[Ayodhya Hearing][Day-1] Nirmohi Akhara Claims Possession Of Disputed Property [Courtroom Exchange]

On Day 1 of the hearing in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain opened the case for the Nirmohi Akhara, the plaintiff in Suit no. 3. "There are two parts of the premises- the inner courtyard and the outer courtyard. On January 5, 1950, charge was taken from me and handed to the receiver. The birthplace of Lord Ram was in my possession and I was also its manager. My suit is for management rights and possession. The Original Suit of 1989 was filed by the Akhara in 1959", he began. "You sued for the possession of the inner courtyard?", asked Justice S. A. Bobde. "Yes. It comprises of the 'bhandargrah', a small 'chabutra' and a dome.There was no challenge to the outer courtyard till the filing of the suit by the Sunni Waqf Board in 1961... Suit no. 1 of 1989 by Gopal Singh Visharad was also confined to the inner courtyard. The outer courtyard was always in possession of the Nirmohi Akhara and was not even attached by the order of 1961... ", replied Mr. Jain. "Who are you?", inquired Justice Bobde. "I am the Nirmohi Akhara, a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, 1949. My registration is from before the dispute arose", responded Mr. Jain. "What is the evidence in support of your prayer?", asked Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Indicating the averments in the plaint, Mr. Jain advanced that the temple and the Ram Janmabhoomi has always "belonged" to the Akhara- not "owned" by them- as they are only managers of the property. He narrated that there exists in Ayodhya, since the days of Yore, an ancient Math of Ramanandi Varagis called the Nirmohi Akhara which is the religious establishment of a public character. The temple has ever since been in their possession and none others but Hindus have been allowed to enter or worship there. The offerings made in the form of money, sweets, flowers, fruits and other articles have always been received by the Akhara through its pujaries. The property in several temples also vests solely in the Akhara which has the exclusive right to manage them through its Panches and Mahants. The Mahant, being a formal head of the institution, is to act on the majority opinion of the Panches. Mr. Jain went on to read that no Mohammadan has ever been allowed to enter into the temple building or has ever attempted to enter into it at least since the year 1934. It was further averred in the plaint that in the year 1950, the City Magistrate, Faizabad had without lawful cause attached the main temple in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and placed the said temple and the articles under the charge of a receiver. That the plaintiffs have been wrongfully deprived of their management and charge of the said temple and hence, the institution of Suit no. 3 was inevitable. "My prayer is for the removal of the receiver, not just for possession", submitted Mr. Jain. "Your suit is for mandatory injunction, not declaration", observed Justice Chandrachud. "Possession and management rights is my case. Declaration is automatic in these cases", replied the Senior Counsel. "How has your claim been resisted?", probed the Chief Justice. "The Defendants have stated that the property in suit has been constructed by Emperor Babar in 1528 and is called Babri Masjid. This property was given in Waqf for the common Muslim and since then every Muslim has the right of prayer in the mosque...It has further been stated that in 1885, Raghubar Das Mahant, Janam Sthan, Ayodhya filed a suit against the Secretary of State for India in the Council and Mohd. Asgar Mutwalli and Khatib Masjid Babri Majakur filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge, Faizabad. A site plan was also appended with the plaint in which the mosque was clearly shown and no objection was made in this regard. The plaintiff of this suit had sought relief only with regard to a platform (chabutra), and therefore, the averment in the present suit that all the disputed property belongs to the temple Ram Janam Bhumi is completely false. The Sub- Judge, Faizabad on 24.12.85 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This verdict was upheld by the appellate court and the remark relating to the title of the plaintiffs to the Chabutra was struck off. So many Mahants of Ayodhya on behalf of the Hindus had filed the suit and they had full knowledge of this litigation as per the provisions of the Muslim Waqf Act. The Chief Commissioner of the Waqf was appointed who after inspection of mosque Babri decided that Emperor Babar had constructed this mosque and acknowledged this property as Sunni Waqf. Accordingly, a legal notification was issued which has become final and the possession of the Muslim community as Waqf on the Babri Mosque has been continuously in existence. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs or any other Hindu succeeds in proving that prior to the construction of the Babri mosque there existed any temple on the site in dispute, in that situation also on the ground of being in...

[Ayodhya Hearing][Day-1] Nirmohi Akhara Claims Possession Of Disputed Property [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

[Ayodhya Hearing][Day-1] Nirmohi Akhara Claims Possession Of Disputed Property [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers