This has been the hottest topic of discussion for as long as I can remember but absolutely no one that I encounter in life seems to know the legal aspects of this case. So buckle up for this long read which I hope you all will find interesting as well as Fargo-level bizzare-
There are 5 parties who are involved in various legal suits against each other. 4 of these claim this 1500 square yards of lands while 5th party Central government or the state which acquired this land by a parliamentary act in 1993 and has attached this property since 1949 when idols were placed inside the mosque. Lets first see who these parties are and their narratives- 1. Sunni Waqf board- The party has been recognised as representatives for Muslims. It presents the narrative that this mosque was built by Babar or on the orders of Babar by his general named Mir Baqi. They are ready to accept that there maybe a temple there in the past but refuse to accept that there was demolition of temple to build this mosque. They have already won a suit in 1885 regarding ownership of this land brought by a Mahant of Ayodhya in British times. 2. The family that placed the idols in the mosque- First of all, the family has accepted to the courts that they placed the idols there and idols did not appear out of a divine miracle. They however say that the orders were given to them in their dreams by Lord Ram. They claim the whole property to be theirs under ADVERSE POSSESSION. In adverse possession the trespasser to the property is recognised as true owner of the property if the trespassesquater has been using the land for 12 years or more and no legal challenge has been brought by the owner in these 12 years. The family says that there happened a great battle between the Hindus and Muslims in 1880s where more than 70 muslims were killed and buried in the mosque premises. The Hindus began worshipping the Chabutra there as it is the place where RamLala was born. The Muslims stopped giving namaaz there. The family now claimed that Hindus have been in regular use of the property and not Muslims this property now belongs to Hindus under adverse possession. Primary place of worship before the idols were placed are the footprints of Lord Rama in the mosque. The family holds the same narrative as Sunni Waqf board that the masjid was built by Babar or by his generals, the difference being that they believe that Babar demolished a temple in order to have it built. 3. Nirmohi Akhara - The Nirmohi Akhara was made a party to the suit in 1980s. The Nirmohi Akhara says that there was no mosque just a structure at the place of birth of Lord Rama. The Muslims never gave namaaz since times immemorial and the property has been under the custody of the Akhara since times immemorial. Their case is both against the Sunni Waqf Board and hindu family. Nirmohi akhara says they bolong to the Vairaagi tradition of Hinduism and their math has been taken and trespassed over by "people". They have told the court that on 6 th December 1992 , "people of no religion, caste or creed" destroyed their place of worship and the place be restored to them.
- Ram Lala and RamJanamsthan themselves- 😂😂. Yes its true. Ram Lala was recognised as a party to this case by the courts in 80s. Just like a company is a corporate person ,any deity is recognised as a juridical person and the interests of the deity are respresented by the head preist called the shebait. The property of the deity is called debutter property. While the case attracted political attention in 1980s a battery of lawyers approached the courts saying that everybody was bringing his story to the courts but there was no one to represent the interests of Ram Lala himself. So the courts appointed a lawyer as shebait for the deity who has to oversee if best interests of the deity are being kept in mind by the warring parties. The shebait brought the angle of "perpetual minor" to the suit.According to them Ram lala is a minor whose interests have to be protected under special protections granted to minors in the law. So there can be no claimant to the property except Ram lala himself whose interests can only be overseen by his shebait. They brought the suit against Visharads(hindu family), Sunni Waqf board, Nirmohi akhara and Central government for occupying property belonging to Ram lala
- The Central government/ State of Uttar Pradesh/ District Administration of Ayodhya/Municipal Authorities of Ayodhya hereto reffered to as the state- The modern Indian state became a party to the dispute after intervention by the District Magisterate when idols were placed inside the mosque in 1949 and this property was attached by the magisterate citing fears of law and order. Orders were given that hindus be allowed to do darshan from a distance but Muslims wont be allowed inside. In 1986 under orders by the local district court of Ayodhya/ Faizabad locks were broken and Hindus allowed to do darshan. As we all know this was being done covertly by Rajiv Gandhi. The suit to break locks was brought in the morning and the locks broken by afternoon!! Remember that the case was filed in 1949. As it happened all the suitors from that time representing Muslims had died. So there was no one appointed to respresent Muslims that day nor was anyone from their side notified(😂😂). The High Court in its judgement judged the events of that day to be completely illegal but refused to quash the case based on this illegality. After 6 December 1992 Central Government passed a parliamentary act called "THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN AREA AT AYODHYA ACT,1993". So the property was not just attached but now acquired by the Central Government. The Supreme Court struck down a provision of this act where it was ordered that any standing dispute in the courts would be abated after this act and now central government i.e Government of India would decide what would happen of this land. This would have been a severe blow to the "Right to Property" and authority of the courts. The government after this Act could basically declare emergency in a "certain" area, acquire land in that "certain area" and then use it as it wished. So Ayodhya act came very close to take away "Right to Property" completely in India.
Now that all narratives have been presented the main questions that the High court had to decide were
- Can it be conclusively judged that property in question is really " Babari Masjid" ?Did it really belong to Babur?
- Can it be conclusively judged that the property was a math and since times immemorial belong to Nirmohi Akhara?
- Is the place in question birth place of Ram Lala according to historical or mythological sources?
- Finally, who will be granted ownership of the land? Lets start with the first question
- Is the property really " Babari Masjid" and was it built by Babar?
To answer this question first Sunni Waqf board were asked why they believed this was built by Babar. As Most important evidence they cited two inscriptions on the masjid of " Babar" on the masjid which had been destroyed during previous riots of 1885 and 1934. There are three sources which swayed the court's decision in this matter: 1. Babarnama- a diary/memoir of Babar. 2. Reports by British travellers/ administrators of Ayodhya 3. Jadunath Sarkar's works on Aurangzeb.
Babar came to India in 1526 and died in 1530.About 70 odd pages of his memoirs were lost in a storm as mentioned by Babar himself in these memoirs. Sunni waqf board and the Hindu parties supporting the theory of Babari masjid construction by Babar point to passages where Babar writes that he encamped close to Sarayu River. Thats it. According to Sunni Waqf board and also Hindu parties, Babar's account of mosque construction may have been lost in these 70 pages but intelligent minds can make inferences. Plus there is no general by the name of Mir Baqi in his memoirs. Now the court upon finding no mention of Ram Mandir in Babar's own biography went into finding how did this theory of Babari Masjid come to hold currency in collective memory?
The answers according to court lie in travel accounts by British colonial administrators/ travellers. The first account is of 1820s. The account mentions Ayodhya's places by name like Sita Rasoi, Hanumangarhi. The Britisher is astonished by odd presence of a mosque in Hindu holy land. Locals tell him that this mosque was built by Aurangzeb by razing temples. Again in several accounts of 1854 and 1858 by other Britishers, Aurangzeb name is thrown as the perpetrator.
But Britishers in contrast to Ayodhya locals , "based on Persian inscriptions", estimate that it was Babar who would have got this mosque built and not Aurangzeb and start spreading this information.
Now it is a lot easier to find about Aurangzeb than about Babar as there are many first hand accounts of people of the time during Aurangzeb than under Babar like those of Marathas, Sikhs, Britishers, French because of technological development and increased trade. None of these accounts mention the razing of a place as important to hindu faith as the birthplace of Lord Rama. One of the most important historians on Aurangzeb has been Sir Jadunath Sarkar. He had compiled a list of temples razed down by Aurangzeb. This incident of Ram temple destruction finds no mention here. But what was clear from all these gazetteer accounts was that really was historical evidence of inscriptions on the mosque which loosely translated to "built by Babar in year 935 hijri".
Only these inscriptions were admitted as evidence. The conclusion reached was that court respects the consensua of Hindus and Muslims that mosque was built by or under orders of Babar but there was no direct evidence that this mosque belonged to Babar which could be passed on to his inheritors and then to Sunni Waqf board as the custodian of public muslim bodies. There was also no evidence accepted that a temple was destructed to construct the mosque. Another important point that emerged from these gazetteers and British accounts was that this place was used as a place of worship by Muslims and after a riot in 1855 a grill was placed to bifurcate this land so that Hindus could worship too. So there is evidence that from 1855 at least, this place was being jointly used by Hindus and Muslims.
2.The answer to this first question itself answered if this place was a math since times immemorial under custody of Nirmohi akhara. These gazetteers and other accounts mention Nirmohi Akhara as managing hindu mendicants. Plus Sunni Waqf board had accepted the existence of Nirmohi Akhara but contested the claim that Akhara was a body that existed pre-history. So it was accepted that a portion of this land was being used by Nirmohi Akhara too. Ownership claim of Nirmohi Akhara could not be verified.
- The courts now went into Hindu religious sources to find out if it could be ascertained whether the contested area is the birthplace of Lord Rama?
Another question inquired into was whether there is any evidence in Hindu tradition that the disputed land was believed as " Janamsthaan" before masjid was built there?
Besides Sanskrit editions of Ramayana, most important book in the eyes of the court was RamCharitManas by Tulsidas. What makes it important other than its near univeral use for recitation on Dussehra in hindi heartland is when it was written and where it was written.
Ram Charit Manas was written from 1574 to 1577 in Ayodhya itself within 50 years of Babars death in 1530. There is no mention of a particular place as Janamsthaan being recognised as the spot where Sri Ram was born. Nor is there any mention of a particular temple being razed down to build a mosque on such a place in this epic poem.
The Hindu parties then said that they BELIEVED the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and Sunni Waqf board having submitted in writing that they too believed Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, must show some other place in Ayodhya where Lord Rama was born.
The court rejected this argument saying that the party making the claim has to prove that claim and not the other. It was noted from Ramayana that the palace of Lord Rama would have been quite spatial and space of 1500 square yards was too small. Moreover brushing these inferences aside, the courts now looked at archeological evidence. There was definite evidence that temple could have existed there or in the vicinities because of objects found there. But there was no scientific evidence of a superstructure being brought down plus nearly every house around this area carried evidence of parts of temple being used in their construction.
And there is one very important point too. The courts had asked that, if we assume that Baba Aurangzeb brought the temple down; why did they leave such important parts as Sri Ram's engraved footsteps untouched?
The Hindu parties explained that there were continual battles and whatever the Mughals built during the day Hindus broke it by night. So a compromise was reached so that certain parts could be preserved. This made the absence of the superstructure of temple very hard to explain for Hindu parties. There was also no evidence of the Mughals appointing/forming a committee/ investigation body/ issuing a firmaan/ order to find out the birthplace of Lord Rama so that at that exact place a mosque could be constructed.
So the conclusion the courts reached was that there was no evidence either historical or mythological "submitted" that could prove theory of a temple being destroyed by Mughals and probably it was the other way round.
That somewhere in time Hindus of Ayodhya came to believe that birthplace of Sri Ram in Ayodhya would most probably be the place where Baba Aurangzeb built this mosque and janamsthaan was neither left nor right but below the central dome of the mosque.
Then remained question of Ram Chabutra inside the premises.
The Waqf board said that Ram Chabutra never existed historically and Hindu parties said that it was always there. The court rejected both the claims, recognised its presence and worship by devotees since "considerable amount" of time. During discussion of this topic it seems that the judges had had enough of blatant lying from both parties and gave it in writing in their judgement that its unfortunate that people of religion have been indulging in clear falsehoods.
So the court came to conclude that this building had been in possession of all the three claimants at least from 1855 and POSSESSION and USE became the key to providing relief via grant/recognition of title to these parties.
Now finally the findings as written by the judge in his judgement: pasting from pdf document of the judgement
GIST OF THE FINDINGS
- The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
- It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
- No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
- Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
- That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
- That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
- That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
- That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
- That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
- That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
- That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make shift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
- That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
- That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make shift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
Order:Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the map of premises submitted in this court.
August 5, 2020: Ram Mandir – Bhoomi Poojan, an occasion for all Hindus, not only in Ayodhya, but world over has come “after 500 years”. It would be celebrated with Deepostsav and continuous recitation of the Akhand Ramayan in all local temples. Bhoomi Poojan . All eyes are set on Ayodhya for Bhoomi Poojan at the site for the proposed Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on August 5, 2020, where Prime ... Home › Video › Specials › Ayodhya Case Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir Case History Ayodhya Case ... Read the latest and breaking Hindi news on amarujala.com. Get live Hindi news about India and the World from politics, sports, bollywood, business, cities, ... Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babari Masjid Complete case history In Hindi Ram Mandir Babari Masjid Case : मुस्लिम पक्ष की अपील मंदिर के खिलाफ, हिंदू पक्ष की अपील में एकता नहीं, हैं एक दूसरे के विरोधी Apa dissertation grant, essays on reality tv essay on a magical forest 250 words, case study of user acceptance, tips on writing long essays: students should not get paid for good grades essay study case Ayodhya in mandir hindi ram clemson sat essay requirement, redman p good essay writing. AYODHYA Ayodhya is situated in the city of Uttar Pradesh in north India. It is a historical city that has been mentioned in the many ages old Vedas and by travellers to the country from ancient times. Ayodhya is known as the birth place of Sri Rama. Ayodhya been the birthplace of Sri Rama, hence many millions of people believe it as a place of historical and religious significance. It has been ... ayodhya case history know timeline of ayodhya dispute More on this topic राम मंदिर-बाबरी मस्जिद जमीन विवाद: 1528 से सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आखिरी दलील तक, 400 साल की पूरी कहानी Read history of Ayodhya dispute and demolition of Babari Masjid. About black history of Ayodhya 1992 riots. अयोध्या विवाद को दशकों बीत रहे हैं। मसला आज भी जस का तस है। पढ़ें इस विवाद का संक्षिप्त इतिहास। Ram Mandir Ayodhya issue is about a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. This particular site is considered among the Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Mandir Ayodhya) but it also located the Babri Masjid. The question arises if an earlier Hindu ram mandir ayodhya was demolished or modified to create the Babri Masjid. ayodhya ram mandir history hindi upsc mcqs. indian history of babri masjid attack gk questions and ayodhya verdict news, dispute ram janmabhoomi mandir case study, ayodhya case history अयोध्या को भगवान श्रीराम के पूर्वज विवस्वान (सूर्य) के पुत्र वैवस्वत मनु ने बसाया था, तभी से इस नगरी पर सूर्यवंशी राजाओं का राज महाभारतकाल तक रहा। यहीं ...
राम जन्म भूमि और बाबरी मस्जिद विवाद या आप कह सकते हैं कि अयोध्या विवाद भारत ... The civil suit on the Ayodhya land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on October 29th. The apex court paved ... तीर्थ नगरी अयोध्या में मस्जिद बनाम मंदिर का वर्तमान मुक़दमा सत्तर साल ... The Babri Masjid demolition marked a tectonic shift in one of India’s oldest property dispute cases – the Ram Mandir issue. In this video we revisit the unde... all about ayodhya ram mandir babri masjid demolition dispute in hindi OUR SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS - Follow ADMIN :- https://www.facebook.com/gyanpmishraSCS Contac... अयोध्या में राम जन्मभूमि और बाबरी मस्जिद ज़मीन विवाद मामले में सुप्रीम ... राम मंदिर-बाबरी मस्जिद विवाद पर बुधवार को सुनवाई पूरी कर हो गई और ऐसा माना ... LIVE:Ayodhya Case में Supreme Court का फैसला #AyodhyaCaseVerdict #BabriMasjid #ABPNewsHindiLiveSubscribe Our Channel: https://www.youtube.com ... This judgment was noted for it being long-drawn and was found to be driven with a lot of emotions and religious sentiments coming into play, with episodes wh...
