DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IN AYODHYA JUDGEMENT

SUBJECT
HISTORY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

MR.VISHWACHANDRA NATH MADASU

Name of the Candidate

Roll No.
Semester
HARSH NARWAL
2016038
SEMESTER 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr.Vishwachandra Nath

Madasu sir who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic
(Historical evidence in ayodhya judgement), which also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.
 PROJECT SUMMARY

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred

on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Faizabaddistrict, Uttar Pradesh. The main
issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the
birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Mosque at the site,
and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.

The Babri Mosque was destroyed by hard-line Hindu extremists during a political rally which
turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in
the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In
the landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres
(1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant
Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3
going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious
denomination Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the
disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a
temple structure predated the mosque at the same site. The excavations by the Archaeological
Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a
massive Hindu religious building.
CONTENTS

1 RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

1.1RAM JANMABHOOMI

1.2BABRI MASJID

2 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES

2.1GUPTA PERIOD

2.2GAHADAVALA PERIOD

2.3MUGHAL PERIOD

2.4LATE MUGHAL PERIOD

3 BEGINNINGS OF DISPUTE

4 DEMOLITION OF THE BABRI MOSQUE

5 EARLY HISTORICAL SURVEYS

5.1MAHANT RAM CASE

6 POST-INDEPENDENCE

6.1EXCAVATIONS

6.2TITLE CASES
7 VERDICT OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON
 AIMS OF THE STUDY/SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
Aim of our study is to make people understand how historical evidence lead to judgement of
court in dispute.

RESEACH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Wide
RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND

RAM JANMBHOOMI

The Ayodhya debate centres around the land known today as Ram Janmabhoomi, on which
the Babri Mosque was built in 1528. In Hindu Scriptures and authentic text, Ayodhya is the
birthplace of the Lord Rama, the son of Dasharatha, the ruler of Ayodhya, and his
queen Kausalya. He is worshiped by many Hindus as an Avatar, or incarnation, of Vishnu.

According to the Garuda Purana, a Hindu religious text, Ayodhya is one of seven sacred sites
where Moksha, or a final release from the cycle of death and rebirth, may be obtained.

BABRI MASJID
When the Mughal king Babur invaded north India from Kabul in 1525, he first
defeated Ibrahim Lodi at the first battle of Panipat and then the Rajput King
of Chittorgarh, Rana Sangram Singh, at Khanwa. After these triumphs, Babur took over a
substantial part of northern India.

One of his generals, Mir Baqi came to Ayodhya in 1528 and after reportedly destroying a
pre-existing temple of Rama at the site, built a mosque, which has come to be called masjid-i-
janmasthan (mosque at the birthplace) as well as Babri Masjid (Babur's mosque). The Babri
Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with considerable
Muslim population. Both the Hindus and Muslims are said to have worshipped at the
"mosque-temple," Muslims inside the mosque and Hindus outside the mosque but inside the
compound. After the British took over the State, they put up a railing between the two areas
to prevent disputes.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUN

GUPTA PERIOD

In Buddha's time (600 B.C.) the present day Ayodhya was called Saketa and it was one of the
6 largest cities of North India. During the Gupta times,
either Kumaragupta or Skandagupta made it their capital, after which it came to be called
Ayodhya. Kalidasa wrote Raghuvamsa here, and referred to Gopratara tirtha (Guptar Ghat),
where Rama was believed to have entered the waters of Saryu in his ascent to heaven.
According to a local tradition recorded by Francis Buchanan and Alexander Cunningham,
Ayodhya became desolate after Rama's ascent to heaven and "Vikramaditya" revived it.
(In Raghuvamsa, Rama's son Kusa revived it.) Prabhavatigupta, the daughter
of Chandragupta II, was a Rama devotee. Her son, Pravarasena II wrote Sethubandha, in
which Rama was regarded as identical to Vishnu. He also built a temple to Rama at
Pravarapura (Paunar near Ramtek) in about 450 A.D.

GAHADAVALA PERIOD

After the Guptas, the capital of North India moved to Kannauj and Ayodhya fell into relative
neglect. It was revived by the Gahadavalas, coming to power in the 11th century A.D. The
Gahadavalas were Vaishnavas. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which
survived till the end of Aurangzeb's reign. Hans T. Bakker concludes that there might have
been a temple at the supposed birth spot of Rama built by the Gahadavalas. In subsequent
years, the cult of Rama developed within Vaishnavism, with Rama being regarded as the
foremost avatar of Vishnu. Consequently, Ayodhya's importance as a pilgrimage centre grew.
In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya (magical powers of Ayodhya)
prescribed the celebration of Ram Navami (the birthday of Rama).

MUGHAL PERIOD

In modern times, a mosque was located at the supposed birth spot of Rama, which is on a
large mound in the centre of Ayodhya, called the Ramadurg or Ramkot (the fort of Rama).
The mosque bore an inscription stating that it was built in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi on the
orders of Babur.

According to an early 20th century text by Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar and the surrounding
historical sources examined by historian Harsh Narain, the young Babur came from Kabul to
Awadh (Ayodhya) in disguise, dressed as a Qalandar (Sufi ascetic), probably as part of a fact-
finding mission. Here he met the Sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a
pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. The pledge is not spelled out in
the 1981 edition of Ghaffar's book, but it is made clear that it is in pursuance of this pledge
that he got the Babri mosque constructed aftering conquering Hindustan. The original book
was written in Persian by Maulvi Abdul Karim, a spiritual descendant of Ashiqan, and it was
translated into Urdu by his grandson Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar with additional commentary. The
older editions of Ghaffar's book contain more detail which seems to have been excised in the
1981 edition. Lala Sita Ram, who had access to the older edition in 1932 wrote, "The faqirs
answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing
the Janmasthan temple. Babur accepted the faqirs' offer and returned to his homeland.

The fact that Babur came in the guise of a Qalandar is corroborated in Abdullah's Tarikh-i
Dawudi, where it is detailed that he met the Sultan Sikandar Lodhi in Delhi in the same
disguise. The inscription on the Babri mosque itself names him as Babur Qalandar.]Musa
Ashiqan's grave is situated close to the Babri mosque site, whose shrine uses two of the black
basalt columns with Hindu carvings used in the Babri mosque, indicative of his role in the
destruction of the prior temple.

While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription to the effect that it was built on orders of
Babur in 1528, there are no other records of the mosque from this period.
The Babarnama (Chronicles of Babur) does not mention either the mosque or the destruction
of a temple. Tulsidas, who began writing the Ramcharit Manas in Ayodhya on Rama's
birthday in 1574 (coming there from his normal residence in Varanasi) mentioned the "great
birthday festival" in Ayodhya but made no mention of a mosque at Rama's birthplace. Abu'l-
Fazl ibn Mubarak, who wrote Akbarnama, completing the third volume Ain-i Akbari in 1598,
described the birthday festival in Ayodhya, the "residence of Rama" and the "holiest place of
antiquity," but made no mention of a mosque. William Finch, the English traveller that
visited Ayodhya around 1611, and wrote about the "ruins of the Ranichand [Ramachand]
castle and houses" where Hindus believed the great God "took flesh upon him to see
the tamasha of the world." He found pandas (Brahmin priests) in the ruins of the fort, who
were recording the names of the pilgrims, a practice that was said to go back to antiquity.

LATE MUGHAL PERIOD

The first known report of a mosque appears in a book Sahifa-I-Chihil Nasaih Bahadur Shahi,
said to have been written by a daughter of the emperor Bahadur Shah I (and granddaughter
of Aurangzeb) in the early 18th century. It mentioned mosques having been constructed after
demolishing the "temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh
etc." Hindus are said to have called these demolished temples in Awadh "Sita Rasoi" (Sita's
kitchen) and "Hanuman's abode."  While there was no mention of Babur in this account, the
Ayodhya mosque had been juxtaposed with those built by Aurangzeb at Mathura and
Banaras.

Jai Singh II (popularly called "Sawai Jai Singh", 1688-1743) purchased land and
established Jaisinghpuras in all Hindu religious centres in North India,
including Mathura, Vrindavan, Banaras, Allahabad, Ujjain and Ayodhya. The documents of
these activities have been preserved in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the City Palace
Museum in Jaipur. Professor R. Nath, who has examined these records, concludes that Jai
Singh had acquired the land of Rama Janmasthan in 1717. The ownership of the land was
vested in the deity. The hereditary title of the ownership was recognized and enforced by the
Mughal State from 1717. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, dated 1723,
stating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a
ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all
impediments.

The Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Awadh in 1766-1771, wrote, "Emperor
Aurangzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple
domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that it was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen
black stone pillars of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there.
Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque." This ambiguity
between Aurangzeb and Babur could be significant. Tieffenthaler also wrote that Hindus
worshipped a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, which was said to be called the
"Bedi, i.e., the cradle." "The reason for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where
Beschan [Vishnu] was born in the form of Ram." Rama's birthday was said to be celebrated
every year, with a big gathering of people, which was "so famous in the entire India."

BEGINNINGS OF DISPUTE

The first recorded instances of religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the 1850s over a
nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. The Babri mosque was attacked by Hindus in the process.
Since then, local Hindu groups have made occasional demands that they should have the
possession of the site and that they should be allowed to build a temple on the site, all of
which were denied by the colonial government. In 1946, an offshoot of the Hindu
Mahasabha called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha (ABRM) started an agitation for
the possession of the site. In 1949, Sant Digvijay Nath of Gorakhnath Math joined the ABRM
and organised a 9-day continuous recitation of Ramcharit Manas, at the end of which the
Hindu nationalists broke into the mosque and placed idols of Rama inside. People were led to
believe that the idols had `miraculously' appeared inside the mosque. The date of the event
was 22 December 1949.
Jawaharlal Nehru insisted that the idols should be removed. However, the local official K. K.
K. Nair, known for his Hindu nationalist connections, refused to carry out orders claiming
that it would lead to communal riots. The police locked the gates so that the public (Hindus as
well as Muslims) could not enter. However, the idols remained inside and priests were
allowed entry to perform daily worship. So, the mosque had been converted into a de
facto temple. Both the Sunni Wakf Board and the ABRM filed civil suits staking their
respective claims to the site. The land was declared to be under dispute, and the gates
remained locked.

Christophe Jaffrelot has called the Gorakhnath wing of Hindu nationalism `the other saffron',

which has maintained its existence separately from the mainstream Hindu nationalism of
the Sangh Parivar. After the Vishva Hindu Parishad was formed in 1964 and started agitating
for the Babri Masjid site, the two strands of `saffron politics' came together. The district
magistrate K. K. K. Nair, who refused to carry out orders, was eventually dismissed, but he
became a local hero and subsequently a politician of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh.

DEMOLITION OF BABRI MOSQUE

In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), belonging to the mainstream Hindu

nationalist family Sangh Parivar, launched a new movement to "reclaim" the site for Hindus
and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama (Ramlala) at this spot. The Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), formed in 1980 from the remnants of the Jana Sangh, became the political
face of the campaign. In 1986, a district judge ruled that the gates would be reopened and
Hindus permitted to worship inside, providing a major boost to the movement. In September
1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani began a "rath yatra" (pilgrimage procession) to Ayodhya in
order to generate support for the movement. Advani later stated in his memoirs, "If Muslims
are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian
atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in
Ayodhya?" The yatra resulted in communal riots in many cities in its wake, prompting the
government of Bihar to arrest Advani. In spite of this, a large number of 'kar sevaks' or Sangh
Parivar activists reached Ayodhya and tried to attack the mosque. They were stopped by
the Uttar Pradesh police and the paramilitary forces, resulting in a pitched battle in which
several kar sevaks were killed. Accusing the central government led by V.P. Singh of being
weak, the BJP withdrew its support, necessitating fresh elections. In these elections, the BJP
won a majority in the Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly increased its share of seats in
the Lok Sabha.

On 6 December 1992, the VHP and its associates, including the BJP, organised a rally
involving 150,000 VHP and BJP kar sevaks at the site of the mosque. The ceremonies
included speeches by the BJP leaders such as Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma
Bharti. The mob grew restive through the duration of the speeches, and stormed the mosque
shortly after noon. A police cordon placed there to protect the mosque was heavily
outnumbered. The mosque was attacked with a number of improvised tools, and brought to
the ground in a few hours. This occurred despite a commitment from the state government to
the Indian Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people
were killed in the riots following the demolition. Riots broke out in many major Indian cities
including Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad.

On 16 December 1992, the Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to

probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque. It was the longest
running commission in India's history with several extensions granted by various
governments. The report found a number of people culpable in the demolition, including BJP
leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, then Uttar
Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, Pramod Mahajan, Uma Bharti andVijayaraje Scindia,
as well as VHP leaders like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal. Other prominent political
leaders indicted by the commission include late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and former
RSS leader K. Govindacharya. Relying on the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, the report
stated that many of these leaders had made provocative speeches at the rally that provoked
the demolition. It also stated that they could have stopped the demolition if they had so
wished.

Many Muslim organisations have continued to express outrage at the destruction of the
disputed structure. In July 2005, terrorists attacked the makeshift temple at the site of the
destroyed mosque. In 2007, M. N. Gopal Das, the then head of the Ram temple, received
phone calls making threats against his life. Many terror attacks by banned jihadi outfits
like Indian Mujahideen cited demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist
attacks. The legal case continues regarding the title deed of the land tract which is a
government controlled property.
EARLY HISTORICAL SURVEYS

In 1767, Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler recorded Hindus worshiping and

celebrating Ramanavami at the site of the mosque. In 1788, Tieffenthaler's French works
were published in Paris, the first to suggest that the Babri Mosque was on the birthplace of
Rama, saying that "Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and
erected on the same place a Mahometan temple with three cuppolas" reclaimed by Hindus
through numerous wars after death of Aurangzeb in 1707 A.D like they earlier fortified it
during Jahangir's rule as Ramkot.

During the 19th century, the Hindus in Ayodhya were recorded as continuing a tradition of
worshiping Rama on the Ramkot hill. According to British sources, Hindus and Muslims
from the Faizabad area worshiped together in the Babri Mosque complex in the 19th century
until about 1855. P. Carnegie wrote in 1870:

It is said that up to that time, the Hindus and Mohamedans alike used to worship in the
mosque-temple. Since the British rule a railing has been put up to prevent dispute, within
which, in the mosque the Mohamedans pray, while outside the fence the Hindus have raised a
platform on which they make their offerings.

This platform was outside the disputed structure but within its precincts.

In 1858, the Muazzin of the Babri Mosque said in a petition to the British government that
the courtyard had been used by Hindus for hundreds of years.

The British recognized the religious and political tension between the Muslims and Hindus.
An early census, taken in 1869, found the Hindu people to comprise 66.4 percent of the total
population in Ayodhya, and a little over 60 percent in nearby Faizabad. The British
contended that the Ayodhya area was primarily Hindu, not in regards to this census, but to the
chief spiritual significance for the birthplace of Rama.

MAHANT RAM CASE

In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just
outside the Babri Mosque premises. Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the
Faizabad District Judge dismissed the case, citing the passage of time. On 18 March 1886, the
judge passed an order in which he wrote:

I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid
built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south
it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land
specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late
now to agree with the grievances. (Court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge,
Faizabad (1886).

POST INDEPENDENCE

Several later mosques were built in Faizabad district, in which the pilgrim city of Ayodhya
falls. Ayodhya itself has a small Muslim population, though there are substantial numbers of
Muslims 7 km away at District Headquarters – Faizabad. Since 1949, by Indian Government
order, Muslims were not permitted to be closer than 200 yards away to the site; the main gate
remained locked, though Hindu pilgrims were allowed to enter through a side door. The
1986 Allahabad High Court ordered the opening of the main gate and restored the site in full
to the Hindus. Hindu groups later requested modifications to the Babri Mosque, and drew up
plans for a new grand Temple with Government permissions; riots between Hindu and
Muslim groups took place as a result. Since then, the matter is sub-judice and this political,
historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque, is
known as the Ayodhya dispute.

EXCAVATIONS

Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and

2003 in and around the disputed site have clearly found the evidence indicating that a large
Hindu complex existed on the site. In 2003, by the order of an Indian Court, The
Archaeological Survey of India was asked to conduct a more in-depth study and an
excavation to ascertain the type of structure that was beneath the rubble indicated definite
proof of a temple under the mosque. However, it could not be ascertained if it was a Rama
temple as remnant had more resemblance to a Shiva temple. In the words of ASI researchers,
they discovered "distinctive features associated with... temples of north India". Excavations
further yielded:

"stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of a divine couple and carved
architectural features, including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali, doorjamb with semi-
circular shrine pilaster, broke octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine
having pranjala (watershute) in the north and 50 pillar bases in association with a huge
structure"

Before the archaeological opinion was published, there were some differing viewpoints. In
his Communal History and Rama's Ayodhya, written prior to the ASI researches,
Professor Ram Sharan Sharma writes, "Ayodhya seems to have emerged as a place of
religious pilgrimage in medieval times. Although chapter 85 of the Vishnu Smriti lists as
many as fifty-two places of pilgrimage, including towns, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., it does
not include Ayodhya in this list. Sharma also notes that Tulsidas, who wrote the
Ramcharitmanas in 1574 at Ayodhya, does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage. This
suggests that there was no significant Hindu temple at the site of the Babri Mosque., or that it
had ceased to be one, after the mosque was built. After the demolition of the mosque in 1992,
Professor Ram Sharan Sharma along with historians Suraj Bhan, M. Athar Ali and Dwijendra
Narayan Jha wrote the Historian's report to the nation saying that the assumption that there
was a temple at the disputed site was mistaken, and that there was no valid reason to destroy
the mosque. The 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement came down heavily on these
"eminent" historians, with one of the judges remarking that he was "surprised to see in the
zeal of helpinG the parties in whose favour they were appearing, these witnesses went
ahead… and wrote a totally new story".

Udit Raj's Buddha Education Foundation claimed that the structure excavated by ASI in 2003
was a Buddhist stupa destroyed during and after the Muslim invasion of India.

TITLE CASES

In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a title suit with the Allahabad High Court seeking
injunction to offer 'puja' (worship) at the disputed site. A similar suit was filed shortly after
but later withdrawn by Paramhans Das of Ayodhya. In 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu
religious institution, filed a third title suit seeking direction to hand over the charge of the
disputed site, claiming to be its custodian. A fourth suit was filed by the Muslim Central
Board of Wakf for declaration and possession of the site. The Allahabad high court bench
began hearing the case in 2002, which was completed in 2010. However, the bench withheld
its verdict till 24 September. After the Supreme Court dismissed a plea to defer the High
Court verdict, the High Court set 30 September 2010 as the final date for pronouncing the
judgement.

On 30 September 2010, the High Court of Allahabad, the three-member bench comprising
justices S. U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D. V. Sharma, ruled that the disputed land be split
into three parts. The site of the Ramlala idol would go to the party representing Ram Lalla
Virajman (the installed Infant Ram deity), Nirmohi Akhara to get Sita Rasoi and Ram
Chabutara, and the Sunni Wakf Board to get the rest. The court also ruled that the status quo
should be maintained for three months.

Reacting to the verdict, all the three parties announced that they would appeal against the
division of disputed land in the Supreme Court of India. All the three parties, however,
conceded that this judgment was an important step towards the resolution of a long-standing
dispute.

VERDICT OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON SRI

RAMA JANMA BHUMI BASED ON FACTS
What are the Suits?
The First Suit was instituted in January 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad as Plaintiff against
five Muslim residents of Ayodhya and the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Administrative
Officers of Faizabad District as Defendants. In the years 1989 and 1990 respectively the
Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara were added as Defendants. The plaintiff
claimed in the plaint that he was worshipping the Janm Bhumi, idol of Bhagwan Sri
Ramchadraji and Charanpaduka (foot impression). But on 14th January, 1950, when he went
there for worship and Darshan the government employees prevented the petitioner from going
inside where the idols of Ramchandraji and others were placed and that it was done on the
undue insistence of local Muslim residents who are Defendants in the Suit. The relief claimed
was that it be declared that the Plaintiff is entitled according to his religion and custom to
worship and have Darshan of Bhagwan Sri Ram and others at the place of Janm Bhumi by
going near the idols without any hindrance. So, the Government has no right to interfere in
the said rights. Prohibitory injunction was also sought against Defendants that Defendants
should not remove the idols of Bhagwan Ramchandra from the place where the idols were
and they should also not close the way leading to that and should not interfere in worship and
Darshan in any manner.

Interim injunction order was passed on 19th January, 1950 which confirmed on March 03,
1951. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court on 26th April, 1955.
The Second Suit was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Das (Plaintiff) in the same year 1950
against five Muslim residents of Ayodhya and State of U.P. and a Government Officer. Sunni
Waqf Board was added as Defendant in 1989. The Plaint was identical to the Suit of Gopal
Singh Visharad. The Plaintiff Paramhans Ramchandra Das applied for withdrawal of his Suit
in 1990 which was allowed on 18th September, 1990.

The Third Suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara of Ramanand Sect through its Mahant as
Plaintiff in the year 1959. The Defendants were Babu Priya Dutt Ram (Receiver of the
disputed site appointed by the City Magistrate), State of U.P. and local officers and a few
local Muslims. Later on in the year 1989, Sunni Central Board of Waqf was added as a
Defendant. One Mr. Umesh Chandra Pandey was later on impleaded as Defendant in January,
1989 on his own application. The case of the Plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara was that for a long
time in Ayodhya an ancient Mutt and Akhara of Ramanandi Bairagis called Nirmohis existed
and the Janmasthan commonly known as Janm Bhumi, the birthplace of Ramachandra,
belonged to it and the Akhara had always been managing and receiving offerings made there
in the form of money, etc. It was also claimed that the Asthan of Janm Bhumi was of ancient
antiquity. The Suit was confined to the inner courtyard and the constructed portion. The
prayer in the Suit is that a decree be passed for the removal of Receiver from the management
and charge of the said temple of Janm Bhumi and delivering the same to the Nirmohi Akhara
through its Mahant.

The Fourth Suit was filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Uttar Pradesh and nine
Muslims of Ayodhya as Plaintiffs in the year 1961. The Defendants in the Suit were Gopal
Singh Visharad, Paramhans Ramchandra Das, Nirmohi Akhara, State of U.P., its officers, the
Receiver, the President of All India Hindu Maha Sabha. About twelve additional Defendants
were impleaded afterwards on their own applications some of whom were Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi, Baba Abhiram Das of Hanuman Garhi and Sri Madan Mohan Gupta
(Convener of Akhil Bharatiya Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Punaruddhar Samiti, Bhopal, founded
by HH Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanandaji Maharaj – impleaded in 1989).
The Plaintiff Sunni Central Waqf Board claimed that in Ayodhya there existed an ancient
Mosque known as Babri Masjid built by Babur about 433 years ago after his conquest of
India. That the land adjoining the mosque on all the four sides was ancient graveyard of
Muslims; That the mosque and the graveyard vested in Almighty and the Muslims were
offering prayers in the mosque since the time of its construction. The mosque and graveyard
were situated in Mohalla Kot Ram Chander in Ayodhya. The relief claimed by the Plaintiff is
that the property be declared as a public mosque commonly known as Babri Masjid. Next
prayer is that in case in the opinion of the Court delivery of possession is deemed to be the
proper remedy, a decree for delivery of the possession of the mosque by removal of idols,
etc., be passed in favour of plaintiff against the defendants. One more prayer was added in the
year 1995 that the Receiver be ordered to handover the property in dispute to the plaintiffs. At
the same time, in the year 1995, Sunni Waqf Board withdrew its prayer of graveyard.

All the above four suits were consolidated for joint hearing by the orders of the Court in
the year 1964.
The Fifth Suit was filed in 1989 by Bhagwan Sri Ramlala Virajman at Sri Rama Janma
Bhumi Ayodhya, as Plaintiff No. 1 and Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya as Plaintiff
No. 2. Both the plaintiffs were stated to be represented by Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal
(Retired Judge of High Court, resident of Allahabad) as Next Friend of Ramlala Virajman. Sri
Deoki Nandan Agrawal was the Plaintiff No. 3 in the Suit. The Defendants in this Suit are
Rajendra Singh, s/o

Gopal Singh Visharad, Paramhans Mahant Ramchandra Das, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Central
Board of Waqf and a few Muslims. In total there are 27 Defendants in this Suit including all
the parties of previous four suits. Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Nyas and Shia Central Board of
Waqf are also Defendants in this Suit.

It was pleaded in the suit that Sri Ramlala Virajman and Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi both
were juridical persons and Deoki Nandan Agrawal is a Vaishnav Hindu seeks to represent the
Deity and Asthan as a Next Friend. Sri Ram Janma Bhumi is too well known at Ayodhya and
it does not require any description for purpose of identification of the subject matter of
dispute.

Twenty-five years have passed since framing of these issues but hearing has not commenced.
So the Plaintiff Deities and their devotees are extremely unhappy with the prolonged delay of
the hearing of the suits. Plaintiff deities are desirous of having a new temple constructed. A
Trust has been created in December, 1985 by HH Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
Shivaramacharya Maharaj. It was also pleaded that earlier suits were inadequate as neither
presiding deity nor Asthan Janma Bhumi were pleaded in earlier suits. Hence fresh suit is
being filed. It was also pleaded that place itself being birthplace of Lord Ram is object of
worship as deity.

The Prayer in the suit is for a decree of declaration to the effect that the entire premises of Sri
Ram Janma Bhumi belong to the plaintiff deities and for a perpetual injunction against the
defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any objection to or placing any
obstruction in the construction of the new temple building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi
Ayodhya after demolishing and removing the existing buildings and structures.

What is the area of the disputed premises?

The spot position is clear from the two maps prepared by Shiv Shankar Lal, Vakil in May
1950 under orders of Civil Judge, Faizabad passed in the Suit of Gopal Singh Visharad. The
first map was of the premises in dispute and the second map was of the premises in dispute
and the adjoining area. The map was on the scale of 1 inch = 10 ft. Muslim parties never
objected to the dimensions given. The total area is approx. 1480 sq. yards, i.e., 13320 sq. ft.
The area of the inner and the outer courtyard is virtually the same. The corners of the map are
indicated by A, B, C, D, E, F. Two of the three judges have ordered for allotment of 1/3rd area
to each of the three main Plaintiffs respectively, viz., Nirmohi Akhara, Muslims and Ramlala
Virajman while the court has dismissed the suits of Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board.

The Government of India had acquired about 70 acres of land surrounding the disputed
premises. This acquired land is other than the disputed area and is still in possession of GOI.

In the suit of Gopal Singh Visharad filed in 1950, a map prepared on 06 th December, 1885 is
attached as Annexure. In this map, Parikrama is mentioned very clearly. In this High Court
judgment, this map is given as it is as Annexure. This Parikrama means that the whole area
covered by Parikrama is the Janmasthan Temple.
Nature of the verdict
Although the suits were heard by a three-judge special bench of Lucknow Bench of
Allahabad High Court, but the court was functioning like a trial court, so three judges wrote
and delivered their judgments separately. Each and every issue framed in the suits is
answered by Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma and Mr. Justice Sudhir Agrawal while Mr. Justice S.U.
Khan has given his findings on a few groups of issues.

Bases of Verdict
The Hon’ble Judges took into account as the bases of their judgment the relevant evidence
from Muslim scriptures, Muslim Waqf Act, Hindu scriptures, Skanda Puran, Historical
accounts written by Muslim historians, the Diary of a French Jesuit Priest, Gazetteers and
books written by British officials and historians, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carved stone
blocks and inscription found from the debris of the structure, report of the Ground Penetrating
Radar Survey (GPRS), report of the GPRS-inspired excavations conducted by the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and oral cross-examinations and statements of approx.
85 witnesses.

Why did Ramlala win?

According to Hindu scriptures, a Praan-Pratisthit Vigraha (deity) is a living entity, it can fight
its own case, it is a juridical person, but a perpetual minor and, therefore, needs a Guardian to
fight its legal battles. Late Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal, a retired judge of Allahabad High
Court, had filed Sri Ramlala’s case as the latter’s Next Friend. According to Hindu scriptures
and the present law the deity can hold the property, so all the property vests with the
presiding deity and nobody can have adverse possession over it. This place being Janmasthan
of Lord Ram is of special significance and the place itself is not a property but being sacred it
is itself a deity and is also worthy of worship and it can also fight its own case as Plaintiff.
This provision in the Hindu scriptures has been there since times immemorial. The Courts of
Law always accepted these accreditions.

Why was the case of Nirmohi Akhara Rejected?

The argument of the Nirmohi Akhara in the court was that the Akhara was the owner of the
three-domed structure which was worshipped by Hindus as Janma Bhumi of Lord Ram.
Secondly, the Ram Chabutra was the temple whose Sevait (worship and management rights)
was always with the Akhara. Nirmohi Akhara wanted removal of the Receiver appointed to
manage the affairs of the worship of Bhagwan Sri Ramlala presiding inside the three-domed
structure and claimed instead all the said rights for themselves.

It was even their argument that the entire property belonged to Nirmohi Akhara and Sri
Bhagwan was under the Akhara and that the Akhara was born before the birth of Bhagwan
Ram. It was determined by the Court of Law that the Plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara was a
Panchayati Math of the Ramanandi Vairagi sect that is in existence in Ayodhya since 1734
CE, and there was no evidence of its establishment in Ayodhya prior to this time. Nirmohi
Akhara is neither the owner of the property nor is entitled to file the suit. Also the suit filed
was barred by time and, hence, dismissed.

Why was the case of Sunni Waqf Board Dismissed?

The Muslim Scriptures and Law lay down that no Wakf can be created on another's property
(the Deity's seat & Deity's Home, the Temple) and Namaz offered in a Masjid thus erected is
not accepted by Allah. In the eyes of law, therefore, the three-domed structure was 'non-est',
i.e., even if existing in form, it did not exist in law. Babar, after winning battles in Bharat, had
the authority to collect revenue, but he was never the owner of the soil. It was clear and
telling in this case that the disputed site was not the property of Babar or Mir Baqi. Therefore,
it could not be offered (Waqf) to Allah. Whatever notice was issued for Waqf, that was
declared invalid by the Court in April, 1966. Nobody ever challenged it. Long occupation
does not endow with ownership rights. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that
Muslims are in occupation of this site since 1528 CE, then also it was never continuous,
uninterrupted and peaceful and the Waqf Board must divulge as to whose property did Babar
occupy and if he did it with the knowledge of the true owner. It is the view of the Supreme
Court that ‘Mosque’ is not an essential part of Islam, Namaz can be offered anywhere, even
in an open ground. The Waqf Board was neither considered by the Court of Law to be the
owner of the disputed land nor was the structure in question accepted to be a valid mosque
according to Islam. Suit # 4 filed by Sunni Waqf Board was dismissed by the Court declaring
it time barred.
 JUSTICE SUDHIR AGRAWAL ON SOME OF THE ISSUES FRAMED IN SUIT OF
NIRMOHI AKHARA (Plaintiff)

Issue No. 2: Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara? Answer:
Negative, i.e., No.

Issue No. 3: Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12 years? Answer:
Negative, i.e., No.

Issue No. 4: Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the said temple?
Answer: Negative, i.e., No.

Issue No. 9: Is the suit within time? Answer: Negative, i.e., It is time barred.

Issue No. 14: Is the suit not maintainable as framed? Answer: It is held that the suit as framed
is not maintainable.

Issue No. 13: To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Answer: The Plaintiff is not
entitled for any relief in view of the findings in respect of issues 2, 3, 4 and 14.

JUSTICE DHARAM VEER SHARMA ON SOME OF THE ISSUES

FRAMED IN SUIT OF NIRMOHI AKHARA (Plaintiff)

Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4: Answered: Negative, i.e., the property does not belong to plaintiff Nirmohi
Akhara, the plaintiffs acquired no title by adverse possession for over 12 years, the plaintiffs
are not entitled to get management and charge of the temple. Issue No. 9: Suit is barred by
time.

Issue No. 14: The suit as framed is not maintainable. Issue No. 13: Suit is dismissed. The
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagis.

JUSTICE SUDHIR AGRAWAL ON SOME OF THE ISSUES FRAMED IN SUIT OF

SUNNI WAQF BOARD (Plaintiff)

Issue No. 1: Whether the building in question described as mosque in the attached
map was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiff? Answer is Yes.

Issue No. 1a: When was it built and by whom, whether by Babar or by Mir Baqi?
Answer: Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building in dispute was built by Babar
or by Mir Baqi.
Issue No. 1b: Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged
Hindu temple after demolishing the same? Answer: Affirmative, Yes.

Issue No. 1B(c): Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim
community for offering prayers from time immemorial? Answer: It is held that
building in question was not exclusively used by the members of Muslim community.
After 1856-57, outer courtyard was exclusively used by Hindu and inner courtyard
had been visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both the communities
(Hindus and Muslims both).

Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff were in possession of the property in suit up to
1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949? Answer: Negative - Against the
Plaintiff.

Issue No. 3: Is the Suit within time? Answer: It is held that suit is barred by limitation.

Issue No. 6: Whether the present suit is a representative suit, Plaintiffs representing
the interests of the Muslims? Answered in Affirmative, i.e., Yes.

Issue No. 10: Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession
as alleged in the plaint? Answered in Negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs and Muslims
in general.

Issue No. 11: Is the property in suit the site of Janm Bhumi of Sri Ramchandraji?
Answer: It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus is the
area covered under the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed
structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

Issue No. 13: Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular had the
right to worship the Charans and Sita Rasoi and other idols and other objects of
worship, if any, existing in or upon the property in suit? Answered in Affirmative.

Issue No. 14: Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram
Janm Bhumi or Janmasthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage
as of right since times immemorial? Answered in affirmative.

Issue No. 15: Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528

A.D

continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the Defendants and Hindus in general?
Answered in Negative, i.e., against the plaintiff and Muslims in general.

Issue No. 16: To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?
Answer: No Relief since the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.
 Issue No. 17: Whether a valid notification under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act of 1936
relating to the property in suit was ever done? Answered in Negative holding that no
valid notification under sections of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 was issued.

Issue No. 19a: Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities of
Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Asthan Sri Ram Janm Bhumi continued to exist on
the property in suit as alleged on behalf of defendant Mahant Dharamdas and the said
place continued to be visited by devotees for purpose of worship? Whether the
property in dispute continued to vest in the said deities? Answer: It is held that the
premises which is believed to be the

place of birth of Lord Ram continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious
structure in the outer courtyard cannot be said to be the property of Sri Ramlala
Virajman.

Issue No. 19b: Whether the building was landlocked and cannot be reached except by
passing through places of Hindu worship? Answered in Affirmative to the extent that
building was landlocked and could not be reached except of passing through the
passage of Hindu worship.

Issue No. 20b: Whether there was a Mutawalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the
alleged Mutawalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it
relates to relief for possession? Answer: It is held that at the time of attachment of the
building there was a Mutawalli, i.e., one Sri Javed Hussain and in absence of
Mutawalli relief of possession cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are before the court
in the capacity of worshippers.

Issue No. 28: Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the
disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession? Answer: It is held that
plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the disputed premises, i.e., outer and
inner courtyard including the disputed building ever?

JUSTICE DHARAM VEER SHARMA ON SOME OF THE ISSUES

FRAMED IN SUIT OF SUNNI WAQF BOARD (Plaintiff)

Issue No. 1: Whether the building in question described as mosque in the attached
map was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiff? Answer: Decided against the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 1a: When was it built and by whom, whether by Babar or by Mir Baqi?
Answer: Decided against the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 1b: Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged
Hindu temple after demolishing the same? Answer: Decided in favour of defendants
and against the plaintiff on the basis of ASI report.
 Issue No. 1B(c): Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim
community for offering prayers from time immemorial? Answer: Decided against the
Plaintiff.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff were in possession of the property in suit up to
1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949? Answer: Decided against the
Plaintiff.

Issue No. 3: Is the Suit within time? Answer: Decided against the Plaintiffs and in
favour of defendants.

Issue No. 6: Whether the present suit is a representative suit, Plaintiffs representing
the interests of the Muslims? Answer: Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No. 10: Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession
as alleged in the plaint? Answer: Decided against the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 11: Is the property in suit the site of Janm Bhumi of Sri Ramchandraji?
Answer: Decided against the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 13: Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular had the
right to worship the Charans and Sita Rasoi and other idols and other objects of
worship, if any, existing in or upon the property in suit? Answer: Decided against the
Plaintiff.

Issue No. 14: Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram
Janm Bhumi or Janmasthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage
as of right since times immemorial? Answer: Decided against the Plaintiffs.

Issue No. 15: Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D.

continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the Defendants and Hindus in general?
Answer: Decided against the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 16: To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?
Answer: Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The suit is dismissed with easy costs.

Issue No. 17: Whether a valid notification under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act of 1936
relating to the property in suit was ever done? Answer: The issue has already been
decided by the ld. Civil judge by order dated 21 April, 1966. (Ed. Note: In this
judgment, the Civil Judge, Faizabad held that no valid notification was issued.)

Issue No. 19a: Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities of
Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Asthan Sri Ram Janm Bhumi continued to exist on
the property in suit as alleged on behalf of defendant Mahant Dharamdas and the said
place continued to be visited by devotees for purpose of worship? Whether the
property in dispute continued to vest in the said deities? Answer: Decided against the
Plaintiff.
 Issue No. 19b: Whether the building was landlocked and cannot be reached except by
passing through places of Hindu worship? Answer: Decided against the Plaintiffs and
in favour of defendants.

Issue No. 20b: Whether there was a Mutawalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the
alleged Mutawalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it
relates to relief for possession? Answer: Suit is not maintainable and the issue is
decided in favour of the defendants.

JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL ON SOME OF THE ISSUES FRAMED IN SUIT OF

RAMLALA VIRAJMAN (Plaintiff No. 1) AND ASTHAN RAM JANM BHUMI
(Plaintiff No. 2) and NEXT FRIEND (Plaintiff No. 3)

Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiffs 1 & 2 (Ramlala Virajman & Asthan Ram Janm
Bhumi) are juridical persons? Answered in Affirmative. Plaintiffs 1 & 2 both are
juridical persons.

Issue No. 3a: Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the
disputed building in the early hours of December 23rd, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff:
Answered in affirmative. The idols were installed under the central dome of the
disputed building in the early hours of 23rd December, 1949.
Issue No. 3b: Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a Chabutra
under the canopy?

Issue No. 3d: If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols
so placed still acquire the status of a deity? Answer of 3b & 3d: Affirmative.

Issue No. 5: Is the property in question properly identified and described in the
plaint? Answer is in affirmative.

Issue No. 6: Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent plaintiff No. 1 & 2 as their
next friend and is the suit not competent on this ground? Answer: Decided in favour
of plaintiffs. (Ed. Note: It means that the Plaintiff No. 3, i.e., the Next Friend is
entitled to represent Ramlala Virajman and Asthan Ram Janm Bhumi).

Issue No. 8: Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan Sri Ram
installed in the disputed structure? Answer: Against the Defendant No. 3 Nirmohi
Akhara.

Issue No. 13: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Answered in Negative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not barred by limitation.

Issue No. 14: Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected
after demolishing Janmasthan Temple at its site? Answer: In Affirmative.
 Issue No. 16: Whether the title of Plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any was extinguished as alleged
by the defendant, if yes, have Plaintiffs 1 & 2 reacquired title by adverse possession as
alleged

in the plaint? Answer: Neither the title of the Plaintiff 1 & 2 ever extinguished nor the
question of reacquisition therefore ever arise.

Issue No. 21: Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities as alleged in
written statements of Defendant Nos. 4 & 5. Answered in Negative against the
Defendants.

Issue No. 22: Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by tradition,
belief and faith the birthplace of Lord Ram as alleged in the plaint? Answer: It is held
that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus is the area covered under
the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner
courtyard in the premises of dispute?

Issue No. 24: Whether the worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity on the
premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in plaint? Answered in affirmative.

Issue No. 30: To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled? Answer:
The suit is partly decreed.

JUSTICE DHARAM VEER SHARMA ON SOME OF THE ISSUES

FRAMED IN SUIT OF RAMLALA VIRAJMAN (Plaintiff No. 1) AND ASTHAN RAM

JANM BHUMI (Plaintiff No. 2) and NEXT FRIEND (Plaintiff No. 3)

Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiffs 1 & 2 (Ramlala Virajman & Asthan Ram Janm
Bhumi) are juridical persons? Answer: Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants.

Issue No. 3a: Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the
disputed building in the early hours of December 23rd, 1949 as alleged by the
plaintiff?
Issue No. 3b: Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a Chabutra
under the canopy?

Issue No. 3d: If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols
so placed still acquire the status of a deity? Answers to Issue No. 3a, 3b and 3d:
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 5: Is the property in question properly identified and described in the
plaint? Answer: Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants. (Ed.
 Issue No. 6: Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent plaintiff No. 1 & 2 as their
next friend and is the suit not competent on this ground? Answer: Decided in favour
of plaintiffs.

Issue No. 8: Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan Sri Ram
installed in the disputed structure? Answer: Decided against the Defendant No. 3
(Nirmohi Akhara) and in favour of the Plaintiff No. 1 Ramlala Virajman, Plaintiff No.
2 Asthan Sri Ram Janm Bhumi and Plaintiff No. 3 the Next Friend.

Issue No. 13: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Answer: Decided in favour of the

Plaintiffs.

Issue No. 14: Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected
after demolishing Janmasthan Temple at its site? Answer: Decided against Sunni
Waqf Board and in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 16: Whether the title of Plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any was extinguished as alleged
by the defendant, if yes, have Plaintiffs 1 & 2 reacquired title by adverse possession as
alleged in the plaint? Answer: Decided against Sunni Waqf Board & Others.

Issue No. 21: Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities as alleged in
written statements of Defendant Nos. 4 & 5. Answer: Decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos. 4 & 5.

Issue No. 22: Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by tradition,
belief and faith the birthplace of Lord Ram as alleged in the plaint? Answer: Decided
against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of plaintiffs.

Issue No. 24: Whether the worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity on the
premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in plaint? Answer: Decided against
Sunni Waqf Board & Others.

Issue No. 30: To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled? Answer:
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is decreed.

VERBATIM GIST OF THE FINDINGS BY THE THREE HON’BLE JUDGES ON SRI

RAMA JANMA BHUMI

(A) VERBATIM GIST OF THE FINDINGS BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARAM

VEER SHARMA
1. The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and
is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord
Rama as a child.
 Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at
any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and
formless also.

2. The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was
built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of
the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a
massive Hindu religious structure.
4. The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening
night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji
and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and
other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that
Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as
deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed
inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer
courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also
worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a
mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
6. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others
Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and
Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.

(B) VERBATIM GIST OF THE FINDINGS BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBGHAT

ULLAH KHAN
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed
portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose
orders it was constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins
since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof
was used in construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that somewhere in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very
small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to
any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the
premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth
place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely
unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque
Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with
offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as
well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and
Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it
did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the
entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue
of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint
possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place
beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be
exact birth place of Lord Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the
early hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in
possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is
passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at
 the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at
present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

(C) VERBATIM GIST OF THE FINDINGS BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR

AGARWAL
1. The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of
Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.
2. Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and
practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been
proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528.
3. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to
when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but this much is clear that
the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area
between 1766 to 1771.
4. The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non- Islamic religious
structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.
5. The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of
22nd/23rd December 1949. Other Original Suits no. 3 of 1989 and 4 of 1989 are
barred by limitation.

Order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan

“Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C
D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/Commissioner appointed
by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same
for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the
idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share
each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be
made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by
allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central
Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months
unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.
Date: 30.09.2010”

Is the Hindu society anti-Islam or anti-Mosque?

The Hindu society is neither anti-Islam nor anti-Mosque. Over a million Ram devotees
(Karsevaks) from all over Bharat had descended on the small township of Ayodhya during
the period covering the last week of November and first week of December, 1992. Ayodhya
hosts over 15 mosques even now, but the Karsevaks touched none of them. Ayodhya is home
to several thousands of Muslims. None of them was troubled by the Ram devotees that came
from all over the country. They did not harass any shopkeeper in Ayodhya, Faizabad or on
the way.

They did not outrage the modesty of any woman. The Sadhu-Sants had made it public
through the Dharma Sansad held in Delhi in October 1992 that they would commence to offer
Karseva (voluntary service) for reconstruction of Sri Ram’s Nativity Temple at Ayodhya
from 06th December, 1992, 11.45 A.M. Everybody honoured this date and time. Nobody
touched the structure prior to the declared time. They were fully disciplined. They came to
Ayodhya with a grand object in heart. They had only to do with the triumphalist three-domed
signature statement that undermined Sri Ram’s nativity site and by extension national ethos
and pride which the Hindu society took as a signpost of slavery for over 450 years and the
self-respecting Bharat wanted to undo that statement of national humiliation and shame. That
structure was not put up on a virgin land for the purpose of religious worship, but that was a
socio-cultural & political statement against the ethos and pride of Hindusthan by a foreign
Islamic invader superimposed on the foundation of the living nativity temple of Maryada
Purushottam Sri Ram after demolishing it. The removal of this three-domed structure by
Karsevaks had precedents established by the Government of India itself and many State
Governments who removed many symbols of slavery and colonialism. The removal of the
structure in Ayodhya was justified in the same way as the Government of India removed and
kept in safe custody the statue of a British imperialist from under the India Gate at New Delhi
and nobody criticized it as that imperialist statue stood as a poser to the national psyche as it
reminded volumes of the British power over Bharat.

Also know the Defendants/Respondents

It is necessary to understand that Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and Rama Janma Bhumi
Punaruddhar Samiti (that was floated by HH Jagadguru Shankaracharya Dwarka
Peethadhishwar Swami Swaroopanandaji Maharaj) have had no independent case. Both Sri
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and Sri Madan Mohan Gupta (Convener, Rama Janma Bhumi
Punaruddhar Samiti) became Defendants through impleadment applications on their own in
the Plaint of Sunni Waqf Board. Sri Mahant Dharam Das Pahalwan also had become a
Respondent through an impleadment application of his own. The Sunni Waqf Board had
made Paramhans Ramchandra Dasji and the Hindu Maha Sabha as the Defendants in its suit.
After Paramhansji became Saketvaasi (passed away), his disciple Mahant Suresh Das
substituted him as the Defendant. Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and Madan Mohan Gupta
(Convener, Rama Janma Bhumi

Punaruddhar Samiti) had never filed any counter claim in the court. So, the court was not in a
position to pass any order favouring them. In this particular case, the court could pass orders
in favour of anyone of the plaintiffs, viz., Nirmohi Akhara or Sunni Waqf Board or Ramlala
Virajman. The Court of Law has dismissed the suits of Plaintiffs Nirmohi Akhara and the
Sunni Waqf Board while upholding the suit of Ramlala Virajman. So, no defendant has any
bona fide case in the matter for relief.

The Advocates that pleaded the cases

Advocate Puttulal Mishra (now deceased) of Lucknow pleaded the case of Gopal Singh
Visharad. After Sri Mishra passed away, a youthful lawyer of Lucknow Advocate Devendra
Prasad Gupta pleaded Sri Visharad’s case. Senior Advocate of Supreme Court Sri
Krishnamani (President, Supreme Court Bar Association) argued the case. Advocate Ajay
Pandey also argued. It was Advocate Krishnamani whose arguments convinced the Court to
accept the excavation report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as part of the
records.

Advocate Ranjeet Lal Verma of Ayodhya pleaded the case of Nirmohi Akhara. He was
regular in his court attendance. He cross-examined the witnesses. In his absence, his son
Advocate Tarunjeet Verma used to represent him in the court. Advocate Ranjeet Lal Verma
argued the case.

The team of pleaders for the Sunni Waqf Board constituted of Sri Jafaryab Jeelani, Sri
Mustaq Ahmed Siddiqui and 3-4 other lawyers. (Sri Abdul Mannan also used to plead in this
case. He was very old and has since expired.) Finally, Sri Jafaryab Jeelani and Sri Mustaq
Ahmed Siddiqui argued the case.

For the case of Sri Ramlala, Advocate Ved Prakash Nigam pleaded and cross-examined the
witnesses. Senior Advocate of Supreme Court Sri K.N. Bhat argued the case of Sri Ramlala
Virajman in the High Court.

For the case of the Defendant Late Paramhans Ramchandra Das Maharaj (presently
represented by Mahant Suresh Dasji, Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya), Advocate Madan Mohan
Pandey of Faizabad had been pleading for the last 17 years. He cross-examined the witnesses.
The last leg of the arguments was done by Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad of the
Supreme Court of India assisted by the Supreme Court Advocates Sri Bhupender Yadav, Sri
Vikramjit Banerjee, Sri Saurabh Shamsheri and Sri Bhaktivardhan Singh securing for Sri
Ramlala and Asthan Janmabhoomi the key points that both of them are deities, both of them
are perpetual minors and, therefore, their rights are neither barred by limitation nor could they
suffer from adverse possession. They also argued that three-domed structure, if it is declared
as a mosque, could not be a valid mosque according Islam.

Advocate Madan Mohan Pandey argued the cases of both Plaintiff Sri Ramlala Virajman and
Defendant Paramhans Ramchandra Das based on evidence amassed from the excavation
report of the Archaeological Survey of India, statements of witnesses and various key
documents.

Advocate Veereshwar Dwivedi of Faizabad used to represent the case of Defendant Baba
Abhiram Das (now represented by Sri Mahant Dharamdasji). After his passing away,
Advocate Rakesh Pandey of Lucknow pleaded it (Advocate Rakesh Pandey’s respected father
Justice K.M. Pandey was the gutsy one who had ordered in his capacity as the District Judge
for opening of the locks put on Sri Rama Janma Bhumi). Senior Advocate of Madras High
Court, Sri G. Rajagopalan argued the case of Srimahant Dharamdasji in the Court.

On behalf of the Respondent Sri Rama Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti (founded by

Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopananda Ji Maharaj), Advocate Ms Ranjana
Agnihotri pleaded the case and the final arguments were done by Advocate P.N. Mishra, a
senior lawyer of Kolkata High Court.

The case of the Defendant Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha was pleaded/argued by
Advocate Harishankar Jain of Lucknow High Court.

Defendant Ramesh Chandra Tripathi was a non-contesting party. No advocate argued his case
either orally or in writing, but, unfortunately, under some misguidance, he went to the High
and the Supreme Courts to have the verdict deferred. His application was finally rejected by a
three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India on September
28, 2010 which finally widened and paved the way for pronouncement of verdict by the High
Court that finally came on September, 30, 2010.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sharma, Dharam Veer (30 August 2010). "Judgement in OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Decision of
Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters)". Allahabad High Court. Retrieved

Bacchetta, Paola (2000). "Sacred Space in Conflict in India: The Babri Masjid
Affair". Growth and Change. 

Jain, Meenakshi (2013). Rama and Ayodhya. New Delhi: Aryan Books. 

Jha, Krishna; Jha, Dhirendra K. (2012). Ayodhya: The Dark Night. HarperCollins India. 

Lal, B. B. (2003). "A note on the excavations at Ayodhya with reference to the Mandir-
Masjid issue". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas, J. Destruction and Conservation of
Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 117–126

Layton, R.; Thomas, P. (2003). "Introduction". In Layton, R.; Stone, P.; Thomas,
J. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 1–21. .
Narain, Harsh (1993). The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources.
Delhi: Penman Publishers.

Ratnagar, Shereen (2004). "Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation: The

Case of Ayodhya". Current Anthropology. 45 (2). pp. 

Sharma, Ram Sharan (2003). "The Ayodhya issue". In R. Layton; P. Stone; J.

Thomas. Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 127–138. 

van der Veer, Peter (1987). "'God must be Liberated!' A Hindu Liberation Movement in
Ayodhya". Modern Asian Studies. 21 (2): 283–301.

van der Veer, Peter (1989). Gods on Earth: The Management of Religious Experience
and Identity in a North Indian Pilgrimage Centre. Oxford University Press. 

van der Veer, Peter (1992). "Ayodhya and Somnath: Eternal Shrines, Contested
Histories". Social Research. 

Aswathy (6 December 2013). "Babri Masjid demolition: A timeline". One

India.Retrieved 

Bajaj, Jitendra, ed. (1993). Ayodhya and the Future of India. Madras: Centre for
Policy Studies.

Thapar, Romila (2000). "A Historical Perspective on the Story of Rama". In Thapar,

Romila. Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-564050-0.