1

ISSUES FOR BRIEFING 

1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan 
Ram?

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.
 2

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.

*********
 1

BRIEF SUMMARY

Subject matter of the decided cases
OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others

Versus

Gopal Singh Visharad and others

The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.
 2

On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were

filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in
Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 directed
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;
O.O.S. No.
4 of 1989

Issues No. 1 and 1(a)

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?

1(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?

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

 3

Issues No. 1(b)

1(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?

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs

on the basis of A.S.I. Report.

1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.

Issues No. 1(B)a

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 Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)”

Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to

Government.

Issues No. 1(B)(b)

1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as

alleged by the plaintiffs?
Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 1(B)(c)

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?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 1(B)(d)

1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the

members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?
 4

Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.

Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28

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?
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?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
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?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?”
These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 3

3. Is the suit within time?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

Issues No. 5(a)

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?

(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide

order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).

Issues No. 5(b)

5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

 5

Issues No. 5(c)

5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?

(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)

Issues No. 5(d)

5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as

alleged in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).

Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)

5(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?

5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on

accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?

Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.

Issue No. 6

6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs

representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?

Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 7(a)

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?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.
 6

Issue No. 7(b)

7(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?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No. 7(c)

7(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?
Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 7(d)

7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 8

8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant

Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?
Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.

Issue No.9
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).
 7

Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)

11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
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?
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?
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 visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
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?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.12
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?
Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.
 8

Issue No.17
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?
(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).

Issue No.18
18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

Issue No.19(b)
19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.

Issue No.19(d)
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?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.

Issue No. 19(e)

19(e). Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a
 9

graveyard on three sides.

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No.19(F)
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?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.

Issue No.20(a)
20(a). Whether the Waqf 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 Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.20(b)
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?
Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
 10

Issues No. 23 & 24

23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)”.
Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 26
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?”
26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?”
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 27
27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”
Yes, issue is decided in positive.
Issue No.16 & 22
16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
 11

O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)

Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others

The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989

Issues No. 1, 2 and 6

1. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram

Chandra Ji?

2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?
Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.
Issues No. 3, 4 & 7
3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?
 12

4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in

suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?
Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been decided in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)

9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(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.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?
Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,
17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)

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 & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?
Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of
1989.
Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
 13

Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)

5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?
Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been
decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 13

13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 8
8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)
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 ?

11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 12
12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Withdrawn, no finding is required.
 14

Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?
NO

Issue No. 10
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?

NO
Issue No. 16 & 17
16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?

17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?

Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.
 15

OOS No. 3 of 1989

Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.
The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989

Issues No. 1, 5 and 6

1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?
5. Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar
Known as Babari masjid ?

6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for

worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?
Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been decided in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8
2. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?

3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12

years ?

4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the

said temple ?
 16

8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of

possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?

Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against the Plaintiffs.

Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16

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 ?

7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.

16. Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of
1936 ?

Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been decided against the
plaintiffs.

Issue No. 9

9. Is the suit within time ?

Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)

10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.

10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No. 11

11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?

Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
 17

Issue No. 14

14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No. 17
17. (Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) “Whether
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom.”
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)

Issues No. 12 & 13

12. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?
No.

13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

Suit is Dismissed.
 18

 O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989  (R.S.NO. 236/1989 

Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.

The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri

Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the

defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the

temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are

perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.

This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm

Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like

Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of

divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram 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.

Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex

Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,

Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.

Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme

Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur

Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council

and of different High Courts.

Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:

O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989
 19

ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6

1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?

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?
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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22

9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri

Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
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 ?
Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.

ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24

15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid

was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering
 20

Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To

22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?
Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.

Issue No.17
17. Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?
Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.

Issue No.23
23. Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by
Mahant Raghuber 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 ?
Decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.

Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described
 21

in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.

Issues No. 7 & 8

(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 ?
(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?
Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.

Issues No.19
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 ?
Suit is maintainable.

Issue No.20

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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.

Issue No.21
21. Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities
as alleged in paragraphs 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 ?
 22

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants no. 4 and 5.

Issues No. 26 & 27

26. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
27. Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.

Issue No.25

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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No.29
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?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No.28
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?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.
 23

Issue No.18
18. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the 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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4

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 on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?
3(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a
chabutra under the canopy?
3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?
3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”
(4) Whether the idols 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 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No.11
(11) Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in
 24

dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No.12
(12) If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?
Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.

Issue No.13
(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.

Issue No.30
30. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
 GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
Ram.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is 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 at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.

Order:-

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the
idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third
share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be
made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by
allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
 (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:
(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 thereto.
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?
 1

AFR
Court No. 21
Reserved on 26.07.2010
Delivered on 30.09.2010

Other Original Suit No. 4 of 1989

(Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961)

1. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow, Moti

Lal Bose Road. P.S. Kaiserbagh, City Lucknow through
Shah Ghyas Alam, Secretary.

[2. Molvi Mohammad Qasim, aged about 53 years, S/o Sheikh

Abdul Razzaq, General Secretary, Jamiutul Ulami Hind,
U.P Bagh Gunge Nawab, P.S KaiserBagh, Lucknow]
(Deleted)
2/1. Mohd. Siddiq alias Hafiz Mohd. Siddiq. aged about 46
years S/O Late Haji Mohd. Ibrahim, R/o Lalbagh
Moradabad, General Secretary, Jamuatul Ulemai Hind,
U.P, Jamiat Building, B.N. Verma Raod ( Katchehry
Road) Lucknow.
3. Haji Mohammad Ehtram Ali, aged about 70 years, S/o
Munshi Mohammad Ehtisham Ali, R/o Khayaliganj. P.S
Kaiserbag City Lucknow. ( Deceased)
[4. Molvi Mohammad Faiq aged about 55 years, S/o Haji
Ramzan R/o Mohalla Tehri Bazar, Ayodhya, pargana
Haveli Avadh District Faizabad] (Deleted)
[5. Molvi Mohammd Naseer aged about 58 years, S/o Ashiq
Ali, R/o Village Ponthar Pargana Tanda Tahsil Tanda
District Faizabad] (Deleted)
[6. Shahabuddin aged about 42 years, S/o Haji Munney Sahib,
R/o Angoori Bagh, City Faizabad] (Deleted)
6/1 Ziauddin aged about 46 years, S/o of Haji Shahabuddin
 2

(deceased) R/o Mohalla Angoori Bagh, pargana Haveli

Oudh, City and District Faizabad.
6/1/1. Misbahuddeen aged about 39 years, S/o Ziauddin, R/o
Mohalla Angoori Bagh, Awadh City Tahsil and District
Faizabad.
7. Mohammad Hashim aged about 40 years, S/o Karim Bux,
R/o Mohalla Kutya, Panji Tola, Ajodhiya Pargana Haveli
Avadh, Distt. Faizabad.
[8. Vakiluddin aged about 55 years, S/o Ismail, R/o Madarpur,
Pargana and Tahsil Tanda District Faizabad] (Deleted)
8/1. Maulana Mahfoozurahman aged about 52 years, S/o Late
Maulana Vakiluddin, R/o Village Madarpur, Pargana and
Tahsil Tanda, Faizabad.
9. Mahmud Ahmad aged about 30 years S/o Ghulam Hasan.
R/o Mohalla Rakabganj, City Faizabad.
[10. Zahoor Ahmad, S/o Noor Mohd. aged about 80 years, R/o
Mohalla Nau Ghazi Qabar, Ayodhya, Faizabad District]
(Deleted)
10/1. Farooq Ahmad, S/o Sri Zahoor Ahmad, R/o Mohalla
Naugazi Qabar, Ayodhya City, Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad.
Vs.
[1. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, aged about 53 years, S/o Thakur
Girdhari Singh, R/o Sargaddwar, Ajodhiya, District
Faizabad] ( Deleted)
2. Sri Param Hans Ram Chander Das, R/o Ajodhya,
Faizabad. (Deceased)
2/1 Mahant Suresh Das aged about 55 years, Chela of Sri
Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, R/o Digambar Akhara,
City Ayodhya District Faizabad.
3. Nirmohi Akhara Situate in Mohalla Ram Ghat City
 3

Ajodhiya, District Faizabad, through Mahant Rameshwar

Das Mahant Sarbarakar, R/o Nirmohi Akhara Mohalla
Ramghat, City Ajodhya District Faizabad.
4. Mahant Raghunath Das Chela Mahant Dharam Das
Mahant and Sarbarakar Nirmohi Akhara Mohalla Ram
Ghat, City Ajodhiya, District Faizabad.
5. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary to the Sate Govt.
of U.P. (corrected under Court's order dated 30-01-62)
6. The Collector, Faizabad.
7. The City Magistrate, Faizabad.
8. The Superintendent of Police Faizabad.
9. B. Priya Dutt S/o R.B. Babu Kamlapat Ram, R/o
Rakabganj, Faizabad.
10. President, All India Hindu Maha Sabha, Read Road New
Delhi.
11. President, Arya Maha Pradeshik Sabha Baldan Bhawan,
Shradhanand Bazar, Delhi
12. President, All India Sanatan Dharm Sabha, Delhi.
13/1. Dharam Das alleged Chela Baba Abhiram Das. R/o
Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad.
14. Pundrik Misra, age 33 years, S/o Raj Narain Misra R/o
Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizbad.
15. Sri Ram Dayal Saran, Chela of late Ram Lakhan Saran,
R/o Town Ayodhya, District Faizabad.
[16. Shab Narain Das Chela of late Baba Badri Das Ji
Sankatwali, R/o Sri Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya Faizabad]
( Deleted)
17. Ramesh Chandra Tripathi aged about 29 years, S/o Sri
Parsh Rama Tripathi, R/o Akbarpur, Distt. Faizabad.
18. Mahant Ganga Das aged about 45 years ( Chela) Mahant
 4

Sarju Dass R/o Mandir Ladle Prasad, City Ayodhya

Faizabad.
19. Sri Swami Govindacharya, Manas Martand Putra
Balbhadar Urf Jhallu, R/o Makan No. 735, 736, 737 Katra
Ayodya, Pargana Haveli Audh Tahsil and Zila Faizabad.
20. Madan Mohan Gupta, Convener of Akhil Bhartiya Sri
Ram Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti, E-7/45 Bangla
T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.
21. Prince Anjum Qadar, President All India Shia Conference,
Registered, Qaumi Ghar, Nadan Mahal Road, F.S.
Chowk, Lucknow. (Died on 23.7.1997)
22. Umesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Sri R.S. Pandey R/o
Ranupalli, Ayodhya, District Faizabad.
With
Other Original Suit No. 1 of 1989
(Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad aged about 42 years S/o Thakur
Girdhari Singh, Mohalla Saragdwar City Ayodhya,
Pargana Haveli, Tahsil and District Faizabad. (deceased)
Rajendra Singh age 46, S/o Sri Gopal Singh Visarad,
current address State Bank of India Branch Gonda.
Vs.
[1. Zahoor Ahmad aged about 69 years S/o Laamaaloom
Mohall Bada Bazar] (Deceased)
1/1 Farooq Ahmad S/o Zahoor Ahmad R/o Tedi Bazar
Ayodhya Faizabad.
[2. Haji Fenku aged about 65 years S/o Laamaaloom
Mohalla Tedi Bazar] ( Deceased) (Deleted vide order
dated 17.1.1962)
[3. Mohd. Faiq aged about 45 years S/o Laamaaloom Mohalla
 5

Tedi Bazar] (Deceased)

[4. Mohd. Shami Chudiwala aged 45 years S/o Laamaaloom
Mohalla Ram Ganj] (Deceased) (Deleted vide order
dated 17.1.1962)
[5. Mohd. Achhan Mia aged 45 years S/o Laamaaloom
Mohalla Katra] (Deceased)
(1 To 5) City Ayodhya Pargana Haveli Oudh, Tahsil
and District Faizabad.
6. Uttar Pradesh State, Lucknow.
7. Deputy Commissioner Faizabad.
8. City Magistrate Faizabad.
9. Superintendent of Police Faizabad.
10. Sunni Central Waqf Board U.P. Lucknow Moti Lal Bose
Road P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow through Secretary.
11. Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya Haveli Awadh, District
Faizabad through Sarpanch Ram Swaroop Das,
Upsarpanch Mahant Bhaskar Das and Panch Raja Ram
Chandracharya.
With
Other Original Suit No. 3 of 1989
(Regular Suit No. 26 of 1959)
Nirmohi Akhara Situate in Mohalla Ramghat City
Ayodhya through Mahant Jagan Nath Das aged about 54
years chela of Mahant Vaishnab Das R/o Nirmohi Bazar,
Reg. Ramghat Haveli Oudh Ayodhya City.
Vs.
1. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh Receiver, R/o of Deo Kali
Road. City Faizabad.
2. State of U.P.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad.
 6

4. City Magistrate, Faizabad.

5. Superintendent of Police, Faizabad.
[6. Haji Phekku aged 70 years son of unknown R/o of Mohalla
Terhi Bazar] (Deceased)
6/1 Haji Mehboob (adult)
6/2 Haji Abdul Ahed both R/o Mohalla Terhi Bazar Bazar
City Ayodhya Tahsil and District Faizabad.
7 Mohd. Faiq aged 50 years S/o Haji Ramzan R/o Terihi
Bazar
8. Mohd. Achhan Mian aged about 55 years son of unknown
R/o Mohalla Katra.
(6 to 8) City Ayodhya Pargana Haveli Oudh Tahsil
and district Faizabad on behalf of themselves and all
other members of the Muslim Community.
9. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs through its secretary,
Lucknow.
10. Umesh Chandra Pandey aged 34 years S/o Sri Ram
Shanker Pandey R/o Rampali Ayodhya City Dist. Faizaba.
( Haveli Oudh).
11. Mohd. Farooq S/o Zahoor Ahamad R/o Singarhat
Ayodhya, District Faizabad.
With
Other Original Suit No. 5 of 1989
(Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989)
1. Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman at Sri Rama Janam Bhumi,
Ayodhya, also called Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman
represented by next friend, Sri Triloki Nath Pandey aged
about 65 years, S/o Late Askrut Pandey, R/o Karsewak
Puram District Faizabad.
2. Asthan Sri Rama Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya, represented by
 7

next friend, Sri Triloki Nath Pandey aged about 65 years,

S/o Late Askrut Pandey, R/o Karsewak Puram District
Faizabad.
3. Triloki Nath Pandey aged about 65 years, S/o Late Sri
Askrut Pandey, R/o Karsewak Puram District Faizabad.
Vs.
1. Sri Rajendra Singh, adult, son of late Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad, at present residing at Gonda, care of the State
Bank of India, Gonda Branch Gonda.
2. Param Hans Mahant Ram Chandra Das of Digambar
Akhara, Ayodhya.
2/1. Mahant Suresh Das aged about 55 years Chela Late
Mahant Param Ramchandra Das.
3. Nirmohi Akhara Mohalla Ram Ghat, Ayodhya through its
present Mahant Jagannath Das, aged about 54 years, Chela
of Vaishnav Das Nirmohi R/o Mohalla Ram Ghat Nirmohi
Bazar Pargana Haveli Awadh, Ayodhya, District
Faizabad.
4. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. having its office at
Moti Lal Bose Road, Lucknow.
5. Sri Mohammad Hashim, Adult, S/o Sri Karim Bux R/o
Mohall Sutahti Ayodhya.
6. Sri Mahmud Ahmad, adult S/o Sri Ghulam Hasan, R/o
Mohalla Rakabganj, Faizabad.
7. State of U.P. through the Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat , Lucknow.
8. The Collector and District Magistrate, Faizabad.
9. The City Magistrate, Faizabad.
10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad.
11. The President, All India Hindu Mahasabha, New Delhi.
 8

12. The President, All India Arya Samaj, Dewan Hall Delhi.
13. The President, All India Sanatan Dharma Sabha Delhi.
14. Sri Dharam Das adult, Chela Baba Abhiram Das R/o
Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya.
15. Sri Pundarik Misra, Adult S/o Sri Raj Narain Misra, R/o
Baham Pur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad.
16. Sri Ram Dayal Saran Adult, Chela Ram Lakhan Saran,
R/o Ramcharit Manas Bhawan, Mohall Ramkot, Ayodhya.
17. Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi Adult, S/o Sri Parash Ram
Tripathi, R/o village Bhagwan Patti, Pargana Minjhaura,
Tahsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad.
[18. Mahant Ganga Das adult Chela Sarju Das, R/o Mandir
Lalta Prasad, Ayodhya] (Deleted)
[19. Swami Govindacharya Manas Martand, adult, S/o Sri
Balbhadar alias Jhallu R/o Ayodhya] (Deleted)
20. Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey Adult S/o Sri Uma Shanker
Pandey, Advocate, R/o Ranopali, Ayodhya.
21. Sri Rama Janam Bhumi Nyas, a Trust having its office at
Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sri Hanuman Mandir, Rama
Krishan Puram, Sector VI, New Delhi, through Sri Ashok
Singhal, Managing Trustee.
22. Shia Central Board of Waqfs. U.P. Lucknow.
[23. Sri Javvad Husain, adult, R/o village Sahanwa P.O.
Darshan Nagar, District Faizabad] ( Deleted)
[24. Prince Anjum Quder, President All India Shia Conference,
Qaomi Ghar, Nandan Mahal Road Lucknow] (Died on
23.7.1997 and ordered to be deleted on 10.11.1997)
[25. All India Shia Conference through Sri S. Mohammad
Hasnain Abidi, Honorary General Secretary, Qaomi Ghar
Nadan Mahal Road, Lucknow] (Deleted vide order dated
 9

10.11.1997)
26. Hafiz Mohd. Siddiqui, aged about 46 years S/o Late Haji
Mohd. Ibrahim, R/o Lalbagh Moradabad. General
Secretary, Jamaitul Ulema Hind U.P. Jamait Building B.N.
Verma Road, Kutchery Road Lucknow.
27. Vakeeluddin aged about 55 years, S/o Ismail, R/o
Madarpur Pargana and Tehsil Tanda District Faizabad
Counsels for parties :
Suit-4 :
Counsel for Plaintiffs : Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Sri M.A.
Siddiqui, Sri S.I. Ahmad and Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocates.
Counsel for Defendants : Sri S.P. Srivastava, Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel (for State-defendants no. 5, 6, 7 and 8); Sri
Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Sri M.M. Pandey,
Advocate (for defendant no. 2/1, Mahant Suresh Das); Sri R.L.
Verma and Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Advocates (for defendant no.
3, Nirmohi Akhara); Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (for
defendant no. 10, All India Hindu Maha Sabha); Sri P.R.
Ganpathi Ayer, Senior Advocate, and Sri Rakesh Pandey,
Advocate (for defendant no. 13/1, Dharam Das); Sri R.K.
Srivastava, Advocate (for defendant no. 17, Ramesh Chandra
Tripathi); and Sri P.N. Mishra, Amitabh Shukla and Sushri
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocates (for defendant no. 20, Madan
Mohan Gupta, Convener of Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam
Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti).
Suit-1 :
Counsel for Plaintiffs : Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri D.P.
Gupta and K.G. Mishra, Advocates.
Counsel for Defendants : Sri S.P. Srivastava, Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel (for State-defendants no. 6, 7, 8 and 9); Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (for defendant no. 10, Sunni Central
 10

Waqf Board) and Sri R.L. Verma and Sri Tarunjeet Verma,
Advocates (for defendant no.11, Nirmohi Akhara).

Suit-3 :
Counsel for Plaintiff : Sri R.L. Verma and Sri Tarunjeet
Verma, Advocates
Counsel for Defendants : Sri S.P. Srivastava, Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel (for State-defendants no. 2, 3, 4 and 5); Sri
Syed Irfan Ahmad and Sri Fazle Alam, Advocates (for
defendants no. 6/1, Haji Mehboob and 6/2, Haji Abdul Ahad)
and Sri Zafaryab Jilani (for defendant no. 9, Sunni Central
Board of Waqfs).

Suit-5 :
Counsel for Plaintiff : Sri K.N. Bhat, Senior Advocate
and Sri Ved Prakash, Madan Mohan Pandey and Ajay Kumar
Pandey, Advocates.

Counsel for Defendants : Sri S.P. Srivastava, Addl.

Chief Standing Counsel (for State-defendants no. 7, 8, 9 and
10); Sri D.P. Gupta and Sri K.G. Mishra, Advocates (for
defendant No.1, Rajendra Singh); Sri R.L. Verma and Sri
Tarunjeet Verma, Advocates (for defendant no. 3, Nirmohi
Akhara); Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (for defendant no. 4,
Sunni Central Board of Waqfs); Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate
(for defendant no. 5, Mohammad Hashim); Sri Hari Shankar,
Advocate (for defendant no.11, President All India Hindu
Mahasabha); Sri P.R. Ganpathi Ayer, Senior Advocate, and Sri
Rakesh Pandey, Advocate (for defendant No.14, Dharam Das);
Sri Ramakant Srivastava, Advocate (for defendant no.17,
Ramesh Chnadra Tripathi) and Sri Irfan Ahmad and Sri C.M.
Shukla, Advocates (for respondent no.26, Hafiz Mohd.
Siddiqui).
 11

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble D.V. Sharma, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
UkklnklhUuk s lnklhr~ rnkuh uklhnztk s uk s O;k se k ijk s ;r~A
fdekojho% dq g dL; 'keZ UuEHk% fdeklhn~ e gua xHkhje~ 1
**izy;koLFkk esa ¼u vlr~ vklhr~ u lr~ vklhr~½ u lr~ Fkk vkSj u vlr~ Fkk]
¼rnkuha½ ml le; ¼u jt% vklhr~½ u yksd Fkk vkSj ¼O;ksek ij% ;r~ u½ vkdk'k
ls ijs tks dqN gS og Hkh ugha FkkA ml le; ¼vkojho% fda½ lcdks <dusokyk
D;k Fkk\ ¼dqg dL; 'keZu½ dgka fdldk vkJ; Fkk\ ¼xgua xaHkhja vEHk% fda
vklhr~½ vxk/k vkSj xEHkhj ty D;k Fkk\
¼izy;koLFkk esa iapHkwrkfn lr inkFkZ gh Fks] u dqN vHkko:i vlr~gh Fkk] u
vkdk'k Fkk] u yksdgh FksA fQj fdlus fdldks <dk\ dSls <dk\ fdlls
<dk\ ;g lc vfuf'pr gh FkkA½** (Hindi Translation)
“During the Dissolution, there was neither existence nor non-
existence, and at that time neither Lok (world) was there nor was
anything beyond the space. What encompassed all at that time ?
Where was the abode and of whom ? What was the unfathomable
and deep water ?” (English Translation)
u e` R ;q j klhn~ e `ra u rfgZ u jk«;k vg~ u vklhr~ iz d sr %A
vkuhn~ o kr a Lo/k;k rnsd a rLek)kU;Uu ij% fd a pukl 2
**¼rfgZ½ ml le; ¼u e`R;q% u ve`ra vklhr~½ u e`R;q Fkh u ve`r Fkk] ¼jk«;k%
vg~u% izdsr% u vklhr~½ lw;ZpUnz ds vHkko ls jk=h vkSj fnu dk Kku Hkh ugha
FkkA ml ¼v&okra½ ok;q ls jfgr n'kk esa ¼,da rr~½ ,d vdsyk og gh czg~e
¼Lo/;k½ viuh 'kfDr ds lkFk ¼vk uhr~½ izk.k ys jgk FkkA ¼rLekr~ ij vU;r~
fdapu u vkl½ mlls ijs ;k fHkUu vkSj dksbZ oLrq ugha FkhA
¼e`R;q] ve`r Hkh dqN ugha Fkk] vkSj lw;Z pUnzek u gksus ls fnu jkr dk Hksn Hkh
ekywe ugha gksrk FkkA ij ,d czg~e gh ,slh n'kk esa fo|eku FkkA½**
“At that time there was neither death nor immortality, and there
was also no knowledge of day and night in absence of the Sun
and the Moon. In that stage of vacuum, Brahm (the Supreme
Being) alone was imbibing life from His own power. There was
 12

nothing beyond or distinct from Him.”

re vklhr~ relk xwG gexz s ·iz d sr a lfyya loZ e k bne~A
rq P N;su kHofifgr a ;nklhr~ rilLrUefguktk;rS d e~ 3
**¼vxzs½ l`f"V ls iwoZ izy; n'kk esa ¼re% vklhr~½ vU/kdkj Fkk] ¼relk xwGg½ lc
vU/kdkj ls vkPNkfnr Fkk] ¼vizdsra½ vKkr n'kk esa vkSj ¼bna vk% loZ
lfyya½ ;g lc dqN ty gh ty Fkk vkSj ¼;r~ vklhr~½ tks dqN Fkk] og ¼vkHkq
rqPN;su vfifgra½ pkjksa vksj gksus okys lnlf}y{k.k Hkkols vkPNkfnr Fkk vkSj
¼rr~ ,da½ og ,d czg~e ¼ril% efguk vtk;r½ rids izHkko ls gqvkA
¼izy;koLFkk esa pkjksa vksj va/kdkj QSyk gqvk Fkk] vr% dqN Hkh Kku ugha gksrk
FkkA vkSj tks dqN Fkk og Hkh cM+k vthc FkkAa½**
“Prior to Creation, in the stage of Dissolution, there was
darkness, everything was covered with darkness in an unknown
state and this was all water and whatever existed, was covered
all around with remarkable attributes of existence and non-
existence and this was possible due to the effect of great austere
practice.”
dk s v)k o sn d bg iz ok sp r~ dq r vktkrk dq r b; a fol` f "V%A
vokZ X nso k vL; foltZusu k ·Fkk dk s osn ;r vkcHk wo A 6
**¼d% v}k osn½ dkSu euq"; tkurk gS] vkSj ¼bg d% izokspr~½ ;gka dkSu dgsxk] fd
¼b;a fol`f"V% dqr% dqr% vk tkrk½ ;g l`f"V dgka ls vkSj fdl dkj.k mRiUu
gqbZA D;ksafd ¼nsok%½ fo}ku~ ;k nwjn'khZ Hkh ¼vL; foltZusu vokZd~½ bl l`f"V ds
mRiUu gksus ds ckn gh mRiUu gq, gSa] ¼vFk½ blfy, ;g l`f"V ¼;r% vk cHkwo½
ftlls mRiUu gqbZ mls ¼d% osn½ dkSu tkurk gSA
¼bl lkjh l`f"V dh mRifRr dSls vkSj dgka ls gqbZ] ;g dksbZ ugha tkurk] D;ksafd
ml jgL; dks tkuus okys fo}kuksa dh mRifRr Hkh ckn esa gqbZA½**
“None knows and none can tell as to from where and how the
Creation took place, because even the scholars or those having
foresight, were born after the Creation. Hence, none knows the
source of this Creation.”
b; a fol` f "V;Zr vkcHk wo ;fn ok n/k s ;fn ok uA
;k s vL;k/;{k% ije s O;k se u~ Rlk s vax % osn ;fn ok u o sn 7
**¼b;a fol`f"V% ;r% vk cHkwo½ ;g l`f"V ftlls iSnk gqbZ og bls ¼;fn n/ks ;fn
 13

ok u½ /kkj.k djrk Hkh gS ;k ugha] bldks gs ¼vax½ fo}u ¼l% osn½ ogh tkurk gS
¼;% ijes O;kseu~ vL; v/;{k%½ tks ije vkdk'k esa jgrk gqvk bl l`f"V dk v/;
{k gS ¼;fn ok½ vFkok lEHkor% og Hkh ¼u osn½ ugha tkurk gksA
¼bl l`f"V dks iSnk djus okyk bldk v/;{k ijeczg~e bl l`f"V dk /kkjd gSA
vkSj ogh bl l`f"V dks iw.kZr;k tkurk gSA½**
“O scholar, whether the Creation is sustained by the Creator or
not, is known only to Him, who superintends this Creation from
the supreme space or it may not be known even to Him.”
(Rig-Veda X.129.1-3, 6, 7, Sanskrit)
(Hindi version from Rig Veda Ka Subodh-
Bhasya Mandal 9-10 translated by Dr. Sripad
Damodar Satvalekar published in 1985 and
English translation by the Court)

1. Sixty years and more since the first Suit was filed in the
Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, twenty one years and more
before a Full Bench of this Court (on transfer of the suits from
the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad), 533 exhibits; 87 witnesses
deposing in about 13990 pages; more than a thousand reference
books on various subjects like History, Culture, Archaeology,
Religion etc. and in different languages like Sanskrit, Hindi,
Urdu, Persian, Turkish, French etc.; innumerable archaeological
artifacts kept in the record room; dozens of C.Ds. and other
record; and, the period of events ranging from crores to more
than 550 years; religious faith, sentiments and pathos of millions
of people of not only this Country but abroad also, give some
indication towards length, width and depth of the dispute before
us.
TOPOGRAPHY
2. The entire dispute in these four suits relates to the land
situate in village Kot Rama Chandra (Ramkot at Ayodhya),
Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad. At the
disputed site there was an old structure--centre of controversy
 14

among two major communities of this country, i.e., Hindus and

Muslims. Amongst Hindus also a religious sect known as
“Ramanandi Vairagis” has an independent and separate claim. It
is claimed by Hindus in general that the disputed site is the
place where Lord Rama was born and it is his birthplace. There
existed a Rama temple at the site which was demolished in 1528
by Mir Baqi, a Commander of Babar, and, he constructed the
said disputed structure which the Muslims claimed to be “Babari
Mosque”. The claim of Hindus is that there cannot be another
birthplace of Lord Rama. Therefore, by its very nature they
cannot give away such a unique and singular pious place.
Ramanandi Vairagis, however, claim that the structure was not a
mosque but continued to be a “Rama temple” throughout and
worshipped as such, it belongs to them, and they were/are in
continuous possession and management thereof till December'
1949, i.e. the date of attachment. They, however, are in
agreement with the orthodox Hindus' general belief that the site
in dispute is the birthplace of Lord Rama.
3. On the eastern and southern side of the structure there was
open land. On the northern and western side there was a public
road and public pathway. Beyond the road, in the north, there
was again open land and beyond the pathway in the west there
is a deep slope.
4. The disputed structure was demolished on 6.12.1992 but
its topography before its demolition has been noticed in this
Court's judgment dated 11.12.1992 in Writ Petition No. 3540
(MB) of 1991, Mohammad Hashim Vs. State of U.P. and
others. In the judgmdent of Hon'ble S.C. Mathur, J. details of
the site is described as under:
“The aforesaid structure is divisible into three parts.
 15

(1) the main roofed structure, (2) the inner courtyard, and
(3) outer courtyard. The public road is to the north of the
structure. Immediately adjoining the roofed structure to the
east is the inner courtyard. To the east of this courtyard is
the outer courtyard. On the outer courtyard there is a
Chabutara which has been in possession of the Hindus.
There are other signs on this courtyard which are objects
of reverence or worship to the Hindus, like Sita Rasoi and
Charan. To the east of the outer courtyard is a boundary
wall having a gate. It is this gate which provides entry first
to the outer courtyard, then to the inner courtyard and
lastly to the roofed structure."
5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. M.
Ismail Faruqui etc. Vs. Union of India and others 1994 (6)
SCC 360= AIR 1995 SC 605, the area of land in dispute, which
is to be adjudicated by this Court is now restricted to what has
been referred to in para 4 above, i.e. main roofed structure, the
inner courtyard and the outer courtyard. In fact, the area under
the roofed structure and Sahan, for the purpose of convenience,
shall be referred hereinafter as “inner courtyard” and rest as the
“outer courtyard”. Broadly, the measurement of the disputed
area is about 130X80 sq. feet.
Disputed Structure
6. Though the disputed structure was demolished on 6th
December, 1992 but it would be necessary to have a broad idea
of the above structure which is the bone of contention in all
theses cases. It was situated on the north-east corner of the
mound or plateau, about 30' – 40' higher than the level of
Highway. It was a three-arched structure having three broad but
pointed arches on the facade. The liwan (sanctuary) which stood
 16

on a low plinth was composed of three square bays, roofed by

three single broad and high domes. The skeleton mainly built of
brick and mortar. The enclosing wall through which the
entrance given is said to have been constructed in the middle
of nineteenth century. It had twelve corner pillars on the angles
of six main piers which make up the nave or the central or the
main bay of the mosque. These small pillars were of black stone
of the family of “schist” polished and commonly called as
“Kasauti” stone. These pillars did not support the main load of
the ceiling which passed down to the main columns of the
ground floor, but only carried the lintels of the opening
extensions. The pillars were not load bearing but simply
strengthened the piers at their corners. The three domes
appeared to be disproportionate. They were allegedly repaired,
restored or renovated from time to time. In 1949/1950 when the
present dispute arose, there were three inscriptions. One is a
Persian epigraph of 8 verses, carved in relief in 4 lines in Naskh,
above the chhajja on the central arch. Below the Chhajjas,
Quranic verses from Chapter-CXII were carved. Two other
inscriptions are said to have lost in 1934 riots but were replaced.
One was on the southern side of the pulpit and another was on
the right hand of the pulpit. The contents of those inscriptions
would be dealt with and reproduced later on while dealing with
the relevant issue. A photograph of the disputed building
published in 1902 in the book “Tarikh-E-Ajudhya” is appended
to this judgement as Appendix '1'. This is the oldest photograph
of the building made available to the Court.
Suits--pleadings--in brief :
O.O.S. No.1 of 1989 (earlier registered as Regular Suit no. 2
of 1950)
 17

7. Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 was filed in the Court of Civil

Judge, Faizabad by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad on 16.1.1950
impleading Sri Zahoor Ahmad, Hazi Phenku, Hazi Mohd.
Fayaq, Mohd. Shami and Mohd. Achhan Mian as defendants no.
1 to 5. Uttar Pradesh State, Lucknow, Deputy Commissioner,
Faizabad, City Magistrate, Faizabad and Superintendent of
Police, Faizabad were impleaded as defendants no. 6 to 9.
During the pendency of the Suit, Sri Gopal Singh Visharad died
and was substituted by his son Sri Rajendra Singh pursuant to
Court's order dated 22.2.1986. Defendants no. 1 to 5 also
expired in the meantime. No substitution except Plaintiff no. 1,
has been sought in place thereof. Vide Court's order dated 7th
January 1987, Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P., Lucknow
through its Secretary was allowed to be impleaded as defendant
no.10. Similarly vide Court's order dated 23.8.1990, Nirmohi
Akhara, Ayodhya through its Sarpanch Ram Swarup Das,
Deputy Sarpanch M. Bhaskar Das and Panch Raja
Ramachandracharya has been impleaded as defendant no. 11.
So, presently, in effect, the parties to the suit consist of Rajendra
Singh, the plaintiff and six defendants, i.e., defendants no. 6 to
11. On transfer to this Court vide order dated 10.7.89, the
aforesaid suit was re-registered as O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989
(hereinafter referred to as “Suit-1”).
Reliefs
8. The reliefs sought in Suit-1 (duly amended pursuant to the
Court's order dated 7.1.1989) are: a declaration that the plaintiff
is entitled to offer worship without any obstruction according to
rites and tenets of his religion at the birth place of Lord Shri
Ram Chandra, described at the foot of the plaint and defendants
no. 1 to 10 and their substitutes have no authority to create any
 18

hindrance/obstruction in the aforesaid right of the plaintiff, a

permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants no. 1 to 10
and their substitutes not to remove the idols of Lord Shri Ram
Chandra situated at the place of birth described at the foot of the
plaint, neither obstruct ingress and egress to the aforesaid place
or at the entry point nor create any obstruction in worship and
Darshan (Pooja and Darshan). The cost of suit and any other
relief which may justifiably be granted are also prayed.
Plaint (Suit-1)
9. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is a religious
person, resident of Ayodhya and used to worship the idols of
God according to customs of his religion (Sanatan Dharma). He
has also been offering worship to idol and Charan Paduka
(wooden sleeper) of Lord Shri Ram Chandra at his birth place,
details whereof are given at the foot of the plaint and is entitled
to continue such worship without any hindrance at the aforesaid
place in future also. The plaintiff was ill for some time and
when on 14.01.1950 he went to offer worship at the birth place
of Lord Shri Ram Chandra, defendant no. 6 along with
employees of the State restrained him from approaching the
place at which the idol of Lord Shri Ram Chandra was situated.
On enquiry he came to know that defendants no. 1 to 5 and 6
through its employees i.e. defendants no. 7 to 9 were depriving
Hindu public from offering their lawful right of worship at the
aforesaid place. Defendant no.6 on account of mala fide of
defendants no. 1 to 5 had also made it open that in future also
Hindu public would be continuously deprived of such right.
This unjustified and illegal action has damaged the plaintiff's
basic right which he has been exercising throughout. The
present plaintiff also apprehends every possibility of
 19

continuance of such deprivation of his religious rights by the

defendants. Defendant no. 6 through its employees and
defendants no. 7 to 9 are exercising undue pressure upon Hindu
public to remove the idols of Lord Shri Ram Chandra from the
present place and other defendants are cooperating with them. In
this way, the defendants are determined to continue with their
illegal and unjust activities. The aforesaid action of defendants
is illegal, unjustified and collusive, infringing the fundamental
rights of the plaintiff and cannot be accepted by the plaintiff.
Deprivation of such right by defendants no. 6 to 9 is illegal,
ultra vires and against the provisions of the Government of India
Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as “GOI Act, 1935”). The
cause of action is said to have arisen on 14.1.1950 within the
jurisdiction of Civil Judge, Faizabad when the plaintiff was
deprived of exercising his religious rights. After the death of the
plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad his son has also similar right and
is entitled to pursue the aforesaid suit. The plaint is signed and
verified by the plaintiff on 13.1.1950.
10. The place of dispute has been described at the foot of the
plaint as under:
East: Janam Bhumi, Bhandar and Chabutara (Birth
Place, Store and platform)
West: Parti (Vacant land)
North: Sita Rasoi (Kitchen of Goddess Sita)
South: Parti (Vacant Land)
11. A temporary injunction was granted on 16.1.1950 which
was modified on 19.1.1950 on an application filed by District
Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, seeking clarification/
modification of the earlier order. Thereafter a receiver was
appointed by order dated 3.3.1950 who continued till a Civil
 20

Court's Receiver was appointed. In 1993 the property was

acquired and now the "Authorised Person" i.e. Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad, a statutory authority is looking
after the same.
Written statement of Defendants no. 1 to 5 (Jahoor Ahmad,
Hazi Phenku, Hazi Mohd. Phayak, Mohd. Shami and Mohd.
Achchhan Miya) (Suit-1)
12. Written statement dated 21.2.1950 filed on behalf of
defendants no. 1 to 5 states that the disputed site is not a birth
place. A mosque was constructed thereat by Emperor Babar
Shah. The suit has been filed by giving wrong facts with an
intention to mislead the Court and to obtain an order against the
defendants which would be contrary to law. All the averments
made in the plaint are denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief. The additional pleas are that in the year 1528 Emperor
Babar visited Ayodhya after conquering Hindustan and through
its Minister/Commander Mir Baqi got a mosque constructed
called 'Babari Masjid' and made it open to all Muslims for
offering prayer through a general Waqf (Waqf-e-Aam). He also
provided Rs. 60/- per annum for maintenance, repairs etc. of the
aforesaid mosque, which was paid from the Government
Treasury. The aforesaid amount was continuously paid by
subsequent Mughal Rulers. Even Nawab Awadh continued with
the said grant and, in fact, increased the amount to Rs. 302, 3
Annas and 6 paise per annum. This grant was maintained by
British Government also. In 1885, Raghubar Das, Mahant,
Janamsthan Ayodhya filed a suit against the Secretary of State
for India in Council and Mohd. Asghar, Mutvalli/caretaker,
Babari Masjid, in the Court of Sub Judge, Faizabad. He also
filed a map showing the existence of mosque at the place in
dispute and nobody disputed the same. He sought relief in
 21

respect to one Chabutara (platform) only. Now the claim of the

plaintiff that the entire building is a birth place temple is
incorrect and without any basis. The suit has been filed
dishonestly and mala fide. The Court of Sub Judge, Faizabad
vide judgment dated 24.12.1885 dismissed the suit of Raghubar
Das, Mahanth.The said judgment was maintained in appeal.
Though the suit was only in respect of right on a Chabutara, but
that too was rejected by trial court as well as the appellate
courts. The aforesaid case at that time was very sensitive. Many
Mahanths and other followers of Hindu community pursued the
aforesaid suit. Everybody was well informed of the aforesaid
suit.
13. The written statement further says that pursuant to U.P.
Waqf Act no. 13 of 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “1936 Act”),
a Chief Commissioner of Waqf was appointed who made a spot
inspection and on verification held that the place in dispute is
'Babari Masjid' constructed by Emperor Babar who was a Sunni.
The mosque in question was held a “Sunni Waqf” and
accordingly issued notification. The Muslim people have
possession over the land in question as Waqf Babari Masjid
since 1528 till date. Even if the plaintiff or any other Hindu
prove that prior to construction of Babari Masjid there existed
some temple, though it is not acceptable to the defendants, yet,
for the last almost 400 years and above, the Muslims are in
possession over the land in question and have completed their
right of adverse possession being there for more than 12 years.
The plaintiff and any other Hindu therefore have no right on the
place in dispute. The plaintiff neither had any possession nor
other kind of right in past, present or future. The suit is not
maintainable in view of Section 42 of Specific Relief Act. It is
 22

barred by limitation. The plaintiff has neither shown any

personal right on the building at the site nor otherwise has any
ownership or other right on the property in question. The suit is
liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has not filed any application
under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) and, therefore, the suit
cannot be treated to be in representative capacity filed on behalf
of entire Hindu public and, hence not maintainable. The suit is
bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. against
defendants no. 6 to 9. It is further said that the defendants are
not aware of existence of idol in the property in question, i.e.,
Babari Masjid and till 16.12.1949 Namaz was offered therein.
No idol existed thereat till 16.12.1949. If anybody has put idol
in the mosque subsequently with bad and dishonest intention,
i.e., only to damage the sacred place, i.e., the mosque, such
attempt is a criminal and illegal act. If anybody wants to enter a
mosque with an intention for idol worship, he deserves to be
punished in law and no such permission can be granted. The
plaintiff has not disclosed as to how and in what manner
defendants no. 6 to 9 prevented him from exercising his alleged
right and details are lacking. It is also not explained as to which
employees of defendants no. 6 restrained plaintiff and in what
capacity. So far as the defendants are aware, defendant no. 9
initiated proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) in respect of
Babari Masjid and pursuant thereto some action was taken by
defendants no.7 and 8. Though the defendants are not accepting
the proceedings initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C. but the
same being legal proceedings, no suit for injunction would lie so
long the said proceedings are pending. Besides, in Ayodhya
 23

there is a temple known as “Birth Place of Lord Shri Ram

Chandra” at a different place whereat idols of Lord Ram
Chandra also exist. The present suit with an intention to call the
“mosque” as “birth place of Lord Shri Ram Chandra” is a
misleading attitude of the plaintiff and his instigators, and, may
be an attempt to gain some advantage in election. It is also
contrary to the principle of a secular State. The suit has been
filed to harass the defendants and, therefore, they are entitled to
costs.
Replication to W.S. of Defendants no. 1 to 5 (Jahoor Ahmad,
Hazi Phenku, Mohd. Phayak, Mohd. Shami and Mohd.
Achchhan Miya) (Suit-1)
14. The plaintiff filed replication dated 5.12.1952 denying the
existence of Babari Masjid and Waqf created by Babar as also
the right of Muslims to offer prayers at the place in dispute.
Denying issuance of notification, if any under 1936 Act, he
claims to be unaware of the said proceedings and thus not bound
by the same. He has individual right of worship and, therefore,
is entitled to claim the relief as prayed. Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
would not come in his way. Since 1934 Namaz has not been
offered at the place in dispute. The idols of Lord Shri Ram
Chandra exist on the disputed site and this fact is well known to
defendants no.1 to 5. The temple of Lord Shri Ram Chandra
Janamsthan, existence whereof has been set out in written
statement, is a different temple and boundaries of the said
temple are as under:
North: Ahata. Parti and temple in possession of Kallu
Mahapatra
South : Pitch Road
East : Road, Sahan and a well
West : Hata and Parti (Compound and vacant land)
 24

15. He also said that in Ayodhya almost every temple has idol
of Lord Shri Ram Chandra which has nothing to do with the
site in dispute and reference to election etc. is wholly irrelevant.
The plaintiff is an Advocate practising before the local Indian
Rulers (Deshi Rajware) in the earlier times and has a lot of own
property. After constitution of Indian Union, he has now a right
to practice. Even if there existed Babari Masjid as claimed by
the defendants, yet it is a fact that since 1934 Muslims have
neither entered the said premises nor offered Namaz or prayer
thereat. Since then the place in dispute is in possession of Hindu
people who visit the said place continuously treating it to be a
temple. Any proceeding initiated by the Muslims collusively in
any Court is all fictitious and not binding either on Hindu public
or on plaintiff in particular.
Written statement dated 25.4.1950 of Defendant no. 6 (United
Provinces, Uttar Pradeh State, Lucknow) (Suit-1)
16. On behalf of defendant no. 6 a separate written statement
dated 25.4.1950 has been filed denying allegations made in the
plaint and raising objection of want of notice under Section 80
C.P.C., non-description of the property in dispute properly, lack
of cause of action and under-valuation. It is also averred that
property in suit is known as Babari Masjid and has been in use
as a mosque for worship by Muslims. It has not been used as a
temple of Lord Shri Ram Chandra Ji. In the night of 22.12.1949
idols of Lord Shri Ram Chandra Ji were surreptitiously and
wrongly put inside it. Apprehending disturbance of public peace
and tranquility, the authorities intervened and passed an order
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on 23.12.1949 prohibiting carrying of
firearm, swords, etc. and assemblance of more than five persons
within the limits of Faizabad and Ayodhya municipalities. On
29.12.1949 Sri Markandey Singh, the then Additional City
 25

Magistrate on police report and other information passed an

order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., calling upon the claimants of
the premises in question to appear and file their written
statement by 17.1.1950 in his Court. The said Magistrate also
formed an opinion of emergency, attached the said property and
appointed Sri Priya Dutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board,
Faizabad, Ayodhya as Receiver of the said property, authorizing
him to take care thereof and also to submit a scheme for its
management. The authorities have acted in accordance with law
fraught with a situation of serious danger to public peace and
tranquillity. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant any
injunction causing interference in the performance of public
duty by a department of the Government.
Written statement of Defendants no. 8 and 9 (Sri Markandey
Singh, Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad and Sri Ram
Kripal Singh, Superintendent of Police, Faizabad ) (Suit-1)
17. Defendants no. 8 and 9 have filed written statements
separately but the contents thereof are similar to the written
statement of defendant no.6.
Written statement dated 24.2.1989 of Defendant no. 10 (U.P.
Sunni Central Waqf Board) (Suit-1)
18. After impleadment, defendant no. 10, U.P. Sunni Central
Waqf Board also filed a separate written statement dated
24.2.1989. The pleadings are similar as those in the written
statement of defendants no. 1 to 5, and thus, are not being
detailed herein but may be referred as and when occasion arises.
O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 (earlier registered as Regular Suit No.
2 of 1959)
19. This suit was filed on 17.12.1959 by Nirmohi Akhara
through its Mahant Raghunath Das (now substituted by
Jagannath Das) and another in the Court of Civil Judge,
Faizabad. It was registered as R.S. No. 26 of 1959. However,
 26

after transfer to this Court it has been re-registered as O.O.S.

No. 3 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit-3”). Initially,
when it was filed, Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath Das
were plaintiffs. Sri Babu Priya Dutt Ram, Receiver as well as
the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities were impleaded as
defendants no. 1 to 5. Three persons from Muslim community
were impleaded as defendants no. 6 to 8 as representatives of
the Muslim community. Subsequently, however, from time to
time the array of parties has undergone amendments on various
dates due to death etc. Presently plaintiffs are, Nirmohi Akhara
through Mahant Jagannath Das (plaintiff no. 1) and Mahant
Jagannath Das (plaintiff no. 2). The defendants are as follows :
“1. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh, 2. State of Uttar Pradesh, 3.
Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, 4. City Magistrate,
Faizabad, 5. Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, 6. Haji
Mehboob, 7. Haji Abdul, 8. Mohd. Faiq, 9. U.P. Sunni
Central Board of Waqfs through its Secretary, Lucknow,
10. Umesh Chandra Pandey and 11. Mohd. Farook.”
(The defendants no. 9, 10 and 11 were impleaded
on their application allowed by the Court vide orders
dated 23.8.1989, 28.1.1989 and 3.12.1991 respectively).
20. The plaintiffs have sought relief of grant of a decree for
removal of defendant no. 1 from the management and
withdrawal of charge of the temple of Janam Bhumi and to
deliver the same to the plaintiffs through Mahant and
Sarbarahkar Mahant Jagannath Das.
Plaint (Suit-3)
21. The case set out in the plaint dated 17.12.1959 is that
since the days of 'Yore' there exists an ancient Math or Akhara
of “Ramanand Bairagis” called 'Nirmohis' with its seat at
 27

“Ramghat” known as “Nirmohi Akhara”. Plaintiff no. 1,

Nirmohi Akhara is a religious establishment of a public
character and plaintiff no. 2 is the present Head as its Mahant
and Sarbarahkar. The Janam Asthan commonly known as
'Janam Bhumi', the birth place of Lord Ram Chandra at
Ayodhya always belong to plaintiff no. 1 who through its
reigning Mahant and Sarbarahkar has ever since been managing
it and receiving offerings made thereat in the form of money,
sweets, flowers, fruits, other articles and things. The said Asthan
of Janam Bhumi is of ancient antiquity. It is existing since
before the living memory of men and lies within the boundaries
shown by letters “A B C D” in the sketch map appended with
the plaint within which there stands a temple building of Janam
Bhumi marked by letters “E F G K P N M L E”. The building
denoted by letters “E F G H I J K L E” is the main temple of
Janam Asthan wherein the idol of Lord Ram Chandra is
installed with Lakshamanji, Hanumanji and Saligramji. The said
temple has ever been in the possession of plaintiff no. 1 and
none others, but Hindus have ever since been allowed to enter or
worship therein and make offerings in various forms which were
received by plaintiffs through their Pujaris. Nirmohi Akhara is a
“Panchayati Math” of “Ramanandi sect of Vairagies” and as
such is a “religious denomination” following its own religious
faith and pursuit according to its own customs prevalent in
Vairagies sect of Sadhus. The customs of Nirmohi Akhara have
been reduced in writing on 19.03.1949 by a registered deed. The
plaintiff, Nirmohi Akhara owns several temples and manages all
of them through Panch and Mahants of Akhara. The temples and
properties vest in Akhara being a Panchayati Math. It acts on a
democratic pattern. The management and right of management
 28

of temples and Akhara vest absolutely with the Panch. No

Mohammadan could or ever did enter the said temple/building.
Even if it is attempted to prove that any Mohammadan ever
entered it, at least from 1934 none has been allowed to enter or
even attempted to enter the said premises. In 1950, City
Magistrate, Faizabad (defendant no. 4) without any lawful
cause, with the active connivance of defendants no. 2, 3 and 5
and on wrong persuasion of defendants no. 6 to 8 who claimed
themselves to be the representatives of Muslim community,
attached the main temple shown by letters E F G H I J K L E in
the said sketch map with all the articles mentioned in list 'A'
appended with the plaint in a proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. and placed the temple and articles under charge of
defendant no. 1 as Receiver on 05.01.1950. The plaintiffs claim
to have been wrongfully deprived of charge and right to manage
the said temple. The attachment is continuing with the
connivance of all the defendants. There is no likelihood of early
revival of charge since defendant no. 4, in connivance with
other defendants, has refused to handover charge and
management of the temple to the plaintiffs and, therefore, filing
of the suit became inevitable. The plaintiffs are entitled for
delivery of charge and management of the temple from
defendant no. 1. Defendants no. 6 to 8 alleging themselves to be
the representatives of Muslim community are exercising undue
influence on defendants no. 1 to 5 to continue with the charge of
temple and management in the hands of Receiver. They are
being sued in representative capacity on behalf of entire Muslim
community with the permission of the Court. The cause of
action arose on 05.01.1950 when defendant no. 4 appointed
defendant no. 1 as Receiver, and management and charge of the
 29

temple alongwith articles as stated was entrusted to him. A

notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was given to defendants no. 1 to
5. It was delivered on 06.10.1959 and 12.10.1959 and replied by
them through defendant no. 3, intimating their decision to
defend the suit.
22. After demolition of the disputed building on 06.12.1992,
the plaint was amended and now it has been stated that on
06.12.1992 the temples of Nirmohi Akhara were also
demolished by some miscreants who have no religion, caste or
creed. The main temple was demolished on 06.12.1992.
Written statement dated 28.3.1960 of Defendants no. 6 to 8
(Hazi Phenku, Hazi Mohd. Fayaq and Mohd. Achhan Mian)
(Suit-3)
23. On behalf of defendants no. 6 to 8, a written statement
dated 28.03.1960 has been filed. The allegations of the plaint in
general are denied. In defence it is said that Shahanshah-E-Hind
'Babar' got constructed a building known as 'Babari Masjid'
which is the property in dispute over which claim has been
staked by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid building was constructed
by Shahanshah Babar through its Wazir Mir Baqi in 1528 and
made a Waqf-E-Aam for Muslims who got a right to offer
prayers in the said building. For repairs and maintenance of the
said building Shahanshah Babar provided Rs. 60/- per annum as
grant from Royal Treasury which, since then, was being
received continuously. Nawab Oudh not only continued the
grant but also increased the amount to Rs. 302, 3 Anna and 6 Pai
per annum. This grant was continued by British Government. In
1885 Mahant Raghubar Das of Janam Asthan Ayodhya filed a
suit against Secretary of State in the Court of Sub-Judge,
Faizabad wherein he also filed a map of the premises in
question. The existing Masjid was shown very clearly and it was
 30

never disputed. The relief claimed therein was confined to a

“Chabutara”. It is incorrect and without basis that the said
building is a temple of Janam Bhumi. The suit has been filed
falsely and with dishonest intention. The suit of Mahant
Raghubar Das was dismissed on 24.12.1885 and the judgement
was confirmed in appeal. The Sub-Judge in his judgement also
rejected the claim of the said plaintiff in respect of Chabutara.
The said finding was confirmed in appeal. In the aforesaid suit
various Mahants of Ayodhya and general Hindu public were
very much interested. At that time the suit was very sensational
and pursued by Hindu public in general. They had, therefore,
knowledge of the said proceedings. Under U.P. Muslims Waqf
Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “UP Act, 1936”), a Chief
Waqf Commissioner was appointed who made spot inspection
and concluded that the building in question was Babari Masjid.
Since Babar was a Sunni, therefore, it was held to be a “Masjid”
belong to Sunni Waqf Board. A notification in this regard was
also issued which has attained finality. The Muslims have
possession over Babari Masjid since 1528 till date. Even if it is
proved by the plaintiffs or any other Hindu that there existed
any temple before construction of Babari Masjid, though it is
denied, still for the last more than 400 years Babari Masjid
exists on the place, maturing the rights of Muslims at the said
premises by “adverse possession”. The plaintiffs have no right
or possession over the premises in dispute at any point of time.
They have not given any notice under Section 80 C.P.C. to
defendants no. 1 to 5. The existence of idol inside Babari Masjid
is denied. On 16.12.1949 Namaz was offered and till then no
idol existed therein. If subsequently somebody has placed any
idol with a bad intention, it is an offence and contrary to Muslim
 31

religion and rights. Any such action would not confer any right
upon the plaintiffs to claim interest in a Muslim religious place
i.e. Masjid. As per the knowledge of defendants no. 6 to 8,
defendants no. 1 to 5 initiated proceedings under Section 145
Cr.P.C. and passed order appointing a Receiver at the premises
in dispute which was in collusion with some Hindu people. At
Ayodhya there exist a temple of Lord Ram Chandra. Mandir
Janam Asthan is separate from the premises in question. The
placement of idols at Babari Masjid and claim thereon by the
plaintiffs is a collusive act on their part with an intention to get
certain advantage in elections. The site mentioned in the
appended copy is wrongly shown and is incorrect. There does
not exist any “Shankar Chabutara” or “Sita Koop” or “Lomas
Chaura” nor there exists any idol of Hanuman or Varah
Bhagwan. The claim is fictitious and arbitrary having been
made with mala fide. The plaintiffs have not shown as to how
they got interest in the premises in question. One suit has been
filed by one Sri Gopal Singh 'Visharad' and another by Param
Hans Ram Chandra Das claiming their rights on Babari Masjid
and, therefore, they are also liable to be impleaded in this suit.
Building in question is clearly a Masjid. Government and
everyone has always accepted and treated the same as such. The
orders impugned have been issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed. The plaintiffs have not impleaded the real persons
who would have effectively represented the entire Muslim
community. The defendants are not appropriate persons to
represent the entire community. They have been impleaded only
with an intention to harass them.
Replication to written statement of Defendants no. 6 to 8
(Hazi Phenku, Mohd. Fayak and Mohd. Achhan Mina) (Suit-
 32

3)
24. The plaintiffs' replication states that the property in suit is
neither a mosque nor is known as Babari Mosque. It was not
built by Emperor Babar through Mir Baqi nor made a Waqf.
The property in suit is a temple of Janam Bhumi. Janam Asthan
is a different temple unconnected with the temple of Janam
Bhumi. The temple of Janam Asthan is situated to the north of
the temple of Janam Bhumi across the road passing between
Janam Bhumi and Janam Asthan. The plaintiffs are not aware of
the suit said to have been filed by Mahant Raghubar Das. The
Chief Commissioner of Waqf has no jurisdiction to declare the
temple Janam Bhumi as mosque. The declaration is a nullity and
has no effect in law. The plaintiffs were never intimated of any
such proceedings held by the Chief Commissioner regarding
temple Janam Bhumi building and if any proceedings were
conducted separately, they have no effect in law. Notification, if
any, is neither final nor binding on the plaintiffs. The Muslims
were never in possession of the building in suit. The allegations
regarding perfection of their right over the building by adverse
possession is purely fictional and concocted. The plaintiffs have
always been in peaceful possession of the building and there is
no question of expiry of the period of limitation in this regard.
The defendants have no right to take the plea of want of notice
under Section 80 C.P.C. The Muslims and the entire community
including the defendants know that the idols of Deity are
installed in the building in suit i.e. in the temple of Janam
Bhumi and regular Pooja of the idol is performed under the
receivership of the defendant. No prayers were ever offered by
any Muslim in the said building and suggestion otherwise of the
defendants is false. The building is not a mosque. The relief
sought is within the competence and jurisdiction of civil court.
 33

The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated in

respect of Janam Bhumi temple and not of any mosque. It is
admitted that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were
illegal since the plaintiffs have right of management of the said
temple and defendants have no interest in the building in suit.
No question of invasion of rights of defendants, therefore,
arises. It is the plaintiffs who have suffered on account of
appointment of Receiver since it is their right of management
which has been impaired by appointment of Receiver. The old
temple built on the sacred place at Ayodhya, admitted on the
part of defendants is to create a confusion by referring the
temple Janam Asthan and identifying it with the temple of
Janam Bhumi is illegal. The defendants are encouraged by the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. so as to set up their
claim over the land and building in dispute. The description of
property has been correctly made in the plaint. The sketch map
is absolutely correct. The plaintiffs are in possession and
management of the temple Janam Bhumi since living memory
of men and it belongs to them who are managing it through its
Mahant. Non acknowledgement by the Government of the
temple Janam Bhumi is simply preposterous and collusive. The
plaintiffs are in possession from time immemorial. The evidence
of construction of temple by plaintiff no. 1 through Mahant
Sarbarahkar, may not be traced due to lapse of immemorial age
and for want of written record. The plaintiffs have acquired title
by open and adverse possession for a period, larger than living
memory of men.
Additional written statement dated 24.8.1995 of Defendant
no. 9 (U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs) (Suit-3)
25. Defendant no. 9 has filed an additional written statement
dated 24.8.1995 disputing the assertions of amended plaint as
 34

contained in paragraphs 4-A, 4-B, 4-6 XI and XII and 10. It is

said that since the plaint is not with respect to Chabutara, its
demolition does not give any cause of action to the plaintiffs.
Written statement dated 21.10.1991 of Defendant no. 10
(Umesh Chandra Pandey) (Suit-3)
26. In the written statement dated 21.10.1991 filed by Umesh
Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 10, it is said that Janam Asthan
is a holy place of worship and belong to Deity of Bhagwan Shri
Ram Lala Virajman. Neither it ever belong to nor could have
belonged to plaintiff no. 1 and assertion of managing it at any
point of time is denied. The holy Janam Asthan or Janam Bhumi
is actually a very old temple while the Akhara of plaintiffs owes
its existence for about 200 years. The correctness of sketch map
and boundaries of the temple are not disputed. However, it is
said that the main presiding Deity of the temple is Bhagwan Shri
Ram, although there are several other idols of other deities
termed as “Ram Darbar” and are worshipped. Besides, there are
other symbols such as, “Charan”, “Sita Rasoi” etc. through
whereof the Deity of Bhagwan Shri Ram is worshipped. Shri
Ramjanambhumi is in addition to the Asthan of Shri
Ramjanambhumi which by itself is a Deity and worshipped as
such. A Hindu temple is deemed to be possessed and owned by
a Deity. The principal Deity of Shri Ramjanambhumi is
Bhagwan Shri Ram. Any offering must have been received by
the Manager of the same from time to time. It appears that in the
first war of independence in 1857 AD, the Britishers, to divide
Hindus and Muslims, acted mala fide and divided the said
Asthan creating an inner enclosure, describing the boundary
within the inner enclosure as a mosque. No Muslim who is a
true Muslim would ever visit such a place for offering Namaz
since it is prohibited by Shariyat. Even Aurangzeb issued a
 35

mandate known as Fatwa-E-Alamgiri, prohibiting offering of

Namaz by Muslims at such places. Moreso, the “Kasauti pillars”
and the carvings of Gods and Goddesses clearly show that this
place could not be used by a true Muslim for offering his prayer
thereat. The place was wrongly alleged as mosque. It is land-
locked by Hindu temples where the worship of Deities was
going on. Entry to this inner enclosure was also prohibited. The
Britishers tried to set up the descendants of Mir Baqi, a Shiya
Muslim, as Mutwalli, but they denied the Taulkat and never
looked after the disputed place in any capacity. The building
was attached and Receiver was appointed by order dated
29.12.1949 by the Court of Additional City Magistrate,
Faizabad in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Since the
proceedings were initiated at the behest of Muslims represented
by defendants no. 6 to 8 who have died, no cause of action
survives and the suit stands abated. The suit is barred by time.
The plaintiffs did not file any revision against the order of
attachment and appointment of Receiver in proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. No individual Muslim came to contest the
suit as representative of Muslim community. Defendants no. 6
to 8 are Sunnis and cannot represent Shiya community of
Mohammadans and their representative capacity for Muslims is
also denied. The permission granted to defendants no. 6 to 8 to
represent all Muslims in representative capacity is bad. The suit
is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder and barred by time. The
suit i.e. regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 is already pending involving
similar issues wherein the plaintiffs are also parties and they can
get their relief in the said suit.
Replication dated 8.11.1991 to written statement of Defendant
no. 10 (Umesh Chandra Pandey) (Suit-3)
27. The replication dated 8.11.1991 states that defendant no.
 36

10 has been used as a tool and lever by certain group of persons

to defeat the claim of plaintiffs. Giving the history of the origin
of “Nirmohi Akhara” it is said that its origin is more than 500
years ago. The entire hierarchy of persons has been mentioned.
There was a great religious preceptor Shankaracharya at the end
of 7th Century AC who established for the first time “Hindu
Maths” in four corners of India i.e. Goverdhan Math at Puri,
Jyotir Math at Badrinath, Saroda Math at Dwarka and Sringeri
Math at Tungabhadra. The said practice was followed by other
religious teachers and first in time was “Shri Ramanujacharya”
followed by “Shri Ramanand”. Shri Ramanand founded a sect
of Vaishnavas known as “Ramats” which contains a large
element of aesthetic population found in Banaras and Ayodhya.
Ramanand established several Maths. Ramanadi Maths consist
only of celibates. They obey no caste rules and admit even
Sudras in their brotherhood. The “Ramats” worship one God in
the form of 'Rama' and they call themselves “Dass” (servants of
Lord). About 500 years ago, Shri Swami Brijnand Ji and Sri
Balanand Ji, of Ramanandi Sect of Vairagies, established three
Annis known as (1) Nirmohi, (2) Digamber and (3) Nirwani for
protection and improvement of “Chatuha Rama Nandi
Sampradaya”. This comprised of seven Akharas namely, (1) Sri
Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara, (2) Sri Panch Ramanandi
Nirwani Akhara, (3) Sri Panch Ramanandi Digambari Akhara,
(4) Sri Panch Ramanandi Santoshi Akhara, (5) Sri Panch
Ramanandi Khaki Akhara, (6) Sri Panch Ramanandi Niralambi
Akhara and (7) Sri Panch Ramanandi Maha Nirwani Akhara.
28. The Akharas as “Panchayati Maths” act on democratic
pattern and real power vests in Panch. The appointment of
Mahant is through election by Panchayat. The Mahant is the
 37

formal head of institution. The Nirmohi Akhara, being a

Panchayati Math, own several temples and one of such is Ram
Janam Asthan i.e. birth place of Lord Rama. Plot No. 163 of
first regular settlement of 1861 has been a very big plot having 5
Bighas and 19 Biswas of land but when in the year 1895,
amended map was prepared, a road bifurcated Janam Asthan.
Sita Rasoi of Gudar Das Ka Asthan was separated. “Ram Janam
Asthan” now known as “Ramjanambhumi” lies towards south of
the road whereas “Janam Asthan of Gudar Dass” lies towards
north side leading from Hanuman Garhi to Janam Bhumi Road
shown in the last settlement of 1937 AD by Kistwar No. 159
and 160 (Appendix-1A, B to this judgment). At the time of
attachment of main building, outer enclosure comprised of Ram
Chabutara where Deity of Bhagwan Ram Lala Ji and
Shatrughan Ji in a cage (Gufa) situate alongwith Sri Hanuman
Ji. The said outer enclosure had Panchmukhi Shanker Ji, Ganesh
Ji etc., with Chhatti Pujan Asthan where Holy Footprints of
Lord Ram (Charo Bhaiya) exist which are perennial source of
worship by followers of brotherhood of Rama Nandi Vairagies.
This outer enclosure was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara as
depicted by the Fard of 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings itself prior to
attachment in February 1982. This attachment order was passed
by Shree Pati, the then City Magistrate, Faizabad in the case
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Against final order of attachment
dated 06.03.1982, Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1982, Dharam
Das Chela Abhiram Das Vs. Sri Panch Rama Nandi Akhara was
preferred which was dismissed on 13.05.1983 by IV Additional
Sessions Judge, Faizabad. “Nirmohi Akhara” is a religious
denomination. It had been maintaining and managing the
disputed temple since long. Baba Baldeo Das was Pujari. His
 38

disciple Bhaskar Das now Up-Sarpanch and general agent of

Nirmohi Akhara was there with him discharging the duties of
Pujari. According to customs of Nirmohi Akhara, 5 Sadhus, 3
Pujaries, 2 cooks and one Panch always used to live at Shri
Ramjanambhumi. Building certificate for outer enclosure has
always been made in the name of Mahant Raghunath Das of
Akhara. Idol of Lord Ram Chandra installed in main temple
belong to Panchayati Math of Nirmohi Akhara. The big Deity of
Lord Ram Chandra installed therein is Achal Deity. A small
Ram Lala Ji, as called, which according to custom prevalent in
Vairagi sect of Sathus in Ayodhya, is used to discharge certain
outside ceremonies like Sharad Puno etc. Besides, there are six
Shaligram Bhagwan. There are two Singhasans (Thrones) of
Silver, one idol of Hanuman Ji and other Parshads as detailed in
para 3 of the plaint. The Panch of Nirmohi Akhara and Nirwani
Akhara fought together against many evil forces to save
Hanuman Garhi and Ramjanambhumi. Hanuman Garhi belong
to Panch Rama Nandi Nirwani Akhara. Similarly Shri
Ramjanambhumi belong to Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara
and same custom/riwaz/Parampara is applicable to Hanuman
Garhi used to be observed for Darshan by Hindu public at large
and by Nirmohi Akhara prior to attachment. In the year 1967
outer enclosure was released by Court of City Magistrate,
Faizabad in favour of Ram Lakhan Das, a Panch of Nirmohi
Akhara. Again in 1973, Regular Suit No. 9 of 1973 was filed in
the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad and several disputes inter se
were raised which continued upto Regular Suit No. 39 of 1982.
The judicial record and its decision are in favour of Nirmohi
Akhara proving its title and possession. Since 1982 the outer
enclosure is in possession of the Receiver appointed by the
 39

Court in Regular Suit No. 39 of 1982 pending in the court of

Civil Judge, Faizabad. The Nirmohi Akhara vehemently fought
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and has filed affidavits
in its favour. Defendant no. 10 has been utilised by Vishwa
Hindu Parishad only as a lever for some ulterior motive.
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (earlier registered as Regular Suit No. 12
of 1961)
29. The aforesaid suit was initially registered as regular Suit
No. 12 of 1961 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad and after
transfer to this Court has been re-registered as OOS No. 4 of
1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit-4").
30. It was filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P.,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Sunni Board") through
Shah Ghyas Alam, it's Secretary and nine others, namely, Molvi
Mohammad Qasim, Haji Mohammad Ehtaram Ali, Molvi
Mohammad Faiq, Molvi Mohammad Naseer, Shahabuddin,
Mohd. Hashim, Vakiluddin, Mahmud Ahmad and Zahoor
Ahmad who were impleaded as plaintiffs no. 2 to 10
respectively. During the pendency of this suit, Haji Mohammad
Ehtaram Ali, Molvi Mohammad Faiq and Molvi Mohammad
Naseer died and not substituted. Therefore, their names have
been struck off/deleted under the orders of this Court. Plaintiff
no. 2, Molvi Mohammad Qasim, plaintiff no. 6, Shahabuddin,
plaintiff no. 8, Vakiluddin and plaintiff no. 10, Zahoor Ahmad
have also died and in their place Mohd. Siddiq, Ziauddin,
Maulana Mahfoozurahman and Farooq Ahmad have been
impleaded as plaintiffs no. 2/1, 6/1, 8/1 and 10/1 respectively.
Accordingly, besides Sunni Central Waqfs Board, presently,
there are only six more plaintiffs.
31. Similarly, 10 defendants were impleaded initially but
 40

thereafter many have been added, substituted and deleted.

Presently the defendants in the suit are as under:
2. Mahant Suresh Das, 3. Nirmohi Akhara, 5. The State of
Uttar Pradesh, 6. The Collector, Faizabad, 7. The City
Magistrate, Faizabad, 8. The Superintendent of Police,
Faizabad, 9. B. Priya Dutt, 10. President, All India Hindu
Maha Sabha, 11. President, Maha Pradeshik Sabha, 12.
President, All India Sanatan Dharm Sabha, 13/11. Dharam
Das, 14. Pundrik Misra, 17. Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, 18.
Mahant Ganga Das, 19. Shri Swami Govindacharya, 20.
Madan Mohan Gupta and 22. Umesh Chandra Pandey. (in
all 17 defendants)
32. The relief sought is :
“(a) A declaration to the effect that the property
indicated by letters A B C D in the sketch map attached to
the plaint is public mosque commonly known as 'Babari
Masjid' and that the land adjoining the mosque shown in
the sketch map by letters E F G H is a public Muslim grave
yard as specified in para 2 of the plaint may be decreed.
(b) That in case in the opinion of the Court delivery
of possession is deemed to be the proper remedy, 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 be passed in plaintiff's favour, against the
defendants.
(bb) That the statutory Receiver be commanded to
hand over the property in dispute described in the Schedule
'A' of the Plaint by removing the unauthorised structures
erected thereon.
 41

(c) Costs of the Suit be decreed in favour of the

plaintiffs.
(d) Any other or further relief which the Hon'ble
Court considers proper may be granted.”
Plaint (Suit-4)
33. The case of the plaintiffs is that at Ayodhya, Pargana
Haveli Oudh there exists an ancient historic mosque commonly
known as 'Babari Masjid' built by Emperor Babar about 433
years ago, after his conquest of India, and occupation of the
territories including Ayodhya town. The said mosque was for
the use of Muslims in general as a place of worship and
performance of religious ceremonies. In the sketch map attached
alongwith the plaint the construction of the mosque has been
shown by letters A, B, C and D and the land adjoining the
mosque in the east, west, north and south is the ancient
graveyard of Muslims who lost their lives in the battle between
Emperor Babar and the rulers of Ayodhya. The mosque and
graveyard vest in the Almighty. The mosque since the time of
its construction has been in use of Muslims for offering prayers,
and, graveyard is used as such. It is situated in Mohalla "Kot
Ram Chander" also known as "Ram Kot", Town Ayodhya.
Khasra numbers of the mosque and graveyard are shown in
Schedule-A appended to the plaint i.e. 238, 579-588, 590, 593,
595, 603, 606, 607, 610, 619, 620, 621 and 628, Ram Kot
Ayodhya (Nazool Estate, District Faizabad). A cash grant used
to be received from the Royal Treasury for maintenance of the
mosque and other connected expenses. The grant was continued
by the Emperors of Delhi and thereafter by Nawab Saadat Ali
Khan and Nawab Wazir of Oudh. After annexation of Oudh,
British Government also continued it till 1864 and thereafter the
 42

cash Nankar grant was substituted by granting revenue free land

in Village Sholapur and Bahoranpur (situate in the vicinity of
Ayodhya). In the mosque, but outside the main building thereof,
a Chabutara, size 17 feet/21 feet, existed. There was a small
wooden structure in the form of a tent. In 1885 one Mahant
Raghubar Dass instituted a suit (OS No. 61/280 of 1885)
alleging himself to be the Mahant of Janam Asthan. The said
suit was filed against the Secretary of State for India in Council
and Mohammad Asghar, Mutawalli of Babari Masjid for
permission to build a temple on the Chabutara size, 17"/21".
The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Faizabad
and appeal being Civil Appeal No. 27/1885 was also dismissed
by the District Judge. In the aforesaid suit a sketch map was
filed alongwith the plaint wherein the entire building with the
exception of Chabutara 17"/21" was admitted to be a mosque
and was shown as such. The cause of action for the said suit
arose due to refusal to grant permission to Mahant Raghubar
Dass, Mahant of Janam Asthan for construction of a temple by
Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad on the representation of some
Muslims on the ground that a temple could not be permitted to
be built on a land adjoining the mosque i.e. Babari Masjid. The
aforesaid suit was filed by Mahant Raghubar Dass on behalf of
himself, Janam Asthan and the whole body of persons interested
in Janam Asthan impleading Mohammad Asghar, Mutawalli of
Babari Masjid, as defendant. The suit was contested by the
aforesaid Mutawalli stating that the land on which temple is
sought to be built is neither the property of Mahant nor Janam
Asthan but the said land lies within the Ahata of Babari Masjid
and is property of Muslims. The issues directly and substantially
in the aforesaid suit were about the existence of Babari Masjid
 43

and the rights of Hindus to construct temple on land adjoining

Masjid. The existence of mosque was admitted by the said
plaintiff. The suit was dismissed, besides others, on the ground
of public policy also. The decision of the aforesaid suit operate
as "resjudicata" against the present suit for the reason that the
construction was admitted to be a mosque therein. It was a
sensational case wherein the entire Hindu Public and more
specially all Mahants of Ayodhya and other respectable Hindus
of Faizabad were deeply interested. In 1934 there was a
communal riot in Ayodhya when a portion of Babari Masjid
was damaged. However, it was rebuilt at the cost of
Government through a Muslim Thekedar. In 1936, U.P. Act
1936 was enacted. The Commissioner of Waqfs made an
inquiry and held that Babari Masjid was built by Emperor Babar
who was a Sunni Mohammadan and that the mosque was a
public Waqf. The report was forwarded by the State
Government to the Sunni Waqfs Board who published the same
in the official gazette dated 26.02.1944. The said report was not
challenged by any person on the ground that it was not a
Muslim Waqf but a Hindu Temple. The Muslims have been in
peaceful possession of the aforesaid mosque and used to recite
prayer therein till 23.12.1949 when a large crowd of Hindus
with a mischievous intention of destruction and damage, defiled
the mosque and to insult Muslim religion entered and desecrated
it by placing idols inside the mosque. The aforesaid conduct of
Hindus amount to an offence punishable under Section 147, 295
and 448 I.P.C. Even if it is assumed that at one point of time,
there existed a Hindu Temple as alleged by defendant-
representatives of Hindus, at the site where Emperor Babar built
the mosque about 433 years ago, the Muslims by virtue of their
 44

long, exclusive and continued possession, beginning from the

time the mosque was constructed and continuing up to the time
when some mischievous persons entered the mosque, have
perfected their title by "adverse possession". The right, title or
interest of the temple and of Hindu public, if any, extinguished.
The incident that occurred on 23.12.1949 was reported by the
Constable on duty (Mata Prasad) at Police Station, Ayodhya and
the Sub-Inspector registered a report and proceeded to make
inquiry on the spot. The City Magistrate, Faizabad cum
Ayodhya initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. By
order dated 29.12.1949 he attached the mosque premises and
handed over possession to Sri Priya Dutt Ram, defendant no. 9
as Receiver who continued to be in possession. The Muslims
thus are deprived of their legal and constitutional rights of
offering prayers in the said mosque. The action of City
Magistrate, Faizabad is illegal, fraught with injustice to the
plaintiff and has the effect of depriving large Muslim citizens in
India from exercising their legal right guaranteed under the
Constitution. On 16.01.1950 defendant no. 1 filed Regular Suit
No. 2 of 1950 (Suit-1) in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad in
his personal capacity for declaration and injunction on false
allegation that the building in suit was a temple and deities are
installed in it. After sometime defendant no. 2 also filed Suit
No. 25 of 1950 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad against the
same set of defendants with identical relief. The only difference
was that first suit was filed without notice under Section 80
C.P.C. to the State Government and its officers but the second
suit was filed after giving the aforesaid notice. Another Suit No.
26 of 1959 (Suit-3) was filed by Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant
Raghunath Dass, defendants no. 3 and 4 against defendants no.
 45

5 to 9 and certain Muslim persons under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.

seeking removal of defendant no. 9 from the management of
building which the Hindu public call temple of Janam Asthan
and for delivery of possession to defendant no. 4 i.e., Mahant
Raghunath Dass. On the application of plaintiff in Suit No. 2 of
1950 (Suit-1) a temporary injunction was graned restraining
defendants of that suit from removing idols from the mosque in
dispute and from interfering in Pooja etc. of Hindus as a result
whereof the learned Civil Judge while permitting Hindus to
perform their religious rights namely, Pooja of the idols placed
by them in the mosque, has denied to the Muslims even entry in
the mosque. The Muslims thereby are deprived of their just and
legal rights and are disallowed even entry to the mosque
constructed about 433 years back, declared to be a public Waqf
and used as such by generations of Muslims. The order of
injunction thus has caused injustice and this has necessitated the
filing a suit by Muslim public under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
against the Hindu public so that the decision may be binding on
the Hindu community at large. The suit is being filed by
plaintiffs in representative capacity for the benefit of the entire
Muslim community alongwith an application for necessary
permission under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. The defendants are
shown as representing the entire Hindu community and for that
purpose also an application seeking permission under Order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. has been filed alongwith the plaint. The building
in suit claimed by plaintiffs as Muslim Waqf is in the possession
of the Receiver holding for the real owner and is liable to be
released in favour of the plaintiffs in case their suit succeeds,
but, if for any reason, the Court finds it necessary that there
ought to be a suit for possession, the plaintiffs, in the
 46

alternative, pray for delivery of possession. A notice under

Section 80 C.P.C. sent to defendants no. 5 to 9 by registered
post on 19.06.1961, was delivered to defendants no. 5 to 8 on
20.06.1961. Defendant no. 9 has refused to take delivery of
notice on 23.06.1961. The suit has been filed after expiry of 2
months period of notice.
34. During the pendency of Suit-4, on 06.12.1992, the
building in dispute was demolished. Thereafter by way of an
amendment the plaintiffs got inserted paragraphs 21-A to 21-C
pleading the following facts.
35. On 06.12.1992, in violation of interim orders dated
03.02.1986, 14.08.1989 and 07.11.1989 of this Court, and the
order dated 15.11.1991 of the Apex Court, Babari Masjid in
question was demolished, idols wrongly placed in the night of
22-23.12.1949 were removed, and thereafter an illegal structure
was created on 07.12.1992. These acts of demolition and
destruction were carried out by the miscreants and criminals
with the connivance of the then State Government of Bhartiya
Janta Party and in defiance of various Court's order. The
plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled for restoration of building as it
existed on 05.12.1992. Under the Muslim Law, a mosque is a
place where prayers are offered publicly as a matter of right. It
neither requires any structure nor any particular mode of
structure is provided. Even on an open place prayers may be
offered and it would be a mosque. Thus despite demolition of
mosque building by miscreants, the land over which building
stood is still a mosque and Muslims are entitled to offer prayers
thereon. On 07.01.1993, vide Ordinance No. 8 of 1993 (replaced
by Central Act No. 33 of 1993) the land of the mosque and the
entire land appurtenant thereto including the land in suit was
 47

acquired by the Central Government. However, a writ petition

challenging vires of the aforesaid Statute was filed. The Hon'ble
Apex Court vide judgement dated 24.10.1994 has held Union of
India to be a statutory Receiver of the land covered by the said
mosque and has further provided that the land appurtenant and
adjacent shall be provided for enjoyment of the crucial area of
the mosque portion as per requirement in accordance with the
judgement of the suits. The Commissioner, Faizabad is
presently working as Authorised Person on behalf of the
Government. Valuation of the suit is 22,000/-, whereon Court
fees has been paid. The cause of action arose on 23.12.1949 at
Ayodhya, District Faizabad when the Hindus unlawfully entered
and desecrated the mosque by placing idols causing obstruction
and interference with the rights of Muslims in general of
offering prayers. They are also causing obstruction to the
Muslims going to the graveyard and recite Fatiha to the dead
persons buried thereat. The aforesaid injury is continuing. It
arose against the defendants no. 5 to 9 on 29.12.1949 on which
date the defendant no. 7 attached the mosque in suit and handed
over possession to defendant no. 9 (Receiver) who assumed
charge on 05.01.1950. The State Government and its official
defendants no. 6 to 8 have failed in their duty to prosecute
offenders and safeguard the interest of Muslims.
Written statement dated 12.3.1962 of Defendant no. 1 (Gopal
Singh Viscera) (Suit-4)
36. Defendant no. 1 in his written statement dated 12.3.1962
while generally denying the averments of the plaint, said that no
battle took place between Babar and Ruler of Ayodhya nor any
graveyard or mosque was built as dictated by Babar. He filed
case against a few Muslims and certain Government Officials
for injunction and declaration and defendant no. 2 also filed a
 48

suit. Hindus perform pooja in “Janam Bhumi Temple” and

Muslims are not allowed to go near that temple. They (Muslims)
wrongly and maliciously describe the said building as mosque.
The plaintiffs have no right to treat the defendants as
representing the entire Hindu community, which extends from
Madras to Kashmir and from Dwarika to Calcutta. None of the
defendants represents all the Hindus of India. “Janam Bhumi
Temple” is a public charitable institution and defendant no. 1
contests the suit as well as the previously instituted suit in his
individual capacity. The suit is barred by time. Muslims are not
in possession of the property in dispute since 1934 or even
earlier. The suit deserves to be dismissed. In additional pleas, it
is said that the Muslims were never in possession of the temple
of Ramjanambhumi. In the alternative, if they were in
possession of the so-called Babari mosque, the same ceased to
be since 1934 and since then Hindus are having possession over
the temple which has ripened into statutory adverse possession
since 1934. Prior to 1934, continuous daily pooja in that temple
was performed by Hindus. Muslims have never offered prayer
since 1934 in the temple falsely described as Babari mosque.
The temple in dispute is a public charitable institution and do
not belong to any sect, group, Math or individual or Mahant or
any Akhara and is a public place of worship open to all Hindus.
No individual Hindu or Mahanth can be said to represent the
entire Hindu community so far as the said ancient temple is
concerned. The suit is time barred as no action was taken in time
commencing from the order of the City Magistrate under
Section 145, Cr.P.C. The suit is time barred as the plaintiffs
were never in possession over the temple in dispute since 1934.
Hindus are holding it adversely, to them (plaintiffs) overtly and
 49

to their knowledge. On equitable ground also, the suit deserves

to be rejected since Hindu pooja is going on in the said temple
from the past at least 28 years, i.e., from 1934, and, admittedly
from January, 1950 when the City Magistrate directed defendant
no. 9 to carry on pooja as usual in the said temple. The suit
deserves to be stayed since same issues are being tried in suits
no. 2 of 1950 and 25 of 1950 between the same parties. Suit
under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is bad as no one, representing the
Hindu community, has been made a defendant and is also liable
to be dismissed with special cost since plaintiffs, knowing that
defendants no. 1 to 4 and 9 do not represent the Hindu
community, have impleaded them though only their individual
interest is involved.
Additional written statement dated 31.10.1962 of Defendant
no. 1 (Gopal Singh Visharad) (Suit-4)
37. An additional written statement dated 31.10.1962 has also
been filed by defendant no. 1 stating that U.P. Act, 1936 is ultra
vires of Government of India Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to
as “GOI Act, 1935”) as it does not come under any of the items
of the List-II of Provincial list or List-III. Even on principles of
pith and substances, the aforesaid legislation can not sustain. It
cannot be validated under Section 80 (3) of the former
Government of India Act, 1919 after the repeal of the said Act
by Section 478 of the GOI Act, 1935. Even otherwise, the suit
not being one relating to the administration of Waqf, taking of
accounts, appointment and removal of Mutwallies, putting the
Mutwallies in possession or settlement or modification of any
scheme of management for which powers and duties have been
specified under Section 18(2)(e) of the Act No. XIII of 1936, is
misconceived and not maintainable having been filed on behalf
of plaintiff no. 1, who can perform only such duties and
 50

functions as are permitted under the Act. Section 5(3) of the Act
is hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The above Act
has been repealed by U.P. Act 16 of 1960 vide Section 85(2).
The saving clause in the subsequent enactment only saves the
operation of the repealed Act in regard to any suit or proceeding
pending in any Court or to an appeal or application in revision
against any order that may be passed in suit or proceeding
subject thereto anything done or any action taken in exercise of
powers conferred by or under those Acts unless expressly
required by any provision of later enactment. Since, there is no
saving with respect to decisions under Section 5(3) in proviso to
Section 85(2) of the Act, the finality attached by Section 5(3)
vanished after the repeal of the former enactment. The building
on land in suit lie in the Province of Oudh and subject to Lord
Canning's proclamation, all previous rights became non est.
Since no fresh grant in respect of the property in suit has been
made after proclamation, the plaintiffs or the Muslim
community have no right to sue. The Commissioner of Waqfs
under the Act has limited right of making enquiry about the
number of Waqfs of Shia and Sunni in the District, nature of
Waqfs, gross income from property transferred to the Waqfs, the
revenue, expenses and whether it is deposited under Section 2.
The Commissioner has only to see whether any transaction is
Waqf or not, to which sect the Waqf belongs, whether such
Waqf is or not exempted under the Act. It has to do everything
in accordance with Section 3 (1) of UP Act, 1936. The finality
attached to such order of the Commissioner would not confer
jurisdiction to decide the question of title against non Muslims.
Section 5 (2) of the Act nowhere provides that the Court shall
take judicial notice of the report of the Commissioner of Waqfs
 51

and shall regard them as conclusive evidence that the Waqfs

mentioned in such report are Muslim Waqfs as was done in
Section 10 of the O.E. Act. There is no legal publication of
alleged report and hence, no question of finality arises. The
purpose of publication is to show as to which sect the Waqf
belong. It does not call upon objection or suit by a person not
interested in what is held to be a 'Waqf' or not viz. non Muslims.
Written statement dated 25.1.1963 of Defendant no. 2 (Sri
Paramhans Ram Chander Das) (Suit-4)
38. The written statement dated 25.1.1963 of defendant no. 2
is more or less similar to the written statement and additional
written statement dated 31.10.1962 filed by defendant no. 1
except of certain additions, namely, that the earlier suits were
neither filed in representative capacity nor they represent all
Hindus and, therefore, would not bind the defendants or other
Hindus, who are not party therein. Similarly, the defendants of
the earlier suit neither represent the Muslims nor the Sunnis in
general and the plaintiffs of the suit cannot be legally considered
as claiming through the defendants in that suit. The issue in
question nowhere directly or substantially arose therein and
there is no res judicata or constructive res judicata. The Hindus
are worshipping the land in dispute (site of Janam Bhumi) from
time immemorial and they are entitled to continue worship. It
was not a matter in dispute in earlier case.
Replication dated 11.9.1963 to written statement of
Defendants no. 1 and 2 (Gopal Singh Visharad and
Paramhans Ram Chander Das) (Suit-4)
39. Replication dated 11.9.1963 of the plaintiffs in reply to the
written statements of defendants no. 1 and 2 states that the
Hindu community never held the mosque and Ganje-Shahidan
in their possession nor performed pooja therein since 1934 as
alleged by them. It is also said that the property has not been a
 52

temple as alleged by the defendants and, on the contrary, the

Muslim public has been in possession for the last 450 years
when it was constructed. The property has been placed in
possession of a Receiver appointed by the Court of City
Magistrate-1st Class, Faizabad. It is also denied that the Hindu
public took possession of the property in question in 1934,
holding the same since then, and, has completed title by adverse
possession. The possession of the Muslim community continued
since ever and they have been offering prayer in the mosque as
such. Hindu public in 1934 did some mischief to destroy the
mosque and damage was caused to some extent, which got
repaired by the Government at its own cost and the Hindu
Public was charged with punitive tax. The Hindu public never
came in possession, much less peaceful possession of the
property in suit. The Muslim public as representative of the
Waqf has been in continuous possession of the property in suit
for the last 450 years, i.e., since the time the mosque was
constructed. Even if the Hindu public had any interest
whatsoever in the property in suit before the said period, the
Muslim public representing the Waqf perfected its title to the
property in suit by their long undisturbed open possession
against the interest of Hindu public which amounts to adverse
possession and thus title or interest, if any, of Hindu public has
extinguished.
Written statement dated 22/24.8.1962 of Defendants no. 3 and
4 (Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath Das) (Suit-4)
40. The defendants no. 3 and 4 have filed their separate
written statement dated 22/24.8.1962 through Mahant
Raghunath Dass. While denying generally the allegations made
in the plaint, they have said that there did not exist any mosque
known as Babari Masjid in Ayodhya nor any mosque was built
 53

by Emperor Babar more than 460 years ago, as alleged, nor did
Babar conquest or occupy any territory in India at the time
alleged in the plaint. The story of the mosque as set up in para 1
of the plaint is purely fictitious. The sketch map is entirely false,
imaginary and outcome of plaintiffs' fancy. On the khasra
numbers mentioned in the plaint, no mosque or graveyard exist.
The story of the alleged battle between Babar and previous ruler
of Ayodhya, whose name has not been mentioned in the plaint,
is a pure canard. Neither did any Muslim lost his life in a battle
on the land of the said khasra numbers nor there is any grave or
graveyard of Muslim. No question, therefore, arises of any
mosque or graveyard having been vested or vesting in the
Almighty. The allegations of Muslims with respect to offering
payer or using the land covered by the said Khasra numbers as
graveyard are altogether false and concocted. The real facts are
that the said Khasra numbers pertain to the 'Temple of Janam
Bhumi' and other land appurtenant thereto. Since no mosque
exists, the question of its upkeep and maintenance does not
arise. The existence of mosque is denied as well as that of
Chabutra. The defendants have also denied knowledge of any
suit filed by a person known as Mahant Raghubar Dass styled as
Mahant of Janam Asthan. The Janam Asthan is situated in north
of temple of Janam Bhumi across the road passing between
Janam Bhumi and Janam Asthan. Any map filed by Raghubar
Dass along with the alleged plaint would be false, fictitious and
is not binding on defendants 3 and 4. The existence of alleged
Babari Mosque is denied. The alleged damage, rebuilding or
reconstruction at anybody's cost or through any Thekedar
(contractor) is denied and is fictitious. Even if any communal
riot is proved to have occurred in Ayodhya in 1934, no mosque
 54

whatsoever was damaged. Enactment of UP Act, 1936 is

admitted. Any enquiry or report in pursuance thereto and
publication thereof in the Gazette is denied. It is also said that
even if such enquiry is proved and its report was published, the
same was ex parte, having been made secretly and
surreptitiously, without any intimation or information to the said
defendants and, thus, is not binding on them. Since the
defendants were not aware of any such enquiry report, the
question of challenging the same in a suit would not arise and
absence thereof would not convert a Hindu temple in a Muslim
Mosque. The mosque never existed and, hence, the question of a
Muslim or the Muslim community in peaceful possession
thereof and reciting prayers till 23.12.1949 would not arise. The
building has been wrongly described as 'Babari mosque' since it
has always been the temple of Janam Bhumi with idols of Hindu
Gods installed therein. The allegation regarding placement of
idols inside the mosque is false. No such incident, as stated in
para 12 of the plaint ever took place and if any report was made
by any Constable, the same is mischievous and in connivance of
plaintiffs. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated
by City Magistrate are not disputed but it is said that he passed
an order attaching the temple of Janam Bhumi and placing it
under the custody of defendant no. 9 as Receiver, who still
continues as such and performs pooja at the premises. The
Muslims have no right to offer prayer in the said temple.
41. By amendment of the written statement (allowed by the
Court's order dated 21.8.1995) paragraphs no. 13 A, B and C
have been inserted. It is said that on 7/10 October 1991, the U.P.
Government issued a notification for acquisition of the property
in dispute, the details whereof are as under :
 55

Settlement Plot nos. Area (in acres) Village

159 (Part) 0.3600 Kot Ramchandra,
Pargana Haveli
Awadh, Distt.
Faizabad.
160 (Part) 1.0706 - do -
171 (Part) 0.4375 - do -
172 (Part) 0.9063 - do -
Total 2.7744 Acres
42. On 22.3.1992, the B.J.P. Government in U.P. with the
active connivance of local administration demolished the
temples knows as Sumitra Bhawan etc. Bhagwan Ramlala
Birajman in temple known as Sita Koop carries the Deity of
Bhagwan Ramlala and prayer is being offered from time beyond
the human memory. Bhagwan Ramlala Birajman at Mandir
Loomarsh Chabutra is situated in plot no. 160 and part of plot
no. 159. A big plateaxi known as 'Laxman Thekri' also exists
over the disputed property. According to customs of
Ramanandiya Akhara, Panch of Nirmohi Akhara used to live in
vicinity of “Janam Bhumi Temple” and that is why these Holy
places like Sumitra Bhawan, Sita Koop, Laxman Tekri,
Loomarsh Chabutara which were in existence from time
immemorial, before demolition, were all places of worship and
situate within the disputed property marked by letters “E F G H
I” of the sketch map filed along with the written statement of
defendants no. 3 and 4. The notification of acquisition was
struck down by this Court on 11.12.1992 and, therefore, the act
of demolition by B.J.P. Government was wholly illegal. Before
the judgment on 11.12.1992, the temple of Nirmohi Akhara
along with Chatti Pujan Asthan and Panch's residential place
were demolished on 6.12.1992 by some miscreants having no
religion, caste or creed. The temple Ram Chabutra had a history
 56

of judicial scanning since 1885 and its existence and possession

over temple Ram Chabutra ever since was with Nirmohi
Akhara. No other but Hindus were allowed to enter and worship
there and put offerings in the form of money, sweets, fruits,
flowers etc., which have always been received by Panch of
Nirmohi Akhara. The Muslims are not entitled to exercise any
right in respect of the temple of Janam Bhumi. The defendants,
being not party in the suit referred to in para 15 of the plaint, are
not aware of any such suit. However, it is correct that the
building in the present suit is a temple. Similarly, in respect of
the suit referred to in para 16 of the plaint, the defendants are
not parties and hence not aware of such facts. Suit no. 25 of
1950 has been filed against the entire Muslim community under
Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and not against certain individuals of
Muslim community. The building in question in that suit is, in
fact and in reality, the temple of Janam Bhumi. The defendants
are not aware of the proceedings in Suit No. 2 of 1950 as they
are not party in that suit and are also not aware of any order of
injunction or result thereof. It is denied that the temple of Janam
Bhumi is under attachment and in the custody of Receiver.
Pujaries of the defendants only are allowed to enter the inner
compound of the Temple which is guarded by armed police. The
Muslims have no right to enter the temple. The assertions of
building being a mosque, its construction, declaration as public
waqf and use of it by Muslims as a mosque for prayer, are
denied. The Sunni Board cannot represent the Shia community
and the suit contemplated under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is
misconceived. All the individual plaintiffs are Sunnis and
cannot represent the Shia Community. Babar was a Shia and not
a Sunni. The custody and management of the temple of Janam
 57

Bhumi, at present, by a Receiver is admitted. Knowledge of any

notice served upon other defendants is denied. The existence of
Mosque and graveyard is denied. There is no cause of action.
43. In the additional pleas, the details given in the sketch map
attached to the plaint are denied and the sketch map appended to
the written statement of the said defendants is claimed to be
correct. There exists in Ayodhya since the days of Yore, an
ancient Math or Akhara of Ramanand Vairagis called 'Nirmohis'
with its seat at Ramghat known as “Nirmohi Akhara”, which is
a “religious establishment” of public character. Defendant no. 4
is Mahant and Sarbarahkar thereof. The temple in question is
known as Janam Bhumi, the birth place of Lord Ram Chandra,
situated in Ayodhya. It belong to defendant no. 3 who through
its reigning Mahant and Sarbarahkar has ever since been
managing and receiving offerings made thereat in the form of
money, sweets, flowers and fruits etc. The said Asthan of Janam
Bhumi is of ancient antiquity and is existing since before the
living memory of men and lies within the boundaries shown in
sketch map (Annexure-A to the written statement) within which
stands the temple building of Janam Bhumi. Within temple
premises, there installed are idols of Lord Ram Chandra with
Lakshmanji, Hanumanji and Shaligramji. The said temple has
ever since been in possession of defendant no. 3. None other but
the Hindus have ever since been allowed to enter or worship
therein and make offerings like money, sweets, flowers and
fruits etc. No Mohammedan could or ever did enter the said
temple building. Even if some attempt is proved, no one has
entered at least since 1934. In 1950, the City Magistrate,
Faizabad without any lawful cause, and, with active connivance
of defendants no. 5, 6 and 8, and wrong persuasion by some of
 58

the plaintiffs, attached the main temple of Janam Bhumi in a

proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and placed it with all the
articles mentioned in List B, appended with the plaint under the
charge of defendant no. 9 as Receiver on 5.1.1950. The
defendants have wrongly been deprived of their management
and charge of the said temple for delivery of which they filed
suit no. 25 of 1959 by removing the Receiver. The aforesaid suit
of defendants has been filed against Muslim public under Order
1 Rule 8 C.P.C. The suit is time barred. The Muslim community
or any of its members have never been in possession within
limitation over the property in dispute. Even if the plaintiffs
succeed in showing that any Muslim ever offered prayers in the
building in question or used the same as a Mosque for
sometime, but since 1934 no one has ever entered therein and,
therefore, defendants, being in possession thereof, have matured
their title by adverse possession.
Additional written statement dated 25.01.1963 of Defendants
no. 3 and 4 (Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath Das)
(Suit-4)
44. One additional written statement dated 25.1.1963 has been
filed stating that even if it is proved that any person known as
Mahant Raghubar Dass made any admission or statement or
averment in the said suit, the same is not binding upon the
defendants and would not affect the title and interest of the said
defendants in the temple of Janam Bhumi in any manner. The
building in dispute is certainly a temple, not a mosque and the
decision in respect thereto, in the alleged suit filed by Sri
Raghubar Dass, cannot and would not operate as res judicata nor
the said decision has any evidentiary value in the present suit.
The building is Janam Bhumi and not a mosque. The defendants
are not bound by the proceedings of suit no. 61/280 of 1885.
 59

IInd Additional written statement dated 28/29.11.1963 of

Defendants no. 3 and 4 (Suit-4)
45. Another written statement dated 28/29.11.1963 has been
filed alleging that Babar never built mosque as alleged by the
plaintiffs and Muslims were never in possession of building in
question. The allegation that some mischievous persons entered
the mosque and demolished it, is incorrect. No question of
Muslims perfecting their title by adverse possession or by
extension of right, title or interest in the temple of Hindu public
at all arises as the Muslims were never in possession.
IIIrd Additional written statement W.S. dated 21.08.1995 of
Defendant No. 3 (Suit-4)
46. Additional written statement dated 21.8.1995 filed on
behalf of defendant no. 3 says that plaintiffs were not in
possession of property in dispute either on the inner side or the
outer side. The narration of Receiver's possession is only with
respect to inner disputed site, i.e., main temple bound by letters
“B, B1, B2, B3, D2, D1” and letters “D, C, B” shown in
Annexure 'A' attached to the written statement. The outer part of
the disputed site comprised of Shri Ram Chabutara temple,
Chhatti Pujan Sthal, Panch Mukhi, Shanker Ganesh Ji Kirtan
Mandap, Bhandar, House of Panch of Nirmohi Akhara, all
belong to Nirmohi Akhara and have ever been in the possession
of Nirmohi Akhara through Panch from before the human
memory, and even on the date of attachment, when order dated
29.12.1949 was passed. The real facts regarding Shri Ram
Chabutara temple, Chhatti Pujan etc. have been concealed and
purposely not adverted in para-21 A of the amended plaint. The
facts in this regard are that the Sub Judge, Faizabad, held that
Charan (feet) is embossed on the Chabutara which is being
worshipped, whereover Idol of Thakurji is installed, which is in
 60

possession of defendant no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara. The District

Judge, held that it is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have
been built on a land specially held sacred by Hindus. Regular
Suit No. 256 of 1922 was contested between Mahant Narottam
Das and Mahant Ram Swaroop Das with regard to realising
dues from hawkers in the area belong to the parties, the
statement made by counsel on behalf of Mahant Narottam Das
was as under :
“The land marked red in the map was all along parti
land till the defendant made the constructions in dispute.
The land belongs to the Nazul and the plaintiff as Mahant
of the Janam Asthan and his predecessor have all along
been in possession and has basis of his title on possession.
No lease from Nazul has been taken. They have been
holding the land under an Iqrarnama from the Shahi times.
There has been no settlement decree.”
47. The defendant's pleader in suit of 1922 admitted the said
averments and said that the land never belong to Nazul
Department. In suit no. 95 of 1941 between Mahant Nirmohi
Akhara, namely Ram Charan Das and Raghunath Das, a
commission report was prepared wherein at item no.-2
description of temple Ramjanambhumi belong to Nirmohi
Akhara was specifically mentioned. At Item no. 3, name of Sita
Koop belong to Nirmohi Akhara was also mentioned. The main
temple of Shri Ramjanambhumi has always been surrounded by
the Holy and pious places like Sumitra Bhawan temple, Sita
Koop temple etc. and Holy water has always inspired religious
faith. Muslims had no way to access the inner structure of suit
property since long back. The temple of Shri Ram Chabutara,
Chhatti Pujan, Gufa temple of Chabutara shown in the map, in
 61

the outer part of disputed site, with main structure were

demolished by miscreants and it is only defendant no. 3, who is
entitled to get it restructured as it existed on 5.12.1992 and is
also entitled to restore other pious places of temple of defendant
no. 3, which were demolished on 22.3.1992 by U.P.
Government. Denying para 21-B of the amended plaint, it is
alleged that full description of the outer courtyard has not been
given by the plaintiff purposely. “Nirmohi Akhara” is a
Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi sect of Vairagies and, as such,
is a religious denomination following its own religious faith and
pursuit according to its own customs prevalent in Vairagies sect
of Sadhus. The customs of Nirmohi Akhara have been reduced
in writing on 19.3.1949 by a registered deed. The Akhara owns
several temples and manages them through Panch and Mahant
of Akahra. The whole property vests in Akhara. On 23.2.1992,
the State of U.P. illegally demolished various temples including
Sumitra Bhawan Temple, Lomash Chabutara temple and Sita
Koop temple surrounded on eastern and southern places to main
Ramjanambhumi Temple. Shri Ram Chabutara temple belong to
Nirmohi Akhara who filed contempt petition in High Court. On
6.12.1992, the outer portion which included Chabutara Ram
temple, Chhatti Pujan, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar Grih of Nirmohi
Akhara were also demolished along with main temple.
Replication dated 11.09.1963 to written statement of
Defendants no. 3 and 4 (Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant
Raghunath Das) (Suit-4)
48. Replication dated 11.9.1963 to the written statement of
defendants no. 3 and 4 has been filed by plaintiffs reiterating
that the map attached to the plaint is correct; property in suit is
not a temple and has never been in possession of the defendants
and the Muslim public have always been offering prayers and
 62

visiting the mosque and Ganje-Shahidan which is the property

in suit for the last 450 years, when the mosque was built.
Attachment of the mosque under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is
admitted and appointment Sri Priya Dutt Ram as Receiver is
also not disputed. It is said that he still continues as the
Receiver. The defendants were never in possession or in-charge
of the property in suit. The matter pending before the Additional
Civil Judge, Faizabad has already been transferred to the High
Court. The plaintiffs and Muslims were in possession of the
property in question for the last 450 years. In 1934, the Hindu
public and others, out of some mischief, attempted to destroy
the mosque at places which was repaired by the Government on
its own expenses and Hindu public was penalized by punitive
tax. The Muslims remained in possession till December 1949
when Hindu public forcibly entered the mosque by breaking
open the lock of the mosque and desecrated the mosque by
placing idols inside therein. Pursuant thereto, proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn resulting in appointment of a
Receiver. The interest, if any, of Hindus in the property in suit
prior to last 450 years has extinguished since Muslim public is
in possession for the last 450 years as representative of waqf and
has perfected title to the property in suit by virtue of adverse
possession thereof.
Application dated 21.4.1962/28.5.1962 of Defendants no. 5 to
8 (State of Uttar Pradesh, Collector, Faizabad, City
Magistrate, Faizabad and Superintendent of Police,
Faizabad) (Suit-4)
49. On behalf of defendants no. 5 to 8, an application dated
21.4.1962/28.5.1962 has been filed stating that they are all State
officials and State Government is not interested in the property
in dispute and as such, they do not propose to contest the Suit.
The State officials had taken a bonafide action in respect of the
 63

property in dispute and in due discharge of their official duty.

Therefore, they be exempted from the cost of the suit.
Written statement dated 27/28.7.1962 of Defendant no. 9
(Priya Dutt Ram, Receiver) (Suit-4)
50. On behalf of the defendant no. 9, i.e., the Receiver, a
written statement dated 27/28.7.1962 has been filed wherein he
has admitted the factum about his appointment as Receiver and
said that the tent shaped structure as alleged in para 5 perhaps
refers to small temple with idols installed belong to Nirmohi
Akhara which stands outside the walls of the building in dispute
and its existence is admitted.
Written statement dated 16.2.1990 of Defendant no. 10
(President, All India Hindu Maha Sabha) (Suit-4)
51. Defendant no. 10 has filed written statement dated
16.2.1990 wherein general contents of plaint are denied stating
that U.P. Act, 1936 was an atrocity committed by the British
Rulers and after regaining independence, when two nations
theory was accepted, the part of India, now known as 'Bharat' is
Hindu nation in which no such Act is ever acceptable unless
adopted by a lawfully constituted Government of Union of
India. After independence, all the old Hindu laws are revived
and Country is to be ruled totally according to Hindu laws and
canons and Hindu jurisprudence. The question of alleged legal
constitutional right of plaintiffs does not arise.
52. In the additional pleas, it is said that the plaintiffs were
never in possession of the property in dispute nor had any right
to take possession thereof or make any construction thereon
under the law of the Country. The property in dispute has been
throughout in uninterrupted possession of Hindu Community as
a whole and in the ownership of Lord Shri Ram. The plaintiffs
have no concern with the property in dispute. They have no
 64

locus standi to file the suit. It is bad for non joinder of necessary
parties and barred by limitation. Suit is undervalued and no
proper Court fee has been paid for the reliefs claimed.
Community of Hindus is being harassed by the plaintiffs for no
fault. The dispute can be settled by the Union of India
represented by a lawfully constituted Government only by
enacting a law and is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the
Court. The President of India promulgated Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid (Acquisition of Area) Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance
No. 9 of 1990) and the consequences followed are:
i. That the First Ordinance was implemented fully.
ii. That the land in question vested in the Government
and the same was freed and discharged from any
trust obligation, mortgage, charge, lien and all other
encumbrances affecting them.
iii. That any order of attachment, injunction, decree or
any order of court restricting the use of such
property in any manner and also the order
appointing the receiver in respect of the whole or
any part of such property were withdrawn.
iv. That with the commencement of the First
Ordinance, the pending suits, appeals or any other
proceedings of whatever nature in relation to the
property in question pending before any Court stood
abated.
v. That the Central Government took the management
of the property in question and also appointed
authorised person who took charge of the property
in question under Section 7 of the First Ordinance.
vi. That the Commissioner of Faizabad Division was
 65

appointed as authorised person to take possession of

all the properties in question under Section 7 of the
First Ordinance as also the entire management from
the Receiver and in consequence of that, the
possession as well as the management of the
property in question was taken over by and on
behalf of the authorised person.
53. However, subsequently the said Ordinance was withdrawn
under pressure of certain fundamentalists and the issues kept
alive so as to utilise them as a weapon in the election, by a
second Ordinance, i.e., Ram Janam Bhumi-Babri Masjid
(Acquisition of Area) Withdrawal Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance
No. 10 of 1990). Thereafter, property was sought to be restored
though it could not have been restored once it stood transferred
to the Government. Once the property vests in the Government,
it cannot be re-transferred to original owner or owners
specifically when the owners have not been named in the
Ordinance. The Court neither can pass a judicial order restoring
the suits and the proceedings which have abated as a
consequence of acquisition of the property in dispute nor can
revive the interim orders passed earlier by the Court. The
Parliament cannot revive a matter once abated and, therefore,
the President also could not have issued an Ordinance exercising
co-extensive power with the Parliament since the power to issue
an Ordinance is legislative. The revival of the proceedings etc.
is illegal. The Ordinance issued by the President is an example
of misuse of power. The second Ordinance hits the basic
structure of the Constitution. The first Ordinance has been
repealed by the second Ordinance which has been withdrawn.
There is a difference between repeal and withdrawal. The suit
 66

filed by the Sunni Board having already been abated, cannot be

revived by operation of law. The suit is not maintainable as
Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 14, Religious Endowments Act
have not been complied with. The plaint has not been verified
by person of Waqf Board and has been verified by plaintiff no. 4
without any sanction, authority or power from the Waqf Board.
Under Section 64 of the Waqf Act, only Waqf Board can file a
suit. The suit has not been filed by Waqf Board as the same has
not been verified by any authorised person of the Waqf Board.
Waqf Board cannot file suit with private persons nor can it file
suit against the State being an instrumentality of the State. No
State authority can file suit against any particular community in
respect of communal activities. Waqf Board is not a person
within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. and, therefore,
cannot file the suit. It is time barred. No specific prayer has been
made.
Replication dated 18.11.1991 to written statement of
Defendant no. 10 (President, All India Hindu Maha Sabha)
(Suit-4)
54. The plaintiff has filed replication dated 18.11.1991 to the
written statement of defendant no. 10 stating that the land in
dispute including the mosque could not have been acquired. The
property never stood transferred to the State or its authorities.
The property in question, in fact, was not acquired by the first
Ordinance. Similarly, in the second Ordinance also the same
was left untouched. Since the property was not covered by first
Ordinance, the question of its acquisition, transfer, vesting or
divesting does not arise. The suit had never abated as a result of
promulgation of first Ordinance and, therefore, question of its
revival also would not arise. The suit always remained to be
pending before the competent Court.
 67

Supplementary Replication dated 27.11/3.12.1991 to amended

written statement of Defendant no. 10 (President, All India
Hindu Maha Sabha) (Suit-4)
55. It is said that the State cannot interfere with the rights of
parties as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution and,
therefore, if the Ordinance by the President has any such effect,
the same would be violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution of India.
Additional written statement dated 12.9.1995 of Defendant
no. 10 (President, All India Hindu Maha Sabha) (Suit-4)
56. Defendant no. 10 in additional written statement dated
12.9.1995 states that no Masjid or Babari Masjid existed over
the land in question and, therefore, no question of its demolition
on 6.12.1992 arises. Idols were in existence at the place since
time immemorial and it is incorrect to say that the idols were
placed only in the night of 22/23.12.1949. Babar was an invader
and had no legal authority to construct Masjid at the sacred
place of Hindus, i.e. the birth place of Lord Shri Ram. Mugal
invader Babar through his commander Mir Baqi tried to
demolish the old glorious temple of Lord Shri Ram at the place
in question but could not succeed in its mission. After the riot in
1934, three domes of the temple were damaged. Prior to that
date, the outlook of the building was of pure Hindu temple, but
while carrying out repair works, the Britishers tried to give it the
shape of a mosque and three domes were constructed over
Kasauti pillars which were of temple. The Hindus have all along
been in possession over the entire area of Shri Ramjanambhumi.
The land in question has all along been in possession of Hindus
and devotees of Lord Shri Ram. The worship of Lord Shri
Ramlala Virajman is going on since the time immemorial. With
a view to renovate the old temple and to construct a new one,
Kar Sewa was performed and the said action was not in
 68

violation of any order passed by any Court. There was no order

in force against Hindus in respect of the temple
property/structure. The Hindus have never been fanatic. They
allowed every religion to flourish in Bharatvarsh. There is no
evidence in history to show that the Hindus ever demolished any
mosque or place of worship of any other religion. On the
contrary, every Mughal invader and ruler from Mohammad-bin-
Quasim to Aurangzeb and even thereafter demolished,
destroyed and looted the temples of Hindus. The plaintiffs never
had any concern with the land in question and are not entitled
for restoration of the building or its possession. Muslim law in
India is subject to the Constitution. Muslims cannot use open
place of land in question for offering prayers. They also cannot
encroach upon the land of religious places of Hindus. Under
Shastrik law applicable to Hindus, the property once vested in
the Deity continues to remain of the Deity. The entire property
in question belongs to Shri Ramlala Virajman who is in
existence from the time immemorial and is being worshipped by
His devotees at the place in question without any interruption
till date. The place of dispute has got no significance for the
plaintiffs as they can offer prayer at any place. It would be
appropriate and in consonance with the principles of 'secularism'
that the Muslims do not offer prayers within the vicinity of the
birth place of Lord Shri Ramlala Virajman, which is sacred for
Hindus and offer their prayers beyond the area of Panchkoshi
Parikrama. That will create brotherhood and peace. Over the
land in question, no mosque ever existed and the Muslims are
not entitled to encroach upon the land in question or offer prayer
at that place. The Apex Court has never held that the land
covered by the Act No. 33 of 1991 belong to any mosque or that
 69

the adjacent area will be provided for enjoyment of the crucial

area of mosque portion as per requirement. The property in
dispute has not been described in Schedule-A to the plaint since
its dimensions, width, survey number etc. are not mentioned for
the purpose of identification. The plaintiffs are not entitled for
possession of the structure standing at the site as the land in
question and the adjacent area belong to Hindus and devotees of
Lord Shri Ram. In the additional pleas, it is said that
Bharatvarsh was divided on the basis of the religion. Pakistan
was created for Muslims and the rest part of Bharatvarsh
remained for Hindus. Consistent with Vedic scriptures,
secularism was adopted in the Constitution. The rights of other
religions, groups or community are subject to rights of Hindus.
Lord Ram, Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva are cultural heritage of
India which has been recognized by the Constituent Assembly.
In the original Constitution signed by the members, pictures of
recognized cultural heritage exist which include scene from
Ramayana (conquest over Lanka and recovery of Sita by Lord
Ram). Thus the citizens of Country are entitled to pay homage
to their Lord at His birth place. Being sacred place for Hindus it
cannot belong to Muslims or any other community or religious
group. Therefore, the claim of Muslims over the land in
question is unconstitutional and is also against Islamic laws. The
plaintiffs cannot claim themselves to be Muslims entitled to file
suit. Even if it is correct that Hindus came into possession of the
disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949 and placed idols, the act is
not wrong. The Hindus have rectified the curse of Mughal
slavery before the commencement of the Constitution. The
action of invaders had no sanction of law and after
independence, it is the right of citizens to nullify every misdeed
 70

and wrong action of the invaders. The entire area including the
place in question belong to Deity Lord Shri Ramlala Virajman
and His devotees. The worshippers are entitled to offer prayers,
Pooja, Arti, Bhog etc. and to pray their great Lord. They also
have a right to construct a glorious temple. Under the debris of
demolished temple structure, a lot of signs and material
concerning temple was found. A very big Chabutara beneath the
present structure exists which also reveals that there existed a
glorious and big temple of Lord Shri Ram. There is no evidence,
sign or material at all to show that there was any mosque. The
State has not been arrayed as a party to the suit and, as such,
plaintiffs cannot claim any relief against the Receiver. The
Sunni Waqf Board has no legal authority to file the suit. The suit
is time barred. Amended relief cannot be granted. The suit has
to be decided on the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience. Prayer of injunction deserves to be refused as it
does not come within the four corners of the principles of
injunction.
Written statement dated 20.7.1968 of Defendant no. 13 and 14
(Baba Abhiram Das and Pundarik Misra) (Suit-4)
57. Baba Abhiram Das, defendant no.13, and Pundarik Misra,
defendant no.14 filed their common written statement dated
20.7.1968. It is said that neither any battle took place between
Babar and the Ruler of Ayodhya nor any graveyard or mosque
was built by Babar. The Muslims wrongly described the
building in question as mosque. They were not allowed to go
near the temple where Hindus performed Pooja etc. on the
Janam Bhumi temple. The plaintiffs have no right to make
defendants to contest suit in a representative capacity as a self-
appointed representative of Hindu community which extends
from Madras to Kashmir and Dwarika to Calcutta. None of the
 71

defendants can represent all Hindus in India. Janam Bhumi

Temple is a public charitable institution and the aforesaid
defendants contest the suit in individual capacity. The other
averments of the plaint are generally denied. The suit is barred
by time. Muslims are not in possession of the property in
dispute since 1934 and earlier.
58. In additional pleas it is said that the Hindu community
from time immemorial has been worshipping the site of Janama
Bhumi upto this time by virtue of their rights. Muslims were
never in possession of the temple called “Ramjanambhumi”. If
ever, they were interrupted in possession of the falsely called
“Babri Mosque”. The same ceased on/in 1934 and since then
Hindus are holding the temple in their possession and their
possession has ripened in statutory adverse possession. Even
prior to 1934 continuous daily Pooja by Hindus had been
performed in the said temple. The Muslims never offered prayer
in 1934 in the temple falsely described as “Babri Mosque”. The
temple being a public charitable institution no individual belong
to any sect, group, Math or otherwise has any right to represent
all Hindus as it is a public place of worship open to all the
Hindus. In any case, from January 1950 when the City
Magistrate directed defendant no. 9 to carry on Pooja as usual in
the said temple, it is being performed by Hindus without any
interference by Muslims. The suit under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C.
is bad as no one representing Hindu community has been made
defendant and also for the reason that the plaintiffs have
impleaded defendants no.1 to 4 and 9 knowing fully well that
they do not represent Hindu community but have their
individual interest only. The plaintiffs' claim based on U.P.Act
No. 13 of 1936 is baseless for the reason that (a) the aforesaid
 72

Act is ultra vires; (b) the Government of India Act 1935 came
into force before passing of the above Act; it does not come
under any of the items of List 2 of the Provincial List or list 3 of
the Concurrent list. Item no.9 of the Concurrent List or item no.
34 of the Provincial List cannot save the above legislation on the
principle of pith and substance. Item no. 28 of list 3 of the
Constitution has been remodelled. Any sanction under sub-
section 3 of Section 80-A of the former Government of India
Act will not validate legislation after the repeal of the said Act
by Section 321 of Government of India Act 1935. Even if the
Act is treated to be intra vires, the suit is not related to
administration of Waqf , taking of accounts, appointment and
removal of Mutwallis, putting Mutwallis in possession or
settlement or modification of any scheme of management for
which powers and duties have been specified under section 18
(2) of the Act. The suit on behalf of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable. The Act containing privileges based on
classification of Waqf on the ground of religion, particularly,
Section 5(2) is hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
After the enforcement of U.P. Act of 16 of 1960, the suit in
question is not one which is saved under section 85(2) of the
said Act. Further Section 9(2) of the said Act would not save the
finality of the decision of the Commissioner of Waqfs from
being affected by provisions of Chapter I of Act 16 of 1960,
particularly when there is no saving clause with respect to
decision under Sections 5(2) and 9(2). The finality attached by
Section 5(3) will vanish after the repeal of the enactment. The
building and land in question lying in the Province of Oudh
became subject of Lord Canning's proclamations and all
previous rights became non est. No fresh grant in respect of
 73

property in suit having been made after the proclamation, the

plaintiffs or Muslim community have no right to sue. The
Commissioner of Waqfs only had to make an inquiry about the
number of Shia and Sunni Waqfs in the District, the nature of
each waqf, the Government revenue, expenses and whether it is
one exempted under Section 2. The Commissioner had only to
see as to whether any transaction is Waqf or not; as to which
sect the Waqf belong and whether such Waqf is or is not
exempted by Section 2 of the Act. He had to discharge above
duties in accordance with definition of Waqf in Section 3(1) of
Act No. 13 of 1936. The Act exclusively is meant for certain
classes of Muslim Waqfs. It does not confer any power to
decide the question of title against non-Muslims. Section 5(3)
nowhere says that the Court shall take judicial notice of the
report of the Commissioner of Waqfs and shall record it as
conclusive evidence. Moreover, there has been no legal
publication of the said report, hence, there is no question of its
finality. The capacity of plaintiffs as well as defendants acting
as representatives of Hindu and Muslim in general is denied.
Any judgment between some individuals or group of individuals
would not be binding on others, and, therefore, there is no
question of res- judicata. The land in question is being
worshipped from time immemorial as site of Janam Bhumi and
they are entitled to worship thereat. The issues involved in the
present case were not those involved in earlier suits, therefore,
the question of res judicata or constructive res judicata does not
arise.
Written statement dated 4.12.1989 of Defendant No.13
(Dharam Das) (Suit-4)
59. Defendant no. 13 Dharam Das has filed a very detailed
written statement dated 4.12.1989 which was also amended
 74

subsequently. The defence taken is that Babar was not a fanatic

but a devout Muslim who did not believe in destroying Hindu
temples. It was Mir Baqi who was a Shia and commanded
Babar's orders, who demolished ancient Hindu temple of the
time of Maharaja Vikramaditya at Shri Ramjanambhumi and
tried to raise a mosque like structure in its place with its
material. Babar was not an emperor. He was a marauder. What
was constructed was not a mosque nor it was constructed for use
of Muslims in general. It was not known as Babri Masjid but
described as Masjid Janamsthan in British times. The objective
evidence of demolition of ancient temple and attempted
construction of mosque at Ramjanambhumi existed in the form
of 14 Kasauti pillars, sandal wood beams and other structural
features of the building. Mir Baqi did so on account of his
superstitious influence of so called “Faqir Fazal Abbas
Qalandar” who had demanded destruction of ancient temple at
Shri Ramjanambhumi and construction of a mosque for him
thereat to offer prayers. The aforesaid act, however, is opposed
to the tenets of Islam as disclosed by holy “Quran” and Fatwas
issued by Muslim theologians. The sketch map attached to the
plaint is disputed. It is said that there is no graveyard anywhere
at Shri Ramjanambhumi nor any existed within 12 years of the
institution of the suit. Neither any mosque nor a graveyard
existed which might have vested in the almighty of Muslims
namely, Allah. According to Islamic faith as explained in
Fatwa-E-Alamgiri Volume VI, page 214, it is not permissible to
build a mosque on an unlawfully acquired land. There may be
many forms of unlawful acquisition, namely, if some people
forcibly take somebody's house or land and build a mosque or
even Jama Masjid. Namaz in such a mosque will be against
 75

Shariat. The assertion with respect to loss of many lives appears

to be with reference to the battle fought between Babar's hordes
led by Mir Baqi and the Ruler of Ayodhya relating to demolition
of ancient Hindu temple at Shri Ramjanambhumi and hence not
disputed. The assertion that graves of Muslims who lost their
lives in that battle more than 450 years ago situated on or near
Janam Bhumi is denied. Mosque and graveyard according to
the tenets of Muslims cannot go together. Offering of prayer
except funeral prayer on the death of a person buried is
prohibited to be made at a graveyard. Khasra numbers of the
alleged mosque at graveyard are imaginary, fictitious and not
identifiable at the site. There was no mosque, hence the question
of its upkeep and maintenance does not arise. There is no
evidence of any expenditure from the alleged grant on the
upkeep or maintenance of the building alleged to be “Babri
Masjid”. The alleged grant if any, in cash or by way of revenue
free land described as “Nankar” must have been for personal
services rendered or promised to be rendered by the grantee to
the British in enslaving India for suppressing the First War of
Independence of 1857 miscalled as “Sepoy Mutiny”. The
existence of Chabutara within the premises of building is
admitted but the facts about its construction as stated in para 5
are denied. It is said that it was a temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram
Lala. Originally, there was a temple erected at that place after
the demolition of ancient temples of Maharaja Vikramaditya's
time. No Muslim ruler could have permitted raising of temple
in the premises which would have been a mosque. On
demolition of that temple by Aurangzeb, the worship of
Bhagwan Ramlala was carried on at that Chabutara. There was a
small temple existing thereon and not merely a wooden structure
 76

in the form of tent. The Deity stalled therein had been

continuously worshipped without any break or interruption and
the place is called Ram Chabutara. Filing of suit by Mahant
Raghubar Das against the Secretary of State is not denied but
rest of the facts are incorrect. The suit was for permission to
erect a permanent temple in place of the then existing structure
at Ram Chaubtara. It is denied that the alleged mosque at
Janamsthan was a mosque or that Mohd. Asghar was its
Mutwalli. He was added later as a defendant on his own request.
The plaintiffs' suit and result thereof is wholly irrelevant for the
present suit and is not binding either on the answering defendant
or the Hindus in general or worshippers of Bhagwan Shri
Ramlala Virajman at Shri Ramjanambhumi in particular. The
Sthan of Shri Ramjanambhumi called as Janamsthan is a sacred
place of Hindu worship of Bhagwan Shri Ram being incarnation
of Lord Vishnu and symbolised by the existence of objects of
worship like Sita Rasoi, Charans and the idols of Bhagwan Shri
Ramlala Virajman at Chabutara within the precincts of the
building at Janamsthan alleged to be a mosque. There was no
access to the said place except through the place of worship of
Hindus by which it was landlocked. Such a building could not
be a mosque according to the tenets of Islam. The UP Act, 1936
as such is not disputed but the report of inquiry alleged to have
been made by the Commissioner of Waqfs is disputed and is an
ex parte affair not binding on Hindus. The Muslims were never
in possession of the alleged mosque nor they ever recited any
prayer therein and at least till 23.12.1949 or on any date even
remotely within 12 years of the institution of the suit. The
construction of mosque by Babar at a place where the ancient
Hindu temple existed is denied. It is also denied that he was an
 77

Emperor. The possibility of the building in question to be a

mosque is also disputed. The question of possession of property
in question by Muslims does not arise since the Hindus
considered it to be a place of worship. Shri Ramjanambhumi by
itself is an object of worship, it has the status of juridical person
in the eyes of law. The act of demolition of temple and entering
thereupon was a wrongful act of trespass impermissible under
the tenets of Islam. Allah does not accept waqf of any property
or thing taken by force or by illegal act. The attempt to raise a
mosque like structure failed and no mosque deemed to be Waqf
according to Muslim law, ever came into existence. The act of
Mir Baqi was a fleeting act of trespass and not an act of entering
into adverse possession by a person claiming ownership. No
Muslim by an act of trespass or its repetition could confer any
right, title or interest in the nature of Waqf in favour of Allah for
the purpose of mosque. According to the Muslim Law, Allah
alone is the owner in possession of all Waqf property. A
Mutwalli is a mere manager and neither the Mutwalli nor the
beneficiaries of a Muslim Waqf can claim or have any right of
ownership or possession as an owner for and on behalf of Allah.
Title by way of a Muslim Waqf cannot, therefore, be acquired
by adverse possession for Allah through an artificial act of
adverse possession. Ramjanambhumi being itself a deity and
worshipped as such since ever, has a juristic personality of its
own, continued to own and possess the property rights of
ownership and possession of the space at Ramjanambhumi at
Ayodhya without any dent by any such act of trespass or
demolition of temple or attempt to raise a mosque like structure
thereat. The act of installation of Deity of Bhagwan Ram under
central dome of the building at Shri Ramjanambhumi in the
 78

form of idol of Bhagwan Shri Ramlala by his worshippers led

by others namely, defendants Guru Baba Abhiram Das, was not
a mischievous act but a perfectly lawful exercise of their right
and that of Hindus to worship the Deity. The Muslims did not
get any title by adverse possession and the pre-existing right,
title and interest of the defendants continue to exist
uninterrupted and unaffected by such act of Mir Baqi. The
Hindus' act on Pausa Shukla 3, Vikram Samvat 2006 was in
furtherance and re-assertion of pre-existing property right of the
Deity and their own right of worship. It was an act of
manifestation of Bhagwan Shri Ram himself. Even the Muslim
Havaldar Abdul Barkat who kept guard at the police outpost
experienced manifestation by its grace. Since then, this day is
celebrated as “Prakatya Divas” every year at Ayodhya.
Muslims, in any case, have lost any right or interest. The alleged
report with respect to incident of 23.11.1949 is not disputed.
The proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. are also admitted.
The order allowed Sri Priya Dutt Ram Receiver to worship the
Deity of Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman, meaning thereby
the Muslims were prohibited from entering the building
premises and the surrounding area at Shri Ramjanambhumi.
They had no right to offer Namaz in the building or doing
anything else at that place. The action of City Magistrate was
illegal. If the plaintiffs claim that the said order affected them by
ousting entry, they ought to have challenged the same. Since the
order was passed before the enforcement of the Constitution, it
cannot be said that the order of the Magistrate is
unconstitutional. Filing of suit by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad is
not disputed. Representation by the plaintiffs of the entire
Muslim community is disputed. In the civil suit, an injunction
 79

was granted which was confirmed in appeal upto the High Court
vide judgment dated 26.4.1955. Filing of suit no. 25 of 1950 is
not disputed. The earlier suit no. 2 of 1950 and the latter one,
both were consolidated. Similarly, filing of suit no. 26 of 1959
is not disputed. The suit for possession over a mosque can only
be filed by a Mutwalli and no others. The plaintiffs neither
claim themselves to be Mutwallis nor, in fact, so, hence, the suit
is not maintainable and is stillborn. It is barred by limitation.
60. In the additional pleas, it is said that in history, there was
an ancient temple of Maharaja Vikramaditya's time at Shri
Ramjanambhumi which was demolished by Mir Baqi. The
dominant motive of iconoclast was the prejudice born of
ignorance/misconception that Hindu temples were places of
idolatory which was condemned by Quran. As per Quran, a
mosque cannot be built on the place of a Hindu temple and that
too after forcible demolition. Allah does not accept Namaz
offered at a place taken by force or in a mosque built on a land
obtained by Gasba or forcibly taken without title. The structure
was never intended to be used as a mosque and never used as
such. It was with an objective of putting down idolatry. From
the public records and relevant books of authority it is
established that the premises in dispute is a place where
Bhagwan Shri Ram manifested himself in human form as
incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu according to traditions and faith
of Hindus. According to Hindu faith Ganga originates from the
nail of the toe of Bhagwan Vishnu and cleanses and purifies
whatever is washed by or dipped into its water. Bhagwan
Vishnu having manifested himself in human form of Maryada
Purshottam Shri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj at Shri
Ramjanambhumi, those who touch the earth or footprints of
 80

Bhagwan Shri Ram symbolised by Charans at that place are

cleansed of their sins and get purified. The earth at Shri
Ramjanambhumi could not have acted differently towards
Muslims who went there. They were also cleansed and purified
by the touch of Bhagwan Shri Ram's footprints, which, like the
water of Ganga purify all without any discrimination. The place
like water of Ganga remains unsullied. It has been an object of
worship with a juridical personality of its own as a Deity distinct
from juridical personality of the presiding Deity of Bhagwan
Shri Ram installed in the temple thereat. It has existed since
ever, even before the construction of first temple thereat and
installation of the idol therein. It is the Divine spirit which is
worshipped. An idol is not indispensable. There are Hindu
temples without any idol. The Sthan Shri Ramjanambhumi has
existed immovable through the ages and has ever been a
juridical person. The actual and continuous performance of
Pooja at Shri Ramjanambhumi was not essential for the
continuous existence and presence of Deity at that place. They
have continued to remain present and shall continue to remain
present so long as the place lasts since the land is indestructible.
Deities are immortal being the Divine spirit or Atma and may
take different shapes and forms as idols or other symbols of
worship according to faith and aspiration of the devotees.
Indisputably there was an ancient temple of Maharaja
Vikramaditya's time at Shri Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya. It was
partly demolished and was attempted to be constructed a
mosque by Mir Baqi, Commander of Babar's hordes. He was a
Shia. Although demolition of a temple for constructing a
mosque is prohibited by Islam, he attempted to do so under the
superstitious influence of so called Faqir named, Fazal Abbas
 81

Qalander. He, however, could not succeed. As the story goes,

whatever was constructed during the day fell down during the
night and it was only after making certain material concessions
in favour of Hindus for continued preservation of the place, as a
place of Hindu worship, that the construction of three dome
structure was somehow completed. The construction of minarets
and certain other features of a public mosque were not
undertaken. The facts which would show that the three domed
structure raised by Mir Baqi was not a mosque are:
(a) Allah does not accept dedication of property for
purposes recognised as pious and charitable like Waqf
from a person who is not its rightful owner, like Allah
would not accept stolen property from a thief. The act of
trespass supported by violence for erecting a mosque on
the site of ancient Hindu temple at Sthan Shri
Ramjanambhumi after demolishing it by force of arms,
Mir Baqi violated all the true tenets of Islam. It was a
highly un-Islamic action. Allah did not forgive him and in
the ensuing battle he was killed without mercy. The
whole history of rise and fall of Mughal empire in India
stand testimony to it. Babar who did not believe in
iconoclasm founded the rule of Mughals in India. Akbar
his grandson by tolerance and secularism expanded it on
all sides and converted the Mughal Rule into an Empire.
Auranzeb, the iconoclast fanatic, destroyed the Empire
which was at the pinnacle of its glory when deposed and
imprisoned his own father Shahjahan to grab the crown.
(b) Despite what Mir Baqi did with the temple, the space
always continued to be in possession of Deity of Bhagwan
Shri Ram Virajman and the Sthan Shri Ramjanambhumi.
 82

The worshippers continued to worship through such

symbols as the Charans, Sita Rasoi and the idol of
Bhagwan Shri Ramlala Virajman on Chabutara, called
Ram Chabutara. No one could enter the three domed
structure except after passing through the aforesaid places
of Hindu worship. According to tenets of Islam, there
could be no idol within the precincts of a mosque. The
passage to a mosque must be free and unobstructed, open
to the faithful at all times. It can never be landlocked by a
Hindu place of worship. There can be no co-sharing in the
title or possession with Allah particularly in the case of a
mosque. His possession must be exclusive.
(c) A mosque which is a public place of worship for
Muslims must have a minaret for calling Azan. According
to 'Baillie', a prayer without Azan is private instead of
public and the place could not be a Masjid. According to
P.R. Ganapathi Iyer's “Law relating to Hindu and
Mahomedan Endowments”, (2nd Edition, 1918, Chapter
XVII, at p. 388), after first half century from the Flight,
there has been no mosque without a minaret.
(d)There was no arrangement for storage of water for
Vazoo and there were Kasauti pillars with the figures of
Hindu Gods inscribed on them. The sandalwood beam
were there. Such a place can never be a mosque.
(e) In Faizabad Gazetteer, it is mentioned that 75 Muslims
were buried at the gate of Janamsthan and the place was
known as “Ganje Shahidan” after the battle of 1855
between the Hindus and Muslims in which Hindus
succeeded and resumed control over the premises
including the three domed structure. There is no graveyard
 83

anywhere near the building or its precincts or the area

appurtenant thereto or surrounding it for the last 50 years
at least. If the building was surrounded by a graveyard
soon after the annexation of Oudh by the British, the
building could not be a mosque and could not be used as a
mosque for offering prayers or Namaz except funeral
prayers.
61. The worship of Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman thus
continued through the ages at Shri Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya.
The space belongs to Deities. No valid Waqf was or could ever
be created at Shri Ramjanambhumi or any part of it in view of
the title and possession of the said Deities thereon, which has all
along been pervasive and continuous. No person living or
juridical was there to claim ownership or possession as owner of
the said premises or any part thereof. Occasional act of trespass
by iconoclasts were successfully resisted and repulsed by the
Hindus from time to time. There had been no blemish or dent in
the continuity of the title and possession of the said Deities over
Shri Ramjanambhumi. No title could or did vest in Allah over
any part of Shri Ramjanambhumi by adverse possession.
Neither Allah nor any person on His behalf had any possession
over any part of the premises at any point of time. Muslims
never acquired any right to worship at the place as a mosque by
adverse possession because the consequence of violation of any
injunction of Quran could not be worked out by lapse of time
howsoever long, as per the Muslim Law. So far as the right of
prayer is concerned, every single Muslim has a right to pray in a
mosque in his own independent and individual character. He
does not derive that right from anyone else. Such rights are
similar to all Muslims independent of each other. Even duly
 84

converted Muslim gets that right on conversion although none

of his ancestors or members of his family had any such right. It
is impossible to say in law that those who have a right to pray in
a mosque are in possession of that right in the mosque as a
community. Fluctuating body of individual Muslims have this
right as individual to go into the mosque and pray therein but
only so long as the mosque continues to exist as a mosque. This
right to pray cannot be tagged on by a Muslim to the similar
right of another Muslim and cannot form the basis of any
adverse possession in law or acquisition of title of land by
prescription as a Waqf for the mosque. The body of worshippers
is only an undulating, ever changing body of individuals and not
a corporation. The claim of right to worship by going to a place
as a mosque is not a claim of right to possession of the place as
its owner. The factum of occupation of a place without any
claim to title as owner cannot clothe the occupier with the
ownership of the place. The true owner's title remains
unaffected by any such occupation, howsoever long it may be.
A place can become a mosque only when Namaz is offered
there with the permission of the owner and publicly in a group
after calling of the Azan. After the annexation of Oudh and the
First War of Independence miscalled as 'Sepoy Mutiny' by the
British, an inner enclosure for the three domed structure was
created by raising a boundary wall with iron gratings in the
courtyard of the building which separated Ram Chabutara, the
Charans and the Sita Rasoi from the building and divided the
courtyard in two parts. The inner part in which the three domed
structure situated was landlocked by all sides by the outer part in
which the Ram Chabutara, the Charan and Sita Rasoi situated.
The British thus tried to confine the Hindus to worship their
 85

Deities in the outer part of the courtyard, but no Muslim could

enter the inner part of the courtyard or the three domed structure
within it, without passing the outer courtyard which had Hindu
places of worship and was in their exclusive and constant
occupation. This laid the seeds of trouble off and on whenever
any Muslim wanted to go inside. The result was that no Namaz
was offered inside the three-domed structure, despite attempt of
the British Government to induce the Muslims to do so by
raising the inner boundary wall. This was a calculated attempt
by the Britishers to encourage the Muslims to use the abandoned
place as a 'Mosque', and create differences between their Hindu
and Muslim subjects with the object of maintaining their power
particularly in the context of the First War of Independence in
which Hindus and Muslims had fought with the British power
neck to neck as brothers. This attempt failed. There was
overwhelming number of Hindus living all around the place and
local Muslims knowing that it was not a place for offering
Namaz, Hindus never left the place and continued to worship
Charan Sthan, Sita Rasoi and idols of Bhagwan Shri Ramlala
Virajman on the Ram Chabutara within its precincts. The
attempt of Britishers to reconstruct damaged structure in 1934
at the cost of the then Government was another attempt to create
rift in the two communities. It appears that there was no
Mutwalli otherwise he would have taken care of the said
building. The Britishers were in fact sowing the seeds of the two
nation theory which ultimately led to the partition of India.
However, despite the British efforts, no prayers were ever
offered in the three domed structure at Shri Ramjanambhumi
even after its reconstruction and renovation since the Muslims
knew that the building was not a mosque for offering Namaz. In
 86

1936, U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act was passed whereby two Central
Boards of Waqfs, one for Sunni and other for Shia were
established to supervise and control Muslim Waqfs. No
notification was issued in respect of the building in question
declaring it to be a Waqf. The plaintiff Waqf Board has no
jurisdiction in respect of the premises even if it were a mosque.
It took no action or positive steps for the custody or the care of
the building or its establishment as a mosque. No one was
appointed or acted as its Mutwalli, or Mauazzinn or Imam, or
Khatib or Khadim. The descendant of Mir Baqi sought to be set
up as Mutwalli by the British was an opium addict. He denied
that the grant of revenue free land was for the purposes of the
mosque. On the contrary, he claimed that it was his Nankar for
services rendered to the British and he never looked after the
alleged mosque at all. At the time of independence, acting upon
the two nations theory resulting in partition, Baba Abhiram Das,
Guru of the answering defendants concerned alongwith
Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, defendant no.2 and Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad, defendant no.1 and several others resolved to
restore the sacred Janamsthan of Ramjanambhumi to its pristine
glory, in particular by removing the three-domed structure
raised thereat by Mir Baqi which was an object of national
shame for the Hindus. Pursuant to such resolution they took
collective vow at a public meeting held on 2.10.1949, which
was the day in that year, of Vijyadashami, for restoration of
Ramjanambhumi as the first step towards fulfilment of dream
of Mahatma of establishing Rama Rajya in Bharatvarsha after
independence from British bondage. First they cleared up the
scattered mounds of earth which the Muslims claimed to be
their graves, in the areas around Shri Ramjanambhumi. This
 87

followed up by Navahna Pathas, Japa and Sankirtan at Shri

Ramjanambhumi. The first batch of 108 Navahna Pathas
commenced on 16.10.1949 which was followed by 1108 batches
of Navahna Pathas. Japa and Sankirtan performed continuously.
They continued in and outside the three domed building, within
its precincts and on the adjacent land all around, unabated,
resulting in the great manifestation of Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala
within the three-domed building, under its central dome, to be
more precise, by the installation of idol of Bhagwan Shri Ram
Lala with all due ceremony at the auspicious hour of
Brahmamuhurta during Shrawan Nakshatra and Tula Lagna in
the most auspicious constellation of the planets, named, Harshan
Yoga, on Thursday, Pausha Shukla 3 of Vikram Samvat 2006.
At that time although the planet Sun was Dakshinayana but
Sanyasis and Vairagis are permitted by the Shastras to instal a
Deity even during Dakshinayan. The idol of Bhagwan Shri Ram
Lala is Chala and seated on a silver Singhasan (throne). Akhand
Sankirtans and Japa have continued ever since without any
break for the last about 40 years at Shri Ramjanambhumi. The
suit is bad and not maintainable in law inasmuch as the Deity of
Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman under the Central dome of
the building on the Ram Chabutara with such symbols of
worship as the Charan and Sita Rasoi have not been made
parties to the suit. It is also bad for want of Mutwalli of the
alleged Waqf. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. has no
jurisdiction or competence to meddle with the alleged waqf or
the alleged mosque or to sue in respect thereof for want of
proper and valid notification in its favour under section 5 of the
U.P. Muslims Waqfs Act 1936. The notification dated 26.2.1944
having already been held to be invalid by the Court's finding on
 88

issue no.17, has become final and irreversible between the

parties. Even otherwise, the suit when filed in 1961 was barred
by the provisions of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 and the civil
court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The suit is incompetent
and not maintainable under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. The
permission granted by the Court to the plaintiff to sue in the
representative capacity for all the Muslims is liable to be
revoked, particularly because the plaintiffs are all Sunnis, while
the Shias did not claim the alleged mosque and waqf to be a
Shia Waqf. The defendants named in the suit cannot represent
various sects of Hindus in India. None of the plaintiffs has any
right to sue for possession over the alleged mosque. The relief
for possession by removal of the idols and other articles of
Hindu worship is, in fact and in law, a relief for mandatory
injunction and is barred by six years' limitation prescribed by
Article 120 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
Even otherwise, a person other than Mutwalli of a mosque
cannot sue for its possession and can sue only for a declaration
that it is a mosque and if it is out of possession or dispossessed,
that its possession be made over to the Mutwalli. To such suit
also Article 120 applied and not Article 142 or 144 of the
Schedule, Limitation Act 1908. Even otherwise, the suit is
barred by Article 14 of the Schedule, Indian Limitation Act
1908. It is not a case of continuing wrong within the meaning of
Section 23 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the suit is barred
by limitation. It is in the interest of parties that this matter be
decided at the earliest. The defendant is willing to arrive at a
negotiated settlement with the Muslim community under the
supervision or mediation of the Court. The mosque building
may be shifted since place of birth of Lord Rama cannot be
 89

changed. There are no Muslims residing anywhere near the

place who may require a mosque there for offering prayers. The
number of existing mosques at Ayhodhya is so large as
compared to the need for them that some of them have fallen
due to disrepair and have ruined for want of maintenance. Such
a statement was made by Prince Anjum Qader, the President of
All Indian Shia Conference and a descendent of Nawab Wajid
Ali Shah who ruled Avadh when it was annexed by the British,
in reply to the suit no. 236 of 1989 filed on behalf of the Deities
in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, now re-registered as
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 in this Court.
62. On 27th July 1937 Mahatma Gandhi also expressed similar
views that it is great sin to occupy by force any religious
building of worship. During Mughal time due to religious
fanaticism, Mughal Rulers had occupied many such Hindu
religious places which were sacred places of worship for the
Hindus. Many of them were looted and destroyed and many of
them were given shape of a mosque. Although a temple and a
mosque are both sacred places for worship of God and there is
no difference between them but the traditions and forms of
worship of Hindus and the Muslims are different from each
other. From the religious point of view, a Muslim can never
tolerate placing of an idol by a Hindu in his mosque where he
has been worshipping Khuda and in the same way, a Hindu will
not suffer demolition of a temple where he has been regularly
worshipping Rama, Krishna, Shankar, Vishnu and Devi and
construction of a mosque in its place and, therefore, both should
try to resolve all such disputes by returning such places to each
other. The three domed structure excluding the Kasauti columns
and sandalwood beams can be constructed near the Mazar of
 90

Mir Baqi at village Sahanwa, or at any other place where the

Muslims have sizeable population and agree to its re-erection on
the land provided by them. In view of the Apex Court's decision
dated 24th October 1994 the acquisition of the area excluding the
one described by the Apex Court as Ramjanambhumi-Babri
Masjid, situated in a part of plots no. 159 and 160 of village Kot
Ram Chandra Ayodhya by Ayodhya Act 1993, was absolute.
There is no cause of action. In any case, after demolition of the
three domed structure, no cause of action survies. Sunni Central
Board of Waqfs has not been constituted for the past many years
validly and as such it has no right to file the suit. Sunni Board
or the Shia Central Board of Waqf cannot represent the entire
Muslims generally and more particularly, when the mosque
claimed is a Shia Mosque and, therefore, they cannot file the
present suit in representative capacity.
Additional written statement dated 29.8.1995 of defendant no.
13 (Mahant Dharam Das) (Suit-4)
63. An additional written statement dated 29th August 1995
has been filed by defendant no.13 Mahant Dharam Das replying
the amended paragraphs of the plaint. It is said that the building
which was demolished on 6.12.1992 was not a mosque and
could not be called “Babri Masjid”. Demolition of structure did
not constitute violation of any order of the Court. No relief for
restoration of building can be granted to the plaintiffs. Correct
details for identification of the land in question have not been
provided. The suit is rendered infructuous and even otherwise is
not maintainable.
Additional written statement dated 14.9.1995 of defendant no.
17 (Ramesh Chandra Tripathi) (Suit-4)
64. It says that allegation of placement of idols in the night of
22nd/23rd December, 1949 is false. On the contrary, they existed
 91

at the place in question from time immemorial. Babar was an

invader. He had no legal authority to construct a Masjid at the
sacred place of Hindus, i.e., the birth place of Lord Shri Ram.
Mughal invader Babar through his Commander Mir Baqi tried
to demolish the old glorious temple of Lord Shri Ram at the
place in question but could not succeed in his mission. Some
further details have been given in additional pleas of the written
statement of respondent no. 17 similar to that contained in
written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.13, therefore,
we are not repeating the same and shall refer later as and when
the occasion arises.
Written statement dated 18/19.7.1969 of defendant no. 18
(Mahant Ganga Das) (Suit-4)
65. A separate written statement dated 18/19th July 1969 has
been filed by defendant no.18. Damage to the building allegedly
called Babri Masjid in 1934 has been denied in para 8 of the
written statement. The report, if any, with respect to Waqf is ex
parte and not binding upon the defendants. The capacity of
Sunni Board to represent the entire Muslim community
including Shia is disputed. In the additional pleas, it is said that
sketch map was totally incorrect and misleading. The temple in
question is known as Janam Bhumi, the birth place of Lord
Ramachandra situate in Ayodhya and belong to defendant no.3.
The defendant-3 has been doing Darshan and Pooja at the place
in question for the last 30-32 years.
Written statement dated 5.11.1989 of defendant no. 20
(Madan Mohan Gupta) (Suit-4)
66. He has filed written statement dated 5.11.1989. Any battle
between Babar and the then Ruler of Ayodhya has been denied.
Existence of graveyard or mosque is also denied. Sketch map
said to have been filed by Raghubar Das is not binding on the
 92

defendants. The building in question is a temple and not a

mosque. The decision of earlier suit is not binding or would not
operate as res judicata. Neither the defendant nor Hindu public
in general derive any title from the said Mahant Raghubar Das
or his representatives and are neither bound by any of his action
or conduct, nor the decision in Suit no. 61/280 of 1985 is
binding on them. Inquiry, if any, by the Waqf Commissioner is
ex parte and not binding on Hindus as such. The building
throughout has been Ramjanambhumi Temple with idols of
Hindu Gods throughout. The Muslims have no legal or
constitutional right of offering prayer at the site of
Ramjanambhumi since the building was a temple. Installation of
deities in the temple as alleged in para 15 of the plaint is denied.
In the additional pleas it is said that Lord Shri Ram an
incarnation of God, took birth thousands of years ago in
Ayodhya. His birth place is known as Ramjanambhumi or Ram
janam Sthan. This birth place is worshipped for the last many
thousand years by Hindu public who believe in Divine presence
at Ramjanambhumi in Ayodhya and have a devout faith that by
offering worship at that place, they are recipients of the bounties
and blessings of God, which constitute the features of a temple
in Hindu religion. A holy temple stood at that place in ancient
times. Later on Maharaja Vikramaditya reconstructed and
resuscitated Ramjanambhumi temple. For Hindus, it is a
spiritual base of Hindu religion. According to Hindu scriptures
and traditions, Lord Ram was born in between the end of Treta
Yuga and beginning of Dwapar Yuga. The span of Dwapar
Yuga was about eight Lac years. He was God incarnate and
took birth in human form to protect the saints, to destroy evils,
to establish Dharma and save the world. Since then, from time
 93

immemorial, He is being worshipped by Hindus with highest

devotion and reverence. The literature is full with the narration
of ideal life lived by Lord Ram on this earth, beginning with
Ramayana of sage 'Valmiki', who according to the evidence in
the treatise was a contemporary of Ram. Thereafter, the sage
'Vyasa' mentioned Ram at many places in 'Mahabharat' and has
written a summary in his holy Biography in 'Ramopakhayan
Parva', which is part of 'Bara Parva'. 'Purans', 'Arthshastras of
Kautilya', 'Raghubansh of Kalidas', 'Satrabandha of great Bhakta
King Prabarsein' and multitudes of other books in many
languages of India describe the life of Ram. In all this literature,
Ayodhya and its sanctity is repeatedly described. In 'Uttarkand'
of 'Ramcharitra Manas' written by 'Goswami Tulsidas' (1497-
1623 AD) who was a contemporary of four Mughal Emperors
viz., Babar, Humayun, Akbar and Jahangir, the devotion with
which the functions of Ram Janam (birth of Ram) were
celebrated in Ayodhya is described. Not a single word is to be
found in this great treatise about the existence of Babri Masjid
or performance of Namaz at Ramjanambhumi. Ram is most
renowned and respected incarnation born in India. He was born
on Navami in the month of Chaitra according to Hindu calendar
which is popularly known as 'Ramnavami'. He killed devil
'Ravana' and the entire episode is celebrated every year as
'Dushera' in every part of India. After the conquest of Lanka
when Ram returned to Ayodhya, the said occasion was
celebrated with great enthusiasm and 'Diwali' was celebrated,
which is still continuing and participated by members of all
religions, communities and sects. The father of Nation Mahatma
Gandhi was a devotee of Lord Ram. In an ancient book known
as 'Ayodhya Mahatamya' (a Guide for travellers), (the original
 94

of which is in Sanskrit, but its translation by Ram Narain has

been published in the journal of the 'Asiatic Society of Bengal',
Volume 54, Part I, Chapter I-C-4-1875,Calcutta 1875), it is said
that all the four sons of Emperor Dashrath were born in the
palaces of their respective mothers. At one place, it is described
that Sita Rasoi is in Kaushalya Bhawan, the Janamsthal. The
researchers have concluded that this ancient book appears to
have come into existence during the period of Emperor Akbar.
There is no description of so called Babri Masjid alleged to have
been constructed by Emperor Babar. 'Faizabad Gazetteer',
Volume 43, of the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of
Agra and Avadh, compiled by Sri 'H.R. Nevill', ICS, published
by Government Press in 1905 under the topic 'Directory' while
dealing with Ayodhya at page 12-F, affirmed that Janamsthan
was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of Lord Ram. Later
on it is said that the mosque has two inscriptions, one on the
outside and the other on pulpit and both are in Persian bearing
the date 935 Hizri. On the authenticity of the inscriptions there
can be no doubt but no record of visit of Babar has been found
by Muslim historians. It must have occurred about the time of
his expedition to Bihar. There is nothing to show about the visit
of Babar to Ayodhya. Only on the basis of these two
inscriptions, the conclusion is being drawn all around that the
mosque was built by Babar. It is very doubtful that it was so
built. It appears to be a creation of Britishers sometimes in 19th
Century in order to create hatred between the two communities
of India, viz. Hindus and Muslims and thereby implement the
policy of communal disharmony and create problems of law and
order effectively so that their annexation of Avadh may be
justified on moral grounds. The script of the outer inscription of
 95

mosque is pretty bold and more artistic, a style which was

developed sometimes in the middle half of the 19th century
while the inner inscription is very fine and thin, a style
developed in the latter half of the 19th century. It is, therefore,
absolutely certain that on the basis of these two inscriptions it
cannot be concluded that either the mosque was built in 1528
AD or in 935 Hizri or it was built by 'Emperor Babar' or his
Governor 'Mir Baqi' as stated therein. “U.P. District Gazetteer
Faizabad” published in 1960 by the U.P. Government and edited
by Smt. Esha Basanti Joshi, at page 47, quotes the inscription
inside the mosque and relies on it for the purpose of date of
construction of the mosque. To determine the year of
construction and the authority who got it constructed, only these
inscriptions are being relied and nothing else. In the 'Babarnama'
translated by 'Annette Susannah Beveridge', Volume II,
published by Sayeed International, New Delhi in Appendix 'U',
the heading is “The inscriptions of Babar's Mosque in Ayodhya
(Avadh)”. While reproducing the inscription inside the mosque
and translating it at page XXVIII, after quoting the couplets and
giving its translation and working out the number 935 to
identify the year, the author at the bottom appended a note
creating doubt. For the first time, a book was published in 1813
by Leyden and known as “Memoirs of Zahiruddin Mohd. Babar,
Emperor of Hindustan” and for the first time therein it was said
that in March 1528 Babar passed through Ayodhya. Even
though Leyden did not mention anything about the demolition
of Hindu temples in Ayodhya and building of mosque in their
place, yet the British Rulers gave currency to this false news
that Babar demolished Ramjanambhumi Mandir and constructed
Babri Masjid thereat. The translated 'Babarnama' published
 96

thereafter has mentioned that Babar never interfered with the

religion of others and he visited various Hindu temples and
appreciated their archaeological beauties. There is no evidence
of Babar ever having arrived at Ayodhya and demolished Hindu
temple. Claim of construction of mosque 400 years ago by
Babar is wholly wrong. In Faizabad Gazetteer of 1960 at page
352 it is said that at the time of Muslim conquest there were
three important Hindu shrines (Ayodhya) and little else, the
Janamsthan temple, the Swargadwar and the Treta Ke Thakur.
The Janamsthan was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of
Ram. Till 1855 also there was no mosque. It is established from
Faizabad Gazetteer 1960 at page 63. In Faizabad Gazetteer 1905
at page 174 it is said that the desecration of the most sacred spot
in the city caused great bitterness between the Hindus and
Musalmans. On many occasions the feelings led to bloodshed
and in 1855 an open fight occurred. The Musalmans occupied
Janamsthan by force and thence making a desperate assault on
the Hanumangarhi. They charged up the steps of the temple but
were driven back with considerable loss. It resulted in death of
seventy five Mussalmans who were buried at the spot called
'Ganje Shahidan'. In A-in-i Akbari also there is no mention of
the existence of Babari Masjid. In Faizabad Gazetteer of 1960 at
pages 351 and 352 it is said that with the departure of the Court,
the Hindus were left to themselves and numerous temples and
monasteries sprang into existence. Naval Rai, Deputy of Nawab
Safdar Jung built a fine house in Ayodhya which still stands on
the river front. Probably this rise in importance was due to the
popularity gained of Ramcharitra Manas of Tulsidas. The
progress of this place became more rapid after annexation of
Avadh by the British. Before the middle of nineteenth century
 97

Ayodhya was regarded as a stronghold of Hinduism.

67. There are some more facts to establish that neither the
mosque in dispute was built by Babar in 1528 nor is it a mosque
at all:
i. The tomb of the disputed Masjid if looked from behind
would show that it is not in the style developed by Turks
during fifteenth century, nor the Mehrab of Masjid in that
style is to be found. There is no tomb in the disputed
Masjid as is found in other mosques generally.
ii. On the north door, in the front, facing each other, there are
two tigers. They are in the style of taking leap and their
tails are just in the same style when a tiger takes leap.
Between these two tigers there is a peacock. This is not a
characteristic of a mosque.
iii. Various Hindu idols are painted or their inscriptions are to
be found in the disputed mosque.
iv. There is no provision for reciting Namaz. To this day it
has no minarets and no place for storage of water for
Vazoo.
v. The Muslim Faith as adumbrated in Holy 'Quran' does not
permit construction of a mosque at the site of temple after
demolishing it.
vi. Babar never dedicated property of disputed mosque to
Allah. Even supposing without admitting that Babar
constructed the disputed mosque, yet as it has been done
by committing trespass by demolishing the temple, the
abode of God, either by Babar or at his instance by Mir
Baqi , the Governor of Oudh, the dedication is wholly
invalid and void. The material of the old temple was
largely employed in building the mosque and a few of the
 98

original columns are still in good preservation. They are of

close grained black stone (Kasauti) bearing various Hindu
Vase-reliefs. The outer beam of the main structure being
of sandalwood, the height of the columns is 7 to 8 ft., the
shape of the vase, the middle section and the capital is
square, the rest being round or octagonal. There are two
inscriptions in Persian. One on the outside and the other
on pulpit bearing the date 935 Hizri. Subsequently,
Auranzeb also desecrated the shrines of Ayodhya which
led to prolonged bitterness between Hindus and
Musalmans. Latter also occupied Janamsthan by force and
also made an assault on Hanumangarhi. Attacks and
counter attacks continued under the leadership of 'Maulvi
Amir Ali' (See page 353 of Faizabad Gazetteer 1960).
vii. A mosque must be built in a place of peace and quiet and
near a place where there is a sizeable and large number of
Muslim population. According to the tenets of Islam, a
mosque cannot be built at a place which is surrounded on
all sides by temples where the sound of music of Conch
Shells or Ghanta Ghariyals always disturb the peace and
quiet of the place.
viii. A mosque must have a minaret for calling Azan.
According to 'Baille', an assembly of worshippers pray in
a Masjid with permission, i.e., delivery. But it is a
condition that prayers be with Azan or the regular call and
be public and not private, for though there should be an
assembly yet if it is without Izah and the prayers are
private instead of public, the place is not a Masjid
according to the true disciples. Indeed there has been no
mosque without a minaret after the first half century fight.
 99

(See Ganpathi Iyer's law relating to Hindu and

Muhammadan Endowments 2nd Edition 1918 Chapter
XVII, page 388).
ix. According to the claim laid by Muslims in the present suit,
the building is surrounded on sides by a graveyard known
as Ganje Shahidan. There is a mention in the Faizabad
Gazetteer also of the burial of seventy five Muslims at the
gate of Janamsthan and the place being known as Ganje
Shahidan after the battle of 1855. Although there are no
graves anywhere near the building of Shri
Ramjanambhumi or in its precincts or in the area
appurtenant thereto for the last more than 50 years and if
the building was surrounded by a graveyard during the
British times, soon after the annexation of Oudh by them,
the building could not be a mosque and could not be used
as a mosque for offering prayers except funeral prayers.
68. Mere displacement of a part of the ancient Hindu temple
of Ramjanambhumi Sthan will not take away the religious
sanctity of the temple and the site, inasmuch as, the Hindu
religion believes the presence of the Divine spirit at
Ramjanambhumi Sthan. The act of vandalism perpetrated either
by Babar or by any other person after him would neither take
away the religious sanctity of the place nor destroy the religious
belief of Hindus attached to that place nor the place as such
would be deemed out of possession of the Hindus as such. It is a
place of great antiquity and Hindus have always been
worshipping through the ages and always remained in
possession thereof. Babri Masjid is a Sunni Waqf, but its
Mutwallis being the descedants of Mir Baqi were Shia Muslims,
and this itself demolishes the case of the plaintiffs. In any case,
 100

it was inter se dispute between Shia and Sunni, Hindus were not
party. Upto middle of the 19th century, Ayodhya was regarded as
a stronghold of Hindus. Ramjanambhumi was at all material
time accessible to Hindus. In 1949 some Muslim members tried
to raise a dispute resulting in proceedings under section 145
Cr.P.C. and thereby also Hindus were allowed to continue
worship and Muslims were restrained from entering the
building. Faizabad Gazetteer 1960 has recorded an important
fact at page 50 as under:
“William Finch, the English merchant, who travelled
through the Mughal Empire (1608-1611) says that Avadh is
“a citie of ancient note, and seate of Potan King, now
much ruined; the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe.
Heere are also the ruines of Ranichand(s)3 castle and
houses, which the Indians acknowledge for the great God,
saying that he tooke a flesh upon him to see the tamasha of
the world. In these ruines remayne certaine Bramenes who
record the names of all such Indians as wash themselves in
the river running thereby; which custome they say, hath
continued foure lackes of yeeres (which is three hundred
nintie foure thousand and five hundred yeeres before the
world's creation).”
At the footnote against the number (3) which is
indicated in the citation against the word 'Rani Chand' it is
explained as follows :-
“Ram Chandra, the Hero of Ramayan. The reference
is to the mound known as Ram-kot or fort of Rama.”
69. Even from the above, it is evident that during the time of
Emperor Akbar, Ramjanambhumi Sthan was worshipped by
Hindus which was noticed by the English Traveller as well. The
 101

temple and the Sthan has always been the public religious
worship place for the last several years and the alleged act of
Babar could not take away its spirituality. The presence or
absence of idols would neither in any way affect the right, title
and interest of Hindus over the Sthan and the temple in dispute
nor will it affect in any way the religious character of
Ramjanambhumi as a place being a part of Hindu religion. For
example, Lord Krishna left this world at the place near Somnath
in the State of Gujarat. The place is known as Prabhas Patan
(Somnath) but at this place there is no idol of Lord Krishna. Yet
the place is a very holy place for Hindus and is worshipped. The
Hindus firmly believe that worship at that place would be
conducive to their spiritual well being and peace. In the present
case, what is of the maximum religious importance for Hindus is
the birth place of Lord Ram, i.e. the Janamsthan. The presence
of idols on the place are of later origin when Vikramaditya
repaired and resuscitated the temple for the benefit of the
worshippers who subsequently started imagining a particular
image in which God Ram is manifesting himself as a Divine
person to them. It is said that ouster of Hindu community from
Ramjanambhumi never took place. Hindus have always been
and are still today in lawful possession over the site in dispute.
Alternatively, even otherwise, they have regained possession by
exercising their right of worship peacefully, and to the
knowledge of the plaintiffs for more than twelve years and thus
have perfected their title in the eyes of law. The suit is barred by
limitation. Babar is alleged not to have made any endowment or
waqf, nor he could. An emperor does not ipso facto become the
true owner of the whole earth of which he may be a Ruler.
There is no such concept that the Ruler becomes the true owner
 102

of all the land in his kingdom ipso facto. The site in dispute
admittedly belongs to Hindus for the last thousands of years.
The Ruler might have a superior right to levy taxes etc. but
could not be deemed to be the actual owner. In the
circumstances, the claim of the plaintiffs that Babar by
annexation, which is emphatically denied, as there was no
annexation as such, became the owner and made a waqf. There
was no battle between Babar and Raja of Ayodhya and no
question of annexation of territories arose. The general religious
notions of Hindu community prior as well as subsequent to
Babar have always been that the temple and the Janam Bhumi
sthan, i.e., Ramjanambhumi, the birth place of the Creator Lord
Ram are and have always been for religious benefit of the
Hindus, for the benefit of the truth and good as against evils and
vices and the worship for which the place was used and stood
dedicated had at no time been taken away. Neither the plaintiffs
nor the Muslims acquired the right, title or interest in the suit
property. Babar had no right to give religious place of
Ramjanambhumi of Hindus in perpetuity to Muslims or create
any right in favour of Muslims over the religious place of
Hindus, which is against all canons of justice, morality and good
conscience. Moreover, a place already dedicated cannot be re-
dedicated. The birth place of Lord Ram is located at a particular
spot in Ayodhya. It cannot be shifted to any other place in the
world. It is of the same status for Hindus as Mecca for Muslims.
As Mecca cannot be shifted, so Ramjanambhumi cannot be
shifted. On the basis of national policy, while assigning the
weightage to a particular place of a particular religion or a
particular community, the belief and religious feelings of
Hindus in this regard be given supreme importance. A mosque
 103

can be built in any other part. Following the same, the

Government of India under the regime of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru
and Sardar Patel permitted reconstruction of Somnath Temple
in Gujarat inspite of opposition of some Muslims
fundamentalists. Likewise, the claim of Christian
fundamentalists on Vivekanand rock was brushed aside and the
Government of India okayed the construction of Vivekanand
Mandir near Kanya Kumari. The plaintiffs have no right to
maintain the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Additional written statement dated 17.10.1995 of defendant
no. 20 (Madan Mohan Gupta) (Suit-4)
70. An additional written statement dated 17th October 1995
says that Babar when invaded India and sought to construct a
mosque at Ayodhya, he partly destroyed the said temple. He is
said to have constructed a mosque by keeping the lower
structure as such and only constructed the upper structure with
the malba (debris) of the temple. Pillars of the temple were also
used in its construction and the figures of Hindu Deities and
holy signs over the pillars were the evidence that Hindu temple
was not completely destroyed. Thus the temple structure existed
and it is wrong to claim that a new mosque was constructed by
Babar and handed over to Muslim community. Due to engraved
figures of Hindu deities on the pillars of the disputed structure,
the Muslims were not offering prayer therein. It is denied that
the Muslims offered Namaz for the last more than 46 years. The
nature of Ramjanambhumi will never be changed and it shall
always remain Ramjanambhumi even if Muslims have offered
Namaz therein at some point of time. In case the court directs
for reconstruction of demolished structure, it is necessary that it
should be built in the original shape and model having 14 pillars
with the figures of Hindu Deity, lotus, Swastik, Ram Chabutara,
 104

Sita Rasoi and temple of Ram Lala. Babar never became an

Emperor of India. He was only an invader. However, no King or
Government had a right to hand over or give religious land to
any person, as such, Babar had no right to construct a mosque
over Ramjanambhumi and give it to Muslims, nor Muslims have
any right to claim Ramjanambhumi.
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (earlier registered as Regular Suit No.
236 of 1989)
71. The aforesaid suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge,
Faizabad on 1.7.1989 by three plaintiffs namely, (1) Bhagwan
Shri Rama Virajman at Shri Rama Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya,
represented by next friend Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwala, (2)
Asthan Shri Rama Janama Bhumi, Ayodhya represented by next
friend Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwala and (3) Sri Deoki Nandan
Agarwala himself. It was registered as Original Suit No. 236 of
1989 but after transfer to this Court has been renumbered as
O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit-5”).
Initially there were 27 defendants but for one or the other
reasons some of the defendants have been deleted or substituted
and presently, the defendants are as under (not arranged
according to the serial number of the defendants' arrays)
1. Sri Rajendra Singh
2. Param Hans Mahant Ram Chandra Das of Digambar
Akhara, Ayodhya
3. Nirmohi Akhara Mohalla Ram Ghat, Ayodhya through
its present Mahant Jagannath Das
4. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P.
5. Sri Mohammad Hashim
6. Sri Mohammad Ahmad
7. State of U.P. through the Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.
 105

8. The Collector and District Magistrate, Faizabad

9. The City Magistrate, Faizabad
10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad
11. The President, All India Hindu Mahasabha, New
Delhi.
12. The President, All India Arya Samaj, Dewan Hall,
Delhi.
13. The President, All India Sanatan Dharma Sabha, Delhi
14. Sri Dharam Das, Chela Baba Abhiram Das
15. Sri Pundarik Misra
16. Shri Ram Dayal Saran
17. Shri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
18. Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey
19. Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Nyas,
20. Shia Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. Lucknow.
21. Prince Anjum Quder, President All India Shia
Conference,
22. All India Shia Conference, through Sri S.Mohammad
Hasnain Abidi, Honorary General Secretary
23. Hafiz Mohd. Siddiqui, General Secretary Jainaitul
Ulema Hind, U.P.
24. Vakeeluddin.
Reliefs (Suit-5)
72. The reliefs sought in the suit are (a) a declaration that the
entire premises of Shri Ramjanambhumi at Ayodhya, as
described by Annexures I, II and III belong to plaintiff Deities
and (b) a permanent injunction against the defendants
prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any objection
to, or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new
Temple building at Shri Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya.
 106

Plaint dated 1.7.1989 (Suit-5)

73. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that
plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are juridical persons with Bhagwan Shri
Ram as the presiding Deity of the place, namely, Shri
Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya. Plaintiff no.3 is a Vaishnav Hindu
and seeks to represent the Diety and the Sthan as the next friend.
The site of Shri Ramjanambhumi building premises and that of
adjacent area of Shri Ramjanambhumi is as per the site plan,
prepared by Sri Shiv Shankar Lal, Pleader, in discharge of his
duty as Commissioner appointed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Faizabad in O.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. no.1/1989), alongwith
report dated 25.5.1950 filed as Annexures no.1 and 2 to the
plaint. Suit No. 2 of 1950 (Suit-1) mentioned above was filed on
16th January 1950 by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad impleading five
individuals as defendants no.1 to 5, the State of U.P. and its
officials as defendants no.6 to 9. The plaintiff Gopal Singh
Visharad died and was substituted by his son, who has been
impleaded as defendant no.1. Defendants no. 1 to 5 of suit no. 2
of 1950 have also died and, therefore, their names have been
struck off under the orders of the Court in the aforesaid suit.
Those persons have not been substituted by anyone. Defendants
no.6 to 9 of Suit No. 2 of 1950 have been impleaded as
defendants no.7 to 10 in the present suit. A similar suit being
O.S. No. 25 of 1950 (Suit-2) was filed after few months of filing
the earlier suit no. 2 of 1950 by Paramhans Ramchandra Das
who has been impleaded as defendant no.2 in the present suit.
Defendants no.1 to 5 in the aforesaid suit were the same persons
who were impleaded as defendants no.1 to 5 in O.S. No. 2 of
1950 and, being dead, have not been impleaded in the present
suit. The third suit namely, O.S. No. 26 of 1959 (Suit-3) was
 107

filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad by Nirmohi Akhara,

Ayodhya who has been impleaded as defendant no.3 in the
present suit. Defendants no.2 to 5 of the said suit are already
impleaded as defendants no.7 to 10 in the present suit.
Defendant no.1 therein was the Receiver appointed in
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Rest of the defendants
have already died and, therefore, there is no occasion to implead
them in the present suit. Then there is fourth suit also, being
O.S. No. 12 of 1961 (Suit-4) filed by Central Sunni Board of
Waqfs and 8 other Sunni Muslims. Central Sunni Board of
Waqfs is being impleaded as defendant no.4 and the remaining
surviving plaintiffs no.7 and 9 of the the said suit are already
impleaded as defendants no. 5 and 6 in the present suit. Rest of
the defendants are other defendants of the said suit and are
impleaded as defendants no. 1, 11 to 19.
74. By an order dated 4.8.1951 of the Civil Judge, Faizabad,
Suits no. 2 and 25 of 1950 were consolidated. Later on by order
dated 6.1.1964, all the four suits were consolidated making suit
no. 12 of 1961 as leading case. In suit no. 2 of 1950 an interim
injunction was granted on 16.1.1950 permitting continuance of
Pooja, etc; the parties were restrained from removing idols in
question from the site in dispute and the same is continuing till
date. Initially, Sri Babu Priya Dutt Ram, was appointed as
Receiver but later on replaced by Sri K.K. Ram Verma in 1970.
Thereafter Sri L.P.N. Singh was appointed Receiver and
thereafter by order dated 22.11.1988 Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh
was appointed Receiver. The suits remained pending for almost
two and half decades and could not be decided. The
worshippers, however, continued to be prevented from a closer
Darshan of the Deity. Hence, an application was filed, which
 108

was rejected by the Court of Munsif, Sadar, but in appeal, vide

order dated 1.2.1986, the then District Judge, Faizabad directed
the authorities to remove the barrier by opening the locks on the
gates 'O' and 'P' of the map annexed as Annexure-1 to the
present suit. The plaintiff Deities and their devotees are
extremely unhappy with the prolonged delay in disposal of the
suits and deteriorating management of the affairs of the Temple
and are desirous of having a new Temple constructed, befitting
to its pristine glory, after removing the old structure at Shri
Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya. In order to improve the temple
administration and to reconstruct a new Temple, the duty of
management and performance of religious functions, like Sewa,
Archana and Pooja etc., by an unanimous public opinion, was
entrusted to Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
Shivaramacharya of Kashi who was the Head of the Ramananda
Sampradaya to which most of the Sadhus and Vairagis of
Ayodhya belong. The trust so reposed in him by the Hindu
public was formally declared by him by Deed of Trust dated
December 18, 1985, registered on the same day with the Sub
Registrar, S.D. No.1, at Delhi, vide no. 16510 in Additional
Book No.4, Volume 1156, pages 64 to 69. Besides the aforesaid
named Shankaracharya, who declared himself to be the first
Trustee for life and Pramukh and Dharmakarta of the Trust,
other persons were also appointed as Trustees for life, whose
names are mentioned in para 16 of the plaint. Shri
Ramjanambhumi Nyas (Trust) is directly interested in the Sewa,
Pooja and other affairs of the plaintiff Deities and is impleaded
as defendant no.21 in the present suit.
75. The four suits were pending for long. Since they did not
result in settlement of the dispute, it led to various
 109

complications. Besides, there are some technical defects also,

namely, the Presiding Deities who are juridical persons and
others were not impleaded. Plaintiffs have been advised to file a
fresh suit of their own for proper adjudication of the dispute
relating to Ramjanambhumi, the land and the building
appurtenant thereto.
76. The facts stated in the plaint are virtually repetition of the
defence taken by defendant no.13 in his written statement and
additional written statement filed in Suit-4 but since they are
assertions made in the plaint of a suit separately filed on behalf
of Deities, we are mentioning the same in brief though it may
appear to be more in the nature of repetition.
77. It is averred that from the public record of unimpeachable
authority, it is established manifestly that the premises in
dispute is the place where Maryada Purushottam Shri
Ramchandra Ji Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja
Dashrath of Solar Dynasty. According to the traditions and faith
of devotees of Bhagwan Shri Ram, it is the place where he
manifested himself in human form as an incarnation of
Bhagwan Vishnu. The place has since ever been called Shri
Ramjanambhumi by all and sundry through the ages. The place
itself has been the object of worship as a Deity by the devotees
of Bhagwan Shri Rama as it personifies the spirit of Divine,
worshipped in the form of Shri Ramlala or Lord Ram, the child.
The Sthan was thus deified and has a juridical personality of its
own even before the construction of a Temple building or the
intallation of idol of Bhagwan Shri Rama thereat. Hindus do not
worship the stone or the metal shaped into the form of their
Ishta Deva or the stone of Saligram which has no particular
shape at all. They worship the Divine, which has no quality or
 110

shape or form, but can be known only when it manifests itself in

the form of an incarnation and, therefore, adopt the form of his
incarnation as their Ishta Deva. Some persons meditate upon
formless and shapeless Divine and aspire for knowledge of him
through his grace. It is the spirit of the Divine which is
worshipped by most Hindus and not its material form or shape
of an idol. The spirit of Divine in an idol is invoked by the ritual
of Pranpratistha. The spirit of Divine is indestructible and ever
remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke it
in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspiration.
Different persons are at different levels of realization of reality.
Some find it helpful to pursue a particular set of rituals for their
spiritual uplift. A large section of Hindus follow Bhakti Marga,
and Bhagwan Shri Rama or Bhagwan Shri Krishna is their Ishta
Deva. According to faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Shri Rama
Lala, it is the spirit of Bhagwan Shri Ram as the Divine child
which resides at Sthan Shri Ramjanambhumi and can be
experienced by those who pray there and invoke that spirit for
their spiritual uplift. That spirit is the Deity. An idol is not
necessary for invoking Divine Spirit. Another example of such
Deity is Kedar Nath where there is no idol in the temple. It is the
undulating surface of stone which is worshipped there as the
Deity. Another example is the Vishnupad Temple at Gaya
where too there is no idol. The place is believed to have borne
the footprints of Bhagwan Vishnu which is worshipped as
Deity. Similarly, at Ayodhya, the very Sthan Shri
Ramjanambhumi is worshipped as a Deity through such
symbols of the Divine Spirit as the Charan and the Sita Rasoi.
The place is a Deity. It exists in this immovable form through
the ages and has ever been a juridical person. Actual and
 111

continuous performance of Pooja of such an immovable Deity

by its devotees is not essential for its existence as a Deity. The
Deity continues to exist so long as the place exists and being
land, it is indestructible. The Sthan Shri Ramjanambhumi is an
indestructible and immovable Deity who has continued to exist
through the ages. Books of history and public record of
unimpeachable authenticity establish undisputably that there
was an ancient Temple of Maharaja Vikramaditya's time at Shri
Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya. That Temple was destroyed partly
and an attempt was made to raise a mosque thereat by force of
arms of Mir Baqi, a Commander of Babar's hordes. The material
used was almost taken from the Temple including its pillars of
Kasauti or touchstone with figures of Hindu Gods and
Goddesses carved on them. There was great resistance by the
Hindus and many battles were fought from time to time by them
to prevent the completion of the mosque. Presently, it has no
minarets and no place for storage of water for Vazoo. Many
lives were lost in these battles. The last battle occurred in 1855.
The building and the place was in possession and control of
Hindus at that time.
78. According to Faizabad Gazetteer published by the
Government Press, U.P. (at page 179), Ayodhya is pre-
eminently a city of temples. It is locally affirmed that at the time
of the Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu
shrines at Ayodhya and little else. These were the Janamsthan
temple, the Swargadwar and the Treta-Ka-Thakur and each was
successively made the object of attention of different Musalman
rulers. The Janamsthan was in Ramkot and marked as the
birthplace of Lord Ram. In 1528 Babar came to Ayodhya and
halted there for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and at
 112

its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The

material of the old structure was largely employed and many of
the columns are in good preservation. They are of close-grained
black stone, called by the natives 'Kasauti' and carved with
various devices. Their length is from seven to eight feet, and the
shape square at the base, centre and capital, the rest being round
or octagonal. The mosque has two inscriptions, one on the
outside and the other on the pulpit, both are in Persian and bear
the date 935 Hijri. In the same Gazetteer (at page 180), it is
mentioned as under:
“This desecration of the most sacred spot in the city caused
great bitterness between Hindus and Musalmans. On many
occasions the feeling led to bloodshed, and in 1855 an
open fight occurred, the Musalmans occupying the
Janamsthan in force and thence making a desperate assault
on the Hanuman Garhi. They charged up the steps of the
temple, but were driven back with considerable loss. The
Hindus then made counter-attack and stormed the
Janamsthan, at the gate of which seventy-five Musalmans
were buried, the spot being known as the Ganj Shahidan or
the martyrs' resting-place. Several of the king's regiments
were present, but their orders were not to interfere. Shortly
afterwards Maulvi Amir Ali of Amethi in Lucknow
organised a regular expedition with the object of
destroying the Hanuman Garhi, but he and his forces were
stopped in the Bara Banki district (Gazetteer of Barabanki,
p. 168). It is said that upto this time both Hindus and
Musalmans used to worship in the same building; but since
the mutiny an outer enclosure has been put in front of the
mosque and the Hindus, who are forbidden access to the
 113

inner yard, make their offerings on a platform which they

have raised the outer one.”
79. Such a structure cannot be a mosque having been made
after destroying the temple using its material including Kasauti
pillars with figures of Hindu Gods carved thereon. Despite the
Britishers treated it as a mosque but it could not become so.
Some of the reasons for not treating the building as a mosque
are that it is not in accordance with the Tenets of Islam, some of
which are stated in para 24, sub paras (A) to (G) which are
similar as we have already reproduced while noting down the
pleadings in the written statement of defendant no.13 in Suit-4.
The plaintiff Deities have continued to be worshipped since
ever throughout the ages at Shri Ramjanambhumi. The place
belongs to the Deities. No valid Waqf was ever created or could
have been created at that place or any part of it, in view of the
title and possession of the plaintiff Deities thereon, contrary to
the Islam religion. No prayer was ever offered thereat. Treating
it a Waqf under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936, is also illegal for the
reasons stated in detail in paras 25 and 26 which are similar to
the additional written statement of defendant no.13 in Suit-4.
After independence from British Rule, the Vairagis, Sadhus and
the Hindu public, dug up and levelled whatever graves had been
left in the area surrounding Ramjanambhumi Sthan and purified
the place by Akhand Patha and Japa by thousands of persons all
over the area. Ultimately, on the night between the 22nd and 23rd
December, 1949, the idol of Bhagwan Shri Rama was
installed with due ceremony under the central dome of the
building. Since there was no Muslim residing anywhere near
the place, no resistance was put by any Muslim to those acts.
However, the local authorities acting with mala fide lodged a
 114

first information report of their own resulting in initiation of

proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and issuance of
preliminary order dated 29.12.1949. The aforesaid attempt was a
device to take over the administration of Janambhumi Mandir
by the Government by appointing a Receiver which had
continued thereafter, though the City Magistrate had dropped
the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by order dated
30.7.1953 with the finding that there was no apprehension of
breach of peace any longer. The appointment of Receiver
however continued thereafter under order passed by the Civil
Court in pending suits. Plaintiff Deities were not parties in any
of the earlier four suits filed by different parties in which the
order of appointment of Receiver was passed. The Receiver
derived power solely from the orders of the Court and was not
authorised to remove any person from the possession or the
custody of the premises. In fact, he never interfered with the
possession of plaintiff Deities. The Receiver acted like a Shebait
and did not disturb the possession of plaintiff Deities. The
period of possession of the plaintiffs over the building in
question since the installation of Deities, i.e., since the
intervening night of 22nd and 23rd December, 1949, is admitted
by all concerned parties. Thus, independent of original title of
the plaintiff Deities, which continued all along, the admitted
position of their possession places the matter of their title
beyond any doubt or dispute. Even if any person is claiming title
to the property in dispute adversely to the plaintiff Deities, that
would have extinguished by their open and long adverse
possession which created positively and affirmatively a
proprietary title to the premises in the plaintiff Deities.
80. Hindu public and devotees of plaintiff Deities are keenly
 115

desirous of restoring Janamsthan to its pristine glory. A plan to

this effect has already been drawn and the active movement is
planned to commence from September 30, 1989. Foundation
stone shall be laid down on November 9, 1989. The plaintiff
Deities not being a party to any of the suits pending in the
Courts were not bound or affected by anything which may be
decided or not decided in any of the four suits pending as
aforesaid for the last so many years. Plaintiff no.3 felt that the
pendency of the said suits may present a hindrance, inasmuch
as, a declaration has been sought by the Sunni Board frivolously
in suit no. 12 of 1961 that the building at Shri Ramjanambhumi,
Ayodhya is a mosque known as 'Babri Mosque' and that the
adjacent land is a Muslim Public graveyard, known as 'Ganje
Shahidan' and the Court had permitted the plaintiffs of that suit
to sue the defendants no.1 to 4 thereof as representatives of the
entire Hindu community. The plaintiffs of that suit cannot
represent the entire Muslim community as they are all Sunnis
and thus only a segment of the Muslim population who have
wide ranging differences with other sects of Muslims,
particularly, the Shias. Similarly, defendants no.1 to 4 are also
not capable of representing the entire world of Hindus.
Defendants no. 1 and 2 of that suit have categorically stated that
they do not represent anyone else except themselves. The
defendant no. 3 has put forward a personal interest in the
management of the plaintiff Deities. In the circumstances, the
plaintiff no.3 has been advised to file this suit as the next friend
for and on behalf of the Deities against all the contending
parties. According to the case taken up by defendants no. 4, 5
and 6 and the documents filed by them or on their behalf, the
Babri Masjid was a Sunni Waqf but its Mutwallis, being the
 116

descendants of Mir Baqi were Shia Muslims. A judgment

dated 30.3.1946 of Sri S.Hasan, Civil Judge, Faizabad in suit no.
29 of 1945 where Shia Central Board of Waqfs U.P. was
plaintiff and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. was the
defendant, has been produced in this context although the
judgment has not been relied on or referred in the plaint of suit
no. 12 of 1961 to show that Waqf of Babri Masjid was a Sunni
Waqf and its Mutwallis were Shias. This position is
incomprehensible in law. The waqf created by a Shia Waqif
would be a Shia Waqf and could not be a Sunni Waqf.
Admittedly, as per their case, the mosque was built by Mir Baqi
who was a Shia and that he being a Waqif his heirs were the
Mutwallis one after the other, but the Shia Central Board of
Waqfs U.P. did not agitate the case any further either because of
negligence or collusion in those difficult days of communal
conflict immediately before the partition. In any case, the
judgment is not binding. According to the report dated
10.12.1949 of Mohd. Ibrahim, Waqf Inspector and an office
note signed by the Secretary, Sunni Central Board of Waqfs,
U.P. dated 25.11.1948, Sri Javed Husain, the Numberdar of
village Sahanwa and in the line of descendants of Mir Baqi was
the Mutwalli of the Waqf though he did not act and submit to
the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board. Shia Waqf Board and Sri
Javed Hussain are also impleaded as defendants no. 22 and 23.
Prince Anjum Qader, who is the President of All India Shia
Conference has also been impleaded as defendants no. 24 and
25 in the suit.
81. The entire premises of Shri Ramjanambhumi,Ayodhya,
besides Deity of plaintiff no.1, has other idols of Deities, i.e.,
Ram Chabutara, the Charan and the Sita Rasoi etc alongwith the
 117

yards, enclosures and buildings, including Sita Koop and all that
constitute one integral complex. They have a single identity.
The claim of the Muslims represented by defendants no. 4, 5
and 6 is confined to the building and the area enclosed within
the inner boundary wall, erected after annexation of Avadh by
the British. The rest of the area has not been claimed as Babri
Masjid. The claim that the surrounding area is a Qabristan
known as Ganj Shahidan is vague and unidentified. There are no
graves anywhere for the last fifty years at least. The claim of the
aforesaid defendants is hollow and even otherwise they do not
represent the entire Muslim community. Defendant no.23, the
present Mutwalli of the Babri Masjid since before 1948 had not
joined as plaintiff or defendant in Suit No. 12 of 1961 despite
well established position in law that only a Mutwalli of a
mosque can sue for its possession and even when a worshipper
sues in respect of an existing mosque, he must sue for
possession being delivered to the Mutwalli and that he cannot
ask for possession being delivered to him. Some of the Muslims
tried to settle the dispute suggesting for removal of mosque to a
suitable place. Though the plaintiffs do not admit that the
building at Ramjanambhumi or any part of its precincts had ever
been mosque, they are not averse to the proposal of removal of
mosque building except the Kasauti pillars. The building will in
any case have to be demolished for construction of a new
Temple which they propose to construct at the place. The situs
of Shri Ramjanambhumi cannot be changed considering the
nature and significance of the 'Sthan' as the birth place of Lord
Ram. On the other hand, under the tenets of Islam a mosque can
be shifted under certain circumstances and its shifting would not
in any way be contrary to Islamic tenets.
 118

82. In view of later events, major amendments made in the

plaint. It says that due to long delay in disposal of the matter, the
Hindu saints from time to time resolved to take steps for
construction of a Temple and in a meeting held at Ujjain during
May 1992 resolved to start Kar Sewa for the construction of a
New Temple. On 9.7.1992, in their assembly at Ayodhya, the
resolution was reaffirmed. The entire building was brought
down by Kar Sewaks with their bare hands in just about five
hours after 11 A.M. on 6.12.1992. The debris was collected and
carried away by the Kar Sewaks as holy momentos leaving the
place where the Deity of Bhagwan Shri Rama Lala was installed
under the central dome of the demolished structure flat in the
form of Chabutara on which the Deity was immediately
reinstalled. The place was enclosed by a brick boundary wall
and a canopy was also erected for the protection of the Deity
and Pooja was continued as of yore. The then Chief Misnister of
U.P., owning the entire responsibility resigned from his office in
the evening of 6.12.1992 and the President imposed President's
Rule in the State in the midnight. On 7.1.1993 the President
promulgated the “Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya
Ordinance” (No. 8 of 1993) and simultaneously referred the
matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 143(1) of the
Constitution the following question:
“Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu structure
existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janam Bhumi-
Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the
structure stood.”
83. The object and purpose of both the said measures adopted
by the President was to settle the long-standing dispute relating
 119

to the structure. The reference shows that the area in which the
structure stood, is located in Revenue Plot Nos. 159 and 160 in
Village Kot Ramchandra. The said Ordinance was replaced and
re-enacted as Parliament's Act No. 33 of 1993 and came into
force w.e.f. 7.1.1993. The plaintiff Deities who are juristic
person in law could not, nor do they appear to have been
acquired under the said enactment. The rights of Hindus in
general and the devotees of Shri Ram in particular, to worship
the said Deities also could not have been acquired or taken
away. Right to manage their property includes the arrangement
to be made for maintaining their worship on the Shebaiti rights
which in themselves constitute heritable property under the
Hindu Law. The same seems to be taken away and entrusted for
the time being to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division,
Faizabad, (ex offico) under Section 7 of the said Act. The
validity of the said Act was challenged in several writ petitions
in this Court which were withdrawn by the Supreme Court for
hearing and decision alongwith the hearing of the preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the Presidential Reference
under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India. The said Act
was also sought to be challenged in Connected O.O.S. No. 3 and
4 of 1989 in this Court as well but proceedings were stayed by
the Apex Court while withdrawing the writ petition against
acquisition from this Court for hearing and decision. Vide
judgment dated 24.10.1994, a three Judges Bench of the Apex
Court in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (supra), declared sub-section
(3) of Section 4 of Act No. 33 of 1993 unconstitutional and
invalid but upheld the validity of other provisions thereof
subject to the interpretation put thereon by the Apex Court and
the Reference was returned unanswered to the President of
 120

India. The cause of action for filing the suit accrued day today,
particularly recently when the plan of Temple reconstruction is
sought to be obstructed by violent action from the side of certain
Muslim communalists.
Written statement dated 14.8.1989 of Defendant no. 3
(Nirmohi Akhara) (Suit-5)
84. Defendant no.3 Nirmohi Akhara has filed its written
statement dated 14.8.1989 reserving its right to file a
supplementary written statement on the ground that due to
paucity of time, it could not collect entire material. It is said that
the suit is malicious and designed to damage the title and
interest of the defendant. Plaintiff no.3 has no right to act as
next friend of plaintiffs no.1 and 2. Plaintiffs are not even a
juridical person nor have any personal right to file the suit. It is
denied that Bhagwan Shri Ram is also called Ram Lala
Virajman. Impleadment of plaintiff no.1 is also said to be
wrong. Bhagwan Shri Ram is said to have been installed not at
Janambhumi but in the Temple known as Janambhoomi Temple
for whose delivery of charge and management, the defendant
had filed suit no. 26 of 1959 (Suit-3). Virajman is said to be
neither a name or title of any Deity and is wholly vague. Sthan
Shri Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya is also said to be a meaningless
phrase as 'Sthan' simply means a place and not a juridical
person. It is also denied that plaintiff no.3 (Deoki Nandan
Agarwal) is a Vaishnavite. He is not even a worshipper of the
Deity installed in Shri Ramjanambhumi Temple and has no
right to sue, nor can he represent the Deity or the so-called
Sthan. He is not at all interested in the welfare of the Deity in
question. He lives in Allahabad and is not at all interested in
Shri Ramjanambhumi Temple but to obtain cheap popularity,
maliciously, by raising a slogan of constructing a new Temple
 121

has arranged to spend Rs. 25 Crores. The temple belongs to

defendant no.3. However, the birth place of Lord Ram is not
disputed. The whole world knows that his birth place is in
Ayodya where the Temple Ram Janambhumi stands in Mohalla
Ramkot, Ayodhya which is in dispute in various suits
transferred to this Court. Muslims claim thereat a mosque while
defendant no. 3 claims it to be a Temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram
under the charge and management of Nirmohi Akhara as
Shebait of Bhagwan Shri Ram. Annexures I, II and III to the
plaint are incorrect. Many important places of the temple have
not been shown in the said annexures. They pertain to another
suit and have no evidentiary value. It is said that Nirmohi
Akhara alone has right to control, supervise and repair or even
to reconstruct the temple, if necessary. Knowledge of any trust
is denied. It is said that the Trust has no relevance at all to the
dispute. Inclusion of the name of Mahant Ramkewaldas as
Trustee would not make any difference so far as the rights of
defendant no.3 are concerned. Relevance and continuity of the
Trust of the disputed property is denied. It is, however, not
disputed that no prayers have ever been offered by any Muslim
in the Ramjanambhumi Temple which is claimed by some
Muslims as mosque though it never was. The idol of Bhagwan
Ram is said to have always existed over there. Proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated illegally affecting the
rights of defendant no.3. There was no movement for
construction of a new Temple in place of the present temple nor
anyone else has a right to construct a new temple in its place.
The plaintiffs have no real title to sue. They have wrongly been
advised to file the suit only to harass defendant no.3 and try to
encroach upon its rights of management of the temple. The
 122

entire premises belong to Nirmohi Akhara. There is no question

of any mosque as Babri Masjid or any Qabristan thereat.
Additional written statement dated 20.4.1992 of Defendant
no. 3 (Nirmohi Akhara) (Suit-5)
85. An additional supplementary written statement dated
20.4.1992 has also been filed stating that site plan annexure II to
the plaint does not bear any plot number nor is it bounded so as
to give definite identity of the property. The Temple Shri Vijay
Ragho Ji Sakshi Gopal has never been subject matter of any of
the suit i.e., O.O.S. Nos. 3 of 1989 or 4 of 1989, pending before
this Court. Sumitra Bhawan is another temple shown in the site
plan, which is the temple of Sheshawatar Laxmanji Maharaj
which has been in possession of Mahant Raj Mangal Das, one of
the Panch of Nirmohi Akhara. Nazul Plot no.588 measuring 1-6-
13-15 Kachwanceis of Mohalla Ram Kot is recorded with Deity
Laxamanji Maharaj through Ramdas Nirmohi who is Guru of
Raj Mangal Das. Mahant Ramdas is recorded in settlement plot
no. 168 to 174 as Qabiz of Sumitra Bhawan. Similarly, Lomash
Chaura Mandir, Sita Koop Mandir, Kuti shown in the said map
have distinct Deity of Bhagwan Ram Lalaji managed by other
Panches of Nirmohi Akhara, namely, Mahant Dwarika Das,
Mahant Naval Kishore Das and Ram Gopal Das. Sankatmochan
Mandir has been omitted in the map whereas it did exist on the
date of filing of suit. It has its Deity Sankatmochan Hanuman Ji
and Thakur Ram Janki represented by Sarbarakar Ram Dayal
Saran, Chela of Ram Lakhan Saran, who was Naga Chela of
Golaki Ram Lakhan Das one of the old panch of Nirmohi
Akhara. The outer Sahan carried a small temple of Bhagwan
Ramlalaji alongwith other place, regularly worshipped
according to prevailing customs amongst Ramanandi Vairagies.
The outer part of the temple Ram Lalaji and Deities have always
 123

been in management and charge of Nirmohi Akhara as Shebait

till this outer portion with Bhandar was attached under Section
145 Cr.P.C. A Receiver was appointed in Suit No. 239 of 1982,
Shri Ram Rama Nandi Nirmohi Akhara Vs. K.K. Ram Verma
etc. due to lootpat committed by Dharam Das. Plaintiff no.3 has
himself named Dharam Das as witness. The suit by plaintiffs
no.3 is not maintainable for want of possession and is also
barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The outer portion
consists of Bhagwan Ram Lala on Shri Ram Chabutara along
with other Deities, “Chhathi Pujan Sthan” and 'Bhandar' (store)
with eastern outer wall carrying engraved image of Varah
Bhagwan with southern and northern wall and also western
portion of wall carrying the present municipal nos. 10/12/29 old
506, 507 and older 647 of Ram Kot Ward of Ayodhya City,
which have been referred in many litigations since 1885 till
Regular Suit No. 239 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge,
Faizabad. The suit is bad for want of necessary party, as
“Nirmohi Akhara” was also held in possession and
management of the temple in every case. Bhagwan Ramlalaji
installed by it on the Ram Chabutara is a distinct legal entity
owned by defendant no.3. Attachment of the property was
wholly illegal and bad. Plaintiff no.3 is an office bearer of
V.H.P. and is also a member of defendant no.2, the alleged Nyas
(Trust), who has no concern with the matter. They are trying to
usurp the property of defendant no.3. Outer portion with
surrounding temples, were illegally acquired by VHP backed by
B.J.P. Government, vide notification dated 7.10.1991, which is
under challenge in a writ petition. However, it is void and illegal
in view of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
IInd additional written statement dated 13.5.1994 of
Defendant no. 3 (Nirmohi Akhara) (Suit-5)
 124

86. The second additional written statement dated 13.5.1994

has been filed on behalf of defendant no.3 challenging the very
existence of alleged Trust. It is illegal and void. Jagadguru
Ramanand himself had condemned the alleged Trust. The
disputed property belongs to Nirmohi Akhara and the Trust is a
non-constitutional body devoid of any title of disputed property.
Written statement dated 26/29.8.1989 of Defendant No. 4
(Sunni Central Board of Waqfs) (Suit-5)
87. The defendant no. 4 has filed a very detailed written
statement dated 26/29.08.1989. Denying the claim of the
plaintiffs about being juridical persons, it is said that neither of
the plaintiffs are juridical persons nor there is any presiding
deity of Shri Ram Chandraji at the place in dispute nor the
plaintiff no. 3 has any locus standi or right to represent the so
called and alleged deity and Asthan as next friend. The plaintiffs
no. 1 and 2 have no right to file this suit as they are not legal
personalities. It is denied that there has been any installation of
deity within the premises of the disputed place of worship
known as Babri Masjid. The idol in question, it is said, was
stealthily and surreptitiously kept inside the mosque in the night
of 22/23.12.1949 by some mischief-mongers against whom a
first information report was lodged at Police Station Ayodhya
on 23.12.1949. Plan and report submitted by Sri Sheo Shanker
Lal, Commissioner made part of the plaint do not depict the
correct position of the spot hence cannot be relied upon for
identification and description of the property in suit. The
plaintiffs are obliged to give correct boundaries of the property
in suit and the plaint is defective in this respect.
88. Filing of Suit-1 by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and Zahoor
Ahmad is not disputed but rest of the contents of para 3 of the
plaint are denied. It is denied that the original plaintiff of the
 125

said suit has died recently. It is said that in fact he had expired
several years ago and no application for substitution was filed
within the prescribed time hence the suit stood abated much
before 1986. The order of substitution passed in favour of the
defendant no. 1 is illegal and improper. The names of Muslim
defendants of the said suit is said to have been wrongly struck
off. The heirs of the Muslim defendants were liable to be
substituted in place of the original Muslim defendants. For
verification of the contents, the record of the aforesaid suit itself
may be perused.
89. Similarly, filing of Suit No. 25 of 1950 (Suit-2) is not
disputed but the rest of the contents of para 5 may be verified
from the plaint of the suit. The Suit No. 25 of 1950 (Suit-2) also
suffers from the defects as in Suit-1.
90. The filing of Suit-3 is also not disputed but in respect to
the averments contained therein it is said that the same may be
verified from the plaint of the suit. The idols of Shri Ram
Chandraji were never installed in the premises of Babri Masjid
which has wrongly been described as Janam Bhumi. The suit is
defective and not maintainable. Heirs of Muslim defendants
have not been substituted though the cause of action survives
against them and all of them ought to have been impleaded. The
property in suit is a mosque and it has never been admitted that
the said building was a temple.
91. Filing of Suit No. 12 of 1961 (Suit-4) by defendant no. 4
and some other Muslims is also not disputed but for the reliefs
claimed therein it is said that the plaint of the suit itself may be
perused. Any defect in the suit is denied. The Suit-4 has been
filed in representative capacity. The application for permission
to sue in representative capacity was allowed by the Court.
 126

92. All the four suits have been consolidated and Suit-4 is the
leading suit. There is no question of Pooja or Sewa in the
premises in question since the alleged deities did not exist in the
building in question and the idols kept therein could not be
treated as deities. Only a restricted Pooja was carried on
16.01.1950 which cannot be treated as Sewa and Pooja of the
alleged deity. There is no likelihood of the suits being decided
in a manner that a close Darshan of the idols would be
permissible. Defendant no. 20 had no right to title or locus stand
to move the application for opening of the gate of the mosque
for close Darshan. He was not a party in any of the aforesaid
two suits and had no locus standi. The District Judge, Faizabad
illegally passed order dated 01.02.1986 whereagainst two writ
petitions are pending in this Court. The building in dispute is not
Janambhumi of Shri Ram Chandraji and no idols of Shri Ram
Chandraji were installed therein, hence, there arises no question
of right or claim of defendant no. 20 or anyone else to perform
Pooja or Darshan thereover. The fact is that the property in
dispute is an old mosque known as Babri Masjid, constructed
during the regime of Emperor Babar. There is no question of
construction of any new temple over the site of Babri Masjid.
The plaintiff or anyone else has no right or locus standi to claim
removal of old structure of mosque. Prior to 22/23.12.1949, no
idols were kept in the said mosque. It was never used for
performing Pooja and Darshan etc. prior to the aforesaid date.
Due to unnecessary and unusual delay in disposal of the suits
and continuance of the order of attachment of the mosque for
the last about 39 years condition of the building has also
deteriorated. The Receiver appointed by the Court is not taking
proper interest in maintenance of the building. Despite Court's
 127

order, no repairs of the buildings has been undertaken for the

last several years. The alleged desire of removing the structure
of mosque and construction of a new temple on the site is
wholly uncalled for, unwarranted and mischievous. Any such
attempt is fraught with very dangerous consequences besides
being an offence and also in violation of the restraint order of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986, Mohd. Hashim Vs.
State of U.P. and others. Since there existed no temple, the
question of improvement in the administration or reconstruction
thereof or managing performance of alleged Sewa and Pooja
does not arise. Since there is no deity, the question of protection,
renovation, reconstruction and development of alleged temple
premises does not arise. The building in question being a
mosque, the occasion for creation of any Trust does not arise.
The entire exercise is based on imaginary concept of
Ramjanambhumi Temple though no such temple ever existed
over the premises in question. The so called Ramjanambhumi
Nyas has no connection with the building in dispute. It is not a
legal person and there is no question of impleadment of the
Trust as defendant no. 21. Even the idol surreptitiously placed
on 22/23.12.1949, has not been installed in accordance with the
traditions and rituals of Hindu Law. The ceremony prescribed
by Hindu Law for installation of Idols has not been observed.
The idols kept in mosque are not legal entity and question of
their impleadment does not arise. The suit is barred by time
having been filed after more than 39 years after the attachment
of the property in suit and, therefore, is not maintainable. There
is no public record, much less any record of unimpeachable
authority, showing that the premises in dispute is the place of
birth of Shri Ram Chandraji. There is no historical or judicial
 128

record to testify the said fact. The religious books as well as the
writings of Hindu Scholars make it very doubtful whether the
personality of Shri Ram Chandraji is historical personality.
There are several versions about the place of birth of Shri Ram
Chandraji. It is not at all settled even amongst the Hindu
Scholars as to where and in what period such a religious leader
known as Shri Ram Chandraji was born. The booklets circulated
at Ayodhya by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other Hindu
organisations as well as other books of Hindu mythology
describe the period of Shri Ram Chandraji as that of Treata Yug,
meaning thereby that he was born more than nine lakh years
ago. According to Hindu mythology there were three Maha
Pralayas during which period the entire earth got submerged
into water. Accordingly, as per Hindu Mythology itself no
specific place can be said to be the birth place of Shri Ram
Chandraji. The greatest author in the recent history on Shri Ram
Chandraji is Goswami Tulsidas who has written
Ramcharitmanas during the regime of Mughal Emperor Akbar,
the grandson of Mughal Emperor Babar. The said book was
composed by Goswami Tulsidasji at a place known as “Datun
Kund” situate at a distance of about 1 km. from Ayodhya in
District Faizabad. Had there been any birth place of Shri Ram
Chandraji in Ayodhya, Goswami Tulsidasji must have
specifically mentioned about the same in his book
Ramcaritmanas. As a great devotee of Shri Ram Chandraji,
Goswami Tulsidas cannot be expected to have skipped over,
concealed or kept quiet over such an important fact of life
history of Shri Ram Chandraji. If there would have been any
iota of truth about the story of Shri Ramjanambhumi Temple at
Ayodhya at the site of Babri Masjid during the regime of
 129

Emperor Babar or prior thereto, and, had there been any incident
of demolition of such temple and construction of Babri Masjid
over the same, it would have been mentioned by Goswami
Tulsidas in his book. He also would have taken up this matter in
the Court (Darbar of Emperor Akbar) who must have undone
the alleged wrong. The Court of Emperor Akbar was full of
advisers, counsellors and ministers of Hindu community and his
own Queen was Jodha Bai, a Hindu lady. Even the location of
present Ayodhya does not tally with the location of Ayodhya as
given in Valmiki Ramayan. This creates doubt about there being
any place of birth at the present Ayodhya situate in District
Faizabad. According to Valmiki Ramayan, Ayodhya was
situated about a distance of one and half Yojan (equivalent to
about 14-1/2 miles) from river Saryu flowing East to West
which is presently running quite adjacent to the present
Ayodhya from West to East. It is incorrect that any historical or
other evidence exists to the effect that Shri Ram Chandraji
manifested himself in human form at the place where idols are
kept presently in the mosque in question. Prior to December,
1949, the place known as Babri Masjid was never called as Shri
Ramjanambhumi. In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das, Mahant of
Janam Asthan of Ayodhya, filed a suit against Secretary of State
for India in Council and Mohd. Asghar, Mutawalli of the
mosque in the Court of Sub-Judge, Faizabad. He annexed a site
plan alongwith plaint wherein the mosque in question was
specifically mentioned in the western side of Chabutra in respect
whereof the suit was filed seeking permission to erect temple
over the said Chabutra but could not succeed as the suit was
dismissed on 24.12.1885 by Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The first
appeal was dismissed by District Judge, Faizabad and second
 130

appeal was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.

The suit was filed in representative capacity on behalf of other
Mahants and Hindus of Ayodhya and Faizabad. The plaintiff,
therefore, cannot claim that any portion of Babri Masjid has
been deified or has become a juridical personality by the name
of Asthan Ramjanambhumi. There is no installation of any deity
at the premises in question. The plaintiffs are estopped from
claiming the mosque in question as Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram
Chandraji. The predecessors of the plaintiffs namely, Mahant
Raghubar Das confined his claim to Chabutra (platform) of 17
ft. x 21 ft. outside the mosque as being Janam Asthan of Shri
Ram Chandraji. There already exists another temple known as
Janam Asthan Temple at a distance of 100 yards only from
Babri Masjid and from its southern side. Mythological concept
of incarnation etc. is irrelevant for the purpose of suit in
question. A Hindu Officer himself has lodged first information
report about surreptitious placement of some idols in the
mosque in the night of 22/23.12.1949 by some mischievous
elements, which resulted in registration of a criminal case as
also initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. due to
communal tension flared up in the area concerned. The building
was attached on 29.12.1949. A Supurdagar/ Receiver was
appointed for its care and custody who drew a scheme of
management which was submitted to the Court on 05.01.1950.
The spirit of Shri Ram Chandraji as the divine child cannot be
said to reside at any place or in the idol kept inside the mosque.
No idol or place of mosque can be said to be Deity. There is no
comparison of Kedarnath or Vishnupad Temple of Gaya with
the Babri Masjid. There is no Charan or Sita Rasoi within the
premises of Babri Masjid. The place known as “Sita Rasoi” is
 131

situate outside the premises of the mosque. No Pooja was ever

performed inside the mosque at any time prior to 23.12.1949.
There was no temple of Maharaja Vikramadittya's time at the
site of Babri Masjid. No authentic book of history or public
record of unimpeachable authenticity is citable in this respect.
The averment of construction of mosque in question at the site
of temple or after destruction of any temple by force or arms is
incorrect. Use of material after alleged destruction in the
construction of mosque is also denied. It is also denied that the
pillars of the mosque were brought out of Kasauti or touchstone
with figures of Hindu God and Goddess carved on them. Such
pillars are available at some other places also. The alleged
resistance put up by Hindus or battle fought from time to time to
prevent construction of mosque is also denied. Regarding the
shape, it is said that there is no requirement of any specific type
of construction or structure for a mosque. Existence of minarets
or domes is not at all required for any mosque. There is no
necessity of any place for storage of water for Vazoo. In the
close vicinity of Babri Masjid a well is there for taking out
water for Vazoo. There are several other mosques in India and
even in Faizabad which have no minarets or domes. One of such
mosques is situate within the premises of Dargah Hazrat
Jahangir Samdani in Kachaucha Shareef, District Faizabad in
which there are no domes or minarets. Another is in District
Lucknow in which there are five domes but no minarets. No life
was lost in any battle fought in respect of Babri Masjid and no
battle had taken place in respect thereto till 1885. The place in
question was not in possession and control of Hindus since the
date of its construction during Babar's time. The facts contained
in Faizabad Gazeteer are based on hearsay and is not true. They
 132

are incorrect and are unreliable piece of evidence. Bitterness had

been created between Hindus and Muslims in respect of the
mosque situate inside Hanuman Garhi. It was on the report of
the demolition of that mosque that some muslims tried to take
up arms under the command of Maulvi Ameer Ali but they
could not succeed on account of the army of Nawab as well as
British posted for facing such challenge. The expedition of
Maulvi Ameer Ali has no concern with Babri Masjid. The
observations to the contrary in the Gazeteer of Faizabad and
Barabanki are incorrect and unreliable. At no point of time
Hindus and Muslims both worshipped at the place known as
Babri Masjid. Had it been so, it would have been mentioned by
Mahant Raghubar Das in his plaint of Original Suit No. 61/280
of 1885. The quotation of Quran in para 24(A) is totally out of
context and it is said that it is not even correct and complete.
The land in question undoubtedly belong to the State when the
mosque in question was constructed on behalf of State and as
such it cannot be said that it could not be dedicated for the
purpose of mosque. Emperor Babar was a “Sunni Muslim”. The
Babri Masjid was built on the vacant land in the State territory
of Emperor Babar. It did not belong to anyone and could very
well be used by his officers for the purpose of mosque
specifically so when the Emperor Babar himself consented and
gave approval for the purpose of construction of mosque. The
site in question was never the site of any temple and no temple
was destroyed by Meer Baqi. Had any such incident taken place,
the same would have been reported in the authentic books of
Mughal history. It is denied that the entry of mosque would not
be possible except after passing through the place of Hindu
worship. The concept of mosque has wrongly been described
 133

and, therefore, denied. There is no such condition that the

mosque should be constructed at a place of peace, quiet and near
a place having sizable Muslim population. It is also incorrect
that the mosque cannot be built in a place surrounded by the
temple where the sound of music and Konch shell, Ghanta
Ghariyal would disturb the site of peace of that place. There is
no specific shape of building of a mosque and no mandatory
requirement of minarets. There is also no requirement of any
specific place for calling the "Azan". The contents in para 24(E)
of the plaint are incorrect. Non existence of graves near the
building of the mosque is denied. The graves were existing in
Ganj-Shaheedan but have been mostly demolished by Bairagis
and that is how they are now not visible. The mosque in
question was used for offering regular five times prayer (namaz)
up to 22.12.1949 and even Friday prayer was offered therein till
16.12.1949. The Imam of the said mosque who used to lead
prayers in 1949 namely, Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar son of late
Mohd. Abdul Qadir has filed his affidavit in Writ Petition No.
746 of 1986, Mohd. Hashim Vs. District Judge, Faizabad and
others. It is denied that no valid Waqf of the mosque was ever
created. The possession of Muslims remained uninterrupted and
continuous from the date of construction of the mosque till
22.12.1949. The alleged right or title, if any, of anyone else
stands extinguished on account of adverse possession of
Muslims for more than 420 years. The alleged communal riot of
1934 has nothing to do with Babri Masjid. However, some
Bairagis damaged a portion of the mosque. The District
Magistrate, Faizabad got the same repaired through a Muslim
contractor. It is incorrect to say that after 1934 no one dared to
offer Namaz in the said mosque. It is denied that there was no
 134

Mutawalli or Moazzim or Imam or Khatib or Khadim of the said

mosque. The Mutawalli of the mosque finds mention even in the
Gazette of 1944 declaring the said mosque as Waqf. Even at
present there is a Committee of Management of the said mosque
appointed by defendant no. 4. The graves existing near Babri
Masjid were dug-up and levelled mainly after 1949 and not just
after independence. In the night of 22/23.12.1949 some Bairagis
forcibly and illegally entered the mosque and kept idols therein
below the middle dome of the mosque. Some of the culprits are
named in the first information report. It is incorrect that no
Muslim has been residing near Babri Masjid and no resistance
was offered by them. In fact Muslims reside not only behind the
mosque but also in the localities situated in the southern and
eastern side of the mosque. Since no one was aware of the
incident which took place in the late hours of the night, hence
could not offer resistance at that time. On 23.12.1949 they came
to know of the said incident, collected and insisted for offering
Friday prayers in the said mosque but the District Magistrate
present over there persuaded them not to offer prayer and
assured that the idols stealthily kept in the mosque would be
removed by the next Friday. In the circumstances, the Muslims
exercised restraint being law abiding citizens and started
pursuing legal remedies. This resulted in the proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. which were not dropped but has been
consigned to record due to filing of civil suit and were likely to
be revived after decision of the civil suit. The idols were kept in
connivance of some district officials, the then District
Magistrate, Sri K.K. Nayyar. The then Prime Minister and Chief
Minister asked the District Magistrate, Faizabad to get the idols
removed from the mosque. One Akshay Bramhachari, the then
 135

President of the District Congress Committee, Faizabad went on

fast to press his demand for removal of idols from the said
mosque but deferred the same on the assurance given by the
then Chief Minister, Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant. The proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were dropped on 30.07.1953 after
recording the finding that there was no apprehension of breach
of peace of any order any longer. Due to the injunction order
restraining removal of idols, the same could not have been
removed. It is incorrect to say that the Receiver acted like a
Shebait. There is no question of creating any right in favour of
the plaintiffs due to alleged long adverse possession. The theory
of restoration of the alleged Janam Asthan is wholly imaginary.
Mahatma Gandhi never considered or treated Babri Masjid to be
Janam Asthan of Shri Ram Chandraji. His disciples have also
disapproved the forcible placement of idols in the mosque. The
demand of demolition of mosque and construction of a new
grand temple of Shri Ram Chandraji is being raised by some
disgruntled elements having vested interest and they are
misleading the large number of persons as if the said Babri
Masjid is the birth place of Shri Ram Chandraji. The alleged
wide ranging differences amongst Shias and Sunnis sects of the
Muslims in respect of mosque in question is incorrect. The Shia
sect has nothing to do with the Waqf of mosque in question and
this matter has already been settled by Civil Judge, Faizabad in
1946 holding that the Babri Masjid is a Sunni Waqf. It is
incorrect that Mutawallis of mosque in question were Shia
Muslims or the distant relatives of Mir Baqi. The judgement
dated 30.03.1946 in Suit No. 27 of 1945 given by Civil Judge,
Faizabad in this respect is final. There is no legal bar in
appointment of a Shia Mutawalli to a Sunni Waqf or vice versa.
 136

A person who constructs a mosque or under whose supervision

a mosque is constructed does not become a Wakif of the said
mosque ipso facto specially when an Officer or General of a
Army of a King constructs a mosque on behalf of the King. The
Waqf would be said to have been created by the Emperor and
not by the Officer. From the record of Sunni Waqf Board it is
not borne out that Sri Jawwad Hussain was ever recorded a
Mutawalli of the said Waqf. He is wrongly impleaded as the
defendant in suit. Similarly, defendants no. 22, 24 and 25 have
also been wrongly impleaded. The suit is bad for misjoinder of
parties. The alleged Charan and Sita Rasoi do not constitute one
integral complex having a single identity. Defendant no. 23 is
not admitted to be the present Mutawalli of Babri Masjid since
before 1948. At present the mosque in question has got a
Managing Committee appointed by defendant no. 4. It is
incorrect that a Mutawalli of the mosque can sue for its
dispossession. The “Board” is a statutory body created by U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 and is continuing under the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act, 1960. Under Section 19 the Board has
general powers of supervision of all the Waqfs, institute and
defend suit and proceedings in any Court of Law relating to all
Waqfs etc. It is denied that Anjum Qudar, defendant no. 24, or
any sensible and sizeable section of the Muslim community
would not approve the course adopted by defendants no. 4 to 6.
Any responsible Muslim has not made any suggestion of
removal of mosque to any other place. The concept of removal
of the structure of mosque to any other place is quite foreign to
the Muslim law and there is no possibility of any such course
being accepted by the Muslims in respect of the mosque in
question. The concept of mosque is that the entire area below as
 137

well as above the portion of the mosque remains dedicated to

God Almighty. It is not the construction or structure of a
mosque alone which is important but more important is the land
on which mosque stands constructed because the land also
stands dedicated to God Almighty and the same cannot be
removed. If any person bearing the Muslim name makes any
suggestion for removal of mosque to any other place, that is of
no value and significance as the principles of Islamic law do not
permit any such removal. It is also preposterous to suggest that
the building in question will have to be demolished for
construction of a temple in place thereof. While making such a
statement, the plaintiffs do not appear to be conscious about the
grave and disastrous consequences that will follow, if any such
proposal is given effect to. The Muslims will never tolerate
demolition of mosque for construction of a temple at the site
thereof. There is no dispute that all human beings including
Muslims and Hindus are creation of one and the same God. The
plaintiffs of Suit-4 as well as other Muslims also believe in the
policy of living in amity and goodwill with members of all
communities and religious denominations. That, however, does
not mean that the gesture of goodwill and amity should be
shown to such persons, who are bent upon demolishing mosque.
The site in question has nothing to do with the place of birth of
Shri Ramchandraji, and, as such, the same has got no
significance of the alleged Asthan Shri Ramchandra Janam
Bhumi. The entire propaganda and publicity in this respect is
being carried out by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Ramjamanbhumi
Yagya Samiti, their associates and allied bodies and it is nothing
but sheer concoction. It is being done with vested interests and
political ambitions. It is not at all difficult for the plaintiffs of
 138

the suit as well as for the defendants of Regular Suit No. 12 of

1961 to abandon their claim over the mosque in question and to
construct magnificent and grand temple of Shri Ramchandraji at
any other free site which may not be property of any other
person or community. It is incorrect that under the tenets of
Muslim law, a mosque can be shifted under certain
circumstances. No cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs as
they were never associated with the management and
administration of the property in question. Even if any cause of
action in respect of the property in suit can be said to have
accrued to plaintiff no. 3, the same must be deemed to have
accrued in December, 1949, when the property in question was
attached and when the Muslims had categorically denied the
alleged claim of Hindus to perform Pooja in the mosque in
question and that being so, the present suit is highly barred by
limitation. Plaintiff no. 3 is required to give specific date, month
and year when the alleged cause of action accrued as no such
description has been given. The averment of cause of action is
incomplete and defective. The plaint is liable to be rejected as
there is no cause of action. The suit is not properly valued. The
Court fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiffs are not entitled to
any relief.
93. In the additional pleas, it is said that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2
are neither Deities nor can be treated as juristic person. Plaintiff
no. 3 cannot claim himself to be the next friend of Bhagwan
Shri Ram. None of the plaintiffs has any right to file the suit.
The plaint lacks the material facts and particulars. Notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. was not given to the defendants no. 7 to 10.
The property in question is a Waqf property registered as a
Waqf in the Register of Waqfs maintained by Sunni Waqf
 139

Board under Section 30 of the Waqf Act. A Gazette notification

of this effect was issued by the State Government in 1944, and
even in the revenue and other Government records, the same
stands recorded as a mosque. The State Government and its
officers also have accepted it as mosque in their written
statement filed in Suit 1 and 2. Even the reports of
Archaeological Experts have been to the effect that there appear
to be no symptoms of human habitation in the present Ayodhya
of more than 700 B.C. There also appears to be no symptom of
any Fort or Palace or old temple at the site of Babri Masjid. The
suit is barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act as well as
mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties.
Written statement dated 14/21.8.1989 of Defendant no. 5 (Sri
Mohammad Hashim) (Suit-5)
94. Defendant no. 5 has filed a separate written statement
dated 14/21.8.1989 and basically the averments therein are
similar to that contained in the written statement of defendant
no. 4. The additional averments, contained therein, are that
existence of mosque as Babri Masjid is established by records-
historic, judicial and revenue. There is no evidence, historic or
otherwise, to indicate that Shri Ram Chandraji was born at the
place in dispute. It is all a later concoction and there is no
question of devotees. The so called Asthan is not a juristic
person, hence, the suit is not maintainable. The concept of
Hindu religion as well as philosophical and spiritual elements
sought to be invoked by the plaintiffs in para 21 and 22 are
irrelevant. The quotation of Quran in para 24 is incorrect. There
is no evidence of demolition of any temple. The entire complex
belongs to the waqf Babri Masjid. According to inscriptions in
the mosque, the BabriMasjid was constructed by Mir Baqi, one
of the Commanders of Babar in 1528 and since then it has been
 140

in use as mosque. The Muslims always regularly offered namaz

in it till the attachment. Some averments of the plaint contain a
threat and constitute contempt of courts of law including an
excitement to violence and disregard for the rule of law. Lord
Rama, in whose name controversy in question has been created,
according to authoritative text of the historians and other
scholars of Hindu religion is mere an epic, an imaginary figure
and never existed in fact. There have been authoritative
pronouncements by various historians that Lord Rama never
existed. It is mere an epic. Besides above, no period and place
could be fixed till date. After long research Holy Barahmins
have come to conclusion that it is all mere an epic and legend.
As per Valmiki's Ramayan, which is supposed to be the only
authoritative source of Lord Rama, the city Ayodhya, where the
property in question situate, is not the place described in that
book. It is incorrect that there existed any temple which was
demolished at the behest of Babar and at that site Babri Masjid
was constructed. Shri Tulsidas, author of Ramcharitmanas has
elevated the status of Lord Rama from Maryadapurushottam to
Bhagwan in his book, which was written after construction of
Babri Masjid, at Datoon-Kund in Ayodhya itself which situates
at a short distance from the Babri Masjid. Before Tulsi's
Ramcharitmanas, there were no temples of Lord Rama in any
part of India and instead there were temples of other Gods and
Goddesses. The contention, therefore, regarding demolition of
Ram Mandir is baseless, designed to thatch up communal
disharmony and hatred between the two communities. Recent
scientific investigations and C-14 test, which is a radio carbon
dating method, have revealed that the stones used in the building
in question are less than 500 years in age. The claim that the
 141

temple was demolished and same material was used to build the
mosque, therefore, stands falsified. The property in question is
continuously recorded in revenue records from prior to first
settlement and the said entry remained unchallenged and is
final. Notification under the Waqf Act, 1936 was issued after
due enquiry and survey. The same has not been challenged. The
mosque, since very beginning, was receiving grant from
Emperor Babar, which was continued by the British regime also.
Suit No. 57 of 1978 filed on behalf of and in the name of alleged
Deity for the very property has been dismissed by the Court of
Munsif, Faizabad and the said order has not been set aside by
any other Court and, hence, it operates as res judicata. Suit on
behalf of a Deity cannot be filed through next friend and,
therefore, is not maintainable. No period of birth of Ram Lala
has been given. Lord Rama, Janki or any person having faith in
them has no concern with the land in question over which Babri
Masjid exists and the adjoining area of graveyard. The mosque
and the graveyard cannot be the subject matter of any other type
of Pooja. Practice and Astha could not give a right of demolition
of mosque. Manifestation in human form is beyond
comprehension and vague. Property, once vested in the God,
becomes “Waqf property” and cannot be divested.
Additional written statment dated 22.8.1995 of defendants no.
4 and 5 (Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Mohammad
Hashim) (Suit-5)
95. It contains reply to the amended paragraphs added in the
plaint, i.e., paragraphs no. 35-H to 35-U. Demolition of Babri
Masjid is a pre-planned, deliberate and intentional act on the
part of miscreants and criminals. So called construction of
make-shift temple and placement of idols therein can not be
described as Deity under Hindu law. Most of the paragraphs of
 142

the amended plaint have been denied being irrelevant, vexatious

and frivolous and it is said that the plaintiffs have no right, title
or claim over the property in suit. It is also said that on removal
of the idols on 6.12.1992 from the site, the claim, if any, stood
extinguished.
Written statement dated 21/22.8.1989 of Defendant no. 6
(Mahmood Ahmad) (Suit-5)
96. Defendant no. 6, Mahmood Ahmad, vide his application
dated 21/22.8.1989 has adopted the written statement of
defendant no. 5 and has said that he does not propose to say
anything further.
Written statement of Defendant no. 11 (President, All India
Hindu Maha Sabha) (Suit-5)
97. It has supported the case of the plaint and said that the All
India Hindu Mahasabha is cooperating for construction of new
Ram temple at the site in question for performing Pooja etc.
Written statement dated 14.8.1989 of Defendant no. 17
(Ramesh Chandra Tripathi) (Suit-5)
98. Similarly, defendant no. 17, vide his written statement
dated 14.8.1989 has supported the plaint in its entirety.
Written statement dated 18.9.1989 of Defendant no. 23 (Sri
Javed Husain) (Suit-5)
99. Defendant no. 23, though has filed his separate written
statement dated 18.9.1989 disputing the claim of the plaintiffs,
but its reply is virtually similar to that as given in the written
statement of defendant no. 4.
Written statement dated 4.9.1989 of Defendant no. 24 (Prince
Anjum Quder) (Suit-5)
100. The written statement dated 4.9.1989 of defendant no. 24,
while denying the claim of the plaintiffs, states that the holy
Deity and Asthan cannot be made party to the suit. Plaintiff no.
3 has not secured any authority to file suit on behalf of plaintiffs
no. 1 and 2. The defendant considers Lord Ram above the
 143

jurisdiction of the Court and it is sacrilege to drag the name of

Lord Ram into these mundane proceedings. Plaintiff no. 3 has
impleaded plaintiff no. 1 to ensure his victory since Lord Ram
cannot be defeated and this attempt cannot be allowed to
succeed. The defendant has no knowledge of Shri
Ramjanambhumi by which it meant the exact spot of birth of
Lord Ram. As per his version, there are at least three spots in
Ayodhya claimed as the exact spots where Lord Ram was born :
1. The spot being presently claimed by the plaintiffs
known as Ram Janam Bhumi only since 22.12.1949.
2. The Ram Chabutra, in the court-yard outside the Babri
Masjid structure, is known as Ramjanambhumi only since
1855.
3. The Janamsthan site Rasoi Mandir, facing the Babri
Masjid across the street, is traditionally known as
Ramjanambhumi since time immemorial.
101. The items at (b) and (c) are the spots, which have not been
abandoned by believing devotees in Ayodhya. Reference to
various suits is not within his knowledge since he (defendant no.
24) was not a party in those cases, but in his view, this matter
should be decided without any further delay. Against the order
dated 1.2.1986 of District Judge, Faizabad, the writ petition,
which is pending before this Court should also be disposed of
simultaneously with the pending suits. The structure popularly
known as Babri Masjid cannot lawfully be removed to make
way for a Mandir. Formation of a Trust comprising the disputed
property is illegal so long as the dispute pertaining to ownership
etc. in the pending suits is not decided. The act of plaintiff no. 3
is collusive since he is one of the trustees, yet has impleaded the
Trust as defendant no. 21 and, therefore, he represents both the
 144

plaintiffs as well as defendants. The defendants and the Muslims

of India have highest regard for Lord Ram. These sentiments of
Muslims are best reflected in the poem entitled "Ram"
composed by the greatest Muslim thinker of India, namely,
Muhammad Iqbal, and one verse of the long poem shows what
Muslims of India think of Shri Ram Chandraji:
"Hae Ram ke wajood pe Hindostan ko naaz
Ahl-e Nazar Samajht-e-hein usko Imam-e-Hind."
102. The meaning of the said verse is that the India is proud of
the existence of Ram. The intelligentia consider him as the
leader of India. The defendant think if Lord Ram himself could
help it, he could not have been dragged into this unseemly and
undignified controversy. Impleadment of the great names of
plaintiffs no. 1and 2 is unauthorised and unwarranted. Plaintiff
no. 3 has not obtained consent to make the Deity and Asthan as
plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 from the said plaintiffs nor has been
authorised by them. Politicians and communal minded
fundamentalists have set up plaintiff no. 3 to file this frivolous
suit in the name of the Asthan and Bhagwan Shri Ram to serve
their own narrow political and selfish ends. Lord Ram would not
have subordinated himself, the way, his devotees have done
him. It is denied that Lord Ram was born at the premises in
dispute. Such belief came into existences only on 22.12.1949. If
any documentary or recorded evidence is produced by plaintiff
no. 3 establishing beyond doubt that the present belief existed
before 22.12.1949 also, this defendant will surrender all his
opposition. When the Babri Mosque was being constructed in
1528, no such belief existed in Ayodhya or elsewhere that the
place where the mosque was built was Ramjanambhumi.
Goswami Tulisdar has also not made any such complaint in his
 145

epic biography "Ramcharitmanas" written about the year 1558.

Balmiki also did not identify the present contentious spot as
Ram Jaman Asthan. In none of the other Ramayans written in
several other languages, the spot in question is mentioned as
place of birth of Lord Rama. The averments in para 12 of the
plaint are strongly contested. The idea of Ram Janamasthan was
first floated by British East India Company's agents in 1855 in
order to destabilise the regime of this defendant's forebear, the
King of the realm, Wajid Ali Shah. At that time, a spot outside
the structure of the Babri Masjid, in a corner of the court-yard
was claimed as Ram Janam Asthan. But the King settled the
dispute by partitioning out the plot 17 ft. X 12 ft. naming it as
Ram Chabutara, by giving it to Hindus to do "Paaths" of
Ramayana and peace was then restored. Again for the first time
on 22.12.1949, the Ram Jamanasthan claim was shifted from
Ram Chabutara to right inside the mosque just beneath the main
large dome of the Babri Masjid. Prior to 1855, the undisputed
Ram Janamasthan was the old Janam Asthan, Sita Rasoi
Mandir, across the street on a mound facing Babri Masjid. The
first two sentences of paragraph 23 of the plaint are the most
important. All the Muslims of India are willing that the issue be
decided and the dispute be settled one or the other way. The
plaintiffs has relied on a Faizabad Gazetteer, 1928 Edition and
the story mentioned therein about the visit of Emperor Babar to
Ayodhya and destruction of ancient temple at Janamsthan to
build Babri Mosque, but it is a well known fact of history that
Emperor Babar never came to Ayodhya. Babri Mosque was
made by Mir Baqi and not by Babar. In Babarnama, a daily
diary, Babar has not mentioned about Ayodhya visit, destruction
of Mandir or building of mosque thereat, although in other
 146

pages of Babarnama, many things adverse are also mentioned.

Faizabad Gazetteer of 1877 does not contain any mention of
destruction of any Mandir and building of Babri or any Masjid
on the Mandir land. Out of the two Gazetteers, the one
contemporary and more near to the date concerned will have to
be relied on. District Gazetteers of the British Government, as is
well known, are not work of history. They only reflect the
policy of the alien Government to divide the vast population of
India by creating conflicts such as the present one and to
perpetuate minority rule of the foreign imperialist power. All the
aforesaid and other conflicting facts need to be investigated by
this Court or by a Commission of Experts of history and
archaeology to arrive at the truth. It is submitted that if it is
proved that a Mandir was demolished and Babri Masjid was
built on the Mandir land, the defendant and all other Muslims
will gladly demolish, shift the mosque and return the land for
building of Mandir thereon and if it is not a fact, then the
BabriMasjid must in all fairness be returned to Muslims. Jagad
Guru Shankeracharya, Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati in a
quotation published in national newspaper on 14.5.1987 stated
that an Authority should be constituted to resolve
Ramjanambhumi-Babri Masjid tangle. He also said that if
Mandir was demolished for construction of the mosque, Hindu
must get it otherwise it must be given to Muslims. Same is the
statement given by Muslim historian and scholar Maulana Syed
Sahabuddin Abdur Rahman in his well known treatise "Babri
Masjid" at page 5. In the monumental theological work Fatawa-
e-Alamgiri, Volume 6 Page 214, the following ruling is given :
"It is not permissible to build mosque on unlawfully
acquired land. There may be many forms of unlawful
 147

acquisition. For instance, if some people forcibly take

somebody's house (or land) and build a mosque or even
Jama Masjid on it, then Namaz in such a mosque will be
against Shariat."
103. Plaintiff no. 3 is not competent to interpret Quran, Islamic
Shariat and Islamic customs and practices as referred to in para
24 and the defendant contests the same and submits that the
same is wholly irrelevant. Emperor Babar or Mir Baqi did not
destroy or demolish any Mandir. The mosque was not
constructed on the land or on the ruins of any Mandir. It was
built on a vacant land. Sanctity of Babari mosque was not
affected by creation of Ram Chabutara in the courtyard or by the
mosque being surrounded by Mandirs. There is no tenet of Islam
against existence of a mosque in a noisy place or in a non-
Muslim locality. Minaret is not an essential part of a mosque.
Non existence of a water reservoir would not effect the status of
a mosque. Friday Namaz used to be regularly held in Babri
Masjid and the last Namaz was held on 22.12.1949. The Imam
who led the prayers regularly till 22.12.1949, was Maulana Haji
Abdul Gaffar and he is alive and lives at Mohalla Qaziana,
Ayodhya, District Faizabad. What happened in the night
between 22/23.12.1949 is best narrated by the then Deputy
Commissioner of Faizabad himself in an affidavit filed by him
on behalf of the State in Regular Suit no. 25 of 1950, the
relevant portion whereof is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the
written statement. The destruction of the graveyard was an act
of sacrilege and was illegal. Protection of religious rights of all
communities is the constitutional obligation of the Government.
The claim of adverse possession in respect of religious places
like Babri Masjid is unjustified and illegal. The defendant
 148

believes that the Hindu population of India has always been, by

and large, secular, when a small minority amongst Hindus are
those who believe and think like defendant no. 3 though they do
not represent even one or two per cent of Hindus. The Hindus
will never commit an act of Adharma by demolishing Babri
Masjid and constructing a Mandir over it by illegal means
particularly when this Court is seized of the matter. The present
suit is nothing but an attempt to cover the shortcomings of other
original suits. For the purpose of Namaz, both Shia and Sunni
Muslims used to offer Namaz in Babri Masjid. Every mosque is
a public property and all Muslims regardless of their sect are
beneficiaries. Every member of the Muslim community has
right to represent the case of a mosque. The Sunni Central Waqf
Board has full support of Shias represented by All India Shia
Conference. The defendant is deadly against any form of
sacrilegious action. No place of worship of any religion should
be destroyed and no place of worship should be constructed on
the ruins of the destroyed one. The defendant firmly believes
that the Babri Masjid was certainly not built after destroying
Vikramaditya Mandir or any other temple. However, if any such
thing is proved, or if it is proved that the site where the Babri
Masjid existed was a place known as Ram Janamasthan spot
then the defendant will withdraw his opposition. Once it is
admitted that the mosque was built hundreds of years ago and
used as such, it became waqf by user irrespective of the fact
whether or not legal formalities for creating a Waqf were
observed. The suit is barred by limitation and the claim is also
barred by principle of estoppel.
Written statement dated 16/18.9.1989 of Defendant no. 25 (All
India Shia Conference) (Suit-5)
104. A separate written statement dated 16/18.9.1989 has been
 149

filed by defendant no. 25, but substantially it contains similar

defence as has been given in the written statement of defendant
no. 4 as well as 24 and, therefore, is not being given in detail,
but wherever necessary, shall be referred later on.
PROGRESS OF THE SUITS - JOURNEY IN THE LAST
MORE THAN 61 YEARS AND SOME IMPORTANT
STAGES - A BRIEF RESUME
105. Proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.: First we propose
to have a bird eye view of the proceedings relating to Section
145 Cr.P.C.
106. The present chain of litigation resulting in the suits in
question commenced on 22/23.12.1949 when a First
Information Report (in short 'FIR') was lodged by Sub-
Inspector, Ram Dev at Police Station Ayodhya alleging that as
per information received from Constable, Mata Prasad, certain
persons broke open the lock of the inner courtyard of disputed
building and placed the idols of Lord Ram in the disputed
structure beneath the central dome in the night of 22/23.12.1949
after tresspassing the inner courtyard.
107. Sri Markandey Singh, the then Additional City Magistrate,
First Class, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya issued a preliminary order
dated 29.12.1949 in purported exercise of powers under Section
145 Cr.P.C. stating that the dispute between Hindu and Muslims
over the disputed structure raising question of right of
proprietorship and worship is likely to lead a breach of peace
and accordingly he directed the parties to appear before him on
17.01.1950 at 11.00 a.m. at Ayodhya Police Station in person or
through pleader and put in written statement of their respective
claim with respect to the facts of actual possession of the subject
of dispute. He described the parties as follows:
1. The Muslims who are bona fide residents of
 150

Ayodhya or who claim right of proprietorship or

worship in the property in dispute;
2. The Hindus who are bona fide residents of Ayodhya
or who claim right of proprietorship or worship in
the property in dispute;
108. Recording his satisfaction of the case being one of
emergency, he directed for attachment of the said building
pending decision. He further directed that the attachment would
be carried out immediately by Station Officer, Police Station,
Ayodhya, who would then place the attached property in the
charge of Sri Priya Dutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board,
Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya who would thereafter be the "Receiver"
of the said property and would arrange for care of the property
in dispute. He also directed the Receiver to submit a scheme for
management of the property in dispute for approval during
attachment and the cost of management was to be defrayed by
the parties to the dispute in proportions as may be fixed from
time to time. The order was directed to be published in three
newspapers for giving information to parties besides affixing the
same on the walls of the building in dispute and the notice board
at Ayodhya Police Station.
109. The Receiver, Priya Dutt Ram took charge of the premises
on 05.01.1950 and executed a Supurdaginama (Inventory)
verifying the following items he received/attached :
“1- ewrhZ Bkdqj th 1&¼v½ Jhjke yykth nks ewrhZ ,d cM+h ,d NksVh
¼c½ Jh 'kkyhxjke th dh 6 ewrhZA
“1. Idols of Thakur Ji
1-(a) Two idols of Sri Ram LalaJi, one big and another
small.
(b) Six idols of Sri Shaligram Ji.
 151

2- fla?kklu pkanh nks QhV Åpk ,dA

2. A two feet high silver throne.
3- ewrhZ guqeku th dh ,dA
3. One idol of Hanuman Ji.
4- (a) fxykl teZu flyoj dk ,dA
(a) One glass of German Silver.
¼b½ fxykl pkanh dk NksVk ,dA
(b) One small glass of silver.
¼c½ fxykl pkanh dk cM+k ,dA
(c) One big glass of silver
5- x:M+ ?kaVh ,dA
5. One Garun bell.
6- /kwinkuh ,dA
6. One incensory.
7- vkjrh ,dA
7. One Arti vessel.
8- nhoV ,d
8. One lamp stand
9- gqjlk o panu ,dA
9. ‘Hursa’ and one sandal.
10- QksVw cM+h jke tkudh dh nksA
10. Two big photographs of Ram Janki.
11- xeyk pkjA
11. Four flower pots.
12- QksVw cnzhukFk th ¼NksVk½ ,dA
12. One (small) photograph of Badrinath Ji.
13- QksVw jke pUnz th NksVk ,dA
13. One small photograph of Ramchandra Ji.
14- Hkxoku ds vkHkw"k.k
nks Vksih jke yyk th vkSj ,d guqeku th dh VksihA
rFkk Hkxoku ds oL= vkB yxk
 152

14. Ornaments of Deity

Two caps of Ramlala and one cap of Hanuman Ji.
And eight robes of Deity.
15- bekjr & rhu xqEcn nkj bekjr eS lgu ds rFkk pgkj nhokj
ftldh pkSgn~nh uhps fy[kh gSA
mRrj%& gkrk NV~Vh vkaxu vkSj fueksZgha v[kkM+k
nf{k.k%& vkjkth ijrh o ifjdzek
iwjc%& pcwrjk efUnj jke th dk eeywd fueksZgh v[kkM+k o lgu
efUnj gkrk
if'pe%& ifjdzek
15. Building- Three domed building with courtyard and
boundary wall, which is bounded as under.
North- Premises comprising Chhathi courtyard and
Nirmohi Akhara.
South-Vacant land and ‘Parikrama’
(circumambulation path)
East- ‘Chabutara’ (platform) of Ram temple under
possession of Nirmohi Akhara, and courtyard of
temple premises.
West- Parikrama’ (circumambulation path)
16- NksVk ihry dk fxykl
16. Small brass glass
17- pUnu dh Qwy dh dVksjh ,dA
17. One bowl of ‘Phool’ (an alloy) for sandal.
18- iaTp il rFkk Fkkyh ihry dh ,dA
18. ‘Panch Pas’ and one brass plate.
19- r'krjh ihry dh NksVh ,dA
19. One small brass plate.
20- NksVk iVjk ydM+h dk ,dA”
20. One small wooden board.”
(English Translation by Court)
 153

110. One Sri Anisur Rahman son of Maulvi Waziruddin filed

an application dated 17.01.1950 before the Addl. City
Magistrate stating that he proposed to move an application of
transfer in the High Court and, therefore, proceedings be stayed,
to enable him to move the said transfer application. The Addl.
City Magistrate on the same date passed an order staying the
case subject to furnishing of personal bond of the applicant to
the effect that he will put in transfer application in the High
Court before 15.02.1950. Sri Anisur Rahman furnished the
aforesaid bond on the same date.
111. Sri Anisur Rahman thereafter filed Criminal Transfer
Application No. 208 of 1950 in this Court under Section
526/528 Cr.P.C. on 02.02.1950 seeking transfer of the said case
from the Court of Addl. City Magistrate, Faizabad to some other
Court of competent jurisdiction outside the District Faizabad
and also prayed for stay of the proceedings in the meanwhile.
112. This Court (Hon'ble Raghubar Dayal, J., as His Lordship
then was) stayed further proceedings on 03.02.1950 and passed
the following order:
"Issue notice. Stay meanwhile. A copy of the order may be
handed over to the learned counsel on payment of the
necessary charges."
113. The then District Magistrate, Faizabad, Sri K.K. Nayar
was changed meanwhile and in his place one Sri J.N. Ugra took
over charge on 14.03.1950 (afternoon). He brought this fact to
the notice of this Court vide his letter dated 06.04.1950.
114. The Transfer Application came up for hearing before
Hon'ble V. Bhargava, J. (as His Lordship then was) on
30.05.1950. Considering the fact that the allegations against the
City Magistrate were not substantiated and those made against
 154

the District Magistrate, Sri Nayar were of no help since the

officer had changed in the meanwhile, this Court rejected the
Transfer Application observing as under:
"The allegations have been made without giving grounds
on which they are based. These allegations are denied by
the learned Magistrate who is trying the case. There were
specific allegations against Shri K.K.K. Nayar who was
District Magistrate, Faizabad at the time when this transfer
application was presented. It now appears that he has since
been transferred and another District Magistrate has taken
over charge. These specific allegations against Shri Nayar
need not, therefore, be considered at all, as whatever
apprehensions could have arisen on account of those
circumstances have now disappeared with the change of
the District Magistrate.
There is nothing at all in the circumstances appearing
within would show that the case would not be tried
impartially by the learned Magistrate before whom it is
pending. This application for transfer is rejected."
115. It appears that a number of affidavits were filed before the
City Magistrate by certain individual Muslims stating that since
1934, 1935 and 1936, Muslims have not offered any prayer in
the disputed building and it is in possession of Hindus since
then, and, they have no objection if the disputed premises be
allowed to remain in possession of Hindus.
116. Sri Anisur Rahman, however, filed his objection dated
08.07.1950/29.12.1950 stating that Namaz had been offered in
the disputed premises till 16.12.1949 and some miscreants have
kept idols illegally in the night of 22/23.12.1949 in respect
whereto a first information report has been lodged. The building
 155

in dispute is a mosque and is registered as Waqf with the Sunni

Board hence its possession be handed over to him after removal
of idols from the disputed premises. He also said that the
building in dispute was constructed by Emperor Babar in 1528
who made a Waqf in favour of Muslims for offering prayer
therein and since then it is in possession of Muslims.
117. Some other objections were filed, by Baba Abhiram Das
on 29.12.1950, Baba Baldev Das on 27.12.1950/29.12.1950, Sri
Salar Mohammad and Sri Srivastava N.P. Singh etc on other
dates.
118. Since in the meantime Suit 1 was filed by Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad wherein interim injunction was granted on 16.01.1950
as modified on 19.01.1950 and 03.03.1951, consequently, Sri
Prem Shanker, the then City Magistrate, Faizabad passed an
order on 30.07.1953 the relevant extract whereof is as under :
"The disputed property i.e. Babri mosque/Janmabhumi
premises are already in possession of the receiver. Sri
Priya Dat Ram appointed by the Additional City
Magistrate under his order dated 29th December, 1949
referred to above and the said receiver has been looking
after the property since 5.1.1950, the date of assuming
charge. As the finding of the civil court will be binding on
the criminal court it is no use starting proceedings in this
case under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and regarding evidence
specially when a temporary injunction stands, as it cannot
be said what may be the finding of this court after
recording the evidence of parties. From the administrative
point of view the property is already under attachment and
no breach of peace can occur.
I therefore order that the file u/s 145 Cr.P.C. be consigned
 156

to records as it is and will be taken out for proceeding

further when the temporary injunction is vacated."
119. The office of the City Magistrate thought that the
proceedings have been finalized and, therefore, the record may
be weeded out. Consequently, an application dated 22.07.1954
was filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, plaintiff (Suit 1),
requesting that since certified copies of about 20 affidavits filed
in the case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were obtained and filed in
the pending civil suits, and, the file itself may be required by the
Civil Court, therefore, the record may not be weeded out. He
pointed out therein that besides Suit 1 another suit i.e. Suit 2 has
also been filed and both have been consolidated on the
application of Muslim defendants and are being heard together.
120. It appears that thereafter when the suits from the Trial
court were transferred to this Court, the record of the case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. was also summoned by this Court and
received vide letter dated 22.11.1991 of the City Magistrate,
Faizabad.
SUIT 1- (FROM 16.1.1950 TO 1963)
121. Suit 1 was presented before the Court of Civil Judge,
Faizabad on 16.01.1950 alongwith an application under Order
39 Rule 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. It was registered on the same
date and notices were issued to the defendants. An interim
injunction in the meanwhile, as prayed, was granted on
16.1.1950 fixing 18.02.1950 for disposal of injunction
application.
122. The prayer in the application for ad interim injunction was
as under:
"Therefore, the applicant prays that a temporary injunction
be issued against the defendants to the effect that they
 157

should not remove the idols of Shri Bhagwan Ram Chandra

and others from Asthan Janam Bhumi, the details of which
are given in the plaint, till the decision of the case, and they
further be ordered not to close the Pravesh Dwar and other
passages of ingress and egress to the visitors and also that
they should not place any obstacle in the Pooja and
Darshan."
123. On 19.01.1950 the Civil Judge modified the injunction
order dated 16.1.1950, on an application filed on behalf of
defendants no. 7 to 9, in the following manner:
"The opposite parties are hereby restrained by means
of a temporary injunction to refrain from removing the
idols in question from the site in dispute and from
interfering with "Puja" etc. as at present carried on. The
order dated 16.01.1950 stands modified accordingly."
124. An objection dated 13.02.1950 was filed on behalf of
defendants no. 1 to 5. It alleged that the disputed site was part of
the Babri Mosque which was built by Emperor Babar and it had
been in the use of Muslims as a Mosque ever since. Hindus
never worshipped or performed any Pooja thereat. The idols at
the site in question were recently planted.
125. On 25.03.1950, after hearing the parties on the objections
filed against ex parte injunction dated 16.1.1950, the Civil Judge
decided to get a map of the locality and building prepared
through a Commissioner and ordered accordingly. One 'Shri
Shiv Shanker Lal, (Vakil)', was appointed 'Commissioner' to
prepare the map and one 'Shri Bashir Ahmad, Vakil' was
appointed as 'Commissioner' to take photographs.
126. On 25.05.1950 Shri Shiv Shanker Lal, Commissioner
submitted his report and map. Shri Bashir Ahmad, however,
 158

sought some more time for photographs. Ultimately, on

3.8.1950 Shri Bashir Amhad filed 13 photographs of the
disputed building alongwith his report.
127. The parties filed objections to the above reports of the
Commissioners which were dealt with by the Civil Judge vide
order dated 20.11.1950. He observed as under:
"The defendants 6 to 9 object to the commissioner's
report on the grounds that the learned commissioner has
used wrong and erroneous nomenclature in describing the
gates, images and foot prints. It is further objected that
the learned commissioner has erred by naming certain
structures as Samadhi, Chaura and Chabutra. It is also
disputed that there is any pucca path round the building in
dispute.
It should be noted that the existence of gates,
images and foot print in the premises in dispute are not
disputed. Certainly the nomenclature given to these things
by the learned commissioner is a matter of evidence. It will
be open to the parties to prove the nomenclature by means
of reliable evidence independent of the commissioner's
report. As to certain structures being named Samadhi,
Chaura and Chabutra I am of opinion that it is also a
matter of evidence and that the learned commissioner's
report on this point is not final. Nor can the
Commissioner's report regarding the existence of so called
Parikarma be held to be final. If the commissioner's report
contains any irrelevant material, it will not certainly be
considered to that extent.
The defendants 1 to 5 object that the commissioner
has prepared plan no. 2 beyond the terms of his
 159

commission. If that is so, the plan no. 2 will not be

considered. Whether a portion shown outside the yellow
portion in plan II is a graveyard or not is clearly a question
of evidence and it will be considered in the present case,
only if it is found relevant and proved. It will be open to the
parties to adduce evidence on this point, if relevant.
It is further objected that the defendants were not
allowed to enter the disputed building. The commissioner's
report shows that they reached the spot rather too late. If
the defendants want to enter the building for the purpose of
pointing out any particular thing there, it is open to them to
apply to the Court accordingly.
Any opinion expressed or the nomenclature given by
the learned commissioner can be disputed by the parties by
adducing evidence. As already pointed out, the
commissioner's report regarding the names of the images is
nothing better than hearsay. The objectors contend that the
images referred to in the report are the images in dispute
and they were surreptitiously installed in December, 1949.
If the learned commissioner has failed to show anything
pointed out by the objectors, they can apply to the Court
to inspect the building and then show these things to the
Court.
The rest of the objections relate to questions of facts.
As already stated, the learned commissioner's report on
those points is not final. It will be open to the parties to
substantiate their objections by relevant and independent
evidence.
The plaintiff objects to Sri Bashir Ahmad's report
dated 3.8.50 on the ground that it contains personal
 160

observations. In my opinion the learned commissioner's

report is relevant only to the extent to which it helps in
explaining the photographs for which he was appointed.
Any opinion expressed by the learned commissioner is not
final.
Defendants 1 to 5 also object to certain extent to Sri
Bashir Amhad's report and photographs. As already
pointed out, the learned commissioner's report is not final.
The parties may apply to the Court for further
photographs, if they think that any more photographs are
needed for clear decision of the case.
Fix 09.12.1950 for disposal of the application for
injunction."
128. The objections to the ex-parte injunction dated
16.01.1950, modified on 19.01.1950 came to be considered on
03.03.1951. The trial court passed a detailed order and
confirmed interim injunction. Relevant extract of the order is as
under:
"For the purpose of these proceedings, it has to be seen
whether the plff has a fair question to raise as to the
existence of the right alleged, whether he is in danger of
losing that right, and whether irreparable injury or
inconvenience is likely to result to him, in case the
injunction order is withdrawn. It is conceded on all hands
that the idols in-question were on the disputed site
before the filing of the suit. It further appears from the
copies of a number of affidavits of certain Muslim
resident of Ayodhya that at least from 1936 onwards the
Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque nor
offered prayers there and that the Hindus have been
 161

performing their Pooja etc. on the disputed site. Nothing

has been pointed out to discredit these affidavits, which,
along with the existence of the idols on the disputed site,
clearly show that the plff has got a fair case to go to the
trial. The defts 1 to 5 rely on a number of documents to
show that the building in dispute has always been a
mosque. It is not possible at this stage to anticipate any
decision on this point, because it will have to be decided
after considering all the oral and documentary evidence
that may be adduced by the parties in this case. The
undisputed fact remains that on the date of this suit the
idols of Shri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others did exist
on the site and that worship was being performed by the
Hindus including the plff, though under some restrictions
put by the executive authorities. This coupled with the
affidavits referred to above does make out a prima facie
case in favour of the plaintiff.
As to the balance of convenience, it is obvious that
the affect of vacating the interim injunction at this stage is
likely to deprive the plff of the right claimed by him in this
suit. Moreover, it is a matter of admission between the
parties that there are several other mosques in the mohalla
in question. The local Muslims will not, therefore, be put to
much inconvenience, if the interim injunction remains in
force during the pendency of the case.
Order
The interim injunction order dated 16.1.50 as
modified on 19.1.50 shall remain in force until the suit is
disposed of."

129. On 15.09.1951 the Court recorded statement/answer of the

 162

plaintiff's counsel to certain questions put in by the Court, as

under:
"Q. In what capacity does the plff. seek to exercise the
relief which he seeks in the plaint.
Ans. In my individual capacity.
Q. What is your individual capacity.
Ans. My individual capacity is distinct from public
capacity and in this matter an idol worshipper.
This shows that the plff counsel is not in a position to
answer the Court question. The plff. must present himself
personally in Court on the date fixed.
Q. Has your client any religion.
Ans. the plff is a Sanatan Dharmi Hindu."
130. Defendants no. 1 to 5 filed an application praying that the
suit be treated as representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.
which was opposed by the plaintiff. The application was
rejected on 27.10.1951.
131. Suits 1 and 2 both having been clubbed, a preliminary
issue was framed on 08.01.1957 with respect to sufficiency of
Court fees as under:
"1. Whether the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction
and court-fees is insufficient as alleged on behalf of the
defendants?"
132. For adjudication of the said preliminary issue an
assessment from Public Works Department was sought vide
Court's order dated 14.02.1958.
133. The assessment was made for Rs. 135265/- in respect
whereto the Draftsman/Computer, Shri Zulfikar Ahmad son of
Shri Ali Mirza was examined and cross-examined by the parties.
The said issue was decided finally by order dated 21.01.1959
 163

holding that the Court fee paid is sufficient.

134. Two defendants, namely, Hazi Fenku and Mohammad
Sami having died, applications filed for substitution of their
legal heirs were, however, rejected by learned Civil Judge on
17.01.1962 and he directed that names of the said defendants be
deleted from the array of the defendants in the two suits i.e. Suit
No. 1 and 2.
SUIT-2
135. Another Suit no. 25 of 1950 (on transfer to this Court, re-
registered as O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989) was filed by Paramhans
Ramchandra Das vide plaint dated 5.12.1950, seeking an
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the
worship of Lord Ramachandra at the place 'Janambhumi' details
whereof are given at the end of the plaint and further not to
disturb or remove the said idols from the place they are kept on
that date nor to create obstruction in the worship of the idols. It
was admitted on the same date, i.e., 5.12.1950 by the order of
Civil Judge, Faizabad and on 01.02.1951 it was consolidated
with Suit-1. Suit-2 since has been dismissed as withdrawn in
1990, we are not giving any further details in respect thereof.
SUIT-3 ( FROM 1959 to 1963)
136. Nirmohi Akhara filed Original Suit No. 26 of 1959 which
was registered as Suit-3 on transfer to this Court. It was filed on
17.12.1959 and was registered on the same date. On 21.12.1959
the Civil Judge allowed the plaintiffs to sue defendants no. 6 to
8 in representative capacity. It appears that on 07.01.1961 the
District Judge stayed further proceedings in Suit-3 and
thereafter stay order continued pursuant to this Court's order
which was vacated and communicated to the trial court on
02.05.1962. This suit was clubbed with other suits on
 164

06.01.1964.
SUIT-4 (FROM 9.12.1961 TO 1962)
137. Suit-4 was filed on 18.12.1961. It was admitted and
registered by the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad by order dated
18.12.1961. On plaintiff's application for permitting them to
pursue the suit in representative capacity, by order dated
8.8.1962 the Court allowed the plaintiffs to represent the entire
Muslim community against defendants no. 1 to 4 representing
the entire Hindu community.
138. On an application filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 in
Suit-4, by order dated 20.3.1963 Civil Judge, Faizabad allowed
impleadment of defendants no. 10 to 12.
SUIT 1 TO 4 (FROM 6.1.1964 TO 10.7.1989)
139. On 06.01.1964 all the parties in Suit-1, 2,3 and 4 filed
joint application requesting the trial court to consolidate the
aforesaid suits and hear those matters collectively and jointly.
The trial court allowed the application with the consent of
learned counsels for the parties on the same date consolidating
all the suits and to treat Suit-4 as leading case.
140. On 20.1.1964, the Civil Judge recorded statement of
plaintiff's counsel Mohd. Ayub in the leading case under order
X Rule 2 C.P.C.
141. On 5.3.1964, 16 issues were framed by the Civil Judge
and vide order dated 17.07.1965, an additional issue was also
framed. All the said issues framed initially by the learned Civil
Judge, read as under:
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
 165

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
 166

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?
5(b) Has the said Act no application to the right of
Hindus in general and defendants in particular, to the right
of their worship?
5(c) Were the proceedings under the said Act
conclusive?
5(d) Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-
vires as alleged in written statement?
5(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?
5(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 :-
 167

(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 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. 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?
 168

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?
142. As agreed by learned counsels for the parties, issue No. 17
was taken up as a "primary preliminary issue" and vide
judgment dated 21.04.1966 the Civil Judge, decided the same
against plaintiffs (Suit 4) and in favour of the defendants
therein. The Civil Judge, after reading the definition of 'Waqf'
and 'Waqif' as contained in Section 3(1) of 1936 Act, held that
whenever the word 'waqf' is conveyed to any person, it must
necessarily convey simultaneously the idea or description or a
 169

tangible connotation about the existence of "any property"

covered or included in the 'Waqf''. Meaning thereby, if someone
wants another to know that a particular property is waqf, it
would be necessary for him to mention simultaneously the
description of atleast tangible connotation about the identity of
the property of the waqf. After perusing the alleged notification
dated 26.2.1944 said to have been published under Section 5 of
1936 Act, the Court found that Item 26, at which the alleged
Waqf of Waqif Badshah Babar was mentioned, was blank in its
last column and consequently it did not give any idea of the
property of which Waqf was created. It held that the alleged
Government notification at Item no. 26 was meaningless.
Meeting the argument that the notification if not challenged
within one year by the Hindus or defendants of the leading case
would result in rendering the said notification to be final and
conclusive, the Civil Judge held that the said principle would
follow when a valid notification of the proposed Waqf property
is made under 1936 Act. Since in his opinion, it was not a valid
notification at all, failing to convey the idea or identity of
necessary particulars about the property proposed by the Waqf
Commissioner to be enlisted as Sunni Wqaf property dedicated
by Badshah Babar, there was no question of rendering the said
notification final and conclusive qua the property in dispute. He
also held that; mere mention of the name of Badshah Babar as
"Waqif" of a property in “Faizabad District” is not enough to
convey the identity of the property in dispute since Badshah
Babar was the Emperor of the Mughal Empire in India, who
never resided in Faizabad District according to the pages of
history of which a judicial notice can be taken by the Court; it
is not known as to how many waqfs were created by Badshah
 170

Babar in various parts of Faizabad District; in Column-3, Item

No. 26 of the notification, the Name of Mutwalli mentioned as
Syed Mohammed Zaki, Mutwalli Masjid Babari, Qasba Shah
Nawa, Dak-khana Darshan Nagar; judicial notice of the fact that
qasba Shah Nawa lying within the jurisdiction of Post Office
Darshan Nagar is at a distance of about 8 to 10 mile from
Ayodhya was taken; and, therefore, the aforesaid entry shows on
its face that the Mosque referred to therein is built by Emperor
Babar in Qasba Shah Nawa, post office Darshan Nagar; it is not
the case of the plaintiffs of the leading case that the property in
suit was originally a temple, which was ever conquered by
Emperor Babar, who got it remodelled in the shape of a mosque;
the case of the aforesaid plaintiffs as contained in the plaint of
the leading case, as well as in the statement of the plaintiffs'
learned counsel made under order X, rule 2 C.P.C. on 10.1.64,
at paper No. 187A, is that the property in suits was originally
mosque, which was built for the first time at its place, by
Emperor Babar in 1528 AD in the shape of a mosque which he
had dedicated to the followers of Islam thereafter; the
knowledge of the educated persons regarding the conquest of
Emperor Babar derived from the pages of popular history books
cannot profitably be utilised by the plaintiffs of the leading case
because according to the plaintiffs' own case, the property in
suits was not a conquered property but a property which was
originally and for the first time built at its place by Emperor
Babar for use of the Muslim public.
143. There were two more issues namely, issues No. 5(a) and
5(c) in Suit-4. In view of the findings recorded in respect to
issue No. 17, the Civil Judge held that issues No. 5(a) and 5(c)
also stand answered against the plaintiffs (Suit-4).
 171

144. There was another issue No. 5(d). Pursuant to the findings
on issue No. 17, the defendant’s counsel made a statement on
21.4.1966 that it is not necessary to press issue No. 5(d) (Suit-4)
and the said stand was endorsed by other counsels also.
145. Two applications i.e. paper no. 132-C dated 15.10.1962
and 271-C dated 08.08.1966 relating to appointment of another
Survey Commissioner came to be considered by learned Civil
Judge on 26.08.1966 and the Court held :
“The property in suit is admittedly situate on specific plots
which have been detailed in the plaint. There is,
therefore, no need for demarcation of those plots on a map
by the Commissioner after survey. Whatever structures
exists on the said plot are in dispute in these cases. The
parties have already named them in their pleadings and
statements under Order X Rule 2 CPC. The map of the
Commissioner prepared earlier is already on record which
gives an idea about the location. Consequently at this stage
when the parties are required to establish their cases by
their evidence there is no occasion or need to issue a fresh
Commission.”
146. He also held that in case after recording evidence of both
the parties, if necessary, the Court may decide to issue a
Commission suo motu or otherwise or itself make local
inspection and get necessary objects or sites or structures in suit
photographed at the instance of any or both the parties. Besides,
a large number of documents were also filed by the parties. The
Court directed parties to endorse the said papers whether they
admit or deny the same as early as possible.
147. Thereafter in the year 1970 a number of applications were
filed seeking appointment of Civil Court Receiver and the same
 172

were decided by order dated 17.11.1970 whereagainst FAFO

389 of 1970 was filed in which this Court granted an interim
order. The FAFO was decided on 20.03.1974 and the matter was
remanded to the court below.
148. An order dated 18.3.1975 was passed by the Civil Judge
under Order 40 Rule 1 with respect to appointment of Receiver
whereagainst again FAFO No. 81 of 1975 (renumbered as 17 of
1977) was filed wherein a stay order was passed on 9.5.1975 by
this Court.
149. Though this Court had stayed the order dated 18.03.1975
of the Civil Judge but it appears that the trial court misread the
order as if further proceedings in pending suit was stayed, and,
did not proceed but simply adjourned the cases from time to
time. In the circumstances no progress is shown from May,
1975 till January 1986. An application was filed in January,
1986 before Munsif Sadar, Faizabad by one Sri Umesh Chandra
Pandey, Advocate in Suit 1 stating that the authorities are
violating injunction order by not permitting unobstructed
worship. The learned Munsif on 21.01.1986 referred to the
interim order of this Court in F.A.F.O. 17 of 1977 and directed
the parties to inform the latest position about the continuance of
the said interim order and fixed 01.02.1986. It appears that
another application was filed by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey,
Advocate seeking a direction to defendants no. 6 to 9 (Suit-1)
not to create any obstruction in Darshan, Pooja etc. by keeping
the premises under lock and key. On said application, the
learned Munsif on 25.01.1986 directed District Government
Counsel to file objections and fixed the matter for 28.01.1986.
150. On 28.01.1986 the District Government Counsel informed
that the High Court by interim order dated 09.05.1975 has only
 173

stayed the order dated 18.03.1975 and there is no order staying

further proceedings. He further pointed out that the defendants
no. 6 to 9 (Suit-1) were not creating any obstruction in the
matter. However, the learned Munsif deferred the matter
observing that the original record of the leading suit had already
been summoned by the High Court and in the absence thereof it
is not proper to pass any order on the said application.
151. Thereafter a revision was filed before the District Judge,
Faizabad who treated the same as Misc. Appeal and passed
order dated 01.02.1986 directing to open the locks placed on the
gate of the inner courtyard. Challenging the order dated
01.02.1986, Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986 was filed by Mohd.
Hashim. Another Writ Petition No. 3106 of 1986 was filed by
the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf.
152. In the Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986 an interim order was
passed by this Court on 03.02.1986 to the following effect:
“Until further orders of this Court the nature of
property in question as existing today shall not be
changed.”
153. The Writ Petition No. 3106 of 1986 filed by Sunni Central
Board of Waqf on 12.05.1986 was connected with the earlier
one. Both are still pending.
154. The F.A.FO. No. 17 of 1977 was decided on 23.3.1987.
This Court directed that record of all the four suits pending in
the lower Court be placed before the District Judge, Faizabad,
who will arrange to transfer all the suits to an Additional District
Judge, Faizabad who may not be transferred out of Faizabad for
about 18 months and that Addl. District Judge shall try these
suits as early as possible. The stay orders in those suits were
vacated. However the site position continued as such in view of
 174

interim order dated 3.2.1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 746 of

1986 by this Court.
155. The State Government on 15.12.1987 moved an
application no. 29 of 1987 under Section 24 read with 151
C.P.C. requesting this Court to withdraw all the suits pending in
the Court below at Faizabad for trial and disposal by this Court.
Another Application No. 11 of 1989 for similar relief was filed
in February 1989 on the administrative side requesting for early
disposal of the applications filed under Section 24 C.P.C. The
Government said that though the dispute is purely of civil nature
but it has assumed importance in the context as it sometimes
excites religious sentiments and generates tension between two
communities. Since the State was concerned in preserving amity
and brotherly relations between the two communities and,
therefore, early disposal was necessary. These two applications
were taken up for hearing on 23.2.1989 but could not be
concluded.
156. When the said matter was pending, Suit-5 was filed as a
fresh suit on 1.7.1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. The
plaintiff (Suit-5) of the said suit also moved an application
under 24 C.P.C. for transfer of all suits to this Court.
157. All the aforesaid applications were allowed on 10.7.1989
by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr.
U.C. Srivastava and Hon'ble S.H.A. Raza, JJ. This Court
withdrew all the aforesaid suits from the Court of Addl. District
Judge, Faizabad and Civil Judge, Faizabad for trial. The Court
also observed that the historic city of Lucknow is famous
throughout the world for its composite culture, softness and
sweetness of its language, mild, tender and suave manners, has
since centuries been free from communal hatred, bias or
 175

prejudices and, therefore, the congenial, peaceful and amicable

atmosphere of this City is best suited for the trial of such cases.
The Court also requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice to nominate
a third Judge so that a Full Bench may hear these matters.
158. On 21.07.1989 the Hon’ble Chief Justice constituted a
Special Bench consisting of three judges.
159. On an application of the State of U.P. this Court passed an
interim order dated 14.08.1989 directing the parties to maintain
status quo with respect to property in dispute.
160. On 20.09.1989 the Court ordered Suit-5 to proceed ex
parte against defendants no. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
20 and 21 who despite service failed to file their written
statement.
161. The defendants no. 2 and 13 (Suit-4) moved Application
No. 14(o) of 1989 in Suit-4 under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection
of plaint as barred by law and in particular clause (d) of Rule 11
Order 7 C.P.C. 1908. This Court vide order dated 23.10.1989
rejected the aforesaid application by two separate but concurrent
judgments.
162. On Application No. 5(o) of 1989 of the State of U.P. filed
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 94 C.P.C., vide
order dated 23.10.1989 the Court directed to maintain status quo
until further orders in all the five connected suits and also for
not changing the nature of the property in question. This Court
also expressed its doubt about some of the questions involved in
the suit, if soluble by judicial process.
163. By order dated 24.10.1989 this Court stayed proceeding of
Suit-5 till the final disposal of four previously instituted suits on
the application of the defendants no. 4, 5 and 6 (Suit-5) and as
agreed by one of the plaintiff also. However, the said order was
 176

recalled on 05.02.1992 on the application made by plaintiff no.

3 (Suit-5) and the Court directed that the aforesaid suit shall
proceed alongwith Suit-4 and other connected suits.
164. On Application No. 48 of 1989 of the State of U.P., vide
order dated 07.11.1989 the Court clarified that its order dated
14.08.1989 was in respect of the entire property mentioned in
the suit including plot no. 586 in so far included within the
boundary described by letters E F G H in the site plan.
165. Defendant No. 2 (Suit-4) filed Application No. 18(o) of
1989 under Order 14 Rule 2(2)(b) and Section 151 C.P.C.
stating that in view of the findings recorded by the Civil Judge,
Faizabad vide order dated 21.04.1966 on issue No. 17, the suit is
liable to be dismissed without considering other issues.
166. The plaintiffs (Suit-3) were allowed by order dated
21.12.1989 to sue the defendants (Muslims) in representative
capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C..
167. It appears that the defendants (Suit-4) aggrieved vide
order dated 23.10.89 passed in Application No. 14(O) of 1989
filed Special Leave Petition No. 14891 of 1989 which was
disposed of vide order dated 12.01.1990 (clarified vide order
dated 13.03.1990) by the Apex Court. The ultimate result was
that no relief in effect was granted to the defendants (Suit-4) and
the order dated 23.10.1989 remained intact.
168. Counsel for the plaintiffs also requested, accompanied by
some respondents that issues No. 3, 5(b), 5(e), 5(f), 6, 18, 19(d),
19(e), 20(b) and 21 be heard and decided as preliminary issues.
The said issues read as under:
“Issue No. 3- Is the suit within time?
Issue No. 5(b)- Has the said Act (U.P. Act No. XIII of
1936) no application to the right of Hindus in general and
 177

defendants in particular to the right of their worship?

Issue No. 5(e)- Whether in view of the findings
recorded by the learned Civil Judge on 21.04.1966 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 Waqfs has no right to
maintain the present suit?
Issue No. 5(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. 18- What is the effect of the judgment of
their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Abbas
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1981 S.C.
2198 on the finding of the learned Civil Judge recorded on
21.04.1966 on Issue No. 17?
Issue No. 19(d)- Whether the building in question
cannot be a mosque under the Islamic Law in view of the
admitted position that it does not have minarets?
Issue No. 19(e)- Whether the building in question
cannot legally be a mosque as contained vide order dated
23.08.1990 on order sheet on plaintiffs’ own showing it is
surrounded by a grave-yard on three sides?
Issue No. 20(b)- Whether there was a Mutawalli of
the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged Mutawalli not
 178

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.?”
169. This Court vide order dated 22.08.1990 rejected the
aforesaid application.
170. On 07.10.1990 the State of U.P. acquired certain land as
described hereunder vide notification issued under Section 4(1)
read with 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
“Settlement of Area Village
Plot number in acres

159 (Part) 0.3600 Kot Ramchandra,

Pargana Haveli Oudh,
District Faizabad.
160 (Part) 1.0706 -do-
171 (Part) 0.4375 -do-
172 (Part) 0.9063 -do-

Total : 2.7744 Acres”

171. Another notification dated 10.10.1991 was issued under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of
acquisition as disclosed in the notification was “development of
tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya,
District Faizabad”.
172. On 16.10.1991, Writ Petition No. 3540 of 1991 (M/B) was
filed by Mohd. Hashim assailing the aforesaid notification. A
Division Bench of this Court directed it to be placed before the
Special Bench. On 25.10.1991 after hearing the parties, this
Court passed an interim order. In the meantime, two more Writ
Petitions No. 3541 (M/B) of 1991, Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi
Akhara and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and 3542 (M/B)
of 1991, Khalid Yusuf Vs. Union of India and others were filed
wherein also the said interim order was extended. Later on Writ
 179

Petitions No. 4183 (M/B) of 1991, Mohd. Aslam Vs. Union of

India and others; 4184 (M/B) of 1991, Mohd. Aslam Vs. Union
of India and others; 4185 (M/B) of 1991, Nabib Yar Khan Vs.
State of U.P. and others; and, 4201 (M/B) of 1991, Jama-e-tul
Ulma-e-Hind and others Vs. State of U.P. and others were also
filed which were also connected with the leading case of Mohd.
Hashim (supra). The aforesaid Writ Petitions were decided vide
judgment dated 11.12.1992 and this Court struck down the
aforesaid notifications of acquisition of land measuring 2.7744
acres.
173. On 19.10.1990, the Ramjanambhumi Babri Masjid
(Acquisition of Area) Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance No. 3 of
1990) was promulgated by the President of India in exercise of
its power under Article 123 of the Constitution of India whereby
all the pending suits were declared 'abated' and the property in
dispute declared to be vested in the Government of India.
However, on 23.10.1990 i.e. just within four days the aforesaid
ordinance was repealed by Ramjanambhumi Babri Masjid
(Acquisition of Area) Withdrawal Ordinance, 1990 (Ordinance
No. 10 of 1990) and it further provided that all the pending suits
etc. shall stand revived and continue as they were.
174. The State Government vide Application No. 3(O) of 1991
sought permission to carry out certain repairs in the disputed
building which was damaged in October 1990. This Court in its
order dated 3.9.1991 observed that the property is admittedly of
religious significance and, therefore, the State Government’s
offer for maintaining the building should not reasonably be
objected as the party which would succeed in the suit will be
ultimate beneficiary. This Court, thus allowed repairs with
further clarification that no addition or alteration to the property
 180

shall be made and the property shall be restored only to its

former position.
175. Application No. 18(O) of 1991 of defendant No. 10 (Suit-
4) seeking framing of additional issues was rejected on
30.09.1991.
176. Application No. 32(O) of 1991 in Suit-4 was filed on
behalf of defendant no. 10, stating that the constitution of the
Full Bench was not in accordance with law as the matter is
cognizable by a Single Judge and evidence should also be
recorded by only a Single Judge so as to protect the time of two
other Hon’ble Judges. This application was taken up by the then
Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice (Hon’ble P.S. Gupta, J.) and
vide order dated 17.12.1991 it was disposed of observing that
the constitution of Full Bench was in accordance with law and
further that the evidence shall also be recorded by the Full
Bench.
177. Vide order dated 15.04.1992 this Court also allowed the
defendants no. 4, 5, 6, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 to defend Suit-5 as
representatives of Muslim community. Application for review
of the said order filed by plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5) was rejected on
02.09.1992.
178. An application filed under Para 14 of U.P. High Court’s
Amalgamation Order, 1948 seeking transfer of the aforesaid
suits from Lucknow to Allahabad by plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5) was
dismissed on 6.8.1992 by Hon’ble the Chief Justice (Hon’ble
M.K. Mukharjee, CJ, as His Lordship then was).
179. Vide order dated 02.09.1992 this Court allowed plaintiffs
(Suit-5) to abandon the suit against defendants No. 1, 2, 11, 12,
13, 14, 17 and 21 and allowed deletion of paragraphs no. 15, 16
and 17 of the plaint but rejected the prayer for deletion of the
 181

names of the aforesaid defendants from the array of parties.

180. On 06.12.1992 the disputed structure namely, Temple
Ramjanambhumi/ Babri Masjid was demolished. On 07.12.1992
a temporary structure was created where the worship and Pooja
of Lord Ram/Ram Lala and other Deities continued by the
Hindus. This resulted in substantial change in the situation,
causing various amendments in the pleadings, which were
allowed by this Court, as found fit. We are not giving details
thereof to avoid volume though wherever necessary it would be
referred later on.
181. The Central Government in its attempt to get the matter
settled amicably out of Court, sought to acquire certain land
including the land over which the disputed structure existed and
consequently enacted Acquisition of Certain Area of Ayodhya
Act, 1993 (Act No. 33 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the
“Ayodhya Act”)
182. The Ayodhya Act was published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part II-Section 1 dated 3rd April, 1993 and vide
Section 1(2) it came into force with effect from 7th January
1993. It has, in all, 13 Sections and a Schedule.
183. The statement of object and reasons contained in the said
enactment is as under:
"WHEREAS there has been a long-standing dispute
relating to the structure (including the premises of the
inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly
known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, situated in
village Kot Ramchandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli
Avadh, in tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad
of the State of Uttar Pradesh;
AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the
 182

maintenance of public order and harmony between

different communities in the country;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to maintain public
order and to promote communal harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst the people of India;
AND WHEREAS with a view to achieving the
aforesaid objectives, it is necessary to acquire certain
areas in Ayodhya;"
184. The word 'area' is defined in Section 2(a) and reads as
under:
(a) "area" means the area (including all the buildings,
structures or other properties comprised therein) specified
in the Schedule;"
185. Section 3 of the said Act provides for acquisition of area
in Ayodhya and Section 4 gives the general effect of vesting and
the same reads as under:
"3. On and from the commencement of this Act, the
right, title and interest in relation to the area shall, by
virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the
Central Government.
4.(1) The area shall be deemed to include all assets,
rights, leaseholds, powers, authority and privileges and all
property, movable and immovable, including lands,
buildings, structures, shops of whatever nature or other
properties and all other rights and interests in, or arising
out of, such properties as were immediately before the
commencement of this Act in the ownership, possession,
power or control of any person or the State Government of
Uttar Pradesh, as the case may be, and all registers, maps,
plans, drawings and other documents of whatever nature
 183

relating thereto.
(2) All properties aforesaid which have vested in the
Central Government under section 3 shall, by force of such
vesting, be freed and discharged from any trust, obligation,
mortgage, charge, lien and all other encumbrances
affecting them and any attachment, injunction, decree or
order of any court or tribunal or other authority restricting
the use of such properties in any manner or appointing any
receiver in respect of the whole or any part of such
properties shall cease to have any effect.
(3) If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit,
appeal or other proceeding in respect of the right, title and
interest relating to any property which has vested in the
Central Government under section 3, is pending before any
court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate. "
186. The total area sought to be acquired was 67.703 acres of
land.
187. Section 5 of the Ayodhya Act provides for the duty of the
person or State Government in charge of management of the
area, to deliver all assets etc. Section 6 deals with the power of
the Central Government to direct vesting of the area in another
authority or body or trust. Section 7 deals with the management
and administration of property. Section 8 deals with the
miscellaneous provisions regarding payment of amount and
Section 9 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the said
Act over any other law inconsistent therewith for the time being
in force including any instrument having the effect by virtue of
any law other than the said Act or any decree or order of any
Court, Tribunal or other authority. It is important to notice that
Section 4(3) provides that any suit, appeal or other proceedings
 184

in respect to rights, title and interest relating to any property

vested in Central Government under Section 3, if pending on the
commencement of the Ayodhya Act before any court, Tribunal
or other authority, the same shall abate.
188. The immediate result of the said enactment was that all the
four suits pending before this Court, by operation of law, stood
abated.
189. The President of India in the meantime also made a
special reference to the Apex Court under Article 143(1) of the
Constitution of India on 7.1.1993 on the following question.
"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious
structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram
Janma Bhumi--Babri Masjid (including the premises of the
inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on
which the structure stood"
190. Vires of Ayodhya Act was assailed before this Court by
filing certain writ petitions under Article 226 as well as before
the Apex Court under Article 32. The Apex Court got the
petitions filed before this Court transferred, heard all the matters
collectively along with the reference made under Article 143 (1)
of the Constitution and decided vide its judgment dated
24.10.1994, Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (Supra).
191. The Apex Court considered and decided the question of
maintainability of said Special Reference also in its judgment
dated 24.10.1994, Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (supra). The majority
judgment was delivered by Hon'ble J.S. Verma, J. for himself
and on behalf of Hon'ble M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and Hon.
G.N. Ray, J. The majority view recorded its conclusion in para
98 as under:
"Conclusions
 185

98. As a result of the above discussion, our

conclusions, to be read with the discussion, are as
follows :
(1)(a) Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act abates
all pending suits and legal proceedings without providing
for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for
resolution of the dispute between the parties thereto. This
is an extinction of the judicial remedy for resolution of the
dispute amounting to negation of rule of law. Sub-section
(3) of Section 4 of the Act is, therefore, unconstitutional
and invalid.
(1) (b) The remaining provisions of the Act do not
suffer from any invalidity on the construction made thereof
by us. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act is
severable from the remaining Act. Accordingly, the
challenge to the constitutional validity of the remaining
Act, except for sub-section (3) of Section 4, is rejected.
(2) Irrespective of the status of a mosque under the
Muslim Law applicable in the Islamic countries, the status
of a mosque under the Mahomedan Law applicable in
secular India is the same and equal to that of any other
place of worship of any religion; and it does not enjoy any
greater immunity from acquisition in exercise of the
sovereign or prerogative power of the State, than that of
the places of worship of the other religions.
(3) The pending suits and other proceedings relating
to the disputed area within which the structure (including
the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such
structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid, stood, stand revived for adjudication of the
 186

dispute therein, together with the interim orders made,

except to the extent the interim orders stand modified
by the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
(4) The vesting of the said disputed area in the
Central Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Act is
limited as a statutory receiver, with the duty for its
management and administration according to Section 7
requiring maintenance of status quo therein under sub-
section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The duty of the
Central Government as the statutory receiver is to hand
over the disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of the
Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for
implementation of the final decision therein. This is the
purpose for which the disputed area has been so acquired.
(5) The power of the courts in making further
interim orders in the suits is limited to, and circumscribed
by, the area outside the ambit of Section 7 of the Act.
(6) The vesting of the adjacent area, other than
the disputed area, acquired by the Act in the Central
Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Act is absolute
with the power of management and administration thereof
in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the
Act, till its further vesting in any authority or other body
or trustees of any trust in accordance with Section 6 of the
Act. The further vesting of the adjacent area, other than
the disputed area, in accordance with Section 6 of the Act
has to be made at the time and in the manner indicated, in
view of the purpose of its acquisition.
(7) The meaning of the word 'vest' in Section 3 and
Section 6 of the Act has to be so understood in the different
 187

contexts.
(8) Section 8 of the Act is meant for payment of
compensation to owners of the property vesting absolutely
in the Central Government, the title to which is not in
dispute being in excess of the disputed area which alone is
the subject-matter of the revived suits. It does not apply to
the disputed area, title to which has to be adjudicated in
the suits and in respect of which the Central Government
is merely the statutory receiver as indicated, with the duty
to restore it to the owner in terms of the adjudication
made in the suits.
(9) The challenge to acquisition of any part of the
adjacent area on the ground that it is unnecessary for
achieving the professed objective of settling the long-
standing dispute cannot be examined at this stage.
However, the area found to be superfluous on the exact
area needed for the purpose being determined on
adjudication of the dispute, must be restored to the
undisputed owners.
(10) Rejection of the challenge by the undisputed
owners to acquisition of some religious properties in the
vicinity of the disputed area, at this stage is with the
liberty granted to them to renew their challenge, if
necessary at a later appropriate stage, in case of continued
retention by Central Government of their property in
excess of the exact area determined to be needed on
adjudication of the dispute.
(11) Consequently, the Special Reference No. 1 of
1993 made by the President of India under Article
143(1) of the Constitution of India is superfluous and
 188

unnecessary and does not require to be answered. For this

reason, we very respectfully decline to answer it and return
the same.
(12) The questions relating to the-constitutional
validity of the said Act and maintainability of the Special
Reference are decided in these terms."
192. The result of declaration of Section 4(3) unconstitutional
was that the suits in question continued as if nothing had
happened in the meanwhile and this Court accordingly
proceeded to consider the same on merits, but with one
distinction, i.e., it had reduced the area of dispute now to be
considered in all these suits. The disputed area now is confined
to the area within which the structure (including the premises of
the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) existed. The
land beyond the above is out of the scope of these suits having
been validly acquired under Section 3 of the Ayodhya Act,
though the said vesting has also been made limited. The claim
over the area beyond inner and outer courtyard is now not open
for adjudication in these suits.
193. Further pursuant to Ayodhya Act the Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad is the 'authorized person', a
statutory Receiver of the disputed area vide Section 7 of the said
Act. He is also responsible for preservation of artefacts etc. and
to maintain accounts of the property including moveable and
liquid assets.
194. Since the Apex Court also allowed the parties to seek
amendment in their pleadings, a number of applications were
filed seeking amendments in the pleadings and also for
impleadment of Union of India etc. This Court, by various
orders, after hearing the parties, allowed necessary amendments
 189

as found fit and rejected the rest. It however rejected

impleadment of Union of India. It allowed the State of U.P. to
withdraw its application to file written statement, which right
the State of U.P. had already surrendered in Suit-4 as long back
as on 28.05.1962 by filing an application that it does not
propose to file any written statement.
195. Since this Court in presenti is considering the pleadings as
they stand amended at the time of hearing, it is not necessary to
refer such applications and the orders passed thereon in detail.
We only reiterate that the disputed area which this Court has to
consider has shifted and confined to inner and outer courtyard
only.
196. This Court time and again also considered various
applications seeking dismissal of one or the other suit on various
technical grounds and it took considerable time in
disposing/dismissing the same after hearing long drawn
arguments of the parties.
197. Time and again this Court also expressed its desire of
early disposal of the matters. It also did not hesitate in placing
its anguish on record as is evident from the order dated
21.08.1995, the very opening paragraph :
“In a suit filed in 1961 and drawn to this Court in
1989, we are even this day considering only amendment of
pleadings. This stares on its face, speaks volume of
lethargy, the approach of parties, the procedural wrangles,
not the least the sensitive issues, the causes for which this
case is crawling. Pleading though could be amended at any
stage including appellate but the farthest so far it has gone
was only framing issues, when on account of changed
circumstances we are back to this stage. This reflects on
 190

our judicial system not that it has any infirmity but only
projects the image of the way of working or contribution of
all who are involved in the administration of justice. We
have all to trigger and shake up our very approach of
finding the truth by awakening our awareness with our
deep-rooted conscience. The procedures are only in aid not
hurdles in delivering justice. Any delay prolongs agony,
aggravates sensitivities leading to further consequential
inevitable damages, changing circumstances, giving rise to
a party to amend its pleadings. If any example is to be
placed, there could not be more glaring than the present
and other connected suits. Present application is also in
the same direction.”
198. However, it appears that the parties were more interested
in either delaying the proceedings or to get the suits disposed or
dismissed on some technical reason instead of having a verdict
on merits and this is how the aforesaid suits have travelled and
continued for more than 61 years.
199. It would however be useful to refer the order dated
08.05.1996, noticing that there was no issue between the parties
about the fact that Lord Ram is cultural heritage of India, and,
the citizens of country have a right to pay homage to his birth
place and in this admitted factual state of affairs, issue No. 14 as
proposed at that time, was rejected. The relevant observations
are as under:
“It is not in issue between the parties whether L.
Ram is cultural heritage of India and the citizen of this
country has a right to pay homage to his birth place. When
this has not been challenged it has got no connection with
the facts in issue we do not consider that any decision in
 191

this regard is required to be taken by this Court and,

accordingly, it has rightly been rejected as it has got no
relevance with the present controversy.”
200. The Court referring to its earlier orders and reasons,
reiterated the same while rejecting review application filed on
behalf of defendants no. 10 to 17.
201. The recording of oral evidence commenced on
24.07.1996. On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit 4) statement under
Order 18 Rule 2 C.P.C. was made on 23.04.1996 and thereafter
they proceeded to examine their witnesses on various issues and
statement of 16 witnesses was recorded.
202. An objection was raised by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary,
Advocate in Suit-5 that it was only connected with other suits
and not consolidated. This Court to avoid any technical
objection, clarified by order dated 26.8.1996 that Suit-5 be also
treated, connected and consolidated with Suit-4 and said:
“Sri D.N. Agarwal one of the plaintiffs also agrees to
which other learned counsel have no objection that all the
proceedings here-in-before including the examination of
this witness P.W.1 be also treated to be as if this
consolidation was made since here-in-before. This agreed
as to eliminate any possible technical objection.”
203. Defendant no. 24 (Suit-5) died on 23.07.1997 and,
therefore, CMA No. 8(O) of 1997 was filed by the plaintiffs
(Suit-5) for deletion of defendants no. 24 and 25 (Suit-5) which
was allowed vide order dated 10.11.1997.
204. CMA No. 19(O) of 1999 was filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-
5) for recording statement of Sri Paramhans Ram Chandra Das
of Digamber Akhara, Ayodhya through commission due to his
old age, which was allowed vide order dated 04.09.1999
 192

directing Sri Hari Shanker Dube, Additional District Judge,

Faizabad to examine him in the Civil Court Room at Faizabad.
205. CMA No. 18(O) of 2000 was filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-
4) purporting to be under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151
C.P.C. praying for permission to reserve their right to produce
evidence on issues No. 1(b), 4, 11, 13, 14, 19(a) and 19(c) by
way of answer to the evidence that may be produced by the
defendants. This Court examined the matter in detail by its order
dated 19.10.2000 and rejected the same observing :
“However, in case this Court finds at a later stage
that the plaintiffs’ interest is likely to be prejudiced by
production of such evidence by the other party which the
plaintiffs could have neither imagined nor had the
opportunity to rebut, the inherent powers of the Court may
be invoked under Section 151 CPC and the Court may pass
fresh orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice.
The crux of the matter is that since the plaintiffs have
not exercised their option of keeping their right reserved to
make statement and lead evidence in rebuttal at the time of
making their statement under Order 18 Rule 2 CPC i.e.
before they started leading evidence, they cannot now be
permitted to exercise that option at this stage and reserve
their right to lead evidence in rebuttal under Rule 3 of
Order 18.
In the result, the C.M. Application No. 18(o) of 2000
is hereby rejected.”
206. Again for recording statement of Sri Deoki Nandan,
plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5) and one Sri Swaraj Prakash Gupta,
resident of B-17, Kutub Institutional area, New Delhi through
commission, Application No. 9(O) of 2001 was allowed vide
 193

order dated 23.05.2001 permitting recording of statement of Sri

Agrawal at Allahabad and Sri Gupta at Gautambudh Nagar
through commission.
207. Sri Agraw0al, plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5), however, died on
08.04.2002 and thereafter vide order dated 25.4.2002 Dr.
Thakur Prasad Verma was appointed as next friend of plaintiffs
no. 1 and 2 in the said suit and allowed to pursue the same on
their behalf. Now Dr. T.P. Verma has also been replaced by Sri
Triloki Nath Pandey vide Court's order dated 18.3.2010.
208. This Court on 4.5.2002 also visited not only the disputed
site, but also Ram Katha Kunj where certain artefacts/material,
said to have been discovered from the disputed area were
collected.
209. The evidence of the plaintiffs (Suit 4) closed on
30.7.2002. Thereafter the evidence of defendants commenced.
There appears to be some dispute as to the order in which
evidence was to be produced after close of the evidence of
plaintiffs (Suit-4). This aspect was clarified by Court's order
dated 31.07.2002 while disposing C.M.A. No. 34 (O) of 2002. It
directed the parties to adduce the evidence in the following
manner :
“1) The plaintiffs of OOS No. 5 of 1989 shall lead the
evidence as they are not defendants in OOS No. 4 of
1989. The plaintiffs in OOS No. 5 of 1989 have
already begun their evidence. They have already
produced the evidence of Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal
and Dr. S.P. Gupta (his cross-examination has yet
not completed). It may be that they were originally
examined on Commission on their application on the
ground that they were aged and suffering from
 194

ailment. It may be so but as they have already filed

documentary evidence and proceeded with the
evidence, they may produce the evidence and
thereafter,
2) The plaintiff of OOS No. 1 of 1989 shall lead
evidence as he is not a defendant in OOS No. 4 of
1989. The pleadings of OOS No. 1 of 1989 are
almost similar to that of OOS No. 5 of 1989 claiming
the right of worship and, therefore, he may be
permitted to lead the evidence after OOS No. 5 of
1989, and thereafter,
3) The plaintiffs of OOS No. 3 of 1989 shall lead
evidence. Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff, is also defendant
No. 3 in OOS No. 4 of 1989, and thereafter,
4) The remaining contesting defendants of OOS No. 4 of
1989 shall lead their evidence in seriatum,
5) The contesting defendants in OOS No. 1 of 1989,
OOS No. 3 of 1989 and OOS No. 5 of 1989 shall lead
evidence thereafter in seriatum (if they were not
parties in other suits).”
210. On 1.8.2002, this Court invited views/suggestions of the
parties in the suits with regard to excavation of disputed site to
find out as to whether there existed foundation of Hindu Temple
or any Hindu religious structure prior to demolition of the
disputed structure. Without understanding the said order, it
appears that several persons, in one or the other way, expressed
their views in different ways and this was also given a wide
publicity in print media. When this was brought to the notice of
this Court, an order was passed on 20.8.2002, operative part
whereof is as under :
 195

“If the newspapers publish opinion of the parties or any

other person threatening the Court from passing the order,
it amounts to contempt of the Court by the press as it
conveys threat of the parties or any other person from
passing an order, which they do not wish to be passed. The
party or any other person, who expresses opinion pending
proceeding, is also guilty of contempt of Court as it
interferes in the administration of justice.
The Editors take the responsibilities for whatever is
published in the newspapers. If anything is published,
which hampers fair trial or poisons public mind it is
contempt by the press. We are of the opinion that the
publication in the newspapers regarding the opinion by the
parties, counsel for the parties and any other person in the
pending matter amounts to contempt of Court. However,
instead of issuing show cause notice we, at present, warn
them that in future they shall not publish :-
1. any opinion of the parties or their counsel or any
other person in regard to the pending dispute before
us otherwise it shall be treated as contempt of Court.
2. They are further restrained from publishing any
article in regard to the merit of the case as it may
affect public mind in regard to which the Court is yet
to take decision on the basis of the evidence, which
parties may produce in the Court.
3. We have come to know that the TV Channels are
taking interview of the counsel of the parties or other
persons in regard to the matter, which is pending in
the Court. Television interview, at a time, when the
matter is still pending in the Court, may affect the
 196

mind of the public and it also undermines the judicial

authority and thwarts the majesty of the Court while
the Court has yet to take decision in the matter on
the evidence, which may be produced by the parties.
This will amount to interference in the
administration of justice. The TV Channels are
prohibited from televising interviews in respect of the
Ayodhya matter, which is still subjudice.
The registry is directed to send copy of this order to
the Editors of all the newspapers, Press Trust of India and
all the TV Channels forthwith.”
211. Thereafter, an application for review/recall of the order
dated 20.8.2002 was filed on behalf of National Union of
Journalists (India). After hearing them and other concerned
parties, this Court says “it is true that Press is a limb of the State
and watchdog of the democracy and freedom. An independent
Press is essential and integral part of the democracy. The
Press/Electronic Media, however, should remain cautions while
publishing the proceedings of the Court. It should not publish
the opinion of a person or a party or his counsel if the matter is
subjudice and the Court has yet to take a decision in the matter.
The expression of the opinion by a person about the correctness
of the wisdom of the Court, in regard to pending case, may be
taken as contempt of Court. The newspapers are not to take
upon themselves to publish material expressing opinion of the
persons in regard to the pending matters. It is called “Trial by
Newspapers” in contradiction of the “Trial by the Courts”. It
interferes in the administration of justice and also influences the
public mind.” Considering matter from various angles
thereafter, the Court clarified its earlier order dated 20.8.2002
 197

vide order dated 21.02.2003 and issued following directions:

“1. The Press/Electronic Media is entitled to publish a
fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the
Court.
2. The report about an order should be made after
obtaining the true copy of the order and the headnote
of the reporting should not be misleading.
3. The Press/Electronic Media should not publish any
article on any matter, which is pending before the
Court for adjudication.
4. The statement of witness be not reproduced as his
statement is to be scrutinized and assessed by the
Court. The Press can report as to which person
appeared in Court as a witness.
5. The Electronic Media should not interview any
person in regard to the merit of the case.
6. It should not express its opinion in editorial notes or
express opinion of any person including any party or
his counsel.”
Excavation of the Site by Archaeological Survey of India
Excavation Report of Archaeological Survey of India and
objections thereon :
212. On 1.8.2002, this Court referring to Issues No. 1(b) (Suit-
4), 14 (Suit-5) and the Reference made to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by the President of India, noticed that one of the basic
issue engaging attention of the Court in these suits is “whether
there was a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure
existed or the alleged Babari masjid was constructed after
demolishing temple at the site in dispute.” Considering the
observations of Sri D. Dhaneshwar Mandal, Archaeologist in his
Book “Ayodhya-Archaeology After Demolition” that sufficient
 198

archaeological material is available regarding temple-mosque

issue prompting need for further excavation at Ayodhya, this
Court required the parties to give their views/suggestions, why
the disputed land be not allowed to be excavated by
Archaeological Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as 'ASI').
Further, till decision in this respect, the Court directed ASI to
get the disputed site surveyed by Ground Penetrating Radar or
Geo-Radiology (hereinafter referred to as 'GPR') and obtain
report.
213. Almost all the parties, namely plaintiffs, defendants no. 2,
3, 4, 20 and 22 (Suit-4) and State Government filed their
objections in one or the other manner. However, except
defendant no. 2, others did not raise any specific objection
regarding survey of the disputed site by GPR. Sri Jilani, learned
counsel for plaintiffs in Suit-4 in fact made a statement before
the Court that he has no objection on G.P.R. survey of the
disputed site.
214. The objections were considered and decided by Court's
order dated 23.10.2002. The relevant extract thereof is as under :
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we are of the opinion that we should get a report in regard
to foundations, if any, of any structure at the site in
question. One of the issues in the suit is whether there was
any Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed
and the alleged Babri Masjid was constructed after
demolishing such temple/structure at the site in question.
The nature of super structure to a great extent is
related to the foundations. In 'History of Mughal
Architecture' Vol. I, filed as paper no. 197C-2/1 to 197C-
2/8, Shri R. Nath has expressed the view that the
 199

Muhammadans have no written text as to the construction

of their sacred mosques, but, on the other hand, the Hindu
temples are constructed on the principles for the
construction of temple detailed in various text books. The
view expressed by him is as follows:-
“It is surprising that though they built large
and magnificent mosques in Syria, Iraq, Iran,
Turkey, Egypt and Spain, the Muhammedans have
no written text as to the construction of their
sacred architecture. Except the universal law that
the congregation would face the Ka'ba (in Mecca)
in accordance with the Quranic injunction and the
Qiblah would mark its direction, there are no
prescribed rules and absolutely no norms for its
making. The Hindus, on the other hand, were very
particular in this matter. The 'sastra' (theory)
closely followed the standardised form of 'prayoga'
(practice) in India and they laid down principles
for the construction of temple (prasada) in
minutest details, in numerous types and varieties,
from the Gupta age to the beginning of the
Mughal period. Iconography similarly dealt with
the subject of image-making in exhaustive details.
Such grand treatises as the Brhat-Samhita, Sukra-
Niti-Sara, Hayasirasa Pancharatra, Agni-Purana,
Visnu-Dharmottara-Purana, Kasyapa Silpa,
Mayamatam, Manasollasa, Manasara,
Samarangana-Sutradhara, Aparajita-Prchchha,
Silpa-Ratnam, Visvakarma-Prakasa, Pramana-
Manjari, Vastu-Sara-Prakarana, Prasada-
 200

Mandana and some 15th century texts on Silpa

(combining all the applied fine arts, viz.
Architecture, sculpture, iconography, iconometry
and painting) are available to us.”
If any foundations is existing of any construction, it
may throw light as to whether any structure existed and if
so what would have been the possible structure at that
time.
The plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 have
themselves relied upon archaeological evidence that the
Court may draw an inference whether that temple existed
on the site. The archaeological evidence, according to the
plaintiffs of O.O.S. No.5 of 1989, relates to three places:
i. The excavation in the area located in
close proximity to the southern wall of the alleged
mosque. It is alleged that two trenches were laid and
pillar bases were found;
ii. Two trenches were laid at the back side
of the alleged mosque on the western side;
iii. Two pits located at a distance of about
8.80 meters south to the alleged mosque. The
discovery was alleged to be made during the land
levelling operation and from there big hoard of stone
sculptures were found and some structural remains
were also located at a distance of roughly 9 meters
south-east to the alleged mosque.
The plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 have led
evidence to prove that these excavations do not prove that
any temple existed on the site in question. We are not going
to assess the evidence at this stage regarding rival
 201

contentions of the parties and evidence led by them on the

record. It is, however, clear that none of the above
excavations were made on the disputed site. The excavation
of the site in question would have been more relevant to
one of the issues involved in the suit. We have passed the
order asking the parties to give their suggestions in regard
to excavation at the disputed site and till any excavation is
done, without disturbing the nature of the land, we directed
that the area in question can be surveyed by Ground
Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology system which is now
a developed science and can trace out the foundation
without disturbing the nature of the land.
By adopting Ground-Penetrating Radar/Geo-
Radiology system and also with the help of magnetometer
the archaeologists can map archaeological foundations of
any structure. It is also possible for them to draw a plan
with enough accuracy to make out/create a case for
excavation at the disputed site. The archaeologists, if they
feel so, have to dig the place/site where they consider to
excavate the site but they are handicapped for two reasons,
first, they do not really know whether to dig the area to its
hilt; and second, once they have dug, the area it is
destroyed. Both these problems can be solved by adopting
Ground-Penetrating Radar/ Geo-Radiological technology.
In this technology of Ground-Penetrating Radar/ Geo-
Radiology, magnetometer can also be used to trace out the
foundations of any structure without destroying anything
on the ground.
The question is whether the Court has power to take
this course without any of the parties requesting the Court
 202

for tracing out the foundations of any structure on the

disputed site. The Code of Civil Procedure itself gives
power to the Court to suo motu summon any witness to
record evidence, to summon any document from any
person, to make local inspection or to appoint a
commission for investigation, if it thinks necessary or
expedient in the interest of justice.
Order XVI Rule 14 of C.P.C. provides that where the
Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person
including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by
a party to the suit, the Court may, of its own motion, call
such person to be summoned as witness to give evidence,
or to produce any document in his possession. This
provision envisages that when none of the parties produce
as witness, the Court has power to suo moto summon the
witness if it thinks necessary or direct any person to
produce any document in his possession. It clearly
contemplates a situation where none of the parties desire to
produce witnesses or documents, for any reason, the Court
in the interest of justice can call the witness to give
evidence or to produce documents in his possession. It is to
find out the truth which is integral part of justice.
In R.M.Seshadri Vs. G. Vasantha Pai and others,
A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 692, where neither of the parties
examined the witness which the Court found to have been
examined, summoned such witness and his evidence was
taken into account while recording the finding. The Apex
Court held that the Court had power to summon him as the
Court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or
that the case before it needs that kind of evidence. The
 203

Court observed as under :

“The power of a Civil Court to summon court
witnesses is contained in Order XVI, Rule 14 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Now the Representation of
the People Act enjoins that all the powers under the
Code can be exercised and all the procedure as far
as may be applicable to the trial of civil suits may be
followed in the trial of election petitions. It would
appear therefore that in the absence of any
prohibition contained in the law, the Court has the
power to summon a court witness if it thinks that the
ends of justice require or that the case before it needs
that kind of evidence.”
In Shaikh Mahamad Umarsaheb Vs. Kadalaskar
Hasham Karimsab and others, AIR 1970 SC 61, the Apex
Court upheld the order of the Trial Judge summoning a
person as a Court witness. It is, however, a matter of
discretion when it is to be exercised. The Court is not
obliged to summon a person as a Court witness. It is the
discretion of the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts
and circumstances of each case as observed in Khaje
Khanavar Khadarkhan Hussain Khan Vs.
Siddavanahalli Nijalingappa and another, AIR 1969 SC
1034 and Bishwanath Rai Vs. Sachhidanand Singh,
A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1949.
The principle laid down for obtaining the evidence by
the Court suo moto can also be applied for obtaining the
report through scientific investigation.
The Court has further power under Order XVIII Rule
18 C.P.C. to inspect any property or thing concerning
 204

which any question may arise at any stage of the suit. It is

also not dependent on any application being filed by any of
the parties in this respect. It is for the satisfaction of the
Court to find out the truth for which the Court takes burden
of making local inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18
C.P.C.
The Court has further power under Section 151
C.PC. to pass any appropriate order in the interest of
justice provided such power is not in conflict with what has
been expressly provided in the C.P.C. or against the
intention of legislation vide Ram Chand and Sons Sugar
Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava and others,
AIR 1966 SC 1899, where the Court struck the defence
under Section 151 C.P.C. on the ground that the Court has
inherent power to strike the defence of the defendant if he
does not comply with the order of the Court.
The Court has thus a power applying principle of
Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. to obtain a report through the
Archaeological Survey of India in respect of a matter
which is one of the important issues involved in the suit.
The Court has further power under Order XVIII Rule 18
C.P.C. to inspect any property or thing concerning which
any question may arise at any stage of the suit. It is also
not dependent of any application being filed by any of the
parties in this respect. It is for the satisfaction of the Court
to find out the truth for which the Court takes burden of
making local inspection under Order XVIII Rule 18 C.P.C.
The Court has been conferred power under Order
XXVI Rule 10A CPC to issue commission for scientific
investigation which reads as under :-
 205

“10A. Commission for scientific investigation.-(1)

Where any question arising in a suit involves any
scientific investigation which cannot, in the
opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted
before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it
necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so
to do, issue a commission to such person as it
thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such
question and report thereon to the court.
(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as
far as may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner
appointed under this rule as they apply in relation
to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.”
The second question is why the Court should exercise
its power suo moto in the matter. The reasons are two fold-
firstly, to remove any suspicion or doubt as to the facts of
the case which is in dispute and secondly, to find out the
truth in regard to the contentious issues raised by the
parties. As noted above, the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 5 of
1989 have themselves relied upon the evidence in regard to
excavation, levelling and trenches laid near the site of the
disputed area. It would be appropriate that the matter may
be thoroughly investigated to find out the truth.
The third question is why the Court should exercise
its power at this stage when the evidence of all the parties
have not closed as yet. The plaintiffs in O.O.S. No. 4 of
1989 have closed its evidence. The plaintiffs of O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989 have examined seven witnesses by this time
including Dr. S.P. Gupta, Archaeologist, as one of the
witnesses, O.P.W. 8 is being examined. None of the parties
 206

has filed application for excavation at the disputed site. It

is not suggestion of the objectors that they would move an
application for excavation at a later stage. In our view, this
is a proper stage for obtaining the report of GPR/Geo-
Radiology without disturbing the nature of the land which
will throw light in the matter.
Lastly, it is contended that the report, if obtained,
may not be very accurate and the exercise will be futile. It
is an assumption by the objectors. The Survey through
GPR/Geo-Radiology is a scientific investigation. It is after
the report is submitted, the Court can examine such report.
This objection at the present moment is unfounded.
In view of the above, we do not find any substance in
the objections raised by learned counsel appearing for
defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 22 in O.O.S. No. 4 of
1989.
As regards clarification sought for surveying the
area, we clarify that the area in question will be surveyed
by the agency as under :-
1. The area shown in the report of the
Commissioner submitted in Suit No.2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1
of 1989) covering an area of approximately 100 x 100
shown in the map plan no. 1 referred to by letters
A,B,C,D,E,F and thereafter northern portion up to the end
of the raised platform and further to the west, south and
east to the said site to the extent of 40 feet so that the
position may be clarified regarding excavation alleged to
have already been done earlier,
2. The agency conducting GPR/Geo-Radiological
test shall not disturb any area where the idol of Shri Ram
 207

Lala has been installed and approximately 10 feet around

it.
The objections in regard to GPR/Geo-Radiology are
disposed of accordingly.”
215. ASI initially showed its reluctance in getting the survey of
the disputed area done by GPR and submitted that no agency in
the Country was found competent to undertake the said work.
Sufficient time was consumed by various applications filed
before this Court and their disposal on GPR survey. Ultimately,
by order dated 26.11.2002, the Court permitted M/s Tojo Vikas
International (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Tozo') to
visit the site and submit report by 12.12.2002. M/s Tozo
submitted a site inspection report after visiting the site in
question on 9.12.2002. It was considered on 13.12.2002 and
then the Court directed M/s Tozo to undertake the project of
GPR survey at the disputed site as early as possible but latest by
first of January, 2003 and complete the work and submit report
by 26.1.2003. M/s Tozo constituted a team consisting of (1) Mr.
Manoj Kumar, Deputy General Manager and Team Leader, (2)
Mr. Sudhir Chauhan, Senior Geophysicist, (3) Mr. Shakti Singh
Mittal, Geophysicist, (4) Mr. S.A.H. Jaffari, Senior Land
Surveyor and (5) Mr. Vobhor Mittal, Land Surveyor. The
aforesaid team was assisted by Mr. Claude Robillard from
Canada, an expert in the work of survey interpretation etc. The
survey report was submitted by M/s Tozo ultimately through
ASI on 17.2.2003 reporting its conclusions as under:
1. In General terms, the main georadar features
detected by the present survey are “anomaly alignments”
across the main platform, north and south of the Sanctum
Sanctorum extending to the Ram Chabutra area, the high
 208

amplitude “ringy sequence” towards the south, and the

mound structures to the east.
2. In their cross-section appearance and the areal
pattern, the “anomaly alignments” may correspond to a
wall foundation of some sort. In the Rama Chabutra area,
the crossing patterns of those alignments and the different
stratigraphic units from where they ((emerge)) suggest that
they belong to successive construction periods rather than
being contemporary to one another. As mentioned earlier,
similar indications of successive structures are shown in
other areas of the site such as shown on the example radar
cross section 2 (Annex D).
3. The (ringy and high amplitude)) sequence in the
southern portion of the Ram Chabutra area extends across
the fences to the east to the main platform area to cover a
rather large area. This sequence may be indicative of a
flooring structure of some sort, possibly stone slabs if its
origin is ancient.
4. A third type of buried structures covers the entire
eastern boundary of the site. It consists of buried mound
structures with some internal texture or structure indicative
of collapsed material. Similar types of anomalies have been
detected to the southwest area just before the terrain slopes
down.
5. Many small discrete anomalies have been detected at
various depths- from 0.5 to 5.5 meters. Some of those
anomalies appear to line up in some directions but could
not be detected on some survey lines between them. As such
they have been referred to “discontinuous alignment” on
the geophysical interpretation map of Annex A. They may
 209

correspond to pillars alignment, broken up sections of wall

foundations or fortuitous patters of independent objects of
natural features.
6. In the zones of reworked material or rubbles
indicated on the map, little penetration was achieved as the
signal was severely scattered in those units. It is possible
that some of the trends or alignments stopping in those
zones actually also extend further.
7. In the slope area to the west, which is undulating,
filled with rubbles and steeply dipping, only small
anomalies were detected at relatively shallow depths. They
appear to line up somewhat as indicated on the map;
however, the wider line spacing and the poor data quality,
on account of ground conditions in this area, due to bad
coupling of the antenna with the ground, makes this
interpretation difficult. This area as explained earlier is a
debris zone where heterogeneous material was apparently
dumped from the upper platform and the origin of those
detected anomalies could also be debris.
8. We are also showing some indications on the map
relative to the radar signal that are most probably related
to geological factors such as dipping layers, recent fill
sequence and zones of higher soil conductivity. They are
part of the geophysical interpretation.
9. In conclusion, the GPR survey reflects in general a
variety of anomalies ranging from 0.5 to 5.5 meters in
depth that could be associated with ancient and
contemporaneous structures such as pillars, foundations
walls slab flooring, extending over a large portion of the
site. However, the exact nature of those anomalies has to
 210

be confirmed by systematic ground truthing, such as

provided by the archeological trenching.
216. The said report was considered by the Court after
permitting parties to file their objections and the same were
disposed of by order dated 5.3.2003 directing ASI to go ahead
with the excavation of the disputed site. The relevant extract of
the order is as under :
“Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the
Archaeological Survey of India is directed to get the
disputed site excavated as under:-
(1) The area shown in the report of the
Commissioner submitted in Suit No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S.
No. 1 of 1989) covering an area of approximately
100x100 shown in the map plan no. 1 referred to by
letters A, B, C, D, E, F and thereafter northern portion
up to the end of the raised platform and further to the
west, south and east to the said site to the extent of 50
feet.
(2) If it is necessary to excavate towards north or any
area more than 50 feet to the disputed area, it can do so
to find out the true position as regards to any
foundation.
(3) It is made clear that the Archaeologists
(Excavators) shall not disturb any area where the idol
of Shri Ram Lala is existing and approximately 10 feet
around it and they shall not affect the worship of Shri
Ram Lala and thus, status quo as regards His Puja and
worshippers' right of Darshan shall be maintained.”
(4) The excavation shall be done by Excavation
Branch concerned specialized in excavation work
 211

within a period of one month from today. If they are

engaged in other work it shall be suspended till the
excavation in question is complete. If any additional
staff is required the Archaeological Survey of India and
Central Government shall provide it.
(5) Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.) Limited which has
surveyed the site in question by GPR etc. shall assist
the excavators by providing technical assistance at the
time of excavation.
(6) The work will commence within one week from
today. The report will be submitted within one week
from the date of completion of the excavation.
(7) The Archaeological Survey of India shall intimate
the date of the commencement of the work to the Officer
on Special Dutuy, Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid. On
receiving such information he shall intimate the date to
the parties who can watch the excavation work.
(8) Learned counsel for the parties can also appoint
nominee including Archaeologist to watch the
excavation work. It is made clear that only one nominee
of each contesting party at one time shall be entitled to
remain present.
Put up on 24th March 2003 by which date the
Archaeological Survey of India shall intimate to the Court
of the progress made by it in regard to excavation.”
217. The Director General, ASI constituted a 14 members team
consisting of the following :
1. Dr. B.R. Mani, Suptdg. Archaeologist
2. Shri C.B. Mishra, Dy. Suptdg. Archaeologist
3. Shri A.A. Hashmi, Astt. Archaeologist
 212

4. Shri D.K. Singh, Asstt. Archaeologist

5. Shri N.C. Prakash, Asstt. Archaeologist
6. Shri Samir Dewan, Astt. Archaeologist
7. Shri Prabash Sahu, Astt. Archaeologist
8. Shri Bhuwan Vikram, Asstt. Archaeologist
9. Shri S.K. Gulrande, Photographer
10. Shri S.M. Khairkar, Photographer
11. Shri Teja Singh, Photographer
12. Shri H.R. Barapatare, Senior Artist
13. Shri R.G. Kasbi, Draftsman
14. Shri R.G. Nangulwar, Surveyor
218. He also directed for engagement of 80 local labourers to
help the excavation team in the field work. The ASI team
reached Ayodhya in the night of 10.3.2003, carried out its
general survey of the site and lay out of the trenches on
11.3.2003.
219. On the application of the counsels for the parties, this
Court gave certain more direction on 11.3.2003 so that
excavation by ASI would proceed keeping intact the confidence
of the parties in the above proceeding etc. The directions are :
“1. The general survey of the site and layout of the
trenches if already done shall be done again in presence of
the contesting parties or their counsel or nominees.
2. It should commence from 12.03.2003 at 10.00 a.m.
3. The excavation work should be done from 10.00 a.m.
4. List containing names and addresses of all persons
including labourers engaged in excavation process be
submitted to the Hon’ble Court for record.
5. Names of the equipments and tools likely to be used
in excavation work may also be submitted.
 213

6. Videography if being done may be kept in tact and

under sealed cover.
7. Materials likely to be recovered may also be kept in
sealed cover/bundles and may be preserved in some near
by located building under lock and seal.
8. The Authorised person/Director A.S.I./Team Leader
A.S.I. Excavation Team, Ayodhya should submit periodical
progress report of the work to the Hon’ble Court and they
should not make any briefing/disclosure to the media.
9. Transparency should be maintained.”
220. In compliance of the above directions, Director General,
ASI submitted list of its officials engaged in the excavation
branch (located at Delhi and Patna, i.e. the Northern Region)
vide its letter dated 13.3.2003. Along with letter dated
20.3.2003, he supplied a list of 14 member team as well as the
labourers engaged in the excavation work and the equipments
likely to be used therein.
221. A brief note on the excavation work carried out from
12.3.2003 to 16.3.2003, prepared by Sri R.C. Mishra, Addl.
Director General on 20.3.2003, was also submitted showing that
the actual excavation started in the first half of 12.3.2003 itself.
The note contained the following information :
“As per the court directives, the excavation was
started in the area indicated in the report of the
Commissioner submitted in Suit No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S.No. 1
of 1989) shown in the map plan no. 1 and referred to by
letters A, B, C, D, E, F. The excavation methodology
consists of laying out square trenches measuring 4 X 4 m
each in the entire area which are marked by numbers
written on wooden pegs for reference and taking readings.
 214

A site plan is also prepared indicating the number of

trenches laid out with the peg numbers clearly indicated
therein.
Four trenches (4 X 4 m each) with numbers J3, J4,
J5, J6 were initially taken up for excavation (Plan
enclosed). After a dig of nearly 5-14 cm depth, a cement
floor was encountered in all the trenches. This cement floor
was encountered with squarish and rectangular
impressions of stone slabs/ tiles, very similar to that found
extant in situ in marble and incised, datable to the second
half of the 20th century A.D. As the cement floor was
encountered in all the above four trenches, the excavation
area was shifted to the east of above with numbers K3, K4,
K5, K6. All these trenches show high intensity of signals of
anomalies as per Tojo-Vikas International Pvt. Ltd. The
excavation revealed four formations, two oblong, one
circular and last roughly circular which is partly in
section. The oblong formations have edges of burnt clay
and some ash is also noticed within these formations. The
irregular circle formation was plastered entirely with lime
and filled with brickbats, few bone pieces and shreds of red
ware. Here red ware was obtained with shapes of pots,
vases and basins. A wall in two phases was exposed in K3
up to a depth of 75 cm with the associated finds consisting
of red ware having bowls, dishes and basins as the
prominent shapes. Due to intervening structures and floors,
in many areas working area is reduced very much. In one
trench a modern brick pavement was removed to obtain
more space. The other finds include terracotta head of an
animal figurine.”
 215

222. The plaintiff (Suit-4) filed civil misc. application no. 18

(O) of 2003, praying for review and recall of the order dated
5.3.2003, contending that the report submitted by M/s Tojo has
not been approved, no order was passed on the admissibility of
the said report, hence direction for excavation by ASI was not
justified and must be reviewed. This application was rejected by
order dated 26.3.2002 holding that all the objections have
already been considered and decided and no case for review is
made out.
223. Another application was submitted on behalf of plaintiffs
(Suit-4) being CMA No. 19 of 2003 (Suit-4) making the
following complaints :
“A- Stratigraphic context is a Key issue in the
interpretation of the excavation. Therefore there should be
accurate noting of position (i.e. of the layer) of each find of
whatever nature (potsherds, seeds, bones, other organic
material, bricks or brickbats, mortar bonded rubble, loose
debris fragments , stones, boulders and the like) and the
record of the same has to be maintained and preserved
with the signatures of the parties/ counsels/ nominees taken
on the said report/ Register on day to day basis. The top
and bottom of each layer and the edges of pits may be
marked on all relevant Section (S) with the use of Section
labels, of paper or aluminum, in indelible ink.
Recording of the identification of Strata and features
like walls, floors and pits as well as objects like pottery etc.
should be done immediately as they are identified or found.
The discovery/ recovery of objects should be noted in Both,
i.e, the trench notebook / diary, as well as in the register of
finds (simultaneously), at the time when these Discoveries
 216

are made.
B- In order to ensure that observers/ person
watching, are not distracted, not more than 2 Trenches
should be excavated at one time, after the completion of
work in the Trenches already being excavated, and out of
these Trenches also, actual digging should be carried out
only in 2 Trenches at one time.
C- After the noting by the A.S.I. team, the
Archaeologists nominated by the parties should be allowed
to enter the trenches to observe the stratification of the
A.S.I. (and its Section labels) and in order to do this they
may be allowed to scrape the Sections. This may be
allowed at the end of each day or every few days, after the
A.S.I.'s work is over for the day. Without being allowed to
scrape the Sections, Archaeologists will not be able to
verify the stratification.
D- The details about each find and the strata
identified should be noted in the site note book/ register
(with rough sketches of Sections and the plans of walls, pits
and other features) to be maintained regarding day to day
excavation work and one copy of the same be supplied to
each side of the contesting parties by the A.S.I. team, on
day to day basis. As the relative dates of all the walls are
important, the floors and foundation pits associated with
those walls may be clearly specified on the trench sections
and / or plans.
E- The copies of colour photographs of all the
important objects, trenches, features and Sections may be
supplied to the contesting parties on payment of necessary
charges so that there may remain no apprehension or
 217

doubt about the introduction of any external material or

about Interpolation/ Destruction/ substitution of any find.
F- The Antiquity Register should be maintained
making specific mention of the bones and glazed ware etc.
on day to day basis and the same be sealed in the presence
of the parties/ counsels or their nominees.
4. That the site notebooks and other records including
Video-tapes, diagrams, plans and Section drawings, on
which the Archaeological Survey of India may prepare the
report, should be preserved and be made available for
Inspection to the parties immediately after completion of
the report.
5. That Archaeological Survey of India is an
organization under the direct control of the B.J.P.
MINISTER of the government of India, who is an associate
of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad etc. in the matter in issue
and as such the exercise of political influence in the
preparation of report of the excavation can not be ruled
out. Hence it is all the more essential and in the ends of
justice that the parties to the suits and specially the Muslim
Parties/ their nominees must have access to all those
materials in their original forms including the excavated
trenches, drawings of their plans and Sections, and all
finds labelled with their stratum provenance, upon which
the Archaeological Survey of India would be basing its
conclusions and interpretation.
6. That the depth below present surface, upto which
digging has to be done, may be specified by the court and
the same may be at the most 5-6 feet (1.5 or 2 meter) as the
Issue regarding which the order of excavation has been
 218

passed, relates to the alleged demolition of temple (though

denied) said to have been made in 1528 A.D. and as such
the present excavation is not all concerned with anything of
any period earlier than 16th century.
7. That plaintiff of O.O.S. No. 4 of 89 having filed the
suit as the representatives of the Muslim community and
the suit being contested also as a representative suit and
the nature of the dispute also being very sensitive, it was
not only desirable but rather necessary that the persons
engaged by the A.S.I. in the entire process of excavation,
should belong to both the communities in equal proportion,
so that there may not remain any feeling among any
community that any favour was being shown to any one
side or that more importance was being given by the A.S.I.
to the members of one community as against the other. In
this respect the conduct of the A.S.I., even from 8-3-03 to
17-3-03, has been giving strength to all kinds of
apprehensions and speculations of partiality and biased
attitude. The letters dated 8-3-03 and 10-3-03 sent by the
Director of A.S.I. and Excavation Team Leader of A.S.I.
describe the O.S.D. of this court as the “O.S.D., Ram
Janam Bhoomi” while the O.S.D. has never described
himself as O.S.D. of Ram Jaman Bhoomi only but he
always describes himself as O.S.D. (R.J.B. -B.M.) or
O.S.D. of Ayodhya Bench or O.S.D. of special Full Bench
hearing Ayodhya Matters. Similarly the appointment of
only one Muslim in a team comprising of 14 persons can
also not be said to be an impartial constitution of the
excavation team. So also the engagement of all labourers
of one community cannot be treated to be an impartial and
 219

justified action and inclusion of 3 Muslims only in a team

of more than 50 labourers on 17/2/03, even after written
demand made by the plaintiffs' counsels, shows their
reluctance to act in an independent and impartial manner.
True copy of the said representation dated 15.3.03 is filed
herewith as ANNEXURE No.-1.
It is therefore, not only desirable, but necessary, in
order to create confidence about the impartiality of the
excavation work, that the A.S.I. be directed to include at
least half of the members of Excavation Team and
labourers from among the Muslims and 5 eminent
Archaeologists (Excavators) and an observer be also
appointed by this Hon'ble court with the consent of the
parties, as per order dated 1-8-2002.”
224. The plaintiffs (Suit-4) also filed a copy of their letter dated
18.3.2003 along with the said application wherein they had
requested Sri B.R. Mani, Team Leader, ASI Excavation Team to
include appropriate number of muslims labourers so as to
inspire confidence in the community. The aforesaid application
was opposed by the other side.
225. A brief report was also submitted by Sri B.R. Mani,
Superintendent (Archaeology) and Team Leader, ASI on
23.3.3003 through the Director General ASI, and the relevant
extract thereof is as under :
“II. Planning and Progress of Excavations
The present excavation undertaken by the ASI under
the Hon'ble High Court's direction at the disputed site of
Ayodhya is of a very special nature well defined objective.
All precautions have been taken to plan it in such a way
that the work could be taken up and completed as per the
 220

directions of the Court. In planning the excavation,

following strategy is adopted-
II 1. In place of general practice of lay out of 10 x 10 m
squares divided into four quadrants of 4.25 x 4.25 m
separated by 0.50 m baulk all-around,the latest technique
of lay out trenches at sires where limited spaces are
available was adopted. Accordingly, page were fixed at
every 5 m in both north-south, and cast-west orientation
with cutting area of 4 x 4 m leaving 0.5 m baulk all around,
which in contiguous trenches effectively left a space of 1 m
in between two cutting for the movement of archaeologists
and labourers. One meter wide baulk was specially
provided considering the fact that due to modern fillings
and debris, etc. the trench may collapse due to the earth
pressure in a most sensitive area.
II 2. To avoid any confusion and for the better
understanding of even layman instead of the X, Y and Z
areas of traditional layout with central point at the highest
part, the initial peg 'A1' was fixed at the north-west corner
of the site and accordingly A, B, C, D letters were put to
denote the trenches in west to east direction and numerals
1, 2, 3, 4, etc. in the north to south direction.
II 3. Full attention was given to the report and GPR
drawing submitted by the Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.)
Ltd. And the matter regarding anomalies shown in their
drawings were discussed with Shri Manoj Kumar, Dy.
G.M. TVIPL and his representative Mr. Shakti Singh at
several occasion and accordingly decision was taken to
start the excavation at first to the north of Ram Chabutra
and also to its adjoining areas where greater signals have
 221

been detected by the GPR survey.

II 4. As the work of excavation is required to be completed
as a time bound programme, the archaeological
documentation including drawing and photography of the
structural remains and pottery and antiquities are
arranged to be done simultaneously.
II 5. Arrangements have also been made to collect the
samples of soil, mortar, carbon (for C14 dating), pottery (for
Thermoluminiscence dating), grains and pollens (for
palaco botanical studies) and bone (for study of faunal
remains). Although these samples would have to be sent for
laboratory testing and scientific studies to the scientists in
the survey and outside agencies, who may take some time
to study and submit their findings.
II 6. Trenches have been laid in the entire disputed area on
all sides excepting the area of the makeshift structure
where Ram Lala is enshrined along with its periphery
having brick wall and the surrounding sand bag-mound
covering an area of approximately 400 square metres. The
excavation work has also been planned in phased manner
in particular areas as per significant signals for anomalies
pointed out by the GPR survey.
II 7. The excavation work was started as per Hon'ble High
Court's order from 12.03.2003. Holidays were observed on
Muharram (14.03.2003) and Holi (18.03.2003) and non-
field day would be observed on Mondays (this Monday
being 24.03.2003). No labourers came for work on
19.03.2003 although the team was present at the site and
worked for documentation. Thus from the beginning of the
work till 24.03.2003, i.e. the day of hearing of the case by
 222

the Hon'ble High Court only 9 days would be utilized for

excavation purpose. There also since the work is starting at
10 am one hour of work is being lost for which the Director
General has been approached by the team leader to
request the Hon'ble High Court through Sr. Standing
Counsel to allow the team to start the work at 9 am so that
the work may continue till 6 pm with one hour usual break
for lunch.
II 8. Huge chunks of masonry blocks and other
architectural members are lying on the western slope of the
mound of the disputed area. They require shifting to
facilitate surface study and planning of excavation in that
area. These masonry blocks can either be broken into
pieces and then shifted or lifted through crane and kept
aside. Preferring the second alternative the Authorized
Person has been requested to arrange a crane for the job.
III. The Present Wrok
III 1. After layout of trenches excavations were started
initially in four trenches on the first day itself, i.e.
12.03.2003. These four trenches J3, J4, J5 & J6 laid bare
cement floors, brick impressions of 1924 and cement
mortar put over the lime floor for fixing votive slabs
(marble)/tiles. Some of the extent marble slabs are
inscribed with date as late as 1968-69 A.D. A request was
made to the Director General to inform the team whether
these floor remains could be cut or is there any direction
from the Hon'ble Court in this regard.
III 2. In the meantime four adjoining trenches K3, K4, K5
& K6 were taken up for excavation which revealed the
lowest portion of the eastern enclosure wall of the disputed
 223

structure.
III 3. Two more trenches were taken up to the east and
south-east of the so called Ram Chabutra at K7 & K8
where more space was found to go further deep.
III 4. It is noticed that in almost entire area of the disputed
structure, the floor of it still remains at most of the places,
which has to be necessarily cut through to make further
space and correlation possible.
III 5. An interesting feature has been noticed in trench K4
in which the eastern enclosure wall constructed of brick
bats was found over riding another earlier wall of the same
width (1.04 m) but made of comparatively fuller bricks
(which are not lakhauri bricks), the earlier wall is found
resting on a still earlier lime floor which extends beneath it
and also spreads on the other side (outer side) of it. All
together, the two walls and the lower floor point towards
three distinct structural phases.
III 6. Some structural activity during the part was also
noticed outside the eastern enclosure wall.
III 7. The pottery and other deposits from the above 10
trenches is mixed deposit and cannot be categorized as a
habitational deposit of successive phases. Pottery yield
also is a mix of ancient black slipped ware, red ware
medieval red ware, glazed ware, celadon were and modern
red ware and other material. The antiquities like human
head and human foot of Kushan style, two copper coins of
medieval period, beads of stone, glass and terracotta;
pieces of glass bangles, animal figurines and such other
objects have come from the mixed deposit 27 of such
antiquities have been found so far from these deposits in
 224

different trenches.
III 8. An interesting surface investigation was made
towards north-west side of the disputed area in the
trenches C1, C2, D1 & D2 where only the surface cleaning
provided evidence of at least three structural phases- the
top being the floor and its connected structure of the
disputed structure, below which is an evidence of four
courses of calcrete stone blocks which rest over a brick
structure having no less than twenty five courses of bricks
of various shapes and sizes. Only further careful digging in
the area may show the details of structural activities.
III 9. Digging has been done in at least four trenches upto
the depth of 1.50 metres. A total area of about 250 square
metres comprising 10 trenches have been put to excavation
at present and an area of 100 square metre is under
surface investigation in four trenches.
Since utmost care is to be given to the site so that all
the relevant details could be recorded and in haste nothing
should escape unnoticed and nothing may get damaged, the
work is taking the required time and therefore, extension
for at least two months more for excavation and 15 days
further for writing the report may please be sought from
the Hon'ble High Court.
Submitted to the Director General, Archaeological
Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.”
226. Another report dated 21.3.2003 showing some findings of
ASI in the excavation work carried out till that date is as under :
“BRIEF REPORT-21.03.2003
“The excavations continued for the eighth day in K4,
K6, K7 & K8, while trench nos. C1, C2, D1 & D2, situated
 225

on the northern side of the western slope of the mound

were cleaned of bushes and other smaller loose debris.
K4 In the eastern half of the trench excavation continued
down to the depth of 80 cm without encountering any
structural activity. In the western part the cement floor was
removed after proper recording and the area was sunk to
the depth of 80 cm where a lime plastered surface was
touched along side the wall.
K6. 95 cm wide portion between the two almost parallel
walls was further dug down to the depth of 95 cm. The wall
to the east stopped after running into 5 courses, while the
thicker wall to the west still continues. A lime floor was
reached at a depth of 95 cm. A small foot of a human
figurine was found from the floor which on stylistic basis
shows affinity to the Kushan type.
K7. The same eastern half was further deepened to the
depth of 90 cm. While the concrete piling still continues in
the west. No structural activity in the part was noticed.
However, the dark loose earth yielded large amount of
potsherds of mainly red ware with sprinkling of other early
and late wares.
K8 Eastern part of the northern half of the trench was
subjected to further excavation down to the depth of 110
cm. The concrete piling in the west still continues. The wall
running north-south stopped at five courses and the east-
west running wall along the northern section went down to
four courses. The pottery yield is of mixed ware including
mainly red ware but also having few sherds of glazed ware
with TC core, celadon ware, etc. A moulded human head in
terracotta found from this trench appears to be of Kushan
 226

period.
Trench No. Antiquity Description
K6 Foot of a human
figurine, TC
K7 Knob (?)/Terracotta
object
K7 Cylindrical TC object
K7 Knob(?)/Terracotta
object
K7 Knob (?)/ Terracotta
object
K7 Bangle fragment,
Glass.
K7 Open ended ring,
Copper
K7 Cylindrical TC object
K8 Iron hook
K8 Bead, quartzite
K8 Ball, TC
K8 Moulded head of a
human figurine, TC

K3 was photographed after detailed subject preparation.

Detailed drawing in J4 is still in progress.
Note:
Several points regarding signals for anomalies were
discussed with Shri Manoj Kumar, Dy. G.M., TVIPL, when
he visited the site at the starting of the excavation. He has
further confirmed through e-mail that floor like anomalies
could not be detected. However, it seems strange that
though the GPR survey line passed through the eastern
half of the K6, but it failed to locate the wall which runs at
a depth of 45 cm from the surface and is no less than of five
courses down to 85 cm. Similarly in the area where trench
 227

K7 is located the area of 4x2 m towards eastern half has

only earth filling noticed upto the depth of 80 cm, which is
mentioned in the map of GPR survey report as zone of
strong amplitude and rangy signals from flat reflection
upto 2m depth. The enclosure wall being 104 cm thick is
also not noticed by the present GPR survey. Thus the
present GPR survey seems to be contradictory at certain
points and creates confusions also.”
227. From the aforesaid, it is evident that during the course of
excavation, it does not appear that any objection was raised
before the members of ASI team or the Team Leader himself
that certain material like bones etc. are not being preserved but
are being thrown away. For the first time, before this Court, a
complaint was made vide application no. 9 (O) of 2003 dated
20.3.2003. Sri B.R. Mani, Team Leader, ASI, gave reply
pointwise to the said application vide his letter dated 23.3.2003
with respect to the engagement of the labourers pointing out that
the ASI has no role therein. The entire labour force at Ayodhya
was engaged, at the request of ASI, by District administration,
after verification of their characters and antecedents in view of
security perception at the site in dispute. He also said that the
parties having been permitted to remain present through their
counsels/nominees and the labourers being subject to various
checking at the time of entry and exist, there is hardly any scope
for placing of anything in trenches in presence of ASI staff as
well as the learned counsels/nominees.
228. After hearing the parties, some further directions were
given by this Court on 26.3.2003, the relevant extract whereof is
as under :
“The applicant has sought further directions in the
 228

matter. We deal with each of the points raised and

suggestions made by the applicant and parties as under :-
1. It is suggested that each find of whatever
nature (potsherds, seeds, bones, other organic
material, bricks or brickbats, mortar bonded rubble,
loose debris fragments, stones, boulders and the
like), be accurately noted and the positions i.e. of the
layer be also noted and the signatures of the
parties/counsel, nominees be taken on the record.
Considering the matter following directions are
given in this regard:-
(i) ASI team shall note down in its own register to
be maintained (in respect of recovery of finds) the
depth in meter/feet of the trench where it is found. It
may also note down the layer of the strata according
to its own interpretation.
(ii)The signatures of either the contesting parties or
their counsel may be obtained.
(iii) The register should further specify the nature
of the finds i.e. bones and glazed ware etc.
(iv) The finds shall be sealed in the presence of the
parties/counsel and signatures of either the
contesting party or his/their counsel shall also be
obtained who are present on the spot.
(v) If the nature of the finds is not certain, a noting
may be made accordingly and when it is unsealed, its
nature may be verified after the Court permits to do
so.
2. The photographs (color/Black and white) of all
the finds/objects, trenches, features and sections may
 229

be taken. The photographs may be prepared from the

negatives and signatures of either of the contesting
parties or their counsel may be taken. The copies of
such photographs etc. shall, however, not be supplied
to them or any one else unless they are filed in the
Court and made part of the record. If they are made
part of the record, the Court may consider the prayer
of the parties concerned to provide their copies.
3. ASI team shall prepare a register of day today
work, which shall be opened for inspection to the
parties and the contesting parties or their counsel
shall be permitted to put their signatures on such
register.
4. It is suggested by Sri Jilani, learned counsel
for the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, that not more
than two trenches should be excavated at one time
after the completion of work in the trenches already
being excavated for the reason that the parties or
their counsel may not be able to observe the
excavation of the trenches at one time.
Sri B.R. Mani, Superintending Archaeologist
and team leader has submitted a report dated
22.3.2003 stating that it has carved out various
trenches of area 4 x 4 meters leaving 0.5 meter balk
all around. If the trenches are adjoining to each
other, it can be observed by the contesting parties or
their counsel and their nominees. We have permitted
for each of the contesting parties to observe with
their counsel as alleged their nominees (one nominee
at one time). The result is that for each of the
 230

contesting parties, there are three observers. If the

distance is too much and it is difficult to observe
another trench by any of them, they can legitimately
raise grievance in this respect. It may be noted that
the ASI team should ensure confidence of the parties
and their counsel in the matter of excavation. It is,
however, to be kept in mind that we have directed for
expeditious excavation and for that purpose if
necessary and without loosing the confidence of the
parties more than two trenches may also be laid by
the ASI team.
5. The applicant has suggested that there should
be adequate representation of the Muslim community
in ASI team as also in engagement of the labours for
excavation work.
Archaeology is a Science and every
Archaeologist has to perform excavation and related
work in a scientific manner on the principles laid
down for excavation. When he acts as Archaeologist
to prefix the word denoting his religion is not a
correct description of such Scientist, e.g. a doctor
may have any religious faith but he cannot be
described by prefixing the word 'Muslim', 'Hindu',
'Christian' etc. It is his performance of work is
relevant. It will amount to tarnishing of a Scientist,
Archaeologist or any person engaged in excavation.
Even the plaintiffs of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (Sunni
Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. And others Vs. Gopal
Singh Visharad (now dead) and others had produced
Suraj Bhan and B. Mandal who are non Muslims.
 231

They have also nominated some non-Muslim

Archaeologists as their observers at the time of
excavation.
It is, however, to maintain faith of both the
communities. In the facts and circumstances, it is
desirable that adequate representation of both the
communities may be maintained in respect of the
functioning of the ASI team and engagement of the
labours.
We have been informed that Authorised Person
seeks assistance of P.W.D. to engage the labours. He
may take the help of P.W.D. or any agency, which
adequately represents the labourers of Muslim
community. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that if an Authorised Person is
unable to get Muslim labourers, he can help him. We
direct the Authorised Person to see that the labourers
belonging to Muslim community may be engaged by
any agency and if any agency is unable to find out
such labourers, he can seek assistance of the counsel
for the applicant.
As regards the ASI team, Sri A.A. Hashmi,
Assistant Archaeologist has been included in the list.
In our view out of 8 Archaeologists engaged in the
team, at least two more Archaeologists can be
included for which ASI shall take necessary steps.
The ASI team is further directed to submit the
list of the names of the persons in the excavation
trenches of various religious in India.
6. On behalf of Archaeological Survey of India in
 232

Civil Misc. Application No. 21 (O) of 2003 it has

been requested that the daily working time be
changed. It is suggested that excavation work may
start from 9.00 A.M. in the morning to 6.00 P.M. in
the evening with one hour of lunch from 1.00 P.M. to
2.00 P.M. The changing of the time is not opposed by
any of the parties and the direction in regard to the
time earlier is modified accordingly.
7. The grievance of the applicant is that when the
plaintiff-applicant submits the application to the
leader of ASI Excavation Team Ayodhya, he does not
take into account and pass any appropriate order. It
is made clear that the ASI team is not authorised to
pass any order on any application. If any of the
parties wants to seek any direction of the Court, he
can move an application before the OSD Ram Janam
Bhumi-Babari Masjid on which the Court will issue
necessary instructions.
8. It is suggested to maintain transparency at
least two observers be appointed for maintaining
transparency of the excavation work. Learned
counsel for the applicant suggested the names of Sri
Hari Shanker Dubey, additional District Judge,
Faizabad and Sri Masood Ali Siddiqui, Additional
District Judge, Faizabad. As regards their names,
none of the parties have any objection. As they are
working as Additional District Judge in district
Faizabad, Hon'ble the Chief Justice is requested to
pass appropriate order considering the situation for
relieving them for the period the excavation work is
 233

being done by ASI team which is expected to be

completed within two months.
9. The applicant has sought further two
directions which are not related to the transparency
of excavation but they are in respect of the nature of
excavation.
The first direction sought is that the depth
below present surface, upto which digging has to be
done, may be specified by the Court and the same
may be done at the most to the extent of 5-6 feet (1.5
or 2 meters). It is contended that the order of
excavation has been passed relating to demolition of
the temple (though denied) said to have been made in
1528 AD and as such the present excavation is not at
all concerned with any thing of any period earlier
than 16 Century. The depth, upto which the
excavation is to be done, is not to be decided on the
basis of any period. If the anomalies are existing or
any foundation of any wall etc. is there, the
excavation can be made accordingly. It is a matter of
argument ultimately when the case is to be decided
taking into account the stratification of trenches etc.
At present we do not confine ourselves directing the
ASI team to excavate only to a particular depth.
The second direction sought is that no
excavation be done on the area covered by cement
floors. It may be noted that Tojo Vikas International
Pvt. Ltd. has submitted its report. It has prepared a
detailed map indicating various anomalies. Those
anomalies are to be verified by actual digging. The
 234

digging has to be done on the basis of the principles

of excavation. The ASI team shall excavate in phases
keeping in view the said report and the principles
governing excavation.
The application is disposed of with the above
direction/observations.”
229. ASI submitted an application no. 27 (O) of 2003 on
7.4.2003 requesting for extension of two months' time for
excavation and 15 days' thereafter for preparing report.
Objection to the said application was filed on behalf of plaintiffs
(Suit-4) on 8.4.2003 besides application no. 28(O) of 2003
complaining non observance of Court's order dated 26.3.2003 in
the following manner :
“3. That in spite of specific directions contained in
the order dated 26.3.2003 the following directions have not
yet been fully complied with:-
(A) Authorized person has not so far taken necessary
steps to ensure that adequate representation of the Muslim
Community is maintained among labourers engaged for the
excavation work and the following figures, gathered by the
applicant, indicate the aforesaid position:-
(i) 27.3.2003–Total labourers 44 – Muslims 7.
(ii) 28.3.2003–Total labourers 45 – Muslims 3.
(iii) 29.3.2003– Total labourers 53 – Muslims 5.
(iv) 30.3.2003– Total labourers 66 – Muslims 5.
(v) 01.4.2003– Total labourers 77 – Muslims 5.
(vi) 02.4.2003– Total labourers 83 – Muslims 7.
(vii) 03.4.2003– Total labourers 85 – Muslims 11.
(viii) 04.4.2003– Total labourers 89 – Muslims 9.
(B) That in spite of clear-cut directions given in para 1
 235

(iii) on page 2 of the order dated 26.03.2003,

Archaeological Survey of India Excavation Team is not
mentioning the number of bones and glazed wares etc. in
the Register of Day to Day work, being maintained by
them, although the bones and glazed wares etc. are being
found in sufficient numbers almost daily, during the
excavation and hardly 20-25% finds of this type are being
recorded while the others are being mixed up with general
pottery. Moreover they are recording bones and glazed
ware etc. without giving any number and size of the same
on the said register and that too only in respect of some the
trenches.
(C) That consequently the glazed wares and bones etc.
are not being sealed also and there is every possibility of
the said bones and glazed ware etc. being removed from
the site, as one such incident has already taken place on
3.4.2003 when a labourer was found taking away a glazed
ware from the pottery yard and on being picked up, the
matter was reported also to a member of Archaeological
Survey of India, Team.
(D) That the measurements and weights of antiquity are
also not being recorded on the Antiquity register.
3. That in order to ensure the correct periodization of
different layers it was necessary that the antiquity being
found from different layers be measured and weighed
properly and entry of the same be made on the register to
be maintained for this purpose.
4. That at the pottery yard, the classification of
potsherds Terracota, moulded tiles and other clay objects
is not being done in a proper and scientific manner and the
 236

periodization of the same should be done for Mughal

period, Sultanate period and then Kushan period
separately.
5. That members of the Archaeological Survey of India
Team should be instructed through their leader, that no one
of their team should give a wrong description about the
identity of any particular find and if something is beyond
identification in terms of function or otherwise, then the
safe method of describing it by Morphology (face
impression) of the artefact or antiquity, should be adopted;
for example, a broken piece of stone, measuring about 8
inch in length and 4 inch in width, should not have been
described as “broken pillar” but rather the same should
have been described as “curved stone” or “dressed
stone”.
6. That samples of Lime plaster floors should be taken
and sealed in the presence of the parties/counsels/nominees
and the same be sent for chemical analysis in order to
determine the material and age of the same as well as for
dating of the floor. The sample should specify the depth
also from where the sample was taken. The samples, if any,
taken behind the back of the parties should be ignored and
be not taken into account.”
230. Both these applications were disposed of by our order
dated 10.4.2003 as under :
“The submissions are summarized and dealt with as
under:
(1) It is alleged that ASI, excavation team, is not
mentioning numbers on bones and glazed wares etc. in the
register of day to day work being maintained by them,
 237

although the bones and glazed wares etc. are being found
in sufficient numbers almost daily during excavation and
hardly 20-25% finds of those type are being recorded while
the others are being mixed up with the general pottery and
secondly, they record bones and glazed wares etc. without
giving any number and size in the register and that too only
in respect of some trenches.
We had already given direction in para 1 (iii) of our
order dated 26.3.2003 that ASI team shall specify the
natures of the finds i.e. bones, glazed wares etc. If the
glazed wares etc. are found they should be recorded in the
register of day to day work.
As regards giving the number and size of bones and
glazed wares etc., if those items are sealed in presence of
the parties and duly numbered, it may not be necessary to
give the size and number. It is, however, open to the ASI
team to make specification of the finds by measurement or
size if there is no difficulty.
As regards the grievance that the bones and glazed
wares which are found are not recorded, it is open to the
applicants to submit their objection before the observers
appointed by this Court. The observers can make inquiry
from the leaders of the ASI team or such person who is in-
charge of the excavation at the relevant time and take his
view in the matter and note down on the
application/objection of the objector.
(2) Another objection is that glazed wares and bones etc.
are not being sealed and such bones and glazed wares are
being removed from the site. The applicants have referred
to some incident alleged to have taken place on 3.4.2003
 238

when a labourer was found taking away glazed ware from

the pottery yard and on being picked up and the matter was
reported also to a member of the ASI team. The applicants
have not given the details about the incident nor have
prayed for any investigation of the matter. It is, however,
open to the applicants to submit application before the
observers who shall, on application being filed, make
inquiry from ASI team and in case ASI team complies with
any objection raised by the applicants or it has any
difficulty or express any view in the matter it shall be noted
by the observers.
(3) Another grievance is that measurements and weights
of antiquity is also not being recorded in the antiquity
register. It is made clear if any antiquity is found and such
antiquity is sealed, it may not be necessary to register its
measurement and wight. If, however, it is not sealed and its
specification is necessary, the necessary description by
measurement/weight etc. be made by ASI team in respect of
such antiquity.
(4) Another prayer is that ASI team be directed that the
antiquity being found from different layers be measured
and weighed properly and entry of the same be made in the
register meant for this purpose. We have already, in our
order dated 26.3.2003, directed in Para 1 (i) that ASI team
shall note down in its register in respect of recovery of
finds both in meter/feet of the trench where it is found. It
may also note down the layer and strata according to its
own interpretation.
(5) Another grievance of the applicants is that at the
pottery yard, the classification of potsherds Terracotta,
 239

moulded tiles and other clay objects is not being done in a

proper and scientific manner and the periodization of the
same should be done for Mughal period, Sultanate period
and Kushan period separately. We have already directed
that if any finds are recovered the ASI team shall note
down both in meter/feet of the trench where it is found and
may also note down the layer and strata according to its
own interpretation. It is for the parties to submit their
views as to what period the objects belong. The views of the
ASI team at this stage as to the period is not required to be
noted in the register.
(6) The applicants have further sought direction that ASI
team should not give a wrong description about the identity
of a find and if something is beyond identification in terms
of function or otherwise, then the safe method of describing
it by Morphology (face impression) of the artefact or
antiquity should be adopted. It may be noted that the
description given by ASI team may not be conclusive and if
the applicants find that the description is not correct, it will
be open to them to file objection to such entry at a proper
stage in regard to description made by the ASI team in the
register.
(7) The applicants have sought that a direction be given
to the ASI team that samples of lime plaster floor should be
taken in presence of parties/counsels/nominees and the
same be sent for chemical analysis in order to determine
the material and age of the same as well as for dating of
the floor, it is further stated that the sample should specify
the depth also from where the sample was taken.
The ASI team shall take samples of lime plaster
 240

floors in presence of parties/counsels/nominees specifying

the depth from where it was taken and it shall be sealed. As
regards it being sent for chemical analysis, if in view of the
ASI team the chemical examination is necessary it shall
send to the appropriate person for such examination and it
does not think proper, prayer of the applicants for chemical
examination shall be considered later on.
(8) Another prayer is that the observers appointed by
this Court be authorized to ensure compliance of
observations and directions of this Court.
The applicants or any of the parties or their counsels
are entitled to submit application/objection before the
observers. The observers can make inquiry from the ASI
team and if the ASI team agrees to comply with the
objection raised by the party, then the observers will note it
down on their application and if the ASI team submits their
views for non-compliance or puts forward difficulty, it shall
be noted by the observers on the objection of the
parties/counsels. The observers will then forward the
objections with their report to the O.S.D., Ram Janm
Bhumi – Babri Masjid, which will be subject to the final
decision of this Court. But, it is made clear that the process
of the objections being raised and decision taken will be
resorted to in the manner that the functioning of the ASI
team is not in any way hampered with.
(9) The applicants have further complained that
adequate representation of Muslim labourers has not been
made in excavation work. In this respect we have issued
direction on separate application filed by the applicants.
(10) The applicants have further prayed that they may be
 241

permitted to note down the strata/layer of trenches. The

parties can do so provided the excavation of such trench is
complete. The ASI team shall submit report by 28.4.2003 as
to how many trenches have been completely excavated.
(11) The ASI has filed application for grant of two
months' time and two weeks' further time for submitting
report. The excavation work should be done expeditiously.
Keeping in views the importance of the matter we grant five
weeks' time for excavation work. It may engaged additional
staff, superintending/ Assistant Archaeologists/ labourers
for the purpose.
(12) The observers are directed to ensure that this Court's
instructions/directions are carried out in letter and spirit.”
231. Along with an application No. 33 (O) of 2003, ASI
submitted the interim project report upto 23.4.2003. The
relevant extract thereof is as under:
“In the true spirit of carrying out the instruction/
directions of the Hon'ble High Court in letter and spirit
and to do the work of excavation expeditiously, the
excavation team which got enlarged to almost double of its
original size with more archaeologists and technical staff
made available to it selected further areas in the already
laid out demarcations of trenches around the disputed
structure. The basis of selecting further trenches for
excavation was the Ground Penetrating Radar Survey
carried out at the site by the Tojo Vikas International (Pvt.)
Ltd.
Full attention was given to study the anomaly
alignments which could correspond to a wall foundation of
some sort and to strong amplitude and ringy signal from
 242

flat reflection or weaker amplitude zones and also to small

and discrete anomalies which may correspond to
discontinuous alignments and detected at various levels of
depths from 0.5 to 5.5 meters.
With the help of technical staff of the Tojo-Vikas
International (Pvt.) Ltd., the team got the excavation
trenches superimposed on their GPR Survey's Geophysical
Interpretation Map. In another map the contour drawing of
the disputed area was prepared on which the trenches for
excavation were superimposed in order to easily
understand the various levels in relation to the contour of
the mound of the disputed area.
Till 31.03.2003 ten trenches were put to excavation.
But during the month of April till 24.04.2003 thirty three
trenches have been excavated fully or partly upto various
depth as per requirement in view of collecting relevant
evidence. As the objective of the excavation is very clear,
emphasis has been given to excavate only upto a certain
depth although the deposits at the mound seems to be more
than 8.0 m at some points. Most of the trenches, thus, have
not been excavated beyond 2 meters depth. Even the depths
mentioned in the GPR Survey was considered for probing
the anomalies.
Most of the anomalies and anomaly alignments were
noticed in the J and K series of trenches, 11 of which were
excavated down to various depths. A sub zone of weaker
amplitude was marked in the GPR Geophysical
Interpretation Map which is located in the centre of the
zone of strong amplitude and ringy signals from flat
reflection upto 2 m depth. This part is known as 'Ram
 243

Chabutra'. Though the sub-zone of weaker amplitude was

not found exactly at the place where it is marked in the map
but it was noticed a little towards its east. Interestingly,
after excavating five levels of the structure, each
comparing a flat surface of lime-surkhi mortar having
calcrete blocks below it, a squarish block of the same
material component but with well polished surface
measuring 1.55 m in north-south x 1.48 m in east-west
orientation protruding out of the fifth level was found and
after cutting the fifth level a chamber was noticed over
whose projecting western part the above mentioned block
was found fixed, probably indicating some place of
importance. Towards north of the 'Ram-Chabutra' the floor
of the outer courtyard of the disputed structure within the
outer enclosure was exposed having a platform attached to
it in the western side which was approached through a
step. Remains of brick structures, floors and working levels
below it were encountered. It seems that the area,
particularly in the north eastern side of the disputed
structure was low lying and therefore, it was filled up with
debris to nearly 4 metres deep to reclaim the part for
eastern extension. Stratified deposits were found below this
filing which belong to the early two or three centuries of
the Christian era.
Diagonally continued anomaly alignments coming
from north east and south-east respectively and converging
in the centre of the trench J5 and moving towards the
sanctum sanctorum of the make-shift structure has also
been marked on the GPR map which is being probed. A6 x
2 m trench is proposed to be taken beyond the gangway
 244

towards west to check this anomaly and other

discontinuous anomaly alignments. The local
administration has been requested to make arrangements
for vacating this place and to ensure the security of the
area from any damage.
Towards south of the disputed structure 14 trenches
have been exposed, mostly in parts, after shifting of the
security sheds and such other installations. During this
course the foundation walls and floors of the southern
chamber of the disputed structure were brought to light. It
was observed that the foundation wall was constructed of
mainly calcrete stone block veneer on both the faces with
brickbats filled inside. However, a few sandstone blocks
have also been found re-used, of which one is a decorated
piece. This foundation wall lies over a brick wall having
sixteen courses of bricks with decorated stone blocks used
in its foundation. Another alignment of stone block with
brickbats filling in its core was observed lying below the
brick wall.
The appearance so far of eleven squarish of circular
structural bases having brickbats at the base with two
rectangular blocks of calcrete stone over three or four
courses of brickbats are significant as some of which are
sealed directly by the original floor attached to the
disputed structure. The same type of the structural bases,
with a sandstone block at their top having encasing of
sandstone slabs/pieces on its four sides, were found in the
northern area also, where eight trenches have been opened
up so far. An interesting feature of these structural bases is
that each one of it is located at a distance of 3.30 to 3.50 m
 245

(from centre to centre). Three discontinuous alignment of

anomalies were marked in the GPR map which are being
checked and as a result the structural bases have been
located along with floor levels sealing them and also
contemporary to them. Their further alignments are being
checked towards north and also towards west.
The large size masonry blocks and stone blocks from
the western slope of the disputed structure have been
carefully removed to a safer place towards further west
with the help of a crane so that they may not get damaged.
This has been done in order to carrying out surface study
of the slopes where if required a few trenches can be laid
out.
The excavation work gets suspended in some
trenches temporarily for want of further connecting
evidence and as such till now the team has now neither
reached to the level of the natural soil in any of the
trenches, nor it has completely closed work in any trench.”
232. This project report was also opposed by plaintiffs (Suit-4)
vide objection date 1.5.2003. Another application No.35 (O) of
2003 was also filed by plaintiffs (Suit-4) praying for a direction
to ASI to complete excavation work by 10.5.2003. It also
appended the extent to which various trenches were digged by
ASI till 28.3.2003 which is as under :
“DETAILS ABOUT EXCAVATION WORK (Tentative
Information)

Trenches in Eastern Side of the Mosque:-

S.N. Trench Depth S.N. Trench Depth
1 J-3 7.10 meter 2 J-4 0.72 meter
3 J-5 2.40 meter 4 J-6 2.40 meter
5 J-7] 1.12 meter 6 J-8]
 246

7 K-3 0.66 meter 8 K-4 0.80 meter

9 K-5 0.78 meter 10 K-6 1.40 meter
11 K-7 4.04 meter 12 K-8 3.60 meter
Balk being
removed
(covered by
iron grill)
13 H-5 2.28 c.m.

Trenches in Southern Side of the Mosque:-

S.N. Trench Depth S.N. Trench Depth
14 E-6 0.63 meter 15 E-7 2.27 meter
16 E-8 2.80 meter 17 E-9 0.98 meter
18 D-6 1.80 meter 19 D-7 1.70 meter
20 D-8 0.98 meter 21 F-7 0.60 meter
22 F-8 1.10 meter 23 F-9 1.90 meter
24 G-7 2.27 meter 25 G-8 0.98 meter
26 G-9 27 H-7 0.50 meter

Trenches in Northern Side of the Mosque:-

S.N. Trench Depth S.N. Trench Depth
28 H-1 1.10 meter] 29 H-2 0.40 meter]
Balk being
removed
30 ZH-1 1.73 meter 31 ZH-2 0.61 meter
32 ZH-3 2.00 meter 33 F-1 1.32 meter
34 ZF-1 0.25 meter 35 ZE-1 0.55 meter

Trenches in Western Side of the Mosque:-

S.N. Trench Depth
36 C-1 1.20 meter (on the slope behind the mosque)

233. The above applications of ASI and plaintiffs (Suit-4) were

disposed of by order dated 22.5.2003 observing as under :
“Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
 247

submitted that while the team leader has submitted

progress report, he has expressed opinion in regard to the
merit of the matter which, according to him, is
unwarranted. We clarify that we had only asked for the
progress report in the sense as to what extent excavation
work has been done to assess as to when the work may be
completed.
(1) We are not taking into consideration any opinion
expressed in regard to the merit of the matter. This
report will not be taken as a substantive evidence in
the case. It is only the final report that will be taken
as an evidence on record which will be subject to the
objection and evidence which may be led by the
parties.
(2) The second contention is that this Court may specify
the depth, upto which the excavation work is to be
done. We have earlier, while disposing of the
objection, made it clear that this Court will not
determine as to the depth of the excavation of the
trenches. The ASI, in para 10 of the parawise
comments, has stated that no trench is completely
excavated until the natural soil is reached or
correlation with other trenches is done. So far
natural soil has not been reached in any of the
trenches opened till date nor have they been
completely correlated to one another. We cannot give
specific directions in this respect. It is for the
Archaeologists to determine in regard to the depth.
(3) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted
that the excavation be done within a specified time.
 248

This Court had itself directed that the excavation

should be done expeditiously and in that respect the
time was granted to complete the excavation within
the time frame. It is, however, made clear that the
work is to be completed as per our directions given
in our order dated 5.3.2003. In para 12 of the
application, the plaintiff No. 1 has stated that the
excavation does not appear to have been completed
even in 1/3rd of the trenches. There is no allegation
that the ASI team is either negligent or not doing the
work expeditiously. We are extending the time only
with a view that the work may be completed.
(4) A prayer has been made for our visit on the site. The
Court may consider such prayer at a later stage but
not at this time. The ASI team is directed to complete
the excavation expeditiously, if not completed by
10.5.2003, it may be completed by 15.6.2003 and the
final report be submitted by 30.6.2003.
With the above observations, the applications are
disposed of accordingly.”
234. Sri Mani, on 3.5.2003, requested the Observer,
Archaeological Excavation, Ayodhya to permit him to open
sealed packets for preparation of final report, their study,
drawing and detailed photography etc. since the packets
containing 'finds' were sealed everyday in presence of the
parties and their counsels but needs to be unsealed and opened
for further study etc. The said request was opposed by various
parties before the Observer contending that the said permission
cannot be granted at the level of Observer unless the order is
given by the Court. Consequently we considered this application
 249

on 22.5.2003 and disposed the same with the following order :

“Considering the prayer by the A.S.I. Team Leader
and the suggestions made by the plaintiffs noted above, we
pass the following order:-
1. The sealed packets containing archaeological finds
be opened in presence of either counsel of the parties
or parties themselves or any nominee of the parties
present there;
2. The sealed packets once opened shall be again
sealed in presence of either counsel of the parties or
parties themselves or any nominee of the parties;
3. The items taken out of the said sealed packets be not
taken outside the room where the packets are lying
and if any item is required to be sent for some sort of
technical/chemical examination or test, the same be
taken out after proper note of the antiquity register
and the said note be got signed by either counsel of
the parties or parties themselves or any nominee of
the parties;
4. If the packets are opened, photographs of such finds,
if not already taken at the time of sealing, shall be
taken and such photographs shall bear the signatures
of either counsel of the parties or parties themselves
or any nominee of the parties;”
235. Another application was filed by defendant no. 3 (Suit-4),
i.e., CMA No. 41(O) of 2003 seeking some clarifications
whereupon this Court passed an order on 22.5.2003 observing
that the District administration shall not raise any construction at
the site in question without permission of the Court and shall
also not interfere in the work of ASI. We further directed :
 250

“The A.S.I. Team Leader submitted a map indicating

that seven trenches have been completed but final drawing
and photographs remains to be done. About forty trenches
have been excavated but they are incomplete. According to
the map of the survey site and also the area specified in the
order passed by this Court on 5th March 2003, more than
150 trenches have been shown.
It is not necessary to comment much upon the work
of the Team Leader of A.S.I. For the last more than two
months. We think it proper that another Team Leader
should be appointed by the Director General,
Archaeological Survey of India. However, Dr. B.R. Mani
shall also continue to work in the team.
It may further be noted that the trenches may be
carved out and their numbers be given on the basis of area
as given in the site plan of Tojo-Vikas International (Pvt.)
Ltd. with its report. The trenches which are incomplete
should be completed as early as possible. The Team Leader
shall excavate first those trenches where anomalies have
been shown in the map submitted by the Tojo-Vikas
International (Pvt.) Ltd. and thereafter other trenches, if
necessary.
In our last order on 2nd May 2003 we had directed
that the excavation be completed by 15th June 2003 and the
report be submitted in the first week of July 2003 but
number of trenches completed are only seven. It is expected
that incomplete trenches and other trenches which require
excavation be completed at an early date. However, if for
any good reasons the work is not completed, the A.S.I.
Team Leader may seek extension by moving an application
1
 251

before this Court in its next sitting. But till the next date of
sitting the application is filed and disposed of, the
excavation work will continue.
The final report shall be submitted after completion
of digging of the trenches. The A.S.I. shall submit progress
report every two weeks and such report shall indicate (1)
the trenches in which the digging was done (2) the depth of
digging in each such trenches, and (3) the items found in
such trenches.”
236. The plaintiffs (Suit-4) filed an application no. 43 (O) of
2003 seeking permission to inspect the trenches and check the
stratification given by ASI, which was allowed vide order dated
22.5.2003 but they were not permitted to make any scrapping,
section etc. of the trenches.
237. Vide application no. 48 (O) of 2003, interim project report
of the excavation from 22.5.2003 to 5.6.2003 was submitted by
Sri Hari Manjhi, Team Leader, as under :
“Upto 21.05.2003, in total 52 trenches were
excavated fully or partly and a request was made to the
observers and the authorized person for allowing the ASI
to excavate 10 trenches partly on the raised platform.
Accordingly as per the instruction of the Hon'ble High
Court the following 30 trenches having cutting area of 4x4
mt. were partly excavated on the raised platform and in the
area where anomalies or anomaly alignments were shown
in the site plan received from Tojo-Vikas International Pvt.
Ltd. in connection with GPR Survey, viz.B2, B3, B4, B5,
B7, B8, B9, C3, C4, C6, C8, D6, E2, E6, F2, F3, F6, F8,
G5, G7, G9, J1, K6, K8, L1, L3, L4, L7, ZCI and ZJ2.
Among these 30 trenches, 18 new trenches viz. B2,
 252

B3, B4, B5, B7, B9, C3, C4, C6, E2, F2, F3, G5, L1, L3,
L4, L7 and ZJ2, have been excavated partly, while the work
continued in the 9 old trenches viz. B8, C8, G7, G9, J1, K8,
K6, ZC1 and F8. The un-excavated portion in the 3 old
trenches viz. D6, E6 and F6 have also been taken up for
excavation during the period under review. The details of
the depth and finds in each trenches has been tabulated as
under:
S. Trench Max. Structure Items found
No No. Depth (in Other finds
metres)
1 B2 0—1.70 Nil Moulded brick
fragments,
Terracotta (TC)
wheel, Stone
architectural
fragments and TC
architectural
fragments
2 B3 0—1.30 Nil Nil
3 B4 0—1.20 Nil Nil
4 B5 0—1.60 Nil Nil
5 B7 0—1.60 Nil Nil
6 B8 0—1.20 Nil Nil
7 B9 0—1.60 Nil Decorated stucco
fragment and stone
architectural
fragment.
8 C3 0—1.30 Nil Glazed tile
fragment.
9 C4 0—1.50 Nil Stone architectural
fragment
10 C6 0—1.60 Nil Glazed tile
fragment.
11 C8 0—5.00 Brick-bats TC animal
wall in east- figurine, TC sling
west ball
 253

orientation
12 D6 0—1.15 Calcrete Nil
stone
masonry wall
13 E2 0—2.75 Brick wall in Glazed tile
east-west fragment and
orientation decorated stucco
facing north fragments.
over which
another brick
wall running
north-south
facing west;
Floor 1 in the
south-east
corner;
Floors 1 and
2 in the
north-west
corner; and a
triangular
shaped
buttress.
14 E6 0—2.60 “L” shaped Fragments of
calcrete stone glazed tiles.
block wall in
the east-west
and north-
south
orientation
raised on a
brick wall
running
north-south;
a tiered brick
structure
abutting the
brick wall;
two brick
walls running
east-west
which are
parallel and
adjacent to
 254

each other;
and
successive
layers of
floor 1, 2, 3
and 4.
15 F2 0—2.53 Brick wall Nil
orientation
east-west
which is
continued
from trench
E2,
another
adjacent
brick wall
oriented east-
west and
decorated
coloured
floor and
successive
layers of
floor 1
16 F3 0—3.08 “L” shaped Fragments of
calcrete stone moulded bricks;
block 1.64 mt. high
structure in decorated black
east-west and stone pillar
north-sought (broken) with
orientation; Yaksha figurines
decorated on four corners,
and coloured glass bangle
floor and fragment.
successive
layers of
floor 1;
circular
pillar base of
brick bats
below “L”
shaped wall.
17 F6 0—2.38 Two squarish Broken TC animal
brick pillar figurine, cut brick
 255

bases; stone fragment, moulded

masonry wall brick fragment and
running east- TC hopscotch.
west and
north-south;
and floor 2
and 3
18 F8 2.60— Two brick Nil
2.65 wall running
north-south
parallel and
adjacent to
each other
and two brick
structures in
the southern
part of the
trench.
19 G5 0—2.60 Successive Broken TC bird
layers of figurine, TC
floor 1; brick animal figurine
pillar base (Broken), Moulded
and floors 2 brick fragments,
and 3. Iron nails, TC
human hand, glass
bangle fragment,
incised decorated
object, TC human
hand, TC broken
human leg and TC
tile fragment;
Arabic inscription
of holy verses on
stone, decorated
architectural
fragments.
20 G7 2.80— Brick Pillar Copper coin,
4.40 base and glazed tile
floor 2. fragment, iron
nails, Iron pointed
blade, razor
human head,
human figurines,
bird figurine,
 256

pestles, animal
figurine, lamp,
bead, perforated
disc, seal with
worn out character
and an unidentified
object all in
terracotta;
Carved stone
piece, grooved
brick fragment,
decorated stucco
fragment, bone
point and
engraver.
21 G9 0—0.60 Circular Glazed tile
pillar base. fragments.
22 J1 1.06— Squarish Glazed tile
1.55 pillar base. fragments, iron
nail and hexagonal
short bead.
23 K8 3.90— Calcrete Nil
5.12 stone block
structure and
floors 4 to 10.
24 K6 3.45— Floor 3 and Dressed stone
4.55 brick wall fragment, circular
running east- flat stone slab,
west glass bangle
fragment, stone
fragment with
srivatsa pattern;
TC balls, areca
nut-shaped beads,
bi-conical bead,
pestles, leg part of
animal figurine
and an object with
rim (all in
terracotta).
25 L1 0—.75 Lime floor. Carnelian bead,
animal head on
glazed TC and ball
 257

of terracotta
26 L3 0—2.55 Brick on edge Copper coin, glass
floor and piece, fragments of
brick wall in TC ball and bead;
south-north and glazed tile
orientation. fragment.
27 L4 0—2.05 Brick bat Copper coin,
paving and copper button,
“L” shaped bangle piece, TC
brick bat wheel and glazed
foundation tile fragments.
28 L7 Nil Nil Copper coin,
broken copper
ring, copper
fragment, broken
glass bangle, white
stone piece, TC
ball, TC bead, TC
ring, TC decorated
plate (broken),
glazed tile
fragment and stone
bead.
29 ZC1 0—2.70 Brick bat Glazed tile
wall fragments,
(retaining potsherd showing
wall) Svastika, and sand-
stone architectural
fragment.
30 ZJ2 0—0.40 Lime floor TC disc and Iron
with burials. nail.

However while checking the anomalies indicated in

the GPR Survey Report, anomalies were confirmed/partly
confirmed in trenches F3, F6, F8, G9, J1, K8, L3 and ZC1
whereas no anomalies were reported in trench E6. In
trenches D6, E2, F2, G5 and L1 anomalies could not be
confirmed due to structural activities at the upper levels.
However no structural activities were noticed at the spots
 258

of reported anomalies in trenches B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, B8,

C3, C4, C6, C8, G7, K6, L4 and L7. Trench ZJ2 was not
surveyed.”
238. The aforesaid interim report was also objected by the
plaintiffs (Suit-4), which was disposed of by Court's order dated
3.7.2003 stating that the ASI need not submit any further project
report but may submit final report.
239. ASI's application no. 53 (O) of 2003 seeking further time,
was also opposed by the Plaintiffs (Suit-4), but we permitted
ASI to submit its final report on or before 27.8.2003 by order
dated 3.7.2003.
240. After completion of the excavation work, but before
preparation of the final report, this Court, after hearing the
parties, gave certain further directions on 8.8.2003, as under :
“Having heard all of them and considering their
views, we issue the following directions:
(1) The ASI Team shall be permitted to visit the site for
excavation upto 22nd August, 2003.
(2) As there is unanimity amongst all the counsel for the
parties, all the trenches should be kept in tact as exist
on date so as to facilitate the ASI Team to study the
excavation site and submit their report until further
orders of this Court.
(3) Although there is 'Shamiyana' over all the trenches
yet further precaution may be taken to protect them
from any damage or alteration. If needed, the
trenches may be covered by plastic sheets or any
other materials as the authorized person in
consultation with the ASI Team and the Chief
Engineer of PWD may deem it proper.
 259

(4) No one except the ASI Team, the two observers,

Chief Engineer, PWD, learned counsel for the
parties, shall be permitted to enter the site in
question without prior permission of this Court.
(5) The Archaeological finds and other materials found
during excavation shall be so preserved that the
same may be made available whenever needed by the
orders of this Court.
(6) The authorised person shall also ensure that the
right of Darshan of the devotees is not in any way
interfered with, as directed earlier.
(7) The authorised person in consultation with the ASI
Team and the Chief Engineer of PWD as also the
observers may provide support to the walls of the
trenches/boxes likely to collapse or get damaged
during the current rainy season by putting sand/earth
bags so that such bags which may be removed as and
when required for the purpose of study of such
trenches/boxes. In short, all steps should be taken to
protect and preserve the make shift the temple as
well as trenches.
(8) The ASI Team shall prepare 15 copies with drawings
and maps in original showing colours. If more copies
will be required by the parties, the same may be
provided on payment of costs. For that purpose,
learned counsel for the parties shall move an
application for providing extra copies before the
OSD of this Court within 48 hours from the date of
submission of the final report by the ASI Team.
(9) The report alongwith number of copies, as indicated
 260

above, shall be submitted by the ASI Team in the

sealed cover before this Court and after necessary
order the copies should be provided to the parties
concerned.
(10) Until the report is submitted before this Court, the
ASI Team shall not divulge its contents to any one
even on the terms of the anonymity.”
241. Ultimately, ASI submitted final report on 22.8.2003.
Besides, ASI also submitted the following record :
Sl.No. Date Description of document
1. 02.09.2003 1. Field Note Book. Total No. 47
2. Drawing/Maps 182.
3. Negatives, (A) Colour-7777, (B)
Black & white-1510
4. Photographs in 46 Albums 4293
5. Video Cassettes 10
2. 16.10.2003 Ten sets of CDs (A set of 29 CDs
kept in 10 separate plastic boxes)
made out of 11 Video Cassettes of
Ayodhya Excavation
3. 11.11.2003 1. Register of excavated pottery and
unsealed boxes
2. Register of Architectural members
stored in the tin shed at excavated
site Ayodhya
3. List of boxes containing antiquity,
boxes, glazed wares and other
samples in the sealed bags.
4. Register containing antiquity
packets.
5. Letter dated 22.9.2003 received
from Birbal Sahni Institute of
Palaeobotany
6. 13 Digital Cassettes and ten sets
of their CD's
4. 08.12.2003 1. Packet 'D' containing 3 Registers
including day to day Register
2. Packet A containing 753 slides
3. One set of 13 CDs
 261

4. Trench wise index of Drawings

5. 45 site note books and two
registers
6. Day to day register in two
volumes and 5 xerox copy.
7. Three Registers-List of the
potteries and bones kept in 9 boxes,
list of artifacts kept in tin shed
8. Trench wise index of drawing and
list of figures along with five sets of
xerox copy
9. Xerox copy of site note books Sl.
No. 1-45 along with two registers
5. 16.12.2003 Three sets of slides
6. 05.01.2004 13 CDs from Dr. B.R. Mani, Former
Team Leader
7. 19.01.2004 45 sets note books, a chemical
Register and a documentation
registers
8. 30.01.2004 Brief summery of hard disc of
Laptop 16 items
9. 30.01.2004 Laptop, Power Adopter, CD
RW/DVE Drive, Floppy Drive,
Password
10. 11.03.2004 Ten sets of compact discs containing
data of hard disc of the Laptop
11. 29.03.2004 CDs and Bromide prints of the
maps/Drawings of Ayodhya
excavation
12. 17.05.2004 One set each of bromide prints and
CDs of map and drawings of
Ayodhya excavation
13. 14.07.2004 Enlarged copy of Fig. 3A of ASI
Report along with 15 copies of the
same

242. The ASI report came up before the Court on 25.8.2003.

Supplying copies of the report to the learned counsels for the
parties, they were permitted to file objections thereto. At this
stage, we are not giving details of ASI report etc. as this would
 262

be dealt with later on at the appropriate stage. Suffice is to

mention that the ASI report was objected mainly by Sunni
Central Board of Waqfs, Mohd. Hashim (defendant no. 5, Suit-
5), Mahmood Ahmad (plaintiff no. 9, Suit-4) and the defendants
no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3), who raised mainly the following
objections :
“1. That the report is one sided and is greatly influenced
by certain preconceived theory of nations;
2. that ASI has adopted a biased and selective
approach, as is evident from the fact that importance and
impact of presence of several animal bones having cut
marks, recovered from different floor levels of the
respective trenches, has purposely and designedly been
kept out of consideration and had the same been
scientifically studied and the result taken into
consideration, it would have not been possible for ASI to
opine that things found were indicative of remains which
are distinctive features found associated with temples of
north India;
3. that in spite of clear cut directions of this Court to
file all the papers-documents relating to the excavation, the
ASI not only delayed the filing of certain relevant
documents, but also destroyed the notes prepared by it at
the time of study/analysis of various finds/architectural
objects, which raises a grave doubt about the veracity of
report;
4. that while the names of the authors of chapter I to IX
are mentioned; but it is not known as to who authored
chapter X captioned “summary of results” and so the
whole of Chapter X deserves to be scored out from the
 263

report and cannot be allowed to form part of the evidence;

5. that on complaint, this Court directed that Sri B.R.
Mani should not head the excavation teach and in
compliance of those orders Sri Hari Manjhi was deputed to
head the team, but it is not known as to how Sri B.R. Mani
continued his association with the task of excavation and
how he co-authored the report;
6. that periodization done by ASI in Chapter III
captioned “Stratigraphy and Chronology” (Pages 37 to 47
of Vol 1) has no scientific basis:
7. that in absence of concordance of different
layers/floors of respective trenches with each other, the
basis of the report itself becomes doubtful;
8. that the report is full of inconsistencies and
discrepancies and the conclusions therein appear to have
been tailored to support a particular theory;
9. that theory of existence of massive structure on wall-
16 and the 50 pillars, as shown in figure 23-B page 42-C of
Volume I, is a concoction and unacceptable for the reasons
inter alia that there were no pillar bases and the same had
not alignment with each other nor were at the same level
nor had capacity to support load bearing pillars;
10. that theory of massive structure is totally ill-founded
because ASI report is silent on the point as to where were
the remaining three walls of that structure, if wall 16 was
one of the walls;
11. that so called “circular shrine” (which according to
ASI, had a waterchute in the north and could be associated
with Lord Shiva) could also be a structure relating to
Budhism or Jainism, as considering the thin passage and
 264

little diameter, it was not possible for even a single person

to enter and offer “Abhishekha”;
12. that ASI has, without any firm basis, characterized
mutilated stone sculpture (plates 235 of Vol II of the
report) as ‘divine couple’ and appears to have invented it
at some later stage, as reference to it does not find in
corresponding Site note-book or Day to Day Register;
13. that pillar door jam, octagonal shaft of pillars,
amalka, divine couple stone with Srivastsa motif, lotus
medallion, which ASI has taken into consideration for
saying that there were remains of temple on the site in
question, were of not significance as the same had been
recovered from debris;
14. that alleged Srivatsa (see Plate No. 88) could equally
be associated with Jainism and lotus with Buddhism and
Islamic religion;
15. that terra-cotta figurines (62 human & 131 animal)
discovered from different trenches, belong to ancient
period and had no relevance;
16. that glazed- wares and glazed- tiles so recovered
during the course of excavation spoke against the theory of
existence of temple as all these were found below floor No.
4 relating to Medieval Sultanat period;
17. that in view of what has been written by S.K.
Meermira in his book “Indian Pottery” glazed tiles were
proof of Muslim habitation;
18. that wall-16 had niches (mehrab) on the inner side
which are distinctive features of Islamic building and even
if it is accepted that the same existed prior to construction
of Babri Masjid, the same could have been a Idgah or
 265

Kanati (roofless mosque);

19. that no idol, or statute of any Hindu deity and no
object of Hindu worship was found on the site so as to
entitle the ASI to say that there were remains of existence
of temple of north India;
20. that how the conclusions of ASI came in the Indian
Express in its issue of 13.8.2003, much before 22.8.2003,
when the report was filed in Court and that indicates that
ASI tailored the report on the lines given in S.P. Gupta’s
book titled “Auodhya Puratatve Evam Itihas”.
243. Besides, the defendant no. 3 (Suit-3) filed his objection
contending that some more area towards east of trenches
number G-3, G-4 and G-5 should have been excavated so as to
reach a correct conclusion.
244. This Court after hearing the parties, vide its order dated
3.2.2005 held that the objections are basically such which can
be considered and decided in the light of other evidence, which
may come up before the Court. The objections against the report
have to be considered before ASI report is acted upon but that
situation will arise only when the Court would decide the matter
finally. Therefore, the Court held that the ASI report shall be
subject to the objections and evidences of the parties in the suit
and all this shall be dealt with when the matter is finally
decided.
245. An application was filed by plaintiffs (Suit-5) requesting
to examine Dr. Bhuvan Vikram Singh and, accordingly, he was
summoned to depose his statement. He filed an application no.
25(o) of 2006 requesting that he may be summoned as a Court’s
witness and not that of any party since he was a party to the
excavation team and the said excavation was conducted under
 266

the order of this Court, hence he was not willing to depose his
statement as a witness of any party to the suit. This application
was not opposed by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) and in fact, learned
counsel made a statement that he does not propose to examine
Dr. Bhuvan Vikram Singh as witness of plaintiffs (Suit-5). He,
however, insisted that Dr. Bhuvan Vikram Singh should be
treated as a Court’s witness and be allowed to be examined
accordingly. This question was considered by this Court vide
order dated 4.12.2006 and it was observed that this Court has
discretion to call any witness and examine him as Court’s
witness but that situation cannot be imposed upon the Court by a
party to the suit by filing an application requesting to summon a
witness and then to press to treat the witness as Court’s witness.
Whenever the Court shall feel it expedient or necessary it may
exercise its power by summoning a witness as a Court’s witness
but such a discretion cannot be fastened upon the Court by a
party to the suit. Since the plaintiffs (Suit-5) was also not
inclined to examine Dr. Bhuvan Vikram Singh as its witness,
the said witness was discharged without recording his
deposition.
Details of Impleadment Applications rejected
246. Several applications were filed by many persons,
legal/juristic, seeking impleadment in the proceedings on one
ground or the other. We do not propose to discuss the matter in
detail where applications have been rejected by the Court
finding impleadment of the person/s unwarranted or otherwise
but suffice to give only the brief description of those persons for
ready reference as under :
Sl. C. M. Moved By Rejected
No. Appl. No. on on
01. 465C 25.10.68 Mahant Raghubar 30.04.69
 267

Prasad
02. 477C 27.01.69 Sri R.N. Verma and Sri 30.04.69
Har Prasad
03. 553C & 30.01.71 Sri Prem Singh 13.02.71
556C Sri Uma Dutt Mishra
04. In Suit-4 08.11.88 Kashiteesh Chandra 19.11.88
[ 786 Mishra
Ka ]
05. 788 Ka 19.11.88 Sri Chhitij Chandra 09.01.89
808 Ka 24.12.88 Mishra Ad.
Sri Ashok Kumar
Pandey Ad.

06. 25 (O) 14.08.89 Farooque Ahmad 14.08.89

1989
In Suit-5
07. 24 (O) 11.08.89 Molana Sajjad Ahmad 19.08.89
1989
In Suit-5
08. In Suit-4 10.05.89 Sri Ram Janambhumi 23.10.89
[ 877 Sewa Samiti
Ka ]
09. 32 (O) 25.08.89 Sri Sri Mandir Raksha 23.10.89
1989 Samiti
In Suit-3
10. 31 (O) 25.08.89 Sri Prem Chandra 23.10.89
1989 Gupta
In Suit-3
11. 36 (O) 25.08.89 Mandir Raksha 23.10.89
1989 Committee & Sri Bal
In Suit-5 Krishna Sharma
12. 35 (O) 25.08.89 Sri Prem Chandra 23.10.89
1989 Gupta
In Suit-5
13. 3 (O) 09.01.90 Hindu Mahasabha to 09.01.90
1990 implead Union of India
In Suit-4 as Party
14. 55 (O) 13.12.90 Buddhist 17.01.91
1990
In Suit-5
 268

15. 01 (O) 04.12.90 Sri Brahmajeet 17.01.91

1991 S/o Nihal
In Suit-4
16. 27 (O) 12.08.91 Maharshi Awadhesh 30.09.91
1991
In Suit-4
17. 670 / 20.02.88 Sri Ram Bhadra Pathak 09.12.91
1/Ka/1
18. 838 Ka 27.03.89 Sri Ramjan 09.12.91
Armatandavi
19. In Suit-4 16.04.88 Sarpanch Ramswaroop 09.12.91
[ 672A ] Das Chela Raghubar
Das, Panch Bhaskar
Das and Rajaram
20. In Suit-4 07.04.78 Sri Ram Janambhumi 09.12.91
[ 4Ka ] Dharmarth
Prabandhkari 'Samiti'
Sri Ram Janambhumi
Ramkot Ayodhya and
Sri Raghunandan Saran
21. 39 (O) 31.03.92 S.C. Pandey Adv. 31.03.92
1992
In Suit-1
22. 41 (O) 31.03.92 Maharshi Awadhesh 07.04.92
1992
In Suit-4
23. 32 (O) 02.02.92 Gopi Nath 15.04.92
1992
In Suit-4
24. 41 (O) 31.03.92 Maharshi Awadhesh 20.04.92
1992
In Suit-4
25. 66 (O) 06.05.92 Maharshi Awadhesh 07.05.92
1992 founder President of
In Suit-5 Rashtriya Party
26. 21 (O) 03.01.95 President, 28.03.95
1995 R.N. Nationalist Party
In Suit-4 and Avami Leeg of
Nation
27. 3 (O) 05.02.93 Moved by Different 25.05.95
1993 Parties at various dates
 269

4 (O) 18.01.95 for impleadment of

1995 Union of India as Party
9 (O) in Different Suits
1995 15.01.93 pending before this
In Suit-4 03.01.95 Court

2 (O)
1993
7 (O) 03.01.95
1995 25.07.89
In Suit-3 12.12.94

6 (O)
1995
1 (O)
1989
8 (O)
1994
In Suit-5

28. 10 (O) 20.01.95 Maharshi Awadhesh 25.05.95

1995 President,
in Suit-4 Rashtriya Party
29. 25 (O) 13.02.95 Maharshi Awadhesh 02.08.95
1995 &
34 (O)
1995
In Suit-4
30. 55 (O) 09.10.95 Sri Ram Janam Bhumi 19.03.96
1995 for Nyas through Ashok
In Suit-5 transposi Singhal
ng
Defendan
ts 2, 14,
21 as
Plaintiffs
No. 4, 5
&6
respectiv
ely
31. 26 (O) 26.08.96 Dr. Mohd.Ismail 27.11.96
1996 Farooqui
In Suit-4
 270

32. 34 (O) 07.10.96 Sri Ismail Farooqui 27.11.96

1996
In Suit-5
33. 11 (O) 18.02.03 Sri Rajeshwari Sri Sita 18.02.03
2003 Ram Waqts through
In Suit-5 Manager Kunwar
Shivendra Pratap Sahi
34. 26 (O) 04.04.03 Buddha foundation 07.04.03
2003 through Udai Raj
In Suit-4
35. 31 (O) 21.04.03 Sri Akhil Bhartiya 29.04.03
2003 Chhatriya Mahasabha
In Suit-1

Statements of party/party's counsel (under Order 10 Rule 2

C.P.C.)

247. Statement of Chaudhari Kedarnath in Suit-1 (Recorded

on 15.09.1951) :
“Q. In what capacity does the plaintiff seek to exercise
the relief which he seeks in the plaint.
Ans. In my individual capacity.

Q. What is your individual capacity.

Ans. My individual capacity is distinct from public
capacity and in this matter an idol worshipper.
(This shows that the plff's counsel is not in a position
to answer the Court question. The plaintiff must present
himself personally in Court on the date fixed.)
Q. Has your client any religion.
Ans. The plaintiff is a Sanatandharmi Hindu.”
248. Statement of P.D. Goswami (Recorded on 13.1.1960) :
“Sri Goswami States ABCDEF is the land and building in
suit as indicated in the map of the Commissioner Sri Shiva
Shanker Lal dated 25.5.50. It is the temple since 1934.
Deities installed are Sri Sri Ram. The building existed prior
 271

to 1934. The plaintiff can't say for how long it have been
existing. The plaintiff can't say who built it and what it was
prior to 1934. Sri Gopal Singh Visharad came in on about
1934 to Ajudhya. He saw the ewfrZ there, and began to
worship them. Sri Paramhans instructs that the ewfrZ were
there from before 1934. Whenever he saw it was a temple.
It has always been a temple. He can't say who got it
constructed and dedicated it.
The plaintiff do not admit that at any time the
building was used for prayer or as a Mosque by the
Mohammaden community. Babar never built it. He was
never emperor of India. I deny that it was ever used as a
mosque.
The plaintiffs confine their case to the construction
shown by letters ABCDLKJPOHNGA as shown in the map
of the Commissioner dated 25.5.50. The Chabutra and
Mandir shown in the map of the Commissioner as “Ram
Chabutara” and “Bhandar” are the same as those
described in the eastern boundary of the temple in question
in the plaint.
The replication para 31 filed in suit no. 25 of 1950 by
Paramhans does not refer to the litigation mentioned in
para 14 of the map filed by Zahur Ahmad and others. The
proceedings mentioned in the last part of para 31 of the
replication relate to those cases and proceedings which
were between Mohammedans- sunnies & shias and others
i.e. relating to suit no. 29 of 1945 of the Court of Civil
Judge Faizabad.”
249. Statement of Gopal Singh Visharad and Param Hans
Ram Chandra (Recorded on 07.03.1962 in Suits-1 and 2) :
"Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad and Sri Param Hans Ram
 272

Chandra plffs of both the suits no.2/50 and 25 of 1950

accompanied by their counsel state that they do not want
any relief with regard to constructions or structures
indicated in the map of the Commissioner Sheo Shanker
Lal dated 25.5.50. by the terms 'Sita Rasoi' 'Bhandar' and
'Ram Chabootra' . They say that the reliefs are asked for
only with regard to property enclosed in the said map by
letters A. B. C. D. L. K. J. P. O. H. N. G. A.
They further add that the term 'Janam Bhumi' used in
the plaint refers to Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra Ji
and according to the plff's belief the property in suit is the
site of the same.
They add that there is no footprints carved over on
any stone or any stone image of any Charan Paduka
(Charan Paduka) referred to in para 2 of the plaint.
According to them at the place in suit near the idol of
Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji, are kept wooden sandals or
Charan Paduka and also a small pair of silver Charan
Paduka. They are not fixed to any stone, structure or floor
but are placed loose near the idol.
They add that the idol of Bhagwan Ram Chandra
Ji at the place in suit is an Achal (Achal) idol.
They add that the plffs claim right of worship with
regard to the said idol and also with regard to the 'Charan
Paduka'.
The plffs also claim a right to worship all the deities
and idols situated in the in the property in suit besides that
of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji as for example, Laxman Ji,
Hanuman Ji, Sita J, Saligram Ji, etc. They also claim a
right to worship and have Darshan of these as well as they
 273

have a right to have Darshan of the site in question as

according to their belief it is the birth place of Sri Ram
Chandra Ji.”
250. Statement of Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate (Recorded on
07.03.1962 in Suits-1 and 2) :
"Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate for the defdts states that the
decision referred to in para 11 to 14 of the W.S. was in
original suit no. 61/280 of 1885 in the Court of Sub-Judge,
Faizabad, Raghubar Dass Mahanth versus Secretary of
State for India and others. He adds that this decision bars
the present suit by principle of Res-judicata and estoppel.”
251. Statement of Sri P.D. Goswami, Advocate (Recorded on
08/09.03.1962 in Suits-1 and 2) :
"Sri P.D. Goswami advocate for the plffs state that the
report of the commissioner spoken of in para 15 of the W.S.
has no effect on the rights of the plff nor do the provisions
of Sec 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of 1936 apply to the present suits
as they are based on a right of worship of plff who is a
Hindu. According to him the provisions of this Act are
applicable to the property and the rights of the Muslims
only.
He does not give up the plea taken by him in the
replication in that connection.
According to him the said Act has been repealed by
U.P. Act 16 of 1960. He further adds that in case the said
Act be considered applicable to the present suits it is ultra
vires the provisions of the Govt of India Act 1935 and is in
conflict with the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (Act
No. VII of 1904). "
252. Statement of Sri Mohd. Ayub, Advocate (Recorded on
 274

09.03.1962 in Suits-1 and 2) :

"Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate for the defdts states that
under para 15 of the W.S. in suit no.2 of 1950, the defdts
plead that the suit is barred by provisions of Sec. 5(3) of
Muslim Waqf Act 1936(U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936).
He adds that by the plea set up in para 19 of the
W.S., it is meant that the suit is bad for want of consent in
writing of the Advocate General and other provisions of
Sec. 91 C.P.C.
He adds that from para 9 of the W.S. the plea arises
that Almighty God in whom the property in suit vests duly
represented by some authorised persons should have been
made a party to the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder
of parties. He adds that the Muslims in general or the
mutwalli of the said waqf or Sunni Central Board as waqf
should also have been made defdts in this suit.
He adds that the present suit being a suit for
injunction is barred by time under Article 120 of the Indian
Limitation Act."
253. Statement of Mohd. Ayub, Advocate (Recoded on
08.08.1962 in Suit-4)
"Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate for the plffs states that the
property in suit is the property dedicated to Almighty God
and is a mosque for the use of the entire Muslim community
at large. He adds that Shias & Sunnis have the interest in
the same. ”
254. Statement of Sri Sarab Jeet Lal, Advocate (Recorded on
17.05.1963) (Counsel for plaintiff in Suit-3)
"Present Sri Sarab Jeet Lal for plff
& Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate for defdts 7 to 8.
Sri Sarab Jeet Lal Advocate states as follows:
 275

The plff claims that this property in suit is believed

to be the birth place of Lord Ram Chandra and so there is
a temple of Lord Ram Chandra on it. The plff claims that
this temple is in the management and control of the plff. It
is further clarified that this property is not dedicated to the
idol although the temple is made on the land which is
the birth place of Lord Ram. It is owned by the plff and
the temple was made by the plff. It is added that the
present suit is confined to property shown by letters E F G
H I J K L although the entire area shown by letters E F G
H P N M L E belongs to the plff.”
255. Statement of Mohd. Ayub, Advocate (Recorded on
28.08.1963 in Suit-4) :
"Sri Mohd. Ayub states that the mosque lies in A B
C D as shown in the plaint map (sketch map) and the
land around A B C D is graveyard of the Muslims as shown
in it. ”
Sri Mohd. Ayub states that the plaintiff pleads in the
alternative that even if the defdts have any rights in the
property in suit the same have been extinguished by lapse
of time.
He clarifies that the same amounts to adverse
possession and the rights of the defts have extinguished by
it and the plff has acquired title by adverse possession.”
The taking of these pleas of title by adverse
possession and extinction of title of defdts by oral statement
is strongly opposed from the side of the defts.
Let the plff therefore take up proper pleas in proper
way, by amendment of plaint or replication as the case may
be. Plff to move for the same within 15 days.
 276

Put up for orders on 28.9.63 in this respect

whereafter issues will be framed.”

256. Statement of Mohd. Ayub, Advocate (Recorded on

20.01.1964 in Suit-4)
“Sri Mohd. Ayub Advocate Wadigan Ne Bayan
Kiya Ki Zaydad Nijai Me Babri Masjid Va Uski
Chahardiwari Se Mila Hua Qabristan Janib Poorab, Uttar
Dakkhin Hai. Paschim Taraf Qabristan Nahi Hai. Babri
Masjid Ko Shahansah Babar Ne 1528 AD me Ekdam Naye
Sire Se Banaya Tha. Jis Jagah Par Babri Masjid Bani Hai
Us Jagah Par Uske Banane Ke Pahle Hinduvon Ka Kisi
Tarah Ka Koi Mandir Ya Dev Sthan Ya Koi Tameer Nahi
Thi. Babri Masjid Ke railing Ke Bahar Aur Sadar Phatak
Ke Boundary wall Ke Andar Poorab Dakhin Ki Taraf Ek
17 Feet X 21 Feet Ka Chabutara Hai Jis Par Lakadi Ke
structure Ka Ek wooden temple Bana Hai. Us me Koi Bhi
Hindu Ki Murtiyan Na Kabhi Thi Na Ab Tak Hai. Vah
Jagah Bhi Musalmano Ki mosque Ka Hissa Hai, Mujhe
Nahi Maloom Ki Vah Jagah Aaj Tak Kabhi Bhi Hinduvon
Ke Istemal Me Aai hai Ya Nahi. Yeh Bhi Nahi Maloom Ki
Vah Jagah Kabhi Bhi Musalmano Ke Istemal Me Rahi Hai
Ya Nahi. Jab Se Yani December 1949 Isvi Se Musalman
Log 145 Jabta Phaujdari Ke Mokadme Me Babri Masjid
Ke Karib Jane Se Rok Diye Gaye Hain Tab Se Us Jagah
par Agar Koi changes Kisi Ne Kiya Ho To Uske Bare Me
Mujhe Koi Ilam Nahi hai. Babri Masjid Ke Sadari Phatak
Se Andar Dakhil Hone Par Uske Dahini Taraf Jo Bhi
Tamirat Hai Vah December 1949 Ke Pahale Vahan Par
Kabhi Nahi Thee. Unhe December 1949 I. Ke Bad Kisi Ne
Tameer Kar Liya Hoga. Babri Masjid Ko main building
Ke Uttar Taraf Chahardiwari Ke Andar Bhi December
 277

1949 I. Tak Kabhi Koi Tamirrat Varakam Imarat Ya

Chabutara Vagaraih Ke Kabhi Nahi Rahe. Us Jagah Par
Jo Chabutara Sita Rasoi Ke Naam Se Muddalehum Kahte
Hai use December 1949 I. Ke Bad Hi Muddalehum Ne Ya
Kisi Ne Banaya Hai. Babri Masjid Ke Samne Ki compound
wall Me Jo main gate hai Usme Do Khambhe Khasauti
Patthar Ke Lage Hai Jo Babri Masjid Ke Shuru me Banane
Ke Waqt Se Lage Hai Aur Babri Masjid Me main building
Ke Andar Bhi Barah Khambhe Kasauti Patthar Ke Lage
Hai. Yeh Bhi Shuru Se Lage Hai. In Chaudaho Khambho
Me Koi Bhi Muratiyan Ya inscription, indication of
Hinduism Nahi Khudi Hai."
(Sri Mohammad Ayub, Counsel for Plaintiffs stated that
the disputed property included Babri mosque and a
graveyard adjoining to its boundary and facing east, north
and south. There is no graveyard towards west. Emperor
Babur built Babri mosque afresh in 1528 AD. Prior to the
Babri mosque, no temple or worship place or any other
construction of Hindus existed at the site where the
Babri mosque was built. On the outer side of railing of
Babri mosque and inside the boundary of main gate
towards south-east, there is a platform measuring 17x21
feet over which a wooden temple is built in wooden
structure. No idols of Hindus ever existed nor exist inside
the same. That place is also a part of mosque of Muslims;
I do not know whether that place had ever been in use of
Hindus or not; it is also not known to me whether this
place had ever been in use of Hindus or not; it is also not
known to me whether this place had ever been in use of
Muslims or not. I have no knowledge about changes
 278

effected, if any, at that place since December, 1949 AD

when the Muslims were restrained from going near Babri
mosque in a criminal case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On
entering through the main gate of Babri mosque, the
constructions lying on right side, were never in existence
prior to December, 1949. The same must have been
constructed by someone after December1949. Towards
north of main building of Babri Mosque inside the
boundary wall, upto December 1949 A.D. there was
never any construction or building or Chabutara etc. Over
that place, the Chabutara termed as Sita Rasoi by the
defendants has been constructed either by defendants or
someone else after December 1949. There are two pillars
of Kasauti stone in the main gate of the compound wall of
Babri Mosque, which were affixed at the time of
construction of the Mosque and 12 Kasauti pillars are
affixed in the main building of Babri Mosque as well.
They have also been affixed since very beginning. These
14 pillars do not carry any idols or inscription, indication
of Hinduism.)” (E.T.C.)
257. Statement of Sri Lal Surendra Nath Singh Advocate
(Recorded on 24.04.1964 in Suit-4)
"Sri Lal Surendra Nath Singh Vakil Prativadi No. 1
Va 2 Ne Bayan Kiya Ki Tankeeh no. 5 (d) of the leading
case Ke Silsile Me Bayan Tahriri Muddalehum no. 1 Va 2
Ke Para 32 Ke sub para (a), (b) Aur (d) Ko Hi press Karta
Hun. Bayan Tahriri Mazkoor Ke Dafa 5 Ke Baqi Sub paras
Ko Tankihat Ke Silsile Me Press Karunga.”
(Sri Lal Surendra Nath Singh, counsel for defendants no. 1
and 2 stated that in respect of issue no. 5(d) of the leading
 279

case, he presses only sub paragraphs (a),(b) and (d) of

paragraph 32 of the written statement of defendants no. 1
and 2. He will press the remaining sub- paragraphs of
paragraph 5 of the said written statement for framing
issues.” (E.T.C.)
258. Statement of Sri Mohd. Ayub, Advocate (Recorded on
17.07.1965 in Suit-4)
"Sri Mohd. Ayub Vakil Wadi Ne u/order X rule 2 CPC
Bayan Kiya Ki Jaydad Nijai Ka Jo notification under
Section 5(1) of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act 13 of 1936 Huva
Tha, Vah Uski Sahi Naqal Kagaj No. 243/Ga Va 243/1Ga
Me page no.11 Ke serial no.26 Babat Zila Faizabad Par
Jaydad Nijai Ka notification Mazkoor Chhapa Hai. Iske
Alawa Jaydad Nizai Ka under section 5(1) of U.P. Act 13
of 1936 Ka Aur Koi notification Nahi Hai. Sunkar Tasdeek
Kiya."
(Mr. Mohd. Ayub counsel for the plaintiff stated under
Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. that true copy of the Notification
published under section 5(1) of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act 13
of 1936 with respect to property in suit is Paper No.
243/Ga and 243/1 Ga wherein notification with regard to
disputed property pertaining to District Faizabad is
published at page 11, serial no. 26. Except it, there is no
other notification under Section 5(1) of U.P. Act 13 of 1936
in respect of the disputed property. Verified after hearing.”
(E.T.C.)
"Sri Mohd. Ayub Vakil Wadi Ne Bayan Kiya Ki
Basilsile Tankeeh No. 17 Kagzat Mundarza Jail Par rely
Karta Hun. Unke Alava Tankeeh Mazkoor Ke Silsile me
Aur Koi Oral Ya documentary evidence nahi Dena Hai.
Sunkar Tasdeek Kiya.
 280

(Plaintiff's counsel Mr. Mohd. Ayub stated that in

relation to issue no.17, he places reliance on the following
documents and except those, he does not propose to adduce
any oral or documentary evidence in respect of issue under
consideration. Verified after hearing.” (E.T.C.)
1. Kagaj No.73/Ka Morkha 16.9.38 (Paper No. 73/Ka
dated 16.9.38)
2. Kagaj No. 74/Ka Morkha 8.2.41 (Paper No. 74/Ka
dated 8.2.41
3. Mashkula Missil Moqdma No. 2 Sa. 50 Gopal Singh
Vs. Zahoor Ahmad. (file of suit no. 2 of 1950 Gopal
Singh Vs. Zahoor Ahmad)

259. Statement of Sri Sarvjeet Lal Verma and Lal Surendra

Nath Singh, Advocates (Recorded on 17.07.1965 in Suit-4)
"Sri Sarvjeet Lal Verma Va Lal Surendra Nath Singh
Bakaul Prativadi Ne Bayan Kiya Ki Basilsile Tankeeh no.
17 Mujhe Koi Shahadat Nahi Deni Hai.
(Sri Sarvajeet Lal Verma and Sri Surendra Nath Singh in
the capacity of counsel for defendants stated that regarding
issue no.17 I do not propose to adduce any evidence.)
(E.T.C.)
260. Statement of Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal (Recorded on
30.04.1992 in Suit-5)
“At the instance of Sri R.L. Varma, Sri Deoki
Nandan Agarwal makes the following clarification under
Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C.
.....................
“In the early hours of December 23, 1949, the idol of
Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala, which was already on Ram
Chabutra was transferred to the place where He presently
sits, that is, under the central dome of the disputed
building. I was not personally present at that time at the
 281

place. This information was conveyed to me by Paramhans

Ram Chandra Das of Digamber Akhara. This transfer of
the idol was done by Paramhans Ram Chandra Das and
Baba Abhi Ram Das and certain other persons whose
names I do not remember at the moment. I will have to look
into the record to give their names.
The idol is Chal Vigraha (moveable idol)
Paramhans Ram Chandra Das had informed me that
all the due ceremonies were performed when the idol was
transferred.
Presently, the property in suit is bounded on three
sides by a wall constructed by the State Government
recently and on the north by public road.
The entire area enclosed by the aforesaid wall
belongs to the Deity.”
261. Statement of Sri Jafaryab Jilani, Advocate for the
plaintiff (Recorded on 11.01.1996)
“ That the mosque was situate on an Nazul Plot no. 583 of
the Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ramchandra known as
Ramkot at Ayodhya.”
262. Statement of Sri Jafaryab Jilani, Counsel for plaintiff in
Suit-4 (Recorded on 22.4.2009) :
"For the purposes of this case there is no dispute
about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding
the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki
Ramayana or as existing today. It is, however, disputed and
denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth
of Lord Rama. It is also denied that there was any Ram
Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of Babri Masjid at any
time whatsoever.
The existence of Nirmohi Akhara from the second
 282

half of Nineteenth Century onwards is also not disputed. It

is, however, denied and disputed that Nirmohi Akhara was
in existence and specially in Ayodhya in 16th Century A.D.
or in 1528 A.D. and it is also denied that any idols were
there in the building of the Babri Masjid up to 22nd
December, 1949. "
263. Statement of Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, counsel for
plaintiff in Suit-4 (Recorded on 22.4.2009)
"For the purposes of this case there is no dispute
about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding
the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki
Ramayana or as existing today. It is, however, disputed and
denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth
of Lord Rama. It is also denied that there was any Ram
Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of Babri Masjid at any
time whatsoever.
The existence of Nirmohi Akhara from the second
half of Nineteenth Century onwards is also not disputed. It
is, however, denied and disputed that Nirmohi Akhara was
in existence and specially in Ayodhya in 16th Century A.D.
or in 1528 A.D. and it is also denied that any idols were
there in the building of the Babri Masjid up to 22nd
December, 1949. "
264. Statement of Sri Syed Irfan Ahmad, Counsel for
Defendants No. 6/1 and 6/2 in Suit-3 (Recorded on
22.4.2009) :
"For the purposes of this case there is no dispute
about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding
the birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki
Ramayana or as existing today. It is, however, disputed and
denied that the site of Babri Masjid was the place of birth
of Lord Rama. It is also denied that there was any Ram
 283

Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site of Babri Masjid at any

time whatsoever.
The existence of Nirmohi Akhara from the second
half of Nineteenth Century onwards is also not disputed. It
is, however, denied and disputed that Nirmohi Akhara was
in existence and specially in Ayodhya in 16th Century A.D.
or in 1528 A.D. and it is also denied that any idols were
there in the building of the Babri Masjid up to 22nd
December, 1949."
COMMISSIONER/RECEIVER APPOINTED FOR THE
DISPUTED SITE :

265. Initially Sri Priya Dutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board,

Ayodhya was appointed Receiver by order dated 29.12.1949
passed by the Addl. City Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
The said Receiver took charge on 5.1.1950. Sri Priya Dutt Ram
continued as Receiver till 8.8.1970, i.e., upto the date of his
death. Swami Govindacharya, defendant no. 19 (Suit-4) filed
application dated 20.8.1970, requesting for appointment of a
Civil Court Receiver. However, the City Magistrate appointed
Sri K.K. Ram Verma as Receiver on 20.10.1970. Some more
applications were filed requesting for appointment of Civil
Court Receiver. By order dated 17.11.1970, Civil Judge,
Faizabad appointed one Sri Ram Mishra as Receiver. The said
order dated 17.11.1970 was assailed before this Court in FAFO
No. 389 of 1970 filed by Pundreek Mishra, defendant no. 14
(Suit-4). The Court allowed the appeal vide judgement dated
20.3.1974. It held that the Civil Court is competent to appoint
Receiver in place of the Criminal Court Receiver. It also noted
that the Sunni Central Board of Waqf, plaintiff (Suit-4) had no
objection to the appointment of Court Receiver. However, it
 284

found that the question who should be appointed as Receiver

needs to be considered again. The matter was ultimately
remanded with the following order :
"The case is remanded and the Court below is directed to
re-consider the question of appointment of Receiver and
appoint a suitable person on such terms and conditions as
it deems fit."
266. This led to filing of a series of applications for
appointment of Receiver. Some applicants requested to allow
Sri K.K. Ram Verma to continue as Receiver, but some opposed
it. In some applications, names of some other persons were
recommended. Ultimately vide order dated 18.3.1975, the Civil
Judge, Faizabad appointed one Sri Madan Mohan Dubey as
Receiver whereagainst FAFO No. 181 of 1975 was filed in this
Court at Allahabad which was admitted and an interim order
was passed on 9.5.1975 staying the order dated 18.3.1975. This
Court further directed Sri K.K. Ram Verma, Receiver appointed
by the Criminal Court to continue to function as such. Sunni
Central Board of Waqf as well as Mohd. Hashim filed stay
vacation applications. Another stay vacation application was
filed by one Abhiram Das. A Single Judge of this Court by order
dated 25.10.1977 directed the District Judge, Faizabad to make
an enquiry and submit report since allegations were made
against Sri K.K. Ram Verma. In the meantime, while the said
report was awaited, the appeal was transferred from Allahabad
to Lucknow and re-registered as FAFO No. 17 of 1977. The
District Judge, Faizabad submitted his report on 19.7.1978 and
the appeal was decided vide judgment dated 23.7.1987
remanding the matter to Civil Court, requesting it to consider
again the names of suitable persons for appointment as Receiver
 285

and till then Sri K.K. Ram Verma was allowed to continue. Sri
Verma functioned as Receiver till 24.08.1988. On 25.08.1988
one Sri L.P.N. Singh was appointed as Receiver, who was
replaced by Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh appointed on 22.11.1988
and died on 20.02.1992 whereafter Sri U.C. Tiwari was
appointed as interim Receiver and was replaced by Sri R.K.
Sarkar on 28.08.1992. Sri Sarkar continued till he was replaced
by authorised person under the provisions of Ayodhya Act i.e.
on 03.04.1993 and the Commissioner, Faizabad Division,
functioning as Authorised Person, is managing the site in
dispute as its Receiver since then.
ISSUES
267. In Suit-1 issues were framed on 09.03.1962, in Suit-3 the same
were framed on 17.05.1963 and in Suit-4, the Civil Judge, Faizabad
framed issues on 05.03.1964. Thereafter issue no. 17 (Suit-4) was
taken up as preliminary issue and was decided by the Civil Judge,
Faizabad vide judgment dated 21.04.1966 along with which issues
no. 5(a), 5(c) and 5(d) (Suit-4) also stood decided.
268. After transfer of the aforesaid three Suits to this Court,
pursuant to the Court's Order dated 10.07.1989, various issues were
recast/added on 22.05.1990, 25.09.1990 and 04.12.1990. In Suit-5
issues were framed on 30.04.1992 and 07.05.1992. After demolition
of the disputed structure and the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.
Ismail Farooqui (Supra), various issues were re-examined/
modified/deleted/re-framed after considering the submissions of all
the parties as well as the pleadings and finalized on 23.02.1996
which read as under, suit-wise:
269. Suit-4 :
Issue No. 1:-
Whether the building in question described as
mosque in the sketch map attached to the plaint
 286

(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
 287

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?
 288

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

 289

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,

 290

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
 291

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
 292

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?
270. 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 :-
 293

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,
 294

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
 295

costs under Section 35-A C.P.C.

Issue No. 17 :-
To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
271. 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
 296

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?
272. Suit-5 :
Issue No. 1 :-
Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
 297

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?
 298

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
 299

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
 300

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
 301

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?
273. It is worthy to mention that after submission of ASI report
neither the pleadings were got amended nor any new issue sought to
be framed. The parties also did not find any reason or justification
for requesting this Court for addition or alteration in the existing
issues though arguments have been advanced and evidence also led.
We may specifically place it on record that no issue has been framed
whether Lord Ram existed or born in Ayodhya or that the present
location of Ayodhya is the same as it was in the olden days and in
particular at the time when Hindu believe that Lord Ram was born
thereat. Further there is also no issue whether there existed any
Islamic religious structure, building etc. at the disputed site before
the construction of the disputed building or whether there existed a
'Kanati Masjid' or 'Eidgah' or 'other Muslim religious building' at the
site in dispute before erection of the disputed structure. There is also
no issue whether the temple if any, demolished for raising
construction of the disputed building was constructed by Maharaja
Vikramaditya or by Kings of Gahadwal Dynasty and regarding the
shape, size etc. thereof. It is well settled and need no authority that
the matter in respect whereof issues are not framed, should neither be
allowed to be raised nor be examined by the Civil Court and it
should confine adjudication in respect of the matter covered by the
issues framed before it. (See Mohd. Saleh vs. Ram Ratan AIR
1924 Nagpur 156 and Suraj Bhan vs. Harchandgir 1954 PEPSU
65 (DB). We, therefore confine ourselves, in the present cases, only
to the issues raised before us and not otherwise.
EVIDENCES ADDUCED-In Brief
 302

274. (1) Oral Depositions : Parties to these suits produced 88

witnesses, who deposed on one or the other subject. Broadly,
these witnesses are categorized as under:
275. (a) Witnesses produced in Suit-4 by Plaintiff :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. P.W. 1 Sri Mohd. Hashim
2. PW 2 Hazi Mahboob Ahmed
3. PW 3 Farooq Ahmad
4. PW 4 Mohd. Yasin
5. PW 5 Sri Abdul Rehman
6. PW 6 Mohd. Yunus Siddiqui
7. PW 7 Sri Hashmat Ullah Ansari
8. PW 8 Sri Abdul Aziz
9. PW 9 Syeed Akhlak Ahmad
10. PW 10 Mohd. Idris
11. PW11 Mohd. Burhanuddin
12. PW 12 Ram Shanker Upadhyay
13. PW 13 Suresh Chandra Mishra
14. PW 14 Jalil Ahmad
15. PW 21 Dr. M. Hashim Qidwai
16. PW 23 Mohd Qasim Ansari
17. PW 25 Mohd. Sibte Naqvi
(II) Expert Witnesses (Historian)
18. PW 15 Sushil Srivastava
19. PW 18 Prof. Suvira Jaiswal
20. PW 20 Prof. Shirin Musavi
(III) Expert Witnesses (Archaeologist)
21. PW 16 Prof. Suraj Bhan
22. PW 24 Prof. D. Mandal
23. PW 27 Dr. Shereen F. Ratnagar
 303

24. PW 28 Dr. Sita Ram Roy

25. PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon
26. PW 30 Dr. R. C. Thakran
27. PW 31 Dr. Ashok Datta
28. PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma
(IV) Private Commissioner
29. PW 17 Zafar Ali Siddiqui
(V) Expert Witnesses (Religious Matters)
30. PW 19 Maulana Atiq Ahmad
31. Pw 22 Mohd. Khalid Naqui
32. PW 26 Kalbe Jawed
276. (b) Witnesses produced in Suit-5 by Plaintiff :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. OPW 1 Mahant Paramhans Ram
Chandra Das
2. OPW 2 Sri D.N. Agarwal
3. OPW 4 Harihar Prasad Tewari
4. OPW 5 Ram Nath Mishra alias Banarsi
Panda
5. OPW 6 Hausila Prasad Tripathit
6. OPW 7 Sri Ram Surat Tewari
7. OPW 8 Ashok Chandra Chatterjee
8. OPW 12 Kaushal Kishor Misra
9. OPW 13 Narad Saran
(II) Expert Witnesses (Archaeologist)
10. OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta
11. OPW 14 Dr. Rakesh Tewari
12. OPW 17 Dr. R. Nagaswami
13. OPW 18 Sri Arun Kumar Sharma
14. OPW 19 Sri Rakesh Dutta Trivedi
 304

(III) Expert Witness (Epigraphist and Historian)

15. OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma
(IV) Expert Witnesses (Epigraphist)
16. OPW 10 Dr. Voluvyl Vyasarayasastri
Ramesh
17. OPW 15 Dr. M.N. Katti
(V) Expert Witnesses (Historian)
18. OPW 11 Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal
(VI) Expert Witnesses (Religious Matters)
19. OPW 16 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya
Swami Ram Bhadracharya
277. (c) Witnesses produced in Suit-1 by Plaintiff :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. DW 1/1 Sri Rajendra Singh
2. DW 1/2 Sri Krishna Chandra Singh
3. DW 1/3 Sri Sahdeo Prasad Dubey
278. (d) Witnesses produced in Suit-3 of 1989 by Plaintiff :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. DW 3/1 Mahant Bhaskar Das
2. DW 3/2 Sri Raja Ram Pandey
3. DW 3/3 Sri Satya Narain Tripathi
4. DW 3/4 Mahant Shiv Saran Das
5. DW 3/5 Sri Raghunath Prasad Pandey
6. DW 3/6 Sri Sita Ram Yadav
7. DW 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das
8. DW 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sundar Mishra @
Barkau Mahraj
9. DW 3/9 Sri Ram Ashrey Yadav
10. DW 3/11 Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh
11. DW 3/12 Sri Ram Akshaibar Pandey
 305

12. DW 3/13 Mahant Ram Subhag Shashtri

13. DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh
14. DW 3/16 Sri Shiv Bhikh Singh
15. DW 3/17 Sri Mata Badal Tewari
16. DW 3/18 Sri Acharya Mahant Bansidhar
Das @ Uriya Baba
17. DW 3/19 Sri Ram Milan Singh
18. DW 3/20 Mahant Raja Ramchandr-
-acharya
(II) Others :
19. DW 3/10 Sri Pateshwari Dutt Pandey
20. DW 3/14 Jagad Guru Ramanandacharya
Swami Haryacharya
279. (e) Witnesses produced by Defendant 2/1 in Suit-4 :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. D.W.2/1-3 Mahant Ram Vilas Das
Vedanti
(II) Others :
2. D.W.2/1-1 Sri Rajendra.
3. D.W.2/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava
280. (f) Witnesses produced by Defendant 13/1 in Suit-4 :
(I) Expert Witness (Historian) :
1. DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur
(II) Others :
2. DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharam Das
3. DW 13/1-2 Mahant Awadh Bihari Das
Pathak
281. (g) Witnesses produced by Defendant 17 in Suit-4 :
(I) Witness of facts :
1. DW 17/1 Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
282. (h) Witnesses produced by Defendant 20 in Suit-4 :
 306

(I) Witness of facts :

1. DW 20/1 Sri Shashi Kant Rungta
2. DW 20/4 Sri M.M. Gupta
(II) Expert Witnesses (Religious Matters)
3. DW 20/2 Swami Avimukteshwaran and
Saraswati
4. DW 20/3 Bramchari Ram Rakshanand

(III) Expert Witness (Archaeologist)

5. DW 20/5 Sri Jayanti Prasad Srivastava
283. (i) Witnesses produced by Defendant 6/1 in Suit-3 :
(I) Expert Witness (Archaeologist) :
1. DW 6/1-2 Sri Mohd. Abid
(II) Others :
2. DW 6/1-1 Sri Haji Mahboob Ahmad
284. The statement of DW13/1-2 Mahant Awadh Bihari Das
Pathak, could not be concluded due to his death in the
meantime. Therefore, neither in law nor otherwise the same is
admissible at all and to this effect the parties are also in
agreement. Similarly, the statement of OPW 2, Deoki Nandan
Agarwal could not be concluded since during the course of cross
examination by Sri Jilani, he fell ill and ultimately died.
Therefore, in view of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, the above
statement of OPW 2 is also not admissible. However, Counsel
for plaintiff (Suit-5) sought to advance his argument on this
aspect is that to the extent some of the parties have completed
their cross examination, the statement of OPW 2 can be read
and, therefore, at this stage with regard to statement of OPW 2
we are not giving any final opinion and shall deal with it
subsequently at appropriate stage.
 307

285. The above witnesses have deposed to support the case of

the respective parties. As noticed already, a large number of
them are experts in different disciplines i.e. History,
Archaeology, Epigraphy, Palaeontology, etc. They have
deposed to give their opinion in the field of their expertise.
Broadly and briefly, the facts in support whereof the above
witnesses have been produced may be categorized as under:
A. Existence of Mosque, continuous prayer by Muslims etc.
(On behalf of Plaintiffs in Suit-4)
286. The witnesses of facts produced on behalf of Muslim
parties are to prove that up to the date of attachment or till
22/23.12.1949 Muslims had offered prayer regularly in the
disputed structure, the same was always treated, used and
practiced to be a 'Mosque', there was no idol of Lord Ram
herein in the inner courtyard or under the central dome of three
domed structure. These witnesses are, PW 1-Sri Mohd. Hashim;
PW 2- Hazi Mahboob Ahmed; PW 3-Farooq Ahmad; PW 4-
Mohd. Yasin; PW 5-Sri Abdul Rehman; PW 6-Mohd. Yunus
Siddiqui; PW 7-Sri Hashmat Ullah Ansari; PW 8-Sri Abdul
Aziz; PW 9-Syeed Akhlak Ahmad; PW 14-Jalil Ahmad; PW 21-
Dr. M. Hashim Qidwai; PW 22-Mohd. Khalid Naqui; PW 23,
Mohd. Qasim Ansari and PW 25-Sibte Mohd. Naqvi. (Total 14)
B. Birthplace of Lord Ram; continuous worship by
Hindus; No Namaz, no mosque etc.
287. The Hindu parties on the contrary have produced
witnesses to prove that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site
as per the faith and belief of Hindus; the site in dispute was
always worshiped as birthplace of Lord Ram; the Muslims never
and at least since 1934 have offered prayer (Namaz) at the
disputed site; the site in dispute had a massive temple of Lord
Ram which was demolished/damaged by Emperor Babar
 308

through Mir Baqi, a Commander of Babar in 1528; he

constructed a Mosque which could not be completed or even if
completed but was never practiced as Mosque since no prayer
(Namaz) could be offered by Muslims thereat; the building
constructed by Babar/Mir Baqi continued to be a temple of Lord
Ram and worshiped by Hindus as such; throughout the Hindus
are worshiping the place as the site of birth of Lord Ram, there
was no mosque at all etc. These witnesses are DW 1/1-Sri
Rajendra Singh; DW 1/2-Sri Krishna Chandra Singh; DW 1/3-
Dr. Sahdeo Prasad Dubey; DW 2/1-1-Sri Rajendra Singh; DW
2/1-2-Sri Ram Saran Srivastava; DW 2/1-3-Mahant Ram Vilas
Das Vedanti; DW 3/1-Mahant Bhaskar Das; DW 3/2-Sri Raja
Ram Pandey; DW 3/3-Sri Satya Narain Tripathi; DW 3/4-
Mahant Shiv Saran Das; DW 3/5, Raghunath Prasad Pandey;
DW 3/6-Sri Sita Ram Yadav; DW 3/7, Mahant Ramji Das; DW
3/8-Pt. Shyam Sundar Mishra @ Barkau Mahraj; DW 3/9-Sri
Ram Asrey Yadav; DW 3/11-Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh; DW 3/12-
Sri Ram Akshaibar Pandey; DW 3/13-Mahant Ram Subhag
Shastri; DW 3/14-Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
Haryacharya; DW 3/15-Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh; DW 3/16-
Sri Shiv Bhikh Singh; DW 3/17-Sri Mata Badal Tewari; DW
3/18-Sri Acharya Mahant Bansidhar Das @ Uriya Baba; DW
3/19-Sri Ram Milan Singh; DW 3/20-Mahant Raja
Ramchandracharya; DW 13/1-1-Mahant Daram Das; DW 17/1-
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi; DW 20/1-Sri Shashi Kant
Rungta; DW 20/2-Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati; and
DW 20/3-Bramchari Ram Rakshanand; OPW 1-Mahant
Paramhans Ram Chandra Das; OPW 2-Sri Deoki Nandan
Agarwal; OPW 4- Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari; OPW 5-Sri Ram
Nath Mishra alias Banarsi Panda; OPW 6-Sri Hausila Prasad
 309

Tripathi; OPW 7-Sri Ram Surat Tewari; OPW 12-Sri Kaushal

Kishor Misra; OPW 13-Sri Narad Saran. (Total 38)
C. Temple (Existence and demolition):
288. The third set of witnesses are those experts who have
deposed about the existence or non existence of temple, its
demolition; construction of mosque in 1528 A.D. etc., in support
of one or the other party. The witnesses who have said that there
existed no temple when the mosque in question was constructed
in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi and that there was no evidence that
the site in dispute was a birthplace of Lord Ram are, PW12- Sri
Ram Shanker Upadhyay; PW 13-Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra;
PW 15-Sri Sushil Srivastava; PW 16-Prof. Suraj Bhan; PW 18-
Prof. Suvira Jaiswal; PW 20-Prof. Shirin Musavi; PW 24- Prof.
D. Mandal; PW 27-Dr. Shereen F. Ratnagar; and PW 28-Dr.
Sita Ram Roy. The witnesses who have deposed otherwise are
OPW 3-Dr. Swaraj Prakash Gupta; OPW 9-Dr. Thakur Prasad
Verma; OPW 11-Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal; OPW 16-Jagadguru
Ramanandacharya Swami Ram Bhadracharya; DW 13/1-3-Dr.
Bishan Bahadur; and DW 20/4-Sri Madan Mohan Gupta. (Total
12)
D. ASI Report:
289. The ASI has submitted its report giving its opinion that
there was a massive structure beneath disputed building which
had continued till the disputed building was constructed and in
view of the various artefacts etc. it resembles religious structure
of Northern India. On behalf of Muslim parties, expert witnesses
have deposed to contradict the said report while on behalf of
Hindu parties the witnesses have deposed supporting the view of
ASI. On behalf of Muslim parties, PW 16-Prof. Suraj Bhan; PW
24-Prof. D. Mandal; PW 29-Dr. Jaya Menon; PW 30- Dr. R. C.
 310

Thakran; PW 31-Dr. Ashok Datta, PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma,

DW 6/1-1 Sri Haji Mahboob Ahmad and DW 6/1-2 Sri Mohd.
Abid have deposed their statements; while on behalf of Hindus,
OPW 17-Dr. R. Nagaswami; OPW 18-Sri Arun Kumar Sharma;
OPW 19-Sri Rakesh Dutta Trivedi; and DW 20/5-Sri Jayanti
Prasad Srivastava have deposed their statements. (Total 12)
E. Characteristics of Mosque:
290. About the characteristics of a mosque, on behalf of
Muslims, some witnesses claiming expert in religious matters
(Islamic Law) have been produced i.e. PW 10-Mohd. Idris; PW
11-Mohd. Burhanuddin; PW 19-Maulana Atiq Ahmad; PW 22-
Mohd. Khalid Nadvi; PW 25-Sibte Mohd. Naqvi; and PW 26-
Kalbe Jawed. (Total six)
F. Sanskrit Inscriptions found in 1992:
291. In reference to the aforesaid inscription and its
transliteration three witnesses have been produced i.e. OPW 8-
Sri Ashok Chandra Chatterjee; OPW 10-Dr. Voluvyl
Vyasarayasastri Ramesh; and OPW 15-Dr. M.N. Katti. (Total
three)
G. Artefacts in Debris:
292. Certain artefacts were recovered from debris which were
taken over by the Government and to prove the same OPW 14-
Dr. Rakesh Tewari has been produced.
H. Commissioner/Survey Report:
293. A Court Commissioner was appointed in some other
matters in 1973 and to prove his report DW 3/10- Sri Pateshwari
Dutt Pandey has been produced. A private survey of the area in
dispute and nearby is said to have been made on behalf of
Muslim parties and to prove the same PW 17- Zafar Ali
Siddiqui has been produced.
 311

(Note – There are four witnesses who are mentioned in two

categories. They are PW 14, 16, 22 and 25)
294. At this stage, we propose to notice the gist of the
statement in chief of the above witnesses to the facts they intend
to prove.
(A) WITNESSES OF FACTS -ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS (SUIT 4)
295. As noticed above PWs 1 to 9, 14, 21, 22, 23 and 25 have
been produced in the above matter and they have deposed their
statements in Hindi.
296. PW 1 Mohd. Hashim, 75 years old (in July 1996). He is
plaintiff no.7 in Suit-4 and defendant no. 5 in Suit-5/89. He was
cross examined on :
(a) 24/25/26.07.1996, 01/05/06.08.1996 -by Sri
R.L.Verma, Advocate on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara,
defendant no. 3 (p. 6-76)
(b) 06/07.08.1996-by Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate, on
behalf of defendant no.13 (p. 76-90)
(c) 20/21.08.1996-by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate,
for Sri Umesh Chandra, defendant no. 22 (p. 91-110)
(d) 21/22.08.1996-by Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate, for
Paramhans Ramchandra Das, defendant no. 2 (p. 110-
128)
(e) 22/23.08.1996-by Sri Harishankar Jain, Advocate, for
Hindu Mahasabha, defendant no. 10 and adopted by
defendant no. 17 (p. 128-146)
(f) 23/26.08.9196-by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, plaintiff
in Suit-1 through Sri P. L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 146-164)
(g) 26/27/29.08.1996-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal,
plaintiff no.3 in Suit-5 (p. 164-192)
297. He is a tailor by profession, resides at Mohalla Kothia,
 312

Ayodhya, district Faizabad. His father late Karim Bux died in

1932 at the age of 85 years who was also a tailor. Since
generations, he is residing at Ayodhya. He has an ancestral
house. His residence falls in Mauza Jalwanpur, owned by Rais
Dula Ram who permitted Peer Bux (grandfather of PW 1) to
construct a house in the said area. His tailor's shop is in Mohalla
Shringhar Hat. He studied upto Class V in Madarsa Islamia,
Mohalla Kaziana and passed out Class V in 1936. He knows
only Urdu. His residence is about three furlongs away from the
disputed site. He was taught Quran Sharif by Maulvi Abdul
Gaffar. He went to offer Namaz in Babri mosque for the first
time in 1938. At that time, Friday's Namaz used to be performed
in two mosques but Taravi Namaz (Special prayer/namaz
performed after Isha Namaz during the pious month of Ramzan)
used to be performed only in Babri mosque in the month of
Ramzan. The prayer (Namaz) used to be offered five times in a
day in Babri mosque. Then said that sometimes Namaz was
offered five times besides Friday's and Taravi Namaz. The
water (wazoo) used to be arranged in big pitchers. Imam of the
mosque was Maulvi Abdul Gaffar who had died. Moazzim (a
person calling Azan loudly) was Ismail. He last offered Namaz
on 22.12.1949. From the night of 22/23rd December 1949, the
Government imposed prohibition. Idols were placed inside by
Abhay Ram Das, Dharam Das and many others. There was a
large gathering. In the morning when he went for Namaz, Cops
were present there. Ramdeo Dubey and Mata Prasad,
Constables, were there who told that Dharam Das, Abhay Ram
Das and many others have placed idols inside and he should
keep patience. Consequently, he could not offer Namaz as the
same was not allowed. Later on, Daroga told that he had lodged
 313

FIR and the mosque had been attached. In 1954 he and many
others attempted to offer Namaz thereat for which the
Government was also put on notice but could not offer. He and
many others, i.e. 100 boys were imposed fine of Rs. 500/- each
and six months imprisonment for committing breach of Section
144 Cr.P.C. In appeal the punishment was reduced to two
months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50/-which they underwent.
When he went to offer Namaz, many persons, namely, Mohd.
Kashim, Mohd. Ekhlaq, Jaan Mohammad, Rajjab Ali and many
others accompanied him. The arrangement of mosque used to be
made by Mutawalli Zaki Sahab and Zabbar who were brothers.
After placing the idols a suit was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad.
The witness was not a party. He was pursuing proceedings
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. wherein other parties were Hazi
Mohd. Fayaq, Mohd. Sami, Zahoor Ahmad, Ahmad Hussain @
Achchan and Sunni Board. He verified the following
photographs with the details as mentioned hereunder:
(i) Photograph No. 1 (Paper No. 154/4): Main gate of
Babari Mosque.
(ii) Photograph No. 2 (Paper No. 154/5): Stairs from
North to South, Babari Mosque.
(iii) Photograph No. 4 (Paper No. 154/7): Western
portion of the back of Babari Mosque.
(iv) Photograph No. 1 (Paper No. 154/4): Front portion
of the place where Imam stands while offering Namaz.
(v) Photograph No. 9 (Paper No. 154/12): Upper portion
of the place where Imam stands while offering Namaz.
(vi) Photograph No. 10 (Paper No. 154/13): The place
where the Imam delivers Katwa.
(vii) Photograph No. 13 (Paper No. 154/6): Internal
 314

urinal in the premises of Babari Mosque.

298. PW 1 further deposed that Ganj-E-Shahidan is in the east
of the mosque. On the northern side there is a road and beyond
that is a temple Janam Asthan. A signboard is also affixed at
Janam Asthan. On the southern side of the mosque is a
graveyard. Leaving the western side of the mosque, on all sides
there is a graveyard in 9½ Bighas. There were several graves in
1949 which were adjacent and large in number. There was a
gate each on northern and eastern side of the mosque. The
northern gate opened on the road while the eastern side did not
join with any passage but was connected with a brick road.
Entry was mostly from the eastern gate of the mosque. In the
way there was no restriction/obstruction from entering the
mosque through the gate. Earlier when they used to enter from
the eastern gate there used to be a Chabutara whereupon
sometimes the priest used to sit. This Chabutara was about ten
steps away from the passage and covered by thatch. Near the
northern gate of the mosque there was a Chulha used to be
called “Sita Rasoi”. No obstruction caused while entering from
that side due to Rasoi. There was a wall in front of Sita Rasoi.
When the crowd swell, the northern gate used to be opened for
passage. The northern and eastern gates were surrounded by a
boundary wall. There was another wall of the mosque where
there was main door which was locked. This lock was put on the
date when the mosque was attached. No idols were placed inside
the mosque upto 22.12.1949. No worship (Pooja) was
performed inside the mosque ever. Therein Namaz used to be
offered. It was a mosque and never a temple. Had Babur
constructed the mosque after demolishing the temple, no
Muslim would have offered Namaz therein. The suit plaint was
 315

prepared by Sri Ayub Sahib (Vakil). PW1 besides Mohd.

Kashim, Maulana Nasir, Maulana Vakulddin, Athar Ali, Zahoor
Ahmed, Fayaq, Mahmood and Shahabuddin also used to go for
preparation of the case. The notice of the suit was given by Sri
Ayub to the officers of Faizabad, Government and the Receiver
Priya Dutt Ram. Notice meant for Receiver returned unserved.
He verified the signature of Ayub on paper no. 44 Ka-1, (Ex.
56-Suit-4). Papers no. 33 Ga (Ex. 57), 35Ga (Ex. 58), 37Ga (Ex.
59), 39Ka (Ex. 60) and 41 Ka-1 (Ex. 61) in Suit-4 are the
acknowledgments received after service of notice. The building
of the mosque was demolished on 6.12.1992 and a boundary
wall has been constructed. The building was demolished by Kar
Sewaks, many of whom belong to Bajarang Dal, Shiv Sena and
RSS. The demolition took place in presence of the officers and
Force. After demolition of the building, idols kept therein as
well as bricks were taken away by the people. New idols kept
inside the boundary wall constructed on 7.12.1992. On the
outer side of the mosque, there is a Chabutara in respect whereto
Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit in 1885 but he lost that case
throughout from Faizabad to Lucknow.
299. P.W. 2, Haji Mahboob Ahmad, 58 years of age (in
September, 1996). He was cross examined as under :
(a) 17/18/19.09.1996-by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 3
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 2-63)
(b) 20.09.1996-by Sri Dharmdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 64-71)
(c) 20.09.1996- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through Sri
Vireshwar Mishra, Advocate (p. 72-82)
(d) 23.09.1996-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri M.M. Pandey, Advocate (p. 83-92)
 316

(e) 23/24.09.1996-by Sri Rajendra, son of Sri Gopal Singh

Visharad, through Sri P.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 92-106)
(f) 24.09.1996-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
himself and next friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p.
106-112)
(g) 07.10.1996- by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 113-119)
300. He is a graduate of 1967, did his High School in 1961 at
the age of about 21 years, date of birth mentioned in High
School certificate is 1944; is resident of Tedhi Bazar, Ayodhya,
district Faizabad and his house is situated about three furlongs
away from mosque (Babari mosque). He had offered Namaz in
Babari mosque hundreds of times. Besides Friday Namaz he
used to offer five times Namaz thereat till 22.12.1949. In 1949,
Friday Namaz and Taravi Namaz used to be offered in Ayodhya
only in two mosques. The main gate was in the east of the
mosque whereafter there was a lawn and again a gate, then a
courtyard and then the mosque. Outside the main gate of the
mosque there was a graveyard. There was no obstruction in
visiting the mosque for offering Namaz. He never saw any
worship (Pooja) etc. being performed inside the mosque. His
father used to take interest in the arrangement of the mosque and
was plaintiff also in the suit. By profession he was a Zamindar-
farmer. He possessed 200 Bighas of agricultural land and died
in 1960. PW 2 used to visit mosque for Namaz alongwith his
father. He had seen many people offering Namaz therein. Out of
those persons, Hashim, Abdul Ahaq, Hazi Fayaq, Rajjab Ali,
Ashraf Ali and Ekhlaq are the names he could recollect.
Besides, many others also used to perform Namaz. Haji Gaffar
 317

was Imam of the mosque. Water used to be arranged in big

pitchers. There was a well outside wherefrom water used to be
brought. There was adequate arrangement for Wazoo. PW 1 is
the President of Mukabir Masajid Committee. The incident of
6.12.1992 took place in his presence. He saw demolition of
mosque from the roof of his house. He talked with Kumar
Manglam, at that time a Minister in the then Central
Government. He also talked with the Prime Minister and sent a
telegram. He heard the noise shouting “demolish the mosque”
(Masjid Gira Do). The voice was mainly of Km. Uma Bharti
who was a leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad. In the night of 6/7th
December 1992 after constructing a Chabutara, some idols kept
thereat and rest of the place is vacant. He heard that old idols
got broken and the people took away the same. New idols were
kept thereat. His own house, the entire building and factory
were set ablaze in this incident for which a compensation of Rs.
10,000/- was offered which he refused to accept. He is still
residing at the same residence where he was on 6.12.1992.
301. PW 3-Farooq Ahmad, son of Zahoor Ahmad, aged about
90 years (in October 1996). He was cross examined as under :
(a) 07/08/10.10.1996-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma Advocate (p. 1-33)
(b) 11/14/15.10.1996-by Sri Dharmdas through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (p. 34-69)
(c) 15/16.10.1996-by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through
Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 69-91)
(d) 16.10.1996-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate (p. 91-98)
(e) 16.10.1996- by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
 318

(p. 98-102)
(f) 16/17.10.1996-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p.
103-108)
(g) 17.10.1996-by Sri D.N. Agarwal on behalf of himself
and other 2 plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 108-117)
302. He is a shopkeeper by profession and resides at Mohalla
Naugaji, Ayodhya, district Faizabad. His predecessors are old
residents of Ayodhya, for the last about 700 years. He used to
offer Namaz in Babari mosque besides Friday Namaz. Last
time, he offered Namaz in December 1949. After Isha Namaz,
Daroga Ramdeo told his father that there is apprehension of
something untoward and therefore, the premises be locked. He
himself locked it and key was handed over to his father. A
report was also lodged. After offering Isha Namaz in the last of
December they went to their house. Namaz used to be offered
by him along with others like, Hazi Faiku, Hashim and Kasim
etc. Photographs no. 83 and 84 (Black and White Photographs
Album prepared by the Department of U.P. State
Archaeological Association are that of Babari Mosque and its
floor. Inside there was a Mehrab (arches) and rows (Safai)
where the people used to offer Namaz.
303. PW4-Mohd. Yaseen, aged about 66 years (in October
1996). He was cross examined in the following manner ;
(a) 29/30.10.1996-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate started (p. 3-25)
(b) 31.10.1996-by Sri Dharmdas through Sri Ved Prakash,
Advocate (p. 26-46)
(c) 01.11.1996-by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 47-54)
 319

(d) 01.11.1996- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das

through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 54-57)
(e) 01.11.1996- by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Harishankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 58-65)
(f) 01/05.11.1996-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p.65-
70)
(g) 05.11.1996-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
himself and next friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 70-
79)
304. He is a shoe-maker residing in Mohalla Raiganj Gudiana,
Ayodhya District Faizabad. He is acquainted with the disputed
place. The building was Babri mosque and the adjacent area a
graveyard which was on three sides of the mosque. No
graveyard on the west side. The Babari mosque, he has learnt, is
about 475 years old and was being used for offering Namaz. He
has seen it clearly and himself used to offer Friday Namaz
regularly. No other Namaz had been offered by him except
Friday Namaz. Last time he offered Friday Namaz about 47
years ago. In the night intervening 22/23 December, 1949, idols
were placed inside on account whereof Namaz could not be
offered. He started offering Namaz since the age of eight years
but on attaining majority started offering daily Namaz. Earlier
he did not offer five times Namaz. Before attaining majority, he
used to offer Fazir Namaz and sometimes Magrib Namaz. He
used to offer Friday Namaz since the age of about twelve years.
He offered Friday Namaz at Babri mosque which is a
congregational Namaz and offered by the entire city. He used to
meet Mohd. Hashim, Mahboob, Kashim, Hidaytullah, Safi
 320

Ullah, Rutmallu alias Abdulla of Suthati mohalla. Ekhlakh of

Durohi Kunwa is alive who met frequently. Regarding the
inside topography of the mosque, he said:
^^bl efLtn dk fudkl iwjc dh rjQ vkSj mRrj dh rjQ FkkA
efLtn esa otw dk bUrtke Hkh FkkA ikuh dk bUrtke eqroYyh djkrk
Fkk efLtn ds lkeus dqvkWa FkkA otw efLtn esa nfD[ku dh rjQ gksrk
FkkA pVkbZ] cnuk ds vykok is'kkc?kj dk Hkh ogkWa bUrtke FkkA efLtn
esa vtku Hkh gksrh FkhA nfD[ku dh rjQ lkbZM esa FkksM+k lk ÅWapk pcwrjk
Fkk ml ij [kM+s gksdj eqvfTte vtku nsrk Fkk is'kkc ?kj ds FkksM+k
Qklys ij efLtn ds Åij tkus ds fy, thuk Hkh Fkk ;g vtku okyk
pcwrjk thus ls vyx FkkA efLtn esa tgkWa vUnj uekt i<+h tkrh Fkh
ogkWa lQksa dh ydhjsa cuh FkhA efLtn esa dkys iRFkj Hkh yxs FksA ysfdu
mu ij dksbZ nsoh nsorkvksa dh rLohjsa ugha FkhA mu ij xeyksa dh 'kDy
esa Qwy ifRr;kW cuh FkhA**
“The exit of this mosque was in the east and north.
There was arrangement for Vazu in the mosque. The
arrangement of water was made by the Mutwalli. There
was a well in front of the mosque. The Vazu took place in
south of the mosque. Apart from mat and broom, there was
provision of urinal at that place. Ajaan also was given from
the mosque. There was a slightly higher platform on south
of the mosque. The Muajjim used to give the Ajaan call
from that platform. There was a staircase to go up in the
mosque, at a short distance from the urinal. This Ajaan
platform was different from the staircase. Lines from pages
were present inside the mosque, at the place where Namaz
was offered. Black stones had also been installed in the
mosque but they did not contain any picture of Gods and
Goddesses. They had pictures of flowers and leaves in form
of pots.” (English Translation by Court, now referred as
'E.T.C.')
 321

305. P.W. 5 Abdul Rehman, son of Saiuddin, 71 years of age

(in November, 1996). His cross examination followed as under :
(a) 05/06.11.1996-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 2-32)
(b) 07.11.1996-by Dharamdas through Sri Ved Prakash,
Advocate (p. 33-37)
(c) 07.11.1996- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 37-44)
(d) 07.11.1996- by Rajendra Singh, son of Gopal Singh
Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 44-45)
(e) 07.11.1996- by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
himself and next friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 45-
49)
(f) 08.11.1996-by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 50-53)
(g) 28.11.1996-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate (p. 54-64)
306. He is Hafiz Quran and is a resident of Ibrahimpur
Pargana Mangalsi, Tahsil and District Faizabad. He started
education at Jaganpur which is a nearby village of his residence,
whereafter went to Madarasa Aliya Furkania situated at Chowk,
Lucknow and completed his education thereat. He got certificate
from the said institution. He remembers the entire Quran Sharif
and that is why he is called 'Hafiz'. He deposed about offering of
Namaz in the disputed mosque prior to 1949 as under:
^^eSa jetku rjkch es dqjku 'kjhQ lqukrk gwWA igys igy eSaus
dqjku 'kjhQ rjkch esa e'kdxat y[kuÅ esa lquk;k FkkA ftl xkao esa eSa
jgrk gwWa ogkWa Hkh efLtn gSA ml xkao dh efLtn esa Hkh rjkch esa eSaus
dqjku 'kjhQ lquk;k gSA blds vykok Hkh vkSj cgqr ls txg eSaus dqjku
'kjhQ lquk;k gSA 1945 vkSj 46 esa rks eSaus ckcjh efLtn esa Hkh dqjku
 322

'kjhQ lquk;k FkkA ;g ckcjh efLtn v;ks/;k esa FkhA eSaus dbZ lky rd
cEcbZ esa Hkh dqjku 'kjhQ lquk;k gSA v;ks/;k gekjs xkao ls rdjhcu
18&19 fdeh0 nwj gSA eSaus v;ks/;k esa iwjk dqjku 'kjhQ lquk;k FkkA nksuksa
lky esa iwjk lquk;k FkkA eq>s ogka ij gkth Qsdw us cqyk;k FkkA ftl
jkst dqjku 'kjhQ iwjk lquk fn;k x;k Fkk mlds ckn eq>s 'kguok ls
vk;s gq, eqrOOyh us ftldk uke eq>s vc ;kn ugha nl :i;s crkSj
utjkuk Hkh fn;k FkkA ;g utjkuk nksuksa nQs fn;k x;k FkkA ckotwn esjh
budkjh dsA eqroYyh lguok ds jgus okys Fks A tc eSa v;ks/;k dqjku
'kjhQ lqukus tkrk Fkk rks mu fnuksa esa tqEes dh uekt eSa ckcjh efLtn
esa i<+rk FkkA tc eSa dqjku 'kjhQ lqukrk Fkk rks rjkch dh uekt Hkh
i<+krk FkkA rjkch dh uekt esa dqjku 'kjhQ lquk;k tkrk gSA blds
vykok esjk v;ks/;k de tkuk gksrk FkkA dHkh tkrk Fkk rks ckcjh efLtn
esa uekt i< ysrk FkkA**
“I pronounce the holy Quran in Remzan Tarabi. I
had pronounced the holy Quran in Tarabi for the first time
at Mashakganj, Lucknow. There is a mosque as well in the
village, in which I reside. In the mosque of that village
also, I have pronounced the holy Quran in Tarabi. I have
pronounced the holy Quran at many places, other than the
above. In 1945 and 46, I had pronounced the holy Quran in
the Babri mosque. This Babri mosque was in Ayodhya. I
have pronounced the holy Quran in Bombay for many
years. Ayodhya is about 18-19 Km. from my village. I had
pronounced the complete holy Quran in Ayodhya.
Complete pronouncement took place in both years. I had
invited there by Hazi Faiku. The day on which I
pronounced the complete holy Quran, a Mutwalli from
Shahanwa whose name I do not remember, had given me
Rs. 10/- as gift. This gift was given to me on both the
occasion despite my refusal. The Mutwalli belonged to
Shahanwa. Whenever I went to Ayodhya to pronounce the
 323

holy Quran, I used to offer the Namaz of Jumma at the

Babri mosque. Whenever I pronounced the holy Quran, I
used to read out the Namaz of Tarabi. The holy Quran is
read out in Namaz of Tarabi. Apart from this, my visits to
Ayodhya were few. Whenever I visited, I used to offer
Namaz at the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C.)
307. P.W. 6, Mohd. Yunus Siddiqi, son of late Hafiz Ahmad,
resident of Mohalla Reedhganj, district Faizabad, was aged
about 63 years (in November, 1996). His Examination-in-chief
commenced on 28.11.1996 and cross examination followed as
under :
(a) 29.11.1996-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 4-24)
(b) 02.12.1996-by Dharamdas through Sri Ved Prakash,
Advocate (p. 25-29)
(c) 02/03.12.1996- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through
Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 29-48)
(d) 03.12.1996- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (48-56)
(e) 03/04.12.1996-Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(57-65)
(f) 04.12.1996- by Sri Rajendra, son of Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad, through Sri P.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 65-70),
Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff himself and next
friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 70-84)
308. He was enrolled as pleader on 9th July, 1955 at Lucknow
and joined as trainee, the chamber of Sri Shyam Lal Mishra,
Advocate, (working on Criminal side), Sri Kohli (a Tax
Consultant) and Sri Ram Gupta (practicing in Sales Tax). He
 324

left Lucknow and came to Faizabad in 1956 and started

practicing Law on criminal side. Presently he is practising
mainly in sales tax matters. He did High School in 1948,
Intermediate in 1950 from Government Inter college, Faizabad,
Graduation from Lucknow University in 1952 and M.A. and
LL.B from Aligarh Muslim University in 1954. He was counsel
of the plaintiffs though presently he is not looking after this
matter. He left pairavi of the case since 1965. He also verified
that the disputed building was known as Babri mosque where he
had gone and offered Namaz. For the first time, he offered
Namaz in the night of Shabbe-Raat. His deposition about the
location, inside and adjacent of the disputed building is as
under:
^^bekjr eqrnkfo;k ckcjh efLtn ds uke ls tkuh tkrh FkhA vkSj eSa
blesa x;k gqvk gwWaA ogkWa eSaus uekt Hkh i<+h FkhA eSa tc 12&13 lky dh
mez dk Fkk rks igyh erZck vius HkkbZ lkgc ds lkFk 'kCcsjkr dh jkr
dks bl efLtn esa x;k FkkA mlds ckn gj lky 'kCcsjkr dh jkr dks eSa
bl efLtn esa tk;k djrk FkkA eSa ogkWa fnu esa Hkh x;k gqvk gwWaA eSaus ogkWa
ij fnu esa flQZ ,d uekt i<+h gS ckdh 'kCcsjkr ds ekSds ij uQysa i<+h
gSaA eSaus fnu dh uekt bl efLtn esa flQZ ml oDr i<+h Fkh tc ogkWa
cqr j[kk x;k rks mlls igys tqEes ds jkst tks uekt tekrh rkSj ij gqbZ
FkhA cqr j[kus ds ckn eSa bl txg ij ,d rks losZ ds oDr x;k Fkk vkSj
,d ckj 1991 esa jkr ds oDr tc rksM+ QksM+ gqbZ rks eq>s dfe'uj lkgc
us Hkstk FkkA ;g rksM+QksM+ fnu esa gqbZ FkhA dfe'uj lkgc us eq>s jkr dks
Hkstk FkkA tc 'kCcsjkr dh jkr dks ogkWa uekt i<+us tkrs Fks rks Qkfr;k
Hkh i<+rs FksA Qkfr;k i<+us dk gh vlyh edln ml uekt ij gksrk gSA
Qkfr;k ckcjh efLtn ds xats 'kghnk ij vkSj vxy cxy dh dfczLrku
ij] [oktk gV~Vh ds etkj ij] 'kkg bczkfge lkgc ds etkj ij] ukSxth
dcz ij] 'kh'k iSxEcj dh dcz ij tgkWa mudh njxkg gS ij Qkfr;k
i<+rk FkkA bu txgksa ij eSa fiNys ikap lkr lky esa viuh futh
etcwfj;ksa dh otg ls ugha tk ldrk ojuk 1949 ds ckn flok; ckcjh
 325

efLtn ds bu lc txgksa ij eSa Qkfr;k i<+us tkrk jgk gwWaA

1949 esa tc ewfrZ;k efLtn esa j[kh x;h rks mlls igys geus
bl txg ij dHkh dksbZ ewfrZ ugha ns[khA
1949 rd eSaus efLtn ;k blds vgkrs esa dHkh fgUnqvksa dks dksbZ
iwtk n'kZu djrs ugha ns[kkA 22 fnlEcj 1949 rd bl efLtn esa uekt
i<+us ij dHkh dksbZ fdlh rjg dh :dkoV ugha vk;hA**
“The disputed building was known as Babri mosque
and I have been there. I have even offered Namaz there.
When I was about 12-13 years old, I had gone to this
mosque for the first time along with my brother in the night
of Shabbe-Raat. I have been there during day time as well.
I have offered Namaz only once at that place during day
time and on remaining occasions I had read ‘Nafle’ on
Shabbe-Raat. I had offered Namaz during day time in this
mosque only at time of the collective Namaz of Jumma
prior to installation of idol at that place. After installation
of the idols, I had once been to that place at time of survey
and once in 1991, the Commissioner had sent me in the
night when the demolition took place. This demolition had
taken place during day time and the Commissioner had
sent me in the night. Whenever I went in the night of
Shabbe-Raat to offer Namaz, I used to read ‘Fatiya’
(prayers for the dead). Reading of Fatiya is the main
purpose of that Namaz. I used to read the Fatiya at the
‘Ganje Shahinda’ of Babri mosque, adjoining graveyard,
tomb of Khwaja Hatti, tomb of Shah Ibrahim, grave of
Naugji, grave of Shish Prophet. I have not been able to
visit these places for last 5-7 years due to my personal
problems otherwise after 1949 I had been visiting these
places except for Babri mosque, to read Fatiya.
Prior to the placement of idols in the mosque in
 326

1949, I had not seen any idol at that place.

Till 1949 I had not seen any Hindu perform worship
in the mosque or within its premises. There was no
obstruction for offering Namaz in this mosque upto 22nd
December, 1949.” (E.T.C.)
309. P.W. 7 Hasmat-ulla-Ansari, son of Sri Niyamat Ulla,
resident of Mohalla Kajiyana, Ayodhya, district Faizabad was
aged about 65 years (in December, 1996). His Examination-in-
chief commenced on 05.12.1996 and cross examination
followed as under :
(a) 05/06.12.1996- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 2-36)
(b) 09.12.1996- by Dharamdas through Sri Ved Prakash,
Advocate (p. 37-51)
(c) 09/10.12.1996- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey
through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 51-68)
(d) 10.12.1996- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 68-76)
(e) 14.01.1997- by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
himself and next friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 77-
81), Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 82-90)
(f) 15.01.1997-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 91-94)
310. By profession a typist, he was born in 1932 and educated
upto High School. However, his High School certificate
mentions his date of birth as 8.1.1934, but he claims it to be
wrong and says that his correct year of birth is 1932. He was
admitted in class VIII by his brother-in-law (bahnoi) who got
 327

his date of birth recorded in the school. Prior thereto he passed

middle school at Katra which is near Suthati, Ayodhya. There
he studied for about 1½ years. He verified the identity of the
disputed building as “Babri mosque” and said that he had
offered Namaz thereat hundreds of times commencing from
1943 and had gone thereat till 1949. He also claimed that it was
never a temple and no Hindu offered worship thereat till
22.12.1949. The relevant extract of his statement in chief is as
under:
^^eq>s ekywe gS fd ;g eqdnek ckcjh efLtn ds ckcr py jgk
gSA ogka ij eSaus uekt i<+h gSA lSdM+ks ckj i<+h gSA lcls igys eSaus ogkWa
ij uekt 1943 esa i<+h FkhA tc cq r j[kk x;k mlds ,d gQ~ r k
igy s rd eS a ogkW a eq r okfrj uekt i<+r k FkkA ;g cqr 22&23
fnlEcj 1949 dh nfjE;kuh jkr dks j[kk x;k FkkA ;g efLtn esa j[kk
x;k FkkA mlds nk s fnu igy s eS au s uekt i<+h Fkh ysfdu mlds
ckn uekt dHkh ugha i<+hA 22 fnlEcj 1949 rd ml efLtn esa
uekt i<+h x;h gS A
ekSyoh vCnqy xQ~Qkj lkgc bl efLtn ds beke FksA efLtn esa
tqEes dh uekt Hkh gksrh Fkh vkSj ikapksa oDr dh uekt Hkh gksrh FkhA
jetku esa rkjkch dh uekt Hkh ogka gqvk djrh FkhA 1949 esa rjkch dh
uekt flQZ ckcjh efLtn esa gksrh FkhA tqEes dh uekt ;k rks ckcjh
efLtn esa gksrh Fkh ;k dsoM+k dh efLtn esa gksrh FkhA tgwj ds yM+ds
Qk:[k] eks0 gkf'ke] gkth egcwc mlds cM+s HkkbZ gkth vCnqy vgn mu
yksxksa esa ls gSa tks esjs lkFk ogka uekt i<+k djrs Fks vkSj vHkh rd ftUnk
gaSA 22 fnlEcj 1949 rd eS au s bl efLtn es a u dHkh dk sb Z
ewf rZ ns[ kh u fdlh dk s iwt k ikB djrs ns[ kkA geus dHkh ogkWa
fgUnqvksa dks n'kZuksa ds fy, vkrs Hkh ugha ns[kkA 22 fnlEcj 1949 rd
bl efLtn dk bartke ;k rks gkth QsaDdw djrs Fks ;k tgwj vgen
djrs FksA**
“I know that this case is pending regarding Babri
mosque. I have offered Namaz there on hundreds of
 328

occasions. I had offered Namaz there for the first time in

1943. I used to offer Namaz continuously there upto one
week before the installation of the idols. These idols had
been placed in the intervening night of 22-23 December,
1949. They had been placed in the mosque. I had offered
Namaz just two days before that, but never thereafter.
Namaz had been offered in that mosque till 22nd
December, 1949.
Maulvi Abdul Gaffar was the Imam of this mosque.
The Jumma Namaz was also offered in this mosque, besides
the five times Namaz. In 1949, only the Tarabi Namaz was
offered in the Babri mosque. The Jumma Namaz was
offered either in Babri mosque or in Kewra mosque.
Zahoor’s son Farookh, Mohd. Hashim, Hazi Mahboob, his
elder brother Hazi Abdul Ahad were amongst such person
who used to offer Namaz at that place along with me and
are still alive. Till 22nd December, 1949 I had neither
seen any idol in that mosque nor had seen anybody
perform worship. I had never seen Hindus visiting that
place for worship. Till 22nd December, 1949, the
management of this mosque was under Hazi Faiku or
Zahoor Ahmad.” (E.T.C.)
311. P.W. 8 Abdul Ajij, son of Hasan Mohammad, aged about
70 years (in January 1997), resident of Shahjahanpur, Faizabad.
His Examination-in-chief commenced on 20.01.1997 and cross
examination followed as under :
(a) 21/22.01.1997- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 2-40)
(b) 24/27.01.1997-by Dharamdas through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (41-53)
 329

(c) 27.01.1997-by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey through Sri

Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 53-64)
(d) 27/28.01.1997-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 64-72)
(e) 28.01.1997-Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 72-77), by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 77-78), by
Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff himself and next
friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 78-82)
312. He was born around 1926 and started offering Namaz at
the age of 8 years. He studied upto Class IV which was
completed in 1942 when he was also issued certificate. Engaged
in the business of making shoes, he married firstly in 1947 and
his second marriage solemnized in 1951, had six children
including two married sons. His eldest son is aged 43 years,
whose eldest son (grandson of PW 8) is about 15-16 years. His
sons have a shoe factory. He also deposed about the identity of
disputed building as a mosque and said that he had offered
prayer therein till the idols were kept therein in 1949. His
statement regarding the said facts is as under:
^^eS ckcjh efLtn dks tkurk gwWaA eSaus ogkWa ij uekt i<+h gSA tc
eSaus igyh nQk ogkWa ij uekt i<+h rks esjh mez rdjhcu 10 lky jgh
gksxhA eaSus lSdM+ks ckj ogkWa uekt i<+h gksxhA eSaus tqEes dh uekt Hkh
ogkWa i<+h gSA blds vykok tksgj dh vkSj vlj dh uektsa ogkWa i<+h gS
'kCcs ckjkr esa Hkh ogka ij uektsa i<+h gSaA ogkWa ij ewfrZ j[kus ds ckn
gekjk uekt i<+uk can gks x;kA ewfrZ 1949 esa j[kh x;h FkhA**
“I know Babri mosque. I have offered Namaz there.
When I first offered Namaz there, I was aged about 10
years. I must have offered Namaz at that place on hundreds
of occasions. I have offered Jumma’s Namaz at that place,
 330

besides the Namaz of Zohar and Asar. I have offered

Namaz at that place in Shabbe-Raat as well. My offering of
Namaz was stopped after installation of idols at that place.
The idols had been placed in 1949.” (E.T.C.)
313. P.W. 9 Saiyed Ekhalaq, S/o Syed Haji Abdul Sattar, aged
about 60 years (in February 1997), a resident of Mohalla Doraha
Kuan, Ayodhya, Faizabad. His Examination-in-chief
commenced on 18.02.1997 and cross examination followed as
under :
(a) 19.02.1997- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 21-39)
(b) 20.02.1997- by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
himself and next friend to other plaintiffs in Suit-5 (p. 40-
52)
(c) 20/21.02.1997- by Dharamdas through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (p. 52-63)
(d) 21/25/26.02.1997- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey
through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 63-92)
(e) 26.02.1997- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 92-106)
(f) 27.02.1997- by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 107-116)
(g) 27/28.02.1997- by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri
Gopal Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate
(p. 116-132)
314. By profession he is a Transporter. He is Hafiz of Quran
Sharif and succeeded the office of Khan Ka Shah Muzaffar
Kudasirarhu. He has also deposed that the disputed building was
known as “Babri mosque” and he used to offer Namaz therein
 331

prior to 1949 when the idols were placed and thereafter he

ceased to offer prayer therein. He also gave some topography,
inside and outside of the disputed building, and said as under:
^^>xM+s okyh tk;nkn ftldh ckcr eSa xokgh nsus vk;k gwWa]
ckcjh efLtn dgh tkrh FkhA esjk edku blls rdjhcu ,d QykZax ds
Qklys ij okdk gSA eSaus bl efLtn esa uekt i<+h gSA eSaus blesa tqEes
dh uekt Hkh i<+h gS vkSj iapoDrk dh uekt Hkh i<+h gSA esjs vius
edku ds nkyku ¼vkgkrk½ esa ,d efLtn gSA ml efLtn esa 1949 ls
igys tqEes dh uekt ugha gksrh FkhA 1949 ls igy s tq E es dh
uekt eS a ckcjh efLtn es a i<+r k FkkA dHkh&dHkh eq L rfdy
rkS j ls eS au s ik ap oDr dh uekt Hkh ckcjh efLtn esa i<+h
gS A gekjs vius vgkrs dh efLtn esa tqEes dh tekrh uekt ugha gksrh
Fkh] ysfdu nwljh uekt ogkWa Hkh i<+ ysrk FkkA gekjs ;gka viuh bl
efLtn esa tekrh uekt iapoDrh ugha gksrh FkhA ml tekus esa ekSyoh
vCnqy x~Q~Qkj lkgc ckcjh efLtn esa beker djrs FksA fe;ka bZLekby
ml oDr ogkWa ij eksvfTte FksA og gekjs gh dSEil esa jgrs FksA vkSj
yksx Hkh uekt i<+us ds fy, ckcjh efLtn esa tkrs FksA mu yksxksa esa ls
tks vc rd ftUnk gSa eksgEen vehj] eYgw] uwj eksgEen vkSj dqN
QStkckn ds yksx Hkh] ftuls dHkh dHkh eqykdkr gks tkrh Fkh] vHkh rd
gSaA 'kkgtgkWaiqj ds yksx Hkh bl efLtn esa vkrs FksA ;g tqEes dh uekt
dh fy, vkrs FksA
22&23 fnlEcj 1949 ds ckn eS au s ogkW a ij uekt
ugh a i<+h gS A D;ksafd ogkWa ij cqr j[k fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj efLtn
uekt ds fy, can dj nh x;h FkhA
ftu yksxksa ds uke eSaus Åij cryk;s gSa vkSj tks buesa ls v;ks/;k
ds jgus okys gSa] og bl efLtn esa tqEes dh uekt Hkh i<+rs Fks vkSj
iapoDrh uekt Hkh i<+rs Fks dHkh&dHkhA tgka ij beke lkgc [kM+s gksrs
Fks og ,d [kkl txg esgjkc Vkbi dh nhokj esa cuh gqbZ FkhA ,d esEcj
Fkk] ftl ij beke lkgc [kqrck nsrs FksA efLtn esa otw dk bartke Fkk]
eVds j[ks tkrs Fks] ftuesa ikuh Hkjk gksrk FkkA muds vykok c<+us Fks
ftuds tfj;s eVdksa ls ikuh fudkyk tkrk FkkA vke uekft;ksa ds fy,
efLtn ds van:uh fgLls esa [kkdh iRFkj ij dkys iRFkj dk ckMZj Fkk
 332

vkSj vkSj lQsa cuh gqbZ FkhaA efLtn esa is'kkc[kkuk Hkh cuk gqvk FkkA
nfD[ku dh rjQ ,d thuk cuk gqvk Fkk] dHkh thus ij ls vkSj dHkh
mldh utnhd dh tehu ls vtku nh tkrh FkhA**
“The disputed property, about which I have come to
give evidence, is called the Babri mosque. My house is
situated a furlong from it. I have offered Namaz in this
mosque. I have offered Jumma’s Namaz as well as five time
Namaz in it. There is a mosque within the campus of my
house. The Jumma Namaz was not offered in that mosque
prior to 1949. Prior to 1949, I used to offer Jumma’s
Namaz in the Babri mosque. Occasionally, I have
offered five times Namaz in Babri mosque on regular
basis. The collective Jumma’s Namaz was not offered in
the mosque within my campus, but other Namaz were
offered. The collective Namaz was not offered five times in
this mosque of mine. In those days, Maulvi Abdul Gaffar
was the Imam of Babri mosque. Miyan Ismile was the
Muajjim at that time. He used to reside in my campus and
they also used to go the Babri mosque for offering Namaz.
Few of them still alive are Mohd. Amir, Mallhu, Noor
Mohammad and few persons of Faizabad, and they come
across occasionally. The people of Shahjahanpur also
visited this mosque for Jumma’s Namaz.
I did not offer Namaz at that place after 22-23
December, 1949, because idols had been installed there
and the mosque had been closed for Namaz.
The persons named above, who are residents of
Ayodhya, used to offer Jumma’s Namaz in this mosque and
occasionally even the five times Namaz. The place where
the Imam used to stand, was a special place like Meharaab
in the wall. There was a member, for whom the Imam used
 333

to give ‘Khutba’ (recitation). Arrangement was also made

in the mosque for Vazu, pots full of water were kept. Apart
from them, there were ‘Badhne’ for taking out water from
the pots. There was border of black stone on brown stones
in the inner portion of the mosque, for common Namazists
and ‘Sarf’ had been marked. Urinal had also been
provided in the mosque. There was a staircase to the south.
Sometimes, the Ajaan was called out from the staircase and
sometimes from its adjoining land.” (E.T.C.)
315. P.W. 14 Jalil Ahmad son of Sri Mohd. Yakoob, aged
about 78 years (in February 1999) was a resident of Kheerwali
Gali in Faizabad, and engaged in the business of cloth and
shoes. His Examination-in-chief commenced on 16.02.1999 and
cross examination followed as under :
(a) 16/17/18.02.1999-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 2-38)
(b)18/19.02.1999- by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 38-44 )
(c)19/20.02.1999-by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey,
defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 44-64)
(d)17.03.1999- Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate, (p. 65-79)
(e)17.03.1999-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 79-
85)
(f)18.03.1999- Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 85-87 )
 334

(f)18.03.1999-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff

himself and next friend to other plaintiffs (Suit-5) (p. 87-
89)
316. He also deposed about the identity of the disputed
building as “Babri mosque” and that he offered Namaz therein
for a long time; and said as under:
^^eS v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn dks tkurk gwWa eSa ogka x;k gwWa vkSj
eSus mlesa uekt Hkh i<+h gSA eS au s vkf[kjh ckj bl efLtn es a
uekt bles a cq r j[kus ds igys tq E ek ij i<+h FkhA eSaus ml
efLtn esa bZ'kk o tqek nksuksa dh uektsa i<+h gSaA eSaus QStkckn esa fu;koka
eksgYyk esa fLFkr ftUukrh efLtn dh ns[k js[k Hkh djrk gwWaA eSa ;g ns[k
js[k bl efLtn dh 35&36 o"kZ ls dj jgk gwaA ftUukrh efLtn esa ikapksa
oDr dh uekt gksrh gSA rjkoh dh uekt Hkh gksrh gSA bZn vkSj cdjhn
dh Hkh uekt gksrh gSA eSa gkfQt vCnqy jgeku dks tkurk gwWaA tks
bczkfgeiqj xkao rglhy lnj ftyk QStkckn dh fuoklh gSA gkfQj
vCnqy jgeku lkgc us bl ftUukrh efLtn esa rjkoh dh uekt djhc
30 o"kZ igys i<+k;h Fkh mudks bl uekt dks i<kus ds fy;s eSus cqyk;k
FkkA**
“I know Babri mosque in Ayodhya. I have been there
and have even offered Namaz. My last Namaz in this
mosque was the Jumma preceding the installation of
idol therein. I have offered both Isha and Jumma Namaz in
this mosque. I take care of the Jinnati mosque situated in
Niyawan locality of Faizabad. I have been taking this care
for the last 35-36 years. Five times Namaz is offered in the
Jinnati mosque. Tarabi’s Namaz is also offered. The
Namaz of Id and Bakra-id are also offered. I know Hafiz
Abdul Rehman, who is resident of Village-Ibrahimpur,
Tahsil- Sadar, District-Faizabad. Hafiz Abdul Rehman had
pronounced the Tarabi Namaz in this Jinnati mosque, some
30 years ago. I had called him to pronounce this Namaz.”
 335

(E.T.C.)
317. P.W. 21 Dr. M.Hashim Qidwai, a retired teacher, son of
Late Abdul Majid Qidwai, aged about 80 years (in November
2001), a resident of HIG-1, ADA Flats, Sir Syed Nagar, Aligarh.
His Examination-in-chief commenced on 22.11.2001 and cross
examination followed as under :
(a) 22/23/24-11-2001, 12-12-2001- by Nirmohi Akhara
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate(p. 4-44)
(b) 12/13-12-2001-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 44-55 )
(c) 13/14-12-2001, 07-01-2002-by Sri Umesh Chandra
Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 55-78)
(d) 07-01-2002- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
78-85)
(e) 07/09-01-2002-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri
Gopal Singh Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L.
Mishra, Advocated (p. 85-97)
(f) 09-01-2002- Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10 and
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through
Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate, and plaintiffs (Suit-5)
through Sri A.K.Pandey, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by other defendants (p. 98)
318. His father was Deputy Collector in U.P. Government
Service. His schooling commenced in Basti whereafter his
father was posted at Saharanpur wherefrom the witness started
his political life. He did High School from Sitapur and
Intermediate from Christian College, Lucknow, and B.A.
(Honours) and M.A. from Lucknow University. His father was
 336

transferred to Faizabad in July 1939 when he was a student.

Thereafter was transferred to Lucknow in 1941 as Additional
City Magistrate. His father resided at Faizabad from July 1939
to October 1941 in Cantonment Area. During this period, during
holidays, the witness used to visit Faizabad and offered Namaz
at the disputed site He deposed as under :
^^igyh erZck eS fnlEcj 39 esa QStkckn x;kA fnlEcj lu~ 39 esa eSa
vius ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ds lkFk ckcjh efLtn ns[kus x;k vkSj ogha ij
exfjc dh uekt i<+h mlds ckn eSa cjkcj ebZ lu~ 41 rd gj NqV~Vh esa
QStkckn tkrk jgkA bl nkS j ku eS au s 15&20 ckj exjhc dh
uekt+ vkS j pkj&ik ap ckj vflj dh uekt vkS j nk s rhu
t+q e s dh uekt ckcjh efLtn es a i<+h A tc tc eSaus exfjc dh
uekt ckcjh efLtn esa i<+h rc rc rdjhcu 100 vkneh gksrs Fks vflj
dh uekt esa 40 o 50 ds chp yksx uekt i<+rs FksA t+qes dh uekt
djhc 250&300 yksx i<+rs FksA tc tc eSaus uekt i<+h tekr ls i<+h
vkSj esjs uekt i<+us ds le; ges'kk ,d gh beke tgka rd ;kn iM+rk
gS feyrs FksA ekSykuk vCnqy ekftn nfj;kcknh esjs ppk vkSj llqj Hkh Fks
muds lkFk Hkh ckcjh efLtn esa esjk tkuk gqvkA mUgksaus djhc 80 fdrkcsa
mnwZ tqcku vksj vaxzsth esa fy[kh gS [kk'krkSj ij vaxzsth tqcku esa mudh
dqjku 'kjhQ dh rQlhj gSA**
“I visited Faizabad for the first time in December,
1939. In December, 1939 I had gone to see the Babri
mosque along with my family members and had offered the
Magrib Namaz there. Thereafter, in every holiday I
regularly visited Faizabad till the year 1941. In this period
I offered the Magrib Namaz for 15-20 times, the Asir
Namaz for 4-5 times and 2-3 Jumma Namaz, in the
Babri mosque. Whenever I offered the Magrib Namaz in
the Babri mosque, there were approximately 100 people
present. In the Asir Namaz, about 40-50 persons offered
Namaz. In the Jumma Namaz, about 250-300 persons
 337

offered Namaz. Whenever I offered Namaz, it was

collective and so far as I remember, the Imam was the
same at time of offering of all the Namaz by me. Maulana
Abdul Majid Dariyabadi was my uncle as well as the
father-in-law. I also happened to visit Babri mosque along
with him. He has written about 80 books in Urdu and
English, particularly his explanation of the holy Quran in
English.” (E.T.C.)
319. PW 21 further said that he was appointed as Lecturer
(Political Science) in 1948 while doing research at Lucknow
University. From 1948 to 1982 he had been at Aligarh Muslim
University and retired from the post of Reader. He became
Reader in 1961. He participated in strike in Government School,
Saharanpur after the sacrifice of Shaheed Bhagat Singh in 1931
and for that reason he was failed in Class V. His statement about
his active political career is as under :
^^eqfLye ;wfuoflZVh esa viuh lsok ds nkSjku iz'kklfud inksa ij
gkLVy dk okMZu gky dk izksoksLV vkSj ;wfuoflZVh ds izkDVj ds in ij
dke fd;kA mijksDr ds vykok eSa LVkQ ,lksl;s'ku dk v/;{k Hkh jgk
vkSj ,DthD;wfVo dkSafly o dksVZ dk ,ysDVsM esEcj Hkh jgkA vyhx<+
eqfLye ;wfuoflZVh dh ykbczsjh ftls ekSykuk vktkn ykbczsjh dgk tkrk
gS ds ykbczsfj;u izks0 uq:y glu ls Hkh okfdQ gwWaA eSa mUgsa lkr vkB
o"kZ ls tkurk gwWaA eSaus mudks fy[krs i<+rs ns[kk gS vkSj muds nLr[kr
Hkh igpkurk gwWaA xokg dks izkFkZuk i= la031@2001 fnukad
19&11&2001 ds lkFk nkf[ky dkxtkr la01]3]5]7]8]9 dks ns[kdj dgk
okn la04@89 ns[kdj dgk fd bu ij izksQslj uq:y glu ds nLr[kr
gSa ftUgsa eSa igpkurk gwWaA esjh fl;klh ftUnxh dk vkxkt lu~ 30 ls
'kq: gqvk FkkA tc ued vkUnksyu py jgk FkkA ckotwn blds esjs
okfyn ljdkjh lsok esa fMIVh dysDVj Fks eSaus dkaxzsl dk >aMk Qgjk;kA
lu~ 1931 esa 'kghn Hkxr flag dks Qkalh ij yVdk;s tkus ds ckn gekjs
lgkjuiqj ds xoZuesaV Ldwy esa gM+rky gqbZ Fkh ftlesa eSaus f'kjdr dh Fkh
 338

mlh dh otg ls ikWpoh Dykl esa Qsy dj fn;k x;k FkkA blds ckn
lu~ 1936 esa fdzf'p;u dkyst y[kuÅ esa tc vky bf.M;k LVwMsUV
QsMjs'ku dk igyk tylk gqvk rks mlesa eSaus cgSfl;r MsyhxsV f'kjdr
dh Fkh blds ckn y[kuÅ LVwMsUV QsMjs'ku dk tujy lsdzsVjh jgk
blds ckn vky bf.M;k LVwMsUV dk Hkh esEcj jgk tc eSa bUVjehfM;V
dk LVwMsUV Fkk rc eSaus dkaxzsl ikVhZ dh lnL;rk xzg.k dh FkhA 1951 esa
y[kuÅ esa ckcjh efLtn esa ewfrZ j[ks tkus ds f[kykQ ,d vky bf.M;k
dkUQzsal y[kuÅ esa gqbZ Fkh vkSj mlesa fgLlk fy;k Fkk vkSj bl dkUQszUl
dk uke dkSeh ,drk dkUQzsUl Fkk ml dkUQzsUl esa tks izeq[k yksx fgLlk
fy;s Fks vkpk;Z tqxqy fd'kksj rRdkyhu ;w0ih0dkaxzsl ikVhZ ds v/;{k
fQjkst xka/kh] felsl mek usg:] xksfoUn lgk;] jke dqekj 'kkL=h] ia0
Jhd`".k nRr ikyhoky] tks ml oDr ds0,e0ih0ih0 ¼fdlku etnwj iztk
ikVhZ½ ds v/;{k Fks Mk0 tsM , vgen dE;wfuLV yhMj xksiky ukjk.k
lDlsuk] bl dkaQzsUl es Jh pUnz'ks[kj tks ckn esa Hkkjr ds iz/kkuea=h gq,
Hkh Hkkx fy;s izks0 egs'k nRr 'kekZ vkSj izks0 jkevkljs us Hkh bl dkUQzsUl
esa Hkkx fy;k FkkA bl dkUQzsUl esa ;g izLrko ikfjr gqvk fd ckcjh
efLtn esa tks ewfrZ;k xyr rjhds ls j[kh x;h Fkh mUgsa gVk;k tk; vkSj
;w0ih0 xouZesaV ls QkSjh dk;Zokgh dks dgk x;kA blh dkUQzsUl essa ,d
dkSeh ,drk e.My ds uke ls ,d laxBu cuk;k x;k ftlds
,DthD;wfVo dk eSa esEcj FkkA bl vf/kos'ku dks cqykus esa vge Hkwfedk
Jh v{k; czg~epkjh us fuHkkbZ Fkh oks ml le; QStkckn ftyk dkaxszl ds
lfpo Fks vkSj mUgksaus blh flyflys esa vu'ku Hkh fd;k FkkA eSa lu~
1984 esa dkaxzsl ikVhZ ds mEehnokj ds :i esa jktlHkk dk lnL; p;fur
gqvk Fkk vkSj eSa 6 lky rd-jkT; lHkk dk esEcj jgkA**
“During my service in the Muslim University, I
worked on the Administrative post of Hostel Warden, Hall
Provost and University Proctor. Apart from the above, I
was also the President of Staff Association and was elected
member of Executive Council and Court. I know Prof.
Nurul Hasan, Librarian of the library of Aligarh Muslim
University known as Maulana Azad Library. I know him for
7-8 years. I have seen him read and write and I recognize
 339

his signature as well. On seeing paper nos. 1,3,5,7,8,9 filed

along with application no. 31/2001 dated 19.11.2001 in
Suit no. 4/89, the witness said they bore the signature of
Prof. Nurul Hasan, which I recognize. My political career
started in the year 1930, when the Salt Movement was in
progress. Despite the fact that my father was Deputy
Collector in Government service, I hoisted the Congress
flag. After the execution of martyr Bhagat Singh in 1931,
there was a strike in my Government School at Saharanpur
in which I had participated, due to which I was failed in
Class-V. In the year 1936, when the first function of All
India Student Federation took place in Christian College,
Lucknow I had participated in it as a delegate. Thereafter,
I became General Secretary of Lucknow Student
Federation and then a member of All India Student. When I
was a student of Intermediate, I took the membership of
Congress party. In 1951, an All India Conference was held
at Lucknow in opposition of installation of idols in the
Babri mosque and the said conference was named ‘Quami
Ekta Conference’. The main persons who participated in
that conference were- Acharya Jugul Kishore, erstwhile
President of U.P. Congress party Sri Firoz Gandhi, Mrs.
Uma Nehru, Govind Sahai, Ramkumar Shastri, Pt.
Srikrishna Dutta Paliwal, erstwhile President of K.M.P.P.
(Kisan Majdoor Praja Party), Dr. Z.A. Ahmad, Communist
leader, Gopal Narayan Saxena. Sri Chandra Shekhar, who
subsequently became Prime Minister of India, also
participated in this conference. Prof. Mahesh Dutta
Sharma and Prof. Ram Asrey also took part in this
conference. In this conference it was resolved that the idols
 340

placed wrongly in the Babri mosque, be removed and the

U.P. Government was asked to take immediate action. In
this very conference, an organization named ‘Quami Ekta
Mandal’ was also announced and I was made a member of
its executive. An important role was played by Sri Akshay
Brahmchari in convening this conference, who was the
Secretary of Faizabad District Congress at that time, and
he had even gone on fast in this behalf. In the year 1984, I
was elected member of Rajya Sabha as a candidate of
Congress party and I remained a Rajya Sabha member for
six years.” (E.T.C.)
320. He (PW-14) further said that there was a grave of Qazi
Kidwa near Babri mosque, ancestor of Qidwais. Photographs
no. 154/4 and 154/16 submitted by the Commissioner alongwith
his report in Suit -1, are of Babari mosque wherein he offered
Namaz in 1939-40.
321. P.W. 22, Mohd. Khalid Nadvi, 48 years of age (in
January' 2002) by profession is a Teacher and resident of
Nadava College, Lucknow. His Examination-in-chief
commenced on 9/10.01.2002 and cross examination held as
under :
(a) 09/10-01-2002-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 3-13)
(b) 11-01-2002-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 14-19)
(c) 11-01-2002- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
20-28)
(d) 11/14/15-01-2002- by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey,
defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
 341

Advocate (p. 29-47)

(e) 15-01-2002- Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocate, plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi, Advocate, and Hindu Mahasabha, defendant no.
10 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17
through Sri Hari Shanker Jain, Advocate, adopted cross
examination already done by other defendants (p. 48)
322. His statement is mainly in relation to characteristics of
mosque in Islam and shall be dealt with in detail in the category
of “Characteristics of Mosque” later on, but he has also said
about the construction of mosque by Babar and offering of
prayer (Namaz) therein. In this regard, his deposition is :
“bl eqdnesa ls lac af /kr efLtn dk s lu~ 1528 bZ 0 es a ckcj ds
xoZ u j ehj ckdh vlQgkuh us rkehj djk;h Fkh tk s
v;k s/ ;k es a Fk sA gtjr fcyky eksgEen lkgc ds lgkch Fks vkSj
eksgEen lkgc us ikWap oDr dh vtku nsus ds fy, mudks equrf[kc
fd;k FkkA gtjrs fcyky Hkh efLtn esa dHkh vUnj vkSj dHkh ckgjh
eqdke ls vtku fn;k djrs FksA muds }kjk Nr ij p<+dj vtku nsus
dk dksbZ rtfdjk ugh feyrk gSA”
“The mosque concerned with this case was built in 1528
AD by Mir Baqi Asafhani, the Governor of Babar, who
was in Ayodhya. Hazrat Bilal was the ‘Sahabi’ of Prophet
Mohammad who had appointed him for calling out the
Ajaan for all five Namaz. Hazrat Bilal also used to call out
the Ajaan from outside and inside of the mosque. No
reference is found about his calling out the Ajaan from roof
top.” (E.T.C.)
323. Rest of statement-in-chief pertains to the characteristics of
mosque and Islam and shall be dealt with later.
324. PW 23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari, aged about 74 years (as per
 342

his affidavit dated 16.01.2002), son of late Sri Karim Bux

Ansari is resident of Mohalla Kutiya, Ayodhya, District
Faizapur. His Examination-in-chief commenced on 16.01.2002
and cross examination followed as under :
(a) 16-01-2002- by Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no.
22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 3- 18)
(b) 17-01-2002- by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 19-32 )
(c) 17/18-01-2002- by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri
Gopal Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate
(p. 32-40)
(d)18-01-2002- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
40-43)
(e) 18-01-2002, 04.02.2002- by Nirmohi Akhara through
Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 43-70)
(f) 06-02-2002- Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10 and
Sri Raesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through Sri
Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 71-81)
(g) 06-02-2002 - Plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi, Advocate, (adopted cross examination by the
defendants) (p. 81)
325. By profession he is a motor mechanic and claims to have
offered Namaz in the disputed building for about 8-9 years
before its attachment in 1949. He has denied existence of any
idol when he offered Namaz and also denied worship by Hindus
in the said building. His statement runs as under:
^^ftl tk;nkn ls lacaf/kr ;g eqdnek py jgk gS mldks eSa
tkurk gwa bldk uke ckcjh efLtn gSA ckcjh efLtn esjs ?kj ls 3
QykaZx ij gSA eSaus ml efLtn esa ipklksa ckj uekt i<+h gSA eSaus ogka
Qftj] tksgj] vflj] ex+fjc] bZ'kk vkSj rjkoh dh uekt i<+h FkhA fQj
 343

dgk fd tqek dh Hkh uekt i<+h FkhA vk[kjh erZ c k ogk a eS au s lu~
1949] 22 fnlEcj dk s uekt i<+h FkhA 22 fnlEcj lu~ 49
dk s bZ ' kk dh uekt i<+d j tc eS a ?kj okil vk;k rk s ogk a
dkQh gYyk gk s jgk Fkk vkS j ,sl k yx jgk Fkk fd cyok
gk s tk;sx kA tc eSa lqcg mBk rks esjs HkkbZ lkgc us crk;k fd ogka
efLtn esa ewfrZ j[k nh x;h gS vkSj iqfyl dk igjk yx x;k gS vkSj
vc 'kk;n ogka uekt u gks ik;sA ml okD;k ds 4 lky ckn eqlyekuksa
us ,d uksfVl 'kklu dks fn;k fd og yksx ogka vFkkZr ckcjh efLtn esa
vyfonk dh uekt+ i<+sxsA ge yksx uekt i<+us vyfonk dh tc tk jgs
Fks rks iqfyl us jksdk o idM+ fy;kA vkSj eftLV~sV ds lkeus ys x;sA
ml dk;Zokgh esa eftLV~sV lkgc us 6 ekg dSn dh ltk lqukbZ vkSj 500
:i;s tqekZuk dh ltk lqukbZa tc eSa tqekZuk ugha ns ik;k rks gekjk ?kj
vkSj nqdku nksuks gh dqdZ+ dj fy;kA eftLV~sV lkgc dh ltk lqukus ds
ckn eSa djhc 1 ekg 23 fnu cLrh tsy esa jgkA mlds ckn fQj uekt
i<+us dh geus ogka dksf'k'k ugha dhA D;ksafd efLtn Hkh dqdZ gks x;h
FkhA efLtn lu~ 1949 esa gh bl okD;k ds ckn ls dqdZ gks x;h FkhA
eSaus ml efLtn esa yxHkx 8&9 lky rd uekt i<+k FkkA eSa tc uekt
i<+us tkrk Fkk rks gekjs lkFk v;ks/;k ds vkSj yksx Hkh uekt i<+rs Fks
ftlesa gchmYyk] Qk:d] g'ker mYyk] gkth egcwc] gkfQt v[kykd
vgen] pwUuw] cjdr mYyk oxSjg oxSjg Fks] ftudk uke bl le; ;kn
gSA ckcjh efLtn esa v;ks/;k ls ckgj ds yksx Hkh uekt i<+us vk;k
djrs Fks [kkl dj tqek dh uekt esa cgqr ls ckgj ds yksx vkrs Fks
pwafd og tkek efLtn Hkh FkhA v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn ds vykok
dsoMs dh efLtn esa Hkh tqek dh uekt gksrh FkhA eSaus tc rd ogka
uekt i<+k ml le; rd ogka ij dksbZ ewfrZ ugha j[kh x;h FkhA ml
le; rd ogka fgUnw yksx efLtn esa iwtk djus ugha vkrs FksA ckcjh
efLtn dh bekjr vc ugha gSA QStkckn ds ;quwl fln~nhdh lkgc dks
eSa tkurk gwaA mudks Hkh eSaus dbZ ckj ckcjh efLtn esa uekt i<+rs ns[kk
FkkA** ¼ist 1&2½
“I know the property about which this case is
pending, its name is Babri mosque. Babri mosque is at a
distance of 3 furlongs from my residence. I have offered
 344

Namaz at the said mosque number of times. I have offered

Fazir, Jauhar, Asir, Magrib, Isha and Tarawih Namaz
over there. Then stated that I had also offered the Jumma
Namaz. I last offered Namaz over there on 22 December,
1949. When I returned home on 22 December, 1949,
after offering Isha Namaz, there was much noise over
there and it appeared as if a riot would break out. When
I got up in the morning, my brother told me that idols had
been installed in the mosque and police had been deputed
and now Namaz may possibly not be offered over there.
Four years after that episode, the Muslims gave a notice to
the Government that they would offer Alvida Namaz over
there i.e. at Babri mosque. When we were going to offer
Alvida Namaz, the police stopped and apprehended us and
produced us before the Magistrate. The Magistrate
pronounced a sentence of six months and fine of Rupees
five hundred in that proceeding. When I failed to deposit
the fine, my house and shop were both attached. After
awarding of sentence by the Magistrate, I remained
confined at Basti prison for about 1 month 23 days.
Thereafter, we made no attempts to offer Namaz over there
because the mosque had also been attached. The mosque
had been attached in the year 1949, after this incident. I
had offered Namaz in that mosque for about 8-9 years.
Whenever I went to offer Namaz, other persons of Ayodhya
also accompanied me and offered Namaz, who included
Habibullah, Farooq, Hashmat Ullah, Haji Mahbub, Hafiz
Akhalaq Ahmad, Chunnu, Barkat Ullah and others, whose
names I do not remember as of now. Many persons from
outside Ayodhya, used to come to offer Namaz at Babri
 345

mosque, especially during the Jumma Namaz because it

was Jama mosque as well. Besides Babri mosque, the
Jumma Namaz was also offered at Kevra mosque in
Ayodhya. As long as I offered Namaz over there, no idol
had been installed over there. By that time the Hindus did
not come to offer prayer at the mosque. The building of
Babri mosque no longer exists. I know Mr. Yunus Siddiqui
of Faizabad. On number of occasions I had seen him, as
well, offering Namaz at the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C.)
326. P.W. 25 Sibte Mohammad Naqvi, aged about 76 years
(in March 2002) is a politician, writer and resident of Mohalla
Miranpur, Qusba Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, but at the
time of his statement in chief, he gave his current address as
Imambara Gufran Mayab, Maulana Kalbe Husain Road,
Lucknow. His Examination-in-chief commenced on 5/6.3.2002
and cross examination followed as under :
(a) 06-03-2002- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 6-21)
(b)01-04-2002- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
22-26)
(c) 01-04-2002- by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 27-33 )
(d) 01/02-04-2002- by Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant
no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 33-
49)
(e) 02-04-2002-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 49-
51)
(f) 02.04.2002-Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10 and
 346

Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through

Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by other defendants (p. 51)
(g) 02.04.2002- Plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by the defendants (p. 51)
327. About his residence and education etc. he has deposed as
under :
^^eSa vdcjiqj esa viuh iSnkb'k ls vc rd jgk gwWaA - - - - - esjh
rkyhe 'kq: esa esjs ?kj ij gqbZ vkSj ckn esa y[kuÅ ds enjls esa gqbZA eSaus
vkf[kjh lun y[kuÅ ds tkfe;k lqYrkfu;k ls ^^lunqy vQkfty**
gkfly dhA blds ckn eSaus y[kuÅ ;wfuoflZVh ls Qkftys rQlhj dh
fMxzh gkfly dhA**
“I have been residing till now at Akbarpur since my
birth. . . . . . My initial education was at my home and
thereafter in Madarsa at Lucknow. I obtained my last
degree of 'Sandul Afazil' from Jamia Sultania of Lucknow.
Thereafter, I obtained the degree of Fazile Tafsil from
Lucknow University.” (E.T.C.)
328. He has written the following books :
**1- Mk0 jke euksgj yksfg;k ,d >yd]
2- elÅn glu fjt+oh & QnZ vkSj Qudkj
3- vetn vyh 'kkg
4- vQdkj o vkyke
5- js[k+rh
6- gkth tykyqn~nhu gSnj dh [kqnufor lokusg mejh
7- erk;s f+Qdzks utjA**
"1. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia- Ek Jhalak,
2. Masaud Hasan Rizvi-Fard aur Fankar,
3. Amzad Ali Shah,
4. Afquar ve Aalaam,
 347

5. Rekhti,
6. Hazi Jalaluddin Haider Ki Khudnavit Savaneh
Umari,
7. Matae Fikro Nazar.” (E.T.C.)
329. Besides, PW-25 has also written some articles published in
news papers and journals and some are unpublished. About his
religious faith and political carrier, he said :
“eS f'k;k er dk gwWaA eSaus f'k;k fQDgk ij dqN fdrkcksa dk
v/;;u fd;k gSA - - - f'k;k fQDgk dks fQdgs tkfQfj;k Hkh dgk tkrk
gSA
jktuhfr esa esjk rkYyqd jktuhfrd nyksa ls jgk gSA 'kq: esa eSa
eghuk nks eghuk dkaxzsl eas fQj lksf'ky"V xzqi us vius vkidks dkaxzsl
ikVhZ ls vyx dj fy;k rks eSa lks'kfyLV ikVhZ esa vk;k x;k vkSj rc ls
eSa jktujk;.k th ds lkFk yxk jgk] jktukjk;.k th dh e`R;q ds ckn ls
eSa eqyk;e flag th dh ikVhZ esa rhu pkj lky igys rd jgkA eSa
vdcjiqj uxj fudk; dk iz/kku jgk gwWaA eSa ogka dh vkf[kjh VkÅu
,sfj;k desVh dk ps;jeSu jgk gWwa vkSj igyh uxj ifj"kn dk Hkh ps;jeSu
jgk gwWaA eSa ,d bUVj dkyst vkSj ,d gkbZLdwy dk izca/kd gwWaA ;s nksuksa
ftyk vEcsndjuxj esa gSaA - - - eSa 1990 esa vYi la[;d foRr ,oa
fodkl fuxe m0iz0 dk ps;jeSu jgk gwWaA
eSa vky bafM;k f'k;k dkUQzsl dh lsUVªy desVh dk cgqr fnuksa
rd esEcj jgk gwWaA**
“I am of Shia faith. I have read certain books on Shia
Fiquah...... Shia Fiquah is also called Fiquahe Zafiria.
In politics I had contacts with political parties.
Initially in Congress for a month or two. Then the Socialist
group separated itself from the Congress party then I
joined the Socialist party and since then I remained with
Sri Raj Narayan. After the death of Sri Raj Narayan I was
in the party of Sri Mulayam Singh till three to four years
back. I was the Chairman of Akbarpur Municipal body. I
 348

was the Chairman of its last town area committee and the
Chairman of its first Municipal board. I am the manager of
one Intermediate college and one High school. Both of
them are in District Ambedkar Nagar............ In 1990 I was
the Chairman of Minorities Finance and Development
Corporation U.P.
I was member of central committee of All India Shia
Conference for many days.” (E.T.C.)
330. About the disputed site, its being a mosque and offering of
Namaz therein, PW-25 stated as under :
^^eSaus fookfnr <kaps] ftlds laca/k esa ;g eqdnes py jgs gSa dks
nwj ls ns[kk gSA mls ckcjh efLtn dgk tkrk gSA - - - eSa 1948 o mlds
ckn v;ks/;k esa vkrk tkrk jgk gwWa vkSj 1948 ls gh eS au s uekft+; k s a
dk s uekt+ i<+u s ds fy, ckcjh efLtn tkrs ns[ kk gS A
uekt+ i<+r s ugh a ns[ kkA fQj ckn esa mlesa uekt+ i<+uk can gks
x;k D;ksafd mlesa ewfrZ j[k nh x;h vkSj og txg fookfnr gksus ds ukrs
dqdZ dj yh x;hA - - - - ml oDr ewfrZ j[kus ds f[kykQ eqlyekuksa ds
rjQ ls de izfrjks/k ¼izksVsLV½ gqvk ijUrq Lokeh v{k; czgepkjh th vkxs
vk;s vkSj mUgksaus izfrjks/k fd;k vkSj mUgksaus ej.k czr Hkh j[kk vkSj mUgksaus
vkej.k vu'ku fd;kA - - - tc ls eSaus gks'k laHkkyk rc ls mlesa lqUuh
beke gh gksrs FksA
bLyke esa efLtn dk LokfeRo vYykg esa fufgr gksrk gSA efLtn
esa fdlh elyd dk vFkkZr f'k;k vkSj lqUuh eqlyeku uekt i<+ ldrk
gSA ckcjh efLtn dks ftls eSaus c[kwch ns[kk gS og eqdeey efLtn
FkhA**
“I have seen the disputed structure, about which the
present cases are pending, from distance. It was called
Babri mosque......... I have been visiting Ayodhya in 1948
and afterwards and since 1948 I have seen Namajists
going to Babri mosque to offer Namaz. I had not seen
them offer Namaz. Subsequently offering of Namaz therein
 349

was stopped because idol had been installed and the place
had been attached on account of being disputed. …............
At that time there was little protest from the Muslims
against installation of the idol but Swami Akshay
Brahmchari came forward and opposed and even went on
fast unto death. …........ Since my memory, there were only
Sunni Imams in it.
In Islam, the ownership of mosque vests in Allah. The
Muslim of any sect i.e. Shia or Sunni, can offer namaz in
mosque. I have very well seen Babri mosque. It was a
complete mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^^f'k;k fQjds esa ekSykuk dYcs lkfnd] ekSykuk dYcs tOokn vkSj
ekSykuk gehnqy glu lQs vOOy yhMj gSaA f'k;k fQjds dh cgqr cM+h
vDlfj;r ckcjh efLtn dks efLtn ekurh gSA**
“Maulana Kalbe Sadique, Maulana Kalbe Javvad
and Maulana Hamidul Hassan Safe are top level leaders of
Shia sect. Majority of Shia sect believes Babri mosque to
be a mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^^eS au s ,sl k lq u k gS fd lu~ 1948 ds igys Hkh ckcjh
efLtn es a uekt gq v k djrh FkhA**
“I have heard that Namaz was offered in Babri
mosque even before year 1948.” (E.T.C.)
331. About the characteristics of mosque also he has made
some statement which we shall consider later at the relevant
stage.
B. Birthplace of Lord Ram, continuous worship by Hindus,
No namaz etc. :
332. D.W. 1/1 Rajendra Singh is the son of Late Gopal Singh
Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) and after the death of his father on
28.12.1985, his substitution application was allowed on
22.2.1986 and he was substituted as plaintiff (Suit-1). He has
 350

filed his statement in chief through an affidavit dated 22.7.2003

followed by his cross-examination as under :
(a) 22.07.2003-by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 11
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 10-20)
(b) 23.07.2003- by Sri Faruq Ahmah, defendant no. 1/1
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate ( p. 21-22)
(c) 23/24/25.07.2003-by defendant no. 10, Sunni Central
Waqf Board, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 22-
53)
(d) 25.07.2003- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5) through Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocate (p. 55-59)
(e) 25.07.2003- defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri
Sayad Irfan, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2
(Suit-3) through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 59)
333. He is 65 years of age at the time of swearing of the
affidavit and has given his residential address as Tulsi Park,
Balrampur, District Balrampur. In para 1 and 2, he has given the
details of Suit-1, the reliefs sought therein and the boundary of
the disputed site mentioned in the plaint (Suit-1). Para 3 and 4 of
the affidavit mention about the death of his father and his own
substitution. He has verified signature of Late Gopal Singh
Visharad being well acquainted with his hand writing and
signature. In para 5 he has adopted averments contained in the
plaint and replication and in para-6 he has verified the report of
the Advocate Commissioner Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, the map, i.e.
paper no. 137C-1–6 and also the location of premises mentioned
 351

therein. Para 8, 9 and 10 refers to his and family's religious

following and also about his birth, education and service
particulars. His family is a Sanatan religion follower. His father
used to reside at Swargdwar, Ayodhya and used to worship idols
according to the tenets of his religion, which is being followed
by him also. He was born on 11.1.1939 at Ayodhya and his
childhood passed in Ayodhya itself. He passed High School and
Intermediate from Maharaja Higher Secondary School, Ayodhya
in 1955 and 1957 respectively and then was appointed in State
Bank of India, Faizabad in 1959. He was transferred to the
branch situated at Tahsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad where he
worked till April 1970 and, thereafter, on promotion went to
Faridpur, District Bareilly. In the year 1970, he was transferred
to main branch of the Bank at Lucknow where he worked for
four years and, thereafter, in 1974 transferred to Balrampur
where he worked till 1994 and proceeded on voluntary
retirement in January, 1994. Since then he is residing at
Balrampur itself. In para 11 to 21 he has stated about Ayodhya
as religious place, incarnation of God as Lord Ram, existence of
temple at the disputed site, birth of Lord Ram at the disputed
site, existence of temple of Lord Ram at the disputed site etc.
His deposition in this regard is as under :
^^11- v;ks/;k Hkkjro"kZ dh izkphure rhFkZLFkyh gS] tgkWa Hkxoku Jhjke
us euq"; :i esa vorkj fy;k gSA v;ks/;k uxjh dh ifo=rk mlds mRrj
esa cgus okyh lj;w unh gS rFkk vusdkusd /kkfeZd LFkkuksa rFkk efUnjksa ds
dkj.k fo'ofo[;kr gSA v;ks/;k ds jkedksV eksgYys esa Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeHkwfe o tUe LFkku gS] ftls fgUnw /kekZoyEch rFkk Hkxoku Jhjke esa
vkLFkk j[kus okys dksfV&dksfV euq"; tUeHkwfe o tUe LFkku esa
vkLFkkiwoZd J)kour gksdj iwtk o n'kZu djrs gSaA**
^^11. Ayodhya is the oldest pilgrimage of India, where
Lord Rama had incarnated in human form. The
 352

auspiciousness of Ayodhya lies in Saryu river flowing in its

north and many of the religious places and temples are
famous in the world. The Janmbhumi(birth area) and
Janmsthan (birth place) of Lord Rama are in Ramkot
locality of Ayodhya, which are worshipped devotionally by
great number of Hindu religion followers and devotees of
Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
**12- ;g fd eSa] vius ckY;dky ls gh vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk
fujarj v;ks/;k fLFkr eafnjksa esa n'kZu o iwtk djus tkrk FkkA v;ks/;k esa
izeq[k :i ls guqeku x<+h] dud Hkou rFkk tUeHkwfe fLFkr efUnj dk
n'kZu o iwtu izk;% fuR;izfr djrk FkkA esjs firk Jh xksiky flag
fo'kkjn tUeHkwfe efUnj ds vuU; mikld Fks mudk ;g nSfud dk;Zdze
Fkk fd os Luku djus ds i'pkr~ fuR; tUeHkwfe efUnj ij n'kZu o iwtk
djus tkrs FksA lk;adky dks Hkh vkjrh o Hkksx ds le; lifjokj vU;
efUnjksa ds lkFk&lkFk tUeHkwfe efUnj esa Hkh iwtk o n'kZu djrs Fks o
fcuk fdlh jksdVksd ds xHkZx`g rd tkdj iwtk o n'kZu djrs FksA o"kZ
1950 dh edj lad zkfUr ls dq N igys esj s firk LoxhZ ; Jh
xk si ky flag fo'kkjn vLoLFk gk s tkus ds dkj.k efUnjk s a esa
n'kZ u o iwt k djus ugh a ig aq p ik;sA LoLFk gk su s ij edj
lad z k fUr dk s tc os iwt k o n'kZ u djus gsr q tUeHk wf e ij
x;s rk s jkT; ljdkj ds deZ p kfj;k s a us mUgs a Hkhrj tgk a Jh
jkepUnz vkfn dh ewf rZ fojkteku Fkh a] tkus ls jk sd fn;kA
esj s firk th }kjk irk djus ij ;g Kkr gq v k fd ewy
iz f roknh la[ ;k&1 ls 5 rFkk muds vU; lg/kfeZ ; k s a ds
fujk/kkj rFkk vlR; nq j kxz g ls iz H kkfor gk sd j iz f roknh
uEcj 6 us vius deZ p kfj;k s a iz f roknh uEcj 7 ls 9 ds }kjk
fgUnw turk dk s muds iwt k o n'kZ u lEcU/kh U;k;iw. kZ
mfpr vf/kdkj ls oaf pr dj jD[kk gS A vkSj izfroknh uEcj 6
izfroknh uEcj 1 yxk;r 5 vkfn ds nqjkxzg ds dkj.k ;g ?kks"k.kk djrs
gSa fd Hkfo"; esa Hkh fgUnw turk dks blh izdkj muds mi;qZDr vf/kdkjksa
ls oafpr j[ksaxsA bl vU;k;iw.kZ dk;Z ls oknh ds LoRod vf/kdkj ftls
mUgksaus rFkk djksM+ksa fgUnw turk us mi;ksx fd;k Fkk] mu lHkh /kkfeZd
 353

vf/kdkjksa ds iz;ksx esa izfroknhx.k }kjk vuqfpr o voS/k gLr{ksi dh iw.kZ

lEHkkouk Fkh] izfroknhx.k }kjk Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz vkfn dh ewfrZ;ksa dks
muds LFkku ls gVk nsus dh vk'kadk mRiUu gks xbZ ,slh ifjfLFkfr essa
vius /kkfeZd vf/kdkjksa rFkk leLr fgUnw turk ,oa djksM+ksa jke HkDrksa
ds /kkfeZd vf/kdkjksa ds laj{k.k gsrq mijksDr okn izLrqr fd;k FkkA
orZ e ku oknh ;kuh esj s /kkfeZ d vf/kdkjk s a ;kuh fookfnr
lEifr es a fLFkr Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz vkfn dh ewf rZ ; k s a dh
iwt k o n'kZ u es a O;o/kku mRiUu gq v k blhfy;s eSaus Jh xksiky
flag fo'kkjn ewyoknh dh e`R;q ds ckn mUgha /kkfeZd vf/kdjksa ds laj{k.k
gsrq bl okn ds okni= dks oknh cudj vaxhd`r fd;k gSA**
**12- That since my childhood I regularly visited the
temples in Ayodhya along with my parents to offer prayer
and worship. In Ayodhya, I almost everyday used to offer
my prayer and worship at the temples at Hanumangarhi,
Kanakbhavan and Janmbhumi. My father Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad was a devoted worshipper of Janmbhumi temple.
It was his daily routine to offer prayer and worship at the
Janmbhumi temple after taking bath. In the evening also,
he along with family used to offer prayer and worship at
time of ‘ Aarti’ and ‘Bhog’ and used to offer prayer in the
‘Garbh-grih’ (sanctum sanctorum) without any
obstruction. Prior to the Makar Sankranti of 1950, my
father late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad fell ill and was
unable to offer prayers at the temple. After recovery,
when he went to offer prayer at the Janmbhumi on
Makar Sankranti, the official of the State Government
stopped him from going inside, where the idol of Lord
Rama etc. were present. On enquiry by my father, it was
found that influenced by the baseless and false prejudice
of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 5 and their other associates, the
defendant no. 6 through its officials defendant nos. 7 to
 354

9, had deprived the Hindu public from its legal justified

right of prayer and worship, and in view of bias of
defendant nos. 1 to 5, the defendant no. 6 declared that in
future also the Hindu public would be deprived of its
aforesaid rights in the same manner. In view of this illegal
act regarding the rights of the plaintiff and crores of
Hindus, there was every probability of illegal and improper
interference by the defendants in the exercise of their
religious rights and there was apprehension of the idols of
Lord Rama etc. being removed and as such in order to
protect the religious rights of himself, of the entire Hindu
community and of crores of devotees of Rama, the above
suit was filed. Since interference arose in the religious
rights of the present plaintiff viz. myself, in offering
prayer at the idols of Lord Rama etc. in the disputed
structure, I adopted this plaint as plaintiff after the death
of my father Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, the original
plaintiff for protection of those very religious rights.”
(E.T.C.)
13- okni= ds vUr esa tks pkSgn~nh n'kkZ;h xbZ gS ml pkSgn~nh ds
vUnj Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz vkfn dh ewfrZ;ka Hkou ds e/; f'k[kj ds uhps
xHkZx`g esa fojkteku jgh gSa] ftudh iwtk o n'kZu lnSo ls ewy oknh
rFkk oknh ,oa djksM+ksa fgUnw turk o jke HkDrksa }kjk fuckZ/k :i ls
lgL=ksa o"kksZ ls gksrh pyh vk jgh gSa leLr fgUnw turk vkSj jke HkDr
rFkk ewy oknh o oknh Lo;a bls Jh jkepUnz th dh tUeHkwfe ekurs pys
vk jgs gSaA tUeHkwfe ifjlj dk oUnu vkSj ueu djus ds mijkUr leLr
ifjlj dh ifjdzek djds vius dks /kU; ekurs gSaA ewy oknh rFkk oknh
us Hkh yxkrkj tUeHkwfe ij vkdj tUeHkwfe dk ueu o oUnu fd;k gS
rFkk yxkrkj o"kksZ rd Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz vkfn dh fojkteku ewfrZ;ksa
dk n'kZu djus ds mijkUr Lo;a oknh us Hkh tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh ifjdzek
vla[; ckj dh gSA fookfnr ifjlj esa fLFkr xHkZx`g esa 12 dlkSVh ds
 355

iRFkjksa ds [kEHks yxs gSa] ftuij Hkh nsoh nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka mRdh.kZ gSaA**
**13- In the boundary given at the foot of the plaint, the
idols of Lord Ramchandra etc. were present in the ‘Garbh-
grih’ below the mid dome of the structure, whose worship
etc. was all along carried out uninterruptedly for thousand
of years by the original plaintiff, plaintiff and crores of
Hindu public and devotees of Rama. The entire Hindu
public, devotees of Rama, the original plaintiff and the
plaintiff have all along considered it to be the birth place of
Lord Rama. They consider themselves to be fortunate on
circumambulating the entire campus after offering prayer
and worship. The original plaintiff and the plaintiff have
also regularly visited the Janmbhumi and prayed and
worshipped at the Janmbhumi and for years have
circumambulated the Janmbhumi campus on innumerable
occasions after offering prayer at the idols of Lord Rama
etc. There are 12 touch stone pillars in the ‘Garbh-grih’
situated within the disputed structure, on which the idols of
Gods and Goddesses have been carved out.” (E.T.C.)
**14- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj esa izos'k ds fy;s iwoZ dh vksj guqer}kj
Fkk] tgka ij }kj ds nksuksa vksj dlkSVh ds [kEHks yxs Fks] ftudh la[;k 2
Fkh] bu ij Hkh nsoh nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka mRdh.kZ FkhaA okn i= esa of.kZr
fookfnr lEifRr ds mRrj dh vk sj lhrk jlk sb Z fLFkr FkhA
ogka tkdj Hkh oknh mldk n'kZu djrk jgk gSA fookfnr lEifRr ds
iwj c tUeHk wf e dk Hk.Mkj o jke pcwr jk fLFkr Fkk tgka cM+h
la[;k esa lk/kw o HkDrx.k jke ladhrZu o jkeuke dk ikB djrs jgrs FksA
lhrk jlksbZ ds mRrj flag }kj Fkk] ftl ekxZ ls gksdj ifjlj ds mRrj
dh vksj tk;k tkrk FkkA fookfnr lEifRr ds nf{k.k o if'pe dh vksj
ijrh tehu iM+h Fkh] ftlesa ls gksdj J)kyq iwjs tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh
ifjdzek djrs jgs gSaA**
**14- “That there was Hanumatdwar on the east for
 356

entering the disputed structure, and there were touch stone

pillars on both side of the gate, which were two in number.
The idols of Gods- Goddesses had been carved on them.
The Sita Rasoi was situated to the north of disputed
structure detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff had been
worshipping at that place also. The store of Janmbhumi
and Ramchabutara were situated to the east of the
disputed structure, where a large number of saints and
devotees offered their prayers. To the north of Sita Rasoi
was the Singhdwar, through which lay the route to north of
the premises. Vacant land was lying to the south and west
of the disputed structure, though which the devotees
circumambulated the Janmbhumi campus.” (E.T.C.)
**15- v;ks/;k esa ,sls rks izR;sd fnu gtkjksa jke HkDr Hkkjr ds
dksus&dksus rFkk fo'o ds vU; ns'kksa ls Hkh fujUrj vkrs gS tks ifo= lj;w
unh esa Luku djrs gSa rFkk v;ks/;k esa fLFkr gtkjksa efUnjksa esa n'kZu iwtu
djrs gSa] ftuesa fo'ks"k :i ls guqeku x<+h] dudHkou] tUe LFkku o
tUeHkwfe ds efUnjksa esa n'kZu o iwtu djrs gSA tUeHkwfe ij fo'ks"k :i ls
gtkjksa J)kyqtu fuR; izfr n'kZu ueu djrs gSa vkSj ureLrd gksdj
tUeHkwfe dh ifo= jt eLrd ls yxkrs gSa vkSj iwjs tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh
ifjdzek djrs gSaA**
**15- Usually thousands of devotees of Rama visit Ayodhya
everyday from different corners of India and other
countries of the world. They bathe in the sacred Saryu river
and offer prayers at thousands of temples in Ayodhya,
particularly the temples at Hanumangarhi, Kanakbhavan,
Janmsthan and Janmbhumi. Thousands of devotees offer
prayers daily specially at the Janmbhumi and apply the
sacred earth on their forehead and did circumambulation
of the entire Janmbhumi premises.” (E.T.C.)
**16- izR;sd o"kZ v;ks/;k esa lkou esyk ds volj ij yk[kksa fgUnw
 357

turk ,oa jkeHkDr J)kyqvksa dk esyk yxrk gSA J)kyq lkou ekg dh
izfrink ls vkuk izkjEHk dj nsrs gSa vkSj ;g dze j{kkcU/ku ioZ rd
pyrk jgrk gSA vkus okys leLr J)kyq jke HkDr fu;fer :i ls lj;w
Luku] efUnjksa esa n'kZu o iwtk rFkk fo'ks"k :i ls tUeHkwfe ifjlj eas
fLFkr Hkxoku JhjkepUnz o vU; nsoh nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ksa dk n'kZu o
iwtu djus ds mijkUr tUeHkwfe dh ifjdzek dj vius dks /kU; ekurs
gSaA**
**16- “Every year a fair of lacs of Hindus and devotees of
Rama is held at Ayodhya on the occasion of Sawan fair.
The devotees start visiting the Sawan fair from ‘Pratipada’
(first day of a lunar fortnight) and it continues upto the
festival of Rakshabandhan. The devotees of Rama regularly
bathe in the Saryu, offer prayers in the temples, specially
the idols of Lord Ramchandra and other Gods- Goddesses
in the Janmbhumi premises and consider themselves to be
fortunate after circumambulating the Janmbhumi.”
(E.T.C.)
**17- v;ks/;k esa izR;sd o"kZ dkfrZd ekl eas dkfrZd esyk gksrk gS tks
dkfrZd 'kqDy ,dkn'kh ls dkfrZd iwf.kZek rd jgrk gSA bl esys esa Hkh
yk[kksa dh la[;k esa fgUnw turk o J)kyq jke HkDr v;ks/;k esa ,df=r
gksrs gSa bl volj ij J)kyq jkeHkDr iapdkslh o pkSngdkslh ifjdzek
djrs gSaA J)kyq HkDrtu Hkkjr ds dksus&dksus ls o fons'k ls Hkh bl
volj ij vkrs gSaA lj;w Luku dkfrZd esys dk eq[; vkd"kZ.k gksrk gS
J)kyq jke HkDr ifo= lj;w esa Luku djus ds mijkUr n'kZu o iwtu
djrs gSaA J)kyq jkeHkDr tUe LFkku vkdj tUeHk wf e efUnj
rFkk mles a fojkteku Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz ;kuh jkeyyk dk
n'kZ u o iwt u djrs gS a o J)kour gk sd j tUeHk wf e dh jt
eLrd ls yxkrs gS a rFkk tUeHkwfe dh ifjdzek djds vius dks /kU;
ekurs gSaA
**17- Every year in the month of ‘Kartika’(Eight lunar
month of Hindu calendar), the ‘Kartika’ fair is held at
 358

Ayodhya between ‘Kartika Shukla Ekadashi’(the 11th day of

moonlit half of Kartika month) to ‘Kartika Purnima’(day of
full moon). Lacs of Hindus and devotees of Rama assemble
in this fair at Ayodhya. On this occasion, the devotees take
five ‘Kos’ (distance of two miles) and fourteen ‘Kos’
circumambulation. The devotees assemble from various
parts of India and abroad. The Saryu bath is the main
attraction of the ‘Kartika’ fair. After taking a dip in the
sacred Saryu, the devotees of Rama offer their prayers and
worship. The devotees of Rama visit the Janmsthan and
offer their prayer and worship to Lord Rama present
there i.e. the Ramalala and apply the earth of
Janmbhumi on their forehead out of devotion and
consider themselves to be fortunate after circumambulating
the Janmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
**18- v;ks/;k esa izR;sd o"kZ jkeuoeh ds volj ij pS='kqDy uoeh dks
Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz dk tUeksRlo /kwe/kke ls euk;k tkrk gSA bl volj
ij leLr v;ks/;k vkSj mlesa fLFkr pkSngdkslh ,oa ikapdkslh {ks= jkee;
gks tkrk gSA leLr efUnjksa esa jke tUeksRlo dk vk;kstu gksrk gS
fo'ks"k :i ls dud Hkou o tUeHkwfe esa fo'ks"k vk;kstu gksrk gS ftlesa
yk[kksa J)kyq tu Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz th dk tUeksRol eukrs gSa bl
volj ij v;ks/;k esa J)kyq HkDrksa dh la[;k yk[kksa esa gksrh gSA tks
Hkkjr ds dksus dksus o fons'k ls Hkh vkrs gSaA J)kyq jkeHkDr tUe LFkku
vkdj tUeHkwfe efUnj rFkk mlesa fojkteku Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz ;kuh
jkeyyk dk n'kZu iwtu djrs gSa o J)kour gksdj tUeHkwfe dh jt
eLrd ls yxkrs gSa rFkk tUeHkwfe dh ifjdzek dj vius dks /kU; ekurs
gSaA**
**18- The birth function of Lord Rama is celebrated with
fanfare at Ayodhya every year on the occasion of ‘Chaitra
(first month of Hindu calendar) Navami (ninth day of lunar
month)’. On this occasion, the entire Ayodhya and the area
 359

of ‘Panchkosi’ (cirumambulation of ten miles) and

‘Chaudahkosi’ (cirumambulation of twenty eight miles), is
gripped in the fervour of Rama. The festival of birth of
Rama is held in all the temples, specially in Kanakbhawan
and Janmbhumi, where special celebrations are held, and
which are attended by lacs of devotees of Rama. The
number of devotees present on this occasion runs into lacs,
who come from abroad and different corners of India. The
devotees of Rama visit the Janmbhumi temple and offer
their prayers and worship to Lord Ramachandra or
Ramalala present there and apply the earth of Janmbhumi
on their foreheads out of devotion and consider themselves
to be fortunate after completing circumambulation of the
Janmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
**19- v;ks/;k rhFkZLFkyh vU; rhFkZLFkyksa ls loksZijh gS D;ksafd ;gka
Hkxoku Jh jke us Lo;a vorkj ysdj leLr ekuo tkfr dk dY;k.k
fd;k gSA Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz th vkSj v;ks/;k esa fLFkr mudh tUeHkwfe
dksfV&dksfV Hkkjrh;ksa o J)kyq jkeHkDrksa dh J)k o vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl
dk izrhd gSA oknh Hkh blh J)k] fo'okl o vkLFkk dks ekudj Hkxoku
Jh jkepUnz th o tUeHkwfe esa fojkteku mudh ewfrZ o vU; nsoh
nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ksa dk n'kZu o mudk iwtu djrk pyk vk jgk gS vkSj
lnSo djrk jgsxkA**
**19- Ayodhya is the topmost pilgrimage place amongst
other pilgrimage places, because Lord Rama had Himself
appeared here as God incarnate and did welfare of the
human kind. Lord Rama and His Janmbhumi at Ayodhya,
signifies the devotion, belief and faith of numerous Indians
and devotees of Rama. It was under this very devotion,
faith and belief that the plaintiff has been offering prayer
and worship to Lord Rama and the idols of Him and other
Gods- Goddesses present at the Janmbhumi and will
 360

always continue to do so.” (E.T.C.)

**20- ;g fd 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks Hkou tgka Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz th
egkjkt fojkteku Fks Hkou ds fxj tkus ds mijkUr Hkh mlh LFkku ij
Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz th fojkteku gSa vkSj mudk iwtk o n'kZu fujarj
J)kyq jkeHkDr o oknh Lo;a djrk pyk vk jgk gSA**
**20- That even after collapse of the building in which
Lord Rama was present, on 6th December, 1992, Lord
Rama is still present at that very place and prayers and
worship are regularly being offered to Him by the devotees
of Rama and the plaintiff himself.” (E.T.C.)
**21- ;g fd tUe LFkku o tUeHkwfe ifjlj rFkk mlesa fojkteku
Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz th egkjkt o vU; nsoh nsorkvksa dk n'kZu] iwtk]
vkjk/kuk o vkjrh rFkk ifjdzek esa O;o/kku Mkyus dk vf/kdkj fdlh Hkh
izfroknh dks izkIr ugha gS rFkk nkok oknh iw.kZ:is.k fMxzh gksus ;ksX; gSA**
**21- That none of the defendant has got the right to create
any hindrance in prayer, worship, ‘Aarti’ and
circumambulation of the Janmsthan, Janmbhumi premises
and Lord Rama and other Gods-Goddesses present there
and the suit of the plaintiff fully deserves to be decreed.”
(E.T.C.)
334. D.W. 1/2 Krishna Chandra Singh, son of late Chhedi
Singh alias Mritunjay Singh, aged about 79 years (in July 2003)
has given his statement by way of an affidavit sworn on
28.7.2003 followed by his cross examination as under :
(a) 28.07.2003-by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 11
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 7-22)
(b)29.07.2003- by defendant no. 1/1 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 23-28)
(c) 29/30/31.07.2003- by defendant no. 10, Sunni Central
Waqf Board, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 28-
60)
 361

(d) 31.07.2003, 01/04.08.2003-by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4)

and defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) through Sri Mushtaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 60-91)
(e) 04.08.2003- defendant no. 26 in Suit-5 through Sri
Sayad Irfan, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2
(Suit-3) through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 91)
335. He is resident of Haripur Jalalabad, Tahsil Sohawal,
District Faizabad. After obtaining primary education in a nearby
village Rampur, he studied in Government Model School,
Haiderganj, Faizabad upto middle level and passed High School
in 1945 from Manohar Lal Moti High School, Faizabad. He did
intermediate from Allahabad and then graduation in Arts from
Saket College, Faizabad. After completion of his education, he
was appointed as a Teacher in 1956 R.D. Inter College,
Suchitaganj, Faizabad wherefrom he retired in 1985. In para 4 of
the affidavit, he says that his family belongs to Vaishnava sect
and worship Lord Ram. He and his family has offered Darshan
and Pooja at the birth place of Lord Ram at Ayodhya from time
to time. Thereafter, in para 6 to 20, he has given statement about
the continuous worship at the disputed site, that it is a temple
throughout, the topography of the disputed site as well as the
nearby area, and said as under :
“6- mi;qZDr fo'ks"k voljksa ij v;ks/;k esa ns'k fons'k ls yk[kksa yksx
vkrs gSa vkSj iwjh v;ks/;k lhrkjke ds t;dkjksa ls xaqtk;eku gks tkrh gSA
izR;sd jkLrs&xyh] eafnj vkfn jkeHkDrksa] rhFkZ;kf=;ksa ,oa n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ls
Hkj tkrs gSaA ?k.Vs&?kfM;ky] 'ka[k dh /ofu;kWa pkjksa rjQ lquk;h nsrh
gSaA**
^^6- Lacs of people from India-abroad visit Ayodhya on
 362

the above special occasions and the entire Ayodhya gets

filled up from religious calls of ‘SitaRam’. Every lane,
road, temple is flooded with devotees of Rama, pilgrims
and spectators. The sounds of bells, gongs, conches are
heard every where.” (E.T.C.)
**7- eSaus vius firk th ds lkFk lj;w Luku djus ds i'pkr~
ukxs'ojukFk] guqeku x<+h] dudHkou] cM+h Nkouh vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe
dk n'kZu vusdks ckj yxkrkj fd;k gSA**
^^7- I along with my father, have regularly offered prayer
and worship at Nageshwarnath, Hanumagarhi,
Kanakbhawan, Badi Chhawani and Sri Ram Janmbhumi
on number of occasions after taking a dip in the Saryu.”
(E.T.C.)
**8- lu~ 1932 esa tc eSa FkksM+k cM+k gks x;k vkSj dqN le>nkj gqvk
rks eSaus vius firk th ls eafnjksa ds ckjs esa vf/kd tkudkjh izkIr dhA
lu~ 1932 esa Jhjkefookg ds volj ij vius firk th ds lkFk v;ks/;k
vk;k Fkk vkSj lj;w Luku djus ds ckn loZ izFke Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk
n'kZu djus x;k rks esj s firk th us crk;k fd rhu f'k[kj
okys Hkou ds chp oky s f'k[kj ds uhps dh Hk wf e ij gekj s
vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dk vorkj gq v k Fkk vkS j ;gh Jhjke
tUeHk wf e gS A **
**8- In 1932 when I was a bit grown up and developed
some understanding, I obtained more information about
temples from my father. I had visited Ayodhya along with
my father in the year 1932 on the occasion of ‘Sri Ram
Vivah’ and after taking a dip in the Saryu I went to offer
prayer at SriRam Janmbhumi for the first time, when my
father told me that the incarnation of our revered Lord
Rama took place at the land beneath the mid dome of
the three dome building, and this was SriRam
Janmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
 363

^^9- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij tkus ds fy, iwjc dh vksj eq[;}kj Fkk tks
guqer}kj ds uke ls fo[;kr gS blesa dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds nks [kEHks
yxs gq, Fks ftuesa t;&fot; dh [kf.Mr ewfrZ cuh gqbZ Fkh guqer}kj ij
gh ,d iRFkj vkSj yxk gqvk Fkk ftl ij la[;k&1 vkSj ^^tUeHkwfe
fuR; ;k=k** fy[kk gqvk FkkA^^
^^9- There is a main gate on the east to enter the SriRam
Janmbhumi, which is famous as ‘Hanumatdwar’. It has two
pillars of black touch stone, which contain the broken idol
of Jai-Vijai. There is another stone at the ‘Hanumatdwar’,
which has number ‘1’ and ‘Janmbhumi Nitya Yatra‘
written on it.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- eq[; izos'k}kj guqer}kj ls nf{k.k rjQ okjkg Hkxoku dh ,d
ewfrZ nhokj esa gh yxh gqbZ [kf.Mr voLFkk esa Fkha guqer }kj ls vUnj
tkus ij ck;s a ;kuh nf{k.k rjQ jke pcwr jk Fkk ftl ij jke
njckj ds foxzg rFkk Jhjkeyyk dh ewfrZ fojkteku FkhA mlds nf{k.k
if'pe dksus ij uhe o ihiy dk isM+ ,d gh esa yxk gqvk Fkk tgkWa
v/kZxksykdkj pcwrjk Fkk pcwrjs ij f'ko] ikoZrh] x.ks'k] dkfrZds;] f'koth
dk v/kZkuUnh dh ewfrZ;kWa fojkteku FkhA^^
**10- An idol of Lord Varah is installed in the wall to the
south of main entrance gate ‘Hanumatdwar’, which was in
a broken state. After entry through the Hanumatdwar,
there was the Ramchabutara on the left i.e. towards
south, over which the ‘Vigrah’ (individual form or shape)
of ‘Ram Durbar(Court)’ and the idol of Sri Ramlala were
present. To its south-west corner, Neem and Pipal trees
were planted together. There was a semi-circular platform
over which the idols of Shiva, Parvati, Ganesh, Kartikey
and Shivji’s ‘Ardhanandi’ were present.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- guqer}kj ds nkfgus vFkkZr~ mRrj dh vksj Hk.Mkjx`g Fkk ftlesa
vUu] crZu vkfn j[ks tkrs Fks vkSj lk/kq&oSjkxh jgrs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe
ij lk/kq&oSjkxh izR;sd le; jgrs Fks vkSj v[k.M dhrZu pkSchlksa ?k.Vs
 364

pyrk jgrk FkkA^^

^^11- To the right of ‘Hanumatdwar’ i.e. towards north,
was the store room where food grains, utensils etc. were
kept and saints-recluses used to live. Saints-recluses were
always present at SriRam Janmbhumi and the ‘Akhand
Kirtan’ (Non-stop prayer) continued round the clock.”
(E.T.C.)
^^12- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij mRrj dh vksj Hkh ,d }kj Fkk ftldks
flag }kj dgk tkrk Fkk flag }kj ds Åij nk s 'k sj k s a dh
ewf rZ ; kW a rFkk mlds chp esa x:.k dh ,d ewf rZ cuh gq b Z
FkhA^^
^^12- There was also a gate towards north of SriRam
Janmbhumi, which was called ‘Singhdwar’. The statues
of two lions and one ‘Garun’ (mythological carrier of
Lord Vishnu) in between, were there at the
‘Singhdwar’.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- flag }kj ls vUnj tkus ij lhrk jlk sb Z ftldk s
dkS ' kY;k jlk sb Z vFkok NBhiwt u LFky Hkh dgk tkrk gS ] Fkk
ogk a pkS d k csy u] pwY gk vkS j pj.k fpUg cus gq , Fk sA ^^
^^13- On entry through the ‘Singhdwar’ fell the ‘Sita
Rasoi’, which is also called ‘Kaushalya Rasoi’ or
‘Chhati Pujan Sthal’. The symbols of ‘Chauka- Belan’
(utensils used in Indian kitchen), hearth and feet existed
there.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- jkepcwrjk ds if'pe ,d nhokj Fkh ftlesa yksgs ds cM+s&cM+s
taxys yxs gq, Fks ftldks lhadpsa okyh nhokj dgk tkrk FkkA lhadps
okyh nhokj esa nks njokts yxs FksA ,d njoktk guqer }kj ds lkeus
iM+rk Fkk nwljk mlls FkksM+k mRrj gVdj FkkA bUgha njoktksa ls gksdj
vUnj tkus ij rhu f'k[kjksa okyk Hkou Jhjke tUeHkwfe FkkA ftlds
e/; oky s f'k[kj ds uhp s dh Hk wf e gh og Hk wf e gS tk s
ijEijkxr vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vuq l kj Hkxoku
 365

JhjkepUnz th dh tUeHk wf e ekuh tkrh gS A ^^

^^14- To the west of Ramchabutara was a wall with large
iron grills, and was called grill wall. There were two gates
in the grill wall. One gate faced the Hanumatdwar and the
other was a bit away on the north. These gates were the
entry points to the three dome building, SriRam
Janmbhumi, under the middle dome of which is the land,
which on the basis of customary faith and belief is
considered to be the birthplace of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou ds e/; okys izos'k}kj esa dkys dlkSVh ds
pkj [kEHks yxs gq, Fks vkSj e/; f'k[kj okys Hkkx ls nf{k.k okys f'k[kj esa
tkus ds fy, tks izos'k}kj Fkk mlesa Hkh dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds pkj [kEHks
yxs Fks rFkk e/; f'k[kj okys Hkkx ls mRrj ds f'k[kj okys Hkkx esa tkus
ds fy, tks izos'k }kj Fkk mlesa Hkh dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds pkj [kEHks yxs
gq, Fks bl izdkj dqy 12 [kEHks yxs gq, Fks ftu ij dy'k] QwyiRrh]
nsoh&nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;kWa] rk.Mo eqnzk] in~eklu eqnzk esa FkhA^^
^^15 There were four black touch stone pillars at the
middle gate of the three dome building, and there were four
black touch stone pillars at the gate for entry to the
southern dome side from the middle dome side and there
were four black touch stone pillars at the gate for entry to
the northern dome side from the middle dome side. As such
there were 12 pillars in all, over which the ‘Kalash’ (pot),
flowers-leaves, idols of Gods-Goddesses in ‘Tandav’ pose,
‘Padmasan’ pose were present.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- ijEijkxr vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds dkj.k fgUnw J)kyq jkeHkDr
rFkk esjs ifjokj ds yksx vkSj eSa Hkh ml LFky dks tgkWa Hkxoku Jhjke
dk tUe vukfndky ls ekuk tkrk jgk gS mls Lo;aH k w nso ekudj
n'kZ u &iwt k] lk"Vk ax iz . kke djrs gS a rFkk iwjs ifjlj dh ifjdzek
v;ks/;k esa jgus okys rFkk ns'k&fons'k ls v;ks/;k vkus okys n'kZukFkhZ&
rhFkZ;k=h djrs gSaA^^
 366

^^16- Out of customary faith and belief, the Hindu devotees

of Rama, my family members and myself offer prayer and
worship at the place which is considered from time
immemorial as the birthplace of Lord Rama. (We) perform
darshan-worship, offer prostration by considering it to
be self-originating God and the Ayodhyaites and the
devotees-pilgrims from country- abroad circumambulate
the entire premises.” (E.T.C.)
^^17- eSaus Hkh vusdksa ckj tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu&iwtk vpZuk rFkk ifjdzek
fd;k gSA o"kZ 1934 esa v;ks/;k esa fgUnw&eqlyekuksa ds e/; naxk gqvk FkkA
D;ksafd QStkckn rFkk ckgj ds cgqr ls eqlyeku jketUeHkwfe ij dCtk
djus ds mn~ns'; ls bdV~Bs gq, FksA tUeHkwfe ij gtkjksa fgUnw J)kyq
jkeHkDrksa rFkk oSjkxh lk/kqvksa us mUgsa ekjihV dj Hkxk fn;k FkkA ljdkj
us v;ks/;koklh fgUnw turk ij n.MLo:i naxk VSDl Hkh yxkdj
gtkjksa :i;k olwy fd;k FkkA^^
^^17- I have offered prayer and worship at the Janmbhumi
on numerous occasions and have also circumambulated
around it. In 1934 a riot had broken out between Hindus-
Muslims in Ayodhya because number of Muslims of
Faizabad and other places, had gathered with the intention
of capturing the Ramjanmbhumi. Thousands of Hindu
devotees of Rama and recluse saints beat and drove them
away. The Government imposed riot tax on the Hindu
public of Ayodhya as a punishment, and recovered tax to
the tune of thousands of rupees.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- lu~ 1932 ds ckn dHkh Hkh dksbZ eqlyeku tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa ugha
tk ik;k ml ifjlj esa uekt i<+us dk loky gh ugha iSnk gksrk D;ksafd
oSjkfx;ksa ds Mj o ng'kr ds dkj.k dksbZ Hkh eqlyeku tUeHkwfe ds fudV
jkedksV eksgYys esa tkrk gh ugha FkkA^^
**18- After 1932 no Muslim was ever able to enter the
Janmbhumi premises and as such there is no question of
 367

offering of Namaz in that premises because on account of

fear and terror of the recluses, no Muslim went to the
Ramkot locality near the Janmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- ;fn Hkwys HkVds dksbZ eqlyeku Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh vksj
vkrs gq, fn[kk;h Hkh ns tkrk Fkk rks Hkh lk/kq&oSjkxh mls ekjus ds fy,
nkSM+k ysrs Fks vkSj mUgsa Hkxk nsrs FksA lu~ 1932 ls lu~ 1949 rd dHkh Hkh
fdlh eqlyeku dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh vksj vkrs tkrs Hkh ugha
ns[kkA lk/kq&oSjkfx;ksa ds Mj vksj ng'kr ds dkj.k eqlyeku Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh vksj vkrk gh ugha FkkA^^
**19- If by mistake any Muslim was spotted coming
towards the SriRam Janmbhumi premises, then also the
saints- recluses used to chase and drive them away. I never
even saw any Muslim coming towards the SriRam
Janmbhumi premises from 1932 to 1949. No Muslim came
towards the SriRam Janmbhumi premises due to fear and
terror of saints-recluses.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- blh izdkj lu~ 1949 ls Qjojh 1986 ;kuh Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk
rkyk ftyk tt QStkckn ds vkns'k ls [kksys tkus rd u rks eSaus fdlh
eqlyeku dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh vksj vkrs gq, ns[kk u gh lquk
vkSj u gh eqlyekuksa }kjk Jhjke tUeHkwwfe ifjlj ;k mlds vkl&ikl
uekt i<+us dk iz'u gh iSnk ugh gksrk gSA**
^^20- Similarly, from the year 1949 to February, 1986 i.e.
till the opening of lock of SriRam Janmbhumi under order
of District Judge, Faizabad, I neither saw nor heard about
any Muslim going towards the SriRam Janmbhumi
premises and there is no question of Muslims offering
Namaz at or near the SriRam Janmbhumi premises.”
(E.T.C.)
336. D.W. 1/3 Dr. Sahdev Prasad Dubey, aged about 74 years
in August 2003, is resident of village and post Khirauni, Tahsil
and District Faizabad. His Examination-in-chief by way of
 368

affidavit dated 04.8.2003 followed by cross-examination is as

under :
(a) 04.08.2003- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 11,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 10-20)
(b) 05/06.08.2003- by defendant no. 11 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 21-36)
(c) 06/07/11/13/14.08.2003-by defendant no. 10, Sunni
Central Waqf Board, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 36-110)
(d) 14/19/21.08.2003- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Sri Mohd. Hashim, through Sri
Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 110-140)
(e) 21.08.2003-defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri
Sayad Irfan, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 in
Suit-3 through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 140)
337. He did High School in 1950, Intermediate in 1952,
Graduation in 1955 from Subhash National Degree College,
Unnao affiliated to Agra University, B.Ed. and M.Ed. in 1956-
57 and 1962-63 respectively from Lucknow University, M.A.
from Awadh University, Faizabad in 1977 and Ph.D. in 1981
from the same University. The subject of research was “Ram
Kavya Parampara Mein Vaidehi Vanvas”. He was appointed as
Teacher in R.D. Inter College, Suchitaganj, District Faizabad in
1958, promoted in Lecturer's grade (Education) in 1963, worked
as Principal of the said College from September 1984 to
February 1985, and on attaining the age of superannuation,
retired on 30.6.1990. He is also a follower of Sanatan religion
 369

having faith in God and Goddess and perform Darshan and

Pooja (worship) in accordance with religious tenets. He also
stated about his special study on the literature and religious
books etc. giving details thereof in para 10 of his affidavit dated
4.8.2003 and said as under :
**10- eSaus Hkh Hkxoku Jh jke dh izsj.kk o vk'khZokn ls ^^jke dkO;
ijEijk esa oSnsgh ouokl dk fof'k"V v/;;u^^ uked 'kks/k izcU/k vo/k
fo'o fo|ky;] QStkckn ls vius vkjk/; ,oa izHkq Jh jke ds vk'khZokn ls
1981 esa iw.kZ fd;kA bl 'kks/k dk;Z esa eSaus yxHkx 127 fgUnh xzUFkksa ftuesa
vaxn iSt] vfXuijh{kk] v/kf[kyk Qwy] vyadkj eatw"kk] v'kksdou]
v"V;ke] v"V;ke iwtk fof/k] vkatus;] mfeZyk] dYiyrk] Hkwfetk] dSds;h]
fiz;izokl] cjos jkek;.k] ckfyo/k] HkfDr dk fodkl] Hkwfetk] e>yh jkuh]
ekul dk gal] ekul v"V;ke] es?kukn] jldyl] jfld jgL;] jktjkuh
lhrk] jkedFkk ¼mRifRr ,oa fodkl½] jkedFkk vkSj rqylh] jke dh 'kfDr
iwtk] jke pfUnzdk] jke dh lokjh] jkepUnzksn; dkO;] jkepfjr ekul]
jkepfjr fparkef.k] jke jlk;u] jkejkT;] jkeLo;aoj jkek'oes/k] jkej{kk
L=ks=] jketUe] jkeHktueatjh vkfn izeq[k gSa ,oa vU; lEcfU/kr iqLrdkas
dk leh{kkRed v/;;u fd;kA
laLd`r xzUFkksa esa eSaus yxHkx 56 laLd`r xzUFkksa ftuesa vfXuiqjk.k]
vFkZoosn] vn~Hkqr jkek;.k] vk/;kRe jkek;.k] vkuan jkek;.k] v"V;ke]
mnkjjk?ko dfYd iqjk.k] dkfydkiqjk.k] u`flag iqjk.k] in~eiqjk.k]
czg~eiqjk.k] ;tqZosn] j?kqoa'k] dkfynkl d`r jkepfjr] _Xosn] okjkg iqjk.k
vkfn gSa rFkk 3 ikyh xzUFkksa vukede tkrde] n'kjFk dFkkue o n'kjFk
tkrde o 5 izkd`r xzUFkksa 1- imekfj;a 2- jke yyupfj;a 3- dykoyh 4-
lh;kpfj;a 5- jkey[kupfj;a rFkk 3 viHkzU'k xzUFk 1- imekpfjm ¼Lo;aHkw½
2- imekpfjm ¼iq"inUr½ 3- in~e iqjk.k ¼cyHknz iqjk.k½ jbFkw% ds v/;;u
ds vfrfjDr Mk0 fxz;jlZu fyf[kr ^^fyfXof"Vd losZ vkQ bf.M;k dks
vaxzsth esa i<+k ,oa euu fd;k gSA**
“10. In 1981, I completed my research work on “Ram
Kavya Parampara Mein Vaidehi Vanvaas Ka Vishisht
Adhayayan” from the Awadh University Faizabad with the
inspiration and the blessings of Lord Sri Rama. For this
 370

research work I made a critical study of 107 Hindi

treatises, mainly including Angad Paij, Agnipariksha,
Adhkhila Phool, Alankar Manjoosha, Ahsok Van,
Ashtyaam, Ashtyaam Poojavidhi, Aanjneya, Urmila,
Kalplata, Kaikeyi, Priyaprawas, Barwai Ramayana,
Balivadh, Bhakti Ka Vikas, Bhumija, Majhli Rani, Manas
Ka Hans, Manas Asthyaam, Meghnad, Raskalash, Rasik
Rahasya, Raj Rani Sita, Ramkatha (Utpatti Evam Vikas),
Ram Katha Aur Tulsi , Ram Ki Shakti Pooja,
Ramchandrika, Ram Ki Sawari, Ramchadrodaya Kavya,
Ram Charit Manas, Ram Charit Chitnamani, Ram
Rasayan, Ram Rajya, Ram Svyamvar, Ramashwamedh,
Ram Raskha Strotra, Ramjanam, Rambhajanmanjari, etc.,
and also of other relevant books.
Apart from nearly 56 Sanskrit treatises including
Agnipurana, Atharva Veda, Adbhut Ramayana, Aadhyatm
Ramayana, Anand Ramayana, Ashtyaam, Udaar Raghav,
Kalki Purana, Kalika Purana, Nrisingh Purana, Padm
Purana, Brahm Purana, Yajurveda, Raghuvansh, Kalidas
written Ram Charit, Rigveda, Varah Purana, etc. and three
Pali treatises – Anamakam Jatakam, Dashrath Kathanam
and Dashrath Jatakam - and 5 Prakrit treatises – 1-
Paumariyam 2- Ram Lalanchariyam 3- Kalawati 4-Siya
Chariyam and 5- Ramlakhanchariyam – and three
Upbhransh works – 1-Paumachariu (Swayambhoo) 2-
Paumachariu (Pushpdant) 3- Padma Purana (Balbhadra
Puranah Raithooh) – I also studied “Linguistic Survey of
India” by Dr, Grierson in English and meditated upon it.”
(E.T.C.)
338. About his knowledge regarding birth of Lord Ram and his
 371

birthplace as well as the existence of temple at the disputed site,

DW 1/3 said in paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18
of the affidavit as under:
^^6- gekjk ifjokj lukru /kehZ gS rFkk leLr nsoh&nsorkvksa esa vkLFkk
j[krk gSA eSa Hkh tUe ls gh lukru/kehZ gwa rFkk nsoh&nsorkvksa esa vkLFkk
j[krk gwa ,oa mudk n'kZu o iwtu djrk gwaA**
**6- My family is an orthodox (sanatandharmi) family and
believes in all gods-goddesses. I am also an orthodox since
birth and believe in gods-goddesses and offer my prayer-
worship to them.” (E.T.C.)
**7- v;ks/;k fo'o dk egkure rhFkZLFky gS vkSj v;ks/;k ds
vkl&ikl dk leLr {ks= ^^vo/k** ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA eSa blh
vo/k {ks= ds tuin QStkckn ds xzke f[kjkSuh dk LFkk;h fuoklh gwa tgka
gekjs iwoZt jgrs jgs gSaA v;ks/;k dk egkRe; blfy;s gS fd ;g e;kZnk
iq:"kksRre Hkxoku jke dh ikou tUe LFkyh gS ftlds mRrj esa ifo=
lj;w unh cgrh gSA ikSjkf.kd xzUFkksa o yk[kksa o"kksZ dh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj
v;ks/;k ds jkedksV eksgYys esa tUeHkwfe o tUe LFkku vofLFkr gSA ;ksa rks
leLr v;ks/;k {ks= gh e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Jh jke dh tUe LFkyh ds :i
esa nsorqY; iwT; gS fdUrq ftl LFkku dks 'kkL=ksa us Jh jke dh tUeLFkyh
ekuk gS mldh efgek dk c[kku /kkfeZd] lkfgfR;d] o ,sfrgkfld
iqLrdksa esa fd;k x;k gSA buds vfrfjDr tuekul dh vkLFkk o
fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij jkedk sV fLFkr tUeHk wf e efUnj] ftls
fookfnr dj fn;k x;k gS ogh e;kZ n k iq : "kk sR re Jh
jkepunz th dh tUeHk wf e ekuh tkrh gS ] ftls fpfUgr dj
HkO; efUnj dk fuekZ . k vkfndky esa gq v k FkkA tcls fujarj
ml LFkku rFkk ogka fojkteku ,oa LFkkfir Hkxoku Jh jke dh ewfrZ dk
n'kZu&iwtu ,oa tUeLFkku dh ifjdzek gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA**
**7- Ayodhya is the greatest pilgrimage on earth and
Ayodhya along with its entire adjoining area is known as
Oudh. I am a native of village Khirauni, district Faizabad
of this very Oudh area, and my ancestors had also resided
 372

there. The importance of Ayodhya is in view of the fact that

it is the sacred birthplace of Lord Rama, to the north of
which flows the holy river Saryu. As per the religious
treatises and faith of lakhs of years, the Janmbhumi and the
birthplace are situated in Ramkot locality of Ayodhya.
Although the entire Ayodhya is worth reverence as the
birthplace of Maryada Purshottam Sri Rama, but the
greatness of the place, which has been considered as the
birthplace of Sri Rama in the Shastras, has been described
in the religious, literary and historical books. Besides
these, the Janmbhumi temple situated at Ramkot as per
the faith and belief of general public,which has been
made subject matter of dispute, has been considered as
the janmbhumi (birthplace) of Maryada Purshottam Sri
Ramchandra and after identifying the same, a grand
temple was built there in early ages. Since then, the
prayer-worship of the deity of Lord Sri Rama present over
there as well as the circumambulation of the Janmsthan
has been performed.” (E.T.C.)
**8- ikSjkf.kd rFkk leLr lukru/kekZoyEch tuekul dh vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ds vuqlkj bl LFkku ij tUeHkwfe ds izrhd Lo:i efUnj dh
LFkkiuk vla[; o"kksZa iwoZ gqbZ Fkh rFkk dkykUrj esa egku ijkdzeh jktk
fodzekfnR; dk 'kkludky tks dkyx.kuk ds vuqlkj orZeku le; ls
2060 o"kZ iwoZ ekuk tkrk gS vkSj blh dkyx.kuk dks fodze laor ds uke
ls tkuk tkrk gSA mUgksaus mDr LFkku ij HkO; efUnj dk fuekZ.k fd;kA**
**8- According to the religious treatises and faith and
belief of orthodox general public, a temple was built at this
place innumerable years ago as symbol of Janmbhumi.
With passage of time a grand temple was built at the said
place during the reign of great emperor Vikramaditya,
which is believed to have existed about 2060 years ago and
 373

this very period is known as Vikram Samvat. He had built a

grand temple at that place.” (E.T.C.)
**9- Hkkjrh; dkyx.kuk ds vuqlkj bls pkj ;qxksa esa ckaVk x;k gS
ftUgsa lr;qx] =Srk] }kij o dy;qx ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS] ftldk
izkjEHk vkt ls ikap 'krkCnh iwoZ vFkkZr ikap gtkj o"kZ ls dqN vf/kd ls
ekuk tkrk gSA Hkkjrh; iapkax dh blh dkyx.kuk ds vuqlkj =srk ;qx esa
pS= 'kqDy uoeh dks e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Hkxoku Jh jke dk tUe vo/k ds
egkjktk n'kjFk ds t;s"B iq= ds :i esa gqvk] pS= 'kqDy uoeh dks
e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Hkxoku Jh jke pUnz dk tUe gksus ds dkj.k bls
jkeuoeh dgk tkrk gSA e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz ftuds
cky:i dk o.kZu /kkfeZd ,oa lkfgfR;d xzUFkksa esa gqvk gS rFkk gtkjksa o"kksZ
ds Kkr bfrgkl esa izR;sd o"kZ fodzeh laor~ ds vuqlkj pS='kqDy jke
uoeh ds fnu ds 12 cts e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Jh jkepUnz th dk tUeksRlo
izR;sd lukru/kehZ jkeHkDr ifjokj esa rFkk efUnjksa esa euk;k tkrk gSA
efUnjksa esa tkdj jkeHkDr vkjk/ku] n'kZu] iwtu] vkjrh o fojkteku
Jhjke ds foxzg dh ifjdzek dj vius dks /kU; ekurs gSaA**
**9- According to the Indian system of period calculation,
it has been divided in four Yugas (periods) known as
Satyug, Treta, Dwaper and Kalyug, which began about five
centuries ago i.e. a bit more than five thousand years. As
per this calculation of period of the Indian Panchang,
Maryada Purshottam Lord Sri Rama was born on Chaitra
Shukla Navami (ninth day of lunar fortnight commencing
from no moon night of the month of chaitra)in the Treta
Yuga, as the eldest son of king Dashrath. Since Maryada
Purshottam Lord Sri Rama was born on Chaitra Shukla
Navami, it is known as Ramnavami. The descriptions of the
childform of Maryada Purshottam Lord Sri Rama, are
found in religious and literary works and in the known
history of thousand years, the birth celebration of Maryada
Purshottam Sri Ramchandra takes place at 12 noon on
 374

Chaitra Shukla Navami every year in the Vikrama era, in

every orthodox family and temples. The devotees of Rama
go to temples to offer prayer, worship, arti and consider
themselves to be fortunate by performing
circumambulation of the deity of Sri Rama present over
there.” (E.T.C.)
**11- v;ks/;k fLFkr jkedksV eksgYys esa Jh jke tUe Hk wf e
efUnj ,d ÅW p s Vhy s ij vofLFkr gS ftlds uhp s /kjkry
rd iz k phu efUnjk s a ds vo'k s" k fo|eku gS a ftudk fuekZ.kdky
dbZ 'krkfCn;ksa ds vUrjky ij gqvk gS D;ksafd efUnjksa dk iqu:)kj ,oa
iqufuZekZ.k vko';drkuqlkj fd;k tkrk jgk gSA 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks
efUnj dk tks Hkou fxj x;k gS mlds uhp s ckjgoh a 'krkCnh ds
efUnj ds vo'k s" k fo|eku gS a ftldk fuekZ . k xgjokj oa' kh;
jktk us X;kjgoh a 'krkCnh ds vklikl fd;k FkkA**
**11- The Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple in Ramkot locality
of Ayodhya, is situated over a high mound, beneath
whose floor are present the remains of ancient temples,
which had been built at intervals of many centuries
because the temples were renovated and re-built as per
requirement. The building of temple, which collapsed on 6th
December, 1992, had the remains of a 12th century
temple beneath it, which had been built by a Gaharwal
dynasty king around 11th century.”
**12- jke tUeHkwfe efUnj 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks fo|eku Hkou ds fxj
tkus ds ckn Hkh Hkxoku Jh jke mlh igys okys LFkku ij fojkteku gSa
vkSj mudh iwtk vpZuk vkjrh] ifjdzek fujarj J)kyq HkDrx.k o 'kiFkh
Lo;a Hkh djrk pyk vk jgk gSA**
“12- Even after the collapse of existing building of
Ramjanmbhumi temple on 6th December, 1992, Lord Sri
Rama is still present at the earlier place and His prayer-
worship, arti, circumambulation are regularly being
 375

performed by the devotees as well as the deponent.”

(E.T.C.)
**13- Jh jke tUeHkwfe fLFkr efUnj esa izos'k ds fy;s iwoZ fn'kk esa
guqer }kj 6 fnlEcj 1992 ds iwoZ Fkk] }kj ds nksuksa vksj dlkSVh ds
[kEHks yxs Fks tks fxurh esa nks Fks bu ij nsoh nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka mHkjh
FkhaA mRrj dh vk sj lhrkjlk sb Z o blds iwo Z esa tUeHk wf e
efUnj dk Hk.Mkjx` g o jke pcwr jk Fkk] lhrkjlksbZ ds mRrjh
fn'kk esa flag}kj Fkk nf{k.k o if'pe fn'kk esa ijrh tehu Fkh ftlds
HkDrx.k efUnj ifjlj vFkkZr jke tUe Hkwfe fLFkr eafnj dh ifjdzek
djrs FksA**
**13- Prior to 6th December, 1992 Hanumatdwar existed in
east for entry to the temple situated at Sri Ramjanmbhumi.
There were touchstone pillars on both sides of the gate,
which were two in number with deities of Gods-Goddesses
engraved over them. There was Sita rasoi in the north
and to its east were the store room of the janmbhumi
temple and Ramchabutara. To the north of the Sita rasoi,
was the Singhdwar and vacant land in south and west, over
which the devotees used to perform circumambulation of
the temple premises i.e. the temple situated at
Ramjanmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
**14- v;ks/;k esa fuR; gtkjksa jkeHkDr fo'o ds lHkh ns'kksa ,oa ns'k ds
izR;sd Hkkx ls fujarj vkrs jgrs gSa tks lj;w esa LukuksijkUr v;ks/;k
fLFkr gtkjksa efUnjksa esa n'kZu&iwtu] vkjk/kuk djrs gSa tUe LFkku ,oa
tUeHkwfe efUnj] guqeku x<+h] dud Hkou izR;sd jkeHkDr ,oa vkjk/kd
fo'ks"k :i ls tkrk ,oa ogka dk n'kZu dj vius dks lkSHkkX;'kkyh ekurk
gSA**
**14- Thousands of devotees of Rama from within the
country and abroad used to visit to Ayodhya everyday and
after having a dip in the Saryu, they used to have prayer-
worship at thousands of temples situated in Ayodhya. Every
 376

devotee and worshipper of Rama particularly visited the

Janmsthan, Janmbhumi temple, Hanumangarhi, Kanak
Bhawn and after having a darshan over there, used to
consider himself to be fortunate.” (E.T.C.)
**15- gj lky lkou esy k ds volj ij v;k s/ ;k vla[ ;
jkeHkDrk s a ls iV tkrh gS A J)kyq jkeHkDr Jko.k ekg dh izfrink
ls vkuk vkjEHk dj nsrs gSa vkSj j{kkcU/ku rd HkDrksa dk vkuk fujarj
cuk jgrk gS vkus okyk izR;sd J)kyq jkeHkDr lj;w Luku] v;ks/;k
fLFkr efUnjksa dk n'kZu o iwtu ,oa vkjk/kuk] tUeHkwfe ifjlj o
tUeHkwfe ifjlj efUnj esa fojkteku jkeyyk dk n'kZu] iwtu o vkjk/ku
o ifjdzek dj vius thou dks lkFkZd ekurk gSA**
**15- Every year Ayodhya was flooded with innumerable
devotees of Rama on the occasion of Shravna (a lunar
month of Hindu calender) fair. The devotees started
visiting from the Pratipada (first day of a lunar month) of
the month of Shravna and kept coming till Rakshabandhan.
Every visitor devotee of Rama used to consider his life to
be worth-while on having dip in Saryu, offering prayer-
worship at the temples situated at Ayodhya and performing
the darshan, prayer-worship, circumambulation of the
Janmbhumi premises and Ramlala present in the temple at
the Janmbhumi premises.” (E.T.C.)
**16- izR;sd o"kZ dkfrZ d ekl esa v;k s/ ;k es a dkfrZ d esy k
gk sr k gS blesa Hkh fo'o ds vf/kdka'k ns'kksa o Hkkjr ds dksus dksus ls
yk[kksa dh la[;k esa J)kyq o jkeHkDr v;ks/;k esa ,d= gksrs gSa lj;w
Luku dkfrZd esys dk eq[; ioZ gksrk gS J)kyq jkeHkDr iapdkslh ,oa
pkSngdkslh ifjdzek ds mijkUr lj;w unh ds ifo= ty esa Luku ds ckn
jke jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj fLFkr efUnj rFkk blds mijkUr v;ks/;k fLFkr
vU; efUnjksa esa n'kZu] iwtu o vpZu dj izHkq Jh jke ds pj.kksa esa viuh
vkLFkk fuosfnr djrs gSaA**
**16- Every year in the month of Kartika (a lunar month
 377

of Hindu calender), a Kartika fair is held at Ayodhya. It

was also attended by lacks of devotees and followers of
Rama both from within and outside the country. The Saryu
Snan was the main occasion of the Kartika fair. After
performing Panch kosi (distance of five kose, one kose
being equal to two miles) and chaudah kosi (distance of
fourteen kose) circumambulation, the devotees of Rama
used to take dip in holy water of river Saryu followed by
prayer-worship at the temple situated at the
Ramjanmbhumi premises and other temples situated at
Ayodhya and used to pay their reverence at the feet of their
Lord Sri Rama.” (E.T.C.)
**17- v;ks/;k esa ps= 'kq D y uoeh vFkkZ r jkeuoeh dk s Hkh
iz R ;sd o"kZ Hkxoku Jh jkeyyk dk tUek sR lo cM+h /k we /kke
o J)k ,oa fo'okl ds lkFk euk;k tkrk gS bl iquhr volj
ij Hkh fons'k ls ,oa ns'k ds dksus dksus ls vla[; J)kyq jkeHkDr
v;ks/;k vkdj tUeHkwfe ifjlj fLFkr efUnj] dud Hkou] o v;ks/;k
fLFkr vU; efUnjksa esa ,d= gksdj iwjh fu"Bk ,oa HkfDr ds lkFk HkocU/ku
ls ikj yxkus okys ijeiwT; Jh Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUeksRlo eukrs ,oa
ckn esa vU; jke uxjh vFkkZr v;ks/;k fLFkr efUnjksa dk n'kZu dj muesa
iwtu] vkjk/ku dj vius o vius ifjokj ij Jh jke izHkq dk ojngLr
cus jgus dh dkeuk djrs gSaA**
**17- The birth function of Lord Sri Ramlala is also
celebrated every year at Ayodhya on Chaitra Shukla
Navami or Ramanavami, with great pomp and show and
faith and belief. Innumerable devotees of Rama from
abroad and various corners of the country, used to visit
Ayodhya on this pious occasion and gather at the temple
situated at the Janmbhumi premises, the Kanak Bhawan
and other temples at Ayodhya and used to celebrate the
birth function of their revered Lord Sri Rama with full
 378

devotion. Thereafter, they had the darshan at various

temples situated at Ayodhya and after offering their prayer-
worship, they used to pray for the blessings of Lord Sri
Rama for themselves and their families” (E.T.C.)
**18- v;ks/;k rhFkZLFkyh vU; lHkh rhFkZLFkyksa esa izeq[k :i ls ekuh
tkrh gS D;ksafd ;gka gh e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Hkxoku Jh jke us ekuo :i esa
vorkj ysdj leLr ekuo tkfr ds fy;s dY;k.kdkjh dke fd;s gSaA
Hkxoku Jh jke vkSj v;ks/;k esa fLFkr mudh tUeLFkyh ftls jketUe
Hkwfe efUnj o ifjlj ds :i esa dksfV&dksfV Hkkjrh; o jkeHkDr J)k]
fo'okl o vkLFkk dk iaqt ekudj iwtk djrk pyk vk jgk gSA 'kiFkh Hkh
blh J)k] fo'okl ,oa vkLFkk ls vfHkHkwr Hkxoku Jh jke o mudh
tUeHkwfe o ifjlj dh oUnuk] vpZuk o mlesa iwtk djrk pyk vk jgk gS
o vkthou djrk jgsxkA**
**18- Ayodhya is considered to be the main pilgrimage
amongst all the other pilgrimages, because Maryada
Purshottam Lord Sri Rama had incarnated here in human
form and had carried out welfare acts for the human kind.
Lord Sri Rama and His birthplace at Ayodhya known as
Ramjanmbhumi temple and premises, have been revered by
crores of Indians and devotees of Rama as the source of
faith, devotion and belief. The deponent has also been
offering his prayer-worship to Lord Sri Rama, His
birthplace and premises out of this very devotion, faith and
belief and would continue to do so in my whole lifetime.”
(E.T.C.)
339. D.W. 2/1-1, Rajendra Singh is 60 years of age (at the time
of swearing of affidavit dated 1.12.2004). He was cross
examined in the followed manner :
Part-I:(a) 01.12.2004- by Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff (Suit-
3) through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 13-19)
(b) 02.12.2004- by Mohd. Faruk, defendant no. 11 (Suit-3)
 379

through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 20-28)

(c/1) 02/ 03/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ 14/ 15.12.2004- by Sunni
Central Waqf Board, defendant no. 9 through Sri Zafaryab
Jilani, Advocate (p. 28-102)
Part-II:(C/2) 16/ 17/ 20/ 21/ 22/ 23.12.2004, 03/ 04/ 05/
06/ 07/ 10.01.2005- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 9 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
103-221)
(d) 10/ 11/ 12/ 13/ 17/ 18/ 19/ 20.01.2005- by defendant
no. 7 (Suit-4) through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocate (p. 222-308)
(e) 20.01.2005- defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 308)
340. He is resident of 293, Sector-16, Faridabad, Haryana. He
passed Higher Secondary in 1962 from Government Higher
Secondary School, Kalka Ji, New Delhi, obtained technical
training in the Trade 'Miller' from I.T.I., Arab Ki Sarai, New
Delhi in 1963 and training in Tool and Cutter Grinding from
S.I.S.I., Okhla, New Delhi in 1963-64. He also got training in
'Blue Printing' in 1965 from the above institution. He is a Sikh
and follows the religious cultural tenets thereof, has studied
religious cultural and historical literature of Sikhism since his
childhood and has always made efforts to collect maximum
information and knowledge of Sikhism. He is engaged in writing
work since 1967. He is author of several articles published in
 380

provincial and national level journals and papers from time to

time, editing a quarterly magazine “Vishvakarma Sangh” since
1987, has studied several books on Sikh faiths and history which
includes :
1. Adi Sakhian
2. Puratan Janam Sakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji Ki
3. Pothi Janamsakhi : Giyan Ratnawali
4. Sri Guru Nanakdev Ji Di Janamsakhi
6. Sachkhand Pothi : Janamsakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev
Ji
8. Guru Nanak Bans Prakash
9. Sri Guru Tirath Sangrahi
10. Tvarikh Guru Khalsa : Bhag 1
341. Based on the aforesaid studies etc., he says in para 5 of the
affidavit as under :
^^5- bu xz U Fkk sa ls iz k Ir tkudkjh ls ;g iw. kZ r % iz e kf.kr
gk sr k gS fd fookfnr Hk wf e Hkxoku~ Jh jkepUnz th dh
tUeLFkyh gS rFkk Jh xq : ukudnso th us v;k s/ ;k tkdj
Jh jke tUeHk wf e efUnj ds n'kZ u fd;s Fk sA bUgha xzUFkksa ls ;g
Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd dkykUrj es Jh xq: rsx cgknqj vkSj muds iq=
Jh xq: xksfoUn flag us Hkh v;ks/;k tkdj Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj ds
n'kZu fd;s FksA**
“5. From knowledge acquired from these treatises it is
absolutely proved that the disputed land is the birth place
of Lord Sri Rama Chandra and that Sri Guru Nanak
Dev went to Ayodhya and had darshan of Sri Rama
Janam Bhumi temple. From these very treatises it is also
established that Guru Teg Bahadur and his son, Sri Guru
Govind Singh, also visited Ayodhya and had darshan of Sri
Ram Janam Bhum temple later on.” (E.T.C.)
342. In paras 6 and 7 DW 2/1-1 gives certain details of the
 381

contents of some books and then says that from the aforesaid, it
is evident that Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited the most pious and
religious place Ayodhya. In paras 8 to 13, he refers to some
other books and contents thereof and then in para 14, he says
that from the study of those books and according to his research,
he is clearly of the opinion that the disputed place is the birth
place of Lord Ram and has been treated as such traditionally. In
para 15, again referring to certain books, he says that Babar was
a cruel invader, not only murdered Hindus but also damaged
several temples. The averments in para 6 to 16 of the affidavit
are as under :
“6- ;g fd ^^tuelk[kh HkkbZ ckyk** ¼jpukdky % 1715 fodzeh ¾
1658 bZloh] Mk0 xqjcpu dkSj }kjk lEikfnr] Hkk"kk foHkkx] iatkc]
ifV;kyk] 1987 bZloh] i`"B 172½ ds vuqlkj Jh xq: ukudnso ryo.Mh
jk; Hkks, HkV~Vh uked uxj ds fuoklh esgrk Jh dkyw csnh vkSj ekrk
r`Irk th ds ?kj dkfrZd iwf.kZek 1526 fodzeh ¾ 20 vDVqcj 1469 bZloh
ds 'kqHk fnu vorfjr gq, FksA lks<+h euksgj nkl esgjcku d`r ^^lp[k.M
iksFkh% tuelk[kh Jh xq: ukudnso th** ¼jpukdky % yxHkx 1669
fodzeh ¾ 1612 bZloh] izks0 d`iky flag }kjk lEikfnr] [kkylk dkyst]
ve`rlj] 1962 bZloh] i`"B 89½ ls Kkr gksrk gS fd lqYrkuiqj esa uokc
nkSyr [kka yksnh ds eksnh[kkus esa eksnh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Jh ukudnso th
dks dkyh osabZ unh esa Luku djrs le; Hkknzin iwf.kZek 1564 fodzeh ¾
1507 bZloh ds 'kqHk fnu ijes'oj ds n'kZu gq, FksA rc mUgksaus rhFkZ;k=k
ij tkus dk 'kqHk ladYi fd;k ¼i`"B 111½ mDr iqLrdksa ds lanfHkZr va'kksa
dh Nk;kizfr bl 'kiFk i= dk layXud 1 o 2 gSA**
“6. That as per “JanamSakhi Bhai Bala” ( Time of
composition : 1715 Vikrami = 1658 AD, edited by Dr.
Gurbachan Kaur , Language Department, Punajb, Patiala,
1987 AD, page 172), Sri Guru Nanak Dev appeared on the
auspicious day of Kartik Poornima 1526 Vikrami, i.e. 20th
October, 1469 at the house of Sri Kalu Bedi (father) and
 382

Tripta (mother), residents of Talvandi Rai Bhoye Bhatti

town. From Sodhi Manohar Das Meharban written “Sach
Khand Pothi : Tanam Sakhi Sri Gurunanak Dev Ji”(Time
of composition : circa 1669 Vikrami = 1612 AD, edited by
Prof Kripal Singh, Khalsa College, Amritsar, 1962 AD,
page 89), it is known that Sri Nanak Dev, working at the
grocery of Nawab Dailat Khan Lodi in Sultanpur, had
darshan of God on the auspicious day of Bhadrapad
Poornima 1564 Vikrami i.e. 1507 AD while taking a dip in
Kali Venyee river. Then he resolved to go on a pilgrimage
(page 111). Photocopies of referred portions of the said
books are enclosed with this affidavit and are marked as
annexures 1 and 2.” (E.T.C.)
**7- ;g fd ^^vkfn lk[khvka** ¼jpukdky % 1758 fodzeh ¾1701 bZloh]
Mk0 I;kj flag }kjk lEikfnr] ykgkSj cqd 'kki] yqf/k;ku] 1983 bZloh]
i`"B 168½ esa fy[kk gS % ^^Qsfj ckck th vxfyvk rhjFkk uks pfyvkA xaxk
xqnkojh xbvkA fijkx cukjlh xkserh vtqf/kvk nqvkjdk txaukFk mMhlk
vBlB rhjFk dh,A lHkuk dk Qyq yhvkA vlukuq dhvk lHk /kjrh
ns[khA**
blh izdkj iqjkru tuelk[kh Jh xq: ukudnso dh ¼jpuk dky
% 1791 fodzeh ¾1734 bZloh] Jh 'ke'ksj flag v'kksd }kjk lEikfnr] /keZ
izpkj desVh] Jh ve`rlj] 1969 bZloh] i`"B 64½ esa Hkh fy[kk gS% ^^Qsj
ckck vxfyvk rhjFkk uw pfyvkA xaxk] xqnkojh xbvk] fijkxq] xkserh]
vtqf/kvk] nqvkjdk] txuukfFk] mM+hlk] vBlB rhjFk dh,A lHkuk dk
Qyq yhvkA blukuq dhvk] lHkq /kjrh ns[khA**
mijksDr mn~/kj.kksa ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd Jh xq : ukud nso us
ikou rhFkZ L Fkyh v;k s/ ;k dh Hkh ;k=k dh FkhA mDr iqLrdksa
dh laxr i`"B dh nk;kizfr bl 'kiFk i= ds layXud 3 o 4 gSA**
“7. That in “Adi Sakhian” ( Time of composition : 1758
Vikrami = 1701 AD, edited by Dr. Pyar Singh , Lahore
Book Shop, Ludhiana, 1983 AD, page 168), it is written :
 383

^"Feri Baba Ji agliya tiratha no chaliya. Ganga Gudavari

gaiya. Pirag Banarasi Gomti Ajudhiya Duarka Jagannath
Udisa athsath tirath kiye. Sabhna ka falu liya. Asnanu kia
sabh dharati dekhi." ** Similarly, in “Janamsakhi Sri Guru
Nanak Dev Ki” ( Time of composition : 1791 Vikrami =
1734 AD, edited by Sri Shamsher Singh Ashok, Dharm
Prachar Committee, Sri Amritsar, !969 AD, page 64) also,
it is written: "Fer Baba agliya tiratha nu chaliya. Ganga
Gudavari gaiya, Piragu, Gomti Ajudhiya Duwarka
Jagannath Udisa athsath tirath kiye. Sabhna ka falu liya.
Isnanu kia sabhu dharati dekhi."
From the afore-said quotatons it is known that Sri Guru
Nanak Dev also travelled to the pious site of pilgrimage
called Ayodhya. Photocopies of relevant pages from the
said books are enclosed with this affidavit and are marked
as annexures 3 and 4.” (E.T.C.)
**8- ;g fd ^^iksFkh tue lk[kh % fxvku jrukoyh^^ ¼jpukdky %
yxHkx 1787 fodzeh ¾1730 bZloh vkKkuqlkj eh;ka pjkxnhu lzkt nhu]
eqlrQkbZ Nk;k [kkuk] iRFkj Nkik laLdj.k] 1947 fodzeh ¾1890 bZ0 i`"B
213½ esa Jhxq: ukudnso }kjk v;ks/;k n'kZu ds lanHkZ esa fy[kk gS % ^^rc
ckck th v;qf/k;k dks tkr Hk, vj dgk fd ejnkfuvk! ,g vtqf/k;k
uxjh Jh jkepUnz th dh gSA lkspy bldk njlu djh,A rc ckck th
unh rs tkbZ mrjsA^^ mDr iqLrdksa dh Nk;k izfr bl 'kiFk i= dk
layXud 5 gSA**
“8. That in “Pothi Janam Sakhi : Gian Ratnavali” ( Time
of composition : 1787 Vikrami = 1730 AD, edited by Dr.
Gurbachan Kaur , Musatfai Chayakhana, Patthar Chhapa
Sanskaran, 1947 Vikrami = 1890 AD, page 213), it is
written in reference to visit to Ayodhya by Sri Guru Nanak
Dev: ^^ Tab Baba ji Ayudhiya ko jat bhaye ar kaha ki
Mardaniya eh Ajudhiya Nagari Shri Ram Chandra Ji ki
 384

hai. Sochal iska darshan kariye. Tab Babaji nadi te jai

utare.^^ The photocopies of the said books form annexure 5
to this affidavit.” (E.T.C.)
**9- ;g fd Jh xq: ukud nso }kjk v;ks/;k n'kZu ds vfHkizk; dk
jgL; [kksyrs gq, HkkbZ ckys okyh ^^tuelk[kh** ¼izdk'kd % HkkbZ prjflag
&thou flag] cktkj HkkbZ lsok] ve`rlj] 1940 fodzeh ¾ 1883 bZ0 i`"B
261½ esa crk;k x;k gS% ^^xq: th v;qf/k;k dks x,A Jh xq: ukudnso th
us dgk % HkkbZ ckyk bg Hkh uxjh Jh jkepUnz th dh gSA ,sFks Jh jkepUnz
th us vorkj /kkj ds pfj= dhrs gu lks ns[k ds gh pyh,A rka Jh xq:
th ljtw unh ds fdukjs ij tkbZ cSBsA** mDr iqLrd dh Nk;kizfr bl
'kiFk i= dk layXud 6 gSA**
“9. That unravelling the mystery of Ayodhya darshan by
Sri Guru Nanak Dev, Bhai Bole written “Janam Sakhi”
( Publisher : Bhai Chatar Singh 7 Jeevan Singh, Bazar
Bhai Seva, Amritsar, 1940 Vikrami i.e. 1883 AD, page 261)
says : "Guru Ji Ayudhiya Ko Gaye". Sri Guru Nanakdev Ji
said: "Bhai Bala Ieh Nagari Sri Ramchandra Ji ki hain
aithe Sri Ramchandra Ji ne avtaar dhaar ke charitra kite
han so dekh ke hi chaliye. Ta Sri Guru Ji Sarju nadi ke
kinare par jai baithe." The Photocopy of the said book is
enclosed with this affidavit as annexure no. 6.” (E.T.C.)
**10- ;g fd mijksDr /kkjk 8 vkSj 9 esa of.kZr nksuksa ^^tuelkf[k;ksa** ds
lfEefyr ikB ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd v;ks/;k n'kZu ls Jh xq:
ukudnso dk vfHkizk; Jh jke ds lHkh yhyk LFkyksa ds n'kZu djuk
FkkA v;ks/;k esa Jhjke yhykLFkyksa esa lokZf/kd egRoiw.kZ yhykLFky Fkk%
Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnjA blh egRoiw.kZ yhyk LFky ij vorkj /kkj.k
djds Jhjke us viuh cky&yhyk,a dh Fkh ftls ns[k ds gh pyus dh
ckr Jh xq: ukudnso us n`<+rkiwoZd dgh gSA ,sls n`<+ fu'p;h xq:th ds
dfu"B iq= Jh y{ehpUn ds vkBosa oa'kt ckck lq[kcklh jke csnh viuh
jpuk ^^xq: ukud cal izdk'k** ¼jpukdky % 1886 fodzeh¾1829 bZ0] Mk0
xqjeq[k flag }kjk lEikfnr] iatkch ;wuhoflZVh] ifV;kyk] 1986 bZloh]
 385

i`"B 151½ esa crkrs gSa%

^^pys rgka rs lfrxq: ejnkuk ys lafxA vk, vm/k iqjh fc[ks
ljtw ufn ftg lafxAA
ljtw ty eatu dhvk njlu jke fugkjA vkre :i vuar izHk
pys exu fgrq /kkjAA**
mijksDr NUn esa ^^njlu jke fugkj** 'kCn ;g Hkyh HkkWafr Li"V dj nsrs
gSa fd v;ks/;k esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj uked yhykLFky esa lqizfrf"Br
^^jkeewfrZ** ds Jh xq: ukudnso us fugkj dj vFkkZr~ /;kuiwoZd n'kZu
fd, FksA blls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd egRoiw.kZ yhykLFky ^^Jhjke
tUeHkwfe efUnj** ds :i esa Jh xq: ukud ds izkjfEHkd rhFkZ;k=k dky esa
fo|eku FkkA mDr iqLrd ds laxr i`"B dh Nk;kizfr bl 'kiFk i= dk
layXud 7 gSA**
“10. That from the combined reading of both “Janam
Sakhis” mentioned in the afore-said paras 8 and 9, it
transpires that by Ayodhya darshan Sri Guru Nanak Dev
meant 'having darshan of all Leela Sthals of Sri Rama'
(places where Rama performed His roles in a human form).
The most important Leela Sthal of Sri Rama in Ayodhya
was : Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple. Sri Rama incarnated
himself at this very important Leela Sthal and acted as a
child. Sri Guru Nanak Dev has asserted to have darshan of
it. Baba Sukhvasi Ram Bedi, 8th lineal descendent of Sri
Laxmi Chandra, younger son of so resolute Guru Ji, in his
work 'Guru Nanak Vans Prakash' (Time of composition :
1886 Vikrami = 1829 AD, edited by Dr. Gurumukh Singh,
Punajbi Unversity Patiala, 1986 AD, page 151) says :
"Chale tahan te Satiguru Mardana le sangi. Aaye
Awadh Puri bikhe Sarju nadi jih sangi.
Sarju jal manjan kiya darsan Ram nihar. Aatam roop
anant Prabhu chale magan hitu dhaar."
The expression “Darshan Ram Nihar” in the afore-said
 386

verse duly shows that Sri Guru Nanak Dev had a close
darshan of 'Ram Murti' (idol of Rama) installed on the
Leela Sthal named Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple in
Ayodhya. It goes to prove that the important Leela Sthal
existed in the shape 'Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple at the
time of the first pilgrimage of Sri Guru Nanak Dev.
Photocopy of the relevant page of the said book is enclosed
with this affidavit and is marked as Annexure no. 7.”
(E.T.C.)
**11- ;g fd Hkknzin iwf.kZek 1564 fodzeh¾1507 bZloh ds 'kqHk fnu
vius g`n; esa ijes'oj dk izdk'k ikdj Jh xq: ukudnso th rhFkZ;k=k
ij tkus ds fy, m|r gq,A rc os lqYrkuiqj ls py dj fnYyh] gfj}kj
bR;kfn LFkkuksa ls gksrs gq, v;ks/;k igqapsA bl ;k=kdky esa yxHkx 3&4
o"kZ O;rhr gq,A bl iz d kj 1567&1568 fodz e h¾1510&1511
bZ l oh esa Jh xq : ukud nso us Jhjke tUeHk wf e efUnj ds
n'kZ u fd;s Fk sA ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd bl le; rd Hkkjr o"kZ ij
vkdzkUrk ckcj dk vkdze.k ugha gqvk FkkA**
“11. On the auspicious day of Bhadrapad Poornima 1564
Vikrami = 1507 AD, Sri Guru Nank Dev was prompted to
go on a pilgrimage on his heart being illumined with the
light of God. Then he proceeded from Sultanpur and
reached Ayodhya through Delhi, Hardwar, etc. This
journey lasted nearly 3-4 years. In this way Sri Guru
Nanak Dev had darshan of Sri Rama Janam Bhumi
temple in 1567-1568 Vikrami i.e. 1510-1511 AD. It is
pertinent to mention that by that time invader Babur had
not invaded India.” (E.T.C.)
**12- ;g fd lks<+h euksgjnkl esgjcku dh jpuk ^^lp[k.M iksFkh%
tuelk[kh Jh xq: ukudnso th ¼jpukdky%yxHkx 1667 fodzeh¾1610
bZloh] izks0 d`iky flag }kjk lEikfnr] [kkylk dkyst] ve`rlj] 1962
bZloh] i`"B 186&187] 190½ esa fy[kk gS % ^^rc xq: ckck ukudq mlq uxj
 387

rs mlq iVsy dam ukeq fnM+kbZ dfj iwjc dh /kjrh uxfj vtksf/kvk esa
tkbZ clsA - - - rc vtksf/kvk fc[ks xq: ckck ukudq cSBk Hkxfr djrk
gSA - - - rc ckck ukudq tqgnh vtksf/k;k efg cSBk ijyh n[k.k dh
rjQ] ,dq iat rhjFkh Fkh mlds Åij ,d eVq Fkk] ml gh efg cSBk ukeq
flejuq djrk FkkA**
;gkWa v;ks/;k esa nf{k.k fn'kk dh vksj iaprhFkksZ ds Åij ,d eB esa Jhxq:
ukud }kjk riL;k djus dh ckr Kkr gksrh gSA LdUnegkiqjk.k]
oS".ko[k.M] v;ks/;kekgkRE; ds igys nks v/;k;ksa esa of.kZr iaprhFkksZ ds
uke gS% pdz] czg~edq.M] _.kekspu] ikiekspu vkSj lglzlkjA
lglzlkjrhFkZ ls nf{k.k fn'kk esa pdzrhFkZ dh vksj tkrs gq, pkSFks LFkku
ij czg~edq.MrhFkZ iM+rk gSA blh czg~edq.MrhFkZ ds ikl og eB Fkk tgkWa
cSBdj tqgnh¾riLoh ukud th us riL;k dh FkhA Jh xq: ukudnso dh
bl ikou riLFkyh ds Bhd lkeus lM+d ds nf{k.k esa ^^xq:}kjk
czg~edq.M lkfgc** cuk gqvk gS tks Jhjke tUeHkwfe ls yxHkx 150&200
xt dh nwjh ij fLFkr gSA
lks<+h euksgjnkl esgjcku d`r ^^lp[k.M iksFkh% tue lk[kh Jh xq:
ukudnso th** ¼i`"B 187] 191&197] 198&99½ ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k esa bl
ikou riLFkyh ij jgrs gq, Jh xq: ukud nso th us ikWap 'kcnksa ¼inksa½
dh laxhrc) jpuk dh] HkDrtuksa esa mudk xk;u fd;k vkSj HkkokFkZ
le>k;kA blls izHkkfor gksdj vusd J)kyq yksx Jh xq: th ds flD[k
gq, vkSj ukudiUFkh cusA mDr iqLrd ds laxr i`"B dh Nk;kizfr bl
'kiFk i= dk layXud 8 o 9 gSA**
“12. That in the work of Sodhi Manohar Das Meharban
“Sach Khand Pothi : Janam Sakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji”
(Time of composition : circa 1667 Vikrami i.e. 1610 AD,
edited by Prof Kripal Singh, Khalsa College, Amritsar,
1962 AD, pages 186-187 and 190), it is written :
"Tab Guru Baba Nanaku usu nagar te usu Patel kau namu
didai kari purab ki dharti nagari Ajodhiya mein jai base. . .
. . . . Tab Ajodhiya bikhe Guru Baba Nanaku baitha bhagati
karta hai. . . .. . Tab Baba Nanaku juhdi Ajodhiya mahi
baitha parli dakhad ki taraf, eku panj teerathi thi uske upar
 388

ek matu tha, us hi mahi baitha namu simaranu karta tha."

It comes to knowledge that Sri Guru Nanak Dev performed
'tapasya' (practice of austerities) in a monastery above
Panchteertahs in the north here in Ayodhya. Names of
Panchteerthas mentioned in the first two chapters of
Skandha-Mahapurana, Vaishnavakhand, Ayodhya-
Mahatmya are : Chakra, Brahmakund , Rinmochan,
Paapmochan, Sahasrasar. While going towards
Chakrateertha to the south of Sahasrasar-Teertha, we find
Brahmakund Teertha at the fourth place. Near this very
Brahmakund was a monastery where ascetic Nanak Ji
seated himself and practised austerities. In the south of the
road exactly opposite to Sri Guru Nanak Dev's pious site of
austerity stood“Gurudwara Brahmakund Sahib”, which is
nearly 150-200 yards away from Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.
As per Sodhi Manohar Das Meharban's work
“Sachkhand Pothi : Janam Sakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji”
(pages 187, 191-197, 198-199 ), Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji
while staying on this pious site of austerity in Ayodhya
composed a musical composition of five verses, and sang it
in the midst of devotees and made them understand its
meaning. Impressed by it many devotees became Sikhs as
disciples of Sri Guru Ji and adopted the Nanak-Panth. The
photocopy of the relevant page of the said book is enclosed
with this affidavit and is marked as Annexures 8 and 9.”
(E.T.C.)
**13- ;g fd bfrgkldkj Kkuh Kku flag ds fo|kxq: if.Mr rkjk
flag ujksRre ¼1879&1948 fodzeh¾1822&1891 bZloh½ dh jpuk ^^Jh
xq: rhjFk laxzfg** ¼ewy jpukdky%1941 fodzeh¾1884 bZloh] Jh fueZy
iapk;rh v[kkM+k] dujoy] f}rh; laLdj.k 1975 bZloh] i`"B 121] 130½
esa i`"B 121 ij Jh xq: rsxcgknqj ds v;ks/;k vkus dk mYys[k djrs gq,
 389

vkxs i`"B 130 ij fy[kk gS fd Jh xq: xksfoUn flag ^^bgka vki.kh dqy
ds fcz/k iqj[k jke ds tue Fkku esa vk,A**
Kkuh Kku flag viuh izfl) jpuk ^^rckjh[k xq: [kkylk%Hkkx
1** ¼xq: xksfcUn flag izsl] fl;kydksV] 1948 fodzeh¾1891 bZloh] i`"B
283&284½ esa fy[krs gSa fd xq: xksfoUn flag us **'kgj dk'kh jkeuxj nk
lSy iznD[k.kk dhrhA ,Fkksa py fejtkiqj vkfnd uxjk uwa ns[k ns gks,
vtq/;k th cfl"V dq.M] tks cfl"V th nk ?kj rs gkse dj.k nh txk gS]
tk BfgjsA fQj lwjtdq.M] guqekux<+h] jkepUnz ns eUnj] lhrk nh jlksbZ
vkfnd vLFkku ns[ks rs Lojx}kjh xqIrkj?kkV ljtw ns b'kuku nku
dhrsA** mDr iqLrd ds laxr i`"B dh Nk;kizfr bl 'kiFk i= dk
layXud 10 o 11 gSA**
“13. That in his book “Sri Guru Teerath Sangrahi”
(origianally written in 1941 Vikrami i.e. 1884 AD, Sri
Nirmal Panchayati Akhada, Kanarval, second edition 1975
AD, pages 121 and 130), Pt. Tara Singh Narottam (1879-
1948 Vikrami i.e. 1822-1891 AD), teacher of historian
Gyani Gyan Singh, has on page 121 made mention of Sri
Guru Teg Bahadur's pilgrimage to Ayodhya and has on
page 130 further written that Sri Guru Govind Singh "Ehan
apadi kul ke bidh purkha Ram ke janam than mein aaye."
Gyani Gyan Singh in his famous work “Tabarikh
Guru Khalsa : Part I” (Guru Govind Singh Press, Sialkot,
1948 Vikrami = 1891 AD, page 283-284) writes that Guru
Govind Singh "Shahar Kashi Ramnagar da sail
pradakhana kiti. Aitho chal Mirjapur aadik nagara nu dekh
de hoya Ajudhya Ji Bashitha Kund, jo Bashistha Ji da ghar
te hom karan di jaga hai, ja thahire. Fir Surajkund,
Hanumangarhi, Ramchandra de mandar, Sita di Rasoi
aadik asthan dekhe te swargdwari Guptarghat Sarju de
ishnan dan kite." *The photocopy of the relevant page of the
said book is enclosed here with and is marked as
 390

Annexures 10 and 11.” (E.T.C.)

**14- ;g fd mijksDr iqLrdksa ds v/;;u o vius 'kks/k ds vk/kkj ij
esjk ;g fuf'pr er gS fd fookn xzLr Hkwfe gh Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz th
dh tUeLFkyh gS] tks ijEijkxr :i ls mlh :i esa ekuh tkrh jgh gSA**
“14. That from the study of the afore-said books and on
the basis of my research I am of a definite view that the
disputed land itself is the birth-place of Lord Sri Ram
Chandra which has been traditionally taken to be such.”
(E.T.C.)
**15- ;g fd mijksDr of.kZr iqLrdksa esa ls ^^vkfn lk[khvka**] ^^iqjkru
tuelk[kh Jh xq: ukudnos th dh** vkSj ^^lp[k.M iksFkh % tUelk[kh
Jh xq: ukud nsoth ds v/;;u ls ;g Hkh Kkr gksrk gS fd vkdzkUrk
ckcj us Hkkjro"kZ ij vius rhljs vkdze.k esa] tc og fl;kydksV dks
foftr djrk gqvk vk;k] rc mlus 1578 fodzeh¾1521 bZloh esa lSniqj
ds xzkeksa dks rckg dj Mkyk] iq:"kksa dk dRysvke fd;k] fL=;ksa dks
cU/kd cuk;k] vkSj yksxksa ds ?kjksa dks ywVkA ;s gh xzUFk ;g Hkh crkrs gSa
fd bu foink Hkjh ?kVuk ds izR;{kn'khZ Lo;a xq; ukudnso th FksA
mUgksaus bl nqHkkZX;iw.kZ ?kVuk ij xgjk nq[k izdV djrs gq, pkj 'kCnksa
¼inksa½ dh jpuk dh ftuesa ckcj dks lk{kkr~ 'kSrku vkSj mldh lsuk dks
iki dh ckjkr crk;k gSA Jh xq: xzUFk lkfgc th esa muds ;s pkj 'kCn
i`"B 722&23] 417&18 vkSj 360 ij izkIr gksrs gSaA Jh xq: xzUFk lkfgc
th] vklk egyk 1 i`"B 418 ij Jh xq: th crkrs gSa fd bl dzwjrkiw.kZ
vkdze.k ds volj ij vkdzkUrk ckcj us lSniqj ds Fkkuksa dks] eqdkeksa dks
vkSj otz ds leku lqn`<+ efUnjksa dks tyk fn;k vkSj jktdqekjksa dks
dkV&dkV dj /kwy esa :yk fn;kA**
“15. That from the study of “Adi Sakhian” , “Puratan
Janam Sakhi : Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji Ki”, and “Sach
Khand Pothi : Janam Sakhi Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji Ki”, it
also transpires that in his third invasion on India, invader
Babur, after having conquered Sialkot, reached Saidpur in
1578 Vikrami i.e. 1521 AD and devastated its villages, slew
 391

men, held women hostages and plundered the houses of the

people. These very treatises also reveal that Guru Nanak
Dev Ji himself was an eyewitness to this calamitous
incident. Expressing his deep anguish over this unfortunate
incident, he composed four verses describing Babur as a
manifest demon and his army as a Barat (party) of sinners.
These four stanzas of Sri Guru Granth Sahib are available
on pages 722-723, 417-18 and 360. Sri Guru Ji in his book
“Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Asa Mahla 1, page 418 says
that in this cruel attack, invader Babur gutted the police
stations, halts and steely temples of Saidpur, and decimated
the princes and brought them to dust.” (E.T.C.)
**16- ;g fd layXud 1 rk 11 esa m)`r ewy iqLrdksa dks eSaus i<+k gS
tks esjs ikl miyC/k gSA**
“16. That I have read the original books quoted in
Annexures 1 to 11and they are available with me.” (E.T.C.)
343. DW 2/1-2, Ram Saran Srivastava, aged about 68 years
(vide affidavit dated 20.01.2005). He was cross examined in the
following manner:
(a) 20/24.01.2005- by Nirmihi Akhara, plaintiffs (Suit-3)
through Sri Tarunjeet Verma abd Sri R.L. Verma,
Advocates, Advocate (p. 7-24)
(b) 25/31.01.2005, 01.02.2005- by Mohd. Faruk,
defendant no. 11, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate
(p. 26-44)
(c) 01/02/03/04/07/08/09/10/11.02.2005- by plaintiffs no.
1, 6/1, 8/1 Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and
Maulana Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 45-150)
(d) 11/15/16.02.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) through
Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 150-183)
 392

(e) 16.02.2005- defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri

Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 184)
344. He is M.Com. L.L.B. and worked as 'Teacher' for about
two years, wrote a book “Ankechar Parichay” published in
1959. He was selected and appointed as District Industry
Officer, and worked as such for one year, whereafter selected in
U.P. Provincial Civil Service in 1961, promoted in Indian
Administrative Service in 1984. He worked during his tenure (as
a member of Indian Administrative Service) as District
Magistrate, Hardoi, Faizabad and Kanpur, Special Secretary in
Public Works Department, Education and Social Welfare and
Director, Department of Government Estate and retired on
31.03.1994. He joined as District Magistrate at Faizabad on
19.07.1987 and remained thereat for about three and half years.
Claiming to have studied the dispute minutely in his capacity as
District Magistrate, Faizabad, he said in paras 7, 8 and 9 about
the sources from which he got knowledge as under:
*^7- eSaus Jhjke tUe Hkwfe fookn ds lEcU/k esa miyC/k xtsfV;j rFkk
jktLo vfHkys[kksa dk dbZ ckj v/;;u fd;k rFkk ogka ds LFkkuh; lHkh
laoxZ ds yksxksa ls gj izdkj dh tkudkjh ds lkFk gh fookn ls lacaf/kr
Ik{kksa ls Hkh le;&le; ij tkudkjh izkIr djrk jgkA^^
“7. On number of occasions, I have studied the
gazetteers available in context of Sri Ramjanmbhumi
dispute as well as the revenue records, and also gathered
all kinds of information from local people of all class
besides the concerned parties to the dispute.” (E.T.C.)
 393

^^8- eSaus vius ftykf/kdkjh ds dk;Zdky ds nkSjku iz'uxr izdj.k ds

laca/k esa LFkkuh; fgUnw o eqlyeku cU/kqvksa ls rFkk lar egkRekvksa]
fo}kuksa ,oa mysekvksa ls Hkh le;&le; ij ckrphr dhA^^
“8. During my tenure as District Magistrate, I had
discussions from time to time with local Hindus, Muslims,
Saints, Scholars and Ulemas in reference to the dispute in
question.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- esjs dk;kZy; esas iz'uxr izdj.k jk"Vzh; o vUrjk"Vzh; Lrj ij
dkQh laosnu'khy eqn~nk Fkk ftl ftl dze esa fofHkUu Ik{kks o laoxksZa ls
lacaf/kr bfrgkldkj] iqjkrRoosRrk fo}ku vkfn ls Hkh esjk lEidZ gksrk
jgk rFkk muls fofHkUu izdkj dh tkudkfj;kaW feyrh jgh A laaosnu'khy
izdj.k gksus ds dkj.k ns'k&fons'k ds Ik=dkjksa] fo}kuksa o /keZxq#vksa ls
Hkh bl izdj.k esa ckr&phr djus dk volj feyk rFkk eSaus Lo;a
miyC/k tkudkjh o lUnHkZ ds vk/kkj ij bl fo"k; dk v/;;u fd;kA^^
“9. The matter in question was a very sensitive matter of
my office at National and International level and in this
behalf I entered into contact with Historians,
Archaeologists, Scholars etc. concerned with different
parties and classes and gathered different kinds of
information. As the matter was sensitive, I had the
opportunity to discuss this matter with journalists of
country-abroad, scholars and religious teachers and on
basis of available information and references, I
myself studied this matter.” (E.T.C.)
345. DW 2/1-2 claims to have written a book titled as “Sri Ram
Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid Vivad-Ek Drishtikon” published in
1997. In para 11 of the affidavit he says that the information
contained in this book is based on the knowledge he gathered
during his tenure as District Magistrate, Faizabad through
government record, available evidence, information, his own
view etc. He claims to have studied the following
 394

gazetteers/settlement reports:
1. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government
of East India Company by Edward Thornton
published in 1858 and republished in 1993.
2. Historical Sketch of Faizabad with the Old Capital
of Ajudhia and Faizabad by P. Cargegy, Officiating
Commissioner and Settlement Officer, published in
1870.
3. Gazetteer of the Province of Awadh, 1877.
4. Imperial Gazette of India-United Province of Agra
and Awadh-Faizabad Division.
5. District Gazetteer, Barabanki, 1902 Edition, Vol.
48.
6. Faizabad Gazetteer, 1902 Edition, Vol. 43.
7. District Gazetteer of united Provinces of Agra and
Awadh, 1905.
346. Based on his study of the above Gazetteers, DW 2/1-2
states in para 16 as under:
^16- mijk sD r xtsf V;j ds v/;;u ls Li"V gk sr k gS fd
fookfnr LFky fgUnq v k s a ds vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeLFkyh gS tgka fgUnqvksa }kjk lnSo ls vius vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke
dh tUeHkwfe ds #Ik esa iwtk dh tkrh jgh gS rFkk blh LFky ij
Jhjke tUeHk wf e eaf nj iwo Z dky es a Hkh fLFkr Fkk ftls 1528
bZ 0 es a /oLr djds fookfnr <k ap k ckcj ds vkns' k ij
ehjckdh }kjk cuk;k x;kA^^
“16. From the study of aforesaid gazetteer, it is
apparent that the disputed site is the birthplace of
Hindus’ revered Lord Sri Rama, which was continuously
worshiped by Hindus as the birthplace of their revered
Lord Sri Rama, and the Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple had
existed at this site in earlier times as well, and after
 395

demolishing the same, the disputed structure was built in

the year 1528 AD by Mir Baqi under order of Babar.”
(E.T.C.)
347. He claims to have inspected the revenue and nazul record
of the disputed land. Virtually there are three settlements
(revenue settlements) i.e., 1861, 1893-94 and 1936-37. The
revenue and nazul record of the land in District Faizabad was
corrected accordingly. Regarding preparation of revenue
records, in para 18 he said:
^18- QStkckn ds jktLo vfHkys[kksa ds lecU/k esa fo'ks"kr% utwy
lEifRr;ksa] muds j[k&j[kko] O;oLFkk o bUnzktkr vkfn ds laca/k esa ts0
MCyw0 gksst rRdkyhu dysDVj }kjk foLr`r vk[;k rS;kj dh xbZ gS rFkk
mlh laca/k esa rRdkyhu dfe'uj ,oa lsfVyesaV vkfQlj Jh ih0 dkusZxh
us Hkh foLr`r O;oLFkk nh gSA^^
“18. J.W. Hodge, erstwhile Collector had prepared a
detailed report regarding the revenue records of Faizabad
particularly the Nazul properties, their management,
arrangement and entries etc.. The erstwhile Commissioner
and Settlement Officer Sri P. Cornegi had also given a
detailed report in that behalf.” (E.T.C.)
348. The conclusion drawn by DW 2/1-2, based on the study of
the above settlements and revenue records, is mentioned in
paras 19, 20 and 21 as under:
^^19- lu~ 1861 bZ0 ds lsfVysesaV ds eqrkfcd tUeLFkku o mlls
lacaf/kr Hkw[k.Mksa dks ekStk dksV jkepUnz eq[;r% vkcknh ds #Ik esa iznf'kZr
fd;k x;k gS vkSj blh dze esa lacaf/kr ekSts ds [kljk fdLrokj esa Hkh
tUeLFkku dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA^^
“19. As per the settlement of the year 1861, the Janmsthan
and the plots related thereto, have been shown mainly as
inhabitation in village Kot Ramchandra and in this
continuation the Janmsthan has been mentioned in the
 396

Khasra Kistwar of the concerned village.” (E.T.C.)

^20- eSaus vius dk;Zdky esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe@ckcjh efLtn fookn ds
laca/k esa jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj QStkckn rFkk rglhy lnj QStkckn esa
miyC/k lHkh vfHkys[kksa dks dbZ ckj ns[kk rFkk bl laca/k esa lHkh lacaf/kr
jktLo vf/kdkfj;ksa ls tkudkjh izkIr dhA lHkh vfHkys[kksa dk lw{e
v/;;u djus ds ckn ;g Li"V gqvk fd fookfnr LFky jktLo o utwy
vfHksys[kksa esa tUe&LFkku dss #Ik esa vafdr gSA^^
“20. During my tenure, I saw all the records available in
Revenue Record Room Faizabad and Tehsil Sadar
Faizabad, concerning the Sri Ramjanmbhumi/ Babri
mosque dispute, on number of occasions and also obtained
information in this behalf from all concerned Revenue
Officers. After careful study of all the records it became
clear that the disputed site was entered in the revenue and
nazul records as Janmsthan.” (E.T.C.)
^^21- f'kykU;kl ds le; Hkh lHkh vfHkys[kksa dk fujh{k.k djus ds
Ik'pkr iz'uxr Hkw[k.M tUeLFkku ds #Ik esa gksuk izekf.kr gqvk Fkk rFkk
bl laca/k esa laxr lwpuk jkT; o dsUnz ljdkj dks le;&le; ij nh
tkrh jgh gSA^^
“21. On the occasion of ‘Shilanyas’ (laying of foundation
stone) also, the plot in question had been established as
Janmsthan from inspection of all the records and the
necessary information in this behalf was furnished to the
State and Central Government from time to time.” (E.T.C.)
349. Regarding the place in dispute and other facts, in paras 22,
23 and 24, DW 2/1-2 said as under:
^^22- eq>s vius dk;Zdky esa tks Hkh rF; miyC/k gks lds] muds vk/kkj
ij rFkk esjh Lo;a dh tkap rFkk fofHkUu ,tsafl;ksa }kjk izkIr lwpukvksa ds
vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd iz ' uxr LFky ij fgUnq v k sa ds
vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe LFkku gS tgk a ij Jhjke
tUeHk wf e eaf nj Fkk ftls ckcj }kjk vius vkdz e .k dky esa
 397

vius iz f rfuf/k lsu kifr ehjckdh }kjk /oLr djkdj mlh

LFkku ij fookfnr <k ap k ¼tk s vc /oLr gk s pq d k gS ½ cuk;k
x;k FkkA^^
“22. On the basis of the facts ascertained during my
tenure and further on basis of my own inquiry and the
information received from various agencies, (I) derived the
conclusion that the site in question was the birthplace of
Hindus’ revered Lord Sri Ram and that Sri Ram
Janmbhumi temple existed there, which was got
demolished by Babar, during his invasion period,
through his representative Mir Baqi and the disputed
structure (which has now been demolished) was built at
that very place.” (E.T.C.)
^23- fookfnr LFky ij tks <kapk Fkk mlesa esjh Lo;a v/;;u o
tkudkjh ds vuqlkj o"kZ 1934 bZ0 ds Ik'pkr dHkh uekt ugha Ik<+h xbZ
gS] u gh mldk iz;ksx eqfLye lEiznk; }kjk lkewfgd vFkok O;fDrxr
#Ik ls gh uekt Ik<+us ds fy, gqvkA^^
“23. As per my studies and information, Namaz was never
offered after the year 1934 AD in the structure at the
disputed site, nor was it used by the Muslim community
either collectively or individually to offer Namaz.” (E.T.C.)
^^24- fookfnr <kapsa esa yxs dkys iRFkj ds [kEHkksa ij] dy'k] vke ds
iYyo] dey] nsoh&nsorkvksa ,oa ekuo vkd`fr;ka Li"V Fkha rFkk mlh
ifjlj esa lhrk jlskbZ] pj.k&fpUg] pkSdk&csyu] pwYgk] jkepcwrjk Fkk A
mDr LFky fgUnqvksa ds iwT; LFkyh ds #Ik esa Fkk ,oa fookfnr LFky lnSo
ls Hkxoku jke ds tUeLFky ds #Ik esa iwT; FkkA^^
“24. The pitcher, mango leaves, lotus and figures of God-
Goddesses and human beings, were clear over the black
stone pillars in the disputed structure and within the same
premises, were the Sita Rasoi, footmarks, ‘Chauka-Belan’
(utensils used in Indian kitchen), stove and Ramchabutara.
 398

The above place was a worship place of Hindus and the

disputed site was always revered as birthplace of Lord
Rama.” (E.T.C.)
350. DW 2/1-3, Mahant Ram Vilas Das Vedanti is aged about
51 years (as per his affidavit dated 16.02.2005). He was cross
examined in the followed manner :
(a) 16/17/18.02.2005-by Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff (Suit-
3) through Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Advocate (p. 12-46)
(b) 18/21.02.2005- by plaintiff no. 9 and 10/1 Mahmood
Ahmad and Mohd. Faruk Ahmad through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 47-63)
(c) 21/23/24/25/28.02.2005, 01/02/03/04/07/09.03.2005-
by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1, 8/1 Sunni Central Board of Waqf,
Jiyauddin and Maulana Mahafujurrhman through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 63-204)
(d) 09.03.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate,who also adopted the
cross examination done by Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
204-205)
(e) 09.03.2005- defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 205)
351. He is resident of Vashistha Bhawan, Hindu Dham, Naya
Ghat, Ayodhya, District Faizabad and claims to be Mahant and
Sarvarahkar, Vashistha Pithadhishwar of Vashistha Bhawan,
Naya Ghat, Ayodhya. Born in District Riwa (Madhya Pradesh)
 399

he is residing permanently at Ayodhya since 1968. He passed

Shastri examination in the subject of Grammar from Varanasi
Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya and was conferred the degree of
Vedantacharya in 1979-80 in the subject “Sri Ramanuj Vedant”.
He completed Ph.D. in 1982 from Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi in the subject of “Valmikiya
Ramayane Dharm Niti”. He claims to have studied from
student's life about Lord Ramchandra Ji and Sri Krishna, read
several religious, literary books, legends etc. and still continuing
with the same, was elected as member of Parliament from
Machchalishahar and Pratapgarh constituencies in 11th and 12th
Parliamentary Elections. He claims to have regularly visited the
disputed site, a birthplace of Lord Ram and has performed
Bhajan, Pujan, Parikrama etc. thereat since 1968. He has given
details of location and construction of the disputed site and its
vicinity in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the
affidavit as under:
^^10- ;g fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa fookfnr <kapk fxjus ds iwoZ
izos'k gsrq eq[;}kj iwjc ls Fkk ftls guqeku }kj ds :i esa tkuk tkrk
FkkA eq[; }kj ij nksuksa vksj dkys dlkSVh ds nks [kEHks yxs gq, Fks] ftu
ij QwyiRRh] t; fot; ds fp= mdsjs x;s FksA ftl izdkj ds dlkSVh ds
[kEHks ckgj eq[; }kj ij Fks mlh izdkj ds 12 dkys dlkSVh ds [kEHks
vUnj eq[; Hkou esa Hkh yxs FksA ftu ij ?kV] iYyo] ve`r dy'k]
LokfLrd] Qwy iRrh] eksj] nsoh&nsorkvksa ds fp= mdsjs x;s FksA^^
^^10- That prior to the demolition of the disputed structure
at the SriRam Janmbhumi premises, the main gate for entry
was in the east, which was called the ‘Hanumatdwar’. Two
black touch stone pillars were standing on both sides of the
main gate, over which the pictures of flowers-leaves, Jai-
Vijai had been carved out. 12 black touch stone pillars
similar to the ones at the main gate, were there inside the
 400

main building, over which the picture of ‘Ghat’ (pitcher),

‘pallav’ (leaf), ‘Amrit Kalash’ (pot of nectar), flower-leaf,
peacock, God-Goddess had been carved out.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- ;g fd iz'uxr <kaps ds eq[; }kj ls vUnj tkus ij nf{k.k dh
rjQ ,d pcwrjk Fkk tks jke pcwrjk ds uke ls tkuk tkrk FkkA tgkWa
Hkxoku jke] y{e.k] lhrk vkfn dh ewfrZ;kWa Fkh ftudh Hkh fu;fer iwtk
vpZuk fgUnw n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk dh tkrh FkhA jke pcwrjs ds uhps xqQk
efUnj FkkA jke pcwrjk ds nf{k.k iwjc dksus ij ,d ihiy dk isM+ Fkk]
ftlds uhps x.ks'k th] 'kadj th] dkfrZds; th vkfn dh ewfrZ;kW vkSj
fi.Mh FkhA ftls Hkh n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk n'kZu iwtu fd;k tkrk FkkA
eq[;}kj ls vUnj mRrj rjQ lar fuokl ds :i esa Vhu 'ksM Fkk] ftlesa
dqN lUr LFkk;h :i ls jgrs Fks rFkk ckgj ls vkus tkus okys lUr Hkh
Bgjrs FksA mlh ds ,d va'k esa vukt] crZu vkfn j[kk tkrk FkkA^^
^^11- That on entry in the disputed structure through the
main gate, there was a platform towards south called
Ramchabutara, where the idols of Lord Ram, Laxman, Sita
etc. were present and were worshipped regularly by Hindu
devotees. Below the Ramchabutara, was the ‘Gufa’ (cave)
temple. There was a Pipal tree to the south east corner of
the Ramchabutara, under which were the idols of Lord
Ganesh, Lord Shankar, Lord Kartikey, which were also
worshipped by the devotees. To the north of the main gate,
was a tin shed as residence of saints, in which some saints
used to live permanently and the visiting saints of other
places also used to stay there. In a portion of the same, the
food grains, utensils etc. were stored.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- ;g fd jkepcwrjk o e.Mi ds if'pe eq[; ifjlj ds lkeus ,d
lhadpksa okyh nhokj Fkh ,oa vUnj Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe LFkku ftls
lukru /kehZ fgUnw /kkfeZd ijEijkuqlkj xHkZx`g dgrs Fks] chp okys xqEcn
ds uhps fLFkr FkkA eq[; ifjlj esa fLFkr <kWapk rhu xqEcn okyk Fkk
ftlesa e/; okys xqEcn ds uhps dh Hkwfe ij Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe gqvk
 401

Fkk] ,slh ijEij vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl fgUnw tuekul dk gS rFkk osnksa]
/keZ'kkL=ksa] iqjk.kksa vkfn ds vuqlkj Hkh ;g fl) gSA blh vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij ijEijkxr <ax ls ns'k fons'k ds vla[; fgUnw
jkeHkDr o tu lkekU; }kjk fookfnr LFky dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeLFkyh o tUeHkwfe efUnj ekurs gq, iwtu] n'kZu djrk pyk vk jgk
gS rFkk 'kiFkdrkZ Hkh mls mlh :i esa vfr ifo= ,oa Hkxoku jke dh
iwT; tUeLFkyh ekurk gSA^^
^^12- That there was a grill wall opposite the main
premises and to the north of the Ramchabutara and the
‘Mandap’, and inside it and below the mid dome, was the
birthplace of Lord Rama, which is customarily called
‘Garbh-grih’ by the orthdox Hindus. The structure
standing within the main premises, was of three dome and
according to the customary faith and belief of Hindus and
as proved by Vedas, Dharmshastras, Puranas etc., Lord
Rama was born on the land below the mid dome, It is on
basis of this very faith and belief that the prayer and
worship of Lord SriRama’s birthplace and Janmbhumi
temple has been customarily continuing through
innumerable Hindu devotees of Rama and general public of
country-abroad and the deponent also adheres to the
Janmbhumi as a very sacred worship place of Lord
Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- ;g fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa iz'uxr <kWpk fxjus ds iwoZ
mRrj dh vksj Hkh ,d izos'k }kj Fkk ftls flag }kj dgk tkrk FkkA
flag}kj ds Åij chpks chp esa x:.k nso rFkk muds nksuksa rjQ nks flag
cus gq, FksA flag}kj ls vUnj tkus ij rhu xqEcn okys Hkou ds mRrj
vFkkZr~ ifjlj ds mRrj if'pe dksus ij lhrk jlksbZ Fkh] tgkWa pkSdk
crZu] pwYgk] pj.k fpUg vkfn Fks] ftudh n'kZu iwtu Hkh n'kZukFkhZ djrs
Fks] rFkk ogha gou dq.M Hkh FkkA^^
^^13- That prior to the demolition of the disputed structure
 402

within the SriRam Janmbhumi premises, there was an

entry gate towards the north east, which was called the
‘Singhdwar’. Above the ‘Singhdwar’ was the ‘Garundev’
in centre with two lions on both sides. After entry through
the ‘Singhdwar’ there was the Sita Rasoi in the north of the
three dome building or to the north east corner of the
premises, where there were symbols of kitchen utensils,
stove, feet etc., and prayer and worship was offered there
by the devotees. A ‘Hawan Kund’ (prism shaped vessel
used in ceremony for offering oblations to the fire God).”
(E.T.C.)
^^14- ;g fd e/; okys xqEcn ds uhps fLFkr LFky ij gh lukru /kehZ
fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa dh izkphu ijEijk ,oa izFkk rFkk mudh vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ds vuqlkj egkjkt n'kjFk ds iq= Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe gqvk
Fkk] blfy, ;g LFky vfr ifo= ,oa iwT; gS ,oa blh vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij vukfndky ls djksM+ksa lukru /kehZ fgUnw v;ks/;k
vkdj Jhjke tUeHkwfe LFky dk n'kZu iwtu ,oa ifjdzek djrs pys vk
jgs gSaA eq[; izos'k }kj ij ,d iRFkj yxk gqvk Fkk] ftl ij ^^tUeHkwfe
fuR; ;k=k** fy[kk FkkA^^
^^14- That according to ancient traditions, customs, faith
and belief of orthodox Hindus, king Dashrath’s son Lord
Sri Rama was born at the very place below the middle
dome, so this place is most sacred and revered and on the
basis of this faith and belief from time immemorial crores
of orthodox Hindus have been visiting Ayodhya and
performing ‘Darshan’, worship and circumambulation of
birthplace of Lord Rama. On the main gate of entry a stone
was installed with ‘Janmbhumi Nitya Yatra’ (daily visit of
birthplace) written thereon.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- ;g fd fookfnr LFky ds nf{k.k iwoZ dksus ij yxHkx 200&300
QqV dh nwjh ij nf{k.k iwjc dksus ij ^^lhrk dwi** uked izfl) ,oa
 403

ifo= dwi Fkk] ftldk ty rhFkZ;k=h ihrs Fks vkSj flj ij j[krs Fks ,oa
izlkn Lo:i ?kj ys tkrs FksA^^ ¼ist& 5½
^^15- That at a distance of about 200-300 feet on the south
east corner of the disputed site, was a famous and sacred
well called Sita ‘Koop’ (well), whose water was drunk and
applied on head by the pilgrims and was also taken home
by them as blessings.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- ;g fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds vUnj e/; okys xqEcn esa
dkyh dlkSVh ds 12 [kEHks yxs gq, Fks] mu ij dy'k] Qwy&iRrh] ;{k &
;f{k.kh] ?kV&iYyo] nsoh&nsorkvksa dh vkd`fr;kWa] ve`r dy'k ,oa
LokfLrd iRFkj esa gh mdsjh x;h FkhA^^
^^16- That there were 12 black touch stone pillars in the
middle dome inside the SriRam Janmbhumi premises and
the pictures of ‘Kalash’, flower-leaf, ‘Yaksha-Yakshani’,
‘Ghat-Pallav’, Gods-Goddesses, ‘Amrit Kalash’, ‘Swastik’
had been carved out over the stone.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj tgkWa fLFkr gS mlds pkjks vksj fgUnqvksa
ds izfrf"Br reke efUnj gSa ftlesa tUe LFkku lhrk jlksbZ] dud Hkou]
osn efUnj] fo'okfe= vkJe] fl;kfi;k dsfydqUt] eRr xtsUnz] dksVs'oj
egknso] jke [ktkuk efUnj] yksel vkJe] lqxzho fdyk] xksdqy Hkou]
jax egy] yodq'k efUnj] of'k"B dq.M] dqcsj Vhyk] czg~edq.M xq:}kjk
vkfn gSaA**
^^18- That the disputed premises is surrounded on all sides
by many reputed temples of Hindus including ‘Janmsthan,
Sita Rasoi, Kanak Bhawan, Veda temple, Vishwamitra
Ashram, Siyapiya Kelikunj, Matt Gajendra, Koteshwar
Mahadev, Ram Khajana temple, Lomus Ashram, Sugriv
Kila, Gokul Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Luv Kush temple,
Vashishta Kund, Kuber mound, Brahm Kund, Gurudwara’
etc.” (E.T.C.)
352. In paragraphs 9 and 19 he has said that Hindus in the
 404

country and abroad, traditionally and culturally, believe and

have faith that the disputed site is birthplace of Lord Ram, and,
are worshipping the said place accordingly, in para 17 he has
said that no Muslim has ever offered any Namaz (Prayer)
thereat and atleast from 1934 :
^^9- ;g fd fookfnr LFky ns'k fons'k ds vla[; fgUnqvksa }kjk Hkxoku
Jhjke pUnz dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa izFkkxr] ijEijkxr vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ls vukfn dky ls iwftr gksrk pyk vk jgk gSA fgUnw
lukru/kehZ fookfnr LFky dks vius vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke pUnz th dh
tUe LFkyh o tUeHkwfe efUnj ds :i esa iwtrs gSaA^^
^^9- That out of customary faith and belief, the disputed
site has been worshipped by innumerable Hindus since
ancient times as the birthplace of Lord SriRamchandra.
The orthodox Hindus have worshipped the disputed site as
birthplace and Janmbhumi temple of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^17- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj es dHkh dksbZ eqlyeku ugha tkrk Fkk]
vkSj u gh fdlh eqlyeku }kjk ogkWa uekt i<+h tkrh Fkh] esjh tkudkjh
ds vuq:i o"kZ 1934 ds ckn Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh rjQ vxj dksbZ
eqlyeku fn[kkbZ iM+ x;k rks lk/kw oSjkxh mls ykBh M.Mk ls nkSM+dj
ekjrs ihVrs FksA Hk;o'k dksbZ eqlyeku ifjlj dh vksj ugha tkrk FkkA
rFkk 1934 ls fookfnr LFky ij dHkh uekt ugha i<+h xbZ vkSj u gh
dksbZ bLyke etgc dk vuq;k;h vUnj x;kA^^
^^17- That neither any Muslim ever went inside the
disputed premises nor offered Namaz there. According to
my information if any Muslim was spotted towards the
SriRam Janmbhumi premises after the year 1934, he was
chased away by the saints- recluses. No Muslim used to go
towards the premises out of fear and after 1934 Namaz
was never offered at the disputed site and no follower of
Islam went inside.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- ;g fd esjs v/;;u o tkudkjh ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k fLFkr
 405

fookfnr LFky gh Hkxoku Jhjke pUnz th dh tUeHkwfe gSA v;ks/;k esa

Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe jktk n'kjFk ds iq= ds :i esa gksuk
loZfofnr ,oa loZekU; gS ,oa fookfnr LFky lukru /kehZ fgUnqvksa }kjk
Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh ds :i esa vuUrdky ls /kkfeZd vkLFkk]
ijEijk] izFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj ekU;rk izkIr gS] tks mlh :i esa
vuUr dky ls iwftr gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA fgUnw /keZ'kkL= ds vuqlkj
ewfrZ ,oa LFky leku :i ls iwT; gksrs gSa] ftldh iwtk vpZuk ls euq";
dks eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gSA**
^^19- That according to my studies and information, the
disputed site at Ayodhya is the birthplace of Lord Sri
Ramchandra. The birth of Lord Rama as son of king
Dashrath is universally known and accepted and since
ancient times, the disputed site has been recognized by the
orthodox Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Sri Ram on
basis of religious faith, custom, tradition and belief.
According to Hindu religious books, the idol and place are
equally worshipable, by worship of which a person attains
‘Moksha’ (salvation).” (E.T.C.)
353. In paragraphs 20 to 27 DW2/1-3 he has referred to certain
literature claiming that the same referred to the place of birth of
Lord Ram at the disputed site and therefrom it can be
ascertained that the disputed site is a place of birth of Lord Ram,
as under:
^20- ;g fd ckYehfd jkek;.k] vFkoZosn] ;tqosZn] LdUn iqjk.k ,oa
xksLokeh rqylhnkl th ds lkfgR; esa v;ks/;k esa fookfnr LFky ij
Hkxoku Jhjke ds tUe gksus dk fooj.k feyrk gSA rq y lh nkl }kjk
jfpr rq y lh nk sg k 'krd es a Hkh ckcj ds vkns' k ij ehj
ckdh }kjk Jhjke tUeHk wf e efUnj /oLr dj efLtn cuokus
dk mYy s[ k gS A xksLokeh rqylh nkl d`r dforkoyh esa Hkh
eqxydkyhu 'kkldksa ds dqd`R;ksa ,oa vR;kpkj dk mYys[k gS rFkk mudh
d`fr nksgkoyh esa rRdkyhu lkekftd] jktuSfrd fLFkfr;ksa dk o.kZu
 406

fd;k x;k gSA^^

^^20- That in the literature of Valmiki Ramayan, Atharva
Veda, Yajur Veda, Skanda Purana and Goswami Tulsidas,
description is found about the disputed site in Ayodhya
being the birthplace of Lord SriRama. Even in the ‘Tulsi
Doha Shatak’ of Tulsi Das, there is mention about
construction of mosque by Mir Baqi after demolishing
the Sri Rama Janmbhumi temple on the command of
Babar. The ‘Kavitavali’ composed by Goswami Tulsidas
contains references of the excesses and atrocities
committed by the Mughal emperors and the ‘Dohawali’
composed by him gives a clear picture of the then social
and political situation.” (E.T.C.)
^^21- ;g fd ckYehfd jkek;.k fgUnqvksa dk vfr izkphu ,oa ekU;rk
izkIr xzUFk gS ftldh jpuk Hkxoku JhjkepUnz th ds le; dh gSA
ckYehfd jkek;.k ds ckydk.M ds lxZ 18 esa Hkxoku Jhjke pUnz th ds
tUe dk fooj.k nsrs gq, muds tUe dk le; _rq xzg.k u{k= vkfn dk
egf"kZ ckYehfd }kjk o.kZu fd;k tkrk gS ,oa mlh dze esa egf"kZ ckYehfd
us fookfnr LFky dks Hkxoku jke dh tUeLFkyh ekurs gq, ml LFky dks
^^loZyksd ueLd`re~** 'kCn ls O;Dr fd;k gSA Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeLFkyh ds lEcU/k esa ckYehfd jkek;.k esa fuEufyf[kr Li"V o.kZu gS&
rrks ;Ks lekIrs rq _rquka "kV leR;;q%A
rr'p }kn'ks ekls pS=s ukofeds frFkkSAA
u{k=s·fnfr nSoR;s LoksPp laLFks"kq iaplqA
xzgs"kq ddZV yXus okD;krkfoUnquk lgAA
izks|ekus txUukFka loZyksd ueLd`re~A
dkS'kY;k tuin~ jkea fnO; y{k.k la;qre~AA**
^^21- That Valmiki Ramayana is a very old and recognized
treatise of the Hindus, composed during the times of Lord
Rama. In ‘Sarg’ (chapter) 18 of ‘Balkaand’ of Valmiki
Ramayana, Maharshi Valmiki has described the birth of
 407

Lord Sri Ramchandra along with the relevant time of birth,

season, planet position etc. and in that continuation
Maharshi Valmiki has referred the disputed site as the
birthplace of Lord Rama and has described it by the term
‘Sarvlok Namaskritam’ (revered by all). The Valmiki
Ramayana contains following specific descriptions about
the birthplace of Lord Rama:
After conclusion of king Dashrath’s ‘Putreshti
Yagya’ (a sacrifice/ceremony for acquiring a son)
and on expiry of 6 seasons, on the ninth day of
‘Chaitra’ ‘Shukla Paksh’(moonlit fortnight) in the
12th month thereafter in ‘Punarvasu Nakshtra’, ‘Kark
Lagna’ when the Sun, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and
Venus all the five planets were in their respective
higher place along with Moon were looking, at that
time and place. Kaushalya gave birth to Lord Rama,
who incarnated with divine virtues at that very
place, and is the master of the entire world and
revered by all.” (E.T.C.)
^^22- ;g fd Hkxoku Jhjke dk v;ks/;k esa egkjktk n'kjFk ds ;gkWa eka
dkS'kY;k ds xHkZ ls tUe] v;ks/;k esa egkjkt n'kjFk dk jkT;] Hkxoku
jke dk jkT;kfHk"ksd] cuxeu vkfn dk foLr`r o.kZu djrs gq, v;ks/;k
fgUnqvksa dh eq[; rhFkZ LFkyksa ds :i esa of.kZr gSA^^
^^22- That describing about the birth of Lord Rama in the
palace of king Dashrath at Ayodhya through mother
Kaushalya, the kingdom of king Dashrath in Ayodhya, the
enthroning of Lord Rama, exile in forest etc., Ayodhya has
been described as the main pilgrimage of Hindus.”
(E.T.C.)
^^23- fookfnr LFky Hkxoku jke ds tUeLFky ds :i esa of.kZr gSA
/keZxzUFk iwoZ jke rki;ksifu"kn o osn&osnkaxksa esa Hkxoku jke ds /kke
 408

ds :i esa tUeHkwfe dk o.kZu gSA^^

^^23- The disputed site has been described as the
birthplace of Lord Rama. In the treatises, ‘Purva Rama
Tapyopnishad’ and ‘Veda- Vedangas’ the Janmbhumi has
been described as pilgrimage of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^24- ;g fd fgUnqvksa ds izfl) xzUFk LdUn iqjk.k ds oS".ko [k.M esa
v;ks/;k egkRE; dk o.kZu gS ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeHkwfe ds :i esa Li"Vr% of.kZr fd;k x;k gSA oS".ko [k.M ds v;ks/;k
egkRE; dh laxr iafDr;kWa fuEufyf[kr gSa&
laiwT; fof/koRrL;k n'kZua dk;kZeknjkr~A
loZdkekFkZfl};~;FkZeqRloksv~fi 'kqHkizn%A
drZO;% lqiz;Rusu xhrokfn=la;qrS%A AA 10 AA
uojk=s r`rh;k;ka ;k=k lkaoRljh Hkosr
loZnk lq[klarkufl};s ijekFkZnk
ukuklaxhrokfn=u`R;ksRloeuksgjk AA 11 AA
,oa d`rs u lansg% loZnk jf{krksa Hkosr~ AA 12 AA
,rRif'pefnXHkkxs orZrs ijeks equs
fiaMkjd bfr [;krks ohj% ijeikS:"k%
iwT;uh;% iz;Rusu xa/kiq"ik{krkfnfHk% AA 13 AA
;L; iwtko'kkUu`.kka fl};% djlafJrk%
rL; iwtkfo/kkusu drZO;a iwtua ujS% AA 14 AA
lj;wlfyys LukRok fiaMkjda p iwt;sr~
ikfiuka eksgdrkZja efrna d`fruka lnk AA 15 AA
rL; ;k=k fo/kkrO;k liq";k uojkf="kq
rRif'pefn[kkHkkxs fo?us'ka fdy iwt;sr~ AA 16AA
;L; n'kZurks i`.kka fo?uys'kks u fo|rs
rLekf}?us'oj% iwT;% loZdkeQyizn% AA 17 AA
rZLekRLFkkur ,s'kkus jketUe izorZrs
tUeLFkkufena izksDra eks{kkfnQylk/kue~ AA 18 AA
fo?us'ojkRiwoZHkkxs okfl"VknqRrjs rFkk
ykSe'kkRif'pes Hkkxs tUeLFkkua rr% Le`re AA 19 AA
;n`"Vk p euq";L; xHkZoklt;ks Hkosr
 409

fcuk nkusu rilk fcuk rhFkSfcZuk e[kS% AA 20 AA

uoehfnols izkIrs ozr/kkjh fg ekuo%
LukunkuizHkkos.k eqP;rs tUecU/kukr AA 21 AA
dfiykxkslgL=kf.k ;ks nnkfr fnusfnus
rRQya leokIuksfr tUeHkwes% izn'kZukr~ AA 22 AA
vkJes olrka iqalka rkilkuka p ;RQye~
jktlw;lgL=kf.k izfro"kkZfXugks=r% AA 23 AA
fu;eLFka uja n`"Vk tUeLFkkus fo'ks"kr%
ekrkfi=ksxqZ:.kka p HkfDr eq}grka lrke~ AA 24 AA
rRQya leokIuksfr tUeHkwes izn'kZukr~ AA 25 AA**
(Hindi translation of the above Shloka hereunder as
appended by the witness himself along with his affidavit)
**lEiw.kZ dkeukvksa dh flf) ds fy;s fof/k iwoZd
vknjiwoZd] rL;k;k%¾v;ks/;k;k% jke tUeHkwekS vFkkZr jke
tUeHkwfe dk vknjiwoZd iwtu djds n'kZue~ dk;Z;e~¾n'kZu
djuk pkfg,A vkSj ogkWa ij¾jke tUeHkwfe ij vkfi¾Hkh
fof/kor iwtu djus ls 'kqHk vFkkZr iq.; dh izn%&izkfIr
gksrh gSA** (10)
**pS= 'kqDy i{k uojkf= esa r`rh;k ds fnu o"kZ esa ;k=k
drZO;%¾;k=k djuh pkfg, vkSj lqUnj iz;RuiwoZd xhr
oknu ls ;qDr gksdj bls eukuk pkfg,A lHkh voljksa ij
ijekFkZ dks iznku djus okys lq[k vkSj lUrku dh izkfIr
ds fy, vusd laxhr oknu vkSj u`R; iwoZd euksgj mRlo
eukuk pkfg,A** (11)
**bl izdkj mi;qZDr jhfr ls dk;Z dus ij ges'kk j{kk
gksrh gS blesa dksbZ Hkh lUnsg ugha gSA** (12)
**,rr~¾jke tUeHkwfe ds if'pe fn'kk esa fi.Mkjd bl
uke ls [;krks¾izfl) ije iq:"k chj ije eqfu dk LFkku
orZrs¾gSaA ml iwT;uh; LFkku dk xU/k iq"i vP{kr vkfn
ls iz;RuiwoZd iwtu djuk pkfg,A** (13)
**ftlds iwtu ds dkj.k euq";ksa ds gkFk esa flf) izkIr gks
tkrh gSA blfy, mldh iwtk euq";ksa dks fof/k iwoZd
 410

djuk pkfg,A** (14)

**lj;w ty esa Luku djds fi.Mkjd dh iwtk djuh
pkfg,A efrean eksg ls xzflr ikfi;ksa dks lnk djuk
pkfg,A** (15)
**mldh ;k=k uojkf= ds iq"; u{k= esa djuh pkfg,A
rr~¾jke tUeHkwfe ds if'pe fn'kk ds Hkkx esa fo/u dks
nwj djus okys Jhx.ks'k th dk iwtu djuk pkfg,A**
(16)
**ftlds n'kZu ls euq";ksa dk fo?u¾d"V] nq%[k FkksM+k Hkh
ugha jgrk blfy, fo/us'oj lEiw.kZ dkeukvksa ds Qy dks
iznku djus okys iwT;k;%¾iwT;uh; gSaA** (17)
**ml LFkku ds bZ'kku dks.k ij jke tUeHkwfe gS ¼tgkWa ij
bl le; jke yyk½ fojkteku gSaA bne~¾blh jke
tUeHkwfe dks tUe LFkku¾jke tUeHkwfe LFkku ds uke ls
izke`ea&tkuk tkrk gS vFkok mDr izdkj ls O;Dr fd;k
x;k gS tks ewP{kkfn Qy dks nsus okyk gSA** (18)
**fo/us'ojkr~¾fo/u dks nwj djus okys x.ks'k th ds iwoZ
Hkkx esa rFkk of'k"Bdq.M ds mRrj Hkkx esa] ykse'k ds
if'pe Hkkx esa tUe LFkkua~¾tUeHkwfe dk Le`re~¾Lej.k
djuk pkfg,A** (19)
**ftl jke tUeHkwfe ij fojkteku Jhjke yyk dk n'kZu
djus ds ckn euq"; dks iqutZUe ls eqfDr fey tkrh gSA
fcuk nku] fcuk riL;k vkSj fcuk ;K ds gh dsoy jke
tUeHkwfe ds n'kZu ek= ls gh eqfDr izkIr gks tkrh gS
vFkkZr~ fQj ls xHkZ esa tUe ugha ysuk iM+rkA** (20)
**tks euq"; uoeh frfFk dks ozr /kkj.k djrk gS vkSj lj;w
esa Luku vkSj v;ks/;k esa nku djrk gS mlds izHkko ls
tUecU/ku ls eqfDr fey tkrh gSA** (21)
**,d gtkj dfiyk xk; tks izfrfnu nku djrk gS ml
nku dk tks Qy euq"; dks feyrk gS ogh Qy Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ds n'kZu djus ls izkIr gksrk gSA** (22)
 411

**vkJe esa fuokl djus okys euq";ksa dks vkSj rifLo;ksa dks
tks Qy izkIr gksrk gS] ,d gtkj jktlw; ;K djus okyksa
dks vkSj izfr o"kZ vfXugks= esa gou djus okyksa dks oks Qy
izkIr gksrk gSaA** (23)
**fu;e esa fLFkr jgdj tks euq"; fo'ks"k :i ls
tUeLFkkus¾Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij fLFkr jke th ds n'kZu ls
izkIr gksrk gSA ekrk&firk xq:vksa vkSj lTtuksa dh
HkfDriwoZd lsok djus ls tks Qy izkIr gksrk gS ogha Qy
jketUeHkwfe ds n'kZu ls izkIr gksrk gSA** (24)
**ogh Qy Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk ,oa JhjketUeHkwfe es
fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk ds n'kZu ls izkIr gksrk gSA**
(25)
(English Translation)
"24- That the importance of Ayodhya has been mentioned
in ‘Vaishnava’ part of ‘Skanda Purana’, famous treatise of
Hindus, wherein categorical descriptions are contained
about Lord Rama’s birthplace. The relevant verses of
‘Vaishanava’ part relating to importance of Ayodhya, are
as under:
“For fulfillment of all desires, we should have
Darshan of Ayodhya-situated Ram Janam
Bhumi worshipping it duly and respectfully. By
duly worshipping Ram Janam Bhumi located
there we can attain good results.” (10)
“On the third day of Chaitra Shukla Navaratri
we should make a kartavya yatra (journey of
duties) and should celebrate it singing and
playing instruments in a beautiful manner and
with efforts. On all the occasions we should
observe several fascinating celebrations
coupled with singing, playing instruments and
 412

dancing, for attainment of great bliss and also

of children.” (11)
“In this manner, a man is always protected by
working in the afore-said manner. There is no
doubt in it. ” (12)
“On the west of Ram Janam Bhumi lies a place
of Pindara, a famous and great sage and great
human being. We should worship this adorable
place with scent, flowers, rice-grains, etc. ”
(13)
“Due to that worship human beings can attain
Siddhi(accomplishment). Hence, human beings
should duly worship it. (14)
“After taking a dip in the water of Saryu one
should worship Pindarak. The sinners suffering
from weak understanding and from attachment
should always do the said worship.” (15)
“Journey to it should be done in the Pushpa
Nakshatra of Navratri. In the west part of Ram
Janam Bhumi, we should worship Ganesha Ji,
remover of obstacles.” (16)
“As a result of whose darshan human beings
do not have any obstacle and pain, even a little
sorrow such Vighneshwar is worthy of worship
as provider of results of all desires.” (17)
“On the north-east of that place lies Ram
Janam Bhumi (where at present Ram Lala is
presiding). The same Ram Janam Bhumi is
known as Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan or
expressed in the said manner and it is a
 413

provider of liberation, etc.” (18)

“We should remember Janam Bhumi as
located in the east part of 'Ganesha Ji' ,
remover of obstacles, and in the north part of
Vashishtha Kunda and in the west part of
Lomash.” (19)
“After having darshan of Sri Ram Lala
presiding at that very Ram Janam Bhumi one is
liberated from rebirth. Even without making
any gift, without practising austerities and
without making sacrifices, one attains
liberation only with darshan of Ram Janam
Bhumi, that is to say, one does not have to take
birth from mother's womb again.” (20)
“One who keeps fast on the ninth day, has a
dip in Saryu and offers gifts in Ayodhya, gets
liberated from the bondage of birth.” (21)
“The darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
provides the same results that a man may have
by gifting one thousand Kapila cows
everyday.” (22)
“The result that hermits and ascetics residing
in Ashrams have, is the same that people have
on performing one thousand Rajsuya Yajnas
have and on offering 'havans' in fire-pits.”
(23)
“From the darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi one
may get the same results as one may get from
having darshan of Ram Ji particularly at Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or from rendering
 414

dedicated service to parents, teachers and

gentle persons.” (24)
“One may get the same results from darshan of
Lord Ram Lala presiding at Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi.” (25)
(E.T.C)
**25- ;g fd vFkoZosn esa v;ks/;k dks nsoh nsorkvksa dh iqjh ds :i esa
lackasf/kr fd;k x;k gS tks fuEu izdkj ls gS%&
^^iqja ;ks czgk.kks osn ;L;k% iq:"k mP;rs A 28 A
;ks oS rka czg.kksa osnke`rs iko`rka iqje~
rLeSa czgekL[ p{kq% izk.ke~ iztka nnq% A 29 A
u oS ra p{kqtZtgkfr u izk.kkstjl% iqjk
iqja ;ks czg~e.kks on ;L;k% iq:"k mP;rs A 30 A
v"Vpdzk uo}kjk nsokuka iqjh;ks/;k
rL;ka fgj.;;% dks'k% LoxksZ T;ksfr"kko`r% A 31 A**
(Hindi translation of the above Shloka hereunder as
appended by the witness himself alongwith his affidavit)
^^ml czEg~ iqj dks ftl czEg~ iqj esa czEg~ 'k;u~ djrs gSa
vFkkZr ml v;ks/;kiqjh esa ftlesa Jhjke fuokl djrs gSaA
og iq:"kkFkZ ds Hkkxh gksrs gSaA** ¼28½
**tks czEg~iqj vFkkZr&v;ks/;kiqj osnksa esa tkuk tkrk gS og
iqjh ve`r ls vko`r gS¾ifjiw.kZ gSA oSfnd nsork mls p{kq
izk.k] iztk vFkkZr~ lUrku iznku djrs gSaA** ¼29½
**czEg~iqj v;ks/;k dks tkurk gS mldks Hkh p{kq ,oa Kku
&foKku ugha R;kxrs vfr o`)koLFkk ds iwoZ izk.k mldks
ugha R;kxrs ftlds dkj.k czEg~ iq:"k gks tkrk gS vFkkZr~
ml iqj dks¾v;ks/;k dks tkuus okyk rFkk ml v;ks/;k ds
iq:"k Jhjke dks tkuus okyk p{kqLeku nh?kkZ;q ,oa iztkoku
gksrk gSA** ¼30½
**tks vkB pdzksa ls ;qDr ukS }kjksa okyh nsokfnnso Hkxoku
jke dh v;ks/;k iqjh gS ml v;ks/;kiqjh esa og Lo.kZe;
'ks"kkxkj tgkWa T;ksfr ls lEiu Hkxoku Jhjke izFke ckj
 415

ckyd cudj i/kkjs Fks ml ea= esa fgj.;e;% dks'k% LoxZ%

'kCn ls Hkxoku Jhjke ds tUeHkwfe dk Li"V ladsr fd;k
x;k gSA bl ea= esa fgj.;% dks'k% LoxZ% bu rhu 'kCnksa ls
Hkxoku Jhjke yyk dh tUeHkwfe dk Li"V ladsr gSA**
¼31½
“25. That Atharva Veda addresses male and female
deities of Ayodhya as 'Puri' in the following manner:-
“People living in that Brahmapur where
Brahma takes rest, that is to say, those living in
Ayodhyapuri where Sri Rama resides, attain
'prusharthas'(objectives of life).” (28)
“The Brahmapur, that is, Ayodhya Pur, known
in the Vedas, is filled with nectar. The Vedic
deities provide eyes, souls and subjects, that is,
progenies.” (29)
“One who knows Brahmapur, that is, Ayodhya
does not lose eyes and knowledge – special
knowledge. Such a person does not lose his
soul before getting extremely old due to which
he becomes a Brahma-Purush. That is to say,
such a person – knower of Ayodhya or knower
of Ayodhya's Purush Sri Rama – is blessed
with eyes, long life and subjects/progenies.”
(30)
“With eight wheels and nine gateways, there is
Ayodhyapuri of the most revered deity of
deities, Lord Rama, which has a 'Sheshagaar'
of gold, where Sri Rama, scintillating with
light, appeared as a child for the first time. The
words "Hiranyamay krodhah swargah"
occurring in that hymn, clearly points to the
 416

birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. These three

words "Hiranyamay krodhah swargah" in the
hymn, clearly refers to the birthplace of Sri
Ram Lala.” (31)
(E.T.C)
**26- ;g fd fgUnw /keZ ds izfl) xzUFk ^^:nz;key** ds v/;k;k 30
'yksd 54 esa v;ks/;k iqjh dks lIr izeq[k iqjh ds :i esa of.kZr djrs gq,
v;ks/;k dks lHkh rhFkksZ dk eLrd dgk x;k gS rFkk ^^of'k"B lafgrk**
uked izfl) /keZ xzUFk esa ^v;ks/;k uxjh fuR;k lfPpnkuUn:fi.kh* ds
lEcks/ku ds }kjk lk{kkr~ lrfpr vkuUn :ih Hkxoku dk Lo:i ,oa
foxzg :i esa ifjHkkf"kr djrs gq, v;ks/;k dks xks yksd ,oa oSdq.B ls Hkh
vf/kd izfrf"Br ekuk x;k gSA blh izdkj dk fooj.k xksLokeh rqylhnkl
d`r jkepfjr ekul esa Hkh gSA**
“26. That the famous treatise of Hinduism titled
“Rudryamal” in verse 54 of chapter 30 depicts
Ayodhyapuri as one of the seven main 'puris' (towns) and
terms it as the head of all sites of pilgrimage. In the famous
religious treatise titled “Vashishtha Samhita”, Ayodhya
Nagari is addressed as 'Nitya Sachchidanand-rupini' and
is defined as the form and individual shape of God, a
manifestation of existence, consciousness and bliss, and is
regarded as more revered than even 'Go Lok' and
'Vaikuntha'(abodes of God). The same type of description
also occurs in the Ram Charit Manas composed by
Goswami Tulsidas.” (E.T.C.)
**27- ;g fd ^:nz;key* fgUnqvksa dk vfr izkphu vk/;kfRed /keZ xzUFk
gS ftlesa fookfnr LFky dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe dks Li"V :i ls
o.kZu fd;k x;k gS rFkk blh xzUFk esa v;ks/;k dks Hkxoku oklqnso]
czg~ekth o :nz dk :i ekuk x;k gSA mDr xzUFk dh laxr iafDr;kWa fuEu
izdkj gS%
vdkjks oklqnsoL;kr~ ;dkjL; rs iztkifr%
 417

ÅWdkjks :nz :iL; rq] rke /;k;fUr equh'oj%A **

(Hindi translation of the above Shloka hereunder as
appended by the witness himself alongwith his
affidavit)
^^bl 'yksd esa v;ks/;k 'kCn dk vFkZ crk;k x;k gSA
vdkj] ;dkj] ÅWadkj vkSj /;k dh O;k[;k gSA vdkj¾oklqnso]
oklqnso¾jke d.k&d.k esa fuokl djus okys jkeA ;dkj dk vFkZ
iztkifr czEg~ek ls gS vkSj ÅWdkj dk vFkZ :nz :i ls
gS¾'kadj :i ls gS rFkk /;k 'kCn dk vFkZ equh'oj yksx bu rhuksa
nsorkvksa dk /;ku djrs gSa vFkkZr~ bldk HkkokFkZ ;g gS fd
v;ks/;k¾czEg~ek] fo".kq] egs'k rhuksa dk :i ftls equh'oj
yksx¾lk/kw] lar egkRek yksx v;ks/;k esa lnk bu rhuksa nsorkvksa
dk /;ku djrs jgrs gSaA**
“27. That 'Rudryamal' is a very ancient spiritual religious
treatise of Hindus which clearly depicts the birth place of
Lord Sri Rama at the disputed site and this very treatise
regards Ayodhya as the form of Lord Vasudeva, Brahma Ji
and Rudra. The relevant lines of the said treatise are as
follows:
“This verse gives the meaning of the word
Ayodhya. it explains 'Akar, Yakar, Omkar, and
Dhya'. Akar stands for 'Vasudeva', that is, Vasudeva-
Rama who pervades every atom. Yakar means
Brahma, creator of the world, and Omkar means
Rudra, i.e. Shankara, and Dya stands for sages who
meditate about these Trinities. That is to say, it
means that Ayodhya is the manifestation of Trinities-
Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh–whom sages, ascetics
and saints keep meditating about these Trinities in
Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
354. He claims in para 28 of the affidavit that Muslims and
 418

Hindus both live together cordially in Ayodhya and Faizabad,

and local Muslims except of a very few believe that the disputed
site is the birthplace of Lord Ram and in support thereto has
referred to the response given by some of Muslims in Section
145 Cr.P.C. proceedings initiated in 1949. Further in para 30 he
says that neither the disputed site had any characteristics or
requirement necessary for making it a mosque nor the Muslims
in general treat it as such and since time immemorial it is most
pious place of Hindus worshipped as birthplace of Lord Ram.
Paragraphs 28 and 30 of the affidavit reads as under:
^^28 ;g fd v;ks/;k QStkckn esa LFkkuh; rkSj ij lnSo ls lkEiznkf;d
ln~Hkko jgk gS rFkk nksuksa oxksZ esa ijLij lg;ksx rFkk e/kqj lEcU/k jgs gSa
rFkk vkt Hkh nksuksa oxksZ esa vR;f/kd lkSgknZ gSA LFkkuh; eqlyeku ¼dsoy
dqN fxus pqus fufgr LokFkhZ dV~VjiUFkh eqlyekuksa dks NksM+dj½ fookfnr
LFky dks fgUnqvksa ds vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ekurs gSa rFkk
fookfnr LFky dks efLtn ds :i esa dHkh ekuus dks rS;kj ugha gSaA^^
^^28- That communal harmony has always prevailed at
local level in Ayodhya, Faizabad and the relations between
both the communities have always remained cordial and
cooperative and even today, there is great harmony
between the two communities. Local Muslims (except for
few orthodox Muslims with vested interests) consider the
disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, the ideal
deity of Hindus and are not prepared to treat the disputed
site as a mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^^30- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ ds vc rd ds lkekftd] /kkfeZd] jktuhfrd
thou esa reke bLyke etgc ds vuq;k;h] muds mysekvksa rFkk fo}kuksa
ls ckrphr gq;hA os lc yksx fookfnr LFky dks bcknr xkg ds :i esa
Lohdkj ugha djrs mudk ;g Hkh ekuuk gS fd efLtn esa ehukj o otw
ds fy, leqfpr O;oLFkk gksuk vko';d gSA fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr
<kWapk esa u rks ehukjsa Fkh] vkSj u gh otw dh dksbZ O;oLFkk FkhA fookfnr
 419

LFky Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gS tks /keZ 'kkL=ksa tuJqfr;ksa izFkkvksa

vkfn ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gS rFkk vukfn dky ls ml LFkku dks
Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa iwftr fd;k tkrk pyk vk jgk
gSA**
^^30- That in the till date social, religious and political
career of the deponent, he had discussions with a number
of followers of Islam, their Ulemas and scholars. They all
do not accept the disputed site as ‘Ibadatgah’ (Muslim
place of worship). It is also their belief that a mosque must
have minarets and proper arrangement for Wazoo. In the
disputed structure over the site, neither there were any
minarets nor any arrangement for Wazoo. The disputed
site is the birthplace of Lord Rama which is proved by
scriptures, hearsay, traditions etc. and from time
immemorial that place has been continuously worshipped
as the birthplace of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
355. DW 3/1, Mahant Bhaskar Das, 75 years of age (as per
affidavit dated 29.08.2003), He was cross examined in the
following manner :
(a) 29.08.2003- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 30-
35)
(b) 01.09.2003- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (p. 36-44)
(c) 01.09.2003- by Ramjanam Bhumi Punruddhar Samiti,
defendant no. 20, through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri,
Advocate (p. 44-47)
(d) 01/02.09.2003- by defendant no. 11 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 47-58)
(e) 02/03/04/05/08/09/10/11/12/15/16/17/18.09.2003- by
 420

Sunni Central Board of Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri

Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 58-234)
(f) 18/19/22.09.2003- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 234-268)
(g) 22.09.2003- defendants no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and and defendant no. 6/2 through Sri
Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and
Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 268)
356. He is resident of Hanumangarhi Naka Muzaffara, Pargana
Haveli Awadh, District Faizabad. He is Sarpanch of Sri Manch
Ramanandiya Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Ghat, Ayodhya, plaintiff
(Suit-3). Para 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 56 and 75 of
the affidavit basically relates to the details of Nirmohi Akhara,
about its formation, constitution, tenets, traditions of working,
property it possess etc. and, therefore, shall be referred
separately while considering the relevant issue no.17 (Suit-3)
pertaining to the constitution and status of Nirmohi Akhara.
357. He (DW 3/1) came to Ayodhya in 1946 at Hanuman
Garhi. At that time Sri Baldev Das was Mahant of hanuman
Garhi and Panch Nirmohi Akhara Ramghat, Ayodhya. He was
also priest of Sri Ramjanambhumi, Ayodhya. He became pupil
of Mahant Baldev Das after performing Manch Sanskar. He
claim that the disputed premises is believed to be the birthplace
of Lord Ram throughout the world and said :
^8- fookfnr eafnj] izkphu uke jketUeLFkku jgkA 'kq# esa blh uke
ls izpfyr jgh gS] ysfdu lkekU;r% iwjs lalkj esa jketUeHkwfe ds uke ls
izfl) gSA jketUeHkwfe dk oSfnd o lukru egRo fgUnw /keZ ds vuqlkj
blfy, cgqr T;knk gS fd fo".kq vorkj Hkxoku jkepUnz dk tUe o
vorkj blh LFky ij gqvkA bl vkLFkk dk izek.k eq>s ckYehfd jkek;.k]
 421

LdUn iqjk.k] #nz;key] rqylhd`r jkepfjrekul vkSj fofHkUu ,sfrgkfld

o lkfgfR;d xzUFkksa esa gS] ftldk fooj.k vkxs nwWaxkA^^
“8. The ancient name of the disputed temple was
Ramjanmsthan. Initially it was famous by this name, but
usually is famous as Ramjanmbhumi in the whole world.
The Vedic and Sanatan importance of Ramjanmbhumi is
even more on the ground that Vishnu incarnate Lord
Ramchandra had been born or descended at this place. The
evidence of this belief has been found by me in Valmiki
Ramayana, Skand Purana, Rudrayamal, Tulsidas
composed Ramcharit Manas and other historical and
literary works, which shall be referred by me later.”
(E.T.C.)
358. The Ramjanambhumi Temple and the premises was in
possession and ownership of plaintiff, Nirmohi Akhara and in
paras 9, 15, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 35 DW 3/1 has said as under:
^9- eq[; o jkeyyk] y{e.kth] guqekuth] lkfyxjke Hkxoku
fookfnr eafnj Jhjke tUeHkwfe o mlds bnZ&fxnZ ftrus NksVs&cM+s eaafnj
o /kkfeZd LFky gSa] tSls&NBh iwtk LFky] jkepcwrjk eafnj LFkku]
"k"Veq[kh 'kadj Hkxoku] x.ks'kth] lhrkdwi eafnj] xqQk eafnj] lqfe=k
eafnj] yksel lekf/k vkfn ftruh tk;nkn gSa] ;s lc fefYd;r oknh
fueksZgh v[kkM+k gS vkSj mlds dCts o bUrtke esa dbZ lkS lky igys ls
dqdhZ vkSj vf/kxzg.k ds le; rd cjkcj jgh gS cgSfl;r loZjkdkj
egUr fueksZgh v[kkM+k iapksa dh jk; ls ns[krs jgs gSaA bl eafnj esa
fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk ds izk.k&izfr"Bk] ekuo Le`fr ds igys fueksZgh
v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr us djkbZ Fkh] vkSj ,sls gh jkepcwrjs ij Hkxoku
jkeyyk dh ekuo Le`fr ds igys fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr us
jkepcwrjs ij Hkh izk.k&izfr"Bk djkbZ FkhA og Hkh oSfnd jhfr ls gqbZ FkhA
vkSj blh izdkj NBh LFky ij pkjksa Hkkb;kas dh pj.k&fpUg dh izfr"Bk
ekuo Le`fr ds igys fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr us djkbZ FkhA^^
“9. The main disputed Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple,
 422

Ramlala, Laxman ji, Hanuman ji, Saligram, all the big-

small temples and religious places in the vicinity viz.
Chhathi worship place, Ramchabutara temple, six faced
Lord Shankar, Ganesh ji, Sitakoop temple, cave temple,
Sumitra temple, Lomash Samadhi etc., were all the
ownership of plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara and till the
attachment and acquisition it has been under its control
and management for hundreds of years in the capacity of
Sarvrakar Mahant Nirmohi Akhara on advice of Panch.
The ‘Pran Pratishtha’ of Lord Ramlala present in this
temple, had been carried out by some Mahant of Nirmohi
Akhara in period beyond human memory. Similarly, the
‘Pran Pratishtha’ of Lord Ramlala at Ramchabutara had
been carried out by some Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara in
period beyond human memory. It had also been carried out
as per Vedic rites. Similarly, the ‘Pratishtha’ of footmarks
of the four brothers at Chhathi place had been carried out
by some Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara in period beyond
human memory.” (E.T.C.)
^15- 10 ekpZ] 1949 ds nLrkost esa eafnj jketUeHkwfe dk iwjk fooj.k
fn;k x;k gSA
1- ,dne ckgjh nhoky yxHkx 135&140 fQV gskxhA chpkschp esa
xsV gSA
2- lh[kps okyh nhoky Hkh yxHkx 100 fQV yEch gSA
3- lh[kps okyh iwohZ nhoky esa nks njoktk jgs gSaA
4-nksuksa njokts cjkcj Fks] tks vkil esa 90 ;k 92 fQV ds Qklys
ij FksA^^
“15. In the record dated 10th March, 1949, the complete
description of Ramjanmbhumi temple has been given.
1. The immediate outer wall would be about 135-140
feet. There is a gate at the centre.
 423

2.The grill wall is also about 100 feet long.

3.There were two gates in the eastern grill wall.
4.Both the gates were equal at a distance of about 90
or 92 feet from each other.” (E.T.C.)
^16- eq[; eafnj ds lkeus lgu gS lh[kps okyh nhoky gS vkSj mlds
ckn ckgjh Hkkx esa jkepcwrjk eafnj nf{k.k iwoZ dksus ij gkrs ds vUnj
f'ko njckj ihiy ds isM+ ds uhps fLFkr gS] vkSj NBh LFky lh[kps okyh
nhoky ds mRrj gSA ckgjh Hkkx esa lh[kps okyh nhoky ds iwoZ jkepcwrjk
eafnj ds mRrj fueksZgh v[kkM+s dk dksBkj o Hk.Mkj gS o Lkk/kqvksa ds jgus
ds LFkku FksA Hkhrjh o ckgjh Hkkx lnSo fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds dCts esa jgk
gSA ckgjh Hkkx esa mRrjh nhoky gS tks yxHkx 2 QqV pkSM+h gS ckgjh vkSj
Hkhrjh Hkkx esa izos'k ds fy, igyk njoktk mRrj rjQ flag}kj dgykrk
gS flag}kj ls FkskM+k mRrj iwoZ gVdj lhf<+;ka cuh FkhaA blds vykok
Hkhrjh&ckgjh Hkkx dk ,dne ckgj ls dksbZ njoktk ugha gSA fookfnr
eafnj ds ihNs ifjdzek ekxZ gS] tks yXkHkx 5 ;k 6 fQV pkSM+k gSA
ifjdzek ekxZ ds if'pe o FkksM+h nwj nf{k.k <kbZ rhu QqV mWaph ,d QqV
pkSM+h eqaMsjh cuh FkhA eqaMsjh ls if'pe 25 ls 30 fQV dk nqdku gSA
mRrj njoktk fVu dk Fkk tks fd vDlj cUn jgrk Fkk v;ks/;k esa
izfl) rhu esyk pS= jke uoeh ds fnu dkfrZd iwf.kZekk o ifjdzek esa
yxHkx 15 fnu vkSj lkou >wyk esa 15 fnu n'kZukFkhZ c<+us ds dkj.k
[kksyk tkrk FkkA iwoZ njokts esa QkVd ugha Fkk og [kqyk jgrk FkkA
ysfdu ml njokts ls Hkh dsoy fgUnw n'kZukFkhZ gh izos'k ikrs Fks D;ksafd
jketUeHkwfe dh fuR; ;k=k gksrh gS ftlesa n'ZkukFkhZ vkrs&tkrs FksA jaxhu
,yce fp= ua0 69-70 NV~Bh iwtk csyuk] 104 ls 108] ls 114 rd
dlkSVh iRFkj gS] ls 127 rd rFkk 136 ls 138 ls 144 rd rFkk 144 ls
147 rd] 152 o 156 [kEHkk dlkSVh e; ?k.Vk Vaxk gSA 160 ls 162 rd
dlkSVh [kEHkk gSA 181 ls 186 dlkSVh [kEHkk e;fp= ds 187 ls 198 e;
fp= ds] 193 ls 200 rd [kEHkk iwoZ okys njokts ds vxy&cxy dlkSVh
iRFkj ds nks [kEHks yxs FksA^^
“16. Opposite the main temple, is the courtyard, the grill
wall and thereafter is the Ramchabutara temple in the
south east corner of the outer part and the Shiv Darbar is
 424

situated below the Pipal tree inside the premises. The

Chhathi place is to the north of grill wall. The granary and
store room and saints’ accommodation of Nirmohi Akhara
is situated in north of the Ramchabutara temple to east of
the grill wall in the outer part. The inner and outer part
always remained in possession of Nirmohi Akhara.In the
outer part, is the northern wall which is 2 feet wide. The
first gate in the north for entering the inner and outer part,
is called Singhdwar. There were steps a bit away from the
Singhdwar in the north east. Apart from this there was no
immediate gate from outside leading to the inner-outer
part. Behind the disputed temple, is the circumambulation
path about 5-6 feet wide. To the west of the
circumambulation path and at a short distance in south,
there was a 2 ½ – 3 feet high and 1 foot wide ‘Munderi’.
There was a shop at a distance of 25-30 feet to the west of
the ‘Munderi’. The northern gate was of tin, which mostly
remained closed and was opened due to increase in
number of devotees on the occasion of three main fairs of
Ayodhya viz. ‘Chaitra Ramnavami’, for 15 days during
Kartik Purnima and circumambulation and 15 days during
Sawan Jhula. There was no door in the eastern gate and it
remained open. However, the Hindu devotees entered
through that gate as well because devotees used to visit on
occasion of ‘Nitya Yatra’ of the Ramjanmbhumi. The
photograph nos. 66, 70 of the coloured album are ‘Chhathi
Puja Belna’, nos. 104 to 108, to 114 are touchstones, and
the touchstone pillar with gong is from (-) to 127, from 136
to 138, to 144 and from 144 to 147, 152 and 156. The
touchstone pillar is from 160 to 162. From 181 to 186
 425

touchstone pillar along with picture from 187 to 198 along

with picture, pillar from 193 to 200. On sides of the eastern
gate were two pillars of touchstone.” (E.T.C.)
^^29- jkepcwrjk ds mRrj ckgjh Hkkx esa gkrs ds vUnj fVu'ksM Mkydj
ckgjh nhoky ls lVs dksBkj fuokl] /kwuh o ty fiykus ds fy, cuk
gqvk Fkk tks izkphudky ls dk;e pyk vk jgk Fkk esjs ogka tkus ls igys
ls dk;e Fkk] ;g ckr eq > s esj s xq # th us crkbZ FkhA^^
“29. In the northern outer part of Ramchabutara, the
granary, accommodation, smoke-fire and watering place
existed inside the premises by putting a tin shed, which
existed since ancient times. It was there before I visited
that place, and this was told to me by my master.”
(E.T.C.)
^^30- vUnj okys Hkkx esa xHkZx`g gS] ftlesa Åij rhu f'k[kj cus Fks] tks
xksy Fks] eafnj esa xksy f'k[kj Hkh gksrs gSa vkSj Hkhrjh Hkkx ds ckgj
vUnq#uh lgu esa lh[kps okyh nhoky rhu rjQ gSaA mRrj vkSj iwoZ iwjh
gSaA ysfdu nf{k.k rjQ FkksM+k lh[kps okyk ckdh nhoky ls cUn gSaA
lh[kps okyh nhoky ls xHkZx`g tkus ds fy, lh[kps okyh mRrjh nhoky
ds mRrj NBh iwtu LFky gS tks igys c;ku dj pqdk gWswA tks esjs ogka
tkus ds igys ls gS] ftldk s esj s xq # th us crk;k gS A ^^
“30. The 'Garbh-grih' existed in the inner part, over
which there were three domes round in shape. Round
domes are found in temples as well. The grill wall exists on
three sides in the inner courtyard outside the inner part.
However, the southern direction is bounded a bit by the
grill wall and rest by wall. As already stated, the ‘Chhathi’
worship place is to the north of the northern grill wall
leading to the 'Garbh-grih'. It existed there prior to my
visit, and was told to me by my master.” (E.T.C.)
^31- tc dqdhZ dh dk;Zokgh gqbZ rks 145 dk eqdnek esjs xq# ckck
cYnso nkl th fueksZgh v[kkM+k dh rjQ ls iSjoh djrs Fks] eSa Hkh cjkcj
 426

lkFk tkrk Fkk vkSj QnZ cuh dqdhZ dh e; nks v"V/kkrq dh Hkxoku
jkeyyk ,d cM+h ,oa ,d NksVh N% Hkxoku lkfyd jke] pkWanh ds
flagklu ij nks fQV ÅWaps ij fojkteku FksA ,d ewfrZ guqeku th dh
ik"kk.k dh gS] nks fp= ij jketkudh] ,d NksVh QksVks cnzhukFk] ,d
NksVh QksVks jketkudh dh] blds vykok ik"kZn Hkxoku ds oL= vkSj
tsojkr gSaA dqdhZ ek= HkwxHkZ okys Hkkx o Hkhrjh Hkkx dk gqvk ftldh
QnZ esa pkSgn~nh fuEufyf[kr rkSj ij gSA mRrj gkrk] NV~Bh pj.k fpUg
fueksZgh v[kkM+k] nf{k.k ijrh tehu ifjdzek ekxZ] iwjc pcwrjk eafnj
jketh ckdCtk fueksZgh v[kkM+k] if'pe ifjdzekA bl dqdhZ esa eafnj
iwtu NBh iwtu LFky] eafnj jkepcwrjk] dksBkj lar fuokl] "k"Veq[kh
Hkxoku ;kuh gkrs ds vUnj dk leLr ckgjh Hkkx dqdhZ esa ugha FkkA ;s
leLr gkrs ds vUnj dk ckgjh Hkkx ;kuh jkepcwrjk NBh iwtu LFky]
dksBkj Hk.Mkj] "k"Veq[kh Hkxoku fueksZgh v[kkMk ds dCts esa fpjdky ls
pyk vk jgk FkkA^^
“31. At time of the attachment, the case under section 145
was being pursued by my master Baba Baldev Das on
behalf of Nirmohi Akhara. I always accompanied him . A
memo of attachment was prepared which included two, one
big and one small Ashtadhatu idol of Lord Ramlala, six
Salikram present over two feet tall silver throne, one stone
idol of Hanuman ji, two photographs of Ram Janki, one
small photograph of Badrinath, one small of Ram Janki
and attire and jewellery of Parshad Bhagwan. The
attachment was carried out only of the ground part and
inner part, whose boundary was given in the memo as
under. North-courtyard, Chhathi footmark Nirmohi
Akhara, South-vacant land, circumambulation path, East-
Chabutara temple of Rama ji under possession of
Nirmohi Akhara, West- circumambulation. The temple
worship, Chhathi worship place, Ramchabutara temple,
granary, saints’ accommodation, six faced deity i.e. the
 427

complete outer part inside the courtyard was not included

in this attachment. All this i.e. the entire outer part inside
the courtyard viz. Ramchabutara, Chhathi worship place,
granary, store, six faced deity had been in possession of
Nirmohi Akhara since time immemorial.” (E.T.C.)
^^32- fueksZgh v[kkM+s dh jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj v[kkM+s ds iap Hkh
tUeHkwfe eafnj ds bnZ fxnZ vius NksVs&NkssVs eafnj cukdj rFkk _f"k;ksa
ds uke ij lekf/k dk;e djds jgrs FksA ftlesa ls lqfe=k Hkou]
lhrkdwi eafnj] jkeyyk eafnj] lkfyd jke eafnj vkfn dk;e pys vk
jgs FksA^^
“32. According to customs of Nirmohi Akhara, the Panch
of Akhara also used to live near the Janmbhumi temple by
building small temples and establishing ‘Samadhis’ in the
names of ‘Rishis’ (ascetics), out of which Sumitra Bhawan,
Sitakoop temple, Ramlala temple, Salik Ram temple
continued to exist.” (E.T.C.)
^^35- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds iwohZ njokts ds n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks Qy&Qwy]
crk'ks vkfn p<+kus dk Bsdk lkykuk gksrk FkkA tks dke fpjdky ls
fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds igys ds egUFkku djrs pys vk jgs Fks vkSj Bsdk ysus
okyks ls bdjkjukek fy[kk ysrs Fks vkSj lhrkdwi ls ;kf=;ksa@n'kZukfFkZ;ksa
dks ifo= ty] fiykus ds fy, czkg~e.kksa dks Bsdk fn;k tkrk FkkA ftldk
eglwy egUr v[kkM+k fy;k djrs FksA ftrus cps gq, miyC/k bdjkjukes
Fks ftudks eSaus nkf[ky fd;k gS vkSj cgqr ls dkxtkr ywV fy;s x;s Fks
ftudh fjiksVZ gqbZ FkhA^^
“35. The contract of offering flower-fruits, sweets etc. of
the devotees of the eastern gate of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, was
given on annual basis and since time immemorial this work
had been done by the earlier Mahants of Nirmohi Akhara
and the contractors were required to execute an
agreement. The contract to provide holy water to the
visitors/devotees from the Sita Koop, was given to the
 428

Brahmans and its consideration was received by the

Mahant. The available agreements have been filed by me
and many have been looted away, whose report had been
lodged.” (E.T.C.)
359. DW 3/1 denied user of premises in dispute inside or
outside the courtyard by Mislims as mosque, tried to prove
photographs as that of disputed premises, admits of being
prosecuted in 1950 on the charge of destruction of certain
graveyards but acquitted in appeal, was doing pairavi on behalf
of Nirmohi Akhara in the proceedings initiated under Section
145 Cr.P.C. In paras 77, 78 and 81 he specifically said further
about the possession and ownership of Nirmohi Akhara at the
disputed premises as under:
^^77- Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku eq[; eafnj Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk
lso;fr vf/kdkj fueksZgh v[kkM+k iapk;rh eB dk lnSo ls jgk gS vkSj
lnSo crkSj loZjkdkj fueksZgh v[kkM+k }kjk egUr v[kkM+k] elfojk iapku
v[kkM+k] Hkxoku dh lsok iwtk] jktHkksx] mRlo leS;k jkekuUnh; oSjkxh
lEiznk; ds ijEijk ds jhfr&fjokt tks izpfyr gS] dqdhZ dh rkjh[k 29-
12-1949 rd djrh vk;h gSA vkSj ckgjh Hkkx ;kuh dqdZ'kqnk Hkhrjh Hkkx
ds iwoZ&mRrj o nf{k.kh Hkkx vUnj ckgjh pgkjnhokjh esa jkepcwrjk eafnj
esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk o nhxj nsorku dk iwtk&ikB Hkh fueksZgh
v[kkM+k cekSftc jkekuUnh; oSjkxh lEiznk; egUr v[kkM+k }kjk o
elfojk iapku v[kkM+k o iqtkjh nwljh dqdhZ Qjojh 1982 rd djrs pys
vk;s gSa vkSj ckgjh ifjlj dk bUrtke Hk.Mkjx`g] lar fuokl lHkh dk
ns[kHkkr fueksZgh v[kkM+k gh djrk jgk gSA^^
“77. The Sewait right of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple with
Lord Ramlala present, has always been vested in Nirmohi
Akhara Panchayati Math and the Mahant Akhara,
Masvira Panchan Akhara, worship of God, Rajbhog,
Samaiya festival were all performed by Nirmohi Akhara as
‘Sarvarakar’ as per the Ramanand recluse sect till the date
 429

of attachment i.e. 29.12.1949. The worship of Lord

Ramlala present over the Ramchabutara inside the outer
boundary in east-north and south of the inner part of the
attached portion or the outer part, and other deities was
carried out by the Nirmohi Akhara through Ramanand
Recluse sect Mahant Akhara and on advice of Panch of
Akhara and priests, till the second attachment in 1982 and
the management of the outer premises, store room, saints’
accommodation was all carried out by Nirmohi Akhara.”
(E.T.C.)
^^78- NV~Bh iwtu LFky o f'ko njckj dk bUrtke ns[kHkky fueksZgh
v[kkM+k djrk jgk gSA tks fd Qjojh 1982 rd fd;k gSA ges'kk ls
fueksZgh v[kkM+k vius iap] iqtkjh o lk/kqvksa }kjk ckgjh o Hkhrjh Hkkx dk
bUrtke ns[krs gq, dkfct jgs gSaA eafnj ckgjh o Hkhrjh nksuksa ij p<+kok]
nzO;] fe"Bku] Qy&Qwy vkfn fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa }kjk xzg.k gksrk
Fkk rFkk izlkn o pj.kke`r vkfn ;gh yksx HkDrksa dks nsrs FksA eafnj ds
ckgj iwohZ xsV ij crk'kk&Qwy vkfn dk Bsdk fueksZgh v[kkM+k }kjk cgqr
le; ls fn;k tkrk jgk gSA eq[; eafnj dh dqdhZ ds ckn Hkh eq[; xsV
ds ikl okyh nqdku lhrk jke ;kno dks nh xbZ Fkh tks 1962 rd ogka
jgsA^^
“78. The management of ‘Chhathi’ worship place and
Shiv Darbar was carried out by the Nirmohi Akhara, till
February, 1982. The Nirmohi Akhara has always managed
and remained in possession over the outer and inner part
through its panch, priest and saints. The offerings, money,
sweets, fruits-flowers were accepted by the saints of
Nirmohi Akhara both in the inner and outer temple, and
they used to distribute the blessings and foot nectar to the
devotees. The contract of sweet-flower etc. at the eastern
gate outside the temple, was given by the Nirmohi Akhara
since much time. Even after the attachment of the main
 430

temple, the shop near the main gate was given to Sita Ram
Yadav, who remained there till the year 1962.” (E.T.C.)
^^81- Hkhrjh Hkkx esa Hkxoku jkeyyk 1934 ds igys ls fojkteku gSa
vkSj 1934 bZ0 ls yxkrkj fueksZgh v[kkM+k }kjk dCtk o n[ky gS tks
eqlyekuksa dh tkudkjh esa gSA ogka Bkdqj th fojkteku gSa ftldk
iwtk&ikB] jktHkksx lHkh fueksZgh v[kkM+k dh rjQ ls gksrk pyk vk jgk
gSA bl rkSj ij 29 fnlEcj] 1949 dks Hkhrjh Hkkx dh dqdhZ ds fnu Hkh
v[kkM+s dk dCtk jgk gSA og Hkh fefYd;r fueksZgh v[kkM+k esa /kkfeZd
U;kl gksus ds dkj.k fufgr gks xbZ gSA^^
“81. Lord Ramlala has been present in the inner part from
period prior to the year 1934 and from the year 1934 AD
the Nirmohi Akhara has been in possession, within the
knowledge of the Muslims. Thakur ji is present there and
the worship, Rajbhog have all been carried out on behalf
of Nirmohi Akhara. Accordingly, on the day of attachment
of the inner part i.e. 29th December, 1949, the Akhara was
in possession. That ownership has also vested in the
Nirmohi Akhara on account of being a religious trust.”
(E.T.C.)
360. DW 3/2, Raja Ram Pandey, 87 years old (vide affidavit
dated 22.09.2003). He was cross examined in the following
manner:
(a) 22.09.2003- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 17-
19)
(b) 22/23.09.2003- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 20-23)
(c) 23.09.2003- by Ramjanam Bhumi Punruddhar Samiti,
defendant no. 20, through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri,
Advocate (p. 23-24)
 431

(d) 23.09.2003- by defendant no. 11 through Sri Abdul

Mannan, Advocate (p. 24-26)
(e)23/24/25/26/29/30.09.2003,
01/13/14/15/20/21/22.10.2003 - by Sunni Central Board of
Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 27-141)
(f) 22/23/24/28/29.10.2003, 13.11.2003- by plaintiff no. 7
(Suit-4) and defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 141-
211)g) 13.11.2003- defendants no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and and defendant no. 6/2 through Sri
Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5)
through Sri Izhar Husain Siddiqui, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 211)
361. DW 3/2 is resident of Mandir Ramkot, Kaushalya Ghat,
Ayodhya, District Faizabad, came to Ayodhya in 1930 and since
then daily visiting the temples of Sri Ramjanambhumi,
Hanuman Garhi and Kanak Bhawan. The Janambhumi Temple
is about 400 yards from his residence. He gave the details of
1934 riot in paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit as under:
^ “4- lu~ 1934 ds naxk esjh tkudkjh esa gqvk Fkk tks fgUnw&eqfLye
naxk ds uke ls e'kgwj gSA ekpZ essa gqvk FkkA bl naxs esa eqlyeku dkQh
ekjs x;s Fks vkSj dkQh dfczLrku {kfrxzLr fd;s x;s FksA esjs tkudkjh esa
v;ks/;k esa jketUeHkwfe eafnj ds bnZ&fxnZ eksgYyk lqVgVh esa ikap ?kj
vkyexat dVjk esa pkj ?kj Vs<+h cktkj esa rhu&pkj ?kj] ikath Vksyk
dft;kuk esa pkj iakp ?kj esa eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh FkhA blds vykok
eksgYyk csxeiqjk] eqxyiqjk o lS;nokM+k feykdj rhu pkj ?kj gSa ftlesa
dqN f'k;k Hkh gSaA^^
“4. The riot of the year 1934 had broken out in my
 432

knowledge, which is famous as Hindu-Muslim riot. It had

broken out in March. Many Muslims were killed and a
large number of graveyards were damaged in this riot. In
my knowledge, in the vicinity of Ramjanmbhumi temple in
Ayodhya there were 5 houses of Muslims in Mohalla-
Suthati, 4 in Alamganj Katra, 3-4 in Tedhi Bazar and 4-5
in Panji Tola Kaziyana. Besides these, there are in all 3-4
houses in Mohalla- Begumpura, Mughalpura and
Saidwada, out of which few are of Shias.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- 1934 ds naxs ds le; esa eSa 19&20 o"kZ dk FkkA ml naxs esa dkQh
la[;k esa eqlyeku ekjs x;s Fks] dczsa rksM+h xbZ Fkha] ysfdu Jhjke tUeHkwfe
eafnj dk dksbZ Hkkx ;k f'k[kj dh rksM+ QksM+ ugh gqbZ FkhA ckgjh nhokj
ekewyh {kfrxzLr gqbZ FkhA tgka rd eq>s ;kn gS nks eqlyeku nhoku Fks]
uke ;kn ugha gSa] ml le; dksbZ vaxzst Mh0,e0 FksA bl naxs ds ckn
eqlyekuksa esa ng'kr QSy xbZ Fkh vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj ds rjQ
tkrs gh ugha FksA^^
“5. I was aged 19-20 years at time of the riot of 1934. A
large number of Muslims were killed in that riot, graves
were destroyed but no part of the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple or its dome was damaged. The outer wall was
damaged slightly. To the best of my memory, there were
two Muslim Diwans, whose names I do not remember.
There was some British D.M. at that time. The Muslims
were terror stricken after this riot and they stopped going
towards the Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple.” (E.T.C.)
362. In paragraphs no. 6, 7, 8, 16, 19, 22 and 27 of the affidavit
he has made statement about his continuous worship in the inner
and outer courtyard both, idols placed under the central dome
(Garbhgrih), other facts in support of the above and about the
priest etc. at the above place, as under:
“6- lu 1930 ls tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k ges'kk ls n'kZu djrk jgk
 433

gWwaA xHkZx`g Hkkx dk n'kZu Hkh fd;k gS tgka jkeyyk th ydM+h ds

flagklu ij fojkteku jgs gSaA lu 1934 esa lsgu ds ckgj ydM+h ds
pkS[kV ls taxys ca/ks Fks] tgka ckn esa yksgs ds lh[kps yxk fn;s x;sA
ckgjh Hkkx esa tks nhoky gkrs dh nhoky ls f?kjk Fkk] esa gh vkus&tkus ds
jkLrs cus gq, Fks] iwjc okyk xsV [kqyk jgrk FkkA iwjc okys xsV esa
mRrj&nf{k.k nks [kEHks dlkSVh ds yxs Fks] ftls eSa lu 1930 ls ns[k jgk
gWwa] ml [kEHks esa ewfrZ mdsjh Fkh ftls guqekuth dh ewfrZ crkrs gSa vkSj
blfy, ml }kj dk uke guqer}kj izpfyr jgk gS vkSj Qwy iRrh
fp=dkjh Hkh FkhA lok fQV pkSM+k vkSj rhu fQV ÅWapk f'kykiV yxk
gqvk gS ftlesa vad ,d fy[kk gS] vkSj nsoukxjh fyfi esa fy[kk gS^^ Jh
tUeHkwfe fuR; ;k=k^^ o vaxzsth esa Hkh tUeHkwfe fy[kk ;kuh iRFkj esa [kqnk
gSA^^
“6. I always had ‘darshan’, since the year 1930 when I
came to Ayodhya. I had the ‘darshan’ of 'Garbh-grih'
portion also, where Ramlala was present over a wooden
throne. In the year 1934, the windows outside the
courtyard were fixed in wood-panes, where iron grills were
fixed subsequently. The ingress-egress passage existed in
the wall surrounded by the courtyard wall in the outer
part. The eastern gate remained open. To the north south
of the eastern gate, were two touchstone pillars, which I
had been witnessing from the year 1930. An idol had been
engraved over the said pillar, which is termed as the idol of
Hanuman ji and due to this the said gate was famous as
Hanumatdwar. The picture of flower-leaves were also
present. There is a 1 ¼ feet wide and 3 feet long stone slab,
over which the figure 1 and ‘Sri Janmbhumi Nitya Yatra’ is
written or engraved in Devnagari script as well as
Janmbhumi in English.”(E.T.C.)
^^7- jketUeHkwfe eafnj dh ckgjh nhoky iwjc mRrj o nf{k.k ftruh
Hkh cuh Fkh lcdh ÅWapkbZ yxHkXk 8&9 QqV ÅWaph o djhc nks fQV pkSM+h
 434

FkhA ckgjh gkrs ds vUnj Hkkx esa nf{k.k rjQ jkepcwrjk eafnj gS ftldh
yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ 21^ ;k 22^ x 17^ ;k 18^ fQV ds yxHkx gSaA ;g pcwrjk
djhc 3 fQV ÅWapk gSA pcwrjs ds ÅWaij flagklu gS ftlesa jkeyyk
fojkteku gSa] ;g flagklu ydM+h dk gS] xaxk tequh 'kSyh dk gS ;kuh
lksus pkanh ds iRry yxs jgs Fks] bl pcwrjs ds rhu fQV ÅWapkbZ okys
Hkkx esa iwjc if'pe xqQk eafnj gS] bl xqQk eafnj esa dkS'kY;k th dkx
Hkqlf.M th iwjc okys esa Fks rFkk if'pe xqQk esa Hkjr th fojkteku FksA
bl pcwrjs ls iwjc o nf{k.k dksus esa ihiy o uhe ds ,dtkbZ isM+ ds
v)Zxksy pcwrjs ij "k"Veq[kh 'akdj Hkxoku] uUns'ojth] x.ks'kth]
ikoZrhth vkfn nsork fojkteku FksA ckgjh Hkkx esa gkrs ds vUnj lh[kps
okys nhoky ds mRrj] mRrjh QkVd ds vUnj Hkh NBh iwtu LFky] ,d
fcRrk ÅWaps pcwrjs ij cuk FkkA NBh iwtu LFky ftlesa pkj tqxqy pj.k
fpUg] pkSdk csyuk] pwYgk cuk Fkk] ;s pkjksa pj.k fpUg Hkxoku jke ds
pkjksa Hkkb;ksa ds tqxqy pj.k fpUg FksA^^
“7. The eastern, northern and southern outer walls of
Ramjanmbhumi temple were all about 8-9 feet high and
about 2 feet thick. The Ramchabutara temple is southwards
in the inner part of the outer courtyard, whose dimensions
are about 21^ or 22^ x 17^ or 18^ feet. This Chabutara is
about 3 feet high. Above the Chabutara is a throne, over
which Ramlala is present. This wooden throne is of Ganga
Jamuni style i.e. it has gold-silver plates. The cave temple
is in east west of the 3 feet high portion of this Chabutara.
Kaushalya ji and Kaagbhushundi ji are in the east cave
temple and Bharat ji is present in the western cave. Six
faced Lord Shankar, Nandeshwar ji, Ganesh ji, Parvati ji
and other deities were present over the semi circular
platform of Pipal and Neem tree in east and south corner
of this Chabutara. The Chhathi worship place existed over
a one palm high platform inside the northern gate, to the
north of the grill wall inside the courtyard of the outer
 435

part. Four pairs of footmarks, Chauka-Belna, stove were

present at the Chhathi worship place. These four
footmarks, were the pair of footmarks of all four brothers
of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- NBh iwtu LFky /kkfeZd n`f"Vdks.k ls iwtuh; LFky Fkk ftlesa Hkh
vkjrh gksrh Fkh] fu;fer gksrh Fkh ftlesa fgUnw /keZ ds yksx iwtu o
ueu djrs Fks A xHkZx`g esa fojkteku jkeyyk o jkepcwrjk eafnj ij
fojkteku jkeyyk o vU; nsoLFkku ihiy ,oa uhe ds uhps fojkteku
f'ko nsorku NBh iwtu LFky o pj.k fpUg lHkh /kkfeZd LFkyksa dh
fu;fer iwtu o vkjrh fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh o lgk;d iqtkjh djrs
FksA HkDrksa o n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk mijksDr lHkh LFkyksa dk n'kZu] iwtu]
izlkn] Qwy] nzO; p<+krs] eSaus cjkcj ftl lky ls v;ks/;k vk;k rHkh ls
cjkcj 6-12-92 lu 1992 fnlEcj rd ns[krk jgk gWsawA^^
“8. The Chhathi worship place was a revered place from
religious point of view, where ‘Arti’ was performed
regularly and the same was attended by Hindus. The
regular worship and ‘Arti’ of all religious places including
Ramlala present in 'Garbh-grih', Ramlala and other deities
present in Ramchabutara temple, Shiva present under the
Pipal and Neem tree, the Chhathi worship place and
footmarks, were carried out by the priest and assistant
priest of Nirmohi Akhara. From the year when I came to
Ayodhya to 6th December,1992, I have regularly seen the
devotees perform ‘darshan’, worship and offer sweets,
flower, money at all the said places.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- o"kZ 1930 esa tc eSa igyh ckj vk;k rks fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds egUr
ujksRre nkl Fks] mlds ckn egUr jke pju nkl gq,] ek0 jkepju nkl
ÅWaps Mhy MkSy ds lkQk cka/krs Fks] ryokj yxk ?kksM+s ij pyrs Fks vkSj
muls tUeHkwfe esa feyrk Hkh FkkA iqtkjh ml le; lhrk jke th FksA
o"kZ 1934 ds naxs esa ;gh yksx iqtkjh o egUr FksA xHkZx`g ds dqdhZ ds
le; egUr j?kqukFknkl th egUr fueksZgh v[kkM+k Fks o iqtkjh egUr
 436

cynso nkl th FksA tks ukdk guqekux<+h QStkckn esa Hkh egUr FksA
cynso nkl th dks eSaus ns[kk FkkA fueksZgh v[kkM+k Lo;a esa U;kl gSA
guqekx<+h ukdk mDr v[kkM+s ls laacaf/kr gSaA^^
“16. When I first came in the year 1930, Narottam Das
was the Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara and he was followed by
Mahant Ramcharan Das. Mahant Ramcharan Das was
sturdily built and used to move with a sword on a horse
with turban over his head. I had met him at the
Janmbhumi. Sita Ram was the erstwhile priest. They were
the priest and Mahant during the riot of the year 1934. At
time of attachment of the 'Garbh-grih', Mahant Raghunath
Das was the Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant
Baldev Das was the priest, who was the Mahant in Naka
Hanumangarhi Faizabad as well. I have seen Baldev Das.
Nirmohi Akhara is a trust in itself. The Hanumangarhi
Naka is associated with the said Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- iwjch xsV esa n'kZukFkhZ dks igqWapus ds fy, guqekx<+h nqjkgh dqvkWa
ls lk{khxksiky eafnj ds lkeus ls xsV esa vkus ds fy, mRrj iwjc dksus
ls jkLrk vkrk FkkA tks 1930 ls 1934 esa Hkh dPPkk jkLrk FkkA xHkZx`g ds
dqdhZ ds 4&5 lky igys [kMa+tk yxkA^^
“19. In order to reach the eastern gate, the devotees had
to take the path from the north-east corner to reach the
gate in front of Sakshi Gopal temple from Hanumangarhi
Dorahi well, which was unmetalled between the years 1930
to 1934. Bricks had been laid about 4-5 years prior to the
attachment of the 'Garbh-grih'.” (E.T.C.)
^^22- tc eSa 1930 ls 1949 rd xHkZx`g Hkhrjh Hkkx esa n'kZu djus
vUnj tkrk Fkk rks xHkZx`g esa dlkSVh ds iRFkj yxs Fks ftlesa nso
dU;kvksa ds dqN vkSj ;{k tSlh ewfrZ;ka mdsjh Fkha] dy'k Qwy] iRrh
bR;kfn cuh FkhaA dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fu;U=.k gksus ij Hkh eSa n'kZu djus
tkrk gWwaA dlkSVh ds iRFkj ogha iM+k gS tks nhoky esa yxs FksA vkSj ckdh
 437

dlkSVh ds [kEHks irk yxk gS fd laxzghr fd;s x;s gSaA^^

“22. When I went to have the ‘darshan’ of the inner part
of the 'Garbh-grih' from the year 1930 to 1949, I found that
touchstones had been used in the 'Garbh-grih', over which
the figures of nymphs, Yakshas, pitcher, flower, leaves etc.
had been engraved. I go to have ‘darshan’ even after the
Central Government took over its control. The touchstones
affixed in the walls, are lying there and it is found that the
remaining Kasauti pillars, have been preserved.” (E.T.C.)
^^27- eSaus 1930 ls ysdj fookfnr ifjlj dks fgUnqvksa dh ifo= eafnj
ds #Ik esa ns[kk gSA tgka Hkxoku ij Qwy ekyk] izlkn cjkcj p<+rk jgk
gS tgka ;kf=;ksa dks n'kZu gksrk jgk gSA^^
“27. From the year 1930, I have considered the disputed
premises as a sacred temple of Hindus and have regularly
offered flower, garland, sweet there. The devotees had
‘darshan’ over there.” (E.T.C.)
363. In favour of the plaintiff (Suit-3), i.e., Nirmohi Akhara, he
has stated that their Sadhus/Ascetics used to work as priest etc.
and observed worship inside courtyard temple as well as
outside, i.e., Ram Chabootara etc. and in paragraphs no. 9, 13,
14, 15, 17, 29, 30 and 31 of the affidavit DW 3/2 said that the
disputed premises was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara or its
Sadhus who used to perform various religious functions and did
not allow any Muslim to enter or visit the disputed premises.
364. DW 3/3, Satya Narain Tripathi is aged about 72 years
old (vide affidavit dated 30.10.2003). He was cross examined in
the following manner:
(a) 30.10.2003- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 6-
12)
 438

(b) 30.10.2003- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.

Pandey, Advocate (p. 12-15)
(c) 30/31.10.2003- by Mohd. Faruk Ahmad, defendant no.
11 through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 15-23)
(d) 31.10.2003, 03/04/05/06/07/10.11.2003- by Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, defendant no. 9 through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 23-74)
(e) 10/11/12.11.2003- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 74-97)
(f) 12.11.2003- defendants no. 6/1 through Sri Fazale
Alam, Advocate and 6/2 through Sri Irfan Ahmad,
Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri T.A.
Khan, Advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 97)
365. DW 3/3's date of birth is 08.09.1931 and is resident of
Mauja Mahawan, Tahsil Bikapur, District Faizabad. His village
is about 35 km. from Ayodhya. He claims to have visited
Ayodhya and gone for Darshan to Sri Ramjanambhumi Temple,
Hanuman Garhi, Kanak Bhawan and Nageshwar Nath since
childhood. Since 10 years of age, alongwith his parents, he is
regularly visiting Ayodhya during the festivals of Ram Navami,
Kartik Purnmasi, Chaudah Kosi Parikrama, Pancha Kosi
Parikrama, Shrawan Jhoola and Ram Vivah and after attaining
majority he himself has regularly visited. About worship in the
disputed site, i.e., inside and outside the courtyard, existence of
idols of Lord Ram inside the courtyard and other attending facts,
he, in paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the affidavit said as
under:
 439

^^4- eSa 10 o"kZ dh mez ls le>us yxk gWwa vkSj rHkh ls eSa vius
ekrk&firk ds lkFk v;ks/;k ds ioZ jkeuoeh] dkfrZd iw.kZeklh]
pkSngdkslh ifjdzek o iapdkslh ifjdzek] Jko.k >wyk o jke ds fookg esa
vius ;qod gksus rd cjkcj v;ks/;k vkrk jgk gWwaA eafnj Jhjke tUeHkwfe
ftldk fookn py jgk gS] n'kZu djrk Fkk o vkjrh rFkk pj.kke`r izkIr
djrk FkkA eSa vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk tc v;ks/;k tkrk Fkk rks Hkxoku
dks izlkn o iq"Ik vkfn p<+krk FkkA eSa ;qod gksus ij vdsys vius
lgikBh fe=ksa ds lkFk cjkcj Jhjke tUeHkwfe n'kZu gsrq tkrk jgk gWwa tks
dze vHkh Hkh tkjh gSA^^
“4. I attained understanding from the age of 10 years
and since then till I developed into a young man, I
regularly went to Ayodhya along with my parents on the
occasions of Ramnavami, Kartika Purnamasi, Chaudah
kosi circumambulation, Panch kosi circumambulation,
Shrawan Jhula and Ram Vivah. I used to have ‘darshan’
at Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple, which is under dispute, and
had ‘Arti’ and foot nectar. Whenever I went to Ayodhya
along with my parents, I used to offer sweets, flower etc. to
Him. On developing into a young man, I have been
regularly going alone along with my fellow students to
have ‘darshan’ of Sri Ramjanmbhumi and this still
continues.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- fookfnr eafnj esa tkus dk eq[; }kj iwjc vksj gSA tgka tkus ij
eq[; }kj esa dlkSVh ds iRFkj yxs gq, FksA mRrj rjQ tks dlkSVh iRFkj
mlds ikl vkSj igys iwjc vksj ,d iRFkj 1½ ;k ikSus nks QqV pkSM+k
yxHkx rhu QqV ÅWapk eSa cpiu ls ns[k jgk gWaswA ftlesa vad ,d ^^Jhjke
tUeHkwfe fuR; ;k=k^^ nsoukxjh fyfi vkSj mlds uhps tUeHkwfe vaxzsth esa
fy[kk gS vkSj ml dlkSVh iRFkj esa dy'k] eksj] nsoh dk fp=] ewfrZ o
egkohjh yxk guqekuth dh ewfrZ ns[kk FkkA 'kq# esa tc firkth ds lkFk
tkrk Fkk rks dqN yksx crkus yxs fd bls guqer}kj dgrs gSaA^^
“7. The main gate for entering the disputed temple, is in
 440

the east. Touchstones have been used in the main gate.

Since my childhood, I have been seeing a 1 ½ or 1 ¾ feet
wide and approximately 3 feet high stone slab, near the
touchstone in north and eastwards a bit earlier. The figure
1, words ‘Sri Ramjanmbhumi Nitya Yatra’ in Devnagari
script and word Janmbhumi in English were engraved over
it. I had seen the figure, idol of pitcher, peacock, Goddess
and Hanuman ji over the said touchstone. When I started
going there along with my father, few people told that it
was called Hanumatdwar.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- iwohZ }kj ls vUnj tkus ij lgu yxHkx 28&30 fQV Fkh ftlds
ckn lh[kps okyh nhoky gS vkSj lh[kps okyh nhoky ds if'pe FkksM+k
lgu NksM+dj xHkZx`g rhu f'k[kj okyk gSA tgka xHkZx`g esa gh jkeyyk
fojkteku gSaA ftudk n'kZu o iwtu o izlkn o pj.kke`r 1941 ls ysrk]
muds lehi ls n'kZu djds fnlEcj 1949 rd cjkcj ysrk jgkA 1949
esa dqdhZ gks tkus ds ckn lu 1950 esa lh[kps okyh nhoky ls Hkxoku dk
n'kZu o iwtu djrk jgk gWwa rFkk <kapk fxjus ds ckn tuojh 93 ls
fu;fer dsUnzh; ljdkj ds fu;U=.k okys jkLrs ls n'kZu djrk pyk vk
jgk gWw vkSj ogha Hkxoku jkeyyk vHkh Hkh dk;e gSaA ftudk n'kZu 1941
ls vHkh gky rd djrk pyk vk jgk gWwaA^^
“8. After entry through the eastern gate, was the
courtyard of size 28 x 30 feet, after which was the grill wall
and a bit westward of the grill wall was the three domed
'Garbh-grih' beyond the courtyard. Ramlala was present in
the 'Garbh-grih' and I have had His ‘darshan’ , worship,
blessings and foot nectar from the year 1941. I had His
‘darshan’ from close distance till December, 1949. After
the attachment of 1949, I had the ‘darshan’ and worship of
God from the grill wall, from the year 1950 onwards. I
have been regularly having the ‘darshan’ from January,
1993, after the demolition of the structure and the place
 441

being under control of Central Government. Lord Ramlala

is still present at the same place and I have had His
‘darshan’ from the year 1941 till recently.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- Hkhrjh Hkkx tks dqdZ'kqnk dgykrk gS dqdhZ ds ckjs esa eq>s 1950
f[kpM+h ds nks&rhu fnu igys rc ns[kk vkSj n'kZu lh[kps okys e/;
njokts ls djus fn;k iqfyl okyksa usA ysfdu lgu] jkepcwrjk] eafnj]
NBh iwtu LFky] f'ko njckj tks ckgjh lgu ds vUnj FkkA mudk
n'kZu] iwtk vpZuk fudV tkdj tSlk 1941 esa fd;k Fkk] mlh izdkj lu
1992 <kapk fxjus ds iwoZ rd fd;k gS ysfdu 1982 esa eq>s ;g irk pyk
Fkk fd ckgjh Hkkx Hkh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vkilh fookn esa dqdZ gks x;k
Fkk vkSj blds fjlhoj Hkh ogh Hkhrj okys Hkkx okys fjlhoj FksA ;g ckr
ogka ds fu;qDr iqtkjh ¼fjlhoj }kjk½ us crykbZ FkhA^^
“9. The inner part, which is called the attached part, was
seen by me 2-3 days prior to ‘Makar Sankranti’ of the year
1950 and the police men had permitted me to have
‘darshan’ from the central grill door. However, the
courtyard, Ramchabutara temple, Chhathi worship place,
Shiv Darbar, which were inside the outer courtyard were
worshiped by me till the year 1992, prior to demolition of
the structure, in the same manner as done in the year 1941.
In the year 1982 I came to know that the outer part had
also been attached in mutual dispute of Nirmohi Akhara
and the Receiver of the inner part was its Receiver as well.
This was told by the priest nominated there (by Receiver).”
(E.T.C.)
^^10- 1941 esa vius firkth ds lkFk n'kZu djuk pkyw fd;kA Hkkjro"kZ
dh vktknh ds igys eq>s ;g ckr HkyhHkkWafr ekywe Fkh fd mDr eafnj
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vkf/kiR; esa gS vkSj fuekZsgh v[kkM+k ds gh lk/kq iqtkjh
xHkZx`g eas Hkxoku jkeyyk dh iwtkikB djrs gSa vkSj n'kZukfFkZ;ksa] HkDrksa
dks vkjrh o pj.kke`r izlkn ysdj izlkn dk p<+kok nsrs gSa A ,slk djrs
eSaus lHkh n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks ns[kkA ,slk eSaus n'kZu djrs oDr ns[kk FkkA
 442

;qod gksus ij eSa Lo;a gh izlkn] Qwy bR;kfn p<+krk Fkk vkSj fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa ls vkjrh o izlkn xzg.k djrk FkkA^^
“10. I started to have ‘darshan’ along with my father in
the year 1941. I knew this fact very well even before
independence of India that the said temple was in the
possession of Nirmohi Akhara and the saints-priests of
Nirmohi Akhara used to perform the prayer of Lord
Ramlala in the 'Garbh-grih' and accept and distribute the
blessings amongst the devotees. I saw all the devotees do
this. I had seen this at time of having ‘darshan’ . On
growing up as a young man, I myself used to offer sweets,
flowers etc. and accepted ‘Arti’ and blessings from the
saints of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- blh izdkj jkepcwrjk eafnj ij esjk o n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dk n'kZu 1941
ls yxkrkj fnukad 6 fnlEcj 1992 <kapk fxjus ds igys o esjk uoEcj
1992 rd gqvk vkSj NBh iwtk LFky f'ko njckj dk iwtu n'kZu ,sls gh
gqvk djrk FkkA mu lHkh iwtu LFkyksa ij iqtkjh] lk/kq fueksZgh v[kkM+k
ds jgrs FksA^^
“11. Similarly, I and devotees regularly had ‘darshan’ at
the Ramchabutara temple from the year 1941 to 6th
December, 1992 prior to demolition of the structure. I had
it till November, 1992. The prayer- worship at Chhathi
worship place and Shiv Darbar was also carried out
similarly. The priests, saints of Nirmohi Akhara were
present at all those worship places.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- eSa gkftj vnkyr egUr HkkLdj nkl dks tkurk gWwaA bUgsa eSaus
1946 ls gh Jhjke tUeHkwfe xHkZx`g esa crkSj iqtkjh rFkk jkepcwrjk eafnj
ij NBh iwtk LFky f'ko njckj esa crkSj iqtkjh ns[krk pyk vk jgk gWwa
D;ksafd 1946 ls ysdj 1949 dqdhZ ds igys o dqdhZ ds ckn rd 1941 ls
eSa n'kZu djus Jhjke tUeHkwfe tkus yxk rks esjs ekrk&firkth us crk;k
fd ;gka ds iqtkjh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds yksx Fks vkSj buds xq# cynsonkl
 443

th dks Hkh eSa crkSj iqtkjh ns[kk gSA cynsonkl th ls eSa HkyhHkkWafr
ifjfpr blfy, gks x;k Fkk fd ukdk guqekux<+h ds egUr FksA
cynsonkl th dks eSaus ns[kk gSA guqekux<+h ukdk eqtQ~Qjk QStkckn ds
egUr HkkLdjnkl th gSa tks bl le; fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds ljiap gSaA eSa
HkkLdjnkl dks fookfnr eafnj ds xHkZx`g esa crkSj iqtkjh ns[kk gS vkSj
lkFk gh lkFk ckgjh Hkkx ds jkepcwrjk eafnj vkfn ij iqtkjh ds #Ik esa
ns[kk Fkk ysfdu Hkhrjh Hkkx ds dqdZ gksus ds ckn ckgj jkepcwrjs ij
egUr HkkLdjnkl dks 1965&66 rd ns[kkA mlds ckn ckgj okys Hkkx esa
v[kkM+s ds nwljs lk/kw lUr jgrs FksA^^
“12. I know Mahant Bhaskar Das present in Court. I have
seen him since the year 1946 as priest at Sri
Ramjanmbhumi 'Garbh-grih', Ramchabutara temple,
Chhathi worship place and Shiv Darbar i.e. from the year
1946 to 1949, before and after the attachment. I started
going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi from the year 1941 to have
'darshan' and my parents told me that the priests here were
of Nirmohi Akhara and I also saw their master Baldev Das
as priest. I became very well acquainted with Baldev Das,
as he was the Mahant of Naka Hanumangarhi. I have seen
Baldev Das. Bhaskar Das is the Mahant of Hanumangarhi
Naka Muzaffara Faizabad, who is the Sarpanch of Nirmohi
Akhara at present. I have seen Bhaskar Das as priest in the
'Garbh-grih' of the disputed temple as also at the
Ramchabutara temple in the outer part. However, after the
attachment, I saw Mahant Bhaskar Das upto the year
1965-66 at the Ramchabutara in the outer part. Thereafter,
other saints of the Akhara lived in the outer part.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- eSaus 1941 ls ysdj 1982 Qjojh rd fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa
dks guqer}kj ds izos'k gksus ij fookfnr ifjlj ckgjh lgu esa mRrj
fLFkr Hk.Mkx`g o lar fuokl esa jgrs o Hkxoku dk izlkn cukrs
ns[kkA ;g Hk.Mkjx`g vkSj lar fuokl guqer}kj ls mRRkj dqN txg
 444

NksM+dj mRrj nhoky rd yEck FkkA^^

“13. In between the years 1941 to February, 1982, I had
seen the saints of the Nirmohi Akhara enter through the
Hanumatdwar and reside in the store room situated in
north of the outer courtyard of the disputed premises and
the saints’ accommodation and preparation of ‘Prasad’ of
the Lord. This store room and saints’ accommodation
extended to the northern wall with some gap in north of the
Hanumatdwar.” (E.T.C.)
366. DW 3/3 has also made statement regarding the possession
and ownership of Nirmohi Akhara and its Mahant/Sarpanch in
paras 10, 12, 15 and 16. Paras 15 and 16 are as under:
“15- fookfnr iwjs ifjlj ;kuh Hkhrjh o vUnj ds Hkkx ij dze'k nksuksa
dqdhZ ds igys fueksZgh v[kkM+k tks ,d /kkfeZd U;kl gSA ftldk ekStwnk
ljiap egUr HkkLdjnkl th gSa vkSj ekStwnk egUr txUukFknkl th gSa]
ds dCts o vkf/kiR; esa jgkA Hkxoku jkeyyk ds O;oLFkkid fueksZgh
v[kkM+k gSA^^
“15. Prior to the attachment, the entire premises i.e.,
inner and outer part of the disputed premises were both
under the possession and ownership of Nirmohi Akhara,
which is a religious trust and whose present Sarpanch is
Mahant Bhaskar Das and the present Mahant is Jagannath
Das. The Nirmohi Akhara is the manager of Lord
Ramlala.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- fookfnr ifjlj efLtn ugha gSA u esjs gks'k ls fdlh eqlyeku
us uekt Ik<+h gS A
“16. The disputed premises is not a mosque, nor in my
senses have I seen any Muslim offer Namaz.” (E.T.C.)
367. In para 3 of the affidavit, DW 3/3 has deposed that he
joined service as Teacher in Saraswati Shishu Mandir,
Pratapgarh in 1962, remained thereat for 2 years, transferred to
 445

Farrukhabad and stayed there for four years and then transferred
to Faizabad in 1967. He thereafter worked at some other places
also and retired in 1992 from the post of Headmaster.
368. DW 3/4, Mahant Shiv Saran Das is aged about 83 years
(vide affidavit dated 14.11.2003). He was cross examined in the
following manner:
(a) 14.11.2003- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 9-
14)
(b) 17.12.2003- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 16-22)
(c) 17/18.12.2003- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through
Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 22-27)
(d) 18.12.2003, 22.01.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd.
Faruk Ahmad through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p.
27-42)
(e) 22/23/27/28/29.01.2004, 05/06/09.02.2004- by Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 42-109)
(f) 18.03.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri Mustaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 110-115)
(g) 18.03.2004- defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5)
through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 115)
369. His statement in paras 8, 9, 10 and 11 are in respect to his
 446

claim of worshiping Lord Ram's birthplace Temple inside the

courtyard (Garbhgrih) and read as under:
^^8- Jhjke tUeHkwfe esa 1933 bZ0 ls n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gWaw] Jhjke
tUeHkwfe eafnj dk fuekZ.k dk ifjlj nks Hkkxksa esa eSaus 'kq# ls ns[kk gS]
igyk Hkkx Hkhrjh xHkZx`g ftlds Åij rhu f'k[kj gSa vkSj vkxs ;kuh
iwjc rjQ lh[kps okyh nhoky gS ftlesa eq[; xHkZx`g ds lkeus iwjc
rjQ ,d yksgs dk njoktk Fkk vkSj bl njokts ds mRrj mlh lh[kps
okyh nhoky esa yxHkx 18 ;k 20 fQV ds ckn ,d vkSj yksgs dk NM+nkj
njoktk Fkk] ;kuh lh[kps okyh nhoky esa nks NM+nkj njoktk FkkA^^
“8. I have been going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi from the
year 1933 AD to have 'darshan'. Since beginning, I have
seen the built up area of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple to be in
two parts. The first part was the inner 'Garbh-grih', over
which there were three domes and after that i.e. eastwards,
was the iron rod wall which had a iron door in the east
facing the main 'Garbh-grih' and to the north of this door,
was another iron rod door in the same iron rod wall at a
distance of about 18 or 20 feet, or in other words there
were two iron rod doors in the iron rod wall.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- eSa Hkhrjh okys xHkZx`g esa Hkxoku jkeyyk ds n'kZu djrk jgk gWwa]
jkeyyk dh v"V/kkrq dh ewfrZ gS ,d fcRrk ÅWph gS] ,d v"V/kkrq
dh ,d ewBk dh vkSj ewfrZ gS ftls y[ku yky dgrs gSa] guqekuth dh
lok fQV ;k Ms<+ fQV ÅWph guqekuth dh ik"kk.k ewfrZ gS rFkk
lkfyxjke Hkxoku 4] 6 jgs gSa tks cjkcj esjs n'kZu esa ogh ewfrZ;ak pyh
vk jgh gSaA^^
“9. I have had the 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala in the inner
'Garbh-grih'. The idol of Ramlala is made up of
‘Ashthadhatu’ and is about one palm high. There is
another ‘ashthadhatu’ idol of one ‘Mutha’, which is called
Lakhan Lal. There is stone idol of Hanuman ji about 1 ¼ to
1 ½ feet tall. There are about 4, 6 Saligram and all these
 447

idols have remained present regularly during my

'darshan'.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- ogka pkanh dk flagklu yxHkx lok fQV pkSM+k Ms<+ fQV ÅWpk gS
ftlesa Hkxoku jkeyyk o y[ku yky] lkfyx jke Hkxoku fojkteku
jgs gSa] flagklu ds ckgj guqekuth fojkteku jgs gSaA^^
“10. A silver throne about 1 ¼ feet wide and 1 ½ feet tall,
is present there with Lord Ramlala, Lakhanlal and Salig
Ram over it. Hanuman ji was present outside the throne.”
(E.T.C.)
^^11- mlh eq[; xHkZx`g esa ,d >wykuqek dkB dk flagklu j[kk gS
ftlij Hkh jkeyyk Hkxoku vkrs&tkrs jgs gSa] cky#Ik gksus ds dkj.k ;g
O;oLFkk Hkh jgh gSA^^
“11. In the same main 'Garbh-grih', is a wooden swing
shaped throne and Lord Ramlala keeps coming over it.
This arrangement has been made on account of (His) child
form.” (E.T.C.)
370. In paras 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 and 23, DW 3/4 has stated
about the ownership and possession of Nirmohi Akhara and its
representative over the disputed premises and that they were the
Sadhus of Nirmohi Akhara, performing Pooja etc. In paras 16
and 17 he has made a statement about the constitution and
function of Nirmohi Akhara which we propose to deal
separately while dealing with the issue relating to constitution,
status etc. of Nirmohi Akhara.
371. DW 3/5, Raghunath Prasad Pandey, son of late Sri
Bindeshwari Prasad Pandey, resident of Village Sariyawan Pure
Khaipur, Pargana Mangalsi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad,
is aged about 73 years (as per his affidavit dated 18.11.2003).
He was cross examined in the following manner :
(a) 18.11.2003- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
 448

(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 7-

11)
(b) 18/19.11.2003- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 11-21)
(c) 19.11.2003- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 21-24)
(d) 19.11.2003- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk Ahmad
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 24-28)
(e)19/20/24/25/27/28.11.2003,
01/02/04/05/08/09/10/11.12.2003-by Sunni Central Baord
of Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 29-174)
(f) 11/12/15/16.12.2003- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 174-213)
(g) 16.12.2003 - defendants no. 6/1 through Sri Fazale
Alam, Advocate and 6/2 through Sri Irfan Ahmad,
Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri T.A.
Khan, Advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 213)
372. Sri Ramjanambhumi Temple according to his statement is
about 16-17 km from his village. He is educated up to Class-
VIII, was appointed in Railway Department in Jhansi in 1948
and retired on 31.01.1988. His date of birth is 08.10.1930. He
claims to understand the things at the age of 7 years. His parents
(mother) was very religious. His father died when he was 6
years of age. He used to visit Ayodhya accompanied with his
mother. He has supported the issue that Lord Ram was being
worshiped inside the courtyard and the said temple was
 449

maintained and looked after by the Bairagis of Nirmohi Akhara,

Hindu people used to worship inside the courtyard and he never
saw any muslim to offer Namaz at the premises in dispute. His
statement in paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19
of the affidavit is as under:
^^6- eSa oS".kks lukru /kehZ ifjokj dk gwWaA esjh ekWa dh vkLFkk Hkxoku
jke esa Fkh vkSj esjh Hkh vkLFkk Hkxoku jke esa gSA fookfnr ifjlj Jh
jketUeHkwfe efUnj gSA tgkWa Hkxoku jke dk tUe gqvkA ,slh esjh vkLFkk
gSA ;g vkLFkk esjh ekWa dh Hkh Fkh tks mUgksaus eq>s fn;kA**
“6. I belong to a Vaishnav Sanatan Dharmi (orthodox
religious) family. My mother had faith in Lord Rama, so do
I. The disputed premises is Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple,
where Lord Rama had been born. This is my belief. This
was the belief of my mother as well, which she passed on to
me.” (E.T.C.)
**7- fookfnr Jh jketUeHkwfe esa fojkteku Hkxoku jke yyk dk n’kZu
vkjrh] pj.kke`r izkIr djus o izlkn izkIr djus dk dk;Z eSa vius cpiu
ls viuh ekWa ds lkFk tc tc ogkWa nwljs n’kZu djus okyksa dks ns[krk
vk;k gwWaA eWak esjh esjs cpiu ls gh efUnj jketUeHkwfe esa pj.kke`r esjs
NksVs gkFkksa esa fnykrh FkhA JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu viuh /kkfeZd vkLFkk
ds dkj.k cjkcj djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA**
“7. From my childhood, I have been seen people have
darshan and arti of Lord Ramlala present in the disputed
Sri Ramjanmbhumi, and receive charnamrit (foot nectar)
and prasad. From my childhood, my mother used to make
me receive charnamrit at the Ramjanmbhumi in my little
hands. I have been regularly having the darshan of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi out of my religious faith.” (E.T.C.)
**8- ;g fd cM+k gksus ij eSa vdsys gh v;ks/;k Jh jketUeHkwfe efUnj
esa n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwWaA guqeku x<+h efUnj o dud Hkou efUnj Hkh
izfl) gksus ds dkj.k n'kZu guqeku th o dud Hkou esa ekrk lhrk th
 450

dk cjkcj djrk jgk gwWaA Jh jketUeHkwfe efUnj Hkxoku jke dh

tUeLFkyh gksus ds dkj.k cgqr egRo j[krh gSa esjh ekWa dh o esjh Hkh
vkLFkk jketUeLFkyh ls cjkcj tqM+h jghA bl dkj.k Jh jketUeHkwfe
efUnj o mlesa fojkteku Hkxoku jke yyk o nhxj /kkfeZd fpUgksa dk
tSls pj.k fpUg] NBh iwtu LFky] jke pcwrjk efUnj o f'ko njckj
vkfn dk n'kZu tks fookfnr ifjlj esa gSA cjkcj djrk jgk gwWaA**
“8. That on growing up, I have been going alone to have
darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple at Ayodhya. On
account of being famous, I have also had the darshan of
Hanumangarhi temple and Kanak Bhawan temple. The
Ramjanmbhumi temple has immense importance on
account of being the birthplace of Lord Rama. My mother
and myself have always had faith in Ramjanmsthali. Due to
this I regularly had the darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple, Lord Ramlala present therein and of other
religious symbols such as foot marks, Chhathi worship
place, Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar etc., which are
all within the disputed campus.” (E.T.C.)
**9- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj nks Hkkx esa gSA igyk ckgjh Hkkx nwljk
Hkhrjh Hkkx fookfnr mDr ifjlj esa Hkxoku jke yyk o NBh iwtk LFky
pj.k fpUg o jke pcwrjk f'ko njckj dk cjkcj n'kZu djrk pyk vk
jgk gwWaA oM+k gksus ij vdsys mDr fookfnr efUnj Jh jketUeHkwfe ij
n'kZu djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA v;ks/;k esa rhu esys dkfrZd] lkou]
jkeuoeh eq[; rkSj ij gksrk gSA vxgu esa jke fookg dk esyk gksrk gSA
jkeuoeh dk ,d fo'ks"k R;kSgkj jgrk gSA fookfnr ifjlj Hkxoku jke
dh tUeLFkyh o efUnj gksus ds dkj.k Hkkjr o"kZ ds dksus&dksus ls reke
fgUnw /kekZoyEch turk Hkxoku jke yyk dk n'kZu djus izlkn Qwy
ekyk p<+kus iwtk djus o pj.kke`r izkIr djrs eSaus vius cpiu ;kfu
'kq: ls lu~ 1937 ls ysdj 1948 rd mDr efUnj o /kkfeZd LFky o
Hkxoku dk n'kZu ckgjh vkSj Hkhrjh Hkkx esa ns[krk jgk gwWaA eq>s ;g Hkh
vius ekWa ls ekywe gqvk fd fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vUrxZr gh Jh jke
 451

tueHkwfe efUnj gSA fueksZgh v[kkMk ds ckjs esa esjh tkudkjh efUnj
guqeku x<+h ukdk esa n'kZu djus ogkWa tkus ls o ckck cYnso nkl ls
dkQh c<+ x;hA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ,d eB gSA iapk;rh eB gSA /kkfeZd
U;kl gSA lkjh O;oLFkk iapk;rh gSA iapks dk fu.kZ; loksZifj gSA egUFk
v[kkM+k dk iapksa ds izLrko o cgqer jk; ls dk;Z djrk gSa egUFk dks
v[kkM+s dh tk;nkn cspus dk gd ugha gSA tc rd iapksa dk izLrko u
gks egUFk pquk tkrk gSA v[kkM+s esa lSfud f'k{kk dh i)fr ykxw gSA ,slk
eSaus tkuk gSA guqeku x<+h v;ks/;k esa ckck dks tkurk gwWaA mUgksaus Hkh
crk;k fd guqeku x<+h fuokZ.kh v[kkM+k dk efUnj gSA v[kkM+k ds jhfr&
fjokt jkekuUnk Lokeh bl lEiznk; ds izorZd jgs gSaA bl lEiznk; ds
lk/kq jkekuUnh oSjkxh ds b"V jke gSaA fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk ,d efUnj Jh
fot; jk/kks efUnj jke?kkV v;ks/;k ij gSA**
“9. That the disputed premises is in two parts. The first
being the outer part and the second being the internal part.
I have been regularly having the darshan of Lord Ramlala,
Chhathi worship place, foot marks, Ramchabutara and
Shiv Darbar at the aforesaid disputed premises. After
growing up, I have been going alone to have darshan of
the disputed Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple. The three main
fairs at Ayodhya are Kartika, Sawan, Ramnavami. The fair
of Ram Vivah is held during the month of Aghan (a month
of Hindu calendar). There is a special festival on
Ramnavami. From my childhood i.e. from the beginning in
the year 1937 to the year 1948, I have seen numerous
Hindu public from different corners of the country have
darshan of Lord Ramlala and make offerings, offer
flowers-garlands, offer prayer and receive charnamrit at
the disputed premises, since the same is the birthplace and
temple of Lord Rama. I also got to know from my mother
that Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple was also under the Nirmohi
Akhara. My knowledge about Nirmohi Akhara improved
 452

greatly by my darshan of temple at Hanumangarhi Naka

and meeting Baba Baldev Das. The Nirmohi Akhara is a
Math, a Panchayat Math. It is a religious trust. The entire
working is as per Panchayat system. The decision of Panch
is above all. The Mahant of the Akhara works on advise of
Panchas and the majority view. The Mahant has no right to
sell the property of the Akhara. The Mahant is elected
unless there is a recommendation of the Panchas. I have so
come to know that the system of military education is
applicable in the Akhara. I know the Baba at
Hanumangarhi, Ayodhya. He also told that Hanumangarhi
is a temple of Nirvani Akhara. The customs and practices
of this Akhara have been laid down by Swami Ramanand,
the promoter of this sect. Rama is the Isht of Ramanand
Vairagi, a saint of this sect. Another temple of Nirmohi
Akhara, Sri Vijay Raghav temple, is at Ramghat Ayodhya.”
(E.T.C.)
**10- eSa 1948 rd yxHkx gj ekg dbZ ckj mDr efUnj esa n'kZu
djrk jgk ysfdu mlds ckn jsyos esa >kalh rSukr gksus ij rhu pkj ekg
esa tc Hkh ?kj vkrk jgk Hkxoku jkeyyk dk iwjs efUnj ds /keZLFky dk
n'kZu djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA vkSj ukSdjh ls fjVk;MZ gksus ij iqu%
vius ?kj ls gj ekg n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwWaA**
“10. I had darshan in the said temple on number of times
almost every month till the year 1948. However, after my
posting at Jhansi under the Railways, I have been having
the darshan of the entire temple site of Lord Ramlala,
every 3-4 months whenever I come home. Now after
retirement from service, I have again started going from
my home to have darshan every month.” (E.T.C.)
**12- eSa tc viuh ekWa ds lkFk fookfnr ifjlj esa n'kZu gsrq x;k esjh
ekWa us gh eq>s crk;k fd ;g jketUeHkwfe efUnj gSA vUnj Hkhrjh Hkkx esa
 453

Hkxoku jke yyk fojkteku Fks o ckgjh Hkkx esa jke pcwrjk efUnj o
NBh iwtu LFky pj.k fpUg pkjksa Hkkb;ksa dk jgk gSA pwYgk
csyuk&pdyk Hkh FkkA f'ko njckj Hkh ckgjh Hkkx esa FkkA tgkWa 'kadj th
ikoZrh th x.ks'k th uUnh o 'kadj th dk vj?kk FkkA ifjlj ds iwohZ xsV
ls n'kZukFkhZ o HkDrx.k vkrs&tkrs FksA mRrj Hkh xsV Fkk tks T;knkrj
esyk HkhM+ c<+us ij [kqyrk FkkA iwohZ xsV ls ?kqlrs gh mRrj rjQ Hk.Mkj
x`g lUr fuokl o dksBkj FkkA ftlesa lk/kqvksa oSjkfx;ksa dks jgrs o
Hkxoku dk izlkn cukrs 'kq: ls ns[kk FkkA /khjs&/khjs dbZ ckj esa n'kZu
djkrs le; esjh ekWa us crk;k Fkk ;gkWa iqtkjh o lk/kw yksx jgrs gSaA og
fuekZsgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kw oSjkxh gSA vkSj rHkh ls cjkcj Hkhrjh Hkkx esa
1949 fnlEcj rd fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kwvksa oSjkfx;ksa dks iqtkjh dh
rjg dk;Z djrs o izlkn ysdj Hkksx yxkdj n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks izlkn Hkksx
yxk nsrsA Hkxoku dk pj.kke`r nsrsA Qwy ekyk vkfn n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ls
ysdj Hkxoku ij p<+k n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks Qwy ekyk nsrs ns[kk vkSj rHkh ls
ns[k jgk gwWaA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kwvksa oSjkfx;ksa dks jke pcwrjk efUnj
ij fojkteku jke yyk ij Hkh oSls iqtkjh dk dk;Z djrs ns[kk tSls
Hkhrjh Hkkx esa c;ku fd;k gSA blh rjg ns[kHkky iwtk vkjrh f'ko
njckj o NBh iwtk LFky pj.k fpUg pdyk csyuk pwYgk ij Hkh fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds yksxksa dks iwtk vkjrh o bartke djrs ns[kk gSA fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds ckjs esa esjh ekWa dks fo'ks"k tkudkjh Fkh D;ksafd ogh eaxy]
'kfuokj tc v;ks/;k ugha tk ikrh Fkh rks guqeku x<+h ukdk eqtQ~Qjk
ij guqeku th dk n'kZu djus tkrh jgh gSa tks esjs xkWao ls 5 ;k 6
fdeh nwjh ij gSA ukdk eqtQ~Qjk ij guqeku th efUnj izkphu ls fLFkr
gSA tgkWa ukdk eqtQ~Qjk ds oSjkxh gh egaFk Fks ogkWa egaFk cYnso nkl
cgqr izfl) ea0 gq, gSaA ftuds f'k"; ea0 Hkk"dj nkl bl le; ea0 gSA
bl dkj.k ls gh fueksZgh v[kkMk dk gh vf/kiR; O;oLFkk fookfnr
ifjlj Jh jketUeHkwfe ij 'kq: ls eSaus ns[kk gSA**
“12. Whenever I went to the disputed premises, alongwith
my mother, to have darshan, it was my mother who told me
that it was Ramjanmbhumi temple. Lord Ramlala was
present in the inner part and the Ramchabutara temple,
Chhathi worship place and foot marks of the four brothers
 454

were present in the outer part. The stove, belna-chakla

were also present. The Shiv Darbar was also in the outer
part, where Shankar Ji, Parvati Ji, Ganesh Ji, Nandi and
argha of Shiva existed. The devotees used to enter through
the eastern gate of the premises. There was gate in north
also, which was mostly opened during fair on crowd
increase. Immediately on entering through the eastern
gate, was the store room, saints’ accommodation and
granary in the north, and from the beginning I had seen
the saints-recluses live there besides the preparation of
prasad taking place over there. Gradually during the
course of darshan, my mother told me that priests and
saints used to live there. They were the saints-recluses of
Nirmohi Akhara and since then to December, 1949, the
saints-recluses of Nirmohi Akhara functioned as priests
and used to accept prasad from the devotees and delivered
it to them after offering them to God. They used to
distribute the charnamrit. I have seen them accept the
flowers-garlands etc. from the devotees and return them to
the devotees after offering them to God. I saw the saints-
recluses of Nirmohi Akhara perform similar saint like work
at the Ramchabutara temple as well, as described by me
regarding the inner part. I have seen the Nirmohi Akhara
people perform similar maintenance, prayer, arti at Shiv
Darbar, Chhathi worship place, foot marks, chakla-belna,
stove. My mother had special knowledge about Nirmohi
Akhara because whenever she was unable to go to
Ayodhya on Tuesday and Saturday, she used to go to have
darshan of Hanuman Ji at Hanumangarhi Naka
Muzaffara, which is at a distance of 5-6 kilometers from
 455

my village. Hanuman Ji is present in the ancient temple at

Naka Muzaffara. The recluses of Naka Muzaffara were the
Mahant over there. Mahant Baldev Das has been a very
famous Mahant of the same, whose disciple Mahant
Bhaskar Das is the present Mahant. Due to this, I had
found the possession of Nirmohi Akhara extend over the
disputed premises, Sri Ramjanmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
**13- ;g fd Hkhrj okyk Hkkx tks rhu f'k[kj o fldpsa ds vUnj FkkA
fnlEcj 1949 esa dqdZ gqvk ;g eSaus tuojh esa ?kj vkus ij tkuk ml
le; n'kZu eq>s Hkxoku jkeyyk ds ckgjh Hkkx esa iwoZor n'kZu Hkxoku
ds o iwT; rhFkZ LFkyh NBh iwtk LFky f'ko njckj o jke pcwrjk efUnj
ij ikl tkdj fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkfj;ksa ls izlkn o pj.kke`r ysdj
gksrk jgk gSA 1982 esa ckgjh Hkkx fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vkilh fookn ls
dqdZ gks x;k ftlds Hkh fjlhoj Hkhrj okys Hkkx ds fjlhoj gq,A fjlhoj
}kjk iqtkjh o O;fDr vc lHkh iwT; /keZLFkyksa ij tSls NBh iwtk
/keZLFky o jke efUnj pcwrjk f'ko njckj o Hkhrj Hkkx Hkxoku jkeyyk
vkfn ij cSBrs gSaA blfy, ckgj ds dqdhZ ds ckjs esa jkeuoeh 1982 esa
eq>s ekywe gqvk jkeuoeh dks nsj rd ifjlj esa :ddj eSa iwtu o dqN
ekul ikB djrk gwWaA mlh fnu ckjg cts Hkxoku jke dk tUe gqvk gSA
izlkn ysdj gh vkrk Fkk fjlhoj ds bUrtke esa nksuksa Hkkx ckgjh Hkkx o
Hkhrjh Hkkx lEiw.kZ <kWapk fxjkus rd ;kfu 6-12-1992 rd jgk gSA <kapk
fxjus ds ckn dsUnzh; ljdkj fjlhoj gks x;h ysfdu Hkxoku jkeyyk
ogh Hkxoku jke yyk gSa ftudk eSa 'kq: ls n'kZu djrk pyk jgk gwWaA
vc Hkh fojkteku gSA ftudk Hkh n'kZu eSa cjkcj dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk
fu;af=r jkLrs ls cjkcj djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA vHkh ugku] iwf.kZek
dkfrZd ds nwljs fnu esa Hkh n'kZu djus x;k FkkA**
“13. That the inner part was under the three dome and
within the grill. I came to know that it was attached in
December 1949, when I came home in January. At that
time, I continued to have darshan of Lord Ramlala in the
outer part along with the revered Chhathi worship place,
 456

Shiv Darbar and Ramchabutara temple and received

prasad and charnamrit from the priests of Nirmohi Akhara.
In the year 1982 the outer part was also attached due to
internal dispute of Nirmohi Akhara and the Receiver of
inner part, was appointed Receiver thereof. The priest and
people appointed by the Receiver now look after all
revered worship places such as Chhathi worship place,
Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar and Lord Ramlala in
the inner part. I came to know about the attachment of the
outer part on the occasion of Ramnavami, 1982. I stay
back in the premises on the occasion of Ramnavami and
offer my prayers and recite the Manas. Lord Rama was
born at 12 ‘O’ clock on this day. I used to bring along the
prasad. Both, the inner and outer part, remained in
control of the Receiver till demolition of the structure on
06.12.1992. After the demolition of the structure, the
Central Government became the Receiver but Lord
Ramlala is the same Lord Ramlala, whose darshan I have
had since beginning, and He is still present there. I
regularly have darshan even today through the route
controlled by the Central Government. Recently I went to
have darshan on the occasion of Nahan (occasion for a
holy dip in sacred river), the second day of Kartik
Purnima.” (E.T.C.)
**14- eSa 'kq: ls tc ls fookfnr ifjlj efUnj Jh jketUeHkwfe n'kZu
djus tk jgk gwWaA ges'kk eq>s rc fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkfj;ksa o lk/kqvksa
o oSjkfx;ksa dks efUnj mijksDr dh O;oLFkk djrs o iwjk bartke djrs
ckgjh o Hkhrjh Hkkx esa ns[k jgk gwWaA eq>s ;g Hkh viuh ekWa ls ekywe gqvk
fd fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vUrxZr gh Jh jketUeHkwfe efUnj gSA fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds ckjs esa esjh tkudkjh efUnj guqeku x<+h ukdk n'kZu djus
tkus ls o ckck cYnso nkl ls dkQh c<+ x;hA**
 457

“14. Since I started going to the disputed premises to have

darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, I have always found the
priests, saints and recluses of Nirmohi Akhara carry out
the entire arrangement and management of the inner and
outer part. I came to know from my mother that the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple was also under the Nirmohi
Akhara. My knowledge about Nirmohi Akhara improved
substantially from my visit for darshan of the temple at
Hanumangarhi Naka and through Baba Baldev Das.”
(E.T.C.)
**15- tUeHkwfe efUnj ds iwoZ o nf{k.k Hkh dqN NksVs&NksVs efUnj fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds iap cukdj jgrs FksA 'ks"kkorkj lqfe=k Hkou Hkh efUnj Fkk ;g
ckgj okys efUnj 1991 esa 'kk;n ;w0ih0 ljdkj us fxjk fn;s vf/kxzg.k
djA**
“15. The Panch of Nirmohi Akhara used to build and live
in small temples in east and south of the Janmbhumi
temple. Sheshawtar Sumitra Bhawan was also a temple.
These outlying temples were possibly demolished by the
U.P. Government after acquisition in the year 1991.”
(E.T.C.)
**16- fookfnr ifjlj Hkhrjh ;k ckgjh Hkkx dHkh efLtn ds rkSj ij esjs
ns[kus ds le; ls vkt rd bLrseky gksrs eSaus ugha ns[kk gSA**
“16. From the date of my visits till date, I have never
seen either the inner or outer part of the disputed premises
being used as a mosque.” (E.T.C.)
**17- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj esa eSaus fdlh eqlyeku dks uekt i<+rs
vius gks'k lEHkkyus ds le; ls vkt rd ugha ns[kk gSA**
“17. That from the date of attaining maturity, I have not
seen any Muslim offer Namaz in the disputed premises till
date.” (E.T.C.)
**18- ea0 Hkk"dj nkl dks 1946 ls eSaus fookfnr ifjlj esa Hkhrjh o
 458

ckgj nksuksa LFkku ij Hkxoku jke yyk dh iwtk vpZuk djrs ns[kk gSA
iqtkjh dh gSfl;r ls dk;Z djrs ns[kk gSA buds xq: ea0 cYnso nkl dks
Hkh 1946 ds igys ls ns[kk gSa cYnso nkl th dk LoxZokl 'kk;n 1962 esa
gqvk gSA**
“18. From the year 1946, I have seen Mahant Bhaskar
Das perform prayer-worship of Lord Ramlala in both
inner and outer parts of the disputed premises. I saw him
function as priest. I had also seen his master Mahant
Baldev Das prior to 1946. Baldev Das probably passed
away in the year 1962.” (E.T.C.)
**19- dqdhZ okys Hkhrjh Hkkx ds eqdnesa dh tkudkjh eq>s ea0 cYnso
nkl th ls 1950 esa gh 'kq: ekg tuojh ;k Qjojh esa gqbZ FkhA nhokuh
eqdnek o fueksZgh v[kkM+k }kjk nk;j eqdnek dh iwjh tkudkjh 1960 esa
ea0 cYnso nkl o ckngw ea0 Hkk"dj nkl ls gqbZ tks eq>s dHkh efUnj
guqeku x<+h ukdk o dHkh jketUeHkwfe eafnj v;ks/;k jke pcwrjk efUnj
ij feyrs FksA**
“19. I came to know about the case regarding the
attached inner part in the beginning of January or
February, 1950 from Mahant Baldev Das. The complete
information about the civil suit and the case filed by
Nirmohi Akhara, was gathered by me in the year 1960
from Mahant Baldev Das and subsequently from Mahant
Bhaskar Das, whom I sometimes met at temple
Hanumangarhi Naka or at Ramjanmbhumi temple
Ayodhya or at Ramchabutara temple.” (E.T.C.)
373. DW 3/6, Sitaram Yadav born in 1943 has filed his
affidavit dated 06.01.2004 under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC,
followed by his corss examination as under :
(a) 06.01.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 4-
 459

8)
(b) 07.01.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 16-14)
(c) 07.01.2004- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 14-15)
(d) 07/08.01.2004-by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk
Ahmad, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 16-28)
(e) 08/09/12/13/14/15.01.2004- by Sunni Central Baord of
Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 28-87)
(f) 15/16/19.01.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 87-110)
(g) 19.01.2004 - defendants no. 6/1 through Sri Fazale
Alam, Advocate and 6/2 through Sri Irfan Ahmad,
Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri T.A.
Khan, Advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 110)
374. He states about the existence of the shop of his father
selling Batasha and other sweet meats for offering to the God on
the northern side wall of eastern gate of Sri Ramjanambhumi
Temple which continued till December, 1992. He claims to have
gathered information about the temple, Ramjanambhumi as well
as Nirmohi Akhara etc. from his father. Paras 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the affidavit contain his statement about
the existence of idol in inner courtyard, possession and
ownership of Nirmohi Akhara and performance of Pooja by the
priests of Nirmohi Akhara as under:
**4- esjs firk us eafnj jketUeHkwfe ifjlj o mlls lacaf/kr /keZLFky o
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds ckjs esa iwjh tkudkjh fn;k vkSj tc ls eSaus gks'k
 460

laHkkyk rc ls cjkcj Lo;a lHkh rF; jketUeHkwfe eafnj ds ckjs esa

v;ks/;k ds /kkfeZd egRo ds ckjs esa ;gka&v;ks/;k ds izfl) eafnjksa ds
ckjs esa Lo;a tkudkjh ns[kdj o nhxj lk/kqvksa o egUrksa ls gqqbZA^^
“4. My father gave complete information about
Ramjanmbhumi temple premises, the religious places
related to it and the Nirmohi Akhara and after I attained
maturity I gathered information about Ramjanmbhumi
temple, the religious importance of Ayodhya and the
famous temple of Ayodhya, myself and from different saints
and Mahants.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- esjs firkth us crk;k Fkk fd fnlEcj 1949 esa Hkhrjh Hkkx tks
rhu f'k[kj ds uhps lh[kps okyh nhoky rd gS] dqdZ gks xbZ Fkh eq>s ;g
Hkh crk;k Fkk fd dqdhZ ds igys ls Hkhrjh Hkkx xHkZx`g ftls dgrs gSa] esa
Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku pys vk jgs gSa A Hkxoku jkeyyk dh&
v"V/kkrq dh ewfrZ gSA eq>s esjs firkth us crk;k Fkk fd ;g ewfrZ fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds fdlh ljcjgdkj egUr ;k iap us ekuo ;knnk'r ds igys
izfr"Bk djkbZ FkhA^^
“5. My father had told me that in December, 1949 the
inner part, which was under the three domes and extended
upto the grill wall, had been attached. I was also told that
Lord Ramlala had been present in the inner part called
'Garbh-grih', even prior to the attachment. The idol of Lord
Ramlala is made up of ‘Ashtadhatu’. My father had told me
that this idol had been placed by some Sarbarhakaar
Mahant or Panch of Nirmohi Akhara, much beyond human
memory.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- jkeyyk Hkxoku ds vykok esjs firk us crk;k Fkk vkSj eSa Hkh
vius gks'k ls ns[k jgk gWwa fd y[ku yky dh Hkh v"V/kkrq dh ewfrZ gS tks
pkanh ds flagklu tks lok QqV yEck pkSM+k o yxHkx Ms<+ QqV ÅWpk ij
fojkteku jkeyyk Hkxoku ds lkFk gSaA cxy esa guqekuth dh ewfrZ
ik"kk.k dh nhoky ds lgkjs gS ftls Hkh esjs firk us crk;k igys ls dk;e
 461

pyk vk jgh gS vkSj eSa Hkh vius gks'k ls ns[krk pyk vk jgk gWwaA lkfyx
jke Hkxoku Hkh 4&5 vnn flagklu pkanh ij j[ks jgrs gSaA^^
“7. It was told by my father and has also been witnessed
by me since I gained understanding that besides Lord
Ramlala, there was a ‘Ashtadhatu’ idol of Lakhanlal as
well and that it existed over a 1 ¼ feet wide and 1 ½ feet
tall silver throne along with Lord Ramlala. In the side is
the stone idol of Hanuman ji in support of wall and my
father had told me that it existed since earlier times, and
this was witnessed by me since I gained understanding.
There were 4-5 Saligram over the silver throne.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- Hkhrjh Hkkx dh iwtk&ikB mRlo leS;k dqdhZ ds igys fueksZgh
v[kkM+k djrk Fkk ftls esjs firk us crk;k vius gks'k ls Hkhrjh Hkkx
fjlhoj ds izcU/k esa ns[k jgk gWwa ysfdu vius gks'k ls ckgjh Hkkx ftlesa
jkepcwrjk eafnj] f'ko njckj] NBh iwtk LFky] pj.k fpUg] Hk.Mkjx`g
vkfn Hkkx ij fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk izcU/k bUrtke ns[krk vk;k gWwa tc
rd fd lu 1982 Qjojh esa ckgjh Hkkx Hkh dqdZ gks x;kA^^
“8. The worship, ceremony of the inner part was carried
out by the Nirmohi Akhara prior to the attachment, which
was told to me by my father. Since I gained understanding,
I have seen the inner part under the control of Receiver but
I have found the Nirmohi Akhara involved in in
management of the outer part, which included
Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar, Chhathi worship
place, footmarks, store room etc., till the outer part was
attached in February, 1982.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- mDr dqdZhZ ds ckn nksuksa Hkkx ;kuh ckgjh o Hkhrjh Hkkx ds
fjlhoj Jh ds0ds0 jke oekZ gq, vkSj fjlhoj rks cnyrs jgs ysfdu iwjk
<kapk 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks HkhM+ us fxjk fn;k blds ckn esjh nqdku ;gka
ugha jgh vc eSa ckgj vekaok eafnj ds lkeus nqdku djrk gWwaA^^a
“9. After the said attachment, Sri K.K. Ram Verma was
 462

appointed Receiver of both the parts viz. the inner and

outer part. The Receivers kept changing. The entire
structure was demolished by the masses on 6th December,
1992 and after it my shop ceased to exist at that place.
Now my shop is situated in front of Amawan temple.”
(E.T.C.)
^^10- fjlhoj dks esjs firkth ds tekus ls esjs gh nqdku ls ckyHkksx o
nw/k Hkxoku jkeyyk ds fy, tkrk FkkA^^
“10. The ‘Balbhog’ and milk for Lord Ramlala used to go
to the Receiver from my shop, from the days of my father.”
(E.T.C.)
^^11- eSa <kapk fxjus ds ckn nw/k vc Hkh nsus tkrk gWwaA^^
“11. I still go to deliver milk despite demolition of the
structure.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- xHkZx`g ds Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu cjkcj djrk jgk gWwa tks
<kapk fxjus ds igys Fks] ogh jkeyyk vc Hkh gSaA^^
“12. I have regularly had the 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala
in the 'Garbh-grih'. The Lord Ramlala present before
demolition of the structure, is the same Ramlala present
today.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- ckgj okys Hkkx dk eafnj jkepcwrjk esa Hkh Hkxoku jkeyyk o
y[kuyky th o Hkjrth ekrk dkSf'kY;k th guqekuth ewfrZ;ka xqQk eafnj
esa feykdj jgh gSa eafnj dkB dk xaxk tequh&pcwrjk jkeeafnj ij jgk
gSA f'ko njckj ckgjh ifjlj nhoky ds vUnj iwjch nf{k.k dksus esa ihiy
isM+ ds uhps f'ko njckj laxejej iRFkj dk jgk Fkk ftlesa 'akdjth dk
v?kkZ ikoZrhth] x.ks'kth] "k"Veq[kh 'kadjth o uUnhth jgs Fks tks rhuksa
/kkfeZd ifo= LFky cus tgka eSaus vius gks'k ls cjkcj dqdhZ 1982 rd
dCtk o n[ky fueksZgh v[kkM+k v;ks/;k dk ns[kk gSA eSaus bu lHkh /kkfeZd
LFkyksa ij iqtkjh fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk ns[kk gS esjs gks'k ds le; tsB 1950
ds djhc eSaus ek0 HkkLdj nkl dks crkSj iqtkjh ns[krk pyk vk jgk gWwa
tks ogka 1962 rd jgs ckn esa fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh fl;k jk?ko lju
 463

jgs tks 1982 dqdhZ rd jgsA^^

“13. The idols of Lord Ramlala, Lakhanlal, Bharat ji,
mother Kaushalya ji and Hanuman ji were present in the
Ramchabutara temple in the outer part as well as the cave
temple. The temple ‘Kath Ganga-Jamuni’ was at
Ramchabutara temple. The marble stone Shiv Darbar
existed below the Pipal tree in south-east corner within the
wall of the outer premises, where Shankar ji’s better half
Parvati ji, Ganesh ji, Six faced Shankar ji and Nandi ji
were present, which all became sacred religious places
and from the day of my gaining understanding to the
attachment of 1982, I have witnessed the possession of
Nirmohi Akhara, Ayodhya extend over all of them. I have
seen the priest of Nirmohi Akhara at all these religious
places. From the days of my gaining of understanding in
summer of 1950, I have seen M. Bhaskar Das as priest,
who continued as such till 1962. Thereafter, Nirmohi
Akhara’s Sia Raghav Saran became the priest and
continued till the attachment of 1982.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- gj esys esa rks esjs gks'k ls v;ks/;k esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa
Hkkjro"kZ ds dksus&dksus ls HkDrx.k n'kZu djus vkrs jgs tks iwjch xsV ls
tkrs Fks] o esyk esa mRrjh xsV Hkh bLrseky gksrk jgk gSA^^
“14. As far as I recollect, devotees from all parts of India
came to Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises in each fair to have
'darshan'. They entered from the eastern gate. The
northern gate was also used during fairs.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- esjs 1950 tsB ekg esa gks'k laHkkyus ij tcfd mlh ekg esa dksbZ
odhy }kjk ukitks[k ekSds ij gks jgh Fkh] rHkh esjs firkth us eqdnes dh
ckrsa crykbZa vc eSa tkurk gWwa fd nhokuh eqndek py jgk gSs vkSj fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ,d eq[; Ik{kdkj gS tks lqUuh lsaVzy oDQ cksMZ ls eqdnek yM+
jgk gSA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kq Hk.Mkjx`g esa cjkcj dqdhZ 1982 rd
 464

jgrs jgs gSa vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj ds iwohZ nfD[kuh dksus ij lqfe=k
Hkou eafnj fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iap e0 jkenkl dk Fkk tks esjs gks'k ds
igys dk Fkk rFkk lhrkdwi ds ikl jkeyyk eafnj NksVs&NksVs fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa ds igys ls dk;e pys vk jgs Fks ftUgsa 1991 vDVwcj
esa m0iz0 ljdkj us vf/kxzg.k dj fxjok fn;k FkkA^^
“16. I gained understanding in ‘Jyeshtha’ month of 1950
and in the same month some measurement of the site was
carried out by some advocate. It was at that point of time
that my father had told me about the case. I now know that
a civil case is pending and the Nirmohi Akhara is a main
party and is contesting against Sunni Central Waqf Board.
The saints of Nirmohi Akhara have continuously remained
in the store room till the attachment of 1982. The Sumitra
Bhawan temple in east-south corner of Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple, was of Nirmohi Akhara’s Panch M. Ramdas and it
was of period prior to my attainment of understanding.
Small Ramlala temples near the Sitakoop, were already in
existence and in October, 1991 they were demolished after
acquisition by the U.P. Government.” (E.T.C.)
375. Paras 15 and 17 contains his (DW 3/6) statement about the
constitution of Nirmohi Akhara, its function and Mahant etc.
which shall be dealt with later on. In para 18 he says that he
never saw any Muslim offering Namaz in the disputed premises
and the said premise has never been used as mosque either
inside or outside.
376. DW 3/7, Mahant Ramji Das, resident of Mohalla
Shringar Hat, Ayodhya, District Faizabad, is aged about 82
years (as per his affidavit dated 30.01.2004). He was cross
examined in the following manner :
(a) 30.01.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
 465

(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 11-

16)
(b) 03.02.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) and Suit-5 through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate (p. 18-22)
(c) 03.02.2004-by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 22-24)
(d) 03.02.2004- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 25-26)
(e) 03/04.02.2004- by Mohd. Faruk Ahmad, defendant no.
11 through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 27-37)
(f) 04/10/23/24/25/26/27/.02.2004, 01/03/04/05/10/11/12/
16.03.2004- by Sunni Central Board of Waqf, defendant
no. 9 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 37-174)
(g) 16/17.03.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 174-188)
(h) 17.03.2004- defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Irfan Ahmad, Advocate defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 188)
377. His date of birth is 13.04.1923. He attained age of
understanding at 12. His parents were very religious. DW 3/7
used to visit Ayodhya accompanied with his parents. He has
supported the issue that Lord Ram was being worshiped inside
the courtyard and the said temple was maintained and looked
after by the Bairagis of Nirmohi Akhara. Hindu people used to
worship inside the courtyard and he never saw any muslim to
 466

offer Namaz at the premises in dispute. His statement contained

in paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 28-
A, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the affidavit is as under:
**5- esjs firk o ekrk esjs gks'k esa tc&tc v;ks/;k vk;s] vius xq:&
?kjkuk] efUnj cM+k LFkku jkedksV v;ks/;k Bgjrs Fks vkSj ogha ls lj;w
Luku] izfl) efUnj jke tUe Hkwfe] guqeku x<+h o dud Hkou vkfn dk
n'kZu djrs Fks] eSa Hkh muds lkFk mijksDr efUnjksa esa Hkxoku dk n'kZu
djus tkrk FkkA**
“5. On my coming of age whenever my parents came to
Ayodhya they stayed at their Guru Gharana temple at Bada
Sthan, Ramkot in Ayodhya and from there they proceeded
to have a bath in Saryu and to have darshan of the famous
Ram Janam Bhumi temple, Hanumangarhi, Kanak
Bhawan, etc.. I also went along with them to have darshan
of 'Bhagwan' at the aforesaid temples.” (E.T.C.)
**6- eSa efUnj jke tUe Hkwfe vius 11 ;k 12 lky dh mez ls cjkcj
tkrk jgk gwWaA**
“6. I have consistently been going to the Ram Janam
Bhumi temple since I was of 11 or 12 years of age.”
(E.T.C.)
**7- eSa tc igyh ckj vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk efUnj Jhjke
tUeHkwfe Hkxoku dk n'kZu djus x;k rks esjs firk th us crk;k fd ;g
izfl) efUnj tUe Hkwfe gS tgka Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku gSa mDr tUe
Hkwfe ifjlj nks Hkkxksa esa Fkk ;kfu lhadps ds if'pe rhu f'k[kj ds uhps
Hkhrjh Hkkx] tgka chp ds f'k[kj ds uhps Hkxoku jkeyyk o y[kuyky
dh ewfrZ cky :i esa fojkteku Fkh o guqeku th Hkh cxy esa fojkteku
Fks rFkk 4&5 lkfyxjke Hkxoku Hkh Fks] Hkxoku jkeyyk o y[kuyky o
lkfyxjke pkanh ds flagklu esa Fks ml flagklu ds ckgj guqeku th
fojkteku FksA**
“7. When I, for the first time, went along with my parents
to have darshan of the presiding deity at Sri Ram Janam
 467

Bhumi temple, my father told me that this famous temple is

'Janam Bhumi' (birthplace) where Lord Ram Lala is
seated. The said Janam Bhumi premises was divided into
two parts, that is to say, towards the west of the bar and
beneath the three towers lay the inside part, where beneath
the central tower lay the idols of Ram Lala and Lakhan Lal
in their baby forms and Hanumanji was also seated next to
them and there were also 4-5 idols of Lord Saaligram.
Lord Ram Lala, Lakhan Lal and Saaligram were seated on
a silver throne and Hanumanji was seated outside that
throne.” (E.T.C.)
**8- mDr Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu vUnj tkdj eSaus vius
ekrk&firk ds lkFk fd;k vkSj esjs firk th us crk;k ;g jke yyk
Hkxoku gSa ;g y[kuyky gSa vkSj ;g guqeku th gSaA Hkxoku jkeyyk o
y[kuyky v"V/kkrq ds gSa] vkSj guqeku th ik"kk.k ds gSaA**
“8. On going inside I had darshan of the said Lord Ram
Lala accompanied with my parents and my father told me
that it is Ram Lala; it is Lakhan Lal and it is Hanumanji.
Idols of Lord Ram Lala and Lakhan Lal are made of
'ashtadhatu' and that of Hanumanji is made of stone.”
(E.T.C.)
**10- igyh ckj tc eSa firkth ekrk ds lkFk x;k Fkk rks ckgjh Hkkx
tUeHkwfe efUnj esa jke pcwrjk efUnj o jke pcwrjk efUnj ds iwoZ o
nf{k.k dksus ij ckgjh nhoky ds vUnj ihiy isM+ ds fups f'ko ifjokj
jgk gS rFkk HkUMkj xzg o NV~Bh iwtk LFky ftlesa pkj&pj.k&fpUg pkjksa
HkkbZ;ksa o pwYgk] csyu] pdyk laxejej dk Fkk tks dkSf'kY;k jlksbZ ds
uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA**
“10. When I for the first time went there accompanied
with my parents, we saw Ram Chabutra temple in the
exterior part of the Ram Janam Bhumi temple and on the
east-southern corner of the Ram Chabutra temple there lay
 468

the Shiva family beneath the fig-tree inside the exterior

wall and there were store house and the Chhathi worship
place with four foot-marks of the four brothers and with
hearth, rolling-pin and 'chakla' made of marble which are
known as Kaushalya Rasoi.” (E.T.C.)
**15- eS tc ls Jh jke tUe Hkwfe efUnj n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwWa lnSo
eSaus ogka reke n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks n'kZu djrs] ijlkn nzO; Qwy vkfn p<+krs
o vkjrh pj.kke`r ysrs ns[kk gSA**
“15. Since the time I have been going to have darshan of
Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple I have always seen several
devotees having darshan, offering 'prasad', 'dravya'
(materials), flowers, etc., performing 'aarti' and taking
'charnamrit'.” (E.T.C.)
**16- ;g fd 1940 bZ0 esa jke uoeh ds igys ef.kjke nkl dh Nkouh
esa Lokeh jkelqUnj nkl dk f'k"; cuk vkSj rcls v;ks/;k esa gh jgrk
gqvk cSjkxh lEiznk; ds lk/kw ds lHkh jhfr fjokt dk ikyu dj v;ks/;k
&okl djrk pyk vk jgk gwaA ftlesa lj;w Luku] Jhjke tUeHkwfe]
guqeku th o dud Hkou o ckfYehfd vkJe] NksVh Nkouh] HkDreky
vkfn efUnjksa esa fojkteku Hkxoku dk n'kZu vkfn 'kkfey gSA**
“16. That I became a disciple of Saint Ram Sundar Das at
the camp of Mani Ram Das before Ram Navami in 1948
and since then I have been staying at Ayodhya, adhering to
all rites and customs ordained for saints of the Bairagi sect
which include taking a dip in Saryu and having darshan
etc. of presiding deities at temples called Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi, Hanumanji, Kanak Bhawan, Valmiki Ashram,
Chhoti Chhavani, Bhaktmal, etc..” (E.T.C.)
**17- ;g fd 1948 bZ0 ;kfu f'k"; cuus ds ckn eSa vius xq: egkjkt
Lokeh jke lqUnj nkl ds lkFk ef.kjke nkl Nkouh esa jgrk jgk ckn esa
lu~ 1962 esa esjs xq: egkjkt us eksgYyk&J`axkj gkV esa Hkou dksVZ
uhyke esa ysdj Bkdqj jke&tkudh dh LFkkiuk dj rqylh ekul efUnj
 469

uke j[kk vkSj Lo;a egUFk o ljcjkgdkj jgsA mDr efUnj J`axkj gkV esa
fLFkr gS tks eq[; v;ks/;k ds cktkj esa Fkh] eSa ogka ls cjkcj Jhjke tUe
Hkwfe n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwaA o"kZ 1969 ls eSa mDr rqylh ekul efUnj
dk egUFk o ljcjkgdkj gwaA**
“17. That after 1948, that is, after becoming disciple I
kept staying at the Mani Ram Das Chhavani alongwith my
spiritual teacher Maharaj Swami Ram Sundar Das. Later
on, in 1962, my spiritual teacher, after receiving
building/court through auction, established Thakur Ram
Janaki at Mohalla Sringarhaat and named it Tulsi Manas
Mandir and he himself remained its Mahanta and
Sarvarahakar. The said temple is located at Sringarhaat,
which was in the market of Ayodhya. From there I have
consistently been going to have darshan of Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi. I have been Mahanta and Sarvarahakar of the said
Tulsi Manas temple.” (E.T.C.)
**18- ;g fd tc ls eSa] gks'k lEHkkyus ls firk th ds lkFk Jhjke tUe
Hkwfe n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwa rc rc ges'kk eSaus Hkhrj Hkkx o ckgjh Hkkx
jke pcwrjk] efUnj NV~Bh iwtk LFky ns[kk gS tgkWa iqtkjh vkjrh djrs Fks
o n'kZukFkhZ;ksa ls ijlkn o Qwy vkfn ysrs vkSj mUgsa ijlkn o pj.kke`r
nsrs FksA esjs iwNus ij firk th us crk;k fd ;g iqtkjh o lk/kw fueksZgh
v[kkM+k ds gSaA f'k"; cuus ds ckn ls eq>s vPNh rjg ekywe gS fd eafnj
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh ckgjh Hkkx ,oa xHkZ x`g Hkhrjh Hkkx dh O;oLFkk o
ns[kHkky o Hkxoku jke yyk dh lsok iwtk vkfn fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds
iqtkjh o lk/kw djrs jgs gSaA**
“18. Since the time I have come of age I have been going
along with my father to have darshan of Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi. Whenever I had been visiting its inside and outside
portions, the Ram Chabutra temple and the Chhathi
worship-place where priests performed 'aarti' and took
'prasad', flowers, etc. from devotees and gave them 'prasad'
 470

and 'charnamrit'. On being queried by me my father told

me that those priests and saints belonged to the Nirmohi
Akhara. Since the time I became disciple I am well
acquainted that priests and saints of Nirmohi Akhara have
been managing and looking after the exterior part of Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi temple and its interior part, that is,
sanctum sanctorum and have also been engaging
themselves in the service, worship etc. of Lord Ram Lala.”
(E.T.C.)
**19- ;g fd o"kZ 1948 esa fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds xksydh jke y[ku nkl
th Fks ftuls esjk ifjp; 1948 esa lk/kw cuus ds ckn ogha tUe Hkwfe ij
gqvkA mDr jke y[ku nkl xksydh tc dHkh esjs n'kZu djus tkus ds
njfe;ku feys] rks eq>s ekSfyJh isM ds uhps HkUMkj x`g] lUr fuokl ds
lkeus cSBk dj pk; vo'; fiykrs Fks ogka tUe Hkwfe o v[kkM+s ds ckjs esa
crkrs FksA ml le; egUFk j?kqukFk nkl Fks o xksydh th ls gh eSaus
iqtkjh cynso nkl dks tkuk igpkukA ml le; v[kkM+s ds vkSj Hkh lk/kw
Fks ftuesa ls egUFk Hkk"dj nkl tks vkt dy fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds ljiUp
o ukdk guqekux<+h ds egUFk gSa] dks ml le; Hkh efUnj jke pcwrjk o
Hkhrjh esa ek= ns[kk Fkk 1948 ls gh eSa bUgsa tku x;k Fkk fd ;g iqtkjh
cynso nkl ds f'k"; gSa dqdhZ gksus ds igys ;kfu ekg fnlEcj 1949 ds
igys rd Hkhrjh Hkkx xHkZx`g esa iwtk ikB fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkjh djrs
Fks dqdhZ ds ckn fjlhoj dk iqtkjh gks x;kA dqdhZ ckn ckgjh Hkkx ;kfu
jke&pcwrjk efUnj o NV~Bh iwtk LFky vkfn ij iqtkjh ds :i esa egUFk
Hkk"dj nkl dks 20lksa lky ns[kk muds ckn fl;k jk?ko 'kj.k iqtkjh gq,
vkSj mUgha ds iqtkjh dky esa 1982 Qjojh esa /keZnkl ds fookn esa ckgjh
Hkkx dqdZ gks x;k o Hkhrj okys Hkkx ds fjlhoj gh ckgj okys Hkkx ds Hkh
gks x,A**
“19. That in 1948, there was one named Golki Ram
Lakhan of the Nirmohi Akhara with whom I got acquainted
at that very Janam Bhumi after becoming a saint in 1948.
Whenever the said Ram Lakhan Golki met me while having
 471

darshan, he certainly seated me beneath the 'Maulishri

Tree' in front of the store house and Saint Niwas and got
tea served to me and told me about the Janam Bhumi and
the Akhara. At that time Raghunath Das was Mahanta and
I got acquainted with priest Baldev Das only through
Golkiji. At that time the Akhara had some more seers
including Mahanta Bhaskar Das who is presently
'sarpanch' of the Nirmohi Akhara and Mahanta of Naka
Hanumangarhi. I had seen him at the Ram Chabutra
temple and in the interior part even at that time. Since
1948, I had came to identify him as the disciple of priest
Baldev Das. The priests of the Nirmohi Akhara performed
'pooja-path' in the inner part, that is, sanctum sanctorum
before the attachment, that is, the month of December in
1949. After the attachment there came to be a priest on
behalf of the Receiver. After the attachment Mahanta
Bhaskar Das had been seen performing as a priest in the
exterior part, that is, at the Ram Chabutra temple and the
Chhathi worship place etc. for 20 years. After that Siya
Raghav Saran came on to be the priest and while his being
the priest, the exterior part came to be attached in
February 1982, due to a dispute involving Dharm Das and
the receiver of the interior part came to be that of the
exterior part also.” (E.T.C.)
**23- ;g fd tc ls eSa ns[k jgk gwWa fookfnr ifjlj ;kfu ckgjh o
Hkhrjh Hkkx esa dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kkA**
“23. That since the time I have been observing things I
never saw any Muslim offer namaz in the disputed
premises, that is, in its exterior and interior parts.”
(E.T.C.)
**24- ;g fd ifjlj ds ckgj _f"k;ksa dh lekf/k;ka FkhA**
 472

“24. That there were tombs of seers outside the

premises.” (E.T.C.)
**25- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj ds lkeus iwoZ rjQ fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds
lk/kw NksVs&NksVs efUnj cuk jgrs Fks lhrk dwi efUnj] jkeyyk efUnj
vkfn fVu 'ksM esa FksA iwoZ o nf{k.k dksus ij eq[; xsV ls 200 ;k 250
fQV ds Qlys ij lhrk dwi ifo= dqavk gS ftldh /kkfeZd vkLFkk dh
ekU;rk jgh gSA**
“25. That towards the east of and opposite to the disputed
premises, seers of the Nirmohi Akhara had small temples
constructed. The Sitakoop temple, the Ram Lala temple etc.
were under a tin shed. On the east-southern corner and at
the distance of 200 or 250 feet from the main gate there
was a holy well called Sitakoop, which has been a seat of
religious reverence.” (E.T.C.)
**26- ;g fd o"kZ 1949 Qjojh ds igys ls gh tUe Hkwfe efUnj ds
ckgj eSnku o dFkk eUMi esa cjkcj jkek;.k ikB] /kkfeZd izopu gksrk Fkk
vkSj cjkcj HkkhM+ /kkfeZd izopu lquus vkrh FkhA**
“26. That even before February 1949, there used to be
Ramayana path (recitation of the Ramayana) and religious
sermons in the field outside the Janam Bhumi temple and at
the Katha Mandap, and people used to flow in to listen to
religious sermons.” (E.T.C.)
**28- ;g fd o"kZ 1935 ;kfu tc ls eSaus gks'k lEHkkyk vkSj fookfnr
ifjlj esa n'kZu djus tkus yxk rc ls cjkcj bUrtke o dCtk fueksZgh
v[kkM+ksa okyksa dk ns[kk] fueksZgh v[kkM+k ,d iapk;rh eB gS vkSj /kkfeZd
laLFkk o U;kl gS eq>s&f'k"; cuus ds ckn /khjs&/khjs mDr v[kkM+s o
fuokZ.kh&v[kkM+k ftlds vUrxZr guqekux<+h gS] ds jhfr fjokt ds ckjs esa
tkudkjh gq;hA**
“28. That since 1935, that is, since the time I began to
understand things and started going to the disputed
premises to have darshan, I have consistently seen it in the
 473

management and possession of the Nirmohi Akhara men.

The Nirmohi Akhara is a monastery modelled on a
panchayat system and it is also a religious institution and
trust. On becoming disciple I gradually came to be
acquainted with rites and customs of the said Akhara and
the Nirvani Akhara, which includes Hanumangarhi.”
(E.T.C.)
**28 ,- ;g fd eSa 'kkL=h ijh{kk ikl gwWa vkSj laLd`r dk Kku gSA ckYehfd
jkek;.k] v/;kRe jkek;.k] Hkkxor fo".kq iqjk.k vkfn i<+k gSA oSfnd
lkfgR; ds vk/kkj ij eSa jke dks ijczEg ijes'oj vkfn Js"B ekurk gwWaA**
“28 A. That I am a Shastri pass and have knowledge of
Sanskrit. I have read Valmiki Ramayana, Adhyatma
Ramayana, Bhagwat Vishnu Purana, etc.. On the basis of
the Vedic literature I regard Rama as the Supreme
Soul/Supreme Being etc” (E.T.C.).
**29- ;g fd Hkxoku jke egk fo".kq ds vorkj gSa vkSj Hkxoku jke blh
fookfnr ifjlj esa xHkZ x`g esa izdV gq, gSa blfy, ;g jke tUeHkwfe
dgykrk gSA**
“29. That Lord Rama was an embodiment of Maha-Vishnu
and Lord Rama appeared in the sanctum sanctorum in this
very disputed premises. Hence, it is called Ram Janam
Bhumi.” (E.T.C.)
**30- ;g fd cSjkxh lEiznk; ls esjk rkRi;Z vkSj lUnHkZ esjs c;ku esa Jh
jkekuUnh; Jh oS".ko cSjkxh ls gS ftldk eSa Hkh lk/kw gwaA**
“30. That by the Bairagi sect I mean and refer to Sri
Ramanandiya Sri Vaishnav Bairagi sect, which finds
mention in my statement and of which I am also a saint.”
(E.T.C.)
**31- ;g fd ckYehfd jkek;.k esa cky dkUM lxZ&5 v;ks/;k fuekZ.k
euq }kjk o lxZ 15 'yksd 27 ls 34 rd esa Hkxoku fo".kq }kjk tUe Hkwfe
dk rFkk vorkj ysdj 11000 o"kksZ rd jgus dk vk'oklu nsuk ik;k
 474

tkrk gSA**
“31. That in the fifth 'sarga' of Valmiki Ramayana's
Baalkand we come across description of settling Ayodhya
by Manu and in stanzas 27 to 34 of its 15th 'sarga' we find
Lord Vishnu speaking of Janam Bhumi and giving an
assurance to incarnate himself and to live for 11000 year.”
(E.T.C.)
**32- ;g fd v/;kRed jkek;.k ds vuqlkj iw.kZ czEg ijes'oj jke gS
Jh czEgk fo".kq Hkxoku] 'kadj Hkxoku Jhjke ds va'k gSa ;gh gekjs
lEiznk; ds izoZrd Lokeh jkekuUn dk izfrikfnr fl)kUr gSA**
“32. That as per Adhyatma Ramayana, Rama is the
Supreme Being and Sri Brahma, Lord Vishnu and Lord
Shankara are partial incarnation of Sri Rama. This is the
principal laid down by Swami Ramananda, proponent of
our sect.” (E.T.C.)
**33- ;g fd bu iqLrdksa dk QksVks LVsV dqN fooj.k lwph 1 ls 8 rd
dk nkf[ky dj jgk gwa tks esjs Kku dk izek.k gS ftls eSa lgh ekurk
gwWaA**
“33. That I am filing photostat copies of some details from
these books vide lists 1 to 8 which are a proof of my
knowledge and which I take to be true.” (E.T.C.)
**34- ;g fd ,sls esa czEg Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUe Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k
fookfnr iwjk ifjlj iwT; gSA**
“34. That such being the position and due to its being the
birthplace of the Supreme Being Lord Rama, the whole of
the disputed premises is revered.” (E.T.C.)
378. DW 3/8, Pt. Shyam Sundar Mishra, aged about 90 years
(vide his affidavit dated 30.01.2004). He was cross examined in
the following manner:
(a) 12.02.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) and Suit-5 through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
 475

Advocate (p. 9-11)

(b) 12.02.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 12-
20)
(c) 12/13.02.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 20-30)
(d) 13/16/17.02.2004, 05/06.04.2004- by Sunni Central
Board of Waqf, defendant no. 9 through Sri Zafaryab
Jilani, Advocate (p. 30-85)
(e) 06/07.04.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 85-112)
(f) 08.04.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk,
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 114-125)
(g) 08.04.2004- defendant no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3) through
Sri Nadeem Siddiqui, Advocate, Brief Holder, Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 9 (Suit-4), Mahmood
Ahmad, through Sri Shakilurrhman Siddiqui, Advocate
adopted the cross examination already done by Sri Abdul
Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 125)
379. He is residing at Ayodhya since seven generations. His
residence is less than 400 yards from the Ramjanambhumi
Temple. He has studied up to middle school and by profession is
Purohit. Since the age of 14 he has been visiting
Ramjanambhumi Temple and thereat attending Nirmohi Akhara,
practicing wrestling etc. The Akhara run by Mahant Ram
Charan Das who was proficient in wrestling, horse riding, and
military exercises. About the existence of idol inside the
 476

courtyard, management and ownership of Nirmohi Akhara prior

to December, 1949, and 1934 riot, he has made statement in
paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19 of the affidavit
as under:
^^5- v;ks/;k ds iapdkslh ifjdzek ekxZ ds ikl ekStk 'kkgtgkaiqj dk
naxk tks cdjhn naxs ds uke ls e'kgwj gS o"kZ 1934 esa ?kfVr gqvk ml
le; esjh mez yxHkx 18&19 o"kZ FkhA eSa iwjk uo;qod FkkA mlds
nks&rhu lky igys ls gh eSa iqjksfgrh iafMrkbZ dk dke djus yxk Fkk]
bl flyflys esa v;ks/;k ds izfl) eafnjksa esa vkuk&tkuk esjk cjkcj
jgrk Fkk vkSj bl le; eSa eafnj dud Hkou dk iqjksfgr [kkunkuh gwWaA**
**5- The riot of the year 1934, which is known as the
Bakrid riot, broke out in village Shahjahanpur near the
Panchkosi (distance of five kose, one kose being equal to
two miles) circumambulation path in Ayodhya. At that time,
I was aged about 18-19 years. I was a young man. I had
entered into priest-ship about 2-3 years earlier to that. I
used to visit the famous temples of Ayodhya in this
connection and at present I am the family priest of the
Kanak Bhawan temple.” (E.T.C.)
**6- /kkfeZd czkg~e.k ifjokj gksus ds dkj.k eSa jketUeHkwfe eafnj dk
n'kZu jkst djus tkrk FkkA Jh jke tUeHkwfe eafnj ds lkeus lhrkdwi ds
ikl v[kkM+s esa dq'rh lh[kus o yM+us eSa lu~ 1936 rd x;k gwWa A bl
v[kkMk esa eSa lqcg ikap cts fu;fer :i ls tkrk jgk gwWa A ;g v[kkMk
tUe Hkwfe ds xsV ls lhrk dwi dqa, ds ikl yxHkx ,d ?kaVk rd jgrk
FkkA mlds ckn n'kZu djrs Fks vkSj ?kj pyk tkrk FkkA tgka v[kkMk gS
ogka ls efUnj tUeHkwfe dk iwohZ xsV fn[kkbZ iM+rk gS vkSj vxj efUnj
tUeHkwfe ls dksbZ rst vkokt ls cksysxk rks v[kkM+s esa [kM+s O;fDr dks
lqukbZ iM+sxkA tc eSa lqcg lu~ 1936 rd dq'rh yM+us tkrk Fkk rks blh
njE;ku lwjt dh fdj.k QwVrh Fkh dksbZ vtku fookfnr ifjlj ls dHkh
ugha lquh u m/kj fdlh eqlyeku dks tkrs gq, ns[kk vkSj u fdlh dks
uekt i<+rs ns[kkA**
 477

**6- On account of belonging to a religious Brahman

family, I daily went to the Ramjanmbhumi temple to have
‘Darshan’ (offering prayer by sight). I had been to the
arena near Sita Koop opposite Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple,
till the year 1936 to practice wrestling. I regularly went to
this arena at 5 AM. This arena existed for about an hour
between the Janmbhumi gate and the Sita Koop well. After
this, I used to have ‘Darshan’ and then returned home. The
eastern gate of the Janmbhumi temple is visible from the
arena and if somebody speaks in high pitch at the
Janmbhumi temple, the same would be heard by a person
standing in the arena. When I went to practice wrestling in
the morning till the year 1936, the sun used to dawn in the
said period but I never heard any Ajaan from the disputed
premises nor saw any Muslim either go in that direction or
offer Namaz.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- lu~ 1936 esa v[kkM+k tkuk tc NksM+k rks eSa tUeHkwfe lk;adky esa
tkrk Fkk D;ksafd lqcg ds le; lj;w Luku o iqjksfgr dk dk;Z djuk
iM+rk FkkA lu~ 1934 ds xkS&dlh naxk ekStk 'kkgtgkWaiqj tkyik ukyk ls
'kq: gqvk Fkk vkSj ftlds pisV esa dft;kuk] Vs<+h cktkj] nqjkgh dqvka]
lqrgVh] dksBh ?kkV o dVjk vkfn eqgYys FksA tgka eqlyeku dkQh ekjs
x;s vkSj dqN dcjsa rksM+h x;h Fkhaa A ml le; Hkh v;ks/;k esa cgqr de
gh eqlyeku ds ?kj Fks vkSj bl okd;s ls eqlyeku dkQh ng'kr esa Fks
vkSj eafnj ls jketUeHkwfe dh lM+d rjQ rks tkuk gh NksM fn;s FksA
lu~ 1934 es a fcz f V'k ljdkj us VS D l flQZ fgUnq v k sa ij gh
yxk;k Fkk tk s nax k dPp s iDds ?kj ds fygkt ls yxk;k
x;k FkkA^^
**7- In the year 1936, when I stopped going to the arena, I
started going to the Janmbhumi in the evening because in
morning I had to take holy dip in the Saryu and discharge
duties of priest. The cow slaughter riot of the year 1934,
 478

broke out in village Shahjahanpur Jalpa Nala and it

extended over Quaziyana, Tedhi Bazar, Durahi Kuan,
Suthati, Kothi Ghat, Katra and other localities, where
number of Muslims were killed and some graves were
destroyed. At that time also, there were very few houses of
Muslims in Ayodhya and they were under much terror due
to this incident and almost stopped going towards the road
of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple. In the year 1934, the
British Government imposed tax only over Hindus as per
the brick made or earth made houses.” (E.T.C.)
**8- lu~ 1934 ds nax s es a eqlyekuksa ds ?kj rksM+s x;s] dczsa rksM+h
x;h y sf du fookfnr ifjlj dk dk sb Z Hkh Hkkx ugh a rk sM +k
x;k Fkk dsoy FkksM+h cgqr nhokys {kfrxzLr gks x;h FkhaA**
**8- The houses of Muslims and graves were destroyed in
the riot of year 1934, but no part of the disputed
structure was destroyed and only the walls were damaged
a bit.” (E.T.C.)
**9- eSa tc n'kZu djus lu~ 1936 ds ckn tkus yxk rks esjs dqN
tteku jke j{kk L+=ksr ikB djus ds fy, vuq"Bku nsrs Fks tks ikB eSa
jketUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkdj vDlj fd;k djrk Fkk ftlesa yxHkx
nks ?kaVs yx tk;k djrs Fks ;g ikB eSa vius le;kuqdwy lqcg lk;adky
dks djrk FkkA**
**9- After the year 1936 when I started going to have
‘Darshan’, few of my ‘Jajman’ (client) gave me the
assignment of reciting ‘Ram Raksha Stotra’ and the said
recitation was mostly carried out by me at the
Ramjanmbhumi premises and used to consume about two
hours. I used to do the said recitation as per my
convenience in morning or evening.” (E.T.C.)
**10- tcls eSa jketUeHkwfe ifjlj esa n'kZu o ikB djus tk jgk gwWa rHkh
ls eSusa fdlh Hkh eqlyeku dks fookfnrj ifjlj ;kuh ckgjh o Hkhrjh
 479

Hkkx esa uekt i<+rs ;k vtku nsrs u ns[kk u lqukA**

*10- Since I have been going to the Ramjanmbhumi
premises in connection with ‘Darshan’ and recitation, I
have neither seen nor heard about any Muslim either
offering Namaz or Ajaan in the inner and outer part of the
disputed premises.” (E.T.C.)
**11- Hkhrjh Hkkx ds ekus eSa le>rk gwWa tks rhuksa f'k[kj ds uhps xHkZx`g
vkSj mlds lkeus [kqyk lsgu tks lhdpsa dh nhokj ls f?kjk gS vkSj lu~
1949 esa dqdZ gqvk] 1949 esa tks dqdZ gqvk gS mldh pkSgn~nh o uki eSa
crk ldrk gwWaA
xHkZx`g dk Hkkx yxHkx 35&36 QhV pkSM+k 95&96 QhV yEck
gksxk vkSj lh[kps okyh lsagu 25&26 fQV pkSM+h vkSj 95&96 QhV yEch
gSA dqdZ'kqnk Hkkx dk dqy Hkkx iwoZ&if'pe yxHkx 60&62 QhV mRrj
ls nf{k.k yxHkx 95&96 QhV gSA**
*11- By inner part, I mean the ‘Garbh-grih under the
three domes and the open courtyard in front of it, covered
by grill wall and which had been attached in the year 1949.
I can give the boundary and dimensions of the area
attached in the year 1949.
The ‘Garbh-grih’ was about 35-36 feet long and the
grill bound courtyard was about 25-26 feet wide and 95-96
feet long. The east-west side of the attached portion was
about 60-62 feet in north to 95-96 feet in south.” (E.T.C.)
**12- fnlEcj] 1949 dh dqdhZ ds ckn fjlhoj ckcw fiz;knRr jke
¼ps;jeSu½ gq,A dqdhZ gksrs gh lhadps okyh yksgs ds nks njoktk esa
iqfyl }kjk rkyk cUn gqvk Fkk ysfdu ckn esa n'kZu lhdps ls ckgj ls
gksrk Fkk vkSj eSa n'kZu djrk Fkk vkSj n'kZukFkhZ ,sls gh n'kZu djrs Fks ml
nkSjku eq>s dqdZ'kqnk lEifRr dh pkSgn~nh ekywe gks x;h tks ekSds ij
cjkcj tkus ds dkj.k iqfyl o fjlhoj ds iqtkjh ls tkuk o ns[kh FkhA
dqdZ'kqnk tehu dh pkSgn~nh
iwjc% ckgjh gkrk] ftlesa jketUeHkwfe pcwrjk o HkUMkj x`g] lar fuokl
 480

vkfn o dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk

if'pe% Ifjdzek ckngw <kbZ QhV dh eqjsM+h
mRrj% NBh iwtu] pju&fpUg] tsjs bartke fueksZgh v[kkMk]
nf{k.k% nf{k.k&if'pe 8&10 QhV gkrk cdCtk fueksZgh v[kkM+k ftlds
mRrj iwjc jkepcwrjk eafnj o f'ko ifjokj gS rFkk if'pe rjQ tkfuc
tehu ckgjh Hkkx ckgj ds rhu rjQ ls nhoky ls f?kjk gS tks nhoky
8&9 QhV ÅWph gS vkSj yxHkx Ms<+ QhV pkSMh gS blh nhoky esa iwohZ xsV
gSA bl nhoky ds vfrfjDr mRrjh nhoky esa xsV gS iwohZ xsV vkSj mRrjh
xsV ds vykok ckgjh Hkkx ;k Hkhrjh Hkkx esa vkus tkus dk vkSj dksbZ
jkLrk ugha gSA ckgjh Hkkx esa jke eafnj pcwrjk ftl ij flagklu ydM+h
dk flagklu gS vkSj jkeyyk th fojkteku gSaA pcwrjk lk<+s rhu fQV
Åapk gS yxHkx 20&22 fQV yEck gS vkSj 16&17 QhV pkSM+k gSA pcwrjs
esa nks xqQk eafnj gSA ,d esa dkS'kY;k th dkx&HkqlqUMh th gS vkSj nwljs
esa Hkjr th gSaA
**12- After the attachment of December, 1949, Mr.
Priyadutt Ram (Chairman) was appointed Receiver. After
the attachment, the two iron rod gates were locked by the
police but the ‘Darshan’ continued from outside the grill
and I as well as the devotees used to have ‘Darshan’ in this
manner. In that period of my regular visits to that place, I
came to know the boundary of the attached property, which
I had gathered from the police and priest of the Receiver.
Boundary of the attached land
East: outer courtyard, including Ramjanmbhumi
chabutara, store room, saints’ accommodation etc.,
possession of Nirmohi Akhara.
West: 2 ½ feet ‘Muredi’ beyond the circumambulation path
North: Chhathi worship, foot marks, under management of
Nirmohi Akhara,
South: 8-10 feet courtyard in south-west in possession of
Nirmohi Akhara to the north-east of which was the
 481

Ramchabutara temple and Lord Shiva family and land

towards west. The outer part is bounded by walls on three
sides. The wall is about 8-9 feet high and about 1 ½ feet
wide. The eastern gate is in this very wall. Apart from this
wall, there is a gate in the northern wall. There is no other
passage other than the eastern and northern gate to visit
either the outer or inner part. The Ramchabutara is there
in the outer part, where there is a wooden throne with
Ramlala present. The Chabutara is 3 ½ feet high and about
20-22 feet long and 16-17 feet wide. There are two cave
temples at the Chabutara. Kaushalya ji and Kaag-
Bhusundi exist in one and Bharat ji in the other.” (E.T.C.)
**14- mDr Hkhrjh Hkkx o ckgjh Hkkx esa iqtkjh] eSaus vius gks'k ls
fueksZgh v[kkMk ds ds'ko nkl cynso nkl o Hkk"dj nkl vkfn tks
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds rjQ ls iwtkjh Fks] ns[kk gSA dqdhZ ds igys cynso
nkl th o muds psyk Hkk"dj nkl Fks vkSj Hkh v[kkM+s ds lk/kq Hk.Mkj
x`g lar fuokl esa jgrs o dqN v[kkM+s ds lk/kq] fookfnr ifjlj ds iwohZ
xsV ij lhrkdwi rd NksVs eafnj cuk jgrs FksA**
**14- Since attainment of maturity, I have seen Nirmohi
Akhara’s Keshav Das, Baldev Das, Bhaskar Das etc. act as
priest on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara in the said inner and
outer part. Prior to the attachment, it was Baldev Das and
his disciple Bhaskar Das. Other saints of the Akhara used
to live in the store room and saints’ accommodation and
few saints used to build small temples from the eastern gate
of the disputed premises to Sita Koop and lived therein.”
(E.T.C.)
**17- Hkxoku jke yyk o y[ku yky dh ewfrZ e; lkfydjke Hkxoku
pkanh ds flagklu esa jgh gSA**
**17- The idols of Lord Ramlala and Lakhanlal along with
that of Lord Salikram, existed over the silver throne.”
 482

(E.T.C.)
*18- ;g fd mDr Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZ u dqdhZ 1949
fnlEcj ds igy s van j tk dj djrk jgk vkS j ckn dq d hZ
lh ad p s oky s njoktk ds ckgj ls djrk jgk gwW a rFkk fnlEcj
1992 ckn Hkh rEcw esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djrk jgk tks
ljdkjh fu;a=.k o ns[kjs[k esa gksrk gSA**
**18- That prior to the attachment of December, 1949 I
used to have ‘Darshan’ of Lord Ramlala from inside
and thereafter from outside the grill gate and even after
December, 1992 I continued to have ‘Darshan’ of Lord
Ramlala present in the tent, under Government control and
supervision.” (E.T.C.)
**19- fueksZgh v[kkMk ds xksydh jke y[ku nkl dqdhZ ds igys ls ns[kk
vkSj ckn esa Hkh jketUeHkwfe ckgjh Hkkx dh O;oLFkk djus jke?kkV efUnj
fueksZgh v[kkMk ls jkst tkrs FksA**
**19- I had seen Nirmohi Akhara’s Golki Ramlakhan Das
prior to the attachment and even subsequently when he
daily went to manage the outer part of the Ramjanmbhumi
from Ramghat temple Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
380. Averments in paras 20 and 21 are about the constitution
of Nirmohi Akhara which shall be dealt with later on. In para 22
he said that the inside part of the disputed premises was never
used as a mosque.
381. DW 3/9, Ram Asrey Yadav, aged about 72 years (as per
his affidavit dated 22.03.2004), is resident of Mohalla Vashistha
Kund Ayodhya, District Faizabad for several generations. His
residence is about 300 yards from the disputed site. He was
cross examined in the following manner :
(a) 22.03.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 5-
 483

8)
(b) 22.11.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p.
9-13)
(c) 22.11.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 13-16)
(d) 22.11.2004- defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Ahnihotri, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi and
Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocates (p. 16)
(e) 22.11.2004- by defendant no. 11 Mohd. Faruk through
Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 16-24)
(f) 23/24.11.2004- by Sunni Central Board of Waqf,
defendant no. 9 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
24-48)
(g) 24.11.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri Mustaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 48-60)
(h) 25.11.2004- defendant no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3) and
defendant no. 26 (Suit-05) through Sri Nadeem Siddiqui,
Advocate, Brief Holder, Sri Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and
Sri Fazale Alam, Advocates adopted the cross
examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 60-61)
382. He is a witness of facts, sought to prove the worship of
Lord Ram at the disputed site (inside the courtyard) prior to
1949. In paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of the
affidavit, he said as under:
^^2- 10&11 lky dh mez esa eSaus gks'k lEHkkykA esjs firk th FksA firk
th ds lkFk eSa tUeHkwfe n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA FkksM+k vkSj cM+k gksus
 484

12&13 lky dh mez gks tkus ij eSa fuR; vius vkSj fe=ksa ds lkFk o
vdsys Hkh eSa tUeHkwfe n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwWaA enu eksgu xksdqy Hkou
okys] /kuir ;kno] ';ke yky ekS;kZ vkfn ds lkFk Hkh tkrk jgk gwaA
blesa enu eksgu thfor gSa ';ke yky Hkh thfor gSa vkSj lc ej pqds gSa
enu eksgu thfor gSa tks lhrkiqj foloka ds ewy fuoklh gSa rFkk xksdqy
Hkou ds egUFk jke eaxy nkl ds HkkUts gSaA xksdqy Hkou esa cjkcj vkrs
tkrs o jgrs jgs gSaA**
**2- I attained understanding at the age of 10-11 years.
My father was alive. I used to go to Janmbhumi along with
my father to have darshan. After growing a bit older i.e. at
the age of 12-13 years, I used to daily go to Janmbhumi
along with my other friends or alone, to have darshan. I
also went along with Madan Mohan of Gokul Bhawan,
Dhanpat Yadav, Shyam Lal Maurya and others. Out of
them Madan Mohan is alive, so is Shyam Lal and the
others have all expired. Madan Mohan, who is native of
Sitapur Viswan, is alive. He is the nephew of Mahant Ram
Mangal Das of Gokul Bhawan. He regularly visits Gokul
Bhawan.” (E.T.C.)
^^3- eSa vius ?kj ls dHkh dqcsj Vhys dh rjQ ls ixMUMh jkLrs ls
rFkk dHkh lM+d ls jke tUe Hkwfe eafnj n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA vc xSax
ls tkrk gwaA lk{kh xksiky frjkgs ij nqjkgh dqvka guqeku x<+h lM+d ls
lk{kh xksiky eafnj ds lkeus nf{k.k if'pe dksus dks ,d jkLrk tUeHkwfe
eafnj ds iwohZ xsV rd tkrk FkkA vkSj nwljk ,d jkLrk guqekux<+h&
nqjkgh dqvka lM+d ls nf{k.k lh<+h }kjk Fkk] tks guqeku x<+h dh lM+d
lk{kh xksiky frjkgs ls nqjkgh dqvka pkSjkgs dks lM+d <kyw gksdj uhps
pyh xbZ gS vkSj mlh <ky ij lh<+h [kqyrh FkhA**
**3- I used to go to have darshan of Ramjanmbhumi
temple from my house via Kuber mound, sometimes by lane
and sometimes by road. Now I go in gang. A road towards
the south-west corner opposite Sakshi Gopal temple on the
 485

road from Durahi well Hanumangarhi at Sakshi Gopal tri-

crossing, led to the eastern gate of Janmbhumi temple, and
the other way was from south of Hanumangarhi-Durahi
well road to the steps, which was on a slope from Sakshi
Gopal tri-crossing to Durahi well crossing and the steps
were at that very slope.” (E.T.C.)
^^4- fookfnr ifjlj ds rhu rjQ Åaph nhoky djhc 9&10 fQV
Åaph vkSj if'pe rjQ FkksM+k ifjdzek NksM+ dj ,d iqjkuh eqM+sjh
<kbZ&rhu fQV Åaph nhoky cuh FkhA vkSj ml nhoky ds if'pe iwjk
<yku FkkA**
**4- The disputed premises was bounded on three side by
about 9-10 feet high walls and in the west besides a bit of
circumambulation path, there was a 2 ½ – 3 feet high wall
in form of an old parapet, and to the west of said wall was
the slope.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- fookfnr ifjlj dk eq[; }kj iwjc rjQ Fkk] eq[; }kj ij dksbZ
njoktk ugha Fkk] dlkSVh ds [kEHks vxy cxy FksA }kj ij Fks] }kj ds
ftl dlkSVh [kEHks ij fp= Fks ml fp= dks guqeku th dh ewfrZ dgrs
Fks] ftlesa egkohjh yxk;h tkrh FkhA dqEHk dy'k Qwy iRrh dh fp=dkjh
Fkh vkSj mls dlkSVh [kEHkksa ds mRrjh [kEHkksa ds lkeus ,d flyk iV yxk
gSA ftlesa vad ,d fy[kk gS] vkSj Jh tUe Hkwfe fuR; ;k=k fy[kk gSA
vc Hkh ogha gSa xSUx os ls n'kZu djus ij fn[kkbZ nsrk gSA nsoukxjh esa
rFkk vaxzsth esa tUeHkwfe fy[kk gSA tks esjs cpiu ls cjkcj dk;e pys
vk jgs gSa iwjk ifjlj fookfnr ifjlj dk ckgjh Hkkx tks gkrs ls f?kjk gS]
esa iwjc ds xsV ls ?kqlus ij cka;s jke pcwrjk eafnj Fkk vkSj ml pcwrjs
ds iwjc nf{k.k dksus ij gkrs ds vUnj gh ihiy ds isM+ ds uhps pcwrjs
ij "k"B eqa[kh 'kadj th] x.ks'k th] ikoZrh th] uUns'oj th dh ik"kk.k
foxzg Fkh] 'kadj th dk v/kkZ Fkk vkSj mRrj okys xsV esa njoktk Fkk] tks
njoktk esyk] esyk esa n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dh HkhM+ c<+us ij [kksy fn;k tkrk FkkA
T;knkrj yksx iwohZ okys xsV ls vkrs tkrs Fksa ckgjh Hkkx esa mRrj rjQ
NBh iwtk LFky ftlesa Hkxoku jke ds pkjksa HkkbZ pj.k fpUg pkSdk csyuk
pwYgk Fkk] tks iwT; LFky ekuk tkrk jgk gS ftldh iwtk gksrh FkhA lHkh
 486

mijksDr /kkfeZd LFkyksa dh HkDrx.k iwtk&n'kZu djrs Fks eSa Hkh djrk
FkkA**
**5- The main gate of the disputed premises was in east.
There was no door in the main gate. There were touchstone
pillars on side of the gate. The picture over the touchstone
pillar, was called the idol of Hanuman ji. There was
painting of pot, pitcher, flower, leaf. Opposite the northern
touchstone pillar, was a stone slab with figure 1 and ‘Sri
RamJanmbhumi Nitya Yatra’ engraved over it. It is still
there, and is visible at time of having darshan from gang
way. Janmbhumi has been inscribed in Devnagari and
English, and the same has continued since my childhood.
On entering the outer part of the disputed premises
bounded by courtyard, through the eastern gate, falls the
Ram Chabutara temple and to the south-east corner of said
Chabutara, were the stone deities of six faced Shankar ji,
Ganesh Ji, Parvati Ji, Nandeshwar Ji and Argha of
Shankar Ji below the Pipal tree inside the courtyard. There
was a door in the northern gate, which was opened during
fair, on increase in the number of devotees on the occasion
of fairs. Most of the people used to enter through the
eastern gate. There was Chathi worship place in the outer
part, which had all four brothers of Lord Rama, foot
marks, chauka-belana, stove and the same was considered
to be a revered place. The devotees used to offer prayer-
worship at all the aforesaid religious places and I also
used to do the same.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- ckgjh Hkkx esa fLFkr /kkfeZd LFkyksa dks ckgj o nwj njkt ls vkrs
n'kZukFkhZ nzO;] fe"Bku] iq"i] Qy bR;kfn p<+krs FksA bu lc /kkfeZd
LFkyksa dh iwtk vkjrh djus ds fy, fueksZgh v[kkM+k dh rjQ ls iap
iqtkjh o lk/kw jgrs FksA ftuds jgus dk LFkku iwjc xsV ds nkfgus mRrj
 487

rjQ lUr fuokl cuk Fkk mlh ds lkFk Hkxoku dk izlkn cukus ds fy;s
Hk.Mkj x`g FkkA vkSj ogha izlkn fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kw tks ogka jgrs Fks]
izlkn ikrs jgsA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds eq[; iqtkjh egUr cynso nkl th Fks
muds f'k"; HkkLdj nkl gSa ftUgsa 1946 ls ns[kk FkkA dbZ iqtkjh lg;ksx
nsus ds fy;s vkrs tkrs Fks ftudk uke dqN ;kn gSa tSls jke lqHkx nkl
'kkL=h jgs tks dVjk esa jke egy eafnj ds egUr gSaA bUgsa Hkh dqdhZ ds
igys ogka ns[kk FkkA ml le; fueksZgh v[kkMk ds egUr j?kqukFk nkl th
o xksydh jke y[ku nkl th FksA ;s ckgjh Hkkx fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds dCts
esa lrr :i ls cgqr fnuksa ls pyk vk jgk gSA Hkhrjh Hkkx xHkZx`g
eafnj ;kfu tks rhu f'k[kj cuk gS mlds uhps o chp okys f'k[kj ds
uhps Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku gSaA v"V /kkrq ds vkSj muds lkFk y{e.k
th guqeku th vkSj lkfydjke Hkxoku gSaA Hkhrjh Hkkx 1949 fnlEcj
vkf[kj esa dqdZ gqvk Fkk] tkurk gwaA**
**6- The devotees coming from outside and distant places,
used to offer money, sweets, flowers, fruits etc. at the
religious places situated in the outer part. The Nirmohi
Akhara had its Panch, priest and saints to perform
worship, Arti at all these religious places, and they used to
live in the saints’ accommodation in right north of the
eastern gate. Along with it, was the store room for
preparation of Prasad and the same Prasad was received
by the saints of Nirmohi Akhara, who lived there. Mahant
Baldev Das was the main priest of Nirmohi Akhara and
Bhaskar Das was his disciple, whom I had seen from the
year 1946. Many priests used to come to offer assistance
and I remember the names of few viz. Ram Subhag Das
Shastri, who was the Mahant of Ram Mahal temple at
Katra. I had seen him also over there, prior to the
attachment. At that time, Raghunath Das and Ramlakhan
Das of Nirmohi Akhara were the Mahant and Golki
respectively. This outer part has continuously been in
 488

possession of Nirmohi Akhara for long. Lord Ramlala of

Ashtadhatu (of eight metals)is present under the central
dome of the three dome structure i.e. the Garbh-grih
temple in the inner part. Along with Him, are Laxman Ji,
Hanuman Ji and Salik Ram. I know that the inner part was
attached in last of December, 1949.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- Hkhrjh Hkkx xHkZ x ` g dk Hkh firk th ds lkFk n'kZ u
fd;k gS vkS j fQj Lo;a Hkh n'kZ u djus tkrk FkkA ogka ij Hkh
Hkxoku dh iwtk vkjrh o Hkksx&jkx dh fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh gh
O;oLFkk djrs FksA eSa vkjrh ds le; Hkh n'kZu djus igqapk gwaA**
**7- I also had the darshan of the inner part Garbh-
grih, along with my father and thereafter, I also went to
have darshan alone. There also, the worship, arti, bhog-
raag of Lord were managed by the priests of Nirmohi
Akhara. I have been there even at time of arti to have
darshan.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- v;ks/;k ls ckgj ls vkus okys n'kZukFkhZ JhjketUeHkwfe esa tks
n'kZu djus ;k=h vkrs Fks] mlesa ls dkfrZd] vxgu] pS= esa iqtkjh ds
ek/;e ls uokg ikB gksrk Hk.Mkjk djkrs FksA vkSj iwjk ifjlj fueksZgh
v[kkM+s ds dCts esa tc ls gks'k laHkkyk ns[krk pyk vk jgk gwaA Hkhrjh
Hkkx dq d hZ 1949 fnlEcj ds igy s rd fuek sZ gh v[kkM+k esa
O;oLFkk o dCts esa FkhA**
**8- The devotees coming from outside Ayodhya to have
darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, used to have holy orations,
bhandara (free food to masses out of religious faith) in the
months of Kartika, Aghan, Chaitra. Since I attained
understanding, I have found the Nirmohi Akhara to be in
possession over the entire premises. Prior to December,
1949 the inner part was also under the management and
possession of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- Qwy crk'kk vkfn cspus okys nwdkunkj nkSjh ¼Vksdjh½ esa j[kdj
 489

csprs FksA ckn esa nwdku Hkh dk;e gks xbZ ;gh ugha eafnj ds iwjc o
nf{k.k dksus ij dqvka gS ftldh ekU;rk v;ks/;k fgUnw lekt esa cgqr gS
fd lc rhFkksaZ dk ty Hkxoku jke ds jkT;kfHk"ksd ds fy;s vk;kA cuokl
gks tkus ij ogh ty lhrkdwi esa laxzfgr dj fn;s x;s ml lhrk dwi ds
ifo= ty fiykus ds fy;s ,d czkEg.k jgrk FkkA tks fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds
rjQ ls jgrk FkkA**
“9. The shopkeepers selling flower, sweet etc., used to
sell them in a basket. Later on a shop was set up. There is a
well in south-east corner in the temple, and it is the belief
of Hindu community of Ayodhya that the water of all
pilgrimages was brought here on the occasion of
enthronement of Lord Rama. After the exile, the same
water was collected in the Sitakoop. A Brahman was
deputed on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara to administer holy
water of Sitakoop.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- 22@23 fnlEcj ds igy s Hkh eS a xHkZ x ` g n'kZ u ds
fy;s x;k FkkA ikS"k dk eghuk Fkk mlds nks eghuk igys gh dkfrZd o
vxgu esa n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dh HkhM+ FkhA 22@23 fnlEcj dk s xHkZ x ` g
Hkkx esa ewf rZ j[kuk ,dne xyr ckr gS A dqN eqdkeh
eqlyekuksa us >wBk gYyk o ncko 'kklu ij cukdj >wBh QthZ dk;Zokgh
djk fn;kA esj s firk th o esj s pkpk us 1934 ds
fgUnw& eqfLye nax s tk s xk sd 'kh dk.M ds dkj.k gq v k Fkk] ds
ckj s esa crk;k FkkA bl naxk ls eqlyeku ekjs x;s Fksa vkSj dqN dczsa
rksM+h xbZ Fkh ysfdu fookfnr ifjlj eafnj gksus ds dkj.k {kfrxzLr ugha
gqvkA gj fgUnw ij tqekZuk fgUnw naxk VSDl yxk FkkA eqlyeku naxs ds
dkj.k ng'kr esa vk x;s FksA esj s firk th o esj s pkpk us crk;k
Fkk fd ml naxs ds ng'kr ds dkj.k jke tUeHkwfe ds cxy dh lM+d
ls Hkh ugha tkrs FksA fookfnr Hkou ;k ifjlj esa uekt i<+us dk dksbZ
iz'u gh ugha gS vkSj esj s pkpk us ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd
fookfnr ifjlj ds vkl&ikl fdlh eq l yeku us dk sb Z eq n kZ
Hkh nQu ugh a fd;kA**
“10. I had gone to the Garbh-grih to have darshan even
 490

before 22/23 December. It was the month of Paush. There

was a huge gathering of devotees two months earlier in the
months of Kartika and Aghan. It is totally incorrect that
the idol was placed in the Garbh-grih on 22/23
December. Few local Muslims made a false issue out of it
and got a farzi proceeding initiated by exerting pressure
over the government. My father and uncle had told me
about the Hindu-Muslim riot of the year 1934, which
had broken out on account of cow slaughter. Muslims
were killed and graves demolished in this riot, but the
disputed temple premises were not damaged. Hindu riot tax
was imposed over all the Hindus. The Muslims were in
terror due to this riot. My father and uncle had told me
that on account of terror of said riot, they did not even pass
through the road adjacent to Ramjanmbhumi. There is no
question at all of Namaz being offered in the disputed
structure or premises. My uncle had also told me that no
Muslim buried any dead body near the disputed
premises.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- Hkhrj okys Hkkx esa Hkh dlkSVh ds [kEHks Fks vkSj mlesa nso dU;k
f=Hkaxk :i dh ewfrZ cuh gSA dqN ;{k dh ewfrZ Hkh cuh Fkh dy'k Hkh cuk
Fkk eksj dh vkd`fr FkhA tks dlkSVh iRFkjksa esa eSaus ns[kk FkkA**
**13-- There were touchstone pillars in the inner part with
Tribhanga ( having three bends or angles )idol of nymphs
over it. There were few idols of Yaksha (Hindu demigods)
and pitcher and peacock. I had seen them over the
touchstone.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- mRrjh xsV esa Åij ck?k vkSj eksj dh vkd`fr cuh Fkh] xsV ds
iwohZ nhoky ds ckgj ckjkg Hkxoku dh ewfrZ cuh Fkh rFkk ifjdzek djrs
le; n'kZukFkhZ ogka ij Hkh ekFkk Vsdrs FksA**
**14- The figures of tiger and peacock were there at the
 491

northern gate. The idol of God Varah was there at the

eastern wall of the gate and at time of performing the
circumambulation, the devotees used to pay their reverence
over there.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- eSa guqeku x<+h eafnj tks v;ks/;k esa eksgYyk jkedksV esa gh fLFkr
gS esa fojkteku guqeku th egjkt dk Hkh n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwaA eq>s
v;ks/;k esa jgrs&jgrs tkudkjh gS fd guqekux<+h eafnj dh O;oLFkk
fuokZ.kh v[kkM+k ds iap lk/kw oSjkxh iapk;rh <ax ls djrs gSa cSjkxh
lEiznk; ds gh lkr v[kkM+s v;ks/;k esa jgs gSa] ftlesa fuokZ.kh v[kkM+k ds
vUrxZr guqekux<+h o ogha ij Bk0 jke tkudh o u`flag eafnj o dbZ
eafnj okdS gSa rFkk dfiy eqfu xaxk lkxj pkSchl ijxuk csLV caxky dk
eafnj gS fuek sZ gh v[kkM+k ds vUrxZ r iz f lf) jke tUe Hk wf e
eaf nj gS ftldh ekU;rk fgUnw lekt Hkxoku jke dh tUe
LFkyh gk su s ds dkj.k vlhe o cgq r T;knk gS jke eafnj rks
v;ks/;k o vU;= cgqr gS ijUrq Jh jke tUe Hk wf e rk s ,d ;gh
fookfnr LFky gS blfy;s fgUnw tuekul esa bldk egRo cgqr
T;knk gSA eSa Hkh cgqr vkLFkk j[krk gwaA fueksZgh v[kkM+k v;ks/;k dh cSBd
jke ?kkV fot; jk?ko eafnj gSA tUe Hkwfe ds ikl gh mDr v[kkM+s ds
iapksa ds eafnj lqfe=k Hkou jkeyyk eafnj lhrk dwi eafnj vkfn jgs gSa
tks 1991 esa mRrj izns'k ljdkj ds vf/kxzg.k esa fxjk;s x;sA v[kkM+s dk
lEcfU/kr eafnj ukdk guqekux<+h jRuflagklu yodq'k eafnj] jke xqysyk
vkfn Hkh jgs gSaA**
**16- I have also been going to the Hanumangarhi temple
situated at Mohalla-Ramkot in Ayodhya, to have darshan
of Hanuman Ji present over there. On account of my abode
in Ayodhya, I have come to know that the management of
Hanumangarhi temple was carried out by the Panch,
saints, recluses of Nirvani Akhara as per the Panchayat
custom. There have been seven Akharas of recluse sect in
Ayodhya, out of which the Nirvani Akhara was in control of
Hanumangarhi and Tha. Ramjanki, Narsingh and many
 492

other temples situated over there. The Kapil Muni

Gangasagar is temple of Chaubis Pargana West Bengal.
The famous Ramjanmbhumi temple is under the
Nirmohi Akhara, which has immense importance for the
Hindu society on the ground of same being the birthplace
of Lord Rama. There are many Rama temples in Ayodhya
and elsewhere but there is only one Ramjanmbhumi, the
disputed site, and as such it has immense importance for
the Hindus. I also have much faith in it. The place of sitting
of Nirmohi Akhara, Ayodhya is Ramghat Vijay Raghav
temple. The Sumitra Bhawan, Ramlala temple and Sitakoop
temple of the Panchas of the aforesaid Akharas, have been
situated around the Janmbhumi, which were demolished in
the acquisition by Uttar Pradesh Government in the year
1991. The Naka Hanumangarhi, Ratnasinghasan, Luvkush,
Ramgulela temples have all been associated with the
Akharas.” (E.T.C.)
383. Regarding the possession of Nirmohi Akhara (plaintiff
Suit-3) in paras 18 and 19, (DW 3/9) said:
^^18- fueksZgh v[kkM+k gh Hkxoku jke yyk fojkteku xHkZx`g eafnj jke
tUeHkwfe o ckgjh jke pcwrjk eafnj ij fojkteku jkeyyk o NV~Bh iwtk
LFky f'ko njckj vkfn /keZLFkyksa dh O;oLFkk o dCtk fueksZgh v[kkM+k
dk gS ftldh O;oLFkk fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iap o egUr djrs gSA ,slk
eSaus gks'k ls cjkcj dqdhZ rd ns[kk gSA**
**18- It is the Nirmohi Akhara, which has been in
management and possession of religious places viz. Lord
Ramlala present Garbh-grih temple, Ramjanmbhumi, outer
Ramchabutara temple with Lord Ramlala present, Chhathi
worship place, Shiv Darbar etc. and its management is
carried out by Panch and Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara. I
have seen so continuously from my attaining maturity to
 493

the attachment.” (E.T.C.)

^^19- 1949 esa v[kkM+s ds egUFk j?kqukFk nkl Fks ns[kk Fkk] mlds ckn vkt
dy ea0 txUukFk nkl egUFk gS rFkk ea0 Hkk"dj nkl ljiap gS tks
guqekux<+h ukdk ds egUFk gSaA**
**19- Raghunath Das was the Mahant of the Akhara in the
year 1949, (I) had seen it. Thereafter, it is M. Jagannath
Das, who is the Mahant these days. M. Bhaskar Das is the
sarpanch and also the Mahant of Hanumangarhi Naka.”
(E.T.C.)
384. DW 3/9 also deposed about the continuous possession of
Nirmohi Akhara, of the entire premises in dispute, non
observance of any Namaz therein and in paras 12, 20 and 21,
said as under:
^^12- dqdhZ Hkhrj okys Hkkx dh gq;hA dqdhZ ds ckn Hkh eSaus n'kZu fd;sA
ckgj ds Hkkx igys ls gh Lor% dk;e jgk o fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds vartke
esa jgk vksj 1982 dh dqdhZ rd dk;e jgkA 1982 ls ogh fjlhoj tks
Hkhrj okys Hkkx ds Fks ckgj okys Hkkx ds gks x;sA iwjk ifjlj fgUnqvksa dk
ifo= jke tUe Hkwfe eafnj gS tc ls eSaus gks'k lEHkkyk fdlh Hkh
eqlyeku dks uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kkA**
**12- The attachment took place in respect of the inner
part. I had the darshan even after the attachment. The
outer part continued as earlier and remained under
management of Nirmohi Akhara which continued till the
attachment of 1982. From the year 1982, the same
Receiver of the inner part became the Receiver of the outer
part as well. The entire premises is sacred Ramjanmbhumi
temple of Hindus. Since I attained understanding, I never
saw any Muslim offer Namaz over there.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- vius gks'k ls tc ls eSa fookfnr ifjlj jke tUeHkwfe eafnj n'kZu
djus yxk] eafnj gh ns[krk gwaA dHkh uekt i<+rs fdlh eqlyeku dks
ugha ns[kkA**
 494

**20- From the age of my understanding, I have found the

temple existing at the disputed premises whenever I went to
have darshan of Ramjanmbhumi temple. I never saw any
Muslim offer Namaz.” (E.T.C.)
^^21- <kapk ;kuh fookfnr ifjlj 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks fxjk;s tkus ds
iwoZ ls esjs gks'k ls iwohZ xsV eafnj Jhjke tUeHkwfe guqer }kj ds ckgj
xsV ds jke tUe Hkwfe f'kykiV ds cxy ckgj nhoky ifjlj ls lVs
iwoZ /kuir ;kno dh nwdku crk'kk] byk;ph nkuk] fe"Bku vkfn dh jgh
gS tks fueksZgh v[kkM+k v;ks/;k ds fdjk;snkj Fks /kuir ;kno dh e`R;q
vjlk 8@10 lky gqbZ muds iq= lhrkjke ;kno gS thfor gSa tks fd
nqdku ij cpiu ls jgrs Fksa mlds igys mlh LFkku ij ekrk izlkn
ftUgsa erbZ Hkh dgrs Fks fueksZgh v[kkM+k dh rjQ ls nwdku fe"Bku izlkn
dh djrs FksA**
**21- Prior to demolition of the structure i.e. the disputed
structure on 6th December, 1992, there existed the sweet
(Batasha, ilaichi dana, misthan) shop of Dhanpat Yadav
adjacent to the wall near the stone slab at the gate outside
the eastern gate of Sri Ramjanmbhumi viz. the
Hanumatdwar, who was tenant of Nirmohi Akhara,
Ayodhya. Dhanpat Yadav expired about 8/10 years ago.
His son Sitaram Yadav is alive, who used to sit at the shop
from his childhood. Earlier Mata Prasad, who was also
known as Matai, used to run a sweet shop at that very
place on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
385. D.W. 3/11, Bhanu Pratap Singh son of Sri Ram Raj
Singh, resident of village Haliyapur, District Sultanpur is aged
about 70 years (as per his affidavit dated 28.4.2004). He was
cross examined in the following manner :
(a) 28.04.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 4-
 495

7)
(b) 28.04.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) and Suit-5 through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate (p. 7-13)
(c) 28.04.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 13-16)
(d) 29.04.2004- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 17-19)
(e) 29.04.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk through
Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 19-28)
(f) 29/30.04.2004, 06/07/10/12.05.2004- by Sunni Central
Board of Waqf, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab
Jilani, Advocate (p. 28-89)
(g) 12/13.05.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 90-108)
(h) 13.05.2004- defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 through Sri
Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted cross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 108)
386. He is disciple of Nirmohi Akhara, imparted Guru Mantra
by Mahant Dinendra Das Mathia Mahant. His grandfather was a
religious person, used to visit Ayodhya every year during
Ramnavami and Sawan festival, who died in 1965. He visited
Ayodhya along with his grandfather since the age of 10 and had
Darshan at different temples namely, Ramjanambhumi,
Hanuman Garhi, Kanak Bhawan, Chhota Chhavani, Bara
Chhavani, Nageshwar Nath Mandir etc. About Darshan at the
inner courtyard, placement of idols therein, possession and
ownership of the disputed property by Nirmohi Akhara, he said
 496

in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the affidavit as

under :
^^7- 'kq: ls gh mDr jketUeHkwfe efUnj ds ckjs esa eq>s tkudkjh vius
firkeg ls feyh fd Hkxoku jke tks gekjs ifjokj ds b"V nso gSa dk
tUe o vorkj ysuk blh Hkwfe esa gqvk gS ckn esa eSaus Lo;a lk/kw lUr o
vius xq: egkjkt ls ckr mijksDr tkuh gS vkSj v;ks/;k esa jkedFkk
tgkWa dgha Hkh eSaus lquh gS mu dFkkokpdksa ls Hkh eSaus ;g ckr tkuh gSA^^
“7. From the very beginning I gathered knowledge about
said Ramjanmbhumi temple from my grandfather that Lord
Rama was the ‘ishtdev’ of our family and He had
incarnated at this very place. Subsequently, I heard the
same things from my Guru and also from the narrators of
Ramkatha in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- eq[; efUnj jketUeHkwfe ds iwjc eq[; }kj gS ftlds vUnj ?kqlus
ij nf{k.k rjQ jkepcwrjk efUnj gS rFkk mRrj rjQ lUr fuokl o
fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kqvksa ds jgus ds fy, rFkk Hk.Mkj x`g gS ftls eSa
'kq: ls ns[k jgk gwWa ckgjh lgu ;kfu tks pkgj nhokjh ls f?kjk Fkk
mRrjh njoktk gSA mRrjh njokts ls iwjc tkdj mRrj rjQ lh<+h cuh
Fkh mRrj okyh ;gh lM+d guqekux<+h pkSjkgs rd pyh tkrh jgh gSA
mRrjh rjQ NV~Bh iwtu LFky] pkj pj.k fpUg&pdyk csyuk pwYgk
'kq: ls ns[krk pyk vk jgk gwWaA^^
“8. The main gate is to the east of main Ramjanmbhumi
temple, and after entering through it, lies the
Ramchabutara temple in the south and the saints’
accommodation and store room in the north for the
residence of saints of Nirmohi Akhara, which have been
witnessed by me since beginning. The northern gate is in
the outer courtyard i.e. which was bounded by boundary.
There was staircase in north after going eastwards on
entry through the northern gate. This northern road leads
to Hanumangarhi crossing. I have been seeing the Chhathi
 497

worship place, four footmarks, chakla-belna-stove, from

beginning.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- jkepcwr jk efUnj esa dkB dk flagklu jgk gS ftlesa pkanh o
lksus ds Qsjs yxs Fks ftl ij Hkxoku jkeyyk dk cky Lo:i
ewf rZ fojkteku Fkh rhuk s a Hkkb;k sa dh ewf rZ;k a Fkh] guq e ku
th o lkfyxjke Hkxoku Hkh ogkW a Fk sA ^ ^
“9. There was a wooden throne in the Ramchabutara
temple, which had rings of silver and gold, over which the
child form idol of Lord Ramlala was present and the
idols of the three brothers, Hanuman ji and Salikram
were also present over there.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- jkepcwrjk efUnj lk<+s rhu QqV ÅWapk Fkk blfy, iwjc o if'pe
rjQ pkSdksj xqQk cuh Fkh ftlesa dkS'kY;k th dh xksn esa Hkxoku jke
rFkk ,d rjQ Hkjr th dh Ms<+ ls nks QqV mWph ewfrZ Fkh eq>s ;g ekywe
gS fd ;g jkedksV eksgYyk dgykrk gS tgkWa Jh jketUeHkwfe fLFkr gS] eSa
ch-,- ikl gwWa eq>s ;g lUrksa o xq:?kjkuk ds xq: o firk th ls ;g
ekywe gS fd v;ks/;k esa jkekuUnh; lEiznk; ds T;knkrj efUnj gSa
fueksZgh v[kkM+k Hkh jkekuUnh; lEiznk; dk efUnj gSA^^
“10. The Ramchabutara temple was 3½ feet tall. There was
square cave in its east and west, in one of which was the
idol of Kaushalya ji with Lord Rama in her lap and 1½ – 2
feet tall idol of Bharat ji in the other. I know that it is
called Ramkot Mohalla, where Sri Ramjanmbhumi is
located. I am a graduate. I know from saints, Guru and my
father that most of the temples in Ayodhya are of
Ramanand sect. Nirmohi Akhara is also temple of
Ramanand sect.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- tc ls eSaus gks'k lEgkyk rc ls mDr efUnj jketUeHkwfe esa
cjkcj iwtk ikB mRlo leS;k vkjrh o izlkn forj.k tc&tc eSa n'kZu
djus x;k rc&rc ns[kk gwWa ogkWa ds lk/kq o iqtkjh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds
vUrxZr gS vkSj mUgha dk dCtk cjkcj ns[krk jgk gwWaA^^
 498

“12: Since I gained sense and went to the said

Ramjanmbhumi temple to have 'darshan', I found that the
worship, ceremony, arti and distribution of prasad was all
under the saints and priests of Nirmohi Akhara and I have
always found them to be in possession.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- Hkhrj okys Hkkx dks Hkh eSa tkurk gwWa tks rhu f'k[kj ysdj lh[kpksa
ds vUnj gS vkSj ftls eSaus ns[kk gS ;g eq>s lu~ 1950 bZ0 esa ekywe gqvk
fd xqEcn okyk Hkkx dqdZ gks x;k vkSj rkyk cUn gks x;k gS] lha[kpksa ds
QkVd ls Hkxoku jke yyk dk n'kZu gksrk gSA^^
“13. I know the inner part as well, which is within the grill
from the three domes and it has been seen by me. I know
this from the year 1950 that dome portion had been
attached and had been locked and that the 'darshan' of
Lord Ramlala was had from the grill gate.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- vUnj okyk Hkkx 1949 ds igys eS a vUnj rd n'kZ u
djus Hkxoku jkeyyk dk djus tkrk Fkk rc Hkxoku jke yyk
dHkh dkB ds >wys ij ;k dHkh Åaph lh<+h okyh txg ij fojkteku
feysA vUnj iwtk ikB fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kw o iqtkjh djrs FksA ftuesa
ls e0 Hkk"dj nkl dks igpkurk gWw tks ukdk guqekux<+h ds egUr gSaA
dqdhZ ds rhu pkj lky igys ls mUgsa ogkWa ns[kk gS A dqdhZ 1949 fnlEcj
esa gq;hA^^
“14: Prior to the year 1949, I used to go inside the inner
part to have 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala, when sometimes
Lord Ramlala was found over the wooden swing and
sometimes at the place over the elevated step. The worship
in the inner part was carried out by saints and priests of
Nirmohi Akhara, out of whom I recognize M. Bhaskar Das,
who is the Mahant of Naka Hanumangarhi. I have seen him
there from about 3-4 years prior to the attachment. The
attachment took place in December, 1949.” (E.T.C.)
387. In para 16 DW 3/11 has said that since the date he attained
 499

the age of understanding, has never seen any Muslim offering

Namaz in the premises of Ramjanambhumi :
^^16- 1992 fnlEcj esa iwjk <kWapk fxjk fn;k x;k ysfdu rEcw esa Hkxoku
jkeyyk fojkteku gSa ftudh iwtk ljdkjh fu;a=.k esa gksrh gSA tc ls
gks'k lEHkkyk rc ls jketUeHkwfe ifjlj esa dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks
uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kkA^^
“16: The entire structure was demolished in December,
1992 but Lord Ramlala is present in tent and His worship
is carried out under government control. Since I gained
sense, I have never seen any Muslim offer Namaz at the
Ramjanmbhumi premises.” (E.T.C.)
388. In paras 10 and 11, he has said about the status of
Nirmohi Akhara, which we shall deal separately while
discussing Issue No. 17 (Suit-3).
389. DW 3/12, Ram Akshaibar Pandey is aged about 70
years (as per affidavit dated 24.05.2004). He was cross
examined in the following manner:
(a) 24.05.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 4-
9)
(b) 24.05.2004- Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate
adopted the cross examination already done by Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 9)
(c) 24.05.2004- by plaintiff (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 10-15)
(d) 24.05.2004- plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocate adopted the cross examination already done by
plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K. Pandey, Advocate (p.
15)
 500

(e) 24.05.2004- by defendant no. 20, Akhil Bhartiya Sri

Ram Janma Bhumi Punarudhar Samiti through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 14- 16)
(f) 24/25/26.05.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk,
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 17-34)
(g) 26/27.05.2004, 01.07.2004- by Sunni Central Board of
Waqf, defendant no. 11 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 34-73)
(h) 01/02.07.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 73-89)
(i) 02.07.2004- defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-5)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted cross
examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 89)
390. He attained age of understanding at 12 and since then has
been visiting Ayodhya alongwith his grandfather, Shiv Ram
Pandey. He is resident of Mohalla Ramapur Bhagahi, Pargana
Nawabganj, Tahsil Tarabganj, District Gonda. His grandfather
had studied up to Madhyama, knew Sanskrit, possess
knowledge of religious books and used to visit various temples
at Ayodhya. His village is about three and half Kos from
Ayodhya. He said that the country attained independence from
Britishers on 15.08.1947. He was visiting Ayodhya and
worshiping the temples thereat after taking bath at river Saryu
since one year earlier thereto. About details of his visit at
Ayodhya, Ramjanamboomi Temple (disputed premises), outside
and inside courtyard, existence of temple inside courtyard, its
management and ownership with Nirmohi Akhara, he said in
1
 501

paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the affidavit as

under:
**6- eSa v;ks/;k tc vk;k vius ckck ds lkFk rks cjkcj eafnj guqeku
x<+h o izfl) eafnj Jh jketUe Hkwfe dk n'kZu fd;kA tc cM+k gks x;k
rks Lo;a v;ks/;k n'kZu djus vkrk Fkk vkSj lj;w Luku Hkh djrk Fkk rFkk
iapdkslh o pkSng dkslh ifjdzek Hkh fd;k gSA**
**6- I regularly had ‘Darshan’ (offering of prayer by
sight) of Hanumangarhi temple and famous Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple, when I came to Ayodhya along
with my grandfather. When I grew up, I came to Ayodhya
to have ‘Darshan’ and also took holy dip in the Saryu and
also performed ‘Panchkosi’ (distance of five kose, one kose
being equal to two miles) and ‘Chaudahkosi’ (distance of
fourteen kose) circumambulation.” (E.T.C.)
**7- v;ks/;k esa rhu esys gksrs gS ftlesa ckgj ns'k ds dksus dksus ls
J)kyq HkDr dh Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj dk n'kZu djus vkrs gSa vkSj eafnj
Jh jke tUe Hkwfe fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djrs gSa A**
**7- Three fairs are held at Ayodhya,in which devotees
from different corners of country and abroad come to have
‘Darshan’ of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple and have the
‘Darshan’ of Lord Ramlala present in Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple.” (E.T.C.)
**8- Hkhrj yksgs ds lh[kps okyk Hkkx o rhuksa f'k[kj ds uhps tgkWa
Hkxoku jke yyk fojkteku igys ls Fks dks ysdj] vktknh feyus ds nks
lky ckn dqdZ gks x;k] rc eSa iUnzg lky dk FkkA**
**8- The inner iron grill portion and the (area) under the
three domes, where Lord Ramlala had existed from earlier
times, were both attached within two years after
independence. I was aged 15 years at that time.” (E.T.C.)
**9- Hkhrj okys Hkkx esa dq d hZ ds igys ls eS a Hkxoku
jkeyyk dk n'kZ u djrk jgk gwW aA Hkhrj oky s Hkkx dk
 502

bar tke esj s xk ao ds fuek sZ gh v[kkM+ s okys djrs Fk sA fueksZgh

v[kkMk ds iwoZ e0 j?kqukFk nkl dks eSa ns[kk FkkA - - - - jketUe Hkwfe
eafnj Hkh fueksZgh v[kkM+s dk eafnj gSA**
**9- I used to have ‘Darshan’ of Lord Ramlala in the
inner part, prior to its attachment. The management of
the inner part was carried out by the Nirmohi Akhara
people of my village. I had seen the earlier M. Raghunath
Das of Nirmohi Akhara. . . . .The Ramjanmbhumi temple is
also a temple of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
**12- eSa tc igyh ckj vius ckck ds lkFk n'kZu djus 12 lky dh
viuh mez esa x;k Fkk rks eq>s esjs ckck us v[kkM+s ds cynso nkl o
jkey[ku nkl xksydh dks fn[kk dj crk;k Fkk ogha ogka ij iqtkjh
xksydh Fks rFkk fueksZgh v[kkMk ds vkSj lk/kq Hkk"dj nkl] jkenso nkl]
igkM+h ckck o 6&7 lk/kq ogka jgrs FksA**
**12- When I first went to have ‘Darshan’ along with my
grandfather at the age of 12 years, my grandfather had
introduced me to Akhara’s Baldev Das and Ram Lakhan
Das, Golki and told that they were the priest- Golki and
that other saints of Nirmohi Akhara viz. Bhaskar Das,
Ramdev Das, Pahari Baba and 6-7 saints used to live
there.” (E.T.C.)
**13- eSaus dqdhZ ds igys tc&tc Jh jke tUeHkwfe ds Hkhrjh Hkkx esa
Hkxoku jke yyk dk n'kZu djus x;k rc&rc ogka lkjk bartke o
dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk ds mijksDr lk/kqvksa dks ns[kkA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds
lk/kq o iqtkjh lHkh HkDrksa o n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks pj.kke`r nsrs] p<+kok ysrs o
izlkn nsrs Fks fueksZgh v[kkMk ds iqtkjh ckck cynso nkl ;k Hkk"dj nkl
vFkok nwljs lk/kqvksa dks ns[kk gSA dq d hZ ds igys gh vUnj tkdj
eS au s n'kZ u Hkxoku jkeyyk dk fd;k gS vkSj dqdhZ ckn lh[kps
okys njoktk ls ckgj ls Hkxoku jke yyk dk n'kZu gksrk jgk gSA ogha
rFkk ckgj ls vkus okys HkDr Hkh izlkn] iSlk o Qwy jkepcwrjk eafUnj
ij p<+krs Fks ftls fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkjh ysrs FksA**
 503

**13- Whenever, prior to the attachment, I went inside the

Sri Ramjanmbhumi to have ‘Darshan’ of Lord Ramlala, I
found the above saints of Nirmohi Akhara to have been in
complete management and possession over there. The
saints- priests of Nirmohi Akhara used to give
‘Charnamrit’ (ambrosia of the feet of a deity), accept the
offerings and distribute the ‘Prasad’ to all the devotees. I
had seen Nirmohi Akhara’s priest Baba Baldev Das or
Bhaskar Das or other saints. I had the ‘Darshan’ of Lord
Ramlala from inside prior to the attachment and from
outside the grill gate after the attachment. The devotees
used to offer sweets, money and flowers at the
Ramchabutara temple from there and outside, which were
accepted by the priest of the Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
**14- vkt ls 20 ;k 22 lky igys ckgjh Hkkx Hkh fjlhoj ds ikl gks
x;k ysfdu n'kZu ge yksxksa dks cjkcj gksrk jgkA**
**14- The outer part also went under the control of the
Receiver, about 20 or 22 years back, but we continued to
have the ‘Darshan’ regularly.” (E.T.C.)
**15- 10]12] lky igys dqN ckgjh o Hkhrjh Hkkx HkhM+ us fxjk fn;k
rc Hkh Hkxoku jkeyyk y[kuyky o guqeku th rEcw esa oSls gh
fojkteku gSa vkSj n'kZu yksgksa ds ikbZi ls ?ksjs jkLrs ls gksrk gSA**
**15- Some inner and outer part was demolished by the
crowd about 10-12 years back, still Lord Ramlala,
Lakhanlal and Hanuman ji exist in the tent in similar
fashion and the ‘Darshan’ takes place through the path
bounded by iron pipes.” (E.T.C.)
**16- eSaus Hkhrjh o ckgjh Hkkx tc ls ns'k dh vktknh ds ,d lky
igys ls tk jgk gwWa lnSo efUnj ds rkSj ij ik;k Hkxoku fojkteku ik;k
gS vkSj n'kZu o iwtk gksrs ns[kk gSA**
**16- Since I started visiting one year prior to
 504

independence, I always found the inner and outer part to

be a temple, found the God present and found the
‘Darshan’ and worshipping going on.” (E.T.C.)
**17- ckgj gkrs okys Hkkx esa jkepcwrjk eafnj f'konjckj] NV~Bh iwtk
LFky o Hk.Mkj o lar fuokl vkfn gSA jkepcwrjk eafnj ij eSa tc ls
gks'k lEHkkys gwW] dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk okyksa dk ns[kk gSA ;g Hkkx ;kuh
ckgjh gkrk okyk Hkkx vkil dh yM+kbZ esa dqdZ gqvkA ckgjh gkrs esa lar
fuokl Hk.Mkj x`g esa fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kq jgrs FksA NV~Bh iwtk LFky
o f'konjckj dk bartke fueksZgh v[kkMk ds yksx djrs jgs gSaA**
**17- The Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar, Chhathi
worship place, store room and accommodation of saints
exist in the outer courtyard part. Since I attained maturity,
I found the Nirmohi Akhara people to be in possession over
the Ramchabutara temple. This part i.e. the outer
courtyard part had been attached in mutual conflict. The
saints of Nirmohi Akhara used to live in the saints’
accommodation, store room in the outer courtyard. The
Nirmohi Akhara people used to manage the Chhathi
worship place and Shiv Darbar.” (E.T.C.)
391. In para 18 he says that never in his conscious he has seen
any Muslim offering Namaz in Ramjanambhumi either inside or
outside courtyard.
392. D.W. 3/13, Mahant Ram Subhag Das Shastri, son of Sri
Ram Raj Singh, is resident of Mohalla Mandir Ram Mahal.
Mohalla Katra, Pargana Haveli Avadh, Ayodhya, District
Faizabad aged about 86 years (as per his affidavit dated
5.7.2004). He was cross examined as under:
(a) 05.07.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17 and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 12-
13)
 505

(b) 05.07.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1

(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p.
13-14)
(c) 05.07.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (p. 14)
(d) 05/06.07.2004- by Mohd. Faruk Ahmad, defendant no.
11, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 15-25)
(e) 06/07/08/09/19/20/21.07.2004- by Sunni Central Waqf
Board, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 25-108)
(f) 21/22.07.2004-by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim through Sri Mustaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 108-)
(g) 22.07.2004- defendant no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 through Sri
Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani
and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 120)
393. He belong to State of Bihar and came to Ayodhya in
December 1933. He became disciple of Ramanandiya Vairagi
Sadhu sect in the State of Bihar itself and joined as disciple of
Sri Janki Das Ji Maharaj, who had no permanent place to stay
but remained continuously on pilgrimage and was related to
Nirmohi Akhara. Guru of Sri Janki Das was Sri Bihari Saran Ji
Maharaj who got constructed Ram Mahal Mandir in Mohalla
Katra in 1927 whereat presently the witness is Mahant. He
studied Sanskrit at Ayodhya since 1936 and obtained degree of
Shastri. About his continuous visit to Ramjanambhumi temple at
the dispute place, Pooja and Darshan inside the courtyard,
ownership and possession of Nirmohi Akhara in paras 5, 6, 7, 8,
 506

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
affidavit he has said:
^^5- esjk fu;e Fkk eSa la/;kdky ,d ?kaVk jke uke dk vuq'kj.k jke
tUe Hkwfe ij djrk Fkk++A jax egy eafnj ls jke tUe Hkwfe yxHkx
400&500 fQV nwjh ij ij Fkk eqf'dy ls 2&3 feuV dk iSny jkLrk
FkkA Jh jke tUe Hkwfe tkus ds fy, lk{kh xksiky eafnj frjkgk ls Åij
p<+ dj tkus dk jkLrk Fkk tks iwoZ&mRrj ls nf{k.k&if'pe dksus ij
x;k FkkA**
“5. To me it was a rule that I took the name of Rama at
Ram Janam Bhumi for an hour in the evening. Ram Janam
Bhumi was nearly 400-500 feet from Rang Mahal temple. It
was hardly 2-3 minutes' walk. To reach Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi, there was a flyover starting from Sakshi Gopal
Mandir trisection and running from east-north to the south-
western corner.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- Jh jke tUeHkwfe eafnj esa tkus ds fy, 1934 esa eq>s nks njokts
feys igyk njoktk iwoZ rjQ vkSj nwljk njoktk mRrj rjQ FkkA iwj c
oky s xsV esa njoktk ugh Fkk mRrj okys njokts esa ,d Vhu dk
xsV FkkA iwjc xsV ij njoktk ugha Fkk dlkSVh ds nks [kEHks yxs FksA
[kEHkksa esa fp= Hkh fn[kkbZ iM+rs FksA ftls fur ;k=h] guqekuth dh ewfrZ
crkrs Fks eSa Hkh ogha le>rk FkkA guqear }kj ij ,d f'kykiV Hkh FkkA**
“6. In 1934, to reach Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple I
came across two gates, one of which was towards the east
and the other one was towards the north. The eastern gate
had no door. The northern gate had a door made of tin. It
had two pillars made of touch stone. Engraved on the
pillars were also seen pictures which were stated by daily
visitors to be images of Hanumanji. I also had the same
impression. There was also a stone plate at Hanumat
Dwar.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- ml f'kykiV ij vad 1 iM+k Fkk vkSj nsoukxjh fyfi esa Jh
 507

^^tUeHkwfe fuR; ;k=k** fy[kk FkkA vaxzsth esa tUe Hkwfe fy[kk FkkA eq[;
eafnj vkSj xHkZ Hkkx ls iwjc xsV ds chp esa ,d lhadps okyh nhoky FkhA
ckgjh gkrk dh nhoky rhu rjQ gS tks 9&10 fQV Åaph Fkh vkSj
nks&<kbZ fQV pkSM+h Fkh vkSj if'pe rjQ eq[; eafnj dk ifjdzek 4&5
fQV dk pkSM+k FkkA vkSj ifjdzek ds if'pe eqjsMh cuh Fkh tks <kbZ&rhu
fQV maph FkhA mlds ckn if'pe rjQ 20&25 fQV dk <ky gSA mRrj
okyk njoktk T;knkrj esys esa [kqyrk Fkk ftls flag }kj dgrs gSaA mRrj
okys njokts ls fudy dj iwjc tkus ij ogka ls lh<+h uhps tkus ds fy,
cuh Fkh vkSj ftl lM+d ij lh<+h [kRe gksrh gS og lM+d guqekux<+h
nqjkgh dqavk ij gS tks ml txg <ky ij gSA ml lM+d ls Åij dk
dksbZ xsV ugha fn[kkbZ nsrkA**
“7. The stone plate had 'number-1' and 'Janam Bhumi
Nitya Yatra' in Devnagari script written on it. On it was
written Janam Bhumi in English. Between the main temple
and the gate located east of the 'garbh' (sanctum
sanctorum) part lay a wall with iron rods. The outer
compound had walls on three sides which were 9-10 feet
high and 2-2½ feet wide. Towards the west, the
circumambulation of the main temple was 4-5 feet wide,
and in the west of the circumambulation was a railing
which was 2½ -3 feet high. Ahead of that, in the west lay a
20-25 feet slope. The eastern gate was opened mostly at the
time of the fare and it is called Singh Dwar. On going
eastwards out of the eastern gate there was a staircase
leading downwards and ending on a road which was at
Hanumangarhi Durahi Kuan and which had a slope at that
point of place. No gate was seen upwards from that road.”
(E.T.C.)
^8- iwoZ njoktk ;kfu guqear }kj ls ifjlj esa ?kqlus ij nf{k.k rjQ
jke pcwrjk eafnj gS tks ckgjh gkrs ds vUnj FkkA jke pcwrjk eafnj 3
fQV Åapk yxHkx 17&18 fQV pkSM+k vkSj yxHkx 21&22 fQV yEck FkkA
 508

“8. On entering the premises through the eastern gate,

that is, Hanumat Dwar there is Ram Chabutra temple in
the south and it is within the outer compound. The Ram
Chabutra temple was 3-feet high, nearly 17-18 feet wide
and nearly 21-22 feet long.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- jkepcwrjk eafnj ij xaxk tqeuh dk tM+k gqvk ydM+h dk
flagklu Fkk ftlesa Hkxoku jke yyk th fojkteku FksA mRlo jkeyyk]
y{e.k th Hkh Fks vkSj nwljs Hkjr th] 'k=qgu th] uhps xqQk esa FksA xqQk
eafnj pcwrjs ds ÅapkbZ okys Hkkx esa cus FksA xqQk eafnj iwjc okys Hkkx esa
dkSf'kY;k Fkh vkSj if'pe Hkkx esa Hkjr th vkSj 'k=qgu FksA vkSj mlh
xqQk eafnj nhoky esa nksuksa rjQ nhoky esa guqeku th dh NksVh
NksVh ,d fcRrk dh ewfrZ fojkteku FkhA**
“9. At Ram Chabutra temple was a wooden throne
studded with Ganga Jamuni (an alloy)and with Lord Rama
seated on it. Besides Ramlala, Laxmanji was also there,
and Bharatji and Shatrughnaji were placed in the cave
located downwards. Cave temples were built in the
elevated portion of the Chabutra. To the east of the cave
temple was Kaushalya and to its east were seated Bharatji
and Shatrughna. On both sides of the cave temple wall lay
small idols of Hanumanji which measured one bitta (span
of the hand) each.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- bl jke pcwrjk eafnj ds nf{k.k&iwjc dksus rjQ ihiy isM+ ds
uhps xksykbZ ds NksVs pcwrjs ij gkrs ds nhoky ds vUnj "k"Beq[kh 'kadj
th] x.ks'k th] ikoZrh th] uUns'oj Hkxoku vkfn dh laxejej dh ewfrZ;ka
FkhaA**
“10. On a small, circular chabutra beneath the fig-tree
standing on the south eastern corner of this Ram Chabutra
temple and within the compound wall lay marble idols of
six-mouthed Shankar, Ganesha, Parvati, Lord Nandeshwar
and so on.” (E.T.C.)
 509

^^11- eSaus ckgjh gkrs esa mRrj rjQ NBh iwtu LFky ns[kk mldk Hkh
ftlesa Hkxoku jke ds pkjksa HkkbZ ds pj.k&fpUg vkSj pdyk csyu pwYgk
cuk gqvk FkkA tc ls eSa jke tUeHkwfe iwtk djus tkus yxk rc ls
cjkcj ns[k jgk gwaA jke tUe Hkwfe esa jke pcwrjk eafnj Hkxoku dk
iwtk&ikB] vkjrh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkjh djrs FksA ftlesa ikapks le;
dh fu;fer vkjrh gksrh FkhA fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa] iqtkfj;ksa dks
jgus ds fy, rFkk Hkxoku ds ijlkn cuus ds fy, HkUMkj o lar&fuokl
iwjc ds xsV ls lVs vUnj ds gkFks iwohZ nhoky ls lVdj mRrj rjQ
cuk Fkk tgka ij fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kw] iqtkjh] iap jgrs FksA jke eafnj
pcwrjk ds iwtk vkjrh dh rjg gh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds rjQ ls ihiy ds
isM+ ds uhps fojkteku "k"Beq[kh 'kadj th] x.ks'k th] ikoZrh th] uUns'oj
Hkxoku dh iwtk vkjrh gksrh FkhA bls Hkh fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh
fu;fer lukru fof/k ls djrs FksA blh izdkj NBh iwtu LFky dh
iwtk&vkjrh fu;fer fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkfj;ksa }kjk gksrk FkkA ;s rhuksa
LFky dk n'kZu djus n'kZukFkhZ vkrs Fks vkSj Hkxoku dk n'kZu djrs FksA
n'kZukFkhZ tks vkrs Fks viuh J)kuqlkj /keZ LFkyksa ij nzO;] Qy&Qwy]
fe"BkUu o nwljs lkeku p<+krs FksA ;s p<+kok fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iapks]
egUFk ds v/khu jgrk Fkk ftls Hkxoku ds lsokFkZ jke eafnj pcwrjk ds
iqtkfj;ksa ds ek/;e ls ysrs FksA**
“11. In the outer compound, I had a sight of 'Chhathi
Poojan Sthal' and also of the place which had foot- prints
of all the four brothers of Lord Rama and marks of chakla,
belan (rolling pin), chulha (hearth). I have consistently
been having sight of all this since I began to go to offer
worship at Ram Janam Bhumi. Priests of Nirmohi Akhara
used to perform 'pooja-paath' and 'aarti' of the presiding
deity of the Ram Chabutra temple at Ram Janam Bhumi.
There used to be regular and five-time 'aarti' there. To
provide lodging to saints and priests of the Nirmohi Akhara
and for preparation of 'prasad' of Bhagwaan (God), there
was Bhandaar and Sant Niwas (store house cum dwelling
 510

place for saints) which was built adjacent to and north of

the eastern wall and was also adjacent to and inside the
eastern gate. Saints, priests and panchas of Nirmohi
Akhara used to live there. Like pooja and aarti performed
at Ram Mandir Chabutra, there used to be pooja and aarti
of deities seated below the fig-tree – six-mouthed Shankar,
Ganesha, Parvati and Lord Nandeshwar – on behalf of
Nirmohi Akhara. Priests of the Nirmohi Akhara used to
perform these services also in accordance with orthodox
methods. Similarly, there used to be 'pooja-aarti' on a
regular basis at 'Chhathi Poojan Sthal' by the priests of
Nirmohi Akhara. Devotees used to come to have darshan of
these three sites and of Bhagwaan (God). Devotees coming
here, used to offer things, fruits, flowers, sweets and other
articles as per reverence at the religious places. These
offerings used to be in the custody of Panchas and
Mahantas of Nirmohi Akhara and they used to be taken
into the service of Bhagwaan through the priests of the
Ram Mandir Chabutra.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- 1934 'kq: ls tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vkdj jke tUe Hkwfe eafnj tkus
yxk gwa rc ls cjkcj <kapk fxjus ds nks fnu igys rd x;k Fkk vc jke
uoeh dkfrZd ds le;&le; ij dHkh&dHkh tkrk gwa rc rd cjkcj ;s
jke pcwrjk eafnj "k"Beq[kh Hkxoku NBh iwtk LFky] HkUMkj x`g vkfn
ekStwn FksA 1934 esa fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds egUFk ujksRrenkl th Fks eSaus ns[kk
gSA ryokj o lkQk yxkdj pyrs FksA**
“12. Starting since the outset of 1934 I had consistently
been coming to Ayodhya and visiting the Ram Janam
Bhumi temple till two days prior to the demolition of the
structure. Now I sometimes go there on the occasion of
Ram Navami falling in Kartika month. Till then Ram
Chabutra temple, six-mouthed Bhagwaan, Chhathi Pooja
 511

Sthal, Bhandaar Grih, etc. existed there. Narottam Das was

Mahanta of Nirmohi Akhara in 1934. I have seen him. He
used to wield a sword and wear a 'saafa'.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- tc ls eSaus tUeHkwfe tkuk 'kq: fd;k dCtk fueksZgh v[kkM+s dk
gh fn[kkA ;g dCtk dqdhZ rd ns[kk tks 1949 esa gq;hA ;g ckgjh Hkkx
dh dqdhZ 1982 esa ;kfu ckgjh Hkkx ds vUnj okys Hkkx dk gS ftlds Hkh
fjlhoj ds-ds-jke oekZ th gq, FksA
1949 fnlEcj 29 esa tks dqdhZ vUnj okys Hkkx dh gqbZ mlds
fjlhoj ckcw fiz;knRr jke ps;jeSu uxjikfydk QStkckn FksA jketUeHkwfe
eafnj ds bnZ&fxnZ v[kkM+s ds jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj dbZ iap o muds
f'k"; NksVs&NksVs eafnj cukdj jgrs FksA ftldk fooj.k fuEuor~ gS%&
¼1½ lhrk dwi eafnj&xksfoUnnkl v[kkM+s ls lacaf/kr lk/kw tUe
Hkwfe ds iqtkjh Hkh FksA
¼2½ lqfe=k Hkou eafnj&iap egUFk jkenkl iap fueksZgh v[kkM+k
FkkA lqfe=k Hkou eafnj nf{k.k rjQ fookfnr eafnj ls 150 fQV
ij FkkA**
“13. Since I started visiting Janam Bhumi, it has been
only in the possession of Nirmohi Akhara. I had seen this
possession till the attachment which took place in 1949.
This attachment of the outer part took place in 1982. That
is to say, it pertains to the interior of the outer part, and
K.K. Ram Verma was appointed receiver in respect of it
too.
In case of the attachment which took place on 29th
December, 1949, Babu Priya Dutta Ram, Chairman,
Nagarpalika Faizabad, was appointed receiver. As per
customs of the Akhara, many panchas and their disciples
used to build small temples to live in, in the vicinity of the
Ram Janam Bhumi temple. Details thereof are us under:”
1. Sita Koop mandir – Ascetics associated with
Govind Das Akhara who were also priests of the
 512

Janam Bhumi.
2. Sumitra Bhawan mandir–Panch Mahanta Ram
Das Panch was Nirmohi Akhara. The Sumitra
Bhawan was to the south of and at the distance of
150 feet from the disputed temple.” (E.T.C.)
**14- iqjkus iapksa ds tekus ls gh _f"k;ksa dh lekf/k;ka fLFkr pyh vk
jgh Fkh vkSj yksel pkSjk Fkk tks cgqr izfl) FkkA lqfe=k Hkou ds
nf{k.k&if'pe rjQ dqcsj Vhyk gS tks cgqr izkphu gSA rFkk tUe Hkwfe
eafnj lrg ls dkQh Åapk gSA iwjc rjQ vaxn] uy&uhy ds Hkh Vhys gSa
tks tUe Hkwfe lrg ls uhps gSaA**
“14. Right since the time of old Panchas tombs of ascetics
had been existing. There was Lomash Chaura which was
very famous. To the south – west of Sumitra Bhawan lies
Kuber Tila, which is very old and is at a considerable
elevation from the level of Janam Bhumi temple. To the
east lay mounds of Angad and Nal-Neel too which were
below the level of Janam Bhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- xHkZ x`g Hkkx esa Hkxoku jkeyyk th ydM+h ds Åaps flagklu ij
fojkteku Fks xHkZ x`g esa Hkxoku jke yyk ekuo Le`fr ds igys ls gh
fojkteku pys vk jgs FksA vkSj muds lkFk gh y{e.k th] guqeku th
vkSj lkfydjke Hkxoku Hkh fojkteku jgs gSa] ;s ewfrZ;ka ;kfu Hkxoku
jkeyyk dh v"V/kkrq foxzg gS vkSj mlh izdkj y{e.k th dh Hkh ewfrZ gS]
guqeku th dh ewfrZ ik"kk.k dh gS vkSj lkfydjke Hkxoku gS] flagklu
chp Hkkx esa fLFkr FkkA tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k rc ls eSa fu;fer jke
tUe Hkwfe n'kZu djus tkrk Fkk vkSj xHkZ x`g esa fojkteku jkeyyk dk
cjkcj n'kZu djrk jgkA ;s n'kZu cjkcj fu;fer :i ls 6 fnlEcj ds
nks fnu igys rd fd;k FkkA**
“15. In the 'garbh-grih' (sanctum sanctorum) part, Lord
Ram Lala was seated on an elevated wooden throne. In the
sanctum sanctorum, Lord Ram Lala had been seated since
time immemorial. Along with him have been present
 513

Laxman, Hanuman and Lord Saalikram. These are idols,

that is, individual shapes of Lord Ram Lala made of
'ashtadhatu' (alloy of eight metals), and there is a similar
type of idol of Laxman. There is a stone idol of Hanuman
and then is placed Lord Saalikram and the throne is placed
at the centre. Since I began to come to Ayodhya I regularly
used to go to have darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi and
continued to have darshan of Ram Lala, seated in the
'garbh-grih'. I had regularly had darshan of these idols till
two days before 6th December.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- tc&tc eSa jke tUe Hkwfe fur&;k=k esa tkrk Fkk rks jke&uke
vuq"Bku] iwtu esa ,d ?kUVk ls T;knk le; yxrk FkkA dHkh jke pcwrjs
ds lkeus cSBdj dHkh xHkZ x`g esa Hkxoku ds lkeus cSBdj dHkh iwjc
okys xsV ds lkeus ekSyljh ds o`{k ds uhps jke uke ds vuq"Bku dk
iwtu djrk Fkk dHkh f'ko&njckj ds lkeus ihiy isM+ ds uhpsA lu~
1934 ls ysdj 23 fnlECj] 1949 rd ftl le; QthZ ?kVuk crk;h
tkrh gS] rd fueksZgh v[kkM+s dh rjQ dbZ iqtkjh iwtk&ikB djrs Fks
eq[; iqtkjh dbZ o"kksZ ls egaFk cynso nkl th FksA 1934 esa tc eSa vk;k
rks cynso nkl th ds xq: HkkbZ lhrkjke nkl th iqtkjh Fks vkSj ftuds
vUrxZr dbZ lgk;d iqtkjh FksA tks lacaf/kr jke tUeHkwfe pcwrjk] NBh
LFky] xHkZ x`g eafnj vkfn lkfey gSa] bl njfe;ku dbZ iqtkjh
vkrs&tkrs jgs gSa] tSls jkeldy nkl th] eSa ¼jkelqHkx nkl 'kkL=h½
lqn'kZu nkl] jke foykl nkl] o`ank ou nkl vkfnA**
“16. Whenever I joined 'Ram Janam Bhumi Nit Yatra', I
had to spend more than an hour in 'Ram Naam
Anushthaan' and 'Poojan'. I used to perform 'Ram Naam
Anushthaan' sometimes by sitting in front of Ram
Chabutra, sometimes by sitting in front of Bhagwaan in
'garbh-grih' and sometimes by sitting beneath the Maulsiri-
tree (large evergreen tree) in front of the eastern gate and
sometimes by sitting beneath the fig-tree in front of Shiv-
 514

darbaar. Between 1934 and 23rd December, 1949 during

which the fake incident is stated to have taken place, many
priests used to perform pooja-paath on behalf of Nirmohi
Akhara and Mahant Baldev Das Ji had been main priest
for many years. In 1934, when I came, Sitaram Das, guru
bhai (disciple of the same guru ) of Baldev Das Ji, was the
priest. And there were many assistant priests under him
who were associated with Ram Janam Bhumi Chabutra,
Chhathi Sthal, Garbh-grih Mandir, etc. In course of this
period, many priests like Ram Shakal Das, Sudarshan Das,
Ram Vilas Das, Vrindavan Das, me (Ram Shubhag Das
Shastri) and so on, have been coming and going.” (E.T.C.)
^^17- eSa v[kkM+s dh rjQ ls iqtkjh ds lg;ksx esa jgrk Fkk D;ksafd eSa
jax egy tUe Hkwfe ls djhc LFkku esa jgrk FkkA vkSj izfrfnu jkekuq"Bku
?kaVk&nks&?kaVk rhu ?kaVk tUe Hkwfe ifjlj esa ekStwn jgdj Hkxoku
dk /;ku djrk FkkA blfy, fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds lk/kqvksa us lu~ 1949 ds
dbZ o"kZ igys ls mDr /kkfeZd LFkyksa dh iwtk ds fy, vius lkFk fy,
jgrs FksA cSjkxh lEiznk; dh uhfr&fjokt ls iwtk djuk eSa tkurk gwaA**
“17. On behalf of the Akhara I used to render cooperation
to the priest because I used to live at a place near Rang
Mahal and Janam Bhumi and used to meditate on
Bhagwaan by being present in course of 'Ramanushthaan'
in the Janam Bhumi premises for one or two or three hours
everyday. Hence, ascetics of Nirmohi Akhara used to keep
me along with them for pooja at the said religious places
from many years prior to 1949. I know the mode of worship
as per rites and customs of Bairagi sect.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- eSa crkSj lgk;d iqtkjh fueksZgh v[kkM+s dh rjQ ls fu;qDr gqvk
Fkk rFkk 1949 esa Hkh dqdhZ ds le; esa eSa lgk;d iqtkjh ds :i esa
dk;Zjr jgkA**
“18. I was appointed as assistant priest on behalf of
 515

Nirmohi Akhara and even in 1949, at the time of

attachment, I was working as assistant priest.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- xHkZ x`g esa Hkh n'kZukFkhZ 23 fnlEcj] 1949 dh ?kVuk ds igys rd
lrr~ :i ls Hkxoku dk n'kZu djrs Fks] nzO;] fe"BkUu] oLrqvksa dks p<+krs
Fks ftls fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iap] egUFk o iqtkjh Hkxoku ds lsokFkZ izkIr
djrs FksA xHkZ x` g eaf nj dh O;oLFkk o dCtk eS a fuek sZ gh
v[kkM+k dk Lo;a 1934 ls cjkcj ns[ krk pyk vk jgk gw a
vkSj 1934 ds dkQh igys fpjdky ls fueksZgh v[kkM+s dk dCtk o
O;oLFkk lfn;ksa iwoZ ls pyk vk jgk gSA ,slk eq>s o`) larksa o bfrgkl ls
ekywe gqvk gSA
23 fnlEcj] 1949 dks tks v[kkM+k ds N^ lk/kqvksa tSls eSa lqn'kZu
nkl] jke ldy nkl] o`Unkounkl] jke foykl nkl tks fueksZgh v[kkM+s
ds Fks buds vykok guqekux<+h ds lk/kq vfHkjke nkl th FksA og fjiksVZ
iqfyl dkaLVsfcy ekrk izlkn QthZ eqlyeku] nhoku o flikgh ds ncko
esa QthZ fy[kkbZ FkhA tks pktZ 'khV esjs Åij ntZ Fkh mldh iDdh
vnkyrh udy] esjk eqpydk o tekurukek] rhuksa eSaus udy ds :i esa
ea0 Hkk"dj nkl ljiap fueksZgh v[kkM+k ls izkIr fd;k ftldh QksVks LVsV
lwph&1 rk 3 eSa 'kiFki= c;ku ls nkf[ky dj jgk gwaA ;g lc QthZ
eqlyeku lkft'k ls gq;h] 1934 ds naxs ds ckn eqlyeku fookfnr
ifjlj ds rjQ tk gh ugha ikrs FksA ,slk blfy, Fkk fd 1934 ds naxs esa
dkQh eqlyeku ekjs x;s Fks vkSj v;ks/;k esa eqlyekuksa ds pan ?kj gh Fks
blfy, ugha tkrs FksA
fookfnr ifjlj ds bnZ&fxnZ lqUuh tekr ds yksxksa ds dqy
15&16 ?kj gksaxsA fookfnr ifjlj ds mRrj lqVgVh eksgYyk ftlesa
4&5 ?kj eqlyeku Fks vkSj mlds if'pe vkyexat dVjk o Vs<+h cktkj
esa dze'k% 2&3 ?kj izfr eksgYyk vkSj ikath Vksyk esa 3&4 ?kj FksA ml
le; eqlyekuksa dh la[;k cgqr de Fkh os Mjrs Fks vkSj lu~ 1934 ds
xkSd'kh ds naxs esa fgUnqvksa us eqlyekuksa dks ekjk vkSj dqN dfczLrku
rksM+k ftlls flQZ fgUnqvksa ij gh naxk VSDl yxk Fkk blfy, eqlyeku
m/kj x;s gh ughaA blfy, uekt i<+us dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha gSA esjs
ns[kus esa 1934 ls fookfnr xHkZ&x`g ;k iwjs ifjlj esa dHkh eqlyekuksa
}kjk uekt ugha i<+k x;kA**
 516

“19. Prior to the incident of 23rd December, 1949,

devotees constantly had darshan of Bhagwaan (God) in
'garbh-grih' (sanctum sanctorum) and offered objects,
sweets and articles which Panchas, Mahantas and priests
used to get for the service of Bhagwaan. Since 1934 I have
consistently been looking after the arrangement and
possession of Garbh-grih Mandir on behalf of Nirmohi
Akhara and since much earlier than 1934, that is, for
centuries, its possession and arrangement has been with
Nirmohi Akhara. I have come to know this from old saints
and from history.
The 23rd December, 1949 incident involved six
ascetics of Akhara such as Sudarshan Das, Ram Shakal
Das, Vrindavan Das, Ram Vials Das and me – belonging to
Nirmohi Akhara– and Abhiram Das, an ascetic of
Hanumangarhi. That report was lodged by police constable
Mata Prasad in a fake manner and under pressure from a
fake Muslim, diwan and sepoy. I got copies of trio of true
court copy of the charge-sheet filed against me, my bond
and bail bond from Mahanta Bhaskar Das, Sarpanch of
Nirmohi Akhara. I am filing photostat lists 1 to 3 along
with my sworn statement. All this happened in collusion
with a fake Muslim. After 1934 riot, Muslims could not
venture to go towards the disputed premises. It was so
because a sizeable number of Muslims were killed and on
account of there being only a few houses of Muslims they
did not go there.
There must be a total 15-16 houses of the Sunni
community in and around the disputed premises. To the
north of the disputed premises lay Suthati locality, which
 517

had 4-5 Muslim houses and to its west lay Alamganj Katra
and Tedi Bazar localities with 2-3 houses each and Panji
locality with 3-4 houses. At that time the number of the
Muslims was extremely low and they used to be scared. In
the Gokashi riot of the year 1934 the Hindus had killed the
Muslims and had broken some graveyards as a result of
which riot tax was inflicted only on Hindus. That being the
reason Muslims did not even go towards that side. Hence,
there is no question of offering namaz. I never saw Muslims
offer namaz at the disputed sanctum sanctorum or in the
entire premises since 1934.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- v;ks/;k esa izfl) esyk Jhjke uoeh] lkou >wyk] dkfrZd ifjdzek
rhu esyk iz/kku gSa bl volj ij Hkkjr ds dksus&dksus ls n'kZukFkhZ vkrs
gSa tks Jhjke tUeHkwfe tkrs gSaA**
“20. Ayodhya mainly witnesses three famous fairs viz. Sri
Ram Navami, Sawan Jhoola and Kartik Parikrama. On
these occasions, devotees come from the nooks and corners
of India and visit Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^21- gj esys esa ,sls n'kZukFkhZ Hkh vkrs gSa tks uokg ikB djrs gSa o
djokrs gSa vkSj lw{e HkUMkjk Hkh djkrs gSa ;s lc dk;Z ,sls n'kZukFkhZ izR;sd
esyk esa izR;sd o"kZ fueksZgh v[kkMk ds egUFk o iapksa o iqtkjh ds ek/;e
ls djkrs Fks tks xHkZ x`g esa fnlEcj] 49 rd dk;e jgk vkSj ckgjh okys
Hkkx esa 1982 dqdhZ rd dk;e jgkA**
“21. Every fair also sees devotees who come and perform
'Navah-Paath' (nine-day recitation) or get it performed.
They also get 'Sookshma Bhandara' organised. Every year,
all these activities used to be performed on behalf of such
devotees by Mahantas, Panchas and priests of Nirmohi
Akhara at every fair and they continued at the sanctum
sanctorum till December, 1949 and in the outer part till the
1982 attachment.” (E.T.C.)
 518

394. In para 24, DW 3/13 has said that the disputed premises,
inside and outside the courtyard, has never been used either for
offering Namaz or as Mosque :
^^24- fookfnr xHkZ&x`g rFkk ckgjh gkrk esa dHkh uekt ugha i<+h xbZ
vkSj u gh efLtn ds rkSj ij bLrseky gq;h gSA
“24. Namaz was never offered in the disputed sanctum
sanctorum and in the outer compound, nor has the said
place ever been used as a mosque (E.T.C.)
395. DW 3/14, Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
Haryachara is aged about 69 years (vide affidavit dated
23.07.2004). His cross examination proceeded as under:
(a) 23/26.07.2004- defendant no. 20, Akhil Bhartiya Sri
Ram Janma Bhumi Punarudhar Samiti through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 14- 25)
(b) 26.07.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17, and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22,
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 25-
30)
(c) 26.07.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 30-31)
(d) 26.07.2004- Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate
adopted the cross examination already done by Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Advocates (p. 31)
(e) 26/27.07.2004- by defendant no. 11 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 32-44)
(f) 27/28/29/30.07.2004, 02/03/04/05/06.08.2004- by
Sunni Central Waqf Board, defendant no. 9 through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 44-158)
(g) 0616.08.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
 519

no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim through Sri Mustaq Ahmad

Siddiqui, Advoate (p. 158-184)
396. He claims to be an authority about Ramanandi Sect,
command on the matters relating to Veda, Purana, Smritia,
Dharam Shastras, Kavya, etc., vast knowledge of language
Sanskrit, and said:
^^1- eSa jkekuUn lEiznk; ds eq[; ihB ds lEiznk;kpk;Z ds in ij
izfrf"Br gwWaA^^
**1- I hold the post of Sect Head of Principal seat of
Ramanand sect.” (E.T.C.)
^^2- jkekuUn lEiznk; dk eSa 25oka jkekuUn lEiznk;kpk;Z gwWaA^^
^2- I am the 25th Ramanand Sect Head of Ramanand
sect.” (E.T.C.)
^^3- eSa O;kdj.kkpZ] lkfgR;kpk;Z] osnkUrkpk;Z vkSj ,e0,0 gwWaA**
“3. I am a Grammarian, Author, Vedantist and M.A.”
(E.T.C.)
“4- eSaus osn&iqjk.k] Le`fr] /keZ'kkL=] dkO;] bfrgkl rFkk lukru /keZ
ds vUrxZr ftruh Hkh ekU;rk,a gSa mu lcdks izk;% lkaxksikax eSaus v/;;u
fd;kA“
“4. I have mostly studied all the beliefs under the
Sanatan Dharma besides Veda-Purana, Smriti, Dharma
Shastra, Poem and History.” (E.T.C.)
“5- esjk laLd`r Hkk"kk dk ewy v/;;u gSA”
“5. I have originally studied in Sanskrit language.”
(E.T.C.)
“6- eSaus ckYehfd jkek;.k dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA“
“6. I have also studied Valmiki Ramayana.” (E.T.C.)
“7- eSa ;ksxhjkt laLd`r fo|ky; esa izkpk;Z in ij jgk gwWaA vukfn
fnxEcj tSu xq:dqy esa 6 o"kZ O;kdj.k izk/;kid jgk gwWaA Jh fuokl
cks/kk;u jkekuqt laLd`r egkfo|ky; mRrj rksrkfnz eB esa 18 o"kksZa rd
gsM vkQ fMikVZesaV O;kdj.k 'kkL= esa FkkA”
 520

“7. I have worked on the post of Principal in Yogiraj

Sanskrit School. I was Grammar Lecturer for six years in
Anadi Digambar Jain Gurukul. I was Head of Department
in Grammar for 18 years in Sri Niwas Bodhayan Ramanuj
Sanskrit Degree College Uttar Totadri Math.” (E.T.C.)
397. DW 3/14 came to Ayodhya in 1945 at the age of 10
years, and joined Ramanandi Sect as pupil of Swami Ram Balak
Das Ji at Hanuman Garhi, studied at Ayodhya and Kashi, is
author of several books on religion and religious literature as
detailed below:
“9- eSaus fuEufyf[kr xzUFkksa dh jpuk dh gS %&
1- Jh lEiznk; eUFku ¼lkr [kUMks esa½ v;ks/;k ls eqfnzr rFkk
fotd dze lEor~ 2048]
2- Jh lEiznk; le; Vhdk xzUFk
3- osnksa esa vorkj jgL;]
4- Jh jkepfjr ekul dk oSfndRo]
5- czEg lw= laLd`r Vhdk]
6- mifu'kn bZ'kk okLFkks; fu"kn] gfjHkk";
7- xhrk HkfDr n'kZu]
8- ukjh rw ukjk;.kh]
9- Jh jke Lrojkt]
10- iapeq[k eaxy guqeku]
11- Jh lEiznk;kpk;Z n'kZuA”
“9. I have written the following books:
1. Shri Sampraday Manthan (in seven volumes)
published from Ayodhya and Vijak Kram Samvat
2048
2. Shri Sampraday Samay Tika Granth
3. Vedon Mein Avtaar Rahasya
4. Shri Ramcharit Manas Ka Vaidikatva
5. Brahmsutra Sanskrit Tika
 521

6. Upnishad Isha Vasthoya Nishad, Haribhashya

7. Geeta Bhakti Darshan
8. Nari Tu Narayani
9. Shri Ram Stavraj
10. Panchmukh Mangal Hanuman
11. Shri Sampradayacharya Darshan” (E.T.C.)
398. He is founder/editor of monthly magazine “Awadh
Saurabh”, addressed religious discourses at various places.
About his knowledge of religious literature, in paras 12 and 13,
he says:
“12- eSaus] oSfnd lkfgR; dk v/;;u fd;k gS rFkk osn] osnkax] iqjk.kksa
mifu"kn] Le`fr vkSj Hkk"; vkfn dk v/;;u fd;k gS rFkk vU; /kkfeZd
xzUFkksa dk v/;;u fd;k gSA eSaus ckYehfd jkek;.k dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k
gS rFkk rqylhnkl d`r jkepfj= ekul dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gS] xksLokeh
rqylhnkl ds ,dkn'k xzUFk gSa ftUgsa eSaus i<+k gSA”
“12. I have studied Vedic literature as well as Vedas,
Vedang, Puranas, Upnishad, Smriti and Bhashya etc.
besides other religious treatises. I have also studied
Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsi Das composed Ramcharitra
Manas. There are 11 treatises of Goswami Tulsidas, which
have been read by me.” (E.T.C.)
“13- izkphu bfrgkl ds tkuus ds fy, oSfnd lkfgR; dk cgqr cM+k
egRo gSA”
“13. The Vedic literature has a very important role in
knowing ancient history.” (E.T.C.)
399. DW 3/14 has studied Valmiky Ramayan (Sanskrit and
Hindi translation both). In paras 24 and 25, what has been said
by Valmiky in Ramayan, is stated as under:
“24- ckYehfd jkek;.k esa esjs b"V o vkjk/; jke ds pfj= dk ltho
o.kZu egf"kZ ckYehfd us fd;k gSA”
 522

“24. Maharshi Valmiki has given a lively description of

my revered Lord Rama’s character in Valmiki Ramayana.”
(E.T.C.)
“25- ckYehfd jkek;.k esa v;ks/;k o lj;w dk o.kZu gS vkSj vkt Hkh
og lc ufn;ksa o jke ou xeu ekxZ dh HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr ;FkkfLFkfr
;Fkkor dk;e gSA lj;w unh gS] uUnh xzke gS] ;g unh xaxk unh Hkj}kt
vkJe] iapoVh] jkes'oje yadk vkfnA”
“25. The Valmiki Ramayana contains description of
Ayodhya and Saryu and even today the geographical
position of all the rivers and Rama’s exile path, continues
to be the same. River Saryu, Nandigram, river Ganges,
Bhardwaj Ashram, Panchvati, Rameshwaram, Lanka etc.
all exist.” (E.T.C.)
400. In paras 26, 27, 28, 30, 56, 57 and 58 of the affidavit, DW
3/14 has referred to the contents of “Atharva Ved”, “Shiv
Sanhita” and “Rudrayamal” giving descriptions of Ayodhya but
we find it unnecessary to refer it here in view of the statement of
Muslim parties through their counsels under Order X Rule 2
CPC that they do not dispute about the birth of Lord Ram at
Ayodhya as also that the present Ayodhya is the same where
Lord Ram is believed to have born. The dispute has now
narrowed down to the site in dispute.
401. With respect to identification of the disputed premises as
birthplace of Lord Ram and his faith about the same, in paras 31
and 51 he said :
“31- ekStwnk le; Hkh Jh jke tUeHkwfe eafUnj ;kfu ftldk eqdnek
py jgk gS ds iwoZ ykse'k _f"k vkJe gS tgka vkt jkexqysyk efUnj gS]
ogha iRFkj Jh ykse'k th yxk gSA jke tUe Hkwfe eafnj ls if'pe nf{k.k
fo/us'oj Hkxoku gSa tks of'k"B Hkou efUnj ds if'pe gS bldk izek.k
lwph ^^d** layXud&'kiFk gSA”
“31. In present times also, there is the Ashram of Lomash
 523

Rishi ahead of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple, about which

case is pending. At the place where Ramgulela temple
exists today, is the stone of Lomash ji. To the west-south of
the Ramjanmbhumi temple, is Lord Vighneshwar, to the
west of Vashishtha Bhawan temple. Its proof is list ‘A’ as
enclosure-oath (to affidavit).” (E.T.C.)
“51- esjh Hkkafr Hkkjro"kZ ds reke n'kZukFkhZ jketUeHkwfe ds Hkhrjh o
ckgjh Hkkx ds fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk ds o vU; /kkfeZd LFky f'ko
njckj o NV~Bh iwtk LFky dk n'kZu djrs FksA**
“51. Just like me, various devotees of India had ‘Darshan’
of Lord Ramlala present in the inner and outer part of
Ramjanmbhumi, other religious places,and Shiv Darbar
and Chhathi worship place. ” (E.T.C.)
402. In paras 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 50 of
the affidavit, DW 3/14 has stated about the ownership and
possession of the premises in dispute, existence of idols inside
the courtyard and worship therein prior to December, 1949 and
said as under:
“35- fuokZ.kh v[kkMk ds vUrxZr izfl) guqekux<+h dfiyeqfu eafnj o
nhxj guqekux<+h esa gh 12 eafnj gSaA mlh rjg fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds
vUrxZr JhjketUe Hkwfe eafnj jgk gSA fueksZgh v[kkMk dh izkphu cSBd
jke?kkV v;ks/;k gSA fueksZgh v[kkMk dk eafnj jkekiqj] [kqnkZckn] lqfe=k
Hkou] lhrkdwi] ukdk guqekux<+h vkfn gSA”
“35. Under the Nirvani Akhara are the famous
Hanumangarhi, Kapilmuni temple and twelve temples in
other Hanumangarhi. Similarly, the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple has been under Nirmohi Akhara. The ancient seat of
Nirmohi Akhara, is Ramghat Ayodhya. Ramapur,
Khurdabad, Sumitra Bhawan, Sita Koop, Naka
Hanumangarhi etc. are temples of Nirmohi Akhara.”
(E.T.C.)
 524

“38- eSa v;ks/;k vkus ds ckn gh ls fo|kfFkZ;ksa o guqekux<+h ds larksa ds

lkFk jketUeHkwfe eafnj fuR; n'kZu djus gsrq tkrk jgkA”
“38. After coming to Ayodhya, I along with students and
saints of Hanumangarhi went to have ‘Darshan’ of
Ramjanmbhumi temple everyday.” (E.T.C.)
“39- rhuk s a f'k[kj ds chp oky s f'k[kj ds uhp s fojkteku
Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZ u dq d hZ gk su s rd tc ls v;k s/ ;k
vk;k] cjkcj djrk jgk g wW aA ”
“39. From my arrival till the attachment, I regularly
had ‘Darshan’ of Lord Ramlala present under the mid
dome of the three domes.” (E.T.C.)
“40- esjs Kku ls dqdhZ fnlECkj 1949 ds vkf[kj esa gqbZ rc ls ckgj
lha[kps okys njokts ls Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu gksrk FkkA”
“40. According to me, the attachment took place in last of
December, 1949 and since then the ‘Darshan’ of Lord
Ramlala was had from outside the grill gate.” (E.T.C.)
“41- dqdhZ ds igys f'k[kj ds uhps okys Hkkx esa fojkteku Hkxoku
jkeykyk dk lsok] iwtk ikB mRlo] leS;k fueksZgh v[kkMk v;ks/;k djrk
FkkA fueksZgh v[kkMk ds iqtkjh jgrs Fks igys igy tc eSaus n'kZu fd;k
rks cynso nkl th iqtkjh FksA dqN le; ckn Hkk"dj nkl tks muds
psyk Fkk] dks ns[kkA Hkk"dj nkl vc ukdk guqekux<+h esa egUFk gSaA vkSj
Hkh lgk;d iqtkjh Fks uke ;kn ugha gSA”
“41. Prior to the attachment, the service, worship, prayer,
ceremony of Lord Ramlala present in the area under the
dome was carried out by Nirmohi Akhara, Ayodhya. The
priests of Nirmohi Akhara were present. Baldev Das was
the priest, when I had my initial ‘darshan’. After sometime,
I saw his disciple Bhaskar Das. Bhaskar Das is now the
Mahant in Naka Hanumangarhi. There were other
supporting priests as well, but I do not remember their
 525

names.” (E.T.C.)
“43- ckgj okys Hkkx esa iwohZ njoktk ls ?kqlus ij ckgjh Hkkx esa gh
jkepcwrjk eafnj Fkk ftl ij Hkh Hkxoku jkeyyk o rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dh cky
:i ewfrZ;ka FkhaA ftldk iwtk&ikB mRlo] leS;k Hkh fueksZgh v[kkMk okys
djrs FksA ogka aHkh eSaus n'kZu fd;kA”
“43. The Ramchabutara temple fell in the outer part on
entering the outer part through the eastern gate, where the
idols of Lord Ramlala and three brothers were present in
child form, whose worship, prayer etc. were done by the
Nirmohi Akhara. I had ‘Darshan’ over there as well.”
(E.T.C.)
“44- iwohZ njoktk ls ?kqlrs gh Åij nhoky ls lVk HkUMkj lar fuokl
Fkk tgka fueksZgh v[kkMk ds iqtkjh iap o lk/kq jgrs FksA”
“44. Immediately after entry through the eastern gate, was
the store room and saints’ accommodation, where the
priest, Panch and saints of Nirmohi Akhara lived.”
(E.T.C.)
”45- pcwrjk yxHkx 3 QhV ÅWapk o 20 QhV yEck o 17 QhV yxHkx
pkSM+k gksxkA pcwrjk ij dkB dk flagklu FkkA o Åij NIij FkkA pcwrjk
esa xqQk dh nj nksuksa rjQ cuh Fkh] ftlesa dkS'kY;k ds xksn esa Hkxoku
jke cky Lo:i Fks o ,d xqQk esa Hkjr th dh ik"kk.k ewfrZ 2 QhV ÅWaph
FkhA”
“45. The platform was about 3 feet high, 20 feet long and
17 feet wide. There was a wooden throne over the platform,
with a thatched shed. There were caves on both sides of the
platform, in one of which was Lord Rama in child form in
the lap of Kaushalya ji and in the other there was 2 feet
high stone idol of Bharat ji.” (E.T.C.)
”46- ckgjh okys lsgu ds Åij Hkh njoktk Fkk tks esys&esys esa [kqyrk
Fkk mRrjh njokts ds nf{k.k ckgjh lsgu esa NV~Bh iwtk LFky Fkk ftl
ij Hkxoku jke yyk pkjksa HkkbZ;ksa ds pj.k fpUg Fks o csyuk&pdyk o
 526

pwYgk FkkA tks iwT; LFky ekuk tkrk FkkA”

“46. There was a gate in the outer courtyard, which was
opened on the occasion of fair. In the outer courtyard to
south of the northern gate, was the Chhathi worship place
with foot marks of all four brothers including Lord
Ramlala. The stove and ‘Belana-Chakla’ (utensils used in
Indian kitchen), was considered to be a worship place.”
(E.T.C.)
“47- ckgjh Hkkx ij dqdhZ ds ckn Hkh fueksZgh v[kkMk dk dCtk cuk
jgk ysfdu 22 lky igys ckgjh Hkkx Hkh fueksZgh v[kkMs ds >xM+s esa dqdZ
gks x;k ftlds Hkh fjlhoj gks x;s fjlhoj Hkhrjh o ckgjh Hkkx ds ,d
gh O;fDr Fks uke ugha ;kn gSA”
“47. The possession of Nirmohi Akhara continued over the
outer part even after the attachment, but 22 years back
even the outer part was attached in dispute of Nirmohi
Akhara and a Receiver was appointed. There was same
Receiver for both the inner and outer parts, but I do not
remember the name.” (E.T.C.)
“50- ckgjh Hkkx ;kfu jkepcwrjk eafnj ds iwoZ nf{k.k dksus ij ihiy
isM+ ds uhps f'ko njckj Fkk ftldk bartke Hkh fueksZgh v[kkMk okys
ns[krs FksA ”
“50. There was Shiv Darbar in the outer part i.e. under
the Pipal tree in south-east corner of Ramchabutara
temple, which was also managed by Nirmohi Akhara.”
(E.T.C.)
403. In para 52 he claims to have never seen any Muslim
offering Namaz in the disputed premises, either inside or
outside.
404. DW 3/15, Narendra Bahadur Singh is aged about 72
years (vide his affidavit dated 17.08.2004) and is resident of
 527

Mauja Rajapur Saraiya, Pargana Amsin, Tahsil Sadar, District

Faizabad. He was cross examined in the following manner :
(a) 17.08.2004- by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant
no. 17, and Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22,
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 7-
13)
(b) 17.08.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 13-16)
(c) 17.08.2004- Mahant Suresh Das, defendnt no. 2/1
(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by the above Advocates
(p. 16)
(d) 17.08.2004- defendant no. 20, Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram
Janma Bhumi Punarudhar Samiti through Km. Ranjana
Agnihotri, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, and Sri Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Advocate (p. 16)
(e) 17/18.08.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk
Ahmad, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 17-32)
(f) 18/19/20.08.2004- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate
(p.32-55)
(g) 20/23.08.2004- by defendant no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5, Mohd. Hashim (Suit-5) through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Advocate (p. 55-66)
(h) 23.08.2004 – defendant no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2
(Suit-3) through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
 528

Advocates (p. 66)

405. His statement about continuous worship at Ayodhya prior
to 1949, at the disputed premises (inside and outside courtyard),
possession and ownership of the disputed premises, Pooja, and
1934 riot is in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 18 of the
affidavit and read as under:
^^2- pS= jke uoeh] Jko.k >wyk] dkfrZd iwf.kZek o ifjdzek ds le;
esjs ekrk&firk cSyxkM+h ls n'kZu djus v;ks/;k vkrs Fks eSa Hkh lkFk vkrk
FkkA cSyxkM+h cjxnfg;k tgka cjxn ds dkQh isM+ o txg Fkk tks jktk
v;ks/;k dh Fkh] esa :drh Fkh tgka ls lj;w Luku guqeku x<+h]
jketUeHkwfe o dud Hkou eafnj n'kZu djus tkrs FksA”
“2- On the occasion of ‘Chaitra Ramnavami’, ‘Shravana
Jhula’, ‘Kartik Purnima’ and circumambulation, my
parents used to come to Ayodhya by bullock cart to have
‘darshan’. I also used to come along. The bullock cart was
parked at the Bargadahiya, where there were many banyan
trees with space, of king Ayodhya and from there we used
to go for Saryu dip, Hanumangarhi, Ramjanmbhumi and
Kanak Bhawan temple to have ‘darshan’.” (E.T.C.)
“3- eSa yxHkx 11 lky dh mez ls gk s' k lEgky s gwW a igyh ckj
pS= jke uoeh vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk cSyxkM+h ls v;ks/;k efUnjksa ds
n'kZu gsrq vk;k vkSj ogha cjxnfg;k esa cSyxkM+h [kM+h gqbZ tgka ls lj;w
Luku dj guqeku x<+h JhjketUe Hk wf e o dud Hkou dk n'kZ u
fd;k gS A ”
“3- I have gained maturity at the age of about 11
years. I first came to Ayodhya along with my parents by
bullock cart on the occasion of ‘Chaitra Ramnavami’ to
have ‘darshan’ of the temples of Ayodhya and the bullock
cart was parked at the Baragadahiya, from where we had
holy dip in the Saryu and then the ‘darshan’ of
Hanumangarhi, Sri Ramjanmbhumi and Kanak Bhawan.”
 529

(E.T.C.)
“4- tUe Hk wf e efUnj ds eq [ ; f'k[kj ;kfu chp oky s
f'k[kj ds uhp s Hkxoku jke yyk fojkteku Fk s ftudk eS au s
n'kZ u fd;k firk th us crk;k ;gh Hkxoku jke yyk gSa vkSj Hkxoku
jke dh tUeHkwfe eafnj gSA”
“4- Lord Ramlala was present under the main dome of
the Janmbhumi temple viz. the mid dome and I had the
‘darshan’. My father told that this was Lord Ramlala and
the temple of Lord Rama’s birth place.” (E.T.C.)
“5- xHkZ & x` g Hkhrjh Hkkx esa >wy su qek cM+k dkB dk
flag klu Fkk dHkh lkou >wy s es a Hkxoku jkeyyk dk s >wy s
ij ns[ kk o n'kZ u fd;k] dHkh mRrj&if'pe dk su s lh<+h
uq e k LFkku ij Nk sV s ls flag klu esa ns[ kk o n'kZu fd;kA
jkeyyk ds vykok y[ku yky Fks NksVs flagklu ds ckgj lVs guqeku
th dh ik"kk.k ewfrZ Fkh o lkfyd jke vkfn 4&5 j[ks FksA”
“5- There was a swing shaped big wooden throne in
the inner part of the 'Garbh-grih'. Sometimes I saw and
had the ‘darshan’ of Lord Ramlala over swing on
occasion of ‘Sawan Jhula’. Sometimes I saw and had
(His) ‘darshan’ in a small throne at a staircase type
place in the north-west corner. There was Lakhanlal
along with Lord Ramlala. Outside and adjacent to the
small throne, was the stone idol of Hanuman ji with 4-5
Salikram etc.” (E.T.C.)
“6- eafnj jke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu vdsys Hkh eSa 15 lky dh mez ls
tkus yxk Fkk tks dze esjk <kapk fxj tkus ds igys rd cjkcj dk;e
jgkA”
“6- I started going alone at the age of 15 years, to have
‘darshan’ of Ramjanmbhumi temple and this continued
regularly till the demolition of the structure.” (E.T.C.)
“7- <kapk 6 fnlEcj 1992 dks fxjk mlds ckn esjk vkuk&tkuk de
 530

gks x;kA lky esa ,d ckj ;k nks ckj] T;knkrj pS= jke uoeh gksrk FkkA
<k ap k fxjus ds ckn Hkh Hkxoku jke yyk ogh a Hkxoku
jkeyyk gS a ftudk n'kZu eSa cpiu ls djrk pyk vk jgk gwWa vc rEcw
esa fojkteku gSA xSax os; ;kfu yksgs ds ikbi ls cUn jkLrk cukdj n'kZu
iz'kklu }kjk HkDrksa dks djk;k tkrk gSA”
“7- The structure collapsed on 6th December, 1992 and
thereafter my visits were reduced. I used to go just once or
twice a year, mostly on the occasion of ‘Chaitra
Ramnavami’. Even after the collapse of the structure,
Lord Ramlala is the same Lord Ramlala, whose
‘darshan’ I have had since my childhood. He is now
present in the tent. The devotees were made to have
‘darshan’ by the administration through gang way a
passage bounded by iron pipes.” (E.T.C.)
“8- cpiu ls tc eSa jketUe Hkwfe efUnj n'kZu djus tkrk Fkk rks
'kq: ls iwoZ okyk xsV tks jketUeHkwfe efUnj dk guqear }kj dgykrk Fkk]
ls vUnj tkdj lHkh /kkfeZd LFky tSls jkepcwrjk efUnj] xqQk efUnj]
NV~Bh iwtk LFky] pj.k fpUg] vUnj xHkZx`g esa fojkteku Jh Hkxoku jke
yyk rFkk f'konjckj ihiy isM+ ds uhps dk n'kZu djrk Fkk vkSj ,sls gh
Hkkjro"kZ ds dksus dksus ls vk, HkDrx.k n'kZu djrs Fks vkjrh ysrs] izlkn
p<+krs] nzO; p<+krs] Qwy p<+krs o eRFkk Vsdrs o pj.kke`r iqtkjh ls ysrs
FksA”
“8- Since my childhood days, when I used to go to have
‘darshan’ of Ramjanmbhumi temple, I used to enter
through the eastern gate of Ramjanmbhumi temple called
Hanumantdwar and had ‘darshan’ of all religious places
viz. Ramchabutara temple, Cave temple, Chhathi worship
place, footmarks, Lord Ramlala present inside the 'Garbh-
grih' and the Shiv Darbar under the Pipal tree. Same was
done by the devotees coming from different corners of
India. They used to perform ‘Arti’ (a ceremony performed
 531

in worshiping a God), make offerings, offer money, flower,

bow down on their forehead and accept foot-nectar.”
(E.T.C.)
“9- iwohZ xsV ;kfu guqear }kj ls ?kqlrs gh mij ckgjh nhoky ls yxk
HkUMkj x`g lar fuokl cuk Fkk tgkWa fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kq o iqtkjh
jgrs Fks vkSj fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vartke ,oa dCts esa cpiu ls gh mDr
Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj o mlesa fLFkr /kkfeZd LFkyksa dh O;oLFkk djrs
ns[kk gSA”
“9- Just after entry through the eastern gate or
Hanumantdwar, there was the store room and saints’
accommodation adjacent to the upper outer wall, where the
saints and priests of Nirmohi Akhara lived. Since my
childhood, I have seen the said Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple
and the religious places situated therein, to be in the
management and possession of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
“15- tUeHkwfe efUnj dks eSa o esjh rjg esjs ekrk&firk o reke fgUnw
lukru /kehZ turk efUnj gh ekurh jgh vkSj n'kZu djrh jgh gSA”
“15- The Janmbhumi temple has been treated and
worshiped as a temple by me, my parents and the Hindu
Sanatan Dharma public.” (E.T.C.)
“18- fookfnr Hkhrjh Hkkx ;kfu xHkZ x ` g rFkk ckgjh
Hkkx ;kfu jkepcwr jk efUnj] NV~ B h iwtk LFky] f'ko njckj o
Hk.Mkj x`g vkfn dk bar tke fuek sZ gh v[kkMk ds lk/kq v k sa dk
ns[ krk pyk vk jgk FkkA**
“18- I continued to see the management of the disputed
inner part i.e. 'Garbh-grih' and of the outer part i.e.
Ramchabutara temple, Chhathi worship place, Shiv
Darbar and store room etc., being carried out by the saints
of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
406. Paras 10, 11 and 12 of the affidavit of DW 3/15 relates to
the constitution and status etc. of Nirmohi Akhara and shall be
 532

dealt with later on.

407. In paras 16 and 17 he has deposed of having seen no
Muslim offering Namaz or using the disputed premises as
mosque.
408. DW 3/16, Shiv Bheekh Singh, aged about 79 years (vide
his affidavit dated 24.08.2004), is resident of Village Haliyapur,
District Sultanpur. He was cross examined as under:
(a) 24.08.2004-by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi,
defendant no. 17 and Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey,
defendant no. 22 (Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 7-9)
(b) 24.08.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Advocate (p. 9-10)
(c) 24.08.2004- Mahant Suresh Dass, defendant no. 2/1
(Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate
adopted the cross examination already done by Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Advocate (p. 10)
(d) 24.08.2004- defendant no. 20, Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram
Janma Bhumi Punarudhar Samiti through Km. Ranjana
Agnihotri, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, and Sri Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Advocate (p. 11)defendant no. 20, Akhil
Bhartiya Sri Ram Janma Bhumi Punarudhar Samiti
through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi, and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate (p. 11)
(e) 24/25-08-2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Farooq
Ahmad through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 11-24)
(f) 25/26/27-08-2004- by Sunni Central Waqf Board
through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 24-54)
 533

(g) 27/31-08-2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and Mohd.

Hashim, defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) through Sri Mustaq
Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 54-68)
(h) 31-08-2004- by defendant no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 and defendant
no. 26 (Suit-5) through Sri Fazle Alam, Advocate adopted
the cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Mannan,
Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 68-69)
409. His statement about continuous worship at Ayodhya
prior to 1949 at the disputed premises (inside and outside
courtyard), possession and ownership of the disputed premises
of Nirmohi Akhara, performance of Pooja etc. by their Sadhus
and 1934 riot is contained in paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 28 of the affidavit as under:
“3- eSa lu~ 1938 ls fookfnr eafnj Jhjke tUeHkwfe v;ks/;k esa
fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djrk jgk gWaswA”
“3- Since the year 1938, I have had the ‘darshan’
(offering of prayer by sight)of Lord Ramlala present in the
disputed Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
“4- eSa yxHkx 12 lky dh mez ls vius ekrk&firk o xkao okyksa ds
lkFk bDdk cSyxkM+h ls esys&esys v;ks/;k tkrk Fkk] tgka b'kjh nkl ds
gkrk esa cSyxkM+h [kM+h gksrh Fkh] ogha ls lj;w Luku guqeku x<+h dud
Hkou o JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu eSa ekrk&firk ds lkFk bu eafnjksa esa
djrk Fkk vkSj rHkh ls Hkxoku jke dks chp okys xqEcn ds uhps xHkZx`g esa
fojkteku ns[kk gSA”
“4- Since the age of about 12 years, I, along with my
parents and villagers, used to go to Ayodhya on occasion
of fair by tonga- bullock cart. The bullock cart was parked
in the premises of Ishari Das. From there I, along with my
 534

parents, used to take holy dip in Saryu and have ‘darshan’

of Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan and Sri Ramjanmbhumi
and since then I have seen Lord Rama to be present in the
‘Garbh-grih’ under the dome.” (E.T.C.)
“5- cM+k gksus ij vdsys fe=ksa ds lkFk dbZ lky esys&esys lkbfdy
ij v;ks/;k Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu
djus x;kA”
“5- After growing up, I alone went to Ayodhya for many
years by cycle along with friends on occasion of fair, to
have ‘darshan’ of Lord Ramlala present in Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
“6- 'kq:&'kq: esa esjs ekrk firk us v;ks/;k ds izfl) eafnj Jh
jketUeHkwfe ds ckjs esa crk;k vkSj Hkxoku jke dh tUeLFkyh gksus ds
dkj.k eafnj JhjketUeHkwfe dk egRo crk;kA ”
“6- In the beginning my parents told me about Ayodhya’s
famous Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple and told the importance
of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple on account of being the birth
place of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C.)
“11- Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj dk Hkhrj dk Hkkx lha[kpksa okys lgu dks
ysdj rhu f'k[kj ds uhps Fkk ftlds chp okys f'k[kj ds uhp s
xHkZ x` g Fkk tgk a Hkxoku jkeyyk dk s tcls eS a ;kfu 1938
ls n'kZ u djus tkus yxk xHkZ x ` g esa fojkteku ns[ kkA ”
“11- The inner part of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple was
from the grill bound courtyard to the area below the three
dome, and under the mid dome was the ‘Garbh-grih’,
where I had seen Lord Ramlala to be present since I
started going to have ‘darshan’ i.e. year 1938.” (E.T.C.)
“12- ogka Hkxoku jke yyk ds vfrfjDr y[ku yky o guqeku th Hkh
Fks dqN lkfyd jke Fks la[;k ;kn ughaA”
“12- Besides Lord Ramlala, Lakhanlal and Hanuman ji
 535

were also present over there. There were a few Salik Rams,
whose number I do not remember.” (E.T.C.)
“13- xHkZx`g esa dkB dk >wysuqek flagklu Hkh Fkk o lh<+huqek txg ij
pkWanh dk NksVs flagklu ij Hkxoku jkeyyk] y[ku yky Fks o >wyas okys
flagklu ij lkou&>wys esa mUgsa ns[krk Fkk ;kfu Hkxoku jkeyyk dksA”
“13- There was a swing shaped wooden throne in the
‘Garbh-grih’ and in the small silver throne at the
staircase-like place, Lord Ramlala and Lakhanlal were
present. I used to see Him i.e. Lord Ramlala over the swing
shaped throne in the month of Sawan (a month of Hindi
calendar).” (E.T.C.)
“15- eSa lky esa nks ckj rks vo'; tkrk FkkA-”
“15- I did definitely go at least twice a year.” (E.T.C.)
“18- vUnj xHkZx`g ds ckgj ckgjh Hkkx gS tgka ij jkepcwrjk eafnj
NV~Bh iwtk LFky Hk.Mkj x`g o lar fuokl o f'ko njckj Fkk mls Hkh
'kq: ls ;kuh 1938 ls ns[k jgk gwWa ogkWa Hkh n'kZu djrk jgk gwWaA
jkepcwrjk eafnj ij Hkh Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku gSA Hkjr] 'k=q?u]
y{e.k cky :i esa gSaA guqeku th gSa rFkk pcwrjk esa nks xqQk eafnj lk
cuk gSA ftlesa ,d esa dkSf'kY;k th Hkxoku jkeyyk dks xksan esa fy, gSa
vkSj ,d esa Hkjr th dh ik"kk.k ewfrZ gSA”
“18- Inside is the outer part outside the ‘Garbh-grih’,
where there were Ramchabutara temple, Chhathi worship
place, store room, saints’ accommodation and Shiv
Darbar. I had been seeing them since beginning i.e. year
1938 and I had the ‘darshan’ there as well. Lord Ramlala
is present in Ramchabutara temple as well. Bharat,
Shatrughan and Laxman are in child form. Hanuman ji is
present and there are two cave type temples in the
Chabutara, in one of which is Kaushalya ji with Lord
Ramlala in her laps and there is stone idol of Bharat ji in
the other one.” (E.T.C.)
 536

“19- eSaus 1938 esa ekrk&firk ls ;g ckr tkuk tks lk/kq o iqtkjh ogka
gSa og lHkh fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kq gSa vkSj Hkhrj o ckgj dk lkjk
bar tke dCtk fuek sZ gh v[kkMk dk cjkcj dq d hZ rd ns[ krk
jgk gwW aA ”
“19- In the year 1938 I came to know from my parents that
the saints and priests over there, were the saints of Nirmohi
Akhara and till the attachment I had found the entire
management of both inside and outside, being carried
out by Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
“20- dqdhZ ekus le>rk gwWaA 1949 esa fnlEcj esa eq>s guqeku x<+h ds
lk/kqvksa o larksa ls o fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kqvksa ls tks ckgjh Hkkx Hk.Mkj
x`g o lar fuokl esa jgrs Fks ls dqdhZ ckn tc jkeuoeh 1950 esa x;k
rks irk pyk Hkhrj dk Hkkx dqdZ dj fjlhoj ds ns[kjs[k esa iwtk ikB
Hkhrjh Hkkx dk fd;k tkrk gS ysfdu 1950 esa ckgjh Hkkx ij dCtk
fueksZgh v[kkMs ds mUgha lk/kqvksa dk ns[krk Fkk ftUgsa Hkhrjh Hkkx esa crkSj
iqtkjh ns[kk FkkA ml le; ds lk/kqvksa o iqtkfj;ksa esa ls ,d lk/kq dks
dkQh fnuksa rd ns[kk tks egUFk Hkk"dj nkl gSa ftUgsa ukdk eafnj guqeku
x<+h ij ns[krk gwWaA lkbZfdy ls xkao ls vkus ij guqeku x<+h ukdk Hkh
dHkh &dHkh n'kZu djus :d tkrk FkkA ;fn esys esa vkrs oDr eaxy fnu
iM+ tkrk FkkA”
“20- I understand the meaning of attachment. After the
attachment in December, 1949 when I went there on the
occasion of Ramnavami in the year 1950, I came to know
from the saints and hermits of Hanumangarhi and the
saints of Nirmohi Akhara, who lived in the outer store
room and saints’ accommodation, that after the attachment
of the inner part, the worshipping was carried out under
the supervision of Receiver. However, in 1950 I found the
possession over the outer part, with those very saints whom
I had seen as priest in the inner part. Out of the erstwhile
saints and priests, I saw one saint for many days, who was
 537

Mahanth Bhaskar Das whom I see at Nak Hanumangarhi

temple. While coming to my village by cycle, I some times
stopped at Hanumangarhi Naka to have ‘darshan’, if it was
Tuesday.” (E.T.C.)
“21- eSaus lu~ 1938 ls dqdhZ rd 1949 vkf[kjh fnlEcj rd yxHkx
12 lky esa gj lky de ls de nks ckj vo'; x;k gwWaA bl rkSj 24] 25
ckj n'kZu 1938 ls ysdj 1949 rd dj pqdk FkkA”
“21- From the year 1938 till the last of December, 1949, I
must have been there at least twice a year for about 12
years. As such I had about 24-25 ‘darshan’ from the year
1938 to 1949.” (E.T.C.)
“22- 1941 ls vdsys tkus yxk tc 15 lky dk gks x;k FkkA ”
“22- I started going alone from the year 1941, when I
became 15 years old.” (E.T.C.)
“23- 1950 ds ckn Hkh x;k gwWa ckgjh Hkkx es a fuek sZ gh v[kkMk
dk dCtk ns[ kk egUFk Hkk"dj nkl dks lu~ 1950 ls 20oha lky rd
ns[kk mlds ckn dksbZ nwljs lk/kq FksA”
“23- I have been there even after the year 1950. I had
found the possession of Nirmohi Akhara over the outer
part. I saw Mahant Bhaskar Das for 20 years from the year
1950. Thereafter, there was some other saint.” (E.T.C.)
“26- eSaus fookfnr Hkou Hkhrj o ckgjh Hkkx dks lnSo jketUeHkwfe
eafnj ds rkSj ij n'kZu fd;k gSA”
“26- I always had the ‘darshan’ of inner and outer part of
the disputed structure as Ramjanmbhumi temple.” (E.T.C.)
“28- fookfnr eafnj esa dqdhZ ds iwoZ cjkcj dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk ds
lk/kqvksa dk ns[krk jgk gwWaA**
“28- Prior to the attachment of the disputed temple, I
always found the possession of the saints of Nirmohi
Akhara over it.”(E.T.C.)
 538

410. In para 27 he (DW 3/16) has said that no Muslim was

seen by him offering Namaz or using premises in dispute as
mosque.
411. DW 3/17, Mata Badal Tiwari, aged about 84 years (vide
his affidavit dated 31.08.2004), is resident of Mohalla
Taudhikpur Majre Kharauli, Pargana Isauli, Tahsil
Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur. His cross examination
proceeded as under :
(a) 31.08.2004- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4), Akhil
Bhartiya Sri Ramjanmbhumi Punaruddhar Samiti through
Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 4-8)
(b) 31.08.04/01.09.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri
A.K. Pandey, Advocate (p. 16)
(c) 01.09.2004- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant no. 2/1
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandeny, Advocate (p. 16-19)
(d) 01/02.09.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk
Ahmad, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 20-37)
(e) 02/03/14.09.2004- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
37-53)
(f) 14.09.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5), Mohd. Hashim, through Sri Mustaq Ahmad
Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 54-62)
(g) 14.09.2004- defendant no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 through Sri
Fazale Alam, Advocate, adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani
and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Advocate Siddiqui, Advocates (p.
62)
412. His statement about continuous worship at Ayodhya prior
 539

to 1949 at the disputed premises (inside and outside the

courtyard), possession and ownership of the disputed premises
of Nirmohi Akhara, performance of Pooja etc. by their Sadhus
and 1934 riot, is in paras 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20 and 21 of the affidavit and read as under:
^^6- tc ls eSaus gks'k laHkkyk rHkh ls firk th o xkao okyksa ds lkFk
v;ks/;k esys&esys esa JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus tkrk jgs rFkk cjkcj
tkrs jgs gSaA vkS j ;g ckrs a eS au s firk th ls tkuk gS A ”
“6- Since I attained maturity, I, along with my father and
villagers, regularly went to Ayodhya on occasion of fair to
have the ‘darshan’ (offering of prayer by sight) of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi, and I came to know these facts from my
father.” (E.T.C.)
“9- eSaus 1934 ds fgUnw eqfLye naxk ds ckjs esa egUFk cynso nkl
ls tkuk Fkk vkSj nwljs xkao&tokj ls Hkh tkuk Fkk blfy, 1935 es a
eS a v;ks/;k JhjketUeHkwfe eafnj Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djus igyh
ckj vius xk ao ds yk sx k s a ds lkFk x;k FkkA ml le; esj h
mez 15 o"kZ FkhA ”
“9- I came to know about the Hindu-Muslim riot of 1934
from Mahant Baldev Das and other village- Jawar. Due
to this I had gone to Ayodhya in 1935 along with people
of my village, to have ‘darshan’ of Lord Ramlala Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple. At that time I was aged 15
years.” (E.T.C.)
“10- 1935 lu~ ls ysdj iyVu esa ukSdjh djus ds njfe;ku djhc
10&12 erZck v;ks/;k ls Jh jketUeHkwfe n'kZu djus x;k FkkA”
“10- In between the year 1935 and my service period in
the platoon, I had gone to Ayodhya on about 10-12
occasions to have ‘darshan’ of Sri Ramjanmbhumi.”
(E.T.C.)
 540

“11- 1942 ls dqdhZ gksus rd vkt rd yxkrkj Jh jketUeHkwfe efUnj

esa Jh jkeyyk dk n'kZu cjkcj fd;k gwWa bl njfe;ku Hkh eSa 20&22
erZck n'kZu djus v;ks/;k x;kA”
“11- From 1942 till the attachment and even till today, I
have regularly had the ‘darshan’ of Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple. I had been to Ayodhya on 20-22 occasions in this
period to have ‘darshan’.” (E.T.C.)
“12- eSa T;knkrj gj esys esa v;ks/;k n'kZu djus tkrk Fkk vkSj v;ks/;k
esa rhu esys gksrs gSA”
“12- I mostly went to Ayodhya during fair to have
‘darshan’ and three fairs are held at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
“13- eSa fdlh lky ,d vk/k esyk ugha x;k gwWxk ysfdu pS= jke uoeh
esys ij vo'; eSa v;ks/;k n'kZu djus x;k gwWaA”
“13- I may have failed to visit on a couple of fairs, but I
have definitely been to Ayodhya on the occasion of
‘Chaitra Ramnavami’ fair to have ‘darshan’ .” (E.T.C.)
“14- tc vUnj okyk Hkkx dqdZ gks x;k rks mlds ckn xkWao esa tc
cynso nkl th vk;s rc irk pykA”
“14- I came to know about attachment of the inner part,
when Baldev Das came to village thereafter.” (E.T.C.)
“15- dq d hZ ds ckn vUnj tkdj Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZ u
ugh a gk s ikrk Fkk yk sg s ds lh[kp s oky s njokts ls n'kZ u gk s
ikrk FkkA ”
“15- After the attachment, the ‘darshan’ of Lord
Ramlala was not possible from inside but from the iron
grill gate.” (E.T.C.)
“16- dqdhZ ds ckn ckgjh Hkkx esa igys dh rjg jke pcwrjk efUnj ij
fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk rFkk rhuksa ;kfu f'konjokj o NV~Bh iwtk
LFky ij cjkcj n'kZu djrk jgk gwWaA”
“16- Even after the attachment, I have regularly had the
 541

‘darshan’ of all the three viz. Lord Ramlala present in

Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar and Chhathi worship
place in the outer part, as done earlier.” (E.T.C.)
“17- Jh jketUeHkwfe ds Hkhrjh o ckgjh Hkkx nksuksa ij eSaus fueksZgh
v[kkMk ds lk/kqvksa dk dCtk o bartke 1935 lu~ ls cjkcj ns[kk gwWaA”
“17- I have continuously seen the possession and
management of the saints of the Nirmohi Akhara over the
inner and outer part of Sri Ramjanmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
“18- vkt ls 22 o"kZ igys tkuk fd ckgj okyk Hkkx Hkh fueksZgh
v[kkMs ds lk/kqvksa ds vkilh yM+kbZ esa dqdZ gks x;k rc ls ljdkjh
fjlhoj ckgj okys Hkkx Hkh gks x;kA”
“18- About 22 years ago, I came to know that even the
outer part had been attached in mutual conflict of the
saints of Nirmohi Akhara, and since then an official
Receiver was appointed for the outer part as well.”
(E.T.C.)
“19- jke tUeHkwfe ds jke pcwrjk efUnj ds mRrj ;kfu iwohZ xsV
guqeUr }kj ls lVs fueksZgh v[kkMk ds lk/kqvksa ds jgus dk lUr fuokl]
Hk.Mkj x`g eSa Lo;a 1935 lu~ ls ns[k jgk gwWaA”
“19- The store room and saints’ accommodation for
accommodation of saints, which is adjacent to eastern gate
Hanumatdwar or the north of Ramchabutara temple of
Ramjanmbhumi, have been witnessed by me since the year
1935.” (E.T.C.)
“20- eSa vktknh feyus ds dqN lky igys ls Hkk"dj nkl tks cynso
nkl ds psys gSa] dks tkurk igpkurk gwWa tUeHkwfe eafnj esa Hkh vUn:uh
Hkkx esa Hkh ns[kk] jke pcwrjs ij Hkh ns[kk] lUr fuokl esa Hkh ns[kk vkSj
vktdy os egUFk guqekux<+h ukdk ds Hkh gSaA tgkWa Hkh eSaus bUgs ns[kkA”
“20- I knew Bhaskar Das, disciple of Baldev Das, for a
few years prior to the independence. I saw him in the inner
 542

part of the Janmbhumi temple, at the Ramchabutara and in

saints’ accommodation as well. These days he is the
Mahant of Hanumangarhi Naka and I have seen him there
as well.” (E.T.C.)
“21- lu~ 1935 ls Jh jke tUeHkwfe eafnj ds Hkhrjh o ckgjh Hkkx ij
dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMs ds lk/kqvksa dks ns[kk vkSj bUgha lk/kqvksa ds bUrtke
esa jkeyyk dk n'kZu J)kyq yksx djrs Fks vkSj eSaus Hkh fd;kA**
“21- I found the saints of Nirmohi Akhara to be in
possession over the inner and outer part of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple since the year 1935. The devotees
as well as I, had the ‘darshan’ of Ramlala under the
management of these saints.” (E.T.C.)
413. DW 3/17 joined army in 1939 and after completing one
years training at Roorki went to South Afrika wherefrom he
retired in November, 1941 due to medical unfitness.
414. D.W. 3/18, Acharya Mahant Banshidhar Das alias
Uriya Baba, aged about 99 years (as per his affidavit dated
15.9.2004), is resident of Singh Darwaja, Chhavani Math,
Jagannathpuri, Mandir Uriya Baba ka Sthan (Surya Mandir),
Mohalla Ramkot, Ayodhya. He was cross examined as under:
(a) 15.09.2004- by defendant no. 17, Ramesh Chandra
Tripathi and defendant no. 22 Umesh Chandra Pandey
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 4-
14)
(b) 15/16.09.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 14-20)
(c) 16.09.2004- defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) through Sri
Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate and defendant no. 20
through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi
and Sri A.K. Pandey, Advocates (p. 20)
 543

(d) 16.09.2004- by defendant no. 11, Mohd. Faruk

Ahmad, Advocate through Sri Abudl Mannan, Advocate
(p. 21-33)
(e) 16/17/18/20/21/22.09.2004- by Sunni Central Waqf
Board, defendant no. 9, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocae (p. 34-96)
(f) 22/23/24.09.04/11/12.10.2004- by defendant no. 7
(Suit-4) and Mohd. Hashim, defendant no. 5 (Suit-5)
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 96-
164)
(g) 12.10.2004- defendant no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 through Fazale
Alam, Advocate adopted thecross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 164)
415. He was born in 1905 and came to Ayodhya in 1930.
Besides Sanskrit, he knows Hindi and Oriya also. He has got
special knowledge in Balmiki Ramayan, Manas,
Srimadbhagwatgita. About his continuous Darshan of Lord Ram
at Ramjanambhumi (disputed premises) since 1930 (inside the
courtyard), its ownership and possession of Nirmohi Akhara,
non user of premises by any Mohammandan and no Namaz
since 1930 are the basic facts which he has said in para 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the affidavit which are as under :
^^5- 1930 ls cjkcj eSa v;ks/;k okl ds le; Jh jke tUeHkwfe efUnj
vkSj guqeku x<+h o dud Hkou efUnj n'kZu djus tkrk jgk gwWA^^
“5. Since the year 1930, I have been regularly going to
have 'darshan' of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple,
Hanumangarhi and Kanak Bhawan temple during my stay
at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- 1930 esa Hkh tc eSa Jh jke tUe Hkwfe ftldk eqdnek py jgk gS dk
 544

n'kZu djus x;k rks Hkhrj okys Hkkx es a Hkxoku jke yyk th
fojkteku Fk s ftudk eSaus n'kZu fd;k o izlkn o vkjrh o pj.kke`r
fy;kA mDr izlkn o vkjrh o pj.kke`r eq>s fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkfj;ksa
o lk/kqvksa }kjk feyrs jgs tks efUnj jke tUe Hkwfe ds ckgjh Hkkx ;kuh
efUnj jke pcwrjk ds mRrj eq[; iwohZ njoktk tks guqeUr }kj dgykrk
gS ds mRrj lUr fuokl] Hk.Mkj x`g esa jgrs FksA^^
“6. In the year 1930 also, when I went to have 'darshan' of
Sri Ramjanmbhumi, about which case is pending, Lord
Ramlala was present in the inner part and I had His
'darshan', prasad and arti and received charnamrit (foot
nectar). The said prasad, arti and charnamrit were given to
me by the priests and saints of Nirmohi Akhara, who used
to live in the outer part of Ramjanmbhumi temple i.e. the
saints’ accommodation, store room in north of
Hanumantdwar, the main gate to north east of
Ramchabutara temple.” (E.T.C.)
^*7- eS au s vUnj okys Hkkx esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk
n'kZ u 1949 fnlEcj rd fd;kA fnlEcj ds vkf[kjh lIrkg esa
Hkhrj okys Hkkx dh dqdhZ gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr eSaus Lo;a ns[kk tc edj
ladzkfUr ls 10] 12 jkst igys n'kZu gsrq x;k FkkA^^
“7. I had 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala present in the inner
part, till December, 1949. The inner part had been
attached in the last week of December. This was witnessed
by me when I had gone to have 'darshan' about 10-12 days
before Makar Sankranti.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- Hkhrj okys Hkkx dh dqdhZ xyr gqbZA Hkxoku jke yyk Hkhrj okys
Hkkx esa igys ls fojkteku pys vk jgs gSa ftudk eSa n'kZu iwtk vpZuk
1930 ls dj jgk gwWaA^^
“8. The inner part was wrongly attached. Lord Ramlala
has since back been present in the inner part whose
'darshan' and worship I have been doing since 1930.”
 545

(E.T.C.)
^9- ckgjh Hkkx esa jke pcwrjk NV~Bh iwtk LFky o f'ko njckj o Hk.Mkj
o jlksbZ?kj e; lUr fuokl gS ftlesa fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kw iqtkjh iap
jgrs gSa rFkk bl ckgjh Hkkx es a Hkh eS au s Hkxoku jke yyk dk
n'kZ u iwt u 1930 ls fd;k gS vkSj vkjrh izlkn o pj.kke`r
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkjh o lk/kqvksa ls xzg.k fd;k gSA NV~Bh iwtk LFky
tgkWa pkjks Hkkb;ksa jke] y{e.k] Hkjr] 'k=q?u ds pj.k fpUg o pwYgk
pdyk csyuk gS dk Hkh n'kZu o eRFkk Vsd dj iwtu HkDr yksx djrs Fks
eSa Hkh djrk FkkA^^
“9. The outer part includes Ramchabutara, Chhathi
worship place, Shiv Darbar, store and kitchen along with
saints’ accommodation, where the saints, priests, panch of
Nirmohi Akhara used to live. I have had 'darshan' and
worship of Lord Ramlala in this outer part as well since
1930 and have received arti, prasad, charnamrit from
priests and saints of Nirmohi Akhara. The devotees used to
have 'darshan' and offer prayer at the Chhathi worship
place, which has foot marks of all four brothers Rama,
Laxman, Bharat, Shatrughan and stove – chakla- belna,
and I also used to do the same.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- eSaus ;g lc ckgjh Hkkx esa fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk dCtk] izcU/k 1930
ls cjkcj Qjojh 1982 rd ns[kk gS tc Qjojh 1982 esa fl;k jk?ko
'kj.k ds vkilh >xM+s esa ckgjh Hkkx Hkh dqdZ gks x;k FkkA^^
“11. The possession, management of Nirmohi Akhara over
this entire outer part, had been found by me from the year
1930 to February, 1982. The outer part was also attached
in February, 1982 in mutual conflict of Siya Raghav
Sharan.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- fookfnr Hkhrjh Hkkx o ckgjh Hkkx esa eS au s 1930 ls
fdlh eq l yeku dk s uekt i<+r s ugh a ns[ kk gS A ^^
“16. Since the year 1930, I have not seen any Muslim
 546

offer Namaz in the disputed inner part and outer part.”

(E.T.C.)
^^17- 1934 bZ0 naxs ds ckn rks eqlyeku fookfnr efUnj ds mRrj okyh
lM+d ls vkrs&tkrs gh ugha Fks igys lqVgVh eqgYyk o J`axkjgkV vkrs
& tkrs FksA^^
“17. After the riot of 1934 AD, the Muslims did not pass
through the road in north of the disputed temple. Earlier
they used to visit Mohalla- Suthati and Shringarhat.”
(E.T.C.)
^^18- oSfnd lkfgR; o okYehfd jkek;.k o ekul o vU; jpukvksa o
lkfgfR;d lkexzh ij ;gh fookfnr LFky Jh jke tUe Hkwfe efUnj gS
vkSj ;gh ifo= rhFkZ uxjh v;ks/;k lj;w rV ds nf{k.k clh gSA^^
“18. In the Vedic literature, Valmiki Ramayana, Manas
and other compositions and literary material, this disputed
site is described as Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple and this very
sacred pilgrimage is situated in south of the banks of Saryu
in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^19- HkkSxksfyd n`f"V ls lHkh LFky bfrgkl ds izekf.kr gksus ds dkj.k eS a
Hkxoku jke dk tUe blh fookfnr LFky ij vkLFkkuq l kj
ekurk gwW aA **
“19. In view of all the historical places being proved from
geographical point of view, I, as per belief, consider that
the incarnation of Lord Rama had taken place at this
disputed site.” (E.T.C.)
416. About the constitution and status of Nirmohi Akhara, he
has averred some facts in paras 14 and 15, which shall be
referred to while considering Issue No. 17 (Suit-3).
417. D.W. 3/19, Ram Milan Singh, aged about 75 years (as
per his affidavit dated 12.10.2004), son of Sri Vikaramajeet
Singh, is resident of Mauza Haliyapur, Pergana Isauli, Tahasil
Musaphirkhana, District Sultanpur. He was cross examined in
 547

the following manner :

(a) 13.10.2004- by defendant no. 17, Ramesh Chandra
Tripathi and defendant no. 22 Umesh Chandra Pandey
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 5-
9)
(b) 13.10.2004- defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) through Sri
Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate and Sri A.K. Pandey,
Advocate (Suit-5) adopted the cross examination already
done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi Advocate (p. 9)
(c) 13/14.10.2004- by defendant no. 11, Faruq Ahmad
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 10-26)
(d) 14/15/25.10.2004- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 9 (Suit-3) through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 26-56)
(e) 25/26.10.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 56-73)
(f) 26.10.2004- defendant no. 6/1 through Sri Irfan
Ahmad Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 through Fazale
Alam, Advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by Sri Abdul Mannan, Sri Zafaryab Jilani and Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates (p. 73)
418. His date of birth is 15.1.1930 and he claim to have
attained the age of understanding in 1940, i.e. at the age of 10.
He visited, for the first time, Sri Ramjanambhumi at Ayodhya
with his parents and other villagers in 1940 and was told by his
parents that this was the place where Lord Ram was born and
the temple is that of Ramjanambhumi. Regarding his continuous
visit to Ayodhya, worship of Lord Ram at the disputed premises
inside the Courtyard, the possession and ownership of disputed
 548

premises by Nirmohi Akhara, he has stated in paragraphs 3 to

15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 24 of the affidavit as under :
^*3- eSa rc ls cjkcj v;ks/;k jke uoeh ds volj ij vo'; Hkxoku
jkeyyk dk n'kZu djus vkrk jgk gwaA lu~ 1940 ls lu~ 1951 rd
gj jkeuoeh es a vkus dk esj k dz e gjlky dk;e jgk ysfdu
lu~ 1951 ds ckn jkeuoeh esa v;ks/;k Hkxoku jkeyyk ds n'kZu djus esa
ukxk gks tkrk Fkk ;kfu fdlh lky ugha vk ikrk FkkA**
“3. Since then I have definitely been to Ayodhya on the
occasion of Ramnavami to have 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala.
This practice of mine continued every year on every
Ramnavami from the year 1940 to 1951, but after the
year 1951 there was some gap in having 'darshan' of Lord
Ramlala at Ayodhya on the occasion of Ramnavami i.e. I
was unable to visit in a particular year.” (E.T.C.)
^^4- eSa gks'k lEHkkyus ij lu~ 1940 esa igyh ckj tc v;ks/;k vk;k rks
igys lj;w Luku djrs Fks blds ckn jketUeHkwfe efUnj] dud Hkou o
guqekux<+h dk n'kZu djrk Fkk vkSj ukxs'ojukFk ij ty Hkh p<+krk
FkkA**
“4. After attaining maturity, I first visited Ayodhya in the
year 1940 and started with a holy dip in Saryu followed by
'darshan' of Ramjanmbhumi temple, Kanak Bhawan temple
and Hanumangarhi and also used to offer water at
Nageshwar Nath.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- esjs firk &ekrk ifjdzek esa Hkh v;ks/;k vkrs Fks vkSj Jh
jketUeHkwfe efUnj esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djrs Fks eSa Hkh
muds lkFk vkrk FkkA**
“5. My parents also used to come to Ayodhya on the
occasion of Parikrama (circumambulation) and used to
have 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala present in Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple and I also used to accompany
them.” (E.T.C.)
 549

^^6- eSa tc igyh ckj lu~ 1940 esa gks'k lEHkkyus ij Hkxoku jkeyyk
dk n'kZu fookfnr LFky esa fLFkr eafnj jketUe Hkwfe efUnj esa tc
ekrk&firk ds lkFk fd;k Fkk rks mlh lky lkou >wyk esa v;ks/;k vk;k
Fkk vkSj lkou >wyk esa Hkh v;ks/;k esa >wyk yxrk gS ml le; eSaus lj;w
Luku dj Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk Hkh
n'kZu fd;k vkSj ifjdzek o dkfrZd iwf.kZek esa Hkh blh izdkj ;kfu mlh
lky lu~ 1940 esa dkfrZd ekl esa iM+us okys iapdkslh ifjdzek o 14
dkslh ifjdzek o iwf.kZek ds ugku esa Hkh v;ks/;k vk;k Fkk vkSj Hkxoku
jkeyyk fojkteku efUnj Jh jketUeHkwfe v;ks/;k dk n'kZu fd;kA**
“6. When I first had the 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala, along
with my parents in the year 1940 after attaining maturity,
at the Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple situated at the disputed
premises. In the same year I had also been to Ayodhya on
the occasion of Sawan Jhula and on that occasion I had the
'darshan' of Lord Ramlala present in Sri Ramjanmbhumi
temple after having a holy dip in Saryu. Similarly, on the
occasion of Parikrama and Kartik Purnima in said year
1940, I had come to Ayodhya on the occasion of Panch kosi
Parikrama, Chaudah kosi Parikrama and Purnima Snan
and also had the 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala present in Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- JhjketUe Hkwfe efUnj ifjlj nks Hkkxksa esa 1949 fnlEcj ls gks
x;kA Hkhrj okyk Hkkx dqdZ gks x;k Fkk rFkk ckgj okyk Hkkx esa n'kZukFkhZ
vkrs &tkrs FksA**
“7. The Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises was divided in two
parts in December, 1949. The inner part was attached and
the devotees kept visiting the outer part.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- Hkhrj okyk Hkkx tks dqdZ gqvk mlds ckjs esa lu~ 1950 esa tc
pS= jkeuoeh esa Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djus vk;k rks irk pyk ,oa
eSaus ns[kk fd lhadps okyh nhoky ij yksgs ds NM+nkj njoktk cUn ;k
rkyk yxk Fkk rFkk ckgj iqfyl dk igjk Fkk mlh txg ls Hkxoku
 550

jkeyyk dk n'kZu eSaus o vkSj Hkh n'kZukfFkZ;ksa us fd;kA iqfyl ls iwNus

ij ekywe gqvk fd Hkhrj dk Hkkx dqdZ gks x;kA**
“8. In the year 1950 when I came to have 'darshan' of Lord
Ramlala on the occasion of Chaitra Ramnavami, I came to
know about the inner part, which had been attached, and
also saw that it was bounded by a grill wall with gate,
which was closed or locked and police had been posted out
side it. I as well other devotees had the 'darshan' of Lord
Ramlala from there. On inquiry from police, it transpired
that the inner part had been attached.” (E.T.C.)
^9- lu~ 1940 esa tc igyh ckj eSa vius gks'k esa mDr efUnj jke
tUe Hkwfe esa n'kZu gsrq ekrk&firk ds lkFk vk;k Fkk rks Hkhrj tks cM+s
iqtkjh jke tUe Hkwfe dgs tkrs Fks vkSj ekStwn Fks] mudk s fn[kkdj
esj s firk us crk;k Fkk fd ;gh cM+ s iq t kjh ea0 cynso nkl
th gS tk s vius xk ao o tokj esa vkrs tkrs gS eS au s igpkuk
vkS j rc ls eS a egUr cynso nkl dk Hkhrj oky s Hkkx es a
crkS j cM+ s iq t kjh efUnj jke tUe Hk wf e ns[ kk vkS j rc ls
cjkcj ea0 cynso nkl dk s ogk a crkS j cM+ s iq t kjh dkfrZ d
iwf .kZ e k 1949 rd ns[ kk gS ] ftuds lkFk fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds vkSj
lk/kw Hkh jgrs FksA**
“9. In my senses, when I first went to the said
Ramjanmbhumi temple along with my parents in the year
1940 to have 'darshan', a person called the head priest of
Ramjanmbhumi was present there. Showing him to me my
father told me that he was the head priest M. Baldev
Das, who used to visit our village and locality. I
recognized him and since then I have seen Mahant
Baldev Das as head priest of Ramjanmbhumi temple in
the inner part till Kartik Purnima in the year 1949.
Other saints of Nirmohi Akhara also remained with him.”
(E.T.C.)
 551

^^10- fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kqvksa ds ckjs esa esj s firk th us igyh

ckj gh crk;k Fkk fd mu lk/kqvksa dks iwoZ xsV ls ?kqlus ij mudks
lar fuokl o Hk.Mkj x`g esa jgrs ns[krk FkkA**
“10. On the first occasion itself my father had told me
about the saints of Nirmohi Akhara that on entering
through the eastern gate he had seen those saints reside in
saints’ accommodation and store room.” (E.T.C.)
^11- lu~ 1940 es a tc igyh ckj jke tUe Hkwfe efUnj ekrk&firk
ds lkFk x;k Fkk rks firk th us ckgjh Hkkx ;kfu jke pcwr jk
efUnj f'ko njckj o NV~ B h iwt u LFky ij Hkh n'kZ u
djk;k FkkA**
“11. In the year 1940 when I first went to Ramjanmbhumi
along with my parents, my father had also taken me to
have 'darshan' of the outer part i.e. Ramchabutara
temple, Shiv Darbar and Chhathi worship place.”
(E.T.C.)
^^12- jke pcwrjk efUnj ij Hkh Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku Fks ogka Hkh
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds lk/kw iqtkjh FksA**
“12. Lord Ramlala was present at the Ramchabutara
temple as well. The saints of Nirmohi Akhara were there as
priests.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- f'ko njckj] jke pcwrjk efUnj ds nf{k.k iwoZ dksus ij nhoky ds
isM+ ds uhps FkkA 'kadj Hkxoku v?kkZ] x.ks'k th] ikoZrh th] dkfrZds; th]
uUnh th lQsn laxejej iRFkj ds fojkteku FksA ogka Hkh eSaus eRFkk Vsdk
Fkk vkSj yksxksa dks Hkh eRFkk Vsdrs ns[kkA**
“13. The Shiv Darbar was under the tree in south-east
corner of Ramchabutara temple . The white marble stone
idol of Lord Shankar, Ganesh ji, Parvati ji, Kartikeya ji
and Nandi ji were present over there. I paid my reverence
there and also saw others do the same.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- NV~Bh iwtk LFky mRrjh xsV ds ikl Fkk ogka pdyk&csyu &
 552

pwYgk o Hkxoku jke ;kfu pkjks Hkkb;ksa ds pj.k&fpUg cus Fks ogka Hkh
yksx eRFkk Vsdrs Fks eSaus Hkh vius eka cki ds lkFk eRFkk VsdkA**
“14. The Chhathi worship place was near the northern
gate where Chakla- Belan- Chulha (hearth) and footmarks
of all four brothers of Lord Rama, were present and people
used to pay their reverence. I along with my parents, also
paid my reverence there.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- eSa lu~ 1940 ls cjkcj rhuksa esyk tks v;ks/;k esa gksrk FkkA lu~
1951 pS= jke uoeh rd vk;k mlds ckn lky esa fdlh ,d esys esa
vo'; n'kZu gsrq ogka tk ikrk FkkA**
“15. From the year 1940, I regularly came to Ayodhya on
all the three fairs till Chaitra Ramnavami of the year 1951.
Thereafter, I went there at least once every year on
occasion of any one fair.” (E.T.C.)
^^17- lu~ 1940 ls 1982 rd fuek sZ gh v[kkM+k ds lk/kq v k s a
dk dCtk rFkk ogk a jguk o iq t kjh dk dk;Z efUnj jke
pcwr jk ij djuk] eS au s cjkcj ns[ kkA lu~ 1982 ds edj ladzkfUr
ds fnu Hkh eSa v;ks/;k lj;w Luku dks x;k FkkA blfy, jke tUe Hkwfe
efUnj Jh n'kZu djus pyk x;k Fkk blfy, tkurk gwa fd 1982 rd
ckgjh Hkkx ij fueksZgh v[kkM+k okyksa dk dCtk ns[kkA**
“17. Since the year 1940 to 1982, I have regularly seen
the saints of Nirmohi Akhara perform the functions of
priest at Ramchabutara temple and reside and be in
possession over there. I had been to Ayodhya on the
occasion of Makar Sankranti in the year 1982 to have a
holy dip in Saryu. Due to this, I had gone to
Ramjanmbhumi temple to have the 'darshan' and as such I
know that till 1982 I had seen the possession of Nirmohi
Akhara extend over the outer part.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- Hkhrj okyk Hkkx ij gh fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk dCtk o iqtkjh }kjk
pj.kke`r o ijlkn nsrs eSaus 1940 ls iwf.kZek dkfrZd 1949 rd ns[kk gwa
 553

blds ckn vxgu esa dqdhZ gks x;h Fkh] tSlk eSaus igys c;ku fn;k FkkA**
“18. From the year 1940 to Kartik Purnima in the year
1949, I had seen the Nirmohi Akhara to be in possession
over the inner part and the priests distributing Charnamrit
(foot nectar) and Prasad. Thereafter, the attachment took
place in Aghan, as already stated by me.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk ,d efUnj jke?kkV v;ks/;k esa gS] ogka Hkh
lkou esys esa esjs firk th eq>s 1941 ;kfu nwljs lky ys x;s Fks vkSj
crk;k Fkk fd ;gha fueksZgh v[kkM+k okys gSa ftuds dCts o bUrtke o
ekfydkuk esa Jh jke tUeHkwfe efUnj Hkh gSA blds ckn Hkh eSa lkou esys
esa fueksZgh v[kkM+k efUnj vkSj efUnjksa dh rjQ lkou >wyk >kadh ns[kus
lkou esys esa x;k FkkA ogka b/kj irk pyk Fkk fd ea0 txUukFk nkl
fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds egaFk gSaA**
“20. The Nirmohi Akhara has a temple at Ramghat
Ayodhya. My father had taken me there in the next year i.e.
in the year 1941 and had told that it was the same Nirmohi
Akhara, which was in possession, management and
ownership of the Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple. It was only
after this that I visited the temples of Nirmohi Akhara on
the Sawan fair to have glimpse of Sawan Jhula tableau.
There I came to know that M. Jagannath Das was the
Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
^^21- ukdk eqtQjk guqekux<+h QStkckn esa guqeku th ds efUnj ds
egaFk cynso nkl Fks ogka Hkh eSa ea0 cynso nkl ds tekus esa x;k gwaA
mlds f'k"; ea0 Hkk"djnkl dks vktknh feyus ds ,d lky igys jke
tUe Hkwfe efUnj esa cynso nkl ds lkFk ns[kk FkkA ukdk esa Hkh guqeku
efUnj eSa ns[ks gwaA**
“21. The Mahant of Hanuman temple at Naka Muzaffara
Hanumangarhi Faizabad, was Baldev Das. I have been
there as well in the period of M. Baldev Das. One year
before the independence, I had seen his disciple M.
 554

Bhaskar Das along with Baldev Das at the Ramjanmbhumi

temple. I have seen Hanuman temples at Naka as well.”
(E.T.C.)
^^24- fueksZgh v[kkM+k dk dCtk bUrtke Hkhrj okys Hkkx ij 1949
dqdhZ rd o ckgj okys Hkkx ij 1982 rd ns[kk gSA**
“24. I had seen the possession, management of Nirmohi
Akhara over the inner part till the attachment of 1949 and
till 1982 over the outer part.” (E.T.C.)
419. In para 26, DW 3/19 has said of having not seen any
Muslim offering Namaz in disputed premises nor has heard
about so:
^^26- eSaus viuh tkudkjh esa fdlh eqlyeku dks fookfnr efUnj esa
uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kk vkSj u gh fdlh ls lqukA**
“26. In my knowledge I have neither seen any Muslim offer
Namaz at the disputed temple nor have I heard the same
from anybody.” (E.T.C.)
420. D.W. 3/20, Mahant Raja Ram Chandracharya, aged
about 76 years (as stated in his affidavit dated 27.10.2004), is
resident of RanChor Rai Mandir Dakor, District Khera, Gujrat.
He was cross examined as under:
(a) 27/28.10.2004- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 17-31)
(b) 28.10.2004- by defendant no. 17, Ramesh Chandra
Tripathi and defendant no. 22 Umesh Chandra Pandey
(Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 31-
40)
(c) 28.10.2004- by defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4) through Sri
Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 40-44)
(d) 29.10.2004- defendant no. 20 through Km. Ranjana
Agnihotri, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Sri A.K. Pandey
 555

and Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocates (p. 45)

(e) 29.10.2004, 01.11.2004- by Mohd. Faruk Ahmad,
defendant no. 11, through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate
(p. 45-62)
(f) 01/02/03/04/05/08/09/10/17/18/19/20.11.2004- by
Sunni Central Waqf Board, defendant no. 9 through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 62-198)
(g) 20/30.11.2004- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and
defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) Mohd. Hashim through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 198-218)
421. DW 3/20 came to Ayodhya at the age of 14 years and
became pupil of Mahant Raghunath Das, Mahant of Nirmohi
Akhara. The averments about Pooja, Darshan at
Ramjanambhumi temple at the disputed premises (inside and
outside courtyard), its ownership and possession with Nirmohi
Akhara are contained in para 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 51 of the affidavit as under :
^2- e0 j?kqukFk nkl th egjkt jke?kkV fLFkr fueksZgh v[kkM+k efUnj
esa jgrs Fks ysfdu eSa tUe Hkwfe efUnj esa Hkxoku jke yyk ftUgsa eSa viuk
bZ"V nso ekurk gwW dh lsok iwwtk o Hkxoku dk orZu] ¼ik"kZn½ lkQ djuk]
Qwy] rqylh ykuk ekyk vkfn cukus dh lsok djrk Fkk vkSj efUnj ds
vUnj ckgj >kM+w&cgk: yxkrk FkkA^^
“2. M. Raghunath Das Maharaj lived in Nirmohi
Akhara’s temple at Ramghat. However, I consider Lord
Ramlala of Janmbhumi temple as my favoured deity and I
used to serve, worship, clean the utensils of God, bring
flowers, Tulsi, make garland etc. and also used to broom
the outer-inner side of the temple.” (E.T.C.)
^^3- ml le; fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds cM+s iwtkjh xksfoUn nkl th Fks] vkSj
muds lgk;d iwtkjh lqn'kZu nkl] cynso nkl vkfn Fks] rFkk Hk.Mkj o
izlkn cukuss dk dk;Z jke fd'kqu nkl y[kukSok ckck fd;k djrs Fks] ,d
 556

igkM+h ckck jke fiz;k nkl vkSj Fks tks dkssi Hkou efUnj ds f'k"; Fks
jlksbZ esa enn djrs FksA^^
“3. At that time, Govind Das was the main priest of the
Nirmohi Akhara and Sudarshan Das, Baldev Das etc. were
his assistants. The preparation of food and ‘prasad’ was
carried out by Ram Kishun Das Lucknowa Baba. The
Pahari Baba Ram Priya Das was disciple of Kop Bhawan
temple and he assisted in the kitchen.” (E.T.C.)
^4- ml le; fueksZgh v[kkMk ds iap fxjoj nkl o jkeI;kjs nkl
ogha jgrs Fks rFkk xksydh jke y[ku nkl th jke?kkV v[kkM+s ds efUnj
esa jgrs Fks tks fnu esa o 'kke nksuksa le; eafnj jke tUeHkwfe jkedksV
eksgYyk] jke?kkV] v;ks/;k fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds efUnj ls vkdj [kpkZ o
vkenuh dk ys[kk&tks[kk djrs Fks o fglkc fy[krs FksA ogha Hk.Mkj x`g
ds ikl lar fuokl dh dksBjh dkB dh lanwd esa ys[kk&tks[kk o fglkc
dk dkxtkr o nhxj dkxtkr efUnj jketUeHkwfe o fueksZgh v[kkM+s dk
j[krs FksA^^
“4. The Panch of Nirmohi Akhara, Girvar Das and Ram
Pyare Das lived there in that period and the Golki,
Ramlakhan Das lived at Ramghat temple of the Akhara. He
used to come daily in morning and evening from the temple
of Nirmohi Akhara to Ramjanmbhumi temple, Mohalla
Ramkot Ramghat Ayodhya and maintain the account of
expenses and income. He used to keep the documents
related to accounts and other documents related to
Ramjanmbhumi temple and Nirmohi Akhara, in a wooden
box in the saints’ accommodation near the store room.”
(E.T.C.)
^^5- ek0 j?kqukFk nkl th esjs xq: egjkt Fks Hkxoku jkeyyk dk
n'kZu o eafnj dh fo'ks"k ns[k&js[k gsrq fnu esa ,d ckj vo'; vkrs FksA^^
“5. M. Raghunath Das, who was my Guru, used to come
at least once daily to have 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala and
 557

maintenance of the temple.” (E.T.C.)

^^9- Jh jke tUeHk wf e efUnj es a 1943 ls 1949 dq d hZ rd
Hkhrjh Hkkx esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dh iwt k&ikB
vkjrh mRlo le;k cjkcj jkekuUnh; oS j kxh lEiz n k; ds
jhfr&fjokt o ijEijk ls gk sr h jgh gS A rFkk /kekZoyEch lukru
oSfnd /kekZuq;k;h fof'k"V :i ls ogka ;kuh xHkZ x`g esa vanj rd fcyk
fdlh jksd&Vksd ds n'kZu djrs FksA izlkn p<+krs Fks nzO;&iq"i] fe"Bku
vkfn p<+krs FksA ;g lc p<+kok Hkxoku jkeyyk dks gksrk FkkA ftls
fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh ysrs Fks vkSj n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dks izlkn o pj.kke`r
nsrs Fks vkSj vkjrh Hkh nsrs FksA iwjk dCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk dk Fkk rFkk
fueksZgh v[kkMk ds bartke esa Hkxoku dh iwtk ikB o mRlo leS;k gksrs
FksA^^
“9. From the year 1943 till the attachment of year
1949, the worship, Arti, and rituals of Lord Ramlala
present in the inner part of Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple,
were regularly performed as per the custom and practice
of Ramanand Recluse sect and the religious Sanatan,
Vedic religious followers particularly went inside the
'Garbh-grih' without any obstruction and had 'darshan',
offered ‘prasad’, money, flower, sweets etc.. All these
offerings were made to Lord Ramlala and were received by
the priests of Nirmohi Akhara, who used to distribute the
‘prasad’, ‘charanamrit’ and ‘arti’ amongst the devotees.
The complete possession was with Nirmohi Akhara and the
worship and ceremonies were carried out under the
management of the Nirmohi Akhara.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- vUnj okys Hkkx ftls xHkZ x`g crk;k gS ds Åij rhu f'k[kj gS
iwoZ lgu gS mlds iwoZ lh[kps okyh nhoky gS lh[kps okyh nhokj ds
if'pe lgu o rhuksa f'k[kj lfgr okyk Hkkx Hkhrjh Hkkx dgk tkrk gS
tks fnlEcj 1949 bZ0 esa >wBs vk/kkj ij iqfyl }kjk dqdZ fd;k x;kA
dqdhZ dh QnZ cuh Fkh] ftldh iDdh udy QksVks LVsV lwph ¼1½ dkxt
 558

isij ua0 108 lh- 1@4 gS] tks nkok ua- 5@89 esa fueksZgh v[kkMk esa
nkf[ky gS ftldh dkih eSaus i<+k gS vkSj igys ls 145 ds eqdnes esa ns[kk
FkkA ftls i<+ djds c;ku dj jgk gwWa ftlesa Hkxoku jkeyyk rFkk lHkh
lkekuksa dk ftdz gS ftldh pkSgn~nh dqdZ 'kqnk Hkkx dh ml le; ekSdk
ds fygkt ls iz'kklu o iqfyl }kjk fuEufyf[kr rkSj ij fy[kh x;h
FkhA
iwjc& pcwrjk eafnj jke th cdCtk fueksZgh v[kkMk lgu
if'pe& ifjdzek
mRrj& gkrk NV~Bh iwtu vkSj fueksZgh
nf{k.k& vkjkth ijrh o ifjdzek^^
“10. There are three domes above the inner part called
'Garbh-grih'. There is courtyard in the east. To its east is
the grill wall. The courtyard in west of the grill wall along
with the area comprising the three domes, is called the
inner part which was attached by the police in December,
1949 on fake ground. A memo of attachment had been
prepared, the photostat of whose certified copy has been
filed as List-1, paper no. 108C1/4 by Nirmohi Akhara in
Case no. 5/89. I have read its copy and had seen it earlier
in the case under section 145 and I am making this
statement after reading the same. It mentions about Lord
Ramlala and all the articles. The boundary of the attached
portion, as per the then existing circumstances, has been
given by the administration and police as under:
East- Chabutara temple of Lord Rama in possession of
Nirmohi Akhara courtyard
West- circumambulation path
North- Campus Chhathi pujan and Nirmohi
South- Vacant plot and circumambulation path” (E.T.C.)
^^11- 1949 dqdhZ ds le; lHkh Hkxoku jkeyyk o y[kuyky guqeku
th o lkfyd jke vkfn rFkk mu Hkxoku ds flagklu o ik"kZn o igukok
 559

dk fooj.k lHkh ntZ gSA^^

“11. At time of attachment of the year 1949, all the details
pertaining to Lord Ramlala, Lakhanlal, Hanuman ji,
Saligram etc., their thrones, ‘parshad’ and attire, were
entered.” (E.T.C.)
^^29- e0 Hkk"dj nkl esjs vkus ds ckn e0 cynso nkl ds psyk cus
vkSj jke tUe Hkwfe ij gh lgk;d iwtkjh ds rkSj ij jgrs Fks] QStkckn
ukdk guqekux<+h efUnj Hkh tkrs FksA^^
“29. M. Bhaskar Das became the disciple of M. Baldev
Das after my arrival and lived at the Ramjanmbhumi as
assistant priest. He also used to go to Naka Hanumangarhi
temple Faizabad.” (E.T.C.)
^^30- fueksZgh v[kkMk ds vUrxZr dbZ efUnj jgs gSa ftlesa izeq[k Jh jke
tUe Hkwfe efUnj jgk gS vkSj efUnj fot; jk/ko efUnj] lqfe=k Hkou
efUnj] bPNk Hkou eafnj] lhrk dwi efUnj] vkfnA^^
“30. There were many temples under the Nirmohi Akhara,
out of which Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple was the main along
with Vijay Raghav temple, Sumitra Bhawan temple, Iksha
Bhawan temple, Sitakoop temple etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^31- Jh jke tUeHkwfe efUnj ifjlj esa vkus tkus ds fy, nks njokts
gSa ,d iwjc okyk guqeUr }kj dgykrk gS ftlesa dksbZ njoktk ugha yxk
gS [kqyk jgrk gS rFkk mDr }kj esa nksuksa rjQ dlkSVh iRFkj ds [kEHks yxs
gSaA ftlesa vkd`fr mdsjh gS vkSj mlesa egkohjh yxh eSaus 'kq: ls ns[kk gS
vkLFkk ds vuqlkj mls igys ls HkDr o lar yksx guqeku th dh ewfrZ
ekurs Fks blfy, ml }kj dk uke guqeUr }kj iM+ x;kA nwljk njoktk
mRrj rjQ Fkk tks flag }kj dgykrk Fkk ftlesa Vhu ds njokts ls can
gksrk FkkA esyk&esyk [kqyrk Fkk ftls fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds yksx esys esa
[kksyrs o cUn djrs FksA mDr xsV ds Åij nks flag ds nks eq[kh ls
vkd`fr cuh Fkh ftl dkj.k mDr }kj dks flag }kj dgk tkrk FkkA^^
“31. There were two gates to enter the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises. The eastern gate was called Hanumatdwar,
 560

which had no gate and it was always open. Pillars of

touchstone were installed on both sides of said gate, with
figures engraved thereon and since beginning I have seen
Mahaviri over it. By belief, the saints and devotees always
treated it as idol of Hanuman ji, due to which the said gate
came to be known as Hanumatdwar. The other gate was in
the north and was called Singhdwar. It remained closed by
tin gate and was opened on occasions of fair by Nirmohi
Akhara people. The figure of two two-faced lions existed at
the said gate, due to which it was called Singhdwar.”
(E.T.C.)
^32- ckgjh Hkkx vFkkZr 1949 dh dqdhsZ ds ckgj iwjc mRrj nf{k.k Hkkx esa
jke pcwrjk efUnj] f'ko njckj o NV~Bh iwtk LFky] Hk.Mkj x`g] dksBkj
rFkk lUr fuokl fLFkr Fkk ftls eSa 'kq: ls ns[k jgk gwW eSa fueksZgh v[kkMk
ds vkSj iqtkfj;ksa ds lkFk lUr fuokl esa jgrk Fkk] Hkxoku ds fy,
Hk.Mkj esa izlkn curk Fkk rFkk dksBkj esa vUu vkfn j[kk tkrk FkkA^^
“32. The Ramchabutara temple, Shiv Darbar and Chhathi
worship place, store room, granary and saints’
accommodation were situated in east north south of the
outer part i.e. beyond the attachment of 1949. I have seen
them since beginning. I used to live in the saints’
accommodation along with other priests of Nirmohi
Akhara. The ‘prasad’ was prepared in the ‘bhandar’
(kitchen) and grains etc. were kept in the granary.”
(E.T.C.)
^^33- jke pcwrjk efUnj 17 QqV x 21 QqV dk djhc 3 QqV ÅWpk Fkk
mlds Åij dkB dk flagklu j[kk gqvk Fkk ftlesa chp esa jkeyyk]
y{e.k] Hkjr th] 'k=q?u fojkteku Fks rFkk guqeku th Hkh FksA Hkxoku
jkeyyk fojkteku efUnj jke pcwrjk Hkh fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds dCts
bUrtke essa] eSa tc ls ogkW x;k gwW rc ls ns[k jgk Fkk vkSj esj s xq :
th us crk;k fd 1885 bZ 0 es a gh bl pcwr j s dk eq d nek
 561

pyk Fkk tk s fuek sZ gh v[kkM+k ds dCts esa rc ls cjkcj

dk;e pyk vk jgk gS vkSj ogkW ij Hkxoku jkeyyk dk iwtk&ikB
cjkcj gksrk pyk vk jgk gSA eSus Lo;a 1943 bZ0 ls ogkW ij Hkxoku dh
lsok iwtk&ikB vkfn fd;k gS vkSj v[kkMs+ ds iqtkfj;ksa dks Hkxoku dh
vkjrh fu;fer :i ls djrs iwtk&ikB djrs rFkk mRlo leS;k djrs
cjkcj ns[kk gS tgkW J)kyq HkDrksa ds n'kZu ysus ij ogkW Hkh fe"Bku Qwy
vkfn p<+krs Fks rFkk iqtkfj;ks ls izlkn vkfn ysrs FksA^^
“33. The Ramchabutara temple was 17 feet x 21 feet and
about 3 feet high. A wooden throne was placed therein with
Lord Ramlala, Laxman, Bharat ji, Shatrughan and
Hanuman ji were present over it. The Ramchabutara
temple with Lord Ramlala present, was also under the
management-control of the Nirmohi Akhara. I have seen
this from the time I started going there. My Guru told me
that in the year 1885 AD, a case had been filed in
respect of this Chabutara, which has since then
continuously been in possession of Nirmohi Akhara and
the worship of Lord Ramlala has regularly been going on,
there. I have myself served-worshiped etc. the Almighty,
there since the year 1943 and have also seen the priests of
Akhara regularly carry out arti, worship, ceremonies. After
having 'darshan', the devotees used to offer sweets, flowers
etc. and accept ‘prasad’ etc. from the priests.” (E.T.C.)
^^34- jke pcwrjk efUnj ;kfu jke pcwrjk esa iwjc if'pe yxHkx lok nks
x ikSus rhu QqV ds nks nj cus Fks ftlesa NM+ ds njokts yxs Fks tks
J)kyq HkDrksa essa xqQk efUnj dgdj izpfyr Fkk bl xqQk efUnj esa ,d
xqQk esa dkS'kY;k th Hkxoku jkeyyk dks xksn esa fy, rFkk guqeku th
dh izfrek jgh gS ftldk Hkh n'kZu J)kyq HkDr x.k djrs Fks vkSj nwljh
xqQk esa ik"kk.k dh Hkjr th dh 2 QqV ÅWph ewfrZ Fkh vkSj NksVh ewfrZ
'k=q?u th dh v"V/kkrq dh j[kh Fkh tks dHkh&dHkh pcwrjas ij j[k nh
tkrh vkSj dHkh&dHkh xqQk efUnj esa Hkjr th ds ikl j[k nh tkrh FkhA
 562

J`)kyq HkDr ogkW Hkh n'kZu djrs Fks] ,slk eSa 'kq: ls ns[k jgk gwWA^^
“34. In east west of the Ramchabutara temple or
Ramchabutara, there were two spaces of approximately 2
¼ feet x 2 ¾ feet, which had doors of iron rod. They were
famous amongst the devotees as cave temples. Out of these
cave temples, the idols of Kaushalya ji with Lord Ramlala
in her lap and of Hanuman ji were present in one cave and
the devotees used to have their 'darshan'. The 2 feet tall
stone idol of Bharat ji and small ashtadhatu idol of
Shatrughan ji were present in the other cave, which was
sometimes placed over the Chabutara and sometimes near
Bharat ji in the cave temple. The devotees used to have
'darshan' here as well, as seen by me since beginning.”
(E.T.C.)
^^35- mRrj rjQ flag }kj ds ikl NV~Bh iwtu LFkku ij tgkWa Hkxoku
jkeyyk lfgr pkjksa Hkkb;ksa ds NksVs&NksVs pj.k fpUg laxejej iRFkj ds
ekStwn Fks vkSj mlh ds ikl pwYgk csyuk rFkk pdyk dk;e Fkk tgkWa Hkh
J)kyq HkDr yksx eRFkk Vsdrs Fks rFkk n'kZu djrs Fks vkSj ogkWa ij Hkh
fueksZgh ds iqtkjh cjkcj vkjrh iwtk djrs Fks ,slk eSa 'kq: ls ns[krk jgk
gwWaA**
“35. The Chhathi worship place was in the north near the
Singhdwar, where Lord Ramlala and small footmarks of all
four brothers were present over marble stone and in its
vicinity were the ‘chulha’, ‘belna’ and ‘chakla’ and the
devotees used to offer their prayer and have 'darshan'. The
priests of Nirmohi regularly carried out worship ‘arti’
there as well and I had seen this since beginning.” (E.T.C.)
^36- ckgjh Hkkx ds bu lHkh /kkfeZ d LFkyk sa dk bUrtke o
dCtk esj s xq : th us crk;k Fkk fd 1885 bZ 0 ls vfHky s[ kk s a
ds vuq l kj pyk vk jgk gS tcfd esjs xq: th us crk;k Fkk fd Jh
jke tUeHkwfe esa fLFkr mDr lHkh /kkfeZd LFkkuksa dk rFkk fojkteku
 563

Hkxoku jkeyyk dh iwtk&ikB vkjrh vkfn ekuo Le`fr ds igys ls

fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iwoZ lUr iqtkjh }kjk lnSo fd;k x;k Fkk bl lUnHkZ
esa v[kkM+s esa ijEijk ls tkuh gq;h ckrs ;g gS fd ekuo ;knnk'r ls
tkuh gq;h ckrs tks eSaus vius xq: ijEijk ls tkuh gS ';kekuUn nkl
ds tekus ls efUnj Jh jketUeHk wf e es a iwt k&ikB bUrtke
lHkh fuek sZ gh v[kkMk ds dCts o bUrtke esa vukfn dky
ls pyk vk jgk gS ftldh tkudkjh eq > s xq : ijEijk ls
gq ; h gS A **
“36. My Guru had told me that according to records,
the management and possession over all these religious
places in the outer part had been continuing since 1885
AD, whereas my Guru has told me that the worship, ‘arti’
etc. of all the said religious places situated at the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi and of Lord Ramlala present, had always
been carried out by the saints, priests of Nirmohi Akhara
from time immemorial. In this behalf the facts known from
customs of the Akhara are those which I have come to
know by virtue of Human memory through Guru-
parampara. From the period of Shyamanand Das,
arrangement for worship at Sri Ramjanmbhumi temple
has been in the possession and management of Nirmohi
Akhara since eternity. I have come to know about that
through Guru-parampara.” (E.T.C.)
^^37- mDr xHkZx`g esa Hkxoku jkeyyk cgqr igys ls fojkteku pys vk
jgs gSa vkSj cjkcj fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds dCts o bUrtke esa jgs gSa Hkhrjh
Hkkx ij Hkh fuek sZ gh v[kkM+ s dk dCtk fufoZ o kn :i ls
[kq Y ye&[kq Y yk vke yk sx k s a dh tkudkjh es a FkkA**
“37. Lord Ramlala has been present in the said 'Garbh-
grih' from long time back and the possession and
management of Nirmohi Akhara has always been there.
The undisputed possession of Nirmohi Akhara over the
 564

inner part was in the knowledge of general public.”

(E.T.C.)
^^38- 1943 bZ0 esa eSa tc Jh jke tUeHkwfe igqWapk rks Hkxoku jkeyyk
xHkZx`g ;kuh chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps mRrj if'pe dksus ij lh<+huqek
nj ij fojkteku FksA pkanh ds flagklu ij Hkxoku jkeyyk o
y[kuyky cky Lo:i esa fojkteku jgs vkSj guqeku th ik"kk.k ewfrZ
flagklu ds ckgj fojkteku Fkh rFkk pkj ikWap lkfydjke Hkxoku Hkh
ogkWa fojkteku Fks eq[; f'k[kj ls uhps chp okys Hkkx esa >wys dk dkB
dk flagklu ftlesa fd Hkxoku jkeyyk fojkteku gksrs Fks] lkou >wys esa
iqtkjh }kjk yk;s tkrs Fks vkSj Hkh mRlo ds le; yk;s tkrs Fks tSls
'kjn iwf.kZek] dkfrZd iwf.kZek vkfnA**
“38. In the year 1943, when I reached the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi, Lord Ramlala was present over a step
type place in north west corner in the 'Garbh-grih' i.e.
under the central dome. Lord Ramlala and Lakhanlal were
present over a silver throne in child form and the stone idol
of Hanuman ji was present besides the throne. 4-5
Salikram were also present. There was a swing shaped
wooden throne under the main dome, which was occupied
by Lord Ramlala. The priests used to bring Him on
occasion of Sawan Jhula and other ceremonies such as
Sharad Purnima, Kartika Purnima etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^51- bl efUnj esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dh izk.k izfr"Bk ek=
ekuo Le`fr ds igys fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr us djk;h FkhA
vkSj ,sls gh jke pcwrjs ij Hkxoku jke yyk dh ek= ekuo Le`fr ds
igys fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr izk.k izfr"Bk djk;h FkhA ;s lHkh
iz k .k iz f r"Bk oS f nd jhfr ls gq b Z FkhA vkSj blh izdkj ckgjh Hkkx
esa gksrs ds vUnj nf{k.k iwoZ dksus ij "k"B eq[kh 'kadj th] x.ks'k th]
uUnh th] vkfn nsork dh izk.k izfr"Bk fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds ekuo Le`fr ds
igys djk;h FkhA og Hkh oSfnd jhfr ls gqbZ FkhA vkSj blh izdkj NBh
LFky ij pkjksa Hkkb;ksa dh pj.k fpUg dh izfr"Bk ekuo Le`fr ds igys
 565

fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds fdlh egUr us djk;h FkhA ;s lHkh ckrsa v[kkM+s ds o`)
lk/kqvksa ls vius xq: egjkt ls tkuk gS iwNus ij gekjs xq: us crk;k
fd ;s crk;k fd ;s ckr mUgksaus ijEijkxr vius xq: egjkt o vius ls
o`) ukxk vfrrksa ls tkukA ;s ckrsa tks eSaus crk;h fd flQZ izk.k izfr"Bk
gh nsorkvksa dh gqbZ lEifRr dk dksbZ leiZ.k ugha gqvkA D;ksafd lEifRr
rks igys rks igys gh lkoZtkfud /kkfeZd U;kl fueksZgh v[kkM+s esa fufgr
FkhA bu lHkh nsorkvksa ds n'kZu ds fy, fgUnwvksa dks n'kZu djus dh iwjh
NwV Fkh fdUrq fdlh eqlyeku dks vUnj vkus dh vuqefr drbZ ugha FkhA
vkSj u gh dksbZ eqlyeku vUnj vkus ikrk FkkA ;s ckrsa Hkh geus vius
ijEijkxr xq: egjkt ls tkuh 1946 ls 1949 rd eq[; efUnj ds Hkhrj
okys Hkkx esa] rFkk 1946 ls 1982 dqdhZ rd jke pcwrjk efUnj esa "k"B
eq[kh 'kadj Hkxoku LFky] NBh iwtu LFky ij crkSj iqtkjh fueksZgh
v[kkM+k jkekuUnh; cSjkxh lEiznk; ds ijEijk o jhfr fjokt o
oSfnd :i ls iwtk fd;k o ikapks le; dh vkjrh fd;kA v[kkM+s ds
egUr tks pqus tkrs gSaA os vius pquko ds ckn v[kkM+s ds in xzg.k djus
ds ckn fjoktu iapks ds gd esa bdjkj ukek djrs gSaA vkSj jftLV~h djk
nsrs gSaA v[kkMs ds fdlh Hkh egUr dks v[kkM+s ds fdlh Hkh lEifRr ds
ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh fodz; i= ;k vUrj.k dk dksbZ Hkh dkxt fy[kus dk
vf/kdkj ugha gksrk gSa ftrus Hkh v[kkM+ksa dk uke c;ku esa Åij crk;k gS
muds jhfr&fjokt o ijEijk ,d gh gSa fuokZ.kh v[kkM+k ftlds vUrxZr
izfl) guqeku x<+h efUnj gSA mUgksaus vius dqN jhfr fjokt nQ~rj lc
jftLV~h QStkckn esa iathdj.k djk dj iqLrd ds :i esa Niok dj
izlkfjr fd;kA ftldh ,d iqLrd dh Nk;k izfr eqdnesa esa nkf[ky
fd;kA^^
“51. The ‘pran-pratishtha’ of Lord Ramlala present in this
temple was carried out by some Mahant of Nirmohi
Akhara, in period beyond human memory. Similarly, the
‘pran-pratishtha’ of Lord Ramlala at Ramchabutara was
carried out by some Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara, in period
beyond human memory. All these 'pran-pratishtha' had
taken place as per Vedic rites. Similarly, the 'pran-
pratishtha' of six faced Shankar ji, Ganesh ji, Nandi ji and
 566

other deities in south east corner inside the courtyard of

the outer part, was carried out by Nirmohi Akhara in
period beyond human memory. It had also been carried out
as per Vedic rites. Similarly, the 'pran-pratishtha' of
footmarks of all the four brothers at the Chhathi place had
been carried out by some Mahant of Nirmohi Akhara, in
period beyond human memory. I have come to know these
facts from elderly saints of Akhara and my Guru. On
inquiry my Guru had told that he had come to know these
facts customarily from his Guru and elderly Naga. The fact
stated by me that only 'pran-pratishtha' of the deities had
been carried out and that the property had not been
surrendered because the property was already vested in
public religious trust Nirmohi Akhara. The Hindus has full
liberty to have 'darshan' of all these deities but no Muslim
was allowed to enter and neither was any Muslim able to
go inside. I came to know these facts as well from my
customary Guru. The five times ‘arti’ and worship in the
inner part of the main temple from the year 1946 to 1949,
and six faced Lord Shankar at Ramchabutara temple and
Chhathi worship place from the year 1946 to the
attachment in 1982, was carried out by me as priest of
Nirmohi Akhara as per the customs and practice of
Ramanand Recluse sect and as per Vedic rites. The Mahant
of the Akhara is elected. After assuming office in Akhara
after the election, he customarily executes agreement in
favour of Panchas and gets it registered. No Mahant of the
Akhara is vested with the right to execute any sale deed or
transfer deed regarding any property of the Akhara. All the
Akharas named above have similar customs and practices.
 567

The Nirvani Akhara, which has the famous Hanumangarhi

temple, has got few of its customs registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Faizabad and published it in form of a
book, whose copy has been filed in this case.” (E.T.C.)
422. In para 50, DW 3/20 has said about the faith of Hindus
regarding birth place of Lord Ram as under :
^^50- fookfnr efUnj izkphu uke jke tUe LFkku jgk 'kq: esa blh uke
ls izpfyr jgh gS ysfdu lkekU;r% iwjs lalkj esa jke tUe Hkwfe ds uke
ls izfl) gSA jke tUe Hkwfe dk oSfnd lukru egRo fgUnw /keZ ds
vuqlkj blfy, cgqr T;knk gS fd fo".kq vorkj Hkxoku jkepUnz dk
tUe o vorkj blh LFky ij gqvkA bl vkLFkk dk izek.k eq>s ckYehfd
d`r jkek;.k Ldaqn iqjk.k] :nz;key] rqylhd`r ekul] vkSj fofHkUu
,sfrgkfld o lkfgR;d xzaFkksa ds i<+us o lquus ls gqvkA**
“50. The ancient name of the disputed temple was Ram
Janmsthan and initially it remained famous by this name.
However, it is usually famous in the whole world as
Ramjanmbhumi. The Ramjanmbhumi has immense Vedic
and Sanatan importance in Hindu religion because Vishnu
incarnate Lord Ramchandra had been born/descended at
this very place. The evidence for this belief was found by
me in Valmiki’s Ramayan, Skand Purana, Rudrayamal,
Tulsi’s Ram Charit Manas and by reading and hearing
different historical and literary works.” (E.T.C.)
423. In para 44, 45, 65 and 73, DW 3/20 has said that
Muslims have never offered Namaz at the disputed premises and
at least since 1934, they have dared not to go to Garbhgrih,
never permitted by Sadhus of Nirmohi Akhara to go towards
disputed premises. Rest of the statement contained in the
affidavit relating to the contents of certain published material.
Testimony of the contents of published material by oral
evidence is not admissible in evidence since the contents of the
 568

published books can be looked into from those books itself and
for that purpose no oral evidence is admissible.
424. In para 8, he has said that he came to Ayodhya in 1943
and studied at Varanasi from 1954 to 1959:
^^8- eSaus Hkk"kk Kku ;kuh fgUnh laLd`r ?kj ij gh i<+k Fkk] vaxzstksa
Hkkjr NksM+ks lR;kxzg ds ckn 1943 esa v;ks/;k vk;k Fkk esjh mPp f'k{kk
cukjl jkekuUn laLd`r fo|ky; esa gqbZ] v;ks/;k esa osn i<+us ds fy,
xk;=h Hkou laLd`r fo|ky; tk;k djrk Fkk eSa cukjl esa 1954 bZ0 ls
1959 bZ0 rd v/;;ujr FkkA**
“8. I learnt language, that is, Hindi and Sanskrit at home
itself. After the Quit India Movement, I came to Ayodhya in
the year 1943. I received my higher education at Banaras
Ramanand Sanskrit Vidyalaya. In Ayodhya, I used to go to
Gaytri Bhawan Sanskrit Vidyalaya for reading the Vedas. I
studied at Varanasi between the years 1954 to 1959 AD.”
(E.T.C.)
425. D.W. 13/1-1, Mahant Dharamdas, aged about 59 years
(vide affidavit dated 10.3.2005, is resident of Hanuman Garhi,
Ayodhya, District Faizabad. He was cross examined as under:
(a) 10/11/14/15/16/17/18.03.2005- by Nirmohi Akhara,
plaintiff (Suit-3) through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and
Tarunjeet Verma, Advocate (p. 9-106)
(b) 18/21/22.03.2005- by plaintiff no. 9 and 10/1
Mahmood Ahmad and Mohd. Faruk Ahmad through Sri
Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 107-130)
(c) 22/23/24/29/30/31.03.2005- by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1, 8/1
Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and Maulana
Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
130-203)
(d) 31.03.2005, 01.04.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4)
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 203-
 569

225)
(e) 01.04.2005-defendant no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3) through
Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26 (Suit-5)
through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 225)
426. He is said to be Sri Mahant of Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch
Nirwani Ani Akhara and Mahant of Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya.
Born at village and post Dumari, District Baksar, Bihar, he came
to Ayodhya in 1962 and became pupil of Baba Abhiram Das.
About the characteristics of building in dispute so as to be a
temple of Lord Ram, he has made statement in paras 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 19 of the affidavit as under :
^^4- ;g fd jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj esa iwjc rjQ eq[; }kj Fkk ftls
guqer }kj dgrs FksA guqer }kj esa nksuksa rjQ dkys dlkSVh ds ,d&,d
[kEHks yxs gq, Fks ftu ij t;&fot; dh ewfrZ;ka Fkha vkSj Qwy&iRrh]
dy'k vkns [kqns FksA guqer }kj ds lVs iwjc ,d iRFkj tehu esa xM+k
gqvk Fkk ftl ij la[;k ^1* o tUe Hkwfe fuR; ;k=k* fy[kk FkkA^^
“4. That towards the east of the Ram Janam Bhumi
premises was the main door which was called Hanumat
Dwar. Both sides of the Hanumat Dwar had one pillar
each made of black touch stone depicting the idols of Jay-
Vijay and with flowers, leaves, etc. engraved there on.
Adjacent to and east of the Hanumat Dwar and buried in
the ground was a stone with 'No.1' and 'Janam Bhumi
Nitya Yaatra' written on it.” (E.T.C.)
^5- ;g fd guqer }kj ls izos'k djus ij nf{k.k dh vksj jke pcwrjk Fkk
tgka Hkxoku jke yyk dh iwtk&vtZuk fujarj gksrh Fkh] ogha nf{k.k iwjc
dksus ij ,d uhe vkSj ,d ihiy dk isM+ Fkk ftlds uhps pcwrjs ij
 570

f'ko fyax] dkfrZds; th] x.ks'k th] ikoZrh th o uUnh th dh ewfrZ

fojkteku FkhA^^
“5. That on entering through the Hanumat Dwar there was
Ram Chabutra in the south where there used to be regular
pooja-archana (worship and prayer) of Lord Ram Lala. In
the south-east corner at that very place were a neem tree
and a peepal tree(fig-tree) beneath which idols of Shiva's
phallus, Kartikeya, Ganesha, Parvati and Nandi were
installed on a rectangular terrace.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- ;g fd guqer }kj ls izos'k djus ij mRrj dh vksj Hk.Mkj o lar
fuokl Fkk ftuesa lk/kq&lar jgrs Fks o crZu vukt vkfn j[kk tkrk Fkk
vkSj izlkn curk FkkA rhu xqEcn okys Hkou ds lkeus lhadps okyh
nhokj Fkh ftlesa nks }kj yxs Fks] ,d }kj guqer }kj ds lkeus iM+rk Fkk
vkSj nwljk blds FkksM+k gV dj FkkA^^
“6. That on entering through the Hanumat Dwar,
towards the north were a store room and a dwelling place
for saints in which sages and saints lived; utensils, grains,
etc. were stored and prasad was prepared. In front of the
three-dome building lay a wall with bars which had two
doors, one of which was facing the Hanumat Dwar and the
other one was a bit away from it.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- ;g fd jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds mRrj ,d }kj Fkk ftls flag }kj
dgk tkrk FkkA flag }kj ds Åij chp esa x:.k th dh ewfrZ Fkh muds
nka, rjQ ,d 'ksj o ck,a rjQ ,d 'ksj cuk FkkA flag }kj ls vanj vkus
ij lhrk jlksbZ@dkS'kY;k jlksbZ Fkh tgka pwYgk] pkSdk] csyu o pj.k
fpUg laxejej ds cus yxs gq, FksA^^
“7. That towards the north of the Ram Janam Bhumi
premises was a door which was called Singh Dwar. Above
the Singh Dwar was an idol of Ganesha in the midst and
one lion each was carved out on both the right and left of
it. On coming inside through the Singh Dwar, there lay Sita
 571

Rasoi/Kaushalya Rasoi where hearth, chauka, rolling-pin

and foot-prints were made of marble.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- ;g fd lh[kpsa okyh nhokj ds if'pe vksj rhu xqEcn okyk Hkou
FkkA ftlds chp okys xqEcn ds uhps Hkxoku Jh jkeyyk dk
tUe@izkdV~; gqvk FkkA ftlds n'kZu ek= ls eks{k dh izkfIr gks tkrh
gSA Hkxoku Jh jkeyyk dh tUe Hkwfe Lo;a esa gh nsoRo izkIr ,oa iwT; gS
leLr lukru /kehZ fgUnw leqnk; }kjk mudh iwtk dh tkrh gSA^^
“8. That towards the west of the wall with bars was a
three-dome building beneath the middle dome of which
Lord Sri Ram Lala incarnated himself, by mere ‘darshan’
of whom one can attain liberation. The birthplace of Lord
Sri Ram Lala itself is blessed with divinity and is revered.
The entire orthodox Hindu community worships him.”
(E.T.C.)
^^9- ;g fd jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds mRrj lur] luanu lukru]
lurdqekj] xxZ xkSre] 'kkf.MY; egkf"kZ;ksa dh lekf/k vkSj ,d ukjn
pcwrjk FkkA jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds nf{k.k ekdZ.Ms; o vafxjk _f"k dh
lekf/k vkSj mlds nf{k.k ykse'k pkSjk FkkA jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds
nf{k.k&iwjc lhrkdwi gS ftldk ty cgqr gh ifo= ekuk tkrk gS ftls
lHkh fgUnw lukru /kehZ vius /kkfeZd dk;ksZ esa iz;ksx djrs gSaA guqer }kj
ds iwjc 'kadj pcwrjk o mlds iwjc ckck vfHkjke nkl dFkk e.Mi FkkA^^
“9. That towards the north of the Ram Janam Bhumi
premises lay tombs of sages like Sanat, Sanandan Sanatan,
Sanat Kumar, Garg, Gautam and Shandilya and a Narad
chabutra. Towards the south of Ram Janam Bhumi the
tombs of seers viz. Markandeya and Angira and towards
south of this was Lomash Chaura. Located on the south-
east of the Ram Janam Bhumi premises was Sita Koop,
water of which is regarded as very holy and which
orthodox Hindus use in their religious activities. Located
east of the Hanumat Dwar was Shankar chabutra and
 572

towards the east of this lay Baba Abhiram Das Katha

Mandap.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- ;g fd jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds pkjks rjQ ifjdzek ekxZ Fkk
ftlls rhFkZ ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ Jh jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj dh ifjdzek djrs
FksA guqer }kj ls ifjdzek gsrq nf{k.k dh vksj pyus ij iwohZ nhokj esa gh
ckgj dh vksj okjkg Hkxoku fojkteku FksA^^
“10. That around the Ram Janam Bhumi premises was
parikrama marg (route of circumambulation), through
which pilgrims and devotees used to do circumambulation
of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises. Moving towards the
south from the Hanumat Dwar for circumambulation,
towards the exterior of the eastern wall itself lay Lord
Varah as presiding deity.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- ;g fd rhu xqEcn okys Hkou esa ckjg dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds [kEHks
yxs gq, Fks ftu ij fgUnw nsoh&nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka] dy'k] iYyo] Qwy]
iRrh vkfn mdsjh gqbZ FkhA chp okys xqEcn vFkkZr~ xHkZx`g ds lkeus
okys }kj ds Åij pUnu dh ydM+h dk cuk gqvk che yxk FkkA^^
“11. That the three- dome building had 12 pillars of black
kasauti stone with idols of male and female Hindu deities,
pitchers, foliages, flowers, leaves etc. engraved on them.
On the middle dome, that is, above the gate located
opposite to the sanctum sanctorum was placed a beam
made of sandal-wood.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- ;g fd Jh jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkus ds fy, ek= nks }kj Fks
mRrj esa flg }kj o iwjc esa guqer }kj Fkk vkSj bu }kjksa ls gksdj gh
rhu xqEcn okys Hkou ds vanj tk;k tk ldrk Fkk blds vfrfjDr vU;
dksbZ izos'k }kj ugha Fkk] blfy;s lk/kq oSjkxh o fgUnw rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ
vkfn ds vykok vU; fdlh iaFk ;k et+gc ds vuq;k;h izos'k ugha dj
ikrs FksA^^
“12. That there were just two gates to enter Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi premises. Towards the north was Singh
 573

Dwar and towards the east was Hanumat Dwar. Only by

passing through these doors one could enter the three-
domed building. Except for this one, there was no other
entrance. Hence, except saints, hermits, Hindu pilgrims,
devoteees etc., followers of no other sect or faith could
have entrance there.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- ;g fd fookfnr <kapk fxjus ds iwoZ eq[; }kj izos'k gsrq iwjc dh
vksj ls Fkk ftls guqer }kj ds :i esa tkuk tkrk Fkk eq[; }kj ds nksuksa
rjQ dkys dlkSVh dss [kEHks Fks blh izdkj ds 12 dkys dlkSVh ds [kEHks
vUnj eq[; Hkou esa Hkh yxs Fks ftu ij ?kV] iYyo] ve`r dy'k]
LokfLrd] Qwy iRrh] eksj] nsoh nsorkvksa ds fp= mdsjs FksA**
“19. That prior to the demolition of the disputed structure,
the main gate for entrance opened in the east and was
called Hanumat Dwar. There were pillars of black kasauti
stone on both sides of the main gate. The main building
also had 12 pillars made of this very type of black kasauti
stone and having images of pitchers, foliages, Amrit
Kalash, Swastik, flowers, leaves, pecocks and male and
female deities engraved on them.” (E.T.C.)
427. About the faith of Hindus that the place in dispute is the
birth place of Lord Ram and that Babar got the building
constructed after demolition of a Temple, at the instance of one
Fakir, and the constructed building was never a mosque, hence,
neither used as mosque nor Namaz was offered thereat, he has
stated in paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 of the
affidavit as under :
^^13- ;g fd ckcj dHkh Hkh bl ns'k dk ckn'kkg ugha Fkk vkSj u gh
dHkh mls bl ns'k esa ckn'kkg dh ekU;rk nh xbZ vkSj u gh dHkh ckcj
us ckn'kkg ds :i esa bl ns'k esa jkt fd;kA ckcj ek= ,d yqVsjk Fkk]
tks ywVikV ds ckn okil vius ns'k vQxkfuLrku pyk x;kA fookfnr
LFky ij fLFkr jke tUe Hkwfe eafnj] ftldk jktk fodzekfnR; ds le;
 574

esa th.kksZ}kj gqvk Fkk] dks ehjckdh ] tks ,d f'k;k eqlyeku Fkk vkSj
ckcj dk lsukifr Fkk] us ,d Qdhj ds dgus ij /oLr djds efLtn dk
:i nsus dk iz;kl fd;k vkSj bl Hkou ds fuekZ.k ds fy;s eafnj ds gh
eycs vkfn dk iz;ksx fd;kA^^
“13. That Babur was never emperor of this country, nor
was he ever recognised emperor of this country nor had he
ruled over this country. Babur was just a plunderer and
had gone back to his country, Afghanistan, after the
plunder. Mir Baqi, a Shia Muslim and army commander of
Babur, demolished the Ram Janam Bhumi temple,
renovated during the reign of King Vikramaditya, and
tried to give it the shape of a mosque at the behest of a
Fakir and used the debris, etc. of the temple itself for the
construction of this building.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- ;g dh ehjckdh us Jh jketUeHk wf e eaf nj rk sM + dj tk s
rhu xq E cn okys Hkou dk fuekZ . k djk;k og d` R ;
ewf rZ&iwt dk s a dk s viekfur djus ds mn~ n s' ; ls fd;k Fkk u
fd efLtn ds :i esa bLrseky djus gsrq vkSj og LFkku dHkh Hkh efLtn
ds :i esa bLrseky ugha gqvk vkSj u gh ogka ij dHkh uekt i<+h xbZA^^
“14. That Mir Baqi built the three-dome building after
demolishing Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple. The said act
was committed with the intention of insulting idol-
worshippers, not for using it as a mosque. This place was
never used as a mosque nor was namaj ever offered there.”
(E.T.C.)
^^15- ;g fd Jh jke tUe Hkwfe ij fLFkr rhu xqEcn okys Hkou esa dksbZ
ehukj ugha Fkh vkSj u gh ogkWa ij otw djus ds fy;s ikuh ,df=r djus
dk dksbZ LFkku FkkA^^
“15. That Sri Ram Janam Bhumi-situated three-dome
building had no minaret nor was there any place for
collecting water for being used for 'vaju' (cleaning of
 575

hands).” (E.T.C.)
^^18- ;g fd fgUnw lekt ds yksx vukfn dky ls bl LFkku dks Jh jke
pUnz th dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa ijEijkxr vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl ls iwtrs
jgs gSaA^^
“18. That people of the Hindu society have been
worshipping the birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra with
traditional faith and belief since eternity.” (E.T.C.)
^20- ;g fd eq[; ifjlj esa e/; xqEcn ds uhps dh Hkwfe ij Hkxoku Jh
jke dk tUe gqvk Fkk ;g vkLFkk ,oe~ fo'okl fgUnw tuekul dk gS
vkSj blh vkLFkk ,oe~ fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij ns'k fons'k ds vla[; fgUnw
jke HkDr fookfnr LFky dks Hkxoku Jh jke dh tUe LFkyh eku dj
iwtk&n'kZu djrs pys vk jgs gSaA^^
“20. That Lord Sri Rama was born on the land lying
beneath the middle dome located in the main premises. It is
the faith and belief of Hindu public and on the basis of this
belief innumerable Hindus and Rama-worshippers of the
country and abroad have been doing pooja-darshan taking
the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama.”
(E.T.C.)
^^22- ;g fd jke tUe Hk wf e ifjlj ds pkjk s vk sj fgUnq v k s a ds
gh dbZ iz f rf"Br eaf nj o /keZ LFkku gS a ftues a ls iz e q [ k
lhrk jlk sb Z ] dud Hkou] fo'okfe= vkJe] er&xtsU nz]
dk sV s' oj egknso ] jke[ktkuk eaf nj] lq x z h o fdyk] jax egy
of'k"B dq . M] dq c sj Vhyk] cz E g&dq . M xq : }kjk] vkfn gS aA ^^
“22. That around the Rama Janam Bhumi premises are
many reputed temples and religious sites of Hindus only
which chiefly include Sita Rasoi, Kanak Bhawan,
Vishwamitra Ashram, Mat-gajendra, Koteshwar
Mahadev, Ram Khajana temple, Sugreev Qila, Rang
Mahal, Vashishtha Kunda, Kuber Tila, Brahma-Kunda,
Gurudwara, etc.” (E.T.C.)
 576

^^23- ;g fd esjh tkudkjh esa v;ks/;k esa fgUnw leqnk; o eqfLye leqnk;
ds chp vkil esa e/kqj laca/k jgs vkSj ogka ds vf/kdrj LFkkuh; eqlyeku
¼dqN lkeiznkf;d] dV~Vj iaFkh o LFkkFkhZ rRoksa dks NksM+dj½ bl LFkku
dks lnSo fgUnqvksa ds vkjk/; nso Hkxoku Jh jke dk tUe LFkku gh
ekurs gSa vkSj LFkkuh; eqlyeku bl LFkku dks dHkh efLtn ds :i esa
Lohdkj ugha djrs gSaA^^
“23. That as per my knowledge, mutual relations between
Hindu and Muslim communities have been cordial in
Ayodhya and most of its local Muslims (excluding some
communal, fundamentalist and selfish elements) always
consider this place only to be the birthplace of Lord Sri
Rama, favoured deity of Hindus, and they never take it to
be a mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^^25- ;g fd bLyke et+gc ds vuq;k;h] muds mysek vkfn ls okrkZyki
ls 'kiFkdrkZ dks ;g tkudkjh gqbZ fd bl fookfnr LFky dks eqfLye
leqnk; bcknr xkg ds :i esa Lohdkj ugha djrsA mudk ;g Hkh ekuuk
gS fd efLtn esa ehukj o otw ds fy;s leqfpr O;oLFkk gksuk vko';d
gSA fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr <kapk esa u rks ehukjsa Fkh vkSj u gh otw ds
fy;s dksbZ O;oLFkk FkhA fookfnr LFky esa jke dh tUeHkwfe gS tks
/keZ'kkL=ksa] tuJqfr;ksa] izFkkvksa vkfn ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gS] rFkk vukfn
dky ls ml LFky dks Hkxoku Jh jke dh tUe Hkwfe ds :i esa iwftr
fd;k tkrk pyk vk jgk gSA**
“25. That from talks with followers of Islam and with their
Ulemas (clerics ) the deponent has come to know that the
Muslim community do not consider this disputed site to be
a place of worship. They also hold that a mosque should
necessarily have minarets and a proper arrangement for
'vaju'. The structure located at the disputed site had neither
minarets nor any arrangement for 'vaju'. The birthplace of
Rama is at the disputed site, which fact is established on
the basis of scriptures, hear-says, customs, etc. The said
 577

place has continued to be worshipped as the birthplace of

Lord Sri Rama since eternity.” (E.T.C.)
428. In para 21, DW 13/1-1 has said about 1934 riots and in
para 24 about possession of Hindus on the premises in dispute
and the statement made by several Muslims in affidavit filed in
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. :
^^21- ;g fd jke tUe Hkwfe ds ifjlj esa dHkh dksbZ eqlyeku ugha tkrk
Fkk vkSj u gh dHkh fdlh eqlyeku }kjk ogka dHkh uekt i<+h xbZA o"kZ
1934 esa xkS gR;k ds dkj.k v;ks/;k esa lkEiznkf;d ruko gks x;k Fkk vkSj
fgUnw eqlyeku ds chp naxk gqvk Fkk ml naxk esa fgUnqvksa }kjk eqfLye
leqnk; ds yksxksa dks te dj ekjk x;k ftlls Hk;Hkhr gksdj o"kZ 1934
ds ckn Jh jke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj dh rjQ eqfLye leqnk; ds yksx ugha
tkrs FksA 1934 ls fookfnr LFky ij eqfLye leqnk; dk dksbZ Hkh O;fDr
vanj ugha x;kA^^
“21. That no Muslim ever visited the Ram Janam Bhumi
premises nor was namaj ever offered by any Muslim. In the
year 1934, Ayodhya witnessed communal tension and
Hindu-Muslim riot due to cow-slaughter. In the riot, people
of the Muslim community had been given a sound beating
by Hindus following which people of the Muslim
community, out of fear, did not go towards Sri Rama
Janam Bhumi premises after 1934. Nobody from the
Muslim community has gone inside the disputed site since
1934.” (E.T.C.)
^^24- ;g fd o"kZ 1949 esa /kkjk 145 tkIrk QkStnkjh dh dk;Zokgh ds
nkSjku Hkh eqfLye leqnk; ds vusd yksxksa us bl fookfnr LFky dks
Hkxoku Jh jke dh tUe Hkwfe ds :i esa Lohdkj fd;k ,oe~ bl LFkku
ij fujarj fgUnavksa ds dCts dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd bl
fookfnr LFky ij eqfLye leqnk; ds yksxksa ds }kjk dHkh uekt ugha i<+h
xbZ] vkSj bl izdkj ds LFky ij bLyke et+gc ds vuqlkj uekt ugha
i<+h tk ldrh gSA**
 578

“24. That in the year 1949, even in course of criminal

proceeding of attachment under section 145, many people
of the Muslim community accepted this disputed site as the
birthplace of Lord Sri Rama and confirming the regular
possession of Hindus over this place they admitted that
namaj had never been offered by people of the Muslim
community at the disputed site and that Islam does not
permit namaj to be offered at this type of place.” (E.T.C.)
429. In para 16 of the affidavit, DW 13/1-1 says that his Guru
Late Baba Abhiram Das was observing various religious
functions at the premises in dispute and electric connection was
also in his name, as under :
^16- ;g fd Jh jke tUeHkwfe LFky ij le;&2 ij iq.; frfFk;ksa ij
/kkfeZd vk;kstu gksrs jgs gSaA esjs xq: Lo0 ckck vfHkjke nkl th dh
ns[k&js[k esa dk;Zdzeksa dk vk;kstu gksrk FkkA Jh jketUeHkwfe LFkku ds
uke ls fctyh dk dusD'ku Fkk vkSj fctyh ds fcyksa dk Hkqxrku Hkh esjs
xq: Lo0 ckck vfHkjke nkl th }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA **
“16. That religious functions have been taking place from
time to time at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi site on auspicious
occasions. Programmes used to be organised under the
supervision of my spiritual teacher, Late Baba Abhiram
Das Ji. There was a power connection in the name of Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan and even electricity bills used to
be paid by my spiritual teacher, Late Baba Abhiram Das
Ji.” (E.T.C.)
430. D.W. 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, the witness is
defendant no. 17 (Suit-4), resident of village Bhagwan Patti,
Pargana Mijhaura, Tahasil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar-Nagar,
is 66 years of age (vide affidavit dated 9.5.2005). He was cross
examined as under:
(a) 09/10/11/12.05.2005- by Nirmohi Akhara plaintiff
 579

(Suit-3) through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and Sri

Tarunjeet Verma, Advocate (p. 10-56)
(b) 12/13.05.2005- by plaintiff no. 9 and 10/1 Mahmood
Ahmad and Mohd. Faruk Ahmad through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 56-66)
(c) 13/16.05.2005- by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1 and 6/2 Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and Maulana
Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
66-92)
(d) 17.05.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) and defendant
no. 5 (Suit-5), Mohd. Hashim, through Sri Mustaq
Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 94-107)
(e) 17.05.2005-defendants no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 107)
431. In para 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the affidavit, DW 17/1 has stated
about faith of Hindus of the disputed place as birth place of
Lord Ram and that the Hindus were performing Pooja thereat
since long in the said premises. Paras 4 to 7 are reproduced as
under :
^^4- ;g fd fgUnw /keZ dh LFkkfir 'kk'or ekU;rkvksa] vkLFkkvksa ,oa
ijEijkvksa ds vuqlkj Hkxoku fo".kq us ekuo :i esa rRdkyhu egkjkt
n'kjFk ds iq= ds :i esa mudh iRuh dkSf'kY;k dh dks[k ls v;ks/;k esa
tUe fy;kA^^
“4. That according to settled beliefs, customs and
traditions of Hindu religion, Lord Vishnu embodied
Himself in human form as son of the then king Dashrath
 580

from the womb of the latter’s wife Kaushalya.” (E.T.C.)

^^5- ;g fd v;ks/;k uxj] tuin QStkckn esa fLFkr gS] rFkk ftl LFky
ij vkLFkk] ekU;rkvksa ,oa ijEijkvksa ds vuqlkj Hkxoku Jhjke us tUe
fy;k og fgUnw /kekZoyfEc;ksa }kjk Hkxoku jke dh tUe Hkwfe ds :i esa
iwftr pyh vk jgh gSA og {ks= tgkWa Hkxoku Jhjke us tUe fy;k og
vkt Hkh uxj ikfydk esa eksgYyk jkedksV ds uke ls rFkk jktLo
vfHkys[kksa esa xzke&dksVjkepUnz ds uke ls pyk vk jgk gSA^^
“5. That the city of Ayodhya is situated within District
Faizabad and according to the faith, belief and customs,
the place where Lord Rama had incarnated, has been
revered by followers of Hindu religion as the birthplace of
Lord Rama. The place where Lord Rama had incarnated,
still exists within the municipal area as Mohalla- Ramkot
and as Village- Kotramchandra in the revenue records.”
(E.T.C.)
^^6- ;g fd ;wWa rks v;ks/;k esa dbZ /kkfeZd ioksZ ij ;Fkk] lkou >wyk]
v{k; uoeh ¼pkSng dkslh ifjdzek½ izcksf/kuh ,dkn'kh ¼iapdkslh ifjdzek½]
dkfrZd ekg dh iw.kZeklh vkfn vusd frfFk;ksa ij fgUnw /kekZoyfEc;ksa dk
esyk] v;ks/;k esa Luku&/;ku n'kZu iwtu vpZu gsrq yxrk gS fdUrq
Hkxoku jke ds tUe frfFk vFkkZr pS= ekl ds 'kqDy i{k dh uoeh dks
HkDrksa o rhFkZ ;kf=;ksa dk tks esyk v;ks/;k esa yxrk gS og v;ks/;k dk
lcls cM+k esyk gksrk gSA
bl esyk esa Hkkjr o"kZ ds dksus&dksus ls vusd HkDr rhFkZ ;k=h rks
yk[kksa dh la[;k esa ,d= gksrs gh gSa fons'kh ls Hkh yksx vkrs gSa o Hkxoku
jke dh tUeLFkyh dk o ml LFky ij Hkxoku Jhjkeyyk dh ewfrZ ds
n'kZu djds vius dks /kU; le>rs gSaA ;g fnu pS= jke uoeh ds uke
ls gh tkuk tkrk gSA^^
“6. That fairs of followers of Hindu religion are held at
Ayodhya on many religious occasions such as Sawan
Jhula, Akshay Navami (chaudah kosi circumambulation),
Prabodhni Ekadashi (Panch kosi circumambulation), full
 581

moon in the month of Kartik etc., for having holy dip,

worship etc. at Ayodhya but the fair of devotees and
pilgrims held at Ayodhya on the occasion of the birth date
of Lord Rama i.e. 9th day of Shukla fortnight of the month
of Chaitra, is the biggest fair of them all.
Lakhs of pilgrims, devotees from different corners of
India gathered here on the occasion of this fair, besides
people from abroad. They used to have 'darshan' of the
birthplace of Lord Rama and His idol over there, and used
to consider themselves to be fortunate. This day is known
as Chaitra Ramnavami.” (E.T.C.)
^7- ;g fd eSa 'kiFkxzkgh lkr o"kZ dh vk;q ls gh v;ks/;k esa jketUe Hkwfe
efUnj esa fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dh ewfrZ ds n'kZu yxHkx izR;sd o"kZ
vkt rd djrk pyk vk jgk gwWaA eq> 'kiFkxzkgh ds firk eq> 'kiFkxzkgh
dks crk;k djrs Fks fd muds firk o firkegh ds tekus ls gh pS= jke
uoeh ds volj ij lj;w Luku ,oe tUe Hkwfe fLFkr efUnj esa
fojkteku Hkxoku jkeyyk dk n'kZu djus dh ijEijk pyh vk jgh gS]
rFkk ;g fd Hkxoku jke dk vorj.k =srk ;qx esa gqvk Fkk vkSj rc ls
bl LFky dks rhFkZ ds :i esa ekuk tkrk gSA**
“7. That I, the deponent, have had the 'darshan' of Lord
Ramlala present in Ramjanmbhumi temple at Ayodhya,
almost every year from the age of 7 years till date. My
father had told me that the tradition of holy dip in Saryu
and the 'darshan' of Lord Ramlala present in the temple
situated at Ramjanmbhumi on the occasion of Chaitra
Ramnavami, had continued from the period of his father
and forefathers, and further that Lord Rama had
incarnated in the Treta Yug and since then this place is
considered to be a pilgrimage.” (E.T.C.)
432. The details of the disputed premises in order to show it
to be a Hindu temple of Lord Ram DW 17/1 has said in Para 12,
 582

13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit:

^^12- ;g fd fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr efUnj esa rhu xq E cn
Fk s ftles a ls e/; oky s xq E cn ds uhp s Hkxoku jkeyyk dh
ewf rZ fojkteku FkhA rhu xq E cnk s a okys Hkou ls mRrj feyk
gq v k lhrkjlk sb Z o NV~ B h iwt u LFky ;k ftles a pwY gk]
pkS d k] csy u o pj.k fpUg vkfn cus gq , Fk sA tUeHkwfe LFky]
efUnj jke tUeHkwfe o efUnj esa mijksDr :i ls fojkteku Hkxoku
Jhjke dh ewfrZ ds n'kZu o iwtu ds lkFk gh n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ,oa rhFkZ ;kf=;ksa
}kjk mDr lhrkjlksbZ o NV~Bh iwtu Lfky o mles cus gq, pwYgk] pkSdk]
csyu o pj.k fpUg vkfn dk Hkh n'kZu o iwtu fujUrj fd;k tkrk pyk
vk;kA fookfnr LFky ds ifjlj esa izos'k gsrq eq[; }kj iwoZ dh vksj Fkk
ftls ^guqer }kj* ds :i esa tkuk tkrk Fkk rFkk nwljk izos'k }kj mRrj
dh vksj Fkk tks ^flag }kj* ds :i esa tkuk tkrk Fkk ftlls gksdj lk/kw]
lar] cSjkfx;ksa ,oa n'kZukfFkZ;ksa dk vkuk tkuk gksrk FkkA mDr fookfnr
LFky ij cus gq, mijksDr rhu xqEcnksa dk fuekZ.k 6 fnlEcj 1992 bZ0
dks fxj x;k] fdUrq vkt rd cjkcj ml LFky ij Hkxoku Jhjke dh
ewfrZ fojkteku pyh vkrh gS ftldk fgUnw HkDrksa ,oa rhFkZ ;kf=;ksa rFkk
n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk n'kZu ,oa iwtu vpZu fujUrj pyk vk jgk gS] vksj
iqtkjh Hkxoku Jhjke dk Hkksx iwtu vpZu vkfn 'kkL=ksa ds fo/kku ds
vuqlkj fujUrj djrs pys vk jgs gSaA^^
“12. That there were three domes in the temple at the
disputed site, and the idol of Lord Ramlala existed below
the central dome. Adjacent to north of the three dome
building, was the Sita Rasoi, Chhathi worship place or
stove, Chauka, Belan and footmarks etc. Along with the
'darshan' and worship of the idol of Lord Sri Ram present
at the Janmbhumi site, Ramjanmbhumi temple and temple
as above, the devotees and pilgrims used to regularly have
'darshan' and worship of said Sita Rasoi and Chhathi
worship place and the stove, Chauka, Belan and footmarks
etc. built thereat. The main gate for entry to the disputed
 583

site was eastwards, which was called Hanumatdwar and

the other gate was northwards, which was called
Singhdwar and the saints, hermits, recluses and devotees
used to pass through it. All the said three domes at the
disputed site, collapsed on 6th December, 1992, but the idol
of Lord Sri Ram still continues to exist continuously at that
very place and the Hindu devotees and pilgrims have all
along been performing 'darshan' and worship and the
priests have been carrying out the Ragbhog, worship etc. of
Lord Sri Ram as per the Shastras.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- ;g fd rhu xqEcn okys Hkou ds iwjc ,d lh[kpksa okyh nhoky
Fkh ftlds iwoZ nf{k.k rjQ jke pcwrjk Fkk tgkWa jke njckj dh ewfrZ;kWa
Fkh ,oa cxy esa “h v[k.M dhrZu pyrk jgrk Fkk] rFkk ifjlj ds ckgjh
nhoky ds vUnj dh vksj nf{k.k&iwohZ dksus esa ,d iqjkus ihiy o ,d
uhe ds isM Fks ftlds uhps cus pcwrjs ij egknso 'kadj th o dkfrZds;
th rFkk uUnh vkfn dh ewfrZ;kWa Fkha ftudk n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk n'kZu o
iwtu fd;k tkrk jgk gSA^^
“13. That to the east of the three dome building, was a
iron rod wall, to the east-south of which was the
Ramchabutara, over which the idols of Ram Darbar were
present and the Akhand Kirtan also used to continue along
side. In the south-east corner inside the outer wall of the
premises, was an old Pipal and Neem tree under which was
the family of Mahadev Shankar ji over a platform, i.e.
Shankar ji, Parvati ji, Ganesh ji, Kartikeya ji and Nandi ji
and the devotees regularly had the 'darshan' and worship
of said deities. (E.T.C.)
^^14- ;g fd fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr ckgjh pgkjnhokjh ds ckgj pkjksa
vksj n'kZukfFkZ;ksa ds ifjdzek djus gsrq txg Fkh tgkWa ls n'kZu iwtu ds
mijkUr n'kZukFkhZ o rhFkZ ;k=h vkfn iw.kZ ifjlj dh ifjdzek djrs FksA
lh[kpksa dh nhoky ds lkeus iwjc dh vksj fLFkr Vhu'ksM esa fu;fer :i
 584

ls reke lk/kw&lUr&oSjkxh jgrs Fks o dhrZu Hktu fd;k djrs FksA^^

“14. That outside the outer wall at the disputed site, was a
place marked for circumambulation of the devotees. After
having 'darshan' and and worship, the devotees and
pilgrims used to perform circumambulation of the entire
premises. Various saints- hermits- recluses lived in the tin
shed opposite the iron rod wall in the east and performed
Kirtan Bhajan.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- ;g fd fookfnr ifjlj ds mRrj dqN lekf/k;kWa Fkh ftudh
_f"k;ksa] eqfu;ksa dh lekf/k;ksa ds :i esa n'kZukfFkZ;ksa }kjk iwtk dh tkrh
FkhA**
“15. That there were a few ‘samadhi’ to the north of the
disputed premises, which were worshiped by the devotees
as ‘samadhi’ of Rishi, Muni.” (E.T.C.)
433. In Paras 9, 10, and 17 he (DW 17/1) has said that neither
there was any Babari Masjid at the disputed premises nor
existence of any such mosque nor it was ever used as mosque by
any Muslim and in fact as per his knowledge since 1934 no
Muslim has ever visited the premises in dispute. The contents of
the above paragraphs are as under :
^^9- ;g fd fookfnr LFky ij ckcjh efLtn vFkok vU; fdlh
efLtn dk dksbZ vfLrRo dHkh ugha FkkA fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr Hkou
Hkxoku Jh jke tUeHkwfe dk efUnj Fkk ftlesa iwoZ ls gh Hkxoku Jh jke
dh ewfrZ fojkteku FkhA^^
“9. That neither Babri mosque nor any other mosque
ever existed at the disputed site. The temple of Lord Sri
Ramjanmbhumi existed at the disputed site, wherein the
idol of Lord Sri Ram already existed.” (E.T.C.)
^10- ;g fd esjh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj o"kZ 1934 bZ0 ls fookfnr LFky
ij o mlds vklikl dHkh dksbZ bLyke /kekZuq;k;h O;fDr ugha x;k vkSj
u gh dHkh fookfnr LFky ij fdlh us uekt vnk dh rFkk u dHkh
 585

eqfLye leqnk; dk vFkok eqfLye O;fDr dk fookfnr LFky ij vFkok

mlls lUu} {ks= ij dksbZ dCtk gh dHkh jgkA okLro esa fgUnw leqnk;
ds iqtkfj;ksa o lk/kqvksa vkfn dk dCtk bl ij vck/k :i ls fujUrj
pyk vk;k ,oa Hkxoku Jhjke o mudh tUe&Hkwfe dh iwtk vpZuk o
n'kZu vkfn gksrk pyk vk;k gSA^^
“10. That as per my information, no follower of Islam
went to or near the disputed site from the year 1934 AD,
nor did anyone offer Namaz at the disputed site nor was the
Muslim community or any Muslim ever in possession of the
disputed site or its adjoining areas. In practice, the
possession of priests and saints of Hindu community
continued over it unhindered and the worship, Archana,
'darshan' etc. of Lord Sri Ram and His birthplace has
continued.” (E.T.C.)
^17- ;g fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij ckcj }kjk fufeZr ^efLtn* vFkok vU;
izdkj ls fufeZr dksbZ ^efLtn* dHkh ugha jgh vkSj u gh dHkh
eqlyekuksa }kjk ogkWa uekt vnk dh x;hA**
“17. That neither the ‘mosque’ built by Babar nor any
‘mosque’ built otherwise, ever existed at the disputed site
nor did the Muslims ever offer Namaz there.” (E.T.C.)
434. D.W. 20/1, Shashikant Rungata, aged about 51 years
(vide affidavit dated 26.5.2005). He was cross examined as
under:
(a) 25.05.2005-by Nirmohi Akhara plaintiff (Suit-3)
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and Sri Tarunjeet
Verma, Advocate (p. 6-13)
(b) 25/26.05.2005- by plaintiff no. 9 and 10/1 Mahmood
Ahmad and Mohd. Faruk Ahmad through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 13-19)
(c) 26/27.05.2005-by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1 and 6/2 Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and Maulana
 586

Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.

19-36)
(d) 30.05.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 37-53)
(e) 30.05.2005-defendants no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 53)
435. As per his affidavit, he is resident of 13, Chapel Road
Hastings, Calcutta. He did B. Com. from Calcutta University in
1975 and, thereafter, got engaged in his family business. He
used to visit Ayodhya along with his parents, friends and family
members time to time since he has full faith in Lord Ram and
his birth place at Ayodhya. About his faith in birth place of Lord
Ram, his visit, construction of Mosque by demolishing a temple
and about the characteristics showing that the premises in
dispute was a temple, he has made averments in paras 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the affidavit
as under :
^3- ;g fd eSa fookfnr LFky dks Hkyh Hkkafr tkurk gwWa vkSj cpiu ls
gh eSa vius LoxhZ; firk o b"V fe=ksa ds lkFk o vius ifjokj ds lkFk
le; le; ij tkrk jgk gwWaA Hkxoku jke o mudh tUeLFkyh esa esjh
iw.kZ vkLFkk gS blh dkj.k esjk o esjs ifjokj dk vkuk tkuk yxk jgrk
gSA^^
“3. That I am well acquainted with the disputed site and
have been going there with my late father and dear friends
since childhood. I have full faith in Lord Rama and his
birthplace. For this very reason, I and my family regularly
 587

visit the site.” (E.T.C.)

^^4- ;g fd eSa igyh ckj v;ks/;k lu~ 1962 esa x;k Fkk esjs ifjokj
dh ijEijk jgh gS fd rhFkZ ;k=k dk izkjEHk v;ks/;k ls djrs gSaA v;ks/;k
fo'odk egkure rhFkZLFky ,oa lIriqfj;ksa esa ls loZJs"B eks{k nkf;uh iqjh
gSA v;ks/;k dks Hkxoku Jh jke dh tUeLFkyh gksus dk xkSjo izkIr gSA
,slk iSkjkf.kd xzUFkksa ,oa ckYehdh jkek;.k esa of.kZr gSA ,oa rqylhnkl
d`r ^^jkepfj=ekul** esa fy[kk gS eq>s ;g Kkr gS fd ;wWa rks leLr
v;ks/;k {ks= gh e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Hkxoku jk?kosUnz Jh jke dh tUeLFkyh
ds :i esa nsorqY; iwT; gSA ijUrq 'kkL=h; izek.ksa o xzUFkksa ,oa djksM+ks o"kksZ
dh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k ds jkedksV eksgYys esa tUeHkwfe o tUe
LFkku gSA^^
“4. That I went to Ayodhya for the first time in 1962. It is
the tradition of my family that we start pilgrimage from
Ayodhya. Ayodhya is the greatest pilgrimage site of the
world and is the best liberation-giving puri (city) of the
seven puris. Ayodhya has the distinction of being the
birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. It is so mentioned in Puranic
treatises, the Valmiki Ramayana and Tulsidas written Ram
Charit Manas. I know that as a matter of fact the whole
area of Ayodhya itself is revered like a deity as the
birthplace of tradition-upholding Supreme Being Lord
Raghvendra Sri Rama. But according to scriptural proofs
and treatises and as per the faith of crores of years, the
birthland and birthplace are situated in Ram Kot locality
of Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- ;g fd eSaus ;g Hkh i<+k o lquk gS fd lu~ 1528 esa ckcj uke ds
fons'kh vkdzkUrk vkSj yqVsjs ds dgus ij mlds lg;ksxh ehjckdh us ogkWa
ij cus HkO; efUnj dks rqM+okdj mldks efLtn dk :i nsus dk iz;Ru
fd;k FkkA^^
“5. I have also read and heard that in the year 1528, at
the behest of a foreign invader and plunderer named
 588

Babur, his colleague, Mir Baqi, demolished the magnificent

temple located there and tried to give it the shape of a
mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^*6- ;g fd eSa tc igyh ckj v;ks/;k x;k Fkk rks Jh jke tUeHkwfe]
dudHkou] guqekux<+h] ukxs'oj vkSj guqeku ckx vkfn rhFkZLFkyksa dk
n'kZu fd;k Fkk ,oa n'kZu ds iwoZ eSaus lj;w esa Luku Hkh fd;k FkkA^^
“6. That when I, for the first time, went to Ayodhya, I had
‘Darshan’ of the pilgrimage-sites such as Ram Janmbhumi,
Kanak Bhawan, Hanumangarhi, Nageshwar, Hanuman
Bagh, etc. and also took a dip in Saryu prior to the
‘Darshan’.” (E.T.C.)
**7- ;g fd tc eSa tUeHkwfe ds n'kZu djus x;k rks eSusa ogka ij Qwy
izlkn vkfn Hkh p<+kdj Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh dks iz.kke fd;k
vkSj g~n; esa vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl Fkk fd bl LFkku ds n'kZu ek= ls gh
eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gSA**
“7. That when I went to have darshan of Janam Bhumi, I
paid obeisance to the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama by also
offering flowers, Prasad, etc. there, and I had faith and
belief in the heart that liberation is attained only by having
darshan of this place.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- ;g fd o"kZ 1962 ds ckn eSa dbZ ckj v;ks/;k n'kZu djus gsrq
x;k eSaus ogkWa ij u fdlh eqlyeku dks vkrs tkrs ns[kk vkSj u gh
uekt vnk djrs ns[kk u lqukA^^
“8. That after the year 1962 I went to have darshan of
Ayodhya many times. I did not see any Muslim come and
go from there, nor did I see and hear of him offering namaj
there.” (E.T.C.)
“9- ;g fd v;ks/;k esa pS= ekg ds 'kqDy i{k dh ukSeh frfFk dks
jkeuoeh dk cM+k egRo gS vkSj Hkxoku Jh jke dk tUeksRlo cM+h
/kwe/kke ls euk;k tkrk gS ,d ckj eq>s Hkh Hkxoku Jh jke ds tUeksRlo
dh HkO; >kWadh ns[kus dk 'kqHkvolj izkIr gqvk ml volj ij ;gkWa cM+h
 589

ek=k esa ns'k ds dksus dksus ls yk[kksa J)kyq ,oa n'kZukFkhZ Jhjke yyk ds
n'kZu djus dh dkeuk ysdj vk;s FksA^^
“9. That Ram Navami falling on the ninth day of Shukla
paksha of Chaitra month holds great importance in
Ayodhya and birth celebrations of Lord Sri Rama are
observed with great gusto. Once I had a golden opportunity
to see grand tableaux of birth celebrations of Lord Sri
Rama. On that occasion lakhs of devotees and darshan
seekers had come here in large numbers from the nooks
and corners of the country with the desire of having
darshan of Sri Ram Lala.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- ;g fd Jhjke o v;ks/;k esa fLFkr mudh tUeLFkyh ij eSa iwtk o
vkjrh ds le; ogkW igWqpk gwWaA^^
“10. That I have been to Ayodhya situated birthplace of
Sri Rama at the time of pooja and aarti.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- ;g fd efUnj ds Hkhrj okys Hkkx esa dlkSVh ds [kEHks ns[ks gSa
muesa nsoh nsorkvksa o ;{kksa dh ewfrZ;kWa cuh FkhA eSaus ;g Hkh ns[kk gS fd
efUnj ifjlj esa ck?k] eksj] cSy ,oa okjkg Hkxoku dh ewfrZ;kWa Hkh cuh
FkhA^^
“11. That in the inner part of the temple I have seen
pillars made of Kasauti stone depicting idols of male and
female deities and Yakshas (demigods attending Kuvera
and guarding his garden and treasures ). I have also seen
idols of tigers, peacocks, bulls and Lord Varah carved out
in the temple premises.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- ;g fd eSaus v;ks/;k ds rhu esyksa ftlesa pS= jkeuoeh] dkfrZd
iwf.kZek vkSj lkou >wyk dks Hkh v;ks/;k tkdj Hkxoku Jh jkeyyk dk
n'kZu ikus dk lkSHkkX; izkIr fd;k gSA^^
“12. That I have been fortunate enough to have darshan of
Lord Sri Rama by going to Ayodhya even on the occasions
of the three fairs of Ayodhya namely Chaitra Ram Navami,
 590

Kartika Poornima and Sawan Jhoola fairs.” (E.T.C.)

^13- ;g fd fgUnw /keZ dh ekU;rkvksa vkLFkkvksa ,oa ijEijkvksa ds
vuqlkj Hkxoku Jh jkeyyk v;ks/;k ds pdzorhZ egkjkt n'kjFk vkSj
egkjkuh dkS'kY;k dks ek/;e cukdj v;ks/;k esa mlh LFkku ij izdV gq,
FksA vkSj Hkxoku Jhjke yyk ds izdV gksus ds fo"k; esa ckYehdh jkek;.k
tks Hkxoku Jh jke ds ledkyhu gSa ,oa xksLokeh rqylhnkl d`r
^^jkepfj= ekul** esa foLr`r o.kZu gSA^^
“13. That as per beliefs, faiths and traditions of Hinduism,
Lord Sri Ram Lala appeared at that very place in Ayodhya
using Chakrawarti Maharaj of Ayodhya, Dashrath, and
Maharani Kaushalya as media. A vivid description of Lord
Sri Ram Lala's appearance finds mention in the Ramayana
of Valimiki, a contemporary of Lord Sri Rama, and in Ram
Charit Manas written by Goswami Tulsi Das.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- ;g fd fgUnw /kkfeZd ekU;rk ds vuqlkj Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz th
dk vorj.k =srk;qx esa v/keZ dk uk'k djus /keZ dh LFkkiuk gsrq ,oa
lUrksa dh j{kk gsrq gqvk FkkA vkSj mudh iwtk vukfndky ls Hkkjr esa gh
ugha vfirq lewps fo'oesa dh tkrh gSA^^
“14. That as per the religious tradition of Hinduism, Lord
Rama incarnated himself to destroy Adharma (sins) and to
uphold Dharma (right behavior ) and to guard saints in
Treta era, and he has been worshipped since eternity not
only in India but also in the whole world.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- ;g fd iwjs fo'oesa Hkkjr o"kZ dh igpku Hkxoku Jhjke vkSj
mudh tUeLFkyh v;ks/;k ds dkj.k gSA /kkfeZd iqLrdksa rFkk vU; Hkk"kkvksa
dh iqLrdksa esa Lo;a Hkwnso Jhjke tUeHkwfe] Hkxoku Jhjke ,oa v;ks/;k
uxjh dk o.kZu Hkyh Hkkafr feyrk gSA^^
“15. That India is recognized all over the world because
of Lord Sri Rama and Ayodhya being his birthplace. Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi, Lord Sri Rama and Ayodhya Nagari
find vivid description in religious treatises and in the books
 591

of other languages.” (E.T.C.)

^^17- ;g fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe dks rksM+dj fookfnr Hkou cuk;k x;k
fQj Hkh og dHkh efLtn dk :i ugha ys ldk D;ksafd bl fookfnr Hkou
esa dksbZ ehukj o ^otw* djus ds fy, ikuh dh O;oLFkk ugha FkhA fookfnr
Hkou esa ckjg dlkSVh ds [kEHks Fks ftuesa nsoh nsorkvksa dh vkd`fr;kWa
mdsjh Fkh blds vfrfjDr fgUnw /keZ ds izrhd eksj dy'k o i{kh ds fpUg
Hkh vafdr fd;s gq;s FksA^^
“17. That by demolishing Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple
the disputed building was constructed but it could never
take the shape of the mosque because this disputed building
had no minaret and no arrangement of water for 'vaju'
(cleaning of hands). The disputed building had 12 pillars of
Kasauti stone with images of male and female deities
engraved on them. Apart from them, images of peacocks,
waterpots and birds were also carved out as symbols of
Hinduism.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- ;g fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj dks /oLr dj fookfnr Hkou dk
fuekZ.k gksus ds ckn Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh ifo=rk ds izfr yksxksa dh vkLFkk
,oa fo'okl lnk cuk jgk ,oa cuk jgsxkA^^
“18. That even after the construction of the disputed
building after demolishing Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple,
the belief and faith of people in the sanctity of Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi persisted and will persist forever.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- ;g fd eSa v;ks/;k dbZ ckj x;k gwWa ijUrq dqN fo'ks"k ioksZ tSls pS=
ekl esa jkeuoeh] vxgu ekl esa Jh jke fookgksRlo o lkou esa >wyk]
vkfn ds voljksa ij Hkh x;k gwWa vkSj ifo= lj;w unh esa Luku Hkh fd;k
gSA mDr voljksa ds vfrfjDr dkfrZd ekg esa pkSng dkslh; ,oa
iapdkslh; ifjdzek esa Hkh fd;k gSA^^
“20. That I have been to Ayodhya many times. But I have
also gone there on some special festivals such as Ram
Navami in the month of Chaitra, Sri Ram Vivahotsav in the
 592

month of Agahan and Jhoola in the month of Sawan and

have also taken a dip in the holy waters of the river Saryu.
Apart from the said occasions, I have also taken part in
'chaudah-kosi' and 'panch-kosi' circumambulations.”
(E.T.C.)
^^21- ;g fd eSaus mDr fo'ks"k voljksa ij fons'k ls vk;s gq;s gtkjksa dh
la[;k esa J)kyqvksa rFkk jkeHkDrksa dks ns[kk gSA bu voljksa ij iwjh
v;ks/;k uxjh jkee; gks tkrh gSA vkSj leLr okrkoj.k esa lhrkjkr ds
Hktu dhrZu rFkk ?k.Vs ?kfM+;ky o 'ka[k vkfn dh /ofu;kWa lquk;h nsrh
gSaA^^
“21. That I have seen devotees and worshippers of Rama
coming from abroad in thousands on the said special
occasions. The whole of Ayodhya Nagari is pervaded by
the sense of association with Rama, and Bhajan and
Keertan of Sita-Ram and sounds of bells, gongs, conchs,
etc. are heard in the entire atmosphere.” (E.T.C.)
^^22- ;g fd JhjketUeHkwfe dksfV dksfV fgUnwtuksa dh vkLFkk ,oa J)k
dk rhFkZ LFkku gS ftlds n'kZu ek= ls gh ikiksa dk uk'k rFkk vusdksa
iq.;ksa rFkk eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gSA Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh gksus ds
dkj.k ;g eks{knkf;uh uxjh gSA^^
“22. That Sri Ram Janam Bhumi is a seat of faith for
crores of Hindus and a site of pilgrimage attracting their
reverence, mere darshan of which destroys sins and leads
to attainment of many punyas and moksha (liberation). Due
to being the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama, it is a liberation-
giving town.” (E.T.C.)
436. In para 19 DW 20/1 has said that no Muslim was ever
seen by him offering Namaz neither visiting disputed place was
seen. The contents of the paragraph 19 are as under :
^^19- ;g fd u gh eqlyekuksa }kjk ogkWa dHkh Hkh dksbZ uekt i<+h x;h
vkSj u gh eqlyekuksa dks ogkWa tkrs ns[kk x;kA^^
 593

“19. That no namaj was ever offered there by Muslims nor

was any Muslim seen going there.” (E.T.C.)
437. D.W. 20/2, Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati,
aged about 36 years (vide affidavit dated 27.6.2005), is resident
of Srividyamath Kedarghat, Varanasi, U.P. He was cross
examined as under:
(a) 27/28/29/30.06.2005, 04.07.2005- by Nirmohi Akhara
plaintiff (Suit-3) through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and
Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Advocate (p. 9-69)
(b) 04.07.2005- by plaintiff no. 9 and 10/1 Mahmood
Ahmad and Mohd. Faruk Ahmad through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 70-75)
(c) 04/06/07/08/11/12.07.2005- by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1
and 6/2 Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and
Maulana Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 75-146)
(d) 12/13/14/15.07.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4)
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 146-
181)
(e) 15.07.2005 - defendants no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 181)
438. He is pupil of Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami
Swaroopanand Saraswati Ji Maharaj, Jyotishpithadhishwar and
Dwarika Shardapithadhishwar. His name through parents is
Uma Shanker Pandey, obtained education upto Acharya from
 594

Kashi and did Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.), registered for Research

but could not complete the same due to Sanyas Diksha given by
his Guru. He has mainly studied Ved, Vedang, Upnishad,
Vyakaran, Darshan and Dharmshastra. Besides Hindi and
Sanskrit in which he has special knowledge, he knows Gujrati,
Bangla and English. He claims that as per tradition, his
ancestors performed yagya to Lord Ram on his return to
Ayodhya after defeating Ravan. He claims that according to his
studies and information, the disputed place is the birth place of
Lord Ram and in this regard, facts have been stated in
paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of
the affidavit as under :
^^13- ;g fd esjs v/;;u o tkudkjh ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k dk
izdj.kxr LFky gh Hkxoku~ Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gSA ;g loZfofnr rF; gS
fd izHkq Jhjke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gqvk Fkk vkSj os b{okdqoa'kh pdzorhZ
jktk n'kjFk ds T;s"B iq= FksA izdj.kxr LFky mudh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa
lukru/kekZoyfEc;ksa }kjk rc ls gh vuojr iwftr gksrk pyk vk jgk gSA
blds ihNs gekjh vkLFkk] ijEijk] fo'okl vkSj izflf) dk izcy vk/kkj
gSA^^
“13. That as per my study and knowledge, Ayodhya-
situated site in question is itself the birthplace of Lord Sri
Rama. It is a well known fact that Lord Sri Rama was born
in Ayodhya and he was the eldest son of Supreme Ruler
Dashrath of Ikshwaku dynasty. Since then the site in
question has consistently been worshipped as his
birthplace by adherents of orthodox Hinduism. Our faith,
tradition and belief and its fame have been strong bases of
it.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- 'kkL=ksa ds vuqlkj ewfrZ;ksa vkSj LFkkuksa dh iwtk fofgr gS vkSj ,slk
djus ls ldyeuksjFkksa dh flf) vkSj eks{k rd dh izkfIr gksrh gSA^^
“14. Scriptures ordain for the worship of idols and places
 595

and such worship leads to the fulfillment of all desires and

to the attainment of liberation.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- 'kkL=ksa esa tUe ls tqM+h lHkh oLrqvksa dk fo'ks"k egRo crk;k x;k
gSA ogkWa tSls tUefrfFk] u{k=] fnu] dk egRo izfrikfnr gS oSls gh
tUeLFkku dk Hkh egRo fo'ks"k :i ls of.kZr gSA Hkxoku Jhjke us Lo;a
yadk fot; ds i'pkr vius NksVs HkkbZ y{e.k ls ;g dgdj tUeHkwfe ds
egRo dks c<+k fn;k gS fd yadk Hkys gh lksus dh gSA ij gs y{e.k ! eq>s
;g ugha :p jghA ¼eq>s rks v;ks/;k dh ;kn vk jgh gSA D;ksafd½ tuuh
vkSj tUeHkwfe rks LoxZ ls Hkh c<+dj gSaA 'yksd bl izdkj gS&
vfi Lo.kZe;h yadk u es y{e.k jksprsA
tuuh tUeHkwfe'p LoxkZnfi xjh;lhA^^
“15. All objects associated birth are stated in scriptures to
be of special significance. The importance of date of birth,
nakshatra and day is shown there. Similarly, the
importance of birthplace is also particularly mentioned.
Lord Sri Rama has himself enhanced the importance of the
birthplace by saying to his younger brother Lakshman after
his conquest over Lanka that 'Lanka may be made of gold,
but O Lakshman! It does not look beautiful to me. (Memory
of Ayodhya is occurring to me because mother and
motherland are greater even than the paradise). The verse
runs as under-
“Api swarnmayi Lanka na me Lakshman rochte.
Janani janmbhumisch swargadapi gariyasi.”
(E.T.C.)
^^16- ;g fd Jhen~ okYehfd jkek;.k ds ckydk.M ds iUnzgosa
lxZ ds rhlosa 'yksd esa Lo;a Hkxoku~ ukjk;.k us vius vorkjxzg.k ds iwoZ
loZizFke viuh tUeHkwfe ds ckjs esa lkspdj tUeHkwfe ds egRo dks
izfrikfnr fd;k gSA 'yksd bl izdkj gS&
,oa nRok oja nsoks nsokuka fo".kqjkReoku~A
ekuq";s fpUr;kekl tUeHkwfeeFkkReu%AA^^
 596

“16. That in the third verse of the 15th sarga of Srimad

Valmiki Ramayan's Baalkand, Lord Narayan, first of all
thinking of his birthplace before his incarnation, has
himself stressed the importance of birthplace. The verse is
as under-
“Evam dattva varam devo devanam Vishnuratmawan.
Manushye chintyamas janmbhumimthatmanah.”
(E.T.C.)
^^17- ;g fd tUeLFkku esa fdlh izdkj dh izfr"Bk ;k fuekZ.k vko';d
ugha gSa D;ksafd tUeLFkku 'kfDreku~ ds tUe ls Lor% 'kfDrlEiUu gks
tkrk gSA lkFk gh fujUrj iwtk&vpZuk ls og 'kfDr tkx`r cuh jgrh gS
vkSj yksxksa dks mudk vHkhfIlr iznku djus esa leFkZ gksrk gSA^^
“17. That there need not be any sort of pratishtha
(deification ) or construction at any birthplace because it
gets empowered immediately with the birth of the Powerful.
Besides, the power continues to be with constant pooja-
archana and it is capable of bestowing people with desired
results.” (E.T.C.)
^^18- ;g fd LFky&iqjk.k ds :i esa izfl) LdUniqjk.k ds oS".ko[k.M
ds v;ks/;k ekgkRE; ds nlosa v/;k; esa v;ks/;k ;k=k dh fof/k of.kZr gS
ftlesa Li"V :i ls Jhjke ds tUeLFkku dk mYys[k rFkk vfr'kk;h
egRo of.kZr gSA vkt Hkh bl iqjk.k ds mDr lUnHkZ esa of.kZr LFky
v;ks/;k esa miyc/k gSaA ;gh dkj.k gS fd izR;sd lukru/kehZ v;ks/;k
tkdj bl LFkyksa] fo'ks"kdj JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djrk gS] ifjdzek
djrk gS vkSj ml LFkku fo'ks"k dh jt dks vius flj ij /kkj.k dj

vius d`rd`R; le>rk gSA^^

“18. That the mode of Ayodhya journey finds mention in
the 10th chapter of Ayodhya Mahatmya of Vaishnav Khand
of Skandha Purana, famed as Sthal-purana. It clearly
mentions the birthplace of Sri Rama and its considerable
importance. The site mentioned in the said context of this
 597

Purana exists in Ayodhya even today. For this very reason,

every adherent of orthodox Hinduism go to Ayodhya to do
darshan and parikrama (circumambulation) of these
places, particularly of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi and
considers himself to be fortunate to have the dust of that
particular place and to apply it to his head.” (E.T.C.)
^^19- ;g fd izkphu Hkkjr dk yxHkx lexz lkfgR; Hkxoku~ Jhjke dh
xkFkkvksa ls Hkjk iM+k gSA osnksa] iqjk.kksa] mifu"knksa rFkk ckYehfd jkek;.k
vkfn xzUFkksa esa muds tUe vkSj deZ of.kZr gSaA ;g ijEijk fgUnh & vo/kh
ds Jhjkepfjrekul vkfn vk/kqfudre lkfgR; esa Hkh dk;e gSA^^
“19. That almost the entire literature of ancient India is
replete with stories of Lord Sri Rama. His birth and actions
find mention in the Vedas, the Puranas, the Upnishads, the
Valmiki Ramayan, etc. This tradition goes on even in the
most modern literature such as Ram Charit Manas written
in Awadhi dialect of Hindi.” (E.T.C.)
^^20- Jhjke dk jktk n'kjFk ds ?kj ekrk dkS'kY;k ls tUe gqvk Fkk
vkSj mUgksaus vius yksdksRrj pfj=ksa ls egkekuo ;k Hkxoku~ dh inoh
izkIr dj yhA bldk ;gh izek.k gS fd vkt Hkh j?kqoa'kh {kf=; fo|eku
gSa tks Lo;a dks Jhjke dk ;k muds iq= dq'k & tks fd jke ds ckn
v;ks/;k ds jktk cus Fks& ds oa'kt gSaA^^
“20. Sri Rama was born to mother Kaushalya at the house
of King Dashrath and by virtue of his ethereal demeanours
assumed the title of Superhuman or Bhagwan. Its proof is
that even today Kshatriyas, descended from Raghuvansh,
exist and they are descendents either of Sri Rama or of his
son, Kusha, who became the King of Ayodhya after Rama.”
(E.T.C.)
^^25- ;g fd djksM+ksa lukru/kfeZ;ksa }kjk jk"V~nsork ds :i esa iwftr
Hkxoku~ Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe muds fy, loksZPp egRo dh LFkyh gS Bhd
mlh izdkj tSls eqlyeku Hkkb;ksa ds fy, eDdkA^^
 598

“25. That the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama, worshipped as

the Deity of the Nation by crores of followers of orthodox
Hinduism, is the place of highest importance for them as
Mecca is for Muslims.” (E.T.C.)
^26- ;g fd ;g iz'u efUnj vkSj efLtn dk ugha vfirq
JhjketUeHkwfe dk gSA efUnj vkSj efLtn euq"; }kjk fufeZr gksus ds
dkj.k gVk, tk ldrs gSa ijUrq tUeHkwfe dks cnyk tkuk laHko ugha gksus
ds dkj.k mls gVk;k ugha tk ldrkA ,rkork mldk dksbZ fodYi ugha
gks ldrkAa^^
“26. That the question is not of temple and mosque but of
Sri Ram Janam Bhumi. Temple and mosque being human
constructions may be removed but Janam Bhumi not being
subject to change cannot be shifted. Hence, there can be no
option for it.” (E.T.C.)
^^27- lekt ftlls izHkkfor gksrk gS mlds uke ij vius cPpksa] ?kj]
xyh eksgYys] xkWao rFkk 'kgj vkfn dk ukedj.k djrk gSA vkt Hkh gekjs
ns'k esa lokZf/kd uke ,sls gSa ftuesa jke 'kCn fo|eku gSA ;gh ugha] u
dsoy Hkkjr vfirq fo'o ds yxHkx lHkh ns'kksa esa Jhjke ds uke ij vusd
'kgjksa ds uke ekStwn gSaA tks jke dh lkoZHkkSfedrk dh iqf"V djrs gSaA^^
“27. Society names children, houses, streets, localities,
villages, towns, etc. after those by whom it is influenced.
Even today most of the names in our country have the word
Rama in them. Not only this, several towns are named after
Sri Rama not only in India but also in almost all the
countries of the world; that goes to establish the
universality of Rama.” (E.T.C.)
^^30- ok;q iqjk.k ds vuqlkj jke ds iq= dq'k us Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ij
pkSjklh [kEHkksa dk lqUnj efUnj rS;kj djok;kA^^
“30. As per the Vayu Purana, Kusha, son of Rama, built a
beautiful temple supported by 84 pillars at the birthplace of
Sri Rama.” (E.T.C.)
 599

439. About belief of Hindus of the disputed place as birth

place of Lord Ram, DW 20/2 has said in paras 34, 35 and 36 of
the affidavit as under :
^^34- ;g fd Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe lnk gh ije ifo= vkSj
vykSfdr 'kfDr ls lEiUu gSA og dHkh Hkh] fdlh Hkh gkykr esa nwf"kr ;k
vifo= ugha gks ldrh vkSj gekjs fy, loZnk iwtuh;] oUnuh; vkSj eks{k
vkfn egku Qyksa dks iznku djus esa l{ke gSA^^
“34. That the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama has always
been most sacred and endowed with supernatural powers.
It can never be defiled and desecrated at any cost and to us
it is always revered, worth-worshipping and capable of
yielding great results like liberation, etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^35- ;g fd eSaus vusd ckj v;ks/;k dh ;k=k dh gS vkSj vU; efUnjksa
ds vfrfjDr JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu fd;k gSA eSaus Jhjke uoeh ij
Hkh ;k=k dh gS vkSj yk[kksa J)kyqvksa ds lkFk JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu
fd;k gSA^^
“35. That I have travelled to Ayodhya many times and
have had darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi besides other
temples. I have also been there on Ram Navami and have
had darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi along with lakhs of
devotees.” (E.T.C.)
^^36- ;g fd eSaus LdUniqjk.kksDr dze dk ikyu djrs gq, Hkh ,d ckj
v;ks/;k dh ;k=k dh gS vkSj JhjketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu fd;k gSA bl dze
dks iwjk djus esa eq>s fczfV'k tekus ds ,d cM+s ljdkjh vf/kdkjh Jh
,MoMZ }kjk yxk, x, fo'kky izLrjiV~Vksa ls cM+k lg;ksx feyk tks fd
LdUniqjk.k ds dze ls gh yxk;k x;k gS vkSj ml HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr dks
fl) djrk gSA**
“36. That following the sequence as ordained in the
Skandha-purana I have once travelled to Ayodhya and
have had darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi. In following
this sequence I got immense help from large stone-plates
 600

installed by Sri Edward, a high ranking government official

of the British period which were installed strictly in the
sequence as ordained in the Skandha-purana and which go
on to establish its geographical location.” (E.T.C.)
440. About existence of temple of Lord Ram, its demolition
by Babar, that no mosque was constructed at Ayodhya, DW
20/2 has said in paragraphs 24, 31, 32, 33, 37 and 39 of the
affidavit as under :
^^24- ;g fd ;w-ih- fMfLV~DV xtsfV;j QStkckn 1960 tks Jherh ;'kk
clUrh tks'kh }kjk laikfnr ,oa mRrj izns'k ljdkj }kjk izdkf'kr gS] esa
izdj.kxr Hkou esa yxs f'kykys[k dk o.kZu gSA fdUrq mlesa fdlh efLtn
ds fuekZ.k dh dksbZ ckr ugha fy[kh gS cfYd nsonwrksa ds mrjus ds LFkku
ij Hkou fuekZ.k dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA blls Hkh ;gh lkfcr gksrk gS
fd izdkj.kxr LFky Hkxoku~ Jhjkeyyk dk vorj.k LFky gSA blh
xtsfV;j esa iwohZ eq[; }kj ls nf{k.k dh nhokj esa fLFkr okjkg Hkxoku
dk Hkh mYys[k feyrk gSA^^
“24. That the U.P. District Gazetteer, Faizabad, 1960-
edited by Srimati Yasha Basanti Joshi and published by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh – speaks of stone
inscriptions carved out in the building in question but it
does not speak of construction of any mosque. But it
speaks of construction of a building at the place of descent
of devdoots (divine messengers). It also goes to establish
that the site in question is the place of descension of Lord
Sri Ram Lala. This very gazetteer also speaks of Lord
Varah engraved in the wall south of the eastern main
gate.” (E.T.C.)
^^31- v;ks/;k ekgkRE; uked xzUFk esa iwjh v;ks/;k ds ckjs es o.kZu fd;k
x;k gSA bl xzUFk esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk o.kZu rks gS ijUrq fdlh efLtn
dk o.kZu ugha fd;k x;k gSA^^
“31. The whole of Ayodhya finds mention in the treatise
 601

titled Ayodhya Mahatmya. This treatise certainly speaks of

Sri Ram Janam Bhumi but it does not speak of any
mosque.” (E.T.C.)
^32- ckcjukek vkSj vkbus vdcjh uked iqLrdksa dk v/;;u eSaus
fd;k gSA eq>s buesa dgha Hkh ;g i<+us dks ugha feyk fd ckcj us jkedksV
v;ks/;k esa dksbZ efLtn cuokbZaA^^
“32. I have studied the books titled Baburnama and Ain-e-
Akbari. I did not read anywhere in it that Babur built any
mosque at Ram Kot, Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^33- ;g fd esjh tkudkjh esa izdj.kxr LFky ij dHkh Hkh fdlh
eqlyeku HkkbZ us uekt ugha i<+h gSA vkSj ;fn i<+h Hkh gks rks mrus ek=
ls og Hkwfe u rks efLtn gks tkrh gS vkSj u gh lukru/kfeZ;ksa ds fy,
ukikd vFkok ifo=A geus ns[kk fd gekjs vkLFkk lEiUu eqfLye HkkbZ
jsyos LVs'ku] cl LVs'ku] jsy vkfn lkoZtfud LFkkuksa ij iwjh J_k ls
uekt vnk djrs gSa ijUrq D;k brus ek= ls mi;qZDr LFkku efLtn gks
tkrs gSa\^^
“33. That as per my knowledge no Muslim has ever
offered namaj at the place in question. Even if namaj is
offered, this alone does not make that land a mosque nor
does it become unholy for orthodox Hindus. We have seen
that our devout Muslims offer namaj with full reverence at
public places such as Railway stations, bus-stands, railway
trains, etc. but do the said places become mosques only on
this account?” (E.T.C.)
^37- ;g fd izdj.kxr Hkou dgha ls Hkh efLtn gksus dk vkHkkl ugha
nsrk Fkk vkSj mlesa vusd ,sls fpUg vkSj lk{; Fks tks mldk efUnj gksuk
izekf.kr djrs FksA^^
“37. That the building in question from nowhere gave any
inkling of being a mosque and it had several signs and
evidences establishing it as a temple.” (E.T.C.)
^^39- ;g fd tulk/kkj.k dh ;g /kkj.kk cuh gqbZ gS fd ckcj us vius
 602

fliglkykj ehjckWdh ds ek/;e ls v;ks/;k ds jkedksV esa fLFkr Hkxoku

Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ij fLFkr fo'kky efUnj dks rksM+dj efLtn dk
vkdkj nsus dk iz;kl fd;kA ijUrq lukru/kfeZ;ksa ds fujUrj fojks/k ds
QyLo:i mls efLtn dk :i dHkh Hkh ugha fn;k tk ldk vfirq ogkWa
fujUrj Hkxoku Jhjkeyyk dh iwtk vpZuk gksrh jghA ijUrq esjs v/;;u
esa ;g izpfyr vkSj izpkfjr /kkj.kk vaxzstksa ds le; dh gh izrhr gksrh gS
D;ksafd mlls iwoZ fdlh Hkh LFky ij ,slk dksbZ izek.k miyC/k ugha
gksrkA^^
“39. That there continues to be a public perception that
Babur through his army commander Mir Baqi demolished
a large temple located at Lord Sri Rama's birthplace at
Ram Kot in Ayodhya and tried to give it the shape of
mosque. But due to constant protest by orthodox Hindus it
could never be given the shape of mosque and it continued
to see pooja and archana (worship and prayer) of Lord Sri
Ram Lala. But as per my study, this prevalent and
circulated perception appears to be only of the British time
but prior to it no such proof is available at any site.”
(E.T.C.)
441. Lastly, DW 20/2 has said that the dispute between two
communities is the result of Britishers' policy of divide and rule
and prior thereto there was no such dispute. In para 40 of the
affidavit he has said as under :
^40- ;g fd izdj.kxr LFky dks ysdj tks fookn dh fLFkfr fufeZr
gqbZ gS esjs fopkj ls og vaxzstksa dh QwV Mkyksa vkSj jkt djksa dh uhfr dk
ifj.kke gSA ,sls esa lukru/kfeZ;ksa ,oa bLyke ds vuq;kf;;ksa dks bl
okLrfodrk ds vkyksd esa ikjLifjd }Un vkSj }s"k Hkwydj ,d gksdj
Hkkjrh; jk"V~ dh 'kfDr dk lao/kZu djuk pkfg,A**
“40. That the dispute which has cropped up over the site
in question is, in my opinion, an outcome of the English
policy of divide and rule. In such circumstances, in the
 603

light of this reality, orthodox Hindus and the followers of

Islam should forget their internecine enmity and ill-will, be
united and augment the strength of Indian Nation.”
(E.T.C.)
442. D.W. 20/3 Brahamchari Ramrakshanand, aged about
87 years (vide affidavit dated 18.7.2005), is resident of
Jyotirmath, Trotakacharya Gupha, Post Joshimath, District
Chamoli (Uttaranchal). He was cross examined in the following
manner :
(a) 18/19.07.2005 - by Nirmohi Akhara plaintiff (Suit-3)
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and Sri Tarunjeet
Verma, Advocate (p. 6-28 )
(b) 19/20.07.2005- by Mohd. Faruk Ahmad, defendant no.
11 through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 29-32)
(c) 20/22.07.2005- by plaintiffs no. 1, 6/1 and 6/2 Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, Jiyauddin and Maulana
Mahafujurrhman through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
32-44)
(d) 25.07.2005- by plaintiff no. 7 (Suit-4) through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 45-52)
(e) 25.07.2005 - defendants no. 6/1 (Suit-3) through Sri
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate and defendant no. 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate and defendant no. 26
(Suit-5) through Sri C.M. Shukla, Advocate adopted the
cross examination already done by Sri Abdul Manna, Sri
Zafaryab Jilani and Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,
Advocates (p. 52)
443. He belong to village Dighori, District Sivani, Madhya
Pradesh. His family name was Ramraksha Upadhyay and he got
education with the said name. About his studies and knowledge
 604

that the place in dispute is birth place of Lord Ram and that this
is the faith of Hindus, he has said in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
and 14 of the affidavit as under :
^9- ;g fd esjs v/;;u o tkudkjh ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k fLFkr
fookfnr LFky gh Hkxoku Jh jke dh tUeHkwfe gSA ;g loZfofnr gS fd
Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gqvk Fkk tks pdzorhZ egkjkt n'kjFk
ds T;s"B iq= FksA^^
“9. That as per my study and knowledge, Ayodhya-
situated disputed site itself is the birthplace of Lord Sri
Rama. It is known to all that Lord Sri Rama was born in
Ayodhya and was the eldest son of the Supreme King,
Dashrath.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- ;g fd v;ks/;k fLFkr fookfnr LFky fgUnw /kekZuq;kf;;ksa }kjk
Hkxoku Jhjke yyk dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa vuUr dky ls vkLFkk]
ijEijk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj ekU;rk izkIr o iwtuh; gS vkSj ml LFky
fo'ks"k dh iwtk fujUrj gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA 'kkL+=ksa ds vuqlkj tUeHkwfe
ds n'kZu ek= ls gh eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gS vkSj lIr eks{knkf;uh iqfj;ksa
esa v;ks/;k dk izFke LFkku gSA^^
“10. That as per faith, tradition and belief, Ayodhya
situated disputed site has been since eternity recognised
and worshipped by adherents of Hinduism as the birthplace
of Lord Sri Ram Lala and pooja has continued to be
offered at that particular place. As per scriptures, one can
attain liberation through mere darshan of the birthplace,
and Ayodhya occupies the first place amongst seven
liberation-giving puris.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- ;g fd /keZ ' kkL=k s a ds vuq l kj tUeLFkku dh fo'k s" k
egRrk gS tk s Lo;a Hk w nso ds :i es a Loiz k .kiz f rf"Br ,oa
iwT ; LFky gS A bl izdkj dh nsoRo izkIr LFkyksa ij egUr vFkok
ljojkgdkj dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gksrhA^^
“11. That as per scriptures, the birthplace commands
 605

special importance and it is in itself a deified and

revered place as Bhoo-dev (Lord of Land). There is no
need of there being a Mahanta or Sarvarakaar at the
places blessed with this type of divinity.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- ;g fd eSaus xksLokeh rqylhnkld`r Jhjkepfjr ekul esa Hkxoku
Jhjke ds tUe o tUeLFkku dk o.kZu i<+k gS ;wW rks leLr v;ks/;k {ks=
gh Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gS ijUrq 'kkL=h; izek.kksa o yk[kk sa o"kk sZ
dh vkLFkk ds vuq l kj v;k s/ ;k fLFkr Hkxoku Jhjke dk
tUeLFky nso rq Y ; iwT ; gS A ^^
“12. That I have read the description of Sri Rama's birth
and birthplace in Sri Ram Charit Manas written by
Goswami Tulsidas. As a matter of fact, the whole of
Ayodhya itself is the birthland of Sri Rama but according to
scriptural proofs and as per the faith of Lakhs of years,
Ayodhya-situated birthplace of Lord Sri Rama is revered
like a deity.” (E.T.C.)
^13- ;g fd xk sL okeh rq y lhnkl ds Jhjkepfjr ekul ds
ckydk.M ds 191 nk sg s ds uhps okys NUn esa Hkxoku Jhjke
ds iz k dkV~ ; dk iw. kZ fooj.k gS A ^^
“13. That the incarnation of Lord Sri Rama finds full
description in the verse just below 191st couplet of Baal-
Kaand of Goswami Tulsidas-written Sri Ram Charit
Manas.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- ;g fd eS au s vius xq : egkjkt ls lq u k gS fd LdUn
iq j k.k es a of.kZ r v;k s/ ;k ekgkRe; ls Li"V :i ls iz e kf.kr
gk sr k gS fd orZeku v;ks/;k iqjh esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds uke ls izfl)
LFky gh JhjketUeHkwfe LFky gSA**
“14. That I have heard from my spiritual teacher that
Ayodhya Mahatmya of the Skandha Purana clearly
proves that only the place called Sri Ram Janam Bhumi in
the present Ayodhya-puri is Sri Ram Janam Bhumi site.”
 606

(E.T.C.)
444. About his (DW 20/3) performing Darshan, Pooja at the
place in dispute since the age of 20 years under the central
dome, inside the courtyard, the averments made in para 15 and
16 of the affidavit are as under:
^^15- ;g fd v;ks/;k fLFkr JhjketUeHkwfe ds n'kZu vkSj iwtu eSaus dbZ
ckj fd;k gSA^^
“15. That I have done darshan and poojan of Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi situated in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^^16- ;g fd eSa v;ks/;k igyh ckj yxHkx chl o"kZ dh voLFkk esa x;k
FkkA eSaus v;ks/;k esa lj;w Luku fd;k] ukxs'oj ukFk n'kZu djus ds
i'pkr eSaus Jhjke yyk efUnj ds n'kZu fd;sA rniqjkUr guqekux<+h]
dudHkou] lqfe=k Hkou vkfn efUnjksa ds Hkh n'kZu fd,A**
“16. That I went to Ayodhya for the first time at the age of
nearly 20 years. I had taken a dip in Ayodhya and after
having darshan of Nageshwarnath I had darshan of Sri
Ram Lala temple. After that I had darshan also of temples
such as Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan, Sumitra Bhawan,
etc.” (E.T.C.)
445. O.P.W. 1, Mahant Ramchandra Das Digambar, aged
about 90 years (on 23.12.1999 when he commenced his
testimony), was born at Village Sinhipur, District Chhapara,
Bihar and came to Ayodhya at the age of 14-15 years. His cross
examination took about a month and proceeded as under :
(a) 23/24-12-1999, 12/14/16-01-2000- by Nirmohi Akhara
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 14-80)
(b) 16/17/18/19-01-2000- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 4, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
81-131)
(c) 19/20-01-2000- by defendant no. 5 Hashim Ansari
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 131-
 607

150
(d) 20-01-2000 - defendant no. 6 through Sri Mohd.
Nadeem Siddiqui, Advocate and defendant no. 26 through
Sri Sayad Irfat, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by defendants no. 4 and 5.
446. He is a Sadhu of Ramanandi sect and Sri Mahant of
Akhil Bhartiya Sri Panch Ramanandi Digambar Ani Akhara. He
has given the details of the Ramanandi sect and its Akhara
which we propose to deal while considering issue No. 17 (Suit-
3). He got associated with Digamber Akhara, Ayodhya about 45
years ago. He has lot of faith and belief in Lord Ram and in this
respect he said as under :
^^Hkxoku jke ds tUe ds lEcU/k esa gekjs ;gkWa okYehfd jkek;.k
izFke LFkku j[krk gSA okYehfd jkek;.k ds ,d&,d okD; dks ge
bfrgkl o osn ds :i esa Lohdkj djrs gSaA esjs le{k Jhen~okYehfd
jkek;.k dh iqLrd gSA esjs le{k okYehfd jkek;.k dh tks izfr gS] og
xhrkizsl xksj[kiqj ls izdkf'kr rFkk izekf.kr izfr gSA okYehfd esa fy[kh
ckrsa Hkxoku jke ds izknqHkkZo ds lEcU/k esa fy[kh ckrsa gSa tks jkek;.k ds
ftl ik= ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS] og ml ik= ds lEcU/k esa ekU; gSA
;g lHkh ckrsa] lHkh ik=ksa ds lEcU/k esa ekU; ugha gSA ik= ls esjk rkRi;Z
egkjkt n'kjFk] jkuh dkS'kY;k] egkjkuh dSds;h] Jh guqeku] lqxzho] dsoV]
'kcjh] tVk;q] v;ks/;k] fefFkyk] egkjktk tud] egkjkuh lhrk] egkjkuh
mfeZyk] egkjkuh ek.Moh] egkjkuh JqfrdhfrZ] of'k"B] fo'okfe= vkfn ls
gSA bu ik=ksa esa loZizFke Jh jkepUnz th gSaA bu lHkh ik=ksa esa izeq[k
uk;d Jh jke pUnz th gSaA^^
“The Valmiki Ramayana occupies the first place in
the matter of birth of Lord Rama. Each phrase of Valmiki
Ramayana is accepted by us as history and Veda. The book
of Srimadvalmiki Ramayana is before me. The copy of
Valmiki Ramayana before me, is a publication of Geeta
Press, Gorakhapur and is genuine copy. The facts
 608

mentioned in Valmiki (Ramayana) are about the

descendence of Lord Rama and the facts mentioned about
any particular character, are acceptable as regards that
character. All these facts are not acceptable about all the
characters. By characters, I mean king Dashrath, queen
Kaushalya, queen Kaikeyee, Sri Hanuman, Sugriv, Kevat,
Shabri, Jatayu, Ayodhya, Mithila, king Janak, queen Sita,
queen Urmila, queen Mandavi, queen Shruti Kirti,
Vashishtha, Vishwamitra etc.. The first amongst these
characters is Sri Ramchandra. Out of all of these
characters, Sri Ramchandra is the main hero.” (E.T.C.)
^^esjh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj bl lEcU/k esa pkj ckrsa iz/kku gSa&
uke] :i] yhyk ,oa /kkeA gekjs lEiznk; esa bu pkjksa dks lfPpnkuUn
Hkxoku dk foxzg ekurs gq, pkjksa dks oLrqr% ,d ekuk x;k gSA uke ls
Hkxoku jke dk xzg.k gSA jke 'kCn dk 'kCnkFkZ 'kCn 'kkL= esa jeqdzhMk;ke~
/kkrq ls mRifRr gksrh gS vkSj jeUrs] dzhMUrs] ;ksxu;ksa] vfLeufrjkek fy[kk
gqvk gSA fdlh O;fDr ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh izkIr djus ds fy, mlds
uke rFkk jgus ds LFkku ds ckjs esa tkudkjh gksuk vko';d gSA
okYehfd jkek;.k es a ;g mfYyf[kr gS fd Hkxoku jke dk
tUe v;k s/ ;k es a gq v kA v;ks/;k dk o.kZu gekjs osnksa esa gS] mifu"knksa
esa rFkk lafgrkvksa esa ,oa v"Vkn'k mi iqjk.ksa esa] Le`fr;ksa esa gS vkSj Hkkjr
ds laLd`r txr esa tks ekU; lkfgR; miyC/k gS] mu lc esa Hkxoku dk
tUe LFkku v;ks/;k ekuk x;k gSA ;g ogh v;ks/;k gS tks orZeku LFky
gSA bl LFky ij Hkxoku jke dk tUe gqvk] blds lEcU/k esa pkSgn~nh
dk mYys[k djrs gq, mijksDr lHkh fgUnw /keZ xzUFkksa esa Li"V :i ls
mYys[k gSA dkxt la0& 107x@ 5 esjs le{k gS] LdU/k iqjk.k ds vUrxZr
v;ks/;k egkRE; izdj.k esa bl lEcU/k esa Li"V mYys[k gSA Hkxoku jke
dk tUe LFky ,oa xHkZ x ` g fookfnr LFky gh gS ] tgkW a ij
jkeyyk th bl le; fojkteku gS aA ^ ^
“According to my faith, the following four are the
main facts in this behalf, viz.- name, ‘roop’(form), ‘leela’
 609

(action) and ‘dhaam’ (abode). In our community, all four

of them have virtually been treated to be one by taking
them to be disintegration of God Sachchidanand. The name
implies Lord Rama. The meaning of term Rama originates
from the generic term ‘ramukridayam’ and it has been
written as ‘ramante, kridante, yoganyon, asmintirama’. In
order to gather information about any person, it is
essential to have knowledge of his name and place of
abode. It has been mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana that
Lord Rama was born at Ayodhya. The description about
Ayodhya is to be found in our Vedas, Upnishads,
Sanghitas, 18 Up-Puranas, Smritis and all acceptable
literature in the cultural domain of India and in all of them
Ayodhya has been considered to be the birthplace of Lord.
It is the same Ayodhya, which exists today. Lord Rama had
incarnated at this very place. All the said religious treatises
of Hindus clearly give the boundary in this behalf. The
paper no. 107C/5 is before me. Clear description in this
behalf is contained in the chapter of Skand Purana dealing
with the importance of Ayodhya. The birthplace of Lord
Rama and the 'Garbh-grih', is the disputed site, where
Ramlala is now present.” (E.T.C.)
^^Hkxoku jke ds tUe dk LFkku tks eSa crk jgk gwWa] og jke
mikluk lEcU/kh xzUFkksa esa rFkk vU; fgUnw 'kkL= xzUFkksa esa of.kZr gSA^^
“The birthplace of Lord Rama as being described by
me, is the same as mentioned in treatises related to
reverence of Rama and in other Hindu Shastra treatises.”
(E.T.C.)
^^v;ks/;k dk bfrgkl vR;Ur izkphu ,oa lehphu gS] tks 'kklu
ds vk/kkj ij] dky ds vk/kkj ij dbZ Hkkxksa esa foHkDr gSA lR;;qx
dkyhu v;ks/;k] =srkdkyhu v;ks/;k] }kijdkyhu v;ks/;k] dfy;qx
 610

dkyhu v;ks/;kA fgUnw jktkvksa ds le; dh v;ks/;k] eqfLye le; ds

lezkVksa] ckn'kkgksa ds le; dh v;ks/;k] bZLV bf.M;k ls ysdj vaxzstksa ds
vfUre 'kklu dky dh v;ks/;k] dkaxzsldkyhu v;ks/;k ds vk/kkj ij
v;ks/;k ds bfrgkl dks crk;k tk ldrk gS] ftuesa loZizFke ckS)dkyhu
rFkk fodzekfnR; ds dky dh v;ks/;k jgh gSA v;ks/;k ds vusd
i;kZ;okph 'kCn gSa& v;ks/;k] lR;k] ijk] vijkftrk] lkdsr vkfn gSaA^^
“The history of Ayodhya is very ancient and
consistent, which is divided in many parts as per rule and
period. The history of Ayodhya can be given on basis of
Ayodhya of Satyug period, Ayodhya of Treta period,
Ayodhya of Dwaper period, Ayodhya of Kalyug period,
Ayodhya in times of Hindu kings, Ayodhya in times of
Muslim kings and emperors, Ayodhya from the times of
East India to last days of English rule, Ayodhya of
Congress period. Out of these, the initial Ayodhya is of
Buddha period and Vikramaditya period. The word
Ayodhya has many synonyms such as- Ayodhya, Satya,
Para, Aparajita, Saket etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^tc eSa v;ks/;k vk;k] rc ls eSa fujUrj jke tUe Hkwfe]
guqekux<+h ukxs'ojukFk] lj;w] NksVh nsodkyh] cM+h nsodkyh]
y{e.k ?kkV] lIr lkxj] tks NksVh nsodkyh ds lehi fLFkr gS ,oa dud
Hkou efUnj bu lHkh lkr LFkkuksa ij tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k] rc ls
cjkcj yksxksa dks vifjorZuh; :i ls n'kZu djrs gq, ns[kk gSA - - - - - -
- - - jke tUe Hk wf e LFky ij Hkxoku jke dh iz f rek FkhA
lhrk jlk sb Z Hkh Fkh vkS j ogkW a iz k phu ijEijk ls jke tUe
Hk wf e ds uke ij tk s fo'k s" k Hkou Fkk] mlds iz R ;sd [kEHkk sa
es a vusd nso h&nso rkvk s a ds ¼ewf rZ ½ fp= Fk sA ewfrZ ds vfrfjDr
ml Hk wf e dh Hkh iwt k djrs Fk s] tgkW a ij ;g crk;k tkrk
gS fd ;g jke tUeLFky gS vkS j Hkxoku jke dk iz k dV~ ;
gq v k gS A mlh LFky ij ,d jke yyk th ds pcwrjk ds uke ls ,d
Qwl dh >ksiM+h Fkh ftlesa fueksZgh v[kkM+s ds iqtkjh iwtk djrs Fks rFkk
 611

Hkxoku dks Hkksx&jkx vkfn vfiZr djrs FksA**

“Since I came to Ayodhya, I have regularly seen people
having 'darshan' of all the seven places viz.
Ramjanmbhumi, Hanumangarhi Nageshwar Nath, Saryu,
Chhoti Dev kali, Badi Dev Kali, Laxman Ghat, Saptsagar
situated near Chhoti Dev Kali and Kanak Bhawan
temple.. . . . .. . .. There was the idol of Lord Rama at
Ramjanmbhumi site. Sita Rasoi also existed and in each
pillar of the special building, which existed there as per
ancient custom by name of Ramjanmbhumi, there were
number of pictures (idol) of Gods-Goddesses over them.
Apart from the idol, that land was also revered and it was
said that it was the birthplace of Rama and Lord Rama
had descended over there. There was a hut made up of
straw at that place, which was called the Chabutara of
Ramlala, and the same was worshiped by the priests of
Nirmohi Akhara, who used to make offering of Bhog-Raag
etc. to Him.” (E.T.C.)
447. About 1934 riots he (OPW 1) claims to be a witness and
according to him since then neither the Muslims ever visited
disputed premises nor offered any Namaz thereat and said :
^*esjs v;ks/;k ds fuokl dky esa o"kZ 1934 esa vaxzstksa ds le;
esa ;kuh vaxzstksa ds 'kkludky esa fgUnw rFkk eqlyekuksa ds e/; vkilh
ekjihV gqbZA ftl LFkku ij efLtn dks gksuk bl le; crk;k tkrk gS]
ml rFkkdfFkr Hkou ds f'k[kj dks rksM+ fn;k x;kA vaxzst ljdkj us
vLlh gtkj :i;k tqekZuk yxk;k] ftls v;ks/;k ds lUr&egUrksa us
,d= djds vaxzsth 'kklu dks fn;k] mlds ckn bl fxjs gq, f'k[kj dh
ejEer djokbZ xbZA^^
“During the period of my stay at Ayodhya, a riot had
broken out between Muslims and Hindus in the year 1934
during the British rule. The dome of the building existing at
 612

the place, where existence of mosque is being claimed

today, had been damaged. The British Government had
imposed a fine of Rupees eighty thousand, which was
collected and deposited with the British Government by the
saints-mahants of Ayodhya and subsequently the said
damaged dome was repaired.” (E.T.C.)
^^ejEer dk dk;Z eqlyeku lEiznk; us ugha djok;kA 1934 ls
ysdj 1947 rd iwtk&ikB esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ O;o/kku mRiUu ugha
fd;k x;kA esjs le; esa tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k] eSaus fookfnr ifjlj esa
dHkh uekt vnk gksrs ugha ns[kkA bl lEcU/k esa dbZ ckj iz;kl gqvk] bl
lEcU/k esa fxjQ~rkfj;kW dh xbZA uekt i<+us ds lEcU/k esa iz;kl fd;s
tkus ij cjkcj la?k"kZ dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks tkrh FkhA eSaus uekt i<+rs
gq, dHkh ugha ns[kkA tUeHkwfe ds vkWaxu ds chp esa yksgs ds lh[kpksa
dk ,d njoktk Fkk] bls bl mn~ns'; ls yxk;k x;k Fkk] ftlls dksbZ
tkuoj vkfn izos'k u dj ldsA**
“The repair work was not carried out by the Muslim
community. There was no obstruction in prayer-worship
from the year 1934 to 1947. Since my arrival at Ayodhya, I
never saw Namaz being offered at the disputed premises.
Attempts were made in this behalf on number of occasions
and many arrests were effected. The attempts to offer
Namaz, used to regularly give rise to clash like situation. I
never saw Namaz being offered. In center of the courtyard
of the Janmbhumi, was a gate of iron rods and it had been
put there to prevent any animal etc. from entering.”
(E.T.C.)
448. About the incident of 23rd December 1949, he has said
as under :
^^23 fnlEcj] 1949 dk s Hkxoku Jh jke dh ewf rZ dk
iz k dV~ ; cz E geq g q r Z es a gq v kA ml LFky ij tgkW a ij igys ls
ewf rZ iwt k vpZ u k LFkkfir Fkh] ogkW a ij peRdkjiw. kZ ?kVuk
 613

&iz d k'k ds voyk sd u ds i'pkr fuek sZ gh v[kkM+ s ds jke

pcwr j s ij tk s ewf rZ LFkkfir gq b Z ] ls gVkdj xHkZ x ` g es a
LFkkfir dj fn;k x;kA jke tUeHkwfe vkUnksyuksa esa eSa cjkcj
lfEefyr gqvk gwWaA ns'k ds Lora= gksus ds i'pkr jke tUeHkwfe LFky ij
efUnj cukus dk vkUnksyu pyk] ftlds lEcU/k esa rRdkyhu iz/kkueU=h
ls izfrfuf/k e.My bl lEcU/k esa dbZ ckj feykA^^
“The idol of Lord Sri Ram appeared in ‘Brahm
Muhurt’ of 23rd December, 1949. After looking at the
miraculous light incident, the idol installed over
Ramchabutara of Nirmohi Akhara, was removed from
the place, where the revered idol was already present,
and installed in the 'Garbh-grih'. I have always
participated in the Ramjanmbhumi movement. After
independence, the movement for building a temple at
Ramjanmbhumi premises ga1ined momentum, and in this
behalf a delegation met the erstwhile Prime Minister on
number of occasions.” (E.T.C.)
^^bl LFky ij tc iwtk&ikB vkfn dk dk;Zdze cjkcj pyrk
jgkA mi;qZDr ?kVuk ds ckn xHkZx`g esa ewfrZ LFkkfir gksus ds i'pkr
iwtk&vpZuk dk dk;Zdze fu;fer :i ls cjkcj pyrk jgkA blds igys
Hkh bl LFky ij iwtk&vpZuk vkfn fu;fer :i ls gksrk vk;k gSA 23
fnlEcj 1949 dks fookfnr LFky ij esjs iwtk&ikB djus esa fdlh izdkj
dk dksbZ O;o/kku mRiUu ugha gqvkA mlds ckn dbZ eqdnesa bl lEcU/k
esa pys] ftuesa fus"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k ikfjr gqvkA**
“The prayer-worship etc. was always performed at
this place. After the said incident i.e. installation of idol in
the 'Garbh-grih', the prayer-worship continued regularly.
Earlier also, prayer-worship etc. had been regularly
performed at this place. There was no obstruction in my
prayer-worship at the disputed site on 23rd December,
1949. Subsequently, many cases were filed in this behalf,
 614

wherein injunction order was passed.” (E.T.C.)

449. He says that the suit filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad
was defective due to non compliance of Section 80 C.P.C. and,
therefore, he filed a separate suit i.e. Suit-2 (his suit has already
been dismissed as withdrawn).
450. O.P.W. 2, Deoki Nandan Agarwal. He was plaintiff no.
3 (Suit-5), 80 years of age (when got his statement recorded on
16-20th June 2001), resident of 59/56, Dilkusha, Naya Katra,
Allahabad. His cross examination commenced and followed as
under :
(a) 06/08/09-08-2001-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 71-126)
(b) 09/10-08-2001- by Mahmood Ahmad, defendant no. 6
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 126-133)
(c) 10-08-2001, 12-09-2001, 19/20/21/22-11-2001,
6/7/8.2.2002 by Sunni Central Waqf Board, defendant no.
4, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 133-202)
(Cross examination could not conclude due to his death)
451. After obtaining law degree, he was enrolled as an
Advocate in 1958 and started practicing law in 1960 in this
Court at Allahabad. He was elevated to the Bench on 17th
November 1977 and retired on 3rd October 1983. He has given
his statement-in-chief in 70 pages virtually reiterating the entire
contents of plaint (Suit-5) and documents referred therein. He
was cross examined by Sri R.L. Verma, counsel of Nirmohi
Akhara, Sri Abdul Mannan, counsel for defendant no. 6 (Suit-5)
and partly by Sri Jilani, counsel for defendant no. 4 (Suit-5). Sri
Jilani last examined him on 8.2.2009 but thereafter the said
witness was not available for further examination due to ill
health and ultimately he died. We, therefore, need not give
 615

further details of his statement in chief at this stage but may

refer the same, if is admissible in evidence as and when we find
necessary.
452. OPW 4, Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari, aged about 85
years (as per his affidavit dated 01.08.2002), son of Late Sri Bal
Mukund Tiwari, is resident of Village and Post Karimuddinpur,
District Ghazipur. His cross examination commenced and
followed as under :
(a) 01-08-2002- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 3,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 1-8)
(b) 01/02/05-08-2002- by Sunni Central Waqf Board,
defendant no. 4, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p.
8-29)
(c) 05-08-2002- by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 29-33)
(d) 05/06-08-2002- by defendant no. 5 through Sri Mustaq
Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 34-45)
(e) 06-08-2002-- defendant no. 26 through Sri Sri Syed
Irfan Ahmad, Advocate adopted the cross examination
already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6
453. OPW-4 says about worshipping the idols of Lord Ram
at the disputed site prior to attachment in 1949. His date of birth
is 1917. He obtained education of Ayurvedacharya from
Ayurved Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur Mandir, Ayodhya said to be
affiliated to Dhanwantri Ayurved Vidyapeeth, Calcutta. He
stayed from 1934 to 1938-39 at Ayodhya for undergoing
education and during this period he claims to have visited the
disputed site time and again. During the period of stay at
Ayodhya he was residing at Ram Niwas Mandir, Ramkot
Ayodhya which is about 250-300 Yards from Ramjanambhumi.
 616

Regarding birth of Lord Ram at the disputed site and faith of the
people about the said birthplace etc., in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6, he
has deposed as under:
^^3- v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dh ,d izkphu ifo=re rhFkZ LFkyh gS tgka
ijczg~e ijes'oj Hkxoku fo".kq us jktk n'kjFk ds iq= Jhjke ds :i esa
vorkj fy;k FkkA fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa esa vukfn dky ls ;g vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl jgk gS fd Hkxoku fo".kq us Jhjke ds :i esa v;ks/;k esa vorkj
fy;k FkkA ;g LFky iwT; gS blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij yksx
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu vkSj ifjdzek djus vkrs FksA esjs ifjokj ds
yksx] esjs ckck] v;ks/;k esa tc eSa 1934 ls 1938 rd f'k{kk xzg.k ds
nkSjku jgk rks ogka ds cM+s cqtqxZ lk/kw lar Hkh crkrs Fks fd Hkxoku fo".kq
us Hkxoku Jhjke ds :i esa ;gha tUe fy;k Fkk] vkSj ;gh Jhjke tUeHkwfe
gS] blh vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij eSa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij n'kZu
djus tkrk jgk vkSj i<+kbZ lekIr djus ds ckn Hkh tc dHkh v;ks/;k
vkrk Fkk rc Hkh n'kZu djus tkrk Fkk] b/kj yxHkx 8&9 lky ls lqxzho
fdyk jke dksV v;ks/;k esa vf/kdka'k le; jgrk gwWaA vkSj jke tUeHkwfe
dk n'kZu djus tkrk jgrk gwWaA**
“3. Ayodhya is an ancient sacred pilgrimage of Hindus,
where the Almighty Lord Vishnu had incarnated as Lord
Sri Rama, the son of King Dashrath. The followers of
Hinduism have inculcated this faith and belief from ancient
times that Lord Vishnu had incarnated Himself at Ayodhya
as Sri Rama. This place is revered and it is out of this faith
and belief that people used to come over to have darshan
and perform circumambulation of Sri Ram Janmbhumi.
During my stay at Ayodhya between 1934 to 1938 in
connection with my education, my family members, my
grand father, and other elderly saints used to tell me that
Lord Vishnu had incarnated at this very place in form of
Lord Sri Rama and this is Sri Ram Janmbhumi. I used to go
to have darshan of Sri Ram Janmbhumi out of this faith
 617

and belief and even after completing my studies I used to

have darshan whenever I came over to Ayodhya. For the
last 8-9 years, I mostly stay at Sugriv Qila, Ramkot,
Ayodhya and keep going to Ram Janmbhumi for darshan.”
(E.T.C.)
**4- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkus dk jkLrk iwjc ls Fkk] bl iwjc ds
}kj dks guqer }kj dgk tkrk FkkA bl }kj ls Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa
tkus ij ck;s rjQ jke pcwrjk ij Jhjke njckj dh ewfrZ;ka fojkteku
Fkh mlds nf{k.k ,d uhe ,oa ihiy dk isM+ Fkk ogka Hkh ewfrZ;ka
fojkteku FkhA guqer }kj ds nkfgus rjQ NIIkj dk cuk ,d cgqr cM+k
>ksiM+k Fkk ftls HkaMkj dgk tkrk Fkk blesa lSdM+ksa lk/kw lar jgrs Fks vkSj
muds cukus&[kkus dk iwjk bartke mlh esa Fkk ftlesa os cukrs&[kkrs FksA
lk/kw yksx pkSchlksa ?kaVs <+ksy&>kky&ethjk ctkrs gq, dhrZu djrs jgrs
Fks vU; n'kZukFkhZ] rhFkZ;k=h Hkh dhrZu esa lfEefyr gksrs jgrs FksA abl
ifjlj ds mRrjh izos'k }kj dks flag }kj dgk tkrk FkkA lM+d ls
flag }kj rd vkus ds fy, lhf<+;ka Fkh tks dkQh th.kZ&'kh.kZ gks x;h Fkh
VwV x;h Fkh blls dksbZ vkrk&tkrk ugha FkkA flag }kj ds vUnj lhrk
jlksbZ Fkh ftlesa pkSdk&csyu&pwYgk&pj.k fpUg vkfn Fks ftudk n'kZu
lHkh fgUnw /kekZuq;k;h rhFkZ;k=h djrs FksA mlds nf{k.k Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeHkwfe Fkh vkSj ogha xHkZ x`g dgk tkrk Fkk ftudk n'kZu eSa Hkh djrk
FkkA**
“4. The entrance to the Sri Ram Janmbhumi premises
was in the east, and this gate in the east was called
Hanumatdwar. On entering the Sri Ram Janmbhumi
premises through this gate, was the Ramchabutra in left
with deities of Sri Ram Darbaar present over it. To its
south were Neem and Pipal tree. Deities were present over
there as well. To the right of the Hanumatdwar was a very
big hut with thatched roof, which was called store.
Hundreds of saints used to live there. The entire
arrangement of their fooding was available there and they
 618

used to live there and prepare their meals. The saints used
to remain engaged round the clock in reciting Bhajans by
playing Dhol-Jhaal-Manjira. Other devotees, pilgrims also
used to participate in the Kirtan. The northern entrance
gate to this premises was called the Singh Dwar. There
were steps leading from the road to the Singh Dwar, which
were much dilapidated and none used to use them. There
was Sita Rasoi inside the Singh Dwar, which included
Chauka-Belan-Choolha(hearth)-Charan Chinha(foot
marks) etc. and all the Hindu pilgrims used to have their
darshan. To its south was the birth place of Lord Sri Rama
and the same was called Garbh-grih and I also used to
have its darshan.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- pS= jkeuoeh] lkou >wyk] ifjdzek esyk ,oa jke fookg ds volj
ij ns'k ds dksus&dksus ls fgUnw /kekZuq;k;h rhFkZ;k=h v;ks/;k vkrs vkSj
lj;w unh esa Luku djus ds i'pkr~ eafnjksa esa n'kZu djrs jgs gSa] lHkh
rhFkZ ;k=h jke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus vo'; gh tkrs FksA vkSj viuh
J)k ds vuqlkj Qy&Qwy&iSlk vkfn p<+krs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj
ds ckgj&ckgj pkjksa rjQ ifjdzek cuh gqbZ FkhA rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ bl
iwjs ifjlj dh ifjdzek djrs FksA fu;fer :i ls lSdM+ksa J)kyq izfrfnu
ifjdzek djrs jgrs FksA**
“5. On the occasions of Chaitra Ram Navami, Sawan
Jhoola, Parikrama mela (circumambulation fair) and
Rama Vivah, Hindu pilgrims from all corners of the
country used to visit Ayodhya and have darshan in the
temples after taking a holy dip in the river Saryu. All the
pilgrims definitely visited the Ram Janmbhumi to have
darshan and used to offer money-flower-fruits as per their
faith. A circumambulation path was laid down around the
Sri Ram Janmbhumi premises. Hundreds of devotees used
to regularly perform circumambulation everyday.”
 619

^^6- Jh jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds iwjc&nf{k.k dksus ij yxHkx

200&250 dne dh nwjh ij lhrkdwi FkkA bl dwi ds ty dk iz;ksx
rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa jgus okys lk/kw lar
djrs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa fgUnw /kekZuq;k;h rhFkZ;kf=;ksa] lk/kq
larks dh ges'kk HkhM+ yxh jgrh FkhA dksbZ eqlyeku mlds vkl&ikl Hkh
dHkh ugha vkrk&tkrk FkkA vkSj u gh dksbZ eqlyeku ml ifjlj ds
vUnj tkrk FkkA eSaus dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks mlds vUnj tkrs o
uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kkA ifjlj ds utnhd dHkh vutkus esa Hkh dksbZ
eqlyeku fn[kkbZ ns tkrk Fkk rks lk/kw lar mls ekjus ds fy, nkSM+k ysrs
Fks blfy, Hk; ds dkj.k dksbZ eqlyeku m/kj vkrk gh ugha FkkA Jh jke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj essa fLFkr xHkZ x`g Hkou esa dkys dlkSVh ds [kEHks yxs gq,
Fks ftu ij Qwy&ifRr;ka] nsoh&nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka cuh gqbZ FkhA xaqcnksa
okyk Hkou gh ifo= xHkZ x`g Fkk tgka Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe gksuk ekuk
tkrk jgk gSA fgUnw rhFkZ;k=h ,oa n'kZukFkhZ mu ij Hkh Qy&Qwy&iSlk
vkfn J)ko'k p<+krs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds vkl&ikl fgUnqvksa
ds reke eafnj 'kq: ls jgs gSA**
“6. In the east-south corner of Sri Ram Janmbhumi
premises, was the Sita koop (well) at a distance of about
200-250 paces. The water of this well was used by the
pilgrims, devotees and the saints residing at Sri Ram
Janmbhumi premises. The Sri Ram Janmbhumi premises
was always flooded with Hindu pilgrims and saints. No
Muslim ever came near the same nor ever went inside the
premises. I never saw any Muslim go inside it or offer
namaz over there. Even if any Muslim was mistakenly
found near the premises, the saints used to chase him away
and as such no Muslim came to that side out of fear. There
were touch stone pillars in the Garbh-grih structure at the
Sri Ram Janmbhumi premises, which had figures of
flowers-leaves, Gods-Goddesses engraved over them. The
dome structure was the sacred Garbh-grih, where Lord Sri
 620

Rama is believed to have descended. Hindu pilgrims,

devotees and pilgrims used to offer fruits-flowers-money at
Him out of faith. Various Hindu temples have always
existed around the Sri Ram Janm Bhumi premises”
(E.T.C.)
454. O.P.W. 5, Ramnath Mishra alias Banarasi Panda: is
aged about 91 years (as per his affidavit dated 6/7.8.2002),
resident of Naya Ghat, Ayodhya, District Faizabad. His cross
examination proceeded as under :
(a) 07-08-2002- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 2,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 2-15)
(b)08-08-2002, 12/13/16/17-09-2002- by Sunni Central
Waqf Board, defendant no. 4, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 16-73)
(c) 17-09-2002- by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 73-75)
(d) 17-09-2002- by defendant no. 5 through Sri Mustaq
Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 75-86)
(e) 27-09-2002- defendant no. 26 through Sri Mohd.
Azhar, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate, adopted the cross
examination already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6
455. By profession he is a Teerthpurohit and residing at
Ayodhya since 1932, assisting the people in visiting and
performing Darshan and Pooja in various temples at Ayodhya.
He has made averments about Darshan and Pooja inside the
courtyard, i.e., Garbhgrih (under the central dome) till
December 1949 and that the disputed premises was neither used
as mosque nor any Namaz was offered thereat. He has said in
paras 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as under :
 621

^^3- v;ks/;k esa izeq[k :i ls pS= jkeuoeh Hkxoku Jhjke ds

tueksRlo ds :i esa euk;k tkrk gSA lkou esa lkou >wyk mRlo euk;k
tkrk gSA dkfrZd ekl ds v{k; jke uoeh] nsoksRFkkuh ,dkn'kh] dkfrZd
iwf.kZek o lj;w Luku dk esyk] dkfrZd ekg esa iapdkslh rFkk pkSngdkslh
ifjdzek vkSj o`gn esyk] vxgu lqnh iapeh dks jke fookg dk mRlo
euk;k tkrk gSA bu voljksa ij fo'ks"k:i ls ns'k ds dksus&dksus ls yk[kksa
J)kyq jkeHkDr v;ks/;k vkrs gSa ftudh la[;k ,d&,d fnu esa 10&10]
15&15 yk[k rd gks tkrh gSa ;s J)kyq jkeHkDr lj;w Luku djrs gSa]
lj;w ds ?kkVksa ij nku&xksnku djrs gSaA lj;w Luku ds i'pkr~
ikjaifjd :i ls Jh jke tUeHkwfe] dud Hkou vkSj guqekux<+h dk n'kZu
vo'; gh djrs gSaA blds i'pkr~ v;ks/;k fLFkr vU; eafnjksa dk n'kZu
djrs gSaA v;ks/;k esa izfrfnu ,d mRlo dk fnu gksrk gS tgkWa xyh&xyh
vkSj d.k&d.k esa jke dk t;?kks"k xawtrk jgrk gSA eafnj esa ?kaVk?kfM;ky
ctrk rFkk dhrZu Hktu yxkrkj gksrk jgrk gS] lEiw.kZ v;ks/;k jkee;h
jgrh gSA v;ks/;k esa izR;sd fnu Hkkjr ds dksus dksus ls gtkjksa dh la[;k
esa J)kyq jkeHkDr vkrs jgrs gSa vkSj lj;w unh esa Luku djrs gSaA blds
ckn Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus vkSj jke vfHk"ksd Hkh djus tkrs gSA
jke vfHk"ksd ds i'pkr~ dud Hkou tkdj Hkxoku jke dk lk{kkr~ n'kZu
izkIr djrs gSa mlds i'pkr~ guqeku x<+h tkdj jke HkDr guqeku dk
n'kZu djrs gSaA Qwy ekyk&izlkn vkfn p<+krs gSa vkSj v;ks/;k fLFkr
reke eafnjksa esa tkdj n'kZu djrs gSaA gj xyh gj eksgYys esa jke&dhrZu
vkSj jke/kqu gksrh jgrh gSA Jhjke tUeHkwfe esa jke vfHk"ksd izkr% 'kq:
gksrk gS vkSj nksigj rd pyrk gSA**
“3. Ram Navami of Chaitra month is chiefly observed as
birth celebration of Lord Rama in Ayodhya. Sawan Jhoola
is celebrated in the month of Sawan. Akshay Ram Navami,
Devotthani Ekadashi, Kartik Poornima and Saryu Snan
fare are observed in the month of Kartik. Panchkosi and
Chaudahkosi circumambulations and Vrihad mela (major
fare) take place in the month of Kartik. Ram Vivah
celebrations are observed on the occasion of Aghan Sudi
Panchami. On these occasions, lakhs of devotees and
 622

Rama- worshippers come to Ayodhya particularly from the

nooks and corners of the country and the number of such
persons goes up to 10 or 15 lakhs on a single day. These
devotees and Rama worshippers take a dip in Saryu and
perform 'daan-godaan' (offering and that of cow). After
taking a dip in Saryu, as a matter of tradition, they
certainly have darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi, Kanak
Bhawan and Hanumangarhi. After that they have darshan
at other temples situated at Ayodhya. Everyday is a day of
celebration in Ayodhya, where acclamation of Rama
resounded every street and every atom. Bells and gongs
keep ringing and kirtan and bhajan (singing of hymns and
devotional songs) goes on continuously in Ayodhya. The
whole of Ayodhya is pervaded with the sense of association
with Rama. Devotees and Rama- worshippers continue to
come in thousands to Ayodhya from the nooks and corners
of India and take a dip in river Saryu everyday. After that
they go to have darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi and to
offer water to Rama. After offering water to Rama they
have a direct darshan of Lord Rama by going to the Kanak
Bhawan after that they go to Hanumangarhi and have
darshan of Rama-worshipping Hanuman. They offer
flowers, garlands, prasad, etc. and go to several Ayodhya-
situated temples to have darshan thereat. Ram Kirtan and
Ram Dhun continue to resound every street and every
locality. Ram Abhishek (religious bathing of Rama) starts
in the morning and continues till noon at Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- eSaus vius thoudky esa ns'k ds dksus&dksus ds yxHkx gtkjksa
jkeHkDr rhFkZ;kf=;ksa dks v;ks/;k esa n'kZu djok;k gS ftlesa izeq[k:i ls
usiky ds jktk egsUnz dh ekrk th yxHkx 40 o"kZ igys vk;h FkhaA
 623

egkjkt fVgjh yxHkx 50 o"kZ igys vk;s FksA vks;y ftyk [khjh ds
egkjktk HkWoj flag yxHkx 30 o"kZ igys vk;s FksA egkjktk esokM ifjokj
ds yksx 1940&42 esa v;ks/;k vk;s FksA bu lHkh yksxksa ds lkFk tkdj eSaus
Jhjke tUeHkwfe] dud Hkou] guqekux<+h dk v;ks/;k esa n'kZu djok;k
FkkA eSa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij J)kyq jkeHkDrksa ds bPNkuqlkj jkevfHk"ksd
djokrk Fkk vkSj muls nf{k.kk izkIr djrk FkkA**
“5. In my life, I have facilitated nearly thousands of
Rama-worshippers and pilgrims coming from the nooks
and corners of the country to have darshan in Ayodhya.
They mainly included mother of King Mahendra of Nepal
who had come nearly 40 years ago. The king of Tehri had
come nearly 50 years ago. King Bhanwar Singh of Oyal,
district Kheeri had come nearly 30 years ago. Family
members of King of Mewar came to Ayodhya in 1940-42. I
had accompanied all these persons and had facilitated
them to have darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi, Kanak
Bhawan and Hanumangarhi. I used to perform Ram
abhishek (consecration of Ram) at Ram Janam Bhumi as
per the desire of devotees and Rama-worshippers and used
to get dakshina (fee for religious service) from them.”
(E.T.C.)
^6- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkus ij eq[;}kj iwjc ls Fkk ftldks
guqer }kj dgk tkrk FkkA eq[;}kj ij nksuksa fdukjs dkys dlkSVh ds
[kEHks yxs gq, Fks ftu ij Qwy iRrh vkSj nsorkvksa ds fp= cus gq, FksA
eq[;}kj ls vUnj tkus ij nf{k.k rjQ ,d pcwrjk Fkk ftldks
jkepcwrjk dgk tkrk FkkA mDr jkepcwrjs ij iwjs jkenjckj dh ewfrZ;ka
fojkteku Fkh mlds uhps xqQk eafnj FkkA jkepcwrjk ls nf{k.k iwjc dksus
ij ihiy ds isM+ ds uhps Hkh ewfrZ;ka fojkteku Fkh muesa x.ks'k th 'kadj
th vkfn nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka FkhA eq[; }kj ls vUnj mRrj rjQ ,d
cgqr cM+k NIij Fkk ftls Hk.Mkj dgk tkrk FkkA mlesa xYyk] vukt
crZu] g.Mk] dM+kgh vkfn Hkkstu cukus ds lk/ku o lkeku j[ks FksA
 624

jkepcwrjk o Hk.Mkj ds if'pe fldps dh nhokjds vUnj rhu xqEcnksa ls

vkPNkfnr xHkZx`g eafnj FkkA cM+s cqtqxZ ijEijkuqlj crkrs Fks fd blh
e/; xqEcn ds uhps dh Hkwfe ij Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe jktk n'kjFk ds
iq= ds :i esa gqvk FkkA blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij lEiw.kZ
fgUnw jkeHkDr turk vkSj eSa Hkh Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djrk Fkk rFkk
mls vfrifo= ,oa iwT; LFky ekuk tkrk FkkA**
“6. On entering Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises there
lay the main entrance gate in the east which was called
Hanumat Dwar. On the both sides of the main gate were
black touch stone pillars with flowers, leaves and images of
devotees engraved on them. On entering the main gate
there was a chabutra (rectangular terrace) in the south
which was called Ram Chabutra. On that Ram Chabutra
lay idols of the entire Ram Darbaar and beneath it was a
cave temple. On the south-eastern corner from Ram
Chabutra were placed idols beneath the fig-tree. They
included idols of deities such as Ganesha, Shankar, etc.
Inside the main gate, northwards lay a very big shed which
was called 'bhandar' (granary). Means and items of
preparing food such as grains, utensils, hunda (metallic
container for storing water), pan, etc. were kept there. To
the west of Ram Chabutra and the granary and inside the
western wall with bars lay 'garbh grih temple' surmounted
with three domes. As per tradition, elderly persons used to
tell that Lord Sri Rama was born as son of King Dashrath
on the ground beneath this very central dome. On the basis
of this very faith and belief, all Rama-worshipping Hindu
public and I also used to have darshan of Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi, which used to regarded as a very holy and revered
place.” (E.T.C.)
^*7- Jhjke tueHkwfe ifjlj ds mRrjh izos'k }kj dks flag}kj dgk
 625

tkrk FkkA flag}kj ds Åij chp esa x:.k rFkk mlds nksuksa rjQ nks flag
cus gq, FksA flag}kj ds vUnj vkus ij lhrkjlksbZ FkhA ogka pkSdk] csyu]
pwYgk] pj.kfpUg vkfn FksA mlds nf{k.k Jhjke tUeHkwfe xHkZx`g Fkk] tks
xqEenksa vkfn ls vkPNkfnr fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa ds fy, vR;Uu gh
ifo= ,oa iwT; LFky FkkA lHkh fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa dh izkphu ijEijk ls
n`<+vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl gS fd blh LFky ij Hkxoku fo".kq us egkjktk
n'kjFk ds iq= jke ds :i esa tUe fy;k Fkk blfy, ;g LFky gh vfr
ifo= ,oa iwT; gS] blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij rhFkZ;k=h o
n'kZukFkhZ yk[kksa&yk[k dh la[;k esa v;ks/;k vkdj Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk
n'kZu&ifjdzek djrs jgs gSa vkSj vc Hkh djrs gSaA eq[; izos'k}kj ds ckgj
vaxzstksa ds tekus dk ,d iRFkj yxk gqvk gS vkSj ftl ij tUeHkwfe fuR;
;k=k vkSj fgUnh dh la[;k 1 ¼,d½ fy[kk gqvk gSA**
“7. The northern entrance gate of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
premises was called Singh Dwar. Above Singh Dwar were
engraved Garuna in the middle and two lions on both
sides. On coming inside through Singh Dwar there lay Sita
Rasoi, where there were chauka, belan (rolling pin),
choolha (hearth), foot-prints, etc. To its south was Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi Garbh-Grih (sanctum sanctorum of Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi), which was surmounted with domes and was
a very sacred and revered place for adherents of Hinduism.
All followers of Hinduism, as per ancient tradition, have a
firm faith and belief that Lord Vishnu took birth on this
very place as son of King Dashrath, hence this place itself
is very sacred and revered. On the basis of this very faith
and belief, pilgrims and devotees have been coming in
lakhs to Ayodhya to do darshan-parikrama (sight and
circumambulation) of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi and so do
they do even now. Outside the main entrance gate is fixed a
stone of the English period which has words 'Janam Bhumi
Nitya Yatra' and 'number – 1 (ek) of Hindi' written on it.”
 626

(E.T.C.)
^8- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds nf{k.k iwjc dksus ij yxHkx 200&250
dne dh nwjh ij lhrkdwi fLFkr gSA fgUnw mls cgqr gh ifo= dwi ekurs
gSaA mldk n'kZu djrs gSa rFkk mldk ifo= ty ihrs vkSj vius ?kj Hkh
ys tkrs gSaA ogkWa vaxzstksa ds tekus dk ,d iRFkj yxk gS ftl ij
lhrkdwi fy[kk gSA**
“8. Sita Koop is situated on the south-eastern corner of
Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises and is at nearly 200-250
paces therefrom. Hindus regard the Koop as very sacred.
They have darshan of it and drink its holy water and also
take it to their homes. A stone of the English period is fixed
there which has 'Sita Koop' written on it.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- eSaus vius thoudky esa dHkh Hkh fdlh eqlyeku dks Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj & xHkZx`g esa tkrs ugha ns[kk vkSj u gh fdlh eqlyeku
}kjk ogka uekt i<+us dk iz'u gh iSnk gksrk gSA Hkwys HkVds Hkh dksbZ
eqlyeku vxj Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds vkl ikl fn[kkbZ ns tkrk Fkk rks
lk/kw&oSjkxh ykBh MUMk vkfn ysdj ekjus ds fy, nkSM+k ysrs Fks Hk; ds
dkj.k fdlh eqlyeku dh fgEer gh ugha iM+rh Fkh fd bl rjQ utj
mBkdj ns[k ldsA**
“9. In my life, I never saw any Muslim enter the sanctum
sanctorum, nor is there any question of any Muslim
offering namaj there. If any Muslim was seen in and
around Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises because of having
come to it out of forgetfulness or due to having missed the
way, saints and recluses used to give them a chase with
lathi-danda (club,stick), etc. Out of fear, none of the
Muslims was courageous enough to have a glance towards
this site.” (E.T.C.)
**10- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds vUnj xqEen okys xHkZx`g esa dkys
dlkSVh ds [kEHks yxs gq, Fks mu ij dy'k] Qwy] iRrh vkSj nso vkd`fr;ka
cuh gqbZ FkhaA xHkZx`g ds vUnj lu~ 1928 ls 1949 rd eSaus Hkxoku jke
 627

dk fp= yxs ns[kk FkkA nhoky ds dksfu;k esa rk[ks ij Hkxoku dh ewfrZ
fojkteku FkhA lu~ 1949 rd ;g ewfrZ ogka ij fojkteku eSaus ns[kk
FkkA**
“10. The domed garbh-grih (sanctum sanctorum) located
inside Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises, had black touch
stone pillars with pitchers, flowers, leaves and images of
deities engraved on them. Between 1928 and 1949 I had
seen the idol of Lord Rama fixed inside the sanctum
sanctorum. The idol of Bhagwaan was placed on a niche in
the corner of the wall. I had seen this idol present there till
1949.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- fldp s okyh nhokj esa nk s njokts Fk s mues a rkyk yxk
jgrk Fkk mls fueksZgh v[kkM+k ds iqtkjh yksx [kksyrs o cUn djrs FksA
ogh iqtkjh jkepcwrjk] lhrkjlksbZ vkfn dh iwtk vkjrh bR;kfn djrs FksA
tax y s ls gh ge rhFkZ ; kf=;k s a& n'kZukfFkZ ; k s a dk s xHkZ x ` g dk
n'kZ u djkrs Fk s ogh a ,d nku&ik= Hkh j[kk gq v k FkkA eq[;
xsV ij gh crklk vkSj Qwy ekyk dh nwdkusa Fkha ftuesa ls ,d lgnso
ekyh dh nwdku FkhA**
“11. The wall having bars had two doors which used to
be locked. Priests of the Nirmohi Akhara used to open and
lock it. Priests used to perform pooja, aarti, etc. of Ram
Chabutra, Sita Rasoi etc. at that very place. Only through
the window, we facilitated pilgrims and devotees to have
darshan of garbh-grih. A donation-box was also kept at
that very place. Right at the main gate were shops of
'batasha'(roundish sugar-cake) and of flowers and
garlands. Of the said shops, one was owned by a gardener
called Sahdev.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- eq [ ;x sV ds lkeus tgkW a Hkh [kk sn k tkrk Fkk]
yxHkx ,d fQV ds uhp s tyk gq v k /kku fudyrk Fkk
ogh a /kku vius ;tekuk s a dk s iz l kn Lo:i nsr s Fk sA * *
 628

“12. Wherever ground facing the main gate was dug up

to the depth of nearly one feet, burnt-paddy used to be
taken out. We used to give our 'Yajmans' (clients) that
very paddy as 'Prasad'.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- vDVqcj] uoEcj lu~ 1949 esa Jhjke tueHkwfe vkSj mlds
vxy&cxy lkewfgd :i ls Jhjkepfjr ekul dk v[k.M ikB eghuksa
gqvk Fkk ftlesa gtkjksa gtkj dh la[;k esa yksx 'kkfey gksrs Fks eSa Hkh ogka
Jhjke pfjr ekul ikB djrk FkkA**
“13. In October and November of 1949, in and around Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi, there was a collective 'akhand paath'
of Sri Ram Charit Manas which had gone for months
together and in which thousands of people had
participated. I also had done Sri Ram Charit Manas paath
(recitation of Sri Ram Charit Manas) there.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- 22@23 fnlEcj 1949 dk s cz k Egeq g wr Z es a Hkxoku
Jhjke yyk xHkZ x ` g esa iz x V gk s x;s bldh tkudkjh gksus ij eSa
Hkh ogka n'kZu djus 23 fnlEcj dks izkr% dky x;k ogka flagklu ij
yxHkx ,d fQV Åaph Hkxoku Jhjke yyk dh ewfrZ&fojkteku FkhA ;g
ewfrZ v"V/kkrq dh yxrh FkhA**
“14. In Brhama-muhurta (early morning) of 22nd/ 23rd
December, 1949, Lord Sri Ram Lala appeared in 'garbh-
grih'. On coming to know it I also went to have darshan
there on the morning of 23rd December. Nearly one feet-
high idol of Lord Sri Ram Lala was seated on a thrown
there. This idol appeared to be of 'asthdhaatu' (alloy of
eight metals).” (E.T.C.)
^15- lu~ 1930 ls 1950 rd eSa yxkrkj gj lky pS= jkeuoeh dks
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh 108 ifjdzek djrk Fkk rFkk 1932 ls 1950 rd gj
eghus dh ,dkn'kh dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh X;kjg ifjdzek djrk FkkA**
“15. I used to do 108 circumambulations at Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi on the occasion of Chaitra Ram Navami
 629

every year from 1930 to 1950 in continuity and used to do

11 circumambulations at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi on
Ekadashi every month from 1932 to 1950.” (E.T.C.)
456. O.P.W. 6, Hausila Prasad Tripathi. He was born at
village Pahunti, District Faizabad (now in District
Ambedkarnagar). His examination-in-chief commenced and
followed as under :
13-08-2002- Examination-in-chief by affidavit (p. 1-9)
Cross examination:(a) 13-08-2002-by Nirmohi Akhara,
defendant no. 2, through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 2-
18)
(b) 14-08-2002- by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p. 19-25)
(c) 14/16/21/23-08-2002, 02/03-09-2002- by Sunni
Central Waqf Board, defendant no. 4, through Sri
Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 25-103)
(d) 03/04/05/18/19-09-2002- by defendant no. 6 through
Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 103-160)
(e) 19-09-2002- defendant no. 26 through Sri Mohd.
Azhar, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate, adopted the cross
examination already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6 (p.
161)
457. He is aged about 80 years in 2002. His village is about
30-35 k.ms. from Ayodhya. About Darshan and Pooja at the
disputed premises and that the disputed premises was neither
used as mosque nor any Namaz was offered thereat, he has said
in paras 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the affidavit as
under :
^^4- esjs xkao igaqrh ls v;ks/;k yxHkx 30&35 fdyksehVj nwj gSA
vkpk;Z uxj ls jke tUeHkwfe yxHkx 9&10 fdyksehVj nwj gSA lu~ 1935
 630

ds ekg fnlEcj esa igyh ckj vius pkpk Jh ekrk izlkn f=ikBh ds lkFk
v;ks/;k vk;k Fkk ml le; esjh mez yxHkx 12&13 o"kZ FkhA ml le;
eSa 5&6 fnu rd v;ks/;k esa :dk FkkA esjs pkpk ml le; fot; jk?ko
eafnj v;ks/;k] tks Jhjke tUeHkwfe ls yxHkx vk/kk fdyksehVj nwj gS esa
jgrs FksA og eq>ls 10&11 o"kZ cM+s FksA esjs pkpk v;ks/;k ds cM+k LFkku
laLd`r egkfo|ky; esa i<+rs Fks og lu~ 1932 ls 1945 rd v;ks/;k esa
jgdj izFkek ls ysdj vkpk;Z rd dh f'k{kk xzg.k fd,A esjs pkpk eq>s
v;ks/;k ?kqekus ds fy, ys x, FksA igys lj;w Luku djk;s mlds ckn
ge yksx ukxs'oj ukFk eafnj n'kZu djus x,A mlds ckn guqeku x<+h]
dud Hkou] jke dpgjh vkSj Jh jke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus x,A
mlds ckn eSa ftrus fnu v;ks/;k esa jgk izfrfnu lqcg 'kke Jhjke
tUeHkwfe] dud Hkou n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA**
“4. Ayodhya is nearly 30-35 kilometres from my village,
Pahunti. Ram Janam Bhumi is nearly 9-10 kilometres from
Acharya Nagar. In December of 1935, I came to Ayodhya
along with my uncle, Sri Mata Prasad Tripathi for the first
time. I was at that time nearly 12-13 years of age. I had
then stayed at Ayohdya for 5-6 days. At that time my uncle
used to live in the Vijay Raghava temple, Ayodhya, which is
nearly half a kilometre away from Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.
He was 10-11 years senior to me. My uncle was a student
of Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya located at Bada Sthan at
Ayodhya. He got schooling from Prathama to Acharya by
residing in Ayodhya from 1932 to 1945. My uncle took me
for a walk to Ayodhya. First of all, he took me for a dip in
Saryu. Later on we went to have darshan of the Nageshwar
Nath temple. After that we went to have darshan of
Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan, Ram Kutchery and Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi. After that I used to go to have darshan
of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi and Kanak Bhawan in the
morning and evening daily for as many days as I stayed in
 631

Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
^5- mlds ckn lu~ 1936 ds pS= ekl esa eSa vius firk th rFkk nknh
ds lkFk pS= jke uoeh ds volj ij v;ks/;k x;kA guqeku x<+h] dud
Hkou vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu ge yksxksa us fd;kA jke uoeh ds
le; ns'k ds dksus&dksus ls yk[kksa dh la[;k esa yksx v;ks/;k vk;s gq,
FksA v;ks/;k vkus okys vf/kdka'k rhFkZ ;k=h ,oa n'kZukFkhZ Jhjke tUeHkwfe
ij n'kZu iwtk djus vkrs gSA Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus ds ckn
gtkjksa yksxksa dks iwjs Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dk ckgj ls ifjdzek djrs
gq, eSaus dbZ ckj ns[kkA esjh nknh firk th vkSj eSa Hkh n'kZu djus ds ckn
Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds iwjs ifjlj dk ifjdzek fd;kA nknh o`)koLFkk ds
dkj.k dsoy ,d ckj ifjdzek dj ik;ha fdUrq esjs firk th rFkk eSaus
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh ikap ifjdzek iwjk fd;kA**
“5. After that, in Chaitra month of 1936, I along with my
father and grandmother went to Ayodhya on the occasion
of Ram Navami falling in month of Chaitra. We had
darshan of Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan and Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi. On the occasion of Ram Navami, lakhs of
people had come to Ayodhya from the nooks and corners of
the country. Most of Ayodhya-bound pilgrims and darshan
seekers come to have darshan and pooja at Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi. I have on several times seen thousands of
people doing circumambulation of the entire Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi from outside after having its darshan. After
having darshan my grand mother and I also did parikrama
around the entire premises of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.
Because of her old age, grandmother could do parikrama
just once but my father and I did parikrama of Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi five times.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- ,slh vkLFkk] ekU;rk ,oa fo'okl gS fd Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe
v;ks/;k esa gqvk Fkk vkSj og LFkku Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds uke ls fo[;kr gSA
tgka ns'k ds dksus dksus ls yk[kksa dh la[;k esa n'kZukFkhZ vkrs gSa vkSj
 632

Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djds mldh ifjdzek djrs gSaA blh vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij ge yksx Hkh izfro"kZ rhu&pkj ckj Jhjke tUeHkwfe
dk n'kZu o ifjdzek vo'; gh djrs gSA**
“7. It is faith, recognition and belief that Lord Sri Rama
was born in Ayodhya and that place is famous by the name
of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi, where lakhs of darshan- seekers
come from the nooks and corners of the country and do the
parikrama of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi after having its
darshan. On the basis of this very faith and belief, we also
certainly go for darshan and parikrama (sight and
circumambulation ) of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi 3-4 times
every year.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- esjk Hkh n`<+ fo'okl ,oa vkLFkk gS fd Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe
v;ks/;k esa mlh LFkku ij gqvk gS] tgka gtkjksa fgUnw rhFkZ ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ
vkdj n'kZu iwtk o ifjdzek djrs gSaA blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj
ij eSa Hkh 1935 ls izfro"kZ lky esa 3&4 ckj v;ks/;k x;k vkSj ogka lj;w
Luku ds ckn dud Hkou] guqeku x<+h o Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu o
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh ifjdzek fd;kA**
“8. I also have a firm belief and faith that Lord Sri Rama
was born at that very place in Ayodhya where thousands of
Hindu pilgrims and darshan seekers come to do darshan,
pooja and parikrama. Under this very faith and belief I
also went to Ayodhya 3-4 times a year since 1935 and after
having a dip in Saryu had darshan of Kanak Bhawan,
Hanumangarhi and Sri Ram Janam Bhumi and performed
circumambulation of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- lu~ 1935 ls 1945 rd tc rd esjs pkpk v;ks/;k esa jgdj fo|k
v/;;u djrs jgsA rc rd eSa tc Hkh lky esa rhu&pkj ckj v;ks/;k
vkrk FkkA rks 2&4 fnu yxkrkj :dk vkSj guqeku x<+h] dud Hkou o
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu izfrfnu fd;k 1945 ds ckn Hkh eSa lky esa 4&5
ckj v;ks/;k tkdj guqeku x<+h] dud Hkou] Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu
 633

djds mlh fnu okil ykSV vkrk FkkA**

“9. During 1935 to 1945, as long as my uncle kept
residing and studying in Ayodhya, I used to go to Ayodhya
3-4 times a year. I daily had darshan of Hanumangarhi,
Kanak Bhawan and Sri Ram Janam Bhumi by staying
constantly for 2-4 days. Even after 1945 I used to go to
Ayodhya 4-5 times a year and after having darshan of
Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan and Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
used to return on the same day.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkus ds fy, eq[; izos'k }kj iwjc esa
Fkk] ftldks guqer }kj dgk tkrk FkkA guqer }kj ls vUnj tkus ij
nf{k.k rjQ jke pcwrjk Fkk ftl ij jke njckj dh ewfrZ;ka fojkteku
Fkh] mlds nf{k.k&iwjc dksus ij ,d ihiy o uhe dk isM+ Fkk] ftlds
uhps tM+ ds ikl f'ko njckj dh ewfrZ;ka fojkteku FkhaA guqer }kj ds
mRrj cgqr cM+k Qwl dk >ksiM+k Fkk ftls HkaMkj dgk tkrk Fkk] mlesa
lk/kqvksa dk xYyk&vukt o crZu vkfn j[kus ,oa Hkkstu cukus&[kkus dh
O;oLFkk FkhA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa lk/kq&oSjkxh jgrs FksA jke pcwrjk
vkSj HkaMkj ds Bhd lkeus if'pe dh vksj dh nhokj Fkh ftlesa lhdpksa
dh dbZ f[kM+fd;ka o nks njokts yxs Fks njokts esa rkyk cUn jgrk FkkA
lhdpksa okyh nhokj ds if'pe rhu f'k[kjksa okyk Hkou FkkA ftlesa chp
okys f'k[kj ds Hkkx dh Hkwfe fgUnw ijEijk] vkLFkk] fo'okl ,oa ekU;rk ds
vuqlkj Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gS ftls xHkZ x`g dgk tkrk gSA blh
ijEijk] vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij eSa Hkh Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu
,oa ifjdzek djus tkrk FkkA**
“10. To enter Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises there was a
main entrance gate in the east which was called Hanumat
Dwar. On entering the Hanumat Dwar there was Ram
Chabutra in the south with idols of Ram Darbaar. On its
south-eastern corner lay a fig-tree and a neem tree beneath
which were seated idols of Sri Darbaar near the root.
Towards the north of Hanumat Dwar was a very big
 634

thatched hut which was called store room and had

arrangement for keeping grains, utensils, etc. and for
cooking and eating food. Saints and hermits used to live in
Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises. Just in front of Ram
Chabutra and the store room lay the western wall which
had several windows with bars and had two gates, which
used to be locked. To the west of the wall having bars was
a three dome building, in which the land forming part of
the central dome is, as per Hindu tradition, faith, belief and
recognition, is the birth place of Lord Sri Rama which is
called 'garbh-grih' (sanctum sanctorum). On the basis of
this very tradition, faith and belief, I also went to have
darshan and parikrama of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi.”
(E.T.C.)
^^11- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds mRrj okys izos'k }kj dks flag }kj
dgk tkrk FkkA izos'k }kj rd igqapus ds fy, lhf<+;k Fkh] tks VwVh gqbZ
FkhA mlls vUnj vkus ij lhrk jlksbZ FkhA ogka pkSdh] csyu] pwYgk]
pj.k&fpUg vkfn FksA mlds nf{k.k Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe Fkh ftls
xHkZ x`g dgk tkrk FkkA tUeHkwfe ij fLFkr eafnj izkphu HkO; eafnj dk
gh vo'ks"k gSA**
“11. The entrance gate located to the north of Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi premises, was called Singh Dwar. Leading to
the entrance gate there were steps, which were broken. On
entering by them, there was Sita Rasoi, where there were
chauki, belan (rolling pin), chulha (hearth), foot-prints etc.
To its south lay the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama which was
called 'garbh-grih' (sanctum sanctorum). The temple
located at the birthplace is a remnant only of an ancient
magnificent temple.” (E.T.C.)
^^12- Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus vkus okys lHkh rhFkZ
;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa iwjc ds izos'k }kj ls izos'k
 635

djds jke pcwrjk ij fojkteku ewfrZ;ksa] mlds nf{k.k&iwjc dksus ij uhe

o ihiy ds isM+ ds uhps j[kh ewfrZ;ksa ,oa lhrk jlksabZ] pj.k fpUg vkfn
dk n'kZu iwtk ,oa lhdpksa okyh nhokj ds vUnj fLFkr Hkxoku Jhjke ds
vfr ifo= tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu o iz.kke djrs FksA ftldks xHkZ x`g ekuk
tkrk gSA rhFkZ ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ rFkk ge viuh J)k vuqlkj Qy&Qwy
nzO; vkfn p<+krs FksA lhdpksa okyh nhokj ds jkLrs vUnj xHkZ x`g dh
vksj Hkh Qy&Qwy nzO; vkfn viuh J)k vuqlkj rhFkZ ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ
vkSj ge p<+krs FksA**
“12. All pilgrims and darshan-seekers coming to have
sight of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi, after entering Sri Ram
Janam Bhumi premises through the eastern gate, used to
do darshan and pooja of the idols seated on Ram Chabutra
and those placed beneath the neem tree and fig-tree and
also of Sita Rasoi, foot-prints, etc. and used to have sight of
and pay obeisance to the very holy birthplace of Lord Sri
Rama which was located inside the wall with bars, and was
regarded as 'garbh-grih'. The pilgrims and darshan seekers
used to offer fruits, flowers, objects, etc. depending on the
level of their reverence. On coming inside through the
route of the wall with bars, the pilgrims, devotees and we,
as per our reverence, used to offer fruits, flowers, objects,
etc. even towards the 'garbh-grih'.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds pkjksa vksj ifjdzek ekxZ cuk Fkk ftlls
yksx ifjdzek djrs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds nf{k.k iwjc dksus ij
yxHkx 200&250 dne dh nwjh ij lhrk dwi FkkA blds ty dk iz;ksx
rhFkZ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ rFkk Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa jgus okys lk/kw&oSjkxh
djrs FksA bl ifjlj esa fgUnw rhFkZ;kf=;ksa] n'kZukfFkZ;ksa] lk/kw&oSjkfx;ksa dh
ges'kk HkhM+ yxh jgrh FkhA eSaus dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe
ifjlj dh vksj vkrs gq, ugha ns[kk u gh dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks ml
ifjlj ds vUnj dHkh ?kqlrs gh ik;k FkkA Jhjke tUeHkwfe fgUnwvksa dk
vfr ifo= LFky gksus ds dkj.k ,oa lk/kqvksa rFkk oSjkfx;ksa ds Mj ds
 636

dkj.k dksbZ Hkh eqlyeku bl ifjlj ds vkl&ikl vkus dh fgEer ugha

tqVk ikrk Fkk] D;ksafd lk/kw o oSjkxh mudk dRy dj nsrs FksA**
“13. Around Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises was built
parikrama marg (path of circumambulation) through which
people did circumambulation. On the south-eastern corner
of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises and at the distance of
nearly 200-250 paces from it lay Sita Koop. Its water was
used by pilgrims and darshan seekers and by saints and
hermits living in Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises. There
always used to be crowd of Hindu pilgrims, darshan-
seekers, saints and recluses in the premises. I never saw
any Muslim come towards Sri Ram Janam Bhumi premises
nor did I ever find any Muslim enter the premises. On
account of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi being a very holy place
for Hindus and for fear of saints and recluses, no Muslim
could gather courage to come in and around this premises
because saints and recluses used to kill them.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj fLFkr xHkZ x`g esa dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds
[kEHks yxs gq, FksA ftuij Qwy&ifRr;ka] nsoh&nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka vkfn
cuh gqbZ FkhA f'k[kjksa okyk Hkou gh ifo= xHkZ x`g gS tgka Hkxoku Jhjke
dk tUe gksuk vkfn dky ls ekuk tkrk jgk gSA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj
ds vkl ikl reke eafnj gSA dlkSVh ¼dkys iRFkj½ ds [kEHks xHkZ x`g ds
njoktksa ij yxs Fks] ftlesa cuh ewfrZ;ksa ds Hkh fgUnw rhFkZ;k=h iwtk o
n'kZu djrs FksA Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj ds pkjksa vksj dsoy fgUnw vkcknh gS
rFkk cM+h la[;k esa eafnj gSA ftlesa cjkcj n'kZu&iwtk gksrk jgrk gS] ,oa
?kaVk ?kfM;ky ctrs jgrs gSaA tUeHkwfe ij dHkh dHkh u dksbZ efLtn jgh
gS vkSj u gh ml Hkou esa fdlh eqlyeku us uekt gh i<+h gS yxkrkj
fgUnw jke HkDrksa dk gh dCtk jke tUeHkwfe ij jgk gSA**
“14. The sanctum sanctorum located in Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi premises had pillars made of black coloured touch
stone and having flowers, leaves, images of male and
 637

female deities, etc. engraved on it. The domed building

itself is the holy sanctum sanctorum where Lord Sri Rama
has since eternity been considered to have taken birth.
There are several temples in and around Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi premises. The pillars made of touch stone (black
stone) were fixed to the gates of the sanctum sanctorum,
and Hindu pilgrims used to do pooja and darshan also of
images engraved therein. Around Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
temple, there is only Hindu inhabitation and there are a
large number of temples where darshan & poojan takes
place and bells & gongs keep ringing constantly. There has
never been a mosque at the Janam Bhumi nor has any
Muslim offered namaj in that building. Ram Janam Bhumi
has regularly been in the possession only of Rama-
worshippers of Hindu faith.” (E.T.C.)
458. O.P.W. 7, Ram Surat Tiwari, aged about 73 years (as
per his affidavit dated 19.9.2002) is resident of village Pure
Pahalwan, Tahasil Sadar, District Faizabad. His village is about
8 Kms. from Ayodhya. His cross examination proceeded as
under :
(a) 19-09-2002 -by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 2,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 9-12)
(b) 20-09-2002 - by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate (p.13-22)
(c) 20/23/24/25/26/27/30-09-2002 - by Sunni Central
Waqf Board, defendant no. 4, through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 22-115)
(d) 30-09-2002, 01-10-2002- by defendant no. 5 through
Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 115-131)
(e) 01-10-2002- defendant no. 26 through Sri T.A. Khan,
 638

Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3) through

Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate, adopted the cross examination
already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6 (p. 131)
459. OPW-7 had studied upto High School (passed in 1950),
was appointed as Lekhpal in 1953 and retired in 1988. About
Darshan and Pooja at the disputed premises and non user by any
Muslim as mosque, non offering of Namaz by anybody thereat,
he has said in paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and
16 of the affidavit as under :
^^3- esjs cM+s HkkbZ Jh jke dsoy frokjh jktk lkgc v;ks/;k ds ;gka
ukSdjh djrs FksA eSa muds lkFk lu~ 1942 esa xehZ dh NqV~Vh esa igyh ckj
v;ks/;k x;k Fkk vkSj yxHkx 15 fnu v;ks/;k esa vius HkkbZ lkgc ds
ikl gh jgkA eSa vius cM+s HkkbZ ds lkFk izk;% izfrfnu lj;w Luku o
eafnjksa esa n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA HkkbZ lkgc eq[;r% guqekux<+h] dud
Hkou] jru flagklu] Jhjke tUeHkwfe vkfn eafnjksa dk n'kZu djkus eq>s ys
x;s vkSj mUgksaus gh mu eafnjksa dk uke vkSj egRo cryk;kA esjs cM+s HkkbZ
vkSj eSaus Jhjke tUeHkwfe n'kZu djus ds ckn Jh jke tUeHkwfe dh
ifjdzek fd;k vU; cgqr ls yksx Hkh ifjdzek dj jgs FksA^^
“3. My elder brother Sri Ram Keval Tiwari was in service
of Raja Saheb Ayodhya. I first visited Ayodhya along with
him, in the summer vacation of the year 1942 and stayed
with my elder brother at Ayodhya for about 15 days. I
almost every day went with my elder brother to have a holy
dip in Saryu and 'darshan' of temples in the morning. My
brother mainly took me to Hanumangarhi, Kanak Bhawan,
Ratan Singhasan, Sri Ramjanmbhumi etc. temples to have
'darshan' and told me the names and importance of those
temples. My elder brother and me, circumambulated the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises after having its 'darshan'. Many
other persons were also performing circumambulation.”
(E.T.C.)
 639

^^4- mlds ckn v;ks/;k esa o"kZ esa pkj&ikap ckj tkrk jgkA vkSj lj;w
Luku ,oa izeq[k eafnjksa tSls dud Hkou] guqeku x<+h] Jhjke tUeHkwfe
vkfn dk n'kZu djrk FkkA v;ks/;k esa izk;% pS= jkeuoeh] lkou >wyk]
dkfrZd iwf.kZek] ifjdzek esyk] jke fookg vkfn voljksa ij rFkk viuh
NqfV~V;ksa esa tkrk Fkk vkSj viuh lqfo/kkuqlkj lj;w& Luku] eafnjksa esa
n'kZu&iwtk vkfn djrk Fkk tks vkt Hkh tkjh gSA^^
“4. Thereafter, I visited Ayodhya about 4-5 times in an
year and had holy dip in Saryu followed by 'darshan' of
main temples viz. Kanak Bhawan, Hanumangarhi, Sri
Ramjanmbhumi etc.. I usually visited Ayodhya on the
occasion of Chaitra Ramnavami, Sawan Jhula, Kartik
Purnima, Parikrama Mela, Ram Vivah etc. and during my
holidays and had holy dip in Saryu followed by 'darshan'
worship etc. as per my convenience and the same continues
even today.” (E.T.C.)
^^5- v;ks/;k esa esyk ds voljksa ij ns'kksa ds dksus&dksus ls yk[kksa dh
la[;k esa rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ vkrs gSaA lj;w Luku djus ds ckn eafnjksa esa
n'kZu djus tkrs jgs ftuesa izeq[k :i ls dud Hkou] guqekux<+h vkSj
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu vo'; gh djrs jgs vkSj vkt Hkh lj;w Luku o
n'kZu iwtk rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ djrs gSaA^^
“5. Lakhs of pilgrims-devotees visited Ayodhya from
different corners of the country on the occasion of fairs.
After having a holy dip in Saryu, they necessarily went to
temples to have 'darshan', which mainly included Kanak
Bhawan, Hanumangarhi and Sri Ramjanmbhumi and even
today the pilgrims-devotees have a holy dip in Saryu
followed by 'darshan' worship.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa tkus ds fy, eq[; izos'k }kj iwjc ls Fkk
ftldks guqer }kj dgk tkrk Fkk mlds ckgj ,d cgqr iqjkuk iRFkj
yxk Fkk ftl ij ^^tUeHkwfe fuR;;k=k** fy[kk FkkA guqer }kj esa nksuksa
rjQ dkys dlkSVh iRFkj ds [kEHks yxs Fks ftu ij Qwy&iRrh vkSj ekuo
 640

vkd`fr mRdh.kZ FkhaA ekuo vkd`fr ns[kus ls }kjiky tSlh yxrh Fkh
mudk eq[k [kqjpk gqvk FkkA esjs HkkbZ lkgc us crk;k Fkk fd ;s
t;&fot; dh ewfrZ;kWa gSaA guqer }kj ls Jh jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa
tkus ij ck;sa ;kuh nf{k.k rjQ jke pcwrjk Fkk ftl ij jke njckj dh
ewfrZ;ka fojkteku FkhA jke pcwrjk ds iwjc nf{k.k dksus ij ihiy rFkk
uhe ds isM+ ds uhps f'ko njckj ;kuh f'kofyax] uUnh x.ks'k ikoZrh]
iapeq[kh f'ko dh ewfrZ;kWa fojkteku FkhaA jke pcwrjk ds uhps xqQk eafnj
FkkA jke pcwrjk ds ikl <ksy&eathjk] ?k.Vk&?kfM+;ky ctkrs gq, pkSchlksa
?k.Vs vuojr dhrZu pyrk jgrk FkkA ftlesa ogka ds lk/kw&oSjkxh vkSj
rhFkZ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ lfEefyr jgrs FksA^^
“6. The main entrance gate leading to Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises, was in the east which was called Hanumatdwar.
Outside it, was a very old stone with ‘Janmbhumi Nitya
Yatra' engraved over it. There were black touchstone
pillars on both sides of the Hanumatdwar, which had
flower, leaves and human figures engraved over them. The
human figure appeared to be a ‘dwarpal’ (gate keeper) and
its face had been scratched. My brother told me that they
were the idols of Jai-Vijai. On entering the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises through Hanumatdwar, the
Ramchabutara was in left side i.e. towards south, where the
idols of Ram Darbar were present. The Shiv Darbar i.e.
idols of Shivlinga, Nandi, Ganesh, Parvati, five faced
Shiva, were present under the Pipal and Neem tree in
south-east corner of Ramchabutara. Below the
Ramchabutara, was the cave temple. Kirtan was carried
out uninterruptedly round the clock near the
Ramchabutara by playing dhol-manjira, ghanta-ghadiyal
and the saints-recluses and pilgrims-devotees used to
participate.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- guqer }kj ls vUnj tkus ij nkfgus ;kuh mRrj rjQ ,d cgqr
 641

yEch >ksiM+h Fkh ftldks Hk.Mkj dgk tkrk FkkA Hk.Mkj esa Hkkstu cukus
o [kkus ds lkeku o lk/ku vFkkZr~ crZu bR;kfn jgrs Fks Jhjke tUeHkwfe
ifjlj esa lnSo lk/kw&oSjkfx;ksa dk tekokM+k jgk djrk FkkA jke pcwrjk
ds if'pe lhadpksa okyh nhokj Fkh ftlesa nks njokts yxs FksA lhadps
okyh nhokj ds vUnj rhu f'k[kjksa okyk Hkou FkkA esj s cM+ s HkkbZ us
crk;k Fkk fd ;gh Jhjke tUeHk wf e gS vkS j vkfndky ls
fgUnq v k s a es a ;g vkLFkk] fo'okl ,oa yk sd ekU;rk iz p fyr gS
fd bl Hkou ds chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps gh Hkxoku fo".kq
us jktk n'kjFk ds iq = Jhjke ds :i es a vorkj fy;k Fkk
blhfy, bls Hkxoku jke dk xHkZ x ` g dgk tkrk gS A jke
pcwrjk] dk n'kZu djus ds ckn lh ad pk s a okyh nhokj ds njokts
ls rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou esa fLFkr Jhjke tUeHkwfe xHkZx`g dk n'kZu
rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ fd;k djrs Fks rFkk Qwy ekyk] nzO;&izlkn vkfn ogha
ls xHkZx`g dh vksj Mky fn;k djrs FksA^^
“7. After entering through the Hanumatdwar, was a very
big hut in the right side i.e. towards north, which was
called store. The preparation of food and storage of
eatables and utensils etc., was carried out in the store. The
gathering of saints-recluses always existed at the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises. To the west of the
Ramchabutara, was the iron rod wall with two gates.
Within the iron rod wall, was the three dome structure. My
elder brother had told that it was Sri Ramjanmbhumi
and that from ancient times it was the faith, belief of
Hindus and prevalent public opinion that Lord Vishnu
had incarnated below the central dome of this structure
as Sri Rama, son of king Dashrath and due to this it was
called the 'Garbh-grih' of Lord Rama. After having
'darshan' of Ramchabutara, the pilgrims-devotees used to
have 'darshan' of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, 'Garbh-grih' situated
in the three dome structure through the gate in the iron
 642

rod wall and they used to offer flower-garland, money-

prasad etc. from there itself towards the 'Garbh-grih'.”
(E.T.C.)
^^8- cM+s&cqtqxZ yksxksa us Hkh crk;k Fkk fd vkLFkk] fo'okl ,oa izpfyr
yksdekU;rk ds vuqlkj lHkh oS".ko jkeHkDr fgUnw turk chp okys f'k[kj
ds uhps dh Hkwfe dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gksus ds dkj.k vR;ar
ifo=] iwT; vkSj n'kZuh; ekurh gSA blh dkj.k esjs HkkbZ lkgc ml LFky
dks Hkxoku jke dh tUeHkwfe ekurs Fks vkSj esjk Hkh n`< vkLFkk ,oa
fo'okl gS fd chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps dh Hkwfe Hkxoku Jhjke dh
tUeHkwfe gS blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj lHkh fgUnw rhFkZ;k=h&
n'kZukFkhZ Jhjke tUewHkwfe dk n'kZu&iwtu ,oa ifjdzek djrs jgs gSaA eSa Hkh
ml ifo= LFky dk n'kZu&iwtu djrk Fkk vkSj iwjs ifjlj dh ifjdzek
djrk FkkA^^
“8. The elderly people had also told that out of faith, belief
and prevalent public opinion, all the Vaishnavite Rama
follower Hindu public considered the land under the
central dome to be very pious, sacred and worshipful on
account of being the birthplace of Lord Sri Ram. Due to
this my elder brother considered the said place as
birthplace of Lord Rama and it is my firm belief and
conviction that the land below the central dome is the
birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. It is out of this faith and belief
that the Hindu pilgrims-devotees have been having the
'darshan' and performed circumambulation of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi. I also used to offer prayer-worship at said
sacred place and performed circumambulation of the entire
premises.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds ifjlj ds ckgjh nhoky esa mRrj rjQ ,d }kj
Fkk ftldks flag}kj dgk tkrk FkkA flag}kj ds Åij nks 'ksj rFkk muds
chp esa ,d x:.k dh ewfrZ cuh gqbZ FkhA flag}kj ls JhjketUeHkwfe
ifjlj esa tkus ij lhrk jlksbZ Fkh ftldks dkSf'kY;k jlksbZ Hkh dgk tkrk
 643

FkkA ogka ij pwYgk] pkSdk&csyu] pj.kfpUg vkfn cus gq, FksA budk
n'kZu&iwtu n'kZukFkhZ&rhFkZ;k=h djrs FksA^^
“9. There was a gate in north of the outer wall of the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises, which was called Singhdwar.
The statues of two lions with one Garun in between, existed
over the Singhdwar. On entering the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises through the Singhdwar, fell the Sita Rasoi which
was also called the Kaushalya Rasoi. It had stove (hearth),
chauka-belan, footmarks etc.. The pilgrims-devotees used
to have 'darshan'-worship of this place as well.” (E.T.C.)
^^10- eq[; izos'k }kj ftldks guqer }kj dgrs gSa ls nf{k.k rjQ nhoky
esa gh ckjkg Hkxoku dh ,d ewfrZ cuh gqbZ FkhA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds pkjks
rjQ ifjdzek ekxZ cuk gqvk Fkk tks yxHkx 5&6 fQV pkSMk jgk gksxk
blh ifjdzek ekxZ ls geus ifjdzek fd;k gS vkSj vU; rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ
Hkh blh ekxZ ls ifjdzek Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh fd;k djrs FksA^^
“10. In south of the main entrance gate called
Hanumatdwar, was the deity of God Varah in the wall.
There was circumambulation path on all four sides of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi, and it was about 5-6 feet wide. We
performed the circumambulation through this very
circumambulation path and the other devotees-pilgrims
also used to circumambulate the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
through this very path.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds nf{k.k iwjc dksus ij yxHkx Ms<&ikSus nks
lkS fQV dh nwjh ij lhrkdwi gS] tgka ,d iqjkuk iRFkj yxk gqvk gS vkSj
ml ij lhrkdwi fy[kk gqvk gSA lhrkdwi dk ty vR;ar ifo= ekudj
rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ ihrs Fks vkSj og ty vius lkFk vius ?kj Hkh ys tkrs
FksA eSaus Hkh lhrkdwi ds ty ls vkpeu fd;k gSA^^
“11. In south-east corner of the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises, was the Sitakoop at a distance of about 150-175
feet, where a very old stone with Sitakoop engraved over it,
 644

has been fixed. The pilgrims–devotees used to drink the

water of Sitakoop by considering it to be very sacred and
also used to take it home. I also have performed ‘achman’
(sipping of water from palm of right hand as a ritual) with
the water of Sitakoop.” (E.T.C.)
^12- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds iwjc 'kadj pcwrjk vkSj 'kadj pcwrjs ds
iwjc lk{kh xksiky eafnj Fkk A lk{kh xksiky eafnj vc Hkh gSA lhrkdwi ds
mRrj ihiy&ikdM+ dk isM vkSj NksVs&NksVs eafnj o dqfV;k FkhA^^
“12. To the east of Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises, is the
Shankar Chabutara, to whose east is the Sakshi Gopal
temple. Sakshi Gopal temple exists even today. To the north
of the Sitakoop, were the Pipal-Pakad tree and small
temples and hut.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds nf{k.k _f"k eqfu dh lekf/k cuh gqbZ Fkh mlds
nf{k.k lqfe=k Hkou FkkA Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds mRrj _f"k eqfu;ksa dh
lekf/k vkSj ukjn pcwrjk FkkA flag}kj ls mRrj lM+d ij tkus ds fy,
lhf<+;kWa cuh Fkh tks VwVh&QwVh voLFkk esa FkhaA^^
“13. To the south of the Sri Ramjanmbhumi, were the
Samadhi of Rishi-Muni and south to it was Sumitra
Bhawan. Towards north of Shri Ram Janam Bhumi there
were tombs of saint and Narad Chabutara. In north of the
Singhdwar, were the steps leading to the road, which were
in a poor condition.” (E.T.C.)
^^14- lhadps okyh nhoky ds vUnj rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou esa chp okys
f'k[kj ds izos'k }kj esa vkSj mlds vUnj ckjg dlkSVh ds [kEHks yxs gq,
Fks mu [kEHkksa esa ÄV&iYyo] Qwy&ifRr;ka] fgUnw nsoh&nsorkvksa dh ewfrZ;ka
mRdh.kZ Fkha muesa ls fdlh ewfrZ dk psgjk] fdlh dk gkFk] fdlh dk iSj
[kqjps gq, FksA^^
“14. Twelve touchstone pillars existed at and inside the
entrance gate to the central dome of the three dome
structure within the iron rod wall. The said pillars had
 645

pitcher-leaf, flower-leaves, idols of Hindu Gods-Goddesses

engraved over them. The face, hand, leg were scratched in
different idols.” (E.T.C.)
^^15- tc ls eSa Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus tk jgk gwWa rc ls dHkh
fdlh eqlyeku dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds rjQ vkrs gq, ugha ns[kkA
Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj o mlds vkl&ikl Hkh dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks
uekt i<+rs ugha ns[kkA ;fn dksbZ eqlyeku JhjketUeHkwfe ifjlj ds
rjQ vkrs gq, fn[kkbZ Hkh ns tkrk Fkk rks lk/kw&cSjkxh mls ekjus ds fy,
nkSM+k ysrs FksA^^
“15. Since I have started going to have 'darshan' of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi, I have not seen any Muslim go towards
the Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises. Neither have I ever seen
any Muslim offer Namaz at or near the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises. If some Muslim was found coming towards the
Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises, the saints-recluses used to
chase him away.” (E.T.C.)
^16- Lora=rk ds ckn Hkkjr esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij HkO; eafnj cukus ds
fy, oS".ko jkeHkDr fgUnw turk vkSj lk/kw&oSjkfx;ksa us iz;kl izkjEHk
fd;k blh dze esa lu~ 1949 ls vDVwcj] uoEcj] fnlEcj ekg esa Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds pkjks rjQ dh >kfM+;ks dh dVkbZ vkSj lkQ&lQkbZ
fd;k x;k rFkk v[k.M jkepfjr ekul dk ikB ,oa lhrkjke ti
mijksDr eghuksa esa pyrk jgk ftuessa gtkjks&gtkj yksx izfrfnu
lfEefyr gksrs Fks vkSj ;g la[;k fnu&izfrfnu c<+rh tkrh FkhA 22@23
fnlEcj lu~ 1949 dks czEgegwrZ esa Hkxoku Jhjke yyk rhu f'k[kj okys
Hkou esa chp okys xqECn ds uhps izdV gq,] reke turk muds n'kZu ds
fy, vkus yxhA^^
“16. After independence, the Vaishnavite Rama follower
Hindu public and saints- recluses started the efforts to
build a grand temple at Sri Ramjanmbhumi. In this behalf
the weeding of hedges around the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises started in the month of October, November,
 646

December 1949 and the Akhand (non-stop) Ramcharit

Manas Path (oration) and Sita Ram Jap was also
performed in the said months, which were attended by
thousands of people everyday and this number kept on
increasing day by day. Lord Ramlala incarnated under the
central dome of the three dome structure in Brahm Muhurt
of 22/23 December, 1949 and the public started to throng
to have His 'darshan'.” (E.T.C.)
460. O.P.W. 12, Kaushal Kishore Mishra, is aged about 75
years (as per his affidavit dated 16.12.2002). His cross
examination followed as under :
(a) 16.12.2002- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 3,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 8-22)
(b) 16/17/19/20.12.2002-by defendant no. 6 through Sri
Abdul Mannan Advocate (p. 23-49)
(c)20.12.2002, 02/03/06/07.01.2003- Sunni Central Waqf
Board, defendant no. 4 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 49-111)
(d) 07/08.01.2003- by Hohd. Hashim, defendant no. 5
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui,Advocate (p. 111-
126)
(e) 08.01.2003- defendant no. 26 through Sri T.A.
Khan,Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Fazale Alam, Advocate, adopted the cross
examination already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6
461. He claims that his ancestors settled at Ayodhya about
700 years ago, belong to the family of Guru Vashishtha, who
was Guru of King Dashrath and Lord Ram at Ayodhya. He has
derived knowledge about the worship of Lord Ram at Ayodhya
from his grandfather and father, and in paras 2, 3, and 4 of the
 647

affidavit he says:
^2- eq>s esjs ckck th ls ;g tkudkjh feyh Fkh fd egkjktk n'kjFk vkSj
Hkxoku jke ds ifjokj ds vkpk;Z ¼xq:½ of'k"B th Fks vkSj vkpk;Z dk
dk;Z djrs FksA esjs iwoZtksa ds le; ls gh ikfjokfjd dk;Z vkpk;Z dk
;kuh eafnjksa esa nsorkvksa ds foxzg dh izk.k izfr"Bk] iwtk&ikB]
;K&vuq"Bku djkuk] ioZ ,oa mRlo ds volj ij fojkteku Hkxoku
jke] Hkxoku jke ds ifjokj vkSj guqeku th vkfn foxzg dk
eaxykuq'kklu djds nf{k.kk izkIr djuk jgk gSA eSa Hkh eafnjksa esa ewfrZ dh
izk.k&izfr"Bk] iwtk ikB] ;K&vuq"Bku vkpk;Z ds :i esa djokrk jgk gwWa
rFkk eaxykuq'kklu djds nf{k.kk izkIr djrk jgk gwaA^^
“2: I came to know from my grandfather that Vashistha ji
was the Acharya (teacher) of the family of king Dashrath
and Lord Rama and that he used to discharge the duties of
Acharya. From the period of my ancestors it has been the
family business of Acharya to perform 'pran-pratishtha'
(deification) of Vigrah (idol) of deities, worship, Yagya-
Anushthan (performance of sacrificial rituals),
Manglanushasan (performance of sacred rituals) of Lord
Rama, His family and Hanuman ji etc. on the occasion of
festival and ceremony and to receive ‘dakshina’ thereafter.
I also have been involved in performance of 'pran-
pratishtha' of deities in temples, worship, Yagya Anushthan
as Acharya and receipt of ‘dakshina’ after
Manglanushasan.” (E.T.C.)
^^3- Jhjke tUe mRlo ¼pS= 'kqDy jke uoeh½ xq: iwf.kZek] ¼v"kk<+ 'kqDy½
lkou >wyk] j{kk cU/ku] fot;kn'keh ¼n'kgjk½ jke fookg] guqeku t;Urh
vkfn voljksa ij eafnjksa esa iwtk&ikB] ;K&vuq"Bku] eaxykuq'kklu
djkdj eafnj esa LFkkfir foxzg ls nf{k.kk izkIr djus dk fo'ks"k egRo
gSA^^
“3. The receipt of ‘dakshina’ from vigrah setup in temple
after worship, Yagya-Anushthan and Mangalanushasan
 648

have special importance on the occasions of Sri Ramjanm

Utsav (Chaitra Shukla Ramnavmi), Guru Purnima (Ashadh
Shukla) Sawan Jhula, Raksha Bandhan, Vijayadashmi
(Dussehra), Ram Vivah, Hanuman Jayanti etc..” (E.T.C.)
^^4- esjs ckck th rFkk firk th v;ks/;k esa fLFkr jax egy] dud Hkou]
Jhjke tUeHkwfe yo dq'k eafnj] guqeku x<+h vkfn eafnjksa esa iwtk&ikB]
vuq"Bku ;K djkrs jgs vkSj nf{k.kk izkIr djrs jgs gSaA eS vius ckck th
vkSj firk th ds lkFk eafnjksa esa iwtk&ikB] ;K&vuq"Bku ds volj ij
yxHkx 5&6 o"kZ dh vk;q ls gh tkus yxk FkkA esjk ;Kksiohr 7 o"kZ dh
voLFkk esa gqvk FkkA blds i'pkr~ eSa Hkh eafnjksa esa iwtk&ikB vkfn djkus
dk 'kkL= lEer fof/k ls vf/kdkjh gks x;k vkSj blds fof/k&fo/kku ds
fo"k; dk v/;;u&KkuktZu djus yxkA^^
“4. My grandfather and father used to carry out worship,
Anushthan-Yagya and received ‘dakshina’ at Rang Mahal,
Kanak Bhawan, Sri Ramjanmbhumi, Luv Kush temple,
Hanumangarhi etc. situated in Ayodhya. I started going to
temples on the occasion of worship, Yagya-Anushthan
along with my grandfather and father, from the age of
about 5-6 years. My Yagyopavit ceremony was performed
at the age of 7 years and thereafter I became eligible to
perform worship etc. at the temples as per the Shastras and
with this end, I started studying and gaining knowledge.”
(E.T.C.)
462. About Darshan and Pooja at the disputed premises and
that the disputed premises was neither used as mosque nor any
Namaz was offered thereat, OPW-12 has said in para 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, and 11 of the affidavit as under :
^^5- yxHkx 14&15 o"kZ dh vk;q esa eSaus Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij iwtk&ikB
vkfn djkdj ,oa eaxykuq'kklu djds nf{k.kk izkIr fd;k vkSj rc ls
cjkcj Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij iwtk&ikB] eaxykuq'kklu vkfn gsrq tkrk
jgkA^^
 649

“5. I carried out worship etc. at Sri Ramjanmbhumi at the

age of approximately 14-15 years and received ‘dakshina’
after Mangalanushasan and since then I regularly went to
Sri Ramjanmbhumi in connection with worship and
Manglanushasan etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^6- eSaus ns[kk fd v;ks/;k vkus okys rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ Jhjke tUeHkwfe
n'kZu djus vo'; vkrs FksA eq[; ioksZ ij budh la[;k yk[kksa esa gksrh Fkh
vkSj os jke pcwrjk] lhrk jlksbZ] f'ko pcwrjk vkSj rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou
ds e/; f'k[kj ds uhps fLFkr xHkZ x`g vFkkZr~ Jhjke tUeHkwfe tgka
Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe gqvk Fkk] dk n'kZu iwtu djrs jgs vkSj lcdh
ifjdzek Jhjke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj ds pkjksa rjQ nhokj ls lVs ckgj&ckgj
cus ifjdzek ekxZ ls djrs jgsA^^
“6. When I started going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi along with
my grandfather and father, I saw that the pilgrims visiting
Ayodhya certainly came to Sri Ramjanmbhumi to have
'darshan'. Their number went upto lakhs on occasion of
main festivals and they used to have 'darshan' and offer
prayer at Ramchabutara, Sita Rasoi, Shiv Chabutara, the
'Garbh-grih' situated below the central dome of the three
dome building i.e. that place of Sri Ramjanmbhumi where
Lord Sri Rama was born, and they performed their
circumambulation of the Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises
along the circumambulation path adjacent to outer walls of
Sri Ramjanambhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ls yxHkx 200&250 QhV nwj nf{k.k dksus ij
fLFkr lhrkdwi ds ty dk iz;ksx rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ rFkk Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa rFkk mlds vkl&ikl jgus okys lk/kw&oSjkxh djrs
FksA ewy u{k= esa tUe ysus okys cPpksa dh ewy 'kkfUr esa lhrkdwi ds ty
dk fo'ks"k egRo jgk gSA lhrk dwi ds ifo= ty dks n'kZukFkhZ] rhFkZ;k=h
izlkn Lo:i xzg.k djrs vkSj vius ?kj Hkh ys tkrs jgs gSaA^^
“7. The water of Sitakoop situated in south at a distance of
 650

about 200-250 feet from Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises, was

used by the pilgrims, devotees and the saints-recluses
residing in or around the Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises. The
water of Sitakoop had special relevance in ‘mool shanti’ of
children born in ‘mool nakshatra’. The sacred water of
Sitakoop was accepted by the devotees, pilgrims as
‘prasad’ and they also used to take it home.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- v;ks/;k dk dksbZ Hkh eqlyeku Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh vksj dHkh
vkrk gh ugha Fkk vkSj u gh dksbZ vU; eqlyeku fgUnqvksa ds Hk; ds
dkj.k m/kj vkus dh fgEer gh djrk Fkk ;fn dHkh dksbZ eqlyeku
Hkwys&HkVds Hkh Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh rjQ vkrs gq, fn[kkbZ ns tkrk
Fkk rks Jhjke tUe Hkwfe ifjlj rFkk vkl&ikl jgus okys oSjkxh mUgsa
ekjus ds fy, nkSM+k ysrs Fks vkSj Hkxk nsrs FksA^^
“8. No Muslim of Ayodhya ever came towards Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises nor was any Muslim able to
gather the courage due to terror of Hindus, to move in that
direction. If any Muslim mistakenly was found coming
towards the Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises, the recluses
residing in or near the Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises used to
chase and drive him away.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- eSa vius lgikfB;ksa o fe=ksa ds lkFk Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds if'pe fLFkr
eSnku esa izk;% [ksyrk FkkA ,d&nks ckj Jh jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh rjQ
eqlyeku dks vkrs fn[kkbZ iM+us ij ogka ds lk/kw&oSjkxh dh yydkj ij
geus Hkh lk/kw&oSjkfx;ksa ds lkFk ml eqlyeku dks ekjus ds fy, nkSM+k
dj Hkxk fn;k FkkA^^
“9. I usually played along with my classmates and friends,
in the ground to the west of Sri Ramjanmbhumi. On couple
of occasions, after hearing the challenge of saints- recluses
to the Muslims found coming towards the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises, we also joined the saints-
recluses in driving away those Muslims.” (E.T.C.)
 651

^^10- Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj esa v[k.M dhrZu lnSo pyrk jgrk FkkA
fnlEcj 1949 ds nks&rhu efgus iwoZ ogka jke pfjr ekul dk ikB
izkjEHk gqvk vkSj ikB djus okyksa dh HkhM+ c<+us yxh rks Jhjke tUe Hkwfe
ifjlj ds vkl&ikl dh >kM+&>a[kkM dh lQkbZ djds gtkjks&gtkj
yksx Jhjke pfjr ekul dk ikB djus yxsA lk/kw&larksa ds izopu Hkh
gksrs jgrs FksA 22@23 fnlEcj] 1949 ds cz g ~ e eq g wr Z es a
Hkxoku Jhjke yyk 'kkL= lEer fof/k ls rhu f'k[kj oky s
Hkou ds e/; f'k[kj] tk s fd Hkxoku Jhjkeyyk dk tUe
Hk wf e vFkkZ r xHkZ x` g Fkk] ogk iw. kZ mRlo ds lkFk iz d V gk s
x, vFkkZr~ LFkkfir gks x,A^^
“10. The Akhand Kirtan continued all along in the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi premises. 2-3 months before December,
1949, the Ramcharit Manas Path (oration) was organized
there and when the crowd started growing, thousands of
people cleaned the vicinity of Sri Ramjanmbhumi premises
and started the Ramcharit Manas Path. The Pravachan of
saints were also held. Lord Sri Ramlala incarnated or
was installed in Brahm Muhurt of 22/23 December,
1949 as per Shastra approved practice with full
celebration, at the central dome of three dome building,
which is the birthplace of Lord Sri Ramlala i.e. the
'Garbh-grih'.” (E.T.C.)
^^11- Jhjke tUeHkwfe v;ks/;k esa tc ls eSaus vius ckck th vkSj firk th
ds lkFk tkuk izkjEHk fd;k rc ls ogka fgUnqvksa dks gh iwjs ifjlj esa
dkfct] n[khy o iwtk&ikB djrs lk/kw&oSjkfx;ksa dks ifjlj esa jgrs gq,
ns[kkA dHkh fdlh Hkh eqlyeku dks ml rjQ u rks vkrs gh ns[kk vkSj u
gh dHkh fdlh eqlyeku dks ogka uekt i<+rs gh ns[kkA vkSj u gh ogkWa
uekt i<+us dk iz'u gh iSnk gksrk gSA^^
“11. Since I started to going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi
Ayodhya along with my grandfather and father, I have seen
the Hindus worship and to be in possession over the entire
 652

premises and the saints-recluses to be residing in the

premises. I never saw any Muslim go towards that
direction or offer Namaz. Neither is there any question of
Namaz being offered there.” (E.T.C.)
463. About the faith of Hindus on the disputed site as birth
place of Lord Ram, OPW-12 in para 12 and 13 of the affidavit
says :
^^12- eq > s esj s ckck th ,oa firk th ls tkudkjh feyh Fkh
fd vukfndky ls fgUnqvksa esa ;g ijEijkxr ekU;rk] vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl
jgk gS fd Jhjke tUeHkwfe ifjlj v;ks/;k fLFkr rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou
ds e/; f'k[kj ds uhps Hkxoku Jhjkeyyk dk tUe egkjktk n'kjFk ds
iq= ds :i esa =srk ;qx esa gqvk Fkk] ftls xHkZ x`g dgk tkrk gS vkSj blh
ijEijkxr ekU;rk] vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds dkj.k ns'k&fons'k ds vla[;
rhFkZ;k=h] n'kZukFkhZ v;ks/;k vkrs jgs gSa vkSj Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu
iwtu ,oa ifjdzek djrs jgs gSaA^^
“12. I came to know from my grandfather and father
that from ancient times, it has been the customary faith and
belief of Hindus that Lord Sri Ramlala had incarnated
under the central dome of the three dome builidng situated
in Ayodhya, as son of king Dashrath in the Treta Yug,
which is called the 'Garbh-grih' and it is out of this
customary faith and belief that innumerable pilgrims,
devotees from country and abroad have been visiting
Ayodhya and having 'darshan', offer prayer and
circumambulate the Sri Ramjanmbhumi.” (E.T.C.)
^^13- eSa Hkh mi;qZDr ijEijkxr ekU;rk] vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij
Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu&iwtu ,oa ifjdzek djrk jgk gwWa vkSj
ikfjokfjd vkpk;Z ijEijk ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k fLFkr vU; eafnjksa ds
vfrfjDr Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij Hkh iwtk&ikB] ;K&vuq"Bku ,oa
eaxykuq'kklu djkdj nf{k.kk izkIr djrk jgk gwwaA^^
“13. I have also been having the 'darshan', worship and
 653

circumambulation of Sri Ramjanmbhumi out of the said

customary faith and belief and I have been performing
worship, Yagya-Anushthan and Mangalanushasan in other
temples of Ayodhya besides Sri Ramjanmbhumi as per the
family Acharya tradition, and have received ‘dakshina’
thereafter.” (E.T.C.)
464. O.P.W. 13, Naradsharan is aged about 76 years (as per
his affidavit 27.1.2003). His cross examination followed as
under :
(a) 27-01-2003- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 3,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 6-12)
(b) 27/28-01-2003- by Mahmood Ahmad, defendant no. 6,
through Sri Abdul Mannan, Advocate (p. 12-16)
(c) 28/29/30/31-01-2003, 03-02-2003-by Sunni Central
Waqf Board, defendant no. 4 through Sri Zafaryab Jilani,
Advocate (p. 16-66)
(d) 03/04/05-02-2003- by defendant no. 5 through Sri
Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 66-95)
(e) 05-02-2003- defendant no. 26 through Sri Sayad Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate and defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit-3)
through Sri Mohd. Azhar, Advocate adopted the cross
examination already done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6
(p.95)
465. He came to Ayodhya in 1946 and is living thereat as a
Sadhu. He became Mahant of Saryu Kunj, Rinmochan Ghat,
Ayodhya after death of his Guru Sri Ram Manohar Saran. About
Darshan and Pooja at the disputed premises and that the
disputed premises was neither used as mosque nor any Namaz
was offered thereat, he has said in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
of the affidavit as under :
 654

^^2- esjs xq: egkjkt th Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds fudV fLFkr lhrkdwi

dk ,d ?kM+k ty izfrfnu Hkxoku ds Hkksx yxkus ds fy, ,oa Lo;a ds
ihus ds fy, eaxokrs Fks ftls esjs vU; xq: HkkbZ ykrs FksA dHkh&dHkh eSa
Hkh ty ykrk Fkk D;ksafd lhrkdwi dk ty cgqr gh iquhr ,oa xq.kdkjh
ekuk tkrk Fkk blfy, vU; dbZ vkJeksa esa Hkh lhrkdwi dk ty izfrfnu
ys tk;k tkrk FkkA^^
“2. My Guru ji used to ask for one pitcher full of water
from Sitakoop situated near Sri Ramjanmbhumi, for
offering the same to Him and also for his own drinking,
which was brought by my other Gurubhai (disciples of
same teacher or Guru). Sometimes I also used to bring the
water because it was considered to be very pure and full of
qualities. Due to this, the water of Sitakoop was taken to
other Ashrams everyday.” (E.T.C.)
^^3- tc eSa lu~ 1946 esa v;ks/;k vk;k rks Jhjke tUeHkwfe] dud Hkou]
guqekux<+h] ukxs'ojukFk] cM+h Nkouh] ef.kjkenkl Nkouh vkSj guqeku
ckx vkfn dk n'kZu djus tk;k djrk FkkA^^
“3. When I came to Ayodhya in the year 1946, I used to go
to have 'darshan' of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, Kanak Bhawan,
Hanumangarhi, Nageshwar Nath, Main Cantt.,
Maniramdas Cantt. and Hanuman Bagh etc.” (E.T.C.)
^^4- eSa Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus dHkh&dHkh tkrk FkkA Jhjke
tUeHkwfe esa tkus dk jkLrk iwjc ls Fkk ftlls T;knkrj yksx vkrs tkrs
Fks ftls guqer}kj dgk tkrk FkkA bl }kj esa nksuks rjQ dlkSVh ds
[kEHks yxs gq, Fks ftu ij Qwy&iRrh] dy'k vkSj ewfrZ cuh gqbZ Fkh ftUgs
t;&fot; dh ewfrZ dgk tkrk FkkA iwohZ }kj ;kuh guqer }kj ds
ckgj ,d iRFkj yxk Fkk ftlij la[;k ,d rFkk **Jh tUeHkwfe fuR;
;k=k** fy[kk gqvk FkkA^^
“4. Sometimes I used to go to have 'darshan' of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi. The passage leading to Sri
Ramjanmbhumi was in the east and it was used by most of
 655

the people and it was called the Hanumatdwar. It had

touchstone pillars on both sides with flower-leaves, pitcher
and idols, which were called the idols of Jai-Vijai. There
was a stone outside the eastern gate i.e. Hanumatdwar,
which had figure ‘1’ and ‘Shri Janmbhumi Nitya Yatra’,
engraved over it.” (E.T.C.)
^5- mRrjh rjQ Hkh ,d }kj Fkk ftldks flag}kj dgk tkrk FkkA mlds
Åij chp esa x:.k rFkk nksuksa rjQ flag dh ewfrZ cuh FkhA flag}kj ls
vUnj tkus ij lhrk jlksbZ Fkh ftlesa pkSdk] csyu] pwYgk ,oa pj.k fpUg
FksA ftldk n'kZu&iwtk gksrh FkhA^^
“5. There was a gate in north as well, which was called
Singhdwar. Two statues of lions with one Garun in
between, existed over it. On entering through the
Singhdwar, fell the Sita Rasoi which had chauka, belan,
stove (hearth) and footmarks, and they were worshiped.”
(E.T.C.)
^^6- eq[;}kj ;kuh guqer}kj ls vUnj tkus ij ck,a ;kuh nf{k.k rjQ
jkepcwrjk Fkk ftl ij ewfrZ;ka fojkteku FkhaA jkepcwrjk yxHkx esjh
dej ds cjkcj ÅWpk FkkA jke pcwrjs ds uhps nksauks rjQ xqQk Fkh ftlesa
Hkh ewfrZ;kW fojkteku FkhA jkepcwrjs ij v"V/kkrq dh jkeyyk dh Hkh ewfrZ
Fkh ogha ewfrZ 23 fnlEcj lu~ 1949 dk czEg eqgwrZ esa xHkZx`g ;kuh rhu
xqEcn okys Hkou ds chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps LFkkfir dh x;h FkhA^^
“6. On going inside through the main gate i.e.
Hanumatdwar, there was the Ramchabutara in left side i.e.
towards south, which had idols over it. The Ramchabutara
was about my waist high. Below the Ramchabutara, were
two caves on both sides which had idols present therein.
There was a Ashthadhatu (alloy of eight metals) idol of
Ramlala at the Ramchabutara. The same idol was installed
in the 'Garbh-grih' i.e. below the central dome of the three
dome structure, in Brahm Muhurt of 23rd December,
 656

1949.” (E.T.C.)
^^7- iwjc ds njokts ls vUnj tkus ij lkeus if'pe rjQ rhu f'k[kj
okyk ,d Hkou cuk FkkA blds chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps xHkZx`g Fkk ml
LFkku dh iwtk gksrh Fkh bl LFkku ds ckjs esa esj s xq : th us eq > s
crk;k Fkk fd lnSo ges'kk ls ;g LFkku Hkxoku Jhjke ds tUeLFkku ds
:i esa iwT; jgk gS vkSj bl LFkku dh iwtk vukfn dky ls pyh vk jgh
gSA eSaus Hkh bl LFkku dh iwtk dh vkSj Lo;a Hkh ns[kk fd lSdM+ksa& gtkjksa
dh la[;k esas vkus okys rhFkZ;k=h bl LFkku dks iz.kke vSkj iwtk djrs]
n'kZu&iwtk ds i'pkr~ lhrk jlksbZ] jkepcwrjk vkfn dk Hkh n'kZu&iwtk
djus ds i'pkr~ guqer }kj ls ckgj fudydj lEiw.kZ ifjlj dh
ifjdzek djrsA^^
“7. On entering through the eastern gate, there was a three
dome structure towards west. Below its central dome was
the 'Garbh-grih' and the said place was worshiped. My
Guru had told me about this place that it had always been
revered as the birthplace of Lord Sri Ram and the
reverence of this place has been continuing since ancient
times. I also worshipped this place and myself saw
hundreds-thousands of pilgrims offer their prayer and
reverence at this place, followed by 'darshan' of Sita Rasoi,
Ramchabutara etc. and then exit through the Hanumatdwar
to perform circumambulation of entire premises.” (E.T.C.)
^^8- tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k rc ls vkt rd u rks fdlh Hkh eqlyeku
dks Jhjke tUeHkwfe dh vksj tkrs ns[kk vkSj u rks ogka ij fdlh Hkh
eqlyeku dks uekt i<+rs ns[kk vkSj u lqukA^^
“8. After my arrival at Ayodhya, till date I have neither
seen any Muslim coming towards the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
nor have seen or heard any Muslim offer Namaz over
there.” (E.T.C.)
^^9- vktknh feyus ds ckn v;ks/;k esa lk/kw&cSjkxh vkSj vke fgUnw }kjk
Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds pkjksa vksj >kM+&>a[kkM+ dh lQkbZ izkjEHk gqbZ vkSj ogka
 657

ij v[k.M dhrZu] ikB] ti Hkh izkjEHk gqvk ftlesa gtkjksa dh la[;k esa
yksx lfEefyr gksrs FksA^^
“9. After independence, the saints-recluses and general
public of Ayodhya started cleansing the Sri Ramjanmbhumi
premises and thereafter, Akhand Kirtan, Path, Jap were
organized over there, in which thousands of people used to
participate.” (E.T.C.)
466. In para 10 of the affidavit, OPW-13 has said that in 1992
while the land was being leveled, public found certain artefacts
belong to an old temple etc.:
^^10- ebZ] twu lu~ 1992 esa v;ks/;k esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds fudV Hkwfe
leryhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh py jgh FkhA lu~ 1992 ds chp esa Jhjke
tUeHkwfe ifjlj ds iwjc tc leryhdj.k gks jgk Fkk] eSa Hkh x;k rks
guqer }kj ds 15&20 dne iwjc&nf{k.k dksus ij ,d VSªDVj QWl x;k
vkSj dksf'k'k ds ckn Hkh vkxs ugha c<+ ldk mlls vthc lh vkokt gksus
yxh rc eSa vkSj cgqr ls yksx ogka bdB~Bs gks x;s MªkbZoj us VSªDVj dks
ihNs gVk;k vkSj etnwj ogka QkoM+s ls [kksnus yxs rks ogka ls VwVs
cM+s&cM+s iRFkj ds VqdM+s fudyus yxsA etnwjksa us feydj mUgsa ckgj
fudkyk tks iqjkus efUnj ds vo'ks"k ekywe gksrs FksA^^
“10. The land levelling process was being carried out near
Sri Ramjanmbhumi in Ayodhya in May, June, 1992. In the
mid of year 1992, when the levelling work was being
carried out in east of Sri Ramjanmbhumi, then I had also
gone there when a tractor got stuck up in the south-east
corner about 15-20 paces away from Hanumatdwar and
despite attempts, it could not move ahead, and strange
sounds started emanating from there. Then me and many
other people gathered over there and the driver pulled
back the tractor and the labours dug up the place with
spade and pieces of big broken stones were found. The
labours took them out, and they appeared to be remains of
 658

some ancient temple.” (E.T.C.)

C. Temple (Existence and Demolition):
467. As stated above, in all there are 12 witnesses from both
the sides.
468. PW 12 Ram Shankar Upadhyay; aged about 38 years
in January 1998, (vide his affidavit dated 20.01.1998) is resident
of village Mahuwapar, Pargana Basti Purab, Tehsil Basti Sadar,
district Basti. His cross examination took place as under :
(a) 20/21.01.1998-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 2-22)
(b) 22.01.1997- by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 23-33)
(c) 03.03.1998-by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant
no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 34-
42), adopted by Hindu Mahasabha and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
(p. 53)
(d) 03.03.1998-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate, (p. 42-47)
(e) 04.03.1998- by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p. 48-
53)
(f) 20.04.1998-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff
(Suit-5) (p. 54-64)
469. As per his information based on certain books, PW-12
has deposed about the disputed site, i.e. place where Lord Ram
took birth and that there was a Ram Temple which was
demolished to construct a mosque, i.e., Babri mosque and has
said as under:
 659

“eS au s fgUnw /keZ dh dq N fdrkcs a i<+h gS a tSls fd rqylh

nkl th dh jkepfjr ekul] ckYehdh th dk jkek;.k] jk/ks';ke 'kqDy
th dh fy[kh jkek;.k] euqLe`fr] f'koiqjk.k] eRl;iqjku] fgUnw /keZ dh
reke vkSj fdrkcsa o deZdk.M Hkh eSuas i<s+ gSA ;kuh deZdk.M lEca/kh
fdrkcsa i<+h gSA JhjkepUnz th dk tUe vkt ls yxHkx 9 yk[k o"kZ
igys gqvk FkkA mudk tUe =srk ;qx esa gqvk FkkA ckYehdh th dh
jkek;.k ds vuqlkj mUgksaus yxHkx X;kjg gtkj o"kZ rd jkT; fd;k FkkA
jkepfjr ekul dk fuekZ.k rqylhnkl th us v;ks/;k esa nrqou dq.M ij
fd;k Fkk mls nkrqu dq.M Hkh dgrs gSaA jkepfjr ekul esa ;k rqylhnkl
ds vU; fdlh lkfgR; esa ,slk dksbZ ftdz ugha vkrk fd v;ks/;k esa
Jhjke ds eafnj dks rksM+dj dksbZ efLtn cuk;h x;h gksA fgUnw /keZ
dh fdlh Hkh fdrkc es a ,sl k dk sb Z ftdz ugh a feyrk fd
jkepUnz th dh tUeLFkyh ij ckcjh efLtn cuk;h x;h gk s
;k jkepUnz th dh tUeLFkyh ogkW okdk gk s tgkW a ckcjh
efLtn cuh gq b Z FkhA
eSa ml txg ij x;k gqvk gwWa tgkWa ckcjh efLtn cuh gqbZ FkhA eSa
efLtn ds vUnj Hkh x;k gqvk gwWaA eSa 2 Qjojh 1986 dks x;k FkkA vkSj
eSaus ns[kk Fkk fd efLtnksa esa tks ,d eSEcj lk gksrk gS ml ij ewfrZ j[kh
gqbZ FkhA os rhu ewfrZ;ka FkhA e;kZnk iq:"kksRre Jhjke lhrk th vkSj
y{e.k dh ewfrZ;ka FkhaA vkf[kjh ckj eSa ml bekjr esa 1991 esa x;k FkkA
vkf[kjh erZck tc eSa ogkWa x;k rks eSaus ns[kk fd dqN rCnhfy;kWa Fkh] dqN
N= yxs gq, Fks vkSj ewfrZ flagklu ij FkhA txg rks djhc ogh Fkh FkksM+k
cgqr b/kj m/kj dk QdZ FkkA ml bekjr dh cukoV efLtn tSlh Fkh
vUnj Q'kZ ij lQs cus gq, FksA eSa ikap N% nQs ml bekjr esa x;k gqvk
gwWaA**
“I have read some books of Hindu religion such as
Tulsidas's Ram Charit Manas, Valmiki's Ramayana,
Radheyshyam Shukla's Ramayana, Manusmriti, Shiv
Purana and Matsya Purana. I have also read several other
books on Hindu religion and ceremonial rites. That is to
say, I have read books related to ceremonial rites. Sri Ram
Chandra was born nearly 9 lakh years ago. He was born
 660

in in the Treta age. As per Valimiki's Ramyana, he ruled

for about 11 thousand years. Tulsidas composed the Ram
Charit Manas at Ayodhya-situated Datuan Kund, which is
also called Datoon Kund. There is no such mention in the
Ram Charit Manas or any other literature of Tulsidas that
any mosque was built at Ayodhya after demolishing Sri
Rama temple. No such mention is found in any book of
Hindu religion that Babri mosque was built at the
birthplace of Ram Chandra or that the birthplace of
Ram Chandra existed at the place where Babri mosque
was built.
I have been to the place where the Babri mosque had
been built. I have also gone inside the mosque. I went there
on February 2, 1986 and saw that idols were placed on
what looks like a 'member' in mosques. Those were three
idols. They were idols representing tradition-upholding
Supreme Being Sri Rama, Sita and Lakshman. I, for the last
time, visited the building in 1991. When I, for the last time,
went there, I saw that there were some changes; some
parasols were placed and idols were on the throne. The
place were nearly the same; there was a bit locational
difference. The structure of the building was the same as
that of the mosque. 'Safas' were built on the floor inside. I
have been to the building for five or six times.” (E.T.C.)
470. PW 13, Suresh Chandra Mishra, aged about 50 years
(when he commenced his testimony on 13.07.1998), son of Sri
Jagdish Prasad Mishra, is resident of 264 S.F.S., D.D.A. Flats,
Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi. His cross examination continued for
about four months as under :
(a) 13/14.07.1998-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
 661

Verma, Advocate(p. 2-24)

(b) 15.07.1998-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 25-30)
(c)15/16/17.07.1998,03/04/05/06/07.08.1998,
07/08.09.1998 - by Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant
no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 31-
152)
(d) 08/09/10/12.09.1998- by Hindu Mahasabha, defendant
no. 10 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no.
17 through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 152-201)
(e) 13.10.1998-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate, (p. 202-222)
(f) 14/15.10.1998, 16/17/18/19.11.1998- by Sri Deoki
Nandan Agarwal, plaintiff himself and Next friend to
other plaintiffs (Suit-5) (p. 223-270)
(g)19/20.11.1998-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p.
270-288)
471. By profession, a Reader in Satyawati Co-Educational
College, Delhi University he was teaching history. He initially
belong to Allahabad and got his early education at Allahabad as
well as graduation and post graduation from Allahabad
University. He did B.A. in History, Philosophy and Sanskrit and
M.A. in Ancient History (Culture and Archaeology). He passed
M.A. in 1970 from Allahabad University when Sri G.R. Sharma
was the Head of the Department of History. He did his Ph.D.
from Delhi University in 1985, appointed as Lecturer in History
at Satyawali Co-Education College in August, 1973 and
promoted to the post of Reader thereat. He claims specialization
 662

in “Ancient History”, presented a paper in Indian History

Congress, also presented a paper at the level of International
Archaeologists and participated in International Conference
Croatia in May, 1998 on the subject pertaining to the disputed
place. In the said conference no resolution was passed.
Thereafter, another conference took place in Delhi after about 4
years wherein one resolution was passed, i.e., there shall be no
discussion on the above subject. Regarding the disputed place,
his statement is:
“eSaus ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa ;g >xM+k 'kq: gksus ds ckn xgu
v/;;u fd;k gSA esj s v/;;u ls irk yxk fd bl efLtn dk
fuekZ . k ehjckdh us djok;k Fkk vkS j bls cukus es a fdlh
iz d kj dh rk sM + Qk sM + ugh a dh x;h FkhA esj s v/;;u esa bl
LFkku ij igys fdlh eaf nj ds gk su s dk iz e k.k ugh a feyrkA
eSaus LdUn iqjk.k dk Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA LdUn iq j k.k ds
vuq l kj Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFkku ckcjh efLtn okyh
txg ij ugh a curkA
^^ckcj ds bfrgkl ds ckjs esa ,d vge fdrkc rks ckcjukek gh
gSA lkef;d :i esa rks ;gh ,d fdrkc gS ckdh bfrgkldkjksa us vkSj Hkh
fdrkcsa fy[kh gSaA
eSa v;ks/;k x;k gqvk gwWaA eSa 1992 ls igys Hkh x;k gwWaA dkcZu
MsfVax ds vk/kkj ij vc ;g jk; cuh gS fd v;ks/;k esa clklr ¼vkcknh½
;kfu dh yksxksa dk jguk vkSj vkckn gksuk pkj lsapqjh chlh rd tkrk
gSA gSfcVs'ku 4 lsapqjh ch-lh- ls 'kq: gqbZ gSA ;kuh ekuo fuokl pkj
laspqjh ch-lh- ls pkyw gqvk gSA iz k s0 vkj0 ,l0 'kekZ ] iz k s0
Mh0,u0 >k] iz k s0 lwj tHkku us losZ {k.k ds vk/kkj ij vkS j
v/;;u ds vk/kkj ij Hkkjr ljdkj dk s ,d fjik sV Z nh Fkh
mles a pkS F k s lkFkh dk uke iz k s0 vrgj vyh FkkA eS au s ml
fjik sV Z dk s i<+k gS A vrgj vyh lkgc dk vHkh bardky gqvk gSA
iqjkrRo ¼vkdksZykth½ ,d foKku gSA bldks vkxs c<+kus esa fu;e
gksrs gSaA fookfnr LFkku ij Mk0 izks0 ch0ch0yky }kjk dh x;h [kkst tks
[kqnkbZ ls dh x;h] vkf[kjh [kkst Fkh tks fu;ekuqlkj dh x;h FkhA ;g
 663

1976 esa dh x;h Fkh vkSj bl ckcr fjiksVZ bafM;u vkdksZykth esa 1977 esa
nh x;h FkhA**
“I have done deep study about Babri mosque, after
the beginning of this dispute. From my studies it transpired
that this mosque had been built by Mir Baqi and that no
destruction of any kind had taken place in its construction.
In my studies, no evidence was found about existence of
any temple at this place.
I have also studied Skand Purana. According to the
Skand Purana, the birthplace of Lord Rama is not made
out at the site of Babri mosque.
An authentic book about the history of Babar, is
Babarnama. From strategic point of view, it is the only
book. Other historians have written other books as well.
I have been to Ayodhya. I have been even before the
year 1992. Opinion has now been formed that the populace
of Ayodhya dates back to 4th century BC. The habitation
started from 4th century BC. i.e. the human habitat started
from 4th century BC. Prof. R.S. Sharma, Prof. D.N. Jha
and Prof. Surajbhan had submitted a report to the
Government of India on basis of survey and studies, in
which a fourth member was also named as Prof. Athar
Ali. I have read that report. Mr. Athar Ali has recently
expired.
Archaeology is a science. It has rules of moving
ahead. The discovery made through excavation by Dr.
Prof. B.B. Lal at the disputed site, was the last discovery
made as per rules. It was carried out in the year 1976 and
a report in this behalf was published in the Indian
Archaeology in the year 1977.” (E.T.C.)
472. PW 15, Susheel Srivastava, aged about 48 years (on 15
 664

April 1999, when his deposition commenced), son of Sri Ganga

Dayal, is resident of Ground Floor, Sewanti Bagh Pratap Ganj,
Baroda. His cross examination followed as under :
(a) 15-04-1999-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 2-18)
(b) 16/17-04-1999, 20/21/22/23.07.1999, 17.08.1999- by
Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through Sri Ved Prakash,
Advocate (p. 19-108 )
(c) 17/18-08-1999-Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate, (p. 108-130)
(d) 19/20-08-1999, 21/22/23/24-09-1999, 15/16-12-1999-
By Hindu Mahasabha, defendant no. 10 and Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17 through Sri Hari
Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 131-286)
(e)16-12-1999- by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p.
286-294)
(f) 16/17/20-12-1999- by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal,
plaintiff himself and next friend to other plaintiffs (Suit-5)
through Sri D.N. Agarwal (p. 294-313)
473. He was working as Professor in the Department of
History, Maharaja Shambhaji Rao University, Baroda (Gujarat),
and officiating as Head of the Department at that time. He did
B.A. and M.A. from Allahabad University in two subjects i.e.
History and Political Science and thereafter completed Ph.D. in
1989 from Allahabad University. His subject of research being
“Tallukedar Aur Kastkar Ka Samband Awadh Me”. The period
of research subject was 1920 to 1939. He was registered for
research (Ph.D.) in 1978 and his supervisor was Prof. Ravindra
 665

Kumar of Allahabad University who subsequently left in 1991

to join as Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library,
Delhi. After obtaining post graduate qualification and before his
registration for Ph.D., he was appointed in Allahabad University
in December, 1974 as Lecturer. While working as Reader in the
Department of History at Allahabad University, got appointment
at Baroda University where he joined on 30.06.1997. He visited
America in March, 1996 for fellowship and delivered about six
lectures at Emri University, Atlanta and University of
Pennsylvania. He also visited for fellowship, Oxford University,
England where he stayed for about 4-5 months and participated
in two conferences. He is author of a book on the disputed place
titled as “The Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” which
was published in 1991. Besides, he has assisted in writing of
another book namely, “Anatomy of Confrontation-Ram Janm
Bhumi-Babri Masjid Conflict” edited by S. Gopal. He is author
of Article “How the British Saw the Issue”. Besides, he has
written several other Articles regarding disputed place which
have been published. He commenced his research in 1987 and
visited disputed place at Ayodhya in connection with his
research work for 5 or 6 times. First of all he visited the
disputed place in May-June, 1987 and lastly in January, 1993.
He has also written another book namely, “Conflict in Agrarian
Society” which was published in 1995. In respect to the disputed
place and about his observation and finding, he says :
“eSa tc fookfnr LFky ij x;k vkSj mldks ns[kk rks esj h le>
es a og efLtn FkhA ogkW a ij eS au s f'kykys[ k Hkh ns[ k s Fk sA og
f'kykys[ k Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa eq > s iz r hr gq , Fk s vkS j mudh
fLdz I V vjck s ikjfl;u yxh FkhA eSaus tks 'kks/k dk;Z fd;k bl
fookfnr LFky ds ckjs esa mlesa eq>s ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha feyk ftlls
yxrk gks fd ;g efLtn] eafnj rksM+dj cukbZ x;h gksA eq > s ,sl k Hkh
 666

dk sb Z lk{; ugh a feyk ftlls yxrk gk s fd fookfnr LFky

ij Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFkku dgk tk ldrk gk s A v;ks/;k
uxj esa vkcknh dk gksuk eq>s pkSFkh ;k ikWapoh 'krkCnh bZlk iwoZ le> esa
vkrh gSA”
“When I went to the disputed site and saw it, it
appeared a mosque to me. I had seen inscriptions over
there. To me, those inscriptions appeared to be in
Persian language and their script appeared to be Arbo-
Persian. From the research carried out by me, I found no
such evidence regarding this disputed site to suggest that
this mosque had been built after demolishing temple. I
found no such evidence so as to suggest that the disputed
site could be considered as birthplace of Lord Rama.
According to me, the populace in the city of Ayodhya may
have existed in 4 or 5 BC.” (E.T.C.)
474. PW-16, Prof. Suraj Bhan has appeared as an expert
witness (Archaeology). He retired in June, 1991 from the post of
Professor, Department of Ancient Indian Archaeology,
Kurukshetra University, Rohtak. He was examined thrice. Initial
deposition from 22.2.2000 to 10.8.2000, the second one is from
26.8.2002 to 12.9.2009 and the last one is from 20.3.2006 to
28.7.2006.
Part-I:(a) 22/23-02-2000, 07/08-03-2000- by Nirmohi
Akhara through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p3-63)
(b) 17/18-07-2000-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 64-80 )
(c) 18/19/20/21-07-2000, 07-08-2000- -by Sri Umesh
Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 80-139)
(d) 07/08-08-2000-Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
 667

Advocate, (p. 139-168)

(e) 08/09-08-2000- by Hindu Mahasabha, defendant no.
10 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17,
through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 168-177)
(f) 09-08-2000-by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra, Advocate (p.
177-182)
(g) 09/10-08-2000-by Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal,
plaintiff himself and next friend to other plaintiffs (Suit-5)
(p. 182-201)
Part-II : 26-08-2002-Affidavit (p. 1-7)
Cross examination:(a) 26-08-2002- by Nirmohi Akhara
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 3-14)
(b) 27/28/29-08-2002, 09-09-2002- by Sri Umesh Chandra
Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 15-79)
(c) 09/10-09-2002- by Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra
Das, defendant no. 2 through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,
Advocate (p. 79-96)
(d) 11/12-09-2002- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate (p. 97-119)
(e)12-09-2002- by Sri Madan Mohan Gupta, defendant no.
20, through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 119-
124)
(f) 12-09-2002- Hindu Mahasabha, defendant no. 10 and
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through
Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate and Sri Rajendra Singh,
son of Sri Gopal Singh Visharad through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocate adopted the cross examination already done by
other defendants and plaintiffs (Suit-5) (p. 124)
 668

Part-III : 20-03-2006-Examination-in-chief by affidavit

(p.125-134)
Cross examination: (a) 20/21/22/23/24-03-06,
03/04/05/06/24/25-04-2006 - by Nirmohi Akhara through
Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and Tarunjeet Verma,
Advocate (p. 135-311)
(b) 26-04-2006- by defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km.
Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate (p. 312- 329)
Part-IV : (a) 27/28-04-2006, 22/23/24/25/26-05-2006-by
defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) through Km. Ranjana Agnihotri,
Advocate (p. 330- 428)
(b) 10/11/12-07-2006-by defendant no. 2/1 (Suit-4)
through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate (p. 429-484)
(c) 13/14/25-07-2006- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri
Ajay Pandey, Advocate (p. 485-515
(d) 25/26-07-2006- by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi,
defendant no. 17 (Suit-4) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 515-531)
(e) 26/27/28-07-2006- by defendant no. 13/1 (Suit-4)
through Sri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate (p. 531-556)
(f) 28-07-2006- Plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocate, adopted cross examination already done by
other defendants (p. 556)
475. In his examination-in-chief dated 22.02.2000, he said
that initially he worked as Lecturer in Punjab University,
Chandigarh and before retirement he worked as Professor for
about 12 years. Having studied the matter pertaining to Babri
Mosque, he has written an article (Paper No. 190C2/1-20, i.e.,
Ex. 62 Suit-4); and (Paper No. 288C-1 to 17, i.e., Ex 45, Suit-5).
In this regard he deposed as under:
 669

^^fookfnr LFky ;kuh fd ckcjh efLtn dks eSaus ns[kk Fkk ekSds ij
tkdj ns[kk gSA eSaus ekSds ij fookfnr LFky ij ukitks[k Hkh fd;k Fkk
M~kQ~V eSau dh enn ls ,oa QksVks xzkQj dh enn lsA vius 'kks/k ds dk;Z
esa eq>s dksbZ Hkh ,slk izek.k ugha feyk ftlls ;g dgk tk lds fd ckcjh
efLtn fdlh eafnj dks fxjkdj cukbZ x;h gksA Jh izksQslj
ch0ch0yky ,oa ,0ds0ukjk;.k ds 'kks/k ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k esa 7 oha lnh
ch0lh0 ds igys vkcknh ds gksus dk dksbZ izek.k ugha feyrkA xokg dks
isij ua0110 lh1@8 lwV ua0 5 esa nkf[ky fd;s x;s dkxt dks fn[kk;k
x;k ftldks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd ;g ys[k gekjk fy[kk gqvk gS
vkSj blesa tks ,d ysVj yxk gS ml ij gekjk nLr[kr gS blh ysVj ds
lkFk eSaus vius ys[k tks isij ua0 110lh@1@9 ls 110lh1@13 rd
gS ;g esjk ys[k gSA ¼Jh nsodh uanu vxzoky us bl iz'u ij vkifRr dh
vkSj dgk fd mijksDr nLrkost ewy izfr ugha gS ;kuh ewy nLrkost ugha
gS vr% lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS vkSj u bls lkfcr fd;k tk ldrk
gSA ;g vkifRr eqdnesa ds lquokbZ ds le; fopkj dh tk;sxh½ bl QksVks
LVsV ys[k dh dkih ij tks la'kks/ku fd;s x;s gSa vkSj dfVax gS og esjs
gh }kjk dh x;h FkhA eSa ;g fuf'pr:i ls ugha dg ldrk fd bldh
ewy izfr esjs ikl gS ;k ughaA bl ys[k esa tks Hkh eSaus fy[kk gS mls eSa
lgh le>rk gwWA ijUrq v;ks/;k ds LVMh ds ckn bl ys[k esa eSaus dqN
tksM+k gSA v;ks/;k ds foftV ds nkSjku gekjs lkFk izks0 vkj0,l0 'kekZ]
M~kQ~VeSu ,oa QksVks xzkQj lkFk FksA vius bl 'kks/k dk;Z dks iw.kZ djus
ds ckn eSaus ,d fjiksVZ vkbZ0lh0vp0vkj0 dks Hksth FkhA bl ejgys ij
xokg dk /;ku x`g lfpo Hkkjr ljdkj ds }kjk izsf"kr vIyhds'ku ua0 7
vks@2000 vks0,l0 ua04@89 ds lkFk layXu fjiksVZ jketUeHkwfe&ckcjh
efLtn , fgLVksfj;u fjiksVZ dh vksj fnyk;k x;kA tks dkxt ua0 lh
2@190@1 ls 20 gSA ;g fjiksVZ esjs rFkk blesa fyf[kr rhu vU; uke
Mk0 vkj0,l0'kekZ] izks0 ,e0 vrgj vyh] Jh Mh0,u0>k }kjk rS;kj
la;qDr fjiksVZ FkhA bl fjiksVZ dofjax ysVj fnukad 13 ebZ 91 ds lkFk
yxk gqvk gS ftl ij vkj0 ,l0 'kekZ ,oa vrgj vyh us Lo;a nLr[kr
fd;k gS vkSj esjh rjQ ls izks0 vkj0 ,l0 'kekZ us nLr[kr fd;k gS ,oa
izks0 Mh0,u0 >k dh rjQ ls vrgj vyh lkgc us nLr[kr fd;k gSA
bl i= esa tks Msftxus'ku fn[kk;k x;k gS og lgh gSA bl fjiksVZ ds
 670

izFke i`"B ds ihNs esjk Msftxus'ku tks fn[kk;k x;k gS mlesa lks'ky
lkbal dh txg bUMsfDl@LVSMh gksuk pkfg, FkkA bl fjiksVZ dks ge
lHkh pkjksa us feydj Qkbuy :i fn;kA bl fjik sV Z ds dUVs aV ls
vkt Hkh eS a iwj h rjg lger gwW aA bl 'kk s/ kdk;Z esa eS au s
iq j krRo fo"k; lac a/ kh Hkkx fy[kk FkkA vFkkZr iqjkrRo laca/kh
;ksxnku bl fjiksVZ esa esjk gSA ;g fjiksVZ tks eq>s fn[kk;h x;h gS ;g
ogh fjiksVZ gS tks eSaus Hksth Fkh bl fjiksVZ esa tks fy[kk gS og lgh gSA eSa
vkj0,l0'kekZ o ,e0 vrgj vyh ds nLr[kr igpkurk gwWa vkSj bl
fjiksVZ ij mUgha ds nLr[kr gSaA bl dkxt ij izn'kZ la[;k d 62 Mkyk
x;kA**
“I saw the disputed site, that is, the Babri mosque. I
have seen it by going to the site. I even did on-the-spot
measurements at the disputed site with the help of drafts-
man and photographer . In course of my research, I came
across no proof enabling me to say that the Babri mosque
was built by demolishing any temple. As per the research of
Prof. B.B. Lal and Sri A. K. Narayan, nothing has been
found evidencing habitation in Ayodhya prior to the 7th
century B.C.. (Paper no. 110C1/8 filed in Suit No. 5 was
shown to the witness where upon he stated that this article
is in his hand- writing and a letter annexed to it bears his
signature). Accompanying this very letter, my article
(paper nos. 110C/1/9 to 110C1/13) is my own article. (Sri
Devaki Nandan Agarwal raised objection over this issue
and contended that the aforesaid document is not an
original copy, that is, an original document; hence it is not
admissible in evidence and cannot be proved. This
objection will be considered at the hearing of the case.)
The corrections and cuttings that have been made on this
photostat copy of article, were made by myself. I cannot
certainly say whether I have its original copy or not. What
 671

I have written in this article, is correct to my

understanding. But after making study on Ayodhya I have
made certain additions to this article. During my Ayodhya
visit, I was accompanied by Prof R.S. Sharma as well as a
drafts-man and a photographer. After completion of this
research work I sent a report to I.C.H.R.. (In this behalf,
when the attention of the witness was drawn to a report
captioned 'Ram Janam Bhumi-Babri Masjid: A Historian
Report', annexed to Application no. 7O/2000 sent by Home
Secretary, Government of India in O.S. No. 4/89, he
stated ) Running from paper no. C2/190/1 to 20, this report
was a joint report prepared by me and three other persons
viz. Dr. R.S. Sharma Prof. M. Athar Ali and Prof. D. N.
Jha. This report is with a covering letter dated 13th May,
1991 on which R.S. Sharma and Athar Ali themselves have
put their signatures and Prof. R.S. Sharma has signed on
my behalf and Prof. Athar Ali has signed on behalf of Prof.
D.N. Jha. The designation shown in this letter, is correct.
On the back of the first page of the report is shown my
designation, in which the word 'index study' ought to have
been used in place of science. The four of us collectively
gave a final shape to this report. I absolutely agree to the
contents of this report even today. I had written
archaeology-related portion in this research work. That is
to say, my contribution in this report is in relation to
archaeology. The report which has been shown to me, is
the same that was sent by me. The contents of this report
are correct. I recognise the signatures of R.S. Sharma and
M. Athar Ali, and this report bears signatures of these very
persons. This paper is marked as Exhibit Ka 62.”
 672

(E.T.C.)
476. PW 16 was recalled by plaintiffs (Suit-4) to give his
views in the light of a book written by Dr. T.P. Verma and Dr.
S.P. Gupta, i.e., “Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva-Rigved
Kal Se Aaj Tak” (Ex.3, Suit-5). He filed affidavit dated
26.08.2002 as statement-in-chief. The purpose of the said
affidavit is mentioned in para 2 as under:
“2. That the deponent has been informed by the plaintiffs'
counsel that he has been recalled to give his statement
mainly regarding the claims made in the Book entitled as
“Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva-Rigved Kal Se Aaj
Tak” writeen by Dr. T.P.Verma and Dr. S.P. Gupta filed in
this Hon'ble Court after the deponent's statement on oath
recorded in this case. The deponent is an archaeologist and
has adequate experience of filed archaeology.”
477. In respect to the above book and its contents, PW-16
gave his statement in paras 3 to 17 of the affidavit as under:
“3. That the deponent has gone through the relevant
portions of the aforesaid Book on Ayodhya, hereinafter
referred to as 'the Book' or as 'Ayodhya Ka Itihas', and has
to state that the conclusions drawn by the authors of the
aforesaid book on the basis of the so called discoveries
allegedly made in June-July 1992 and December 1992-
January 1993, at Ayodhya, on or around or near the
disputed site of Babri Masjid, can neither be said to be
based upon any authentic archaeological evidence and nor
the same can be relied upon for the purposes of any
scientific study. The said discoveries alleged to have been
made in 1992-1993, can not at all be said to be Finds or
material discovered through scientific excavation or after
 673

scientific recording.”
“4. That the so called discovery of an inscription, alleged
to have been made in December, 1992, from the debris of
the Babri Masjid, can not be said to be an archaeological
evidence of the alleged existence of any temple of 11th or
12th century, the demolition of which is being attributed to
Babar or his Governor Mir Baqi. In this respect it is
relevant to point out that neither any INSITU photograph
of the said inscription has been published in Ayodhya Ka
Itihas or anywhere else, to the best of the deponent's
knowledge and nor any Diary/Notes etc. appear to have
been maintained/prepared by anyone regarding the alleged
discovery of the same.”
“5. That similarly the so called Artefacts alleged to have
been discovered in June- July, 1992, as a result of P.W.D.
digging of the site, during the surface levelling operations
of the Govt. of U.P., cannot be said to be finds or artefacts
discovered as a result of any scientific excavation or with
scientific recording, and as such the same can also not be
accepted as an archaeological evidence of the alleged
existence of any ancient temple on the site of Babri Masjid,
the demolition of which could be attributed to Babar or his
Governor Mir Baqi. The so called INSITU photographs of
these alleged Finds can neither be said to be INSITU
photographs, and nor the description of the same in
Ayodhya Ka Itihas, or in any other Book or Booklet called
as New Archaeological Discoveries, can be treated as
Notes Book/Dairy recording the said alleged
discoveries/finds.”
“6. That there is no archaeological evidence regarding
 674

the site of Babri Masjid being the alleged Ram Janam

Bhoomi or a sacred place associated with it as claimed by
the authors of Ayodhya Ka Itihas. No such opinion was
given by Sri B.B. Lal also either in his reports published in
“Indian Archaeological-A Review” or in 'An
Encyclopaedia of India Archaeology' Edited by A. Ghosh
and and the assertions made in this respect in Ayodhya Ka
Itihas are incorrect.”
“7. That the Manchitra (Maps) no. 5 and 6, printed in
Ayodhya Ka Itihas showing the alleged sections of the so
called excavation of June 1992, have no archaeological
relevance. There was absolutely no scientific excavation by
any archaeologist during which the said pit/so called
artefacts are alleged to have been found.”
8. That the assertion made in Ayodhya Ka Itihas about
the scrapping alleged to have been done by Dr. K.M.
Srivastava and Dr. S.P. Gupta on 22-23 July, 1992, near
the disputed site, appears to be unbelievable as Scrapping
is required when the stratification fixed by earlier
excavator needs to be verified after some passage of time.
Then the fill-in of the old trench may be taken out and the
section scraped. By such scraping the succession of strata
can be determined. Scraping may also be done while
exploring the early levels of a mound where later
occupation or deposits have covered them and there are
deep cutting made by rain gullies or rivers in parts of site.
There is, however, no way of determining through
“scraping”, the particular stratum, in which material such
as broken sculptures or brickbats was located prior to
excavation in a trench or pit if the position of each of the
 675

item of material was not recorded with due dimensional

measurements by a qualified archaeologist. When a section
is freshly cut, the need for scraping does not arise, since
the strata ought to be distinguished from the excavated
section.”
“9. That, the assertions made in the aforesaid Book
regarding the so called conclusion of Prof. B.B. Lal about
the pillar bases, allegedly being of the black stone pillars,
which might have remained on their original site, are not
correct. (As a matter of fact no such conclusion or opinion
of Prof. B.B. Lal is given either in his excavation reports
published in “Indian Archaeology-A Review” or even in
his entry regarding Ayodhya given in 'An Encyclopaedia of
Indian Archaeology' Edited by A. Ghosh).”
“10. That no material can be regarded as of
archaeological significance, if its actual position in-situ
before removal is not established. This should be
established by photograph, or, at least by recording of its
actual position by a qualified archaeologist. Such
photographs / recording being not available for the
sculptures allegedly recorded from outside the Babri
Masjid and the inscription and other material allegedly
obtained from the Babri Masjid during its unlawful
demolition, nothing can be said about where they have
actually come from.”
“11. That no archaeological excavation in India can take
place without license from the Archaeological Survey of
India. Once the sculptures or the inscription were observed
in-situ, the Archaeological Survey of India should have
been informed immediately. When such an obvious step
 676

was not taken by those concerned, doubt immediately

arises as to the truth of their reports about where the
material has come from.”
“12. That when a stone is taken from brickwork or wall of
an old medieval building, it must contain traces of mortar
and attached brickwork and rubble. Since the slab
containing the alleged stone inscription has reportedly no
trace of any such matter, it cannot be supposed that it
really came from the wall of the Babri Masjid, to which it
was allegedly attached during construction.”
“13. That if there is difference in the colour of stone
sculptures, it can be inferred that the material has been
only partly immersed in the soil. Such colour variation
being observable on the sculptures allegedly retrieved from
underground in the vicinity of the Babri Masjid, it can be
assumed that these could not have come from the
underground spot as being claimed.”
“14. That the sculptured stone pillars fixed in Babri
Masjid have parallels only in eastern India (Bengal and
Bihar). These may be seeen in the illustrations in R.D.
Benerji's, “Eastern Indian School of Medieval Sculpture”
published by Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, (1933)
(Plates LXXXIX (a) and (e) and XC (d)). On the pillars
shown in Plates LXXXIX (a) and XC (d), Benerji says (pp.
155.7): “The best product of the Eastern School is a tall
slender column recovered from Rajmahal. This pillar was
originally brought from the ruins of Gaur (West Bengal)
during the Musalman period. When ruins at Rajmahal
(eastern Bihar) were destroyed by the East Indian Railway
Company, the pillar was used as a lamp post. It was
 677

recovered from that position by the late Dr. John Anderson

and now forms one of the principal attractions of the
archaeological collections of the Indian Museum
(Calcutta) .... This pillar appears to belong to the middle of
the tenth century A.D. and the building of which it once
formed part was a Saiva temple.”
On the pillar illustrated on Plate LXXXIX (e), Benerji
says (p. 157):
“Later in date (than middle of 10th century) and less
elegant is another pillar from a Saiva temple discovered
among the ruins now called Banaraja's Garh (Bangarh) in
the Dinajpur District of Northern Bengal. This pillar was
brought to Dinajpur town nearly a century ago and erected
in the Maharaja's palace. It is inscribed and dated.
According to the inscription the pillar belonged to a Saiva
temple erected by a king of Gauda of Kamboja lineage in
the Saka year 888=966 A.D.”
“15. That it may also be stated that similar pillars shown
in the Book of R.D. Benerji, referred in the Historians'
Report to the Nation, are not on Plate LXRXIX (b) and (c)
but the same should be read as Plate LXXXIX (a) and (e)
and (c).
There are no Gahadavala parallels to the Babri
Masjid pillars. Thus they must have been brought from
Eastern India to Ayodhya at some time between the 10th
and 16th centuries, and then used in the Babri Masjid. They
do not at all attest to there being a temple at the site of
Babri Masjid itself. “
“16. That the size of individual Hindu temples of the 11th
and 12th centuries in the region of North India, was usually
 678

so small that it could not have covered the area of the

Babri Masjid, let alone the additional area which is
mentioned by authors of the book-Ayodhya Ka Itihas.”
The largest temple at Khajuraho, the great site of
Shaivite, Vaishnavite and Jain temples of the 10th -11th
centuries, and among all temple-complexes nearest to
Ayodhya, was the temple of Kandariya Mahadev, the
dimensions of which were only 109 feet in length by 60 feet
in width. This is less than the area of the Babri Masjid
which was about 150 feet by 90 feet. Other temples at
Khajuraho are still smaller. The Vishnu temple of
Chaturbhoj measures only 85 feet by 44 feet, and of Devi
Jagadambi only 77 feet by 50 feet. The temples at
Khajuraho are fairly well dated by inscriptions, many of
which were published in Epigraphia Indica. For shorter
but authoritative accounts of Khajuraho templers, we can
refer to James Fergusson's History of Eastern and Indian
Architecture, Vol. II, pp. 140-143, and Percy Brown's,
Indian Architecture (Hindu and Buddhist Periods), pp.
110-13.”
“17. That the deponent has gone through the valuable
Chapter /Article written by Prof. Ram Sharan Sharma
regarding the matter in issue which was published in the
book entitled as “Destruction and Conservation of Cultural
Property” Edited by Robert Layton, Peter G. Stone and
Julian Thomas, first published in 2001 by Routledge, 11
New Fetter Lane, London. This article/paper throws ample
light on the crucial issues dealt with in the aforesaid book
“Ayodhya Ka Itihas.”
478. The above witness was again recalled at the instance of
 679

the plaintiffs (Suit-4) under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. after the
ASI submitted its report to depose in support of the objections
filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) against ASI report. The statement-
in-chief by way of an affidavit dated 20.03.2006 refers to his
views on the ASI report. He claimed to have visited the site
during the course of excavation and said as under:
“2. That the Excavation report of Ayodhya dated 22nd
August, 2003 has technically served the limited purpose of
digging evidence for certain anomalies shown by the GPR
Survey, but it has misrepresented the true nature of the
structure, floors and so-called ‘pillar bases’ immediately
underlying the Babri-Masjid ruins.”
“3. That the report claims that a so-called “massive
pillared structure” of period VII underlying the mosque is
that of a the so called “massive structure”, (Pd. VII) below
the mosque and continuity of all phases from 10th century
onwards until the construction of the Babri Masjid as well
as on the stones and decorated bricks, mutilated sculptures,
carved architectural members, the alleged 50 pillar bases
associated with it and the ruins of a so-called “circular
shrine” (of Period V). A still earlier structure ascribed to
period VI has been wrongly identified as a Gahadavala
Temple (11th -12th century ). (A critical examination of the
evidence reported, however, leads to an altogether
different conclusion. The structure believed to be a
“massive” temple (of Period VII) standing at the site
before the Babri-Masjid was constructed, is in fact an
Idgah/Qanati mosque of the Sultanate period. Even the still
earlier structure (Pd. VI) is also a mosque-like structure of
the Sultanate period itself.)”
 680

“4. That the ASI’s report reaches its wrong conclusion

by pursuing a defective methodology and biased
assumptions, as will be shown hereafter.”
“5. That the excavation at Babri Masjid site extended
over 90 trenches each measuring 5x5 m. Natural soil was
reached in J3 and G7 only. Since the Layers, floors and
structures and associated remains are numbered and
recorded trench-wise, it is necessary to classify the
evidence from each of the trenches into cultural periods,
sub-period and structural phases. Even though the
stratigraphy of each trench is claimed to be finally
correlated with the general sequence of cultures at the site,
it was necessary to give a list of layers and periods trench-
wise for facilitating the testing to the conclusions of the
excavators. Such a concordance is, however not provided
in the report. (This has enabled the excavators to get away
with distorted conclusions like wrongly assigning structure
3 (North-South burnt brick wall no. 17 and Surkhi floor) to
Period. VI (11th -12th century AD) and structure 2 (North-
South burnt brick wall no. 16 and lime and Surkhi floor) to
Period VII (12th -16th century A.D.) respectively.)”
“6. That while dealing with the pottery of medieval-
Sultanate (Period VII), Mughal (Period VIII) and late and
Post Mughal 0periods (Pd. IX) the report clearly states that
“ the distinctive pottery of the periods is glazed ware” (P.
108) and that “ there is not much difference in pottery
wares and shapes” over time. The ware occurs in stratified
deposits even below the level of Floor no. 4 associated with
Period VI (structure -3, wall 17 and Surkhi floor). Yet the
excavators date the structure 3 to pre-Sultanate or the
 681

Gahadavala period (11th -12th century), which is totally

contrary to its own statements with regard to the period of
glazed ware ( Periods VII, VIII and IX). The report
elsewhere (P. 270) tells us that the glazed ware pieces
“make their appearance in the last period of period VII”.
This is not mentioned in Chapter V on Pottery. (Such a
gross manipulation could be possible because the report
avoided mentioning the association of the glazed pottery in
case of even the 21 pieces in the select list, what to speak of
the hundreds of such glazed ware items recovered (pp. 109-
111). This could not be due to any ignorance on the part of
the ASI excavators of the diagnostic value of the Muslim
glazed ware of the medieval period (Sultanate and
Mughal). The fact is deliberately ignored that Muslim
glazed ware is nowhere found associated with Hindu
Temples in either the Sultanate or the pre-Sultanate period
in North India yet the report identifies Structure 2 (wall 16
and lime Surkhi floor) with a so called massive temple
believed to be in existence from 12th to early 16th AD.)”
“7. That the glazed tiles to the type recovered from
Ayodhya are also characteristic of Muslim habitations of
medieval India. Yet the diagnostic evidence found from the
layers associated with structure 3 (wall 17 and Surkhi
floor) has been placed in Period VI (11th -12th century) and
not in Sultanate period. This is a plain example of evidence
manipulation.”
“8. That while digging the Babri Masjid site the ASI
found four successive floors associated with three so called
“massive structures dating from Period VI to VIII. These
structures had massive western walls, so called pillar bases
 682

of brickbats and of one or more stones and thick and

extensive floors of Surkhi (Pd. VI) and lime and Surkhi (VII
and VIII). The architectural style and technology of these
structures are clearly different from the early medieval
alleged “Circular Shrine” (Period V) and associated
structures of that period. The architectural fragments
reported to be associated with temples (9th -12th century) of
North India recorded by the Excavators from the filling in
the trenches, ruins of medieval structures and the
peripheral slopes of the site are either unstratified or from
the secondary context. No evidence of foundation walls,
contemporary levels or debris levels of any temple was
recovered in the primary context at the site.”
“9. What has been found below the massive Babri Masjid
remains are the ruins of a massive burnt brick structure
(wall 16, associated with lime and Surkhi floor and some
brickbat stumps with capping stones in some cases and the
so-called “pillar bases”). The burnt brick wall (16)
provided with stones in the foundation, some of which are
carved, has the same North-South orientation as that of he
Babri Masjid wall overlying it. The western wall in the
chamber has a one meter wide Mihrab in the middle and
below the Mihrab of the Western wall of the southern hall
of Babri Masjid besides a small arched Taq made of cut
bricks so typical of Islamic structures of post 1206 AD era.
The evidence of its Islamic character of the Sultanate
period is further corroborated by the occurrence of lime
and Surkhi floor and the Muslim glazed ware in these
levels. The lay-out of he structure, its architectural style
and the lime and Surkhi floor and Muslim glazed ware
 683

associated with it are unmistakably the evidence of a

Sultanate period Eidgah mosque that preceded the Babri
Masjid at the site and not of any Brahmanical temple”
“10. That a still earlier structure (Period VI) comprising
wall (17) and the thick floor of Surkhi reported to be
associated with it (below the structure of period VII) is also
made of burnt brick western wall, and runs north-south
almost to the same length and largely underlying wall 16 of
Period VII. Its floor also extends over a fairly large area as
those of the later two structures do. A few sherds of
Muslims glazed ware or tiles have also been recorded from
these levels which helps ascribing the structure to the early
part of the Sultanate period. Its broad similarities with
upper Sultanate structure of period VII in wall
construction, is extent and orientation, the lay out of the
Surkhi floors as well as association with Muslim glazed
pottery and tiles, suggest an early Sultanate period for the
structure which possibly functioned also as a Medieval
Eidgah/ mosque.”
“11. That the so called pillar bases, associated with all
the three structures of the medieval period at the site, have
not been well exposed to reconstruct comparative plans
and cross sections of the three alleged structures which
these supported. The so called pillar bases have no
symbolic features on them. Nor are these found associated
with even a single stone pillar or fragment of pillar to
suggest their \affiliation with temples. The carved capstone
on a pillar base in trench ‘F7’ dated to the 12th century on
stylistic grounds, occurs in secondary context for reuse in
the structure of Sultanate period. (The brickbat pillar bases
 684

laid in mud mortar cannot be load-bearing and may have

supported wooden posts and thatched roof at the best.) The
discovery of pedestal bases for supporting wooden pillars
in three rows parallel to the Qibla wall in the Grand
Mosque excavated at Banbhore in Sindh and its last phase
dated to the 13th century represent a similar early style of
mosque architecture. A general plan of the said mosque
and a panoramic view of the same is evident from the
photographs published in the Journal entitled as “Pakistan
Archaeology” published by the Department of Archaeology
and Museums. Government of Pakistan. A true copy of the
relevant extract of which is filed herewith as ANNEXURE
NO. 1. Stone pillars are also preserved in some Sultanate
mosques of Delhi and Hissar (Haryana). (As such the use
of pillar bases in Sultanate period cannot be exclusively
ascribed to temple architecture. The report has
conveniently ignored other solid evidence and exaggerated
the importance of pillar bases and the derived architectural
fragments for the purpose of misrepresenting the Islamic
structures as temples.)”
“12. That the report does mention the existence of a tank-
like structure below the “Ram Chabutra”, but the
excavators have wrongly ascribed the reservoir to the
earlier phases of the “Ram Chabutra” and wrongly
identified four projections in the middle of the four walls of
he tank in original form (pp. 49-51). They have produced
no evidence to substantiate their contention. (My close
observation of the structure at the site revealed that the
reservoir had only two east-west projections and the “Ram
Chabutra” was constructed in two phases only after filling
 685

the reservoir.) The report shows no evidence of any

correlation of the reservoir with phases of Babri Masjid
construction.”
“13. That a critical analysis of he report shows that it lays
unjustified emphasis on the continuity of cultural and
structural activities at the site from Gupta period onwards
down to the Mughal era and lacks appreciation of change
in type, function and style of the architecture distinguished
by ‘Mihrabs’ and arched ‘Taq’, in he technique of
constructing floors of lime and surkhi, and in the use of
Muslim glazed ware so characteristic of Islamic tradition
as distinct from the Brahmanical temple architecture of
North India. The Report reveals a selective and one-sided
use of he evidence such as of the pillar bases that have no
diagnostic features and no exclusive relationship with
temple and of architectural and sculptural fragments lying
unstratified or in secondary context. What is most
objectionable is the suppression of evidence that militated
against the preconceived theory of temple below the Babri
mosque, such as Muslim glazed pottery, glazed tiles, bones,
Islamic features of ‘Miharab’ and ‘Taq’ and reservoir in
the Babri mosque below the “Ram Chabutra” etc. The
report also underplays the absence of the remains of any
stone pillars standing over the so called “pillar bases” and
similarities in the layout of structures of periods VI and VII
(wall 16 and 17) and Babri Masjid, and their
dissimilarities with pre-Sultanate structures such as the
“circular shrine” of period VI. There is also an attempt to
assign the Islamic structure, with its lime and Surkhi floor,
to a supposed Gahadavala temple, without an iota of
 686

evidence. Last but not the least, the report shows

discrepancies and distortions in the periodisation and
chronology. The attempt to push back the date of NBPW
period to century 1000 BC on no valid grounds and the
dating of periods VI and VII, both associated with glazed
ware and tiles and Surkhi floor, to pre-Sultanate period is
baseless and motivated.”
“14. That the report, on the whole, lacks scientific rigour,
objectivity and professional integrity. Such trends and
tendencies in Indian archeology pose a serious challenge
not only to the world of historians but also to those citizens
who are interested in truth and nothing but the truth.”
479. PW 18, Suvira Jaiswal, aged about 66 years (on 19
February, 2001 when her statement commenced), wife of Lt. Sri
Viswanath Prasad Jaiswal, is resident of 101, S.M.R. Majestic,
Jupiter Colony, Sikh Road, Sikandrabad. Her cross examination
followed as under :
(a) 19/20-02-2001- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 2-33)
(b) 22-02-2001- by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13, through
Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 34-42)
(c) 22/23-02-2001, 19/20/21-03-2001- by Sri Umesh
Chandra Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 42-103)
(d) 21/22.03.2001- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
103-122)
(e) 22-03-2001, 01/03/04.05.2001- by Hindu Mahasabha,
defendant no. 10 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi,
defendant no. 17, through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
 687

(p. 122-157)
(f) 04-05-2001- Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocated, adopted the cross examination already done
by other defendants (p. 157)
(g) 04.05.2001- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 157-163)
480. She did graduation and post graduation (1953) from
Allahabad University. Her subject of special studies in M.A.
was “History of Ancient India”. She did Ph.D. in three or three
and half years from Patna University under Dr. Ram Saran
Sharma and her subject of research was “Vaishnav Dharma Ka
Udbhav Aur Vikas” (Origin and Development of Vaishnavism).
She joined Patna University as Lecturer in 1962 and thereafter
came to Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi in 1971
whereat she became Professor in 1984 and retired in June, 1999.
On the subject of present dispute, Conference of Indian
Historians was regularly held and she participated therein. She
also regularly participated in Seminars of Indian History
Congress. In January, 2001 one Seminar of Indian History
Congress was held at Calcutta, where she participated. About
the disputed place, she said:
“eSaus vius v/;;u esa JhjkepUnz ds ckjs esa Hkh v/;;u fd;k gSA
eSaus Jh jkepUnz th ds Åij dqN ys[k Hkh fy[ks gSa esjs }kjk fy[kk x;k
ys[k Jh jke ij esjh }kjk fgUnh ds vuqokn dh iqLrd esa izdkf'kr gks
pqdk gSA bfrgkl dh iqLrdksa esa vFkkZr izekf.kr iqLrdksa esa jkepUnz th
ds tUe ds ckjs esa fdlh LFkku fo'ks"k dk mYys[k ugha feyrk gSA vFkkZr
muds tUe LFky dk mYys[k ugha feyrk gSA esj h n` f "V es a ,sl k
dk sb Z mYy s[ k bfrgkl dh iq L rdk s a es a ugh a feyrk gS tk s fd
;g n'kkZ r k gk s fd ckcjh efLtn tgk a fLFkr Fkh ogk a ij
Jh jke dk tUe gq v k gk s A Jh ch0ch0yky us tks mR[kuu dk;Z
 688

fd;k gS mlds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd v;ks/;k 700 bZlk

iwoZ dksbZ Hkh cLrh vFkkZr vkcknh gksus dk izek.k ugha feyrk gSA
bl rjg dk dk sb Z Hkh iz e k.k esj h tkudkjh esa ugh a
feyrk gS ] ftlls ;g fofnr gk s fd ckcjh efLtn dk
fuekZ . k jke eaf nj dk s rk sM +d j fd;k x;k gk s A esjs ys[k lks'ky
lkbafVLV] ,DvkvksjsfVfy;k] bfM;u fgLV~h dkaxzsl izksflafMax] bf.M;u
dkmUly fgLVksfjdy fjO;w vkfn esa Nis gSaA esjh ,d fdrkc dk uke
^^vksfjtu ,.M Msaoyies.V vkQ oS".kte** gSA nwljh iqLrd dk uke
^^dkLV** gSA esjh igyh iqLrd 1967 esa igyh ckj Nih FkhA”
“During my studies, I have studied about Sri
Ramchandra also. I have written some articles as well
about Sri Ramchandra. My article Sri Ram has been
published in my Hindi translation book. In History books
i.e. authentic books, no reference is found about any
specific place as the birthplace of Ramchandra ji, or in
other words no reference is found about His birthplace. In
my view no reference is found in history books to show
that Sri Ram was born at the place where the Babri
mosque stood. From the excavation carried out by Sri B.B.
Lal, it can be said that no evidence is found about existence
of any town or populace in Ayodhya prior to 700 BC.
In my knowledge there is no such evidence, so as
to show that the Babri mosque had been built after
destructing Ram temple. My articles have been published
in Social Scientist, Acaoretiliya, Indian History Congress
Proceeding, Indian Council Review etc. Origin and
Development of Vaishnavaism is one of my books. The
other book is ‘Caste’. My first book was initially published
in the year 1967.” (E.T.C.)
481. PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi, aged about 51 years (on
24.07.2001, when her deposition commenced), wife of Lt. Sri
 689

Jafar Hussain, is resident of Aligarh. She is a Reader in the

Department of History, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Her cross examination took about four months:
(a) 25/26-07-2001- by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate(p. 12-42)
(b) 27-07-01/20/21/22/23-08-01-by Sri Umesh Chandra
Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 43-102)
(c) 23/25-08-2001-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 102-118 )
(d)10-09-2001- by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
119-131)
(e)10/11-09-2001- by Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10
and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17,
through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 131-140)
(f)11-09-01/19-11-2001 -by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri
P.L. Mishra, Advocated (p. 140-145)
(g) 19-11-2001- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri Deoki
Nandan Agarwal, Advocate (p. 145-147)
(e) 19-11-2001- re-examination with the permission of
the Court (p. 147-148)
482. A Professor in the Department of History in Aligarh
Muslim University (hereinafter referred to as 'A.M.U.') since
1988, she belong to Lucknow and obtained her degree in B.Sc.
and M.Sc. from Lucknow University, taught Mathematics at
Karamat Girls Degree College, Lucknow sometimes in 1970
and from April 1970 joined at A.M.U. as Teacher and thereafter
passed M.A. (History) as a private student from A.M.U. and
 690

therefrom also did Ph.D. in 1980. Her subject in Ph.D. was

“Economy of Mughal Empire-A Statical Study”. She became
Professor in 1988. Earlier thereto, she also taught at Chicago
University in 1984 and held the office of Chairman i.e. Head of
the Department in A.M.U. from 1997 to 1999. Her experience
and other achievements in the field of her studies are :
(i) Fulbright fellowship from Chicago university and
M.I.T. from U.S.A.
(ii) Visiting Professor Fellow in Shimal Institute of
Advance Study as well as M.A. University, Baroda.
(iii) Residency of Rocker Filler Foundation.
(iv) “Extraordinary Carrier Award” given by University
Grants Commission in 1988.
(v) Secretary for three years of Indian History Congress,
tenure ended on 31.03.2001.
(vi) Member of Executive Board of International
Commission for Historical Demography
(vii) Attended International Conferences for 8-9 times
and visited America, Japan, England, Belgium,
France, Netherland, Switzerland and Spain.
(viii) Delivered Lecture abroad i.e., at Oxford University,
Cambridge University, London University, Chicago
and Virginia.
(ix) Member for two terms of History panel of
University Grants Commission.
(x) Nominee of Ministry of Education for Foreign
Scholarship Committee of University Grants
Commission.
(xi) Elected Member in the Executive of Indian History
Congress for several times.
 691

(xii) Elected as Vice-President and President of U.P.

History Congress.
483. Besides, she is author of two books namely “Economy of
Mughal Empire-A Statical Study” published by Oxford
University and “Episode in the Life of Akbar” published by
National Book Trust of India. Both books are written in English
but the first book was translated in Bengali and Hindi and the
later one was translated in Hindi, Urdu, Marathi and Malyalam.
A shorter book namely, “Men and Nature of Mugahl Era” has
also been published. She edited a book in respect of 1857 events
and is currently busy in writing a “Dictionary of Mughal India”.
She is author of various articles i.e., about 40-50 published in
various journals in India and abroad namely Journal of Royal
Asiatic Society, London, Journal of Social and Economic
History of Orient Netherland, Anals France etc. In India her
articles have been published in Indian Economic and Social
History Review, Indian History Review and Men and
Environment. She claims to have studied complete Mughal
period which included the period of Babar. Regarding Babar, his
visit at Ayodhya and the alleged construction of mosque etc. she
deposed as under:
“tgkWa rd ckcj dk Hkkjr esa vkus dk i'u gS ,oa mlds vius
eSekbjl] Mk;jh ls iz r hr gk sr k gS fd ckcj dV~ V joknh ugh a
FkkA eq > s vius v/;;u es a e/;dkyhu ;q x es a ,sl k dk sb Z Hkh
lk{; ;k iz e k.k ugh a feyk ftlls ;g eky we gk s fd ckcjh
efLtn fdlh eaf nj dk s rk sM +d j cukbZ x;h gk sA ckcj ds vkus
ds igys yxHkx 1206 ls v;k s/ ;k es a eq l yekuk s a dh vkcknh gk s
x;h FkhA blds daV SEi sj sj h lk sl Z sl es a efLtn bZ n xkg]
dfcz L rku] enjls vkfn ik;s tkrs Fk sA [kqn dgk fd 1192 ls
igys v;k s/ ;k esa eq l yekuk s a ds gk su s ds dk sb Z lcwr ugh a
feyrs gS aA 1206 ds ckn ftu ledkyhu lw=ksa esa eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh
 692

dk ftdz v;ks/;k esa feyrk gS mlesa [kkS:yekftfyl] Qok;nqy Qokn]

rcdkrsuklsjh vkfn gSaA [kS:yektkfyl 13oha lnh esa fy[kh x;h Fkh bl
iqLrd dks futkeqn~nhu vkSfy;k ds opu gSa tks fd ehjglu fltth us
ladfyr fd;s gSaA Qok;nqy Qokn 'ks[k ulh:n~nhu fpjkx ds opu gSa
tks fd ,d txg ladfyr dj fn;s x;s gSaA rodkrsukfljh feugkt+
fljkt }kjk jfpr gSA Qok;qny Qokn 1353 dh jfpr gSA
rcdkrsukfljh esa fy[kk gS fd 1206 esa v;ks/;k esa nsgyh lYrur
ds uqekbans dks caxky esa ;q) ds fy, tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k FkkA
ckcjh efLtn ds Åij ,d bUlfdz I lu yxk gq v k Fkk
tk s rhu Hkkxk sa esa foHkkftr Fkk ftlds dq N Hkkx csc fjt us
ckcjukes a es a Nkis Fk s ijUrq iwj k bUldz I 'ku 1965 ds
,ihxz k fQ;kbaf Mdk es a tk s ,0,l0vkbZ 0 dk iz d k'ku gS Nik
gS iwj k Nik gS A ;g Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa gS vkS j ulQ fLdz I V
es a gS A bles a ;g fy[kk gS fd bl efLtn dk s 1528&29 es a
ehjckdh cuok;k gS vkS j ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ;g ckcj ds
gq D e ,oa ea' kk ij cu jgk gS A bldh rgjhj ls gh bldks
U;wesfjdyh fudkyus ij bldh rkjh[k dk irk pyrk gSA blesa ,slk
dqN Hkh ugha fy[kk gS fd ;g efLtn fdlh eafnj dks rksM+dj cukbZ x;h
gksA ckcjh efLtn cuus ds ckn djhc nkS lkS lky ls T;knk 1760
rd ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha feyrk gS fd ;gkWa eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cukbZ
x;h gS ;k ;gkWa ij dksbZ eafnj dHkh jgk gksA bl txg dks dHkh Hkh
jketUe Hkwfe ugha dgk x;kA jketUe vFkkZr jketUe LFkku ds uke ls
dHkh ugha tkuk x;kA teZu ;k=h VkbZQu fFkzyj Hkkjr 1760&70 ds chp
esa vk;s Fks vkSj mudk ,dkmUV 1788 esa Nik Fkk mlesa mUgksaus igyh ckj
;g fy[kk gS fd ,slk dgk tkrk gS fd ,d efLtn v;ks/;k esa eafnj
rksM+dj vkSjaxtsc us efLtn us cuk;k gSA ;g Hkh mUgk sau s fy[kk gS
fd ;fn efLtn eaf nj rk sM +d j cukbZ x;h gS rk s og ckcj
ds le; rk sM +k x;k gk sx k D;k sf d ml ij ckcj ds le; ds
bUldz I 'ku gSaA VkbZQu fFkzyj ds bl o`rkar ls ;g Li"V gS fd
fytsUM cuuk 'kq: gks x;k Fkk fd ckcjh efLtn jke eafnj rksM+dj
cukbZ x;hA**
“So far as the issue of arrival of Babar in India is
 693

concerned and from his own memoirs, diary it appears

that Babar was not an orthodox. During my studies I
have not come across any such evidence or proof of
medieval period to suggest that Babri mosque had been
built by destroying any temple. The Muslim populace
had come into existence in Ayodhya around 1206, prior
to arrival of Babar. Mosque, ‘Idgah’ (a site where Id and
other Muslim celebrations are held), graveyard,
‘Madarsa’ (school imparting Islamic education) etc.
were found in its contemporary sources. Stated on his
own that evidence about presence of Muslims in
Ayodhya prior to1192, is not found. The post 1206
contemporary sources containing references of Muslim
populace include Khaurulmajalis, Favayedul Favad,
Tabkatenseri etc. The Khaurulmajalis was composed in the
13th century and contains the sayings of Nizamuddin
Auliya, compiled by Mir Hassan Sijaji. The Favayedul
Favad is a collection of sayings of Sheikh Nasiruddin
Chirag, which have been compiled at one single place. The
Tabkatenseri has been composed by Minhaj Siraj. The
Favayedul Favad is a creation of 1353.
It has been mentioned in Tabkatenseri that in 1206
the representative of Delhi Sultanat in Ayodhya had been
ordered to go to Bengal for war.
There was an inscription over the Babri mosque,
which was divided in three parts, and few of its extract
had been published by Bebridge in ‘Babarnama’, but the
complete inscription has been published in
Epigraphiaindica of 1965, which is a publication of ASI.
It is in Persian language and Nasaf script. It has been
 694

mentioned in it that this mosque had been built by Mir

Baqi in 1528-29 and also that it was being built on the
direction and desire of Babar. Its date is discovered
numerically from its contents. It has nowhere been
mentioned in it that this mosque had been built by
destroying any temple. Even more than about 200 years
after the building of Babri mosque i.e. till 1760, no
evidence is found to suggest that mosque was built here
after destroying temple or that any temple ever existed at
that place. This place was never called Ramjanmbhumi. It
was never known as Ramjanm or Ramjanmsthan. The
German traveler Typhon Thaylor visited India between
1760-70 and his accounts were published in 1788. It was
first mentioned by him therein that it was claimed that a
mosque in Ayodhya had been built by Aurangzeb by
destroying a temple. He has also mentioned that if the
mosque had been built by destroying a temple, then it
must have been destroyed in the period of Babar because
it had inscriptions of Babar’s period. From the said
description of Typhon Thaylor it is clear that the legend
that Babri mosque had been built by destroying Ram
temple, was in the making.” (E.T.C.)
484. P.W. 24, Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal, aged about 69
years (in February, 2002), son of Late Sri K. N. Mandal, is
resident of Bajrangbali Road, Naya Gaon, Post Jamalpur,
District Munger (Bihar). He was examined twice. Firstly in
2002 (deposition commenced on 25.02.2002) and secondly in
2005 (i.e after excavation).
Part-I :25-02-2002-Examination-in- Chief (p. 1-8)
Cross examination:(a)25/26-02-2002- by Nirmohi Akhara
 695

through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 9-28)

(b) 27/20-02-2002, 01-03-2002-by Umesh Chandra
Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 29- 62)
(c) 01/04-03-2002-by Dharamdas, defendant no. 13,
through Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 63-77 )
(d) 04/05-03-2002-by Sri Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2. through Sri Madan Mohan Advocate (p.
77-89)
(e) 05-03-2002-Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10 and
Sri Raesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through Sri
Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 89-94)
(f) 05-03-2002-Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad, plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Mishra,
Advocated, adopted the cross examination already done
by other defendants (p. 94)
(g) 05-03-2002- by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri
Vireshwar Dwivedi (P. 94-95)
Part-II :05-12-2005-Examination-in- Chief by affidavit
(p. 96-130, Appendix-p. 131-140)
Cross examination:(a) 05/06/07/08-12-2005- by Nirmohi
Akhara through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate and Tarunjeet
Verma, Advocate (p. 142-178)
(b) 08/09/12/13-12-2005- by Sri Madan Mohan Gupta,
plaintiff (Suit-4) through Sri Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate
(p. 279-219)
(c) 13/14/15/16/19-12-2005- by Sri Dharmdas defendant
no. 13/1 (Suit-4) through Sri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate (p.
219-263)
(d) 19/20/21/-12-2005- by Mahant Suresh Das, defendant
 696

no. 2/1 (Suit-4) through Sri Madan Mohan Pandey,

Advocate (p. 263-295)
(e) 22/23-12-2005, 04-01-2006-by plaintiffs (Suit-5)
through Sri A.K. Pandey, Advocate and Sri Ved Prakas,
Advocate (p. 296-332)
(f) 04-01-2006- Plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L. Verma,
Advocate and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no.
17 (Suit-5) through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi adopted cross
examination by Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate, and
Sri Ved Prakash Advocate.
485. He was a Professor in the Department of Ancient
History, Culture and Archaeology, Allahabad University,
Allahabad and retired in 1993. He got his early education in
Patna, graduation and post graduation from Allahabad
University. In M.A. his subjects were Ancient History, Culture
and Archaeology. Though he is not Ph.D., but many others have
been awarded Ph.D. under his guidance. He was appointed as
Exploration Assistant in the department of Ancient History,
Culture and Archaeology in Allahabad University in 1960 and
then became Lecturer, Reader and Professor in the same
University. He was member of Ancient History Congress and
President of its Archaeological Section in conference held at
Bhopal in December 2001. His address in the capacity of
President delivered in the concerned session was also published.
He appeared as expert witness (Archaeology) and about the
subject of archaeology, deposed as under :
^^vkfdZ;ksykth dks fgUnh esa iqjkrRo dgrs gSA bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;
esa izkphu bfrgkl foHkkx dh vksj ls geus yxHkx 33 o"kksZa rd v/;kiu
rFkk {ks=h; iqjkrRo esa dk;Z fd;kA vkSj {ks=h; iqjkrRo ds {ks= esa izkphu
ekuo fodkl dh ftruh voLFkk;sa gks ldrh gS mu lHkh voLFkkvksa ls
lEc) iqjkLFkyksa dk fof/kor mR[kuu fd;k gS] vkSj fof/kor mR[kuu ls
 697

esjk rkRi;Z oSKkfud fof/k ij vk/kkfjr mR[kuu ls gSA bl izdkj ds

dkykssa esa vijiSfy;ksfyfFkd] eslksfyfFkd] fu;ksfyfFkd] pkydksfyfFkd rFkk
fgLVkfjdy ihfj;M gSA vius lfoZl ds nkSjku eSaus yxHkx 5 egRoiw.kZ
iqjkLFkyksa dk ,DlDos'ku vFkkZr mR[kuu fd;k gS blh izdkj yxHkx 200
losZ{k.k ¼,DlIyksjs'ku&½ dk dk;Z fd;k gSA
iqjkrRo ds vUrZxr ge ekuo ,oa ekuo lekt ds fodkl dk
v/;;u djrs gSa bl v/;;u ds vUrZxr eq[;r% HkkSfrd lalkj ls lEc)
vaxks dk gh v/;;u fd;k tkrk gSA bl fo"k; ds vUrZxr vk/;kfRed
lalkj ls lEc) fdlh vaxks dk v/;;u djuk dfBu gh ugha vlEHko
gSA bl fo"k; dk {ks= vR;ar O;kid gS] blds vUrZxr HkwrRo 'kkL=
(Geology) dh n`f"V ls lEiw.kZ prqFkZd ¼DokVjujh½ ftlds vUrZxr
IykbLVkslhu rFkk gksykslhu dky dk v/;;u fd;k tkrk gSA iqjkrRo
'kkL= dh n`f"V ls ¼vFkkZr vkfdZ;ksykftdyh½ ik"kk.k ;qx ls ysdj
ykSg ;qx rd dk v/;;u fd;k tkrk gSA iqjkrRo vuqla/kku dh eq[;
fof/k;ksa esa losaZ{k.k rFkk mR[kuu dks j[krs gSA mR[kuu dk;Z ds fy,
fo'ks"k izf'k{k.k dh vko';drk vfuok;Z gS] D;ksafd mR[kuu dk;Z ,d
esfMdy vkijs'ku dh Hkkfr gS vkSj esfMdy vkijs'ku dh gh rjg iwjh
rS;kjh djuh iM+rh gS fo'ks"k Vsªfuax vfuok;Z gSA fdlh Hkou vo'ks"k ds
frfFk fu/kkZj.k dh nks fof/k;ka gS ,d fjysfVo] ;kfu lkis{k] vkSj nwljh
,clY;wVA iqjkrRo lkexzh vFkkZr vkfdZ;ksykftdy eSVhfj;y rFkk
vkfdZ;ksykftdy lk{; ;g nksauks fHkUu gSaA ekuo fufeZr dksbZ Hkh oLrq
iqjkrkfRod lkexzh gks ldrh gS] ysfdu iqjkrkfRod lk{; ds fy, ;g
furkUr vko';d gS fd og vius lanHkZ ls lEc) gksA tks oLrq lanHkZ ls
lEc) gS mldh gh x.kuk iqjkrkfRod lk{; ds vUrZxr fd;k tk ldrk
gSA iqjkrkfRod lkexzh ;fn lk{; ds :i esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gks rks ;g
vko';d gS fd mldh izkfIr oSKkfud fof/k }kjk gqvk gksA mudk lanHkZ
ls tqM+k gksuk vko';d gSA
iqjkrRo mR[kuu ds fy, ,oa losZ{k.k ds fy, ykbZlsal dk ysuk
vko';d gSaA ;g ykbZlsal vkfdZ;ksykftdy losZ vkQ bafM;k }kjk fuxZr
fd;k tkrk gSA ykbZlasl ysuk blfy, vko';d gS rkfd dsoy Vsª.M
O;fDr gh mR[kuu o losZ{k.k dk dk;Z dj ldsaA
mR[kuu esa fjdkfMZx dh vge Hkwfedk gSA fjdkfMZax ds vUrZxr
 698

eq[; :i esa QksVksxzkQ] MªkbZx] rFkk ukitks[k vkfn vkrs gSA mR[kfur
oLrqvksa dks fjdkMZ djuk vko';d gksrk gSaA blesa QksVksxzkQ dh lcls
cM+h Hkwfedk gSA **bu flVw** QksVksxzkQ dks fgUnh esa ;Fkkor Nk;kadu dg
ldrss gS vkSj QksVksxzkfQd fjdkfMZx esa lcls vge Hkwfedk **bu flVw**
QksVksxzkQ dk gSA^^
“Archaeology is called ‘Puratatva’ in Hindi. I did
teaching work and regional archaeology for about 33 years
on behalf of Ancient History Department of Allahabad
University. In the field of regional archaeology, I duly
carried out excavation of archaeological sites related to all
the stages of human evolution. By due excavation, I mean
the excavation based on scientific method. These stages
include upper paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic, chalcolithic
and historical periods. In my service period, I have carried
out excavation of five important archaeological sites.
Similarly, I have carried out about 200 explorations.
In archaeology, we study about human beings and
the evolution of human society. This study mainly includes
the aspects related to the physical world. The study of any
aspect of the spiritual world is not only difficult but
impossible under this subject. This subject has wide
domain and the Geology under it includes the study of
Pleistocene and Holocene periods in complete quaternary.
From archaeological point of view, the study extends from
the stone age to iron age. Exploration and excavation are
the main methods of archaeological research. Special
training is essential for excavation work because it is like a
medical operation, and complete preparations have to be
made alike a medical operation. There are two methods of
determining the age of remains of any building, one is
relative and the other is absolute. The archaeological
 699

material and archaeological evidence are two different

things. Any man made object can be archaeological
materials but in order to be archaeological evidence, it is
extremely necessary that it is related to its reference. The
object which is related to its reference, can only be
consider as archaeological evidence. If the archaeological
material is produced as evidence, it is essential that it has
been obtained by scientific method. Its relation with the
reference is essential.
It is necessary to obtain license for archaeological
excavation and exploration. This license is issued by
Archaeological Survey of India. The license is essential so
that only trained people may carry out the excavation and
exploration work.
The recording occupies an important place in
excavation. Recording mainly includes photograph,
drawing, measurement etc.. It is essential to record the
excavated materials. The photograph plays the most
important role in this. ‘In situ’ photograph can be said to
be ‘yathawat chhayankan’ (as it is photograph) in Hindi
and the in situ photograph has the most important role in
photographic recording.” (E.T.C.)
^^eSaus vius Åij ds c;ku esa vkfdZ;ksykth foKku ds fof/k;ksa ls
lacaf/kr tks c;ku fn;k gS og ewyr% ftl iqLrd ij vk/kkfjr gS mldk
uke ^^vkfdZ;ksykth Qzke n vFkZ** gS ftlds ys[kd lj ekfVZej Oghyj
gSA**
“In my statement hereinabove, the statement related
to methods of archaeology science, is mainly based on Sir
Martimar Wheeler’s book ‘Archaeology From The
Earth’.” (E.T.C.)
486. PW-24 is author of a book regarding the disputed building
 700

namely “Ayodha- Archaeology after Demolition” published in

1993 and re-printed in 1994. (Exhibit-63, Suit-4). About his
book and idea for writing the book, he said:
^^jketUeHkwfe ckcjh efLtn fookn ds lEcU/k esa iqjkrRo dh cM+h
Hkwfedk gSA D;ksafd tc tehu ds uhps dh ckrksa ls dksbZ fookn tqM+k gks
rks ml fLFkfr esa iqjkrRo ds fcuk fookn dks lqy>kuk dfBu gSA**
“Archaeology has a very important role in
Ramjanmbhumi- Babri mosque dispute, because in cases
where the dispute is related to underground facts, then in
said situation it is not possible to resolve the dispute
without archaeology.” (E.T.C.)
^^bl iqLrd dk v/;;u {ks= ckcjh efLtn rFkk blds fudVorhZ
dk HkwHkkx gS vFkkZr Hkw{ks= gSA bl iqLrd dk lkslZ eSVhfj;y ;kfu Jksr
lkexzh fgLVksfj;u Qksje }kjk izdkf'kr ,d fo'ks"k cqdysV ftldk uke
jketUeHkwfe v;ks/;k U;w vkfdZ;ksykftdy fMLdojh gSA bl cqdysV esa
ekuuh; ch0ch0yky egksn; }kjk ckcjh efLtn ds nf{k.k esa mR[kuu dk
,d fo'ks"k QksVksxzkQ izdkf'kr gSA og QksVksxzkQ Jksr lkexzh dk vge
vax gS] Jksr ds lEcU/k esaA ¼bl fcUnq ij xokg dk /;ku fo}ku odhy
lkgc us vU; ewyokn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la0 118&lh&1@35
dh vksj fnyk;k½ bl iqLrd ds VkbZfVy ist ds ihNs rLohj dh vksj
fnyk;k x;k ftls xokg us ns[kdj dgk fd ;g ogh QksVks gS ftldk
mYys[k eSaus Åij fd;k gSA
blh fp= dks eSaus viuh iqLrd izn'kZ 63 esa IysV I& IysV I I
IysV I I I rFkk IysV IV ds uke ls viuh iqLrd ds ist &34 ds ckn
nf'kZr fd;k gSA IysV& IV ij eSaus tks n'kkZ;k gS] mUgsa LrEHk vk/kkj
¼fiyj cslst½+ dgk x;k gSA ;s fiyj cslst bZV ls cusA bl fp= ds
v/;;u ds QyLo:i ge bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaps fd ckcjh efLtn ds
uhps eafnj ugha FkkA pwWafd ;g LrEHk vk/kkj lEiw.kZ bZV ls ugha cuk gS
pwWafd blesa bZV ds VqdM+ksa dk gh bLrseky gqvk gS] vr% bldk iRFkj ds
fiylZ ds cks> dks lguk dfBu gSA blds vfrfjDr geus ;g ik;k fd
os LrEHk vk/kkj gS a gh ugh a] os nhoky ds vax gS a A ¼bl fcUnq
 701

ij oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us xokg dk /;ku vU; ewy okn

la[;k&5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la0&118 lh&1@35 ist la[;k 1dh vksj
fnyk;k] ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd bl isij ds ist&1 ls vUr rd
dk eSaus v/;;u fd;k gS vkSj viuh iqLrd esa mfYyf[kr iqjkrkfRod
lkexzh dks dze'k% eSaus fMLdojh ua0&2 vkSj fMLdojh ua0&3 dgk gSA
blh izdkj Åij dgs x;s QksVksxzkQ dks ftlesa vk/kkj LraHk gS viuh
iqLrd esa fMLdojh ua0&1 esa dgk gS A fMLdojh ua0&2 vkSj 3 dks eSa
flQZ iqjkrkfRod lkexzh ekuwaxk] u fd iqjkrkfRod lk{;A bls ge
fof/kor mR[kuu ls izkIr lkexzh ugha ekusaxsA fMLdojh ua0&3 ds vUrxZr
bZV dh nhokj vkSj nks [kkb;kWa gSA isij ua0&118lh&1@35 tks dqN
fo}kuksa }kjk jfpr gS] ds fMLdojh ua0&3 ds lkFk nks ywt 'khV layXu
Fks] os fMLdojh ua0&2 o 3 ls lEc) izLrqr iqjkrkfRod lsD'ku]
lEcfU/kr M~kbzx gS] tks bl iqLrd ds lkFk layXu ugha gSA vU; ewy okn
la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la[;k&118lh&1@95 dks ns[kdj xokg us
dgk fd ;g fMLdojh ua0&3 ls lEc) gSA vFkkZr fMLdojh ua0&3 ls
tks eSVhfj;y feyk mlds lsD'ku dk Mªkbax gS A blh okn esa nkf[ky
isij la[;k 118 lh&1@94 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd ;g fMLdojh
uEcj 2 ls lEcfU/kr gS] fMldojh uEcj 2 ds lssD'ku dk Mªkbax tks
blesa miyC/k ugha gSA fMLdojh ua0&3 ls laca/k lsD'ku dk Mªkbax
118lh&1@95 dks eSaus viuh iqLrd ds ist 24 ij izLrqr fd;k gSA
fMLdojh ua0&2 ls lEcfU/kr ftl lsD'ku dk gokyk mijksDr c;ku esa
fn;k gS] og bu dkxtkrksa esa ugha miyC/k gS] mldks eSaus viuh iqLrd
ds ist&21 ij n'kkZ;k gSA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us xokg dk /;ku
vU; ewy oknla0&589 esa nkf[ky iqLrd&isij ua0&289lh&1 ds
ifjf'k"V&[k ds ist la[;k 289 lh 1@211 dh vksj fnyk;k] ftls
ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd blesa fn[kk;s gq, f'kykys[k ¼bUlfdzI'ku½ dh
QksVks gSA bl f'kykys[k ds lEcU/k esa eSaus lquk gS vkSj i<+k Hkh gSA 6
fnlEcj 1992 dks tc ckcjh efLtn <gk;k x;k vkSj ftu lkefxz;ksa dks
ogkWa ls izkIr le>k x;k] vkSj ftldk mYys[k Hkkjr ds v[kckjksa esa Nik
mu lkefxz;ksa dks Qzs'k fMLdojh dgk x;k gS vkSj bl Qzs'k fMLdojh dk
v/;;u geus fd;k gS ftldk fMVsy gekjh iqLrd izn'kZ&63 ds ist&49
ls 55 ij fn;k x;k gSA^^
 702

“The scope of study of this book is the Babri mosque

and the landed area in its vicinity. The source material of
this book is a special booklet titled ‘Ramjanmbhumi
Ayodhya New Archaeological Discovery’ published by
Historian Forum. This book contains a special photograph
of the excavation carried out in south of the Babri mosque
by Sri B.B. Lal. This photograph is main part of the source
material regarding the source. (at this point the attention of
the witness was drawn by the advocate to paper no. 118C-
1/35 filed in O.O.S. 5/89). The (attention of the witness)
was drawn to the picture published on back of the title
page, and after looking at it the witness said that it was the
same photograph, about which I have stated above.
I have given this photograph in my book after page
no. 34 as Plate-I, Plate-II, Plate-III and Plate-IV in Exhibit
63. The depiction at Plate-IV, is called pillar bases. These
pillar bases were made up of bricks. Consequent to study of
this photograph, we arrived at the conclusion that temple
was not under the Babri mosque, because this base was not
completely made up of bricks and since brick pieces were
used therein, hence it was difficult for them to bear the load
of stone pillars. Apart from this, we also found that they
were not pillar bases at all and instead were part of wall.
At this point, the attention of the witness was drawn
towards page no. 1 of paper no. 118C-1/35 filed in O.O.S.
no. 5/89 and after looking at it the witness stated that I
have gone through page no. 1 to end of this paper and the
archaeological materials mentioned in my book, have been
mentioned as Discovery no. 2 and Discovery no. 3
respectively. Similarly, the photograph mentioned above,
 703

which depict the pillar base, has been mentioned as

Discovery no. 1 in my book. I would consider the Discovery
no. 2 and Discovery no. 3, only as archaeological material
and not archaeological evidence. We would not consider
them to be materials obtained by due excavation. The
Discovery no. 3 includes brick wall and two trenches. Two
loose sheets were enclosed with Discovery no. 3 of paper
no. 118C-1/35, which is composed by few scholars. They
are drawing related to concerned archaeological section of
Discovery no. 2 and 3, which are not part of this book. On
looking at paper no. 118C-1/95 filed in O.O.S. no. 5/89, the
witness stated that it is related to Discovery no. 2 but the
drawing of the section of Discovery no. 2 is not available in
it. The section drawing 118C-1/95 related to Discovery no.
3, has been given by me at page no. 24 of my book. The
section related to Discovery no. 2 referred by me
hereinabove, is not available in these documents. I have
given it at page 21 of my book. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff drew the attention of the witness to page no.
289C1/211 of Appendix B of paper no. 289C-1 filed in
O.O.S no. 5/89, and after looking at it the witness stated
that it was the photograph of inscriptions. I have heard and
read about this inscription. When the Babri mosque was
demolished on 6th December, 1992 and the articles which
were considered to have recovered from there, and which
were published in newspapers of India, the said articles
were termed as fresh discovery and this fresh discovery has
been studied by us, whose details are contained at page 49
to 55 of my book, exhibit 63.” (E.T.C.)
487. Concerning the inscription, alleged to be found at the
 704

time of demolition of the disputed building on 06.12.1992, he

presented a paper in the conference of Association of Study of
History and Archaeology (in short “ASHA”) sometimes in
1998-99 held at Calcutta and in this regard, he said:
^^ftl f'kykys[k dk eSaus Åij c;ku fd;k gS mls eSa ek=
iqjkrkfRod lkexzh ekurk gwWaA eSaus vius Åij ds c;ku esa dgk gS fd
iqjkrkfRod lk{; ds fy, izkIr lkexzh dk lanHkZ ls lEc) gksuk furkUr
vko';d gSA pwWafd ;g vfHkys[k ftldk ftdz gks jgk gS og vius lanHkZ
ls lEc) ugha gS] blfy, og ek= lkexzh gS u fd lk{;A
vxj dksbZ f'kykys[k fdlh nhokj esa pquk x;k gks rks ml fLFkfr
esa ml f'kykys[k ij xkjk] IykLVj fo|eku gksuk vko';d gS] vkSj vxj
ml f'kykys[k ds lEcU/k esa fookn gS rks ml ij yxs gq,] xkjs ds
IykLVj dk ,ukfyfll vko';d gSA lkFk gh lkFk ftl nhokj esa ml
f'kykys[k ds yxs gksus dh ckr dgh x;h gS ml nhokj ds Hkh] xkjs
IykLVj dk dsfedy ,ukfyfll djds nksuksa ds ikjLifjd laca/k dh
igpku djuk vfr vko';d gSA
fMLdojh ua0&2 ls lEcfU/kr lsD'ku dh Mªkbax tks isij ua0&
118lh&1@35 esa ugh Fkk] og isij ua0&289 lh0&1@206 ij n'kkZ;k
x;k gSA**
“The inscription mentioned by me hereinabove, is
considered mere archaeological material by me. I have
stated above that the relation of recovered material with
the reference, is extremely essential for archaeological
evidence. Since the document being discussed, is not
related with its reference, it is mere material and not
evidence.
If any inscription has been walled up, then in such
situation the presence of mortar, plaster over that
inscription is essential and in case there is some dispute
regarding that inscription then the analysis of mortar,
plaster over it is essential. It is extremely essential to carry
 705

out the chemical analysis of mortar, plaster of the wall in

which the inscription is said to have been walled up, and
then to work out the mutual relationship of the two.
The drawing related to Discovery no. 2, which does
not appear in paper no. 118C-1/35, has been shown in
paper no. 289C-1/206.” (E.T.C.)
488. P.W. 27, Prof. Dr. Shereen F. Ratnagar, aged about 57
years (on 8th April 2002), is resident of Empress Court,
Churchgate, Reclamation, Mumbai. Her cross examination
followed as under :
(a) 08/09/-04-2002-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 15-34 )
(b)10-04-2002-by Sri Mahant Dharam Das, defendant no.
13 through Sri S.D. Singh, Advocate (p. 35-38)
(c) 10/11-04-2002-by Umesh Chandra Pandey, defendant
no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, Advocate (p. 38-
66)
(d) 11/12.04.2002- by Paramhans Ramchandra Das,
defendant no. 2, through Sri M.M. Pandey, Advocate, (p.
67-80)
(e) 12.04.2002- by Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10
and Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17,
through Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate (p. 80-89)
(f) 15-05-2002 - by plaintiffs of Suit-5 through Sri Ved
Prakash, Advocate (p. 90-102)
(g) 15-05-2002- Counsel for Madan Mohan Gupta,
defendant no. 20, Shri S.P. Pandey, Advocate, adopted the
cross examination already done on behalf of other
defendants (p. 102)
489. A Professor (Archaeology), in Jawaharlal Nehru
 706

University, Delhi she retired voluntarily in the year 2000. She

deposed her qualifications as under:
(a) Two post graduate degree in Archaeology and Ph.D.
in Archaeology;
(b) A post graduate diploma in Archaeology from
Landon University.
490. PW-27 was appointed as Lecturer in Jawaharlal Nehru
University, Delhi in 1976, Reader in 1985 and Professor in
1994. She taught five courses- two in Archaeology and three in
Ancient History connected with Archaeology. In Archaeology,
she specially taught proto-history and “the Utilisation of
Archaeological Evidence”. She has experience of guiding a
dozens of research students for M.Phil. and Ph.D. She was also
fellow of British School of Archaeology in Iraq. After
retirement, she had delivered lectures in academic staff Colleges
and Universities such as Mahatma Gandhi University at
Kottayam, Allahabad University, Chandigarh University,
Mumbai and Delhi Universities, became member of Al Hajar
Project in Oman, doing explorations and excavations, is
working with Dr. Geoffrey Orchard of Birmingham.
491. PW-27 is author of five books, namely,
(1) The Encounters, the Westerly Trade of the Harappa
Civilization (published in 1981)
(2) Enquiries into the Political Organization of Harappan
Society (published in 1981)
(3) The End of the Great Harappan Tradition (published in
2000)
(4) Understanding Harappa (published in 2001)
(5) Bhartiya Itihas Ke Srot, Pracheen Kaal (published in
2001-02)
 707

492. PW-27 is author of a number of papers, more than

twenty, published in different journals like “Man and
Environment (Poona)”; “Studies in History (Delhi)”; “Current
Anthropology (Chicago)”, wrote papers on archaeological
methods and also data retrieval in ancient history.
493. PW-27 was a visiting Professor in Paris in 1984, awarded
by the College de France in January 2002, delivered two
lectures at the College de France, at the University of Harare in
Zimbabwe and at the Institute Kern at Leiden in Holland, also
delivered the Heras Memorial lectures in Mumbai and her third
book contains her Heras Memorial lectures in book form. She
got archaeological training from Professor H.D. Sankalia (Pune)
and from Professor S. Lloyd (London).
494. She claims to appear as an Archaeologist, got interest in
the issue in the year 1990 approximately because an important
part of the controversy was the claim made by the
archaeologists about the discovery of an old temple in the
disputed area. She had never visited Ayodhya, wrote an Article
“Archaeological Discovery?” (Paper No. 291C1/14 for Frontline
Magazine dated 6.11.1992). Another Article with the title
“Startling Indeed” (paper No. 291C1/12) written by her
colleague Prof. R. Champaka Lakshmi, the then Chairperson of
Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru for the said
magazine. R. Champakalakshmi is specialized in Art, History
and the Hindu Temple as a Social and Religious Institution, with
emphasis on South India.
495. P.W. 27 claims to have read some books relating to the
issue, one of such book is “Ramjanambhoomi, Ayodhya New
Archaeological Discoveries” (Paper No. 118C-1/35) (Ex. 33,
Suit-3). She has read the report of Prof. B.B. Lal pertaining to
 708

the disputed site.

496. About her experience of field archaeology, she said:
“As an Archaeologist, I have field experience with Prof.
H.D. Sankalia at Tripuri Excavations; in Britain I worked
with Henry Hurst at Box; In Turkey with David French at
Ashvan; in Iraq at Tell al Rimah with David Oates; In
Bahrain, at Al Markh with Mechael Road; in Iraq at Abu
Salabih with Prof. N. Posgate and also in Oman recently.
During these excavations, I learnt the general principles of
stratification and all technical drawings which become
interpretation of the strata and their relative dates to one
another. Basically, there is no difference between the
excavations in India and outside India but the British
system is much more rigorous and every Archaeologist has
to do all the work himself or herself. The training of
excavations outside India taught me principles of data
recovery which can be applied anywhere in the world, so
that I am able to read and examine critically the excavation
reports of any other Archaeologist.”
497. PW-27 said to have got published papers reflecting
directly on the field of archaeology which are:
“1. A review Article on the Inamgaon excavations
report; and
2. “Does Archaeology holds the Answerers?” (read in
America in 1996 and published perhaps in 1998 or 1999”
and
3. “The End of the Great Harappan Tradition
(Published in 2000)
4. “Back to the Bones” published around 1998 or 1999
etc.
 709

I have also written a paper on weights and the

formation process of the archaeological record (I
read it in January 2002 in Paris (It is yet to be
published).
498. About the archaeological excavation in Ayodhya, PW-27
said:
“To my knowledge, two teams or institutions have
conducted excavations at Ayodhya. These are – one,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, and the other is the
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. I read the
excavations reports of these two institutions published in
the journal 'Indian Archaeology-A Review.
I read a journal titled as “Indian Archaeology 1969-
70-A Review” edited by Prof. B.B. Lal published by the
Archaeological Survey of India (A.S.I.). Copies of pages
Nos. 40 and 41 of the above journal and the title page of
that journal which are on record have been shown to the
witness. This is Paper No. 291C-1/4 to 291 C-1/6. These
papers are the true copies of the original which is before
me marked Ex. E-1/1. This excavation report relates to
Banaras Hindu University excavations made in three
different spots at Ayodhya. Paper No. 107 C1/62 and 63
are true copies of the journal, “Indian Archaeology 1976-
77 A Review” by ASI (marked Ex. E-2/1) Papers No. 291
C-1/1, 291 C-1/2 and 291C-1/3 are also the true copies of
title page and plate No. 49 and 50 of the aforesaid journal
(marked Ex. E-2/1).
Paper No. 291 C-1/16 and 17 are the true copies of
page Nos. 76 and 77 and Plate No. XXII of “Indian
Archaeology 1979-80-A Review” (marked Ex. E-3/1)
 710

With reference to Paper No. 291 C-1/5, I may submit

that the significance of this report is that several cultural
periods were found by the excavators and they made
reference to some categories of small finds, but there is no
mention of any architectural or sculptural material of any
temple.
I have studied the two reports of Prof. B.B. Lal
published in the journal, “Indian Archaeology-A Review
1976-77” (hereinafter to be referred as IAR) and in IAR
1979-80. Both these reports of Prof. B.B. Lal pertain to
different sites at Ayodhya, IAR 1976-77, reports
excavations at two different sectors including the disputed
area. In IAR 1979-80, it is said that excavation was done in
14 different spots all over Ayodhya, but no specific area is
mentioned. Mr. B.B. Lal's excavations uncovered remains
of the later iron age and the early historic period, both of
which are 1000 BC to 3rd Century AD. Thereafter, there is
a gap in the occupation of Ayodhya and the city was
reoccupied in the 11th Century AD. In the disputed area,
Mr. B.B. Lal reports finding a large wall which could have
been a fortification wall, the remains of brick houses and
some ring wells. Amongst the small antiquities, he reports
finding coins, seals and a large number of clay figurines
including what may be the earliest Jaina sculpture and
some potteries of interest. To my mind, significance of this
report, IAR 1976-77, is that Mr. B.B. Lal mentions that the
pits and brick debris came from levels below the 11th
Century A.D. i.e. below the medieval reoccupation of
Ayodhya- and that he states on page 53 as follows :
“The entire late period was devoid of any special
 711

interest.”
In the IAR 1979-80 report, Prof. Lal reports remains
of only up to the Gupta period and nothing thereafter. In
Prof. B.B. Lal's report, there is no mention of any temple,
leave alone one of the medieval period. Except these two
reports, to my knowledge, there is no other report of Prof.
B.B. Lal on Ayodhya excavations published in IAR.
To my knowledge, there is no other excavation
conducted by anyone after Prof. B.B. Lal at Ayodhya in
1979-1980.
Paper No. 118 C1/36 was shown to the witness. I
have not seen this photograph in IAR. I saw this trench
photograph for the first time in the book No. 118 C1/35.
IAR is the only authoritative journal being published by the
Archaeological Survey of India in respect of excavations
and explorations. The relevance of this journal is that it is
obligatory for anyone receiving a permit from ASI to
excavate or explore, to report his finds in IAR for that year,
IAR is like a dairy in which all archaeological excavations,
explorations, conservation, repairs, treasures and
inscriptions found have to be reported, howsoever brief
they may be. There is no reference to any so-called pillar
base in the two reports of Prof. B.B. Lal as referred to
above, nor is there any photograph. I have read about the
trench with the so called pillar base in the trench
photograph, paper No. 118 C1/36 and in some newspapers
perhaps.”
499. PW-27 claims to have read the book (Ex. 63, Suit-4)
written by Prof. D. Mandal and said as under :
“I have read Prof. Mandal's book, Ext. 63 of O.S.
 712

No. 4 of 1989, and I have written an Introduction to it and

have added some information in my footnotes to that book
at page 67 and pages 68 to 69, in which the letters “SR”
are mentioned in brackets. My introduction to the book is
of course connected with the subject-matter, but it is an
introduction in general terms, to make the rest of the book
easier for the lay reader.
Mandal's approach is, in essence, as to what
constitutes scientific evidence in archaeology and how we
can draw valid inference from date. So the approach is that
of field archaeology and stratigraphy. The major
conclusion is that there is no substance to the claims which
have been made about the remains of a temple at the
disputed site as mentioned in Paper No. 118 C-1/35
henceforth to be referred as NAD, the caption of the
photograph paper No. 118C1/36 refers to pillar bases.
Mandal has three major criticism of this theory:
First, he points out that the brick features consist of broken
pieces of brick, they do not have straight edges and were
not constructed in pits; therefore, he doubts that they could
have taken the weight of so-called stone columns of a
temple.
The second criticism is on Plate III of Mandal's book,
which indicates that on the photo of the trench when he
draws a straight line along the faces of two adjacent
features, he finds that the so called pillar bases are not
even in a row and the second so called row is not parallel
to the first so-called row. If at all these were pillars of a
temple in a row, they would have had to be very regularly
placed in order to carry load.
 713

The line appearing in the middle of the photograph

on Plate III of Mandal's book is a common device that
archaeologists often use to check on their finds. This device
is frequently used by other archaeologists and in the
excavations of Kalibangan, excavated by Prof. B.B. Lal, he
has also drawn lines connecting separate stretches of walls
to show that they are part of the same fortification. This
device has also been used by Prof. B.B. Lal in excavations
at Kalibangan as is evident in his reports published at
pages 28 to 31 of IAR 1968-69, paper No. 291/C1/7 to
291/C1/11. (Above referred photocopies have been filed by
defendant No. 5 of O.S. No. 5 of 1989 and the original book
has also been shown to the witness. The witness having
compared them, has certified them to be true copies.
Marked as Exts. E. 4.
The third conclusion of Mr. Mandal was that the so-
called pillar bases do not belong to the same stratum,
which he makes very clear in the Plate II of his book. One
so-called pillar base is sealed by one stratum, but another
pillar base is sealed by another stratum. So these five pillar
bases, as Mr. Mandal argues, belong to five different
strata. It means that the five features or pillar bases were
not functional at one and the same time, and therefore, they
could not have belonged to the same building.
I accept Mr. Mandal's arguments and conclusions
as referred to above which refute the existence of pillar
bases of any temple at the site in dispute. For the
arguments in NAD, the so called pillar base in the trench
would be a central argument.
I agree with the arguments arrived at by Mr.
 714

Mandal mentioned at page 19 of his Book Ext. 63. In the

first four lines, he refers to “At the out set
.......stratographic excavations.” I fully agree with his
finding.”
500. Commenting on Ex. 63 (Suit-4), PW-27 said:
“I do not accept the validity of stones, sculptures
and other pieces as evidence for a temple as has been
argued in the NAD Report because of the circumstances
of the so-called recovery. The circumstances of the
recovery are that there was ground levelling by the P.W.D.
of, I think, a large area in and around the disputed site.
Ground levelling can never be a substitute for scientific
excavations. The difference between the result of scientific
excavation and discoveries made after land levelling is that
in the former, we recover context. Context is a crucially
important component of date; and when there is land
levelling, context is destroyed before it can be seen. By
Context, I am referring to the spatial as well as the vertical
position of a find and also the cultural position of the find.
If we look at the figure 2 page 21 of Ex. 63 of book
Ex. 63, which figure is reproduced from a supplement to
the NAD, I mean that there are problem with this pit as
context. There is no level that completely seals the pit.
Therefore, the pit cannot be stratigraphically dated. And as
regard the finds that NAD reported from ground levelling
operations, there is also a photograph (paper No. 118C
1/37). This is not a photograph of the process of digging
these sculptures. In figure-2, there is no context available.
We can contrast this find with finds found in a scientific
excavation. If in a regular excavation, we had hit upon
 715

something, we would take photographs of it for several

days during the actual recovery of the find, whether it was
a treasure or a grave, etc. Simultaneously, we would be
drawing and measuring the horizontal occurrence of every
one of these important finds. We would make a plan of all
the finds and we would identify the stratum to which the
finds belong and this would be giving the context of the
find.”
501. Stating on objects found accidentally as well as
inscriptions at the site, PW-27 said :
“It is true that some objects are found accidentally.
They are not archaeological evidence because the context
competent is missing. The so-called discovery of
inscriptions and sculptures when the mosque was being
vandalised, is not an archaeological find; but it is the
reversal of the entire ethics and process of archaeology:
for archaeologists, their function in society is to care for
old structures. Whatever can be said to have been found at
the site in dispute after demolition of the disputed structure
cannot be said to be archaeological evidence because the
context is totally demolished.
If some inscription is found at a site, it is not
necessary that it gives the date or the content of that site.
It will depend on the context. There is a famous example
in Archaeology. There is a broken pillar edict of Ashok
Maurya found at the Sirkap site of Takshila. But the date of
Sirkap is not Mauryan. Sirkap is an Indo-Greek and Saka-
Parthian town, dating 180 B.C. to A.D. 60 roughly
(whereas the Mauryan period is 321 to 187 B.C.). So the
Ashokan pillar must have been set up in the Bhir mound of
 716

Taxila, but when it ceased to have any meaning, it was

reused in a new township that was built near the Bhir
mound, namely Sirkap. Therefore, an inscription may be
established in one place but it may be removed to play a
different function in another place. So, connection of a
find or a object to a site depends upon the context.”
502. PW-27 further said that she has not thoroughly read the
book written by Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma and Dr. Swaraj
Prakash Gupta though she has read a few paragraphs cursorily.
She further said about the inscriptions alleged to be found in the
debris at the time of demolition in 1992 as under :
“This book refers to an alleged recovery of alleged
long inscription from the debris of the demolished
structure. As an Archaeologist, in my opinion, this
inscription has no value as evidence. It only comes from
the broken remains of a vandalised old structure. There is
no context.”
503. She admits of knowing Prof. Suraj Bhan, who according
to her, is a Field Archaeologist, knows Sanskrit and has
excavated proto historic and perhaps pre-historic sites although
not sure about it.
504. P.W. 28, Sitaram Rai, aged about 72 years (on 22/23
April 2002), son of Late Harinandan Rai, is resident of 295,
Nehru Nagar, Patna. His cross examination followed as under :
(a) 25/26-04-2002-by Nirmohi Akhara through Sri R.L.
Verma, Advocate (p. 30-51 )
(b)29/30-04-2002, 01/02-05-2002-by Umesh Chandra
Pandey, defendant no. 22 through Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi,
Advocate (p. 52-105)
(c) 02/03-05-2002-by Sri Mahant Dharam Das, defendant
 717

no. 13 through Sri S.D. Singh, Advocate (p. 105-113)

(d) 03/13-05-2002-by plaintiffs (Suit-5) through Sri A.K.
Pandey, Advocate and Sri Ved Prakash, Advocate (p. 114-
130)
(e) 13-05-2002- Hindu Mahasabha, defendnat no. 10 and
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, defendant no. 17, through
Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate and defendant no. 20
through Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate, adopted the cross
examination already done by other defendants (p. 130)
(f) 13/14-05-2002- by Sri Rajendra Singh, son of Sri
Gopal Singh Visharad plaintiff (Suit-1) through Sri P.L.
Mishra, Advocate (p. 131-146)
505. PW-28 is a retired Director from the Department of
Archaeology, Government of Bihar, Patna. Did B.A. in 1951
and M.A. (Ancient Indian History and Culture) from Patna
University in 1973, his Special papers in M.A. were Epigraphy
and Numismatic. His subject in Ph.D. was “Decypherment and
Historical Study of a Pam leaf Manuscript from Tibbat, an
Unknown Mahayan Texts” (9th and 10th century A.D.). He did
Ph.D. from Patna University. Initially he joined ASI in 1956 at
Nagarjun Excavation, Andhra Pradesh and after two years was
appointed as Research Member in K.P. Jaiswal Institute under
Bihar Government. He was to look after the work related to
archaeology. In 1962, Directorate of Archaeology and Museum
was established by the State Government of Bihar and he was
transferred therein as “Exploration and Excavation Officer”. He
retired in March 1988 and till then was continuously engaged in
the work of excavation. Approximately he was engaged in
excavation work at about 12 places. Regarding his further
experience about excavation, he said:
 718

^^ftuesa ls 3 mR[kuu dk;ksZ ls lcaf/kr izfrosnu izdkf'kr gq,

Fks ;s oS'kkyh mR[kuu izfrosnu] yksVk igkM+ mR[kuu izfrosnu] dSfj;u
mR[kuu izfrosnu gSaA blds vfrfjDr dqezgkj] d.kZ pkSjk] rkjkMhg] dVjk
x<+] cyjkt oxSjgA bu mR[kuu ds vykok tc bulkfdyksihfM;k vkQ
bafM;u vkfdZ;ksykth rS;kj gks jgk Fkk rks muesa Hkh esjs pkj vfHkys[k
izdkf'kr gq,A ;g bulkbfdyksihfM;k Jh ,0 ?kks"k iwoZ Mk;jsDVj
vkQ ,0,l0vkbZ0 us ,fMV fd;k FkkA eSaus QhYM vkfdZ;ksyksth esa Mk0
vkj0 lqczge.;e] HkwriwoZ v/kh{k.k iqjkrRo fof/k] Hkkjrh; iqjkrro losZ{k.k]
Mk0 uhy jRu cuthZ] funs'kd ¼lsok fuo`Rr½ jk"V~h; laxzgky; u;h
fnYyh Mk0 lkSUnj jktu] vij funs'kd] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k] Lo0
gfj fo".kq ljdkj] la;qDr egkfuns'kd] Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k vkfn ds
lkFk dk;Z fd;k gSA
lsok fuo`Rr ds ckn Hkh eSa QhYM vkfdZ;ksykth ls lacaf/kr jgk gwWaA
vHkh Hkh eSa ds0ih0 t;loky fjlpZ bULVhV~;wV ds rRok/kku esa ik.Mox<+
leLrhiqj esa py jgs mR[kuu dk;Z ls lacaf/kr gWwA blds vykok
uoukyank egkfogkj esa eSa Hkkjrh; laLd`fr ds v/;kiu gsrq izksQslj
vesfjVl ds in ij nks o"kksZ rd ;ksxnku djrk jgkA**
“Out of which reports were published on three
excavations. These are reports on excavations carried out
at Vaishali, Lotapahad and Kairiyan. Apart from these
places, excavations were carried out at Kumrahaar,
Karnchaura, Taradih, Katragarh, Balraajgarh, etc.
Besides these excavation reports, when Encyclopedia of
Indian Archaeology was being prepared, my four articles
were published therein too. This Encyclopedia was edited
by Sri A. Ghosh, Ex-Director of A.S.I. I have worked in
field archaeology with Dr. R.Subramanyam, Ex-
Superintendent, Law of Archaeology at Indian
Archaeological Survey, Dr. Neel Ratna Banerjee, Director
(retired), National Museum at New Delhi, Dr. Saunder
Rajan, Additional Director, Indian Archaeological Survey,
 719

Lare Hari Vishnu Sarkar, Joint Director General, Indian

Archaeological Survey, and so on.
Even after retirement I have been associated with
field archaeology. Even today I am associated with the
ongoing excavation at Pandavgarh, Samastipur under the
aegis of K.P.Jaiswal Research Institute. Apart form this, I
served as professor emeritus for two years to teach Indian
Culture at Nav Nalanda Maha-Vihar.” (E.T.C.)
506. Three books written by PW-28 have been published which
includes his Ph.D. Thesis under the title “Suvarnvarnavdan” and
another books is “Guarded to Vaishali Museum”. Mainly his
writings are in respect to Ancient India and Archaeology. About
his knowledge of various languages, he said:
^^eSa vaxzsth] fgUnh o laLd`r rhuksa Hkk"kkvksa dks i<+ ldrk gwWa blds
vykok fcgkj dh eSFkyh Hkk"kk dk Kku gS eq>s czkg~eh] [kjks"Bh] xzhd]
nsoukxjh fyfi dh tkudkjh gSA esjk laca/k ,ihxzkQh ¼vfHkys[k½ ,oa
isfy;ksxzkQh ¼fyfi'kkL=½ ls fo|kFkhZ thou ls ysdj vkt rd jgk gSA^^
“I can read three languages – English, Hindi and
Sanskrit. Apart from these, I have knowledge of the
Maithali language of Bihar. I have knowledge of Brhami,
Kharosthi, Greek and Devnagari scripts. I have been
associated with epigraphy and palaeography from my
student days till today.” (E.T.C.)
507. About the disputed place also PW-28 has written some
articles and in this regard he said:
^^eS au s ,d ys[ k ^^v;k s/ ;k bu fyVjsp j ,.M
vfdZ ; k sy k st h** uked fy[kk gS tks bf.M;u vkfdZ;ksykth flUl
bfUMisUMsV esa izdkf'kr gqvk gSA ;g fdrkc vk'kk ¼,slksf'k,'ku Qkj fn
fgLV~h ,.M vkfdZ;ksyksth½ us izdkf'kr fd;k FkkA esjk ;g ys[k isij ua0
199lh@2 gSA ¼isij ua0 199lh&2@1 esjs }kjk Nik gqvk vkVhZfdy
gS ;g ys[k esjs }kjk fy[kk x;k Fkk vkSj bl ys[k dks eSaus vk'kk ds
 720

vf/kos'ku dq:{ks= esa i<+k Fkk] tks vf/kos'ku 1995 esa gqvk FkkA esjs bl
ys[k esa tks ckrsa fy[kh gSa esjs [;ky ls vkt rd ds le; rd lgh gS
vkSj buesa dksbZ rCnhyh ugha gqbZ gSA esjs n`f"V esa esjs ys[k ds lkjka'k
dk ,d fcUnq ;g gS fd fdlh Hkh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij
jketUeHk wf e fookfnr LFky ugh a gS A eSaus viuk ,d ys[k ^^eFkqjk
bu fyV~jspj ,.M vkfdZ;ksyksth fy[kk gS ftls eSaus vk'kk ds nwljs
vf/kos'ku esa vyhx<+ esa i<+k vkSj og ckn esa vk'kk ds }kjk gh izdkf'kr
gqvk] ftls jhtu ,.M vkfdZ;ksyksth uked iqLrd esa Niok;k x;k tks
isij ua0 199lh2@2 gSA esjk ;g ys[k esjs fopkj ls vkt rd lgh gSA
eS au s mijk sD r nk s y s[ kk s a es a ftu L=k sr k s a dk gokyk fn;k gS
mues a ckYehfd jkek;.k] rq y lh nkl d` r jkepfjrekul]
vFkZ o sn ] iq j k.kk s a vkfn dk Hkh eS au s v/;;u fd;k gS A**
“I have written an article titled 'Ayodhya in
Literature and Archaeology', which was published in
'Indian Archaeology since Independence'. This book was
published by ASHA (Association for the History and
Archaeology). This article of mine is paper no. 199C/2.
Paper no. 199C-2/1 is a published article of mine. This
article was written by me and was read by me in the
Kurukshetra session of ASHA, which took place in 1995.
Whatsoever is written in this article, is, in my opinion,
correct even today and there is no change in it. From my
point of view , one point of the crux of my article is that
Ram Janam Bhumi is not a disputed site on the basis of
any evidence. I have written one article of mine titled
'Mathura in Literature and Archaeology', which I read in
the second session of ASHA held in Aligarh and which was
subsequently published by ASHA itself. It was published in
the book titled 'Region and Archaeology', which is marked
as paper no. 199C 2/2. This article of mine is, in my
opinion, correct till today. Of the sources which I have
 721

cited in the aforesaid two articles I have also studied the

Valmiki Ramayan, Tulsidas-written Ram Charit Manas,
Atharva-Veda, Puranas, etc.” (E.T.C.)
508. Regarding existence of a Temple beneath the disputed
structure, PW 28 said :
^^eS a iq j krRo Nk= gk su s ds ukrs ;g dg ldrk gwW a fd
fookfnr LFky ij jketUeHk wf e eaf nj ;k dk sb Z vU; eaf nj
dHkh ekS t wn ugh a FkkA blfy, bl ckr dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk fd
fdlh eafnj dks rksM+dj efLtn cuk;h x;h gksA fookfnr LFky ds ikl
esa gq, mR[kuu dk;ksZa dk mYys[k eSaus 1976&77 ds ^^bf.M;u
vkfdZ;ksyksth , fjO;w** esa i<+k gSA vkfdZ ; k sy k st dy lk{;k s a ds
vk/kkj ij ;g LFkkfir gq v k gS fd 13oh a 'krkCnh es a rq f dZ l
yk sx fookfnr LFky ds lkFk lkFk iwj s bykds es a fgUnq v k sa ds
lkFk cls gq , Fk s A eSus vius ys[k isij ua0 199lh 2@1 esa ftu dkys
14 [kEHkksa dk ftdz fd;k gS og yksM fCk;fjax ugha Fks] cfYd MsdksjsfVo Fks
vkSj mUgsa ckgj ls ykdj yxk;k x;k Fkk vkSj os [kEHks uhao esa Hkh xMs+ gq,
ugha Fks] cfYd lrg tehu ds mij [kM+s fd;s x;sA vius mijksDr ys[k
esa gh eSaus ml f'kykys[k dk o.kZu fd;k gS ftls ckcjh efLtn <gkus ds
ckn mlds] eycs ls fudyk gqvk dgk tkrk gS] esj s eq r kfcd og
f'kykys[ k 12oh a lnh dk ugh a gk s ldrk ] tSlk fd eSaus vius
ys[k esa fy[kk gSA ;g lanHkZ eSaus Jherh lq/kk eyS;k }kjk fyf[kr ys[k ds
vk/kkj ij fn;k Fkk ftldk uke& ^^cksyrs ik"kk.k** Fkk vkSj og vkstLouh
uked if=dk esa lu~ 1993 esa Nik FkkA ftu v{kjksa ds laca/k esa eSaus vius
ys[k esa ftdzz fd;k gS] os 12oha 'krkCnh esa ml :i esa ugha FksA os ckn esa
ml :i esa izpfyr gq, mldk vk/kkj ;g gS fd czkgeh fyfi tks lcls
iqjkuh fyfi gS mlls gh nsoukxjh fyfi dk izknqHkkZo gqvk gSA
12oha 'krkCnh esa ml LFky dks tgkWa ij vkt orZeku es v;ks/;k
gS] vo/kiqjh ;k vU; fdlh uke ls tkuk tkrk Fkk vkSj 16oha 'krkCnh rd
mls Li"V :i ls vo/kiqjh ds uke ls gh tkuk tkrk FkkA rqylhnkl
d`r jkek;.k jkepfjr ekul lEcr 1631 fodze 1574 ,0Mh0 esa fy[kh
x;h FkhA jkepfjr ekul esa v;ks/;k dk o.kZu vo/kiqjh ds uke ls gh
vk;k gSA esj s fopkj ls fgUnw /kkfeZ d LFkyk s a dk lan HkZ eaf nj
 722

ds uke ls 20oh a 'krkCnh ls gh 'kq : gq v k gS A mlls igy s

eaf nj nso k;ru ;k nso ky; ds uke ls tkus tkrs Fk s A Hkxoku
fo".kq ds dqN dqN uke bl izdkj gS& gfj] fo".kq nsos'k] ijekRek vkfn gSa
oSls fo".kq ds gtkj uke gSaA ;fn fo".kq ds fy, gfj uked Ik;kZ;okph
'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k tk;s rks mlds lkFk fo".kq dk iz;ksx ugha gksxkA
;kuh ;fn nksuksa uke fo".kq vkSj gfj ,d lkFk iz;ksx fd;s tk;s rks og
fdlh O;fDr ds gks ldrs gSa] ijUrq fo".kq ds ughaA eS a iq j krkfRod
lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g dg ldrk gwW a fd 12'krkCnh es a
v;k s/ ;k esa Hkxoku jke dh iwt k ugh a gk sr h FkhA vkS j u gh
12&13oh 'krkCnh esa Hkxoku jke dk dk sb Z eaf nj v;k s/ ;k es a
ekS t wn FkkA rqylhnkl th us jkepfjrekul dh jpuk dh rks os
v;ks/;k esa ugha cfYd dk'kh esa iapxaxk ?kkV uked LFkku esa jgrs FksA
ijUrq ;g lgh gS fd rqylh nkl th us ftl fnu jkepfjr ekul dks
fy[kuk 'kq: fd;k ml fnu vo/kiqjh v;ks/;k esa pys x;s FksA rqylhnkl
d`r jkepfjr ekul esa v;ks/;k esa fdlh fo'ks"k LFky dks jketUeHkwfe ds
uke ls ugha dgk x;k gSa jkepfjr ekul esa fdlh eafnj dks rksM+dj
efLtn cukus ds ftdz ugha gSA xksLokeh rqylhnkl th ds xq: Jh
ujgfjnkl dk'kh esa jgrs FksA**
“As a student of Archaeology I can say that there
was never Ram Janam Bhumi temple or any other
temple at the disputed site. Hence, there is no question of
any temple having been demolished to build a mosque. In
'Indian Archaeology- A Review' of 1976-77, I have gone
through the account of excavations carried out in the
vicinity of the disputed site. On the basis of
Archaeological evidences it is established that in the 13th
century Turkish people had settled along with Hindus in
the entire area including the disputed place. The black
pillars, 14 in number, which I have mentioned in my article
paper no. 199C 2/1, were not load-bearing, but they were
just decorative ones. They had been brought from outside
 723

and were placed. These pillars were not buried even in the
base but they were erected just above the ground floor. In
the afore-said article itself, I have spoken of a pillar
inscription which is said to have been taken out from the
debris after the demolition of the Babri mosque. In my
opinion, this inscription cannot be dated to the 12th
century as I have written in my article. I had given this
reference on the basis of an article written by Smt Sudha
Malaiya and which was titled 'Bolate Pashan' and was
published in a magazine titled 'Ojaswini' in 1993. The
letters which I have mentioned in my article, did not exist
in the same way in the 12th century. They subsequently
came to be in vogue in that form. Its basis is that
Devnagari script has emerged only from the oldest script
known as Brahmi script.
The place where Ayodhya presently stands, was
known as Awadhpuri or by any other name in the 12th
century and it was clearly known only as Awadhpuri up to
the 16th century. Tulsidas-written Ramayan known as Ram
Charit Manas was written in 1631 Vikrami, that is, 1574
AD. Ayodhya finds mention in the Ram Charit Manas only
by the name of Awadhpuri. In my opinion, references of
Hindu religious places in the name of temples are found
only from the 20th century. Prior to that, temples were
known as Devayatan or Devalaya. Some of the names of
Lord Vishnu are – Hari, Vishnu, Devesh, Parmatma, etc.
As a matter of fact there are thousands of names of Vishnu.
If for the word 'Vishnu' its synonym 'Hari' is used, the
word 'Vishnu' will not be used with it (the word Hari). That
is to say, if these two names, Vishnu and Hari, are used
 724

together then they may be a name of a person but not of

Vishnu. On the basis of archaeological evidence I can
say that Lord Rama was not worshipped in Ayodhya in
the 12th century nor was there any temple in the name of
Lord Rama in Ayodhya in the 12th - 13th century. At the
time of composition of Ram Charit Manas Tulsidas lived at
a place called Panch-Ganga Ghat in Kashi, but not in
Ayodhya. But it is true that Tulsidas shifted to Awadhpuri
Ayodhya on the day he started composing the Ram Charit
Manas. No particular place in Ayodhya is not mentioned as
Ram Janam Bhumi in the Ram Charit Manas written by
Tulsidas. The Ram Charit Manas does not speak of any
temple having been demolished to build a mosque. Sri
Narhari Das, spiritual teacher of Goswami Tulsidas, lived
in Kashi.” (E.T.C.)
509. PW 28 made a statement that the present Ayodhya is not
the one which was described in Valmiki Ramayan (on page 6
and 7 of his examination-in-chief), but this part of his entire
examination is now wholly irrelevant in view of the statement of
the learned counsels appearing for various Muslims parties
recorded on 22.4.2009 under Order 10 Rule 2 wherein they have
said as under :
“For the purposes of this case, there is no dispute
about the faith of Hindu devotees of Lord Rama regarding
birth of Lord Rama at Ayodhya as described in Balmiki
Ramayan or as existing today.”
510. In respect to the findings in archaeology, PW-28 said :
^^vkfdZ;ksykth ds vuqlkj vkdLekr ik;h x;h oLrq dk Hkh egRo
gS ;|fi mldh frfFk] mlds ikus dh txg] vkSj ikrs le; mldk
bulhVw QksVksxzkQh ¼;FkkfLFkfr Nk;k fp=½ miyC/k gksA mijksDr phtksa ds
vHkko esa vkdLekr ik;h x;h phtksa dk vkfdZ;ksykth esa dksbZ egRo ughsa
 725

gSA ;fn dksbZ f'kykys[k fdlh fcfYMax esa cgqr vjls rd pquk gqvk jgk
gks rks mlesa eksVjZ vkSj IykLVj vkfn ds fu'kkukr vkSj dqN va'k fpids
gq, vo'; jgsxsaA**
“As per archaeology, objects discovered all of a
sudden also have importance if information on their date,
place of discovery, in-situ position and photography (as the
case may be) is available. In the absence of the aforesaid
information, the objects discovered all of a sudden have no
importance. If any inscription has been carved out in any
building for a very long time, there must be traces and
particles of mortar, plaster, etc. stuck to it.” (E.T.C.)
511. Prof. R.S. Sharma, who was Professor in the Department
of History at Patna and Delhi Universities was his teacher
(Guru) and PW-28 knows that Prof. Sharma had written two
articles in respect to Ayodhya. Besides, he knows Prof. Suraj
Bhan, Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, Prof. D. Mandal, Prof. Suresh
Mishra, and Dr. S.K. Gupta, who has worked with him at
Nagarjun Konda excavation. He said that Dr. S.P. Gupta has
written an article “An Open Letter to the Prime Minister”.
However, he said that Dr. S.P. Gupta neither has any relation
with epigraphy or paleography nor knows Sanskrit language.
512. OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta, aged about 70 years (on 28th
June, 2001, the date on which his deposition started), resident of
B-17, Kutub Institutional Area, New Delhi, he deposed as an
expert witness (Archaeology and Museology). His cross
examination followed as under :
(a) 28-06-2001- by Nirmohi Akhara, defendant no. 2,
through Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate (p. 21-29)
(b) 28/29-06-2001, 20/21/22/23/24-05-2002,
10/11/12/13/14-06-2002, 08/09/10/11/12/15/16-07-2002,-
by Sunni Central Waqf Board, defendant no. 4, through
 726

Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate (p. 30-261)

(c) 16/17-07-2002- by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan, Advocate, further cross examination on behalf of
defendant no. 6 postponed (p. 262-266)
(d) 17/18/19-07-2002, 19/20-08-2002 by defendant no. 5
through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (p. 266-
341)
(e) 20-08-2002- by defendant no. 6 through Sri Abdul
Mannan Advocate through Sri Abudl Mannan, Advocate
in continuation of 17-07-2002 (p. 341-343)
(f) 20-08-2002- defendant no. 26 through Sri Sayad Irfan
Ahmad, Advocate adopted the cross examination already
done by defendants no. 4, 5 and 6
513. OPW-3 is co-author of a book namely, “Ayodhya Ka
Itihas Evam Puratatva (Rigved Kal Se Ab Tak)” (Ex. 3, Suit-5)
alongwith Dr. T.P. Verma, OPW 9. His educational
qualification is M.A., L.L.B., Diploma in Archaeology, Ph.D.,
Diploma in Environmental Archaeology and D.Litt. He has
imparted education in “Museology” and “Art History” and
retired as Director, Allahabad Museum in 1990. The languages
in which he is conversant are Hindi, English, French and
Russian. He has written several books and edited Magazines on
Archaeology for several years. He is a founder member of “Men
and Environment” magazine, President, Indian Archaeological
Society in June, 2001 and prior to that he was Organising
Secretary of Indian History and Cultural Society. He has been
examiner of M.A., Ph.D. and D. Litt. in several Universities
like, Banaras Hindu University, Ranchi University etc. He was
awarded three medals/prizes in the subject of Archaeology out
of which two are gold medals and one is International prize, i.e.,
 727

Sir Mortimer Wheeler Prize for excellence in the field of

Archaeology. He obtained gold medal for securing highest
marks in the subject of Archaeology and got Maulana Azad
Gold Medal and Centenary Gold Medal for Standardization in
Archaeology. He undertook exploration work in Himalayan
Valley in India as well as in Bengal, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. He started excavation
work as a student of M.A. in 1952. He claims to have undergone
excavation work at Kaushambi, Nagarjuna, Konda (Andhra
Pradesh), Tamil Nadu, Konnatur, Gilund (Rajasthan),
Kalibangan (Rajasthan), Sardargarh (Rajasthan) and Ayodhya.
Besides, abroad also, in France he has done excavation work.
He is connected to the Museum and Archaeological work with
countries like, France, Germany, England, America, Russia,
Mongolia, China, Japan, Israel, Egypt, South America etc.
Abroad, he performed three types of work, (1) Archaeological
survey, (2) Lecture series and (3) Archaeology and Museology
related work. He was Director of Centre for Research in
Archaeology, History and Palaeo Environment regulated by
Indian Archaeological Society.
514. Explaining about the Archaeology he submits that there
are two steps in Archaeology (1) excavation and (2) exploration.
Besides, Epigraphy and Art History also have importance in
Archaeology. He claims to have visited the disputed place as an
Expert Archaeologist. With respect to the Archaeological work
at the disputed site, the Archaeological finds obtained in 1992 at
the disputed site and about description of material etc., OPW-3
said:
^^eSa bl okn ls lacaf/kr LFky ,oa fookfnr LFky ,oa mldh
bekjr dks tkurk gwWaA ;g bekjr fxj pqdh gSA eSa fookfnr LFky esa
bekjr fxjus ds igys ,oa bekjr fxjus ds ckn nksuksa ckj x;k gwWa eS a
 728

ogkW a ,d iq j krRoosR rk gk su s ds ukrs x;k FkkA fookfnr LFky ij

fxjus ls igys eSaus ml bekjr dks ns[kk FkkA iqjkrRoosRrk ds ukrs eSaus
ogkWa mR[kuu dk;Z fd;k FkkA ;g dk;Z eSaus 1992 esa fd;k FkkA blds
igys 1975 esa izks0 ch0ch0yky dh [kqnkbZ esa dqN fnuksa ds fy, lfEefyr
gqvk FkkA izks0 ch0ch0yky ml le; bafM;u baLVhV~;wV vkQ ,Mokal
LVMh f'keyk ds Mk;jsDVj gksrs FksA ch0ch0 yky dh [kqnkbZ ds izkstsDV
dk uke vkfdZ;ksykth vkQ jkek;.k fjysVsM lkbZV FkkA jkek;.k fjysVsM
lkbZV Jh jke ds tUeLFkku ls ysdj muds ouxeu rd ds LFkkuksa dk
losZ{k.k ,oa mR[kuu ls lacaf/kr Fkk bl LFkku ij izks0 yky ls igys
1970 ds yxHkx izks0 ,0 ds0 ukjk;.k cukjl fgUnw fo'ofo|ky; us
mR[kuu djk;k FkkA bu nksuksa dh vyx&vyx 'kkVZ ¼laf{kIr½ fjiksVZ
bfUM;u vkfdZ;ksyksth ds fjO;w uked Hkkjr ljdkj dh if=dk esa le;
le; ij izdkf'kr gqbZ FkhA eSaus bu fjiksVksZa dks i<+kA**
**I know the site related to the suit and the disputed
site as also its building. This building has collapsed. I have
gone to the disputed site twice- both prior and subsequent
to the demolition of the building. I had gone there as an
archaeologist. I had seen the disputed site prior to the
demolition of the disputed site. I had undertaken
excavation work there as an archaeologist. I had done this
work in 1992. Earlier in 1975, I had taken part in the
excavation by B.B. Lal for a few days. at that time Prof.
B.B. Lal was director of Indian Institute of Advance Study
at Shimla. The excavation project of B.B. Lal was titled
'Archaeology of Ramayana- related site. The Ramayana-
related site project was related to the survey and
excavation of places from the birth place of Sri Rama to the
path of His journey to forest. Before Prof. B.B. Lal, around
1970, Prof A.K. Narayana of Benares Hindu University
had undertaken excavation work at this place. Separate
short reports of these two ones were published from time to
 729

time in a Government of India journal titled 'Review of

Indian Archaeology'. I went through these reports”
**bl fookfnr LFky ij eSa 1991 esa crkSj iqjkrRo ds fo'ks"kK dh
gSfl;r ls Jh oh0 ih0 flag ml le; ds iz/kkuea=h ds }kjk LFkkfir ,d
desVh ds lnL; ds :i esa x;k FkkA eSaus ogkWa tkdj v/;;u Hkh fd;k
vkSj QksVks Hkh fy;k vkSj desVh ds lHkh lnL;ksa dks ml bekjr dh
oLrqvksa dks fn[kk;k HkhA eSaus ml LFky ds] ml bekjr ds Hkhrj vkSj
bekjr ds ckgj ds fp= Hkh fy;s FksA 1992 esa tqykbZ ,oa vDVqcj ekl esa
x;k FkkA ml le; Hkh eSaus QksVksxzkQ fy;s FksA igyh ckj tqykbZ ekl
ds izkjEHk esa 2 vkSj 3 rkjh[k dks eSaus pkyhl ls vf/kd iqjkrkfRod
oLrqvksa ds v/;;u ds fy, x;k Fkk ftlds fo"k; esa 18 twu] 1992 esa
v[kckjksa esa Nis c;kuksa dh leh{kk ds fy, x;k Fkk mlds i'pkr tqykbZ
ds e/; esa Lo;a mR[kuu ds fy, Hkh x;k FkkA nqckjk tks eSaus mR[kuu
fd;k eSaus mlesa ik;k fd 18 twu dks ftrus Hkh f'kyk[k.M feys Fks
os ,d cgqr cM+s izkphu x<<s esa iM+s Fks eS au s ;g Hkh ik;k fd bl
LFky ij dbZ laL d` f r;k s a ds vo'k s" k Fk s vkS j vkf[kjh
vo'k s" k mu oLrq v k sa ds Fk s tk s e/;;q x hu laL d` f r;k s a ls
lac af /kr Fk s A bekjr ds fxjus ds ckn eSa 12 fnlEcj 1992 esa ogkWa x;k
Fkk mlds i'pkr 1997&1998 rFkk 1999 esa Hkh x;k FkkA eSaus rFkk esjs
rhu lg;ksfx;ksa us izks0 ch0vkj0 xzksoj] Jh nsosUnz Lo:i vxzoky] ,d dk
uke eq>s bl le; ;kn ugha vk jgk gS fQj dgk fd pkj yksxksa us
feydj lqizhedksVZ dks ,d vthZ nh Fkh mlesa geus izkFkZuk dh Fkh fd
bu oLrqvksa dh tks oLrq;s 6 fnlEcj 1992 ds fnu ,oa mlds ckn Hkh
tuojh ds 1993 dh fudyh gqbZ oLrqvksa dk iw.kZ laj{k.k djk;k tk;s ,oa
ftrus f'kykys[k feys gSa mu lc dk LVSEist djk;k tk;s vkSj mls
fo}kuksa dks i<+us ds fy, miyC/k djk;k tk;A**
**In 1991, I visited this disputed site as an
archaeological expert (and) as a member of a committee
constituted by the then Prime Minister, Sri V.P. Singh. By
going there I carried out study, took photographs and
showed objects of the building to all the members of the
committee. I took photographs of that site as also of the
 730

interior and exterior parts of that building. I visited there

in July and October of 1992. I took photographs at that
time also. For the first time, in the beginning of July – on
its second and third days, I went there to make study on
more than 40 archaeological objects. I went there to review
the statements on them published in news papers on 18th
June 1992. After that, in the middle of July, I myself went
there for excavation, too. I undertook excavation work for
the second time and found that those stone blocks which
were found on 18th June were lying in a very big old pit. I
also found that there were remains of several cultures at
this place and the last remains were of those objects
which were related to medieval cultures. After the
demolition of the building I went there on December 12,
1992. After that I went there in 1997-1998 and 1999 as
well. I and three of my colleagues- Prof. B.R. Grover, Sri
Devendra Swaroop Agarwal and yet another person whose
name I do not remember at present (then stated four
persons) collectively moved an application to the Supreme
Court praying for complete protection of these objects,
including those discovered on 6th December, 1992 and even
thereafter – January, 1993 and also for estampage to be
done of all those inscriptions which have been discovered
and for them to be made available to scholars for being
deciphered.”
**gekjs izkFkZuk i= ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g fu.kZ;
fn;k Fkk fd Hkkjr ljdkj mu lHkh oLrqvksa dh iw.kZ lqj{kk iznku djs ,oa
f'kykys[kksa ds bLVSEist ,oa Nkis Hkkjr ljdkj ds }kjk djkdj lqjf{kr
j[kk tk;sA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds lHkh vkns'kksa dk iw.kZ :i ls
ikyu fd;k x;k ;|fi iw.kZ lqj{kk esa ml le; dqN [kkfe;kWa jg x;h
Fkh tks dkykUrj esa Bhd dj yh x;hA ;g bLVSEist esjh tkudkjh esa
 731

Hkkjrh; iqjkrRo losZ{k.k ds fo'ks"kK Jh dV~Vh us tks dukZVd ds jgus

okys gSa mUgksaus rS;kj djk;k FkkA vkfdZ;ksykftdy losZ vkQ bafM;k dk
laf{kIr uke ,0,l0vkbZ0 gS ,0,l0vkbZ0 Hkkjr ljdkj dh ,d laLFkk gS
;g bLVSEist Jh ,e0,u0dV~Vh ,0,l0vkbZ esa mu fnuksa Mk;jsDVj
,sihxzkQh gqvk djrs FksA lqjf{kr j[ks tkus ds ckn eSaus vkfVZdYl dks
ns[kk FkkA bu vkfVZ d Yl dh ohfM;k sx zkQh Hkh gq b Z Fkh ohfM;ksa
xzkQh ds le; eSa ekStwn Fkk esjs vykok vkSj yksx Hkh Fks mu yksxksa esa izks0
ch0vkj0 xzksoj] Mk0 lq/kk eyS;k Mk0 Mh0ih0nqcs vkfn FksA bekjr fxjus
ds igys bekjr fxjus ckn nksuksa le; tc eSaus QksVksxzkQ fy;s rks vU;
fo'ks"kK Hkh FksA**
**On our application the Hon'ble Supreme Court
ordered the Government of India to provide full protection
to all those articles and for estampage of the inscriptions to
be kept preserved by the Government of India. All the
orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court were fully complied with.
At that time there were some latches in providing full
protection which were later rectified. This estampage was,
in my knowledge, prepared by an expert of Indian
Archaeological Survey named Sri Kutti, hailing from
Karnataka. Abbreviation for Archaeological Survey of
India is A.S.I.. A.S.I. is an institution of Government of
India. Sri M.N. Kutti, who undertook this estampage, was
then director (epigraphy) with A.S.I. I saw the articles after
their being preserved. These articles were even
videographed. At the time of videography I was present.
Besides me, there were certain other persons. Among them
were Prof. B. R. Grover, Dr. Sudha Malaiya, Dr. D.P.
Dubey and so on. When I took photographs both prior to
and subsequent to the demolition of the building, other
experts were also present.”
**bl ejgys ij mRrj izns'k iqjkrRo laxBu }kjk fufeZr fookfnr
 732

<kaps dh Cysd ,aM g~okbZV ,yce esa j[ks fp=ksa dks xokg dks fn[kk;k x;k
xokg us ,yce ds QksVksxzkQ la[;k 1 ls ysdj 107 dks ns[kdj dgk fd
;g lHkh QksVksxzkQ bekjr ds vUnj] ckgj rFkk mlds vkl ikl ds gSaA
¼mRrj izns'k iqjkrRo laxBu y[kuÅ }kjk fufeZr fookfnr <kaps ds jaxhu
fp=ksa ds ,yce dks xokg dks fn[kk;k x;k ftldsk ns[kdj xokg us
dgk fd bl ,yce dh QksVks la[;k 1 yxk;r 201 eSaus bu QksVksa dks
xkSj ls ns[k fy;k gS ;g QksVksxzkQ~l ml bekjr ds gSa mlds Hkhrj ckgj
ds gSa ,oa vkl ikl ds gSaA½**
**In this behalf, pictures in the black and white album
on the disputed structure prepared by Uttar Pradesh
Puratatva Sangathan were shown to the witness. Seeing
photograph nos. 1 to 107 of the album, the witness stated
that all these photographs represent the interior, exterior
and adjacent parts of the building. When the coloured
album on the disputed structure prepared by Uttar Pradesh
Puratatva Sangathan, Lucknow was shown to the witness
he stated : 'I have closely seen photograph nos. 1 to 201of
this album. These photographs are of the building and
represent its interior, exterior and adjoining parts'.”
**xokg dk /;ku vU; ewyokn la[;k 5@89 esa nkf[ky dkxt
la[;k 118 lh1@35 dh vksj fnyk;k x;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk
fd&;g ,d Lis'ky iCyhds'ku gS ;g eSxthu ,d fgLVksfj;u Qksje
fnYyh dh ,d bfrgklfon~ksa dh laLFkk ds }kjk izdkf'kr gqbZ FkhA ;g
izdk'ku dbZ i`"Bksa dk gSA ;g 118 lh1@35 tks nl iUuksa ;kfu 20 i`"B
dk gSA ftl laLFkk us bl iqfLrdksa dks izdkf'kr fd;k gS eSa Hkh
mldk ,d lnL; Fkk vU; lnL;ksa esa Mk0 okbZ0Mh0 'kekZ ] Mk0 ds0,e0
JhokLro] izks0 ,0ih0ukSfV;ky] izks0 oh0vkj0 xzksoj] Mk0 ljnsUnq eq[kthZ]
Jh nsosUnz Lo:i vxzoky ,oa Mk0 lq/kk eyS;k FksA ;g lcds lc iqjkrRo
osRrk vFkok bfrgkldkj FksA**
**The attention of the witness was drawn to paper no.
118C1/35 filed in Other Original Suit no. 5/89 seeing
 733

which he stated – it is a special publication. This magazine

was published by Historians Forum, a Delhi-based
institution of historians. It runs into many pages. This
paper, 118C1, has 10 sheets, i.e., 20 pages. I am also one
of the members of the institution which has published this
magazine. Other members included Dr. Y.D. Sharma, Dr.
K.M. Srivastava, Prof. A.P. Nautiyal, Prof. B. R. Grover,
Dr. Sardendu Mukherjee, Sri Devendra Swaroop Agarwal
and Dr. Sudha Malaiya. All of them were archaeologists or
historians.”
**xokg dk /;ku vU; ewy okn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky izdh.kZ
izkFkZuk i= la0 25 vks@1999 ds lkFk nkf[ky lwph la[;k 286 lh@1
rk 4 dh vksj fnyk;k x;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk eSaus blds lkFk
nkf[ky QksVks ,yce dkxt la[;k 286 lh 1@4 , ds lHkh QksVksxzkQ~l
HkyhHkkafr ns[k fy;s gSa tks la[;k esa dqy 64 gSaA bl ,yce esa ftrus Hkh
fp= gSa ftuesa vkneh ugha gS os lc ds lc fookfnr LFky ls gh lacaf/kr
gSaA QksVks la[;k 1 fookfnr LFky dh gS fdUrq QksVks la0 2 fookfnr LFky
dh ugha gS ;g lc QksVksxzkQ~l fookfnr bekjr ds fxjus ds ckn fy;s
x;s gSaA ftl le; ;g QksVksxzkQ~l f[kaps x;s Fks ml le; eSa ogkWa
mifLFkr FkA ml le; fofHkUu i{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k ekStwn FksA QksVks
la0 2 esa ml le; ds rRdkyhu dfe'kuj Jh ,l0ih0 flag ekStwn FksA
og bl QksVks esa ekStwn gSaA**
**The attention of the witness was drawn to list nos.
286C/1 to 4 filed with Application no. 25O/1999 filed in
Other Original Suit no. 5/89 seeing which he stated - I have
properly seen all the photographs of album filed along with
it and marked as paper no. 286C1/4 which are in all 64 in
number. All the pictures that this album has, except for the
ones representing men, are related only to the disputed
site. Photograph no. 1 represents the disputed site but
photograph no. 2 does not represent the disputed site. All
 734

these photograph after the fall of the disputed building. I

was present there at the time when these photograph were
taken. Counsels for different parties were present at that
time photograph no. 2 shows the presence of the then
commissioner Sri S. P. Singh. This photograph shows his
presence.”
**xokg dk /;ku vU; ewyokn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky dkxt
la[;k 254 lh@3 tks 82 i`"Bksa dk gS dh vksj fnyk;k x;k ftldks
ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd ;g bfrgkl niZ.k if=dk gS tks oSywe 3 uEcj
2 gS ;g fnlECkj 1996 dk gSA i`"B 62 ls i`"B 72 rd rFkk if=dk esa
Vsfcy 4 rFkk mlds iqLr ij ,fi;ksxzkQh Vsfcy 1 tks Nih gS mldk
eryc ml f'kykys[k dh fo"k; oLrq gS] jktk vk;q"kpUnz tks v;ks/;k dk
jktk Fkk mlus tUeHkwfe ij ,d fo'kky iRFkjksa ls fufeZr efUnj cuok;k
Fkk ftlds f'k[kj ij Lo.kZ dy'k yxok;k Fkk bl eafnj dks mlus fo".kq
gfj nsork dks lefiZr fd;k FkkA **
"The attention of the witness was drawn to the 82-
page paper no. 234C/3 filed in other Original Suit no. 5/89
seeing which he stated – It is a journal titled 'Itihaas
Darpan', which is volume 3 and number 2. It is December,
1996 issue. Pages 62 to 72 and table 4 in the journal and
epigraphy table 1published on its back, stand for the
contents of that inscription which shows King Ayush
Chandra, king of Ayodhya, who had constructed a large
stone temple at Janam Bhumi with a gold pitcher carved
out on its dome. He had dedicated this temple to a deity
called Vishnu Hari.”
**xokg us c;ku tkjh djrs gq, dgk fd bldk VkbZfVy gS
v;ks/;k dk fo".kq gfj eafnj f'kykys[kA blds dUVsUVl i`"B la0 66 rd
tkrs gSaA i`"B la0 67 ij blh fo"k; ij ,d 'kkVZ uksV vkufn fo".kq gfj
VSEiy bUldzi'ku vkQ vk;q"k pUnz gSA igys ds ys[kd Mk0 th0lh0
f=ikBh vkSj Mk0 Mh0ih0 nwcsa gSaA i`"B la0 69 dk fo"k; gS iSfy;ksxzkfQd
 735

bohMsUl vkQ fn v;ks/;k bU'kdzI'kuA bl ys[k ds ys[kd Mk0Vh0ih0

oekZ gSaA ;g vc fjVk;j jhMj cukjl fgUnw fo'ofo|ky; gSaA ;g ml
foHkkx ds iz/;kid Fks ftls ,sfU'k;UV bf.M;u fgLV~h dYpj ,UM
vkfdZ;ksyksth foFk bLis'kykbZts'ku bu isfy;ksxzkQh dgrs gSaA budk
LisykbZts'ku isfy;ksxzkQh esa gSA eSa Mk0 th0lh0 f=ikBh ,oa Mk0 nwcs dks
tkurk gwWaA Mk0 th0lh0f=ikBh Mk;jsDVj gSaA lj xaxk ukFk >k fjlpZ
bULVhV~;wV bykgkckn dsA Mk0 f=ikBh dk Lis'kykbZts'ku ,sihxzkQh esa gSA
Mk0 Mh0 ih0 nwcs dk Lis'kykbZts'ku ,sihxzkQh gS ;g bykgkckn
fo'ofo|ky; esa ,sfUl;sUV fgLV~h dYpj ,UM vkfdZ;ksyksth foHkkx esa
jhMj gSA eSaus bu nksuksa fo}kuksa dks fy[krs i<+rs ns[kk gSA **
**Giving statement the witness stated – Its title is
'Vishnu Hari Mandir inscription of Ayodhya'. It contents go
up to page no. 66. On this very subject there is short note
on page no. 67 which reads as 'Anadi Vishnu Hari Temple
Inscription of Ayush Chandra.' The former is jointly written
by G.C. Tripathi and Dr. D.P. Dubey whereas the writer of
the second one is T.P. Verma. Then stated – Its writers are
G.C.Tripathi and T.P. Dubey. The subject of page no. 69 is
'Palaeographic Evidence of the Ayodhya Inscription'. The
author of this article is Dr. T.P.Verma. He is now a retired
Reader of Benares Hindu University. He was a professor in
a department called Ancient Indian History, Culture and
Archaeology with specialisation in Palaeography. His
specialisation was in palaeography. I know Dr. G.C.
Tripathi and Dr. Dubey. Dr. G.C. Tripathi was director
with Sir Ganga Nath Jha Research Institute, Allahabad.
Dr. Tripathi has specialisation in Epigraphy. Dr. D.P.
Dubey has specialisation in Epigraphy. He is a reader in
the department of Ancient Indian History, Culture and
Archaeology at University of Allahabad. I have seen both
of these scholars imparting lessons and giving dictations.”
 736

**bl ejgys ij isij la[;k 254 lh 1@8 ij xokg dk /;ku

fnyk;k x;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd bl ij Mk0 Mh0ih0 nwcs
vkSj Mk0 th0lh0 f=ikBh ds gLrk{kj gSaA ¼xokg dk vkxs c;ku tkjh
j[krs gq, oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohjs'oj f}osnh us xokg dk /;ku
ewy okn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la[;k 107 lh 1@166 dh vksj
fnyk;k ftldks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g 107 lh 1@166 ls 107 lh 1@
186 rd gS bldk fo"k; oLrq jketUeHkwfe dUV~ksolhZ iSlUl , ikVZ OgkV
fgLV~h ,UM vkfdZ;ksyksth gSo Vw ls vku fnl b';wA ;g vkfVZdy esjk
fy[kk gqvk gSA ;g 1990 esa fy[kk x;k /;ku esa vkrk gSA½ ¼xokg us
c;ku tkjh j[krs gq, dgk fd ;g ys[k eSaus lcls igys 22 fnlEcj
1989 esa izlhMsaf'k;y ,M~sl ds :i esa bf.M;u vkfdZ;ksykftdy
lkslk;Vh ds 23 os okf"kZd dkUQsal esa fn;k Fkk tks dsoy ek= QksVks LVsV
ds }kjk izdkf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohjs'oj
f}osnh us xokg dk /;ku vU; ewy okn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la0
118 lh 1@65 ls 118 lh 1@114 rd fnyk;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us
dgk ;g ys[k esjk gh fy[kk gqvk gS ;g bfrgkl niZ.k ds oSyw;e 2
uEcj 1 ,UM 2 1995½ xokg us c;ku tkjh j[krs gq, dgk fd ;g ogh
eSxthu gS ftldk eSaus igys ftdz ¼o.kZu½ dj pqdk gwWaA ;g ys[k 1993
esa fy[kk x;k izrhr gksrk gSA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohjs'oj f}osnh
us xokg dk /;ku vU; ewy okn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky dkxt la0 118
lh 1@115 ls dkxt la0 118 lh 1@128 rd fnyk;k ftls ns[kdj
xokg us dgk fd ;g 1992 esa fy[kk x;k FkkA ;g fy[kk rks esjs gh }kjk
x;k FkkA 10 vDVqcj ls 13 vDVqcj 1992 esa v;ks/;k uxjh esa ,d
us'kuy lsehukj bfUM;u fgLV~h ,UM dYpj lkslk;Vh ds }kjk vk;ksftr
fd;k x;k Fkk ml vk;kstu esa eSaus f'kjdr dh FkhA ml le; ml
lEesyu esa iqjkrRo osRrk ,oa bfrgkl dkj lfEefyr gq, FksA vU; ewy
okn la0 5@89 ds dkxt la0 118 lh 1@129 ls ysdj 118 lh 1@
144 rd xokg dk /;ku fnyk;k x;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk
fd ;g dkxt mijksDr lsfeukj ls gh lacaf/kr gSA vkxs xokg us c;ku
tkjh j[krs gq, dgk fd yxHkx 40 fo}ku blesa lfEefyr gq, Fks ftuesa
ls Mk0 okbZ0Mh0'kekZ] izks0 oh0ih0 flUgk] Jh vkj0lh0 vxzoky] izks0
ds0oh0 jeu vkfn FksA rhu fnu ds bl lsehukj esa fookfnr LFky dk
 737

nkSjk vkSj eqvk;uk gqvk Fkk ml ij ppkZ gqbZ Fkh vkSj vUr esa fjT;wys'ku
ikl gq, FksA ;g dkxt tks jsY;syw'ku ikl gq, Fks muds VSDlV~l gS vkSj
ftrus fo}ku ogkWa vk;s Fks mu lcds gLrk{kj gSaA buds lkFk ftrus Hkh
QksVksxzkQ~l layXu gSa os lHkh fookfnr LFky ls izkIr oLrqvksa ds gh gSaA**
**In this behalf, the attention of the witness was drawn
to paper no. 254C1/8 seeing which the witness stated – It
bears signatures of Dr. D.P. Dubey and Dr. G.C. Tripathi.
Further continuing the statement of the witness, learned
counsel for the plaintiff Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi drew the
attention of the witness to paper no. 107C1/166 filed in
Original Suit no. 5/89 seeing which he stated – It ranges
from 107C1/166 to 107C1/186. Its content is 'Ram Janam
Bhumi Controversy: Passions apart What History and
Archaeology Have to Say on This Issue.' This article is
authored by me. It was, to my memory, written in 1990.
Continuing his statement the witness stated – I delivered
this article for the first time on 22nd December, 1989 as
presidential address at 23rd annual conference of Indian
Archaeological Society and it was published only through
its photo stat. Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the plaintiff drew the attention of the witness to paper nos.
118C1/65 to 118C1/114 filed in Other Original Suit no.
5/89 seeing which the witness stated – this article is written
only by me. It is contained in 'Itihaas Darpan', volume 2,
nos. 1 and 2, 1995. Continuing his statement the witness
submitted that this is that very magazine which I have
already referred to. This article appears to be written in
1993. Sri Vireshwar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
plaintiff drew the attention of the witness to paper no.
118C1/115 to paper no. 118C1/128 filed in Other Original
Suit no. 5/89 seeing which the witness submitted that this
 738

paper is related to the aforesaid seminar itself. Continuing

his statement the witness stated that it was attended by
nearly 40 scholars, including Dr. Y.D.Sharma, Prof. V.P.
Sinha, Sri R.C. Agarwal, Prof. K.V. Raman and so on.
During this three-day seminar the disputed site was visited
and inspected and discussion was held thereon and
resolutions were ultimately passed. This paper contains the
text of the resolution passed and bears signatures of all
those scholars who had assembled there. All those
photographs which are annexed thereto, are only of all the
articles discovered from the disputed site.”
**eSaus bu oLrqvksa dks ftl LFkku ij j[ks x;s Fks ogha ij tkdj
ns[kk FkkA ml bekjr esa eSaus 14 dkys iRFkj ds LrEHk ns[ks Fks tks esjh
jk; esa fuf'pr :i ls fdlh fgUnw eafnj ds gh vo'ks"k FksA ;g LrEHk
ftUgsa ogha dh yksdy Hkk"kk esa dlkSVh iRFkj dgrs Fks os okLro esa
f'k"Vkl uked iRFkj ds }kjk cuk;k x;k FkkA bldk fgUnh 'kCn eq>s
ugha ekywe ysfdu ;g ft;ksyksftdy VeZ gSA**
**I had made on-the-spot observation of these things
at the places where they were kept. I had seen 14 black
stone pillars in the building which were, in my opinion,
definitely remains only of some Hindu temple. These pillars
which were said to be made of kasauti stone in local
parlance, were actually made of a stone type known as
'Schist'. I do not know its Hindi word but it is a geological
term.”
**f'k"Vkst+ iRFkj lsMhesUV~h jkd dh dVsxjh esa vkrk gS ftldk jax
dkyk vkSj xgjk uhyk gksrk gSA ;g lHkh LrEHk dkys jax ds FksA bu
LrEHkksa ij fgUnw nsoh nsorkvska ds fp= fgUnw izrhdks ds fp=] fgUnqvksa esa
iq.; ekus tkus okys Qwy ifRr;ksa vkSj if{k;ksa ds fp= ,oa iw.kZ ?kV tSls
oLrqvksa ds fp= mdjs x;s FksA bu [kEHkksa ds cukoV dh 'kSyh dks
xgM+oky 'kSyh dgrs gSaA ;g X;kjgoha vkSj ckjgoha 'krkCnh esa mRrj
 739

Hkkjr esa izpfyr 'kSyh FkhA bl dky esa dUukSt esa egkjktk xksfoUnzpUnz
jkT; djrs Fks ;s xgM+oky oa'k ds FksA ;g [kEHks ml LFkku ij yxs Fks
ftuds Åij bekjr dk dqN fgLlk vius Hkkj dks j[ks gq, FkkA bu
[kEHkksa dks lcls igys eSaus 1975 esa ns[kk FkkA LrEHkksa ds vykok eq>s
tqykbZ 1992 esa yxHkx 40 ,sls f'kyk[k.M Hkh ns[kus dks feys tks 18 twu
1992 esa mR[kfur gq, Fks vkSj ftudh cukoV vkSj uDdk'kh ds vk/kkj ij
eSa fuf'pr :i ls dgrk gwWa fd os fdlh fgUnw eafnj ds gh vo'ks"k
FksA ;g mR[kuu ml le; mRrj izns'k ljdkj ds }kjk Hkw leryhdj.k
ds nkSjku feyk Fkk eSa ogka vius vkSj fo'ks"kKksa ds lkFk 2 vkSj 3 tqykbZ
dks igqWapk Fkk muds v/;;u ds fy, D;ksafd bl [kkst dh [kcj dbZ
v[kckjksa esa Ni pqdk Fkk vkSj gekjs fy, LokHkkfod ftKklk Fkh fd ge
mudk v/;;u djrsA ;g lp gS fd 26 tuojh 2001 dks tks xqtjkr esa
Hkwpky vk;k Fkk vkSj ftlds fo"k; esa v[kckjksa esa Nik Fkk fd ogkWa vusd
bfrgkfld bekjrsa {kfrxzLr gks x;ha gSa muds fujh{k.k ds fy, Hkh eSa ,d
iwjh Vhe ds lkFk xqtjkr x;k FkkA tks oLrqvksa bekjr ds fxjus ds ckn
ikbZ x;h Fkh muds v/;;u ds fy, Hkh ge ogkWa x;s Fks eSa <kaps ds fxjus
ds igys vkSj <kaps ds fxjus ds ckn nksuksa le; ftu oLrqvksa dks eSaus
ns[kk mlls ;g ik;k fd ;s nksuksa gh izdkj dh lkexzh ,d gh fofYMax
dkEiysDl ds gSa ftudk laca/k fgUnw VSEiy vkdhZVsDpj ls lh/kk lh/kk gSA
esjs bl fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj ;g gS fd ;g nksuksa izdkj dh oLrqvksa fuEu
izdkj ds eafnj LFkkiR; ls tqM+sa gSa%& 1- vkeyd tks ges'kk gh mRrj
Hkkjr ds ukxj 'kSyh ds eafnjksa ds mij f'k[kj ij yxs gksrs gSaA 2-
Nkn~; ;g Hkh eafnj LFkkiR; dk ,d fgLlk gksrk gS tks LrHEkksa ds mij
tgkWa ls Nr 'kq: gksrh gS ogkWa yxk gksrk gSA rhljk forku ;g Nr ds
uhps ftls ge lhfyax dgrs gSa ogkWa ij yxk gksrk gS fo'ks"k:i ls xHkZx`g
ds lkeus vUrjky esa ;k mlds Hkh lkeus ikspZ eaMi esa yxk gksrk gSA
pkSFkk njokts ds pkS[kV ds :i esa yxs gq, }kj LrEHk Hkh gksrs gSa ftuds
mij nsoh nsorkvksa ds fp= }kjiky ds fp= ,oa yrk oYyjh Hkh mdjs
x;s gksrs gSaA iw.kZ dqEHk LrEHkksa ds uhps ;g n'kkZ;s tkrs gSa ftlls ;g irk
pyrk gS fd }kj LrEHk vkSj lHkh LrEHk ty ls fudyrs gSa ;{kx.k
iw.kZ&?kVksa dks ;{kx.kksa ds dU/kksa ij mBk;s gq, fn[kk;k tkrk gS ftUgsa
Hkkjokgd nSoh 'kfDr;ka dgk tkrk gSA xa/koZ ,oa xa/kohZ efUnj ds
 740

vyadj.k esa vkdk'k ls /kjrh esa mrjrs gq, xa/koZ vkSj xa/kohZ ds fp= gksrs
gSa tks vius gkFkksa esa Qwy dh ekyk fy, gq, gksrs gSa tks bl ckr dk
izrhd gS fd vkdk'k ds nsox.k Hkh bl eafnj dh iwtk esa jr gSaA
yrk&mRrj Hkkjr ds ukxj 'kSyh ds eafnjksa ds f'k[kj ij uhps ls ysdj
mij rd uDdk'khnkj Qwy iRrh vkSj fMtkbusa gksrh gSa tks vkeyd ds
uhps lekIr gksrk gSA - - - - - - - - -**
**Schist comes under the category of sedimentary
rock whose colour is black and dark blue. All these pillars
were black coloured. Images of male and female Hindu
deities, Hindu emblems and those of objects like flowers,
leaves, birds and full pitchers were engraved on these
pillars. The style of construction of these pillars is called
Gahadwal Style. It was a style prevalent in northern India
in the 11th and 12th centuries. During this period, Kannauj
was ruled over by Maharaja Govind Chandra. He
belonged to Gahadwal dynasty. These pillars were laid at
the place which carried the weight of some portion of the
building. I had seen these pillars for the first time in 1975.
Apart from the pillars I came across nearly 40 such stone
blocks in July, 1992 which were excavated on 18th June,
1992, and on the basis of their construction and carving I
can definitely say that they were remains only of some
Hindu temple. This excavation came to light during the
levelling operation done by Uttar Pradesh Government at
that time. I had reached there along with some more
experts on second and third July to make study thereon,
because news regarding this discovery had been published
in many newspapers and it was natural for me to be
curious about such study. It is true that an earthquake hit
Gujarat on January 26, 2001 about which it was published
in news papers that many historical buildings had been
 741

damaged there. I had gone to Gujarat along with a

complete team, also for making their inspection. We had
gone there also to make study on those articles which had
been found after the fall of the buildings. On observation of
objects as they existed prior to and subsequent to the
collapse of the structure, I found that both types of
materials belonged to one and the same building complex,
which has a straight relation to Hindu temple architecture.
The premise of this finding of mine is that these two types
of things are associated with the following type of temple
architecture: 1- 'Aamlak' (myrobalam), which are always
affixed to the vertices/domes of Nagar Style temples of
northern India. 2- 'Chhadya' – It is also a part of temple
architecture and it is fixed above the pillars and at the
point from where the roofing begins. 3- 'Vitan' – It is fixed
below the ceiling, particularly in the intervening space in
front of Garbh-grih (sanctum sanctorum) or in the porch
facing it and it has images of male and female deities,
porters, climbers and branches engraved on it. 'Poorna
Kumbhas' are shown beneath the pillars, which goes on to
suggest that the entrance pillar and all pillars are
emerging from water. Yakshas – They are shown carrying
full pitchers on their shoulders. They are called weight-
carrying divine powers. Gandhrva and Gandharvi –
Temples, for decoration purposes, have images of
Gandhrvas and Gandharvis descending from space to the
earth, with garlands in their hands. It signifies that even
deities of space are engrossed in the worship of this temple.
Lata(climbers) – From bottom to the top Nagar Style
temples of the northern India have engraved flowers leaves
 742

and designs which end below the Aamlak.”

**blds vfrfjDr LrEHkksa ds 'kh"kZ vFkok dSfiVy Hkh feys gSa
ftudh cukoV dey dh ia[kqfM;ksa ds gSa ftUgsa ge in~eoYyjh dgrs
gSa ;g Hkh ukxj 'kSyh ds fgUnw eafnjksa esa gh ik;k tkrk gSA blds
vfrfjDr vf/k"Bku ds ^diksr* ds f'kyk[kaM Hkh feys gSa tks bl ckr dks
n'kkZrs gSa fd os f'kyk [kaM Hkh fgUnw eafnjksa ds LFkkiR; ds fgLls gksrs FksA
blds ckn esa }kj& 'kk[kkvksa dh vksj Hkh /;ku fnykuk pkgwWaxk ftuds
mij yrk&oYyjh ds vykok Hkxoku fo".kq dh dbZ ewfrZ;kWa FkhaA ftUgsa
{kr&fo{kr voLFkk esa ik;k x;k gSA vFkkZr~ ftUgsa tkucw>dj rksM+k x;k
FkkA blds vykok eafnj ds ^ihB* ds Hkh vusd f'kyk[kaM feys gSa tks bl
ckr dks izekf.kr djrs gSa fd ftl eafnj ds vo'ks"k Fks ,d ÅWaps vf/k"Bku
ij cuk FkkA lHkh vo'ks"kksa ds Hkhrj lw;Z vkSj dey ds vyad`r os
f'kyk[kaM Hkh feys gSa tks eafnjksa ds xtFkj ,oa v'oFkj ds Åij dh
eksfYMax ds fgLls Fks ftudk lh/kk laca/k lw;Z ls vFkkZr~ oS".ko nsork ls
tqM+k FkkA blds vykok eafnj ds yhaVj ij iwjs f[kys gq, dey ,oa v/kZ
f[kys gq, dey Hkh mdsjs x;s Fks ftudk lh/kk laca/k fgUnw eafnjksa ,oa
izrhdks ls FkkA izrhdksa esa fo'ks"k:i ls }kjk&'kk[kk ds }kjikyksa dk ftdz
Hkh djuk pkgwWaxk ftuds flj ij dj.M eqdqV] ftuds xys esa ouekyk]
ftuds ,d gkFk esa 'kwy ,oa nwljk gkFk ojn eqnzk esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA
bl izdkj ds }kjiky dk fp= dsoy ek= oS".ko eafnjksa esa gh miyC/k
gksrk gS vFkkZr~ ftl eafnj ds }kjiky esa bl izdkj dh [kwfc;kWa gks mUgsa
ns[kdj ;g fuf'prrkSj ij dgk tk ldrk gS fd og eafnj oS".k eafnj
gh FkkA bls ^lkbal vkQ vkbdksuksxzkQh* dgrs gSaA fgUnh esa bls ^izfrek
y{k.k* dh laKk nh tkrh gSaA bUgha f'kyk[k.Mksa esa eSaus os f'kyk[kaM Hkh
ns[ks gSa tks ^che* ds :i esa bLrseky fd;s x;s gSa mudh uDdk'kh Hkh
mlh izdkj dh Fkh ftl izdkj dh uDdk'kh gesa ckjgoh 'krkCnh ds mRrj
Hkkjr ds eafnj esa miyC/k gksrk gSA vUr esa oSls rks vkSj Hkh vusd
f'kyk[kaM eSaus ogkWa ik;s gS tks ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds oS".ko eafnj ds gSa fdUrq
fQj Hkh eSa mu rhu f'kyk ys[kksa dk Hkh fo'ks"k ftdz djuk pkgwWaxkA
ftudks iqjkfyfi 'kkL= ds fo}kuksa us i<+dj ;g crk;k gS fd ;g eafnj
tgkWa ds f'kykys[k gSa vkSj eafnj gfjfo".kq ds ml nsork dks lefiZr gS
ftlus cfyjktk dk eku enZu fd;k Fkk vkSj n'kkuu dks Hkh ,slk gh
 743

djds lekIr dj fn;k FkkA**

**Besides this, capitols of pillars have been
discovered which are shaped like lotus petals, which we
call 'padmavallari'. Even this characteristic is seen in the
Nagar Style Hindu temples. Besides stone blocks of
'Adhisthan's Kapot' have also been discovered which go on
to show that even those stone blocks used to be parts of
architecture of Hindu temples. After this I would also like
to draw attention to 'Dwar Shakhas' above which, besides
climbers and branches there were many images of Lord
Vishnu which have been found in dilapidated state, that is
to say, which have been broken deliberately. Besides, many
stone blocks also of the back of the temple have been
discovered, which fact go on to establish that the temple, of
which they were the remains, was built on an elevated
base. Among the remains Sun and lotus decorated stone
blocks have also been found which were parts of the
moulding above 'Gajthar' and 'Ashwathar' of temples and
which were directly associated with the sun or the
Vaishnava or the Vaishnavite deity. Besides these, fully as
well as semi blossomed lotus were also engraved over the
lintier of the temple, which are directly related to the
Hindu temples and symbols. I would like to particularly
refer to the Dwarpals (gatekeeper) at the Dwarshakha
(gate) which had Karand throne over head and Vanmala
(garland) around the neck, and a spear in one hand and the
other hand being in form of blessing. Such figures of
Dwarpals are to be found only in Vaishnav temples i.e. the
temples which have such characteristics in their Dwarpals,
can certainly be called Vaishnav temples. It is called the
 744

science of Iconography, and ‘Pratima Lakshan' in Hindi.

Amongst these stone blocks, I have seen those stone blocks
as well which have been used as beam. Their engraving is
also like the engravings available in temples of north India
of the twelfth century. Although I have found many other
stone blocks over there, which are of Vaishnav temple of
twelfth century, still I would like to specially refer to three
inscriptions, which have been deciphered by the scholars of
lithography to the effect that the temple, to which these
inscriptions belong, is devoted to that form of Hari Vishnu,
who diminished the pride of king Bali as also of
Dashanan.”
**oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohjs'oj f}osnh us xokg dk /;ku
vU; ewyokn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky mRrj izns'k iqjkrRo laxBu }kjk
fufeZr 'osr ,oa ';ke ,yce dh QksVks ¼fp=ksa½ dh vksj fnyk;k fp= la0
55 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd esjk ;g c;ku gS fd blesa LrEHk ds
lcls uhps Hkkx esa ,d iw.kZ&?kV gS tks nks Hkkjokgd ;{kksa ds dU/ks ij
mBk;k x;k gS iw.kZ&dqEHk esa ls yrk&oYyjh fudyrs gq, n'kkZ;k x;k gS
iw.kZ ÄV ds e/; esa ls ,d dey dk Qwy fudyrk gqvk n'kkZ;k x;k gS
ftlds Qwy ds Åij ,d nso dU;k dk fp= gS ftls dqjsn dj u"V
fd;k x;k gS blds mij LrEHk dk e/; Hkkx gS ftlesa vkB dSlsV gSaA
blds Åij ,d ekykny gS vFkkZr~ ekykvksa dh ,d yM+h gSA blds Åij
vUr esa 'kh"kZ ;k dSfiVy gS ftlds Åij dh uDdk'kh esa dey n'kkZ;k
x;k gSA fp= la0 56] 57] 58 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd ;g rhuksa gh
fp= ,d gh LrEHk ds ugha gSa fdUrq fp= la0 56 vkSj 57 ,d gh LrEHk
ds gSaA fp= la0 55] 56 vkSj 57 ds fMVsYl eSaus Åij fy[kk fn;s gSa tks
lHkh ds lHkh fgUnw eafnjksa ds LrEHkksa ls lacaf/kr gSaA fp= la0 58 dk
fp= ,d nwljs dkys iRFkj ds LrEHk dk gS ftlds Åij uDdk'kh Hkh
yxHkx blh izdkj dh gS ftlls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd ;s nksuksa iRFkj ds
LrEHk eafnj ds ,d gh Hkkx esa iz;qDr gq, gksxsaA fp= la0 59] 60] gh
LrEHk ds Åij vkSj uhps ds fMVsYl QksVksxzkQ~l gSa vkSj buesa Hkh ogh
 745

fo'ks"krk;sa gSa ftudk ftdz eSaus Åij fd;k gSA fp= la0 61 o 62 ,d
nwljs dkys iRFkj ds LrEHk ds fp= gSaA ;|fi fd budh eq[; fo'ks"krk;s
ogha gSa fdUrq blesa vkeyd tSlh nks ifV~Vdk,a Hkh gSa tks fuf'pr rkSj
ij ckjgoh 'krkCnh ds eafnjksa esa gh izrhd ds :i esa fn[kk;s tkrs gSaA
fp= la0 64] 65 vkSj 66 Hkh dkys iRFkj ds LrEHk ds fp= gSa ftudh
cukoV vkSj ftuds Åij dk vyadj.k Hkh mUgha izrhdksa ls Hkjk gS tks
ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds fgUnw eafnjksa dh fo'ks"krk gksrh gSA 63 uEcj dk fp=
[kEHks ds uhps dk fp= gS ftlds Åij dk vyadj.k VwVs gq, ;{kksa ds
fp= iw.kZ&?kV ls fudyrs gq, dey dk fp= ,oa Qwy&ifRr;ksa ds fp=
ls lfTtr gSaA bldk ftdz eSa Åij dj pqdk gwWaA fp= la0 71] 72]73 ds
fp= Hkh ,d nwljs dkys f'k"Vkl iRFkj ds [kEHks dk gS ftldh uDdk'kh
FkksM+h fHkUu gS blds Åij uhps dh vksj ;{k vkSj iw.kZ&?kV gSa fdUrq iw.kZ
?kV ls fudyrs gq, dey ds lkFk lkFk nwljh vksj ,d nwljk iq"i gS
bl LrEHk ij ekyk;sa fHkUu izdkj dh gSa rFkk buds 'kh"kZ vFkok dSfiVy
ij mdsjs x;s i=&iq"iny Åij ls uhps dh vksj fxjrs gq, fn[kk;s x;s
gSa vr% ;g LrEHk Hkh ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds eafnj ds gh gSaA fp= la0 74 ds
[kEHks dk fMVsy 76 uEcj ij gS ftlesa ,d dks.k ij iw.kZ&?kV esa ls
fudyrk gqvk ,d iq"i gS fp= la0 87] 88] 89] 90] 91] 95] 96] 97] 98]
99] 100] 101] 102] 103] 104] 105] 106 dks fn[kkdj oknh ds odhy ds
iz'u ds mRrj esa xokg us crk;k fd fp= la0 87] 88 nksuksa gh fp=
la[;k 86 ds fMVsYl QksVksxzkQ~l gSaA ;s LrEHk Hkh dkys f'kLVkst iRFkj ds
VqdM+s ls cuk;k x;k Fkk bl ij Hkh tks fp= eSa ns[k jgk gwW os lc
ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds fgUnw eafnj ds gh izrhd fpUg gSaA fp= 87 ds fp= esa
lcls Åij iq"i ia[kqfM;ksa ds e/; ls fudyrs gq, ekyk iafDr;ksa esa n'kkZ;s
x;s gSa mlds uhps e/; Hkkx esa nks iSuy gSa Åijh iSuy v)Z
pUnzkdkj :i esa gSa ftuds mij iq"iksa dh iqa[kfM;kWa gSaA mudks bl izdkj
ls fn[kk;k x;k gS ekuksa ,d dey vius isjhdkiZ ds Åij ia[kqfM;ksa ds
ny ls lfTtr gSA blds uhps ds iSuy esa pkj deyksa vkSj mudh
/kqekonkj ia[kqfM;ksa ds fjihV gksrs gq, iSuy gSa ;s nksuksa gh izrhd Hkkjrh;
eafnj LFkkiR; ds Hkhrj feyrs gSa tks lEiw.kZ Hkkjrh; lkfgR; esa fgUnw
izrhdksa ds uke ls tkus tkrs gSaA fp= la0 89] 90 rFkk 91 Hkh ,d vU;
LrEHk ds fofHkUu Hkkxksa dks n'kkZrs gSa buds 'kh"kZ ij mYVs iRrhnkj izrhd
 746

gSa tcfd e/; esa ouekyk vkSj ef.k dk izrhd gS fp= la0 91 esa iw.kZ ÄV
ls fudyrs gq, iq"i oYyjh ,oa iRrksa ds fpUg gSa ftuls ;g Li"V gksrk
gS fd iw.kZ ÄV esa ty Fkk vkSj ml ty ls lHkh fgUnw izrhd fudy jgs
FksA ;g Hkh fgUnw eafnj LFkkiR; dks iw.kZ :i ls n'kkZrk gSA QksVks la0 97]
98] 99] 101 Hkh ,d f'k"Vkst iRFkj ds LrEHk ds fofHkUu fp= gSa ftuds
Åij dh uDdk'kh Hkh mlh izdkj ds gSa ftudk ftdz eSaus igys dgs x;s
iRFkj ds ckjs esa fd;k gSA fp= la0 101] 102] 103 rd dkys iRFkj
LrEHk ds fofHkUu fp= gS ftuds Åij nso izfrekvksa dks dgha dgh u"V
dj fn;k x;k gS vU;Fkk budh fo'ks"krk;s Hkh ogh gS ftudk o.kZu eSa
Åij dj pqdk gwWA fp= la0 104] 105 vkSj 106 Hkh ,d ,sls gh dkys
iRFkj ds [kEHks ls lacaf/kr gS ftuds Åij dey ekyk] vkeyd] iw.kZ ?kV]
;{k vkfn ds fp= fo|eku gSa fdUrq fp= la0 106 esa iw.kZ?kV ls fudyrk
gqvk dey nks nyks dk gSA Åij ds ny ls fudyrs gq, ,d eksj oYyjh
dk fp= Hkh gS ftls gYdh lh {kfr igqWpkbZ x;h gS vkSj blds QslsV~l gS
vFkkZr~ ,d eksj gS eksj ds ihNs ia[k gSa tks Åij dh vksj tk jgs gSa vkSj
oYyjh :i esa fxj jgs gSaA gal Hkkjrh; izrhdksa esa ,d gSA oS".ko /keZ ls
lacaf/kr gksrk gS D;ksafd gal ljLorh ls Hkh lacaf/kr gSA vHkh Hkh jgrk gSA
;s QslsV~l tks eSaus crk;s gS dey ds Åij gSaA fp= la0 24 esa lkeus dh
vksj ,d iRFkj gS ftlds Åij 1 fy[kk gS] mlds uhps fgUnh esa tUeHkwfe
fy[kk gS vkSj mlds uhps vaxzsth esa Hkh tUeHkwfe fy[kk gSA fp= la0 1] 2
o 3 esa ,slk dqN Hkh ugha fn[krk ftlls eSa dg ldwa fd bekjr dk ;g
fgLlk fdlh oS".ko eafnj dk ckjgoh 'krkCnh esa cuk gqvk va'k gSA fp=
la0 70 ml lhfyax dk fp= gS tks bekjr ds ,d xqEcn ds uhps cuk Fkk
;g bZVksa dh LFkkiR; gS ftlds Åij pwus dk eksVk iykLVj p<+k;k x;k
FkkA chp esa dey dh ia[kqfM;ksa dk ,d fp= gS tks laHkor% jaxksa ls
cuk;k x;k Fkk vkSj ftlds chp ls ,d yksgs dh psu yVd jgh gSA
oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh ohjs'oj f}osnh us mRrj izns'k iqjkrRo
laxBu }kjk fufeZr jaxhu ,yce ds fp=ksa dh vksj xokg dk /;ku
fnyk;k ftls ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd fp= la0 44 esa ,d yky iRFkj
dk iV~V gS ftlds Åij la[;k 1 vkSj fgUnh esa tUeHkwfe fy[kk gS rFkk
mlds uhps vaxzsth esa Hkh tUeHkwfe fy[kk gS fp= la0 44] 45] 46] 47] 48]
49] 50] 51] 52] 53] 54 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd bekjr ds Hkhrj
 747

tc vki tkrs gSa rks mlds njokts ij nksuksa vksj nks dkys iRFkj ds
LrEHk yxs gSa ;g fp= mUgha ds gSaA fp= la0 55] ;s Hkh ml bekjr ds
ckmUM~h oky ds fp= gSaA fp= 62] 63] 64] 65 ;s fp= Hkh mlh bekjr ds
ckmUM~hoky ds fp= gSaA fp= 59] 60] 66] 68] 69] 70] 71] 72] 73] 76]
77] 78] 81] 82] 84] ml <kWaps ds Hkhrj gh ;s lc cus FksA rFkk Hkhrj dh
vksj ls [khaps gq, fp= gSaA fp= la0 104] 105] 106] 107] 108] 109] 110]
111] 112] 113] 114] 115] 116] 117] 118] 119] 120] 121] 122] 123]
124] 125] 126] 127] 137] 138] 139] 140] 141] 142] 143] 144] 145]
147] 157] 158] 159] 160] 161] 162] 163] 164] 165] 166] 167] 176]
177] 178] 179] 180] 181] 182] 183] 184] 185] 186] 187] 188] 189]
190] 191] 192] 193] 194] 195] 196] 197] 198] 199] vkSj 200 bu lHkh
fp=ksa dks eSaus HkyhHkkafr ns[k fy;k vkSj ;g jaxhu fp= Hkh mUgha dkys
f'k"Vkst iRFkj ds cus gSa ftUgsa LFkkuh; Hkk"kk esa ^dlkSVh* dk iRFkj dgk
tkrk gSA ;s fp= dkys fp=ksa tSls gh gS dsoy jax dk gh QdZ gSa fdUrq
eSa fp= ua0 186 vkSj 187 dh vksj /;ku vkd`"V djkuk pkgwWaxk fd ftlesa
dey ds Åij in~evklu yxk;s fdlh nsork ds fp= ds uhps dk fgLlk
Åij dk iwjk Hkkx u"V dj fn;k x;kA esjs Kku ds vuqlkj ;g fp=
Hkxoku fo".kq ds ;ksx ds :i esa n'kkZ;h x;h ,d ewfrZ dk izek.k nsrk gSA
;g Hkh esjs Åij fy[kk;s x;s lk{;ksa dks vkSj Hkh iksf"kr djrk gS fd ftl
eafnj ds ;s LraHk jgs gksaxs mldk lh/kk laca/k ,d oS".ko eafnj ls Fkk
ftldh frfFk ckjgoha 'krkCnh esa iM+rh gS D;ksafd vkVZ LVkbZy dh n`f"V
ls ;ksx eqnzk dh fo".kq dh ewfrZ vkSj bl izdkj ls mdsjh x;h ckjgoha
'krkCnh dh ,d fo'ks"krk FkhA blh ,yce ds fp= la0 134] 135] 174
dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk fd ;g fp= Hkh xqEcn ds uhps dh lhfyax dk
fp= gS ftlesa chp esa dey dh ia[kqMh jaxksa ls fpf=r gS rFkk ftlds
e/; ls yksgs dh psu fudyrh gqbZ n`f"Vxkspj gks jgh gSA bldk Hkh ftdz
eSaus Åij fd;k gSA bu fp=ksa esa lcls fo'ks"k ckr esjh n`f"V esa vkB
ia[kqfM;ksa okyk dey dk fp= gSA ml bekjr esa rhu xqEcn Fks ,d
xqEcn ds uhps dh lhfyax tks bZaVksa ls cuh Fkh vkSj ftlds Åij IykLVj
fd;k x;k Fkk ;g fp= mldk gSA**
"The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Sri Vireshwar
Dwivedi drew the attention of the witness towards the black
 748

and white photographs prepared by the U.P.

Archaeological Organization and filed in O.O.S No. 5/89.
After looking at photograph no. 55, the witness stated that
a complete pitcher is shown in the lowest part of the pillar
and the same was lifted on shoulders by two load carrying
Yakshas (demigods). Lata- Vallari (Branches) have been
shown to be emerging out of the complete pitcher. A lotus
flower is seen emerging from the center of the complete
pitcher and a nymph is shown above the flower. Above it is
the mid part of the pillar, which has eight facets. Above it is
a Maladal i.e. string of garlands. Above it is the vertex or
capital, over which a lotus has been shown in engraving.
After looking at photograph nos. 56, 57 and 58 the witness
stated that all these three photographs are not of the same
pillar and instead photograph nos. 56 and 57 are of the
same pillar. The details of photograph nos. 55, 56 and 57
have been given by me as above and all of them are related
to pillars of Hindu temples. The photograph no. 58 is of
another black stone pillar and its engraving is almost
similar, from which it appears that both these stone pillars
must have been used in same part of the temple. The
photograph nos. 59, 60, 77 are detailed photographs of
upper and lower part of the pillars and they have the same
characteristics, as given above by me. The photograph nos.
61 and 62 are of another black stone pillar. Although their
main characteristics are similar, but they contain two
Amlak (myrobalan) like strips, which are definitely shown
as symbols of twelfth century temples. The photograph nos.
64, 65 and 66 are also of black stone pillars, whose make
and superficial decoration is full of those very symbols,
 749

which are characteristics of twelfth century Hindu temples.

The photograph no. 63 is of the lower part of the pillar,
whose superficial decoration includes damaged pictures of
Yakshas (demigods), complete pitcher, lotus emerging out
of complete pitcher and flowers-leaves, which have already
been described above by me. The photograph nos. 71, 72,
73 are of another black Shistas stone pillar, whose
engravings are a bit different. They have Yakshas
(demigods) and complete pitcher at top and bottom, but
along with the lotus emerging out of the complete pitcher is
another flower on the other side. This pillar has various
types of garlands and its vertex or capital have leaves-
bunch of flowers moving downwards. Hence, these pillars
are also of twelfth century temple. The details of the pillar
in photograph no. 74 is at no. 76, which has a flower
emerging out of the complete pitcher at an angle. On being
shown photograph nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106 by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, the witness stated that photograph
nos. 87 and 88 are both detailed photographs of
photograph no. 86. These pillars are also of black Shistas
stone. The figures appearing over it, are also of symbols of
twelfth century Hindu temple. In photograph no. 87 strings
of garland have been shown to be emerging from the center
of the flower petals at top. Below it in the mid part, are
two panels. The upper panel is semi circular with flower
petals on top in such a manner as if a lotus is blooming on
its pericorp with its petals. In the lower panel, there are
four lotus and their rounding petals are repeated in the
panel. Both these symbols are found in Indian temple
 750

architecture, which are known as Hindu symbols in the

entire Indian literature. The photograph nos. 89, 90 and 91
also depict various part of another pillar. Their top contain
reversed leaf symbols whereas the mid part contain
symbols of Vanmala (series of garland) and Mani. The
photograph no. 91 depicts symbols of Pushpvallari (flower)
and leaves, which shows that the complete pitcher
contained water and all the Hindu symbols emerged out of
that water. This also completely reflects on Hindu temple
architecture. The photograph nos. 97, 98, 99 and 101 also
depict Shistas stone pillars and the engravings over them
are similar to the ones described as above by me. The
photograph nos. 101, 102 and 103 are various pictures of
black stone pillars with the figures of deities existing over
them having been damaged at places, otherwise their
characteristics are similar to the ones described above by
me. The photograph nos. 104, 105 and 106 are also of
similar black stone pillars, which have the figures of lotus,
garlands, Amlak (myrobalan), complete pitcher, Yaksha
(demigod) etc. existing over them. However, the lotus
emerging out of the complete pitcher in photograph no. 106
is of two petals. A peacock vallari can be seen emerging
out of the upper petal, which has been slightly damaged
and it has facets i.e. there is a peacock, which has feathers
pointing forward on its rear and are falling in form of
vallari. Swan is one of the Indian symbols related to
Vaishnav religion because it is related to Saraswati. It is
same even today. The facets named above by me, are the
lotus. In photograph no. 24 there is a stone with numeral
'१' written over it followed by Janmbhumi in Hindi.
 1

Reserved

In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

O.O.S.No.4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)

1. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P.

Lucknow, Moti Lal Bose Road, Police Station Kaiserbagh, City

Lucknow through Shah Ghyas Alam, Secretary.

2. Molvi Mohammad Qasim, aged about 53 years, son of Sheikh

Abdul Razzaq, General Secretary, Jamiatul Ulami Hind, U.P.

Bagh Gunge Nawab, Police station Kaserbag, Lucknow

(Deleted vide order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./- 9.12.91

2/1. Mohd. Siddiq alias Hafiz Mohd. Siddiq, aged about 46 years,

s/o late Haji Mohd. Ibrahim, resident of Lal Bagh, Moradabad,

General Secretary, Jamiatul Ulemai Hind, Uttar Pradesh, Jamiat

Building, B.N. Verma Road (Katchehry Road), Lucknow

3. Haji Mohammad Ehtram Ali, aged about 70 years son of

Munshi Mohammad Ehtisham Ali deceased, resident of

Khayaliganj, police station Kaiserbagh, City Lucknow (Struck

off under Court's order D/ 14.3.70. Sd/-)

4. Molvi Mohammad Faiq aged about 55 years, son of Haji

Ramzan R/o Mohalla Tehri Bazar, Ajodhiya, pergana Haveli

Avadh, Ditt. Faizabad.

 2

(Deleted vide court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./- 9.12.91

5. Molvi Mohammad Naseer aged about 58 years, son of Ashiq

Ali, resident of village : Ponthar, Pergana Tanda Tahsil Tanda,

District Faizabad.

(Deleted vide court's order dated 16.11.92

Sd./- 16.11.92

6. Shahabuddin aged about 42 years, son of Haji Munney Sahib,

resident of Angoori Bagh, City Faizabad.

(Deleted vide Court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./- 9.12.91

6/1 Ziauddin aged about 46 years, son of Haji Shahabuddin

(deceased) resident of Mohalla Angoori Bagh, pergana Haveli

Oudh,City and District Faizabad.

(Amended as per court's order dated 23.8.90)

Sd./- 31.8.90

7. Mohammad Hashim aged about 40 years, son of Karim Bux,

resident of Mohalla Kutya, Paji Tola, Ajodhiya Pergana Haveli
Avadh, Distt. Faizabad.

8. Vakiluddin aged about 55 years son of Ismail, resident of

Madarpur, pegana and Tahsil Tanda, District Faizabad.

“8/1. Maulana Mahfoozurahman, aged about 52 years son of late

Maulana Vakiluddin, Resident of Village Madarpur, Pergana
and Tahsil Tanda, District Faizabad.”

(Amended & Added as per Court's

 3

order dated 9.5.95)

Sd./- 9.5.95

9. Mahmud/Ahmad aged about 30 years son of Ghulam Hasan,

resident of Mohalla Rakabganj, City Faizabad

(Added under Court's order

dated 4.2.63

Sd./- 5.2.63

10. Zahoor Ahmad, S/o Noor Mohd. Aged about 80 years r/o

Mohalla Nau Ghazi Qabar, Ayodhya District Faizabad.

(Deleted vide court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./-9.12.91

10/1 Farooq Ahmad, son of Sri Zahoor Ahmad, R/o Mohalla

Naugazi Qabar, Ayodhya City, Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad.

(Added vide court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./- 9.12.91 .....Plaintiffs

Versus

1. Gopal Singh Visharad, aged about 53 years, son of Thakur

Girdhari Singh, resident of Sargaddwar, Ajodhiya, District

Faizabad.

(Deleted vide court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./-9.12.91

2. Sri Param Hans Ram Chander Das, resident of Ajodhia,

Faizabad. (Dead)
 4

2/1. Mahanth SureshDas Chela Sri Param Hans Ram Chander Das
resident of Ajodia, city Faizabad.

3. Nkirmohi Akhara situate in Mohalla Ram Ghat City Ajodhiya,

District Faizabad, through Mahant Raghunath Dass Chela

Mahant Dharm Dass Mahant Raghunath Dass Chela Mahant

Dharam Mahant Raghunath Das Chela Mohant Dharam Das

Mahant Rameshwar Das Mahnat Sarbarkar, resident of Nirmohi

Akhara Mohalla Ramghat, City Ajodhiya Distrit Faizabad.

(Substituted dated 23.7.66) Sd./- 30.7.66

Mahant Pram Dass Chela Mahant Gobardhan Dass

4. Mahant Raghunath Dass Chela Mahant Dharam Dass Mahant

and Sarbarakhar Nirmohi Akhaara Mohalla Ram Ghat, city

Ajodhiya, District Faizabad.

(Substituted under Court's order dated 23.7.66)

Sd./- 30.7.66

5. The State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary to the State

Government, U.P.

(Amended under court's order dated 8.7.67)

Sd./- 20.7.67
Corrected under court's order
dated 30.1.62 Sd./-
6. The Collector, Faizabad.

7. The City Magistrate, Faizabad.

 5

8. The Superintendent of Police, Faizabad.

9. B. Priya Dutt Son of R.B. Babu Kamlapat Ram, resident of

Rakabganj, Faizabad.

10. President, all India Hindu Maha Sabha, Read Road, New Delhi.

Maha Pradeshik Sabha,

11. President All India Arya/ Samaj, Delhi (Dewan Hall)

Baldan Bhawan, Shradhanand Bazar, Delhi.

(Added under court's order dated 20.3.63)

Corrected as per court's order

dated 17.9.92 Sd./- 17.9.92

12. President, All India Sanatan Dharm Sabha, Delhi.

(Added under Court's order dated 20.3.1963)

13. Abhiram Das age 54 years, Sadhak Shesh Sri Baba Sarin Das,

R/o Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya.

(Added under court's order dated 26.4.48 Sd./-

(Deleted vide court's order dated 9.12.91

Sd./- 9.12.91)

13/1 Dharam Das alleged Chela Baba Abhiram Das, R/o Hanuman

Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad. (Sd./- 27.1.92)

14. Pundrik Misra, age 33 years, s/o Raj Narain Misra, R/o

Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad.

 6

15. Sri Ram Dayal Saran, Chela of late Ram Lakhan Saran, resident

of town Ayodhya, District Faizabad.

16. Shab Narain Das Chaila Baba Badri Das Ji Sankatwali, r/o Sri

Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad.

(Deleted vide court's order dated 9.12.91)

Sd./-9.12.91

17. Ramesh Chandra Tripathi aged about 29 years, son of Sri Parsh

Rama Tripathi, Resident of village Bhagwan Patti, Pargana

Minjhaura, Tahsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad.

(Added under court's order dated 30.4.69)

Sd./- 14.5.69

18. Mahant Ganga Das aged about 45 years, (Chela of Mahant

Sarju Dass R/o Mandir Ladle Prasad, City Ayodhya, Faizabad.

Do-

19. Shri Swami Govindacharya, manas martand putra Balbhadar

Urf Jhallu, R/o Makan No.735, 736, 737, Katra Ayodhya,

Pergana Haveli Audh Tahsil and Zila Faizabad.

20. Madan Mohan Gupta, convener of Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram

Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samti, E-7/45 Bangla T.T. Nagar,

Bhopal.
 7

(Amended vide order dated 27.1.92) Sd./-27.1.92

(Added by order of court's dated 23.10.89) Sd./-

21. Prince Anjum Qadar, President All India Shia conference,

Registered, Qaumi Ghar, Nadan Mohal Road, F.S. Chowk,

Lucknow

(Amended vide order dated 27.1.92) Sd./-27.1.92

(Added by court's order dated 8.12.89)

22. Umesh Chandra Pandey, son of Sri R.S. Pandey, R/o Ranupalli,

Ayodhya, Distt. Faizabad.

(Added in court's dated 20.1.92) Sd./-23.1.92

………Defendants

JUDGEMENT

(Delivered by Hon. D.V. Sharma,J.)

It would be expedient to refer the background of the dispute

before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties.

O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989, Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur

Ahmad and 8 others, O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989, Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.

Baboo Priya Dutt Ram & others, 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. 5 of 1989, Bhagwan Sri Ram

Virajman at Ayodhya and others vs. Rajendra Singh and Others were

filed before the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter, State of

 8

U.P. filed an application (Misc. case No. 29 of 1987) on 10/15

December, 1987 under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure read

with Section 151 C.P.C. before the High Court on the ground that due

to importance of the matter these suits may be withdrawn from the

Civil Court, Faizabad to this Court and gave undertaking to meet out

expenses of the witnesses etc.

Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the above

application and directed that these cases may be disposed of by the

Full Bench of this Court and place before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for

constituting the Full Bench, which is hearing these matters.

These suits were renumbered in High Court as O.O.S. No. 1 of

1989, O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989, O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989, O.O.S. No. 4 of

1989 and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989. The Original Suit no. 2 of 1989 was

subsequently withdrawn, accordingly only four cases are pending for

adjudication before this Bench. Original Suit No. 4 of 1989 is the

leading case.

The Government of India decided to acquire all area in dispute

in the suits pending and issued an ordinance named the Acquisition of

Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 on 7.1.1993 for acquisition

of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janambhumi-Babri Masjid

complex. The said ordinance was later replaced by Act No. 33 of

1993. In view of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, all

pending suits and legal proceedings abated. Thereafter, Special

Reference No. 1 of 1993 was made by President of India under Article

 9

143 of the Constitution of India. The same was challenged by one Dr.

Ismail Faruqui in Transferred Case (C ) Nos. 41, 43 and 45 of 1993,

Jamiat-Ulama-E-Hind and another Vs. Union of India and others in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 208 of 1993, Mohd. Aslam Vs. Union of

India and others and in transfer case No. 42 of 1993 Thakur Vijay

Ragho Bhagwan Birajman Mandir and another Vs. Union of India and

others and in Special Reference No. 1 of 1993, Hargyan Singh Vs.

State of U.P. And others.

The Hon'ble Apex Court decided aforesaid matters and referred

back these cases for adjudication with certain directions. The case is

reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360, Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. vs.

Union of India and Ors (Annexure-I).

Looking to the importance, sensitivity and vividness of the

matter, it would be appropriate that relevant papers may be kept in

different annexures for ready reference along with judgment.

Plaintiffs have filed aforesaid O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 with

following reliefs:-

Annexure-I
Page 51-63

(a) A declaration to the effect that the property indicated by letters

A B C D in the sketch map attached to the plaint is public

mosque commonly known as ‘Babari Masjid’ and that the land

adjoining the mosque shown in the sketch map by letters E F G

H is a public Muslim grave yard as specified in para 2 of the

 10

plaint may be decreed.

(b) That in case in the opinion of the Court delivery of possession is

deemed to be the proper remedy, a decree for delivery of

possession of the mosque and grave yard in suit by removal of

the idols and other articles which the Hindus may have placed

in the mosque as objects of their worship be passed in plaintiffs'

favour, against the defendants.

Amendment/Addition

made as per Court’s

order dt.25.5.95 Sd./-

(bb) That the statutory Receiver be commanded to hand over the

property in dispute described in the Schedule ‘A’ of the Plaint

by removing the unauthorized structures erected thereon.”

(c) Costs of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(d) Any other or further relief which the Hon'ble Court considers

proper may be granted.

The plaint case, in brief, is that in the town of Ayodhya one

ancient historic mosque, commonly known as Babri Masjid was built

by Emperor Babar more than 433 years ago, after his conquest of

India for the use of the Muslims in general, as a place of worship and

performance of religious ceremonies. The main construction of the

mosque is shown by letters A B C D and the land adjoining the

mosque is also shown in the sketch map.

 11

It is further averred that there is ancient grave yard of Muslims,

covered by the graves of the Muslims, who lost their lives in the

battle between emperor Babar and the previous ruler of Ayodhya. The

mosque and the graveyard are vested in the Almighty. The mosque

and the graveyard is situated in Mohalla Kot Rama Chander also

known as Rama Kot Town, Ayodhya. The Khasra number of the

mosque and the graveyard are shown in the suit in schedule attached

with the plaint.

For the upkeep and maintenance of the mosque, a cash grant

used to be paid from the Royal Treasury. After the annexation of

Oudh, the British Government also continued the cash Nankar till

1864 and thereafter instead of cash Nankar revenue free land in village

Sholapur and Bahoranpur was granted. In the mosque, but outside the

main building of the mosque, there was a Chabutra 17' X 21', on

which there is a wooden structure in the form of a tent which is still

there. In 1885 Mahant Rghbuar Dass filed a Original Suit No. 61/280

of 1885, Mahant Rghbuar Dass Vs. Secretary of State for India in

Council and Mohammad Asghar, Mutawalli of the Babri Mosque, for

permission to build a temple on the Chabutra 17' X 21' . The suit was

dismissed and appeal (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1885) from the said

decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faizabad.

It is further contended that in 1934 during the communal riot in

Ayodhya, some portions of the Babri Mosque was damaged and they

were rebuilt and reconditioned at the cost of Government. In 1936 the

 12

U.P. Muslim Wakfs Act XIII of 1936 was passed and after making an

enquiry the Wakfs Commissioner, who was a Sunni Mohammadan

held that Babri Mssjid was built by emperor Babar and the Babri

Mosque was a public wakf and no suit was filed by the Hindus

denying the correctness of the report of the Commissioner. Muslims

remained in the peaceful possession of the aforesaid mosque till

23.12.1949 when a large crowd of Hindus, damaged the said mosque

and desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque. Even

if a Hindu temple as alleged by the defendants existed on the site of

which emperor Babar built the mosque 433 years ago, the Muslims,

by virtue of their long and continuous possession perfected their title

by adverse possessions and the right, title or interest of the Hindu

public is extinguished.

The incident of desecrating the mosque was reported by police

constable, Mata Prasad to the police station, Ayodhya and a case was

registered. The City Magistrate, Faizabad started proceedings under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. and attached the property on 29.12.1949 and

handed over possession to Receiver, Sri Priya Dutt Ram. It is further

averred that City Magistrate, Faizabad illegally with injustice to the

plaintiffs, deprived a large section of Muslim community from

exercising their legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

On 16.1.1950 defendant No. 1 filed Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950

in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Suit No. 25 of 1950 and Suit

No. 26 of 1960 were also filed. The instant suit was filed by the
 13

plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and two months notice was also

given to the State of U.P. The plaintiffs are entitled for restoration of

the building as it existed on 5.12.1992, which was demolished on 6th

December, 1992.

The Mosque is a place where prayers are offered publicly as a

matter of right, even the open space where prayers are offered may be

a mosque and as such even after the demolition of the mosque the land

over which the building stood, is still a mosque and Muslims are

entitled to offer prayer thereon.

After the proclamation of Ordinance No. 8 of 1993 on 7 th

January, 1993, which was substituted by an Act of Parliament, namely,

Act No. 33 of 1993, the Commissioner of Faizabad Division is

working as Authorized person on behalf of the Government of India.

The cause of action arose on 23.12.1949 at Ayodhya District Faizabad

within the jurisdiction of this Court when the Hindus illegally

desecrated the mosque by placing idols in the mosque and the cause of

action arose to the plaintiffs on 29.12.1949, the date on which the City

Magistrate, Faizabad attached the mosque.

Annexure-I
written statements in
O.O.S.No./89 Pages-
64-185

On behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 a joint written statement

was filed on 12.3.1962, denying the plaint averments and only

 14

admitted this fact to the extent that Shri Priya Dutt Ram was appointed

Receiver by the City Magistrate, Faizabad. It is further submitted that

the suit is hopelessly time barred and Muslims have not been in the

possession over the property in dispute since 1934 and Hindus are

holding the temple in their possession, even prior to 1934 and

continuous Hindu puja is being done in the temple and Muslims have

never offered prayer since 1934, falsely described as Babri Mosque. It

is further averred that the disputed place is a Hindu public charitable

institution and is open for worship to all Hindus. The suit is also

barred by time as no action was taken in time. On equitable grounds

also, the suit deserves to be rejected because Hindu puja is going on in

the said temple since 1934 and admittedly from January, 1950 when

the City Magistrate directed the defendant No. 9 to carry on Puja as

usual in the said temple. The suit under Order 1 Rule, 8 C.P.C. is

bad as no one representing the Hindu community has been made a

defendant in the suit and defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 do not

represent the Hindu community.

In the additional written statement, it is further urged that the

U.P. Muslim Wakf Act No. XIII of 1936, is ultra vires to the

Government of India Act, 1935. The building and land in suit lying

in the province of Oudh became subject of Lord Canning

proclamations and all previous rights became non existent. No fresh

grant in respect of the property in suit having been made after the

proclamation, to the plaintiffs or to the Muslim community have no

 15

right to sue. The Commissioner of Wakf is intended to give effect to

the scheme of administration under the Muslim Waqfs Act and does

not and cannot confer jurisdiction to decide question of title as against

non-Muslims under Wakf Act, 1936. The objections were also not

invited and no illegal publication was made.

In replication plaintiffs have urged that Hindu public never held

the mosque in their possession since 1934 nor holding possession of it

as temple since then and they have not completed title by adverse

possession. The Muslim community has been in continuous

possession and offered prayer at the mosque for the last 450 years

since the time the mosque was constructed and Muslim public

representing the wakf perfected their title to the property in suit and

thus the title or interest if any, of Hindu Public has extinguished.

On 25.1.1963 a separate written statement was filed by Gopal

Singh Visharad. He has denied the averments of the plaint and

admitted that Receiver was appointed by the City Magistrate,

Faizabad of Janamasthan temple. It is further submitted that plaintiffs

have no right to make the defendant contest the suit in a representative

capacity. Plaint averments have been denied and it is urged that suit

was barred by time. It is without any cause of action and Hindus are

in possession over the property in suit from 1934. A temple is a public

charitable institution and is a place of worship open to all the Hindus

and no individual can represent the entire Hindu community about this

ancient temple. The plaintiffs cannot claim any right through the
 16

proceeding of U.P. Muslims Waqf Act and the ex parte report is not

binding on them. The building in suit is covered by the proclamation

of Lord Canning. No fresh grant of property was ever made after the

proclamation. Accordingly, the Muslims have no right to sue. The

report of Wakf Commissioner was not in accordance with the wakf

Act and cannot confer jurisdiction on him to decide the question of

title as against Non-Muslims.

The replication was also filed to the statements of defendants

No. 1 and 2 by the plaintiffs and it has been urged that Hindu public is

not in possession over the property in suit since 1934 and Muslims are

in possession of the property of the suit for the last 450 years.

On behalf of defendants no. 3 and 4 separate written statement

was filed. It has been urged on behalf of them that plaint averments

about battle and construction of mosque by Babar have been coined as

a story to give colour to the case. Answering defendants are not aware

of the any suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Dass, Mahant of

Janmasthan. Mosque was not damaged in 1934. It has further been

urged that alleged mosque never existed nor does it exists even now.

It is always the temple of Janma-Bhumi with idols of Hindu Gods.

Accordingly the entire case as setup in the plaint is false and

fabricated. The Muslims have no right to offer prayer in the said

temple. On 22.3.1992 local administration demolished Sumitra

Bhawan temple. According to the customs of Akhara Rama Janam

Bhumi, temple is a holy place of worship and the said temple Ram
 17

Chabutra has an history of judicial scanning since 1885 and Hindus

worshiped there. The building in question in suit is the temple of

Janam Bhumi is under attachment and accordingly the suit as

contemplated under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is misconceived. The

individual plaintiffs are Sunnis and they cannot represent Shia

community. Plaintiffs have no cause of action to file a suit.

Defendant No. 4 is the Mahant and Sarbarahkar of Nirmohi Akhara

has averred that temple Janam Bhumi is the antiquity of Nirmohi

Akhara and no Muslim was ever allowed to enter into the said temple.

The answering defendants have wrongly been deprived of the said

charge and management of the said temple and accordingly the suit

no. 25/1958 was filed. In alternative it is urged that even after 1934,

12 years have already been passed and the property remained in

continuous possession of Hindus. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not

entitled for reliefs claimed.

Additional written statements of defendants No. 3 and 4 were

filed stating that the property in suit is a temple.

On behalf of the plaintiffs, replication was filed reiterating the

plaint averments. It has been further averred that Muslims are in

continuous possession for the last 450 years and Muslim public as

representative of Wakf has perfected the title of the property in suit by

their long and undisturbed possession against the interest of Hindu

public to their knowledge.

On behalf of defendant no. 3 on 21.8.1995 additional written

 18

statement was filed. It has been urged that prior to this suit a suit no.

256/1922 was filed between Mahanth Narottam Das and Mahant Ram

Swaroop Das. Real facts regarding Ram Chabutra are available in that

suit. In another suit No. 95 of 1941 between Mahant Nirmohi Akhara

namely Ram Charan Das and Raghunath Das a Commission report

was prepared, in which complete details were given. The temple of

Shri Ram Chabutara and Gufa temple are shown in the map.

Defendant no. 3 is the Panchayati Math of Vairagies. Accordingly

directions may be issued for handing over all the properties to

defendant no. 3.

On behalf of Defendant No. 9, separate written statement was

filed only admitting the fact that City Magistrate attached the property

in suit under the proceedings of Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is averred that

the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief.

On behalf of defendant no. 10 separate written statement was

filed stating that the contents of the plaint are false and fabricated.

The proceedings of Waqf are not binding on them. Under the Hindu

Jurisprudence, the property in question cannot pass in the hands of

Muslims. The land and the property in dispute has been throughout in

uninterrupted possession of the Hindu community and in ownership of

Lord Shri Rama. In additional statement it has been urged that

national community of Hindu is being harassed by the plaintiffs. It is

further averred that ordinance has been issued against the provisions

of the constitution and second ordinance was also issued in the like
 19

manner. However, it has not been mentioned whether any petition

was ever filed challenging the authorization of the aforesaid

ordinance by the defendant No. 10.

The suit is barred by Section 92 of C.P.C. and Section 14 of the

Religious Endowment Act. The suit was not properly filed by the

Waqf in compliance of the provisions of Section 64 of the Waqf Act

and the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Annexure-I
Replication
Pages 185-194

The replication has been filed to the amended written statement

of defendant no. 10. The contents have been denied by U.P. Sunni

Central Board of Waqf. It has been further averred that version of the

plaint is correct and the averments made in the written statement are

imaginary and baseless. It has further been averred that plot number

in second settlement and first settlement coincide with each other.

Supplementary replication was also filed by the plaintiffs stating

that ordinance no. 9 of 1989 is not applicable on the facts of the case.

Ordinance no. 9 of 1989 gives unguided and uncontrolled powers to

transfer the so acquired property to anybody.

Thereafter on behalf of defendant no. 10, additional written

statements were also filed stating that no masjid or Babri Masjid was

ever existed on the land in question. Babur was an invader and he had

no legal authority to construct any Masjid on the sacred place of

 20

Hindus and Hindus are in possession of the entire area of Ram Janam

Bhumi. The entire area covered under Act No. 33 of 1993 belongs to

Hindus and the devotees of Shri Ram Lala Virajman. Certain other

points have been raised which are connected with the fact in issue

relating to the religion and about creation of Pakistan. However, it has

been urged that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Defendant No. 13, Baba Abhiram Dass and Defendant no. 14,

Pundarik Mishra filed joint written statement. They have denied the

plaint averments and urged that the property belongs to Hindus. The

Hindu community is worshiping on the site of Janam Bhumi from

time immemorial. Even prior to 1934 daily Hindu puja is being done

in the temple and Muslims never offered the prayer since 1934. The

suit is bad under order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. The plaintiffs have no claim

or right under Act no. 13 of 1936 to file instant suit which too is bad

for want of any sanction under Section 80A of Government of India

Act, 1935. The report of Waqf Commissioner is not binding on the

answering defendants. The building in suit does not possess the

requirement of a mosque.

Thereafter vide order dated 3rd May, 1989 written statement was

filed by Dharam Das, Chela Baba Abhiram Das. He has denied plaint

averments and admitted that originally there was a temple and no

mosque was ever constructed. Such a building could not be a Masjid

according to the tenets of Islam. The deity of Bhagwan Shri Ram

Virajman is being worshiped since time immemorial. It has further

 21

been urged that suit no. 2 of 1950 was filed in personal capacity. Suit

no. 25/1950 was also filed.

It has further been averred that the building in suit was no

mosque and its surrounding is not a graveyard. According to the

Islamic laws, mosque built in place of Hindu temple after forcibly

demolishing it cannot be a mosque. ALLAH does not accept a

dedication of property for purposes recognized as pious and charitable.

Accordingly, the property could not be considered as Waqf property

and Muslims could never claim a right of worship at a place as a

mosque by adverse possession. The Sunni Waqf Board has no

jurisdiction to file a suit. The suit as framed under Order 1 Rule 8

C.P.C. is not maintainable and relief for possession and removal of the

idols is not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit is liable to be

dismissed.

The additional written statement was also filed on behalf of

Mahant Dharam Dass and it has been urged on his behalf that the

structure of Ram Janam Bhumi, which was demolished on 6th

December, 1992 was not a mosque and it has always been a place of

worship for Hindus and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

On behalf of defendant no. 17, Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, it is

submitted that the contents of paragraph no. 21 is not admitted. The

entire area including the plot in question belongs to deity of Bhagwan

Shri Ram. Debris of demolished structure show that demolished

structure was a temple.

Mahant Ganga Das also filed written statement denying the

 22

plaint averments and stated that the suit is not maintainable and

property in question belongs to Lord Rama.

The written statement on behalf of Madan Mohan Gupta

revealed that the contents of the plaint are false. The property belongs

to Lord Rama and the place in question is being worshiped from time

immemorial. He has referred certain gazetteers and books as a piece

of evidence to show that the property in suit was never a mosque. It is

further submitted that according to Quranic injunctions, no mosque

can be constructed at the site of the temple after demolishing it. It is

further submitted that the temple or Sthan is always been considered

as a place of worship. There was no ouster of Hindus from the Ram

Janam Bhumi and birth spot of Ram cannot be shifted. The plaintiffs

are not entitled for any relief.

On behalf of defendant no. 20, separate written statement has

been filed denying the plaint averments. It has been urged that the

Ram Janam Bhumi is a very sacred for the Hindus from the time

immemorial. Plaintiffs cannot claim the place of Hindus like Sita

Rasoi, Ram Chabutra etc. They are not in possession of the property

and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues arose for

decision:-

Annexure-I
Pages-195-214
Issues and statement
under Order X Rule-2

1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the

sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the
 23

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?

1(a). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was an
ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the plaint? If so,
its effect?
Deleted vide courts order
dated 23.2.96.

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 Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so its effect
thereon)”

1-B(b). Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as

alleged by the plaintiffs?

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?

1-B(d). Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the

members of Muslim community for burying the dead bodies of the
members of the Muslim community? If so, its effect?
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order
dated 23.2.96.
 24

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?
3. Is the suit within time?
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?

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? (This issue has
already been decided in the negative vide order dated 21.4.1966 by the
learned Civil Judge).

5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in general
and defendants in particular, to the right of their worship?

5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive? (This issue
has already been decided in the negative vide order dated 21.4.1966
by the learned Civil Judge.)

5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as alleged
in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants, hence not
answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his order dated 21.4.1966).

5(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
 25

present suit?

5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on

accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed after the
commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960?
6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants representing
the interest of the Hindus?
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?
7(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?
7(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?
7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by plaintiff of
that suit? If so, its effect?
8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as res
judicate against the defendants in suit?
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80 C.P.C.
(Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?

11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
 26

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?

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?
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?
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?
16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?
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?
(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil Judge by
order dated 21.4.1966).
18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of the learned
Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue no. 17?
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 visisted by
devotees for purposes of worship? If so, whether the property in
dispute continued to vest in the said deities?
19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its effect?
 27

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?
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?
19(e). Whether the building in question could not legaly be a mosque
as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a graveyard on
three sides.
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?
20(a). Whether the Waqf 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 Mutwalis were allegedly Shia
Mohammedans? If so, its effect?
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?
21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so, whether
the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any suit in
representative capacity sponsering the case of particular community
and against the interest of another community)”.
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
 28

the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no longer maintainable?”

26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been demolished?”

27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,

Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also demolished on
6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the
disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession?”

FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1(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?

FINDINGS
One of the most important issue in the suit is whether there was

any temple/structure which was demolished and Mosque was

constructed on the disputed site. Thus to adjudicate the basic issue

whether there was any Hindu temple or an Hindu religious structure

existed and the alleged Babri Mosque was constructed after

demolishing the said temple at the site in question was to be resolved

by this Court. Accordingly, the Full Bench of this Court on 1.8.2002

decided to take the assistance of Archaeological Science. It is not a

matter of dispute now that in the modern age Archaeological Science

has achieved the great accuracy. Thus with the assistance of

Archaeological Science, one can answer up to the considerable degree

of certainty about various past activities of people for which material

evidence is available. It was believed that sufficient Archaeological

 29

material is available regarding the temple/mosque issue. Accordingly

further excavation was intended. Thus Archaeological Survey of

India was directed on 1.8.2002 to survey the disputed site by Ground

Penetrating Survey (GPR)/Geo Radiology Survey . On 5.3.2003, the

Full Bench of this Court considered the objections of the parties for

excavation through Archaeological Survey of India and directed to get

the disputed site excavated. This Court further directed that

excavation shall be done by excavation branch, specialized in

excavation work by providing representation of both the communities

in respect of functioning of ASI team and engagement of labourers.

The Court further directed certain safeguard to ensure transparency in

the task of ASI by permitting the parties or their counsel to remain

present on the spot during the course of excavation proceedings.

Archaeological Survey of India was directed to photograph and video-

graph the process of excavation and to maintain the record pertaining

thereto. The Court has also appointed two experienced judicial

officers of Faizabad Judgeship as observers and to act whenever

needed.

Annexure-III
ASI matter
Pages 1 to 163

In compliance of this Court direction, Director General,

Archaeological Survey of India formed 14 member team of both the

communities headed by Dr. B.R. Mani and subsequently by Sri Hari

Majhi, Director (Antiquity) to supervise the excavation work on the

 30

disputed site. Excavation on the disputed site was carried out by the

team from 12th March, 2003 to 7th August, 2003. Eighty two trenches

were excavated to verify anomalies mentioned in the report of Ground

Penetrating Radar Survey. Eighty two trenches were checked, the

anomalies were confirmed in the trenches in the form of Pillar bases,

structures, floors and foundation. Besides eighty two trenches a few

more making a total of 90 finally were also excavated keeping in view

the objective fixed by the Hon'ble High Court to confirm the

structures. The result of excavation has been summarized and full

report has also been furnished for the perusal of this Court.

Thereafter the objections against the report dated 22.8.2003 filed by

ASI were invited by the parties concerned. On behalf of the plaintiff's

of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 and others objections were filed.

Thereafter on 4.12.2006, the Full Bench of this Court disposed

of the objection/additional objection against the ASI report, which was

filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, of Order XXVI of the Code of

Civil Procedure. This Court was concious of this fact that in all these

four pending suits, the core issue is whether the disputed structure

namely Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Hindu temple.

Relevant extract of the order is as under :-

“So we order that this ASI report shall be subject to the

objections and evidence of the parties in the suit and all these

shall be dealt with when the matter is finally decided”.

During the course of hearing parties were also allowed to

adduce evidence for and against ASI report.

 31

Annexure-III
Pages 164-350

Plaintiff's in support of the objections filed against the ASI

report, produced Professor Dhaneshwar Mandal, PW-24, Professor

Suraj Bhan, PW-16, Dr. Jaya Menon, PW-29, Dr. R.C. Thakran, PW-

30, Dr. Ashok Datta, PW-31, Dr. Supriya Varma, PW-32, Haji

Mahboob, DW 6/1-1, Mohd. Abid, DW 6/1-2.

Defendants have produced four witnesses in support of the ASI

report, they are- Dr. R. Nagaswamy, OPW-17, Arun Kumar Sharma,

OPW-18, R.D. Trivedi, OPW-19 and Jayanti Prasad Shivastava, DW-

20/5.

Section 75 CPC empowers the court to issue commissions

which reads as under;

“Section-75: Subject to such conditions and limitations as

may be prescribed, the Court may issue a commission--

(a) to examine any person;

(b) to make a local investigation;

(c) To examine or adjust accounts; or

(d) to make a partition;

[(e) to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation;

(f) to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and

natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court
pending the determination of the suit;

(g) to perform any ministerial act.]”

 32

The detailed provisions for issuing commands are set forth in

Order 26 Rule-10A which are as under;

“Rule 10A- Commission for scientific investigation-(1)

Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific

investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be

conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it

necessary or expedient in the interests of justice as to do, issue a

Commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire

into such question and report thereon to the Court.

(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as

may be, apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule

as they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.”

Thus Sec 75 , Order 26 Rule-10A provide for the issue of

Commission for scientific investigation. A perusal of the rule shows

that a discretion has been vested in the Civil Court to get any scientific

investigation conducted only if it needs necessary or expedient in the

ends of justice. The basic rationale of this provision is that the

Commission is going to held in extracting the truth. There is

established procedure known to law that the Commissioner's report

form part of the record and the same becomes evidence as a whole in

the suit.

Sri P.N.Mishra, Advocate has submitted that ASI report may be

accepted as a piece of evidence. He has relied over AIR 1940 PC 3,

Chandan Mull Indra Kumar and others Versus Chimanlal Girdhar

 33

Das Parekh and another in which the Hon'ble Privy Council held that

interference with the result of a long and careful local investigation

except upon clearly defined and sufficient grounds is to be deprecated.

It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the

elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness is

unquestionable whose careful and laborious execution of task was

proved by his report and who had not blankly adopted the assertions of

either party. Since ASI was working directly under the control and

direction of this Court and their integrity is unquestionable as such the

said report is entitled to be accepted in its entirety as an expert

scientific report under Order 26 Rule 9 & 10 and 10A as also under

Section 75(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as under

Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

Another ruling cited by Sri P.N.Mishra is Vareed Jacob Versus

Sosamma Geevarghese, 2004(6) SCC 378 in which Hon'ble apex court

held that incidental or ancillary proceedings are taken recourse to in

aid of the ultimate decision of the suit and any order passed therein

would have a bearing on the merit of the matter. Sri P.N.Misra has also

cited G.L.Vijan Versus K.Shanker, (2006) 13 SCC 136 in which

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that incidental power is to be exercised in

aid to the final proceedings. In other words an order passed in the

incidental proceedings will have a direct bearing on the result of the

suit. In AIR 1924 Cal.620, Amrita Sundari Versus Munshi, the

Calcutta High Court held that the Commissioner whose integrity is

unquestionable his elaborate report cannot be overruled by the Court.

 34

As the ASI is a reputed institution and integrity of its team cannot be

questioned the report submitted by the ASI is to be accepted. In AIR

1979 Cal.50, M/s Roy and Co. and another Versus Nanibala Dey and

others, Calcutta High Court held that the Court should not act as an

expert and overrule the Commissioner's report whose integrity and

carefulness are not questioned and who did not blindly accept the

assertion of either party. In AIR 1940 PC 3 (supra) it was decided that

Commissioner's report should not be rejected except on clearly

defined and sufficient grounds; the court should not act as an expert

and overrule the Commissioner's report whose integrity and

carefulness are not questioned and who did not blindly accept the

assertion of either party. In AIR 1997 Cal.59, Amena Bibi Versus

Sk.Abdul Haque, Calcutta High Court held that the Commissioner's

report even if accepted by itself does not however, mean that the

parties are precluded from challenging the evidence of the

Commissioner or assailing the report by examining any other witness

to counter the effect of the report.

In support of ASI report learned counsel Sri M.M.Pandey has

placed reliance on the following case laws.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in (2010) 3 SCC 732, Victoria

Memorial Hall Versus Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, took a

view that it is normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the

decision to experts. Para-37 reads as under;

“Para-37- The Constitution Bench of this Court in University of

 35

Mysore V. C.D.Govinda Rao held that “normally the courts should be

slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts.” It would

normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision to

experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the

courts generally can be. This view has consistently been reiterated by

this Court as is evident from the judgments in State of Bihar V.

Dr.Asis Kumar Mukherjee, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke V.

Dr.B.S.Mahajan, Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Mktg.& Processing

Coop.Ltd. V. State of Karnataka and Dental Council of India V.

Subharti K.K.B Charitable Trust.”

Hon'ble Apex Court in 1988 (2) SCC 292, Southern Command

Military Engineering Services Employees Coop.Credit Society Versus

V.K.K.Nambiar, at para-1 held as under;

“After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied

that interference by the High Court with the findings of fact

recorded by the lower appellate Court in exercise of its

supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

was wholly unwarranted and in excess of its jurisdiction. The

High Court was obviously in error in its view that the

Commissioner's report could not be acted upon or be treated

as legal evidence. The Commissioner's report tends to show

that the demised premises are no longer in occupation of the

respondent but in occupation of strangers which fact does se

 36

an inference of subletting as held by the lower appellate

Court.”

Hon'ble Apex Court in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600, Misrilal

Ramratan and others Mansukhlal and others, at para-1 held as
under;
“Shri Sundaravaradan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants has contended that the approach of the High Court is
manifestly illegal. We find no force in the contention. It is now
settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the
record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or
rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the
Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the
case.”

In AIR 1976 Allahabad 121, State of U.P. Versus Smt.Ram Sri

and another, para-33 the Court held as under;

“ 33. Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) of Civil P. C. lays down that the

report of the commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be

evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. It is, therefore,

clear from the aforesaid provision that it is not necessary in order that

the report becomes evidence that the statement of the commissioner

should also be made in the court for the purpose of proving it. It is up

to the choice of the party to examine a commissioner in respect of the

matters referred to him or mentioned in his report. But the

examination of the commissioner is not at all required by the aforesaid

provision for the purpose of proving the report.”

Sri Ravi Shanker, Senior Advocate has submitted that

 37

excavation report of the Archaeological Survey of India being a

scientific report of the experts against whom bias or malafide have not

been proved, is liable to be admitted and relied on as a piece of

evidence:

In AIR 1940 PC 3 (Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Ors. V.

Chimanlal Girdhar Das Parekh & Anr.) the Hon’ble Privy Council

held that interference with the result of a long and careful local

investigation except upon clearly defined and sufficient grounds is to

be deprecated. It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to

overrule the elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity and

carefulness is unquestionable whose careful and laborious execution

of task was proved by his report and who had not blankly adopted the

assertions of either party. Relying on the said judgment, it is

respectfully submitted that the report of the Archaeological Survey of

India is an elaborate report and the persons comprising excavation

team of the ASI were working directly under the control and direction

of this Hon’ble Court. And their integrity is unquestioned as such the

said report is entitled to be accepted in its entirety as an expert

scientific report under Order 26 Rule 9 & 10 & 10A as also under

Section 75(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as under

Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Relevant paragraph from page

6 of the said judgement reads as follows:

“It has been laid down that interference with the result of
a long and careful local investigation except upon clearly
defined land sufficient grounds is to be deprecated. It is
not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the
 38

elaborate report of a Commissioner whose integrity and

carefulness are unquestioned, whose careful and
laborious execution of his task was proved by his report,
and who had not blindly adopted the assertions of either
party.
This in their Lordships' judgment is a correct statement of
the principle to be adopted in dealing with the
commissioner's report.”

In 2004(6) SCC 378 (Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese)

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “incidental” or “ancillary”

proceedings are taken recourse to in aid of the ultimate decision of the

suit and any order passed therein would have a bearing on the merit of

the matter. “Supplemental proceedings”, however, mean a separate

proceeding in an original action in which the court where the action is

pending is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction in the interest of

justice. Supplemental proceedings may not affect the ultimate result

of suit and a supplemental order can be passed even at the instance of

the defendants. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that as

Section 75(e) is being part and parcel of Part-III titled as incidental

proceedings of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereunder the

order was passed by this Hon’ble Court to carry out the excavation

work and submit the report before this Hon’ble court and the report

submitted in compliance of said order of the Hon’ble Court is a

scientific report under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The said

report is reliable and admissible valuable piece of evidence. Relevant

paragraph Nos.29 to 33 and 54 of the said judgment read as follows:

“29. The Code of Civil Procedure uses different

expressions in relation to incidental proceedings and
supplemental proceedings. Incidental proceedings are
 39

referred to in Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure

whereas supplemental proceedings are referred to in Part
VI thereof.
30. Is there any difference between the two types of
proceedings?
31. A distinction is to be borne in mind keeping in view
the fact that the incidental proceedings are in aid to the
final proceedings. In other words, an order passed in the
incidental proceedings will have a direct bearing on the
result of the suit. Such proceedings which are in aid of
the final proceedings cannot, thus, be held to be at par
with supplemental proceedings which may not have
anything to do with the ultimate result of the suit.
32. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a
view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
The supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse
to as a routine matter but only when an exigency arises
therefor. The orders passed in the supplemental
proceedings may sometimes cause hardships to the other
side and, thus, are required to be taken recourse to when a
situation arises therefor and not otherwise. There are
well-defined parameters laid down by the court from time
to time as regards the applicability of the supplemental
proceedings.
33. Incidental proceedings are, however, taken recourse
to in aid of the ultimate decision of the suit which would
mean that any order passed in terms thereof, subject to
the rules prescribed therefor, would have a bearing on the
merit of the matter. Any orders passed in aid of the suit
are ancillary powers. Whenever an order is passed by the
court in exercise of its ancillary power or in the incidental
proceedings, the same may revive on revival of the suit.
But so far as supplemental proceedings are concerned,
the court may have to pass a fresh order.
54. Parliament consciously used two different expressions
“incidental proceedings” and “supplemental proceedings”
which obviously would carry two different meanings.”

In (2006) 13 SCC 136 (G.L. Vijan v. K. Shankar) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that incidental power is to be exercised in aid to

the final proceedings. In other words an order passed in the incidental

proceedings will have a direct bearing on the result of the suit. Such

proceedings which are in aid of the final proceedings, cannot, thus, be

 40

held to be on par with supplemental proceedings which may not have

anything to do with the ultimate result of the suit. Relying on the said

judgment it is submitted that since the ASI report is result of an

incidental proceeding which is in aid of the final proceeding the said

report is reliable to do the ultimate justice. Relevant paragraph no.11,

13 & 14 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:

“11. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a

view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
Supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse to
in a routine manner but only when an exigency of
situation arises therefor. The orders passed in the
supplemental proceedings may sometimes cause
hardships to the other side and, thus, are required to be
taken recourse to when it is necessary in the interest of
justice and not otherwise. There are well-defined
parameters laid down by the Court from time to time as
regards the applicability of the supplemental proceedings.
13. The expression “ancillary” means aiding; auxiliary;
subordinate; attendant upon; that which aids or promotes
a proceeding regarded as the principal.
14. The expression “incidental” may mean differently in
different contexts. While dealing with a procedural law, it
may mean proceedings which are procedural in nature but
when it is used in relation to an agreement or the
delegated legislation, it may mean something more; but
the distinction between an incidental proceeding and a
supplemental proceeding is evident.

In AIR 1924 Cal 620 (Amrita Sundari v. Munshi) the Hon’ble

Calcutta High court held that the Commissioner whose integrity is

unquestioned his elaborate report cannot be overruled by the Court.

Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that as the ASI is a

reputed institution and integrity of its team cannot be questioned, the

report submitted by the ASI is to be accepted.

In AIR 1979 Cal 50 (M/s. Roy & Co. & Anr. v. Nanibala Dey &
 41

Ors.) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the Court should not

act as an expert and overrule the Commissioner’s report whose

integrity and carefulness are not questioned and who did not blindly

accept the assertion of either party. Relying on the said judgment it is

humbly submitted that here there are only wild allegations that the ASI

people acted under the influence of the then BJP Government and the

then Hon’ble Human Resources Development Minister Mr. Murali

Manohar Joshi which has not been substantiated by giving cogent

evidence and the plaintiffs had several opportunities to make

applications before this Hon’ble court impeaching the integrity of the

ASI archaeologists but in spite of that opportunity they did not do

anything and when after submission of the report of the ASI they

found that there is finding of the ASI team that on the disputed site

there was temple. They filed the objection which cannot be accepted

and is liable to be rejected. Relevant paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid

judgment reads as follows:

“7. Then about the report of the Pleader Commissioner.

Reference may be made to the famous decision of the
Judicial Committee in Chandan Mull's case reported in 44
Cal WN 205 at p. 212 : (AIR 1940 PC 3, at pp. 5, 6) to
show that the Commissioner's report should not be
rejected except on clearly defined and sufficient grounds.
The Court should not act as an expert and overrule the
Commissioner's report whose integrity and carefulness
are not questioned and who did not blindly accept the
assertion of either party. Here the Pleader Commissioner's
honesty has not been challenged. He did not blindly adopt
the assertion of the plaintiff. As stated before, several
chances were given to the defendant-appellants to assail
the Commissioner's report, but no objection was filed.
Hence at this stage this objection against the
Commissioner's report cannot be accepted.”
 42

In 2006 (4) Bom LR 336 (Bapu Dhopndi Devkar v. S.

Najaokar) the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a document can

be sent to the experts for examination and opinion about the date of

printing and the period when it was circulated. Relying on the said

judgment it is submitted that as the report of Forensic Science

Laboratory, which has stated that there is interpolation in the relevant

documents and Babri Masjid is later insertion by the different person

in different handwriting in different inks the said report is reliable and

the revenue records submitted by the plaintiffs are liable to be

discarded and they should be read in the light of the report of

Foreignsic laboratory. Relevant extract of the said judgment as quoted

in Sarkar’s Code of Civil Procedure, Vol-2 10th Edn. reads as follows:

“Under Rule 10A, a document, in the instant case a

revenue stamp, can be sent to the General Manager
Indian Security Press for examination and opinion about
the date of printing and the period when it was
circulated.”
(Ibid. p.1789)

In AIR 1997 Cal 59 (Amena Bibi v. Sk. Abdul Haque) the

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the Commissioner’s report

even if accepted by itself does not however, mean that the parties are

precluded from challenging the evidence of the Commissioner or

assailing the report by examining any other witness to counter the

effect of the report. The said Hon’ble Court has also held that the

parties having participated in the enquiry made by the Commissioner

should not be allowed to turn around and say that the entry was biased

and prejudicial. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that as

 43

the plaintiffs, their experts, nominees, advocates have participated in

excavation proceedings and the excavation proceedings was done in

presence and under observation of the observers appointed by this

Hon’ble Court now the ASI report which reveals that there was a

temple, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to raise objection and their

objection is liable to be rejected. Moreover, as the parties have

already examined several experts to countermand the effect of the ASI

report the ASI report is liable to be admitted and taken as a valuable

piece of evidence. Relevant paragraph no.6 & 7 of the aforesaid

judgment read as follows:

“6. On a careful reading of the above decision it

indicates that the valuation of the property for which the
prayer under S. 4 of the Partition Act is made, has to be
fixed on the prevalent market value at the time of filing
an application under S. 4 of the Partition Act. On reading
the impugned order, it is implicit that the learned Court
below has meticulously examined the merits of the
contention of petitioners and rejected those objections
inasmuch as the Commissioner had met those points
raised by the revision petitioner. It appears that the
Commissioner fixed the valuation after taking the
evidence from the parties. The petitioners having
participated in the enquiry should not be allowed to turn
round and say that the enquiry was biased and
prejudicial.

7. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the

opposite party No. 1, has seriously challenged about the
maintainability of the revisional application. It is
highlighted that the Commissioner's report should not be
rejected except on clearly defined and sufficient grounds.
The court should not act as an expert and overrule the
Commissioner's report whose integrity and carefulness
are not questioned. In support of his contention Mr.
Mukherjee relied on a decision reported in AIR 1979 Cal
50 (M/s. Roy and Co. v. Smt. Nani Bala Dey). The Court
held :--
"The Commissioner's report should not be rejected
except on clearly defined and sufficient grounds. The
 44

Court should not act as an expert and overrule the

Commissioner's report whose integrity and carefulness
are not questioned and who did not blindly accept the
assertions of either party. "
Admittedly the petitioners have not challenged either the
integrity of the Commissioner or his carefulness. In
another decision reported in AIR 1940 PC 3 in the case of
Chandan Mull Indra Kumar v. Chinman Lal Girdhar Das
Parekh. It was held :-
"Interference with the result of a long and careful local
investigation except upon clearly defined and sufficient
grounds is to be deprecated. It is not safe for a Court to
act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a
Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are
unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of
his task was proved by his report, and who had not
blindly adopted the assertions of either party."
From the ratio of the above decision, it is (sic) that the
revisional court would be slow and war while
entertaining the objection regarding the acceptance of the
Commissioner's report in a revisional application. The
Commissioner's report even if accepted by itself does
not, however, mean that the parties are precluded from
challenging the evidence of the Commissioner or
assailing the report by examining any, other witnesses to
countermand the effect of the report. It has been held in a
decision reported in AIR 1966 Orissa 121 in the case of
Harihor Misra v. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah (para 4) :---
"Rule 10 of O. 26 does not make the report of the
Commissioner as concluding the question of valuation.
On the contrary, the rule gives clear indication that the
report of the Commissioner is only one of the pieces of
evidence amongst other evidence to be led by the parties
for determination of the issue on valuation of the suit.
When the parties file no objection to the Commissioner's
report, the court rightly accepts the report. Its acceptance
by itself does not, however, mean that parties are
precluded from challenging the evidence of the
Commissioner and the witnesses examined by him or by
giving any other evidence to countermand the effect of
the Commissioner's report. "
Thus, from the underlying principle emerging from the
above cases, it is manifest that the party objecting to the
Commissioner's report can lead best possible evidence at
the time of hearing to countermand the report even if the
same was accepted earlier. The Court on taking the
comprehensive view decide the point at issue and arrive
at right conclusion I do not find at this stage any
justification to interfere with the findings of the learned
 45

trial court order accepting the Commissioner's report.”

In AIR 1976 Alld. 121 (State of U.P. v. Smt. Ram Sree & Anr.)

the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that it is not necessary in

order that the report becomes evidence the statement of the

commissioner should also be made in the court for the purpose of

proving it. It is up to the choice of the party to examine the

commissioner in respect of the matters, referred to him or mentioned

in his report. But the examination of the Commissioner is not at all

required by the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of Civil

Procedure Code for the purpose of proving the report. Relying on the

said judgment, it is respectfully submitted that as none of the parties

made application for examination of the ASI’s archaeologists/experts

who took part in excavation proceeding and prepared the report

thereon, for the purpose of proving the said report there is no need of

examination of the ASI’s team of archaeologist and the said report is

liable piece of evidence. Relevant paragraph no.33 of the aforesaid

judgment reads as follows:

“33. Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) of Civil P. C. lays down

that the report of the commissioner and the evidence
taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form
part of the record. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid
provision that it is not necessary in order that the report
becomes evidence that the statement of the commissioner
should also be made in the court for the purpose of
proving it. It is up to the choice of the party to examine a
commissioner in respect of the matters referred to him or
mentioned in his report. But the examination of the
commissioner is not at all required by the aforesaid
provision for the purpose of proving the report. The case
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in
Haji Kutubuddin v. Allah Banda (AIR 1973, All. 235) is
not at all relevant on the above controversy. In this case,
 46

the High Court did not hold that the statement of the
commissioner was necessary in order to prove it or that
without such a statement the same could not be read in
evidence. We, therefore, do not accept the submission of
the learned counsel for the respondent that the report of
the first commissioner was not admissible as he had not
been produced as a witness.”

In AIR 1976 Del 175 (Harbhajan Singh v. Smt. Sakuntala Devi

Sharma & Anr) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the

Commissioner’s report is admissible as evidence even as substantive

evidence without examination of commissioner. In the said judgment

it has also been held that before relying on report the authority is

bound to consider and decide objections. Relying on the said

judgment, it is humbly submitted that before relying on the said ASI

report, this Hon’ble Court is to reject the objections of the plaintiffs

and as none of the parties have made application for examination ASI

archaeologists’ report is a substantive evidence and is fit for being

admitted without examination of the archaeologists of the ASI.

Relevant paragraph no.5 & 7 of the aforesaid judgment read as

follows:

“5. The first contention urged on behalf of the tenant is

that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence
recorded by him and enclosed with the report did not
constitute legal evidence and could not, therefore, be
considered by the Authority unless the Commissioner had
proved the report as a witness and had been subjected to
cross-examination. This contention, to my mind, is
untenable because on the principle incorporated in Rule
10 (2) of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
report and the evidence would be evidence in the
proceedings in which the Commissioner is appointed.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 is in the following terms:-
"The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken
by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be
 47

evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but
the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the
parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner
personally in open Court touching any of the matters
referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his
report, or as to the manner in which he has made the
investigation."
It is obvious from the aforesaid sub-rule that the report of
the Commissioner and the evidence, although not the
evidence without the report, would be evidence in the
proceedings in which the Commissioner is appointed
although the Court has the power, as indeed, the parties a
right to examine the Commissioner personally in the
Court touching any of the matters referred to by him in
the report or as to the manner in which he has made the
investigation. In the present case, the Commissioner had
been appointed in the presence of both the parties. The
parties were, therefore, aware that the Commissioner had
been deputed to make a local investigation. The report of
the Commissioner along with the evidence had been duly
submitted in the Court. Although the tenant submitted his
objections to the report but made no attempt either to
summon the Commissioner or to seek an opportunity to
cross-examine the Commissioner.

7. It is next contended that, in any event, the report and

the material enclosed by the Commissioner with it could
not be substantive evidence and at best could be utilised
to corroborate other evidence on the question in
controversy. This contention seems to be untenable
because if the report of the Commissioner and the
material enclosed with it constituted legal evidence, and I
have held above that it did, I do not see how it could not
be used as a substantive piece of evidence to base the
finding. The Authority had appointed the Commissioner
to inspect the spot, to make an investigation and to
submit a report and the Authority was entitled to accept
the same and base its finding on such material.”

In AIR 1973 AP 168 (Vemusetti Appayyamma v. Lakshman

Sahu) the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that report of

Commissioner is a part of record and can be considered as evidence

irrespective of the fact that the commissioner is examined as witness

or not. Relying on the said judgment, it is submitted that the report of

 48

the ASI is fit for being considered as evidence in spite of the fact that

the persons who have taken part in excavation process and in

preparation of the report have not been examined as none of the

parties had made application for their examination. Relevant

paragraph no.6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

“6. The learned counsel for the appellant however,

objects to the Commissioner's report being accepted and
acted upon without its being marked and without the
Commissioner being examined. But when the Court
appoints a Commissioner under O. 26, R. 9, C.P.C. for
making a local inspection and to submit a report, the
Commissioner is given the discretion to make a local
inspection and record evidence if necessary and submit a
report together with such evidence as he thinks fit. Under
sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 26, C.P.C., the report of
the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him form
part of the record. When the Rule lays down that it forms
part of the record irrespective of whether it is marked or
not, the Court is bound to take that evidence into
consideration. The failure to mark it as a document on
behalf of the parties does not exclude it from the record.
Sub-rule (2), however, lays down that either the Court or
any of the parties may examine the Commissioner but if
the Commissioner is not examined, the report submitted
by him does not cease to form part of the record. It is
nowhere laid down that unless the Commissioner is
examined and through him his report is marked as an
exhibit, the report of the Commissioner cannot be acted
upon. That being so, the lower Appellate Court was right
in considering the Commissioner's report and in,
accepting the defendant's evidence and rejecting that of
the plaintiff's witnesses in the light of that. The finding
whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint
schedule site or not is a finding of fact which is supported
by the evidence on record and is binding on this Court in
Second Appeal.”

In AIR 1985 Guj 34 (Jagat Bhai Punja Bhai Palkhiwala & Ors.

v. Vikram Bhai Punja Bhai Palkhiwala & Ors.) the the Hon’ble

Gujrat High Court held that where the Commissioner was appointed to

make inventory only and he was not appointed to take possession of

 49

the documents even if he was appointed to take possession of the

documents, it would not have made any difference under Order 26

Rule 10B. The appointment is to perform merely a ministerial act and

only those acts which are covered by sub-r.(1) i.e. ministerial acts, to

which only sub-r.(2) would apply so as to attract the application of

sub-r.10(2). Therefore, the report of the Commissioner for the

performance of that ministerial act and the evidence if he had recorded

himself would be evidence under Rule 10(2) but not whatever

documents that may be incidentally or in course of the ministerial duty

come to his notice and he may take possession there. Such collection

of document is not recording of evidence and he was not appointed for

that purpose. Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that the

ASI excavation team was not appointed to collect the bones from the

different strata and get those bones chemically examined. As such

though the ASI excavation team has collected bones and made

inventory thereof which was not necessary for drawing the conclusion

that whether there was any existing structure prior to 16th century or

not. As such challenge to the ASI report on this superficial ground is

liable to be rejected. Relevant paragraph no.11, & 17 of the aforesaid

judgment read as follows:

“11. Since sub-r.(2) applies the provisions of R.10(2) that

also may be reproduced here for easy reference.
Rule-10(2) "The report of the Commissioner and the
evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the
report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form the
part of record, the Court or with the permission of the
Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the
Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of
the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or
 50

as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made

the investigation"

17. Moreover, the Commissioner was appointed to make

inventory only and he was not appointed to take
possession of the documents. Even if he was appointed to
take possession of the documents, it would not have made
any difference. Under O.26 R.10B the appointment is to
perform merely a ministerial act and only those acts
which are covered by sub-r.(1) i.e. ministerial acts, to
which only that sub-r.(2) will apply so as to attract the
application of sub-r.10(2). Therefore, the report of the
Commissioner for the performance of that ministerial act
and the evidence if he has recorded himself would
become the part of the record in the suit under R.10(2),
but not whatever documents that may be incidentally or
in course of the ministerial duty come to his notice and he
may take possession thereof. Such collection of
documents is not recording of evidence and he was not
appointed for that purpose and if the appointment is
construed to such an extent as contended by the
petitioners, such appointment would be ultra vires the
scope of R.10 B. R.10 B read with R.10 does not make
any radical departure suggested by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners. In fact their contention is against the
common sense and ordinary rules of convenience and
proper conduct of a litigation. Neither the language nor
the spirit nor the purpose of R 10B justifies such radical
departure from the ordinary rules of procedure and
evidence which are meant to facilitate convenient trial
and fair opportunity to the other side.”

In AIR 1994 KERALA 179 "C.K. Rajan v. State" the Hon’ble

High Court Kerala held that The provisions of O. XXVI, R. 10 of the

Civil P.C. is inapplicable to proceedings under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India. However, the Court, in exercising the powers

under Art. 226, can appoint a Commissioner. The Commissioner so

appointed by the Court must be responsible persons who enjoy the

confidence of the Court and who are expected to carry out the

assignment objectively and impartially without any predilection or

 51

prejudice. The report of the Commissioner should be served on all the

parties or made known to the public. If any person wants to dispute

any of the fact or data stated in the report, he may take steps in that

regard by filing an affidavit or by leading evidence. If the

Commissioner so appointed by the Court to hold enquiry, considered

facts and circumstances and made local inspection and discussed the

matter with the parties and submitted a report containing reasoned

findings, prima facie it constitutes evidence which can be acted by a

Court of law. Interference with the result of a detailed and careful

report so submitted should be made only for cogent and compelling

reasons. In a case where an elaborate report is filed by the

Commissioner, whose integrity, credibility and carefulness are not

questioned, whose careful and laborious execution of his task is

proved by the report itself, interference will be made only in

exceptional circumstances, in cases where convincing evidence contra

is available before Court. Relying on said judgment it is submitted that

as no compelling reasons and convincing evidences contra are

available before this Hon’ble Court the said report constitutes

evidence which can be acted by a Court of law. Relevant paragraph

nos. 18 and 19 of the said judgment read as follows:

“18. We shall now inform ourselves as to the value

and weight to be placed on the report submitted by
the Commissioner appointed by this Court, Shri
Krishnan Unni, District Judge. Shri Krishnan Unni
is a senior Selection Grade District Judge with
considerable experience and background. He is a
judicial officer of repute and credibility. None of
the parties, who appeared before us, at any point of
time, questioned the capacity, credibility and
 52

integrity of Shri Krishnan Unni. The

Commissioner has submitted fifteen interim reports
and the final report in two volumes. He has taken
enormous pains to meet various persons, gather
details and discuss all aspects that arose for
consideration. He took the trouble for personally
inspecting very many places on many occasions. A
bare perusal of the fifteen interim reports and the
final reports, which contain more than 500 pages,
will go to show that the Commissioner has done
the job entrusted to him with remarkable ability
and skill. The Commissioner has posed the
question that arose for consideration in a straight
forward manner and in the real perspective. The
details of all aspects that arose for consideration
were adverted to and the pros and cons were
considered with remarkable ability. After a
discussion of various aspects and perusal of
various materials that were available, the
Commissioner has entered specific findings and
has made specific recommendations. It is true that
the provisions of O. XXVI, R. 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is inapplicable to proceedings
under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Even
before the Code of Civil Procedure came into
force, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
had occasion to remind the Courts in India about
the approach to be made regarding a
Commissioner's report made on local enquiry. In
Ranee Surut Soondree Debea v. Baboo Prosanna
Coomar Tagore, (1869-70) 13 Moo Ind App 607 at
page 617, the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council after stating that interference with the
result of a local enquiry should be only upon
clearly defined and sufficient grounds, stated the
law thus :
"The integrity of the Ameen (Commissioner) is
unquestioned; this careful and laborious execution
of his task is proved by his report; he has not
blindly adopted the assertions of either party; and
without going minutely into details, Their
Lordships think it sufficient to say that they see no
ground for impugning the accuracy of his
conclusion upon what they conceive to be the
broad and cardinal issue upon which the
determination of this case depends."
In Chandan Mull v. Chiman Lal, AIR 1940 PC 3 at
page 6, the Judicial Committee again laid down the
correct statement of the principle to be adopted in
 53

dealing with the Commissioner's report. It was

observed :
"It has been laid down that interference with the
result of a long and careful local investigation
except upon clearly defined and sufficient ground
is to be deprecated. It is not safe for a Court to act
as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of
a Commissioner whose integrity and carefulness
are unquestioned, whose careful and laborious
execution of his task was proved by his report, and
who had not blindly adopted the assertions of
either party."
The above is the position in law uninfluenced in
any manner by the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
19. The Supreme Court of India had occasion to
consider the jurisdiction of the Courts in exercising
the powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution of India in appointing Commissioners
and the evidential value of such reports in such
proceedings. The matter arose in a public interest
litigation. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, AIR 1984 SC 802, Bhagwati, J. at page 816
(paragraph 14) of the judgment stated thus :
''The report of the Commissioner would furnish
prima facie evidence of the facts and data gathered
by the Commissioner and that is why the Supreme
Court is careful to appoint a responsible person as
Commissioner to make an enquiry or investigation
into the facts relating to the complaint. It is
interesting to note that in the past the Supreme
Court has appointed sometimes a district
Magistrate, sometimes a district Judge, sometimes
a professor of law, sometimes a journalist,
sometimes an officer of the Court and sometimes
an advocate practising in the Court, for the purpose
of carrying out an inquiry or investigation and
making report to the Court because the
Commissioner appointed by the Court must be a
responsible person who enjoys the confidence of
the Court and who is expected to carry out his
assignment objectively and impartially without any
predilection or prejudice. Once the report of the
Commissioner is received, copies of it would be
supplied to the parties so that either party, if it
wants to dispute any of the facts or data stated in
the Report, may do so by filing an affidavit and the
Court then consider the report of the Commissioner
and the affidavits which may have been filed and
 54

proceed to adjudicate upon the issue arising in the

writ petition. It would be entirely for the Court to
consider what weight to attach to the facts and data
stated in the report of the Commissioner and to
what extent to act upon such facts and data. But it
would not be correct to say that the report of the
Commissioner has no evidentiary value at all, since
the statements made in it are not tested by cross-
examination."
At page 817 of the judgment, in paragraph 15, the
learned Judge said thus :
"We may point out that what we have said above in
regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Supreme Court under Art. 32 must apply equally in
relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Courts under Article 226, for the latter jurisdiction
is also a new constitutional jurisdiction and it is
conferred in the same wide terms as the jurisdiction
under Article 32 and the same powers can and must
therefore be exercised by the High Courts while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. In fact,
the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article
226 is much wider, because the High Courts are
required to exercise this jurisdiction not only for
enforcement of a fundamental right but also for
enforcement of any legal right and there are many
rights conferred on the poor and the disadvantaged
which are the creation of statute and they need to
be enforced as urgently and vigorously as
fundamental rights."
Pathak, J. in concurring the judgment, observed at
page 845 (paragraph 70) thus :
"It is true that the reports of the said
Commissioners have not been tested by cross-
examination, but then the record does not show
whether any attempt was made by the respondents
to call them for cross-examination. The further
question whether the appointment of the
Commissioners falls within the terms of Order
XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 is of
technical significance only, because there was
inherent power in the Court, in the particular
circumstances of this case to take that action."
Amarendra Nath Sen, J. in a concurring judgment,
at page 849 (paragraph 81) stated the law thus :
"The power to appoint a commission or an
investigating body for making enquiries in terms of
directions given by the Court must be considered to
be implied and inherent in the power that the Court
 55

has under Article 32 for enforcement of the

fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. This is a power which is indeed
incidental, or ancillary to the power which the
Court is called upon to exercise in a proceeding
under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It is entirely in
the discretion of the Court, depending on the facts
and circumstances of any case, to consider whether
any such power regarding investigation has to be
exercised or not. The Commission that the Court
appoints or the investigation that the Court directs
while dealing with a proceeding under Art. 32 of
the Constitution is not a Commission or enquiry
under the Code of Civil Procedure. Such power
must necessarily be held to be implied within the
very wide powers conferred on this Court under
Art. 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights. I
am, further of the opinion that for proper exercise
of its powers under Art. 32 of the Constitution and
for due discharge of the obligation and duty cast
upon this Court in the matter of protection and
enforcement of fundamental rights which the
Constitution guarantees, it must be held that this
Court has an inherent power to act in such a
manner as will enable this Court to discharge its
duties and obligations under Art. 32 of the
Constitution properly and effectively in the larger
interest of administration of justice, and for proper
protection of constitutional safeguards. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that this objection is
devoid of any merit."
The latest decision on this subject is Delhi Judicial
Service Association Tis Hazari Court v. State of
Gujarat, 1991 AIR SCW 2419 : (1991) 4 SCC 406.
We are of the view that the above decisions
establish that the Court, in exercising the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can
appoint a Commission. The Commission so
appointed by the Court must be responsible
persons who enjoy the confidence of the Court and
who are expected to carry out the assignment
objectively and impartially without any
predilection or prejudice. The report of the
Commission should be served on all the parties or
made known to the public. If any person wants to
dispute any of the fact or data stated in the report,
he may take steps in that regard by filing an
affidavit or by leading evidence. If the Commission
so appointed by the Court to hold enquiry,
 56

considered facts and circumstances and made local

inspection and discussed the matter with the parties
and submitted a report containing reasoned
findings, prima facie it constitutes evidence which
can be acted by a Court of law. Interference with
the result of a detailed and careful report so
submitted should be made only for cogent and
compelling reasons. In a case where an elaborate
report is filed by the Commissioner, whose
integrity, credibility and carefulness are not
questioned, whose careful and laborious execution
of his task is proved by the report itself,
interference will be made only in exceptional
circumstances, in cases where convincing evidence
contra is available before Court.”

In (2003) 4 SCC 493 (Sharda v. Dharmpal) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the primary duty of a Court is to see that

truth is arrived at. Under Section 75(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure

and Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil

court has the requisite power to issue a direction to hold a scientific,

technical or expert investigation. In certain cases scientific

examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be

leading to the truth of the matter, but may also lead to removal of

misunderstanding between the parties. Relying on said judgment, it is

respectfully submitted that the ASI report is a scientific report of

experts which has removed misunderstanding between the parties by

giving scientific record that beneath the then existing disputed

structure there was remains of temples of Northern Indian Hindu

temples of 12th century over which the disputed structure was erected

by utilizing material of the said temple. As such the said report is

liable to be considered in the true letter and spirit of the aforesaid

 57

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph no.32-

37 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:

“32. Yet again the primary duty of a court is to see that

truth is arrived at. A party to a civil litigation, it is
axiomatic, is not entitled to constitutional protections
under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the
civil court although may not have any specific provisions
in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, has
an inherent power in terms of Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to pass all orders for doing
complete justice to the parties to the suit.
33. Discretionary power under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, it is trite, can be exercised also on an
application filed by the party.
34. In certain cases medical examination by the experts in
the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth
of the matter but may also lead to removal of
misunderstanding between the parties. It may bring the
parties to terms.
35. Having regard to development in medicinal
technology, it is possible to find out that what was
presumed to be a mental disorder of a spouse is not really
so.
36. In matrimonial disputes, the court has also a
conciliatory role to play — even for the said purpose it
may require expert advice.
37. Under Section 75(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure
and Order 26 Rule 10-A the civil court has the requisite
power to issue a direction to hold a scientific, technical or
expert investigation.”

In 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600 (Misrilal Ramratan v. A.S. Sheik

Fathimal ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is settled law that

the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore,

the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-

examination of the Commissioner as witness since it is part of the

record. Relying on the said judgment, it is respectfully submitted that

on the ground of non-examination of the archaeologists of the ASI

team the said report cannot be overlooked and rejected and as in view

of settled law, the said scientific report is part of the record. The

report is liable to be considered for drawing of the inferences.

 58

Relevant paragraph no.3 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

“3. Shri Sundaravaradan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants has contended that the
approach of the High Court is manifestly illegal. We find
no force in the contention. It is now settled law that the
report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that
therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on
spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as
a witness since it is part of the record of the case. We
have gone through the report submitted by Shri
Sundaravaradan and the High Court is clearly right in its
conclusion that the age of the building as per the
sanctioned plan of 1928 is 70 years and the building
requires demolition. In fact, it is undisputed that the
landlord obtained sanction from the Municipal
Corporation for demolition of the building. What was
lacking thereafter was that he did not obtain sanction for
reconstruction. This is one of the grounds for rejecting
the application for eviction. Undertaking was given that
within six months from the date of the construction, he
would obtain necessary sanction. Under these
circumstances, we find that the High Court is right in
reaching the conclusion that the landlord has established
the need for demolition of the building for reconstruction
as envisaged under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The
appeals are dismissed. However three months’ time is
granted to the appellants for vacating the premises with
usual undertaking. The undertaking shall be filed within
one month from today.”

In (1988) 2 SCC 292 (Southern Command M.E.S. Employees’

Cooperative Credit Society v. V.K.K. Nambiar) the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that the High Court was obviously in error in its view that

the Commissioner’s report could not be acted upon and be treated

evidence. Relying on said judgment, it is submitted that as the

Commissioner’s report is a legal evidence, it is liable to be considered

by this Hon’ble Court as a piece of evidence. Relevant paragraph no.1

of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

“1. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, we are

 59

satisfied that interference by the High Court with the

findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution was wholly unwarranted and in excess
of its jurisdiction. The High Court was obviously in error
in its view that the Commissioner’s report could not be
acted upon or be treated as legal evidence. The
Commissioner’s report tends to show that the demised
premises are no longer in occupation of the respondent
but in occupation of strangers which fact does raise an
inference of subletting as held by the lower appellate
court.”

The main ground of the objection of the plaintiffs specifically

the plaintiff no.1’s objection dated 8th October, 2003 as contained in its

paragraph no.1 that the ASI report has been prepared with a prejudice

mind and with one-sided presentation of evidence. In other words it

can be said that the ground is of biased and mala fide as it has been

elucidated in supplementary objection of the defendant no.6/1 & 6/2

of the OOS no.3 of 1989 dated 03/11/2003 wherein in paragraph nos.1

and 6 it has been stated that the said report is meant to strengthen the

design of the communal combine RSS, BJP, VHP. The ASI

department is under the control of Central Government. At that time

the then Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Bajpayee, Deputy Prima

Minister Sri L.K. Advani and HRD Minister Sri M.M. Joshi all were

of the BJP as such the ASI excavation team acted under their

instruction and behest. As such said report being biased and mala fide

is liable to be rejected.

In 1992 Supp (1) 222 (State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS

& Anr.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mala fides means want

of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or

 60

ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in

good faith, if it is in face done honestly, whether it is done negligently

or not. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two

questions namely, whether there is a personal bias or an oblique

motive and whether the administrative action is contrary to the

objects, requirements and conditions of valid exercise of power. The

action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide

for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement

is not sufficient. It must be demonstrative either by admitted or

proved facts and circumstances obtainable in given case. Relying on

said judgment it is submitted that the objectors failed to prove the

mala fide either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances as such

their objection is liable to be rejected. Relevant paragraph 50-52 of

the said judgment read as follows:

“50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias,

grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose.
The administrative action must be said to be done in good
faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done
negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to
have been done in good faith. An administrative authority
must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should
never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or
contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of
the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly
exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose.
The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two
questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or
an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative
action is contrary to the objects, requirements and
conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.
51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have
been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere
assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It
must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts
and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is
 61

established that the action has been taken mala fide for
any such considerations or by fraud on power or
colourable exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to
stand.
52. Public administration cannot be carried on in a spirit
of judicial detachment. There is a very wide range of
discretionary administrative acts not importing an implied
duty to act judicially though the act must be done in good
faith to which legal protection will be accorded. But the
administrative act de hors judicial flavour does not entail
compliance with the rule against interest and likelihood
of bias. It is implicit that a complainant when he lodges a
report to the Station House Officer accusing a person of
commission of an offence, often may be a person
aggrieved, but rarely a pro bono publico. Therefore,
inherent animosity is licit and by itself is not tended to
cloud the veracity of the accusation suspected to have
been committed, provided it is based on factual
foundation.”

In (2008) 7 SCC 639 (H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial

Corporation) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a party did

not raise any objection in regard to the appointment of the enquiry

officer and participated in the enquiry proceeding without any demur

whatsoever and failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused

by reason of appointment of a legal adviser as an enquiry officer such

party cannot be permitted to raise the said contention. Relying on said

judgment it is submitted that the ASI was appointed to carry out the

excavation work by this Hon’ble High Court and no objection was

raised with regard to such appointment of ASI rather the objectors,

their observers, their nominees and other parties duly participated in

the excavation proceeding and they have also failed to establish that

appointment of ASI caused any prejudice to them their such

contention is liable to be rejected. Relevant paragraph 10 of the said

judgment reads as follows:

 62

“10. The appellant did not raise any objection in regard to

the appointment of the enquiry officer. She participated in
the enquiry proceeding without any demur whatsoever. A
large number of witnesses were examined before the
enquiry officer. They were cross-examined. The appellant
examined witnesses on her own behalf. The learned
Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High
Court opined that the appellant has failed to establish that
any prejudice has been caused to her by reason of
appointment of a legal advisor as an enquiry officer and
as the appellant has participated in the enquiry
proceeding, she could not be permitted to raise the said
contention.”

In (2006) 3 SCC 56 (Ceat Ltd. v. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar &

Ors.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to establish

favouritism or partiality mental element of bias must be established by

cogent evidence. Relying on said judgment it is submitted that the

objectors have failed to establish mental element of bias of the

members of the ASI excavation team as such their objection is liable

to be rejected. Relevant paragraph 11 to 16 of the said judgment read

as follows:

“11. In Item 5 of Schedule IV to the Act, the legislature

has consciously used the words “favouritism or partiality
to one set of workers” and not differential treatment.
Thus, the mental element of bias was necessary to be
established by cogent evidence. No evidence in that
regard was led. On the contrary the approach of the
Industrial Court and the High Court was different. One
proceeded on the basis of breach of assurance and the
other on the ground of discrimination. There was no
evidence brought on as regards the prerequisite i.e.
favouritism or partiality. Favouritism means showing
favour in the matter of selection on circumstances other
than merit. (Per Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha
Aiyar, 3rd Edn., 2005.) The expression “favouritism”
means partiality, bias. Partiality means inclination to
favour a particular person or thing. Similarly, it has been
sometimes equated with capricious, not guided by steady
judgment, intent or purpose. Favouritism as per
Webster’s’ Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
 63

English Language means the favouring of one person or

group over others having equal claims. Partiality is the
state or character of being partial, favourable, biased or
prejudiced.
12. According to Oxford English Dictionary,
“favouritism” means—a deposition to show, or the
practice of showing favour or partiality to an individual
or class, to the neglect of others having equal or superior
claims; under preference. Similarly, “partiality” means
the quality or character of being partial, unequal state of
judgment and favour of one above the other, without just
reason. Prejudicial or undue favouring of one person or
party: or one side of a question; prejudice, unfairness,
bias.
13. Bias may be generally defined as partiality or
preference. It is true that any person or authority required
to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter must act
impartially:
“If however, ‘bias’ and ‘partiality’ be defined to mean the
total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the judge,
then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will.
The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of
paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes
of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which
precede reasoning in particular instances and which,
therefore, by definition, are prejudices.” (Per Frank, J. in
Linahan, F 2d at p.652.)
14. It is not every kind of differential treatment which in
law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which
is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest —
whether pecuniary or personal.
15. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is
also seen as an extension of the principles of natural
justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause.
Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to
determine. Therefore, the courts have evolved the
principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully
impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility
of bias or proving circumstances from which the
operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the
merits of the case can be inferred.
16. As we have noted, every preference does not vitiate
an action. If it is rational and unaccompanied by
considerations of personal interest, pecuniary or
otherwise, it would not vitiate a decision. The above
position was highlighted in G.N. Nayak v. Goa
University.”
 64

In (2005) 5 SCC 363 (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.

Union of India) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that public

displeasure is not confined to the police force only but this displeasure

is reflected against many a department of the government including

constitutional bodies and if public displeasure or perception were to be

the yardstick to exclude people from holding constitutional or

statutory offices then many such posts in the country may have to be

kept vacant. Relying on said judgment it is submitted that as at that

time there was BJP government, it cannot be said that all the branches

and department of the government were working dishonestly at the

behest of the BJP government. As such the objection which is based

on such hypothetical wild allegations is liable to be rejected. Relevant

paragraph nos.10 to 12 of the said judgment read as follows:

“10. While we cannot take exception in regard to the

remarks made against the police in each one of the above
cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
we certainly feel that these remarks cannot be so
generalised as to make every personnel of the force,
consisting of nearly 2.2 million people, violators of
human rights solely on the ground that out of thousands
of cases investigated and handled by them, in some cases
the personnel involved have indulged in violation of
human rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, contended that the judgments apart, the public
perception of the Indian police force as a whole is so poor
that it considers the police as an organisation to be a
violator of human rights. Therefore, selecting a retired
police officer as a member of the Commission would lead
to erosion of confidence of the people in the Commission.
We are sincerely unable to gauge this public perception or
its magnitude so as to import this concept of institutional
bias. There are no statistics placed before this Court
to show that there has been any census or poll conducted
which would indicate that a substantial majority of the
population in the country considers the police force as an
 65

institution which violates human rights nor do we think

that by such generalisations we could disqualify a person
who is otherwise eligible from becoming a member of the
Commission.
11. Public displeasure as presently perceived is not
confined to the police force only. The views expressed in
the media very often show that this displeasure is
reflected against many a department of the Government
including constitutional bodies and if public displeasure
or perception were to be the yardstick to exclude people
from holding constitutional or statutory offices then many
such posts in the country may have to be kept vacant.
12. Then again what is the yardstick to measure public
perception. Admittedly, there is no barometer to gauge
the perception of the people. In a democracy there are
many people who get elected by a thumping majority to
high legislative offices. Many a times public perception
of a class of society in regard to such people may be that
they are not desirable to hold such post but can such a
public opinion deprive such people from occupying
constitutional or statutory offices without there being a
law to the contrary? There is vast qualitative difference
between public prejudice and judicial condemnation of an
institution based on public perception. At any rate, as
stated above, public perception or public opinion has no
role to play in selection of an otherwise eligible person
from becoming a member of the Commission under the
Act.”

In (2001) 1 SCC 182 (Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v.

Girja Shankar Pant) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word

‘bias’ include the attributes and broader purview of the word ‘malice’

which means and implies ‘spite’ or ‘ill-will’ and it is now well-settled

that mere general statement will not be sufficient for the purposes of

indication of ill-will, there must be cogent evidence available on

record to come to the conclusion as to whether in face there was

existing a bias which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Relying on

said judgment it is submitted that the objectors have failed to establish

ill-will by cogent evidence as such their objection is liable to be

 66

rejected. Relevant paragraph no.10, 26 & 32-35 read as follow:

“10. The word “bias” in popular English parlance stands

included within the attributes and broader purview of the
word “malice”, which in common acceptation means and
implies “spite” or “ill-will” (Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,
5th Edn., Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere
general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes
of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record to come to the conclusion as to
whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in
the miscarriage of justice.

26. “Bias” in common English parlance means and

implies — predisposition or prejudice. The Managing
Director admittedly, was not well disposed of towards the
respondent herein by reason wherefor, the respondent was
denuded of the financial power as also the administrative
management of the department. It is the selfsame
Managing Director who levels thirteen charges against
the respondent and is the person who appoints the
enquiry officer, but affords a pretended hearing himself
late in the afternoon on 26-11-1993 and communicates
the order of termination consisting of eighteen pages by
early evening, the chain is complete: prejudice apparent:
bias as stated stands proved.
32. Lord Hutton also in Pinochet case16 observed:
“There could be cases where the interest of the Judge in
the subject-matter of the proceedings arising from his
strong commitment to some cause or belief or his
association with a person or body involved in the
proceedings could shake public confidence in the
administration of justice as much as a shareholding
(which might be small) in a public company involved in
the litigation.”
33. Incidentally in Locabail [Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.
Bayfield Properties Ltd.] the Court of Appeal upon a
detail analysis of the oft-cited decision in R. v. Gough
together with the Dimes case, Pinochet case, Australian
High Court’s decision in the case of J.R.L., ex p C.J.L., as
also the Federal Court in Ebner, and on the decision of
the Constitutional Court of South Africa in President of
the Republic of South Africa v. South African Rugby
Football Union stated that it would be rather dangerous
and futile to attempt to define or list the factors which
may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias. The
Court of Appeal continued to the effect that everything
 67

will depend upon facts which may include the nature of

the issue to be decided. It further observed:
“By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought
to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity
between the Judge and any member of the public
involved in the case; or if the Judge were closely
acquainted with any member of the public involved in the
case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could
be significant in the decision of the case; or if, in a case
where the credibility of any individual were an issue to be
decided by the Judge, he had in a previous case rejected
the evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to
throw doubt on his ability to approach such person’s
evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or if
on any question at issue in the proceedings before him the
Judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of
the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to
throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an
objective judicial mind (see Vakuta v. Kelly; or if, for any
other reason, there were real ground for doubting the
ability of the Judge to ignore extraneous considerations,
prejudices and predilections and bring an objective
judgment to bear on the issues before him. The mere fact
that a Judge, earlier in the same case or in a previous
case, had commented adversely on a party-witness, or
found the evidence of a party or witness to be unreliable,
would not without more found a sustainable objection. In
most cases, we think, the answer, one way or the other,
will be obvious. But if in any case there is real ground for
doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favour of recusal.
We repeat: every application must be decided on the facts
and circumstances of the individual case. The greater the
passage of time between the event relied on as showing a
danger of bias and the case in which the objection is
raised, the weaker (other things being equal) the
objection will be.”
34. The Court of Appeal judgment in Locabail though
apparently as noticed above sounded a different note but
in fact, in more occasions than one in the judgment itself,
it has been clarified that conceptually the issue of bias
ought to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the
individual case — a slight shift undoubtedly from the
original thinking pertaining to the concept of bias to the
effect that a mere apprehension of bias could otherwise
be sufficient.
35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere
apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias
and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances
 68

must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion

drawn therefrom — in the event however the conclusion
is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real
danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be
sustained: If on the other hand, the allegations pertaining
to bias is rather fanciful and otherwise to avoid a
particular court, Tribunal or authority, question of
declaring them to be unsustainable would not arise. The
requirement is availability of positive and cogent
evidence and it is in this context that we do record our
concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of
Appeal in Locabail case.”

In (2001) 2 SCC 330 (State of Punjab v. V.K.Khanna) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the test is as to whether there is a

mere apprehension or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this

score that on the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be

collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. If allegations

pertain rather fanciful apprehension in administrative action question

of declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis therefore would not

arise. Action not bona fide by themselves would not amount to be

mala fide unless the same is in accompaniment with some other

factors which would depict a bad motive or intent on the part of the

doer of the act. Relying on said judgment, it is submitted that the

objectors have failed to prove and establish the aforesaid ingredients

of prejudice and mala fide as such their objections are liable to be

rejected. Relevant paragraph no.8 and 25 of the said judgment read as

follows:

“5. Whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness

— bias stands included within the attributes and broader
purview of the word “malice” which in common
acceptation means and implies “spite” or “ill will”. One
redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or
malice and is now well settled that mere general
 69

statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of

indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence
available on record to come to the conclusion as to
whether in fact, there was existing a bias or a mala fide
move which results in the miscarriage of justice (see in
this context Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja
Shankar Pant). In almost all legal inquiries, “intention as
distinguished from motive is the all-important factor” and
in common parlance a malicious act stands equated with
an intentional act without just cause or excuse. In the case
of Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. Stevens the Court of
Appeal has stated upon reliance on the decision of
Lumley v. Gye as below:
“For this purpose maliciously means no more than
knowingly. This was distinctly laid down in Lumley v.
Gye where Crompton, J. said that it was clear law that a
person who wrongfully and maliciously, or, which is the
same thing, with notice, interrupts the relation of master
and servant by harbouring and keeping the servant after
he has quitted his master during his period of service,
commits a wrongful act for which he is responsible in
law. Malice in law means the doing of a wrongful act
intentionally without just cause or excuse: Bromage v.
Prosser. ‘Intentionally’ refers to the doing of the act; it
does not mean that the defendant meant to be spiteful,
though sometimes, as for instance to rebut a plea of
privilege in defamation, malice in fact has to be proved.”
6. In Girja Shankar Pant case this Court having regard to
the changing structure of the society stated that the
modernisation of the society with the passage of time, has
its due impact on the concept of bias as well. Tracing the
test of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion, reliance
was placed in the decision in the case of Parthasarathi (S.
Parthasarathi v. State of A.P.) wherein Mathew, J.
observed: (SCC pp. 465-66, para 16)
“16. The tests of ‘real likelihood’ and ‘reasonable
suspicion’ are really inconsistent with each other. We
think that the reviewing authority must make a
determination on the basis of the whole evidence before
it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances
infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The court must
look at the impression which other people have. This
follows from the principle that justice must not only be
done but seen to be done. If right-minded persons would
think that there is real likelihood of bias on the part of an
inquiring officer, he must not conduct the inquiry;
nevertheless, there must be a real likelihood of bias.
Surmise or conjecture would not be enough. There must
 70

exist circumstances from which reasonable men would

think it probable or likely that the inquiring officer will
be prejudiced against the delinquent. The court will not
inquire whether he was really prejudiced. If a reasonable
man would think on the basis of the existing
circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced, that is
sufficient to quash the decision [see per Lord Denning,
M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v.
Lannon (WLR at p. 707)]. We should not, however, be
understood to deny that the court might with greater
propriety apply the ‘reasonable suspicion’ test in criminal
or in proceedings analogous to criminal proceedings.”

7. Incidentally, Lord Thankerton in Franklin v. Minister

of Town and Country Planning opined that the word
“bias” is to denote a departure from the standing of even-
handed justice. Girja Shankar case further noted the
different note sounded by the English Courts in the
manner following: (SCC pp.199-201, paras 30-34)
“30. Recently however, the English courts have sounded
a different note, though may not be substantial but the
automatic disqualification theory rule stands to some
extent diluted. The affirmation of this dilution however is
dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the matter
in issue. The House of Lords in the case of R. v. Bow
Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet
Ugarte (No. 2) observed:
‘... In civil litigation the matters in issue will normally
have an economic impact; therefore a Judge is
automatically disqualified if he stands to make a financial
gain as a consequence of his own decision of the case.
But if, as in the present case, the matter at issue does not
relate to money or economic advantage but is concerned
with the promotion of the cause, the rationale
disqualifying a Judge applies just as much if the Judge’s
decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in which
the Judge is involved together with one of the parties.’
31. Lord Brown-Wilkinson at p. 136 of the report stated:
‘It is important not to overstate what is being decided. It
was suggested in argument that a decision setting aside
the order of 25-11-1998 would lead to a position where
Judges would be unable to sit on cases involving charities
in whose work they are involved. It is suggested that,
because of such involvement, a Judge would be
disqualified. That is not correct. The facts of this present
case are exceptional. The critical elements are (1) that
A.I. was a party to the appeal; (2) that A.I. was joined in
 71

order to argue for a particular result; (3) the Judge was a

director of a charity closely allied to A.I. and sharing, in
this respect, A.I.’s objects. Only in cases where a Judge is
taking an active role as trustee or director of a charity
which is closely allied to and acting with a party to the
litigation should a Judge normally be concerned either to
recuse himself or disclose the position to the parties.
However, there may well be other exceptional cases in
which the Judge would be well advised to disclose a
possible interest.’
32. Lord Hutton also in Pinochet case observed:
‘There could be cases where the interest of the Judge in
the subject-matter of the proceedings arising from his
strong commitment to some cause or belief or his
association with a person or body involved in the
proceedings could shake public confidence in the
administration of justice as much as a shareholding
(which might be small) in a public company involved in
the litigation.’
33. Incidentally in Locabail [Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v.
Bayfield Properties Ltd.] the Court of Appeal upon a
detail analysis of the oft-cited decision in R. v. Gough
together with the Dimes case, Pinochet case, Australian
High Court’s decision in the case of J.R.L., ex p C.J.L., as
also the Federal Court in Ebner, and on the decision of
the Constitutional Court of South Africa in President of
the Republic of South Africa v. South African Rugby
Football Union stated that it would be rather dangerous
and futile to attempt to define or list the factors which
may or may not give rise to a real danger of bias. The
Court of Appeal continued to the effect that everything
will depend upon facts which may include the nature of
the issue to be decided. It further observed:

‘By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought

to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity
between the Judge and any member of the public
involved in the case; or if the Judge were closely
acquainted with any member of the public involved in the
case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could
be significant in the decision of the case; or if, in a case
where the credibility of any individual were an issue to be
decided by the Judge, he had in a previous case rejected
the evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to
throw doubt on his ability to approach such person’s
evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or if
on any question at issue in the proceedings before him the
Judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of
 72

the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to

throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an
objective judicial mind (see Vakuta v. Kelly); or if, for any
other reason, there were real ground for doubting the
ability of the Judge to ignore extraneous considerations,
prejudices and predilections and bring an objective
judgment to bear on the issues before him. The mere fact
that a Judge, earlier in the same case or in a previous
case, had commented adversely on a party-witness, or
found the evidence of a party or witness to be unreliable,
would not without more found a sustainable objection. In
most cases, we think, the answer, one way or the other,
will be obvious. But if in any case there is real ground for
doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favour of recusal.
We repeat: every application must be decided on the facts
and circumstances of the individual case. The greater the
passage of time between the event relied on as showing a
danger of bias and the case in which the objection is
raised, the weaker (other things being equal) the
objection will be.’
34. The Court of Appeal judgment in Locabail though
apparently as noticed above sounded a different note but
in fact, in more occasions than one in the judgment itself,
it has been clarified that conceptually the issue of bias
ought to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the
individual case — a slight shift undoubtedly from the
original thinking pertaining to the concept of bias to the
effect that a mere apprehension of bias could otherwise
be sufficient.”

8. The test, therefore, is as to whether there is a mere

apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and
it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must
and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn
therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is
otherwise that there is existing a real danger of bias
administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other
hand allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in
administrative action, question of declaring them to be
unsustainable on the basis therefor, would not arise.
9. It is in the same vein this Court termed it as reasonable
likelihood of bias in Rattan Lal Sharma case (Rattan Lal
Sharma v. Managing Committee Dr Hari Ram (Co-
Education) Higher Secondary School wherein this Court
was pleased to observe that the test is real likelihood of
bias even if such bias was, in fact, the direct cause. In
Rattan Lal Sharma case real likelihood of bias has been
attributed a meaning to the effect that there must be at
 73

least a substantial possibility of bias in order to render an

administrative action invalid. Rattan Lal Sharma case
thus, in fact, has not expressed any opinion which runs
counter to that in Girja Shankar case and the decision in
the last-noted case thus follows the earlier judgment in
Rattan Lal case even though not specifically noticed
therein.
10. Before adverting to the rival contentions as raised in
the matter, it would also be convenient to note the other
perspective of the issue of bias to wit: mala fides. It is
trite knowledge that bias is included within the attributes
and broader purview of the word “malice”.”

The conclusion of the ASI report submitted before this Hon’ble

Court is that there was a temple. In Chapter VI of the said report Sri

L.S. Rao, Sri A.R. Siddiqui and Sri Sujeet Narayan, the archaeologists

record their inferences as follows:

“A noteworthy aspect of some of these architectural

members is the presence of mortises/open grooves of
varying dimensions on the body of slabs which serve the
purpose of providing dowels/clamps as binding factor. In
many a cases iron dowels have been found in situ.
Besides, there are also symptomatic features to the effect
of reusing the earlier architectural members with
decorative motifs or mouldings by re-chiseling the slab
(Pls.79-80, Fig.59). A few intact architectural members
like Amlaka (Pl.81, Fig.59) pillar with Ghata-pallava
base with dwarf beings as weight-bearers and
Kirtimukhas (Pls.82-83, Fig.59) to mention a few, have
also been recovered. Besides, there are a member of
architectural members which have been decorated with
deeply carved foliage motifs. This pattern is a distinct
one resembling like that of “stencil” work (Pls.86-87). It
may be pointed out that the various architectural
members with similar decorative designs have been
found used in the foundation of one of the major brick
structures (wall 16) (see Chapter-IV-Structure) exposed in
these excavations.
The aforesaid pillars and other decorative
architectural members of this site like fragment of broken
jamb with semi circular pilaster (Pl.85), fragment of lotus
medallion motif (Pls.89-90) emphatically speak about
their association with the temple architecture.
Stylistically, these architectural members in general and
pillars in particular may be placed in a time bracket of
 74

tenth-twelfth Century A.D. It is also pertinent to note that

there are a few architectural members (Pls.92-94), which
can clearly be associated with the Islamic architecture on
stylistic ground, which might belong to sixteenth century
A.D. onwards.”
(ASI report vol.I p.121 - 122)

The ASI report submitted before this Hon’ble Court in its

Chapter-IV Sri B.R. Mani, Sri D.K. Singh, Sri Bhuvan Vikrama, Sri

Gajanan L. Katade, Sm. Prabash Sahu and Sri Zulfeqar Ali the

archaeologists record their inferences as follows:

a) “Two decorated sand stone blocks from an earlier structure,

one having the damaged figure of a possible foliated
makara-prα□ala were found re-used in the foundation of wal
5 on its outer face (Pls.22-23)”
(ASI report, Ch.IV Vol.I p.52)

b) “The decorated octagonal sand stone block on pillar base 32

having floral motif on four corners in trench F7 in the
southern area is the unique example at the site (Pl.39) which
definitely belongs to the 12th century AD. as it is similar to
those found in the Dharmachakrajijna Vihara of Kumaradevi
at Sarnath (Pl.40) which belongs to the early 12th century
AD.”
(ASI report, Ch.IV, Vol.I p.56)

c) “A partly damaged east facing brick shrine, structure 5

(Pls.59-60, Fig.17, 24 & 24A) was noticed after removal of
baulk between trenches E8 and F8. It is a circular structure
with a rectangular projection in the east ...
Thus on stylistic grounds, the present circular shrine can
be dated to c. tench century A.D. when the Kalachuris
moved in this area and settled across river Sarayu. They
possibly brought the tradition of stone circular temples
transformed into brick in Ganga-Yamuna valley.”
(ASI Report, Ch. IV Vol. I, p.70 & 71)
“The Ram Chabutra

The excavation revealed that the Ram Chabutra or

structure 1 (Fig.3) has got no less than five different
structural phases of its construction (Pl.15). Its original
use is not certain and there is possibility of its being a
water tank in its original shape. The chabutra which
looked a small platform in its final form at the time of its
last use, was found to be a fairly large structure when its
 75

core was exposed besides outer phases wherever where

possible for excavation. In its enlarged form it was a
structure nearly 22 m in east-west and about 14m in
north-south orientation.
The base of the structure has been found to be no
less than 2.67 m deep, constructed of 7 levels, each
having calcrete blocks in one course with joints filled up
with lime-surkhi mortar. These courses of the foundation
levels were found still continuing downwards. Above
this base was constructed a tank like structure of eight
levels (Pl.16) having in its each level one course of
calcrete blocks topped by two courses of bricks set in
lime mortar. Above each level the walls were plastered
with lime mortar. In its original form it had perhaps four
projections in the middle of its four walls, but later it was
raised upon the height of 2.41 m having eight levels in all
and a projection of 76 m with the length of 1.67 m on its
eastern and western sides in the middle of the wall. The
inner measurements of this structure are 4.08 m in north-
south and 4.30 m in east-west directions without their
projection on either sides of east and west.
In the third stage of its use the structure was filled
up with debris consisting of calcrete blocks and brick-
bats upto its surface level. Afterwards throughout on the
surface a course of calcrete blocks was spread with brick-
bats mixed with lime-surkhi mortar above which was
placed a squarish masonry platform at the spot where the
western projection of the structure was located (Pl./17).
The quarish masonry platform was a solid structure
40 cm in height and 1.50 m in east-west and 1.55 m in
north-south direction with its 7 cm top plastered cleanly
with fine lime mortar. The top part was found projected
over the surface (Pl,18) below which one more course of
calcrete blocks and brick-bats etc., as in the lower course
below it, were found laid and set in lime-surkhi mortar.
Thus the total height raised over the tank like structure
was 75 cm. This seems to have been the earliest form of
the Ram Chabutra seems to match with the description of
a square box elevated 5 inches above the ground level
covered with lime stone or vedi (bedi) which was
circumambulated thrice and saluted by people by
prostrating on ground as given by the Austrian traveller
Joseph Tieffenthaler who visited the site around 1766-71
and whose account was published in Latin and translated
in French in 1786 under the title Description historique et
geographique de l` Inde.
It is quite apparent that in due course of time the
height of the Ram chabutra was further raised in two
phases first having three levels of calcrete blocks mixed
 76

with brick-bats, terracotta objects and potsherds of earlier

period set in like-surkhi mortar, each level divided by
well plastered surface. Finally, on the top, four courses of
lakhauri bricks, brick-bats of earlier bricks set in like-
surkhi mortar, were laid, probably during the late Mughal
period over which cement plaster was done at a later date
in which were fixed memorial or decorative slabs as
evident fro the impressions available over the plaster
(Pl.19). thus the minimum height of the structure was
found to be no less than 7.40 m. In the extended part of
the Ram Chabutra in the west its retaining wall has
damaged the pillar bases 30, 33, 36, 39 and 42 of the
Period VII. (Fig.3B)”
(ASI report, vol.I, p.49 – 51)

d) During the excavation 62 human and 131 animal

figurines were found. In the consonance with the
prevailing practice in the Gangetic valley, these figurines
are the products of both handmade as well as moulding
techniques. These terracottas are assignable from the pre-
Mauryan to the previous century. They are both religious
as well as secular, the former being represented as cult
objects viz. mother-goddess.
(ASI report, vol.I,Ch. VII p.174)

The said ASI report records its findings of temple as follows:

“The Hon’ble High Court, in order to get sufficient

archaeological evidence on the issue involved “whether
there was any temple/structure which was demolished
and mosque was constructed on the disputed site” as
stated on page 1 and further on p.5 of their order dated 5
march, 2003 had given directions to the Archaeological
Survey of India to excavate at the disputed site where the
GPR Survey has suggested evidence of anomalies which
could be structure, pillars, foundation walls, slab flooring
etc. which could be confirmed by excavation. Now,
viewing in totality and taking into account the
archaeological evidence of massive structure just below
the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in
structural phases from the tenth century onwards upto the
construction of the disputed structure along with the yield
of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated
sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural
members including foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali
doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal
shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine
having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty pillar bases
in association of the huge structure, are indicative of
 77

remains which are distinctive features found associated

with the temples of north India.”

The Gazetteer of India, Vol.-II, 3rd Edn. 1990, published by

Director Publications Division, Govt. of India, Delhi also records that

amalaka is characteristic feature of north Indian i.e. Nagara style

temples. Relevant extracts from the said gazetteer reads as follows:

“The three lower ones are square in cross section while

the mastaka, of which the topmost part is the amalaka, is
circular. Each of these sections has further subdivisions
of which those of the bada may be useful for a study of
the evolutionary sequence.”
(Ibid. P.224)

“...In the Brahmesvara the jagamohana roof is

surmounted by a domical member with the amalaka as its
crown.”
(Ibid. P.225)
“...Another typical feature is supplied by amalakas
forming the crowning member of the principal sikhara
and of the anga-sikharas.”
(Ibid. P.227)
“...in a few instances, of such Central Indian features as
extensions of pagas double amalaka.”
(Ibid. P.229)
“...Such temples bear the characteristic features of the
early Nagara temple, though the attenuated and globular
shape of the amalaka provides a significant divergence.”
(Ibid. P.231)

Mohammad Abid, as an expert witness deposed in Hindi as DW

6/1-2 relevant portions of his deposition reads as follows:

“a). I am well acquainted with the standard, technique

as well as scientific and practical system and procedure
of the archaeological excavation (ibid P. 2 – 3 para 3
specially line 5 and 6 of p. 3).
b). Pillar base as it is seen in Plate 48 exactly same
pillar base was found and no addition or alteration was
made to it. (ibid p.25 L.10-12)
c). In Ayodhya at the time of excavation scientific
method was adopted. (ibid p.57 L. 8-9)
d). It is correct that amongst the artefacts found in
excavation, a divine couple was also found. (ibid p.65
 78

L. 1-2)
e). It is correct that Toran – Ganapati, Prakar Mandir
and yantra are found in a temple but not in a mosque.
(ibid p.65 L.11-16)

Professor Dhaneshwar Mandal, as an expert witness deposed in

Hindi as PW -24 relevant portions of his deposition read as follows:

“a). I don’t think that during my stay archaeologists had

constructed any pillar etc. In my presence there was no
such happening that said archaeologist manufactured
anything in concealed manner or by force. During
excavation I had seen that the artefacts found in course
of excavation were segregated. This is also correct to
say that during the excavation human deposits were
being found from the trenches. (ibid p. 161 L.5-9)

b). If at any place there is a kitchen then naturally at that

place food would have been prepared but if really food
would have been prepared, then according to
archaeology finding of furnace / oven from that place is
essential. In the collection of ASI’s report Volume II
(Plates) in Plate No. 3 oven and furnace have been
shown and I myself has also seen the oven and furnace
on excavation-site. (ibid p. 191 L. 9-15)

c). In the Plate no.39 it looks as a stylistic elephant’s

trunk (Ibid p.250 L.6 & 7)

d). In Plate no.37 of the aforesaid report one pillar base

of a definite form is appearing, There are stones on both
side to support it. There is no such construction in Plate
no.42. In this Plate the visible upper portion on which is
marked F2 construction thereof is like the construction
which is seen in aforesaid Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-
base which is visible in Plate no.47 construction thereof
is different from the pillar-base of the aforesaid Plates.
The pillar-base which is visible in Plate no.44
construction whereof is also different from the aforesaid
pillar-bases. The pillar-base which is visible in Plate
no.45, construction thereof is different from the
construction of the pillar-bases which are visible in
Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-base which is in Plate
no.46, construction thereof is different from the
aforesaid pillar-bases. The construction of the pillar-
base visible in Plate no.46 is similar to the construction
in Plate no.42. The construction of the pillar-base
visible in Plate no.47 is similar to the construction of
 79

the pillar-bases visible in Plate no.42 & 46. In Plate

no.48 pillar-base of circular type is visible. (Ibid p.262
L.2-17)
e)It is correct to say that floral motif is mostly used in
Hindu temples. In Plate no.62 brick wall is visible
beneath which in foundation some decorated stone
pieces are connected. These stone which are visible in
Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-base which is in Plate
no.46, construction thereof is different from the
aforesaid pillar-bases. The construction of the pillar-
base visible in Plate no.46 is similar to the construction
in Plate no.42. The constructio pieces are also re-used.
Floral motifs are also carved thereon. Mostly the floral
motif are made in Hindu temples. The pillar-base
which is visible in Plate no.30 is similar to the pillar-
bases which are visible in Plate no.42 & 46. In the Plate
no.22 a figure made on a stone-slab is Maker Pranal. In
the Plate no.23 its close up has been given. Makar are
abundantly made in Hindu tem which are visible in
Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-base which is in Plate
no.46, construction thereof is different from the
aforesaid pillar-bases. The construction of the pillar-
base visible in Plate no.46 is similar to the construction
in Plate no.42. The constructioples. The stones
whereon flower, leaf, animal figurines, Kalash are
engraved those are used in Hindu temples but it can be
brought from somewhere else also and they might be of
that place were they are entangled. Thus there are both
possibilities. (Ibid p.263 L.5 – 16)

f). Such pillar-bases has also been found wherein

orthostate has been used. Mainly these are situated in
the Northern direction of the make-shift-structure. Such
orthostatic pillar-base has not been found in the South.
The orthostatic pillar-bases which have been found in
the North wards of the make-shift-structure, I recognize
them pillar-bases. I cannot say how many pillar-bases
are on the North wards and how many pillar-bases are
on South wards but the number of orthostate pillar-
bases is 11. (I) recognize orthostatic pillar-bases as load
bearing pillar-base but possibly their date is of post
Mughal period. If in any pillar-base its foundation is of
brick-bats and above which is orthostat, then I will
recognize such pillar-base as load bearing pillar-base. In
the Northern direction few pillar-base have been found.
Such pillar-base have been found in the North the
foundation whereof or brick bats and above that
orthostate have been found. (Ibid p.288 L.16 – 24 and
p.289 L.1 – 4)
 80

g). During the excavation at disputed site in Ajodhya

small idols have been found. (Ibid p.310 L.11 – 12)

h).In this Plate (Plate no.129 of ASI’s report volume 2)

Cobra-hood is visible. (Ibid p.310 L.16 & 17).

i) I have earlier also seen the Plat which are visible in

Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-base which is in Plate
no.46, construction thereof is different from the
aforesaid pillar-bases. The construction of the pillar-
base visible in Plate no.46 is similar to the construction
in Plate no.42. The constructioe no.235 (of volume
no.2 of ASI report). In a figure of this Plate which is on
left-side portion of waist is visible wherein some article
like ornament is visible but looking it, it cannot be said
that whether this figure is of male or female. (Ibid p.320
Last line and p.321 L.1 – 4).

In the ASI’s report Vol. II Plate 67 is photograph of “Garud-

dhwaj” Plate No. 88 is photograph of “Srivatsa”. These religious

symbols of the Hindu Temple have been found during excavation at

disputed site in Ayodhya. In Sri Bhagawat-Puran. 1.18.16; Sri

Mahabharat Anushasan Parva.149. 51 & Shanti-parva Garud-dhwaj

have been mentioned as one of the thousand names of the Lord of

Universe Sri Vishnu which means in the Flag of Lord Vishnu emblem

of Garud finds place. In Sri Valmiki Ramayana Yuddh-Kanda.111.13

& 132; Sri Mahabharat| Anushasan Parva.149.77; Sri

Ramcharitamanas Balkanda.146.6 Sri Vatsa has been mentioned as a

holy mark on the chest of the Lord of Universe Sri Vishnu. Finding

of these holy religious symbols related to the Lord of Universe Sri

Vishnu leaves no doubt that the structure in question was a Vaishnav

Temple.

In the ASI’s report Vol.1 a chart of the Architectural Members

 81

have been given on pages 122-152 wherein on Sl which are visible in

Plate no.37 & 38. The pillar-base which is in Plate no.46, construction

thereof is different from the aforesaid pillar-bases. The construction

of the pillar-base visible in Plate no.46 is similar to the construction in

Plate no.42. The constructio. No.130 at page 129 Ghata Pallava &

Srivatsa; on Sl. No.148 at page 130 Divine Couple in alingana

mudra; on Sl. No.123 at page 140 Couching Ganas(human beings) &

Kirtimukhas; on Sl. No.125 at page 141 Amalaka; on Sl. No.225 at

page 148 ghata-pallav, kirtimukhas, human miniature details have

been given. ... In the said ASI’s report Vol.1 a chart of the

Miscellaneous Objects have been given wherein on pages 219-267

on Sl. No.58 at page 252 Swastika have been described.

In the book ‘A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture’ by Prasanna

Kumar Acharya published by Low Price Publication first published in

1934 and reprint in 2008 on page nos.17 to 43 Adhishthana have been

described in detail. On its page no.109 and 110 Kapota and Kapota-

Pallika have been defined. On its page nos.121 to 124 kalas has been

defined, on its page no.246 Torana, has been defined. On its page

no.361 Pranal has been defined, Prasad has been described on page

no.396. On its page no.598 Sri-vatsa have been described and

defined. On its page nos.644 to 704 Stambha i.e. pillars/orthostate has

been described and defined. On page nos.732 and 738 Svastika has

been described and defined. From the aforesaid objects found during

the excavation and their association with the temples as it is proved by

the authentic dictionary and books of the Hindu architecture as well as

 82

Gazetteer of India makes it beyond doubt that the disputed structure

was a temple.

The Commissioner in his report filed in Suit No. 1 of 1989 in

the year 1950 has reported the presence of Samadhis of the Sages

namely Sri Angira, Sri Markendey, Sri Sanak, Sri Sanandan and Sri

Sanat attached to the disputed Structure of Sri Ramajanamasthan. As

all four types of disposal of bodies i.e. cremating, drowning, burying

and setting up (on hills etc.) have been described in the Divine Holy

Sri Atharv-ved (18.2.34; 18.2.50-52 and 18.4.66). According to The

Hindus’ tradition and law the bodies of the Saints are either buried in

earth which is known as Khanans / Samadhi or scattered in water

which is known as Jal-samadhi. the Divine Holy Sri Atharv-ved

(18.2.34) and its translation in Hindi and English read s as follows:

Be it mentioned herein that offering flesh to manes and to the

gods and goddesses in altar and taking flesh sanctified by Vedic

hymns was religious practices of Hindus which is evident from Sri

Manusmrity Discourse III.266-275 and Discourse V.26-44. Manes are

worshiped in the form of the Lord of Universe Sri Vishnu and the

Scriptures prescribe offering of various meat to “Pitri roop

 83

Janardanah”. Even nowadays sacrifices are done in certain temples.

The Lords of Ram Himself used to hunt in course whereof he was

deceived by Marich who was in disguise of golden deer. Saints, cows,

parrots etc. attached to a temple are buried in temple compound. As

such bone can be found only at Hindu Shrine not at Mosque because

building mosque over bones is strictly prohibited.

In temple cooking is must to feed the deity while it is prohibited

in mosque. As during excavation oven and furnace have been found

which are self evident of its being a temple.

AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT 731 "Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v.

State of Bihar" held that the animals were used for the purpose of

Sacrifices by the Hindus. In the ASI Excavation at disputed sites the

bones have been found in and from the layer of the Gupta’s period

when the Islam had not come into existence from which fact it is

crystal clear that the user of the flesh of those creatures if any were

not the Muslims. Non-application of chemical examination of the

bones will not vitiate report as this Hon’ble Court’s direction was to

excavate the site attesting the statement of GPR Survey the exact

nature of anomalies/objects by systematic truthing such as provided by

archaeological trench and to ascertain that fact chemical examination

of the bones was not essential. Relevant paragraph 22 of the said

judgment reads as follows:

“22. The avowed object of each of the impugned Acts

is to ensure the preservation, protection, and
improvement of the cow and her progeny. This
solicitude arises out of the appreciation of the
usefulness of cattle in a predominantly agricultural
 84

society, Early Aryans recognised its importance as one

of the most indispensable adjuncts of agriculture. It
would appear that in Vedic times animal flesh formed
the staple food of the people. This is attributable to the
fact that the climate in that distant past was extremely
cold and the Vedic Aryans had been a pastoral people
before they settled down as agriculturists. In Rg. Vedic
times goats, sheep, cows, buffaloes and even horses
were slaughtered for food and for religious sacrifice
and their flesh used to be offered to the Gods. Agni is
called the "eater of ox or cow" in Rg. Veda (VIII. 43,
11). The slaying of a great ox (Mahoksa) or a "grate
goat" (Maharaja) for the entertainment of a
distinguished guest has been enjoined in the Satapatha
Brahmana (III. 4. 1-2). Yagnavalkya also expresses a
similar view (Vaj. 1. 109). An interesting account of
those early days will be found in Rg. Vedic Culture by
Dr. A. C. Dass, Chapter 5, pages 203-5 and in the
History of Dharamasastras (Vol. II, Part II) by P. V.
Kane at pages 772-773. Though the custom of
slaughtering of cows and bulls prevailed during the
Vedic period, nevertheless, even in the Rg,. Vedic times
there seems to have grown up a revulsion of feeling
against the custom. The cow gradually came to acquire
a special sanctity and was called "Aghnya" (not to be
slain). There was a school of thinkers amongst the
Risis, who set their face against the custom of killing
much useful animals as the cow and the bull. High
praise was bestowed on the cow as will appear from
the following verses from Rg. Veda, Book VI, Hymn
XXVIII (Cows) attributed to the authorship of Sage
Bhardvaja:
"1. The kine have come and brought good fortune; let
them rest in the cow-pen and be happy near us.
Here let them stay prolific, many coloured, and yield
through many morns their milk for Indira.
6. O Cows, ye fattene'ene the worn and wasted, and
make the unlovely beautiful to look on.
Prosper my house, ye with auspicious voices, your
power is glorified in our assemblies.
7. Crop goodly pasturages and be prolific; drink pure
sweet water at good drinking places.
Never be thief or sinful man your master, and may the
dart of Rudra still avoid you."
(Translation by Ralph Griffith). Verse 29 of hymn 1 in
Book X of Atharva Veda forbids cow slaughter in the
following words:
"29. The slaughter of an innocent, O Kritya, is an awful
deed, Slay not cow, horse, or man of ours."
 85

Hymn 10 in the same Book is a rapturous glorification

of the cow:
"30. The cow is Heaven, the cow is Earth, the cow is
Vishnu, Lord of life.
The Sadhyas and the Vasus have drunk the outpourings
of the cow.
34. Both Gods and mortal men depend for life and
being on the cow.
She hath become this universe; all that the sum surveys
is she."
P. V. Kane argues that in the times of the Rg. Veda only
barren cows, if at all, were killed for sacrifice or meat
and cows yielding milk were held to be not fit for being
killed,. It is only in this way, according to him that one
can explain and reconcile the apparent conflict between
the custom of killing cows for food and the high
praised bestowed on the cow in Rg. Vedic times. It
would appear that the protest raised against the
slaughter of cows greatly increased in volume till the
custom was totally abolished in a later age. The change
of climate perhaps also make the use of beef as food
unnecessary and even injurious to health. Gradually
cows became indicative of the wealth of the owner. The
Neolithic Aryans not having been acquainted with
metals, there were no coins in current use in the earlier
stages of their civilisation, but as they were eminently a
pastoral people almost every family possessed a
sufficient number of cattle and some of them
exchanged them for the necessaries of their life. The
value of cattle (Pasu) was, therefore, very great with
the early Rg. Vedic Aryans. The ancient Romans also
used the word pecus or pecy (Pasu) in the sense of
wealth or money. The English words, "pecuniary" and
"impecunious", are derived from the Latin root pecus
or pecu, originally meaning cattle. The possession of
cattle in those days denoted wealth and a man was
considered rich or poor according to the large or small
number of cattle that he owned. In the Ramayana King
Janaka's wealth was described by reference to the large
number of herds that he owned. It appears that the cow
was gradually raised to the status of divinity. Kautilya's
Arthasastra has a special chapter (Ch. XXIX) dealing
with the: "superintendent of cows" and the duties of the
owner of cows are also referred to in Ch. XI of Hindu
Law in its sources by Ganga Nath Jha. There can be no
gainsaying the fact that the Hindus in general hold the
cow in great reverence and the idea of the slaughter of
cows for food is repugnant to their notions and this
sentiment has in the past even led to communal riots .It
 86

is also a fact that after the recent partition of the

country this agitation against the slaughter of cows has
been further intensified. While we agree that the
constitutional question before us cannot be decided on
grounds of mere sentiment, however passionate it may
be, we, nevertheless, think that it has to be taken into
consideration, though only as one of many elements, in
arriving at a judicial verdict as to the reasonableness of
the restrictions.”
ASI submitted report for the perusal of the Court. This report is

data based. It is a piece of evidence which comes within the piece of

substantive evidence. High Court has appointed ASI to inspect the

spot and to make investigation and submit a report. Thus the High

Court is entitled to accept the same and base its finding on such

material for want of any other evidence to contradict the same even

without examination of the Commissioner.

At this out set, it may be clarified that in view of Section 45 of

Evidence Act, only opinion of expert witnesses in such type of matters

are relevant. As regard the opinion of expert, Section 45 of Indian

Evidence Act is relevant, which reads as under :-

Section 45 Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the rule as

regards the exclusion of opinion evidence. Opinions of experts are

relevant upon a point of (a) foreign law, (b) science, (c) art, (d) identity

of handwriting, and (e) finger impression.

It is “a general rule that the opinion of witnesses possessing

peculiar skill is admissible, whenever the subject-matter of enquiry is

such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of

forming a correct judgment upon it without such assistance. In other

words, this is so when it so far partakes of the character of a science or

 87

art as to require a course of previous habit or study to obtain a

competent knowledge of its nature (vide Taylor, 12th Edn., s.1418,

p.902)

Both under this section and S. 47 A the evidence is of an opinion,

in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of

familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience.

In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are

open that the opinion may be acted upon (vide Fakhruddin v. State of

M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326).

PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE (15th Edn. (2000), P.921 Para 37-09)

states as follows:

“Even at common law the opinions of skilled

witnesses are admissible wherever the subject is one upon

which competency to form an opinion can only be acquired

by a course of special study or experience. The terms on

which expert evidence is admissible is governed in civil

cases by the Civil Evidence Act, 1972 and the CPR (Civil

Procedure Rules)”.

At [Page 962, para 37-46, 15th Edn. (2001)] PHIPSON states :

“Though the expert must be “skilled”, by special study or experience,

the fact that he has not acquired his knowledge professionally goes

merely to weight and not to admissibility ….. Equally, one can acquire

experts knowledge in a particular sphere through repeated contact with

it in the course of one's work, notwithstanding that the expertise is

derived from experience and not form formal training.”

 88

HALSBURY observation (vide 4th Ed, Vol. 17, page 61 (para 83)

Courts frequently have to decide upon matters requiring specialised

knowledge and, in appropriate cases, a party will need to call an expert

or experts in support of his case. When such a person is called as a

witness in civil proceedings, his opinion is admissible on any relevant

matter, including an issue in the proceedings, on which he is qualified

to give expert evidence.

It was laid down in Dolgobinda v. Nimai Charan Misra, AIR

1959 SC 914 that what is relevant is the opinion expressed by conduct

and opinion means something more than mere relating of gossip or or

hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or conviction

resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. The section

does not make the evidence of mere general reputation admissible as

proof of relationship. It is the conduct or outward behaviour which

must be proved in the manner laid down in Section 60.

The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an expert

(vide T. Veerabhadrappa v. Ministry of Mines &Steel, New Delhi, AIR

1998 Kant 412 (para 9)

An 'Expert' witness is one who has devoted time and study to a

special branch of learning, and thus is specially skilled on those points

on which he is asked to state his opinion. His evidence on such points

is admissible, to enable the tribunal to come to a satisfactory

conclusion (vide POWELL, 10th Edn., p. 39). The opinion of the expert

is only opinion evidence . It does not help the Court in interpretation

(vide Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammed Ali, AIR 1994 SC 120 (para
 89

8). The Court is not bound to follow it blindly. The expert cannot act as

a judge or jury and the final decision is to be made by the judge.

All persons who practise a business or profession which requires

them to possess a certain knowledge of the matter in hand are experts,

so far as expertness is required. It is the duty of the judge to decide

whether the skill of any person in the matter on which evidence of his

opinion is offered, is sufficient to entitle him to be considered as an

expert.

As a general rule, the opinion of a witness on a question whether

of fact or of law, is irrelevant. A witness has to state the facts which he

has seen, heard or perceived, and not the conclusions which he has

formed on observing or perceiving them. The function of drawing

inferences from facts is judicial function and must be performed by the

court. If a witness is permitted to state not only the facts which he has

perceived but also the opinion which he has formed on perceiving them,

it would amount to delegation of judicial functions to him and investing

him with the attributes of a judge.

To this general rule, however, there are some important

exceptions, which are enacted in this set of sections. When "the subject-

matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to

prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it", or when "it so

far partakes of the character of a science or art as to require a course

of previous habit or study", the opinions of persons having special

knowledge of the subject-matter of inquiry become relevant; for it is

very difficult for the Court to form a correct opinion on a matter of this
 90

kind, without the assistance of such persons.

Matters for expert testimony; competency to depose as an expert

Opinions of experts become relevant only when the Court has to

form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as

to identity of handwriting or finger impressions. This section is,

therefore, exhaustive of the matters on which expert testimony can be

given, though the expression "science or art" would include almost all

branches of human knowledge requiring special study, experience or

training. So that a witness may be competent to depose as an expert, he

must be shown to have made a special study of the subject or acquired

a special experience therein. In such cases, the question is: "Is he

peritus? Is he skilled? Has he adequate knowledge?" An expert is a

person who has special knowledge and skill in the particular calling to

which the inquiry relates. In law, and as applied to a witness, the term

"expert" has a special significance, and no witness is permitted to

express his opinion, unless he is an expert within the terms of section

45. The fact that the evidence of an expert was accepted in one case is

no ground for accepting his evidence in every other case.

The term "expert" has a special significance and no witness is

permitted to express his opinion unless he is an expert within the

meaning of the term under section 45 Evidence Act. In each case, the

Court has to decide whether a person said to be an expert, is really an

expert taking into account his skill, study and experience. In many

cases, persons having no educational qualification but having

knowledge of high order have been treated to be experts. In Baldev Raj

 91

v. Urmila Kumari, AIR 1979 SC 879, opinion of a doctor who had not

specialised in gynecology but had knowledge of high order of midwifery

as an obstetrician, was accepted as an expert. Clearly, therefore, what

is admissible is the opinion of such an expert in the field in which he or

she has acquired special knowledge. Outside specialised field, the

opinion of the expert would cease to be expert opinion and fall outside

the purview of section 45 of the Evidence Act. In Deeks v. Wells, AIR

1933 PC 26, it was held that depositions of expert witnesses as to result

of their opinions, and as to the effect of them, do not come within the

domain of expert evidence at all. In State v. Gaspar,AIR 1971 Goa 3,

opinion of Medical Officer as to mental condition of accused on a

particular date on the basis of testimony of witnesses to acts of accused

on that date, was not held as the expert opinion but his presumption.

There can, however, be no dispute that an expert's evidence is a good

evidence and cannot be rejected simply because it may not be decisive.

In spite of it, the Court is not bound by the expert opinion though it is

bound to consider the same along with other evidence and

circumstances appearing in a particular case. In Haji Mohd. v. State of

West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488, the Court held that in the

circumstances of a case, the Court can refuse to place any reliance on

the opinion of an expert which is unsupported by any reasons. As far as

medical evidence is concerned, it has never been considered to be

substantive evidence of the charge, but has been accepted as

corroborative of the charge. It has been accepted since long that

knowledge of medicine and human body is a matter of science and,

 92

hence, Courts have treated expert medical opinion with respect. In spite

of it, a medical man cannot be allowed to give his opinion on matters,

which are within the province of the Courts to decide.

In order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it

has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or

acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is

skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an

advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge

with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the

conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment

by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of

the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and

tested, becomes a factor and often an important factor for

consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility

of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his

conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis

of his conclusions.

Opinions of authors in text books

Though opinions expressed in text books by specialist authors

may be of considerable assistance and importance for the court in

arriving at the truth, cannot always be treated or viewed to be either

conclusive or final as to what such author says to deprive even a court

of law to come to an appropriate conclusion of its own on the peculiar

 93

facts proved in a given case. In substance, though such views may have

persuasive value cannot always be considered to be authoritatively

binding, otherwise reasonably required of the guilt of the accused in a

given case. Such opinions cannot be elevated to or place on higher

pedestal than the opinion of an expert examined in court and the weight

ordinarily to which it may be entitled to or deserves to be given.

Opinion of the expert.

The Madras High Court observed that even though there is no

bar for the court to compare the admitted signatures with the disputed

signatures to come to its conclusion it would be prudent to require

assistance of the expert witness. In fact all the judgments cited by both

the parties related to signatures and not thumb impressions. It cannot

be disputed that thumb impressions would stand on a different footing,

when compared to signatures and the variations, in thumb impression

cannot be easily judged by naked eyes. The Court remanded the appeal

back to the lower court for sending the documents for the opinion of the

expert and thereupon take evidence if necessary only in the context of

the opinion of the expert and record his findings thereon.

Court acting as an expert

The opinion of the Court, itself untrained in medicine and

without trained assistance, on questions of medicine is valueless. On

questions of handwriting also, the practice of the Court itself acting as

an expert has been disapproved. But there is nothing in the so-called

science of finger prints which need deter a Court from applying its own
 94

magnifying glass or its own eyes and mind to the evidence and verifying

the results submitted to it by the witnesses. In trial with the aid of jury,

a question of handwriting or thumb-impression is entirely a matter for

the jury.

I have considered the rival submissions, gone through the

objections and the statement of the witnesses. The contention of Sri

M.M. Pandey, Advocate, repeals the arguments of Sri Z. Jilani,

Advocate for the plaintiffs. There is nothing on record to show that the

report was biased. The massive structure theory was not based on

imagination. Evidence of bones found from different levels postulate

the fact that Hindus also used to perform sacrifices of animals to

please the Gods. About pillar bases there is nothing on record to

suggest as to how the construction can be disbelieved. The main thrust

of the plaintiffs is that there was a structure which was not a Hindu

religious structure is not believable for the reasons that certain images

were found on the spot were there. Hundreds of artefacts which find

mention in the report were recovered during the excavation that denote

the existence of Hindu religious structure.

It is not disputed that the Archaeological Survey of India

submitted four reports during the years 1862, 1863, 1864 and 1865.

Thereafter also they were entrusted with the task to organize

archaeological researches and protection of the cultural heritage of the

nation. Maintenance of ancient monuments and archaeological sites

and remains of national importance is the prime concern of A.S.I. It

regulates all archaeological activities in the country as per the

 95

provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Act, 1958.

It also regulates Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 or the

maintenance of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and

remains of national importance the entire country is divided into 24

Circles. The organization has a large work force of trained

archaeologists, conservators, epigraphist, architects and scientists for

conducing archaeological research projects through its Circles,

Museums, Excavation Branches, Prehistory Branch, Epigraphy

Branches, Science Branch, Horticulture Branch, Building Survey

Project, Temple Survey Projects and Underwater Archeology Wing.

In this context, it would be useful to refer to the various

provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Act, 1958 (No. 24 of 1958). This Act provides for the

preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological

sites and remains of national importance for the regulation of

archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures,

carvings and other like objects.

Thus, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites

and Remains Act, 1958, excavations of ancient monuments etc. have

to be regulated under the law of A.S.I. Thus A.S.I. is recognized

expert body under the law and has been entrusted with various duties

and entrusted functions including that of excavations. They have wide

experience of excavation at different places of the country. At this

stage, it may further be clarified that there was no even iota of

 96

evidence to suggest that 14 members team consisting of officers of

highly repute, seniority and expertise, were coming from both the

communities . Even the Muslims members have also signed over the

report of A.S.I. Thus the cumulative effect is that it is unbiased report

based on scientific investigation and without any influence on the

body of expert which conducted excavation. The Court is taken full

care and issued specific directions to maintain transparency. Two

judicial officers remain posted there. The excavation was conducted in

presence of the parties, lawyers and their nominees. Thus, no body can

raise a finger about the propriety of the report on the ground of bias.

There is nothing on record to suggest that the scientific report is

incorrect. I have already referred to the statement of witnesses in

another volume, which is a part of the judgment. Thus I am not

referring them. It transpires from the report that it is without any bias.

The only objection that has come prominently from the side of

plaintiff is that A.S.I. team has worked under the pressure of the

Central Government. It has nowhere been mentioned that who was the

person in Central Government exercising any influence over 14

members team that excavated the site. The bald allegations cannot be

accepted.

Sri Haji Mahboob Ahmad, D.W. 6/1-1 has failed to substantiate

his allegations. He has not adduced any evidence in support of his

contention as to who was the person interested in the Central

Government and exercising influence over A.S.I. team.

Thus, on conjectures and on false allegations a scientific report

 97

submitted by a team which was working under the direct control of

this Court, cannot be supposed to act under the influence of any

Government or any person. It is a data based report. Videography and

photograph were also conducted during excavation. On behalf of the

plaintiffs, it has not been suggested that the report is against any of the

videography film or photography film. These films are preserve. Thus,

without any material on record, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the

version of Sri Hazi Mahboob Ahmad, DW-6/1-1 may be accepted as

truthful.

It does not believe to reasons that the Central Government can

influence the body of experts conducting archaeological excavations

with transparency and which was reducing everything in writing and

preparing photography report as well as also conducting videography

in presence of both the parties. It is also not worth believable that

certain Muslims members of the team could be forced by the Central

Government to sign over the report against their wishes and against

the data collected by them.

It may further be clarified that all the members signed the report

over and not even a single member objected to it. Thus, the pillar

bases were found at the archaeological site. The observers were

present there. Thus the objection to this effect that these pillar bases

were coined out by the team is of no avail because old structure cannot

be considered to have been formulated by a team which is not

supposed to construct anything during excavation in presence of

parties. There is not even a single complaint against the archaeological

 98

team that they expended the sphere of their working or acted contrary

to the duties assigned to them. Thus, this Court has to trust the

scientific team which was functioning under the direct control of this

Court. The team was functioning with transparency and furnished his

data based report. At the cost of repetition I may further refer that

archaeological excavation under the law has been entrusted by the

Parliament to A.S.I., which is the expert body and functions under the

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

Thus from all angle on flimsy grounds not based on any

scientific report to contradict the report of A.S.I. and this Court has to

rely over this scientific report. There is nothing on record to contradict

the report of A.S.I. There was no request from the side of plaintiff to

call any other team to substantiate the objections against A.S.I. report

except by producing certain witnesses to contradict the same. It has

never been pointed out before this Court that the report of ASI should

further be rechecked by any other agency. No request further been

made to issue another commission to re-examine the whole issue and

furnish the report against the report of A.S.I. Thus, I find that the

statement of Sri Hazi Mahboob Ahmad, DW-6/1-1, at this stage,

should not be accepted as truthful. ASI was also not not working under

the pressure of the Central Government. I may further refer that Dr. R.

Naga Swami, OPW-17, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, OPW-18, Sri Rakesh

Dutta Trivedi, OPW-19, Sri Jayanti Prasad Srivastava, DW-20/5 in

material particulars corroborated the finding of ASI which is data

based report. Dr. R. Naga Swami, OPW-17 has a wide experience of

 99

excavation and he was associated with ASI. Above named witnesses

have stated before this Court the reasons as how the report of ASI is

truthful. On a detailed examination, there is nothing to doubt their

competence and expertise of the officers of A.S.I. team. They have a

better experience of excavation then the witnesses produced by the

plaintiff. It may further be necessary to refer that Prof. Suraj Bhan,

P.W.-16 alone has an idea of excavation and rest of the witnesses,

Prof. D. Mandal, PW-24, Dr. R.C.Thakarwal, Dr. Supriya Verma, PW-

32 and Mohd. Abid, DW-6/1-2 have absolutely no idea for excavation.

They were never associated with Archaeological Survey of India.

Simply because of the fact that at few sites some of the witnesses

produced by the plaintiff remain present would not make them expert.

The team of ASI which is functional under the statute was working

transparently under the directions of this Court.

The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs against ASI report is

based on surmises and conjectures and in a non-scientific manner.

Data based report cannot be contradicted by adducing oral evidence

without any scientific investigation. There was no request from the

side of the plaintiff to re-check the scientific report by another body of

the experts. Probably, this was not done by the plaintiff for the

reasons that it was not possible for them to contradict the data based

report.

This Court took the assistance of the team of experts working

under ASI which is entrusted under the law to excavate archaeological

sites with the ends in view to obtain an impartial, fair and scientific
 100

report on the point whether the disputed structure, namely, Babari

Masjid was built after demolishing the Hindu temple. ASI has

answered the core issue which was referred to it on the basis of

scientific evidence that a massive structure just below the disputed

structure was of the 10th century. The relevant extract of gist of report

is reproduced as under:

“ Whether there was any temple/structure which was

demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed
site as stated on page 1 and further on P. 5 of their order
dated 5th March, 2003, had given directions to the
Archaeological Survey of India to excavate at the disputed
site where the GPR Survey has suggested evidence of
anomalies which could be structure, pillars, foundation
walls, slab flooring etc. which could be confirmed by
excavation. Now, viewing in totality and taking into
account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure
just below the disputed structure and evidence of
continuity in structural phases from the tenth century
onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure
along with the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well
as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved
architectural members including foliage patterns,
amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster,
broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif,
circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the north,
fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are
indicative of remains which are distinctive features found
associated with the temples of north India”“.

From the bare reading of the objections, it transpires that there

was a structure beneath the disputed structure. The only dispute that it

was not a temple or a religious structure. There is sufficient evidence

before this Court that it was a religious structure. Certain data based

findings of ASI is available to establish that there was a temple and a

place of worship of Hindus. ASI has reported that the structural

phases from the 10th century and onwards are available. It is obligatory
 101

on the part of this Court to further observe that under the Ancient

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. After

due excavation conducted ancient monuments covered under the

definition as contained in Section 2(a) & (d) read as under:

“2(a) “Ancient Monument” means any structure, erection or

monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave,

rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith which is of historical,

archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in

existence for not less than 100 years and includes-

(i) remains of an ancient monument,

(ii) site of an ancient monument,

(iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient

monument as may be required for fencing or covering in

or otherwise preserving such monument, and

(iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, an

ancient monument;

(d) “archaeological site and remains” means any area

which contains or is reasonably believed to contain ruins or

relics of historical or archaeological importance which have

been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and

includes-

(i) such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required

for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving it, and

(ii) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of the

area;
 102

Accordingly, all ancient historical monuments and

archaeological sites have to be declared.

Needless to say, at this stage, that the Archaeological Survey of

India in its report found a massive structure of religious importance. I

avail this opportunity to request the Government of India to maintain

this national monument under The Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 to ensure that they are

properly maintained. At the cost of repetition, I may further refer that

it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to act in

accordance with the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (No.24 of 1958) and ensure to

maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country. The

aforesaid request has been made to the Central Government in

consonance with the directions of this Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India and

others, AIR 1997 SC 2766 in para 21 which reads as under:-

“21.It is needless to mention that as soon as the Indian

Institute of Advance Studies vacates the building and hands it
over to the Archaeological Department, the Government should
provide the necessary budget for effecting repairs and restoring
to the building its natural beauty and grandeur. It is also
necessary that it proper maintenance and preservation is
undertaken as an on-going process to protect the historical
heritage and needed repairs are effected from time to time. We
avail this opportunity to direct the Government of India to
maintain all national monuments under the respective Acts
referred to above and to ensure that all of them are properly
maintained so that the cultural and historical heritage of India
and the beauty and grandeur of the monuments, sculptures
secured through breathless and passionate labour workmenship,
craftsmanship and the skills of the Indian architects, artists and
masons is continued to be preserved. They are pride of Indians
and places of public visit. The tourist visitors should be
 103

properly regulated Collection of funds by way of

admission/entrance free should be conscientiously accounted
for and utilised for their upkeep and maintenance under respect
regulations/rules. Adequate annual budgetary provisions should
be provided. In this behalf, it may not be out of place to
mention that if one goes to Williamsburg in United States of
America, the first settlement of the Britishers therein is
preserved as a tourist resort and though it is one in the row, its
originality is maintained and busying business activity goes on
in and around the area attracting daily hundreds of tourists from
all over the world. Similar places of interest, though of recent
origin, need to be preserved and maintained as manifestation of
our cultural heritage or historical evidence. Similar efforts
should also be made by the Government of India, in particular
the Tourism Department, to attract foreign tourists and to give
them good account of our past and glory of the people of India
as message to other countries and territories. Equally all the
State Governments would do well vis-a-vis monuments of State
important, thought given power under Entry 12, List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. From this perspective, the
petitioner has served a great cause of national importance and
we place on record his effort to have the Viceregal Lodge
preserved and maintained; but for his painstaking efforts, it
would have been desecrated into a five Star Hotel and in no
time, "We, the people of India" would have lost our ancient
historical heritage.”

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Southern

Command Military Engineering Services Employees coop. Credit

Society Vs. V.K.K. Nambiar (since deceased) by legal representative

Madhvi Devi, (1988) 2 SCC 292 that the Commissioner's report is a

legal evidence. Relevant extract of para-1 of the aforesaid case is

reproduced as under:-

“1. …... The High Court was obviously in error in its view

that the Commissioner's report could not be acted upon or be

treated as legal evidence.”

It is a settled proposition of law that the report of the

Commissioner and the evidence would be evidence in the proceedings

 104

in which the Commissioner is appointed. In the present case, the

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was appointed in the presence

of both the parties. Accordingly ASI functioned as Commissioner in

this case. The report of ASI along with other relevant material had

been duly submitted in this court. The report and material submitted

along with it have been used for the purpose of proceedings. The

report of the Commissioner and the material enclosed with it

constituted legal evidence and I do not see how it should not be used

as substantive piece of evidence to base the findings. ASI was

appointed to excavate the site and to make investigation and also to

submit a report, accordingly this Court is entitled to accept the report

and base its findings on such material. Even on the basis of report and

material submitted along with it by ASI, the finding on the question is

based on cogent evidence.

The excavation report of the ASI is a scientific report of experts

against whom bias and malafide has not been proved. Accordingly it

has been relied upon as a piece of evidence on the basis of the case

law referred to above.

Vis-a-vis in the sequence of events, referred to above, and on

the basis of the report, it can conclusively be held that the disputed

structure was constructed on the site of old structure after the

demolition of the same. There is sufficient evidence to this effect that

the structure was a Hindu massive religious structure. Accordingly,

issue no. 1(b) is decided in favour of the defendants and against the

plaintiffs.
 105

ISSUE NO. 1-B (a)

Whether the building existed at Nazul plot No. 583 of the

Khasra of the years 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known as
Ram Kot, city Ayodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so its effect
thereon)”
FINDINGS:

It is admitted between the parties that disputed structure existed

at Nazul plot No. 583 of Khasra of year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram

Chandra known as Ram Kot, city Ayodhya. The only dispute between

the parties is with regard to the nature of the structure. The Hon'ble

Apex Court has also in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui's Case has limited the

scope of the case by confining it in outer and inner courtyard. Thus

the revenue entries may be presumed to be correct as none of the

parties adduced any evidence against them. The property could not be

demarcated, but it is admitted that the same was acquired. In view of

the aforesaid circumstances, it can be said that the property existed on

Nazul plot No. 583. Issues no. 1-B(a) is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO.1- B(b)

Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as

alleged by the plaintiffs?

FINDINGS:

Plaintiffs have come out with a case that property in suit was

dedicated to almighty and that is how the mosque came into existence.

Plaintiffs have relied over certain documents to show that mosque was

in existence.

On behalf of the defendants, it is urged that the waqf cannot be

 106

created against the Quranic commands. The holy Quran has already

prohibited that building over the land of a temple is not a mosque and

the owner of the land is entitle for restoration of possession with

liberty to worship therein. It is further submitted that Waqif must be

the owner and for creating valid waqf. Emperor Babar was not the

owner of Hindu Shrine Shri Ram Janam Sthan. Accordingly, neither

he nor his commander had any right to erect mosque and building by

creating a waqf against the tenets of Islam.

To consider the rival submissions of the parties, it would be

necessary to consult muslim religious books on the subject.

QURANIC COMMANDS ABOUT WAQF

The holy Quran has given a vivid description about waqf. In

this reference following aspects are relevant and are read as under :-

1. Art. (1) Quranic Commands.-”... But it is righteousness.... to

spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for

orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the

ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular

charity......”

Quran-Sura 2 : Aayat 177

“......... And establish regular prayers and give regular charity; and loan

to God a beautiful loan”

Quran- Sura 73 : Aayat 20.

“ And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity..........”

Quran-Sura 2 : Aayat 110

 107

“By no means Shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give

(freely) of that which you love, and whatever ye give, of a truth God

knoweth it well.”

Quran-Sura 3 : Aayat 92 etc.

In all countries where Muslim law is applicable, law of Waqfs is

given much importance. In India Shariat Act (Section 2) gives legal

sanctity to Waqfs. This is so because of commands of Quran and

traditions of Prophet had encouraged Muslims to make Waqfs.

Though it was not compulsory for every Muslim to make Waqfs of

their properties but traditions of Prophet encouraged Muslims the

world over to make Waqfs for different purposes. He said, “there is

one Dinar which you have bestowed in the road of God, and another in

freeing a slave, and another in alms to the poor, and another given to

your family and children, that is the greatest Dinar in point of reward

which you gave to your family.” As in the sequence of giving alms to

needy, ones family has been ordered to be put in top place.

Quran is very emphatic and it could be found almost after few

pages that a man should give charity to poor, from what he has and it

has become characteristic of Islam.

Thus, according to the Quranic injunctions a Waqif must be the

owner of the property for creating waqf. To resolve the controversy, it

would be expedient to have a glimpse over the historical events as

well as Islamic injunctions with regard to creation of Waqf including

the Farman issued by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, which reads as

under:-
 108

Farman of the emperor Shahjahan held that the building over

the land of a temple is not a mosque and owner of the temple is

entitled for restoration of possession with liberty to worship therein

according to his own religion has force of law:

1. In AIR 1963 SC 1638 (Tilkayat Shri Govindalalji Maharat etc..

v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) the Bench comprised of Hon’ble

Five-Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the

Farman issued by an absolute ruler like the Maharana of Udaipur

in 1934 is a law by which the affairs of the Nathdwara temple and

succession to the office of the Tilkayat were governed after its

issuance. Relying on said judgment it is submitted that the Farman

of the Emperor Shahjahan wherein it has been held that a building

constructed over the land of the temple of other person can not be a

mosque is admissible as ratio of Law of Shar so far it doesn’t

contradict the law of Shar, and it is further submitted that any

addition, alteration or modification made by any Rulers arbitrarily

in violation of the law for the time being in force cannot convert

Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple into an alleged mosque. Relevant

paragraphs 32 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:

“32. In appreciating the effect of this Firman, it is first

necessary to decide whether the firman is a law or not. It
is matter of common knowledge that at the relevant time
the Maharana of Udaipur was an absolute monarch in
whom vested all the legislative, judicial and executive
powers of the State. In the case of an absolute Ruler like
the Maharana of Udaipur it is difficult to make any
distinction between an executive order issued by him or a
legislative command issued by him. Any order issued by
such a Ruler has the force of law and did govern the
rights of the parties affected thereby. This position is
 109

covered by decisions of this court and it has not been

disputed before us, vide Madhaorao Phalke v. State of
Madhya Bharat, 1961-1 SCR 957 : (AIR 1961 SC 298).
Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v, Mahboob Begum, AIR 1955
SC 352 and Director of Endowments, Government of
Hyderabad v. Alkram Alim (S) AIR .1956 SC 60.

33. It is true that in dealing with the effect of this Firman,

the learned Attorney-General sought to raise before us a
novel point that under Hindu law even an absolute
monarch was not competent to make a law affecting
religious endowments and their administration. He
suggested that he was in position to rely upon the
opinions of scholars which tended to show that a Hindu
monarch was competent only to administer the law as
prescribed by Smgritis and the oath which he was
expected to take at the time of his coronation enjoined
him to obey the Smritis and to see that their injunctions
were obeyed by his subject. We did not allow the learned
Attorney-General to develop this point because we hold
that this novel point cannot be accepted in view of the
well-recognised principles of jurisprudence. An absolute
monarch was the fountain-head of all legislative,
executive and judicial powers and it is of the very essence
of sovereignty which vested in him that he could
supervise and control the administration of public charity.
In our opinion there is no doubt whatever that this
universal principle in regard to the scope of the powers
inherently vesting in sovereignty applies as much to
Hindu monarchs as to any other absolute monarch.
Therefore, it must be held that the Firman issued by the
Maharana of Udaipur in 1934 is a law by which the
affairs of the office Nathdwara. Temple and succession to
the office of the Tilkayat were governed after its issue.”

2. In AIR 1961 SC 298 (Madha Rao Phalke. v. Land of Madhya

Bharat & Anr.) a Bench comprised of Hon’ble five-Judges the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the orders issued by absolute

Monarch ruler of Guwalior State at force of law and would amount

to existing law. Relevant paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 18 of the said

judgment reads as follows:

“11. In dealing with the question as to whether the orders

issued by such as absolute monarch amount to a law or
 110

regulation having the force of law, or whether they

constitute merely administrative orders, it is important to
bear in mind that the distinction between executive orders
and legislative commands is likely to be merely academic
where the Ruler is the source of all power. There was no
constitutional limitation upon the authority of the Ruler to
act in any capacity he liked; he would be the supreme
legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head
of the executive, and all his orders, however issued,
would have the force of law and would govern and
regulate the affairs of the State including the rights of its
citizens. In Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum,
AIR 1955 SC 352, this Court had to deal with the effect
of a Firman issued by the Nizam, and it observed that so
long as the particular Firman issued by the Nizam, held
the field that alone would govern and regulate the rights
of the parties concerned though it would be annulled or
modified by a later Firman at any time that the Nizam
willed. What was held about the Firman about all the
Nizam would be equally true about all effective orders
issued by the Ruler of Gwalior (Vide also : Director of
Endowments, Government of Hyderabad v. Akram Ali,
(S) AIR 1956 SC 60).
12. It is also clear that an order issued by an absolute
monarch in an Indian State which had the force of law
would amount to an existing law under Art. 372 of the
Constitution. Article 372 provides for the continuance in
force of the existing laws which were in force in the
territories of India immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution, and Art,. 366(10)
defines an existing law, inter alia, as meaning any law,
ordinance, order, rule or regulation passed or made before
the commencement of the Constitution by any person
having a power to make such law, ordinance order, rule or
regulation. In Edward Mills Co., Ltd., Beawar v. State of
Ajmer, (S) AIR 1955 SC 25, this Court has held that
"there is not any material difference between the
expressions 'existing law', and the 'law in force'. The
definition of an existing law in Art. 366 (10) as well as
the definition of an Indian law contained in Sec. 3(29) of
the General Clauses Act make this position clear".
Therefore, even if it is held that the Kalambandis in
question did not amount to a quanun or law technically so
called, they would nevertheless be orders or regulations
which had the force of law in the State of Gwalior at the
material time, and would be saved under Art. 372. The
question which then arises is whether these Kalambandis
were regulations having the force of law at the material
time.
 111

18. It is not disputed that if the Kalambandis on which the

appellant's right is based are rules or regulations having
the force of law the impugned executive order issued by
respondent 1 would be invalid. The right guaranteed to
the appellant by an existing law cannot be extinguished
by the issue of an executive order. In fact on this point
there has never been a dispute between the parties in the
present proceedings. That is why the only point of
controversy between the parties was whether the
Kalambandis in question amount to an existing law or
not. Since we have answered this question in favour of
the appellant we must allow the appeal set aside the order
passed by the High Court and direct that a proper writ or
order should be issued in favour of the appellant as
prayed for by him. The appellant would be entitled to his
costs throughout.”

3. In AIR 1955 SUPREME COURT 352 "Ameer-un-Nissa Begum

v. Mahboob Begum" the Hon’ble Supreme Copurt held that the

firmans were expressions of the sovereign will of the Ruler and

they were binding in the same way as any other law; nay, they

would override all other laws which were in conflict with them. So

long as a particular firman held the field, that alone would govern

or regulate the rights of the parties concerned, though it could be

annulled or modified by a later Firman at any time. Relevant

paragraph 15 of the said judgment reads as follows:

“15. The determination of all these questions depends

primarily upon the meaning and effect to be given to the
various 'Firmans' of the Nizam which we have set out
already. It cannot be disputed that prior to the integration
of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and the coming
into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of
Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He
was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and
the supreme head of the executive, and there were no
constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any
of these capacities. The 'Firmans' were expressions of the
sovereign will of the Nizam and they were binding in the
same way as any other law; - nay, they would override all
 112

other laws which were in conflict with them. So long as a

particular 'Firman' held the field, that alone would govern
or regulate the rights of the parties concerned, though it
could be annulled or modified by a later 'Firman' at any
time that the Nizam willed.”

It transpires from the aforesaid judgment that Farman issued by

Shah Jahan were considered to be the law applicable in those days and

the Indian Courts have always recognized the Farman of Shah Jahan

that the building constructed over the land of a temple of other

persons, cannot be a mosque, cannot be brushed aside because the

principle is based on the law of Shar, which is based on divine law.

Thus looking to both the versions, it transpires that it was not possible

for Emperor Babar and its commanders or anybody to dedicate the

land or the building to almighty. It is not covered under the valid

waqf.

Thus, in view of the circumstances referred to above, it

transpires that according to the historical document it may

conclusively be observed that the property in suit was in the control

of Ibrahim Lodi and Hindus claim that they were having the temple

over the property in dispute and Babur cannot acquire title of the said

temple at Ayodhya. In this regard, according to the principles of Shar

which is applicable in the matters of dedication of mosque and waqf

cannot be over-looked.

According to holy Quran and subsequently according to the

traditions, it was mandatory on the part of the muslim, firstly to

become the owner of the property and thereafter waqf the property.

Since Emperor Babar was a Hanafi Muslim and there is nothing on

 113

record to suggest that he acquired the title of the temple. Accordingly,

the divine law, he was not in a position to erect a mosque against the

tenets of Islam referred to above. Thus against the injunctions of

Quran and Hadith, if anything has been done against the spirit of

Islam, this Court is not in a position to recognize under the law, even

the Farman of Shah Jahan and further relevant books written by

certain authors like Mulla and others, leave no room for doubt that the

property dedicated by way of waqf must belong to the waqif at the

time of dedication. Even latest enactments referred to above are based

on the same theory and they have been enacted just to give effect to

the spirit of Islam, accordingly in this case to my mind a conqueror

was not in a position to erect a building contrary to the religious

mandate of Islam. Thus it cannot be construed that there was any

valid dedication to the almighty and the building can be treated to be a

waqf property or a valid mosque in accordance with Islam. If

anything has been done against the tenets of Islam, it looses the

significance under the Mohammedan law. Thus, if at all plaintiffs'

version is accepted, it would be presumed that the property in dispute

was dedicated to almighty against the divine law of Shar and against

the Hanafi principles of law referred to above.

Thus, the waqf was not created in accordance with the spirit of

Islam and it was done against the Islamic injunctions and contrary to

the practice that was performed by holy Prophet. Even the Quranic

injunctions are against the creation of such a waqf, which is against

the religious norms.

 114

Thus, in view of the circumstances referred to above, issue no.

1-B(b) is decided against the plaintiffs and this Court is of the view

that the building was not dedicated to the almighty as alleged by the

plaintiffs contrary to the injunctions of Quran and other religious

material referred to above.

ISSUE NO. 1-B(c)

Whether the building had been used by the members of

Muslim community for offering prayers from times immemorial ?
If so its effect?
FINDINGS:

Muslims claim that the disputed structure stood dedicated to

almighty God. It has been shown in the sketch map. In Dr. M. Ismail

Farooqui's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court decided to divide the property

into outside courtyard i.e. the open place and inner place i.e. covered

place known as building. There is no evidence worth the name that

muslims used to offer Namaz in the outside courtyard. The building is

also not in existence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to decide

the title of respective parties over the land in dispute. The disputed

structure has already been demolished. Consequently, there is no

building there. It is a open place. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. M.

Ismail Farooqui Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360 at para-70 held

as under:-

“70. In Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors. v.

Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar AIR

1938 Lahore 369, it was held that where a mosque has been

adversely possessed by non-Muslims, it lost its sacred

 115

character as mosque. Hence, the view that once a consecrated

mosque, it remains always a place of worship as a mosque

was not the Mahomedan Law of India as approved by Indian

Courts. It was further held by the majority that a mosque in

India was an immovable property and the right of worship at a

particular place is lost when the right to property on which it

stands is lost by adverse possession. The conclusion reached

in the minority judgment of Din Mohd., J. is not the

Mahomedan Law of British India. The majority view

expressed by the learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court

was approved by the Privy Council in AIR 1940 PC 116, in

the appeal against the said decision of the Lahore High Court.

The Privy Council held:

...It is impossible to read into the modern Limitation Acts

any exception for property made wakf for the purposes of
mosque whether the purpose be merely to provide money
for the upkeep and conduct of a mosque or to provide a
site and building for the purpose. While their Lordships
have every sympathy with the religious sentiment which
would ascribe sanctity and inviolability to a place of
worship, they cannot under the Limitation Act accept the
contentions that such a building cannot be possessed
adversely to the wakf, or that it is not so possessed so
long as it is referred to as "mosque" or unless the building
is razed to the ground or loses the appearance which
reveals its original purpose.”

Thus a mosque if adversely possessed by a Non-Muslim, it will

loose it sacred character as a mosque. The plaintiffs are not in

 116

possession over the property in suit and filed the suit for recovery of

the possession. There is no reliable evidence that the prayers were

offered by Muslims from times immemorial. Plaint averments are

contrary to the same. Issue No.1-B(c) is decided against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 3
Is the suit within time?
FINDINGS:

It is alleged by the plaintiffs that in the town of Ayodhya there

exists an ancient historic mosque, commonly known as Babri Masjid,

built by Emperor Babar more than 433 years ago, after his conquest of

India and his occupation of the territories including the town of

Ayodhya, for the use of the Muslims in general, as a place of worship

and performance of religious ceremonies.

The cause of action for the suit against the Hindu public arose

on 23.12.1949 at Ayodhya, district Faizabad within the jurisdiction of

this Hon'ble Court when the Hindus unlawfully and illegally entered

the mosque and desecrated the mosque by placing idols in the mosque

thus causing obstruction and interference with the rights of the

Muslims in general, offering prayers and performing other religious

ceremonies in the mosque. The Hindus are also causing obstructions

to the Muslims in the graveyard, (Ganj-Shahidan) in reciting Fatiha to

the dead persons buried therein. The injuries so caused are continuing

injuries and the cause of action arising therefrom is renewed de-die-

indiem and as against defendants 5 to 9 the cause of action arose to the

plaintiffs on 29.12.1949, the date on which the defendant No.7, the

 117

City Magistrate Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya attached the mosque in suit

and handed over possession of the same to Sri Priya Dutt Ram,

defendant no.9 as the receiver, who assumed charge of the same on

January 5, 1950.

The State Government and its officials, defendants 6 to 8 failed

in their duty to prosecute the offenders and safeguard the interests of

the Muslims.

The plaintiffs claim the following reliefs :--

“(a) A declaration to the effect that the property indicated by

letters A B C D in the sketch map attached to the plaint is public

mosque commonly known as 'Babri Masjid' and that the land

adjoining the mosque shown in the sketch map by letters E F G H is a

public Muslim graveyard as specified in para 2 of the plaint may be

decreed.

(b) That in case in the opinion of the Court delivery of

possession is deemed to be the proper remedy, 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 be passed in plaintiff's favour,

against the defendants. (Amended on 25.5.95)

(bb) That the statutory Receiver be commanded to handover the

property in dispute described in the Schedule 'A' of the Plaint by

removing the un-authorised structures erected thereon.

(c ) Costs of the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(d) Any other or further relief which the Hon'ble Court

 118

considers proper may be granted.”

On behalf of the defendant nos.1 & 2 it has been urged that the

suit is time barred as no action was taken in time from the orders of

the City Magistrate u/s 145 Cr.P.C; plaintiffs were never in possession

over the temple in dispute since 1934 and the Hindus were holding it

adversely to them, overtly and to their knowledge; Puja is going on in

the said temple from the past at best 28 years i.e. 1934 and admittedly

from January, 1950 when the City Magistrate directed the defendant

No.9 to carry on puja as usual in the said temple.

Both the parties have advanced their arguments. Sri Zafaryab

Jilani has urged that the suit is not barred by time and in view of the

provisions of Article 142 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908

the suit has been filed within 12 years. Accordingly with no stretch of

imagination it can be said that plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the

present suit. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties

have urged that the suit is barred by Article 120 of the Indian

Limitation Act, 1908 and Articles 142 and 144 of the said Act are not

applicable in the instant matter as the plaint was amended and prayer

(b) was added on 25.5.95 after 33 years of the filing of the suit.

It is further averred that suit property was attached in the

proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.12.1949

and the instant suit was filed on 18.12.1961 i.e. after 12 years. Thus

the instant case falls within the purview of Article 120 of Limitation

Act and Articles 142 and 144 of the said Act are not applicable in the

instant matter. In this context Sri Z.Jilani has urged that the suit is not
 119

barred by time and in view of the provisions of Articles 142 and 144

of the Indian Limitation Act the suit has been filed within 12 years and

with no stretch of imagination it can be said that the plaintiff is not

entitled to maintain the present suit.

On behalf of the plaintiffs, it has been claimed that Article 142

of the Limitation Act applies in this case or in alternative Article 144

may be applied by this Court and Article 120 is not applicable in the

instant matter.

Sri P.N.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the suit

is barred by Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act,1908:

1. As the Suit property was attached in the proceeding under Section

145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 in 1949 vide order

dated 29th December, 1949 passed by the Ld. City Magistrate

Faizabad & Ayodhya and; the instant suit was filed on 18th

December, 1961; the instant case falls within the perview of Article

120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Article 142 and 144 of the said

Act are not applicable in the instant matter. The above referred

Articles reads as follows:

“
Description of Suit Period of Time from
limitation which period
begins to run

120. Suit for which no period Six years When the right
of limitation is provided to sue accrues.
elsewhere in this schedule.
142. For possession of Twelve The date of the
immovable property when the years dispossession or
plaintiff while in possession of discontinuance.
the property has been
 120

dispossessed or had
discontinued the possession.

144. For possession of Twelve When the

immovable property or any years possession of
interest therein not hereby the defendant
otherwise specially provided becomes
for. adverse to the
plaintiff.

2. In AIR 1936 Oudh 387 Partab Bahadur Singh Vs. Jagatjit Singh

the said Hon’ble Court held that where an order under Section 145

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was made by the Magistrate for

attachment of the disputed property and the Tahsildar was

appointed as receiver of the property, the possession of the receiver

in the eye of the law was the possession of the true owner therefore

in such suit Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable

and a suit brought within six years of the last invasion is in time.

Relevant portion of the said Judgement from its page 395 reads as

follows:

“For the present it would be enough to say that in our

opinion the attachment made in 1932 in pursuance of
the order passed in the proceedings under S. 145,
Criminal P. C., clearly gave rise to an independent
cause of action for the plaintiff instituting the present
suit for a declaration and the said suit having been
throught within six years of the attachment is not
barred by Art. 120, Limitation Act, if it is found that he
had a subsisting title on the date of attachment. Next it
was contended that the suit was governed by Art. 142
Sch. 1, Limitation Act, and that the plaintiff’s suit had
rightly been dismissed because he had failed to prove
his possession within limitation. The Subordinate
Judge also has laid great emphasis on it and his
decision appears to be mainly based on this ground. In
our opinion this position is altogether untenable. It is
common ground between the parties that in S. 145
Criminal P. C., proceedings the Magistrate passed an
order for attachment of the property. The Tahsildar
 121

who was appointed receiver took possession of the

property on 23rd February, 1932. The property was
admittedly in possession of the Tahsildar as receiver at
the time when the present suit was instituted. The
possession of the receiver was in the eye of the law the
possession the true owner. In the circumstances the
plaintiff could undoubtedly maintain a suit for a mere
declaration of his title and it was not necessary for him
to institute a suit for possession. The suit is neither in
substance nor in form a suit for possession of
immoveable property. Art. 142 has therefore no
application.”

3. In AIR 1942 PC 47 Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Vs.

Raja Partab Bahadur Singh the said Hon’ble Court upheld the ratio

of law as laid down in AIR 1936 Oudh 387 Partab Bahadur Singh

Vs. Jagatjit Singh. The Hon’ble Privy Council affirmed that in a

suit for a declaration of plaintiff’s title to the land in possession of

the receiver under attachment in proceeding under Section 145 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 by virtue of the Magistrate’s

order, Articles 142 and 144, the Limitation Act, 1908 do not apply

and the suit is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Relevant portion of the said Judgement from its page 49 reads as

follows:

“In the first place, their Lordships are clearly of opinion,

contrary to the view of the Subordinate Judge, but in
agreement with the view of the Chief Court, that it was
for the appellant to establish that the title to the lands in
suit held by the respondent's predecessor under the first
settlement of 1865 had been extinguished under S. 28,
Limitation Act, by the adverse possession of the appellant
or his predecessors for the appropriate statutory period of
limitation, completed prior to the possession taken under
attachment on 23rd February 1932, by the Tahsildar, who
thereafter held for the true owner. Their Lordships are
further of opinion that the present suit, which was
subsequently instituted, was rightly confined to a mere
 122

declaration of title, and was neither in form nor substance

a suit for possession of immovable property.
In the second place, on the question of the errors of
procedure of the Subordinate Judge in placing the burden
of proving his possession within the limitation period on
the respondent and ultimately refusing to allow the
respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal of the appellant's
evidence of adverse possession, it is enough to say that
the appellant's counsel felt constrained to state that he
could not defend the exclusion of evidence by the learned
Judge, and that, if otherwise successful in his appeal, he
should ask that the case should be remanded in order to
give the respondent the opportunity which was so denied
to him. The Chief Court held that the appellant had failed
to prove adverse possession, and found it unnecessary to
remand the case.
With regard to the statutory period of limitation, Art. 47
of the Act does not apply, as there has been no order for
possession by the Magistrate under S. 145, Criminal P. C.
As the suit is one for a declaration of title, it seems clear
that Arts. 142 and 144 do not apply, and their Lordships
agree with the Chief Court that the suit is governed by
Art. 120. This leaves for consideration the main issue of
proof of adverse possession by the appellant and his
predecessors, and the appellant is at once faced by a
difficulty which proved fatal to his success before the
Chief Court, viz., that unless he can establish adverse
possession of the lands in suit as a whole, he is unable, on
the evidence, to establish such possession of identified
portions of the lands in suit. Before their Lordships, the
appellant's counsel conceded that, in order to succeed in
the appeal, he must establish adverse possession of the
lands in suit as a whole. He further conceded that his case
on that point rested either (a) on the Habibullah decision
of 1899, on which he succeeded before the Subordinate
Judge, or (b) on the compromised proceedings under S.
145 in 1903. He conceded that neither the Habibullah
decision nor the boundary proceedings in 1903 amounted
to a judicial decision. The appellant maintained that the
Habibullah decision, given under S. 23 of the Act of
1876, was good evidence of the state of possession at that
time, and of the possession of the whole of the land in
dispute by Kapurthala. He maintained that it must be
assumed that Mr. Habibullah did his duty and that the
decision was based on actual possession; under S. 35,
Evidence Act, it was good evidence of the fact of
possession. Unfortunately for this contention it appears
on the face of the judgment that possession was only
proved in respect of land under cultivation, and that the
 123

boundary line laid down by Mr. Habibullah was largely

an arbitrary line, and, at least to that extent, was not based
on actual possession by Kapurthala, and it is well
established that adverse possession against an existing
title must be actual and cannot be constructive.”

4. In ILR 26 Mad 410 RAJAH OF VENKATAGIRI –VS-

ISAKAPALLI SUBBIAH AND OTHERS Certain lands were

attached by a Magistrate, in 1886, under section 146 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in consequence of disputes relating to their

possession. The Magistrate continued in possession of the lands,

and realised some income from them. Both claimants instituted, in

1847, suits in which each claimed the lands as his own, end sought

to obtain a declaration of title to them, as well as to the

accumulated income, with a view to obtaining possession of the

lands and money from the Magistrate. On the question of

limitation being raised, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held, that

in so far as the suits were for declaration of title to immoveable

property and the profits therefrom, they were governed by article

120 of schedule II to the Limitation Act and Article 142 and 144

were not applicable. Relevant portion of the said Judgement from

its pages 415 and 416 reads as follows:

“ In the present case the Magistrate acted in due course

of law and, either because he found that neither party
was in possession or because he was unable to satisfy
himself as to which of them was then in possession, he
has simply attached the property. Such attachment
operates in law for purposes of limitation simply as
detention or custody of the property by the Magistrate
who, pending the decision by a Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction, holds it merely on behalf of the
party entitled, whether he be one of the actual parties to
 124

the dispute before him or any other person. For

purposes of limitation the seizin or legal possession
will, during the attachment, be in the true owner and
the attachment by the Magistrate will not amount either
to dispossession of the owner, or to His discontinuing
possession.
In each of the present suits, the plaintiff claims as the
true owner and as being in legal possession – the
physical possession by the Magistrate being one on
behalf of the true owner- and prays for a declaration of
his title, as against the defendant (the plaintiff in the
other suit) who denies his title and claims the property
as his own. Under section 146, Criminal Procedure
Code, the Magistrate is bound to continue the
attachment and have statutory possession of the lands
for purposes of continuing the attachment until a
competent Civil Court determines the rights of the
parties to the dispute before him or the person entitled
to the possession of the lands and he cannot deliver the
property to any of the parties or other person without
an adjudication by a Civil Court. During the
continuance of the attachment, the legal possession for
purposes of limitation will constructively be in the
person who had the title at the date of the attachment
and such title cannot be extinguished by the operation
of section 28 of the Limitation Act, however long such
attachment may continue.
In the above view article 144 will be even less
applicable to the suit than article 142.
The suits, therefore, are essentially suits for declaration
of title to immoveable property and the profits thereof
which are in deposit, the plaintiffs respectively
claiming to be in legal possession thereof and the
period of limitation applicable is therefore the period of
six years prescribed by article 120 of the second
schedule to Act XV of 1877, which period is to be
reckoned from the time when the right to sue accrued
(Pachamuthu Vs Chinnappan (1), Puraken V.
Pareathi(2) and Muhammad Baqar V. Mango Lal(3).
In this view it is immaterial whether the Rajjah of
Venkatagiri (the plaintiff in Appeal No. 149) was or
was not actually a party to the dispute before the
Magistrate in 1886. The right to sue certainly accrued
on the date of the attachment, the 5th May, 1886, which
is rightly given as the date of the cause of action in
both the suits. The alleged wrongful denial, by the
defendants in each case, of the plaintiff’s title and
possession and the procuring by such denial of the
attachment by the Magistrate, in the cause of action for
 125

the declaratory suit and it is impossible to hold that

there is a ‘continuing wrong’ within the meaning of
section 23 of the Indian Limitation Act, during the time
that the attachment continues so as to give for the
purpose of reckoning the period of limitation a fresh
starting point at every moment of the time during
which the attachment continues.”

5. In AIR 1925 Nagpur 236 Yeknath Vs. Bahia the said Hon’ble

Court held that where there was a dispute between the parties

regarding the land in suit and in proceedings under Chapter XII of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 the Magistrate attached the

land under Section 146 and appointed a Receiver thereof, and

where a suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he

was the owner of the land Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908

applied to the suit and the period of Limitation starts from the date

of the order of the attachment. Full text of the said Judgement

from its page 236 reads as follows:

“In 1908 there was a dispute between the parties to the

suit out of which this appeal arises regarding the land
in suit and in proceedings under Ch. XII of Cr. P.C.
Magistrate attached the land under S. 146 and
appointed a Receiver thereof referring the parties to the
Civil Court for the determination of their rights. The
present suit was brought in 1920 by the plaintiff for a
declaration that he was the owner of the land. The
lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground
that it was time-barred. The plaintiff challenges that
finding in second appeal. The parties are agreed that
Article 120 of the 1st Schedule, Limitation Act, applies
to this case. The plaintiff however contends that the
case being one of a continueing wrong the suit is
within time. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury V.
Bharat Chandra Roy(1), has been relied on by the
plaintiff for the contention that there is a continuing
wrong. But in that case it was found as a fact that the
plaintiffs were in possession that the defendants
attempted to interfere with their possession and a
 126

breach of the peace bad become imminent when the

property was attached by the Magistrate. In Panna Lal
Biswas V. Panchu Ruidas (2), which is also relied on,
the plaintiff was deprived of possession by the
defendants two months prior to the attachment. There
is no finding of either of these kinds in this suit. We do
not know whether it was the plaintiff or the defendant
who was guilty of interference with possession or
dispossession. In the absence of all evidence as to the
events preceding the attachment all that one can say as
to what led the Magistrate to take possession is that it
was either his inability to decide who was in actual
possession or his decision that neither party was in
possession. Neither of these can be said to be a wrong
by the defendant. The alleged wrongful denial of the
plaintiff’s title was not what led the Magistrate to
attach the property. The cases cited therefore do not
help the plaintiff. In the circumstances of these cases it
is the attachment by the Magistrate and not any
wrongful act of the defendants that gave rise to the
right to sue and the right accrued when the attachment
was made. In this view no fresh period of limitation
began to run under S. 23 of the Limitation Act after the
date of the attachment by the Magistrate in 1908. The
suit therefore was barred by time and was rightly
dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.”

6. In AIR 1935 Madras 967 Ponnu Nadar and others vs. Kumaru

Reddiar and others the said Hon’ble Court held that the real cause

of action was the date of the order of the Magistrate and limitation

started from the date of order and Article 120 of the Limitation Act,

1908 was applicable not the Section 23 of the said Act. The

relevant portions of the said Judgement from its pages 970 and 973

read as follows:

“The question which we have to decide is one of

limitation. The dispute has a somewhat long history,
and we have to go back to 1900, when the Nadars of
Mela Seithalai village at tempted to carry a corpse in
procession over the same route. The police reported
that there was likely to be resistance on the part of the
other caste people, and a breach of the peace, and
accordingly the Joint Magistrate, Mr. Vibert, I.C.S.,
 127

passed an order directing that no organized procession

of Shanars or Christians should pass along those streets
until a Civil Courts had declared that there was a right
to do so. It is not disputed that this order was passed
under S. 147, Criminal P. C., although it may be open
to some question whether the occasion was really
appropriate for an order of this character, nor is it
contended that the order was without jurisdiction and
therefore a nullity. The contention of the defendants in
the present suit is in brief that this order being still in
force and no suit having been filed within the
prescribed period by the Nadars to establish the right in
question the present claim is time-barred. This point
has been decided against the plaintiffs by the Courts
below and the plaintiffs accordingly appeal.
…………………………………..

In the present case it is no doubt arguable that some

analogy exists between an order which bars a right to
take a procession and an obstruction which bars a right
of way. Both in a sense create a state of affairs which
continues to exist. What we have to find however is
the existence of a “continuing wrong,” a wrong, that is,
originated by and kept in existence by the opposite
party. What in fact appears to have given rise to the
Joint Magistrate’s order was a police report of an
apprehended breach of the peace between the rival
factions and all that the opposite party did was to adopt
an attitude which gave rise to that apprehension. So far
as that attitude itself is concerned, it is impossible to
find in it a continuing wrong, nor do we find it easier to
hold that when the Joint Magistrate passed the order
with a view to prevent a breach of the peace there was
a “continuing wrong” caused by the defendants’ party.
There is nothing to show that it was passed at their
instance and even if it were, responsibility for passing
it must be taken by the Court and not laid upon the
party. Again, once an order was passed, the matter was
taken out of the hands of the defendant party, and it lay
with the Nadars themselves to establish their right by
suit.
From this point of view too we are not disposed to hold
that even if there was a continuing wrong the defendant
party was responsible for its continuance. Where the
applicability of S. 23, Lim. Act, is doubtful the proper
course must be, we think, to enforce against the
plaintiffs the ordinary principles of limitation, and in
the present case to apply art. 47 would be applied to the
case of an order under S. 145, Criminal P.C., time
 128

being taken to run from the date of the order. Adopting

this view, the persons affected by the order of 1900 had
a period of six years within which to establish their
right, and we are not greatly impressed by the
argument that, if the right itself may be indestructible,
the remedy ought not to have been permanently lost by
their failure to take action within that time. We must
hold in agreement with 26 Mad 410(1) that the suit is
barred under Art. 120, Limitation Act. The second
appeal is dismissed with costs of the contesting
respondents. We certify for a fee of Rs. 150 under R.
46, Practitioners’ Fees Rules.

7. In AIR 1930 PC 270 (Mt. Bolo. v. Mt. Koklan) the said Hon’ble

Court held that there can be no “right to sue” untill there is an

accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at

least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the

defendant against whom the suit is instituted. And in such suit

limitation starts from the date of unequivocal threat to infringe the

right for the purpose of limitation, the suit is governed under

Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. In the instant case, the

plaintiffs’ averment is that they were dispossessed in the night of

22/23rd December, 1949 and it is also admitted fact that an order of

attachment in respect of the suit property was passed on 29th

December, 1949 as such at least a clear and unequivocal threat to

infringe the right of the plaintiffs to use the disputed structure as

Mosque materialized in the night of 22/23rd December, 1949. On

that date right to sue was arisen. Relevant paragraph of the said

judgment from its page 272 reads as follows:

“There can be no "right to sue" until there is an accrual of

the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at
least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by
 129

the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. No

doubt Mt. Koklan's right to the property arose on the
death of Tara Chand, but in the circumstances of this case
their Lordships are of opinion that there was no
infringement of, or any clear and unequivocal threat to
her rights till the year 1922, when the suit, as stated
above, was instituted.”

8. In AIR 1931 PC 9 (Annamalai Chettiar & Ors. v. A.M.K.C.T.

Muthukaruppan Chettiar & Anr.) the Hon’ble Privy Council has

held that in case of an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and

its infringement or at least clear and unequivocal threat to infringe

that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted for

the purpose of limitation Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is

applied. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment from page 12

reads as follows:

“In their Lordships view the case falls under Art. 120,
under which the time begins to run when the right to sue
accrues. In a recent decision of their Lordships' Board,
delivered by Sir Binod Mitter, it is stated, in reference to
Art. 120”

9. In AIR 1960 SC 335 (Rukma Bai. v. Lala Laxminarayan) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where there are successive

invasion or denials of right, the right to sue under Article 120

accrues when the defendant has clearly and unequivocally

threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit.

Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of

action depends upon the question where that threat effectively

invites or jeopardizes the said right. Relevant paragraph 33 of the

said judgment reads as follows:

 130

“33. The legal position may be briefly stated thus: The

right to sue under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act accrues
when the defendant has clearly and unequivocally
threatened to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in
the suit. Every threat by a party to such a right, however
ineffective and innocuous it may be, cannot be considered
to be a clear and unequivocal threat so as to compel him
to file a suit. Whether a particular threat gives rise to a
compulsory cause of action depends upon the question
whether that threat effectively invades or jeopardizes the
said, right.”

10.In AIR 1961 SC 808 (C. Mohammad yunus. v. Syed Unnissa &

Ors.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a suit for

declaration of a right and an injunction restraining the defendants

from interfering with the exercise of that right is governed by

Article 120. Under the said Article there can be no right to sue

until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its

infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe

that right. Relevant paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as

follows:

“7. The surplus income of the institution is distributed by

the trustees and the plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of
the right to receive the income and also an injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with the
exercise of their right. The High Court held that plaintiff
No. 1 was at the date of the suit 19 years of age and was
entitled to file a suit for enforcement of her right even if
the period of limitation had expired during her minority
within three years from the date on which she attained
majority by virtue of Ss. 6 and 8 of the Indian Limitation
Act, Apart from this ground which saves the claim of the
first plaintiff alone, a suit for a declaration of a right and
an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the exercise of that right is governed by Art. 120 of
the Limitation Act and in such a suit the right to sue
arises when the cause of the action accrues. The plaintiffs
claiming under Fakruddin sued to obtain a declaration of
their rights in the institution which was and is in the
management of the trustees. The trial judge held that the
 131

plaintiffs were not "in enjoyment of the share'' of

Fakruddin since 1921 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs
more than 12 years from the date of Fakruddin's death
must be held barred but he did not refer to any specific
article in the first schedule of the Limitation Act which
barred the suit. It is not shown that the trustees have ever
denied or are interested to deny the right of the plaintiffs
and defendant No. 2; and if the trustees do not deny their
rights, in our view, the suit for declaration of the rights of
the heirs of Fakruddin will not be barred under Art. 120
of the Limitation Act merely because the contesting
defendant did not recognise that right. The period of six
years prescribed by Art. 120 has to be computed from the
date when the right to sue accrues and there could be no
right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted
in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and
unequivocal threat to infringe that right. If the trustees
were willing to give a share and on the record of the case
it must be assumed that they being trustees appointed
under a scheme would be willing to allow the plaintiffs
their legitimate rights including a share in the income if
under the law they were entitled thereto, mere denial by
the defendants of the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant
No. 2 will not set the period of limitation running against
them.”

11. In AIR 1970 SC 1035 (Garib Das. v. Munish Abdul Hamid) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a suit for recovery of

possession after cancellation of sale deed in favour of the

defendants on the ground that a previous valid wakf had been

created, Article 142 was not applicable and the suit was to be filed

within a period of six years that is to say Article 120 was

applicable. Relevant paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as

follows:

“13. The fourth point has no substance inasmuch as

Article 142 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to
the facts of the case. The suit was filed in 1955 within six
years after the death of Tasaduk Hussain who died only a
few months after the execution of the documents relied
on by the appellants.”
 132

12.In AIR 1973 All 328 (Jamal Uddin. v. Mosque, Mashakganj) the

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that in a suit for

possession, the plaintiff specifically alleged that they had been

dispossessed by the defendant before filing of the suit, the suit

would be governed by Article 142 and the residuary Article 144

would have no application, then the burden in such a case was on

the plaintiffs to prove their possession within 12 years before the

suit. That case is distinguishable from this case because in that

case no order of attachment was passed by the Magistrate, but in

the instant case order of attachment was passed by the Magistrate

and, as such, in the instant case Article 120 of the Limitation Act,

1908 is applicable. Relevant paragraph Nos.29 and 31 of the said

judgment read as follows:

“29. The next point that was urged by the counsel for the
appellants was that the courts below committed a legal
error in applying Art. 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to
the suit and placing the burden on the defendants to prove
their adverse possession for more than twelve years,
while the suit on the allegations contained in the plaint
clearly fell within the ambit of Art. 142 and the burden
was on the plaintiffs to prove their possession within
twelve years. This contention also is quite correct. It was
clearly alleged by the plaintiffs that they had been
dispossessed by the contesting defendants before the
filing of the suit. As such, the suit would be governed by
Article 142 and the residuary Article 144 will have no
application. The courts below have unnecessarily
imported into their discussion the requirements of
adverse possession and wrongly placed the burden on the
defendant to prove those requirements. Now the trial
Court has approached the evidence produced by the
parties would be evident from the following observation
contained in its judgment.
"The onus of proving adverse possession over the
disputed land lies heavily upon the defendants and their
possession has to be proved beyond doubt to be
 133

notorious, exclusive, openly hostile and to the knowledge

of the true owner as laid down in AIR 1938 Mad 454."
After a consideration of the documentary and oral
evidence produced by the defendants to prove their
possession the trial Court has opined that the document
on record do not prove the title and possession of the
defendants to the hilt in respect of the disputed land. So
far as the plaintiffs' evidence is concerned it was disposed
of by the trial Court with the following observations :
"............ No doubt, the oral evidence of the plaintiffs
about the use of the land for saying the prayers of 'Janaze
Ki namaz' and about the letting out of the land in suit for
purposes of 'D or Sootana' is equally shaky and
inconsistent. But as already pointed out above the
plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their title over the
disputed land and as such possession would go with the
ownership of the land. The defendants cannot be allowed
to take advantage of the plaintiffs faulty evidence and it
was for them to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that
they were actually in possession over the disputed land as
owners and that they exercised this right openly hostile to
the plaintiffs with the latter's knowledge. Judged in this
context, the evidence of the defendant falls short of this
requirement."

31. The learned Civil Judge has noted in his judgment

that this land was enclosed by walls which were
occasionally washed away during rains but were rebuilt
though it was not clear from the Commissioner's report as
to when the existing walls had been constructed. It has
also been found that the defendant-appellants and their
predecessors had set up a barber's stall on this land by
placing wooden Takhat on it on which they used to shave
their customers and sleep thereon in the night. But they
were of the opinion that these acts did not amount to
dispossession of the plaintiffs. It was not noticed by them
that it is an admitted fact that some windows of the
mosque opened towards this land and so any activity of
the defendant-appellants or their predecessors on this
land could escape the notice of plaintiff No. 2 or his
predecessor. According to the plaintiffs' allegations the
defendants had simply started digging foundation on this
land when they treated this act of theirs as amounting to
their dispossession and filed their suit out of which this
appeal has arisen. It is therefore clear that if the evidence
had been appraised from a correct angle that the burden
under Article 142 is on the plaintiffs, a finding could not
be recorded in favour of the plaintiffs. On the other hand,
from the facts and circumstances of the case, it was
 134

evident that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest

had no possession over the land within twelve years prior
to the suit. The suit was therefore barred by limitation
under Article 142.”

13.In AIR 2004 SC 1330 (Chairman & MD, N.T.P.C. Ltd.. v. M/s.

Reshmi Construction Builders & Contractors) the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that no one can be allowed to approbate and

reprobate at the same time. In view of such principle of law, the

plaintiffs are estopped from relying on applicability of Article 142

on one hand and Article 144 on the other. Article 142 is applicable

for recovery of possession of immovable property when the

plaintiff’s possession of the property has been dispossessed or had

discontinued. Under this Article the burden of proof lies upon the

plaintiffs to prove their possession within 12 years before the suit.

While Article 144 is a residuary and which is applicable for

recovery of possession of immovable property or an interest

therein not specifically provided for by the Act and in that case

burden of proof lies upon the defendants to prove their possession

within 12 years before the suit. Relevant paragraph Nos.36 and 37

of the said judgment read as follows:

“36. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 16

(Reissue) para 957 at page 844 it is stated :
"On the principle that a person may not approbate and
reprobate a special species of estoppel has arisen. The
principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate
express two propositions :
(1) That the person in question, having a choice between
two courses of conduct is to be treated as having made an
election from which he cannot resile.
(2) That he will be regarded, in general at any rate, as
having so elected unless he has taken a benefit under or
arising out of the course of conduct, which he has first
 135

pursued and with which his subsequent conduct is

inconsistent."
37. In American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 28,
1966, pages 677-680 it is stated :
"Estoppel by the acceptance of benefits :
Estoppel is frequently based upon the acceptance and
retention, by one having knowledge or notice of the facts,
of benefits from a transaction, contract, instrument,
regulation which he might have rejected or contested.
This doctrine is obviously a branch of the rule against
assuming inconsistent positions.
As a general principle, one who knowingly accepts the
benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny
the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or
conveyance.
This rule has to be applied to do equity and must not be
applied in such a manner as to violate the principles of
right and good conscience."”

14.In AIR 1983 SC 684 = (1983) 3 SCC 118 (State of Bihar. v. Radha

Krishna Singh) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the

statement made post litem motam is inadmissible on the ground the

same thing must be in controversy before and after the statement is

made. In view of the said judicial pronouncement, the statements

of the plaintiffs which have been made in their written statement

filed in the year 1950 in O.S. No.1 of 1989 to the effect that last

namaz was offered on 16th December, 1949 and thereafter no

namaz was offered is ante litem motam. In the same suit same

thing is/was in controversy before and after the statement was

made. The plea taken in the plaint of the instant suit being

O.S.No.4 of 1989 to the effect that the disputed structure was used

as Mosque till 22/23rd December, 1949 and on that date last namaz

was offered is post litem motam which is inadmissible. As such on

the basis of admission of the plaintiffs they have admitted that they
 136

discontinued in possession on or after 16th December, 1949 and, as

such limitation starts from that day. Relevant paragraph Nos.132

and 138 of the said judgment read as follows:

“132. Same view was taken by a Full Bench of the

Madras High Court in Seethapati Rao Dora v. Venkanna
Dora (1922) ILR 45 Mad 332 : (AIR 1922. Mad 71),
where Kumaraswami Sastri. J. observed thus :
"I am of opinion that Section 35 has no application. to,
judgments, and a judgment which would not be
admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act
would not become relevant merely because it contains a
statement as to a fact which is in issue or relevant in a
suit between persons who are not parties or privies.
Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act deal with the
relevancy of judgments in Courts of justice."

138. In Hari Baksh v. Babu Lal AIR 1924 PC 126, their

Lordships observed as follows:
"It appears to their Lordships that these statements of
Bishan Dayal who was then an interested party in the
disputes and was then taking a position adverse to Hari
Baksh cannot be regarded as evidence in this suit and are
inadmissible."

Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration in the

year 1961 and afterwards beyond the period of limitation and amended

the suit after 33 years to cover the case under Article 142 and 144

beyond the period of limitation. Thus, the suit was barred by limitation

even at the time of filing the suit and was not cognizable.

I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions of the

parties. It transpires that Article 142 provides a limitation of 12 years

to file the suit. The date of dispossession or discontinuance of

possession as alleged is 23.12.1949 and 29.12.1949. Accordingly the

plaintiff's claimed that their case is covered by Article 142 of the Act

not at the time of filing the suit but through amendment of 1995. It is
 137

settled proposition of law that onus under Article 142 lies on the

plaintiff and the plaintiff has to prove the assertions. As regards the

scope of Article 142 and its applicability the question is mostly one of

pleadings. In this context it would be expedient to refer the earliest

Privy Council's case in which Article 143 of Act IX of 1871 came in

consideration along with Article 144 of the Act. In the case of Bibi

Sahodra Versus Rai Jang Bahadur it has been observed that Article

143 (now Article 142) refers to a suit for possession of immovable

property, where the plaintiff, while in possession of the property, has

been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession, and it allows

twelve years from the date of the dispossession or discontinuance. But

in order to bring the case under that head of schedule, he must show

that there has been a possession or discontinuance. This Article was

not applied where pleadings distinctly showed that there was no

dispossession or discontinuance of the plaintiff. In Karan Singh Versus

Bakar Ali Khan, there was a question of the application of Article 145

of Act IX of 1871 (now Art.144), and Sir B.Peacock, pointed out the

difference of the provision from the rule formerly in force under Act

XIV of 1859. Under the old law, the suit must have been brought

within twelve years from the time of the cause of action; but under the

Act of 1871, it might be brought within 12 years from the time when

the possession of the defendant, or of some person through whom he

claims, became adverse to the plaintiff.

Thus Article 142 applies to actions of ejectment and where the

plaintiffs allege that they have been dispossessed is required to prove

 138

possession and dispossession within 12 years of the suit. The full

bench of Calcutta High Court in Mohd.Ali Khan Versus Khwaja

Abdul Gunny and Others (1883) ILR 9 Cal. 744 held that where the

suit is for possession, and the cause of dispossession or

discontinuance, the plaintiff is bound to prove this event from which

limitation is declared to run having, occurred within 12 years of the

suit. Thus Article 142 applies only to suits for possession of an

immovable property. In all cases in which the applicability of Article

142 or 144 is in controversy it is necessary to scrutinize the pleadings

of the plaintiff and the relief sought by him. In a suit governed by

Article 142 the question is to be decided where the plaintiff directly

and strictly has been in possession within 12 years of the suit and it

does not matter if within the period continuous exclusive possession

adverse to him has been one or of a trespasser.

After going through the pleadings of the parties on the basis of

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs when he

has relied over Article 144 of the Limitation Act, it has to be seen

whether the case comes within the purview of Article 144 or not.

Article 144 of Limitation Act, 1908 is the general residuary article for

suits for possession of immovable property as is indicated by the

words “not hereby otherwise specially provided for”. This article does

not apply where the suit is otherwise specially provided for by some

other Article referring to possessory suits in Sch.-I of the Limitation

Act. It applies to suits for possession, not invariably meaning a suit for

actual physical possession. Article 144 contemplates that if on the

 139

allegations made in the plaint the suit falls under Article 142, there is

no justification for taking it out of that article for applying Article 144.

Article 144 restricted to suits which are in terms and is in substance

based on plaintiff's prior possession which he has lost by

dispossession or discontinuance of possession. It is also a settled

proposition that where the plaintiff bases his claim on his title with

regard his possession or dispossession, the case falls under Article

144.

Article 120 is a residuary article before applying it the Court

has to be satisfied that no other provision of the Limitation Act can be

applicable. The scheme of Limitation Act provides a general residuary

article for all suits not covered by specific article. The residuary article

is applicable to every variety of suits not otherwise provided for. It

should be applied only as a last resort, if no other article is applicable.

The function of the residuary article is to provide for cases, which

could not be covered by the exact words used in both the columns one

& three of an Article. As a general principle of construction of statute,

if there be two articles which may cover the case, the one, however,

more general and the other more particular or specific, the more

particular and specific article ought to be regarded as the one

governing the case. The Rule is well established that if there is no

specific or less general article applicable, this omnibus article applies.

There are numerous decisions to the effect that, unless it is clear that

no other specific article is applicable, the Courts ought not to apply

Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Article 120 comes into operation
 140

only when no other article is applicable to a suit. It should never be

invoked if there is any other article in the schedule which upon

reasonable interpretation of its language covers the particular suit with

which the Court is dealing. Wherever a specific article is shown and

applicable in all its bearing, Article 120 would apply. If the plaintiff

for any reason wishes to avoid the application of Article 120, it is for

him to show which other article fits his claim. Where an attempt is

made to secure a longer period of limitation under this article by

drafting the plaint so as to evade a particular provision of the

Limitation Act, with a lessor prescribed period. It is for the plaintiff to

establish that Article 120, 142 or Article 144 fits his claim. In this

context, undoubtedly regard should be had to the essence of the suit

rather than to the particular colouring sought to be put upon it by the

plaintiff.

It is not disputed between the parties that the property was

attached by the City Magistrate, Faizabad/Ayodhya on 29.12.1949.

After invoking his powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. he attached the

property on 29.12.1949 and handed over the possession of the suit

property to Priya Dutt Ram, defendant no.9 who assumed the charge

of the same on January 5, 1950. The plaintiffs have sought the relief

of declaration, delivery of possession and further prayed for a

command to Receiver to hand over the property in dispute described

in Schedule-A of the plaint, by removing the unauthorized structure

existed thereon. In this context, it transpires that on the basis of the

pleading of the parties, learned counsel for the plaintiffs have simply
 141

pointed out that the case falls either within the purview of Article 142

or 144, accordingly, the suit is within time. On the contrary,

defendants contested the case on the ground that the suit is barred by

limitation. Sri P.N. Misra, Advocate, has urged that Article 142 and

144 of Limitation Act, 1908 have no application in this case and the

case falls within the purview of Article 120 of the Limitation Act for

which the period of limitation is six years. Thus, from the date of

attachment of the property, the suit ought to have been filed within six

years and not within 12 years as claimed by the plaintiff.

In AIR 1936 Oudh 387 Partap Bahadur Singh Vs. Jagatjit

Singh where this Court held that where an order under Section 145

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was made by the Magistrate for

attachment of the disputed property and the Tahsildar was appointed

as Receiver of the property, the possession of the Receiver was in the

eye of the law was the possession of the true owner therefore, in such

suit Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable and a suit

brought within six years of the last invasion is in time. In the

circumstances, the plaintiff could undoubtedly maintain a suit for a

mere declaration of his title and it was not necessary for him to

institute a suit for possession. Thus, with no stretch of imagination it

may be deem to be suit for possession for immovable property.

Accordingly, Article 142 has no application.

In AIR 1942 PC 47 Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Vs.

Raja Partab Bahadur Singh. The said Hon'ble Court has upheld the

ratio of law as laid down in the case of Partap Bahadur Singh (supra),
 142

the Privy Council affirmed that in a suit for a declaration of plaintiff's

title to the land in possession of the Receiver under attachment in

proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

by virtue of the Magistrate's Order, Article 142 and 144, the

Limitation Act, 1908 do not apply and the sit is governed by Article

120 of the Limitation Act.

Further in ILR 26 Mad 410 Rajah of Venkatagiri vs. Isakapalli

Subbiah and others. In this case certain lands were attached by a

Magistrate, in 1886, under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, in consequence of disputes relating to their possession. The

Magistrate continued in possession of the lands, and realised some

income from them. The suit was instituted by rival claimants for

realization of the amount. On the question of limitation being raised

the Madras High Court took a view that a suit for declaration of

immovable property and the profits therefrom, they were governed by

Article 120 of of Schedule II to the Limitation Act and the case does

not fall within the ambit of Article 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act.

In AIR 1925 Nagpur 236, Yeknath Versus Bahia wherein the

Magistrate attached the land under Section 146 and appointed a

Receiver thereof, and where a suit is brought by the plaintiff for a

declaration that he was the owner of the land Article 120 of the

Limitation Act applies and the period of limitation starts from the date

of the order of the attachment.

In AIR 1935 Madras 967, Ponnu Nadar and others Versus

Kumaru Reddiar and others, Madras High Court held that the real
 143

cause of action was the date of the order of the Magistrate and

limitation started from the date of order. There is no other article

which can be applied in such a case and accordingly the case falls

within the ambit of Article 120 of the Limitation Act and not u/s 23 of

the Limitation Act.

In AIR 1930 PC 270 (Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan) Hon'ble Court

held that there can be right to sue until there is an accrual of the right

asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least clear and

unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against

whom the suit is instituted and in such suit limitation starts from the

date of unequivocal threat to infringe the right for the purpose of

limitation and the suit is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation

Act. On behalf of the defendants, it has been urged that this case has

full application in the instant case. According to plaintiffs, they were

dispossessed in the night of 22/23rd December, 1949. It is also

admitted for the plaintiff that an order of attachment in respect of the

suit property was passed on 29.12.1949, as such at least a clear and

unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the plaintiff's to use the

disputed structure as Mosque materialized in the night of 22/23rd

December, 1949 and on that date the right to sue was arisen. In AIR

1931 PC 9 (Annamalai Chettiar & Ors. v. A.M.K.C.T.

Muthukaruppan Chettiar & Anr.), the Privy Council has held that in

case of an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement

or at least clear and unequivocal threat Article 120 of the Limitation

Act would apply. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the scope
 144

of Article 120 in AIR 1960 SC 335 (Rukma Bai v. Lala

Laxminarayan) and held that where there are successive invasion or

denials of right, the right to sue under Article 120 accrues when the

defendant has clearly and unequivocally threatened to infringe the

right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit. As such in this case, the right

to sue under Article 120 of the Limitation Act accrues. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in AIR 1961 SC 808 (C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed

Unnissa & Ors.) held that a suit for declaration of a right and an

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise

of that right is governed by Article 120. In AIR 1970 SC 1035 (Garib

Das v. Munish Abdul Hamid) the Apex Court further held that in a

suit for recovery of possession after cancellation of sale deed in favour

of the defendants on the ground that a previous valid wakif had been

created only Article 120 would apply and Article 142 in such a case is

not applicable. In AIR 2004 SC 1330 (Chairman & MD, N.T.P.C. Ltd.,

v. M/s Reshmi Construction Builders & Contractors) the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that no one can be allowed to approbate and

reprobate at the same time. Thus, in this case the plaintiffs are

estopped from relying on applicability of Article 142 on one hand and

Article 144 on the other hand. Article 142 is applicable for recovery of

possession of immovable property when the plaintiffs were

dispossessed or had discontinued from the property in suit while under

Article 144 a residuary which is applicable for recovery of the above

property or an interest therein not specifically provided by the Act.

The case of the plaintiffs, according to the defendants, does not fall
 145

within the purview of Article 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act.

Sri M.M.Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties has

urged that in view of the plaint averments the case does not fall within

the purview of Article 142 or Article 144 of Indian Limitation Act.

The case falls within the purview of Article 120 of Limitation Act. It

has further been submitted that after the attachment of the property,

the disputed property was in custodia legis and the Receiver was

holding the possession on behalf of the parties whom the Magistrate

finds to have been in possession. Thus the Magistrate after the

attachment was holding the property through the Receiver and

accordingly the matter falls within the purview of Article 120 of the

Act as there is no other provision under the Limitation Act.

Accordingly, Article 120 has the application. In view of the

submissions of Learned counsel Sri M.M. Pandey, there is no doubt

that the property under attachment under Section 145 is in custodia

legis. Thus the relief of declaration is required in this case which is

covered under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Sri M.M.Pandey has

further relied upon the case reported in 2008 SC 363, C.Natarajan

Versus Ashim Bai and another according to him the view of the

Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject is that it was obligatory on the part

of the plaintiffs to aver and plead that they not only have title over the

property but also are in possession of the same for a period of more

than 12 years in consonance of terms of Article 142 and 144 of the

Limitation Act. In this case after the attachment, Article 142 or 144 of

the Limitation Act have no application. He has further relied over the
 146

case reported in (1995) 1 SCC 311, Shyam Sunder Prasad and others

Versus Rajpal Singh and another wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

held that the plaintiff before claiming any relief under Article 142 and

142 of the Limitation Act must prove not only his title to the property

but also that he was dispossessed or had discontinued his possession

within 12 years from the date of filing of the suit. In this case, the

property was attached by the Magistrate. Consequently the question of

dispossession does not arise. According to the learned Advocate,

Article 142 and 144 of the Limitation have no application in this case.

Further reliance has been placed on AIR 1922 Calcutta 419, Panna

Lal Biswas Versus Panchu Raidas in which it has been held that after

attachment under Section 146 Cr.P.C., suit for recovery of possession

should be treated as one for declaration and only Article 120 applies.

Reliance has further been placed on AIR 1959 SC 798, Balakrishna

Versus Shree D.M.Sansthan stating that in a case of declaration only

Article 120 applies. Further reliance has been placed on AIR 1928

Oudh 155, Abdul Halim Khan Versus Raja Saadat Ali Khan & others

wherein it has been held that possession against a person not entitled

to claim possession is not adverse. Lastly reliance has been placed on

AIR 1916 Calcutta 751, Brojendra Kishore Roy Chawdhury & others

Versus Bharat Chandra Roy and others wherein when the property

was attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C., Article 120 was held to be

applicable and it was a continuing wrong.

I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions of the

parties. Article 120 of the Limitation Act corresponds to Article 113 of

 147

Limitation Act, 1963 but only the period of limitation has been

reduced to three years from six years. The scheme of Limitation Act is

to provide a general residuary article for all suits not covered by a

specific article. It is often spoken of as the omnibus article. Article

120 was final and residuary article like the present article 113 and

includes all suits not specially provided for i.e. all action except those

which are specifically provided in the statute are governed by Article

113, which corresponds to Article 120 of the Act. Admittedly, the

plaintiff has filed the declaratory suit after the attachment of the suit

by the Magistrate. He has brought the suit to recover the property

which is custodia legis. It is a settled law that such a suit is considered

as a suit for declaration as there is no continuing wrong. Accordingly,

if the suit is brought for declaration after six years from the attachment

after applying Article 120, it has to be held to be barred by Limitation.

Article 120 (now Article 113) leaves no room for doubt that after

attachment if a Magistrate appoints a Receiver and the parties referred

to civil court for determination of their rights, such a suit for

declaration after the attachment by the Magistrate falls under Article

120 of the Old Act (now under Article 113) and after the date of

attachment by the Magistrate no fresh period of limitation began to

run under Section 22, Limitation Act, there being no continuing wrong

in such a case vide AIR 1942 PC 47 Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit

Singh Vs. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh. For the purpose of limitation,

possession during the period during which a disputed property is kept

under attachment under Section 145 (4) Cr.P.C., is in law the

 148

possession of the party whom the Magistrate as a result of the

proceeding finally declares to be entitled to retain possession as the

party who was in possession on the date of the proceeding.

Thus, in view of the decision in the case of AIR 1942 PC 47

(supra) the property in the hands of Receiver in the proceedings under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. in a suit for declaration of title before passing of

the order of the possession shall come within the purview of Article

120 and Article 142 and Article 144 of the Act has no application in

that case. Accordingly, admittedly the property was attached in this

case in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the instant

suit has been filed to establish his right by the plaintiff and

accordingly it has to be covered by Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

In view of the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view

that the object of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. being to

determine as to which party was in possession on the date of the

proceedings and to declare such party to be entitled to retain

possession, the possession of the Court during the attachment in the

course of the proceedings ensures for the benefit of such parties in

whose favour such a declaration has to be made. Accordingly, Article

142 and 144 of the Limitation Act have no application in this case.

Moreover Article 142 applies only where the plaintiff while in

possession has been dispossessed or discontinued possession. In this

case since the property was attached, the question of dispossession

does not arise. The reference of dispossession by the plaintiffs after

the attachment and to file thereafter a suit for declaration of the right
 149

to property is not a suit for possession in case of custodia legis. Article

142 and 144 do not apply where the relief of possession is not the

primary relief claimed. Here in this case the primary relief is of

declaration. Consequently, Article 120 of the Limitation Act would

apply.

Admittedly, the property in suit was attached in criminal

proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. The plaintiffs have brought the suit

for declaration of their title in the year 1961 and for the recovery

of possession over the property in suit was claimed in the year

1995. Thus at the time of filing of the suit it was barred by time.

In this context it would be relevant to refer the view of Full

Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Pappy Amma vs.

Probhakaran AIR 1972 Ker 1 (FB) wherein it has been held that the

order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is only a

police order and is in no sense final. The property concerned may be

attached and placed in charge of a Receiver. Such possession of the

Receiver appointed by the Criminal Court merely passes the property

in custodia legis and is not dispossession within the meaning of this

article. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the

plaintiff that they were dispossessed does not arise. Accordingly,

Article 142 and 144 have no effect to the case and with full force

Article 120 is applicable. Therefore, a suit after more than six years of

the attachment, if filed, for declaration is barred by Article 120 of the

Limitation Act as held in the case of Ambica Prasad vs. R.Iqbal AIR

1966 SC 605.
 150

Vis-a-vis the sequence of events and the law referred to above

which leaves no room for doubt that the instant suit for declaration of

title to the property attached under Code of Criminal Procedure is

governed by Article 120 and not by Articles 142 and 144 of the

Limitation Act. It is also settled proposition of law that after the

attachment of the property under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and once a

Receiver is appointed in respect of it, it passes into legal custody for

the benefit of the true owner as the parties being referred to Civil

Court for determination of their rights. In a suit falling under Article

120 together with Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the right to sue

accrues when the attachment is made and not by any wrongful act of

the defendant. Consequently, after the date of attachment by the

Magistrate no fresh period of limitation began to run under Section

123 of the Limitation Act. There being no continuing wrong in such a

case and it does not amount to dispossession or discontinuance of his

possession as the property is under anticipation of an order, in which

the right of title is to be declared by a competent court and possession

of the Court should ensure for the benefit of a party in whose favour

the Court would make a such declaration. Accordingly, the instant suit

which has been filed after six years of the attachment is definitely

barred by Limitation.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1990 SC 10, S.S. Rathore vs.

State of M.P., held that Article 113 of the Act corresponding to Section

120 of the Act is a general one and would apply to suits to which no

other article in the schedule applies. Thus, the statute of limitation Act
 151

provides a time limit for all suits conceivable.

It is the clear contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs' suit

is barred by limitation being a suit for right to worship and not a suit

for immovable property as is being made out by the plaintiff and

therefore is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and

not Articles 144 or 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 therefore suit can

only be filed within 6 years.

Under the above-mentioned circumstances it is very apparent

that the suit of the plaintiffs is actually a suit for declaration which is

governed by Art.120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and not governed by

Art. 142 or 144 of the said Limitation Act.

It is an admitted fact that the Muslims had not been in

possession of the said property from 22nd / 23rd December, 1949 and,

therefore, any suit which had to be filed would have to be filed within

6 years and not within 12 years being under Art. 120. The plaintiffs

filed the suit on18th December, 1961 much beyond the limitation

period of 6 years. The suit, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation.

Reliance has been placed on the following cases;

AIR 1929 Madras 313 – Raja Ramaswamy Vs. Govinda

Ammal, Para 19 to 25 states that “It is not the form of the

reliefs claimed which determines the character of the suit for

the purposes of ascertaining under which Article of the

Limitation Act the suit falls.”

“19. As regards the first point, it has been well-settled by

several decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council that

 152

it is not the form of the relief claimed which determines the

real character of the suit for the purpose of ascertaining

under which article of the Limitation Act the suit falls.

Though the relief claimed in the suit is possession of

immovable property, yet if the property sued for is held by

the contesting defendant under a sale or other transfer which

is not void, but only voidable, and he cannot obtain

possession without the transfer being set aside, the suit must

be regarded as one brought to set aside the transfer though

no relief in those terms is prayed for, but the prayer is only

for possession of the property. It has been so held with

reference to Article 12, Limitation Act, where the defendant

is in possession under a sale held in execution of a decree of

a Court and also as to Article 91 where the instrument under

which the defendant claims is one which is prima facie

binding on the plaintiff. The same view was also taken with

regard to the article in the old Limitation Act relating to suits

brought to set aside an adoption. Their Lordships held in

Jagadamaba Chowdhrani v. Dakhina Mohun Roy (1886) 13

Cal. 308 that even when the plaintiff did not in terms sue to

set aside an adoption but only to recover possession of

property on his prima facie title as reversionary heir he was

bound to bring his suit within the time allowed by Article

129, Act 9 of 1871, provided the defendant was in

possession by virtue of an apparent adoption; and the

 153

plaintiff was not at liberty to bring his suit within the time

allowed to reversionary heirs by Article 142 of that Act. As

regards Article 12, Lim. Act, which relates to suits to set

aside a sale in execution of a decree of a civil Court the

leading case is Mallkarjun v Narhari (1901) 25 Bom. 337 .

Their Lordships in that case held that though the suit was

brought for redemption of a mortgage of immovable

property for which the period of limitation is 60 years, yet as

the defendant the mortgagee had purchased the equity of

redemption in a judicial sale which was operative against the

plaintiff, though liable to be set aside for due cause, the suit

is governed by Article 12 and must be brought within the

period of one year prescribed by that article. At p. 350 after

referring to the case in Jagadamba Chaudrani v. Dakhina

Mohun Roy Chaudhri, as supporting that view their

Lordships observe with regard to that case:

There was difficulty in the case because the expression "set

aside an adoption" is inaccurate. An adoption cannot be set

aside though its validity may be impeached and in fact the

language was altered in 1877 before the appeal was heard.

In AIR 1969 SC 843 – Pierce Leslie & Co. Ltd. vs. Miss

Violet Ouchterlony Wapshare, Para 7: The plaintiffs

claim declaratory reliefs, a decree vesting or re-transferring

the properties to the old company or to the plaintiffs and

 154

accounts. Such a suit is governed by Article 120. Even if the

suit is treated as one for recovery of possession of

properties it would be governed by Art. 120 and not by Art.

144. The old company could not ask for recovery of the

property until they obtained a re-conveyance from the new

company.”

“Para 7. The next question is with regard to limitation.

The conveyances in favour of the new company were

executed on January 14, 1939, and May 15, 1939.

Simultaneously with the execution of the conveyances the

new company entered into possession of the properties.

Even before that date by January 10, 1938, the appellant-

company had taken possession of the properties. The suit

was filed on December 21, 1950, when the Indian

Limitation Act, 1908, was in force. The plaintiffs cannot

claim relief on the ground of fraud and, consequently,

Article 95 has no application. Section 10 does not apply as

the properties are not vested in the new company for the

specific purpose of making them over to the old company or

to the plaintiffs. Article 144 does not apply for several

reasons. In the plaint there is no prayer for recovery of

possession. The plaintiffs claim declaratory reliefs, a decree

vesting or re-transferring the properties to the old company

or to the plaintiffs and accounts. Such a suit is governed by

Article 120. The High Court passed a decree for money and
 155

not for recovery of immovable properties. A suit for such a

relief would be governed by Article 120. Even if the suit is

treated as one for recovery of possession of the properties, it

would be governed by Article 120 and not by Article 144.

The old company could not ask for recovery of the

properties until they obtained a reconveyance from the new

company. The cause of action for this relief arose in 1939

when the properties were conveyed to the new company. A

suit for this relief was barred under Article 120 on the

expiry of six years. After the expiry of this period the old

company could not file a suit for recovery of possession. In

Chhatra Kumari Devi v. Mohan Bikram Shah the Privy

Council held that in a case where the property was not held

by the trustee for the specific purpose of making it over to

the beneficiary and the trust did not fall within Section 10, a

suit by the beneficiary claiming recovery of possession from

the trustee was governed by Article 120. Sir George

Lowndes said:

" The trustee is, in their Lordships' opinion, the 'owner'

of the trust property, the right of the beneficiary being

in a proper case to call upon the trustee to convey to

him. The enforcement of this right would, their

Lordships think, be barred after six years under Article

120 of the Limitation Act, and if the beneficiary has

allowed this period to expire without suing, he cannot

 156

afterwards file a possessory suit, as until conveyance

he is not the owner."

It follows that the suit is barred by limitation.

In (1888) ILR 15 Cal 58 – Janki Kunwar Vs. Ajit Singh,

Para 8: “It was not a suit for possession of the immovable

property to which this limitation of 12 years is applicable.

The immovable property could not have been recovered until

the deed of sale had been set aside, and it was necessary to

bring a suit to set aside the deed upon payment of what had

been advanced...”

8.  Both the lower Courts seem to have treated this

question in a manner which cannot be regarded as

satisfactory. The District Judge, having stated the previous

proceedings, says: "Under these circumstances I think it but

just that she" that is, the present appellant- "should be

allowed to count her limitation from the 31st of May 1881,

the date on which the District Judge decided her husband

had been defrauded in the cases then before him." He takes

no notice of the fact that Bijai was also a party to the suit,

and that his knowledge was a material matter to be

regarded, and he fixes, apparently in a somewhat arbitrary

manner, on the 31st of May 1881, the date of the decision of

the District Judge in the former suits, as that from which the

period of limitation would run. That ground cannot be

 157

supported. The District Judge has not directed his mind to

the real question, which is when the circumstances that are

said to constitute the fraud became known to Bijai. Then the

Judical Commissioner deals with the case in a different way.

He says the suit is essentially a suit for the possession of

immoveable property, and as such falls within the 12 years'

limitation. Now he is clearly wrong there. It was not a suit

for the possession of immoveable property in the sense to

which this limitation of 12 years is applicable. The

immoveable property could not have been recovered until

the deed of sale had been set aside, and it was necessary to

bring a suit to set aside the deed upon payment of what had

been advanced, namely, the Rs. 1,25,000. Therefore there

has been on the part of the lower Courts a misapprehension

of the law of limitation in this case. Their Lordships are

clearly of opinion that the suit falls within Article. 91 of the

Act XV of 1877, and is therefore barred.

In AIR 1937 Cal 500 – Jafar Ali Khan & Ors. Vs.

Nasimannessa Bibi; para 7 “It may be taken to be

established now that where there is a suit for recovery of

possession there is an obstacle in the way of granting relief

in the shape of gift or settlement, the plaintiff cannot get any

relief until such instrument is set aside; and asset has been

said, if it is too late for setting aside the document suit for

possession would also fail.”

 158

“14. The question of limitation arises for consideration in

the case. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the Judge

in the Court below that there was delivery of possession of

the property covered by the deed of settlement

(Nirupanpatra) executed by Saheb Jan Khan, it could not, in

our judgment, be said that the plaintiff had no knowledge of

the document she wanted to avoid. The Hebanama executed

by her on the same date as the deed of settlement executed

by Saheb Jan, contained a recital to this effect: "I have

given my consent to the deed of settlement executed (this

day) by my husband Saheb Jan Khan in your favour (that is,

in favour of Jafar Ali Khan, defendant 1 in the suit) and I

am bound by that." We have in the case giving rise to

Appeal from Original Decree No. 43 of 1934, held that the

Hebanama could not be avoided as the document was

executed by the plaintiff with full knowledge of its contents.

Our decision therefore must be, and it is, that the plaintiff

had knowledge of the deed of settlement at the time of the

execution of the Hebanama and of the deed of settlement

executed on the same date-one by the plaintiff herself and

the other by her husband Saheb Jan Khan, on 27th January

1929. With reference to the application of Article 91,

Schedule 1, Lim. Act, we have given our decision in our

judgment in the connected Appeal No. 43, and for the

reasons stated in that judgment, Article 142, Sch. 1, Lim.

 159

Act, cannot apply to this case. The plaintiff's suit was barred

by limitation and it must be dismissed on that ground.”

In view of the discussions, referred to above, it transpires that

the claim of the plaintiffs is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation

Act, 1908 and not by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act,1908.

Therefore, the suit could only be filed within 6 years, therefore, the

suit is barred by limitation. Issue No.3 is decided against the plaintiffs

and in favour of 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 provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of 1936?

FINDINGS:

This issue has already been decided in the negative vide order

dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.

ISSUE NO. 5(b)

Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in

general and defendants in particular to the right of their worship?

FINDINGS:

It has been urged on behalf of the defendants that U.P. Act No.

13 of 1936 United Provinces of Waqf Act, 1936 has no application to

the rights of Hindus in general and defendants in particular and the

rights of Hindus of worship is not affected by it. Muslim side has not

advanced any argument against the aforesaid submissions. It

 160

transpires from the bare reading of the Act that it was enacted with a

view that it should apply to all the Waqfs whether created before or

after commencement of this Act. It does not affect the right of

worship of Hindus. It does not deal with the right of Hindus about

their worship. Consequently, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 has no

application to the right of Hindus about their worship. Issue No. 5(b)

is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO. 5(c)

Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?

FINDINGS:

This issue has already been decided in the negative vide order

dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.

ISSUE NO. 5(d)

Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra vires as

alleged in written statement?

FINDINGS:

This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants, hence

not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his order dated

21.4.1966.

ISSUES NO. 5(e) and 5(f)

5(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
 161

property in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of

Waqf has no right to maintain the present suit?

5(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?

FINDINGS:

Both issues are connected with each other and conveniently be

disposed of at one place. On 21.4.1966, learned Civil Judge has

already decided issue no.17 that no valid notification was made in

respect of the property in dispute. The relevant extract of the said

order is reproduced as under:-

“In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, I hold under

issue no. 17 that no valid notification under Section 5(1) of U.P.

Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 was ever made so far relating to

the specific disputed property of the present suits at hand. The alleged

Government Gazette Notification Paper No.243/C read with the list

paper No.243/1A do not comply with the requirements of a valid

notification in the eyes of law and equity as I have already discussed

above. The aforesaid two papers, therefore, serve no useful purpose to

the plaintiffs of the leading case.”

In view of my above findings I hold that the bar provided in

Section 5 (3) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1936 does not hit the defence of

the defendants of the leading case and their suits which are connected

with the aforesaid leading case. Issue No. 17 is answered

 162

accordingly.”

In view of the aforesaid findings, the attention of this Court was

invited to this effect that the Waqf was registered under the Muslim

Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936. Without any valid notification and

registration the Waqf is not in accordance with the provisions of the

Act of under Section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act (No. XIII of 1936)

and as such even for want of pleadings Sunni Central Board of Waqf

has no right to maintain the present suit in view of Section 87(1) of the

Muslim Waqf Act, 1995. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has refuted

the aforesaid argument and has urged that Section 87 of the Waqf Act,

1995 is not applicable in the instant case. Plea of registration of Waqf

has not been denied and there being no allegation about the non-

registration of the Waqf, no issue was framed in this respect. As such

Section 87 cannot be invited that there being any factual foundation

for such plea. Thus to resolve the controversy it is necessary to go

through the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936. Section 5

reads as under:-

“5. Commissioner's report:-(1) The local Government

shall forward a copy of the Commissioner's report to each
of the Central Boards constituted under this Act. Each
Central Board shall as soon as possible notify in the
Gazette the waqfs relating to the particular sect to which,
according to such report, the provisions of this Act apply.
2. The mutwalli of a waqf or any person interested in a
waqf or a Central Board may bring a suit in a civil court of
competent jurisdiction for a declaration that any
transaction held by the Commissioner of waqfs to be a waqf
 163

is not a waqf, or any transaction held or assumed by him

not to be a waqf is a waqf, or that a waqf held by him to
pertain to a particular sect does not belong to that sect, or
that any waqf reported by such Commissioner as being
subject to the provisions of this Act is exempted under
section 2, or that any waqf held by him to be so exempted is
subject to this Act:
Provided that no such suit shall be instituted by a
Central Board after more than two years of the receipt of
the report of the Commissioner of waqfs, and by a
mutawalli or person interested in a waqf after more than
one year of the notification referred to in sub clause (1):
Provided also that no proceedings under this Act in
respect of any waqf shall be stayed or suspended merely by
reason of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal
arising out of any such suit.
3. Subject to the final result of any suit instituted under
sub section (2) the report of the Commissioner of waqfs
shall be final and conclusive.
4. The Commissioner of waqfs shall not be made a
defendant to any suit under sub-section (2) and no suit shall
be instituted against him for anything done by him in good
faith under colour of this Act.”
The parties have failed to produce any notification under
Section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 before this Court.
Consequently, the finding recorded by civil judge on 21.4.1966 is
factually correct. Thus, without any valid notification under Section
5(1) of the Muslim Act, 1936 the property in suit was registered as
Waqf. It is also a settled proposition of law 'if a thing has to be done,
it should be done in accordance with law or otherwise not'. Thus the
registration of the Waqf was required to be done only in accordance
with the provisions of U.P. Muslim Act, 1936. Thus without any
notification under Section 5(1) legally it was not possible to register
 164

the property in suit as a Waqf by the Board. Thus in this case since
there is no Gazette notification under Section 5(1). Accordingly, the
registration of the property as Waqf property cannot be deemed to be
legal registration under the Act. There is nothing in the Act which
overcomes the provision of Section 5(1) of the Act. There is no
provision under the Act to dispense with the requirement of Section
5(1) of the Waqf Act, 1936. Thus the registration is made in
contravention of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1936 and on
the basis of registration plaintiffs cannot successfully plead before this
Court that Section 87(1) of Waqf Act, 1935 (Act No. 43 of 1995) has
no application in this case.
Let me understand the provisions of Section 87 of Waqf Act,
1995 which reads as under:-
“87. Bar to the enforcement of right on behalf unregistered
wakfs.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding
for the enforcement of any right on behalf of any wakf which has not
been registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be
instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided by any Court after
the commencement of this Act, or where any such suit, appeal or other
legal proceeding had been instituted or commenced before such
commencement, no such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding shall be
continued, heard, tried or decided by any court after such
commencement unless such wakf has been registered, in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The provisions of sub-Section (1) shall apply as far as may
be, to the claim for set-off or any other claim made on behalf of any
wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.”
Shri P.N. Misra, Advocate has submitted that in view of findings
of the learned Civil Judge dated 21.4.1966 Sunni Central Board of
Waqf has no right to maintain the present suit and the present suit
is liable to be dismissed. His submissions are as under:-
 165

INSTANT SUIT IS BARRED BY SECTION 87(1) OF THE

WAQFS ACT, 1995:
1. In view of the findings recorded by the Learned Civil Judge on

21.04.1966 in deciding the issue no. 17 to the effect that. “No valid

notification under Section 5(1) of the Muslim 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 and the present suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 87

of the Waqf Act, 1995 (Act No. 43 of 1995) which reads as follows :

“87. Bar to the enforcement of right on behalf unregistered

wakfs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the

time being in force no suit, appeal or other legal proceeding for

the enforcement of any right on behalf of any wakf which has

not been registered in accordance with the provisions of this

Act, shall be instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided

by any court after the commencement of this Act, or where any

such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding had been instituted or

commenced before such commencement, no such suit appeal or

other legal proceeding shall be continued, heard, tried or

decided by any court after such commencement unless such

wakf has been registered, in accordance with the provisions of

this Act.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as far as may

be, to the claim for set-off or any other claim made on behalf of
 166

any wakf which has not been registered in accordance with the

provisions of this Act,

2. As the said Section 87(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 contains a non-

obstante clause which shall not only prevail over the contract but also

other laws in view of the judicial pronouncement made in the Union of

India & Ors Vs. SICOM Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 2009 AIR SCW 635

as also in 2009 CLC 91 (Supreme Court) relevant portion of paragraph

3 whereof (at page SCW 638) reads as follows:

“3. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that

principle that a crown debt prevails over other debts is confined only

to the unsecured ones as secured debts will always prevail over a

crown debt. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the non

obstante clause contained in Section 56 of the 1951 Act. It was

furthermore contended that for the self-same reason Section 529A in

the Companies Act was inserted in terms by way of special provisions

creating charge over the property and some of the State Governments

also amended their Sales Tax Laws incorporating such a provision.

The Central Government also with that view, amended the Employees'

Provident Funds and (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1952 and

employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

The learned counsel appears to be right.”

3. In State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator of Commercial

Ahmedabad Mills Co. & ors. Reported in 2009 CLC 73 (Gujrat High

Court) it has also been held that a non-obstante clause would override
 167

all other provisions of the Act as well as any other law in force in the

said date. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 17 of the said judgement read as

follows:

“13. Section 529-A of the Act opens with a non obstante clause

and stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any

other provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being

in force in the winding up of a Company, workers' dues and

debts due to secured creditors, shall rank pari passu and shall be

paid in priority to all other debts. Therefore, the said provision

has an overriding effect not only qua the provisions of the Act

but also any other law for the time being in force. Section 529-

A of the Act was inserted on the statute book vide Act No. 35 of

1985 with effect from 24.5.1985 and, therefore, would override

all other provisions of the Act as well as any other law in force

on the said date.

14. Therefore, prima facie, provisions of Section 42 of ULC

Act cannot claim primacy over provisions of Section 529-A of

the Act considering the fact that ULC Act was brought on

statute in 1976 while Section 529-A of the Act is a subsequent

legislation brought on statute book in 1985. Possibly this aspect

of the matter, may not have been brought to the notice of the

Company Court. However, the jurisdiction vested in a

Company Court is a special jurisdiction and considering the true

scope and object of the provisions of Section 529-A of the Act,

Official Liquidator functions under the directions of the

 168

Company Court and acts for and on behalf of the company

Court, primarily to ensure that the interest of workmen of a

company (in liquidation) do not go unrepresented and are taken

care of. This salutary feature of functioning of Company Court

could not have been overlooked by the Company Court while

determining the issue in question.

17. Thus, what is the effect of provisions of Section 529-A of

the Act have to be necessarily considered by the Company Court in

every matter where the properties/assets of the Company (in

liquidation) are claimed by a person other than secured creditors and

workmen. The Company Court could not have decided the matter as

if the issue was only a dispute between the land owner and the

competent authority under the ULC Act. It is equally well settled in

law that though procedural compliance is required to be established in

justification of an action, yet at the same time, mere form over

substance cannot be preferred.”

4. The bar to the enforcement of right on behalf of the unregistered

wakfs imposed under Section 87(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 is clearly

reasonable and in the interest of the general public in view of the

judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in

bhandar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr. Reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 259 wherein the

provisions of Section 145 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,

1996 which barred an unregistered society from using the word 'co-

operative' in its name or title, was held reasonable and in the interest
 169

of the general public as the purpose of said Section 145 was to ensure

that the general public had adequate notice that a society they might

have to deal with, was unregistered. Paragraph 3 of the said

judgement reads as follows:

“3. According to the case of the petitioners, the designated

officers are entitled to manage the affairs of the co-operative

societies as entrusted to them by the members, without any

interference by the legislature, and the restrictions imposed by

the impugned provisions are violative of their fundamental

rights as protected by Articles 19(1)(c) and (g) of the

Constitution. The members of a co-operative society, according

to the argument, are entitled to conduct the affairs of the society

in accordance to their choice and any interference in this is

uncalled for. We were not able to fully appreciate this argument,

and so we pointed out to Mr. Anil B. Divan, the learned Counsel

for the petitioners (that is, the appellants in Civil Appeal No.

2706/88), that there was no impediment in the running of the

societies, and the impugned provisions are attracted only in such

cases where the societies are desirous of being registered under

the Act with a view to take advantage of the provisions

thereunder. The Act does not place any restriction on the

formation of any association or union for carrying on any trade

or business, nor does it require such unions or societies to be

registered under the Act. The petitioner-societies were free to

proceed as they wished (of course, they could 'not be allowed to

 170

contravene any law) without being subjected to any condition

placed by the Act, but in that case they would not be entitled to

the benefits of the Act. Mr. Divan appreciating the situation,

explained his point by saying that as a consequence of Section

145 of the Act an unregistered society is not entitled to use the

word "co-operative" in its name or title (without the sanction of

the State Government) and this by itself puts the society under a

disadvantage, affecting its trade and business. The learned

Counsel fairly conceded that he is not in a position to rely on

any other circumstance in support of his argument based on

Articles 19(1)(c ) and (g). We do not find any merit in this point

which is solely based on the ban of the use of the word "co-

operative", by Section 145. The restriction is clearly reasonable

and in the interest of the general public and is, therefore, saved

by Clause (6) of Article 19. The purpose of Section 145 is to

ensure that the general public has adequate notice that a society

they may have to deal with, is unregistered and, therefore, not

amenable to the provisions of the Act, before taking a decision

about their relationship with the same. The persons desirous of

running such a society have been placed under an obligation to

publicly declare that their society is not registered under the

Act, and we do not see any valid objection to this course. The

main argument of Mr. Divan is, therefore, overruled.

5. In AIR 1958 A.P. 773 (Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College

Committee Nidubroly & Ors. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh &

 171

ors.) the Hon'be Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if a society is

not registered under the Act, it would have the character of an

association which cannot sue or be sued except in the name of all the

members of the association. The registration of the society confers on

it certain advantages. Once the society is registered it enjoys the

status of a legal entity apart from the members constituting the same

and is capable of suing or being sued. Relying on said judgment, it is

humbly submitted that similar fate is of unregistered waqf.

Registration of waqf confers right upon the Central Board of Waqfs to

sue or be sued in respect of the affairs and properties of the registered

waqf while in case of unregistered waqf of alleged Babri Masjid the

Sunni Central Board of Waqfs has no right to maintain instant suit as

such the instant sit is liable to be dismissed. Relevant extracts from

paragraph 19 of the said judgment reads as follows:

“(19) The basic assumption made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the registration of society can be equated to the

granting of a Royal Charter, does not rest on a solid foundation.

A society registered under the Societies Registration Act is an

association of individuals which comes into existence with

certain aims and objects.

If it is not registered as a society under the Act, it would have the

charter of a association which cannot sue or be sued except in a

name of all the members of the association. The registration of

the Society confers on it certain advantages. The members as

well as the Governing body of the Society are not always the
 172

same. Even though the members of the Society or the

Governing body fluctuate from time to time, the identity of the

society is sought to be made continuous by reason of the

provisions of the Societies Registration Act.

The Society continues to exist and to function as such until its

dissolution under the provisions of the Act. The properties of

the society continue to be vested in the trustees or in the

governing Body irrespective of the fact that the members of the

society for the time being are not the same as they were before;

nor will be the same thereafter.

By reason of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act,

once the society is registered with the Registrar, by the filing of the

memorandum and certified copy of the rules and regulations and the

Registrar has certified that the society is registered under the Act, it

enjoys the status of a legal entity apart from the constituting the same

and is capable of suing or being sued.

But the fact to be noted is that what differentiates a society

registered under the Act of 1860 from a company incorporated

under the Companies Act is that the latter case the share-holders

of the company hold the properties of the company as their own

whereas in the case of a society registered under the Act of

1860, the members of the society or the members of the

governing body do not have any proprietary or beneficial

interest, in the property the society holds.

Having regard to the fact that the members of the general body
 173

of the society do not have any proprietary or beneficial interest

in the property of the society, it follows that upon its dissolution,

they cannot claim any interest in the property of the dissolved

society. The Societies Registration Act, therefore, does not

create in the members of the registered society any interest other

than that of bare trustees. What all the members are entitled to

is the right of management of the properties of the society

subject to certain conditions.

6. In AIR 1959 MP 172 (Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag V.

Hanskumar Kishanchand) the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court

held that the registration under the Societies Registration Act, confers

on a society a legal personality and made it corporation or quasi-

corporation capable of entering into contracts. Relying on said

judgment it is submitted that unregistered alleged Babri Mosque waqf

Cannot confer any right upon the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs to

make them competent to maintain the instant suit for and on behalf of

such unregistered waqf. Relevant paragraph 13 of the said judgment

reads as follows:

“13. It is not disputed that the plaintiff society being a registered

society under the Societies Registration Act is a corporation or a

quasi-corporation capable of entering into a contract. The

registration confers on the plaintiff Sabha a legal personality

and consequently any contract entered into by it would bo

legally enforceable, unless it was vitiated by an illegality or was

shown to be void for any other reason.”

 174

7. The United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 provides that

under its Section 4(1) within three months of the commencement of

the said Act, the local Government shall by notification in the gazette

appoint for each District Commissioner of Waqfs for the purpose of

making a survey of all waqfs in such district and to submit his enquiry

report to the local Government under Section 4(5) of the said Act.

Section 5(1) of the said Act provides that the local Government shall

forward a copy of the Commissioner's report to each of the Central

Boards and each Central Board shall, as soon as possible, notify in the

gazette the waqfs relating to the particular sect to which, accordingl to

such report, the provisions of that Act apply. Only after such

notification a waqf can be registered under Chapter III. As such, after

declaration of the notification under Section 5(1) of the said Act

invalid by the learned trial Judge in disposing of the issue No. 17 in

the instant wuit vide His order dated 21.04.1966, the registration of

the waqf based on said notification became ab initio null and void.

8. The relevant provisions of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs

Act, 1936 read as follows:

“4. (1) Within three months of the commencement of this Act

the Local Government shall by notification in the Gazette

appoint for each district a gazette officer, either by name or by

official designation, for the purpose of making a survey of all

waqfs in such district, whether subject to this Act or not. Such

Officer shall be called “Commissioner of Waqfs.

a.....
 175

5) The Commissioner of Waqfs shall submit his report of inquiry

to the Local Government.

(5). (1) The Local Government shall forward a copy of the

Commissioner's report to each of the Central boards constituted

under this Act. Each Central Board shall as soon as possible

notify in the Gazette the waqfs relating to the particular sect to

which, according to such report, the provisions of this Act apply.

38. (1) Every waqf whether subject to this Act or not and

whether created before or after the commencement of this Act

shall be registered at the office of the Central Board of the sect

to which the waqf belongs.

(2) The mutwalli of every such waqf shall make an application

for registration within three months of his entering into

possession of the waqf property, or in the case of waqf existing

at the time of formation of the first Central Board, within three

months of the formation of such Central Board.

(3) Application for registration may also be made by a waqif or

his descendants or a beneficiary of the waqf, or any Muslim

belonging to the sect to which the waqf belongs.

(6) On receipt of an application for registration the Central

Board may before registering the waqf make such inquiries as it

thinks fit in respect of its genuineness and validity and the

correctness of any particulars in the statement filed with the

application and when the application is made by any person

other than the person holding possession of any property or

 176

properties belonging to the waqf, the Central Board shall give

notice of the application to the person in possession and hear

him, if he desired to be heard, before passing final orders.

40. The Central Board may direct a mutawalli to apply for the

registration of a waqf, or to supply any information regarding a

waqf or may itself collect such information and may cause the

waqf to be registered or may at any time amend the register of

waqfs.”

9. Sections 18(1) and 18(2)(e) & (g) of the United Provinces

Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 provide that the Central Board can

maintain suit in respect of administration and recovery of lost

properties only of those waqfs to which the provisions of the

said Act applies. As the provisions of the said Act does not

apply to the waqf inrespect whereof notification under Section

5(1) has not been made and in furtherance whereof has not been

registered under Section 38 or Section 40, as the case may be.

Be it mentioned herein that Section 38(1) which is a mandatory

provision provides that the mutawalli of every waqf whether

created before or after the commencement of that Act shall

make an application for registration within three months of its

entering into possession of the waqf property or in the case of

waqf existing at the time of formation of the first Central Board

within three months of jthe formation of such Central Board.

Sections 18(1), 18(2)(e), (f) & (g) of the said Act read as

follows:
 177

“18. (1) The general superintendence of all waqfs to which this

Act applies shall vest in the Central Board. The Central Board

shall do all things reasonable and necessary to ensure that waqf

or endowments under its superintendence are properly

maintained, controlled superintendence are properly maintained,

controlled and administered and duly appropriated to the

purposes for which they were founded or for which they exist.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-

section (1) the powers and duties of the Central Board shall

be---

(e) to institute and defend suits and proceedings in a Court of

Law relating to

administration of waqfs,

taking of accounts,

appointment and removal of mutawallis in accordance with the

deed of waqf if it is traceable,

putting the mutawallis in possession or removing them from

possession,

settlement or modification of any scheme of management,

(f) to sanction the institution of suits under Section 92 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to waqfs to which this

Act applies;

(g) to take measures for the recovery of lost properties;

….”

10. Prior to 21.4.1966 that is the date of invalidating the notification

 178

under Section (51) of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936

by the learned trial Judge in the instant suit, the Uttar Pradesh Muslim

Wakfs Act, 1960 (Act No. XVI of 1960) had already come into force

wherein under Section 6(2) the Commissioner of Wakfs was

empowered to make inquiries in respect of wakfs and to send his

inquiry report to each of the Boards and State government under

Section 6(4) of the said Act for its notifying the same in official

gazette. Thereafter the notified wakfs were to be registered under

Section 29 or 31 as the case may be. The aforesaid provisions of the

said Act read as follows:

6. Survey of Wakfs.-(1) …

(2) The Commissioner of wakfs shall after making such

inquiries as he may consider necessary, ascertain and determine-

(a) the number of all wakfs in the area showing the Shia wakfs

and Sunni wakfs separately,

(b) the nature and objects of each wakf,

(c ) the gross income of the property comprised in each wakf,

(d) the amount of revenue, cesses, rates taxes and surcharge

payable to the Government or the local authority in respect of

each wakf property,

(e) expenses incurred in the realization of the income and the pay

or other remuneration of the mutawalli of each wakf,

(f) [omitted by U.P. Act 28 of 1971]

(g) such other particulars relating to each wakf as may be

prescribed,
 179

Provided that where there is a dispute as to whether a particular

wakf is a Shia wakf or Sunni wakf and there are clear

indications in the recitals of the deed of wakf as to the sect to

which it pertains, such dispute shall be decided on the basis of

such recitals.

…...

(4) The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner of wakfs or

Assistant Commissioner of Wakfs shall submit his report of

enquiry containing the particulars mentioned in sub-section (2)

above to each of the Boards and the State Government and the

State Government shall, as soon as possible, notify in the

official Gazette the wakfs relating to particular sect, to which,

according to such report, the provisions of this Act apply.

29. Registration.- (1) Every other wakf, whether subject to this

Act or not and whether created before or after the

commencement of this Act shall be registered at the office of the

Board of sect to which the wakf belongs.

(2) Application for registration shall be made by the mutawalli

within three months of his entering into possession of the wakf

property.

Provided that such application may be made by the wakif or his

descendants or a beneficiary of the wakf or any Muslim

belongint to the sect to which the wakf belongs.

…...

(7) On receipt of an application for registration, the Board may

 180

before the registration of the wakf, make such inquiries as it

thinks fit in respect of its genuineness and validity and the

correctness of any particular therein, and, when, the application

is made by any person other than the person registering the

wakf, give notice of the application to the person administering

the wakf property and shall, after affording him a reasonable

opportunity of hearing pass such orders as it may deem fit.

(8) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board under sub-

section (7) may, by application within 90 days from the date of

that order refer the dispute to the tribunal which shall give its

decision thereon.”

31. Power to cause registration of wakf and to amend register.-

The Board may direct a mutawalli to apply for the registration

of a wakf, or to supply any information regarding a wakf or may

itself collect information and cause the wakf to be registered or

may at any time amend the register of wakf.”

11. As after invalidation of notification under Section 5(1) of the

United Provinces Act, 1936 neither fresh survey of the waqf in

question was caused under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Muslim

Wakfs Act, 1960 nor application for registration was made under

Section 29 (2) of the said Act of 1960 within a period of three months

nor the Board did take any steps for registration of the said wakf under

Section 31 of the said Act of 1960. The alleged wakf remained

unregistered wakf to which neither 1936 Act nor 1960 Act or 1995 Act

are applicable as such the Plaintiff Wakf board has no locus standi and
 181

instant Suit is hit by the provision of Section 87(1) of the Wakf Act,

1995. As such, the instant suit is not fit for being continued, heard,

tried or decided and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

12. Be it mentioned herein that in the Wakf Act, 1954 since repealed

Section 66.E had also provision similar to Section 87(1) of the Wakf

Act, 1995. Section 66.E of the Wakf Act, 1954 reads as follows:

66.E. Institution of suit or legal proceedings in certain cases.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the

time being in force, no suit or legal proceeding in respect of the

administration or management of wakf, or any other matter or

dispute for the determination or decision of which provisions

have been made in this Act, shall be instituted in any court or

Tribunal except under, and in accordance with, the provisions of

this Act.

13. It is also note worthy that Section 6 of the Societies Registration

Act, 1860 and Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 filing of

suits by or against the registered Societies or Registered Firms

respectively and thereby debar office bearer or partner of unregistered

Society or Firm for or on behalf of such Societies or Firms allows. For

the purpose of interpretation intention of the legislatures may be

inferred by importing form those provisions.

Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 reads as

follows:

Suits by and against societies.- Every society registered under

this Act may sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman,

 182

or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the

rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such

determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed

by the governing body for the occasion:

Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a

claim, or demand against the society, to sue the President or

Chairman, or Principal Secretary or the trustees thereof, if on

application to the governing body some other officer or person

be not nominated to be the defendant.

Section 69 (1) & (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 reads as

follows:

“69. Effect of non-registration.- (1) No suit to enforce a

right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be

instituted in any Court by or on a behalf of any persons suing as

a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be

or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered

and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of

Firms as a partner in the firm : Provided that the requirement of

registration of firm under this sub-section shall not apply to the

suits or proceedings instituted by the heirs or legal

representatives of the deceased partner of a firm for accounts of

the firm or to realise the property of the firm.

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be

instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third

 183

party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or

have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the

firm.

14. In AIR 1961 SC 808 (C. Mohammad Uunus V. Syed Unnissa &

Ors.) the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that under Section 2 of the

Shariat Act, 1937 in questions relating to charities and charitable

institutions and charitable and religious endowments, a custom or

usage would prevail. But Section 2 of the as amended by Madras Act,

XVIII of 1949 the rule of decision even in matters regarding wakf

relating to above subject is the Muslim personal law notwithstanding a

custom or usage to contrary. Though the provision affect vested rights

of the parties, the intention of the legislature was clear and the act

applied to all cities and provinces pending even in appeal on the date

when the Act was brought into operation. Relevant paragraph Nos. 9

and 10 of the said judgment read as follows:

“9. Under the Shariat Act, 1937, as framed, in questions relating

to charities and charitable institutions and charitable and

religious endowments, the custom or usage would prevail. But

the Act enacted by the Central Legislature was amended by

Madras Act 18 of 1949 and s. 2 as amended provides :

"Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all

questions regarding intestate succession, special property of

females, including personal property inherited or obtained

under contract, or gift or any other provision of personal

law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including Tallaq, ila,

 184

zihar, lian, Khula and Mubarrat, maintenance, dower,

guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties and wakfs the

rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall

be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."

10. Manifestly by this act, "the rule of decision" in all questions

relating to intestate succession and other specified matters

including wakfs where the parties to the dispute are Muslims is

the Muslim Personal Law. The terms of the Act as amended are

explicit. Normally a statute which takes away or impairs vested

rights under existing laws is presumed not to have retrospective

operation. Where vested rights are affected and the question is

not one of procedure, there is a presumption that it was not the

intention of the legislature to alter vested rights. But the

question is always one of intention of the legislature to be

gathered from the language used in the statute. In construing an

enactment, the court starts with a presumption against

retrospective if the enactment seeks to affect vested rights : but

such a presumption may be deemed rebutted by the amplitude

of the language used by the Legislature. It is expressly enacted

in the Shariat Act as amended that in all questions relating to the

matters specified, "the rule of decision" in cases where the

parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law. The

injunction is one directed against the court : it is enjoined to

apply the Muslim Personal Law in all cases relating to the

 185

matters specified notwithstanding any custom or usage to the

contrary. The intention of the legislature appears to be clear; the

Act applies to all suits and proceedings which were pending on

the date when the Act came into operation as well as to suits and

proceedings filed after that date. It is true that suits and

proceedings which have been finally decided would not be

affected by the enactment of the Shariat Act, but if a suit or

proceeding be pending even in appeal on the date when the Act

was brought into operation, the law applicable for decision

would be the Muslim Personal Law if the other conditions

prescribed by the Act are fulfilled. In our view, the High Court

was right in holding that it was bound to apply the provisions of

the Shariat Act as amended by Madras Act 18 of 1949 to the suit

filed by the plaintiffs.

15. In the application for registration of waqf made under Section

38 of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, XIII of 1936 being

exhibit 38 on pages 199 to 205 of the volume No. 11 of the documents

filed in the instant suit by the Plaintiffs in its column no. 3 it has been

stated that there is no waqf but the waqifs are Emperor Babar and

Nawab S'-a-Dat Ali Khan. Below column no. 16 there is a note which

says that the claim of the alleged Mutwalli's family is that within

mentioned property said to be granted for maintenance of the alleged

Babari Mosque at somewhere else is not a waqf but a Service Grant in

their favour. The aforesaid application tells Emperor Babar and

Nawab Sa'-a-Dat Ali Khan as joint waqifs which is quite impossible

 186

because the Emperor Babar died in 1530 AD while Nawa Sa'-a-Dat

Ali Khan ascended on throne in 1732 AD as such the persons who

were not contemporary and there was a gap of 202 years between the

former and latter they cannot be joint waqifs of same and one waqf

alleged to be Babri Masjid Waqf. This fact alone totally falsify the

claim of the plaintiffs that the alleged waqf was created by the

Emperor Babar. The grant in question was also a service grant not a

waqf. The person who made application namely, Syed Kalbe Hussain

had also his vested interest as it appears from the note of the

application that his intention was to file a case against the persons who

were enjoying their property claiming the same to be a service grant;

from being motivated with such spirit and he made the aforesaid

application for registration making fraudulent dishonest false and

frivolous statements.

16. Be it mentioned herein that the plaintiffs have used fraud upon

this Hon'ble Court by producing wrong transliteration of the note

contained in said application for registration. Though in its original

Urdu text it has been recorded that the persons recorded in revenue

records do not consider it waqf but in Hindi transliteration thereof the

plaintiffs by deleting the word 'nahi' of vital importance which finds

place in between the words 'waqf' and 'tasleem' have made it meant

that those persons says that it is waqf and nankar mafi. This fact came

into light when the original text was read over in open Court by the

Hon'ble Justice S.U. Khan, J. during my argument.

17. In the list of Sunni Waqfs published in supplement to the

 187

Government Gazette of United Provinces dated 26th February, 1944

under Section 5 of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, XIII of 1936 to which,

according to the report of the Commissioner of waqfs, the provisions

of the said Act apply; on page 11 at serial no. 26 (being the volume

No. 12 of the documents filed in the instant suit) it has been notified

that Babri Mosque is located at Qasba shahnawa not at Ramkot in

ayodhya. Hindi transliteration of relevant page of the said gazette

notification containing the name of Badshah Babar on serial No. 26 is

on page no. 341 to 345 of volume 12 of the documents filed in the

instant suit. Hindi Transliteration of the proforma of the list as well as

the entries against item no. 26 of the said reads as follows:

Ukkes okfdQ ;k oDQ Ukke&eroyh ekStwnk UkkS b;rs tk;nkn edwQk

26 Ckn'kkg ckcj LkS;n eksgEen tdh ercyh

efLtn ckcjh dLck
'kkguck Mkd[kkuk n'kZuxj
From the above Gazette notification dated 26th February, 1944 it

appears that badshah Babar had erected a Mosque in Shahnawa town

within the postal jurisdiction of Darshan Nagar of which Syed

Mohammed Zaki was Mutawalli. The said gazette notification did not

say that there was a mosque in Ramkot Pargana Havelli, Ayodhya in

the district of Faizabad. As such said Babri Mosque Waqf cannot be

construed to be waqf of any other Babri Mosque located anywhere

else.

18. In the said gazette notification dated 26th February, 1944 (on

page 479 of the volume 12 of the documents filed in the instant suit)

another Babri Mosque along with the Mausoleum of the Emperor

 188

Babur has been mentioned in some other district perhaps in the district

of Knapur. It is well known recognized and admitted fact that the

Mausoleum of the Emperor Babur is in Kabul, Afghanistan not in

India. This is glaring example of the facts of fraud, forgery and

fabrication.

19. From the above mentioned relevant entries of the list of the

gazette notification dated 26th February, 1944 it becomes clear that the

waqf commissioners had not discharged their duties as it was cost

upon them under the provisions of the United Provinces Muslim

Waqfs Act, 1936 and in very casual manner either on hearsay they

have listed several properties as of waqfs or the concern Waqf

commissioner were active participant in the fraud, forgery and

fabrication.

20. The Waqf Commissioner Faizabad's report dated 8th Fibruary,

1941 says that it appears that in 935 A.H. Emperor Babar built Babari

or Janam Asthan Mosque at Ajudhya and appointed one Syed Abdul

Baqi as the Mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque and for its

maintenance an annual grant of Rs. 60 was allowed by the said

emperor which continued till the fall of the Mughal kingdom. Later

on said grant was increased by Nawab Sa-a-Dat Ali Khan to Rs.

302/3/6 but no original papers about this grant by the king of Oudh are

available. Relevant extract of said report reads as follows:

“It appears that in 935 A.H. Emperor Babar built this mosque

and appointed Syed Abdul Baqi as the mutwalli and khatib of

 189

the Mosque (vide clause 2 statement filed by Syed Mohammad

Zaqi to whom a notice was issued under the wakf Act.) An

annual grant of Rs. 60/- was allowed by the Emperor for

maintenance of the mosque and the family of the first mutwalli

Abdul Baqi. This grant was continued till of the fall of the

Moghal Kingdom at Delhi and the ascendancy of the Nawabs of

Oudh.

According to Cl. 3 of the written statement of Mohammad Zaki

nawab Sa'adat Ali Khan, King of Oudh increased the annual

grant to Rs. 302/3/6. No original papers about this grant by the

king of Oudh are available.”

From the aforesaid extract it is crystal clear that the Commissioner on

the basis of mere statement of Syed Mohammed Zaki found that the

Disputed Janam Asthan Structure was a mosque built by emperor

Babar which is in total discard to his duty cast upon him under said

Act XIII of 1936.

21. Commissioner's said report dated 8th Feb. 1941 says that after

the mutiny the British Govt. continued the above grant in cash upto

1864 and in the later year in lieu of cash some revenue free land in

village Bhuraipur and Sholeypur was granted. The said report further

records that Syed Mohammed Zaki produced a copy of the grant order

of the British Govt. which was made on condition that Rajab Ali and

Mohammad Asghar would render Police, Military or Political service

etc. thereafter the commissioner records that the above-mentioned

 190

object is elucidated in Urdu translation as follows:

“After the Mutiny, the British Government, also continued the

above grant in cash upto 1864, and in the latter year in lieu of

the cash grant, the British Government ordered the grant of

some revenue free land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur. A

copy of this order of the British Government has been filed by

the objector Syed Mohammad Zaki (vide Flag A). this order

says that 'the Chief Commissioner under the authority of the

Governor General in Council is pleased to maintain the Grant

for so long as the object for which the grant has been made is

kept up on the following conditions'. These conditions require

Rajab Ali and Mohammad Asghar to whom the sunned was

given, to perform duties of land holder in the matter of Police

Military or political service etc. The object mentioned above is

elucidated in the Urdu translation as follows:-

Thus the original object of the state grant of emperor Babar and

nawab Sa'adat Ali Khan is continued in this Sunnad by the

British government also i.e. maintenance of the mosque. The

Nankar is to be enjoyed by the grantees for so long as the object

of the grant i.e. the mosque is in existence.”

22. In fact, this Urdu elucidation is creation of the said Waqf

Commissioner as it is not in the alleged Sunned being page 33 of the

volume 6 of the documents filed in the instant suit. Hindi

transliteration and meaning of the said elucidative Urdu text as

 191

incorporated in the Waqf Commissioner said report reads as follows:

ml ukudkj dks tcrd fd efLtn ftlds okLrs ;s ukudkj nh x;h Fkh cjdjkj gSA

glcs 'kjk;r] ntZ tSy dk;e Qjekrs gSa (tks 'krsZ fy[kh x;h gSa mls dgrs gS)a

A handwritten copy of the said Sunnad with some error has been

reproduced at page 27 of volume 10 of the documents filed in the

instant suit. In the said alleged original version of the grant Urdu

elucidation did not find place. From the said alleged original version

of the alleged grant, it becomes crystal clear that the grant, if any, it

was a service grant for rendering police, military and political services

to the British Govt. against the enemies of the British Govt. Be it

mentioned herein that in those days in the eyes of the Britishers the

persons who were fighting against them for liberation of their

motherland i.e. India they were considered to be mutineers and

enemies of the Britishers. As such it can be inferred that the said

service grant was given for helping the Britishers to defeat and rout

the freedom fighters, not for a good cause of maintaining any Mosque.

Full text of the alleged SUNNAD from page 33 of Vol. 6 (hand written

copy on page 27 of Vol. 10 that is not accurate) is reproduced as

follows:

Chief Commissioner

“It having been established after due enquiry, that Rajub ally

and Mohamad Usgar received a Cash Nankar of (Rs. 302.3.6)

Rupees three hundred two and three annas and six pie from

Mouzah Shanwah Zila Faizabad from former government. The

Chief Commissioner, under the authority of the Governor

 192

General in Council is pleased to maintain the grant for long as

the object for which the grant has been made is kept the

following conditions. That they shall have surrendered all

sunnads, title deeds, and other documents relative to the grant.

That they and their successor shall strictly (illegible) all the

duties of land-holder in matter of police, and an (torn) or

political service that they may be required of them by the

Authorities and that they shall never fall under the just suspicion

of favouring in any way designs of enemies of the British

Government. If any one of these conditions is broken by Rajub

ally and Mohamad Usgar or their successor the grant will

immediately resumed.”

23. From the aforesaid alleged to be original text of the grant as

produced by the plaintiffs it becomes crystal clear that Urdu

interpolation has been done by the said Commissioner with sole

motive to deprive the hindus from their sacred shrine of Sri

Ramjanamsthan which has been described as Babri Mosque in the

plaint as well as Janam Asthan Mosque in the said commissioner's

report. From the words 'Janam Asthan Mosque' itself it becomes clear

that the alleged Mosque was erected over the birth place of someone,

and since time immemorial said place is being worshiped by the

Hindus asserting that it is the birth place of the Lord of Universe Sri

Ram it is needless to say that according to the said Commissioner, the

alleged Mosque was erected over the janamsthan of Sri Ramlala.

24. The said Waqf Commissioner after recording the facts that Syed
 193

Mohammed Zaki had submitted before him that the said British grant

was a service grant in favour of his predecessors for rendering police,

military and political services to the Britishers subject to resumption

on nonfulfilment of the aforesaid conditions thus it was not a waqf

property granted for maintenance of the alleged mosque; the

commissioner without any cogent evidence rejected his said

contention simply stating that he did not agree to that view because

the grant was not originally granted by the Britishers but it was

continuation of original grant granted by the Muslim rulers as also for

the reasons that after the Ajodhya riot of 1934 Syed Mohammad Zaki

had presented an application to Deputy Commissioner in which he has

described himself as Mutawalli or trustee of the mosque and of the

trust attached thereto. In fact, prior to coming on this reference, in the

preceding paragraphs of his said report the said commissioner himself

has recorded that no paper of old grant even of the Nawabs of Oudh

was available and placed before him. It is contrary to the law of

evidence to draw inference on the basis of the statement of a person

whose credibility was found suspicious, doubtful and non-reliable. As

in his report the commissioner records that said Syed Mohammed

Zaki was an opium addict and most unsuited for the proper

performance of the duties expect of a Mutawalli of an ancient and

historical mosque, which was not kept even in proper repairs for

which reason he recommended to discharge the said Mutwalli.

Relevant extract from said report is reproduced as follows:

“Syed Mohammad Zaki, the objector, who is know as the

 194

Mutwalli of the Babari mosque, and also calls himself as such

raises an objection to the land in Sholeypur and Bhuranpur

being regarded as a waqf, because he says the grant has been

made for his substenance only (in Urdu). I do not agree with

this view of his. The written statement filed by Mohammad

Zqki himself is sufficient to show that the grant has been

continued ever since 935 A.H. Only because he and his

ancestors were required to look after the mosque and keep it in

proper condition out of the income allowed to them and also to

provide for the maintenance of himself and his ancestors out of

a part of the same grant.

Clearly then the grant of land to Mohammad Zaki must be

regarded as a Waqf, the purpose of which is the maintenance of

the religious building know as the Babari Mosque.

The learned counsel for Mohammad Zaki has also argued.

1) That the particular grant of land in Sholeypur and Bhrepur has

been made by the british Government. A Non-Muslim body and

hence the grant cannot be regarded as Muslim Waqf.

2) That the grant is a conditional one, being subject to resumption

on non-fulfillment by the grantee of any of the police Military

or duties enjoined in the Sunnad, and that on account of these

conditions the grant cannot be classed as Muslim Waqf.

I do not agree with either view. Firstly the British Government

only continued a grant which had been made by the Muslim

Government originally and in these circumstances, I cannot but

 195

regard the grant as a waqf.

3) As for the second point the conditions have been imposed

upon the grantee, and not upon the way in which the grant to be

utilized, which latter purpose is recognized as maintenance of

the mosque. It is clear that if the conditions are broken the

enjoyment of the grant by the Mutwalli himself for his

sustenance is to be withdrawn apparently implying that any

other mutwalli will then be appointed to administer the grant for

the original purpose of maintaining the mosque. I am

strengthened in this view because I find the mention of the

object of the grant i.e. maintenance of the mosque at the very

outset of the Sunnad and the desirability thereof seems to be

clear from the whole Sunnad.

I also find that after the Ajodhya riot of 1934, Syed Mohammad

Zaki presented an application (Flag Ex.A) to Deputy

Commissioner, in which he clearly described himself as

Mutwalli or trustee of the mosque, pay of Imam Muezzin and

the provisions of Iftari etc., during Ramzan after deduction of

Rs. 20/- per month for sustenance of the Mutwalli himself. The

pay of the Mutwalli spends a much greater portions of the

income on his own personal needs.”

25. The Waqf Commissioner Faizabad in his said report dated 8th

Feb. 1941 ways that he examined Abdul Ghaffar, the then Pes Niwaz

who deposed that the imam was not being paid for last 11 years and

thereafter the said commissioner says that the then Syed Mohammad
 196

Zaki was an opium addict and most unsuited to the proper

performance of the duties expected from a Mutwalli of an ancient and

historical mosque, thus he was liable to be discharged from his duties.

Relevant extract from the said report which is on page nos. 45 to 48 of

the volume No. 6 of the documents filed in the instant suit read as

follows:

“The present Mutwalli is of course a Shia. There is no information

as to the sect to which Abdul Baqi himself belonged, but the

founder Emperor Babar was admittedly a Sunni, the Imam and

Muezzin at the mosque are Sunni and only Sunnis say their

prayer in it. Abdul Ghaffar the present Pesh niwaz was

examined by me. He swear that the ancestors of Mohammad

Zaki were Sunnis who latter on was converted to Shia. He

further said that he did not receive his pay during the last 11

years. In 1936 the Mutwalli executed a pronote promising to

pay the arrear of pay by installment but upto this time nothing

actually was done. I think therefore that this should be regarded

as a Sunni Trust.

I must say in the end that from the reports that I have heard about

the present Mutwalli, he is an opium addict (vide his statement

flag Ez) and most unsuited to the proper performance of the

duties expected of a Mutwalli of an ancient and historical

mosque, which is not kept even in proper repairs. It is desirable

that, if possible, a committee of management should be

appointed to supervise the proper maintenance and repairs of

 197

the mosque and discharge of his duties by the Mutwalli.”

26. From the second report of the Commissioner of Waqf, Faizabad

being report dated 8th February, 1941 it becomes clear that the Imam

was not being paid since 1930 and the alleged Mutwalli was an opium

addict and most unsuitable person and in 1934 riots on 27th March, the

alleged Mosque was demolished it can be safely inferred that Sri

Ramjanamsthan temple structure was being used by the Hindus as

their sacred place of worship and it was not being used as a mosque

because it cannot be imagined that a person will discharge duty of

imam without getting salary for such a long period as according to

Islamic law, only salary is the prescribed means of livelihood no imam

can survive for want of salary as such in fact neither there was any

mosque nor there was any mutwalli or imam.

27. From exhibit-62 being page nos. 367 to 405 of volume 12 of the

documents filed in the instant suit which is a report of the four

historians it becomes crystal clear that how said report has been

prepared having some design in mind or inadvertently and negligently

which reflects from page 397 of the said volume where the dimension

of the vedi described by Tieffenthaler has been wrongly reproduced as

“a square platform 5 inches above ground, 5 inches long and 4 inches

wide, constructed of mud and covered with lime. The Hindus call it

Bedi, that is to say, the birth place. The reason is that here there was a

house in which Beschan (Bishan=Vishnu) took the form of Ram.”

though correct dimension given by Tiffenthaler reads “a square chest,

raised five inches from the ground, covered with lime, about five ells
 198

in length by not more than four in breadth. The Hindoos call it bedi,

the cradle; and the reason is, that there formerly stood here the house

in which Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram.” This

correct translation is given in the book “Modern Traveller” volume 3,

published by James Duncan in 1828. It is crystal clear that in the

report of said historians the word 'ells' has been translated as 'inches' in

fact, ells means yards which has been correctly translated in the

translation made available by the Govt. of India to this Hon'ble Court.

Tieffenthelar has not stated that the Bedi was of mud, it is creation of

the mind of the aforesaid historians, as such said report of the

historians is not reliable for the reasons of being prepared by

incompetent persons or for being biased, motivated.

28. The page no. 155 of colume 6 of the documents filed in the

instant suit purported to be copy of a folio of a register contains a

pedigree wherein it has been written that the mafi was created for the

muezzin and khattib of masjid Babari of Oudh date and year of the

waqf is unknown to Syed Baqi thereafter his son Syed (illegible) Ali,

his son Syed Hussain Ali who was in possession for about 60 years

now his son-in-law Rajab Ali and his daughter's son Muhammad

Asgar are in existence and were in receipt of cash from village

Shahnawa vide receipt (illegible) till fasali year 1263. In the year

1264 fasali enquiry about mafi was started but riot took place

(illegible) crop (illegible year 63 fasali was found (illegible) original

(illegible) of and is document (illegible) in respect of mafe (illegible)

settlement of village versus (illegible). A copy of the said contents has

 199

also been compiled in the said volume no. 6 of the documents filed in

the instant suit on its page nos. 157 to 161.

29. From the said enquiry report it appears that during the period of

332 years people of five generations incouding Syed Baqi held the

office of muezzin and khattib of alleged Babri mosque during the

period of 1528 to 1860 which means 66½ years was average of each

generation which is quite impossible as according to Life Insurance

Corporation's assessment average span of a change of generation is 26

years. And this pedigree is completely false, forged and fabricated

one. During this period 16 generations of the Mughal rulers elapsed

average whereof comes about 20¾ years. In the matter of Radha

Krishna V. State of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down

the principle of law to evaluate and judge authenticity of a pedigree

which has been reproduced in this argument at relevant place.

30. The alleged documents and/or transliteration thereof being page

nos. 53 to 61 of the volume no. 6 of the documents filed in the instant

sit tells that the alleged Babri Mosque was demolished by the rioters

and Bairagis on 27th March, 1934. The damaged domes were beyond

repair. The alleged list of damages says that apart from damaging the

building, the Hindus either burnt or took away with them three pieces

of mats, six pieces of mattress, one piece of box, two pieces sandal,

six pieces of curtains, five pieces of pitchers, hundred pieces badhana

mitti four pieces of small earthen pot, one piece chahar, water pot,

(illegible) three pieces, Kasauti Patthar Tarikhi, 3x1½ sq. ft. one piece,

ladder two pieces, large iron jar two pieces. From the said list it is
 200

crystal clear that no engraved stone i.e. inscription was either carried

away by the rioters or destroyed by the rioters. As such the story of

the destruction of inscription is wholly concocted and the inscription

which was prepared by the contractor was done at the instance of the

Britishers to deprive the Hindus from their religious place and make

the said place as bone of contention between Hindus and Muslims to

facilitate their policy of divide and rule. As it has been written in the

East India Gazetteer 1828 p. 352 2nd column las tpara as well as the

preface of the Neil B.E. Baillie's Digest of Moohummudan Law Vol.2

Edn. 1875| Instruction p. xi & xii.

31. In Waqf Commissioner's report dated Feb. 8 1941, it has been

recorded that the alleged Babri Mosque was built by one Abdul Baqi

on being ordered to do so by the Emperor Babur. He records that

there is no document to show that grant was sanctioned to the said

Mosque either by the Mughal Emperors or Nawabs of Oudh, but as in

1864 a sunnud was issued stating that the grant was given to the

grantee for rendering military, police and political services. It may be

presumed that it was granted in continuance of the grants of Mughal

Emperors to Nawabs of Oudh right from the Emperor Babur. The said

Commissioner in his waqf report has committed forgery and

fabrication by inserting certain words in Urdu transcript to show that

the grant was give for maintenance of the alleged Babri Mosque. In

fact, said sunnud is on record and entire sunnud is in English language

and nothing is written in the said sunnud in Urdu transcript as such

question of grant for maintenance of Babri Mosque cannot and does

 201

not arise at all. He says that some return submitted in the office of

Tahsildar in 1995 shows that though major expenses was done by the

grantee for his own maintenance, but a portion thereof was spend on

maintaining alleged Babri mosque its account would have been

submitted to the District Civil court which was made mandatory under

the provisions of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 under Section 3 of

the said Act. Report also says that the Imam was not paid for last 11

years i.e. since 1930 as also that the Mutwalli is a drug addict and the

alleged Mosque is in not good condition as such Mutwalli should be

removed. Relevant portion of the said report read as follows: A copy

of the said report is on pages 44 to 48 of the Vol. 6 of the documents

filed in the instant Suit by the plaintiff's: Relevant extract from the

said report reads as follows:

32. Section 3 of the Musslaman Wakf Act, 1923 (Act No. 42 of

1923) reads as follows:

“3. Obligation to furnish particulars relating to wakf.- (1)

Within six months from the commencement of this Act every

mutwalli shall furnish to the Court within the local limits of

whose jurisdiction the property of the wakf of which he is the

Mutwalli is situated or to any one of two more such Courts, a

statement containing the following particulars, namely:--

(a) a description of the wakf property sufficient for the

identification thereof;

(b) the gross annual income from such property;

(c) the gross amount of such income which has been

 202

collected during the five years preceding the date on which

the statement is furnished, or of the period which has elapsed

since the creation of the wakf, whichever period is shorter;

(d) the amount of the Government revenue and cesses, and

of all rents, annually payable in respect of the wakf property;

(e) an estimate of the expenses annually incurred in the

realisation of the income of the wakf property, based on such

details as are available of any such expenses incurred within

the period to which the particulars under clause (c) relate;

(f) the amount set apart under the wakf for--

(i) the salary of the mutwalli and allowances to

individuals;

(ii) purely religious purposes;

(iii) charitable purposes;

(iv) any other purposes; and

(g) any other particulars which may be prescribed.

(2) Every such statement shall be accompanied by a copy of the

deed or instrument creating the wakf or, if no such deed or

instrument has been executed or a copy thereof cannot be

obtained shall contain full particulars, as far as they are known

to the mutwalli, of the origin, nature and objects of the wakf.

(3) Where--

(a) a wakf is created after the commencement of this Act, or

(b) in the case of a wakf such as is described in section 3 of

the Wakf Validating Act, 1913, the person creating the wakf
 203

or any member of his family or any of his descendants is at

the commencement of this Act alive and entitled to claim

any benefit thereunder.

The statement referred to in sub-section (1) shall be furnished,

in the case referred to in clause (a), within six months of the date on

which the wakf is created or, if it has been created by a written

document, of the date on which such document is executed, or, in the

case referred to in clause (b), within six months of the date of the

death of the person entitled to such benefit as aforesaid' or of the last

survivor of any such persons as the case may be.”

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Premier

Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke and others, AIR

1975 SC 2238, on page 2244 at paragraph No. 10 approved the earlier

quote words:-

Para-10 In Doe V. Bridges, (1831) 1 B & Ad. 847 at page 859 are

the famous and oft quoted words of Lord Tenterden, C.J. saying:

“Where an Act creates an obligation and enforces the

performance in a specified manner, we take it to be a general rule that

performance cannot ber enforced in any other manner.”

This passage was cited with approval by the Earl of Halsbury,

L.C. In Pasmore V. The Oswaldtwistle Urban Disteict Council 1898, AC

387 and by Lord Simonds at ;. 407 in the case of Cutler V. Wandsworth

Stadium Ltd. 1949 AC 398.

Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it

transpires that United Provinces Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 is an Act,

 204

which creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a

specified manner. Under Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, it was

necessary to make a publication before making any registration. Thus,

it was incumbent upon the authorities to act in accordance with law

and should have performed the duties in the manner provided under

the law.

Thus, in this case the procedure as contemplated under Section

5(1) of Waqf Act was not complied with and the registration was made

ignoring the provision, accordingly it has no relevance. It may further

be clarified that it makes not difference whether the registration was

challenged or not. When it is apparent that the obligation to enforce

the Act was not performed in the manner provided under the law by

complying the provisions of Section 5 by the Board. In that event the

registration has no effect and it does not bind with properties. It may

further be clarified that once the Board has tried to get the Waqf

registered and after enquiry the registration was not completed, it

make no difference whether two other modes were applied or not for

registration. Other modes of registration could have been applied in

accordance with law only. It is not the case where it has been urged

that besides two other modes, the 3rd mode was adopted. The sole

mode that was adopted to register this Waqf as Sunni Waqf by holding

an enquiry and without making any publication. Thus in view of the

decision of the Apex Court, the registration is not in accordance with

law.

I have given my anxious thought to the facts of the case. I am of

 205

the view that since there is no valid notification under Section 5(1) of

the Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 in respect of the property in dispute. The

registration though is not disputed and pleadings can be looked into by

this Court. It further transpires that the registration was done by ad-

hearing the provisions of the Act and accordingly it cannot be deemed

to be a valid registration. The registration does not confer any right to

the Waqf Board to maintain the present suit without complying with

the valid required notification. The registration can be done in

accordance with law after adhering the provisions of the Waqf Act,

1936. Thus the registration was not made in accordance with the

provision of Section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act, 1936. It cannot be

deemed to be a valid entry, the Board has no right to maintain the suit

and the same is barred by time.

In view of the finding of issue no. 5(e) it transpires that since

the Waqf Board has no right to maintain the present suit, the suit was

not maintainable under U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 also. The plea

that under Section 19(q) of Waqf Act, the suit could be filed by the

Board is of no avail for the reasons that the property was not validly

registered by complying with the provisions of Section 5(1) of Muslim

Waqf Act, 1936. Issue No. 5(e) and 5(f) are decided against the

plaintiffs.

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 ?

 206

FINDINGS:

The instant suit has been filed by moving an application under

Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. by the plaintiff's. The court has permitted the

plaintiff's to file the suit and after complying of the provisions of

Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., the court gave the permission for institution of

the suit to the plaintiff's. This order was not challenged by the

defendants. Accordingly, I hold that the present suit is a representative

suit and plaintiff's are representing the interest of Muslims and

defendants have been arrayed representing the interest of Hindus. On

behalf of defendants no legal remedy was availed challenging the

order passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 8.8.62 through which

the permission to institute the suit was granted in terms of the

provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.

Issue no. 6 is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff's and

against the defendants.

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?

FINDINGS:

It has been urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that Mahant

Raghubar Das filed suit no. 61/280 of 1885 on behalf of Janma Sthan

and whole body of person interested in Janmsthan were the consenting

parties and accordingly the suit should be treated as representative

 207

suit. On behalf the defendants the assertion has been refuted and it has

been urged before this Court that the suit was not a representative suit,

it was filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in his personal capacity and

whole body of persons of Hindu interested in Janmsthan had no

concern with the aforesaid proceedings. It has further been submitted

that in a representative suit two or more persons having interest in the

matter after obtaining the leave of the Court, can file the representative

suit. While in this case admittedly Mahant Raghubar Das was the sole

plaintiff. Neither Raghuvar Dass or two or more persons having

interest in the property in suit obtained the leave of the Court to file

the same. Consequently, the suit cannot be treated as representative

suit. It may be noticed that Section 92 C.P.C. and Order 1 Rule 8

C.P.C. are applicable in such type of cases and after legislative

changes the gist remains the same. Section 92 C.P.C. corresponds with

section 539 of the Code of 1983 which provides that with the consent

of Advocate General or Collector of a District the suit may be filed in

representative capacity. The main purpose of Section 539 of the Code

of 1983 is to give protection to the public trust of religious nature

from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them.

That is why it was provided that the suit be filed by two persons

having the interest in the trust with the written consent of the

Advocate-General or of the Collector of the District. It was incumbent

upon the Advocate-General before giving consent to satisfy himself

that prima facie there was either breach of trust and necessity of

obtaining directions from the Court. Thereafter the suit could have
 208

been filed with the leave of the Court. After going through the plaint

of R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das vs. Secretary of

State of India and Mohd. Asghar Khateeb, it transpires that the suit

was not filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 539 of the

Code of 1883. Thus the suit was filed in the individual capacity by

Mahant Raghubar Das and with no stretch of imagination it can be

considered as a representative suit. It further transpires that even at the

stage of deciding the civil appeal no. 27 of 1885 the procedure

adopted under Section 539 of the Code of 1883 was not made

applicable. Consequently, the suit cannot be regarded as representative

suit. Thus the judgment in R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885 and civil appeal

no. 27 of 1885 leave no room for doubt that Mahant Raghubar Das

filed suit in his personal capacity and accordingly the judgment cannot

be considered as judgment in rem under Section 41 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. It will be considered as judgment in personam under

Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate any material to show that the procedure as

provided under Section 539 of Code of 1883 was followed at the time

of filing R.S. No.61/280 of 1885. It is a settled proposition of law that

the burden lies on the plaintiffs to show as how the whole body of

persons interested in Janmsthan were interested in the suit and how the

suit can be treated as representative suit. Since the plaintiffs have

failed to discharge his obligation and provided no material before the

Court and on the basis of the plaint of R.S No. 61/280 of 1885 and the

judtment of trial court and appellate court leave no room for doubt that
 209

the suit was filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in his personal capacity

and not on behalf of Janmsthan and whole body of the person

interested in Janmsthan cannot be treated as interested person at the

time of filing the suit or they may be treated to be in representative

capacity under Section 539 of the Code of 1883. Accordingly I hold

that Mahant Raghubar Das filed the suit in his personal capacity. Issue

no. 7(a) is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

ISSUE NO.7(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?

FINDINGS:

It has been contended that Mohd. Asghar or Mutwalli of Babri

Masjid contested the suit on behalf of such mosque. At the cost of

repetition, I may again refer that in view of Section 539 of the Code of

1883. The procedure was not adopted by Mahant Raghubar Das for

filing any representative suit. Accordingly, Mohd. Asghar was

contesting the case in his personal capacity. It further transpires from

the trial court judgement and also of appellate court judgment that

under no event Mohd. Asghar made any objection that the suit should

be dismissed as it has a representative capacity. Suit was not filed in

the representative capacity by Mahant Raghubar Das and procedure

as provided under Section 539 of the Code of 1883 was not adopted.

Thus, it may conclusively be said that the plaintiffs have failed to

 210

point out that Mohd. Asghar was contesting the case in representative

capacity, but on the other hand he was contesting the case in his

personal capacity. Issue No. 7(b) is also decided against the plaintiffs

and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO.7(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?

FINDINGS:

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has raised the plea and the

Court accordingly framed the issue to this effect that in view of the

judgment in R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885, the members of the Hindu

community including the contesting defendants are estopped from

denying the title of the Muslim community.

At the cost of repetition, it may be further referred that in the

above suit, the procedure so was not adopted for filing a representative

suit as contemplated under Section 539 of the Code of 1883. There is

not even iota of evidence to suggest that any point of time two or more

persons along with Mahant Raghubar Das took permission from the

Advocate General or Collector of the district to file the suit on behalf

of Hindu community and the leave was obtained by them before the

institution of the suit. On being specifically questioned, learned

counsel for the plaintiffs could not show any paper to establish the
 211

aforesaid contention. Thus it transpires that Mahant Raghuvar Das had

not filed the above suit in representative capacity. So far as the

question of issue estoppel is concerned, it transpires that the learned

counsel for the plaintiffs have failed to establish any circumstance

under which the principle of issue estoppel apply in this case. It is a

settled proposition of law that the onus to prove that the suit was

instituted in representative capacity is on the plaintiffs who assert the

same. The burden of proof does not lie on the respondents. The

contention of the plaintiffs cannot be considered as good in law in

view of the discussion referred to above. It cannot be regarded at this

stage that whole body of Hindu community was interested in the

outcome of the result or they were at all interested in maintaining the

suit. Thus the question of resjudicata or issue estoppel in this case

does not arise. Thus the factual finding relating to the nature and

character of the suit leave no room for doubt that on the basis of

governing legal principles as well as for non-observance of the

procedure under Section 539 of the Code of 1883, it cannot be re-

agitated on behalf of the plaintiffs successfully that the suit was a

representative suit and principle of issue estoppel apply on the Muslim

community and Hindu community both. Thus, looking to the case

from all or any angle, it transpires that this is not a case of

representative suit, accordingly the Hindu and Muslim community are

not bound by the decision in R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885. This was

simply a personal dispute between Mahant Raghubar Das and the

defendant. The judgment that was rendered by the trial court as well as
 212

by the appellate court can be treated as a judgment in rem. Under

section 43 of Indian Evidence Act it would be treated as judgement in

personam. Consequently, the question of issue estoppel or of filing a

suit in representative capacity is not evident from the facts of the case

and plaintiffs have failed to discharge his onus to provide any material

to substantiate his version before this Court. Accordingly, issue no.7(c)

is decided against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.7(d)

Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the

property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by

plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?

FINDINGS:

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has pointed out that in R.S.

No. 61/280 of 1885 plaintiff Mahant Raghubar Das admitted the title

of Muslim in the property in suit. It has further been suggested that in

one portion or the other the plaintiffs admitted the possession of the

Muslim community. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs

in view of principle of issue estoppel the defendants now cannot re-

agitate the issue before this Court and the judgment is not binding on

them. At this outset, it may be clarified that in view of the foregoing

discussion on above issues, it has been made abundantly clear that

neither any permission was obtained from Advocate General or from

the Collector of the District by Mahant Raghubar Das before filing

the suit in terms of Section 539 of the Code of 1883.It further

transpires that the suit was filed in his personal capacity, consequently
 213

there is nothing on record to suggest that it was a representative suit.

Consequently, if at all there is any admission on the part of Mahant

Raghubar Das, it would not have binding effect on the Hindu

community or Muslim community. This is not a case where a

judgment in rem was passed by the Court and the suit can be termed

as representative suit. Consequently, there was a personal dispute

between Mahant Raghubar Das and Mohd. Asghar. State was also

arrayed as a party. Consequently, there is no effect on the present suit

of the proceedings that took place earlier before the competent Court

in personal dispute between Mahant Raghubar Das and Mohd. Asghar,

the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has further failed to

point out as to which is the portion of the property in suit which was

admitted by Mahant Raghubar Das, plaintiff of the suit belonging to

the Muslim community. After going through the record, it transpires

that the site plan annexed with the plaint of R.S. No.61/280 of 1885

has no bearing on the facts of the case. After considering the entire

material on record, it further transpires that section 115 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 has no application to the facts of the case for the

reasons that only to describe the topography certain places were

shown in the site plan without asking any relief in the plaint. In this

context, the decision in civil appeal no. 27 of 1885 dated 18.03.1886

reveals that the Deputy Commissioner contended that the civil court

was not competent to adjudicate the aforesaid matter for want of

jurisdiction. The relief asked for was in contravention of the clause D

of Section 56 of the Act No. 1 of 1877. Consequently, it can be

 214

inferred from the appellate court judgment that the appeal was also

dismissed by the district judge accepting the contention of the Deputy

Commissioner that the matter was not cognizable by the civil court

under Cause (d) of Section 56 of Act No. 1 of 1877 to set aside any

order passed in criminal proceedings by a Magistrate. Thus with no

stretch of imagination it can be gathered that the civil court entertained

the suit and decided it. On the contrary, it transpires from the bare

reading of the judgment of the appellate court that the civil court

refrained to give any finding and refuse to set aside the order passed

by a Magistrate on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by the

civil court. Thus the effect in such a circumstance would be that

neither the suit was cognizable by the civil court nor civil court

entertained the suit nor the decision has any effect like estoppel or

issues estoppel. It would also not operate as resjudicata between the

parties. Moreover, I have also considered the aspect of Section 539 of

the Code of 1883 and I am sure that the suit was also not filed in

representative capacity. Thus the admission of Mahant Raghubar Das

cannot operate as issues estoppel or stopped the defendants to believe

and refute the averments made in the plaint. Moreover there is nothing

on record to suggest that except topography of the property in suit,

there is nothing which is material before this court to demonstrate that

after admitting the claim of the Muslims, the land in suit with no

stretch of imagination without calling for any relief can be considered

as a matter which was binding for consideration before the Court.

Thus, if at all there is any admission of plaintiff Mahant Raghubar

 215

Das, it would not stop Hindu community and Muslim community both

to raise issues before this Court as suit is not in the nature of

representative suit. Issue No.7(d) is accordingly decided against the

plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has heavily relied over the

decision of R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das vs.

Secretary of State of India and on its strength has submitted that the

judgment operates as resjudicata against the defendants. At the cost of

repetition I may refer that in view of Section 539 of the Code of Civil

Procedure of 1883 which corresponds to Section 92 of the present

C.P.C. it transpires that without adhering any procedure in accordance

with Section 539 of the above code, the above regular suit was filed. I

have already given my finding on issue no.7 that it was not a

representative suit. It further transpires that the judgment was not

judgment in rem but it was judgement in personam. Consequently the

judgment would have a binding effect only on the parties referred in

the plaint and arrayed as parties. It further transpires that Section 18 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 has full bearing on the facts of the case

for convenience it is reproduced as under:-

“S.18. Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by

an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly
authorised by him to make them, are admissions.
Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a
representative character, are not admissions, unless they
were made while the party making them held that
character.”

Thus, in view of provisions of Section 18 of Indian Evidence

 216

Act even in a case of representative character statements made by the

parties to the suits, suing or sued are not admissions unless there were

made while the party making them held that character. It is not

disputed by the plaintiff that defendants were not holding the character

while it is clear from the finding on issue no.7 that the suit was not of

a representative character. Thus, question of issue estoppel does not

arise. Plaintiffs have also failed to substantiate before this Court that

the defendants are the persons from whom the parties to the suit have

derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit. Consequently, at

this stage, it can not be said that the defendants of the present suit are

the successor of Mahant Raghubar Das. It has nowhere been

mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have derived the interest in

the subject matter from Mahant Raghubar Das, the plaintiff of the suit.

Consequently, for want of any evidence before this Court, it is not

possible to accept the contention of the plaintiffs that Mahant

Raghubar Das could in any way be said to be the predecessor in title

of the defendants and the defendants derived their interest in the said

matter through him. Consequently, neither this is a suit of

representative character nor this is a suit in which it has been alleged

by the plaintiffs that the defendants have derived their title from

Mahant Raghubar Das. Thus, with no stretch of imagination he can be

said to be predecessor in suit. Consequently, admissions if any made

in R.S. No. 61/280 of 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das vs. Secretary of

State of India would not bind the defendants.

ISSUE NO.8
 217

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 ?

FINDINGS:

Issue No.8: It is admitted between the parties that prior to this

litigation one case bearing no.61/280 of 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das

Versus Secretary of State and others, was filed. Plaintiffs have come

out with a case that it shall operate as resjudicata against the

defendants.

I have already considered the scope of the earlier suit. This

Court has already given finding that this suit is not a representative

suit and it was an individual suit between Mahanth Raghubar Das and

Mohd.Asghar who was the Mutwalli of the mosque. In view of the

provision of Section 539 of CPC of 1883 the suit has no binding effect

on the members of Hindu community as well as on Muslim

community. It is also nobodies' case that the present defendants are the

successors of Mahanth Raghubar Das. Thus there is no material that

Mahanth Raghubar Das was the predecessor in title of the defendants.

There is no averment in the plaint itself. Consequently defendants of

this suit have not derived a title from Mahanth Raghubar Das.

Consequently they cannot be treated to be party to the earlier suit.

Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the plaintiffs

has submitted that in view of the plaint averments it is very much

established that the suit was filed for the benefit of entire Hindu

community, having faith in Lord Ram. Hindus wanted to construct a

 218

temple over Chabutra treating it as a sacred place. Hence, the case

falls within Explanation 6 to Sec.11 CPC. It is further submitted that

the judgment is binding on all the Mahanth and Shebait of Janam

Asthan of Nirmohi Akhara. It is further submitted that in the year 1885

Order-1 Rule-8 CPC was not there. Accordingly in view of

Explanation 6 of Section-11 the principle of resjudicata will operate. It

is further submitted that in view of issue estoppel principal of res

judicata shall operate against the defendants in suit. Learned counsel

for the plaintiff has relied over Explanation 4 and 6 of Section-11

CPC. On the contrary it is submitted by the defendants that neither the

procedure as provided u/s 573 of CPC of 1883 was adhered to nor

there is anything to show that the suit was filed by Mahanth Raghubar

Das in representative capacity. Consequently the suit is not barred by

principle of res judicata.

Let me read Section-11 of the CPC as under;

“Section-11: Res judicata- No Court shall try any suit or issue in

which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly

and substantially in Issue in a former suit between the same parties, or

between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating

under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit

or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has

been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation I.--The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit

which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or
not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II.--For the purposes of this section, the

 219

competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any

provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such
Court.

Explanation III.--The matter above referred to must in the

former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or
admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV.--Any matter which might and ought to have

been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall
be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in
issue in such suit.

Explanation V.--Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not

expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this
section, be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI.--Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of

a public right or of a private right claimed in common for
themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall,
for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the
persons so litigating.

Explanation VII.--The provisions of this section shall apply to a

proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this
section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as
references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the
decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former
proceeding for the execution of that decree.

Explanation VIII.--An issue heard and finally decided by a

Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue,
shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit,
notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not
competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such
issue has been subsequently raised.]”

I have gone through the following rulings placed by Sri M.A.

Siddiqui, learned counsel for the plaintiffs;
1. Talluri Venkata Versus Thadikonda, AIR 1937 PC 1.
2. Kumara Vellu Versus T.P.Ramaswami, AIR 1933 PC 183.
3. Mst.Sudehaiya Kumar and another Versus RamDass Pandey and
others, AIR 1957 Alld.270 (DB)
4. Vidhu Mukhi Dasi Vs.Jitendra Nath, Indian Cases 1909
 220

Cal.H.C.442.
5. Madhav Versus Keshvan, 40 ILR Madras Series 191.
6. Lal Chand Versus Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789
7. Smt.Dhana Kuer Versus Kashi Nath, 1967 AWR High Court
290.
8. Sharad Chandra Ganesh Vs.State, AIR 1996 SC 61
9. Shiromani Gurudwara Vs. Mahant, AIR 2003 SC 3349
10. Waqf Khudawand Tala Vs.Seth Mohan Lal, 1956 ALJ 225.
On behalf of defendants reliance have been placed on the
following case laws;
1. Satyadhyan Ghosal and others Versus Smt.Deorajin Debi and
another, AIR 1960 SC 941.
2. Ferro Alloys Corpn.Ltd and another Versus U.O.I.and others
AIR 1999 SC 1236.
3. Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, 1994 SC 152,
Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and another, AIR 1976 SC 1645,
Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Versus Banamali Sen and others,
AIR 1953 SC 33.
Sajjadanashin Sayed MdB.E.Edr.(D) By Lrs Vs. Musa Dadabhai
Ummer and others, AIR 2000 SC 1238, Gram Panchayat of
Village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh and others, AIR 2000 SC
3272
4. State of Punjab and others Vs.Amar Singh and another, AIR 1974
SC 994.
5. M/s International Woolen Mills Vs. M/s Standard Wool
(U.K.)Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2134.
6. P.K.Vijayan Vs.Kamalakshi Amma and others, AIR 1994 SC
2145.
7. Chandrabhai K.Bhoir and others Vs.Krishna Arjun Bhoir and
others, 2009 AWC(1) 715.
8. Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane by Lrs and others Versus Vithu
Hira Mahar (dead) by Lrs. and others, AIR 2010 SC 818.

Thus, according to the defendants, decision in regular suit

no.61/280 of 1885, Mahanth Raghubar Das Versus Secretary of State

and others for permission to construct a Mandir on chabutra situated in

 221

outer courtyard will neither operate as res judicata nor the principles

of constructive res judicata are applicable because neither any finding

on issues involved in this case were recorded by the court nor the

same was between the parties. Same parties means parties are persons

whose names are on record at the time of the decision vide Baisu

Reddi Versus Janardan Rao, AIR 1968 AP 306. The principle of res

judicata and constructive res judicata were discussed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in several decisions wherein the dispute must be

between the same parties and it must be shown that same plea was

required to be raised by the contesting parties. Matter must be directly

and incidentally in issue between the same parties and there is some

final decision on any particular issue and the matter ought to have

been raised and decided. Thus in the present case none of the aforesaid

conditions are complied with. Accordingly the suit is not hit by the

principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata.

I have given anxious thoughts to the rival submissions and

perused the case laws, referred to above. In this context I have to add

as under;

Historical Aspects of Res Judicata.

"Res judicata Pro Veritate Accipture" is the full maxim which

has, over the years, shrunk to mere Res Judicata vide Deva Ram v.

Ishwar ChandA.I.R.1996 S.C.378 and Kunjan Nair Shivaraman Nair

v. Narayanan Nair A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1761, which expression means a

matter already decided. It has a very ancient history. It was known to

 222

ancient Hindu Law as Purva Nyaya. The plea of former Judgment has

been illustrated in the text of Katyayana thus, "If a person though

defeated at law sues again, he should be answered 'you were defeated

formerly" (vide Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, AIR 1953 SC 33

and Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Singh [1916] 43 I.A. 91 ).

This principle was also known to Roman law as 'exceptio res

judicatae'. Julian defined the principle thus, "and generally the plea of

former Judgment is a bar whenever the same question of right is

renewed between the same parties by whatever form of action -- Et

generaliter (ut julianus definit) exceptio rel judicatae obstat, quotisns

inter easdem personas esdem quaestio revocator, vel alio genere

judicli.) This doctrine was adopted by the countries on the European

continent which had modelled their civil law on the Roman pattern. In

France, the doctrine is known as 'Chose jugee' -- thing adjudged. This

principle of preclusion of re-litigation, or the conclusiveness of

Judgment, has struck deep roots in Anglo-American jurisprudence and

is equally well-known in the Commonwealth countries which have

drawn upon the rules of Common law. The doctrine of res judicata is

recognised as a principle of universal jurisprudence forming part of

the legal systems of all civilised nations.

Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains the rule

of conclusiveness of the Judgment which is- based partly on the

maxim, of Roman jurisprudence. "interest republicae ut sit finis

litium" (It concerns the State that there be an end to law suits) and

partly on the maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro Una et eadem causa"
 223

(no man should be vexed twice: over for the same cause). The section

does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court but operates as a bar to the

trial of the suit or issue, if the matter in the previous suit between the

same parties litigating under the same title in a Court, competent to try

the subsequent suit in which such issue has been raised. The rule of res

judicata "while founded on ancient precedent is dictated by a wisdom

which is for all time' and that the application of the rule by the Courts

"should be influenced by no technical considerations of form, but by

matter of substance within the limits allowed by law.

Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest. It is

well settled that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter, "the Code of Civil Procedure") is not the foundation of

the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof

and hence, the Section is not to be considered exhaustive of the

general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once

a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be

open to parties to re-agitate the matter again and again. The rule of res

judicata contained in Section 11 of the Code has some technical

aspects, the general doctrine is founded on considerations of high

public policy to achieve two objects namely (i) that there must be a

finality to litigation and (ii) that individuals should not be harassed

twice over with the same kind of litigation.

The object of introducing Section 11 in the Code of Civil

Procedure is to confer finality on decisions arrived at by competent

Courts between interested parties after genuine contest (Ram Bhaj v.

 224

Ahmad Saidakhtar Khan). Once the matter which was the subject

matter stood determined by a competent Court, no party thereafter can

be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was

brought into the statute book with a view to bring the litigation to an

end so that the other side may not be put to harassment. Res judicata

is a rule of procedure and it cannot change the law of the land as

applicable to specific parties by decisions of Courts vide Mathura

Prasad v. Dossibai, AIR 1971 SC 2355. Section 11 of the Code of

Civil Procedure recognizes this principle and forbids a Court from

trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognizing both 'cause

of action estoppel' and issue estoppel.

The principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public

interest which requires that all litigation must sooner than later, come

to an end. The principle is also founded on equity, justice and good

conscience which require that a party which has once succeeded on an

issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of

proceedings involving determination of the same issue. It is also in the

public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the

same kind of litigation. The principle of res judicata envisages that a

Judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point

would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some

other matter in another Court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh

the very point that was determined in the earlier Judgment. The

principles of res judicata as contained in Section 11 Code of Civil

Procedure bars any Court to try any suit or issue in which the matter
 225

directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially

in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties

under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title,

in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which

such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and

finally decided by such Court. A finding which has attained finality

operates as res judicata.

It is a doctrine applied to give finality to 'lis' in original or

appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance means that an issue

or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be

reopened and re-agitated twice over. The literal meaning of res is

everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object,

subject-matter or status and res judicata literally means: 'a matter

adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter

settled by Judgment.

Res judicata is meant to avoid conflict in decisions - it is now

settled principle that even ex-parte decree does constitute res judicata

if issue involve is one which constitutes basis or foundation of decree.

But to this the qualification must be added that, if such a party is to be

bound by a previous Judgment, it must be proved clearly that he had

or must be deemed to have had notice that the relevant question was in

issue and would have to be decided. In an issue, which is not

adjudicated before the Court, the provisions of Section 11 of the Code

of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked.

 226

The principle of res judicata also comes into play when by the

Judgment and Order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it,

that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by

implication; then also the principle of res judicata on that issue is

directly applicable. One of the tests in deciding whether the doctrine

of res judicata applies to a particular case or not is to determine

whether two inconsistent decrees will come into existence 'if it is not

applied'.

If a suit is based on an earlier declaratory decree and such

decree is contrary to the law prevailing at the time of its
consideration as to its legality or is a decree granted by a Court
which has no jurisdiction to grant such decree, principles of res
judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be
attracted and it is open to the Defendant in such suits to establish
that the declaratory decree relied upon by the Plaintiff is not based
on a good law or Court granting such decree did not have the
jurisdiction to grant such decree vide Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla,
(2005) 5 SCC 390.
Plea of res judicata, when to be taken

It is stated that the best method to decide the question of res

judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in

their respective pleadings of their previous suits, and then to find out

as to what had been decided by the Judgments which operate as res

judicata. Where the pleadings of the suits instituted by the parties have

not at all been filed on the Court record, the Court had to rely upon the

facts stated in the Judgment. It is well settled that the pleadings cannot

be proved merely by recitals of the allegations mentioned in the

 227

Judgment vide Mohd. S. Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569.

The plea of res judicata has to be specifically and expressly

raised. The foundation of the plea of res judicata must be laid in the

pleadings. Not only the plea has to be taken, but also it has to be

substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and

Judgment in the previous case. May be in a given case only copy of

Judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and

the Judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement

of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof Vide

V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551. It is risky to

speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the

allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the Judgment. If this

was not done, no party would be permitted to raise it for the first time

at the stage of the appeal. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v.

Bhooralal, placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of

estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held

that proof of the pleadings in the previous suit which is set to create

the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded

on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and therefore, it

is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause

of action in the previous suit. The only exception to this requirement is

when the issue of res judicata is in fact argued before the lower Court.

Exceptions to the doctrine of Res judicata

Broadly stated, the doctrine of res judicata operates when there

 228

occurs identity of subject-matter, of the cause of action; of parties or

their privies; of capacity or jurisdiction. This is only a general

statement admitting of limitations and exceptions. The doctrine,

though sanctified by age, is not without its oodles features. If the rule

of estoppel prevents a man from speaking the truth, the rule of res

judicata prohibits a party from questioning the truth of everything

contained in the Judgment. In other words, if a former Judgment

perpetrates an error, the doctrine of res judicata perpetuates it. The

principle, however, has been eulogised as salutary. A party whose

interests have once been placed in jeopardy, has a right to judicial

immunity from the consequences of the same matter being raked up

again regardless of the fact whether the former Judgment was right

and just. Emphasis is laid on rule of repose rather than on the absolute

justness of the conclusion. Once a dispute has been concluded, then,

that conclusion is right and just. The advantage to the society is that

the doctrine of res judicata not only puts an end to strife, but also it

produces certainty as to individual rights. The general welfare requires

that litigation ought not to be interminable. It is said "Ne lites sint

immorta-les, dum litantes sunt mortales, (since litigants are mortals,

let litigation not continue for ever vide Mt. Lachhmi v. Mt. Bhulli,

AIR 1927 LAH 289.

To this salutary rule, four specific exceptions are indicated.

Firstly, the obvious one, that when the cause of action is different, the

rule of res judicata would not be attracted.

Secondly, where the law has, since the earlier decision, been
 229

altered by a competent authority. Thirdly, where the earlier decision

between the parties related to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the

earlier proceedings, the same would not be allowed to assume the

status of a special rule of law applicable to the parties and therefore,

the matter would not be res judicata. Fourthly, where the earlier

decision declared valid a transaction which is patently prohibited by

law, that is to say, it sanctifies a glaring illegality vide The State of

Punjab v: Nand Kishore, AIR 1974 P & H 303 and Shakuntla Devi v.

Kamla, Manu/SC/0277/2005.

As and when the Court is examining the question of any right

having emanated from a Judgment of the High Court and the said

Judgment squarely having emanated; on following an earlier Judgment

of the said Court, without any further reasoning advanced and no

question of facts involved but purely a question of constitutionality of

an Act, the moment the earlier Judgment of the High Court is reversed

by the Supreme Court, that becomes the law of the land, binding on all

parties vide Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Appa Rao, AIR 2002

SC 1598. The first writ was on the ground of apprehended bias. In the

present case the allegation is actual bias. Also, the subject matter of

both proceedings is different. Held, the second writ application is

competent vide G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, AIR 2002 SC 790.

Essentials for res judicata.

The general principle of res judicata is embodied in its different

forms in three different Indian major statutes--Section 11 of the Code

 230

of Civil Procedure, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 and Sections 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, yet it is not

exhaustive. Here, we are concerned only with Section 11 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. Following conditions must be proved for giving

effect to the principles of res judicata under Section 11:

(i) that the parties are same or litigating under same title,

(ii) that the matter directly and substantially in issue in

the subsequent suit must be same which was directly and

substantially in issue in the former suit,

(iii) that the matter in issue has been finally decided

earlier and

(iv) that the matter in issue was decided by a Court of

competent jurisdiction.

If any one or more conditions are not proved, the principle of

res judicata would not apply vide Life Insurance Corpn. of India v.

Ganga Dhar v. Ranade, AIR 1990 SC 185 and Syed Mohd. S. Labbai

v. Mohd. Hanifa, Manu/SC/0510/1976.

Where all the four conditions are proved, the Court has no

jurisdiction to try the suit thereafter as it becomes not maintainable

and liable to be dismissed. For application of principle of res judicata,

existence of decision finally deciding a right or a claim between party

is necessary vide M/s. International Woolen Mills v. M/s. Standard

Wool (U.K.) Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 2134.

Res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law vide Madhukar

 231

D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, AIR 2002 SC 637. It is dictated by

wisdom which is for all times. It does not draw sustenance from any

statute nor should any statutory provision be easily construed to render

it ineffective vide Balbir Kaur and another v. Gram Panchayat Village

Jalabehra and another, 1986 R.L.R. 112.

(a) There must be two suits: One former suit and the other

subsequent suit and Explanation I

The bar only applies if the matter directly and substantially in

issue in the former suit has been heard and finally decided by a Court

competent to try such suit. This clearly means that on the matter or

issue in question there must have been an application of the judicial

mind and a final adjudication has been made. If the former suit is

dismissed without any adjudication on the matter in issue merely on a

technical ground of non-joinder, that cannot operate as res judicata

vide State of Maharashtra v. M/ s. National Construction Co., AIR

1996 SC 2367.

Meaning of "Suit"

The plain and grammatical meaning of the word "suit"

occurring in clause "in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit

or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised" of

Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure includes the whole of the suit

and not a part of the suit, so that giving the word "suit" its ordinary

meaning it is difficult to accept the argument that a part of the suit or

an issue in a suit is intended to be covered by the said word in the

material clause vide Gulab Bai V. Manphool Bai, AIR 1962 SC 214.
 232

Having regard to the legislative background of Section 11, there can

be no hesitation in holding that the word 'suit' in the context must be

construed liberally and it denotes the whole of the suit and not a part

of it or a material issue arising in it vide Mirza Abid Kazim Husain v.

Mirza Nasir Husain, AIR 1977 All. 201. Section 11 is now made

applicable by the Explanations and interpretation to certain

proceedings giving more extensive meaning to the word 'suit'. In its

comprehensive sense the word 'suit' is understood to apply to any

proceeding in a Court of justice by which an individual pursues that

remedy which the law affords. The modes of proceedings may be

various but that if a right is litigated between parties in a Court of

justice the proceeding by which the decision of the Court is sought

may be a suit. But if the proceeding is of a summary nature not falling

within the definition of a suit, it may not be so treated for the purpose

of Section 11 vide Pandurang Ramchandra Mandlik v. Shantibai

Ramchandra Ghatge, AIR 1989 SC 2240.

Explanation I

In view of the risk of rigid application of the rule of res judicata

defeating the ends of justice, several important exceptions have been

recognised. One of the rules of guidance is that former Judgment, on

the basis of which the plea of res judicata is rested, is to be construed

with strictness in order to ascertain compliance with the requirements

of the principle. The rule, therefore, assumes that at the earlier stage,

the parties had effective opportunity to litigate the same matter in a

Court of competent jurisdiction on issues which were directly in point

 233

and properly before the Court. This precaution cannot be overlooked,

for, a decision, which has the force of res judicata, can "make the

white black, the black white; the crooked straight, the straight

crooked--res judicata facit ex alba nlgrum, ex nigro album, ex curvo

rectum, ex recto curvum". A Judgment which is erroneous on facts or

law, is, nevertheless, res judicata so long as it is not vacated or

reversed by a superior Court. In other words, a suitor is entitled to one

fair trial of his case and no one is permitted to harass another a second

time, or take the time of the Court, for agitating the some controversy.

Once a final Judgment is obtained, the same matter cannot be

canvassed anew in another action, but it has to be a decision on merits

by a competent tribunal between parties over whom it has jurisdiction

vide Jaljodhan Singh v. Kirpa Singh, 1963 P&H 178.

(b) Same parties or parties under whom they claim to litigate Section

11 requires that former suit which has been adjudicated upon must

have been between same parties or between parties under whom they

or any of them claim, litigating under same title. In other words in

Order to make a person bound by res judicata it must be proved that he

was in some way a party to the suit decided for a Judgment binds only

parties and privies vide Ishwar Das v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 551

e.g. If a karta of joint Hindu family property was party to a suit

decided, a suit filed by another coparcener regarding same matter in

issue is barred by res judicata vide Amrit Sagar v. Sudesh Behari, AIR

1970 SC 5. It is not necessary that parties should be common. Where

a person is properly represented in a suit by another either by act of

 234

parties or by operation of law, he can be presumed to be a party to

such suit. However, where after the finding or decision on a

preliminary issue, new Defendant is added to a suit, such finding

would not operate as res judicata against that Defendant vide S. Mohd.

Ismail v. S. Anwar Ali, AIR 1991 Cal. 391. Similarly, where a decree

is passed against a minor who was not properly represented, the

principle of res judicata would not bar such person from contesting

fresh suit. But a transferee is bound by the decree passed against

transferor in respect of property transferred except where, the transfer

has taken place before the former suit was filed.

In an earlier proceeding the wakf in question was described as

"private", under law as it stood then in a subsequent proceeding that

wakf was declared as public after commencement of Bombay Public

Trusts Act. It was held, the earlier decision will not operate as res

judicata in litigation filed subsequent to the second decision vide

Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, AIR 2000 SC 1238.

In a case dispute between labour and Electricity Co. was referred to

High Court. Subsequently, the Electricity

Company was amalgamated with State Electricity Board and the

dispute was referred to the High Court. It was held that subsequent

reference had nothing to do with the earlier reference. Principles of res

judicata had no application vide Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Ltd. v. Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC

291. However, in another case it was held that once the issue was

directly and substantially involved in earlier proceedings and which

 235

was raised by the "forum", it is not permissible for the forum to once

again raise the same issue in subsequent proceedings by coming under

the "cloak" of the forum vide Junior Telecom Officers v. Union of

India, AIR 1993 SC 787.

One of the pre-conditions for attraction of Section 11 for an

issue to be barred by res judicata, is that, it must arise between the

same parties and decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Section

11 does not encompass a situation where one of the parties to the

subsequent suit was aware of the earlier suit and the question arising

therein. It is also futile to submit that the Plaintiff ought to have got

himself pleaded to the earlier suit. There is no compulsion on a person

to get himself impleaded to any Court proceedings. As such, there

cannot be any consequence of a person not volunteering for being

impleaded to a suit. But, there are definite consequences provided for

in the Code of Civil Procedure for not joining a proper or a necessary

party to the proceedings vide Shri Narendra Akash Maharaj Petkar v.

Shri Shahaji Baburao Petkar and The Saraswat Employee Co-op. Hsg.

Soc. Ltd. v. Shri Shahaji Baburao Petkar.

Direct and Substantial as distinct from Incidental and Collateral.

The effect of res judicata is, confined to the matter which was

"directly and substantially in issue in the former litigation inter panes.

A matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purposes

of deciding the matter which is directly in issue in the case cannot be

made the basis of a plea of res judicata. The question has to be decided

on the pleadings, the issues and the findings given in that case vide
 236

Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 948. If the issue was

"necessary" to be decided for adjudicating on the principal issue and

was decided, it would be "directly and substantially in issue. A

collateral or incidental issue is one that is incidental to a direct and

substantive issue vide Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer,

AIR 2000 SC 1238 being incidental only to the substantial issue,

cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit in which question of

issue is directly raised vide Ganga Bai v. Chhabubai, AIR 1982 SC 20.

In other words, when the question raised in the subsequent proceeding

have no bearing on the finding made in the earlier proceedings the

principle of res judicata is not applicable vide State of U.P. v. Rup Lal

Sharma, (1997) 2 SCC 62. If the finding is given incidentally while

determining another issue which was directly and substantially in

issue, such finding cannot be said to be on an issue which was directly

and substantially in issue in the former suit. Undoubtedly, the question

whether a matter is "directly and substantially in issue" would depend

upon whether a decision on such an issue, would materially affect the

decision of the suit vide Bhai Hospital Trust v. Parvinder Singh, AIR

2002 Del. 311. When a finding as to title to immovable property is

rendered by a Court of Small Causes res judicata cannot be pleaded as

a bar in a subsequent regular civil suit for the determination or

enforcement of any right or interest in immovable property. In Order

to operate as res judicata the finding must be one disposing of a matter

directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and the issue

should have been heard and finally decided by the Court trying such
 237

suit. A matter collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purposes of

deciding the matter which is directly in issue in the case cannot be

made the basis of a plea of res judicata. It has long been held that a

question of title in a Small Cause suit can be regarded as incidental

only to the substantial issue in the suit and cannot operate as res

judicata in a subsequent suit in which the question of title is directly

raised vide Gangabai v. Chhabubai, AIR 1982 SC 20.

In this context I would like to refer that the plaintiffs have failed

to prove the conditions which give effect to the principle of res

judicata under Section 11, which are as under;

(I) that the parties are same or litigating under the same title.

(II) that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit.

It is also settled proposition of law that if both the conditions are

not proved, the principle of res judicata would not apply vide Life

Insurance Corporation of India Versus Ganga Dhar Versus Ranade,

AIR 1990 SC 185

It is settled proposition of law vide AIR 1960 SC 941,

Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Sm. Deorajin Debi and Anr. that

the dispute must be between the same parties. It is clear from the

judgement in suit no.61/280 of 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das vs.

Secretary of State and others that the parties to the present suit are

different and accordingly the suit is not hit by res-judicata. It is also

clear that the dispute in the earlier suit of 1885 was with respect to

Chabutra only while in this case the plaintiffs have sought different
 238

reliefs. Thus same plea was not taken before this Court. It is also not

clear from the averment of the plaint as to how the same plea was

required to be raised by the contesting parties when in a different

context the present suit has been filed by the Sunni Central Waqf

Board. It crystal clear that the matter in issue in 1885 case was with

respect to Chabutra and not the matter with respect to other dispute as

shown in the plaint. There is no final decision on any particular issue

in the earlier suit which bind the parties and there is nothing on record

to suggest that the matter might or ought to have been raised earlier.

Consequently, the plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that the earlier

judgment shall operate as res judicata against the defendants in the

suit. Issue No. 8 is decided accordingly against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 9

Whether the plaintiff's served valid notices under Section 80

C.P.C.

FINDINGS:

Deleted vide order dated May, 22/25, 1990).

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?

FINDINGS:

This issue has already been decided by Civil Judge, Faizabad on

21.4.66. The finding has become final between the parties and is
 239

binding on the parties.

ISSUE NO. 18:

What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the

Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.

and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding

of the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on

issue no. 17?

FINDINGS:

Admittedly, Civil Judge recorded finding on issue no. 17 on

21.4.66. It has been urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR

1981 SC 2198 has an impact on the finding of the learned Civil Judge

on issue no. 17. It has not been argued from the side of the plaintiffs

that how finding on issue no. 17 was not be deemed to be final

between the parties. It further transpires in Ghulam Abbas's case that

there was a dispute between Shia and Sunni Muslims. The executive

machinery was directed to act in accordance with the provisions of

Section 144 Cr.P.C. The petition was filed before the Apex Court by a

party, which was not a party to the suit. Thus, the effects of Ghulam

Abbas's case do not apply in this case. However, at the cost of

repetition, it may be referred that the finding on issue no. 17 is final

between the parties and is not liable to be questioned by the plaintiffs

while they have failed to get it set aside through proper forum. Thus

there is no effect of the judgment of Ghulam Abbas's case on the

finding of Civil Judge recorded on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17. Issue

 240

no. 18 is decided accordingly in favour of the defendants and against

the plaintiffs.

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?

FINDINGS:

It has been pointed out by the defendants that the disputed

structure was surrounded by temples and other Hindu places of

worships and it was not possible for the Muslims to reach at the

disputed structure except by passing through places of Hindu worship.

Thus, the building was land locked. Thus according to the map

prepared by Sri Shiv Shankar Lal, Pleader in O.O.S. No. 2 of 1950

that the disputed structure was surrounded from all the sides and there

were Hindu religious place of worship. It transpires that towards rest

there was a Parikrama Asthal and one Chabutra towards east there was

Ram Chabutra and Hanumat Dwar towards south Chabutra and

Samadhi of Markendey Angira and towards east there were Samadhi

of Sanak Nandan and others alongwith Sita Rasoi. Thus, the building

was land locked and it was only possible to reach inside the disputed

place through the places of Hindu worship. Consequently, according

to the tenets of Islam there cannot be any mosque in the vicinity of

Hindu place of worship where the bells are rung and prayers are

offered. It is also admitted fact that at Hindu place of worship ringing

of bell is integral part of worship. Thus according to the Islamic tenets

 241

such a vicinity cannot be a mosque.

In vicinity of bells there cannot be a mosque because it is

revelation of the holy prophet that bell is abode of saitan, contrary to

it bell is integral part of religious customs of worship of the Hindus as

such as all along bells remained in the disputed site it can’t be a

mosque:

1. In a Hindu Temple ringing of bell is integral part of worship

while according to Shar bell is considered to be an instrument

of Saitan and angels do not enter in such a house where bell is

rung as such, a place where angels do not enter can’t be a

Masjid. As it is evident from the Gazetteer of 1877-78 and

Millet’s Settlement Report that till 1855 Hindus were

worshipping in the same and one building which was allegedly

known as Babri Mosque said to be erected by Moghul Emperor

Babur over the sacred site of Sri Ramajanamsthan by

demolishing Hindu temple of that shrine and on annexation of

Oudh to British India ( on 13th February, 1856 and Lord

Canning’s proclamation on 15th March, 1859, confiscating all

proprietary rights in the soil of the Oudh Province) the

Administration made an enclosure bifurcating the Temple

compound and thereby ordered Hindus not to enter inside the

said building inconsequence whereof Hindus erected a Platform

in the Temple compound just after enclosure and started

worshiping thereon, but from the several applications of the

persons claiming to be Mutavallis/ Muezzins/ Khattibs it is

 242

very much apparent that even after 1855 and onwards Hindus

were continuously worshipping in the said temple and, from

their application of 1883 it becomes crystal clear that in

addition to performing Idol worship in the said disputed

building Hindus were celebrating their festivals as such for all

practical purposes said building was a Hindu temple and

according to Musalman Law due to presence of Idols & Bells it

was not at all a Masjid.

2. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-III) 2113

and 2114 reveal that the Holy Prophet had said that Angels do

not accompany the person who has with him a bell because the

bell is the musical instrument of the Saitan. The said Hadiths

read as follows:

3. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 377 as

well as Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-1) 190 reveal that the Holy

Prophet did not approve the method of giving Ajan/Adhan by

ringing the bell like the persons of other faith; of course, reason

behind this was that it was an instrument of Saitan. Said Hadiths

read as follows:

“[377] Ibn Umar reported: When the Muslims came to

Mediha, they gathered and sought to know the time of
prayer but no one summoned them. One day they
 243

discussed the matter, and some of them said: Use

something like the bell of the Christians and some of
them said: Use horn like that of the Jews. Umar said:
Why may not a man be appointed who should call
(people) to prayer? The Messenger of Allah (may peace
be upon him) said: O Bilal, get up and summon (the
people) to prayer.”

(Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 377 at page 256)

“190. Ibn Umar narrated: “When the Muslims arrived in

Al-Madinah, they used to assemble for the Salat, and
guess the time for it. There was no one who called for it
(the prayers). One day they discussed that some of them
said that they should use a bell like the bell the Christians
use. Others said they should use a trumpet like the horn
the Jews use. But Umar [bin Al-Khattab] said, ‘Wouldn’t
it be better if we had a man call for prayer?’ He said, ‘So
Allah’s Messenger said: ‘O Bilal! Stand up and call for
the Salat.”
(Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-1) 190 at page 215)

4. In ‘Ibn Battuta’ Travels in Asia and Africa’ (1325-1354) on page

142 Ibn Battuta writes that he became surprised when he heard

bells ringing on all sides of the mosque wherein he was staying.

In his note on page 357 of the said book the editor/translator

explains that the Muslim hold the ringing of bells in the greatest

abhorrence and believe that the angels will not enter in the

house wherein bells are rung. As the suit premises was

surrounded by all sides from the temples and even in the alleged

Temple -Mosque building Hindus were worshiping by ringing

bells, according to Shar it cannot be termed as mosque.

Relevant extracts from the said book read as follows:

 244

5. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-II) 851 &

851R3 reveal that it was commanded by the Holy Prophet that

Muslims must observe silence during sermon on Friday. The

said Hadiths read as follows:

From the aforesaid Hadith it becomes clear that in the noisiest

place where bells were/are being rung and Conch Shells

were/are being blown prayer could not be offered. As it is

admitted by the then alleged Mutawalli that Conch Shell was

being blown by the Pujari Neehang Singh even in 1861 said

Structure can’t be a Masjid but for all practical purposes it

was/is only Temple.

 245

Since the structure has already been demolished but the report

of Commissioner is available on record. Accordingly, the disputed

structure cannot be deemed to be a mosque according to the tenets of

Islam. Thus, Issue no.19(b) is decided in favour of the defendants and

against the plaintiffs.

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?

FINDINGS:

On behalf of defendants it is contended that the building in

question was not a mosque under the Islamic Law. It is not disputed

that the structure has already been demolished on 6.12.1992.

According to Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and others vs. Union of India and

others case, 1994 (6) SCC 360, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 70

that the sacred character of the mosque can also be lost. According to

the tenets of Islam, minarets are required to give Azan. There cannot

be a public place of worship in mosque in which Provision of Azan is

not available, hence the disputed structure cannot be deemed to be a

mosque.

According to Islamic tenets, there cannot be a mosque without

place of Wazoo and surrounded by a graveyard on three sides. Thus, in

view of the above discussions, there is a strong circumstance that

without any minaret there cannot be any mosque. Issue no.19(d) is

decided accordingly, against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

 246

defendants.

ISSUE NO. 19(e):

Whether the building in question could not legaly be a

mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a

graveyard on three sides.

FINDINGS:

It is not disputed that alleged mosque was surrounded by a

graveyard from three sides. Defendants contend as below :-

There can not be a mosque in a place surrounded by graves as

facing towards graves Namaz can not be offered:

1. In the schedule of the plaint the suit premises has been shown to

be surrounded on all four sides by the graves, and sacred Hadiths

prohibit from - offering prayers towards graves, visiting the graves of

strangers, sitting on graves and erecting tent over a grave as such

according to Islamic Law and tenets the Scheduled Premises was

never appropriate place for offering prayers to Merciful Almighty

Allah. As such no declaration of Mosque as prayed for can be

granted.

2. The Sacred Compilation Jami‘ AT-Tirmidhi (Vol.-2) Hadith

1050 reveals that the Holy Prophet has commanded not to sit on the

graves nor perform Salat i.e. prayer towards graves .

“1050. Abu Marthad Al-Ghanawi narrated that the prophet

said: “Do not sit on the graves nor perform Salat towards

them.” (Sahih) (He said) There are narrations on Amr bin

Hazm, and Bashir bin Al-Khasasiyyah.

 247

(Another route) with the chain, and it is similar.”

3. The Sacred Compilation Jami‘ AT-Tirmidhi (Vol.-2) Hadith1054

and ibid (Vol.1) Hadith 230 reveal that the Holy Prophet had

prohibited Muslims from visiting the graves except the grave of their

mothers. The said Hadith reads as follows:

“1054. Sulaiman bin Buraidah narrated from his father

that the Messenger of Allah said: “I had prohibited you

from visiting the graves. But Muhammad was permitted

to visit the grave of his mother: so visit them, for they

will remind you of the Hereafter.”

Jami‘ AT-Tirmidhi (Vol.-2) Hadith 1054

“320. Ibn ‘Abbas narrated: “Allah’s Messenger cursed the

women who visit the graves, and those who use them as

Masajid and put torches on them.” (Da‘if)

Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.1) Hadith 230

As such to go an alleged Mosque surrounded on all three sides by

graveyards means to visit the graves of strangers every day which

act has been prohibited in Islam wherefrom it can be safely inferred

that the Muslims are forbidden from offering prayers in a graveyard-

locked place/building.

4. The Sacred Compilation Jami‘ AT-Tirmidhi (Vol.-5) Hadith 2890

reveals that even a tent cannot be erected over the grave as it invites

sin.

“2890. Ibn Abbas narrated: “One of the Companions of the

Prophet put up a tent upon a grave without knowing that it

was a grave. When he realized that it was a person’s grave, he

 248

recited Surat Al-Mulk until its completion. Then he went to

the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah [Indeed] I erected

my tent without realizing that it was upon a grave. So when I

realized there was a person in it I recited Surat Al-Mulk until

its completion.’ So the Prophet said: ‘It is a prevention, it is a

salvation delivering from the punishment of the grave.” (Da‘if )”

5. Neil B.E. Baillie in his Book ‘A Digest of Mahommedan Law’

Part- First (Second Edition 1875) containing the doctrines of the

Hanifeea Code of Jurisprudence at page 621-22 records that the bodies

buried in the ground can be exhumed by the rightful owner if the land

was usurped. Relevant extract from the above referred pages reads as

follows:

When a body has been buried in the ground, whether for a

long or short time, it cannot be exhumed without some

excuse. But it may be lawfully exhumed when it appears

that the land was usurped, or another is entitled to it under

a right of pre-emption.

Be it mentioned herein that the Plaintiffs’ witnesses have

admitted that the graves were dug up by the Hindus after purchasing

the lands wherein graves were located. It is settled law that public

Graveyard can not be sold wherefrom it becomes crystal clear that it

was not a public Graveyard meant for the Muslims.

6. The Sacred Compilation Jami‘ AT-Tirmid (Vol.-2) Hadith 1052

reveals that the Holy Prophet had prohibited plastering graves,

writing on them, building over them and treading on them.

 249

1052- Jabir narrated: “The Messenger of Allah prohibited

plastering graves, writing on them, building over them, and

treading on them.” (Sahih)

As such it cannot be inferred that the plastered graves

mentioned in Commissioner’s report in 1950 were built by Emperor

Babur of his soldiers who died in alleged war between him and the

then ruler of Ajodhya because the Emperor Babur was a scholar of

Hanafi School of Islamic Law which does not permit to build

plastered graves of soldiers.

I have gone through site plan prepared by Advocate

Commissioner in suit no. 2 of 1950, which goes to show that towards

east, there is a graveyard for which there is controversy. Muslims

claim in the plaint that this graveyard was used for the burial of

soldiers, who fought from the site of Babur Army during the scuffle

between Shaikh Bayazid, previous ruler of Ayodhya and Babur. It has

been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the said graveyard is

Gang-e-Shahidan where certain muslims were buried, who were killed

during the battle with Hindus that took place in Hanuman Garhi.

Hindus claim that there is a kuti and chabutra towards east. Definitely

there is a graveyard for which there is controversy to whom the same

belongs.

Towards north and south of the disputed structure there are

certain plastered graves, which are said to be Samadhi of Hindu saints

and towards west there is open place.

In view of the circumstances referred to above, Hindus claim

 250

that namaz cannot be offered in a graveyard. Accordingly the case as

set up in the plaint is contrary and the plaintiff's are not entitled for

any relief .

Having regard to the rival submissions, it is clarified that the

entire graveyard has already been acquired by the Central Government

and the action has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. M.

Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360.

According to the tenets of Islam since there was no place of

wazu and the disputed structure, which was surrounded by three sides

by the graveyard, could not be a functional mosque.

As there was no provision of water for wazu in the disputed

structure it can’t be a mosque:

As there was no provision for Azan without minarets in the

disputed structure, it can’t be a mosque.

1. Without performing wazu by pure water in a mosque one cannot

offer prayer. One Hadith says that for Friday’s prayer one

should take a bath in his house and thereafter perform wazu in a

Mosque and then he should offer prayer from which it becomes

crystal clear that performing wazu in a mosque is mandatory pre

condition for offering one’s prayer to Almighty Merciful Allah.

As Friday’s prayer is offered in congregation at least on that day

huge quantity of water is required but in the alleged Temple-

Mosque premises there was no such provision of water for

Muslims for performing wazu from which it can be safely

inferred that said structure was neither meant for offering

 251

Namaz nor was a Masjid at all but all along it was a temple as

such the same cannot be declared Baburi Masjid.

2. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-II) 844 &

845 reveal that before offering Friday’s prayer one should take a

bath in his house and thereafter perform Wazu in a Mosque.

Said Hadiths read as follows:

3. The Sacred Compilations Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 225;

(Vol.-II) 844-847R1 and Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-1) Hadiths 1-5,

90, 200-201, 497-498 say that prior to offering prayer

performance of Wazu by pure water is necessary and for

Friday’s prayer it is must to take bath in one’s house then visit

the Masjid and perform Wazu in it by water prior to offering

prayer.
252
 253

4. Holy Quran Surah 5 Al-Ma’idah Ayat 6 and the Sacred

Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 367-370 provides

that Tayammum i.e. purification by clean earth can be done only

in extreme exigency at the time of travelling or war campaign

when water is not available otherwise Wazu must be performed

by water.
254
 255

Since there was no provision of water reservoir in the disputed

premises, the question of performing wazu by huge crowd for Friday’s

prayer did not arise at all in other words the said structure could not be

used as Masjid for offering congregational prayer on Friday. In view

of Islamic tenets, the property cannot be deemed to be a mosque.

In view of the photographs shown in the album, it is established

that on the pillars, there were certain images of gods and other

religious pictures of Hindu religion. Thus according to the following

tenets of Islam a building cannot be treated to be a mosque. The

Islamic tenets are as under:-

Structure having images/idols and designed one cannot be a

masjid under law of shar as such the disputed structure as it was can

not be termed as a mosque:

1. The Holy prophet has said that angels do not enter in a house

which has images, portraits, pictures, idols etc. and even the
 256

designed garments detract attention from prayer and, for that

reason prohibited to decorate a mosque with pictures. As the

disputed structure on its columns and other parts had

engraved/chiseled images/idols of Load-bearing Yakshas, Devis,

Divine - couples, Kalash, Lotus, Leaves, Varah, Swastiks,

Srivatsa, Kapot-pallis, etc. it does not come within the definition

of Masjid according to Muslim Religious Law and belief but it

comes within the definition of a Hindu Temple according to

Hindu Personal Religious Law and belief.

2. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim(Vol.-I) 528

reveals that the Holy Prophet prohibited to decorate Mosques

with pictures. Said Hadith reads as follows:

From the aforesaid Hadith it is crystal clear that there is

forbiddance in Islam to decorate the Mosque with pictures. As

such a building decorated with pictures can’t be declared as a

Masjid.

3. The Sacred Compilations Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-III) 2104,

2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2109, 2110, 2111 and 2112 as well as

Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-V) Hadith 2804 reveal that the Holy

Prophet had acknowledged that the Angels do not enter a house

 257

in which there is an object of images or a dog. Said Hadiths

read as follows:

(Set out Hadith Sahih Muslim from running page 101 to

107)

“2804. Ibn abbas narrated: “I heard Abu Talhah saying: ‘

I heard the Messenger of Allah, saying: “The angels do
not enter a house in which there is a dog or an object of
images.” (Sahih)

Comments:
The taking or drawing of a picture is not allowed,
keeping it is also not permissible, and whoever does so is
deprived of the blessed and merciful supplications of the
angels; while a person is in need of mercy and blessing at
every moment. Likewise, a dog is an impure animal and
some are of a satanic nature and the angels despise the
devil.”
(Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-V) Hadith 2804)

From the aforesaid Hadiths it is crystal clear that a building

which contains images or Gods does not come within the

definition of an “Abode of Angels” for the reasons of such

building being hated by the angels.

4. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 556

reveals that the Holy Prophet prohibited to use designed

garment at the time of prayer. Said Hadith reads as follows:

From the aforesaid Hadiths it is known that designs detract

attention from prayer wherefrom it can be necessarily inferred that a

Masjid wherein prayer is offered to Almighty must not have design in

it otherwise it will detract the attention of the worshippers from prayer

 258

and lose its status of being a Masjid.

5. The Muwatta:Imam Malik 1743 reveal that the Holy Prophet

declined to use a pillow (mattress) painted with pictures and

said that no angels enter the house that contains a picture as also

that the makers of pictures will suffer punishment on the day of

judgment said Muwatta 1743 reads as follows:

The defendants have proved through the tenets of Islam that the

disputed structure was surrounded by grave yard from three sides.

There was no place of Wazoo. There was no separate entrance in the

disputed structure, i.e, mosque and further there was no minarets in the

disputed structure . It is settled proposition of Mohammedan Law

that mosque is a public place. Minarets are required to give Azan.

There should be separate entrance in a mosque which may be

used by the public to enter into the mosque. There can not be any idol

or image inside the mosque like pillars which were found inside and

outside the mosque on which there were certain images of Hindu

Gods and Goddesses. Muslims observe prayer and also following

formalities; (I) Wazoo (ii) There must be recital of Azan or Ikamat by

Pesh Imam or Moazzin and single Muslim can also offer prayer
 259

inside the house but if there is public place, there should be minarets

to give Azan. A.S.I. also found that the disputed structure was raised

on an earlier wall which was prior to construction. It was a long wall

which indicates that the mosque was constructed on some of the

portions of the earlier building against the tenets of Islam.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the building in question

could not be legally a mosque and was constructed against the tenets

of Islam. Issue no. 19 (e) is decided against the plaintiffs.

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?

FINDINGS:

It is not disputed between the parties that there were 14 pillars

inside and outside the mosque. This Court directed prior to the

demolition of the disputed structure to give report and also prepare

photographs of those pillars. In all 30 photographs, leave no room for

doubt that there are certain images of Hindu God and Goddesses and

other religious marks on the pillars. It further denotes that people

were offering prayers and worshipping the images. Photographs on

pillar no. 1, photograph-48, photograph No. 50 and photograph on

pillar No. 52 etc. go to show that in all the 14 pillars there were

religious images of Hindu God and Goddesses and other religious

 260

structures and images of Hindu belief. These structures having images

of idols and designed one cannot be a mosque under law of Shar. As

such the disputed structure cannot be presumed as a mosque.

STRUCTURE HAVING IMAGES/IDOLS AND

DESIGNED ONE CANNOT BE A MASJID UNDER LAW OF

SHAR AS SUCH THE DISPUTED STRUCTURE AS IT WAS

CAN NOT BE TERMED AS A MOSQUE:

1. The Holy prophet has said that angels do not enter in a house

which has images, portraits, pictures, idols etc. and even the

designed garments detract attention from prayer and, for that

reason prohibited to decorate a mosque with pictures. As the

disputed structure on its columns and other parts had

engraved/chiseled images/idols of Load-bearing Yakshas, Devis,

Divine - couples, Kalash, Lotus, Leaves, Varah, Swastiks,

Srivatsa, Kapot-pallis, etc. it does not comes within the

definition of Masjid according to Muslim Religious Law and

belief but it comes within the definition of a Hindu Temple

according to Hindu Personal Religious Law and belief.

2. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim(Vol.-I) 528

reveals that the Holy Prophet prohibited to decorate Mosques

with pictures. Said Hadith reads as follows:

 261

From the aforesaid Hadith it is crystal clear that there is

forbiddance in Islam to decorate the Mosque with pictures. As

such a building decorated with pictures can’t be declared as a

Masjid.

3. The Sacred Compilations Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-III) 2104,

2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2109, 2110, 2111 and 2112 as well as

Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-V) Hadith 2804 reveal that the Holy

Prophet had acknowledged that the Angels do not enter a house

in which there is an object of images or a dog. Said Hadiths

read as follows:

(Set out Hadith Sahih Muslim from running page 101 to

107)

“2804. Ibn abbas narrated: “I heard Abu Talhah saying: ‘

I heard the Messenger of Allah, saying: “The angels do
not enter a house in which there is a dog or an object of
images.” (Sahih)

Comments:
The taking or drawing of a picture is not allowed,
keeping it is also not permissible, and whoever does so is
deprived of the blessed and merciful supplications of the
angels; while a person is in need of mercy and blessing at
every moment. Likewise, a dog is an impure animal and
some are of a satanic nature and the angels despise the
devil.”
(Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi (Vol.-V) Hadith 2804)

From the aforesaid Hadiths it is crystal clear that a building

which contains images or dogs does not come within the

definition of an “Abode of Angels” for the reasons of such

building being hated by the angels.

 262

4. The Sacred Compilation Hadith Sahih Muslim (Vol.-I) 556

reveals that the Holy Prophet prohibited to use designed

garment at the time of prayer. Said Hadith reads as follows:

From the aforesaid Hadiths it is known that designs detract

attention from prayer wherefrom it can be necessarily inferred that a

Masjid wherein prayer is offered to Almighty must not have design in

it otherwise it will detract the attention of the worshippers from prayer

and lose its status of being a Masjid.

5. The Muwatta:Imam Malik 1743 reveal that the Holy Prophet

declined to use a pillow (mattress) painted with pictures and

said that no angels enter the house that contains a picture as also

that the makers of pictures will suffer punishment on the day of

judgment said Muwatta 1743 reads as follows:

On behalf of plaintiffs, it is submitted that the pillars do not

contain images of Hindu God and Goddesses and they were taken

from the ruins of any palace.

In view of the above referred tenets of Islam, it transpires that

 263

the pillars which contain images of Hindu God and Goddesses which

were found inside the mosque go to show that they remained part of

Hindu Temple. Thus, the disputed structure lacks the character of

Mosque under the tenets of Islam. Issue No.19(f) is decided against

the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO. 20(a):

Whether the Waqf 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 Mutwalis

were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?

FINDINGS:

It has been urged on behalf of the defendants that the property

does not belong to Sunni Waqf as the building was constructed by Mir

Baqi who was a Shia Muslim and alleged Mutwalli was also Shia. In

this context, the judgment dated 30.03.1946 in Original Suit No. 29 of

1945. Shia Central Waqf Board, U.P. (Lucknow) vs. Sunni Central

Waqf Board, U.P. (Lucknow) is relevant. There was a dispute about

the mosque. It was contented that since Mir Baqi was a Shia and Cash

Nankar was awarded to the Zamindars of Bahorampur and Sholapur,

who were Mutwallies and belong to Shia sect and claimed themselves

to be descendants of Mir Baqi family. Accordingly, the mosque should

be treated as Shia Mosque. On the contrary, it was alleged that the

mosque was constructed by Emperor Babar, who was Sunni.

Accordingly, the mosque belongs to Sunnies. The trial court framed

 264

issues no. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and thereafter dismissed the suit without

declaration filed by Shia Waqf Board holding that mosque was built

by Sunnies. These facts are strongly suggestive of the facts that the

founder of the mosque was Sunni.

Thus, in view of the findings in original Suit No. 19 of 1945, it

transpires that this finding would operate as estoppel against Shia

Central Board of Waqf and in view of the aforesaid finding the Shia

Waqf Board is stopped to raise any objection against Sunni Central

Waqf Board that the mosque belong to them. But this finding

remained restricted between Shia and Sunni Board only. The trial

court has not given any declaration in favour of Shia Waqf Board.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid finding the building was not

constructed by Mir Baqi, who was a Shia Muslim. However, it has

also been pointed out that since no valid notification has been issued

under Section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 in respect of the

property in suit. Sunni Central Board of Waqf has not right to maintain

the present suit. The point of notification was not considered in the

aforesaid suits. Consequently, the finding of issue no. 17 recorded by

learned Civil Judge on 21.4.1966 has become final. Accordingly, its

effect is that without any notification under Muslim Waqf Act even

Sunni Waqf Board cannot maintain a suit. Issue No. 20(a) is decided

accordingly against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 20(b):

Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and

whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit,

 265

the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for

possession?

FINDINGS:

It has been urged on behalf of the defendants that no Mutwalli

of the alleged Waqf has filed the suit, accordingly the suit is not

maintainable. In view of the finding recorded by the learned civil

judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 which has become final, it

transpires that without any valid notification under Waqf Act the suit

itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is irrelevant to consider this

aspect for the reason that in the year 1960 Muslim Waqf Act came

into operation. Under Section 19 (q) the Board was authorized to

institute and defend the suit and proceeding in the court of law and it

was not necessary that Mutwallies should have filed the suit. Thus, it

was not necessary in the suit that Mutwalli should also be arrayed as

plaintiffs in the suit. However, in the U.P. Waqf Act, 1960, the Board

has a power to institute the suit. In this regard this Court is of the view

that in view of the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge on

21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 without any valid notification, the Board

was also not competent to institute the suit. Accordingly, the suit as

framed is not maintainable in accordance with law. Issue No. 20(b) is

decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 21:

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?

 266

FINDINGS:

It has been urged on behalf of the defendants that the instant suit

is barred for non-joinder of alleged deities. The plaintiffs have come

out with a case in the plaint on 23.12.1949, a crowd of Hindus

destroyed, damaged and desecrated the mosque by placing idol inside

the mosque.

The plaintiffs in para 24-B sought the relief for removal of the

idol and other article which the Hindus have placed in the mosque as

object of their worship. On behalf of the defendants, it is suggested

that the suit is barred for non-joinder of alleged deities. Learned

counsel for the plaintiff has urged that since the Pran Pratishtha of the

idol make them deities and there was no Pran Pratishtha of the idol.

Accordingly, the idol cannot be termed as deities. Accordingly, it is

not necessary to array them as a party. The sum and substance of the

argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the installed

idols are not deity and they are not juristic person. Accordingly, they

have not to be arrayed to the parties.

On behalf of the defendants Sri P.N. Misra, Advocate, has

argued that Svyambhu symbols of deities do not need Pratistha while

Pratistha of manmade symbols of deities can be done by single mantra

of the divine Yajurved. His submissions are as under:-

1. According to Shastric (Scriptural) injunctions Sri

Ramajanmasthan Sthandil, a Svayambhu Linga (Symbol) brought

into existence and established by the Lord of Universe Sri

Vishnu Himself as such in-spite of being decayed, or damaged,

 267

or destroyed It shall forever remain sacred place of Worship as

it does not need purification or consecration or change.

Pratistha is required only in respect of man-made

Images/Idols/Symbols of Deities that can be done by chanting

single Mantra XXXI.1 or II.13 of the Holy Divine Sri Yajurved

(Vagasaneyee Samhita also known as Sri Shukla Yajurved ) .A

deity needs to be worshipped by providing all things which are

required for leading a healthy and excellent life.

2. Svayambhu i.e. Self-built or Self existent or Self-revealed

Lingas (symbols) of Devatas (Gods) or the Lingas (Symbols)

established by Gods, or by those versed in the highest religious

truths, or by Asuras, or by sages, or by remote ancestors, or by

those versed in the tantras need not to be removed though

decayed or even broken. Only decayed or broken Pratisthita

Images/Idols require to be replaced with new one. In respect of

renewal of the images Treatise on Hindu Law celebrated Jurist

Golapchandra Sarkar, Sastri reproduces the Shastric injunction

(Scriptural law) as follows:

“Raghunanda’s Deva-Pratistha-Tantram, last paragraph

reads as follows:

“8. Now (it is stated) the prescribed mode of Renewal of

Decayed Images. Bhagwan says – ‘I shall tell you briefly
the holy ordinance for renewing Decayed Images * * *’
“Whatever is the material and whatever size of the image
of Hari (or the God, the protector) that is to be renewed;
of the same material and of the same size, and image is to
be caused to be made; of the same size of the same form
(and of the same material), should be (the new image)
placed there; either on the second or on the third day (the
image of) Hari should be established; if, (it be)
 268

established after that, even in the prescribed mode, there

would be blame or censure or sin; in this very mode the
linga or phallic symbol and the like (image) should be
thrown away; (and) another should be established, of the
same size (&c.) as already described, - Haya-Sirsha”.
“9. God said, -
‘I shall speak of the renewal in the prescribed mode of
lingas or phallic symbols decayed and the like &c * * *.
(A linga) established by Asuras, or by sages or by remote
ancestors or by those versed in the tantras should not be
removed even in the prescribed form, though decayed or
even broken.’

(Agnipuranam Chapter 103 Poona Edition of 1900 AD.

p.143)
[There is a different reading of a part of this sloke noted in
the foot-note of the Poona Edition of this Puran as one of
the Anandashram series of sacred books: according to
which instead of – “ or by remote ancestors or by those
versed in the tantras” –
the following should be substituted, namely].

“Or by Gods or by those versed in the highest religious

truths.”

“10. Now Renewal of Decayed (images is considered);

that is to be performed when a linga and the like are burnt
or broken or removed (from its proper place). But this is
not to be performed with respect but a linga or the like
which is established by a Sinddha or one who has become
successful in the highest religious practice, or which is
anadi i.e. of which the commencement is not known, or
which has no commencement. But their Mahabhisheka or
the ceremony of great anointment should be performed: -
this is said by Tri-Vikrama” – Nirnaya – Sindhu –
Kamalakar Bhatta, Bombay Edition of 1900 p.264.
The author of the Dharma-Sindhu says as above in almost
the same words – see Bombay Edition of 1988 p.234 of
that work. ”

[Treatise on Hindu Law by Golapchandra Sarkar, Sastri

(6th Edition, published by Easter Law House in 1927 at
p.745-748]

3. Alberuni who compiled his book India in or about 1030 A.D. on

page 121 of his book has written that the Hindus honour their
 269

Idols on account of those who erected them, not on account of

the material of which they are, best example whereof is Linga

of sand erected by Rama. In his book on pages 117, 209, 306-

07 and 380 he has also narrated about the Lord of Universe Sri

Rama. Relevant extract from page 121 of his book Alberuni’s

India Translated by Dr. Edward C. Sachau. Reprint 2007 of the

1st Edn. 1910 published Low Price Publications, Delhi reads as

follows:

“The Hindus honour their idols on account of those

who erected them, not on account of the material of
which they are made. We have already mentioned
that the idol of Multan was of wood. E.g. the linga
which Rama erected when he had finished the war
with the demons was of sand. Which he had
heaped up with his own hand. But then it became
petrified all at once, since the astrologically correct
moment for the erecting of the monument fell
before the moment when the workmen had finished
the cutting of the stone monument which Rama
originally had ordered.”
(ibid page 121)

4. According to the Hindus’ Divine Holy & Sacred Scriptures

there are two types of images one Svayambhu (self-existent or

self-revealed or self-built) and other Pratisthita (established or

consecrated). Where the Self-possessed Lord of Universe Sri

Vishnu has placed himself on earth for the benefit of mankind,

that is styled Svayambhu and it does not require Pratistha. As at

Ramajanamasthan the Lord of Universe Sri Vishnu appeared

and placed Himself on said sacred place said sacred place itself

became Svayambhu for the reason that invisible power of the

 270

Almighty remained there which confers merit and salvation to

the devotees. Consecrated artificial man-made Lepya images

i.e. moulded figures of metal or clay; and Lekhyas i.e. all kinds

of pictorial images including chiselled figures of wood or stone

not made by moulds are called Pratisthita. . B. K. Mukherjee in

his book on Hindu Law referring authorities describes

Svayambhu and Pratisthita artificial Images as follows:

“4.5 Images – their descriptions –

images, according to Hindu authorities are two kinds; first
is known as Svayambhu or self-existent, while the other is
Pratisthita or established. The Padmapuran says : The
image of Hari (God) prepared of stone, earth, wood,
metal, or the like and established according to the rights
laid down in Vedas, Smritis and tantras are called the
established; …
where the self possessed Vishnu has placed himself on
earth in stone, or wood for the benefit of mankind, that is
styled the self re-built.” Svayambhu or self-built image is
a product of nature, it is anadi or without any beginning
and the worshipper’s simply discover its existence. Such
image does not require consecration or Pratistha. All
artificial or man made images require consecration. An
image according to Matsyapuran may properly be made
of gold, silver, copper, iron, bronze or bell metal or any
kind of gem, stone, or wood, conch shell, crystal or eve
earth. Some persons worship images painted on wall or
canvas says the says the Britha Puran and some worship
the spheroidical stones known as Salgran. Generally
speaking, the puranic writers classified artificial images
under two heads; viz. (1) Lepya and (2) Lekhya. Lepya
images are moulded figures of metal or clay, while
Lekhyas denote all kinds of pectoral images including
chiselled figures of wood or stone not made by moulds.

[Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts of B. K.

Mukherjea 5th Edition, Published by Eastern Law House
at page 154.]

5. According to the Holy Scripture Sri Narsingh Puranam (62.7-14

 271

½ ) Pratistha of the Lord of Universe Sri Vishnu should be

done by chanting 1st Richa of the Purush Sukta of Shukla

Yajurved [i.e. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXXI] and be

worshipped dedicating prescribed offerings by chanting 2nd

to 15th Richas of the Purush Sukta. And if worshipper so wish

after completion of worship he may by chanting 16th Richas of

the Purush Sukta pray to Sri Vishnu for going to his His own

abode. Above-mentioned verses of Sri Narsingh Puranam and

Hindi translation thereof reads as follows:

 272

(Sri Narsingh Puranam 62.7-14 ½ )

Be it mentioned herein that in the above Sri Narsingh Puranam

62.13 Sloke enumerates Pradakshina i.e. Parikrama

(circumbulation) as 14th means of reverential treatment of the

Deity and thereby makes it integral part of the religious

customs and rituals of service and worship of a Deity.

6. 1st Holy Spells of Purush Sukta of the Holy Devine Shukla

Yajurved [i.e. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXXI] prescribed

by the Holy Sri Narsingh Puranam for Pratistha of the Lord of

Universe Sri Vishnu reads as follows:

 273

(ibid as translated by Swami Karpatriji and

published by Sri Radhakrishna Dhanuka Prakasan
Samsthanam, Edn. Vikram samvat 2048)

Simple English translation whereof reads as follows:

‘The Almighty God who hath infinite heads, infinite eyes;

infinite feet pervading the Earth on every side and
transgressing the universe installed Him in sanctum as
knower of inner region of hearts’.

Be it mentioned herein in the Mimamsa Darshan as commented

in Sanskrit by Sri sabar Swami and in Hindi by Sri Yudhisthir

Mimamsak and Mahabhasya meaning of “Sahasra” has also

been given “infinite” as also “one” apart from “thousand” and

according to context one or other meaning is adopted.

7. Nitya Karma Puja Prakash has prescribed a

Mantra of Yajurved [i.e. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter

II.13] for Pratistha of Lord Ganesh. Relevant portion of

the said book reads as follows:

[Nitya Karma Puja Prakash published by Gita

Press Gorakhpur 32nd Edn. 2060 Vikram Samvat
at page 244]

8. The Holy Sri Satpath-Brahman interpreting said Mantra II.13 of

the Holy Sri Shukla Yajurved [i.e. Vagasaneyee Samhita] says

that Pratistha of all Gods should be done by said Mantra. Be it

mentioned herein that the Holy Sri Satpath-Brahman being

Brahmn Part of Divine Sri Shukla Yajurved, interpreting

 274

Mantras of said Vagasaneyee Samhita tells about application of

those Mantras in Yajnas (Holy Sacrifices). Said Mantra II.13 of

the Divine Sri Shukla Yajurved (Vagasaneyee Samhita) as well

as Sri Satpath-Brahman (I.7.4.22) with original texts and

translations thereof read as follows:

(ibid Hindi Translation of Padmbhushan Sripad Damodar

Satvalekar,1989 Edn. Published by Swayadhyay Mandal
pardi)

English Translation of the above noted Hindi Translation reads

as follows:

“May your mind Delight in the gushing (of the ) butter.

May Brihaspati spread (carry through) this sacrifice !
May he restore the sacrifice uninjured. May all the Gods
rejoice here. Be established/seated here.”

Sanskrit text of Sri Satpath-Brahman (I.7.4.22) as printed in ‘Sri

Shukla Yajurvediya Satpath Brahman’ Vol. I on its page 150,

Edn. 1988 Published by Govindram Hasanand, Delhi 110006 is

reproduced as follows:
 275

English translation of Sri Satpath-Brahman (I.7.4.22) as printed

in Volume 12 of the series “The Sacred Books Of The east”

under title ‘The Satpath - Brahmana’ Part I on its page 215,

Edn. reprint 2001 Published by Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi

110007 is reproduced as follows:

(Sri Satpath-Brahman I.7.4.22)

9. 19th Holy Spells of Nasadiya Sukta of the Holy Devine Shukla

Yajurved [i.e. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXIII] is also

widely applied by the Knower of the Scriptures to invoke and

establish a deity. Said Mantra reads as follows:

English Translation of this Mantra based on Hindi Translation

of Padmbhushan Sripad Damodar Satvalekar,1989 Edn.

 276

Published by Swayadhyay Mandal pardi reads as follows:

“O, Lord of all beings we invoke Thee. O, Lord of

beloved one we invoke Thee. O, Lord of Wealth we
invoke Thee. O abode of all beings Thou are mine. O,
Sustainer of Nature let me know Thee well because Thee
the sustainer of Universe as embryo are Creator of All.”

[Shukla Yajurved Chapter XXIII Mantra 19]

10.The vivified image is regained with necessaries and luxuries of

life in due succession changing of clothes, offering of water,

sweets as well as cooked and uncooked food, making to sleep,

sweeping of the temple, process of smearing, removal of the

previous day’s offerings of flowers, presentation of fresh

flowers and other practices are integral part of Idol-worship.

These worships in public temple in olden days were being

performed by Brahmins learned in Vedas & Agamas. B. K.

Mukherjea in his book on Hindu Law writes as follows:

“4.7 Worship of the idol – after a deity is installed it

should be worshipped daily according to Hindu
Shastras. The person founding a deity becomes
morally responsible for the worship of the deity even if
no property is dedicated to it. This responsibility is
always carried out by a pious Hindu either by personal
performance of the religious right or in the case of
Sudras by the employment of a Bramhin priest. The
daily worship of a sacred image including the sweeping
of the temple, the process of smearing, the removal of
the previous day’s offerings of flowers, the presentation
of fresh flowers, the reciprocal obligation of rice with
sweets and water and other practices.” The deity in
shout is conceived of as leaving being and is treated in
the same way as the master of the house would be
treated by him humble servant. The daily routine of
live is gone through, with minute accuracy, the vivified
image is regained with necessaries and luxuries of life
in due succession even to the changing of clothes, the
offering of cooked and uncooked food and the
retirement to rest.
 277

[Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts of B. K.

Mukherjea 5th Edition, Published by Eastern Law
House at page 156.]
On behalf of the other Hindu defendants, it is suggested that the

deity's Pooja and Archana were going on, they are juristic person and

no decree can be passed to remove from the disputed structure unless

the juristic person i.e. deities are arrayed as a party.

The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by B.K.

Mukharjee, in this connection the attention of this Court was invited

from the side of Hindus on one of the most important book.“ The

Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by B.K.

Mukharjee”. The concept of deity in Hindu faith has been considered

in this outstanding book. The concept of deity is a distinguishing

feature of the Hindu faith. The deity is the image of Supreme Being.

The temple is the home of the deity. It is enough that Supreme Super

Human Being Power i.e. an idol or image of the Supreme Being

installed in the temple. The worship of such an image of the Supreme

Being is acceptable in Hindu law. Hindus have also the belief that idol

represent deity. In this context, para 1.33 pages 26 and 27 of the Hindu

Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by B.K. Mukharjee, 1952

Edition is reproduced as under:-

4. The traditional and classical legal literature relating to

Hindus has also duly sanctified such belief and faith which

has been exalted to a juristic status requiring legal

recognition. In this connection, “the Hindu Law of

 278

Religious and Charitable Trusts” by B.K. Mukherjea lays

down some of the relevant concepts relating to deity and the

temple along with concerned page number which are

consistently being recognized as judicial authorities, not

only in India but also abroad. The concept mentioned therein

along with concerned page numbers are being quoted below:

Page 26-27 – Para “1.33: Idols representing same divinity

– One thing you should bear in mind in connection with

image worship viz. That the different images do not represent

separate divinities; they are really symbols of the one

Supreme Being, and in whichever name and form the deity

might be invoked, he is to the devotee the Supreme God to

whom all the functions of creation, preservation and

destruction are attributed. In worshipping the image

therefore the Hindu purports to worship the Supreme Deity

and none else. The rationale of image worship is thus

given in a verse which is quoted by Raghunandan:

“Chinmayasyaadwitiiyasya Naskalashariirina

Saadhakaanaam Hinaathayi Brahmanii Roopakalpanaa.”

“It is for the benefit of the worshippers that there is

conception of images of Supreme Being which is bodiless,

has no attribute, which consists of pure spirit and has got

no second.”

Temples and mutts are the two principal religious institutions

of the Hindus. There are numerous texts extolling the merits

 279

of founding such institutions. In Sri Hari Bhaktibilash a

passage is quoted from Narsingha Purana which says that

“whoever conceives the idea of erecting a divine temple,

that very day his carnal sins are annihilated; what then shall

be said of finishing the structure according to rule ….........

He who dies after making the first brick obtains the religious

merits of a competed Jagna.”

“1.34. Other kinds of religious and charitable

benefactions.- “A person consecrating a temple”, says

Agastya, “also one establishing an asylum for ascetics also,

one consecrating an alms house for distributing food at all

times ascend to the highest heaven.”

Besides temples and mutts the other forms of religious and

charitable endowments which are popular among the Hindus

are excavation and consecration of tanks, wells and other

reservoirs of water, planting of shady trees for the benefit of

travellers, establishment of Choultries, satras or alms houses

and Dharamsala for the neefit of mendicants and wayfarers,

Arogyasalas or hospitals, and the last though not the least,

Pathshalas or schools for giving free education. Excavation

of tanks and planting of trees are Purtta works well known

from the earliest times. I have already mentioned that there

is a mention of rest houses for travellers even in the hymns

of the Rigveda. The Propatha of the Vedas is the same thing

as Choultrie or sarai and the name given to it by subsequent

 280

writers is Pratishraygrih. They were very popular during the

Buddhist tie. In Dana Kamalakara, a passage is quoted from

Markandeya Puran which says that one should make a house

of shelter for the benefit of travellers; and inexhaustible is his

religious merit which secures for him heaven and liberation.

There are more passages than one in the Puranas

recommending the establishment of hospitals. “One must

establish a hospital furnished with valuable medicines and

necessary utensils placed under an experienced physician and

having servants and rooms for the shelter of patients. This

text says further that a man, by the gift of the means of

freeing others from disease, becomes the giver of everything.

The founding of educational institutions has been praised in

the highest language by Hindu writers. Hemadri in his

Dankhanda has quoted a passage from Upanishad according

to which gifts of cows, land and learning are said to

constitute Atihaan or gifts of surpassing merit. In another

text cited by the same author, it is said that those excluded

from education do not know the lawful and the unlawful;

therefore no effort should be spared to cause dissemination of

education by gift of property to meet its expenses”.

Page 38-Para “1.50. The idol as a symbol and

embodiment of the spiritual purpose is the juristic person

in whom the dedicated property vests:- As you shall see

later on the decision of the Courts of India as well as of the

 281

Privy Council have held uniformly that the Hindu idol is a

juristic person in whom the dedicated property vests. “A

Hindu idol”, the Judicial Committee observed in one of its

recent pronouncements, “is according to long established

authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus

and the recognition thereof by Courts of Law, a juristic

entity. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and

being sued.” You should remember, however, that the

juridical person in the idol is not the material image, and it is

an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal

person as soon as it is consecrated by the Pran Pratistha

ceremony. It is not also correct that the Supreme Being of

which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and

owner of the dedicated property. The idol as representing and

embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic

person recognized by law and in this juristic person the

dedicated property vests.”

Page 38-39-Para “1.51. Deity owner in a secondary sense.-

The discussions of several Hindu sages and commentators

point to the conclusion that in case of dedicated property the

deity is to be regarded as owner not in the primary but in the

secondary sense. All the relevant texts on this point have

been referred to by Sir Asutosh Mookerjee in his judgment in

Bhupati v Ramlal and I will reproduce such portions of them

as are necessary for my present purpose.”

 282

Sulapani, a reputed Brahminical Jurist, in his discourse on

Sraddha thus expresses his views regarding the proper

significance of gift to God:- “in 'Donation' having for its

dative case, the Gods like the Sun, etc., the term 'donation'

has a secondary sense. The object of this figurative use being

extension to it of the inseparable accompaniment of that (gift

in its primary sense), viz., the offer of the sacrifical fee etc. it

has already been remarked in the chapter on the Bratis that

such usage as Devagram, Hastigram, etc., are secondary”.

Sree Krishna in commenting on this passage thus explains

the meaning of the expression Devgram: “Moreover, the

expression cannot be used here in its primary sense. The

relation of one's ownership being excluded, the possessive

case affix (in Devas in the term Devagram) figuratively

means abandonment for them (the Gods)”. Therefore, the

expression is used in the sense of “a village which is the

object of abandonment intended for the Gods”. This is the

purport. According to Savar Swami, the well-known

commentator on Purba Mimansa, Devagram and Devakhetra

are figurative expressions. What one is able to employ

according to one's desire is one's property. The Gods

however do not employ a village or land according to their

use.”

Page 39-Para “1.52. These discussions are not free from

obscurity but the following conclusions I think can be safely

 283

drawn from them:-(1) According to these sages the deity or

idol is the owner of the dedicated property but in a secondary

sense. The ownership in its primary sense connotes the

capacity to enjoy and deal with the property at one's pleasure.

A deity cannot hold or enjoy property like a man, hence the

deity is not the owner in its primary sense. (2) Ownership is

however attributed to the deity in a secondary or ideal sense.

This is a fiction (Upchaar) but not a mere figure of speech, it

is a legal fact; otherwise the deity could not be described as

owner even in the secondary sense. (3) The fictitious

ownership which is imputed to the deity is determined by the

expressed intentions of the founder; the debutter property

cannot be applied or used for any purpose other than that

indicated by the founder. The deity as owner therefore

represents nothing else but the intentions of the founder.

Although the discussions of the Hindu Jurists are somewhat

cryptic in their nature, it is clear that they did appreciate the

distinction between the spiritual and legal aspects of an idol.

From the spiritual standpoint the idol might be to the

devotee the very embodiment of Supreme God but that is a

matter beyond the reach of law altogether. Neither God nor

any supernatural being could be a person in law. So far as the

deity stands as the representative and symbol of the

particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can

figure as a legal person and the correct view is that in the

 284

capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it.”

Thus, the Hindu concept of deity is worship of the images. It is

an admitted case that deities were installed and are being worshiped in

the structure. The time of installation has been seen in another issue

but the factum is the same that the deities were available inside the

structure and the plaintiffs have sought the relief of the removal

without arraying them as a party. It is not a matter of dispute that deity

is a juristic person. The plaintiffs are not in a position to say whether

Pran Pratishtha was performed or not? The Hindu concept is that

deities had to be worshipped. Thus the idol is a juristic person but they

did not recognize a temple to be so. It is also a settled proposition of

law that no decree can be passed against the juristic person without

arraying them as a party. Thus, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in 2000 (4) SSC 146, Shiromani Gurudwara

Prabandhak Committee Vs. Somnath Das. The deities installed and

admitted by the plaintiff are the juristic persons. In view of AIR 1957

SC Page 133, Deoki Nandan Aggarwal vs. Murlidhar endowment

property in favour of an idol as they are juristic persons. On the

contrary, that the defendants Hindus' claim that deities have been

Pran Pratishthit and they are idol or deities and according to their faith

they are being properly worshipped and Muslims cannot claim that the

religious performance of Hindus were defective and accordingly they

are not juristic persons. In view of AIR 1966 Patna 235, Ram Ratan

Lal vs. Kashi Nath Tewari and others that the actual Sankalp and

Samarpan is not necessary. It is always possible that by worship also,

 285

the deities acquire divinity. it is admitted between the parties that the

prayers were offered to the deities at least from December, 1949 and

the suit was filed after a long time even then the plaintiffs cannot, at

this stage, suggest that there was no Pran Pratishtha in the temple of

the deities. It is also a matter of common knowledge that deities are

installed with Pran Pratishta. There is no difference between idol and

deities. According to Hindu faith the worship is going on for the last

61 years. Accordingly at no stretch of imagination, at this stage, it can

be said that without any Pran Pratishtha or Pooja the deities were

installed.

Thus, in view of AIR 1925 Privy Council 139 Pramatha Nath

Mullick Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick even idol is a juristic

person and it can sue and be sued. It is not a property which can be

shifted to other place. Thus in this case once the parties accept that

idols were placed and the worship was going on in that event there is

no difference between deities and idols. The worship/prayers were

offered. They were properly being worshipped for the last many

decades. Accordingly, at this stage there is no justification to hold that

the idol should not be treated as juristic persons. There is no material

available on record that deities or idols or images cannot be supposed

to be juristic persons. Thus, on hyper technical grounds and for want

of any evidence from the side of the plaintiffs that Pran Pratishtha of

the idols were not done, accordingly they are not a juristic person,

cannot be accepted.

Thus, I hold that the deities are juristic persons. In the decision
 286

of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Udit Narayan AIR 1963

Supreme Court page 786, Re. Udit Narayan case, the Constitutional

Bench of the Apex Court held that behind the back of a necessary

party no decree should be passed. Further in the case of Kasturi Vs.

Iyyam Peumal and others reported in 2005 (6) SCC 733 the Hon'ble

Court held that deity is a necessary party and without arraying deity

as a necessary party, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

In this context, it may be relevant to mention that Ram Lala Virajman

is a juristic person and without arraying Him as a necessary party, no

effective decree can be passed. Thus, deities are necessary parties in

the suit. The contention of the plaintiffs that without any

Pranprathistha of the deities, they are not juristic person is not

accepted for the reasons ,referred to above. Moreover, the Hindus have

claimed that there was Pran Prathistha and this fact could not be

repelled by Muslim. Thus, I hold that idols are necessary parties. It is

also settled proposition of law that deities become necessary party as

declared against the interest of deities will not bind the deity vide AIR

1960 Supreme Court page 100, Narayan Bhagwant Rao Vs. Gopal

Vinayak . Further this Court in AIR 1957 Allahabad page 77

Mukundji Mahraj Vs Persottam held that if deities are not arrayed

as a party, the decree shall be a nullity. Again in AIR 1957 Allahabad

743 B. Jangi Lal Vs. B. Panna Lal and another the Court held that

if the interest of idols are not directly affected or its own existence is

seriously imperilled, the appearance of the idols before the court is

necessary.
 287

There is nothing on record to discredit the statement of Hindus

that their idols are having Pranprathistha and are being worshipped,

accordingly they are necessary parties and decree, if passed against the

deity, shall be a nullity.

Thus, to my mind no effective relief can be granted without

arraying the deities as parties in this suit and no effective decree can

be passed against the deities, who are installed and worshipped prior

to the filing of the suit. Suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary

parties. Issue no. 21 is decided accordingly in favour of the defendant

and against the plaintiff.

ISSUES NO. 23 & 24

23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,

whether the said Board can file a suit against the State

itself?

24. If the wakf Board is State under 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”?

FINDINGS:

These issues are inter related. The United Provinces Muslim

Waqf Act, 1936 has already been repealed and the suit was filed by

Board constituted under U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960. The

Constitution of India came into force on 26.1.1950 in view of Article

12 of the Constitution of India, Board is an instrumentality of the

 288

State. However, in view of Section 19(q) of Muslim Waqf Act, 1960,

the Board can institute and defend suits and proceedings in court of

law relating to Waqfs. Thus, issues no. 23 & 24 are decided

accordingly that the Waqf Board is under the law is competent to

institute the suit. However, it may be clarified that for want of valid

notification under Section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 and the

United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, the property cannot be

deemed to be a Waqf Property. Accordingly the suit on this count is

not maintainable. Issues No. 23 & 24 are decided against the plaintiffs.

ISSUES NO. 25 & 26

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?”

26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer

prayer when structure which stood thereon has been

demolished?”

FINDINGS:

These issues are inter related and can conveniently be disposed

of at one place. Muslims claim that they can offer prayers in the open

site as a Mosque even after the demolition of the disputed structure

which goes to show that once a Mosque always a Mosque with or

without any structure is the sum and substance of the arguments of

the plaintiffs. On the contrary defendants claim that the suit is liable

to be dismissed as the property is no more and the structure has

 289

already been demolished.

Defendants further claim that the property in suit was not in

exclusive possession of Muslims right from 1858. It is further

submitted that in view of the possession of Hindus from 1858 and

onwards which is evident from Ext. 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 31, the

outer courtyard was exclusively in possession of Hindus and the inner

courtyard was not exclusively in possession of Muslims but also in

joint possession of Hindus and Muslims till 1934. Muslims were

dispossessed from the inner courtyard also in 1934 and plaintiffs admit

that Muslims were dispossessed on 22/23December 1949 from the

inner courtyard. Thus, on the basis of Islamic tenets the Muslims

claim that the property shall be construed as a Mosque. In this

reference the controversy has already been set at rest by the Privy

Council in the decision of Masjid Shahid Ganj Vs. Shiromani

Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1940 Privy

Council 116.

The aforesaid view has been approved in Dr. M. Ismail

Faruqui Vs. Union Of India, 1994 (6) SCC 360, Para 70 of the

ruling is relevant which reads as under:-

In Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors. v. Shiromani

Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar AIR 1938 Lahore 369, it

was held that where a mosque has been adversely possessed by non-

Muslims, it lost its sacred character as mosque. Hence, the view that

once a mosque is consecrated, it remains always a place of worship as

a mosque was not the Mohammedan Law of India as approved by

 290

Indian Courts. It was further held by the majority that a mosque in

India was an immovable property and the right of worship at a

particular place is lost when the right to property on which it stands is

lost by adverse possession. The conclusion reached in the minority

judgment of Din Mohd., J. is not the Mohammedan Law of British

India. The majority view expressed by the learned Chief Justice of

Lahore High Court was approved by the Privy Council in AIR 1940

PC 116, in the appeal against the said decision of the Lahore High

Court. The Privy Council held:

“...It is impossible to read into the modern Limitation Acts

any exception for property made wakf for the purposes of

mosque whether the purpose be merely to provide money

for the upkeep and conduct of a mosque or to provide a site

and building for the purpose. While their Lordships have

every sympathy with the religious sentiment which would

ascribe sanctity and inviolability to a place of worship, they

cannot under the Limitation Act accept the contentions that

such a building cannot be possessed adversely to the wakf,

or that it is not so possessed so long as it is referred to as

"mosque" or unless the building is razed to the ground or

loses the appearance which reveals its original purpose.”

In view of the aforesaid decision, it transpires that the case of

the defendants that they adversely possessed the property in suit leave

no room for doubt that the property in suit lost its sacred character as a

Mosque. Moreover, the disputed structure has already been

 291

demolished. Accordingly, this place cannot be called as a Mosque and

Muslims can not use the open place as a Mosque to offer prayers.

Issues No. 25 & 26 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of

the defendants.

ISSUE NO. 27:-

“Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,

Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also

demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”

FINDINGS:

It is not disputed that on 6.12.1992 the disputed structure and

other adjoining places were demolished. Ext 18, application dated

2.11.1883 moved by Syed Mohammad Asgar against Raghubar Das

reveals the existence of Chabutra, Ram Janam Sthan, Rasoi Bhandar

and Charan Padhuka. Site plan prepared on 6.12.1885 by

Commissioner Gopal Sahai in Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 confirms that

foot prints, Chabutra and Bhandar were in existence. Thus, besides,

the site plan Ext.25, the judgment dated 18.3.1886 further confirms

the existence of Ram Chabutra,Charan Paduka and Rasoi Bhandaar.

Lastly, in Original Suit No. 2 of 1950 Gopal Singh Visharad Vs.

Jahoor Ahmad, the Commissioner made a local inspection and

prepared site-plan, proved the existence of Sita rasoi, Ram Chabutra

and Rasoi Bhandar. There is nothing on record to discredit the report

of the Commissioner appointed by the Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts , I hold that the outer courtyard

contained Ram Chabutra, Rasoi Bhandar and Sita Rasoi in the

 292

disputed premises which were demolished on 6.12.1992 along with

disputed structure.

Issue no. 27 is decided accordingly.

Tripathi/Tanveer/-