tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16379186286624538082024-02-18T17:34:03.216-08:00MEMORY MAKERSBHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-17965871585659153172010-10-04T05:59:00.000-07:002010-10-04T05:59:31.838-07:00Amitabh Bachchan Converted In the Sultanate of OmanBHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-73357061359377893682010-09-30T05:59:00.000-07:002010-09-30T05:59:59.846-07:00Ayodhya title suit court order -BRIEF SUMMARY1<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">BRIEF SUMMARY</span><span style="font-family: Utopia-Bold; font-size: medium;">Subject matter of the decided cases</span><span style="font-size: medium;">OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur<br />
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.<br />
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni<br />
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh<br />
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram<br />
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others<br />
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on<br />
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court<br />
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.<br />
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the<br />
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex<br />
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in<br />
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others<br />
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)<br />
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others</span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT; font-size: medium;">Versus</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Gopal Singh Visharad and others</span><span style="font-size: medium;">The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961<br />
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for<br />
possession was added.<br />
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a<br />
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury<br />
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934<br />
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of<br />
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.<br />
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and<br />
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of<br />
possession beyond the period of limitation.</span>2<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were<br />
filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed<br />
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.<br />
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of<br />
religious nature.<br />
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of<br />
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be<br />
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument<br />
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and<br />
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 <br />
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.<br />
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to<br />
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to<br />
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .<br />
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not<br />
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people<br />
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped<br />
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise<br />
finding is as under;</span><span style="font-size: medium;">directed</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">O.O.S. No.<br />
4 of 1989</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1 and 1(a)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the<br />
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as<br />
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If<br />
the answer is in the affirmative?<br />
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged<br />
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant<br />
No. 13?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span>3<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an<br />
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged<br />
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs<br />
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and<br />
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was<br />
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the<br />
plaint? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1(B)a</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the<br />
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known<br />
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so<br />
its effect thereon)"</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to<br />
Government.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1(B)(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as<br />
alleged by the plaintiffs?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1(B)(c)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the<br />
Muslim community for offering prayers from times<br />
immemorial ? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1(B)(d)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the<br />
members of Muslim community for burying the dead<br />
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,<br />
its effect?</span>4<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28</span><span style="font-size: medium;">2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in<br />
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949<br />
as alleged in the plaint?<br />
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan<br />
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the<br />
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more<br />
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as<br />
alleged by the defendants?<br />
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse<br />
possession as alleged in the plaint?<br />
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit<br />
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge<br />
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?<br />
28. "Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of<br />
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its<br />
possession?"</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">These issues are d</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">ecided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 3</span><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Is the suit within time?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(a)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character<br />
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of<br />
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act<br />
13 of 1936?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide<br />
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in<br />
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their<br />
worship?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.</span>5<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(c)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide<br />
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(d)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as<br />
alleged in written statement?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,<br />
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his<br />
order dated 21.4.1966).</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil<br />
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, "No<br />
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act<br />
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property<br />
in dispute", the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no<br />
right to maintain the present suit?<br />
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on<br />
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed<br />
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,<br />
1960?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 6</span><span style="font-size: medium;">6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs<br />
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants<br />
representing the interest of the Hindus?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 7(a)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280<br />
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body<br />
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span>6<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 7(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged<br />
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of<br />
any such mosque?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 7(c)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the<br />
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting<br />
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the<br />
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present<br />
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 7(d)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the<br />
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by<br />
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 8</span><span style="font-size: medium;">8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant<br />
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as<br />
res judicate against the defendants in suit?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not<br />
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.9</span><span style="font-size: medium;">9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80<br />
C.P.C. </span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).</span>7<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram<br />
Chandraji?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">13. <br />
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and<br />
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in<br />
or upon the property in suit?<br />
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri<br />
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it<br />
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times<br />
immemorial? If so, its effect?<br />
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities<br />
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam<br />
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on<br />
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to<br />
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,<br />
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said<br />
deities?<br />
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a<br />
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the<br />
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in<br />
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence<br />
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.12</span><span style="font-size: medium;">12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the<br />
building in the night intervening 22<br />
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have<br />
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">nd </span><span style="font-size: medium;">and 23</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">rd </span><span style="font-size: medium;">December,</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Idols were installed in the building in the intervening<br />
night of 22/23</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: xx-small;">rd </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">December, 1949.</span>8<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.17</span><span style="font-size: medium;">17. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.<br />
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in<br />
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?<br />
(<br />
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.18</span><span style="font-size: medium;">18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the<br />
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.<br />
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of<br />
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21<br />
no. 17?</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">st </span><span style="font-size: medium;">April, 1966 on issue</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.19(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached<br />
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its<br />
effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.19(d)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque<br />
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it<br />
did not have minarets?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 19(e)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a<br />
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a</span>9<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">graveyard on three sides.</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No.19(F)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question<br />
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding<br />
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in<br />
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the<br />
tenets of Islam?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.20(a)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the<br />
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni<br />
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi<br />
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis<br />
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.20(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and<br />
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the<br />
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for<br />
possession?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour<br />
of the defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.21</span><span style="font-size: medium;">21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span>10<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 23 & 24</span><span style="font-size: medium;">23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,<br />
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?<br />
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the<br />
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any<br />
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of<br />
particular community and against the interest of another<br />
community)".</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not<br />
maintainable.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 25 & 26</span><span style="font-size: medium;">25. "Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by<br />
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether<br />
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no<br />
longer maintainable?"<br />
26. "Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer<br />
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been<br />
demolished?"</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 27</span><span style="font-size: medium;">27. "Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,<br />
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also<br />
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?"</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Yes, issue is decided in positive.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.16 & 22</span><span style="font-size: medium;">16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,<br />
entitled?<br />
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.<br />
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.</span>11<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)<br />
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others</span><span style="font-size: medium;">The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father<br />
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.<br />
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the<br />
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the<br />
plaintiff to touch the deity.<br />
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order<br />
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.<br />
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was<br />
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State<br />
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest<br />
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan<br />
of the deity.<br />
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">O.O.S. No.<br />
1 of 1989</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1, 2 and 6</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">1<br />
Chandra Ji?<br />
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His<br />
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?<br />
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha<br />
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with issues No. <br />
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these<br />
issues have been <br />
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided in favour of defendants and</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 3, 4 & 7</span><span style="font-size: medium;">3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and<br />
the idols situated in the place in suit.?</span>12<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in<br />
suit.?<br />
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit<br />
from 1528A.D.?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with Issues No. <br />
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,<br />
wherein these issues have been <br />
defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided in favour of</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim<br />
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?<br />
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in<br />
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his<br />
right of worship.?<br />
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written<br />
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?<br />
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires<br />
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated<br />
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with Issues No. <br />
17(<br />
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad<br />
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these<br />
issues have been <br />
against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been</span><span style="font-size: medium;">) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided in favour of defendants and</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of<br />
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das<br />
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?<br />
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with <br />
1989.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to<br />
Government.</span>13<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and<br />
were all Hindus interest in the same.?<br />
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of<br />
Resjudicata and in any other way?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with <br />
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been</span><span style="font-size: medium;">issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 13</span><span style="font-size: medium;">13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor<br />
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 8</span><span style="font-size: medium;">8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief<br />
Act.?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)</span><span style="font-size: medium;">11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present<br />
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the<br />
advocate general ?<br />
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of<br />
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 12</span><span style="font-size: medium;">12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1<br />
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 14</span><span style="font-size: medium;">14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor<br />
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Withdrawn, no finding is required.</span>14<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 15</span><span style="font-size: medium;">15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">NO</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 10</span><span style="font-size: medium;">10. Is the present suit barred by time ?</span><b><span style="font-family: Arial-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">NO</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 16 & 17</span><span style="font-size: medium;">16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs<br />
under section 35-A C.P.C.?<br />
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is<br />
dismissed with easy costs.</span>15<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">OOS No. 3 of 1989<br />
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right<br />
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.<br />
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to<br />
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.<br />
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court<br />
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff<br />
failed to prove the case.<br />
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">O.O.S. No.<br />
3 of 1989</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 1, 5 and 6</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">1. <br />
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">5. <br />
Known as Babari masjid ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">6. <br />
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf<br />
property?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with Issues No. <br />
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues<br />
have been <br />
plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided in favour of defendants and against the</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">2. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">3. <br />
years ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">4. <br />
said temple ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the</span>16<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">8. <br />
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?<br />
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,<br />
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the Plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">7(a) <br />
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">7(b) </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">16. <br />
1936 ?<br />
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),<br />
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of<br />
1989, wherein these issues have been <br />
plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">decided against the</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 9</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">9. <br />
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit within time ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">10(a) </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">10(b) </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 11</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">11. <br />
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.</span>17<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 14</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">14. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 17</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">17. <br />
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi<br />
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination<br />
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own<br />
custom."</span><span style="font-size: medium;">(Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) "Whether</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No. 15</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">15. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(Already decided)</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 12 & 13</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">12. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">No.<br />
13. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Suit is Dismissed.</span>18<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Utopia-Bold; font-size: medium;">O.O.S. No. 5 of 198</span><span style="font-family: Utopia-Bold; font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-family: Utopia-Bold; font-size: medium;">9 </span><span style="font-family: Utopia-Bold;">(R.S.NO. 236/1989</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.</span><span style="font-size: medium;">The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri<br />
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the<br />
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the<br />
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are<br />
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.<br />
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm<br />
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like<br />
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of<br />
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as<br />
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all<br />
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance<br />
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.<br />
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex<br />
Court specially the law as laid down in <br />
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.<br />
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme<br />
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur<br />
Radhabhallabhji and others <br />
and of different High Courts.<br />
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">1999(5) SCC page 50,</span><span style="font-size: medium;">& other decisions of Privy Council</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">O.O.S. No.<br />
5 of 1989</span>19<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6</span><span style="font-size: medium;">1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?<br />
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the<br />
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through<br />
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?<br />
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1<br />
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this<br />
account ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22</span><span style="font-size: medium;">9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri<br />
Masjid ?<br />
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a<br />
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the<br />
plaint ?<br />
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid<br />
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?<br />
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by<br />
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as<br />
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its<br />
effect ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),<br />
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.<br />
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the<br />
plaintiffs.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24</span><span style="font-size: medium;">15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid<br />
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering</span>20<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To<br />
22<br />
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was<br />
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written<br />
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &<br />
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in<br />
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?<br />
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity<br />
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in<br />
paragraph 25 of the plaint?</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">nd </span><span style="font-size: medium;">December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),<br />
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.<br />
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf<br />
Board and Others.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.17</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">17. <br />
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a<br />
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.23</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">23. <br />
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,<br />
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the<br />
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the<br />
defendants 4 and 5 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the defendants and in favour of the<br />
plaintiffs.<br />
Issue No.5<br />
(5) </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the property in question properly identified and described</span>21<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">in the plaint ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the<br />
defendants.<br />
Issues No. 7 & 8<br />
(7) <br />
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that<br />
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional<br />
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(8) <br />
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of Bhagwan</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of<br />
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No.19</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">19. <br />
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written<br />
statement of defendant no. 3 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Suit is maintainable.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.20</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">20. <br />
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47<br />
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendant no.3.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.21</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">21. <br />
as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the<br />
written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of<br />
the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities</span>22<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants no. 4 and 5.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 26 & 27</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">26. <br />
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">27. <br />
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.25</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">25. <br />
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the<br />
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the judgment and decree dated 30</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">th </span><span style="font-size: medium;">March 1946</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.29</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">29. <br />
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978<br />
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif<br />
Sadar, Faizabad?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.28</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">28. <br />
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants<br />
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants<br />
no. 4 and 5.</span>23<br />
<b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.18</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">18. <br />
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional<br />
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in<br />
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and<br />
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the Specific</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">3(a) <br />
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early<br />
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in<br />
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their<br />
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the idol in question was installed under the central</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">3(b) <br />
chabutra under the canopy?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">3(c) <br />
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,<br />
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">"Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">3(d) <br />
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?"</span><span style="font-size: medium;">If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(4) <br />
"Shikhar" prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged<br />
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of<br />
defendant no. 3 ?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.11</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(11) <br />
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the</span>24<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.12</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">(12) <br />
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?</span><span style="font-size: medium;">If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.13</span><span style="font-size: medium;">(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the<br />
defendants.</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: large;">Issue No.30</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">30. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?</span><b><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT; font-size: medium;">Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is<br />
decreed with easy costs.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"></span></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></i></b></b>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-35207878132398152842010-08-24T04:28:00.000-07:002010-08-24T04:28:22.312-07:00Omanair landing in seeb international airport, muscat. 3.12.T09 ---$#@M---<object style="background-image: url(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/8jdXWz2mWIo/hqdefault.jpg);" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8jdXWz2mWIo?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8jdXWz2mWIo?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-11155927673395034922010-08-24T04:15:00.000-07:002010-08-24T04:15:55.413-07:00Landing of plane(Oman air)<object style="background-image: url(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pt_COMJVCVs/hqdefault.jpg);" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pt_COMJVCVs?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pt_COMJVCVs?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-66989380000539761642010-08-24T04:14:00.000-07:002010-08-24T04:14:50.112-07:00Travel Service ( Oman Air) Cocpit landing in Muscat<object style="background-image: url(http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/i9cYX3KFPzs/hqdefault.jpg);" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9cYX3KFPzs?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9cYX3KFPzs?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-5552798833451242262010-08-24T04:11:00.001-07:002010-08-24T04:11:39.305-07:00Landing in Muscat on an Emirates A330<object style="background-image: url(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/xIYmYpois2Y/hqdefault.jpg);" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIYmYpois2Y?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIYmYpois2Y?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-14748299591875056242010-08-24T04:11:00.000-07:002010-08-24T04:11:08.560-07:00A visit to Muscat, Oman - June 2006<object style="background-image: url(http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/6IyMWaBk1Q8/hqdefault.jpg);" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6IyMWaBk1Q8?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6IyMWaBk1Q8?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-51909270065781106162010-08-24T04:05:00.000-07:002010-08-24T04:05:00.550-07:00The souk of Muttrah/ مطرح (Oman / سلطنة عمان)<object style="background-image: url(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/747NN76qw0Q/hqdefault.jpg);" width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/747NN76qw0Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/747NN76qw0Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-80274783361727465732010-08-14T22:07:00.000-07:002010-08-14T22:08:10.885-07:00HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhELa3OfJZu_CDXz5qJM_J7gJa9coJTWtm0QUVsOgzwJy2sOo8xSmMxTgJG5IpXVECfbZpxCuy08gmmtdkKgpAoC3LNH5mo0xLIlLQDX3GFsc1SN34UnkdLn0RNO4W5x93Z1NGNKDZlcCHi/s1600/uind1.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhELa3OfJZu_CDXz5qJM_J7gJa9coJTWtm0QUVsOgzwJy2sOo8xSmMxTgJG5IpXVECfbZpxCuy08gmmtdkKgpAoC3LNH5mo0xLIlLQDX3GFsc1SN34UnkdLn0RNO4W5x93Z1NGNKDZlcCHi/s320/uind1.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505498901847134210" border="0" /></a>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1637918628662453808.post-10811566551897433622010-08-14T21:56:00.000-07:002010-08-14T21:57:11.428-07:00I LOVE MY INDIA<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBFBL3BznbOTSW3yV-JmAS0367CkE35pRAB0ByGcMNzmvbj6yWXS47gUEYj0LbxBF2QZGQ985juIxQIr-R73fUpKSuNnPy4KKNr9tmjFKjrSk_I2tBU9Kow0bycpxZLCqFEw2kZXqHX14x/s1600/uind2.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 295px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBFBL3BznbOTSW3yV-JmAS0367CkE35pRAB0ByGcMNzmvbj6yWXS47gUEYj0LbxBF2QZGQ985juIxQIr-R73fUpKSuNnPy4KKNr9tmjFKjrSk_I2tBU9Kow0bycpxZLCqFEw2kZXqHX14x/s320/uind2.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5505496139436626258" border="0" /></a>BHATIA COMMUNITY MISSION FOUNDATIONhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161508970914851noreply@blogger.com0