Issues for briefing - Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
Ayodhya: Issues for briefing - Justice Dharam Veer Sharma
This is the full text of the Gist of Ayodhya Title suit Judgement made by Honorable Dharam Veer Sharma, member of three-member Lucknow bench, in Ram Janmbhumi-Babri masjid title dispute. - Issues for brieifing
ISSUES FOR BRIEFING
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the
spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child.
Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological
Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others
and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the
right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also
established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.
After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on
22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.