Monday, October 4, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Ayodhya title suit court order -BRIEF SUMMARY
1
BRIEF SUMMARYSubject matter of the decided casesOOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & othersVersusGopal Singh Visharad and othersThe instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.2
On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were
filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court inRajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;directedO.O.S. No.
4 of 1989Issues No. 1 and 1(a)1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant
No. 13?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.3
Issues No. 1(b)1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.Issues No. 1(B)a1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)"Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.Issues No. 1(B)(b)1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 1(B)(c)1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 1(B)(d)1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?4
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 282. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as
alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. "Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?"These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 33. Is the suit within time?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issues No. 5(a)5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).Issues No. 5(b)5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.5
Issues No. 5(c)5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)Issues No. 5(d)5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, "No
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property
in dispute", the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.Issue No. 66. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 7(a)7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.6
Issue No. 7(b)7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of
any such mosque?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 7(c)7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 7(d)7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 88. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.Issue No.99. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).7
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?13.
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particularDecided against the plaintiffs.Issue No.1212. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?nd and 23rd December,Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.8
Issue No.1717. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).This issue has already been decided by the learned CivilIssue No.1818. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21
no. 17?st April, 1966 on issueDecided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issue No.19(b)19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No.19(d)19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it
did not have minarets?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 19(e)19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a9
graveyard on three sides.Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No.19(F)19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the
tenets of Islam?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No.20(a)20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No.20(b)20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.Issue No.2121. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.10
Issues No. 23 & 2423. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)".Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.Issues No. 25 & 2625. "Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable?"
26. "Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?"Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 2727. "Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?"Yes, issue is decided in positive.Issue No.16 & 2216. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.11
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and othersThe instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989Issues No. 1, 2 and 61
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri RamConnected with issues No.
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-edecided in favour of defendants andIssues No. 3, 4 & 73. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?Connected with Issues No.
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been
defendants and against the plaintiffs.1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,decided in favour ofIssues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?Connected with Issues No.
17(
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been
against the plaintiffs.5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,decided in favour of defendants andIssues No. 5(a) & 5(b)5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?Connected with
1989.issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 ofProperty existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.13
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?Connected with
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have beenissue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 indecided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 1313. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 88. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 1212. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 1414. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?Withdrawn, no finding is required.14
Issue No. 1515. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?NOIssue No. 1010. Is the present suit barred by time ?NOIssue No. 16 & 1716. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.15
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989Issues No. 1, 5 and 61.
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein5.
Known as Babari masjid ?Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar6.
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar forConnected with Issues No.
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been
plaintiffs.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),decided in favour of defendants and against theIssues No. 2, 3, 4 & 82. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?3.
years ?Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 124.
said temple ?Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the16
8.
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want ofDecided against the Plaintiffs.Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 167(a)
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.16.
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been
plaintiffs.Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 ofdecided against theIssue No. 99.
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Is the suit within time ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1111.
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.17
Issue No. 1414. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1717.
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom."(Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) "WhetherDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1515. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?(Already decided)Issues No. 12 & 1312. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?Suit is Dismissed.18
O.O.S. No. 5 of 198 9 (R.S.NO. 236/1989Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:1999(5) SCC page 50,& other decisions of Privy CouncilO.O.S. No.
5 of 198919
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 61. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this
account ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 229. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its
effect ?Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 2415. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering20
Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To
22
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.Issue No.1717.
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structureDeleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.Issue No.2323.
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed byDecided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described21
in the plaint ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7)
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent(8)
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of BhagwanDecided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.Issues No.1919.
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,Suit is maintainable.Issue No.2020.
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.Issue No.2121.
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 ?Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities22
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.Issues No. 26 & 2726.
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 8027.
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice underDecided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.Issue No.2525.
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.2929.
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing theDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.2828.
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.23
Issue No.1818.
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the SpecificDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 43(a)
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?Whether the idol in question was installed under the central3(b)
chabutra under the canopy?Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a3(c)
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?"Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after3(d)
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?"If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether(4)
"Shikhar" prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?Whether the idols in question had been in existence under theDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.11(11)
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure inWhether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the24
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.12(12)
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the sameDeleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.Issue No.13(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.3030. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
BRIEF SUMMARYSubject matter of the decided casesOOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & othersVersusGopal Singh Visharad and othersThe instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.2
On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were
filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court inRajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;directedO.O.S. No.
4 of 1989Issues No. 1 and 1(a)1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant
No. 13?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.3
Issues No. 1(b)1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.Issues No. 1(B)a1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)"Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.Issues No. 1(B)(b)1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 1(B)(c)1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 1(B)(d)1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?4
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 282. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as
alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. "Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?"These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 33. Is the suit within time?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issues No. 5(a)5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).Issues No. 5(b)5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.5
Issues No. 5(c)5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)Issues No. 5(d)5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, "No
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property
in dispute", the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.Issue No. 66. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 7(a)7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.6
Issue No. 7(b)7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of
any such mosque?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 7(c)7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 7(d)7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 88. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.Issue No.99. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).7
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?13.
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particularDecided against the plaintiffs.Issue No.1212. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?nd and 23rd December,Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.8
Issue No.1717. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).This issue has already been decided by the learned CivilIssue No.1818. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21
no. 17?st April, 1966 on issueDecided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issue No.19(b)19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No.19(d)19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it
did not have minarets?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 19(e)19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a9
graveyard on three sides.Decided against the plaintiffs.Issues No.19(F)19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the
tenets of Islam?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No.20(a)20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?Decided against the plaintiffs.Issue No.20(b)20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.Issue No.2121. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.10
Issues No. 23 & 2423. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)".Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.Issues No. 25 & 2625. "Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable?"
26. "Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?"Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.Issue No. 2727. "Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?"Yes, issue is decided in positive.Issue No.16 & 2216. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.11
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and othersThe instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989Issues No. 1, 2 and 61
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri RamConnected with issues No.
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-edecided in favour of defendants andIssues No. 3, 4 & 73. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?Connected with Issues No.
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been
defendants and against the plaintiffs.1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,decided in favour ofIssues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?Connected with Issues No.
17(
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been
against the plaintiffs.5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,decided in favour of defendants andIssues No. 5(a) & 5(b)5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?Connected with
1989.issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 ofProperty existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.13
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?Connected with
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have beenissue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 indecided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 1313. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issue No. 88. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 1212. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.Issue No. 1414. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?Withdrawn, no finding is required.14
Issue No. 1515. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?NOIssue No. 1010. Is the present suit barred by time ?NOIssue No. 16 & 1716. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.15
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989Issues No. 1, 5 and 61.
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein5.
Known as Babari masjid ?Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar6.
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar forConnected with Issues No.
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been
plaintiffs.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),decided in favour of defendants and against theIssues No. 2, 3, 4 & 82. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?3.
years ?Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 124.
said temple ?Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the16
8.
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want ofDecided against the Plaintiffs.Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 167(a)
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.16.
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been
plaintiffs.Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 ofdecided against theIssue No. 99.
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Is the suit within time ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1111.
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.17
Issue No. 1414. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1717.
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom."(Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) "WhetherDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No. 1515. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?(Already decided)Issues No. 12 & 1312. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?Suit is Dismissed.18
O.O.S. No. 5 of 198 9 (R.S.NO. 236/1989Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:1999(5) SCC page 50,& other decisions of Privy CouncilO.O.S. No.
5 of 198919
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 61. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this
account ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 229. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its
effect ?Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 2415. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering20
Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To
22
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.Issue No.1717.
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structureDeleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.Issue No.2323.
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed byDecided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described21
in the plaint ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7)
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent(8)
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of BhagwanDecided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.Issues No.1919.
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,Suit is maintainable.Issue No.2020.
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.Issue No.2121.
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 ?Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities22
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.Issues No. 26 & 2726.
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 8027.
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice underDecided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.Issue No.2525.
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.2929.
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing theDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.2828.
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.23
Issue No.1818.
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the SpecificDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 43(a)
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?Whether the idol in question was installed under the central3(b)
chabutra under the canopy?Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a3(c)
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?"Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after3(d)
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?"If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether(4)
"Shikhar" prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?Whether the idols in question had been in existence under theDecided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.11(11)
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure inWhether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the24
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.12(12)
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the sameDeleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.Issue No.13(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.Issue No.3030. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)