What The Allahabad HC Held In Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Dispute?

Though the hearing of the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case is politically sensational with the undercurrents of religious sentiments, it is essentially a title dispute by two groups over 2.77 hectares of land in Faizabad district(now Ayodhya district) in UP.The Constitution Bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer is hearing first appeals from a preliminary decree of partition passed by the Allahabad High Court on September 30, 2010 in four civil suits. The suits were :A 1950 suit filed by a devotee against the attachment of the disputed site by Magistrate after idols were placed in the mosque in December 1949, claiming right to worship.A 1959 suit filed by 'Nirmohi Akhara' who claimed to be the custodian of the property, seeking complete possession of the property.A 1961 suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board seeking declaration of rights and possession over the property.A 1989 suit filed on behalf of the deity and the birth place claiming title over the property. A detailed account of the four suits may be read here.Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Dispute: All You Need To Know About The Civil Suits The background of the dispute is summarized by the Supreme Court in the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case as follows :"Ayodhya situated in the north of India is a township in District Faizabad of Uttar Pradesh. It has long been a place of holy pilgrimage because of its mention in the epic Ramayana as the place of birth of Sri Ram. The structure commonly known as Ram Janma Bhoomi¬Babri Masjid was erected as a mosque by one Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528 AD. It is claimed by some sections that it was built at the site believed to be the birthspot of Sri Ram where a temple had stood earlier. This resulted in a long¬standing dispute.The controversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed structure in December 1949. The premises were attached under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Civil suits were filed shortly thereafter. Interim orders in these civil suits 4 restrained the parties from removing the idols or interfering with their worship. In effect, therefore, from December 1949 till 6¬12¬1992 the structure had not been used as a mosque." The suits were decided by a three judge bench of Justices Sibghat Ullah Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma.By 2:1 majority, the HC ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the deity for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Muslim Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to Nirmohi Akhara.The majority of Justices Khan and Agarwal held that the spot where idols were placed beneath the central dome of the damaged Babri Masjid should be allotted to the deity for the construction of temple. In his dissenting judgment, Justice Sharma categorically stated that "the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram" and held that Hindus had exclusive rights over the entire disputed site of 2.77 acres.Certain key points of the HC judgment are discussed below:Who was given possession of the land?As per the majority judgment, none of the parties could establish title by way of documentary evidence.Justice Khan observed that since none of the parties could establish the commencement of title, possession should be taken into account to determine the issue. The rule 'possession follows title' and the presumption under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence was applied. "Muslims have not been able to prove that the land belonged to Babar under whose orders the mosque was constructed. Similarly Hindus have not been able to prove that there was any existing temple at the place where the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple. It has also not been proved by the Hindus that the specific small portion i.e. premises in dispute of 1500 square yards was treated, believed and worshipped as birth-place of Lord Ram before construction of mosque. In such situation when both the parties have failed to prove initial title, (commencement of title) it is possession and possession alone which decides the question of title in accordance with Section 110, Evidence Act", Justice Khan observed.Based on historical accounts, it was inferred that both the groups had access to the properties and were using it at least from 1850 onwards. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute without formal partition.Justice Khan held that both the parties were entitled to be declared as joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect was 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 the idols were kept will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.Justice Agarwal declared that the area covered by the...

What The Allahabad HC Held In Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Dispute?

Live Law Research Team

Tags