3270

Sati Das be relieved of their obstruction and molestation. It
has been represented to the Emperor that some of the
Bohras have removed and carried away the masata
(materials) of the said deohara (temple). If this be a fact
the said material should be recovered from them and
restored to (Sati Das) but if the said material has been used
up, their price be recovered from them and paid to Sati
Das. It bears the tughra of Shah Jahan in addition to the
tughra and seal of Prince Dara Shukoh. there is a note on
the top on the right hand side which begins with the word
'Huwa' and directs the hukkam to act in conformity with the
nishan i ali. (JUB, IX, pp. 39-41).
13 Rajab 22 Julus/1058 A.H./3 August 1648 A.D.
3320. In his book ‘Digest of Moohummudan Law’ (first
part) Neil B. E. Baillie writes that wakif or appropriator must be
owner of the subject of the wakf at the time of making it and if a
person usurp a piece of land, create wakf and then purchase it
from the owner, it would not be a wakf. And if Zimmee gives
his mansion for using it as a masjid for Mussulmans, after his
death it would become the inheritance of his heirs. Relevant
portions of the said book from page 557, 558, 561 & 562 read as
follows:
“THE legal meaning of wukf , or appropriation, according
to Aboo Huneefa, is the detention of a specific thing in the
ownership of the wakif or appropriator, and the devoting or
appropriating of its profits or usufruct in charity on the
poor, or other good objects.”
“According to the two deciples, wukf is the detention of a
thing in the implied ownership of Almighty God, in such a
3271
manner that its profits may revert to or be applied fof the
benefit of mankind, and the appropriation is obligatory, so
that the thing appropriated can neither be sold, nor given
nor inherited.”
“But if a zimmee should give his mansion as a musjid, or
place of worship, for Mussulmans, and construct it as they
are accustomed to do, and permit them to pray in it, and
they should pray in it, and he should then die, it would
become the inheritance of his heirs, according to all
opinions.”
“It is also a condition that the thing appropriated be the
appropriator’s property at the time of the appropriation; so
that, if one were to usurp a piece of land, appropriate, and
then purchase it from the owner, and pay the price, or
compound with him for other property, which is actually
delivered up, it would not be a wukf .”
“And if a donee of land should make an appropriation of it
before taking possession, and should then take possession,
the wukf would not be valid.”
“If the appropriation were made before taking possession,
it would not be lawful.”
3321. Great jurist Syed Ameer Ali in his book
‘Commentaries on Mahommedan Law’ extracting the
authority writes that the wakif must be lawful owner of the
property at the time of creation of wakf. Otherwise a wakf is
invalid. Relevant extract from page 225 of the said book reads
as follows:
“The subject-matter of the dedication must be the lawful
property of the wakif at the time the wakf is made, that is,
3272
he must be in a position to exercise dominion over it.
Consequently, if a wakf is made by a person of some
property which he has un-lawfully acquired, it would be
invalid, although he may subsequently purchase it from the
lawful owner. So also, when a man makes a wakf, for
certain good purposes, of land belonging to another, and
then becomes the proprietor of it, the ( sic She) wakf is not
lawful.”
3322. In his book ‘Principles of Mahomeddan Law’ D.F.
Mullah writes that wakif must be owner at the time of
dedication. Relevant extract from page 149 of the said book
reads as follows:
“146C. Subject of wakf must belong to wakif.— The
property dedicated by way of wakf must belong to the wakif
(dedicator) at the time of dedication (s).”
3323. In AIR 1975 SC 2299 ( Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Rajnarain) the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through the
Hon’ble Justice M. H. Bag, J. (as His Lordship then was)
explaining the law of sovereignty in paragraph 526 to 571, in
paragraph 527, 532-534 and 571 held that the Muslim Rulers as
well as the Hindu Rulers were subject to their respective divine
sacred law and the law was king of the kings. Relying on said
judgment it is submitted that conversion of Sri
Ramajanamasthan Temple into an alleged mosque either by the
Emperor Babar or Aurangzeb in violation of the Law of Shar
makes their such act null and alb-into mill and void and such
building does not comes within the definition of a mosque.
Paragraph nos. 527, 532-534 and 571 of the aforesaid judgment
read as follows:
3273
“527. I must preface my observations here about the
concepts of "sovereignty" and exercise of "sovereign
power" between which I make a distinction, with two
kinds of explanation. The first kind involves an exposition
of a functional or sociological point of view. I believe that
every social political, economic, or legal concept or
doctrine must answer the needs of the people of a country
at a particular time. I see the development of concepts,
doctrines, and institutions as responses to the changing
needs of society in every country. They have a function to
fulfil in relation to national needs. The second type of
explanation may be called historical or meant merely to
indicate and illustrate notions or concepts put forward by
thinkers at various times in various countries so as to
appropriately relate them to what we may find today under
our Constitution. We have to appreciate the chronology or
stages of their development if we are to avoid trying to fit
into our Constitution something which has no real
relevance to it or bearing upon its contents or which
conflicts with these. It must not, if I may so put it, be
constitutionally "indigestible" by a constitution such as
ours. Of course, it is not a secret that we have taken some
of the basic concepts of our Constitution from British and
American Constitutions in their most developed stages.
That too must put us on our guard against attempts to foist
upon our Constitution something simply because it
happens to be either a British or American concept of
some particular period which could not possibly be found
in it today. Therefore, both types of explanation appear to
3274
be necessary to an exposition of what may or may not be
found in our Constitution.
532. After the break-up of the Roman Empire, there were
attempts in medieval Europe, both by the Church and the
Kings, to develop spiritual and temporal means for
checking wrong and oppression. Quests for the superior or
a sovereign power and its theoretical justifications by both
ecclesiastical and lay thinkers were parts of an attempt to
meet this need. The claims of those who, as vicars of God
on earth, sought to meddle with mundane and temporal
affairs and acquire even political power and influence
were, after a struggle for power, which took different
forms in different countries, finally defeated by European
Kings with the aid of their subjects. Indeed these Kings
tried to snatch, and, not without success, to wear spiritual
crowns which the roles of "defenders of the faith" carried
with them so as to surround themselves with auras of
divinity.
533. The theory of a legally sovereign unquestionable
authority of the King, based on physical might and victory
in battle, appears to have been developed in ancient India
as well, by Kautaliya, although the concept of a Dharma,
based on the authority of the assemblies of those who
were learned in the dharmashastras also competed for
control over exercise of royal secular power. High
philosophy and religion, however, often seem to have
influenced and affected the actual exercise of sovereign
power and such slight Lawmaking as the King may have
attempted. The ideal King in ancient India, was
3275
conceived of primarily as a Judge deciding cases or
giving orders to meet specific situations in accordance
with the Dharma Shastras. It also appears that the actual
exercise of the power to administer justice was often
delegated by the King to his judges in ancient India.
Indeed, according to some, the theory of separation of
powers appears to have been carried so far (See: K. P.
Jayaswal in "Manu and Yajnavalkya" - A basic History of
Hindu Law - 1930 Edn. p. 82) that the King could only
execute the legal sentence passed by the Judge.
534. We know that Semitic prophets, as messengers of
God, also became rulers wielding both spiritual and
political temporal power and authority although to Jesus
Christ, who never sought temporal power, is ascribed the
saying: "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's
and to God things that are God's". According to the theory
embodied in this saying, spiritual and temporal powers
and authorities had to operate in different orbits of power
altogether. Another theory, however, was that the messeng
of God had been given the sovereign will of God
Almighty which governed all matters and this could not be
departed from by any human authority or ruler. In the
practical administration of justice, we are informed,
Muslim caliphs acknowledged and upheld the jurisdiction
of their Kazis to give judgment against them personally.
There is an account of how the Caliph Omar, being a
defendant in a claim brought by a jew for some money
borrowed by him for purposes of State, appeared in person
in the Court of his own Kazi to answer the claim. The
3276
Kazi rose from his seat out of respect for the Caliph who
was so displeased with this unbecoming conduct that he
dismissed him from office. (See: Sir A. Rahim's
"Muhammadan Jurisprudence", (1958) p. 21).
571. I find that the doctrine of the supremacy or
sovereignty of the Constitution was adopted by a Bench of
seven learned Judges of this Court in Special Reference
No, 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 = (AIR 1965 SC 745)
where Gajendragadkar, C. J., speaking for six learned
Judges of this Court said (at p .446) (of SCR) = (at pp.
762-763 of AIR) :
"In a democratic country governed by a written
Constitution, it is the Constitution which is supreme and
sovereign. It is no doubt true that the Constitution itself
can be amended by the Parliament, but that is possible
because Art. 368 of the Constitution itself makes a
provision in that behalf, and the amendment of the
Constitution can be validly made only by following the
procedure prescribed by the said article. That shows that
even when the Parliament purports to amend the
Constitution, it has to comply with the relevant mandate of
the Constitution' itself. Legislators, Ministers, and Judges
all take oath of allegiance to the Constitution, for it is by
the relevant provisions of the Constitution that they derive
their authority and jurisdiction and it is to the provisions
of the Constitution that they owe allegiance. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that the sovereignty which can be
claimed by the Parliament in England, cannot be claimed
by any Legislature in India in the literal absolute sense."
3277
3324. In AIR 1994 SC 2663 (N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held
when the law provides for compensation against confiscation, he
must be compensated and confiscation cannot effect the right of
owner to claim return of the goods. Relying on said judgment it
is submitted that when the Law of Shar says that no one can
acquire ownership of the property of others by virtue of adverse
position but it can be only by purchase, alleged erection of
alleged mosque over a Sacred shrine of the Hindus by virtue of
forceful occupation makes such building only ordinary private
building not the Mosque. Relevant paragraph 8 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
"8. This sub-section ensures that a person who has been
prosecuted or whose goods have been confiscated does not
suffer if the ultimate order either in appeal or in any
proceeding is in his favour. It is very wide in its import as it
statutorily obliges the Government to return the goods
seized or to pay the value of the goods if for any reason it
cannot discharge its obligation to return it. The
circumstances in which the goods are to be returned are;
(a) an order under S. 6A is modified or annulled by the
State Government;
(b) where the goods were confiscated in consequence of
prosecution of the person and he is acquitted;
(c) and in all these cases where it is not possible for any
reason to return the essential commodity seized. This
provision cuts across the argument of the State that where
even part is confiscated the person whose goods are seized
is not liable to be compensated for the remaining. The
3278
section is clear that if only part of the goods are
confiscated then the remaining has to be returned. The very
first part of the sub-section indicates that where the order
of confiscation, is modified in appeal meaning thereby if
confiscation is confined to part only the Government is
bound to release or return the remaining or pay the value
thereof. But what is more significant of this sub-section
which widens its reach is the expression, 'and in either case
it is not possible for any reason to return the essential
commodity seized' then, the State shall be liable to pay the
market price of the value with interest. The expression, 'for
any reason' should be understood in broader and larger
sense as it appears from the context in which it has been
used. The inability to return, giving rise to the statutory
obligation of deeming it as sale to the Government may
arise for variety of reasons and extends to any failure on
the part of the Government. For instance, the goods might
have been sold in pursuance of interim arrangement under
S. 6A(2). Or it might have been lost or stolen from the
place of storage. The goods might have deteriorated or
rusted in quality or quantity. The liability to return the
goods seized does not stand discharged by offering them in
whatever condition it was. Confiscation of part of the
goods thus could not affect the right of owner to claim
return of the remaining goods. Nor the owner is bound to
accept the goods in whatever condition they are. The claim
of the respondent, therefore, that the appellant was bound
to accept the goods in whatever condition they were is
liable to be rejected."
3279
3325. In AIR 1971 SC 1594 (Union of India. v.
Sudhangshu Mazumdar) the Hon’ble Apex Court has quoted
an extract from the United States v. Juan Prechman, (1831-34)
L.Ed. 604 with approval wherein it has been stated that the
modern usage of nations would be outraged if private properties
are confiscated or private rights annulled. Relevant paragraph 7
of the said judgment reads as follows:
“7. Dr. Singhvi says that the first premise on which the
High Court has proceeded is that as a result of cession it
would be competent for the Government of Pakistan to deal
with the disputed territory as an absolute owner in
complete disregard of the existing rights of the respondents.
In other words it has been assumed that the Government of
Pakistan will not recognise ownership or other similar
rights of the respondents in the lands and properties which
belong to them. This Dr. Singhvi claims, is contrary to the
rule enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall in The United
States v. Juan Perchman, (1831-34) 8 L. ed 604 in the
following words:
"The modern usage of nations, which has become law,
would be violated: that sense of justice and of right which
is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilised world
would be outraged, if private property should be generally
confiscated and private rights annulled. The people change
their allegiance; their relation to their ancient sovereign is
dissolved; but their relations to each other and their rights
of property, remain undisturbed."
The rule set forth in the Perchman case, (1831-34) 8 L. ed
604 has been followed in over forty American cases and
3280
has been accepted as the rule of International law in
English,
French, German and Italian law*
* Extracts from the Law of Nations (2nd Edn. 1953), p.
237, Cf. F. B. Sayre, "Change of Sovereignty and Private
Ownership of Land," 12 XII A. J. L L (1918), 475, 481,
495- 497”
3326. In 1999 (4) SCC 663 (R.E.M.S. Abdul Hameed v.
Govindaraju) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that under the
Ancient Hindu Law there were two beneficial interests in land:
(1) that of the sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the
cultivator or Ryot holding the land. The Ryot’s right arose from
occupation of the land, thus the grant of an Inam do not and
could not have touched the cultivator’s right in the land, except
in rare cases where the grantor also hold the cultivator’s interest
at the time of the grant. Relying on Said judgment it is
submitted that in our country since inception subjects were
proprietor of their private properties and the Kings were only
entitled for land revenue, Sri Mishra argued that Sri
Ramajanamasthan was all along and is being owned by the
Deity Sri Ramalala as such the right of private property of the
Deity cannot be extinguished. Relevant paragraph 4 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
“4. The central question in issue is the interpretation of
clause (b) Explanation I to Section 2(11) of Act 26 of 1963.
Learned counsel for the aforesaid respective appellants, Mr
Tripurari Ray and Mr A.T.M. Sampath, Senior Counsel
submit on the facts of this case that the disputed land
cannot be construed to be “part-village inam estate” to fall
3281
within Act 26 of 1963 but is a minor inam to fall under Act
30 of 1963. Before taking up this issue of “part-village
inam estate”, it is necessary to look back to the history of
inam lands, how it emerged, was recognised, canalised and
dealt with through various enactments till it reached the
legislative umbrella of both Acts 26 and 30 of 1963. The
law relating to the landholdings, agrarian reform, in the
Presidency town of Madras, with reference to the landlords
and ryots started from the previous century and it is
interesting to note a few of the essential features of this
agrarian development. The origin of inam tenure is traced
back to its grant made by Hindu rulers for the support of
temples and charitable institutions, for the maintenance of
holy and learned men rendering public service, etc. This
practice was followed by the Mohammedan rulers and by
British administrators until about a century ago.
According to the ancient Hindu law, there were two
beneficial interests in land, namely, (1) that of the
sovereign or his representative, and (2) that of the
cultivator holding the land. The sovereign’s right to
collect a share of the produce of the cultivated land was
known by the name “melvaram”, the share of the ryot or
cultivator was known by the name “kudivaram”. The
ryot’s right arose from occupation of the land. Thus, the
grant of an inam did not touch, and could not have
touched, the cultivator’s right in the land, namely, the
kudivaram, except in rare cases where the grantor was also
holding the cultivator’s interest at the time of the grant.”
3327. In AIR 1962 SC 342 (Sunka Villi Suranna. v. Goli
3282
Sathiraju) the Hon’ble Apex Court held, where there was no
evidence to show that the occupation of the lands by the Ryot
commence under the Zamindar and there was no evidence as to
the terms at which the Ryots or his predecessors were inducted
in land, commencement of the tenancy and the terms thereof
were lost in antiquity but the Ryot’s rights and his descendants
were proved to have continued in possession of the land
uninterruptedly till the enactment of the Madras States Land
Act, 1908. In the light of the presumption that the Zamindar
was, unless the contrary was proved, the owner of the melvaram
and Ryot the owner of the kudivaram the interference was
irresistible that the Ryot was the holder of the occupancy rights
in the land and thus rights developed upon his successors and
the occupancy right in the land were not acquired by virtue of
the provisions of Madras States Land Act, 1908. Relying
thereon it is argued that prior to declaring the land as nazul land
by the Governor- eneral in 1859, the Hindus were worshipping
in the suit property as such the occupancy rights remained in the
hands of the Hindus. Relevant paragraph 17 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
“17. To summarise, there is no evidence to show that
occupation of the lands by Thammiah commenced under
the zamindar and there is no evidence as to the terms on
which Thammiah or his predecessors were inducted on the
lands: the commencement of the tenancy and the terms
thereof are lost in antiquity, but Thammiah and his
descendants are proved to have continued in possession of
land uninterruptedly till the enactment of the Madras
Estates Land Act, 1908. In the light of the presumption that
3283
the zamindar is unless the contrary is proved, the owner of
the melvaram and the ryot the owner of the kudivaram the
inference is irresistible that Thammiah was the holder of
the occupancy rights in the lands and that these rights
devolved upon his successors and that the occupancy rights
in the lands were not acquired by virtue of the provisions of
Madras Act VI of 1908.”
3328. In (2001) 4 SCC 713 (Syndicate Bank. v. Prabha
D. Naik) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Muslim
jurisprudence neither recognised prescription nor limitation.
Relying on the said judgment it is submitted that as Hindu
Endowment was existing prior to acquisition of Kingship by the
Emperor Babur and said ownership of the Deity existed till the
day of confiscation of the rights of the proprietors in land in the
year 1859 by the British government which right of the Deity
again revived when the State of Uttar Pradesh gave up its said
right by filing written statement in the instant Suit, as such the
said sacred shrine of the Hindus is not liable to be declared as a
mosque. Relevant paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as
follows:
“6. Incidentally, it may be noted that though the old Hindu
law recognised both prescription and limitation but
Muslim jurisprudence recognised neither of them. The
new Law of Limitation in terms of the Limitation Act of
1963 however, does not make any racial or class distinction
since both Hindu and Muslim laws are amenable to the
Law of Limitation as is presently existing in the statute-
book (see in this context B.B. Mitra’s Limitation Act ; 20th
Edn.).”
3284
3329. In AIR 1968 SC 683 (V. D. Dhanwatey. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, M. P., Nagpur & Bhandara) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while interpreting an ancient
text, the Courts must give them a liberal construction to further
the interest of the society by wisely interpreting the original
texts in such a way as to bring them in harmony with the
prevailing conditions. Relying on said judgment it is submitted
that the Sthandil i.e. Sri Ramjanmasthan which has been
recognized by the scriptures a means of conferring merit upon
the devotees and granting salvation to them be recognized as
Juridical entity and not mere property in crude sense to do
justice in the greater interest of the citizens of India in general
and the Hindu and Muslim community in particular to pave the
way of permanent peace. Relevant paragraph 31 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
“31. Law is a social mechanism to be used for the
advancement of the society. It should not be allowed to be a
dead weight on the society. While interpreting ancient texts,
the courts must give them a liberal construction to further
the interests of the society. Our great commentators in the
past bridged the gulf between law as enunciated in the
Hindu law texts and the advancing society by wisely
interpreting the original texts in such a way as to bring
them in harmony with the prevailing conditions. To an
extent, that function has now to be discharged by our
superior courts. That task is undoubtedly a delicate one. In
discharging that function our courts have shown a great
deal of circumspection. Under modern conditions
legislative modification of laws is bound to be confined to
3285
major changes. Gradual and orderly development of law
can only be accomplished by judicial interpretation. The
Supreme Court's role in that regard is recognised by Article
141 of our Constitution.”
3330. In AIR 2008 SCW 1224=2008(3) SCC 481 (Dist.
Basic Education Officer & Anr. v. Dhananjai Kumar Shukla
& Anr.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the rules of
pleadings do not apply to question of law and new plea on
question of law can be raised before the Supreme Court even it
was not raised before the High Court. Relying on said judgment
it is submitted that the questions of law which have been raised
during the argument are sustainable in the eye of law and needed
to be decided for doing complete justice between the parties who
are representing two major community of India. Relevant
paragraph 14 (13 in SCC) of the said judgment reads as follows:
“14. Rules of pleading contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure do not cover questions of law. If a fact stands
admitted the same in terms of Section 56 of the Indian
Evidence Act need not be proved. Only because such a
question was not allegedly raised before the High Court,
this Court could not shut its eyes to the legal position. Yet
again only because an illegality has been committed, this
Court would not allow its perpetration. Respondent's
father was on leave for a temporary period. He thereby did
not cease to be the Manager of the school. It is apparent
that he went on leave only for defeating the statutory
provisions. Such an act amounts to fraud on the
administration.”
3331. The vexed question is the religious status of the
3286
building in dispute. It is no doubt true that it has been argued
very ably by placing lot of material on the subject. In our view it
is not a mere simple controversy, whether the building in dispute
is a mosque satisfying the Islamic tenets or not, but much more
than that. As already held, the parties could not prove that the
building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or any
of his agent. Some of these issues would immediately stand
covered by those findings. For example issue 6 (Suit-3) would
have required a further investigation only if it was built by
Babar and not otherwise. However, we would proceed ahead
assuming, only for the purpose of these issues, if the building
was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD, then how the concerned
issues hereat would stand, and/or, to what extent the parties
concerned are able to prove in one or the other way, their case.
3332. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is confined to the act of Emperor
Babar i.e. whether the alleged mosque was dedicated by him for
worship of muslims in general and made a public waqf property.
This issue has been framed on the basis of the pleadings of
muslim parties (defendants) in Suit-3. The result of failure to
prove the issue would stand in a loss to the defendants muslim
parties and therefore, burden to prove it lie upon the defendants
muslim parties.
3333. There is no recorded history or/ for the period of
1528 to 1855 A.D., stating in black and white, that this building
was constructed by Babar and then dedicated to muslims as a
public waqf. In fact the reference of the building in dispute for
the first time, we find, in the traveller's account of Tieffenthaler
i.e. DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE ET
GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E under the title "TOME
3287
1. NOUVELLE EDITION. Contenant la Geographic de
l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches" (Supra). But what he
mentions is that the place where there existed house of Vishnu,
worshipped by Hindus, the disputed structure was raised, which
as per local belief, constructed by Aurangzebe but some says
Babar. This observation maintain a state of suspense. But then
he kept on saying that Hindus used to worship by Parikrama and
lying prostrate on the land.
3334. In 1828, the gazetteer of Walter Hamilton i.e. “East
India Gazetteer” (Supra) also do not throw any light on it. The
Robert Montegomary Martin, got published the Survey Report
of Dr. Buchanan in 1838 under the title 'Eastern India' (Supra).
He mentions that though locally it is believed that the building
was constructed by Aurangzebe after demolishing a temple at
the site in dispute but the stone inscriptions fixed on the
disputed structure mention names of Babar and Mir Baqi. It was
thus not Aurangzebe but Babar. The contents of the inscriptions
referred by Martin are not known and these aspects as also the
text of inscriptions, as quoted subsequently, we have discussed
in great detail above while considering issues relating to period
of construction etc. of the disputed structure hence, not to be
repeated. Suffice it to mention that whatever text of these stone
inscriptions is treated to be correct even that do not clearly say
that the building was constructed by Babar hence the question of
his dedication for worship by muslims in general and making it
a public waqf property would not arise.
3335. Existence of a mosque or construction of a mosque
by somebody is another thing but the issue we are suppose to
answer is quite specific, whether this dedication is by Emperor
3288
Babar or not. No doubt after 4 or 5 centuries one cannot expect
an eyewitness to prove such an issue but then other
circumstances or secondary evidence could have been produced
to prove it. A presumption in respect to dedication in such a
matter which involves a period of several centuries could have
been raised if identify of the person, who constructed the
building is not in dispute and the only question is whether there
is a valid or de facto dedication or not. The doctrine of user
etc. could have been resorted to in such a case. But where the
dispute of identity of alleged waqif itself is involved, such
doctrine would be of no help.
3336. During the oral arguments, Sri Z. Jilani, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Sunni Board, whose arguments
have been adopted by other learned counsels appearing for
muslim parties, also tried to highlight that Babar never entered
Ayodhya and did not command Mir Baqi for construction of any
mosque. In fact we find that in the entire plaint there is not even
a whisper that Babar dedicated alleged mosque for worship by
muslims in general and made a public waqf property. On the
contrary, para 1 says that it was built by Mir Baqi under the
command of Emperor Babar for use of muslims in general as a
place of worship. It does not say at all that at any stage there
was dedication of building in question as a public waqf or a
waqf property for the benefit of muslims in general. One of the
essential condition of creating a waqf is "dedication". In absence
of other evidence, if, public prayer is once said there, with the
permission of the owner, it can be treated to have been
dedicated. Even if we assume that emperor Babar was owner, no
material has been placed which may suggest or give even a faint
3289
indication that with his permission any public prayer was made
in the building in dispute. In fact we do find no material to
suggest that any public prayer was offered by Muslims, at least
till 1860.
3337. We can go even to this extent that a dedication may
be inferred from user as waqf property but when the issue is
whether a particular person made dedication or not, the question
of long user to our mind would not be relevant but it is the
factum of dedication of the person concerned which has to be
seen.
3338. In Commissioner of Waqfs and another Vs.
Mohammad Moshin (Supra), it was held that none other than
owner of the property can make a waqf. In that case guardian of
a minor sought to create a waqf but that was not approved by the
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court holding that idea of
agency is foreign to Mohammedan Law and a waqf would not
be created unless the creator himself is not owner of the
property.
3339. It is not the case of the Sunni Board and other
muslim parties that the property in dispute owned by Mir Baqi
and he made dedication. The issue before us, up for
consideration is whether the dedication was made by Emperor
Babar or not. There is no suggestion during the course of
argument that the issue has not been properly framed or needs
any alteration. Two judgements, however, in this regard sought
to be relied by Sunni Board and other muslim parties. One is
that of Suit-1885 and another is the judgment dated 30 March,
1946 in Suit No. 29 of 1945 (Exhibit A-42, Suit-1, Register 8,
Page 431). It is contended that the question about the building in
3290
dispute that it is a mosque and constructed by Babar, hence, a
Sunni mosque, stands concluded and these judgments since
relates to the declaration of status of building in dispute itself,
are judgements in rem, hence, final and binding. Therefore, the
issue in question ought to be decided in the light of declaration
made thereunder.
3340. The three judgements of trial court, and appellate
courts in Suit-1885, we have discussed at length at various
stages above. In brief, just to recapitulate, a suit was filed by
Mahant Raghubar Das seeking permission to make construction
of temple at a chabutra measuring 17x21 feet in the eastern-
southern part of the disputed building in the outer courtyard
which was in his possession as he claimed for a long time. One
Mohd. Asghar got impleaded himself as defendant no. 2, as
Mutwalli of the building in dispute. He did not deny possession
of Raghbar Das on the aforesaid chabutra but suggested that it
was unauthorised and illegal since no permission was obtained
from waqif or his successors. The trial court decided the suit and
observed from the pleadings as also the Gazetteer placed before
it by the parties, that on the west side there was a mosque said to
be constructed during the reign of Babar and in its vicinity,
permission to make a new construction, that too, of a temple,
may create a law and order situation. Hence, in public interest, it
decline to grant any relief to the plaintiff therein. This ultimate
decision of the trial court was confirmed by the District Judge as
well as the Judicial Commissioner in appeal. There was no issue
as to whether the building was a mosque and if so who
constructed it, and whether there was any dedication by such
person etc.
3291
3341. The second suit of 1945 is an inter se dispute
between two muslim bodies, i.e. Shia Waqf Board and Sunni
Waqf Board of State of U.P. contesting about the building in
dispute whether it was a Sunni waqf or Shia waqf. The nature of
the building as waqf, its construction by emperor Babar through
its commander Mir Baqi in 1528 A.D. and dedication to muslim
in general as public waqf were the facts admitted by both the
parties, hence, there was no occasion for the trial court to look
into those aspects of the matter. The trial court mentioned the
facts pleaded by the parties on this aspect without there being
any contest thereon, since the contest was confined only to the
category it belong to i.e. Shia or Sunni. Therefore, the aforesaid
judgement cannot be said to be a judgement deciding the issue
which is up for consideration before us. The judgements
whether in rem or personam would make no difference.
3342. Moreover, admissibility of judgements as evidence
has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Evidence
Act. A document may be classified for this purpose in three
heads, (1) documents which are per se inadmissible; (2) recitals
in judgements not inter parties; and (3) documents or
judgements post litem motam. If a judgement is not admissible,
not falling within the ambit of Sections 40-42, it must fulfil the
conditions of Sections 43 otherwise it cannot be relevant under
Section 13 of the Evidence Act. The words 'other provisions of
this Act' used in Section 43 would not extend to Section 13,
because the Section 13 does not deal with judgements at all. The
judgements in personam do not fulfil the conditions mentioned
in Section 41 of the Evidence Act, hence, inadmissible. The
judgements not inter parties are inadmissible in evidence barring
3292
exceptional cases. It would be useful to refer in this regard the
Apex Court's decision in State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri
Radha Krishna Singh (supra) paras, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129,
131, 133 and 134 as under:
"123. It is now settled law that judgments not inter parties
are inadmissible in evidence barring exceptional cases
which we shall point out hereafter. In Johan Cockrane v.
Hurrosoondurri Debia and Ors.(1854-57) 6 Moo Ind App
494, Lord Justice Bruce while dealing with the question of
admissibility of a judgment observed as follows:
"With regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court, it
is plain, that considering the parties to the suit in
which that judgment was given, it is not evidence in
the present case.... We must recollect, however, not
only that that suit had a different object from the
present, independently of the difference of parties,
but that the evidence here is beyond, and is different
from, that which was before the Supreme Court upon
the occasion of delivering that judgment."
"126. In the case of Gujju Lall v. Fatteh Lall, (1881) ILR 6
Cal 171 a Full Bench exhaustively considered the ambit
and scope of Ss 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act and observed
thus:
"On the other hand, when in a law prepared for such
a purpose, and under such circumstances, we find a
group of several sections prefaced by the title
"Judgments of Courts of Justice when relevant," that
seems to be a good reason for thinking that, as far as
the Act goes, the relevancy of any particular
3293
judgment is to be allowed or disallowed with
reference to those sections.
… … …
I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment
which the Chief Justice proposes to deliver, as well
the observations of my brother Pontifex, in both of
which I generally concur, and for the reasons there
stated, and those which I have shortly given, I
consider the evidence inadmissible."
And Garth, C. J. made the following observations:
". . . it is difficult to conceive why, under Section
42, judgments though not between the same
parties should be declared admissible so long as
they related to matters of a public nature, if those
very same judgment had already been made
admissible under Section 13, whether they related
to matters of a public nature or not.
… … …
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the former
judgment was not admissible in the present suit."
(Emphasis ours)"
"127. In Gadadhar Chowdhury and Ors. v. Sarat Chandra
Chakravarty and Ors.(1940)44 Cal WN 935: (AIR 1941
Cal 193) it was held that findings in judgments not inter
parties are not admissible in evidence."
"128. This, in our opinion, is the correct legal position
regarding the admissibility of judgments not inter
parties."
"129. . . . . so far as regards the truth of the matter decided
3294
a judgment is not admissible evidence against one who is a
stranger to the suit has long been accepted as a general
rule in English law.
"The judgment is not inter parties, nor is it a
judgment in rem, nor does it relate to a matter of a public
nature. The existence of the judgment is not a fact in issue;
and if the existence of the judgment is relevant under some
of the provisions of the Evidence Act it is difficult to see
what inference can be drawn from its use under these
sections"
"Serious consequences might ensue as regards titles
to land in India if it were recognised that a judgment
against a third party altered the burden of proof as between
rival claimants, and much 'indirect laying' might be
expected to follow therefrom"(Emphasis supplied)"
"131. We entirely agree with the observations made by the
Privy Council which flow from a correct interpretation of
Sections40 and 43 of the Evidence Act."
"133. . . . . judgment which is not inter parties is
inadmissible in evidence except for the limited purpose
of proving as to who the parties were and what was the
decree passed and the properties which were the subject
matter of the suit. In these circumstances, therefore, it is
not open to the plaintiffs-respondents to derive any support
from some of the judgments which they have filed in order
to support their title and relationship in which neither the
plaintiffs nor the defendants were parties. Indeed, if the
judgments are used for the limited purpose mentioned
above, they do not take us anywhere so as to prove the
3295
plaintiff's case."
"134. . . . .Declarations by deceased persons of competent
knowledge, made ante litem motam, are receivable to prove
ancient rights of a public or general nature. The admission
of declarations as to those rights is allowed partly on the
ground of necessity, since without such evidence ancient
rights could rarely be established; and partly on the
ground that the public nature of the rights minimises the
risks of mis-statement."
3343. In respect to the delcarations made post litem the
Apex Court in the above case made observations in para 135
and 136 as under:
"135. . . . . It is equally well settled that declarations or
statements made post litem motam would not be admissible
because in cases or proceedings taken or declarations
made ante litem motam, the element of bias and concoction
is eliminated. Before, however, the statements of the nature
mentioned above can be admissible as being ante litem
motam they must be not only before the actual existence of
any controversy but they should be made even before the
commencement of legal proceedings.......
"To obviate bias, the declarations must have been
made ante litem motam, which means not merely before the
commencement of legal proceedings, but before even the
existence of any actual controversy, concerning the subject
matter of the declarations. . . . .”
“136 . . . . The reason for this rule seems to be that after a
dispute has begun or a legal proceeding is about to
commence, the possibility of bias, concoction or putting up
3296
false pleas cannot be ruled out. This rule of English law
has now been crystallised as one of the essential principles
of the Evidence Act on the question of admissibility of
judgments or documents. . . . In fact, Section 32(5) of the
Evidence Act itself fully incorporates the doctrine of post
litem motam the relevant portion of which may be extracted
thus:
"32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by
person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is
relevant
(5) ...the person making the statement had special
means of knowledge, and when the statement was
made before the question in dispute was raised."
3344. Here we may also refer to para 143 of the above
judgments where the Apex Court summerized ratio of the
various authorities on the above aspects of the matter and said:
"143. Thus, summarising the ratio of the authorities
mentioned above, the position that emerges and the
principles that are deducible from the aforesaid decisions
are as follows:
(1) A judgment in rem e. g., judgments or orders passed in
admiralty, probate proceedings, etc., would always be
admissible irrespective of whether they are inter parties or
not,
(2) judgments in personam not inter parties are not at all
admissible in evidence except for the three purposes
mentioned above.
(3) On a parity of aforesaid reasoning, the recitals in a
judgment like findings given in appreciation of evidence
3297
made or arguments or genealogies referred to in the
judgment would be wholly inadmissible in a case where
neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were parties.
(4) The probative value of documents which, however
ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their
information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is
precious little.
(5) Statements, declarations or depositions, etc., would not
be admissible if they are post litem motam."
3345. In the absence of any evidence direct, circumstantial
or otherwise and also due to inapplication of any principle with
respect to presumption etc., we are constrained to hold that issue
6 (Suit-3) is not proved at all hence answered in negative.
3346. Now we proceed to Issues No. 1 (Suit-4) and 9
(Suit-5) together.
3347. Both issues require an answer whether the building
in question was a mosque or a mosque known as Babari Masjid.
The most important thing is that this Court is not supposed to
consider whether it is a mosque according to the tenets of law of
Shariyat or could be a mosque under the Islamic Law but the
only thing which we are asked to reply whether the building in
question was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) and
obviously by defendants in Suit-5, and whether it is known as
Babari mosque. But then we will also have to consider whether
beyond Shariat, a mosque has any identity and recognition.
3348. The facts in this regard which are on record leave no
doubt that the building in dispute was termed and called as
"mosque" as long back as in 18
th
century, i.e., in the traveller's
account of Tieffenthaler. i.e.. DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE
3298
ET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E under the title
"TOME 1. NOUVELLE EDITION. Contenant la
Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches" (Supra).
"Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot
demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes,
constructed at the same place. Others says that it was
constructed by 'Babar'. Fourteen black stone pillars of 5
span high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are
seen there."
3349. Robert Martin's Eastern India (supra) Vol. II
published in 1838 on page 335 mentions:
"The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to
have erected mosques on the situations of the most
remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is
by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of
being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on
its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by
Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe."
3350. Edward Thornton's Gazetteer, 1858 (supra) says
on page 739/740:
“According to native tradition, they were demolished by
Aurungzebe, who built a mosque on part of the site. The
falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an
inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the work
to the conqueror Baber, from whom Aurungzabe was fifth
in descent. The mosque is embellished . . . . .” (emphasis
added)
3351. In P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) on page
20/21 he says:
3299
“If Ajodhya was then little other than a wilderness, it
must at least have possessed a fine temple in the
Janamasthan; for many of its columns are still in existence
and in good preservation, having been used by the
Musalmans in the construction of the Babari Mosque.
These are of strong, close-grained, dark-colored or black
stone, called by the natives kasauti . . . ." (emphasis added)
3352. In Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh by W.C.
Benett (1877) (supra) he has said:
“It is locally affirmed that at the Muhammadan
conquest there were three important Hindu shrines . . . .
These were the “Janamasthan” . . . . .
On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the
mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528.. . .”
3353. A.F. Millet's Report on Settlement of Land
Revenue of the Faizabad (supra) (1880) in para 669 he says:
“It is said that up to that time the Hindus and Mahomedans
alike used to worship in the mosque-temple. Since British
rule a railing has been put up to prevent disputes, within
which in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside
the fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they
make their offerings.”
3354. Fyzabad A Gazetteer by H.R. Nevill (1905) (supra)
page 153 says:
“In 1528 Babar built the mosque at Ayodhya on the
traditional spot where Lord Rama was borne.”
3355. Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908) (supra) says:
“At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot, or
the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was born.
3300
Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque built by
Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in the outer
portion a small platform and shrine mark the birthplace....
Besides the mosque of Babar. . . .” (emphasis added)
3356. Nevill's Gazetteer of Fyzabad (1928) (supra) says:
“He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a
mosque, still known as Babar's mosque.. . . .”
3357. "Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series,
United Provinces of Agra and Oudh", Vol. II, published in
1934 is another document containing similar averments. Exhibit
10 (Suit-5) (Register 29 Page 87-89) is photocopy of
frontispiece and page 388 and 389 concerning Fyzabad
Division. The relevant extract thereof, for our purposes, is as
under:
“At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot, or
the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was born.
Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque built by
Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in the outer
portion a small platform and shrine mark the birthplace....
Besides the mosque. . . .”
3358. The last Gazetteer placed before us, i.e., Uttar
Pradesh District Gazetter, Fyzabad (1960) (supra) it says:
“It seems that in 1528 AD Babar visited Ayodhya and
under his order this ancient temple was destroyed and on
the site was built what came to be known as Babar's
mosque.”
3359. Besides, there are certain documents on record, of
the period of 1858 to 1885, where also the disputed structure has
been termed as “mosque”. In the plaint of Suit-1885 the
3301
plaintiff, Mahant Raghubar Das described the disputed structure
as mosque on the west side of the Chabutara, of which dispute
was raised in 1885. The documents exhibits of 1858 to 1885 we
have already referred while discussing issues pertaining to
limitation/possession/adverse possession mentioned it a mosque.
3360. It seems that so far as the identity of the place is
concerned, three things, remained unchallenged upto 1950, or,
to be more precise, up to 22
nd
December, 1949, i.e., (a) the
disputed structure was always termed and known as a "mosque",
"Babari mosque" or "Masjid Janamsthan"; (b) it was always
believed and nobody ever disputed that the said building was
constructed after demolishing a temple, and (c) that the disputed
site, as per belief of Hindus, is the birthplace of Lord Rama and
was a part of a big Fort called Fort of Lord Rama and later on as
"Ramkot".
3361. Whether the disputed structure was consistent with
the tenets of Islam and, therefore, qualify to be a mosque,
validly constructed, according to the mandates of Holy Quran,
Hedaya and other Islamic religious scriptures, was never sought
to be bothered by the muslims who treated it as a mosque.
Though it appears that it could be used with certain constraints
and restrain and not in a free and independent manner as ought
to be. Simultaneously Hindus also treated it a mosque, treated it
a blot on the religious self respect but the fact remains that it
was always termed and called a "mosque", "Babari mosque" or
"Masjid Janamsthan". No documentary evidence has been
shown to us which could have contradicted the above inference.
3362. An attempt was made that in a title suit reference to
Gazetteers and the facts contained therein ought not to be
3302
considered. The statements contained in the official
Gazettes/gazetteers, and, sometimes the statement of facts
mentioned in official gazettes or Gazetteers are entitled to
consideration though not to be treated conclusive in respect of
the matters requiring judicial adjudication.
3363. In Vimla Bai Vs. Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2
SCC 22, it was held:
"5. The Statement of fact contained in the official
Gazette made in the course of the discharge of the official
duties on private affairs or on historical facts in some cases
is best evidence of facts stated therein and is entitled to
due consideration but should not be treated as
conclusive in respect of matters requiring judicial
adjudication. In an appropriate case where there is some
evidence on record to prove the fact in issue but it is not
sufficient to record a finding thereon, the statement of facts
concerning management of private temples or historical
facts of status of private persons etc. found in the Official
Gazette may be relied upon without further proof thereof as
corroborative evidence. Therefore, though the statement of
facts contained in Indore State Gazette regarding historical
facts of Dhangars' social status and habitation of them may
be relevant fact and in an appropriate case the Court may
presume to be genuine without any further proof of its
contents but it is not conclusive."
3364. In view of Section 35 read with Section 81 a gazette
is admissible being an official record in respect to the facts
pertaining to public affairs and the Court may presume the
contents thereof genuine but when it reflects on historical
3303
material the Court may not treat it conclusive evidence but
would consider corroborating material.
3365. In Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & others
Vs. Charity Commissioner AIR 1995 SC 167, the Court held
that Gazette of Bombay Presidency, Vol. III published in 1879 is
admissible under Section 35 read with Section 81 of the Act. It
was observed in para 22:
"The Gazette is admissible being official record evidencing
public affairs and the Court may presume their contents
as genuine. The statement contained therein can be taken
into account to discover the historical material contained
therein and the facts stated therein is evidence under S. 45
and the Court may in conjunction with other evidence and
circumstances take into consideration in adjudging the
dispute in question, though may not be treated as
conclusive evidence."
3366. It is said that the Gazettes published by Government,
is admissible under Section 35 read with Section 81 of the Act
but this may not apply to Gazetteers. Notably there is a
distinction between Gazetteer and Gazette. A Gazette is an
official document having statutory backing. Prior to its repeal in
20
th
century, the requirement of publication of rules and
regulations etc. in Gazette was governed by Section 1, Official
Gazette Act, 1863 (Act XXXI of 1863) which reads as under:
"I. When in any Regulation or Act now in operation, or in
any Rule having the force of law, it is directed that any
order, notification or other matter shall be published in the
Official Gazette of any Presidency or place, such order,
notification or other matter shall be deemed to be duly
3304
published in accordance with the requirements of the law, if
it be published either in the Gazette in which it would have
appeared but for the passing of this Act, or in the Gazette
of India under the direction of the Governor-General of
India in Council."
3367. The Evidence Act, Section 81 talks only of a Gazette
and not the Gazetteer. It is no doubt true that the Gazettes are
published under the authority of the Government and, therefore,
may be considered to be a public document admissible in
evidence, but no more than that. In any case, the purpose for
which reliance is placed on Bala Shankar Maha Shankar
Bhattjee (supra) for pursuing this Court to take historical facts
stated in Gazetteers to be conclusive evidence cannot be
accepted. The Gazetters are admissible but have to be seen
alongwith other corroborative material.
3368. A gazetteer is not a gazette. It cannot be placed at
par with a gazette, reference whereof is contained in Section 81
of the Evidence Act. The facts contained in a gazetteer, however,
can be taken into account not conclusive one but in the matter of
history they are relevant facts. Some of the authorities on this
aspect we have already referred to while dealing the issues
relating to period of construction. It constitute a corroborative
evidence. Therefore what is stated in old Gazetteer is relevant.
3369. It is contended that the building in dispute was
treated a mosque, the people worshipped therein, offered Namaj
for a long time, and, therefore, on account of its user, it is a
mosque, i.e., a duly dedicated waqf. Reliance is placed on Miru
& others Vs. Ramgopal AIR 1935 All. 891, where the Court
held:
3305
"Where there is a mosque or a temple, which has been in
existence for a long time and the terms of the original grant
of the land cannot now be ascertained, there would be a
fair presumption that the sites on which mosques or
temples stand are dedicated property. There can be no
legal impediment to such a dedication, as the owner of the
land can make a grant of the site even to persons of a
different community and creed and allow them then to
dedicate that site by building a place of worship on it.
Where therefore the Court finds that a mosque or a temple
has stood for a long time and worship has been performed
in it by the public, it is open to the Court to infer that the
building does not stand there merely by the leave and
license of the owner of the site, but that the land itself is a
dedicated property and the site is a consecrated land, and
is no longer the private property of the original owner."
3370. In my view the judgment as such has no application
to the case in hand. The issue under consideration is whether it
is a mosque as claimed by plaintiffs and whether the disputed
structure a mosque known as Babari Masjid. The Hindu parties
have challenged both. Whether it is a mosque in accordance
with the tenets of Islamic law or constructed in accordance
thereto or even if a mosque but whether it can be so only if
constructed according to the tenets of Islam and not otherwise,
both aspects have to be examined. Several authorities we have
discussed above were cited to show the ingredient of waqf, how
a valid waqf is created and is operated. Similarly when a
mosque will become a public waqf. But when a building can be
treated a mosque, if a building is not constructed in accordance
3306
with the tenets of Islam, will it not be called a mosque at all,
though as such has been considered for a long time, its effect,
are some of the questions on which virtually no useful
assistance is provided.
3371. What a 'mosque' is? What does it mean? Let us first
have some idea on it. The meaning of “mosque” in different
dictionaries is as under:
3372. In “The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the
English Language” (1987), published by Lexicon Publications,
Inc. at page 652:
"mosque (mosk). A Moslem place of worship"
3373. In “Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic
Dictionary” published by Oxford University Press, first
published in 1989, at page 582:
"mosque-building in which Muslims worship"
3374. In “Chambers Dictionary”, page 934:
"mosque-A muslim place of worship."
3375. In P Ramanatha Aiyar's “The Law Lexicon” The
Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Mxims, Latin Terms,
Words and Phrases, Second Edition 1997, published by Wadhwa
and Company Law Publishers, at page 1259:
"Mosque. A Muhammadan church."
3376. Therefore, it is clear that a mosque is necessarily
something integrally connected with Islam and hence outside its
tenets the term mosque shall have no significance and it would
only be a plain building.
3377. Lots of arguments have been raised that unless one
was not owner of the land, could not have built any mosque. The
arguments of plaintiffs is that Babar being the conquerer of the
3307
territory, became owner of the entire land, and therefore, it was
open for him to built a mosque at any place counqered by him.
The other side contended that mere conquer or annexation of the
territory would not make an Emperor or the king or the
Sovereign, owner of the land of individual's residence or of the
subject. For this purpose, besides various authorities, the
historical facts that many a Mughal kings, as and when found
necessary, had purchased land for religious purposes, sought to
be relied.
3378. On the question of "sovereignty", various authorities
cited, some of which are as follow:
3379. In Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secy. of State for
India in Council, AIR 1924 PC 216 Lord Dunedin said:
"When a territory is acquired by a sovereign state for
the first time that is an act of State. It matters not how the
acquisition has been brought about. It may be by conquest,
it may be by cession following on treaty, it may be by
occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a recognised
ruler. In all cases the result is the same. Any inhabitant of
the territory can only make good in the municipal courts
established by the new sovereign such rights as that
sovereign has through his officers, recognised. Such
rights as he had under the rule of predecessors avail him
nothing. Nay more, even if in a treaty of cession it is
stipulated that certain inhabitants should enjoy certain
rights, that does not give a title to those inhabitants to
enforce these stipulations in the municipal courts. The
right to enforce remains only with the high contracting
parties." (page 217)
3308
3380. The aforesaid observations were approved by a
Constitution Bench in State of Gujarat Vs. Vora Fiddali
Badruddin Mithibarwala, AIR 1964 SC 1043 and the concept
of act of State was summerised as under:
"To begin with, this Court has interpreted the
integration of Indian States with the Dominion of India as
an Act of State and has applied the law relating to an Act of
State as laid down by the Privy Council in a long series of
cases beginning with Secretary of State in Council for India
v. Kamachee Boye Saheba, (1859) 12 Moore PC 22 and
ending with Secretary of State v. Sardar Rustam Khan and
other, (1941) 68 IA 109. The cases on this point need not be
cited. Reference may be made to M/s Dalmia Dadri
Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR
1958 SC 816, The State of Saurashtra v. Menon Haji Ismali
Haji, AIR 1959 SC 1383, Jaganath Agarwala v. State of
Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1361 and State of Saurashtra v.
Jamadar Mohamed Abdulla and others, AIR 1965 SC 445.
In these cases of this Court, it has been laid down that the
essence of an Act of State is an arbitrary exercise of
sovereign power on principles which are paramount to the
Municipal Law, against an alien and the exercise of the
power is neither intended nor purports to be legally
founded. A defence that the injury is by an Act of State does
not seek justification for the Act by reference to any law,
but questions the jurisdiction of the court to decide upon
the legality or justice of the action. The Act of State comes
to an end only when the new sovereign recognises either
expressly or impliedly the rights of the aliens. It does not
3309
come to an end by any action of subordinate officers
who have no authority to bind the new sovereign. Till
recognition, either express or implied, is granted by the
new sovereign, the Act of State continues."
3381. The Court in Vora Fiddali Badruddin
Mithibarwala (supra) further said:
“The decision also holds that merely because the issue of
recognition of the new rights was pending with the
Government, it cannot be postulated that the act of State
had come to an end. The act of State could only come to
an end if the Government recognises the rights which
were granted by the erstwhile Ruler.”
3382. In Draupadi Devi and others Vs. Union of India
and others, 2004(11) SCC 425 the Court said in para 43:
“43. The rule that cession of territory by one State to
another is an act of State and the subjects of the former
State may enforce only those rights which the new
sovereign recognises has been accepted by this Court. (See
in this connection: M/s Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. V.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1958 SC 816;
Jagannath Agarwala v. State of Orissa, AIE 1961 SC
1361; Promod Chandra Deb and others v. The State of
Orissa and others, AIR 1962 SC 1288 and State of
Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla and others, AIR
1962 SC 445).”
3383. The rights available to the erstwhile Ruler and his
subjects, on the change of the crown, were considered in
Draupadi Devi (supra) and the Court said in para 64:
“In our view, all the rights available to the erstwhile
3310
Ruler and his subjects are of no avail till there is
recognition of such rights.”
3384. In para 11 of the judgement in State of Punjab Vs.
Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, 1993(3) SCC 459 the Court said:
“11. Now it is beyond doubt that the Ruler of an
Indian State was in the position of a sovereign and his
command was the law. His farman had the strength and
potency of a law made by an elected legislature and his
acts, administrative or executive, were sovereign in
character.”
3385. However in Draupadi Devi (supra) the Apex Court
held that the above proposition runs contrary to a seven judges
Constitution Bench decision in Vora Fiddali Badruddin
Mithibarwala (supra) and, therefore, does not lay down correct
law.
3386. In Govindrao & others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & others AIR 1982 SC 1201, the concept of Ruler and
sovereignty was considered and it was held:
"8. The expression "Ruling Chief" has not been
defined in the Act and must therefore be understood as in
common parlance. The meaning of the word "Ruler" as
given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edn., vol.
2, p. 1867 is : "one who, or that which, exercises rule,
especially of supreme or sovereign kind". Normally the
expression "Ruling Chief" connotes "a person who is
endowed with the content of sovereignty and also has the
attributes of a sovereign". According to Blacks' Legal
Dictionary, 5th edn., p. 1252 the legal conception of
"sovereignty" is stated thus :
3311
"The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by
which any independent state is governed; supreme
political authority, paramount control of the
Constitution and frame of government and its
administration; the self-sufficient source of political
power from which all specific political powers are
derived; the international independence of a state,
combined with the right and power of regulating its
internal affairs without foreign dictation; also a
political society, or state, which is sovereign and
independent.
9. "Sovereignty" means "supremacy in respect of
power, dominion or rank; supreme dominion authority or
rule". "Sovereignty" is the right to govern. The term
"sovereignty" as applied to States implies "supreme,
absolute, uncontrollable power by which any State is
governed, and which resides within itself, whether
residing in a single individual or a number of individuals,
or in the whole body of the people." Thus, sovereignty,
according to its normal legal connotation, is the supreme
power which governs the body politic, or society which
constitutes the State, and this power is independent of
the particular form of government, whether monarchial,
autocratic or democratic.
10. According to Laski in "A Grammar of Politics",
1957 Reprint Chap. II, p. 50
"The legal aspect of sovereignty is best
examined by a statement of the form given to it by
John Austin. In every legal analysis of the State, he
3312
argued, it is first of all necessary to discover in the
given society that definite superior to which habitual
obedience is rendered by the mass of men. That
superior must not itself obey any higher authority.
When we discover the authority which gives
commands habitually obeyed, itself not receiving
them, we have the sovereign power in the State. In an
independent political community that sovereign is
determinate and absolute. Its will is illimitable
because, if it could not be constrained to act, it
would cease to be supreme, since it would then be
subject to the constraining power. Its will is
indivisible because, if power over certain functions
or persons is absolutely and irrevocably entrusted to
a given body, the sovereign then ceases to enjoy
universal supremacy and therefore ceases by
definition to be sovereign."
11. It is not necessary to enter into the concept of
sovereignty, one of the most controversial ideas in political
science and international law, which is closely related to
the difficult concepts of State and Government, of
independence and democracy, except to touch upon the
juristic character of the Indian State to discern the
necessary attributes of sovereignty. The Indian States were
neither independent nor sovereign but subject to the
paramountcy of the British Crown. Sir William Lee Warner,
the acknowledged authority on Indian States, in his work
"The Native States of India, 1910" characterizes them as
"semi-sovereign". There is no question that there was a
3313
paramount power in the British Crown, but perhaps it is
better understood and not explained. The indivisibility of
the sovereignty on which Austin insists, did not belong to
the Indian system of sovereign States.
12. The degree of sovereignty exercised by the
different rulers varied greatly as the areas under their
dominion. The greater princes administered the internal
affairs of their States with almost complete independence,
having revenues and armies of their own, and the power of
life and death over their subjects. At the other end of the
scale were petty chiefs with a jurisdiction hardly higher
than that of an ordinary magistrate and between these
extremes lay much gradation. The authority of each ruler
was determined by treaties or engagements with the British
Government or by practice that had grown up in the course
of their relations with British India. The paramount power
was with the British Crown and it had never parted with
any of its prerogatives. As Sir Henry Maine said:
"There may be found in India every shade and variety
of sovereignty, but there is only one independent
sovereign, the British Government.... The mode or degree
in which sovereignty is distributed between the British
Government and any Native State is always a question of
fact which has to be separately decided in each case, and
to which no general rules apply."
3387. The concept of sovereignty, transfer of power, effect
thereof as we know and understand in modern law in the light of
the recent authorities whether actually as such was followed 500
years ago is difficult to answer. We have different texts of the
3314
past in respect to Hindu as well as Muslim law as to how a
king/conqueror should behave and what ought to be the policy
vis a vis the subject of conquered area, but these are all ideal
situations. When someone from outside the territory attack and
conquer and there is a change of authority/sovereignty. If the
ideal situation is followed by him or observed, it is really
appreciable but the conqueror is not always bound to follow
those policies. The conquered territories subject have no
authority, option or courage either in fact or in law or otherwise
to raise voice against the conqueror. He is the sole paramount
authority, can take and execute his decisions in the manner he
like. After hundred of years it would not be safe for this Court to
assume as to what ought or actually was done or followed by
conqueror, in order to make an adjudication of dispute involving
two different communities with different religious texts and
practices. Whether Babar or Aurangzebe or anybody else was an
ideal king observed laws of Shariyat etc. strictly, in an ideal
manner, may be a matter of investigation and debate between
historians, but neither such acts can be within the purview of
judicial scrutiny of this Court nor we can decide the factual
dispute on the presumption that he must have acted in a
particular manner since the Shariyat laws say so. We have
illustrations enough of ancient past as well as recent past
showing that in such kind of wars or battles, the real casualty
were/are the ideal policies contemplated and expected to be
observed by warring groups or countries or sovereignties. If the
Babar or Aurangzebe or anybody else decide to do something
even if it was not consistent with the principles of law of
Shariyat, the same could not have been challenged at that time
3315
by the subject and today we are sure to lack any authority or
jurisdiction to declare such an act of the then Ruler illegal or
bad since their command was Supreme and beyond the pale of
any scrutiny now and by this Court. Therefore, in our view, the
question as to whether the building in dispute is a mosque,
treated to be a mosque, believed to be a mosque and practiced as
a mosque has to be decided not in terms of the tenets of Shariyat
whether observed there or not but how the people believed,
treated and behaved in the past long time.
3388. Sri Jain contended that Babar was an invader and
not a king or Emperor. Sunni Board claimed Babar to be the
owner of the site in his capacity as ‘Emperor’; but he never
became Emperor. Historians R.C. Majumdar, H.C.
Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta in “An Advanced History
of India”, Fourth Edition 1978, published by Macmillan India
Ltd., set out the facts at Pages 419 to 424. They mention, at
Page 420:
“But the Mughal conquest of Hindustan was not an
accomplished fact as a result of Babar’s victory over
Ibrahim. It did not give him the virtual sovereignty over
the country because there were other strong powers like
the Afghan military chiefs and Rajputs under Rana Sanga
who also then aspired for political supremacy and were
thus sure to oppose him...The number of Afghan military
chiefs (were a great obstacle) and each one of them
exercised almost undisputed power within his dominion or
Jagirs.” At Page 423 they mention that Babar ‘could effect
nothing more than conquests which alone do not suffice to
stabilise an empire unless the work of administrative
3316
consolidation goes hand in hand with or immediately
follows them’. They cite historian Erskine that “there was
little uniformity in the political situation of the different
parts of this vast empire. Hardly any law could be
regarded as universal but that of the unrestrained power
of the prince. Each kingdom, each province, each district
and (we may almost say) every village, was governed in
ordinary matters by its peculiar customs...There were no
regular Courts of Law spread over the kingdom for the
administration of justice.” They mention that “after his
conquest Babar had hardly any time to enact new laws or
to reorganise the administration, which continued to retain
its medieval feudal nature with all its defects.”. It is
significant that although Babar declared himself to be
Ghazi (victor in holy war – Pages 573-4 of Beverige’s
Babarnama) he did not declare himself to be an Emperor,
nor he got coronation as an Emperor. Indeed in the
Inscription installed inside the DS by Mir Baqi, Babar is
described only as King Babar (Shah Babar) not as
Emperor Babar (Shah en Shah Babar). In this state of
affairs, Babar could never become an Emperor."
3389. We do not agree. The position of Babar, in our view,
was that of independent sovereign, Sole Monarch, having
paramount power. It was Supreme, uncontrollable and absolute,
not answerable to anyone. Whether invader or anything else, the
fact remains that he had been the supreme authority in the
territory which he conquered. Nobody could have questioned
him.
3390. Sri M.M. Pandey sought to argue that Historian
3317
Romila Thapar writes in 'A History of India' Vol.I (Pelican
Books 1990, 13th Impression 2001), at Page 279 that the
Temple had long been the centre of Hindu social life in the
village, place where Hindus congregated; it 'was the Bank, the
Landowner, the administrative centre for the village and place of
major entertainment in the form of festivals'. Mentioning
Katyayana (4th-5th Century AD – vide Mulla at page 14) on
judicial process, Romila Thapar writes at page 154 that
Judgments were based either on legal texts or social usage or
edict of the King which could not contradict the legal text or
Usage; at page 160, she writes Social Law based on man-made
Tradition had already become the sacred law. That is why
Temples were immune from influence of the King. Thus the
temple existed at that time remain immune from Babar's
authority.
3391. Page 28 of B.K. Mukherjea's authority mentions
Yajnavalkya: 'Customary Law as well as Usages established by
Kings should be carefully upheld, if not inconsistent with the
revealed law'. Vijnaneswara commented upon this text as
follows: Duties arising under any Custom, such as preservation
of pastures for cow and of water and management of Temples
(Devgriha) and the like should also be carefully observed
without infringing the duties prescribed by Shrutis and Smritis.
The same view finds expression in Shukra-Niti where the duty
of protecting endowments has been spoken of as one of the
primary duties of the King. Thus the duty of Kings to protect
endowments rested on the basis of immemorial customs which
were as sacred as written texts".
3392. In Appendix I (Summary of Pran Nath Saraswati's
3318
"Hindu Law of Endowments") at page 507, mention is made
that "On conquest the Temples should be respected".
3393. At page 81 of "Yajnavalkyasmriti", translated by
Manmatha Nath Dutt, published by Parimal Publications Delhi
(1st Edn 2005), verse no.343 reads as follows: 'When a foreign
kingdom is brought under subjection, he should observe the
conduct, law and family practices obtaining in the same
kingdom'.
3394. In D.F. Mulla's 'Principles of Hindu Law', Chapter
II on Sources of Hindu Law, Text No. 3 mentions: "Whatever
Customs, Practices and Family Usages prevail in a Country
shall be preserved intact when it comes under subjection by
(conquest)– Yajnavalkya I, 343".
3395. These citations relates to Hindu Dharmshastra. All
these arguments could have some weight if it is shown that
Babar or any of his successor was under an obligation to follow
or observe Hindu religious texts. These principles are alright,
when a dispute is between those who were obliged to follow
those texts. The Babar was not bound by those principles. If the
subject continued to follow these principles, Babar or any
Mughal Ruler was not obliged to act according to those
principles, at least no authority to persuade us otherwise is
shown.
3396. It is also tried to be submitted that in the revenue
records of 1937 there is no marking in respect to the land in
dispute as Kabristna or mosque and thus the disputed structure
was never recognised as mosque.
3397. Exhibit 32 (Suit-1) (Register 5 page 123-125) is
said to be a copy of the map (kistwar) of Mauza Rampur for
3319
1344-45 Fasli (1937 AD). Learned counsels for the parties
submit that in the plot in dispute in the aforesaid map there is no
marking of any Kabristan or mosque, therefore, it cannot be said
that there was any mosque known and treated to be as such in
the revenue record as late as in 1937 AD.
3398. The disputed structure, after its construction, came
to be known as a 'mosque' as is evident from the earliest
documents available to us i.e. Tieffenthaler Travel Account
published in 1786 etc. He, however, does not mention anything
about worship on the place in dispute by Muslims and on the
contrary did not fail to mention that Hindus in fact used to visit
thereat and offer worship by lying prostrate on the ground and
having three Parikramas. He also noticed presence of Vedi,
which Hindus used to worship in the premises of the disputed
site. It continued to be so recognized as also the worship by
Hindus till the riots of 1855 took place. Though Sri Jilani and
other learned counsels appearing for various Muslim parties
vehemently disputed occurrence of any such riot but from the
detailed narration, at different places, we find occurrence of riot
and also creation of a partition wall in the premises, existence
whereof is not disputed by Sri Jilani. We are satisfied about the
occurrence of such riot and its consequence as are mentioned in
various Gazetteers and also admitted by number of witnesses
including those of plaintiffs (Suit-4). In this regard we have
dealt with the matter while discussing the issues relating to
'place of birth'.
3399. For the present purpose, we may refer to facts given
in a recent book. Exhibit 25 (Suit-5) (Register 22, Page 513-
531) is a photocopy containing frontispiece and pages no.227-
3320
234 of the book "A Clash of Culture, Audh, The British and
the Mughals" by Michael H.Fisher (published in 1987 by
Manohar Publications, New Delhi). It narrates the riots of 1855
and says:
"The Fyzabad temple/mosque, a powerful but
unalterably ambiguous and disputed religious symbol,
provided the catalyst for a conflict of cultures. Each group
living in Awadh held fast to its own values and world-vies
and sought to impose that on the other. Since this
particular conflict was insolvable, no group achieved a
result satisfactory to itself.
The building in question had been subject to dispute
even before the arrival of Sa'adat Khan, the founder of
the ruling dynasty in Awadh. Even today Hindus
throughout Awadh assert that the building marks the site of
the birth of Rama, the incarnation of great God Vishnu,
whose identity remains so central to culture of the province.
As such, its sanctity predates the Muslim presence in India.
Muslims interviewed at the site counter that the Mughal
Emperor Babur (1526-1530) had constructed a mosque
there and thus consecrated the ground for Islam, thereby
superceding any previous significance. Ambiguous in
appearance, this building remains the object of a heated
controversy which continues unresolved today. In fact, it
generates intransigent and violent passion on both sides
whenever it is raised.
The incident which sparked the final crisis for the
Awadh dynasty prior to annexation began in February
1855, when a party of Sunnis under one Shah Ghulam
3321
Husayn tried to oust a group of Hindus who had taken
possession of the disputed building. Religious conviction on
both sides seems to have been the sole cause to this
particular confrontation, only the most recent of a long
history of Hindu-Muslim clashes on the spot. Despite the
ardor of their attack, the Sunnis were repulsed by the
defending Hindus.
Following this unsuccessful initial assault, the Sunni
party renewed their efforts a few months later. They
assembled a force of from four to six hundred Muslims,
men described by British observers as Faqirs, at a mosque
near the controversial spot. While the Muslims involved to
this point were apparently individuals (sufis and faqirs)
with little military training, the Hindu party escalated the
conflict by gathering, besides a large number of bayragis
(Hindu wandering ascetics), the support of several of the
Hindu landholders of the area, including the family of Raja
Bukhtawar Singh (discussed earlier in this chapter). British
eyewitnesses- drawn to the site by rumors of the impending
clash-estimated the total number of bayragis, Hindu
landholders with their retainers, and miscellaneous
supporters at some eight thousand. While the officers of
the Awadh army and district administration looked on
uninvolved, a battle ensued between the two sides. The
Muslims later asserted guaranteed by the British. The
Hindu party denied any truce. Heavily outnumbered, the
Muslims seem to have left the bulk of the seventy to eighty
dead found on the field following the fight.
So far, the conflict gives evidence only of the local
3322
tensions between the Muslim and Hindu communities,
focussed on this powerful but ambiguous, religious symbol.
The Hindu landholders sought to assert their authority in
what they perceived to be an assault on the community they
led. For many of these Hindu landholders who reverenced
Ram as the model for their own kingship, the building
marking the site of his birth was particularly powerful. For
Muslims seriously dedicated to the tenets of their faith, the
perceived desecration of a mosque by polytheists would
have equal force. Further the magnitude of the casualty list
in the encounter inflamed both communities and drew a
number of hitherto uninvolved parties into the conflict.
Both the Awadh court and the district administration
had strong interests in settling the conflict according to
their own values. The ruler and his court apparently tended
to support the Muslim side but, being Shi'i, felt little
solidarity with the largely Sunni party of Shah Ghulam
Husayn. The ruler instead worked to defuse the threat to
order in the region. Further, the level of passion on both
sides, however, demanded some response on his part. This
conflict, indeed, became a test of his ability to rule Awadh
effectively.
The district administration in the area was headed by
a Shi'ite, Agha 'Ali Khan; most of the municipal
administration of Fyzabad was also Shi'i. Like the Awadh
ruler, they felt little identification with either Sunni faqirs
or Hindu bayragis. They did, however, see the largely
Hindu landholders as their rivals for local authority. They
urged the Awadh court that "unless the Government
3323
interferes and gives orders for rebuilding the musjid
(mosque) the Hindoos will become inflated and elated with
their success and will proceed to other and greater
extremities. . . ." The prestige of the administration was, in
thier perception, threatened by the Hindu coalition's initial
successes. In this way, the ongoing struggle for local
control between the Shi'i dominated district administration
and the Hindu landholders found voice in this conflict.
The Muslim religious establishments in Awadh, both
Sunni and Shi'i, also entered the conflict. The leaders of the
attacking Muslim party requested these authorities to issue
fatwas, decreeing the official Muslim interpretation of the
issues. The questions were carefully worded to make it an
issue of the defense of Islam against polytheists and each of
the fatwas decided against the Hindu party. The Mujtahid,
recognized by the Awadh dynasty as the highest Shi'i
interpreter of holy law, declared that the "wickedness" and
"enormities" of infidels should be punished by the Muslim
ruler. This was clearly unacceptable to the Hindus
involved.
In order to achieve a negotiated solution, the Awadh
ruler summoned the most prominent leader of the Muslim
camp. Malawi Amir 'Ali, to his court. He further appointed
a tripartite investigative commission, consisting of the
district official. Agha 'Ali Khan, the leading Hindu
landholder, Raja man Singh (nephew and heir of Raja
Bukhtawar Singh), and the British officer in charge of
Company troops in the area, the Oudh Frontier Force. This
commission determined that no mosque had ever existed on
3324
the site, basing their judgement on the argument that no
mosque would have been built so close to a Hindu temple.
Neither the Sunnis encamped near the site nor the Muslim
religious establishment accepted this judgement. The
Mujtahid preached against Agha 'Ali Khan and his uncle,
the local Tahsildar, asserting that they had taken bribes to
decide in favor of the Hindus. Malawi Amir 'Ali gathered
support while in Lucknow, notably from the Sunni scholars
of Farangi Mahall, and then gathered his supporters for
another march against the controversial building.
This effort to defuse the controversy having evidently
failed, the Awadh ruler tried once again to find an
acceptable solution. Wajid 'Ali Shah tried to set aside the
commission's decision and refer the matter to the Mujtahid.
The Resident vetoed this plan. Th ruler then suggested, as
a compromise, that a mosque be built along an outer wall
of the disputed building. The Hindu party seized upon the
commission's decision and refused their compromise. The
Muslim party seized upon the ruler's proposal as a
commitment from his to build a mosque on the site. Both
sides thus sought direct confrontation as the only solution.
So far, then, we can see how fundamentally opposing
cultural values, focussed on this temple/mosque, have
exposed the cleavages in the society of Awadh. The local
Hindus and Muslims and the religious establishments
disputed the cultural identity of a particularly symbolic
building. The Hindu landholders and Shi'i district officials
also perceived it as a test of local control between
themselves. The Awadh ruler tried vainly to avoid any
3325
confrontation that would demonstrate a weakness on his
part, while at the same time clearly retaining his court-
centered view of the issue as peripheral to its main
concerns.
To further legitimize his march against the Hindus as
a holy war. Malawi Amir 'Ali declared a jihad and
increased the scope of his appeal. Both propertied and
landless Muslims entered his camp. The Begum of Bhopal
state in central India was reported to have sent an elephant
and sufficient funds for three hundred men. Nevertheless,
few if any Shi'ites seem to have joined the march.
The Hindus at the disputed site and in proximity to
the marcher's camp looked to the Awadh ruler for
protection and to Hindu landholders for aid and support.
The Hanuman Garhi, a Hindu fortress named for Rama's
militant monkey lieutenant, which had been built on the
occasion of an earlier conflict overlooking Rama's putative
birthplace, was further strengthened. Financial and other
aid was reported to have been received not only from
numerous Hindu landholders in Awadh but from the
Maharajas of Gwalior and Jodhpur states in western India
as well. Thus, both sides drew upon prominent figures who
shared their cultural values, both within Awadh and from
elsewhere in India.
In addition to these forces aligned against each other,
the Company also sought to use the confrontation for its
own advantage. From the onset of the conflict, the
Company favored the Hindu side, dismissing the faqirs as
"fanatics" with little justification for their claims. When the
3326
commission-on which the Company had the deciding vote-
ruled against the Muslims, the Resident exerted his
influence on Wajid 'Ali Shah to force the ruler to subdue the
faqirs. Further, the Resident suggested to the Governor
General that this incident be manipulated to justify the
Company's annexation of Awadh. He argued he ". . .
.should retire from Lucknow to the Company's territories,
and withdraw the brigade of British troops and formally
declare the existing treaty at an end. . . ." The Resident felt
certain that, suddenly deprived of his guiding presence and
the major effective military force in the province at this
crucial time, the Awadh administration would collapse and
the province would beg for annexation.
The Governor General, while strongly favoring
annexation and agreeing that the removal of Company
support would precipitate a collapse of the Awadh
administration, feared that the ensuing communal violence
might spread to Company territory. Further, since the
Court of Directors of the Company was currently
considering his annexation proposal, he decided it would
be impolitic to force their hand by this provocation. He
therefore instructed the Resident to remain in Lucknow to
continue to pressure the Padshah to destroy the faqirs, and
to prevent the involvement of Company troops.
As the other parties prepared for the next round in
the conflict, Wajid 'Ali Shah drew upon his position at the
center of Awadh in order to control the situation. He
summoned Malawi Amir 'Ali back to court and backed up
his request with a royal warrant. He submitted his own
3327
carefully worded questions to the Mujtahid and various
Sunni scholars leading them to issue fatwas stating that a
jihad was not applicable in this case and that all people
should obey the orders of their legitimate sovereign.
Further, he sent Muslim leaders to preach to the marchers
and dissuade them from violating his imperial decrees.
Finally bolstered by the support of the Muslim religious
establishment, he issued a proclamation proscribing all
those pretending to jihad and ordering the confiscation of
all property and the destruction of all houses belonging to
Malawi Amir Ali's followers.
To enforce his position. Wajid 'Ali Shah called upon
the Awadh army. He moved units into position to intercept
the marchers should they move toward Fyzabad, from their
main camp more than a hundred miles away. To reenforce
the bonds between the largely Shi'i army and himself, he
called officers of several of the units facing the marchers
into his darbar-the first one held in a number of years-and
awarded them Khil'ats.
In addition to the army, Wajid 'Ali Shah called upon
landholders to demonstrate their loyalty to his reign. The
Company predicted that the Muslim landholders would
turn against hims and support the jihad. Some landholders
simply repulsed Malawi Amir 'Ali's inducements to join
him. Others, notably the Shi'i Raja of Mahmudabad, sent
forces to support their ruler. This landholder sent a deputy
with five hundred men and four cannons to co-operate with
the army; another landholder, apparently also Shi'i, offered
the services of a like number of soldiers to his Padshah.
3328
None of the landholders seem to have acted against the
orders of Wajid 'Ali Shah by giving support to the
marchers.
The Padshah's authority having deprived the
marchers of any outside support, Malawi Amir 'Ali
appealed to the ruler. He "sent in his pugree (turban) to the
King in token of submission and proferring his readiness to
come in on a promise being given that the Mosque should
hereafter be built. . . .(the King refused to give any such
promise." Thus rebuffed, the Malawi led his men in the
direction of Fyzabad and into the cannon of the Awadh
army. The Awadh troops stood firm and nearly all the
marchers were killed. British observers estimating their
dead at between three and four hundred. The Awadh army
suffered casualties of thirty-three per cent. Testimony to the
resolution shown by both sides. Despite this decisive
action, the controversy of the Fyzabad temple/mosque has
never been finally settled.
This incident dramatically reveals the conflicting
cultural identities present in Awadh. The Padshah, his
administration and army, the local landholders, Hindu and
Muslim, the people of the province, and the East India
Company all perceived the issue from their own diverse
perspectives. Despite the dire predictions of the Resident
and the destabilizing motives of the Company, Wajid 'Ali
Shah and his administration weathered the crisis and
demonstrated their continued authority. Even the marchers
recognized his sovereignty; their opposition to him sprang
from their higher commitment to Islamic truth as they
3329
perceived it. Thus, the two cultural worlds of the imperial
court and the hinterland of Awadh continued to hold
together, albeit tenuously and with friction, under Wajid
'Ali Shah." (Page 515-529)
3400. From the footnote it appears that the author has
heavily relied and referred the contents of "Hadiqa-i Shuhda"
by Mirza Jan published in 1855 itself, in respect whereto he has
made following comments at footnote 71on page 228 of the
book:
"Mirza Jan. Hadiqa-i Shuhda (no title page).pp. 10-
12.15. This appears to have been an example of one of the
"most inflamatory pamphlets on the Mussulman side. . .
.being circulated throughout the country, notwithstanding
the seizure of them wherever they can be found. . . ."decried
by the Governor General. Private Letter of the Governor
General, Coonoor, 6 October 1855, quoted in Baird. p.
357. Officiating Resident to Secretary to Government of
India Foreign Department, 4 August 1855 FPC, 28
December 1855, No. 339."
3401. Suffice it to mention at this stage that a partition
wall came into existence sometimes in 1856-57 as a result
whereof the disputed structure was circumscribed by the said
wall and the premises inside the partition wall, which we have
termed as "inner courtyard". The area between the partition wall
and the boundary wall we have termed as "outer courtyard" and
that was allowed to be used by Hindus. Whether this
arrangement was pursuant to any written agreement or any
notification issued by the British authorities is not known. The
only thing available the partition wall and the local people's
3330
saying that it was done by the Britishers to calm down the two
communities in respect to the property in dispute. The
documents are on record commencing from 28
th
November,
1858 showing that this arrangement also, as a matter of fact,
could not pacify the situation so far as Hindus are concerned,
may be for the reason that according to their belief, it was place
of birth of Lord Rama and therefore, they could not have
acquiesced to a situation of not worshiping the place which they
believed to be the birth place of Lord Rama. Evidently they felt
unsatisfied by simply offering their worship at the religious
structures existing in the outer courtyard. This interference and
entry of Hindus in the inner courtyard is evident from the
documents Exhibit 19 (Suit 1) (Register 5 Page 61-63) dated
28
th
November, 1858, Exhibit 20 (Suit-1) (Register 5 Page 65-
68B) dated 30
th
November, 1858, Exhibit 31 (Suit-1) (Register
5 page 117-121) dated 05.11.1860, Exhibit 54 (Suit 4) (Register
12 Page 359) dated 12
th
March, 1861, Exhibit A-13 (Suit-1)
(Register 6, page 173-177) dated 25.9.1866.
3402. Taking the advantage of the above partition, it also
appears that two persons who were father and son i.e. Mir
Rajjab Ali and Mohd. Asgar set up a claim of grant which also
accepted by the British Government and initially a cash grant of
Rupee Three Hundred and two, three annas six pie was allowed
and thereafter they were allowed the same revenue grant from
village Bahoranpur and Sholapur but even that did not deter or
prevent the Hindu people to enter the premises in dispute and
offering their worship. The only evidence which may suggest
that the Muslims also worship in the premises in dispute and/or
in the inner courtyard are:
3331
(i) Application dated 5
th
November, 1860 filed before the
Deputy Commissioner Fyzabad (Exhibit 31 (Suit-1) Register 5
page 117-121) by Mir Rajjab Ali complaining about the
disturbance created during the course of Adhan (Azan).
(ii) P. Carnagy Historical Sketch where he has mentioned that
earlier to the partition created by the Britishers, both the
communities used to worship in the premises in dispute but in
view of the riots of 1855, the premises was divided permitting
Muslims to offer worship in the inner courtyard and Hindus in
the outer courtyard and reiteration of this fact in subsequent
Gazettes. A similar factual position has been reiterated in
subsequent Gazetteer of Oudh by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S.,
Assistant Commissioner (1877), Report on the settlement of
the Land Revenue of the Fyzabad District, by A.F. Millett,
C.S., Officiating Settlement Officer, published by North Western
Provinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880,
Fyzabad-a Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the District
Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh by H.R.
Nevill published in 1905 etc., the contents whereof we have
already quoted above at different places.
3403. Thereafter, till 1934, we do not get any evidence
oral or written suggesting worship by Muslims in the premises
in dispute whether inner courtyard or outer courtyard. But the
counsel for the Muslim parties endeavored to persuade this
Court to assume such worship considering the fact that the
revenue earned by Mohd. Asgar and his successors was being
spent regularly and detailed accounts were presented before the
authorities concerned who also sometimes verified the same by
visiting the disputed site. About 14 witnesses of fact i.e. PWs 1
3332
to 9, 14, 21, 22, 23 and 25 have been produced to show that
before 1949, Muslims were offering Namaz in the disputed
building. Those evidence we have already discussed in detail
about their trustworthiness. From the facts, one thing is very
clear that the building was constructed, whosoever have built it,
so as to give it a shape as a mosque. It was also known to the
local people that the constructed structure was a mosque.
Whether Muslims immediately thereafter could use it for
offering worship or not has not been proved either way but we
are satisfied that despite structure and knowing it a mosque,
Hindus entered the same and offered their worship treating it a
birthplace of lord Rama. May be subsequent, and there is some
evidence [P Carnegy's HIstorical Sketch (supra)] that at times,
Muslims were also visiting the premises in dispute to offer
Namaz and after the partition wall was raised in 1856-57,
worship confined to inner courtyard. Whether it could be offered
regularly is a fact which could not have been proved but this
much is clear that Namaz had been offered inside the building
after 1857 and we have also recorded a finding that before its
attachment, the last Namaz was offered in the inner courtyard on
16
th
December, 1949. The question whether the building in
dispute could be a mosque as per the tenets of Shariyat looses its
significance, in our view, for the reason that those who believe
in a particular religion, if, under a belief, have worshipped,
treating the place of a particular nature, and that belief is not of
individual or only of their own, but even others (Hindus) have
the same view, it would be outside the purview of judicial
review to analyse and then say whether the structure constructed
on such place was in accordance with the tenets of that religion
3333
or not.
3404. Lots of arguments have been advanced as to what
could have been the concept of ownership in 16
th
Century or
earlier or thereafter and what ought to have been the manner in
which a mosque could have been constructed otherwise it may
not be treated as mosque. The building in dispute was
constructed at a time when neither the British codified law was
applicable nor the Indian Constitution was there. It was a rule of
solitary authority i.e. king whose words constitute the law. His
command or mandate was supreme and none could have
challenged it. At least nothing has been brought before us that
such supreme power could have been over powered by anyone
else. If he intentionally do something ignoring a particular
system, no comments could have been made. But if he proceeds
otherwise or with some deviation even then no comments, in our
view, can be made after so many centuries by us. Whether Babar
or Aurangzeb or anybody else, they were supreme authority.
Whether their action was consistent with the tenets of Islam or
not, in our view, is unchallengeable after so many centuries
particularly when those supreme authorities were not
subordinate to any system of justice. Even otherwise, we cannot
examine as to whether they rightly or wrongly constructed a
place terming it as mosque particularly when atleast the local
people believe from the representation, whatever, it is, that
construction which has been made, is that of a mosque.
3405. Something which took place more than 200 and odd
years, we are clearly of the view, cannot be a subject matter of
judicial scrutiny of this Court which is the creation of statute
came into force in a system which itself was born after more
3334
than hundred and odd years when the building in dispute might
have been constructed. All the Expert religious witnesses have
admitted that if a mosque is constructed, the picture or images
of living being like human images or animal images shall not be
allowed to remain thereat. The creator of the building in dispute
thought otherwise, yet the followers of Islam did not hesitate in
using the premises for the purpose of Namaz. Whether the belief
of such persons, who visited this premises for such worship, is
superior or inferior, whether such offering of Namaz was regular
or frequent or occasional and intermittent would be of no
consequence. Suffice, if there had been Namaz by the Muslim.
The offering of worship by Hindus knowing the building in
dispute that it is a mosque is something else but on that basis the
manner in which the building in dispute has been known for the
last more than 250 years and odd cannot be changed. What
ought to have been the ideal system of suzerainty or the system
or policy of a king ought to have been according to Shariyat or
Hindu Dharm Shastra etc. are all the issues which travel in the
realm of pious wishes on the subject, but that cannot be a
criteria to adjudicate the supreme authority of the erstwhile
kings who were not subordinate to anyone except of the higher
sovereign authority, if any.
3406. One of the document filed by the plaintiff Hindu
parties, i.e., plaintiff (Suit-1) may be referred hereat which is
about 140 years old. Exhibit 33 (Suit-1) (Register 5 page 127-
129) is a copy of the order dated 26.08.1868 passed by Major J.
Reed, Commissioner Faizabad against the order dated
25.06.1868 passed by Officiating Deputy Commissioner,
Faizabad in the case of Niyamat Ali and Mohd. Shah Vs.
3335
Gangadhar Shastri. The order is self speaking, dismissing the
appeal, reads as under:
“26.08.68. Since writing the foregoing Bande Ali
Niamat Ali Ashraf Khan have appeared and their
statements show that their grievance is that Ganga Dhar
has encroached on the North-West corner of this Masjid
building. Now there are three maps with regard to the
preparation of the last of which at all events special care
was enjoined and these show that at this corner Ganga
Dhar's house actually touched the wall of the masjid. The
Mohammads urged that there was a second wall or pust
beyond the wall of the building but though a “pust” is
marked on another part of the map it is not noted here on
the contrary the map shows clearly as already stated that
the house of Ganga Dhar touches the wall of the masjid
and that nothing intervenes. Mr. Marray's personal
examination shows that thereafter the measurements may
be incorrect which is not creditable to the surveyer the
maps are correct in this particular. And such being the case
it is manifist that as held by Mr. Marrey no encroach could
have taken place unless the wall of the masjid itself had
been dug into. It is not alleged that this has been done. The
Commissioner Simsons order of 27
th
Feb 1864 was that
the Hindus should not encroach on the boundaries of
the Mosque and Chabutra. No such encroachment has
proved there is no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.”
3407. This also shows that Hindu parties whenever
contested a case, have throughout called it a mosque and there
has not been any change to this stand atleast till 1950. It is also
3336
true that initially in 18
th
century Tieffenthaller may not have
termed it as "Babari mosque" but later on in 19
th
century, in the
second half, the people started calling it Babari Masjid or
Babar's mosque or Babari mosque.
3408. The building in dispute, thus for the last more than 2
and half centuries and atleast about 200 years before the present
dispute arose in 1950, has always been termed, called and
known as a “mosque”.
3409. In the absence of any material to show otherwise we
are inclined to answer both the issues in positive. Issue no. 1
(Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs and issue no. 9
(Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs (Suit-5).
3410. Issues no. 1(B)(b), 19(d) and 19(e) can be taken
together.
3411. As we have already discussed while dealing issue
no. 6 (Suit-3) no material has been placed before us by the
plaintiffs (Suit-4) and/or other Muslim parties to show that the
property in dispute was ever dedicated by the wakif at any point
of time in his life time. In fact, what the real Waqif is, not
known. Even the successors at any point of time
allowed/dedicated it, has not been shown. It is contended that
the matter relates to an event of several centuries back, hence
any direct or primary evidence showing dedication may not be
possible. Relying on certain judicial precedents which we have
already referred, it is contended if a building was constructed as
a mosque, has been used by muslim people for offering a public
Namaj, it is sufficient evidence to assume that there is a valid
dedication of the building to Almighty God. Initially reliance
was placed in entirety to the stone inscriptions and the contents
3337
thereof to show that the spirit thereof makes it inevitable to hold
that the building in dispute was a "mosque" dedicated to
"Almighty God" and to be used by muslim public for religious
purposes. We have discussed the texts of the alleged inscriptions
in detail above and it has been demonstrated that those
inscriptions are wholly unreliable, appears to have been placed
later on, and in the language of Historian and Archaeologists,
such inscriptions which are placed later on the building,
normally termed as fictitious one. Therefore, the inscriptions
cannot help the plaintiffs on this aspect. They placed reliance on
P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) where he has observed
that till the British rule the building in dispute was being used
by both the communities for religious purposes but in order to
avoid dispute, on the start of British rule, a dividing wall was
constructed permitting muslims to use building in dispute in the
inner courtyard and the outer courtyard was allowed to be used
to the Hindus. It is said that this also leads to the conclusion that
the building in dispute was dedicated or stood dedicated to
Almighty God.
3412. In our view the submission is not correct. Issue no.
1(B)(b) (Suit-4) is whether the building stood dedicated to
Almighty God as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's have
not alleged the dedication of the building in dispute to Almighty
God in the manner it is sought to be argued. As we have already
discussed and held the earliest evidence of user of the building
in dispute we find is by Hindus mentioned in the traveller's
account of Tieffenthaller published in 1786. He visited Awadh
area sometimes between 1766-1771 AD. We did not find any
user by the muslims of the disputed premises, atleast there is no
3338
mention of this fact. The first document which refers to the user
of the building in dispute by the muslims is post 1857. Various
authorities which refers to the principle of dedication by the user
in the case of old matters are such where the user or non user of
the alleged Islamic structure by non-Islamic people was not
involved. Here is a case having a unique feature. The building in
dispute though sought to be constructed as mosque, given the
shape of mosque, but it was used by Hindu public continuously
for offering worship therein. Within the premises itself there
exist a number of Hindu religious structure, worshipped as
mentioned in in the traveller's account of Tieffenthaler. i.e..
DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE ET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D
E L' I N D E under the title "TOME 1. NOUVELLE
EDITION. Contenant la Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec.
39,. Planches" (Supra). Evidence of user by muslim is much
later. Can it be said that in such a case, as and when the muslims
started user of the building in dispute for Namaj, it shall be
presumed that there is a dedication of the building or the
dedication to Almighty God particularly when at that time also,
besides, earlier and later worship by non-muslims in the same
building continued unabated and uninterrupted. The plaintiffs
(Suit-4) have not claimed dedication of the building in dispute
to Almighty God in such circumstances and with these facts.
Their claim is totally different in the plaint which has not been
supported by cogent evidence.
3413. An incidental facet is whether Hindus could have
allowed the building to be used by muslims if they were already
using it for worship. The question is not whether it was
allowable or not but it is a fait accompli: typical, peculiar but
3339
then it is. We may consider its effect and consequences and not
whether it was allowable or could not have been allowed. We,
however, may not fail to refer a Verse 23, Chapter 9 from
Srimadbhagwadgita where Lord Krishna says:
¤ s·¤·¤· ·ni ·i·ni ¤¬·n ¬,¤il··ni|
n sl¤ -i- · ¬i·n ¤ ¤¬·-¤l·l·i¤¸ · ¬- ||
r ¬¬ ·! ¤nl¤ ¬,i¬ ¤ ·n ¬i ¬¬i- ·i·n ·¸ ¬º · ·ni¬i ¬i
¤¸ ¬n r , · ·i| - n¬i r| ¤¸ ¬n r , l¬·n ¬·¬i ·r ¤¸ ¬· ¬l·l·i¤¸ · ¬
¬·ii n ¬ni·¤¸ · ¬ r ||zs||
"Arjuna, even those devotees who, endowed with faith,
worship or profess other Gods, with some interested
motive, in fact they too worship Me alone, though not in
accordance with rules, i.e., without proper knowledge."
3414. If one talk of existence of customs, traditions,
practice etc., its recognition and protection under Article 25 of
the Constitution, in our view, so far as inner courtyard is
concerned, it applies to both the sides. If the Hindus are
worshipping not only in the outer courtyard but in the inner
courtyard of the premises in dispute from time immemorial and
several centuries which has continued even after construction of
the disputed structure, it is also there that the prayer by muslims
atleast in the inner courtyard have also taken place, even if not
in such regular and persistent manner as that of Hindus but in
intermittent and disturbed manner for sufficiently long time of
about 80 years and odd when the first suit was filed. The fact
remains that it had continued, and, as we have already observed,
the last prayer appears to have been observed on 16
th
December,
1949. It, therefore, constitutes customs and practice to both the
sides. For Hindus, for several centuries but for Muslims almost
100 years or more.
3340
3415. What constitute a custom has been considered time
and again. Valid, ancient and unbroken practice obtaining from
generation to generation in ascents is a custom and in the
absence of any contrary statutory law can be treated to be a
valid rule/law. In Shakuntalabai and another Vs. L.V.
Kulkarni and another, 1989 (2) SCC 526 the Apex Court
observed that in order to constitute valid custom under law it
must be of immemorial existence, reasonable certain and
continuous. The Court observed:
“Every custom must have to be in existence
preceding memory of man and if the proof was carried
back as far as living memory would go, it should be
presumed that the right claimed had existed from time of
legal memory. This was reiterated in Mohammed Ibrahim v.
Shaik Ibrahim, AIR 1922 P.C. 59. In Ramalakshmi Ammal
v. Sivanantha Perumal Sethurayar, 14 M.I.A. 81 570, it was
held that it was the essence of special usages modifying the
ordinary law, (in that case of succession) that they should
be ancient and invariable; it is further essential that they
should be established to be so, by clear and unambiguous
evidence and that it is only by means of such findings that
the Courts can be assured of their existence and that they
possess the conditions of antiquity and continuity and
certainty on which alone their legal title to recognition
depends. Custom must be proved and the burden of proof is
on the person who asserts it.” (para 19)
3416. The Apex Court also quoted the following verse of
Ancient Hindu Law in para 18 of the judgement:
“18. Ancient Hindu law also said:
3341
Tasmindeshe ya acarah paramparyakramagatah;
Varnanam santaralanam sa sadachara uchyate.
Practice that obtains from generation to generation among
the pure and mixed classes is called sadachara.”
3417. Besides, repair and maintenance of the building in
dispute between 1860 to 1949 also appears to have been made
by the muslims except of a riot case. Therefore, for them also
irrespective of the fact whether a religious structure strictly in
accordance with Islamic tenets came into existence or not, the
fact remains that shouldering with their Hindu brethren, in the
inner courtyard of the disputed site, for sufficiently long time,
muslims also offered Namaj. This would fall within the term
“custom”, benefit whereof is being claimed by Hindus also and
in our shall extend to Muslims also.
3418. Looking from this context, though it cannot be said
that the building in dispute has never been used by the muslims
but then that would not attract the doctrine of dedication by user
to be applied to this particular case. All the authorities which we
have referred and discussed as cited by the parties, also do not
consider a case where the same building and the same premises
was being used by the muslims and Hindus alike for offering
worships according to their religious tenets pursuant to their
religious faith and belief though largely by Hindus and to a
lesser extent by Muslims.
3419. Islamic tenets clearly bar two religions at the same
place. Meaning thereby the Islamic tenets prohibit non Islamic
worship at a place meant for worship by muslim people. But
that is not so under Hindu Dharmshastras. Atleast nothing has
been shown to us. Something which is prohibited by Islam, said
3342
contrary thereto, an Islamic religious structure cannot be said to
vests in Almighty God. Various religious expert witnesses
produced by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) also admit this position that
anything which is contrary to Islamic tenets cannot be accepted
by Almighty God. Though religious experts we need not to refer
for determining the principle of concerned religion but here they
are the witnesses of the plaintiffs and, therefore, their statement
atleast would bind the plaintiffs as it would amount to admission
made by the plaintiffs.
3420. There is no law that as soon as the building is
constructed it stands dedicated to Almighty God but the settler
can always claim that it is not for particular purpose etc.
3421. In Garib Das and others Vs. Munshi Adbul Hamid
and others, AIR 1970 SC 1035 the Court said:
“8. . . . . the law seems to be clear that a wakf inter vivos is
completed by a mere declaration of endowment by the
owner. According to Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan
Law, 16
th
Edition, page 178, Article 186, this view had been
adopted by the High Courts of Calcutta, Rangoon, Patna,
Lahore, Madras, Bomday, Oudh Chief Court and recently
by the Allahabad High Court and the Nagpur High Court.
Further, the founder of a wakf may constitute himself the
first mutawalli and when the founder and the mutawalli are
the same person, no transfer of physical possession is
necessary. Nor it is necessary that the property should be
transferred from the name of the donor as owner into his
name as mutawalli. An apparent transaction must be
presumed to be real and the onus of proving the contrary is
on the person alleging that the wakf was not intended to be
3343
acted upon.”
“9. It is also settled law that the settlor and those
claiming under him are not precluded from showing that
no wakf had been created and that the deed was not
intended to operate as a wakf but was illusory and
fictitious. This is a question of intention evidenced by
facts and circumstances showing that it was not to be acted
upon. For the purpose of such enquiry subsequent conduct,
if it is merely a continuation of conduct at the time of
execution, is irrelevant.”
3422. In Jamal Uddin and another Vs. Mosque at
Mashakganj and others, AIR 1973 Allahabad 328 the court in
para 27 said:
“27. The trial Court has however fallen in a legal
error in holding by relying on the Full Bench decision of
this Court in Mohd. Yasin Vs. Rahmat Ilahi, 1947 All LJ
85=(AIR 1947 All 201) (FB), that in this case it was not
necessary for the wakif to deliver possession to the
mutawalli at the time of making the alleged oral wakf. That
decision applied only to the wakf made by a Hanafi
Muslim. In the present case Nasir Husain was admittedly a
Shia. In the case of wakf made by a Shia Muslim delivery of
possession is necessary as laid down in Sec. 186 of the
Mulla's Mahomedan Law, Sixteenth Edition at page 180.
The Privy Council also held in Ali Zamin Vs. Akbar Ali
Khan, 167 Ind Cas 884 = (AIR 1937 PC 127) that under
Shia Law actual delivery of possession by or by direction of
the wakif is a condition precedent to the wakf having
validity and effect.
3344
Again, in Abadi Begum Vs. Bibi Kania Zainab, 99
Ind Cas 669=(AIR 1927 PC 2) the Privy Council held that
for the creation of a valid wakf under Muhammadan Law,
at any rate among the shias, it is necessary that there
must be delivery of possession of the thing dedicated. If
the wakif constitutes himself as the first Mutawalli he must
change the nature of his possession. In a case like the
present one, where there is no document executed by the
wakif at the time of making of the alleged wakf it is
necessary that cogent evidence should be produced that he
had delivered possession to the Mutawalli. An obvious
method of doing so is to get the property in dispute
recorded in the name of the wakf in the records maintained
by the municipal board. It is an admitted fact that in the
present case the land in dispute was not got recorded in the
name of the mosque in the records maintained by the
Municipal Board.”
3423. The concept of Wakf has been considered at length
in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 SC
1569, wherein the Court held:
“once the founder dedicates the site for the purpose of
building a mosque and prayers are offered in the mosque
the site and the mosque become wakf properties and the
ownership of the founder is completely extinguished. Under
the Mahomedan Law no Muslim can be denied the right to
offer prayers in a mosque to whatever section or creed he
may belong. ... Once the founder dedicates a particular
property for the purpose of a public mosque, the
Mahomedan Law does not permit any one from stopping
3345
the Mahomedan public from offering prayers and reciting
Koran etc. .... The word "wakf" means detention or
appropriation. According to the well recognized Hanafi
School of Mahomedan Law when a Mahomedan dedicates
his property for objects of charity or to God, he completely
parts with the corpus which vests in God and never returns
to the founder. Mahomedan Law contemplates two kinds of
Wakfs-a wakf which is private in nature where although the
ultimate object is public charity or God, but the property
vests in a set of beneficiaries chosen by the founder who
appoints a Mutawalli to manage the wakf property. We are,
however, not concerned with private wakfs which are
normally known as wakf-alal-aulad. We are concerned with
public wakf i.e. dedication made for the purpose of public
charity e.g. an Imam-Bada, a mosque, a Serai and the like.
So far as the dedication to a mosque is concerned, it is
governed by special rules and special equity in the light of
which a particular dedication has to be determined. A
mosque is obviously a place where the Muslims offer their
prayers. It is well-known that there are certain formalities
which have to be observed by the Muslims before they
observe the prayers. These formalities are-
(i) Wazoo i.e. washing of hands and feet in a manner
prescribed by Shariat:
(ii) the recitation of "Azaah" and "Ikamat" which is
usually done by the Pesh Imam or the Muayzin;
(iii) there must be a person who possesses virtuous
qualities and a knowledge of Koran and other
religious rites who should lead the prayers.
3346
This is necessary in case of prayers offered in
congregation. ...the moment a person is allowed to
offer his prayers in a mosque, the mosque becomes
dedicated to the public. .... All that is necessary is
that there should be a declaration of the intention to
dedicate either expressly or impliedly and a
divestment of his interest in the property by the owner
followed by delivery of possession. .....
It would thus appear that in order to create a valid
dedication of a public nature, the following conditions must
be satisfied:
(1) that the founder must declare his intention to
dedicate a property for the purpose of a mosque. No
particular form of declaration is necessary. The
declaration can be presumed from the conduct of the
founder either express or implied;
(2) that the founder must divest himself completely
from the ownership of the property, the divestment can be
inferred from the fact that he had delivered possession to
the Mutawalli or an Imam of the mosque. Even if there is
no actual delivery of possession the mere fact that members
of the Mahomedan public are permitted to offer prayers
with azan and ikamat, the wakf is complete and
irrevocable; and
(3) that the founder must make some sort of a
separate entrance to the mosque which may be used by the
public to enter the mosque.
As regards the adjuncts the law is that where a mosque is
built or dedicated for the public if any additions or
3347
alterations, either structural or otherwise, are made which
are incidental to the offering of prayers or for other
religious purposes, those constructions would be deemed to
be accretions to the mosque and the entire thing will form
one single unit so as to be Attention:
part of the mosque.”
3424. In Nawab Zain Yar Jung and others Vs. Director
of Endowments and another AIR 1963 SC 985, a Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court found that there is a dispute between a
trust; public, religious or charitable and a waqf under the law of
Islam. The Court quoted with approval the following from the
decision of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha
(Supra):
"it is to be remembered that a "trust" in the sense in which
the expression is used in English law, is unknown to the
Hindu system, pure and simple. Hindu piety found
expression in gifts to ideals and images consecrated and
installed in temples, to religious institutions of every kind,
and for all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu
social and religious system; to Brahmins, Goswamis,
Sanyasis, etc....... When the gift is directly to an idol or a
temple, the seisin to complete the gift is necessarily effected
by human agency. Called by whatever name, he is only the
manager or custodian of the idol or the institution.....In no
case is the property conveyed to or vested in him, nor is he
a trustee in the English sense of the term, although in view
of the obligations and duties resting on him, he is
answerable as a trustee in the general sense for mal-
administration."
3348
"the Mohammadan laws owes its origin to a rule laid
down by the Prophet of Islam; and means "the tying up of
property in the ownership of God the Almighty and the
devotion of the profits for the benefit of human beings." As
a result of the creation of a wakf, the right of wakif is
extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the
Almighty. The manager of the wakf is the mutawalli, the
governor, superintendent, or curator. But in that capacity,
he has no right in the property belonging to wakf; the
property is not vested in him and he is not a trustee in the
legal sense."
3425. As we have seen in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs.
Mohd. Hanifa (supra) the Apex Court said that dedication to a
mosque is governed by special rules.
3426. Besides, the dedication by founder as contemplated
by Apex Court and noticed in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai Vs.
Mohd. Hanifa (supra) could not have been proved by the
plaintiffs at all. We may also refer to Nawab Zain Yar Jung
(supra) where it is observed that Mohammedan Law owes its
origin to a rule laid down by Prophet of Islam, meaning thereby
outsiders, the question of creation of waqf or mosque etc. would
not arise. The building may remain a building, a structure, but
would form a religious structure only when it is made in
accordance with the religious tenets.
3427. In Ballabh Das & another Vs. Nur Mohammad &
another AIR 1936 PC 83, the entry with respect to nature of
disputed premises contained in Khasra of 1868, the Court
observed that where khasra itself is the instrument which
confers or embodies the right and there is no other document
3349
which create title, the khasra and the map are not merely
historical materials, but are instruments of title or otherwise the
direction foundation of rights.
3428. The above discussion would be relevant where in a
property dispute such issues are of utmost importance and its
religious nature is in doubt amongst the members of the same
community. But where the religious structure of a particular
nature is treated, believed and practised as that of a religious
nature and worship is also offered since a very long time, the
question whether there is a dedication of the building to
almighty or not, in our view, would be wholly irrelevant.
According to the own beliefs, Hindu worship the building in
dispute in the inner courtyard treating that there exist Supreme
Being since the Lord of Lords manifested thereat in the human
form and it is his birthplace, while Muslims on the contrary,
treating it a Mosque have been visiting there and offering
Namaz from time to time. Then whether the Muslims' belief was
in accordance with the tenets of Shariyat or not, in our view,
cannot be questioned by Hindus since it is again a question of
faith and belief and once it is continuing for a long time from
generations to generations, then after long time such a dispute
cannot be raised. We have pointed out and reiterate hereat also
that upto 1950, it was never doubted that the building in dispute
was a Mosque and was constructed as an attempt to desecrate
one of the most pious, sacred and revered place of specific and
peculiar nature, i.e., the birthplace of Lord Rama which could
not be at any other place and that the Muslims also believing
that the same being a Mosque, had been offering Namaz thereat
from time to time. Even a third party, i.e., the Britishers never
3350
doubted on the nature of the building and all the documents
unequivocally have used the word 'Mosque' for the building in
dispute at least upto 1950 when the said suit was filed. In these
facts and state of affairs, to answer a question at this fag end
whether there was a dedication to almighty or not, in our view,
is a wholly irrelevant question and, therefore, it need not to be
answsered.
3429. Considering the peculiar special facts of this case as
also the law discussed above and the facts and evidence we
leave Issue No. 1(B) (b) (Suit-4) unanswered being irrelevant.
3430. Issues no. 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) relates to the
validity of the building in question as mosque on the basis of the
attending characteristics, for example existence of minarats or
graveyards surrounding the building on three sides. Though it is
true that recitation of Azan has been held to be a necessary
formality for a public prayer in a mosque dedicated to waqf, it is
not shown to us by learned counsels for the defendants placing
any religious Islamic texts, if the minarats are not constructed,
the building would not be a mosque under the law of Shariyat.
An attempt was made to place before us certain documents
wherein the characteristics of mosque in general are mentioned
but those documents having not been proved and marked as
exhibit, we are then unable to look into those documents. The
only document which throw some light on the construction of
mosque is Exhibit 68 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 163-177)
which is a photocopy of frontispiece and pages no. 1 to 5
Chapter I "Introduction" and two photographs from the book
"Indian Architecture (Islamic Period)" by Percy Brown
published by D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. Private Ltd. The
3351
relevant extract thereof reads as under:
"Unlike the architecture of the Hindus, which, as may
be seen was confined almost entirely to temples,
Mohammedan architecture in India is represented by many
different types of building, which however may be referred
to the two conventional divisions of (a) Religious and (b)
Secular. Those of a religious nature consist of two kinds
only-- the mosque and the tomb. On the other hand the
secular buildings are of a miscellaneous order, as among
them may be include those intended for public and civic
purposes, such as houses, pavilions, town-gates,wells,
gardens, etc., besides the large imperial schemes of palace-
forts and even entire cities.
Taking the religious structures first, the mosque, or
Masjid, literally “the place of prostration” as already
shown, is not only the all-important building of the Faith,
but it is also the key-note of the style. Derived originally
from the somewhat humble dwelling of the founder of the
creed at Medina in Arabia, traces of the shape of this
domestic habitation are still to be detected in the developed
mosque-scheme, as it is basically an open courtyard
surrounded by a pillared verandah, in a work an
elaboration and enlargement of an Arab's house. With the
early followers of the religion everything was done
according to suna or practice, tradition being regarded as
sacred, sometimes carrying more force than the guiding
light of reason. The original intention was to provide no
specific structure for devotional purposes, as prayer could
be performed in the open air with nothing between the
3352
devotee and his God. But those concerned had not
calculated on the natural craving of mankind for an
enclosed building in which worship could be conducted in
an appropriate environment, away from the distractions of
everyday life, and it was not long before a house of prayer
came into being. This began with a rectangular open space
or sahn, the four sides being enclosed by pillared cloisters
or liwans, with a fountain or tank in the centre for
ablutions, a ceremony described as “the half of faith and
the key of prayer.” To meet the demand for some focal
point in the scheme, the cloisters on the Mecca side (in
India on the west) of the courtyard were expanded and
elaborated into a pillared hall or sanctuary, with a wall at
the back containing a recess or alcove called a mihrab
indicating the qibla or direction for prayer. On the right
side of the mihrab stands the mimbar or pulpit, while a
portion of the sanctuary is screened off into a compartment
for women. An elevated platform from which the muezzin
summons the faithful to prayer is also a necessity, and
usually takes the form of a high tower or minaret. (Plate I.)
In almost every city and large town, there is one mosque
known as the Jamma Masjid (Al-Masjidu'l Jami, lit, “the
Collecting Mosque”). This designation is given to the
principal or congregational mosque in which the Faithful
assemble for the Friday (Jum'ah) prayer.
Above are the main elements comprising the mosque
structure, and it was soon found that to combine these
traditional requirements into a well-balanced whole was
not to be readily accomplished. Porticos similar entrance
3353
hall could be added to the exterior, but the treatment of the
interior with its outstanding essential of a large open
space, remained a problem. Obviously the sanctuary where
was enshrined the mihrab, or symbol of “direction” of the
Faith was the most significant portion, and this was
eventually developed into the principal architectural
feature, with the courtyard and its cloisters leading up to it.
To produce the necessary structural effect of a house of
prayer two important elements were imposed on to the
exterior of the sanctuary, on the one hand a screen was
thrown across its front to form a facade, and on the other,
above the central space or nave corresponding to the “high
place” of the Christian church, a dome was raised. It was
in the task of co-ordinating these two dominating features,
the facade and the dome, so as to form a unified
architectural composition, that difficulties were
encountered, and in fact were never entirely overcome by
the Indian builders. For nearly every phase of mosque
architecture in India illustrates in the front elevation a
conflict between these two essential constituents of the
conception, and the efforts made to bring about an
agreement. As a rule, the view of the central dome over the
nave is obstructed by the parapet crowning the facade
which rises up in front, although this combination is
sometimes not unpleasing as seen from the side or back of
the building. The cause of this lack of coherence in the
elevational aspect of the Indian mosque has been attributed
to the immature design of the earliest examples, such as the
Qutb at Delhi, and the Arhai-din-jhompra at Ajmir, the
3354
defects of which, owing to the force of tradition, were
repeated, although in a lesser degree, in many of the
subsequent buildings. In the mosques of Gujrat and of the
south-west the design of the Ajmir frontage undoubtedly
shows its influence, but the inconsistency here referred to
appears to have an older origin, as it is inherent in the
eastern type of mosque, beginning as early as in that raised
by the Arabs at Samarra near Baghdad in the first half of
the nigh century.
The other class or building of a religious order, the
tomb, introduced into the country an entirely new kind of
structure, as hitherto it had been custom of the people of
India to raise no sepulchre to mark the resting place of the
dead, their ashes being carried away on the broad bosom
of the sacred rivers. Even with the Mohammedans the
tomb-structure in the initial stages of the creed evolved
slowly owing to all such memorials being prohibited. 1 It is
of no little psychological significance that a movement
which began with restrictions against all forms of
monumental art should eventually produce some of the
most superb examples. Only the pyramids of the Pharoahs,
and a few other funerary monuments, such as that raised in
memory of Kind Mausoleus at Halicarnassus in Asia
Minor, have excelled in size and architectural splendour
the Islamic tombs of India. Many of these noble piles
consist of an imposing composition of vaulted halls and
towering domes, and enclosed within a spacious garden,
all on a grand scale, yet enshrining in the centre a mere
handful of dust, laid in a plain mound of earth to be seen in
3355
the mortuary chamber below. (Plate LII). In the course of
time, the tomb-building, especially in northern India,
introduced itself into the landscape, much of the finest
Indo-Islamic architecture being expressed in these
structures. The tomb (Qabristan), usually consists of a
single compartment or tomb-chamber, known as 'huzrah or
estanah' in the centre of which is the cenotaph or zarih, the
whole structure being roofed over by a dome. In the ground
underneath this building, resembling a crypt, is the
mortuary chamber called the 'maqbarah or takhana' with
the grave or qabr in the middle. In the western wall of the
tomb-chamber there is generally a mihrab, but some of the
larger mausoleums also include a mosque as a separate
building, the whole being contained within one enclosure,
called a rauza, after the garden (ar-rauza) at Medinah in
which is enshrined the Prophet's Tomb. Occasionally
important tombs are designated dargahs, a word of Persian
extraction signifying a court or palace.
In contrast to the religious architecture those
buildings of a secular character, as already indicated
comprise a large series of a kind so varied that no definite
classification is possible, and they will therefore be dealt
with either individually or in groups according to their
position or purpose.
During the rule of the Mohammedans, architecture in
India passed through three different and more or less
successive experience. The first of these prevailed for only
a limited period, but it was one of desecration and
destruction inspired by the first white head of fanatical
3356
zeal. “It was the custom,” relates a contemporary
chronicler, “after the conquest of every fort and stronghold
to ground its foundations and pillars to powder under the
feet of fierce and gigantic elephants.” In a like manner a
large number of fortified towns were demolished, while
temples and similar structures were included in the
spoliation. This purely destructive phase was followed by a
second one, in which the buildings were not ruthlessly
shattered, but were purposely dismantled and the parts
removed, to supply ready-made material for the mosques
and tombs of the conquerors. The historian quoted above
mentions that much of the demolition was effected by
elephant power, these animals being employed to push the
beams and pillars out of position, gather them up, and
carry them to their new situation, much as they now stack
timber, or haul teak wood logs for commercial purposes. It
was during this phase that the temple buildings suffered
most, as whenever any fresh territory was annexed, and the
fouding of a capital city contemplated, these structures
became the quarries from which supplies of cut stone were
extracted. This accounts for considerable areas in Upper
India being almost entirely denuded of any records of
Hindu architecture, notably around such early Islamic
centres as Delhi and Ajmir. The spoils of these temples,
however, had to be supplemented in places by a certain
amount of new and original masonry, as may be seen in
mosques of the early type, so that the materials were
obtained from two sources and, as tersely described by the
chronicler- “the stones were dug out from the hills, and the
3357
temples of the infidels were demolished to furnish a
supply.” Finally, there was the third phase, when the
Moslems having become firmly established in various parts
of the country, found themselves in a position to plan and
create building compositions constructed of masonry, not
re-conditioned, but each stone prepared specially for its
purpose. It was in these latter circumstances that Islamic
architecture in India arrived and its true character and
achieved its greatest splendour.
For the purpose of study, the architecture thus
produced may be resolved into three main divisions, (I) the
Delhi or Imperial, (2) the Provincial, and (3) the Mughul.
The first of these divisions has hitherto generally been
known as “Pathan,” but not all those dynasties under
which this type of architecture prevailed, can be so
designated. Two of them were of Turkish extraction, one
was Khalji, and one was of Arab descent. The architecture
evolved under these dynasties was that associated mainly
with their rule at Delhi, the capital city and centre of the
imperial power. For, just as Rome had “classic” art of the
capital city, differing greatly from that of the provinces, so
the seat of the administration in Moslem India had its own
form of architectural expression, which, although subject to
variations and developments, never really lost its
distinctive and imperial character. Beginning at the close
of the twelfth century, on the establishment of Islamic rule
at Delhi, this imperial style continued for nearly four
centuries, when, in the middle of the sixteenth century it
was succeeded by that of the Mughuls. The second of these
3358
styles, the Provincial, refers to those modes of building
practised in some of the more self-contained portions of the
country, usually after their governors had thrown off the
allegiance to Delhi, when they proceeded to develop a form
of architecture in accordance with their own individual
ideals. What may be termed the “pivotal year” of this
movement was A.D. 1400, when the central power at Delhi
had been broken by the invasion of Timur (Tamerlane), and
its original prestige declined from that date. It will be
understood that these provincial manifestations of the
building art in most instances prevailed for a period partly
contemporary with that maintained by the central power at
Delhi, and partly with that of the Mughuls, until the later
brought the whole of India under their rule. The third style,
the Mughul, was the latest and ripest form of Indo-Islamic
architecture, which, emerging after the middle of the
sixteenth century continued to flourish until the eighteenth
century, by which time the empire founded by the
descendents of the Timurids, the “Great Mughuls,” had
begun to approach its end." (pages 3-5)
3431. Similarly though public prayer for religious
purposes at graveyard is not permitted but it is not shown to us
that a building would not be construed as a mosque if it is
surrounded on three sides by graveyards.
3432. For the purpose of public namaz, Adhan (Ajan) is
necessary but we have not been shown that a mosque, if
constructed without having a 'Minar', that would not be a
masque and against the tenets of Shariyat. Similarly, namaz
before graves is not permitted except of limited purpose but it is
3359
not shown to us that a mosque cannot be constructed or if
constructed, may subsequently loose its status of a mosque if in
a vicinity thereof there exist graveyard or the same are made
later on.
3433. We, therefore, are of the view that the defendants
have failed to prove issues 19(d) and 19(e) and therefore, both
the issues i.e. Issues No.19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered
in favour of the plaintiffs.
3434. Issue No.19(f) is in two parts. Firstly; whether the
pillars inside and outside the building in question contain
images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding is in
affirmative, then it has to be seen whether on that account the
building in question cannot have the character of Mosque under
the tenets of Islam?
3435. There are three sets of albums which contain
photographs taken by the State Archaeological Department
pursuant to order dated 10.01.1990 passed by this Court. Dr.
Rakesh Tiwari, OPW-14 was Director of State Archaeological
Department deposed statement as OPW 14 and verified all these
photographs. One album which the learned counsel for the
parties have termed as "Album of Coloured Photographs"
contain 204 photographs and has been marked as Paper
No.200C1/1-204. The second one contains 111 photographs
which are black & while and the parties counsels have
commonly call it "The Album of Black & White Photographs"
and it is Paper No.201C1/1-111. The relevant photographs of
these pillars in the coloured album are Paper No.200C1/48,
200C1/50, 200C1/51, 200C1/52, 200C1/54, 200C1/87,
200C1/104, 200C1/105, 200C1/109, 200C1/114, 200C1/115,
3360
200C1/141, 200C1/146, 200C1/147, 200C1/166, 200C1/167,
200C1/181, 200C1/186, 200C1/187, 200C1/195, 200C1/199 and
200C1/200. Similarly, in the album of Black & White,
photographs, the relevant one of concerning pillars are
201C1/55, 201C1/57, 201C1/76, 201C1/88, 201C1/91,
201C1/103, 201C1/104 and 201C1/106. All these photos are
being appended collectively as Appendix 5 (A) to 5 (DD) to this
judgment.
3436. We ourselves have perused all these photographs
and apparently it appears from some of them that there were
some images which have been tried to be erased or damaged so
that it may not be identifiable or may stand removed. To the
portion, where such images appears to be an attempt by external
forces to desecrate the same is quite evident. We are not expert
in this branch of archaeology but something which is otherwise
apparent, we have mentioned. A lot of witnesses including those
experts of various parties were also confronted with the same
and their statement would also be of corroborative nature and
therefore would be relevant. The photographs of the black
kasauit pillars were seen and in respect to images therein, if any,
PW 3, the plaintiff's own witness, said:
(A) PW-3 (Farooq Ahmad)
¤i -i · . r/ - -¸ln ¤i «·| r ¤| r ¬i ¬¬ ··n ·r| ·i|| ¤
¤i -i ·i| ¬i¤·i· - n·il·¤i ¬i r ¬ l¬· ri ¬¬ni r «·¬ l·¤i ri |
·¤i l¬ ¬¬ ··n ªi ·i ¤º -¸ ln ¤i ·r| ·i|| ¤i -i · o ÷ rs - ·i| ¤¬
-¸ln +¤º ¬ lr-¬ - ·¬º ¬in| r | ¤i-¬ - ¬i¬i ªi ·ii ¬ni r ¬i ·ii
¬¬- ¬i ; -¸ ln ·r| ri ¬¬n| r l¬ «i· - «·¬ l·¤i n¤i ri | . . .
.¤i -i · ªi¬º ¬r ºri r¸ l¬ ªi ·i «·¬ l·¤ n¤ ri n | ;· ªi ·ii ¤º
-¸ln ¤i «·| r ¤| r ¬·¬i · ªi¬º - «ni ºri r¸ | l¬ ¤ ªi ·i «·¬ n¤
r | (¤ ¬ ss)
3361
“Idols are visible in photograph no. 57, which were
not present at that time. This photograph is also of the
disputed property but it is possible that it may have been
changed because at that time there were no idols over the
pillars. An idol is visible in the upper part of photograph
no. 58 as well. There was a black pillar at the gate, which
did not have any idol and it is possible that it may have
been changed subsequently. . . . . . . . . It is only after
looking at the photograph that I am stating that the pillars
may have been changed. These pillars have idols on there
top and it is only after looking at them that I am stating
that these pillars have been changed.” (E.T.C)
¤i -i · . cz - ¬ n¬ ¬ ¤i¬ ªi ·ii · -i «·i r l¬¬-
-¸ l n ¤i «·| r ¤| r | ¤r ªi ·ii l··il·n ¬i¤·i· ¬ ¬-nº| ¤i-¬
¬i r . . . . . . ¤i -i · . ÷c« - ·i| ¬¤ · º n ¬i ·¬º ¬ini r ¬iº
-¸ln ·i| ·¬º ¬in| r | . . . ¤i -i · . ÷cr ¬·º ·º·i¬ ¬i r | ¬ l¬·
;¬¬ ªi ·i ¤º -¸ln ¤i «·| r ¤| r ¬i n··|¬| ¬i ·n|¬i r | ¤i -i · .
÷cc ·i| ¤¸ ·| nº¤ ¬i r ¬ l¬· ;¬ ¤º -¸ln ¤i «·| r ¬i n··|¬| ¬i
·n|¬i r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“In photograph no. 62 there is a pillar like structure
near the grill, which has idols. This pillar is at the
northern gate of the disputed property. . . . . … It is visible
in white color in photograph no. 64 as well,and the idols
are also visible. . . . The photograph no. 65 is of the main
gate. However, its pillar contained idols, which are result
of change. The photograph no. 66 is also of the eastern
side but it has idols, which are result of change.” (E.T.C)
¤i -i · . ÷/z ¬i¬ º n ¬i ªi ·ii ¬ªº r ¬ l¬· ¬¬¬ +¤º
· ·| ¤ -¸ l n ¤i «·| r ¤| r | . . . . . .¤r| ri ¬i n ¤i -i
· o÷/· ¬ ·i ·i ªi · i i ¬| r | ·r| ri ¬n · . ÷/s - l ·ªi i ¤
3362
n¤ ªi · i ¬| r | ;¬- ·i | -¸ l n ¤i «·| r | ¤i -i · . ÷/« ¬|
·i| ·r| ri¬n r l¬¬¬ ªi ·i ¤º -¸ln ¤i «·| r | ¤ ¤¸ ºi ªi ·ii ¤iºi nº¤
¬ l·ªii¤i n¤i r ¬i ·ri ¤º l¤¤¬i r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ «o)
“The photograph no. 72 does contain black pillars
but it has idols in upper and lower part. . . . . . . Similar
is the position of the two pillars of photograph no. 71.
Same is with the pillar shown in photograph on. 73. It
also contains idols. The photograph no. 74 is also
similar, which has idols over pillars. This pillar has been
shown completely from all sides, which had been fixed over
there.” (E.T.C)
¤i -i · . ÷·o· · i| ·r| ¬i r ¬l¬· ;¬- «r n n··|l¬¤i
¬| n¤| r | -¸ l n ¤i ·i | «·| r ¬i º ¬¬ºi ·i | ªi · -i ¬¸ -
ri n r | (¤ ¬ «z)
“The photograph no. 101 is also of that place, but
many changes have been made therein. The idols are also
existing and the pitchers (Kalash) are also existing.”
(E.T.C)
¤ -| ¬ r l ¬ ;¬ ¤¬«- - ¬ni ¤ n¤ n-i - ¤i -i
r-i º ·¬| ¬ ¬i r« ¬| -i ¬¸ ·n| - ªi | ¤ n¤ ·i | ¤ n-i -
¤i -i ¬ l ··i l ·n ¬-| · ¬i º ¬i ¤·i · ¬ r | (¤ ¬ c·)
“It is true that all the photographs contained in
this album, had been taken in the presence of my
counsel. All these photographs are of the disputed land
and property.”(E.T.C)
¬i ¤-·iº ªi «i ¬| ¬¸ ºn - ¬n ·i ¬· ¤º ¬i ; ºi ni·i ¤i ·i¸ ni
¬| ºi·¬ ·r| ·i| ·r «i· - ¤¬| «·i; n¤| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·oo)
The stones existing in form of pillar, did not have
figures of ghost or demons over them, and the same was
put subsequently in a fake manner.” (E.T.C)
3363
3437. The witnesses of Hindu parties have also made
detailed statements wherein at time, there is some contradiction,
but, in general, in some of the pillars certain images have been
identified:
(A) In regard to coloured photographs no. 47 to 50 and
51 to 54 and black -white photograph nos. 26 and 27 in
respect to pillars no. 1 and 2:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷«/ · «s - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - ·i- ¬ +¤º r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·ºi · ri ºr r | (¤ ¬ ·«)
"Idol of Hanuman Ji is seen above ghat (water- pot) in the
pillar in a photograph nos. 47 and 48." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i «/ - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬ ·|¤ ·ºl¬ r ·in·i· ¬i
- ªi ·¬ º ¬i ºri r ¬iº r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤ ¤¬ ¬iº -¸ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·r/)
"In photograph No. 47 the face of Lord Narshima is seen
beneath the idol of Hanuman Ji and another idol is seen
beneath the idol of Hanuman Ji." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i rz, r« ¬i º ·or ¬i · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri¤ ;·
l¤¤i - ¬ri ¬¬ºi «·i r ·ri ·i -·i -i · r ¤ l¬¬| ·¤l·n ¬| ¬i¬ ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·«)
Seeing the photographs no. 52, 54 and 105 the witness
stated, "In these pictures, where the Kalash is inscribed,
the idol of a person with bent knees is seen there." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i r« - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i ¬i · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬
;¬- ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r,
¬iº r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·ilr·| nº¤ -i º ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r |(¤ ¬ ·rs)
Seeing the pillar visible in the photograph no. 54 the
witness stated "At the place where vermilion is applied
3364
therein, the idol of Hanuman Ji is seen and peacock-like
figure is seen to the right of the idol of Hanuman Ji."(ETC)
(ii) DW 1/2- Krishna Chandra Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i zc, z/
¬¤ºi ·n l¤¤i - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - - n ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ ln ·r| l·ªi
ºr| r | (¤ ¬ «r),
Photograph Nos. 26 and 27
"The idol of Jai-Vijai is not visible to me in the pillars
appearing in the aforesaid photographs." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i «/ ¬ni ¤n r«
ªi ·ii - - n ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ln ¤i ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r , ·¤i l¬ - º|
·¬º ¬-¬iº r . . . (¤ ¬ «r)
Photograph Nos. 47 to 54
" The idols of Jai-Vijai are not visible to me in the pillars,
because my eye- sight is weak.(ETC)
(B) In regard to Coloured photographs no. 104 to 109
and Black and White photographs No. 55 and 57 of Pillar
No 3:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o« - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - ¤ ¬| ¬i¬ ln «·| r ; l·ªi ºr|
r , ¬ ¬ ¬i ; ¬i·-| ·i -·i -i · ¬º « -i r ¬iº ¤r| l-·iln l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ÷·oc - ·i| r | (¤ ¬ ·«), l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·o« - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i
- r· -i· ¬| ¬|, nºi ºi ¬| ¬|, · ·| ¬| ¬| -¸ln n·ii ¤¬ -iº ¬ ¬|
¬i¬ ln l·ªi ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·«/), l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·or - ¬ri l¬··¸º
¬ni r , ·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln r ¬iº ¬¬¬ ·|¤ ¬-¬·¬ ¬ ¤i¬
nºi ºi ¬| ¬| ¬i º · ·| ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | . . . . (¤ ¬ ·«/)
"In the pillar appearing in the photograph no.104, such a
figure is seen engraved as gives the impression that a
person is sitting with his knees bent, and this very position
is seen in the photograph no. 106 as well. (page 14); The
3365
idol of Hanuman Ji, Ganesh Ji and Devi Ji as also a
peacock-like figure is seen in the pillar visible in the
photograph no. 104. (page 147); The idol of Hanuman Ji
is at the point where vermilion is applied in the
photograph no. 105, and the idol of Ganesh Ji and Devi Ji
is seen near 'Kamal-Dal' (bunch of lotus flowers) beneath
the said idol of Hanuman Ji." (ETC)
(ii) DW 17/1 -Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o« - -¸ln ¬ ºiº|º ¬i ¬i ; ·iin ·r| ·¬ º ¬i ºri r |
(¤ ·- sc), l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·or - ºi ¬º ¬| -¸ ln r . . .(¤ ·- sr)
"No part of the body of the idol is visible in Photograph
No. 104. (page 86); Idol of Shankar is in Photograph No.
105." (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·os - ¬ri l¬··¸º ¬ni r ¬i r, ·ri ¤º r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ¬¬¬ «n ¬ - -iº ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r ¬i º r· -i· ¬| ¬ ·|¤ ·i¬ ·iin - nºi ºi ¬| ¤· · ·| ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·«/)
"At the point where vermilion is applied in the photograph
no. 108, the idol of Hanuman Ji is visible and next to it is
seen a peacock-like figure and in the lower part of
Hanuman Ji is seen the idol of Ganesh Ji and Hanuman
Ji."(ETC)
(iv) DW 13/1-1 - Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·os - r· -i· ¬| ¬| ¬i¬ ln n·ii ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º
ºi ¬º ¬| ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·os - -i·· ¬i¬ ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ¤r ¬i¬ ln ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| r | (¤ ·- ·rc)
"In the photograph no. 109, idol of Hanuman Ji is seen,
and Shankar Ji is therein visible above 'Kalash'.A human
figure is visible in the Photograph No 109. This figure is of
3366
Ramchandra Ji." (ETC)
(C) In regard to Coloured Photographs 110 to 115 and
Black – White Photographs 58 and 60 of Pillar Nos. 4:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
;· -¸ ln ¤i - · ·|÷· ·ni¬i ¬ ¬·º ¬ ¬ ¬º l¬º n¬ ·¬º ¬i ºri r ,
¤º·n ¤ rºi -¤·- ·r| ri ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·r·)
"In these idols, gods-goddesses are seen from stomach to
head but their faces are not clear." (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh
;¬| ¤¬«- ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ·os ¬ni ¤n ·z/ - ·i| ·¬ º ¬iºr ªi ·ii
- l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¬ l¤¤ ·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr r | (¤ ·- «s)
"Figures of gods- goddesses are not visible in the pillars
also appearing in the photographs 109-127 of this very
album." (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
;¬ ªi-·i - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ·ri ¤º r· -i· ¬| ¬i ¬i·ii ºiº|º
·¬ º ¬i ºri r | r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤ ¬ri ¬-¬÷·¬ r, ·ri
nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ¬·¬i - ªi ¬i º ¤ - l·ªi ºri r |
r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬ ·n ¬ ¬i · ·ni ¬| -¸ ln r, ¬¬¬ «n ¬ -i º ¬|
¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ;¬ l¤¤ ¬ o÷··s - ¬ri ¬-¬÷·¬ r,
¬¬¬ «i; nº¤ l¬¬| · ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n ¤r
-¤·- ·r| ri ºri r l¬ ¤r -¸ ln l¬¬¬| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ··« -
l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r ·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬º ¬i
ºr| r (¤ ¬ ·rz÷·rs)
"Half of Hanuman Ji's body is visible where vermilion is
applied in this pillar. Where there is 'Kamal-Dal' beneath
the idol of Hanuman Ji, that of Ganesh Ji is visible. His
face and stomach is visible. Next to idol of a god which is
beside that of Hanuman Ji, a peacock figure is seen. Left
to the point where 'Kamal-Dal' is seen in this photograph
3367
(no.113), the idol of any god or goddess is seen but it is not
getting clear as to whom this idol represents. The idol of
Hanuman Ji is seen at the point where vermilion is applied
in the pillar seen in the photograph no.114....."(ETC)
(iv) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ··s - -¸ln ·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr| r |(¤ ·- sc)
"No idol is visible in the Photograph No. 113." (ETC)
(v) DW 3/15- Narendra Bahadur Singh
;¬| ¤¬«- ¬ l¤¤ ¬ o ·os ¬ni ¤n ·z/ - ·i| ·¬ º ¬iºr ªi ·ii -
l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¬ l¤¤ ·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr r |(¤ ·- «s)
"Figures of gods and goddesses are not visible in the
pillars also seen in the photograph 109 to 127 of this very
album."(ETC)
(D) In regard to coloured Photographs 116 to 121 and
black-white Photographs 61 and 63 of Pillar No 5:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ··c - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ·ri
r· -i· ¬| ¬i ¤¸ ºi ºiº|º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r . . . . (¤ ¬ ·r«)
"The whole body of Hanuman Ji is seen where vermilion is
applied in the pillar seen in the photograph no. 116...."
(ETC)
(ii) DW 3/11- Bhanu Pratap Singh
l¤¤ ¬ o ··c - l·ªii¤| · ºr ªi-·i - +¤º ¬| nº¤ -¸ ln ·¬ º
·r| ¬i ºr| r |(¤ ·- r·)
"No idol is visible upwards in the pillar seen in the
photograph no. 116." (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ··s - l¬ r ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . . ¬¬
l¬ r ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ·ºl¬ r ·in·i· ¬ r | (¤ ¬ ·r«÷·rr), l¤¤
¬ ª¤i ··s - ·r| -¸ ln · ¬i¬ ln ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ,
3368
l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º l¤¤ ¬ o ··s - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
"A lion-like figure is visible in the photograph no.
118........By that lion I mean Lord Narsingh. (page 154-
155); The same idol and figure is seen at the same point in
the pillar in the photograph no.118 as in the photograph
no. 119."( ETC)
(iv) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
;¬- ¤¬ ¬nr nª· ¬| ¬i l¤¤ l·ªii; ¤· ºri r . . . |(¤ ·- ro)
"The figure of Garun Ji is visible at a place in it......"(ETC)
(v) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷··s n·i i ··s - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·ii - ¬i ; l¤¤
·¬º ·r| ¬i ºri r |(¤ ·- ·r/)
"No figure is visible in the pillars seen in the photographs
no. 118 and 119." (ETC)
(vi) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·z· - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ¤r -¸ ln ¬¬
-·ii· ¤º r , l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º l¬ ·¸ º ¤ ni r | ¬ri ¤º l¬ ·¸ º ¤ ni r ¬i r
·ri ¤¬ ¬nr r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;· ·i ·i
-·ii·i ¬ «|¤ - ¤¬ ¤- -| ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·i· ·i l¬¤ r ¤ ·¬ º
¬i ºr| r |(¤ ·- ·rs)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in the photograph no.
121. This idol is at the place which is painted with
vermilion. At the place where vermilion is applied, the idol
of Hanuman Ji is not visible at one point. The idol of bow-
wielding Ramchandra Ji is visible on the strip at the
midpoint between these two places." (ETC)
(vii) DW 20/1 Shashikant Rungta
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·zo n·i i ·z· - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r |(¤ ·- ss)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is seen in the photographs 120 and
3369
121." (ETC)
(viii) DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh
;¬| ¤¬«- ¬ l¤¤ ¬ o ·os ¬ni¤n ·z/ - ·i| ·¬ º ¬iºr ªi ·ii -
l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¬ l¤¤ ·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr r |(¤ ·- «s)
"Figures of any god-goddess are not visible in the pillars
seen even in the photographs 109-127 of this very album.".
(ETC)
(E) In regard to coloured Photographs 136 to 143 and
black-white Photographs 71 and 73 of Pillar No 7:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
;¬ l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·«· - r· -i· ¬| ¬| ªi·| r ; ¤¸ º| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | . . . . l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«z ¤· ·«s - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ri
l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ¬¬ ·iin - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . .
(¤ ¬ ·co)
"In this photograph (no.141), the idol of Hanuman Ji in
standing position is wholly seen. . . . The idol of Hanuman
Ji is seen in that part in which vermilion is applied in the
pillars seen in the photographs 142 and 143. . . . ." (ETC)
(ii) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ¬ o ·«·, ·«z n·i i ·«s - nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¤i r |(¤ ·- s/
÷ss)
"The idols of Ganesh Ji are seen in photographs 141, 142
and 143." (ETC)
(F) In regard to coloured Photographs 142 to 147 and
black-white Photographs 74 and 76 of Pillar No 8:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i÷·«c ¤· ·«/ - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r ,
·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . . (¤ ¬ ·co)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is seen where vermilion is applied
in the pillars seen in the photographs 146 and
3370
147........"(ETC)
(ii) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ¬ o ·«c n·i i ·«/ - nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¤·- -¸ ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r | (¤ ·- ss)
"The idols of Ganesh Ji are clearly seen in the photographs
146 and 147."(ETC)
(iii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«c n·i i ·«/ - nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ·- ·co)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is seen in the photographs 146 and
147." (ETC)
(G) In regard to coloured Photographs 162 to 167 and
black-white Photographs 89 and 91 of Pillar No 10:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·ilr·| nº¤ -i º ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln « -| r ; ¬·-·ii
- ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . . (¤ ¬ ·co)
"To the right of the idol of Hanuman Ji is seen a peacock-
like figure in the sitting position....."(ETC)
(ii) DW 20/1 Shashikant Rungta
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·cc n·i i ·c/ - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| ¬¸ · ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . .
(¤ ·- s« )
"Ganesh Ji's trunk is visible in the photographs 166 and
167...." (ETC)
(H) In regard to coloured Photographs 176 to 181 and
black-white Photographs 95 and 97 of Pillar No 11 and
in regard to coloured Photographs 182 to 187 and black-
white Photographs 98 and 100 of Pillar No 12 :
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ o ·/c, ·// ¤· ·so - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - - n r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r . ..(¤ ¬·c·÷·cz )
3371
"Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji , a peacock figure is seen
in the pillars represented in the photographs 176, 177 and
180. . . .(ETC)
(ii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·so - -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬i · ni ¬| ¬| r | (¤ ·-
·c·)
"In the photograph no. 180 is seen an idol, which is of
Durga Ji.(ETC)
(iii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·s· . . ·ss, . . . - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . . . (¤ ¬
·cz)
"Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji, a figure of peacock is
visible in the pillars seen in the photograph
181,....,183....."(ETC)
(iv) DW 12/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ¬ o ·s·, ·ss - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln r | (¤ ·- ss)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is there in the photograph nos. 181
and 183." (ETC)
(v) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i . . . ·sc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬
¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . . . (¤ ¬ ·cz)
"Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji, a peacock figure is visible
in the pillars seen in the photograph no....186..."(ETC)
(I) In regard to coloured Photographs 188 to 194 and
black-white Photographs 102 and 103 of Pillar No 13
and in regard to coloured Photographs 195 to 200 and
black-white Photographs 104 and 106 of Pillar No 14:
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·s/ ¬ni ¤n ·so - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - r· -i· ¬| ¬|
3372
-¸ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n - n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r . . (¤ ¬ ·cz)
"Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji, a peacock figure is visible
in the pillars seen in the photographs 187 to 190."(ETC)
(ii) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·ss, ·ss, ·so nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ¤i r , ¤ -¸ ln ¤i · -¤
- · i - r | (¤ ·- ss)
"The idols of Ganesh Ji are seen in the photographs 188,
189 and 190. These idols are in dancing posture." (page
88) (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·/s, ·/s, ·s«, ·s·, ·sz, ·s/ ¤· ·ss - l·ªi
ºr ªi ·ii - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r . . (¤ ¬ ·c·)
"No idol is visible to me in the pillars seen in the
photographs 178, 179, 184 , 191, 192, 197 and
198 ."(ETC)
(iv) DW 13/1-1- Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·s· n·i i ·sz - ºi·i·in ¬| -¸ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r | (¤ ·- ·cs)
"The idols of Sheshnag are visible in the photographs 191
and 192." (ETC)
(v) DW 13/1-1- Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ·sr · ·sc - nºiºi ¬| ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr r |(¤ ·- ·cr)
"Ganesh Ji is not seen in the photographs 195 and
196."(ETC)
(vi) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·ss ¤· zoo - ·i| l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| - n r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cz)
"Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji, a peacock figure is also
visible in the pillars seen even in the photographs 199 and
200."(ETC)
3373
(vii) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ·ss n·ii zoo - ·i| nºiºi ¬| ¬| · -¤ - · i - -¸ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | (¤ ·- ss)
"The idols of Ganesh Ji in dancing posture are seen in the
photographs 199 and 200 as well." (ETC)
(J) In reference to contradictory statements of the
witnesses in context of coloured Photographs (47 to 50)
and (51 to 54) respectively of the so called Kasauti
pillars (1 and 2) fixed in the first gate and black-white
Photographs 26 and 27 respectively of the said two
pillars:
(i) DW 3/1 - Mahant Bhaskar Das
( l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i «/ ¤· «s) - l¬n·| ·¸ º l¬··¸º ¬ni ·¬º ¬i ºri r
¬¬| ¬ ¬··º r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ ln r | (¤ ¬ zrs), (l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ro ¤·
r«) · ªi ¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬ ;·- ¬ri ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni l·ªi ºri r
·ri ÷·ri -¸ ln ·i|| (¤ ¬ zrs)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is within the space as far as
vermilion is seen applied (in the photographs 47 and 48).
(page 258); Looking at (the photographs 50 and 54) the
witness stated that idol was at the places where vermilion
is seen applied in the said photographs."(page 259) (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤ ·ºl¬ r ·in·i· ¬i - ªi ·¬º ¬i ºri r
¬iº r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤ ¤¬ ¬iº -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ·ºl¬ r
·in·i· ¬| - ªi «i¤ r ¤ -¸ ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·r/), l ¤¤ ¬ o
«s - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - +¤º ¬ ·iin - ·ºl¬ r ·in·i· ¬ - ªi ¬|
¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
"Below the idol of Hanuman Ji, the face of Lord Narsingh
is visible and another idol is visible below the idol of
Hanuman Ji. The idol of Lord Narsingh with the face
3374
towards the left, is seen.(page 157); The figure Lord
Narsingh's face is seen in the upper part in the pillar
appearing in the photograph no. 49. (page 158)." (ETC)
(iii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
;· l¤¤i - l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ro, r·, rz n·i i r« - -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | ¤ -¸ln ¤i r· -i· ¬| n·ii nª· ¬| ¬| r | (¤ ¬ ·r«), l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ÷ ·os - ¤¬ nº¤ r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤¬
nº¤ ºi ¬º ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬| ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·rr).
"Idols are seen in the photographs 50, 51, 52 and 54, out
of these photographs. These idols represent Hanuman Ji
and Garun Ji. (page 54); In the photograph no. 108, the
idol of Hanuman Ji is seen on one side and an idol looking
like that of Shankar Ji is seen on the other side." (page
155) (ETC)
(iv) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
ªi-·ii - ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r, ¬¬¬ ·|¤ - n -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r | l ¤¤ ¬ o «s - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ¤r -¸ln ·r|
¤º r, ¬ri ¤º º n ¬ni r ¬i r | . . . . l ¤¤ r· - ¤r -¸ln r· -i·
¬| ¬| ri ¬¬n| r | ¤r -¸ln nºi ºi ¬| ¬| ·i| ri ¬¬n| r | (¤ ¬
s«), -¸ ln º n ¬ ¬··º - n ·¬º ¬i ºr| r | ;¬- ¤i ni nºiºi¬| ¬|
-¸ln ¤i r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln r | l ¤¤ ¬ o «/ ¬ni ¤n r« - ·¬ º ¬i
ºr ªi-·i n·i n r ¬ r | (¤ ¬ sr), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i zc - ªi-·i ¤º ºn· i
r ¬i -·ii· ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¤º·n ·ri l¬¬¬| -¸ ln ·i| ¤i ·ri ¤º ·¤i
«·i ·ii, ¤r - n ¤i· ·r| r | (¤ ¬ sz)
"Below the place where red colour is applied in the pillars,
idol is visible to me. The idol of Hanuman Ji is seen in the
photograph no. 48. This idol is at the same point where
colour is applied. . . . . . The idol in the Photograph No.
51 may be of Hanuman Ji or of Ganesh Ji. (page 84); The
idol is visible to me within the space of colour. Idol either
3375
of Ganesh Ji or of Hanuman Ji is therein. The pillars
appearing in the photographs 47 to 54 are of Garbh-Grih
(sanctum sanctorum). (page 85); An abraded point of
place is seen on the pillar appearing on the photograph
26. (I) do not remember whose idol was there or what was
there." (page 82) (ETC)
(v) DW 20/1 Shashikant Rungta
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i «/ n·i i «s - r· -n ,iº - ¬n ªi-·i ·¬ º ¬i ºr
r | ;· ªi-·ii - l¬¬¬| -¸ln r , ¤r -¤·- ·r| r | -¸ln ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º
r , ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r | ¤r -¸ln ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º r | l¤¤
¬ ª¤i ÷«s - l··il·n ·i·· - ¬n r ¤ ªi-·ii ¬ l¤¤ r | ;· l¤¤i -
· ·ni¬i ¬ l¤¤ ¬ l¬n r , ¤º·n ¤ ¤r¤i· - ·r| ¬i ºr r | l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ÷ro - ¤ º n·ii ri·i ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¤º·n ¤ rºi ·¬ º ·r| ¬i
ºri r | ;· l¤¤i - l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i r« - +¤º ¬| nº¤ ¬ri ¬i¬ º n
¤ ni r ¬i r , ¤¬ ¤ rºi ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¤º·n ¤r l¬¬¬i ¤ rºi r, ¤r
- n ¬-n - ·r| ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ s·)
"The pillars embedded in Hanumat Dwar are seen in the
photographs 47 and 48. It is not clear whose idols are
engraved in these pillars. The idol is at the point of place
where red colour is applied. This idol is above Kalash. The
photograph no. 49 represent the pillars embedded in the
disputed building. Images of Gods are represented in these
photographs but they are beyond recognition. Legs and
hands are seen in the photograph no. 50 but face is
beyond sight. Out of these pictures, at the point of place
where red colour is applied towards the upper portion in
the photograph no. 54, a face is visible but it is beyond my
perception as to whose face it is." (ETC)
3438. In respect of identification of images in the
photographs, we also notice that there are several contradictions
3376
in the statement of different witnesses about the identity of
image(s) or whether it is clear or not, which is quite normal and
probable since most of the witnesses are not experts in the field
of iconography and, therefore, one cannot say whether they
notice the same image or not. There may be some difference in
identification of different people. However, the contradictions,
as pointed out by Sri Jilani, may be referred to as under:
(A) In reference to contradictions in the statements of the
various witnesses in context of coloured photograph nos.
104 to 109 and the black-white photographs 55 to 57 of
the alleged touchstone pillar no.3 fixed at the gate in part
'A' of the central portion of the main structure and the
coloured photograph no. 110 to 115 and black and white
photograph no. 58 to 60 of pillar no. 4:
(i) DW 1/2-Krishna Chandra Singh
(º· n ¤¬«- ¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i zo· ¬|.· l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i rr ¬ni ¤n cc, ·
l ¤¤ ¬ o zr ¬ni ¤n z/) . . . . . ªi-·ii - - n ¬¤ l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ln
·r| l·ªi ºr| r ÷(¤ ¬ «r), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i rs, rs · co - l·ªi ºr
ªi-·ii - ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ÷ (¤ ¬ «/), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i r/ -
l¬¬| -¸ln ¬i ¬i¬iº l·ªi ºri r , ;¬ -¸ ln ¬i ¬i¬iº ;¬ l¤¤ - ªi-·i
¬ -·¤ - l·ªi ºri r , ¤º·n ¤r -¤·- ·r| r l¬ ¤r niº·· - · i - r
. .(¤ ¬ «/), ( l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o« ¬ni ¤n ·z/). . . . . ·¬ º ¬-¬i º
ri · ¬ ¬iººi - n -¤·- ·r| ri ºri r l¬ ¬·n l¤¤i - · ·| · ·ni¬i
¬| -¸ ln ¤i niº·· - · i - · ¤· -i¬· - · i - r ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ «s)
"The idol of Jai Vijai is not visible to me in the pillars. . . . .
(appearing in the photographs 55 to 66 and 25 to 27 of
black-white album being paper no. 201C1). (page 45);
Some idol is appearing in the pillars appearing in the
photographs 58, 59 and 60. (page 47); The figure of an
idol is appearing in photograph no. 57 but it is not clear
3377
whether it is in 'Tandav Mudra' or 'Padmasan Mudra). The
shape of this idol is seen in the midst of the pillar
appearing in this photograph but it is not clear that it is in
'Tandav Posture'. . . . . (page 47); ( photograph nos. 104 to
127). . . . . due to weak eye-sight it is not clear to me
whether or not the idols of gods-goddesses are in 'Tandav
Mudra' or 'Padmasan Mudra'." (page 48)(ETC)
(ii) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·o« - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - ¤ ¬| ¬i¬ ln «·| r ; l·ªi ºr| r ,
¬ ¬ ¬i ; ¬i·-| ·i -·i -i · ¬º « -i r ¬iº ¤r| l-·iln l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i
·oc - r ÷¤ ·- ·«l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·os - ¬ri ¤º l¬··¸ º ¬ni r ¬i r ,
·ri ¤º r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r. . . . . .¬iº r· -i· ¬| ¬
·|¤ ·i¬ ·iin - nºiºi ¬| ¤· · ·| ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ·-
·«/), ;¬- · ·| ¬| ¬i ¬i ¤ rºi r , ·r · ni ¬| ¬ ¬i -i¬¸ - ¤· ºri
r ÷ (¤ ¬ ·r·), l ¤¤ ¬ o ··z - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - +¤º · ·ni¬i ¬|
-¸ln ¤i r , ¤º·n - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni l¬ l¬·÷l¬· · ·ni¬i ¬|
-¸ln ¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·r·), ;¬ l¤¤ ¬ o ··z - - n r· -i· ¬|, nºiºi
¬| ¬·i·i -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |. . . . ;¬ ªi ·i - ¬ri
l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ·ri ¤º r· -i· ¬| ¬i ¬i·ii ºiº|º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r |
(¤ ¬ ·rz), ¬ri ¬-¬÷·¬ r , ·ri nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·rs), ;¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ÷··« - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n ¬·-| ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·rs), l ¤¤ ¬ o ·os ¬ni ¤n ··« ¬i · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri
l¬ ;· l¤¤i - - n ¬·-|¬|, ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬·i·i ¬·-ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln
·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |(¤ ¬ ·rs), l ¤¤ ¬ o rr ¬ni ¤n cc - l·ªi
ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬| - - n ºi-¤·· ¬|, ¬| ¬ ·ºi ¬| · ·¬·¤i,
ºi-·º«iº, nºi ºi ¬| ¤i ¬·-| ¬| ¬| ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·c«)
"The figure in the pillar appearing in photograph no.104
and 105, is like a person sitting with folded knees, and this
very position is in the photograph no. 106. (page 14); The
3378
idol of Hanuman Ji is visible at the place where vermilion
is applied in the photograph no. 108. . . . . . and in the
lower part of the idol of Hanuman Ji is visible the idol of
Ganesh Ji and Devi Ji. (page 147) The face of the goddess
appearing herein, looks like that of Durga Ji. (page 151);
There are idols of gods towards the upper portion in the
pillar appearing in the photograph no. 112, but I would
not be able to tell which gods are represented by the said
idols. . . . .Half of the body of Hanuman Ji is visible at the
point of place where vermilion is applied in this pillar.
(page 152); The idol of Ganesh Ji is visible where there is
'Kamal Dal' (lotus chain). (page 153); The idol of Laxmi Ji
is not visible to me in the pillar appearing in this
photograph no. 114 but that of Ganesh Ji is visible therein.
(page 153); Looking at the photograph 108 to 109 the
witness stated - The idol of Lakshmi Ji, Ramchandra Ji or
Laxman Ji is not visible to me in these photographs. (page
153); The idol of Ramchandra Ji, Sri Krishna Ji, Dev
Kanya, Ram Darbar, Ganesh Ji or Lakshman Ji is not
visible in any of the pillars appearing in the photographs
55 to 66." (page 164)(ETC)
(iii) DW 3/7- Mahant Ramji Das
l¤¤ ¬ o ··s · ··« ¬i · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬ ;· l¤¤i -
l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii ¤º ·i| -¸ ln ¤i ·¬º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n -¤·- ·r| ri ºr| r
l¬ ¤ l¬¬¬| -¸ ln ¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·/o).
"Looking at the photographs 113 and 114 the witness
stated - Idols are visible on the pillars appearing in these
photographs but it is not clear as to whose idols they
are."(ETC)
3379
(iv) DW 3/11- Bhanu Pratap Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s, ··« - ¬i ªi-·i l·ªii¤| · ºr r , ¬·- lºi· ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ro), l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s ¤· ··« - lºi·¬|
¬| ¤¬ -¸ln -i¤ -¤·- l·ªii¤| · ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ro), ¤r -¸ln ¤i l ¤¤
¬ o ··z - +¤º ¬| nº¤ l·ªii¤| · ºri r | (¤ ¬ ro)
"The idol of Shiv Ji is visible in the pillars that appear in
the photographs 113 and 114. (page 50); Just one idol of
Shiv Ji is clearly seen in the photographs 113 and 114.
(page 50); These idols appear towards the upper portion in
the photograph no. 112." (page50) (ETC)
(v) DW 3/15- Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sc ¬ni ¤n ·«/ - ·¬º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - l¬¬| · ·|
¤i · ·ni ¬ l¤¤ ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr r | . . . .l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·r/
¬ni ¤n ·c/ - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni ¬i l¤¤
·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºri r | . . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo -
·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| l¬¬| · ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬i l¤¤ ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºri
r | (¤ ¬ «s)
"No picture of God-Goddess is visible in the pillars
appearing in the photographs 136 to 147. . . . . . No
picture of god goddess is visible in the pillars also
appearing in the photographs 157 to 167. . . . . . Picture of
any god or goddess is not visible also in the pillars
appearing in the photographs 176 to 200."(ETC)
(vi) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¤¤ ·o« - ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º ·i¬ ·iin - ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬ri ¬i¬
º n ¬ni r, ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ÷ (¤ ¬ sr), l¤¤ ·or -
ºi ¬º¬| ¬| -¸ln r (¤ ¬ sr), ¤r -¸ ln r· -i·¬| ¬| r | (¤ ¬ sc), l¤¤
¬ ª¤i ··r - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·i - ¬i¬ º n ¬ni ·¬º ¬i ºri r ,
·ri ¤º -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ sc), ¤º·n -¸ ln l¬¬¬| r, ¤r -
·r| «ni ¤i+ ni ¤º·n -¸ ln - ¤ º÷ri·i ·¬ º ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ sc) l ¤¤
¬ o ·or - ºi ¬º ¬| ¬| -¸ln r , ¤r -¸ ln ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º r, ¬ri º n
3380
¬ni r | l¤¤ ¬ o ·oc n·i i ·o/ - ¬i ; -¸ ln ·r| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o
·os - ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º º n ¬ni r n·ii ¬ri ¤º º n
·r| ¬ni r, ¤r -¸ln ¤i ¬n¬÷«n¬ r , ¤º·n ¤r -¸ ln ¤i l¬·¬| r , ¤r
- ·r| «ni ¬¬ni| (¤ ¬ sr)
"Some idol is visible at a point in the upper portion of the
'Kalash' in the photograph no. 104, at which point red
colour is applied.(page 85); The photograph no. 105
shows the idol of Shankar Ji. (page 85); This idol is of
Hanuman Ji.(page 86); An idol is seen at a point of place
where red colour is applied in the pillar seen in the
photograph no. 115.(page 86); But I would not be in a
position to say whose idol is this but hands and legs are
seen in the idol. (page 86); The idol of Shankar is shown in
the photograph no. 105. This idol appears at a point
where colour is applied. No idol is seen in the photograph
106 and 107. These idols are side by side at the places -
where colour is applied and where colour is not applied -
above Kalash in the photograph no. 108. (page 85)
"(ETC)
(vii) DW 20/1- Shashikant Rungta
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·o« ¬ni ¤n ··r ¬i l·ªii¤ ¬i· ¤º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i
l¬ ;· l¤¤i - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ ·¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ··s -
nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ·- ss)
"On the photographs 104 to 115 being shown the witness
stated that out of the pillars seen in these photographs, idol
of Ganesh Ji is visible only in the pillars shown in the
photograph no. 113. "(ETC)
(viii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ·os - ¤¬ nº¤ r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln , ¤¬ nº¤ ºi ¬º ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |. . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·or - ·i| r· -i· ¬| ¬|
3381
-¸ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r | . . . . . . ;¬- r· -i· ¬| ¬| ·i| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | ºi- ·º«iº r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ +¤º r | (¤ ¬ ·rr), l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ·os - r· -i· ¬| ¬| ¬i¬ ln n·ii ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º ºi ¬º ¬|
¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·os - -i·· ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º
¬i ºr| r | ¤r ¬i¬ ln ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| r | (¤ ¬ ·rc), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i
··r - ªi-·i - ¬ri ¤º l¬··¸ º ¬ni r ¬i r , ·ri ¤º r· -i· ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |(¤ ¬ ·r/)
"In the photograph 108, the idol of Hanuman Ji is visible
on one side and that of Shankar Ji on the other. . . . . The
idol of Hanuman Ji is seen in the photograph 105 as well. .
. . . .An idol of Hanuman Ji is also seen in it. The idol of
Ram darbar is above the idol of Hanuman Ji.(page 155); In
the photograph 109 the figure of Hanuman Ji is seen, that
of Shankar Ji is seen above 'Kalash'. A human figure is
visible in the photograph no. 109. This figure is of Ram
Chandra Ji. (page 156); The idol of Hanuman Ji is seen at
a point of place where vermilion is applied in the pillar
appearing in the photograph no. 115. (page 157)"(ETC)
(ix) OPW 3/5- Dr. T. P. Verma
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o«, ·or, ·os, ··o, ··«, ··r ¤º l¬· -·ii·i
¤º l¬··¸ º ¤i ¬i¬ º n ¤ ni r ¬i r , ·ri ¤º -¸ln ¤i ri ¬¬n| r , ¬ l¬·
l¤¤i - ¤r -¤·- ·r| l·ªi ºr| r l¬ ;·- l¬¬ · ·|÷· ·ni ¬·i·i ¤
·i÷¤l·iºi| ¬·i·i ¬¤ l·¬¤ ¬i l¤¤ r | ¬¤ºi ·n - ¬ «i¬| l¤¤i -
l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ri º n ·r| ¬ni r, ·ri ¤·i ¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤
¬i l¤¤ ·r| l·ªi ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·so÷·s·), - ;· ªi-·ii ¬ º· n÷º¤i-
l¤¤i - l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬i ·r| ¤r¤i· ¤i
ºri r¸ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i rr - ·i- ¬¬ºi ¬ +¤º ¬| ¬-¤·- ¬i¬ ln r
¬i l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¤i ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¬i l¤¤ ri ¬¬ni r |(¤ ¬ ·«r)
"Idols may be present at the places where vermilion or red
colour has been used in photographs no.104, 105, 109,
110, 114 and 115 but it is not clearly visible in the
3382
photographs as to which god-goddess or Yaksha-Yakshini
or Jay-Vijay are represented therein. The picture of
Yaksha-Yakshini or Jay-Vijay is not visible at the place
where colour has not been used in the pillars appearing in
the rest of the photographs out of the aforesaid
photographs. (page 130-131); I am not able to recognise
any god-goddess, Yaksha-Yakshini or Jay-Vijay in the
black-white photographs of these pillars. There is a hazy
figure above the 'Ghat Kalash' in photograph no.55, which
can be of some god-goddess or Yaksha-Yakshini. (page
145)"(ETC)
(B) In reference to contradictory statements of the various
witnesses in context of coloured photograph nos. (116 to
121) and the black-white photograph nos. (61-63) of the
pillar (no. 5) fixed in eastern wall in southern back of
inside of the central portion (A) of the main structure and
the coloured photograph no. 122 to 127 and black and
white photograph no. 64 to 66 of pillar no. 6:
(i) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··c - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬ri l¬ ·¸ º ¬ni r , ·ri r· -i·
¬| ¬i ¤¸ ºi ºiº|º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r ¬iº r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤
·ilr·| nº¤ l¬¬| · ·ni ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·r«)
"Full body of Hanuman Ji is visible in Photograph No.
116 where vermilion has been applied over the pillar
appearing in it and to the right and below the idol of
Hanuman Ji, some figure like a God is visible." (ETC)
;¬ l¤¤ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n nºiºi ¬| ¬| - ln -¤·- ·r| l·ªi
ºr| r , ;¬l¬¤ - ¤r ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ;¬- nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln r ¤i
·r| |. . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s - l¬ r ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , «|¤
¬ lr-¬ - ·ilr·| nº¤ ¬i º «|¤ ¬ lr-¬ - «i; nº¤ l¬¬| · ·| ¤i
3383
· ·ni ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni l¬ l¬·
· ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬| ¤r -¸ln r | (¤ ¬ ·r«)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is not clearly visible to me, in the
pillar appearing in this photograph. As such I cannot tell
whether it has the idol of Ganesh Ji or not." . . . . A lion like
figure is visible in Photograph No. 118. The idol of some
God or Goddess is visible towards left in the centre and
towards right in the centre. However, I will not be able to
tell as to of which God or Goddess is this idol."(ETC)
+¤º ¬i - · l¬ r ¬ «iº - «ni¤i r , ¬¬ l¬ r ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ·ºl¬ r
·in·i· ¬ r | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
"By the lion described above by me, I implied Lord
Narsimha." (ETC)
l¤¤ ¬ o ··r ¬ni ¤n ·zo - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - - n ¬º-·n|
¬| ¤i ¬| ¬ ·ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
"The idol of Saraswati Ji or Sri Krishna Ji, is not visible to
me in the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 115 to
120." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z· ¬ni ¤n ·z/ l·ªii¤ n¤ , l¬·r · ªi¬º n·ir ·
¬ri l¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z· - r· -i· ¬| ¬| ¤¬ -¸ln ni -¤·- ri ºr| r ,
l¬¬- ¬·¬i ¤¸ ºi ºiº|º ·¬º ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·rr)
"(The witness) was shown Photograph Nos. 121 to 127,
after looking which the witness stated that one idol of
Hanuman Ji is clear in Photograph No. 121, in which His
complete body is visible." (ETC)
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·|¤ nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , l¬·¬|
¬¸ · ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ;¬|l¬¤ r- ;¬ nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln
«ni ºr r ¬i º -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ¬ ·|¤ ·i| ¤¬ -¸ ln r , ¤º·n -¤·- ·r|
ri ºr| l¬ ¤r · ·| ¬| r ¤i · ·ni ¬|| l¤º ¬ri l¬ ;¬ -¸ ln - ri·i
l·ªi ºri r , ;¬l¬¤ - ¤r ¬r ¬¬ni r¸ l¬ ¤r · ni ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ri
¬¬n| r , ;¬- ¤ rºi -¤·- ·r| r , ¤º·n «i¬| ºiº|º -¤·- r | (¤ ¬
3384
·rc)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is visible below the idol of
Hanuman Ji, in which a trunk like figure is visible, due to
which I am terming it to be an idol of Ganesh Ji, and there
is an idol below the figure of peacock as well but it is not
clear whether it is of God or Goddess. Then stated that
hand is visible in this idol as such I can say that it can be
an idol of Durga Ji. The face is not clear in it but the
remaining body is clear." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z« - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ·ºl¬ r ·in·i· ¬i - ªi ·¬ º ¬i
ºri r ¬i º ·|¤ ¬| ·i| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·rc)
"The face of Lord Narsimha is visible in the pillar
appearing in Photograph No. 124 and the figure of the
lower part is also visible." (ETC)
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·z· ¬ni ¤n ·z/ - - n l¬¬| ¤·i, · · ¬·¤i ¬·i·i
¬º-·n| ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¤i ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·r/)
"No idol or figure of any Yaksha, nymph or Saraswati Ji is
visible to me in Photograph Nos. 121 to 127." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o c· - - n ¬-¬·¬ ¬ +¤º -i º ¬| ·i¤n| r ; ¬·-·ii
¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤
¬ o cz - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤
¬ o cs ¤· c« - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - - n ·i¤n r ¤ -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o cr - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o cc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - «|¤ - ·i¤n r ¤ -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln
·¬º ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o cc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬iº ¬i ; -¸ln - n
·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cs)
"In Photograph No. 61, the figure of a dancing peacock is
visible to me above the lotus chain and no idol is visible.
No idol is visible to me in the pillar appearing in
3385
Photograph No. 62. The figure of dancing peacock is
visible to me in the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos.
63 and 64 and no idol of any God-Goddess is visible. No
idol is visible to me in the pillar appearing in Photograph
No. 65. The figure of dancing peacock is visible in mid of
the pillar appearing in Photograph No. 66. No other idol
is visible to me in the pillar appearing in Photograph No.
66." (ETC)
l¤¤ ¬ o rr ¬ni ¤n cc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬| - - n
ºi-¤·· ¬|, ¬| ¬ ·ºi ¬| · ·¬·¤i, ºi-·º«iº, nºiºi ¬| ¤i ¬·-| ¬|
¬| ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·c«)
"The idol of Ramchandra Ji, Sri Krishna Ji, Nymph, Ram
Darbar, Ganesh Ji or Lakhsmi Ji is visible to me in the
pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 55 to 66." (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/11- Bhanu Pratap Singh
l¤¤ ¬ o ··/ - ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i ·¬ º ¬i ºri r ·ri
¤º ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s · ··s - ¬i
ªi-·i l·ªii¤| · ºr r ¬¬- -¸ln l·ªii¤| · ºr| r ¤º·n ¤r -¤·- ·r|
r | (¤ ¬ ro)
"No idol is visible at the place where red colour appears to
have been applied over Photograph No. 117. Idol is visible
in the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 118 and 119,
but it is not clear." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s n·i i ··s - ¬i -¸ln ¤i ·¬º ¬i ºr| r ·r · ·|
n·ii · ·ni¬i ¬| -¸ ln ¤i r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s n·i i ··s - ¬i -¸ ln ¤i
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬·¬| nºi·i ¬º¬ - ·r| «ni ¬¬ni l¬ ;·¬| ¬ ª¤i
l¬n·| r | (¤ ¬ r·)
"The idols appearing in Photograph Nos. 118 and 119,
are the idols of Gods and Goddess. I will not be able to
count and tell the number of idols appearing in
Photograph Nos. 118 and 119." (ETC)
3386
l¤¤ ¬ o ·zz - ¬i¬ º n - ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r ·ri ¤º
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln l·ªii¤| · ºr| r ¤º·n ¬·¤ l¬¬| ¬| -¸ln -¤·-
·r| ri ºr| r | l¤¤ ¬ o ·zz - ¬i¬ º n ·i¬ -·ii· ¤º r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln l·ªii¤| · ºr| r ¤º·n ¬·¤ l¬¬| ¬| -¸ ln -¤·- ·r| r |
(¤ ¬ rz)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible at the place where red
colour has been applied in Photograph No. 122 but the
idol of no other is clear. The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible
at the red coloured place in Photograph No. 122 but the
idol of no other is clear." (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/15- Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·o« ¬ni ¤i n ·os - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - l¬¬|
· ·|÷· ·ni ¬ l¤¤ ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr r | ;¬| ¤¬«- - l ¤¤ ¬ o ·os
¬ni ¤n ·z/ - ·i| ·¬º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - l¬¬| · ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬ l¤¤
·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr r | (¤ ¬ «s)
"The pictures of no God-Goddess is visible in the pillars
appearing in Photograph Nos. 104 to 108. The pictures of
no God or Goddess is visible in the pillars appearing in
Photograph Nos. 109 to 127 of this album." (ETC)
(iv) DW 3/19- Ram Milan Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··c - ºi-¤«¸ nº ¤º «·| r ; n ¤i - ¬ri ¤º ¬ilºi~¤i
¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·i|, ·ri ¬i l¤¤ r | (¤ ¬ r·).
"The Photograph No. 116 contains of the pictures of the
place where the idol of Kaushalya Ji existed in the cave at
the Ramchabutara." (ETC)
(v) DW 20/1- Shashikant Rungta
l ¤¤ ·zo · ·z· - nºiºi¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ·- ss)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is visible in Photographs 120 and
121."(ETC)
(vi) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
3387
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s - ¬¬i -| ¬i ¤-·iº ¬·ii n ªi-·ii ·¬ º ¬i ºri r
l¤¤ - ªi-·i ¬i +¤º| ·iin ·¬ º ¬i ºri r | ;¬- ¤¬ ¬nr nª· ¬|
¬i l¤¤ l·ªii; ¤· ºri r | (¤ ¬ ro)
"A touchstone or pillar is visible in Photograph No. 118.
The upper part of the pillar is visible in the photograph.
The picture of Garun Ji is visible in it at one place." (ETC)
l¤¤ ¬ o ·zs - ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r n·ii ªi-·i - ¤¬ ¬¤ ·
¤- -| ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r, ¬¬- -¸ln ¬i ¬º n·ii ri·i÷¤ º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r ,
¤r -¸ ln l¬¬¬| r ¬-n - ·r| ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ s/)
"The head and hand-leg of an idol is visible in Photograph
No. 123 at the place where red colour has been applied
and a white strip is appearing in the pillar."(ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«·, ·«z n·i i ·«s - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¤i r l¤º ¬ri
l¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«· - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·r| r «l~¬ ºi ¬º ¬| ¬|
· -¤ - · i ¬i l¤¤ r | (¤ ¬ s/÷ss)
"There are idols of Ganesh Ji in Photograph Nos. 141,
142 and 143. Then stated that it is not the idol of Ganesh Ji
in Photograph No. 141 and instead it is the dancing
posture of Shankar Ji." (ETC)
(vii) DW 1/2- Krishna Chandra Singh
(l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o« ¬ni ¤n ·z/) ·¬ º ¬-¬i º ri · ¬ ¬iººi - n
-¤·- ·r| ri ºri r l¬ ¬·n l¤¤i - · ·| · ·ni¬i ¬| -¸ln ¤i niº··
- · i - · ¤· -i¬· - · i - r ¤i ·r|| (¤ ¬ «s)
"(Photograph Nos. 104 to 127) in view of weak eye sight,
it is not clear to me whether in the aforesaid photographs,
the idols of God-Goddess are in 'Tandav Mudra' or
'Padmasan Mudra', or not." (ETC)
(viii) DW 13/1-1- Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ¬ o ··s - nª· ¬ ¬i ¬«¬ +¤º| ·iin - ·¬ º ¬i ºri r |
;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n si -|÷si -| -¸ln ¤i ªi ·| r ; r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z· -
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | . . . . ;· ·i ·i -·ii·i ¬ «|¤
3388
- ¤¬ ¤- -| ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·i· ·i l¬¤ r ¤ ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·rs)
"A Garun like figure is visible at the top most part of
Photograph No. 119. Besides it, small idols have been
engraved. The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in photograph
121. . . . . In between these two places, the idol of
Ramchandra Ji with a bow is visible over a strip." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z/ ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i, ¬i·i| · ;¬ l¤¤ ¬i · ªi¬º «ni¤i
l¬ ;¬- l¬··¸ º ¤ ni r ¬i ·¬º ¬i ºri r ¤º·n l¬¬¬| -¸ln ;¬ ªi-·i
- ·¬º ¬i ºr| r ¤r -¤·- ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
"(Attention of witness) was drawn to Photograph No. 127,
after looking which the witness stated that in it vermilion
appears to have been applied but it is not clear as to whose
idol is visible in this pillar." (ETC)
(C) In reference to contradictory statements of the various
witnesses in context of coloured photograph nos. (136 to
141) and the black-white photograph nos. (71-73) of the
pillar (no. 7) fixed in western wall in southern back of
inside of the gate of the central portion A of the main
structure and the coloured photograph no. (142-147) and
black and white photograph no. (74-76) of pillar (no. 8):
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sc - l·ªi ºr ªi-·i - «|¤ - l¬··¸ º ¬n ·iin - - n
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr|
r | l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·s/ - - n ·i ªi-·i ·¬ º ¬i ºr r | ¤r¬ ·ilr·|
nº¤ ·i¬ ªi-·i - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ·¸ ¬º «i¤|
nº¤ ·i¬ ªi-·i - l¬··¸ º ¬n ·iin - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r ¬iº ¬i ; -¸ln - n ;¬ ªi-·i - ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible to me in the vermilion
applied part in mid of the pillar appearing in Photograph
3389
No. 136, and no other idol is visible. Two pillars are visible
to me in Photograph No. 137. No idol is visible to me in
the first pillar in right and the idol of Hanuman Ji is visible
to me in the vermilion applied part of the second pillar in
left and no other idol is visible to me in this pillar." (ETC)
;¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«· - r· -i· ¬| ¬| ªi·| r ; ¤¸ º| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | ;¬ ªi-·i - ¬iº ¬i ; -¸ ln ¤i ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ·«z ¤· ·«s - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r , ¬¬
·iin - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r, «i¬| ¤¸ º ªi-·i - - n ¬i ;
-¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«« ¤· ·«r -
- n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«c ¤· ·«/ -
l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r, ·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r ¬i º r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ·ilr·| nº¤ -i º ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln « -|
r ; ¬·-·ii - ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·co)
"The complete idol of Hanuman Ji in standing pose is
visible to me in this Photograph No. 141. No other idols
are visible to me in this pillar. The idol of Hanuman Ji is
visible in the part where vermilion has been applied over
the pillars appearing the Photograph Nos. 142 and 143.
No other idol is visible to me in the remaining pillar.
Similarly no idol is visible to me in Photograph Nos. 144
and 145. The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible at the place
where vermilion has been applied over the pillars
appearing in Photograph Nos. 146 and 147, and to right
of the idol of Hanuman Ji, a peacock like figure is visible in
sitting posture." (ETC)
l¤¤ ¬ o /« - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬÷·¬ ¬ +¤º nºiºi ¬| ¬ ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | . . . . . l ¤¤ /c - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬i º
¬·¬ «n¬ - -i º ¬| ·i¤n| r ; ¬i¬ ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| ¬i º ¬·¤ ¬i ;
-¸ln ;¬ ªi ·i ¤º - n ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·c«)
3390
"A Ganesh Ji like idol is visible above the lotus chain in the
pillar appearing in Photograph No. 74. . . . The idol of
Ganesh Ji and the figure of dancing peacock adjacent to
Him, is visible in Photograph 76, and no other idol is
visible to me in this pillar." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o /· ¬ni ¤n /c - - n ºi-·º«iº ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r|
¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·c«)
" No idol of Ram Darbar is visible to me in Photograph
Nos. 71 to 76."(ETC)
(ii) DW 3/15- Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sc ¬ni ¤n ·«/ - ·¬º ¬i ºr ªi-·ii - ¬i ; -¸ln
·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr| r ÷ (¤ ¬ ««)
"No idol is visible in the pillars appearing in the
Photograph Nos. 136 to 147."(ETC)
(iii) DW 1/2 Krishna Chandra Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i /· · /z - ¬i ; -¸ ln «·| r ¤i ·r| , ¤r -¤·- ·r|
l·ªi ºri r | (¤ ¬ «/)
"It is not clearly visible whether some idol is there or not in
Photograph Nos. 71 and 72." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i /« - ªi-·i - ¬i ; -¸ ln ·r| l·ªi ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i
/c - ¤· -i¬· - · i - ¬i ; -¸ln l·ªi ºr| r, l¤º ¬ri l¬ ªi·| r ;
l·ªi ºr| r , ¤r -·¤ ·iin - l·ªi ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o /r - - n ¬i ;
-¸ln ·r| l·ªi ºr| r | (¤ ¬ «s), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«o ¬ni ¤n ·«/
n¬ ¬ l¤¤i - ªi-·ii - ¬i ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i l·ªi ºri r , ¬¬
· ªi¬º ¬nni r l¬ ¬¬ ¤º ¬·iº| r ; -¸ln ¬·i·i l·ºii·i ¬i ªi º¤
l·¤i n¤i r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sc ¬ni ¤n ·ss - - n ªi-·ii ¤º ¬i ;
-¸ln ¤i ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«« ¤· ·«r
- - n ªi-·ii ¤º ¬i ; -¸ln ¤i ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·«c
- ·|¤ ¬| nº¤ « -| r ; -¸ln ¬| si¤i ¬| l·ªi ºr| r | l ¤¤
¬ ª¤i ÷·«c ¤· ·«/ - ªi º¤i r ¬i ¬i ¬n ºri r | (¤ ¬ «s)
"No idol is visible in the pillar appearing in Photograph
3391
No. 74. Some idol in 'Padmasan Mudra' is visible in
Photograph No. 76. Then stated that it is visible in
standing posture, it is visible in the mid part. No idol is
visible to me in the Photograph No. 75. (page 48); On
looking at the red colour applied over the pillars appearing
in Photograph Nos. 140 to 147, it appears that the idol or
marks engraved over them have been scratched. No idols
are visible to me over the pillars appearing in Photograph
Nos. 136 to 139. Similarly no idols are visible to me over
the pillar appearing in Photograph Nos. 144 and 145. In
Photograph No. 146, something like shadow of an idol in
sitting posture is visible to me in the lower part. Something
like a scratch appears in Photograph Nos. 146 and 147."
(ETC)
(iv) DW 13/1-1- Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«c n·i i ·«/ - nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
¤r -¸ ln ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º l¬ ·¸ º ¬ni r ¬i
r | (¤ ¬ ·co), -·ii· ÷ -·ii· ¤º ¤º ¬· ¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬| ¤¸ ¬ ¤-n| n·ii
·iº· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·co), l ¤¤ ¬ o ·z/ ¤º
¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i ¬i·i| · ;¬ l¤¤ ¬i · ªi¬º «ni¤i l¬ ;¬- l¬··¸º ¤ ni
r ¬i ·¬º ¬i ºri r ¤º·n l¬¬¬| -¸ ln ;¬ ªi-·i - ·¬ º ¬i ºr|
r ¤r -¤·- ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
"The idol of Ganesh Ji is visible in Photograph Nos. 146
and 147. This idol is visible at the place where vermilion
has been applied. (page 160); Different kinds of flower-
leaves and the idol of Bhairav Ji are visible at different
places.(page 160); (The attention of witness) was drawn
towards Photograph No. 127, after looking which the
witness stated that vermilion appears to be have been
applied, but it is not clear as to whose idol is visible over
3392
the pillar appearing in this photograph." (ETC)
(v) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«·, ·«z n·i i ·«s - nºiºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ¤i r l¤º ¬ri
l¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«· - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·r| r «l~¬ ºi ¬º ¬| ¬|
· -¤ - · i ¬i l¤¤ r | (¤ ¬ s/÷ss), l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«· - nºiºi ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·r| r «l~¬ ºi ¬º ¬| ¬| · -¤ - · i ¬i l¤¤ r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·«c
n·ii ·«/ - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¤·- -¸ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | ºi·i l¤¤i -
;· n|·i - ¬ l¬¬| ¬| -¸ln ¤i ·r| r |. . . . r· -i· ¬| ¬| ¤i ¬iº
l¬¬| ¬| -¸ln ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ss)
"There are idols of Ganesh Ji in Photograph Nos. 141,
142 and 143. Then stated that it is not the idol of Ganesh Ji
in Photograph No. 141 and instead it is the dancing
posture of Shankar Ji. (page 87-88); It is not the idol of
Ganesh Ji in Photograph No. 141 and instead it is the
dancing posture of Shankar Ji. The idols of Ganesh Ji are
clearly visible in Photograph Nos. 146 and 147. The idols
of none of them, are there in the remaining
photographs. . . . . .There are no idols of Hanuman Ji or
anybody else."(ETC)
(vi) OPW 9- Dr. T. P. Verma
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·«·, ·«c · ·«/ ¤º º n ¤ n r ¤ ·iin - ¬ s -¸ ln ¤i
r ¬i · ·| · ·ni¬i ¬| ri ¬¬n| r ¬l¬· - ¤r¤i· ·r| ¬¬ni, «i¬|
l¤¤i - - n ¬i ; -¸ln ·r| l·ªii; · ºri r | ;· ¬·i| l¤¤i - ¬ri
¬i¬ º n ·r| r ·ri l¬¬| ·i| · ·| · ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤
¬i l¤¤ ·r| · ªi ¤i ºri r ¸| (¤ ¬ ·s·)
"There are few idols in the coloured portion of Photograph
Nos. 141, 146 and 147, which may be of Gods-Goddess
but I cannot recognise them. No idol is visible to me in the
remaining photographs. In all these photographs where red
colour is not present, I am not able to see the pictures of
3393
any God-Goddess, Yaksha- Yakshini or Jai-Vijai." (ETC)
- ;· l¤¤i - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ·i| l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i
¬¤ l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ln ¬i ·r| ¤r¤i· ¤i ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·«r)
"I am not able to recognize the idol of any God-Goddess,
Yaksha- Yakshini or Jai-Vijai over the pillars appearing in
these photographs." (ETC)
(D) In reference to contradictory statements of witnesses
produced in context of coloured Photograph Nos. (157 to
161) and the black-white Photograph Nos. (86-88) of the
Pillar (no. 9) fixed in western wall in northern back of the
main gate of the central portion A of the main structure
and the coloured Photograph No. (162-167) and black and
white Photograph No. (89-91) of Pillar (No. 10):
(i) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey
n·ir ¬i ;¬| º n|· ¤¬«- ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·r/ ¬ni ¤n ·c/
l·ªii¤ n¤, l¬·r · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·r/, ·co,
·c·, ·cz, ·cs, ·cc, ·c/ - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - ¬ri l¬··¸ º ¬ni r
·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬| ªi·| r ; ¬·-·ii - -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬
·co)
"The witness was shown Photograph Nos. 157 to 167 of
this coloured album, after looking which the witness stated
that the idol of Hanuman Ji in standing posture is visible in
Photograph Nos. 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167 at
places where vermilion has been applied over the pillars."
(ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·r/, ·co, ·c·, ·cz, ·cs - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii - - n
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;¬|
¤¬«- ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·cc - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬ ·ilr·| nº¤
-i º ¬ ¬| ¬i¬ ln « -| r ; ·i¤· ¬| - · i - ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ;¬|
¤ ¬iº l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·c/ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ·i| r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬
3394
·ilr·| nº¤ -iº ¬| ¬i¬ ln « -| r ; ¬·-·ii - ·i¤· ¬| - · i - ·¬ º
¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·cc ¤· ·c/ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬i ; ¬·¤
-¸ln ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·rs · ·rs - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii -
- n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·c« ¤· ·cr - l·ªi
ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;· l ¤¤ ¬ o ·r/
¬ni ¤n ·c/ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬| ªi ·i - - n l··ºi ¬|,
· ·¬·¤i ¤i ¤·i ¬| ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·c·)
"No other idol other than that of Hanuman Ji is visible to
me over the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 157,
160, 161, 162, 163. In Photograph No. 166 of this album,
a sitting peacock like figure in dancing posture is visible
towards right of the idol of Hanuman Ji and similarly in the
pillar appearing in Photograph No. 167, the figure of
sitting peacock in dancing posture is visible towards right
of the idol of Hanuman Ji. No other idol is visible over the
pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 166 and 167. No
idol is visible to me over the pillars appearing in
Photograph Nos. 158 and 159. No idols are visible to me
over the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 164 and
165 as well. No idol of Vishnu Ji, Nymph or Yaksha is
visible to me over any of the pillars appearing in
Photograph Nos. 157 to 167." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·r/ ¬ni ¤n ·c/ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬| ªi ·i
- - n l··ºi ¬|, · ·÷¬·¤i ¤i ¤·i ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·c·)
"No idol of Vishnu Ji, Nymph or Yaksha is visible to me
over any of the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 157
to 167." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i sc ¬ni ¤n s· - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - - n « r -i ¬| ¤i
¬| ¬ ·ºi ¬| ¬| ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cc)
3395
"No idol of Brahma Ji or Sri Krishna Ji is visible to me
over the pillars appearing in Photograph Nos. 86 to 91."
(ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o sc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ ·ilr·| nº¤ ¬i ;
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n ¤r -¤·- ·r| r l¬ ¤r -¸ln l¬¬¬| r |
(¤ ¬ ·c«)
"Some idol is visible towards right of the lotus chain over
the pillar appearing in Photograph No. 86, but it is not
clear as to of whom." (ETC)
-¸ ln ¬i l¬º n ¬i r ¬i ·¬º ¬i ºri r ¬i º -¸ ln ¬i ri·i « -| r ;
¬·-·ii - ·¬º ¬i ºri r, ¤º·n ¤ rºi ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºri r | ;¬ ¤¬
-¸ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln ;¬ l¤¤ - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ·¬º ·r|
¬i ºr| r | . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ss - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬÷·¬ ¬
+¤º ¬i ; · ·÷-¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬i l¬º n ¬i¤ r ¬iº ri·i ¬i
¬-i¤ r ¬i º « -| r ; - · i ¬| ¤r -¸ ln r | (¤ ¬ ·cr)
"The head of the idol appears to be bowed down and the
hand of the idol is visible in resting position, but the face is
not visible. Apart from this idol, no other idol is visible
over the pillars appearing in this photograph. . . .Some idol
is visible above the lotus chain over the pillar appearing in
Photograph No. 88, which has its head down and hands
up and this idol is in sitting posture." (ETC)
¤º·n - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni l¬ ¤r l¬¬¬| -¸ ln r | ;¬ -¸ln - ¤¸ ºi
ºiº|º ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¬ l¬· ¤ rºi ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·cc)
"However, I will not be able to tell as to of whom is this
idol. The complete body is visible in this idol but the face is
not visible." (ETC)
l ¤¤ ¬ o s· - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ +¤º ·ilr·| nº¤
-i º ¬| ·i¤n| r ; ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ¬·¬ «|¤ - ¤i·|
«n ¬ - nºi ºi ¬| ¬ ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln ;¬ ªi ·i -
-¤·- ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cc)
3396
"The figure of dancing peacock is visible towards right and
above the lotus chain over the pillar appearing in
Photograph No. 91 and in between them i.e. near it, an
idol resembling Ganesh Ji is visible. No other idol is
clearly visible in this pillar." (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/11 Bhanu Pratap Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o s/ ¬ni ¤n so - ¬i ; -¸ln -¤·- ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
. . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o s· - ¬i ; -¸ln -¤·- ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬
co), l ¤¤ ¬ o ·r/ - ¬ri ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r ·ri r· -i· ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r ¤º·n l ¤¤ ·rs, ·rs - ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i
ºr| r ¤ -¸ln si -| r n·ii -¤·- ·r| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·r/ - ªi-·i -
r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤ l¬¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·co, ·c· · ·cz - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r
¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ln -¤·- · ri · ¬ ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·cs,
·c«, ·cr, ·cc, ·c/ ¤¬ r| ªi-·i ¬ l¤¤ r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·cs
·cc n·i i ·c/ - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r ¤º·n l ¤¤ ¬ o
·c« n·i i ·cr - -¸ ln ¤i si -| ri · ¬ ¬iººi -¤·- ·r| r | l ¤¤
¬ o ·cs, ·cc, ·c/ - r· -i· ¬| ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·¤ -¸ln ¤i si -|
ri · ¬ ¬iººi ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ r«)
"No idol is clearly visible in the Photographs 87 to
90......No idol is clearly visible in the Photograph No. 91.
(page 60); The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible where red
colour is applied in the photograph no. 157 but no idol is
seen in the Photographs 158 and 159. These idols are
small and are not clear. Except the idol of Hanuman Ji, no
other idol is visible in the pillar appearing in the
Photograph 157. The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in the
Photographs 160, 161 and 162 and no other idol, on
account of not being clear, is seen. The Photographs 163,
164, 165, 166 and 167 are the pictures of the same pillar.
3397
The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in the Photographs 163,
166 and 167 but the idols appearing in the Photographs
164 and 165 are not clear because of being small. Except
the idol of Hanuman Ji, other idols being small are not
visible in the Photographs 163, 166 and 167. (page
54)"(ETC)
(iii) DW 1/12 Krishna Chandra Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o sc - - n ªi-·i ¤º ¬i ; -¸ ln «·| r ; ·r| ·¬º ¬i ºr|
r | (¤ ¬ «s) ;l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·r/ ¬ni ¤n ·c/ - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln «·|
r ; ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ «s)
"No idol is visible to me carved on the pillar appearing in
the Photograph 86. (page 48) ; I do not see any idol in the
Photographs 157 to 167. (page 49)"
(iv) DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·r/ ¬ni ¤n ·c/ - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| l¬¬|
· ·|÷· ·ni ¬i l¤¤ ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ««)
"The idol of any god-goddess is not visible in the pillars
appearing in the Photographs 157 to 167.(page 44)"(ETC)
(v) DW 20/1 Shashikant Rungta
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·cc · ·c/ - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| ¬¸ · ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤r
¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r i r | . . .;·
l¤¤i - - l¬¬| -¸ ln ¬i ¤r¤i· ·r| ¤i ºri r¸¸ |
"Ganesh Ji's trunkj is visible in the Photograph 166 and
167. It is seen at that very place where red colour is
applied.......I am not able to recognise any idol in these
photographs.."(ETC)
(vi) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ·cc÷·c/ - ¬i ; -¸ ln -¤·- ·r| ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ·- ·c·)
"No idol is clearly visible in Photograph 166-167." (ETC)
(vii) OPW 9- Dr. T. P. Verma
3398
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·co ¬ ·cs, ·cc · ·c/ - º n ¬n ·iin ¤º ¬ s
-¸ln ¤i ¬| ¬i¬ ln l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r , ¬ l¬· ¬·¬i ¤r¤i·· - ¬¬-·i
r¸ , ¬·¤ ªi-·ii - ¬ri º n ·r| ¬ni r - n ·ri ¤º ¬i ; -¸ ln ¤i
l¤¤ ¤i ¬i¬ ln ·r| l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r ÷ (¤ ¬ ·s·) ;l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i s/
¬ni ¤n s· l·ªii¤ n¤ l¬·r · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬ - n ;· l¤¤i
- ¬ ¬ ·¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ss ¤· s· - ¬ s ¬i¬ ln¤i l·ªii; ¤·
ºr| r , ¬ l¬· ¬·r ¤r¤i·· - ¬¬-·i r¸ l¬ ¤ l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni, ¤
·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬ l¤¤ r , «i¬| l¤¤i - - n l¬¬| · ·|
· ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤ l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ln ¤i ·r| l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·«r÷·«c)
"The figures of a few idols are visible at the coloured
portions of Photograph Nos. 160 to 163, 166 and 167, but
(I) am unable to recognise them. I cannot see any idol or
picture or figure at the points of places in other pillars
where colour is no applied.(page 131); The Photographs
87 to 91 were shown to the witness following which he
stated- some figures are visible to me only in the
Photograph nos. 89 and 91, out of these photographs,
but I am unable to recognise and tell of which gods-
goddesses, Yaksha - Yakshini or Jai-Vijai they are the
pictures. The idols of any god-goddess or Yaksha-Yakshini
or Jai-Vijai are not visible to me in the remaining
photographs.(page 145-146) "(ETC)
(E) In reference to contradictory statements of witnesses
in context of the coloured album's Photograph Nos. (176-
181) and the black-white Photograph Nos. (95-97) of the
Pillar (No. 11) fixed in eastern wall in northern back of
the main gate of the central portion A of the main structure
and the coloured Photograph No. (182-187) and black and
white Photograph No. (99-100) of Pillar (No. 12):
3399
(i) DW 3/5- Raghunath Prasad Pandey
- n r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r ,
¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | ;¬| ¤ ¬iº l ¤¤ ¬ o÷·s·,
·sz, ·ss, ·sr ¤· ·sc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬
¬lnlº·n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln ;· l¤¤i -
l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - - n ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·s/ ¬ni ¤n
·so - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -n -i º ¬|
¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln ;· ªi ·ii - - n ·¬ º ·r| ¬i
ºr| | . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo - - n nºiºi ¬|, ¬·-|
¬| ¤· · ni ¬| ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cz), l ¤¤
¬ o sr - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ «|¤ - ·i¤n r ¤ -i º ¬|
¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o sc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n ¬i ;
-¸ln ;¬ ªi ·i - - n ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o s/ - l·ªi ºr
ªi ·i - -¸ln ni ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ +¤º ·¬º ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ss -
l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ «i; nº¤ -i º ¬| ·i¤n| r ; ¬i¬ ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |(¤ ¬ ·cc), l ¤¤ ¬ o
ss - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ¤i ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·oo - l·ªi ºr ªi ·i - ¬-¬ ·¬ ¬ +¤º «i; nº¤ ·i¤n
r ¤ -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·c/), l ¤¤ ¬ o sr
¬ni ¤i n ·oc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬| ªi ·i - - n r· -i· ¬|, ¬|
¬ ·ºi ¤i l¬¬| · ·¬·¤i ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cs)
"Besides the idol of Hanuman J, a peacock figure is visible
to me but no other idol is visible in these pillars. Similarly,
in the pillars seen in the Photographs Nos. 181, 182,183,
185 and 186, a peacock figure, besides idol of Hanuman Ji,
is seen, no other idol is visible to me in the pillars
appearing in these photographs. In the pillars seen in the
Photographs 187 to 190, a peacock, besides the idol of
Hanuman Ji, is visible to me, no other idol is visible to me
in these pillars. . . . . . The idols of Ganesh Ji, Lakshmi Ji
and Durga Ji are not visible in the Photographs 176 to
3400
200. (page 162); A figure of peacock in dancing posture is
visible in the midst of Kamal Dal seen in the pillar
appearing in the Photograph No. 95. No idol is visible to
me in the pillar appearing in the Photograph No. 96. A
peacock figure in dancing posture is seen to the left of
Kamal Dal seen in the pillar appearing in the Photograph
No. 98, but no idol is seen thereat. (page 166). No idol or
figure is visible to me in the pillar seen in the Photograph
No. 99. A peacock figure in dancing posture is visible
towards the left, above Kamal Dal seen in the pillar
appearing in the Photograph No. 100. (page 167). No idol
of Hanuman Ji, Sri Krishna or any Dev Kanya is visible in
any of the pillars appearing in the Photographs 95 to 106.
(page 168)." (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/11- Bhanu Pratap Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·/c ·// n·ii ·so - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r
;¬¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ ln si -| ri · ¬ ¬iººi l·ªii¤| ·r| · ºr|
r | r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º r ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·s· ¬ni ¤n ·sc ¤¬ r| ªi-·i ¬ l¤¤ r | ¤r ªi-·ii
¬-nº| ·º - ¬ni r ¬i ·ii| ;· ªi-·ii - ;· l ¤¤i - ·s· · ·sc
- r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬º ¬iºr| r ¤r -¸ln ¬i¬ º n ·i¬ -·ii· ¤º
·¬º ¬i ºr| r r· -i· ¬| ¬ ¬lnlº·n l¬¬| ¬·¤ ¬| -¸ln si -|÷si -|
ri · ¬ ¬iººi ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ rr), l ¤¤ ¬ o s· - ¬i ;
-¸ln -¤·- ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | . . . . ¤iºi l¤¤ ¤¬ r| ªi ·i ¬ ¬i·
¤· n r | ¬· ¤iºi l¤¤i - ¬i ; -¸ ln -¤·- ·r| ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |
;¬| ¤¬«- ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ o ss ¬ni ¤n ·oz - ·¬º ¬i ºr ªi ·i ¤¬
r| r | (¤ ¬ co÷c·)
"The idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in the Photograph Nos.
176, 177 and 180. Besides this one no other idol is visible
on account of being small. Idol of Hanuman Ji is at a point
3401
of place where red colour is used. The Photographs 181 to
186 are of the same pillars. This pillar was fixed in the
northern gate. Idol of Hanuman Ji is visible in these
Photographs (Nos. 181 and 186) representing these
pillars. This idol is seen at the red coloured point of place.
Except the idol of Hanuman Ji, no other idol on account of
being small is visible. (page 55). No idol is clearly visible
in the Photograph No. 91. . . . . . All the four pictures
appear to be of the same pillar. No idol is clearly seen in
those four pictures. The pillars seen in the Photographs 99
to 102 of this very album are the same. (page 60-61)
"(ETC)
(iii) DW 3/15- Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo - ·¬º ¬i ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| l¬¬|
· ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬i l¤¤ ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºri r |(¤ ¬ ««)
"No idol of god-goddess is visible also in the pillars
appearing in the Photographs 176 to 200."(ETC)
(iv) DW 1/12- Krishna Chandra Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·/c ¬ ·sr - l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¬| -¸ln ¤· -i¬· ¤i
niº·· - · i - ·r| l·ªii; · ºr| r ÷ (¤ ¬ «s)
"Idol of any god-goddess in 'Padmasan' or Tandava'
posture is not seen in the Photographs 176 to 185." (ETC)
(v) DW 20/1- Shashikant Rungta
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo ¬| nº¤ l·,i· l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni
· ·¤i· ¬i¬ ·- ¬ºi¤i, l¬·r · ªi¬º ¬i·i| · «ni¤i l¬ ;· l¤¤i - -
l¬¬| -¸ ln ¬i ¤r¤i· ·r| ¤i ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ s«)
"The learned cross-examining counsel drew the attention of
the witness to the Photographs 176 to 200, looking at
which he stated – I am not being able to recognise any idol
seen in these photographs."(ETC)
3402
(vi) DW 17/1- Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
·s·, ·ss - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln r, «i¬| l¬¬| ·i| l¤¤ - ºi ¬º¬|,
r· -i·¬| ¤i nºi ºi¬| ¬| -¸ ln r ¤i ·r| ¤r - ·r| ¤r¤i· ¤i ºri r¸ |
l ¤¤ ¬ o sr - ªi-·i - ·ilr·| nº¤ ¬i ; l¤¤ r , ¤º·n ¤r l¬¬¬i
l¤¤ r , ¤r - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni| (¤ ¬ ss)
"There is an idol of Ganesh Ji in (the Photographs) 181
and 183. I am not able to recognise whether the idol of
Shankar Ji, Hanuman Ji or Ganesh Ji is seen or not in any
of the remaining photographs. There is some picture
towards the right in the pillar appearing in the Photograph
No. 95 but I would not be in a position to tell as to whose
picture it is."(ETC)
(vii) DW 13/1- 1- Mahant Dharmdas
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·so - -¸ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r , ¬i · ni ¬| ¬| r | (¤ ¬
·c·), l ¤¤ ¬ o ·s« ¬ni ¤n ·sc - ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr|
r | (¤ ¬ ·cz)
"In Photograph No.180 an idol is seen which is of Durga
Ji. (page 161); No idol is seen in the Photograph 184 to
186.(page 162)"(ETC)
(viii) OPW 1- Mahant Ramchandra Das
;· ªi-·ii ¬ º· n º¤i- (l ¤o s/ ¬ ·oo) - ¬i ¬| «i¬| ¤i ¤ ·¤,
n r¸ ¬| «i¬|, n-¬i · ¤¬ -¸ln ri ·i «ni¤i r (¤ ·- ·«c÷·«/)|
"Barley spike or flower, wheat spike, flower pot and one
idol are stated to be in black-white(Photographs 97 to
100) of these pillars."(ETC)
(ix) OPW 9- Dr. T. P. Verma
l¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·/c, ·//, ·so, ·s·, ·ss ¤º º n ¬n ·iini - · ·|
· ·ni¬i ¬| ¬i¬ ln¤i l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r l¬·n - ¬·r ¤r¤i· ·r| ¤i
ºri r¸ , ºi ·i - n·ii ¬¤ºi ·n ªi-·ii - ¬i¬ º n ¬n ·iin ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤
·iini - l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¬·i·i ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬i l¤¤ - n
3403
·r| l·ªii; ¤· ºri r ÷ (¤ ¬ ·s·), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i s/, ·o· ¬i º ·os
- ¬ s ¬-¤·- ¬| -¸ln ¤i l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r , ¬l¬· - ;·r ·i| ¤r¤i··
- ¬¬-·i r¸ l¬ ¤ l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤ ÷ l·¬¤ ¬|
-¸ln r , «i¬| l¤¤i - - n l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤
¬| -¸ ln ¤i ·r| l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·«c)
"The figures of gods-goddesses are visible in the coloured
portions of the Photographs 176, 177, 180, 181 and 183
but I am not being able to recognise them. I cannot see the
picture of any god-goddess, Yaksha-Yakshini, or Jay-Vijay
in the remaining (photographs) and in the parts other than
the red coloured portion in the aforesaid pillars. (page
131); Somewhat hazy images are seen in the Photographs
97, 101 and 103 but I am unable to recognise them as well
and to tell whether they are idols of any god-goddess,
Yaksha-Yakshini. Idols of any god-goddesses or Yaksha-
Yakshini or Jay-Vijay are visible to me in the remaining
photographs."(ETC)
(F) In reference to contradictions found in the statements
made by the witnesses in context of coloured
Photographs (188-194) - of the coloured album -
representing the Pillar No. 13 of the main gate in the
middle part 'A' of the main building and the Photographs
101-103 - of the black-white album - representing this
very pillar and the Photographs 195-200 - of the coloured
album - representing the Pillar No. 14 and the
Photographs 104-106 - of black-white album -
representing this very pillar:
(i) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·/c, ·//, ·so, ·s·, ·ss, ·sr, ·sc, ·s/, ·ss,
·ss, ·so, ·ss, ·s«, ·sr, ·sc, ·ss ¤· zoo - l·ªi ºr ªi-·ii
3404
- ¬ri l¬ ·¸º (¬i¬ º n) ¬ni r ·ri - r· -i· ¬| ¬i º -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln
¬ ¬lnlº·n l¬¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r ÷ (¤ ·- ·c·), l ¤¤ ¬ o
·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo - - n nºi ºi ¬| ¬·-| ¬| ¤· · ni ¬| ¬| ¬i ;
-¸ln ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |. . . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ·s/ ¬ni ¤n ·so -
l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n - n -i º ¬| ¬i¬ ln
·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ln ;· ªi ·ii - - n ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·ss ¬ni ¤n ·sc - ·i| l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - - n r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬¬i·i -iº ¬| ¬i¬ ln ·¬º ¬i ºr| r , ¬·¤ ¬i ; -¸ln - n
;· ªi ·ii - ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·ss ¤· zoo - ·i|
l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ·i| - n r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬ ¬lnlº·n -i º ¬|
¬i¬ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r |. . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo - - n
nºi ºi ¬|, ¬·-| ¬| ¤· · ni ¬| ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ ·cz), l ¤¤ ¬ o sr ¬ni ¤n ·oc - l·ªi ºr ªi ·ii - ¬ l¬¬|
ªi ·i - - n r· -i· ¬|, ¬| ¬ ·ºi ¤i l¬¬| · ·¬·¤i ¬| ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º
·r| ¬i ºr| r | . . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ·oc - - n ¬i ; · ·ni ¬ ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n - -¤·- ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni l¬ ¤r -¸ln
l¬¬¬| r | (¤ ¬ ·cs)
"In the pillars appearing in the Photographs 176, 177,
180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 193, 194,
195, 196, 199 and 200, no idol is seen except the image of
Hanuman Ji and peacock at the point or place where
vermilion is applied. (page 161); No idol of Ganesh Ji,
Lakshmi Ji and Durga Ji is not seen in the Photographs
176 to 200 . . . . . Besides the idol of Hanuman Ji a peacock
figure is visible to me in the pillars appearing in the
Photographs 187 to 190; no other idol is visible to me in
these pillars. In the pillars appearing in the Photographs
193 to 196 as well, a peacock figure besides the idol of
Hanuman Ji is visible to me; No other idol is visible to me
in these pillars. In the pillars appearing in the
Photographs 199 and 200 as well, the peacock figure
3405
besides Hanuman Ji idol is visible to me. . . . . . Any idol of
Ganesh Ji, Lakshmi Ji and Durga Ji is not visible to me in
the Photographs 176 to 200. (page 162); Any idol of
Hanuman Ji, Sri Krishna or any Dev Kanya is not seen in
any pillar, out of the pillars appearing in the Photographs
95 to 106. . . . . . An idol looking like that of some god is
visible in the Photograph no. 106 but I am not in position
to clearly say whose idol it is." (page 168) (ETC)
(ii) DW 3/11- Bhanu Pratap Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·ss, ·ss n·i i ·so - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º
·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r , ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r | (¤ ¬ rr), l ¤¤
¬ o ·ss, ·s«, ·sr n·i i ·sc - r· -i·¬| ¬| -¸ln ¬i¬ º n ·i¬
-·ii· ¤º l·ªii¤| · ºr| r | . . . . . l ¤¤ ¬ o ·ss · zoo - l¬¬
-·ii· ¤º ¬i¬ º n ¬ni r ¬i r , ¬¬ -·ii· r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r ¬i º ¬i ; -¸ln si -| ri · ¬ ¬iººi ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬
rc), ¤iºi l¤¤i - ¬i ; -¸ln -¤·- ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ c·), l ¤¤
¬ o ·os n·i i ·o« - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·i , ¤¬ r| ªi-·i ¬ l¤¤ r |
;¬| ¤ ¬iº l¤¤ ¬ o ·or n·ii ·oc - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·i ¬ l¤¤ ¤¬ r|
ªi-·i ¬ l¤¤ r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·os ¬ni ¤n ·oc - ·¬ º ¬i ºr ªi-·ii
- -i¤ l¤¤ ¬ o ·os - -¸ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r , ¤º·n · -¤·- ·r|
r | l ¤¤ ¬ o ·o« ·or n·i i ·oc - ¬i ; -¸ ln ·¬º ·r| ¬i ºr|
r | - n ¬i·¤ ¬ ·i ºi· º n|· n·ii º¤i- º· n ¤¬«- ¬ l¬n· ·i| l¤¤
l·ªii¤ n¤ , ¬·- ¬ l¬¬| ·i| l¤¤ - - n « r -i n·ii l··ºi ¬| ¬i ; ·i|
-¸ln , ¬i -¤·- ri , l·ªii; ·r| ¤·|| ;· l¤¤i - ¬|¬ ·ºi ¬| ¤i ¬·-|
¬| ¬| ¬i ; ·i| -¸ ln l¬¬| ·i| l¤¤ - - n -¤·- l·ªii; ·r| ·|| (¤ ¬
cs)
"In the Photographs 188, 189, and 190, the idol of
Hanuman Ji is not visible at a place where red colour is
applied. (page 55); Idol of Hanuman Ji is seen at the red
coloured point of place in the Photographs 193, 194, 195
and 196. The idol of Hanuman Ji is seen at red colour
3406
point of place in the Photographs 199 and 200; no other
idol, on account of being small, is seen. (page 56); No idol
is seen in the four photographs. (page 61); The pillars
appearing in the Photographs 103 and 104 are the
pictures of the same pillar. Similarly, pictures of the pillar
seen in the Photographs 105 and 106 are the pictures of
the same pillar. Out of the pillars appearing in the
Photographs 103 to 106, idols are visible only in the
Photograph no.103, but they are not clear. No idol is
visible in the Photographs 104, 105 and 106. In none of
the photographs of black-white album that were shown to
me in course of adducing evidence, I saw any idol of
Brahma and Vishnu, which may be clear enough. I did not
clearly see any idol of Sri Krishna Ji or Lakshmi Ji in any
of these photographs. (page 63)" (ETC)
(iii) DW 3/15-Narendra Bahadur Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·/c ¬ni ¤n zoo - ·¬ º ¬iºr ªi ·ii - ·i| l¬¬|
· ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬i l¤¤ ·¬ º ·r| ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ««)
"Image of any god or goddess is also not visible in the
pillars appearing in the Photographs 176 to 200."(ETC)
(iv) DW1/12 Krishna Chandra Singh
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷·ss ¬ni ¤n zoo - - n ¬i ; -¸ ln ¤· -i¬· ¬·i·i
niº·· - · i - ·r| l·ªi ºr| r | (¤ ¬ «s)
"No image in 'Padmasan' or 'Tandav' posture is visible to
me in the Photographs 188 to 200." (page 49)
(v) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l ¤¤ ¬ o ·oz - ªi-·i ¬ «|¤ ·i¬ ·iin - ¬¤ · ·iin - ¬i ; -¸ln
r , ¤º·n ¤r l¬¬¬| -¸ln r , - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni| (¤ ¬ ss), l ¤¤ ¬ o
·o« - ªi-·i ¬ «|¤ - ¬i ¬¤ · ·iin ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¬¬- l¬¬| ¬i
l¤¤ r , ¤º·n ¤r l¬¬¬i l¤¤ r , ¤r - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni| l ¤¤ ¬ o
3407
·or - ªi-·i ¬ «|¤ - l¤¤ ¬ ¬i ¬ s ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , ¤º·n ¤r
l¬¬¬i l¤¤ r , - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni| l ¤¤ ¬ o ·oc - ¬i ; l¤¤ ·¬ º
¬i ºri r , ¤º·n ¤r l¬¬¬i l¤¤ r , - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni| (¤ ¬ s«)
"In the white part of the middle portion of the pillar
appearing in the Photograph No. 102, there is some idol
but I am not in a position to tell whose picture it is.(page
83); In the midst of the pillar appearing in the Photograph
No. 105, something, appearing as a figure, is visible but I
am not in a position to tell whose figure it is. In the
Photograph No. 106, some figure is seen but I am not in
position to tell whose figure it is.(page 84)" (ETC)
(vi) DW 13/1 Mahant Dharmdas
;· ªi-·ii ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·s·÷·sz - ºi ·i·in ¬| -¸ ln ¤i ·¬ º ¬i
ºr| r | l ¤¤ ·s/ ¬ ·so - ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬ri ¤º l¬··¸º ¤ ni r ¬i
r , r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | . . . .l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·ss
¬ni ¤n ·sc - ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬ri ¤º l¬··¸ º ¤ ni r , r· -i· ¬| ¬|
-¸ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | . . . l ¤¤ ·s/ n·i i ·ss - ¬i ; -¸ln ·¬ º
·r| ¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·ss · zoo - nºi ºi ¬| ¬| -¸ln ·¬ º
¬i ºr| r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sr · ·sc - ¬ri ¤º l¬··¸ º ¤ ni r ¬i r,
·r ªi ·i ¬i l·¤¬i ·iin r | l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sr n·i i ·sc - r· -i·
¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cr), l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·sr, ·sc,
·ss n·i i zoo ¤¬ r| ªi-·i ¬ ¤¬ r| -·ii· ¬ l¤¤ r , ¬i ¬r| r |
¤¬ r| -·ii· ¬i l¤¤ ¬¬n÷¬¬n ¤iºi · ¬ l¬¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·cc),
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·oc - ¬¬i -| ¬i ªi-·ii ·¬ º ¬i ºri r , l¬¬ ¤º ·i·i
«·i r ¬i r | ·i· ¬ +¤º «·¬· ¬ ¬| ¤|¬ ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r, l¬¬¬
+¤º ¤¸ ¬ ¤-n| «·| r ; r | ;¬¬ +¤º r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ln «·| r ;
r | (¤ ¬ ss)
"Idols of Sheshnag are visible in the Photographs 191-192
of these pillars. Idol of Hanuman Ji is visible at the point of
place where vermilion is applied in the Photographs 187
to 190. . . . . Idol of Hanuman Ji is visible at the point of
3408
place where vermilion is applied in the Photographs 193
to 196. . . . . . No idol is visible in the Photographs 197
and 198. The idol of Ganesha Ji is visible in the
Photographs 199 and 200. The point or place where
vermilion is applied, is the lower part of the pillar.
Hanuman Ji's idol is visible in the Photographs 195 and
196.(page 165); The Photographs 195, 196, 199 and 200
are the pictures of the same pillar - of the same place,
which is a correct fact. Photographs of the same place have
been taken from different portions. (page 166); The
Photograph No. 106 shows a Kasauti pillar on which
Ghara(water pot) is carved. Above Gharaa lid-like thing is
visible on which flower-leaves are carved. Hanuman Ji's
idol is carved on it." (page 93) (ETC)
(vii) DW 20/1 -Shashikant Rungta
;· l¤¤i - - l¬¬| -¸ln ¬i ¤r¤i· ·r| ¤i ºri r¸ | (¤ ·- ÷s«),
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·o« - r· -i· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·¬ º ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ·- s·)
"I am not in a position to recognise any idol represented in
these photographs (page 34). Hanuman Ji's idol is visible
in the Photograph No. 104. (page 31)"(ETC)
(viii) OPW 9 -Dr. T.P. Verma
l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ·ss · ·ss ¬ ·sr, ·ss ¬i º zoo ¤º º n ¬n
·iini - · ·| · ·ni¬i ¬| ¬i¬ ln¤i l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r l¬·n - ¬·r
¤r¤i· ·r| ¤i ºri r¸ ºi·i - n·ii ¬¤ºi ·n ªi ·ii - ¬i¬ º n ¬n ·iin
¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤ ·iini - l¬¬| · ·| ÷ · ·ni ¤·i ÷ ¤l·iºi| ¬·i·i ¬¤
l·¬¤ ¬i l¤¤ - n ·r| l·ªii; ¤· ºr r | (¤ ¬ ·s·), ;· º· n÷º¤i-
l¤¤i - l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i s/, ·o· ¬i º ·os - r| ¬ s ¬-¤·- ¬|
-¸ln ¤i l·ªii; ¤· ºr| r , ¬ l¬· - ;·r ·i| ¤r¤i·· - ¬¬-·i r¸ l¬ ¤
l¬¬| · ·|÷· ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ln r , «i¬| l¤¤i -
- n l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni, ¤·i÷¤l·iºi| ¤i ¬¤÷l·¬¤ ¬| -¸ ln ¤i ·r| l·ªii;
3409
¤· ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·«c)
"Images of god and goddesses are seen in the coloured
portions of the Photographs 188, 193-195,189 and 200
but I am not in a position to recognize them. Image of any
god -goddesses, Yaksh -Yakshini or Jay -Vijay is not visible
to me in the rest of the pillars and in any part other than
red coloured ones in the aforesaid pillars.(page 131); Out
of these black -white, somewhat hazy images are seen only
in the Photographs 97,101 and 103 but I am unable to
recognize them too and to tell as to which god-goddess,
Yaksha-Yakshini or Jay-Vijay they represent. Idols of any
god -goddess or Yaksha -Yakshini or Jay -Vijay are not
visible to me in the rest of the photographs."(ETC)
3439. PW24 Prof. D. Mandal at page 60-61 of his cross
examination while confirming the existence of images on black
stone pillars said that since he is not an expert of Art and
Architecture or Iconography, therefore, he is not able to identify
as to whose image that was. He stated as under:
¤¸ l ¬ - º ¬· ¬ · i i · ¬i - · ·i ¤r ·r| ·i i l ¬ ¤ ¤- ·i º
-l -¬· ¬ ¬ n ri ¬¬n r ;¬l ¬¤ ;¬ ¬i ººi - · ¤r
¬· ¬ · i i · ·r| l ¬¤i | ¬i º ;¬| ¬i ººi ¬ - · ¤r ·i |
¬· ¬ · i i · ·r| l ¬¤i l ¬ ¤ -l · ·º ¬ ri ¬¬n r | ¤r -|¬
r l¬ ¤ ¬·i| ¤-·iº ¬i ¤ ¤º ¬ ª¤i ÷ ··s¬|o÷·,«· · «r ¤º l·ªii¤
n¤ r , ¤ ¤¸ ºi ¤-·iº ·r| r «l~¬ ¬·¬i ¤¬ ªiº· r | - ;¬ «in ¬
¬r-n r¸ l¬ ;· ·i ·i ¤ ¤¬ - l·ªii¤ n¤ ¤-·iº ¤ -¤·in l¬¬| ·i·· -
¤ ¤i n l¬¤ n¤ ¤-·iº ¬ ¬ºi r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¤ ¤º
¬ ª¤i÷··s¬|o÷·,«« ¬i º «c - l·ªii¤ r ¤ ¤-·iºi ¤º -i·· ¬i¬ ln¤i
«·| r ¤| r | ¤¸ l ¬ ¬i - ¬i º ¬i l ¬ - ·¤º ¬i l ·ni ·i | ·r| r¸
;¬l ¬¤ ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i + ni l ¬ ¤ l r· ·¸ · ·| · ·ni ¬i ¬|
-¸ l n ¤i r ¤i ·r| | -·¤ ¬ri l¬ ¤r ¬i ;··i n i ¤| ¬i l ·· i ¤
3410
r ¬i l ¬ «r n r| -¤ ºi ¬i ;·· r | (¤ ¬ co÷c·)
“Since it was not the issue of my research to see
whether these stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did
not make any research on them, and for this very reason
I did not make any research to see whether they may be
of the temple. It is true that all these stones, as shown on
paper no. 118C-1/41&45, are not full stones; instead, they
are stone parts. I agree that the stones shown in these two
papers are apparently pieces of stones used in any
building. It is true that human figures are engraved on the
stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46. Since I am not
a scholar of art and architecture, I am not in position to
tell whether they are idols of Hindu divinities or not.
(Himself stated) It is a subject of iconography, which is a
very specialized branch of knowledge.”(E.T.C.)
3440. With regard to the study of symbols found on a deity
discovered PW 16 Prof Suraj Bhan has stated at page 410 as
under:
¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| - -¸ ln ¤i ¬ ¤i¤ ¬i· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;· l¤·ri ¬i
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i ¬ini r | ¤º·n ;· ¤º l·ºi ·i lº¬¤ ¬º· ·i¬ l·,i·i ·
;·¬ ·iil- ¬ n ··ii ¬i ¬·¤¤· ·i| l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ «os÷«·o)
“In archaeology these symbols are studied on basis
of discovery of deities. However, the scholars carrying out
special research on them, have also studied their religious
treatises.”(E.T.C.)
-¸ln ¤i ¬| «·i·- · ¬¬¬ ¬·iºi n·ii l¤·r ¬il· ¬|
¬i;¬ ·i n il¤-- r| --·| ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ «·o)
“The style of deities, their marks and symbols etc. are
studied by Iconographist.” (E.T.C.)
3441. PW 15 Sushil Kumar Srivastava admitted in his
3411
cross examination regarding the images found at the disputed
site that they were Non-Islamic. At page 21 he stated as under:
¤r «in ·i| - · ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ - l¬ªi| r l¬ ¤r ¬« l¤¤ ¬i
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ·i , ·r n º -¬il-¬ ·i | (¤ ¬ z·)
"This fact which I have written in my book that these
images which were on disputed site, all were Non-Islamic"
(E.T.C.)
3442. PW 18 Suvira Jaiswal at pages 40-41 has said as
under:
n·ir ¬i ·¤i· ¤| . ·· ¬¸ . /c ¬| ¬¸ º¬· i i · ¬ «¤i · ¬|
¬i º ¤ · - ¬ ª¤i ÷cs ¬ l ¤¤ ¬ ª¤i ÷rr - l ·¤ n¤ ·ºi ·
¬| ¬i º l ·¬i ¤i l¬¬- ¬·ri · ¤r ¬ri r l¬ ¬·n ªi ·i ¬| ¬i¤
··| ¬·| ¬ ¬ ¬º ···| ·z ·| ¬·| ¬ «|¤ ¬| ri n|| ¤ ¬i ¬·ri · ¬ri
r ni - ¬·¬ -n ¬i -i·¸ n|| ¤l· ¬·ri · ¬ri r l¬ ªi ·i ¤º ·
i-¤~¬· «·i r ¬iº +¤º ¤¬ ·¤l·n ¬i l¤¤ «·i r ni ¬r|
ri ni|(¤ ¬ «o÷«·)
“Attention of the witness was drawn towards page
69 of the statement of PW 76 Surajbhan, containing
description pertaining to photograph no. 55, wherein he
has stated that the age of the aforesaid pillar would have
been between 9
th
century to 11-12
th
century. If he has said
so, I will agree with him. If he has said that on the pillar.
pitcher-leaf (Ghatpallav) and thereupon a picture of a man,
were drawn, it might be true. ” (E.T.C.)
3443. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in
observing that the pillars fixed inside and outside the building in
dispute contain some human images and at some places there
appears to be some images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.
3444. Now, the question is, what would be its impact on
the building in question regarding its character as mosque under
3412
the tenets of Islam.
3445. So far as the tenets of Islam are concerned, it is very
clear that the human or animal images which is at a place where
namaz is to be offered cannot be allowed. The sole purpose of a
mosque in Islam is to offer public namaz and nothing else.
Though we are strengthened on this aspect from the Shariyat
text, the relevant part whereof we have already quoted, but we
may point out that almost all the five witnesses of plaintiffs
(Suit-4) whom they claimed to be the Experts in Islamic
religious matters have unhesitantly said that nobody will allow
any image of human being or animal in a mosque. Therefore,
under the tenets of Islam, if a place has a permanent structure,
which contains human or animal images, it would not be a fit
place for offering namaz since namaz if any offered at such a
place, shall stand waste (the witnesses say that -¬ªr ri ¬i¤n|).
3446. The above position in law, however, whether would
make any impact on the factual situation in this matter is the
most important aspect to be seen. As we have already discussed
above, despite existence of all these pillars in the building in
dispute, the Muslim people not only believed and treated the
building in dispute to be a Mosque but as and when visited and
offered public Namaz thereat. This has continued at least for
more than 80 years till the time when order of attachment was
passed on 29
th
December 1949. Once the people, who are
believer of a particular practice and worship, according to its
tenets have believed in the status of a particular thing in a
particular manner, is it open to a third party to contend after a
long time that the thing was not in accordance with the tenets of
religion and whatever worship etc. they have offered is of no
3413
use. This situation, it appears, has not come across in other
cases, particularly a situation where two communities are using
the same premises for their religious prayers. In these facts and
circumstances, peculiar and particular to this case, we are of the
view that the second part of this question becomes redundant
and, hence, need not be answered.
3447. We, therefore, hold that despite existence of certain
images on some of the pillars, inside and outside the building in
question of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, the character of the
building in dispute as a matter of fact would remain unaffected.
Issue 19(f) (Suit-4) is answered accordingly, i.e., in favour of
the plaintiffs (Suit-4).
3448. Now remains Issue No. 1-B (c) (Suit-4). We have
already held that the building in dispute, i.e., disputed structure
in the inner courtyard had been continuously used by Hindus for
worship pursuant to their belief that the site in dispute is the
birthplace of Lord Rama and in this regard, we find recorded
evidence at least from the second half of 18
th
century but
regarding the user of the aforesaid premises by Muslims, no
evidence has been placed to show anything till at least 1860.
After considering the evidence and whatever material the
learned counsel for the parties could place before us, we have
recorded a finding that both the parties used the disputed
structure and the premises within the inner courtyard despite the
partition wall raised by the Britishers sometimes in 1856-57.
The discussion and finding, which have already recorded while
discussion the issues relating to limitation and
possession/adverse possession, in view thereof, we find no
hesitation in holding that the members of both the communities
i.e. Hindu and Muslim had been visiting the building in dispute
3414
in the inner courtyard. Regarding the visit of Hindus, the
evidence which we have, commences from the second half of
18
th
century i.e. from the Tieffnthaller travels account and so far
as the muslims are concerned, such evidence is available since
1860, the issue is answered accordingly. Since both the parties
have been using the building in dispute in accordance with their
system of worship, belief and faith, both continuing for last
more than eighty years before filing of the first suit i.e. Suit-1
and therefore, it can be said that the premises within the inner
courtyard and the building in dispute was not restricted for user
of any one community. The issue in question is answered
accordingly.
(J) ISSUES RELATING TO SITE AS BIRTHPLACE,
EXISTENCE OF TEMPLE, WORSHIP ON THE
DISPUTED SITE AS BIRTHPLACE OF LORD RAMA
SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL; DEMOLITION OF SOME
STRUCTURE; IN PARTICULAR A HINDU TEMPLE :
3449. Issues No.1 and 2 (Suit-1); 1 (Suit-3); 1 (b), 11, 13,
14, 19(b), and 27 (Suit 4); 14, 15, 22 and 24 (Suit 5) are under
the above category.
3450. Issues No.1 and 2 (suit-1) reads as under :
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 ?”
3451. The defendants no.1 to 5 (Suit-1) have pleaded that
property in suit is not the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandra Ji but is a mosque constructed by Babar in 1528 A.D.
known as “Babri Mosque”. Paras 2, 22 and 27 of their written
statement, read as under:
3415
·¤i z. ¬ ¬ -¬-¸ · ·¤i ri¬i ¬ ;·¬iº r l¬¬ ¬i¤·i· ¬i ·i·i
l¬¤i ¬ini r ·r ¬·- ·i¸l- ·r| r «l~¬ ºir·’iir lr·· «i«º ºiir ¬|
ni-|º ¬º·i -l-¬· r |
“Para 2. That the contents of paragraph under reply are
denied. The property regarding which the suit has been
filed, is not Janmbhumi and instead is a mosque built by
Babar, emperor of India.” (E.T.C.)
·¤i zz. ¤r l¬ - · ·i¬ r - ¬|« ¬i ;~- ·r| r ¬i¤·i· - n·il·¤i
¤i·| -¬l¬· «i«º| ¬ ¬ ·º ¬i ; -¸ln r | nio ·c.·z.·s«s ; o n¬
¬¬- ·-i¬ r ; | ¬¬ ··n n¬ ¬¬- ¬i ; -¸ln · ·i|| ¬ l¬· ¬nº
¬i ; -¸ ln -¬l¬· ¬ ¬ ·º l¬¬| ºiª¬ · ¤iº| · «··|¤n| ¬ «i· nio
-¬¬¸ º ºªi l·¤i r ni ¬¬¬ -¬l¬· ¬| ¬º|r| « r º-n| ·· ·i¤i¬|
- n¬··º r ¬i º ¤ ¬ -¬¬¸ º ¬i·¸ ·· - ¬lº-i·i r | ¬iº ¬nº - · ·; ¤i
¬i ; ·¸ ¬ºi ºiª¬ -¬l¬· -¬¬¸ º ¬ -¸ ln ¤¸ ¬· ¤i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬| nº¬
¬ -¬l¬· ¬ ¬ ·º ·ilªi¬ ri ·i ¤irni r ni ·r ¬ - ¬i - n|¬ « r |
¤ ·i·¤ ¤ ¬| ri¬n - ¬·i¬n ·|·i·| ·i·º¬| -n¬¸ «i · · ¬ ¬il¬º r |
«rºri¬ ¬¬¬ - · ·; ¤i l¬¬| n º - ¬l¬- ¬i -¬l¬· -¬¬¸ º ¬ ¬i ;
r¬ ·r| ¤ ·i ri ¬¬ni|
“Para 22. That it is not in knowledge of the answering
defendant that there is any idol inside the disputed
property i.e. Babri Masjid. Namaz was offered over there
till 16.12.1949 AD and till that time there was no idol over
there. However, if any person has secretly and malafidely
placed any idol inside the mosque after the said date, then,
it is blatant dishonor and disrespect of the mosque and the
aforesaid attempt is legally an offence (- ¬lº-i·i) and if the
plaintiff or any other person desires to enter the said
mosque with the intention of offering prayer to any idol,
then he is guilty (- n|¬ «) of an offence. Hence, in the given
circumstances, the civil court is incompetent to grant the
3416
relief prayed for. However, the plaintiff or any non-muslim
cannot get any right from the same.” (E.T.C.)
·¤i z/ . ¤r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤¬ - l·º -i ¬¸ -i «-l··º ¬·--·ii·
¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬·i- ·i¸l- ¤º - · ·n -·|· ¬ ¬i¤- · -i ¬¸ · r |
¬iº ¬¬ -l··º - ºi-¤·· ¬| ·n ºr ¬| -¸ ln ¤i l·ºi¬-i· r | ·i·i
ri¬i l·¬«n -¬l¬·«i«º| «;¬riº -·ii· ¬·- ·i¸l- - · ·; · ¬¬¬
·|nº l¤º¬i ¤º-n · - ¤l¬·i ¤º·i¬ ¬il·i¤i ¬| l¬· ·n · ;ªnºir
¬i ·n|¬i r |
“Para 27: That a temple called Janmsthan temple exists
and stands at the birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra in
Ayodhya since long and idols of Ram Chandra Ji etc. are
seated in that temple. The instant claim regarding the
Babri mosque being located at Janamsthan/Janambhumi is
an outcome of fabrication and concoction on the part of
the plaintiffs and other fundamentalists and riot-mongers.”
(E.T.C.)
3452. Paras 9 and 27 of the replication filed by the
plaintiff (suit 1) says:
·iiºi s.. ¬i ¤ir· ·| ·i·| · ¬¤· ·i· ¤¤ - ¬·-·i¸l- -·ii· ¬| ·| r
¬¬ - ·i· ¤¤ ¤ -n n ¬º· ¬ ¤¸ · ¬ ¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ¬i
¤ i· ·ii · r ¬i ·ii ¬iº ¬¬¬i ª¤ n·ii ·i- ·i·| -l··º r| -i·¬º
· ªini r ¬i ·i-n· - r | ¬iº ¤i ¬·iº| ¬ ·¤i¤i¬¤ · ·i| ¬¬ ¬i
(ºi- ¬·- ·i¸ l-) -l··º ¬ r| ª¤ - ¤i¬º ·in·i· ¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬
¤¸ ¬i ¤i- n·ii ·ii n ºinil·¬ ¬ ¤ «··ii·i «i«¸ l¤ ¤i·-n ºi- ¤ ¤º- ·
-¤¸l·-¤¬«i · ¤ ¬i«i· ¬i l¬¤ · ·iº l·¤n ¬º¬ ¤r ¬i· ºi l·¤i l¬
¤¸ ¬i ¤i- ;-¤il· ¤¸ · ·n ¤¬ni ºr | ¤¬n - ¬¬-i· ¬i n ¬¬ ¬ ·i|nº
·r| ¤ · ºi ¬º ¤in | ¬· ·ss« ; o ¬ -l-¬· ¬ ª¤ - ¤r ¬·i| ·i|
·¤·riº - ·r| ¬i¤i| ...... «i«º ¬i ··¤ ¬º·i ·i| ¬· ·ii ¬¬-¤ r |
n-i- - ¬¬-i·i ¬i ;«i·n ¬º· ¬i ¬l·i¬iº ·i| -·|¬iº ·r| r |
"Para-9. Even before the presentation of the plaint, the idol
of Sri Ramchandra had appeared at the birthplace
3417
(Janambhumi), the boundary of which has been given by
the plaintiff in the plaint, and the plaintiff has been treating
it as a temple in form & name, which in-fact it is. After
finding it to be (Ram Janam Bhumi) temple, the Criminal
Court while appointing Babu Priya Dutt Ram, Chairman
Municipal Board, Faizabad as Supurdar for management
of worship, offering etc. of Lord Sri Ramchandra, had
ordered that the worship etc. shall be continued as before.
Consequently, the Muslims cannot go inside the same. It
was never used as a mosque from the year 1934 AD. .....
The execution of Waqf by Babur is also wholly incorrect.
Right of prayer to all the Muslims, is also not admitted."
·iiºi z/.. -l··º ¬·- -·ii· l¬¬ ¬ ¬-«··i - ¤ ln·il·¤i · ;¬ ·iiºi
- ¬·i· l¬¤i r | ·r ¬· ·ii ·¸ ¬ºi -l··º r l¬¬¬| ¤ir· ·| l·-·
¤ ¬iº r
¬-nº = rini · ¤ºn| · -l··º «¬·¬ ¬~¬¸ -ri¤i¤|
·l·iºi = ¬· ¬ ¤ ªni|
¤¸ · = ¬· ¬ · ¬ r· · ¬ ¬i |
¤l·s- = rini · ¤ºn||
¬| ¬¤i·¤i ¬| - ¬n·in ¬·i| -l··ºi - ¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| -¸ ln
-·iil¤n r ;l¬· ¬ nn· ·i¬ -·ii· ¬ ¬i ; ¬-«··i ·r| r | l··i ¤·
¬| ¤¤i ;¬ ·iiºi - ·¤·i n·ii n·¤r|· r | ¬i º ¬· ·ii ¬¤ i¬ln¬ r |
“Para 27. The Janamsthan temple mentioned by the
defendants in this paragraph is another temple whose
boundary is as under:
North: Campus, vacant land and temple in
possession of Kallu Mahapatra
South : Pitch Road
East : Road, courtyard and well
West : Campus and vacant land
3418
The idol of Sri Ramchandra is installed in almost all the
temples at Ayodhya, which have no concern with the
disputed site. The discussion of election in this paragraph
is futile and baseless and is wholly irrelevant.” (E.T.C.)
3453. Defendant No. 6 (Suit-1), deny para 2 of the plaint,
and, as additional plea, in para 12 of the written statement
states :
12. That the property in suit is known as Babri mosque,
and it has, for a long period has been in use as a mosque
for the purpose of worship by the Muslims. It has not been
in use as a temple of Shri Ram Chandraji.
3454. Defendants No. 8, 9 and 10 (Suit-1) also deny para 2
of the plaint. However, in para 12 of the written statement of
defendant No.9, the stand is identical to para 12 of the written
statement of defendant No. 6.
3455. Defendant No.10 (Suit-1), while denying that the
property in suit is the Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandraji, in
paras 2 of written statement averred as under:
"2. That the contents of para 2 of the Plaint are
absolutely incorrect and hence denied as stated. The
building referred to in the para under reply is not the
Janam Bhoomi of Sri Ram Chandraji and no idols of Sri
Ram Chandraji were ever installed in the said building and
as such there arises no question of any right or claim of the
plaintiff to perform Pooja and Darshan over there. The
fact is that the property in suit is a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ..... Kindly see additional pleas also."
3456. Issues No.1 (Suit 3) read as under:-
Issue No.1 “Is there temple of Janam Bhumi with
3419
idols installed therein as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?”
3457. The averments in plaint (Suit-3) with respect to the
nature of the property in suit are in paras 2 and 3, as under:
“2. That Janma Asthan now commonly known as Janma
Bhumi, the birth place of Lord Ram Chandra, situate in
Ayodhya belongs and has always belonged to the plaintiff
no. 1 ...”
“3. That the said Asthan of Janma Bhumi is of ancient
antiquity and has been existing since before the living
memory of man and lies within the boundaries shown by
letters A.B.C.D. in the sketch map appended hereto within
which stands the temple building of Janma Bhumi marked
by letters E.F.G.K.P.N.M.L.E. and the building denoted by
letters E F G H I J K L E is the main temple of Janma
Bhumi wherein is installed the idol of Lord Ram Chandra
with Lakshmanji, Hanumanji and Saligramji.”
3458. The defendants No.6 to 8 (Suit-3) in their written
statement dated 28
th
March, 1960 while denying para 2 and 3 of
the plaint, have averred in paras 16, 29 and 32 as under:
·iiºi ·c.. ¤r l¬ ·i· ni-|º -¬l¬· -¬¬¸ º ’ir·’iir «i«º ºr- n~¬i
¬¬ r · -¬l¬· -¬¬¸ º ¬| lr¤i¬n -º--n · ·|nº ¬ªiºi¬in ¬
l¬¤ - o co ª¤¤i ¬i¬i·i ¬i ¬ln¤i ¬¤· ªi¬i· ºiir ¬ - ¬ºº
l¬¤i| ¬i ·i ºi· ¬¤i- ¬~n·n - nl¬¤i -¬l¬· -¬¬¸ º ¬i «ºi«º
l-¬ni ºri| ·i· ¬-i· ¬«i¬ ¬¬n·n - nl¬¤i ·i ¬i«|· ¬··i · ·i|
;¬ ¬n|¤ ¬i ¬i¤- ºªii| ¬i º ¬¤· ¬-i· r ¬ -n - º¬- ¬ln¤
-¬¬¸ º ¬i ;¬i¤i ¬º¬ - o soz ª¤¤ s ¬i·i c ¤i; ¬i¬i·i ¬º
l·¤i| ¬i º¬- «i· ºªin ¬¬n·n ¬··i l« l-’i n·· - ·- · ·i| ¬iº|
ºªii| ¬iº ¬¬ ¬-i· - «··i «-n ¬··¬ - n·· - - «ni l·¤i ·
- n«l¬¤i· ¬i «¬i¤ ·¬· ¬ln¤i -¬¬¸ º ¬ - ¬il«l¬¤in ¬i ¬i¤ º|
· ·i¸ º·¤ º · «riº·¤ º - n¬|º ¬¤i ·¤i «ni º -i¤| l«·i «º-¬ilºn
3420
-¬l¬· «i«º| ¬ni l¬¤i|
“Para 16. That Emperor Babur Rahmatulla Allaih had
given annual grant of Rs.60 from his treasury for
protection and maintenance of the said mosque, impugned
in the suit, and also for other expenses, which continued to
be given to the said mosque during the tenure of the
Mughal Rule. During the Mughal Rule, the Oudh regime
also continued this grant, and hiked the aforesaid amount
of grant to 302 rupees, 3 aanas, 6 pais per annum, which
amount the British Government also continued to give at a
later stage. And during that period in course of settlement,
the British Government gave Ayodhya situated Sholapuri,
Ghooranpur and Bahoranpur instead of grant in cash.”
(E.T.C.)
·iiºi zs.. ¤r l¬ ¬¬| ·i·i - l·ri¤n - ·r- nº|¬ ¬ ¬i¤·i·
- n·il«¤i ¬ilrº ¬| n; r ¬iº ··’ii ·¬º| ·i| l«¬¬ ¬ n¬n r ¬i º
l¬n·| ¤|¬ ··’ii ·¬º| - l·ªi¬i; n; r ·r l«¬¬ ¬ n¬n ¬i º
¤¬| r | -¬l¬· ¬ ¤¸ º« · ·lªi· · ¬-nº ¬«lº-ni· r l¬¬- ¤i ªni
ªii- ¬«º -i ¬¸ · r ¬iº · ·ri ºi ¬º ¤«¸ nºi r · ¬|ni ¬i ¤ r ·
¬i -¬ ¤i ºi r · r· -i· ,iº ¬iº «iºi ·in·i· · ¬-i·i -iº¬·· «n ºr
r ··’ii ·¬º| - l¬¬ ¬·º ¤|¬ ·| r ; r ·r l«¬¬ ¬ n¬n · ¤¬|
r ¬iº -·-i· r ¬iº «·l·¤n| ¬ ¬ilrº ¬| n; r | ¬¬i·i ;¬¬ ¤r
·r| ¤ni ¤¬ni l¬ ¤o«|o¬|o·|o ¬i · «º ªi¬ºi ¤i · «º ¬i«i·| ·¤i
r ¬iº ¬¬¬| ¬ «i; ¤i ·i; ¬i º - ¬i- «¬¸ ·¤i r |
“Para 29. That the property is shown as disputed in the
claim application in an extremely doubtful manner and the
site map is also entirely incorrect and all the things shown
in the site map are absolutely incorrect and forged.
Located to the east, south and north of the mosque is a
graveyard with un-metalled graves, and there is neither
3421
Shankar Chabutra nor Sitakoop nor Lomas Chaura nor
Hanuman Dwar nor Bara Bhagwan nor Samadh
Markandey etc. there. Things have been given in the site
map in an absolutely incorrect, forged and arbitrary
manner, showing bad faith. Besides, it fails to divulge
khasra number or abadi number of the plot marked as A,
B, C, D and its length and width and also its present
location. ”(E.T.C.)
·iiºi sz. ¤r l¬ «i«º| -¬l¬· - ¬~¬-i ni º ¬ -¬l¬· r ¬iº
n·· -·- ¬iº ¬il«¬i ¬i º -i ¬¸ ·i ¬¬¬i -¬l¬· -i·n ¤¬| ¬i;
r | ¤ ¬| ri¬n - ·i·i - · · ¤i· ·iº«i ¬i º ·i - ·il¬« r ¬iº
¬¬l¬¤n ¬º·i ·i- ·il¬« ¬i º « ¬i ¬ ~- r |”
“Para 32. That the Babri Mosque is widely acknowledged
as a mosque, and previous & present governments have
been taking it to be a mosque. In such a circumstance, the
plaintiff's claim is improper & untenable and to allow it is
improper and unjust.”(E.T.C.)
3459. In replication, the plaintiffs (Suit-3) in para 28 and
32 said as under:
"28. The contents of para 28 of the written statement are
totally wrong and are scandalous. The only temple built on
the sacred place of the birth of Lord Ram Chandra is the
Janma Bhumi temple in suit. There is no temple known as
temple Janma Asthan as suggested by the defendants built
on the place of birth of Lord Ram Chandra. The temple of
Janma Asthan which is situate to the north of the temple of
Janma Bhumi in suit is a separate temple which is not at
all connected with the place of birth of Lord Ram Chandra.
The defendants seem to exploit the name of the said temple
3422
to create a confusion regarding the real place of birth of
Lord Ram Chandra. They should point out clearly by
correct location as to which is the Janma Asthan temple
mentioned in this para of their written statement. The idols
of “Ram Chandra ji and others” are installed in all the
Hindu temples all the world over. The emphasis of
communal bias alleged in the written statement is
misplaced. The plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the
invasion through the illegal proceedings under section 145
Cr.P.C. upon their fundamental rights of managing their
own temple have taken recource to the court of law in
defence of their own legal right. It is the said defendants
who supported and instigated by their own fanatic friends
are advancing a false and a preposterous claim to the
temple of janma Bhumi by blaspheming it with the name of
Babari Masjid. The plaintiffs claim has no relation with
any election and to characterise the plaintiff's claim as an
attempt to jeopardize the success of a secular state in India
is simply scandalous. It is in fact the defendants and their
supporters who by denying the plaintiffs' rights and by
putting up a false and a fanatic claim to the sacred place of
the birth of Lord Ram Chandra are out to blackmail the
noble efforts of the Indian people to the attainment of a
secular state."
"32. The contents of para 32 of the written statements are
denied. If the former Government ever acknowledged the
temple of Janma Bhumi in suit as Mosque it was simply
preposterous and collusive.”
3460. Defendant No.9, in additional written statement
3423
dated 24
th
August, 1995, in paras 3 and 4 pleaded:
“3. That the contents of para 4-G XI are also quite vague
and ambiguous and hence are denied as stated. In this
respect it is submitted that on 6
th
December, 1992 the so-
called Ram Chabutra was demolished alongwith the Babri
Masjid by the miscreants collected at the instance of
Vishwa Hindu Parishad etc.
4. That in reply to para 4-G XII of the amended Plaint it is
submitted that on 6
th
December, 1992 the building of the
Mosque was demolished and the same could not be called
or alleged to be the Main Temple.”
3461. Defendant No.10 has supported plaintiff (Suit-3) to
the extent that the property in dispute is not a “Mosque” known
as “Babari Masjid” made by “Emperor Babar” but is “Janam
Bhumi” or “Janam Sthan of Lord Ram Chandra Ji” and has said
in paras 2, 3 and 5 as under:
“2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are denied.
However, it is submitted that the JANMA ASTHAN is a
holy place of worship and belongs to the deity of Bhagwan
SHRI RAM LALLA VIRAJMAN there. It never belonged to
and could not have belonged to the plaintiff no.1. It is
denied that the plaintiff no. 1 ever managed it.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint, as written, are
denied. The holy JANMA ASTHAN or JANMA BHUMI is
actually a very very old temple, whereas the plaintiff
AKHADA on the other hand is an institution and owes its
existence for no longer than 200 years. The correctness of
the sketch map and the boundaries of the temple with
reference to the map are not disputed. The main presiding
3424
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 whom the deity of BHAGWAN SHRI RAM therein
is worshipped at SHRI RAM JANMA BHUMI, is addition
to the ASTHAN of SRI RAM JANMA BHUMI, which by
itself is a deity and worshipped as such.
5. That the contents of the para 5 of the plaint are not
admitted in the form they ave been pleaded. Although it is
made to appear that in the first war of independence in the
year 1857 A.D., the British, to divide the Hindus and
Muslims, mala fide acted by dividing the said ASTHAN by
creating an inner enclosure and describing the boundary
within the inner enclosure as a mosque but no Muslim who
was a true Muslim, would appear to have frequented it for
offering his prayer as the same is prohibited by the
SHARIYAT. Moreover even ALAMGIR (Emperor
AURANGZEB) issued a mandate, known as FATWA-E-
ALAMGIRI which clearly prohibits the offering of prayer
by Muslim at such places. More so the Kasauti pillars and
the carvings of Gods and Goddesses thereon will clearly
show that this place could not be used by a true Muslim for
offering his prayers thereon. It will also be seen that the
place wrongly alleged as mosque virtually stood land-
locked by Hindu Temple, wherein there was the worship of
the deity going on. Entry to this inner enclosure was also
obstructed.
The British tried to set up the descendents of MIR
3425
BAQI, a Shia Muslim, as the MUTVALLI, but he denied the
TAULAAT and never looked after the dispute place in any
capacity, what to say of looking after as a MUTVALLI
thereof.”
3462. Issues No. 1 (b), 11, 13, 14, 19(b), 19(c) and 27 (suit
4) read as under:
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?"
Issue No.11 “Is the property in suit the site of Janam
Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandraji?”
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.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
3426
tenets at the place in dispute?”
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 ?”
3463. The plaintiffs (Suit-4) with reference to the above
issues, in paras 3, 4 and 21-B says :
“3. That for the upkeep and maintenance of the mosque
and other connected expenses, a cash grant used to be
paid from the Royal Treasury which was continues by the
Emperors of Delhi and by Nawab Saadat Ali Khan, the
Nawab Wazir of Oudh.”
“4. That after the annexation of Oudh, the British
Government also continued the cash Nankar till 1864, in
which year instead of cash Nankar grant of revenue free
land in village Sholapur and Bahoranpur, in the vicinity of
Ajodhiya, was made by the British Government.”
“21-B . That under the Muslim Law mosque is a place
where prayers are offered publicly as a matter of right and
the same neither requires any structure and nor any
particular mode of structure is provided for the same. Even
the open space where prayers are offered may be a mosque
and as such even after the demolition of the mosque
building by the miscreants, the land over which the
building stood is still a mosque and Muslims are entitled to
offer prayers thereon.”
3464. Defendants no.3 and 4 (Suit-4), in written statement
dated 22/24 August, 1962 have pleaded, in paras 8, 11, 27 & 28,
as under:
3427
“8. The allegations contained in para 8 of the plaint are
denied. The answering defendants deny the existence of the
alleged Babri Mosque and allegation of its being damaged
and of its being rebuilt and re-constructed at any body’s
cost or through any Thekedar is altogether fictitious. Even
if any communal riot be proved to have occurred in
Ajodhya in 1934, no mosque whatsoever was damaged in
Ajodhya in 1934.”
“11. That the contents of para 11 of the plaint are totally
false and concocted. The alleged mosque never existed nor
does it exist even now and ….The building which the
plaintiffs have been wrongly referring as Babri Masque is
and has always been the Temple of Janam Bhumi with
idols of Hindu Gods installed therein. The plaint allegation
regarding placing of idols inside any mosque is a pure
falsehood.”
“27. That the temple in question known as Janam Bhumi,
the birth place of Lord Rama Chandra situate in Ayodhya
belongs and has always belonged to the defendant no. 3
who through its reigning Mahant and Sarbarahkar has
ever since been managing it and receiving offerings made
there at in form of money, sweats, flowers and fruits and
other articles and things.”
“28. That the said Asthan of Janam Bhumi is of ancient
antiquity and has been existing since before the living
memory of man and lies with in the boundaries shown in
sketch map appended hereto as Annexure ‘A’ within which
stands the temple building of Janam Bhumi shown therein
with the main temple of Janam Bhumi wherein is installed
3428
the idols of Lord Ram Chandra with Lakshmanji,
Hanumanji and Shaligramji.”
3465. The additional written statement dated 28/29
November, 1963 of defendants No.3 and 4 (Suit-4), in para 38,
state as under :
“38. The building in question was always a temple as
shown in the written statement of the answering defendants
...”
3466. The additional written statement dated 12
th
September, 1995 filed by defendant No.10 (Suit-4) in paras 1, 2,
6, 8, 9 said as under:
“1. That the contents of para 21A of the amended plaint
are not admitted. No Masjid or Babri Masjid ever existed
at the land in question, and as such no Masjid was
demolished on 6.12.1992. It is further false to allege that
idols were placed only in the night of 22nd/23rd December,
1949, but the fact is that idols were in existence at the
place in question from the time immemorial. It may be
mentioned here that Babar was an invader and he had no
legal authority to construct any Masjid at the sacred place
of Hindus i.e. the birthplace 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 he could not succeed in his mission.
After the riot in 1934, the three domes of the temple were
damaged. It is submitted that before the said 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 mosque and three domes were constructed
3429
over Kasauti pillars which were of temple. … The worship
of Lord Shri Ram Lala Virajman is going on since the time
immemorial. It is further submitted that with a view to
renovate the old temple and to construct a new one, Kar
Sewa was performed and the said action cannot be said to
be in violation of any order passed by any Court. There
was no order in force against Hindus in respect of the
temple property/structure. It is submitted that the people of
the State had voted for Bhartiya Janata Party in the
election as it was committed to fulfil the aspirations of the
people to construct a glorious Shri Ram Temple at the
place in question. It is true that the Bhartiya Janata Party
Government did not resort to firing and barbarian action
which was adopted earlier by the Government headed by
Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav on 30.10.1990 and 2.11.1990. It
is further submitted that the Government cannot suppress
the will of the people and it has to honour and fulfil
aspirations of the people in the democratic set up. The
Bhartiya Janata Party has neither abetted for demolition
of the structure, nor did anything in violation of law. The
devotees of Lord Shri Ram who present in lacs decided to
demolish the old structure. In fact no offence was
committed and no law was violated in demolishing the
structure of Hindu temple with an intent to construct a big
temple. At this place, it may be mentioned here that 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. The
3430
history speaks otherwise. Every Mughal invader and ruler
from Mohammad-bin-Qasim to Aurangzeb and even
thereafter demolished, destroyed and looted the temples of
Hindus. The plaintiffs never has/have any concern with the
land in question and also they are not entitled for
restoration of the building or its possession.”
“2. That the contents of para 21-B of the amended plaint
are not admitted. The Muslim law cannot be made
applicable in Bharatvarsh. Muslim law is also subject to
the provisions of Constitution; it is the Constitution which
is supreme and not any personal law, much less Muslim
law. Muslims cannot use any open piece of land in question
for offering prayers and 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. It is specifically submitted
that the entire property in question belongs to Shri Ram
Lala Virajman who is in the existence from the time
immemorial and is being worshipped by His devotees at
the place in question without any interruption till date.
According to the own averments of the plaintiffs, the place
in dispute has got no significance for them as they can
offer prayers at any place, even in open.
It would be appropriate and in consonance with the
principles of ‘secularism’ that the Muslims do not offer
prayers within the vicinity of the birthplace of Lord Shri
Ram Lala Virajman, which is sacred for Hindus and offer
their prayers beyond the area of Panchkoshi Parikrama.
That will create brotherhood and peace everywhere. The
3431
para under reply itself shows that the alleged mosque was
unnecessary and meaning less for Muslims too. It is further
submitted that over the land in question, no mosque ever
existed and the Muslims are not entitled to encroach upon
the land in question or offer prayers at that place.”
“6. That it is an undisputed fact that Lord Ram, Lord
Krishna and Lord Shiv are cultural heritage of India which
has been recognized by Constituent Assembly. In the
original constitution, on which the members signed, the
pictures of our recognized cultural heritage may be found
which include the scene from Ramayana (conquest over
Lanka and recovery of Sita by Lord Ram). Thus the
citizens of this country are entitled to pay homage to their
Lord at His birthplace and it being sacred place for
Hindus 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 and in the circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot
claim themselves to be Muslims entitled to file the suit.”
“8. That the entire area including the place in question
belongs to deity Lord Shri Ram Lala Virajman and His
devotees and worshippers are entitled to offer prayers,
Pooja, Arti, Bhog etc. and to pay homage to their Great
Lord. They have also right to construct a glorious temple.”
“9. That it is remarkable to mention here that under the
debris of demolished temple structure, a lot of signs and
materials concerning temple have been found. The
answering defendant believes that under the orders of this
Hon’ble Court, they would be in safe custody. It may be
3432
mentioned here that 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, signs or material at all to show that there
was any mosque.”
3467. Sri Dharam Das, defendant No.13/1 (Suit-4) in his
written statement dated 24
th
December, 1989, (as amended vide
Court's order dated 21
st
August, 1995), has said in paras 1, 2, 3,
4, 11-A, 25, 27 and 28 as under:
“1. That the contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint are
denied. It is submitted 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 hordes, who demolished the ancient Hindu temple
of the time of Maharaja Vikramaditya at Sri Rama Janma
Bhumi, and tried to raise a mosque-like structure in its
place with its materials. Babar was not an Emperor. He
was marauder. What was constructed was not a ‘mosque’
nor was it constructed for the use of the Muslims in
general. It was not known as ‘Babari Masjid’, but was
described as ‘Masjid Janmasthan’ in British times.
Objective evidence of the demolition of the ancient temple
and attempted construction of the ‘Mosque’ at Sri Rama
Janma Bhumi existed in the form of the 14 Kasauti pillars,
the Sandal wood beam, and other structural features of the
building, which are more fully detailed in the additional
pleas. Mir Baqi did so on account of the superstitious
influence of the so called Faqir named Fazal Abbas
Qalandar who had demanded the destruction of the
3433
ancient temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi and the
construction of a mosque at that place for him to offer
prayers, although the doing so is opposed to the tenets of
Islam as disclosed by the Quran and the Fatwas issued by
Muslim theologians.”
“2. That the contents of paragraph 2 of the plaint are
denied. The sketch map annexed to the plaint is wholly
wrong, vague and out of all proportion and does not made
any sense. There is no grave-yard anywhere at Sri Rama
Janma Bhumi, nor was there any such grave-yard as
alleged at any time within 12 years of the institution of the
suit. There was nothing, neither a mosque nor a grave-
yard, which vested or might have vested in ‘Almighty’ of
the Muslims, namely ‘ALLAH’. According to the Islamic
faith, as explained in the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri: Volume VI,
page 214: “It is not permissible to build mosque on
unlawfully acquired land. There may be many forms of
unlawful 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.” The allegation about the loss of many
lives in the battle that is said to have ensued between
Babar’s hordes led by Mir Baqi and the Ruler of Ayodhya
must be related to the demolition of the ancient Hindu
temple at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya, by Mir Baqi;
and in that context it is not denied: but it is denied that any
of the graves of the Muslims who lost their lives in that
battle more than 450 years age were situated on, or
anywhere near Sri Rama Janm Bhumi. It submitted that a
3434
Mosque and a grave-yard go ill together according to the
tenets of Islam, for the offering of prayers except the
funeral prayers on the death of a person buried there in is
prohibited in a grave-yard. The Khasra numbers of the
alleged ‘Mosque’ and the alleged ‘grave-yard’ are all
imaginary and fictitious, and are not identifiable at site.
Their correctness is denied.”
“3. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the plaint are
denied. There was no ‘Mosque’ and there could be no
question of any grant for its upkeep or maintenance, or
any such purpose. There is no evidence of any expenditure
from the alleged grant on the upkeep or maintenance of the
building alleged to be the ‘Babri Masjid’.
“4. That the contents of paragraph 4 of the plaint are
denied. 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 by
suppressing the First War of Independence of 1857,
miscalled the Sepoy Mutiny by them.”
“11-A. That the contents of paragraph 11(a) of the plaint
are denied. It is incorrect that the structure raised at Sri
Rama Janma Bhumi, during the time of Babar after
demolition of the Ancient Hindu Temple which existed
there, was built by Babar, or that he was an Emperor, or
that it was or could be a ‘mosque’. . . The act of demolition
of the ancient Hindu Temple and entering upon Sri Rama
Janma Bhumi was a wrongful act of trespass, which did
not, according to the tenets of Islam, commend itself to
3435
Allah, for HE does not accept the waqf of any property or
thing taken by force or by an illegal act. A waqf cannot,
according to Muslim law be made of a thing or property
not belonging to the Waqif, as owner. The attempt to raise
a mosque-like structure did not succeed; and no ‘mosque’,
deemed to be Waqf according to Muslim Law, ever came
into existence. . . . The act of installation of the Deity of
BHAGWAN SRI RAMA under the central dome of the
building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, in the form of the Idol
of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA, on Paush Shukla 3 of the
Vikram Samvat 2006, by His worshippers, led by, among
others, the answering defendants GURU, Baba Abhiram
Das, was not a mischievous act, but a perfectly lawful
exercise of their right by the Hindus to worship the
Deity. . . . . . The act of the Hindus on Pausha Shukla 3, of
Vikram Samvat 2006, was in furtherance and re-assertion
of the pre-existing property rights of the Deity and their
own right of worship. And BHAGWAN SRI RAMA did
MANIFEST HIMSELF that day at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi.
Even the Muslim Havaldar, who kept guard at the Police
Outpost, Abdul Barkat by name, experienced the
Manifestation, by His Grace. The day is since then
celebrated as the Prakatya Diwas, every year, at Ayodhya.
At any rate, it is submitted, in the alternative. . .”
“25. It is a fact of history that there was an Ancient
Temple of Maharaja Vikramditya’s time at Sri Rama Janma
Bhumi, and that was demolished by Mir Baqi. The
dominant motive of Iconoclasts was the prejudice born of
ignorance that Hindu temples were places of Idolatry,
3436
which was condemned by the Qoran. But as stated more
fully, hereinbelow, those who are acquainted with the true
knowledge of Qoran also know that a mosque cannot be
built in the place of a Hindu temple after forcibly
demolishing it, for ALLAH DOES NOT accept Namaz
offered at a place taken by force, or in a ‘mosque’ built on
land obtained by Gasba or forcibly without title. It seems,
therefore, that the three-domed structure raised at Sri
Rama Janma Bhumi after demolishing the Ancient Hindu
Temple, was not intended to be used as a ‘mosque’, and it
was never used as ‘mosque’. It was an act of putting down
Idolatry. The alleged killing of Muslims in the battle that
ensued with the Hindus, and who are alleged to have been
buried at the place, only shows unmistakeably that the
demolition of the Temple led to a fierce struggle by the
Hindus. The alleged existence of a grave-yard all round it,
also shows that the Muslims could not have gone to offer
Namaz in the building, which was abandoned and never
used as a ‘mosque’ by the Muslims.”
27. That it is indisputable that there was an ancient
Temple of Maharaja Vikramaditya’s time at Sri Rama
Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya, and that it was partly demolished
and an attempt was made, by Mir Baqi, commander of
Babar’s hordes, to construct a ‘mosque’ in its place. He
was a Shia, and although demolition of a temple for
constructing a ‘mosque’ is prohibited by Islam, he
attempted to do so under the superstitious influence of the
so called Faqir, named, Fazal Abbas Qalander. He did not,
however, succeed, for, as the story goes, whatever was
3437
constructed during the day fell down during the night, and
it was only after making certain material concessions in
favour of the Hindus for the continued preservation of the
place as a place of Hindu worship, that the construction of
the three-domed structure was some-how completed, and
the construction of the minarets and certain other essential
features of a public ‘mosque’ was not undertaken.
28. That the following facts would show that the three-
domes structure so raised by Mir Baqi was not a ‘mosque’
at all, namely---
(A) ALLAH does not accept a dedication of property for
purposes recognised as pious and charitable, that is, as
waqf under the Muslim Law, from a person who is not its
rightfull owner, for instance, ALLAH would not accept the
dedication of stolen property from a thief. By his act of
trespass supported by violence, for erecting a ‘mosque’ on
the site of the ancient Hindu Temple at ASTHAN SRI
RAMA BHUMI, after demolishing it by the force of arms,
Mir Baqi violated all the true tenets of Islam. It was highly
un-Islamic action. ALLAH never forgave him for that, so
much so that every time an attempt was made to convert
the place into a ‘mosque’, by misguided iconoclasts like
him, they were killed without mercy in the battles that
ensued, for violating HIS injunctions, for ALLAH had
spoken thus to the Prophet in the Qoran---
‘And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight
against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for
GOD loveth not the transgressors. And kill them wherever
ye find them; and termed them out of that whereof they
3438
have dispossessed you; for temptation to idolatory is more
grievous than slaughter; yet fight not against them in the
holy temple, unless they attack you therein. . . . . . ..”
Indeed, the whole history of the rise and fall of the Mughal
Empire in India will 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. Aurangzeb, the iconoclast fanatic,
destroyed the Empire which was at the pinnacle of its glory
when he deposed and imprisoned his own father
Shahjahan and grabbed the crown.”
(B) Inspite of all that Mir Baqi tried to do with the
Temple, the space always continued to best in possession
with the Deities of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA VIRAJMAN and
the ASTHAN SRI RAMA JANMA BHUMI. THEIR
worshippers continued to worship THEM through such
symbols as the CHARAN and the SITA RASOI, and the idol
of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN on the
Chabutra, called the Rama Chabutra.
3468. Defendant No.18 (Suit-4) in written statement dated
19
th
July, 1969 , in paras 26 and 27 has averred as under:
“26. That the temple in question is known as Janam
bhumi. The birth place of Lord Ramchandar situate in
Ajodhya had always belonged to the defendant No.3 who
through its resigning Mahanth and Sarbnarankar has ever
since been managing it and receiving offering made there
as in a form of money, sweets, flowers and fruits and other
articles and things.”
3439
“27. That the answering defendant is a Vaishnav sadhoo
of this holy city of Ajodhya and belonged to Nirmohi
Akhara and is a perfect Bhagat of Lord Rama whose Idol
is installed in the said temple of Janambhumi which is
ancient and antiquity and has been existing since before
the sitting memory of man.”
3469. The defendant No.20 (Suit-4)'s written statement
dated 5
th
November, 1989, in paras 7, 27, 32, 37 to 42, 46, 49
and 50, states:
“7. That the contents of paragraph 6-A, 6-B, 6-C, 6-E, 6-
F of the plaint are denied. The building in dispute is a
temple and not a mosque.”
“27. That lord Rama, an incarnation of God, was born
many many thousand years ago in Ayodhya and is birth
place is known as Ram Janam Bhumi or Ram Janma Sthan.
This birth place is worshipped for the last many thousand
years by the Hindu public who believe in divine presence at
Ram Janma Bhumi in Ayodhya and have a devout faith that
by offering worship at that place they are the recipients of
the bounties and blessings of God, and this by itself
constitutes the feature of a temple in Hindu religion.
However, a holy temple stood at this place in ancient times.
At a later stage Maharaja Vikramaditya reconstructed and
resusisticated Ran Janma Bhumi temple and for Hindus it
is a spiritual base of Hindu religion.”
“32. That in a very ancient book known as Ayodhya
Mahatmya (A Guide for Travellers), the original of which
is in Sanskrit but its translation by Ram Narain has been
published in the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,
3440
Vol. 54, Part I, Chapter-I-C-4-1875 Calcutta 1875 states
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 Bhavan, the
Janmasthal. The researchers have concluded that this
ancient book appears to have come into existence during
the tenure of Emperor Akbar. ...”
“37. That there was no mosque even till 1855 is
established from the following narration in Faizabad
Gazetteer 1960 at p. 63, where it is stated as under:-
“In 1855 a serious conflict between Vairagis and the
Muslims at the site of Hanumangarhi in Ayodhya, both
claiming it to be a place of worship connected with their
respective religions. King Wajid Ali Shah is said to have
appointed a Committee to investigate this matter which
held a public meeting in Gulab Bari. It appears that
among those assembled no one testified the existence of the
mosque. Therefore, the Committee unanimously decided
the issue in favour of the Vairagis. When the report of the
Committee reached Lucknow, it caused a sensation among
the Muslims. A Council of action was formed of which
Maulvi Amir Ali of Amethi (District Lucknow) was elected
leader. He was staying at Suhali and succeeded in
attracting a large number of followers. On learning this
the Vairagis started arrangements for the defence of the
place. Wajid Ali Shah then ordered a regiment to guard it.
At last on November 7, 1855 Maulvi Amir Ali started for
Rudauli with his followers. On refusing to retrace his steps
when ordered to do so by Captain Barlow, a fight ensued in
3441
which he and most of his followers were killed.”
The Gazetteer for the above has in the Footnote appended
referred to Kawal-ud-din Haider: Qaisar-ut-Tawarikh or
Tarikh-i-Avadh Part II pp. 110 & 128 Mirza Zan: Radiqa-i-
Shuhda (Lucknow 1772 A.H./1855 AD)”
“38. That in Faizabad Gazetteer of 1905 at page 174 it is
said “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 and open fight occurred, the
Musalmans occupying the Janmasthan in 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. The Hindus then made a counter
attack and stormed the Janmasthan, at the gate of which
seventy five Mussalmans were burried, the spot being
known as the Ganj Shahidan or the martyr’s resting place.
Several of the king’s Regiment were present but their
orders were not to interfere Shortly afterwards Maulvi
Amir Ali of Amethi in Lucknow organized a regular
expedition with the object of destroying the
Hanumangarhi; but he and his forces were stopped in
Barabanki district. It is said that upto this time both
Hindus and Musalmans used to worship in the same
building but since the mutiny the outer closure has been
put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus who are
forbidden their access to the inner yard make their
offerings on a platform which they have raised in the outer
one.”
3442
“39. That in Aine Akbari also no mention of the existence
of Baburi Masjid is to be found.”
“40. That 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
monestries sprang into existence. Naval Rai, the 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 creating popularity of the
Ramcharitra Manas of Tulsidas and the progress of this
place became even more rapid after the annexation of the
Avadh by the British. Before the middle of the nineteenth
century Ayodhya was regarded as a strong hold of
Hinduism.............”
“41. That the following facts also establish that the
mosque in dispute has not been built by Babur at all in
1528 nor in a mosque at all:-
The material of the old temple was largely employed in
building the mosque and a few if the original columns are
still in good preservation. They are of closed grained black
stone (Kasauti) bearing various Hindi Bas-reliefs. The
outer beam of the main structure being of sandal wood, the
height of the columns is 7 to 8 ft., the shape of the base, the
middle section and the capital is square, the rest being
round or octagonal."
“(7) 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 place which is
3443
surrounded on all sides by temples where the sound of
music, of Conch shells or Ghanta Ghariyalis must always
disturb the peace and quiet of the place.”
“42. That the mere displacement in part of the ancient
Hindu temple of Ram Janma Bhumi 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 the Ram Janma Bhumi Sthan, worship
whereat is conducive to the spiritual well being of the
person as the place relates to the birth place of lord Ram
and to constitute temple it is not merely the presence of
idols as such which is required. The acts of vandalism
perpetrated either by Babur or by any other person after
him would not take away the religious sanctity of the place
or destroy the religious belief of the Hindus attached to
that place, nor the place as such could be deemed to be out
of possession of the Hindus as such. As Carnegie puts it
“Ayodhya which is to the Hindus as Macca is to the
Muhammadans, Jerusalem to the Jews.” has in the
traditions of the Orthodox, a highly mythical origin, being
founded for additional security not on earth for that is
transitory but on the chariot wheel of the Great Creater
Himself which will endure for ever.” It is intimately
connected with the mass of legend relating to Ram and
Suryabanshi (solar) race and was certainly the capital of
several reigning dynasties.” It is a place of great antiquity.
According to Hindu mythology, it represents the forehead
of Vishnu and is the chief of the seven cities (Saptapuri) of
pilgrimage in India (See 1960 Faizabad Gazetteer at page
3444
35). The worship at the place has continued since ever
throughout the ages. The Hindus were never out of actual
and legal possession. Their rights always remained and
still exists on the land in dispute.”
“46. That the same Gazetteer Faizabad 1960 records a
very important fact by Sri William Finch when it mentions
as follows at page 50:-
“William Finch, the English merchant who travelled
through the Mughal Empire (1608-1611) says that Avadh is
“a city of ancient note and seat of a Potan King, now much
ruined; the castle built four hundred years ago. Here are
also the ruins of (Rani Chand (s)3 Castle and housed
which the Indians acknowledge for the great God saying
that he took a flesh upon him to see Tamasha of the world.
In these ruins remain certain Brahmans who record the
names of all such Indians as work themselves in the river
running thereby. Which custume, they say, hath continued
four lackes of years (which is three hundred ninety four
hundred thousand and five hundred years before the
world’s creation). At the bottom against the word ‘3’ which
is indicated in the citation against the word ‘Rani Chand’ it
is explained as follows:-
“Rani Chandra, the Hero of Ramayan. The reference is to
the mound known as Ramkot or fort of Ram.”
Thus it shows that after Babur during the time of Akbar,
Ram Janma Bhumi Sthan was being worshipped by the
Hindus which was noticed by the English traveler as well.
It may be mentioned here that Audh was equivalent to
Ayodhya.”
3445
“49. That Babur is alleged not to have made any
endowment or waqf, nor he could. The emperor does not ip
so facto became the owner of the whole earth of which he
may be ruler. There is no such concept that the ruler
becomes the true owner of all the land in his Kingdom ip
so facto. The site in dispute admittedly belongs to Hindus
for the last thousand years. The ruler might have superior
right to levy taxes etc. but could not be deemed to be the
actual owner. In these circumstances, the claim of the
plaintiffs that Babur by annexation, which is emphatically
denied, as there was no annexation as such, became the
owner and made a Waqf when there was no battle between
Babur and Raja of Ayodhya and no question of annexation
of the territories arose. The general religious notions of the
Hindu community prior as well as subsequent to Babur has
always been that the temple and the Janma Bhumi Sthan,
i.e. Ram Janma Bhumi, the birth place of the Creater and
lord Ram, are and have always been for the religious
benefit of the Hindus, for the benefit of the truth and good
as against evils and vices, the worship for which the place
was used and stood dedicated was at no relevant time
displaced, nor taken away and hence neither the plaintiffs
nor the Muslims acquired any rights, title or interest in the
disputed property. In fact Babur had no rights to give
religious place of Ram Janma Bhumi of Hindus in
perpetuity to Muslims or create any rights in favour of
Muslims in perpetuity over the religious place of Hindus,
which is against all cannons of justice, morality and good
conscience. Further a place already dedicated cannot be
3446
rededicated.”
“50. That the birthplace of Ram is only located at one
particular spot in Ayodhya. It cannot be shifted to any
other place in the world. It is in the same position for
Hindus as Macca for Muslims. As Macca cannot be shifted
so Ram Janma Bhumi cannot be shifted. On the basis of
national policy of assigning the weight of a particular
place for a particular religion or a particular community,
the belief and religious feelings of Hindus in this regard be
given supreme importance as a mosque can be built in any
other part.”
3470. The additional written statement dated 17
th
October,
1995 of defendant No.20 (Suit-4) in paras 4, 5 and 7 is as under:
“4. That the disputed land is known as Ran Janma
Bhoomi, which is very sacred for the Hindus from time
immemorial. There was a temple of Hindu deity ‘Ram’ on
the aforesaid land. When Babar invaded India he partly
destroyed the said temple. It is alleged that he had
constructed a mosque. In fact the upper structure was
constructed and remaining temple was left as it is. In this
construction the malba of the temple was used. The pillars
of the temple were also used in the construction. On the
pillars, the figures of Hindu deity & holy signs were
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. The Muslims were not offering
prayer in the disputed structure as there were engraved
figures of Hindu deity on the 14 pillars of the disputed
3447
structure. It is also wrong to say that the Muslims offer
Namaz for last more than 46 years the Muslims never
offered Namazs. The land or place does not become
mosque. Thus the claim of the plaintiff through amendment
that the1.58" disputed land ‘Ran Janam Bhom’ will
become Babari Masjid as the Muslims had offered Namaz
in the structure is wrong and incorrect. It is further stated
that the nature of Ram Janam Bhomi will never be
changed and it shall always remain as Ram Janam Bhomi
even if Muslims have ever offered Namaz in it and it will
not become mosque under the eye of law. It is further
stated that open land is the land of the temple and it can
not be a mosque.”
“5. That by destruction of the structure, the pillars were
also destroyed which were evidence of Hindu Temple. It is
not the destruction of Babri Mosque but a Hindu temple.
The answering defendant No. 20 is entitled to claim the
land in dispute for constructing a temple of Bhagwan Ram
on the disputed land.”
“7. That the building which was alleged as mosque is
demolished and now the land is of the temple of Ram
Janam Bhomi, which was demolished is claimed by the
plaintiff through the amendment. The plaintiff has no right
to claim the land of the temple which is the property of
Hindus.”
3471. Issues No. 14, 15, 22 and 24 (Suit-5) are as under:
Issue No.14 “Whether the disputed structure claimed to be
Babri Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma Sthan
temple at its site.”
3448
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 22
nd
December, 1949 as
alleged by the defendants 4 and 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.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?”
3472. The plaint (Suit-5) in paras 2, 19, 23 and 24 with
respect to above issues said as under:
“2. That the place Sri Rama Janma Bhumi is too well
known at Ayodhya to need any description for purposes of
identification of the subject matter of dispute in this plaint.
However, for greater precision, two site plans of the
building premises and of the adjacent area known as Sri
Rama Janma Bhumi, prepared by Sri Shiv Shankar Lal
pleader, in the discharge of his duty as a commissioner
appointed by the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, in Suit no.
2 of 1950 : Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Verses Sri Zahur
Ahmad and others : along with hi s Report dated
25.5.1950, are being annexed to this plaint and made part
of is as Annexures I, II and III, respectively.”
“19. That it is manifestly established by public records of
unimpeachable authority that the premises in dispute is the
place where Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram Chandra Ji
3449
Maharaj was born as the son of Maharaja Dashrath of the
solar Dynasty, which according to the tradition and the
faith of the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Rama is the place
where HE manifested HIMSELF in human form as an
incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu. The place has since ever
been called Sri Rama Janm Bhumi by all and sundry
through the ages."
“23. That the books of history and public records of
unimpeachable authenticity, established indisputably that
there was an ancient Temple of Maharaja Vikramaditya's
time at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya. That Temple was
destroyed partly and an attempt was made to raise a
mosque thereat, by the force of arms, by Mir Baqi, a
commander of Baber's hordes. The material used was
almost all of it taken from the Temple including its pillars
which were wrought out of Kasauti or touch-stone, with
figures of Hindu gods and godesses carved on them. There
was great resistance by the Hindus and many battles were
fought from time to time by them prevent the completion of
the mosque. To this day it has no minarets, and no place
for storage of water for Vazoo Many lives were lost in
these battles. The last such battle occurred in 1855. Sri
Rama Janma Bhumi, including the buildings raised during
Babar's time by Mir Baqi, was in the possession and
control of Hindus at that time. According to the 1928
Edition of the Fyzabad 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
3450
important Hindu shrines at Ayodhya and little else. These
were the Janmshtan temple, the Swargddwar and the Treta-
ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object of
attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janmasthan
was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In
1528 Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week.
He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a
mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The material of
the old structure were 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
polpit, both are in Persian and bear the date 935 Hijri . . . .
. . and again according to the same Gazetteer (at Page
180) :- “This desecration of the most sacred spot in the
city caused great bitterness led to bloodshed, and in 1855
and open fight occurred, the Musalman occupying the
Janmasthan in force and then making a desperate assault
on the Hanuman Garhi. They charged up the the steps of
the temple, but were driven back with considerable loss.
The Hindus then made counter-attack and stormed the
Janmasthan, at the gate of which seventy-five Musalmans
were buried, the spot being known as the Ganj Shahidan or
the martyr's resting place. Several of the King's regiments
were present, but their orders were not to interfere. Shortly
afterwords Maulvi Amir Ali of Amethi in Lucknow
3451
organised a regular expedition with the object of
destroying the Hanuman Grahi, 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 had been
put up in front of the mosque and the Hindus, who are
forbidden access to the inner yard, make their offerings on
a platform which they have raised in the outer one.”
24. That such a structure raised by the force of arms on
land belongings to the Plaintiffs Deities, after destroying
the ancient Temple situate thereat, with its materials
including the Kasauti pillars with figures of Hindu gods
carved thereon, could not be mosque and did not become
one in spite of the attempts to treat it as a mosque during
the British rule after the annexation of Avadh. Some salient
points with regard thereto are noted below.
(A) According to the Koran, ALLAH spoke to the Prophet
thus--
“ And fight for the religion of GOD against those
who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them
first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors. And kill them
wherever ye find them; and turn them out of that whereof
they have dispossessed you; for temptation to idolatry is
more grievous than slaughter, yet fight not against them in
the holy temple, until they attack you therein; . . . . . . . .”
(B) According to all the Muslim authority and precedents
and the decided cases also. ALLAH never accepts a
dedication of property which does not belong to the Waqf
3452
that is, the person who purports to dedicate property to
ALLAH for purposes recognised as pious or charitable, as
waqf under the Muslim law. By his acts of trespass and
violence for raising a mosque on the site of the Temple
after destroying it by force, Mir Baqi committed a highly
un-Islamic act. His attempts to convert the Temple into a
mosque did not, therefore, create a valid dedication of
property to ALLAH, whether in fact or in law, and it never
became a mosque.
(C) That in spite of all that Mir Baqi tried to do with the
Temple, the land always continued to vest in the Plaintiff
Deities, and they never surrendered their possession over
it. Their possession continued in fact and in law. The
Asthan never went out of the possession of the Deity and
HIS worshippers. They continued to worship HIM through
such symbols as the CHARAN and Sita Rasoi, and the idol
of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN on the
Chabutra, called the Rama Chabutra, within the enclosed
courtyard of the building directly in front of the arched
opening of its Southern dome. No one could enter the
building except after passing through these places if
Hindus worship. According to the Muslim religion and law
there can be no Idol worship within the courtyard of a
mosque and the passage to a mosque must be free and
unobstructed and open at all times to the 'Faithful'. It can
never be through a Hindu place of worship. There can be
no co-sharing of title or possession with ALLAH in the
case of a mosque. His possession must be exclusive.
(G) As already stated, there is no arrangements for storage
3453
of water for Vazoo and there are the Kasauti pillars with
the figures of Hindu Gods and Godesses inscribed thereon
in the building.
3473. The defendant No.3 (Suit-5) disputed various other
aspects, but so far as the claim of the plaintiff that the place in
dispute is birth place of Lord Ram Chandra Ji, has not disputed
the same and in para 5 of his written statement has said as
under:
“5. That the contents of para-2 of the plaint are denied.
The birth place of Rama is not in dispute. The whole
world knows that his birth place is in Ayodhya. Where the
Temple Ram Janma Bhumi stands. It is the temple known
as Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple situate in mohalla Ram Kot
Ayodhya which is in dispute in the various suit transferred
to this Court, which by Muslims is said to be a mosque and
which is claimed by the answering defendants as being the
Temple of Bagwan Shri Ram under his charge and
management, and where of the Nirmohi Akhara is the
Shebait of Bhagwan Shri Ram. Annexure I, II and III are
denied as incorrect. The plaintiffs should submit a fresh
correct and complete plan. Many important places of the
temple have not been shown in the said Annexures. They
pertain to another suit and have no evident value in the
present suit.”
3474. Defendant No.4, (Suit-5) U.P. Sunni Central Board
of Waqfs, Lucknow, deny the aforesaid paragraphs of the plaint
and in paras 13, 14, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35 and 46 of the written
statement has said as under:
13. That the contents of para 13 of the plaint are also
3454
incorrect and hence denied as stated and in reply thereto it
is submitted that the defendant no. 20 had no right or title
or locus standi to move the said application for the
opening of the gate of the mosque for closer Darshan ( and
the defendant no. 20 mosque not at all a party to any of the
aforesaid suits, he had no locus standi to file the Appeal
before the District Judge, Faizabad and the order dated
1.2.1986 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad, was
patently and manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction)
and two writ petition are pending in the Hon'ble High
Court against the afore-said order dated 1.2.1986.
It is further submitted that the building in dispute is
not the Janam Bhoomi of Sri Ram Chandraji and no idols
of Sri Ram Chandraji were ever installed in the said
building and as such there arises no question of any right
or claim of the defendant no. 20 or of anyone else to
perform pooja and Darshan over there. The fact is that the
property in suit is an old mosque known as Babri Masjid
and the same was constructed during the regime of
Emperor Babar.
14. That the contents of para 14 of the plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated and in reply thereto it
is submitted that the buildings in dispute is not a temple
and as such there arises no question of any Pooja and
Darshan being allowed to be performed over there. ( It is
reiterated that the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 are not the deities
recognised by Hindu Law and as such they have no legal
entity)
It is further submitted that since the building in
3455
question is a mosque there arises no question of any new
temple being constructed over the site of the said Babri
Mashid ( and the plaintiffs or anyone else have no right or
locus standi to claim the removal of the old structure of the
said mosque.)
It is also relevant to mention here that neither any
idols were kept in the said mosque prior to the incident of
the night of 22
nd
- 23
rd
December, 1949, when the idols were
surreptitiously or stealthily kept in the mosque by some
mischievous elements and nor the said mosque was ever
used for performing Pooja and Darshan etc. prior to
23.12.49. As the plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 cannot at all be
treated as deities, there is no question of unhappiness of
the so-called deities and their alleged devotees. It is,
however, admitted that there has been unnecessary and
unusual delay in the disposal of the suits referred to above
and on account of the attachment of the mosque for the last
about 39 years the condition of the building has also
deteriorated. The Receiver appointed by the Court is not
taking proper interest in the maintenance of the building
and in spite of the orders of the Court, no repairs of the
building has been undertaken for the last several years.
The answering defendant is, however, not aware of the
alleged mis-appropriation of the money by the staff
appointed by the Receiver The answering defendant is
further advised to state that the alleged desire of removing
the structure of the mosque and of constructing a temple on
the site of the said mosque is wholly uncalled for and
unwarranted and mischievous and an such attempt will be
3456
fraught with very dangerous consequences ( and
instigation of such unholy design and illegal activity also
amounts to offence apart fro being contemptuous) and in
gross violation of the restraint order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in Writ Petition No. 746 of 1986 : Mohd.
Hashim Verses State of U.P. And others.
19. That the contents of para 19 of the Plaint are
absolutely false and incorrect and hence denied as stated.
Neither there is any public record, much less any record of
unimpeachable authority showing that the premises in
dispute is the place of birth of Sri Ram Chandraji and nor
there is any historical or judicial record to testify the
averments of the para under reply. As a matter of fact the
religious books as well as the writing of Hindu scholars
themselves make it very doubtful as to whether the
personality of Sri Ram Chandraji is a historical
personality. Similarly there are several versions about the
place of birth of Sri Ram Chandraji and it is not at all
settled, even amongst the Hindu scholars, as to where and
in what period such a religious leader known as Sri Ram
Chandraji was born. The booklets being circulated at
Ayodhya by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other Hindu
Organizations and other books of Hindu mythology
describe the period of Sri Ram Chandraji as that of Treata
Yug meaning thereby that he was born more than 9 lakh
years ago. According to Hindu mythology, there have been
three Maha Prayleys during this period due to which the
entire earth had submerged into water and as such
according to Hindu mythology itself no specific place can
3457
be said to be the birth place of Sri Ram Chandraji. It is
also pertinent to mention here that greatest authority of
Hindu mythology on Sri Ramchandraji known in the recent
history is that of Goswami Tulsidasji. He had written the
book on Sri Ramchandraji known as Sri Ram Charitra
Manas during the regime of Mughal Emperor Akbar who
was the grandson of Mughal Emperor Babar and it is said
that Sri Goswami Tulsidasji had composed the said Ram
Charitra Manas at a place known as Datun Kund situated
at a distance of about one kilometer from Ayodhya in
district Faizabad and as such had there been any birth
place of Sri Ramchandraji in Ayodhya, Goswami Tulsidasji
must have specifically mentioned about the same in his
Ram Charitra Manas and as a great devotee of Sri
Ramchandraji Goswami Tulsidasji cannot be expected to
have skipped over or concealed or kept quiet over such an
important fact regarding the life history of Sri
Ramchandraji and had there been any iota of truth in the
story of Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi temple being there at
Ayodhya at the site of the Babri Masjid during the regime
of Emperor Babar or prior thereto and had there been any
incident of demolition of any such temple and construction
of Babri Masjid over the same, Goswami Tulsidasji must
have taken up this matter in the Court (Darbar) of
Emperor Akbar and Emperor Akbar must have undone the
alleged wrong and specially so when the Court of Akbar
was full of Advisors, councillors and ministers from Hindu
community and his own Queen was also Jodha Bai. It is
also relevant to mention here that even the location of
3458
present Ayodhya does not tally with the location of
Ayodhya as given in the Balmiki Ramayan and this also
creates doubt about there being any place of birth of Sri
Ramchandraji in the present Ayodhya situated in district
Faizabad. Ayodhya mentioned in the Balmiki Ramayan is
said to be situated at a distance of about 1-1/2 Yojana
(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 also absolutely incorrect to say that there is any
historical or other evidence to the effect that Sri
Ramchandraji had manifested himself in human form at
the place where the idols are presently kept in the mosque
in question.
It is also absolutely incorrect to say that the place
known as Babri Masjid has ever been called as Sri Ram
Janam Bhoomi prior to December, 1949.
23. That the contents of para 23 of the Plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated and in reply thereto it
is submitted that there has never been any temple of
Maharaja Vikramaditya 's time at the site of the Babri
Masjid and no authentic books of history and no public
record of any unimpeachable authenticity can be cited in
this respect. It is also incorrect to say that the mosque in
question was raised at the site of any temple or after
destroying any temple by force and arms. It is also not
correct to say that the material used in the construction of
the said mosque was almost all of it taken from any temple,
and it is also incorrect to say that the pillars of the said
3459
mosque were wrought out of Kasauti or touchstone with
figures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses carved on them. The
fact is that such pillars are available at some other places
also. It is also absolutely false and baseless to suggest that
any resistance was put by the Hindus or any battle was
fought from time to time for prevent the construction of the
mosque. Regarding the shape of the structure of the
mosque it is submitted that there is no requirement of any
mosque and existence of minarets or domes is not at all
required for any mosque and so also there is no necessity
of any place for storage of water for VAZOO for any
mosque although in the close vicinity of Babri Mashid a
well is very much there for taking out water for the
purposes of Vazoo. There are several other mosque in India
and even in Faizabad and Lucknow, which do not have
minarets and even domes and one such mosque is situated
within the premises of Dargah Hazrat Jahangir Samdani in
Kashaucha Shareef District Faizabad in which there are no
domes or minarets and one such mosque exists in the
districts of Lucknow in which there are five five domes but
no minarets. It is also incorrect to say that any life was lost
in any battle fought in respect of Babri Masjid and no
battle in respect thereto has taken place till 1885.
It is also incorrect to say that the building of Babri
Masjid raised during Babar's time had ever remained in
the possession and control of Hindus. The citation of
Faizabad gazetteer given in the para under reply is based
on hearsay information and the same cannot be said to be
in anyway a reliable piece of evidence.
3460
It is also relevant to mention here that bitterness had
been created between Hindus and Muslims in respect of
the mosque situated inside Hanuman Garhi and it was on
the report of the demolition of that mosque that some
Muslims has tried to take up arms under the command of
Maulavi Ameer Ali, but they could not succeed on account
of the army of the Nawab as well as British army posted
for facing their challenge. The expectation of Maulvi
Ameer Ali had, therefore, no concern or connection with
the Babri Masjid and the observations to the contrary in
the gazetteer of Faizabad and Barabanki are, therefore,
totally incorrect and no reliance can be placed upon the
same. It is also incorrect to say that at any point of time
Hindus and Muslims both used to worship in the same
building known as Babri Masjid. Had there been any such
practice of worshipping by both the communities inside the
Babri Masjid, mention of the same should have been made
in the Plaint of he Original Suit No. 61/280 of 1885:
Mahant Rahunath Das Verses Secretary of State & another,
decided on 14.12.85 by the Sub Judge, Faizabad.
24. That the contents of para 24 of the Plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated. At no point of time
there ever existed any temple at the site of the Babri
Masjid and it is absolutely incorrect to say that the said
mosque was constructed, after destroying any ancient
temple, with the material of the alleged temple. The
mosque in question has always been used as a mosque
since its construction during the regime of Emperor Babar.
The contents of the sub-paras (A) to (G) of the para
3461
under reply are also incorrect and the same are also
denied as stated:
(B) That the contents of para 24(B) of the Plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated. The land in question
undoubtedly belonged to the State when the mosque in
question was constructed on behalf of the State and as
such it cannot be said that it could not be dedicated for the
purposes of the mosque. Emperor Babar was a Sunni
Muslim and the vacant land on which the Babari Masjid
was built lay in his territory and did not belong to anyone
and it could very well be used by his officers for the
purposes of the mosque and specially so when the Emperor
Babar himself consented and gave approval for the
construction of the said mosque. It is absolutely incorrect
to say that the site in question was the site of any temple
and any temple was destroyed by Meer Baqi. Had nay such
incident of demolition of any temple taken place, the same
must have been reported in any authentic book of Mughal
history but no such incident finds mention in any authentic
book of history and as such it is mosque in question was
constructed was constructed at the site of any temple.
(C) That the contents of para 24(C) of the Plaint are also
absolutely false and in correct and hence denied as stated.
No temple had ever existed at the site of the said mosque
and there is no question of vesting of the size in any
alleged deity. Similarly no Asthan and deity could be said
to have ever existed over there and as such there arises no
question of the possession of any deity or Asthan on the
sire in question. The alleged Ram Chabutra has also not
3462
remained in existence since the time of Babar but rather
the same is the creation of around 1857 period.
It is also incorrect to say that the entry of the mosque
could not be possible except after passing through any
place of Hindu worship. The concept of the mosque has
also been wrongly and incorrectly described in the para
under reply.
(D) That the contents of para 24(D) of the Plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated. There is no such
requirement for the construction of any mosque – that the
same should be built in a place of peace and quiet and
near to a place where there is a sizeable Muslim
population. It is also incorrect to say that the mosque
cannot be built in a place which is surrounded by temples,
where the sound of music and Konch shell, Ghante
Gharyal disturbs the peace and quiet of the place.
33. That the contents of para 33 of the Plaint are also
incorrect and hence denied as stated. Neither there is any
Presiding Deity of Plaintiff No.1 and nor here are other
deities over the premises in question and I is also incorrect
to say that the so-called Charan (footsteps) and Sita
Rasoee etc. constitute one integral complex and have a
single identity. It is also incorrect to say that the claim of
the Muslims is confined to the building and the areas
enclosed within inner boundary wall. The area being
claimed by the Muslims is mentioned very specifically in
the Plaint of Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 and the
description of the same can in no way be said to be vague
and undefined. It is also incorrect to say that there are no
3463
graves in the vicinity of the said mosque for the last fifty
years. It is not at all admitted that the defendant no. 3 is
the present mutvalli of the Babri Masjid since before 1948.
At present the said mosque has got a Managing Committee
appointed by the answering defendant. It is also incorrect
to say that only a mutvalli of the mosque can sue for its
possession. The Board is a statutory Board having been
created by the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1936 and now
continuing under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960. The
Waqf Act of 1960 was also passed to provide for better
governance and administration and and supervision of the
waqfs in Uttar Pradesh, and under section 19 of the said
waqf Act, 1960 the Board has got the power of general
supervision of all the waqfs and it is the duty of the Board
to do all things reasonable or necessary to ensure that the
waqfs under its superintendence are properly maintained,
controlled and administered and under section 19(2)(4),
the Board has also been conferred with the power to
institute and defend suit and proceedings in any Court of
Law relating to all waqfs. ( It is, therefore, absolutely
incorrect t say that the Board or other Muslims associated
with the management and administration of the mosque in
question count not file the suit or possession registered as
Regular Suit. No. 12 of 1985.
35. That the contents of para 35 of the Plaint are quite
vague and ambiguous and also incorrect and hence denied
as stated. There can be no dispute to the averments that all
human beings including the Muslims and Hindus are the
creation of once and the same God and the plaintiffs of
3464
Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 as well as other Muslims also
believe in the policy of living in amity and goodwill with
members of all communities and religious denomination.
That does not mean that the gesture of goodwill and amity
should be shown to such persons who are bent upon
demolishing the mosque. It is also incorrect to say that the
site in question has got anything to do with the place of
birth of Sri Ramchandraji and as such the same has got no
significance of alleged Asthan Sri Ramchandra Janam
Bhoomi. The entire propaganda and publicity being
carried out by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Ram Janam
Bhoomi Yagya Samiti and their associates and allied
bodies in this respect is nothing but sheer concoction and
this is being done with the vested interests and political
ambitions and as such it is not at all difficult for the
plaintiffs of Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 to abandon their
claim over the mosque in question and to construct a
magnificent and grand temple of Sri Ramchandraji at any
other free site which may not be the property of any other
person or community. It is also incorrect to say that under
the tenets of Muslims law the mosque can be shifted under
certain circumstances.
46. That even the reports of the 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. And also there appear to be no symptoms of any
Fort or Palace or Old temple being there at the site of the
Babri Masjid.”
3475. Defendant No.5 (Suit-5) has also disputed the entire
3465
claim of plaintiff (Suit 5), vide written statement dated 14/21
August, 1989, and in paras 2, 15, 23, 24, 34, 40, 47, 50, 51, 52,
53, 55, 67 and 69 has said :
“2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaints are denied.
The area and the places indicated in Annexure Nos. 1, 2
and 3 of the plaint are neither Ram Janam Bhoomi nor
Ram Janam Asthan. However, it is evident that there exists
a mosque known as Babri Masjid, the existence of this
mosque is established by record, Historic, Judicial and
Revenue. The filing of the suit No.2 of 1950 are not denied.
However, the suit is wholly misconceived. The plaintiff of
suit. no. 2of 1950 had no legal right and the suit is
misconceived.
15. That the contents of para 15 of the plaint are denied.
There is no question of construction of any temple over the
site in question. Answering defendant and his co-religionist
have a right to resist any such attempt. There is no question
of any management of the so called temple. The premises is
a mosque and Muslims have a right to offer namaz in it and
U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf has a right to supervise
and manage it. Neither Jagadguru has any right or locus in
the matter and nor he can execute any deed legally in
respect of the premises in question. The answering
defendant is not aware of the religious sect of the so called
vairagies of Ayodhya.
23. That the contents of para 23 of the plaint are denied the
narration of history in the plaint is false and baseless no
authentic book of history has been referred in the plaint.
The premises has always been a mosque since its
3466
construction in sixteenth century, it has always been used
by the Muslim for offering namaz and for no other
purpose. Remark in the gazette is no authentic record of
history. It is only a generalised observation, the Gazette
also does not make any reference of any authentic history
or record. The pillars are not of Kasauti. However, it is not
relevant as the fact remains that it is a mosque and has
always been used as a mosque and it is wholly incorrect
that anybody else other than Muslims worshipped in the
building which is called Babri Masjid. The narration of
history by the plaintiff is baseless and false. There is no
evidence of the demolition of any temple for the
construction of this mosque.
24. That the contents of para 24 of the plaint are
vehemently denied, the quotation from Holy Quran has
been incorrectly quoted and the same is out of context.
There is no evidence of demolition of any temple. The
contents of sub-paras are also denied, on the bases of
judicial records and other evidence, it is clear that the
premises in question has always been a mosque in which
Muslim had been offering regular namaz upto 22
nd
December, 1949. No specific shape or specific design has
been prescribed for the mosque in Islam. The shapes and
architectural design of the mosque vary in different parts of
the world and even in India. The Ganj-e-Shahidaan also
belong to Muslims and vests in God Almighty. The plaintiff
has misrepresented about the contents of suit No. 12 of
1961. The claim in the contents are clear in the plaint of
suit No. 12 of 1961, there is also a pucca well outside the
3467
mosque for 'Vazoo'.
34. That the contents of para 34 of the plaint are
vehemently denied. The premises has always been a
mosque and it has been used as such and no one remove
the structure.
40. That according to the inscription in the mosque, the
said Babri Masjid was constructed by Mir Baqui, one of
the commanders of the Babar in 1528 and since then it
has been in use as mosque and the Muslims always
regularly offered namaz in it till the attachment.
47. That Babri Masjid (building in question) has always
been a mosque and used as such, and only Muslims have
right to offer Namaz in it and U.P. Sunni Central Board of
Waqf has a right of supervision and control.
50. That Lord Rama in whose name the controversy in
question has been created, according to authoritative texts
of the historians and other scholar of Hindu Religion is
mere an epic and imaginary figure and was never in
experience. In India there have been authoritative
pronouncements by the various historians and also by
the seminars and symposium that Lord Rama never
existed. It is mere an epic, besides above no period and
place could be fixed till this date. After long research
Holy Barahmins have come to conclusion that it is all
mere an epic and legend.
51. That as per Balmiki's Ramayan which is supposed to
be the only authoritative source of Lord Rama, the city
of Ayodhya where the property in question situates is not
the place described in that book. The averment that at the
3468
site of of Babri Masjid there was some temple which was
demolished at the behest of Babar is absolutely incorrect
and false. Shri Tulsidas who by his book Ram Charit
Manas has elevated the status of Lord Rama from
Mariyada Prushottam to Bhagwan has not written about
the demolition of any such temple in his book which was
written after construction of Babri Masjid, at the Datoon
Kund in Ayodhya itself which situates at a short distance
from the Babri Masjid. Before Tulsi's Ram Charit Manas,
there were temples of other gods and goddess and as such
the contention regarding demolition of Ram Mandir is
absolutely baseless and has been designed-ly thatched up
to creates communal disharmony and hatred between the
two communities.
52. That the recent scientist investigation a, c-14 test
which is radio carbon dating method has revealed the
stones used in the building in question are less than 500
years in age and this falsifies the claim that the temple was
demolished and by the same material the mosque was
built, however, it is clarified that all such averments made
in the plaint are absolutely of no consequence in Courts of
Law.
53. That property in question is continuously recorded as
graveyard and mosque in the revenue records from prior to
first settlement and the said entry coming unchallenged
and there being three Settlement also now the entries in
revenue records are final and can not be questioned.
55. That initially there was provided a cash grant from the
period of King Emperor and after British Rule in lieu of
3469
the said cash grant Zamindari of Villag Shanavan,
Bhoranpur and Sholipur was given for the Babri Masjid
and the masjid in question was inter alia maintained by the
income of said Zamindari property and the salary of Imam
and Moazin etc. was paid and other expenses were also
made.
67. That there has been no concern of Lord Rama, Janki or
of any person having faith in them with the land in question
over which exists the Babri Masjid and adjoining area of
grave yard. Admittedly the Mosque being in existence
since 1528 and the deads having been burried the same
could not be subject matter of any other type of Puja in
Practice and ASTHA if any if the same could survive from
1528 onwards till this date without any access to the place
in no circumstances that Astha could not give a right for
demolition of the Mosque and the place where the deads or
burried could not be purified to be used for any other
purposes.
69. That just the mosque was built and the deads were
burried the site became waqf property vested in Almighty
God and it will remain so vested eternally and the property
once vested in the God can not be a mosque to the depth of
the earth and even above the same and can not be removed
or shifted to any other place at all. No person on the earth
can accord a permission for its removal or shifting.”
3476. Defendants No.11 and 17 (Suit-5) in written
statement dated 14
th
August, 1989 have supported the plaintiff's
suit.
3477. The defendant No.23 (Suit-5) vide written statement
3470
dated 18
th
September, 1989 has contested the entire suit and in
paras 51 and 57 has said:
r·. ¤r l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ·¬ ¤ ¬-¤l-n r ¬i º ¬ ··| · ··¤ «i ·
¬-nº ¤ · ’i ¬ªi·+ - «ni º ·¬ ¤ ·¬ r ¬i º ;¬ l¬¬l¬¬ -
¬·i¬n l¬l·¬ ¬¬ ¤ ¬i«i· - - ¬ ·-i ¤¬ ¬º ¤ ¬¬i ri ¤ ¬i r
¬iº ¬¬ ºl¬-- ’i· ¬ rº ºiª¬ ¤i«·· r |
“51. That the Babri Mosque is a waqf property and it is
recorded as waqf with the Sunni & Waqf Board, Uttar
Pradesh at Lucknow, and judgement in this regard had
come after proceedings at Civil Judgeship, Faizabad and
everybody is bound by that registration.”
(E.T.C.)
r/. ¤r l¬ ¬| ºi- ¤·· ¬| ¬| ¬i ·i| ºiªil¬¤nnri ¬·¬ ·i- ¬i
¬·- -·ii· -l··º ¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬-nº ¬i º ¬· ¬ ¬
¬-nº ¤r¬ ¬ ¬i¤- ¤¬i ¬i ºri r ¬i º ¬¬ ¬ -r·n · ¤ ¬iº| ¬«
¬i n r | ·i·| · o s ¬i ¬¬¬ ¬i ; ni¬~¬ ¬ ·r| r |
“57. That the locus of Sri Ram Chandra's identity,
whatsoever, Ayodhya situated Janmsthan Mandir named
after him, has already been existing to the north of the
disputed site and also of the road, and all the people are its
Mahantas and priests. Plaintiff no. 3 has no relation to
it.”(E.T.C.)
3478. Defendant No.24 (Suit-5) while contesting the suit,
in para 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 26 and 31 has said :
“2. That as regards the contents of para 2 thereof the
answering defendant has no knowledge of Sri Rama
Janam Bhoomi, by which is meant the exact spot of
birth of Lord Rama. The site plans referred are alleged to
be the part of court record, which can be verified by the
Court, and are not admitted to be correct. Today, there are
3471
atleast three spots in Ayodhya claimed as the exact spots
where Lord Rama was born, viz.:
(a) The Spot being presently claimed by the plaintiff is
being made known as Ram Janam Bhoomi only since
22.12.1949.
(b) The Ram Chabutra, in the court-yard outside the
Babri Masjid structure, is being known as Ram Janam
Bhoomi only since time immemorial.
The last 2 mentioned spots have not been
abandoned by the believing devotees in Ayodhya.
11. The claim in paragraph 19 of the suit paint that “ the
premises in dispute is the palce where Maryada
Purushottam Sri Ram Chandraji Maharaj was born” is
denied and contested. This defendant submits that only
since 22 December, 1949, about 40 years ago, such a belief
has come into existence. If nay documentary or recorded
evidence is produced by the plaintiff no.3 establishing
beyond doubt that the present belief existed before
22.12.1949 also, this defendant will surrender all his
opposition.
12. In this connection, this defendant further submits that
when the Babri Masjid was being constructed in 1528 A.D.
no such belief existed in Ayodhya, or elsewhere that the
place where the mosque was being built was Ram Janam
Bhoomi. Goswami Sant Tulsidas, The great biographer of
Lord Ram was alive then, and wrote his epic biography
“Ram Charit Manas” about the year 1558 A.D., but did
not complaint that Babri Masjid was built on Ram Janam
Asthan. The book Ram Charit Manas is a pulic document.
3472
In an earlier period, Valmiki wrote perhaps the first
Ramayana. He also did not identify the presently
contentious spot as Ram Janam Asthan.
In none of the several Ramayans is several
languages, the said contentious spot has been mentioned
as the place of birth of Lord Ram.
14. Religious sentiments of Plaintiff No. 3 contained in
para 22 of the Suit Plaint are respected but the following
passage it it is strongly contested :
“The place is deity. It as existed in this immovable
form through the ages, and has ever been a juridical
person. . . . . . Thus Asthan Sri Rama Janam Bhumi is an
indestructible and immovable Deity who has continued to
exist throughout the ages.”
Fact of the whole matter is that idea of Rama
Janmsthan 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 he
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 Chabutra and by giving it to the Hindus
to do “paaths” of Ramayana, peace was then restored.
Again, for the first time on 22.12.1949 the Ram
Janam Asthan claim was shifted from Ram Chabutra to
right inside the mosque just beneath the main large dome
of the Babri Masjid.
Earlier than 1855, the undisputed Ram Janm Asthan
3473
was the old Janam Asthan Sita Rasoi Mandir across the
street on a mound facing the Babri Masjid.
All the above mentioned three Ram Janam Asthans
are now believed to be Lord Rama's probable places of
birth, viz. (i) inside the Babri Masjid beneath the main
dome since 1949, (ii) at Ram Chabutra in the court-yard of
the Babri Masjid since 1855, (iii) at the old Ram Janam
Asthan Mandir where Sita Rasoi is also situated, and
whose present Mahant is Harihar Das, aged over 100
years.
15. That the statements made in the first two sentences of
paragraph no. 23 of the Plaint are the most important, and
all Muslims of India are wiling to make that as the issue
and settle the dispute one way or other at this. Paragraph
No. 23 opens thus :
“That the books of history and public records of
unimpeachable authenticity establish indisputably that
there was an ancient temple of Maharaja Vikramaditya's
time of Sri Rama Janam Bhumi Ayodhya. That Temple was
destroyed partly and an attempt was made to raise a
mosque thereat by the force of arms, by Mir Baqia
commander of Babar's hordes.”
The plaintiff No. 3 – Sri Deoko Nandan Agarwal, in
a booklet named “Sri Rama Janam Bhumi” published by
“Sri Ram Janam Mukti Yagna Samiti”, 58 Rajendra Nagar,
Lucknow, has written at page 2 as follows :-
“That there was an ancient Temple of Maharaja
Vikramaditya's time at Sri Rama Janam Bhumi is a fact of
history, which is indisputable, although there is some
3474
controversy as to which of the Vikramaditya resurrected
the place and built the magnificent Temple.”
In paragraph no. 23 of the Suit Plaint there is a
reference to 1928 Edition of the Fyzabad Gazetteer
published by the then British Government in Uttar
Pradesh, wherein at page 179 there are stories of Moghul
Emperor Babar coming to Ayodhya, halting there for a
week, destroying the ancient temple at Janamsthan, and
building the Babri mosque on its site the materials of the
old destroyed Mandir. But it is the known fact of the history
that Emperor Babar never came to Ayodhyan. And that the
Babri mosque was built by Mir Baqi and not by Babar has
been admitted in the Suit Plaint itself. Further-more, Babar
in his Babar-nama, while recording his daily diary, has
made no mention of visiting Ayodhya, destroying Mandir
or building Mosque there, although in other pages of
Babarnama many things adverse are also mentioned.
But the Fyzabad Gazetteer of 1877, this Defendant
submits, does not contain any mention of destruction of any
Mandir and building of Babri or any Masjid on the Mandir
land. Of the two Gazetteers, the one contemporary ad more
near to the date concerned will have to be relied on.
District Gazetteer of the British Government, as is
well known, were no works of history. They only reflected
the policy of the alien Government to divide the cast
population of India by creating conflicts such as the
present one, and to perpetuate the minority rule of the
foreign imperialist power. This defendant submits that all
the aforesaid and other conflicting facts need to be
3475
investigated by this Hon'ble Court or by a Commission of
Experts of history and archaeology to arrive at the truth.
However, after all said and done, it is most
respectfully submitted that if only this claim is proved that
a Mandir was demolished and Babri Masjid was built on
the Mandir land, this defendant and all other Muslims will
gladly demolish and shift the mosque, and return the land
for building thereon.
But if this is not a fact, the Babri Masjid must in all
fairness be returned to Muslims.
In this connection, the following quotation of Swami
Swaroopananda Saraswati, the Shaneracharya of Dwarka
Peeth, and published in the national news-paper on 14
th
May, 1987, is being re-produced below from Qaomi Awaj –
Urdu Daily of Lucknow :
CONDITION FOR RETURN OF BABRI MASJID TO
MUSLIMS:
Pune (Maharashtra) 13 May -
Jagadguru Shanakra-charya Swaroopananda
Saraswati has proposed that to resolve the Ram Janam
Bhumi Babri Masjid table an Authority should be
constituted.
Addressing a gathering of the All India Virodhman
Asthan Kwasi Jain Shraman Sangh here yesterday he said
that if it is proved that Moghul Emperor Babar got the
mosque constructed after demolishing Mandir, then surely
the Hindus should get the Mandir. But if it is found that
Hindu Administrators made the Mandir after destroying
the mosque, then the place will have to be made over to
3476
Muslims.”
In this connection, the celebrates Muslim historian
and scholar Maulana Syed Sababuddin Abdur Rahman
(since expired) in his welknown treatise “BABRI MASJID”
wrote at page 5 at the very beginning of his preface thus :
(translation from Urdu)
“On behalf of Muslims I also have right to say that if
it is proved that Babri Masjid has been built after
demolishin Ram Janam Bhoomi Mandir on its place, then
such a mosque if built on such an usrped land deserves to
be destroyed. No theologean or Aalim can give Fatwa to
hold Namaz in it.”
In the monumental theological work Fatwa-e-
Alamgiri, Volume 6 Page 214, the following is the ruling :
(translation).
“It is not permissible to built mosque on unlawfully
acquired land. There may be many forms of unlawful
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.”
Other assertions made in paragraph 23 of the Plaint,
not specifically dealt with above, are contested and denied.
16. Parts of the contents of paragraph 24 of the Suit Plaint
have been answered in para 15 above. This defendant
submits that Plaintiff No. 3 is not competent to interpret
Koran, Islamic Shariat, and Islamic custom and practices
which he has tried to do in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E,
F and G of paragraph 24. The interpretations given are
3477
strongly contested. The contentions in the Suit Plaint in
this regard are wholly irrelevant with the points at issue.
This defendant states :
(A) That Emperor Babar or Mir Baqi did not destroy or
demolish any Mandir.
(B) Emperor Babar or his commander Mir Baqi did not
construct the mosque on the land of on the ruins of any
Mandir. Mir Baqi built the Babri Masjid on vacant land.
(C) Sanctity of Babri Mosque was not affected by the
creation of Ram Chabutra on the courtyard, or by the
mosque being surrounded by Mandirs.
(D) There is no tenet of Islam against existence of a
mosque in a noisy place, or in a non-Muslim locality.
(E) Minaret is no essential part of a mosque/
(F) Non-existence of a water reservoir in it does not
make a mosque as no mosque.
Finally speaking, if it is not a mosque how it is
claimed that mosque was built after destroying the Mandir.
26. That as regards the contents of paragraph 34 and 35 of
the Suit Plaint, the answering defendant being a
representative of the Shia Muslims of India is deadly
against any form of sacrilegious actions. He is of the firm
view that no place of worship of any religion should be
constructed on the ruins of the destroyed one. The
answering defendant firmly believes that the Babri Masjid
was certainly not built after destroying the Vikramaditya
Mandir or any temple. Yet, at the same time if it is
unequivocally proved in this Hon'ble Court in the light of
historical archaeological and expert scientific evidence
3478
that the Babri masjid was really built after demolishing
any Mandir land, only then this defendant will withdraw
his opposition.
As a further concession to the Plaintiff No. 3 and to
the Hindu community of India whose religious sentiments
the said Plaintiff and his party are trying to wrongly
arouse since last 3 years, this Defendant is prepared to
withdraw his opposition also if it is unequivocally proved,
in this Hon'ble Court that the belief, of Ram Janam Asthan
being at the presently claimed spot inside the Babri
Masjid, existed from before the Babri Masjid was built .
And that the Babri Masjid was knowingly built n Ram
Janam Asthan spot.
31. Once it is admitted that a mosque was built hundreds
of years ago and was used as such it became Waqf by user,
irrespective of the fact whether or not legal formalities for
creating a Waqf were observed.”
3479. Defendant No.25 (Suit-5) in the written statement
dated 16/18 September, 1989, in paras 2, 15, 23, 26, 33 and 34
has said :
“2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are denied. The
area and the places indicated in Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 of
the plaint are neither Ram Janam Bhoomi nor Ram Janam
Asthan. However, it is evident that there exists a Mosque
known as Babri Masjid, the existence of this mosque is
established by record, Historic, Judicial and Revenue. The
filing of the Suit no. 2 of 1950 are not denied.
15. That the contents of para 15 of the plaint are denied.
There is no question of construction of any temple over the
3479
site in question. Answering defendant and his co-
religionists have a right to resist any such attempts. The
premises is a mosque and Muslims have a right to offer
namaz in it. Neither Jagadguru has any right or locus in
the matter and nor he can execute any deed legally in
respect of the premises in question. The answering
defendant is not aware of the religious sect of the so called
vairagies of Ayodhya.
23. That the contents of para 23 of the plaint are denied.
The narration of history in the plaint is false and baseless.
No authentic book of history has been referred in the
plaint. The premises has always been a mosque since its
construction in sixteenth century, it has always been used
by the Muslims for offering namaz and for no other
purpose. Remark in the gazette is not an authentic record
of history. It is only generalised observation, the Gazette
also does not make any reference of nay authentic history
or record. The pillars are not Kasauti. However, it is not
relevant as the fact remains that it is a mosque, and has
always been used as mosque and it is wholly incorrect that
anybody else other that Muslims worshipped in the
building which is called Babri Mashid. The narration of
history by the plaintiff is baseless and false. There is no
evidence of the demolition of any temple for construction of
this mosque.
26. That the contents of para 26 of the plaint are
vehemently denied. The building known as Babri Masjid
has always been in use as a mosque and the Muslims have
offered namaz in it since its construction till 22
nd
3480
December, 1949. Some of those who offered namaz in it are
still available. Some part of the mosque was damaged in
the communal riot of 1934 and the same was repaired soon
thereafter. The threat contained it the para under reply is
most unwarranted. There is no dispute between Shias and
Sunnis over the mosque in question. Mosque is vested in
almighty and every Muslim (Shia and Sunni) have the right
to offer Namaz in nay Masjid. The averment in the para
under reply are wholly incorrect and false.
33. That the contents of para 33 of the plaint are denied. It
may be pointed out that the entire complex belongs to Waqf
Babri Masjid, the existence of which cannot be denied.
34. That the contents of para 34 of the plaint are
vehemently denied. The premises has always been a
mosque and it has been used as such and no one can
remove the structure.”
3480. Voluminous documentary and oral evidence has
been adduced, besides referring a plethora of books on the
subject of history, religion, culture, archaeology, architecture,
gazetteer etc. to prove rival submissions. The learned counsels
for the parties however have not specified and identified
evidence separately with reference to the above issues. In
general they have advanced their submissions referring to the
evidence (documentary and oral, as well as the concerned
books) the details whereof shall be mentioned later on.
3481. Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Mohd. Siddiqui and Syed Anwar
Ahmad have appeared and argued for plaintiffs (Suit 4), Sunni
Waqf Board and other Muslim defendants in other suits while
Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sri P.R. Ganpathy Iyer and K.N.Bhatt
3481
(Sr. Advocates), Sri P.N. Mishra, R.L.Verma, Madan Mohan
Pandey, Rakesh Pandey, Hari Shankar Jain, Ranjana Agnihotri,
A.K.Pandey, Ved Prakash, Tarun Verma and D.P.Gupta
Advocates have advanced their submissions for various Hindu
Parties.
3482. Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate, counsels for the
plaintiffs (Suit-4), contended that the published material, which
may throw light on the above issues, may be categorized in five:
(i) Books of History;
(ii) Books containing Travellers account;
(iii) Gazetteers (published in pre-independence and post-
independence era);
(iv) The religious books ; &
(v) Archaeology, Iconography, Architecture and others.
3483. In the first category, the books of history, he referred
to the following:
(i) “Babar-Nama” by John Leyden and Erskin (Ex. 48,
Suit-5 -Paper No. 107C-1/64-68)
(ii) “Babur-Nama (Memoirs of Babur)” by A.S. Beveridge
(Ex. 16, Suit-5 -Paper No. 107C1/71-74)
(iii) “Memoirs of Babur” by Lt. Col.F.G. Talbot (Ex. 82,
Suit-4 -Paper No. 218 C1/ 1- 20)
(iv) “Mughal Kaleen Bharat-'Babar'1526-1530 A.D.” by
Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi (Ex. 85, Suit-4-Paper No. 224
C1/1–62)
(v) “Ain-e-Akbari” by Abul Fazal Allami translated in
English by Col. H.S. Jarret in 1884 A.D., corrected and
further annoted by Sri Jadunath Sarkar first published in
1927 A.D. (Ex. D1, Suit-5-Paper No. 320C1/1-6-; Paper
3482
No. 321 C1/3)
(vi) “Ayodhya ka Itihas” by Awadhwasi Lala Sitaram
published in 1932 A.D. (Ex-50, Suit-5 -Paper No.
107C1/122-129)
(vii) “Sri Ram Janam Bhumi Aitihasik Avam Puratativik
Sakshya” by T.P. Verma and S.P.Gupta (Ex. 3, Suit-5-
Paper No. 289C1/1)
(viii) “Itihas Me Ramjanambhumi” by Rajendra Singh
(published in March, 1991) (Ex. B4, Suit-4-Paper No.
206C1)
(ix) “Ramjanambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas” by Pt.
Radhey Shyam
(x) “Babur Nama” by Yugjeet Naval Puri published in
1974 (Hindi translation of “Memoirs of Babar” written in
english by F.G.Talbot)
(xi) “Ayodhya” by Han's Baker published in 1986.
(xii) “Shri Ramjanambhumi Pramanik Itihas” by Radhey
Shyam Shukla (Ex. 24, Suit-5-Paper No. 107C1/154)
(xiii) “Fasana-i-Ibrat” by Rajab Ali Beg Surur
(xiv) “Amir Ali Shaheed Aur Marka-I-Hanuman Garhi”
by Shah Mohd. Azmat Ali Alvi Kakorvi
(xv) “Zia-I-Akhtar: by Hazi Mohd. Hasan (1878)
(xvi) “Sri Ramjanambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas” by Sri
Ram Raksha Tripathi “Nirbheek” (Paper No. 110C1/52-
54)
(xvii) “Sri Ramjanambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas” by
Ram Gopal Pandey “Sharad” (Paper No. 44 C1/1-8)
(xviii) “Society and Culture in Northern India in the 12
th
Century” by B.N.S. Yadav (Paper No. 300 C1/2)
3483
(xix) “The History of India As told by its own Historian”
Elliot & Dowson (Ex. 87, Suit-4 -Paper No. 242 C1/1-5;
Ex. 89, Suit-4 -Paper No. 246C1/1-7)
(xx) Sharki Architecture (Paper No. 301C1/1)
(xxi) “Mughal Empire in India” by Prof. S.R. Sharma
(first published in 1934)
(xxii) “Destruction and Conservation of Cultural
Property” (2001) (Paper No. 308C1/1-9)
(xxiii) “The Religious Policy of Mughals” (Paper No. 284
C1/1)
(xxiv) “Historians Report to the Indian Nation” by R.S.
Sharma, M. Athar Ali, Suraj Bhan and D.N. Jha (Paper
No. 288C1/1; Paper No. 190C2/1-20; Ex. 62, Suit-4-Paper
No. 190C2/1-20)
(xxv) “India Distorted - A Study of British Historians on
India” Vol. III by S. C. Mittal (Ex. E5, Suit-5-Paper No.
323 C1/1-25)
(xxvi) “The Early History of India” by Vincent A. Smith
(Ex. E6, Suit-5-Paper No. 324C1/1-28)
(xxvii) “Journey through the Kingdom of Oudh in 1849-
1850” (Published in 1858) (Paper No. 311 C1/1-10)
(xxviii) “A Clash of Cultures; Oudh, the British and the
Mughals” by Michel H. Fisher (Ex. 25, Suit-5-Paper No.
107 C1/155-164)
(xxix) “British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance” -
Part II by Dr. R.C. Majoomdar and others (Ex. D3, Suit-5
-Paper No. 313C1/1-14)
(xxx) “Encyclopedia Britannica” 1976 Edition (Paper No.
107C1/120)
3484
(xxxi) “Hindu World-Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism”
by Benjamin Walker (Ex. 4, Suit-5 -Paper No.
310C1/7/1-)
(xxxii) “Babri Masjid Kee Wajyabee Ke Liye” by Mohd.
Hashim Ansari (Ex. 37, Suit-5-Paper No. 255C1/2/1-20)
(xxxiii) “Ram Janam Bhumi Ya Babri Masjid-Satya Kya
Hai” published by Maktaba Islami Fyzabad (Ex. 41, Suit-
5-Paper No. 255C1/12)
(xxxiv) “Ramayana” by Sri Raj Gopala Charya (Paper No.
110C1/60-67)
3484. In the category of “Travellers account” he cited
“Early Travels in India” edited by “William Foster” (Paper No.
107C1/95-Ex. 19, Suit-5) (The chapter relating to India's travel
in 17
th
Century in 1611 AD by William Finch).
3485. In the category of “Gazetteers”, Sri Jilani refers to
the following :
(i) “The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of
Eastern India” by Robort Montgomry Martin (Vol-II) (first
published in 1838 AD) (Ex. 20, Suit-5-Paper No. 107
C1/109-110)
(ii) “A Gazetteer of Territories under the Government of
East- India Company and of the native States on the
Continent of India” (Thornton's Gazetteer “1858 A.D.”)
Pages No.739 and 740 of the aforesaid Gazetteer have
been filed by plaintiffs (Suit-5) as Papers No.107C1/10-11
i.e. Exhibit No.5 (Suit -5) (Register Volume 20 Page 21-
23).
(iii) “Archaeological Survey of India- Four Reports made
during the years 1862-63-64-65” by Alexander
3485
Cunningham, Director General of the Archaeological
Survey of India (First Published in 1871) (Paper No.
107C1/12-16A i.e. Ex. 6, Suit 5; Paper No. 258C1/1)
(iv) “A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah
Fyzabad” by P.Carenegy (Paper No.107C1-23 i.e. Ex. 49,
Suit-5).
(v) Gazetteers of Provinces of Audh by W.C.Benett
(Published in 1877 A.D.) (Ex. 7, Suit-5-Paper No.
107C1/25-26)
(vi) “Report on the Settlement of Land Revenue of the
Faizabad District” by A.F. Millett (1880 A.D.) ( Ex. 8,
Suit-5-Paper No. 107C1/27-30A)
(vii) “The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the
north western provinces and Oudh” by A. Fuhror
(Archaeological Survey of North Western Provinces of
Oudh) (Published in 1891 A.D.)(Ex. 9, Suit-5-Paper No.
107C1/33)
(viii) “Imperial Gazetteer of India (Provisional Series)
(United Provinces of Agra and Oudh)” -Vol-II (published
in 1908 A.D.) (Ex. 10, Suit-5-Paper No. 107C1/37-39)
(ix) “Fyzabad Gazetteer being Vol.-XLIII of the District
Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh” by
H.R. Nevill (published in 1905 A.D.) (Ex. 11, Suit-5-
Paper No. 107C1/42-48)
(x) “Gazetteers of Faizabad” by H.R. Navill (published in
1928 A.D.) (Ex. 12, Suit-5-Paper No. 107C1/49-53)
(xi) “Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers -Faizabad” by Smt.
Esha Basanti Joshi (Published in 1960 A.D.)
3486. In the category of “books of religion” he referred
3486
to :-
(i) Balmiki “Ramayana” (Ex. J2/1, Suit-4-Paper No.
261C1/1; Ex. J2/2, Suit-4-Paper No. 261C1/2-)
(ii) “Ramcharit Manas” by Goswami Tulsidas (Ex. 42,
Suit-5-Paper No. 258C1). Photocopy of the frontispiece
and pages no. 921, 927, 940, 941, 946 and 947 from
Goswami Tulsidas Krit "Sri Ramcharit Manas" by Pt.
Triloki Nath Chaturvedi published by Manas Pratisthan,
New Delhi has been filed as Exhibit T4 (Suit-4), register
Vol. 18, pages 59-71.
(iii) “Sikh and Sikhism” by W.H. Mc Leod (Ex. 69, Suit-
4-Paper No. 210 C1/1-10)
(iv) “Guru Nanak” (1469-1539) (Paper No. 208C1/3)
(v) “Geetawali” by Goswami Tulsi Das (Ex-A9, Suit-4-
Paper No. 46C1/1)
3487. In the category of books relating to Archeology and
others, Sri Jilani refers to the following:
(i) “Stone Inscriptions” (1992 Discovery) (Paper No. 306
C1/2)
(ii) Copper Plate Inscription (Ex. D28, Suit-5-Paper No.
198C2/100; Ex. D29, Suit-5-Paper No. 198C2/107; Ex.
D30, Suit-5-Paper No. 198C2/118, Paper No. 198C2/125;
and, Ex. 105, Suit-4-Paper No. 196B-C2/27)
3488. Sri Jilani submitted that there is no historical event
mentioned in any of the books of history etc. that Lord Ram was
born at the site in dispute; that there existed a temple at the site
in dispute; that it was demolished and thereafter the disputed
structure was raised on the disputed site; that it continued to be
in the possession of Hindus and the Mohamdamns were ousted;
3487
that it was not a mosque but a temple; that the Muslims never
offered any prayer thereat; or, that there were consistent and
frequent battles and wars or other dispute amongst Hindus and
Muslims with respect to possession or otherwise over the
disputed site etc.. He submitted that in some of the Gazetteers of
19
th
and 20
th
Century, the story of existence of a huge temple at
the site in dispute, its demolition at the direction of Babur by his
Commander Mir Baqi and construction of a Mosque has been
mentioned but that is only hypothetical and refers to no reliable
and then existing supporting material to fortify the same. He
also took pains in showing different versions in different
Gazetteers published from time to time and said that the same
are not reliable. In respect to the “stone inscription” alleged to
be discovered in December, 1992 (Paper No.306 C-1/2), he
submits that in the light of its translation made by Sri K.V.
Ramesh, O.P.W. 10, whose expertise on the subject is admitted
by the witnesses of both sides, only this much is evident that
there existed a Vishnu Hari Temple in 12
th
Century AD at
Ayodhya, constructed by Gadhwal Rulers, and the said stone
inscription itself is of 1100-1200 AD, but he submits that from
the said inscription it cannot be inferred by any means that it
was the site in dispute where the said temple existed or that the
Lord Ram was born thereat.
3489. Coming to the documentary evidence, he placed
before us the following exhibits in order to show that the
Muslims had continued in possession of the site in dispute and
disputed structure at least from 1855 to 1885 and then from
1934 to 1949. Further that in the absence of any otherwise
material, there is no reason to doubt the claim of the Muslims
3488
that the property in dispute was in continuous possession of
Muslims i.e. after the date of its construction till the night of
22/23 December, 1949, when the idols were kept inside the
courtyard and Muslim's entry was restricted firstly under the
order of the Executive Magistrate and thereafter by the Courts.
3490. At this stage we propose to mention only the
exhibits number of the documents cited by Sri Jilani and shall
deal with the same, in detail, later on. The documents he
referred to are Exhibits No. A21, A19, 70, A14, A15, A16, A17,
18, A20, A8, 1306, A72, A68, A7, A4, A5, A33, A60, A66, A65,
A42, A55, A56, A63, A64, A57, A58, 59, 19, 20, 21, A70, 22,
A69, A13, 29, 26, A20, 24, 18, A22, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27,
15, 16, 30, 34, 27, 28, A2, A6, A49, A43, A51, 44, A45, A50,
A48, A53, A46, A47, A52 (Suit 1), 8, 9, 10 (Suit-3), 105, 87,
102, 88, 92, 62, 90, 1, A10, A11, A12, 83, 52, 19, 20, 50, 49, 53,
54, 55, 13, A15, 16, 17, 7, 6, 8, 4, 9, 23, 51, 25, 42, 43, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, A4, A5, A6 (Suit-4) and D28, D29, D30, D5, D36,
49, 132, 91, D36, E5, E6, 25, D3, 21, 4, E4, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
D35, D34, 005-5-27, 1, 17, 26 (Suit 5).
3491. Sri Jilani, thereafter, placed before us the oral
deposition of various witnesses and read certain passages to
show that the statement given by the witnesses produced by the
defendants are not reliable or acceptable and what has been said
by the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit 4) is correct and deserve to be
accepted.
3492. Broadly, he categorized the witnesses produced on
behalf of the Muslim parties as under:-
i. Those, who gave statements to prove that prayer
(Namaz) continued to be offered in the disputed
3489
building till December, 1949. These are PWs 1-9,
12, 14, 21, 23 and 25.
ii. The Muslim religious experts deposing about the
characteristics of a Mosque to prove that the
disputed building was a “Mosque” and was always
treated to be a Mosque by all. These are PWs-10, 11,
19, 22 and 26.
iii. With respect to survey of the site in dispute PW-17
was produced.
iv. Expert Historians i.e. PWs.13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27,
28
v. Expert Archaeologists etc. who assailed the ASI
report, i.e., PWs 16, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32.
3493. Sri Jilani placed before us ASI report in extentio and
sought to argue that it contains numerous operational
irregularities and shortcomings, misinterpretation of the
artefacts found at the site during the course of excavation, and
also shows bias of the members of ASI team, therefore, the
conclusion drawn is incorrect and unreliable.
3494. He (Sri Jilani) lastly contended that though neither
for the purpose of this case he has disputed the faith of Hindus
in Lord Ram nor that of Ayodhya as it stands today but still he
calls upon this Court to examine that the Indian Vedic Literature
and in particular the epic “Ramayana” has been held to be a
“myth” containing mythological belief, and therefore to suggest
a particular place at Ayodhya as “birth place of Lord Ram” is
neither intelligible nor tenable. The vedic literature lack
historicity in view of several historians cannot be relied on to
decide the question about the “place of birth of Lord Ram”. The
3490
entire city of Ayodhya as per the belief of Hindus, though an
extremely pious and sacred place, but in the absence of any
positive material, a particular place can not be ascertained as a
birth place of Lord Ram. It is not justified on the part of
defendants-Hindus to assert their right of worship at a place
whereat about 500 years ago a mosque was constructed which
had remained in peaceful possession of Muslims throughout.
3495. The submissions advanced by Sri Jilani have been
adopted by other learned counsels namely Sri Mushtaq Ahmad
Siddiqui and Syed Anwar Ahmad, appearing for other Muslims
parties.
3496. Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate arguing on behalf of
defendant no. 3 on the one hand asserted and submits that the
site in dispute is the place of extraordinary importance to
Hindus since Lord Ram, incarnation of Lord Vishnu, was born
in Treta Yug hereat; there was a temple existed at the disputed
site which throughout was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara
through its Pujaris, Mahant and Sarvarahkar till they were
dispossessed under the order dated 29.12.1949 of City
Magistrate passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. appointing a
Receiver. He referred to the oral deposition of the witnesses
produced on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara to show that prior to
22/23
rd
December 1949 they were always and throughout
performing Puja etc. on the disputed site and it all through
remain in their possession. He disputed the very factum of any
battle at Ayodhya in 1528 causing any interference in the
possession of the alleged temple and construction of mosque by
Baber himself or through his agent or any other dispute
subsequently also. In the alternative he submits that the disputed
3491
site being the birthplace of Lord Ram had a temple constructed
thereat, the outer courtyard had a Chabutara (17x21 ft.) on the
south eastern side of the disputed building; and Sita Rasoi at the
north west side of the said building, as also the place of
Bhandara on the eastern side of the disputed site and all were
always in possession of Nirmohi Akhara where it performed
Puja etc. through its Pujaris and this state of affairs has never
been disturbed by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) or any other muslim
party at least since 1855-60 AD till December, 1949 and
therefore, entitled for restoration of possession of the said
property. He also referred to certain documents and in particular
the documents pertaining to suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Das
in 1885 AD.
3497. A large number of books including Gazetteers,
Travellers Account of William Finch, Niccolao Manucci,
William Irvin, the books written on Babar, Architecture etc.
were placed by Sri Mishra before us. He also refers to the
muslim religious literature in this regard including Holy Quran;
Sahih Bukhari's Hadith; Sahih Muslim; Tirmidhi; Books of
Mohammedan Law by Amir Ali, Mulla, Faizi, Baille to show
that neither the mosque could have been constructed in the
given circumstances at the disputed site nor it is so permissible
nor was in accordance with muslim law, therefore, the
suggestion that the disputed building was a formerly constructed
'mosque' is absolutely incorrect and contrary to law including
Shariyat law. He further submits, referring to various gazetteers
and documents on record including Exhibit 17 (Suit-1), Exhibit
18 (Suit-1), Exhibit 20 (Suit-1) and Exhibit 30 (Suit-1) that
throughout Hindus have remained in continuous possession and
3492
doing worship at the place in dispute, there was never a mosque,
it was never used as mosque, it was always used as temple by
Hindus, possession of muslim, if any, ceased in 1934; and no
Namaz ever was offered after 16.12.1949; and, in the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the disputed place is not
“birthplace of Lord Rama”. The building in dispute could not
have been said to be a mosque. The books and materials which
he referred to, we shall discuss later.
3498. Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior Advocate and Sri
Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate for defendant No.2/1 in Suit-4,
firstly sought to concentrate submission on issue 14 (Suit-4)
and 22 (Suit-5).
3499. According to Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Senior
Advocate, issue-14 (Suit-4), 22 and 24 (Suit-5) are the issues to
establish that the disputed site since ancient and time
immemorial has been held and believed to be the place of birth
of Lord Rama according to the faith and belief of Hindus, which
they worship by tradition, constantly, and this right of Hindus
cannot be disturbed at all.
3500. With respect to power of King, he referred to
“Yagnovalkyasmriti” translated by Manmath Nath Dutt Verse
343 and “Mulla's Hindu Law” 14
th
Edn. 1974 Page 84. It is
argued that the criminal law immediately comes under the new
religious King but civil law continued to be dealt with
according to local laws without being changed by the change of
Ruler of another religion. It is for this reason that Hindu law was
allowed to continue and prosper by Muslims and this practice
continued during British regime also. He pointed out that even
Britishers only regulated the management of Temple and never
3493
dared to replace or alter the deity. Regarding continuance of
Hindu law, he also referred to S. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.E.S.
Dalliwall & another AIR 1952 Alld. 825 (para 16); Advocate
General of Bombay Vs. Yusuf Alli Ebrahim & others 84
Indian Cases (1921) (Bom.) 759 (para 95-106); Jamshedji
Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai & others 1 Indian Cases
(1907) 834 (Bom.) (para 72, 166-171). In support of the
submission that the disputed place has been the birthplace of
Lord Ram as per the beliefs, traditions and customs ancient, he
refers to “Valmiki Ramayan” (translated by Chaturvedi
Dwarka Prasad Sharma); “Bhartiya Sanskriti Ke Char
Adhyay” by Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, First Edn. 1956, reprinted
2009 by Lok Bharti Prakashan; “Skanda-Purana” English
translation by Dr. G.V. Tagore and, in particular, refers to
Section VIII Chapter 10, i.e., Ajodhya Mahata. He says that
Purans are 2000 to 3000 years old and Janamsthan itself is a
deity. Custom and practice of Hindu religion are to be honoured
and fortified his submission by relying on Rais Ahmad Vs.
State of U.P. & others (1999) 6 SCC 391 (para 10). He refers to
“The Bhagvad Gita” Chapters 6 to 18 by Sri Paramhansa
Yoganand and “Bhagvad Gita As It is” by A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupad and submits that all these books are
admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 57 (13) of the
Evidence Act. Thereafter, he refers to travellers' accounts of
Tieffenthaler and William Finch, Gazetteer of 1858 by Edward
Thornton, P. Karnegy's Settlement Report of 1870 and “The
New Encyclopaedia Britannica”, Vol. 9, 15
th
Edn. Page 916
and Vol. 1 page 751. About legal status of Gazetteers, he
submits About the legal status of Gazetteers, he submits that the
3494
same can be relied in evidence and refers to Vimla Bai Vs.
Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2 SCC 22 (para 4 and 5); Bala
Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee & others Vs. Charity
Commissioner, Gujarat State 1995 suppl. (1) SCC 485 (para
22) and Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vs.
Surjanarayan Das & another AIR 1967 SC 256 (para 26).
About the faith of Hindus, he also cited the book written by
Ranchor Prime titled as “Hinduism And Ecology Seeds of
Truth” (page 36 and 49). It is argued that there is no other
Ayodhya. Janamsthan at Ayodhya was always treated as sacred
and except the place in dispute, no other place in Ayodhya from
ancient time has been treated as birthplace of Lord Ram. It has
been worshipped from generation to generation and, therefore,
forms core of belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was borne at the
aforesaid site at Ayodhya. He submits that the right of Hindus to
worship at such a place is a fundamental right under Article 25
and 26 of the Constitution. The relief sought by plaintiffs (Suit-
4) that the disputed building be declared as Mosque, if granted,
shall extinguish the right of worship of Hindus and such a
prayer cannot be allowed. In this regard, he placed reliance on
Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & others Vs. Moran Mar
Marthoma & another 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 286 (para 43);
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi & others Vs. State of Bombay &
others AIR 1954 SC 388 (para 10); The Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras, Vs. Sri Lakshmindra
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282 (para
17); Sardar Sarup Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 860
(para 7); Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of
Bombay AIR 1962 SC 853 (para 40 and 56); Bijoe Emmanuel
3495
& others Vs. State of Kerala & others (1986) 3 SCC 615.
3501. Sri Prasad argued that belief of Hindus that Lord
Ram as incarnation of Vishnu having born at Ayodhya forms an
integral part of Hindu religion which cannot be denied to be
practised, observed and performed by them and refers to
Commissioner of Police & others Vs. Acharya
Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & another (2004) 12 SCC 770
(para 9) and Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple, Varanasi (supra). In order to show what constitutes
public order under Article 25 of the Constitution, he also placed
reliance on Dalbir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab AIR
1962 SC 1106 (para 8).
3502. Next he submits that applying the doctrine of
Eminent Domain, the place in dispute, having special
significance for Hindus, cannot be touched at all either by any
particular person or even by State and the provisions of even
acquisition would not apply to it though with respect to the
alleged mosque, it has been already held and observed by the
Apex Court that the disputed building could not be shown to be
of any special significance to Muslims. He refers to Dr. M.
Ismail Faruqui & others Vs. Union of India & others (1994) 6
SCC 360 (para 65, 72, 75 and 96); Acharya Maharajshri
Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj & others Vs.
State of Gujarat & others (1975) 1 SCC 11. The relief sought
by the plaintiff (Suit-4) is barred by Section 34 Specific Reliefs
Act, 1963 and reliance is placed on Executive Committee of
Vaish Degree College, Shamli & others Vs. Lakshmi Narain &
others (1976) 2 SCC 58 (para 20 and 27); American Express
Bank Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. & others (1993) 2 SCC 199
3496
(para 22).
3503. Lastly he submits that the disputed building in any
case could not be a Mosque since its alleged construction, if any,
was against the Muslim law or Shariyat. In this regard, he refers
to the “Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law”, 19
th
Edn.,
“Outlines of Muhammadan Law” by Asaf A.A. Fyzee, Second
Edition 1955, “Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan
Law” by W.H. Macnaghten (first published 1825); “The Law
Relating to Gifts, Trusts and Testamentary Dispositions
among the Mahommedans” (Tagore Law Lectures-1884) by
Syed Ameer Ali; “A Digest of Moohummudan Law” by Neil
B.E. Baillie; “The Hedaya” by Charles Hamilton (edited 1871);
“The History of Islam” by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi (1922,
reprinted in 2000 Vol. One, page 147 to 148) and “The Holy
Quraan” translated by M.A. Haleem Eliasi.
3504. Sri P.R. Ganpathi Iyar, Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Rakesh Pandey appeared on behalf of defendant No.13/1, in
addition to what has been argued by Sri Prasad, submit that the
place in dispute has long been worshipped as place of birth of
Lord Ram in tradition uninterruptedly and even if any Muslim
ruler has made some construction over it, the worship by Hindus
has continued which leads to the conclusion that it is the place
which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Ram. He
submits that issue No.11 (Suit-4) and 1 (Suit-1) in the manner
they have been framed, needs slight modification and the issues
which should be considered by this Court is, whether the
property in suit is believed to be the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri
Ram Chandra Ji by Hindus. He submits that Hindu scripture
also contains the details of time, manner of its calculation etc.
3497
and it relates the time of birth of Lord Ram several thousands
and lakhs of years back. Hence it is beyond the scope of judicial
scrutiny at this stage to find out as to when and where Lord Ram
took birth since no evidence direct or indirect in this regard by
lapse of time would be expected. He submits that in religious
matters, where things proceeds on belief, if such types of issues
are raised in respect to other religions also, they shall be felt
offended. Hence the same test and sanctity must be extended
and applied to the belief of Hindus also. For thousands of years
Lord Ram is being worshipped as incarnation of God by Hindus.
If it can be shown that for a particular place the Hindu’s belief is
that it is the site of birth place of Lord Ram and such faith and
belief can be shown to have existed for the time immemorial,
the Courts must give respect to such belief and must take it
correct without entering into correctness of such a belief since
that would violate Article 25 of the Constitution of India. He
also cited certain authorities in this respect, which have also
been referred to by Sri Prasad. We propose to deal with all such
authorities at the appropriate stage.
3505. Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, Advocate adopted
arguments advanced on behalf of Hindu parties with respect to
belief about the place in dispute as birth place of Lord Ram and
the same stand has been taken by other counsels namely Sri Hari
Shankar Jain, Sri Rakesh Pandey etc.
3506. Though we have referred to, in total, 13 issues
relating to Site as Birthplace etc. but having heard learned
counsels for the parties and after perusing the various
documents and other material, we find it convenient to deal with
the said issues after further sub-categorization or re-
3498
categorisation as under and thereafter to take up these issues
accordingly. The sub-categorisation/recategorisation of only
these issues for our consideration and analysis is as under:
(A) Whether a temple existed prior to the disputed
building which was demolished and thereafter the
disputed building was constructed i.e. Issues No.1(b)
(Suit-4) and 14 (Suit-5).
(B) The existence of other Hindu religious places
making the disputed building landlocked by religious
places of Hindus and in this category is Issue No.19(b)
(Suit-4).
(C) Whether the Hindus had been continuously
worshipping at the place in dispute. Issues No. 13, 14
(Suit 4) and 24 (Suit 5) come in this category.
(D) The presence of idol in the disputed building i.e.
Issues No.2 (Suit-1) and 5 (Suit-3).
(E) Issues No.1 (Suit-1), 11 (Suit 4) and 22 (Suit-5)
relates to the site of birthplace of Shri Ram, believed as
such by Hindus by tradition etc.
(F) Others.
3507. These issues relate to the religious faith in respect to
the place of birth of Lord Rama; determination of the exact
place of birth; investigation into history of more than hundreds
and thousands centuries; whether there existed a
temple/religious structure of Hindus which was demolished to
construct the disputed structure over the land in dispute; whether
the disputed building was actually constructed. as a mosque by
Babar or under his dictates by Meer Baqi; and who was/is
3499
carrying on religious practices like prayer etc. at the said place
for the last more than 500 years etc.
3508. The very nature of these questions make it writ large
that decision either side is bound to affect the religious
sentiments of one or the other community. From the record, we
have also seen that the dispute between two communities over
the land in question is continuing atleast for more than one and a
half century. At times efforts were made to resolve the dispute
amicably by pursuing the two communities to arrive at a
compromise, honourable and acceptable, to both sides. In the
past, sometimes the efforts seemed to be successful but could
not resolve permanently since the dispute revived time and
again. Some of the questions, we doubt whether would come
within the scope of judicial review in a Court of law. On other
issues, we have more serious doubt about the availability of
relevant material or evidence on the basis whereof a Court of
law can record a finding of fact either way. Some individual
observations by some persons at some point of time, the
traditions and practices followed for a long time, continuous or
interrupted, views of the people in the concerned locality,
references made by the investigators/historians/visitors in one or
the other way etc. whether constitute sufficient evidence for
deciding such issues of far reaching consequences conclusively
is really a task extremely difficult. The issues are complicated
with a wide canvass and also sensitive involving highly versatile
sentiments and religious pathos of two major communities of
present India. We, therefore, with care, proceed to scrutinize
rival claims to find out the truth objectively, dispassionately and
without being influenced by any other factor except the truth
3500
and justice. We shall endeavour to arrive at a just conclusion so
that the dispute amongst two communities may get settled
permanently for all times to come.
3509. The parties before us not only have placed religious
literature, historical books, gazetteers published in pre and post
independence period, certain other literary books containing
references to the matter in dispute, and have also examined a
large number of witnesses including Expert Historians,
Archaeologists, Epigraphists etc. This Court also tried to find
out truth by permitting excavation through ASI which has also
submitted its report giving its opinion. However some of the
parties have filed their objections against the report of ASI
which is also required to be considered.
3510. The issues relates to history and historical events.
The chronology of the occurrence thereof has to be find out, if
any. Broadly, it appears that oral evidence would be of little
help. The historical events have to be seen in the light of the
history, other relevant books and corroborative material of
relevant period, if any. The history and other books cited and
referred also contain divergent views. One or the other party,
during the course of argument, to some extent, has commented
adversely in respect to one or the other book while trying to
persuade this Court to accept the view they are propagating .
These books in our opinion cannot be acted upon merely on
their face value.
3511. The alleged history, placed before us, has to be
considered in the light of the credentials of the author, his
knowledge, understanding, level of investigation, discussion on
1
3501
the subject, the circumstances, the period when it is written, the
motive or objective, if any, and such other similar factors. We
know that most of the books written by renowned and esteemed
persons enjoin a very high reputation amongst the historians
and therefore, what they have written, may not easily be
ignored. However, we also can not ignore the fact that while
writing a history book the author sometimes is influenced by the
institution or body who has employed him, some times though
free lancer, but has expressed his views and findings according
to his own appreciation without having occasion of cross-check
by other experts and some times the purpose of the writing may
have domination over independent objective and fair assessment
and instead of simply placing on record the events of history
straight, he mould facts giving a totally different shade and
colour. A Court of law, when comes across such documents
which are placed for adjudication of an event or disputed fact of
historicity, has to proceed with extreme caution and careful
manner. It cannot just treat the views expressed by the
historians as a gospel truth. We have noticed and shall
demonstrate what was said two centuries back, was widely
corrected with the passage of time and in modern times, a
considerable number of persons have come forward with well
documented and discussed version canvassing a totally different
view which also cannot be brushed aside easily but worth
consideration. Obviously, the historians, past and present, are
not eye witnesses of the historical events, but by sheer dent of
diligence and intelligensia, they have analysed past events in the
light of material available to them to explain historical events
and have tried to apprise the people thereof. But, when in a
3502
Court of law, the things are discussed threadbare with logic,
rationality and positive material, the position many a times turns
wholly different. Besides, a huge religious, cultural literature
has been placed suggesting that there is a cemented faith and
belief of the community in respect to certain facts about their
existence. Such faith and belief may not be tested by a Court of
law being beyond the scope judicial review. It is suggested that
such faith which is borne out from such ancient literature should
be accepted on its face without any tinkering and the matter
deserves to be decided accordingly. In a battle simply that of
religious historicity, this Court has all odds to ponder over such
a controversy. Moreover, considering sensitivity of the matter,
the issues have to be analyzed delicately like a surgeon's hand,
so as to reach a just decision which may cause harmony
amongst the two major communities virtually covering the
entire country. It would not be only in the interest of the
litigating parties but also necessary for national integration,
peace and tranquillity.
3512. In this case the learned counsels who have referred
to various books including that of a very large number of history
etc., assisting us to make threadbare scrutiny of the matter and
reach a just and correct decision.
(A) Existence of Temple & Demolition :
3513. The questions are whether there existed a temple
before the alleged construction of disputed building which was
demolished and thereafter the building in dispute was
constructed. Here issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4) and 14 (Suit 5) need
be answered.
“Whether the building had been constructed on the
3503
site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same
as alleged by defendant no.13 ? If so, its effect ?”
“Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri
Masjid was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple
at its site ?”
3514. The oldest document after the construction of the
disputed structure wherein existence of a temple (building of
Lord Rama) and its demolition has been mentioned is
Tieffenthaler's "Description : Historique Et Geographique :
Del'Inde" (supra) from Pages 252 to 256, Exhibit 133 (Suit-5)
(Register 21, page 273-289).The relevant extract of the
Tieffenthaler's work is reproduced as under:
(Page 252) "Parmi les villes de cette province, Avad (ou
Oude) & Lacnav font deux de principales & des plus
anciennes, & meritent une mention particuliere.
Avad, appelee Adjudea, par les Indous lettres, eft une
ville de la plus haute antiquite. Ses maifons ne font (pour la
plupart) que de limon, couvertes de paille, ou de tuiles;
plufieurs (cependant) font de brique. Le rue principale va
du Sud au Nord, & a un mille environ de longueur. La
largeur (de la ville) eft un peu moins grande. Sa partie
occidentale eft affife fur une colline de terre, ainfi que celle
du Nord. Celle du Nord-eft repofe fur des eminences. Vers
Bangla elle eft unie.
Aujourdhui cette ville n'eft gueres peuplee, depuis la
fondation de Bangla ou Fifabad, ville nouvelle ou le
Gouverneur a etabli fa refidence, & ou uu tres grand
nombre (d'habitans d'Oude) fe font transplantes.
Sur la rive Sud (du Deva) fe trouvent divers
3504
batimens conftruits par les gentils, en memoire de Ram, qui
fe prolongent du Laevant au Coucham (a)."
English Translation:
"Of all the cities of this region, Avad (or Oude) and
Lacnav are the two of the major and very ancient cities
which are worth mentioning.
Avad called as Adjudea, by the educated Hindus, is a
city of very olden times its houses are (mostly) made up of
mud only; covered with straw or tiles. Many (However),
are made of bricks. The main street goes from South to
North and it has a length of about a mile. The width (of the
city) is a little lesser. Its western side and that of North as
well, are situated on a mud hill. That of north-east is
situated on knolls. Towards Bangla it is united.
Today, this city has been hardly populated, since
the foundation of Bangla or Fesabad – a new city where
the Governor established his residence – and in which a
great number (of inhabitants of Oude) settled in.
On the South bank (of Deva) are found various
buildings constructed by the nobles in memory of Ram,
extending from East to West (a)"
(Page 253) "Le lieu le plus remarquable eft celui que l'on
nomme Sorgadoari, c'eft k dire: le temple celefte. Car ils
difent que ram a enleve de la au cicl tous les habitans de la
ville: Ce qui a quelque reffemblance avec l'afcenfion du
Seigneur. La ville alore deferte fut repeuplce & rendue a
fon premier ctat par Bikarmadjit, ce fameux Roi d'Oudjen.
Il y avoit eci un temple conftruit fur le bord eleve du
fleuve; mais Aurengzebe, toujours attentif a propager la
3505
fecte de Mahomet & ayant enhorreurles gentils, le fit
demolir & remplacer par une mosquee accompagnee de
deux obelisques, afin d'abolir jusqu'au fouvenir de la
fuperftition Indoue. Une autre mofquee batie par les
Maures eft contigue a celle – la vers le Levant."
English Translation"
"The most remarkable place is the one which is
called Sorgadaori, which means : the celestial temple.
Because they say that Ram took away all the inhabitants
of the city from there to heaven : This has some
resemblance/similarity to the Ascent of the Lord. The city,
thus deserted, was repopulated and was brought back to
its earlier status by Bikarmadjit - the famous king of
Oude (OUDH).
There was temple in this place constructed on
elevated bank of the river. But Aurengzebe, always keen to
propagate the creed of Mohammed and abhorring the
noble people, got it demolished and replaced with a
mosque and two obelisks, with a view to obliterate even the
very memory of the Hindu superstition. Another mosque
built by the Moors is adjacent to the one towards the East."
(Page 253) "Mais un endroit fameux particulierement, eft
celui qu'on appelle Sitha raffoi, c'eft a dire, la table de
Sitha, femme de Ram. Ce lieu eft attenant a la ville, au
Midi, & fitue fur une eminence de terre.
L'empereur Aurengzebe a fait demolir la fortereffe
appelee ramcot, & a eleve au meme lieu un temple
mahometan, a triple coupole. D'autres difent qu'il a etc
conftruit par Babor. On y voit I 4 colonnes de pierre
3506
noire, hautes de 5 empans, qui occupoient l'emplacement
de la fortereffe. Douze de ces colonnes portent maintenant
les arcades intericures de la Mosquee: deux (de ces I 2)
font placees a la porte du cloitre. Les deux autres font
partie du tombeau d'un certain Maure. On raconte que ces
colonnes, ou plutot ces debris de colonnes artiftement
travaillees ont etc apportees de l'ile de Lanca ou Selendip
[appelee Ceylan par les Europeens] par Hanumann, Roi
des Singes."
"But a place especially famous is the one called
Sitha Rassoi i.e. the table of Sita, wife of Ram, adjoining
to the city in the South, and is situated on a mud hill.
Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called
Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple
domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that is
was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars
of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the
fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now
support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these
12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two
others are part of the tomb of some 'Moor'. It is narrated
that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars
skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or
Selendip (called Ceylan by the Europeans) by Hanuman,
King of Monkeys."
(Page 253-254) "On voit fur la gauche une caiffe carree
elevee a 5 pouces deterre, revetue de chaux, longue
d'environ 5 aunes large tout au plus de 4. Les Indous la
nomment Bedi, c'eft a dire, le berceau. La raifon en eft,
3507
qu'il y avoit autrefois ici une maifon ou Befchan naquit en
fe produifant fous la figure de Ram, & ou font auffi nes, dit-
on; fes troi freres. Dans la fuite Aurengzebe ou felon
d'autres, Babor, fit rafer ce lieu: afin d'oter aux gentils
l'occafion d'y pratiquer leurs fuperftitions; neanmoins ils
rendent encore un culte fuperftitieux a Pun & l'autre
endroit : favoir, a celui ou etoit la maifon natale de Ram,
en en faifant trois fois le tour, profternes par terre. Les deux
endroits font entoures d'une muraille baffe garnie de
creneaux. On entre dans l'avantfalle par une porte baffe
ceintree.
Pas lin de la eft un endroit ou l'on creufe des grains
de riz noirs convertis en petites pierres, que l'on dit etre
caches fous terre depuis le tems de Ram.
Le 24 du mois Tfchet, un grand concours de peuple
celebre ici le jour de naiffance de Ram fi fameux dans
l'Inde entiere."
English Translation
"On the left is seen a square box raised 5 inches
above the ground, with borders made of lime, with a
length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4
ells. The Hindus call it Bedi i.e. 'the cradle. The reason
for this is that once upon a time, here was a house where
Beschan was born in the form of Ram. It is said that his
three brothers too were born here. Subsequently,
Aurengzebe or Babor, according to others, got this place
razed in order to deny the noble people, the opportunity
of practising their superstitions. However, there still
exists some superstitious cult in some place or other. For
3508
example, in the place where the native house of Ram
existed, they go around 3 times and prostrate on the
floor. The two spots are surrounded by a low wall
constructed with battlements. One enters the front hall
through a low semi-circular door.
Not far from there is a place where one digs out
grains of black rice, turned into small stones, which are
said to have been hidden under the earth since the time of
Ram.
On the 24
th
of the Tschet month, a big gathering of
people is done here to celebrate the birthday of Ram, so
famous in the entire India."
(Page 255) "Goptargath eft un endroit plante d'arbres
touffus, a un mille de Bangla, fur la rive Sud du Gagra. Il
eft affis fur une colline peu rapide, & muni de petites tours
de terre aux quatre cotes. On voit au milieu un trou
fouterrain, couvert d'une coupole de grandeur mediocre.
Tout aupres eft un arbre Tamarinier haut & age. Un
portique regne a l'entour. On dit que Ram, apres avoir
vaineu le Geant Ravan & etre revnu de Lanka, eft defeendu
dans cette foffe & y a disparu: de la vient qu'on a donne a
l'endroit le nom de Gouptar, qui fignifie: Depart pour les
airs. Vous avez donc la une Defeente aux enfers, de meme
que vous aviez a Oude une Montee au cicl. On pourra fe
faire par la figure une idee du local & de la forme de cet
endroit. (b)" (Page 255)
English Translation:
"Goptargath is a place planted with thick trees, a
mile away from Bangla, on the southern bank of Gagra. It
3509
is situated on a hill which is less steep, and is provided with
mud towers on four sides. An underground pit is seen in the
middle, covered with a medium sized dome. Near it is a
very old and big tamarind tree.
A portico extends around it. It is said that Ram, after
having defeated the Giant Ravan and having returned from
Lanka, descended into this pit and disappeared. Deriving
from this, this place was named 'Gouptar' which means
'Departure for the Air'. Therefore, you have Descent into
the Hell,there, which is similar to 'Rising into the Sky' that
you had in 'Oude'. One will be able to have an idea about
the locality and shape/form of this place (b) from the
figure."
3515. In 1838, the report of Robert Montgomery Martin
was published. Exhibit 20 (Suit-5) (Register 21, pages 321-324)
contains photocopies of pages 335 and 336 of Vol. II of “The
History, Antiquities, Topography And Statistics Of Eastern
India” by Montgomery Martin first published 1838. The entire
set in six volumes of the aforesaid work of Montgomery Martin
first published 1838 and first Indian reprint 1976 is available,
i.e. Book No. 35. The relevant extract from pages 331 to 336 has
already been reproduced while discussing the issue pertaining to
date of construction of the disputed building. For the purpose of
issues in question hereat, a few lines relevant may be noticed as
under:
“The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to
have erected mosques on the situations of the most
remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is
by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of
3510
being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on
its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by
Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe.......The only
thing except these two figures and the bricks, that could
with probability be traced to the ancient city, are some
pillars in the mosque built by Babur. These are of black
stone, and of an order which I have seen nowhere else, …
they have been taken from a Hindu building, is evident,
from the traces of images being observable on some of
their bases; although the images have been cut off to
satisfy the conscience of the bigot.”
3516. In Edward Thornton's Gazetteer, 1858 (supra), he
also said:
"according to native tradition, they were demolished by
Aurungzebe, who built a mosque on part of the site. The
falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an
inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the
work to the conqueror Baber, from whom Aurungzebe
was fifth in descent. The mosque is embellished with
fourteen columns of only five or six feet in height, but of
very elaborate and tasteful workmanship, said to have been
taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes, to which they had
been given by the monkey-general Hanuman, who had
brought them from Lanka or Ceylon. Altogether, however,
the remains of antiquity in the vicinity of this renowned
capital must give a very low idea of the state of arts and
civilization of the Hindoos at a remote period. A
quadrangular coffer of stone, whitewashed, five ells long,
found board, and protruding five or since inches above
3511
ground, is pointed out as the cradle in which Rama was as
the seventh avatar of Vishnu; and is accordingly
abundantly honoured by the pilgrimages and devotions of
the Hindoos."
3517. Exhibit 70 (Suit-5) (Register 20, pages 167-185)
contains photocopy of frontispiece and pages no. 4 to 7 of the
Book “Hadiqa-E-Shabda” written by Mirza Jan published in
1855/56 AD at Kutub Khana, Habibganj, District Aligarh. On
page 183 of the register, it says:
¬¬ ril¬¬ l¬¬ nºr -·i ºi ¬iº «·iº¬ ·n ºr ¬i ªi ¬ ·
ªiiºii¬ ¬ ¤ ¬ ¬i¤ l¬¤i,¤ ¬i«i· ¬iº¬··i ¬i ·i| ¬¬| nºr ¬ ¬i¬n
¬| ·¬i¬n ¬ ºi¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i l¬ ¤r «· i ¤ºl-nºi ¬i - ¬i- ·ii,
nª nnir l¤·º ºi- ·ii| ¤ri ¬ « nªii·i ¬i ni ·i, ¬ nl·¬ « ni
¬i ¬il«n · si ·i| ¬ri «· i « nªi i ·i ·i i ·ri «· | -l -¬·
«··i ; ¬iº ¬ri si -i -º·¤ ·ii, -l-¬· - ªn¬ º ¬ ·in| ni-|º
¤ º-i; | ¤ ·i ¤ « nªi i ·i ¤ ¬· - ¬-·i i · - -l -¬n ºi ¬ ºi -
r , ¬¬¬ - - nl ¬¬ ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; r , ¬| ni ¬¬¬| ¬i ª
¬i ·i - r , ·ri ¬ ¬| -l -¬· ¬º « ¬· · «i «º ºi i r · ¬·
·i ¬i n ; ¬ ( zs) - «¤ rn-i - ¬ ¤· -¸ ¬i ¬i l ºi ¬ i ·
«··i ; r l ¬ ¬¬¬| ni º| ªi ªi º «i ¬| ( szs) r | ¬i ¬ n¬
·r -l -¬· ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; -ºi r¸ º ·¬ ·| ¬ · ·¸ º r ¬i º
¤r¬¸ - ·r · º «i ¬ | r | ¬iº ºi- ·º«iº ¬| -l-¬· l¤ ·i; ªii·
¬¸ « ·iº ¬| «·i; ·i| l¬¬¬i ¬il¤ºi · ¤ri n¬ ¬ni¤i r l¬ ¤¬ ·i
l-·iº| ¬iº - -r¸ ·| ·|·iº ¬¬n ¬º ·| r «l~¬ ¬-¬· ¬¬| ºiir ¬
·· n - ¬¬¬| ni-|º ¬i r ·- ·i| r ¬i ·ii -nº ¬¬¬ -i n ¤ | -i r¬n
¬ ¬ ¬| ¤ ¬ n - ·; ¤r r¬ºn ¬i·i «r| n; ¬iº l¬¬ ¬| -l-¬·, l¬
«i¬¤ i¬ l¬ ¬i ¬·s-· -r·n ¬i - ¬i¤ ri n¤i r ¬i º -l-¬· ¬i ·i|
ni ºii ªi -iº- -¬i· ri n¤i r | ·ri ¬·º - ¬¬«i ªii· -|º ¬ ·r
-r·n · l¤º ¬ ¬|| ¤ ¬| -l-¬·i ¬i ri¬, ¬i ¬·¬ i ¬ªi -¤iº r·¸ · -
ri , ¬ ilrº r , ªi ·i ril¤¬ · ·il¬º r | ¤r ni ¤ ¬ n -r ·| ¬iºi;ºi
n-·|º r | ¬« nº¤ -i¬ºi ºr , l¬¬¬ ¬··¬ ·i· · -|- ri ni r l¬nº
3512
-º ¬º ¬l¬¤ ¬i- -|- ri ni r |
“However, like Mathura and Banaras which were
cleaned of the dirt, straws and garbage of the Kufra
(infidelity), Faizabad and Oudh were also cleaned because
it is a sacred place for worship. It was the capital of the
father of Ram. The places of idols (But Khanas) were
demolished and no idols were left unbroken. Big mosque
was constructed on the place of big Butkhana and small
mosques were built on the place of small ones. The Janam
Sthan is the birth place of Ram and adjacent to it. There is
Sita Rasoi. Sita is the name of the wife of Ram. Here Babar
has built grand mosque in 923 under the supervision of
Syed Musa Ashikan. The year 923 is still remembered for
the construction of the mosque adjacent to Sita Rasoi for
and near. The mosque of Ram Darbar was constructed by
Fidai Khan Subedar who has been teased by the infidels
who have separated the two minarets and the wall. In the
period of Amjad Ali Shah, orders were issued for its
construction but his sudden demise, he took this wish along
with him while the Qila Masjid was given as Maafi to
Lachhman Mahant. The mosque has become his house
(sic). The Mahant has taken back this place from Khan Mir.
The position of the mosques under the possession of
Hindus, is well known. May God save you. Good bye. It is
only the picture of only decoration of Mehandi (Urdu
Couplet not clear) Ab Taraf Majra Rahein Jis Se Awwal
Wao Ur Meen Hota Hai-Jigar Markar Aif, Lan Meem
Hota Hai."
3518. Exhibit 18 (Suit-5) (Register 21, pages 201-229)
3513
contains a photocopy of frontispiece and pages 3, 70, 71, 72, 73,
9, 10 and 11 of the Book “Amir Ali Shaheed Aur Marka-E-
Hanumangarhi” by Shaikh Muhammad Azmat Ali Alvi
Kakoravi as arranged and published by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi in
1987 Markaj Adab Urdu, Lucknow. The Hindi transliteration
has also been supplied and the relevant extract whereof is as
under:
¬··i ·r ¬i ¬| ni º¬i ; -º¬· r ·ri ¬r· ·i ¬n
«i «º «i ·ºi i r - -l -¬· º¤ | ¬¬ ºi i · r-¬º ¬i ¬-i ·
«·i ; , «i «º| ·i | , ¬¬ ¬ -i· - r·¸ · ¬i ¬ri -¬i¬, r-¬º| ·i|,
¬· ·i ¬i n ; ¬, szs, - «i¤ rn-i- ¬ ¤· -|º ¬ilºi¬ i· «·| ·i|| ;¬
¬| niº|ªi ªi º «i¬ | ·i| ¬i º ºi- ·º«iº - -l-¬· l¤ ·i; ªi i· ¬¸ « ·iº
· «·i; ·i|, ;-¬i- ¬| « l·¤i· ¬-i; ·i| ¬i º ¬¬¬ - -nl·¬ ¤¬
-|¬i ·ii| ºi¬ ºi- ¤··º · ·r - ¬ i- r· -i· ¬¤· º¤ |¬ ¬i «l¬¬i
¤ nr ¬ ¬i l·¤i ·ii|
l¤º -l-¬· «i«º| - , ¬ri ¬|ni ¬| º¬i ; ·i|, lºi¬ n ¬| ¤ ¬il·¤i
¤¸ ¬i ri · ¬n|| - ·n¬ - ¤i ·| ¬ ¬¸ n ªii ¬ ¬º ni r ¤| l¬¬| · ªi «º
· ¬|| ¤r¬ ni ºi ªi ¬¬| r¬| ¬i ¬i ¬ - ·il¤ ¬ r ¬i ·ii ÷
l««| ¬ºi-n « nªi i·i ¤ -ºi ¤ ºi ªi l¬ ¤¸ ªiºi« ºi·· ªii·i ¤
ªi ·i n· ·
l¤º ;·¬ ¬i« ¤ ¬¬ ¬ ¤ ¬i ¬ -i·i r ¬i l ¬ -l -¬· ni · ¬
« nªi i ·i r ¬i | ¤ri n ¤ ¬n ¬i ¤·i ¤ ¬i ¬i ªii ¤º ¤· i l¬ l¬¬|
¬i · ¬¸ ni| ¬¬n ¬ «iºr ¬i ;¬r-nº (·z/·) lr¬º| ¬r· ·i ¬n
·il¬· ¬¬| ºiir - ºiir n ¬i- r ¬ · ·i- ¤ ¬|º · ··i« ¬i ¬¬| ·|,
ni r|· ;-¬i- ¬| ;-n¬ir ¬|| ¤ri l¬¬| · · ¬ ·i| ¬ilªi º ºiir
¬ilr« · ¤ ¬i«i· ¬i ¬· - l¬¤i| ·ri ¬·i- « n ¬i n·i¬ · ¬i¬i
¬¬| ¤¬¬i·iº ¬i ¤r ¬i-i ¬ ·i¤i -nº ;·¬i - ªi il¬¤ ¤i¤i| ;¬
¬º·i - ¤·· - ¬¬-i· ºiir ¬ilr« ¬ ºiº|¬ r ¤ ¬iº ¬··i - ¤r ¤ |
-i· l¬ r ¬iº ;nºi¤ ¬ lr··¸ ¬·«i r ¬¬|º ¬ ¬ « ºiln¤i ¬| lr-i¤n
¬i -i ¬¸ · r ¤| ni ¬~n·n ;-¬i-| ·i|, -nº - ¬¬-i·i ¬| l¬¬| · ·
¬ ·|| · -·· ·|, · ;¤i·n ¬|| ¬il-¬ ¬ «i¤¬ ¬« º-n -¬·¸ · r ¤|
3514
· ·¬|º · ;¬ ¬·i ¤º ¬i· ¬ni¤i, · «i·ºiir ¬i ¬·¬i- ¬i ·¤i·
¬i¤i| ¬ilªi º -ir l¬ ¬¬ |·i ¬· ·z/· lr¬º| ¬ --i ¬i ¬-¬ ªii· ¬
¬rin ·i¬ - ¬¬-i· ºiir n ¬i- r ¬ · ¬ ºiº|¬ r ¤| ¬¬ nº¤
·¬÷«iºr r¬iº « ºiln¤i ¬ -··niº «i¬i¬ · rl·i¤iº ¬-i ri n¤|
¬i¬i ¬¬| · - ¬¬-i·i ¬ ¬ri ¤ri ¤i ¬ ¬ ~ni·| ¬- r | n - ¬i n
·ii · ri , lr·· ¬i ¬i -¬-i «r n| ¤ ¬i · ri ·ini · ri | ºii- n¬ ¬iº
¬ilr« ¬| ¤¬-· ¬in| r, ;¬ nº¤ ·i| ¬¬ºn r ; ¬in| r | ;¬ ·· n
ni-¬ ¬ºi, ¬ «r ri · ·i | ·¸ ¬º ºi ¬ ¬« ¤r ¬i n ¬-i r ¤ ni l¤º
·¤i r|¬i ¤ ºi l¬¤i l¬ ¬iº ¬ilr« ¬i «i·ºiir ¬ r ·- ¬i ;·n¬iº
r | ·ii · i ni ¬ ¤ ·º¬iº r | ;·¬i ni «ini - ¬¬ni ºªii| lr·· ¬i ·
¬··i - - ¬¬-i·i ¬i - r~¬i ·iºi ¬l¬· l·¬i·ºi · - r · ¤ ºi|
n¬·iº ¤¬· ¬n|| ¬ ¬i ri·i -¬· ¬n|| ¤ri ni ¤r r ni-i ·ii| ;¬
·iº ¬i n «º - ¬; r¬iº lr··¸ -l-¬· ¤º n ¬i| ·ri ºiir n ¬i- r ¬ ·
¬iº ¬·¬ ¬i·i| ri¬ -i¬ ¬ « ªi «º ªii·i ¤¬i· - -ºin¸ ¬ ·i |
¬« ¤r ¬i n l¬º ¤º ¤r ¤ ni ·r ·i| ¬i·iºir ¬iº¬ iº r ¤| ª-n-
¬¬| ªi i·, l¬ « ºi¬ ª-n- ·i ºi ·ii, ¬iº ;¬¬i ·ii; ¬r-· ¬¬| ªii·,
l¬ ·r ·i| ¬ºiº ¤¬n¤i¤ ¬ri ·ii, l·¬¬ ¬ «· | «ri· º| · ;-n¬ ¬i¬
¬ ¬· | «i·¬¸ · ¬¬ºn ¬º¬ºi ¬ ¬·- ¬ªi· n¤, ·iin ¬ º n -r¬
- ¤·ir n ¬ º r ¤| ¬« - ¬¬-i· ·ri ¤r ¤ ni ·r ·i-· ·ri ¬ ·i|
·iin l·¬¬ | «ri· ºi · ¬·¬i ni¬ « l¬¤i| «r ni ¬i ¬r·· - - ¤r ¤i
l·¤i| ¬ilªiº ·ini · -¬i·i ¬| sni ¤º ¤« ¬ «··¸ ¬ ¬º ¬º· ¬n |
-nº ¤iº ºiª¬ l-¬¬ ¬·irº ¬in «« | ¤iº nº¤ ¬ ni ¬| «º¬n| ·i||
;¬ ¤º ;·¬ ri·i ¬ ·iºi ¤º ·iºi ¬ºn| ·i|| ;¬ - ni ¬| ªii ¬ n|·
¬i·l-¤i · ¬¬-i ºiri·n ¤« ¬ «lrºn «º|¬ ¬| ºir ¬|| ª-n- ¬¬|
ªii· · r· -i·n«| ¬ ¬|· ¤º ¤« ¬ ¬¬i· ¬r|| l¬¬ ·- ¬ºir·i·
¬i ;¬ir ;l~¬~¬ir ¬ «i· ¬ ¬iº| r ¬i, ¤ºii·| ¤º ni ¬| ¤·| ªr ·
l¤ º·i ¬ «º|¬ ¬i º-ni l¬¤i| «ºiln¤i · -l-¬· ¬i - ril¬ºi l¬¤i
¬iº ·|·iº ni · ¬ ¤¬ ¬- ¬-nº (cs) ¬i·l-¤i ¬i ºir|· ¬º l·¤i|
¤ ·i ¤ l ¬¬ nºr -·i ºi l «· · i ·· ·n ºr ¬i ªi ¬ ·
ªi i ºi i ¬ «·¬n ¬ ¬i ¤ l ¬¤i , ;¬| nºr ¤ ¬i «i · ¬··i -
¬i «· i . . . . . ¬i - ¬i - ·i i , nª nni r l ¤·º ¬·s-· ·
ºi - ·i i , ¬ nªi i ·i ¬· - ¬-·i i · - ¬· szs l r¬º| - ¬ ¤·
3515
-¸ ¬i ¬i l ºi ¬ i · ¬ ¤ rn-i - - -l -¬· n ¤i º r ; , ¤ º·¸ º
ºr| | ·r l r· · ¬i - ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; . . . . -ºi r¸ º ·i | |
ni º| ªi «·i ; ªi º «i ¬ | ( szs l ro) r , «r n ¤i ·ni º ¬
l -¬i n| r ¬iº - ¬i- ºi- ·º«iº ¬| -l-¬· l¤·i; ªii· ¬¸ « ·iº ·
«··i; ¬i lr·· ¬i · ªii · ¬º l--i ·||
“Oudh is the central place of Sita Rasoi. At that
place, in the period of king Babar, a grand and sky
touching mosque Babri was constructed. At that time
Hindus could not dare to oppose us. The mosque was
constructed in 923 under the supervision of Syed Mir
Ashiqan. Its name is there in the history. In Ram Darbar, a
mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan Subedar and thus
founded Islam there. Opposite to this place, there were a
Teela. Raja Ram Chandra, being pleased with the conquest
of Lanka, gifted it to his obedient friend Hanuman.”
“Then in the Babri Masjid, where Sita Rasoi is
situated, pre-announced Puja began, (sic) participated. The
administrators braving silver shoes, became their obedient
servants. Nobody informed. Earlier the proverb of sheikh
Ali Haji was true to the situation. "Be Bein Karastey
Butkhana-e-Mera Ali A Seikh. Ki Choon Kharab Shawad,
Khaana-e-Khuda Gardad.” (i.e. the Butkhana on the way
which was considered a bad place, became the abode of
God)
Then a great change occurred, mosques were being
pulled down and temples were constructed there. But we
remained sleeping. Nobody awoke. Till 1271 Hijri, in the
period of Wajid Ali Shah, some Faqir Shah Ghulam
Husain, through an application requested that Islam was
being ruined and insulted. But at that time, nobody heard
3516
his voice. Resultantly the Shah Saheb turned to Faizabad.
Here Sanam Beg Kotwal and Aley Ali Chakladar were
entrusted some work. But they were opposed to it.
Meantime some Muslims along with Shah Sahab rushed to
Oudh. A big mass of Hindus along with Man Singh of the
neighbourhood was supporting the claim of Bairagis.
Although there was Muslim Rule, but Muslims were not
heard anywhere. Neither where was any help forthcoming
nor there was anybody to solace Muslims. All the roads for
them were closed because of Aamil. The minister turned a
deaf ear to it. The king also did not pay attention towards
the gravity and dire consequences of the situation. In the
month of Zeequad, 1271 Hijri, Friday, the Muslims of
Ahata Atal Khan, gathered in the leadership of Shah
Ghulam Husain. On the other side, some 10 to 12 thousand
Bairagis collected, armed with weapons. Aley Ali told the
Muslims that there was scarcity of Sultani Fauj. You people
are in minority while Hindus are in majority. But do not go
away from here. By the evening, the army of R Saheb,
would be forthcoming, on this side, we are increasing in
number. Now wait a bit. Let the dawn come.
The next day when they gathered, the Administration
again hid and told that the palton of R Saheb is awaiting
king's orders. So you have patience. They only remained
talking. In Oudh, the Hindus cordoned a Muslim Mohalla
but the brave youths did not showed their back. Swords
were crossed. The death started playing havoc. Here all
this commotion was going on, in Dar Agubar, thousands of
Hindus collected on the other side, Shah Gulam Husain
3517
and his companions unaware of the happenings were busy
in cooking food. When they (Hindus) reached their heads,
they began preparation to face them. Rustam Ali Khan who
was “Rustam” in true sense and his brother Ahmad Ali
Khan who was also a brave man fought well. Inspite of
being in great number, the enemy ran away and took
shelter in Rang Mahal. When the Muslims reached there
the Namard (eunuch) ran away from there also. The brave
persons followed them and killed many of them. At last
some of them climbed on the roof of the houses and began
using the guns. Four of them came forward. There was a
shower of bullets which played havoc. Three of them
became martyrs after reciting Kalma shahadat. Rustam Ali
Khan recited Azaan, climbing on the door of Hanuman
Garhi. At the same moment a bullet hit his forehead and the
soul broke away every fetter to reach in the heaven. The
Bairagis cordoned the mosque and killed 69 persons. They
cleaned the place of the dirt and in religious activities.
They did the same at Faizabad Oudh. Here the prominent
place. . . . . belonged to the father of Ram and Lakshman.
The mosque was build on the Kutub Khana of the Janam
Sthan by Syed Musa Ashiqan in 923 and remained
humming with life. This place was known as Sita Rasoi
among Hindus. Date of construction is known as Khair
Baqi 923 which is an important memory. Fidai Khan
Subedar got the mosque constructed over Ram Darbar
which was demolished by the Hindus."
3519. Exhibit 123 (Suit-5) (Register 21, pages 325) is
photocopy of page 56 of “Encyclopedia of India and of
3518
Eastern and Southern Asia” by Surgeon General Balfour,
1858 containing a very brief description of Ayodhya as Under:
“AJODHYA, on the right bank of the Gogra river,
near Fyzabad in Oudh, is in lat. 27
0
48' 20” N., and long.
82
0
14' 40” E. It has now a population of 7518 of Hindus
and Mohomedans, but in ancient times it was the capital of
the kingdom of Kosala, the modern Oudh, ruled over by the
great kind Dasaratha of the Solar line, and father of Rama
Chandra. At one time it is said to have covered an area of
12 Yojana, equal to 96 miles. During buddhist supremacy
Ajodhya declined, but on the revival of Brahmaism it was
restored by kind Vikramaditya (A.D. 57). There are many
Jain temples, and three mosques on the site of three
Hindu shrines,-the Janmasthan on the site where Rama
was born, the Swarga-dwara (Mandir) where his remains
were burned, and the Tareta Ka Thakur, famed as the scene
of one of his great sacrifices. A mausoleum is here of the
Bahu Begum, and is that finest in Oudh.”
3520. Exhibit 131 (Suit-5) (Register 21, pages 257-269)
contains photocopies of frontispiece and pages no. 54, 572, 573
of “Tarikh-E-Avadh (Hissa Doyam)” by Allama Muhammad
Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859-1932 Isvi) Revised by Dr.
Zaki Kakoravi 1983 A.D. The relevant extract of Hindi
transliteration provided by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) is as under:
¬¬i ·¤i - -¬il¬·
¬¬i · ¤i - ¬ri « nªi i ·i ¤ ¬· - -·i i · ºi - ¤· ·º
¬| ·i i , ;¬¬ - - nl ¬¬ ¬| ni ¬| ¬| º¬i ; r | «i «º
«i ·ºi i r · ·ri ¬· ssz l r¬º| - ¤¬ ¬i ¬| ºi i · -l -¬·,
¬i ¬i -i -l -¬· r , «¤ rn-i - ¬ ¤· -¸ ¬i ¬i l ºi ¬ i ·
«··i ; ·i | l¬¬¬| niº|ªi ªiº «i¬ | (szs) r | ¬i ¬ n¬ ·r
3519
-l -¬· ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; ¬r¬i n| r ¬i º ¤r¬¸ - ·r -l · ·º
«i ¬ | r | ¬rn r l¬ ·· n ¤ nr¤i«| ¤r¬ ;-¬i- «n· -l··º ¤i·|
¬·- ¬-·ii·, ¬ri -riºi¬i ¬| ºi- ¤··º ¬| ¬| «¬i·n r ; ·i| ¬i º
¬º lnº ·iº ¬¤ ºi- ·º«iº ¬iº ¤ ni ¬ -i¬ º ¬i «i¬| ·ii, «i «º ·
¬· - ¬-·i i · ¬i - rl ·- ¬º¬ -l -¬· «··i ; |
¬« ;¬i¬ i ¤·s- ºi-s ·n ºr ¬| r¬¸ -n ºi¬i ·ºi · l¬ r ¬
r·i¬ r ; ni ;¬ ;¬i¬ ¬ lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬ ··n · ¤i·i ri n; | ¬i¬ ¤i¬
;¬ -|¬ ¬ ¤i¬ ¬rini ªi ··i¤i, ¬· i; ¬ ¬il«¬ l¬ ¬i «··i¤i|
;¬¬ ¬«« ¬ ºi ¬ «ºi ¬ lr··¸ ¤ ¬ ºi ¬iº ¤¬· n n¤| -l-¬· ¬
¬i¬iº l«n· n n¤| lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬¬i-n ri · ¬n| | -r·n ¬i º ¤¬· n
n¤| - ¬¬-i·i ¬i ;·¬ - ¬ il«¬ ¬| ni¬ n · ºr|| ;¬ -l-¬· ¬
ln· ·|·iº ¬i¤- ¬º¬ -¬i· n«| - l-¬i l¬¤i ¬i º r· -i·n« |
;¬¬i ·i- º·ªii| ¤ºl-nºi ¬º· ¬n | ;¬ - ¬¬-i· ¤ ¬|º ¬i ¤r¬
ni ¬ s · n ºr | ¬« ·r -º n¤i ni -r·ni · -l-¬· ¬i l·ºii· «i¬|
· º·ªii| ¬« ;·nri ¬i ·ºi · l¬ r ¬| r¬¸ -n ¤r ¤| ni ¬¬i · ¤i -
¬; «º¬ n¬ ¬¬ i · ¬i º ni ·¬ ºi | «· · ºr| | ºi i ¤· ¬r·
r¬¸ -n - r- -· ¬¬| ºi i r - l ¤º ¬¬ i · ¬| º-- ¬i º| r ;
¬i º ni ·¬ ºi | ·i | «·-n¸ º ºr| ri |
¬¬ n ¬ ¤ri n¬ r ni-i ¬| ·i «n ¬i; l¬ l¬·i¤ -l-¬·
- rl·-i r· -i·n«| ¬ -l -¬· «i «º| , ¬ri ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; ·i | ,
;¬¬ ¬ r· - ·i | l r· · ¬i · « nªi i ·i «·i ¤i ¬i º -l -¬·
·i · ¤i ºi - ·i i - ·º¤i ¬i ·i | ªi ºi « ¬º¬ ;¬¬ ¬ r· -
¬¤· - -¬· «·i ¤ | -l-¬· - ¬¸ · i ·i¬· ¬n ¬iº - ¬¬-i·i ¬|
¬ ¬·i ¬« ni · ¬º ; -i ¬i º ¤-·iºi ¬ «· | ºii· · ºii ¬n ¬ « nªii·
«·i¤ |
¬· ·z/· lr¬º| - ·ilr· ¬¬| ºiir ¬ ¬r· - º¤iir n ¬i-
r ¬ · · -i ¬·| - r--· ¬iº¬ ¬| ;-·i· ¬ ·i «iºi -l-¬· ¬| ¬i«i·|
¬iº « nªii· ¬| «º«i·| ¬ l¬¤ «·- l¬ri· r ·ºi«i· - , l¬ ni -n| ¬
¤iº r , - r--·| . . . .¬ i¤- l¬¤i| r¬· ¬¬| ªii· «i ¬ ¬i « -i
¬r¬i· ¬¬| ªi i· lº¬i¬i·iº ;·¬i -··niº r ¬i «l~¬ ª-n- ¬¬|
ªii· ¬iº «ri· º ¬¬| ªi i· · i·i ·ii; ºiº|¬ ri ¬ - -n · ¬ilº··i r ¤|
·¸ ¬º «i¬ - -·i¬|· ·i| ;·¬ ºiº|¬ ri¬ r ¤| ¬iº ¤r ¬« ¤ ¬ i«i·
3520
¬i ¤¬ | º··i r| n¬ ¤r ¤ ·i , ¬i¬i ¬¬| ¬i¤- - ¬i- ¬ini; ·i¬ -
¬ ~ni·¤ º ¬ - ¬i¬-i · ºi ¬i, ¬i· · l·¤i| ºiir ¬ilr« · ¬ªi·+
¬i ºi-ni l¬¤i ¬iº ¬i ¤ ¬i«i· ¤r ¤ n¤ ·i ¬·¬i l·¬iº r ¬ · ·i¤«
¬i n·i¬ ¬iº ¬·ni· ¤ ¬·¬ º·º ¬iº · l·¬i¬ l·¤i| - ri· ¬ l·¬i¬
l·¤i| «i· ¤·· ¤º¤i ¬ªi «iº ¤ ¬i«i· ¬ lr··¸ - ¬¬-i·i ¬| n¬ . .
. . - n ¬ºi| l-¬i ªin ¬ «i· ¬ini ¬¬| ªii· -iª¤ ¬in i; ·i¬ -
¬iº l-¬ i - ·i- « n ¬i n·i¬ ¬ ·i- r ·- r ¬i l¬ -l-¬· ¬|
nr¬|¬in ¬ºi | ;¬ ¬riº ¤º ºiir ¬ilr« · l¤º ¤·· - ¬¬-i· ¬i¬|
·¸ º ¬¬|, ¬il¬· - ¬ i¤ in ¬i¬ -n« ¬ ¬i·i ¬¬i·¤i ¬i ·i ¬ | ¤r ¬i n
-l-¬· «i«º| - - ¬|- r ¤| ·ii · l··i ¬ «i· ºiir ¬ilr« ·i| ·ilªi¬
-l-¬· -¬ ¬¸º r ¤| -i ¬·| ¬iº¬ ·i| ;·¬ ¬i·i r ¤ ¬iº l¬¬| ¬ ¬r·
¬ ·ri ¬ l·¬¬ | ;·¬ ¤i¬ ¬-i¬n ¬- ·i| ¬i º ¬ s ¬i-i· ·i| · ·ii
-nº ¬-º lr--n « ºiln¤i ¬ ri·i ¬ -l-¬· ¬ l·¬i¬· ¬| «i ·i||
¬·ni· ¬iº ¬ilr« ¬i º l-¬i - ·i- « n ¬i n·i¬ ¬iº l-¬ i ¬¬| ·
- ¬¬-i·i ¬i ;·¬| lºi¬ n ¬ ºi ¬i ¬iº « ºiln¤i ¬| -·· ¬i ºi¬i
-i· l¬ r ¬iº ºi¬i l¬ºi· ·-n ºi- ¤iº· ¤¬¬i·iº ¬iº ·¸ ¬º ¬ -| ·iº
ln· · ¤ºi ¬ ¬i ¬ ¤r ¤ n¤ ¤ri n¬ l¬ ;¬ r¬iº ¬i·-| ¬-i ri
n¤ ¬iº ·ii·iºi ¬ ·ii- ºi ¬ l¬¤ l¬ ºii¤· ¬i ; - ¬¬-i· -·· ¬
l¬¤ ¬·iº ¬i ¬ ¬· ¬º ni ¬nº · ¬¬ | -i¬·| ¬ilr« ¬iº ºir
¬ilr« ¬ ¬i·i n-i- ¬i·-| ·i ¬i º ·r ·i| n «i l¬¬| ¬ «º·-n ¬i·-|
· ¬i·i · l·¤i| ;¬ ¬| ¤r ri¬n ·i| l¬ l-¬i ni ºi ¬ | ·r| ni ºi ¬i|
l¬¬| · ;·¬| ¬ -¬ · ¬| ¬i º ªi «º · ¬||
-l-¬· - - ¬¬-i·i ¬i l¬ «r ¬iº ¬ º¬i· ¬i ¤i-i¬ ¬º·i
¬ilªi ººi ·¬·| ¤i «iºr·| ¬ ; ¬ i·i ¬· ·z/· lr¬º| - nil«¬
¬ ¬i ; ¬· ·srr ; ¬·| ¬i n¬ º| «· ·i ÷n| · ¬i - ¬¬-i ·
·-i ¬ ¬ ·i -n -l -¬· «i «º| - , l ¬ ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; - r ,
¬-i r ¤| ºiir ¬ilr« ¤ ºi r-i- r ¤| ¤r ªi «º « ºiln¤i ¬i ¤r ¤||
¬·ri · -l-¬· ¬i ·iº l¬¤i| ¬º¬iº| ¬i·-|, ¬i lr·· ¬i ¬ lºª·n ªii
¤ ¬ ·i , ;·iº ¬·iº - r ¤ º ¬º r- n¤| - ¬¬-i·i · ¬i · ªii l¬
ª ·i-ª ·ir ·iº - -ºn r , ·r ·i| ¬ ¬il«¬ ¬iº ¬· · -º· ¬i ¬i-i·i
r ¤| ¬ilªi º¬iº ¬i n·i¬ ¬ ·¤i·i ¬i º ¤ ¬·¬ ·º ¬iº ¬ ¬·iºi ·
- -·-ni ri ¬º ·¤i ºiº l¬¤i| ¬ l ¬· ;n·| · º r ni -i ºri l ¬
3521
- ¬¬-i · ¬ - -i ¬| ·-i ¬ ¬·i · ....
“Masjid in Ayodhya.
There is a Sita Rasoi within the Butkhana Janam Sthan
of Ram Chanderji. King Babar, in 923, built a grand
mosque which is known as Jama Masjid under the
supervision of Syed Musa Ashiqan, the date of which is
known as Khair Bagi 923. Even today this mosque is
known as Sita Rasoi and a temple is also there adjacent
to it. It is said that before the conquest of Islam, This place
was the place of birth (Janam Sthan) of Maharaja Ram
Chandraji. There was remains of Sar Girdar alias Ram
Darbar and Treta Thakur. Babar got the mosque
constructed after demolishing the Janam Sthan.
When Raja Darshan Singh won the area of the west
Rath etc. the Hindus gained strength. They paved the way
around the Teela for fighting and thereby the population of
Hindu Faqirs also increased. The signs of the mosque
depreciated. Hindus organized their congregations. The
Muslims had no sufficient strength to fight. They got a wall
constructed around the mosque and named the place as
Hanuman Garhi and began Puja there. They did care the
Muslim Faqir residing there but after his death, the Hindu
Mahant even removed the signs of the mosque. In the rule
of Darshan Singh, no Azaan was held in Ayodhya for
many years and there was no cow slaughter. Perhaps
from the period of Mohammad Ali Shah, there began
Azan and cow slaughter.
At last, after great tussle, the Hindus got their
abodes and temple built within the dilapidated Masjid
3522
Hanuman Garhi, Babri Masjid. The Hindus also
defaced Masjid, Ram Ghat. They began throwing garbage
in the mosque and by demolishing the graves made
splendid temples.
In 1271 Hijri, during the reign of Wajid Ali Shah,
Shah Ghulam Husain with the help of Maulvi Mohammad
Ariz (sic) got the mosque reconstructed and established
Bazm-e-Jihad in Haidrabad across the river for removing
the temple from there. The son of Bankey Hasan Ali Khan,
Ahsan Ali Khan Risaldar became its leader. Moreover
Rustam Ali Khan and his brother Bahadur Ali Khan also
joined the said organization. Some other persons also
joined and all of them started for Faizabad. They reached
Radna where they were stopped by the men of in-charge of
Agha-e-Nazim, Sultanpur and they did not allow them to
move forward. Shah Saheb took the way to Lucknow and
those who had reached Faizabad were evacuated by Naib
Kotwal Nisar Husain and Captain Alexender R, through
Mohana. Later on a news paper from Faizabad. . . . about
Hindus and Muslims. After inspection, Agha Ali Khan alias
Aghai Nazim and Nirza Munam Beg Kotwal were ordered
to enquire into the matter At this occasion Shah Saheb sent
to Ayodhya some Muslims accompanied by Noor Ali R/s
Muzafal, Azamgarh. They stayed at Babri Masjid. After a
few days Shah Saheb also reached the said mosque along
with Maulvi Araz. They were small in number and had no
luggage etc. but they were firm and persistent against the
Bairagis. Captain R Sahed Mirza Munam beg Kotwal and
Mirza Ali stopped Muslims from moving forward while for
3523
helping the Bairagis Raja Man Singh and Raja Kisan Dutta
Ram Pandey Chakladar and other Zamindars reached on
spot. About 80 thousand Hindus collected and closed
Ghagra Ghat so that Muslims could not have any help from
across the river. A good number of Muslims were with
Maulvi Saheb and Shah Saheb. But except for the poor, no
influential person helped. These poor persons were in the
condition of hand to mouth, nobody helped them.
The slaughter of Muslims in the mosque and desecration of
Holy Kuran.
In the last on 10
th
, on 12
th
of Zeeqad 1271 Hijri
Corresponding to July 1855 about 2 to 3 hundred musli
reached Babri Masjid for offering Namaj in Sita Rasoi.
Shah Sahab took over as Pesh Imam. This news reached
Bahragis who cordoned the mosque. The Govt. Officers
who had taken bribe from the Hindus, flee to the spot.
When the Muslims saw that they would be killed, they came
out to face the situation. However, men of Kotwal and
riders of Alexander R save the situation form being worsen.
But because of great hue and cry, the Muslims could not
offer Jumma Prayer."
3521. P. Carnegi in Historial Sketch (supra) published in
1870 has noticed the above fact on page 20/21 as under:
“The Janamsthan marks the place where Ram Chandra
was born. The Sargadwar is the gate through which he
passed into Paradise, possibly the spot where his body was
burned. The Tareta-Ke-Thakur was famous as the place
where Rama performed a great sacrifies, and which he
commemorated by setting up there images of himself and
3524
Sita.
If Ajudhia was then little other than a wild, it must
at least have possessed a fine temple in the Janamsthan;
for many of its columns are still in existence and in good
preservation, having been used by the Musalmans in the
construction of the Babari Mosque. These are of strong
close-grained dark slate-colored or black stone, called by
the natives Kasoti (literally touch-stone,) and carved with
different devices. To my thinking these strongly resemble
Budhist pillars that I have seen at Benares and elsewhere.
They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base,
centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately."
3522. He was officiating Settlement Officer at Faizabad
and relatively in a better position to know what the people
believed at that time. Since the incident was quite old, i.e.,
hundred years or more, direct evidence was difficult to trace out
but in comparison to recent rights set up, the facts mentioned by
Carnegi obviously deserve more credence and weight.
3523. In 1877, Assistant Commissioner, Faizabad District
W.C. Benett gave us "Gazetteer of Oudh" (supra). He also
said in para 6 of the Book:
"The Janamasthan and other temples.--It is locally
affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were
three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees
attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a
wilderness. These were the "Janamasthan," the
"Swargaddwar mandir" also known as "Ram Darbar,"
"Treta-ke-Thakur."
On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the
3525
mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528."
3524. In 1880, A.F. Millitt's "Report on Settlement of
Land Revenue of the Faizabad" (supra), Exhibit 8 (Suit-5)
(Register Vol. 20, Pages 55-62) took note of the above facts:
"If Ajudhya was then little other than wild, it must at
least have possessed a fine temple in the Janmasthan; for
many of its columns are still in existence and in good
preservation, having been used by the Musalmans in the
construction of the Babari mosque. These are of strong
close-grained dark slate-colored or black stone, called by
the natives Kasoti (literally, touch-stone), and carved with
different devices."
3525. Report of Archaeological Survey of North West
Provinces and Oudh 1889 (supra) (Exhibit 92 (Suit-5)
(Register 20, Pages 63-65) says:
"The old temple of Ramachandra at Janmasthanam must
have been a very fine one, for many of its columns have
been used by the Musalmans in the construction of
Babar's masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-
coloured or black stone, called by the natives Kasauti,
"touch-stone slate" and carved with difference devices.
They are from seven to eight feet long, square at the base,
centre and capital, and round or octagonal intermediately."
3526. A.Fuhrer's account published in 1891, Exhibit 9
(Suit-5) (Register 20, page 67-73) says:
"It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest
there were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya:
these were the Janmasthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the
Treta-Ke-Thakur. On the first of these Mir Khan built a
3526
masjid, in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still
bears his name. This old temple must have been a very fine
one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the
Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid. These
are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured or black stone,
called by the natives Kasauit, "touch-stone slate." and
carved with different devices; they are from seven to eight
feet long, square at the base, centre and capital, and round
or octagonal intermediately."
3527. H.R. Nevill's Gazetteer of Faizabad published in
1905, i.e., Fyzabad A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the
District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and
Oudh" at page 153 and 175 says:
"In 1528 Babar built the mosque at Ajodhya on the
traditional spot where Rama was born." (page 153)
"The Hindus temples are all intimately connected
with the history of Ajodhya. Most of them are of
comparatively recent origin, as it would appear that
almost all the ancient shrines were destroyed by
Aurangzeb and other Musalman zealots............... Above
this on the hill to the west stood the Janamasthan or
birthplace of Rama, and close by are the Kanak Bhawan,
a very fine building erected by the Rani of Tikamgarh or
Orchha; the Sita Rasoi or Sita's kitchen; the Bara
Asthan, the head-quarters of a fraternity called the Bara
Akhara; the Ratan Singhasan marking the place where
Rama was installed after his return from exile; the Rang
Mahal, Anand Bhawan, Kaushalia Bhawan or Janam
Bhumi, and the temple of Amar Das, as well as many
3527
smaller temples and shrines." (emphasis added) (page 190)
3528. "Imperial Gazetteer of India" published in 1908
(Exhibit 10 (Suit-5) (Register 29 Page 87-89) is photocopy of
frontispiece and pages 388 and 389 of "Imperial Gazetteer of
India Provincial Service United Provinces of Agra & Oudh, Vol.
II, published in 1934 Faizabad Division is similarly worded. The
relevant extract thereof is as follows:
"The present town stretches inland from a high bluff
overlooking the Gogra. At one corner of a vast mound
known as Ramkot, or the fort of Rama, is the holy spot
where the hero was born. Most of the enclosure is
occupied by a mosque built by Babar from the remains
of an old temple, and in the outer portion a small
platform and shrine mark the birthplace."
3529. "Fyzabad Gazetteers" published by H. R. Nevill in
1928 (Supra) says:
"It is locally affirmed that at the time of the
Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu
shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the
Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-
Thakur, and each was successively made the object of
attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan
was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In
1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a
week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site
built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The
materials of the old structure were largely employed, and
many of the columns are in good preservation; they are
of close-grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti,
3528
and carved with various devices.
3530. After independence, the U.P. Government published
a Gazetteer in 1960, i.e., "Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-
Faizabad" by Smt. Esha Basanti Joshi (Supra). There it
mentions:
"The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the
birthplace of Rama. It seems that in 1528 A.D. Babur
visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple
was destroyed and on the site was built what came to be
known as Babur's mosque. The material of the old temple
was largely employed in building the mosque and a few of
the original columns are still in good preservations; they
are of cloe grained black stone (kasauti) bearing various
Hindu bas-reliefs (see Plate I), the outer beam of the main
structure being of sandal wood.".
3531. Exhibit 50 (Suit-5) (Register 21, pages 349-361)
contains frontispiece and pages no. 59, 60, 150, 151, 152, 153,
154 and Parishishtha “Gha” (Annexure-D) in two pages from
the Book “Ayodhya Ka Itihas” by Lala Sitaram Awadhwasi,
1932 published by Hindustani Academy, Prayag. The complete
book is also available to the Court, i.e., Book No. 46. There is
slight difference in the Book No. 46 and the pages marked as
Exhibit 50, though it is reprint of 2001, since the arrangement of
contents in the pages on account of size of the fonts etc. is
different. Substantially there is no difference in the contents.
Pages 59 and 60, i.e., paper no. 107C1/123-124 are pages no. 44
and 45 in Book No. 46. Pages no. 150 to 154, i.e., paper no.
107C1/125-129 are pages no. 113 to 116. In the revised edition,
Appendix "Gha" is not the same and in fact the text of the
3529
inscriptions which have been repeated in Appendix "Gha" at
paper no. 107C1/130-131, has been excluded in the Reprint
edition. It further appears that the translation of the two
inscriptions given on paper no. 107Ca/127-128 differs from the
translation given in Appendix "Gha", i.e., paper no 107C1/130-
131. How and why it has happened is not known and we cannot
make any comment on it. The author has given his own separate
history with respect to the Babar's alleged visit at Ayodhya and
it says:
«i·ºiir «i«º ; o ¬· ·rzs - ·¬ «¬ ¬ ¬- n ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ¬i º ««i
¬iº ¬ º·i ¬i º ·ii·iºi ¬ ¬ n- ¤º ¬¬· · ºi ·i¬i| ¤r ¬ n- ¬¤i ·¤i
¬ n|· ¬i ¬ ¤¸ · ·ii| ¤ri ·r ¤¬ ¬·nir n¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ ¬ · ºi ¬ ¬º
¬ · ¬i ¤ «··i ¬ºni ºri| ¤¬ l·· ·r ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬ ¤ l¬, - ¬¬-i·
¤ ¬|º ¬·«i¬ ¬¬ ·º ¬ ·ºi · ¬i ¬i¤i| ¬¬ ¬-¤ «i«º ¬ ¬i·i
¬¬¬i ¬ ·i¤ln -|º «i¬ | niºi¬ ·| ·i| ·ii| «i«º · ¤ ¬|º ¬i «· -r n
¬¤· ¬iº ºn· ·i - l¬¤ ¤º n ¤ ¬|º · ¬·r -·|¬iº · l¬¤i| «i«º
¬« ·r| si · ¬º ¬¤· ¤·i· ¤º ¬i - n¤i| ·ri ¤r ¤· ¤º ¬¬· · ªii
l¬ ¬iº| ·i - ¬¬¬ ¬in ¤r ¤ n; | «i«º ¤l¬n ri n¤i ¬i º l·-¤
¤ ¬|º ¬ ·ºi · ¬i ¬i· ¬ni| ¤¬ l·· ¤ ¬|º · ¬ri l¬ ¬·-÷-·ii·
¬i - l·º n · ·i¬º - º| ·-i¬ ¬ l¬¤ ¤¬ -l-¬· «··i ·i | «i«º ·
¬ri l¬ - ¬i¤¬ l¬¤ ;¬| - l·º ¬ ¤i¬ r| -l¬l¬ · «··i¤ · ni r¸ |
-l·º ni · ·i - º ¬¬¸ ¬ ¬ lªi¬i¤ r | ;¬ ¤º ¬in r| ¤ ¬|º «i ¬ ¬-i,
- ;¬ -l·º ¬i n · ·i¬º ¬¬| ¬nr -¬l¬· «··i·i ¤irni r¸ | n¸ ·
-i· ni ni n n «·· ¬i ·¸ ni| «i«º ¬i ¤ ¬-i ¬iº ¬¬ ¬n-¤i ¤ ¬|º
¬| «in -i··| ¤· | ¬i º -|º «i¬ | ¬i ¬ini · ¬º ¬i - n¤i| -¬l¬·
«··i· ¬i ¤¬ ·¸ ¬ºi ¬iººi niº|ªi ¤iº|·i -·|·n ¬ ¬i l¬¤i ( خیرات
ایلاولا دنیدم نیراپ ۃ ہ ) - l·¤i r ¬i r | ¬i º ·r ¤r r
«i«º ¬¤·| l¬ºii ºi·-·ii - ¤¬ «iº lr · -ni· ¬i¤i ·ii ¬i º
¬¤i·¤i ¬ ·i - ¬¬-i· ¤ ¬|ºi ¬ l-¬i ·ii| ¤¬ ·r| ·ii l¬¬¬i ·i-
r- +¤º l¬ªi ¬i¤ r ¬iº ·¸ ¬º ¬i ·i- ·ii -¸ ¬i ¬lºi¬i·| «i«º ·
·i ·i ¬ ¤r ¤ i·i ·i ¬| l¬ - n ¤ ¬i ¬iºi|·i · ·|l¬¤ l¬¬¬ -
3530
lr · -ni· ¬i «i·ºiir ri ¬i+ | ¤ ¬|ºi · ¬-nº l·¤i l¬ n -
¬·-÷-·ii· ¬ -l·º ni · ¬º -¬l¬· «··i· ¬| ¤ lnni ¬ºi ni r-
n -riº l¬¤ · ¬i ¬º | «i«º · ¤ ¬|ºi ¬| «in -i· ¬| ¬iº ¬¤· · ºi
¬i ¬i - n¤i|
;¬¬ ¬in -¬l¬· «·i· ¬i ·¤i ºi -ri--i «i¬¬ºi- l··i¤¬
¬ n ¬·¬·i··÷ºr-¤ ¬ ¬, n l¬¤i ¬ini r
-|º«i¬ | · ¬ ·i ¬ ¬º - l·º ¤º ¤«i; ¬|| ·/ l··i n¬
lr · ¬i ¬ ¬·i; ri n| ºr|| ¬ n - lr · ¬i ¬| riº r ; | «i¬ | · -l·º ¬
·i|nº ¤ · ºi ¬º·i ¤iri| ¤ ¬iº| ¤iªi- ¤º ªi·i ri ¬º «i ¬i, -º ¬|n
¬| n - ·i|nº ·r| ¬i ¬¬n | ;¬ ¤º «i¬| n~¬i¤i ¬i º n¬·iº
ªi| ¤¬º ¬¬ ¬ -¬ ¬º l·¤i| ¬« ·i|nº n¤i ni · ªii l¬ -¸ ln ¤i ·r| r ,
· ¬· º¤ ri n; r | ¤sni ¬º ºr n¤i| ¬i¬i nº ¬·-ºi·ii- ¤º ¬º¤¸
¬| - -·i· ¬ºn r ¤ ¤¬ ·l·iºi| « ir -ºi ¬i -¸ln ¤i l-¬| | ·r «r n
¤ ¬·· r ¬i| ¬rn r l¬ ¬¬¬| ;·si ·i| ¤r| ·i| l¬ ¬i ; ¬ ·º
·in·· -¸ ln ºªi¬º ¤¸ ¬i ¬º | ¬-n , ¤ ¬iº| ¬ · ºi·iºi · ¬« ¬ ·i, n«
n-¬i¬ ··i« ¬ ¤ri ¬¤·i ·i·i ¤ ºi l¬¤i| ··i« · l·ºi ¤ l¬¤i l¬
l¬¬ -¸ln ¤i l-¬| r ·r| ¬ ·i÷¤¸ ¬i ¬i ¬l·i¬iº| r | l··i·, -·n ,iº
¤º -l·º «·i, ¬¬- ¬· -¸ ln ¤i ¬| -·ii¤·i r ; | ¬·¬| ¬ ·i÷¬¤i ¬«
n¬ ¬¬ « ir -ºi ¬ · ºi·iº ¬ºn r | -i¬ º ¬| ¬i¬ ºi- ¬| ¬ ·i- ¬
¤ l¬, r | ;¬- ¤¬ «· ¬i¬ ¤-·iº ¤º ºi- ¤ ¤i¤n· ¬| r -¸ ln ¤i ªi ·|
r |
«i¬ | « n · - l·º ¬| r| ¬i-n | ¬ -¬l¬· «··i; ·i|| -¬l¬·
¬ ·i|nº ·z ¬iº «irº ¤i-¬ ¤º z ¬i¬ , ¬¬i -| ¬ ¤-·iº ¬ -n ·i ¬n
r ¤ r | ¬·n ºiir ¬| ¬| ¬« ¤º ·i , ¬i ¬« ¤ ¬i«i· ¬ ¬¬i¤«·iº -
ºªi r ¤ r | ;· -n ·ii ¬i · ªi¬º ¤ i¤|· - l·º ¬| ¬ ·ºni ¬i ¬ s÷¬ s
¬· -i· l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ;·¬| ¬ «i; / ¬ s ¤ - n¬ r | l¬·iºi
¤º ¬iº «|¤ - ¤i ªi¸ - r ¬iº ºi ·i ·iin ni ¬ ¬·-¤r¬ r | ;· ¤º ¬ ·º
··¬iºi| ¬i ¬i- «·i r ¬i r | -¬l¬· ¬ ·i|nº ¤· ¤i-¬ ¤º z ¬ ªi
ªi · r ¤ r ¬·¬ -¬l¬· ¬ ¬ « ·i ºªi· ·i¬| «in -i¬¸ - ri n| r |
-¬ l¬· ¬ ·i|nº ·i¬i ¬ ªi ;¬ ¤ ¬iº r
سل
َ
دع ہک رباب ہاش ہدومرفب
یقلم ںودرگ خاک أب تسا ئانب
3531
ںایسدق
ُ
طبہم
ُ
ںیا ہدرک انب
یقاب ریم ںاشن تداعس ریما
شیانب لاس و یقاب ریخ دوب
یقاب ریخ دوب متفگ وچ دش ںایع
(¬¤¤ ·n ºiºi ¬i ·inº| ¬·iº - ¤i-)
(·) «¤º-¸ ·÷¤÷ºiir «i«º l¬ ¬·¬ºi,
«·i; -n ni÷¬iªi nº·¸ - ¬i¬| |
(z) l«·i ¬· ; -r«n ¬ ·l¬¤i ,
¬-|º ¬¬i·n l·ºii -|º «i¬ |||
(s) « ¬· ªiº «i¬ | ¤¸ ¬i¬ l«·i¤ºi,
¬¤i ºi · ¤¸ n ¤n- « ·· ªi º «i¬ |||
(¬· ·i·)
(·) «i«º «i·ºiir ¬| ¬ini ¬ , l¬¬¬ ·¤i¤ ¬| ··¬i ¬i¬iºi n¬
¤r ¤| r |
(z) · ¬l·¬ -|º «i¬ | · ¤ lººni ¬ ¬nº· ¬ l¬¤ ¤r -·ii·
«··i¤i r |
(s) ¬¬¬| ¬ ¤i ¬·i «·| ºr | « ¬· ªiº «i¬|÷;¬| ¬ - ¬·i ¬
;¬| ;-iºn ¬ «·· ¬i ··i /sr lr¬º| ·i| l·¬¬ ¬ini r |
-¬l¬· ¬ ¤i-¬ ¤º ¬ ªi
ربکا تسہ اناد ہک ںا مانب
یناکمل ملاع ہلمج قلاخ ہک
شیاتسزا دعب ی
ٰ
فطصم دورد
یناہج ود ئایبنا رورس ہک
ردنلق رباب ںاہج رد ہناسف
ینارماک یتیگرود رد دش ہک
(;¬¬i ·inº| ¬·iº - ¤i-)
(·) «·i- ¬i l¬ ·i·i r-n ¬¬«º
l¬ ªiil¬¬ ¬ -¬i ¬i¬- ¬i-¬i·|
(·) ·¸ ª· - -n¤i «i· ¬¬ ¬ni¤ºi
l¬ ¬º·º ¬l«¤i¤ ·i ¬ri·|
(s) ¤¬i·i ·º ¬ri «i«º ¬¬··º
3532
l¬ ºi · ·º ·iº n|n| ¬i-ºi·|
(¬· ·i·)
(·) ¬¬ ¤º-i--i ¬ ·i- ¬ ¬i -ri· ¬i º « l,-i· r, ¬i ¬ ¤¸ ºi
¬nn ¬i ¬ l·-¬ni n·ii -·¤ l··i¬÷ºlrn r |
(z) ¬¬¬| -n ln ¬ «i· - -n¤ i ¬| niº|¤ r, ¬i ·i ·i ¬ri· n·ii
¤ n «ºi ¬ ¬º·iº r |
(s) ¬ ¬iº - «i«º ¬i º ¬¬ ·º ¬| ¬·ii ¤ l¬, r , l¬¬ ¬¬
¬ ¬iº÷¤¬ - ¬¤¬ni ¤ i·n r ; r |
¤ri r- ;n·i ¬iº l¬ªi·i ¤irn r l¬ «r n ·ii · r| ni · ÷¤i ·
¬ -l·º ¬| -l-¬· «· n; r | ¤ ºi· ºi·-| ¬ ªi ·i ¬« -l-¬· ¬|
ºii ·ii ««i ºr r | -¸ ¬i ¬ilºi¬i· ¬| ¬« ¬-º ¬| ¬· ¬ ¤º ·l¬·-
¬ · ¬ ¤i¬ ¬« ·i| «ni; ¬in| r ¤º n ¬« ¬i l·ºii· ·r| r ¬i º ·r
¬nr «r n r| n ·| r | ¤¬ ¬nr ¬·-÷-·ii· ¬ z ªi ·i n· r | ¬ri
¬ini r l¬ ¬« -¸ ¬i ¬ilºi¬ i· -º· ¬n ni ¬·ri · ¬¤· lºi·¤i ¬ ¬ri
l¬ ¬·-÷-·ii· ¬i - l·º r-iº r| ¬r· ¬ ni ·i n¤i r | ¬n ;¬¬ z
ªi ·i l«si¬º r-iº| ¬iºi ºªi| ¬i¤ ¬iº z r-iº l¬ºri· ni· l·¤
¬i¤ |
- n ¬ ¬i- i·¤ - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| -lr-i ·i- n; | ;n·i ¤ni ¬nni
r l¬ ¬¬«º · ¤ri ni « ¬ l¬·¬i ¬| ¤¬ -¬¬i¬ -·iil¤n ¬| ·i||
3532. In Chapter 6 paper no. 107C1/123-124, the author
(Sitaram) has tried to trace out reference of Ayodhya in 'Vedas'
and has said:
s-i ¬· ¤i ¤
· ·i - ¬¤i · ¤i
· ·¤¤| - -¤·- ª¤ ¬ · ¬i ºi¬ ¬i ·i- ¬i¤i r · ¬¬¬|
ºi¬·ii·| ¬¤i·¤i ¬i| ¬·i· · · ¬ l,n|¤ ªi · - l¬ªii r
¬· -¤¬ i ··,i ºi · ·i ·i ¤¸ ¬¤i · ¤i ,
n-¤i l rºº-¤ ¬i ºi -·ni ·¤i l n· i i · n ||
¦· ·ni¬i ¬| «·i; ¬¤i·¤i - s -r¬, s ,iº ¬iº ¬ir-¤ ·i·÷·i ·iº r ,
¤r -·n ¬| ·iiln ¬- l,¬ ¤·· r |¦
~·· · - . ·o, c«, s - ¬º¤¸ ¬i ¬ir ·i· ¬º-·n| ¬iº l¬ ·i ¬
¬i·i l¬¤i n¤i r ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¤ i·i ·i ¬| n; r l¬ ¤¬-i· ¬i n ¬ «¬
3533
· ¬iº -·i -· ·i n·n ¬¬ · |
¬º-·n| ¬º¤ l ¬· ·i ªl - l ·i -ri -r| º·¬i ¤ n ··i ºi | ,
· ·| ºi ¤i -i nº ¬¸ ·l ¤~·i ·i n·n ¤¤i -·i -· ·i ¬¤ n||
;¬¬ ¤ ¬- r l¬ r-iº · ºi ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ ;n· ¤ i¤|· ¬i¬ -
·i| ¬º¤¸ ¬| -lr-i ¬º-·n| ¬ ·i-¬º · ·i|| ¤ ¬i« ¬| ·i ·l·¤i ¬
¬i·i ¬º¤¸ ¬i ·i- ¬i· ¬ ¬ s l·,i· ¤r ¬· -i· ¬ºn r l¬ ;¬ ·i-
¬| ¤¬ ··| ¤ ¬i« - ·i| ¤º n r- ¤r -|¬ ·r| ¬ ¤ni|
ºin¤·i « ir -ºi - ¬i ºi¬ ¬i ·i- ¬i¤i r ¬iº ~·· · - ¬i ºi¬
¬ ¬¸ ¤ · ºi| ºi¬i¬i ¬i ¬r| ÷¬r| ·i- r | ~·· · - . ·o, co, « ¬i
~l·i ºi¬i ¬¬-in| ¬i º · ·ni ; · r |
¤-¤ · ·i ¬ ª¤· n º ·i · -ºi ·¤ · i n | l ··| · ¤ ¤ ¬ · -¤ ||
;¬- ;··i¬ ¤i ni ¤r¬i ºi¬i r ¤i ¬¬¬i ¬i ; · ºi¬| ¬i º
·r ; · ¬| ¬ ·i - ¤ ¬i ·i·| ¬iº n ¬-·| r ¬ ¬ -·n - r ¬ l·-¤i
(¬iln¤i ) r |
;··i¬ ¬ ¬nº¬º zo·| ¤|«| - ¤ ··iº· l,n|¤ ¬i ¤ ¤ -i ·iin
r ¬i| ·r ·-¤ ¬i ¬i -iº· ·i¬i «·i ¤ ni¤| ºi¬i ·ii ¬iº ~·· · - .
s,ss,s - ¬l·· ¬ ¬¬¬ l¬¤ ¤ i·i ·i ¬| ¬in| r | ·r - ¤ ¤r r
¤i ¬l ·· ¬· n-i · · i l ¬ni l ·º· · i l ¬ · i · i |
n-i n· - l ¤¤-- ¤ - · i i n · -¤ r· n--l ··¤n · i
¤¸ · ¤ ··i ni -· ¤¬ ¬- |
~·· · -. s,«o,·z -i ·iin ¬ lnº¬ ¬ «ºi«º ~l·i -i·i n¤i r |
¤· · · i l ··· ¤i l ¤n ·· ··| ¤i -· · ¤i n ·· l nº-···i l ¤|
l ¤·i i n ·i ºi - ºi i ¤i n---i · ·¤ -¤i - ¤n¤i º¤| ºi i - ||
;¬¬ ¬in ~·· · - . ·o,·s« ¬i ~l·i ¤r| ¤i ··iº· -i ·ini r |
¬¬ ¬¸ ·n ¬i ¬ln- - ¤ ¤r r
·l¬· ·i -·|-l¬ ·l-¬ºi¤i ¤¤i-l¬, - ¤¬ -¤ ¤ºi-l¬|
¤·il·iºl·i¬·i l·iº¤il- ¬ º·ii-r ||
;¬¬i ·¤i· ¬ ¤l« ¤ ni ~l·i ¬i ¬·si ºii¬¬ ri ·i ¤ ¬- ri ni
r | ·r ¬ ·¬ ¬¤· ·lº¤i ¬i l··iºi ·r| ¤irni ·º· ¤r ·i| ¬rni r
l¬ r- ¬· ·i·ii ¬ - ·n ºr l¬·¬ ¬iººi ºi¬i ¬i n ¬¤· ·i- ¬
l·¤l¬n ri n r | ;· - ¤i - ·i- ¬r| - ·iin r ¬i º ¬r| -i ·iin r
¤º·n ·i ·i ¬ ¤¬ ri · - ¬ · r ·r| |
3534
3533. Exhibit 21 (Suit-5) (Register 21, page 345) is
photocopy of pages 693 and 694 of “Encyclopedia Britannica,
15
th
Edition, 1978”. This also gives some description of
Ayodhya.
“Ayodhya, also called OUDH or AWADH, a city of
ancient India, on the Ghaghara (Gogra) River in Faizabad
district of Utter Pradesh, India. From it are derived later
forms of the name, Avadh (Awadh) and Oudh. Ayodhya is
regarded as one of the seven holy places of the Hindus.
According to traditional history, it was the early capital of
the kingdom of Kosala, while in Buddhist times (6
th
-5
th
centuries BC), Sravasti became the kingdom's chief city.
Scholars generally agree that Ayodhya is identical with the
city of Saketa, where the Budha is said to have resided for
a time. Its later importance as a Buddhist centre can be
gauged from the Chinese Buddhist monk Fahsien's
statement in the 5
th
century AD that there were 100
monasteries there. There were also a number of other
monuments, including a stupa (shrine) reputed to have
been founded by Asoka (3
rd
century BC). Ayodhya is
revered by Hindus because of its association in the
Ramayana, a great Indian epic poem, with the birth of
Rama and with the rule of his father, Dasaratha. According
to the source, the city was prosperous, well fortified, and
had a large population.
The Kanauj kingdom arose in Oudh during the 11
th
and 12
th
centuries. The region was later included in the
Delhi sultanate, the Jaunpur kingdom, and, in the 16
th
century, the Mughal Empire. Oudh gained a measure of
3535
independence early in the 18
th
century but became
subordinate to the British East India Company in 1764. In
1856 it was annexed by the British; the annexation and
subsequent loss of rights by the hereditary land revenue
receivers provide one of the causes of the India Mutiny in
1857. Oudh was joined with the Agra Presidency in 1877 to
form the North-Western Provinces and later the United
Provinces of Agra and Oudh, now Uttar Pradesh state.
There are few surviving monuments of any antiquity.
Rama's birthplace is now marked by a mosque, erected
by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an
earlier temple. The numerous Vaisnava shrines and
bathing ghats are of no great age. Close to the modern city
are several mounds marking the site of ancient Ayodhya
that have not yet been adequately explored by
archaeologists. The region around the city, which the
British called Oudh, is about 24,000 sq mi in area and
coextensive with Lucknow and Faizabad divisions.”
3534. In our view the description therein being of 1978 is
of no importance as it reiterates virtually what is contained in
the earlier books of reference.
3535. Exhibit 56 (Suit-5) (Register 21, page 369-411) is
photocopies of frontispiece and pages no. 44, 45, 128, 129, 132,
133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of the Book
“Ayodhya” Part I by Hans Bakker 1986 and also pages no.
143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149 of Part II of the aforesaid
book. Hans Bakker's book in its entirety has been exhibited as
Exhibit 23 (Suit-5).
3536. Besides, a number of pages from this book have
3536
been filed and they are differently exhibited as under:
(a) Exhibit 57 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 41) contains
the photocopy of the Chapter "Introduction" running in
four pages (from XV-XVIII) from Hans Bakker's book
"Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(b) Exhibit 58 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 49) contains
the photocopy of the page 43 of Hans Bakker's book
"Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(c) Exhibit 59 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 51-71)
contains a photocopy of Chapter 3 pages 49 to 59 of Hans
Bakker's book "Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(d) Exhibit 60 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 73-85)
contains the photocopy of the Chapter 4 pages 60 to 66 of
Hans Bakker's book "Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(e) Exhibit 61 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 87-92)
contains the photocopy of the Chapter 8 Part I pages 125
to 127 of Hans Bakker's book "Ayodhya" published in
1986.
(f) Exhibit 62 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 93-99)
contains the photocopy of the Chapter 8 Part 1 pages 141,
143, 150, 151 of Hans Bakker's book "Ayodhya"
published in 1986.
(g) Exhibit 63 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 101) contains
photocopy of Chapter 23 "Introduction" of Hans Bakker's
book "Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(h) Exhibit 64 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 155) is
photocopy of Part 2 Chapter 25 pages 176 to 178 of Hans
Bakker's book "Ayodhya" published in 1986.
(i) Exhibit 65 (Suit-5) (Register 31 Page 159) contains
3537
the photocopy of the Chapter 26 Part 2 page 178 of Hans
Bakker's book "Ayodhya" published in 1986.
3537. Hans Baker made research in respect to Ayodhya
pursuant to grant of Project of University of Groningen
(Netherlands). He submitted thesis to the Faculty of Letters of
University of Groningen in 1984. The book titled as "Ayodhya"
is actually his published Thesis which is a part of Groningen
Oriental Studies and was published in 1986. The relevant extract
of the findings of Hans Baker which are relied by some of the
learned counsels are as under:
“Vaisnavism no doubt received some impetus when
Saketa/Ayodhya became one of the foremost cities of the
Gupta empire. The ascendancy of Saketa, its identification
with Ayodhya, the place of Vishnu's incarnation, the
evidence of special reference to the Rama avatara in circles
closely connected with the Gupta court at the beginning of
the fifth century, the fact that the Gupta emperors from
Candragupta II onwards styled themselves
parambhagavatas and that Skandagupta even compares
himself with Rama, the recording of the foundation of
temples, notably of a Visnu temple dedicated to the 'God
with the Bow' (Sarngin) by Skandagupta – all strongly
endorse the assumption that Vaisnava temples also
appeared in Saketa/Ayodhya during the 4
th
and 5
th
century.
At least some of the ten Deva temples mentioned by Hsuan
tsang may have been dedicated to Visnu. Yet, there is no
archaeological or literary evidence to support this
assumption.
The oldest pieces of archaeological evidence are the
3538
black columns which remain from the old (Visnu) temple
that was situated on the holy spot where Rama descended
to earth (Janmbhumi). This temple was destroyed by the
first Mogul prince Babur in AD 1528 and replaced by a
mosque which still exists. The following specimens of these
pillars are known to exist: fourteen pillars were utilized by
the builder Mir Baqi in the construction of the mosque and
are still partly visible within it; two pillars were placed
besides the grave of the Muslim saint Fazl Abbas alias
Musa Ashikhan, who, according to oral tradition, incited
Babur to demolish the Hindu temple. The grave and these
two pillars (driven upside-down into the ground) are still
shown in Ayodhya, a little south of the Kubertila. A
seventeenth specimen is found in the new Janmsthana
temple to the north of the Babur mosque. It is rather a
door-jamb than a column.
The pillars inside the mosque were described by
Martin: “These are of black stone and of an order which I
have seen nowhere else, and which will be understood from
the accompanying drawing. That they have been taken from
a Hindu building, is evident from the traces of images
being observable on some of their bases; although the
images have been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the
bigot. . . They are only 6 feet high.” the same columns were
described by Carnegy: “These are of strong, close-
grained, dark slate-coloured, or black stone, called by the
natives Kasoti” (kasauti), “('touchstone slate') and carved
with different devices. . . they are from seven to eight feet
long, square at the base, centre and capital, and round or
3539
octagonal intermediately.” I was not allowed to inspect
the columns inside the mosque. From a distant glance
and from the description above it is beyond doubt that
they are the same as the two pillars found beside the
grave.
The two columns at the grave of Musa Ashikhan rise
about 1m above the ground. They are carved at the base
with a pot (kalasa) with overhanging creepers from which a
decorative lotus rises up. On one of the octagonal sides of
one pillar a female figure in tribhanga pose (measuring c.
15-20cm) is still visible although it is heavily mutilated. As
far as they protrude above the ground the columns are
octagonal passing into a square at the base. They may date
from the tenth or eleventh century.
The door-jamb found in the modern Janmsthana
temple (it rests against the wall of the inner-court) consists
of the same type of material as the other columns. It is
115cm long, and decorated with sculptured figures from top
to bottom. At the base is a small arched recess in which
stands an elegant image of make deity (25cm high). The
deity wears a makuta (tiara), his right hand shows the
vitarka-mudra, his left hand seems to hold something that
most resembles a trisula. The figure wears a dhoti and
vanamala and is standing in tribhanga posture. An
identification of the image with Visnu would be
unwarranted, since it may as well represent one of the
(guardian) deities of the temple precincts. Above the niche
are two vertical bands of decoration, the right one shows
the petal, or rising creeper motif, the left one contains five
3540
figures of nymphs, one above the other, the uppermost one
being a salabhanjika. The jamb may date from the same
period as the columns, although they are not necessarily
from one and the same temple. All these pieces are
ascribed by local tradition to the Visnu temple that
occupied the Janmbhumi site before the coming of
Babur.
Curiously enough, Laksmindhara who gave a
survey of the well-known Hindu tirthas of the eleventh
century mentions neither Ayodhya nor the birthplace of
Rama.
- The oldest Visnu idol (10
th
-11
th
century) found in the
surroundings of Ayodhya is the one lying among the
debris of a temple at the holy place Dugdhesvara
(Sitakunda) near the village Darabganj. It represents one
of the 24 forms of Visnu, viz., Visnu Trivikrama. The
sculpture (36x46cm) is much eroded, yet intact. Other
fragments, among which a pedestal, are found at the same
site.
- Rather than testifying to an ancient Saiva temple the two
medallions in the Guptahari/Cakrahari temple in the
Gopratara compound may have belonged to a Visnu temple
on this site. Gopratara is the oldest tirtha of Ayodhya.
Cakrahari figures in the Vaisnava tour II(S), whereas TP,
quoting the S recension of AM, reads Guptahari and
Gopratara instead. The existence of a Visnu temple at the
Gopratara ghat belonging to the early period seems
therefore plausible. Gopratara is the only tirtha in the
Ayodhyaksetra that is mentioned by Laksmindra. The S
3541
recension preserves the name of the Visnu temple (visnor
ayatanam) in which the image of Visnu Guptahari was
installed, namely Harismrti (AM 58.3). The relation
between Cakrahari and Harismrti is not clear and the
name Harismrti is deleted in the OA recension. From the
data given above we tentatively conclude that there
existed an ancient Visnu temple at the Gopratara ghat
(possibly erected before AD 1000) named Harismrti. The
idol of the temple came to be known as Guptahari. The
image and the Visnu temple Harismrti are not necessarily
of the same date. The temple might have been provided
with a new image (Guptahari) in the course of time (12
th
century?; cp. I,54).” (Pages 43-45)
3538. Chapter 8 deals with the development of "Ayodhya"
as Sacred Center from 13
th
to the middle of the 18
th
century with
special reference to the Ayodhya Mahatum.
“The appointment of Malik Nasir-ud-din Mahmud
governor of Avadh in AD 1226 initiated a period of
Islamization of official life in the provincial capital.
Although it did not mean, as will soon be seen, the
developments in the Hindu fold were totally repressed or
that an effective check was put upon its activities, it did
precludes the building of Hindu temples of any significance
and permanence until the 18
th
century. This is proven by
the existence of a gap in archaeological evidence with
respect to Hindu artefacts, images and temples alike,
from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century. The few
idols found that could belong to the seventeenth century
might equally be assigned to the eighteenth century. In the
3542
latter century great building activity was initiated again
under the liberal rule of the Nawwabs of Oudh. The oldest
temples in Ayodhya date from this time, and the majority of
'old' images found today likswise belong to this period at
the earliest.
It would seem that under Muslim supremacy it was
possible for Hindu religious life to continue on a modest
scale in old temples which were built before Muslim
rule, until they were eventually demolished. The first
Hindu temple that is known to have succumbed to this
fate was the temple on the Janmbhumi, which was
replaced by a mosque by order of Babur. Yet, besides in
temples, congregations could be held at the bathing ghats
on the river and at holy places, mostly tanks or kundas, in
the town and its surroundings. On the occasion of festivals
temporary structures like mandapas (awnings) could be
raised to serve for worship.
The oldest versions of the AM, as well as independent
evidence, seem to endorse the view that the religious
structure of Ayodhya as far as Hinduism is concerned was
not essentially different in the 13
th
and 14
th
centuries from
that in the 12
th
. Jinaprabhasuri, writing in AD 1332
mentions mainly tirthas that have been shown to exist in
the 12
th
century: the ghats on the Saryu river, Svargadvara
and Gopratara, the naga sanctuary in the north of
Ayodhya, now under the name of Sahasradhara, the
confluence of the Sarayu and Gharghara, and the shrine of
the yaksa Mattagajendra, said to be situated on top of the
city wall (prakara). Further the Jain author mentions the
3543
Sitakunda among the several other Hindu tirthas (anegani
loiatitthani). The ban on building new temples may have
left open the possibility of resorting to new holy bathing
places in the river and in ponds. In default of
archaeological remains of bathing places it is generally
difficult to ascertain whether and how many of the kundas
described in later texts were existent in the 12
th
or earlier
centuries.
In order to complete our understanding of the sacred
topography of Ayodhya and its surroundings we shall turn
to the main source of information, the oldest version of the
Ayodhyamahatmya. It will be shown in Intr.Pt.II that the
oldest transmitted texts of the AM tradition are not only
found in the recension of the Mahatmya that was included
in the Vaisnavakhanda of the Skandapurana(siglum S). An
additional collection of legends is preserved in a MS
henceforth referred to as B. It will be shown that a
chronological differentiation between S and B is not
warranted on textual critical grounds. S as well as B
appear to go back to a 'floating', possibly oral, tradition
which will be designated by the phrase 'α-type-of-text'. The
transmittors of the (oral) tradition composed and collected
the legends of the holy centres which had begun to emerge
in the eleventh and following centuries. Accordingly the α-
type-of-text is not to be considered as a fixed body of
sacred literature nor was it necessarily homogeneous, as is
shown by differences between S and B and within S itself. It
would have been a kind of compendium of sacred
information about the holy places and their traditions
3544
which gradually assumed a more definite form in a
tradition transmitted by local Pandits and priests, until it
underwent the first literary redaction and was included by
the composer of the Vaisnavakhanda in the body of smrti
literature. Consequently the S recension is only an instance
of a process that had begun long before and would
continue afterwards.
A survey of the sacred topography of the holy ksetra
as rendered in the α-type-of-text at the stage of its
redaction in the S recension is presented in table I. We
observe that specific Ramaite holy places are still in a
minority, notably within the town itself. From the twenty
seven Hindu places described in chapters 2-3 (i.e. before
AD 1200) only three (11%) could be positively related to
Ramaite mythology. Taking together all places presented
in table I we note that 31% of them are somehow connected
with Rama Lore. We should treat these figures with caution,
however, because the absence of literary evidence from
before AD 1200 may seriously distort our view of that
period.
No sanctuaries within Ayodhya itself that were not
already supposed to exist in the 12
th
century are described
in B and S. the Varahasabha mentioned in B might refer to
a temple dedicated to Varah near the confluence of the
Sarayu and Gharghara. The two Ramaite palaces,
Kaikeyi-bhavana and Sumitrabhavana, may refer to
subsidiary shrines within the Janmasthana, compound
or to the bare sites on either side of it rather than
implying the existence of separate temples. Both sites are
3545
today still without a temple of any significances. Besides
the Janmasthana, places within the precincts of the town
that are explicitly connected with Ramaite mythology by
legends of their origin are the naga sanctuary
sahasradhara (where Laksmana reunited with Sesa), the
yaksa shrine of Surasa, the river Tilodaki and the two tanks
Ksirodaka and Sitakunda. MS B adds to this the ghat on the
river on the eastern side of the city called Ramakunda. In
addition S mentions seven ponds or tanks within the town
of a general Hindu connotation and of unknown antiquity.
Besides being reflected in the sacred topography, the
gradual Ramaization of Visnuism in Ayodhya may be
gleaned from theological remarks in the S recension. It
should be noted before-hand, however, that S is
predominantly a non-sectarian Vaisnava text which
conceives of the supreme deity as Visnu, Hari, or Bhagvat.
Yet, this does not alter the fact that signs of Ramaization
appear throughout the text.
In his introduction the narrator of the Mahatmya
Romaharsana, speaks the words: namami paramatmanam
ramam rajivalocanam/atasikusumasyamam ravanantakam
avyayam//. As was already known from the Ags., Laksmana
is conceived of as an incarnation of Sesa. Release (mukti)
is said to be within reach of everybody by means of worship
(puja) of Rama with incense, flowers, lamps, etc. A bath in
the Ramaite tirthas such as the Sarayu or the Sitakunda
leads to reunion with Rama (ramarupo bhaven narah, or
ramam avapnuyat). The text further notes the meditation on
Rama, and the installation of a Rama image (ramamurti).
3546
But, nor surprisingly for a mahatmya text, pilgrimage to
Ayodhya ranks first among the means of salvation. Ayodhya
is the place to be seen in the Kali age. The merits thereof
are extolled in the usual way by comparing them with the
fruits to be obtained in other holy places, notably Kasi, the
river Ganga, Gaya and Purushottama. Finally S extols the
visit and darshan (darsana) of Janmasthana on Rama's
birthday, especially meritorious for one who observes the
vow of Navami:
“A man who has seen (Janmasthana) will not be born
again, even if he does not offer gifts, does not practise
asceticism, does not go on (further) pilgrimages, or does
not perform sacrifices: When the day of Navami has come
a man engaged in the vow will be liberated from the
bondage of rebirth due to the miraculous power of a bath
and a gist. By seeing Janmbhumi he shall obtain the result
that accrues to one who offers daily a thousand red cows.”.
If we compare the text of MS B with that of S we
observe that B has a less generally Vaisnava and more
specially Ramaite stamp. The topography described in B
taken by itself consists of approximately 45% Ramaite holy
places. With regard to theology B adds to S the doctrine of
Rama's grace (prasada). Two devices to reach Rama,
comparatively absent in S, are accentuated: the darshan
(darsana) of Rama, and the powerful means of release that
is at the disposal of the devotee in the form of Rama's name
(ramanamaprasada). Japa of the name yields bhukti and
mukti. Concomitant with emphasis on the name is the high
esteem in which the practice is held of participating in the
3547
recitation of Rama's exploits: “The deeds of Raghunatha
comprise a hundred crores (of syllables): each syllable
destroys a man's great sins.” “And when one goes (on
pilgrimage) to Ayodhya one should always (nitya) be
engaged in recitation, singing the beautiful story of the
incarnation (pradurbhavakatha) of the Lord.” Other hymns
mentioned in this context are the Namasahasra, the
Stavaraja, and the Gajendramoksanastotra. Another
significant difference between MS B and S is the concept n
the former of a celestial Ayodhya which is replicated on
earth by Visvakarman. Finally B accentuates the
celebration of Ramanavami by describing a gathering
(mela) that is held on the bank of the bank of the Sarayu
near the Ramakunda on the occasion of the birthday:
“Gods and Asuraas, men, Nagas, Yaksas, Gandharvas, and
Kinnaras, all the Planets and their foremost, the Sun,
preceded by Rahu and Ketu, the Guardians of the world to
begin with Indra, and Sesa along with the other Serpents,
the Gods with Brahma at the head, and the (Divine)
Mothers, Rudra and the others, all these have come to
Ayodhya and reached the bank of the Sarayu. When the
day of Navami has come men, Gods, and Asuras alike
come for darshan to where God Rama is present, O
great Goddess.”
Considering that both S recension as well as the
legends preserved in MS B go back to the α-type-of-text,
we are led to infer the the composer of the Vaisnavakhanda
in selecting and editing his material was endeavouring to
establish a traditional Vaisnava text of a non-sectarian
3548
character. The predilection of this 'smrti author' can be
amended by considering B and S together.
To fix the period in which the α-type-of-text was
redacted and included in the Vaisnavakhanda the following
arguments may be considered. The fact that some of the
holy places described in S appear to have been established
at the end of the eleventh and in the twelfth century almost
excludes the possibility that the redaction of S was made
before AD 1200. The references to devotion to Rama that
are found throughout S and the Ramaite form of
Vaisnavism that is manifest in B only endorse this
conclusion. At the time of the redaction the Rama cult must
have been already well established in Ayodhya. In fact it
may have been the principal cause for the transformation
of local holy places into centres of pilgrimage, which again
made the want of an authoritative text more acutely felt and
encouraged the insertion of the local mahatmya tradition
into an acknowledged smrti text. These historical
circumstances point rather to the 13
th
or 14
th
century, if not
later. The practice of wandering around singing the name
of Rama referred to in B is a historically attested
phenomenon at least from the time of Ramananda whose
floruit was most probably in the 14
th
century.
A terminus ad quem is set by a quotation from the
AM from the Skandapurana in the work of Jiva Goswami in
the 16
th
century. Moreover that century witnessed the
growth of a new conception, viz., that of the Ramadurga,
which, as we shall see below, greatly altered the structure
and appearance of Ayodhya as a holy town. This idea is
3549
still completely absent in S as well B. On the contrary the
sacred topography described in S does not significantly
differ from the situation in the 12
th
century, and tallies with
the description given by Jinaprabhasuri in the beginning of
the 14
th
century.
In view of the above consideration we are inclined
to accept the close of the 13
th
or the 14
th
century as the
most plausible date for the redaction of the α-type-of-
text and its insertion in the Vaisnavakhanda (S).
On account of the more outspoken Ramaite character
of B, notably the description of a (new) ghat (Ramakunda)
and the conception of a celestial Ayodhya, features that
represent significant modification with respect to the S
recension, we are inclined to accept (despite the text-
critical evidence) a somewhat later date for B (14
th
-15
th
century). B may have been culled from a later, modified
and extended version of the α-type-of-text.” (Pages 125-
130)
“In summarizing we may say that both religious as
well as political sources testify to a prospering town in the
fourteenth century; a growing centre of political and
commercial activity, with which the development of a
centre of pilgrimage went hand in hand. Periodical fairs
may have served commercial as well as spiritual ends.
The most important of the festivals in those days was
doubtlessly the birthday of Rama. On this and similar
occasions the town attracted an increasing number of
pilgrims in pursuit of darsana of the Janmasthana.
Among the devotees Sants like Ramananda, Saiva ascetics
3550
like Siddhigiri, or Muslim pirs like Badi ud-din Madar
Shah might equally have been found. Melas took place
mainly, it seems, on the bank of the Sarayu river. The most
frequented ghats of this period can be gathered from the
pilgrimage tour described in S: 1) Svargadvara and both
adjacent temples of Candrahari and Dharmahari, 2)
Brahmakunda, 3) Cakratirtha with the temple of Visnuhari,
and the ghats and temple of Gopratara a little outside of
the town. This configuration is corroborated by a
description of Ayodhya that occurs in a MS of the
Nrsimhapurana. To ensure peace and the loyalty of the
Hindu part of the population the Muslim governors appear
to have tolerated these gatherings which no less
contributed to their own welfare. Apart from the new
Muslim quarter unnecessary provocation of Hindu
resentment was avoided as is apparent from the fact that no
buildings such as mosques and the like were raised on
Hindu holy ground.
Muhammad Tughlaq's successor, Firuz Tughlaq
founded the present city of Jaunpur in AD 1359. After the
invasion of Timur-i-lang, when confusion prevailed
throughout the Sultanate, the Wazir Khwaja-i-Jahan, who
was endowed with the title Malik-ush-Sharq, was sent by
the Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud to recover the eastern
dominions in AD 1394. He took his residence in
Jaunpur, and soon proclaimed independence. Avadh
became part of the Sharqi territory until it was
eventually recovered by Bahlol Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi,
who appointed his nephew Mian Kala Pahar Farmuli
3551
Governor of Avadh in the last years of his reign (AD
1489). Ayodhya came under the control of the Lodis.
About the aforementioned Lodi governor, Abbas Khan
Sarwani remarks; “. . . his jagirs were never disturbed and
during all this time he gave his attention to nothing else
except the accumulation of wealth. I have heard from
persons of veracity that he had assured three hundred mans
of red hard gold, and he did not purchase any other but
golden jewelry.” Ayodhya might have been the right
place for this hoarder since gold was found in its
environs (see below).
Little is known as to the specific Historical situation
in Ayodhya under the rule of the Sharqis and Lodis. In the
political domain the town had to concede much ground to
the city of Jaunpur. Along with the weakness of central
authority Hindu chiefs gradually strengthened their hold on
the situation. With regard to this period Joshi remarks:
“Under the Jaunpur kings Avadh was administered in a
better way than under the Sultans of Delhi. The local
zammindars and rajas also appear to have strengthened
their position and the Sharq rulers (surrounded as they
were by petty though independent principalities) had to
placate them to maintain peace and order in their
kingdom.”
Scarcity of sources inevitably obscures the progress
of the town during the fifteenth century. Subsequent history
proves that the foundations were laid for a period of
blossoming. An idea of the prosperity and religious prestige
which was attained on the eve of the age of the Great
3552
Moguls may be gleaned from the evidence left behind by
the founder of the Mogul Empire.
The conqueror Zahir-ud-din Muhmmad Babur visited
Ayodhya in Hijri 934 (AD 1527). The new emperor writes
in his diary that he was on the march to Oudh and reached
the town for the first time about March 29: “We stayed a
few days on that ground (near Aud) in order to settle the
affairs of Aud. People praised the land lying along the
Sird(a) 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 miles) above Aud, saying it
was hunting ground.” Unfortunately the diary breaks off
after April 2 AD 1527, only to resume in September 18 AD
1528. In this interval a mosque was raised by order of
Babur on the site of the Janmabhumi temple. Babur
might therefore have stayed in Ayodhya somewhat
longer or have returned later in the same year. Beveridge
gives the translation of a fragment which probably deals
with Ayodhya and which has obviously been displaced in
the codex on which the translation of Leyden and Erskine
was partly based. “The passage contained in this section
seems to be a survival of the lost record of 934 AD
(f.339) . . . It may be a Persian translation of an authentic
Turki fragment, found, perhaps with other such fragments
in the Royal Library.” The translation of its runs: “After
spending several days pleasantly in that place, where there
are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings,
trees, particularly mango trees, and various birds of
coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards
Ghazipur.”
The columns of the Janmabhumi temple that were
3553
used in the construction of the mosque have been described
above. The mosque itself contains two inscriptions, the
translation of the one inside reading:
“By the command of the Emperor Babur, whose
justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the
heavens, the good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting-
place of angels. Bavad Khair baqi: (May this goodness last
forever). The year of building it was made clear likewise
when I said buvad khair baqi” (=935 AD, i.e. AD 1528).
Another incomplete inscription is found above the entrance
which provides no additional information. Mir Baqi
Tashqandi was apparently appointed first Mogul
Governor of Avadh.
By the time of Babur Ayodhya, particularly the
temple of the Birthplace and evidently gained such prestige
that it aroused the envy of the new emperor, possibly
incited by local Mussulmans for whom the flourishing of
this Hindu centre of pilgrimage had for long been a thorn
in the flesh. Local tradition has it that it was especially
the pir Fazl Abbas Musa Ashikhan (whose grave is still
marked today by two temple columns), who instigated
Babur to demolish this denounced centre of idolatry.”
(Pages 132-134)
3539. Based on the topography of the Janamsthan in
"Ayodhya Mahatam" Hans Baker tried to find out the exact
location and on page 144-146 mentioned as under:
“When we leave aside the information contained in
AM 21.2-4, the location of the Janmasthana as given in the
carious recessions can be sketched as follows.
3554
Situation (1):

The topographical information contained in AM 21.2-4 can
be sketched as follows:
Situation (2):
Slokas AM 21.2-4 (situation (2)) seem to define a
ksetra, an area that is considered to be the birthplace of
Rama. This are is said in OA and B to stretch more than
Sita
pakasthana
Kaikeyi-bhavana
(20 dhanus)
Sitakupa
Sumitra bhavana (30
dhanus)
Kaikeyi-bhavana
(20 dhanusa)
Sumitra bhavana (30
dhanus)
Vighnesa
Sita
pakasthana
Kaikeyibhavana
Sitakupa
Sumitrabhavana
Vighnesa
S
At present
Vighnes
vara
(1008
dhanus)
Vasistha
OA
Vasistha
Vighnes
vara
(1008
dhanus)
B
Lomasa
(500
dhanus)
Lomasa
(500
dhanus
Vasistha
Vighnesvara
S
Lomasa
OA
B
3555
500 dhanus (>910m) westwards of Lomasa, 1008 dhanus
(=1835m) eastwards of Vighnesvara, and 100 dhanus
(=182m) from Unmatta in an unspecified direction. In the
middle of this ksetra the royal palace called Janmasthana
is said to be situated. It is uncertain which places are
meant in situation (2), and one is inclined to consider these
three slokas as spurious. Unmatta and Lomasa do not
occur elsewhere in the Mahatmya, while Vighneswara (if
identified with Vighnesa) was said in S 21.1a to lie south-
west of the Janmasthana instead of west. Moreover the
Vighnesa referred to in S 21.1a lies somewhere in the area
of the Ramkot (see Intr.AM 17), whereas the Vighneswara
mentioned in S 21.2a is said in OAB 21.3c to lie 1,835m
eastwards.
Nowadays a math named Ramgulela is believed to
represent Lomasa, but this place lies about 350m east of
the Janmasthana and its denomination as Lomasa seems to
have arisen merely to justify these three verses. Vasistha
might refer to the Vasisthakunda which lies c.450m south-
west of the Janmasthana. Unmatta as a name of a tirtha is
unknown to the Mahatmya as well as to local Pandits. One
is tempted to think of Mattagajendra or Surasa/Surapa,
which however lie c.900m north-west of the Janmasthana
instead of the said 182m. We have conjectured that
Unmatta could refer to the disappeared Bhairava shrine
within the Ramkot, possibly situated on the Hanumantila
(see Intr.AM 17 and ad OAB 21.3d). The absence of these
three slokas in MS P could point to their spurious
character, although the textual critical analysis would not
3556
directly warrant such conclusion.
When returning to situation (1) we observe that OA
and B basically agree, albiet that OA has added
Sitapakasthana and Sitakupa, places which only occur in
the OA recension (see OA 24, and OA 26). The given
distances of the Kaikeyibhavana and Sumitrabhavana
(respectively 36m and 55m), when reckoned from the
mosque of Babur, do not correspond with the modern
situation. Today both sites (Sumitrabhavana c.100m S,
Kaikeyibhavana c.250m N) are devoid of any significant
religious buildings, as they might always have been. The
directions in B and OA (see OAB 25.1, and OAB 25.3) may
therefore be considered to refer only to spots or subsidiary
shrines in the northern and southern precincts of the
Janmasthana compound which were named after Sumitra
and Kaikeyi merely for the sake of completion (see Intr.AM
25).
More difficult to explain is the location of the
Janmasthana with respect to Vighnesa as indicated in S
21.1. As has been said above an identification of Vighnesa
referred to in S 21.1a (tasmad) with Vighnesvara of S 21.2a
is problematic. The Vighnesa implied in S 21.1a might be
identical to a place of the same name mentioned in OA
which today, however, is considered to lie in the opposite
direction, i.e. to the north-east of the Janmasthana (see
Intr.AM17).
Notwithstanding all the difficulties discussed
above, the original location of the Janmasthana temple
is comparatively certain since it seems to be attested by
3557
the location of the mosque built by Babur, in the
building of which materials of a previous Hindu temple
were used and are still visible. The mosque is believed by
general consensus to occupy the site of the
Janmasthana.
After the destruction of the original temple a new
Janmasthana temple was built on the north side of the
mosque separated from it by a street.”(Page 144-146)
3540. He (Hans Baker) has given synopsis on pages 146-
149 as under:
“Assessment of the content.
The history of the birthplace of Rama, Janmasthana,
has been treated in Pt.I. A synopsis may suffice here.
Specimens of pillars that formed part of the Hindu
temple that was demolished by order of Babur in AD 1528
show that the original birthplace temple dated from the
10
th
or 11
th
century (I, 43-45). Before its destruction the
temple must have been one of the main pilgrimage
centres of Ayodhya, especially on the occasion of
Ramanavami (I, 128, 132). On the instigation of a Muslim
saint Khwajah Fazl Abbas, as local tradition has it (or of
another Muslim Faqir named Jalal Shah according to
Sitaram 1933, 34f.), the first Mogul governor appointed by
Babur, Mir Baqi, replaced the temple by a mosque in AD
1528 (I, 133f.).
The destruction of the temple would not have
implied the end of all forms of worship in and around
the holy site. Just as they do today, pilgrims may have
assembled near the mosque to have darshan of the
3558
tirtha, and in order to perform the puja special
provisions may have been made. Tieffenthaler describes a
vedi erected in the court of the mosque which is three times
circumambulated by the pilgrims who then make a
prostration (Tieffenthaler I, 181; Cp. Tripathi 1969, 39 ff.
Quoted below). The ritual of Ramanavami described in
OA 22, which is said to be carried out in the
Janmasthana (OA 22.22), does not require a temple or
the like and could therefore have been performed
somewhere near the original holy spot in the 16
th
and
following centuries. Such perseverance and flexibility of
Hinduism under Muslim repression, which was
demonstrated throughout the history of North India, could
have provided an objective reason for the compiler of the
OA recension not to delete or minimalize his description
of the Janmasthana despite its occupation by a mosque.
The general pretentions of this sort of literature to describe
an eternal situation created in an immemorial past, a kind
of religious superstructure that is detached from the
upheavals of the gross material world, may explain why no
reference whatsoever to the actual situation found a place
in the Mahatmya. Considerations of this kind lead
inevitably to the conclusion that the historical event of the
destruction of the Janmasthana temple is of no use in fixing
a date (pre or post Babur) for the recensions of the AM.
The Janmabhumi may be conceived of as a
compound which has comprised and still comprises
several holy site. The description is restricted to the
Janmasthana temple itself in the S recension (OABS
3559
21), but B has added two apparently subsidiary shrines-
the places of Sumitra and Kaikeyi (OAB 25). The OA
recension bears witness to a still further developed
compound which comprised also two shrines of Sita, viz.
her kitchen and her well (Sitapakasthana (OA 24) and
Sitakupa (OA 26)). The above mentioned tirthas are today
within a distance of 200m from the mosque of Babur.
According to local tradition the shrines of Sumitra and
Kaikeyi were destroyed alongwith the temple of
Janmasthana. An interpolation occurring only in edition a
connects the three palaces (Kausalya, Kaikeyi, and
Sumitra) with three ghats (tirthas) at the Sarayu (III, App. 1
No. 4). Due to a shift in the bed of the river these ghats are
nowadays much in decay. Thus glorification of the sacred
complex Rama's birthplace spreads over AM 21-AM 26.
The later history of the site is briefly as follows.
Although under some liberal Muslim rulers the
tension between Hindus and Muslims with regard to the
Janmasthana may have been temporarily alleviated by
giving the Hindus permission to perform their puja on a
platform near or even within the precincts of the mosque
(Tripathi 1969, 39: akbar ne hindu janta ki prasamsa ke
liye ahate me ek cabutara banvane ki ajna de hi, jis par
ram parivar ki murtiya sthapit karke jhopari ke bhitar
mandir ka rup diya), yet Babur's inheritance remained a
bone of contention between both sections of the populace.
The slumbering conflict came to a head in the
controversy that had arisen in 1855 between Hindus and
Muslims in consequence of the Letter's claim to offer
3560
prayers at Hanumangarhi (see ad OA 17.2c). About 300
fanatical Muslims had assembled in the mosque and
resolved to launch an attack on the Vaisnava vairagis. The
fight that ensued is described by Bhatnagar 1968, 119: “In
the meantime the Muslims proposed to put a door in the
enclosure-wall of the masjid and repair its defences. Some
people were sent to bring a pair of strong doors from
Begampura” (i.e. the area to the north of the Ramkot,
H.T.B.). “While they were coming back, they were
surrounded by the Vairagis who asked them to abandon
their projected scheme. In a moment the news spread like
wild fire and the Muslims rushed to the help of their
comrades and attacked the Vairagis. Then ensued a regular
fight between the two factions. While the conflict was in
progress the Muslims tried to enter Hanumangarhi but the
attempt failed and they had to retreat with the loss of their
leaders who were left wounded at the garhi . . . “The
Vairagis in the meantime shouting slogans fell on the
masjid and cut the Muslims to pieces. Shah Ghulam Husain
with a few followers escaped by jumping over the walls,
leaving behind some 70 dead and many more wounded.”
(For the aftermath of this massacre, which led to the
expedition of Amil Ali, see Bhatnagar 1968, 117-140).
Soon after this rupture, in February 1856, Oudh
was annexed by the British Government and Ayodhya
came directly under British rule. “A railing was put up”
around the mosque “to prevent disputed, within which,
in the mosque the Mahomedans pray, while outside the
fence the Hindus have raised a platform on which they
3561
make their offerings.” (Carnegy 1870, 21).
In December 1949 new riots broke out between
Hindus and Muslims. During the night of December 23 the
Hindus succeeded in installing idols within the mosque
(Tripathi 1969, 60f.). “The agitation continued for more
than three years. It had serious repercussions on the law
and order situation in this town and resulted in some
assaults and murders. During these years the relations
between the Hindus and the Muslims remained strained
and the services of the police were constantly on call. The
site of the dispute (i.e. the mosque of Janmasthana) is in
police custody pending the decision of the civil court. The
police maintains an armed guard on the spot for the
protection of the building and the prevention of any breach
of peace, and a temporary out-post has been established
near the site of the dispute.” (Faiz-Gaz. 249). This
situation continues up to the present day.
Modern situation.
Today the mosque and the railing set up by the
British are still there. The lawsuit is still pending in the
Court of the Civil Judge Faizabad. A sentry stands outside
the fence and more soldiers are permanently quartered
inside the mosque. No Muslims are allowed to enter the
precincts and the Hindus may come only as far as the
fence in front of the entrance gate where they have
erected a small altar. On a platform near the altar groups
of Hindus are continuously engaged in Kirtana. A pamphlet
circulated among the many pilgrims who visit the place for
darshan reads “ “Shri Ram Janma Bhumi of Ayodhya is a
3562
very sacred place. Anticipating Hindu-Muslim friction the
Govt. has declared it a disputed place and has taken
possession over it. Regular case is being conducted in the
civil and criminal court. Since December 27, 1949 day and
night Akhand Kirtan is being performed with a
determination that it will continue so long as “Ram Janma
Bhumi” is not freed” . . . “It is the sacred duty of the entire
Hindu Community to finance this holy cause donations
(sic:) and thus earn immense “PUNYA”. “A glimpse of the
idols within the mosque can be seen. Offerings of food
(sweets) can be given through the bars of the fence. At
present only eleven Hindus are allowed to enter the mosque
on special occasions to perform the puja of the idols (Sita
and Rama).
On the northern side of the mosque is a new
Janmasthana temple. The place was founded by a sadhu
called Ramadasa, pupil of Devamurari (Prayaga), in the
18
th
century (Tripathi 1969, 75 ff.). Gradually the hut built
by Ramadasa evolved into the large temple that nowadays
occupies the site. The temple is built around an inner court
on the west side of which are two cellas. In one of these the
images of Rama and his parivara deities are installed, the
other one contains the idols of Dasarath and his entourage.
Against the wall of the court stands a piece of a door-
jamb said to come from the old Janmasthana temple. It has
been described in I, 44f. The temple is visited by many
pilgrims.”(Pages 146-149)
3541. This description of Baker is either a reiteration of
the information supplied in various Gazetteers or that contained
3563
in History book. However, at placed he has simply proceeded by
assuming many things on his own without asigning such
information.
3542. On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4), certain expert
witnesses, (Historians) were examined to tell us that according
to their expert opinion, which they have formed after due
research and enquiry, the conclusion drawn is that no temple
existed at the disputed site at the time when the said
construction was made and there was no demolition of any
alleged temple for constructing the disputed structure. The
nature of the issues is such where one cannot expect a direct oral
evidence. An incident of several hundred years ago, if occurred,
what were the circumstances, when and how it happened, can
only be seen/ inferred from the historical material, if any. By its
very nature, there cannot be any direct evidence in the form of a
witness. A documentary evidence in the form of inscription, if
available, could be of immense help. One helping hand in such
matters, where the issues pertain to science, art or other matters
in the Court may form its opinion by taking help of opinions of
Expert. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the Court
to consider opinion of the persons specially skilled in such
matters. It reads as under:
"45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an
opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or
as to the identity of handwriting or finger impression, the
opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in
such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to
identity of handwritings or finger impressions are relevant
facts.
3564
Such persons are called experts."
(emphasis supplied)
3543. Section 5 of the Evidence Act says that evidence
may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-
existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are
declared to be relevant under Part I Chapter 2 and of no others.
Therefore, there is an embargo by the statute that except to the
extent the evidence may be given under Section 5 no other
evidence should be entertained by court.
3544. In Collector, Gorakhpur Vs. Palakdhari ILR
(1899) 12 All 1 at page 43 this Court observed that Section 5
excludes everything which is not covered by or comes within
the purview of other sections which follow in the statute. A
word of caution was added by Hon'ble Mookerji in Emperor
Vs. Panchu Das & Ors. AIR 1920 Cal 500 (FB) that the
principle of exclusion should not be so applied as to exclude
matter which may be essential for the ascertainment of truth. To
the same effect is the observation in Queen-Empress Vs
Abdullah ILR (1885) 7 All 385 (FB).
3545. In Siris Chandra Nandy Vs. Rakhala Nanda AIR
1941 PC 16 it was held that it is not open to any Judge to
exercise a dispensing power and admit evidence not admissible
by the statute merely because it appears to him that irregular
evidence would throw light upon the issue. The consensus of the
opinion however, has been that in case of doubt about the
admissibility of a particular piece of evidence, the Judge should
declare in favour of admissibility, rather than of non-
admissibility. In other words, admissibility is the rule and
exclusion is the exception.
3565
3546. Then there is an exclusion of certain facts which
need not be proved that is those covered by Section 56 to 58.
Section 57 specifically enables the Court to resort to appropriate
books or documents of reference where the matters are of public
hostory, literature, science or art.
3547. Section 58, however, of some importance in this
matter since the question of admission by the parties in different
ways i.e. pleadings, the evidences produced, having somehow
connection with the property in dispute in general have been
raised by all the parties at one or the other occasion. Section 58
says:
"58. Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need to
be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or
their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which,
before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing
under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in
force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their
pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the
facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission."
3548. Admissions under Section 58 can be classified into
two: (a) Judicial admissions; and (b) Extra-judicial. Judicial
admissions are formal admissions made by a party during the
proceedings of the case while extra-judicial admissions are
informal admissions not appearing on the record of the case.
Judicial admissions are binding on the party since they
constitute a waiver of proof. They can be made the foundation
of the rights of the parties.
3566
3549. Extra-judicial or informal admissions are also
binding on the party against whom they are set up. Where they
operate as, or have the effect of estoppel, in that case they are
fully binding and constitute foundation of the rights of the
parties otherwise they are binding partially and not fully, as
observed by Privy Council in Chandra Vs Narpat Singh 1906
(29) All 184 (PC).
3550. An issue arises when a material preposition of fact
or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. A Court
has to try the questions at which the parties are at issue, and not
those where they are agreed. Admissions made deliberately for
the purpose of the suit, whether in the pleading or by agreement,
will act as an estoppel to the admission of any evidence
contradicting them.
3551. Section 59 provides as to when a fact may be proved
by oral evidence and says that all facts, except the contents of
documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral
evidence. Section 60 says that oral evidence must be direct and
reads as under:
"60. Oral evidence must be direct.- Oral evidence must,
in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other
sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a
witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that
manner;
3567
If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that
opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who
holds that opinion on those grounds;
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in
any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on
which such opinions are held, may be proved by the
production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot
be found, or had become incapable of giving evidence, or
cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay
or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the
existence or condition of any material thing other than a
document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the
production of such material thing for its inspection."
3552. A question has repeatedly been raised in this matter
in respect to certain documents, which were marked exhibit long
back before Civil Judge. The normal system of marking of
exhibit of a document is, when it is proved by witness or on
admission of the other parties it is so granted. However, marking
of document as exhibit would only means that the existence of
document or genuineness thereof is admitted or proved and after
marking it, no further proof is required for the purpose of its
existence or genuineness.
3553. In Saddiq Ali Vs. State 1981 CrLJ 379 a Full
Bench of this Court observed when the genuineness of a
document is admitted, the contents also stand admitted and need
not be proved by further evidence.
3554. In Purushotama Reddiar Vs. S Perumal AIR 1972
SC 608 it was held that the contents of a document admitted in
3568
evidence without objection may not be conclusive evidence but
all the same the contents are also admitted by such admission.
3555. But one must make a distinction that the contents
stand admitted does not mean the truth of the facts contained in
the document or denoted by those contents also stand admitted.
That is a totally different aspect. The party admitting a
document does not accept the truth of the contents and is free
to challenge the contents by cross-examination or otherwise.
3556. The Apex Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand Vs.
Yelamarti Satyam AIR 1971 SC 1865 also observed that mere
marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the
truth of the contents of the document and it is always open to the
opposite parties to impeach the document and the contents
thereof in all other possible manner (See also Sailendra Kishore
Vs. Harekrishna AIR 1978 Orissa 125).
3557. These provisions and some other of the Evidence
Act may apply where a fact may be proved in the manner as
permitted in the Evidence Act by oral evidence or by available
document. But where a fact in dispute relates to events of
history and science of hundreds and thousands years ago,
availability of evidence is apparently difficult. The present one
is such matter where this situation exist. The parties have
produced a lots of witnesses to prove the facts one or the other
way but most of such witnesses of fact, we find, their evidence
inadmissible in view of the above provisions on the historical
facts in issue.
3558. Basically, a witness is to be examined for what he
has seen or directly heard in relation to a fact in issue or relevant
fact. Formation of opinion on the set of the facts placed is within
3569
the exclusive domain and prerogative of the Court. Generally
opinions and beliefs of third persons are inadmissible in
evidence. However, there may be certain issues where the Court
may feel necessity of expert opinion. These are outside the legal
and judicial fields. A Judge is not supposed to posses the expert
knowledge in such fields. Probably, it is for this reason that the
law of evidence provides for expert opinion, to be adduced as
evidence, subject to certain conditions prescribed in the Act. It is
Section 45 which renders the opinion of such experts as relevant
fact. An experts opinion, in any case, constitute material for the
Court to arrive at a proper conclusion.
3559. Section 45 refers to certain specified fields, i.e.,
foreign law, science, art, identify of handwriting and finger
impressions. A bare reading thereof gives an impression that it is
confined to certain fields mentioned therein. Initially the terms
like Foreign Law, Science etc. were read very strictly. A
question as to identification of typewriting whether by a
particular typewriter or not would be included within the format
of Section 45 came to be considered initially in Hanumant Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 and the Court held
that it would not be included. The correctness of the above
judgment came to be considered before a Constitution Bench in
State Vs. S.J. Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491, where the Court
considered the meaning of the word 'science' in Section 45 of
the Evidence Act and overruled its earlier decision in
Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) observing:
“The plain meaning of Section 45 is that the Court in order
to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of
science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, or finger
3570
impressions can treat the opinion upon that point of person
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in
questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger
impressions as relevant facts. In other words, the opinion of
persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science, or
art, or questions as to the identity of handwriting or finger
impression, called experts therein, are relevant facts. The
opinion of such experts is admissible in evidence as
relevant facts by virtue of Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
6. In our opinion, irrespective of the view taken on the
question of meaning of the word 'handwriting' in Section 45
to include typewriting, the word 'science', occurring
independently and in addition to the word 'handwriting' in
Section 45, is sufficient to indicate that the opinion of a
person specially skilled in the use of typewriters and
having the scientific knowledge of typewriters would be an
expert in this science; and his opinion about the identity
of typewriting for the purpose of identifying the particular
typewriter on which the writing is typed is a relevant fact
under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is obvious that the
Indian Evidence Act when enacted originally in 1872 did
not specifically mention typewriting in addition to
handwriting because typewriters were then practically
unknown. However, the expression' science, or art' in
Section 45 in addition to the expressions 'foreign law' and
'handwriting' used in the Section as originally enacted, and
the expression 'finger impressions' inserted in 1899 is
sufficient to indicate that the expression 'science, or art'
therein is of wide import. This expression 'science, or art'
3571
cannot, therefore, have a narrow meaning in Section 45
and each of the words 'science' and 'art' has to be
construed widely to include within its ambit the opinion of
an expert in each branch of these subjects, whenever the
Court has to form an opinion upon a point relating to any
aspect of science or art.
7. The meaning of the word 'science' as understood
ordinarily with reference to its dictionary meaning must be
attributed to the word as used in Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Some of the meanings given in the
dictionaries are :
The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary :
"Science.....a systematic and formulated knowledge,
esp. of a specified type or on a specified subject (political
science). b. the pursuit or principles of this......."
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,
Vol. 2.,:
"Science...2a Knowledge acquired by study;
acquaintance with or mastery of a department of learning...
3a. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a
recognized department of learning;..."
Collins Dictionary of the English Language:
"Science n. 1 the systematic study of the nature and
behavior of the material and physical universe, based on
observation, experiment, and measurement, and the
formulation of laws to describe these facts in general
terms. 2. the knowledge so obtained or the practice of
obtaining it. 3. any particular branch of this knowledge:
the pure and applied sciences. 4. any body of knowledge
3572
organized in a systematic manner. 5. skill or technique..."
It is clear from the meaning of the word 'science' that
the skill or technique of the study of the peculiar features of
a typewriter and the comparison of the disputed
typewriting with the admitted typewriting on a particular
typewriter to determine whether the disputed typewriting
was done on the same typewriter is based on a scientific
study of the two typewritings with reference to the
peculiarities therein; and the opinion formed by an expert
is based on recognized principles regulating the scientific
study. The opinion so formed by a person having the
requisite special skill in the subject is, therefore, the
opinion of an expert in that branch of the science. Such an
opinion is the opinion of an expert in a branch of science
which is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
8. There cannot be any doubt that the opinion of an
expert in typewriting about the questioned typed
document being typed on a particular typewriter is based
on a scientific study of the typewriting with reference to the
significant peculiar features of a particular typewriter and
the ultimate opinion of the expert is based on scientific
grounds. The opinion of a typewriter expert is an opinion of
a person specially skilled in that branch of the science with
reference to which the Court has to form an opinion on the
point involved for decision in the case. In our opinion, on a
plain construction of Section 45 giving to the word 'science'
used therein its natural meaning, this conclusion is
inevitable; and for supporting that conclusion, it is not
3573
necessary to rely on the further reason that the word
'handwriting' in Section 45 would also include
typewriting.”
3560. In United States Shipping Board Vs. The Ship “St.
Albans” AIR 1931 PC 189 with respect to opinion of experts,
the Privy Council said :
“The extent to which the opinions or conclusions of skilled
persons are receivable by way of proof in point of fact has
not been seriously in doubt from the time when, in 1782, in
Folkes v. Chadd (1782) 3 Dougl, 157, Lord Mansfield
stated the grounds on which the evidence of Smeaton, the
famous constructive engineer, was to be admitted upon a
disputed question of obstruction to a harbour:
“the opinion of scientific men upon proven facts may be
given by men of science within their own science.”
Another Chief Justice, Lord Russell of Killowen,
explained the rule in a modern case of Reg. v. Silverlock
(1894) 2 Q.B. 766=63 L.J.M.C. 233=10 R. 431= 72 L.T.
298=43 W.R. 14=18 Cox. C.C. 104=58 J.P. 788. The
witness must have made a special study of the subject or
acquired a special experience therein. “The question is,
“Lord Russell said: “Is he peritus: is he skilled; has he
adequate knowledge?”
3561. In Amar Nath Vs. Mrs. Amar Nath AIR (35) 1948
Lahore 126 a Special Bench of the Lahore High Court
observed:
“What is admissible is evidence on the nature of this
marriage ceremony, on the intention of the parties in going
through the ceremony, and on the question of custom in
3574
variance of the general law, if such a custom is alleged.
Evidence is not admissible for the purpose of
ascertaining the principles of the ordinary Hindu Law of
marriage; that is purely a point of law which it is for the
Court to decide. In 21 Lah. 493 their Lordships of the Privy
Council deprecated the practice of obtaining the opinion
of experts for ascertaining the principles of Hindu or
Muslim law. Their Lordships observed on page 503:
“... Hindu or Muslim law were to depend on the evidence
given in a particular case. ….The system 'expert advisers'
(muftis, and maulvis or in the case of Hindu law pandits)
had its day but has long been abandoned, though the
opinions given by such advisers may still be cited from the
reports. Custom, in variance of the general law, is matter of
evidence but not the law itself.”
In this judgment their Lordships expressly approved the
observations of Sulaiman J. in Aziz Bano Vs. Mahomed
Ibrahim Hussain 47 ALL. 823 on page 835. In holding that
the so called expert evidence of a witness in regard to the
Shia law on marriage was not admissible under the
Indian Evidence Act, the learned Judge observed :
“The Shia law on marriage is the law of the land and
is in force in British India. ….. It is the duty of Courts
themselves to interpret the law of the land and apply it and
not to depend on the opinion of witnesses however learned
they may be.”
These observations would apply equally to the
interpretation of the Hindu Law of Marriage.”
3562. In Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj Vs.
3575
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar,
1940 PC 116 Privy Council also took the same view and
condemned the practice of obtaining opinion of so called
religious experts in the matter of principles of Hindu or Muslim
Law.
3563. In Forest Range Officer & others Vs. P.
Mohammed Ali & others AIR 1994 SC 120, it was observed :
“The expert opinion is only an opinion evidence on either
side and does not aid us in interpretation.”
3564. The caution, the Court must exercise while
considering opinion rendered by an expert is expressed, in
Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531, where the Court
held:
“But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert,
handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not
because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses-
the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which
an expert shares with all other witnesses-, but because all
human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong
because of some defect of observation, some error of
premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more
developed and the more perfect a science, the less the
chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the
science is less developed and imperfect. The science of
identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection
and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-
existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of
handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is,
therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His
3576
duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific
criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to
enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by
the application of these criteria to the facts proved in
evidence'.” (Para 4)
“Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed
and examined. ... In cases where the reasons for the
opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence
throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an
handwriting expert may be accepted. ...” (Para 11)
3565. In State Vs. Kanhu Charan Barik 1983 Cr.L.J.
133, a Division Bench of Orissa High Court held :
“Evidence of experts after all is opinion evidence. The
opinion is to be supported by reasons. The Court has to
evaluate the same like any other evidence. The reasons in
support of the opinion, if convincing, make the opinion
acceptable. There is no place for ipse dixit of the expert.
It is for the court to judge whether the opinion has been
correctly reached on the data available and for the reasons
stated.”
3566. Hon'ble Subba Rao (C.J.) (as His Lordship then
was) in Guntaka Hussenaiah Vs. Busetti Yerraiah AIR 1954
Andhra 39 said :
“The expert's evidence is only a piece of evidence. A
Judge of fact will have to consider that evidence along with
the other pieces of evidence. Which is the main evidence
and which is the corroborative one depends upon the facts
of each case.”
3567. In Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977
3577
SC 1091, the Court held that it is now well settled that expert
opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps
none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting
expert. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its
very nature, weak and infirm.
3568. A Single Judge of this Court also expressed the same
opinion in Saqlain Ahmad Vs. Emperor AIR 1936 Alld. 165
observing :
“The value of the expert evidence depends largely on the
cogency of the reasons on which it is based. In general it
cannot be the basis of conviction unless it is corroborated
by other evidence.”
3569. In Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor 5 IC 355, the Judicial
Commissioner, Oudh observed :
“Expert testimony derived from comparison of handwriting
is no doubt very valuable as evidence corroborating the
direct evidence if any upon the point, but it is only in rare
cases that it can take its place.
3570. It would be prudent to quote the following passage
from Taylor's Law of Evidence, page 1344, para 1877 about the
admissibility of evidence of experts :
“Still as experts usually come with a bias on their minds to
support the cause in which they are embarked, little weight
will in general be attached to the evidence which they give,
unless it be obviously based on sensible reasoning.”
3571. In Mt. Titli Vs. Alfred Robert Jones AIR 1934 All.
273, it was observed:
“The opinion of an expert by itself may be relevant but
would carry little weight with a Court unless it is supported
3578
by a clear statement of what he noticed and on what he
based his opinion. The expert should, if he expects his
opinion to be accepted, put before the Court all the
materials which induced him to come to his conclusion,
so that the Court, although not expert, may form its own
judgment on those materials. ... The mere mention that
certain kind of tests knows as Binet and Simon tests were
applied and certain results were obtained, might be
relevant as piece of evidence but would not be conclusive.”
3572. In Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri Vs. State AIR 1968
Bombay 127, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in para
11 of the judgment said :
“The opinion of an expert must be supported by reasons
and it is the reasons and not ipse dixit which is of
importance in assessing the merit of the opinion.”
3573. In Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh AIR
1924 Cal. 595, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
observed that in the matter of infringement of copyright, the
Court should be reluctant to sit as an expert to decide the
question of infringement of copyright and the proper course, in
ordinary circumstances, is to get the opinion of experts. This
was explained in Government of West Bengal Vs. Nitya Gopal
Basak & others 1985 CRI.L.J. 202 by a learned Single Judge
of Calcutta High Court that the above view was expressed
primarily on the ground that the Court would have to take great
pains and would have to waste its valuable time to ascertain how
far the piracy extended and it was desirable therefore to seek
opinion of expert to compare the works and to ascertain the
details to avoid excessive expenditure of time and labour. It was
3579
also pointed out that such a course was also necessary as the
Court might not be conversant with the alphabets of the book.
3574. In the context of opinion of handwriting expert, in
Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326,
the Court held that the opinion of handwriting expert though is
relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too
is not conclusive. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions in
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381 (at
page 388) and Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa AIR
1963 SC 1728 where it was observed that expert evidence as to
handwriting is an opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take
the place of substantive evidence. It cannot be conclusive
because it is after all opinion evidence. In para 11 of the
judgment in Fakhruddin (supra), the Apex Court further
observed that where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must
see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its
own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two
writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court
must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may
accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own
observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the
expert or other witness.
3575. In re B. Venkata Row (1913) 36 Mad. 159 a
quotation from Dr. Lawson's work on the "Law of Expert and
Opinion Evidence" was quoted, which reads as under :
“The evidence of the genuineness of the signature based
upon the comparison of handwriting and of the opinion of
experts is entitled to proper consideration and weight. It
must be confessed however that it is of the lowest order of
3580
evidence or of the most unsatisfactory character. We
believe that in this opinion experienced laymen unite with
the members of the legal profession. Of all kinds of
evidence admitted in a Court this is the most unsatisfactory.
It is so weak and decrepit as scarcely to deserve a place in
our system of jurisprudence.”
3576. This was followed in Indar Datt Vs. Emperor AIR
1931 Lahore 408. A Similar observation was made by Division
Bench of this Court in Srikant Vs. King Emperor (1905) 2 ALJ
444 and Kali Charan Mukerji Vs. Emperor (1909) 9 Cr.L.J.
498.
3577. In Sudhindra Nath Vs. The King AIR (39) 1952
Cal. 422, it was observed :
“We are now left with the evidence of identification
by the hand-writing Expert. With regard to this class of
evidence, it is a rule of law that it is extremely unsafe to
base a conviction upon the opinion of hand-writing experts.
Without substantial corroboration; because it is well known
that a comparison of hand-writing as a mode of proof is
always hazardous & inconclusive, unless it is
corroborated by other evidence.”
3578. In the context of a post mortem report, in State of
Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426, the Court said that
the post mortem report though by itself is not a substantive piece
of evidence, but can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant
provided it is corroborated by other evidence.
3579. In Perumal Mudaliar Vs. South Indian Railway
Company Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407 the manner of recording
opinion of expert was considered and a Single Judge (Hon'ble
3581
Beasley, C.J.) said :
“The evidence of experts must be given in the ordinary
way. Subject to certain exceptions- those exceptions being
amongst others, the certificates of the Imperial Serologist
touching the matter of bloodstains and of the Chemical
Examiner, which are made admissible in evidence by
themselves-it is quite obvious that the opinion of an expert
must be given orally and that a report merely or
certificate by him cannot possible be evidence. Unless he
goes into the witness box and gives oral evidence, there
can be no cross examination of the expert at all.”
3580. Similarly, another Single Judge in Coral Indira
Gonsalves Vs. Joseph Prabhakar Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad.
858 said :
“Certificates, like these, do not prove themselves. They
must be 'strictly proved' by the doctor who issues them. He
has to state what tests he carried out to arrive at his
conclusion and must stand cross-examination and convince
the Court that his conclusion about the potency is correct.”
3581. In reference to an Excise Inspector as to whether he
may be considered as expert within the meaning of Section 45
of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court in Sri Chand Batra Vs.
State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 639 said :
“Another question before us is whether the Excise
Inspector, whose evidence was under consideration, had
sufficient knowledge to be deemed to be an expert within
the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act so that the
tests adopted by him, together with all the attendant
circumstances, could establish beyond doubt that the
3582
appellant was in possession of illicit liquor. We think that
these are also essentially questions of fact.”
“We find that the Excise Inspector who had deposed,
at the very outset of his evidence, that he had put in 21
years service as Excise Inspector and had tested lacs of
samples of liquor and illicit liquor. As already pointed out,
the competence of C.D. Misra to test the composition and
strength of the liquid under consideration was not
questioned at all. We, therefore, think that this particular
Excise Inspector could be treated as an expert within the
meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act.”
3582. In Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq Vs. The State of
West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488 the Court held that an opinion
of expert unsupported by any reason is not to be relied on.
3583. In The Forest Range Officer and others Vs. P.
Mohammed Ali and others, AIR 1994 SC 120 the Court said:
"The expert opinion is only an opinion evidence on either
side and does not aid us in interpretation." (para 8)
3584. Who an expert witness would be, has been
considered in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and
others, AIR 1999 SC 3318 and it says:
"An expert witness, is one who has made the subject
upon which he speaks a matter of particular study,
practice; or observations; and the must have a special
knowledge of the subject." (para 13)
"Therefore, 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
3583
has adequate knowledge of the subject." (para 17)
"18. 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 materials furnished which form the basis
of his conclusions."
"19. The report submitted by an expert does not go in
evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness
in Court and has to face cross-examination."
3585. The relevance and importance of expert's evidence
in the present dispute has also been noticed by the Apex Court
in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (supra) and in para 154 it says:
"Thirdly, there is the aspect of evidence in relation to
the question referred. It is not our suggestion that a court
of law is not competent to decide such a question. It can be
done if expert evidence of archaeologists and historians is
led, and is tested in cross-examination. . . . . The Court
being ill-equipped to examine and evaluate such material,
it would have to appoint experts in the field to do so, and
their evaluation would go unchallenged. Apart from the
inherent inadvisability of rendering a judicial opinion on
3584
such evaluation, the opinion would be liable to the
criticism of one or both sides that it was rendered without
hearing them or their evidence. . . . ."
3586. Expert evidence thus is only a piece of evidence and
external evidence. It has to be considered along with other
pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and
which is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each
case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a
scientific opinion which is likely to be outside the experience
and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has
been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually
required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often
surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their
views would be made to correspond with the wishes and
interests of the parties who call them. They do not, indeed,
wilfully misrepresent what they think, but their judgment
becomes so warped by regarding the subject in one point of
view, that, when conscientiously deposed, they are incapable of
expressing a candid opinion.
3587. In Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency
Hospital Ltd. & Ors. JT 2009 (12) SC 377 Apex Court
considered the issue pertaining to expert opinion in a bit detail.
In para 11, the Court has said:
"The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court
considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a
reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requrement for
an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to
hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is
outside the knowledge and ecperience of the lay person. …
3585
The scientific question involved is assumed to be not with
the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science
involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric,
the central role of expert cannot be disputed. The other
requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are:
i. that the expert must be within a recognized field of
expertise
ii. that the evidence must be based on reliable principles,
and
iii. That the expert must be qualified in that discipline."
3588. The Court has also said that 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 on the subject or acquired a special
experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has
adequate knowledge on the subject. Referring to this Court's
decision in Titli Vs. Jones (Supra) the Court said that it is not
the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. The real
function of the expert is to put before the Court all the materials,
together with reasons which induce to come to the conclusion,
so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own
judgment by its own observation of those materials. Again in
para 15 of the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (Supra),
the Court said:
"An expert is not a witness of fact and 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 these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the
3586
case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible,
convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an
important factor for consideration along with 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. (See Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr.
Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1191-
1194 of 2005 alongwith Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2007,
decided on 7.8.2009."
3589. It also referred to an earlier decision in The State
(Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram AIR 1979 SC 14 where
the Court said "No expert would claim today that he could be
absolutely sure that his opinion was correct, expert depends to a
great extent upon the materials as put before him and the nature
of question put to him" and further in para 17 of the judgment in
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal (supra) the Apex Court said:
"In the Article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion" it has been
opined that the value of expert opinion rest on the facts on
which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable
opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of expert
depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the
validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached.
Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the
importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the
credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting
the opinion so that its accuracy can be cross checked.
Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on basis of
which opinion is formed. The same is clear from following
3587
inference: Mere assertion without mentioning the data or
basis is not evidence, even if it comes form expert. Where
the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the
evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from
consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the
correct value."
3590. In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762 is a very recent
judgment where the Apex Court has said "under the Evidence
Act the word 'admissibility' has very rarely been used. The
emphasis is on relevant facts. In a way relevancy and
admissibility have been virtually equated under the Indian
Evidence Act." Further referring to the opinion of finger print
expert in that matter it says that it is well known that the
evidence of finger print expert falls under the category of expert
evidence under Section 45 but it is also clear that this evidence
of finger print expert is not substantive evidence. Such evidence
can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive
evidence which are otherwise on record.
3591. Lord Campbell in Tracy Perrage Case (1843) 10 CI
& F 154 said that, being zealous partisans, their belief becomes
synonymous with faith as defined by the Apostle, and it too
often is but "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen". He also said that, skilled witnesses come with
such a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are
embarked, that hardly any weight may be given to their
evidence.
3592. Miller J in Middllings P Co. Vs. Christian, 4 Dillon
448 said, "By own experienced both in the local courts and in the
3588
Supreme Court of the United States is, that whenever the matter
in contest involves an immense sum in value, and when the
question turns mainly upon opinions of experts, there is no
difficulty in introducing any amount of them on either side."
3593. This is what we have found here also. Both sides
have produced well qualified and highly trained Historian and
others giving diametrically opposite opinion. It would be useful
to quote from Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 16
th
Edition, 2007
Vol. 1, page 1052:
"The infirmity of expert evidence consists in this that it is
mostly matters of opinion and is based on facts detailed by
others or assumed facts or opinion against opinion and
experts are selected by parties by ascertaining previously
that they will give an opinion favourable to the party
calling them. Expert evidence is however, of value in cases
where the courts have to deal with matters beyond the
range of common knowledge and they could not get along
without it, eg in matters of scientific knowledge or when the
facts have come within the personal observation of
experts."
3594. The learned author on page 1053 (supra) also said
"An expert is fallible like all other witnesses and the real value
of his evidence consists in the logical inferences which he draws
from what he has himself observed, not from what he merely
surmises or has been told by others. Therefore in cross-
examining him, it is advisable to get at the grounds on which he
bases his opinion. There is special difficulty in dealing with the
evidence of expert witnesses. Such evidence must always be
received with caution; they are two often partisans- that is, they
3589
are reluctant to speak quite the whole truth, if the whole truth
will tell against the party who had paid them to give evidence.
At the same time such witnesses are in a position of advantage;
for they have had that special training and experience which the
judge and jury are without; and the absence of which renders
necessary the presence of such witness. Expert witnesses are far
too prone to take upon themselves the duty of deciding the
questions in issue in the action, instead of confining themselves
to stating fairly and clearly their real opinion on the matter.
3595. In Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh 1998
(2) SCC 192 the Apex Court observed that the observation of
the High Court that there is a natural tendency on the part of an
expert witness to support the view of the party who called him,
could not be downgraded. Many so-called experts have been
shown to be remunerated witnesses making themselves
available on hire to pledge their oath in favour of the party
paying them.
3596. In Hari Singh Vs. Lachmi, 59 IC 220 the Court
observed that the evidence of skilled witness, however eminent,
as to what he thinks may, or may not have taken place under a
particular combination of circumstances, however confidently
he may speak, is ordinarily a matter of mere opinion. Human
judgment is fallible. Human knowledge is limited and imperfect.
An expert witness however impartial he may wish to be, is
likely to be unconsciously prejudiced in favour of the side
which calls him. The mere fact of opposition on the part of the
other side is apt to create a spirit of partisanship and rivalry, so
that an expert witness is unconsciously impelled to support the
view taken by his own side. Besides it must be remembered that
3590
an expert is often called by one side simply and solely because it
has been ascertained that he holds views favourable to its
interests.
3597. We have given just in brief some of the principles,
well settled, which may guide a Court while considering opinion
of an expert. We have to weigh the experts' opinion made
available to us in the matter in dispute though in two directions
and will try to find out the most creditworthy and reliable
opinion. In the light of the above, we proceed to consider the
opinion of the experts, who have made their deposition as
historians. On behalf of the pro-mosque parties i.e. Muslims,
PW 13-Dr. Suresh Chandra Mishra, PW-15 Dr. Sushil
Srivastava, PW-18 Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, PW 20 Prof. Shirin
Musvi have been examined as Experts (Historians); PW 16-
Prof. Suraj Bhan, PW 24 Prof. D Mandal, PW-27 Prof. Shereen
F. Ratnagar, PW-28 Dr. Sita Ram Roy, PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon,
PW 30 Prof. R.C. Thakran, PW 31 Dr. Ashok Dutta, PW 32 Dr.
Supriya Varma and DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid have been examined
as Experts (Archaeologists). On the other hand pro-temple
parties i.e. Hindus have examined, OPW-9 Dr. Thakur Prasad
Varma, OPW 11 Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal, DW-13/1-3 Dr.
Bishan Bahadur as Expert (Historians); OPW 10 Dr.
K.V.Ramesh and OPW 15 Dr. M.N.Katti as Experts
(Epigraphist); OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta, OPW-17 Dr. R.
Nagaswami, OPW-18 Arun Kumar, OPW 19 R.D.Trivedi and
DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava as Experts (Archaeologist).
The relevant statements of the Expert Historians of the two sides
need be considered at this stage. However, there are two
witnesses namely PW-16 and PW-24 who initially appeared as
3591
Historian Archaeologist.
3598. PW 13, Suresh Chandra Mishra, has deposed his
opinion that as per in-depth study which he has made about the
dispute of Babari Mosque, he has come to know that this
Mosque was constructed by Mir Baqi and no demolition was
made before its construction. No evidence he could find
suggesting existence of any temple at the disputed site.
Appointed as a Reader in Saraswati Co-educational College
affiliated with Delhi University in August 1973, he did his Ph.D.
in 1985 from the same University, while in service. He claimed
his specialization in Ancient History:
- ºi l·lºi·-|¬ººi (-riº·i) ¤ i¤|· ;lnri¬ ¤º r | (¤ ¬ ·)
"My specialization is in Ancient History." (ETC)
3599. An expert witness is like any other witness and has
to be tested in the same manner. We find that the learned
counsels of various defendants cross examined PW 13 very
elaborately and his entire statement is running in 288 pages. All
kinds of questions have been asked from him to test his veracity,
competence, expertise etc. He claims to have visited disputed
site in 1964 and on pages 33 said:
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i º l··il·n ·i·· ¬| ¬-«··i - - º| nr·
l¬ni¬i ·sss÷so - ¬in n r ; | ¬ l¬· - n l··i· ¬i ni· ni ¤r¬ r|
¬ ·ii| ;¬ l··i· ¬i ni· - n ¬n·in ·scs ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ r ¬i ·ii|
(¤ ¬ ss)
“My curiosity about the disputed site and the
disputed building cropped in 1989-90 but I had knowledge
of the dispute from before. I came to have knowledge of this
dispute in and around 1968.” (ETC)
3600. On page 37, he says that after deep study, he could
3592
ascertain the place of birth of Lord Rama:
- n ¤ni ¬n ¤ ¬i r l¬ ¬·¬i ¬·- -·ii· ¬ri r | ¤r -·ii· ¬¤i ·¤i
« r -¬ º· ¬i º ~l·i -i ¤· ·ii- ¬ -·¤ - ¤· ni r | ¤r ¬--n «¤i·
¬iº ¬¤· l··¬·i - · ¬¤· n ··ii ¬i ¤« ¬º ¬· ·iºi ¬º¬ , ªii ¬«|·
¬º¬ , ¬i º ¤¸ s nis ¬º¬ l·¤ r | (¤ ¬ s/)
“I have learned where his birth-place is. This place lies
between Ayodhya Brahma-kund and Rishi-Mochan ghat. I
have given all this statement and my findings by going
through books and by carrying out surveys, investigations
and enquiries.” (ETC)
3601. The material which he studied to form the said
opinion has been detailed on page 38:
;¬ ¬ « ·i - -¸ ¬ n ··i «i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi, -ri·iiºn, ·r ¬·¤
¬ ¬ ··º| ·· ¬ ¬i ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i| ¬ ¬ ··º| ·¬ ¬ - ¬iºo¬|o ·iº·iº¬º
¬ n lr--| ¬i¤ ··ºi¬|- ·io ¬ «|ºi ¬ ¬·i¬ ,iºi l¬ªi| l¬ni«
··¬¤- - ¬i¤ ··i·· ;· ;lº·¤i, ; o «·¬| ,iºi l¬lªin ºi- ¬ «iº
- l¬ªi| l¬ni«, ºi;- ¤¬ ¬i¤ ºi-i ¬i ¬iºo¤¬o « il¬¬-· ,iºi l¬ªi|
l¬ni«, ¬n--¤ ¬ lrni, ¬-nº ni¤·|¤i ¤l··i·, ¬¤i ·¤i -ri-- ¬ ¬·¤
n|· ¬ -¬ººi · ·i ·· lº¬¤ ;·¬-|- ¤¸ - ¬ ¤ i·n ¤iº· l¬l¤ ¬iº
«i·¬|¤· ¬i;« º| ¬ ··, n·ii ºi-·iºi¤ºi ·i¬ ¬ ¬ -¬ººi ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i
- ºi--¤|¬ººi l¤·ri ¬ ¤i -·i¬i ¬ ¬ l-¬ ¬ ··i · ¬i l··i· ª¤ ¬
-¤·- ¬ºn r ¬i ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r | ¤¬ ¬i º «r n ¬i·º¤¬ l¬ni« ¬i
- · ¬¤i ·¤i ¤º ¤« | r ·i n i l· nn · l·º·l·ni¬¤ (·|·º¬ º·) ¬ ri ¬
« ¬º ,iºi l¬lªin ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ·i| ¤« i r | ¤r «i· ·i¬| ¤ -n¬ ·sso ¬
¤r¬ ¤ ¬iºi· - ¬i n¤| ·i| ¬i º «i¬| ¬| l¬ni« ¬¬n ¬¬n ¬-¤ -
¤ ¬ilºin r ; r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“ In this respect, I studied the primary treatises like
Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata and also certain
secondary works. In the secondary works, I have studied
'History of Vaishnavism' by R.G.Bhandarkar, 'Development
of Vaishnavas in India' by Dr.Suvira Jaiswal, a book on
3593
Rama by E. Banerjee 'Righteous of Rama' by
R.L.Brokiuton, 'Agastya Samhita', 'Uttar Tapniyopnishad',
other three editions of Ayodhya Mahatmya, manuscript
received from the Vrindavan Research Institute, . . . . . .
from Bodleiyan Library London and a memoir of Ram
Narayan Das which vividly deals with the gradual growth
of symbols or sites typical of Rama. Another very important
book which I have studied on Ayodhya, is a book titled
'Ayodhya' authored by Hauns Bracker of Groningen
University of Netherlands. The subsequent book had been
published before 1990 and the rest of the books were
published at different times.” (E.T.C.)
3602. Following part of his statement, cross examination,
in our view, would reflect on the reliability of the opinion of the
aforesaid witness:
«i«º - ºi ¤ l· ·i l··i¤ ·ii| (¤ ¬ r«)
“Babur was my favourite subject” (ETC)
l··il·n «i ¤ ¬ «iº - - · -i ¬ ¤º ·i| ¬·¤¤· l¬¤i|
;lnril¬¬ · l·- ¬ - · ¬«¬ «· | «in ¤i; l¬ ;¬ «i ¤ ¬| n -«·
(·i -) ¬¬ ¤º ¬l¬n ¤¸ ¬ ¬| ¤ ªi l·¤i , ln¬i ·, ¬¬¬i ¬r·, «irº|
·|·i¬ ¤º «·i r ¬i l¬ r (ºi º) n·ii -l-¬· ¬ ·|¤ ·iin - - l-¬-
n¬ ·· · ¤º ¬i ;¬ «in ¬ ¤ n|¬ ·i l¬ ·r -l-¬· r | (¤ ¬ /o)
“I made study with regard to the disputed structure,
even at the site. The most important thing from the
historical point of view which I found, was a dome of this
structure depicting flower-petals, a triangular shape, its
courtyard, a lion carved out on the exterior wall, and the
Muslim glazed ware in the base part of the masjid, which
features were the symbols showing it (this structure) to a
mosque." (E.T.C.)
3594
¤r ¬r·i ·i| n¬n r l¬ - · ¬¬- ¤r n¬n «¤i·| ¬| ri l¬ ¬«
- º -ini÷l¤ni ;¬ ·i·· ¬ ¬··º ¤¬ n¤ ni - «irº ªi· i ºr n¤i
·ii| · ¬ ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬· cc ¬i º ¬· cs - ·i| ;¬ l··il·n ¤lº¬º
¬ «irº| - ª¤ ,iº ¤º ni¬i «·· ·ii ¬iº ¬i ; ·i| ·¤l·n ¬··º ·r| ¬i
¬¬ni ·ii| (¤ ¬ ss)
“It is wrong to say that in the said testimony I have
wrongly stated that when my parents went inside this
building, I was left standing outside the building. However,
it is true that even in 1966 and 1969 the main outdoor of
this disputed premises was locked and none could go
inside.” (ETC)
¬« - ¬¤· ;¬ -·i¬ l·º|·iºi ¤º ·sso - n¤i ni ·ri ¬i· ¤º
ºi ¬÷-i ¬ ·i| ¬l¬· ¬¬¬ «i·¬¸ · ·i| - n ¬i ni · ·ri ¬i· l·¤i|
- n ¬« -r|·i ¤i -i ¬- ¤i· ·r| r ¬« - -·i¬ l·º|·iºi ¤º n¤i ·ii|
- -i ¬ ¤º ºii- ¬ ¬-¤ n¤i ·ii| ¬ l¬· l·lº¤n ni º ¤º ¬-¤ ·r|
«ni ¬¬ni| - ¤r ·i| -|¬ ¬ ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ¬¸ ¤ ls¤· ¬ ¤r¬
n¤i ·ii ¤i ¬¸ ¤ ls¤· ¬ «i· n¤i ·ii| - ¤r ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ¬¬
··n ·ºi · ¬º· ¬i ¬-¤ ·ii ¤i ·r| | ¬· «ini ¬i s ··i ri ¤ ¬ r |
¬· ¬ ¬ ¤lº¬º ¬ ¤¸ ·| si º ¤º ¬i ¬· ¬ ¬in| r ¬¬¬ - ·i|nº n¤i
·ii| . . . . ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ ·sso - ¤¸ · ¬| ¬i º ¬ ¤lº¬º -
¬ ·º ¬i· ¤º ¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬ ºi ¬ ¬n| r ; ·i|| - ºi ¬ ¬ «i·¬¸ · ·i|
;¬i¬n ¬ ¬º ¬ ·º n¤i ·ii| ¬i ¤ l¬¬ ·i¬ ·ri « - ·i - · ¬·¬ ¤r
;¬i¬n ¬ ¬| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·«/)
“In 1990, when I went to this site for inspection, there was
a bar on ingress to that place. But despite all that, people
allowed me to go there. I do not remember the month or
season when I visited the site. I visited the site in the
evening. But I cannot definitely tell the time. I also cannot
properly tell whether my visit preceded or followed the
sunset. I cannot say whether it was the time of having
darshan or not. 8 years has past since then I went inside
3595
through the road leading to the eastern end of the
premises . . . . . . It is wrong to say that in 1990 there was a
complete ban on ingress to the premises from the east.
Despite the ban, I went inside. I had taken the permission
from the policemen on guard.” (ETC)
-r-¸ · n¬··| ¬ «i· ¬n¬i ¬i¬ -ºi -i r--· niº| ¬i r ¬i
·ii| (¤ ¬ ·/s)
"After Mahmud of Ghazni, the next invasion was
made by Muhammad of Ghur.” (ETC)
¬¬· ¬¤·i ¬ilªiº| ¤ , «iºr·| ºini··| - ¬|ni ·ii ¬¬·
¤ ··|ºi¬ ¤i ri· ¬i rºi¤i ·ii| -i r--· niº| ;-¬i- ¬i -i·· ·i¬i
·ii| ¤ ··| ºi ¬ ¤i ri · n¬·| ¬ ºi ¬i ·i , ¬¬¬ ¬i ¬ ¤i ¬
¬ ºi ¬i ·i i | (¤ ¬ ·/s)
“He won his last battle in the 12
th
century. He
defeated Prithvi Raj Chauhan. Muhammad of Ghur was a
follower of Islam. Prithvi Raj Chauhan was king of
Ghazni; he was a king of its adjoining area. " (ETC)
¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ ¤ , ¬|n· ¬ «i· -i o ni º| · ¤ ··|
ºi¬ ¤i ri· ¬| ·i ·i ¬i ªi l·¬¬·i ·| ·i| ¬i º l¤º l¬º ¬i- l·¤i ·ii
·i-n· - ¤r l r· ·¸ ¬-- º·i l ·¤i ¬| ¬¤·| ¬¤i ¬¬~¤·i
r | (¤ ¬ ·so)
“It is wrong to say that after winning the battle
Muhammad of Ghur caused both the eyes of Prithvi Raj
Chauhan to be gouged out and then his head to be chopped
off. Actually, it is an imagination of the Hindu hard-
liners." (ETC)
- · ¬l ¬¤i - ·¬ ¬i ·i - ¬ ·i r | - n ¤i· ·r| ¬i
ºri l¬ ¬l¬¤i - ·¬ l¬¬¬ ºii¬· - ¤i l¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬ni ·ii| ;¬
¬-¤ - n ¤i· ·r| ¬i ºri l¬ ¤r ¬« ¬i º l¬¬l¬¤ ¬ni¤i n¤i ·ii|
- n ¤i · ·r| ¬i ºri l ¬ ¬l ¬¤i - ·¬ ¬ ·¬ l r· · ¬i ¤º
¬nni ·i i | (¤ ¬ ·s«)
3596
“I have heard of Jazia tax. I fail to recall under
whose rule or at which time the Jazia tax was imposed. At
present I fail to recollect when and for what purpose it was
levied. I do not remember that the Jazia tax was levied
only on Hindus.” (ETC)
- º| ¬i ·¬i º| - ¬i ¬ ¬ ¤¬ ¬i ·· i ¤¸ · ¬i ºi | -
l ·º··i ·i - l ·º ·r| ·i i | . . . .- ¤r ·r| -i·ni l¬ ni··¤i¤|
-l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi ¬iºi| l·º··i·i - l·º ¬ ¬i·i lr-¬ ¬i ni · ¬º l¬¤i
n¤i ri | - ¤r ·i| ·r| -i·ni l¬ ¤r ¬ri n¤i l·-i ºi ¬i º n¬ « ·
¬º·i¤i ri | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l ¬ ¬i ºi | l ·º··i ·i - l ·º ¬
¬i ·i ·i i n ¬i ni · ¬º ¬i º n¬ « · ni ··i ¤| -l -¬· ¬i
l ·-i ºi ¬º·i ¤i ri | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“In my knowledge, there was no Vishwanath
temple in Kashi 100 years ago.. . . . . . I do not think that
the Gyanvapi mosque was constructed by demolishing half
of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. I also do not take it to be
true that the said construction was raised by Aurangzeb. It
is wrong to say that Aurangzeb built the Gyanvapi
mosque by demolishing half of the Kashi Vishwanath
temple." (ETC)
- ¬·i | ·i | n·i r| · · ¬ l ¬¤ r·i ; ¬ri ¬ ¬ ·r| ¬i ¤i
....... - º ¬ ¤i¤i ¬ºni r¸ ........ ¤r -|¬ r l¬ - · l¤s¬| «iº ¬·i¬n
¬i «n¬i¤i ·ii l¬ - z «i º r·i ; ¬ri ¬ ¬ ·i | ·i ¤¬ l ·~¬|
n¤i r¸ | (¤ ¬ zo·)
“I never came by air to give my testimony. ...... I travel by
rail ........ It is true that I told the court last time that I had
gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times." (ETC)
¬··|¬·| ºini··| ¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ ¬ l··il·n -·i¬ -i ¬i ¬i - ºi-¤··
¬| ¬|-i - ¬ini r | ¬¬¬ ¤r¬ ;¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i - «i ¬i ¬ini ºri r |
;¬ «i n ¬i l ¬¬ - n ·i ºi l º· ºi -i ¤ºi ¬ ¬· ·º l -¬i ·i i
l ¬ ;¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i - ¬ri n¤i r | - n ¬« ¤i· ·r| r l¬ - ·
3597
¤ ¬i ¬ri ¤« i r ¤i l¬¬ ¬nr · ªii r l¬ ¬··|¬·| ºini··| ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i
¬i - ¬| «¬i¤ ;¬ -i ¬ ¬i ·i- ¬i - ºi-¤·· ¤· n¤i ri | (¤ ¬ z··)
“The disputed site falls within the limit of mauja-
Ram Chandra Kot from in and around the 19
th
century.
Prior to it, it was called Eyodhya Kot. I came across its
being called Ayodhya Kot, in the Bhushundi Ramayana.
At present I fail to remember where I have read or at which
place I have seen that from the 19
th
century this mauja has
come to be called Ram Chandra Kot instead of Ayodhya
Kot .” (ETC)
- · ºi- ¬·- ·i¸l- ¬ «iº - ¬i l·ºi ¤ l¬¤i r ¬¬¬i ¬i·iiº - ºi
-¬·· ¤ ºiºi ¬i ¬·¤¤· - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ¬i º n|·i ¬-«··i| n-i- l¬-º ¤º
¬i ·/·| ºini··| n¬ ¤¬ni r ¬iº - º ¬· ·iºi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r - · ¬i
¤ -n¬ - - ¬º- - l·¤ r ¬·¬i ¤ ¬ ¬º· ¬| ¬i lºiºi ¬| r | - ·
-i ¬ ¤º ·¤i ; ·r| ¬| | ¬ l ¬· ¬i ªi i ¬ · ªi ¬º ¬¬¬|
¬·¤i ; ¬i ¬ i ¬¬· l ¬¤i r | ¤r ¬i¤ - · ·sss÷so - ¬º l¬¤i
·ii| (¤ ¬ z·r)
“The finding which I have inferred in regard to Ram Janam
Bhumi, is based mainly on my study of Skandha Purana
and is also based on plenty of pilgrimage-related literature
which extends up to the 17
th
century and on my survey. I
have tried to check the measurements given in the book. I
did not try to take measurements on the site. But I have
tried to verify its veracity by observing them with the
eyes. I had done this work in 1989-90.” (ETC)
l¬¬ ¬-¤ - · ;¬ ·i·· ¬i l·º|·iºi l¬¤i ni ¤r ¤i ¤i l ¬ ¤r
l ¬¬| ¤ ºi · ·i ·· ¬ ªi º·rº ¤º ¤¬ -| ¬ ¬ ¬ -·i i · ¤º
«·i r ¬i r | (¤ ¬ z·c)
“On observation of this building I found that it is built on
a mound-like place on the remains of some old
3598
building." (ETC)
¬ri n¬ - ¬-nni r¸ , - n ;¬ ¬·i ¬n - n·i r| ¬ l ¬¤ ;¬
l ·· i ¤ ¤º « ¬i ¤i n¤i r l ¬ l ¬¬ ·i ¸ l - ¤º l ··i · r ¬i ¤i
l ¬ ·ri l ¬¬| -l · ·º ¬i ni · ¬º -l -¬· «·i ; n; ·i | ¤i
·r| - · ¤r «¤i · l ·¤i r (¤ ¬ zz«)
“As far as I understand, I have been summoned in this
court to depose whether or not a mosque was
constructed by demolishing a temple on the disputed site.
I have given this statement,” (E.T.C.)
- n -i ¬ ¤º ¬|ni¬¸ ¤ l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬-nº÷¤¸ ·| nº¤ l-¬i ·ii| ¤r
¬|ni¬¸ ¤ l··il·n -·i¬ ¬| «i¬º· | ¬ ·o÷zo n¬ ¬| ·¸ º| ¤º ·ii| -
;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n ·r| r¸ l¬ ¬|ni¬¸ ¤ l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ·l·iºi ¬|
nº¤ ·ii| (¤ ¬ zz/)
“On the site, I found Sitakoop towards north-east of the
disputed building. This Sitakoop was 10-20 yards away
from the boundary of the disputed site. I do not agree to the
point that Sitakoop was towards south of the disputed
building." (ETC)
¬ri ¬|ni ¬¸ ¤ l¬ªii r ¬¬¬ ·ii ·i ·i; nº¤ r-¬º ¬i -ºi ·i|
l·ªii¤i n¤i r | - º lr¬i« ¬ ··ºi - ¤r l·ªii¤| n¤| l-·iln l«¬¬ ¬
n¬n r | (¤ ¬ zsz)
“The ‘Lomash’ is shown a bit right to the place where ‘Sita
Kup’ is written. According to me, this location shown in the
map is totally wrong." (ETC)
- ·sss - ¬« ·ri n¤i ni ·ri ¤º ¬| ºi- ¬¬i ¬| ¤ ln-i -·iil¤n
·i|| ¬l¬· ¤ ¬i ·r| r l¬ ¤r ·r| -¸ln ·i| ¬i ¬· ·scc - ·i| ·ri
¤º -·iil¤n ºr| ri | - ¤r «in l·lº¤n ª¤ ¬ ¬r ¬¬ni r¸ l¬ ·sss
- ¬i ¬| ºi- ¬¬i ¬| -¸ ln - · ·ri ¤º · ªi| ·i| ·r ·scc - ·ri ¤º
-·iil¤n ·r| ·i|| - º ¬i·i ¬ s ¬i n ni;· ¬ªº ·i | ¬·ri · - n ¤r
«in «n¬i¤| ·i| l¬ ¤r -¸ln ·scc ·i¬| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zss)
“When I went there in 1989, the idol of Sri Ramlala was
3599
present there. But it is not so that it was the same idol
which was present there in the year 1966. I can say this
definitely the idol of Sri Ramlala which I saw in 1989, was
not there in 1966. There were few guides with me, who told
that this idol was not that of 1966.” (E.T.C.)
- n ¬¤· ni;· ¬ ¬i ·i-, ¤ni ¬il· ¬ s -i¬¸ - ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zss)
“ I do not know the name, address etc. of my guides.”
(E.T.C.)
·i-n· - ·r ni;· ·i| ·r| ·i | ¤ ¬ r| ¬i ; l-¬ n¤i ·ii| . .
. ·i-n· - - ºi ¬i ; ni;· r| ·r| ·ii| (¤ ¬ zss)
“Actually he was neither a guide. He had just met by
chance. . .. . . .. . .Actually I had no guide.” (E.T.C.)
- º l·¤iº - ·r -¸ ln ·¤i·i ¬ ¬¤i·i ¤¬ ¤i ·i ¬i¬ ¤ ºi·|
·i| ¬iº ·¤i l¬ ¬¬- ¤-¬ ·i| ;¬l¬¤ ·¤| ¬n ºr| ·i|| (¤ ¬ zss)
“In my opinion this idol was hardly one or two years
old, because it had shine. As such it appeared new."
(E.T.C.)
ri - · ¬¤· ¬· · · i ºi - ;¬ nº| ¬ ¬i ·i | ¬¤·i ¤i
l ¬ ¬i ¬i ; ·i | · ¤l ·n - n l -¬ ¬i ni ·i i ¬¬| ¬ -
¤¸ s÷ni s ¬º ¬ ni ·i i | (¤ ¬ z«o)
“Yes, in my research I even adopted this practice
that whosoever I met, I made inquiries from him.” (ETC)
«i «º| -l -¬· ¬| ni -| º ¬ «i «n «i «º·i -i ¬ l ¬ªi
¬i · ¬ ··n ¬ ¬ ¬º ·sss n¬ ¬ «| ¤ - l ¬ªi | n¤|
n-i - ¤ -n¬ - · ¤« | r | - n ;¬ ··n l ¬¬| ·i | l ¬ni «
¬i ·i - ¤i · ·r| r | - · ¤« | ¬ªº ri n| | (¤ ¬ zr/)
“I have read many books written from the time of
Babarnama to 1989, regarding construction of Babri
mosque. I do not remember the name of any book right
now. I must have read it.” (E.T.C.)
3600
n·ir ¬i ¤ ¤º · o ·o/ ¬| · ¤ ¬ · o s/ ¬i; -- · o zc ¬i l¬
l -l ¤··i ¬º ,i ºi ºl ¤n ¤ -n¬ ¬i ¬ n ¬| ¬· ·i · l ·ªi i ¤i
n¤i | n·ir · ¬ri l¬ ¤r ¬· ·i· -¸ ¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬i ¬r| ¬· ·i· ·r|
r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ;¬ ¬ l···i ¬· ·i· - ¤r ·r| l¬ªii n¤i r l¬
-l·º ni · ¬º «i«º| -l-¬· «··i¤| n¤| ¤º·n -¸ ¬ ¤ -n¬ - ¤r
·ºi i ¤i n¤i r l ¬ ¤r l r· · ¬i ¬i ¬· ·i l ·º·i ¬ r | - n
¤ ·¤ ·ii·ii ni ·r| ¬in|| ¬l¬· ¬¬¬i ¬· ·i· ¤« i r | ¬· ·i·¬ ¬i
·i- - n ¤i· ·r| r | n·ir · ;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¬· ·i· ¬i ¬i - -
l·ªi¬i¤i ¬i l¬ ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬r| ¬· ·i· r ¬i º ¬¬¬| ¤i -i -- -
¬i¤| lº¬i· - ·ilªi¬ ¬| l¬¬ ¤º ¤ ¤º · o ¬| z,·r« ·i¬i
n¤i|(¤ ¬ zrs)
“The witness was shown item no. 26 at page no. 97
of paper no. 107C-1, which is the English translation of
the book of Trifenthelar. The witness said that the
translation was not the correct translation of the original
book. It is true that in this doubtful translation it has not
been written that the Babri mosque was built after
demolishing a temple, but in the original book it has been
written that it is superstition of Hindus. I do not know
French language but I have read its translation. I do not
remember the name of the translator. The witness produced
the translation of said book in Court, which according to
him was the correct translation, and filed its photocopy in
record, which was numbered as paper no. C-2/154.” (ETC)
- º ¬i·i ¤¬ l·ºi·in ·ii ¬iº ¤r ··ºii - n ¬¬ l·ºi ·in · l·¤i ·ii
¬l¬· ¬¬ l·ºi ·in ¬i ·i-, ¤ni ¬ s - n -i¬¸ - ·r| r | ·r l·ºi·in
- º ¬i·i l·~¬| ¬ ¤¬¬º ¬i¤i ·ii| (l¤º ¬ri ·r l·~¬| ¬ ¬¬n
¬i¤i ·ii ¬l¬· - n -i ¬ ¤º l-¬ n¤i ·ii) (¤ ¬ z/s)
“ An expert was with me and the map had been given to me
by that expert, but I do not remember the name & address
of that expert. That expert had accompanied me from
3601
Delhi. ( then said that he had come separately from Delhi
but had met me at the spot)." (E.T.C.)
- · ¬ s ¬·- ¬-i¤ ·i l··il·n ·i·· ¬| ¤ lnril¬¬ni ¬i ¬i·· ¬
l¬¤| - · ¤i -º| ¬i ªi i ¬· ¬| ¬i l ºi ºi ¬| | ¬¬ -·i¬
¤º ¤¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ·ii, ¬i «i«º| -l-¬· - ·ii, ¬¬¬i · ªii| - ª¤ ª¤
¬ ¤r| ·i ¬·- ¬-i ¤ ·i | - · ¬i ; ¬-ªi·· ·r| l¬¤i|
¬l·i¬ ªi ¬ - ºi -n¬« «i«º| -l-¬· - ¬n r ¤ ;·¬l¬ ·¬· ¬ r |
(¤ ¬ z/c)
“I had made some attempts to know the history of the
disputed structure. I had attempted to trace out potteries.
I had seen a record at that place, which was within the
Babri mosque. I had mainly made only these two
attempts. I had not carried out any excavation. By record, I
mean the inscription at the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C.)
- ;¬ «i n ¬i ¬l nºi ¤i l ·n -i ·ni r¸ l ¬ ºi -
··-| , ¬i ·· n¸ ¬i ¬i l · ¤·i ¤º ·ri ¬i ªi i ¬| ¬ ª¤i -
¬i n ¤¬l ¤n ri n ri | (¤ ¬ z/s)
“I consider it hyperbolic that lacs of people
gathered there during the festival of Ramnavami, Sawan
Jhula etc."(ETC)
3603. About PW 15, Sushil Srivastava, we have already
dealt in detail while considering the issues about the date of
construction of the disputed building. The aforesaid witness has
given a new theory that the building in dispute was constructed
much earlier from the period when Babar came to India and
must have been constructed before commencement of Mughal
period. It is clearly against the pleadings of Muslim parties on
whose behalf he has appeared as an expert witness. He also
admits of teaching "Modern History" and on page 220, he
admits that he has a very little knowledge of History. He,
3602
however, admits that there was a possibility of an earlier
structure at the place where the disputed building was
constructed:
- · ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¤ ·- ··s ¤º ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ;¬ ¤ ¬iº
¬| ¬ · i i ··i ¬ ·¬i º ·r| ¬¬n ¤i ·| ¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬ ·¬i º
·r| ¬¬n l ¬ ¤i ·| «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ -·i i · ¤º ¬· ¤ ¬i ;
¤ i ¤| · l ·-i ºi · ºri ri | ..... - ºi ¤r l··¬·i ¬l··i- ¬| lº¤i -
¤º ¬i·iilºn r | (¤ ¬ zss)
“At page 113 of my book, I have written that this
probability cannot be ruled out, i.e, cannot be completely
ruled out, i.e, no other ancient construction would have
existed at the place of Babri mosque......This conclusion
of mine is based on Cunningham's report." (ETC)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ·|¤ l-·in -|¬ - ¤-·iº ¤i¤ ¬in
·i | ;¬ -|¬ - ¬n r ¤ ¤-·iºi ¬i ¬i¬iº «r n «· i ·ii ¤i·| ·i
«· ÷«· ¤-·iº ¬n ·i | (¤ ¬ z«s)
“It is true that stones were found in the mound below
the Babri mosque. The size of the stones in this mound was
very big, i.e. very large stones were present.” (ETC)
¤ º·÷ ¬i¤· ¬i ¬·i| +¤º «¤i· l·¤i r l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬
·|¤ l-·in -|¬ - «· «· ¤-·iº ¬n ·i ¬¬¬ ¬i¤¬i -n¬« ¬in
¬i; ¬· l·¬ ¬ ¬ r ¤i ¬i n ¬i; ¬ --i ·¬ ¬ r `
¬-nº÷ - ºi -n¬« ¬i n ¬i ; ¬ l « ¬¬ ¬ r |(¤ ¬ z«s)
“Q. You have just stated above that in the mound
below the Babri mosque large stones were present, did you
mean by “long size bricks” or “long size stones?”
“Ans. I mean by long size bricks.” (ETC)
3604. He has written a book "An Inquiry on the Disputed
Mosque". On page 87 thereof, he has written that in 17
th
century,
the people started claiming that the building in dispute was
3603
constructed by Babar after demolishing a temple but on page
256 of his cross examination, he said that the 17
th
century
mentioned on page 87 of his own Book is wrong and it ought to
be 19
th
century:
;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¤ ¬ s/ ¤º ·/ ¬ · ¤ º| l ¬ªi i r n¬n r |
¬r| - ·s·| ¬·| ri ·i ¤i l r¤| l¤º ¬ri l¬ ¤r -i·¤ni l¬
«i«º · - l·º lnºi¬º -l-¬· «··i¤i r ·r ·s·| ¬·| ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i·i
lr-¬ - ºi ª r ; | ·s·| ¬·| ¤ ·i- ·iin ¬ - ºi -n¬« ·so· ¬ ·sro
«|¤ ¬i r | ¬··i ¤ ·ºi ¬i l·¬¤ ; -- ;lº·¤i ¬ ¤·| ¤i·| l« l-ºi ºi·¤
¬ ·s ¤º·º| ·src - r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ zrc)
“At page 87 of this book, 17 century is written,
which is wrong. In fact, it should be 19
th
century. Further
said that the supposition that Babar had got constructed
the mosque after demolishing the temple, commenced in the
first half of 19
th
century. By first half of 19
th
century, I mean
the period between 1801 to 1850. The amalgamation of
Avadh Province in East India Company took place on13
th
Feburary 1856. i.e. since the British rule." (ETC)
3605. He has further said:
- º| ¬i·¬iº| - ·rzc ¬ ¤r¬ ¬ ¤ ¤· ¬¬iº -¬¸ ·| ¤·
;··«n ni ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬·¤ ¬i ; l·· ºi| - ¬¬-i· ¤i¤| ¬¤i ·¤i - ·r|
¬i¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ zcz)
“To my knowledge, prior to 1526, except Syed Salar
Masoodi and Ibne Batuta, no any other foreign Muslim
Traveller had come to Ayodhya." (ETC)
-n¬« ¤r r l¬ ;¬ «i n ¬ ¤¸ º| nºr ·¬i ºi ·r| ¬i ¬¬ni
l ¬ l ¬¬ ¬nr ¤º «i «º| -l -¬· l -·i n ·i | ¤ri ¤º ¤r¬
¬i ; ¤ ºi ·i -- ·¤º l ·-i ºi ¬·i i n ¤ i ¤| · l ·-i ºi ·i i |
(¤ ¬ zc/)
“means that it cannot be wholly ignored that where
3604
Babri mosque situated, earlier, there had been any old
structure or ancient construction." (ETC)
¤r «i«º| -l-¬· ·srs ¬ ·srr n¬ - ¬¬-i ·i ¬
¬· ¬ - ·r| ºr| r | (¤ ¬ z/·)
“This Babari mosque had not been in possession of
Muslims during 1853 to 1855.” (ETC)
3606. All the Muslims parties have denied of any riot or
dispute among the two communities in 1855 but this witness
gave a different stand and admitted such a clash:
·srr ¬ «i · l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º l r· · ¬i ¬i º - ¬¬-i ·i
¬ «| ¤ ¬i ; nn· i ·r| r ¬i | (¤ ¬ z/·)
“After 1855, no clash took place at the disputed place
between Hindus and Muslims." (ETC)
3607. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW 15 has
been challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement
at page 129 observing that Shshil Srivastava is a Modern
Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
3608. PW-16 Sri Suraj Bhan, a Professor in the Ancient
Indian Archaeological Department of Kurukshetra University,
Rohtak, has deposed that according to his research, no evidence
he could find whereupon it could be said that the Babari Mosque
was constructed after demolition of a temple. He is co author of
document, Exhibit 62 (Suit-4) (also Exhibit 45, Suit 5; Register
32 Page 231) which is a letter said to be prepared by four
historians, namely, Dr. R.S. Sharma, M. Athar, Sri D.N. Jha and
PW 16. He claims that the archaeological part in the said
document was written by him.
3609. Exhibit 45 (Suit-5) (Register 32 Page 231) is a
photocopy of a booklet claimed to be written by R.S. Sharma,
M. Athar Ali, D.N. Jha and Suraj Bhan titled as “Babari
3605
Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians Report to the
Indian Nation” dated 13
th
May 1991. This document has been
heavily relied by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) in support of the
submissions that neither the site in dispute was ever believed to
be the birthplace of Lord Rama nor there existed any temple
which was demolished to construct building in dispute. Its
relevant extract is:
"Introduction
For the last two years a furious agitation has been
organised in this country under the aegis of the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad and its allies over what has come to be
known as the Ram Janambhumi-Baburi Masjid Dispute.
Precious lives have been lost, communal riots have broken
out, and for the first time since independence the secular
nature of our State has come under serious threat, all
seemingly over the issue of what is to be done to a 16th-
century structure at Ayodhya.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad demands that this
structure, a mosque built in 1528-29 known as the Baburi
Masjid, stands on the very site where Lord Rama was born
(“Ram Janambhumi” or “Ram Janamsthan”), and at
which sacred spot there existed a Rama temple, which was
destroyed in order to build the mosque. This historical
wrong done to the Hindu community nearly 450 years ago
is now sought to be set right, the mosque pulled down or
shifted, and a new, magnificent Rama temple built on the
same spot. The legalities of the dispute – the entire case is
before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) – are to
be brushed aside, in view of the higher verdict of History,
3606
which the VHP has already beclared to be in its favour.
The government of India, under circumstances that
are well known, began negotiations [December 1990] with
the VHP and the Baburi Masjid Action Committee
(BMAC), with a view to examine the historical and legal
merits of the case of both the parties. Thus the dispute over
the facts of history were now to be decided by the litigants,
with the government of India as an umpire, and not by any
independent forum of historians: a very unhappy
procedure. We therefore approached the Government of
India to include impartial historians in the process of
forming judgement on historical facts and to let us have
access to such evidence, archaeological and textual, as has
been presented to it or is in possession of Government
organisations, such as the Archeological Survey of India.
We regret to say that the Government of India's response to
this was largely on of silence. The BMAC declared that it
was ready to abide by the findings of a set of independent
historians, but this position was not acceptable to the VHP.
However, in spite of these obstacles, we thought that
national interest required an unbiased and impartial
inquiry, so that people should be clear about what the
historical facts are. We scrutinised most carefully the
evidence submitted to Government by the VHP and BMAC,
and collected historical material on our own. Two of us
went to Ayodhya to examine and survey the site and the
structure of the Baburi Masjid. We also examined
archeological material from Professor A.K.Narian's
excavations at Ayodhya, now preserved at the Banaras
3607
Hindu University. To our regret, through no lack of trying
on our part, material from B.B.Lal's excavations at
Ayodhya was not made available for inspection for us; and
we had to depend on published reports only.
Having undertaken this effort, we place in all
humility the results of our enquiry before the nation. We
will at least have the satisfaction that, within the limits of
our capacity, we have done our duty.
The VHP's case rests on the following four major
claims:
(1) The Hindus have always, and certainly over a
long period before the construction of the Baburi
Masjid, believed in there being a very sacred spot at
Ayodhya, where Lord Rama was born.
(2) This spot was the very site where the Baburi
Masjid now stands.
(3) A temple dedicated to Rama stood at this holy site
long before the Baburi Masjid was built.
(4) The temple was pulled down to construct the
Baburi Masjid at this spot.
We now proceed to examine these claims, largely in
the order as they are listed above.
We have, first, to see what substance there is in
claims (1) and (2), namely that Hindus have for a very long
time believed in the sanctity of Ram Janamsthan at
Ayodhya, and in its existence at the very site of the Baburi
Masjid."
"No basis in Hindu scriptures
People will be surprised to find that the VHP has
3608
been unable to cite any ancient Sanskrit text in support of
its claim that there has been an ancient Hindu belief in
Ram Janamsthan at Ayodhya. Surely if there were such a
strong belief, there would have been numerous Vaishbavite
texts exhorting worshippers to visit the spot. The absence of
any such reference makes it very dubious that the belief in
Rama Janamsthan is of such respectable antiquity as is
being made out. It is even doubtful if it is earlier than the
late 18
th
century, as we shall see here.
The only Sanskrit text the VHP experts have
produced in support of claims (1) and (2) is the Skanda
Purana. They refer to the Ayodhya-mahatmya, that is, the
merits of visiting Ayodhya given in Skanda Purana. We
have used the printed version of the Skanda Purana
(Kashemarian edn., Bombay, 1910) and two other versions
found in Manuscripts in Vrindavan Reswarch Institute,
Vrindaban, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. These texts
are of recent origin and the insertion of interpolations in
the Ayodhya mahatmya section of the printed Skanda
Purana seems to have continued at least till the 18
th
century. The internal contents of the Skanda Purana
including the mention of Vidyapati, who passed away in the
first half of the 16
th
century, show that the core of this
Purana itself was not compiled until earlier than the 16
th
century. Ayodhya-mahatmya given n the printed version
has not been compiled by one hand. For example, the
course of the description of the tirathas [pilgrimage] in
general is interrupted and all of a sudden the glorification
of Ayodhya starts. In the case of Ayodhya itself the virtues
3609
of visiting and bathing in the Sarayu river are not given at
one place, but at two places; in between the contexts have
nothing to do with the Sarayu. We also find that in the
description of the trithas, Visishta replaces Agastya as the
narrator, and then again the narration is taken over by
Agastya. This shows obvious interpolation. The description
of Janamsthan occurs in the last chapter of the Ayodhya-
mahamtya (Verses 18-25), and is clearly a later addition. It
is easier to make insertions at the end of texts.
In spite of these various inconsistencies, even if we
accept the location of the birthplace of Rama as given in
Ayodhya-mahatmya, it does not tally with the site of the
Baburi Masjid. Two terms are used for the birthplace of
Rama, Janamsthan and Janambhumi. Even if we take the
two to be identical, the Ayodhya-mahatmya information
about the location of the birthplace does not take us to the
Baburi Masjid site. Both the Vrindaban and Bodleian
versions of the Mahatmya mention the compass directions
and distance from a few states. According to verses 21.24
the birthplace is located 500 dhanus (910 meters)
westward of Laumash and 1009 dhanus (1835 meters)
eastward of Vighneshvara. According to local Hindu belief
Laumash or the place of Lomash is identical with the
present Rinamochana Ghat. On this basis the Rama
Janambhumi should be located somewhere west, in the
vicinity of the Bhahmakunda close to the bed of the Sarayu.
Further according to the Mahatmya Rinamochana Ghat, or
the place of Lomash, lies 700 dhanus (1274 meters)
northeast of Brahmakunda. Both the direction and the
3610
distance have been found to be approximately correct by
us. It is further stated that the Janamsthana lies northeast
of Vighnesh. According to local tradition the place of
Vighnesh is marked by a pillar, which lies southwest of
Rinamochana Ghat. This again excludes the Baburi Masjid
site and places the birthplace somewhere between
Rinamochana and Bharmakunda on the bank of the
Saraya. Thus, according to Hindu belief as given in the
Ayodhya Mahatmya of the Skanda Purana, the birth place
of Rama cannot be located on the site where the Baburi
Masjid stands. It is argued by experts of the VHP that the
location of Rama Janambhumi is given on the basis of
solar directions and cannot be determined through the use
of campus. But even if we take solar directions into account
the Janambhumi of the Skanda Purana cannot be located
on the site of the Baburi Masjid.
The various versions of the Ayodhya-Mahatmya seem
to have been prepared towards the end of the 18
th
century
and the beginning of the 19
th
; even as late as that the
birthplace was not considered to be important. It is
significant that the Janamsthan is not mentioned even one
in any itineracy of pilgrimage given in the Mahatmya.
The description of the tirthas in Ayodhya as given in
the Ayodhya Mahatmya sow that the Svargadvara tirtha
was far more important in the eyes of the compilers of the
pilgrimage section than the Janambhumi. Svargadvara is
believed to be the place where Rama left for heaven and is
considered sacred because of that reason. The Skanda
Purana speaks of two Svargadvara tirthas in Ayodhya.
3611
Whatever might be its real location there is no doubt that in
Hindu belief it was far more meritorious to visit this place
than other local places of pilgrimage. The earliest mention
of this tirtha appears in a Gahandavala inscription of the
11
th
century, which speaks of the land grant made by king at
the confluence of Sarayu and Ghaghara. This grant speaks
of the worship of Vasudeva at the confluence site but not of
any temple (D.C.Sirkar, Select Inscriptions, Volume
II,PP.276-77, lines 20-23). It appears that the sanctity
attached to the place of Rama's death was of greater
importance in earlier times. It is significant that the
Ayodhya-Mahtmya of the printed version of the Skanda
Purana devotes one hundred verses to the description of
the Svargadvara which is made to identical with Gopratara
thirtha (b.112-211) and gives only eight verses to the
description of the Janamsthana (10.18-25).
No place Ayodhya in associated with Rama's birth
either in the 11
th
century or even six centuries after. When a
place is associated with his birth possibly in the late 18
th
century its location given in the various Mahatmyas does
not tally with the present Baburi Masjid. It. Therefore,
seems quite erroneous to hold that according to old Hindu
belief the Rama Janambhumi temple was situated at the
same site as is now occupied by the Baburi Masjid."
"Evidence in recorded History
The VHP has been unable to present any early
textual evidence that Rama birth-place in Ayodhya was
either spotted as such or recognised as a place. Its
archiological evidence for the existing of a temple at the
3612
site of the Baburi Masjid is, to say the least week and
dubious; in fact archaeology suggests proximity of a
Muslim settlement to the mosque from the 13
th
century
onwards.
What then, of the recorded evidence? What does this
tell us about the VHP's claims of temple destruction at the
hands of Babur's men?
Within the category of recorded historical evidence,
the most primary source for the construction of the Baburi
Masjid consists of the inscriptions in Persian that were put
on the mosque, immediately upon its construction in A.D.
1528-29. These inscriptions were particularly published
(with some inconsequential mistakes) in A.S. Beveridge's
translation of Babur's memoirs as an appendix
(Banurnama, London 1921, Vol. II, Appendix U, pp. Ixxvii-
Ixxix), comprising six couplets only. But in actual fact, the
original inscriptions consisted of as many as fourteen
couplets, together with an invocation and the engraver's
signature. The entire text has been retrieved and published
in the Epigraphia Indica, Arabic & Persian Supplement,
1965, pp. 58-62, an authoritative publication of the
Archaeological Survey of India.
In view of the crucial importance of the record for the
present enquiry, the full translation, is reproduced below,
with a few linguistic corrections.
(a)
(1) By the order of the King Babur whose justice is an edifice,
meeting the palace of the sky (i.e., as high as sky)
(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the
3613
fortunate noble Mir Baqi.
(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the date
of its erection became manifest inmy words: It will remain
an everlasting bounty
(chronogram yielded A.H.935/A.D.1528-29).
(b)
(1) (a) In accordance with the wishes of the ruler of
the world, Babur,
(b) A lofty building like the palace of the spheres,
(2) (a) (that is to say) this lasting house (of God), was
founded
(b) By the fortunate noble Mir (and Khan (Baqi).
(3) (a) May ever remain such a founder of its edifice,
(b) (and) such a kind of the world and age.
(C)
(Invocation:) In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
And in Him is my trust.
(1) In the name of One Who is Wise, Great (and) Greater of
all universe (and) to spaceless).
(2) After His praising, the blessings be upon the chosen (i.e.
the Prophet), who is the head of prophets and best in the
world.
(3) The qalandar – like (i.e. generous) Babur has become
celebrated (lit. a story) in the world since (in his time) the
world has achieved prosperity.
(4) (He is) such (an emperor) as has braced (i.e.conquered) a;
the seven climes of the world in the manner of the sky.
(5) In his court, there (is) a magnificent noble, named Mir
Baqi, the second Asaf,
(6) Councillor of his government and administrator of his
kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-wall.
3614
(7) O' God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune
and life and crown and throne.
(8) The time of the building is this auspicious date, of which
the indication is nine hundred and thirty five (A.H. 935 =
1528-29 A.D.)
(Engraver's signature:) Completed was this
statement of Unity of God and praise of God, of Prophet
and of kind, and the noble. May Allah illumine his proof,
Written by the weak writer and humble creature, Fathullah
Muhammad Gori.
The contemporaneity of inscriptions is shown by their
text and date. Their accuracy is establised by the fact that
Mir Baqi finds mention in Babur's memoirs as the governor
of Awadh or Ayodhya at exactly this time (A.H. 935): see
A.S. Beveridge;s trans., II, PP.684-85, also P.679. Even for
the use of the world qalandar for Babur, we have the
authority of his daughter Gulbadan Begum tha the
sobriquet was popularly given to him (Humayun Nama,
London 1904 P.12).
These fairly long inscriptions show that the
construction of the Baburi Masjid was completed in 1528-
29. But nowhere is any hint given in them that the edifice
was built after destroying a temple or upon the site of a
temple. If one accepts for the purposes of argument that
there was a temple at the site, and the builder of the
mosque (Mir Baqi) destroyed it to build a mosque, one has
to answer why at all should all references to this fact
should be omitted in the foundation inscriptions. Surely had
Mir Baqi destroyed the temple, he would have deemed it a
3615
meritorious deed; and what would be more natural than
that he should get this act recorded along with that of the
building of the mosque to add to his religious reputation.
That he did not get any such act recorded surely means that
he in fact not destroyed any temple, and so found no reason
to record something that had not happened.
Within fifty years or so of the construction of the
Baburi Masjid, Tulsidas composed in 1575-76 his
celebrated Ramcharitmanas, the most fervent exposition of
the Ramayna story in Hindi. Is it possible to believe that
Tulsidas would not have given vent to heartrending grief
had the very birth site of his Lord been ravaged, its temple
razed to the ground and a mosque erected at that place?
Surely he could not but have known of the event, had the
desecration and temple-destruction taken place in 1528-29,
early in his life but long before the composition of his work.
Knowing of it would be not have complained in his verses
that fate (if anything else) was now preventing Rama's
devotees from worshipping the very sacred seat of the
Lord's birth? His silence can only mean that he knew of no
such scandal; and, given his attachment to Rama and
Ayodhya, this must then mean that no such event had infact
taken place.
Tulsidas, on the contrary, suggests that it was not
Ayodhya but Prayag that was to him the principal place of
pilgrimage (tirath Raj); and so no tradition of the
veneration of the any spot as that of Rama's birth at
Ayodhya had yet taken shape.
In subsequent descriptions of Ayodhya of both the
3616
16th and 17th centuries no indication occurs that the
baburi Masjid, or, for that matter, any other mosque, was
built at the birth-site of Rama. Abul Fazl in his A'in-i-
Akbari, completed in A.D. 1598, includes Ayodhya among
the important places of pilgrimage of India. He says that
the sacred ground extends “forty kos to the east and twenty
from north to south” and thus is not confined to the city
itself. It mentions the Ramnavmi festival here (III, Tr.
Jarrett, rev. Sarkar, Calcutta, 1948. p.335). The same
tradition about the very large area of the holy city is given
in his account of Ayodhya in the chapter on the process of
Awadh: “In ancient times its populous site covered an
extent of 148 kos in length and 36 in breadth, and it it
esteemed one of the holiest places of antiquity”. Abul Fazl
goes on to say that Ayodhya “was the residence of
Ramchandra, who in the Treta age combined in his own
person both the spiritual supremacy and the kindly office”
(II, Jarrett, rev. Sarkar, Calcutta, 1949, p. 182). Clearly, the
tradition till then did not confine Rams's place of birth to
the existing town of Ayodhya, let alone the site occupied by
Baburi Masjid. Had such tradition existed, Abul Fazl
would surely have mentioned it, because he does mentioned
the tradition that two Jewish prophets lie buried at
Ayodhya; “Near the city stand two considerable tombs of
six seven yards respectively. The vulgar believe them to be
the resting places of Seth and prophet Job, and
extraordinary tales are related of them” (Ibid). It can not
escape notice that there is not the remotest reference to
Rama's birth-site, let alone to any mosque being built on it.
3617
The same is found to be the case with William Finch's
fairly extensive description of Ayodhya, which he visited
during his stay in India during A.D. 1608-11. He says:
“Heere are also the ruines of Ranichand(s)
2
castle
and houses, which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great
God, saying he took flesh upon him to see the tamasha of
the world. In these ruines remayne certain 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
ninetie before the worlds creation). Some two miles on the
further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow
entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a
man may well loose himself there if he take not better heed;
where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither resort
many from all parts of India, which carry from thence in
remembrance certain graines of rice as blacka as gun-
powder, which they say have been (p)reserved ever since.
Out of the ruines of the castle is much gold tried.” (Early
Travels in India, 1583-1619, ed. W. Foster, reprint, New
Delhi, 1968, p.176)
We have thus a reference to where Rama's ashes were
buried, which, as we have seen from the Skanda Purana, as
deemed of principal importance as svarga duara, but there
is no reference to where Rama was born. We are told of
“the ruins of the castle” (Ramkot) extensive enough for a
search for gold to be undertaken, but not of any exact site
of special veneration within that castle' – let alone a
temple site desecrated by a mosque.
3618
In 1695-96, Sujan Raj Bhandari completed his work
Khulasatu-t Twarikh. This contained in the first part a
geographical account of India, in which the author devoted
special attention to the holy places. While describing
Mathura, he did not omit to mention that the temple of
Keshav Rai here had been destroyed by Aurangzeb who
had a mosque built in its place (ed. Zafar Husain, Delhi,
1918, p.40; tr. J. Sarkar, India of Aurangzeb, Calcutta,
1901, p.25). But his account of Ayodhya contains no
reference to any destroyed temple here.
“In the Hindu books it is called Ayodhya, the
birthplace of Ramchand. His building over the ocean, his
going to Lanka (Ceylon) with a countless host of monkeys
and bears, his slaying Ravan (the kind of that country), and
his recovery of his wife (who was preserved chaste and
pure during her captivity under Ravan) are well known.
The history of Ramayan, is an account of his strange and
wonderful deeds. As this city was the residence of king
Ramchand, it is held to be one of the holiest place. One kos
from it, the river Ghabar (Gora) having united with the
river Saraju, passes by the foot of the fort (of Ayodhya). In
the outskirts of the city they sift dust and get gold. In the
town are the tombs of Shaish (Seth), the son of Lord Adam,
(the peace of God be on him!) and Ayub (Job), the prophet
– both places of pilgrimage to the Muhammadans”. (text,
p.42; Sarkar's tr., p.31)
3

In A.D. 1759-60, Rai Chaturman completed his work
Chahar Gulshan, which contained a geographical account
of India. It has not been printed, and Sarkar's translation in
3619
his India of Aurangzeb mainly reproduces its statistics. The
unpublished text has this to say of Ayodhya's association
with Rama :-
“Ayodhya is deemed one of the select places of
worship. It was the birth place (zadqah) of Raja
Ramchandar, son of Jasrat, who was one of the ten avtars,
that is, one of the ten visible incarnations of God: and he
was married to Sita. Ram Chandar engaged himself in
wielding worldly sovereignty with exercising spiritual
authority”. (Account of Suba Awadh: See MS Abdus Salam
Coll., Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh, No. 292/62).
Thus until two hundred and twenty years after the
construction of the Baburi Masjid, there was no suggestion
anywhere, in the long contemporary inscriptions of the
mosque or any other description of Ayodhya that there was
a precise site of Rama's birth, where the holy structure had
been destroyed and the mosque built – whether we take the
writings of Hindus or of Muslims or the record left by
single European observer."
"Source of Trouble
Religious myths have a tendency to grow despite the
clearest evidence to the contrary. Now, where Hindu beliefs
about the site of the mosque were clearly vague and
contradictory, it was the turn of a section of Muslims to
claim with pride that at Ayodhya mosques had, indeed,
been built after the destruction of temples on the sites of
Hindu holy places. It was this growth of bravado which
exacerbated relations between the two communities, and
which resulted in a serious clash at Ayodhya under the
Awadh Nawabs in 1855. Under the shadow of bitterness
3620
of that clash, a fiery tract was composed by Mirza Jan in
A.H. 1272 A.D. 1855-56 under the title Hadiqa-i-
Shuhada. This book contains a passage allegedly quoted
from a persian work Sahifa-i-Chihal Nasaih-i Bahadur
Shahi, said to be written by “a daughter of Bahadur
Shah ' Alamgir (Sic)”.
The other claims of the polytheistic Hindus situated
in Mathura, Benaras, Awadh (Ayodhya) etc., which the
wretched infidels believe to be the birth place of Kanahya
(Krishna), or the rasoi (Kitchen) of Sita or the residence of
Hanuman, in which, they say, Ram established on him after
the conquest of Lanka, have been destroyed, and for the
strengthening of Islam mosques have been established all
these sites; let them not leave these mosques without firday
prayers and congregation.” (printed book, Habibganj
Collection, Urdu, 32/115, Maulana Azad Library, P.114).
Since much has been made of this quotation
supposedly from the pen of a Mughal princess, it is
important to note that the author himself confess that he
had read the book forty years before he was writing, and
claims that he had then copied the passage. This on the
face of it is very implausible. The princess remains
unnamed, and her father Bahadur Shah is given the title
'Alamgir', which not he but his father Aurangzeb (d.1707)
had borne. No work by a daughter of Bahadur Shah or
bearing the title Sahifa-i Chihal Nasa-i Bahadur Shah is
known to exist in any collection anywhere in the world.
One fails to locate it in C.A. Storey's Persian Leterature-a
bio-bibliographical survey, or D.N. Marshall's
3621
comprehensive Mughals in India – a Bibliographical
Survey, Vol I: Manuscripts. It is very likely, therefore, that
the work or the passage was a figment of Mirza Jan's
imagination.
While in his so called quotation from the Counsels of
the Mughal princess Mirza Jan only speaks of a temple at
the site of Sita-ki-rasoi being destroyed he goes on himself
to say that the Baburi Masjid was built at Rama's
birthplace by destroying the temple of Ram Janamsthan,
close to Sita-ki-Rasoi, so that the mosque, was then known
as Sita-ki-rasoi. Thus the legent had grown to Rama's
birth site had been added Sita's kitchen; and Mirza Jan
was exulting in the the supposed destruction of a temple
here, of which generations of earlier Hindus and Muslims
were unaware.
Subsequent to Mirza Jan's tract – in fact,
subsequent to the clash over the Baburi Masjid in 1855 –
the myth that the Masjid was built on the site of a
destroyed temple became the common possession of the
partisans of the two communities. How the legend could
grow, out of a sense of bravado and revenge on both sides,
is illustrated by the series of Urdu tracts, which VHP
triumphantly lists. Lack of space prevents an analysis of
this material; but it is enough to say that no evidence, nor
already discussed by us, is presented in this literature. It is
only illustrative of the growth of the mentality of modern
communalism; its authority for what stood at the site before
the Baburi Masjid was built is nil. "
"Conclusion
3622
The conclusion that we have reached after a careful
consideration of the entire available evidence may be
summarised as follows:-
1. No evidence exists in the texts that before the 16
th
century (and indeed before the 18
th
century), any
veneration attached to any spot in Ayodhya for being the
birth-site of Rama.
2. There are no grounds for supposing that a Rama
temple, or any temple, existed at the site where Baburi
Masjid was built in 1528-29. This conclusion rests on an
examination of the archeological evidence as well as the
contemporary inscriptions on the mosque.
3. The legend that the Baburi Masjid occupied the
site of Rama's birth did not arise until late 18
th
century;
that the temple was destroyed to build a mosque was not
asserted until the beginning of the 19
th
century, when the
observer, before whom the assertion was made, disbelieved
it.
4. The full blown legend of the destruction of a temple
at the site of Rama's birth and Sita-ki-rasoi, is as late as
the 1850's. Since then what we get is merely the
progressive reconstruction of imagined history based on
faith.
It is for the people of this country to judge whether
on the basis of such dubious evidence as the VHP has
presented in support of its case, it is justifiable to mortgage
the destiny and good repute of the country.
As historians it is also our duty to point out that in no
civilised country of the world is a building of the 16
th
3623
century permitted to be destroyed or tempered with.
In 1891 when a Fuhrer drew up his descriptive list of
Antiquities and Inscription in the North-West Provinces
and Oudh, 1891, he put the Baburi Masjid among the
monuments of Class II (P.P. 296-7). On page i, he
explained the implications of this classification; it meant
that though the monument was “in possession of private
bodies and individuals”, it was possible or desirable to
save (it) from further decay by such minor measures as the
eradication of vegetation, the exclusion of water from the
wells and the like”. Being such a monument, the Baburi
Masjid became a protected monument under the Ancient
Monuments Act, 1904 (re-legislated, 1958). Besides being
built nearly 450 years ago, it is a significant example of
Sharqi architecture. It is a part of our common national
heritage. Under law, Government must save and preserve it
as a fully protected monument.
If then, we have a care for historical facts, if we want
to uphold the law, if we have love for our cultural heritage,
we must protect Baburi Masjid. A country is surely judged
by how it treats its past."
3610. The credentials of the authors are also mentioned as
under:
3611. Prof. R.S. Sharma, Retired Professor of Delhi
University and First Chairman of Indian of Indian Council of
Historical Research; Prof. M. Athar Ali, Retired Professor of
History of Aligarh Muslim University and the Former President
of Indian History Congress; Prof. D.N. Jha, Professor of
History, Delhi University; Prof. Suraj Bhan, Professor of
3624
Archaeology and Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kurukshetra
University, Haryana. This document, though claimed to be
written by four historians, but as a matter of fact, it was not
signed by Sri D.N. Jha, as admitted by Sri Suraj Bhan (PW 16),
as expert witness.
3612. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan was examined in three
phases, namely, from 22.02.2000 to 10.08.2000; thereafter when
the book of T.P. Verma and S.P. Gupta, i.e., “Ayodhya Ka Itihas
Evam Puratatva-Rigved Kal Se Ab Tak” (Exhibit 3, Suit-5) was
published, he deposed statement from 26.08.2002 to 12.09.2002
and lastly after the ASI report he deposed statement to castigate
it and his statement was recorded from 20.03.2006 to
28.03.2006.
3613. About his qualification, experience and expertise, if
any, he said:
- · -·in¬ ¬| ¬¤il·i l·~¬| ¤¸l·· l¬-| ¬ ril¬¬ ¬| ·i||
-·in¬ - - º l··i¤ ¤¬·il-·¬ ¬iº ¬ -¬ n ¬ n ¬| ¬iº lr··| ¬
¬¬i·i ·i | -·in¬ - lr--| - ºi l··i¤ ·r| ·ii| . . . · r¬| ¬ - ·
¬ -¬ n - ¤-o¤o l¬¤i «i· - ¤-o¤¬o¤¸l·· ¬-| «·i ·i ¬ ¬i· ¤i ¬i ¬|
¤·· ¬~¤º ¬ ¤-o¤o l¬¤i| (¤ ¬÷s)
“I got my graduation degree from Delhi University.
In graduation, my subjects were Economics and Sanskrit
besides English and Hindi. History was not my subject in
B.A. . . . . I did my M.A. in Sanskrit from Delhi and later in
archaeology and culture from M.S. University Baroda.”
(E.T.C.)
¬¤· ¤« i; ¬º· ¬ «i· ¬·ii n ¤-o¤o ¬º· ¬ «i· · ··i ¬
¬n·in - · ¬ s ·r| l¬¤i ¬¬¬ «i· «·i ·i ¬i¬º - · ¬i·¤i ¬il¬¬¬
¬· ¬i¤ ;lº·¤i - ¤· n rºi ¬º l¬¤i| ¬i·¤i ¬i¬| - ¤-o¤o - ·
¬· ·sco ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ «· i ·i ¬ l¬¤i ·ii| ¤r l·n | - · ¬¤·| ·i ¬º|
3625
¬ ¬i¤ ¬i¬ - ¤ i·n ¬| ·i|| ;¬¬ «i· - · ¤|o¤¤o·|o l¬¤i ·ii|
·i ¬º| - · ·src - ºi ª ¬| ·i| ¬i º ·sco - - · ¤-o¤o ¬| l·n | l¬¤i
·ii| . . . . ¤|o¤¤o·|o ¬| l·n | - n ·s/r - l-¬| ·i|| ¤|o¤¤o·|o -
- ºi -il¤¬ l¤ lr--ilº¬ ¬i·¤i ¬i¬| ¬i¤ ¬º-·n| ¤º· · ’i··n|
· ¬|¬ ·ii| (¤ ¬÷··)
“After completion of my studies up to M.A. I did
nothing for one year. Thereafter I went to Baroda and
joined a post in the Archaeological Survey of India. I did
my M.A. in archaeology in and around 1960. I had
obtained my degree while being in service there. Thereafter
I got my Ph.D. I had started service in 1956 and I got my
M.A. in 1960. I was conferred Ph.D. Degree in 1975. My
topic in Ph.D. was ‘Historic Archaeology of Saraswati and
Drishdavati Valleys’.” (E.T.C.)
- º| ¤|o¤¤o·|o ¬| ·i|l¬¬ ¤ ¬il’in ·r| r ¤| r | (¤ ¬÷·s)
- · ¬¤·| ·i|l¬¬ ¬ l¬ªi· ¬ ¬-¤ ¬º-·n| · ¬| - ¬i ; ¬-ªi··
¬i¤ ·r| l¬¤i ·ii ¤º ¤r ªi·· ¬i¤ - · ¬º-·n| · ¬| - ¬¤·|
·i|l¬¬ l¬ªi· ¬ ¤r¬ l¬¤i ·ii| . . . . ¬-ªi·· ¬º· ¬i - ºi ¤r¬
¬ ·i| ¬· ·i· ·ii ·¤i l¬ - · n ¬ºin - ¬i ·i¬, ·innºi· - ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤
l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷·«)
“My Ph.D. Thesis is not published.” (pages 13); “I
had not undertaken any excavation work in Saraswati
Valley at the time of writing my thesis. This excavation
work in Saraswati Valley, however, was done by me before
proceeding with the thesis.. . . . . I had a prior experience
of excavation work because I had undertaken such work at
Lothal and Bhagatrao in Gujarat.” (E.T.C.)
- · rlº¤iºii - ¬º-·n| ·i ¤ - ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬-¤
¬i·¤i ¬il¬¬¬ ªi·· l¬¤i| - · ¤lº¤i ¤·¬· ºi· ¬i º ·l- ¬¬
¤·¬¬· ºi· ·i ·i r| l¬¤i| (¤ ¬÷zo)
3626
“At the time of excavation in the Saraswati region of
Haryana, I undertook archaeological excavation. I did both
the area and vertical excavation.” (E.T.C.)
l¬¬ ¬-¤ - · ¬¤·| ¬l· ¬ ··i;· l¬¤i ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ -
¤-o¤o ¬ -¬ n ·ii| - º| l·¤ l·n - l··¬¬ ¬l--- º- ¬ ¤· ¤º r ; ·i||
- º| l·¤ l·n ¬· rc ¤i r/ - r ; ·i|| ¬i ·i¬ - rc÷r/ ¬ rs÷co n¬
¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ l¬¤i ·ii| ¬¬ ¬-¤ - ·¤ nº - ¤¬ - l··¬¬ ¬l--- º-
¬ ª¤ - ¬i¤ ºn ·ii| ;¬| rl¬¤n ¬ - ¬¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ - ¬ni
r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷so÷s·)
“When I joined my service, I was an M.A. in
Sanskrit. I was appointed to the post of technical assistant.
I was appointed in 1956 or 1957. I undertook excavation
work at Lothal from 1956-57 to 1959-60. At that time I was
working as a technical assistant in the office. In that very
capacity I was then engaged in the excavation work.”
(E.T.C.)
- ¬ -¬ n ·ii·ii - ¤-o¤o r¸ | - ¬ -¬ n «i ¬ ·r| ¬¬ni ¬i º ·¤i l¬
¬¬¬i ¬i¤| l··i ¬ ¤ ¤i n ·r| l¬¤i r ¬n¤· ¬¬ ¤« · · ¬-n· -
·i| l··¬n ¬in| r | (¤ ¬÷·«s), - · «|o¤o ·srs - ¤i¬ l¬¤i ·ii|
- º ¤i¬ «|o¤o - ¬ -¬ n · ¬·i ºii-¤ l··i¤ ·i | - º ¤i¬ ¬ n ¬| ¬ilrn¤
·i| ·ii| . . . . . - · «|o¤o n¬ ;lnri¬ · ¤ ºinil-·¬ l··i¤ ¬i ¬·¤¤·
·r| l¬¤i r | - · ¤-o¤o ¬| ¤º|·ii ¬ -¬ n ¬ ¬¬i·i
¬il¬ ¤i ¬i ¬| ¤º· ¬~¤º - ·i| ¤i¬ ¬| ·i|| . . . . . . ;n·i ¤i· r l¬
¤ l·¬ ¤- lr-- | ¤º· ¬¬| -l·l·¤¬ lr-- | - º ¬i ¬ - ·i| ¬·n ·i ·i
lr-- | ¬ ·¬ ·iiºn··i ¬| ·i| | (¤ ¬÷·cs)
“I am an M.A. in Sanskrit language. I can not speak
Sanskrit, and since I have not used it for quite some time, I
face difficulty in reading as also in following it.”; “I did
my B.A. in 1953. Sanskrit and Economics were my subjects
in B.A.. English literature, too, was my subject.. . . . I did
not study history and archaeology as subjects up to B.A.. I
3627
passed the M.A.Examination with Sanskrit and also with
Archaeology and Culture.. . . . I only remember that ancient
history and early medieval history were not in my course.
The said two parts of history was of India only.” (E.T.C.)
- ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬i ¤¬ l·ni·i| r¸ | ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ¬· ¬ ·i ¤
- ¬; l·ºi·in r | ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ·i ¤ - - ºi l··i¤ ¬n¬¬ ¤- ·i
«l¬· ¬| ¤ i -i lr--i º| ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| r , ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º - º| l·ºi ·i --·|
r ¬iº - ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- r¸ | - ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ·in
l¬¬| ·i| ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ·i ¤ - ¬ri ¬¬¬i ¬¤¤i n ri ¬¬ni r ·ri
;-n -i¬ ¬º ¬¬ni r¸ | . . . . . ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬i ¤¬ « l¬¬
- ·i· r, . . . . ¬i º - ¬¬ l··ii ¬i ¬·si ¬i·¬iº r¸ | (¤ ¬ /s)
“I am a scholar of archaeology. There are many
specialists in several areas of archaeology. My subject in
the realm of archaeology is proto-historic archaeology of
Satluj-Yamuna basin. I have a special study on this subject.
I am a field archaeologist and as such can use field
archaeology wherever it can be used in any sphere of
archaeology.. . . .“ Field archaeology has a basic
method . . . . . . and I am well conversant with that field.”
(E.T.C.)
3614. In respect to certain dispute and aspects PW 16
clearly admitted his lack of expertise, studies etc. as under:
- · · ·i ¬i ¬·¤¤· ¤¸ º| nºr ¬ ·r| l¬¤i r «l~¬ ¬n·i r|
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i r l¬n·i l¬ - º| ¤« i; ¬ ¬i ¬ - ·ii| (¤ ¬÷«), ¤ ºiºi
¬ «iº - - ·ii ·i ¬i·ni r¸ | (¤ ¬÷/), l··ºi ¤ ºiºi - · ·r| ¤«i r |”
(¤ ¬÷s), «i~-|l¬ ¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬ ¬ s ¬ ºi - · ¤« r |
(¤ ¬÷·r), - · ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ¬i ; ºii ·i ·r| l¬¤i r l¬ «i~-|l¬ ¬
ºi-i¤ºi ¬| ¬ ¬i -·¤¤ · ºi - ri ¬¬n| r ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬÷·c), ¬i ¬º
l¬--- ¬ l·ºii¬i ¬ ni· ¬ «iº - - n ¬i ; ªii¬ ni· ·r| r | - ·
;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ¬i ; l·ºi·i ¬·¤¤· ·r| l¬¤i| . . . . l··ºi ¤ ºiºi - ·
3628
·r| ¤«i r | (¤ ¬÷·s), ºi¬ºi ªiº ¬| «i¬ ºi-i¤ºi - · ·r| ¤« | r |
. . . . . - · ;lnri¬ · -ni ri · ¬ ·in ·i| ¤r ¬i·· ¬| ¬ilºiºi ·r|
¬| l¬ n ¬¬|·i¬ ¬| ºi-i¤ºi - ·¤i l¬ªi n¤i r | (¤ ¬÷·s), - ·
n¬ ºii-¤ ·r| ¤«i r | (¤ ¬÷zo), - ¤r ·r| «ni ¬¬ni l¬ l¬··i
· ¬| ¬| ªii ¬ ¬« r ¤|| ¤r ¬ n i¤| ¬i l··i¤ r | (¤ ¬÷ss)
“I have not studied Vedas wholly; rather, I have
studied them only to the extent they were included in the
curriculum of my study.” (page 4); “I know a little about
Puranas.” (page 7); “I have not read Vishnu Purana.”
(page 8); “I have read some portions of Valmiki's
Ramayana.” (page 15); “I have not done any research on
whether Lanka of Valmiki's Ramayana may or may not be
in Madhya Pradesh.” (page 16); “I do not have any
specific knowledge of directions on the basis of the solar
system. I did not make any special study on this subject. . . .
.I have not read Vishnu Purana.” (page 18);
“I have not read Rajshekhar's 'Balramayana'.. . . .As a
historian too, I did not try to know what is written in the
Ramayana by Tulsi Das.” (page 19); “I have not read
logic.” (page 20); “ I cannot tell when Indus valley was
discovered. It is a subject of Geography.” (page 33)
(E.T.C.)
- · ;¬ «in ¬i ¬i ; ¬·¤¤· ·r| l¬¤i l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¤i -ri·iiºn -
¬i · ¤r¬ º¤i n¤i ¬l¬· l·,i·i ¬i ¤ ¬i -n r l¬ -ri·iiºn ¬ ¬ s
¬ºi ºi-i¤ºi ¬ ¤r¬ l¬ªi n¤ ·i | . . . . . ¬i l-~¤ ¬ ¬·i ºii-¤ ¬
¬-«··i - - ºi ¬i ; l·ºi·i ni· ·r| r ·¤i l¬ ·r - ºi l··i¤ ·r| r ¬i º
· r| - ºi ºii ·i ;¬ ¤º ·ii| (¤ ¬÷sc), - · ºi¬n ºn|ºi| ¤ -n¬ ¤« |
·r| | (¤ ¬÷ss), ¬ n «· ·|· ¬ «i· ¬i - l-¬- ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬-«··i -
- -i - -i - ni º ¤º ¬i·¬iº| ºªini r¸ - ºi ;¬ ¤º ¬i ; ¬·¤¤· ·r|
r | (¤ ¬÷«z), - · ¤r ·r| ¤« i l¬ -l-¬· - ·¤i÷·¤i ¤|¬ ·r| ri
3629
¬¬n| r | (¤ ¬÷/r), ¤¤|n i¤|, ·¤¸l-¬- l-¬ ¬i - -¤ ºil¬-- ·r|
r¸ | (¤ ¬÷sz)
“I did not make any study regarding which of the
two- Ramayana or Mahabharata was composed earlier, but
scholars opine that some portions of Mahabharata were
written prior to Ramayana.. . . . I do not have any special
knowledge of Kautilya's Arthshastra, because it was not my
subject nor was it a theme of my research.” (page 36); “I
did not read the book titled Rajtaringini.” (page 38); “I
have knowledge of post-Qutbuddin muslim history but not
in its minute details; I do not have any study on it.” (page
42); “I did not read what features a mosque may not
have.” (page 75); “I am not a specialist in epigraphy and
numismatics.” (page 82) (E.T.C.)
- l¬¤i ¬il¬-- ·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬÷sr), - ·¤i ¬i ¬| ¬i l·ni·i|
·r| r¸ | . . . . . ¤r -|¬ r ¤ l¬¤i ¬i¬| ¬i l··i¤ - · ·r| ¤« i r ·i
r| ;¬¬i - n ni· r | (¤ ¬÷··o), ¤ ¸l¬ -l·º ¬i ni · ¬º -l-¬·
«·i·i - º ºii·i ¬i ¬·¬ ·- ·r| r ;¬l¬¤ - · ¬¤ºi ·n -·ii·i ¬i
¬·¤¤· ¬º· ¬| ¬ilºiºi ·r| ¬| · ¬ ·i| - -·¤¬i¬ ¬i ;lnri¬¬iº
·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬÷·z/) , - · -¬·· ¤ ºiºi ¬i ·r| ¤« i| . . . . - · ¬·¤
¤ ºiºii ¬i ·i| ¤« · ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r| ¬-n| ¤¸ l¬ ¬·¬i ¬·¤¤· - ºi
l··i¤ ·r| ·ii|(¤ ¬÷·ss)
“ I am not a geologist.” (page 95); "I am not a
student of Geology. . . . . .It is correct that I have not
studied paleology as a subject, nor do I have its
knowledge.” (page 110); “Since construction of mosques
after demolishing temples is not the subject of my research,
so I did not make an endeavour to make study of those
places. Otherwise also, I am not a historian with regard to
medieval period.” (page 127); “ I did not read Skandha
3630
Purana.. . . . I did not think it to be necessary to read other
Puranas also as their study was not my subject”
(page 133)
- · ¤¸ º ¤ ºiºi ·r| ¤« r ¬l¬· ·r ¬ ºi ¤« r ¬i ·|o¤¤o¤|o
¬ ·i¬- - - ·i | ;¬| nºr ¤¸ º · · ·i| ·r| ¤« ¬l¬· ¬ s ¬ºi ¤« r |
;¬| nºr n ¬¬| ·i¬ ¬i ºi- ¤lºn -i·¬ · «i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¤¸ º| ·r|
¤« || - · ¬i¬|·i¬ ¬| º¤·i ¬ ¬ s ¬ ºi ¤« r ¤¸ ºi ·r| ¤« i| ….
- n ¤¤|n i¤| l·¤i ¬- l-¬ ¬i ¤¸ºi ni· ·r| r ¬i º · r| - ¬·n ·i ·i
l··i¤i ¬i l·ºi ·in r¸ - n l¬¤i ¬i¬| ¬i ni· ·r| r |
(¤ ¬÷·s/), «i«º·i-i - · ·r| ¤« i (¤ ¬÷·ss), -·¤¬i¬|· ;lnri¬
- ºi ¬·¤¤· ¤· ¬·¤i¤ ¬i l··i¤ ·r| ·ii| (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“I have not read the Puranas completely; rather, I
have read only those portions which were contained in the
document of the VHP. Similarly, I have not read the whole
of the Vedas but I have read some portions of them.
Likewise, I did not read Tulsidas's Ramacharit Manas and
Valmiki's Ramayana in entirety. I have read some parts of
Kalidas's composition but I have not read it in whole.... I
do not have full knowledge of epigraphy and numismatics,
nor am I a specialist in the said two subjects. I do not have
knowledge of geology too.” (page 137); “I did not read
Baburnama.” (page 138); “Medieval history was not a
subject of my study and teaching.” (page 139)(E.T.C.)
¤º·n ¤r ¬r| r l¬ - ;lnri¬ ¬i l·ºi·in ·r| r¸ |
(¤ ¬÷·cs), ¬-nº ¤ · ºi - - · ªi ·i; ¬º¬ ¬i ; ºii ·i ¬i¤ ·r| l¬¤i|
- · l«riº - ¬i ; ªi ·i; ¬i ¬i¤ ·r| l¬¤i| (¤ ¬÷·/o), - · ¤ i¤|·
¤ ºinil-·¬ ;-iºni ¬·ii n ·i··i ¬ ¬ « l·in ¬i ; ºii ·i¬i¤ ·r| l¬¤i
¬iº · ¤ -n¬ l¬ªi|| (¤ ¬÷·/s)
“But it is true that I am not a specialist in history.”
(page 169); “I did not do any research work after making
3631
excavations in Uttar Pradesh. I did not make any
excavation in Bihar.” (page 170); “I did not do any
research work with respect to ancient archaeological
buildings, nor did I write a book in this respect.” (page
179)
- l¬¤i ¬il¬-- ·r| r¸ . . . . - ;lnri¬ ¬i l·ni·i| ·r| r¸ |
(¤ ¬ zc), - ·i-n ¬¬i ¬i l·ºi·in ·r| r¸ | - n ¬¬¬i ¬i·iiººi ni·
r | (¤ ¬ sc),- -¸ ln l·ni· ¬i l·ºi ·in ·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬ r·), ¤ ¤|n i¤|
- ºi ·i ¤ ·i| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ r/), - ºi l·ºi ·i ·i ¤ ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i ¬|
·ii, ¤·i·i n i¤| ·r| | (¤ ¬ /·),- lr-- | ¬i¤ -l-¤¬ ¬il¬ - ·¤º ¬i
¬i ; l·ºi ·in ·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·zz) (Volume 2)
“I am not a geologist. . . . . I am not a student of
History.” (page 26); “I am not a specialist in architecture.
I have an ordinary knowledge of it.” (page 36); “I am not
a specialist in sculpture.” (page 51); “Epigraphy, too, is
not my field.” (page 57); “My speciality was field
archaeology, not ethnography.” (page 71): “I am not a
specialist in history of temple architecture.” (page 122)
(E.T.C.)
3615. The following part of his statement is relevant to
ascertain sincerity, genuineness and correctness in the alleged
research of the witness and his statement:
¬¤i ·¤i ºii·i ¬ ¬-¤ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤· ºi-i r| n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ zs)
"Only Sharma and myself had gone to Ayodhya at time of
Ayodhya research." (ETC)
¤r lº¤i - - · -; - ·| r | ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤º·º|÷-i¤ - n¤i ri + ni|
(¤ ¬÷cz)
“I gave this report in May. I might have gone to Ayodhya in
February-March." (ETC)
ri ¬¬ni r l¬ - º ¤r¬ «¤i· - ¤r ¬i¤i ri l¬ - l··il·n -·i¬
3632
¤º ¤r¬ ÷¤r¬ ¬¸ · ·ss· ¬ ¤r¬ n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷cr)
“ In my first deposition, I may have stated that I had gone
to the disputed site before June 1991 for the first time.”
(ETC)
«i«º| -l-¬· ¬| nº¤ ¬ - º ,iºi ¬iºo¤oºi-i , ·|o¤·o ni, ¬nrº
¬¬| ,iºi n ¤iº ¬ ªi · ¬·¤ ¬i·¤ «i«º| -l-¬· · ·s.r.s· ¬| -|l- n
- ·ilªi¬ l¬¤ ·ii| l¤º ¬ri l¬ ºii¤· r- ¬i ni ,iºi n ¤iº lº¤i -
«i«º| -l-¬· ¬- -| ¬| nº¤ ¬ ·r| ·| n; ·i|, «l~¬ r-iº l·¤iºi ¬i
¬¤· n¬ - ¬, n l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷cr)
“Article(s) written by me, R.A. Sharma, D.N.Jha and
Atahar Ali and other evidences were produced in the 13-
05-1991 meeting by Babri Masjid Committee on behalf of
Babri Masjid. Further stated, our report had not possibly
been prepared on behalf of Babri Masjid Committee.
Rather our opinion was quoted in their arguments.” (ETC)
r- ¤iº l··¤·i ;lnri¬¬iºi - ¬ ·i ;lnri¬¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i ·
«·iº¬ r-iº ¬i·i ·r| n¤| - n ·r| ¤ni l¬ ·r ¬¬n ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¤i
«·iº¬ n¤ ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬÷ss)
“ Out of the four impartial historians, two of us had
not gone to Ayodhya and Banaras with us. I do not know
whether they had gone to Ayodhya or Banaras separately
or not." (ETC)
;¬ ¬iº| --·| ¬ l¬¤ r- l¬¤ c r| r¤ n l·¤ n¤ ·i | «i º÷«i º
·«i · ·i ¬i ¬i ºri ·i i ;¬l ¬¤ r-· ¬¤·| l º¤i - l «·i
«| o«| o¬i ¬ ¬| ªi ·i ¤| ¬i l º¬i · · ªi ¬¤·| l º¤i - ·
·| | (¤ ¬÷·os)
“we were given only six weeks' time for the entire study.
Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted
our report without going through the record of the
excavation work by B.B.Lal." (ETC)
3633
¤r ¬r| r l¬ l¬¬ ¬-¤ l·-i ºi ri ºri ri ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬| ¬ «l·in
¤lºl-·iln¤i ¬i ¤ ·ii· l·-i ºi ¤º ¤· ni r | - · ;l nri ¬¬i º ¬|
r l ¬¤n ¬ «·i º¬ - ¤¬ ¤ ¬| -l -¬· · ªi | r ¬i ¬i ·i |
- l ·º ni · ¬º «·i ¤| n¤| r | (¤ ¬÷·zc)
Note: This part of the statement is in contradiction to what has
been said by PW 13 at page 199.
“It is true that constructions going on a particular
time are influenced by the circumstances prevailing at that
time. As a historian I have seen a mosque in Benares
which is built by demolishing a temple to half its
size."(ETC)
¬| ·|o¤·oni ¤ lºi¤ - ;l·¤· lr-- | ¬ ;lnri¬¬iº r | ¤ i o
¬iºo¤¬oºi-i ¬i ni· ¬i¤| l·-n n r | · ¬i lºi¤i ¤¬·il-¬ lr-- | ¬
l·ºi·in r | (¤ ¬ ·sz)
"Sri D.N.Jha is a scholar in regard to ancient Indian
history. The knowledge of Prof.R.S. Sharma is fairly
extensive. He is a specialist in socio-economic history."
(ETC)
- · l ··i l ·n l ·· i ¤ ¬ ¬- «l · ·i n l ¬¬| l º¬i · · l r-- | ¬i
¬· ¤¤· ·r| l ¬¤i | (¤ ¬ ·s«)
“I did not make any study of any recorded history with
regard to the disputed subject" (ETC)
- · -i ¬ ¤º ¬i ; ¤·¬l ·l ¬ºi · ·r| l ¬¤i ¬iº · ¤r ¬º·i
- º ¬·· ·iºi ¬i lr-¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·s/)
“I did not make any excavation at the site, nor was it a
part of my investigation." (ETC)
l º¬i · · l r-- | ·i | - ºi l ·· i ¤ ·r| ·i i ¬i º · r| -
;¬¬i l ·ºi · i n r¸ | ¬i- lr-- | ¬i ·i| - l·ºi ·in ·r| r¸ ¬l¬· - n
¬¬¬i ¬i-i·¤ ni· r | (¤ ¬÷·s/)
"Recorded history, too, was not my subject, nor am I its
3634
specialist. I am also not a specialist in art history but I
have general understanding of it.” (ETC)
3616. Later on, the witness could not tell as to in which
category of specialist he is appearing:
¤r ¬r| r l¬ - ;l nri ¬ ¬i l ·ºi · i n ·r| r¸ | . . . . . - n
·r| ¤ni l ¬ ;¬ - ¬·- - - º| n·i r| «ni º ¤ ºi ni l - ·¬
¬ ri ºr| ri | (¤ ¬÷·cs)
“it is true that I am not a specialist in history. I do not
know that my testimony in this litigation has been only as
an archaeologist." (ETC)
3617. The expertise and authority of PW 16 has been
challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement at
page 129 observing that Suraj Bhan is an Archaeologist and not
an authority on Medieval History.
3618. PW-18 Suvira Jaiswal, an ex Professor of Jawahar
Lal Nehru University, New Delhi has deposed that according to
her studies and research, there is no evidence that Babri Masjid
was constructed after demolition of a temple of Lord Rama or
that there existed any temple whatsoever where the Babari
Masjid was situated. She also stated of not finding any evidence
which may prove that the place in dispute was birth place of
lord Rama. In her cross-examination, she said:
;¬ nºr ¬i ·i| ¬i ; ¤ -iºi - º| ¬i·¬iº| - ·r| l-¬ni r,
l¬¬¬ ¤r l·l·n ri l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi ºi-÷-l··º ¬i
ni · ¬º l¬¤i n¤i ri |”
“In my knowledge, no such evidence is found which
may indicate that Babari mosque was constructed after
demolishing Sri Ram's temple.” (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ - ¤ i ¤| · ;l nri ¬ ¬| l ·ºi · i n r¸ | ¤r
·i| -|¬ r l¬ - ;¬ ¬·i¬n - ¤ i¤|· ;lnri¬ ¬ l·ºi·in ¬ ª¤ -
3635
n·ir| · · ¬i; r ¸ | . . . - º| l·ºi ·ini l¬lªin ¬i ni - ªii ¬ ¤º ¬i·iilºn
r | (¤ ¬ ·zz)
“This is correct that I am expert in Ancient History.
It is also correct that I have come to this Court to tender
evidence as specialist in Ancient History. . . . My
specialization is based on investigation into written
sources.” (E.T.C.)
- · ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º l¬ - ¬¬-i· ºii¬¬i · -l·º ¬i ni · ¬º
-l-¬· «·i¤|, ;¬ «i n ¬i · ¬i ; ¬· ¤¤· l ¬¤i ¬i º · r|
- · ¬i ; ;¬ ¬- «· ·i - ¤ -n¬i ¬i ¬i ; ¬ ¬¬· l ¬¤i | .
. . · r| - · ;¬ ¬- «· ·i - ¬i ; l º¤i - ¤« | | (¤ ¬ zs)
“On the topic that Muslim rulers constructed
mosques after destroying temples, neither I conducted any
study nor made any compilation of books in this respect.
. nor I have read any report in this respect.” (E.T.C.)
- ºi ¬¤ºi ·n «¤i · l ¬ ¬ri «i «º| -l -¬· l -·i n
·i | , ·ri ¤º ¤r¬ -l · ·º ·r| ·i i , ¤r - º| -·¤ ¬| ºi ¤
r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l ¬ «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ «i º - l ¬¬|
¤ ¬i º ¬| ªi i ¬ l ¬¤ «n º - ºi ¤·i ¤º - ¬¤· ni · ¬
¬i ·i i º ¤º ·r| , «l ~¬ ºi ¤ ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º «¤i · · ºr|
r¸ | (¤ ¬ sz)
“My aforesaid statement that at the place where
Babari Mosque was situated, earlier no temple existed
there, is my own opinion. It is correct to say that I am
giving statement on oath regarding Babari Mosque
without any probe and not on the basis of my knowledge,
rather I am giving the statement on the basis of my
opinion.” (E.T.C.)
- º| ªii ¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i · ¤i - ¬; -·i i · ¤ ¬ r ¬i
¬| ºi - ¬ ¬· - -·i i · ri · ¬i ·i ·i ¬ºn r | - ¤r ·r|
3636
«ni ¬¬n| l ¬ ¬· -·i i ·i ¬i ¬ri ºi - ¬· - -·i i · ¬i
·i ·i l ¬¤i ¬i ni r , ¬i ·÷¬i · ¬ r , ¤i ¬ri ÷¬ri r |
- · ;¬ «i n ¬| ªi i ¬ ¬º· ¬| ¬i ·º¤¬ni ·r| ¬-n| | . .
. - · «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ «iº - ¬·¤¤· ·r| l¬¤i|
(¤ ¬ sc÷s/)
“As per my research, there are such several places
in Ayodhya, which claim to be the birthplace of Sri
Rama. I cannot point out specifically as to the places
which are claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. I did
not consider it necessary to research on this point. . . . I
did not study the history of Babari Mosque.” (E.T.C.)
- · ·z·| ºi ni · ·| ¬ «i · ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¬i ¬· ¤¤·
·r| l ¬¤i | ¬l¬· «niº ;lnri¬¬iº - «ni ¬¬n| r ¸ l¬ ·c·|
ºini··| - «i«º · ¬¤i ·¤i - «i«º| -l-¬· «··i; | (¤ ¬ ·os)
“I have not studied history of the period after 12
th
century but as a historian I can tell that in 16
th
century
Babar got constructed Babari Mosque in
Ayodhya.”(E.T.C.)
l··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬ «i º - ¬i ·i | ¬i ·¬i º| - n r ;
·r ¬ªi «i ºi ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º ¤i ¬ ¬i ·¸ ¬º ¬i n i · «ni ¤i
¬·i i n ;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬| l º¤i - ¬ ni n r ; , ·r| r |
;lnri¬¬iºi ¬| lº¤i - ¬ - ºi -n¬« lr--i lº¤· lº¤i - -¸ · ºi·
¬ r | ¤r lº¤i - ·r| lº¤i - r ¬i ¬¸ º¬·ii· ·io ¬iºo¤¬o ºi-i ,iºi
«·i¤| n¤| ·i| ;¬ lº¤i - - ·|o¤·oni ;lnri¬¬iº ¬i º ¬nrº ¬¬|
;lnri¬¬iº ·i| ºiil-¬ ·i | - · ·i| ¬¤· ¬ s ¬il·i¤i ¬ ¬i·i ;lnri¬
¬i ºi¬· ln¬ · ª¤¤i n «i«º| -l-¬· ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- l··i· ·i-¬ ¤¤i
si¤i ·ii| . . . ¤r ¤¤i - · ¬ªi «i ºi - s¤| ¬-i ¤i º ¤·
¬¤· l ··i i n - -· ¤¬i ¬| · l ·ºi · i n ¬ ¤¤i ¬º¬ n ¤i º
l ¬¤i ·i i | (¤ ¬ ·o«÷·or)
“Whatever knowledge I gained with respect to
disputed site, was on the basis of newspaper or what the
3637
others told, i.e., from the report of historians.
By historians' report I mean “Historian Report to
Nation”. This is the same report which was prepared by
Surajbhan and Dr. R.S. Sharma. In this report, historians
D.N. Jha and Athar Ali were also included. I alongwith my
companions also published a pamphlet entitled “Rajnaitik
Durupayog Babari Masjid Ram Janmabhumi Vivad”
(Political Misuse, Babari Mosque-Rama Birthplace
Dispute”). . I had prepared this Pamphlet from the news
published in newspapers and after having a discussion
with Medieval Expert of my Department.” (E.T.C.)
- · «i «º| -l -¬· ¬ «i º - ¬ s ·r| ¤« i l·ºi·i
ª¤ ¬ ·r| ¤«i ;¬l¬¤ - ·r| «ni ¬¬n| l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬«
¬l-n-· - ¬i¤|| - ¤r · i | ·r| «ni ¬¬n| l ¬ «i «º|
-l -¬· ¬ ¬l -n-· - ¬i · ¬ ¤r¬ ¬¬ -·i i · ¤º ·¤i
·i i | (¤¬ ·or)
“I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did not
study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when Babari
Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to what was there
at the site before coming into existence of Babari
Mosque.”(Page 105)
¬·ii n - ¬i·¤i ¬il¬--, ·¤¸ l-¬-l-·¬ ¬i º ¤¤|n l¤·¬ ·r| r¸ |
. . . ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ·iiºn ¬ -·¤¬i¬|· ;lnri¬ ¬i ni· ·i| - n «r n
¬~¤ r | (¤ ¬ r«)
“. . & means that I am not an Archaeologist,
Numismatics or Epigraphist. . . . . It is true that my
knowledge about medieval history of India is very little.”
(E.T.C.)
. . - ;¬ ¤ -n¬ - ·i o ¬¬| ¬ ;l nri ¬¬i º · ¬i
¬¤·i -n l ·¤i r ¬¬¬ - ¬r-n ·r| r¸ . .
3638
. . . - · ·i o ¬¬| ¬ ¬r-· ¬| l ¬ni « ·r| ¤« | r |
¤º·n ;¬¬| ¤¤i l··iin - r ; ·i|| . . . . ¬¬ ¬-¤ r-iº l··iin -
-·¤¤ n ¬ l·ºi ·in¤i · ;¬¬| ¤¤i ¬| ·i|| ¤r -| ¬ r l ¬ ¬· r|
¤¤i ¬i - · ¬r| -i · l ¬¤i , ¤º ¬¬ l ·· i ¤ ¤º ¬i ;
l ¬ni « ¤« | ·r| , · r| l ¬ªi i r | (¤ ¬ c«÷cr)
“I do not agree with the opinion recorded in the
book by the historian Dr. Aziz. . .
. . . I have not read the book of Dr. Aziz Ahmad.
But discussion about it was held in the Department. . . . this
discussion was held amongst experts in medieval age in my
department. This is correct that I regarded the said
discussion as true, but on that subject, I have neither
read nor wrote any book.” (E.T.C.)
. . . ¤º - , ¬· ¬ ªii ¬ ¬r-n ·r| r¸ | . . ¤ i o «|o«|o¬i¬
· ¬· ªi-«i ¬i l¬¬| -l··º ¬i ¬i·iiº -n-·i «ni¤i ·ii, ¬¬¬ -
¬r-n ·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬ ··c)
“. . But I do not agree with those articles. . . . Prof.
B.B.Lal had stated those pillars to be foundation pillars of
a temple, with which, I do not agree."(E.T.C.)
¤ i o ¬i ¬ · ªi - «i ¬ «i º - ¬i ¬¤·| ºi ¤ · ¤·n
¬| ·i | , ¬¬¬ ¬¬r-l n ¬i - ºi ¬i ·i i º, ·¸ ¬º
¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i l ¬--, ¬| ºi ¤ ¤· l º¤i - ¬ ¤º r | ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º
- · ·|o -º·¬ ¬|, ¬i ¤¬ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬il¬-- r , ¤ -n¬ ¤« i r | ;¬
¬-«··i - - º ¬r¤i n| ¤ i o º-·i¬º ¬ - º| «in¤|n r ; ·i| ¬i º ¤ i o
¬¸ º¬·ii· ¬ ¬ ªi ·i| ¤« ·i | (¤ ¬ ··c÷··/)
“The basis of my disagreement with the opinion
expressed by Prof. Lal about the pillars, is the opinion
and reports of other archaeologists. On this subject, I
have read the book of D.Mandal, who is an archaeologist.
In this connection I had discussed with my colleague Prof.
3639
Ratnakar and also read the articles of Surajbhan.” (E.T.C.)
3619. The above extracts of her statement are self
speaking. It is really surprising that a witness, claiming to be an
Expert Historian, can make such serious statements on historical
facts and that too without any study or adequate enquiry into the
matter. Newspaper reports or what was told by some others or
otherwise cannot be equated with the research work expected
from an expert on the subject. She could admit her disagreement
with a historian author of a book not after reading it but merely
on the basis of some discussion made in her department.
3620. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW-18 has
been challenged by PW-20 Professor Shirin Musavi in her
statement at page 129 saying that Suvira Jaiswal is an Ancient
Indian Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
3621. In fact, what appears from her statement from pages
116-117 that she has deposed to support the statement of PW-16,
20 and 24. The reason is also apparent. She admits to have
obtained her Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. (Prof.)
R.S.Sharma, who was at Patna University and later on came to
Delhi University. He is a co-author of the article “Historian
Report to Nation” along with Suraj Bhan- PW-16 and two
others.
3622. We may mention here that though the said report
claims to have been written by four persons but in fact it was not
signed by Sri D.N.Jha. The opinion of an alleged expert, which
is not based on her own study and research work but reflection
of other's opinion, in our view, shall not qualify to be considered
relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act as well as the law
laid down by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
3640
Jai Lal (supra).
3623. Normally, the Court do not make adverse comments
on the deposition of witness and suffice it to consider whether it
is credible or not but we find it difficult to resist ourselves in
this particular case considering the sensitivity and the nature of
dispute and also the reckless and irresponsible kind of
statements, and the material got published by the persons
claiming to be Expert Historian, Archaeologist etc. without
making any proper investigation, research or study in the
subject.
3624. This is really startling. It not only surprises us but
we are puzzled. Such kind of statements to public at large causes
more confusion than clear the things. Instead of helping in
making a cordial atmosphere it tend to create more
complications, conflict and controversy. Such people should
refrain from making such statements or written work. They must
be extremely careful and cautious before making any statement
in public on such issues.
3625. The people believe that something, which has been
said by a learned, well studied person, would not be without any
basis. Normally they accept it as a correct statement of fact and
affairs. Normally, these persons do not find a stage where their
statement can be scrutinized by other experts like a cross-
examination in a Court of law. In legal terminology, we can say
that these statements are normally ex parte and unilateral. But
that does not give a license to such persons to make statements
whatsoever without shouldering responsible and accountable for
its authenticity. One cannot say that though I had made a
statement but I am not responsible for its authenticity since it is
3641
not based on my study or research but what I have learnt from
others that I have uttered. No one, particularly when he claims
to be an expert on the subject, a proclaimed or self styled expert
in a History etc. or the facts or events can express some opinion
unless he/she is fully satisfied after his/her own research and
study that he/she is also of the same view and intend to make the
same statement with reasons.
3626. We do not know how much damage such kind of
statements have already caused, but, if any, that has already
been done. At this stage we can only hope and trust that the
intelligentsia of this country particularly those who are experts
in any discipline, shall live more responsible life, and before
expressing any opinion or statement of fact particularly when
that involves an extra ordinary sensitive matter, due care and
caution shall be practised.
3627. PW-20 Prof. Shirin Musavi Professor in the History
Department, Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh also deposed
that she did not find any evidence or material to show that Babri
Masjid was constructed after demolishing any temple or that any
temple ever existed at the disputed site. She also said that the
place in dispute was never known as Ram Janam Bhumi or Ram
Janam Asthan. Some of the extracts from her cross-examination
are reproduced hereunder to throw light as to how much opinion
of the above witness is creditworthy and honest, and is relevant
under Section 45 of the Evidence Act:
- º ni· ¬ ¬· ¬iº «i«º · ¬i ; -l·º ni · ¬º ¬¤· ¬i¤ ¬i¬ -
-l-¬· «·i; ri ;¬¬i ¬i ; º ¤º ¬ ¤lnril¬¬ niº ¤º ·r| l-¬ni|
¤r ri ¬¬ni r l ¬ l ¬¬| - l ·º ¬i - -| l º¤¬ l ¬¬|
-l -¬· ¬i «·i · - ;-n -i ¬ l ¬¤i n¤i ri ·¤i l ¬ ¬¬
¬-i · - ¤r ¬i -· ¤ l ·-¬ ·i | | (¤ ¬ /s)
3642
“As per my knowledge, reference of the fact that
during his period after demolishing any temple Babar got
constructed a mosque, is not historically found. It may be
that material of any temple could have been used for
construction of any mosque, as it was a common
practice prevalent those days.” (E.T.C.)
¬ri n¬ - º| ·i¬ ¬ r l··il·n «i ¤i ·s·| ¬·| - z lr-¬ -
« -i ·ii| ·ri ¬i ; l ·-· ¤¸ - ·i i l ¬ ¬| ni ¬| º¬i ; r
;¬l ¬¤ ºi i ¤· ¤¬ l r-¬i l ··i l ·n «i ¤ ¬i ¬¬n ¬º l ·¤i
n¤i ·i i , ¤¸ ¬i ¬ l ¬¤| (¤ ¬ sc)
“As per my knowledge, disputed structed was divided
in two parts in 19
th
century. There was some dispute that
there is Sita Rasoi, so, perhaps one portion of disputed
structure was separated for worship.”(E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤¤ º - ¬·i; -i· l¬ r ¬ ·i- ¤º ¤¬
-¤¸l¬¤- «·i r ¬i ¬i¬ ·i| -i ¬¸ · r | ¤r ·i| -|¬ r l¬ -¤¸l¬¤-
- ¤¬ ¬ ·¤i·i ¬·ii n ¬; ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ··ºi ¬¤· ¤º «· r ¤ -i ¬¸ ·
r | ;lnri¬¬iº ¬¬ ¤¸ º ¬¬ ·ºi· ¬i ¬¤· ,iº ¬¬ ·ºi· ¬rn r | ¤r
-|¬ r l¬ ¬¬ ¬¤· ,iº ¬¬ ·ºi· - ¤¬ ¤ l- n r ¬i - ¤ ¬ ¬i·i r |
l¬¬- n| · ¬¤i ¬i ¬ ¬i - l ·º l ·ªi i ¤i n¤i | (-·¤ ¬ri) l¬
¬¤· ,iº ¬i ¬i ¬il¤lºi¤¬ ¬ -¬in r ¬¬- ¬ri n¬ r- ¤i· r ¤r
·/c ·-«º ¤º - ºi· r ¬iº l¬ªii r l¬ ¤r ¤¬ -·i-| ¬ r,÷ ªo -
ªiº|·i n¤i| ¤r ¬¤· ,i º ¬¬ ·ºi · ·/·/ ¤o·| o ¬i ·r| r
«l ~¬ ¬ - ·s·| ¬·| ¬i r | ¬ - ·s·| ¬·| ¬i -n¬« r
·/ro ¬ «i ·| (¤ ¬ s/)
“This is true that there is museum in Jaipur built on
the name of Sawai Man Singh which exists today also. It is
also true that in that museum, there are more than one map
of Ayodhya drawn on cloth. The historians say the entire
collection as Kapad Dwar Collection. It is true that in that
3643
Kapad Dwar Collection there is a painting annexed with
the map wherein temple of three Kapolas is indicated. (of
her own said) It is mentioned in Kapad dwar, which is an
official catalogue, so far as I remember, at no.176 it is
written that it had been purchased from a saint in Rs.5/-.
This Kapad Dwar collection is not of 1717 AD but of late
18
th
century. Late 18
th
century means after 1750.”
(E.T.C.)
- º l·¤iº ¬ - º l ¬¤ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬i · ªi ·i
¬i ·º¤¬ ·r| ·i i ¤r ¬i·· ¬ l¬¤ l¬ ·r -l··º r ¤i -l-¬· - º
¤i¬ lr--ilº¬¬ l¬-º º| ;·|· ¬ ·i|, l¬¬ ¤« · ¬ «i· - ;¬ ·n|¬
¤º ¤r ¤| l¬ ¤r l··il·n «i ¤i -l-¬· ·ii ¤i -l··º ni · ¬º -l-¬·
·r| «·i; n; ·i|| - · ¬i ¬i·¤ ¤« ·i , ·r ¬-¬i¬|· ¬i·¤ ¤i
¬-¬i¬|· ¬ ¤i¬ ¬ ¬i·¤ ·i n·ii ;¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬ - ;·|· ¬ ¬i ·i|
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·o/)
“In my view, to ascertain whether it is temple or
mosque, it was not necessary to see the disputed site. I
had historical literary evidence, on going through which, I
reached the conclusion that this disputed structure was
mosque or mosque was not constructed after demolishing
temple. Whatever evidence I read, that were either
contemporary evidence or nearing the contemporary and
also studided late evidence in this connection.” (E.T.C.)
«l~¬ ¬¬l¬¤n ¤r r l¬ - · l¬¬| ¬ i n - ¤ ¬i ·r| ¤«i l¬
l¬¬| -l··º ¬i ni · ¬º ¤ri ¤º ¤r -l-¬· «·i; n; ·i|| ¤r «in l¬
¬i ; ªii¬| ¬-|· ¤« ·i|, ·ri ¤º -l-¬· «·|, ¤r -¤ ¬l¤¬¬| ºi··i -
l¬ªii ¬r| ·r| l-¬i| (¤ ¬ ···)
“ However, as a matter of fact, I did not read in any source
that this mosque was built here after demolishing any
temple. It is not specifically written anywhere that any
3644
vacant land was lying on which a mosque was built.”
(E.T.C.)
- º ¤-· ¤i-· - l·¬¤ - · -- ·¤º ¬i ¬ ¬i ·iin ·r| ·ii «l~¬
- · -·¤ ¤«i ·ii ¬·ii n ¬·¤¤· ¬i¤i r | - · ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ·ssc ¬
¤« ·i ºi ª l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·zo)
“The disputed structure was not a part of the course
of my study, but I had myself studied about it. I started
study on this topic from 1986.” (Page 120)
n¬ l -¤º ¬i l r-- | - ¬i ¬ ·r| -i ·i ¬i ni r
;¬l ¬¤ ¬¬ - · ¬| º¤¬¬| ¬·i | ·r| ¤« i | (¤ ¬ ·z/)
“The Gazetteer is not treated as a source of
history; so, I never read it seriously." (E.T.C.)
·sr« ¬ n¬ l-¤º ¬i ·c·| ¬ ·¤ º| ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ l¬¤ -
º ¬ · - ·r| ¬-nn| ;¬l¬¤ - · ¬¬¬| ¬i·¬iº| ·r| ¬||(¤ ¬ ·z/)
“I do not consider 1854 Gazetteer to be relevant to
the study of history of 16
th
Century.” (E.T.C.)
·ssc ¬ «i· - · ¤r ¬i·· ¬| ¬i lºiºi ¬| ·i| l¬ «i«º|
-l-¬· l¬¬ ¬-|· ¤º «·| ·i| ¬¬¬i · ¤º ·¤i ·ii ¬ l¬· ¤¸ l¬ l¬¬|
·i | ¬i ¬ ¬ - ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l -¬ni r l ¬ ¤r ¬-| ·
«i ; ¤i ¬ ¤··i ¤º ¬| n¤| ri ¤i l ¬¬| -l · ·º ¬i ni · ¬º
¬¬ ¤º -l -¬· «·i ¤| n¤| ri | (¤ ¬ ·zs)
"After 1986 I tried to know the nature of the land
over which Babri Mosque was built but since there was no
mention in any of the sources that this land was
acquired by force or was constructed after demolishing
any temple." (E.T.C.)
¬¤i · ¤i - ºi - ¬· - -·i i · ri · ¬i ¬| ¬ º· ·/·|
’i ni · ·| ¬ l -¬ni r ¬¬¬ ¤r¬ -·¤¬i¬|· ;lnri¬ - ºi- ¬·-
-·ii· ¬i ¬i ; ¬|¬ º· ¬¤¬··i ·r| r | (¤ ¬÷·sc)
“The legend of Ayodhya being the birth place of
3645
Rama is found from 17
th
century prior to which there is
no legend about Rama's birth place in the medieval
History. ” (E.T.C.)
¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i l ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬i º ¤·¬· ¬i º ’i · ¬i º
¤·¬·· ’i · ¬· ¬ ¤r ¤ni ¬ni ¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r l ¬ ¬¬
-·i i · ¤º - l ·º ·i i ¤i ·r| |(¤ ¬÷·s/)
“Through gynaecological survey and exploration
and excavation survey, it can be discovered whether a
temple existed or not at that place.” (E.T.C.)
“l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º l ··i l ·n «i ¤ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i ;
·i ·· ·i i ¤i ·r| ;¬¬| ¬i ·¤ ¬i l ¬ ¤i ¬i l ¬¬¬
¤·¬· ¬i º ’i · ¬ r| l -¬ ¬¬n| r | (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“Evidence of the fact whether any building prior
to the disputed structure existed or not on the disputed
site, can be had only through archaeological
exploration.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º l··il·n «i ¤ ¤º ¬i ; ;-iºn
·i| ¤i ·r| ;¬¬i ¬i ; ;lnril¬¬ ¬i·¤ - º ¤i¬ ·r| r ¬¬ªi · ¬ri
l¬ ¤º·n ;¬ «in ¬| l·n l-· ;·|· ¬ -i ¬¸ · r |
l·nl-· ;·|· ¬ ;¬ ¤ ¬iº r÷
·.¤l· ¬i ; ªi·| ;-iºn ni ·| n; ri n| ni ;·¬l¬ ·’i· ¤º -·i·iil·¬
ni º ¤º l¬ªii ¬ini l¬ l¬¬| ;-iºn ¤i - l·º ¬i ni ·¬º ¤r -l-¬·
«·i¤| n¤| |
z,l·¬- ¬-¬i¬|· ;lnri¬¬iº ¬¤· ¬¤· ¬ ªii - ;¬ «in ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
¬ºn | (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“ It is true that I do not possess any historical
evidence whether any building existed on the disputed
structure on disputed site. On her own, said that negative
evidence in this regard is available.
Negative evidence is as follows:
3646
1. Had any building been demolished , naturally, it would
have been written in inscription that this mosque was built
after demolition of any building or temple.
2. Recent contemporary historians would have made
reference of this fact in their articles.” (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ l¬·ªi ¬ilr-¤ - ¤r ¤¬ - ·|’i· r l¬
n ª·i·¬ ¬¤i ·¤i n¤ · i ¬|ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¬i ·’i · l¬¤i ¬iº ¬º¬¸ -
-·i· l¬¤i| (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“It is correct that in Sikh literature this is a tradition
that Guru Nanak had visited Ayodhya, had Darshan of Sri
Ram Janam Sthan and had bathed in the river Saryu.”
(E.T.C.)
¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ;l nri ¬ ¤º - · ¬i ; ¬¬n ¬ l ¬ni «
·r| ¤« | l ¬¤ ¤¬o¤| on · ni ¬i r« ¬| ¤ -n¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i
;·| · ¬ - ¤ ’i r ¬¬¬i ¬· ¤¤· l ¬¤i r | (¤ ¬÷·«s)
“I have not studied any book on the History of
Ayodhya separately. I have only studied S.P.Gupta's
book 'Ayodhya' which is adduced in evidence.”(E.T.C.)
3628. PW-24 Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department
of Ancient History and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who
was appointed on adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior
thereto he claimed to have worked as exploration assistant since
1960. Initially he appeared as an expert to depose that there is
no archaeological evidence to show either existence of any
temple at the disputed site or that a temple was demolished
before construction of the disputed structure. The statements
made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness of his
knowledge in the subject:
- ¬¤i ·¤i ¬·i| ·r| n¤i (¤ ¬ zr)
“I never visited Ayodhya” (E.T.C.)
3647
- n «i«º ¬ ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬ «iº - l·ºi·i ¬i·¬iº|
·r| r | (¤ ¬ zc)
“I do not have any specific knowledge of history of
Babur's reign.” (E.T.C.)
- n «i«º ¬ «iº - ¬i ¬i·iiººi ¬i·¬iº| ril¬¬ r, ·r ¬ ·¬
;n·| r l¬ «i«º ·c·| ¬·| ¬i ºii¬¬ ·ii, ;¬¬ ¬¬i·i - n «i«º ¬
«iº - ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r |
- º| ¤ -n¬ ¤ ·ºi ÷cs - l¬ªi ¤l·-ilº¤¬ l¤ ¤ ¬ «i; ºi l-¬i
·ii¤º - ·¸ ¬º ¤ ºi - l¬ªi| ¤r «in l¬ l·º· lr··¸ ¤lº·i·, ·ii¬¤i ¬i º
ºi·- |¤ -·¤ ¬ ·¬ ¬ ·i · ¤r¬| «iº ¤r l··i· ¬-i¤i l¬ «i«º| -l-¬·
¬¬| ¬nr ªi· | r , ¬ri ¤r¬ ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii· ·ii, ¬| - n ¬i·¬iº|
·r| r | - n ;¬ «in ¬| ·i| ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n l¤ ¤ ¬ - ¤ ¬
·o ¤º l¬ªi| ¤r «in ¬r| r ¤i ·r| l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ºi-i···|¤ -n ¬|
n|·i -·i¬| r | (¤ ¬ zc)
“ Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is
only that Babur was the ruler of the 16
th
century. Except for
this, I do not have any knowledge of Babur.
I do not have knowledge of anything in 2
nd
para of
editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila
Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and
Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Shangh for the first time raised
the issue of the Babri Masjid being located on the place
which was earlier Rama's birth place. I also do not know
whether or not it is correctly written on page 10 of the
afore-said preface that Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage for
adherents of Ramanand school.” (E.T.C.)
¬-¤ l·-- ¤i-| ¬i º · ¬i· ri ni r ¬iº - ¬¬¬i ·iiº¬
r¸ | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ·i- - - ºi l·º·i¬ ·r| r | - º ,iºi l¬ªi| n¤|
¤ -n¬ ¤l·¬l«-÷cs l¬º|¬ - l¬ªi| ·r| n¤| r ¤º ·r l¬º|¬ -
¤ ¬ilºin r ¤| r ¬iº ;¬ l¬º|¬ ¬i ·i- r - ·¬ ¤iº · -i;-¬| - n
;¬ «in ¬i ni· ·r| r l¬ - ·¬ ¤iº · -i;-¬ l¬º|¬ ¬ ¬·n nn
3648
¬i ; ¤ ¬iºi· l¬¤ ·iil- ¬ ¬ n-·i ¬| ¬i¬i ¤·i ¬ l¬¤ ri ni r | ¤r
-|¬ r l¬ ;¬ ¬º|¬ ¬ ¬·nn n ¤¬ ¤ -n¬ ªii¬| ºii- ¬ ¤º·
¬ ¤º· ¤ ¬ ·¬ s¤| r ¤º ;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬i - · ·r| ¤«i r | (¤ ¬ so)
“The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am
its holder. It is true that I have no faith in religion. A book
written by me (exhibit 63) was not written in series;
instead, it was published in series. This series is called
'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know whether there
is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times Series',
which is only for the criticism of religious organizations. It
is true that a book titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags'
has been published under this series, but I have not read
this book.” (E.T.C.)
¤ ·i ¬i lr··| ¬· ·i· ¬i-·ii r | - n ;¬| l¬º|¬ ¬| ¤ -n¬
· ·· º¤· ¬i¤ ¤ ·i ¬i ¬i ; ni· ·r| r ¬iº · r| - · ¬¬ ¤« i r |
- n -i¬¸ - r l¬ l¬¬ l¬º|¬ ¬ ¬·nn n ¬¤ºi ·n ¤ -n¬ s¤| r | ¤ ·i
¬i ¬i ; ¬-«··i ¬i¬ ¤i ¬il¬¬¬ lr-- | ¬ ·r| r | - n -|¬ ¬ ¤i·
·r| r l¬ ;¬| l¬º|¬ ¬ ¤·i -i lº¤¬ «i · ¬ ·i ¬·-¤i ¬i ·i-
- n ¤i· r ¤r¬|÷ ¤ i o ºil-¬i ·ii¤º, ¬iº ·¸ ¬º ¬| ·|¬il· ·i- -i¤i¤
r | «i¬| ¬·-¤i ¬i ·i- - n ¤i· ·r| r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ;¬ l¬º|¬
¬ ¤·|-i lº¤¬ «i · ¬ ¤¬ ¬·-¤ ¬· ¤~¬| ni ¤i¬ ¬| ·i| r |(¤ ¬ s·)
“Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'. I have no
knowledge of a book 'The Question of Faith' under this
very series, nor have I read it. I know under which series
the aforesaid book was published. Faith has nothing to do
with archaeological history. I do not properly remember
that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or not. I
remember names of two members comprising the editorial
board of this series, first of them being Prof. Romila
Thapar and the other being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do
3649
not remember names of the rest of members. It is true that
Sarvapalli Gopal ji is also a member of the editorial board
of this series.” (E.T.C.)
¬| ¤¬oni ¤i¬ ¬-¤¸ l·-- l·¤iº ·iiºi ¬ r ¤i ·r| - n ·r|
-i¬¸ - ¤º ¤ i o ºil-¬i ·ii¤º -i·¬ ·i· ¬ ¤ ·iil·n r | (¤ ¬ s·)
“I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is of
Communistic thought or not. But Prof. Romila Thapar is
influenced by Marxism.” (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ - º| ¤ -n¬ ¤l·¬l«-÷cs ¬i ¤·|-ilº¤¬ ¤ i ¤ ¬
¤ i o ºi l-¬i ·ii¤º · l¬ªii r | ¤ i o ºil-¬i ·ii¤º ¬·irº ¬i¬ · rª
l·º·l·ni¬¤ - ¤ i ¤ ¬º ·i| | ;¬| l·º·l·ni¬¤ - lºiº| º-·i¬º ·i| ·i| |
¬i ¤¬ ¬·¤i¤¬ ·i| | (¤ ¬ s·)
“It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has written
editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila
Thapar was a professor at Jawahar Lal Nehru University.
In this very University was Shereen Ratnagar also, who
was a teacher.” (E.T.C.)
¤ i o ¬¸ º¬·ii· ¬i ·i- ¤¬ ¤ ºin-· · -ni ¬ ª¤ - - ¬i·ni
r¸ | (¤ ¬ ss)
“I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an
archaeologist.”(E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬i ¬ n¬ - · l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬i · ªi i
·r| | l··il·n ·i·· - ¬i lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬| lºi¬i¤ ¬n| ·i| ¬·¬i - ·
·iiln¬ ¤º|·iºi ·r| l¬¤i ¬iº ;¬| ¤ ¬iº « ¬i~- --i · ¬i ·i| ·iiln¬
¤º|·iºi - · ·r| l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ sc)
“It is true that I have not seen the disputed building
as yet. I did not make any physical investigation of stone
used in inscriptions carved out in the disputed building.
Likewise, I also did not make physical investigation of
basalt stone.” (E.T.C.)
3650
- ºi l··¬·i - º| ¤ -n¬ ¤·¬|l«- cs - l¬¬| ¬il- ¬¬ ¤º r|
¬i·iilºn ·r| r | - ºi l··¬·i ;¬ ¬-«··i - l¬ªi| n¤| ·i· ¬ o r,ss
- ·ilªi¬ ¤ -n¬ ¤ ¤º ¬ o ··s ¬|÷·,sr - ·| n¤| ¬i-n | ¬iº
-¸ ¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬¬- l·¤ n¤ ·r ¤i -i n i- (¤ ¤º ¬ o ··s ¬|÷·,sc), ¬i
¤ i o «|o«|o¬i¬ ¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ¤i¬ l¬¤ n¤ ¬-ªi·· ¬i r , ¤º
¬i·iilºn r | . . . ¤r ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ - · ¬¤·i l ·· ¬· i ¤ ¤º
¬ o ··s ¬| ÷·,sr ( ºi - ¬· - ·i ¸ l - ¬¤i · ¤i ) - l ·¤ n¤
«| o«| o¬i ¬ ¬| ¬ l ·i · n l º¤i - n·i i ¬·¬ ,i ºi ¬| n¤|
¤i -i ¬| ¤ · ¤ -n l n ¬i · · ·i ·¤ -i ·¬º l ·· ¬· i
l ·¬i ¬i | (¤ ¬ ss)
“My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only
on any article. My finding is based on materials written in
this connection and given in the book(paper no.118C-1/35)
filed in Suit No.5/89, and chiefly on the photograph (paper
no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation undertaken by
Prof.B.B.Lal near the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also correct
to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of
B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm
Bhumi: Ayodhya) and the reproduction of the
photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct.” (E.T.C.)
¤ -n¬ ¤ ·ºi cs ¬i l¬ªi· ¬ l¬¤ - n «r n ¬iº ¬r¤iln¤i ·
¤ ººii ·| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ss)
“Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the
book (exhibit 63).” (E.T.C.)
¤r ·i| ¬r| r l¬ ¬·- ¬ ¤¬ ¬ - · l·· ·· l¬¤i l¬ - º|
¤ -n¬ ¬i ;º- i ··ºi· l¬ªi· ¬i ¬ri ¬i º ·r ¬r¤i n| ¬ ¬| lºiº|
º-·i¬º r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“ It is also true that I had requested one of them to
write an introduction to my book, and the colleague thus
requested was Miss Shereen Ratnagar.” (E.T.C.)
¬·-| ¬i·n ln·iº| l¬·ri · - º l¬¤ - º| ¤ -n¬ - l¤n¬ ¬|
3651
· i; n «·i; ·i|, . .. ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬·ri · - º ¬r· ¬ - nil«¬
· i¤l- n «·i l·¤i| ¬·-| ¬i·n ln·iº| ¤¬ ¬ ºi¬ · ¤-¬- · ·i |
- ¬·i | ¬¤i · ¤i n¤i r| ·r| | (¤ ¬ «o÷«·)
“It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant Tiwari, who
drew figures for me in my book, went ahead with the
drafting as I wished. Laxmi Kant Tiwari was a skilled
draftsman.
I never even visited Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
- º ¬· ¬ ·ii· ¬i - ª¤ ¬· ·º¤ ¤r ·ii l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬
·|¤ - l·º ·ii ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ «s÷«s)
“The main objective of my research was to see
whether there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or
not.” (E.T.C.)
- º ¬· ¬ ·ii· ¬ - nil«¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤ iºl-·i¬ ¬i«i·| l-¬· ¬
¤ -iºi s-| ÷ ¬in·| ºini··| ; o¤¸ o ¬ l-¬n r | (¤ ¬ r«)
“As per my research, initial signs of human
population in Ayodhya are found from the 6
th
-7
th
century
BC.” (E.T.C.)
;-¬il-¬ ¬i«i·| ·s·| ºini··| ; o ¬ ¬ ¬º ·r·| ÷·c·|
ºini··| n¬ ºr|, - n ;¬ «in ¬i ni· r | (¤ ¬ rr)
“I know that there was Islamic population from the
13
th
century to the 15
th
- 16
th
century.” (E.T.C.)
- · ¬i n ¬i-n | l¬¬¬i ¬¤· ¬· ¬ ·ii· ¬ ·iºi· ¬i ¤ ¤i n ·
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i, ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬rni r¸ l¬ l··il·n «i ¤i «i«º| -l-¬·
·i|| - · ;¬ «i n ¤º ¬i ; ¬· ¬ · i i · ·r| l ¬¤i , l¬ ·r «i«º|
-l-¬· ·i| ¤¸ l¬ ·r - ºi ºii·i ¬i l··i¤ ·r| ·ii| ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬
- · ¬¬| ¬i n ¬i-n | ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º l··il·n «i ¤ ¬i «i«º| -l-¬· -i·
l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ r/)
“On the basis of the source material which I used
and studied in course of my research, I speak of the
disputed structure as Babri Masjid. I did not make any
3652
research to see whether it was Babri Mosque inasmuch as
it was not a subject of my research. It is correct to say that
I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid on the
basis of that very source material.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ l¬¬ ¬i n ¬i-n | ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ·¸ ¬º
¬i n l··il·n «i ¤ ¬i «i«º| -l-¬· ¬r r , ¬¬| ¬i·iiº ¤º - ·i| ;¬
«i«º| -l-¬· ¬rni r¸ | ¬¬| ·¬r ¬ - ;¬¬i «i«º| -l-¬· ¬rni r¸ ,
¬·¤·ii «i«º| -l-¬· ¬i ri ·i - º ºii·i ¬i l··i¤ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ r/)
“It is correct to say that I term the disputed structure
as Babri Mosque on that very source material on which
others term it as such. For this very reason I term it as
Babri Mosque, otherwise its being Babri Mosque is not a
subject of my research.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ l¬· ¬i ni · l··il·n «i ¤ ¬i ºi-¬·-
·i¸l- ¬ri, - ¬· ¤º l·º·i¬ ·r| ¬ºni ¬iº ;¬| ¬iººi·ºi - · ¬¬|
ºi-¬·- ·i¸l- ·r| ¬ri r ¬iº · ¬ ·i| ¤r - º ºii·i ¬i l··i¤ ·r|
·ii|(¤ ¬ r/)
“It is correct to say that I do not believe those
persons who termed the disputed sructure as Rama Janm
Bhumi; for this very reason I have not described it as such,
and as a matter of fact it was not a subject of my
research.”(E.T.C.)
¤¸ l¬ - º ¬· ¬ ·ii· ¬i - · ·i ¤r ·r| ·ii l¬ ¤ ¤-·iº -l-¬·
¬ ¬ n ri ¬¬n r ;¬l¬¤ ;¬ ¬iººi - · ¤r ¬· ¬ ·ii· ·r| l¬¤i|
¬iº ;¬| ¬iººi ¬ - · ¤r ·i| ¬· ¬ ·ii· ·r| l¬¤i l¬ ¤ -l··º ¬ ri
¬¬n r | . . . ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¤ ¤º ¬ ª¤i ÷··s¬| o÷·,«« ¬i º
«c - l ·ªi i ¤ r ¤ ¤- ·i ºi ¤º -i ·· ¬i ¬ l n¤i «·| r ¤|
r | (¤ ¬ co÷c·)
“ Since it was not the issue of my research to see
whether these stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not
3653
make any research on them, and for this very reason I did
not make any research to see whether they may be of the
temple. . . . It is true that human figures are engraved on
the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46.” (E.T.C.)
- º ni· ¬i l··i¤ ¤ ºin-· r ¬i º ;¬- r-iº| l·ºi·nni ¤|~·
¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| r ¬iº ¤|~· ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i¬| ¬ ¬·nn n -nº l··¤i¬
(-- -|l¤¬ ºi·) l·l·i - r | (¤ ¬ cz)
“The subject of my knowledge is archaeology and my
speciality is in field archaeology under it and in
stratification method under field archaeology." (E.T.C.)
¤ i o ¬¸ º¬·ii· ¬i ¤ ºin-· · -ni ¬ ª¤ - ¬i·ni r¸ | ;¬
- ¬·- - ¬·¬| ·i| n·ir| r ; r ;¬ «in ¬| ·i| - n ¬i·¬iº|
r |(¤ ¬ cr)
“I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist. He
has also deposed in this litigation. I have knowledge of it
also.” (E.T.C.)
·i o ¬ ·| ºi ¬i ¤¬·i ¬ ¬i ·i | - ¬i ·ni r¸ | ¬·¬ ·i|
r-iº| «in¤|n ri n| r | . . . ¬·¬ ¬ ªi i ¬ ¤ ¬i ¤ n| n ri ni r
l ¬ ¬· ¤º -i ·¬ ·i · ¬i ¤ ·i i · r | (¤ ¬ cr)
“ I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with
her also. . . . . . From her articles it appears that she is
influenced by Marxism.” (E.T.C.)
¤ i o ºi l-¬i ·ii¤º ¬i ·i| - ¬i·ni r¸ | ·r ·i| -i·¬ ·i· ¬
¤ ·iil·n r |. .- ¬| ¬iºo¤¬oºi-i , «|o¤·o¤¬o¤i··, ·|o¤|o¬n ·i¬,
¤¬o¬|o·i- -i¤i¤ , ¤·o¬|o·ii·i ¬i º ·|¬il· ·i- -i¤i¤ ¬i ¬i·ni r¸ |
¬iº ;·¬ r-iº| «in¤|n ·i| r ; r | (¤ ¬ cr)
“I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also
influenced by Marxism. . . . . .I know Sri R.S.Sharma,
B.N.S. Yadav, D.P. Agarwal, S.C. Bhattacharya, N.C.
Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also have talks with
3654
them." (E.T.C.)
r-iºi ¬· · º¤ ¤r ¬·¤¤· ¬·ii n ªii ¬ ¬º· ¬i ·ii l¬ «i«º|
-l-¬· ¬ ·|¤ -l·º ·ii ¤i ·r| | ¬-|· ¬ +¤º ¬ «i ¤ ¬ - º
¬· ·º¤ ¬i ¬i ; ¬ « ·i ·r| ·ii|
¬¬ ¬-¤n¬ l¬n·| ¬i-n | ¤ i·n ri ¤ ¬| ·i| r-iº l·¤iº
¬ ¤r l··¬·i l·¬i¬· ¬ l¬¤ ¤¤i ·n ·i| l¬ «i ¤ ¬ ·|¤ ¬i ; - l·º
·ii ¤i ·r|| (¤ ¬ cs)
“Our objective was to study or discover whether
there was a temple below the Babri Mosque or not. My
objective did not have any relation to the structure above
the ground.
Whatsoever materials had been discovered by that
time was, in my opinion, sufficient to derive a conclusion as
to whether there was any temple below the structure or
not.” (E.T.C.)
¤r -| ¬ r l ¬ ¬- ªi ·· ¬ ¤ i · n - -| l º¤¬ ¬i
· ªi ¬º - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i + ni l ¬ ¤r - l ·º ¬i r ¤i
-l -¬· ¬i r | (¤ ¬ /·)
“It is true that by observing materials discovered
through excavation I will not be in a position to tell
whether there was a temple or a mosque.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ - ¬i - ¤·i ·| l ·¤i º·i i ºi ¬i r ¸ |(¤ ¬ //)
“It is true that I am of communistic
thought.”(E.T.C.)
- · ¤ ºin-· l··i¤ ¤º ni· ¤ i·n l¬¤i r | - · ¤ ºi n- ·
l ·· i ¤ ¤º ¬i ; l ·n | ¤i l ·· ¬i -i ¬| ¬¤i l ·i ri l ¬¬ ·r|
¬| | (¤ ¬ /s)
“ I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did
not get any degree or diploma in archaeology.” (E.T.C.)
- º ¬·¤¤· · ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº l··il·n «i ¤i ·z·| ºini··|
; ¬·| ¬ «i· ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ /s)
3655
“As per my study and knowledge, the disputed
structure was subsequent to the 12
th
century AD.”(Page 78)
- º - nil«¬ ¬·¬|- - - l·¤i n¤i ··ºii ¤ i·il-¬ ¬i n r | - ·
;¬ «in ¬| ¬i ; si·«|· ·r| ¬| l¬ ¬·¬|- - - l·¤i n¤i ··ºii ¬r|
r ¬·i·i ·r| | (¤ ¬ s·)
“The map given in the supplement is, in my opinion,
a primary source. I did not enquire as to whether the map
given in the supplement is correct or not.” (E.T.C.)
¬ri n¬ - n ª¤i¬ r ¤ -n¬ ¬ o··s¬|·,sr - n ¬ ¬i; ¤i
¬n-n ·ssz - ¬¤¬··i r ; ·i| (¤ ¬ s·)
“As far as I recall, the book 118C-1/35 was made
available to me in July or August 1992.” (E.T.C.)
- º| ¤ -n¬ ¬i ¤ i·il-¬ ¬i n ¤ ¤º ¬ o ··s¬|·,sc r | (¤ ¬ s«)
“Primary source of my book is paper
no.118C1/36.”(E.T.C.)
3629. A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he
virtually made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper
No.118C1/36, a small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and
beyond that made no further or other study/research etc.. Only
on that basis, he wrote a book, and analyzed the belief of the
people whether the disputed structure was constructed after
demolishing a temple or that there existed any temple of 11
th
or
12
th
century which was demolished before its construction. The
own admissions and clarification this witness has given, we find
that the entire opinion of this witness is short of the requirement
under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to qualify as an
opinion of an Expert which may be considered relevant on a fact
in issue, by this Court.
3630. OPW 9 Thakur Prasad Verma was Reader in Kashi
Hindu Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi and retired in 1993. He had
3656
worked in the Department of Ancient Indian History, Culture
and Archaeology. He is graduate in Ancient Indian History
Culture and Archaeology, Doctorate in Indian Ancient
Paleography (Bhartiya Puralipi Shastra); Post Graduate Diploma
in Numismatic. He was plaintiff no.3 in Suit 5 having been
impleaded after the death of Sri B.N.Agarwal and was pursuing
the aforesaid suit as next friend of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 but
recently on his own request, has been replaced. He came to
depose about the faith of Hindu public that Lord Rama was born
at the disputed place at Ayodhya where a mosque was
constructed after demolishing a temple. However, the disputed
place has continuously been worshiped by Hindus having a
special and peculiar importance. According to him Ram Janam
Bhumi temple was initially constructed by Vikramaditya of
Ujjain and thereafter it used to be renovated as and when it was
required. In 1032-33 AD Salar Masood demolished the temple
and thereafter was killed on 14
th
June, 1933 AD in the battle at
Baharaich. A new temple was constructed during the reign of
Govind Chandra of Garhwal Dynesty in 12
th
Century but the
same was also damaged after about 17/18 years. It was again
constructed by King Anaychand of Garhwal Dynasty but then
demolished by Mir Baqi, Commander of Babar in 1528 AD.
These facts he has written in "Ayodhya ka Itihas Avam
Puratatva Rigved Se Abtak" Exhibit No.3 (Suit 5) wherein last
chapter 11 has been written by Dr.S.P.Gupta and rest by him.
The said book and some of the facts stated therein, we have
already discussed while considering the issues relating to date of
construction of the disputed structure. OPW 9 admitted that
Salar Masood never came to Ayodhya and he mistook the place
3657
'Ajudhan' with 'Ayodhya' though 'Ajudhan' is in the State of
Punjab. That being so, his statement that demolition was made
by Salar Masood at Ayodhya in 1032-33 has proved wrong.
3631. In cross-examination, he admits of teaching
Numismatic, Epigraphy, Paleography and Scriptology.
Sometimes he also taught history since the department is of
Indian History. He admits that the period of Ancient History was
only upto 1206 AD. Some relevant extract from his statements
in his cross examination need be refer herein to consider the
reliability of the opinion of this expert (Historian):
- · ¬ln ¤ i¤|·¬i¬ ¬ ¬ ¬º ·z·| ¬·| n¬ ¬i ;lnri¬ - ·
¤« i r | (¤ ¬ ·/)
“I have read history from very ancient times up to
12
th
century.”(E.T.C.)
- - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ;l nri ¬¬i º r¸ | - n ¤ i¤|· l¬l¤¤i ¬i
·i| ni· r | . . . ¬ºii ¬ ¬ ¬i¬ ¬| ¬i l¬l¤ ¬--n ·iiºn - ¤ ¤l¬n
·i| ¬¬¬i ·i-¬ººi ¬i¬ ·¤¸ ¬º · « ir -| l¬¤i r | . . . ¬ºii ¬ ¬i¬|·
« ir -| l¬l¤ ¬i - «r n ¬·s| nºr ¬ ¤« ¬¬ni r¸ | ¬ºii ¬ ¬i¬|·
« ir -| l¬l¤ ¤¸ ·i·| l¬l¤ ¬ l«~¬ ¬ - ¬ ·r| ªiin| r | (¤ ¬ ss÷s«)
“I am mainly a historian. I have the knowledge of
ancient scripts too. . . . . . . . . . . . George Beular has
named as 'Brahmi' the script which was in prevalence in
the time of Ashoka. . . . . . . . . . I can read the 'Brahmi'
script of the Ashokan time very well. The 'Brahmi' script of
the Ashokan period does not at all correspond with the
Greek script.'. ”(E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤· r¬¤·i - ¬ ¤ ºi ÷·s - l ¬ªi | r ; «i ni
¬i ¬ ·· i -i l - · ,i ºi l ¬ªi | r ; ;¬ «i n ¬ l ¬¤i r l¬
¬i¬ ¤-·iº ¬ ªi-·i ¬ ·i·n l·¬ -il·-¤ ,iºi «·i¤ l¬¬| - l·º ¬ l¬¤
n¤ ri | (¤ ¬ ·os÷·o«)
3658
“What is written in para 13 of my affidavit
originates from the view of Martin that the pillars of
black stone have been taken from any temple perhaps built
by Vikramaditya.”(E.T.C.)
¬« - · «¤i · r¬¤| ·i l ªi ¬ l ¬¤i n« n¬ - n ¤r
·r| -i ¬¸ - ·i i l ¬ -i l - · ¬i · ·i i ¬i º ¬¬¬| ¤ -n¬
l ¬¬¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ·i ¤ · - ¬,l ºn l ¬¤ n¤ , ¬«, ¬ri ¬i º
l ¬¬ ·i i · i i - s¤| ·i | | (¤ ¬ ·or)
“By the time I had filed my sworn statement I did not
know who Martin was and when, where and in which
language his book, from which the aforesaid two pages
were extracted, was published.”(E.T.C.)
- ºi ·i·i l¬¤ l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ l¬¤ r | l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬
- ºi ni-¤¤ ·i·· ¬iº ¬¬¬ «irº| ¤riº·|·iº| ¬ ¬ ·º ¬| ¬iº| ·i¸l- ¬
r | (¤ ¬ ··r)
“My claim is only for the disputed premises. By the
disputed premises I mean 'the building and the whole land
lying inside its outer boundary wall.”(E.T.C.)
- · ¬i ·¬ «iº ¬| ¬· i;¤i ¬i r·i¬i l·¤i r , ¬¬
¬ilºi¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬r| -i·n r ¤ ·lºi n l¬¤i r | . . . . .- · ;¬
l ·· i ¤ ¤º ¬¬n ¬ ¬i ; ºi i · i ·r| l ¬¤i l ¬ ;¬- l ¬n·|
¬- ¤ni r | . .-i ;¤ ·i ¬º ¬| ¤ -n¬ ¤ i ¬| ¬| ·i i · i i - r,
l¬¬¬i - ·r| ¬i·ni ¤º·n ¬¬¬i ¬ n ¬| ¬· ·i · - · ¤« i r |
¬·¬| l¬ni« ¬i ¬ n ¬| ¬· ·i · ¬r| s¤i r ¤i ·r| , - n
;¬ «i º - -i ¬¸ - ·r| r , ¤º·n - · ¬¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¬¤i·¤i
¤ ¬ººi ¬ ¬ «l·in ¤ ·-i ¬i ¬ n ¬| ¬· ·i· ¤«i r | (¤ ¬ ·zz÷·zc)
“. I have cited the battles having taken place on 10
occasions; I have made mention of them taking them to be
partially correct. . . . . . . . . . On this point I have not
separately carried out any research to ascertain how
3659
much truth was there. . . . The book of Typhen Thaler is
in French language, about which book I do not know. But
I have read its English translation. I do not know
whether English translation of his book was published
anywhere or not, but I have gone through the English
translation of the pages related to the Ayodhya matter in
that book.”(E.T.C.)
·i· ¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi zs l·ªii; n; , l¬¬ · ªi¬º n·ir · ¬ri l¬
;¬ ¤ ºin i¤ ¬| ¤ ·i- c ¬i;·i - ¬i «in ¬r| n; r , · ¬ilºi¬ ª¤
¬ ¬-¤ r ¬i º ¬ilºi¬ ª¤ ¬ n¬n r | . . . . .;¬ ·i· ¤¤ ¬
¤ ºin i¤ ÷ zs - ¬i ¤r «in l¬ªi| n; r l¬ ÷ l·¬ -il·-¤ ,iºi
«··i¤ n¤ -l··º ¬i -|º «i¬| · ni · i ·ii, ¤r «in ¬r| ·r| r |
(¤ ¬ ·«/)
“Para 23 of the plaint was shown following which
the witness stated – What is contained in first six lines of
this paragraph is partially correct and partially incorrect.
The submission in para 23 of this plaint saying that ‘Mir
Baqi demolished the temple built by Vikramaditya’, is not
correct.”(E.T.C.)
·in·i· ¬| ºi- · ¬¤· ¬i l··ºi ¬ ¬·niº ¬ ª¤ - -i··
ºiº|º - ¤ ¬- l¬¤i| ;¬¬i ¬·i ¤r| ri ni r l¬ ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤
- ¬i lºi~¤i -ini ¬ n·i ¬ ºi-¤·· ¬| · ¬·- l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ ·r«)
“ that Lord Sri Rama embodied himself as an
incarnation of Vishnu. It certainly means that as son of
Dashrath Rama took birth from the womb of Mother
Kaushalya.”(E.T.C.)
¤l¬¤i n i¤| ¬·ii n l¬l¤ ºii-¤ - ºi l·ºi·i l··i¤ ºri r |. . . . .
. - ¬ ·¬ « ir -| l¬l¤ ¬i nini r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·so÷·s·)
“Palaeography has been my speciality. . . . . . . . . . . I
am an expert only in Brahmi script.”(E.T.C.)
3660
l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬ -·i i ·
¬i ¤º- ¤ºi nn ºi - ¬· - -·i ¬| -i ·i ¬i ni ·i i ¬i º ¤r
¤º- ¤ºi ¬·i | «·¬| ·r| ·i | , «l ~¬ ¤¬ ¬-ni n ¬ nrn
ºi - ¤«¸ nº ¬i ºi - ¬· - -·i ¬| -i ·¬º ¬i n ¤¸ ¬i ÷¬¤ ·i
¬º· ¬n ·i ¬i º ;¬ nºr - º ¬· ¬i º «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬
·| ¤ ºi - ¬· - -·i ¬| ri · ¬| ¤º- ¤ºi «º¬ºi º ºr| |
(¤ ¬ z··÷z·z)
“The place beneath the central dome of the
disputed building, is traditionally recognised to be Ram
Janmsthali, and this tradition never changed. But under
an agreement people began to perform ‘Pooja-
Archana’(worship & prayer), treating Ram Chabutra as
Ram Janmsthali and in this way, I think that the
tradition believing Ram Janmsthali to be beneath the
central dome continued.” (E.T.C.)
- ¤r ·i | ¬i ·ni r¸ l ¬ ¬¬ ¤¬ -l · ·º ¬i ni · ¬º
«·i ¤i n¤i ·i i |(¤ ¬ zrr)
“I also know that it had been built after
demolishing a temple.” (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i n¬n ri ni l¬ -|º«i¬| · ¬¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º
l«·i ¬i ; -l··º ni · ¤¬ -l-¬· ¬| -·ii¤·i ¬| ·i|, ·¤i l¬ l¬¬
l¬¬| ·i| ;lnri¬ ¬ ªi¬ · «i«º| -l-¬· ¤i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ «iº - ¬~¬ ªi
l¬¤i r , ¬· ¬·i| · ¤¬ -·º ¬ ;¬ «in ¬i ·i rºi¤i r l¬ -|º «i¬|
· ¬¬ -·i¬ ¤º ¬·-·i¸l- ·i-¬ -l··º ¬i ni · ¬º ¤¬ -l-¬· ¬|
-·ii¤·i ¬| ·i|| ¬ri n¬ ¬¬ -l · ·º ¬| ¬- «i ; ÷¤i · i ; ¬i º
¬i ¬i º÷¤ ¬i º · ·i ¤¤¬ ¬ l ·· i ¤ ¬| «i n r , ¬¬ ¤º ¬i ;
ºi i · i ¬i ¤ ;¬l ¬¤ ·r| l ¬¤i ¬i ¬¬i r , ·¤i l ¬ ;¬¬
l ¬¤ l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬÷¤i ¬ ¬| ¤ ºi ni l - ·¬ ªi ·i ;
¬- ¤· n ¬i ·º¤¬ ·i | | (¤ ¬ zr/)
“It would be wrong to say that Mir Baqi built a
mosque at the disputed site without demolishing any temple
3661
because all the historians, who have mentioned about
Babri mosque or Ayodhya, have unequivocally mentioned
that Mir Baqi had built a mosque over there after
demolishing a temple named Janmbhumi. So far as the
length-breadth, shape-form and area of that temple is
concerned, no research work was possible on the same
because it made archaeological excavation extremely
necessary in the vicinity of the disputed site.” (E.T.C)
- -·¤ ¬i¬|· ;lnri¬ ¬i l·ni·i| ·r| r¸ | (¤ ¬ soo)
“I am not a student of medieval history.” (E.T.C)
· ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ¬i ;l nri ¬ ·i -¬ ¤r ¤ -n¬ - · ºi i · i
n · ·i ¬ ª¤ - ·r| l ¬ªi i r ·º· ¤¬ ¬i ¬l¤ ¤ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ª¤
- l¬ªii r ¬iº ¬ s ¬ ··ii ¬i ¬ ·l·i n l¬¤i r l¬¬¬ ¤« · ·i¬i ¬i
¬¬¬i (¬ i¬ ¤ ¬) ¤ ln l·º|·iºi ¬º· ¬i ¬·¬º l-¬ ¬¬ |
(¤ ¬ ssc÷ss/)
“I have not written the book ‘Ayodhya Ka Itihas’
as a research paper an instead as a popular book and
have quoted certain references so that the readers may get
the opportunity to cross check them.” (E.T.C)
·/ ·| ÷ ·s·| ºi ni · ·| - ºi -¬i - ¬ ¤¬ l r-¬ ¤º
l ¬¬i «·i ¬º ·ri ¬ ¬··i ¤ i · n ¬i ¤ ºi i ¬· ¤¬i ¤i ¬i ni
·i i ¬iº ··i«i ÷·¬|ºi ¬ ¬i¬ - ;¬ l¬¬i - «iº¬ ¬ri ¬ini
·ii| (¤ ¬ s«c)
“The administration of the Awadh province in the
17
th
-18
th
century was carried out from a fort built over a
part of Ramkot and in the period of Nawabs-Wazirs, it was
called ‘Qila Mubarak’.” (E.T.C)
- n ¬r| ¤º ·i | «i «º ¬ ¬¤i · ¤i ºi rº ¬i · ¤·
- l ·º l nºi · ¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l -¬ni r | (¤ ¬ sss)
“I have nowhere found any reference of Babar
3662
visiting Ayodhya and demolishing the temple.” (E.T.C)
- º l·¤iº ¬ ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬i ¤ iº ·i ; -·| ¬· ¬| ¤r¬|, ·¸ ¬º|
ºini··| ¬·ii n ¬ ·iiºi ¬i¬ - ·i| ri · ¬ ¤ -iºi l-¬n r ·¤i l¬
¬i ºii-«| ¬ l-¬ ªilº·n ¬l·i¬ ªi - ºi- ·iºi¤ºi ¬| ¤ ln-i ¬i
-·iil¤n ¬º· ¬i ¬¬¬ ªi ¬ini r , ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n n ·n ¬i¬ - ¤ ·ii·n|
n ·ni ·i-¬ ·¬i-¬ · ºi ¬| ºi·| ¬i¬ ¤i ¤·| ºini··| ; -·| - ·in¤ º
¬ ¬-|¤ ºi-- ¬¬ - ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬i ¬¬¬ ªi l-¬ni r | . . . .
- ºi ¤r l·lº¤n -n r l¬ ·iiºn - l··ºi ¬ ¬·niº ¬ ª¤ - ºi-¤··
¬| ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ; ¬i ¬ ¤r¬| ºini··| ¬ ¤r¬ ¬ r| ¬i- ¬·ni - ¤ ¤¬·
- ·i|| (¤ ¬ zos)
“In my view, evidences of worship of Rama are found
in 1
st
, 2
nd
century AD i.e. in the Kushana period as well,
because a broken record, found at Kaushambi, contains
reference of installation of ‘deity of Ram Narayan’. Besides
this, reference is found of Rama’s worship by Prabhawati
Gupta, queen of Vakatak dynasty, at Ramtekak near Nagpur
in 5
th
century AD in the Gupta period. . . . It is my firm
belief that the worship of Ramchandra as an incarnation of
Vishnu, was prevalent in the general public much before 1
BC.” (E.T.C)
- · ¬¤·| - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤ ºin i¤ - ¬i
-il- · ¬i ¬ ·l·i n l¬¤i r , ·r ¬ ·¬ ;¬ ¬ ··i - l¬¤i n¤i r l¬
«i«º · ;¬ -l·º ¬i ni · ¬º ¬¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤¬ -l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi
l¬¤i ·ii, l¬¬¬i -il- · · ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r | . .- º| - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬
ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi÷·r - ¬i ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ·osz÷ss -
¬¤i·¤i ¬i¤i ·ii ¬iº ¬·--·i¬ - l·º ¬i ·ilnn -n l¬¤i, ;¬ «in ¬i
- ¬« n¬n -i·ni r¸ ..n·ir · ¬¤· ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬ ¤ºi÷·c ¬i · ªi¬º
¬ri l¬ ;¬- l¬ªi| «in l¬ ;¬¬ l·-i ºi ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ;¬l¬¤ ¤· |
l¬ ·r ¬n·in /.÷so ··i ¤r¬ ·ilnn -n ¬º l·¤i n¤i ·ii, ¤r «in
·i| ¬« l·º-n ri ¬in| r , ¬ ¬i l¬ ¬i¬iº -¬¸ · ¬ «iº - - ¤r¬ ¬r
¤ ¬i r¸ | . .. . ¬· ·rzs - - l ·º ¬ ni · · ¬| «i n ¬r| ·i |
3663
·r| l ¬ªi | r , ¤r - ºi ¬¤·i ¬· -i · r | (¤ ¬ «z«÷«zr)
“The reference of Martin made by me in the said
paragraph of the affidavit of my examination-in-chief, is
limited to the extent of Babar demolishing this temple and
raising a mosque in its place, which had been mentioned by
Martin . . . . . . . . . . . The fact mentioned as ‘Salar Masood
had come to Ayodhya in 1032-33 and had destroyed the
Janmsthal temple’ in para-15 of affidavit of my
examination-in-chief , is now considered wrong by
me . . . . . . . . . . . After looking at para-16 of his affidavit,
the witness stated that the fact mentioned in it as ‘the need
for its construction arose because it had been destroyed 70-
80 years ago’, also stands nullified, as already stated by
me about Salar Masood. . . . . . . . . The destruction of
temple in the year 1528, is not written anywhere, and it
is only my presumption.” (E.T.C)
3632. Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal OPW-11 Retired
Professor since 1997 had specialization in "Modern Indian
History". In para 2 of his affidavit, he says that his studies and
teaching was in the subject of 'Modern History'. On the basis of
various Gazetteers etc., details whereof are given in para 8 of his
affidavit, he gave opinion that Ram Janam Bhumi temple was
demolished by Babar, using its material, the mosque was
constructed. This opinion is solely based not on his research but
on the basis of the studies of various Gazetteers:
- · l ¬n· ·i | n¬ l -¤º ¬i ¬·¤¤· l ¬¤i , ¬¬¬ -
;¬ l ·· ¬· i ¤º ¤r ¤i r¸ l ¬, l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¤º
l r· · ¬i ,i ºi «ºi «º ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ¬i n| ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·z)
“From all the gazetteers read by me, I have arrived
at the conclusion that Hindus have been regularly
3664
offering worship at the disputed site.” (E.T.C)
He further said:
- · l¬· ¤ -n¬i ¤· n¬l-¤º ¬i · ªii ¤· ¤«i ¬·- ;¬ «in
¬i ¬~¬ ªi r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º lr·· ¬i ,iºi ¤¬ ¤«¸ nºi «·i¤i
n¤i ·ii, l¬¬ ¤º ¤¸ ¬i ri n| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·s)
“In the books and gazetteers read & seen by me, it is
mentioned that a platform was built by the Hindus at the
disputed site, over which worship used to take
place.”(E.T.C)
- ¬i ·i l ·¬ ·i i ºn| ¤ ;l nri ¬ ¬i l ·ºi · i n r¸ |
-i - ª¤ ¬ ·iiºn|¤ ¬i·i l·¬ ;lnri¬ l« l-ºi ºii¬· ¬i¬ ¬i r ¤r
¬i¬ ¬· ·/r/ ¬ ·s«/ n¬ ¬i ·ii| . . . ·c·| ºini··| ;lnri¬ ¬
«iº - - ºi ¬i ; l·ºi·i ¬·¤¤· ·r| r | (¤ ¬ zo)
“I am an expert of modern Indian history. Broadly
the modern Indian history concerns the British empire. This
period falls between the year 1757 to 1947. . . . I have no
special study about the history of 16
th
century.” (E.T.C)
3633. In view of his own statement that he has no
expertise with respect to the period during which he alleged that
the said disputed building was constructed, in our view, his
statement in this respect cannot be considered to be opinion of
an Expert, which can be treated to be relevant under Section 45
of the Evidence Act.
3634. DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur was working as
Reader and incharge Head of the Department of History in
Varshneya College, Aligarh. He is M.A. (History) and in English
Literature and Ph.D. on the subject of "Hindu Resistance during
Saltanat Period" awarded in 1975 from Agra University. His
statement was also similar to OPW-9 and in para 13 and 14 in
the affidavit dated 8
th
April, 2005 he has stated that according to
3665
his studies and knowledge, the then existing temple at Ram
Janam Bhoomi was demolished and thereafter Mir Baqi got a
construction made using the material of the temple. He also said
that traditionally and as per the belief of Hindu, since time
immemorial the place in dispute is being worshiped as
birthplace of lord Rama. In his cross-examination, he said:
lr··¸ º l¬-- ¬ ·¤ ¸lº n ¬~n·n ¤|lº¤· ¬· ·zoc ¬ ¬ ¬º
·rzc n¬ ¬i -· ¤¬i ¬| · ;l nri ¬ ¬i ¬i ¬, - º ºi i · i ¬i
l ·· i ¤ ·i i | (¤ ¬ s)
"Hindu Resistance During Sultanate Period" the
medieval history period from the year 1206 to 1526, was
the topic of my research." (E.T.C.)
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·--·ii· ri · n·ii lr··¸ ri · ¬ ¬iººi - º|
¬i-·ii ¬¤i·¤i - r | (¤ ¬ s÷·o)
"I have faith in Ayodhya on account of being Hindu
and it being the birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)
·iiºi / - ¤r¬| ¤l·n - nr··i¬ · ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r |
;¬ · ºi ¬| ¬-¤l-n ¤ ·i- ºii¬¬ ºi¬i ¤ºiil·n r ¬ ¬-¤ - r ; ·i|
;·¬ ºii¬· ¬i¬ ¬ ºi ª ri · ¬ ··i ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬i ; ¬¬iºi--¬ ¬i·¤
·r| r | nr· ·i¬ · ºi ¬ ¬i n ¬··i ¬ ¬ ·i | . . . ;¬¬ ¤ ·i- ºii¬¬
¤·· · · ·i | l¬·¬i ºii¬· ¬· ·osr ¬ ºi ª r ¬i ·ii| ¤·· · ·, -lr¤··
¬ ¤ ¤ ·i . . .nr··i¬ ·ºi ¬ ºi¬i¬i - nil··· ¤·· ¬i ¬ « ·i ¬¤i ·¤i
¬ ·ii| ¤·· · · ¤ ·i- ¬i ¬ « ·i ·i| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ·ii| ni l··· ¤·· ¬i
ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬· ···o ¬ ¬· ··rc n¬ ·ii| . . . . . ¤·· · · ¬| ·i
ºi¬·ii·| ¬ -ºi ¬··i ¬ n·ii ¬iºi| - ·i|| ¬ ··i ¬ - ºi¬·ii·| ;¬l¬¤
·i| ·¤i l¬ ¤·· · · · ¬ ··i ¬ ¬i ¬|ni ·ii, ¬iºi| ¬·¬| l,n|¤ ºi¬·ii·|
·i|| -·¤¬i¬|· ºii¬¬ ¤ i¤ ·i ºi¬·ii·| ºªin ·i | (¤ ¬ ·«÷·r)
"In the first line of para 7 of the affidavit of my
examination-in-chief, I have mentioned Gahadwal dynasty.
This dynasty was established in the period of its first ruler
King Yashovigrah. There is no affirmative evidence
3666
regarding the year of beginning of his reign. The Gahadwal
dynasty people were of Kannauj. . . . . . . Its first ruler was
Chandradev, whose reign began from the year 1085.
Chandradev was son of Mahichandra . . . . Out of the kings
of Gahadwal dynasty, Govindchandra was related to
Ayodhya. Chandradev-I was also related to Ayodhya.
Govindchandra's reign extended from 1110 to
1156. . . . . . . . Chandradev had two capitals at Kannauj
and Kashi respectively. Kannauj was the capital because
Chandradev had conquered it, and Kashi was his second
capital. The medieval rulers usually had two capitals."
(E.T.C.)
nr· ·i¬ · ºi ¬ ¬i ni · ºi·- ¬¸ -i ¬ ¬-ni ¤ i·n ¬|, . . . .
.¤ ¬i ¬ri ¬ini r l¬ nil··· ¤·· · · · ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·-·i¸ l- -l·º ¬i
¬|ºii ,iº ¬ºi¤i ·ii, ¤r| ¤ lnril¬¬ n·¤ r | ¤r ni l ·· · · · ·r|
r , ¬i nr· ·i ¬ · ºi ¬ ºi ¬i ·i | ;¬¬ ¬ « · i - ¤ -i l ºi ¬
¬i ·¤ ¬ ª¤ - ¤¬ ¬·i ¸ ºi l ºi ¬i ¬ ªi ¤ i · n r ¬i r . . . .
. . . ¤r l ºi ¬i ¬ ªi ¬¤i · ¤i - ¬· - ·i ¸ l - ¬ -·i i · ¤º
¤ i · n r ¬i r |. . . ¤r lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬·i| ri¬ - ¤ i·n r ¬i r | ;¬
lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬| ¤ i·n l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ··-n ri · ¬ «i· r ; r | ¤r
lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬· zoos - r ¤ ¬-ªi·· - ¤ i·n r ¬i r | ¤r lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬i¬
¤-·iº ¤º r | . . . . ·io ºi -i l·¤i n| ,iºi ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ - ¬i ¬,ººi
l·¤ n¤ r , ¬·- l¬· lºi¬i¬ ªii ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r , ¬¬¬ -¤·- r l¬
nr· ·i¬ ºii¬¬i ¬ ¬ º·iºi - lºi·- l·º, l··ºi ¬ - l·º n·ii «i ,i ¬
-l·ºi ¬i l·-i ºi r ¬i| . . . . . . nr· ·i¬ ¬ ¬ln- ºii¬¬, ¬i·¤i ¬
¬· ¬iº, ¬¤¤·· ¬ ¤ ¤ rlººi¤·· ·i | ¬¤ ¤·· ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri · ·
¤ºi-n ri · ¤º ·i| rlººi¤·· ¬i ºii¬· ¬i¤| «· ·i ¤ - ¬· ··s« ¬
¬· ·zsc n¬ ºri| ¤r ¬¤ ¤·· ·r| r ¬i niº| n·ii ¤ ··|ºi¬ ¤iri·
¬ ¬-¤ - ·i | (¤ ¬ ·r÷·/)
"The Gahadwal dynasty people obtained the legacy
from Rashtrakutas, . . . . It is so said that Govindchandra
3667
Dev had renovated the Janmbhumi temple at Ayodhya, this
is the historical fact. This Govindchandra Dev is the
same, who was a king of Gahadwal dynasty. As an
authentic evidence in this behalf, an incomplete
inscription has been found, . . . . . This inscription has
been found in Ayodhya at the site of Janmbhumi. . . .
This inscription is over red stone. . . . . . . From the
inscriptions mentioned in the citations given by Dr. Roma
Niyogi in her book, it is clear that Shiva temple, Vishnu
temple and Buddhist temples were built under the
patronage of Gahadwal rulers. . . . . . . . As per evidences,
the last ruler of Gahdwals was Harishchandra son of
Jaichandra. Despite defeat of Jaichandra, the rule of
Harishchandra extended over a quite big area from the
year 1194 to 1236. This Jaichandra is the same, who
existed in the period of Gauri and Prithviraj Chauhan."
(E.T.C.)
¬i ·i| - l·º ·i , ¬·r ··-n ¬º l·¤i n¤i ¬iº ·¤i l·-i ºi
l¬¤i n¤i| ·r l·-i ºi -l-¬· ¬ ª¤ - ·ii| -·¤ ¬ri l¬ ¬¬¬i
-·ª¤ -l-¬· ¬i ·ii| ni l··· ¤·· · · · -l·º ¬i ¬|ºii ,iº ¬¬|
-·ii· ¤º ¬ºi¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·s)
"Whatever temples were there, they were destroyed
and new construction was carried out. This construction
was in form of mosque. Stated on his own that its form was
of mosque. Govindchandra Dev had renovated the temple
at that very place."(E.T.C.)
·iiºn··i - ¬· ·zoc ¬ -·¤¬i¬|· ·iiºn|¤ ;lnri¬ ¬i
¤ ºii¬l·¬ -·ª¤ ¤ iº ·i ri ni r | ¤r ¬ - ·¬i¬| ¬ ¤ , ¬ ¬i·i ¬-i·n
ri ni r | ;¬ ·iiºi - l·¤ n¤ n·¤i ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¤r -r-· r
l¬ ;¬¬ ¬i¬ ¬ - ¬ l·lº¤n ri ni r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
3668
"The administrative form of medieval Indian history
commences from the year 1206 in India. This came to an
end with the Battle of Plassey. The facts mentioned in this
paragraph are relevant for the purposes of Ayodhya, in the
manner that they determine the chronology."(E.T.C.)
ºi ¬| · ºi ¬i ¬·¤ ¬· ·sss - r ¬i ·i i | l·~¬| -
¬« n n¬¬ ·ºi ¬i ¤ºi·i· r ¬i n« -l¬¬ ¬º·º ¬i ;¬ -·ii· ¬|
·¤·-·ii · ªi· ¬ l¬¤ ·i ¬i n¤i ni ¬·ri · ¬¤· ¬i ¬i ·¤ º ·i-¬
-·ii· ¤º -·n ¤ ºii¬¬ ·ii l·in ¬º l¬¤i| ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ºi¬| ¬i- i·¤ ¬|
-·ii¤·i r ; | ºi¬| · ºi - «r n ¬ ºii¬¬ r ¤| ºi¬| ·ºi ¬ ºi¬i¬i ¬
·i- ¬i - n --ººi ·r| r | ¬l·n- ºii¬¬ -r-¸ · ·i , ¬i ¬· ·«so -
« ni¬ ¬| ¬iº ¤¬ n¤ ·i | ¬· ·«so - -r-¸ · ¬ « ni¬ ¤¬il¤n ri ·
¬i ¬iººi ¤r ·ii l¬ ºi¬| · ºi ¬ ºii¬· ¬i ¬·n ri ¤ ¬i ·ii| «r¬i ¬
¬i ·| n·ii l¬¬··º ¬i ·| ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri · ¤º ;¬ ·ºi ¬| ¬-il·n ri
n¤| ·i|| ºi¬| · ºi ¬ ºi·¤ ¬ ·i ¤ - « ni¬ ¬| ¬|-i n¬ ¬i ·i ¤ ·ii|
¬··i ¬i ¬-¤¸ ºi ·i ¤ n·ii ¬··i ¬ ;¬¬ ¬·nn n ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬·nn n
¬¤i·¤i ·i| ·ii n·ii ¬i ·¤ º ¬i ¤¸ ºi ¤lº·i ¤ ¬ini ·ii| ºi¬| · ºi ,iºi
l·l- n ·i··i ¬ -·ii¤-¤¬¬i ¬i ¬·ºi ·i ¬i ·¤ º - ¤ i·n r , ¤ ¬i ;¬
¬iººi ¬ r ·¤i l¬ ¬i ·¤ º - ºi¬| · ºi ¬| ºi¬·ii·| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·s÷·s)
"The Sharqi dynasty advented in the year 1393.
When the Tuglaq dynasty in Delhi underwent downfall,
Mallik Sarwar was sent to look after the management of
this place, and there he declared himself an independent
ruler at the place called Jaunpur. This is how Sharqi
dynasty was established. The Sharqi dynasty saw many
rulers. I do not remember the names of kings of Sharqi
dynasty. The last ruler was Mahmud, who went towards
Bengal in the year 1480. The reason for fleeing of Mahmud
to Bengal in the year 1480, was that the rule of Sharqi
dynasty had come to an end. This dynasty had come to an
3669
end on being defeated by Bahlol Lodi and Sikandar Lodi.
The limits of Sharqi dynasty empire extended up to the
limits of Bengal. The entire area of Awadh and Kannauj fell
under it. It included Ayodhya as well besides the entire
zone of Jaunpur. The architectural remains of buildings
built by Sharqi dynasty are found in Jaunpur, it is so
because the capital of Sharqi dynasty was at
Jaunpur."(E.T.C.)
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¬ º¤·i ¬i¬ ¬i «ni·i «r n ¬l-¬ ¤ º· r |
. . . .¬ s ¬i n ;¬¬i º¤·i¬i¬ ; ¬i ¬ rooo ··i ¤¸ · ¬iº ¬ s sooo
··i ¤¸ · -i·n r | (¤ ¬ zz÷zs)
“It is a very difficult proposition to determine the
time of composition of the Valmiki Ramayana. . . . . Some
people attribute it to 5000 BC and some others to 3000
BC.” (E.T.C)
l¬¬ ¬-¤ «i«º ¬-º¬ · n·ii ¤ ºn·i ¬ ¤ºil¬n ri · ¬ «i·
«r n ¬l-· ¤lºl-·iln¤i ¬ ¬¸ n ºri ·ii ¬¬ ¬-¤ ; ºi· ¬ ºiir ¬¤ ·|
· ¬·r ºini ¬ ¬i·i -·· · · ¬| «in ¬r| ·i|, l¬¬ «i«º · -·|¬iº
l¬¤i ·ii|.. . . .«i «º · ¤l ºl -·i l n¤i ¬ ¬· ¬i º l ºi ¤i ¬ ·-
¬i -·| ¬i º l ¬¤i | «i · - «i «º · ¤ · ¬ · ·| ¬ ·- ¬i
-·| ¬i º ¬º l ¬¤i | (¤ ¬ z«÷zr)
“At a time when Babar was grappling with very
tough circumstances after being defeated at Samarkand
and Phargana, Shah Safavi of Iran had promised help to
him with certain conditions, to which Bahar had
agreed. . . . . . . . . Babar embraced Shia sect due to the
pressure of circumstances. Babar later embraced the
Sunni sect.” (E.T.C)
·iiºn - «i«º ¬i ¬in-· «i«º ¬| ¬i--÷¬·ii n ¬ ¬ «i«º| ¬
¬· ¬iº ¬· ·r·s - ¤ ¬i« - r ¬i| ¬·ri · ¬· ·rzr n¬ ¤i ¤ «iº
3670
¬l·¬ ¬l·i¤i· l¬¤i| s- ¬l·i¤i· - ¬·ri · ¤ ¬i« ¬ ·i ¬nªii ¬i ·|
¬i ¤ºil¬n l¬¤i ¬i º ¬·¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ¬l·i¬iº l¬¤i| . . . . . ¤r¬ ¬
¤i ¤i ¬i¬ -ºi ¬¬n÷¬¬n l¬ ¬ ¤º l¬¤ n¤ | -·ii·|¤ ¬iln¤i ·
¬·¬i - ¬i«¬i l¬¤i ·ii ¬¤¤ ·n l¬¬ ¤ ¬i« ·i ¤ ¬i - · ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i
r , ·r ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤il¬-ni· l-·in ¤ ¬i« r | «i «º ¬i ·i i ºn -
¬i n-· - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ ·i ¬i ººi i ¬ ·i i , ¤r¬i ¬i ººi ¤ n ¬
ºi ·¤i - l ·¬¤ ¤ i · n · ri ·i , ¬i « ¬ - ··| · ¬i - i ·¤ ¬|
-·i i ¤·i , l ¬¬¬| ¬ º·i i ¬ l ¬¤ ·l ·i ºi ¤¸ · ¬·i i n ¤ ¬i «
¬| ¬i º «« ·i ¬i ·º¤¬ ·i i | ·¸ ¬ºi ¬i ººi «i «º · ¬¤·|
¬i - -¬·i i - ¤r «ni ¤i r l ¬ l ·~¬| ¤º ¬·¬ ¤¸ · ¬i ¬i
¬·i i n n -¸ º ¬i ¬·i | ºi i ¬· ·i i , ;¬l ¬¤ ·r ·i | ¬·¬i
¬l ·i ¬i º ¬ ¤ n ¬ ºi ·¤ r | (¤ ¬ zr÷zc)
“As per Tuzuk-e-Babari, autobiography of Babar, his
advent in India took place in Punjab in 1519. He carried
out military expedition five times till 1525. In the sixth
expedition, he defeated Daulat Khan Lodi of Punjab and
captured his region. . . . . . . Different forts were the targets
of the first five attacks. Local tribes offered challenge to
him. The Punjab region about which I have mentioned, is
presently situated in Pakistan-occupied Punjab. The
invasion of Babar upon India was mainly due to two
reasons. The first reason was his failure to conquer his
parental states and the establishment of a new empire in
Kabul for the safety of which it was necessary to march
towards south east, that is, Punjab. As regards the
second reason Babar has stated in his autobiography
that Delhi was at a time under the rule of his
forefathers, that is, of Taimur and because of this it was
as a matter of right his parental state.” (E.T.C)
zs -i¤ ¬· ·rzs ¬ z ¬¤ ¬ ·rzs ¬| ¬·l·i - ¬¤i ·¤i -
3671
¬i ; l¬¬i · ri · ¬ ¬iººi «i«º · ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº ¬ «irº ¬ -¤ -
l··i¬ l¬¤i ·ii|. . «i«º · ¬i¬ -ºi¬iº| ¬ ª¤ - l·~¬| ¬| ¬-ni
;« ilr- ¬i ·| ¬ ¤ i·n ¬| ¬iº ·ri ¬ ºi¬-·ii· ¬ ·i ¤ - ¬in ·r| ««
¬¬i ¬i º ¬¤i · ¤i ¬ ·i ¤ - ¬¤ ni · l ·· i l r¤i ¬i ºi i · n
¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ ;¬ l ·ºi i - ·r ¬i ¬ -ºi ¬i º| ¬| r l ¬¤n ¬
¬i ¤i , ¤ri ·i | ¬i ; ¬- ni -·i i l ¤n ·r| ri ¬¬| | ¬·¬
¤ l nl ·l ·i -| º«i ¬ | ni ºi ¬ ·| ni - ¬i l ¬¬ ¬ ·· i i ¬ ¬i ·i i º
¤º ¤¬ ·· i ¬ s -i r ¬ «i · ¤ri ¬ ¤¬ n¤ | (¤ ¬
zc÷z/)
“Because of there being no fort at Ayodhya Babar
resided in a camp outside the city of Ayodhya between 28
th
March 1528 and 2
nd
April 1528. . . . As an invader Babar
took over the reigns of Delhi from Ibrahim Lodi and could
not go forward in the region of Rajasthan from there, and
with a view to subjugate the Afghan rebels in the region
of Ayodhya he came as an invader, and no rule could be
established here too. Contemporary references suggest
that his representative Mir Baqi went away from here a
year and some months later.” (E.T.C)
- ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi ·s ¤º ¬i¬ ·- l¬¤i n·ii
¬i·i| · ;¬¬i ¤« · ¬ «i· «ni¤i l¬ ;¬- ¬¤i ·¤i l-·iln ¬|
ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¤º l-·in - l·º ¬i «i«º ¬ ¬ ·i¤ln -|º«i¬| ,iºi l·-i ºi
l¬¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬¬¬ ªi r , ;¬¬ ¬ « ·i - ·io ºi·i º¤i- · ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬
«i«º - l¬ªii r | ·io ºi·i º¤i- -i·¤ni ¤ i·n ¬ ªi¬ r | · ;¬iri«i·
l·º·l·ni¬¤ - ;lnri¬ l··iin - ¤ i ¤ ¬º ºr r | ¬i¬-n|º·i-i - ;¬
¬iºi¤ ¬i ¬ ··i ¬i¤i r l¬ ¬| ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤«¸ nºi ··-n
l¬¤i n¤i ¬iº ··-n l¬¤ n¤ -¬« ¬ , -l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi l¬¤i n¤i|
. . . ;¬ ¬ -¤ ¬i ¬º· ¬i ¬· ·º¤ - ª¤ ª¤ ¬ - l·º ¬ -·ii· ¬i
··-n ¬º¬ ¤¬ ¤ ¬| ;-iºn ¬i l·-i ºi ¬º· ¬ ·ii, l¬¬¬i ¬¤¤i n
¬¤· l¬¤ l¬¤i ¬i ¬¬ | ··|· l·-i ºi - l¬¬ ¬i-n | ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i
n¤i, ¬¬¬ ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¤r¬ ¬i ·i·· nr· ·i¬ · ºi| nil··· ¤··
3672
¬ ¬-¤ ¬i ·ii| . . .- l-¬- ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬i ¬· ·zoc ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬·
·rzc n¬ ·ii ¬i ¬; · ºii - l··i·n l¬¤i n¤i r | ;· · ºii - ¬·
·zoc ¬ ¬ ¬º ·zso n¬ n·ii¬l·in n ¬i- · ºi ¬i ºii¬· ·ii ¬«l¬ ¤r
n ¬i-· ºi (-¬ · ·i¤· --|) ·r| ·ii ·¤i l¬ ;¬- n|· ¬¬n ºiiªii¤ ·i|,
-i-¬¸ ¬, ;¬«iº|, n·ii ºi-¬| ºiiªii¬i ¬i ºii¬· ·ii| ;¬ ¬i¬ ¬
ºi¬i¬i - , ¬ n « · ·|· ¤ «¬, ¬ ~ni· ¬iºi-ºiir, ;~n nl-ºi, ª¬ · · ·|·
l¤ ºi ¬, ºl¬¤i ¬ ~ni·, - ; ¬ · ·|· «rºi-ºiir, ¬¬i¬· ·|· -¬¸ ·ºiir,
·il¬º¬· ·|· -r-¸ ·, «¬«·, ¬ ¬«i· ¬i º l¤º ¬ -¸ º ·i | ¬· ·zso ¬
¬· ·szo n¬ lªi¬¬| · ºi ¬i ºii¬· ·ii, ;· ºii¬¬i - ¬¬i¬ · ·|·
l¤ ºi ¬ lªi¬¬|, ¬¬i¬· ·|· lªi¬¬|, ¬ n « · ·|· - «iº¬ ·i | ¬· ·szo
¬ ¬· ·«·« n¬ n n¬¬ · ºi ¬i ºii¬· ·ii| ;· ºii¬¬i - n¤i¬ · ·|·
n n¬¬ -i r--· l«· n n¬¬, l¤ºi ¬ºiir n n¬¬ ¬iº ¬¬¬ «i· n|·
¬-¬i º ºii¬· l¬¬- ¬l·n- ºii¬¬ -i r--· ºiir n n¬¬ r ¤ ·¤i l¬
·«·« - ¬ ¤· · ºi ¬| -·ii¤·i ri n¤|| lªi¬ ªii ¬ ¤· ;¬ · ºi ¬
¬ -·ii¤¬ ·i | ¬ ¤· · ºi ¬· ·«·« ¬ ¬· ·«ro n¬ ·ii| ¬· ·«ro ¬
¬i ·| · ºi ¬| ºi ª¬in r ; , l¬¬¬ ºii¬¬i - «r¬i ¬ ¬i ·|, l¬¬ ·º
¬i ·| n·ii ;« ilr- ¬i ·| ºii¬¬ r ¤| ;¬¬ «i· - n,¬ ºii¬· ¬i ¤ iº ·i
r ¬i, ;¬¬i ¤ iº-·i ¬· ·rzc ¬ -i·i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ z/÷zs)
“The attention of the witness was drawn to para-13
of the affidavit filed in the Examination-in-Chief and on
going through it he stated- It mentions of a construction
having been raised by Mir Baqi, Commander of Babar at
the temple situate at Sri Ramjanam Bhumi located in
Ayodhya; in this respect Dr. Radhey Shyam has written in
his book titiled Babar. Dr. Radhey Shyam is an
acknowledged author. He has been a Professor in the
History Department at the University of Allahabad.
Alamgirnama contains a reference to the effect that a
Chabutra situate at a place called Sri Ramjanam Bhumi
was demolished and after the said demolition a mosque
was constructed from its debris. . . . The aim of this act was
3673
mainly to demolish the place of the temple and to construct
such a building thereat as could be utilized for personal
use. From the materials used in the new construction, it
appears that the earlier building belonged to the time of
Govind Chandra of the Gahadwal dynasty. . . . . The
Muslim period, which spanned between 1206 AD to 1526
AD, is divided into many dynasty. Out of these dynasty, the
reign of the so-called Slave dynasty was from 1206 AD to
1290 AD. As a matte of fact, there was no dynasty with the
name of Slave dynasty, because it had three different
branches. Reigns of Mamulak, Ilbari and Shamsi branches
were seen. Among the rulers of this period were included
Qutub-ud-din Aibak, Sultan Aram Shah, Iltutmish, Rukun-
ud-din Firoz, Razia Sultan, Muij-ud-din Bahram Shah,
Alla-ud-din, Masood Shah, Nasir-ud-din Mahmud, Balban,
Kaikbad and Kaimur. The period from 1219 AD to 1320
AD witnessed the reign of the Khilji dyansty. Among the
ruler were included Jalal-ud-din Firoz Khilji, Alla-ud-din
Khilji and Qutub-ud-din Mubaarak. The period from 1328
AD to 1414 AD witnessed the reign of Tughlaq dynasty.
Among these rulers were included Gayas-ud-din Tughlaq,
Muhammad Bin Tughlaq and Firoz Shah Tughlaq and after
him came three weaklings among whom the last one was
Muhammad Shah Tughlak, because 1440 AD saw the
emergence of the Syed dynasty. Khijra Khan Syed was the
founder of this dynasty. The Syed dynasty spanned between
1414 AD and 1450 AD. 1450 AD marked the beginning of
the Lodi dynasty, whose rulers included Bahlol Lodi,
Sikandar Lodi and Ibrahim Lodi. After that came the
3674
Mughal rule, the beginning of which is attributed to 1526
AD.” (E.T.C)
- · ¬nºªi ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬¤· «¤i· ¬ ¤ ·- ÷·/ ¤º «ni¤i ·ii,
¤ ¬i - · ¬l··i- ¬ ¬···i ¬ ¬ri ·ii| ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬nlºªi
·i-¬ -·ii· «iºi« ¬| ¬·¤· - ;¬ ¬-¤ l-·in r ¬nºªi n·i i
¬nl ºªi ¤¬ r| -·i i · ¬ ·i - r | (¤ ¬ zs÷sz)
“I had stated Satrakh to be Ayodhya on page-17 of
my statement; I had stated so in reference to Cunningham.
It is true to say that a place called Satrikh is presently
situated in Barabanki district. 'Satrakh' and 'Satrikh' are
the names of one and the same place.” (E.T.C)
«i«º ,iºi ¤ · ¬ ··| ¬ ·- ¬i -·|¬iº ¬º· ¬i ¬iººi ¤r ·ii
l¬ «i«º ¬| ºi¬·ln¬ n·ii ¤ ºii¬l·¬ l-·iln ¬i« ¬ - «r n -¬«¸ n ri
¤ ¬| ·i| ¬i º ¬· ·r·« ¬ ·rzr n¬ ¬¬ ;¬i¬ - ·r -·n ¤ ºii¬¬
¬| rl¬¤n ¬ -·iil¤n ri ¤ ¬i ·ii, ;¬l¬¤ ; ºi· ¬ ºii¬¬ ¬ ¬·nn n
ºr· ¬i ¬i ; ¬i l¤-¤ ·r| ·ii| (¤ ¬ sz)
“The reason of Babur's embracing the Sunni sect
again was that his political and administrative position had
got consolidated a great deal in Kabul and he had
established himself as an independent ruler in that region;
hence, there was no justification for him to have been
under the ruler of Iran.” (E.T.C)
·iiºi÷·s . . . . ¬| ¬l·n- ·i ¤l·n¤i - - l·º ¬ -¬« ¬i
;-n -i¬ l¬¤i n¤i ºi··i ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i n¤i r | ;¬¬ - ºi
ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ¬¬i -| ¬ ¤- ·i ºi ¬i ;-n -i ¬ l ¬¤i n¤i
r | ¬· ¤º ºi ·¬ ¬ l ¬n r | ªi-·i ·¤i ¬ -¤i r , l¬·¬i ·i|
;-n -i¬ l¬¤i n¤i r | ;¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º - · ¤r «in ¬r| r | - º| ;¬
¬i·¬iº| ¬i ¬i·iiº «r n ¬| l¬ni«i - ;¬¬i ¬ ··i ri ni r | (¤ ¬ s«)
“The words 'the debris of the temple' have been used
in the last two lines of. . . . . . . . . Para 13. By the said
words I mean that Kasauti stones have been used. Images
3675
are engraved on them. Whichever pillars have been used,
are as they were. I have stated this thing on this basis. This
information of mine is based on references to them in many
books.” (E.T.C)
l ··i l ·n -·i i · ¤º l -·i n l ¬¬ ·i ·· ¬i
-| º«i ¬| ,i ºi ni · i n¤i ·i i , ¬¬ ·i ·· ¬ ¤¸ · ·ri ¤º
nr· ·i ¬ · ºi ¬ ni l ·· · ¤· · ,i ºi ¬| ºi i ,i º l ¬¤i n¤i
-l · ·º l -·i n ·i i | (¤ ¬ sc)
“On the disputed site, prior to the building
demolished by Mir Baqi, there was a temple renovated
by Govind Chandra of the Gahadwal dynasty.” (E.T.C)
l¬··i ¤º ¤r¬i ¬i¬ -ºi -i r--· l«· ¬il¬- · ¬· /··÷/·z
; -·| - l¬¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¬i¬ -ºi - l¬··i ¬ ºii¬¬ ·ilrº ¤ºil¬n r ¤ ·i
¬iº « ir -ºi·i· ·i-¬ -·ii· ¤º -i r--· l«· ¬il¬- ¬i ¬l·i¬iº
r ¬i ·ii|
n¬·| · ¤ ¬i« ri n r ¤ ¬·i| r-¬ lr·· -ni· ¤º l¬¤| l¬¬
¬-¤ -r-¸ · n ¬·| · lr·· -ni· ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i, ¬¬ ¬-¤ l·~¬| -
¤iri·i ¬i ºii¬· ·ii| ¤r ¬i¬ -ºi ¬· ·ozs ¬ ·oz/ n¬ ¬niniº
r ¬i| . . . . . . . .;· r-¬i ¬ «i· n¬ ·| ¬i l·¤ ¤ºi ¤ ¬i« n¬ ¤ ¬
n¤i, ¤º·n l·~¬| ¬·¬ ¬·¬ - ·r| ¬i¤i| ¤ r-¬ ¬¬n÷¬¬n r-¬
·i | ;· r-¬i - l··· ¬ l¬¤i n¤i, ¬¸ --iº ¬| n; n·ii ¬i¬ -ºi¬iº|
·i¤¬ ¤¬ n¤ | . . . . . . . . -r-¸ · n¬ ·| · ¬··i ¬ n¬ ¬i¬ -ºi
l¬¤i| ¬·ri · -·i ºi, ¬i -·i·i ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i ·ii| l¬¬ ¬-¤ -r-¸ ·
n¬ ·| · ¬··i ¬ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi l¬¤i, ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬··i ¬ ¤º ºi·- ¬¸ -i ¬i
ºii¬· ·ii| ºi·- ¬¸ - ¤¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬i ·i ¤|¤ ·i- r , l¬·¬i ¬··i ¬ ¬ ·i ¤
¤º ¬l·i¬iº ·ii| ¬·¬i ¬-«··i ·l·iºi ¬ ·i| ·ii| . . . . ºi·- ¬¸ - ¬i n
¬-nº ¬ ··i ¬ ¬ ºr· ·i¬ ·r| ·i | . . . . .¤ ¬i n ·l·iºi| ºi·¤i ¬|
¬ºr· ¬ ¬i¤ ·i . . nr··i¬i ¬i ºii¬· ¬n·in ·oo ··ii n¬ ·ii| ¤r
ºii¬· ¬n·in ¬· ·osr ¬ ¬n·in ¬· ··oo ; -·| n¬ ·ii| ¬· ··oo
¬ «i· ¤¬ ºi¬i ¬i ºii¬· ¬-i·n ri n¤i, ¤º·n nr· ·i ¬ · ºi ¬i
ºi i ¬· ¬· ·zzr÷·zzc n¬ ¬i ¤- ºri | . . nr· ·i ¬i ¬
3676
ºi i ¬· ¬| ¬-i l · n ¤º l ·~¬| ¬ ºi i ¬¬i · ¬··i ¬ ·i ¤
- ;~n nl -ºi · ¬¤· « - ·i l ¬º¬· ·| · ¬i ¬··i ¬i
n·· º l ·¤ ·n l ¬¤i | (¤ ¬ s/÷ss)
“Mohammad Bin Qasim made his first attack on Sind
in 711-712 AD. In this attack, Dahir, ruler of Sind, was
defeated and a place called Brahmanwad came under the
reigns of Mohammad Bin Qasim.
. . . . . Mahmud of Ghazni made all his attacks
wading through Punjab. Delhi was ruled by Chauhans at
the time when Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Hindustan.
These attacks took place constantly between 1023 and
1027. . . . . . . . After these attacks, the control of Mahmud
of Ghazni extended up to Punjab but Delhi did not come
under him. These attacks were separate ones. These attacks
were marked by devastation, plunder and the ultimate
return of the invader. . . . . . Mahmud of Ghazni attacked
Kannauj. He attacked Mathura and Somnath. When
Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Kannauj, it was under the rule
of Rashtakutas. Rashtrakuta is a type of regional name and
they had control over the Kannauj region. They also had
relations with Deccan as well. . . . . . Rashtrakutas were
not the inhabitants of north Kannauj. . . . . They came from
the bordering areas of the southern states. . . . The reign of
Gahadwals spanned nearly 100 years. This rule was from
circa 1085AD to circa 1100 AD. After 1100 AD the rule of
a particular king came to an end but that of the Gahadwal
dynasty continued till 1225-1226 AD. . . . . . At the end
of the rule of Gahadwals, the ruler at Delhi, Iltutmish,
appointed his son governor of Awadh for the Awadh
3677
region.” (E.T.C)
- ;lnri¬ ¬i ¤ ··ni r¸ | - -· ¤¬i ¬| · ·i i ºn| ¤ ;l nri ¬
¤« i ni r¸ | . . . ¬« n¬ zz si ¤ - º l ·· ºi · -
¤| ¤¤o·| o ¬| ¬¤i l ·i ¤ i · n ¬º ¤ ¬ r | (¤ ¬ «s÷««)
“I am a lecturer in history. I teach Medieval Indian
History. . . . . 22 students have so far attained Ph.D.
degrees under my guidance.” (E.T.C)
-· ¤ ¬i ¬| · ·i i ºn| ¤ ;l nri ¬ - º ¬· ¤¤· ¬i l ·· i ¤
ºri r |
-·¤ ¬i¬|· ·iiºn|¤ ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬·nn n - n¬i ¬i ºii¬· ·i|
¬ini r | (¤ ¬ «/)
“Medieval Indian History has been a subject of my
study.
Medieval Ancient History also comprises the reign of
Mughals.” (E.T.C)
- n¬i ¬ ¬-¤ - ¬··i «i «º ¬ ¬l ·i ¬i º - ·r|
·i i | ¤ri ¤º -| º«i ¬| ¬i ¬· ri · ;¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ¬l ·i ¬ n
¬º¬ ¤ri ¬| l -·i l n ¬i · ªi · ¬ l ¬¤ l ·¤ ·n l ¬¤i ·i i |
·r ¤ri ¤º ¬i ni-¬il¬¬ ¬···i ¤ i·n ri n r , ¬¬¬ ¬· ¬iº
¬n·in ¤¬ ··i n|· -ir n¬ ºr n·ii ¬¬¬ «i· ·i¤¬ ¤¬ n¤ | r -i¤¸
¬ ¬i¬ - - n¬i ¬i ¬l·i¬iº ;¬ ·i ¤ ¤º ·r| ·ii| ¬¬«º ¬ ¬-¤ -
;¬ ¤¸º ·i ¤ ¤º ¤¬ ¬¸ « ¬ ª¤ - - n¬i ¬i l·¤·¤ºi ·ii|(¤ ¬ «/÷«s)
“In the time of Mughals, Awadh was not under the
control of Babur. Babur had authorised Mir Baqi for
this region and had appointed him to handle its
situation. As per contemporary references obtained from
here, that he stayed here for about one year three months
and after that he went back. In the time of Humayun too,
this region was not under the control of Mughals. In the
time of Akbar this region in its entirety was under the
3678
control of Mughals as a province.” (E.T.C)
¬· ·zoc ¬ ¬ ¬º ·/r/ n¬ -· ¤¬i ¬| · ;l nri ¬ ¬
¬- «· ·i - - ºi l ·ºi · i ¬·¤¤· r | (¤ ¬ r·)
“I have a special study on the Medieval History
from 1206 AD to 1757 AD.'' (E.T.C)
¬· ·zoc ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬· ·/r/ n¬ l·~¬| - - ¬¬-i· ºi¬i¬i
¬i r| ºii¬· ºri r | (¤ ¬ rz)
“From 1206 to 1757, Delhi has been under the reign
of Muslim rulers themselves.” (E.T.C)
¤ · º| ¬ ¤ , ¬ «i· «i«º · ¬¤·i ªªi ·n -i· ¬-nº ¤ · ºi ¬
·i ¤ - l¬¤i ¬ri ¤º «i¤¬|· ¬iº «·«· ¬¤ ni· ¬º·iº ·i l¬·ri ·
-·¤ ¬i -·n ¤ ·ii l·in ¬º l·¤i ·ii| «i¤¬|· ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬··i ¬ ¬iº
¬··i ·i ¤ ¬i -·n ¤ ºii¬¬ ·ii| . . . . . . .«i«º ¬ ··i ¬ ¬ ¬ªi·+
ri n r ¤ ¬¤i ·¤i n¤i ·ii| «i«º · ¬¤·i ¤· i· ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ·i ¬ ¤iº
-|¬ ¬| ·¸ º| ¤º ¬º¤¸ ¬ ¬¬ ¤iº l¬¤i| . . . . . . -| º«i ¬| ¬
¬¤i · ¤i - ¬i · ¬ ¤¸ · ¬¤i · ¤i - «i ¤¬| · ¬i l ·¤ ¤ºi
·i i | -|º«i¬| «i«º ¬ l¬¤r¬¬iº ·i , ¬·¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ ºii¬¬|¤ n ¤
n·ii ¬ l·¬ l·¤ ¤ºi - ºªi· ¬ l¬¤ «i«º · ·i ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ r«÷rr)
“After the battle of Chanderi, Babur proceeded
towards the present day Uttar Pradesh region, where
Baizid and Babban were Afgan chieftains who had
declared themselves independent. At that time Baizid was
the independent ruler of Kannauj and Awash regions. . . . . .
Babur came to Lucknow via Kannauj. In a way, he
conquered Kannuaj. Across the Saryu river, Babur camped
2-4 miles away from Ayodhya. . . . . .Before the arrival of
Mir Baqi Ayodhya had been under the control of Baizid.
Mir Baqi was the commander of Babur; Babur had sent
him to exercise administrative and military control over
Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)
3679
l¬¬| ¤ -n¬ - ¤ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l-¬ni r l¬ -| º«i ¬| ¬i
¬¤i · ¤i - l ·¤ ¤ºi ¬º· ¬ l ¬¤ l ¬¬| ¬ ¬i ; ¬ ·i · i
r ¬i ri | . . . . . -| º«i ¬| ¬| ¬i ; ¬· i ; l r· ·¸ ºi ¬i ¬i
¬ ¬i ·i ·r| r ; | (¤ ¬ rc)
“There in nothing in any book suggesting that Mir
Baqi was ever engaged in any struggle with anybody
with a view to to have control over Ayodhya. . . .Mir Baqi
was not locked in any battle with the Hindu
kings.”(E.T.C)
-|º«i¬| ¬· ·rzs - «i«º ¬ l-¬ ·i , ¬¬¬ «i· ·r ¬¤i ·¤i
- ¬i -¬º ·r| ¬i¤ | «i«º · -|º«i¬| ¬| ¬i - ¬i¬in ¬· ·rzs - r ;
·r - º| ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬ ·i¬ - r ; ·i|| (¤ ¬ rc)
“Mir Baqi had met Babur in 1529; after that he did
not come back to Ayodhya. As per my knowledge, the 1529
meeting between Babur and Mir Baqi had taken place at
Sambhal.” (E.T.C)
¤ i ¤ ¬º ;º¤i· r«|«, ¤ i ¤ ¬º ¬nrº ¬¬| ¬i º ¤ i ¤ ¬º ºi|º|
- ¬·| ,iºi ¬i ¬ s l¬ªii n¤i r ¬·i·i ¬i ¬ s ¬·ri · ºii ·i l¬¤i r ,
¬¬¬i ºi·ilºi¬ ¬nn ¬i¬i·| ¬ ·¬º¬ ·i¬ ·r| ¬º ¬¬ni|(¤ ¬
c·÷cz)
“Whatever is written by Prof. Irfan, Prof. Athar Ali
and Prof. Shirin Musvi and about whatever they have
researched, cannot be easily ignored in the academic
circles."(E.T.C)
- · ¬ ·¬ ¬l· ·i- ¬ l¬ªi· ¬ r| ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬nlºªi n·ii
¬¤i·¤i ¬i ¤¬ ri ·i ¬ri r |. . . . . . .¬l· ·i- ,iºi l¬lªin l¬¬|
l¬ni« ¬i - · ·r| ¤«i r | (¤ ¬ ss÷s«)
“Only on the basis of Cunningham's write-up I have
stated Satrikh and Ayodhya to be one and the same
place. . . . . . I have not read any book written by
3680
Cunningham.”(E.T.C)
¬l··i- ¬| lº¤i - - · ·r| ¤« | r | ¬ ·¬ ¬¬¬ º ¤º ¬,
;l¬¤- ¤º· ·i¬¬· ¬| ¤ -n¬ - · ªi r | (¤ ¬ sr)
“I have not read the report of Cunningham. I have
just seen his references in Elliot and Dowson's
book.”(E.T.C)
¬l··i- ¬| lº¤i - ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r ¤ n| n ri ni r l ¬
¬nl ºªi ¬i º ¬¤i · ¤i ¤¬ -·i i · ¬ ·i - ·r| r | (¤ ¬ sc)
“From the report of Cunningham it appears that
Satrikh and Ayodhya are not names of one and the same
place.” (E.T.C)
¬· ·rzs - l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «·· ¬ «i · «i «º
¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬i º n¬ « ¬ ¬i ¬ n¬ ¤r ·i ·· «ºi «º
- ¬¬-i ·i ¬ ¬· ¬ - ºri r | ¬i º n¬ « ¬ ¬i ¬ ¬ «i ·
n·i i ¬· ·sr/ ¬ ¤¸ · l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¤º «ºi «º - ¬¬-i ·i
¬i ¬· ¬i ºri r ¤i ·r| , ;¬¬ «i º - - n ¬i ·¬i º| ·r|
r | ¬ n ¬i ¬ ¬i¬ n¬ l··il·n ·i·· ¤º ¬·i| lr·· ¬i · ¬·¬ i ¬º
l¬¤i ri , ¤ ¬i - · ;lnri¬ ¬| ¤ -n¬i - ¬r| ·r| ¤«i r | ¬· ·rzs
¬ ¬ ¬º zz,zs l ·¬- «º ¬· ·s«s n¬ l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬|
;-i ºn - ¬¬-i ·i ¬ ¬ · ¬ - ºr| r , ¤º· n ;¬¬i ¤ ¤i n
-l -¬· ¬ ª¤ - r ¬i ¤i ·r| r ¬i r , ¤r ·r| ¬ri ¬i
¬¬ni r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“After its construction in 1528 AD, this structure
has constantly been in the possession of Muslims from
the time of Babur to that of Aurangzeb. I do not have the
knowledge as to whether or not the disputed structure
has constantly been in possession of Muslims after the
time of Aurangzeb and prior to 1857 AD. I have nowhere
read in the history books, about whether Hindus have ever
been in possession of the disputed structure up to the
English period. The building of the disputed structure
3681
has been in possession of Muslims between 1528 AD and
22
nd
/ 23
rd
December, 1949 but nothing can be said about
whether it has been used as mosque or not.” (E.T.C)
¬· ·rzs - l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «·· ¬ «i· ¬ ¬· ·srr n¬
¤lnril¬¬ ¤ -n¬i - l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «irº| ¬r· - «· ¤«¸ nº ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | ·-i ¬ ¤« ¬i · ¬·i ·i ¤¸ ¬i l ¬¤ ¬i · ¬i
¬i ; ¬i ·¤ ;l nri ¬ - ¤ i · n ·r| ri ni r | (¤ ¬ s«)
“The historical books from 1528 AD, that is, the year
of construction of the disputed building up to 1855, have no
mention of the chabutra constructed in the outer courtyard
of the disputed building. . . . . . . . . No evidence is
available in history about the offering of namaz or about
performing pooja.” (E.T.C)
- ºi +¤º l·¤i n¤i ¤r «¤i· n¬n r l¬ ºiri« · ·|· n iº|
¤ ¬i« ¬ ¬··i ¬ n¤i ·ii, «l~¬ ¬r| ¤r r l¬ ¤ ¬i« ¬ ·i¤¬ ¬¤·
· ºi n iº ¤¬i n¤i ·ii| ºiri« · ·|· n iº| ·i «iºi l¤º lr·· -ni· ·i¤¬
·r| ¬i¤i| ºiri« · ·|· ni º| ¬i ¬ ··i ¬ ¤º ¬·i| ¬i¬ -ºi ·r| r ¬i|
ºiri« · ·|· n iº| ,iºi ¬ ··i ¬ ¤º ¬i¬ -ºi ¬º· ¬i º ·ri ¬| ¤i ¬ ¬i
¤ºil¬n ¬º· ¬ « ·i| +¤º l·¤i n¤i - ºi «¤i· n¬n r, ·¤i l¬
ºiri« · ·|· ni º| ¬··i ¬ n¤i r| ·r| n·ii ·r ¤ ¬i« ¬ ·i¤¬ ¬¤· · ºi
¤¬i n¤i| (¤ ¬ ·or÷·oc)
“My above-mentioned statement to the effect that
Shahabuddin Ghori came to Kannauj from Punjab is
incorrect; rather, it is true that he returned to his country
Ghor from Punjab. Shahabuddin Ghori did not come back
to Hindustan again. Shahabuddin Ghori never attacked
Kannauj. My above statement about Kannauj having been
attacked by Shahabuddin Ghori and the army of that place
having been defeated by him, is incorrect because
Shahabuddin Ghori did not even got to Kannuaj and he
3682
returned to his country from Punjab.” (E.T.C)
-i r--· niº| n·ii ºiri« · ·|· ni º| ·i ·i ¤¬ r| ·¤l·n
r |(¤ ¬ ··s÷··«)
“Both Muhammad Ghori and Shahabuddin Ghori
are one and the same person."(E.T.C)
¤r ¬« l··ººi ss« lr¬º| ¬i r | ¬ n ¬| ¬· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤r
l··ººi ¬· ·rzs ¬i ri ·i ¤ilr¤| . .·s ¬¸ · ¬| ·i-·¬i - «i¬ |
niºi¬··| ¬ ¬··i ¬| ¬ ·i ¬ ¬i·i «i«º ¬ ¬-·i ¬¤l-·in ri · ¬i
¬~¬ ªi r | . .;¬¬i ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ¬« «i«º ·¬-¬ ¤r ¤i, n«
¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ «i¬| niºi¬··| ¬¤i ·¤i - ºr ºri ·ii ·¤i l¬ «i¬|
¬¤i·¤i - ¤¬ ¬i¬ n|·÷¤iº -r|· ¬ ¬º|« ºri ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·ss÷·s«)
"All this description is of 934 hizri. According to the
Gregorian calender, this should be of the year 1529. . . . . . .
.In the incidents of 13
th
June, there is mention about
presence of Baqi of Tashkand before Babar along with
army of Awadh. . . . . . . . . It implies that when Babar
reached Dalmau, Baqi of Tashkand was left behind in
Ayodhya because Baqi remained in Ayodhya for about one
year three four months." (E.T.C)
¬nrº ¬·«i¬ lº¬ ·| ¬| ¤ -n¬ - ¬¤ºi ·n lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬
¬lnlº·n ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ l¬¬| -l·º ¬i ni · · ¬i ¬i ; ·ºi · ·r| r |
(¤ ¬ ·s/)
"Besides the above inscription, there is no other
reference in the book of Athar Abbas Rizvi regarding
demolition of any temple in Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
¤ i o ¤¬o¬iºo ºi-i · ;¬ ¬-«··i - ¬¤·i -n, lºi¬i¬ ªi, ¬i
¬in ¬ ¬ ª¤i zsz¬|÷·,z n·ii zsz¬|÷·,s r , ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤ n-
l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·ss)
·io ¬iºo·i·i ¬| ¤ -n¬ - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬i
-·ii· l«·i ¬·· r ¬ -¤·- ª¤ ¬ ·r -·ii· r , ¬r i ¤º lr··¸ -l·º
-·iil¤n ¬º ¬i -il¬¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬º¤¸ ¬ l¬·iº ºi-¬i - ¤º -·iil¤n r
3683
¬iº lr··¸ - l·º ¬| ¬i-n | ;¬¬ l·-i ºi - ;-n -i¬ ¬| n; | ;¬- ¤r
·i| l¬ªii r l¬ ¤r · « l ·º·i ¬ ¬ ¬i ·i ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni r
l ¬ ;¬¬i l ·-i ºi ªi i ¬| ¬ -| · ( ·l ¬ · ¬ º·) ¤º ·r| l ¬¤i
n¤i | (¤ ¬ ·ss÷·ss)
"Prof. S.R. Sharma has expressed his opinion in this
behalf on basis of the inscription, which is paper no.
282C-1/2 and 282C-1/3.
"It is written in the book of Dr. R. Nath that the site of
Babri Masjid is undoubtedly and clearly the place where
Hindu temple was built, which was originally built on the
banks of Saryu in Ramkot, and where articles of Hindu
temples had been used in building the same. It has also
been mentioned in it that it can be said with firm
conviction that it was not built over virgin land." (E.T.C)
¬¤i · ¤i ¤¬ n| ·i -·i i · r , ºi - ¬| ¬·--·i ¬| r
¬i º l ··i l ·n -·i ¬ ¬·--·i i · r ¬i º ;¬¬i - ¤º- ¤ºi ¬
¬i ·i i º ¤º -i ·ni r¸ |
ºi -¤· · ¬| ¬ l ·l º¤n ¬· --·i i · ¬i - º ,i ºi
l ¤l · rn l ¬¤i ¬i ·i ;¬ ¬-¤ -- l n ,i ºi ¬ · i · ·r|
r | (¤ ¬ ·«r)
"Ayodhya is a pilgrimage, is the birthplace of
Rama and the disputed site is Janmsthan and I accept
this on basis of customs.
At present, it not possible for me to point out the
exact birthplace of Ramchandra on basis of my
memory."(E.T.C)
ºi -¤· · ¬| ¬i ¬· - ¬i ¬ ¬ sr r¬ i º ·· i ¤¸ ·
l r· ·¸ ·i - ¬| -i · ¤ni ¬ ¬· ¬i º l ·· ºi ¬ ¬·ni º
¬ ª¤ - ºi ¬i ·ºi º·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤ - r ¬i ·i i | ¬¤i·¤i
- sr r¬iº ··i ¤¸ · ¬ ·i·· ¤i ¬· ·i··i ¬ ¬·ºi ·i r ¤i ·r|, ;¬¬
¬ « ·i - ¤ ºinil-·¬ r| «ni ¬¬n r | (¤ ¬ ·«c÷·«/)
3684
"According to the belief of Hindu religion,
Ramchandra was born six thousand ago as son of king
Dashrath, as an incarnation of 'Vishnu'. Whether the
remains of six thousand years old building or buildings are
present in Ayodhya or not, can be told only by
archaeologists." (E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ;¬ ¬-¤ ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in r | . . ..¤r
-·i¬ ¤¬ -|¬ (-i¬º·) ¤º l-·in r | . . . l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ·i ¤¤¬
· r· r | (¤ ¬ ·ro)
"At present the disputed site is situated in Ayodhya. . .
. . . . This site is situated over a mound . . . . . The area of
the disputed site is extensive." (E.T.C)
. . .¬ s ;l nri ¬¬i ºi ¬ ¬· ¬i º ·i i ºn ¬i
-· ¤¬i ¬| · ;l nri ¬ ·zoc ; -·| ¬ ºi ª ri ¬º ·/r/ ; -·|
n¬ ¬i ni r , ¬·ii n ·/r/ ¬ ·¬i¬| ¬ ¤ , n¬| - · ·iiºn ¬ -·¤
¬i¬|· ;lnri¬ ¬i ·/o/ ; -·| n¬ ¬| ¬·l·i ¬i r| nr· ¬·¤¤·
l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·c·)
". . . . According to few historians, the medieval
history of India commences from 1206 AD and goes
upto 1757 AD, i.e. till the battle of Plassey of 1757. I have
deeply studied the medieval history of India only upto 1707
AD." (E.T.C)
nr· ·i ¬ · ºi ¬i ºi i ¬· ¬· ·zzc n¬ ºri | ¤r
¬r·i ¬r| ·r| ri ni l¬ ¤r nr· ·i¬ ·ºi ¬· ··ss - ¬-i·n ri n¤i
·¤i l¬ ¬· ··s« - ¬¤¤ · ¬| - -¤ r ; | (¤ ¬ ·cz)
"The rule of Gahadwal dynasty continued till the
year 1226. It will not be correct to say that the Gahadwal
dynasty came to an end in the year 1193 because Jaichand
had died in the year 1194." (E.T.C)
¬i ·¤ º ¬ ºi ¬ | ºi ·¤ ¬| ¬-i l · n ¬· ·«/s ·i |
3685
-i ·| ¬i ¬¬n| r , ¬« ¬¬¬i ºii¬¬ r ¬ · ºiir ºi¬| « ni¬
·iin n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·cs)
"The end of Jaunpur's Shirky dynasty can be
considered as the year 1479, when its ruler 'Hussain Shah
Shirky' fled to Bengal." (E.T.C)
«i«º · ¬¤i ·¤i, «i¤¬|· ¬i ¤ºil¬n ¬º¬ , ¬¤· ¬il·i¤-¤ -
¬|| . . . . .¬| ¤¬o¬iºoºi-i ¬i - n·ii ¬·¤ ¬i n ·i| ¤ i-ilºi¬
;lnri¬¬iº -i·n r | . . . ¬ - ¬r-n r¸ l¬ ¤ ¬i ¬i·¤ ·r| l-¬ni
l¬ «i«º · ¬·i| ·i| lr··¸ -l··ºi ¬i ··- l¬¤i ri ¤i ¬·¤·ii lr·· ¬i
¬i -i¤ ·i- ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ·-· l¬¤i ri | (¤ ¬ ·/c÷·/s)
"Babar took Ayodhya in his possession after
defeating Baizid. . . . . . I and other persons also, consider
Sri S.R. Sharma to be a recognized historian. . . . . . . . I
agree that no evidence is found that Babar had ever
demolished Hindu temples or had suppressed Hindus only
on basis of religion." (E.T.C)
¬| ¬nrº ¬·«i¬ lº¬·| ,iºi lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬i ¬i ¬·n lr··|
¬· ·i· l¬¤i n¤i r , ¬¬| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º - º| ¤r ·iiººii «·n| r l¬
-|º«i¬| ,iºi «·i¤| n; ;-iºn ¬ ¤r¬ ·ri ¤º -l·º ·ii| ¬·n
lºi¬i¬ ªi ¬ lr··| ¬· ·i· ¬| ¤ ·i- n|· ¤l·n¤i ¬i , ¬ ¬i l¬ ¬|
lº¬ ·| · ¬¤· ¬· ·i· - l·¤i r, ¬i r| ¤r «in ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i·iiº
-i·ni r¸ l¬ ¬¬ lºi¬i¬ ªi - -|º«i¬| ,iºi «·i¤| n; ;-iºn ¬ ¤r¬
-l·º ri · ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | ¬¬ ;-iºn ¬ ¬·¤ l¬¬| ; ¬l¬ ·ºi· ¬i ¬·n
«in ¬r· ¬ l¬¤ - ¬i·iiº ·r| «·i ºri r¸ ¬i º ;¬| l ºi ¬i ¬ ªi ¬i
¬· ¤ ;l nri ¬¬i ºi , ¬ ¬ ·i o ¬i ºo ·i ·i , ·i o ºi ·i º¤i -,
¤ i o ¤¬o¬i ºoºi -i · ·i | ¤r ¬r· ¬i ¬i ·i i º «·i ¤i r l ¬
-| º«i ¬ | ,i ºi ªi i ¬| ¬-| · ¤º l ··i l ·n ;-i ºn ·r| «·i ;
n; | (¤ ¬ ·/s÷·so)
"Mr. Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi has only given
translation of the said inscription, but has not given any
comment. It is on the basis of the said Hindi translation of
3686
the inscription by Mr. Athar Abbas Rizvi, that my opinion
has been formed that a temple existed over there prior to
the building built by Mir Baqi. It is the first three lines of
the Hindi translation of the above inscription, as given by
Mr. Rizvi in his translation, which form the basis for me
saying that the said inscription mentions about existence of
temple prior to the structure built by Mir Baqi. I am not
making any other inscription of that building, the basis of
me saying so, and this very inscription has been made
the basis by other historians such as Dr. R. Nath, Dr.
Radheyshyam, Prof. S.R. Sharma, to say that the
disputed structure was not built by Mir Baqi over virgin
land." (E.T.C)
¬· -·i ¸ l - ¬ - ºi ¬i ºi ¤ ¬¬| -·i ¬ ¬ r ¬i
l ··i l ·n ·i ¸ l - r , · l ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬ ¤i º ¬- nº - l -·i n
ºi -¬· --·i i · - l ·º ¬| ni º¬i ; ¬ | . . . . . . . -i · ¤ni ¬ ¬· ¬i º
¬· -·i ¸ l - ¤º l ·· ºi ¬ ¬·ni º ¬ ª¤ - ¬| ºi - ¬i ¬· -
r ¬i ·i i | ¬·- r| ¬·nººi ¬i ¤¤i ¤·i¤| r | ¤ ¬i ·r| r l¬
¬·- ¤ri r ¬i ri ¬i º ¬·nººi ·¸ ¬º| ¬nr ¤º r ¬i ri | - º| ¬i·¬iº|
¬ ¬· ¬iº l··il·n «i ¤ - «· n|· ·i - ¬ ·|¤ r| ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·-
r ¬i ·ii, ¬¬| ¬i ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- -i·n r | . . . . . . . - n|· ·i - ·i¬
·i·· ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ·i¸l- ¬i ºi-¬·-·i¸l- -i·¤ni, ¬i-·ii ¬iº ¤º-¤ºi ¬
¬i·iiº ¤º -i·ni r¸ | - ºi «¤i· -i·¤ni, ¬i-·ii ¬iº ¤º-¤ºi¬i ¬ «iº -
¤¸ · - ri ¤ ¬i r |
.ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i -r-· · ¤i·i r ·¤i l¬ ºi- ¬i l··ºi ¬i ¬·niº
-i·i n¤i r ¬iº ·r -r-· ¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·so)
"By Janmbhumi, I mean the place which is the
disputed land, and not the Ramjanmsthan temple, Sita
Rasoi situated in north across the road. . . . . According
to belief, Sri Rama was born at the Janmbhumi as an
3687
incarnation of Vishnu. Birth is synonymous to
incarnation. It is not that birth took place here and
incarnation at another place. According to my knowledge,
Sri Rama was born beneath the three domes of the disputed
structure, and the same is considered to be Ramjanmbhumi.
. . . . . . . On basis of belief, faith and tradition, I consider
the land beneath the three dome structure to be
Ramjanmbhumi. My statement regarding belief, faith and
tradition, has already been recorded.
. . . . Ramjanmbhumi has more importance because
Rama has been considered as incarnation of Vishnu and
this importance has been continuing since time
immemorial." (E.T.C)
3635. A perusal of the above statements and in particular
that of PW 16, 20, OPW 9 and 6, the Court finds opinion of the
Expert Historians so varying that no definite conclusion can be
drawn therefrom. However, on one aspect, some of the experts
of both the sides were unanimous that if an excavation is made
at Ayodhya, at the disputed site or near it, more relevant facts
may be available which would help this Court to arrive at a just
conclusion. This became more important in view of the fact that
a stone inscription, sought to be relied by the plaintiffs (Suit-5),
was claimed to have found on 6/7 December, 1992 from the
debris of the demolished disputed structure. It is a stone
inscription of 115 cm. X 55 cm. size having several lines
engraved in a language which is not decipherable atleast by this
Court. The experts say that it is written in Sanskrit but the script
is slightly different or at least a little difficult being much older.
Under the orders of the Apex Court, ink estampage (Paper
3688
No.203 C1/1) was prepared. This estampage was deciphered by
Dr. K.V.Ramesh, a renowned Epigraphists, whose competence,
in fact remained undisputed by all the parties. This
translation/text is Exhibit 2 Suit 5 (Register 29, Page 5-25). In
first two pages, the epigraphist has made his comments and
observation and then there is sanskrit and English text and
English translation.
3636. Dr. T.P.Verma and Dr. S.P.Gupta substantially relied
on the translation of the contents of the said stone inscription
asserting that there was a huge Vishnu Hari Temple at the site in
dispute which was demolished and thereafter disputed building
was constructed in 1528 AD. Some dispute arose about the
correct translation made by Sri Dr. T.P.Verma and Dr. S.P.Gupta.
Ultimately expert's translation was obtained by plaintiffs (Suit-
5) from Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh-O.P.W.10
(Exhibit No.2, Suit 5) (Reg. 29, Page 5-25). The said
transliteration and English translation is as under:
"1. ..nama: siva[ya] (there is space enough in the erased
portion for accommodating a verse in a lengthy metre like
Sardulavikriditam).- - -U U – s – Trivkrama – tanor – a –
U - - U - pramsutvena nikharva-so-
2. dasa-samuddesam-dadhanas-tanum samvartta-pramad-
oddhata:-kulagiri-grava-prahara-kvanad-bra hmandam
kara-samputena vivu(bu)dhan-madhyo ha - - U – [II 2*]
[srimad]-Bharggava vi U – U U U – dvamso (so') vatamso
bhuva: I yasmin-ra
3. U U – la-sanklimir-iva sthayiny-udancad-bhuja - - s-
c-opacite parartha-ghatana vandhy-ananam jajnire II[3*]
te Candipati-canda-tandava-calac-cuda U - - U -
3689
brahmand-occa-kapala-randhra-sarani-prasthayi-
satkirttaya: | viras-tatra kule janim jagrhi-
4. re ye Bharggaviy-ahava-ksina-ksatriya-sesa-raksana-
vidhau-(ba)ddho' bhiyogagraha:‌‌ ‌ [4*] vamsyan-tad-eva-
kulam-akulata-nivrtti-nirvyudham-apratima-[vikrama]-
janmabhumi:l yatr-atisahasa-sahasra(sra)-samiddha-
dhama Mame'janista jagad-istatam-otta-
5.masri: II[5*] ma me dayastu vapusi dravinesu trsna
nisnatir-apy-avirasa sarasendriy-arthe I ity-udgrnann-
anudinam sa Dinesavatso ma me pa – U jagade
jagadeka[vira:] II [6*] tad- uddha-keli-dalit-akhila-Meda-
Bhilla-palli-sahasra-vanitasu nikunjagasu ‌ utkanta-
6. ka vitapino vita-vistitani te sva-stanesu
jaghanesumuhur-likhanta: ‌ ‌ [7*] pura kirtya nyastan-
tadanu tanun-adhyasitumana manasvi
svarlokamparinatim-upe[ty-ati]sayinim sa sarvvasvam
ksatram ka iva bhuvi Sallaksana-sute sriya s-arddhan-
dadhre Hutabhuji viva-
7. sva(sva)n-iva maha: ‌ ‌ [8*] tad-dhama-nissimam-
amahyam-anyai-any-aiva sa kacana dana-sakte: I
amanusam paurusama-avirasit-Sallaksane visva-
vilaksanan-tat ‌ ‌ [9*] khadga: srikara [valat-
a]dhikam(ka)ranam va(ba)hur-mahavahini kirti:
sambhrta-[su]pakara-vidhaye pacyam sada dam-
8. sanam ‌ rajyen-api vina nijopakaranany-etani
ni:kantakam yat-samrajya-paricchadam viracire cinta-
vitan-ojjhitam(tam) ‌ ‌ [10*] samar=ajira-bhajo'sya cirum
nistrimsa eva sa: ‌ [ khadgas-c-a]pi dhrto mudhna yo jahar-
asu(su) jivitam(tam) ‌ ‌ [11*] [Malaya]-valayasy-ante sante
3690
9. Viyattatini tate Himagiri-guha-geha-dvare darim-
adhinaisadhim ‌ prathama-likhitam siddhai-yasya prasasti-
padavalim pathati nipunam strainam modan-
nabhasthalacarinam(nam) ‌ ‌ [12*] Kaliasacala-mekhalasu
Malaya-svacchesu mero:sirobhage svargga-tarangini-
tatabhuvi-
10. sthanesu c-anyesv-api l krtva tarppana-silpajam
pratikrtim vrddh-opadesat-pati-praptyai
khecarakanyakabhir-anisam yad-bahur-abhyarcyate ‌ ‌
[13*] ejya-gva sa: pesalair-istasiddhi-pra- - -pahnaram
svam jagadbhi: i gehe yasya sri-vilas-abhirame vya-
11. gad-vai tam giyate caran-aughai: ‌ ‌ [14*]
Amarapura-purandhri-vandhutamavyalikam bhajati
sukrtarasau tatra sallaksanakhye I prativapuriya tasya
prapya sadyo'navadyam sutamuditavivekam
lokakautuhalam tat ‌ ‌ [15*] Alhana: pranaya-pesala:
satam garjjatam krakaca-
12. kotirytkata:l aninaya nayaninhavena ya: prahrtam
prakrticancalam sriyam (yam) ‌ ‌ [16*] lokottara: sa khalu
ko'pi yadabhimukhye'hankararasiragalaccirasambhrto'pi I
samsaripasabhudu – udrsaiva yasya jataslatha:sukrta
du:krta kancukasca ‌ ‌ [17*]
13. paurusapratirandhriti purandhriti ca bibhyatam I yena
lokanuruddhapi pratisiddha nagonnati: ‌ ‌ [18*]
tadbhratrjo jagati meghasuta: srutadhya:
srimanabhudanayacandrapadabhilanghya: I govindcandra
dharanindra guruprasadatsaketamandalapatitvama-
14. lambhi yena ‌ ‌ [19*]
sasvatsangararanganartitaripuskandhena yuddhohhjura
3691
virastena na kevalam balavata ye durmmada mocita: I
apyuddamacamupradananiratasvanena caikantato
durarudhasvayasyatamadamasau kalpadrumasyajita: ‌ ‌
[20*] tankotkhatavi-
15.
salasailadikharasrenisilasamhativyuhairvisnyharerhiranya
kalasa ri sundaram mandiram I purvvairapyakrtam krtam
nrpatibhiryenedamityadbhutam samasararnava-sighra-
langhana-laghupayan-dhiya dhyayata ‌ ‌ [21*]
govindacandra-kstipala-rajya-
16. sthairyaya-nistandra-bhujargalasya I atha prapede'sya
padam kaniyan-Ayusyacandro'lhana-sunur-eva ‌ ‌ [22*] na
Sahasankena na Sudrakena tasy-opamanam vidadhu:
kavindra:I krtam bhiya yasya puro na kamad anyena
manye dhanur-atataiyam (m) ‌ ‌ [23*]
17. uddama-saudha-vibudh-alayanim-Ayodhyam-adhyasya
tena naya-ninhuta-vaisayena I Saketa-mandalam-
akhandam-akri kupa- vapi-pratisraya-tagada-
sahasra(sra)-misram(sram) ‌ ‌ [24*] nidra-nirodha-vidhaye
nija-vallabhanam Hemacala-amala-silatala-talpa-
18. lina-kasturik-ena-aruni-sravan-opabhogya-yogyam
jagu: sarasa-magna-raso yaso'sya ‌ ‌ [25*] avimukta-
visalaksi lalit-anandita sada I kasiva yasya dehasri: satam
nirvvana-karanam(nam) ‌ ‌ [26*] asthibhyo vitaran-
Hiranyaka-
19. sipum samyamya Va(Ba)nam rane kurvvano
Va(Ba)liraja-va(ba)hu-dalanam krtva va(ba)hun-vikraman
I kurvvan-dusta-Dasananasya hanana- - U - - U ka: ko'py-
anya: sa das-adhiko U U U - - - U punyo tata ‌ ‌ [27*] ady-
3692
eha – U nrpate U U
20. to nihanti pascatya-bhiti-api bhisana-bahu-dandam:
(m) I teja: prabhava-mahatam mahas-iyam-eva purvv-
apara U U U - U U - U - - [28*] [punyai]: prajanam
prainamavadbhi: khyate ksitau raja . . . . .sri Ayusyaca . . . .
English Translation
Line1 . . . . . Obeisance to [Lord*] Siva. . . . . .
Lines 1-2, verse 1. [This line is nearly totally erased. But
there is enough space for a verse in a lengthy metre such as
Sardulavikriditam]
Lines 1-2, verse 2. . . . . . of the physique of [Lord]
Trivikrama. . . . . . by His height containing within His body
the sixteen doctrines(or maha-vidyas) . . . . . . in Whose
palm He holds the universe like (holding) the Moon, whose
kalugiri ( in the case of Bharata-varsa, one of the seven
great mountain ranges, viz., Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya,
Suktimat, Rksa, Vindhya and Pariyatra) whose falling
rocks(,while striking one another,) create noise had, out of
wanton arrogance. . . . . .
Lines 2-3 verse3. The illustrious Bhargava (i.e.,
Parasurama) . . . . an ornament of the earth . . . like insects
. . . . with firm hands upraised . . . . . . having increased,
events brought into existence, barren faces. . . . . .
Lines 3-4, verse4. during the violent dance of the Lord of
(the goddess) Candi (i.e., Lord Siva), from thr rocking head
jewel. . . . . .
genuine reputations which emanated from the opening in
the skull-shaped spherical half of the universe. . . In that
family heroestook their birth, who were determined to
3693
resurrect the warrior clan which had been rendered weak
by the wars waged by Bhargava (Parasurama) (against
them).
Lines 4-5, verse5. Noble was that very family which was
the birth-place of valour which had successfully removed
the sufferings of the other (Ksatriya clans) in which Mame,
the abode of thousands of perfect and extremely valorous
deeds and who was the utmost favourite of the world.
Lines 5, verse 6. That very Son of the Sun (i.e., Karna),
Mame, the unequalled hero of the world, uttered everyday
the words "may I have no mercy on (my) body, may I not
hanker for material wealth, may I be diligently
disinterested in sensual temptations . . . . . .
Lines 5-6, verse 7. The thorny trees, like the sensuous
villains, repeatedly wrote (i.e., scratched) on the skins of
the breasts and hips and loins of the womenfolk of the
tribal villages of the plains and hills who had taken refuge
in the thickets as a result of the destruction of their abodes
in sportive wars waged by him.
Lines 6-7, verse 8. His fame alone having pervaded till then
the heavens, the high-minded [Mame], wishing to go to the
heavens in person and reside there in that wonderful world,
he bequeathed his entire realm along with all the wealth to
his son Sallaksana just as the Sun-god had bequathed all
his lustre to the Fire-god.
Line 7, verse 9. As a result of some unknown power of the
gift of that realm, which had no bounds and was other-
worldly, a super-human valour manifested itself in
Sallaksana; it was indeed an earthly exception.
3694
Lines 7 – 8, verse 10. The sword was at the tip of his
fingers, his hand was verily the great army, his fame, like
sumptuously cooked delicacies, were ever palatable; even
without a kingdom to rule, these personal instruments
enabled him to spread extensively an empire sans worries.
Line 8, verse 11. He who was for long intervals enjoying
himself on battle-fields, bore on his head his ruthless
sword, which was quick to end the lives (of his enemies).
Lines 8-9, verse 12. Within the serene surroundings of the
Malaya mountain, on the banks of the heavenly Ganges, at
the entrances of the cave-dwellings of the Himalayas, in the
caverns in which the hunter-tribes dwell, the accomplished
womenfolk gaily sing (literally, read) the strings of his
eulogy composed for the first time by the semi-divine
beings moving about in the skies.
Lines 10-11, verse 13. On the advice tendered by the elders,
in the terrains of the Himalayas, in the pristine pure
regions of the Malaya (Mountains), in the lands along the
banks of the heavenly Ganges as well as in other regions
the semi-divine unmarried girls, with intent to gain
husbands, ever offer worship to the hands of the satiating
images sculpted in his (i.e., Sallaksana's) likeness.
Lines 10-11, verse 14. He who is to be offered oblations by
the beautiful for the realization of their desires . . . . himself
by the worlds . . . .in whose abode, which is pleasing with
wealth and happiness, hi is sung about by multitudes of
celestial singers.
Lines 11-12, verse 15. The people look upon as a
phenomenon the fact that, Sallaksana, who was, through
3695
good fortune, enjoying the genuine company of the damsels
of the heavens, had happily begotten a son who, by
appearance, was no different from his father.
Lines 11- 12, verse 16. [That son] Alhana, who was the
beloved of the good people, is like a pointed saw to the
war-mongers. He retrieved the splendour of the habitually
fickle-minded Goddess of wealth by means of fair and
persuasive means.
Line 12, verse 17. He was indeed extraordinary and
whenever he confronted (his foes the heap of their)
arrogance, accumulated over a protracted period, melted
away. The garb of good deeds and bad deeds (worn by
them) slipped away by his mere looks.
Line 13, verse 18. He was the destroyer of (his enemies'
manliness, and made those who were afraid effeminate; as
against the belief among the people, his eminence far
dwarfed that of the lofty mountains.
Lines 13-14, verse 19. His nephew (literally brother's son),
the widely celebrated Meghasuta, the illustrious one, who
superceded Anayacandra; he earned the lordship of
Saketa-mandala through the grace of his elder, the Lord of
the earth, Govindacandra.
Line 14, verse 20. Not only did he, who was powerful, put
an end to the arrogant warriors who were dancing in
unrestrained frenzy in the battles constantly fought by him,
but he also gave (to his people) an excellent army which
was replete with (soldiers comparable to) the wish-
fulfilling trees.
Lines 14-15, verse 21. By him, who was meditating in his
3696
mind on the easiest means of quickly jumping across the
ocean of worldly attachments, was erected this beautiful
temple of [The god] Visnu-Hari, [on a scale] never before
done by the preceding kings, compactly formed [i.e. built]
with rows of large and lofty stones which had been sculpted
out.
Lines 15-16, verse 22. The position of Alhana, whose
tireless shoulders were like safety latches for the stability of
the king Govindacandra's empire, was subsequently
occupied by his younger (son?) Ayusyacandra.
Line 16, verse 23. Great poets dared not compare him with
Sahasanka and Sudraka; out of sheer fear none save the
God of Love dared draw the bow-sting in his presence.
Line 17, verse 24. By him, who was of good conduct, and
abhorred strife, while residing at Ayodhya, which had
towering abodes, intellectuals and temples, Saketa-
Mandala was endowed with thousands of wells, reservoirs,
alms-houses, tanks.
Line 17-18, verse 25. the young damsels, who were as
attractive as the female musk-deer and does, while they
rested on the cool surfaces of the Himalayan rocks, sang
about his (i.e., Ayusyacandra's) fame.
Line 18, verse 26. Whose bodily splendour, which was ever
characterised by glowing eyes, was at all times pleasant
with gentle feelings, was a source of salvation for the good
just as (the holy pilgrimage centre) Kasi is.
Lines 18-19, verse 27. Separating [the flesh and blood of
the demon] Hiranyakasipu from his skeleton, subduing [the
demon] Bana in battle, tearing asunder the arms of the
3697
[demon-] king Bali, and performing many valorous deeds,
having killed the evil Ten-headed [demon
Ravana], . . . . . . . .
Lines 19-20, verse 28. And now, the fierce arms of the ruler
. . . annihilates even the fear caused by the westerns (i.e.,
the Islamic invaders from the west). The brilliance of the
mighty great ones . . . . east and west . . . . . .
Line 20, verse 29. Because of the subjects' effective acts of
merit, the king being famous in the world . . . . . the
illustrious Ayusyacandra . . . . . ."
3637. Sri K.V. Ramesh, O.P.W. 10, has also submitted a
report about the said inscription , which says:
“The subjoined stone inscription is engeaved on a
rectangular stone slab, the written area roughly covering
an area of 115 cms X 55 cms. The slab as at present extant
is diagonally broken in two leading to the loss of a couple
of letters in almost every line. Besides, the first and last two
lines have suffered heavy damage resulting in the loss of
many letters. All in all, the loss of letters have proved a
handicap to epigraphists and Sanskritists in the matter of
fully interpreting the contents of the text. Nevertheless, the
overall purport and the crux of its import are clear beyond
doubt. In the first instance a hurriedly prepared estampage,
and in recent times, a high quality estampage as well as
some photographs were all provided by Dr. S.P. Gupta
Chairman, Archaeological Society of India, New Delhi for
which I am highly thankful to him.
The text of the inscription is written in fairly chaste
Sanskrit, the orthographical features being regular for the
3698
period to which the inscription belongs, namely the middle
of the 12
th
Century A.D. The inscription is not in any way
dated, but may be assigned, with confidence, to the middle
of the 12
th
Century on palaeographical grounds as well as
the internal evidence provided by the inscriptional text in
question.
But for the opening salutation to Siva at the very
beginning, the entire text of the inscription is composed in
Sanskrit verse of fairly high literary excellence. As has
been stated above, the palaeographical and orthographical
features are normal for the period to which the inscription
belongs, viz, the middle of the 12
th
century A.D. This was
an important period of transition from classical Sanskrit to
the North Indian vernaculars. This can be easily identified
in contemporaneous inscriptions, including the present
one, in the confusion in the use of class nasals and
anusvara, and in the employment of the sibilants and
palatals.
As for the contents of the text, it is fully reflective of
medieval vanity as far as the eulogies of the heroes
mentioned in the inscription are concerned. The most
important internal historical information we get from this
epigraph is the mention of Govindachandra, obviously of
the Gahadavala dynasty, who ruled over a fairly vast
empire from 1114 to 1155 A.D.
Verse 1 is entirely lost. Verse 2, which is badly
mutilated, refers to Trivikrama and, hence, may have been
composed in praise of Lord Visnu. Verse 3, which is also
badly damaged, seems to allude to the near-total
3699
decimation of the warrior clans by Bhargava-Parasurama.
Verse 4 refers to the emergence of a Ksatriya family, heroes
born in which successfully resurrected the decadent
warrior clans. According to Verse 5, in that noble family
was born the beloved of the people, Mame. Verse 7 speaks
of his detachment from mundane things while Verse 8
informs us that he bequeathed his realm and wealth to his
son Sallaksana. Verse 9 to 14 contain conventional praises
showered on this Sallaksana in which the poet has
displayed a high level of poetic imagination. Verse 15
refers to the birth of his son whose stunning resemblance to
his father was the talk among the people. Verse 16 refers to
this son as Alhana and credits him with retrieving the past
power and glory of his family. While the next two verses
(17 and 18) contain his conventional praise, verse 19 gives
the information that his nephew, Meghasula by name, as
superseding a certain Anayacandra and obtaining the
Lordship of Saketa-mandala through the grace of the
senior Lord of the earth, Govindacandra, While verse 20
lauds the military might of this hero, verse 21 gives the
important information that, in order to ensure his easy
passage into the heavens, Meghasuta built a lofty stone
temple for the god Visnu-Hari. From verse 22 we learn that
he, who was responsible for the stability of
Govindacandra's empire, was succeeded by the younger
Ayusyacandra as the Lord of Saketa-mandala. Verse 23
contains his conventional praise. According to verse 24, he
set up residence in the city of Ayodhya, which was adorned
with lofty abodes, intellectuals and temples, and added to
3700
the entire Saketa-mandala thousands of small and big
water reservoirs. Verse 25 and 26 contain more
conventional praises of Ayusyacandra. Verse 27, which is
partly damaged, alludes to the well-known episodes of
Visnu's incarnations as Narasimha, Krsna, Vamana and
Rama. The badly damaged verse 28 refers to a King
(probably Ayusyacandra) as warding off the danger of
invasion from the west (i.e. from the invading Muslim
forces). Verse 29, which is incomplete, mentions the king
Ayusyacandra.
The reference to Saketa-mandala is interesting. It is
well known that North India. Just as in the case of the
South, was divided into administrate divisions called
mandalas (see the word mandala in the indices to H.C.
Ray's monumental two-volume work 'The Dynastic History
of Northern India', II edn.' 1973, Delhi)”
3638. The expertise of Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri
Ramesh-OPW 10 as an Epigraphist could not be disputed by
any of the parties. In fact some of the witnesses of both the sides
admitted that he is the best authority so far as the translation of
Sanskrit inscription is concerned. PW-16 Dr. Suraj Bhan in Part
II page 6 has said about Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh:
- ·io ¬ o «|o º- ºi ¬i ¬i·ni r¸ , ·r ¤¤|n il¤-- r ¬iº -i·¤ni
¤ i·n r | (¤ ¬ c)
"I know Dr. K.B. Ramesh. He is an epigraphist and have
recognition as such." (E.T.C.)
3639. Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh himself
appeared in witness box and proved the decipherment and
translation of the contents of stone inscription and also the fact
3701
that it must belong to 12
th
Century A.D. From the reading of the
contents, he also stated in para 14 of his affidavit that a temple
of Vishnuhhari constructed by Meghasuta must have been in
existence in the temple town of Ayodhya from 12
th
Century A.D.
3640. It would be appropriate to refer some extracts of the
statement of OPW 10:
"While deciphering the inscription I have shown
square brackets with numbers and star marks to indicate
the numbers of the verses calculated by me although that
number is not mentioned in the inscription." (Page 20)
"The first two pages and the top portion of page No.
3 of my report have the introductive part of my
observations. In other words it may be termed to be as an
introduction part of my report." (Page 21)
"According to me, the period of the inscription in
question can be dated back to the 12
th
century and
wherever I have used specifically the period around middle
of 12
th
Century, I meant that it was from about 1130 to
1170 A.D. If once I have used the period around middle of
the 12
th
Century, it will remain the same even if I
subsequently refer it to as 12
th
Century." (Page 29)
"After 2000-2001 I had studies many facsimiles of
inscriptions of Gahadwala rulers, namely, Chandradeo,
Govindchandra and Vijaychandra. I compared all such
facsimiles with the estampage of the inscription in question
from palaeographical point of view. I did not deem it
necessary to mention in my report specifically hat while
comparing the estampage of the inscription in question
with other facsimiles." (Page 37)
3702
"It is not correct to say that till 13
th
century, for
temple, the word 'Devalaya' etc. but not Mandira was in
use. . . . . It will not be correct to say that up to 12
th
century, the word 'Mandira' was not being used for temples
but for human dwellings." ( Page 44)
"My translation regarding verse 22 appears to be
defective as it does not make the position clear regarding
succession of Alhana and Ayusha Chandra. In my opinion,
the correct translation of verse 22 of the inscription in
question would be that Ayusha Chandra, son of Alhana
occupied the position of Meghasuta as chieftain of
Saketa Mandala." ( Page 46)
"It is clearly mentioned in verses 19 & 24 of the
inscription that Ayodhya was the headquarters of Saket
Mandal. Since the Raja of Saket Mandal was residing in
Ayodhya." (Page 51)
"Inscription specifically states that Ayushya Chandra
was residing at Ayodhya when he was the ruler of Saket
Mandal." (Page 52)
"The temple referred in this inscription was
constructed by Meghasuta but the inscription was got
written by his successor. There is a gap between the
period of construction of the temple and the inscription."
(Page 53)
". . . which the temple built by Meghsuta was in
existence when his successor Ayushya Chandra got this
inscription engraved." (Page 54)
"The inscription is engraved for the main purpose
of recording the construction of the Vishnu Hari temple
3703
by Meghasuta and the excavation of thousands of wells,
tanks, reservoirs, etc. by Ayushya Chandra." (Page 65)
3641. From the above inscription, the following facts we
can safely infer:
(A) There existed a temple of Vishnuhari at Ayodhya in
12
th
Century A.D.
(B) It was constructed by a Ruler of Garhwal Dynasty
i.e. by Meghasuta.
3642. The inscription giving this information became
available in December 1992 actually pertain to 12
th
Century
A.D. Its genuinity and authenticity could not be doubted though
it was argued on behalf of the Muslim parties that the manner in
which it claimed to have been obtained cannot be decisive to
hold that it was fixed in a building existing at the disputed site.
The stone inscription therefore by itself cannot be decisive to
hold that Vishnuhari Temple existed or was constructed at the
disputed site.
3643. OPW-9 and 11, the authors of the book “Ayodhya
Ka Itihas Evam Puratatwa” ( Paper No. 289 C1) admitted
several inaccuracies in the translation of the aforesaid stone
inscription, they had published. They also admitted
unequivocally whatever has been translated by Dr.Koluvyl
Vyassrayasastri Ramesh- OPW 10, that is the most authentic and
must prevail.
3644. In the meantime, Prof.D.Mandal PW-24 also
published a book expressing his opinion that if further
excavation is made at the site in dispute, it may be helpful to
find out whether there existed any earlier religious structure of
Hindus or not.
3704
3645. Exhibit 63 (Suit-5) (Register 30 Page 7-98) also
Exhibit D-26 (Suit-5) is a photocopy of a Book titled as
“Ayodhya Archaeology After Demolition” by D. Mandal first
published in 1993, reprint in 1994 by Orient Longman Limited,
Haidrabad. On page 13, there is an acknowledgement of the
author as under:
“Any work done is never the outcome of one person's
endeavours. This tract owes a great deal to several friends
who have helped in various ways. For the inspiration and
encouragement unstintingly provided, I wish to thank
especially Professors R.S. Sharma, B.N.S. Yadav, D.P.
Agarwal, S.C. Bhattacharya and N.C. Ghosh. I am also
grateful to Mr. Ziaul Haq, a senior journalist based in
Allahabad, Mr. Sanjay Kumar (photographer) and Mr. L.K.
Tiwari (draftsman). I thank Dr. Also Rai who suggested
that this work be published as a tract, and the editors of the
series, especially Prof. Neeladri Bhattacharya and
Romila Thapar. I am grateful to Dr. Shereen Ratnagar
for providing a concise and clear introduction to
archaeological methods. Not least, I thank my wife, Ms.
Basanti Bose, for her valuable support. The responsibility
for any shortcomings, however, is entirely mine.”
3646. The “Editorial Preface” which is published and is on
record at page 17 to 22 Register 30 has been written by Romila
Thapar and “Introduction” to the book which is on record from
page 23 to 35 has been written by Shereen Ratnagar. It appears
to have been written to counter the claim of some experts with
respect to the site in dispute based on the stone inscriptions
claimed to be recovered in December 1992 as also report of Sri
3705
B.B. Lal wherein he mentioned to have found some pillar bases
during his excavation made in 1975-76.
3647. Shereen Ratnagar has tried to give an idea about the
merits and demerits of the process of excavation, ascertainment
of historical facts and also justification of a report or comments
of a person, who himself has not gone in field archaeology vis-
a-vis report of a person who has actually conducted excavation.
The concluding two paragraphs may be referred as under:
“It must be reiterated that in excavation we actually
destroy stratigraphic context without which the antiquities
we find make little sense. At any excavation therefore,
regular trench diaries; accurate drawings of sections and
planning of walls, floors, or hearths; photography; and the
management of multiple notebooks recording strata
numbers and description and their corresponding batches
of small finds are as important and as challenging as the
actual digging, as these allow for re-examining of the data
at a later stage when new finds, new techniques of analysis
and new methods are developed in the subject. The data of
archaeology do not simply lie in the ground awaiting
recovery when they will 'speak for themselves;, it is when
we excavate and record, when we make out typologies and
classifications, that we generate date.
The importance of excavation records will become
evident when it is pointed out that even professional
archaeologists cannot visit every excavated site. It is the
excavation reports which they read with critical care; it is
the report, its drawn and photographed sections and the
chapter invariably entitled 'stratigraphy', which enable the
3706
seasoned field excavator to distinguish the various
features, the authentic from the inauthentic data and
evaluate the stratigraphic skills of the excavator and thence
the valid from the invalid conclusions. Such review and re-
analysis of previously gathered information (artefacts,
photographs and other records) by scholars not present at
or involved with the original dig, is entirely valid and
accepted in archaeological research.”
3648. This book appears to have been published when a
Presidential reference was pending before the Apex Court. D.
Mandal, the author of the book, who has also deposed his
statement as PW 24, on page 16 of his book (Register 30, Page
36), says:
“Evidence gathered from archaeological excavations at
the site will be of vital importance making it pertinent to
discuss the extent to which archaeology science can help
resolve the question. Admittedly, archaeological cannot
answer questions relating to faith, or questions such as
whether Rama was an historical figure, or problems about
locating his birthplace. However, archaeology can answer
with a considerable degree of certainty, many questions
about various past activities of people, for which material
evidence is available. It is for this reason that
archaeological research continues and is of importance.”
3649. The report seems to have considered the question,
whether there was a temple below the mosque. Though Prof.
B.B. Lal's finding of a pillar bases and wall during his
excavation in 1975 could not be disputed but the author refute
that those structures did not belong to an erstwhile temple as
3707
claimed, and tried to justify his conclusions on page 39-40 of his
book (Pages 65 to 66 Register 30) as under:
“The analysis of all the strands of information from
Discovery 1 reveals that:
1. That various structural remnants claimed to be the
vestiges of 'pillar bases' are not contemporaneous. They
belong to at least five different, sequential structural
phases (rebuilding episodes).
2. It is highly probable that the so-called pillar bases
are actually the remnant portions of walls of different
structural phases.
3. This rules out the possibility of there having been
one structure raised on a series of pillars.
4. There is clear indication in the trench of the
existence of at least two rooms or room clusters or parts
of buildings belonging to two different phases, but with
the same general layout and construction methods.
5. Constructed as they are of brickbats laid
haphazardly, the so-called pillar bases were certainly not
capable of bearing the vertical load of large-sized stone
pillars, as has been suggested (RB-MH Pt II) and
frequently reiterated.
6. The contention that a 'pillared building' was raised
in the eleventh century A.D. is absolutely baseless. No
structural feature or artefactual find points even in a
circumstantial manner to a date approaching the eleventh
century. Instead, what is firmly suggested for the poorly
built structure unearthed in the trench, is a date between
the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries A.D.
3708
7. We can only surmise that the much publicized sherds
of Islamic glazed pottery were found in all the deposits
associated with the five structural phases. If this surmise is
correct, then the use of this pottery was simultaneous with
the habitation of the structure (through all five rebuildings
of reparis). A time span of up to three hundred years that is
indicated by this pottery, is quite consistent with the
remains of the five occupational deposits, associated with
the sequential structural phases, i.e., with the depth of
material found. Such a discovery is fairly common in
archaeology.
8. The discussions above reveal the selective manner
in which some archaeologists had cited the
archaeological finds to argues for the existence of a
temple. (In the process, the stratigraphy was paid scant
attention). No reference has been made by Y.D. Sharma et
al. In NAD, n.d. to the total range of pottery found in the
trench. A study of this should be undertaken urgently.
Attention must be paid to the ordinary red ware of everyday
use associated with the de luxe glazed pottery, as also to
other minor antiquities. These will shed light on the
function of the structure, for example, whether it was any
ordinary house with, say, cooking utensils, or not a
residential structure devoid of domestic artefacts of
everyday use.”
3650. The author suggested that the said structures might
have been the residuance of some building of the period
between 13
th
to 15
th
century. The author could not dispute the
existence of some structure beneath the disputed structure but
3709
refuted the claim that it was a massive temple of 11
th
or 12
th
century and instead suggested that it could have been structure
of 13
th
to 15
th
century.
3651. Be that as it may, one thing is very clear that there is
not even a whisper in the entire work that there could have been
possibly a structure like Idgah or Kanati Mosque underneath the
disputed structure over which the disputes structure was
constructed, though this book was published as long as in 1993.
3652. The Court also had some other documents showing
that certain inscription found from time to time indicating the
reign of Garhwal Dynasty at Kannauj, which had within its
territory Ayodhya also.
3653. Exhibit 28 (Suit-5) (Register 30 Page 119-132)
contains photocopy of frontispiece and pages 97, 98, 99, 100
and 101 of “Epigraphia Indica” Vol. IV 1996-97 published by
ASI in 1979. It refers to 21 copper plates of the King of Kanauj,
Vikram Samvat 1171-1233 (AD 1114-1176) written by F.
Kielhorn. It is said that fourteen of these plates contain grants of
the King Govindachandra of Kanauj, one is the grant of King
Vijayachandra and his son Jayachchandra and six are the
grants of King Jayachchandra.
3654. Exhibit 29 (Suit-5) (Register 30 Page 133-154) is
photocopy of frontispiece and pages 192, 193, 197, 198, 199,
200, 201, 202 of “Epigraphia Indica” Vol. XIV 1917-18
published by ASI in 1982. This is in respect to Chandravati
plate of Chandra Deva Vikram Samvat 1150 to 1156. These
six plates were found at Chandravati in State of Banaras. On
page 193 (Page 137, Register 20), it says:
"The first document is inscribed on five plates,
3710
comprising a total of ninety lines. It begins with an
invocation to the Goddess Sri, consoled to Vishnu,
favourite deity of the kings of the Gahadavala family,
and goes on to describe the genealogy of the donor, king
Chandra-Deva, and his conquest of Kanauj. This is
followed by the royal order announcing that the Parama-
bhattaraka Maharaj-adhiraja- Param- esvara- Parama-
mahesvara Srimach-Chandraditya- Deva, after bathing at
the Svarga-dvara at the confluence of the Sarayu and
Gharghara in Ayodhya, conferred on a body of 500
Brahmanas (pamchasata-samkhyebhyah) the pattala of
Kathehali with the exception of certain villages formerly
given to temple, Brahmanas etc., on Sunday the fifteenth
day of the dark half of the month of Asvina in the year
Samvat 1150 (expressed both in words and figures), on the
sacred occasion of a solar eclipse. The date
correspondence to AD 1093, October 23. He also gave
away the village of Sarisoda in the Vrihadrihevamkanai
pattala for the residence of the same community of the
Brahmanas. The document winds up with nine verses, the
first seven of which are of the an imprecatory nature. The
eighth mentions the name and the parentage of the scribe
Hridayadhara, son of the illustrious Sivastambha and the
last eulogizes the donor Chandra-Deva as the king by the
resoundings of whose copper-plates bearing grants of land,
"at the time of their being engraved with rows of closely
written lines, the universe has become deafened."
It is interesting to know that one of the ghats of
Ayodhya still bears the name of Svarga-dvara. The
3711
pattala of Kathehali is now known as Katehir, the largest
pargana in the District of Benares. "It is bounded on the
south by Athaganwan, Sheopur and Jablupur, on the east
by the Ganges and the pargana Barah of Tahsil of
Chandauli, on the west of Kolaslah and on the north of the
small pargana of Sultanipur and the river Gumti." Its
ancient boundaries (chatur-aghata), as recorded in this
inscription, were "Kollakanandivara pattala the Gomati,
Bhagirathi and Varana." We may assume that the pattala of
Kathehali was nearly co-extensive with its modern
representative; for, though one of the old boundaries,
Kollakanandivara has not been identified with certainty, it
is not impossible that it is the same as Kol Aslah which now
marks the western limit of the Katehir pargana. We note in
support of this that Kol Aslha is also a pargana and its first
component may will be a remnant of "Kollaka".
3655. Exhibit D30 (Suit-5) (Register 30 Page 155-165) is
photocopy of frontispiece and pages 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 of the
book “Epigraphia Indica” Vol. XX 1929-30 published by ASI
in 1983. It refers to a Shunga inscription from Ayodhya
authored by Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni. This inscription
was found at Ranopali about a mile distance from Ayodhya.
About this inscription on page 55 of the book (page 159,
Register 30) it says:
“The inscription is important for more reasons than
one. It is the first inscription on stone or metal yet
discovered which mentions the name of Pushyamitra,
the celebrated founder of the Sunga dynasty. Hitherto he
was only known from literary sources, e.g., the
3712
Divyavadana (XXIX), Patanjali's Mahabhashya (III-2-
123), where references is made to a sacrifice performed by
him, some of the Puranas, Kalidas's drama, the
Malavikagnimitra, etc. The passages referring to the
Sunga dynasty in the Vishnu and the Bhagvata Puranas
are quoted in parallel columns in Pargiter's The Purana
Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age, pp. 30-33. From the
extract from the former we learn that the dynasty was
founded by the General Pushyamitra after he had slain
the last Maurya king Brihadratha. His son was
Agnimitra, who was succeeded by Vasujyeahtha. The
latter's son was Vasumitra and his son Andhraka. He
was succeeded by Pulindaka and the latter by Yomegha.
He was followed by Vajramitra. He was followed by
Samabhaga. The latter's son was Devabhumi.
Kalidasa's drama mentions three of these kings,
i.e., the founder, his son Agnimitra and the latter's son
Vasumitra and further informs us that Pushyamitra
instituted a Rajasuya sacrifice and appointed Vasumitra as
the guardian of the sacrificial horse, which in accordance
with religious custom was to wander at will for a year and
that the horse was seized by the cavalry of the Yavanas,
whom Vasumitra successfully defeated and brought the
horse back to his grandfather's sacrifice. The Rajasuya
sacrifice was performed by universal monarchs and the
sacrifice of this name mentioned in the drama of Kalidasa
may have been the one performed by Pushyamitra on the
occasion of his coronation. The Ayodhya inscription,
however, records the performance of two Asvamedha
3713
sacrifices by Pushyamitra. It is at present not known what
necessitated the institution of the second sacrifice by him. It
is to the credit of Pushyamitra that he revived this sacrifice
which had long been in abeyance owing to Asoka's
commandments prohibiting the immolation of animals even
for sacrifices. Mr. Jayaswal thinks that the Asvamedha
sacrifice mentioned in an inscription discovered at Nagari
also referred to Pushyamitra. It is true that such an
inscription was found by Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar when he was
engaged in his excavations at Nagari. It has, however, been
found by Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar H. Ojha to be only a
fragment of the Ghosundi inscription and to supply the
missing portion of the first line of that record. Thus
restored, the epigraph shows that the son of Gajayana and
Parasari mentioned in it was one Sarvatata, who had
performed a horse-sacrifice, but makes no mention of
Pushyamitra.
The Ayodhya inscription is also interesting as it
establishes the fact that the correct name of the founder of
the Sunga dynasty was Pushyamitra , not Pushpamitra as
found in some of the Sanskrit works. Dr. Buhler had
already been led to this conclusion by the form Pusamitta
which he found in certain Jaina Prakrit gathas, but
epigraphical evidence was wanting.
The interpretation of this short records is rendered
difficult by the uncertainty about the exact significance of
the words Pushyamitra shashthena and I am afraid the
difficulty will not solved until another inscription of the
Sunga dynasty containing the genealogy of these kings
3714
comes to light. I propose here to recapitulate what has been
said by the previous writers before I record my views of the
point. Pandit Ratnakara rendered these words as the sixth
descendent, brother or son of Pushyamitra and as with the
last alternative, Phalgudeva would become identical with
Pushyamitra, he thought he could overcome the difficulty
by supplying a word like pujyasya between the words pituh
and Phalgudevasya and interpret the expression as “in
honour of Phalgudeva, a teacher or deity of this father.”
Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha favoured the
meaning “sixth in descendent from Pushyamitra,” while
Mr. Jayaswal preferred to interpret the expression as the
sixth brother of Pushyamitra, making Phalgudeva the
father of Pushyamitra. This view was endorsed by Dr. A.
Banerji-Sastri, who rejected “the descent theory” for the
reason that if Dhana[Deva] was sixth in descent from
Pushyamitra and evidently proud of it, his name would
have ended with the word mitra. This, as Mr. N.K.
Bhattasali has shown, is no real obstacle as the names of
several of the kings of the Sunga dynasty as given in the
Puranas and found on their coins have different endings.
Dr. Sastri also emphasis the fact that in the Smrit. 'descent'
is signified by the termination of the 5
th
case, not the 6
th
as
is the case in the expression under discussion. Mr. N.G.
Majumdar has hunted up a parallel expression in verse 88
of the 16
th
Sarga of the Raghuvamsa. The expression in
question is panchamam Takshakasya, which is interpreted
by three commentators as meaning “grandson of grandson
of Takshaka.” Mr. Majumdar therefore sees no difficulty in
3715
interpreting Pushyamitra shashthah as “sixth in descent
from Pushyamitra”. In his third article on this inscription,
however, Mr. Jayaswal points out that the example from the
Raghuvamsa referred to above is actually interpreted by
Mallinatha as meaning the fifth son of Takshaka. 'The sixth
of Pushyamitra' in the Ayodhya inscription should therefore
mean the sixth son of Pushyamitra. As, however, this
interpretation would make Phalgudeva identical with
Pushyamitra, he proposes to read Dharmarajna in the 2
nd
line as Dharmarajni, and to compound it with the following
word pituh. He thus construes the record as meaning that
Dhanadeva, the sixth son of Pushyamitra, erected a house
in honour of Phalgudeva, the father of his lawful queen.
It will be seen from the above that the only parallel
expression found by the ingenuity of Mr. Majumdar is
capable of two divergent interpretations. As has been
pointed out by Dr. Banerji Sastri, the inscriptions so far
known fail to through light on the question and he is right
in stating that the established custom in epigraphical
records is either to name the generations in succession or
not at all and that it is not usual to mention a distant stage
by omitting the intervening ones. One such example I have
indeed secured in verse 44 of the Vamsavali of the Chamba
rajas, where we find the words “Meruvarman was the 10
th
from Jayastambha” after the nine intervening ancestors of
Meruvarman have been duly referred to indirect
succession. Even here, however, the vibhakti employed is
the fifth, not the sixth or possessive case. An example of
this kind with the sixth case ending occurs in the
3716
Raghuvamsa, Sarga 6, verse 29; -
-·- · ¬~¤ilºi n¤i -n n|¤i
“Thou alone, fortunate lady, art fit to be their third. ”
Sunanda, the attendant of Indumati, while narrating the
achievements of the prince of the Angas observes that the
goddesses Sri and Sarasvati, though naturally hostile to
each other, together reside in him in peace, thus indicating
the propriety of her union with him. It will be observed that
though the grammatical construction in this case is the
same as in the doubtful expression being discussed, the
sense of descent is out of the question. Whether more exact
parallels both in form and sense will or will not be found in
the vast field of Sanskrit literature, I am unable to say. It
seems, however, exceedingly difficult to disregard clear
palaeographic evidence and to group this record with the
other known documents of the early Sunga period. I would,
therefore, with Pandit Ratnakara, supply a word like
purushena after shashshena and translate “by the sixth
descendent of Pushyamitra”. It will be seen from the
facsimile that only the first portion of the name of the chief
who had this inscription engraved is preserved. Previous
writers have restored it as Dhanadeva and Mr. N.G.
Majumdar identifies him with a chief of that name whose
coins have been found round about Ayodhya. Be the
name, however, what it may, the inscription has
established beyond doubt the fact that Ayodhya formed
part of the Sunga Empire as late as the date of the
inscription, which, on palaeographic grounds must be
assigned to about the 1
st
century A.D.”
3717
3656. There is a reference of a pillar inscriptions of Lal
Darwaja Masjid at Jaunpur in the book "Sanskrit Inscriptions
of Delhi Sultanate" 1191-1526 by Pushpa Prasad, Reader in
History, Aligarh University published in 1990 and on page 149-
152 (Register 30 page 167 to 171) it refers to the said inscription
as under:
“47. Pillar Inscription of the Lal Darwaza Masjid at
Jaunpur
Edited by Cunningham, ASR, 1875-8, XI, p.126; pl.
XXXVII, No. 3
Fuhrer, Sharqi Architecture, New Series, 1911, 1, pp. 50-1
This inscription is engraved on the two faces of the third
octagonal pillar in the first row of the north-west cloister of
the Lal Darwaza masjid at Jaunpur. It consists of ten lines
in Sanskrit in Nagari script and is dated in the year
Plava Samvat 1353, Wednesday, the 12
th
day of the waning
moon of the month Jyestha/15 May A.D. 1296.
The inscription opens with an adoration of Ganapati
(Ganesa). The purpose is to record the construction of a
temple of Padamesvara on the north-side entrance of
Visvesvara temple at Kasi by Padma Sadhu.
The inscription itself indicated that its original site
had been a temple (the Visvesvara temple) at Kasi
(Varanasi). This must have been the same as 'the
Bisheshwara temple' mentioned by Sherring in his account
of Benares. The large mosque built by Aurangzeb presently
stands on its site. But sherring records the tradition that
'the Mohammedans as usual transferred its stone to
their own mosques and that relics (of the stones) are
3718
found at Jaunpur.
The transfer took place during the reign of Akbar
when the Visvesvara temple, already deserted was
demolished and its stones used by Bayizid Bayat. The
latter in his well-known memoirs records the incident thus:
'At that time (1570-71) there was an idol temple
which owing to passage of time had become deserted and
become the place of trade of the market people. I purged
that place of them and started erecting a madrasa for
scholars. It was completed around those few days that
Raja (Todarmal) came from a bath (in the river). In that
temple there was pillar 12 gaz (32 fit) high; and there was
a date in the Hindu characters inscribed on it stating that it
had been set up seven hundred years ago. When Bayizid
took it down, he had cut it into two parts, and the two parts
into four portions each. Six parts of stone were used in the
pillars and slabs of the mosque of the madarasa; and two
parts were taken by Khwaja (Dost) Muhammad. Bakshi of
the Khanan (Mun'im Khan) who put them on the door way
of the mosque at Jaunpur.
The remnant of the great pillar or lat mentioned by
Bayizid survives in the mosuqe built at the site of the
Visvesvara temle; it is thought originally to have been 40
feet high.
Bayizid does not say which mosque at Jaunpur
obtained the relics from the temple destroyed by him. Mr.
Iqtidar Alam Khan, to whom I am indebted for guidance on
this source supposes it to have been the defaced Maukhari
inscription at the Jami Mosque and the outer arch of the
3719
southern entrance. This would otherwise in with Bayizid's
reference to the stone having been placed on the door of
the mosque. But the explicit reference in the Lal
Darwaza inscription to the Visvesvara temple of Kasi
leaves little doubt that it comes from one of the two stone
parts of the pillar which Bayizid Bayat had sent to
Jaunpur. The mosque had been built much earlier in
A.D. 1447 by the Sharqi queen Bibi Raji.
Text (as read by Fuhrer):
¬i ·-i nºi¤n¤ || ¬¤i·¤i¤i
¤ ºi· n ¬-¤·i¬¬¬· l¤ ¤ ( |) ¬
« ¬i·i lºln ª¤in ¬·· ¬-·ilrn ºn||·||
n-¤ ¤ ¤i ¤·i¸ ·i·i ¬i·i l··iln l·¬ ÷
n (|) n-¤i--¬ ºi l¤ ·i|º ·i· -¬i·i º¤
·i l· ||z|| [Anustubh]
¬iº¤i l·º· º·º ,ilº lr-il·lºi
·iºi ¤-- (ªiºi ¤- `)| ¤· - º·º-¤ · ·-¤ ¤ i¬i·÷
--¬ºi -¬ ·i| ||s|| [Anustubh]
·¤·- -il¬ l¬n ¤·i
,iº¤i-« ·i ·i¬º (·) l¬lªin ¤ ¬·i
¤iln ¤ ºil-n ¤~··-¬º ||«|| [Anustubh]
¬ ·n ·srs||
Cunningham's reading differs in many places as
shown below:
Cunningham Fuhrer
·.· ¤-i ·¤i-¤ ºi ¬¤i ·¤i
·.z · , · -n
·.s l¬, ¬ ¤ º| ¬« ¬i·i lºln
·.c ¤i-¤i ¬iº¤i
·.·o ·iiln ¤iln
3720
Translation:
Om, salute to Ganapati (Ganesa). Formerly in
Ayodhya (lived) Sadhe Sadhu, the speaker of truth beloved
of good men, whose delight consisted in the welfare of all
beings. His son was the famous Sadhu Nidhi, whose son
Padma Sadhu, of steadfast virtue, on the north-side of the
entrance to the Visvesvara temple (looking like a peak or
Sikhra?) at Kasi built a temple of God Padmesvara
(Visnu). On Wednesday, the twelfth day of the waning
moon of the month of Jyestha, in the year of Plava Samvat
1353, this eulogy is written.”
3657. Another document placed before us as Exhibit B-16
(Suit-4) (Register 33 Page 91-133) is a copy of the Presidential
Address by Sri S.P. Gupta at 23
rd
Annual Conference of Indian
Archaeological Society held on Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) on
22
nd
December, 1989. The subject of the paper is “Ram
Janambhumi Controversy: Passions Apart what History and
Archaeology Have to Say”. On this issue, since Dr. S.P. Gupta
himself has appeared as witness before us, we find no reason to
refer his opinion contained in the said document and instead
would prefer to consider his oral statement as and when it is
needed. Besides, the learned counsels for the parties, during the
course of argument or in their written statements have also not
referred this document.
3658. Suffice at this stage to mention that in his own way
Dr. S.P.Gupta sought to convey that the disputed structure came
into existence after demolition a Hindu temple existed at the site
in dispute and for that purpose he sought to support his
inference based on some historical and archaeological facts. On
3721
the contrary another enquiry was made by Sri Sushil Kumar
Srivastava PW-15 and he took a contrary view.
3659. Exhibit Q-1 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 3-36);
Exhibit Q-2 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 3-37-45); Exhibit Q-6
(Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 47-53); Exhibit Q-3 (Suit-4)
(Register 34 Page 57-66); Exhibit Q-4 (Suit-4) (Register 34
Page 67); Exhibit J-11 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 69) are the
photocopies of a book “The Disputed Mosque A Historical
Inquiry” written by PW 15 Sushil Kumar Srivastava.
3660. Exhibit J-15 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 83) and
Exhibit J-16 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 85) are the page 72 and
95 respectively of the book “The Disputed Mosque An
Independent Enquiry” written by PW 15 Sushil Kumar
Srivastava.
3661. Exhibit 71 (Suit-5) (Register 36 Page 457-495) is
photocopy of pages 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and certain
photographs of book "The Disputed Mosque A Historical
Inquiry" written by Sri Sushil Srivastava, PW 15. The author
himself has appeared as witness and the book is also available to
the Court as Book No. 155.
3662. Since the author himself has appeared as witness on
behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) and the book itself is on record as
Book No. 155, we find no occasion to refer the said exhibit and,
in fact, it is also not been referred by the learned counsels during
the course of argument or written arguments.
3663. Reference is also made to Exhibit J-18 (Suit-4)
(Register 34 Page 89) is photocopy of "Memoirs of Babar"
and Exhibit J-28 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page 91 to 115) are
photocopies of some pages of the book "Babar" by Dr. Radhey
3722
Shyam, 1
st
Edn. 1978. Sri Jain placed reliance on page 456 of
the book (Register 34 page 111) where it reads as under:
"A parallel may perhaps be found in Ayodhya where
the famous Janamstha temple remained till Babar's days,
although the place, for more than two hundred years had
been the capital of the Muslim province of Oudh."
3664. On page 458 of the book, Sri Jain placed reliance on
the following:
"Moving via Kalpi and Kanoor, he crossed the
Ganges and passing through Lucknow he entered Oudh on
Saturday 7th Rajab 934 H./28th 1528 and encamped on the
confluence of the Ghagra and Sarju rivers. From 2nd April
1528 to 17th September 1528 there is a gap in his
Memoirs. It appears that during this period and until the
beginning of the rainy season he remained busy in dealing
with the Afghans. Before returning to Agra he appointed
Mir Baqi to hold charge of Ayodhya. Shortly after Babar's
departure Mir Baqi, on his own account attacked the Hindu
temple with a large army. It is related that for seventeen
days the Hindus offered resistance. At last failing to stand
the onslaught they bowed before the inevitable. Mir Baqi,
somehow managed to enter the temple and thereafter he
tried to reach the sanctuary. Here the Brahmin priest of the
temple, Shyamanand and the members of his family offered
resistance to him and did not allow him to approach the
sanctuary. Mir Baqi seized and killed the priest and the
members of his family. He entered the sanctuary, but to his
utter surprise he could not find a single idol there. Whether
the temple was razed to the ground or not is still
3723
controversial issue. But it appears that he build the mosque
over a part of the ruins or converted the temple into a
mosque. The well known Baburi Masjid, which still stands
there is claimed by the Hindus and Muslims both."
3665. In our view, the passage it noted to be rejected for
the reason that the learned author has further said in
continuation as under:
"The entire structure raises grave doubts. It may be
observed that it would be quite injudicious to hold in any
way Babar responsible for the destruction of the famous
Janamsthan temple. Destruction of temples was neither in
consequence with his policy not attitude, especially at a
time when he needed the support of the non Muslim
population."
3666. Next was Exhibit J-30 (Suit-4) (Register 34 Page
137-157) which is copy of the extract of a article "Ayodhya in
Ancient India" by B.C. Law published in journal of Ganga Nath
Jha Research Institute Vol. I, 1943, pages 423 to 443. Sri Jain
refers to the following:
"Political History
The Ramayana refers to the kings of Ayodhya and the
system of administration prevalent there. It is interesting to
note here the duties of an Iksvaku king. Aroused from his
sleep at dawn by the hymns of prisoners and sutas, a king
was served with water for washing hands and feet. Duly
bathed a Ksatriya king offered oblations to fire and prayed
before the images in temples inside his place. After
finishing the morning duties he used to attend to the
business of his state and then go to his court where he
3724
would meet his ministers. The kind with his ministers used
to listen personally to the prayers and complaints of his
subjects. Worthy treatment was given to state guests
including kings and princes. The king used to spend the the
first half of each day in doing the business of his state and
the latter half of his time was spent in enjoying the
company of the ladies of his harem.
The chief aim of a righteous monarch was to earn the
loyalty and goodwill of his subjects. He used to hear the
report of his trusted servants and reliable courtiers in order
to ascertain the public opinion about his government. He
used to redress the grievances of his subjects as far as
possible. Nobody was detained or kept waiting at his door
if he came to pray for something before the king. He was
assisted in his administration by able ministers, eminent
jurists and men well-versed in the sacred lore. Punishment
was always in proportion to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Life-long exile or transportation was an
alternative for death sentence.
The king used to give private interviews to spies and
special messengers for confidential talks. Divulging state-
secrets, watching or overhearing such secret talks were
highly punishable. The succession to the throne was
generally determined according to the law of
primogeniture in the Iksvaku family.
Rama's youngest brother Satrughna ruled Mathura
which he founded. His younger brother. Bharata, with his
two sons Taksa and Puskala conquered the Gandhara
country. The cities of Taksasila and Puskalavati were ruled
3725
by the two sons of Bharata. Chandrakanta and Angadiya
were ruled by the two sons of Laksana named Candraketu
and Angada. Kusa and Lava were rulers of southern and
northern Kosala respectively. Satrughna, Rama's younger
brother, installed his two sons Suvahu and Satrughati as
kings of Mathura and Vaidesa kingdoms respectively.
In the Mahabharata, the mentioned is made out
sixteen celebrated kings (sodasa-rajika) some of whom
belonged to Ayodhya, namely Mandhatr, Sagara,
Bhagiratha, Ambarisa, Dilipa and Rama Dasarathi. In the
Mahabharata mention is also made of Iksvaku, Kakutstha,
Yuvanasva, Raghu, Nimi and others. The pious
Dirghavajna was the king of Ayodhya when Yudhisthira
ruled and performed his Rajasuya Sacrifice. Divakara was
a king of Ayodhya who was the contemporary of Senajit,
king of Magadha. Both of them were contemporaries of
Asimakrsna. Iksvaku, one of the nine sons of Manu
Vaivasvata reigned at Ayodhya who had two sons, Vikuksi-
sasada and Nimi. From the former was descended the great
Aiksvaku dynasty of Ayodhya generally known as the solar
race.
The Iksvakus, Aiksvakus or Aiksvakas are the titles of
the solar race. Iksvaku was so called because he was born
from the sneeze of Manu. The Puranas give a list of the
kings of Ayodhya.
The Ramayana genealogy, according to Pargiter
must be treated as erroneous and the Pauranic genealogy
is to be accepted. The Puranas say that there were two
Dilipas, one father of Bhagiratha and the other father or
3726
grandfather of Raghu, but according to the Ramayana,
there was only one Dilipa, father of Bhagiratha and great-
grandfather of Raghu. According to the Ramayana, Raghu
was the father of Kalmasapada and Aja is placed twelve
generations below Raghu but the Puranas make Aja son of
Raghu. The Raghuvamsa supports the Puranas that Aja
was the son of Raghu. The Ramayana makes Kakutstha son
of Bhagiratha and grandson of Dilipa but the Puranas say
that he was the son of Sasada. The Mahabharata supports
the Puranas. The Raghuramsa also supports the Puranas
in saying that from his time the kings had borne the title of
Kakutstha and that Dilipa was his descendant.
From Dasaratha to Ahinagu there is general
agreement. After Ahinagu, most of the Puranas give a list
of some twenty kings Paripatra to Brhadbala agreeing in
their names though some of the lists are incomplete
towards the end.
The Aiksvaku genealogy of Ayodhya mentions the
following kings :- (1) Prasenajit who was the contemporary
of Matinara; (2) Yuvanasva II, Mandhatr who married
Sasabindu's daughter named Bindumati Citrarathi, (3)
Purukutsa and (4) Trasadasyu.
Jahnu of Kanyakubja married the grand-daughter of
Yanvanasva, that is, Mandhatr.
The Talajanghas attacked Ayodhya and drove the
king Bahu from the throne. Mandhatr of Ayodhya had a
long war with the Druhyu king Aruddha or Angara and
killed him.
Subahu, son of the Cedi king Virabahu and Rtuparna
3727
king of Ayodhya, were contemporaries. Jamadagni allied
himself with the royal house of Ayodhya for he married
Renuka, daughter of Renu.
Sumitra was the last of the Iksvaku kings in the Kali
age who was contemporary with the Buddha. The royal
house of Iksvaku sank into oblivion at the time of this king.
The kings of Ayodhya were connected with the
Vasistha family. The Vasisthas were their hereditary priests.
The earliest Vasistha was the famous priest of Ayodhya in
the reigns of Trayyaruna, Satyavrata-Trisanku and
Hariscandra. The next great Vasistha was the priest of
Ayodhya in the time of Hariscandra's successor Bahu who
was driven from his throne by the Haihaya-Talajanghas
aided by the Sakas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Paradas and
Pahlavas from the north-west but Vasistha maintained his
position.
Mitrasaha Kalmasapada Saudasa, king of Ayodhya
had the fourth noted Vasistha as his priest. The fifth was
priest to Dilipa II Khatvanga and the sixth was priest to
Dasaratha and his son Rama. King Kalmasapada Saudasa
beguiled by a Raksasa offered Vasistha human flesh as food
and was cursed by him.
Iksvaku obtained Madhyadesa and was the
progenitor of the solar race, with its capital at Ayodhya.
The kingdom of Ayodhya rose to very great eminence
under Yuvanasva II and especially his son Mandhatr. The
latter married Sasabindu's daughter Bindumati. He was a
very famous king, a Cakravartin and a Samraj and
extended his sway very widely. Mandhatr or his sons
3728
carried their arms south to the river Narmada. The
supremacy of Ayodhya waned and the Kanyakubja kingdom
rose into prominence under its king Jahnu. The Haihayas
overcame Ayodhya. The foreign tribes settled there after
Ayodhya was conquered.
Ayodhya rose to prominence again under Amsumant's
second successor Bhagiratha and Bhagiratha's third
successor Ambarisa Nabhagi.
Of the Manva or solar kingdoms that existed
originally three remained, those of Ayodhya, Videha and
Vaisali. These three Manva kingdoms were not dominated
by the Aila stock. The earliest Angirasas were connected
with Mandhatr, king of Ayodhya, and the eariliest Angirasa
Rsi was connected with Hariscandra, king of Ayodhya.
Dasaratha called in the help of the rustic Rsyasruga
from Anga. The eastern and southern kings and kings of the
distant Punjab were invited to Dasaratha's sacrifice at
Ayodhya. Ayodhya and the Vasisthas had no association
then with the brahmanically elite region as Pargiter points.
Out. The Kathasaritsagara refers to the camp of Nanda in
Ayodhya.
In Buddhism we find that there was a king of
Ayodhya named Kalasena whose city was surrounded by
ten sons of Andhakavenhu (Andhakavenhudasaputta
dasabhatika) who uprooted the trees, pulled down the wall,
captured the king and brought his kingdom under their
sway. The city of Ayujjha was governed by the descendants
of king Arindama.
In Jainism we find that Prasannajita, a king of
3729
Ayodhya, give his daughter named Prabhavati in marriage
to Parsvanatha.
Ayodhya seems to have been included within the
kingdom of Pusyamitra Sunga. An inscription found at
Ayodhya mentions the fact that Pusyamitra performed
two horse-sacrifices or asvamedhas during his reign.
According to a spurious Gaya plate, Ayodhya was the seat
or a Gupta jayaskandharara or 'Camp of victory,' as
early as the time of Samudra Gupta. Some coins of Pura
Gupta have on the reverse the legend. “Sri Vikramah,”
which may be a shorter form of the full title 'Vikramaditya'.
Allan identifies him with king Vikramaditya of Ayodhya,
father of Baladitya, who was a patron of Buddhism through
the influence of Vasubandhu. It may be assumed on the
basis of this identification that the immediate successors of
Skanda Gupta had a capital at Ayodhya probably till the
rise of the Maukharis."
3667. It was also sought to argue that mere inscription or
other things are not conclusive to made a final opinion since in
similar kind of historical building the tempering of inscription or
travelling of inscription etc. have been noticed. In this regard
reference was made to Exhibit J-29 (Suit-4) (Register 35 Page
237) is photocopy of "Archaeological Survey of India report
of Tours in the Central Doab and Gorakhpur in 1874-75 and
1875-76" by A.C.L. Carlleyle Vol. XII consisting of
frontispiece, Index, Introduction and pages 24, 25, 26, 27 and
Plate II, III, IV and V of the said book. On page 24, it deals with
the details of City of Sambhal near Moradabad and in particular
that part where it deals with a mosque constructed therein
3730
claims to be constructed on a Hindu temple of Hari Mandir and
this is supported by an inscription fixed thereat. It says:
"The old city of Sambhal is situated on the
Mahishmat Nadi, in the very heart of Rohilkhand. In the
Satyug its name is said to have been "Sabrit," or Sabrat,
and also Sambhaleswar. In the Tretayug it was called
Mahadgiri, and in the Dwapur, Pingala. In the Kaliyug it
received its present name of Sambhala, or in Sanskrit
Sambhala-grama. To the south-east of the city is Surathal
Khera, which was called after Raja Surathal, a son of Raja
Satyavana, of the Lonar race. Surathal Khera measured
1,200 feet in length from north-east to south-west, by 1,000
feet in breadth. Close to the south-south-west side of it
there is another large khera, with a village on it called
"Raja Sadun-ka-khera," or "Sadungarh," probably Satun
or Sataun, for Satyavan.
There are also many other smaller mounds between
the two places. The two kheras of Surathal and Sadun
together evidently once formed one large city. Another
ancient place named Amrama-pati Khera is situated on the
right bank of the Sat river, and near the village of Alipur.
About a mile to the north-west of the last place, there
is another mound called Chaudreswar Khera.
Gumthal Khera, which is situated about 2 miles to
the south-east from Surathal Khera, measures about 1,600
feet in length from east to west, by about 1,000 feet in
breadth from north to south.
All these places are situated to the south-east from
Sambhal and Chandausi.
3731
The principal building in Sambhal is the Jami
Masjid which the Hindus claim to have been originally
the temple of Hari Mandir. It consists of a central domed
room upwards of 20 feet square, with two wings of unequal
length, that to the north being 50 feet 6 inches, while the
southern wing is only 38 feet 1 ½ inches. Each wing has
three arched openings in front, which are all of different
widths, varying from 7 feet to 8 feet.
The Muhammadans ascribe the erection of the
building to the time of the Emperor Babar, and point to
an inscription inside the masjid, which certainly
contains the name of Babar, but which the Hindus assert
to be a forgery of late date. At or on the back of this slab,
they say that there is the original Hindu inscription
belonging to the temple. Several Musalmans of Sambhal
confessed to me that the inscription containing Babar's
name was a forgery, and that the Muhammadans did not
get possession of the building until about the time of the
mutiny, or a little before it, say about 25 years ago. That
they took possession of the building by force; and that there
was then a trial about the case in Court before the Judge of
the district, and that the Muhammadans gained the case
mainly by means of the forged inscription, and also by all
the Muhammadans joining together and hearing false
witness against the Hindus who were in minority.
In the forged inscription of Babar in the Hari Mandir
at Sambhal, it may be observed that the name of Babar is
wrongly given. In the inscription I read as follows:
Bani Aina Ilm o Amal
3732
Shah Jamjah Muhammad Babar
رباب دمحم ہاج مج ماش لمع و ملع ہءیبنا یبن اے
But the real name of this king was "Shah Jahir-ud-
din-Muhammad Babar."
The fine dome of this building is probably unique of
its kind. It is a clear hollow shell from the keystone down to
the ground. Its shape is very much like the hollow of the
inside of a huge thimble. The interior shape of the dome is
ovoid, or like the half of an ovoid ellipse rotated on its axis.
The dome is built of brick, and it is said to have been
rebuilt (as it now is) by the famous Prithvi Raja, who
appears to have been a great benefactor to Sambhal. The
circular dome stands upon an octagon, and the octagon
upon a square.
The walls of the central square Hindu temple would
appear to have been built with large bricks ceased with
stone, but the plaster with which the Muhammadans have
coated the walls conceals the material of which they are
made; and I can only say that, on examining several spots
where the plaster was broken. I found that in some places
stone wax exposed. I believe that the Muhammadans
stripped off most of the stone, especially such as bore
traces of Hinduism, and made a pavement of the stones,
turning the sculptures downwards. I observed traces which
showed that the walls had once been much thicker when the
stone casing was on. Underneath the outer steps of the
outer court I dug out some fragments of sculpture in
reddish sandstone, one of which was the upper portion of a
fluted pillar.
3733
The Muhammadan wings added to the building, in
order to turn it into a masjid, are built of small bricks, that
is, whenever the walls happened to be bare of plaster. I
found that the bricks were small and set in mud mortar.
There is a clear and distinct difference between the old
Hindu work and the modern Muhammadan work, and the
old Hindu temple is at once distinguishable from the
Muhammadan additions.
The square Hindu temple would have had originally
only one doorway in the east wall, about 8 feet in width,
but the Muhammadans cut four more doors, each 6 feet
wide, two in the northern and two in the southern wall of
the square temple, in order to communicate with the aisles
of the side wings which they added.
Note by General Cunningham.
[The inscription in the masjid which the Hindu
denounce as being forged appears to me to be quite
genuine. The text is as follows:-
لام و کلم ہولا عفار لامک و لضف ہءیشا عماج
لمع و ملع ہیبنا یین اے ناما و نما ءجضا ہطساب
لج و زع ہللا ظفح رباب دمحم ہاج مج ہاش
لبنس دش ناوت رب زا نشور دنہب تخورفارب وج تلود عمش
للخ و ناصقن ز داب نوصم ہک دجسم نےا نتخاس یءپ زا
لود نلکرا ہدمع دوب ہک شیوخ ہدنن نیمکب نامرفدرک
لثم ہتشگ رکن قلخاب نا کیبودنھ درخ و لقع اب دےم
لزا قیفوتب مامتا تفاے ناہج ہاشنہش نامزب نوچ
لوا لا عیبر رہش زا مکے ہتشگ شرود ہمذ خیرات لاس
The full date is given in a very ingenious manner
with the last words:-
3734
Ekum az Shahar Rabi-al-awal,
which mean literally "on the first day of the month of Rabi-al-
awal,' while the sum of the individual letters give the year 933
A.H. according to the reckoning of the Abjad. The builder, or
rather the converter of the Hindu temple into a masjid was Mir
Hindu Beg.]
3668. Sri Jain placed before us Exhibit J-24 (Suit-4)
(Register 35 Page 273) which is photocopy of "The
Monumental Antiquities And Inscription In The North
Western Provinces And Oudh" published by Indological Book
House, Varanasi in 1969. This very book itself is book No. 94
with the Court. The Exhibit contains the frontispiece, Index,
Preface and pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 30, 31, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296,
297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,
309, 310, 311, 312, 313. Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel has
placed reliance on pages 296 and 297 (Register 35 Pages 341-
343) of the said book:
"According to the Ramayana, the city of Ayodhya was
founded by Manu, the progenitor of all mankind. In the
time of Dasaratha, the father of Rama, it was fortified with
towers and gates, and surrounded by a deep ditch. No
traces of these works now remain, nor is it likely, indeed,
that any portion of the old city should exist, as the Ayodhya
of Rama is said to have been destroyed after the death of
Brihadbala, after which it lay deserted until the time of
Vikramaditya of Ujjayini, who, according to tradition,
came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called
Ramgarh, cut down the jangal by which the ruins were
3735
covered and erected 360 temples on that spots sanctified by
the extraordinary actions of Rama. The Vikramaditya of
this story, General Cunningham takes to be Chandragupta
II, of the Imperial Gupta dynasy, A.D. 395-415, whose rule
certainly extended to Ujjayini, as his inscriptions have
been found at Sanchi and Udayagiri Bhilsa.
There are several very holy Brahmanical and Jains
temples about Ayodhya, but they are all of modern date and
without any architectural pretensions whatever; but there
can be no doubt that most of them occupy the sites of more
ancient temples that were destroyed by the Muslamans.
Thus Ramkot, or Hanuman Garhi, on the east side of
the city, is a small walled fort surrounding a modern
temple on the top of an ancient mound. This fort is said
to have formerly covered a large extent of ground and
according to tradition, it was surrounded by 20 bastions,
each of which was commanded by one of Rama's
famous generals after whom they took the names by
which they are still known. Within the fort were eight
royal mansions, where dwelt Dasaratha, his wives, and
Rama, his deified son. The name Ramkot is certainly old,
but the temple of Hanuman is not older than the time of
Aurangzib. Ram Ghat, at the north-east corner of the city,
is said to be the spot where Rama bathed, and
Svargadvaram, also called Ram Darbar, on the north-west,
is believed to be the place where his body was burned.
Treta-ke-Thakur is famous as the place where Rama
performed a great sacrifice, and which he commemorated
by setting up there images of himself and Sita. Close by is
3736
the Lakshmana Ghat, where his brother Lakshmana
bathed, and about one quarter of a mile distant in the very
heart of the city, stands the Janmasthanam, or "birth-
place temple," of Rama. Almost due west, and upwards of
five miles distant is the Guptar Ghat, with its group of
modern white-washed temples. This is the place where
Lakshmana is said to have disappeared, and hence, its
name of Guptar, from gupta, "hidden or concealed." Some
say that it was Rama who disappeared at this place, but
this is at Variance with the story of his cremation at
Svargadvaram.
There are five Digambara temples at Ayodhya which
were built in Samvat 1981, in the time of Shuja-ad-daulah,
to mark the birth-places of five Tirthamkaras, viz.,
Adinatha, Ajitanatha, Abhinandanatha. Sumatinatha, and
Anantajit, who are said to have been born at Ayodhya. The
temple of Adinatha is situated near the Svargadvaram on a
mound, known as Shah-Juran-Ka-tila, on which there are
many Musalman tombs and a masjid. According to the
local Musalman tradition, Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori,
who came to Audh with Shahab-ad-din-Ghori, destroyed
the ancient temple of Adinatha and erected on its ruins the
Musalman edifices which gave to the mound the name by
which it is still known. Besides these five temples of the
Digambaras there is a sixth temple of the Svetambaras,
dedicated to Ajitanatha, which was built in Samvat 1881.
It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest
there were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya:
these were the Janmasthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the
3737
Treta-ke-Thakur. On the first of these Mir Khan built a
masjid in A.H. 930, during the reign of Babar, which still
bears his name. This old temple must have been a very
fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the
Musalmans in the construction of Babar's Masjid. These
are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured, or black stone,
called by the natives kasauti, "touch-stone slate," and
carved with different devices; they are from seven to eight
feet long, square at the base, centre and capital, and round
or octagonal intermediately. On the second and third
Aurangzib built masjids, which are now mere picturesque
ruins. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachchhandra of
Kanauj, dated Samvat 1241, and recording the erection of
a temple of Vishnu, was rescued from the ruins of
Aurangzib's Masjid, known as Treta-ke-Thakur, and is
now in the Faizabad Museum."
3669. Exhibit J-26 (Suit-4) (Register 36 Page 423) is
photocopy of "The Indian Antiquary A Journal of Oriental
Research" by Sir Richard Carnac Temple, Vol. XXXVII, 1908
published by Swati Publications Delhi, 1985 containing
frontispiece and pages 191 and 192. It shows that in the area of
Kashmir also similar activities took place and Buddhist temple
made a mosque as is evident from the following:
"At first sight this text should make it appear that
there were Bhottas among the subjects of the Kashmir
Kings. This is not probable, for Ladakh as well as Baltistan
where independent possessions during the 16
th
century. But
the trade between the Punjab and Yarkand, through
Kashmir and Leh, was probably carried on without any
3738
interruption and this trade brought many Ladakhis and
Baltis to Kashmir. They had there not only a rest-house of
their own, but apparently also a Buddhist place of worship.
There is a masjid below the castle hill of Srinagar, which is
still known as the Bodo Masjid, and that it was formerly a
Buddhist temple is shown by the fact that behind the white-
wash on the walls the picture of Buddhist saints are to be
found. This is well known to all Ladakhis."
3670. Pursuant to the excavation conducted by B.B.Lal
some photographs as well as his comments were published in
the book of ASI i.e. :
(a) Exhibit E2/1 (Suit-5) (Register 37 Page 5) is
photocopy of Plate No. XLIX and Plate No. L published
in "Indian Archaeology 1976-77-A Review" edited by
B.K. Thapar, Director General, ASI published, by ASI in
1980.
(b) Exhibit E 1/1 (Suit-5) (Register 37 Page 11) is
photocopy of pages 40 and 41 of "Indian Archaeology
1969-70 A Review" edited by B.B. Lal, published by ASI
1973.
(c) Exhibit E 4/1 (Suit-5) (Register 37 Page 17) is
photocopy of page no. 28, 29, 30, 31 of "Indian
Archaeology 1968-69 A Review" edited by B.B. Lal
published by ASI 1971.
(d) Exhibit E 3/1 (Suit-5) (Register 37 Page 35) is
photocopy of pages 76, 77 and Plate XXII of "Indian
Archaeology 1979-80- A Review".
3671. Considering lot of material, some of which
discussed above, as well as relevant facts, it was found
3739
expedient by this Court to have a scientific investigation at the
disputed site but without disturbing the position of the
"makeshift structure" in respect whereto a status quo order was
operating in various proceedings including the suits.
3672. What lie underneath? This question is of extreme
complication ranging in a period of more than 500 years’ of
history. No clear picture emerges from various history books
etc. In fact, the contemporary record did not answer the issues,
one or the other way, with certainty but some record, authored
after about 200 years i.e., 18
th
Century, state about existence of
temple, its demolition and the construction of the disputed
building, while some well known historians dispute it and some
history books are silent. The case of muslim parties was that the
mosque was constructed on an unoccupied, vacant land.
3673. Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary steps
and strategy. In the peculiar circumstances, this Court decided to
appoint an Expert body for scientific investigation, well
recognized in the field of archaeology/history and ordered ASI
to go for excavation at the site in question and submit report.
The question formulated for ASI, was “whether there was any
temple/structure which was demolished and a mosque was
constructed on the disputed site”.
3674. The details of ASI proceedings, we have already
mentioned above. We have also mentioned about the objections
filed on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit 4), defendant no.5 (Suit 5) and
defendants no. 6/1 and 6/2 (Suit 3) but details thereof skipped so
as to be discussed at appropriate stage, Here is that.
3675. During the course of the excavation by ASI, a large
number of objections/complaints were filed by the parties to the
3740
Observers (Two Judicial Officers of the Cadre of Higher
Judicial Service) appointed by this Court. Subsequently, most of
the contents of those objections since have resulted in the
objections which the parties have filed before this Court against
the report of ASI, therefore, we find it appropriate to consider in
brief those documents also, as that will not only give a complete
picture of the proceedings but also be helpful to determine and
adjudicate upon the objections taken by the parties against the
final report of ASI.
3676. Between 14
th
April, 2003 to 26
th
July, 2003, thirty
four such objections were filed out of which nineteen were filed
through Sri Zaffaryab Jilani, Advocate; two through Mohd.
Saleem, Advocate; two by Sri Mohd. Hashim (one of the
plaintiff of Suit-4); four through Sri A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate;
four through Sri Mustaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate; two by Sri
R.L.Verma, Advocate and one by Haji Mehboob (one of the
plaintiff of Suit-4). In nutshell thirty two objections were filed
on behalf of muslim parties and two on behalf of Nirmohi
Akhara.
3677. The first complaint is dated 14
th
April, 2003
submitted by Sri Mohd. Hashim and Mahmood Ahmad,
plaintiffs in Suit 4 through their counsel Sri Mohd. Salim,
Advocate. It is addressed to the Observers and says that as per
the order dated 26
th
March, 2003 and 10
th
April, 2003 of this
Court, ASI was supposed to keep in seal 'Bones' and 'Glazed
ware' in regular manner but they have failed to do so and this is
disobedience of the Court's order. The two Observers obtained
comments from the in-charge, ASI team, and, put in the
following note dated 14
th
April, 2003:
3741
¤ -n n ¤ i·i ·i¤¤ - ¬l¬n ¬i¤l-n¤i ¬ ¬···i - ·iiºn|¤ ¤ ºin-·
¬· ·iºi (A.S.I.) ¬ -|- ¤ - ªi ¬| «|o¬iºo-lºi ¬i ¬l·i-n ¤ i·n l¬¤i
n¤i| ¬| -lºi · «ni¤i l¬ l·l·i·· - ¤ ¬ ¬ ¤ i·n ¬l-·i¤i (Bones) ¬i
¬|¬ ¬º· - ¬·r ¤r ·¤·rilº¬ ¬l-·i; r l¬ ¬|¬« · ¬l-·i¤i -·- ·
¬ s l··i ¬¤ºi·n ··- ri ¬i· n| ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·r ¬·n ¬l-·i¤i
¬i ¬|¬« · ¬º· - ¬i ; ¬l-·i; ·r| r | ¬·ri · ·r ·i| «ni¤i l¬
¤ i·n ¬l-·i¤i ¬| ¬ ª¤i ¤· ¬ «i; ¬ « l·in ¤ ¬| - ¬l¬n ¬º¬ ¬·r
ºªi· - ·i| ¬·r ¬i ; ¬l-·i; ·r| r |
¬ri n¬ ·¬ ·· · ¤¬ ¬ ¬|¬ l¬¤ ¬i· ¬i ¤ º· r , ;¬¬
¬ « ·i - ¬| -lºi · «ni¤i l¬ - ¤i ¬ l··ººi - , ¬ « l·in ¤ ¬| - , ¬·¬i
¬i-i·¤ ª¤ ¬ ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i ºri r , ¤¸ l¬ ·¬ ·· · ¤¬ ¤ ºi·ºi·i
(Antiquity) ·r| r , ;¬l¬¤ ¬·i| n¬ ¬·r ¬|¬ ·r| l¬¤i ¬i ºri
·ii| ¬«¬ ¬·r ¬|¬ ¬º· - ¬·¬i ¬i ; ¬i¤l-n ·r| r | ¬·ri · ¤r ·i|
«ni¤i l¬ ¬·i| n¬ ¤ i·n ¬·i| ·¬ ·· · ¤¬ ¬ ºl·in r n·ii ¬·¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬ « ·i| ¤ ¬| - r |
"The opinion of Sri B.R. Mani, the in-charge of the team of
Archaeological Survey of India (A.S.I) was obtained in
context of the objections contained in the present
application. Sri Mani has contended that the practical
problem in sealing the bones obtained from various
trenches, is that the sealed bones would de-generate
automatically after a few days. Besides this, he has no
other problem in sealing the said bones. He has also
contended that he has no difficulty in maintaining and
entering the number and length of the bones obtained, in
the concerned register.
So far as the question of sealing the glazed wares is
concerned, Sri Mani has contended in this behalf that in
the details of trenches, they are being normally entered in
the concerned pages. Since glazed wares are not
3742
antiquities, as such they are not being sealed at present. He
has no objection in sealing them from now on. He has also
contended that all the glazed wares discovered so far, are
safe and their details are there in concerned
registers."(E.T.C.)
3678. The objection dated 15
th
April, 2003 is again by the
same two persons complaining that remains lying on the western
side of the Babri Mosque are being removed without marking
numbers and this act of ASI is contrary to the Court's order. The
two Observers obtained comments from Sri B.R.Mani, Team
Leader of ASI and mark following note dated 15
th
April, 2003:
;¬ ¤ i·i ·i ¤¤ ¤º ·iiºn|¤ ¤ ºin-· ¬· ·iºi (A.S.I.) -|- ¬|·º ¬| «|.
¬iº.-lºi ¬i ¬l·i-n ¤ i·n l¬¤i n¤i| ¬·ri · «ni¤i l¬ - ¤i - ¤·
¬--n l·ºii ºi ¬ ¬·ºi ·i ªiº·i ¬| ·|l·¤i n i¤|, l-·iº ¤i -i n i¤| ¬ºi·
n·ii ¬·¬i -i - ni º ¤º ºl¬--º - l··ººi ¬l¬n ¬º· - ¬·r ¬i ;
¬i¤l-n ·r| r n·ii · ;¬ r n ¬r-n r | ¬ri n¬ ¬·ºi ·i ªiº·i ¤º
¬ ª¤i ·i¬· ¬i ¤ º· r , ;¬¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬·ri · ·¤·rilº¬ ¬l-·i;
«ni¤| n·ii ¤r ¬ri l¬ ¬·ºi·i ªiº· i ¬| ; - ¬i¤| ¬|ºi ºi|ºi ·ºii -
r ¬n¤· ¤l· ·r ; - l¬·¤º ¬ ª¤i ·i¬| ¬i· n| ¤l· l·¬i¬ n¤| ni
lºi¬iªiº·i ¤º ¬ ª¤i ·i¬ ¬i· ¬i ¬i ; ¤ ¤i ¬· ·r| ºr ¬i· ni|
¬·ri · ¤r ·i| «ni¤i l¬ ¬ ª¤i ·i¬ ¬i· ¤º ¬·¬ ;·¬ ¬ º·iºi ¬| ·i|
¬¤ ·ii ¬| ¬i ¬¬n| r ¬i ¬·¬ l¬¤ ·¤·rilº¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬ ·i· ·r|
ri ni|
"The opinion of Sri B.R. Mani, the team leader of
Archaeological Survey of India, was obtained on this
application. He has contended that he has no objection in
carrying out videography and still photography of the
remains of all the constructions lying in the trenches and in
broadly getting their details entered in the registers and
that he agrees to it. So far as the question of numbering the
3743
remains is concerned, he has stated about the practical
problems in this behalf and has contended that the brick of
the remains are in very dilapidated state, hence if the
bricks, which are numbered are removed, then no purpose
would be served by numbering the stone blocks. He has
also contended that after numbering them, their
preservation can also be expected, which will not be
practically possible for him." (E.T.C.)
3679. The complaint dated 7
th
April, 2003 (it appear that
this complaint is wrongly dated and it ought to be 7
th
May, 2003
since in the complaint itself there is a reference of Court's order
dated 10
th
April, 2003 hence it cannot be 7
th
April, 2003) is
submitted by Sri Mohd. Hashim In Person, to the Observer
complaining that the human bones, found in Trench ZG1, has
been covered with soil without recording on the pretext that due
to the objections of Muslims, it was not proceeded though no
written objection was submitted by the Muslim parties and
therefore, the bones recovered from Trench ZG1 as also from
Trench F9 and G9 be directed to be recorded. The two
Observers, after receiving comments from Sri Chandrabhan
Mishra, Deputy Superintendent, the then incharge of ASI team,
submitted its report as under:
;¬ ¤ i·i ·i ¤¤ - ·lºi n ¬i¤l-n ¬ ¬ « ·i - ·iiºn|¤ ¤ ºin-· ¬· ·iºi
·¬ ¬ ¬¤l-·in -·ii·|¤ ¤ ·iiº| ¬| ¤·· ·ii¬ l-¬ ¬¤ ¬·i|·iºi ¤ ºin-·
l·· ¬ ¬l·i-n ¤ i·n l¬¤i n¤i| ¬| l-¬ · ¤r ¬r-ln ·| l¬ ¬·¬i
- ¤ ¬ o ZG1 · ¤¸ · - - ¤ ¬ o F9, · G9 - ¤ ¬- n·ii ·i· -
¬i¤l-n ¬º· ¤º ¬¬ ¤ · l-- -| ¬ ·«i¤i n¤i ¬l-·i¤i ¬i ¬l·il¬lªin
¬º· - ¬i ; ¬i¤l-n ·r| r | ¬| l -¬ · ¤r ·i | «ni ¤i l ¬ - ¤
¬ o F9, G9 · ZG1 - ¤¸ · - ¬i ¬l -·i ¤i · ¬l -·i ¤i ¬
¬·ºi · i ¤ ¬- r ¤ ·i , ¬·¬ ¬ « · i - ·i · ¬ ¤·i ¬i º ¬|
3744
ri ¬| -r«¸ « ¬¬| ,i ºi n · i | º ¬i ¤l - n ¬| n¤| ·i | l ¬¬¬
¬i ººi ;· ¬l -·i ¤i ¬i - ¤ ¬ · ni «i rº l ·¬i ¬i ¬i
¬¬i ¬i º · r| ¬· r ¬l ·i l ¬l ªi n l ¬¤i ¬i ¬¬i , ¬l ¤n
¬· r si ¤i ¬· ¬ ¤º¤i n ¬¬| ¬·-·i i - l -- -| - ·«i
l ·¤i n¤i ·i i |
"The opinion of Sri Chandrabhal Mishra, Deputy
Superintendent Archaeologist and the local in-charge of
Archaeological Survey of India, was sought on the
objections contained in this application. Sri Mishra has
consented that he has no objection in recording the bones,
which were earlier found in Trench no. ZG1 and F9 and G9
and subsequently buried under soil on raising of objection.
Sri Mishra has also contended that the plaintiff's
representative Hazi Mahboob Ali had raised serious
objections regarding the bones and bone remains found
in Trench No. F9, G9 and ZG1, due to which these
bones could neither be taken out of the trench nor were
they recorded and after being photographed, they were
covered by soil in the same stage."
3680. Complaint dated 3
rd
May, 2003 was submitted by
complainants through Sri Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui alleging that
the procedure of putting seal on bags is not full proof and needs
further modification by obtaining signatures of the parties on the
seals put in by ASI. The team leader Sri B.R. Mani, ASI
informed the two Observers that there is no objection in
obtaining signatures of the parties or their advocates on the
paper seal, put on the bags. Accordingly, the two Observers in
their note dated 6
th
May, 2003 requested ASI to proceed
accordingly.
3681. The next letter is by Sri Mohd. Hashim, one of the
3745
plaintiffs (Suit-4) on 16
th
May, 2003 against the nomenclature of
various artifacts recorded during excavation and says:
ªi ·i; ¬ ¤ i·n ¬i-n | ¬i l¬¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬ ni ·| ¬in| r ¬¬¬
¬¬ni· ¤ ·i ri ¬¬ni r | ¤¬ ¬¬| l---| ¬i - ¬· i ¤¬ ¬ ¬| - ¬
n·ii l¬¬| ¬·¤ ·-n ¬i ¤i¤i ¤i ¬i ; ¬iº ¬ ºi ri ¬¬ni r ·r l¬¬|
¤ºi , ·ii · , ri·i| ¬| -i n ·i| ri ¬¬n| r ¬¬ n º·n ¬ ni · ·i ¬l¤n
·r| ¬nni ¬ l·i·n ·ºi · ni ¬, ¬-«i, ¤i ·i - «i, - «i ¬-¬|ºi ¬il·
·ºii ¬º ;¬¬ «¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r |
-¸ -| ¬·i¸ º| · ¬-¤·- ¬i¬ ln ¬i ¬~¤·i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º -· ·¤ ¤i
¤ºi ¬| ¬i¬ ln ¬| ¬ ni · ·i ¬l¤n ·r| r |
¬n ¬|-i·nºi ¬ ¤ i·i ·i r l¬ l ·¤-i · ¬i º ·i -nl ·¬ ·
-¤· - ¬i ¬ l n ¤ i · n ri · ¤º r| ¬¬ ¬l ¤n ¬ ni ·| ¬i ·
¬| · ¤·-·i i ¬| ¬i ¤|
"Confusion can flow from the manner in which the
articles found from excavation, are named. It can be a
piece of burnt soil, a table chair and the leg or any other
part of some article. It can be the leg of any animal, horse,
elephant. It does not appear proper to immediately give it a
name and this can be avoided by describing it briefly as
round, long, wide, irregular, engraved etc.
It is not proper to name any broken, incomplete and
un-clear figurine, as a human or animal figurine only on
basis of imagination.
Hence, it is prayed that provision be introduced
according to rules to give proper names only when
actual and clear figurines are discovered."
3682. Apparently this complaint is mischievous and
worthless. The ASI experts identify such item/artifacts which
ordinary people cannot. If only clear items were to be named, no
expert would have needed.
3746
3683. A much more detailed complaint along with six
sketch diagrams is submitted on 21
st
May, 2003 by Sri Haji
Mahboob one of the defendant (Suit-3). It says that in Trench
G2, digging has been made in such a way so as to create
squarish structural base instead of a floor. This is tried to be
explained by six sketch diagrams out of which three mention
dates as 16
th
May, 2003, one 18
th
May, 2003 and two 20
th
May,
2003. The observers sought report from ASI officials. Sri
A.R.Siddiqui, who at that time was incharge of ASI team,
explained the matter whereupon following note put by two
Observers on 21
st
May, 2003:
"Enquiry was made from the incharge archeologist
Sri A.R.Siddiqui with regard to the objections submitted by
means of this application. He has given his views which are
as under-
1. All the members of A.S.I. Team are performing their
duties as per normal excavation rules and archeological
ethics.
With regard to Trench G2, here also, digging of the trench
has been done accordingly and each detail has been
mentioned on the daily report.
2. No violation of the archeological rules have been
done in any trench including G2.
3. The brickbats are still visible in the trench G2, which
can be examined any time.
4. Entire area of Trench G2 has not been excavated
hence objection in this regard is premature. Recording
and photography of exposed area has been done.
Photography of the entire trench will be done after the
3747
excavation is complete.
5. No enquiry has been made from Trench Supervisor
Mr. S.K.Sharma as alleged in para 6 of his objection.
No other view was expressed by Mr. A.R. Siddiqui with
regard to other points raised through this application."
3684. We have examined day to day register of ASI of 16
th
May, 2003 in respect to Trench No.G2. It says:
"Operation Area 290 x 66 cm E.W.
Digging closed at 48 cm
Floor 1 removed (3 cm in thickness); Floor-2 20 cm
in thickness also removed. Floor with brickbats paving
removed
Pottery: Red ware."
It also appears that a bone of 35 cm was found besides one
Glazed Tile fragment, terracotta. These proceedings are duly
signed besides others by Sri Haji Mahboob also on 16
th
May,
2003 itself.
3685. The 18
th
May, 2003 proceedings in day to day
register of Trench G2 mentions:
"Operation Area: 227 x 370 (EW) in the northern side
Digging closed at 63 cm.
Floor 2 removed. A pillar base on plan.
Pottery: Red ware."
3686. Similarly, on 20
th
May, 2003, the following is
mentioned in day to day register of Trench G2:
"Operation Area: Same
Digging closed at 79 cm in N & 91 cm in S. Floor of
lime surfa.... in Kankar in S at 82 cm & another floor in N
at 73 cm. Both the floors removed after recording and a
3748
brick paved floor noticed just below pottery; Red ware,
black slipped ware."
3687. The proceedings of 18
th
May, 2003 and 20
th
May,
2003 are also duly signed by Sri Haji Mahboob.
3688. We have also perused site note book no.45 wherein
recording of the proceedings pertaining to Trench G2 from 16
th
May, 2003 to 20
th
May, 2003 is noted at page 51 to 54. The
Trench Observer Sri S.K.Sharma has recorded the proceedings
as under:
"Date – 16-05-03
Trench No. - G2
Operation area- 300 cm (E.W.) x 200 cm (N.S.) in the
northern side of the Trench
Digging started – 00 cm (Surface)
Digging closed – 48 cms.
Excavation was carried out in 290 (EW) x 66 cm
(NS) area. A floor of lime surkhi with 3 cms of thickness
was on plan which was removed. Another floor 1B of
lime and surkhi was encountered and removed after
recording. A floor of brick bat was exposed. It might be
the packing material for the above floor. Below the brick
bat ashy earth was noticed with kankar and this layer (1)
was removed partially in the southern part only. A wall
already on the floor 1 was left. It divides the Trench in
two parts northern half and southern half. Digging
operation was undertaken only in southern part.
Pottery – red ware
Antiquity. A glazed tile fragment, T.C. - 34 cm with green
glaze.
3749
Date – 17-05-03
Trench No. - G2
Operation area- 290 cm (East West) x 66 cm North
South in the northern side of the Trench
Digging started – 48 cms
Digging closed – 57 cms.
The exposed area in the western side was cleared
where a cluster of brick bats with a small dressed stone
slab of 38 cm partially inside the western section
encountered. The layer which is ashy with kankars was
continuing.
Shell pieces were found during digging.
Pottery – red ware and are piece of glazed ware
No antiquity was found.
Date – 18-05-03
Trench No. - G2
Operation area- 227 cm (NS) x 370 cm (E.W.)
Digging started – 57 cms in southern side
00 in northern side
Digging closed – 63 cms. in northern and southern
More area was taken for digging in the northern side
of the trench. Digging was carried out in this side. A floor
of lime, surkhi and kankar was exposed at a depth of 43
cms. It was removed. Layer (1) with compact clay with
greyish colour was removed. A structure of brick bats and
rectagonal in shape was encountered during digging. It
has two calcreate stone kept side by side. It seems to be a
pillar base already exposed in many trenches. The base is
120 cm long. The calcrete stone measure 82 x 34 cm and
3750
second 61 x 10 cms with same part in the northern section.
The pillar base has four (4) courses of brickbats. Layer
(2) was partially removed.
Pottery – red ware
No antiquity was found in course of excavation.
"Date – 20-05-03
Trench No. - G2
Operation area- 227 (North South) cm x 370 cm
(East West)
Digging started – 63
Digging closed – 79 cms in the northern side 91 cms
in southern side.
Digging was carried out in the northern and
southern part of the trench leaving a section and earlier
wall in between Floor No. 3 of lime and surkhi with
kankars was exposed at a depth of 73 cms in the
northern side and at a depth of 82 cms in southern side.
There were photographed and removed. Floor was made of
lime and kankar in southern side while lime surkhi in
northern one. A brickbat paved floor like structure was
noticed below these floors. It may have been used as
packing material for the floors exposed earlier.
Pottery – red ware, black slipped ware."
3689. Thereafter, it appears that further digging in G2
Trench was made by Z.Ali, Assistant Archeologist and his notes
in Site Note Book 32 (Page 21 to 49) are for the period 17
th
July,
2003 to 2
nd
August, 2003.
3690. Mohd. Hashim Ansari submitted complaint dated
22
nd
May, 2003 to the Observer stating that Trench H4 and 5 on
1
3751
western side should further be excavated and white chabutara in
Trench L8, be also excavated otherwise muslims shall treat as if
the entire activities are for political gains and to harass the
muslims.
3691. After obtaining comments from Sri A.R.Siddiqui,
incharge/Deputy Superintendent, Archeology, the two observers
endorsed the following comments:
¬i¤l-n ¬ ¬···i - ¬| ¤o¬iºol¬· ·|¬|, ¤ ·iiº| ¬¤ ¬·i|·iºi
¤ ºin-·l·· ¬-ªi·· -·i¬ ¬i ¬l·i-n ¤ i·n l¬¤i n¤i| ¬·ri · ¤r
¬l·i-n l·¤i l¬÷
(·) - ¤ ¬ o H4, H5 ¬ ¤lº¤- nº¤ ¬| ·i¸l- ¬ ¬-ªi·· ¬ ¬ « ·i
- -i-¬i -i··|¤ ¬·¤ ·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬-·i l·¤iºi·i|· r | -i··|¤ ¬·¤
·¤i¤i¬¤ ¬ ¬i·ºi ¬ ¬·i|· ;· - ¤i - ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ ¬-¤il·n l¬¤i
¬i¤ ni| - ¤ ¬ o L8 - ·i| ¬i·º¤¬ni ri · ¤º ¬-ªi·· ¬i¤ l¬¤i
¬i· ni|
(z) ¬ ¬º|- ¤«¸ nº «i¬ - ¤ ¬| ªi ·i; ri ºr| r |
"The opinion of Sri A.R. Siddiqui, in-charge/Deputy
Superintendent Archaeologist Excavation Site, was
obtained in context with the objections. He has given the
opinion that:-
(1) The matter of excavation of the land in west of Trench
Nos. H4, H5 is pending before Hon'ble High Court. The
excavation in these trenches would be carried out under the
orders of Hon'ble High Court. The excavation in Trench
No. L8 would be carried out on requirement.
(2) The trench with concrete platform is being excavated."
3692. Next is a letter dated 28
th
May, 2003 of Sri Jilani
informing the observers that some information/photographs has
been leaked out to media by ASI people and therefore, the
member of the team, who has made such disclosure to media, be
3752
immediately removed. This allegation was denied by Sri
C.B.Mishra, Dy. Superintendent Archaeologist/Incharge ASI
team and he declined to take action against the member of ASI
since none is indulged in alleged activities. A note to this effect
has been made by Sri H.S.Dubey, H.J.S. (Observer) on 29
th
May,
2003 on the complaint itself.
3693. To the same effect is the complaint dated 28
th
May,
2003 submitted by Sri Jilani on the photographs of an inspection
alleged to have been found in Trench J3 whereupon again
comments obtained from Sri C.B.Mishra, Incharge Archeologist.
Thereafter Sri Dubey, Observer recorded the following note on
29
th
May, 2003:
"In the light of the objections submitted through this
application an enquiry was made from the Incharge
Archeologist excavation, Sri C.B.Mishra Dy. Supt.
Archeologist. Sri Mishra has given his views which are as
under-\
1. So far as photograph of the inscription of Trench
No.J3 is concerned no photograph of the inscription has
been prepared so far. Only print art of the digital camera
photography has been prepared and shown to the
nominees/parties present on 4.5.2003. Signatures of the
parties or their counsel have not been obtained on this
print out.
2. Photograph of the inscription published in the "Out-
Look" of June 2, 2003, issue is not the actual and accurate
photograph of the inscription found in J3, but it has been
prepared with the aid of computer and is dissimilar from
the point of letter formation and size of the stone, which
3753
is embeded in the aforesaid trench and till date has not
been taken out of the trench.
3. No screen was even used by the A.S.I. Team for
projecting the picture of the disputed inscription.
4. Photograph/estampage of the inscription published
in June 2, 2003 issue of 'Out Look' is not available with the
A.S.I. And no photograph/estampage has ever been
supplied by any member of A.S.I., to Sri Sandeepan Deb
Managing -Editor of the "Out-Look", or to any other
person."
3694. Complaint dated 28
th
May, 2003 was made by Sri
Jilani alleging entry of unauthorized persons at the excavation
site. In this regard Observer obtained comments from the
concerned Magistrate who was responsible to allow entry to
Authorized Persons only. After receiving his comments, the
Observer recorded as under:
"Information of this application was given to Authorised
person. An enquiry was also made from the manas
Bahawan Magistrate. Authorised persona nd Manas
Bhawan Magistrate informed that no entry-pass was issued
to Sri Sandipan Deb and he was not nominee of any party.
They also informed that Mr. Sandipan Deb was never
permitted by them to enter the excavation site and observe
the excavation work. Instructions were given to Authorised-
Person for not permitting entry of any one, how so ever
high he may be, in the excavation area, who is not covered
by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Same instructions
were also given to manas Bhawan Magistrate."
3695. Sri Jilani, vide letter dated 31
st
May, 2003, sought
3754
permission to watch excavation work of Trench F-3 disallowed
by security personnel on 30
th
May, 2003. We have seen the day
to day register of 30
th
May, 2003. At the end of the proceedings,
it contains signatures of four persons which included Haji
Mahboob, one of the defendant in Suit-3, who had also appeared
as witness, PW-2 on behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4). In fact on
29
th
May, 2003 also it appears that only four persons had signed
the day to day register, which included the names of Sri Haji
Mahboob and Mohd. Hashim Ansari, who are also plaintiffs in
Suit-4. It is thus incorrect that parties or their representatives
were not allowed to watch excavation work. It also cannot be
said that any alleged discrimination was made by the authorities
concerned for watching excavation work by the parties, their
nominees or their representatives. Further, digging of Trench F3
commenced on 30
th
May, 2003 being a new Trench, and day to
day register dated 30
th
May, 2003 contains the following note:
"Trench F3
New Trench (2.50 mt x 1.90 mt)"
3696. The above complaint was made on 31
st
May, 2003.
The proceedings of 31
st
May, 2003, as is evident from day to
day register, shows presence of seven persons, who have signed
proceedings on page 218 which included Sri Haji Mehboob as
well as Sri Jilani. The excavation observations pertaining to
Trench F3 on page 216 in day to day register dated 31
st
May,
2003 are as under:
"Operation area (2.50 mt x 2.50 mt) today extended
towards south and west. Digging started from .40 mt and
closed at the depth of 1.63 mt from Dmt Surface. A L shape
wall running west to east and South to North has been
3755
found made of Calerall, stone and sand stone block. The
lime plaster over the wall partly damaged is noticed.
Carved stone block contain two courses is also found in
the section facing south."
3697. The Observer Sri H.S.Dubey obtained comments
from the Authorized Person and made his observations as under:
"This objection was submitted at 11.10 a.m. today.
Before information of this application could be given to the
Authorised-Person, at about 12 Noon, message of
Authorised Person was received through Nodal-Officer-
Excavation site, RJB/BM, to the effect that Authorise-
Person has no objection in the observation and watching of
the excavation of Trench F3 or any other Trench by the
parties, their counsels and nominees. It was also informed
that no discrimination could be done on the basis of being
Hindu or Muslim, in regard to the watching of the
Trenches. Thus there is no necessity to take further step in
this regard. After receipt of this application at about 12.10
p.m. Parties, their counsels, nominees visited the Trench
F3. Thus the matter ends."
3698. The letter dated 7
th
June, 2003 is signed by several
persons including Sri Jilani requesting Observer to ensure
arrangement of waterproof Shamiyana over the entire area of
Trenches to protect from damage due to water pouring etc.
3699. A much detailed complaint has been filed on 7
th
June, 2003 by Sri Jilani, Sri A.A. Siddiqui, Sri Haji Mehboob
and Mohd. Hashim against the procedure followed by ASI Team
in excavation. Allegations are made that in certain trenches i.e.
G2 and ZF1, the brickbats randomly scattered over the
3756
excavated area were selectively removed by the Trench
Supervisor to create a visual impression that the brickbats were
confined to only a portion of the excavated area and that is how
the structural bases have been discovered. It is said that these
two trenches were monitored from 16
th
to 20
th
May, 2003 and
29
th
to 30
th
April, 2003 respectively. Lastly, it is complained that
this kind of activities may have been followed in certain other
trenches i.e. F10, F9, G9, F8, G8, F7, F6, G5, G2, F1, G1, H1,
ZG1 and ZH1. To appreciate the complaint properly, we
reproduce its contents hereunder:
"Excavation procedures, in general, comprise of two
aspects: a) diggiing in layers in trenches and b) recording
through drawing and photography. It is the accuracy and
transparency with which the above are done that will
eventually impact on the interpretation of what is
unearthed. This applies not only to structures but also to
artifacts. However, it is precisely the lack of accuracy and
transparency in relation to both structures and artifacts
that marks the ongoing excavations at Ayodhya.
The Progress Report up to April 24, 2003 submitted
by the ASI makes note of "squarish/circular structural
bases having brickbats at the base with two rectangular
blocks of calcrete stone over three or four courses of
brickbats ... the same type of structural base, with a
sandstone block at the top having encasing of sandstone
slabs/pieces, on its four sides, were found in the northern
side also." The excavation of two such structural bases was
closely monitored in Trenches G2 and ZF1.
A close observation of the excavation and recording
3757
was done of Trench G2 from May 16 to May 20, 2003. It
was found that brickbats randomly scattered over the entire
excavated area were selectively removed so as to create a
visual impression that the brickbats were confined to only a
portion of the excavated area. An examination of the
section even now reveals the fact that brickbats lay in the
entire layer below Floor 1. When Floor 2 was dug through,
once again a whole layer of brickbats was exposed which is
still visible on the floor of the trench. Similar observations
were made in Trench ZF1 from April 29 to April 30,
2003. Floor 1 was exposed at 40 cm bsl, Floor 2 at 57 cm
bsl and Floor 3 at 80 cm bsl, all floors being lime-surkhi
floors. Floor 1 was reached on April 29, 2003 that was cut
through on April 30, 2003 exposing a complete brickbat
layer. But during excavation, when a stone was observed as
protruding out of the brickbats, the brickbats in the area
immediately near the stone were left in place in a squarish
shape while the rest of the brickbats were thrown. On April
30, 2003, when Floor 2 was cut through, the same kind of
brickbat layer was exposed beneath it. This brickbat layer
is easily seen even today by observing the south-facing
section in Trench ZF1 (see Fig. 1).
A more accurate recording in both cases would have
shown lime plaster and mortar above the brickbats as these
are part of the same floor. Lime-surkhi floors appear to
have been laid over a combination of stone blocks and
brickbats. The stones are places at intervals, in some cases
quite randomly (as evident from F6-see Fig.2), with
intervening spaces filled with brickbats, mud and brick
3758
modules.
It is also apparent that this floor construction
technique continued through successive phases of floor
construction. At an early stage, at a depth of roughly 1.5m,
resting on a brick-jelly filling, is structural base
(henceforth sb) No. 5 in Trench F8 (see Fig.3). The same
construction of brickbats underlying calcrete blocks is
noticed here. This method of construction continued into
the last building levels as seen in the case of sb No. 13 and
also No. vi in Trench G2 (see Fig. 4). So also is the case in
Trench F6 where a rectangular sandstone slab, two
calcrete blocks, bits of broken floor and a smaller
sandstone piece in a tilted position were recovered lying in
the northwestern part of the trench just under the top floor.
Stones were also used as fillers and leveling mechanisms
(apart from forming part of foundation walls) as evident
from the sandstone blocks that extend over almost 4m in
the northern part of the trench (see Fig. 2).
These kinds of structural bases have been indentified
in Trenches F10, F9, G9, F8, F7, F6, G6, G5, G8, G2, F1,
G1, H1, ZF1, ZG1 and ZH1 (see No. 1-21 in Fig. 4). It
appears that in the above-mentioned trenches too,
brickbats were selectively removed in order to create an
inaccurate visual impression of circular/squarish structural
bases as revealed by a section study.
An examination of the sections of many of these
trenches reveals that brickbats underlay the floors just as
observed in the case of G2 and ZF1. At the same time, it
is disconcerting to note that brickbats have been removed
3759
from the sections of various trenches: the south-facing
section of G8/G9 baulk, north-, south- and east-facing
sections of F1, north- and south-facing sections of G1,
north-facing section H1 and east-facing section of the
H1/H2 baulk, south- and west-facing sections of ZF1,
east- facing section of G2 and east-facing section of F9.
This is surprising as the sections of lower levels below 2 m
bsl of Trenches F8, G7 and J5/J6 are left with large bricks
and potsherds protruding while in the upper levels (roughly
above 2 m bsl), brickbats are often pulled out or chipped
off level with the section. This is also the case with
human bones found at a depth of 1.30 m in Trench ZG1
that have been cut off in the section.
Inaccurate recording of artifacts recovered in
excavation is equally worrying as this will impact on the
eventual interpretation of the archaeological evidence.
More importantly, the dating of structures largely depends
on artifactual evidence found in a particular
stratigraphical context. If there are inaccuracies in the
reporting of artifacts, through selective collection, the
dating of structures will also be inaccurate. Methods of
taking depth measurements of structures and artifacts, for
example, are unsatisfactory as no spirit level is used to
ensure that the measuring tapes are absolutely horizontal.
Second, sorting is carelessly done for the excavation of the
upper levels (roughly 2 m and above); very often what is
picked up is what appears to strike the fancy of the
labourers. On May 2, 2003, in Trench ZH1, an area
covering 4 x 0.5 m up to a depth of 0.5 m was dug through
3760
and the soil thrown away without sorting. Bones from a
human skeleton too were mostly thrown away. This
situation contrasts strongly with the excavation of the
lower levels (below 2 m) where sieving was done for
Trenches J3 and G7. At the same time, it is intriguing to
note that very careful sorting and collection was done for
the upper levels of Trench G5.
There appears to have been a selective collection of
artifacts with the labour instructed to collect particularly
moulded bricks, sculpted stone fragments and terracotta
figurines. These last are all seen as contextually recovered
while others such as Islamic glazed pottery, glazed tiles
and animal bones are regarded as part of fill or dump or
from a pit, and in many cases are thrown away. In the most
recent such case (from May 24-27, 2003), the dump (about
1.5 m deep) over the top floor in Trench G5 yielded in a 2.5
x 4.0 m area 26 sandstone slabs and blocks that were
collected and individually photographed. In contrast, the
61 calcrete blocks and pieces, out of which 8 were dressed
blocks were all thrown away, save two blocks. The calcrete
blocks were significant pieces of evidence from the relative
quantity recovered as well as the plaster and mortar on
them that indicates that they were used in constructing the
walls of the Babri Masjid. Bricks that would also have been
used in the walls of the mosque were thrown away while
modern fresh bricks, without morter or plaster, (moulded
with the number ZKR33) had been collected.
Other inaccuracies can be pointed out taking as an
example just two days (May 21-22, 2003) out of over two
3761
months of excavation. Trench J1 was reported to have
been excavated up to a depth of 1.06 m on May 21, 2003
and 1.45 m on May 22, 2003. Yet, a glazed tile reported
from the trench on May 22, 2003 was said to have been
found at 0.65 m. The above was not reported as recovered
through section scraping. The depth recorded for F8 on
May 21, 2003, was 2.70 m and on May 22, 2003 at 2.65
m. With each subsequent dig, the depth of a trench is
supposed to increase while here the reverse seems to be
taking place suggesting inaccuracy in measurements.
These kinds of inaccuracies are also reflected in the
Progress Report (up to April 24, 2003) submitted to the
Lucknow Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. The physical
description of the structural bases, indicating uniformity in
their construction, is imprecise. In most of the structural
bases, brickbats are not placed in courses but are random,
in many cases in a tilted position. The height of brickbats
varies from 5-55 cm even within the same so-called
structural base. Brickbats do not only lie under the stone
but even over as in sb No. 11 and 12 in F7 and sb No. 2 in
F10. Diameters range from 1.10 m in sb No. 9 to 1.90 in sb
No. 12. What is also averred as two rectangular blocks in
each structural blocks is not always the case as seen in
Trench G1 where sb No. 19 has four pieces of broken and
undressed calcrete of varying shapes and sizes. Sizes of
stones vary in most of the structural bases; for example, sb
No. 15 has three large calcrete slabs (70 x 15 cm; 65 x 20
cm; one with width 20 cm, length unknown). Sb No. 11 in
F7 has two calcrete slabs (55 x 20 cm; 55 x 25 cm) and sb
3762
No. 10 has two sandstone blocks (55 x 25 cm; and a
partially visible piece, 55 x at least 10 cm). Sb No. 12 in F7
has five pieces, four somewhat rounded calcrete blocks and
a small sandstone piece in the center. Allthe larger pieces
are roughly 30 x 20 cm. In fact, the shape of structural
bases varies very often from square to rectangular to
circular to oval.
As mentioned earlier, the Report claims that similar
structural bases have been found in the northern area as
well. However, this is not the case. The structural bases
recovered in the north (No. a-j in Fig. 4) appear to have
been part of a separate much later period structure.
These cover at least an area of 10 x 10 m. In the northern
area are four clearly identifiable floors (including the top
floor) and these sandstone structural bases are embedded
in Floor 1 (see Fig. 1) and hence were contemporary with
Floor 1. It appears that these sandstone bases had a
calcrete block underneath. The impression being created by
the ASI is of a brickbat base under the calcrete block.
However, the brickbats underneath are only part of Floor 2
construction. Structural bases No. a-j are clearly differnt
from No. 1021 not only in physical description but also in
the sizes of the stones used. All the sandstones here
measure 46 x 43 x 9 cm. This kind of uniformity is not the
case with sb No. 1-21.
While No. a-j appear to be structural bases, No. 1-21
are clearly not so. In the case of No. a-j the dressed and
sometimes polished sandstone slab with the casing would
have been visible with the supporting calcrete block under
3763
the floor and hence the latter would not have been visible.
However, this does not appear to have been the case with
sb No. 1-21. In the case of sb No. 8 in Trench F8 (see Fig.
3) and No. 11 in F7, for example, brickbats overlie the
calcrete blocks and the whole is visible over the floor to
which they are supposed to be contemporary. It clearly
indicates that these cannot have been structural bases as
this portion (brickbats and calcrete blocks) should logically
have been under Floor 2. It also means that brickbat-cum-
calcrete construction is post-Floor 2. It also means that
brickbat-cum-calcrete construction is post-Floor 2.
Further, sb No. a-j have no brickbats between the
sandstone and the calcrete and this is not the case with sb
No. 1-21. The brickbats overlying the calcrete blocks in sb
No. 1-21 would have made the entire structure extremely
unstable and incapable of supporting any superstructure.
Brickbats would in fact get crushed under the weight of any
superstructure. Moreover, if sb No. 1-21 were supposed to
be structural bases, then surely those of circular shape
would have been made of better and wedge-shaped bricks.
Instead, what are found are brickbats very often of jagged
shape (see Fig. 5), obviously achieved while being carved
out during excavation.
That there is a problem with the interpretation of
these structural bases is apparent from Trenches E6 and
F6. What has been made out to be a structural base in
Trench F6 appears to have been, on subsequent excavation,
to be only part of an east-west running wall (see Figs. 6
and 7).
3764
It is requested that it may kindly be ensured that a
more accurate recording of structures, artifacts and depth
measurements, of structures and artifacts, be maintained
and the fictitious and manufactured structural bases being
sought to be created in Trenches F10, F9, G9, F8, G8, F7,
F6, G5, G2, F1, G1, H1, ZF1, ZG1 and ZH1 be kindly
not labeled as structural bases and that No. 1-21 be got
dismantled."
3700. Sri H.S.Dubey, Observer obtained comments from
Sri B.R. Mani, Superintendent Archeologist, who was incharge
of excavation site and his views have been noted down on 8
th
June, 2003 as under:
"The views of Incharge excavation site Sri B.R. Mani Supt.
Archeologist were taken on this objection. Sri Mani
expressed the following views:
1. There seems to be a calculated effort to defame the
A.S.I. And demoralize it's team member by making
statements through media and also through applications
like the present one submitted by one of the parties in the
case. A.S.I. being the premier institution of archaeology in
the country has always been famous for accuracy and
scientific approach in exploration and excavation work.
For the first time a large scale excavation in a time bound
manner in the presence of contesting parties, their
advocates and nominees has been assigned to the A.S.I. by
the Hon'ble Court for which two observers are also
appointed. Under such circumstances there cannot be any
lack of transparency and accuracy in relation to both
structure and artifacts in digging and recording by the most
3765
experienced and expert excavators of the Country.
2. It is totally wrong to say that brickbats were
selectively removed to create in accurate visual impression
on structural bases. On the other hand in loose and fallen
brickbats were removed and well laid brickbats were left at
their position while digging which have given
circular/squarish shapes of pillar bases in several courses,
often topped by huge stone blocks.
3. It is not understood that the allegation is made
about dating of structures when the final report itself
has not yet been released. The recording of artifacts is
perfect and as per approved principles of excavation, the
depth are being taken for which each and every trench
Supervisor is using Spirit-levels which are provided to
them, mostly attached with their tapes, which is perhaps
not noticed by the parties putting allegations.
4. The collection of artifacts having decoration,
designs, sculpted stone fragments, terracotta figurines,
glazed tiles etc. are being made to suggest the concerned
evidence. The feat usless material of universal type of not
selected as archaeology finds and not sealed.
5. The materials found are being preserved after
recording their find either in a particular layer or in dump
or fill, in respective of their nature. They may be glazed
pottery or tiles or animal bones, particularly the last one
which are usually found in pits and not as groves. These
materials are being photographed, their drawing are being
prepared and many of them being antiquities are sealed
besides bones and glazed tiles. Nothing of this sort is
3766
thrown away. Construction pattern of Babri Masjid is
known very well for which collection of evidence is not
required. Modern bricks have not been collected and
nothing of archaeological importance has been thrown
away.
6. It is again informed that no structural base has been
created which has been observed by everyone and
structural remains are being brought to life and cannot be
dismantled as desired by the party concerned as it is
against the principles of excavation and archaeological
norms.
No other view was expressed by Sri Mani, with regard to
this objection."
3701. We have also examined the above complaint from
the record. The excavation of Tren