Ayodhya: Findings by Justice Sudhir Agarwal
(Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued) 4566. In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on various issues, following directions and/or declaration, are given which in our view would meet the ends of justice:
Issues for briefing - Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
Summary by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma 1
Ayodhya: Findings by Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
Gist of Ayodhya Judgement by Special bench of Alahabad High Court - ZIP file
(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this judgment.
(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.
(iii)
The
area
covered
by
the
structures,
namely,
Ram
Chabutra,
(EE
FF
GG
HH
in
Appendix
7)
Sita
Rasoi
(MM
NN
OO
PP
in
Appendix
7)
and
Bhandar
(II
JJ
KK
LL
in
Appendix
7)
in
the
outer
courtyard
is
declared
in
the
share
of
Nirmohi
Akhara
(defendant
no.
3)
and
they
shall
be
entitled
to
possession
thereof
in
the
absence
of
any
person
with
better
title.
(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places.
(iv-a)
It
is
however
made
clear
that
the
share
of
muslim
parties
shall
not
be
less
than
one
third
(1/3)
of
the
total
area
of
the
premises
and
if
necessary
it
may
be
given
some
area
of
outer
courtyard.
It
is
also
made
clear
that
while
making
partition
by
metes
and
bounds,
if
some
minor
adjustments
are
to
be
made
with
respect
to
the
share
of
different
parties,
the
affected
party
may
be
compensated
by
allotting
the
requisite
land
from
the
area
which
is
under
acquisition
of
the
Government
of
India.
(v)
The
land
which
is
available
with
the
Government
of
India
acquired
under
Ayodhya
Act
1993
for
providing
it
to
the
parties
who
are
successful
in
the
suit
for
better
enjoyment
of
the
property
shall
be
made
available
to
the
above
concerned
parties
in
such
manner
so
that
all
the
three
parties
may
utilise
the
area
to
which
they
are
entitled
to,
by
having
separate
entry
for
egress
and
ingress
of
the
people
without
disturbing
each
others
rights.
For
this
purpose
the
concerned
parties
may
approach
the
Government
of
India
who
shall
act
in
accordance
with
the
above
directions
and
also
as
contained
in
the
judgement
of
Apex
Court
in
Dr.
Ismail
Farooqi
(Supra).
(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect to the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.
(vii)
For
a
period
of
three
months
or
unless
directed
otherwise,
whichever
is
earlier,
the
parties
shall
maintain
status
quo
as
on
today
in
respect
of
property
in
dispute.
4571.
In
the
result,
Suit-1
is
partly
decreed.
Suits
3
and
4
are
dismissed.
Suit-5
is
decreed
partly.
In
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
the
parties
shall
bear
their
own
costs.
(From
the
Judgment
of
Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice
Sudhir
Agarwal)
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Suit-4
1.
Issue
1
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
favour
of
plaintiffs.
2.
Issue
1(a)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative.
The
plaintiffs
have
failed
to
prove
that
the
building
in
dispute
was
built
by
Babar
or
by
Mir
Baqi.
3.
Issues
1(b),
6,
13,
14
and
27
(Suit-4)
are
answered
in
affirmative.
4.
Issue
1-B(a)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
affirmative
and
it
is
held
that
the
fact
that
the
land
in
dispute
entered
in
the
records
of
the
authorities
as
Nazul
plot
would
make
things
difference.
5.
Issue
1-B(b)
(Suit-4)
is
not
answered
being
irrelevant.
6.
Issue
1-B(c)
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
building
in
question
was
not
exclusively
used
by
the
members
of
muslim
community.
After
1856-57
outer
courtyard
exclusively
used
by
Hindu
and
inner
courtyard
had
been
visited
for
the
purpose
of
worship
by
the
members
of
both
the
communities.
7.
Issue
2
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
plaintiffs.
8.
Issue
3
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
plaintiffs.
It
is
held
that
Suit-4
is
barred
by
limitation.
9.
Issue
4
(Suit-4)-At
least
since
1856-57,
i.e.,
after
the
erection
of
partition
wall
the
premises
in
outer
courtyard
has
not
been
shown
to
be
used/possessed
by
muslim
parties
but
so
far
as
the
inner
courtyard
is
concerned
it
has
been
used
by
both
the
parties.
10.
Issue
5(a)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
against
the
plaintiffs.
11.
Issue
5(b)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
favour
of
defendants
and
Hindu
parties
in
general.
12.
Issues
5(c),
7(c),
8,
12,
22
(Suit-4),
are
answered
in
negative.
13.
Issue
5(d)
(Suit-4)
is
not
pressed
by
the
defendants,
hence
not
answered.
14.
Issue
5(e)
(Suit-4)
is
decided
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
subject
to
that
issue
6
(Suit-3)
is
also
decided
in
favour
of
defendants
(Suit-3).
15.
Issue
5(f)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
and
against
the
defendants.
16.
Issue
7(a)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative.
It
is
held
that
there
is
nothing
to
show
that
Mahant
Raghubar
Das
filed
Suit-1885
on
behalf
of
Janamsthan
and
whole
body
of
persons
interested
in
Janamsthan.
17.
Issue
7(b)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
affirmative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-4).
18.
Issue
7(d)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative
to
the
extent
that
there
is
no
admission
by
Mahant
Raghubar
Das
plaintiff
of
Suit-1885
about
the
title
of
Muslims
to
the
property
in
dispute
or
any
portion
thereof.
Consequently,
the
question
of
considering
its
effect
does
not
arise.
19.
Issues
10
and
15
(Suit4)
are
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
plaintiffs
and
muslims
in
general.
20.
Issue
11
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
the
place
of
birth
as
believed
and
worshipped
by
Hindus
his
the
area
covered
under
the
central
dome
of
the
three
domed
structure,
i.e.,
the
disputed
structure
in
the
inner
courtyard
in
the
premises
of
dispute.
21.
Issue
16
(Suit-4)-No
relief
since
the
suit
is
liable
to
be
dismissed
being
barred
by
limitation.
22.
Issue
17
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
negative
holding
that
no
valid
notification
under
Section
5(3)
of
U.P.
Act
No.
13
of
1936
was
issued.
23.
Issue
18
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
the
decision
of
the
Apex
Court
in
Gulam
Abbas
Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
others,
AIR
1981
SC
2199
does
not
affect
findings
on
issue
17
(Suit-4)
and
on
the
contrary
the
same
stand
supported
and
strengthen
by
the
said
judgment.
24.
Issue
19(a)
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
the
premises
which
is
believed
to
be
the
place
of
birth
of
Lord
Rama
continue
to
vest
in
the
deity
but
the
Hindu
religious
structures
in
the
outer
courtyard
cannot
be
said
to
be
the
property
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-5).
25.
Issue
19(b)
(Suit-4)
is
answered
in
affirmative
to
the
extent
that
the
building
was
land
locked
and
could
not
be
reached
except
of
passing
through
the
passage
of
Hindu
worship.
However,
this
by
itself
was
of
no
consequence.
26.
Issue
19(c)
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
Hindus
were
worshipping
at
the
place
in
dispute
before
construction
of
the
disputed
structure
but
that
would
not
make
any
difference
to
the
status
of
the
building
in
dispute
which
came
to
be
constructed
at
the
command
of
the
sole
monarch
having
supreme
power
which
cannot
be
adjudicated
by
a
Court
of
Law,
came
to
be
constituted
or
formed
much
after,
and
according
to
the
law
which
was
not
applicable
at
that
time.
27.
Issue
19(d)
and
19(e)
(Suit-4)
are
answered
in
favour
of
the
plaintiffs.
28.
Issue
19(f)
(Suit-4)-In
so
far
as
the
first
part
is
concerned,
is
answered
in
affirmative.
The
second
part
is
left
unanswered
being
redundant.
In
the
ultimate
result
the
issue
is
answered
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-4).
29.
Issue
20(a)
being
irrelevant
not
answered.
30.
Issue
20(b)
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
at
the
time
of
attachment
of
the
building
there
was
a
Mutawalli,
i.e.,
one
Sri
Javvad
Hussain
and
in
the
absence
of
Mutawalli
relief
of
possession
cannot
be
allowed
to
plaintiffs
who
are
before
the
Court
in
the
capacity
of
worshippers.
31.
Issue
21
(Suit-4)
is
decided
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
the
plaintiffs.
The
suit
is
not
bad
for
non-joinder
of
deities.
32.
Issues
23
and
24
(Suit-4)
are
held
that
neither
the
Waqf
Board
is
an
instrumentality
of
State
nor
there
is
any
bar
in
filing
a
suit
by
the
Board
against
the
State.
It
is
also
not
a
'State' under
Article
12
of
the
Constitution
and
can
very
well
represent
the
interest
of
one
community
without
infringing
any
provision
of
the
Constitution.
33.
Issues
25
and
26
(Suit-4)-Held
that
as
a
result
of
demolition
of
the
disp0uted
structure
it
cannot
be
said
that
the
suit
has
rendered
not
maintainable.
Nothing
further
needs
to
be
answered.
34.
Issue
28
(Suit-4)-It
is
held
that
plaintiffs
have
failed
to
prove
their
possession
of
the
disputed
premises,
i.e.,
outer
and
inner
courtyard
including
the
disputed
building
ever.
Suit-1
1.
Issue
1
(Suit-1)-It
is
held
that
the
place
of
birth,
as
believed
and
worshipped
by
Hindus,
is
the
area
covered
under
the
central
dome
of
the
three
domed
structure,
i.e.,
the
disputed
structure
in
the
inner
courtyard
in
the
premises
of
dispute.
2.
Issue
2
(Suit-1)-
It
is
held
that
the
idols
were
kept
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
structure
within
inner
courtyard
in
the
night
of
22nd/23rd
December,
1949
and
prior
thereto
the
same
existed
in
the
outer
courtyard.
Therefore,
on
16.01.1950
when
Suit-1
was
filed
the
said
idol
existed
in
the
inner
courtyard
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
structure,
i.e.,
prior
to
the
filing
of
the
suit.
So
far
as
the
Charan
Paduka
is
concerned,
the
said
premises
existed
in
the
outer
courtyard.
Since
Suit-1
is
confined
only
to
the
inner
courtyard,
question
of
existence
of
Charan
Paduka
on
the
site
in
suit
does
not
arise.
3.
Issues
3
and
4
(Suit-1)-It
is
held
that
plaintiffs
have
right
to
worship.
The
place
in
suit
to
the
extent
it
has
been
held
by
this
Court
to
be
the
birthplace
of
Lord
Rama
and
if
an
idol
is
also
placed
in
such
a
place
the
same
can
also
be
worshipped,
but
this
is
subject
to
reasonable
restrictions
like
security,
safety,
maintenance
etc.
4.
Issues
5(a),
5(c),
5(d),
9(c)
and
11(a)
(Suit-1)
are
answered
in
negative.
5.
Issue
5(b)
(Suit-1)-Held,
the
Suit
1885
was
decided
against
Mahant
Raghubar
Das
and
he
was
not
granted
any
relief
by
the
respective
courts,
and,
no
more.
6.
Issue
6
(Suit-1)
is
answered
in
negative.
The
defendants
have
failed
to
prove
that
the
property
in
dispute
was
constructed
by
Shahanshah/Emperor
Babar
in
1528
AD.
7.
Issue
7
(Suit-1)
is
decided
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
defendants
muslim
parties.
8.
Issue
8
(Suit-1)
is
answered
in
negative.
Suit
is
not
barred
by
proviso
to
Section
42
of
Specific
Relief
Act,
1963.
9.
Issue
9
(Suit-1)
is
decided
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-1).
10.
Issue
9(a)
(Suit-1)
is
answered
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-1).
11.
Issue
9(b)
(Suit-1)
is
answered
against
the
plaintiffs.
12.
Issue
10
(Suit-1)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
of
Suit-1.
13.
Issue
11(b)
(Suit-1)
is
answered
in
affirmative.
14.
Issue
12,
13,
15,
16
and
21
(Suit-1)
are
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
the
plaintiffs
(Suit-1).
15.
Issue
14
(Suit-1)
has
become
redundant
after
dismissal
of
Suit
No.
25
of
1950
as
withdrawn.
16.
Issue
17
(suit-1)-The
plaintiffs
is
declared
to
have
right
of
worship
at
the
site
in
dispute
including
the
part
of
the
land
which
is
held
by
this
Court
to
be
the
place
of
birth
of
Lord
Rama
according
to
the
faith
and
belief
of
Hindus
but
this
right
is
subject
to
such
restrictions
as
may
be
necessary
by
authorities
concerned
in
regard
to
law
and
order,
i.e.,
safety,
security
and
also
for
the
maintenance
of
place
of
worship
etc.
The
plaintiffs
is
not
entitled
for
any
other
relief.
Suit-3
1.
Issue
1
and
16
(Suit-3)
are
answered
in
negative.
2.
Issue
2,
3,
4
and
9
(Suit-3)
are
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
plaintiffs.
3.
Issue
5
(Suit-3)
is
answered
in
negative.
The
defendants
have
filed
to
prove
that
the
property
in
dispute
was
constructed
by
Shahanshah/Emperor
Babar
in
1528
AD.
4.
Issue
6
(Suit-3)
is
not
proved
hence
answered
in
negative.
5.
Issue
7(a)
and
7(b)
(Suit-3)
are
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
and
against
the
defendants
in
Suit-3.
6.
Issue
8
(Suit-3)
is
decided
in
negative.
7.
Issue
10
(Suit-3)
is
decided
in
favour
of
plaintiff.
It
is
also
held
that
a
private
defendant
cannot
raise
objection
of
maintainability
of
suit
for
want
of
notice
under
Section
80
CPC.
8.
Issue
11
and
12
(Suit-3)
are
decided
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs.
9.
Issue
13
(Suit-3)-The
plaintiff
is
not
entitled
for
any
relief
in
view
of
the
findings
in
respect
of
issues
2,
3,
4,
14
and
19.
10.
Issue
14
(Suit-3)
is
answered
in
affirmative.
It
is
held
that
the
suit
as
framed
is
not
maintainable.
11.
Issue
15
(Suit-3)
is
answered
in
affirmative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-3).
12.
Issue
17
(Suit-3)
is
decided
in
favour
of
plaintiffs.
Nirmohi
Akhara
is
held
a
Panchayati
Math
of
Ramanandi
Sect
of
Bairagi,
is
a
religious
denomination
following
its
religious
faith
and
pursuit
according
to
its
own
customs.
However,
its
continuance
at
Ayodhya
is
found
sometime
after
1734
AD
and
not
earlier
there
to.
Suit-5
1.
Issue
1
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
affirmative.
Plaintiffs
1
and
2
both
are
juridical
persons.
2.
Issue
2
(Suit-5)
is
not
answered
as
it
is
not
necessary
for
the
dispute
in
the
case.
3.
Issue
3(a)
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
affirmative.
The
idols
were
installed
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
building
in
the
early
hours
of
23rd
December,
1949.
4.
Issue
3(b),
3(d),
5,
10,
11,
14
and
24
(Suit-5)
are
answered
in
affirmative.
5.
Issues
3(c),
7,
19,
23
and
28
(Suit-5)
are
answered
in
negative.
6.
Issue
4
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
negative.
The
idol
in
question
kept
under
the
Shikhar
existed
there
prior
to
6th
December,
1992
but
not
from
time
immemorial
and
instead
kept
thereat
in
the
night
of
22nd/23rd
December,
1949.
7.
Issue
6
(Suit-5)
is
decided
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-5).
8.
Issue
8
(Suit-5)
is
answered
against
the
defendant
no.
3,
Nirmohi
Akhara.
9.
Issue
9
(Suit-5)
is
answered
against
the
plaintiffs.
10.
Issue
13
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs.
It
is
held
that
suit
is
not
barred
by
limitation.
11.
Issue
15
(Suit-5)-It
is
held
that
the
muslims
atleast
from
1860
and
onwards
have
visited
the
inner
courtyard
in
the
premises
in
dispute
and
have
offered
Namaj
thereat.
The
last
Namaj
was
offered
on
16th
December,
1949.
12.
Issue
16
(Suit-5)-Neither
the
title
of
plaintiffs
1
and
2
ever
extinguished
nor
the
question
of
reacquisition
thereof
ever
arise.
13.
Issue
18
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
defendants
no.
3,
4
and
5.
14.
Issue
20
(Suit-5)
is
not
answered
being
unnecessary
for
the
dispute
in
the
case
in
hand.
15.
Issue
21
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
against
the
defendants
no.
4
and
5.
16.
Issue
22
(Suit-5)-It
is
held
that
the
place
of
birth
as
believed
and
worshipped
by
Hindus
his
the
area
covered
under
the
central
dome
of
the
three
domed
structure,
i.e.,
the
disputed
structure
in
the
inner
courtyard
in
the
premises
of
dispute.
17.
Issue
25
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
affirmative.
It
is
held
that
the
judgement
dated
30.03.1946
in
Suit
No.
29
of
1949
is
not
binding
upon
the
plaintiffs
(suit-5).
18.
Issues
26
and
27
(Suit-5)
are
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs
(Suit-5).
19.
Issue
29
(Suit-5)
is
answered
in
negative,
i.e.,
in
favour
of
plaintiffs.
20.
Issue
30
(Suit-5)-The
suit
is
partly
decreed
in
the
manner
the
directions
are
issued
in
para
4566.
Gist on some point
1.
The
area
covered
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
structure
is
the
birthplace
of
Lord
Rama
as
per
faith
and
belief
of
Hindus.
2.
Disputed
structure
was
always
treated,
considered
and
believed
to
be
a
mosque
and
practised
by
Mohammedans
for
worship
accordingly.
However,
it
has
not
been
proved
that
it
was
built
during
the
reign
of
Babar
in
1528.
3.
In
the
absence
of
any
otherwise
pleadings
and
material
it
is
difficult
to
hold
as
to
when
and
by
whom
the
disputed
structure
was
constructed
but
this
much
is
clear
that
the
same
was
constructed
before
the
visit
of
Joseph
Tieffenthaler
in
Oudh
area
between
1766
to
1771.
4.
The
building
in
dispute
was
constructed
after
demolition
of
Non-
Islamic
religious
structure,
i.e.,
a
Hindu
temple.
5.
The
idols
were
kept
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
structure
in
the
night
of
22nd/23rd
December
1949.
Other
Original
Suits
no.
3
of
1989
and
4
of
1989
are
barred
by
limitation.
ISSUES FRAMED
Suit-4
:
Issue
No.
1:-
Whether
the
building
in
question
described
as
mosque
in
the
sketch
map
attached
to
the
plaint
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
building)
was
a
mosque
as
claimed
by
the
plaintiffs?
If
the
answer
is
in
the
affirmative-
(a)
When
was
it
built
and
by
whom-whether
by
Babar
as
alleged
by
the
plaintiffs
or
by
Meer
Baqi
as
alleged
by
defendant
no.13?
(b)
Whether
the
building
had
been
constructed
on
the
site
of
an
alleged
Hindu
temple
after
demolishing
the
same
as
alleged
by
defendant
no.13?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
1-B(a)
:-Whether
the
building
existed
at
Nazul
plot
no.
583
of
the
Khasra
of
the
year
1931
of
Mohalla
Kot
Ram
Chandra
known
as
Ram
Kot,
City
Ayodhya
(Nazul
Estate)
Ayodhya?
If
so
its
effect
thereon?
Issue
No.
1-B(b)
:-Whether
the
building
stood
dedicated
to
almighty
God
as
alleged
by
the
plaintiffs?
Issue
No.
1-B(c)
:-Whether
the
building
had
been
used
by
the
members
of
the
Muslim
community
for
offering
prayers
from
times
immemorial?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
2
:-Whether
the
plaintiffs
were
in
possession
of
the
property
in
suit
upto
1949
and
were
dispossessed
from
the
same
in
1949
as
alleged
in
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
3
:-
Is
the
suit
within
time?
Issue
No.
4
:-Whether
the
Hindus
in
general
and
the
devotees
of
Bhagwan
Sri
Ram
in
particular
have
perfected
right
of
prayers
at
the
site
by
adverse
and
continuous
possession
as
of
right
for
more
than
the
statutory
period
of
time
by
way
of
prescription
as
alleged
by
the
defendants?
Issue
No.
5
:-
(a)Are
the
defendants
estopped
from
challenging
the
character
of
property
in
suit
as
a
waqf
under
the
administration
of
plaintiff
no.1
in
view
of
the
provision
of
5(3)
of
U.P.
Act
13
of
1936?
(b)
Has
the
said
Act
no
application
to
the
right
of
Hindus
in
general
and
defendants
in
particular,
to
the
right
of
their
worship?
(c)
Were
the
proceedings
under
the
said
Act
conclusive?
(d)
Are
the
said
provision
of
Act
XIII
of
1936
ultra-vires
as
alleged
in
written
statement?
(e)
Whether
in
view
of
the
findings
recorded
by
the
learned
Civil
Judge
on
21.4.1966
on
issue
no.17
to
the
effect
that
“No
valid
notification
under
section
5(1)
of
the
Muslim
Waqf
Act
(
No.
XIII
of
1936)
was
ever
made
in
respect
of
the
property
in
dispute",
the
plaintiff
Sunni
Central
Board
of
Waqf
has
no
right
to
maintain
the
present
suit?
(f)
Whether
in
view
of
the
aforesaid
finding,
the
suit
is
barred
on
account
of
lack
of
jurisdiction
and
limitation
as
it
was
filed
after
the
commencement
of
the
U.P.
Muslim
Waqf
Act,
1960?
Issue
No.
6
:-Whether
the
present
suit
is
a
representative
suit,
plaintiffs
representing
the
interest
of
the
Muslims
and
defendants
representing
the
interest
of
the
Hindus?
Issue
No.
7
:-
(a)
Whether
Mahant
Raghubar
Dass,
plaintiff
of
Suit
No.
61/280
of
1885
had
sued
on
behalf
of
Janma
Sthan
and
whole
body
of
persons
interested
in
Janma-Sthan?
(b)
Whether
Mohammad
Asghar
was
the
Mutwalli
of
alleged
Babri
Masjid
and
did
he
contest
the
suit
for
and
on
behalf
of
any
such
mosque?
(c)
Whether
in
view
of
the
judgment
in
the
said
suit,
the
members
of
the
Hindu
community,
including
the
contesting
defendants,
are
estopped
from
denying
the
title
of
the
Muslim
community,
including
the
plaintiffs
of
the
present
suit,
to
the
property
in
dispute?
If
so,
its
effect?
(d)
Whether
in
the
aforesaid
suit,
title
of
the
Muslims
to
the
property
in
dispute
or
any
portion
thereof
was
admitted
by
plaintiff
of
the
that
suit?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
8
:-Does
the
judgment
of
case
No.
6/281
of
1881,
Mahant
Raghubar
Dass
Vs.
Secretary
of
State
and
others
operate
as
res
judicata
against
the
defendants
in
suit?
Issue
No.
9
:-
Deleted
vide
order
dated
May
22/25,
1990
Issue
No.
10
:-Whether
the
plaintiffs
have
perfected
their
rights
by
adverse
possession
as
alleged
in
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
11
:-Is
the
property
in
suit
the
site
of
Janam
Bhumi
of
Sri
Ram
Chandraji?
Issue
No.
12
:-Whether
idols
and
objects
of
worship
were
placed
inside
the
building
in
the
night
intervening
22nd
and
23rd
December
1949
as
alleged
in
paragraph
11
of
the
plaint
or
they
have
been
in
existence
there
since
before?
In
either
case,
effect?
Issue
No.
13
:-Whether
the
Hindus
in
general
and
defendants
in
particular
had
the
right
to
worship
the
Charans
and
'Sita
Rasoi'
and
other
idols
and
other
objects
of
worship,
if
any,
existing
in
or
upon
the
property
in
suit?
Issue
No.
14
:-Have
the
Hindus
been
worshipping
the
place
in
dispute
as
Sri
Ram
Janam
Bhumi
or
Janam
Asthan
and
have
been
visiting
it
as
a
sacred
place
of
pilgrimage
as
of
right
since
times
immemorial?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
15
:-Have
the
Muslims
been
in
possession
of
the
property
in
suit
from
1528
A.D.
continuously,
openly
and
to
the
knowledge
of
the
defendants
and
Hindus
in
general?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
16
:-To
what
relief,
if
any,
are
the
plaintiffs
or
any
of
them,
entitled?
Issue
No.
17
:-Whether
a
valid
notification
under
Section
5(1)
of
the
U.P.
Muslim
Waqf
Act
No.
XIII
of
1936
relating
to
the
property
in
suit
was
ever
done?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
18
:-What
is
the
effect
of
the
judgment
of
their
Lordships
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Gulam
Abbas
and
others
vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
others,
AIR
1981
Supreme
Court
2198
on
the
finding
of
the
learned
Civil
Judge
recorded
on
21st
April,
1966
on
issue
no.
17?
Issue
No.
19(a)
:-Whether
even
after
construction
of
the
building
in
suit
Deities
of
Bhagwan
Sri
Ram
Virajman
and
the
Asthan,
Sri
Ram
Janam
Bhumi
continued
to
exist
on
the
property
in
suit
as
alleged
on
behalf
of
defendant
no.13
and
the
said
places
continued
to
be
visited
by
devotees
for
purposes
of
worship?
If
so,
whether
the
property
in
dispute
continued
to
vest
in
the
said
Deities?
Issue
No.
19(b)
:-Whether
the
building
was
land-locked
and
cannot
be
reached
except
by
passing
through
places
of
Hindu
worship?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
19(c)
:-Whether
any
portion
of
the
property
in
suit
was
used
as
a
place
of
worship
by
the
Hindus
immediately
prior
to
the
construction
of
the
building
in
question?
If
the
finding
is
in
the
affirmative,
whether
no
mosque
could
come
into
existence
in
view
of
the
Islamic
tenets
at
the
place
in
dispute?
Issue
No.
19(d)
:-Whether
the
building
in
question
could
not
be
a
mosque
under
the
Islamic
Law
in
view
of
the
admitted
position
that
it
did
not
have
minarets?
Issue
No.
19(e)
:-Whether
the
building
in
question
could
not
legally
be
a
mosque
as
on
plaintiffs'
own
showing
it
was
surrounded
by
a
graveyard
on
three
sides?
Issue
No.
19(f)
:-Whether
the
pillars
inside
and
outside
the
building
in
question
contain
images
of
Hindu
Gods
and
Goddesses?
If
the
finding
is
in
the
affirmative,
whether
on
that
account
the
building
in
question
cannot
have
the
character
of
Mosque
under
the
tenets
of
Islam?
Issue
No.
20(a)
:-Whether
the
Wqaf
in
question
cannot
be
a
Sunni
Waqf
as
the
building
was
not
allegedly
constructed
by
a
Sunni
Mohammedan
but
was
allegedly
constructed
by
Meer
Baqi
who
was
allegedly
a
Shia
Muslim
and
the
alleged
Mutwallis
were
allegedly
Shia
Mohammedans?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
20(b)
:-Whether
there
was
a
Mutwalli
of
the
alleged
Waqf
and
whether
the
alleged
Mutwalli
not
having
joined
in
the
suit,
the
suit
is
not
maintainable
so
far
as
it
relates
to
relief
for
possession?
Issue
No.
21
:-Whether
the
suit
is
bad
for
non-joinder
of
alleged
Deities?
Issue
No.
22
:-Whether
the
suit
is
liable
to
be
dismissed
with
special
costs?
Issue
No.
23
:-Whether
the
Waqf
board
is
an
instrumentality
of
State?
If
so,
whether
the
said
Board
can
file
a
suit
against
the
State
itself?
Issue
No.
24
:-If
the
Waqf
Board
is
State
under
Article
12
of
the
Constitution?
If
so,
the
said
Board
being
the
State
can
file
any
suit
in
representative
capacity
sponsoring
the
case
of
particular
community
and
against
the
interest
of
another
community?
Issue
No.
25
:-Whether
demolition
of
the
disputed
structure
as
claimed
by
the
plaintiff,
it
can
still
be
called
a
mosque
and
if
not
whether
the
claim
of
the
plaintiffs
is
liable
to
be
dismissed
as
no
longer
maintainable
Issue
No.
26
:-Whether
Muslims
can
use
the
open
site
as
mosque
to
offer
prayer
when
structure
which
stood
thereon
has
been
demolished
Issue
No.
27
:-Whether
the
courtyard
contained
Ram
Chabutara,
Bhandar
and
Sita
Rasoi
If
so,
whether
they
were
also
demolished
on
6.12.1992
along
with
the
main
temple?
Issue
No.
28
:-Whether
the
defendant
no.3
has
ever
been
in
possession
of
the
disputed
site
and
the
plaintiffs
were
never
in
its
possession?
Suit-1
:
Issue
No.
1
:-
Is
the
property
in
suit
the
site
of
Janam
Bhumi
of
Sri
Ram
Chandra
Ji?
Issue
No.
2
:-Are
there
any
idols
of
Bhagwan
Ram
Chandra
Ji
and
are
His
Charan
Paduka
situated
in
the
site
in
suit?
Issue
No.
3
:-Has
the
plaintiff
any
right
to
worship
the
'Charan
Paduka'
and
the
idols
situated
in
the
site
in
suit.
Issue
No.
4
:-Has
the
plaintiff
the
right
to
have
Darshan
of
the
place
in
suit?
Issue
No.
5(a)
:-Was
the
property
in
suit
involved
in
Original
Suit
No.
61/280
of
1885
in
the
court
of
Sub
-Judge,
Faizabad,
Raghubar
Das
Mahant
Vs.
Secretary
of
State
for
India
and
others?
5(b)
Was
it
decided
against
the
plaintiff?
5(c)
Was
the
suit
within
the
knowledge
of
Hindus
in
general
and
were
all
Hindus
interested
in
the
same?
5(d)
Does
the
decision
in
same
bar
the
present
suit
by
principles
of
res
judicata
and
in
any
other
way?
Issue
No.
6
:-
Is
the
property
in
suit
a
mosque
constructed
by
Shanshah
Babar
commonly
known
as
Babri
Mosque,
in
1528
A.D.?
Issue
No.
7
:-Have
the
Muslims
been
in
possession
of
the
property
in
suit
from
1528
A.D.
continuously,
openly
and
to
the
knowledge
of
plff
and
Hindus
in
general?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
8
:-
Is
the
suit
barred
by
proviso
to
Section
42
Specific
Relief
Act?
Issue
No.
9
:-
Is
the
suit
barred
by
provision
of
Section
5(3)
of
the
Muslim
Waqfs
Act
(U.P.
Act
13
of
1936)?
9(a).
Has
the
said
Act
no
application
to
the
right
of
Hindus
in
general
and
plaintiff
of
the
present
suit
,
in
particular
to
his
right
of
worship?
9(b).
Were
the
proceedings
under
the
said
Act,
referred
to
in
written
statement
para
15,
collusive?
If
so
its
effect?
9(c)
Are
the
said
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Act
13
of
1936
ultra
vires
for
reasons
given
in
the
statement
of
plaintiff's
counsel
dated
9.3.62
recorded
on
paper
no.
454-A?
Issue
No.
10
:-Is
the
present
suit
barred
by
time?
Issue
No.
11
:-(a)
Are
the
provisions
of
section
91
C.P.C.
applicable
to
present
suit?
If
so,
is
the
suit
bad
for
want
of
consent
in
writing
by
the
Advocate
General?
(b)
Are
the
rights
set
up
by
the
plaintiff
in
this
suit
independent
of
the
provisions
of
section
91
CPC?
If
not,
its
effect.
Issue
No.
12
:-Is
the
suit
bad
for
want
of
steps
and
notice
under
Order
1,
Rule
8
CPC?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
13
:-Is
the
suit
no.
2
of
50
Shri
Gopal
Singh
Visharad
Vs.
Zahoor
Ahmad
bad
for
want
of
notice
under
Section
80
CPC.
Issue
No.
14
:-Is
the
suit
no.
25
of
50
Param
Hans
Ram
Chandra
Vs.
Zahoor
Ahmad
bad
for
want
of
valid
notice
under
section
80
CPC?
Issue
No.
15
:-Is
the
suit
bad
for
non-joinder
of
defendants?
Issue
No.
16
:-Are
the
defendants
or
any
of
them
entitled
to
special
costs
under
Section
35-A
C.P.C.
Issue
No.
17
:-To
what
reliefs,
if
any,
is
the
plaintiff
entitled?
Suit-3:
Issue
No.
1
:-
Is
there
a
temple
of
Janam
Bhumi
with
idols
installed
therein
as
alleged
in
para
3
of
the
plaint.
Issue
No.
2
:-Does
the
property
in
suit
belong
to
the
plaintiff
no.1?
Issue
No.
3
:-Have
plaintiffs
acquired
title
by
adverse
possession
for
over
12
years?
Issue
No.
4
:-Are
plaintiffs
entitled
to
get
management
and
charge
of
the
said
temple?
Issue
No.
5
:-
Is
the
property
in
suit
a
mosque
made
by
Emperor
Babar
known
as
Babari
Masjid?
Issue
No.
6
:-Was
this
alleged
mosque
dedicated
by
Emperor
Babar
for
worship
by
Muslims
in
general
and
made
a
public
waqf
property?
Issue
No.
7
:-
(a)
Has
there
been
a
notification
under
Muslim
Waqf
Act
Act
No.
13
of
1936)
declaring
this
property
in
suit
as
a
Sunni
Waqf?
(b)
Is
the
said
notification
final
and
binding?
Its
effect?
Issue
No.
8
:-Have
the
rights
of
the
plaintiffs
extinguished
for
want
of
possession
for
over
12
years
prior
to
the
suit?
Issue
No.
9
:-
Is
the
suit
within
time?
Issue
No.
10
:-(a)
Is
the
suit
bad
for
want
of
notice
u/s
80
C?
(b)
Is
the
above
plea
available
to
contesting
defendants?
Issue
No.
11
:-Is
the
suit
bad
for
non-joinder
of
necessary
defendants?
Issue
No.
12
:-Are
defendants
entitled
to
special
costs
u/s
35
CPC?
Issue
No.
13
:-To
what
relief,
if
any,
is
the
plaintiff
entitled?
Issue
No.
14
:-Is
the
suit
not
maintainable
as
framed?
Issue
No.
15
:-Is
the
suit
property
valued
and
court
fee
paid
sufficient?
Issue
No.
16
:-Is
the
suit
bad
for
want
of
notice
u/s
83
of
U.P.
Act
13
of
1936?
Issue
No.
17
:-Whether
Nirmohi
Akhara,
plaintiff,
is
Panchayati
Math
of
Rama
Nand
sect
of
Bairagis
and
as
such
is
a
religious
denomination
following
its
religious
faith
and
persuit
according
to
its
own
custom?
Suit-5:
Issue
No.
1
:-Whether
the
plaintiffs
1
and
2
are
juridical
persons?
Issue
No.
2
:-Whether
the
suit
in
the
name
of
Deities
described
in
the
plaint
as
plaintiffs
1
and
2
is
not
maintainable
through
plaintiff
no.3
as
next
friend?
Issue
No.
3
:-
(a)
Whether
the
idol
in
question
was
installed
under
the
central
dome
of
the
disputed
building
(since
demolished)
in
the
early
hours
of
December
23,
1949
as
alleged
by
the
plaintiff
in
paragraph
27
of
the
plaint
as
clarified
in
their
statement
under
Order
10
Rule
2
C.P.C.
(b)
Whether
the
same
idol
was
reinstalled
at
the
same
place
on
a
Chabutara
under
the
canopy?
(c)
Whether
the
idols
were
placed
at
the
disputed
site
on
or
after
6.12.1992
in
violation
of
the
courts
order
dated
14.8.1989
and
15.11.91?
(d)
If
the
aforesaid
issue
is
answered
in
the
affirmative,
whether
the
idols
so
placed
still
acquire
the
status
of
a
deity.
Issue
No.
4
:-Whether
the
idol
in
question
had
been
in
existence
under
the
“Shikhar"
prior
to
6.12.92
from
time
immemorial
as
alleged
in
paragraph
44
of
the
additional
written
statement
of
defendant
no.3?
Issue
No.
5
:-
Is
the
property
in
question
properly
identified
and
described
in
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
6
:-
Is
the
plaintiff
no.3
not
entitled
to
represent
the
plaintiffs
1
and
2
as
their
next
friend
and
is
the
suit
not
competent
on
this
account?
Issue
No.
7
:-Whether
the
defendant
no.3
alone
is
entitled
to
represent
plaintiffs
1
and
2,
and
is
the
suit
not
competent
on
that
account
as
alleged
in
paragraph
49
of
the
additional
written
statement
of
defendant
no.3?
Issue
No.
8
:-
Is
the
defendant
Nirmohi
Akhara
the
“Shebait"
of
Bhagwan
Sri
Ram
installed
in
the
disputed
structure?
Issue
No.
9
:-Was
the
disputed
structure
a
mosque
known
as
Babri
Masjid?
Issue
No.
10
:-Whether
the
disputed
structure
could
be
treated
to
be
a
mosque
on
the
allegations
contained
in
paragraph
24
of
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
11
:-Whether
on
the
averments
made
in
paragraph
25
of
the
plaint,
no
valid
waqf
was
created
in
respect
of
the
structure
in
dispute
to
constitute
it
as
a
mosque?
Issue
No.
12:-
Deleted
vide
order
dated
23.02.1996.
Issue
No.
13
:-Whether
the
suit
is
barred
by
limitation?
Issue
No.
14
:-Whether
the
disputed
structure
claimed
to
be
Babri
Masjid
was
erected
after
demolishing
Janma
Sthan
temple
at
its
site.
Issue
No.
15
:-Whether
the
disputed
structure
claimed
to
be
Babri
Masjid
was
always
used
by
the
Muslims
only
regularly
for
offering
Namaz
ever
since
its
alleged
construction
in
1528
A.D.
to
22nd
December
1949
as
alleged
by
the
defendants
4
and
5?
Issue
No.
16
:-Whether
the
title
of
plaintiffs
1
and
2,
if
any,
was
extinguished
as
alleged
in
paragraph
25
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.4?
If
yes,
have
plaintiffs
1
and
2
reacquired
title
by
adverse
possession
as
alleged
in
paragraph
29
of
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
17:-
Deleted
vide
order
dated
23.02.1996.
Issue
No.
18:-Whether
the
suit
is
barred
by
section
34
of
the
Specific
Relief
Act
as
alleged
in
paragraph
42
of
the
additional
written
statement
of
defendant
no.3
and
also
as
alleged
in
paragraph
47
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.4
and
paragraph
62
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.
5?
Issue
No.
19
:-Whether
the
suit
is
bad
for
non-joinder
of
necessary
parties,
as
pleaded
in
paragraph
43
of
the
additional
written
statement
of
defendant
no.3?
Issue
No.
20
:-Whether
the
alleged
Trust
creating
the
Nyas
,
defendant
no.21,
is
void
on
the
facts
and
grounds
stated
in
paragraph
47
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.3?
Issue
No.
21
:-Whether
the
idols
in
question
cannot
be
treated
as
Deities
as
alleged
in
pragraphs
1,11,12,21,22,
27
and
41
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.4
and
in
paragraph
1
of
the
written
statement
of
defendant
no.5?
Issue
No.
22
:-Whether
the
premises
in
question
or
any
part
thereof
is
by
tradition,
belief
and
faith
the
birth
place
of
Lord
Rama
as
alleged
in
paragraphs
19
and
20
of
the
plaint?
If
so,
its
effect?
Issue
No.
23
:-Whether
the
judgment
in
suit
no.
61/280
of
1885
filed
by
Mahant
Raghubar
Das
in
the
Court
of
Special
Judge,
Faizabad
is
binding
upon
the
plaintiffs
by
application
of
the
principles
of
estoppel
and
res
judicata
as
alleged
by
the
defendants
4
and
5?
Issue
No.
24
:-Whether
worship
has
been
done
of
the
alleged
plaintiff
Deity
on
the
premises
in
suit
since
time
immemorial
as
alleged
in
para
25
of
the
plaint?
Issue
No.
25
:-Whether
the
judgment
and
decree
dated
30th
March
1946
passed
in
Suit
No.
29
of
1945
is
not
binding
upon
the
plaintiffs
as
alleged
by
the
plaintiffs?
Issue
No.
26
:-Whether
the
suit
is
bad
for
want
of
notice
under
section
80
C.P.C.
as
alleged
by
the
defendants
4
and
5?
Issue
No.
27
:-Whether
the
plea
of
suit
being
bad
for
want
of
notice
under
Section
80
CPC
can
be
raised
by
defendants
4
and
5?
Issue
No.
28
:-Whether
the
suit
is
bad
for
want
of
notice
under
Section
65
of
the
U.P.
Muslim
Waqfs
Act,
1960
as
alleged
by
defendants
4
and
5?
If
so,
its
effect.
Issue
No.
29
:-Whether
the
plaintiffs
are
precluded
from
bringing
the
present
suit
on
account
of
dismissal
of
suit
no.
57
of
1978
(Bhagwan
Sri
Ram
Lala
Vs.
State)
of
the
Court
of
Munsif
Sadar,
Faizabad?
Issue
No.
30
:-To
what
relief,
if
any,
are
plaintiffs
or
any
of
them
entitled?
OneIndia News