Ayodhya: Findings by Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
Gist
of
Ayodhya
Judgement
by
Special
bench
of
Alahabad
High
Court
-
ZIP
file
GIST OF THE FINDINGS
1.
The
disputed
structure
was
constructed
as
mosque
by
or
under
orders
of
Babar.
2.
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.
3.
No
temple
was
demolished
for
constructing
the
mosque.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
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.
11.
That
for
some
decades
before
1949
Hindus
started
treating/believing
the
place
beneath
the
Central
dome
of
mosque
(where
at
present
make
sift
temple
stands)
to
be
exact
birth
place
of
Lord
Ram.
12.
That
idol
was
placed
for
the
first
time
beneath
the
Central
dome
of
the
mosque
in
the
early
hours
of
23.12.1949.
13.
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
sift
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
as
described
by
letters
A
B
C
D
E
F
in
the
map
Plan-I
prepared
by
Sri
Shiv
Shanker
Lal,
Pleader/
Commissioner
appointed
by
Court
in
Suit
No.1
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
said
map.
It
is
further
clarified
that
even
though
all
the
three
parties
are
declared
to
have
one
third
share
each,
however
if
while
allotting
exact
portions
some
minor
adjustment
in
the
share
is
to
be
made
then
the
same
will
be
made
and
the
adversely
affected
party
may
be
compensated
by
allotting
some
portion
of
the
adjoining
land
which
has
been
acquired
by
the
Central
Government.
The
parties
are
at
liberty
to
file
their
suggestions
for
actual
partition
by
metes
and
bounds
within
three
months.
List
immediately
after
filing
of
any
suggestion/
application
for
preparation
of
final
decree
after
obtaining
necessary
instructions
from
Hon'ble
the
Chief
Justice.Status
quo
as
prevailing
till
date
pursuant
to
Supreme
Court
judgment
of
Ismail
Farooqui
(1994(6)
Sec
360)
in
all
its
minutest
details
shall
be
maintained
for
a
period
of
three
months
unless
this
order
is
modified
or
vacated
earlier.
OneIndia News