Ayodhya Verdict : How SC Dealt With Sunni Waqf Board's Pleas Of Lost Grant And Adverse Possession?

Among five suits which constitutes the Ayodhya Case, only one suit filed by Sunni Central Wakf Board, represented the Muslim side. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan represented them.The 1045 paged judgment in Ayodhya case seriously deals with only three suits filed by Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Board,and Ram Lalla, the deity. (Suit 3,4 & 5 respectively). Nirmohi Akhara's suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Suit by Ram Lalla was decreed and that of Sunni Board was partly decreed, invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, to remedy the wrong done to the Community. This article is intended to examine how the Court dealt with the suit filed by the Sunni Board.Reliefs Sought: Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession The relief sought in the suit filed by Sunni Board was a declaration to the effect that the disputed property is public mosque commonly known as 'Babri Masjid' and that the land adjoining the mosque is a public Muslim graveyard. A a decree for delivery of possession of the mosque and graveyard in suit by removal of the idols and other articles which the Hindus may have placed in the mosque as objects of their worship, was also sought. The court summed up the case of the Muslim side was as follows:(i) The mosque was constructed by Babur 433 years prior to the suit as a place of public worship and has been continuously used by Muslims for offering prayers; and (ii) Even assuming that there was an underlying temple which was demolished to give way for the construction of the mosque, the Muslims have perfected their title by adverse possession. On this foundation, the plaintiffs claim a declaration of title and, in the event that such a prayer is required, a decree for possession.Suit MaintainableFor the Hindu side, Senior Advocate K Parasaran objected to the maintainability of Suit 4 on the ground that the Sunni Central Waqf Board had no locus to institute the proceeding and that the suit could have only been instituted at the behest of a Mutawalli . Rejected it at the outset, the Court observed: "Section 19(2) of the UP Muslim Waqf Act 1960 specifically empowers the board to adopt measures for the recovery of property and to institute and defend suits relating to waqfs. Under Section 3(2), the Board is defined to mean the Sunni Central Waqf Board, or the Shia Central Waqf Board constituted under the Act. Clearly, therefore in terms of the statutory power, the Sunni Central Waqf Board has authority to institute legal proceedings."Not Barred By LimitationThe High Court, by a majority (Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma), had held that the Suit was barred by limitation; Justice S U Khan had held otherwise.The court summarized the reasons given by the High Court to hold that the Suit was barred by limitation thus:(i) The entire property which is the subject matter of the suit was custodia legis consequent upon the proceedings under Section 145; (ii) Once the property is custodia legis, a suit for declaration would suffice and there is no need to seek the relief of possession; (iii) Prayer (b) seeking a decree for the delivery of possession, ―if it is considered necessary‖ is redundant; and (iv) Consequently, in the absence of a prayer for possession, the suit is only one for declaring the character of the mosque and is hence governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The court held that High Court was in error in applying the provisions of Article 120 and the suit in essence and substance was governed by Article 142.. It was held thus: Though, the last namaz was held on 16 December 1949, the ouster of possession did not take place on that day. The next Friday namaz would have been held on 23 December 1949 and the act of ouster took place on that date and when the mosque was desecrated. The suit which was filed on 18 December 1961 was within a period of 12 years from 23 December 1949 and hence within limitation. The view, which has been taken by the majority of the High Court holding that Suit 4 is barred by limitation, is hence incorrect. Suit 4 was filed within limitation.The court added that even if it is held that the plaintiffs were not in exclusive or settled possession of the inner courtyard, the suit would fall within the residuary Article 144 in which event also, the suit would be within limitation.Outcome of 1885 Suit has no impact on this suit It was urged that the decision in the suit operates as res judicata on the ground that the matter directly and substantially in issue was: (i) The existence of Babri Masjid; and (ii) The rights of Hindus to construct on the land adjoining the mosque. However, the bench observed:All the findings in the Suit of 1885 must be read in the context of the nature of the proceedings, the party who had moved the court for relief and its outcome. The suit was not of a representative nature. No permission to sue in a representative capacity was sought or obtained. The Mahant of the...

Ayodhya Verdict : How SC Dealt With Sunni Waqf Board's Pleas Of Lost Grant And Adverse Possession?

Ashok Kini

"The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century."

Tags