source- inkhabar


M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019)


A.  Background of the case

 
During a political rally on 6 December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu extremists. A subsequent case of the land title was brought before the High Court of Allahabad, whose verdict was delivered on 30 September 2010. In the judgment the three judges of the High Court of Allahabad decided that Ayodhya’s 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) would be broken down into three parts, with one-quarter going to the Hindu Mahasabha’s Ram Lalla or Infant Rama, one-quarter go to the Sunni Waqf board and one-quarter to Nirmohi Akhara. The judgment affirmed that the controversial land was the birthplace of Rama, according to Hindus’ faith and belief, and that, following the demolition of the Hindu temple, Babri Masjid was built, pointing out that the temple was not made according to Islamic principles.
B.  Parties of the suit
 
  1. The Nirmohi Akhara (Shebait) – manager of devasthan.
  2. The Sunni Central Wakf Board of Uttar Pradesh, which administers all UP Wakfs.

          3. And the deity, Ram Lalla, who was brought in 1989 by Deoki Nandan Agarwal.                                 

(Many communities such as All India Hindu Mahasabha and individuals such as Iqbal Ansari has joined both Hindu and Muslim).

  C.  Judges in this case
 
a.       Ranjan Gogoi, (Current CJI)
b.      Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, (at the time of judgement)
c.       Justice DY Chandrachud,
d.      Justice Ashok Bhushan, and
e.      Justice Abdul Nazeer.
  D.  Timeline of the verdict
 
  •     1528: – The Masjid Babri was built on Emperor Babur ‘s orders. It was built after the demolition of the temple in the birthplace of Rama, according to local traditions.

 
  •    1859: – The British colonial administration put a fence around the place and witnessed a communal clash that called Hindus and Muslims separate areas of worship.

 
  • .    1949: – Inside the mosque, idols were placed. The civil charges were filed by both sides in the dispute. The government declared the territory contentious and locked the building’s door. The problem was considered a subjugation.

 
  •     1984: – When Hindu groups formed a bench to lead the construction of a temple on the site in question, the movement to build the temple gained strength.

 
  •    1986: – The district judge ordered the opening of the mosque gates and the Hindus were permitted to worship inside the building.

 
  •    1989: – In November, the Hindu parishad Vishwa laid the foundations for the temple at the neighbouring land. Sporadic confrontations followed in the region.

 
  •     1990: – The then president of the BJP, Lal Krishna Advani, picked up a cross country rath-yatra to help build a Ram Temple.

 
  •    1992: – The Then Chief Minister Kalyan Singh took measures to help the movement by facilitating access to the area, promising no firing against Karsevaks, the central government’s decision to send Central Police force to that area and so forth.  Nearly 2,00,000 kar sevaks were demolished on 6 December. In many parts of the country, this led to community disturbances.

 
  •     2010: – On 30 September 2010, the High Court of Allahabad delivered its judgment concerning the four claims concerning the Ayodhya dispute. To be divided into three sections of Ayodhya land.

 
  •     2019: – A final hearing of that case was conducted at the 5-Judge Bench, headed by Indian Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, of the Supreme Court.

 
   E. The suits which have been appealed before supreme court
  •     suit 1 filed with Gopal Singh Visharad is basically a case against one admiring Lord Ram at  Janambhoomi for the enforcement of his right to worship.

 
  •    Suit 3, which Nirmohi Akhara has filed, is for handing over the Janambhoomi temple ‘s management and liability.

 
  •      suit 4, The Board of Sunni Central Waqf filed a declaration to the effect that a public Mosque and for an ordinance of possession is the entire site in dispute, including Babri Masjid and the surrounding cemetery.

 
  •        Suit 5 was filed by the deity of Lord Ram and the deity of Janmashan (both claims to be legal persons) by a next friend who had been invited to serve as a third complainant for a declaration that Ram Janambhoomi is the whole premises comprised of the annexes 1 , 2 and 3 to the complaint.

F.Issues before the court

  • Whether or not suit number 3, 4, 5 or any other suit is barred by limitation?
  • .Whether suit number 1, 3, and 5 are barred by res judicata? (section 11 of code of civil procedure)
  • .Whether Babur destroyed the temple or his commander at his behest to build the Babri masjid?
  • Whether the mosque was built on and using the temple’s materials?
  • What legal implications do you have as a result of the evaluation of (C) and (D) above?
  • Whether Muslims and Hindus established the worship claim and title of the contested property?
  • .Whether a three-way division into equality between Nirmohi Akhara and the plaintiffs of suit 4 and the claimants of suit 5 justified the adoption of a preliminary decree by the Hight Tribunal?

© LegalRath holds the exclusive copyright on all the content of Kanoonjaano