrine. This fact clearly renders it a structure with Hindu religious importance

"It is correct to say that construction activities had been carried out at the disputed site even before the Mughal period." (E.T.C.)

"As an archaeologist, I admit discovery of structures beneath the disputed structure during excavation." (E.T.C.)

3830. Prof. D. Mandal, P.W. 24, while commenting upon the ASI report, has said that the form in which ASI has
excavated the site at Ayodhya does not appear to be justified for the reason that only vertical excavation in some of the trenches was sufficient for achieving the object and horizontal excavation at such a large scale was not only unrequited but misuse of the available resources. He has made comments based upon the information, which he received from the personal visit at the site of excavation firstly from 10.6.2003 to 15.6.2003 and thereafter from 27.9.2003 to 29.9.2003; the ASI report containing two volumes and day to day register maintained by the ASI officials during the course of excavation.

3832. The facts stated in affidavit, he (PW 24) admits to have based on Trench G-7, as is evident form page 287 and
293/294:“The affidavit of the examination-in-chief, is mainly based on study of Trench G-7 because the evidences of stratification found up to natural soil in Trench G-7, are not available in any other trench. The Trench G-7 can also be called the index trench of the excavation carried out at this archaeological site. In my view, the Trench G-7 can be the index trench. Besides it, the other trenches excavated up to virgin soil, are not that important in my view.”(E.T.C.)
“The opinion expressed by me in para-6(page 5 to 17 of the affidavit) of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief,
is based on study of Trench G-7. It is wrong to say that for stratification and periodization, I did not consider it
necessary to study other trenches besides Trench G-7. In para 6 of my affidavit, I have stated about reuse of
material. Whatever material I have stated to be reused, is material of non-Islamic building and related to Hindu
temples or Buddha Vihar.”(E.T.C.)

B- (i) In course of my observation, I got an opportunity to study the sections which have come to light through excavation, from the view- point of depositional history. As a student of archaeology I pay obeisance to Trench G-7. The section of this trench tells the whole story of this archaeological site. It is an open book. Every layer of its is like
pages of a book which can be read by anybody who is capable of doing so. I put forward whatsoever I have been able to gather in a limited time by virtue of my ordinary capacity

At the excavation carried out by Sri Lal, remains of ramparts and fortification wall constructed in the Early Historic Period have also been found from here. From the view point of protection against flood, this evidence is also very important. All these evidences clearly alludes to flood protection. Discovery of alluvial deposit from this place is the most important evidence out of these ones. A clear proof of fierce floods having occurred twice has been found from this place. The facts available give rise to a full possibility that necessity was felt for repeated heightening of this place only
with a view to provide protection against the fury of flood. In course of this development, there was once a time when people had to abandon this place itself for a long period on account of flood. This fact is borne out by the evidence of humus deposit in the wake of flood

Facts available give rise to a full possibility that necessity was felt for repeated heightening of this place only with a view to provide protection against the fury of flood.

(iii) As per our study, after the first four periods this archaeological sites became desolate for a long time. The continuity of periods came to be broken. In this behalf a clear proof of cultural intermission is available. The fourth period of chronology is the Gupta period. As per the report this period has been dated as 4th-6th century AD. As per my study, proofs are found of floods having occurred twice in this period. After the second flood people abandoned this place for a long time. This fact is evidenced by the fact that proof is found of there being humus deposit above this flood-stemming deposit. It is pertinent to mention that the remains of whichever culture is found after the humus deposit, belongs to the Islamic period. Discovery of remains of glazed ware, glazed tiles, animal bones and the floors made of lime and surkhi from the layers above the humus deposit are unassailable proofs of this fact.

1966. It is an admitted case of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) that in Suit-1885 a map was prepared… in the outer courtyard, three structures were shown, one on the north-west side termed as "Sita Rasoi", another on the east side but right to the eastern entry gate termed as "Chappar" or "Bhandar" and third on the east-south side which was called "Ram Chabutara" and which was the subject matter of Suit-1885. This map was never doubted in Suit 1885 by defendant no. 2 therein.

1968… Thus, in the pleadings, they have tried to dispute the very existence of any structure of worship of Hindus even in the outer courtyard since their stand is that the idols were kept for the first time in the Mosque on 22nd/23rd December, 1949 and while saying so, they have treated the Mosque as a whole, i.e. denoted by letters ABCD in the map appended to plaint (Suit-4) which comprised of the entire area of inner courtyard and outer courtyard. This stand, we find, stood contradicted by their witnesses who have admitted not only the existence of certain structures in the outer courtyard but also visit of Hindus to those structures and is palpably wrong.

They then quote a series of witnesses who deposed on this matter -

1969. ..witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4) are as under: (a)PW-1, Mohd. Hashim Question:- Did you know there to be a picture or idol, due to which you did not see towards that side? Answer:- We had lost the case in connection with the chabutra, hence we did not attach any importance to it.”
(b)PW-2, Hazi Mahboob Ahmed - “When we went to the mosque, we saw chulha (hearth), chauka, belna (rolling pin) of Sita rasoi ( Sita's kitchen). . . . . . . . “Question:- Should I have the impression that Muslims had no concern with Sita Rasoi, Chabutra and shed ? Answer:- No, Sir. That land was ours. The Hindus certainly frequented the lawn there. I cannot say what was the purpose of their doing so."
(d)PW-4, Mohd. Yasin - “In my memory, no Hindu ever came to these places i.e. in the outer courtyard of the mosque. I never saw any Hindu near the Chakla-Belna nor near the aforementioned northern or southern thatched roof."
(g)PW-8, Sri Abdul Aziz - “There was a platform towards south. It did not have any wooden throne over it. The platform was vacant. On entering through the eastern gate, this platform lay on the left side.” (E.T.C)
(h)PW-23, Mohd Qasim Ansari “…but I do not take to be correct Ram Chabutra or Sita Rasoi or other things that are marked herein. There was certainly a Chabutra but marking it as Ram Chabutra herein is incorrect.”(E.T.C.)

1971. …in view of the overwhelming evidence as also the evidence of Muslim side, we have no manner of doubt that in the outer courtyard, there existed .. (1) A Chabutara, called as 'Ram Chabutara'; (2) A Chhappar, termed as 'Bhandara'..'Sita Rasoi' or 'Kaushalya Rasoi' or "Chhathi Pooja Sthal" ... ..existed since prior to 1885 inasmuch in Suit-1885 Commissioner's map denoted ..existence thereof in the map is not disputed, though the terminology used is sought to be disputed by some of witnesses of the Muslim parties. .. we find that there is no allegation regarding wrong preparation of the map but what was objected is that in respect to certain parts..

1972. Now in Suit-4 the pleadings of the plaintiffs are that the idols and object of worship were placed inside the "building" in the night intervening 22nd/ 23rd December, ..onus lies upon them to prove that in this entire building which they claim to be the area covered by the letters ABCD in the map appended to the plaint (Suit-4) no idol at all ever existed before 23rd December 1949. They have miserably failed to prove it.

1973. There is enough evidence to prove, as per the above discussion, that the idols kept at Ram Chabutara were being worshipped by Hindus since a long time.

1975. The existence of Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoi in the precinct of disputed site since long in our view cannot be doubted…The suggestion of pro mosque parties is that the alleged Chabutara came into existence sometimes between 1855 to 1860 and … but this also, we find, has not been proved.

1989..beyond comprehension that Mir Baqi or anyone else, while constructing a mosque at the disputed place could have spared some Hindu structure(s) to continue, may be smaller in size, in the precinct of mosque so as to be worshipped by Hindus inside the premises of mosque. We put this question to Sri Jilani also and he frankly stated that no Muslim would allow idol worship in the precinct of a mosque.

1990. ..evidentiary admissions in Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal (supra… “It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted.”

1991. In Sitara.. Vs. Gurura.., 1997(2) SCC 548 the Court said: “Under Section 18 of the Evidence Act the admission made by the party would be relevant evidence. Section 31 provides that "admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppel under the provisions hereinafter contained"....The admissions in the written statement in the earlier proceedings, though not conclusive, in the absence of any reasonable and acceptable explanation, it is a telling evidence heavily loaded against the respondent.” (para 6)

1997. The entry of Hindu public before December, 1949 inside the building premises has not been disputed even by the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

1998. Considering as to how a fact can be said to have been proved in T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P., 2004(3) SCC 753 the Court said that direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved but that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. In para 11, 12, 13 and 14 the Court said: “11. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. ..Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. (1911 (1) KB 988) observed as follows: "Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion". 12. The said observation has stood the test of time and …. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Court may have regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business vis-`-vis the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 13. Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances...Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory compulsion.

1999. …. We propose to find out whether plaintiffs (Suit-3) have discharged burden of showing idols under the central dome prior to 22nd/23rd December, 1949.


2002. The State authorities have filed their written statement in Suit-1 and 3 wherein they have also taken this stand that the idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed building in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949. Though this fact has been seriously disputed by plaintiffs (Suit-3) and a large number of witnesses have been produced by them to demolish this fact but we find a self contradiction in those statements and for reasons more than one as we shall discuss now, the statements of most of such witnesses produced on behalf of plaintiff (Suit- 3) are uncreditworthy.

2003. Plaintiffs (Suit-3) have examined twenty witnesses i.e. D.W.-3/1 to 3/20.

{Thereafter all these witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Paras 2004-2094}. As for their worth, let me quote what the H'ble judges thought}

2095. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-4) has taken great pains in placing before us the apparent contradiction and incorrectness in the statement of these witnesses at several places and in particular in recognising places, topography, various structures etc. in the photographs which are part of record,... "Since we are of the opinion that the photographs of mosque and temple, including all the pillars, may also be helpful for deciding the controversy in this suit, as well as other connected ones, we direct that the photographs of the mosque, temple, including pillars be taken and prepared...we consider that the Director, U.P. Archaeological Department, be asked to do the same. He would also prepare carbon dating of the pillars, mosque and temple..

2097. It is no doubt true that almost all the witnesses have failed to identify correctly location, site or the objects shown in one or the other of the above photographs, but then we have to consider certain well settled principles in the matter of oral evidence....We have to consider the overall credibility of the statement of the witnesses as that could be of an ordinary human being.

2098. In fact similar kind of error has occurred virtually with all the witnesses of fact who have deposed their statements whether on behalf of plaintiffs or defendants...tried to find out truth in the statements of witnesses by judging their credibility by narrowing down the facts which they intend to prove...

2099. So far as claim of Nirmohi Akhara is concerned that nothing had happens on 22/23 December, 1949 and idols existed under the central dome in the inner courtyard much prior thereto is not only unbelievable and incorrect but in fact many of their own witnesses have proved their case wrong.

2100. Though twenty witnesses have been produced on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara and it is strange but unfortunate that we find almost all of them uncreditworthy..

2104. We have no hesitation in holding and recording our finding that under the central dome of the disputed building, idols were kept in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.

2105. ..question about the consecration of the said idols and whether the idols were kept after observing the procedure meant for consecration -

2106. The crucial aspect would be whether the idols kept under the central dome in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 were placed in such a manner that the people who visit to worship believe, that there exists a divine spirit... None of the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4) have said that he was present at the time of such placement. On the contrary, plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5) , i.e., OPW 2 in his statement under Order X Rule 2 has clearly said that due ceremonies were performed when the idols were transferred. Paramhans Ramchandra Das also appeared in the witness box as OPW 1 and has proved the state of affairs. His presence on the site at the relevant time has not been doubted either by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) or their witnesses or before us during the course of arguments by learned counsels. Some other witnesses have also proved this fact.

2107. It thus cannot be said that the idol(s) placed therein were not properly consecrated. Atleast the status of deity cannot be assailed by those who do not believe in idol worship since it is to be seen from the angle of those who go and worship thereat. They conform the test of being a juridical person in the eyes of law.

2108…Consistent with the pleadings in plaint (Suit-4), the building denoted by the area ABCD of the map appended to the plaint (Suit-4), the idols and object of worship were existing even prior to 22nd December 1949 at Ram Chabutara, in the outer ourtyard.

2109. We accordingly answer Issue No. 12 (Suit-4) in negative. The effect of this answer shall be considered at the relevant stage and need not be answered at this stage.

2110. Issue No. 3 (a) Suit-5 is answered in affirmance i.e. in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-5). It is held that the idol(s) in question was/were installed under central dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the earlier hours of 23rd December 1949 as alleged by the … The Issue No. 1 (suit-5) is, also, accordingly, answered in its entirety, in affirmance. It is held that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 both are juridical person. Issue No. 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 4 and 5.

(H) Limitation
2142. In this category fall four issues namely No. 3 (Suit-4); 10 (Suit-1); 9 (Suit-3); and 13 (Suit-5). 2143. The above issues though pertain to a common statute of “limitation” but since the situation, relevant facts and arguments cover different angles in all the cases, we propose to deal the said four issues separately and suitwise.

2144. First we proceed with the leading case, i.e., Issue No. 3 (Suit-4) which reads as under: “Is the suit within time?”

2168. Before coming to the question as to whether Suit-4 (leading suit) is barred by limitation or not, it would be appropriate, first to consider, the relevant provisions, namely, Article 120, 142 and 144 of L.A. 1908 and a few other relative provisions to find out scope, effect and the circumstances in which they would operate since it is this Act which was in operation at the time when Suit-4 was filed.

2170. Before the British, during the period when Muslims ruled the Country (in particular Oudh), it appears that personal laws governed all matters. The Muslim law does not recognize limitation; while in Hindu personal laws, on certain aspects, in different schools, some provisions for limitation are prescribed which are not common to all the Hindus. Hindu Law recognizes both prescription and limitation while Muslim jurisprudence recognises neither of them. In some of the Smritis a period of 20 years was prescribed for acquisition of title by prescription. It appears that since agriculture was the main occupation of the people, Smritis concentrated more on land and on the rights therein. 2171. Thus prior to 05.05.1859 there was no common law of limitation applicable to whole of India

{Pages 2200-2215 (201-216/251) of legal citations beyond citations!}

2202. In both the type of cases what we find is that possession by itself is of much relevance and importance. The courts took the view that by reason of his possession a person may have an interest which can be sold or devised. One has to prove first his possession before making complaint of dispossession or discontinuance of possession. He need not prove the title or the capacity in which he had the possession for the purpose of Article 142. However, after title is proved, the presumption of possession goes with it unless proved otherwise

2203. Privy Council in Sundar Vs. Parbati, (1889) 12 All 51 agreed with the view of this court that possession is a good title against all the world except the person who can show a better title.

{What is dispossession - Para 2217 - 2229 Page 2221-2234 Page 222-235/251. deluge of legalese until page 2246 (247/251)}

2248. .. in our view, would show that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the orders passed therein would not help the plaintiffs in the matter of limitation particularly when it is virtually admitted in the plaint that they discontinued with possession at least from 23rd December, 1949. It is their own version and this disturbance is on account of a title dispute of the property in question. Moreover, all the plaintiffs do not claim themselves to be the owner of the property in question or the legal custodian thereof. None of the plaintiffs is claimed to be Mutwalli of the alleged waqf. It is only a Mutwalli of a waqf who can claim possession of the property in question according to Islamic Law. ..Plaintiffs No.1 Sunni Central Waqf Board is a supervisory controlling body of the Sunni Waqfs in the State of U.P. but on its own has no power to claim possession or custody of any waqf. At least no such provision has been shown. ... If there is any obstruction in the right of worship of an individual, he can come to the Court for protection of such right of worship but cannot claim possession of such property since he is neither owner nor legal custodian of the property. Similarly, right of worshipper is confined for the period the subject matter is in existence and vanishes as soon as the right of the owner or that of legal custodian goes or the subject matter disappear, as observed in the case of Masjid Shahid Ganj (Supra).

2274. Dilemma on the part of the plaintiffs is further writ large from the fact that they have also claimed title to the property in dispute based on adverse possession. Somebody, if has taken the plea of adverse possession, presupposes that on the date of filing the suit he continued to be in possession of the property in dispute otherwise an adverse possession if has discontinued for one or the other reason before maturing in title, would dispel the claim based on adverse possession....but suffice it to say that for the purpose of issues pertaining to limitation we can say that if a plaintiff has sought to set up a case that he has matured his right by virtue of adverse possession, it presupposes that he continued to be in possession on the date of filing the suit or matured his title after completion of prescribed period and this completely mitigate the condition for attracting Article 142 that the cause of action has arisen due to dispossession or discontinuance of possession of plaintiff.

2277. In order to attract Article 142, the plaintiff has to show that either he is owner based on a valid title or that he was in possession over the property in question but has been dispossessed in the past in a period less than twelve years. In case, he pleads that he is the owner but the possession was admittedly with the defendants and such possession has not completed twelve years therefore the ownership or the title of the plaintiff is not extinguished, in such case it is Article 144 which will apply.

2292...What has been said in para 23 of the plaint is that the cause of action for suit arose on 23.12.1949 when Hindus unlawfully and illegally entered the mosque, desecrated it by placing idols and thus caused obstruction and interference with the rights of Muslims in general of saying prayers and performing their religious ceremonies in the mosque. The above assertions are insufficient to constitute a case of "dispossession" or "discontinuance of possession" of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) of the property in dispute. Placement of idols or desecration of mosque is one thing but dispossession of Muslims from the disputed property is another thing. Dispossession or discontinuance contemplates a total deprivation on the part of the person concerned who was earlier in possession but obstruction or interference means that though possession continues but is not smooth, peaceful and continuous but being disturbed by others.

Page 2300 (51/251)
2317. Exhibit 20 (Suit-1) (Register 5 Page 65-68B)...document has been heavily relied by both the parties. {This exhibit is a copy of a complaint given by the Moazzin Mohammad Khatib that a Nihang Singh Faqir "Mahant Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa" was occupying/living in the Masjid and had installed a religious symbol (Flag) on the premises.}

2319. We find substance. It thus appears that in 1858 a Chabutara was constructed in the inner courtyard also and the complaint was made in respect thereto. Had the building in dispute and the inner courtyard been in possession of Muslims, such an act on the part of the Hindus could not have been possible at all.

{Thereafter the Nihang Faqir was ousted from the Mosque and the Flag was uprooted.}

2329. Exhibit 31 (Suit-1) (Register 5 page 117-121) is a copy of the application dated 05.11.1860 filed by Mir Rajab Ali - {States that he would like the newly constructed chabutra to be kindly removed and since he fears the Nihang, he asks the Court to kindly do the needful.}

2330. This is the first document which we have with us going to the extent that in the inner courtyard, the muezzin used to recite Adhan (ajjan) which obviously call the Muslim people for offering Namaz otherwise there do not arise any reason for calling Adhan (ajjan). The document of 5th November, 1860 thus is evident that a Muezzin used to recite Adhan (ajjan) in the building in dispute i.e. inner courtyard.

{Later, Syed M'd Asghar Ali filed a complaint with the court asking for removal of all new constructions at the Mosque in 1877. - }
"So he has made a Chulha within the said compound which has never been done before. In the past, there was mere a small Chulha (kitchen) for Pooja which he has got extended."

{thereafter there are complaints by Mr. Ali regarding opening of a new doorway for which reason was stated that another door was needed due to rush on festive days. Also, complaints about letting him whitewash certain walls of the mosque. After all this Mahant Raghubar Das filed the case asknig for permission to construct a shrine at the chabutara. }

2431. We are in agreement with the argument of the learned counsels for the defendants that a suit, if is barred by limitation, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Court to dismiss it on the said ground by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and in such matters there is no question of any sympathy, hardship etc

2434. Mere addition of the relief of possession would not attract a larger period of limitation provided by another provision namely, Article 142 or 44 of L.A. 1908 when on the basis of the pleadings itself it would be clear that a mere suit for declaration was necessary…

Finally -

2439. One has to make a distinction between a continuing wrong and continuance of the effect of wrong. In the case in hand, the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs show that they were ousted from the disputed premises on 22/23rd December, 1949 and the wrong is complete thereon since thereafter they are totally dispossessed from the property in dispute on the ground that they have no title. Hence, we find it difficult to treat the alleged wrong to be a continuing wrong.

2441. In our view, the Orissa High Court has been right in observing that if a suit is filed for enforcing right on the property as such, the provisions of the Limitation Act would immediately be attracted, but if the suit is filed by a worshipper for enforcing his right of worship not based on any right to property of the idol or to an office, the only scrutiny which is to be made by the Court is whether there is any obstruction or prevention to the plaintiff for exercising his right of worship and nothing more than that. This judgment, instead of helping the plaintiff's goes against them. In the case in hand, threat to plaintiff's title, if for the moment we can say so, assuming what the plaintiffs say correct, was infringed or threatened at number of times, and the period was allowed to lapse repeatedly which was more than the statutory period of limitation.

A. As admitted by the plaintiffs, a dividing wall (iron grilled) was constructed separating the disputed structure from the non-Islamic structure, i.e., Ram Chabutra existing n the south-east side so that Muslims may worship in inner ourtyard and Hindu may continue their worship in the outer courtyard in 1856-57. This was never assailed by the Muslims claiming an infringement of their right on the property in dispute.
B. When, according to them, the structures like Sita Rasoi, Chhappar (Bhandar) were created between 1955 to 1973, as is evident from the complaint of Mohd. Asgar, in this regard, and despite the orders passed by the authorities on the executive side the same were not removed.
C. In the year, 1934 Hindus tried todamage the building in dispute causing serious damage to the domes and enclosure walls. The building came in the custody of the authorities. Though request was made to permit Muslim to offer namaj therein, but there is no record to show as to whether it was actually allowed and if so when.
D. When the idols were placed under the central dome in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949, and regular daily Puja commenced according to Hindu Shastric Laws ousting Muslims from entering the property in dispute. Assuming that the latest cause of action in respect to the premises in the inner courtyard occurred on 22nd /23rd December, 1949, threatening the very authority and title on the said mosque, the suit ought to be filed in six years.

2546. For the purpose of issues in hand regarding limitation under Article 142 L.A. 1908, the question is whether last prayer in the disputed building was offered on 16th December, 1949 or 22nd December, 1949. In our view, none of these witnesses could have thrown any light on this aspect. The other witnesses produced are basically such who either have deposed about the belief and faith of birth of lord Rama at the disputed place, and/or the existence of temple, and that they and other had been visiting the disputed site and building for worship believing that it was the place of birth of lord Rama. Some of the witnesses are in the category of Expert Historian, Archeologist etc.

2551. This also show that regular prayers could not have been held in the property in dispute. The overall situation, evidence etc. however, show that on some days, atleast weekly prayer on Friday held in the premises in dispute, and, at least, so far as 16th December, 1949 is concerned, it appears that on that date, Friday prayer was actually held in the inner courtyard but not thereafter.

2553. We, therefore, are inclined to believe that on 16th December, 1949, Friday prayer was held in the inner courtyard i.e. in the disputed building but the claim of the muslims that daily prayers used to be held therein cannot be believed. To this extent, Muslim parties have failed to prove. This does not mean that the entire premises in dispute shown by the letters 'ABCD' in the map appended with the plaint (Suit-4) was in the possession of the plaintiffs but it is only the inner Courtyard which remained open for all.

2555. At the best it may be said that the plaintiffs or other muslims were exercising right of egress and ingress for offering prayer in the respective part of the disputed building but otherwise in respect to the area covered by outer courtyard there is no averment in the entire suit that it was ever in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they were dispossessed from the said part of the land at any point of time within preceding six years or 12 years from the date of filing of the suit. The possession of the area covered by Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoi in outer courtyard, it appears, the plaintiffs have reconciled that it had been in possession of Hindus since long and, therefore, in respect to this part, we are of the view that Suit-4 is barred by limitation.

2556. The written statement of Mohd. Asgar para 3 and 4 filed in Suit-1885 makes it clear that Chabutara was constructed in the outer courtyard in 1857 and it was never interfered or obstructed by muslims at any point of time. After the enforcement of L.A. 1859, the period of limitation, in such a case, was 12 years and therefore, in 1869 limitation expired for claiming possession of the said part of the land.

2557. In 1885 suit, the map prepared by the Court Amin shows three non Islamic structures in the outer courtyard and against that no action, as permissible in law, was taken by the Muslims or the said Mutawalli. Assuming that the ownership lie elsewhere, after expiry of a period of 12 years, he title extinct by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1877 and therefore, even before the enactment of L.A.1908, the right, if any, possessed by the plaintiffs or anyone else in respect to the premises in outer courtyard extinct and stood conferred upon the persons who were in possession thereof.

2558. So far as the inner courtyard is concerned, we have already held that atleast on Friday, if not regularly, then occasionally, muslims had visited disputed building and that visit obviously could be for offering namaz. The official documents, proved by the defendants witness DW 2/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava show that Friday namaz used to be observed therein. OPW-9 has also admitted that both communities used to worship in the inner courtyard. We find no reason to disbelieve it. But here is not a case of exclusive possession since the defendant Hindu parties and Hindus in general had also been visiting inner courtyard for darshan and worship according to their faith and belief, hence, it can be said that the inner courtyard was virtually used jointly by the members of both the communities, may be to a large extent by the … The importance of Ayodhya from the point of view of Hindus has fairly been accepted and admitted by many of the witnesses of even the plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. muslims parties though same thing is not applicable for others. If Hindu people were already visiting the inner courtyard and the disputed building for worship etc., we do not find any occasion of dispossession of muslims from the premises in dispute or discontinuation of possession as a result whereof somebody else has taken possession in order to attract Art. 142. The only thing which is claimed to have occurred on 22/23 December, 1949, is the placement of idol which according to OPW 1 and some other witnesses is mere shifting of idols of Sri Ram Chandra from the outer courtyard (Ram Chabutara) to inner courtyard. This placement of idol by itself cannot be termed as dispossession of muslims from the inner courtyard or the disputed building in the light of the meaning of 'dispossession' as we have discussed above. This is also not covered by the phrase "discontinuation of possession". It is probably for this reason that in the entire plaint there is not even a whisper that the muslim parties or the muslims or the plaintiffs were dispossessed or discontinued of possession by anyone on any particular date.

2564. Therefore, in respect to the outer courtyard, claim of the plaintiffs is clearly barred by limitation. In fact it stood barred long back but without making any distinction and without specifying the area of outer courtyard, the suit has been filed to claim the entire premises which includes the area in respect whereto such claim is barred long back and has actually extinct. We find it difficult to separate it and hence, the suit in its entirety has to be held barred by limitation. This is another reason. 2565. In view of the above discussion we have no option but to answer Issue No. 3 (Suit-4) in negative i.e. against the plaintiffs. We hold that Suit-4 is barred by limitation.

2566. Issue 10 (Suit-1) reads as under: "Is the present suit barred by time?"
2567… The cause of action according to the plaintiffs arose on 5th January, 1950 when he visited, for offering worship, the disputed premises and allegedly obstructed. The suit having been filed within 10 days thereafter apparently it cannot be said to be beyond limitation. It is accordingly answered in negative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff (Suit-1).

2568. Issue No. 9 (Suit-3) reads as under: "Is the suit within time?" An entry in revenue record does not confer any title. When the dispute of title was already raised, the plaintiffs had to get this dispute settled in one or the other way failing which they would not succeed in claiming possession of the property in dispute (i.e. inner Courtyard). In any case, since Arts. 144, 142 and 47 are inapplicable and the counsel for the plaintiffs has also not been able to show any continuing wrong in the matter, we find that the suit is barred by limitation vide Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. Issue No. 9 (Suit-3) is accordingly answered in negative and against the plaintiffs 41(Suit-3).

2724. The above observations show if the religious endowment is of such nature, which is of specific significance or peculiar in nature, could not have been found elsewhere, the acquisition of such property by the Government will have the effect of depriving the worshippers their right of worship under Article 25 of the Constitution and such an acquisition even under the statutory provision, cannot be permitted. We find sufficient justification to extend this plea to the statute of limitation also, inasmuch as, if the statute pertaining to acquisition cannot be extended to a religious place of special significance which may have the effect of destroying the right of worship at a particular place altogether, otherwise the provision will be ultra vires, the same would apply to the statute of limitation also and that be so, it has to be read that the statute of limitation to this extent may not be availed where the debutter's property is of such a nature that it may have the effect of extinction of the very right of worship on that place which is of peculiar nature and specific significance. This will be infringing the fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution.

But it’s good to see what Engineer quotes Habib for: “When digging was ordered, many historians like Irfan Habib had warned that excavation could not lead to a clinching evidence for the existence of a temple.” Which merely amounts to saying that those historians, knowing how the evidence would go against them, had prepared their escape from facing the facts by declaring these impossible beforehand.

As for Waqf Board emissary Supriya Verma, she makes the most of the animal bones found at different layers: “If any shrine and a temple existed, how can anyone account for the animal bones?” As per the ASI findings, the site lay in ruins several times, circumstances in which animals may have made their home in it. Is she really an archaeologists that she doesn’t know how the strangest objects accumulate at sites of interest over the millennia? Or did she mean to say that the animals indicate a Muslim rather than a Hindu presence, with mosques as sanctuary for our four-legged brethren? It seems the anti-temple experts are clutching at straws in desperation.