Supreme court heard the Ayodhya Dispute Case on 5-Dec 2017 for the first time . The next hearing, arguments, would start from 8-Feb-2017 . Hence it is important to understand the judgement which was pronounced by Allahabad High Court on 30 September 2010 .
To understand the dispute of Ram Janam Bhoomi also read :
understand Ram Janmabhoomi - Babri Masjid dispute
Fact # 1
When the structure in the disputed premises was constructed and by whom and what was its nature ?
Muslim Parties - Muslim Parties particularly Waqf Board have asserted that the disputed premises
including the constructed portion therein was a mosque constructed by Babar (or on his orders)
in 1528 .
Hindu Parties - even if, it was assumed/ proved that the premises in dispute or the constructed portion and the
inner courtyard was a mosque still it ceased to be a mosque since 1934 when during a riot the
same was substantially damaged and that thereafter no Muslim offered prayer/ namaz in the said
Fact # 2
Whether the site of the premises in dispute was treated to be birth-place of Lord Ram before construction of the mosque and whether there was any temple standing thereupon, which was demolished for constructing the mosque ?
Hindu Parties - argued that as no other place in Ayodhya was worshipped as the birth place and as Muslims have
not been able to point out any other such place hence premises in dispute is the birth-place .
Muslim Parties - contended that it was not disputed that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya, however they
disputed the assertion that Lord Ram was born at the premises in dispute .
Fact # 3
Whether idols were placed inside the constructed portion for the first time on 23.12.1949 ?
It has been held under the previous heading that the constructed portion and the inner courtyard was a mosque
and used by Muslims for offering only friday prayer for some time before 22/23.12.1949 . In the hearing it was
held that the idols were kept on the pulpit inside the constructed portion/ mosque for the first time in the
night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 .
Fact # 4
When the Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi in the outercourtyard came into existence ?
Hindu Parties - asserted that it was in existence since the time of construction of the building in the premises
Muslim Parties - Muslim parties could not give even a tentative period when Ram Chabutra etc. in the outer
courtyard came into existence, however some Muslim parties stated that it was constructed in
Accordingly, the only thing which can be said is that it came into existence before visit of Joseph
Tieffenthaler(he mentioned in his writings in 1771 AD) but after construction of mosque .
Fact # 5
Who is in the Possession of the disputed land ?
Muslim Parties - Muslims have not been able to prove that the land belonged to Babar under whose orders the
mosque was constructed .
Hindus Parties - Hindus have not been able to prove that there was any existing temple at the place where the
mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple. It has also not been proved by the Hindus
that the specific small portion i.e. premises in dispute of 1500 square yards was treated,
believed and worshipped as birth-place of Lord Ram before construction of mosque .
In such situation when both the parties have failed to prove initial title .
Burden of proof as to ownership
"When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on theperson who affirms that he is not the owner ."
Fact # 6
Whether the mosque was valid mosque ?
A. - Under Muslim law no one can construct a mosque over the land of the other unless the other i.e. the owner
permits or sanctions afterwards for the same - possession of the land is unclear when Mosques was
constructed hence it cannot be said that the mosque was not
a valid mosque having been constructed over the land of
someone else .
B. - There was no minaret in the mosque - it is not an essential condition of mosque .
C. - There was no arrangement for vazoo - in the map prepared by the Amin in the suit of 1885 such a place has
been shown. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the mosque did not
remain a mosque as facility for vazoo was dis-continued some time after
D. - Near or in a graveyard there cannot be a mosque - In any case the graveyard around the mosque came into
existence after construction of mosque as about 75
Muslims were killed in the riot of 1855 and buried
around the mosque.
Fact # 7
The map of the disputed site :-
Final GIST of the issues by the Honorale High Court
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
11. 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.