Download Legal Personality of Hindu Idols and the Ram Janmabhumi Dispute - Prof. Singh and more Study notes Aquaculture and Aquafarming in PDF only on Docsity!
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010
M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs …Appellants
Versus
Mahant Suresh Das & Ors …Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos 4768-4771/ WITH Civil Appeal No 2636/ WITH Civil Appeal No 821/ WITH Civil Appeal No 4739/ WITH Civil Appeal Nos 4905-4908/
WITH
Civil Appeal No 2215/ WITH Civil Appeal No 4740/ WITH Civil Appeal No 2894/ WITH
Civil Appeal No 6965/ WITH
Civil Appeal No 4192/ WITH
Civil Appeal No 5498/ WITH
Civil Appeal No 7226/
AND WITH
Civil Appeal No 8096/
M.2 Conflict between Suit 3 and Suit 5 M.3 Issues and findings of the High Court M.4 Limitation in Suit 3 M.5 Oral testimony of the Nirmohi witnesses M.6 Nirmohi Akhara‘s claim to possession of the inner courtyard Documentary evidence in regard to the mosque (1934-1949) N. Suit 5: The deities N.1 Array of parties N.2 No contest by the State of Uttar Pradesh N.3 Pleadings N.4 Written statements N.5 Issues and findings of the High Court N.6 Shebaits: an exclusive right to sue? A suit by a worshipper or a person interested Nirmohi Akhara and shebaiti rights N.7 Limitation in Suit 5 The argument of perpetual minority N.8 The Suit of 1885 and Res Judicata N.9 Archaeological report N.10 Nature and use of the disputed structure: oral evidence N.11 Photographs of the disputed structure N.12 Vishnu Hari inscriptions N.13 The polestar of faith and belief Travelogues, gazetteers and books Evidentiary value of travelogues, gazetteers and books N.14 Historian‘s report O. Suit 4: Sunni Central Waqf Board O.1 Analysis of the plaint O.2 Written statements
O.3 Issues and findings of the High Court O.4 Limitation in Suit 4 O.5 Applicable legal regime and Justice, Equity and Good Conscience O.6 Grants and recognition O.7 Disputes and cases affirming possession Impact of Suit of 1885 Incidents between 1934 and 1950 O.8 Proof of namaz O.9 Placing of idols in 1949 O.10 Nazul land O.11 Waqf by user O.12 Possession and adverse possession O.13 Doctrine of the lost grant O.14 The smokescreen of the disputed premises – the wall of 1858 O.15 Analysis of evidence in Suit 4 O.16 The Muslim claim to possessory title P. Analysis on title P.1 Marshalling the evidence in Suit 4 and Suit 5 P.2 Conclusion on title Q. Reliefs and directions
challenge in the appeals.
- The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur. On the other hand, the Muslims contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.
- A suit was instituted in 1950 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad by a Hindu worshipper, Gopal Singh Visharad seeking a declaration that according to his religion and custom, he is entitled to offer prayers at the main Janmabhumi temple near the idols.
- The Nirmohi Akhara represents a religious sect amongst the Hindus, known as the Ramanandi Bairagis. The Nirmohis claim that they were, at all material times, in charge and management of the structure at the disputed site which according to them was a ‗temple‘ until 29 December 1949, on which date an attachment was ordered under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- In effect, they claim as shebaits in service of the deity, managing its affairs and receiving offerings from devotees. Theirs is a Suit of 1959 for the management and charge of ‗the temple‘.
- The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf (― Sunni Central Waqf Board ‖) and other Muslim residents of Ayodhya instituted a suit in 1961 for a declaration of their title to the disputed site. According to them, the old structure was a mosque which was built on the instructions of Emperor Babur by Mir Baqi who was the Commander of his forces, following the conquest of the sub- continent by the Mughal Emperor in the third decade of the sixteenth century. The Muslims deny that the mosque was constructed on the site of a destroyed temple. According to them, prayers were uninterruptedly offered in the mosque until 23 December 1949 when a group of Hindus desecrated it by placing idols within the precincts of its three-domed structure with the intent to destroy, damage and defile the Islamic religious structure. The Sunni Central Waqf Board claims a declaration of title and, if found necessary, a decree for possession.
- A suit was instituted in 1989 by a next friend on behalf of the deity (― Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman ‖) and the birth-place of Lord Ram (― Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi ‖). The suit is founded on the claim that the law recognises both the idol and the birth-place as juridical entities. The claim is that the place of birth is sanctified as an object of worship, personifying the divine spirit of Lord Ram. Hence, like the idol (which the law recognises as a juridical entity), the place of birth of the deity is claimed to be a legal person, or as it is described in legal parlance, to possess a juridical status. A declaration of title to the disputed
courtyard has several structures of religious significance for the Hindus, such as the Sita Rasoi and a platform called the Ramchabutra. In 1877, another door was opened on the northern side of the outer courtyard by the colonial government, which was given to the Hindus to control and manage. The bifurcation, as the record shows, did not resolve the conflict and there were numerous attempts by one or other of the parties to exclude the other.
- In January 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan instituted a suit^1 (― Suit of 1885 ‖) before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The relief which he sought was permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra situated in the outer courtyard, measuring seventeen feet by twenty-one feet. A sketch map was filed with the plaint. On 24 December 1885, the trial judge dismissed the suit, `noting that there was a possibility of riots breaking out between the two communities due to the proposed construction of a temple. The trial judge, however, observed that there could be no question or doubt regarding the possession and ownership of the Hindus over the Chabutra. On 18 March 1886, the District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court^2 but struck off the observations relating to the ownership of Hindus of the Chabutra contained in the judgment of the Trial Court. On 1 November 1886, the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dismissed the second appeal^3 , noting that the Mahant had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra. In 1934, there was yet another conflagration between the two communities. The domed structure of the mosque was damaged during
(^12) (OS No. 61/280 of 1885) 3 Civil Appeal No. 27/1885No 27 of 1886
the incident and was subsequently repaired at the cost of the colonial government.
- The controversy entered a new phase on the night intervening 22 and 23 December 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by a group of about fifty or sixty people who broke open its locks and placed idols of Lord Ram under the central dome. A First Information Report (― FIR ‖) was registered in relation to the incident. On 29 December 1949, the Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cum- Ayodhya issued a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898^4 (― CrPC 1898 ‖), treating the situation to be of an emergent nature. Simultaneously, an attachment order was issued and Priya Datt Ram, the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Faizabad was appointed as the receiver of the inner courtyard. On 5 January 1950, the receiver took charge of the inner courtyard and prepared an inventory of the attached properties. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order upon recording a satisfaction that the dispute between the two communities over their claims to worship and proprietorship over the structure would likely lead to a breach of peace. The stakeholders were allowed to file their written statements. Under the Magistrate‘s order, only two or three pujaris were permitted to go inside the place where the idols were kept, to perform religious ceremonies like bhog and puja. Members of the general public were restricted from entering and were only allowed darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall. (^4) ―Section 145. Procedure where dispute concerning land, etc, is likely to cause breach of peace (1) Whenever a District Magistrate, or an Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the Government in thisbehalf is satisfied from a police-report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water of the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shallmake an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute…‖
indicate the position at the site and are reproduced below:
Report of the Commissioner Sir,^ ―REPORT to prepare a site plan of the locality and building in suit onI was appointed a commissioner in the above case scale. Accordingly, in compliance with the order of thecourt, I visited the locality on 16.4.50 and again on 30.4.50parties, and made necessary measurements on the spot. after giving due notice to the counsel of the On the first day of my visit none of the parties werepresent, but on the second day defendant no. 1 was present with Shri Azimullah Khan and Shri Habib AhmadKhan counsel. At about noon defendant no. 1 presented an application, attached herewith, when the measurementwork had already finished.
the figure ABCDEF on a larger scale than Plan no.II,Plan No. I represents the building in suit shown by which represents the building with its locality. building has got two gates, one on the east and the otherA^ perusal^ of^ Plan^ No.I^ would^ show^ that^ the on the north, known as ―Hanumatdwar‖ and ―Singhdwar‖respectively. The ―Hanumatdwar‖ is the main entrance gate to the building. At this gate there is a stone slab fixedto the ground containing the inscription ―1-Shri Janma Bhumi nitya yatra,‖ and a big coloured picture of Shri Hanumanji is placed at the top of the gate. The arch of thiskasauti entrance stone gate,pillars, 10‘ each in height,4‘ high, rests marked on twoa and black b, containing images of ―Jai and Vijai‖ respectively engraved thereon. To the south of this gate on the outer wall there is engraved a stone image, 5‘ long, known as ―VarahBhagwan.‖ The northern gate, known as ―Singhdwar,‖ 19‘6‖ in height, has got at its top images of Garura in the middle and two lions one on each side. On entering the main gate there is pucca floor on theeastern and northern side of the inner building, marked by letters GHJKL DGB on the north of the eastern floor thereis a neem tree, and to the south of it there is the bhandara (kitchen). Further south there is a raised pucca platform, 17‘ x 21‘ and 4‘ high, known as ―Ram Chabutra,‖ on which stands a small temple having idols of Ram and Jankiinstalled therein. At the south-eastern corner E there is a
joint neem-pipal tree, surrounded by a semi-circular puccaplatform, on which are installed marble idols of Panchmukhi Mahadev, Parbati, Ganesh and Nandi. On the northern floor there is a pucca platform, 8‘ x 9‘,called ―Sita Rasoi.‖ On this platform there is a pucca chulha with chauka and belna, made of marble, affixed byits side. To the east of the chulha there are four pairs of marbleShatrunghna. foot prints of Ram, Lakshman, Bharat &
The pucca courtyard in front of the inner (main) building isenclosed by walls NHJK intercepted by iron bars with two iron bar gates at O and P as shown in the Plan no.I. At thesouthern end of this Courtyard there are 14 stairs leading to the roof of the building, and to the south of the stairsthere is a raised pucca platform 2‘ high, having a urinal marked U at its south-west corner. There are three archedgates, X,Y and Z leading to the main building, which is divided into three portions, having arches at Q and R.There is a chhajja (projected roof) above the arch Y. 31.
The three arches, Y, Q and R are supported on 12 black kasauti stone pillars, each 6‘ high, marked with letters c to n in Plan no. I. The pillars e to m have carvings of kamalflowers thereon. The pillar contains the image of Shankar Bhagwan in Tandava nritya form and another disfiguredimage engraved thereon. The pillar J contained the carved image of Hanumanji. The pillar N has got theimage of Lord Krishna engraved thereon other pillars have also got carvings of images which are effaced. In the central portion of the building at the north-westerncorner, there is a pucca platform with two stairs, on which is installed the idol of Bal Ram (infant Ram). At the top of the three portions of the building there arethree round domes, as shown separately in Plan no.I, each on an octagonal base. There are no towers, nor isthere any ghusalkhana or well in the building.
Aroundparikrama, as shown in yellow in Plan Nos.I & II. On the the building there is a pucca path known as west of tpucca road on the northern side is about 18‘ low.he parikrama, the land is about 20‘ low, while the Other structures found on the locality have been shown inPlan no.II at their proper places.
The land shown by letters S and T is covered by huts anddhunis of sadhus. Adjacent to and south of the land
Site map (Plan I)
Site map (Plan II)
- On 1 July 1989, a Suit^11 (― Suit 5 ‖) was brought before the Civil Judge, Faizabad by the deity (― Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman ‖) and the birth-place (― Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya ‖), through a next friend for a declaration of title to the disputed premises and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of a temple. Suit 5 was tried with the other suits.
- On 10 July 1989, all suits were transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. On 21 July 1989, a three judge Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court for the trial of the suits. On an application by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court passed an interim order on 14 August 1989, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute.
- During the pendency of the proceedings, the State of Uttar Pradesh acquired an area of 2.77 acres comprising of the disputed premises and certain adjoining areas. This was effected by notifications dated 7 October 1991 and 10 October 1991 under Sections 4(1), 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (― Land Acquisition Act ‖). The acquisition was for ‗development and providing amenities to pilgrims in Ayodhya‘. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the acquisition. By a judgment and order dated 11 December 1992, the acquisition was set aside.
- A substantial change took place in the position at the site on 6 December
- A large crowd destroyed the mosque, boundary wall, and Ramchabutra. A makeshift structure of a temple was constructed at the place under the erstwhile
(^11) Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989 (subsequently renumbered as OOS No. 5 of 1989)
central dome. The idols were placed there.
Acquisition by the Central Government and Ismail Faruqui‘s case
- The Central Government acquired an area of about 68 acres, including the premises in dispute, by a legislation called the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 (― Ayodhya Acquisition Act 1993 ‖). Sections 3 and 4 envisaged the abatement of all suits which were pending before the High Court. Simultaneously, the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference was on ― (w)hether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janam Bhoomi and Babari Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards on such structure) in the area on which the structure stands…‖.
- Writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Allahabad and this Court challenging the validity of the Act of 1993. All the petitions and the reference by the President were heard together and decided by a judgment dated 24 October
- The decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court, titled Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India^12 held Section 4(3), which provided for the abatement of all pending suits as unconstitutional. The rest of the Act of 1993 was held to be valid. The Constitution Bench declined to answer the Presidential reference and, as a result, all pending suits and proceedings in relation to the disputed premises stood revived. The Central Government was appointed as a statutory receiver for the maintenance of status quo and to hand over the disputed area in terms of the
(^12) (1994) 6 SCC 360
