Friday, October 1, 2010

Complete Judgments on Ayodhya site cases.

 

To read the complete judgment on the Ayothi site cases click the following link.

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan
Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of
birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the
spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a
child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present 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.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When
was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year
is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it
cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a
Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old
structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive
Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the
night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed
structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
2
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs
U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others
and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri
Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner
and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of
Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the
right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object
of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also
established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in
dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as
a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the
deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in
exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping
throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed
structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that
the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it
came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
*********

 

Decision of Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters


Date of Judgment :- 30.9.2010

Coram :-

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.

Gist of Judgments Per

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.

Gist of Judgment
Gist of Judgment
Issues for Briefing
Brief Summary

Case Details

1.
Other Original Suit No. 1 of 1989
  Gopal Singh Visharad (Now Dead) & Others
               Vs.
   Zahoor Ahmad & Others

2.
Other Original Suit No. 3 of 1989
  Nirmohi Akhara & Others
               Vs.
  Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and Others

3.
Other Original Suit No. 4 of 1989
  The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P.& Others
               Vs.
  Gopal Singh Visharad (Now Dead) & Others.

4.
Other Original Suit No. 5 of 1989
  Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Others
               Vs.
   Rajendra Singh and Others

Judgments Per

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.

Consolidated Judgment in
OOS No. 1 of 1989,
OOS No. 3 of 1989,
OOS No. 4 of 1989 &
OOS No. 5 of 1989

Consolidated Judgment in
OOS No. 1 of 1989,
OOS No. 3 of 1989,
OOS No. 4 of 1989 &
OOS No. 5 of 1989
: Vol 1
Judgment in OOS No. 1 of 1989

  - do -
: Vol 2
Judgment in OOS No. 3 of 1989

  - do -
: Vol 3
Judgment in
OOS No. 4 of 1989
: Vol 1

  - do -
: Vol 4
Judgment in
OOS No. 4 of 1989
: Vol 2

  - do -
: Vol 5
Judgment in
OOS No. 4 of 1989
: Vol 3

  - do -
: Vol 6
Judgment in
OOS No. 4 of 1989
: Vol 4

  - do -
: Vol 7
Judgment in OOS No. 5 of 1989

  - do -
: Vol 8
Index of Annexure - I to III

  - do -
: Vol 9
Annexure - I

  - do -
: Vol 10
Annexure - II

  - do -
: Vol 11
Annexure - III

  - do -
: Vol 12
Page wise Index of Annexure IV

  - do -
: Vol 13
Annexure IV - Page 1 to 125

  - do -
: Vol 14
Annexure IV - Page 126 to 128

  - do -
: Vol 15
Annexure IV - Page 129 to 162

  - do -
: Vol 16
Page wise Index of Annexure V

  - do -
: Vol 17
Annexure V - Page 1 to 14

  - do -
: Vol 18
Annexure V - Page 15 to 59

  - do -
: Vol 19
Annexure V - Page 60 to 117

  - do -
: Vol 20
Annexure V - Page 112A

  - do -
: Vol 21*
Annexure V - Page 118 to 189

Annexure V - Page 190 to 220

Annexure V - Page 221 to 281

*Vol 21 Per Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal J. includes :

  1.
Appendix 8 : General Index

  2.
Appendix 9 : Citation Index

  3.
Appendix 10 : Reference Book Index

No comments: