27. 2 (astacakra navadvara devanam pur-Ayodhya) tasyam
hiranyayah kosah svargo loko Jyotisavrtah II), V. 60. 24-25
and 70. 2 (capital of king Rtuparna and of Rama), Br. IV.
40. 91. Ag. 109. 24 (Ayodya papanasan). According to
Ram, I. 5. 5-7 the country of Kosala had Sarayu flowing
through it; Ayodhya, 12 yojanas long and three broad, was
kosala capital founded by Manu. Kosala was one of the 16
mahajanapadas of India in ancient times (vide Anguttara
Nikaya, vol. IV. p. 252). Later on, Kosala was divided into
two, viz. Uttara Kosala and Daksina Kosala divided by the
Sarju or Ghagra river. The Raghuvamsa holds Ayodhya to
be capital of Uttarakosala (VI. 71 and IX. 1). Vide also Va.
88. 20 ff. For a long line of kings of Ayodhya from Iksvaku
and P. VI. 208. 46-47 (for Daksina Kosala and Uttara
Kosala). Saketa is generally identified with Ayodhya. Vide
T.P. p. 496 (gives its boundaries from SK) and under
Saketa. Dr. B.C. Law contributes a well documented and
learned paper on 'Ayodhya' to J. of the Ganganath Jha R.
Society, vol. I, pp. 423-443.”
4308. Sri Mishra submits that Ayodhya and its relation
with Lord Rama as his place of birth is well recognised and
mentioned in ancient Hindu Literature. The existence of “Vedi”
at the disputed place is mentioned by Father Joseph
Tieffenthaler in his work, translated in French titled as
“Description Historique Et Geographique Del'inde” first
published in 1787 by Jean Bernoulli.
4309. He points out that “Sanskrit Hindi Kosh” written
by Waman Shivram Apte, first published in 1966 (reprinted in
1993) at page 1139 shows that “Vedi” in Sanskrit is known as
“sthandilam” and he also placed reliance on “Sanskrit English
Dictionary” by Sir Monier Williams (first published in 1899)
(reprinted in 1997) (by Motilal Banarasidass) which defines
“sthandila” as “an open unoccupied piece of ground, bare
ground, an open field, a piece of open ground (levelled, squared,
and prepared for a sacrifice)”.
4310. Referring to “Narsingh-Puranam” published by
Geeta Press, Gorakhpur 1999 (Samvat 2056), Adhyaya 62 at
page 263 he submits that “sthandil” and “idols” are also
worshipped as God by Hindus. He placed the Verse No. 6 which
reads in Sanskrit as under:
“¬ni ¬·i i r ·¤ ¬¸ ¤ -·ilº·¬ ¤ ln-i¬ ¤|
¤n ·i ¤ rº ¬-¤n¤ · - l·l·i -- n- ||
;¬l¬¤ ¬l··, ¬¸ ¤ , r ·¤, -·ilº·¬ (· ·|) ¬iº ¤ ln·ii÷;· ¬·i|
¬i·iiºi - ·in·i· ¬i l·l·i¤¸ · ¬ ¤¸ ¬· - l·¤i ,iºi «ni¤i n¤i r |
·in·i· ¬· -¤ r , ¬n -·ilº·¬ ¬i º ¤ ln-i¬i - ·i| ·in·-·¤¸ ¬· ¬-n-
r |”
"The saints have ordained for due worship of God in
all these bases-fire, the Sun, heart, altar and idol. God is
omnipresent; so, it is also a good thing to worship God as
represented in altars and idols." (E.T.C.)
4311. Before proceeding further lest us have some other
history books relied on by learned counsel of the parties.
4312. Sri R.L. Verma, in order to show that Lord Rama
was born at the site in dispute placed before us firstly the
Kalhana's Rajatarangini-A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir
(Book No. 63) translated with an introduction, commentary and
appendices by M.A. Stein. The book was first published in 1900
AD in London and reprinted in Delhi in 1961. We had before us
the reprint of 1989 cited from the aforesaid book para 125, 3rd
book, page 83 which reads as under:
"125. At that period there lived at Ujjayini as the sole
sovereign of the world the glorious Vikramaditya who
(also) bore the second name of Harsa."
4313. From the note given in respect to para 125 at the
bottom he said that Vikramaditya referred to therein was the
same within whose period Kalidasa lived and composed his
legendary works. He said that the Vikramaditya referred to in
Kalhana's Chronicle was the same king who reconstructed
Ayodhya and got 360 temples constructed thereat. However,
despite of our deepest thought and study of the above work we
fail to understand as to how reference to the above book gives
any clue about the birthplace of Lord Rama or whether there
exist temple at the disputed site before construction of the
disputed structure in 1528 AD. Despite of repeated query, Sri
Verma could not throw any light on the question and simply said
that his attempt is to clarify the fact that the Vikramaditya
referred to in Kalhana's Rajatarangini, 3rd Book, para 125 was
the same Vikramaditya who was mentioned by Hiuen-tsiang as
successor of Siladitya who ruled about 580 AD in Malwa.
Meaning thereby king Vikramaditya ruled at Ujjayini in the first
half of the 6th Century and Kalidasa was his contemporary.
4314. Next he cited English translation of the
Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa by M.R. Kale-reprinted in Delhi in
1972, 1991 and 1997 by Motilal Banarasi Dass Publishers Pvt.
Ltd. Delhi (Book No. 48). He placed Chapter 'Introduction' at
page 19 which contains story of King Dasratha and Lord Rama
and reads as under:
"CANTO IX. After his father, Dasaratha rules over
Ayodhya as nobly as his predecessors. His greatness was
such that even Indra himself on occasions asked his
assistance in his own wars. Once, having enjoyed all the
pleasures of the spring season with its attendant festivities,
he plans a long hunting trip. He spends several days in that
engrossing and delightful sport. One morning he starts
after a deer, alone and without followers. In his pursuit he
comes to the river Tamasa, where he hears the noise of a
pot being filled with water. He mistakes it for the trumpet of
a wild elephant, and discharges an arrow in that direction,
aiming at the sound only, as he could not see the mark. As
a matter of fact a young ascetic-boy was filling his jar
there; and the arrow hit him fatally. His parents, who were
blind, were at hand. The King, who was horrified at what
he had unwillingly done, related to them what had
happened. As the boy died, his sorrow-stricken father
cursed the King as the author of his bereavement, with the
words: "You, too, like me, shall die, in your old age,
grieving for your son." The king had no son then; so he
received the curse as a sort of qualified blessing, since it
meant that at any rate a son was bound to be born to him
before he died. The aged couple burned themselves on the
funeral pyre of their son, and Dasaratha returned to his
city, full of grief not unmixed with a little anticipatory joy
at the prospect of a son.
CANTO X. Some ten thousand years pass, but still
Dasaratha remains without the expected son. At last, holy
sages proceed to perform on his behalf a special kind of
sacrifice intended to bring about the birth of a son. Now at
about this time it so happens that the gods, who were
continually harassed and persecuted by the dreaded and
powerful demon Ravana, carry their tale of grievances to
their lord Vishnu, who tells them how, by virtue of a boon
given by Brahma, Ravana was immune from death at the
hands of all except human beings, whom he despised and
hence had left out of the boon. Vishnu, therefore, promises
that he would be born as a man, as a son of King
Dasaratha of Ayodhya, and that at his hands Ravana would
meet death.-Now, out of the fire of that sacrifice which was
being performed for Dasaratha, there arises a being who
gives consecrated food (charu) to the King, who gives it to
his three wives. Into this food Vishnu had entered
spiritually, and thus Dasaratha’s wives, who conceive
afterwards, all bear sons who are partial incarnations
(avataras) of Vishnu. Rama was the eldest of them, born of
Kausalya. Of Kaikeyi was born Bharata, and of Sumitra
were born the twins, Lakshmana and Satrughna.
CANTO XII. King Dasaratha, who had grown old ad
was nearing his end, declares his intention to set Rama on
the throne, when Kaikeyi contrives, by means of two boons
which her husband had promised her, to have Rama exiled
for fourteen years and to have her son Bharata installed
King. Rama quite willingly undertakes to go to the forest,
ad the old King, grieving at being separated from his
beloved son, dies heart-broken, thus fulfilling the old man’s
curse-(Canto IX). Bharata declines to accept the
sovereignty earned by intrigue, and after vainly trying to
persuade Rama to come back, himself remains a sort of
exile at Nandigrama, and from that place he rules the
kingdom as Rama’s representative. In his journey to the
forest Rama is accompanied by Sita and Lakshmana. He
there kills Viradha, Dushana, Khara, and other demons, the
news of whose death is carried to Ravana in Lanka by his
sister Surpanakha, whom Lakshmana had disfigured.
Ravana comes and carries off Sita in Rama’s absence.
Rama makes friends with Sugriva, the monkey-Chief, and
through his retainer Maruti discovers the whereabouts of
Sita. Building a bridge over the sea, Rama with Sugriva’s
army crosses into Lanka, and is engaged in a series of
battles with the hosts of Ravana, whose death he finally
accomplishes. Rama recovers Sita, gives Ravana’s kingdom
to his brother Vibhishana, and starts back for Ayodhya in
the well-known aerial car, Pushpaka, along with Sugriva
and Vibhishana and their armies.
CANTO XIII. The journey of Rama from Lanka to
Ayodhya by air is here described. Rama points out to sita
the various objects and places of interest on the way,
including, in order, Janasthana, the mountain Malyavat,
the lake Pampa, the Godavari, Panchavati, the dwelling-
places of the sages Agastya Satakarni and Sarabhanga, the
mountain Chitrakuta, the stream Mandakini, the rivers
Ganga and Yamuna, and lastly the Sarayu. After they had
seen the Sarayu they observe Bharata advancing with an
army to welcome the home-coming king. Rama gets down
from the Pushpaka, and the meeting of the brothers is
touchingly described. Then Rama again gets into the car
and arrives at last in a garden outside Ayodhya, his capital.
CANTO XIV. There in the garden Rama and
Lakshmana see their mothers who greet them with joy.
Rama is then formally crowned King of Ayodhya with due
pomp and ceremony. He then gives the armies of Sugriva
and Vibhishana leave to depart, and restores Pushpaka to
its original rightful owner, Kubera. In course of time Sita
shows signs of pregnancy. She expresses a desire again to
visit the once-familiar regions along the banks of the
Gangas. While Rama promises her that, a scandal reaches
his ear about his unquestioning acceptance of Sita after her
residence in a stranger’s house for a long time. A strong
sense of duty towards his subjects both as the dispenser of
law and justice ad the up-holder of social order compels
him to abandon Sita as a concession to this scandal,
although he knew her to be pure and innocent. He,
therefore, orders Lakshmana to take Sita away and leave
her on the banks of the Ganges near the hermitage of
Valmiki who, he thinks, would find her and take due care of
her. Lakshmana very reluctantly performs this task; and
when Sita knows why she is abandoned, she cries loud and
long, though she would not blame Rama so much as she
blamed herself. Valmiki takes her to his hermitage where
afterwards in due time she gives birth to twins. Rama
continues to discharge his kingly duties as usual, but
without marrying again.”
4315. Our very sincere reading of the above passages leads
us nowhere to find any support or help for adjudication of the
issues as quoted above with regard to the site of birth of Lord
Rama. He also placed before us page 130 Sl. 31 of Canto V of
the above book to show that the name of Ayodhya is mentioned
in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa. But even that does not help us to
march even a single step either in support or otherwise on the
aforesaid issues. When we made query from the learned counsel
he simply says that the Kalidasa, whose existence relate back to
the 6th Century (first half of 6th Century), has referred to
Ayodhya, King Dasarath and Lord Rama which he wanted to
show to the Court.
4316. With due respect to the learned counsel, we find that
the learned counsel for the Muslim parties have already made
their statement under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. on 22.04.2009 that
neither they dispute that Lord Rama existed nor that he was born
in Ayodhya nor that the present Ayodhya is the same as is
believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama for the purpose of
present case. We do not find any reason as to why the aforesaid
literary work of legendary Sanskrit Poet of 6th Century has been
relied by Sri Verma though it throws no light on the issues
which are up for adjudication. We may also refer here that in the
Sanskrit verse of Raghuvamsa the word "Ayodhya" as such has
not been used but it is the word "Saket" as is evident from the
"¬·-¤ ¬i ¬ nl··il¬·-ni ,i··¤·i¸ ni-l·i·· ·i¬--·i |
n ª¤ · ¤il·i¬l·-¤ ri ¬·i| · ¤i ¬l·i ¬i-i·l·i¬¤ ·º¤ ||"
4317. Since the great scholar has dealt with the story of
Solar Kings i.e., the Kings of the Race of Raghu which rule with
their capital at Ayodhya, the word "Saket" has been read as
Ayodhya in the aforesaid work and translation of Sri Kalidasa.
We also noticed from the very introduction part of the author
where he has discussed the matter to ascertain the date of
Kalidasa and he himself is found that it is a vexed question
which is yet to be finally settled. According to the author Sri
M.R. Kale the period of Kalidasa swing between 1st Century
B.C. to 7th Century B.C. but has expressed his views in favour
of the existence of Kalidasa in the first half of the first century
B.C. for which besides other he has given the following reasons:
"Now, Kalidasa was an original poet borrowing his
subjects from Valmiki and other ancient authors;
Asvaghosha was more a philosopher than a poet, and may,
with greater probability, be supposed to have borrowed his
ideas from Kalidasa, The date of Asvaghosha is given as 78
A.D.; and if we suppose him to have borrowed from
Kalidasa, the latter will have to be placed earlier than 78
A.D. And in this view Dr. Peterson also concurs when he
says 'Kalidasa stands near the beginning of the Christian
era, if, indeed, he does not overtop it.”
4318. For the purpose of the dispute in the case in hand,
however, it is not necessary for us to go into all these aspects for
the reason that whether Kalidasa existed in the first century B.C.
or in 7th Century B.C. it would make no difference since it has
not been disputed by the other side that the existence of Lord
Rama as per belief of Hindus is much more older. The reference
of Lord Rama in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa (supra) has also not
been disputed by the other side. However, since the said literary
work gives no indication to adjudicate the issue regarding the
exact place of birth of Lord Rama in Ayodhya city as also about
the existence of a Hindu temple and in particular temple of Lord
Rama in 16th Century at the disputed site, we find reference to
the said book and reliance thereon is futile and misconceived.
4319. The next reference book is (Book No. 22) "SI-YU-
KI", Buddhist Records of the Western World (hereinafter
referred to as "Si-Yu-Ki"), translated from Chinese of Hiuen
Tsiang (A.D. 629) by Samuel Beal two volumes (bound in one),
first published in 1884 and reprinted in 1995 published by Low
Price Publications (A Division of D.K. Publishers Distributors
(P) Ltd., Delhi. Sri Verma placed before us Book 10 page 206
under the title "Kong-U-To" (Konyodha) which reads as under:
This kingdom is about 1000 li in circuit; the capital is
20 li round. It borders on a bay (angle of the sea). The
ranges of mountains are high and precipitous. The ground
is low and moist. It is regularly cultivated and productive.
The temperature is hot, the disposition of the people brave
and impulsive. The men are tall of stature and black
complexioned and dirty. They have some degree of
politeness and are tolerably honest. With respect to their
written characters, they are the same as those of Mid-India,
but their language and mode of pronunciation are quite
different. They greatly respect the teaching of heretics and
do not believe in the law of Buddha. There are some
hundred Deva temples, and there are perhaps 10,000
unbelievers of different sects.
Within the limits of this country there are several tens
of small towns which border on the mountains and are built
contiguous to the sea. The cities themselves are strong and
high; the soldiers are brave and daring; they rule by force
the neighbouring provinces, so that no one can resist them.
This country, bordering on the sea, abounds in may rare
and valuable articles. They use cowrie shells and pearls in
commercial transactions. The great greenish-blue elephant
comes from this country. They harness it to their
conveyances and make very long journeys.
From this going south-west, we enter a vast desert,
jungle, and forests, the trees of which mounts to heaven and
hide the sun. Going 1400 or 1500 li, we come to the
country of Kie-ling-kia (Kalinga)."
4320. He submitted that in 629 AD when the Hiuen Tsiang
visited India, he has noticed in his Travellers Account existence
of 100 of Deva Temples thereat. However, from the very
narration of the passages relied by him it appears to us that it did
not refer to Ayodhya but to a city bordering on the sea near
Kalinga. Meaning thereby a place somewhere in the State of
Orissa in presenti. From the foot note in the aforesaid book this
appear to be a view expressed by Cunningham according to him
this place must be Ganjam. The said foot note being of some use
is reproduced as under:
"Cunningham supposes this place to be Ganjam. The
origin of the name Ganjam is not known. When Hiuen
Tsiang returned to Magadha he found that
Harshavardhana had just returned from a successful
expedition against the king of Ganjam. Cunningham thinks
that Ganjam was then annexed to the province of Orissa
(Robert Sewell, Lists, Vol. i, p.2). Mr. Fergusson remarks
that "Khordhagar in the neighbourhood of Bhuvaneswar is
just 170 miles south-west from Midnapur, and it is
impossible to mistake the Chilka Lake as the great bay and
the two seas of the text. Perhaps Hiuen Tsiang stopped here
to visit the caves in the Khandagiri and Udayagiri hills."
4321. When confronted with the said foot note as also
relied on passages mentioning that the country is bordering on
the sea and contiguous to the sea meaning thereby it cannot be
referable to Ayodhya since there is no sea up to an act which
distance of Ayodhya he could not dispute the same.
4322. However, we find that in above translation "Si-Yu-
Ki (supra), Book-V page 225 deals with 'O-YU-T'O (Ayodhya)
but in the entire report there is no mention about Lord Rama or
his place of birth. The only two lines with respect the temples of
other religion are as under:
"There are ten Deva temples; heretics of different
schools are found in them, but few in number."
4323. The rest of the report is only in respect to Boddha
legend and the religious places of Buddhist. It, however, cannot
be disputed that according to the said report there used to be a
large number of Buddhist religious places at Ayodhya, when
Hiuen Tsiang visited. He appears to be not a general traveller or
historian but from the introductory chapter of the above book
where the detail of Hiuen Tsiang is given, we find that Hiuen
Tsiang born in the year 603 AD at Ch'in Liu in the province of
Ho-nan in China. One of his brother was a Monk belonging to
the Shing-tu temple and Hiuen Tsiang was ordained in the
community of Monk at the age of 13 years. After having fully
ordained as Bhikshu or priest, he began to travel through the
provinces in search of the best instructor, he could get and so
came at length to Chang'an. Here he was strained up by the
recollection of Fa-hian and Chi-yen and resolved to go to
western region to question the sages on points that troubled his
mind. His travelogue, therefore, contains mostly the details of
Buddhist religion i.e. religious places of importance etc. and
throw virtually no light on the other local conditions etc.
particularly in reference to Ayodhya though in respect to some
other places there are some details about the people, there social
and political conditions etc. We need not to go further in these
aspects of the matter since the issue before us is limited i.e.
about the disputed site at Ayodhya and we are not expected to
travel in the history, geography etc. of other places of different
period since neither it germane to the issues nor we should
travel beyond what is necessary for the proper adjudication of
the case.
4324. Sri Verma also placed reliance on page 85, Book-III
of Hiuen Tsiang "Life of Hiuen-Tsiang" by Shaman Hwui Li,
first published in 1911 at London, reprinted in 2001 by Low
Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 20). He placed reliance and
read the following passages from pages 85 to 90 which reads as
“From Ayodhya to Hiranyaparvata.
From this, going 600 li or so to the south-east and crossing
the Ganges, on the south of the river we come to the
kingdom of ‘O-yu-to (Ayodhya). There are here about
one hundred temples with several thousand priests, who
study both the Small and the Great Vehicle.
In the capital city is an old Sangharama. Here the
Bodhisattva Vasubandhu composed his treatises on the
Great and Little Vehicle, and preached for the good of the
North-west of the city four or five li, and by the side
of the river Gages, is a great Sangharama, in which is a
Stupa about 200 feet high. This was built by Asoka raja on
the spot where Buddha in old days delivered the Law for
three months.
By the side of this Stupa is a spot where the four
Buddhas of the past age walked for exercise.
To the south-west of the city five or six li, is an old
Sangharama; this is the place where Asangha Bodhisattva
explained the Law. The Bodhisattva, during the night,
ascended to the Tusita heaven, and received from Maitreya
Bodhisattva the Yoga-sastra, the Alamkara-Mahayana-
sastra, and the Madhyanta-vibhangha-sastra. The next day
he descended from the heaven, and declared the Law for
the sake of the community.
Asangha, who is also called Wu-cho, was a man of
Gandhara. He was born in the middle of the thousand
years following the Nirvana of Buddha, and became a
disciple in the school of the Mahisasakas. Afterwards he
joined the school of the Great Vehicle. His brother,
Vasubandhu, became a disciple in the school of the
Sarvastivadins, but afterwards joined the Great Vehicle.
Both these brothers were, in point of endowments, vessels
full of wisdom and holiness. Asangha possessed vast ability
in composition, and wrote many sastras, in explanation of,
and comment on, the Great Vehicle. He was the principal
composer of sastras in India. For example, he wrote the
Mahayana-samparigraha-sastra, the Prakaranaryavacha-
sastra-karika, the Abhidharma sastra, the Vidyamatra-
sastra, the Kosha-sastra, and others.
The Master of the Law left the kingdom of Ayodhya,
having paid reverence to the sacred traces, and following
the course of the river Ganges, proceeded eastward, being
on board a vessel with about eighty other fellow-
passengers. He wished to reach the kingdom of ‘O-ye-mu-
khi (Hayamukha). After going about a hundred li, both
banks of the river were shrouded by the thick foliage of an
Asoka forest, and amid these trees on either bank were
concealed some ten pirate boats. Then these boats,
propelled by oars, all at once burst forth into the
midstream. Some of those in the ship, terrified at the sight,
cast themselves into the river, whilst the pirates, taking the
ship in tow, brought it to the bank. They then ordered the
men to take off their clothes, and searched them in quest of
jewels and precious stones.
Now these pirates pay worship to Durga, a spirit of
heaven, and every year during the autumn, they look out
for a man of good form and comely features, whom they
kill, and offer his flesh and blood in sacrifice to their
divinity, to procure good fortune. Seeing that the Master of
the Law was suitable for their purpose, both in respect of
his distinguished bearing and his bodily strength and
appearance, they exchanged joyful glances, and said, “We
were letting the season for sacrificing to our god pass by,
because we could not find a suitable person for it, but now
this Sraman is of noble form and pleasing features—let us
kill him as a sacrifice, and we shall gain certain good
The Master of Law replied, “If this poor and defiled
body of mine is indeed suitable for the purpose of the
sacrifice you propose, I, in truth, dare not grudge (the
offering), but as my intention in coming from a distance
was to pay reverence to the image of Bodhi and the
Gridhrakuta Mountain, and to inquire as to the character
of the Sacred Books and the Law (or, the Law of the Sacred
Books), and as this purpose has not yet been accomplished,
if you, my noble benefactors (danapatis) kill this body of
mine, I fear it will bring you misfortune (instead of good
Moreover, his fellow-passengers all, with one voice,
asked them to spare him, and some even prayed to be
allowed to die in his stead; but the pirates would not
Then the captain of the gang dispatched some men
with water to arrange the ground, and to erect in the midst
of the flowering grove an altar besmeared with mud. He
then commanded two of the company to take their drawn
knives ad to bind the Master of the Law upon the altar. And
now, when they were about to use their knives for the
purpose of sacrificing him, the master of the Law showed
no sign of fear in his face, insomuch that all the pirates
were moved to astonishment.
When he saw there was no escape, however, he spoke
to the pirates and begged them to allow him a little time
and not to crowd round him painfully—but “let me”, he
said, “with a joyous mind, take my departure.”
Then the Master of the Law, with an individual mind
bent on the courts of Tusita heaven, thought on the
Bodhisattva Maitreya, and earnestly prayed to be born in
that place, that he might pay reverence and his religious
offerings (to the Bodhisattva), and receive from him the
Yogachariya-bhumi-sastra, and listen to the sound of the
excellent Law. Then having perfected himself throughout in
wisdom, "let me return (he prayed) and be born here below,
that I may instruct and convert these men, and cause them
to practise themselves in doing good and to give up their
evil deeds, and thus by diffusing, far and wide, the benefits
of religion, to give rest to all the world."
Then the Mater of Law, paying worship to the
Buddhas of the ten regions, collected his mind into perfect
composure, and sitting still, fixed his thoughts on Maitreya
without any interruption. Thus he seemed in his innermost
thoughts as if he rose up above Mount Sumeru and
successively ascending one, two, three heavens, he gazed
upon the courts of Tusita, the place of Maitreya, with its
excellently precious adornments (galleries) and the
multitude of devas surrounding him on every side. At this
time his body and soul were ravished with joy, he knew
nothing of the altar on which he was, he had no
recollection of the robbers. And now, whilst hims fellow
passengers gave way to cries and tears, suddenly a black
tempest (typhoon) arose from the four quarters of heaven,
smiting down the trees; clouds of sand flew on every side,
and the lashing waves of the river tossed the boats to and
fro. The robbers and their company, greatly terrified, asked
the companions of the Master, "Whence comes this
Sraman?--what is his name and title? and so on. They,
answering, said: "He comes from the country of China--he
is the renowned person who is in search of the Law; if you,
my masters, kill him, your guilt will be immeasurable; look
now and see the winds and waves--these are but indications
of the anger of the spirits of heaven: haste then to repent!"
The pirates then, filled with fear, urged each other to
repentance and confession of their fault; then with bowed
heads they made profound obeisance (or, they embraced
the religion of Buddha). And now one of the robbers
accidentally touching the Master of the Law with his hand
(or, touching the hand of the Master of the Law), he opened
his eyes and said to the robber, "Has the hour come?" The
robber answered: "We dare not hurt the Master! we pray
you accept our repentance!" the Master then accepted their
reverence and confession of faults, and then preached to
them about the future punishment in Avichi of those who
gave themselves up to murder, robbery, and impious
sacrifices, and other evil deeds. "How would you then risk
the woes of the long-during asankheya of ages for the sake
of this body of yours, which is but in point of time as the
lightning flash of the dew of the morning?"
The robbers then bowed their heads and confessed
their faults, saying: "We indeed, individually, were
perverted by a foolish tone of mind, and led to do what we
ought not to do, and to sacrifice (pay religious rites) to
what we ought not to sacrifice. If we had not met with the
Master--whose religious merit has moved even the
mysterious powers of heaven--how should we ever have
been led to repentance? And now we ask to give up from
the present day these evil ways of ours, and we pray the
Master to be witness to our sincerity!"
On this they each encouraged one another to deeds
of amendment, and collecting their various instruments of
robbery together, they cast them into the river, and
whatever clothes or private property they had taken, they
restored these to their rightful owners, and then they took
on themselves the five obligations of a laybeliever.
Then the winds and the floods subsided, and the
pirates were all overcome with joy, and bowed their heads
in adoration. His fellow voyagers, moreover, were filled
with surprise and admiration more than ever, whilst those
present and absent who heard of the event would not help
exclaiming with wonder at the occurrence: "If it were not
for the power of his high resolve in seeking for the Law,
this could not have come to pass!"
From this, going east about 300 li, after crossing the
Ganges to the north side, we come to 'O-ye-muh-khi
From this, going south-east 700 li or so, after
crossing to the sought side of the Ganges, on the north of
the River Jumna, we come to the country of Prayaga."
4325. However, having gone through the entire passages
and the aforesaid work, we find that in no way it helps us in
deciding the issues up for consideration namely as to whether
Lord Rama was born at the disputed site and whether there
existed any temple at the time when the mosque was constructed
i.e. in 1528 AD at the disputed site. The entire passage from the
book read by Sri Verma nowhere mention at all either about
birthplace of Lord Rama or his temple in Ayodhya. In fact it
could not discern any reason as to why Sri Verma placed before
us and read for days together the above books without showing
as to how they are helpful and gives us some material to find out
the solution and answer to the issues which are up for
4326. Existence of temple at the site in dispute, its
destruction and construction of mosque has also been mentioned
in the book published by Archaeological Survey of India “The
Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In The North-
Western Provinces And Oudh” by A. Fuhrer (supra) (Book
No.94) (See Ex.9 Suit-5 Register 20 Pages 67-73). The matter
pertaining to Ayodhya has been dealt with from paged 295 to
300 of the aforesaid book. We find it appropriate to reproduce
the contents thereof as under:
“1. AJUDHYA, famous place of pilgrimage, in pargana
Haveli Audh of tahsil Faizabad, on the right bank of the
river Ghaghra, lat. 26º-47' N., long. 82º-15' E., two miles
east of head-quarters, is the ancient city of Ayodhya,
described in the Ramayana as situated on the bank of the
Sarayu, or Sarju river. It is said to have been 12 yojanas,
or nearly 100 miles in circumference, for which we should
probably read 12 kos, or 24 miles,-an extent which the old
city with all its gardens might once possibly have covered.
The distance from the Guptar Ghat on the west to the Ram
Ghat on the east is just six miles in a direct line; and if we
suppose that the city with its suburbs and gardens formerly
occupied the whole intervening space to a depth of two
miles, its circuit would have agreed exactly with the
smaller measurement of 12 kos. At the present day the
people point to Ram Ghat and Guptar Ghat as the eastern
and western boundaries of the old city, and the southern
boundary they extend to Bharatkund near Bhadarsa, a
distance of six kos. But as these limits include all places of
pilgrimage, it would seem that the people consider them to
have been formerly inside the city, which was certainly not
the case. In the Ain-i-Akbari the old city is said to have
measured 148 kos in length by 36 kos in breadth, or in
other words, it covered the whole province of Audh to the
south of the Ghaghra river. The origin of the larger number
is obvious. The 12 yojanas of the Ramayana, which are
equal to 48 kos, being considered too small for the great
city of Ramachandra, the Brahmanas simply added 100 kos
to make the size tally with their own extravagant notions.
The present city of Ayodhya, which is confined to the north-
east corner of the old site, is just two miles in length by
about three-quarters of a mile in breadth; but not one-half
of this extent is occupied by buildings, and the whole place
wears a look of decay. There are no high mounds of ruins
covered with broken statues and sculptured pillars, such as
mark the sites of other ancient cities, but only a low
irregular mass of rubbish heaps, from which all the bricks
have been excavated for the houses of the neighbouring
town of Faizabad. This Musalman city, which is two miles
and a half in length by one mile in breadth, is built chiefly
of materials extracted from the ruins of Ayodhya. The two
cities together occupy an area of nearly six square miles,
or just about one-half of the probable size of the ancient
capital of Rama.
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
covered, and erected 360 temples on the spots sanctified by
the extraordinary actions of Rama. The Vikramaditya of
this story, General Cunningham takes to be Chandragupta
II, of the Imperial Gupta dynasty, 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 Jaina
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 Musalmans.
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 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 1781, 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 Janamasthanam, the
Svargadvaram, and the 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.
The only remains at Ayodhya that appear to be of any
antiquity are three earthen mounds to the south of the city,
and about a quarter of a mile distant. These are called
Maniparbat, Kuberparbat, and Sugribparbat. The first,
which is nearest to the city, and whose ancient name is said
to have been Chhattarban, is an artificial mound, 65 feet in
height, covered with broken bricks and blocks of kankar.
The old bricks are eleven inches square and three inches
thick. At 46 feet above the ground on the west side there are
the remains of a curved wall faced with kankar blocks. The
mass at this point is about 40 feet thick, and this was
probably somewhat less than the size of the building which
once crowned this lofty mound. According to the
Brahmanas the Maniparbat is one of the hills which the
monkeys made use of when assisting Rama, it was
accidentally dropped here by Sugriva, the monkey-king of
Kishkindhya. But the common people, who know nothing of
this story, say that the mound was formed by the labourers
shaking their baskets on this spot every evening on their
return home from the building of Ramkot. It is therefore
best known by the name of Jhawwajhar, or Orajhar, both of
which mean “basket-shakings.” A similar story is told of
the large mounds near Banaras, Nimkhar, Sahet-Mahet,
and other places. An inscription of Raja Nandivardhana of
Magadha is said to have been discovered buried in this
mound during the reign of Nasir-ad-din Haidar of
Lakhnau; but the inscription has never been published and
the original plate cannot now be traced.
Five hundred feet due south from this large mound
stands the second mound, called Kuberparbat, which is
only 28 feet in height. The surface is an irregular heap of
brick rubbish, with numerous large holes made by the
people in digging for bricks. It is crowned by two old
tamarind trees and is covered with jangal. Close by on the
south-west there is a small tank, called Ganesakund by the
Hindus and Husain Kund or Imam Talao by the
Musalmans. Still nearer, on the south-east, is a large
oblong mound, called Sugribparbat, which is not more than
10 feet above the ground level. It is divided into two
distinct positions, that to the north being upwards of 300
feet square at top, and the other to the south upwards of
200 feet. In the centre of the larger enclosure there is a
ruined mound containing bricks eight and-a-half inches
square, and in the centre of the smaller mound there are the
remains of a baoli, which is said to be the Ganapatikunda
of the Puranas.
Between the Maniparbat and Kuberparbat there is a
small Musalman enclosure, 64 feet long from east to west
and 47 feet broad, containing two brick dargahs, which are
attributed to Sis Paighambar and Ayub Paighambar, or the
“prophets Seth and Job”; the first is 17 feet long and the
other 12 feet. These tombs are mentioned in the Ain-i-
Akbari and in the Ardish-i-Mahfil. About a mile off, near
the police station, there is the dargah of Nuh, or Noah.
The mounds are surrounded by Musalman tombs,
and as it is the Musalman practice to bury the dead along
the sides of the high roads close to their cities, General
Cunningham infers that the road which now runs close to
the westward of the mounds is one of the ancient highways
of the district. This is confirmed by the existence of an old
masonry bridge of three arches over the Tilahi Nala, to the
north-west of the Maniparbat, as well as by the direction of
the road itself, which leads from the south end of the city
straight to Bharatkund, and onwards to Sultanpur or
Kusapura, and Allahabad, or Prayaga.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Hiuen
Tsiang's Pi-so-kia, or Visakha, with its enormous number of
heretics, or Brahmanas, is the same as the Ayodhya of the
Hindus. He describes the city of Visakha as being 16 li or
two and 2/3 miles in circuit. In his time, therefore, the
capital of Rama was not more than half of tis present size,
although it probably contained a greater population, as not
above on-third, or even perhaps less, of the present town is
inhabited. The old city then possessed no less than 20
samgharamas and 3,000 priests, and about 50
Brahmanical temples. From this account we learn that so
early as the seventh century more than 300 of the original
temples of Vikramaditya had already disappeared, and we
may therefore reasonably infer that the city had been
gradually declining for some time previously. The Buddhist
monuments, however, would appear to have been in good
order, and the monks were just as numerous as in the
eminently Buddhist city of Banaras.
The first monument described by Hiuen Tsiang is a
large samgharama without name. This monastery General
Cunningham identifies with the Sugribparbat, being about
500 feet long by 300 feet broad. The great size and
rectangular form of this ruin are sufficient to show that it
must have been a monastery, but this is placed beyond all
doubt by the existence of an interior well and by the
remains of cloistered rooms forming the four sides of the
enclosure. Its position to the south of the city, and to the
east of the road, agrees with the recorded position of the
Beside the monastery there was a stupa of Asoka, 200
feet in height, built on the spot where Buddha preached the
law during six years. This monument General Cunningham
identifies with the Maniparbat, which is still 65 feet high,
and which with its masonry facing must once have been at
least as high again, and with the usual lofty pinnacle of
metal may easily have reached a height of 200 feet. He
infers that the earthen or lower part of the mound may
belong to the earlier ages of Buddhism, and that the
masonry or upper part was added by Asoka.
Hiuen Tsiang next describes the sites of the
toothbrush tree and of the monument where the four
previous Buddhas used to sit and take exercise, as being
close to the great stupa. These places General Cunningham
identifies with the courtyard containing the dargahs of Sis
and Ayub, which touches the south side of the Maniparbat.
The two tombs he takes to be the remains of the seats of the
four previous Buddhas, and the paved courtyard to be the
scene of their daily walks, although he was unable to trace
their footmarks which were seen by the Chinese pilgrim.
The last monument described by Hiuen Tsiang is a
stupa containing the hair and nails of Buddha. This was
surrounded by a number of smaller monuments which
followed one another in succession, and by several tanks
which reflected the sacred buildings in their limpid waters.
The stupa General Cunningham identifies with the
Kuberparbat, which touches the south side of the enclosure
round the dargahs of Sis and Ayub, and is close to the west
side of the ruined monastery. One of the tanks described by
the pilgrim may be the Ganesakund; but all the smaller
monuments have disappeared long ago, as they afforded
cheap and ready materials for the construction of the
numerous Musalman tombs, as well as for the
neighbouring bridge and masjid.
The people are unanimous in their assertion that the
old city to the north of these mounds was called Bareta;
Ayodhya, they say, was the capital of Rama, but the latter
city was called Bareta. As this name has no similarity to
Visakha, we can only set it down as another appellation of
the old town, for which we have no authority but
4327. “Dilli Saltanat (711-1526 A.D.)” by Dr. Ashirvadi
Lal Srivastava (Book No. 151), first published in 1952 and the
new revised edition published by Shivlal Agarwal and
Company, Agra is the next book relied by Sri Verma. He placed
before us page-314 to 316 of the book under the heading
“Architecture (-·i i ¤- ¤)" which reads as under :
“-·i i ¤- ¤;
¬ ~ni·i ¬i -·ii¤-¤ ¬ «r n ¤ - ·ii| l¬¬ ¬-¤ n ¬i · r-iº
· ºi ¬i l·¬¤ l¬¤i ¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ -·¤ ¤lºi¤i ¬| l·l·i··i ¬iln¤i
-·ii¤-¤ ¬| ¤¬ l·lºi·- ºi ¬| l·¬l¬n ¬º ¤ ¬| ·i| | ·r ºi ¬| ·ri ¬|
-·ii·|¤ ºi l¬¤i n·ii - i·¬÷¬il·¬¤i·i, ; ºi·, ¬¤nil·-ni·,
- ¬i ¤i -il-¤i, l-¬ , ¬-nº| ¬¤ |¬i, ·l·iºi|÷¤lº¤-| ¤¸ºi ¤ ¬ ·ºii n·ii
- l-¬- ¬ºl«¤i ¬| ºil¬¤i ¬ ¬l--¬ºi ¬ «·| ·i| | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ·s·|
ºini··| ¬ ¬l·n- ·ºi¬ - n ¬| l·¬ ¬i -·ii¤-¤ ¬| ¬i ºi ¬| ·iiºn -
¬i¤ ·r · ni ¤¸ ºi ª¤ ¬ ;-¬i-| ·i| ¬iº · ¬º«|| ;¬ -·ii¤-¤ ¬|
- ª¤ l·ºi·ini¤ ·i| ÷ ·. n -«¬, z. +¤| -|·iº , s, - rºi«, n·ii «,
·i¸ l-n r (nrªii·i)|
¬« n ¬ r-iº · ºi - ¬i¤ ni ¤ri ¬·r -·ii¤-¤ ¬| ¤¬
¬-¤l·i¬ l·¬l¬n ºi ¬| l-¬|, l¬·n l·¬ ni ri · ¬ ·in ;¬ · ºi -
;-iºni ¬ l·-i ºi - ¬¤· l·¤iºi n·ii ¬¬i ª¤i ¬i ¤ ¤l¬n ¬º·i
¬·¬ l¬¤ -·i·iil·¬ r| ·ii| l¬·n · ¤ ¬| ;-iºn «·i· - ¬¤¬ ·r|
r ¤ ¬i ¬·¬| -·¤ ¤lºi¤i; ;-iºni ¬i ¤ iª¤ ri n| | ¬·¬| ;-iºni ¤º
· ºi| ¬¬i÷¤º-¤ºi¬i ¬i n-·i|º ¤ ·ii· ¤· i, ;¬l¬¤ -·ii¤-¤ ¬| l¬¬
·; ºi ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·r · ni ¤¸ ºi n¤i l·· ºi| ·i| ¬iº · ºi , · ºi||
¬ s ¤ ¬ n-· ¬i¤ ¬º ºr ·i l¬·¬ ¬iººi -·ii¤-¤ ¬| ·iiºn|¤ n·ii
l··ºi| ºil¬¤i ¬i ¬-··¤ ¬-·i· ri ¬¬i| ¬· ¤ ·i-, l·· ºi| ºii¬¬i
¬i ·iiºn|¤ lºil~¤¤i ¬i º ¬ nnºiºii ¬ ¬i- ¬ ·i ¤·i| ·i·· l·-i ºi ¬
¬-«··i - ¬·¬ ¬¤· -¤·- l·¤iº n·ii nº|¬ ·i , ;¬l¬¤ ¬·ri · l«·i
¬i· - l-¬- ;-iºni - ·i| ¬¬i·- n·ii ºi ¬|÷¬-«··i| ·¤i º ¬| ¬·
¬· ¬ ¤|¬i ¬i ¬-i·ºi ¬º l·¤i l¬·¬i ;¬ · ºi - ºinil··¤i ¬
¤ ¤iº ·ii| ·¸ ¬º , ¤ i ºl - ·i ¬ n ¬ ÷l ·¬ ni ¬i · ¬n·i n l «·i
¬¤·i · ¬ ¬¤·| -l -¬·i , -r¬i ¬i º ¤ri n¬ l ¬ ¬« i
¬i ·i | l ·-i ºi ¬· l r· ·¸ n·i i ¬ · -l · ·ºi ¬| ¬i -n | ¬
l ¬¤i l ¬· r ¬· ri · l ·· ¤ni ¤¸ · ¬ ·· - ¬º l ·¤i ·i i | n|¬º ,
lr··¸ n·ii - l-¬- ºi l¬¤i - -¤·- ¬·nº ri n r ¤ ·i| ¬ s ·¤i º ¬|
¤|¬i - ¬·¬| ;-iºn ¤¬÷¬| l·ªii; · n| r , ;¬l ¬¤ ¬·i | ÷¬·i |
l ·~¬| ¬ ~ni ·i · l r· ·¸ n·i i ¬ · -l · ·º i ¬| ¤i º¬ sni
¬i ni ·¬º ¬·¬ -·i i · - n - «¬ n·i i -| ·i º «·i ¬º
¬· r -l -¬·i ¬i ª¤ · l ·¤i | ¬º ¬i · -iºi ¬ ¬ -ni· ¬iº
lr··¸ -l··ºi n·ii - l-¬- -l-¬·i - ¤¬ ¬-i·ni ¤r ·i| l¬ ·i ·i
- ¤¬ ªi ¬i r ¬i ¬i n· ri ni ·ii l¬¬¬ ¤iºi ¬i º ¬-º n·ii -n-·ii ¬|
¤ l·n¤i ªi·| ri n| ·i| | ;¬ ¤i ¬·i - «· r ¤ -l · ·º ¬º¬ni
¬ -l -¬·i - ¤l º·l n n l ¬¤ ¬i ¬¬n ·i ;¬l ¬¤
l ·¬ ni ¬i ni · ¬¤·i ¬· · º¤ ¤¸ ºi ¬º· ¬ l ¬¤
¬· ¤ ·i - ¬· r| - ª¤i · nº l ¬¤i ri ni | ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n
¬¬i·- ¤¬ ¬·¤ -¸ ¬ l·ºi·ini ·i| ¬i lr··¸ n·ii ;-¬i-| ºil¬¤i ¬i
l-¬i· ¬ l¬¤ ¬·i¤l··- ¬·| ¬i ¬i- ¬ºn| ·i|| ¬¬i·- ·i ·i r|
ºil¬¤i ¬i ¤ iºi ·i| ¬iº ¬·¬i ¬l-n-· r| ¬· ¤º l··i º ·ii|
-·i i ¤- ¤ ¬ ·i ¤ - ¬ n «· ·| · ¤ «¬ ¬| ¬· ¤ ·i - ¬ l n
l ·~¬| ¬| ¬ ·n÷¬¬÷;-¬i - ·i - ¬| -l -¬· ·i | l ¬¬¬i
l ·-i ºi ··sr ; o - ¤ i º-· i ¬i º ··ss ; o - ¬-i · n r ¬i
·i i | ·r ¤¬ l r· ·¸ -l · ·º ¬ ¤«¸ nº ¤º n·i i ¬· ¬ l r· ·¸
-l · ·ºi ¬| ¬i -n | ¬ «·| ·i | | ;¬ -l-¬· ¬ ¬l·i¬nº
-n-·i, ¬·¬ lºiªiº n·ii -·¤ ·iin -¸ ¬n lr··¸ -l··ºi ¬ ¬ n ºr ¤ ¬
·i ¬iº - l-¬- -l-¬· ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni¬i ¬ ¬· ¬iº ºi|·i ni ¬ ¬·-
r º÷¤ º ¬º l¬¤i n¤i ·ii| -n-·ii , ¬·¬ lºiªiºi n·ii -·¤ ·iini ¤º ¬i
l¤¤ ¬il· ¬-¬|ºi ·i , ¬·r l--i l·¤i n¤i ·ii ¬·i·i ¬i -÷¤¬-¬º
ls¤i l·¤i n¤i ·ii| ;¬ ;-iºn - ;-¬i-| ºi¬| ¬| ¬ ·¬ ¤¬ r|
l·ºi ·ini r ÷ ¬i-· ¤¬ ¤-·iº ¬| ¬i¬| r l¬¬ ¤º - l-¬- « n ¬|
l·¬i¤· n·ii ¬¬i·- r ¬iº ¬ ºi· ¬| ¬i¤n ªi ·| r ; r | ¬¬- º -
«i ; l ·· ¬i ni ¤·i ·i -¬ n ¬| ;-i ºn ·i | ¤¬ -l -¬· r|
r | ;¬¬i l·-i ºi ·i| ¬ n « · ·|· ¤ «¬ · r| ¬º·i¤i ·ii| ¤r ;-i ºn
·i -n· - ¤¬ ¬ -¬ n l ·ni ¬¤ ·i i l ¬¬ ¬- i - l ·n rºi ¬
· «··i ¤i ·i i | ;¬¬ ¬¤º| ·i i ni ¬i ni ·÷¤i ·¬º
n -«¬ n·i i - rºi « «·i ·| n; ·i | | -n- ·i i ¤º ¬i º ¤ri
n¬ l ¬ ·i | nº ¬« i ¤º ·i | ¬nl ºi n -i ··÷l ¤¤ r l ¬·¬
¤ rº n·i i ri ·i ÷¤ º l -- r ¤ r | ¬ n «-|·iº n ¬| -·ii¤-¤ ¬i
n|¬ºi -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬i·ºi r | ;¬¬| ¤i ¬·i ¤ «¬ · ··ss ; o ¬ ¬ s
¤r¬ n ¤iº ¬| ·i| ¬iº ;~n nl-ºi · ¬¬ ¤¸ ºi l¬¤i ·ii| -¸ ¬n ¤r
-|·iº - ¬l·¬· ¬ l¬¤ «·i¤| n; ·i| ¬i ;¬ ¤º ¤«¬º - ¬¬-i·i
¬i ·-i¬ ¬ l¬¤ ¤¬¤ ¬º· ¬| ¬¬i l·¤i ¬ºni ·ii| l¬·n ¬in
¤¬¬º ¤r l·¬¤-n-·i ¬ ª¤ - l·ª¤in r ; | ;¬ ;-iºn ¬| ¤i ¬·i
n·ii ª¤ -¸ ¬n ;-¬i-| r | ;~n nl-ºi · ¬ n «-|·iº ¬i ¤¸ ºi ¬º· ¬
¬lnlº·n ¬ s ·¤| ;-iºni ¬i ·i| l·-i ºi ¬ºi¤i, ¬·- ¬«¬ ¬l·i¬
-r-·¤¸ ºi ¬¬¬ ·¤·- ¤ ¤ ¬i -¬«ºi r ¬i ¬ ~ni·n«| ¬ ·i- ¬
l·ª¤in r | ·iiºn - n ¬i ,iºi l·l- n ¤r ¤r¬i -¬«ºi ·ii, ;¬l¬¤
¬ n «-|·iº ¬ l·¤º|n -·ii¤-¤ ¬-«··i| ·¤iº ¬| «ini n·ii ¬¬i·- ¬|
· l·- ¬ ¤r ;-iºn lr··¸ ÷ºi ¬| ¬ ¬l·i¬ l·¬- r | ¬·¤ l¬¬| -¬«º
- lr··¸ ÷ºi ¬| ¬i ;n·i ¤ ·ii· ·r| ·|ªi ¤·ni| ;~n nl-ºi ¬ ¬-¤ ¬
¬ ~ni·i ¬| ;-iºni - ;-¬i-| n-·i ¬i ¬l·i¬ ¬-i· ºi ri · ¬ni|
¬¬· ¬ ·n÷¬¬÷;-¬i- -l-¬· ¬i ¤lº·l, n l¬¤i ¬iº ¬¬- ¤¬
¤-·iº ¬| ¬i¬| «··i ·|| ¬¬· «i; l·· ¬i ni ¤·i - ·i| ¬ s
¤lº·, · l¬¤i| «¬·· · ¬¤· l¬¤ ¬i¬-r¬ ·i-¬ ¤¬ ·i·· ¬i
l·-i ºi ¬ºi¤i| l·~¬| - l-·in ¬¬¬i -¬«ºi ºi , ;-¬i-| ºi ¬| ¬i r |
-¬«º ¬ ,iº ¬| - rºi« ·iiºn ¬| n ¬| - rºi«i - ¬·i -n- r | ªi¬¬|
¬ ~ni· ¬¬i¬· ·|· -ri· l·-i ni ·ii| ¬¬· ¬· ¬ ;-iºn «··i¤|
l¬·- ·i ¬l·i¬ ¬~¬ ªi·|¤ r ÷ l·¬i- · ·|· ¬il¬¤i ¬ -¬«º ¬ ¤i¬
¬- ¤nªii·i -l-¬· n·ii ¬ n «-|·iº ¬ ¤i¬ ¬¬i; ·º·i¬i ·i- ¬|
¤ l¬, -l-¬·| ;· ·i ·i - ;-¬i-| -·ii¤-¤÷l·¤iºi ¬i ¤ i·ii·¤ r |
n n¬¬÷¤ n ¬| ;-iºn ;n·| ºii··iº ·r| r l¬n·| l¬ n ¬i- n·ii
ªi¬¬|÷¤ n ¬|| · ¬º¬, ºi ·¬ n·ii ¬¬ ºi r | ;¬ ¤lº·n · ¬ ·i
¬iººi ¤ n|n ri n r | n n¬¬ ¬ ~ni·i ¬ ¤i¬ ·i· ¬i ¬·ii· ·ii,
;¬l¬¤ ¤ ;-iºni ¤º ·iiº| º¬- ·r| ·¤¤ ¬º ¬¬n ·i | ;¬¬
¬lnlº·n ¬¤· ·iil- ¬ l·¤iºi n·ii ªl¤ - · «· ¬- -º ·i | ¬·¬|
;-iºni ¬| ·|·iº ¬niº÷¤«i· ¬| n·ii -i -| r ¬iº · ªi· - ¬i¬|÷¬|
¬nn| r | n n¬¬ºiir ¬i -¬«ºi, n n¬¬i«i· ¬i ·nº n·ii ¬i -¬i
¤|ºi ¬ºiir n n¬¬ -·ii¤-¤ ¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi ¬i·ºi r | ¬ ¤ ¤· n·ii ¬i ·|
¬ ~ni·i · ªi¬¬| ;-iºni ¬ ¬i ¬ n·ii ¬il¬-¤ ¬i ¤ ·¬| l·n ¬º·
¬i ¤ ¤-· l¬¤i l¬·n ;¬- ¬·r ¬ilºi¬ ¬¤¬ni l-¬|| ¤¬ ··i
¬¬i-- n ¬i -n r l¬ · n n¬¬÷¤ n ¬ l·-n ¬ ¬º· ·i¬ ¤ ·ii· ¬
¬¤· ¬i - ·n · ¬º ¬¬ | ¤-i· ;-iºni - l¬¬··º ¬i ·| ¬ ·¬|º ,
iºi l·l- n -i - ¬| -l-¬· ¬· ¬·- r | ¬i¬i ¤¬i ¬ -ni· ¬iº ¬i ·|
-·ii¤-¤ ¬i ¤r ¬·i -n- ¬i·ºi r |
4328. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that it is an opinion
formed by the author in respect to the Mughal architecture. He
has not referred to any basic material which he consulted and
relied to form the said opinion. At the end of the Chapter, he has
only given reference to certain books under the heading
“BOOKS FOR FURTHER READING” and the reference of the
following books has been given :
(I) Habibullah : The Foundations of Muslim Rule in India.
(ii) Ashraf, Kunwar Mohd. : Life and Condition of the
People of Hindustan (1200-1550)
(iii) Tara Chand : Influence of Islam on Indian Culture.
(iv) Grierson, Sir George : Modern Vernacular Literature
of Hindustan.
(v) Faruqhhar : Outline of the Religious Literature of India.
(vi) Havell : Indian Architecture.
(vii) Haig, Woolseley : Cambridge History of India, Vol.
4329. We have looked into these books also but find no
help for issues in question.
4330. The personal credentials of Dr. Srivastava
mentioned in the earlier part shows that he was M.A., Ph.D. and
D.Lit. from Lucknow and Agra and had written the said book
for the benefit of undergraduate students. It appears that he had
earlier written a book in English under the title “Saltanat of
Delhi” and the present one is the Hindi versions of the said
book. In the absence of any reference material, we are not in
position to verify the correctness of what the author has said but
even otherwise the only thing which he has said in the above
passage is that the Delhi Saltanat rulers destroyed Hindu and
Jain Temples and used the material for construction of Mosque,
pave sages and even graves. In some cases by minor variation or
alternation the Hindu or Jain Temples were converted in
Mosque. It is a general statement but does not show that it has
anything in connection with the disputed site or disputed
construction. In the entire book, we could not find any reference
to Ayodhya and in particular the disputed site, i.e. Ramjanam
Bhumi /Babari Masjid. In fact, this book deals with the period
upto 1526 and, therefore, mentions only about the defeat of
Ibrahim Lodi by Babar in 1526 and does not say anything for
the period subsequent thereto. We, therefore, are not able to
derive any assistance from the above work of Dr. Srivastava for
adjudication of the issues engaging attention of this Court in
these cases.
4331. Next is the (Book No. 76) “History of Kanauj to
the Moslem Conquest” by Rama Shankar Tripathi. It's first
edition came in 1964 and the book available to the Court is a
reprint Delhi 1989 by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. Sri Verma in
particular has placed before us certain passages from page 248,
253 and 305. Page 253 shows that there was a great literary
person Rajasekhara in the Court of King Mahendrapala who has
written several literary productions including “Bala-Ramayana”
relating to the story of Rama from Sita's Svayamvara to the
death of Ravana, and the return to Ayodhya after Sita's fire-
ordeal. He pointed that King Mahendrapala reigned upto about
885 A.D. and the story written by one of his literary courtiers
shows that worship of Lord Rama as incarnation of Vishnu was
well recognised even at that time. However, nothing of these
facts help us to travel our journey towards solution of the
seriously disputed above referred two issues for the simple
reason that the antiquity or genuineness or correctness of Lord
Rama or his birth at Ayodhya has not been disputed by the
learned counsels for the Muslim parties and in this regard, they
have gone to the extent of even making a statement under Order
X Rule 2 C.P.C. Therefore, the factum of recognition of Lord
Rama's story in 9
century is now wholly irrelevant. Sri Verma
also placed before us the following passage from page 324 of
the book :
“As to the north, the phrase “borders of China” may
be presumed to denote that the kingdom extended upto the
foot of the Himalayas; while in the east it must have
comprised the Gaya region, where an inscription
presumably belonging to Jayachandra's reign records that
a hermit named Srimitra served as spiritual guide to the
king of Benares (Kasisa), who was attended by a hundred
Chieftains (nripa-sata-krita-sevah). It is also definitely
known from inscription that Allahabad, Benares, and the
surrounding tracts were included within Jayachandra's
kingdom. The Gahadavala connection with Benares was
more intimate, and perhaps because of the habitual
residence of the kings there, or owing to its religious
importance advantageous situation “in the centre of the
country of Hind,” it became a sort of second capital almost
from the beginning of their rule. Indeed, the Moslem
historians significantly style Jayacandra “Rai of
Ibid., pp. 222, 223, 300, etc. Firishta calls Jayachandra
“the prince of Kanauj and Benares (Briggs, I. p. 178).”
4332. The aforesaid reference has been shown probably in
view of the fact an inscription said to have been obtained from
the time of demolition of the disputed structures on 6.12.1992
which according to the Hindu parties shows that Gahadavala
rulers constructed a Vishnu Hari Temple at the disputed site. The
aforesaid passage shows that the Gahadavala ruler Jayachandra
having its capital at Kanauj had within its reign Allahabad and
Benaras also. The book gives the detail of Gahadavala rulers
from page 292 and onwards of which Chandradev was one. At
this stage, whether Gahadavalas in 11, 12 or in 13 centuries
ruled at Kanauj and exercised their authorities upto Allahabad
and Benaras which included Ayodhya also need not to be
examined further for the reason that for our purpose the
aforesaid facts as such do not meet our requirement necessary
for adjudication of the dispute. Through it appears that
Gahadavala were very religious people and they declared
themselves as Paramamahesvara, i.e. devout worshippers of
God Siva but they constructed large number of temples
including that of Vishnu Temple. In this regard some details we
find on page 351 to 355 under the heading “Religion” as under :
“The Gahadavala kings, like the Pratiharas whose
religion has already been started, did not confine their
devotions to one member only of the great Hindu pantheon.
Thus, while they officially describe themselves as
Paramamahesvara, i.e., devout worshippers of the god
Siva, their records also invoke in the beginning the blessing
of Sri (Lakshmi), the goddess of prosperity, and Damodara
(Ganesa), and on the seals attached to the copper-plates
there are representations of the flying Garuda and conch-
shell (Pancajanya conch?), which may indicate their
predilections towards Vaisnavism. Indeed, one of the
Kamauli inscriptions even asserts that Jayachandra was
initiated, with the consent of his father, as a devotee of the
god Krisna on the 10
tithi of the bright half of the month
of Asadha of the Vikrama year 1224, corresponding to
Sunday, the 16
of June, 1168 A.D.- the day of his
installation to the dignity of Yuvaraja. But so marked was
the royal eclecticism that according to a Bodhgaya
inscription in later life Jayachandra, out of reverence for a
Budhist monk named Srimitra, himself became his disciple
with a pleasing heart and an indescribable hankering.
Moreover, we are uniformly told in their documents that the
Gahadavala monarchs made grants after having
worshipped the sun (surya), after having praised him
(Siva), after having performed adoration to Vasudeva, and
after having sacrificed to the fire an oblation of abundant
milk, rice and sugar, and after having offered oblations to
the manes.
Turning now to the matter of popular religion, the
outstanding features during both the Pratihara and
Gahadavala periods were the worship of idols and the
variety of gods. Temples were built in large numbers, being
known as “devagrihas” or “caityas”. With their lofty
spires, rich ornamental designs, and graceful sculptures,
the construction of these elaborate structures must have
entailed great engineering skill and workmanship.
Sometimes, it is interesting to note, they were even hewn
out of a single piece of rock. But unfortunately almost all
these noble monuments of the liberality and religious zeal
of the princes and peasants alike have disappeared owing
to the ravages of time, or were razed to the ground by the
iconoclastic fury of the victorious Moslems. For instance,
the Taj-ul-Maasir and Firishta's account testify that in
Benares alone Sihabuddin Ghori destroyed more than one
thousand temples, and raised mosques on their
Among the gods, Visnu was the most highly
venerated. The Siyadoni inscription gives several names
for him such as Visnubhattaraka, Narayanabhattaraka,
Vamanasvamideva (also mentioned in the Ahar
inscription), Cakrasvamideva, Tribhuvanasvamideva, and
Murari. In the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja, he is called
Narakadvisa, and in the Buckala record the term
Paramesvara occurs for his image. The Pehoa inscription,
however, simply describes him as the god riding on garuda
(Visnu garudasana). The Gahadavala copper plates often
allude to the God Vasudeva and the temple of Adikesava at
the confluence of the Varuna and Ganges. We may also add
here that the Ahar epigraph (No. VII) refers in general
terms to all the ten incarnations of Visnu, but in other
documents there is specific mentions of only three
manifestations of the deity, viz., Krisna or Hrisikesa,
Varaha, and Vamana.
The inscriptions further mention such gods as :
1.Surya, also called Tarunadityadeva, Indrara-
jadityadeva or Indradityadeva, or Gangaditya.
Another form of the sun was Lolarka, whose festival
is even now annually celebrated in Benares during
the rainy season. In the Siyadoni inscription occurs
the term Bhaillasvamideva, which according to a
Bhilsa record was a designation of the sun.
2.Siva (Jhusi inscription), also called Umamahesvara
(Siyadoni inscription) or simply Mahesvara
(Gahadavala plates), Trilocana, Lacchukesvara
Mahadeva, so named after Mathanadeva's mother
(Rajor inscription), Yogasvamin, Pasupati, and
Sambhu (Haddala grant).
3.Vinayaka or Damodara (Gahadavala plates).
4.Kumara (Kartikeya) with his host of Matrikas i.e.,
female companions who performed wonderful deeds.
5.Mahakala (Partabgarh inscription) or Kalapriya
(Cambay plates) in Ujjain.
Among other names and temples of gods we come
across Nityapramuditadeva, Aghoresvara, Indramadhava,
Laudesvara, Panocomkara, Krittivasas etc.
inscriptions refer to names of goddesses also, such as
Bhagavati or Durga (Partabgarh inscription) or
Vatayaksnidevi; Sri Amba Lohidevi (Siyadoni inscription);
Kanakadevi or Kancanadevi, Gandhadevi,
Sarvamangaladevi (Ahar inscription); Sri or Lakshmi
(Gahadavala inscriptions); Vasudhara etc.”
4333. Sri Rajendra Singh, DW 1/1 deposed his statement
to show that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya and also had the
benefit of Darshan of Lord Rama at the disputed site, i.e.,
birthplace. To discredit the said statement, a lot of literature
relating to Guru Nanak's visit to Ayodhya has been placed
before us.
4334. Ex. 68 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 208C1/1-4 is an extract
of a book “Bhai Bale Wali-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji ki Janam
Sakhi” 7
Edn. 1999 published by Bhai Chatar Singh Jeevan
Singh, Amritsar. Pages 361 and 263 have been filed. It shows
that Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited Ayodhya and told to the people
who accompanied him that Ayodhya is the city of King Ram
Chandra, who incarnated as Ram in Treta Yug. When enquired
that Ram Chandra taken the entire city of Ayodhya with him
then how it has appeared, Guru Nanak Dev Ji said,
Maryadapurushottam Sri Ram Chandra Ji has not taken the
houses and constructions with him but only the religious men
and women folk has gone with him in his supreme world and if
the people pray for the God and remain in shelter of Guru
Govind they can also achieve the same. Therefrom he proceeded
to Prayagraj (Allahabad). Sri Jilani, in reference to the above,
said that there is no mention of any place of birth of Lord Rama
what to say of place in dispute.
4335. Ex.69 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 210C1/1-10) is an extract
of the book titled as “Sikhs and Sikhism” written by W.H.
Mcleod first published in 1999 paper book 2004 by Oxford
University Press. Pages 5 to 8 and 33 to 36 have been placed
before us. It discussed with the biography of Guru Nanak. From
page 5 and 6, it discern that the author did not find according to
him any reliable data other than what is said in various Janam
Sakhis written or published by different people/institutions to
through light on the life sketch of Guru Nanak. The Adi Granth
contains the work of Guru Nanak but did not give much
assistance to know about the biography of Guru Nanak. It says
that Guru Nanak was born in 1469 at village Talvandi and died
in 1539 during which period he travelled a large number of
places including those of religious importance for Muslims and
Hindus both. About the working of Guru Nanak, at the instance
of third Guru, Amar Das, a collection was prepared which was
ultimately utilized by Sri Guru Arjan while compiling the Adi
Granth, i.e., Guru Granth Sahib. The teachings of Guru Nanak
are discussed through out his works but therefrom it is not
possible to find out anything about his own biography though it
is possible to reconstruct a coherent theology. The basis of his
theology is a belief in a personal God, the omnipotent Creator of
the universe, a Being beyond time and human comprehending
yet seeking by His grace the salvation of man and for this
purpose revealing Himself in His own creation. To the offer of
salvation man is called to respond by a life of meditation on the
divine self-revelation and of conformity to it. If man responds
he progressively grows into the likeness of God and ultimately
into an ineffable union with the Timeless one. If he refuses he
follows the path of spiritual death and remains firmly bound to
the wheel of transmigration.
4336. Chapter 2 starts at page 33 with the heading “The
Sources”. The author has discussed that the obvious place to
seek information concerning the life of Guru Nanak is the Adi
Granth, or Guru Granth Sahib complied by Guru Arjan in 1603-
04. It contains numerous works by Guru Nanak which can
safely be accepted as authentic but it provides little information
concerning the actual events of his life. It contains more than
nine hundred of his compositions and yet the biographical
details therein are negligible. There is no explicit reference at all
to any incident in his life, no sabad or Slok. The author says that
the Chapter Babar-vani though positivity suggests that Guru
Nanak witnesses something of Babar depredations, but nothing
more than that. He, ultimately, says that in the absence of
receiving any information regarding the biography of Guru
Nanak in Adi Granth, the only source which can be relied on for
the same purpose remain the Janam Sakhis. He points out that
several sets of Janam Sakhis are prevalent, i.e., Puratan,
Miharban etc. and, therefore, a cautious and careful approach is
needed to find out the actual reliable informations contained
therein instead several legends mentioned therein lacking
anything to corroborate and to prove their authenticity.
4337. Chapter 3 starting from Page 34 with the heading
“The Life of Guru Nanak According to the Janam-Sakhis” gives
some description of the journeys undertaken by Guru Nanak. It
says that Guru Nanak ascended Mount Sumeru and thereat held
discourse with Gorakhnath and other eighty-three Siddhs who
questioned him about the condition of the world below. Guru
Nanak informed them about the darkness, sin and corruption.
Ultimately, Guru emerged victorious from the debate. Then
there is reference of his visit to Mecca and it gives the following
information :
“Next he proceeded to Mecca and there went to sleep
with his feet pointing towards the mihrab. Observing this
evident blasphemy a Muslim named Jivan kicked him and
dragged his feet away from the direction of the miharab.
When he did this, however, the whole of Mecca
miraculously moved in the same direction as his feet. A
discourse followed in which Guru Nanak emphasized that
Ram and Rahim, Hindu and Muslim names for God,
designate one and the same God.
Having left his sandals in Mecca as a relic, the Guru
proceeded on to Medina, and from there to Baghdad where,
with Mardana the Bard, he camped outside the city. From
there he uttered the call to prayer whereupon the city at
once became silent. A pir named Dastgir went out to
investigate the newcomer's credentials and entered into a
debate with him. In response to Dastgir's request for
enlightenment the Guru took the pir's son, ascended with
him into the air, and in the twinkling of an eye revealed to
him the multitude of heavens and underworlds. The two
then descended into the regions below the earth and from
there brought a bowl of karah prasad, the sacramental food
of the Sikhs.”
4338. Thereafter the reference of his visit to Kartarpur.
Multan etc. is given. In our view, though the above extract of the
document gives some idea about Guru Nanak's visits, but we
find no reason as to how the above extract either way help the
plaintiffs (Suit-4) for adjudication of the questions in dispute.
4339. Ex. 86 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 212C1/1-4 is an extract
of the book “Sri Guru Granth Sahib” with Hindi translation by
Dr. Manmohan Sahgal, 6
Edn. 2001 published by Bhuvan Vani
Trust. Pages 33 and 34 of the said book have been filed. The
verses contained on page 33 and 34 are as under :
· ¬i ¬ln·i- ¬ºni ¤ ºªi l·º·i¬ l·º· ª ¬¬i¬ -¸ ºln ¬¬¸ ·|
¬ ·i n º ¤ ¬il·||
¬i ¬iº ¤¬ r , ¬-¤ ¬¬¬i ·i- r | ·r ¬ l·- ¬i º¤l¤ni ¤ ª·i
r | ·r ·i¤ ¬ ºlrn r, ¬¬ l¬¬| ¬ · º ·r|, (·i¤ ¬i º ·º , n ¬|
¬-¤l-n r ), ·r ¬i¬in|n (¬·ii n ·i¸ n ·il··¤, ·n -i· ¬ ¤º ) r, ;¬l¬¤
l·-¤ r | ·r ¬¤i ·| r ¬·ii n ¬·-÷-ººi ¬ ¤¬ ¬ - ·n r, ·r -·¤ ·i¸
r (-·¤ ¤ ¬- ri · ·i¬i r), ¬¬¬| ¬l··i -i¤ ¬lnn ª ¬| ¬ ¤i ¬ r|
¬-·i· r |
¬i ¤ ¬i l¤ · ri ·; ¬ ¬i ¤| ¬ªi·iº|
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ · ri ·; ¬ ¬i; ºri l¬·niº|
·i lªi¤i ·i ªi · ¬nº| ¬ « ·i ¤ º|¬i ·iiº|
¬r¬ l¬¬iºi¤i ¬ªi rilr n ;¬ · ¤¬ ·il¬|
l¬· ¬l¤¬iºi ri ; ¤ l¬· ¬¸ · n - ¤il¬|
r ¬l- º¬i; ¤¬ºii ·i·¬ l¬lªi¬i ·il¬||·||
·r ¤ ·i (·ilrn ª) r| ¤- -i¤ ¬n¤-·ª¤ r | ¬« ¬ s ·r| ·ii,
ni ·i| ¬¬¬| ¬-ni ·i|, ¤iºi ¤ ni (¬ln¤ n, ¤ ni¤ n, ,i¤º¤ n, ¬l¬¤ n)
¬ ·i| ¤¸ · ·r ¬-¤÷-·ª¤ ¤º-i--i l·n-i· ·ii, ¬i¬ ·i| (·n -i· - )
·r| r ¬iº ·il··¤ - ·i| ¬¬| ¬| ¬-ni l-·iº ºr n|| ºi l¤¬ººi (¬i ¤ ) ,
iºi ¬i ; ¤l·¤ ·r| ri ¬¬ni ¬·ii n ºii ¤il· ¬ ¤·ii·i ni· ¬| ¬¤¬l··i
·r| ri n|, ¤ir ¬i ; ¬iªii «iº ·ii ln¬ ¬¤i; ¬ºni ºr | ni·÷¬l··i -·
¬| l·- ¬ni ¬ ¬-·i· r , ·ii ln¬ l·- ¬ni (ºii ¤) ¬ ¬-¤ ¬| ¤ il·n ·r| |
·iºi| ¬| ¤ ·¤| ¬ -· ¬ ¬ ¬~¤, l·¬~¤ ºii n ·r| ri n , ¤ir ¬i ;
l¤-n÷· l-n¤i ¬i l¬n·i ·i| ¬ ¤l-n ¬º· ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ ¬º , ¬¬¬i -·
·i-¬ni r| ºrni r | (·i¸ ªii ºr· ¬·ii n · n÷¬¤·i¬ ¬º· ¬ n ·ºii ª¤|
·i¸ ªi ¬i ·-· ·r| ri ni|) ¬ l·- ¬| ¤ lº¤i (« ¬ º-¤ º|, ;·· ¤ º| ¬il·)
¬ ¤l· ¬« · ·i· ·i| ¤ i·n ¬º l¬¤ ¬i¤ ni ·i| n ·ºii ¬i ¬r| ¬·n
·r| | ¤l· -· ·¤ ¬ ¤i¬ ¬¬ ª¤ «i l,¬ n¬ ¬iº l·º¬·iºi -i ¬¸ · ri ,
¤º-i--i ¬| ºir ¤º ¤¬ ·i| ¬r¤i n| ·r| ri ni÷ n« (¤ ¬ - ) ¬i ¬ilº¬
-· ·¤ ¬ ¬ ¬-¤÷¤·i n-· ¬º ¬¬ni r ` n¸ - ¬ l·-niº ¬ ¬ ¬ ·i· r `
-i¤i ¬i ¬i·ººi ·¤i ¬º l··|ºi ri ni` (;¬¬ ¬-nº - ) n ª·i·¬ ¬|
¬rn r l¬ ¬|· ¬i ¤º-i--i ¬ r ¬ - (ºi¬|÷«º÷º¬i) - ºr·i ¤ilr¤,
¬-¤ ¬| ¬-¤i ¬| ¬· ·i¸ ln ¬i ¤r| ¤¬ -i¤ -in r ÷¬i ¬··n ¬i¬ ¬
¬|· ¬| ¬-¤l-n ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬i¬ n¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri r ||·||
4340. From perusal of the above, it says that the real
teachings of Guru Nanak is about the self created supreme being
who has no shape etc. but is beyond all the worldly and other
activities. His existence even prior to the commencement of the
four Yugas is believed by Hindus. However, so far as the
questions in dispute before us are concerned, the reference of
the above verses by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) we find of no use
since they do not help in adjudication of the matter either way. It
is no doubt true that Guru Nanak profest for the existence of a
supreme being, who has no shape behind creation or destruction
etc. but that by itself does not through any light with respect to
the issues up for consideration in these cases.
4341. Exhibit 70 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 229C1; 230C1/1-10)
contains pages No. IV, V, XXII, XXIII, LXX to LXXIII,
LXXXVI, LXXXVII, 261, 322, 382 and 383 of the book titled
as “The Sikh Religion-Its Gurus Sacred Writings and
Authors” by Max Arthur Macauliffe in six volumes, first
published in 1909 and reprinted in 1996, 1998 by Low Price
Publications, Delhi. The extract before the Court is volume-I of
the above book. The pages contains the preface, introduction
and some part of hymns of Guru Nanak. We, however, find that
the said writing is neither a fair nor impartial study of the matter.
In the preface Page No. XXII (Paper No. 230C1/4), learned
author has observed:
“It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of
the people of India is a desideratum for the British Officials
who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who
are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be
produced. It seems, at any rate, politic to place before the
Sikh soldiery their Guru's prophecies in favour of the
English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster
their loyalty.”
4342. The tenor of the book also fortify the same and we
are proposed to refer some extent as under:
“When Taimur had spread anarchy and
devastation over Northern India, a dynasty of Saiyids, or
descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, aspired to rule in
Dihli in the name of Mughal conqueror. To Dihli there was
hardly any territory attached, and Ala-ul-din, the last of the
Saiyid rulers, in contemptuous disregard for the small and
troublesome dominion meted out to him by destiny, retired
to the distant city of Badaun to end his days in religious
and political tranquility. He left Dihli and the fortunes of
empire of Bahlol Khan Lodi, a man whose ancestors had
been enriched by commerce, and whose grandfather had
been Governor of Multan under the favour monarch Firoz
Shah Tughlak.
Bhahol Khan Lodi reigned from A.D. 1450 to A.D.
1488, and it was consequently near the middle of his reign
that Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, was
born. After the accession of Bahlol Khan Lodi, Daulat
Khan, a relative of his, obtained power in the Panjab, and
governed under the paramount authority of his kinsman.
He lived in state at Sultanpur till defeated and deprived of
his possessions by the Emperor Babar. The Panjab appears
to have been already parcelled out to Musalman chiefs who
were retainers of the sovereigns of Dihli. One of these
chiefs, called Rai Bhoi, a Musalman Rajput of the Bhatti
tribe, had been Zamindar or proprietor of Talwandi. After
his death his heritage descended to his son Rai Bular, who
governed the town at the birth and during the youth of
Talwandi is said to have been originally built by a
Hindu king called Raja Vairat. It was sacked and destroyed
by fire and crowbar, like most Hindu towns and cities,
during the Musalman invasions. Rai Bular restored it and
built a fort on the summit of the tumulus, in which he lived
the secure and happy ruler of a small village, some limited
acres of cultivated land, and boundless wilderness.
Although the age was one of religious intolerance
and persecution, Rai Bular appears to have been the very
reverse of a bigot. His father and he were converted
Hindus, doubtless added to the ranks of Islam by a hasty
circumcision and an enforced utterance of some Arabic
sentences which they did not perfectly comprehend.
. . . . . Kartik, there being a considerable difference
between these forms of chronology. The partisons of the
lunar Kartik, however, prevailed, the lunar month being the
earlier form of calculation, and consequently the most
acceptable to all persons whose religion is based on any
form of Hinduism. Generally the confusion of solar and
lunar chronology is the cause of much perplexity and
qualms of conscience to the pious.” (pages lxx, lxxi and
“The late Bhai Gurumukh Singh, who first gave the
author these details, afterwards put himself at the head of a
deputation to move the Government of the Panjab to
declare the fictitious anniversary of Guru Nanak's birth a
public holiday. That Government accordingly added a
second Sikh holiday to the already long list of Christina,
Hindu, and Muhammadan holidays sanctioned in its
calendar. The other special Sikh holiday is the Hola
Mahalla, the day on which the tenth Guru held a mimic
battle for the instruction of his troops.” (page lxxxvi)
4343. However, apart of the other aspects of the matter,
author has referred to the preachings of Guru Nanak and also
about his biography. He has referred to a Janamsakhi written by
Sewa Das. He claims to possess the manuscript of the said book
written in 1588 AD, i.e., 16 years before compilation of Granth
Sahib by Guru Arjan Singh which took place in 1604 AD. After
some discussion he found that the said Janamsakhi was most
authentic and he shall made the same basis for giving details of
the life of Guru Nanak but supplementing it whereever
necessary by culling out from the later life of Guru. It is pointed
out that Guru Nanak teaches against idol worship and did not
accept Lord Rama as incarnation of God. Reference is made to
the following hymns of Guru Nank contain on page 382 (Paper
No. 230C1/10):
“If Ram had been God he would not have lost his
queen Sita, and he would himself have healed his half-
brother Lachhman instead of calling on Hanuman to do
Ram Chandar mourned in his soul for Sita and
He remembered Hanuman, and he came to meet him.
The misguided demon Rawan did not know it was not
Ram but God who did this.
Nanak, God is independent: Ram could not erase his
4344. The hymns teachings against idol worship are at
page 323 (paper No. 230C1/9) as under:
“Guru Nanak orders man to repeat God's name and
engage not in idol worship:--
If the heart be made the scraper, the Name the
And good acts be mixed with it as kungu, that shall
be the real worship of God in the heart.
Worship God by meditating on his name, for without
the name there is no worship.
If any one were to wash his heart as the surface of
the idol is washed,
His impurity should be removed, his soul should
become pure and he should depart to deliverance.
Even beasts have their merits; for the oil-cake they
eat they give milk, but the Brahmans make no return for the
offerings made them.
Without the Name accursed is man's life and the acts
he performeth.
God is near, think Him not distant; He ever careth for
and remembereth us.
Eat what He giveth, said Nanak verily.
The Guru's God is superior to the demigods of the
Brahma sprang from the lotus of Vishnu's navel, and
having attuned his throat began to recite the Veds;
Yet he could not see God's limits, and remained in the
darkness of transmigration.
Why should I forget the Beloved who is the support of
my soul.”
4345. Preaching contain in “Shri Guru Granth Sahib
(Chauthi Sainchi)” translated by Dr. Manmohan Sehgal 4
Edition 1995 published by Bhuwan Badi Trust, Lucknow,
Exhibit 71 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 231C1 and 232C1/1-57. It
contains pages no. 101 to 103 and 152 of the said book. The
following part has been referred:
“||·i º¬ -r¬i r|| ·ºn · ºr¬ · -r º-·i·i|
ln¬ ¬ ·| ¬i ºªi l··i·i||·|| ¤¬ n ¬i; ¬¬r - ºi|
lr ·¸ n º¬ · ri · « ºi||·|| ºri¬|| r¬ ¬i« ¬i¬ ·
n|º·i ¤ ¬i| ¤¬i ¬ ·| ¬·ª · ·¸ ¬i||z|| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º¬ ·
l··i¬ n ¬iº¬| ¤¬ l·º ¬iº ¬ lº· ·-¬¬iº¬||s||
·i r- lr ·¸ · - ¬¬-i·| ¬¬r ºi- ¬ l¤ · ¤ºi·||«||
¬r ¬«|º ;r ¬|¬i «ªii·i| n º ¤|º l-l¬ ªi l· ªi¬-
- · n÷¬¤·i¬ ¬i ¬· ·-i· ·r| ¬ºni, º-¬i· ¬ -r|· - ºi ¬ ·i| ·r|
ºªini| - ni ¬ ·¬ ¬i - · · ·i¬ ¤º-i--i ¬i ·i- l¬ -º· ¬ºni
r¸ ||·|| ¬ ·¬ ¤º-i--i r| - ºi ¤¬-i¤ -·i-| r, - · lr··¸ ÷- ¬¬-i·
·i ·i ¬ ·i-· s ·i l¬¤i r ||·|| ºri¬|| - r·¬ ¬ l¬¤ ¬i«i ¬·i·i
¤¸ ¬· ¬ l¬¤ n|·ii ¤º ·r| ¬ini| ¬¬| ¤¬ ¬| ¬ ·i - ºn r¸ , ¬·¤
¬i ; ·r| -·|¬iºni||z|| - · ni ¤¸ ¬i (l·ªii· ¬|) ¬ºni r¸ , · ·-i¬
¤« ni r¸ , ¬ ·¬ l·º ¬iº ¤º-i--i ¬i r| r ·¤ - ·-· ¬ºni r¸ ||s|| ·
- lr··¸ r¸ , · - ¬¬-i·, r-iº (¤ri ¬«¬| ¬i º ¬ ¬ri ¬i ºri r) ni
· r÷¤ iºi ¬« ¬~¬ir, ¤i ºi- ¬ r ||«|| ¬«|º¬| ¬rn r l¬ ;¬¬|
·¤i ·¤iª¤i ¬º , r-· ni n ª ¬ l-¬¬º -·i-| ¤ ·i ¬i ¤r¤i· l¬¤i r
(¬i¤ ·i| ¤r¤i· ¬ ) ||r||s||
- ¬i « r-i - ¬i ; · | ºl· - ¬i - ¬i r ¤ · ||·||
- ¬i -¬ni ;r ¬ ¬iª| ;¬ rlº l·º-¬ ¬i ¬i ¬ n ·
¤iª||·|| ºri¬|| - ¬ « r- ·i; ¬ ; ¬| - ¬ l·l¬«i¬ º
l·· n|¬||z|| - ¬i -i n| - ¬i r|ª| - ¬i ¤¬·
¤i·¬ ¬ª ·|ª|s|| - ¬ l¬· ¬ ¬ºi -r ¬| - ¬ l¬ ·i
¬il·i¬ ¬ª ·i ªi||«|| - ¬ ¬i n| ¬ n- ¬-i ¬rln|
- ¬| ¬i;¬i r ¬ ¬- ln||r|| ¬lr ¬«|º n ¬· ¤º·i·|
l·º-¬ n ¬i ºi-lr ¬i·||c|| s||
¬ ¬iº - (¤ ·i ¬ ¬lnlº·n) ¬« -l¬· r | « r -i -l¬· r , ;··
-l¬· r, ¬¸ ¤ ¬iº ¤·· -l¬· r ||·|| ¤r ¬-¸ ¤i ¬ ¬iº - ¬i r ,
¬ ·¬ ¤¬ ¤º-i--i r| l·- ¬ r, l¬¬¬i ¬i ; ¬·n ¤i ¤iº
·r| ||·||ºri¬|| « r -iº·i ¬ ºii¬¬ -l¬· r , ºin, l·· ¬i º -r|· ¬
n|¬i l·· - ¬ r ||z|| -i n| - -l¬·ni r, r|ºi ·i| - ¬i r, ¤i··,
¬l·· ¬i º ¬¬, ¬·i| -l¬· r ||s|| lºi· ºi ¬º -ri· · ·i| -l¬· r ,
l¬,, ¬i·i¬ ¬iº ·i ¬| ¬i·i , ¬« - ¬ r ||«|| ¤i n|, ¬ n- ¬i º ¬-i·iiº|
¬i·i -l¬· r | ºiº|º ¬i º ¬i--i ·i ·i - - ¬ r ||r|| ¬«|º ¬| ¬rn r
l¬ ¬ ·¬ · r| ¬ ·¬ ¤ ·i ¬ ·º«iº - -·|¬ n r , ¬i ºi- ¬i ¤lº¤¤
¤i¬º l·- ¬ ri ¬in r ||c||s||
-· ¬lº -¬i l¬«¬i ¬lº · r|| «i ¬·riª ¤º-
n ª ¤r|||·|| ¬r º - ¬i «i n l·«i¬| ¤¬ -¬|ln
·¬ ·º·i¬||·|| ºri¬|| l-l¬l-l¬ ni-¬ ·iº- ¬·¸ º||
¬ilªi ¬ ¤ ¤ ri ; ¬«¸ º|||z|| lr ·¸ n º¬ ¬i ¬ilr« ¤¬|
¬r ¬º - ¬i ¬r ¬º ¬ ªi||s|| ¬lr ¬«|º r¬ ·i;¬i|
l··i·i| - l¬ ·i l¬ -·¸ ¬i ¬rl¬ ¬-i·i||«||«||
-· ¬i -·¬i «·i¬i ¬iº ºiº|º ¬i ¬i«i ¬-ni | ¬¬- ¬i--i
¬i r| «·i ¤|º -i·i ||·|| ¤ - ~¬i, ;¬ ·¬ ,iº ¬ ºiº|º ª¤| -l-¬·
- r| «i n ·i ¬i º ·-i¬ ¤« i ||·||ºri¬|| -· ¬| ni-l¬¬ni, n··n|
n·ii ·i -i ¬i l·l--~¬ir ¬r¬º l¬ «r ¬º ·i (-iº ·i)| ¬i-il· ¤i ¤i
l·¬iºi ¬i ªii¬º ¬·n ·- ¬iº ·i ¤ ·i· «· ¬i¬i ||z|| lr··¸ ¬iº
- ¬¬-i·, ·i ·i ¬i ¤º-i--i ¤¬ r| r, ;¬- - ~¬i ¤i ºi ªi ·¤i ¬º
¬¬n r | |s|| ¬«|º¬| ¬rn r l¬ - ni ·¤iº ¤ ·i ¬i ¬ilºi¬ r¸ |
- ºi -· -iºi ¬i¬º (l¬«r ri ¬º) ¬r¬ - r| ¬-i n¤i r ||«||«||
4346. Exhibit 72, Suit-4 (paper no. 233C1 and 234C1/1-7)
also is an extract from the book “The Sikh Religion” by Max
Arthus Macauliffe, Vol. I (supra), i.e., Exhibit 70. The part of the
verses relates to the period when Guru Nanak had travel to
eastern part of India and then some part of Punjab is contain in
Chapter VI and VII. The relevant extract thereof is as under:
“The Guru returned from Kamrup by the great river
Brahmaputra, and then made a coasting voyage to Puri on
the Bay of Bengal, where Vishnu of Krishan under the
name of Jagannath, lord of the world, is specially
worshipped. When the lamps were lit in the evening the
Guru was invited by the high priest to stand up and join in
the god's worship, which was of a gorgeous and imposing
character. In that rich temple offerings to the god were
made on salvers studded with pearls. On the salvers were
place flowers and censers. A fan was employed to excite the
flames of the incense, while the lamps around threw light
over the temple. But the use of these articles showed
artificial worship, while the expanse of the firmament, the
sun and the moon, the procession of the stars, the natural
incense of the sandal, the winds and forests, were the fitting
accessories of Nanak's purer worship of the God of
creation. The Guru therefore, instead of accepting the high
priest's invitation to adore the idol, raised his eyes to
heaven, and gave utterance to the following hymn:--
The sun and moon, O Lord, are thy lamps; the
firmament, Thy salver; the orbs of the stars, the pearls
enchased in it.
The perfume of the sandal is Thine incense; the wind
is Thy fan; all the forests are Thy flowers, O Lord of light.
What worship is this, O Thou Destroyer of birth?
Unbeaten strains of ecstasy are the trumpets of Thy
Thou hast a thousand eyes and yet not one eye; Thou
hast a thousand forms and yet not one form;
Thou hast a thousand pure feet and yet not one foot;
Thou hast a thousand organs of smell and yet not one
organ—I am fascinated by this play of Thine.
The light which is in everything is Thine, O Lord of
From its brilliancy everything is brilliant;
By the Guru's teaching the light becometh manifest.
What pleaseth Thee is the real arati.
O God, my mind is fascinated with Thy lotus feet as
the bumble-bee with the flower: night and day I thirst for
Give the water of Thy grace to the sarang Nanak, so
that he may dwell in Thy name.
While at Jagannath, Guru Nanak met a Brahman
who kept his eyes and nose closed so as to receive no
pleasure from these organs. He averred that in that state he
with his mental eyes saw the secrets of the world. Nanak
hid his lota and the Brahman could not find it, so Nanak by
the following hymn in the Dhanasari measure twitted him
on his want of omniscience:--
This is not the age, there is no longer acquaintance
with Jog; this is not the way of truth.
The holy places in the world have fallen; the world is
thus ruined.
In this Kal age God's name is the best thing.
Thou closest thine eyes and holdest thy nose to
deceive the world.
Thou holdest they nose with they thumb and first two
fingers, and sayest that thou seest the three worlds.
But thou seest not what is behind thee, this is a
wonderful thing.”
4347. Chapter VII shows that Guru Nanak after coming
back from Eastern India visited shrine of Shaikh Farid a Muslim
saint at Ajodhan (now called Pak Pattan in the southern part of
Punjab Province) and there also he expressed similar sentiments
though in respect to muslim religious shrine.
4348. Exhibit 73, Suit-4 (Paper No. 235C1 and 236C1/1-
5) is the extract of pages no. 20 to 27 from “The Evolution of
the Sikh Community” by W.H. Mc Leod published by Oxford
University press (some other pages of this book are already
exhibited as Exhibit 69, Suit-4). The reference to the travel of
Guru Nanak mention on page 23 of the said book was made. It
“Itineraries are now devised and incidents which
already had a particular location are set in appropriate
places in the travel narrative. Other incidents which
previously had no specific location are now given one. At
first the Guru's travels are relatively modest in extent, but
as the years pass from the eighteenth into the nineteenth
century we find him reaching Peking in the East and
Europe in the West. One relatively recent contribution
relates a meeting with the Pope in Rome, an opportunity
which Guru Nanak utilizes to denounce the sale of
4349. Exhibit 74, Suit-4 (Paper No. 237C1 and 238C1/1-
5) contains pages no. 221 to 224 of the book titled as “The Sikh
World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Sikh Religion and
Culture” by Ramesh Chandra Dogra Urmila Dogra 2003
Edition published by UBS Publishers' Distributors Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi. It also contains the comments of the author with
respect to the various Janamsakhis of Guru Nanak and the
extent of authenticity thereof.
4350. Exhibit 75 contains photocopies of the title page,
preface and pages no. 17, 39, 84 to 87 and 299 to 303 of “A
History of the Sikhs” by Khushwant Singh, Vol. I, 1469-1839,
first published in 1963 and 9
impression 2002 by Oxford
University Press.
4351. Suffice it to mention at this stage about the aforesaid
evidences is neither the authenticity of any of the Janamsakhi is
involved in these matters nor otherwise we have to consider in
any manner about the teachings etc. of Guru Nanak. The
reference of Guru Nanak has been made by learned counsels
appearing for Hindu parties mainly to show that he also visited
Ayodhya and after taking bath at Saryu has visited Janamsthan
also and this fact is mentioned in the books of Sikh religion
while Sri Jilani has tried to show that there is no such reference
in any of the books relating to Sikhism. We may mention that
though at some places it is found that Guru Nanak while
travelling to various places also came to Ayodhya but there is
nothing to show that he at any point of time actually visited the
disputed place and the learned counsel for the defendants in
Suit-4 and plaintiffs in other suits could not show anything to
persuade us to take a different view. In this way we find no
relevance of the above documents in these cases.
4352. Before embarking upon the question as to whether
the site in dispute is that where Lord Rama was born, we have to
first consider the question about the historicity of the matter.
The issue which relates to the faith of Hindus about the birth of
Lord Rama at Ayodhya etc. in so far as relate to the faith, the
learned counsels have already made their statements under
Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. not disputing the same and that being so,
no further enquiry on that aspect need be gone. This by itself
does not end the matter for the reason that the issue with respect
to the birth of Lord Rama at the disputed place has not been
framed merely on the basis of faith of Hindus but is a direct
issue. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Muslim
parties are that so far as the faith is concerned, the things may be
said to be beyond the pail of judicial review but where a positive
issue raises as to whether a particular thing happened or not, that
is a pure question of fact and can be investigated provided the
historicity of the matter is proved. It is suggested that the
Ramayana has been held to be a great epic and therefore, being
a mythical story, the question of actual birth of lord Rama is
beyond any comprehension and hence the question of place of
birth also become redundant.
4353. Sri P.R. Ganpati Ayyier faced with the situation in
fact sought to argue that issue No.11 (Suit 4) needs recast,
inasmuch as, it ought to be whether the property in suit as per
the faith of Hindus is the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandra Ji and he submits that issue however framed ignoring
the words 'faith of Hindus' has made the said issue faulty for the
reason that something which occurred or said to have
occurred thousands.
4354. It is said that Ayodhya is an ancient city. Goswami
Tulsidas in his renowned work Sri Ramcharit Manas besides
others has also referred to the celebration of Janam Mahotsav of
Lord Rama at Ayodhya and the belief of Hindus about the
Supreme Being therein to fulfil the wishes of the worshippers or
even a person who visit Ayodhya for once and refers to the
following verses from the Chapter of "Uttarkand" (Exhibit T4,
Suit-4), Register Vol. 18, pages 59-71, Paper No. 43A1/29-35:
n« n« ¬··i¤ º| - ¬i+ | «i¬¤lºn l«¬il¬ rº¬i+ ||
¬·- -ri -¬· · ªi¬ ¬i; | «º·i ¤i ¤ nr ºr¬ ¬i ·ii; ||
n«÷n« - ¬¤i·¤i¤ º| ¬ini r ¸ ¬i º ¬·¬| «i¬¬|¬i · ªi¬º
rl·i n ri ni r¸ | ·ri ¬i¬º - ºi- ¬i ¬·-÷-ri -¬· · ªini r¸ ¬iº
¬ ·ii¬º ¤i ¤ ··i n¬ ·r| ºrni r¸ |
l·¬ ¤ ·i ¬·- ¬··i ¬ l· ¬i¤¬ | l··i º ¤ - rº·i| ¬l- ·ii¤¬ ||
· ªi¬ ¬·- -ri -¬· ¬i; | ¬ r| l·l·i ¤ ·i- ¬ri - ni; ||
¬« - · ¬¤· -·i-| ¬i ¬··i¤ º| - ¬·- ri ·i ¬ · ¤i¤i, n« ¤ -
¬ ·iº¬º, - r·i ¤¸ · ¬ ¬- ·i · i| ¬i¬º - · ¬·-÷-ri -¬· · ªii, l¬¬
¤ ¬iº ¬ l¬ - ¤r¬ ·ºi · ¬º ¤ ¬i r¸ |
4355. In support of the submissions that the disputed site is
birthplace of Lord Rama since time immemorial, the idol of
Lord Rama is worshipped thereat since long time and also to
contradict the suggestion of the learned counsel for the Sunni
Central Wakfs Board and other Muslims parties that
Ramjanamsthan Mandir was different, i.e., towards the north of
the disputed site across the road etc., Sri M.M. Pandey, counsel
for the plaintiff (Suit-5) placed reliance on the following part of
the depositions of witnesses:
PW-1, Mohd. Hashim
¤r «in - · ¬ ·| r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ·¤i·inº ¬i -l··º r ·
ºi-÷¬i·¬| ¤i ¬|niºi- ¬ -l··º r | l¬¬ -i r~¬i - l··il·n -·i¬ r
-i r~¬i ºi-¬i - ¬¬ -i r~¬ - ¬l·i¬nº «r n ¤ i¤|· -l··º r | ¬¬-
¬·¬ ·i·· -l··º ·i| r | (¤ ¬ ss)
"I have heard that most of the temples in Ayodhya are the
temples of Ram-Janaki or Sitaram. The locality in which
the disputed site is situated, that is, the Ramkot locality
mostly have very old temples. Kanak Bhawan temple is one
of them." (ETC)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬¬i·i ºi- ¬·--·ii· ¬ -l··º ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬i -ºir¸º
-l··º r ¬·¬ ·i- r| - ¬i·ni r¸ , ¬i «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ;· ÷ln· r |
«i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ;· ÷ln· ¬·--·ii· -l··º ¬ ¬¬i·i - ¬iº l¬¬|
-l··º ¬i ·i- ·r| «ni ¬¬ni| ¤r ·i| ·r| «ni ¬¬ni l¬ «i«º|
-l-¬· ¬ ;· ÷ln· l¬n· -l··º r | zz,zs l·¬-«º, ·s«s ¬i l¬¬
-·ii· ¬| ¬ ¬| r ; , lr··¸ ¬i n ¬¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬rn ·i ¬i º - ¬¬-i·
«i«º| -l-¬· ¬rn r | ni ¤i¬ l¬ r l·ºiiº· ¬ ·i· - ·i| lr··¸ ¬i n
;¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º ¬iº - ¬¬-i· ¬i n «i«º| -l-¬· ¬rn r |
(¤ ¬ «o)
“Besides the disputed site/Ramjanmsthan temple, I know
only the names of famous temples situated in the vicinity of
the Babri mosque. Except for the Janmsthan temple in the
vicinity of the Babri mosque, I cannot tell the name of any
other temple. I cannot even tell how many temples are
there in the vicinity of the Babri mosque. The Hindus
called the place attached on 22
- 23
December, 1949,
Ram Janam Bhumi and the Muslims call it Babri mosque.
In the claim of Gopal Singh Visharad too Hindus call it
Ramjanmbhumi temple and Muslims call it Babri mosque."
¬ ¬ -·¬i - ¬¬-i·i ¬ l¬¤ ¬rl-¤n ºªini r ¬¬| nºr ¬¤i ·¤i
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬ ¬º lr·· ¬i ¬ l¬¤ -r-· ºªini r | (¤ ¬ ««)
“As Mecca holds importance for Muslims, similarly
Ayodhya holds importance for Hindus because of Lord
Rama." (ETC)
¬i ¬nr ¤. «|. ¬|. ·|. - l·ªii; n; r ¤r ·r r l¬¬ r- -l-¬·
¬rn r ¬i º lr··¸ ¬·--·ii· ¬rn r | ¬i ¬nr ¤«¸ nºi ¬| ¬¸ ºn -
lr··¸ ¬i ni ¬ ¬·¬ - r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
“The place which is marked as A. B. C. D. is the place
which we call mosque and Hindus call Janmsthan, which is
in possession of Hindus in the shape of Chabutara.”
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i lr·· ¬i ¬i ¤¬ n|·i -·i¬ r | ¤r n¬n r l¬
zz l·¬-«º, ·s«s ¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¤º lr··¸ ¬i n · ºi÷l·· ºi ¬ ¬i¬º
¤¸ ¬i÷¬¤ ·i ¬ºn ºr r | (¬¬ªi · ¬ri) l¬¤ ¤¬ ¤ ¬iº| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºni
ºri r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ zz l·¬-«º, ·s«s ¬ ;¬ ·i¸l- ¤º ¬i - ¬·-i -
- n·il·¤i r, lr··¸ ¬i n · ºi÷l·· ºi ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ¬in r | - n
-i¬¸ - ·r| l¬ ;¬ ¤lº¬º - n« r| ¬ lr··¸ ·i- ¬ ¬i ni ¬ ·iil- ¬
¬i¤i ¬· nir÷«nir ri n ºrn r (¤ ¬ ·zo)
“It is true that Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage for
Hindus. It is incorrect that since 22
December 1949
Hindus have continued to come from within the country
and abroad to perform Pooja-Archana at Ramjanmbhumi.
(Stated on his own) Just one priest has been performing
Pooja. It is true that from 22
December, 1949, Hindus
come from within the country and from abroad to have
darshan on this land, which is disputed in litigation. I do
not know that religious functions of Hindus are held off
and on in this premises since then.”(E.T.C.)
PW-2, Haji Mahboob Ahmad
¬lº¤i·i¬| l··iº ·l·ªi· ¬| nº¤ ¬| -l-¬· ¬ ·|·i¬ ¬ l-¬| r ;
·i|| r- ;¬ -l-¬· ¬rn r ·¸ ¬ºi ¤º|¬ -l··º ¬rni r | (¤ ¬ r«)
“The iron-rod wall adjoined the southern wall of the
mosque. We call it mosque and others call it temple.”
PW-4, Mohd. Yaseen
.¬i·· n¸ ¬ ¬i - ¬i ri ni r , ¬iln ¬ ¬i º ¤ n ¬ -r|· - ·i| lr·· ¬i
¬ - ¬ ri n r | ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¬iº ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬-i¤ ·i| ri n| r | ;·-
lr··¸ ¤i¤| ¬i n ¬in r | ¬¤i ·¤i ·iº ¬in| r , ¬ l¬· - ¤r ·r| ¬r
¬¬ni l¬ ·r ¬i n r¬iºi - ri n r ¤i ¬iªii - | · lr··¸ ¬i n ¬¤·
ª¤i¬ ¬ - nil«¬ ;¬ ¬nr ¬ ·ºi · ·in·i· ºi- ¬ ¬·- -·ii· ¬ ni º
¤º ¬ºn ri n | (¤ ¬ /o)
“The Savan Jhula fair is held; fairs of Hindus are held in
the months of Kartika and Chaitra as well. Panchkosi and
Chaudahkosi circumambulations are also performed.
Hindu travelers come to attend them. Ayodhya gets
thronged but I cannot say whether they are thousands or
lakhs in number. In my view, the Hindus must have had the
darshan of this place as birthplace of Lord Rama ” (E.T.C.)
...- ¬¤i ·¤i - ºrni r¸ , ;¬l¬¤ ¬ s lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬i º ¤ l·ni ¬ ·i| - º|
- ¬÷- ¬i¬in ri n| ºrn| r | ·¤ir÷ºii·| - ·i·n÷n·i¬i ·i| ri ni ºrni
r | ¬·¬i ¤r ¬¬|·i r l¬ ¤r ¬| ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii· r | (¬¬ªi ·
¬ri l¬ ¬·¬i ¬¬|·i ¬·¬ ¬i·i r) lr··¸ ¬i n ;¬ ¬nr ¬i ¤i¬
¬iº ¤l·¤ ¬-n¬º ;¬¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ /·)
“I reside at Ayodhya; so, I meet some Hindus and Pandits
(scholarly persons) too. Feasts-dinners are also organized
at weddings. It is their belief that it is the birthplace of
Lord Rama. (Stated on his own that there belief is their
own.) Hindus worship this place taking it to be holy and
sacred.” (E.T.C)
.«i«º| -l-¬· l¬¬ ·¸ ¬ºi ¤º|¬ -l·º ¬rni r , - º -¬i· ¬
¤¬÷· « l¬¬i -|-º ·¸ º ·i|| ;¬ «|¤ - ¬i«i·| ·i| r , ¬ s ªi ¬i - ·i·
·i| r ¬i º «in ·i| r | «|¤ - ri -¤|-¬ ·i| ¤· ni ·ii, «i¬iº ¬i ; ·r|
·ii| (¤ ¬ /c)
“The Babri mosque, which other people call temple, is 1½
kilometer away from my house. In between there is human
inhabitation; there is some open space and there is also a
garden. In between lay a hospital too; there was no
market.” (E.T.C)
PW-5, Abdul Rahman
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬|ºi- ·i| ·i- ¬ ºi-n ¤º r| ¤¬ ·i | r- ¬·¬i ªi ·i
·r| -i·n , ·r · ·ni r ¬i º r-iº ¤ n-«º ¬i ·¬i ºªin r | (¤ ¬ sr)
“It is true that Sri Rama also followed only the path of
religion. We do not regard him as God; he is a deity and
has the same status as that of our Prophet. ” (E.T.C)
PW-6, Mohd. Yunus Siddiqui
- n·il·¤i ¬i¤·i· ¬ ;· ln· lr·· ¬i ¬ - l·º r | ;¬ ¬i¤·i· ¬
r· -i· n« | n¬ ºi-n - lr·· ¬i ¬ «· ÷«· - l·º r ¬ ¬ ¬·¬ ·i··,
¬iº ºi-¬·- -·ii·, r· -i· n« || -i r~¬i ºi-¬i - - ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l·º
·i| r | (¤ ¬ zo)
“There are Hindu temples in the vicinity of the disputed
property. On the way from this property to Hanumangarhi
there are large Hindu temples such as Kanak Bhawan, Ram
Janam Sthan and Hanumangarhi. Ram Janam Bhumi
temple is also situated in Ramkot locality." (ETC)
PW-7, Hasmat Ulla Ansari
¬¤i ·¤i - « ni·i· -l··º r | - -i r~¬i ºi-¬i - ¬i ¬i ; -ºir¸ º
-l··º ·r| «ni ¬¬ni, ¬¤· -i r~¬ ¬i «ni ¬¬ni r¸ | ºi-¬i -
-i r~¬i ¬i ; ·¤i ·i- ri ni, - ¬¬ ·r| ¬i·ni| r· -i·n«| - ¬·i|
n¤i ·r| , ¬ l¬· ¬·iº ¬| ¬· ¬ ¬ ¬ªº n ¬ºi r¸ | - ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni
l¬ r· -i·n«| ¬i · ¬ -i r~¬ - r | (¤ ¬ z·)
“There are countless temples at Ayodhya. I cannot name
any famous temple of Ramkot locality; I can name my
locality. Ramkot locality must be a new name, which I do
not know. I have never been to Hanumangarhi but I have
certainly passed through the road running in that direction.
I am not in a position to tell in which locality
Hanumangarhi is situated.”(E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i - -lºi ¤· n ¬i ·i- - · ¬ ·i r | ·r l··il·n ¬i¤·i· ¬
¤¸ º« - r | - ·ri ¤º n¤i r ¬i r¸ | ¬ l¬· - ¬¬ ¤· n ¬ +¤º ·r|
¤« i| ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¬¬ +¤º -l··º r | (¤ ¬ zz)
“I have heard the name of Mani Parvat at Ayodhya. It
stands east of the disputed structure. I have gone there but
I did not climb that mountain. It is true that there is a
temple above it. (ETC)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬i·· ¬ -r|· - -lºi ¤· n ¤º ¬|ºi- ¬ n¸ ¬ ¤· n
r | (¤ ¬ zz)
“It is true that Mani Parvat witnesses swings named after
Sri Ram in the month of Savan” (E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - ¬ º· «r n r | ¬l¬· - ¤r ·r| «ni ¤i+ ni l¬ ·¤i·inº
¬ º· lr··¸ · ·ni¬i ¬ ·i- ¤º ri | - · ·in¸ · ¬ º· ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r ,
¬l¬· · ªii ¬·i| ·r| | (¤ ¬ zs)
“There are many pits in Ayodhya but I am not in position to
tell whether most of them are named after Hindu deities. I
have heard the name of Datun Kund but have never seen
it.” (E.T.C)
- · ¬¤i·¤i ¬ l¬¬l¬¬ - ¬|ºi- ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r, ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬i
·i- ¬ ·i r , ·ri ¤º ¬·¬i ºi¬·i·· ·i| r | (¤ ¬ zs)
“I have heard the name of Sri Rama in connection with
Ayodhya; I have heard the name of king Dashrath; his
royal palace is also located there.” (E.T.C)
ni ¬ ¬ ·i·· ¬ ·ii · i ¬i ¬i ·i ¬ ni r ¬i ¬¬| ·i·· - ·lºi·- ¬ º· r |
r· -i·n«| ¬i º ¬·¬ ·i·· ¬i ¬¤i·¤i - ri ·i - · ¬ ·i r | (¤ ¬ cs)
“Taking a slight curve from Gokul Bhawan, Vashishtha
Kund is located in that very building. I have heard of
Hanumangarhi and Kanak Bhawan being located in
Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)
PW-8, Abdul Ajij
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬i·· ¬ -r|· - -lºi ¤· n ¤º ·in·i· ºi- ¬i n¸ ¬·
- ¬i ri ni r | (¤ ¬ zs)
“It is true that Jhulan fair of Lord Ram is organized at
Mani Parvat in the month of Savan.” (E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬i¤| -l·º r | - · · ªi r ¬·¬| «·i·-
¬iº ª¤÷º ªii ¬ - ·il¬¤ r¸ | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i·¤i lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤¬
n|·i -·i¬| r | «r n ·¸ º÷·¸ º ¬ lr··¸ ¬i n ·ri ¬in r | ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-nº
- ¬º¤¸ ··| r | (¤ ¬ sz÷ss)
“There are a fairly good number of Hindu temples in
Ayodhya. I have seen them; I am acquainted with their
build and shape. It is true that Ayodhya is a place of
pilgrimage for Hindus. Hindus come there from very far-off
places. The Saryu river flows in the north of Ayodhya.”
- n ;¬ «in ¬i ª¤i¬ ·r| l¬ ¬·º ¤i-¬ ¬ ¬··º ·ilªi¬ ri · ¤º
«|¤ - ªi· ri ¬º ¬nº · ªii ¬i¤ ni ·r ·l·iºi ·i¬i ¤«¸ nºi l¬n·
¤i¬¬ ¤º ri ni| ;¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬ ·l·iºi ¬i º ¤lº¤- - ·¤i r - ·r| «ni
¬¬ni ·¤i l¬ - ¬·iº ¬·i| ·r| n¤i| - ;¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬| ¬-«i; ·i| ·r|
«ni ¬¬ni ;¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¤ºi ¬ + ¤i; ·¤i·i ·r| ·i| l¬¤
¤¬ ¤i · « ¤ - ºr| ri n|| (¤ ¬ sr)
“I do not remember at what distance would be the southern
Chabutara if seen while standing in the middle on entering
through the Sadar gate. I cannot tell what is there in the
south and west of this Chabutara because I have never
been to that side. I also cannot tell the length of this
Chabutara. This Chabutara was not at much height from
the surface of the ground; it would have been only 1 or 1½
feet.” (E.T.C)
r-· ¬ ·i r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤ ¤ ¬ -r|· - ºi- ··-| ¬i - ¬i ri ni r
·ri ¬·i| ·r| n¤ ;¬l¬¤ ·r| ¬r ¬¬n l¬ ¬¬- ¬iªii ¬i n ºiº|¬
ri n ri | ¬i·· - n¸ ¬ ¬i - ¬i ·i| ri ni r -i¬¸ - ·r| l¬ ¬¬- ¬iªii
lr··¸ n|·i ¤i¤| ºiil-¬ ri n ri ·¤i l¬ - · ¬¬ - ¬ - ¬·i| lºiº¬n
·r| ¬|| ;· - ¬i ¬ ··n r-· ¤ ¬i«i· - ¬·i| ·i|· ·r| · ªi|
«rºri¬ ¬· ¬ ¤º ¬i n ¤¬n ºrn r | (¤ ¬ /·)
“I have heard that Ramnavami fair is organized at
Ayodhya in month of the Chaitra. I have never gone there;
so, I cannot say whether lakhs of people take part in it.
Jhula Mela (fair mark by swings) is also organized in
Savan. I do not know whether lakhs of Hindu pilgrims take
part in it because I never attended it. On the occasion of
these fairs, I never saw crowd in Faizabad. However,
people are seen moving on the road.” (E.T.C)
;¬ - ¬·- - n·i¬i - l·º -l-¬· ¬i r | lr··¸ ¬i n ;¬ ¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- -l·º -i·¬º ¤¸ ¬i ¬¤ ·i ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ /z)
“Dispute in this case is over temple or mosque. Hindus
worship it taking it to be Shri Ramjanmbhumi temple.
PW-9, Saiyed Ekhalaq
-i·¬¤i - ¬i ·¤i¤iº - · ·s/o÷/· ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ ºi ª l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬
“I started transport business in or around 1970-71.”
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i lr·· ¬i ¬i n|·i -·i¬ ¬º¬ -ºir¸ º r | ¬¤i ·¤i
- r¬iºi -l··º ni ¬ªº r | (¤ ¬ s)
“It is true that Ayodhya is famous as a pilgrimage site for
Hindus. There are certainly thousands of temples in
Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)
;¬ -l··º ¬i º -l-¬· ¤il· ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ l¬n· ·i|
- ¬·- ¤¬ ºr r , ri ¬¬ni r ¬· ¬« - - º r¬¤·i- ¬n ri | ¤r
-|¬ r l¬ ni¬i ªi ¬· ¬ «i· ;¬ - ¬·- ¬| ¤ º·| - - ri; ¬i - ·i|
¬ini ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·c)
“My affidavits may have been filed in all pending cases
relating to this temple or mosque, i.e. Ramjanmbhumi-
Babri mosque. It is true that since the time of the unlocking
incident I have been coming to High Court too in order to
pursue this case.” (E.T.C)
lr··¸ r¬ºin ¬i ¤r ¤¬|·i r l¬ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ; º·º ¬ ¬·niº ·i
¬iº · ¬¤i ·¤i - ¤ ¬- r ¤ ¬l¬· ¤r ¬·¬i ¤¬|·i r - ºi ·r| | -
¬ ·ni r¸ l¬ lr··¸ r¬ºin ¤r ¤¬|·i ºªin r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬·¬i
¬·--·ii· r | ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ·i ¬·¬i ¬·--·ii· -i·n
r | (¤ ¬ «z)
“It is the belief of Hindu community that Lord Shri Rama
was an incarnation of God and he appeared in Ayodhya.
However, it is their belief, not mine. I hear that Hindus
believe that Ayodhya is his birthplace. They regard Shri
Ramjanmbhumi in Ayodhya as his birthplace.” (E.T.C)
- n ·¤i·i ;~- ·r| r , ri ¬¬ni r l¬ ¬i¬iº ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ·i¬
lr··¸ ¬i n ¤¸ ¬÷¤-n|, · ·i ¬i º ¤ºi ÷¤·i| ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ri | ri ¬¬ni
r · ·l·¤i , nº·i ¬| ·i| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ri | ¬- · ¬| ·i| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ri ,
¬¸ ¤ , ¤·· -i, ··i¤, ·i¤ , ¬¬, ¬l··, ¤i·iiºi ;· ¬« ¤|¬i ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn
ri | (¤ ¬ rs)
“I do not have much idea about whether-it may be that-
Hindus worshiping the embodied form of God worshiped
flowers, leaves, trees, animals and birds. May be that they
worship rivers and lakes; seas; and all these things like
the sun, the moon, air, water, fire and stone.” (E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ - n·il·¤i «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ ¬n¬÷«n¬ lr·· ¬i ¬
-l··º r | ;·- ¬ ¬ s -l··ºi ¬i ni - ¬i·ni r¸ , ¬i - º| ri ºi ¬
¤r¬ ¬ ¤¬ ¬i ºr r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“It is true that there are Hindu temples in vicinity of the
disputed Babri mosque. I do know some of these temples,
which have been in existence since before the time of my
attaining understanding.” (E.T.C)
¬nº ¬n¬÷«n¬ ¬ - ºi· ¬- r ¤ ri · ¬ ri ni ¬ªº ·ri ¤º
- ¬¬-i·i ¬| ¬i«i·| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·oo)
“If vicinity is taken to mean the adjoining area, there is
certainly no Muslim inhabitation there.” (E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ;¬ ¬· ¬ ¬ ¤i·| ºi-n ¬ ·i ·i nº¤ lr·· ¬i ¬
¤ ºi· -l··º r ¬i l¬ ¬ªi·+, niºªi¤ º ºi · n¬ r | ;¬ «|¤ - ¬· ¬
¬ l-¬| r ; - ¬¬-i·i ¬| ¬i«i·| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·oo)
“It is true that there are old temples of Hindus on both
sides of this road, i.e. route, which stretches upto
Lucknow-Gorakhpur road. There is no Muslim inhabitation
along the road in between.” (E.T.C)
PW-10, Mohd. Idris
- l··il·n ¬i¤·i· ¤º ¬·i| ·i| ·r| n¤i| - · ¤ ¬i l¬¬| niº|ªi -
·r| ¤« i l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i lr·· ¬i ¬i n|·i -·ii· -i·i ¬ini ri ¤i ·ri
·in·i· ºi- ¬ ¬·- ri · ¬| ¬i ; ·iiººii ri | ¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ -¬ r«| ºirº
r , ·r lr·· ¬i ¬i ·i| -¬ r«| ºirº r ¬iº - ¬¬-i·i ¬i ·i| -¬ r«|
ºirº r | ¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ ··| ¬ l¬·iº «¬i r ¬i r | ¤ir ¬¬¬i ·i-
¬º¤¸ ¬lr¤ ¤ir ·ii·iºi| ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - - l·ºi ¬| ·iº-iº
r |. (¤ ¬ ss).
"I never went to the disputed site. In any I did not read in
any history that Ayodhya is regarded as a place of
pilgrimage of Hindus or that there is any perception as to
birth of Lord Rama there. Ayodhya is a religious town. It is
a religious town for Hindus and so is it for Muslims.
Ayodhya is established on the bank of river. It may be
called either Saryu or Ghaghra. It is true that Ayodhya is
flooded with temples.”(E.T.C)
PW-11, Mohd. Burhanuddin
- · l¬¬| · ·| · ·ni ¬ ·i- ·r| ¬ · | ¬·¬| ¤¸ º| n¤¬|¬ ¬ ¬i·i
·r| ¬ · , ºi- ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“I did not hear the name of any male or female diety. I did
not hear of them with full details; I have heard the name
of Rama.” (E.T.C)
.¬ri n¬ - n ¤i· r «i«º ¤ri ssz lr¬º| - ¤ri ¬i¤i ·ii ¬i º
ºii¤· ¬¬¬i ss/ lr¬º| - ; n¬i¬ r ¬i ·ii| ¬ri n¬ - · ¤« i r
«i«º ¬i ¬¤i·¤i ¬i·i ¬il«n ·r| ri ni| (¤ ¬ cr)
“As far as remember, Babar came here in 932 hijri and
died perhaps in 937 hijri. As far as I have read, Babar's
arrival at Ayodhya is not proved. ” (E.T.C)
n ¬ ¬ «i«º| - ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬r n¤ ¬·--·ii· ¬i l¬¬ ¤«i r | (¤ ¬
“I have gone through the mention of Janmsthan stated to
be in Ayodhya, in Tuzuk-e-Babri.” (E.T.C)
PW-12, Ram Shankar Upadhyay
¬·-·i¸ l- -- ¤ º| ¬ ri·l·, ¬-nº l·lºi n lr ¬º¬¸ ¤i·l· ¤r ¤i ¤i;
n ¬¬|·i¬ · ·in·i· ºi- ¬ - ªi ¬ ¬r¬·i; r , ¤il· l¬ -·¤ ·in·i·
· ¬¤·| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬¤i·¤i ¤ º| ¬i ¬¤· ¬«¬ l¤ ¤ ¬ri r | (¤ ¬ r)
“Tulsidas has got this quatrain-Janmbhumi Mam Puri
Suhawani, Uttar Dishi Tu Hi Sarju Pawani- spoken from
the mouth of Lord Rama, that is to say, God himself has
stated Ayodhyapuri to be most favorite one. ” (E.T.C)
n ¬¬|·i¬ ¬| · ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ ¬i º¤·i ¬-·n ·cs· - ¬| ·i||
n ¬¬|·i¬ ¬| ¬| -i·¬ ¬iº ·i~-|¬| ¬| ºi-i¤ºi, ·i ·i ¬i - ª¤ l··i¤
·in·i· ºi- ¬i r| r | ·in·i· ºi- ¬i r- ·in·i· l··ºi ¬i ¬i·iin
¬·niº -i·n r | (¤ ¬ c)
“Tulsidas Ji composed the Ramcharit Manas in Samvat
1631. The main subject of both Tulsidas's Manas and
Valmiki's Ramayana is Lord Ram himself. We regard Lord
Rama as a manifest incarnation of Lord Vishnu.” (E.T.C)
ªi · ¬ri l¬ ¬¤i·¤i ·in·i· ¬| ·nº| r , ¬¬ ¬i ; ·r| ¬|n ¬¬ni
ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ ¤i ·i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬ ¬¬i·i - · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ¤ i¤|·
;lnri¬ ·r| ¤« i| (¤ ¬ /)
“(Stated on his own) Ayodhya is a town of God. Nobody
can conquer it. I did not read ancient history of Ayodhya
except the Ramcharit Manas or the Valmiki Ramayana.”
- ¬·¬ ·i·· ¬¤i·¤i ¤¬÷¬i·i «iº n¤i r¸ | ·ri - · ·ºi · ni l¬¤
r , ¤º ·r l¬¬ · ·ni ¬i -l··º r, ;n·i ·¤i· ·r| | (¤ ¬ ··)
“I have been to Kanak Bhawan at Ayodhya once or so. I
have certainly had darshan there but I do not remember
which deity that is the temple of.” (E.T.C)
¬nº l¬¬| -l··º - «i¬ -·ª¤ ri ni ·in·i· ºi- ¬¬i ¬| ¤ ln-i
ri n|| ¤ ¬i ¬i ; ¤ ln«··i ·r| r l¬ ¬ri «i¬ -·ª¤ ºi- ¬¬i ¬| -¸ ln
-·iil¤n ri ·ri ¤º ¬|ni ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ºªi| ·r| ¬i ¬¬n| r |(¤ ¬ ··)
“If the child form of a deity exists in a temple, the idol
would be that of Lord Ram Lala. There is no such
restriction that where the idol of Ram Lala in child form is
installed, the idol of Sita Ji cannot be placed there.”
·in·i· ºi- ¬¬i ¬| -¸ln ¤ir ¤i·iiºi ¬| ri ¤ir ¬·-·iin¸ ¬| ri ,
-·iil¤n ri · ¬ «i· ·r ¬ ¤¬ r| ¬r¬i¤ n|| ·r -¸ln ¬il¬ n ºi-
·in·i· ¬r¬in| r | ¬il¬n ºi- ·in·i· ¬| -¸ln · ni -·iil¤n ri n| r
¬iº · r| ¬¬¬i l·¬¬ · ri ni r, · r| ¬¬¬i ¤ iºi÷¤ ln·-i ri n| r,
·r -·¤ ·i¸ r | (¤ ¬ ··)
“The idol of Lord Ram Lala, whether of stone or
Ashtdhatu, after being installed will only be called
immovable. That idol is called Lord Salig Ram. The idol of
Lord Salig Ram is neither installed nor immersed nor
vivified; it is self-created.” (E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬-nº ¬| nº¤ ¤¬ ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ·i-¬ ¬nr r |
·r ¤¬ -l··º ¬| ºi·¬ - r | - ¬¬¬ ·i|nº ¬·i| ·r| n¤i| l··il·n
-·i¬ ¬iº ¬¬ -·ii· ¬ «|¤ - n¬º|«· co÷/o ¬·- ¬i ¤i¬¬i
ri ni| (¤ ¬ r·)
“To the north of the disputed site there is a place called
Ramjanmsthan. That is in the shape of a temple. I never
entered it. The distance between the disputed site and that
place would be nearly 60-70 paces.” (E.T.C)
PW-13, Suresh Chandra Mishra
- ¬i;l-l¤¬ - -¤ºi- - ¬i ¬i·-| r¸ , - l¬¬| -¸ ln ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ·r|
¤ º·÷ ¬i¤ ¬il-n¬ r ¤i ·il-n¬ `
¬-nº÷ - ;· ·i ·i ·iiºi¬i ¬i ·r| -i·ni|
- · ·i ¬i ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬i n ¬ ª¤ - r| -i·ni r¸ | ·º·i ¬¬- ¬i ;
¬i-·ii ¬ ¬| ¤|¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ s)
“I am a man of scientific temperament; I do not worship
any idol.
Question:- Are you a theist or atheist?
Answer:- I do not believe in any of these two thoughts.
I consider Vedas only to be the source of history. Except
that I do not have any thing like faith in them.” (E.T.C)
º·i ·ºi - ºi- ¬ «iº - l¬¬ r | - · ¬il· ¬l· ·i~-|¬ ¬i ºi- (·i-)
·i| ¬ ·i r | ºi-i¤ºi ¬·¬| ¤ l¬, º¤·i r | ¤ ¬i ·r| r l¬ ·i~-|l¬ ·
ºi-i¤ºi ¬¤· lºi·¤i ¬i ¬ ·i; ri ¬i º ¬·ri · ¬¬ ¬«i·| ¤i· ¬º¬
«i· - l¬ªii ri | (¤ ¬ ·«)
“There is mention of Rama in Raghuvansh. I have heard of
the earliest poet Valmiki by the name of Ram as well. It is
not that Valmiki recited the Ramayana to his disciples, who
committed it to their memory and later put it in writing.”
¬· ¬ ln ¬i º ¤· n| n ··ii ¬ lr¬i« ¬ ·i~-|l¬ · ;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬| º¤·i
n-¬i ··| ¤º ºi ª ¬| ·i|| n-¬i ··| ¬i ¬ s ¬i n ni -¬ ¬ ¬-|¬ n
¬ºn r | ¤r ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬ s ¤i¬¬ ¤º ·l·iºi - r | ·i~-|l¬ ¬| ¬i
¬-¤ l·lº¤n ·r| r ¬l¬· ¬·¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬ ¬nni r l¬ l¬¬ ··n
¬¬¬| º¤·i ¬| n; n« ¬¤i ·¤i - -· ·¤i ¬| ¬i«i·| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·«)
“As per Anushruties and Parvati treatises, Valmiki has
started composing this book at the river Tamsa. Some
people associate the river Tamsa with Tomas. It is in the
south at some distance from Ayodhya. The period of
Valmiki is not definite but it appears from his Ramayana
that there was human inhabitation in Ayodhya at the time it
was composed.” (E.T.C)
- · ºi-i¤ºi ¬i ¤« i r | ;¬ ¤ -n¬ - ¬r| ÷¬r| ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¬i ni
¬| · ºi·i¸·ii, ºr·÷¬r·, ¬i-il¬¬ ·¤·riº · n|¬÷-¤i riºi ¬i l¬¬ ·i|
¬ini r | ºi-i¤ºi - - ª¤ ¤lº¤ ºi- ¬i r ¬i ¬¤i·¤i ¬iº· ¬
¤lnril¬¬ ª¤ ¬ ºi ª ri ni r ¬i º ¬-nº ¬iº· n¬ ¤¬ni r | (¤ ¬
“I have read the Ramayana. This book also mentions at
certain places about the dress, way of living, social
behaviour and festivals of people of that time. The main
character of Ramayana is that of Rama which,historically,
begins from Ayodhya Kand (Ayodhya canto) and extends up
to Uttar Kand (Uttar canto).” (E.T.C)
l¬¬ «-n|, ·nº, ni · - l¬¬| ¬i ¬·- ri ni r ·r ¬¬¬| ¬·-·i¸l-
«i ¬| ¬in| r , ·r ¬¬¬i ¬·--·ii· ri ni r | (¤ ¬ ·/)
“A hamlet, town or village in which one is born is called
his birthplace; that is his birthplace.” (E.T.C)
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ¬|ºi- ¬ - ªi ¬ ¬·¬ ¬·--·ii· ¬i l¬¬ ¬ºi¤i
n¤i r , ¬i ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ·i- ¬ r , ¬l¬· ¤r «i· - ¬| n; «« i -nº|
ri ¬¬ni r | - º| n|¬÷-¤i riºi - ¬i-·ii r , ¬·- - º| ·iin|·iº| ·i| r
¬iº ¬·¬i - -·ini ·i| r¸ | ¬« - ¬¤i ·¤i n¤i ni - · ;¬ ¤¬
;lnri¬¬iº ¬ ª¤ - · ªii| (¤ ¬ ·/)
“The Valmiki Ramayana sees the mention of Janmsthan
(birthplace) coming from the mouth of Sri Rama, which
Janmsthan is known as Janmbhumi but it may be a
subsequent addition. I have faith in festivals; I also take
part in them I also believe in them. When I visited Ayodhya,
I saw it as a hostorian.” (E.T.C)
- º -ini÷l¤ni¬| ¬¤i ·¤i -l··º - ·ºi · ¬ l¬¤ n¤ ·i (l¤º ¬ri) ·
ºi- -l··º ¬ ·ºi · ¬ l¬¤ ·i| n¤ ·i | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤·| ¬,i ¬
¬· ¬iº ¬·ri · ·ri ¤º l-·-i·· ¬iº ¤ ·¤ ¤«i¤ ¬i º ·ºi · ·i| l¬¤i|
- n l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬i·· ¬ «iº - l¬ni¬i ¬¬ ··n ·i| ·i|| - º|
l¬ni¬i ºi ª ¬ r| ºr| r | ¬n·in ·sco ¬ r| - n ;¬¬i ¬i·· ¬|
l¬ni¬i ¤ ·i ri n; ·i|| - · ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·ii ¤« | ·i|| (¤ ¬
“My parents had gone to have darshan at the Ayodhya
temple. (Further stated) They had gone to also have
darshan of the Rama temple. It is true that they had as per
their faith offered sweets and flowers and had got darshan
thereat. Even at that time I had curiosity to know about the
disputed site. I have been curious right since the beginning.
Curiosity to know about it developed in me since around
1960 itself. I had read the story of Shri Rama at that time.”
- · ¤|. ¬i· n| ,iºi l¬ªii ;lnri¬ ¤« i r | - n ;¬ l¬ni« ¬ l¬ªi·
¬| niº|ªi ¤i· ·r| | · ¤ ¬i«i· l··|¬· ¬ ¬l-º·º ·i | - n -i¬¸ -
·r| l¬ ;¬ l¬ni« ¬i ; · i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ ·i- « ·i «-n - l¬¤i n¤i
·ii ¤i ·r| | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬i ¤¸ ºi ·i- ¤ lr--ilº¬¬
-¬ ¤ ¬i ¤ nr¬|¬ ¤ ¬i«i·, l¬¬i ¤ ¬i«i· ;··¬¸l· n ¤ºn·i r· ¬|
¬··i ¤º· ¤lº¤- ºi· l·· ¬i ~· ¬l¤-¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¤º· ¤ ¬i«i· «i;
¤|. ¬i· n| r | ¬¬ ¤ -n¬ - ¬· -l··º÷-l-¬· ¬i º n ª,iºi ¬i ; · i¬
l¬¤i n¤i r ¬i ¬¬ ¬-¤ n¬ -i ¬¸ · ·i | (¤ ¬ zz)
“I have read history written by P. Carnegie. I do not
remember the date on which this book was written. He was
the Commissioner of the Faizabad division. I do not
remember whether this book was recorded in the First
Settlement of Ayodhya or not. It is true that the full name of
this book is: 'A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Faizabad
including Pargana Haveli Awadh and Pashchim Rod with
Old Capital Ayodhya, Faizabad by P. Carnegie. This book
records temples, mosques and Gurudwaras which were
present by that time.” (E.T.C)
- n -¸ ln ¤i n¬ ¬i· ¬ l¬¤ ºi ¬i n¤i ·ii ;¬l¬¤ - ¬¤· -ini÷l¤ni
¬ ¬i·i ¬··º ·r| n¤i| (¤ ¬ ss)
"I had been forbidden to go up to the idols, that is why, I
could not go inside along with my parents." (E.T.C)
-ri¤ ºiºii - -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ·i| ¤¬ ¤ ºiºi r | -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¤¬ «· |
¤ -n¬ r ¬i ¬; ·iini - r | -¬··i ¤ ºiºi - ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¤¬ ªiº·
¬i ·iin r | ¤ i¤|· ·iiºn|¤ ;lnri¬ - n|·ii ¬i º ¬¤n|·ii ¬i l¬¬
¬i¤i r | (¤ ¬ sr)
"Out of the Maha-puranas, Skandha-purana is also a
Purana. Skandha-purana is a voluminous book which has
many parts. In Skandha-purana, Ayodhya Mahatmya is a
portion of one of its parts. 'Teerthas'(sites of pilgrimage)
and 'Up-Teerthas' (minor sites of pilgrimage) have found
mention in ancient Indian history.” (E.T.C)
lr··¸ ¬i n ¬¬ n ·niº·ii- ¬i ·i| n|·i -i·n r ¬ri ¬·ii¬i ¬ ¬· ¬iº
¬|ºi- n ·n r ¤ «ni¤ ¬in r | n ··ii ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r n·¤ ¬ini r l¬
¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - r ¬i| (¤ ¬ ss)
“Hindus regard the Guptarghat, too, as a place of
pilgrimage where, as per stories, Sri Rama is stated to
have disappeared. From the treatises it is believed that Shri
Rama was born at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)
- ¤i¬| ·ii·ii ·i| ¬i·ni r¸ ¬ l¬· -l¬¤i¬| ·r| ¬i·ni| (¤ ¬ «·)
"I also know Pali language but don't know Malyali." (ETC)
-¬··i ¤ ºiºi - · ¬ -¬ n ·ii·ii - ¤«i r | ¬¸ - · o÷r ¬i ¤ ¤ º
· o÷·o/¬|÷·,/r - · · ªi l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ «·)
“ I have read the Skandha-purana in Sanskrit. I have gone
through paper no. 107C-1/75 of the suit no.5." (ETC)
¬º¤¸ ··| ¬ ¬¬ - -·i· ¬º¬ ¤il¤¤i - -i r ¬-¤·· ¬º· ·i¬ n·ii
« l,-i· «·i· ·i¬ l¤º·iº¬ ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º·| ¤ilr¤| ;¬ (¤¸ ·¤) · ·ni
¬| ¤i¤i ··ºil¤ ¬ l··i - ¬º·| ¤ilr¤| ¬¬¬| l·ºii ¬ ¤lº¤- l·ºii
- l··· ºi ¬| l·lº¤n r| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º·| ¤ilr¤| (¤ ¬ «·)
“After taking a dip in the river Saryu one should worship
Pindarak, who arouses the sense of attachment in sinners
and makes one wise. One should make a trip to this
(venerated) deity during the days of Navratri. One should
certainly worship Vighnesh located in its western
direction.” (E.T.C)
l¤º·iº¬ ºi·· ¬i ¬·i r ¤¸ ·¤·|¤ · ·ni| l¬¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬¤i ·¤i
-ri--¤ - ¬i¤i r | (¤ ¬ «z)
“The word Pindarak means 'revered deity', who has found
mention in Ayodhya Mahatmya.” (E.T.C)
l¬¬ l···ºi ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ ¬i ni ¬i º¤-i¤ ·i¤ ·r| ri ni| ;¬
¬iººi ¬ ¬·i| ¤ ¬iº ¬| ;·si¬i ¬i ¤¬ · · ·i¬ l··· º·º ¬| ¤¸ ¬i
¬º·| ¤ilr¤| ¬¬ -·ii· ¬ ¬-nº ¤¸ · l·ºii - ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¤· ni
r | ;¬ ¬·--·ii· ¬i -i ·i ;-¤il· ¬ ¤¬ ¬i · · ·i¬i ¬ri n¤i r |
l···º·º ¬ ¤¸ · ·iin - n·ii ·lºi·- ¬ ¬-nº l··· º·º ¬ ¤¸ · ·iin -
¬·--·ii· r | l¬¬¬i · ªi· ¬ -· ·¤ ¬i n·i - (ºr· ) ¬ , l«·i ·i·
l·¤, n¤-¤i l¬¤, l«·i n|·i n¤, l«·i l¬¬| ¤n (ri -) l¬¤ l·¬¤| ri
¬ini r | (¤i - ·n ri ¬ini r)| (¤ ¬ «z)
“One should worship Vighneshwar, after having whose
darshan people do not have even an iota of fear and who
by means of this fructifies all types of desires.
Ramjanmsthan lies in north-west of that place. This place
is called the provider of liberation etc. In the eastern part
of Vighneshwar located in the north of Vashishtha lies
Janmsthan, by having sight of which one conquers the
stage of being in womb (or one is liberated) without
making any gifts, without practising austerities, without
going on pilgrimage and without making any sacrifices.”
- ;¬ l··¬·i ¤º ¤r ¤i r¸ l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ ·iil- ¬ ·nº| ·i| r | ;·
¤ -n¬i ¬i º ¤ ºiºii - ¬r| ¤ ¬i ¬i¤i ·i| r ¬i º ¬r| ÷¬r| ·r| ·i|
¬i¤i l¬ ·in·i· l··ºi · ºi- ¬ ª¤ - ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·niº l¬¤i| ¤r
-|¬ r l¬ ¬ s ¬i n -i·n r ¬iº ¬l·¤i ¬ ¬|ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ·in·i· ¬
ª¤ - ¬ºn ¬i¤ r ¬ l¬· ¤ ¬ ¬i n · ·ºi· ¬-¤ ·i¤ ¤i ºi-·i·n r | ¤r
·i| -|¬ r l¬ ¤ ¬i n ¬¤i·¤i - n|·i ¤i¤i ¬ l¬¤ l·l·i·· -·ii·i ¤º
¬in r | (¤ ¬ ·/c)
“I have come to a conclusion that Ayodhya is a religious
town as well. In these books and the Puranas, it is
somewhere mentioned and somewhere not mentioned that
Lord Vishnu incarnated himself as Rama in Ayodhya. It is
true that some people believe in him and have been
worshiping Sri Rama as God for centuries but such people
are followers of the Vaishnavite sect or Rama-worshipers.
It is also true that these people visit different places in
Ayodhya as part of their pilgrimage.” (E.T.C)
n-i- -i·¤ni¬i - ¬ ¤r ¤¬ -i·¤ni ri ¬¬n| r ¬ s ¬i ni ¬| l¬
¬¤i·¤i - ·in·i· ºi- · ¬·- l¬¤i ·ii ;¬l¬¤ ¤r n|·i -·ii· r |
¤ º·÷ ¬i ¬i n ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬iºi·i·i ¬ºn r · ¬i n ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i
¬·¬| ¬·--·i¬| -i·n r `
¬-nº÷ ¤r -|¬ r | (¤ ¬ ·//)
“Of many beliefs it may be a belief of some people that
Lord Rama took birth at Ayodhya and as such it is a place
of pilgrimage.
Question:- Do Rama-worshiping people consider Ayodhya
to be his bithplace?
Answer:- It is true.” (E.T.C)
- · 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 ªii ¬ · ªi¬º ¬¬¬| ¬·¤i; ¬i ¬i ¬¬·
l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ z·r)
“My inference in regard to Ram Janam Bhumi, is based
mainly on my study of Skanda Purana and is also based on
plenty of pilgrimage-related literature which extends up to
the 17
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." (ETC)
·scc ¤i ¬¬¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ ¬« - ¤r¬| «iº ¬¤· -ini÷l¤ni ¬ ¬i·i
l··il·n ·i·· - ¬i¤i ¬iº ·ri ¬·ri · -·iil¤n -¸ ln ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ni ¬«
- n ¤i· ·r| l¬ ·r -¸ ln l¬¬ · ·| ¤i · ·ni ¬| ·i| ¤i ¬·ri · ¬¤·
¬i · ¬ ;·-· · ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ·i|| ¬¬ ··n ¬| - n «r n r|
r~¬|÷¤ ~¬| ¤i· r ;¬l¬¤ - ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ¬·ri · - ª¤ ,iº ¬
¬··º ¬i¬º l¬¬| ¤¬ -·ii· ¤i ¤|¬ ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ri l¬¬ ¬|ni º¬i ;
¤i ¤¸ ~ri ¬ri ¬ini ri ¤i ¤¸~r ¬| ºi·¬ ¬| ¬i ; ¤|¬ ¬r| ¬in| ri |
- n ·¤i· ·r| l¬ ·ri ¤º ¤ººil¤·r ·i| ri , l¬·¬| - º -ini÷l¤ni ·
¤¸ ¬i ¬| ri | ¬i - n ¤r ¬ ni· l·¤i ¬i ºri r l¬ - º -ini÷l¤ni ·
·ri ¤º ¤ººil¤·ri ¬| ¤i ¬|ni º¬i ; - ¤¸ ~r ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ·i|, ¤r «in
- n ¤i· ·r| r ;¬l¬¤ ;¬ n¬n ·i| ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni| - º -ini÷l¤ni
¬¬ -·ii· ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ n¤ ·i , ·ri ¤º l¬¬| -¸ln ¬| ¤¸ ¬i
¬º· ·r| n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ zss)
“In or around 1966, I first went to the disputed structure
along with my parents, and if they had worshiped the idol
installed there I now do not remember which male or
female deity was represented by that idol or which favored
deity was worshiped by them. I have faint memory of that
time, as such I can not tell whether they had gone inside
and worshipped some place or thing called ‘Sita Rasoi’ or
Chulha (hearth) or something shaped like hearth. I do not
remember whether foot prints were there which my parents
worshiped. I am being led to believe my parent worship
foot prints or the hearth in Sita Rasoi there. I do not
remember anything, that's why I cannot term them
incorrect. My parents had gone to worship that place; they
had not gone to worship any idol there.” (ETC)
¬·i¬ ¬i¤¬ -ini÷l¤ni ¬« ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤¸ ¬i ¬ l¬¤ n¤ ni ¤ir
·ri ¤º l¬¬| ·i| · ·|÷· ·ni ¬| -¸ln -·iil¤n ºr| ri ¬l¬· · ;¬
·iiººii ¬ n¤ ·i l¬ ·ri ¤º ¬|ºi- r ¬i º ¬·¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¤i·| ·in·i·
¬|ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º·| r `
¬-nº · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ n-i- n|·i -·i¬i ¬ ¬i·i ;¬ -·ii· ¬i ·i| · ªi·
n¤ ·i ¬iº ¬ilrº r l¬ ¬·¬| ;¬- ¬i-·ii ·i|| - º -ini÷l¤ni ·ri ¤º
¤¸ ¬i ¬ l¬¤ n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ z«o)
“Question: Do you think that when your parents went to
that place of worship having idol of any male or female
deity installed there, they had the impression that Sri Rama
existed there and they had to offer worship to him, i.e. Lord
Sri Rama?
Answer: They had gone to see this place besides many
places of pilgrimage at Ayodhya, and it is apparent that
they had faith in them. My parents had gone there to offer
prayer.” (E.T.C.)
¬i ¬i n ¬¤i ·¤i - ;¬ nºr ¬ ¬in r , · -l··ºi - ·i| ·ºi ·i ¬ l¬¤
¬in r ¬i º l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· ·i| ¬in r | - · ;· ·i ·i
¬·¬ºi ¤º ¬« ·ri n¤i ·ii, ¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r| ·¤i·i
·i|· · ªi| ·i|| ··| ¬ n- ¤º ·i| ·i|· ·i|| ··| ¬ - ºi ¬l·i¤ i¤ ¬º¤¸
n- ¬ r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬i ¬i n ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬in r , · ¬º¤¸ - -·i·
¬ºn r , -l··ºi ¬ ·ºi · ¬ºn r ¬iº l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ·i| ·ºi · ¬ºn
r | · l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ·i| ¬in r ¬i º ¬·¤ ¤ lnril¬¬ -·ii·i ¤º ·i|
¬in r |
÷ ·. ºi-··-| ¬i - ¬i, z. «º¬in ¬ -i;- n¸ ¬i, s. ¬ niº¬ ¤n ·i| , «.
¬iln ¬ ¬ -i¬ - ¬º¤¸ -·i·, r. ºi-l··ir - ¬i, c. ·in¤ ¤-|
¬il·÷¬il· ¬r ¬i ¬¬n r | (¤ ¬ z//)
“People who come to Ayodhya in this manner, come
here to have Darshan at temples as well and they also go
for Darshan of the disputed site. On both of the occasions
when I visited there, I had seen a sizable crowd only at the
disputed site in Ayodhya. There was a crowd on the bank of
the river too. By the river I mean the bank of Saryu. It is
true that people who visit Ayodhya, take a dip in Saryu,
have Darshan of temples and also have Darshan of the
disputed site. They visit the disputed site and also go to
other historical places.
They may be called: (1) Ramnavami Fair, (2) Rainy-
time Swing (3) Angarak Chaturthi (4) Saryu bath in the
month of Kartik (5) Ram Vivah Fair (6) Nagpanchami etc.”
¬i-i·¤ -¤i riºi ¤º ¤iº÷¤i ¤ r¬iº ¬i n ;¬- -i ri ¬in r ¬«l¬
- ª¤ -¤i riºi ¤º zo÷zr r¬iº ¬i n ·ri ;¬- -i ri ¬in r | - ;¬
«in ¬i ¬lnº¤i l·n -i·ni r¸ l¬ ºi-··-|, ¬i·· n¸ ¬i ¬il· ¤·i ¤º
·ri ¬iªii ¬| ¬ ª¤i - ¬i n ¤¬l¤n ri n ri | (¤ ¬ z/s)
“4-5 thousand people assemble there on occasions of
ordinary festivals, whereas 20-25 thousand people
converge there on occasions of main festivals. I consider it
to be an exaggeration that lacs of people assemble there on
the occasions of Ramnavami, Savan Joola, etc.
¬i ¬¬ ;···i¤º|¬ ¬ l¬¬l¬¬ - - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º n¤i| -
~ºi-i ¤· ·ii- n¤i, ·lºi·- ¬ º· «ni¤ ¬i· ·i¬ -- ·¤º ¤º n¤i|
¬·-ºi ·ii-, ¤i¤-i ¤· ·ii-, ¤¬-i ¬i ¬nri ¤º n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ z/s)
“ I had gone to the disputed site in connection with local
inquiries. I went to Rinmochan Ghat and also visited the
structure said to be Vashistha Kund. I visited the places
called Lakshman Ghat, Papmochan Ghat, Chakratola etc.
PW-15, Sushil Srivastava
l··il·n -·i¬ r· -i·n«| -l··º ¬ ¤lº¤- nº¤ l-·in r | r· -i·n«|
¬·¬ ·i·· · l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ¬ l«¬ ¤¬ ·r| ·ii| ;¬- ¬«¬ + ¤i
-·ii· l··il·n -·i¬ ·ii l¤º r· -i·n« | ¬iº ¬¬¬ «i· ¬·¬ ·i··|
l··il·n -·i¬ · r· -i·n«| ¤¬ ¤-iº ¤º r ¬·ii n -|¬ ¤º r |
l··il·n -·i¬ - - ¤¸ º« ·i¬ ·º·i¬ ¬ ·i|nº n¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ··)
“The disputed site is situated towards western side of
Hanuman Garhi. The level of Hanuman Garhi, Kanak
Bhawan and disputed site was not same. The highest place
amongst these was disputed site, then Hanuman Garhi and
thereafter, Kanak Bhawan.The disputed site and
Hanumangarhi are situate on a plateau, that is,a mound. I
entered the disputed site through the eastern door." (ETC)
¬¬ lº¤i - - ¤|. ¬i· n| · l¬ªii r l¬ -l-¬· «i«º · «··i;
·i|, ¤r -l-¬· ·rzs÷zs - «··i; ·i|| ¤r ·i| l¬ªii r l¬ ¤r
-l-¬· ¬ri «··i; n; r ·ri ¤º ¤r¬ ºi- ¬·- ¬i -l··º ºri ri ni|
¤r ¤|. ¬i· n| ¬i ·i - ·sc/ - ¤ ¬ilºin r ¬i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¬¬i·i
·ri - · ¬iº ¬i ; lº¬i· ·r| · ªii| (¤ ¬ ·«)
"In that report, P. Carnegie has written that the mosque
was got constructed by Babar in 1528-29. It is also written
that at the place, where this mosque has been got
constructed, there might have been Ram Janam temple
earlier. This note of P. Carnegie was published in 1867.
Except this, I have not seen any other record there.”
¤º·n ·sro ¬ «i· ¤r «in l« l-ºi lº¬i· ¬ ¬i¤ r ; l¬ ¤r¬
¤ri -l··º ·ii ¬i º ¬¬ ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i; n; | ¤ ¬i ¬i ; ¬i·iiº
- n ·r| l-¬i l¬¬ ¤º - ¤r ¬r ¬¬¸ l¬ l« l-ºi ¬i ni · ·sro ¬
«i· ¬i l¬ªii r l¬ ¤ri -l··º ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i; n; ri , ·r n¬n
ri | ·srs ¬ «i· l« l-ºi ª¬ ·iiºn - ¬in¸ r ¬i ·ii ¬·ii n ·i¤º ·-
¬in¸ r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·c)
"But after 1850, it became clear from the British record
that earlier here was a temple destroying which mosque
was constructed. I have not found any basis enabling me to
say that post-1850 version of Britishers that mosque was
constructed here after demolishing the temple, is wrong. In
India, the British rule came into force, that is, it was
directly brought into force after 1858" (ETC)
¬·--·ii· ¬i - º lr¬i« ¬ -n¬« ¬¬ -·ii· ¬ r , ¬ri ¤º -i ·
«·¤ ¬i ¬·- l·¤i ri | ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ºi- ¬ ¬·- ¬| -i ¤i n i¤|
¬i l¬¬ r | (¤ ¬ r«)
“ By the word ' Janam sthan I mean a place where mother
has given birth to a child. Topography of Rama's birth
finds mention in Ayodhya Mahatmya.” (ETC)
r ¬ « ¬º · ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ l··il·n -l-¬· ¬i
«i«º · «··i¤i ·ii, ;¬¬ ¤¸ · ºii¤· -l··º ºri ri | (¤ ¬ /o)
“Hans Baker has written in his book that the disputed
mosque was built by Babar, and prior thereto, it might have
been a temple.” (ETC)
¤ º· ÷ ·¤i ¬i¤ ¤r «ni¤ n l¬ -il- · ¬i ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º ·¤i
l··¬·i ·ii `
¬-nº÷ -i¬ - -i -º| -il- · ¤r l¬ªin r l¬ ¬·¬i ¤r «ni¤i n¤i l¬
l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º l··il·n «i ¤i r ·ri ¤º l¬¬| ¬-¤ ¤º l·¬-il·-¤ ,
iºi l·l- n ¤¬ ºi- -l··º ·ii| (¤ ¬ sc)
“Question: Would you tell what was the finding of Martin
on this subject?
Answer: Mount Gomeri Martin writes that he was told that
there had once been a Rama temple built by Vikramaditya
at the place where the disputed structure stands.
;¬ ·i· ¬| l··i¤·-n ¤i·| l··il·n «i ¤i ¬i lr··¸ ¬i n ·in·i· ºi-
¬i ¬·--·i¬ -i·n r n·ii - ¬¬-i· «i«º| -l-¬· -i·n r | l··il·n
«i ¤ ¬i l·-i ºi ¬i·i l·¬ ¬i¬ - ·r| r ¬i r «l~¬ -·¤¬i¬ - r ¬i
r | (¤ ¬ ·os)
“Hindus consider the subject-matter of this suit, that is, the
disputed structure to be birth place of Lord Rama. The
disputed structure has not been constructed in the modern
period ; rather, it was constructed in the medieval period.”
¬-i¬i -l-¬· ¬ «iº - -·ii·|¤ ¬i ni ,iºi ¤r ¬ri ¬ini r l¬
¤ ºi· -l··º ¬i ··- ¬º¬ -l-¬· «·i; n; | (¤ ¬ ··o)
“Regarding Atala Mosque, it is said by the locals that the
mosque was built after destroying the old temple.” (ETC)
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ºi- ¬ ¬·- ¬ «iº - l¬ªii n¤i r | ¬¤i ·¤i
-ri--¤ - ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬i ºi- ¬ ¬·- ¬i -·i¬ l·¤i n¤i r , ¬¬¬ -
¬r-n r¸ | ;¬ ¤ -n¬ - ¬i -ºi ~l·i ¬i ¬i¬- l·¤i n¤i r | ¤i·|
¬¬¬i ·ºi · r | ¬¬- l···º·º -·ii· ¬i ·i| ·ºi · l¬¤i n¤i r |
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ - ·lºi·- - l· ¬ ¬i¬- ¬i ·i| ·ºi · l¬¤i n¤i r |
(¤ ¬ ·z«)
“ It is written about birth of Rama in Ayodhya Mahatmya. I
agree with what is mentioned in Ayodhya Mahatmya about
the birth place of Rama. The hermitage of sage Lomash
has found mention in this book, that is, it is described
therein. It also describes Vighneshwar sthan. The
hermitage of seer Vashishtha has also found description in
Ayodhya Mahatmya”. (ETC)
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ¬i -ºi ~l·i ¬ ¬i¬- ¤· ·lºi·- - l· l··· º·º ¬
¬i¬- ¬ lº¤·¬ ¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ -·ii· ¬i ¬i ¬ - l¬¤i n¤i r |
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ºi- ¬·--·ii· ¬i -ºi ~l·i ¬i¬- ¬ ¤lº¤-,
l···º·º -l··º ¬ ¤¸º« ¬iº ·lºi·- - l· ¬ ¬i¬- ¬ ¬-nº l-·in
«ni¤i n¤i r | - n l···º·º -l··º ·r| ¬¬¬i ¤¬ ªi-·ii l-¬i, l¬¬
¤º l··· º·º l¬ªii ·ii| - n ¬i -ºi ~l·i ¬i ¬i¬- ·r| l·ºii| ·lºi·-
- l· ¬i ¬i¬- ·i| ·r| l·ªii, ¬l¬· ¬¬¬ «iº - ¬i ni · «ni¤i|
(¤ ¬ ·zr)
“ From references about the hermitages of sage Lomash
and seer Vashishtha in Ayodhya Mahatmya, the birthplace
of Rama has been located. As per Ayohya Mahatmya, Ram
Janam Sthan is situated west of Lomash Rishi Ashram, east
of the Vighneshwar temple and north of Vashishtha Muni
Ashram. I did not come across the Vigheneshwar temple;
rather, I saw a pillar with the word “ Vighneshwar”
engraved thereon. I did not come across the hermitage of
sage Lomash. I also did not see the hermitage of seer
Vashishtha, but people told me about him”. (ETC)
- · ·i~-|l¬ ¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r | ·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ¬¤i·¤i
·nº| ¬i ¬iº ¬¬- ºi-¤·· ¬ ¬·- ¬i l··ººi r | - · ¤¸ º| nºr ¬
ºi-¤lºn-i·¬ ¤¸ º| nºr ¬ ·r| ¤« i| ºi-¤lºn-i·¬ - ·i| ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº|
· ºi- ¬·- ¬ l··ººi r | (¤ ¬ ·z/)
“ I have heard of the Valmiki Ramayan. The Valmiki
Ramayan has description of Ayodhya Nagri as also of the
birth of Ramchandra there at. I did not go through the
whole of the Ramcharitra Manas. The Ramcharitra Manas
has also description of Ayodhya Nagri and the birth of
Rama”. (ETC)
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ¤r ·i| l¬ªii n¤i r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ·in·i· ºi- ¬i
¬·- r ¬i ¬i º ¬·--·ii· ¬ -l··º ¤º rº n|·i ¤i¤| ¬i ¬i·i ¤ilr¤
¬iº ¤r ·i| l¬ªii r l¬ ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬i· ¬ ¬¬ ·¤l·n ¬i - l·n
l-¬ ¬i¤n|| (¤ ¬ ·«c)
“It is also written in Ayodhya Mahatmya that in Ayodhya,
Lord Rama was born and every pilgrim should visit the
temple at the birthplace; it is also written that by visiting
that place, a person will atain Mukti (liberation)." (ETC)
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ¤r -i·i n¤i r l¬ l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ·in·i· ¬i
¬·- -i·i n¤i ·ii, ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤¬ -l··º r | (¤ ¬ ·«/)
“ It is reckoned in Ayodhya Mahamtya that there is a
temple at the place to which the birth of Bhagwan was
·soo ; o ¬ ¤r¬ ¤r · ni·n l-¬ni r l¬ ºi-¬i - - lr··¸ ¬i n
;¬- -i ri ¬º ºi- ¬ ¬l·i···· - ¬i¬º ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ·i | (¤ ¬
“Prior to 1800 AD, we come across such an instance that
Hindu community after assembling in Ramkot in honour of
Rama , used to worship him." (ETC)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ºi-¬i - ¬ ;¬i¬ ¬ ¬··º ¬ini r ¬iº
¬ini ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·/z)
"It is true that the disputed site comes and came within the
area of Ramkot." (ETC)
¬º|«÷¬º|« r·| ¬·| n¬ ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬¤i·¤i ·i|| ¤i ¤·| ¬·|
¬ «i· ¤r «in ¬-i·n ri n; ¬i º l¤º ···| · ·z·| ºini··| - ¤r
«in l¤º ¬ lº·i; · ri n; | (¤ ¬ z·/)
“ Ayodhya was considered to be the birthplace of Rama
upto circa 5
century A.D.. This conception came to an end
after the 5
century and it got revived in the 11
and 12
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·iiºn - lr·· ¬i ¬| ·iiººii ¬·ii n ¬·i| ¬i ni ¬|
·iiººi ¤r «·| ºr| l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸ l- r ¬i º ¤r ·iiººii
«ºi«º ¤¬n| ºr| r ºi ª ¬ ¬i¬ n¬| (¤ ¬ z·/)
“It is correct to say that in India it continued to be the
conviction of Hindus, that is , of all the people that
Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama, and this conception
has been in prevalence all along, that is, from the
beginning until now ." (ETC)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ - l¬n· ¬i ni ¬ l-¬i ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·- ¬ ¬ s ¬i ni
¬i ¤ ¬i l·¤iº ·ii l¬ ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·--·i¬| l··il·n «i ¤i - r ; ri | -
¬« l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º n¤i ·ii ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬i ni ¬i ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn · ªii ·ii
¤º - ¤r ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ·r l¬¬ ¬i-·ii ¬ ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ·i | (¤ ¬
“It is true that some of those whom I met in Ayodhya had
the opinion the birthplace of Sri Rama might have been at
the disputed structure. When I visited the disputed site, I
saw people offering worship but I can not see with what
faith they offered worship.”(ETC)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ - · l¬n· ¬ n ¬| ¬ilr-¤i ¬i ¤«i ¬¬- ºi- ¬|
¬·--·i¬| ¬i r| ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- l·ªi¬i¤i n¤i| (¤ ¬ s·s)
“It is true that Rama's birthplace itself was shown to be
Ram Janam Bhumi in all that English literature I went
PW-16, Prof. Suraj Bhan
-¬··i ¤ ºiºi - - · ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¬i ¤« i r | ¬·ii n -¬··i ¤ ºiºi -
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ ¤¬ ·iin r | (¤ ¬ s÷s)
"In Skandha Purana, I have read about the importance of
Ayodhya. That is to say Ayohdya Mahatmya is a part of
Skand Puran.” (ETC)
¤º·n -l··º ¬ l¬¤ ¬·ii n rº -l··º ¬ l¬¤ n·i n r ¬i ri ·i
¬i·º¤¬ r | -l··º ¬ l¬¤ n·i n r ¬i ri ·i ¬i·º¤¬ r, ¬ri · ·ni
l·ºi¬-i· ri , «i¬| ¤|¬i ¬i ri ·i ¬i·º¤¬ ·r| r | -l··º «·i· ¬i
¬i ; ¤¬ -·ª¤ ·r| l·¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ s)
“ But it is necessary for a temple, that is, every temple to
have sanctum sanctorum. It is necessary for a temple to
have a sanctum sanctorum. Where a deity is seated, rest of
the things need not be there. No particular shape has been
given for the construction of a temple.” (ETC
¬« - ¬¤i ·¤i n¤i n« l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i l··ii lºn ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ r-
¬i ni · ¬i -·i ¬i¬- ¬i ¬i·iiº «·i¤i ·ii, ¤r ¬i·iiº r- ¬i ni ·
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º «·i¤i ·ii| ¤r - n ¤i· ·r| r - º| ¤r¬|
¤i¤i - - º| -|- ¬ ¬·i| ¬i·i| ¬i·i ·i ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ««)
"When I visited Ayodhya, we made the Lomash
Ashram(hermitage) a basis for determination of the
disputed site. We had chosen this basis on the premise of
Ayodhya Mahatmya.I do not remember whether all my
colleagues comprising my team were with me or not in
course of my first journey." (ETC)
- n ¤i· ·r| l¬ ¬« - l··· º·º -l··º ¤r ¤i ni ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤r
l¬ªii ri l¬ ¤r l··· º·º -l··º ri , ¬l¬· ¬i n ·ri «ni ºr ·i
l¬ ¤r l··· º·º -l··º r ¬iº l-¬ ¬| ·i| ¤r ¬i·n ·i l¬ ¤r l··
· º·º -l··º r | ¤ ¬i ·r| l¬ - · l-¬ ¬| ¬ ¬r· ¤º ¤r -i· l¬¤i
l¬ ¤r l··· º·º -l··º r «l~¬ ¬i ni · ·i| ¤ ¬i r| «ni¤i ¬i º n« - ·
¬¬ -i· l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ «/)
“ I do not remember whether on reaching the Vighneshwar
temple, the words 'Vighneshwar temple' were found to be
written there at. But people were telling that it was
Vigheshwar temple and Mishraji also knew that it was
Vighneshwar temple. It is not that I took it to be
Vighneshwar temple on being so told by Mishraji; rather,
people also told me such thing and only then I took it to be
such (a temple).“ (ETC)
¬i -·i ¤¬ ~l·i ·i ¬i º ¬·¬i ¬i¬- ¬¤i·¤i - r ¬iº l¬¬¬i ¬i -·i
¬i¬- ¤i n|·i ¬rn r | (¤ ¬ ro)
“Lomash was a sage with his hermitage in Ayodhya which
is called Lomash Ashram(hermitage) or Teertha." (ETC)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬i-·ii ¬| ¬ n ¬| ¤ ·i (Faith) ri n|| ¬i-·ii ·ºi · ¬|
«in r ¬iº ¤º-¤ºi ¬¬ ¬i ni - ¬ ¬in| r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¤º-¤ºi ¬|
¬ n ¬| - ·|ºi· r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ «r n ¬| ¬nri ¤º -¸ ln ·r| ri n| r
¤º ¬i n ¬¬ -·ii· ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ ·oc)
It is true that English word for 'Astha' would be 'faith'.
Faith is is a philosophical term and 'parampara' (tradition)
passes it on to people. It is true that 'parampara' is
rendered as tradition in English. It is true that people offer
worship even at those places where idols do not exist."
- º l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬·· ·iºi ¬ ¬-¤ ¬·n ¬ -·ii ¬ ¤ ¤º- · ¤ i o
;º¤i· r«|« ·i | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ;¬| ¬ -·ii ¬ -i·¤- ¬ r- l··il·n
-·i¬ ¬i ¬·· ·iºi ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ n i - l-¬| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·c/)
“ At the time of my exploration at the disputed site, Prof.
Irfan Habib was chairman of the said institution. It is true
that we had received grant for exploration of the disputed
site through this very institution”.(ETC)
PW-18, Suvira Jaiswal
- ¬« ¬ ri ºi ¬ ·ii¬i, ¬¤· -ini÷l¤ni ¬i ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| r| ¤i¤i ·ii|
l¤º ¬ri l¬ ºii¤· - º -ini÷l¤ni ¬| ·so« - ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| r| «· ·i |
- ºi ª ¬ ¬·ii n ¤ ·i;ºi ¬ r| ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| ¬¤· ¬i -i·n| ºr|
·i|| ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| ¬i n ; º·º ¬i ¬i ; -¸ ln ¤¸ ¬i ·r|
-i·n , ¤º ; º·º ¬i ¬l-n-· -i·n r | (¤ ¬ s)
“ When I came of age, I found my parents to be Arya
Samajist.( Further stated ) my parents became Arya
Samajist perhaps in 1904 A.D. I continued to consider
myself to be an Arya Samajist right since the beginning,
that is, my birth. It is true that Arya Samajists do not have
any faith in idolatry but believe in the existence of God.”
- º lr¬i« ¬ l··ºi ¬i ¤r¬i - l·º l·l·ºii ·i¬i - l·º r| ·ii ¬·ii n
¤ ¬i r| ¬i·¤ ¬·i| n¬ ¬i l-¬i r | (¤ ¬ /)
"Vidisha- situated temple itself was, in my opinion, the
first temple of Vishnu, that is to say, the evidence available
to date suggest so." (ETC)
- · -¸ ¬ lºi¬i ¬ ªi ·r| ¤«i ·ii, «l~¬ ¬i l¬ni« - s¤i ·ii, ¬¬ ¤« i
r | ¬ ªi - ¬i ; n-·|º ·r| «·| r, «l~¬ ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ nª· ··¬
-·iil¤n l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ s)
“ I had not read the original inscription; rather, I have
gone through what was published in the book. No picture is
carved in the inscription; rather it is written that 'Garudh
Dhwaj' was established”. (ETC)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ·i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬| ºi-¬·ii ¬i l¬¬ ·ºiº·i ¬in¬
- l-¬ni r - · ;¬ ¤« i r | ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ºi- ·r| ºi- r ¬i ·i~-|¬|
ºi-i¤ºi - l-¬n r ¬i º ·ºiº·i ¬in¬ ¬·ii¬i - | (¤ ¬ ··)
"It is true that the story of Rama of Valmiki Ramayana
finds mention in Dashratha Jataka which I have read.
Rama, son of Dashratha, is the same Rama that finds
mention in Valmiki Ramayana and in the fables of
Dashratha Jataka." (ETC)
-¬··i ¤ ºiºi - ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¬i ¤¬ ¤¸ºi ¬·¤i¤ r | (¤ ¬ zo)
“There is one full chapter of Ayodhya Mahatmay in Skand
Puran”. (ETC)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ lr··¸ ·i- - ¤l· l¬¬| ¬nr ¤º ¬i-·ii r ni ¬¬
¬nr ·i| ¤¸ ¬i ¤i- ri ¬¬n| r | ¤r ¬ªº| ·r| r l¬ ·ri ¤º -l·º
«·i ri | (¤ ¬ z/)
“It is true that Puja- Path ( worship-prayer) can be offered
in Hindu religion at a place if people have faith in such a
place. It is not necessary that a temple is built there. "
- · ¤ ¬i ¬ ªi ¤« i r l¬ ¬« ¬ ¤¬¬ · ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ºi-··-|
-·i¤| ¬in| ·i|| ¤r ºi- ¬ ¬·ii n ºi-··-| ¬ l·· -·i; ¬in| ·i||
(¤ ¬ zs)
“I have gone through a write- up that Abul Fazal has
written that Ram Navmi was celebrated. It was celebrated
on the day of Rama, that is, RamNavmi.”(ETC)
-¸ ¬·i· ¬ o r,ss - ·ilªi¬ ¤ ¤º ¬ o ··s÷¬|÷·,co ¬| ¬i º
l·¬i¤i ¤· ¤ºi s ¤· ¤ -·i - / ¬i ¤« ¬º ¬ ·i¤i ¤· n·ir · -·¤ ·i|
¤« i ¬iº ¬ri l¬ - ¤r -i·n| r¸ l¬ ¬|ºi- ¬i ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| -
·iºi¤ºi ¬i ¬·niº -i·i ¬ini ·ii| (¤ ¬ //)
“The attention of the witness was drawn to paper no. 118-
C-1/60 filed in original suit no. 5/89 and its para 3 and
footnote 7 was read over to her. The witness herself went
through the said paper and stated -I consider that Sri
Rama was considered to be an incarnation of Narayan in
the 2
century A.D.” (ETC)
;¬ -ºr¬ ¤º n·ir ¬i ·¤i· -¸ ¬·i· ¬ o÷r,ss - ·ilªi¬ ¤ ¤º
¬ o÷·o/¬|÷·,/r ¬| ¬i º l·¬i¤i, n·ir · ¤ ·- /s ¬i ¤« ¬º ¬-nº l·¤i
l¬ º¬i ¬ · o÷·s, ·«, ·r - ¬º¤¸ ··| - -·i· ¬º·i ¬iº -·i· ¬ «i· ¬i
¤¬ l-¬ni r, ¬¬¬i ·ºi · l¬¤i n¤i r | º¬i ¬ · o÷·c - l··· º·º ¬|
l-·iln «ni; n; r | º¬i ¬ · o÷·/ - l··· º·º ¬ ·ºi · ¬i -r-· r ¬i º
¬¬¬ ·¤i ¤¬ ¤ il·n ri n| r | º¬i ¬ · o÷·s - l··· º·º ¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬|
l-·iln «ni; n; r | º¬i ¬ · o÷·s - l··· º·º, ·lºi·- ¤· ¬i -ºi ¬ l¬¬
nºr ¬·--·ii· l-·in r , ¤r «ni¤i n¤i r , º¬i ¬ · o÷zo - ·ºi · ¬i ·¤i
¤¬ ri ni r , ¤r · l·¤i n¤i r | º¬i ¬ · o÷z· - ·i-| ¬ l·· -·i· ¬
«i· ·ºi · ¬i ·¤i ¤¬ ri ni r , ¤r l·¤i n¤i r | º¬i ¬ · o÷zz, zs, z«
¬iº zr - -·i·, ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ¬i º ¬i¬- - ºr· ¬ ·¤i ¤¬ ¤ i·n ri ni
r , ¤r ·ºii ¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ so)
“In this behalf, the attention of the witness was drawn to
paper no. 107C-1/75 filed in original suit no. 5/89.Reading
its page 73 the witness replied- Versus 13, 14 and 15 have
description of taking a dip in the river Saru and of the
results emanating from such dip. The location of
Vighneshwar is mentioned in verse 16. Verse no. 17 speaks
about the importance having Darshan of Vighneshwar and
also about the results derived from such Darshan. Verse no.
18 has pointed out the location of Ram Janam Bhumi from
Vighneshwar. Verse no. 19 has described about the
location of Ram Janam Sthan from the places known as
Vighneshwar , Vashishtha and Lomash Verse no. 20 speaks
about the results derived from Darshan. Verse no. 21
describe what results are obtained from having Darshan
after taking a dip on the 9
day. Verses 22, 23 , 24 and 25
describe about what results are obtained from taking a
dip, offering prayer and dwelling in a hermitage.”(ETC)
¤r - n -i¬¸ - r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ ri n|
¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¤ ¤ ¬| ºi ·¬ ¤·i ··-| ¬ l·· ¬|ºi-
¬ ¬· ¤i¤| ¬·¬ ¬·-l·· ¬ ª¤ - ¬¬ -·in ¤¬ ¬i ºr r | ¬¤i·¤i
¬ n|·i -·i¬i - - · ni ¤ niº ¬·iin n ·niº ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r | ·n -i· -
¬¬ ¬nr ¬i ¬|ºi- ¬i n ·n ri · ¬i -·ii· -i·n r ¤ ·ri ¤º ·ri·i,
¤¸ ¬i ¬il· ¬ºn ¤¬ ¬i ºr r | ¬·ii n ºi- ¬ ¬· ¤i¤|| (¤ ¬ sc)
"I know that the worship of Rama has been continuing by
way of tradition in Ayodhya. It is true that the followers of
Shri Rama have been observing the ninth day of Shukla
Paksha of Chaitra month as his birthday. Among the sites
of pilgrimage at Ayodhya, I have heard the name of
Gopratar or Guptar. Currently believing that Shri Rama
vanished at this place, they have been taking bath, offering
worship etc. That is to say, they are followers of Rama."
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ · ·ºi· ·i- ¬ -i·· ·i¬ ºi-··-| ¬
l·· ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬º¤¸ -·i· ¬iº ¬|ºi- ¬ ·ºi · r n ¬in r | (¤ ¬ ss)
"It is true that by way of tradition the followers of
Vaishnavism go to take a dip in Saryu and to have darshan
of Shri Rama at Ayodhya on the occasion of Ram Navami."
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ;¬ - ¬·- - ¤¬ ·n ¬ ¬i n ;¬ ¬¤· ¬iºi·¤ · ·
¬| ¬·-·i¸ l- -i·n r | ¤r l··il·n -·i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in r | (¤ ¬
"It is true that people belonging to one side in this case
consider it to be the birthplace of their adored deity. This
disputed place is situated at Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
l·,i· l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni · n·ir ¬i ·¤i· -¸ ¬·i· ¬ o÷r,ss -
·ilªi¬ ¤ ¤º ¬ o÷zc·¬|,· ¬| ¤ ·- ¬ o÷·sz ¬| ¬iº l·¬i¤i| n·ir
· ¤« ¬º ¬ri l¬ º¬i ¬ · o÷s · « - l··ºi ¬ ¬i¤n· ¬i ·ºi · r ,
l··ºi rlº -l··º ¬i ·ºi · ·r| r | ¬i¤n· ¬i -n¬« -l··º ¬ ri ni
r | (¤ ¬ ·oc)
“Attention of the witness was drawn to page no. 192 of
Paper No. 261C/1, reading which the witness said that in
Verses no. 3 and 4 there is mention of 'Ayatan' of Vishnu
and not of Vishnu Hari Mandir, Ayatan connotes temple."
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·- lnl·i, ¬iº ¬·¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r | ;¬ ·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ;¬ «in ¬i l¬¬ r l¬
;·s·i¬ · ºi - ºi¬i ¬ ·iº - ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ¬i º ¬·¬i
«i~¤¬i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - «|ni| (¤ ¬ ·oc)
"The date of Shri Rama's birth as well as his place of birth
has found mention in the Valmiki Ramayana. It is
mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana that Shri Rama was
born in royal family belonging to the Ikshwaku dynasty,
and he passed his childhood at Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
º·i ·ºi -ri¬i·¤ - ºi¬i ¬l·ln, ·in·i· ºi- · ¬·¬ · ºi¬ ¤· ¬·-
¬il· ¬i l··ººi l·¤i r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¬ ¬i·¤ - ¬|ºi- ¬ ¬·-
¬ ¬-¤ ¤ ¬¸ lnn r ¬iº ¬·¬ ¬·- ¬ ¤¸ · · ·ni¬i ,iºi · · ·i| «¬i· ¬i
l··ººi r | (¤ ¬ ·os÷·os)
"Details about king Aditi and Lord Rama as also about
their descendents, birth etc., have been given in an epic
called Raghuvansh. It is true that this epic has details
about the maternity home as it existed at the time of Shri
Rama's birth and also about trumpets having been sounded
by gods before his birth." (E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ºi-¤lºn-i·¬ - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-nº ¬-| r ¤| ¬º¤¸ ··|
¬i ri ·i, ºi- ¬i ¬·-, ¬·¬| ¬·-·i¸ l-, ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·¬i ¬i¤ ¬i¬
¬il· ¬i ·ºi · r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"It is true that the Ramcharit Manas depicts the existence
of the river Saryu north of and adjacent to Ayodhya, the
birth of Rama, his place of birth, his tenure etc. in
Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¬¤i·¤i ¬iº· ¬ ¬ ·º ¬|ºi-
¬ ¬·- ri · ¬i l··ººi r | ¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| r l¬ ¬·n ºi-i¤ºi -
¬¤i·¤i - ¬i«i·| ¬i ri ·i ºi¬i ¬i ri ·i, ºi·¤ ¬| ¬|-i¬i ¬i
ri ·i ¤· ¬·ni ¬i ri ·i ¬l~¬lªin r | (¤ ¬ ·zc)
"It is true to say that details about the birth of Shri Rama
are contained in the Ayodhya canto of the Valmiki
Ramayana. It is also true to say that the said Ramayana
also mentions about there being human inhabitation, king,
state borders and public in Ayodhya" (E.T.C)
- · so ¬ ·ºi¬ - - · ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ¬i·· ¬ l¬¤ ºii ·i ¬i¤
l¬¤i| ¬·ii n ¬· so ¬ so ¬ «|¤ - | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ·sso ¬
«i· ¬ ¬i¬ n¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- -·i¬ ¬ l··i¤ ¤º - · ¬i ; ªii ¬ ¤i ºii·i
¬i¤ ·r| l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ ·zs)
"I did research work to know Rama's birthplace in 80's,
i.e., between 80 and 90. It is true to say from 1990 to date I
did not perform any search or research work on the site of
Rama's birthplace." (ETC)
ºi-¬i - ·i- ¬i -·ii· ¬¤i ·¤i - r ¤ ¬| -i·¤ni ·i| r ¬¬| ºi-¬i -
-i r~¬ - ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii ¬i º ¬¬ -·ii· ¬i ¤¸ ¬·|¤ -i·n r
¬iº ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ ·sz)
"A place called Ramkot is in Ayodhya. It is also a belief
that Shri Rama was born in that very Ramkot locality and
(they) consider that place to be venerable and worship it."
¤r -|¬ r n ·n¬i¬ ¬ ¤ iº-·i - r| ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº| ¤ lnl·-n ri ¤ ¬|
·i| ¬·ii n ¬i·| ¬in| ·i|| ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ n ·n¬i¬ ¬| ¬¤i ·¤i
·r| r ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i¬ l¬¬i ¤ ¬i«i· - r | ¤r ·i| -|¬ r l¬
l··il·n «i ¤i ·i| ¬¬| ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·«r)
"It is true that right at the outset of the Gupta period
Ayodhya Nagari had got established, that is, it was known
as such. It is true to say that the Ayodhya of the Gupta
period is the same as it exists today at Ayodhya in the
Faizabad district. It is also true that the disputed structure
was also situated at that very Ayodhya." (E.T.C)
PW-19, Maulana Atiq Ahmed
l¬· l¬ni«i ¬i r·i¬i l·¤i r , ¬·- ¬ s ¬i ·i- - n ¤i· r |
-¬¬· n ·¬ «i«º|, ¬i; · ¬¬«º| ¬i º ¤ ¬i«i· ¬ - ªinl¬¤
n¬ l-¤¬ ¤· ·i o ºi¬·· ¤ ¬i· ¬| l¬ni« ;lº·¤i l··i;· ·
¬il·÷¬il· l¬· n¬ l-¤¬ ¬i r·i¬i ¬· l¬ni«i - l·¤i n¤i r
¬iº ¤·¬- ·¬ l·¤ n¤ r ¬·- ¬ «i¬ - ¤r «in ri ·i - n ¤i· ¬ini
r l¬ ¬i ni - -ºir¸º ¤r r l¬ ·ri ¤º ºi- ¬| ¬| ¤ ·i;ºi r ; ·i||
(¤ ¬ /s)
"I remember the names of some of the books which have
been quoted, for example- Tuzuk-e-Babri, Ain-e-Akbari,
many gazetteers of Faizabad, Dr. Rajendra Prasad's book
'India Divided', etc. I remember that it is known to public
that it is mentioned in some of the gazetteers-which have
been quoted in those books and extracts of which have
been given- that Ram Ji was born over there." (E.T.C)
¤r «in ¤i· r l¬ ¬i;· ¬¬«º| - ;¬¬i l¬¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i
lr·· ¬i ¬| n|·i nir r ¬ri ·r -·i· ¬º· ¬in r | ¤º ·ri ·r -l··ºi
- ¤¸ ¬i ¬¤ ·i ¬º· ¬in r ¤i ·r| ¤r ¤i· ·r| r | ;n·i ¤i· r l¬
¬¬- ¤r l¬¬ r l¬ lr··¸ ·ri ·ri· ¬in r ¬i º · ·¤i ¬ºn r ,
¤r ¤i· ·r| r | (¤ ¬ /c)
"I remember that it is mentioned in Ain-e-Akbari that
Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage for Hindus where they
come to have take dip. I do not remember whether or not
they come over there to offer prayer-worship at the
tmeples. I remember to extent that it is therein mentioned
that Hindus come to that place for taking a dip; I do not
remember what else they do there." (E.T.C)
- n ¤r ¬i·¬iº| ¤r¬ ·i| ·i| ¬i º ¬i¬ ·i| r l¬ ¬¤i·¤i - lr·· ¬i
¬ «r n ¬ -l··º r | (¤ ¬ //)
"I knew it earlier and I know it even today that there are
many temples of Hindus in Ayodhya" (E.T.C)
PW-20, Prof. Shirin Musavi
¬i;· ¬¬«º| ¬« ¬ ¤·¬ · ·rsc ¬ l¬ªi·i ºi ª l¬¤i ¬iº ·rss -
¤i- ¬| ·¬i ¬ l¬¤i| ¬« ¬ ¤·¬ ¬¬«º ¬ ¤¬ -ºir¸ º l-l·--º ·i ¬iº
¬·¬ ¬il¤l¬¤¬ lr--ilº¤· ·i | (¤ ¬ /)
"Abul Fazal began to write Ain-e-Akbari from 1586 and he
formally completed in 1598. Abul Fazal was a famous
minister of Akbar and he was his official historian."
;¬ ¤ -n¬ - ·i| ¬« ¬ ¤·¬ · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ·i ¬nr ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r |
¬¬ ¬~¬ ªi - ¬·ri · ¤ ¬i ¬ri r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬i, ¬i
lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬·niº ·i , ¤ ¬i -i·i ¬ini r l¬ ·r ¬·¬i l··i¬ -·ii·
·ii| ¬¬ l¬ni« - ·i| ¬¤i·¤i - ºi- -l··º ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i· ¬i
¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | l·l¬¤- l¤·· ¤¬ -ºir¸ º - ·¬º ·i ¬i ·iiºn ··i
- ·cos ¬ ·c·· n¬ ºr ·i | ¬·¬| ;¬ ¤i¤i ¬ ¤¬i¬ - ¬ ¬; ¬nr
s¤ r | ·r l« - · ¬ ºr· ·i¬ ·i | ¬¤· ¬¬ ¤¬i¬ - - ¬·ri · ¬¤i ·¤i
¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r | ¬·ri · ¤ ¬i l¬ªii r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬| ºi- ¤··
¬| ¬i ¤ ¬ ¬ ¤· ¤i - ·ii| (¤ ¬ /)
"In this book too, Abul Fazal has mentioned about Ayodhya
at two places. In course of that mentioning he has stated
that Ayodhya is believed to be the dwelling place of Shri
Ram Ji, who was an incarnation for Hindus. In that book
also, there is no mention about the construction of a
mosque after demolishing the Rama temple in Ayodhya.
William Finch was a famous traveller who stayed in India
from 1608 to 1611. Accounts of this travel of his are
published at several places. He hailed from Britain. He has
in his account mentioned of Ayodhya. He has written that
Shri Ramchandra Ji's palace and fort stood in Ayodhya."
« ¬i· · ·s·o - ¬¤i ·¤i n¤ ·i , ¬¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬·ri · ¬¤· ¤¬i¬ - -
l¬¤i r | ¬·ri · ¬¤· ;¬ ¤¬i¬ - - ¤ ¬i l¬ªii r l¬ ¤r ¬ri ¬ini
r l¬ ¬iº n¬ « · ºi-¬i - - -l··º ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i; | ¤º
¬·ri · ¤r ¬ri r l¬ ;¬ -l-¬· ¤º ¬i ;-l¬·ºi· r, ·r «i«º ¬
¬-¤ ¬i r | (¤ ¬ s)
"Buchanan had gone to Ayodhya in 1810; he has
mentioned about it in his account. He has in his account
written that it is said that Aurangzeb had got a mosque
build by breaking down a temple at Ramkot. But he had
said that the inscription of this mosque is of the time of
Babar." (E.T.C)
- ;¬ ¤º ·i| ¬ s ·r| ¬r ¬¬n| l¬ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬¤i ·¤i -
¬·nlºn r ¤ ¤i ·r| | - ;¬ ¤º ·i| ¬ s ·r| ¬r ¬¬n| l¬ ·in·i·
¬|ºi-, ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·- l¬¤ ¤i ·r| | - ;¬ «iº - ·i| ¬ s ·r| ¬r
¬¬n| l¬ ·in·i· ºi- · ¤l· ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·- l¬¤i ri ni, ni ¬i ;
·ii ni l¬¬ -·i¬ ¬¬ ¤º ºri ri ni ¤i ·r| | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ -
¤¸ ·i n r ¬ n l¬n ri ¬º ºi ª ¬ ¬ilªiº n¬ n¬n «¤i·| ¬º ºr| r¸ | ¤r
·i| n¬n r l¬ ¤¸ ºi ¬¤ ¬r· ¬ «¬¤ - ¬¤ ¬i ¤¸ º| nºr ¬ ls¤i
ºr| r¸ | ¤r ·i| ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ -i¬ l¬-- -¬¸ ¬ ¬i¤ ·ii- ¬ ¬
;lnri¬¬iºi ¬ n ¤ ¬| ¤¬ ¬·-¤ r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·oo)
"I can say nothing even on the point as to whether Lord
Shri Rama incarnated himself at Ayodhya or not. I can say
nothing even on the point as to whether Lord Shri Rama
took birth at Ayodhya or not. I can say nothing about
whether or not there would have been a geographical place
if Lord Rama had taken birth at Ayodhya. It is incorrect to
say that I have been giving a wrong testimony out of
prejudice from beginning to end. It is also incorrect that
instead of speaking the whole truth, I am concealing the
truth completely. It is also incorrect to say that I am a
member of a group of historians associated with the
Marxist School of Thoughts." (E.T.C)
-·¤ ¬ri l¬ - · - ·¬| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬iº· · ¬-nºi¬iº· ¤« i r |
¬-nºi¬iº· - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ r ºi- n - z/ «iº ¤ri ¬·- ¬i º - rº
¬·- ¬ ¬-¤ ·ii| ;¬| nºr ¬| «in l¬ªi| r | ¬¬- ¤r l¬ªii r l¬
ºi- n - ¬¤i·¤i - z/ «iº ¬·- | ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ l¤ni ¬i ·i- ºi¬i
·ºiº·i ·ii| ¤r «in - · ¬¬| - ¬·ii n ºi-÷¤lºn -i·¬ - r| ¤« | ·i|,
¤º l¬¬ ¬iº· - ¤« |, ¤r - n ¤i· ·r| | (¤ ¬ ·o·)
“(Stated on his own) I have mainly read Ayodhya-kand and
Uttara-kand. It is written in Uttara-kand: 'O Rama, you
were born at Ayodhya 27 times and I was present on every
occasion of your birth'. Such type of things are written. It is
therein written: 'O Rama, you were born at Ayodhya 27
times'. The name of Ram Chandra Ji's father was King
Dashrath. I read this thing in that very book, that is, in the
Ram Charit Manas itself, but I do not remember the canto
in which I read it.” (E.T.C)
¤r - ¬i·n| r¸ l¬ lr··¸ ·i-i ·l¬-«¤i ¬i -i··i r l¬ ¬|ºi- ¬i
¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - r| r ¬i| - n ¤r ·r| -i¬¸ - l¬ ¬·i| lr··¸ ¤ ¬i -·n
r ¤i ·r| l¬ ¬¤i·¤i - ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii ¤i ·r| ¤º lr·· ¬i ¬
¤¬ ·n ¬i -n r l¬ ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r|
r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·z«)
“I know that the followers of Hinduism believe that Sri
Rama was born at Ayodhya itself. I do not know whether or
not all the Hindus believe Sri Rama to have taken birth at
Ayodhya. But a section of Hindus believe that Sri Rama
was born on the disputed site itself in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)
¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i -n¬« l¬¬| ·¤l·n l·ºi ·i ¬ ¬·--·ii· ¬ ri ni r | ¤r
-|¬ r ¬ ¬i l¬ - +¤º «ni ¤ ¬| r¸ l¬ ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ - ¬º¬¸ ··|
¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | (¤ ¬ ·zr)
“Janmbhumi (land of birth) means 'Janmsthan'
(birthplace) of a particular person. It is true that the river
Saryu finds mention in the Ram Charit Manas, as I have
stated above.” (E.T.C)
-¬ ·i ¤ ºiºi ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r | -¬ ·i ¤ ºiºi ¬ ¤¬ ·iin ¬i ¬· ·i· - ·
¤« i r ;¬- ¬|ºi- ¬ ¬·- -·ii· ¬i l··ººi l¬ªii r ¬iº ¬ s l·ºii¤
·i| ·| r ; r -·¤ ¬ri l¬ l·,i·i ¬i ¬r·i r l¬ · · n r ;¬ ¬« ·i
- r-iºi ¬i ; ·¤l·nnn -n ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·zc)
“I have heard the name of Skanda Purana. I have read
translation of a portion of Skanda Purana which has
description of Sri Rama's birthplace as also specification
of some directions. (Stated on his own) They are vague; I
do not have any personal opinion in this respect.” (E.T.C)
- · -¬ ·i ¤ ºiºi ¬ ;¬ ¤i ºi · ¬i lº¬ · ·- ¬-ni ;¬l¬¤ ;¬¬i
¬· ·i· ¤«i| ¤ri -|¬ r l¬ -¬··i ¤ ºiºi - ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬|ºi- ¬ ¬·-
-·ii· ¬i ·ºi · r ¤º ¬¬| ªiº· - ¬·- -·ii· ¬ ¬ºi +l· n - -¤¬ ¬i
¬· ·i· ¬i - · ¤« i ·ii, ¬¬- ·r| ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·zc)
"I took this portion of Skanda Purana to be relevant, that's
why I studied its translation. It is true that Skanda Purana
describes Sri Rama's birthplace at Ayodhya but the
existence in that very part of any temple surrounding his
birthplace did not find mention in the translation which I
had gone through."(ETC)
-l··º ¬il· ¬i ¬i ¬ ºi· l·¤i r ¬i r ¤º ;¬¬ «iº - l·lº¤n ri ·i
¬-·i· ·r| r | - n ¤ ¬i ¤i· ·r| l¬ ¬¬ ªiº· - ¬·- -·ii· ¬i
¬~¬ ªi r ¤i ·r| | - º ¬· ¬iº ¬· ¤ ·i- l··il·n «i ¤ ¬i l·-i ºi ·rzs
- r ¬i ri ni| ¤r l··il·n -- ·¤º l¬¬ ·i¸ l- ¤º «·i ·ii l¬¬| ¬i ¬ -
·r| l-¬ni| (¤ ¬ ·zc)
“The location of the temple etc. is given but it is not
possible to be sure about it. I do not remember whether or
not Janmsthan finds mention in that part. In my opinion,
the disputed structure would have first been constructed in
1528. Information as to the land on which this disputed
structure was built is not available in any source.”(E.T.C)
-l-¬· l¬¬ ¤ lº¤i - r ¬¬ ºi-¬i - ¬ ·i- ¬ ¬i·i ¬ini r | l¤ ¤
¬i ¤¸ ºi ·i- l·l¬¤- l¤ ¤ ·ii ¤r -|¬ r ¤ ¤¬ ; nl¬ºi ¤i¤| ·i ¬i
·cos ¬ ·c·· - ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬i¤ ·i | ¤r ·i| -|¬ r l¤ ¤ ¬ir« ·
¬¤· ¤¬i¬·- - ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi- ¬i l¬¬i, -r¬, · ªiº·rº ri · ¬i
l¬¬ l¬¤i r ¬i º ¬i·i÷¬i·i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i lr·· ¬i ¬i n|·i -·i¬ «ni¤i
r l¤º ¬ri l¬ l·l¬¤- l¤ ¤ · ¬ri l¬ ¤r ¬|¬ ·· ·ii l¬ ¤ri ºi-
¬i l¬¬i ·ii| ¬·ri · ¤r ·i| ¬ri l¬ ¤ ¬i -i·i ¬ini r¬ l¬ ¬|ºi- ·
¤ri ¬·niº l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·z/)
“The area in which the mosque is situated, is known as
Rmakot. The full name of Finch was William Finch. It is
true that he was an English traveller who came to Ayodhya
between 1608 and 1611. It is also true that Finch has in his
account mentioned about the existence of Rama's fort,
palace and remains in Ayodhya; besides, he has termed
Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage for Hindus. (Further
stated) William Finch stated that there was a legend that
Rama's fort stood here. He has also stated that Sri Rama is
believed to have incarnated himself here.” (E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ri · ¬i ¬|¬ ·· ·/·| ºini··| ¬ l-¬ni r
¬¬¬ ¤r¬ -·¤¬i¬|· ;lnri¬ - ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¬i ¬i ; ¬|¬ ··
¬¤¬··i ·r| r | ¬ri n¬ - n -i¬¸ - r ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ºi- ¬ ¤ ¬il¬¤ - ·
l·¤iº ·iiºi ·c·| ¬·| n·ii ¬¬¬ «i· l-¬n| r ¬¬¬ ¤r¬ ¬ ¤iº¬|
¬iº ; nl¬ºi ¬ ¬i ¬i ¬ ¬ - · ¤« r ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬|ºi- ¬
¤ ¬il¬¤ - · l¬¬| l·¤iº ·iiºi ¬i l¬¬ ·r| r | ¤iº¬| ¬iº ; nl¬ºi ¬
¬¬i·i ¬i º ¬i ; ¬i n ¬¤¬··i r ¤i ·r| ;¬¬i - n ni· ·r| r | (¤ ¬
“A legend about the existence of Ram Janmsthan (Rama's
birthplace) in Ayodhya is available from the 17
Prior to that, in course of the medieval history, we do not
come across any legend about Ram Janmsthan. As far as I
know, a line of thought associated with Rama of Ayodhya is
found in the 16
century and its subsequent period. The
Persian and English sources belonging to earlier period
and which I have read, do not make mention of any line of
thought associated with Sri Rama of Ayodhya. I do not
have the knowledge as to availability or otherwise of any
sources other than Persian and English ones.” (E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º l··il·n «i ¤ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i ; ·i·· ·ii ¤i ·r| ;¬¬|
¬i·¤ ¬il¬ ¤i ¬i l¬¬¬ ¤·¬·¬i º ºi· ¬ r| l-¬ ¬¬n| r | ....¤r -|¬ r
l¬ l¬·ªi ¬ilr-¤ - ¤r ¤¬ - ·|ºi· r l¬ n ª·i·¬ ¬¤i ·¤i n¤ ·i
¬|ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¬i ·ºi · l¬¤i ¬iº ¬º¬¸ - -·i· l¬¤i| (¤ ¬
“Evidence about the existence or otherwise of any building
at the disputed site prior to the disputed structure, can be
obtained only through archaeological exploration. . . . . . .
It is true that there goes a tradition in the Sikh literature
that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Sri Ram
Janmsthan and took a dip in Saryu.”(E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ l¬¬ -·ii· ¬ ¬i·i ¬i - ºi·· ¬ni ri ni r ¬¬¬
¬i·iiººin¤i ¤r l··¬·i l·¬i¬i ¬ini r l¬ ·ri ¤º l¬¬i ºri
ri ni|(¤ ¬ ·««)
“It is true that if the word Kot is used with the name of a
place, it is ordinarily inferred that there would have been a
fort over there.” (E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - ºi-¬i - -·ii· ¬ «iº - - · ¤«i r | -¬··i ¤ ºiºi -
ºi-¬i - ¬| ·ii nil¬¬ l-·in ¬i ·ºi · r ¤º·n , ·r ¬-¤·- r | ¤r -|¬
r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - l¬¬| ¤¬ ¬nr ¬i ·c·| ¬·| ¬ ¬·n ¬ ºi-¬i - ¬
·i- ¬ ¬i·i ¬ini r | -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¬i º¤·i ¬i¬ ··| ¬ ·¤ º| ¬i
¤- |·¤¸ - l¬¤i ¬ini r ¬·ii n «ni¤i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ ·««)
“I have read about a place called Ramkot in Ayodhya. The
geographical location of Ramkot finds description in
Skanda Purana. But it is not clear. It is true that a certain
place in Ayodhya is known by the name of Ramkot from the
end of 16
century. Skanda Purana is attributed to, that is,
stated to be belonging to the 9
¤r ¬r·i ·i| n¬n r l¬ ¬¬| ·¬r ¬ - · ¤ ¬ -¤i ni ¬i si · l·¤i
ri l¬ l¬¬- l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¤i l-·in - l·º ¬i
¤ -iºi l-¬ni ri | (¤ ¬ ·«r)
“It is also incorrect to say that for this very reason I have
omitted to mention those hymns from which proofs may be
found of Ram Janmsthan at the disputed site or of temple
situated there.”(E.T.C)
¬«ir · ·|· ¬ir« · ¬i ¤ -n¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - «i«º| -l-¬· ¬ - nil¬¬
l¬ªi| ·r l··il·n -·i¬ · «i ¤ ¬ r| ¬ « l·in ·i|| (¤ ¬ zs)
“A book which Sahab-ud-Din Sahib had written in
connection with the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, was only
about the disputed site and structure.” (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬·n l¬ni« - ¬ ªi¬ · ;¬ «in ¬i
n¬l¬ºi l¬¤i r l¬ lr··¸ ¬i n l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- «nin r
¬iº -i·n r n·ii - ¬¬-i· ¬¬ -l-¬·| (¤ ¬ zs)
“It is correct to say that the writer has in the said book
mentioned that Hindus term and regard the disputed site as
Rama's Janmbhumi and Muslims take it to be a mosque.”
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ - · ¬ s l¬ni«i - ;¬ «in ¬i n¬l¬ºi ¤« i r
l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- -·ii· r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬|
ºi-¤·· ¬| lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬ºi·¤ · ·ni r l¬·r lr··¸ ¬i n ·in·i· -i·n r
¬iº ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn r | ¬¤ºi·n ¬ ·l·i n l¬ni« ¬¤i ·¤i - ;-¬i-| ¬i¬iº
- - · ¤« i r l¬ ºirº ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ «|¤i «|¤ ¬|ºi- ¬·- -·ii· - l·º
r | ¬i ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ ¬·- -·ii· ¬ -ºir¸ º r | (¤ ¬ z«)
“It is correct to say that I have read in some books that
Ram Chandra Ji's birthplace is located in Ayodhya. It is
correct to say that Sri Ram Chandra Ji is a adored deity of
Hindus whom they regard as Bhagwan (Supreme Being)
and worship Him as such. In the above-referred book
'Ayodhya Mein Islami Aasar', I have read that Sri Ram
Janmsthan temple stands right in the centre of Ayodhya
town which is famous as the birthplace of Ram Chandra
Ji.” (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ l¬¬| ·i| ·i- ¬| ;«i·nnir ¬i ¤l· lnºi l·¤i
¬i¤ ni ·r ¬¬| ·i- ¬| ;«i·nnir ºr n| ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¤l·
-l·º ¬i ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i ·| ¬i¤ ni ¬¬¬| rl¬¤n ·r| «·¬ n|
¬iº ·r -l·º r| ºr ni ¬i º ¤l· -l-¬· ¬i ni · ¬º -l·º «·i l·¤i
¬i¤ ni ·r -l-¬· r| ºr n|| ¤l· ¤r ¬il«n ri ¬i¤ l¬ l··il·n
-·i¬ ¤º -l·º ·ii l¬¬ ¬«º· ni · ¬º -l-¬· «·i¤| n¤| ni ·r -l·º
r| -i·i ¬i¤ ni| (¤ ¬ zr)
“It is true to say that if a place of worship for any religion
is demolished, that will remain as such for that religion. It
is correct to say that if a mosque is constructed by
demolishing a temple, its status will not change and it will
remain as a temple, nothing else; and if a temple is
constructed by demolishing a mosque, it will continue to be
a mosque, nothing else. If it is proved that at the disputed
site, there was a temple forcibly demolishing which a
mosque was constructed then it will be considered to be a
temple, nothing else.” (E.T.C)
- · ¬¬| l-¤i ¬ir« ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r , - º| ¬·¬ ·il¬· ¬ir« ¬
·i¬il¤¤n r | (¤ ¬ zr)
“I have heard the name of Ali Miyan Sahib; I have
acquaintance with his father.” (E.T.C)
¬·¬| l¬ªi| ¤ -n¬ lr·· -ni· ;-¬i-| ¬r· - r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r
l¬ ·r l¬ni« ¬i ¬¬| l-¤i ¬ir« ¬ ·il¬· r¬|- ¬ o¬·· ¬ r;
rºi ·|, · l¬ªi| ·i|| ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬¬ l¬ni« - «i«º| -l-¬·
¬i l¬¬ ¬i¤i r | (¤ ¬ zr÷zc)
“'Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein' is a book written by him. It
is true to say that the Babri mosque has found mention in
the book written by Haquim Syed Abdul Haee Harauni son
of Ali Miyan Sahib.” (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n l¬ni« - ¬ ªi¬ · ¤ ¬i l¬ªii r l¬
¬i n ¤r ¬rn r l¬ «i«º| -l-¬· ¬¤i ·¤i - «i«º · ¬ri «··i¤| ·i|
¬¬ lr··¸ ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- -·i¬ ¬rn r | (¤ ¬ zc)
“It is true to say that the writer has in the aforesaid book
written that Hindus call the place, where Babur had
constructed Babri mosque in Ayodhya, 'Ram Chandra Ji's
Janmsthal'.” (E.T.C)
PW-21, Dr.M. Hashim Quidwai
¤r ¬r| r l¬¬| ¬nr l·ºi ·i ¬| -l-¬· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i ; ¬lrl-¤n ·r|
r | - ;¬ «in ¬ ¬r-n ·r| r¸ l¬ ¤¸ l¬ ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i·¤i
- r ¬i ·ii ¬iº lr··¸ ¬·r ·in·i· -i·n r ;¬l¬¤ ·r ·i¸l- ¤¸ ¬·|¤
r | (¤ ¬ «s)
“It is true that a particular place does not have any
importance for a mosque. I do not agree with the view that
since Sri Ram Chandra was born at Ayodhya and Hindus
regard him as Bhagwan (Supreme Being), that land is
venerable.” (E.T.C)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ lr··¸ ¬i n ¬¤i ·¤i - ·in·i· ºi- ¬ ¬·--·ii· ¤º
·ºi · ¬º· ¬l·¤i ¬ ¬in r | - · ¤r ¬ ·i r l¬ ºi-··-| ¬ l··
¬¤i·¤i - «r n «·i - ¬i ¬nni r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ lr··¸ ¬i n ·in·i·
ºi- ¬i l··ºi ¬i ¬·niº -i·n r | (¤ ¬ //)
“It is true that for centuries Hindus have been coming to
Ayodhya to have darshan of Lord Rama's Janmsthan
(birthplace). I have heard that a very big fair is held at
Ayodhya on the occasion of Ram Navami. It is true that
Hindus regard Lord Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu.”
- ¬·- - ¤¬ ¤·i ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬rni r ¬i º ·¸ ¬ºi «i«º| -l-¬·
¬rni r | (¤ ¬ so)
“One party to the litigation call it Ramjanmbhumi and the
other one call it the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C)
- ¬« n¤i ·ii ¬¬ ¬-i· - - n ¬i ; ¬i«i·| l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¤iºi
¬i º ·¬º ·r| ¬i; ·i|| l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¤iºi ¬i º - º ª¤i¬ ¬ · «
·i ¤¬i n n¬ ¬i ; ¬i«i·| ·r| ·i|| (¤ ¬ s·)
“No human inhabitation was seen by me around the
disputed structure at the time when I went there. I think
that there was no human inhabitation as far as one-a-half
or two furlongs around the disputed site.” (E.T.C)
PW-23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari
¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬i n|·i ¤i¤| ¤lº¬-i ¬ºn r · r· -i·n« |,
¬·¬ ·i·· ¬iº ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ·ºi · ·i| ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬ s«)
“It is correct to say that the pilgrims, who perform
circumambulation, also have darshan of Kanak Bhawan
and Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)
- ¤i ·r ¬i ¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬ «iº - ·i| ¬i·ni r¸ | ;¬ ¤i ·r ¬i ¬|
¤lº¬-i -in - ¬¤i·¤i ¬i º ¤ ¬i«i· ¬in r ¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| r l¬
¤i ·r ¬i ¬| ¤lº¬-i ·i| ri n| r ¤r ¬i¬ - ¤¬ «iº ri n| r | ¤r
¤lº¬-i ·i| ¬iln ¬ ¬ -ir - ri n| r | ¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| r l¬ ;¬
¤lº¬-i - ·i| ¬iªii ¬| ¬ ª¤i - n|·i ¤i¤| ¬iº ·i·nnºi lºiº¬n ¬ºn
r | (¤ ¬ s«)
“I also know about the 'Chaudahkosi' (fourteen kose, one
Kose being equal to 2 miles) circumambulation. Ayodhya
and Faizabad fall in this 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation
path. It is also correct to say that 'Chaudahkosi'
circumambulation is also performed. It is performed once
in a year. This circumambulation is also performed in the
month of Kartika. It is also correct to say that pilgrims and
devotees participate in this circumambulation in numbers
going in lakhs.”(E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ lr··¸ ¬i n l¬¬ - «i«º| -l-¬· ¬rni r¸ ¬¬ ¬·-·i¸l-
¬rn r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬i ¬iªii ¬| ·i|· ºrn| r ¬¬- ¤iºi ¬nr
·ºi · ¬º· ¬i ¬~¬i¬ ºrni r | (¤ ¬ s/)
“It is true that what I term as Babri mosque, is called
Janmbhumi by Hindus. It is true that the gathering going in
lakhs, is all full of fervour to have darshan.”(E.T.C)
·iºir| ¬ ¬i ¬ ¬·-·i¸ l-, l¬¬ r- «i«º| -l-¬· ¬rn r ·r ¬n·in
zo÷zr l¤- + ¤ -·ii· ¤º r | (¤ ¬ s/)
“The Janmbhumi, which is called Babri mosque by me, is
at a height of about 20-25 feet above the 'Dorahi
¤r ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n n|·i - ¬ - ¬¤·| ¤i··iºn ¬ · ªini
¤¬i ¬i ºri r¸ | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¤r n|·i - ¬ - ¬iªii ¬| ¬ ª¤i
- ¬,i¬ ¬in r ¬ s º ¬ ¬ ¬in r , ¬ s «¬ ¬ ¬in r ¬iº ¬ s
¬¤·| ni·| ¬ ¬in r ¤r¬ ¬ s ¬i n « ¬ni·| ¬iº ·ii · i ¬ ·i| ¬in
·i | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ ¬« ¬i n « ¬ni· | ¬ ¬in ·i ni ·i ºir| ¬ ¬i
¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ ¤¸ º ºi-¬i - - « ¬ni· | r| « ¬ni·| ºrn| ·i|| «l~¬
« ¬nil· ¤i - º ·iº ¬ ¤i¬ r| ºi ¬ ·| ¬in| ·i| | ¤r ·i| ¬r·i -|¬ r
l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ·o÷zo r¬iº ¬i·-| ºi ¬ ¬in r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“It is correct to say that I have been seeing these three fairs
since my memory. It is true that lakhs of devotees visit on
occasion of these three fairs, some come by train, some by
bus and some by their private vehicles. Earlier some people
used to come by bullock-carts and horses as well. It is
wrong to say that when people used to come by bullock-
carts, then there were bullock-carts all around in Ramkot
near the Dorahi Kuan, and instead the bullock-carts were
stopped near my house. It is correct to say that 10-20
thousand people come to Ayodhya everyday.”(E.T.C)
·lºi·- ¬ º· ¬ ¬-nº « r-¬ º· n ª,iºi r | nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¤¸ º«
-i·¬ ·i·· r l¬¬¬ ¤¸ º« «÷r -l·º r l¬¬- ¬i -¬ - l·º ¬i º ºi-
n ¬ ¬i -l·º ¬il· r | ¤r ¬· ¬ ¬i l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬-nº ¬ ¬in| r
·r ¤¸ º« ¬| ¬i º ¬i¬º ºi¬-in - l-¬ ¬in| r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬
ºi¬-in ¬ nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ·i ·i nº¤ lr·· ¬i ¬ -l·º r | ;¬|
¬· ¬ ¤º ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ¤ l¬, - l·º r· -i·n« | ·i| r | ¤r ·i| -|¬ r l¬
nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¤¸ º« ºi¬-in n¬ lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬i«i·| r ¬i º ¬·¬
n-i- - l·º r | nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¬-nº ¤¬ l¬-|o ¬| ·¸ º| ¤º
¬º¤¸ ··| r | ¤r ·i| -|¬ r l¬ nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¬-nº ·i| ¬;
-l·º r | ¬¬| ¬i º ¬·¬ ·i·· - l·º ¬i º ¬; n-i- ¤ l¬, -l·º r
l¬·¬i ·i- - n ·r| -i¬¸ - r | ¬·i-ºi -|¬i ¬i ·i- ¬ ·i r ¤r ·i|
nn· ·i¬| ¬-|· ¬ ¬-nº l·ºii - ··| ¬ l¬·iº r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬
r-iº ¤i··iºn ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - lr·· ¬i ¬| - ¬¬-i·i ¬ ·¤i·i ¬i«i·| r |
. . . . . . . .¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i lr·· ¬i ¬i ¤¬ n|·i -·i¬ -i·i
¬ini r |(¤ ¬ «·)
“The Brahmkunda Gurudwara is in north of Vashishtha
Kunda. The Manas Bhawan lies in east of the disputed site,
in east of which are 4-5 temples including Lomash temple,
Ram Gulela temple etc. This road in north of the disputed
structure, merges eastwards with the national highway. It is
true that Hindu temples lie on both sides of the road
between the national highway and the disputed site. The
famous Hanumangarhi temple of Ayodhya also lies on this
road. It is also true that Hindu populace exists in east of
the disputed site upto the national highway and their
various temples also lie over there. The Saryu river is one
kilometer in north of the disputed site. It is also true that
there are many temples in north of disputed site. The Kanak
Bhawan temple and many other famous temples, whose
names are not known to me, lie on that side. (I) have heard
about Laxman Tila. It is also along the river bank in north
of the disputed site. It is true that as per my memory, the
Hindus are in majority over the Muslims in Ayodhya.. . . . . .
. . . It is true that Ayodhya is considered a pilgrimage of the
n|·i -·ii· ¤r¬ ·i| ·ii ¤º ¤r¬ ¬- ¬i n ¬in ·i , ¬« ·¤i·i ¬i n
¬in r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ lr··¸ ¬i n ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬¤·i · ·ni -i·n
r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ lr·· ¬i ¬i ¤ ¬i l·º·i¬ r l¬ ·in·i· ºi-
¬¤i·¤i - ¤ ·i r ¤ ·i | ¤r ·i| ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤i·¤i - ·in·i· ºi-
¬ ¬ «l·in ¬; ¬ º· ¬i º -·ii· r | (¤ ¬ «z)
“Earlier also it was a pilgrimage but fewer people used to
come. Now more people come. It is true that Hindus
consider Lord Rama to be their God. It is correct to say
that it is the belief of Hindus that Lord Rama was born in
Ayodhya. It is also correct to say that there are many
Kundas and places related to Lord Rama in
¬« ¬ - · ri ºi ¬ ·ii¬i n« ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ¬i«i·| - n r-·i ¬iº
l·º·n (· ºin|) ¬i «ºi«º÷«ºi«º · ªi ºri r¸ | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| ri ni l¬
n r-·i ¬i«i·| - lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬ ª¤i ¬n·in so ¤|¬·| ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ r |
(¤ ¬ «r)
“Since I have attained maturity, I have seen the
householders and recluses to be in equal number in the
populace of Ayodhya. It would be correct to say that
Hindus would be around 90 percent of the householder's
l··i|·iºi ¬ º· r | ...- ¬i·ni r¸ l¬ ·in·i· ºi- lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬ºi·¤
· ·ni r | (¤ ¬ c«)
“There is Vibhishan Kunda. . . . . . I know that Lord Rama
is revered God of Hindus.”(E.T.C)
PW-28, Sita Ram Roy
- · «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¤« | r | ;¬- ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i l¬¬ r , l¬¬¬| ¤¤i
- · ¬¤· ¬¤º ¬ «¤i· - l¬¤i| «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - l¬ªii r l¬
¬º¤¸ ··| ¬ ¬¤i·¤i · « ¤i ¬· ·¸ º r ¤º l·ºii ·r| ¬ri n¤i r | ¤r
-|¬ r «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬i - l·º r | ¬·¬ ,iºi
¬¤i·¤i ¬ -l·º - ¤¸ ¬i ¬¤ ·i ºi¤· ¬il· ¬i ·ºi · r | «i~-|l¬
ºi-i¤ºi ¬ «i¬¬iº· - ·in·i· ºi- ¬ ¬·-, l·º·il-¤ ¬ ¬i·i ni· ¬i
ºi·i¬| ¬i «·i ·ri ¬ ¬·¬i l·º·il-¤ ¬ ¬i·i ·i· ·i ¤n - ¬·¬¤ º
¬i·i ¬i º ·i· ·i ¤n - ¬l--l¬n ri ·i ¬i º ¤ººi ºi- ¬ ¬i·i ·i - ¬il·
¬i ·ºi · r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ «i~-|l¬ ºi-¤ºi ¬ «i¬¬iº· - ·in·i·
ºi- ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·- r ¬i ¬i º ¬·¬ «i¬ª¤ ¬i ·ºi · r | (¤ ¬
“I have read Valmiki Ramayana. It mentions about
Ayodhya, which has been discussed by me herein-above in
my statement. It is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana that
Ayodhya was 1½ 'yojan' away from river Saryu, but the
direction has not been given. It is correct that in the
Valmiki Ramayana there is temple of Lord Sri Rama. (It)
contains descriptions of prayer, worship, sleeping, etc. by
Him in temple of Ayodhya. In the Valmiki Ramayana, the
Baalkand contains descriptions of the birth of Lord Rama,
the killing of demoness Tarka along-with Vishwamitra,
thereafter His visit to Janakpur along-with Vishwamitra in
the 'Dhanush Yagya' and participation in the 'Dhanush
Yagya', and meeting with Parashuram, etc. It is correct that
the Baalkanda of the Valmiki Ramayana contains
descriptions of the birth of Lord Rama in Ayodhya as well
as His child-form.”(E.T.C)
¤r -|¬ r ¬¬- ¤ ¬i ·i| ·ºi · r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i -
r ¬i ni · ·ni¬i · · ·l-·i «¬i¬º ¬·¬i -·inn l¬¤i| ¤r ·i| -|¬ r
l¬ ;¬- ¬· ¬iº ¬ ºi ¬ ¬·- ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“It is true that it is also so mentioned in it that when Lord
Rama was born in Ayodhya, the 'Devtas' (Gods) had
welcomed Him by blowing trumpets. It is also correct that
it mentions about the birth of Luv and Kush.”(E.T.C)
- · -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¤« i r | ;¬- ¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ ¤·-º - · ¤« i r |
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ - ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬| l-·iln ¬i ·ºi · ·r| r | - º| · l·- -
¤ ¬i ¬r·i ¬r| ·r| ri ni l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬| ¤irª|
¤· ¬¬¬| l-·iln ·| r ; r | . . . . . . .¬·n º¬i ¬ ¬i ¤« ¬º n·ir ·
¬ri l¬ - · ;¬¬i ·ii·i·i ¬-n l¬¤i r ;¬- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬| ¤i rª| -¤·-
·r| r l¤º ¬ri l¬ ¤i rª| ·r| ·| n¤| r | n·ir ¬ l·,i· ¬l·i··ni
· º¬i ¬ ¬ ·s, ·s·| ¬i; · · «iºi ¤« ·i; l¬¬ ¤« ¬º n·ir · ¬ri
l¬ ;¬ º¬i ¬ ¬ ¬¤ºi ·n ¤i rª| -¤·- ·r| ri n| r | ;· º¬i ¬i -
¬·-·i¸l- ¬| ¤i rª| -¤·- ·r| r | ;¬- ;¬¬| ¤iºi l·ºii¬i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
·r| r ¬i ¤i rª| ¬ l¬¤ ri ·i ¬ªº| r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¤ºi ·n º¬i ¬
- l¤º·iº¬, l··· º·º, ·ilºi·- ¬iº ¬i -ºi ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r | l·,i·
l¬ºr¬ni ¬l·i··ni ¬ ·s·| º¬i ¬ ¬| ¤r¬| ¤l·n ¬ ·¬º n·ir ·
¤« ¬º ¬«i« l·¤i l¬ ;¬ -·ii· ¬ ; ºii· ¬i ºi ¬| ¬i º ¬·-·i¸l- ¬
l¬¤ ¬i·i ¤· ni r ;¬| º¬i ¬ ¬| ·¸ ¬º| ¤l·n ¬i ¬·i ¤r r l¬ -i ·i
¬| ¤ il·n ¬ l¬¤ ¬·--·ii· ¬i¤i ¬ini r | ¤ ·n n ºi·· ¬i ¬·i ¤r
ri ni ¬i ¬ini r | l··· º·º ¤¸ ··ii n ¬i ¬·i r l¬ l··· º·º ¬ ¤¸ · ·iin
- | ·lºi·-in ¬-iº ¬i -n¬« r ¬iº ·lºi·- ¬ ¬-nº - , ¬i -iºiin
¤lº¤- ·iin ¬i -n¬« r l¬ ¬i -ºi ¬ ¤lº¤- ·iin - , ¬·--·ii·- nn
¬i ¬·i r ·ri ¬ ¬·--·ii·, - · ¬i ¬·i ¬¤º «ni¤i r ;¬¬
¬·--·ii· ¬i· ¬i ¬¬ n ri ni r · l¬ ¬¬¬| ¤i rª| -¤·- ri n| r |
(¤ ¬ ·/÷·s)
“I have read Skand Puran. I have read Ayodhya Mahatmya
chapter in it. The chapter Ayodhya Mahatmya does not
describe the location of Ramjanmbhumi. In my view, it
would not be correct to say that in Ayodhya Mahatmya, the
boundary of Ramjanmbhumi and its status are
mentioned. . . . . . . After reading the above verse, the
witness stated that I have understood its meaning. The
boundary of Janmbhumi is not clear in it. Then stated that
boundary has not been given. The learned counsel asked
the witness to read again the 18
and 19
lines of the verse,
and after reading them, the witness stated: 'the aforesaid
boundary is not clear from this verse'. The boundary of
Ramjanmbhumi is not evident in these verses. The four
directions which are necessary for a boundary are not
mentioned therein. It is correct that in the aforesaid verse,
Pindarak, Vighneshwar, Vashishta and Lomesh are
mentioned. On hearing the first line of 18
verse from the
learned counsel conducting cross-examination and after
reading the same, the witness replied that one has to go to
the north-east direction from this place for visiting
Janmbhumi (place of birth). The meaning of the second line
of the same stanza is that one has to visit the 'place of birth'
for salvation. The term 'parvartate' means one who goes.
The term 'Vighneshwarah Poorvabhage' means in the
eastern part of Vighneshwar. The term Vashishthatah
Uttare means 'in the north of Vashishtha'; the term
Lomashat Paschime bhage means 'in the western part of
Lomash'; Janmsthanam Tatah means 'the place of birth
from there'. The meaning which I have stated above
indicates the path of the birth-place and not its boundary.
- ¬¤i ·¤i ¬¤· ¤lº·iº ·i¬i ¬ ¬i·i ¬i· ¬ ¬iººi ¬ ¬ini ·ii|
¬ilªiº| «iº ¬¤i ·¤i - co÷cz ¬| ¬- - n¤i ·ii| - · ¤r ¬i·· ¬|
¬i lºiºi ·r| ¬|, l¬ - º ¤lº·iº ·i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i l¬¬ ·ii··i ¬ ¬in ·i | -
¬¤i·¤i «|¬i «iº n¤i| - ·ri -rºni ·r| ·ii| ·ri - · - l·º - ¬··º
¬i¬º ¬·i| ·ºi · ·r| l¬¤| ni·| - «irº « - ÷« - · ªi ¬ ni ·ii| (¤ ¬
“I used to go to Ayodhya on account of accompanying my
family members. I last visited Ayodhya at the age of 60-62
years. I did not attempt to know as to with which feeling
did my family members used to go to Ayodhya. I have been
to Ayodhya more than 20 times. I did not stay there. I never
had darshan over there by going inside the temple. I used
to see from outside by sitting in the vehicle.”(E.T.C)
¤¸l¬ - · ºi- ¬ ¬·- ¬i ¤ lnril¬¬ r| ·r| -i·i ;¬l¬¤ - · ¤r
¤ni ¬ni· ¬| ¬i lºiºi ·r| ¬|, l¬ ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬ri r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬
“Since I did not consider the birth of Rama to be historical,
as such I did not make attempt to learn as to where was
Rama born.”(E.T.C)
- n ;¬¬| ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ l··il·n «i ¤ ¬ l··· ¬ ¬ ¤¸ · ºi- ¬¬i
¬| -¸ ln ºªi| n¤| ·i|, ¤º - n ;¬¬| ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r l¬ ·ri ¬|n ·
ri ni ·ii| - n ¤r -i¬¸ - ·ii l¬ l¬¬ ; o ¬· - ·in·i· ºi- ¬¬i ¬|
-¸ln l··il·n «i ¤ - ºªi| n¤| ·i|, ¤º ;¬ ¬-¤ ¤i· ·r| r, ¤ ¬i
¬r·i n¬n r l¬ - º| · l·- - ¤r «in -r-· r|· ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·os)
“I have knowledge of the fact that prior to demolition of
disputed structure, the idols of Ramlala had been installed,
but I do not have knowledge of the fact as to where was
'kirtan' performed. I knew the year in which the idol of
Ramlala had been installed in the disputed structure, but
do not recollect it at present. It is wrong to say that in my
opinion, this fact had no importance.”(E.T.C)
n-¬i¬ - n ¤ ¬| l¬¬| ¬¤i·¤i ¬| ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r l¬¬¬ ¬-nº -
¬º¤¸ ··| «rn| ri | (¤ ¬ ···)
“At present I do not know about any such Ayodhya, to the
north of which flows the river Saryu.”(E.T.C)
ºi- ¬ «iº - ¬ ¤ ¤iº ¬º· ¬ l¬¤ ··« ¬ ·ºi¬ ¬ «i· ¤r
l¬ni« ¤i ¬·i«, nº|¬ ¬ l¬ªi| n¤|| (¤ ¬ ·z/)
“These books were written in the decade of nineties in a
planned manner in order to do wrong publicity about
OPW-1, Mahant Ram Chandra Das Digambar
ºi-i¤ºi - ¤r ¬l~¬lªin r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - r ¬i|
¬¤i·¤i ¬i ·ºi · r-iº · ·i - r , ¬¤l··i·i - n·ii ¬ lrni¬i - ¤·
¬·-i·ºi ¬¤ ¤ ºiºii - , -- ln¤i - r ¬iº ·iiºn ¬ ¬ -¬ n ¬nn - ¬i
-i·¤ ¬ilr-¤ ¬¤¬··i r , ¬¬ ·in·i· ¬i ¬·- -·ii· ¬¤i ·¤i -i·i n¤i
r | (¤ ¬ /)
“It is mentioned in the Ramayana that Lord Rama was
born in Ayodhya. The descriptions of Ayodhya are there in
our Vedas, Upnishadas, Samhitas, Smritis of Ashtadash
Up-puranas and the recognised literature available in
Sanskrit in India. The birth place of the Lord has been
taken as Ayodhya in (them).”(E.T.C)
¤r ·r| ¬¤i·¤i r ¬i ·n -i· -·i¬ r | ;¬ -·i¬ ¤º ·in·i· ºi- ¬i
¬·- r ¬i, ;¬¬ ¬-«··i - ¤i r· ·| ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬ºn r ¤ ¬¤ºi ·n ¬·i|
lr··¸ ·i- n ··ii - -¤·- ª¤ ¬ ¬~¬ ªi r | ¬in¬ ¬ o ·o/n,/r - º
¬-·i r , -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¬ ¬·nn n ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¤ ¬ººi - ;¬ ¬-«··i
- -¤·- ¬~¬ ªi r | ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·i¬ ¤· n·i n r l··il·n
-·i¬ r| r , ¬ri ¤º ºi-¬¬i ¬| ;¬ ¬-¤ l·ºi¬-i· r | (¤ ¬ s)
“It is the same Ayodhya, which is the present site. Lord
Rama was born at this place. While giving the boundary in
its behalf, there is clear reference in all the above
mentioned Hindu treatises. The paper no. 107C/75 is
before me, it contains clear mention in this behalf in the
Ayodhya Mahatmya under the Skanda-purana. The
birthplace of Lord Rama and the sanctum sanctorum are
the disputed site, where Ramlala is present at
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¬ ¤i¤i ¬ ·i- ¤º ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in l·l·i·· -·i¬
n·ii ¬¤i·¤i - l-·in l·l·i·· -·i¬i ¬ ¬-«··i - ¬¤¤ ·n ·ºi · ¬
¬i·iiº ¤º - ºi ¤r ¬r·i r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- r | (¤ ¬
“On the basis of the aforesaid description on several
Ayodhya situated places named after the characters of
Valmiki Ramayan and in regard to the several places
located in Ayodhya, I say that the disputed site is
¤r -·ii· ºi- ¤«¸ nº ¬ ¬-nº ·ii| lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ ·i -¸ ln ¤i n·ii
¬il¬n i- ¬| ¤¬ «l-¤i ·i| l¬¬ ¤ ¬iº| «irº ¬i n· - ¬ ¬º ¬i n¤
·i | ·i ·i -¸ ln ¤i ºi-¬¬i ¬| r| ·i|, ¬-ºi «·| n·ii si -| -¸ln ¤i ·i||
-¸ln ¤i - ¬i lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ ·i , ¬|ni ¬| ¬| -¸ ln ·r| ·i|, r· -i· ¬|
¬| -¸ ln ·ri ¤º ·i| ¤i ·r| , - n ¤i· ·r| | l¬¬ -·ii· ¬ ¬·ii n lºiªiº
¬ ·|¤ ¬ ¤ ¬iº| -¸ln ¤i ¬i r-i¬º ¬i¤i ·ii, ¬-n¬|¬ººi ¬ «i· ¬·
-¸ln ¤i ¬i ·r| ¤º ºªi l·¤i n¤i| (¤ ¬ sz)
“This place was to the north of the Ramchabutra. Beneath
the dome, were two idols and one 'Batiya' of Saligram,
which has been brought out in the courtyard by the priest.
Both the idols were of Ramlala, which were big and small
idols respectively. Out of the idols present beneath the
dome, there was no idol of Sita Ji, I do not remember
whether the idol of Hanuman Ji was there or not. After
levelling, those idols were placed at that very place from
which the priest had removed and brought them i.e. from
beneath the dome.”(E.T.C)
¤ ¬iº| ¬-¤ ·· ·i¬ · n·ii ¬·¤ ¬i ni · - n¬ ¤r «ni¤i l¬ l··il·n
·i·· ¬ lnº· ¬ «i· -¸ln ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ºªi| n; ¬ri ¤º ¤r¬ l-·in
·i|| l¬¬ l·· l·-i ºi ··-n r ¬i ¬¬| l·· s «¬ ºin ¬i - · ¬i¬º
¬¬ -·ii· ¬i · ªii ¬ri ¤º -¸ ln ºªi| n; ·i|| (¤ ¬ ss)
“Priest Satyendra Das and others had told me that after
collapse of the disputed structure, the idols had been
placed at the same place where they existed earlier. At 8
PM of the day on which the structure was demolished, I
had come and seen the place where the idols had been
¬¤ºi ·n ¬l-º·º ,iºi l¬¤ n¤ ¤i -i n i¤ ¬ o÷·o ¬in¬
¬ o÷·r«,·s ¬i·i| ¬i l·ªi¬i¤i n¤i, ¤r ·r| -·i¬ r ¬ri ¤º ¤r¬
-¸ln ·i| n·ii «i· - ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º · «iºi -¸ln ºªi| n; | ¤r -¸ ln
¤«¸ nº ¤º ºªi| r ; l·ªii; n; r | ¤«¸ nºi l·l- n ¬º l·¤i n¤i ·ii| ·r
-·ii· ¬ri ¤º ;¬ ¬-¤ -¸ ln ºªi| r ; r ·r| -·ii· n·i n r ·ss« ¬¬¬
¤¸ · ·s«s - n·ii ¬« ·i| r |
¤ º· ·ss« - -·¤ lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ ¬i¤ l¬¬ -·ii· ¬i ¬·-·i¸ l-
¬-nn ·i , ¬¬¬| ¬-«i; , ¤i ·i; ·¤i ·i| `
¬-nº l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ·|¤ ¬i ¬-¤¸ ºi -·ii· -·¤ lºiªiº ¬
·|¤ n·ii ¬¬¬ ¬n¬÷«n¬ ·i ¤ ¬i ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ª¤ - - ¬-nni
r¸ |
¤ º· ·¤i ¬¬ ·i¸l- ¬| ¬i ; ¬-«i; ÷¤i · i; ·oo x ·oo l¤-
ºr| ri n| ¤i ;¬¬ ¬l·i¬ `
¬-nº - ¤r l·lº¤n ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ¬¬ -·ii· ¬|
¬-«i; ÷¤i ·i; ·¤i ·i| ¤º·n ¤lº¬-i -in ¬i ¬ ¬º ¬-¤¸ ºi ·i¸l- ¬i -
¬·-·i¸l- ¬i lr-¬i -i·¬º ¬¬¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬ºni ·ii|
÷ ¬·-·i¸l- ¬¬| -·ii· ¬i ¬-nni r¸ , ¬ri ¤º ºi- ¬i ¬·-
r ¬i ·ii| ¤r ¬·- ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ -r¬ - ¤ ¬· n r - r ¬i ·ii|
n·i n r n·ii ¤ ¬·n r ¬·- ¬| · l·- ¬ ¤¬ r| r , - ºi ni-¤¤ ·in·i·
ºi- ¬ ¬·- ¬ · ¬ -·ii· ¬ r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“The photograph no.10, paper no. 154/13, taken by the
aforesaid Commissioner was shown to the witness. It is the
same place where idols existed earlier and later on idols
were again installed over there. These idols appear to have
been placed above platform. The platform had been built.
The place where idols are installed at present, was the
sanctum sanctorum in 1934 (or) earlier, in 1949 and even
Question: What was the dimension of the place beneath the
Central dome in 1934, which you considered to be
Answer: I consider the entire place beneath the central
dome as well as the adjoining places, to be
Question: Would the length-breadth of any part of that
land, have been 100x100 feet or more?
Answer: I cannot tell definitely the dimension of that place,
but I used to perform circumambulation of the entire land
including the circumambulation path, by treating it to be
part of Janmbhumi.
-(I) consider Janmbhumi to be the same place, where
Rama was born. This birth took place in the labour room of
king Dashrath’s palace. Sanctum sanctorum and labour
room, are the same from the point of view of birth. I mean
the place of birth of Lord Rama. ”(E.T.C)
¤ º· ÷ l··il·n ·i·· - n·i n r ¬¬| -·i¬ ¤º ri · ¬ ¬-«··i
- ¬ri ¤º ¬i¤ «nin r , ¬i¤¬i l·º·i¬ l¬¬ ¤ -n¬ · ¤ -iºi ¤º
¬i·iilºn r `
¬-nº ÷ · ·i - ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ·ºi · r | ¬·i· · · ¬ - ¤ ÷
¬·-i¤¬ ··· ,iºi ¬i· ·n ·i- ¤ ¬¤i ·¤i n-¤i-lrºº-¤ ¬i·i
l¬ªii r , l¬¬¬i ºi··i·i r ÷¬i- ·¬i ¤º ¤r ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº| «¬| r ; r
¬iº ¬in ¬i-i ·¬i ¬ ¬i- · ·ni¬i ¬i ·ºi · ª· ¤i-¬ n¬ - ¬ini
r | ¬¬¬ ¬-« l·in º¬i ¬ l·-· r ÷
¬·-·i¸ l- r· -·n ·inºi ¬º¤¸lºi·i-
¬·-ºi · ºi n|·i - «·· ri-¬ -l··º- ||
;¬ º¬i ¬ - ¤ ·i- ¤ ¬ ¬ · ·ni ºi- ¬·- ·i¸l- ¬i ri ·i
¬l~¬lªin r | (¤ ¬ ·os)
“Question:- On which book and evidence is your
belief based regarding the existence of 'Garbh-grih'
(sanctum sanctorum) in the disputed structure at the same
place where you claim so?
Answer:- The Janmbhumi is described in the Vedas.
The meaning of Atharvaveda's hymn reading as
‘Ashtachakra Navadwara Shadevnam Puh Ayodhya
Tasyamahiranyamayah Koshah’ is that ‘the city of Ayodhya
exists over eight ‘Chakras’ (wheels)’, and the description of
the eight Gods of the eight ‘Chakras’ (wheels) is found in
Rudrayam. The concerned verse is as under:
‘Janmbhumim Hanumantam Nagesham Saryushivam
Laxmanam Venu Tirthavbande Hatak Mandiram’.
This verse gives the Ramjanmbhumi to be the God of
the first ‘Chakra’ (wheel).”(E.T.C)
OPW-3, Dr. S.P. Gupta
·s«c - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i¤i ni ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- . . . . . ¬il· ¬i ·ºi · ¬º·
¬i¤i ¬ºni ·ii| (¤ ¬ z)
“(When I) came to Ayodhya in 1946, I used to go to have
darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi. . . . . . etc.”(E.T.C)
zs l·¬-«º, ·s«s ¬ ¬; -r|· ¤r¬ ¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l··º ¬ ¬i-·
- ·i· - l·· - ¬ªiº· ¤i- . . . . . ¬|n · ¬ ¬-¤ ¬i¤| ·i|· ;¬- -i
ri n| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·o)
“For many months before 23
December, 1949, 'Akhand
Paath' during day time in the ground opposite
Ramjnmbhumi temple. . . . . . . Much gathering used to take
place at time of 'Kirtan'.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬··º ¤ ¬iº| ¬in ·i | ¬· ·ssr - ¤¬÷·i ¤ ¬iº|
·ri ¤º ni·¸ ·n ºr ¬ni· ¬ l¬¤ ¬in ·i | (¤ ¬ ·r)
“The priests used to go inside the disputed structure. In the
year 1995, a couple of priests used to go there for
brooming etc.”(E.T.C)
OPW-4, Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari
¬¤i ·¤i lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤¬ ¤ i¤|· ¤l·¤n- n|·i -·i¬| r ¬ri ¤º-« r -
¤º- º·º ·in·i· l··ºi · ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬|ºi- ¬ ª¤ - ¬·niº
l¬¤i ·ii| lr··¸ -ni·¬l-«¤i - ¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ ¤r ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬
ºri r l¬ ·in·i· l··ºi · ¬|ºi- ¬ ª¤ - ¬¤i·¤i - ¬·niº l¬¤i ·ii|
¤r -·ii· ¤¸ ·¤ r , ;¬| ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬i n ¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ·ºi · ¬iº ¤lº¬-i ¬º· ¬in ·i | - º ¤lº·iº ¬ ¬i n, - º
«i«i, ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬« - ·ss« ¬ ·sss n¬ lºi·ii n rºi ¬ ·iºi· ºri ni
·ri ¬ «· « ¬ n ¬i·i ÷¬·n ·i| «nin ·i l¬ ·in·i· l··ºi · ·in·i·
¬|ºi- ¬ ª¤ - ¤r| ¬·- l¬¤i ·ii, ¬iº ¤r| ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- r | (¤ ¬
“Ayodhya is an ancient, most sacred pilgrimage of Hindus,
where the 'Param Brahm' Lord Vishnu incarnated as King
Dashrath's son Sri Rama. It has been the faith and belief of
followers of Hinduism from time immemorial that Lord
Vishnu had incarnated in Ayodhya as Sri Rama. This place
is worship-able, it is on basis of this faith and belief that
people used to come over to have darshan of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi and to perform circumambulation. From
1934 to 1938 when I stayed in Ayodhya to receive
education, my family members, my grandfather, the elderly
people over there as well as the saints-sages used to tell
that Lord Vishnu had incarnated at this very place in form
of Lord Sri Rama and this was Sri Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)
;¬| ¬i-·ii ¬i º l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º - ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¤º ·ºi ·
¬º· ¬ini ºri ¬iº ¤« i; ¬-i·n ¬º· ¬ «i· ·i| ¬« ¬·i| ¬¤i ·¤i
¬ini ·ii n« ·i| ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ini ·ii, ;·iº ¬n·in s÷s ¬i¬ ¬ ¬ n |·
l¬¬i, ºi-¬i -, ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬l·i¬i ºi ¬-¤ ºrni r¸ ¬i º ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i
·ºi · ¬º· ¬ini ºrni r¸ | (¤ ¬ s)
“It is on basis of this faith and belief that I kept going to
Sri Ramjanmbhumi to have darshan and after completing
my studies, whenever I went to Ayodhya, I used to go to
have darshan. In last 8-9 years, I mostly stay at Sugriv-
Qila, Ramkot, Ayodhya and keep going to Ramjanmbhumi
to have darshan.”(E.T.C)
OPW-6, Hausila Prasad Tripathi
·z÷·s ··i ¬| ¬i¤ - ·ssr - l·¬-«º - ¤r¬| «iº ¬¤· ¤i¤i ¬
¬i·i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i¤i ·ii| - º ¤i¤i ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ¬n·in ¬i·ii
l¬¬i -|-º ·¸ º ºrn ·i | ¬·¬ ¬i·i - ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º · ¬·¤
-l··ºi ¬i ·ºi · l¬¤i| (¤ ¬ s)
“I had first come to Ayodhya along-with my uncle at the
age of 12-13 years, in December, 1935. My uncle used to
live about ½ kilometre away from Sri Ramjanmbhumi. I
had the darshan of Ramjanmbhumi temple and other
temples, along-with him.”(E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - « - ¬ r , ¬·¬ ·i- r ÷ ¬iln ¬ ¤¸lºi -i, ¤lº¬-i, ¤ ¤
ºi-··-|, ¬i·· n¸ ¬i · ºi- l··ir| (¤ ¬ «)
“In Ayodhya, there are four fairs. Their names are–Kartika
Purnima Parikrama, Chaitra Ramnavmi, Sawan Jhoola
and Ram Vivah.”(E.T.C)
- ºi ·i| · « l·º·i¬ ¬i º ¬i-·ii r l¬ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i
- ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º r ¬i r , ¬ri r¬iºi lr··¸ n|·i ¤i¤| ·ºi ·i·i| ¬i¬º
·ºi ·, ¤¸ ¬i · ¤lº¬-i ¬ºn r | ;¬| ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º -
·i| ·ssr ¬ ¤ ln··i ¬i¬ - s÷« «iº ¬¤i ·¤i n¤i ¬i º ·ri ¬º¤¸ -·i·
¬ «i· ¬·¬ ·i··, r· -i·n« | · ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ·ºi · · ¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- ¬| ¤lº¬-i l¬¤i| ...ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¤lº¬º ¤º ¬« - ¤r¬| «iº
n¤i, ni - n ¤¸ ºi ¤lº¬º -l··º ¬ ¬i ¬ni| ¬· ·ssr ¬ ·s«r ¬ «|¤
¬«÷¬« - ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º - n¤i ·ri ¤º ¬·i| ·iil- ¬ -·i¬ ¬ ¬
ºi- ¤«¸ nºi, s-| ¤¸ ¬· -·i¬, ¬|ni º¬i ; , - ª¤ n·i n r - ·in·i· ¬i
·ºi · l¬¤i| ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ¬iº lºi· ·º«iº ¬i º ¬|ni º¬i ; - ¤ ¬i· ¬ ni
·ii ¬iº ¤ ¬i· ¤«ini ·i| ·ii ¬i º n·i n r ·i¬ ·in·i· ¬i ·ºi · ¬| ªi¤
¬ «irº ¬ ¬ºni ·ii ¬iº ¬| ªi¤ ¬ ¤i¬ r| ¤ ¬i· ºªi · ni ·ii| (¤ ¬
“It is my firm faith and belief that Lord Sri Rama was born
in Ayodhya at that very place, where thousands of Hindu
pilgrims, devotees come to have darshan, worship and
perform circumambulation. On basis of this very faith and
belief, I also went to Ayodhya 3-4 times a year from 1935
and after having a dip in Saryu, had the darshan of Kanak
Bhawan, Hanumangarhi and Sri Ramjanmbhumi and
performed circumambulation of Sri
Ramjanmbhumi. . . . . . . When I first visited the
Ramjanmbhumi premises, the entire premises appeared to
me just like a temple. In between the years 1935 to 1945,
whenever I went to Ramjanmbhumi temple, I had darshan
of deity at all religious places such as Ramchabutra,
Chhatthi worship place, Sita Rasoi, main sanctum
sanctorum. (I) used to take 'prasad' at Ramchabutra, Shiv
Darbar and Sita Rasoi, and also used to make offerings
and used to have darshan of the deity in the sanctum
sacntorum through the grills from outside and used to keep
the offerings near the grill.”(E.T.C)
·ssr÷«r ¬ «|¤ ·i|· - ¬i;· ¬n·i ¬º ¬i·i ÷« ºin| ·ºi · ¬ºin ·i |
¤ ¬i·i ¬¬| ¤lº¬º - ºrn ·i | (¤ ¬ ·o)
“In between 1935-45, the saints-recluses used to organise
queues for darshan. These saints lived in that very
- · ¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ - ¤ ¬ ¬ o÷s - ¬i ¤r ¬ri r l¬ ¬i·i ¬i n·ii
· ºiln¤i ¬ ·º ¬ ¬iººi ¬i ; ·i| - ¬¬-i· ;¬ ¤lº¬º ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ ¬i·
¬| lr--n ·r| ¬ -i ¤ini ·ii, ·r ;¬ ¬iººi ·ii l¬ - ¬¬-i· ¬i n
¬i·i ¬i ¬ ·ºn ·i | (¤ ¬ ·z)
“My statement appearing in page 8 of my affidavit as 'due
to fear of saints and recluses, no Muslim was able to gather
the courage to come near this premises', was in view of the
fact that the Muslims were scared of the saints.”(E.T.C)
¬· ·s«s ·i¬| ·i-·i ¬ ¬n·in ¤¬ -ir «i· - ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º
n¤i ·ii| ·s«s ¬| ·i-·i ¬ «i· ¬« - l··il·n ¤lº¬º - n¤i ni ·ri
¤ l¬¬ ni ·i|, ¤º·n ¬| ªi¤ ¬ ¤iº ¬ n·i n r ¬ ¬··º - · ·ºi · l¬¤i|
¬| ªi¤ ¬ ¤r¬ ºi-¤«¸ nºi, ¬|ni º¬i ; , lºi· ·º«iº, ·i·-| ¤¸ ¬i -·i¬
¬il· ¤º ¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ¬ ¤¸ ¬i ¬il· ri n| ·i|, ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ri n| ·i|, «l~¬
¬·nº ¤r ·ii l¬ ¤ l¬¬ ·ri ¬n| ·i|| - · n - ¤º ·i| ¤ l¬¬ ºrn|
·i| ¤· ln ¬ ¬ ·i| ¤ l¬¬ l·ªii; · n| ·i|| n·i n r ¬ ¤r¬ ºi-¤«¸ nºi,
·i ·iºn r, ¬|ni º¬i ; , lºi· ·º«iº, ·i·-| ¤¸ ¬i -·i¬ ¤º · ¬ r|
¬i·i ÷· ºin| ºrn ·i , ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ºrn ·i ¬i º ·ºi ·i·i| · ¬ r| ·ºi · ¬ºn
·i , ¤ ¬i· ¤«in ·i ¬iº ¤¸ ¬i ¬il· ¬ºn ·i , ¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬ºn ·i |
«niºii ¤· ¤¸ ¬ - ª¤ n - ¬ ¬i-· · ¬i· ºrn| ·i| , ·ri ¬ l¬¤i ¬ini
·ii| - n ·r| -i¬¸ - l¬ ¬|ni ¬¸ ¤ ¬i ¬¬ l¤¬i· ¬ l¬¤ ¬i ;
¬i·i ÷· ºin| n - ¤º ºrni ·ii ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“I had gone to the Ramjanmbhumi temple, about a month
after the incident of the year 1949. When I went to the
disputed premises after the incident of the year 1949, the
police was present but I had the darshan of sanctum
sanctorum from outside the grill. The worship at
Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi, Shiv Darbar, Chhatthi worship
place, etc. outside the grill, used to take place as in past,
and the only difference was that police had been deployed
over there. The police was present at the main gate as well
and was visible from the grill also. The saints-recluses
lived at Ramchabutara, store-room, Sita Rasoi, Shiv
Darbar, Chhathi worship place, outside the sanctum
sanctorum, as in past and the devotees also had darshan,
offered offerings, performed worship etc. in the same
manner, as in past. The shops of 'Batasha' and flowers
existed opposite the main gate and they were purchased
from there. I do not know whether there was any saint-
recluse at the gate for giving the water of Sita Koop, or
·szz - - ¤ ·i r ¬i ·ii| - º l¤ni ¬i · ri·n ·scs - r ¬i| ·ssr ¬
·scs ¬ «|¤ ¬n·in ·oo «iº ¬¤i·¤i n¤i| (¤ ¬ ·s)
“I was born in 1922. My father died in 1969. (I) went to
Ayodhya on about 100 occasions between 1935 to
- · ·« ¬i ¬| ¤lº¬-i s÷« «iº ¬iº ¤¬ «iº ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬| r |
¤lº¬-i r- ºii ºin - ¬| r | ;¬ ¬iººi l·ªii; ·r| · ni ·ii| ºi-n -
¬i ; -l-¬· ¤· | r ¤i ·r| , ¤i ¬ri ÷¬ri ·¤i÷·¤i ¤· ni ·ii| (¤ ¬
“I have performed 14 kosi (kose, 1 kose equal to 2 miles)
circumambulation 3-4 times and 'Panchkosi' (of five kose)
circumambulation once. (I) have always performed
circumambulation during night, due to which it could not
be seen (whether) there was any mosque in the path or not,
or as to what fell in between.”(E.T.C)
·ssr ¬ zooz n¬ ........ - ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬iº ¬·¬ ·i·· ¬i ºri r¸ |
·ri - · · ¤i z ¤ ¬iº| · ªi ·i | (¤ ¬ «·)
“From 1935 to 2002. . . . . . I have been going to
Ramjanmbhumi and Kanak Bhawan. There, I had seen 1 or
2 priests.”(E.T.C)
l¬¬ n·i n r ¬ «iº - - · ¬¤· ¤r¬ «¤i· - «ni¤i r ¬¬ n·i n r
¬ «iº - ¬· ·s«s ¬ ¤r¬ ¬ ¬i·ni ·ii, ¬¬ - º ¤i¤i · «ni¤i ·ii|
- ¬¤· ¤i¤i ¬ ¬i·i l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬· ·ssr ¬ ¬·n - l·¬-«º
¬ -r|· - n¤i ·ii, n·i| - º ¤i¤i · ¬¤ºi ·n «in «ni; ·i|| ¬· ·s«s
¬ «i· ¬i -¸ln ¤i - · n·i n r - · ªi| ·i|, ·r -¸ ln ¤i ·ssr - ·r| ·i||
¬· ·ssr - ¬ ·¬ ni¬ ·i¬| -¸ln · ¤¬ ¤i -i ·i|, ¬i l-·iln l··il·n
-·i¬ ¤º n·i n r - ¬· ·ssr - - · · ªi| ·i|, ·r| l-·iln ¬· ·s«s n¬
¬i¤- ·i|| - ·r| «ni ¬¬ni l¬ rº -l··º - n·i n r ¬i ri ·i
¬i·º¤¬ r ¤i ·r| | (¤ ¬ //)
“I knew the sanctum sanctorum, about which I have stated
earlier, from before the year 1949. it was told to me by my
uncle. I had been to the disputed structure along-with my
uncle in last of December, 1995, when my uncle had told
me the aforesaid facts. The idols which I saw in the
sanctum sanctorum after 1949, did not lie there in 1935. In
1935, there was just one niche-placed idol and one
photograph. The position which I had seen in the sanctum
sanctorum on the disputed site in 1935, continued to exist
up to 1949. I cannot tell whether or not it is necessary for
each temple to have a sanctum sanctorum. ”(E.T.C)
OPW-7, Ram Surat Tiwari
¬¤i ·¤i ··i - «÷r «iº ¬ini ºri, ¬·¬ ·i··, r· -i·n« |, ¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- ¬il· ¬i ·ºi · ¬ºni ·ii| (¤ ¬ z)
“I kept visiting Ayodhya, 4-5 times in a year. (I) used to
have darshan of Kanak Bhawan, Hanumangarhi, Sri
Ramjanmbhumi, etc.”(E.T.C)
¬il·¬i¬ ¬ lr·· ¬i - ¤r ¬i-·ii, l·º·i¬ ¤· ¬i ¬-i·¤ni ¤ ¤l¬n r
l¬ ;¬ ·i·· ¬ «|¤ ·i¬ lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ r| ·in·i· l··ºi · ºi¬i
·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬|ºi- ¬ ª¤ - ¬·niº l¬¤i ·ii ;¬|l¬¤ ;¬ ·in·i·
ºi- ¬i n·i n r ¬ri ¬ini r | ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ «i·
¬| ªi¤i ·i¬| ·|·iº ¬ ·º·i¬ ¬ n|· lºiªiº ·i¬ ·i·· - l-·in ¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- n·i n r ¬i ·ºi · n|·i ¤i¤|÷·ºi ·i·i| l¬¤i ¬ºn ·i n·ii
¤¸ ¬÷-i¬i, · ·¤÷¤ ¬i· ¬il· ·r| ¬ n·i n r ¬| ¬i º ·i¬ l·¤i ¬ºn
·i | (¤ ¬ «)
“From ancient times, this faith, belief and public opinion is
prevalent amongst the Hindus that Lord Vishnu had
incarnated beneath the mid dome of this structure as Lord
Rama, son of King Dashrath. Due to this, it is called the
sanctum sanctorum of Lord Rama. After having darshan of
Ramchabutara, the pilgrims-devotees used to have darshan
of Sri Ramjanmbhumi sanctum sanctorum situated in the
three domed structure, from the gate in the grill wall, and
used to make offerings of flowers-garlands, money-sweets,
etc. at the sanctum sanctorum from there.”(E.T.C)
«· « ¬ n ¬i ni · ·i| «ni¤i ·ii l¬ ¬i-·ii, l·º·i¬ ¤· ¤ ¤l¬n ¬i ¬
-i·¤ni ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬·i| · ·ºi· ºi-·i·n lr··¸ ¬·ni «|¤ ·i¬ lºiªiº ¬
·|¤ ¬| ·i¸l- ¬i ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸ l- ri · ¬ ¬iººi ¬-¤·n
¤l·¤, ¤¸ ·¤ ¬iº ·ºi ·|¤ -i·n| r | ;¬| ¬iººi - º ·ii; ¬ir« ¬¬ -·i¬
¬i ·in·i· ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- -i·n ·i | (¤ ¬ «)
“The elderly persons had also told that according to faith,
belief and prevalent public opinion, the Vaishnavite Rama
devotee Hindu public considers the land beneath the mid
dome to be very sacred, worshippable and reverable on
account of being the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. Due to
this, my brother used to consider that place to be the
birthplace of Lord Rama.”(E.T.C)
¬| ªi¤ ·i¬| ·|·i¬ ¬ ¬··º n|· lºiªiº ·i¬ ·i·· - «|¤ ·i¬ lºiªiº
¬ ¤ · ºi ,iº - ¬i º ¬¬¬ ¬··º «iºr ¬¬i -| ¬ ªi-·i ¬n r ¤ ·i , ¬·
ªi-·ii - ·i-, ¤~¬·, ¤¸ ¬÷¤l-n¤i , lr··¸ · ·|÷· ·ni¬i ¬|
-¸ln ¤i ¬-¬|ºi ·i|, ¬·- ¬ l¬¬| -¸ln ¬i ¤ rºi, l¬¬| ¬i ri·i, l¬¬|
¬i ¤ º ªi º¤ r ¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ c)
“12 touchstone pillars were fixed at and inside the
entrance gate of the mid dome inside the grill wall of the
three domed structure. The idols of Hindu Gods-
Goddesses, 'Ghat', 'Pallav', flowers-leaves were engraved
over those pillars. Out of them, the face or hand or leg of
some idol had been scratched.”(E.T.C)
·s«z ¬ ·ssz ¬ ·º-¤i· - · l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ ¤iºi nº¤ ¤lº¬-i
¬- ¬ ¬- ·oo÷ro «iº ¬ªº ¬| ri n|| (¤ ¬ r·)
“In between 1942 to 1992, I must have circumambulated
the disputed premises at least 100-150 times.”(E.T.C)
¬· ·s«s ¬ -¸ ln ºªi ¬i· ¬ ·i ÷n|· -r|· ¤r¬ ¬ ¤lº¬º ¬ «irº
¬iº ºi-¤«¸ nº ¬ ¬i-· ¬|n · ¬i º ºi-i¤ºi ¬i ¤i- r ¬i ¬ºni ·ii| ·r
¬|n · ¬·-¸ «º ¬ z« ·i - ¤¬ni ºrni ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·o·)
“For 2-3 months before the installation of idols in the year
1949, 'Kirtan' and 'Ramayana' oration used to take place
outside the premises and in front of the Ramchabutara.
This 'Kirtan' was performed 24 hours from October
¬|n · ¬ ¬-¤ l··il·n ¤lº¬º - ro÷co ¬i n ºrn ·i , ¤lº¬º ¬
«irº «r n ·i|· ºrn| ·i|| (¤ ¬ ·oz)
“At time of 'Kirtan', there used to be about 50-60 persons
in the disputed premises. There used to be large gathering
outside the premises.”(E.T.C)
¬ s ¬i n nil· ¤i ¬i¤ ¬ºn ·i , ¬i ·i·· ¬ ¤¸ º« ¬i º ¬-nº nº¤
·i|| ;·¬| ¬¤i; ¬i ¬i- ¬·-¸ «º n¬ ¤¬ni ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·oz)
“Few people used to clean the hedges, which were in east
and north of the structure. Their cleansing continued till
- · ;· nil· ¤i ¬i ¬· ·s«z ¬ · ªii ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·oz)
“I had seen these hedges from the year 1942.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ «irº ºiil-¤i·i nil· ¤i ¬-· ¬ «i· ¬ni ·ii|
(¤ ¬ ·o«)
“The tent outside the disputed premises, was fixed after the
cutting of hedges.”(E.T.C)
OPW-9, Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma
·¤i ¬·- -·ii· -l··º zoo÷zro ¬i¬ ¤ ºi·i| ¤ ºi·i ¬·--·ii· ·¸ ¬ºi
¬ ¬·¬ - ;¬l¬¤ ·¤ ¬·--·ii· ¬ ¬i·i ¬|ni º¬i ; ·i| «·i;
n; ÷·¸ ¬ºi ¬ ¬·¬ ¬i -n¬« - l-¬- ºii¬¬| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“The new Janmsthan temple (is) about 200-250 years old.
The old Janmsthan in possession of others, as such Sita
Rasoi was also built along with new Janmsthan – by
possession of others is meant the Muslim rulers.”(E.T.C)
·ssr ¬i ·i· ¤¤ ÷ l¬¬i ¬¬ ¤il-¤iº ÷ l·ºi ¤ ÷ ¤r · ·ii ·¤¤¸ ºi r
l¬ lr·· ¬i ,iºi l·ºi·i ª¤ ¬ ¤l·¤ -i· ¬i· ·i¬ -·i¬ ¬i ni · ¬º
¬¬ ¤º ;-iºn ªi· | ¬º ·| n; ¬l¬· soo ··i «|n· ¤º ·i| ;¬ ¤º
l·lº¤n l·ºi ¤ ·r| l·¤i ¬i ¬¬i ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤il-¤iº · ¬¬ l··il·n
·i·· ¬i ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ¤¬ ¬ ºi -i·i r | (¤ ¬ ·r·)
“Plaint of 1885 – District Judge Chamiar – Judgment – 'It
is unfortunate that structure was raised by demolishing the
place, particularly considered sacred by Hindus, but
despite lapse of 300 years no definite decision has been
possible on the same'. Accordingly Chamiar has considered
the disputed structure to be part of Janmbhumi.”(E.T.C)
203C-1/1&2 · ªi¬º ¤r¬| «iº nin r ¬i l¬ l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º B.M.
·i| ·ri ¤r¬ l··ºi rlº ¬i -l··º ·ii l¬¬ lnºi¬º ·rzs - -l-¬·
«·|| (¤ ¬ zos)
“After looking at (paper no.) 203C-1/1&2, it transpired for
the first time that at the place where B.M. stood, there was
Vishnu Hari temple in past, after demolishing which the
mosque was built in 1528.”(E.T.C)
107C-1/14 (P322) 11th 12th line ¬·--·ii· ¬i ¬i ·ºi · r ¤r
l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º l-·in ·i·· ¬ ¬-«l·in r | (¤ ¬ szo)
“The Janmsthan mentioned in 11
line (of paper no.)
107C-1/14(P322), is related to the building situated at the
disputed premises.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬º¤¸ ¬ l¬·iº ¤ i¤|·¬i¬ (zooo÷·ooo r¬iº ¬i¬
¤r¬) - ·ii| (¤ ¬ szz)
“The disputed site was along the banks of Saryu in the
ancient period (2000-1000 years ago).”(E.T.C)
nr· ·i¬ ºi¬·ºi ¬ ¬ -·ii¤¬ ¤·· · · ¬¤· ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬il· n|·i
-·ii·i ¬ ¬ º·i¬ -i·n ·i | (¤ ¬ szr)
“Chandradeo, the founder of Gahadwal Dynasty regarded
himself patron of Ayodhya and other places of pilgrimage
OPW-12, Kaushal Kishore Mishra
¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬« ¬ - ¬¤· «i«i ¬i º l¤ni¬| ¬ ¬i·i
¬i·i ¤ iº-·i l¬¤i n« ¬ ·ri lr·· ¬i ¬i r| ¤¸ º ¤lº¬º - ¬il«¬,
·ilªi¬ · ¤¸ ¬i ¤i- ¬ºn ¬i·i ÷« ºiln¤i ¬i ¤lº¬º - ºrn r ¤ · ªii|
(¤ ¬ r)
“Since I started going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi Ayodhya
along-with my grandfather and father, I have seen the
Hindus to be in possession over the entire premises, carry
out prayer-worship, and the saints-recluses living in the
ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º - ¬« ¤r¬| «iº ·ºi · ¬º· n¤i ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤
- º ¬i·i - º l¤ni¬| ·i| ·i | ¬| ªi¤i ·i¬| ·|·iº ¬ ·i ·i ·º·i¬ ªi ¬
ºrn ·i | ¬¬| ·º·i¬ ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ini ·ii| ·r| ¤º ºi-¬¬i ¬i
l·n r ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·r)
“When I first went to Ramjanmbhumi temple to have
darshan, at that time my father was also with me. Both the
gates of the grill wall used to remain open. The 'Vigrah' of
Ramlala existed over there.”(E.T.C)
¬il¬n i- ¬| ¤ iºi ¤ ln·-i ·r| ri n| r | ·r -·¤ ·i¸ ·in·i· r | (¤ ¬
“Deification of Saligram is not carried out. He is self-
originating God.”(E.T.C)
¬il¬n i- ¬ ºi ªi, ¤¬ ¬il· l¤·ri ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º · ·ni¬i ¬i ¬i¬iº
l·lº¤n -i·¬º ·¤i· l¬¤i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ zz)
“Meditation is carried out after assuming the form of Gods
on basis of conch, wheel, etc. symbols of Saligram.”(E.T.C)
- ¬·- ¬ r| ¬¤i ·¤i - ºrni r¸ | (¤ ¬ so)
“I live in Ayodhya since birth.”(E.T.C)
¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i·¤i - ºi-¬i - -i r~¬ - ·n -i· ¬·-·i¸l-
¤lº¬º - r ¬i ·ii| ¬ri ¤º n·i n r - ¬i¬ ºi-¬¬i ¬| l·ºi¬-i· r ,
·r| ¤º ¬·¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| n|· n -«· ·i¬i -l··º, ¬i ºi-¬i - -
l-·in ·ii, ¬¬¬ -·¤ ·iin - ¬|ºi-¬¬i ¬| ¬i n·i n r ·ii| (¤ ¬ «z)
“Lord Ram Chandra was born in Ramkot locality of
Ayodhya, the present Janmbhumi premises. Lord Ramlala
was born at the same place where He is present today in
the sanctum sanctorum. The sanctum sanctorum of
Ramlala was in the mid part of the three domed temple,
which was situated in Ramkot.”(E.T.C)
¬i n·i n r r, ·r| ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| ¤¸ ºi ºi-¬i -
·ºiº·i ¬| ¬i -r¬ ·ii, l¬¬- n·i n r ·i| ºiil-¬ r | ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i
¬·- ·ºiº·i ¬| ¬ -r¬ - r| r ¬i ·ii| ·n -i· ¬-¤ - l¬¬ ºi-¬i -
-i r~¬i ¬ri ¬ini r , ·r| ·ºiº·i ¬| ¬ -r¬ ¬i ¬·nn r ·ii| lºi·
¬ lrni, ·i·¤ ¬-nºªiº· ¬ ¤ ·i- ¬·¤i¤ ¬ ¤n ·i ¬·¤i¤ n¬ ¬|ºi- ¬|
¬ ºi·¤il·i·i ¬ ¬ ¬-¤ ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬iº ºi-¬i - ¬| l-·iln ·i|, ¬¬¬i
·ºi · ¬i¤i r | (¤ ¬ «s)
“Lord Ram Chandra was born at what is the sanctum
sanctorum. The entire Ramkot was the palace of Dashrath,
which also included the sanctum sanctorum. Lord Ram
Chandra was born in the palace of Dashrath. At present
what is called the Ramkot locality, was the inner part of the
palace of Dashrath. The situation of Ayodhya and Ramkot,
at time of enthronement of Lord Rama, is found in Chapter
1 to 4 of Bhavya Uttrakhand, Shiv Samhita.”(E.T.C)
¬ ¬ ¬i¬¬¬ nºiºi·¤ r , rº ¤ i·n ¬i ºii¬· ¬¬n÷¬¬n r , ¬iº
¬·· |¤ ºii¬· ¤¬ ¬nr r , ¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ·ºiº·i ¬| ¬| ¬·· |¤ ºii¬· ¬|
ºi¬·ii·| ¬¤i ·¤i ·i|| ºi- ¬| ¬i ¬·- ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ºi¬-r¬ ¬
¤ ¬¸ln n r - r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ «c)
“As is the case in present days republic where every
province has its independent rule with a separate central
rule, similarly Ayodhya was the capital of the central rule
of King Dashrath. Lord Rama was born in the labor room
of the palace of King Dashrath.”(E.T.C)
- º| ¤r ·i| ¬i-·ii r l¬ rº «iº ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º
r ¬i ri ni, ¬ri ¤º «i«º| -l-¬· ·i|| ºii-¤i - ¤ ¬i ¬i¤i r l¬ ¬«
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¤r¬| «iº ¬·- r ¬i ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬i
-r¬ ¤-·iº, -lºi, -i n|, - ·ni ¬ «·i ·ii| ºii-¤i - ;¬ «in ¬i ·i|
·ºi · r l¬ rº ¬~¤ - ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- l¬¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - r ¬i ·ii,
·r, ·r| ¬¤i ·¤i ·i|, ¬i ·n -i· - r | (¤ ¬ r·)
“It is my faith that every-time Lord Ram Chandra would
have been born at that very place where Babri mosque
stood. It has so been mentioned in the Shashtras that when
Lord Ram Chandra was born for the first time, the palace
of King Dashrath was made up of stones, gems, pearls at
that time. It is also mentioned in the Shashtras that the
Ayodhya in which Lord Ram Chandra was born in every
'Kalpa', was the same Ayodhya which exists today.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n ·i·· ¬| ·i¸l- ¬i -r-· ¬i º ¬¬ º·º ¤º ¬n l¤¤ ¤º
-i·l¬¬ ·¤i· ,iºi ¬iºi·i·i, ·ii n, ¤¸ ¬i÷¤i-, ¬iºn| ¬il· l¬¤i ¬ini
·ii| (¤ ¬ sc)
“The prayer, worship, offerings, 'Aarti', etc. were
performed by concentrating on the importance of the land
of the disputed structure as well as the picture contained in
the calendar.”(E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - ¬i ; ·i| ·i·· -¸ ¬ ª¤ ¬ ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬i ·r| r , ¬i ·in·i·
ºi- ¬ ¬i¬ - l·l- n ·i | (¤ ¬ ss)
“In Ayodhya, there is no building in its original form, as
built in the period of Lord Rama. ”(E.T.C)
¤ º· ·¤i ¬i¤ ;¬ - ¬·- ¬ ·i·| ¬ ;¬ ¬·i· ¬ ¬i ·i·
¬| ·iiºi zs - l¬lªin r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º -riºi¬i l·¬-il·-¤ ,
iºi ¤¬ -l··º «·i¤i n¤i ·ii, l¬¬ ni · ¬º «i«º · -l-¬· «·i; ·i|,
¬r-n r `
¬-nº ·i·| ¬ ¬·i· ¬ ¤r¬ ·iin ¬ - ¬r-n r¸ ¬·ii n
l·¬-il·-¤ · l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¤¬ -l··º «··i¤i ·ii, ¤º ¬ri n¬
·¸ ¬º ·iin ¬i ¤ º· r , - · ¤ ¬i ¬ ·i r l¬ ·ri ¤º -l··º ni · · ¬i ¬;
«iº ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i n¤i ¬iº ni · ¬º ¬¬ -l-¬· «·i; ·i| n; , ¤º·n
¬¬¬i -l-¬· ¬ ª¤ - ¬·i| ;-n -i¬ ·r| r ¬i| (¤ ¬ ·oo)
“Question: Do you agree with the contention of the
plaintiff of the suit contained in para 23 of the plaint as – a
temple was built at the disputed site by King Vikramaditya,
after demolishing which Babur had built a mosque?
Answer: I agree with the first part of the plaintiff's
contention i.e. King Vikramaditya had built a temple at the
disputed site but so far as the second part of the question is
concerned, I have so heard that attempts were made on
various occasions to demolish the temple over there and a
mosque was also built by demolishing (the temple), but it
was never used as a mosque.”(E.T.C)
l¬¬ ¬-¤ l·¬-il·-¤ · ¬¤i ·¤i «¬i¤i ·ii, ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬¤i·¤i
l«~¬ ¬ ªii¬| ·i| ¬iº ªiº·rº ri n; ·i|, l¬¤ ·inº·º ·i·i ¬| ¬i
·¤i lnl¬ n ¬º¤¸ ¬| ¬ l¬·iº l-·in ·ii| ¤ ¬i - · ¬ ·i r l¬
l·¬-il·-¤ ¬| · ·in·i· ºi ¬º ¬| ¬| ¬iºi·i·i ¬| ¬i º ·in·i· ºi ¬º
· ¬·¬i ·ºi · l·¤i ¬i º ¤¬ n+ ¬| «ls¤i l·¤i ¬i º «ni¤i l¬
;¬¬ -n· ¬ ¬¤· ¬i¤ l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ·¸ ·i lnº· ¬n ni, ¬¬| -·ii·
¤º ºi- ¬| ¬ ¬·- ¬i n·i n r ¬iº -l··º «··i·i, l¤º ·r «ls¤i ·
i -i; n; ¬i º ¬¬¬i ·¸ ·i ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º lnºi ¬ri ¬i¬ n·i n r l-·in
r | (¤ ¬ ··/)
“At the time when Vikramaditya had settled Ayodhya,
Ayodhya was lying vacant completely and had turned into
ruins. Only the 'Jyotirlinga' of Nageshwar Nath existed
along the banks of Saryu. I have so heard that
Vikramaditya prayed to Lord Shankara, who appeared
before him and gave him a calf and told that (you) build the
sanctum sanctorum of Lord Rama and the temple at that
very place where this calf starts milking on its own. Then
the calf was taken around and she started milking at that
very place where sanctum sanctorum is situated
OPW-16, Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
- º ¬·¤¤· ¬iº ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i l-·in l··il·n -·i¬ ¬|
¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- r ¬i lr··¸ ·i-i · ¤il¤¤i ,iºi ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬ ¬·-·i¸ l-
¬ ª¤ - ¬··n ¬i¬ ¬ ¬i-·ii, ¤º-¤ºi ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº -i·¤ni
¤ i·n r n·ii ¬¬ -·i¬ ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬··ºn ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ r)
“According to my studies and knowledge, the Ayodhya
situated disputed site is Sri Ramjanmbhumi, which has
been recognised as the birthplace of Lord Rama by
followers of Hinduism from time immemorial on basis of
faith, tradition and belief and the said place has been
continuously worshipped. ”(E.T.C)
lr··¸ ·i- ºii-¤i - -·ii· l·ºi·i ¬| l·ºi ·i -r-ni r ¬i -·¤ ·i¸ · ·
¬ ª¤ - -·¤ ¤ iºi ¤ lnl·-n ¤· ¤¸ ·¤ r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬ -·ii·
¬··n¬i¬ ¬ ¬·-i·¬ - ¬i-·ii, ¤º-¤ºi ¤· ¤¸ ¬i ¬ ¬iººi ¬·i -¬ ·-
¤¸ ·¤ -·i¬ r | ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬ · ·-· ¤ i·n -·i¬i ¤º lºi· n ¤i
¬· ºir¬iº ¤i -r n ¬| ¬i ; ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r| ri n| r | (¤ ¬ r)
“In Hindu treatises, a place particular has a special
importance, which is self deified and worshipable as self-
originating God. From time immemorial such places are
the top-most worship place of the general public due to
faith, tradition and worship. There is no requirement of any
Shebait or Sarvarahkar or Mahant at such deified
- n ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº| r ¬iº ;¬ ¤º ¤¤i ·i| r ; ·i| l¬ «··
ni¬ ¬ ¬··º ¬ -·i¬ ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬··ºn ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬
“I have knowledge of the fact and there was also a
discussion on this that worship has been continuing
uninterruptedly at the place under the locks.”(E.T.C)
r- ;¬ «in ¬| ¬i·¬iº| r l¬ ni¬ ¬ ¬··º ¬i -·i¬ -·¤ ·i¸ ·in·i·
ºi-¬¬i r | l¤º ¬ri l¬ -·i¬ ni ¤¸ ·¤ r r|, ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ºi-¬¬i
¬| -¸ ln ni¬ ¬ ¬··º l·ºi¬-i· ·i|| (¤ ¬ zo)
“I have knowledge of this fact that the place under the lock
is self-originating Lord Ramlala. Further stated that the
place is worshipable and besides this, the idol of Lord
Ramlala was also present under the locks.”(E.T.C)
¬·i· · · - ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬i l·ºi·i -·ii· ¤º ri ·i l¬ªii r ¬i r | ;¬
l·ºi·i -·ii· ¬i ¬·i· · · ¬ l¬¬ ¬·¤i¤ - l¬¬ r , - n ¤i· ·r| r ,
¤º - ¤ -n¬ · ªi¬º «ni ¬¬ni r¸ | ¤º - n ·r - ¤ ¤i· r ¬i l·-·
¤ ¬iº r ÷
¬·-i¤¬i ··,iºi · ·i·i ¤¸ º¤i ·¤i,
n-¤i lrºº¤-¤ ¬iºi -·ni ·¤i ln·ii· n|
n·ir · l¬ni« l·ªi·i¬º ¤ ¤« ·i¬º - ¤ ¬ ª¤i «ni; , ¬i ·ºi-
¬iº· l,n|¤ ¬· ·i· - ¤ ¬ ª¤i s· r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“In the Atharvaveda, Lord Rama is mentioned to have been
born at a place particular. I do not remember as to in
which chapter of the Atharvaveda is this place particular
mentioned, but I can tell after going through the book.
However, I remember that hymn, which reads as under:
‘Ashtachakra Navadwara Devnam Puryodhya,
Tasyam Hiranyamayah Koshah Swargo
The witness gave the number of the hymn by getting
the book shown and read, which is hymn no.31 of the
'Dasham Kand–II translation'.”(E.T.C)
;¬ - ¤ - lrºº¤-¤ ¬iºi -·n ;· n|· ºi··i ¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬
¬·--·i¬ ¬i -¤·- ¬ ¬ n ri ni r ¬i º ¤¸ l¬ ¬·i· · · ¬¤iª·i ¤ r
;¬l¬¤ ;¬- ;n·i r| ¬ ¬ n l-¬ni r | ¬r· ¬i ni-¤¤ ¤r r l¬ ¬¬
¬¤i·¤i - ¤¬ lrºº¤-¤ ¬·ii n -·ºi ¬i -º·¤i¬iº ·i·· r,
¬ri ¤ ¬iºi ¬ ¬-¤·· ¬i¬ n ¬i ¬ ¬ ¬i¬º ¤º-« r - ¬|ºi- ¬·- l¬¤
·i | ¬¤ºi ·n ºi··i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r| - · ·¤i¬ººi ºii-¤ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤r
l··¬·i l·¬i¬i r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r| ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·--·ii·
r | (¤ ¬ «o)
“The three words 'Hiranyamayah Koshah Swargah' in this
hymn, clearly point towards the birthplace of Lord Rama
and since Atharvaveda is 'Apaurusheya' (not authored by
any Purusha or human mind i.e. they have no human
origin), as such only this much indication is found in it. The
implication of this is that in said Ayodhya there is a
'Hiranmayah' i.e. a golden domed shaped building where
the Supreme Being Lord Rama was born from the radiant
'Saketlok'. It is on the basis of the above words that I have
drawn the conclusion according to grammar that the
birthplace of Lord Rama is at the disputed site.”(E.T.C)
- · l··il·n ·i·· - ·s«s ¬ ¤r¬ ¬-¤ - ¤¸ ¬i÷¬¤ ·i ¬| «in ¬ ·|
r | ¤ ¬i - · ¬¤· l¤ni-r ¬ ¬ ·i r | (¤ ¬ cs)
“I have heard about offering of prayer-worship at the
disputed structure prior to 1949. I have heard so from my
¬i-·ii ºii-¤i ¤º ·i| ¬i·iilºn ri ¬¬n| r ¬iº ¤º-¤ºi¬i ¤º ·i|
¬i·iilºn ri ¬¬n| r | ¤¸ ¬i ¬¤ ·i ¬| «in ¬· ·rzs ¬ ¬ ¬º ·s«s
n¬ ¤º-¤ºi¬i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r- ¬ ·n ¤¬ ¬i ºr r ¬i º ¤r ¤º-¤ºi
¬niniº ¬ ·| r ; «ini ¤º ¬i·iilºn r | ¬¤ºi ·n ¤º-¤ºi - · ¬¤·
¬|··¬i¬ - ¬¤· ¤¸ · ¬i ¬ ¬ ·| ¬i º ¤r - º l·º·i¬ ¬| «in r
l¬ ¤r «in - º ¤¸ · ¬i ¬i ¬·¬ ¤¸ · ¬i · «ni; ri n|| -·¤ ¬ri l¬
¬l·l·s·· ¬·¬ ln ¬i ·i- r| ¤º-¤ºi r | (¤ ¬ cs)
“Faith can be based on Shastras as well and also on
traditions. I have been hearing about offering of prayer-
worship from the year 1528 to 1949, on basis of traditions
and this tradition is based on facts heard continuously. I
heard this tradition in my life time from my ancestors and it
is a matter of my belief that these facts were told my
ancestors by their ancestors. Stated on his own that
'uninterrupted hearsay' is what is called tradition.”(E.T.C)
DW-1/1, Rajendra Singh
¬i¤ ¬i¬ ¬i ·i| ¬iºn| · ·ii n ¬ ¬-¤ ¬¤lº·iº ¬·¤ -l··ºi ¬
¬i·i÷¬i·i ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º - ·i| ¤¸ ¬i · ·ºi · ¬ºn ·i · l«·i l¬¬|
ºi ¬-i ¬ ¬ n·i n r n¬ ¬i¬º ¤¸ ¬i · ·ºi · ¬ºn ·i | ··i ·sro ¬
-¬º ¬ ¬il·n ¬ ¬ s ¤r¬ - º l¤ni -·n| ¤ ¬| ni ¤i¬ l¬ r l·ºiiº·
¬-·-·i ri ri · ¬ ¬iººi -l··ºi - ·ºi · · ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ·r| ¤r ¤ ¤i¤|
-·-·i ri · ¤º -¬º ¬ ¬l·n ¬i ¬« · ¤¸ ¬i · ·ºi · ¬º· r n ¬·-·i¸ l-
¤º n¤, ni ºi·¤ ¬º¬iº ¬ ¬- ¤ilº¤i · ¬·r ·i|nº ¬ri ¬| ºi-¤··
¬il· ¬| -¸ ln l·ºi¬-i· ·i|, ¬i· ¬ ºi ¬ l·¤i| (¤ ¬ «)
“In evening also at time of 'Aarti' and 'Bhog', (I) along
with family used to offer prayers and have darshan in the
Janmbhumi temple as well besides other temples and used
to offer prayer and have darshan up to the sanctum
sanctorum without any obstruction. On account of his ill
health for sometime before the Makar Sankranti of the year
1950, my father Late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad could not
go to temples to have darshan and offer prayers. On
recovery, when he went to the Janmbhumi to offer prayer
and have darshan on the occasion of Makar Sankranti, the
employees of State Government restrained him from going
inside, where the idols of Lord Ramlala etc. were
·i·¤¤ ¬ ¬·n - ¬i ¤i r· ·| ·ºii ; n; r ¬¬ ¤i r· ·| ¬ ¬··º
·in·i· ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬il· ¬| -¸ln ¤i ·i·· ¬ -·¤ lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ n·i n r
- l·ºi¬-i· ºr| r , l¬·¬| ¤¸ ¬i · ·ºi · ¬· · ¬ -¸ ¬·i·| n·ii
·i·| ¤· ¬ºi ·i lr··¸ ¬·ni · ºi-·i·ni ,iºi l·«i ·i ª¤ ¬ ¬r¬ i ··ii
¬ ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ r)
“The idols of Lord Ram Chandra and others have existed
in the sanctum sanctorum beneath the mid dome of the
structure, whose boundary has been shown at the foot of
the plaint, and its prayer-darshan has always been
performed uninterruptedly by the original plaintiff, the
plaintiff, crores of Hindu public and devotees of Lord Rama
for thousands of years.”(E.T.C)
¬--n lr··¸ ¬·ni ¬iº ºi-·i·n n·ii -¸ ¬·i·| · ·i·| -·¤ ;¬ ¬|
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| ¬·-·i¸ l- -i·n ¤¬ ¬i ºr r | ¬·-·i¸l- ¤lº¬º ¬i
···· ¬iº ·-· ¬º· ¬ ¬¤ºi·n ¬--n ¤lº¬º ¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬º¬ ¬¤·
¬i ·i·¤ -i·n r | -¸ ¬·i·| n·ii ·i·| · ·i| ¬niniº ¬·-·i¸ l- ¤º ¬i¬º
¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ·-· · ···· l¬¤i r n·ii ¬niniº ··ii n¬ ·in·i· ¬|
ºi-¤·· ¬il· ¬| l·ºi¬-i· -¸ln ¤i ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ ¬¤ºi·n -·¤ ·i·|
· ·i| ¬·-·i¸ l- ¤lº¬º ¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬¬ ª¤ «iº ¬| r | (¤ ¬ c)
“The entire Hindu public, the devotees of Lord Rama, the
original plaintiff and the plaintiff himself have been
considering it to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. One
considers himself to be blessed by offering reverence at the
Janmbhumi premises and thereafter performing
circumambulation of the entire premises. The original
plaintiff as also the plaintiff have continuously offered
reverence at the Janmbhumi and after continuously having
darshan for years of the idols of Lord Sri Ram Chandra
and others existing over there, the plaintiff has himself
performed circumambulation of Janmbhumi premises on
innumerable occasions.”(E.T.C)
- · ¬¤· ºi¤·i¤¤ ¬ ¤ºi ·s - ¤r l¬ªii¤i r l¬ ¬· · ¬
-¸ ¬·i·| ¤· ¬ºi · i lr··¸ ¬·ni · ºi-·i·ni ,iºi l·«i ·i nln ¬ ¬r¬ i
··ii ¬ ¤¸ ¬i÷·ºi · ri n ¤¬ ¬i ºr r , ¤r «in - º| ¬ ·| r ; r | ¬r¬ i
··ii ¬ ¤¸ ¬i÷·ºi · ·i¬| «in - n - º «i«i ¤· l¤ni¬| · «ni; ·i||
(¤ ¬ zo)
“In para 13 of my affidavit, I have got it mentioned that the
original plaintiff, crores of Hindu public and devotees of
Lord Rama have always uninterruptedly carried out
prayer-darshan for thousands of years. These facts have
been heard by me. The fact of prayer-darshan for
thousands of years, were told to me by my grandfather and
l··il·n ·i·· ¤º ¤ l¬¬ ¬i ¤rºi ¬n· ¬ ¬n·in ¤¬ ¬i¬ «i· -
¤r¬| «iº l¤º n¤i ·ii| ¬« n¬ - ¬¤i ·¤i - ºri, ¬·ii n ¬· ·srs
n¬ - l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¤º ¬n·in -r|· - ¤¬ «iº ¬ªº ¬ini ·ii|
¬· ·sro ¬ ¬· ·srs ¬ «|¤ - ¬« - l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬ini ·ii ni
¬| ªi¤ ·i¬| ·|·iº ¬ ·º·i¬ ¬ ¬··º ¬ s l·ªii; ·r| · ni ·ii| ¤º
¬ s ºªii r ¬i -i¬¸ - ri ni ·ii, l¬¬ - ºi-¬¬i -i·¬º ·ºi · ¬º ¬ ni
·ii| (¤ ¬ zs)
“I first went to the disputed structure after about one year
since the deployment of police. As long as I remained in
Ayodhya i.e. till the year 1959, I definitely went to the
disputed premises at least once a month. Between the years
1950 to 1959, whenever I went to the disputed site, the
visibility of the inner portion was poor from the gate in the
grill wall but something did appear, of which I used to have
darshan as Lord Ramlala ”(E.T.C)
DW-1/2, Krishna Chandra Singh
¤º-¤ºinn ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬iººi lr··¸ ¬,i¬ ºi-·i·n n·ii - º
¤lº·iº ¬ ¬i n ¬iº - ·i| ¬¬ -·i¬ ¬i ¬ri ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·-
¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ -i·i ¬ini ºri r , ¬¬ -·¤ ·i¸ · · -i·¬º ·ºi ·÷¤¸ ¬i,
¬i·-i n ¤ ºii- ¬ºn r n·ii ¤¸ º ¤lº¬º ¬| ¤lº¬-i ¬¤i ·¤i - ºr· ·i¬
n·ii · ºi÷l·· ºi ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i· ·i¬ ·ºi ·i·i| ÷n|·i ¤i¤| ¬ºn r | (¤ ¬
“Out of customary faith and belief and by considering it to
be a self-originating God, the Hindu devotees of Lord
Rama, my family members and myself have been offering
reverence, having darshan over there, which has been
considered as the birthplace of Lord Rama since ancient
times, and the circumambulation of the entire premises is
performed by the residents of Ayodhya as well as the
pilgrims-devotees coming over to Ayodhya from country-
¤ o zz l·¬-«º ¬· ·s«s n¬ l··il·n ¤lº¬º - ¬i¤ l¬¬
-·ii· ¤º ºªi| r ; -¸ ln ¤i ¬i ·ºi · ¤· ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn ·i `
¬o zz l·¬-«º ¬· ·s«s - ¬« n¬ ·in·i· ¬i ¤ i· ·ii ·
·ri ·r| r ¬i ·ii, ¬¬¬ ¤r¬ - «|¤ ·i¬ n -«· ¬ ·|¤ ¬i·iin ¤ ·i
¬i ¬¤l-·in -i·¬º - ¬i·-i n ·º··n ¤· ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºni ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬
“Question: Till 22
December, 1949, at which place
did you offer prayers and had darshan of the idols in the
disputed structure?
Answer: Prior to 22
December, 1949, by which time
the deity had not appeared over there, I used to offer my
reverence and prayer by taking the God to be Himself
present beneath the mid-dome.”(E.T.C)
¬o n -«· ·i¬i ·i·· «i«º ¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¤r¬ -l··º ¬ ª¤ - r| ·ii|
-|º«i¬| · ¬¬¬i ni · · ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i ¬i º -l-¬· ¬ ª¤ -
¤lº·ln n ¬º· ¬i ¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i, ¬l¬· ¬¤¬ ·r| r ¬i ¬i º ¬i¬ n¬
lr··¸ ¬¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- -i·n ¤¬ ¬i¤ r | (¤ ¬ «o)
“Answer: Prior to the period of Babur, the domed structure
was in form of a temple. Mir Baqi had attempted to
demolish and convert it into a mosque, but had not been
successful in the same and till date the Hindus have been
considering it to be Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)
-|º«i¬| ¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬iº ¬¬¬ ¤r¬ ¬ ·i| ¬ ¬º c l·¬-«º
·ssz n¬ ¬iº ·iiºn ¬| lr··¸ ¬·ni ¬¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- -l··º -i·¬º
¤¬| ¬i; r ¬iº ¬·i lr··¸ ¬i n ·ri ¬i¬º ¤¸ ¬i, ¬¤ ·i, ¤ ºii- ¬i º
¤lº¬-i ¬ºn ºr r ¬iº ¬«÷¬« - ¬¬-i·i · ¬¬ ¤º ¬·¬i ¬º· ¬i
¤ ¤i¬ l¬¤i n«÷n« · ºi ¬ lr·· ¬i · ¬¬¬i l·ºi·i l¬¤i ¬i º ¬¤·i
¬·¬i ¬ºn ºr ¬i º ¬ ·i·i «ºi«º ¤¬ni ºri| (¤ ¬ «o)
“From the period of Mir Baqi as well as the period before,
upto 6
December, 1992, the Hindu public of India has
been treating it to be Ramjanmbhumi temple and Hindus
have always offered prayer, worship and circumambulation
over there and whenever Muslims have attempted to grab
the same, the Hindus of the country have resisted it and
maintained their possession and the conflict continued
¤ º· ¬i¤· ¬¤· ºi¤·i¤¤ ¬ ¤ ºi ·c - l¬¬ ¤º-¤ºinn
¬i-·ii ¬iº l·º·i¬ ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r , ·r l¬n·| ¤ ºi·| ¬iº l¬¬
¬-¤ ¬ ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r `
¬-nº ¤r ¤º-¤ºi ºi-i·niº ¬ «i· ¬ r| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r |
(¤ ¬ rs)
“Question: The 'customary faith and belief'
mentioned by you in para 16 of your affidavit, is how old
and since when it is in practice?
Answer: This custom is in practice after the
'Ramavatar' (incarnation of Lord Rama).”(E.T.C)
¤ o l¬¤ «irº ¬ · ªi· ¤º l··il·n ·i·· ¬i¤¬i lºri¤ºi|
-¬i·, -l··º, -l-¬·, ln¬iºn| ·i·· ¤i ¬-¤ l·-| ri¬ ·¤i ¬nn|
·i| `
¬o l¬¤ «irº ¬ · ªi· ¬ r| ¬ ¬i l¬ ¤iºi ¬i º ·iºir
·in·i· ¬| ªilº·n ¤ ln-i r ¬iº ·i ºi º, n ª· , ¬i ·in·i· l··ºi ¬
·ir· r , ¬| ¤ ln-i ¬n| r ¬i º ¤¸ ·| ·º·i¬i ¬i r· -n,iº ¬ ·i- ¬
¬i·i ¬ini r, ¬¬¬ ¤i¬ r| ¤¬ ¤-·iº ¤º n· i r ¬i ¤-·iº r , l¬¬ ¤º
l¬ªii r ¬i r , ºi-¬·-·i¸l- l·-¤÷¤i¤i| ;· ¬«¬ · ªi· ¬ ·i| ¤r l¬,
ri ni r ¬iº ¤ n|n ri ni r l¬ ¤r r- ºii ¤ i¤|· ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l··º ºri
r | - º l·¤iº ¬ «irº ¬i ¤-·iº ¬ni r ¬i - · «ni¤i r, ·r ·i| «r n
¤ i¤|· r ¬iº -l··º ¬ ¬-¤ ¬i r| r | (¤ ¬ cs)
“Question: What does the disputed structure appear
to you from outside–a residential house, temple, mosque,
business place or community hall?
Answer: Merely looking from outside, there is broken
idol of God Varah, the statue of two lions, Garuna, which is
the carrier of Lord Vishnu and there is eastern gate which
is known as Hanumatdwar and near to it is a stone with
'Ramjanmbhumi Nitya Yatra' inscribed over it. By looking
at all these, it is established and transpires that it has
always been an ancient Ramjanmbhumi temple. In my
opinion, the stone told by me to have been fixed outside, is
also very old and is of the period, similar to the
DW-1/3, Dr. Sahdev Prasad Dubey
¤iºilºi¬ n ··ii · ¬iªii ··ii ¬| ¬i-·ii ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i·¤i ¬ ºi-¬i -
-i r~¬ - ¬·-·i¸ l- · ¬·--·ii· ¬·l-·in r | ¤i ni ¬--n ¬¤i ·¤i ·i ¤
r| -¤i ·i ¤ ª·ii -n- ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·--·i¬| ¬ ª¤ - · ·n ~¤, ¤¸ ·¤ r
l¬·n l¬¬ -·ii· ¬i ºii-¤i · ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·--·i¬| -i·i r ¬¬¬|
-lr-i ¬i «ªii· ·iil- ¬, ¬ilrl-¤¬ · ¤ lnril¬¬ ¤ -n¬i - l¬¤i n¤i
r | ;·¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·-i·¬ ¬| ¬i-·ii · l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
ºi-¬i - l-·in ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º, l¬¬ l··il·n ¬º l·¤i n¤i r ·r|
-¤i ·i ¤ ª·ii -n- ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| ¬·-·i¸ l- -i·| ¬in| r , l¬¬ l¤l·rn
¬º ·i·¤ -l··º ¬i l·-i ºi ¬il·¬i¬ - r ¬i ·ii, ¬« ¬ l·º·nº ¬¬
-·ii· n·ii ·ri l·ºi¬-i· ¤· -·iil¤n ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| -¸ ln ¬i
·ºi ·÷¤¸ ¬· ¤· ¬·--·ii· ¬| ¤lº¬-i ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ z)
“As per the ancient treatises and faith of lakhs of years, the
Janmbhumi and Janmsthan are situated in Ramkot locality
of Ayodhya. Although the entire Ayodhya region is
reverable as the birthplace of Maryada Purushottam Lord
Sri Rama, still the praise of importance of the place, which
has been considered as the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama in
the Shashtras, is found in religious, literary and historical
books. Apart from this, on basis of the faith and belief of
the general public, the Ramkot situated Janmbhumi temple,
which has been given in dispute, has been considered as
the Janmbhumi of Marayada Purushottam Lord Sri Ram
Chandra, which was identified in the ancient times and a
grand temple had been built. Since then, the darshan-
prayer of that place and of the idol of Lord Shri Ram,
present and installed over there, as well as the
circumambulation of the Janamsthan has been continuing
¤iºilºi¬ n·ii ¬--n ¬·in· ·i-i ·¬-«| ¬·-i·¬ ¬| ¬i-·ii ¤·
l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ;¬ -·ii· ¤º ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ¤ n|¬ -·ª¤ -l··º ¬|
-·ii¤·i ¬¬ ª¤ ··ii ¤¸ · r ; ·i| n·ii ¬i¬i·nº - -ri· ¤ºi¬-| ºi¬i
l·¬-il·-¤ ¬i ºii¬·¬i¬ ¬i ¬i¬nºi·i ¬ ¬· ¬iº ·n -i· ¬-¤ ¬
zoco ··i ¤¸ · -i·i ¬ini r ¬i º ;¬| ¬i¬nºi·i ¬i l·¬- ¬ ·n ¬ ·i-
¬ ¬i·i ¬ini r | ¬·ri · ¬·n -·ii· ¤º ·i·¤ -l··º ¬i l·-i ºi l¬¤i|
(¤ ¬ s)
“As per the faith and belief of the ancient and entire
'Sanatandharmi' religious minded public, a temple was
built at this place innumerable years ago as symbol of
Janmbhumi and in later period the great brave king
Vikramaditya, whose reign is considered to be 2060 year
ago as per period calculation and this very period
calculation is known as Vikram Samvat, built a grand
temple at the above place.”(E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i l-·in ºi-¬i - -i r~¬ - ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l··º ¤¬ + ¤ -|¬
- ¬·l-·in r , l¬¬¬ ·|¤ ·iºin¬ n¬ ¤ i¤|· -l··ºi ¬ ¬·ºi ·i l·n
-i· r , l¬·¬i l·-i ºi ¬i¬ ¬; ºinil··¤i ¬ ¬·nºi¬ ¤º r ¬i r |
·¤i l¬ -l··ºi ¬i ¤ ·ºi ,iº ¤· ¤ ·l· -i ºi ¬i·º¤¬ni· ¬iº l¬¤i ¬ini
ºri r | c l·¬-«º, ·ssz ¬i -l··º ¬i ¬i ·i·· lnº n¤i r , ¬¬¬
·|¤ «iºr·| ºini··| ¬ -l··º ¬ ¬·ºi·i l·n-i· r , l¬¬¬i l·-i ºi
nr· ·i¬ ·ºi|¤ ºi¬i · ·¤iºr·| ºini··| ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ l¬¤i ·ii| (¤ ¬
“The Shri Ramjanmbhumi temple is situated over a high
mound in Ramkot locality of Ayodhya, beneath which the
remains of ancient temples exist upto the ground level,
whose periods of construction are separated by many
centuries because the renovation and reconstruction of the
temples used to take place as per necessity. The remains of
twelfth century temple built by Gahadwal dynasty king
around the eleventh century, are present beneath the
structure of the temple, which fell down on 6
¬¤i ·¤i n|·i -·i¬| ¬·¤ ¬·i| n|·i -·i¬i - ¤ - ªi ª¤ ¬ -i·| ¬in| r
·¤i l¬ ¤ri r| -¤i ·i ¤ ª·ii -n- ·in·i· ¬|ºi- · -i·· ª¤ - ¬·niº
¬ ¬º ¬--n -i·· ¬iln ¬ l¬¤ ¬~¤iºi¬iº| ¬i- l¬¤ r | ·in·i·
¬|ºi- ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in ¬·¬| ¬·--·i¬| l¬¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l··º
· ¤lº¬º ¬ ª¤ - ¬il-÷¬i l- ·iiºn|¤ · ºi-·i·n ¬,i, l·º·i¬ ·
¬i-·ii ¬i ¤¸ ¬ -i·¬º ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºni ¤¬i ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ /)
“The pilgrimage Ayodhya is considered prime out of all
other pilgrimage because it is here where Maryada
Purushottam Lord Shri Rama had incarnated in human
form and carried out welfare acts for the entire human
race. Lord Shri Rama and His Ayodhya situated birthplace
has been worshipped by crores of Indians and devotees of
Lord Rama as Ramjanmbhumi temple and its premises, by
taking it to be a matter of their devotion, belief and source
of faith.”(E.T.C)
- · ¬¤· l··i ¬ /.os.zoos ¬ «¤i· ¤ ¬ «/ ¬ ¬l·n- z ¤l·-¤i -
¬i ¤r ¬ri r l¬ l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i, ¬¬ r- ¬·-·i¸ l-
¬ ·i- ¬ ¬ ·l·i n ¬ºn r | ¬r| ¬ri r | ¬·--·ii· ¬¬ ¬-¤¸ ºi ¤lº¬º
¬i ¬rn r , ¬i ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ¤iºi nº¤ ¤iº·|·iº| ¬ l·iºi r ¬i ri ni r ,
¬·ii n ºi- ¬| ¬i l¬¬ -r¬ - ¬·- r ¬i, ·r ni ¬·-·i¸l- ¬r¬i¤n|
¬iº ¬¬ -r¬ ¬ ¬i¬¤i¬ ¬i ¬¬¬ ¬-« l·in ¬i º l·iºi r ¬i -·ii·
¬·--·ii· ¬r¬i¤ni| (¤ ¬ /z)
“My statement given yesterday on 07.08.2003 in last two
lines of page-47 as 'the place where Lord Rama was born,
is referred as Janmbhumi by us', is correct. The entire
premises is referred as Janmsthan, which is bounded by the
boundary on all sides of the Janmbhumi i.e. the palace in
which Lord Rama was born would be called Janmbhumi
and the area adjoining, related and covered by that palace
would be called Janmsthan.”(E.T.C)
¬-nº ºi-¤lºn-i·¬ - ¤¬ ¬nr ¤º -¤·- l¬ªii r ¬i r l¬
¬·-·i¸ l- -- ¤ º| ¬ ri·l·, ¬-nº l·l¬ ¬º¤¸ «lr ¤i·l· ;¬- ¤ º|
ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ l¬¤ r ¬i r , ¬iº ¬·-·i¸l- ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n
¬¬ -·i¬| ¬ l¬¤ r , ¬i ¬¬ ¤ º| - l-·in r | (¤ ¬ sr)
“Answer:- It is clearly mentioned at a place in Ramcharit
Manas that 'Janmbhumi Mam Puri Suhawani, Uttar Disi
Saryu Bahi Pawani'. In it, the word 'Puri' has been used for
Ayodhya and 'Janmbhumi' for that place which is situated
in 'Puri'.”(E.T.C)
- º l·¤iº ¬ l··il·n ¤lº¬º - ºi-¬¬i ¬| ¬ ·¬ ¤¬ -¸ln -·iil¤n
·i| ¬i º ·r -¸ ln ºi-¬¬i ¬ ¤ ¬- ri · ¬ ¤r¬ ·i| ·i|| ¬« ;¬ -l··º
¬i -l-¬· «·i· ¬i «i«º ¬ l¬¤r¬i¬iº · ¬i¬-ºi l¬¤i ¬i º ;¬¬i
··-n l¬¤i ¬iº -¸ ln ¬i ·i| ni¤« ¬º l·¤i ¤i ·¤i r ¬i, ;¬¬i - n
ni· ·r| r | «i«º ¬ ¬i¬-ºi ¬ ¬-¤ ¬| ºi-¬¬i ¬| ¬i -¸ln
·ri ·i|, ·r ni¤« r ; , ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¬« n¬ ·in·i· -·¤ -¸ln ¬ ª¤
- ¤ n- ·r| r ¤ n« n¬ ¬¬ ªii¬| -·ii· ¬i r| ¬i n ·ºi · ¬ºn ·i |
(¤ ¬ ss)
“In my opinion, only one idol of Lord Ramlala was
installed at the disputed premises and that idol of a period
earlier than the appearance of Lord Ramlala. I have no
knowledge as to what happened when the commander of
Babar carried out invasion to convert this temple into
mosque and even demolished it and also removed the idol.
The idol of Lord Shri Ramlala, which existed at time of the
invasion by Babar and which had been removed, did not
re-appear till the appearance of the deity Himself and till
that time people used to have darshan of the vacant
DW-2/1-2, Ram Saran Srivastava
¬¤ºi ·n n¬l-¤º ¬ ¬·¤¤· ¬ -¤·- ri ni r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬
lr·· ¬i ¬ ¬iºi·¤ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·--·i¬| r ¬ri lr·· ¬i ,iºi
¬· · ¬ ¬¤· ¬iºi·¤ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ª¤ - ¤¸ ¬i ¬|
¬in| ºr| r n·ii ;¬| -·i¬ ¤º ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- -l·º ¤¸ · ¬i¬ - ·i|
l-·in ·ii l¬¬ ·rzs; - ··-n ¬º¬ l··il·n «i ¤i «i«º ¬ ¬i· ºi ¤º
-|º«i¬| ,iºi «·i¤i n¤i| (¤ ¬ «)
“By study of the aforesaid gazetteer, it transpires that the
disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama, revered by
Hindus, where Hindus have always paid their reverence as
the birthplace of their revered Lord Sri Rama and the Sri
Ramjanmbhumi temple existed at this very place in past,
which was demolished in 1528 AD and the disputed
structure was built by Mir Baqi under the command of
- º| ¤ -n¬ ¬i l··¬·i ¤r r l¬ - l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·-
-·i¬| -i·ni r¸ | - ¬¤· ¬· ·i· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ;n·i ¬i·ni r¸ l¬ ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- ¤º ¬i -¸ ln ·i|, ¬¬¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬¤ ·i, ·ii n, ¬--;¤i ¬il· ·ri ¬
¬i·i ¬i n ¬ºn ·i | lº¬|·º ¬| l·¤ ·n ¬ «i· lº¬|·º ¬i n n·ii ¬·¬
l·¤ ·n ¬- ¤iº| ¬i n ¤r ¬i¤ ¬ºn ·i | (¤ ¬ zs)
“The conclusion of my book is that I consider the disputed
site to be the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. On the basis of
my experience, I know only this much that the prayer,
worship, 'Bhog', 'Sammaiya', etc. of the idols at the
Ramjanmbhumi, were carried by the saints present over
there. After the appointment of Receiver, the said work was
carried out by the Receiver and persons appointed by
- ºi ¬·- ·s·s ¬i r | ·sss - - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i¤i| (¤ ¬ zr)
“I was born in the year 1918. I came to Ayodhya in the
year 1933.”(E.T.C)
- º ¤ ¬i«i· - l¬¬il·i¬iº| l·¤ ·n ri · ¬ ¤r¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º
·-i¬ ¤« · ¬ l¬¤ ¬i ; ·r| ¬ini ·ii| ¬« - ¤ ¬i«i· - l¬¬il·i¬iº|
¬ ª¤ - l·¤ ·n r ¬i n« - · l··il·n -·i¬ ¬| ¤¸ º| ¬i·¬iº| ¤ i·n
¬|| - n ¤r ¬i·¬iº| ¤ i·n r ; l¬ - ¬¬-i· ·ii; ¬i n l··il·n -·i¬
¬i «i«º| -l-¬· ¬r ºr ·i n·ii lr··¸ ¬i n ;¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬r ºr
·i | -·¤ ¬ri l¬ ;¬| ¬iººi r- ¬i n ¤ ºii¬l·¬ · l·- ¬ ¬¬ -·i¬ ¬i
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬rn ·i | - · l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ¬; «iº · ªii ·ii|
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬| ¬r| ¬-«i; ÷¤i · i; , - ;¬ ¬-¤ ·r| «ni ¬¬ni
r¸ | (¤ ¬ zc÷z/)
“Prior to my posting as District Magistrate of Faizabad,
none used to go to the disputed site for offering namaz.
When I was posted as District Magistrate of Faizabad, I
gathered complete information about the disputed site. I
came to know that the Muslims used to term it to be Babri
mosque and the Hindus were terming it Ramjanmbhumi.
Stated on his own that it was due to this administrative
reason that we used to call that place, the disputed site. I
had seen the disputed site on number of times. At the
moment, I cannot give the exact dimensions of the disputed
¬i ¤ ºii¬l·¬ ¬l·i¬iº| l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º ¬in ·i , ¤¸ ¬i · ·ºi · ·i|
¬ºn ·i | - ·i| ·ºi · ¬ºni ·ii| ¬¬ ¬-¤ - ;¬ n·¤ ¬| ¬¸ ¤·i ºªini
·ii l¬ ;¬ -·i¬ ¬ ¬ «l·in - ¬·- ¤¬ ºr r | (¤ ¬ s·)
“The administrative officers, who used to go to the
disputed site, used to offer prayer and have darshan over
there. I also used to have darshan. At that time, I did have
the information that cases were pending in respect of this
¬i ¬i·¬iº| - · ril¬¬ ¬| ¬iº ¬ ¬i l¬ ¬i n ¬rn ·i , ·r -·ii·,
l¬¬ ¤º «i«º| -l-¬· ªi· | ·i|, ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ·ii| - º ¬· ·i· ¬i º - º|
ºi¤ ¬ - nil«¬ ¬i n ¤ ¬i ¬r| ¬rn ·i l¬ ¤r -·ii·, ºi-¬·-·i¸ l-
·i|| (¤ ¬ «z)
“According to the information gathered by me and as told
by people, the place where Babri mosque stood was
Ramjanmbhumi. As per my experience and opinion, people
used to rightly say that this place was
¬·--·ii· -l··º ºi-¬·--·ii· ¬ ª¤ - ¬i·i ¬ini r | -·¤ ¬ri l¬
ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- l··il·n -·i¬ ·ii| ;¬ n ·· n¬ -l··º ·r| ¬ri ¬ini
r | (¤ ¬ «s)
“The Janmsthan temple is known as Ramjanmsthan. Stated
on his own that Ramjanmbhumi was the disputed site. It
was not called Gudadtal temple. ”(E.T.C)
ni¬i ¬n· ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i n ·|·iº ¬ ¤i¬ ªi· ri ¬º ·ºi · ¬ºn ·i | -
·ri ¬··º ¬i¬º ni·¸ ÷«riª ¬ºni ·ii, ¤¸ ¬i ¤i- ¬ºni ·ii| (¤ ¬ «s)
“People used to have darshan from near the wall, before
the locks were put. I used to broom the inside portion,
(and) perform prayer-worship over there.”(E.T.C)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i - · ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii·, ·iil- ¬ -i·¤ni¬i
¤· ¬¤¬··i ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬ri r | ¤ ¬i«i· - l¬¬i·i|ºi ¬|
n ·in| ¬ ¤¸ · ¤· ¤ iº-·i ¬ r| - º| ¤r -i·¤ni ·i| l¬ l··il·n -·ii·
¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii· r | ¤i·| «¤¤· ¬ ¬« ¬ - · riºi ¬ ·ii¬i, n«
¬ - º| ¬¤ºi ·n ·iil- ¬ -i·¤ni ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | - · l¬· ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬i
¬···i ¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi÷zo ¬iº z· - l¬¤i r , ¬·-
n¬ l-¤º ¤· º ··¤¸ lº¬i· ¬ ·i | ¬·n ¬l·i¬ ªii - ¤ l¬¬ lº¤i - ¬ ·
; - ¬|¬·¬ lº¤i - ¬ ¬i ¬-¤÷¬-¤ ¤º ·ilªi¬ r ; , ·i| ¬l--l¬n r |
(¤ ¬ r«)
“I have stated the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord
Shri Rama, on basis of religious belief and available
records. Prior to (my) posting as District Magistrate in
Faizabad and since beginning, it was my belief that the
disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Shri Rama i.e.
since childhood, when I attained maturity, the aforesaid
religious belief of mine has been continuing. The records
referred to by me in para-20 and 21 of my affidavit, include
gazetteer and revenue records. The aforesaid records also
includes police reports and intelligence reports filed from
time to time.”(E.T.C)
n ª,iºi « r¬ º· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬ºn r ¤ - · n ª·i·¬ · · ¬
¤ri ¤·iiº· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r , ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬| -i·¤ni ¬¤i ·¤i - ·i||
;¬ ¬-«··i - - · ¬r| ¤º ¤« i ·r| r | - ¬¤· ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
n·ii ¬i ni ¬ «ni· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤r ¬i·ni r¸ l¬ n ª·i·¬ · ·
¬¤i·¤i ¬i¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ so)
“While mentioning Gurudwara Brahmkund, I have
mentioned about arrival of Guru Nanak Dev over here.
Such a belief existed in Ayodhya. I have not read in this
behalf anywhere. On basis of my studies and as told by
people, I know that Guru Nanak Dev had come to
¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i s·z¬|÷·,c - ¬iº· n| · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ¬¬ l·i¤i
(Ajudhia) ¬ ¬-«i l·in l¬¤i r | ;¬- ¤ºn·i r· ¬| ¬··i ¬ ¬·nn n
¬¤i·¤i ¬i l-·in ri ·i l¬ªii r | l·ºi;· ºi· ºi|·i ¬ ¬ ¬·nn n ¬i
«in l¬ªi| r ; r , ¬·- - ¬r-n r¸ | ;¬¬ «i· ¬ ºi|·i ¬ ¤lº¤i ¬
¬·nn n ¬i «in l¬ªi| r ; r , ¬· «ini ¬ - ¬r-n r¸ | (¤ ¬ so)
“In paper no. 312C-1/6, Carnegie has referred Ayodhya as
'Ajudhiya'. In it, Ayodhya is given to be situated under
Pargana Haveli Awadh. I agree with the facts mentioned
under the heading 'derivation'. I agree with the facts
mentioned after it under the heading 'area'.”(E.T.C)
¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i s·z¬|÷·,·· - lr··¸ ¤º· - ¬¬-i· l·¤ º ¬ ¬ ºi|·i ¬
¬ ¬·nn n l¬ªi| r ; «in - º| ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬r| r | ;¬ ºi|·i ¬
¬ ¬·nn n l¬ªi| r ; «ini - ¤i ·i| ¬i;· - ¬·--·ii· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i
r , ¬i l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬···i - r | (¤ ¬ sz)
“According to my knowledge, the facts mentioned under
the heading 'Hindu and Musalman differences' in paper no.
312C-1/11, are correct. Janmsthan is mentioned the fourth
line of the facts mentioned under this heading, which is in
context of the disputed site.”(E.T.C)
¬in¬ ¬ o s·z ¬|÷·,zs ¬ ¤ ·- sss ¬| ·¸ ¬º|, n|¬º| ¤· ¤i·i|
¤l·n¤i - ºi-¬i - -i r~¬ ¬ ¤¬ -·ii· ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ ¬·- ¬ ·
¬i ¬~¬ ªi r , ¤º·n ¬¬ -·ii· ¬i l·lºi·- ª¤ ¬ ;¬- ·r| «ni¤i
n¤i r | ;¬| ¤ ·- ¬| ¤i ¤·| n·ii s-| ¬i; · - l¬ªi| ¤r «in ¬r|
·r| r l¬ «irº| ·iin - ¤¬ si - ¬ ¤«¸ nº ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i
¬·--·ii· r | (¤ ¬ sr)
“In the second, third and fourth lines at page 389 of paper
no. 312C-1/23, there is reference about the birth of Lord
Ramchandra at a place in Ramkot locality, however, that
place has not been particularly defined in it. The fact
mentioned in fifth and sixth line of this page that the
birthplace of Lord Ramchandra is at a small platform in
the outer part, is not correct.”(E.T.C)
- º l·¤iº ¬ ¤r ¬~¬ ªi ¬· ¬ ¬ ¬-nº ·i¬ - l·º ¬ ¬ « ·i - ·r|
r | ;¬| -·ii· ¤º ¬i ¬|ni º¬i ; - l·º ·ii| ¬¬¬i r| ;¬- ·ºi · r |
(¤ ¬ sr)
“In my opinion, this reference is not in context of the
temple in north of the road. It is the Sita Rasoi temple,
which existed at this place, which has been mentioned in
¬| ri | ¬¬ -·ii· ¬i ¬i¬ º - l-¤¬ ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni ·ii| (¤ ¬ sc)
“Yes. That place could have been called 'larger
l- ¤ · ·i ¬º ¬| ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¬,ººi, ¬i ¬·¤ -¸ ¬ ·i· ¬ o r,ss -
¤ ·¤ ·ii·ii - ¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i ·o/¬|÷·,sc ¬ni¤n ·o/ ¬|÷·,·o« ¬
ª¤ - ·ilªi¬ r , ¬i · ªi¬º ¬i·i| · ¬ri l¬ ¤ ·¤ ·ii·ii ¬i - n ni·
·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·sz)
“After looking at the extract of the book of Tiffen Thalor,
which has been filed in French as paper no. 107C-1/96 to
107C-1/104 in O.O.S no. 5/89, the witness stated that I do
not have knowledge of French language.”(E.T.C)
;¬| ¬,ººi ¬i ¬ n ¬| ¬· ·i· ·o/¬|÷·,·or ¬ni¤n ·o/
¬|÷·,·o/ ¬ ª¤ - ·ilªi¬ l¬¤i n¤i r n·ii ;· n|·i ¤ ·-i ¬i ¤¬
r| ¤ ¬ ¬in¬ ¬ o ·o/¬|÷·,·os ¬ ª¤ - ·ilªi¬ l¬¤i n¤i r |
(¤ ¬ ·sz)
“The English translation of this very extract has been filed
as paper no. 107C-1/105 to 107C-1/107 and all these three
pages have been filed in single page being paper no. 107C-
¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i ·o/¬|÷·,·oc ¬ ¬ln- ¤ -nº n·ii ¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i
·o/¬|÷·,·o/ ¬ l,n|¤ ¤ -nº - l¬ªii r ¬i r | ·i ·i -·ii·i ¤º ¬-ºi
ºi-¬i - n·ii ·iº ¬ lnºi¤ ¬i· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i n¤i r | -¬i· ¬i
·in·i· l··ºi ¬i ¬·--·ii· ri · ¬ ¬iººi ;¬ -l·º r| -i·i ¬i¤ ni|
·i ·i -·ii·i ¤º ¬i º n¬ « ,iºi lnºi¤ ¬i· ¬| «in l¬ªi| n; r n·ii
¬ s ¬i ni ¬ ,iºi «i«º ,iºi ;¬ lnºi¤ ¬i· ¬| «in ¬r| n; r |
(¤ ¬ ·sz)
“(It) is mentioned in last paragraph of paper no. 107C-
1/106 and second paragraph of paper no. 107C-1/107. At
the two places, Ramkot and demolition of house
respectively have been mentioned. The house would be
considered a temple on account of being the birthplace of
Lord Vishnu. Demolition by Aurangzeb is mentioned at
both the places and few people have stated it to have been
demolished by Babar.”(E.T.C)
·ii· ¬ -¤iriº ºl¬--º - l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «iº - l··ººi l·¤ n¤ r |
¤ -¤ ¬ ··i ¬ ·ºirºi, ·|·i¬|, ¤lº¬-i¤ n·ii l·l·i·· ·i-i ¬ ¬·¤
-¤i riºi ¬i l··ººi ;¬- ºrni r | (¤ ¬ ·c·)
“The festival register of the police station contains details
of the disputed structure. The details of various festivals of
each year such as Dussehra, Deepawali,
circumambulations and other festivals of other religions,
are found in it.”(E.T.C)
¬¤i ·¤i - ¬i ·i| ¤lº¬-i¤ , - ¬i l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬ « l·in ºrn| r , ;·
¬«¬i ¬~¬ ªi -¤i riº ºl¬--º - ºrni r | (¤ ¬ ·c·)
“The details of the circumambulations, fair in Ayodhya
related to the disputed structure, are found in this festival
4356. A few documents were also referred to which, we
also deal at this stage.
4357. Sushri Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate, to fortify her
submission that disputed place is the place where Lord Rama
was born and later on formed part of the fort of Lord Rama;
referred to a structure called "Varah Image" in the south east
side of the outer wall of the disputed property. Paper No.
200C1/201C1 was claimed to be the photo of Varah Image. She
referred to "Anand Ramayana (Navon Khand Sampurna)
edited by Pandit Sri Ramji Sharma published by Sri Durga
Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay and at page 477 thereof, it
says as under:
¬¬ ¬-¤ l··i|·iºi ¬| ¬iº| ¬-¤l-n - ¬ ºi-¬| ¬i ¬l¤¬
·i ºi r ¬| -¸ l n ¬·s| ¬n| , l ¬¬¬| ¤¸ ¬i ºi ·ºi -·¤ ¬ºni
·i i | l··i|·iºi · ºi-¬| ¬i ·r -¸ ln · ·|| ¬¬ -¸ ln ¬ l··i¤ - ¤ ¬i
¬ ·i ¬ini r l¬ ¬l¤¬ ·in·i· · ¬¤·| -· ºil·n ¬ ¬¬ -¸ln ¬|
º¤·i ¬|| «r n l··i n¬ ¬l¤¬ - l· · -·¤ ¬¬¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬| ·i||
¬¬¬ «i· ·r ;·· ¬ ri·i ¬n n¤|| ¬« ºi·ºi · ;·· ¬ ¬ n i- ¬º¬
¬·r ¤ºil¬n l¬¤i, n« ºi·ºi ¬¬ -¸ ln ¬i ;·· ¬ s|· ¬i¤i ¬iº «r n
¬-¤ n¬ ¬¬¬i ¤¸ ¬· ¬ºni ºri| ¬i ¬ ¬¬ r| l ··i | · i ºi ·
ºi -¬| ¬i ¬¤ ºi ¬º l ·¤i | ºi - · «· ¤ - ¬ ¬¬ ¬¤·
¤ · ¤¬ l ·-i · ¤º º·ªi i |
4358. Exhibit 116 (Suit-5) (Register 20, page 161)
contains verses 13 to 25 from “Ayodhya Mahatmya”
Skandapurana : Vaishnavakhanda edited by Sri Krishnadas
Kshem Raj Shresthi (1910) and reads as under:
¤n-¤lº¤-l···iin ·n n ¤º-i - · |
l¤ ·iº¬ ;ln ª¤ini ·|º ¤º-¤ ª·i||
¤¸ ¬·|¤ ¤ ¤-· · n ·i¤ ·¤i·inil·l·i||·s||
¤-¤ ¤¸ ¬i·ºii· · ºii l¬,¤ ¬º¬l¬ni|
n-¤ ¤¸ ¬il··ii· · ¬n ·¤ ¤¸ ¬· ·º||·«||
¬º¤¸ ¬l¬¬ -·i-·i l¤ ·iº¬ ¤ ¤¸ ¬¤ n |
¤il¤·i -i r¬ni º -ln· ¬ ln·i ¬·i||·r||
n-¤ ¤i¤i l··iin·¤i ¬ ¤¸ º¤i ··ºil¤·i |
n-¤lº¤-l·ºii·iin l···ºi l¬¬ ¤¸ ¬¤ n ||·c||
¤-¤ ·ºi ·ni · ºii l···¬ ºii · l·nn |
n--i· l···º·º ¤¸ ·¤ ¬· ¬i- ¤¬¤ ·||·/||
n--i--·ii·n ¤ ºi· ºi-¬·- ¤ ·n n |
¬·--·iinl-· ¤ i ·n -i ·iil·¤¬¬i·i·- ||·s||
l···º·ºi-¤¸ · ·iin ·il¬·-i· -nº n·ii|
¬i -ºii-¤lº¤- ·iin ¬·--·ii· nn||·s||
¤· ·- ·i ¤ -· ·¤-¤ n·i ·i¬¬¤i ·i· n |
l··i ·i· · n¤¬i l··i n|·i l· ·i -ªi ||zo||
··-| l··¬ ¤ i·n · n·iiº| r| -i··|
-·i··i·¤ ·ii· ºi - ·¤n ¬·-···i·in ||z·||
¬l¤¬ini ¬r¬ ilºi ¤i ··iln l·· l·· |
n-¤¬ ¬-·i··iln ¬·-·i¸ - ¤ ·ºi ·in ||zz||
¬i¬- ·¬ni ¤ ¬i ni¤¬i·i ¤ ¤- ¬¬ |
ºi¬¬¸ ¤¬r¬ ilºi ¤ ln··ii l··ri ¤n||zs||
l·¤--·i ·º · ·- ·i ¬·--·ii· l·ºi·in|
-inil¤¤i n ªºii ¤ ·il·n- ,rni ¬ni- ||z«||
n-¤¬ ¬-·i··iln ¬·-·i¸ - ¤ ·ºi ·in ||zr||
Hindi Translation (as provided by DW 2/1-3, Mahant Ram
Vilas Das Vedanti) :
¤nn =ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ¤lº¤- l·ºii - l¤º·iº¬ ;¬ ·i- ¬
ª¤ini =¤ l¬, ¤º- ¤ ª·i «|º ¤º- - l· ¬i -·ii· ·n n =r | ¬¬
¤¸ ·¤·|¤ -·ii· ¬i n··i ¤ ·¤ ¬··in ¬il· ¬ ¤ ¤-·¤¸ · ¬ ¤¸ ¬· ¬º·i
¤ilr¤| (13)
l¬¬¬ ¤¸ ¬· ¬ ¬iººi -· ·¤i ¬ ri·i - l¬l, ¤ i·n ri ¬in| r |
;¬l¬¤ ¬¬¬| ¤¸ ¬i -· ·¤i ¬i l·l·i ¤¸ · ¬ ¬º·i ¤ilr¤| (14)
¬º¤¸ ¬¬ - -·i· ¬º¬ l¤º·iº¬ ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬º·| ¤ilr¤| -ln- · -i r
¬ n l¬n ¤il¤¤i ¬i ¬·i ¬º·i ¤ilr¤| (15)
¬¬¬| ¤i¤i ··ºil¤ ¬ ¤ ·¤ ··i¤ - ¬º·| ¤ilr¤| nn =ºi- ¬·-·i¸l-
¬ ¤lº¤- l·ºii ¬ ·iin - l··· ¬i ·¸ º ¬º· ·i¬ ¬|nºi ºi ¬| ¬i
¤¸ ¬· ¬º·i ¤ilr¤| (16)
l¬¬¬ ·ºi · ¬ -· ·¤i ¬i l···=¬·-, · ªi ·ii · i ·i| ·r| ºrni
;¬l¬¤ l··· º·º ¬-¤¸ ºi ¬i-·i¬i ¬ ¤¬ ¬i ¤ ·i· ¬º· ·i¬ ¤¸ ·¤i¤
=¤¸ ·¤·|¤ r | (17)
¬¬ -·ii· ¬ ; ºii· ¬i ºi ¤º ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- r (¬ri ¤º ;¬ ¬-¤ ºi-
¬¬i) l·ºi¬-i· r | ;·- =;¬| ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ¬·- -·ii·=ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- -·ii· ¬ ·i- ¬ ¤ i- - ÷¬i·i ¬ini r ¬·i·i ¬·n ¤ ¬iº ¬
·¤·n l¬¤i n¤i r ¬i -¸ ··iil· ¤¬ ¬i · · ·i¬i r | (18)
l··· º·ºin =l··· ¬i ·¸ º ¬º· ·i¬ nºi ºi ¬| ¬ ¤¸ · ·iin - n·ii
·lºi·-¬ º· ¬ ¬-nº ·iin - , ¬i -ºi ¬ ¤lº¤- ·iin - ¬·-
-·ii· =¬·-·i¸l- ¬i -- n- =--ººi ¬º·i ¤ilr¤| (19)
l¬¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¤º l·ºi¬-i· ¬|ºi- ¬¬i ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ «i·
-· ·¤ ¬i ¤ ·¬ ·- ¬ - l·n l-¬ ¬in| r | l«·i ·i·, l«·i n¤-¤i ¬iº
l«·i ¤n ¬ r| ¬ ·¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ·ºi · -i¤ ¬ r| - l·n ¤ i·n ri
¬in| r ¬·ii n l¤º ¬ n·i - ¬·- ·r| ¬ ·i ¤· ni| (20)
¬i -· ·¤ ··-| lnl·i ¬i · n ·iiººi ¬ºni r ¬iº ¬º¤¸ - -·i· ¬iº
¬¤i·¤i - ·i· ¬ºni r ¬¬¬ ¤ ·ii· ¬ ¬·-«··i· ¬ - l·n l-¬ ¬in|
r | (21)
¤¬ r¬iº ¬l¤¬i ni¤ ¬i ¤ lnl·· ·i· ¬ºni r ¬¬ ·i· ¬i ¬i ¤¬
-· ·¤ ¬i l-¬ni r ·r| ¤¬ ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ ¤ i·n
ri ni r | (22)
¬i¬- - l··i¬ ¬º· ·i¬ -· ·¤i ¬i ¬i º n¤l-·¤i ¬i ¬i ¤¬ ¤ i·n
ri ni r , ¤¬ r¬iº ºi¬¬¸ ¤ ¤n ¬º· ·i¬i ¬i ¬iº ¤ ln ··i ¬l··ri ¤ -
r·· ¬º· ·i¬i ¬i ·i ¤¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r | (23)
l·¤- - l-·in ºr¬º ¬i -· ·¤ l·ºi ·i ª¤ ¬ ¬·--·ii· =¬|ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- ¤º l-·in ºi- ¬| ¬ ·ºi · ¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r | -ini÷l¤ni n ª¬i
¬iº ¬·¬·i ¬| ·il·n¤¸ · ¬ ¬ ·i ¬º· ¬ ¬i ¤¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r ·r|
¤¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ·ºi · ¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r | (24)
·r| ¤¬ ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ¤· ¬|ºi-¬·-·i¸l- - l·ºi¬-i· ·in·i·
ºi-¬¬i ¬ ·ºi · ¬ ¤ i·n ri ni r | (25)
English Translation (By the Court)
“On the west of Ram Janam Bhumi lies a place of Pindara,
a famous and great sage and great human being. We
should worship this adorable place with scent, flowers,
rice-grains, etc. (13)
Due to that worship human beings can attain
Siddhi(accomplishment). Hence, human beings should duly
worship it. (14)
After taking a dip in the water of Saryu one should worship
Pindarak. The sinners suffering from weak understanding
and from attachment should always do the said worship.
Journey to it should be done in the Pushpa Nakshatra of
Navratri. In the west part of Ram Janam Bhumi, we should
worship Ganesha Ji, remover of obstacles. (16)
As a result of whose darshan human beings do not have
any obstacle and pain, even a little sorrow such
Vighneshwar is worthy of worship as provider of results of
all desires. (17)
On the north-east of that place lies Ram Janam Bhumi
(where at present Ram Lala is presiding). The same Ram
Janam Bhumi is known as Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan or
expressed in the said manner and it is a provider of
liberation, etc. (18)
We should remember Janam Bhumi as located in the east
part of 'Ganesha Ji' , remover of obstacles, and in the north
part of Vashishtha Kunda and in the west part of Lomash.
After having darshan of Sri Ram Lala presiding at that
very Ram Janam Bhumi one is liberated from rebirth. Even
without making any gift, without practising austerities and
without making sacrifices, one attains liberation only with
darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi, that is to say, one does not
have to take birth from mother's womb again. (20)
One who keeps fast on the ninth day, has a dip in Saryu
and offers gifts in Ayodhya, gets liberated from the
bondage of birth. (21)
The darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi provides the same
results that a man may have by gifting one thousand Kapila
cows everyday. (22)
The result that hermits and ascetics residing in Ashrams
have, is the same that people have on performing one
thousand Rajsuya Yajnas have and on offering 'havans' in
fire-pits. (23)
From the darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi one may get the
same results as one may get from having darshan of Ram Ji
particularly at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or from rendering
dedicated service to parents, teachers and gentle persons.
One may get the same results from darshan of Lord Ram
Lala presiding at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi. (25)”
4359. Exhibit J-3 (Suit-4) (Register Vol.13, page 13) is a
photocopy of page 39 Part-I of Maharshi Valmiki Praneet Shrimad
Balmikiya Ramayan authored by Maharshi Valmiki published by
Gorakh Press, Gorakhpur, U.P.. It shows Pancham Sarg Shlok 1 to
11. Shlok 6, 9 and 10 was pressed before us which reads as under:
¬¤i ·¤i ·i- ·nº| n¤i¬|~¬i ¬l·¬ ni|
-· ·i -i·· ·· ºi ¤i ¤ º| l·l- ni -·¤- ||c||
¬¬| ¬·¤· - ¬¤i ·¤i ·i-¬| ¤¬ ·nº| r , ¬i ¬--n ¬i ¬i - l·ª¤in
r | ¬¬ ¤ º| ¬i -·i¤ -riºi¬ -· · «··i¤i ¬i º «¬i¤i ·ii||c||
ni n ºi¬i ·ºiº·ii -riºi·-l···i ·|
¤ º|-i·i¬¤i-i¬ l·l· · ·¤ln¤ ·ii||s||
¬ ¬ -·n - · ·ºi¬ ;·· · ¬-ºi·n|¤ º| «¬i¤| ·i|, ¬¬| ¤ ¬iº ·i- ¬i º
·¤i¤ ¬ «¬ ¬ ¬¤· -ri· ºi·- ¬| · l, ¬º· ·i¬ ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ·
¬¤i·¤i¤ º| ¬i ¤r¬ ¬| ¬¤ ·ii l·ºi·i ª¤ ¬ «¬i¤i ·ii||s||
¬¤i-ni ººi·n| ¬ l··i·ni·nºi¤ºii- |
¬· ¤·¤i¤ ·i·n|- l¤ni ¬· lºil~¤l·i||·o||
·r ¤ º| «· ÷«· ¤i-¬i ¬i º l¬·i·i ¬ ¬ ºii l·in ·i||
¬¬¬ ·i|nº ¤ ·i¬÷¤ ·i¬ «i¬iº ·i| | ·ri ¬« ¤ ¬iº ¬
¤·¤ ¬i º ¬-¤÷ºi-¤ ¬ l¤n ·i | ¬¬ ¤ º| - ¬·i| ¬¬i¬i
¬ lºi~¤| l··i¬ ¬ºn ·i ||·o||
We have another publication of Valmiki Ramayan,
Critical Edition by G.H.Bhatt published by Oriental Institute
Baroda, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda in 1960.
Vol.-1 at page 43 and 44 contends the same Shlokas which are
shown in Ex. J-3. It is not in dispute that Valmiki Ramayana is
the first document, which gives entire details of Lord Rama
known to us. A perusal of the critical edition of Valmiki
Ramayana shows that they collected manuscripts requesting
across the country for publishing a most authentic version of
Valmiki Ramayan and in their endeavor they got the oldest
Manuscripts of 1020 AD said to be in Nepali version. It is said
in the introduction part that there is an entry in the
Manuscripts that it was copied by Sri Gopati, S/o Pt. Shri Shri
Tara on the 4
day of the dark half of the month of Aashad in
Samvat year 1076 (AD 1020). Besides they also received
Manuscripts in different languages i.e. Newari, Maithli,
Bengali, Devnagari, Telgu and Malyalam. The oldest version in
Maithli is of 1360 AD, Bengali 1688 AD, Devnagari 1455 AD,
Malyalam 1512 AD.
4360. Exhibit 77 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 27-29)
contains photocopy of the title page and page no. 49 of "Janam
Sakhi Das Guru Arthat Suraj Prakash" Gyani Gyan Singh Ji first
edition 1995 fifth edition 2002. There it talks of visit of Guru
Nanak to Ayodhya and says:
¬¤i ·¤i ·nº|
;¬| ¤ ¬iº r| ¤ri· | ·i ¤i - ¬ ¤¬n r ¤ n ª ¬| ¬|ºi- ¤··
¬| ¬ ¬·- -·ii· ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº| ¬i n¤ | «r n ¬ ¬i n ¬i º ¤ l·n n ª
¬| ¬ ¬º|« ¤¬¤ ri n¤ | n ª ¬| · ¤¬ ¤l·n ¬ ¤¸ si l¬ r-· ¬ ·i
·ii l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ·nº| ¬i ¬| ºi- ¤·· ¬| ¬¤· ¬i·i r| « ¬ º- ¬i ¬
n¤ ·i , l¤º ¤r ni ¤r| ¬| ¤r| r ` ¤ l·ni · ¬ri, ·r ¬ ·¬ ¬¤i ·¤i
·nº| ¬ ¬|·i ¬i r| ¬i·i ¬ ¬º n¤ ·i , -r¬ ¬il· ¬iº ¬« ¬ s ¤ri
r| ºri ·ii| n ª ¬| · ¬ri ¬· ¬i ni · ¬| ºi- ¤·· ¬| ¬ ·ºi · l¬¤
·i l¬¬ ¬ l¬¤ ·r ¬·¬ ¬i·i r| « ¬ º- ¬i ¤¬ n¤ ·i | ¤º·n n -
¬i n ¬« n¬ n ª ¬¤·ºi ¬ ,iºi ·il·n ·iiººi ·r| ¬ºi n n« n¬ n -
« ¬ º- ·r| ¬i ¬¬n | ¬·ri · ¬ri n ª ni ¬; ¤ ¬iº ¬ r , r- l¬¬
n ª ¬i ·iiººi ¬º ` n ª ¬| · ¬ri÷ l¬¬¬ ¬¤· -· - ¤¸ ºi ni· ri ,
-i r -i¤i ¬ l·¬ ¤ ri , ·r ¬i¤ ·i| - ·n ri ¬ini r ¬i º · ¬º ·i| ¬i
¬¬¬ ¬i·i ¤¬n r ·r ¬·n ¬-¤ « ¬ º- ¬i ¬in r | n ª ¬| ¬ ¤r
·¤· ¬ · ¬º ¤ l·ni · ¬ri -riºi¬ ! r- ¬i¤ r| ¬¤· ºi ·i | n« ¬i¤
¬| · ¬·¬i ¬-¤·i- ¬i ¬¤· ºi · ¬º ¬i ·ii·¤ºii¬| «·i¤i|
4361. Two more exhibits, i.e., Exhibit J-5 (Suit-4)
(Register Vol.13, page 39-45) is a photocopy of pages no.682,
683, 678, 679 and Appendix-U page lxxvi, lxxvii, lxxviii, lxxix
of A.S. Beveridge's Babarnama and Exhibit J-4 (Register
Vol.13, page 101-105) is a photocopy of the pages No.173, 174
of Fyzabad Gazetteer. Vol. XLIII of the District Gazetteers of
the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh by H.R Nevill, 1905.
We have already dealt with these documents and, therefore, no
occasion to refer further.
4362. Reference is also made to Exhibit 118 and 119 (Suit-
5), which are, Exhibit 119 (Suit-5) (Register 23, page 669)
contains some date mentioned on a paper by Pt. Indushekhar
Pandey. It has been filed to show that the placement of idol
under the central dome inside the disputed structure in the inner
Courtyard. The appropriate time was calculated by the experts
and that was the most suitable time. Exhibit 118 (Suit-5)
(Register 23, Page 671) is also to the same effect and this has
been written by one Pt. Harisharan Dwivedi of Allahabad. Both
these documents, however, were not proved and even otherwise
are not relevant for the issue.
4363. One more book, i.e., "Ain-i-Akbari" is also cited. 1.
One of the earliest work wherein Ayodhya has been referred is
the work of Abul-Fazl Allami. It is a Persian treatise titled as A-
in-i Akbari (the Institutes of Akbar) (Akbar-Nama). He was a
Minister of the Mughal Emperor Akbar and has given the
geography, physical and historical descriptions of the Emperor
accompanied by statistical table. It described in detail the
sixteen Subhas of the Government of which the Mughal
Emperor was then composed with minute exactitude Initially, in
1783 Francis Gladwin published unabridged English version of
the said work encouraged by the Governor General Warren
Hastings but it was found to be highly defective. Later on an
English translation was published in 1873 by H. Blochmann.
The original book is said to be in five volumes and with respect
to its contents etc. in the preface stated on 23
September, 1873,
Blochmann said :
“The A-in-i Akbari is the third volume of the Akbar-
nama, by Shaykh Abu'l Fazal, and is by far the greatest
work in the whole series of Muhammadan histories of
India. The first volume of the this gigantic work contains
the history of Timur's family as far as it is of interest for the
Indian reader, and the reigns of Babar, the Sur Kings, and
Humayun whilst the second volume is devoted to the details
history of nearly forty-six years of the reign of the Great
Emperor. The concluding volume, the A-in-i-Akbari,
contains that information regarding Akbar's reign, which,
though not strictly historical, is yet essential to a correct
understanding of the times, and embodies, therefore, those
facts for which, in modern times, we would turn to
Administration Reports, Statistical compilations, or
Gazetteers. It contains the a-in (i.e. mode of governing) of
Akbar, and is, in fact, the Administration Report and
Statistical Return of his government as it was about A.D.
1590. The contents, therefore, of the A-in are naturally
varied and detailed. The first of its five books treats of
Akbar's household and court, and of the emperor himself,
the soul of every department, who looks upon the
performance of his duties as an act of divine worship, and
who enters into the details of government in order to create
a harmonious whole. Vouchsafed as king with a peculiar
light from on high, his person is prominently p8ut forward
as the guide of the people in all matters temporal and
spiritual; in whose character and temper the governed find
that rest and peace which no constitution can give, and in
whom, as the author of a new and advanced creed, the dust
of intoleration is for ever allayed.
The second book treats of the servants of the throne,
the military and civil services, and the attendants at court
whose literary genius or musical skill receives a lustre from
the encouragement of the emperor, and who in their turn
reflect a brilliant light on the government.
The third book is entirely devoted to regulations for
the judicial and executive departments, the establishment of
a new and more practical era, the survey of the land, the
tribal divisions, and the rent-roll of the great Finance
minister whose name has become proverbial in India.
The fourth book treats of the social condition and
literary activity, especially in philosophy and law, of the
Hindus, who form the bulk of the population, and in whose
political advancement the emperor saw the guarantee of
the stability of his realm. There are also a few chapters on
the foreign invaders of India, on distinguished travellers,
and on Muhammadan saints and the sects to which they
respectively belong.
The fifth book contains the moral sentences and
epigrammatical sayings, observations, and rules of wisdom
of the emperor, which Abu 'l-Fazl has gathered as the
disciple gathers the sayings of the master.”
4364. Blochmann's translation was published second time
in 1927 which was edited by Lieut. Colonel D.C. Phillott and he
has given an explanation in his preface dated written in 1927 as
under :
“Some explanation is needed of the present edition.
Blochmann's original translation has for some time been
out of print. The Asiatic Society of Bengal has asked me
undertake the preparation of a reprint, and I lightly
accepted the task, not realizing the amount of labour
involved. Blochmann's translation and notes form a work
of infinite detail and thorough scholarship; and though it
has seldom been necessary to correct, it has often been
necessary to investigate. This present edition is, however, in
the main a mere reprint. This of itself is no small testimony
to Blochmann's thoroughness. The transliteration, however,
has been brought into line with a more modern system, and
a few additional notes [in a square brackets] have been
added; those with a suffixed B. are Blochmann's own MS.
Notes from a printed copy in my possession; I have not
incorporated all of them, as many I was unable to decipher.
Notes to which a P. is suffixed are my own.”
4365. It appears that after the death of H. Blochmann on
July 1878 it was found by Asiatic Society of Bengal which
had published the translation of A-in-i Akbari that the work was
only to the extent of the First Volume and, therefore, it entrusted
the unfinished work to Lieut. Colonel H.S. Jarrett who finished
the printing of translation of the second Volume in 1891. This
work of Jerrutt was revised by Sri Jadunath Sarkar in 1949 and
its latest re-print of 2001 distributed by D.K. Publishers
Distributors P. Ltd., New Delhi has been placed on record before
us. The Subah of Audh is on page 181 and onwards and the
relevant part thereof referred by the parties is as under :
“It is situated in the second climate. Its length from the
Sarkar of Gorakhpur to Kanauj is 135 kos. Its breadth
from the northern mountains to Sidhpur on the frontier
of the Subah of Allahabad is 115 kos. To the east is
Bihar; to the north, the mountains; to the south, Manikpur,
and to the west Kanauj. Its climate is good. Summer and
winter are nearly temperate. Its principal streams are the
Saru (Sarju), the Ghaghar (Gogra) the Sai and the Godi
(Gumti). In the first mentioned, divers aquatic animals and
forms of strange appearance show themselves. Agriculture
is in a flourishing state, especially rice of the kinds called
Sukhdas, Madhkar, and Jhanwan, which for whiteness,
delicacy, fragrance and wholesomeness are scarcely to be
matched. They sow their rice three months earlier than in
other parts of Hindustan. When the drought begins, the Sai
and the Gogra rise high in flood and before the beginning
of the rains, the land is inundated, and as the waters rise,
the stalks of rice shoot up and proportionately lengthen :
the crop, however, is destroyed if the floods are in full force
before the rice is in ear. Flowers, fruits and game are
abundant. Wile buffaloes are numerous. When the plains
are inundated the animals take to the high ground where
the people find sport in hunting them. Some of the animals
remain all day in the water and only at night approach the
dry ground and breathe in freedom. Awadh (Ajodhya) is
one of the largest cities of India. In is situated in
longitude 118
, 6', and latitude 27
, 22. It ancient times its
populous site covered an extent of 148 kos in length and 36
in breadth, and it is esteemed one of the holiest places of
antiquity. Around the environs of the city, they sift the
earth and gold is obtained. It was the residence of
Ramachandra who in the Treta age combined in his own
person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly
At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra,
after its junction with the Sai, [Saraju] flows below the
fort. Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and
seven yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them
to be the resting places of Seth and the prophet job, and
extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at
Ratanpur is the tomb of Kabir, the assertor of the unity of
God. The portals of spiritual discernment were partly
opened to him and he discarded the effete doctrines of his
own time. Numerous verses in the Hindi language are still
extant of him containing important theological truths.
Bahraich is a large town on the banks of the river Sarju. Its
environs are delightful with numerous gardens. Salar
Masud and Rajab Salar are both buried here. The common
people of the Muhammadan faith greatly reverence this
spot and pilgrims visit it from distant parts, forming
themselves in bands and bearing glided banners. The first
mentioned was connected by blood with Mahmud
Ghaznavi, and sold his life bravely in battle and left an
imperishable name. The second was the father of Sultan
Firoz king of Delhi and won renown by the recitude of his
4366. We find that it only refers to the antiquity of
Ayodhya and about Lord Rama but no further information can
be derived which may throw any light on the issues in question.
253. Sri Jain also refers to the following.
4367. Exhibit 76 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 21-26)
is the photocopy of the title page and pages no. 406 to 411 of the
book "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Pahli Sainchi)" translated by Dr.
Manmohan Sahgal. The following part thereof shows that the
Guru Nanak had taught even Muslims as to who can be a true
follower of Islam and it says:
|| ¬¬i ¬ -o·|| l-rº -¬|ln l¬·¬ - ¬¬i r¬ r¬i¬
¬ ºiºi | ¬º- ¬ ·ln ¬|¬ ºi ¬i ri r - ¬¬-iºi | ¬ººi| ¬i«i ¬¤ ¤|ª
¬¬-i ¬º- l··i¬| n¬«| ¬i ln¬ ·ii·¬| ·i·¬ ºªi ¬i¬||·||
|| ¬¬i ¬ -r¬i ·|| ·i-nl·¬ ª¤ - - ¬¬-i· «·· ¬ l¬¤
n ª¬| · ¬¤·| ·iiººii ;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¤ ¬- ¬| r l¬ ¬|·i ¤º ·¤i, -l-¬·
· ªi ·i ¤º l·º·i¬ - ¬~¬i, ¬¤· r¬ ¤i ¬¤·| ¬-i; ¬i ªii·i r¬i¬
¬iº ¬¤ «i ¬·i r| ¬ ¬i · ¬i ¤« ·i r | ¬« ¬ ¬-i ¬ ¬ ¬i ¤ ¬º·i
¬ ··n, ¬ ¤- ·iiººi ¬º·i ºi ¬i ri ni, n« - ¬¬-i· ¬·¤i - ¬¬-i·
ri ni| ºi , ¬- ¬º·i ¬i«i, ¬-¤ª¤ ªi ·i ¬i ¬i··i ¤|º ¬| ¬¤i¬·i
r , ¬ ¤i¤¸ · ¬ l¬¬| nº|« ¬i ¬ º·iºi ¬¬-i ¬i º ·-i¬ r | ·i·¬ ¬rn
r , ºiil·nª¤| -i¬i ·r| r, ¬i ¬¬ ·ii¤| ¬·ii n ·r| -i¬i «·i¤ ¬i
¤º-i--i ¬i ·ii¤, (; º·º ¬| º¬i - ºr )| r ¬i¬|, ¬« ¤ ¬ n ºii ¬
¤ ·n ri ni, n« n º| ¬i¬ ¤º- º·º ºªi ni||·||
|| ¬¬i ¬ -o ·|| - ¬¬-iºi ¬ri·ºi - ¬¬¬ ¬i ri ; ni
- ¬¬-iºi ¬ri· | ¬·l¬ ¬¬l¬ ·|· ¬lº l--i -¬¬¬-i·i -i¬ - ¬i· |
ri ; - ¬l¬- ·|· - riºi -ººi ¬|·ºi ¬i -º- ¤ ¬i· | º« ¬| º¬i; - ·
l¬º ¬¤lº ¬ºni - · ¬i¤ n·i· | n¬ ·i·¬ ¬º« ¬|¬i l-rº -ln ri ;
n - ¬¬-i· ¬ri· ||·||
|| ¬¬i ¬ -r¬i ·|| r ¬i¬|, - ¬¬-i· ¬r¬i·i ¬l-· r |
¤l· ¬i ; - ¬¬-i· ¬ n ºii ¬ ¤ ·n r n·i| - ¬¬-i· ¬ri ¬i ¬¬ni
r | ¬· ¤ ·i-, ¬il¬¤ ¬·ii n ¬·n¬·i ¬ ·i- ¬i -|-i ¬º¬ -i· |
n··nº l¬· ¬·n¬·i · -i· ·¸ º l¬¤i r , ¬·r ¬¤·i -i¬ ¬ -i· |
-~¬ir÷ª¤| ¬i ¬·n¬· r , ¬·¬ ·i- - l-·in ri n·ii ¬·-÷-ººi ¤i
¬|··÷- -¤ ¬ ·i - ¬i ·¸ º ¬º | l¬º ¬ +¤º º« ¬| º¬i -i· ¬·ii n
; º·º ·si ¬i ¬·i ¤lº -i·¬º ¤ ¬·· ºr n·ii ¬r -· ¬i n·i ¬º
¬ni ÷¤ ª·i ¬i -i· | ·i·¬ ¬rn r , ¬--n ¬|·i ¤º ¬ ¤i ¬º ¬i º ¤ ¬
n ºii ¬ ¬ ¤ ·n ri ni - ¬¬-i· ¬r¬i¤||·||
4368. Exhibit 78 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 30-40)
contains photocopy of the title page and pages no. 37, 38, 431,
432, 473, 474, 906 to 908 of "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Tisari
Sainchi)" translated by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal. Sri Hari Shankar
Jain placed before us the following part from page 37 to 38
|| ln¬ n -r¬i ·|| ¬ ¬| - ¬i· ªi¬- ¬| ·iºi| n ¬· i ¬º|
ln¬i· · ¬i¬i | ¤i¤ ¬| ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬i«¬r ·ii;¬i ¬i º| - n ·i· ·
¬i¬i | ¬º- ·iº- · ; sl¤ ªi¬i ¤ ¬¸ · l¤º ¤º·ii· · ¬i¬i | ¬i¬|¬i
«i-ºii ¬| n¬ ·i¬| ¬n· ¤· ¬ ni· · ¬i¬i | - ¬¬-i·|¬i ¤· lr
¬n «i ¬¬- -lr ¬ºlr ªi ·i; · ¬i¬i | ¬iln ¬·in| rilº
lr··iºi|¬i ¤lr ·i| ¬ ªi ¬i; · ¬i¬i | ªi¸ · ¬ ¬ilr¬ ni·|¬lr ·i·¬
ºn ¬i ¬ n¸ ¤i; · ¬i¬i || ·|| ¬ilr« ¬ n ºi ·i·¬ ni· -i¬ ¤ º|
l·l¤ ¬iªi -¬|¬i| l¬l· ¬¤i; º ln º¤i; « -i · ªi ·lªi ;¬ ¬i ¬¤i
¬i ¬ilr« ¬¤ n¤i·¬ ¬¤·i l·¬i¬ ¬º n -¬i ¬i| ¬i;¬i ¬¤· - ¬
- ¬ ri ¬| lr·· -ni· ¬-i¬¬| «i ¬i| ¬i·l· ¬-nº ¬il· ¬ni·· ri ª
·i| ¬-¬| -º· ¬i ¤ ¬i| ¬¤ ¬| «iºi| ·i·¬ ¬iªi ¬¤ ¬ ºii;¬| ¬¤
¬| « ¬i||z||s|| r||
r ·ii; ¬i¬i ! - n ¤ ·i ÷¤ln ¬| ¬i º ¬ ¬ ¬i ¬i·ii¬ r ¬i r,
¬¬| ¬ ¬· ¬iº - n n ¬·nn ¬ºini r¸ | ¬i« ¬ ¬ «i«º ¬| ¤i ¬ -i·i
¤i¤÷¬-¤i¤iº ¬| «iºin r , l¬¬ ¤¬l¤n ¬º¬ ·r ¬i ¤« i r ¬i º
«¬¤¸ · ¬ lr·· -ni· ¬| «in·i º ª¤| ¬·¤i·i· ¬| -i n ¬º ºri r |
¬ ¤·¤ º ¬ ¬i¬ ¬iº ·i- l·¬ ·n ri n¤ r , n¸ - r| ¬· ¤ -r-·¤¸ ºi «·i
l¤ºni r | (¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬) ºi ni· l··ir ¬-«··i ¬ºi ºri r ¬i º
« ir -ºii n·ii ¬il¬¤i ¬| -¤i ·i ¬-i·n ri ¤ ¬| r , - ¬¬-i· ¬iºn ·i|
;¬ l·¤l-n - ¬ ¬i · ¤« ºr| r ¬iº ªi ·i ¬ ¤ i·i ·i ¬º ºr| r | + ¤|
¬iln n·ii ·|¤| ¬iln ·i¬| ¤· ¬·¤ ·¸ ¬º| ¬« l-¤¤i ¤º ¬-¤i¤iº ri
ºr r | ·i·¬ ¬i ¬·i· r l¬ ¬« ¬iº l·¬i¤ ¬i ¬ n|n ri ºri r ¬i º
¬r¸ ¬i ¬ ¬º ls· ¬i ¬i ºri r ||·|| (¬« ¬ s ¤ ·i ¬| º¬i ¬· ¬iº
ri ni r , ;¬l¬¤) ¬iºii ¬ ·iº ;¬ ºirº - « -¬º ·i| ·i·¬ ¬¬
-il¬¬÷¤ ·i ¬ n ºi r| nini r | (r ¬i¬i !) n¸ ·i| ¤ ·i ¬ ¬-¬ l·¤-
¬i ¬·¤lºn ¬º l¬ l¬¬ -il¬¬÷¤ ·i · ¬ l·- ¬-¤il·n ¬| r, ¬¬| ·
;¬ -i¤i÷-i r - ¤ · -n l¬¤i r ¬i º ·r ¬i¤ l·l¬ ·n ºr¬º ¬« ·
i-·i¬i ¬i · ªi ºri r | ·r -il¬¬÷¤ ·i ¬-¬ l·¤-i ·i¬i r , ¬¬¬i
·¤i¤ ¬-¬ r, ·r ·il··¤ - ·i| ¬-¬ l·¤- ¬i º ¬-¬ ·¤i¤ ¬i ·¤·riº
¬º ni| ¬« (¬ ¤·¤ º - ) -· ·¤ ¬i ºiº|º ª¤| ·-¤ - ¬· ÷- ¬· ri ºri
r | ¤r ¤¬ ¤ ¬| ·i¤i·¬ · ·i -·i r , l¬¬ lr·· -ni· ¬·i| ·r| ·i ¬i
¬¬ ni| ¬i¬ - n¬ ¬i n ¬-«n ¬-r-nº - ¬i¤ r , ¤ ¬-«n ¬-ni·« -
¤¬ ¬i¤ n , ¬i ; ·¸ ¬ºi ºi¸º·|º ;·¬ l·ª, ¬-i ªi· i ri ni| ·i·¬ ni
¬-¤-·ª¤ ¤ ·i ¬| n ºi-n ln ¬ºni r , ¬i¬|·· ¤r n ºi-n ln ¬ºni
ºr ni, ·¤i l¬ ¤r -· ·¤÷¬·- ¬| ¬·l·i n ºi-n ln ¬ l¬¤ r| l-¬|
r ||z||s||r||
4369. He contended that the above narration show the
atrocities of Babar when he invaded India. We, however, point
out him that it mentions the treatment of both Hindus and
Muslims of India in the hands of Babar in equally adverse
conditions, meaning thereby Babar killed the people without
caring as to whether he was Muslim or Hindu.
4370. Exhibit 79 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 41-58)
contains title page and pages no. 8 to 17, 226 to 229 and 400 to
401 of "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Dusari Sainchi)" translated by
Dr. Manmohan Sahgal. Sri Jain, learned Counsel, placed before
us the following Hindi translation from page 226 of the book:
(¬·¬i) ·i· ¬iº ¤i ··, l¬·¬i ¬· ¬ ··lº¤i ¬i «r n ¬l·i-i· ·ii,
¬i¬ ·i ·i r| ¬·¬ « º| «· r ¤ r | («i«º · ) ¬ ¸º l¬¤ilr¤i ¬i r ·- ·
l·¤i r , · ¬·¬| ¤ ln·-i n·i ¬º ¬·r ¬ ¬i ºr r | (¬|·i ¬ ¬ s ·ºi
·r|) ¤l· ¤º-i--i ¬i ¬¤¤ ·n ¬n ni ¬|·i ¬i ¬i·º÷¬--i· · ni
r , ¤l· ¬¬¬| º¬i ri · ni ¬¬i · ni r ||«|| ¤l· ¤r¬ r|
(¬¤· ÷¬¤· ¬n ·¤ ¬i) ¤i· ¬ºn ºr , ni ¤ ¬| ¬¬i ·¤i l-¬ ` (¤ri
¬ ) ril¬-i · ¤ ºi÷¬iºi- ¬ ¤i· - ¬¤·i ¬n ·¤ ·i ¬i l·¤i ·ii| (¬«,
¬«) «i«º ¬| ¬i·i¬ ¬i; r , ni ¬i ; ¤-i· ºir¬i·i ·i| ºi -| ·r| ªii
¬¬ni||r|| (¬il¬-i ¬ ¤ ¬ - ¬i¬º) - ¬¬-i·| l-¤¤i ¬ ·-i¬ ¬
··n ls· n¤ r , lr··¸ l-¤¤i ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬i ¬-¤ ¬i ºri r | (¬i ¤r¬
«·| r| ¬i ¤¤ilº¬ l·l·i ¬ ¬i·i ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn| ·i|, ¬«) · · -·i· ¬º¬
-|¬ ¬ni ¬¬n| r , · r| ¬·¬ ¤i ¬ ¤l·¤ ºr n¤ r | (l¬·ri ·
·i·÷¤i ·· ¬ ·ºi - ) ¬·i| ºi- ¬i --ººi ·r| l¬¤i ·ii, ¬« ¬·r ªi ·i,
ªi ·i ¬r·i ·i| ·r| l-¬ni||c|| («i«º ¬| ¬ · ¬ ) «¤¬º ¬i l·º¬
-· ·¤ ¬¤· ÷¬¤· ·iº ¬in r , · ¤º-¤º l-¬¬º ¬ ºi¬÷·i - ¤¸ sn r |
¬·¬| l¬--n - ¤r l·¤l-n ¤¸ · ÷l¬lªin ·i|, · ¤¬ ·¸ ¬º ¬ ¤i¬ « -·º
¬¤· ÷¬¤· · ªi ºi n r | (¤º) r ·i·¬! -i· ·¤ « ¤iº ·¤i ¬º· ¤i ·¤
r ` ·r| ¬ s ri ni r , ¬i ¬¬ ·i¬i ¬nni r ||/||
4371. Here also we find that the act of the Babar was
equally adverse to both Muslims and Hindus of the then
4372. To our mind instead of puzzling ourselves in so
much literature etc. in view of certain aspects which emerges
from whatever we have mentioned above may be summarised
which probably may give some idea as to how the questions are
to be answers. The antiquity of Ayodhya is not disputed. It is
also not disputed that Ayodhya is known as the principle place
of religion and mainly concerned with Vaishnavites, i.e., the
followers of Lord Rama. Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya and
ruled thereat. The religious texts like Valmiki Ramayan and
Ramcharitmanas of Goswami Tulsidas and others like
Skandpuran etc. mentions that Lord Rama was borne at
Ayodhya and it is his place of birth but do not identify any
particular place in Ayodhya which can be said to be his place of
birth. On the one hand we do not get any idea about the exact
place or site but simultaneously we can reasonably assume that
once it is not disputed that Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya
there must be a place which could be narrowed down at the site
of his place of birth. It is true that a search of a place of birth
after long time even today may not be very easy if one tried to
find out in this regard just three or four generations back.
Therefore, for making such kind of inquiry in a matter of such
an antiquity is almost impossible. But when a dispute in such a
manner is raised then we go by the well accepted principle in
law of evidence particularly as application in civil cases, i.e.,
preponderance of probability.
4373. The Evidence Act defined (proved) vide Section 3 as
"A fact is said to be proved when, after considering
the matters before it the Court either believes to to exist or
considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to
act upon the supposition with it existence."
4374. The only thing the Court should not to do is to base
its conclusion on mere conjectures and surmises. Here we have
not to consider the historicity of Ayodhya or Lord Rama but
only to find out whether the place in dispute according to the
belief, faith and traditions of Hindus is the site where Lord
Rama was borne. Even if we have to draw an inference whether
this is a place where Lord Rama is borne we need not to record
a finding like mathematical calculation but it has to be decided
on the preponderance of probability. As we have already said
that if Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya then there must be a
place which can be identified for such purpose. It is no where
suggested by plaintiffs (Suit-4) for the muslim parties that
except the property in dispute there was any other place in
Ayodhya which is believed by the Hindu people as place of birth
of Lord Rama. What they submit is that there was another
temple on the north site of the property in dispute which is
called Janamsthan temple and, therefore, that can be the place of
birth. But the antiquity of that temple goes back to only about
200-300 years, i.e., not beyond 18
or 19
century. The
possibility of that area gets ruled out for more than several
4375. The first document which is available to us is that of
William Finch Travellers Account who visited Ayodhya
sometimes between 1608-1611 and there he has referred to a
place known as fort of Ramchandra where he is borne. It does
not talk of any Janamsthan temple at this stage but talk of a fort
in a ruined condition. He also mentioned that the people use to
visit it for worship. Therefore, at that time also there was only
one place which the Hindus people known to be a place of birth
of Lord Rama or in any case a place which is related to Lord
Rama. It has referred as Fort obviously must have been quite
bigger when it is said that it was on a mount and was the highest
area in Ayodhya.
4376. The next document available to us was published in
1786, i.e., of Joseph Tieffenthaler who was an Australian
Christian Priest and came to India sometimes in 1740. He
visited Awadh area between the 1766-1771. He was a highly
educated Orientalist knowing several languages including
Sanskrit and Persian. It is he who has given some detail about
the place in dispute as also mentioned in detail the place in
dispute including the disputed building and also says very
clearly that the people believe that Lord Rama was borne here
where exist its house which was demolished and thereafter the
building was constructed. The size of the house whether he
called Hindu temple as a house is not known but for our
purposes it is sufficient that in the bigger area of the fort of Lord
Rama there was a part on which the disputed building was
constructed and in this disputed building the people at that time
also believe that it includes the place of birth of Lord Rama and
use to visit and worship despite knowing that a knew building
has been raised which is a mosque. The territory was reign by
muslim rulers and despite of taking risk the Hindu people if
were entering a mosque for worship believing it to be the place
of birth of Lord Rama, this faith, their determination and their
attitude must have some basis and cannot be taken lightly.
4377. Plaintiffs (Suit-4)'s one of the witness Suvira
Jaiswal, an expert, (Historian) claims to have made special study
on Lord Rama and has represented to have special knowledge in
this regard. With respect to her religious followings, she said:
- ¬il-n¬ l¬¤ ;¬ ª¤ - r¸ l¬ l·º·i¬ -i··ni - r | - l¬¬|
«irº| ºil·n ¤i ¤--¬iº - l·º·i¬ ¤i ¬i-·ii ·r| ºªin| r¸ | (¤ ¬÷s)
“I am theist only in a sense that I believe in humanity. I
have no belief or faith in any external power or miracle.”
- ºi ª ¬ ¬·ii n ¤ ·i;ºi ¬ r| ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| ¬¤· ¬i -i·n| ºr|
·i|| ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¬i¤ ¬-i¬| ¬i n ; º·º ¬i ¬i ; -¸ln ¤¸ ¬i ·r|
-i·n , ¤º ; º·º ¬i ¬l-n-· -i·n r | (¤ ¬÷s)
“ I have been considering myself to be an Arya Samaji
right since the beginning, that is, my birth. It is true that
Arya Samajists do no t have any faith in idolatry but
believe in the existence of God.” (E.T.C.)
- , ¤¸ ¬i÷¤i-, ·i¬· ¬il· ·r| ¬ºn| r¸ | (¤ ¬÷«)
“ I do not perform worship, incantation etc." (E.T.C.)
- -i·¬ ·i·| l·¤iº·iiºi ¬ ¤ ·iil·n ºr| r¸ .... -i·¬ ·i·| l·¤iº·iiºi ¬|
r¸ ;¬l¬¤ - ·i- - l·º·i¬ ·r| ¬ºn|| (¤ ¬ ·c·)
“I have been influenced by Marxism ... Since I am
follower of Marxist theory, I have no faith in religion."
4378. She did her Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. Ram
Sharan Sharma from Patna University. In respect to Lord Rama,
his historicity, period when his worship started according to her
research and information, she has said as under:
ºi- ¬i ¬·niº ¤ ni ¤ n - -i·i ¬ini r | ¬·ii n l··ºi ¬i ºi- ¬·niº
¤ ni ¤ n - -i·i ¬ini r | l··ºi ¬i ºi- ¬·niº, ¬·¬ ·¬ ¬·niºi ¬i
¬in·i ·-«º ¬i r | ºi- ¬i ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ·i¬i ¬i -·¤¬i¬ - ºi-i¤n
¬ ·i- ¬ ¬i·i n¤i r | ¬i º ¬¬¬| ºi-i···|¤ ·i| ¬rn r | -·i-|
ºi-i···, ºi-i¤n ¤i ºi-i···| ¬-¤ ·i¤ ¬ ¤ ·n ¬ -i· ¬in r |(¤ ¬ s)
“ Rama is taken to have incarnated in Treta Yuga, that is to
say, Vishnu is taken to have incarnated as Rama in Treta
Yuga. Incarnation of Vishnu as Rama is the seventh
incarnation out of the ten ones. Worshippers of Rama are
known as Ramayat in the Medieval Period and they are
also called Ramanandiya. Swami Ramanand is considered
to be the progenitor of Ramayat or Ramanandiya school."
·ºiº·i ¬in¬ - -¸ ¬ ¬·ii ¬i¤| ¤ i¤|· r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ «i~-|¬|
ºi-i¤ºi - ºi-¬·ii ¬i l¬¬ ·ºiº·i ¬in¬ - l-¬ni r - · ;¬ ¤« i
r | ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ºi- ·r| r ºi- r ¬i «i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi - l-¬n
l-¬n r ¬iº ·ºiº·i ¬in¬ ¬·ii¬i - | (¤ ¬ ··)
“The basic story in Dashratha Jataka is fairly old. It is true
that the story of Rama of Valmiki Ramayana finds mention
in Dashratha Jataka which I have read. Rama, son of
Dashratha, is the same Rama that finds mention in Valmiki
Ramayana and in the fables of Dashratha Jataka.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| ·r| r l¬ «i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi « ,¬i¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬| ·i|| ·ºiº·i
¬in¬ ·i| « ,¬i¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬i ·r| r ¤º·n ºi-¬·ii -i lªi¬ ª¤ ¬
¤r¬ ¬ ¤ ¤l¬n ·i| ¤ ¬i ¬· -i· r | (¤ ¬ ··)
"It is not true that the Valmiki Ramayana preceded the
Buddha Period. Dashratha Jataka, too, does not precede
the Buddha Period but the story of Rama, as I guess, was
verbally in vogue." (E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ·ºi · ¤ i¤|· n ··ii - ¬i¤i r | ¬¤i·¤i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
«i~-|l¬ ¬| ºi-i¤ºi ¤· ¤ ºiºi ¬iº -ri·iiºn ¬ ºi-i ¤iª¤i· ;-¤il· -
¬ini r | ¬ilr-¤¬ ¤ -n¬i - º·i · ºi ¬i º ¬-nº ºi-¤lºn - ¬¤i·¤i ¬i
¬~¬ ªi r | ¤ ¤ -n¬ n ·n ¬i¬ ¤i ¬¬¬ «i· ¬| r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬
·i¤ ¤ ºiºi ¤· l··ºi ¤ ºiºi n ·n¬i¬ ¬ ;lnri¬ ¬i ¬i·· ¬ l¬¤ ¬ s
¬i-n | ¬¤¬··i ¬ºin r | ¬i¬|·i¬ ¬| ¬i n ·n¬i¬ ¬i -i·i ¬ini r
¬iº - ·i| ;¬ l·¤iº ¬ ¬r-n r ¸ l¬ ·r n ·n¬i¬ - ·i |
(¤ ¬ ·/÷·s)
“The description of Ayodhya is found in ancient books.
Ayodhya also finds mention in Valmiki Ramayana, Purana
and in Ramopakhyan etc of Mahabharata. In literary books
like Raghuvansh and Uttar Ram Charit, there is mention of
Ayodhya. These books are either of Gupta period or
subsequent thereto. It is correct that Vayu Purana and
Vishnu Purana procure some material to know the history
of Gupta Period. Kalidas is considered to be in Gupta
Period and I agree with this view that he was in Gupta
Period.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ - ·s¬l-¬ - ¬¬ ¬-i· ¬| · ºi·i¸·ii ¬i ·ºi · l-¬ni
r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬¬- ·lºi n · ºi·i¸·ii «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - «ni¤ n¤
· ºi·i¸ ·ii ¬ - ¬ ªiin r | ºi¸ · ¬ ¬ - ·s¬l-¬ ¬ ¬; ºini··| ¤¸ ·
·i--¤i¤· ¬i ¬i-¬¸ ¤ l¬ªii n¤i r | ;¬- ·iiºn··i ¬| ·ii nil¬¬
l-·iln ¤· · ºi·i¸·ii ¬i ·ºi · r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
“It is true that in Mrichhakatik description of dress and
attire of that age is found. It is correct that the dress and
attire mentioned therein match with that mentioned in
Valmiki Ramayan. Kamsutra by Vatsyayan had been written
centuries ago Mrichhakatik was written by Shudrak. In it
there is mention of topography as well as dress and attire
of India." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬-¤ r l¬ - · ¬¤·| ¤ -n¬ - ¤r l¬ªii r l¬ ; ¬·| ¬· ¬|
¤ iºl-·i¬ ºinil··¤i - ºi- ¬i l··ºi ¬ ¬·niº ¬ ª¤ - -i·¤ni l-¬| |
¤ iºl-·i¬ ºini··| ¬ - ºi -n¬« ¤r¬| · ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| ¤o·|o¬ r |
(¤ ¬ rs)
“It is correct that in my book I have written that in early
centuries of A.D., Rama was recognized as incarnation of
Vishnu. By early century I mean first and second century
A.D.” (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i -|¬ r l¬ ºi- ¬i ¤r¬| ·¸¬º| ºini··| ¤o·|o - l··ºi¸
¬ ¬·niº ¬| -i·¤ni l-¬| ¤º ;¬¬ ¤r¬ ºi- ¬·ii ¬ ·i¤¬
¬ ª¤ - ºi- -i¬¸· ·i | (¤¬ rs)
“It is correct to say that in I and II A.D. Rama was
recognized as incarnation of Vishnu but prior to that
existence of Rama was there as a hero of Rama's
Story." (E.T.C.)
«i , ·i- ¬ ¤r¬ ºi-, ¬·ii ¬ ª¤ - -i ¬¸ · ·i | (¤ ¬ 60)
"Prior to Budha religion, Rama was existent in the form of
a story" (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ;¬ ¬·ii ¬ ¬· ¬iº -ri--i « , · ¬¤· ¬i
ºi- ¬i ¬·niº -i·i ·ii|
·ºiº·i ¬in¬ ¬i - · ;lnri¬ ¬ ¬i n ¬ ª¤ - ¤ -ilºi¬ -i·i
r | ºi- ¬| ¬·ii¬i ¬i ·i| - · ;lnril¬¬ ¬i n ¬ ª¤ - ¤ -ilºi¬ -i·i
r | ·ºiº·i ¬in¬ ¤· ºi- ¬·ii¤ - º| ¤ i;-º| ¬i ¬ r | (¤ ¬ co÷c·)
“It is correct that as per this story, Lord Buddha
declared himself incarnation of Rama.
I considered Dasrath Jatak authentic as a source of
history. I recognized the Rama's stories also to be
authentic as a source of history. Dasrath Jatak and Rama's
stories are my primary sources." (E.T.C.)
ri ¬| ¬ i; -- ¬i ; º·º ¬i ¤ ¤ ¬ri n¤i r | ¤ i¤ - -i r--· ¬i ; º·º
¬i ¤ n-«º ¬ri n¤i r | ºi- ¬i ; º·º ¬i ¬·niº ¬ri n¤i r | - ;·
n|·i ¬i ¬r| ·r| -i·n| r¸ | (¤ ¬ cs)
“Holy Christ has been regarded as the Son of GOD.
Prophet has been regarded as prophet of GOD. Ram has
been said to be incarnation of GOD. I do not believe all the
three to be true" (E.T.C.)
- ¤r -i·n| r¸ l¬ ¬| ºi- ¬i ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| - ·iºi¤ºi ¬i ¬·niº
-i·i ¬ini ·ii| (¤ ¬ //)
“I accept that in second century, Sri Ram was regarded as
incarnation of Narayan." (E.T.C.)
- º ¬· ¬iº ºi- ¬·ii ¬i ¬iº··i ¤i ·i| ºini··| ; ¬i ¤¸ · ¬ r ¬i ·ii|
(¤ ¬ //)
“In my view, initiation of Rama's story was from 4
B.C." (E.T.C.)
¬i¬ n¬ ¤ ºinil-·¬ ªii ¬ ¬ ,iºi l¬¬| l··ºi rº| ¬i - l·º ·r|
l-¬i| ¤º ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ - l··ºi rlº ¬ -l·º ¬i ·ºi · r | ¬¤i ·¤i
-ri-- -¬·· ¤ ºiºi ¬i ¤¬ ¬ ºi r | (¤ ¬ /s÷/s)
“Till date, by any archaeological survey, no any temple of
Hari Vishnu could be discovered but in Ayodhya
Mahatmya, there is description of the temple of Vishnu
Hari. Ayodhya Mahatmya is a part of Skand Puran."
n·ii¬l·in ¬ - ºi ¬l·i¤ i¤ ¤r r l¬ lºi¬i¬ ªi ni r ¤º ·r ·ri l··ºi
rlº - l·º ¬ ¤i¤i n¤i ¤i ·r| ¤r ¬ · ri-¤· r | - º ¬· ¬iº lºi¬i¬ ªi
¬¤i·¤i - ¤i¤i n¤i r ¤º l··ºi rlº - l·º - ¤i¤i n¤i ¤i ·r| ¤r
¬ · ri-¤· r | (¤ ¬ /s)
“By 'alleged', I mean that inscription does exist there but
that was discovered from Vishnu Hari Mandir or not, it is
doubtful. According to me, the inscription stone has been
found in Ayodhya, but whether it was found in Vishnu Hari
Mandir or not, it is doubtful." (E.T.C.)
- ºi- ¬i ¤¬ ·¤l·n -i·n| r¸ | (¤ ¬ s«)
"I consider Rama to be simply a person." (E.T.C.)
·ºiº·i ¬in¬ ¬i ¬·¤¤· ¬ºn ¬-¤ - · ¤r ¤i¤i l¬ ºi- ·ºiº·i ¬
¤ ¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ sr)
"While studying Dashrath Jatak, I found that Ram was the
son of Dashrath." (E.T.C.)
¤r ·i| ¬r| r l¬ ·n -i· ¬¤i·¤i ·r| ¤ ºi·| ¬¤i ·¤i r | ¤r - n
-i¬¸ - r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi- ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ ri n| ¤¬| ¬i
ºr| r | (¤ ¬ sc)
“It is also true that the present Ayodhya is the same
old Ayodhya. I know that worship of Rama in Ayodhya has
been continuing traditionally.” (E.T.C.)
- º| ªii ¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i·¤i - ¬; -·ii· ¤ ¬ r ¬i ¬| ºi- ¬ ¬·-
-·ii· ri · ¬i ·i·i ¬ºn r | - ¤r ·r| «ni ¬¬n| l¬ ¬· -·ii·i ¬i
¬ri ºi- ¬·- -·ii· ¬i ·i·i l¬¤i ¬ini r , ¬i ·÷¬i · ¬ r , ¤i
¬ri ÷¬ri r | (¤ ¬ sc)
“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." (E.T.C.)
- ºi- ¬i ¤¬ ¬·ii ¬i ¤i¤ -i·n| r¸ ;¬l¬¤ - ¬·¬i ;lnri¬ ¬|
¬ -|nº| - ·r| ºªi ¬¬n| r¸ | - ¬·¬i ¤¬ ;lnril¬¬ ·¤l·n -i·n|
r¸ | (¤ ¬ sc)
“I regard Rama as a character of a story, therefore, I
cannot put him in the category of history. I reckon him as a
historical person." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ·i| -|¬ r l¬ ¬ · ·i- ¬ ¬ i ni ¬ ¤r ¤ni ¬nni r l¬
¬i¬ n · ¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ r| r | ¤r - n -i¬¸ - r l¬ z« · n|·ii ¬º
-ri·|º ¬¤i·¤i n¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ sc)
"It is also true that it is found from the sources of Jain
religion that Saket and Ayodhya are the same. I know that
Tirthankar Mahavir went to Ayodhya." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r·i ·i| ¬r| r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬; -·ii·i ¤º ¬iºi¬ ·º ºi
¬ ·i- ¬ ¬, n l¬¤i n¤i r | ¤r ¬r·i ¬r| r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ºi- ¬
¬·- ¬ ¬ «l·in -·i¬i ¬i ¬ º·i ¬ ·i- ¬ ·l·i n l¬¤i ¬ini r |
(¤ ¬ s/)
“It is also true to say that at many places, Lord Rama has
been referred as Koshal Naresh (King of Koshal). It is true
to say that the places related to birth of Rama in Ayodhya
are referred with the name of Kunds." (E.T.C.)
- ¬¤ºi ·n ºinil··¤i ¬ ¤¬| ¬i ºr| ¤º-¤ºi ¬i ;lnri¬ ¬
l·º¬ ·iºi ¬i l··i¤ -i·n| r¸ ¬iº ¬¬ ;lnri¬ ¬| ¬ ºi| - ºªin| r¸ |
- º l·¤iº ¬ ºi- ¬·ii ¬i ¤ i¤|·n- ¬~¬ ªi ·ºiº·i ¬in¬ -
r ¬i r | (¤ ¬ ss÷ss)
“I consider the traditions continuing from centuries
as the subject of analysis of history and place the same in
the category of history.
In my view, the ancient mention of Rama's story has
been made in Dashrath Jatak." (E.T.C.)
¤r ri ¬¬ni r l¬ ni · «ri ·i-¬ n ··i - l··ºi rlº -l·º ¬i ¬¤i ·¤i
- ri ·i ·lºi n l¬¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·oz)
“It may be that in the book Gaurbaho, there is mention of
temple of Vishnu Hari Mandir being situated in Ayodhya."
-¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¬ ··ºi· ªiº· ¬ ¬ilªiº - ¬¤i·¤i -ri-- - ºi-¬·-
-·ii· ¬i ·ºi · ¬i¤i r ;¬l¬¤ ¤ ¬i ¬nni r l¬ ¤r ¤ l·s·n ¬ºi
r | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ··ºi· ªiº· -¬··i ¤ ºiºi ¬ -·¤ - r | (¤ ¬ ·oc)
“At the end of Vaishnav Part of Skand Puran, description
of birthplace of Rama in Ayodhya has come in Ayodhya
Mahatmya at the end, it so appears because it is maimed
portion. It is true that Vaishnav Part is in the middle of
Skand Puran." (E.T.C.)
«i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·- lnl·i ¬·¬| ¬·- ·i¸ l- ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r | ;¬ «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ;¬ «in ¬i l¬¬ r l¬
;·s·i¬ · ºi - ºi¬i ¬ ·iº - ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ¬i º ¬·¬i
«i~¤¬i¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - «|ni| «il-¬ «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¬i ¬i¬ ; ¬i ¤¸ ·
n|¬º| ºini··| ¬ ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| -i·i ¬ini r «i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi - ¤¬
¬¤i·¤i ¬iº· ·i| r ;¬- ¬l~¬lªin ¬¤i ·¤i ¬iº· ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| ; ¬i
¤¸ · -i·i ¬ini r | ...¤º ;¬- ºi- ¬ ¬·- · ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ¬~¬ ªi
¬·º¤ r | (¤ ¬ ·oc÷·o/)
“It is correct that in Valimiki Ramayan there is
reference of date and place of birth of Rama. In this
Valmiki Ramayan, there is reference of the fact that in
Ikshwaku Dynasty Rama was born in the royal family and
his childhood passed in Ayodhya. Period of Balimiki
Ramayan is regarded as 300 BC-200 BC. There is a
Ayodhya Kand too in Valimiki Ramayan. The Ayodhya
Kand in it, is regarded pertaining to second century
B.C. ... But in it, the reference about Rama's birth and
birthplace does find place." (E.T.C.)
·ºl¬ r ¤ ºiºi - ¬¤i ·¤i ¤· l··ºi - l·º ¬i ·ºi · r | (¤ ¬ ·os)
“In Narsingh Puran, there is description of Ayodhya and
Vishnu Mandir." (E.T.C.)
l··ºi ¤ ºiºi, l··ºi ·i-i -nº ¤ ºiºi ¬i - n ni· r | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ;¬-
·i| ¬¤i ·¤i - l··ºi ¬ -l·º ¬i ·ºi · l·¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·os)
“I have knowledge of Vishnu Puran, Vishnu Dharmmotar
Puran. It is true that in this also, description is given about
temple of Vishnu in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)
- -· -- ln ¬i ¤r¬| ¤i ·¸ ¬º| ºini··| ¬| º¤·i -i·n| r¸ | - ;¬¬i
;lnri¬ ¬i ¤¬ ¤ -ilºi¬ ¬ i n -i·n| r¸ | ¤r ¬r| r l¬ ¤ ºiºi
-ri·iiºn, ºi-i¤ºi ;lnri¬ ¬ ¤ i-ilºin ¬ i n r | ºi-i¤ºi ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤
«i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi ¬ r |
· ·i ¬i - ;lnri¬ ¬ l¬¤ ¤ -ilºi¬ -i·n| r¸ | ¤r ·i| ;lnri¬
¬ ¤¬ ¬ i n r | · ·i ¬| º¤·i ¬i¬ ·roo ; o¤¸ · ¬ ¬ ¬º soo ; o¤¸ o
-i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ ··«÷··r)
“I consider the Manusmriti as the creation of first or
second century. I reckon it as an authentic source of
history. It is correct that Puran, Mahabharat and Ramayan
are the authentic sources of history. By Ramayan, I mean
the Balimiki Ramayan.
I regard Vedas authentic for history. These are also a
source of history. Period of creation of Vedas are deemed
from 1500 BC-800 BC." (E.T.C.)
l¬¬| l·ºi·i -·ii· ¬i l·l- n ¬º¬ ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ¬| ¤ ·ii ¤i ¤·| s-|
ºini··| ; .¤¸ . - ºr| ri n| ¤º·n ¤ ¬i l·lº¤n ¤ -iºi ·r| l-¬ni r
¤º·n ¤r ·i| ¬ ·i· ri l¬ r· ·¤i ¬·¤ni - ºr| ri | (¤ ¬ ·sz)
“Custom of worshipping a particular place after creation
thereof, might have been in 5
century B.C. but no
specific evidence thereof is found, but it might be possible
that it would have been prevailing in Hadappan
Civilisation." (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬|ºi- ¬i ·in·i· ¬ ¬·niº ¬ ª¤ - ¤¸ ¬· ¬i ¤ -iºi
l-¬ni r | ¬|ºi- ¬i ¬| l··ºi ¬i ¬·niº zoo ¤o·|o ¬ -i·i ¬i·
¬ni ·ii| ¬| ºi- ¬i ¬·niº ª¤ - ¤¸ ¬i ¬º· ¬i ¤ ·i- ¤ -iºi n ·n ¤ n
- l-¬ni r | (¤ ¬ ·«s)
“This is correct that evidence pertaining to worship of
Rama as incarnation of Vishnu is found. Sri Rama was
used to be regarded as incarnation of Vishnu since 200 AD.
The first evidence in respect of Sri Rama being worshipped
as incarnation, is found in Gupta Period." (E.T.C.)
¤r -|¬ r n ·n ¬i¬ - ¬i· n¬ ·in·i· ºi- l··ºi ¬ ¬·niº ¬ ª¤
- ¤¸ ¬ ¬i· ¬n ·i | (¤ ¬ ·««)
“It is true that by the commencement of Gupta Period,
Bhagwan Ram was being worshipped as incarnation of
Vishnu." (E.T.C.)
¤r «in ¬r| r l¬ ¬º¬| ¬ ·¤ º| ¬i¤ l¬ º¤· ¤ ºi - ¬| ºi- l··ºi ¬
¬·niº ¬ ª¤ - ¤ lnl·-n ri ¤ ¬ ·i | (¤ ¬ ·««)
“This fact is correct that in early century of Christian Era,
Sri Rama was established as incarnation of Vishnu."
¤r «in ¬ ºin ¬r| r l¬ lr··¸ ·i- - ni· ¬·ii n l·· ¬ ¬i -r-·
l·¤i n¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
“It is partly true that in Hindu religion, knowledge or
discretion has been given importance.” (E.T.C.)
¤r «in ¬r| r l¬ lr··¸ ·i- r| ¤¬ ¤ ¬i ·i- r ¬i ·i-i ¤ººi - l·· ¬
¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬º· ¬| s¸ - · ni r | (¤ ¬ ·rs)
“It is true that Hindu religion is such a religion which
provides for liberty to exercise discretion in its execution."
¬i¤i ¬ · · l·l·i·· ·i | ¤r -|¬ r l¬ ¬· l·l·i·· ¬i¤i ¬ · ·ni¬i
- ¬ ¬·i ºi ºi- ¤ººi ºi-, ¬ ·ºi ¤· ¬| ºi-÷ ¬l--l¬n r | ¤r ¬r| r
l¬ ;·¬i ¤¸ ¬i ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ «r n l··i ¬ ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | ¬iº
¬i¬ n¬ ;·¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬«i·i ª¤ ¬ ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | (¤ ¬ ·cs)
“Aryans' Gods were different. It is correct that amongst
those Gods of Aryans, Samkarshan Ram, Parashu Ram,
Krishna and Sri Ram are included. It is correct that their
worship has been continuing traditionally since long. Till
today their worship has unceasingly been continuing."
4379. Apparently, there are some contradictions, but
broadly she has not been confident in denying the historicity of
Lord Rama and also admits that his worship started much
before the Christian era. It is not said that the worship of Lord
Rama at Ayodhya or the custom of Darshan of birthplace of
Lord Rama started after the construction of the disputed
structure or after 1528 as suggested and argued by learned
counsels for Muslim parties. In the excavation by ASI, artefacts
of religious nature of Gupta period and even earlier thereto have
been found.
4380. Having considered the entire evidence as also the
recorded material including Hindu religious texts, historical
books, gazetteers etc. one thing is clear that Ayodhya though is
held to be a place of much antiquity but its real fame, piety and
sacredness relates with the name of Lord Rama and none else.
He is considered to be a manifestation (Avtar) of Lords of Lord
Vishnu according to the Hindu faith, customs and belief. Is the
concept of Avtar is something a fairy tale or is a kind if deep
spiritual theory and practice, needs to be pondered over.
4381. It is no doubt true that the sentiments, emotions,
faith, belief, confidence etc., whatever term we use, but millions
of people of this country believe that Lords of Lord manifested
in living form in the materialistic world i.e. earth, time and
again. In this vast country, those different forms in different
ways and means, but substantially with the tradition, common
factor of belief, are worshipped. Commonly they are known as
'Avtaar', which means a form of God when He descended into
this materialistic world. Many a places, they are referred to as
incarnations of God. There is some dispute even about the fine
distinction between 'Avtaar' and 'incarnation'. One said that
incarnation is not correct, for it means when someone or
something reincarnates or takes another materialistic body of
flesh and blood. Quite often it is in this context and with this
understanding that people at large use the word incarnation. It is
said by the learned Dharmacharyas that God does not take a
material form. His form is always spiritual, transcendental to the
norms and laws of material nature. He descended from the
spiritual data as He is or in a form to do a specific
activity/mission or carry out a particular purpose. The Supreme
Being has many names considering his form and activities that
he displays in his cosmic creation. In this country we have
different religions and among them also a multi-fold system of
faith, sects etc., but all have a common object of attaining
salvation with the Almighty i.e. Lord of Lords or whatever name
one may call, it as. All the major religions are having some sects
which are the result of some differences in the system of
worship but the common objective of all is indisputably same.
The major religions in this country are Hindu, Muslims and
Christians. Some say that Hindu by itself is not a form of
religion but a way of life, living etc. On this aspect we have also
said something above but at this stage we may clarify that the
term Hindu may intend to use as it is known in common
parlance in contra distinction to the terms used for other
religions i.e. Muslims and Christians. Hindu religion is the
oldest one. Whether it is 3000 year old or 5000 year old or more
than a few lacs year old may not be of much consequence for us.
Today, Christianity is more than 2000 and Islam 143 years old.
We should not be understood saying that before Islam as
propounded by Prophet Muhammad or Christianity as per the
teaching of the Jesus Christ, there was no religion whatsoever,
but this is what normally or commonly understand. The
religious scriptures and literatures of the religions therefore,
though in abundance conform to the point of view, requirement
and necessities of the corresponding period. Because of its own
certain antiquity amongst Hindu scriptures, we find sometimes,
mention of such things which become difficult to digest on our
conceivable notion and logic and the limitation of our
understanding which we have in the light of the information
available to us currently.
4382. May be on account of non availability of the reliable
feed back some of the aspects of Hindu scriptures are termed by
others as Myth, legend, epic etc., doubting its historicity,
ignoring the fact that the common people are so deep embedded
in blood that it is beyond imagination for them to even think of a
situation where those faith and belief can be termed as a mere
fiction and not a matter of historicity. For example, the two of
the world's biggest works known as 'Ramayana' and
'Mahabharatha' of Hindu scriptures, other people started to call
it 'Epic' and that we have followed since the days of British
India and now also. Initially the European writers in their own
understanding find it unthinkable even the existence of such an
antique society and culture and that too so perfect and so well
defined, sophisticated, but complicated in different facets. With
the passage of time the thoughts and approach have undergone a
sea of change and now we find quite a sectionable intelligentsia
who is changing its views and that is not merely on some kind
of altered hypothesis etc., but due to the cemented, reliable
information, they have collected in the mean time. In brief, it
can be said that merely because I am not able to trace my history
of succession it will not mean that I do not have a chain of
succession. One's inability in finding something cannot result in
a conclusion that actually nothing existed. There has to be much
more. The mathematical, astronomical calculation of the learned
people in ancient India have been found to be reasonably correct
though they are presumed to lack so called advanced technology
for arriving at such conclusions. It is easy to discard something
at the threshold but difficult to find reason and logic behind its
existence. Difficulty cannot be a reason to opt for an easier
method instead of the cumbersome one. If Indian culture and
society could have survived for such a long time even though
other ancient cultures, whether Egyptian, Greek or Roman have
lost behind the time, then one has to find out the reason for its
sustenance. It cannot be brushed aside loosely. This is a kind of
approach, thoughts, faith and belief of one part of the litigants
before us and their contemporary opponent wants in existence of
positive material irrespective of the time and antiquity matter
relates to. The reason being that the issue has been brought in a
Court of law which is presently governed by the system we have
inherited from a totally different culture i.e. British legacy
where they have told us to decide the dispute only on getting
evidence and not otherwise. The issues relating to faith and
belief and that too, which had continued from generations to
generations, from hundreds and thousands years neither depend
on the so called existence of evidence nor one can shake such
custom which they have received by tradition for want of
evidence. It is not totally a different concept and notion,
independent in its own ways. In the erstwhile territory of India,
before entry of the far east people or from other parts of world it
appears that natives had their own traditions, system, faith and
belief, and the society had different kinds of religious concept.
The subsequent scholars tried to bifurcate this religious system
of ancient India into that of Aryan and Dravidian but what we
find is that barring a few differences in the matter of system of
worship etc., the core belief and faith remained same. The entire
society remained connected with a common thread of religious
faith. This difference, more or less, was political. It is in this
system, where we find the people in ancient India believed in
the Avtaars of God which found mention in Vedic texts. All
these Avtaars in one or the other way we find had a specific
objective and ultimately helped to save the world, human being
and other creatures and also to guide the living being in lives,
some are to attract the people back to the spiritual domain.
4383. On the one hand when modern day's science believe
in the system of universe controlled by various principle of
energy, then Indian Society was glued with a common platform
by the learned sages and others telling that the Supreme Lord
maintains all the planets and universe. It is He who assume roles
and incarnation to perform pastimes to reclaim those in the
mode of goodness. They were led to believe that throughout the
many millions of Universe in which the Supreme Being appears,
the objective is to apprise Society and bring it to senses, in
particular, one who are in the higher grades of consciousness,
receptive to understand their spiritual relation with him. He also
sends his pure representatives and instruction to guide people.
The object is common i.e. to bind the living beings back towards
the spiritual world. It is also said that source of various Avtaars
within this cosmic creation is the Lord of the Universe i.e.
Garbhodakashayi Vishnu (see Srimad Bhagwatam 1.3.5). The
form of the Lord, that descends to the material world to create,
is called Avtaar.
4384. We are not going into that various Avtars of Lord
Vishnu according to the Hindu tradition and in details thereof.
Since Ayodhya is known by the name of Lord Rama and,
therefore, one can presume that the religious structures must
have connection with Lord Rama in one or the other way. The
stone inscription found in 1992, as we have already discussed, at
least show this much that a temple of Vishnu Hari was
constructed by the erstwhile Gahadwal King in 11
or 12
century, i.e., much before the visit of Babar near Ayodhya. In no
other record, reference of Vishnu Hari Mandir at Ayodhya has
been pointed out, meaning thereby, before the history of
Hinduism started in writing in a proper way, that temple must
have disappeared for one or the other reason. At Ayodhya, the
people used to visit for Darshan of Lord Rama's places is also
evident from the record of Sikh religion showing that Guru
Nanak Dev Ji came to Ayodhya in 1510 or 1511, told his
companion that it is the birthplace of Lord Rama and then went
for Darshan. Even for a moment we are not drawing any
inference that the Sikhs religious texts anywhere identify the
place of birth of Lord Rama but this is sufficient to point out
that even before the entry of Babar in the then Hindustan,
Ayodhya was already a well established Hindu Tirtha for the
followers and believers of Lord Rama. The custom of worship
of Lord Rama has already begun long back.
4385. Then we find the record of William Finch, who
mentioned about a fort, which is said to be Rama's fort in ruined
condition, but the people were visiting at a particular place and
worshipping thereat. The nature of worship and that specific
place Finch could not point out, may be he might not have been
allowed to go there being a non Hindu person or whatever other
reason, at least this much is evident that in an area which was
covered and known as fort of Lord Rama, there was a place
which used to be visited by the people for worship believing it
the place of birth of Lord Rama.
4386. Then comes, the next record of Joseph Tieffenthaler.
By the time he visited Ayodhya, the building in dispute had
come into existence. Tieffenthaler very categorically said that
locally he was told that the building in dispute was constructed
by demolishing a Temple, which existed at a place believed to
be the birthplace of Lord Rama. Here by custom, tradition and
practice, we narrowed down to the area whereat the place of
birth of Lord Rama was believed to be or existed to be
discovered by the people several hundred years ago and they
used to visit and worship it. It may be a discovery by faith and
belief or discovery by chance or a kind of discovery which we
may term as symbolic discovery, but this faith and custom we
trace back to almost five hundred years from today, which had
continued as such atleast since then.
4387. No one is supposed to point out place of birth of
Lord Rama like finding out a correct residential address in the
present time but one has to adjudge the matter in the given set of
facts and circumstances in a reasonable and plausible manner,
which is not almost impossible.
4388. If history as written about construction of the
disputed structure by Mir Baki in 1528 AD can depend solely on
two inscriptions, which nobody knew whether installed by Mir
Baki himself or came into being as a result of any subsequent
manipulation, we fail to understand why something written
almost two and half century ago by a person who was well
conversant in the local languages at that time, whose motive in
writing those facts is not doubted, ought not to be believed.
Further it may be considered in the light that some facts were
written by different people after about 40 or 50 years from the
visit of Tieffenthaler having no knowledge of his work. They
also repeated except of the distinction that this time they refer to
an inscription also relying whereon the local belief was
discarded by them, i.e., Martin's Eastern India (supra).
4389. Had there been no reason, we fail to understand why
Hindus would have continued to persuade their faith at the site
in dispute particularly when there was muslim rule and they
could have least expected in support therefrom.
4390. In the middle of 19
century, i.e., as we have already
observed, between the 1853 to 1855 there appears to be a major
confrontation between Hindu and Muslims at Ayodhya resulting
in hundreds of deaths. Some says that 75 muslims were slained
while others say that the actual figure was about 200 Hindus and
75 Muslims. Be that as it may, that is not very relevant for the
point in issue. We are concerned as to what impel the two
communities to fought so frightfully that resulted in such a large
number of casualties, if the disputed place was an ordinary place
of worship of muslims having no other history or antiquity
attached with it. The conduct, the attitude, the insistence on the
part of Hindus, continuously, atleast as is evident from the
record, i.e., from the time of Tieffenthaler and onwards, show
that it was for something really serious on account whereof
Hindus were not able to give up their claim. Probably for this
reason, despite all odds, they continued to pursue their claim at
the place in dispute.
4391. Sri Zilani sought to argue that had there been such a
mass casualty, at Ayodhya it would have been noticed by R.C.
Majumdar, a well known, historian in his work. Exhibit D3,
Register 38, Suit-5, page 295 is a photocopy of the extract of
the book "The History and Culture of the Indian People-
British Paramountcy and Indian Revaissance" Part II (Vol.
10) edited by R.C. Majumdar, published by Bhartiya Vidya
Bhawan, Bomday. It contains its frontispiece, pages VII, 325,
326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334. The above
document has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) to
show what has been written by the learned historians on Hindu
Muslim relations during British Rule and that they have referred
to certain communal riots but it did not include alleged right of
Ayodhya in 1855. Hence it is contended that no such riot
actually took place.
4392. It is no doubt true that in the said chapter there is no
reference of the riots of Ayodhya in 1853 or 1855 but having
gone through it carefully, we do not find any claim of the author
that the details contain therein are exhaustive. The chapter
mainly deals with the British policy of divide and rule and how
the members of two communities behaved at that time but
nothing more than that. Some part thereof may be reproduced
"The contribution of the British rule to the cleavage
between the Hindus and Muslims should be considered in
its proper perspective. It must be frankly admitted that the
roots of the cleavage lay deep in the soil, and it was
already manifest even early in the nineteenth century. The
British did not create it, but merely exploited the patent fact
to serve their own interests. Reference has been made
above to the growing difference between the elites of the
two communities, even before a fillip was given to it either
by the Aligarh Movement or the definite policy of Divide
and Rule adopted by the British Government. The relations
among the masses, though normally cordial, occasionally
took a very ugly turn in the shape of communal riots,
showing that the volcanic mountains, calm on the surface,
had not altogether lost their eruptive tendency and power.
Early in the nineteenth century there was such a violent
outbreak in Varanasi (Banaras). In October, 1809, the
Hindu mob of the city stormed the great mosque of
Aurangzeb. Though well-authenticated details are lacking,
it is reported that about fifty mosques were destroyed, the
city was given up to pillage and slaughter, and a large
number of Muslims were put to death. In 1820 the Muslims
assaulted a Durga Puja procession in Calcutta.
Communal riots and tensions during the great
outbreak of 1857 have been noted above. Hindu-Muslim
riots with heavy casualties occurred at Bareilly and other
localities in U.P. During 1871-2. Two such riots took place
in Bombay.
An article in a magazine, edited by a Parsi youth,
gave an account of the Prophet of Arabia which lacked
"that sentiment of respect and tolerance which is due to a
sister community." The lithographed portrait of the
Prophet, which was given with the article, also gave
umbrage, and "an undiscovered villain added fuel to the
fire by posting a copy of the picture, with ribald and
obscene remarks underneath, on the main entrance of the
principal mosque." Large crowds of Muhammandans
assembled in the mosques of the town with the Qur'an in
one hand and a knife in the other. At a meeting held on
October 7, 1851, they proclaimed a Jihad (holy war)
against the Parsis. They overwhelmed the small police
force on duty and marched triumphantly to the Parsi
quarters of the Bombay town. The Parsis were "belaboured
mercilessly by the rioters". "For weeks together, that part
of Bombay was a scene of pillage and destruction, and the
Parsis had to put up with shocking atrocities such as
defilement of corpses". "Only after the editor had been
compelled to tender a written apology a truce was
declared". "In connection with this disturbance the Parsi
community looked in vain to the police for protection. If not
altogether hostile, they were indifferent. Dadabhai Naoroji,
who witnessed the tragedy, hastened the publication of the
'Rast Goftar' and wrote strong articles against the
Government for indifference and failure of duty. He also
rebuked the cowardly Parsi leaders for having tamely
submitted to such outrages."
Another riot took place in 1874 of which there is an
eye-witness' account by the great Indian leader
Pherozeshah Mehta. In a book written by a Parsi
vaccinator there was a reference to the Prophet which was
regarded as objectionable by the Muslims. The publication
was accordingly suppressed by the Government and the
author was made to apologize for any affront he might
have inadvertently offered. Nevertheless, there was "a
brutal and unwarranted attack on Parsis by a mob of
Mohamedans", on 13 February, 1874. They "invaded Parsi
places of worship, tore up the prayer-books, extinguished
the sacred fires and subjected the fire-temples to various
indignities. Parsis were attacked in the streets and in their
houses and free fights took place all over the city. Thanks
to the weakness and supineness of the police and the
Government, hooliganism had full play and considerable
loss of life and damage to property were caused". The riot
continued for several days till the military was called out.
Pherozeshah Mehta, like Dadabhai Naoroji, none of
whom one would accuse of having any special animosity
against the Muslims or the British Government, has laid
emphasis on the callousness of the police and the
indifference of the Government. "The attitude of the
Commissioner of Police was particularly hostile and
objectionable. The Governor told a Parsi deputation that
waited on him that the conduct of the community had been
injudicious and unconciliatory and advised it to make its
peace with the Muhammadans and to learn the lesson of
defending itself without dependence on the authorities."
Communal disturbances grew in volume and
frequency, particularly between the years 1835 and 1893.
Serious communal riots broke out at Lahore and Karnal
(1885), Delhi (1886) where military had to be
requisitioned, Hoshiarpur, Ludhiana, Ambala, Dera Ghazi
Khan (1889), and Palakod in the Salem District of Madras
(1891). The year 1893 was one of the worst and there were
grave outbreaks over a large area in Azamgarh District
(U.P.), Bombay town (lasted for 6 days) and interior, and
Isa Khel (Mianwalli District, Punjab). Muharram and
Dusserah processions, and cow-killing at Baqr'id were the
causes, and murders, demolition of mosques and temples,
and looting of shops, the chief characteristics of these riots.
Detailed accounts of a few riots are given in the Appendix.
It is not perhaps unreasonable to assume that this
increased tension between the masses of the two
communities was the direct consequence of the growing
cleavage between their leaders.
Thus towards the end of the period under review the
Hindus and Muslims represented almost two opposite
camps in politics, and the ground was prepared for this,
throughout the nineteenth century, by the frankly communal
outlook of the Muslims, both in their general political
evolution as well as in the Wahabi and Aligarh movements.
The Muslim political ideas were generally inspired by the
consideration of purely Muslim interests. But in forming a
proper estimate of the Muslim politics in the nineteenth
century it would be unfair to look at it only from the
standpoint of modern nationalist outlook, and several
important factors, which are generally overlooked, should
be taken into consideration.
In the first place, it should be remembered that
neither the Wahabi nor the Aligarh Movement represented
the Muslim community as a whole. Large elements stood
outside both, and even in the heyday of Aligrah Movement,
the masses were mostly indifferent, and a number of
distinguished Muslims co-operated in political matters with
the Hindus.
Secondly, if the Muslims were communal and lacking
in an all-India outlook, the Hindus were partly responsible
for this. The Hindu intelligentsia cherished a definitely
anti-Muslim bias from the very beginning of the nineteenth
century, as has been noted above, though some of them,
like Peary-chand Mitra, realized the need of a united front
and publicly expressed this view. It is not without
significance that the formation of a Muhammadan
Association in 1856 (or 1855) was welcomed by the British
Indian Association. The Hindus regarded it as quite
natural, and evidently looked upon the Muslims as a
separate political unit. Far more significant is the
justification offered by the authorities of the Hindu Mela
for forming a National Society. To the objection that a
Society with membership confined to Hindus could hardly
be called national, the National paper answered as follows
on December 4, 1872: "We don not understand why our
correspondent takes exception to the Hindus who certainly
form a nation by themselves, and as such a society
established by them can very properly be called a National
No wonder that soon after the foundation of the Hindu
Mela and National Society, the National Muhammadan
Association was founded in Calcutta. It would be obvious
from the above that while genuinely all-India national
outlook was not altogether absent, there was a general
feeling among large sections of both Hindus and
Muhammandans that they formed two separate political
units or nations.
Thirdly, it is to be considered very carefully why the
Hindus gradually outgrew this narrow separatist tendency
and imbibed a truly national spirit, while the Muslims
failed to do so during the period under review. The Hindus
had a start of at least half a century over the Muslims in
their political evolution, and this margin of time should be
normally allowed for similar development. But there were
special difficulties in the adoption of a national outlook by
the Muslims. They were in a hopeless minority as compared
with the Hindus, and in any democratic form of
government, they were sure to occupy only a position of
secondary importance. As noted above, this view was
publicly expressed at the time of the legislation for local
self-government. This apprehension of the Hindus
obtaining superior authority would naturally increase with
every advance of self-government on democratic lines. The
same fear worked upon the minds of the Muslims even in
comparatively minor matters like recruitment to higher
posts by open competitive examination, which was strongly
advocated by the Hindus. Nobody could deny that it was
the best mode of recruitment that could be conceive, but the
Muslims opposed it on the ground that these were sure to
be filled up mostly by the Hindus, not only because they
were more numerous, but also because they were more
advanced in education.
This feeling was brought to a head at the evidence
given before the Public Service Commission in 1886. In his
evidence Dadabhai Naoroji urged the necessity of holding
simultaneous examinations in England and India. This was,
however, strongly opposed by the Muslims "who feared that
an examination held in India would lead to a
preponderance of Hindus in the Civil Service to the
detriment of the interests of their own community."
With the greatest chagrin Dadabhai learnt, after he
returned to London, that his friend Dazi Shahabuddin had
also joined in the opposition. On July 15, 1887, he wrote to
Dazi in anguish:
"How your action has paralysed not only our own
efforts, but the hands of our English friends and how keenly
I feel this, more so because you have based your action on
selfish interests, that because the Muhammadans are
backward, therefore, you would not allow the Hindus and
all India to go forward......In the House of Commons I think
Mr. Bright has stoutly urged the necessity of an
examination in India to put us on an equality with English
candidates. To-day when he would and could have urged
the same thing with ten times the force, he feels himself
staggered, and owing to your opposition he feels puzzled
and cannot help us. What a blight you have thrown upon
our future and how you have retarded our progress for a
long time to come. This discussion will hurt us in a variety
of ways. I do not know whether I can hope that before the
Commission's work has ended, you will still undo the
mischief in some way."
But the sentiment against which Dadabhai thundered
was not confined to a few individuals; it was shared by the
Muslims in general all over India. The Central
Muhammadan Association, Madras, sent a memorial
requesting the Government that the recommendations of
the Public Service Commission for the abolition of the
Statutory Civil Service and for the introduction of a system
of competitive examination should not be accepted, for in
that case the Hindus would get the full advantage and the
"result would be disastrous to the Muslim Community."
There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Muslim
apprehensions were well-founded, that in all human
probability every advance in democracy in India would
increase the dominance of the Hindus, and an open
competitive examination would give preponderance to the
Hindus over Muslims in all higher posts under the
Government. There is, however, nothing to show that this
patent fact was recognized by the Hindus who were too
much imbued with nationalistic ideas to take a realistic
view of things.
Dadabhai, however, touched the crux of the whole
problem when he observed that the attitude of the Muslims
was "based on selfish interests, that because the
Muhammadans are backward, therefore, they would not
allow the Hindus and all India to go forward". In all
human probability there would never be a time, at least
within measurable distance, when the Muslims would be
equally advanced with the Hindus in point of education. If,
therefore, the Muslims persisted in their present attitude,
nobody could foresee a period, even in distant future, when
they would readily join the Hindus in political fight for
democracy or nationalism. The Hindu political leaders
hoped that a consideration of this dismal prospect would
induce the Muslims to give up communal for national
interest in the hope that ultimately even the communal
interest would be better served by following this course.
But it is easy to explain why the Muslims as a body could
not or would not follow this advice.
As always happens, a community, as a whole, is
guided by the considerations of immediate interest involved
rather than those of a remote ideal of which very few have
any clear conception. Particularly, as in this case, the idea
of an Indian nationality was generally lacking both among
Hindus and Muslims. The Muslims could not forget that
they were masters of the Hindus not long ago. To be subject
to the British was bad enough, but subjection to Hindu
domination would be far worse. This mentality may be
regarded as ignoble from the higher standpoint of Indian
nationality, but it is difficult to say that it is unnatural.
It would have been an act of great sacrifice on the
part of the Muslims to join the Hindus in their political
demands. But what were the inducements to such a
sacrifice? In social and religious matters a deep gulf
separated the two. Historical traditions and memories
created a wide barrier between them. The name of Shivaji
was an inspiration to the Hindus who held Aurangzeb in
open contempt. The reverse was the case with the Muslims.
The Rajput heroes like Rana Pratap were the idols of the
Hindus and enemies of the Muslims. The Third Battle of
Panipat was the occasion of national mourning for the
Hindus but of a great deliverance for the Muslims. Such
instances can be easily multiplied.
It may be argued with a great deal of plausibility,
that in spite of all this a fusion of Hindus and Muslims into
one nation was not an impossible ideal. Even if this be
admitted, it must not be forgotten that what was at best
merely a possible ideal should not have been mistaken for
an actual fact, either already accomplished, or nearing
completion. But the most eminent Hindu political leaders
committed this fatal mistake. They took for granted what
was at best a remote contingency, not to be achieved
without great difficulty. They never understood, nor even
cared to understand, the real feelings and impulses of the
Muslim community. They never appreciated the motives
which guided their policy and actions. The result was that
they could not realize the patent fact that the Hindus and
Muslims were, as yet, two different political units. In their
new-born zeal for democracy and nationalism the Hindus
forgot that large section of the people, for very good
reasons, refused to accept these ideals. They, therefore,
could not conceive any possible opposition to them from
any quarter, far less brook it when it occurred. In the
voluminous political literature of the period one looks in
vain for a just assessment of the Muslim point of view on
the part of the Hindus. The Hindu leaders made the great
mistake of taking Badrudding Tyabji and a few men of his
views as the only real representatives of the Muslims. They
failed to read the sign of the times and had no patience to
listen sympathetically to the grievances of the Muslims,
which might not excuse, but could at least satisfactorily
explain, their attitude towards the Hindus.
The indifference or apathy of the Muslim masses to
all political questions probably contributed largely to the
mistaken notion of the Hindus about the Muslim attitude.
Confronted by the opposition of educated Muslims, they
consoled themselves with the idea that the Muslim masses
were not with the latter, and the opposition was after all
confined to the educated few. In arguing thus they
committed the same mistake as the British rulers did when
they ignored the demands of Indian politicians because
they represented, in their eyes, a "microscopic minority".
But as a prominent Hindu pointed out in reply, "the
educated community represented the brain and conscience
of the country, and were the legitimate spokesmen of the
illiterate masses, the natural custodians of their interests'.
The Hindus, however, forgot that what they urged on
behalf of the country at large applied equally well to a
distinct and strong minority community. They should have
foreseen that ultimately the Muslim masses were bound to
fall in line with the views of their leaders."
4393. He also referred to the work of Rahul Sankritayan.
Exhibit D22, Register 38, Suit-5, pages 325-349, a photocopy
of the extract from the book "Meri Jiwan Yatra-1" by Rahul
Sankrityayan (First Paperback Edition:1996) published by
Radhakrishna Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi containing
preface as also pages no. 163-170. It shows that in the earlier
century Rahul Sankrityayan had visited Ayodhya. It is
contended that the learned author has not said anything about
the disputed site which shows that it was not treated to be a
place of importance by Hindu people at that time also. Having
carefully gone through the above document, we do not find that
it intended to give details of various places at Ayodhya. The
purpose and objective was totally different, hence reliance is
totally misconceived.
4394. One of the most crucial document which
corroborates records is the letter dated 30
November, 1858
[Exhibit 20 (Suit-1) (Register 5 Page 65)] of Mohd. Asgar, who
said that in the inner courtyard, Hindus had been worshipping
for several hundred years. We find no reason even to ignore this
document. The statements of several witnesses, we have already
referred above, also fortify this fact.
4395. The place of birth of Lord Rama is not to be
searched elsewhere in Ayodhya but it has to be in the disputed
site or near about is evident from pleadings of the Muslim
parties, which shows that they also do not dispute the existence
of place of birth of Lord Rama along with the temple, though
an attempt is made that such temple is not the disputed one but
one existing on the north side at about 200 meters. In para 27
(Suit-1), the defendants 1 to 5 have said:
¬¤i ·¤i - ¤¬ -l··º -i ¬¸ -i «-l··º ¬·--·ii· ¬| ºi -¤· · ¬|
¬·- ·i ¸ l - ¤º - · ·n -·|· ¬ ¬i¤- · -i ¬¸ · r |
"A temple at the birthplace of Lord Rama (known as
'Mandir Janamsthan) has had been in existence from
ancient times " (E.T.C.)
The defendants no. 1 and 2 are co-plaintiffs in Suit-4 also.
4396. In Suit-3 also, the defendants no. 6, 7 and 8 have
made several pleadings in Para 28 of their written statement:
¬¤i ·¤i - ¤¬ -l··º -i ¬¸ -i «-l··º ¬·--·ii· ¬| ºi -¤· · ¬|
¬·- ·i ¸ l - ¤º - · ·n -·|· ¬ ¬i¤- · -i ¬¸ · r |
"A temple at the birthplace of Lord Rama (known as
'Mandir Janamsthan) has had been in existence from
ancient times " (E.T.C.)
Here also the defendant no. 7, Mohd. Faiq is a co-plaintiff
in Suit-4.
4397. The existence of birthplace as well as the temple
thereon, therefore, was pleaded as long back as in 1950, i.e., at
the first opportune. Thereafter, in the subsequent pleadings etc.
this has been tried to explain. What is suggested is the temple
which is referred to is the one on the northern side of the
disputed structure across the road. We are not concerned with
the existence of that temple but what we intend to point out that
the existence of birthplace in this very area is an admission by
the plaintiffs. The persons, jointly interested in a suit, are bound
by the admission made by any one of them. The Janamstham
temple along with the place in dispute has also been noticed by
Tieffenthaler and he has called it as "Sita Rasoi', but the fact is
where he has referred to an earlier temple, which was
demolished so as to construct disputed building, he has not
referred to that temple (Sita Rasoi), but the present site which
are in dispute. It could not be explained by the learned counsels
for the plaintiffs (Suit-4) as to how there exist a 'Vedi' in the
premises of the disputed structure known as a mosque and that
'Vedi' in the place in dispute continued to be worshipped by
Hindus by lying prostrate on the ground and going for three
4398. It is not improbable that the people at that time took
all possible efforts to continue with the worship of the place
which they believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and for
that purpose, whatever attempt they could make, the same were
taken. We can easily understand the difficulty since they were
under Muslim rule and the system, culture, traditions during
such time were totally different.
4399. When the things became a bit easier, the Hindus
succeeded in staking their claim partially inasmuch the British
Government allowed the partition of the building in dispute with
the instructions that the Hindus shall worship in the outer
courtyard. Whether this was a resolution of a dispute between
the two communities or not is a different aspect, but at least it
had recognized the right and belief of Hindus about the place of
birth of Lord Rama at the site in dispute.
4400. As we have further discussed, the Hindus did not
desist from entering inner courtyard and continued not only to
enter therein but to worship the place as well as the images on
the black kasauti pillars. What was the structure of the erstwhile
temple before the construction of the disputed structure is not
known but it appears that due to affixation of black kasauti
pillars mainly at the entry point of central dome after the
construction of the new structure, the Hindu people continued to
worship thereat believing the same as the central point of the
birthplace of Lord Rama. Since, we do not find any detail as to
how it was being worshipped earlier, but from the subsequent
conduct, practice and traditions, in the absence of anything
contrary, one can reasonably believe that the in the past also it
must be the same.
4401. From the subsequent Gazetteers and other records,
we find that while referring to Rama's fort at the mount, the
disputed structure was mentioned as a part of such land. The
entire fort if as per the belief of people was that of Lord Rama,
obviously it was the most sacred and pious place and therein
also by traditions and practice, if the Hindu people worshipped a
particular place believing it to be the place of birth of Lord
Rama, in the absence of any location elsewhere, or existence of
another place of birth at Ayodhya, we find no reason not to
accept and uphold the said belief.
4402. Suvira Jaiswal (PW 18), during cross examination,
though tried to mislead by observing that according to her
research, she found several places claiming birth place of Lord
Rama at Ayodhya, but when asked as to which are those places,
she could not reply and said that she don't know.
4403. Sri Jilani contended that the Gazetteers and other
record of Europeans, wherever they have said that an existing
temple was demolished to construct the mosque in question, did
not refer any basis for such observation and, therefore, he
submits that the same is unreliable. In normal course, his
submission may not have been brushed aside easily, but in a
case like this, where we are concerned with respect to a dispute
going deep in history, the situation is slightly different. We can
look into the matter from this another angle also as to why all of
them have mentioned only this fact if it had no basis at all. Had
the facts been otherwise, when they discard the local belief of
the people that demolition was made by Aurangzeb and sought
to support the stand that the demolition was by Babar, based on
an inscription fixed thereat, if there would have been anything
otherwise, in the same manner, they could have disbelieved
Hindus' version about demolition of a temple.
4404. It is true that several confrontations amongst Hindus
and Muslims in respect to the property in dispute are not on
record of the history books, but there are some indications.
4405. In H.R. Nevill's Barabanki Gazetteer at pages 168-
169 (Exhibit 52, Suit 5), it says, “The cause of the occurrence
was one of the numerous disputes that have sprung up from
time to time between the Hindu priests and the Musalmans of
Ajodhya with regard to the ground on which formerly stood
the Janamasthan temple, …".
4406. The words "disputes that have sprung up from time
to time" clearly refer to some other and earlier disputes also
though the details thereof are not on record.
4407. Once we find that by way of faith and traditions,
Hindus have been worshipping the place of birth of Lord Rama
at the site in dispute, we have no reason but to hold in a matter
relating to such a kind of historical event that for all practical
purposes, this is the place of birth of Lord Rama.
4408. The matter does not end here. Can it be said that it is
the entire premises at the site in dispute which can be said to be
the place of birth of Lord Rama or within this premises there is a
smaller area which actually believed by Hindus to be the place
of birth. There could have been two fold inquiry into this matter.
Whether Hindus by custom, tradition, faith and believe, handed
down from generations to generation, treat the entire area
covered by the disputed structure as well as its outer boundary
wall constituting the place of birth of Lord Rama or Hindus
actually believed a smaller space within this very premises to
be, precisely, the place of birth of Lord Rama. Area of the
premises in dispute is near about 130 feet in length and 80 feet
in width, i.e., roughly about 10400 sq. feet (.2387 acre). This
measurement is not exactly but near about. Suppose within this
area there is another place of 10x10 or 20x20 or as the case may
be, which had been identified by Hindus, believing to be the
place of birth of Lord Rama, then the entire disputed area cannot
be said to constitute the place of birth of Lord Rama for the
purpose of the issues in question.
4409. The reason being that the Hindu parties have
virtually interchangeably used two terms which have different
meaning, i.e., Birthplace temple and the birthplace. On the one
hand they contend that the disputed area is such where existed
temple of Lord Rama, constructed since it was the birthplace
and, therefore, it is of special significance for Hindus,
inalienable and cannot be departed. On the other hand, they
plead that within the area in dispute, there is a small area, which
had been identified by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama
since time immemorial and, therefore, the peculiarity and
speciality vis a vis place is attached with that area only and rest
of the part is of an erstwhile temple whereon a mosque was
constructed but then the label of special significance for the
entire area shall extinguish.
4410. In other words, the precise issue, in terms of the
"birthplace", as we could understand, is in the following terms:
I. According to faith and belief of Hindus, a particular
smallest area in Ayodhya which they treat as the sanctum
sanctorum i.e 'Garbh Grah' that is where Lord Rama was
II. A temple constructed in the area which included sanctum
sanctorum and the place covered by that temple which is
termed as 'Janam Bhumi temple' or 'Ram Janam Bhumi
III. There is a complete unanimity amongst all Hindu parties
as also deposed by their witnesses that under the central
dome lie the sanctum sanctorum, i.e. 'Garbh-Grah' since
lord Rama was born thereat and it was part of a bigger
holy structure, i.e., a temple, which was constructed and
known as "Janam Bhumi temple" or "Ram Janam Bhumi
temple" which included the rest of the area occupied by
the disputed structure.
4411. The witnesses, produced by Hindu parties to depose
about the custom, tradition, faith and belief in respect to the
place of birth i.e. sanctum sanctorum i.e. Garbh-Grih, where
Lord Rama was born, making a distinction between the said
place as well as the place occupied by the temple which
obviously must have been constructed later on, are as under:
(i) DW 1/1 Rajendra Singh
l··il·n -·i¬ r| ¬|ºi-¬·- ·i¸l- · ¬·- -·ii· r . . .¬¬- ¬
¬·-·i¸l- ¬ - ºi ni-¤¤ ¬¬ ¬nr ¬ r ¬ri ¬·- ri ni r ¬i º ¬i
n·i n r r ¬iº ¬·- -·ii· ¬ ni-¤¤ ¤¸ º ·i·· ¬ r l¬¬- ¬·- ri ni
r | (¤ ¬ ««)
"It is the disputed place which is the Shri Ram Janam
Bhumi and Janam Sthan. . . .By Janam Bhumi I mean that
place where a birth takes place and which is the sanctum
sanctorum (center place) and by "Janamsthan" I mean the
entire building wherein the birth takes place." (E.T.C.)
¤r ¬ ¬· i ··i - · n·i n r ¬ ·ºi · ¬ ¬ « ·i - l¬ªii r -¸ ln ¤i
¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬ l¬¤ ·r| | -¸ln ¤i ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ¬· ·sro ¬ ·ri ¤º ºi ª r ;
¬iº ¬· ·rz« ¬ ¤r¬ ·i| ·ri ¤º -¸ ln ¤i ¬| ¤¸ ¬i ri n| ºr||
(¤ ¬ «/)
"This hundreds of years, I have written with respect
to Darshan of Garbh Grih (Sanctum Sanctorum) and not in
relation to worship of deities. Worship of deities started
there since 1950 A.D. and prior to 1524 A.D.also worship
of the deities continued there." (E.T.C.)
(ii) DW 1 /2 Krishna Chandra Singh
l¬¬¬ -·¤ ·i¬ lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ·i¸ l- r| ·r ·i¸ l- r ¬i
¤º-¤ºinn ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ·in·i· ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬|
¬·-·i¸ l- -i·| ¬in| r (¤ ¬÷«)
“Only the place below whose middle dome, is the
place which is, as per traditional faith and belief,
considered to be the birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra
·in·i· ºi-¬¬i ·ri ¤º ¬· ·s«s - l·ºi¬-i· r ¤| ¬« -
·ri ¤r¬ n¤i ·ii ni n -«· ¬ ·|¤ ·i¬ -·ii· ¤º ºi-¬¬i ·r| ·i |
¤º·n - º ¤r¬| «iº ·ri ¬i· ¬i º ¬· ·s«s ¬ ·º-¤i· - c÷/ «iº
·ri n¤i ·ii| . . .- ¤r¬| «iº l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º n¤i ·ii ni n -· i ·
¬ ·| ¤ ·i ¬ -·i ¬ ¬i ¬· -·i ¸ l - -i ·¬º ¬,i ¬ ¤ ºi i - ¬º
¬ n ·i |
(¤ ¬ ·z÷·s)
"Lord Rama was throned there in 1949 AD. For the
first time when I visited there, Ramlala (Lord Rama) was
not there at the place below the dome. But between my first
visit and till 1949 AD, I went there six-seven times. . . When
I visited the disputed site for the first time, the devotees
used to salute the place under the dome regarding it as
Janambhumi (birthplace)." (E.T.C.)
¬· ·s«s ¬| ·i-·i ¬ «i· ·i| ºi-¤«¸ nº ¤º - · ¤¸ ¬i ¬il·
ri n r ¤ · ªi| r, ¤º·n ºi-¬¬i ¬| -¸ ln ·ri ·r| · ªi| ¬i º ¤ni ¤¬i
·ii l¬ ·r -¸ln ¬··º ·i|| ¬iº ºi-¤«¸ nº ¤º ¬|ni ºi- ¬il· ¬| -¸ln ¤i
·i|| (¤ ¬ zo)
"I had seen performance of worship on Ram
Chabutara even after the incident of 1949 but never saw
any idol of Ramlala and I came to know that the idol was
inside. And there was idols of Sita, Ram etc. over Ram
Chabutara." (E.T.C.)
lr··¸ ¬¬ -l-¬· ·r| -i·n ·i ¬i º lr··¸ ¬i n ¬¬ ¬·- -·ii·
-i·¬º ¤lº¬ -i ¬i º ¤ ºii- ¬ºn ·i | (¤ ¬ zr)
“Hindus did not recognize it as a mosque and
treating the same as Janam Sthan, Hindus used to take
round (circumambulation/Parikrama) and salute the
same." (E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤· - ª¤ ¤º|·ii ¬ ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi ·« - ¬i ¤r
l¬ªii r l¬ l¬¬¬| -· ¤ ·i ¬ l ºi ªi º ¬ ·| ¤ . . . . . ¬· -·i ¸ l -
-i ·| ¬i n| r , ·r ¬r| l ¬ªi i r | (¤ ¬ cs)
"The words "below the central dome ….is
regarded as birthplace" which I have written in para 14 of
the affidavit of my examination in chief, is written
(iii) DW 2/1-1 Rajendra Singh
;· n ··ii ¬ ¤ i·n ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¤r ¤¸ ºi n ¤ -ilºin ri ni r l¬
l··il·n ·i¸l- ·in·i· ¬| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| ¬·--·i¬| r ÷ (¤ ¬÷s)
“From the knowledge obtained from these treatises,
it is absolutely proved that the disputed building is the
birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra Ji.”(E.T.C.)
(iv) DW 2/1-3 Mahant Ram Vilas Das Vedanti
¤r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ · ºi l··ºi ¬ ¬¬ ª¤ lr·· ¬i ,iºi
·in·i· ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬| ¬·- ·i¸l- ¬ ª¤ - ¤ ·iinn, ¤º-¤ºinn ¬i-·ii
¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬·il· ¬i¬ ¬ ¤¸l¬n ri ni ¤¬i ¬i ºri r | lr··¸
¬·in··i-| l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ¬¤· ¬iºi·¤ ·in·i· ¬|ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬|
¬·--·i¬| · ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º ¬ ª¤ - ¤¸ ¬n r | (¤ ¬ s)
"That the disputed site has continuously been
worshipped as the birthplace of Lord Sri Ram Chandra by
innumerable Hindus of country-abroad with customary
faith and belief from time immemorial. Orthodox Hindus
worship the disputed site as the birthplace of their revered
Lord Sri Ram Chandra and as Janam Bhumi
- ª¤ ¤l º¬º - l -·i n «i ¤i n| · n - «· ·i ¬i ·i i
l ¬¬- -· ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬| ·i ¸ l - ¤º ·i n·i · ¬| ºi -
¬i ¬· - r ¬i ·i i , ¤ ¬i ¤º-¤ºi ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ lr··¸ ¬·-i·¬
¬i r n·ii · ·i ·i- ºii-¤i ¤ ºiºii ¬il· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ·i| ¤r l¬, r | ;¬|
¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¤º-¤ºinn « n ¬ · ºi l·· ºi ¬ ¬¬ ª¤
lr··¸ ºi-·i·n · ¬·¬i-i·¤ ,iºi l··il·n -·i¬ ¬i ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬|
¬·--·i¬| · ¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º -i·n r ¤ ¤¸ ¬· ·ºi · ¬ºni ¤¬i ¬i ºri
r n·ii ºi¤·i¬ni ·i| ¬¬ ¬¬| ª¤ - ¬ln¤l·¤ ¤· ·in·i· ºi- ¬|
¤¸ ·¤ ¬·--·i¬| -i·ni r | (¤ ¬ «)
"The structure situated within the main premises,
was of three domes, beneath the mid dome of which was
Lord Rama born. Such is the customary faith and belief of
the Hindu public and the same is supported by Vedas,
treatises, Puranas, etc. as well. It is on basis of this faith
and belief that innumerable Hindu devotees of Lord Rama
and the general public of country – abroad have been
offering prayers and having Darshan of the disputed site as
the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama and as Janam Bhumi
temple, and the deponent also considers it to be the same
very sacred, reverable birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)
¤r l¬ -· ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ l-·in -·i¬ ¤º r|
¬·in··i-| lr··¸ -ni·¬l-«¤i ¬| ¤ i¤|· ¤º-¤ºi ¤· ¤ ·ii n·ii ¬·¬|
¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº -riºi¬ ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ·in·i· ¬| ºi -
¬i ¬· - r ¬i ·i i , ;¬| l ¬¤ ¤r -·i ¬ ¬l n¤l ·¤ ¤· ¤¸ ·¤
r ¤· ;¬| ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ ¬ºi · i
¬·in··i-| lr··¸ ¬¤i·¤i ¬i¬º ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -·i¬ ¬i ·ºi ·
¤¸ ¬· ¤· ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºn ¤¬ ¬i ºr r |(¤ ¬ «÷r)
"That as per the ancient custom and practice and the
faith and belief of orthodox followers of Hinduism, the
birth of King Dashrath's son Lord Sri Rama took place
at the place beneath the mid dome. Due to this it is very
sacred and reverable and it is out of this faith and belief
that from time immemorial crores of orthodox Hindus have
been coming over to Ayodhya to have darshan and perform
circumambulation of the Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
(v) DW 3/1 Mahant Bhaskar Das
·in·i· ºi- ¬¬i ¬ ¬· -·i ¸ l - ri · ¬ ¬i ººi ·i | nº|
·i i n ¤¸ ·¤ r | (¤ ¬ z/)
"On account of being the Janmbhumi of Lord
Ram Lala, the inner part is reverable."(E.T.C.)
(vi) DW 3/2 Shri Raja Ram Pandey
¤r ¬r| r l¬ lr··¸ ¬-i¬ ¬ ¬·i| ¬i n ¬l·i¬iº÷-·ª¤ ºi-
¬·-·i¸l- -l··º ·ºi · · ¤¸ ¬i ¬il· ¬ l¬¤ ¬in ·i | ·ºi · ¬ l¬¤ l¬¬|
¬| ¬· -ln ¬| ¬i·º¤¬ni ·r| ·i|| (¤ ¬ z·)
"It is correct that all people of the Hindu community
used to come over as a matter of right to have darshan and
offer prayers etc. at the Ram Janam Bhumi temple. No
permission was required to have darshan."(E.T.C.)
n| · l ºi ªi º ·i ¬i ¬i ·i ·· ·i i , ¬¬¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬
l ºi ªi º - ·i n·i · l ·ºi ¬-i · ·i ¬i º ·r| n·i n r ¬r¬i ni
·i i ¬i º l r· ·¸ ¬i n n·i n r ¬i ºi -¬· -·i ¸ l - -i ·n r |
(¤ ¬ zz)
"Lord (Rama) was present beneath the mid dome
of the three domed structure, and the same was called
the sanctum sanctorum and the Hindus consider the
sanctum sanctorum to be the Ram Janam
¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n ·i·· ·i¬| ¬|ni º¬i ; ¤· ¬·--·ii· -l··º
·i¬| ¬|ni º¬i ; ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬·¤ l¬¬| -·ii· ¬i ¬|ni º¬i ; ·i- ¬
·r| ¬i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"Apart from the Sita Rasoi of the disputed structure
and the Sita Rasoi of the Janam Sthan temple, there is no
other place in Ayodhya known as Sita Rasoi."(E.T.C.)
- º| ¬i-·ii ¬ ¬· ¬iº l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «|¤ ·i¬ n -«· ¬i
-·ii· ¬i ºi~¤i -r¬ - n·i n r ·ii, n·i n r ¬i r| ¤ ¬¸ l n n r
¬rn r | (¤ ¬ ··s)
"According to my faith, the place beneath the mid
dome of disputed structure was the sanctum sanctorum of
the Kaushalya palace, the sanctum sanctorum is also
called the labour room."(E.T.C.)
(vii) DW 3/3 Satya Narayan Tripathi
¤r ¬r| r l¬ lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬i-·ii ¬,i l·º·i¬ r-ºii ¬
¬·i ¤r| ºr| r l¬ l ¬¬ -·i i · ¤º ·n -i · - ºi -¬¬i ¬|
l ·ºi ¬-i · r ¬¬| -·i i · ¤º ·ºi º·i ¬| ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤ -
¬·¬i ¬· - r ¬i ·i i | lr··¸ ¬i n ¬·r ·in·i· l··ºi ¬i ¬·niº
-i·n ·i ¬iº ¬i¬ ·i| -i·n r |(¤ ¬ ·«)
"It is correct that it has always been the faith, belief
and devotion of Hindus that the place where Ram Lala is
present today, He was born as son of King Dashrath at
the same place. Hindus considered and even today
consider, Him to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu."(E.T.C.)
n| · n - «· ·i ¬ l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ¬ n - «· ¬
·| ¤ ·i n·i · ºi - ¬i ¬· - r ¬i ·i i , ¤ ¬i lr··¸ ¬i n -i·n r |
lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤r -i·¤ni r l¬ ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ -i ·i
l-¬ni r | (¤ ¬ ·s)
"Lord Rama was born at the place below the
central dome of the three domed disputed building; such
is the belief of Hindus. Hindus believe that by having a
glimpse of birthplace of lord Rama, salvation is attained."
(viii) DW 3/4 Mahant Shiv Saran Das
- ·i | nº ·i ¬ n· i n r - ·i n·i · ºi -¬¬i ¬ ·ºi ·
¬ºni ºri r¸ | (¤ ¬ z)
"I have been taking glimpse (Darshan) of Lord
Ramlala inside the sanctum sanctorum." (E.T.C.)
(ix) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey
- º| ¬i-·ii ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬i l··il·n ·i·· r , ¬¬| ¬i r-
¬ilºi~¤i ·i·· -i·n r | (¤ ¬÷ss)
“As per my faith we consider the disputed building
itself to be Kaushalya Bhawan.”(E.T.C.)
(x) DW 3/6 Sitaram Yadav
l··il·n ·i·· ¬i º| n r (¤ ¬¸ lnn r) ºri ri ni| -·¤ ¬ri l¬
l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «|¤ ·i¬ ·iin ¬i ¬« ·i| r- ¬i º|n r (¤ ¬¸ lnn r)
-i·n r | «|¤ ·i¬ n -«· ¬ ·iin ¬i r- l·ºi ·i ni º ¤º ¤ ¬¸lnn r -i·n
r ¬n ¬÷«n ¬ ·i¬i ·iin ·i| ¬¬ ¬-º ¬i lr-¬i ºri ri ni| (¤ ¬÷r/)
“The disputed building must have been ‘Sauri Grih
(maternity home). (Stated on his own) we still consider the
middle part of the disputed building to be ‘Sauri Grih’. We
consider particularly the middle dome part to be maternity
home. The adjoining part must also have been part of that
(xi) DW 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das
¤r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- -ril··ºi ¬ ¬·niº r ¬i º ·in·i· ºi- ;¬|
l··il·n ¤lº¬º - n·i n r - ¤ ¬- r ¤ r ;¬|l¬¤ ¤r ºi-¬·-·i¸l-
¬r¬ini r | (¤ ¬ s)
"That Lord Rama is an incarnation of Maha Vishnu
and Lord Rama had descended in the sanctum sanctorum
of this very disputed premises, as such it is called Ram
Janam Bhumi."(E.T.C.)
lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤º-¤ºi ¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri r l¬ n|·
n -«· ·i¬ l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ·i ¬ ·i i n
- ºi -¤· · ¬| ¬i ¬· - r ¬i ·i i ¬iº ¤r| ¬i-·ii · l·º·i¬ - ºi
·i| r | ¬|ºi- ¬·-·i¸ l- -·i¬ ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ ¬·- ¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¤¸ ·¤ r
¬iº «ºi«º ¤¸ l¬n ri n| ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | - l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ ¤¸ ·| - ª¤
,iº ¬ ri ¬º ¬ ·º ·ºi · ¬º· ¬ini ·ii| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ·ºi · ¬º· ¬
¬¤ºi·n ¬« «irº l·¬¬n ·i ni ·l·iºi ¬| ¬i º ¬ ·i¸ - ¬º ¤lº¬ -i
¬ºn ·i | (¤ ¬ zs)
"The custom, faith and belief of Hindus has been
continuing that the birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place
beneath the mid dome of the three domed disputed
structure and I also share the same faith and belief. The Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi site is reverable from the time of birth
of Ram Chandra Ji and has been continuously worshipped.
I used to go inside through the eastern main gate of the
disputed premises to have darshan. On coming out after
having darshan of the Janam Bhumi, used to perform
circumambulation by going southwards."(E.T.C.)
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii·, ¤l· ·ri -¸ln ¤i · ·i| ri , ni ·i|
¤¸ ·¤ r | ¬·--·ii· ¬ ·ºi · -i¤ ¬ r| -i·i ¬| ¤ il·n ri ¬in| r |
(¤ ¬ zc)
"The birthplace of Lord Rama is reverable, even if
there are no idols over there. Salvation is achieved by mere
darshan of the birthplace."(E.T.C.)
;¬ ¬¸ ¤| ¬ ª¤i÷s ¬ ¬in¬ ¬ ª¤i÷s,zo ¬ ¤ ¬÷·s ¤º ¬·-
-·ii· ¬i l··ººi r ¬iº ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ·i| ¬¬| - ·lºi n r | ;¬ ¤ ·- ¤º
¬·--·ii· ¬i l·lº¤n -·ii· ¤· ¬|-i¤ ·r| l¬ªi| r | (¤ ¬÷ro)
“Details of Janamsthan find mention on page 18 of
paper no. 9/20 of this list no. 3, and Ramjanambhumi is
also mentioned therein. Definite location and boundaries of
Janamsthan are not mentioned on this page.”(E.T.C.)
¬·--·ii·, l¬¬ n¸ ·· n· «i«i · «··i¤i ·ii, ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i r|
¬·--·ii· -i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬÷/z)
“Janamsthan, which Gudadtad Baba had raised, is
considered to be the birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji
l ··i l ·n ·i ·· - ·i n·i · ¬| ºi - ¬ºi · i ·· i ¤r¬
¤ n- r ¤ ·i | (¤ ¬÷//)
“Lord Sri Rama had appeared in the disputed
building crores of years back.”(E.T.C.)
(xii) DW 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sunder Mishra
- ºi ª ¬ l··il·n ·i·· ¬i ºi- ¬·- ·i¸l- -l··º ¬ ª¤ -
-i·ni ºri r¸ | ¬i º ¬¬| ª¤ - - ·ri ¤¸ ¬i ·ºi · ¬ºni ºri r¸ | «| ¤
·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬| ·i ¸ l - ºi - ¬· - ·i ¸ l - -i ·| ¬i n|
r | (¤ ¬ ·o)
"From beginning I have been treating the disputed
structure to be the Ram Janam Bhumi temple and have
been offering prayer-worship over there in the same form.
The land beneath the mid dome, is considered to be Ram
Janam Bhumi." (E.T.C.)
¬« ¬ ·in·i· ºi- ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤ - ¬iºi~¤i -ini
¬ n·i ¬ ¤ ·i r ¤ n« ¬ ¬¬ -·i¬ ¬i ºi- ¬·- ·i¸l- ¬ri ¬ini r
¬iº n·i| ¬ ·r -·i¬ ¤¸ ·¤ r | lr·· ¬i ¬| ¬i-·ii l·º·i¬ ¤· ¤º-¤ºi ¬
¬· ¬iº n| · n - «· ·i ¬ l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ¬ -·i i · ¤º
·i n·i · ºi - ¤ ·i r ¤| ;¬l¬¤ ·r -·i¬ -·¤ - ¤¸ ·¤ r ¬iº
¬¤i·¤i -·¤ ·i¸ ·i ¤ r | ºi- ¬¬i ¬| ¬i ·ri ¤ i· ·ii · r ¬i r , ¬¬ ¤ ··|
¬i -·¤ ·i¸ ·i ¤ -i·i ¬ini r | (¤ ¬ zz)
"Since Lord Rama was born from the room of
Kaushalya Mata as the son of King Dashrath, the said
place is called 'Ram Janam Bhumi', and since then it is a
sacred place. As per the faith, belief and tradition of
Hindus, Lord Rama was born at the central part of the
three domed disputed structure. As such this place is
reverable on its own and Ayodhya is a self originating
place. Ram Lala had descended over there, that portion of
the land is considered to be self originating." (E.T.C.)
(xiii) DW 3/9 Ram Asray Yadav
lr··¸ ·i- ¬ -i·· ·i¬ ¤r l·º·i¬ ¬ºn r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬
¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ··)
"The believers of Hindu religion are sure that the
birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place at the disputed
(xiv) DW 3/11 Bhanu Pratap Singh
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ¬i lºi~¤i ¬| ¬ -r¬ - ·r| r ¬i
·ii| ¤r ¬·- ¬·--·ii· ¤º r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷cs)
"Ramchandra Ji was not born in the palace of
Kaushlya Ji. This birth took place at the
(xv) DW 3/12 Ram Akshaywar Pandey
ºi-¬·-·i¸l- -·ii· ¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬i ni ¬i ¬,i÷l·º·i¬ n·ii
¬i-·ii r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ¤ ¬- r ¤ ·i | (¤ ¬ ·s)
"As regards the site of Ram Janam Bhumi, it is the
faith, belief and devotion of people that Lord Ram had
appeared at that very place." (E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤· «i«i ¬ ¤r ¬ ·i ·ii l¬ ¬·--·ii· ¬·-·i¸l- ¤º
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| ;¬¬ ¤r¬ ·i| ¬i n ¬rn ·i l¬ ·in·i·
ºi- ¬i ¬·- ·ri r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·c)
"I had heard it from my grandfather that lord Rama
was born at the Janam Sthan Janam Bhumi. Earlier also,
people used to say that lord Rama was born over
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- n|· n -«· ·i¬ ·i·· ¬ «|¤ ·i¬ n -«·
¬ ·|¤ ·i¬ -·ii· ¤º r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ««)
"The birth of Lord Rama took place beneath the mid
dome of the three domed structure." (E.T.C.)
(xvi) DW 3/13 Mahant Ram Subhag Das Shastri
¬« ¬ - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i¤i n« ¬ - l·¤l-n ºi- ¬·- ·i¸ l- ·ºi ·
¬º· ¬ini ·ii ¬i º n· i n r - l ·ºi ¬-i · ºi - ¬¬i ¬i «ºi «º
·ºi · ¬ºni ºri | (¤ ¬ c)
"Since I came to Ayodhya, I have been regularly
going to Ram Janam Bhumi to have Darshan and all along
had Darshan of Ram Lala present in the sanctum
sanctorum." (E.T.C.)
l··il·n n·i ÷n r ¤i ¤¸ º ¤lº¬º - ¬·i| - ¬¬-i·i ,iºi ·-i¬
·r| ¤«i n¤i| (¤ ¬ s)
"Namaz was never offered by Muslims in the disputed
sanctum sactorum or the entire premises." (E.T.C.)
·i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi - ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- -l··º ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| l-¬ni|
·i~-|¬| ºi-¤ºi - ¬¬ l·ºi ·i -·ii· ¬i ·i- ·r| l¬ªii r, ¬ri ºi-¤··
¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ - ·i| ;¬ -·ii· ¬i l·lºi·- ª¤
¬ ·r| «ni¤i n¤i r, ¬ri ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii, ¤º·n
¬¬- ºi-¬i - ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ¬i¤i r | ¬¬ l·lº¤n -·ii·, ¬ri ¤º ºi-¤··
¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ri , ;¬¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | ºi-¬i - l¬n·| ¬-«i;
n·ii ¤i · i; - l-·in r , ;¬¬i ¬i ; ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·or)
"Reference of Ramjanmbhumi temple is not found in
Valmiki Ramayana. The particular place where
Ramchandra Ji was born, is not name in the Valmiki
Ramayana. In the Ramcharit Manas as well, this place has
not been particularly defined where Ramchandra Ji was
born, but it does refer about Ramkot. There is no reference
of the particular place, where Ramchandra Ji was born.
There is no mention of the length and breadth in which
Ramkot is situated." (E.T.C.)
(xvii) DW 3/14 Jagadguru Ramanandachrya Swami
- º| -i·¤ni ¬ ¬· ¬iº · ¬ºi · s· ¬iªi co r¬iº ·os ··i ¤¸ ·
ºi-i·niº r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ /s)
"As per my belief, the incarnation of Lord Rama had
taken place 1 crore 81 lakhs 60 thousand 103 years
- · ¤r «ni¤i r l¬ ¤r¬ -i··, -· ·i | ¤r¬ -i·· ¬i ¬-¤
- · ¬i¬ ¬ c r¬iº ¬~¤ ¤¸ · ¬i «ni¤i r | ¤¬ r¬iº ¤n ¤ n ¬ ¤¸ º
ri · ¤º ¤¬ ¬~¤ ri ni r | ¤¬ ¬~¤ ¤iº ¬º« sz ¬ºi · ··ii ¬i ri ni
r | - º ¬· ¬iº s ¬~¤ ·¤n|n ri ¤ ¬ r n·ii ¬in·i ¬~¤ ¤¬ ºri r |
;¬ ¤ ¬iº ¬n·in zr ¬º« sz ¬ºi · ··i ·¤n|n ri ¤ ¬ r | (¤ ¬ /s)
"I have told that Manu was the first human. I have
given the period of first human to be 6 thousand 'Kalpa'
ago from today. One 'Kalpa' is completed after one
thousand 'Chaturyuga'. One 'Kalpa' is of four arab 32
crore years. According to me, 6 'Kalpas' have lapsed and
the 7
'Kalpa' is going on. As such around 25 arab 92
crore years have lapsed." (E.T.C.)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬-nº÷¬· ¬ n·ii ¬¬¬ «i· ¬·--·ii· -l··º
r | ·r ¬·--·ii· -l··º soo÷«oo ··i ¤ ºi·i ri ¬¬ni r | ¬·--·ii·
-l·º ¬ ¬ ·º - n¤i r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·or)
"To the north of the disputed site is a road and after it
is the Janam Sthan temple. This Janam Sthan temple can
be 300-400 years old. I have been inside the Janam Sthan
temple." (E.T.C.)
¬¤i · ¤i - ¬ ·¬ ¬· -·i ¸ l - ¤º n· i n r r | . . .
¬¤i·¤i - l¬¬ n·i n r ¬i - · ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r , ¬¬ - ºi-¤·· ¬|
¬·-·i¸l- -i·ni r¸ |(¤ ¬ ·o/)
"In Ayodhya, the sanctum sanctorum exists only at
the Janam Bhumi. . . . The sanctum sanctorum in
Ayodhya, mentioned by me, is considered by me to be the
birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji." (E.T.C.)
·i~-|¬| ºi-i¤ºi - ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ·in·i· ºi- ,iºi ¬¤·|
¬·-·i¸l- ¬ri ¬i·i ¬l~¬lªin r | ·in·i· ºi- · ¤¸º| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i ¬¤·|
¬·-·i¸l- «ni¤i r, ;¬- l¬¬| -·ii· l·ºi·i ¬i ; lnn ·r| l¬¤i n¤i
r | (¤ ¬ ·««)
"In Valmiki Ramayana, reference is contained about
Lord Rama calling Ayodhya, His Janam Bhumi. Lord Rama
has termed the entire Ayodhya to be His birthplace, no
particular place has been pin pointed in it." (E.T.C.)
(xviii) DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh
·r n·i n r «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ·i i | (¤ ¬ sr)
"That sanctum sanctorum was beneath the mid
¬¤i ·¤i - l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ¬¬i·i l¬¬| ¬iº -l··º ¬i ·i-
¬·--·ii· -l··º ·r| ·ii| (¤ ¬ ss)
"Besides the disputed structure, there was no other
temple in Ayodhya known as Janam Sthan temple." (E.T.C.)
(xix)DW 3/16 Shiv Bhikh Singh
«| ¤ ·i ¬ l ºi ªi º ¬ ·| ¤ n·i n r ·i i | (¤ ¬ z)
"Garbh Grih (sanctum sanctorum=place of birth)
existed below the central dome." (E.T.C.)
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ri ¤º ºi-¬¬i l·ºi¬-i· r , ¬¬¬i ¬·-·i¸l-
;¬l¬¤ ¬ri ¬ini r , ·¤i l¬ ·r| ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii|
;¬l¬¤ ¤r -·ii· «r n ¤l·¤ -i·i ¬ini r | lr·· ¬i ¬i ¤ ¬i l·º·i¬ r
l¬ ;¬ -·ii· ¬ ·ºi · -i¤ ¬ r| -i ·i ¬| ¤ il·n ri n| r | (¤ ¬ ·o)
"The disputed site where Ramlala is installed, is
called Janam Bhumi because it is this place where Ram
Chandra Ji was born. Therefore this place is considered
very pious."
;¬¬ ¬¬i·i n·i n r ri · ¬ ·i| - ¤r -i·ni r¸ l¬ ¤ri ¤º
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ z«)
"Except this, on account of it being the Garbhgrih, I
believe that Ram Chandra Ji was born here." (E.T.C.)
(xx) DW 3/17 Mata Badal Tiwari
l¤ni ¬| · - n ¤r «ni¤i ·ii l¬ ¤r ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i -l··º
r | lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤r ¬i-·ii r n·ii ¤r l·º·i¬ r l¬ ºi -¤· · ¬| ¬i
¬· - n| · n - «· ·i ¬ ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n -«· ¬ ·| ¤
r ¬i ·i i | ;¬| l ¬¤ ;¬¬i ¬| ºi -¬· -·i ¸ l - ¬ri ¬i ni r |
(¤ ¬ ·o)
"My father told me that this was the temple of Ram
Janam Bhumi. This is the faith and belief of Hindus that
the birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place beneath the mid
dome of the three domed structure. Due to this, it is
called 'Sri Ram Janam Bhumi'. (E.T.C.)
ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬r· ¬i ni-¤¤ - ºi ¤r r l¬ ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ¬i ÷·i ¬i ¬i¬ ¤¸ · ,
r¬iº÷·i r¬iº ··i ¤¸ · ¬·i·i ¬iªi÷·i ¬iªi ··i ¤¸ · r ¬i ·ii, ;¬¬
«iº - - ·r| «ni ¬¬ni r¸ | ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ri n
- · -·¤ ·r| · ªii, - · ¬ ·i r | ¤r ¬r·i n¬n r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬
·in·i· ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ·r| r | (¤ ¬ rs)
"By 'Ram Janam Bhumi', I mean the place where
Ram Chandra Ji was born. I cannot tell whether Ram
Chandra Ji was born hundred-two hundred years ago, or
thousand-two thousand or lakh-two lakh years ago. I did
not myself see the birth of Ram Chandra Ji at Ram Janam
Bhumi, I have heard so. It is wrong to say that the disputed
site is not the birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)
(xxi) DW 3/18 Acharya Mahant Banshidhar Das
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬| ºi- ¬·- ·i¸ l- -l··º r (¤ ¬ z)
"The disputed site is Sri Ram Janam Bhumi
lr·· ¬i ¬| ¤r ¬i-·ii n·ii l·º·i¬ r l¬ n| · n - «· ·i ¬
l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n -«· ¬ ·| ¤ ·i n·i · ºi - ¬i
¬· - r ¬i ·i i | ¤r ¬i-·ii n·ii l·º·i¬ ¤|«| ·º ¤|« | ¤¬i ¬i ºri
r | ¬i ni ¬| ¤r ·i| ¬i-·ii · l·º·i¬ r l¬ ;¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ·ºi ·
¬º· ¬ -i ·i ¬| ¤ il·n ri n| r | (¤ ¬ ·«)
"It is the faith and belief of Hindus that Lord Rama
was born beneath the mid dome of the three domed
disputed structure. This faith and belief has been
continuing generation after generation. It is also the faith
and belief of people that by having Darshan of this Ram
Janam Bhumi, one attains salvation." (E.T.C.)
(xxii) DW 3/20 Rajaram Chandracharya
l··il·n ·i·· ¬ n| ·i n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬i ·i i n n·i n r
·i i |
(¤ ¬÷/z)
"The portion beneath all the three domes of the
disputed structure, was the sanctum sanctorum.” (E.T.C.)
l¬¬| ·i| · · - ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·--·ii· ¬ -·ii·
¬i ¬~¬ ªi - º ª¤i¬ ¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬÷/s)
“In my opinion, the site of birth place of
Ramchandra Ji in Ayodhya is not mentioned in any Veda."
(xxiii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas
l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ¬ -·i i · ¤º
¤ ¬¸ l nn r ·i i ¬i ¬ilºi~¤i ¬| ¬ ·i·· ¬i ·iin ·ii n|· n -«· ·i¬
·i·· ¬ ¬-nº n·ii ·l·iºi| n -«· ¬ ·|¤ ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ l¬¬| ¬i º
ºi·| ¬i ¤ ¬¸ lnn r ·r| ·ii| n|·i n -«· ·i¬i ·i·· ¬i ºi¬¤i ·i·· ¬i
r| ·iin ·ii| (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“Beneath the middle dome of the disputed building
lay ‘Prasuti Grih’ (maternity home), which was a part of
Kaushalya Ji’s mansion. There was no ‘Prasuti Grih’ of
any other queen of King Dashrath in the north of the three
domed building and below the southern dome. The three
domed building was part of Kaushalya Bhawan
(xxiv) DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur
¤r l¬ - º ¬·¤¤· ¤·- ¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i·¤i - l-·in
l··il·n ·i¸l- ¬i lr·· ¬i ,iºi ¬·il· ¬i¬ ¬ ¬¤· ¬ºi·¤ ·in·i·
¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ª¤ - ¤ ·iinn ¤· ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ ¤¸ ºi
¬i-·ii ¤· l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·i ·ºi ·÷¤¸ ¬i l¬¤i ¬ini ºri r | (¤ ¬ r)
"That as per my studies and knowledge, the Hindus
have been worshipping the Ayodhya situated disputed site
from time immemorial as the birthplace of their revered
Lord Sri Rama with full faith and devotion."(E.T.C.)
- º| ¬i-·ii ¬¤i·¤i ¬ ¤ ln r | -·¤ ¬ri l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬i
¬·- -·ii· ri · n·ii lr··¸ ri · ¬ ¬iººi - º| ¬i-·ii ¬¤i ·¤i - r |
(¤ ¬ s)
"I have faith in Ayodhya. Stated on his own that I
have faith in Ayodhya on account of (it) being the
birthplace of Lord Rama and being a Hindu."(E.T.C.)
¤r ¬r| r l¬ ;¬ ¤¸ º l··ººi - l·l¬¤- l¤ ¤ · l¬¬| -·ii·
l·ºi·i ¬i ;lnn ·r| l¬¤i r , ¬ri ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ri ·i
«ni¤i n¤i ri n·ii l¬¬¬ ¬-«··i - ¬i ni ¬| ¤r ¬i-·ii ri l¬ ·r
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- -·ii· ri , ¬l¬· ¬¬· ¬¤i·¤i ¬i «r n ¬-«|
¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬-«, ri ·i «ni¤i r | (¤ ¬ /z)
"It is true that in this entire description, William
Finch has not pointed towards any particular place where
Ram Chandra Ji has been given to have taken birth and
about which people had the faith that it was the birthplace
of Ram Chandra Ji, but he has mentioned about
association of a very old custom with Ayodhya."(E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ n|·i -·ii· r , ºi- ¬·- -·i¬| r ¬iº l··il·n
-·i¬ ¬·- -·ii· r ¬i º ;¬¬i - ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º -i·ni r¸ |
(¤ ¬ ·«r)
"Ayodhya is a pilgrimage, is Ram Janam Sthali and
the disputed site is the Janam Sthan and I believe this on
basis of custom." (E.T.C.)
ºi-¤·· ¬ l·lº¤n ¬·- -·ii· ¬i - º ,iºi l¤l·rn l¬¤i ¬i·i
;¬ ¬-¤ -- ln ,iºi ¬ ·i· ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·«r)
"At present, it is not possible for me to point out the
exact birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji, on basis of
¬¤i ·¤i ¤¬ n|·i -·ii· r , ºi- ¬| ¬·--·i¬| r ¬i º l··il·n
-·i¬ ¬·--·ii· r ¬iº ;¬¬i - ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º -i·ni r¸ |
(¤ ¬ ·«r)
“Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage; it is birthplace of
Rama and the disputed site is Janamsthan and I take it to
be so on the basis of tradition.”(E.T.C.)
- · ¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬ ¤ -nº ·« - ¬¤· ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
¤r ¬~¬ ªi l¬¤i r l¬ ¬¤i ·¤i - l-·in l··il·n ·i¸l- ¬i lr·· ¬i ,iºi
¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ ¬¤· ¬iºi·¤ ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬| ¬·-·i¸l- ¬ ª¤ -
¤ ·iinn n·ii ¤º-¤ºinn ª¤ ¬ l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬i·i ·ºi · l¬¤i ¬ini r ¬i º
¬¤· ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r| - · ¬¤·| ¬i·¬iº| ºi·· ¬i ¤ ¤i n
;¬ ¤ -nº - l¬¤i r | . . - º ¬·¤¤· ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·-·i¸ l-
¬i n|·i ¬ ª¤ - -i·i ¬ini r | ;¬ ¤ ·ii - ¬·i| «·¬i· ·r|
¬i¤i|(¤ ¬ ·ss)
"On basis of my studies, I have mentioned in para 14
of my affidavit that from time immemorial the Hindus have
been having Darshan of the Ayodhya situated disputed site
as Janmbhumi of their revered Lord Sri Rama with full
customary faith and belief, and it is on the basis of my
studies that I have used the words 'apni jaankari' in this
paragraph........According to my studies, the Janmbhumi in
Ayodhya is treated as pilgrimage. This practice never
underwent any change." (E.T.C.)
¬¤· ºi¤·i ¤¤ ¬ ¤ -nº ·« - - · l¬¬ -·i¬ ¬ ¬|ºi- ¬|
¬·-·i¸l- ¬i ¬ ··i l·¤i r , ·r l··il·n -·ii· r| r , ¬i ¬i¬ ·i| ¤l·¤
¬iº ¤ ·|n -i·i ¬ini r | ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ - ºi ¬iºi¤ ¬¬| -·i¬ ¬ r ¬i
l··il·n ·i¸l- r , · l¬ ¬· ¬ ¬ ¤iº ¬-nº - l-·in ºi-¬·--·ii· -l·º
¬|ni º¬ i; ¬ r | . . .- 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 -·i i ¬i º ¤º- ¤ºi ¬ ¬i ·i i º ¤º
-i ·ni r¸ |
- º ¬· ¬iº ºi-¬·-·i¸l- ¬i º ¬i -·i·i -l··º - ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i
-r-· ·¤i·i r ·¤i l¬ ºi- ¬i l··ºi ¬i ¬·niº -i·i n¤i r ¬i º ¤r
-r-· ¬·il·¬i¬ ¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·ss÷·so)
"The site referred as the Janmbhumi of Lord Sri
Rama in para 14 of my affidavit, is the disputed site which
is even today considered pious and scared. By Janmbhumi,
I imply the place which is the disputed site and not the
Ramjanmsthan temple, Sita Rasoi situated in north across
the road...... As per my knowledge, the birth of Lord Sri
Rama had occurred beneath the three domes of the
disputed structure, the same is considered to be
Ramjanmbhumi.......It is on the basis of faith, belief and
custom that I consider the land beneath the three domed
structure, to be Ramjanmbhumi.
According to me, out of Ramjanmbhumi and Somnath
temple, the importance of Ramjanmbhumi is more because
Lord Rama is considered to be an incarnation of Lord
Vishnu and this importance has continued from time
immemorial." (E.T.C.)
- n|· ·i - ·i¬ ·i·· ¬ ·|¤ ¬| ·i¸ l- ¬i ºi-¬·-·i¸ l-, -i·¤ni,
¬i-·ii ¬iº ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º -i·ni r¸ | (¤ ¬÷·so)
“I consider the underlying part of the three domed
building to be Ramjanambhumi, on the basis of belief, faith
and tradition.”(E.T.C.)
(xxv) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
l¬¬ -·i¬ ¤º ¬i-·ii, -i·¤ni¬i ¤· ¤º-¤ºi¬i ¬ ¬· ¬iº
·in·i· ¬|ºi- · ¬·- l¬¤i ·r lr··¸ ·i-i ·¬l-«¤i ,iºi ·in·i· ºi- ¬|
¬·- ·i¸l- ¬ ª¤ - ¤¸l¬n ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | ·r ·i ¤ ¬ri ·in·i· ¬|ºi-
· ¬·- l¬¤i ·r ¬i¬ ·i| ·nº¤il¬¬i - -i r~¬i ºi-¬i - ¬ ·i- ¬
n·ii ºi¬-· ¬l·i¬ ªii - n i-÷¬i -ºi-¤·· ¬ ·i- ¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri
r |(¤ ¬ s)
"The place where Lord Sri Rama was born as per
faith, belief and customs, has continued to be worshipped
by followers of Hinduism as the birthplace of Lord Rama.
The region where Lord Sri Rama was born, is still entered
in Municipality in the name of Ramkot locality and in the
revenue records as Village-Kot Ramchandra." (E.T.C.)
ºi- ¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- - º ¬· ¬iº ¬i¬ ¬ ¬n·in ·i ¬iªi ··i
¤¸ · r ¬i ·ii| ·i ¬iªi ··i ¤¸ · ¬ ¬i ; l¤·r ¬i¬ l·n-i· ·r| r | ¬i¬
¬ ·i ¬iªi ··i ¤¸ · ºi¬i ·ºiº·i n·ii ¬·¬| ºil·¤i ¬ -r¬ ¬ri ¤º
l-·in ·i ¤r ·r| «ni¤i ¬i ¬¬ni r | ¤º·n ¬ ¬i l·º·i¬ ¤¬i ¬i ºri
r ¤r -r¬ ·r| ¤º l-·in ·i ¬ri ¤º ¬i¬ «· r | (¤ ¬ /«)
“According to me, the birth of Ramchandra Ji took
place about nine lakhs years ago. No symbol dating back to
nine lakh years exists today. It cannot be stated where the
palaces of King Dashrath and his queens were located nine
lakh years back. However, as per the continuing belief,
these temples existed at the same place where they exist
l··il·n ·i¸ l- ¬ ºi-¬·-·i¸l- -l··º ri · ¬ «iº - , ¬i - ·
¬¤· ºi¤·i÷¤¤ n·ii ;¬¬ «iº - ¬¤· «¤i· - «ni¤i r , ¬¬¬i - ·
¬¤· l¤ni ¬| ¬ ¬ ·· · ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¤ i·n ni· · ¬¤· ,iºi ¤ i·n
¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬ri r | ¤º-¤ºi ¬ «iº - - · ¬ ·¬º r| ¬i·i
r | (¤ ¬ so)
"The averments made by me in my affidavit about the
disputed land being Ram Janam Bhumi temple and the
statement given by me in this regard, are on basis of
learning from my father, gaining knowledge from customs
and knowledge acquired by me. I have come to know about
customs only by hearing." (E.T.C.)
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi n·ii ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ - ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- - l·º ¬i
¬~¬ ªi, l¬n·i - · ¤« i r , ¬¬- - n ¤ i·n ·r| r | (¤ ¬÷s·)
“I have not come across the mention of
Ramjanambhumi temple in the Valmiki Ramayan and the
Ram Charit Manas as much I have gone through
¤º-¤ºi ¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r| ·in·i· ¬i ¬·- -·ii· -i·i ¬i
ºri r |
¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬i ¤¬i ¬i ºri r ¬¬| -·i¬ ¬i ¬·- -·ii· -i·n
r | (¤ ¬ sz)
"By custom, the disputed site has been considered as
the birthplace of Lord (Rama).
Whatever has been continuing by custom, the same
site has been considered as the Janam Sthan."(E.T.C.)
·r ·in·i· ¬i ¬·- -·i¬ r n·ii -·i¬ r| ¤¸ ·¤ r, ¤l· ·ri
¤º -¸ ln ·r| ºrn|, n« ·i| ·r ¤¸ ·¤ r | (¤ ¬ sc)
"It is the birthplace of Lord(Rama) and this place
itself is reverable. Even if there were no idols over there,
then also it is reverable." (E.T.C.)
(xxvi) DW 20/1 Shashi Kant Rungta
¤º-¤ºi¬i ¬ ¬· ¬iº l··il·n ·i·· ¬i ºi-¬·- -·ii· ¬ ª¤ -
¤¸ ¬i ¬ini ºri r | (¤ ¬ ·/)
"As per custom, the disputed structure has been
worshipped as Ram Janam Sthan (birthplace of Lord
Rama)." (E.T.C.)
- º| ¬i-·ii ¬ ¬· ¬iº l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n - «· ¬
·| ¤ ¬i -·i i · ¬· - -·i i · r | - º ¬· ¬iº ¤r ¬i-·ii ¬ºi ·i
··ii ¬ ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r | - º ¬· ¬iº «|¤ ·i¬ n -«· ¬ ·|¤ ¬i -·ii·
ºi-¬·- -·ii· r ¤r ¬i-·ii r l¬ ¬ºi · i ··ii ¬ ¤r -·ii·
ºi-¬·--·ii· ¬ ª¤ - ¤¬i ¬i ºri r | ;¬¬i -n¬« ¤r| r ¬i l¬
¬ºi · i ··i ¤¸ · ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ;¬ -·ii· ¤º r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·s)
"As per my faith, the place beneath the mid dome of
the disputed structure is the "Janam Sthan". According
to me, this faith has been continuing for crores of years.
According to me, the place beneath the mid dome, is the
Ram Janam Sthan. It is the faith that this place has
continued as Ram Janam Sthan for crores of years. It
means that Ram Chandra Ji was born at this place crores
of years ago." (E.T.C.)
¬iºi~¤i ¬| · ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- l·¤i ·ii| ;¬ ¤ -nº ¬|
n|¬º| ¤l·n - ¬¬| -·ii· ·i-¬ ºi··i ¬i ¤ ¤i n l¬¤i n¤i r, ;¬¬
- ºi ni - ¤¤ n| · n - «· ·i ¬ l ··i l ·n ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬
n - «· ¬ ·| ¤ ·i ¬ -·i i · ¬ r | ¤r -·ii· ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ¬-¤
- ¬i ºi~¤i ¬| ¬ -r¬ ¬i ·iin ·ii| (¤ ¬ sr)
"Kaushalya Ji had given birth to Ram Chandra Ji.
The words 'Usi Sthan' have been used in third line of this
paragraph, by it I mean the place beneath the mid dome
of the three domed disputed structure. In the period of
King Dashrath, this place was part of the palace of
Kaushalya Ji." (E.T.C.)
ºi-¬·- ·i¸ l- ¤¸ ¬·|¤ r , l¬¬ ¤ ¬iº - ¬¬-i· ·ii; ¤i ¬ l¬¤
-·¬i÷-·|·i ¬iº ; ¬i; ·ii;¤i ¬ l¬¤ ¤¸ ºiºi¬-, ;¬| ¤ ¬iº lr·· ¬i ¬
l¬¤ ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- r | ; ¬i; ¤i ¬ l¬¤ ¤¸ ºi ºi¬- ¬i -r-· ;¬l¬¤ r
·¤i l¬ ·ri ¤º ¬|¬ ¬ ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| -·¬i n·ii -·|·i - º|
¬i·¬iº| ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤¬ r| -·ii· r | (¤ ¬ rz)
"Ram Janam Bhumi is reverable, just as 'Mecca-
Medina' is for Muslims and 'Jerusalem' is for Christians,
'Ram Janam Bhumi' is for Hindus. Jerusalem has
importance for Christians because Jesus was born there.
As per my knowledge, Mecca and Medina are the same
place." (E.T.C.)
(xxvii) DW 20/2 Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati
ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ¬-i· - ¬i ¬ilºi~¤i ·i·· ¤i ¬i lºi~¤i -r¬
·ii ·r ¬¤i ·¤i - l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ·ii, ;¬¬| ¬i·¬iº| - n ·r| r
·¤i l¬ ;¬ ¬-«··i - - ºi ¬i ; ¬·¤¤· ·r| r | ¤º·n ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i
¬·- ¬ilºi~¤i ·i·· - r| r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷sc)
- º| ¬i-·ii · l·º·i¬ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ºi -¤· · ¬| ¬i ¬· - n| ·
n «·i ( l ºi ªi º) ·i ¬ ·i ·· ¬ «| ¤ ·i ¬ n «· ¬ ·| ¤ r ¬i
·i i | (¤ ¬÷s/)
·i~-|l¬ ºi-i¤ºi n·ii ¬|ºi-¤lºn -i·¬ ¤· ¬|-· ·iin·n ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ¬¤· ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬ ·iiºi ·· - l¬¤i r ¬|-· ·iin·n - ºi-¤··
¬| ¬| · ºii·¬| ¬iº ¤lº¤ n·ii ¬¤i ·¤i - ¬·- ¬ · ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r,
¤º·n -·ii· l·ºi ·i ¬i ¬~¬ ªi ·r| r , ¬ri ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·-
r ¬i ri | (¤ ¬ ·sz)
"I have no knowledge as to where was the Kaushalya
Bhawan or Kaushalya Palace situated in Ayodhaya during
the times of King Dasrath, because I have not undertaken
any studies in this behalf. However, Ramchandra Ji was
born in Kaushalya Bhawan.
As per my faith and belief, the birth of Ramchandra
Ji took place beneath the mid dome of the three domed
(I) have mentioned about Valmiki Ramayan, Sri
Ramcharit Manas and Srimad Bhagwat in para 11 of my
affidavit. Srimad Bhagwat contains the reference of
Ramchandra Ji's family tree, character and birth in
Ayodhaya but no particular place has been mentioned
where Ramchandra Ji had taken birth." (E.T.C.)
(xxviii) DW 20/3 Brahmchari Ramraksha Nand
¤r l¬ n| · l ºi ªi º ·i ¬ ·i ·· ¬ -· ¤ ·i ¬ l ºi ªi º ¬
·| ¤ ·i ¬ ·i i n - n· i n r r ¬ri ·i n·i · ºi - ¬i ¬·ni º
r ¬i ·i i l¬¬- ·in·i· ¬|ºi- ¬¬i ¬i l·n r ¬· · ¬ l·ºi¬-i· ºri
r | (¤ ¬ «)
"That there is sanctum sanctorum in the part
beneath the mid dome of three domed structure, where
Lord Rama had incarnated and the Vigrah of Lord Sri Ram
Lala had always remained present." (E.T.C.)
(xxix) OPW1 Mahant Paramhans Ram Chandra Das
l··il·n ·i·· ¬ ·|¤ ¬i ¬-¤¸ ºi -·ii· -·¤ lºiªiº ¬ ·|¤ n·ii
¬¬¬ ¬n¬ «n¬ ¬ ·i ¤ ¬i ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬ ª¤ - ¬-nni r¸ | (¤ ¬ ss)
“I consider the entire place below the disputed
building as also the area below and adjacent to the middle
dome, to be Janmbhumi.”(E.T.C.)
- ¤r l·lº¤n ·r| ¬º ¬¬ni l¬ ¬¬ -·ii· ¬| ¬-«i; ¤i ·i;
·¤i ·i| ¤º·n ¤lº¬ -i -in ¬i ¬ ¬º ¬-¤¸ ºi ·i¸l- ¬i - ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i
lr-¬i -i·¬º ¬¬¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºni ·ii| (¤ ¬÷ss)
“I cannot definitely say what was the length and
width of that place, but I used to perform
circumambulation, taking the entire place, including the
path of circumambulation, to be part of
¤«¸ nºi ¬ri ¤º -¸ ln ¤r¬ -·iil¤n ·i| ¬¬¬ ¬·-·i¸ l- ¬i ¬ n
-i·ni ·ii| (¤ ¬÷·oo)
“I considered the Chabutra, where an idol was
installed earlier, to be a part of Janmbhumi. ”(E.T.C.)
l··il·n ·i·· ¬i - n·i n r -i·ni r¸ | (¤ ¬ ·oz)
“I consider the disputed building to be ‘Garbhgrih’
(sanctum sanctorum).”(E.T.C.)
(xxx) OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¬ ·i·n «oo ··i ¤ ºi·i l¬ªii r ¬i ri ni|
¬¤i·¤i -ri--¤ - -¬ · ¤ ºiºi ¬| l¬ªi| r ; r-nl¬l¤¤i ¬i ¤ i·n r ; r
·r «oo ··i ¬ ·¤i·i ¤ ºi·| ·r| ¬nn| r | (¤ ¬ ··z)
“Ayodhya Mahatmya would perhaps have been
written 400 years back. The Skanda Purana manuscripts
on Ayodhya Mahatmya – as has been discovered – do not
appear to be more than 400 years old.”(E.T.C.)
¤º-¤ºi¤ ¤¬ ¤|«| ¬ ·¸ ¬º| ¤|« | n¬ -ilªi¬ ª¤ ¬ r|
¬ ¬ l¬n (¬··) ri n| r ¬i º ¤r ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬· i ¤|l« ¤i ¬ -i lªi¬ ª¤
¬ ¤¬| ¬i ºr| r ¬iº ; -- ;l·¤i ¬-¤·| ¬ ¬-¤ - n¬l-¤º ¬ ªi¬i
n·ii ¬·¤ ¤¸ ºi ¤|¤ l·,i·i ¬ -i lªi¬ ª¤ ¬ r| ¬ ·¬º ¬i·i l·¬ ¤ -n¬i
- ;¬¬i l··ººi l·¤i r | (¤ ¬÷·ro)
“Traditions orally pass on from one generation to
another, and they have been continuing orally for hundreds
of generations, and their details have been given in modern
books only on the basis of what was heard from the
gazetteer writers and other European scholars during the
time of East India Company.”(E.T.C.)
- ;¬ ¤º-¤ºi ·i¬| «in ¬ ¬r-n ·r| r¸ l¬ ºi- ¤«¸ nº ¤º r|
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- -·ii· ·ii, ·i-n· - ·i n·i · ºi - ¬i ¬· -
¤r¬ «ni ¤ n¤ n·i n r -·i ¬ ¤º r| r ¬i ·i i ¬i º ºi -
¤«¸ nº ¬i ¤¬ ¬-ni n ¬ ª¤ - ºi - ¬· - -·i ¬ ¬ ª¤
- -·| ¬i º l ¬¤i n¤i ri ni | . . . . - n ¤r ·r| -i¬¸ - r l¬
¬·i| ¤ ¬| ¬i ; ¤º-¤ºi ºr| r l¬ ºi- ¤«¸ nº ¤º r| ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i
¬·- r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬÷·r·)
“I do not agree that there was a tradition that the
birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji’s was on Ram Chabutra
itself. Actually, the birth of Lord Rama had taken place at
the aforesaid Garbh Grih itself and Ram Chabutra must
have been accepted as Rama’s birthplace by way of an
agreement. I do not know whether there had ever been a
tradition that the birth of Ram Chandra Ji had taken place
on Ram Chabutra itself.”(E.T.C.)
- ¤r ¤r¬ ·i| -¤·- ¬º ¤ ¬i r¸ l¬ ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ¤¬ ¬-ni n
¬ ª¤ - -·iil¤n ¬iº ¬¬- ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºi· ·i¬ ¤ ¬ilº¤i ¬il· ¬i -·i·i
;¬- l·lrn ·ii ¬iº ;¬| ¬iººi ¬·ri · ¬-·i·n ¤r ¬i-·ii ¬-¤·· ¬º·
¬| ¬ilºiºi ¬| ri n| l¬ ¤r ºi- ¤«¸ nºi r| ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·i¬
r ¬i º ¤r ¬i-·ii · ¤º-¤ºi ºi- ¤«¸ nºi «·· ¬ «i· - ¤ ·i ¬| n¤|
ri n|, ¬i ¬· ·ssr - ·i| ¤ ¤l¬n ·i|| (¤ ¬÷·rs)
“Priests, etc. performing pooja had vested interest in
it, and due to this very reason they may have tried to
arouse a faith that this Ram Chabutra itself is the
birthplace of Lord Rama, and this faith and tradition must
have been generated after the construction of Ram
Chabutra and it was prevalent in 1885 as well.”(E.T.C.)
¤º·n - n l¬¤i ºii¬· ¬i¬ ¬ ¬-«l··in l¬¬| ·i| ;lnri¬ ¬|
¤ -n¬ - ;¬ ºi- ¤«¸ nº ¬·i·i ¬¬¬ ¬¬«º ¬ ¬ -i· - «·· ¬i
¬~¬ ªi r- ·r| l-¬ni r | (¤ ¬÷ ·r«)
“We do not come across the mention of this Ram
Chabutra and that of it being built in the times of Akbar, in
any history book regarding the Mughal rule.”(E.T.C.)
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 ¬iº
;¬ nºr - º ¬· ¬iº «|¤ ·i¬ n -«· ¬ ·|¤ ºi- ¬·- -·i¬| ri · ¬|
¤º-¤ºi «º¬ºiº ºr||
(¤ ¬ z··÷z·z)
“The underlying place of the middle dome of the
disputed building was believed to be Ram Janamsthali
(Rama’s birthplace) by way of tradition, and this
tradition never underwent any change. Rather, under an
agreement people began to perform prayer and worship,
taking Ram Chabutra to be Rama’s birthplace, and in this
way, the tradition of Rama’s birthplace beneath the middle
dome continued to be in vogue.”(E.T.C.)
ºi- ¤«¸ nº ¬ ¬¬i·i ¬i º ¬i ; ¬nr l··il·n ¤lº¬º - ¤ ¬|
·r| ·i| l¬¬¬i ;¬ n¬ l-¤º - ¬r| n¤| «in ¬ ¬ ·l·i n l¬¤i ¬i
¬¬ | ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬·ii n n¬l-¤º l¬ªin ¬-¤ ;¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬ +¤º ºªii
¬i ; ¤i¬·i ºri ri ni ¬i º ¤«¸ nºi · ºri ri | ;¬ n¬l-¤º - ¤«¸ nº ¬i
¬~¬ ªi ·r| r «l~¬ ¤i¬· ¬i ¬~¬ ªi r ;¬l¬¤ ri ¬¬ni r l¬ ¬¬
¤«¸ nº ¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤i¬·i ºªii ºri ri | . . . . . ;¬ n¬l-¤º ¬i
l¬ªin ¬-¤ ¬¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬i · ªii ·ii, ni ¬¬¬| +¤i; r ¬ c ; ¤
«ni; n¤| ·i|, ¤º ¬« - · ¬· ·ssz - ¬¬ ¤«¸ nº ¬i · ªii ·ii, ni
¬¬¬| +¤i; ¬-|· ¬ «÷r l¤- ·i|| (¤ ¬÷z//)
“Except for Ram Chabutra there was no other place
in the disputed premises which may be associated with the
things stated in this gazetteer. At that time, that is, while
writing the Gazetteer, any cradle must have been kept
above this chabutra and there may not have been chabutra.
There is no mention of chabutra in this gazetteer; rather
there is mention of cradle therein. So, cradle may have
been kept in place of that chabutra.. . . . . At the time of
writing this gazetteer, when I had seen this chabutra, its
height was stated to be 5-6 inches; but when I saw that
chabutra in 1992, its height was 4-5 feet from the
¤ ¬i l¬ªii r l¬ ¬¬ ¬-¤ ¬ ¬i ni ¬i ¤ ¬i l·º·i¬ ·ii l¬
¬¬| ¤i¬· - ¬| ºi- ¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| ¤r ¬i ¬ ·iiººii ¬·
·sro ¬ ¬-¤ - ¬i ni - ¤ ¤l¬n ·i|| ¤r ¤i¬·i ¬-·i·n ·r| ºªii
r ¬i ri , ¬ri ¬· ·ssz n¬ ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ·ii| . . . . . - ;¬ l··i¤ ¤º
¬ s ·r| ¬r ¬¬ni l¬ ¤r ¬i ¬ ¬ ln ¬·ii n ¤i¬· - ¬| ºi- ¤·· ¬|
¬ ¬·- ¬| ¬« ¬-i·n r ; - ºi ¤ ¬i l·º·i¬ r l¬ ¬« ¤r ¬i ¬ ·iiººii
¬·ii n ¤i¬· ·i¬| «in ¬« ¤ ¤l¬n ·r| r | l¤º ¬ri l¬ - n ;¬
l··i¤ ¤º ¬ · r r l¬ ¤r ¬i¬ ·i| ·iiººii ¤ ¤l¬n r ¤i ·r| |
(¤ ¬ z/s)
“It was belief of people of that time that Sri
Ramchandra Ji was born in that very cradle. This public
perception was prevalent among people in 1850. This
cradle may have been put at the place where there was
Ramchabutra upto 1992. . . . . . I cannot say anything about
when this public hearsay, that is, the one about the birth of
Sri Ram Chandra Ji in cradle ceased to be prevalent. It is
my belief that this public perception, that is, the one about
the cradle is now not in prevalence. (Further stated) I have
doubt as to whether this perception is still prevalent or
(xxxi) OPW 11 – Dr. S.C. Mittal
;¬ ¬ ··i - - ºi ¬·i· r l¬, l¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i
·ii, ¬¬ -·ii· ¤º ¤¬ - l·º ·ii, l¬¬ ni · ¬º «i«º ,iºi ¤¬ -l-¬·
¬i l·-i ºi r ¬i| (¤ ¬÷·ss)
“In this behalf, it is my statement that at the place
where Rama was born, there lay a temple by demolishing
which a mosque was constructed by Babur.”(E.T.C.)
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬ ¬·- ¬| «in, ¤ i¤|· ;lnri¬ ¬ ¤r¬ ¬| «in
r | - · ;¬ ¬ « ·i - ¬r| ªi · ·r| ¤« i l¬ ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- ¬«
r ¬i ¬i º ¬ri r ¬i| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“The factum of Ram Chandra Ji’s birth precedes the
times of ancient history. I have not myself read about when
and where Ram Chandra Ji was born.”(E.T.C.)
- º ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¬| ·iiºi s - ·lºi n ¤ -n¬i - ¬iº l·ºi·i¬º r ¬
« ¬º ¬| ¤ -n¬ - , n·¤i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º - · ¤r ¤«i, l¬ ºi- ¬·-
¬¤i·¤i - r ¬i ¬iº ¬·n ¤ -n¬ - ¬¬ -·ii· ¬i ·i| l·¤i n¤i r , ¬ri
ºi- ¬i ¬·- -i·i ¬ini r | ·r -·i¬ ·r -·ii· -i·i ¬ini r , ¬ri
«i«º ,iºi -l-¬· ¬i l·-i ºi r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“I have, in the books as mentioned in para 8 of my
affidavit and particularly in Hans Bakker’s book, read that
Rama’s birth had taken place in Ayodhya and the said book
also specifies the place where is Rama is considered to
have taken birth. This place is considered to be the place
where mosque was erected by Babur.”(E.T.C.)
ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·- -·ii· ¬i·· ¬ l¬¤ - · ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i
¤ i¤|· ;lnri¬ ¤« ·i ¬i·º¤¬ ·r| ¬-ni| (¤ ¬ ·ss)
“I did not consider it to be necessary to read ancient
history of Ayodhya, with a view to know about the
birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji.”(E.T.C.)
l··il·n ·i·· - l¬¬| -·ii· ¤º ºi-¤·· ¬| ¬i ¬·--·ii· ºri
ri ni, ¤r «in - ;¬ ¬i·iiº ¬r ºri r ¸ ·¤i l¬ ¤ -n¬i - l··il·n -·ii·
¤º ¤¬ - l·º ri · ¬i ·ºi · r l¬¬ ¤º-¤ºi ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬i n ¤r -i·n ºr
r l¬ ¤ri ¤º ºi- ¬i ¬·- r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·«s)
“I am stating about where the birthplace of Ram
Chandra would have been in the disputed building, on this
basis; because books speak of there being a temple, about
which people by way of tradition have been holding that
Rama was born here.”(E.T.C.)
¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¤ lnril¬¬ · l·- ¬ -r-·¤¸ ºi ¤ -n¬ ·r| -i·|
¬in| r ;¬¬i ·ºi · º|ln÷lº·i¬i , ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤ - ªi ·iil- ¬ -·i¬i ,
-¤i riºi ¬il· ¬ ¬ « l·in ¬nni r, ·¤i l¬ ;¬ ¤ -n¬ ¬ ¤¸º ¤¬ ·iin -
·iil- ¬ «ini ¬i r| ¬~¬ ªi r | (¤ ¬ ·c«)
“Ayodhya Mahatmya is not taken to be an important
book from historical point of view. Its description appears
to be about customs and traditions and about important
religious sites, festivals, etc. of Ayodhya, because full one
part of this book mentions only of religious things.”(E.T.C.)
r ¬ « ¬º ¬ir« · ¬¤i ·¤i -ri--¤ ¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬¤·| ;¬ ¤ -n¬
- ·iil- ¬ · l·- ¬ l¬¤i r ¬i º ¤ lnril¬¬ · l·- ¬ ¬¬¬i ¤ ¤i n ¬º·i
- º l·¤iº ¬ ¬r| ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ·c«)
“Hans Bakker has in his book used ‘Ayodhya
Mahatmya’ from religious point of view, and it is, in my
opinion, not correct to use it from historical view-
(xxxii) OPW 12 - Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra
¬|ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¤lº¬º ¬¤i ·¤i l-·in n| · l ºi ªi º ·i ¬ ·i ··
¬ -· ¤ ·i ¬ l ºi ªi º ¬ ·| ¤ -rºi ¬ ·ºi º·i ¬ ¤ ¤ ¬ ª¤
- ¬| ºi -¬¬i ¬| · ¤ ni ¤ n - ¬· - l ¬¤i ·i i | (¤ ¬ «·)
“Sri Ramlala Ji had taken birth in Treta Era as
son of King Dashrath, below the middle dome of the
three domed building situated in Sri Ram Janambhumi
premises at Ayodhya.”(E.T.C.)
l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ ¬··º ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ¬« ¬ «·i ¤¬i ¬i ºri
r , ;¬ l··i¤ - - n ¬i ; ¬i·¬iº| ·r| r ¤º l··il·n ·i·· ¬ «·· ¬
¤r¬ ¤r ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ·ri ·ii| (¤ ¬ ··c)
“I do not know since when Ram Chabutra has been
in existence inside the disputed premises, but this Ram
Chabutra was there prior to the construction of the
disputed building.”(E.T.C.)
r-iºi ¬i º r-iº ¬i·i ºr· ·i¬ ¬i·i¸ ÷¬ ni ¬i ¤r ¤¸ ºi l·º·i¬
r l¬ ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- n·ii ¬·nººi l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ ·i|nº
¤«¸ nº ¤º r| r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ ··/)
“It is full belief of ours as well as of saints and sages
residing with us that Lord Rama had taken birth and
descended on chabutra itself inside the disputed
(xxxiii) OPW 13 - Narad Sharan
¬¤i ·¤i ·in·i· ºi- ¬| ¬·- ·i¸ l- r , ¬i º l··il·n «i ¤i ¬
«|¤ ·i¬ -·ii· ¬i r- ¬·¬i ¬·- -·ii· -i·n r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“Ayodhya is Lord Rama’s birthplace, and we
consider the middle place of the disputed structure to be
His birthsite.” (E.T.C.)
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- l··il·n ·i·· - r ¬i ·ii, ¤r «in -
¤º-¤ºinn º|ln lº·i¬ ¤º ¬ ·| r ; «in ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º ¬º ºri r¸ |
(¤ ¬ s«)
“On the basis of hearsay based on conventions and
traditions, I am saying that Lord Rama was born in the
disputed building.”(E.T.C.)
(xxxiv) OPW 16 Sri Jagadguru Ramnandacharya
Swami Rambhadracharya
¤¬ · · - ¬ ¬i l¬ - · ¬¤· ºi¤·i÷¤¤ ¤ºi÷z/ - l¬ªii r ,
·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- ¬¤i ·¤i - ri · ¬| «in l¬ªi| r, l¬¬| -·ii·
l·ºi·i ¬i l¬ ¬ ·r| r | (¤ ¬ ss)
“As I have written in para 27 of my affidavit, the
factum of Lord Rama’s birth in Ayodhya finds mention in
Yajurveda; there is no mention of any particular place
¬¬ ¬¤i·¤i - ¤¬ lrºº-¤ ¬·ii n -·ºi ¬i -º·¤i¬iº ·i·· r ,
¬ri ¤ ¬iºi ¬ ¬-¤·· ¬i¬ n ¬i ¬ ¬ ¬i¬º ¤º-« r - ¬| ºi- ¬·- l¬¤
·i | ¬¤ºi ·n ºi··i ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r| - · ·¤i¬ººi ºii-¤ ¬ ¬· ¬iº ¤r
l··¬·i l·¬i¬i r l¬ l··il·n -·i¬ ¤º r| ·in·i· ºi- ¬i ¬·- -·ii·
r | (¤ ¬ «o)
“There is a canopy-shaped building of gold in that
Ayodhya where the Supreme Being Sri Ram Chandra,
illumined with light, had come from Saket Lok and had
taken birth. Only on the basis of the aforesaid words, I
have as per grammar inferred that the disputed place itself
is the birthplace of Lord Rama.”(E.T.C.)
4412. A bare reading of all the above statements makes it
very clear and categorical that the belief of Hindus by tradition
was that birthplace of Lord Rama lie within the premises in
dispute and was confined to the area under the central dome of
three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner
4413. In arriving to this conclusion we do not find any
difficulty since the pleadings in general and particular also do
not detract us. When the Hindu parties have referred to the
entire disputed site as a place of birth, this Court can always find
out and record a finding for, instead of the entire area, a smaller
area within the same premises. The pleadings are not to be read
in a pedantic manner but the Court has to find out substance
therein as to whether the parties knew their case or not. The
evidence adduced by the parties and what the witnesses have
said on behalf of Hindu parties fortify the case set up by the
4414. In Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai,
ILR (1909) 33 Bom. 122 the Bombay High Court said:
"if this is the belief of the community......a secular judge is
bound to accept that belief - it is not for him to sit in
judgment on that belief."
4415. We are also of the view that once such belief gets
concentrated to a particular point, and in totality of the facts, we
also find no reason otherwise, it partakes the nature of an
essential part of religion particularly when it relates to a matter
which is of peculiar significance to a religion. It, therefore,
stands on a different footing. Such an essential part of religion is
constitutionally protected under Article 25.
4416. In N. Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board,
2002 (8) SCC 106 on page 123 the Court observed:
"as to what really constitutes an essential part of religion
or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with
reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or
practices regarded as parts of religion."
4417. In Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Acharya
Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another, 2004 (12) SCC
770 the Court said:
"9. The protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or
belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and,
therefore, contains a guarantee for rituals, observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or
integral part of religion. What constitutes an integral or
essential part of religion has to be determined with
reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets, historical
background etc. of the given religion. (See generally the
Constitution bench decisions in Commr., H.R.E. Vs. Sri
Lakshmindra Swamiar of Sri Srirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC
282, Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V. State of
Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853, and Seshammal Vs. State of
Tamilnadu (1972) 2 SCC 11, regarding those aspects that
are to be looked into so as to determine whether a part or
practice is essential or not). What is meant by "an
essential part or practices of a religion" is now the matter
for elucidation. Essential part of a religion means the core
beliefs upon which a religion is founded. Essential
practice means those practices that are fundamental to
follow a religious belief. It is upon the cornerstone of
essential parts or practices the superstructure of religion is
built. Without which, a religion will be no religion. Test to
determine whether a part or practice is essential to the
religion is - to find out whether the nature of religion will
be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away
of that part or practice could result in a fundamental
change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then
such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.
There cannot be additions or subtractions to such part.
Because it is the very essence of that religion and
alterations will change its fundamental character. It is such
permanent essential parts is what is protected by the
Constitution. No body can say that essential part or
practice of one's religion has changed from a particular
date or by an event. Such alterable parts or practices are
definitely not the 'core' of religion where the belief is based
and religion is founded upon. It could only be treated as
mere embellishments to the non-essential (sic essential)
part or practices."
4418. In view of the above discussion of the matter, we are
satisfied and hold that the place of birth as believed and
worshipped by Hindus is the area covered under the central
dome of three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure, in the
inner courtyard of the premises in dispute. We answer all the
three issues , i.e., issues no. 11(Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-
5) accordingly.
(F) Others:
4419. In this category fall issues no. 27 (Suit-4) and 1
4420. Issue No.27 (Suit-4) reads as under:
"Whether the courtyard contained Ram Chabutara,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so, whether they were also
demolished on 06.12.1992 along with the main temple?"
4421. While discussing the issues relating to limitation and
possession, as also issue no.24 (Suit-5), it is already held that at
the premises in the outer courtyard, there existed Ram
Chabutara, Bhandar and Sita Raoi, which stand confirmed from
the two maps also i.e. of 1885 and 1950 (Appendix Nos. 3 and
2). The parties also admit during the course of argument that all
these three structures were demolished on 06.12.1992 when the
disputed structure was demolished. Issue 27 (Suit-4) is
accordingly answered in affirmative.
4422. Issue No.1 (Suit-3) read as under:
"Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed
therein as alleged in para 3 of the plaint?"
4423. Before answering it, once again we reiterate that this
suit pertains only to the premises within inner courtyard
including the disputed structure. We have already held that the
disputed structure was constructed as a 'mosque' and always
treated and called 'mosque' by Hindus and Muslims both, alike,
for the last almost one and half century before the date of
attachment. DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava on page 31 of
his statement, has clearly said:
"The disputed structure was a three domed structure. It was
known as Babri Masjid. It was a mosque."
4424. However, we have also held that despite of the
structure constructed as a 'mosque', and, termed and called by
the people at large as 'mosque', the Hindus continuously entered
and worshipped the place since according to their belief, it was
the place of birth of Lord Rama and therefore, could not have
been desecrated so as to extinguish in any manner. The idols
were kept in the inner courtyard under the central dome on
22/23 December, 1949. The plaintiffs, however, claim in para 3
of the plaint as under:
"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."
4425. Therefore, the manner in which the plaintiff has
depicted the premises in dispute and claimed it to be a temple is
not correct in view of our findings recorded above. The
premises in dispute cannot be treated to be a temple in the
manner it is being pleaded and claimed by the plaintiffs (Suit-3).
Though there are other aspects of the matter which we have
already discussed, subject to those findings, as pointed out
above also, in our view, issue No.1(Suit-3) has to be answered
in negative. It is decided accordingly.
4426. (L) Identity of the property:In this category fall
issues no. 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) and 5 (Suit-5).
4427. Issue No.1(B)(a) (Suit-4):
"Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no.583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra
known as Ram Kot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate) Ayodhya?
If so its effect thereon?"
4428. It is not disputed by the parties before this Court that
the Nazul plot, in which the building in dispute existed, was
recorded as Nazul, plot no. 583, Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot
Ram Chandra known as Ramkot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate
Ayodhya). In the revenue records, plot number is different. The
Nazul number of the plot in which the building in dispute situate
is not disputed. It is also admitted by all the parties that the plot
in which disputed building existed was recorded Nazul in the
First Settlement 1861 and had continued so even when the suit
in question was filed.
4429. "Nazul land" means land owned by the Government.
It is the own pleading of Sunni Board in para 24(B) of the
written statement filed in Suit-5.
4430. In the Legal Glossary 1992, fifth edition, published
by the Legal Department of the Government of India at page
589, the meaning of the word "Nazul" has been given as
"Rajbhoomi i.e. Government land". It is an Arabic word and it
refers to a land annexed to Crown. During the British Regime,
immoveable property of individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and
Rajas when confiscated for one or the other reason, it was
termed as "Nazul property". The reason being that neither it was
acquired nor purchased after making payment. In the old record,
we are told when they used to be written in Urdu, this kind of
land was shown as "Jaidad Munzabta".
4431. For dealing with such property under the authority
of the Lt. Governor of North Western provinces, two orders
were issued in October, 1846 and October, 1848 wherein after
the words "Nazul property" its english meaning was given as
"Escheats to the Government". Sadar Board of Revenue on 20
May, 1845 issued a circular order in reference to Nazul land and
in para 2 thereof it mentioned "The Government is the proprietor
of those land and no valid title to them can be derived but from
the Government." The Nazul land was also termed as confiscated
estate. Under circular dated 13
July, 1859, issued by the
Government of North Western Provinces, every Commissioner
was obliged to keep a final confiscation statement of each
district and lay it before the Government for orders. The
kingdom of Oudh was annexed by East India Company in 1856.
It declared the entire land as vested in the Government and
thereafter settled the land to various individuals Zamindars,
Nawabs etc.
4432. At Lucknow revolt against the British Company
broke up in May, 1857 which is known as the first war of
independence which very quickly angle a substantial part of
north western provinces. After failure of the above revolution,
the then Governor General Lord Canning on 15
May, 1858
issued a proclamation confiscating propriety rights in the soil
with the exception of five or six persons who had given support
and assistance to British Officers. This land was resettled first
for a period of three years and then permanent propriety rights
were given to certain Talukdars and Zamindars by grant of
'Sanad' under Crown Grants Act. In the meantime we all know
that under the Government of India Act, 1858 the entire Indian
territory under the control of East India Company was placed
under Crown w.e.f. First November, 1858. A kind of first
settlement in summary we undergone in Oudh in 1861 wherein
it appears that the land in dispute was shown as Nazul and since
then in the records, the nature of land is continuously being
mentioned as Nazul.
4433. In respect to Revenue records as well as Nazul, DW
2/1-2, Sri Ram Sharan Srivastava who happened to be Collector,
Faizabad between July 1987 till 1990 and claimed to have seen
the record, made the following statement:
- º ¬·i|· ºi¬-· ¬l·i¬ ªiiniº - n|· º ··¤¸ ¬ l-¬- - ¬ ¬·
·sc·, ·sss÷s«, · ·ssc÷s/ ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi ¬¤¬··i ·i , l¬·¬i - ·
¬·¤¤· l¬¤i ·ii| ;· ¬l·i¬ ªii - ªi¬ºi, ªini ·|, ªi ·- ºiil-¬ ·i ¬iº
n|·i ¬ l-¬- - ¬ ¬| lº¤i - ;·¬ ¬¬i·i ¬¬n ¬ ¬¤¬··i ·i| | ¬¤ºi ·n
n|· ¬ l-¬- - ¬ · lº¤i - ¬ ¬lnlº·n ¬· ·ss· - r ¤ ·¬¸ ¬ ·i¸ l- ¬
¬· ¬ ¬ « l·in lº¤i - ·i| ¬l--l¬n ·i| | ¬¬| ·ss· ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º
n ¤iº l¬¤ n¤ ªi¬ºi, ªini ·| · ªi ·- ·i| ¬¤¬··i ·i | ;· n|·i
«··i «-n| ¬i º ·¬ ¸ ¬ ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - l··il·n -·ii· ¬i
¬·--·ii· l¬ªii r ¬i r ¬iº ¬r| ÷¬r| ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ·i| l¬ªii r ¬i r |
;· ¬~¬ ªii ¬ ¬i·iiº ¤º r| - · ¤r l··¬·i l·¬i¬i l¬ l··il·n -·i¬
·in·i· ¬| ºi- ¬i ¬·--·ii· r | ¬¤ºi ·n ¬ ·l·i n n|·i ¬l-¬- - ¬i º
·ss· ¬ ¬·i| ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬i - · -¸ ¬ ª¤ - ¬¤· l¬¬il·i¬iº| ¬i¤i ¬¤
- - n·i¬º · ªii ·ii, ¬l·i¬ ªiiniº - ¬i¬º ·r| | ¬ l-¬- - ¬| n|·i
lº¤i - ¬ n ¬| ·ii·ii - ·i| ¬iº ¤ -¤ ¬ lº¤i - ro ¤ ¬ n¬ ¬| ·i|| ¤ ¬·i|
lº¤i - ¬ -i;¤ºi ·i ·i| | n|·i lº¤i - ¬ - ¬· ¬ni ¤i ¬ ªi¬ ¬i ·i-
l¬ªii r ¬i ·ii, ¤º·n - n ¬·- ¬ l¬¬| ¬i ·i- ¤i· ·r| r | ¤r¬ ¤·
·¸ ¬º ¬ l-¬- - ¬ n|·i ¬l·i¬ ªi ¤i·| ªi¬ºi, ªini ·| ¬i º ªi ·- ¬·¸ -
·i | ¤º·n ¬ri n¬ - n ¤i· r, n|¬º ¬ l-¬- - ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi lr··| -
·i | (¤ ¬ r«÷rr)
“The records of three revenue settlements of year
1861,1893-94 &1936-37 were available in the revenue
record room under me. These records included khasra,
khatauni, khewat and the reports of the three settlements
were available separately besides them. The survey report
of 1931 in respect of nazul land, was also included besides
the three settlements and reports. The khasra, khatauni &
khewat prepared on basis of survey of 1931, were also
available. In the records of all the three settlements and the
nazul survey, the disputed site has been mentioned as
Janmsthan and at places Ramjanmbhumi has also been
mentioned. On basis of the said mentions, I drew the
conclusion that the disputed site was the birth place of
Lord Rama. I had summoned and perused the original
record of the above-referred three settlements & 1931
survey, in my District Magistrate office and did not peruse
them in the record room. The three reports of settlements
were in English language and each report ran into fifty
pages. All these reports were in typed form. All the three
reports bore the name of the surveyor or the scribe, but I
do not remember any of those names. The three records of
the first and second settlement viz. khasra, khatauni and
khewat were in Urdu. However, to the best of my memory,
the records of the third settlement were in Hindi.” (E.T.C.)
¬·i| ¬l·i¬ ªii ¬| lr··| ¤ ln¤i ·i| -i ¬¸ · ·i| | ·r lr··| ¤ ln¤i
¤r¬ ¬ lº¬i· ¤º ¬¤¬··i ·i|, - · ·r| «··i; ·i| | ¤ lr··| ¤ ln¤i
·i| ºi¬-· ¬l·i¬ ªiiniº ¬ r| - º ¤i¬ ¬i; ·i| | ·ss· ¬ ·¬ ¸ ¬ ¬· ¬
¬l·i¬ ªi ·i| ¬·¸ - ·i , l¬·¬| ¤ ln¤i ºi¬-· ¬l·i¬ ªiiniº ¬ -¸ ¬
¬l·i¬ ªii ¬ ¬i·i ¬i; ·i| | (¤ ¬ rr)
“The Hindi copies of all the records were available.
The Hindi copies were already available in the records,
and I had not got them prepared. These Hindi copies had
also come to me from the revenue record room. The records
of nazul survey of 1931, were in Urdu, whose copies had
come along with original records from the revenue record
room.” (E.T.C.)
n|·i ¬ l-¬- - ¬i º ¤i ·i, ·¬¸ ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªi - ¬i -
ºi-¤·· ¬i r| ·i- l¬ªi r ¬i ·ii| (¤ ¬ rr÷rc)
“Only Kote Ramchandra was mentioned in the
records of three settlements and the fourth , nazul
¬iªiº| ¬ l-¬- - ¬ ·-«ºi· ·rs, ·co · ·co ¤ ·i , ¬i r- ¤i·
·r| r | ¬· ¬·i| ·-«ºi· - ¬·--·ii· l¬ªii r ¬i ·ii| rº ¬ l-¬- - -
·¬i- ¬| ¬ ª¤i «·¬ ¬in| ·i|, l¬· ·¬i- ¬ ·-«ºi· - · ·rs · ·co
«ni¤ r , · ¬ilªiº| «··i «-n ¬ ·-«ºi· ·i | ·¬¸ ¬ ¬ ¬· - ¬¬¬
¬ «l·in ·-«ºi· rss, rsc ·i, ¬i - n ¤i· r | (¤ ¬ rc)
"The numbers of the last settlement were 159, 160
and 160A, which I do not remember. Janamsthan was
written against all these numbers. The plot number
changes in every settlement. The plot numbers 159 and 160
given by me, were the numbers of the last settlement. The
numbers concerned to it in the Nazul survey were 583, 586,
which are within my memory." (E.T.C.)
·¬¸ ¬ ¬· ¬ ¬ « l·in ¬l·i¬ ªii - l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬ «l·in
·-«ºi - -l-¬· ºiir «i«º ¤i -l-¬· ¬·--·ii· ·r| l¬ªii ·ii, «l~¬
l¬¤ ¬·--·ii· l¬ªii ·ii| l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬ «l·in ·¬¸ ¬ ·-«ºi -
¬l« -ni· ·r| l¬ªii ·ii| (¤ ¬ rc)
“In the records related to the nazul survey, neither
‘Masjid Shah Babar’ nor ‘Masjid Janmsthan’ was written
in the numbers related to the disputed site and instead only
Janmsthan was mentioned. Graveyard was not mentioned
in the concerned nazul numbers of the disputed
¤r¬ · ·¸ ¬º «··i «-n ¬ ¬l·i¬ ªii - l¬¬| ·-«º - -l-¬·,
ºiir| -l-¬· ¤i ¬·--·ii· -l¬¬· ·r| l¬ªii ·ii| n|¬º «··i «-n ¬
ªi¬ºi, ªini ·| · ªi ·- - l¬¬|÷l¬¬| lº¬i· - ;·-º¤i ¬ºi· ·i , l¬¬-
l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ¬ s ·-«ºi· - ¬·--·ii· -l-¬· ¤i ¬r| ¬i-i
-l-¬· ;º-º¤i ¬ºi· ¬ ,iºi l¬ªi n¤ ·i | ;¬¬| lº¤i - - · ·i ¬| ·i||
;¬ ¬ « ·i - - · lº¤i - ·sss - «i · ¬i¤ º · ·¤¸ ¬i ·i ¬| ·i|| - º|
lº¤i - ¤º ¬i ¤ r ; ·i|| ¬i ; ¬l·i¬iº| º ··¤¸ «i · ¬ ¬i¤ ·i | ¬i ¤¬ni ,
«i · ¬i¤ º · ·¤¸ ¬ ¬l¤· ¬ ·|¤ ¬ ¬l·i¬iº| ·i , - -«º ·r| | l¬·
lº¬i· ¬ - ;º-º¤i ¬ ºi· l¬¤ n¤ ·i ¬i º l¬·¬| lº¤i - - · ·i ¬| ·i|,
¬·r ¬·i| -|¬ ·r| l¬¤i n¤i ·¤i l¬ -i ¬¸ ·i -i-¬i ¬·i¬n - ¤ l· n
·ii| (¤ ¬ rc÷r/)
“In no number of the records of first and second
settlement, there was any mention of mosque, royal mosque
or Janmsthan mosque. In certain records of khasra,
khatauni & khewat of the third settlement, there were
interpolations and Janmsthan Masjid or Jama Masjid were
interpolated in certain numbers of the disputed site. I had
sent its report. I had sent the report in the behalf to the
Board of Revenue in 1989. An enquiry was held on my
report. Some officer of Board of Revenue had come. The
investigator was an officer subordinate to the Secretary,
Board of Revenue and was not a member. The records in
which interpolation had been made and whose report I had
submitted, were never corrected because the matter was
pending in Court.” (E.T.C.)
4434. We may have another aspect. In para 24(B) of the
written statement in Suit-5, Muslim parties (U.P.Sunni Central
Board of Waqf) have said:
"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
decided for the purposes of the mosque."
4435. The claim of the muslim parties is that the entire
territory which came in the control of Babar after defeating
Ibrahim Lodhi and others became his land since king was the
owner of the land and no system of private ownership was
recognized and therefore, he was at liberty to direct for any kind
of construction on such land and the land could not have been
treated to be owned by any private individual or anyone else.
4436. Let us consider this aspect also in the context of the
theory of 'Nazul'. Such kind of land cannot be a Nazul land. If
the entire territory during Mughal regime would that of a king,
as soon as the territory annexation or otherwise changed its hand
with the East India Company, they would have entered into the
shoes of the Mughal king and got the same rights, obligations,
privileges etc. on the land. The status of the land would not have
changed in such a manner. Such a land could not be confiscated
since it was already the land of the king but when a
proclamation was issued for confiscating the land, meaning
thereby the East India Company or the British Government did
not follow the same principle. In our view, in such a matter,
even the doctrine of "escheat" or "bona vacantia" may not be
4437. The question as to who could have been owner of
the land in 1528 AD when alleged that the disputed building was
constructed by Babar through his Commander Mir Baqi, the
concept sought to be canvassed is that law, whether Islam or
Hindu Shastras, do not recognise any personal right of
ownership upon immoveable property. The entire property
within the suzerainty of the king belong to him, who had right to
tax its subject in the form of tax or otherwise by realising share
in the agricultural or other income in the immoveable property.
The percentage of share may differ and that may not be relevant
for our purpose.
4438. The second aspect of the matter is that since ancient
time the right of ownership proceeded with possession and is
recognized by the well known principle "possession follows
title". The individual right of ownership therefore was well
recognized in the various personal laws and the only right the
king had to acquire the land in known valid means, namely by
purchase or gift etc. The obligation upon the king is to protect
the subject and his property from enemies and for that purpose
he used to raise revenue from the subject in the form of tax
and/or share from the income of the property etc. It is said that
the King, by virtue of its authority, was not the sole owner of the
entire immoveable property within his suzerainty but though the
immoveable property was subject to his suzerainty, the
individual right of the owner on the property continued to be
recognized. Besides, the fact that the land could have been
acquired by the king by valid means like purchase, gift etc.,
meaning thereby other modes of acquisition of immoveable
property by King existed otherwise no private owner of the land
in question would have been there within his suzerainty.
4439. The learned counsel for the parties in this aspect
referred to the doctrine of Escheat/bona vacantia. We find that
the right of the King to take property by escheat or as bona
vacantia was recognized by common law of England. Escheat
property was the lord's right of re-entry on real property held by
a tenant dying intestate without lawful heirs. It was an incident,
of feudal tenure and based on the want of a tenant to perform the
feudal services. On the tenant dying intestate without leaving
any lawful heirs, his estate came to an end and the lord was in
by his own right and not by way of succession or inheritance
from the tenant to re-enter the real property as owner. In most of
the cases the land escheated to the Crown as the lord paramount,
in view of the gradual elimination of intermediate or mesne
lords since 1290 AD. The Crown takes as bona vacantia goods
in which no one else can claim property. In Dyke Vs. Walford 5
Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER 557 (580) it was said "it is the right
of the Crown to bona vacantia to property which has no other
owner." The right of the Crown to take as bona vacantia extends
to personal property of every kind. Giving a notice at this stage
that the escheat of real property of an intestate dying without
heirs was abolished in 1925 and the Crown cannot take its
property as bona vacantia. The principle of acquisition of
property by escheat i.e right of the Government to take on
property by escheat or bona vacantia for want of a rightful
owner was enforced in the Indian territory during the period of
East India Company by virtue of statute 16 and 17 Victoriae, C.
95, Section 27.
4440. We may recollect having gone through the history
that several estates were taken over by British Company by
applying the doctrine of lapse like Jhansi which was another
kind of the above two principles. The above provisions had
continued by virtue of Section 54 of Government of India Act,
1858, Section 20(3)(iii) of Government of India Act, 1915 and
Section 174 of the Government of India Act, 1935. After the
enactment of the Constitution of independent India, Article 296
now provides :
"Subject as hereinafter provided, any property in the
territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come
into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as
the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat
or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner,
shall if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State,
and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union."
4441. The Apex Court in Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd.
(supra) has considered the above principles in the context of
sovereign India as it stands under its constitution after
independence and has observed that "in this country the
Government takes by escheat immoveable as well as moveable
property for want of an heir or successor. In this country escheat
is not based on artificial rules of common law and is not an
incident of feudal tenure. It is an incident of sovereignty and
rests on the principle of ultimate ownership by the State of all
property within its jurisdiction."
4442. The Apex Court placed reliance on Collector of
Masulipatam Vs. C. Vencata Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525;
Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA
92, 101, Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Vs. State of
Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146, Legal Remembrancer Vs.
Corporation of Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204.
4443. The Judicial Committee in Cook Vs. Sprigg 1899
AC 572 discussing what is an act of state, observed :
“The taking possession by Her Majesty, whether by
cession or by any other means by which sovereignty can be
acquired, was an act of State.”
4444. This decision has been followed in Raja Rajinder
Chand Vs. Mst. Sukhi and others AIR 1957 S.C. 286.
4445. In Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary of State
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 make good in the municipal
Courts established by the new sovereign only such rights as
that sovereign has, through his officers, recognised. Such
rights as he had under the rule of predecessors avail him
4446. In Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1958 SC 816, the Court
said :
“The expression 'act of State' is, it is scarcely necessary to
say, not limited to hostile action between rulers resulting in
the occupation of territories. It includes all acquisitions of
territory by a sovereign State for the first time, whether it
be by conquest or cession.”
4447. In Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa AIR
1962 SC 1288, the Court said, “ 'Act of State' is the taking over
of sovereign powers by a State in respect of territory which was
not till then a part of its territory, either by conquest, treaty or
cession, or otherwise.”
4448. To the same effect was the view taken by the
Constitution Bench in Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 1962 SC 1305 in para 12 as under :
“It is settled law that conquest is not the only mode by
which one State can acquire sovereignty over the territories
belonging to another State, and that the same result can be
achieved in any other mode which has the effect of
establishing its sovereignty.”
4449. In Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1955 SC 504, in para 40, the Court said :
“The status of a person must be either that of a
sovereign or a subject. There is no tertium quid. The law
does not recognise an intermediate status of a person being
partly a sovereign and partly a subject and when once it is
admitted that the Bhomicharas had acknowledged the
sovereignty of Jodhpur their status can only be that of a
subject. A subject might occupy an exalted position and
enjoy special privileges, but he is none the less a
subject ...”
4450. In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Sajjanlal
Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706 it was held that the
Rules of the erstwhile Indian States exercised sovereign powers,
legislative, executive and judicial. Their firmans were laws
which could not be challenged prior to the Constitution. The
Court relied on its earlier two decisions in Director of
Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs. Akram Ali AIR 1956
SC 60, and Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC
4451. In Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa A.I.R.
1962 S.C. 1288 “act of the State” was explained in the following
“an “act of State” may be the taking over of sovereign
powers either by conquest or by treaty or by cession or
otherwise. It may have happened on a particular date by a
public declaration or proclamation, or it may have been
the result of a historical process spread over many years,
and sovereign powers including the right to legislate in that
territory and to administer it may be acquired without the
territory itself merging in the new State.”
4452. This decision has been followed later on in
Biswambhar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.
1964(1) Supreme Court Journal 364.
4453. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the applicant,
however, submitted that the State has already given up and is
not contesting the matter though it is a party in the suit. In the
circumstances, whosoever may have in the possession in the
Nazul record of the Government, it would not result in treating
the land in dispute owned by the Government or belonging to
the Government. Hence the matter has to be decided between
the parties other than the Government, who has given up its case
and has made a statement that it is not contesting the matter.
4454. Sri S.P.Srivastava, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has made a statement to this effect before us
that as per his instructions, the State Government is not
contesting the suit.
4455. In view thereof and fortified by the law laid down in
State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh
(supra) despite the fact that building is shown to continued as
Nazul plot no.583 of Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot
Ram Chandra, we find that it will not make any impact upon the
claim of the various parties of the two communities since the
State of U.P. is not claiming any right over the property in
dispute and has specifically taken a stand of no contest. The
issue 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) is answered accordingly.
4456. Issue No.5 (Suit-5) is as under:
"Is the property in question properly identified and
described in the plaint?"
4457. This issue pertains to the identification of the
property in dispute as described in the plaint. Counsel for
defendants No.4 and 5 submitted that the suit as framed show
the property in respect whereto relief was sought as mentioned
in the annexures no.1, 2 and 3 to the plaint and do not specify of
the boundaries of the property in respect whereto Suit-5 was
filed. However, so far as the disputed site and structure is
concerned, there is no dispute between the parties in respect
thereto either about its identification or description. After the
decision of the Apex Court in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui's case
(supra) holding acquisition of property by the Central
Government under Act, 1993, except the site in dispute, valid,
the only area which is now required to dealt with by us in all
these cases is that which comprises of the of outer and inner
courtyard including disputed structure.
4458. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
since the property in dispute against which now the Court is
required to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief
or not is well identified and known to all the parties, there is no
ambiguity. Issue No.5 is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour
of the plaintiffs.
4459. (M) Issues relating to Specific Relief Act:
4460. Issues no. 8 (Suit-1) and 18 (Suit-5) falls in this
category which read as under:
Issue No. 8 :-"Is the suit barred by proviso to Section
42 Specific Relief Act?"
Issue No. 18:-"Whether the suit is barred by section
34 of the Specific Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of
the additional written statement of defendant no.3 and also
as alleged in paragraph 47 of the written statement of
defendant no.4 and paragraph 62 of the written statement
of defendant no. 5?"
4461. In Suit-1 issue 8 has been framed in view of the
pleadings of defendants no. 1 to 5 (i.e. para 17 of the written
statement) as well as para 17 of the written statement of
defendant no. 10 which read as under:
Written statement of defendants no. 1 to 5
·¤i ·/. ¤r l¬ - · ·; ¬i ¬·¬i ¤i ¬i ; r¬ «i¬| ·r| ºri ¬i º
· r | ;¬ ·¬r ¬ ·i·i ;-n¬ºilº¤i r¬« ·¤i «z ¬i· · ·i·º¬|
ªii¬ ·i¬il«¬ ¤¬|ºi; ¬·i¬n r |
"Para 17. That right or possession of the plaintiffs
remained no more and, therefore, this suit for declaration
under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not
maintainable. (E.T.C.)
Written statement of defendant no. 10
"17. That as the plaintiff has never remained in possession
or occupation of the building in suit, he has no right, title
or claim over the said property and as such the suit is even
barred by the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief
4462. In Suit-5 para 42 of the additional written statement
of defendant no. 3, para 47 of the written statement of defendant
no. 4 and para 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5
read as under:
"42. That site plan annexure II attached to the abovenoted
plaint does not bear any plot no's (settlement or Nazul) nor
it is bounded as to give any definite identity of property.
Temple Shri Vijay Ragho ji Sakshi Gopal has never been
subject matter of the any of the suit O.O.S. 4/89 or O.O.S.
3/89 pending before this Hon'ble Court. Sumitra Bhawan is
another temple shown in the site plan. Which is temple of
Sheshaawatar Laxmanji Maharaj and that is why it is
famous name of his mother Sumitra as Sumitra Bhawan. It
has been in possession and management of Mahant Raj
Mangal Das one of the panch of Nirmohi Akhara. The
Nazul plot no 588 measuring 1-6-13-15 Kachwanceis of
Mohalla Ram Kot is recorded with Deity Laxamanji
Maharaj through Ram Das Nirmohi who is Guru of Raj
Mangal Das. Mah Ram Das of Sumitra Bhwan is recorded
in settlement plot no. 168 to 174 as qubiz. Similarly
Lomash Chaura Mandir, Sita Koop Mandir, Kuti shown is
said map has distinct Deity of Bhagwa Ram Lalaji by the
other panches of Nirmohi Akhara namely and respectively
Mahant Dwarika Das, Mahant Naval Kishore Das and
Ram Gopal Das who are all panches of Nirmohi Akhara.
Sankat Mochan temple have been omitted in the said map
whereas it did exist on the date of this suit. It has its deity
Sankat Mochan Hanomanji and Thakur Ram Janki
represented by Sarbarakar Ram Dayal saran Chela of Ram
Lakhan saran. Late Ram Lakhan Saran and also belong to
the spiritual family of Nirmohi Akhara as he was Naga
chela of Goliki Ram Lakhan Das, one of the old panch of
Nirmohi Akhara. Other Samadhis in the name of famous
sages have been owned and claimed by answering
defendant no. 3 as Samadhies of old Sadhus of Nirmohi
Akhara. Panches and Sadhus of Akhara are living in the
surrounding since before the human memory. The outer
Sahan carried a little temple of Bhagwan Ram Lalaji along
with other place which are regularly worshipped according
to the customs prevailing amongst Rama Nandi Vairagies.
The outer part with this temple of Ram Lallaji and other
deities have ever been in management and charge of
Nirmohi Akhara as sheibiat till this outer portion with
Bhandar was attached U/s 145 Cr. P.C. On 16.2.82 and a
receiver is appointed there vide order of Civil Judge
Faizabad in Reg. Suit 239/82 Sri Ram Rama Nandi
Nirmohi Akhara Versus K.K. Ram Varma etc. due to lootpat
committed by Dharam Das. Mr. Deoki Nandan Agarwal
has named himself to be witness of Dharam Das. Therefore
suit for all these properties by plaintiff 3 is not
maintainable for want of possession and is barred by
provision of sec. 34 of specific Relief Act.
47. That the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act also.
62. That the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of a real
and subsisting cause of action and not seeking relief of
possession u/s 34 Specific Relief Act and as per plaint
averment there is on surviving cause of action in favour of
the plaintiffs."
4463. Issue 8 (Suit-1) relates to Section 42 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963"). It
would be useful first to have a glance over the said provision:
42. Injunction to perform negative agreement.-- Notwith-
standing anything contained in clause (e) of Section 41,
where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do
a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express
or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstances that
the court is unable to compel specific performance of the
affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting
an injunction to perform the negative agreement:
Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the
contract so far as it is binding on him.
4464. Before enactment of Act, 1963 the field was
governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (in short Act, 1877).
The corresponding provision in the earlier enactments was
Section 47 pari meteria with the present Section 42. Section
41(e) of Act, 1963 recognize a general rule that an injunction
ought not to be granted to prevent breach of contract, the
performance of which would not be specifically enforced. For
example a contract of personal service is not specifically
enforceable. Therefore, no injunction should be granted to
restrain its breach and this is what is recognised and specifically
provided in Section 41(e) of Act, 1963.
4465. To this general rule enunciated in Section 41(e), the
legislature has recognised an exception and has embodied it in
Section 42. Where a contract contains both, a negative and an
affirmative stipulation, the Court will interfere by injunction to
restrain breach of the negative portion of the contract without
referring to the question whether or not the whole contract is
capable of specifically enforced. It is said that this provision is
in recognition of the view expressed in Lumley Vs. Wagner,
(1865) 1 Eq. 411. It appears that before the decision in Lumley
Vs. Wagner (supra) the British Courts were of the view when it
may not enforce the positive part of contract, it ought not to
restrain by injunction any breach of the negative part. This view
was overruled in Lumley Vs. Wagner (supra) and Lord St.
Leonards observed:
"Wherever this Court has no proper jurisdiction to
enforce specific performance it operates to bind men's
conscience as far as they can be bound to a true and literal
performance of their agreement and it will not suffer them
to depart from their contracts at their pleasure leaving the
party with whom they have contracted to the mere chance
of any damages which a jury may give."
4466. During the course of the argument learned counsel
for the defendant-muslim parties have not addressed us as to
how Suit-1 deserves to be defeated by virtue of Section 42. The
claim of the plaintiff is neither based on any contract nor
agreement but it is a personal right of his own, enforcement
whereof he has sought by seeking a declaration that he has a
right to worship at the place in dispute, i.e., a place for which
Suit-1 is confined, i.e., the inner courtyard and secondly that the
objects of his worship exist thereat be not disturbed and he
should not be obstructed in observance of his personal right of
worship. It would have been a different thing if the argument
would have been that the obstruction, if any, by the official
defendants is in performance of their official duties and
enforcement of a statutory order passed by the Magistrate under
Section 145 Cr.P.C., hence an injunction restraining them from
creating a so called obstruction which is nothing but the
compliance of the statutory order cannot be granted, which
could have been considered in its context but here the specific
objection is with reference to Section 42 of the Specific Relief
Act which in our view is ex facie not attracted in this case. Issue
8 (Suit-1) is accordingly answered in negative. It is held that
the suit is not barred by proviso to Section 42 of Act, 1963.
4467. Issue 18 (Suit-5) relates to Section 34 of Act, 1963
and here also it would be prudent to have a glance over the
relevant provision:
"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or
right . - Any person entitled to any legal character, or to
any right as to any property, may institute a suit against
any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such
character or right, and the court may in its discretion make
therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff
need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration
where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a
mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.-A trustee of property is a "person interested
to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not
in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a
4468 The basic submission of defendants no. 3, 4 and 5
(Suit-5) in persuading this Court to hold the suit not
maintainable by virtue of Section 34 of Act 1963 is that the
plaintiffs being out of possession of the property for which the
suit in question has been filed, cannot seek a mere declaration
and injunction unless a relief for possession is also claimed in
absence whereof the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Act. This
we have already dealt with in detail at various stages earlier also
but since it is a substantial objection raised by the defendants
and persuaded at length by Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate for
Nirmohi Akhara we shall deal here in detail.
4469. Suit-5 has been filed by two plaintiffs, i.e., the idol
and the place, i.e., Sri Ramjanambhumi Asthan as deity with the
status of juridical personality through next friend for the
protection of themselves and the property vests in them. On the
date when the suit was filed, both the deities were at the site in
dispute despite of the premises under attachment and the
management in the hands of a Receiver. We have already held
that the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are juridical persons. Both are at
the site in dispute. It is nobody's case that the deity is not
existing or present at the disputed site though by its very nature
the management and care has to be taken by a natural person
and since the date of attachment it is in the hands of a Receiver.
The possession of Receiver is, therefore, qua deity is like that of
a shebait or a manager. Since the deities are already there
residing and existing, for their purpose it is sufficient to seek a
declaration about their status as well as that of property and
nothing more is required except where if they have any
apprehension of obstruction etc., in the enjoyment of their status
or property, they can always seek an injunction for prevention of
such obstruction.
4470. Where an action is brought to obtain a declaration of
a person's right vis a vis a property, in such a case bar provided
under Section 34 of Act 1963 would not be attracted. In Limba
Bin Krishna and others Vs. Rama Bin Pimplu and anothers,
1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548 while considering the question of
applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 in a
case where the plaintiffs sought a declaration regarding his right
to perform worship of an idol, it was held that such a suit is
maintainable and not barred by Section 42 of Act 1963. A
Division Bench of Bombay High Court relied on a Calcutta
High Court in Mitta Kunth Audhicarry Vs. Neerunjun
Audhicarry, 14 Beng. L.R. 166, Couch C.J., described the right
of a plaintiff to perform worship of an idol as 'property' subject
to partition, the joint owners being entitled to perform the
worship. It also relied on Pranshankar Vs. Prannath
Mahanand, 1 Bom H. C. Rep. 12 wherein it was held that an
action would lie to obtain a binding declaration of a person's
right to perform the duties of a Pujari and to receive the
proceeds of the Mandir.
4471. In Surayya and another Vs. Annapurnamma,
1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699 the Court held that a suit for declaring
a will allegedly executed by a family member forged is
maintainable and not barred by Section 42 of Act 1877.
4472. In a different context, but involving a similar
situation, a suit by deity seeking a declaration for the property
and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the
user of the property was held maintainable at the instance of
deity. In Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others Vs. The
Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43)
CWN 1056 a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered
a suit filed by the worshippers seeking following reliefs:
"(1) That the land in dispute may be declared to be the
Debsthan of the Shiva Linga deities and a public place of
worship of the Hindu public and that the public had
acquired an absolute and indefeasible right to the use of
the same as a Debsthan by long and uninterrupted user
from time immemorial and to build the temples of the
deities and for a declaration that the Shamnagar Jute
Factory has not right and title thereto or any right to
interfere with the building of the temple on the disputed
(b) for declaration that the action of the Defendant
Municipality in refusing sanction for the construction of the
temple of the deities was illegal and ultra vires;
(c) for declaration that the action of the Defendant in
prosecuting the Plaintiffs under sec. 501 of the Bengal
Municipal Act was illegal;
(d) for an injunction restraining the Defendant
Municipality from proceeding with the prosecution;
(e) for an injunction upon the Defendants from interfering
with the public right of worship and entry on the land;
(f) for costs of the suit and
(g) for any other relief which they might be entitled under
4473. The Court recorded its finding with respect to the
maintainability of suit on pages 1058-1059 and said:
"On hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, it
appears to me that the plaint was undoubtedly defective but
at the same time the defects were not of such a character as
would justify a dismissal of the entire suit. From the plaint
as it is framed it is quite obvious that the suit was not
instituted by or on behalf of the deities. It would have been
quite in order if the deities themselves had brought the suit
through the Plaintiffs as their representatives. They might
have prayed for a declaration of their title to the property
in suit and for an injunction restraining the Defendants
from interfering with their possession and user of the same.
As the plaint stands, however, the Plaintiffs who claim to
represent the Hindu public of Garulia, come in not as
shebaits or as representatives of the idols but as
worshippers and some amount of confusion has been
introduced in the plaint by mixing up the rights of the
deities and those of the worshipping public. From
paragraph 9 of the plaint as well as from prayer (a) it will
appear that the Plaintiffs want in the first place that the
land in suit might be declared to be a Debsthan of the idols
and in the second place they want it to be declared that it is
a public place of worship and that the Hindu public has, by
prescription, acquired an indefeasible right to use the same
and to build temples upon it. The right to build temples is
therefore claimed by the Plaintiffs as members of the public
as a part of their rights as worshippers. It is not claimed by
or on behalf of the deities as a necessary adjunct of the
proprietary right which the deities might have had in the
land in suit. I cannot accept the proposition of law put
forward by Mr. Mukherji that as the deities are said to be
public deities the Hindu public of the locality constitute
shebaits de jure. In case of a public deity the public
undoubtedly have a right of worship but from that it does
not necessarily follow that they are the shebaits of the deity
in the sense that they are the only people to manage the
temporal affairs of the deity and look after its worship. As a
matter of fact no such case was attempted to be made in the
plaint, which proceeds on the footing that it is a public
place of worship and the rights of user which the public
have got, carry with them the right to build temples upon
the land. Accepting therefore the position that the Plaintiffs
have instituted the suit in the capacity of persons interested
in the worship of these deities and not as shebaits or as
representatives of the idols, I think it was quite competent
for them to sue for a declaration that the property in suit
belonged to the idols. This is clear from the decision of the
Judicial Committee in the case of Abdur Rahim Vs.
Mahomed Barkat Ali, L.R. 55 I.A. 96. The deity is not a
necessary party to such a suit though it may be desirable to
make it a party so that the decision might be made
conclusive and binding for all times to come. Similarly the
Plaintiffs are entitled to have a declaration in this suit that
the land in suit is a public place of worship and that they
have a right to use it as such. The deity would also not be a
necessary party to a suit for a declaration of this
4474. Applicability of Section 34 can be seen from another
angle. The deity being an artificial personality, the right of
possession as per the Hindu law text vests in the natural person
who is responsible of taking care, i.e., Sewa, Prarthana etc.
which is normally called Shebait or manager. It is in this context
that it has been held that right to sue or being sued vests in the
Shebait. This phrase we have already considered and explained
above. It means that since an artificial person does not have a
capacity to possess or to act like a natural person, it acts through
a natural person and hence right to possession, management and
also to bring an action, i.e., corporeal activities vest in such
natural person but that does not mean that the deity shall always
depend upon such person. Where the rights of deities are
otherwise affected, a worshipper can also bring an action for the
benefit of the deity and its property but in such a case such next
friend shall not be entitled to claim possession. The position
may have a different colour where the deity is in the nature of a
Swayambhu deity and there is no defined or ascertained natural
person who is employed to take its care. The deity is open for
worship to public at large but no individual is assigned the job
of maintenance of the deity. In such case it is for the Court to
appoint a person to take care but when the deity filed suit for
protection of itself or its property, on which it is continuing to
present/reside or existing, no relief of possession is necessary, a
suit for mere declaration can be filed.
4475. In Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and others
(supra) a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
para 8 of the judgment said:
"8. It has been contended by the defendants/respondents
that the suit as framed for a declaration simpliciter was not
maintainable under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, for the defendants are in possession of the
property in suit. In our view the defendants as well as the
Court below misconceived the provisions of Section 34 of
the S. R. Act. Section 34 of the S. R. Act provides that any
person entitled to any loyal character or to any right as to
any property, may institute a suit against any person
denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or
right and the Court may in its discretion make such a
declaration. There is a proviso attached to Section 34
which contemplates that no Court shall make any such
declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further
relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. It is
under this proviso that the defendants contended that the
suit for mere declaration was not tenable without seeking
further relief of possession. In our opinion the present suit
does not fall under Section 34 of the Act for the reason that
the present suit was not instituted by the Anjuman for a
declaration of its own right or title to property in suit, or its
right to a legal character. But it was a suit, on the other
hand, to challenge the defendants assertion for right to
property and their legal character in respect thereof. But
assuming the suit falls under the provisions of Section 34 of
the Act yet it would he tenable for declaration simpliciter
and the plaintiff will have locus standi to bring the suit
because the plaintiff was not Mutwalli or trustee of the
alleged wakf and it did not claim to possess the property in
its own behalf. Therefore, the plaintiff was not legally
entitled to possession. The plaintiff therefore could not
have asked for any further relief for possession. In such a
position it was not necessary at all for the plaintiff to claim
any consequential relief and in our opinion there can be no
doubt that in the circumstances of this case the plaintiff had
a right to ask for a declaratory relief only that the suit
property was wakf and not the private property of the
defendants. In this view of the matter we are supported by
the decisions in Ram Rup v. Sarn Dayal, AIR 1936 Lah.
283 decided by Coldstream, J.-- and Abdul Rahim v. Faqir
Mohd, Shah, AIR 1946 Nag. 401."
4476. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 has been
explained by the Apex Court in Vemareddi Ramaraghava
Reddy and others Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy (supra) and in
para 11 it says:
"11. In our opinion, S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is
not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree
may be made and the courts have power to grant such a
decree independently of the requirements of the section. It
follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the
plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not
binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the
purview of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."
4477. In the context of a suit filed for the benefit of deity
by the next friend, the Court held that a mere declaratory suit is
proper. In paras 10 and 12 of the judgment the Court held:
"10. The legal position is also well-established that
the worshipper of a Hindu temple is entitled, in certain
circumstances, to bring a suit for declaration that the
alienation of the temple properties by the de jure Shebait is
invalid and not binding upon the temple. If a Shebait has
improperly alienated trust property a suit can be brought
by any person interested for a declaration that such
alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for
recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless
the plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the
possession. Worshippers of temples are in the position of
cestuui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense
(See Vidhyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi
Thirthaswami, 1904 ILR 27 Mad. 435 at page 451). Since
the worshippers do not exercise the deity's power of
suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to
recover possession of the property improperly alienated
by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory
decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity (See
for example, Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v.
Kasturiranga Ayyangar, ILR 40 Mad 212:AIR 1917 Mad
112 (FB) and Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva
Mudaliar, ILR 41 Mad 124:AIR 1918 Mad 464). It has also
been decided by the Judicial Committee in Abdur Rahim v.
Mahomed Barkat Ali, 55 Ind. App. 96: AIR 1928 PC 16
that a suit for a declaration that property belongs to a wakf
can be maintained by Mahomedans interested in the wakf
without the sanction of the Advocate-General, and a
declaration can be given in such a suit that the plaintiff is
not bound by the compromise decree relating to wakf
"12. The next question presented for determination in
this case is whether the compromise decree is invalid for
the reason that the Commissioner did not represent the
deity. The High Court has taken the view that the
Commissioner could not represent the deity because S. 20
of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act
provided only that the administration of all the endowments
shall be under the superintendence and control of the
Commissioner. Mr. Babula Reddy took us through all the
provisions of the Act but he was not able to satisfy us that
the Commissioner had authority to represent the deity in
the judicial proceedings. It is true that under S. 20 of the
Act the Commissioner is vested with the power of
superintendence and control over the temple but that does
not mean that he has authority to represent the deity in
proceedings before the District Judge under S. 85 of the
Act. As a matter of law the only person who can represent
the deity or who can bring a suit on behalf of the deity is
the Shebait, and although a deity is a juridical person
capable of holding property, it is only in an ideal sense that
property is so held. The possession and management of the
property with the right to sue in respect thereof are, in the
normal course, vested in the Shebait, but where, however,
the Shebait is negligent or where the Shebait himself is the
guilty party against whom the deity needs relief it is open to
the worshippers or other persons interested in the religious
endowment to file suits for the protection of the trust
properties. It is open, in such a case to the deity to file a
suit through some person as next friend for recovery of
possession of the property improperly alienated or for
other relief. Such a next friend may be a person who is a
worshipper of the deity or as a prospective Shebait is
legally interested in the endowment. In a case where the
Shebait has denied the right of the deity to the dedicated
properties, it is obviously desirable that the deity should
file the suit through a disinterested next friend, nominated
by the court. The principle is clearly stated in Pramath
Nath v. Pradymma Kumar, ILR 52 Cal. 809. That was a suit
between contending Shebaits about the location of the
deity, and the Judicial Committee held that the will of the
idol on that question must be respect, and inasmuch as the
idol was not represented otherwise than by Shebaits, it
ought to appear through a disinterested next friend
appointed by the Court. In the present case no such action
was taken by the District Court in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and as
there was no representation of the deity in that judicial
proceeding it is manifest that the compromise decree
cannot be binding upon the deity. It was also contended by
Mr. P. Rama Reddy on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the
compromise decree was beyond was beyond the scope of
the proceedings in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and was, therefore,
invalid. In our opinion, this argument is well-founded and
must prevail. The proceeding was brought under s. 84(2) of
the old Act (Act II of 1927) for setting aside the order of the
Board dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri
Kodandaramaswami as a temple defined in S. 6, clause 17
of the Act and for a declaration that the temple was a
private temple. After the passing of the new Act, namely
Madras Act 19 of 1951, there was an amendment of the
original petition and the amended petition included a
prayer for a further declaration that the properties in
dispute are the personal properties of the petitioner's
family and not the properties of the temple. Such a
declaration was outside the purview of S. 84(2) of Madras
Act II of 1927 and could not have been granted. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the contention of respondent
no. 1 is correct and that he is entitled to a declaratory
decree that the compromise decree in O.P. no. 3 of 1950
was not valid and was not binding upon Sri
Kodandaramaswami temple."
4478. No authority is cited by learned counsels to persuade
us to take a different view. The suit in question cannot be held
barred by Section 34 of Act 1963. The issue 18 (Suit-5) is
accordingly answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants
no. 3, 4 and 5.
4479. (N) Others, if any:
4480. The discussions and the evidences, which we have
already considered in respect to the above issues on the question
of juridical person, next friend, limitation, possession/adverse
possession and relating to characteristics of Mosque and Wakf,
etc. there are some other issues which are mostly covered by the
findings already recorded above and, hence, the same may also
be dealt with hereat.
4481. Issue No. 2 (Suit-3):
"Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff
4482. As is evident, the property in suit for the purpose of
Suit-3 is the premises within the inner courtyard. The plaintiff,
though claimed to be the owner thereof and its counsel has also
made a statement to this effect under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C., but
not even a single document has been placed on record to show
the title. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff sought to claim
acquisition of title by way of adverse possession against the
Muslim parties. This claim we have already negatived above.
We answer this issue in negative, i.e., against the plaintiff.
4483. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) reads as under:
"Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge
of the said temple?"
4484. The plaintiff claim handing over of charge of the
property in suit and the disputed structure to it instead of the
Receiver. The basis of the claim is that the property in suit was
all through a temple even before 1528 and has always been
managed, possessed and owned by the plaintiff. It has however
miserably failed to prove this fact. This aspect we have already
discussed in detail while considering the issues relating to
limitation and possession/adverse possession etc. We have also
held that the idols were kept under the central dome inside the
inner courtyard in the night of 22
December, 1949. The
plaintiffs having disputed this incident being a factitious and
fabricated story, the question of their treating as Shebait in
respect of the idols placed under the central dome on 22
December, 1949 does not arise since according to their own
pleadings, they have not admitted any where of taking care of
the deity in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the
disputed structure. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3), therefore, is answered
in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.
4485. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3):
"Is the suit not maintainable as framed?"
4486. This issue has arisen for the reason that the property
in dispute was attached and handed over to the Receiver
pursuant to a statutory order passed by the Magistrate under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 29.12.1949. If the plaintiff (Suit-3) had
any grievance, it could have filed objection before the
Magistrate inasmuch order of attachment was a preliminary
order and was subject to the final order under Section 145(2)
Cr.P.C., but no such objection appears to have been filed by the
plaintiff (Suit-3) before the Magistrate. The plaintiffs did not
seek any declaration about its title or status and without
determining the same, the Civil Judge could not have directed
handing over charge from the Receiver to the plaintiff. It is for
this reason, in our view, Suit-3 is not maintainable. The issue is
answered accordingly.
4487. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4):
"Whether even after construction of the building in
suit Deities of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan,
Sri Ram Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the property in
suit as alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and the said
places continued to be visited by devotees for purposes of
worship? If so, whether the property in dispute continued
to vest in the said Deities?"
4488. In view of our findings recorded in respect to Issue
No. 1 (Suit-5), holding that the place can be a 'deity' and also in
view of our finding recorded in respect to the issues relating to
possession/adverse possession that the Hindus, believing the
place in dispute as birthplace of Lord Rama, had been
continuously vising it for the purpose of worship, it is evident
that the status of place as deity had continued. We have already
held that a deity is not damaged or comes to end due to
destruction in any manner, since the spirit of Supreme Being
continue to exist and it will not disappear, particularly when the
deity is Swayambhu, i.e. self created. The property in dispute,
therefore, has a dual character. Firstly, being birthplace of Lord
Rama, as per the beliefs of Hindus, it is a Swyambhu deity and
would continue so long as the place continue, but then, being an
immovable property, it also has its nature as property. The
question of owning the property is different than the status. On
this aspect, we have to examine the relevant area. The area of
fort of Lord Rama is said to be quite bigger. It is claimed to have
several mansions (eight mansions), besides other kinds of
structures. In various evidences, which we have already
discussed, it is mentioned that the disputed structure was
constructed on some part of the area covered by the Fort of Lord
Rama. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) in 1989
claiming a much larger area. During the course of arguments,
we inquired from the learned counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-5), Sri
M.M. Pandey, as to what is his concept of place of birth.
Whether he considered the area constituting deity equal to a
small room or to a small house or a bigger house or the entire
locality, city, province or country, as the case may be. Despite of
our repeated query, learned counsel could not tell us as to what
is his the concept of place of birth for the purpose of this case.
Various religious literature, which have been placed before us,
show that Ayodhya is believed to be the place of birth of Lord
Rama. It did not specify any particular area or a particular place
in Ayodhya. We have held that a place can be a deity and a
Swyambhu deity. It is quite possible that the entire city may be
held to be very pious and sacred on account of some occurrence
of divinity or religious spirituality. It may happen that a small
place may attain such a status. For example, the tree under
which Gautam Buddha attained divine knowledge is considered
to be extremely sacred and pious place by Buddhist. When Lord
Rama born in Ayodhya and must have played and walked
throughout thereat, entire the then territory of city of Ayodhya,
from the point of view of all Hindu people, must acquire the
status of reverence and piety, but then can it be said that such
bigger place cannot absorb and accommodate persons having
different faith or religion or those worship differently. No doubt
true, if such absorption or accommodation has the result of
extinguishing the very place of reverence, meaning thereby the
very object of faith and belief may vanish, such absorption may
not be allowed, but otherwise, in a country like ours, where
unity in diversity is its characteristic, the existence of people or
other faith, existence of their place of religion at a place, in
wider sense as its known, cannot be ruled out and by necessity
they will have to exist, live and survive together. There are
several cities in India which are considered to be the place of
reverence of highest degree like Kashi, Haridwar, Prayag,
Ayodhya, Mathura etc. Can it be said in the independent India
governed by a written Constitution the existence of or
permissibility to establish or to create place of worship of
people of different religion will depend upon undefined,
unknown and unclassified kind of faith or belief of another
section particularly when it is a case of a majority people in
respect of a place. Nobody has ever bothered, the people of
different religions in these very places of reverence have been
residing thereat since time immemorial and have very well
established temples of their faith. In all the places which are
known to be major Tirtha places of Hindus, religious places of
other religion are well established and there is complete comity
and understanding between all the people. They all mutually
respect the places of worship of different religions. At Ayodhya
also a large number of Mosques are in existence, which have
also came in evidence inasmuch some of the witnesses have
estimated the number of Mosques in Ayodhya from 50 to 80.
Even in the building in dispute, though the structure was raised
as a Mosque known and called a Mosque, yet Hindus continued
to visit it and worship thereat on account of their cemented faith
and belief which could not be withered due to construction of
such building. Simultaneously, Muslims also visited the
premises, as we have already noticed, may be occasionally but
the fact remains that they visited the premises and offered
Namaz. This system and arrangement without any dispute had
continued for almost hundred years as evident which we could
get and notice above. There do not appear to be any grievance
raised by any Hindu that the Muslims cannot visit the premises
in dispute, i.e. inner courtyard and offer worship though against
the visit of Hindus in the same premises several complaints
were made from 1858 and onwards by Muslims, which are part
of record.
4489. It has been pleaded and some religious texts have
also been placed before us to show that in a place of worship
Parikrama is an integral part and, therefore, in every temple
around the deity a passage is always made to enable the
worshippers to have a Parikrama of deity. In the building in
dispute passage for Parikrama was available. It was, therefore,
suggested that this Parikrama passage itself suggested that the
building in dispute was not a mosque but the temple.
Simultaneously it is also admitted that there are four kinds of
Parikrama which the people normally observe at Ayodhya. One
is the Parikrama in a particular place of worship for example in
the disputed building where the Hindu people believe that Lord
Rama was born. The other three kinds of Parikrama are known
as "Panchkosi Parikrama", "Chaudahkosi Parikrama" and
"Chaurasikosi Parikrama". We may extract statements of some
of the witnesses just to illustrate these three later kinds of
(a) DW3/3, Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi
l··il·n ¤lº¬º ¬ «irº ¤iºi ¬iº ¤lº¬ -i -in ·ii l¬¬ ¤º
¬i n ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºn ·i | - · ·i| ·ri ¤lº¬ -i l¬¤i r | (¤ ¬ ·«)
"There was circumambulation path around all the
sides of the disputed premises, around which people used to
perform the circumambulation. I have also performed
circumambulation over there."(E.T.C.)
(b) D.W. 3/4 Mahant Shiv Sharan Das
- · ·ri ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¬i º ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ·i| ¬| r | ¤ ¤¬i ¬|
¤lº¬ -i ·i ¤ ¬ ¬·nºnn ¬| ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| ¬iº ¬º¤¸ ¬ r| l¬·iº ÷l¬·iº
¤¬n ÷¤¬n ºi- n ¬ ¬i ¬iº «r n ¬ -·ii·, ¬i ¬·ni · ·ri «·i ºªi r
¬i º ·in·i· ¬i ·ri ºªi¬º ¤¸ ¬i ¬ºn r , ¬in r | ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i
¬ ¬·nºnn n ·niº·ii- ¬ini r ;¬¬ ¬lnlº·n ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬
¬·nºnn ºi-·ii- ¬iº «r n ¬| ¤ ¬| ¬nr r l¬·¬ ·i- - ·r| ¬i·ni
r¸ , ¤º·n r · ¬··i ·i ¤ - r|| ¤ ¬i«i· ºirº ¬i ¬i¤| ·iin ¤i ·r¬i ¬|
¤lº¬ -i ·i ¤ ¬ ¬·nºnn ¬ini r | ;· ·i ·i ¤lº¬ -i¬i ¬·ii n
¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬iº ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬i l·ºi ·i -r-· ¬·i¤ ··-|
¬i ri ni r | (¤ ¬ z«÷zr)
"I have also performed 'Panchkosi' and
'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation over there. The
'Panchkosi' circumambulation region includes Sri Ayodhya
Ji, Ram Gulela and many other places along the banks of
Saryu, which have been set up over there by saints and who
perform worship of deity installed over there. The Guptar
ghat falls under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation.
Besides this, under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation
are the Ram ghat and many other places, whose names I do
not know but they are in the Awadh area. A major part of
Faizabad district falls under the 'Chaudahkosi'
circumambulation area. Both these circumambulations i.e.
the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation and the 'Panchkosi'
circumambulation, have special importance on Akshay
¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¬-¤ r¬iºi ¬iªii ¬i n ¤¸ º · ºi·iº ¬ · l··ºii ¬
·i| ¬in r | ¤ ¬i n ºi-¬¬i ¬| ¬ ·ºi · ¬º· · ¤lº¬ -i ¬º· ¬in
r | ¬«¬ ¤r¬ ¤ ¬i n ¬º¤¸ ¬| - -·i· ¬ºn r , l¤º ºi-¬·- ·i¸ l- ¬
·ºi · ¬ºn r , ¬¬¬ «i· ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºn r | ¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¬-¤ ¤¸ º|
¬¤i ·¤i, ¬¬¬ ¬i¬÷¤i¬ ¬ ni · · ¤ ¬i«i· ·i| ºi- -¤ ri ¬ini r |
(¤ ¬ zc)
"Thousands-lakhs of people from the entire country
and abroad as well, come over on the occasion of
circumambulation. These people come over to have
Darshan and perform circumambulation of Ramlala Ji.
First of all these people bathe in the Saryu and then have
Darshan of Ramjanmbhumi, thereafter perform
circumambulation. At time of the circumambulation, the
entire Ayodhya, its adjoining villages and Faizabad also
are gripped in the fervor of Lord Rama. "(E.T.C.)
(c) D.W. 3/13 Mahant Ram Subhag Das Shastri
¬¤i ·¤i - ¤iº ¤ ¬iº ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ri n| r ¬¬- ¤r¬| ¤lº¬ -i
- l·º ¬| ri n| r , ¬i -l··º ¬ ¬··º÷¬··º ri n| r, ·¸ ¬º| ¤lº¬ -i
¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ri n| r, n|¬º| ¤lº¬ -i ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ri n| r ,
¤i ·i| ¤lº¬ -i s« ¬i ¬ ¬| ri n| r , ¬i z« l·· - ¤¸ ºi ri n| r |
(¤ ¬ ·«)
"Four kinds of circumambulations are performed in
Ayodhya. Out of them, the first circumambulation is of the
temple, which is performed in the inside of the temple. The
second circumambulation is the 'Panchkosi'
circumambulation, the third is the 'Chaudahkosi'
circumambulation. The fourth circumambulation is of 84
'Kose', which is completed in 24 days."(E.T.C.)
(d) D.W 3/14 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami
- · ·« ¬i ¬| n·ii ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i¤ ·i| ¬| r | ºi-¬·-·i¸l-
¬| ¤lº¬ -i - · ¬; «iº l¬¤i r | ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¬·nºnn
¬·¬iºi, niºii¬i -l··º, n ª¬ ¬, ¬; n i- ¬in r | ºi|n¬ ¬-ºi; ·i|
¬in| r | - · s« ¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬¤i ·¤i ¬| l¬¤i r | ;¬- ¬; ·i ¤
¬in r | ni º·i ¬·¤· l-·in ¬-·l·· ¬i¬- ;¬ ¤lº¬ -i ¬ ·iºi·
¤· ni r | (¤ ¬ zz÷zs)
"I have also performed the 14 'kosi' and 'Panchkosi'
circumambulations. I have performed circumambulation of
Ramjanambhumi on many occasion. Jankaura, Gaushala
temple, Gurukul and many villages fall under the
'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation. I have performed 84
'Kosi' circumambulation of Ayodhya. Many areas fall
under it. The Gonda district situated Jamadgini Ashram
falls during this circumambulation." (E.T.C.)
-riºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬ ºi¬-r¬ ¬i ·i ¤¤¬ ¬ ¬i l¬ «i~-|¬|
ºi-i¤ºi - ¬l~¬lªin r , ¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¤i ¤÷¬i ¬ ¬ ¬·nn n l-·in r |
-·¤ ¬ri l¬ ¤r ¤i ¤ ¬i ¬ ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¬·nºnn r , ·ºiº·i ¬
ºi¬-r¬ ¬| r| ¤lº¬ -i ri n| r | ¬ri ¬ ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ºi ª ri n|
r, ·ri ¬ -rºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬i ºi¬-r¬ ºi ª ri ni ·ii n·ii ¬ri ¤º
¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬-i·n ri n| r ·ri ¤º ¬-i·n ri ni ·ii| ;¬ ¬-¤
¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬; -·ii·i ¬ ºi ª ri n| r ¬i ; ~ºi-i ¤· ·ii- ¬ ,
¬i ; n -¬| ·ii- ¬ , ¬i ; ºi¬·ii- ¬ , ¬i ; ·¤i·ii- ¬ ºi ª ¬ºni r |
¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¤|s ¬i ¬i n «¬ r ¤ r , · ¬i n ¤lº¬ -i n¤¬|¬| ¬|
si··| ¬ ¤i¬ ¬ r| ºi ª ¬ºn r | l¬· ·ii-i ¬ ¤lº¬ -i ºi ª ¬| ¬in|
r, ¬·r| ·ii-i ¤º ¤lº¬ -i ¬-i·n ·i| ri n| r n·ii ¬i n ¤lº¬ -i ¬-i·n
¬º· ¬ «i· ¬º¤¸ - -·i· ¬ºn r | ·r ¬·i| ·ii- ¬ri ¬ ¤lº¬ -i ºi ª
¬º· ¬ «iº - «ni¤i r , ·r ¬·i| ¬º¤¸ ¬ l¬·iº l-·in r | ¬º¤¸
¬¤i ·¤i ¬ ¬-nº nº¤ l-·in r ;¬ ¤lº¬ -i - ·l·iºi nº¤ ;¬ ¬-¤
¬ ºi|n¬¬-ºi; ¬ ¬ ¬º ¬i n ·i¸ -n r | ¤r ºi|n¬ ¬-ºi; ·i-¬ -·ii·
¬¤i ·¤i - r | ¤r ºi|n¬ ¬-ºi; ¬i -·ii· l··il·n -·i¬ ¬ ·i ÷«i;
l¬¬i -|-º ¬| ·¸ º| ¤º ri ni| (¤ ¬ c«)
"The area of the palace of King Dashrath, as
mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, extends over five-six
'kose' in Ayodhya. Stated on his own that this five 'kose'
falls under the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation, the
circumambulation is performed of the palace of King
Dashrath. The palace of King Dashrath begins from the
same place, from where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation
starts, and it ends where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation
concludes. At present, 'Panchkosi' circumambulation starts
from many places, some from Rinmochan ghat, some from
Jhumki ghat, some from Rajghat and some from Nayaghat.
The people residing in back of the circumambulation
(path), start the circumambulation from near the 'Tapsiji ki
Chavani'. The circumambulation concludes at the same
ghat from where it starts and after concluding the
circumambulation, people bathe in the Saryu. All these
ghats, from where the circumambulation is stated to start,
are situated along the banks of Saryu. Saryu is situated in
north of Ayodhya. At present, people pass through
Shitalamrai in south. This place called Shital Amrai is in
Ayodhya. This place Shital Amrai, would be about 2-2½
kilometers away from the disputed site. "(E.T.C.)
;¬ ¬-¤ ¬i s« ¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬| ¬in| r, ·r ·n -i· ¬-¤
¬ ¬¤i ·¤i ¬i r| ¤lº-il¤n ¬ºn| r | ¤r ¤lº¬ -i ¬-nº nº¤ ¬-·l··
¬ º· ¬ ¬i ni º·i ¬·¤· - r ºi ª ri n| r , ¬ri ¤º ºi¬i ·ºiº·i ¬|
ni ºii¬i ·i|| (¤ ¬ cc)
"The 84 'Kosi' circumambulation performed these
days, measures the Ayodhya of today. This
circumambulation begins in north from the Jamadgini
Kund, which is in Gonda district, where the cattle shed of
King Dashrath existed."(E.T.C.)
(e) D.W.3/17 Sri Mata Badal Tiwari
·ºi · ¬º· ¬ «i· ¤lº¬ -i ¬| ¬in| ·i| - ¤i ·r ¬i ¬|
¤lº¬ -i ¬ «i· ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºni ·ii| ¤ ¤¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¤¬i·ºi|
¬| lnl·i ¬i ri n| r | ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬º· - ¬n·in ¤¸ ºi l·· ¬n
¬ini r | ¤i ·r¬i ¬| ¤lº¬ -i ¬º· - ¤¸º| ¬¤i ·¤i ¤· ¬in| r | ¤lº¬ -i
¬ ¬·nºnn r· -i·n« | -l·º ·i| ¬i ¬ini r | ¬·¬ ·i·· n·ii ¬ l-¤i
·i·· ·i| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ ¬ ·º ¬i ¬ini r | -lºiºi- si··| ·i| ;¬¬ ¬··º
¬i ¬in| r | (¤ ¬ c)
"The circumambulation was performed after having
Darshan. I used to perform the 'Panchkosi' (of five kose,
one kose being equal to two miles) circumambulation after
the 'Chaudahkosi' (of fourteen kose) circumambulation.
The 'Panchkosi' circumambulation is performed on
'Ekadashi' (eleventh day of lunar month). It took almost full
day in completing the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation.
The entire Ayodhya is covered in performing the
'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation. The Hanumangarhi
temple also falls within the circumambulation. The Kanak
Bhawan and Sumitra Bhawaan are also covered in the
circumambulation. The Maniram Chavani also falls within
ºi-¬·-·i¸ l- ¤lº¬º - - ¤«¸ nº ¬| r| ¤lº¬ -i ¬ºni ·ii ¤r
¤«¸ nºi ºi- ¤«¸ nºi ·ii| (¤ ¬ ·z)
"In the Ramjanmbhumi premises, I used to perform
circumambulation of only the Chabutra. This Chabutra
was the Ram Chabutra."(E.T.C.)
4490. If we believe what has been submitted by learned
counsel for the Hindu parties to be correct that Parikrama is an
integral part of worship of the deity and if this Parikrama
passage is available in a place it should be treated in a temple,
very interesting result may arrive in respect to these three kinds
of large Parikrama. The area covered by Panchkosi Parikrama
includes several localities of Ayodhya wherein number of
muslim residences as well as their religious places are also
covered. Similarly, Chaudahkosi Parikrama not only covered
Ayodhya but some part of Faizabad also and there also similar
result would arrive. Chaurasikosi Parikrama obviously goes
much much beyond that. Can it be said that all the persons
residing and the religious places of other religions constitute
part and parcel of such a wider concept of temple. This is
neither the intention nor can be accepted. When a person believe
in respect to a place that it has divine power, Supreme Being
exist thereat which may bless happiness, salvation etc. to the
worshipper that does mean that this place of worship has to be
identified in narrowest possible area. For example at Gangotri if
one goes it is the particular temple or just above it the Gomukh
which is considered sacred and not the entire area where the
people also reside and do other daily activities. In the case of
place in dispute also, unless we ascertain the exact place in
respect whereof the belief of such a large Hindu people is
continuing by tradition and custom from generations to
generation, it cannot allow us to be guided with such kind of
arguments which goes much beyond the belief but in the realm
of the procedure of worship which is absolutely different. The
core belief in the matter of religion which is essential is
something different then what is incidental or ancillary. It is the
former which is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.
4491. In view of the above, to suggest that the entire
property in dispute shall vest in the deity without there being
any specificity regarding the area would neither be just nor
rational. Many of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff (Suit-5) as well as plaintiff (Suit-3) and other Hindu
parties have averred that according to their faith, the place
where the idols are kept, i.e., the area under the central dome of
the disputed structure in inner courtyard is the place of birth of
Lord Rama. If that be so, it may not be said that the entire
property in the inner courtyard would vest in the deity. On this
aspect we have already dealt with in detail while considering the
issues relating to the place of birth of Lord Rama, i.e., the issues
no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-5).
4492. So far as the property in the outer courtyard is
concerned, we have already said that there existed several Hindu
structures and the Hindu people used to visit thereat regularly
without there being any intervention or interruption by the
Muslim people at least for the last more than 90 years till the
date of attachment, i.e., since 1856-57. The Hindu religious
structures like Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara etc. are claimed to be
managed by Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff (Suit-3). Though they
have also stated that this is the place of birth of Lord Rama but
those temples in outer courtyard, are being managed by them
since the last several decades.
4493. The place of birth as we have already held,
therefore, would continue to vest in the deity and in view of the
fact that deity is indestructible and imperishable, even the
construction of the building in dispute would make no impact on
its sacredness and otherwise. So far as the religious structure
within the outer courtyard are concerned, they cannot be said to
be vested in the deity, (plaintiffs 1 and 2) for the reason that they
are the temples claim to be possessed and managed by Nirmohi
Akhara defendant no. 3, and its status having claimed as
Shebait. This status of Nirmohi Akhara qua the religious
structures of Hindus existing in the outer courtyard have not
been controverted by anyone. Even OPW 1, the witness deposed
on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-5) has also supported this case of
Nirmohi Akhara.
4494. So far as the continuous visit of devotees concerned,
we have already discussed this issue and held that despite of
construction of disputed structure, Hindus continued to visit and
worship the place which they believe to be the place of birth of
Lord Rama. Simultaneously, in the same premises, muslims also
offered their worship as we have already discussed in detail
4495. We, therefore, hold that so far as the premises which
constitute the place of birth of Lord Rama, continue to vest in
the deities, but so far as the Hindu religious structures existing
in the outer courtyard are concerned, the same cannot be said to
be the property of the plaintiffs (Suit-5), i.e., the deity of
Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Sthan Sri Ram Janambhumi as
claimed by the defendant no. 13. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) is
answered accordingly.
4496. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5):
"Whether the idol in question had been in existence
under the “Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial
as alleged in paragraph 44 of the additional written
statement of defendant no.3?"
4497. We have already held while deciding Issues No 12
(Suit-4) and 3 (a) (Suit-5) that the idols under the central dome
in the inner courtyard were placed in the night of 22
December, 1949 and since then are continuing as such in view
of interim injunction granted by the Civil Court on 16.1.1950
and the subsequent stay orders of this Court as well as the Apex
Court. In view thereof, no doubt that prior to 6
1992, the idols were there but it cannot be said that the same
remained there from time immemorial. Besides, this issue is in
the context of the para 44 of additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 which reads as under:
"That attachment made in the 1949 is only in respect
of main building of Garbh Grahya Carrying three "Shikar
(lºiªiº) where in the deity of Bhagwan Sri Ram Chanraji is
installed by Nirmohi Akhara from time beyond the human
memory and are since then is management and possession
of it till the said property attached. Therefore, plaintiff 3
can not claim any right to represent him."
4498. The pleading, however, do not talk of 6
1992. On the contrary, it says when the attachment was made in
1949, at that time idols were installed in the main building much
before and beyond the human memory, which we have already
negatived. Hence, Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative,
as the idols in question did remain under the Sikhar prior to 6
December, 1992, but not from time immemorial and, instead,
were kept thereat in the night of 22
December, 1949.
4499. Issue No.15 (Suit-5):
"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
December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
4500. This issue has been framed assuming that the
disputed structure was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or his
agent. This aspect we have already discussed in detail while
considering issues no. 6 (Suit-1), 5 (Suit-3) and 1(a) (Suit-4).
We have already answered that the concerned parties have
miserably failed to prove that it was so constructed in 1528 AD
by Babar or any of his agent. That being so, the question of
offering Namaj in the disputed structure since 1528 AD does not
arise at all. With respect to the question as to whether Namaj
was ever offered in the building in dispute we find that this
aspect has also been discussed and answered in issues no. 15
(Suit-4), 1-B(c) (Suit-4) and 2 (Suit-4) wherein it has been held
that the evidence which we have on record shows that atleast
from 1860 and onwards Namaj has been offered in the building
in dispute in the inner courtyard and the last Namaj was offered
on 16
December, 1949. Accordingly issue 15 (Suit-5) is
answered. We observe that though it is not proved that Namaj
was offered in the building in dispute since 1528 AD,
simultaneously it is also not proved that any Namaj was offered
in the building in dispute after 16
December, 1949. However,
we hold that between 1860 and up to 16
December, 1949 if not
regularly, occasionally, intermittently Friday prayers, i.e.,
Jumma Namaj was offered in the disputed structure which was
commonly known as Babri Masjid.
4501. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4):
"Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf
and whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the
suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief
for possession?"
4502. It has been stated by several witnesses deposing on
behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) that one Javvad Hussain was
Mutwalli of the building in dispute in 1949 when the property in
dispute was attached. Certain documents filed as Exhibit A 55
(Suit-1) (Register 8, page 503); Exhibit A 57 (Suit-1) (Register
8, page 507); and, Exhibit A 59 (Suit-1) (Register 8, page 511)
as well as the report of Waqf Inspector dated 10
1949 and 23
December, 1949 also show that Javvad Hussain
represented himself as Mutwalli of the building and the
Inspector of Waqf requested Sunni Board to treat him and
continue as Mutawalli of the waqf.
4503. Nothing to contradict the above has been placed on
record. We need not to doubt the above stand of the plaintiffs
(Suit-4) on this aspect but it is really surprising, had he been
Mutawalli of the building in dispute, responsible for its proper
management etc. yet at no point of time he took any step for
protection of the building in dispute or to contest the cases in the
Court in respect to said property. Not only this, but also the so
called Imam, named Abdul Gaffar, as also one Ismail, Moazzim
are also missing and they have also failed to take any step. Not
even a complaint was filed by anyone of them, if anything
wrong was done in the night of 22/23
December, 1949
preventing them from discharging their duties as also preventing
Muslims from offering Namaz in the building in dispute. It
appears to us that Javvad Hussain was not a properly appointed
Mutwalli of the building in dispute but he simply enjoyed the
grant of village Bahoranpur and Sholapur and used to call him
as "Nambardar" thereof. In order to justify the amount of
revenue he used to realize from the said grant, on papers, he had
shown the income and expenditures also but as a matter of fact,
did not take care of the building in dispute.
4504. Be that as it may, in the absence of any other
claimant and also in the absence of any procedure with respect
to appointment of Mutwalli, person who ought to have managed
the building in dispute, may be on account of the grant of the
two villages, can be treated to be a de facto mutwalli. The
Management being responsibility of a Mutwalli, the possession
of the waqf can also be claimed by him since a worshiper is not
entitled for the possession of a waqf property though he may be
allowed to file a suit for protection of the property of waqf but
possession of such waqf cannot be granted to such worshiper.
4505. In the result we answer Issue No.20(b) (Suit-4)
holding that at the time of attachment of the building or when
the suit in question was filed, Javvad Hussain was Mutawalli but
in his absence or any other Mutawalli succeeding him, relief of
possession cannot be allowed to the plaintiffs (Suit-4) who have
come before this Court in the capacity of worshipers and not the
person who can claim possession of waqf i.e. a Mutawalli.
4506. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5):
"Whether the defendant no.3 alone is entitled to
represent plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent
on that account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the
additional written statement of defendant no.3?"
4507. Basically the objection relates to non service of
notice under Section 80 CPC to the State Government. No such
objection has been raised by the State Government or its
authorities though they are impleaded as defendants no. 7, 8 and
9 to the Suit. Even a written statement has not been filed on
behalf of the State Government or its officers. We have already
held while considering issue no.10 (Suit-3), that objection
regarding notice under Section 80 CPC cannot be taken by a
private defendant, if no such objection has been raised and
pressed by the State authorities. In view of our discussion and
findings recorded in respect to issue no. 10 (Suit-3), we hold
that the objection under para 49 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 is of no consequence.
4508. Coming to the first part of the issue that the
defendant no. 3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2 in
the absence of any material to show that the defendant no. 3 was
in possession of the property within the inner courtyard and
looking after and managing the affairs as Shebait, no such right
can be claimed by the defendant no. 3. On this aspect the case of
defendant no. 3, i.e., Nirmohi Akhara has already been
considered by us while discussing the issues relating to adverse
possession. For the reasons thereof and as discussed, issue 7
(Suit-5) in its entirety is answered in negative.
4509. `Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5):
"Whether the disputed structure could be treated to
be a mosque on the allegations contained in paragraph 24
of the plaint?"
"Whether on the averments made in paragraph 25 of
the plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the
structure in dispute to constitute it as a mosque?"
4510. These issues are founded on the averments
contained in paras 24 and 25 of the plaint which read as under:
"24. That such a structure raised by the force of arms on
land belonging to the Plaintiff 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 a 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
"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 trangressers. And kill them wherever
ye find them; and turn them out of that whereof they have
dispossessed you; for temptation to idolatory 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 authorities and
precedents and the decided cases also, ALLAH never
accepts a dedication of property which does not belong to
the Waqif 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 attempt 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 inspite 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
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 of Hindu
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.
(D) A mosque must be built in a place of peace and quiet,
but near to a place where there is a sizeable Muslim
population, according to the tenets of Islam, and as insisted
upon by it, a mosque cannot be built in a place which is
surrounded on all sides by Temples, where the sound of
music or conch shells or Ghanta Ghariyals must always
disturb the peace and quiet of the place.
(E) A mosque must have a minaret for calling the Azan.
According to Baillie. "When an assembly of worshippers
pray in a masjid with permission, that is delivery. But it is a
condition that the prayers be with izan. Or the regular call,
and be public not private, for though there should be an
assembly yet if it is without izan. And the prayers are
private instead of public, the place is no masjid. Accouding
to the two disciples." (Pt. I. BK.IX, ch. VII Sec. I,p. 605)
Indeed, there has been no mosque without a minaret after
the first half century from the Flight. (See-P.R. Ganapathi
Iyer's Law relating to Hindu and Mahomedan
Endowments, 2
Edition, 1918. Chap. XVII, P. 388.)
(F) According to the claim laid by the Muslims in their
suit No. 12 of 1961, the building is surrounded on all sides
by grave-yard known as 'Ganj Shahidan'. There is a
mention in the Fyzabad Gazetteer also, quoted
hereinabove, of the burial of 75 Muslims at the gate of the
Janmasthan, and the place being known as Ganj Shahidan.
After the battle of 1855. Although there are no graves
anywhere near the building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, or
in its precincts, or the area appurtenant thereto, for the
last more than 50 years, if the building was surrounded by
a grave-yard during the British times soon after the
annexation of Avadh by them, the building could not be a
mosque, and could not be used as a mosque, for the
offering of prayers, except the funeral prayers on the death
of a person buried therein, is prohibited in a grave-yard
according to the Muslim authorities.
(G) As already stated, there is no arrangement for
storage of water for Vazoo and there are the Kasauti pillars
with the figures of Hindu Gods and Godesses inscribed
thereon in the building.
25. That the worship of the Plaintiff Deities has
continued since ever throughout the ages at Sri Rama
Janma Bhumi. The place belongs to the Deities. No valid
waqf was ever created or could have been created of the
place or any part of it, in view of the title and possession
of the Plaintiff Deities thereon. ALLAH, as conceived by
the Muslims, never got any title or possession over the
premises or any part of them. Nor has there ever been any
person, living or juridical, who might have put forward any
claim to ownership of the property or any part of it.
Occasional acts of trespass or attempts to get into
possession by the muslims were successfully resisted and
repulsed by the Hindus from time to time, and there was no
blemish or dent in the continuity of title and possession of
the Plaintiff Deities. No title could or did vest in ALLAH
over any part of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi by adverse
possession or in any other manner. Neither ALLAH nor any
person on his behalf had any possession over any part of
the premises at any time what-soever, not to speak of any
adverse possession."
4511. We have discussed similar issues in the category of
those relating to characteristics of mosque, dedication, valid
waqf etc. In the light of the findings recorded therein we
answer issues 10 and 11 (Suit-5) in affirmative.
4512. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5):
"Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties, as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no.3?"
4513. This issue emanate from the pleading of para 43 of
the additional written statement of defendant no. 3 which reads
as under:
"Para 43: That outer portion consisting of Bhagwan
Ram Lala on Sri Ram Chabutara alongwith other deities,
Chathi Pujan Sthan and Bhandar with eastern outer wall
carrying engraved image of Varah Bhagwan with southern
and northern wall and also western portion of all carries
the present municipal no. 10/12/29 old 506, 507 and older
647 of Ram Kot ward of Ayodhya City had been a
continuous referred in main litigation since 1885 till Reg.
Suit no. 239/82 of the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad and in
every case Nirmohi Akhara was held always in possession
and management of this temple so the Bhagwan Ram Lalaji
installed by Nirmohi Akhara on this Ram Chabutara is a
distinct legal entity owned by def. no. 3. That suit is bad for
want of impleadment of necessary party as mentioned
4514. What defendants no. 3 is that Bhagwan Ram Lala
installed on Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard, though was
in possession and management of Nirmohi Akhara, but being a
distinct legal entity, ought to have been impleaded separately
and in the absence thereof the suit is bad for want of necessary
4515. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Once
Nirmohi Akhara admits that the deity at Ram Chabutara is
managed by Nirmohi Akhara which is a Math, a legal entity, it
stands in the position of Shebait to the said deity and in such a
case it has well been held that right to sue or be sued vests in
Shebait [See, Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji
(supra) and Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari (supra)].
4516. We, therefore, find no substance in the above
submission. Issue 19 (Suit-5) is answered in negative.
4517. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5):
"Whether the judgment and decree dated 30
1946 passed in Suit No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs?"
4518. Suit No. 29 of 1945 was an inter se dispute between
the Shia Central Waqf Board and Sunni Central Waqf Board in
respect to the property in dispute. Both were claiming it to be a
waqf which ought to have been placed within their control. In
respect to the suit and the judgment dated 30.03.1946 we have
already considered the matter in detail while discussing issue
no. 6 (Suit-3).
4519. Admittedly, the plaintiffs of suit in question were
not party in the said suit. The judgment, therefore, cannot be
said to be binding upon the plaintiffs. No authority on this
question has been placed before us which is binding upon us to
take a different view. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered
holding that the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1946 in Suit
No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (Suit-5).
4520. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4):
"Whether any portion of the property in suit was used
as a place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to
the construction of the building in question? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into
existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the place in
4521. We have already held that there existed a religious
place of Non-Islamic character before the construction of the
disputed structure. From the travel account of William Finch it
is also evident that Hindus were worshipping in the Fort of Lord
Rama, as he called it, when he visited Ayodhya between 1608 to
1611 AD. It is not the case of the Muslim parties that in that Fort
of Lord Rama, besides the place in dispute, there was any other
place known as place of birth of Lord Rama which the people
used to worship at that time or thereafter also. The disputed
structure, as we have already noticed, came into being after the
visit of the William Finch but before the visit of father Joseph
Tieffenthaler. He (Tieffenthaler) has also mentioned about the
worship at the premises in dispute by Hindus during his visit,
and, from the description he has given, we are satisfied that the
said worship must have been near the structure itself. The
cumulative effect of these facts as also the discussion we have
already made in respect of various issues above, leaves no doubt
in our mind that even before the construction of the building in
dispute, the place which the Hindus believed the place of birth
of Lord Rama, used to be worship. We have also held that
according to faith, belief and tradition amongst Hindus it is the
area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure
which they believe to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and
worship thereat continuously. Therefore, in the absence of
anything otherwise, it can safely be said that only this was the
part of the property in dispute which was used as a place of
worship by Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the
building in question. To this extent the first part of the issue
under consideration is answered in affirmative.
4522. So far as the second part is concerned, we do not
find that it has any relevance being as a hypothetical question
whether a mosque could have come into existence in view of the
Islamic tenets at the place of dispute, at such place Hindus were
worshiping earlier, for the reason that, as a matter of fact, a
building was constructed as a mosque, centuries back, under the
Sovereign's command. After its construction, the locals and the
other called and treated it, 'a mosque', it was used later, may be
intermittently, as we have already held, for offering namaz by
Muslims also. It is a different thing that in the same premises
Hindus also continued to visit and worship according to their
faith and belief but that would not erode in any manner the
factual establishment of a structure as a mosque. Whether a
person who made this construction or allowed it at that time,
acted in accordance with Islamic tenets or not, cannot allowed to
be reviewed on judicial side in a court of law which is a creation
of much subsequent period. The subsequent statutes not be
applied to a sovereign function as sole Monarch, at a time when
his command was supreme and unchallengeable. In our view it
is not open to any party to raise such a dispute, which in effect
require a judicial review of something which has been done by a
king at a time when there was no codified law. We have no
doubt in our mind that our jurisdiction to peep into such an
objection cannot be stressed to such an extent. Sri Jain sought to
refer Article 13 of the constitution and some other provisions
but we find all those reference wholly misconceived and in our
view the argument is simply noticed to be rejected.
4523. Issue No. 19 (c), Suit-4 is decided accordingly.
4524. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) read as under:
"(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same
place on a Chabutara under the canopy?
(c) Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or
after 6.12.1992 in violation of the courts order dated
14.8.1989 and 15.11.91?
(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative,
whether the idols so placed still acquire the status of a
4525. After the demolition of the disputed structure, the
defendants no. 4 and 5 (Suit-5) filed an additional written
statement dated 22
August, 1995 and in para 3 and 13 thereof
pleaded as under:
"3. That the contents of para 35 J of the Amended Plaint
are denied as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that
the demolition of the Babri Masjid appeared to be a pre-
planned, deliberate and intentional act on the part of the
miscreants and criminals who had assembled at the site on
the call of the Vishwa Hindi Parishad, Bajrang Dal and
Shiv Sena etc. All the acts of the said so-called Kar Sewaks
were totally illegal, unjustified and in violation of the
orders of this Hon'ble Court as well as of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and amounted to blatant exercise of the
Rule of Jungle and the so called construction of make-shift
temple and placing of idols in the same on 7.12.92 was all
totally illegal and contemptuous and the said idols could
not be described as deity under Hindu Law also."
"13. That the Plaintiffs have no cause of action and
specially so when the idols placed in the Mosque
surreptitiously in the night of 22
December, 1949
have been removed on 6-12-1992. The claim, if any,
regarding the said idols stood extinguished on the removal
of the said idols."
4526. The submission of Sri Jilani and Sri Siddiqui is that
once the Deity is removed from the place where it was
consecrated or where it was being worshipped, it ceased to have
the status of a deity on removal unless reconsecrated. Therefore,
it is contended that plaintiff no.1 ceased to be a 'juristic
personality' after its removal on 6
December, 1992, rendering
suit not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is
placed on the authority of "History of Dharmashatra" by P.V.
Kane Chapter XXVI, page 904 which reads as under:
"Punah-pratistha :-(Re-consecration of images in temples).
The Brahmapurana quoted by the Devapratisthatattva and
the Nirnayasindhu says 'when an image is broken into two
or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its
pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is
touched by beasts like donkeys or falls on impure ground or
is worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered
impure by the touch of outcasts and the like-in these ten
contingencies, god ceases to indwell therein.' When an
image is polluted by (contact with) the blood of a
brahmana or by the touch of a corpse or the touch of a
patita it should be re-consecrated. If an image is broken in
parts or reduced to particles it should be removed
according to sastric rules and another should be installed
in its place. When an image is broken or stolen a fast
should be observed. If images of metal such as of copper
are touched by thieves or candalas, they should be purified
in the same way in which polluted vessels of those metals
are purified and then they should be re-consecrated. If an
image properly consecrated has had no worship performed
without pre-meditation (i.e. owing to forgetfulness or
neglect) for one night or a month or two months or the
image is touched by a sudra or a woman in her monthly
illness, then the image should have water adhivasa
(placing in water) performed on it, and it should be bathed
with water from a jar, then with pancagavya, then it should
be bathed with pure water from jars to the accompaniment
of the hymn to Purusa (Rg. X. 90) repeated 8000 times, 800
times or 28 times, worship should be offered with sandal-
wood paste and flowers, naivedya (food) of rice cooked
with jaggery should be offered. This is the way in which the
re-consecration is effected."
4527. The matter of reconsecration as and when is
required and what is a procedure, how it is to be observed, we
have already discussed in detail while dealing with the issues
relating to deities, their rights etc. i.e. issues No.12 and 21 (Suit-
4), issues no.1, 2, 3(a), 6 and 21 (Suit-5). The defendant no.3/1
on page 225, 232 of his statement has admitted of removal of
deity, as existed under the central dome of the disputed structure
upto 6
December, 1992 for a short while and says that the same
were restored after a few hours at the same place. To the same
effect is the statement of OPW 1-Mahant Paramhans Ram
Chandra Das. Nothing has come on record contradicting the said
statements of the two witness. Therefore, a very transition and
temporary kind of removal is not disputed. The circumstances in
which this removal took place is also known to all. A huge mob,
in a most abominable manner, caused demolition of the disputed
structure against all norms and principles of a civilized society.
It is, however, not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs
have any role in this matter. Now, the question is whether such
removal, whatsoever were the circumstances, is permissible and
secondly; its effect in the light of the answer of the former.
4528. Fortunately, the issue is no more res integra. In Hari
Raghunath Vs. Antaji Bhikaji (supra) the Bombay High Court
considered this question and held:
"It is not disputed that the existing building is in a
ruinous condition and that it may be that for the purpose of
effecting the necessary repairs the image may have to be
temporarily removed. Still the question is whether the
defendant as manager is entitled to remove the image with
a view to its installation in another building which is near
the existing building. Taking the most liberal view of the
powers of the manager, I do not think that as the manager
of a public temple he can do what he claims the power to
do, viz., to remove the image from its present position and
to instal it in the new building. The image is consecrated in
its present position for a number of years and there is the
existing temple. To remove the image from that temple and
to instal it in another building would be practically putting
a new temple in place of the existing temple. Whatever may
be the occasions on which the installation of a new image
as a substitute for the old may be allowable according to
the Hindu law, it is not shown on behalf of the defendant
that the ruinous condition of the existing building is a
ground for practically removing the image from its present
place to a new place permanently. We are not concerned in
this suit with the question of the temporary removal which
may be necessary when the existing building is repaired."
4529. This decision in Hari Raghunath (supra) has been
quoted and approved by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court
in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal
Vinayak Gosavi (supra) in para 36 and it says:
"The case is an authority for the proposition that the idol
cannot be removed permanently to another place, because
that would be tantamount to establishing a new temple.
However, if the public agreed to a temporary removal, it
could be done for a valid reason."
4530. Therefore in a give situation a temporary removal is
permissible and that shall not cause any impact upon the
authority and status of the deity.
4531. Now coming to the two orders referred to in issue
no.3(c) of the Court, we find that this Court on 14
1989 passed the following order on an application filed by the
State of U.P. under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1
and 2 C.P.C. which reads:
"This is an application filed by the State of U.P.
under Section 94 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of injunction:-
(i) Restraining the plaintiffs and defendants from
disturbing the status quo and organising any activity which
may bring about confrontation between Hindus and
Muslims and
(ii) Ensuring that orders passed by the Court are strictly
enforced and are not breached.
We have heard Sri S.S.Bhatnagar, learned Advocate
General in support of this application. We also heard Sri
V.K.S.Chaudhary and Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who
submitted in their arguments that the threats expressed by
the learned Advocate-General in his application and in his
arguments were groundless as no such situation as stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the application is in
existence or is going to arise as the parties represented by
them consisted of law abiding citizens and no breach of
peace or any order of the court was intended by them. Sri
Abdul Mannan, Counsel appearing for the other side,
virtually supported by the application for injunction and
narrated the dire consequences if the law is taken to hands
by the parties.
In this connection, our attention was drawn to the
following order dated 3.2.1986 passed by a learned single
Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No.746 of 1986:-
"Until further orders of the Court, the nature of the
property in question as existing today shall not be
It was also brought to our notice that another
learned single Judge of this Court has passed an order for
appointment of receiver for the property in question in
F.A.F.O. No.17 of 1977 on 23
July, 1987.
In view of the order for appointment of receiver and
the order dated 3.2.1986 which has become final, we are
not inclined to accept that any of the parties will take law
to hands and do anything which may culminate in law
breaking. However, since in the writ petition, in which the
order dated 3.2.1986 was passed, only some of the parties
to the present suits were arrayed, we consider it necessary
in the interest of justice that a similar order is adopted in
each of the injunction applications in the present suits, as a
result whereof until further orders of the Court, the parties
to suits No.1 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.2 of 1950), 2 of 1989
(Reg. Suit No.25 of 1950), 3 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.26 of
1959), 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12 of 1961) and 5 of 1989
(Reg. Suit No.236 of 1989) shall maintain status quo and
shall not change the nature of the property in question.
Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary strenuously contended that in
view of the order appointing receiver, there was absolutely
no justification for apprehending that the parties are likely
to take the law to their hands, but by way of abundant
caution, we have made the above order."
4532. A perusal of this order shows that the parties to the
suit were directed to maintain status quo, and, that they shall not
change the nature of the property in question. There is no
pleading by the defendants (Suit-5) that in demolition of the
disputed structure etc., the plaintiffs are responsible or guilty of
violation of this Court's order dated 14.08.1989.
4533. So far as order dated 15.11.1991 is concerned, Sri
Jilani informed that no such order was passed by this Court but
it appears that the Apex Court on some application had passed
an order but the same has not been placed before us during the
course of argument. Therefore, we are not able to consider and
appreciate the same.
4534. In view thereof we answer issues no.3(b) and (d)
(Suit-5) in affirmative and issue no.3(c) (Suit-5) in negative.
4535. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) reads as under:
"Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of
Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed structure?"
4536. This issue has to be considered in the light of the
pleadings of defendant Nirmohi Akhara. Its case is that since
time immemorial the disputed structure was a temple. There was
no demolition. No construction of mosque. The idol under the
disputed structure also continued since time immemorial. This
case of the Nirmohi Akhara has not been found correct. They
have failed to prove it. We have already held so. It is not their
case that the idols were kept under the central dome of the
disputed structure in the night of 22/23 December, 1949 by any
member or Mahants or Pujaris of Nirmohi Akhara and after such
placing they continued to take care of the idols and it is the
Nirmohi Akhara which is responsible for all this. In fact
Nirmohi Akhara having taken a totally different stand, denied
occurrence of any such incident.
4537. In these peculiar facts and circumstances and the
stand of Nirmohi Akhara, we have no option but to hold that so
far as the idols of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed
structure i.e. within the inner courtyard is concerned, the
defendant Nirmohi Akhara cannot said to be Shebait thereof.
4538. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered against
Nirmohi Akhara defendant No.3 (Suit-5).
4539. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4)
"Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as
the building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged
Mutawallis were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its
4540. This issue has been framed in view of the plea taken
by the defendants no.13, 20 and a few others that the building in
dispute having been constructed by Mir Baqi, who was a Shia
Muslim, the waqf cannot be a Sunni Waqf and therefore,
plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4) has no authority to file the suit. We have
already answered this question while considering the issue
relating to wakf that if a mosque is constructed, under law of
Shariat no distinction is made like Sunni mosque or Shia
mosque. Every person, who is a worshipper of Islam, as a matter
of right, is entitled to enter the mosque and offer Namaz. This
aspect has been considered in three Full Bench decisions of this
Court in Jangu & Others Vs. Ahmad Ullah (supra), Queen
Empress Vs. Ramzan (supra) as well as in Ata-Ullah &
another Vs. Azim-Ullah (supra). The above judgments have
been discussed in detail in paras 3254 and 3256 of this
judgment. It is only pursuant to the U.P. Act, 1936 or U.P. Act,
1960, for the effective management and superintendence of
waqfs in the State of U.P., two Boards were created and for that
purpose only, the waqfs were required to be identified whether a
Sunni waqf or Shia Waqf.
4541. Be that as it may, before us, firstly, neither any
evidence has been placed to show that Mir Baqi in fact existed
during the regime of Babar, and, then nothing is there to prove
about his religion, what it was. Some observations here and
there by some writers and that too on a sheer guess work would
not be sufficient for this Court to investigate into this factual
position which relates back to an alleged event of almost 500
years back. Moreover, we have already held that the building in
question has not been proved to have been constructed in 1528
AD by Mir Baqi. Therefore the question, whether it was a Sunni
waqf or Shia waqf becomes redundant. Moreover, the rights of
Hindus would in no manner would be affected whether the
building in dispute, if mosque, constitute a 'Sunni Waqf' or 'Shia
Waqf' since the consequence, if any, would flow in the same
way and would be equal in both the cases.
4542. Our considered opinion is that nature of the waqf
whether Sunni or Shia would not cause any impact upon the
issues raised by the defendants Hindu parties in these cases.
Therefore, for the purpose of suits in question, issue 20(a) (Suit-
4) is wholly irrelevant and need not to be answered. It is
ordered accordingly.
4543. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) are as under:
"Whether demolition of the disputed structure as
claimed by the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and
if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed as no longer maintainable?"
"Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to
offer prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
4544. Both these issues are interconnected and can be
decided together. The submission of the defendants-Hindu
parties is that the plaintiffs are the beneficiaries in the sense that
they are only the worshippers and in that capacity had filed the
suit in question. This right of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) would
continue only so long as the disputed structure was there and
after its demolition since there cannot be a mosque in existence,
the plaintiffs loose right of worship for all times to come and
therefore, the suit in question is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable.
4545. On the contrary, the plaintiffs (Suit-4) have pleaded
that once there is a waqf by construction of a mosque, it is not
confined only to the building but to land also and therefore,
even if the building is subsequently damaged, collapsed or
demolished, it would not affect the rights of the Muslims to
offer prayer (Namaz) at the site in dispute. Even if it is a open
site, its status of mosque (waqf) will continue.
4546. While considering the issues relating to the mosque,
we have already observed that a waqf can be created only when
the wakif is the owner of the land and once he creates a waqf,
the property in its entirety vest in the almighty and the wakif
ceases to have any relation with the property thereafter. In the
case in hand, we have already held that the building in dispute
was constructed as mosque and it was so treated, believed and
practiced by all concerned, which included the Hindus also.
Moreover, in the absence of any claim as to title, the plaintiffs
(Suit-4), have approached this Court on the basis of their interest
in the property in dispute derived from possession in the sense
of a right to offer Namaz at the disputed site. Such right, in our
view, cannot be defeated merely by removing the construction,
since the plaintiffs if had a right to possess the land in question,
they can continue to maintain their suit irrespective of whether
building in dispute has been demolished.
4547. In our view, issues no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are
answered that as a result of the demolition of disputed structure,
Suit-4 of the plaintiffs muslim parties cannot be said to be not
maintainable. No further aspect need to be answered. Issues
no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are answered accordingly.
4548. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) read as under:
Issue No.3
"Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka'
and the idols situated in the site in suit."
Issue No.4
"Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
4549. As we have already noticed, Charan Paduka i.e. Sita
Rasoi is in the outer courtyard, there is no occasion to make any
declaration in this regard. This is not within the scope of Suit-1.
So far as the idol and right of Darshan of the place concerned,
we have already held that place in suit, in so far as it constitute
the place of birth of lord Rama can be visited for Darshan and
worship by all the Hindus as a matter of right, who believed and
aspire for the same. However, it cannot be said that while
visiting a place for worship, the defendant State or others who
are responsible for management of the place of worship cannot
impose restrictions provided they are reasonable and necessary
for the benefit and facility of the worshippers as also for the
safety, security, cleanliness etc. of the deity.
4550. Therefore, subject to such reasonable restriction, as
may be necessary in the given facts and circumstances, we hold
that the plaintiff has a right to worship the place in suit to the
extent it has been held by this Court constituting the birthplace
of lord Rama, and if an idol is also placed in such a place, the
same can also be worshipped accordingly. Both these issues are
answered accordingly.
4551. Issues relating to reliefs:
4552. Issue No. 16, Suit-4:
"To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of
them, entitled?"
4553. In view of our finding on Issue No. 3 since the suit
is barred by limitation, the question of entitlement of any relief
to the plaintiff does not arise as the suit itself is liable to be
4554. Issue No. 17, Suit-1:
"To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
4555. Since the site in dispute includes part of the land
which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and has
been held to be a deity and place of worship of Hindus, the
plaintiff's right to worship cannot be doubted. To this extent the
plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, which is ordered
accordingly. However, it is made clear that such right of the
plaintiff is always subject to restrictions which may be found
necessary by the competent authority on account of security,
safety and maintenance of the place of worship. Since the place
of worship is a "Swayambhu deity", whether an idol is kept
there or not, would make no difference and it is the matter to be
seen by those who are responsible for management of such
place, and according to the majority of the worshippers as to
how they intend to keep and maintain the place of worship
without disturbing its nature as deity. No individual worshipper
can insist that such place of worship be maintained in a
particular manner. Therefore, except the declaration as above,
the plaintiff (Suit-1) is not entitled to any other relief.
4556. Issue No. 13, Suit-3:
"To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
4557. In view of our findings in respect of issues no. 2, 3,
4, 9 and 14 the plaintiff, Suit-3, in our view, is not entitled to
any relief.
4558. Issue no. 30, Suit-5:
"To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them
4559. Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the entire
premises described vide Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 belonged to the
plaintiffs deities and also a permanent injunction against the
defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any
objection to or placing any restriction on the construction of the
new temple at Sri Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya. We have already
held that the area under the central dome of the disputed
construction believed and worshipped by the Hindu people as
the place of birth of Lord Rama and they were worshiping
thereat since time immemorial. This part of the land constitutes
deity, "Sri Ram Janamsthan", and a place of special significance
for Hindus. Therefore it has to be treated in a manner where the
very right of worship of Hindus of place of birth of Lord Rama
is not extinguished or otherwise interfered with. We have
simultaneously held that so far as other land within the inner
courtyard of the disputed structure is concerned, this open land
had been continuously used by members of both the
communities for their respective prayers and worship for
decades and centuries.
4560. Though the prayer in the suit is worded in the
different manner but for complete justice and to avoid
multiplicity of litigation as also the adjudication which may
settled centuries old dispute finally, we are of the view that we
can mould the wordings of the reliefs and can pass an order in
respect to respective parties in this case which as suuch may not
be covered by the form of relief but is within the scope of the
case. In this regard we can rely on the provision under Order VII
Rule 7 CPC.
4561. We may also referred to earlier decision of this
Court in Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR 1954
All. 191, “A” and “B” were co-sharers. “A” sold a land to “C”.
“B” filed a suit claiming possession of the land stating that he
was entitled for exclusive possession of the property as the said
land was already in his possession to the exclusion of “A”. A
Single Judge of this Court held that “A” and “B”, being co-
sharers, “B” had no right to claim exclusive possession of the
plot to the exclusion of “A” and similarly “A” had no right to
transfer specific plot to “C” but can transfer his share in plot to
“C” and, thereafter “A” and “C” will hold the plot in question as
co-sharers. It also observed that if the prayer clause in a plaint is
not properly worded, the Court should give due consideration to
the decree which should be passed. This part of the observation
is referable to Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. Judgment is relied on to
overcome the difficulty in the suits with respect to the relief
sought therein. In our view, Order VII Rule 7 can be resorted to
by the Court when something can be found within the scope of
the relief sought by the plaintiff or where a higher relief is
claimed but the Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for a
lesser relief but the scope of Order VII Rule 7 cannot be
extended by widening the scope of the relief which has actually
not been called for or to permit plaintiff to wriggle out of the
statutory obstruction like limitation etc. on account of a relief
claimed by him which is barred or prohibited or cannot be
granted for one or the other reason. The Court will not proide a
safe passage to a party by reading the words of the reliefs sought
by it in a manner which may help it in overcoming the difficulty
it otherwise is facing or is bound to face on account of the
mandatory provisions of the statute of limitation etc. The scope
of Order VII Rule 7 is not to use it as a leverage to help a party
to the extent that the other party stand discriminated in an
otherwise matter where other party is entitled to get the issue
decided in its favour whether it is in respect to limitation, res
judicata or similar other statutory provisions. It is the plaintiff
who has to be careful enough to find out as to what grievance he
actually has, what the real cause of action and what relief one
must claim from the Court. The Court will not provide a
comfortable question in the form of rewording of all these
things to the extent it may change what has actually been
changed by the plaintiff in its entirety.
4562. In order to mould relief under Order VII Rule 7,
reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in Sardar Ali
Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan AIR (30) 1943
Oudh 243, it was held therein that where more is claimed, the
plaintiff may get what is found due to him even though less that
what he has claimed. Where more is claimed any smaller
amount may be given if found due to the plaintiff. This
proposition cannot be doubted but then we may refer to the
further observation of the Court that relief not founded on the
pleadings should not be granted. It is not proper for a to Court to
displace the case made by a party in his pleading and to give
effect to an entirely new case which that party has not made out
in his pleading and which he has expressly disclaimed. But
where the substantial matters which constitute the title of all the
parties are touched, though obscurely, in the issues, and they
have been fully put in evidence and have formed the main
subject of discussion in the Court, the Court may grant a relief
though it may not be founded on the pleadings. Therefore, the
mould of relief will depend upon the case and recourse to Order
VII Rule 7 can be had only to the extent it do not make violence
with the pleadings and reliefs in the suit.
4563. Considering the scope of Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. in
Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 Kar. 45, a
Division Bench observed:
“The normal rule that relief not founded on the pleadings
should not be granted is not without an exception. Where
substantial matters constituting the title of all the parities
are touched in the issues and have been fully put in
evidence the case does not fall within the aforesaid rule.
The Court has to look into the substance of the claim in
determining the nature of the relief to be granted. Of
course, the Court while moulding the relief must take care
to see that relief it grants is not inconsistent with the
plaintiff's claim, and is based on the same cause of action
on which the relief claimed in the suit, that it occasions no
prejudice or causes embarrassment to the other side; that it
is not larger than the one claimed in the suit, even it the
plaintiff is really entitled to it, unless he amends the plaint;
that it had not been barred by time on the date of
presentation of the plaint.”
“No doubt the plaintiff has sought for exclusive title
and he has not been able to prove his exclusive title; but
has been able to prove, that he is entitled to a half share in
the suit properties. When a party claims exclusive title to
the suit property and is liable to establish that he is entitled
to half of the suit property, it will not be unusual for the
Court to pass a decree for partition and possession of his
half share. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed
for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire
property. When a larger relief is claimed and what is
established, is not the entire relief claimed in the suit but a
part of it, as whole includes a part, larger relief includes
smaller relief, and it also arises out of the same cause of
action. ... Therefore, even if a separate suit has to be filed
for partition, the defendant does not have any sustainable
defence. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the
defendant/ respondent if a preliminary decree for partition
and separate possession is passed in this suit itself.”
4564. Relief of declaration and injunction is discretionary
but it is the duty of the Court to administer justice between the
parties and not to convert itself into instrument of injustice or an
engine of oppression. In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree
College, Shamli and others Vs. Lakshmi Narain (supra) the
Court said:
"27. . . . . . the relief of declaration and injunction under
the provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely
discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right.
The relief has to be granted by the court according to
sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The court
has to administer justice between the parties and cannot
convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of
oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its
discretionary powers the court must keep in mind the well
settled principles of justice and fairplay and should
exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it,
for justice is not an object which can be administered in
4565. In American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta Steep
Co. (supra) the Court said:
"22. Undoubtedly declaration of the rights or status is one
of discretion of the court under Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of
declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act
is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of
right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of
law and ex debito justicia. The court cannot convert itself
into an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression.
While exercising its discretionary power, the court must
keep in its mind the well settled principles of justice and
fair play and the discretion would be exercised keeping in
view the ends of justice since justice is the hall mark and it
cannot be administered in vacuum. Grant of declaration
and injunction relating to commercial transactions tend to
aid dishonesty and perfidy. Conversely refusal to grant
relief generally encourages candour in business behaviour,
facilitates free Row of capital, prompt compliance of
covenants, sustained growth of commerce and above all
inculcates respect for the efficacy of judicial adjudication.
Before granting or refusing to grant of relief of declaration
or injunction or both the court must weigh pros and cons in
each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their
proper perspective and exercise discretion with
circumspection to further the ends of justice."
4566. In the light of the above and considering overall
findings of this Court on various issues, following directions
and/or declaration, are given which in our view would meet the
ends of justice:
(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central
dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed
structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and
place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the
Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be
obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.
This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix
7 to this judgment.
(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by
letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above)
belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here
plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both
since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for
the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction
the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.
(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram
Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN
OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in Appendix
7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi
Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to
possession thereof in the absence of any person with better
(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L
E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall
be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs
(Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people
for worship at both places.
(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties
shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the
premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer
courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by
metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made
with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party
may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the
area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.
(v) The land which is available with the Government of
India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the
parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of
the property shall be made available to the above
concerned parties in such manner so that all the three
parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to,
by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the
people without disturbing each others rights. For this purpose
the concerned parties may approach the Government of India
who shall act in accordance with the above directions and also
as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail
Farooqi (Supra).
(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the
effect as said above (i to v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in
part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty to file
their suggestions for actual partition of the property in
dispute in the manner as directed above by metes and
bounds by submitting an application to this effect to the
Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or
the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, as the case may
(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed
otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain
status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute.
4567. Before parting with this matter, we find it necessary
to place on record our appreciation to learned counsels, Sri Ravi
Shankar Prasad, Sri P.R. Ganpathi Ayer, Sri K.N. Bhat, Senior
Advocates; Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Sri S.I.
Ahamad, Sri C.M. Shukla, Sri S.P. Srivastava, Sri M.M. Pandey,
Sri R.L. Verma, Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri
Rakesh Pandey, Sri R.K. Srivastava, Sri P.N. Mishra, Amitabh
Shukla, Sushri Ranjana Agnihotri, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri
D.P. Gupta, K.G. Mishra, Sri Fazle Alam, Sri Ved Prakash and
Sri Ramakant Srivastava, Advocates who assisted us with ability
and it is because of their hard labour in placing voluminous
record including religious, historical and other kinds of texts
etc., before the Court in a systematic manner that we have been
able to decide one of the most delicate, complicated and
cumbersome matter involving almost the entire population of
the country. The cordial atmosphere, peaceful and amicable
behaviour which they have shown in the Court also deserve our
4568. This was a gigantic and herculean task. The record
of the case was so voluminous that without having a few very
competent and expert hands we could not have accomplished
our task. We place on record commendation to the able and
effective assistance provided by Sri Hari Shankar Dube, O.S.D.
Ayodhya Bench, Sri Chintamani Ram, Bench Secretary, and Sri
Yusuf Khan, Court's Staff, S/Sri Akhilesh Kumar Nayak, P.S.,
Awadhesh Kumar, Puneet Srivastava, Kushal Agarwal,
Yogendra Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Gupta and Alkesh who
are the Court's personal staff and worked almost day-night
enabling us to complete this matter.
4569. Since the judgment has become extremely bulky and
it may be difficult to find different factual and legal aspects,
therefore, for convenience we have prepared three indexes, (i)
General Index, (ii) Citation; and, (iii) Reference Books which
are appended with this judgment as Appendix Nos. 9, 8 and 10.
4570. The number of issues are 120 (including sub-issues).
We, therefore, summarize our findings on different issues,
suitwise, as under:
1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs.
2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. The
plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building in dispute
was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi.
3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27 (Suit-4) are answered in
4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative and
it is held that the fact that the land in dispute entered in the
records of the authorities as Nazul plot would make things
5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered being
6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in
question was not exclusively used by the members of
muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard
exclusively used by Hindu and inner courtyard had been
visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both
the communities.
7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against
the plaintiffs.
8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against
the plaintiffs. It is held that Suit-4 is barred by limitation.
9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the
erection of partition wall the premises in outer courtyard
has not been shown to be used/possessed by muslim
parties but so far as the inner courtyard is concerned it has
been used by both the parties.
10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered against the plaintiffs.
11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in favour of
defendants and Hindu parties in general.
12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22 (Suit-4), are answered in
13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) not pressed by the defendants,
hence not answered.
14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in favour of plaintiffs
subject to that issue 6 (Suit-3) is also decided in favour of
defendants (Suit-3).
15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held
that there is nothing to show that Mahant Raghubar Das
filed Suit-1885 on behalf of Janamsthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janamsthan.
17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) answered in affirmative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in negative to the
extent that there is no admission by Mahant Raghubar Das
plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title of Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof. Consequently,
the question of considering its effect does not arise.
19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are answered in negative,
i.e., against the plaintiffs and muslims in general.
20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as
believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered
under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,
the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the
premises of dispute.
21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since the suit is liable to
be dismissed being barred by limitation.
22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) answered in negative holding that
no valid notification under Section 5(3) of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1936 was issued.
23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-it is held that the decision of the
Apex Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and
others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does not affect findings on
issue 17 (Suit-4) and on the contrary the same stand
supported and strengthen by the said judgment.
24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that the premises
which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama
continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious
structures in the outer courtyard cannot be said to be the
property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative to the
extent that the building was land locked and could not be
reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu
worship. However, this by itself was of no consequence.
26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that Hindus were
worshipping at the place in dispute before construction of
the disputed structure but that would not make any
difference to the status of the building in dispute which
came to be constructed at the command of the sole
monarch having supreme power which cannot be
adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted or
formed much after, and according to the law which was
not applicable at that time.
27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered in
favour of the plaintiffs.
28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as the first part is
concerned, is answered in affirmative. The second part is
left unanswered being redundant. In the ultimate result the
issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).
29. Issue 20(a) being irrelevant not answered.
30. Issue 20(b) (Suit-4)-It is held that at the time of
attachment of the building there was a Mutawalli, i.e., one
Sri Javvad Hussain and in the absence of Mutawalli relief
of possession cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are
before the Court in the capacity of worshippers.
31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) decided in negative, i.e., in favour
of the plaintiffs. The suit is not bad for non-joinder of
32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held that neither the
Waqf Board is an instrumentality of State nor there is any
bar in filing a suit by the Board against the State. It is also
not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and can
very well represent the interest of one community without
infringing any provision of the Constitution.
33. Issues 25 and 26 (Suit-4)-Held that as a result of
demolition of the disputed structure it cannot be said that
the suit has rendered not maintainable. Nothing further
needs to be answered.
34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that plaintiffs have failed
to prove their possession of the disputed premises, i.e.,
outer and inner courtyard including the disputed building
1. Issue 1 (Suit-1)-It is held that the place of birth, as
believed and worshipped by Hindus, is the area covered
under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,
the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the
premises of dispute.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-1)- It is held that the idols were kept
under the central dome of the disputed structure within
inner courtyard in the night of 22
December, 1949
and prior thereto the same existed in the outer courtyard.
Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was filed the said
idol existed in the inner courtyard under the central dome
of the disputed structure, i.e., prior to the filing of the suit.
So far as the Charan Paduka is concerned, the said
premises existed in the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is
confined only to the inner courtyard, question of existence
of Charan Paduka on the site in suit does not arise.
3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held that plaintiffs have
right to worship. The place in suit to the extent it has been
held by this Court to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if
an idol is also placed in such a place the same can also be
worshipped, but this is subject to reasonable restrictions
like security, safety, maintenance etc.
4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and 11(a) (Suit-1) are
answered in negative.
5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit 1885 was decided
against Mahant Raghubar Das and he was not granted any
relief by the respective courts, and, no more.
6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. The
defendants have failed to prove that the property in
dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in
1528 AD.
7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in negative, i.e., against
the defendants muslim parties.
8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. Suit is not
barred by proviso to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act,
9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour of plaintiffs
10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in favour of plaintiffs
11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the plaintiffs.
12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in negative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs of Suit-1.
13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmative.
14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1) are answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-1).
15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after
dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 as withdrawn.
16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have
right of worship at the site in dispute including the part of
the land which is held by this Court to be the place of birth
of Lord Rama according to the faith and belief of Hindus
but this right is subject to such restrictions as may be
necessary by authorities concerned in regard to law and
order, i.e., safety, security and also for the maintenance of
place of worship etc. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any
other relief.
1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered in negative.
2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are answered in negative,
i.e., against the plaintiffs.
3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in negative. The
defendants have filed to prove that the property in dispute
was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528
4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence answered in
5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in
negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the
defendants in Suit-3.
6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in negative.
7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiff. It
is also held that a private defendant cannot raise objection
of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section
80 CPC.
8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided in negative, i.e.,
in favour of plaintiffs.
9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief in view of the findings in respect of issues 2, 3, 4, 14
and 19.
10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative. It is
held that the suit as framed is not maintainable.
11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs (Suit-3).
12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiffs.
Nirmohi Akhara is held a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi
Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its
religious faith and pursuit according to its own customs.
However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found sometime
after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.
1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. Plaintiffs
1 and 2 both are juridical persons.
2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as it is not necessary
for the dispute in the case.
3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. The
idols were installed under the central dome of the disputed
building in the early hours of 23
December, 1949.
4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and 24 (Suit-5) are
answered in affirmative.
5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28 (Suit-5) are answered in
6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. The idol in
question kept under the Shikhar existed there prior to 6
December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and
instead kept thereat in the night of 22
7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour
of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against the defendant
no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.
9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs.
10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not barred by
11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that the muslims at least
from 1860 and onwards have visited the inner courtyard in
the premises in dispute and have offered Namaj thereat.
The last Namaj was offered on 16
December, 1949.
12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and
2 ever extinguished nor the question of reacquisition
thereof ever arise.
13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e.,
against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.
14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered being unnecessary
for the dispute in the case in hand.
15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e.,
against the defendants no. 4 and 5.
16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that the place of birth as
believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered
under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,
the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the
premises of dispute.
17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. It is
held that the judgment dated 30.03.1946 in Suit No. 29 of
1949 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (suit-5).
18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are answered in negative,
i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).
19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in
favour of plaintiffs.
20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly decreed in the
manner the directions are issued in para 4566.
4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4
are dismissed. Suit-5 is decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
Dated: 30.09.2010
(A fair copy of Appendix 1A, site plan map with Hindi Translation)
61/280/1885 (EX. A-25 in OOS 1/89)
(A Fair of Appendix-3, Site Plan Map with Hindi Translation)
Copy of site plan (Appendix 2) with marking by the Court
General Index-Judgment
Sl.No. Particulars Date Paras Pages
1. Party name and Counsels name 1-10
2. Rig-Veda X.129.1-3, 6, 7 11-13
3. Topography 2-5 13-15
4. Disputed Structure 6 15-16
5. O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 16.1.1950 7-18 16-25
6. Reliefs (Suit-1) 8 17-18
7. Plaint (Suit-1) 9-11 18-20
8. W.S. of defendants no. 1 to 5 (Suit-
21.2.1950 12-13 20-23
9. Replication to W.S. of defendants
no. 1 to 5 (Suit-1)
5.12.1952 14-15 23-24
10. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-1) 25.4.1950 16 24-25
11. W.S. of defendants no. 8 & 9 (Suit-
17 25
12. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-1) 24.2.1989 18 25
13. O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 19-28 25-39
14. Plaint (Suit-3) 17.12.1959 21-22 26-29
15. W.S. of defendants no. 6 to 8 (Suit-
28.3.1960 23 29-31
16. Replication to W.S. of defendants
no. 6 to 8 (Suit-3)
24 31-33
17. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit-
24.8.1995 25 33-34
18. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-3) 21.10.1991 26 34-35
19. Replication to W.S. of defendant
no. 10 (Suit-3)
8.11.1991 27-28 35-39
20. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 29-70 39-104
21. Plaint (Suit-4) 33-35 41-47
22. W.S. of defendant no. 1 (Suit-4) 12.3.1962 36 47-49
23. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 1 (Suit-
31.10.1962 37 49-51
24. W.S. of defendant no. 2 (Suit-4) 25.1.1963 38 51
25. Replication to W.S. of defendants
no. 1 & 2 (Suit-4)
11.9.1963 39 51-52
26. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit-
40-43 52-58
27. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4
25.1.1963 44 58
28. II Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 &
4 (Suit-4)
45 59
29. III Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3
21.8.1995 46-47 59-61
30. Replication to W.S. of defendants
no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)
11.9.1963 48 61-62
31. Application of Defendants no. 5 to
8 (Suit-4)
49 62-63
32. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit-4) 27/28.7.19
50 63
33. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4) 16.2.1990 51-53 63-66
34. Replication to W.S. of defendant
no. 10 (Suit-4)
18.11.1991 54 66
35. Supplementary replication to
amended W.S. of defendant no. 10
55 67
36. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 10
12.9.1995 56 67-70
37. W.S. of defendants no. 13 & 14
20.7.1968 57-58 70-73
38. W.S. of defendant no. 13 (Suit-4) 4.12.1989 59-62 73-90
39. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 13
29.8.1995 63 90
40. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 17
14.9.1995 64 90-91
41. W.S. of defendant no. 18 (Suit-4) 18/19.7.19
65 91
42. W.S. of defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) 5.11.1989 66-69 91-103
43. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 20
17.10.1995 70 103-104
44. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 1.7.1989 71-104 104-149
45. Reliefs (Suit-5) 72 105
46. Plaint (Suit-5) 1.7.1989 73-83 106-120
47. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-5) 14.8.1989 84 120-122
48. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-
20.4.1992 85 122-123
49. II Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3
13.5.1994 86 123-124
50. W.S. of defendant no. 4 (Suit-5) 26/29.8.19
87-93 124-139
51. W.S. of defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) 14/21.8.19
94 139-141
52. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 4 & 5
22.8.1995 95 141-142
53. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-5) 21/22/8/19
96 142
54. W.S. of defendant no. 11 (Suit-5) 97 142
55. W.S. of defendant no. 17 (Suit-5) 14.8.1989 98 142
56. W.S. of defendant no. 23 (Suit-5) 18.9.1989 99 142
57. W.S. of defendant no. 24 (Suit-5) 4.9.1989 100-103 142-148
58. W.S. of defendant no. 25 (Suit-5) 16/18.9.19
104 148-149
59. Progress of the suits -- journey in
the last almost 61 years and some
important stages -- brief resume.
105-211 149-197
60. (a) Proceeding under Section 145
105-120 149-156
61. (b) Suit-1 (from 16.1.1950 to 1963) 121-134 156-163
62. (c) Suit-2 135 163
63. (d) Suit-3 (from 1959 to 1963) 136 163-164
64. (e) Suit-4 (from 9.12.1961 to 1962) 137-138 164
65. (f)Suit 1 to 4 (from 6.1.1964 to
139-211 164-197
66. Excavation of the Site-Proceedings 212-241 197-261
67. ASI Report-Extract 22.08.2003 242-245 261-266
68. Details of Impleadment application
246 266-270
69. Statement of Party/Party's counsels
under order X Rule 2 CPC
247-264 270-283
70. Commissioner/ Receiver appointed
for the disputed site
265-266 283-285
71. Issues 267-272 285-301
72. (a) Issues in Suit No.4 269 285-292
73. (b) Issues in Suit No.1 270 292-295
74. (c) Issues in Suit No.3 271 295-296
75. (d) Issues in Suit No.5 272 296-301
76. Evidence adduced 273-606 301-965
77. (a) Oral deposition 274-599 302-921
78. Categorization of Witnesses 286-294 307-311
79. (A) Witnesses of facts on behalf
of plaintiffs in Suit-4-
Examination-in-Chief (brief)
295-331 311-349
80. PW 1 Mohd. Hashim July 1996 296-298 311-315
81. PW 2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad Sep.1996 299-300 315-317
82. PW 3 Farooq Ahmad October
301-302 317-318
83. PW 4 Mohd. Yaseen October
303-304 318-320
84. PW 5 Abdul Rahman Nov. 1996 305-306 321-323
85. PW 6 Mohd. Yunus Siddiqui 28.11.1996 307-308 323-326
86. PW 7 Hasmat Ulla Ansari 05.12.96 309-310 326-328
87. PW 8 Abdul Ajij 20.01.1997 311-312 328-330
88. PW 9 Saiyed Ekhalaq 18.02.1997 313-314 330-333
89. PW 14 Jalil Ahmad 16.02.1999 315-316 333-335
90. PW 21 Dr.M. Hashim Quidwai 22.11.2001 317-320 335-340
91. PW 22 Mohd. Khalid Nadvi 9/10.01.20
321-323 340-341
92. PW 23 Mohd. Qasim Ansari 16.01.2002 324-325 341-345
93. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naquvi 5/6.03.200
326-331 345-349
94. (B) Regarding birthplace of Lord
Rama, Continuous worship by
332-466 349-658
Hindus and demolition of temple
95. DW 1/1 Rajendra Singh 22.07.2003 332-333 349-360
96. DW 1/2 Krishna Chandra Singh 28.07.2003 334-335 360-367
97. DW 1/3 Dr. Sahdev Prasad Dubey 04.08.2003 336-338 367-378
98. DW 2/1-1 Rajendra Singh 01.12.2004 339-340 378-391
99. DW 2/1-2 Ram Saran Srivastava 20.01.2005 343-349 391-398
100. DW 2/1-3 Mahant Ram Vilas Das
16.02.2005 350-354 398-419
101. DW 3/1 Mahant Bhaskar Das 29.08.2003 355-359 419-430
102. DW 3/2 Raja Ram Pandey 22.09.2003 360-363 430-437
103. D/W 3/3 Satya Narayan Tripathi 30.10.2003 364-367 437-445
104. D/W 3/4 Shiv Saran Das 14.11.2003 368-370 445-447
105. D/W 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey 18.11.2003 371-372 447-458
106. D/W 3/6 Sita Ram Yadav 06.01.2004 373-375 458-464
107. D/W 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das 30.01.2004 376-377 464-474
108. D/W 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sundar Mishra 30.01.2004 378-380 474-482
109. D/W 3/9 Ram Ashrey Yadav 22.03.2004 381-384 482-494
110. D/W 3/11 Bhanu Pratap Singh 28.04.2004 385-388 494-499
111. D/W 3/12 Ram Akshaybar Pandey 24.05.2004 389-391 499-504
112. D/W 3/13 Mahant Ram Shubhag
Das Shastri
05.07.2004 392-394 504-518
113. D/W 3/14 Jagadguru
Ramandacharya Swami
23.07.2004 395-403 518-526
114. D/W 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh 17.08.2004 404-407 526-532
115. D/W 3/16 Shiv Bheekh Singh 24.08.2004 408-410 532-538
116. D/W 3/17 Mata Badan Tiwari 31.08.2004 411-413 538-542
117. D/W 3/18 Acharya Mahant
Banshidhar Das alias Uriya Baba
15.09.2004 414-416 542-546
118. D/W 3/19 Ram Milan Singh 12.10.2004 417-419 546-554
119. D/W 3/20 Mahant Raja Ram
27.10.2004 420-424 554-568
120. D/W 13/1-1 Mahanta Dharma Das 10.03.2005 425-429 568-578
121. D/W 17/1 Ramesh Chandra
09.05.2005 430-433 578-585
122. D/W 20/1 Shashikant Rungata 26.05.2005 434-436 585-593
123. D/W 20/2 Swami
Avimukteshewaranand Saraswati
27.06.2005 437-441 593-603
124. D/W 20/3 Brahmachari Ram
18.07.2005 442-444 603-606
125. OPW 1 Mahant Ram Chandra Das
23.12.1999 445-449 606-614
126. OPW 2 Deoki Nandan Agarwal 16-
450-451 614-615
127. OPW 4 Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari 06.08.2002 452-453 615-620
128. OPW 5 Ramnath Mishra alias
Banarasi Panda
454-455 620-629
129. OPW 6 Hausila Prasad Tripathi 13.08.2002 456-457 629-638
130. OPW 7 Ram Surat Tiwari 19.09.2002 458-459 637-646
131. OPW 12 Kaushal Kishore Mishra 16.12.2002 460-463 646-653
132. OPW 13 Naradsharan 27.01.2003 464-466 653-658
133. (C) Temple (Existence &
467-531 658-804
134. PW 12 Ram Shankar Upadhyay 20.01.1998 468-469 658-660
135. PW 13 Suresh Chandra Mishra 13.07.1998 470-471 660-663
136. PW 15 Sushil Srivastava 15.04.1999 472-473 663-666
137. PW 16 Prof. Suraj Bhan 22.02.2000 474-478 666-686
138. PW 18 Suvira Jaiswal 19.02.2001 479-480 686-688
139. PW 20 Prof. Shirin Musavi 24.07.2001 481-483 688-694
140. PW 24 Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal 25.02.2002 484-487 694-705
141. PW 27 Prof. Dr. Shereen F.
08.04.2002 488-503 705-716
142. PW 28 Sita Ram Roy 22/23.04.2
504-511 716-725
143. OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta 28.06.2001 512-514 725-757
144. OPW 9 Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma 31.10.2001 515-518 757-767
145. OPW 11 Satish Chandra Mittal 25.11.2002 519-524 767-780
146. OPW 16 Jagadguru
Ramanandacharya Swami
15.07.2003 525-526 780-788
147. DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur 07.04.2005 527-529 788-793
148. DW 20/4 Madan Mohan Gupta 16.05.2005 530-531 793-804
149. (D) ASI Report 532-568 804-869
150. PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon 28.09.2005 533-535 805-806
151. PW 30 Dr. R.C. Thakran 07.11.2005 536-537 806-830
152. PW 31 Dr. Ashok Datta 20.01.2006 538-540 830-839
153. PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma 27.03.2006 541-545 839-843
154. OPW 17 Dr. R. Nagaswamy 17.08.2006 546-547 843-850
155. OPW 18 Arun Kumar Sharma 28.08.2006 548-555 850-855
156. OPW 19 Sri Rakesh Datta Trivedi 03.10.2006 556-557 855-859
157. DW 6/1-1 Hazi Mahmood Ahmad 29.08.2005 558-559 859-860
158. DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid 12.09.2005 560-562 860-863
159. DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava 15.01.2007 563-568 863-869
160. (E) Characteristics of Mosque 569-585 869-896
161. PW 10 Mohd. Idris 28.02.1997 569-571 869-875
162. PW11 Mohd. Burhanuddin 16.09.1997 572-574 876-880
163. PW 19 Maulana Atiq Ahmed 21.05.2001 575-577 880-885
164. PW 22 Mohd. Khalid Nadvi 9/10.01.20
578-579 885-887
165. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naqvi 05/6.03.20
580 887
166. PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad 2/3.04.200
581-585 887-896
167. (F) Sanskrit Inscriptions found in
586-592 896-911
168. OPW 8 Ashok Chandra Chaterjee 03.10.2002 586-587 896-905
169. OPW 10 Dr. Koluvyl
Vyassrayasastri Ramesh
11.11.2002 588-590 905-909
170. OPW 15 Dr. M.N. Katti 31.03.2003 591-592 909-911
171. (G) Artifacts in debris 593-595 911-915
172. OPW 14 Dr. Rakesh Tiwari 07.02.2003 593-595 911-915
173. (H) Commissioner/ Survey
596-599 915-921
174. PW 17 Zafar Ali Siddiqui 20.10.2000 596-597 915-919
175. DW 3/10 Sri Pateshwari Dutt
23.03.2004 598-599 919-921
176. (b) Documentary Evidence 600-606 921-965
177. List of documents filed/exhibited
by the parties
600-606 921-965
178. Totaling of the exhibits 607 965
179. On Merits-General Observations 608-4576 965-5081
180. Categorization of issues 611 967-968
181. Issues-Discussion and findings on
614-4576 968-5081
182. (A) Issues relating to Notice
under Section 80 C.P.C.-Issues
No. 10 (Suit-3), 13, 14 (Suit-1) and
26, 27 (Suit-5)
614-668 969-992
183. Issue No. 10 (Suit-3) 614-644 969-980
184. Issues No. 13 and 14 Suit-1 645-666 980-991
185. Issues no. 26 and 27 of Suit-5 667-668 991-992
186. (B) Religious Denomination-Issue
no. 17 (Suit-3)
669-799 992-1127
187. (C) Relating to Suit-1885 and its
effect on present suits, i.e., res
judicata and estoppel etc.-Issues
No. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) (Suit-
1); 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d) and 8 (Suit-
4); and 23 and 29 (Suit-5)
800 1127
188. Issue No. 5 (a) (Suit-1) 853-860 1156-1159
189. Issue No. 5 (b) (Suit-1) 861-868 1159-1162
190. Issue No. 5 (c) (Suit-1) 869-870 1162-1164
191. Issue No. 7 (a) (Suit-4) 871-874 1164-1165
192. Issue No. 7 (d) (suit-4) 875-876 1165-1166
193. Issues No. 5 (d) (Suit-1); 7 (c) and
8 (suit-4); 23 (Suit-5)
877-1063 1166-1285
194. Issue No. 29 (Suit-5) 1064-1065 1285
195. Issue No. 7 (b) (Suit-4) 1066 1285-1286
196. (D) Relating to Waqfs Act No.
13 of 1936, 16 of 1960 and certain
incidental issues-Issues No. 5(a),
5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f), 17, 18,
23, 24 (Suit-4); 9, 9(a), 9(b) and
1067-1275 1286-1440
9(c) (Suit-1); 7(a), 7(b) and 16
(Suit-3) and 28 (Suit-5)
197. Issues No. 17, 5(a), 5(c), 5(d)
1068-1072 1286-1298
198. Issue No. 9 (Suit-1) 1073-1075 1298-1299
199. Issues No. 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) 1076-1077 1299
200. Issues No. 5(b) (Suit-4) and 9(a)
1078-1151 1299-1359
201. Issue No. 5(e) (Suit-4) 1152-1167 1359-1369
202. Issue No. 18 (Suit-4) 1168-1176 1369-1377
203. Issue No. 9(b) (Suit-1) 1177-1181 1377-1379
204. Issue No. 9(c) (Suit-1) 1182-1192 1379-1387
205. Issue No. 16 (Suit-3) 1193-1198 1387-1390
206. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) 1199-1202 1390-1391
207. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) 1203-1243 1391-1410
208. Issue 28 (Suit-5) 1244-1275 1410-1440
209. (E) Misc. issues like
representative nature of suit,
Trust, Section 91 C.P.C., non-
joinder of parties, valuation/
insufficient Court fee/under
valuation and special costs.[Issues
No. 6, 22 (Suit-4), 11 (a), 11 (b),
12, 15, 16 (Suit-1), 11, 12, 15 (Suit-
3) and. 20 (Suit-5)]
1276-1294 1440-1449
210. Issue No. 6 (Suit-4) 1276-1277 1440-1441
211. Issue No. 22 (Suit-4) 1278 1441
212. Issue No. 11 (a) and 11 (b) (Suit-1) 1279-1282 1441-1444
213. Issue No. 12 (Suit-1) 1283-1285 1444-1445
214. Issue No. 15 (Suit-1) 1286-1287 1445-1446
215. Issue No. 16 (Suit-1) 1288-1290 1446-1447
216. Issue No. 11, 12 and 15 (Suit-3) 1291-1292 1447-1448
217. Issue No. 20 (Suit-5) 1293-1294 1448-1449
218. (F) Issues relating to the Person
and period- who and when
constructed the disputed
building [Issue No.6 (Suit-1), 5
(Suit-3) and 1 (a) (Suit-4)]
1295-1682 1449-1797
219. (G) Issues relating to Deities,
their status, rights etc. [Issues no.
12 and 21 (Suit-4); 1, 2, 3(a), 6 and
21 (Suit-5)]
1683-2141 1797-2187
220. Issue No. 12 (Suit-4) 2109 2173
221. Issue No. 3 (a), 1 (suit-5) and 21
2110 2174
222. Issue 21 (Suit-4) 2131 2181
223. Issues no.2 and 6 (Suit-5) 2132-2141 2181-2187
224. (H) Limitation [Issue No. 3 (Suit-
4); 10 (Suit-1); 9 (Suit-3); and 13
2142-2738 2187-2637
225. Issue No. 3 (Suit-4) 2144-2565 2187-2533
226. Issue No. 10 (Suit-1) 2566-2567 2533
227. Issue No. 9 (Suit-3) 2568-2580 2533-2538
228. Issue No. 13 (Suit-5) 2581-2738 2538-2637
229. (I) Issues relating to Possession/
Adverse Possession [Issues no. 7
(Suit-1); 3 and 8 (Suit-3); 2, 4, 10,
15 and 28 (Suit-4); and 16 (Suit-
2739-3123 2637-2969
230. Issues No. 7 (Suit-1) 2740-2993 3637-2829
231. Issue No. 3 (Suit-3) 2994-3024 2829-2851
232. Issue no. 8 (Suit-3) 3025-3075 2851-2886
233. Issue no. 2 (Suit-4) 3076-3111 2886-2962
234. Issue No. 10 and 15 (Suit-4) 3112 2962
235. Issue 28 (Suit-4) 3113-3114 2962-2964
236. Issue No. 4 (Suit-4) 3115 2964
237. Issue No. 16 (Suit-5) 3116-3123 2964-2969
238. (K) Issues relating to
characteristics of Mosque,
dedication by Babur and whether
a valid waqf was created. [Issues
no. 6 (Suit 3), 1, 1(B)(b), 1(B)(c),
19(d), 19(e), 19(f) (Suit 4) and 9
(Suit 5)]
3124-3448 2969-3414
239. Issue no.6 (Suit 3) 3332-3345 3286-3297
240. Issues No. 1 (Suit-4) and 9 (Suit-5) 3346-3409 3297-3336
241. Issues no. 1(B)(b) (Suit-4) 3410-3429 3336-3350
242. Issues no. 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) 3430-3433 3350-3359
243. Issue No.19(f) (Suit-4) 3434-3447 3359-3413
244. Issue No. 1-B (c) (Suit-4) 3448 3413-3414
245. (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, [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)]
3449-4425 3414-5001
246. (A) Existence of Temple &
Demolition [Issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4)
and 14 (Suit 5)]
3513-4059 3502-4415
247. (B) Existence of other Hindu 4060-4067 4415-4435
religious places making the
disputed building building
landlocked by religious places of
Hindus [(Issue No. 19(b) (Suit-4)]
248. (C) Whether the Hindus had
been continuously worshipping at
the place in dispute [Issue No. 13,
14 (Suit-4) and 24 (Suit-5)]
4068-4073 4435-4437
249. Issue No. 13 and 14 (Suit-4) 4069-4070 4435-4436
250. Issue No. 24 (Suit-5) 4071-4073 4436-4437
251. (D) The presence of idol in the
disputed building [Issue No.2
4074-4078 4437-4438
252. (E) Issues relating to place of
birth of Lord Rama, believed as
such by Hindus by tradition etc.
[issues no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1)
and 22 (Suit-5)]
4079-4418 4439-4999
253. (F) Others [issues no. 27 (Suit-
4) and 1 (Suit-3)]
4419-4425 4999-5001
254. Issue No. 27 (Suit-4) 4420-4421 5000
255. Issue No.1 (Suit-3) 4422-4425 5000-5001
256. (L) Identity of the property
[Issues no. 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) and 5
4426-4458 5001-5015
257. Issue No.1(B)(a) (Suit-4) 4427-4455 5001-5015
258. Issue No.5 (Suit-5) 4456-4458 5015-5015
259. (M) Issues relating to Specific
Relief Act [Issues no. 8 (Suit-1)
and 18 (Suit-5)]
4460-4478 5016-5033
260. Issue 8 (Suit-1) 4463-4466 5018-5021
261. Issue 18 (Suit-5) 4467-4478 5021-5033
262. (N) Others, if any [Issues no.2, 4 4479-4550 5033-5072
14 (Suit-3); 19(a), 19(c), 20(a),
20(b), 25, 26 (Suit-4); 3(b), (c), (d)
4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 25 (Suit-5)
and 3 and 4 (Suit-1);
263. Issue no.2 (Suit-3) 4481-4482 5033-5034
264. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) 4483-4484 5034
265. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3) 4485-4486 5034-5035
266. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) 4487-4495 5035-5047
267. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) 4496-4498 5047-5048
268. Issue No.15 (Suit-5) 4499-4500 5048-5049
269. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4) 4501-4505 5049-5051
270. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5) 4506-4508 5051-5052
271. Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5) 4509-4511 5052-5056
272. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5) 4512-4516 5056-5057
273. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5) 4517-4519 5057-5058
274. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4) 4520-4523 5058-5060
275. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) 4524-4534 5060-5067
276. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) 4535-4538 5067-5068
277. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4) 4539-4542 5068-5069
278. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) 4543-4547 5069-5071
279. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) 4548-4550 5071-5072
280. Issues relating to reliefs: Issues
No. 15 (Suit-4), 17 (Suit-1), 13
(Suit-3) and 30 (Suit-5)
4551-4566 5072-5081
281. Issue No. 16, Suit-4 4552-4553 5072
282. Issue No. 17, Suit-1 4554-4555 5072-5073
283. Issue No. 13, Suit-3 4556-4557 5073
284. Issue no. 30, Suit-5 4558-4566 5073-5081
285. Appendixes -- 5092-5250
286. Appendixes-1, 1A and 1B – 5092-5094
287. Appendixes-2, 2A, 2B, and 2C – 5095-5098
288. Appendixes-3 and 3A – 5099-5100
289. Appendixes-4, 4A and 4B – 5101-5103
290. Appendixes-5A to 5DD – 5104-5133
291. Appendix-6 – 5134
292. Appendix-7 – 5135
293. Appendix-8, General Index – 5136-5151
294. Appendix-9, Citations Referred
– 5152-5220
295. Appendix-10, Reference Books
-- 5201-5218
Index-Citations Referred Alphabetically
Sl.No. Citation Para/Page no.
1. A.G. of Bengal Vs. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR
22 Cal. 788 (PC)
2. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. and
others, 1996(9) SCC 548=AIR 1996 SC 1765
718/1026, 1754/1867,
3. A.S. Vidyasagar Vs. S. Karunanandam 1995 Supp
(4) SCC 570
2774/2668, 2929/2793
4. Abbas Dhali Masabdi Karikar, (1914) 24 I.C. 216
5. Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Rahmat Ali & others AIR
1930 Oudh 245
6. Abdul Halim Khan Vs. Raja Saadat Ali Khan &
Ors. AIR 1928 Oudh 155
2164/2198, 2946/2803
7. Abdul Latif Vs. Nawab Khwaja Habibullah 1969
Calcutta Law Journal 28
8. Abdul Quadir Vs. Tahira 1997 (15) LCD 379 852/1156, 1046/1273
9. Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and another, AIR
2003 SC 718
842/1150, 1017/1255
10. Abdulla Vs. Kunbammad, AIR 1960 Ker. 123 984/1232
11. Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan Vs. Ganesh Dass, AIR
1917 PC 201
12. Abdur Rahim Vs. Narayan Das Aurora AIR 1923
PC 44
3270/ 3146
13. Abinash Ch. Chowdhury Vs. Tarini Charan
Chowdhury and others AIR 1926 Cal. 782
2162/2197, 2258/2251
14. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar & Ors. Vs. Harun
Abdul Inamdar & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 112
2774/2667, 2904/2766,
15. Abul Fata Mohammad Vs. Rasamaya, 22 IA 76 1099/1320, 1107/1325
16. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta Vs.
Commissioner of Police AIR 1990 Cal. 336
17. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others
Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another
1983 (4) SCC 522
18. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji
Anandprasadji Maharaj & others Vs. State of
Gujarat & others (1975) 1 SCC 11
19. Acharya Maharishi Narendra Prasad ji Vs. State
of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 2098
20. Addangi Nageswara Rao Vs. Sri Ankamma
Devatha Temple Anantavaram 1973 Andhra
Weekly Report 379
1703/1821, 1707/1824,
21. Administrator General of Bengal Vs. Balkissen,
ILR 51 Cal 953=AIR 1925 Cal 140
22. Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Yusuf Alli
Ebrahim & others 84 Indian Cases (1921) (Bom.)
23. Advocate General of Bombay vs. Yusufally 24
Bom. L.R. 1060
24. Aftab Ali Vs. Akbor Ali (1929) 121 IC 209 (All) 2422/2437
25. Afzal Hussain Vs. 1
Additional District Judge,
AIR 1985 All. 79
26. Agency Company Vs. Short (1888) 13 A.C. 793 2224/2232, 2428/2439
27. Agha Turab Ali Khan Vs. Shromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee AIR 1933 Lahore 145
28. Akbar Khan v. Turban (1909) 31 All. 9 2442/2446, 2448/2450
29. Alimiya Vs. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 941/1202
30. All India Shia Conference Vs. Taqi Hadi and
others, AIR 1954 All. 124
31. All Saints High School Vs. Govt of A.P. (1980) 2
SCC 478
32. Allah Jilai v. Umrao Husain (1914) I.L.R., 36
All., 492
33. Amar Chand Vs. Nem Chand AIR (29) 1942
34. Amar Nath Dogra Vs. Union of India 1963 (1)
SCR 657
35. Amar Nath Vs. Mrs. Amar Nath AIR (35) 1948
Lahore 126
36. Amarendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur
Prajapati and others, AIR 2004 SC 3782 = (2004)
10 SCC 65
2883/2754, 2886/2756
37. Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962
SC 1305
38. Amena Bibi Vs. S.K. Abdul Haque AIR 1997 Cal.
3753/3791, 3761/3796
39. American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Steel
Co. & others (1993) 2 SCC 199
3502/3495, 4565/5078
40. Ammalu Achi Vs. Ponnammal Achi & others AIR
1919 Madras 464
41. Ampthill Peerage Case, (1976) 2 All ER 411 988/1234
42. Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey & another
2000 (4) SCC 440
43. Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti vs. Broja Lal
Singha and others 1923 Calcutta 142
44. Anantakrishna v. Prayag Das I.L.R (1937) 1 Cal.
45. Anantharazu Vs. narayanarazu 1913 (36) Mad.
46. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy and others
(2008) 4 SCC 594
47. Angoubi Kabuini and another Vs. Imjao Lairema
and others AIR 1959 Manipur 42
1928/2011, 1929/2012
48. Angurbala Mullick Vs. D. Mullick, AIR 1951 SC
1707/1837, 1821/1918
49. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi &
others AIR 1955 SC 566
50. Anjuman Islamia & others Vs. Munshi Tegh Ali
& others 1971 (3) SCC 814
3265/3142, 4475/5027
51. Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and others, AIR
1982 MP 17
52. Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam and others, AIR
2008 SC 346
53. Annamalai Chettiar and others Vs. A.M.K.C.T.
Muthukaruppan Chettiar & anr. AIR 1931 Privy
Council 9
2162/2197, 2163/2198,
54. Annapurna Devi Vs. Shiva Sundari Dasi, AIR
1945 Cal 376
1924/2008, 1929/2013
55. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant (1995) 2
SCC 543
56. Annie Besant Vs. Government of Madras, AIR
1918 Mad 1210
1220/1401, 1222/1402
57. Anuj Garg and others Vs. Hotel Association of
India and others 2008 (3) SCC 1
846/1153, 1044/1272
58. Ases Kumar Misra & others Vs. Kissori Mohan
Sarkar & others AIR 1924 Cal. 812
59. Asita Mohan Vs. Nivode Mohan AIR 1917 Cal
60. Asrar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee AIR 1947
PC 1
61. Ata-Ullah & another Vs. Azim-Ullah & another
1889 ILR 12 (All.) 494
3256/3137, 4540/5068
62. Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal, 1979 SC
1707/1837, 1775/1883,
63. B. Jangi Lal Vs. B. Panna Lal and another AIR
1957 Allahabad 743
2114/2175, 2115/2175
64. B. Leelavathi Vs. Honnamma and another, (2005)
11 SCC 115
2774/2668, 2927/2791
65. B.L. Sridhar Vs. K.M. Munireddy 2003 (21) LCD
88 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 578
852/1156, 1027/1262
66. Babajirao Vs. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215
at 223)
696/1008, 964/1218
67. Babu Lal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
2009 (7) SCC 161
68. Bachchu Singh Vs. Secretary of State for India in
Council, ILR (1903) 25 All 187,
638/978, 656/986
69. Badrul Islam Vs. The Sunni Central Board of
Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1954 Allahabad 459
70. Baiju Lal Vs. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385 956/1211
71. Bailochan Karan Vs. Bansat Kumari Naik 1999
(2) SCC 310
72. Bajya Vs. Gopikabai, 1978 SC 793 2590/2543
73. Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & others
Vs. Charity Commissioner AIR 1995 SC
167=1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 485
3367/3304, 3500/3494
74. Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Hanuman
Seva Trust and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 658
75. Bali Panda Vs. Jadumani 7 I.C. 475 1941/2025
76. Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh, JT 2008(10) SC
77. Ballabh Das & another Vs. Nur Mohammad &
another AIR 1936 PC 83
3266/3142, 3427/3348
78. Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad & Ors. AIR
1968 All. 259
79. Balwant vs. Puran (1883) 10 I.A. 90 2854/2734
80. Bande Ali Vs. Rejaullah 25 Cr.L.J. 303 2239/2240
81. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India AIR
1984 SC 802
82. Bank of Upper India Vs. Mt. Hira Kuer & Ors.
AIR 1937 Oudh 291
83. Barkat Ali and another Vs. Badrinarain 2008 (4)
SCC 615
846/1153, 1044/1272
84. Baroda Prosad Roy Chaudhry Vs. Rai Manmath
Nath Mitra 41 Indian Cases 456
85. Basant Kumar Roy Vs. Secretary of State for
India & others AIR 1917 PC 18
2102/2171, 2222/2231,
86. Bazkhan Vs. Sultan Malik, 43 P.R. 1901 2206/2216
87. Behari Lal Vs. Muhammad Muttaki (1898) 20 All
3270/ 3146
88. Behari Lal Vs. Narain Das, 1935 Lah. 475 2211/2219
89. Bhagat Ram v. Smt. Lilawati Galib, AIR 1972 HP
125, 130
90. Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj
etc. AIR 1985 All. 228
1929/2012, 1930/2013,
91. Bhagchand Dagaduss Vs. Secretary of State for
India in Council AIR 1927 PC 176
628/974, 638/978
92. Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
1993 Supp (3) SCC 259
93. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs.
Union of India & others JT 2006 (3) SC 114
94. Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh 1959
(Supp.) 2 SCR 798.
2164/2198, 2246/2246,
95. Bhubaneswari Thakurani Vs. Brojanath Dey AIR
(24) 1937 PC 185
96. Bhupati Nath Smrititir the Bhattacharjee Vs. Ram
Lal Mitra & Ors. 1909 (3) Indian Cases (Cal.)
(FB) 642
1779/1884, 1780/1885
97. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs. Rajeswar Prosad
Bhakat & Ors. AIR 1931 Privy Council 162
2774/2668, 2841/2728,
98. Bhyah Ram Singh Vs. Bhyah Ujagar Singh, 13
MIA 373, PC
99. Bibhuti Bhushan Vs. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965
Cal. 199
100. Bibi Sahodra Vs. Rai Jang Bahadur, (1881) 8 Cl.
224:8 I.A. 210
101. Bidhumukhi Dasi Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy and
others, 1909 Indian Cases (Calcutta) 442;
102. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant
Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057
103. Bihari Chowdhary and another Vs. State of Bihar
and others 1984 (2) SCC 627
622/972, 631/975
104. Bihari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and
another AIR 1961 Allahabad 73
1925/2009, 1932/2015
105. Bijoe Emmanuel & others Vs. State of Kerala &
others (1986) 3 SCC 615
740/1037, 3500/3495
106. Bimal Krishna Ghose and Ors. Vs. Shebaits of
Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiu and Ors. AIR
1937 Cal 338
2119/2176, 2604/2554,
107. Bindyachal Chand Vs. Ram Gharib, AIR 1934
Alld. 993 (FB)
2197/2214, 2211/2219,
2214/2220, 2215/2220
108. Biram Prakash Vs. Narendra Das AIR 1961 All.
109. Bishandayal and sons Vs. State of Orissa and
others 2001 (1) SCC 555
110. Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad
and another (2006) 4 SCC 432
111. Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (AIR
1967 SC 1044)
1707/1830, 1708/1841,
1807/1910, 1824/1926,
1938/2020, 1945/2033,
1946/2033, 1948/2035,
2139/2185, 2595/2548,
2657/2582, 2707/2607,
2712/2610, 2716/2612,
112. Biswambhar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa
& Ors. 1964 (1) Supreme Court Journal 364
113. Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa &
another AIR 1954 SC 139
114. Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera & others
JT 2009 (10) SC 538
115. Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 935/1199
116. Board Nageshwar Bux Roy Vs. Bengal Coal Co.
AIR 1931 PC 18
117. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras Vs. Pidugu Narasimham &
Ors. AIR 1939 Madras 134
1700/1820, 1707/1834,
1844/1939, 1846/1940,
118. Board of Mulim Wakfs Vs. Smt. Hadi Begum and
others, AIR 1992 SC 1083
119. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Vs. State
of Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146,
120. Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of
West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089
726/1029, 737/1034
121. Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3)
SC 1
122. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury & others Vs.
Bharat Chandra Roy and others, AIR 1916
Calcutta 751
2164/2198, 2221/2231,
2268/2261, 2426/2438,
2428/2438, 2429/2440
123. Buddha Singh Vs. Laltu Singh, 42 I.A. 208 = ILR
(1915) 37 All 604
124. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and
others 1991 (4) All ER 638
1703/1821, 1707/1828
125. Burns Vs. Ransley, (1944) 79 CLR 101 1221/1401
126. Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum)
and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191
127. C. Beepathuma and others Vs., Valasari
Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and others,
AIR 1965 SC 241
2162/2197, 2169/2200,
128. C. Mohammad Yunus Vs. Syed Unnissa and Ors.
AIR 1961 SC 808
1272/1423, 2409/2432
129. C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai and others JT 2007
(12) SC 295= AIR 2008 SC 363
2164/2198, 2216/2221,
130. Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214 923/1194
131. CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar & Ors.
2006 (3) SCC 56
132. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya (2004) 8
SCC 270
133. Chairman & M.D., N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs. M/s Reshmi
Construction Builders & Contractors AIR 2004
SC 1330
2162/2196, 2276/2268
134. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others Vs. Chiman
Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3
135. Chandra Vs Narpat Singh 1906 (29) All 184 (PC) 3549/3566
136. Chandu Lal Vs. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C.
137. Chedha Singh and others Vs. Additional Civil
Judge, Moradabad and others, 1996 Supp. AWC
138. Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others
AIR 1954 SC 575
1397/1559, 2872/2750
139. Chhutkao Vs. Gambhir Mal AIR 1931 Oudh 45 3263/3141
140. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Collector and others, AIR
2003 SC 1805
141. Chitar Mal Vs. Panchu Lal AIR 1926 All.392 1938/2020, 2611/2556,
2663/2584, 2664/2584,
2665/2585, 2673/2589,
2674/2590, 2680/2593
142. Collector of Masulipatam Vs. C. Vencata
Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525
143. Collector, Gorakhpur Vs. Palakdhari ILR (1899)
12 All 1 at page 43
144. Commissioner For Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments, Mysore Vs. Ratnavarma
Heggade, AIR 1977, SC 1848
1707/1837, 1830/1929
145. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC
893/1182, 909/1188
146. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s.
Virgo Steels, Bombay and another AIR 2002 SC
147. Commissioner of Endowments and others Vs.
Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120
148. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri
Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239
149. Commissioner of Police & others Vs. Acharya
Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & another (2004)
12 SCC 770
3501/3495, 4417/4998
150. Commissioner of Wakfs and another Vs. 3251/3134,
Mohammad Moshin, AIR 1954 Calcutta 463 3338/3289
151. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282
713/1023, 726/1029,
732/1033, 736/1034,
744/1039, 1709/1842,
152. Cook Vs. Sprigg 1899 AC 572 4442/5011
153. Coral Indira Gonsalves Vs. Joseph Prabhakar
Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad. 858
154. D. N. Venkatarayappa & Anr. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 567
2774/2668, 2907/2769,
155. Dalbir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab AIR
1962 SC 1106
156. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
of Income-tax AIR 1958 SC 816
157. Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan Das (1909-10)
37 IA 147
1807/1909, 1809/1911,
1938/2019, 1942/2027,
2663/2584, 2668/2586,
2678/2591, 2680/2593,
158. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das and 64 I.A. 203 (=
AIR 1937 PC 185)
2778/2674, 2855/2734
159. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhandas 37 I.A. 147=1910
(37) ILR (Cal.) 885
160. Darshan Lal and others Vs. Shibji Maharaj
Birajman, AIR 1923 All. 120
161. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.E.S. Dalliwall & another
AIR 1952 Alld. 825
162. Darshan Singh Vs. Gujjar Singh (2002) 2 SCC 62 2880/2753
163. Dasami Sahu Vs. Param Shameshwar Uma
Bhairabeshwar Bam Lingshar and Chitranjan
Mukerji (1929) A.L.J.R. 473
164. Dattagiri Vs. Dattatrya (1904) 27 Bom 236 964/1219, 3270/3146
165. Deewan Singh and others Vs. Rajendra Pd.
Ardevi and others AIR 2007 SC 767
846/1153, 1044/1272
166. Deo Kuer and another Vs. Sheo Prasad Singh and
others, AIR 1966 SC 359
2163/2197, 2261/2259,
167. Deo Narain Chowdhury Vs. C.R.H. Webb (1990)
28 Cal. 86
168. Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar & Ors. AIR 1957
SC 133=1956 (1) SCR 756
1701/1821, 1707/1837,
1762/1872, 1820/1917,
2661/2583, 2733/2635
169. Des Raj and others vs. Bhagat Ram(Dead) by
LRs. And others 2007 (3) SCALE 371
170. Deutsch Asiatische Bank Vs. Hiralal Burdhan &
Sons 1918 (47) I.C. 122
171. Devi Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan
and others, (1994) 1 SCC 215
172. Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation,
U.P. Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283
841/1150, 916/1190,
173. Dharamarajan & Ors. Vs. Valliammal & Ors.,
2008 (2) SCC 741
2774/2668, 2928/2791
174. Dharani Kanta Lahiri Vs. Gabar Ali Khan, (1913)
18 I.C. 17
175. Dhian Singh Sobha Singh Vs. Union of India AIR
1958 SC 274
633/975, 653/985,
176. Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Sabal Chandra Shaw
and others Vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and others
AIR 1964 SC 1300
177. Dinomoni Chowdhrani & Brojo Mohini
Chowdhrani 29 IA 24 (PC)
2239/2240, 2777/2669,
178. Director of Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs.
Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60
179. District Basic Education Officer and another Vs.
Dhananjai Kumar Shukla and another (2008) 3
SCC 481= AIR 2008 SCW 1224
2291/2273, 3330/3285
180. Doongarsee Shyamji vs. Tribhuvan Das, AIR
1947 All 375
1925/2008, 1926/2009
181. Doulat Koer Vs. Rameshwari Koeri alias Dulin
Saheba (1899) ILR 26 Cal. 635
182. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. Vs. Union of India and
others 1994 (6) SCC 360=AIR 1995 SC 605
5/15, 83/119, 190/184,
191/184, 268/285,
846/1152, 1259/1416,
1708/1841, 2301/2292,
2600/2691, 2609/2555,
2616/2561, 2723/2615
2736/2636, 2870/2650,
3244/3131, 3502/3495,
3585/3583, 4049/4409,
4457/5015, 4566/5081
183. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari
Sharma & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 869
2774/2667, 2889/2758,
184. Draupadi Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2004) 11 SCC 425
2162/2197, 2418/2434,
3382/3309, 3383/3309,
185. Dukham Ram Vs. Ram Nanda Singh, AIR 1961
Pat. 425
186. Durgah Committee, Ajmer Vs. Syed Hussain Ali
AIR 1961 SC 1402
1860/1960, 1864/1963
187. Duvvuri Papi Reddi and others Vs. Duvvuri Rami
Reddi AIR 1969 AP 362
188. Dwijendra Narain Roy Vs. Joges Chandra De,
AIR 1924 Cal 600
2411/2433, 2712/2610
189. Dyke Vs. Walford 5 Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER
557 (580
190. Ejas Ali Qidwai & Ors. Vs. Special Manager,
Court of Wards, Balrampur Estate & Ors. AIR
1935 Privy Council 53
2774/2667, 2894/2759
191. Ellappa Naicken Vs. K.Lakshmana Naicken &
others AIR (36) 1949 Madras 71
192. Emperor Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906)
ILR 30 Bom 421
1219/1400, 1222/1402
193. Emperor Vs. Panchu Das & Ors. AIR 1920 Cal
500 (FB)
194. Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Bihar and others, 1978(1) SCC 12
195. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College,
Shamli & others Vs. Lakshmi Narain & others
3502/3495, 4564/5078
(1976) 2 SCC 58
196. Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1967 SC 1326
197. Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin 2008 (8) SCC 12 3253/3135, 3271/3147,
3302/3238, 3303/3244
198. Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali 46 IC 119 1404/1561
199. Forest Range Officer & others Vs. P. Mohammed
Ali & others AIR 1994 SC 120
3563/3575, 3583/3582
200. Forward Construction Company Vs. Prabhat
Mandal (Regd.) 1986 (1) SCC 100
201. Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh
AIR 1923 Patna 453
202. G.L. Vijan Vs. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136 3759/3794
203. Gangu Bai Vs. Soni 1942 Nagpur Law Journal 99 2223/2232
204. Ganpat Vs. Returning Officer (1975) 1 SCC 589 1851/1946
205. Garib Das and others Vs. Munshi Abdul Hamid
and others AIR 1970 SC 1035
2162/2197, 2410/2432,
3261/3140, 3421/3342
206. Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly & others (2008) 7
SCC 85
2893/2759, 3041/2864
207. Gedela Satchidananda Murthy Vs. Dy. Commr.,
Endowments Deptt., A.P. & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC
1700/1820, 1707/1834,
208. Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Dominion of India 1984 (3)
SCC 46
637/977, 638/978,
656/986, 657/987,
661/988, 664/991
209. Girijanund Datta Jha & Anr. Vs. Sailajanund
Datta Jha 1896 ILR 23 Ca1. 645
210. Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs.
Kandasami Tambiran 1887 ILR Vol. 10 Madras
683/1000, 685/1003
211. Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Velu
Pandaram and another (1899) 27 IA 69
964/1219, 1765/1881,
212. Gobinda Narain Singh Vs. Sham Lal, AIR 1931
P.C. 98=LR 58 IA 125
213. Gokul Nathji Maharaj & Anr. Vs. Nathji Bhogi
Lal AIR 1953 All. 552
1700/1820, 1707/1834,
1849/1944, 1910/1983
214. Gollaleshwar Dev Vs. Gangawwa Kom
Shantayya Math, AIR 1986 SC 231
215. Gopal Datt Vs. Babu Ram, AIR 1936 All 653 2917/2775
216. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar
Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5
217. Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Krishna Sunder Nath Kaviraj
AIR 1929 All. 887
218. Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs.
Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC
842/1150, 918/1190,
219. Gossain Das Chunder Vs. Issur Chunder Nath
1877 III ILR 3 (Cal.) 224
2839/2727, 2840/2727
220. Goswami Ranchor Lalji Vs. Sri Girdhariji (1897)
20 All. 120
221. Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Shah
Ranchhoddas Kalidas, AIR 1970 SC 2025
222. Government of the Province of Bombay Vs.
Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors AIR 1949 PC
630/975, 947/1207
223. Government of West Bengal Vs. Nitya Gopal
Basak & others 1985 CRI.L.J. 202
224. Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K.Roy
2004 (1) SCC 347
225. Govind Raghunath Sawant Vs. B.A. Kakade &
Anr. 1975 ILR Bombay 829
226. Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar and others
JT 2006(1) SC 121
227. Govindrao & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
& others AIR 1982 SC 1201
228. Greenhalgh Vs. Mallard (1942) 2 All ER 225
1006/1246, 1007/1246
229. Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra
Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143
230. Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC
897/1183, 1169/1369,
1171/1370, 1176/1377,
231. Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (2)
SCC 192
232. Gunga Gobind Mundul Vs. Collector of the 24-
pergunnahs 11 Moore's I.A., 345
233. Guntaka Hussenaiah Vs. Busetti Yerraiah AIR
1954 Andhra 39
234. Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC
1756, 1759
235. Gurbinder Singh and another Vs. Lal Singh and
another, AIR 1965 SC 1553
236. Gursharan Singh and others Vs. New Delhi
Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC
237. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Shiromani
GPC, 2004 (4) SCC 146
238. Gurunath Vs.Kamalabai 1955 S.C. 206 2597/2550
239. Guruvayur Devasom Managing Committee Vs.
C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561
1707/1831, 1739/1861
240. H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others
Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department and others
1979 (4) SCC 642
241. Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq Vs. The State of
West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488
242. Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie
Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC
243. Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1952 SC 343
244. Har Prasad and others Vs. Fazal Ahmad and
others, AIR 1933 PC 83
245. Hari Chand Vs. Daulat Ram, AIR 1987 SC 94 2774/2667, 2921/2777
246. Hari Khandu Vs. Dhondi Nanth, (1906) 8
Bom.L.R. 96
247. Hari Raghunath Patvardhan Vs. Antaji Bhikaji
Patvardhan & Others 1919 (XLIV) ILR Bombay
1839/1936, 4528/5063,
248. Hari Singh Vs. Lachmi, 59 IC 220 3596/3589
249. Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. Deo Narain, AIR 1956
SC 305
250. Harihor Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah AIR
1966 Orissa 121
251. Health v. Drown, (1972) 2 All ER 561, 573 (HL). 2812/2702
252. Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai
Harijan & Others AIR 2009 SC 103
2774/2667, 2906/2768
253. Henderson Vs. Henderson (1843-60) All ER Rep
254. Hira Lal Vs. Hari Narain, AIR 1964 All 302 985/1232
255. Hirachand Himatlal Marwari Vs. Kashinath
Thakurji Jadhav AIR (29) 1942 Bombay 339
256. Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921
(ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.)
257. Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board,
Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404
903/1185, 922/1194,
258. Hukum Chand & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur
Singh & Others AIR 1933 Privy Council 193
2438/2443, 2955/2810
259. Humayun Begam Vs. Shah Mohammad Khan,
AIR 1943 PC 94
260. Hunooman Persaud Panday Vs. Mmsumat
Bdbooee Manraj Koonweree 6 Moore's Ind. App.
Ca. 243
2648/2576, 2692/2600
261. Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj,
Jaipur Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer &
Ors. AIR 1965 SC 906
1699/1819, 1707/1835,
1708/1841, 1843/1939,
262. Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) 894/1182
SCC 151
263. Inacio Martins Vs. Narayan Hari Naik, 1993(3)
SCC 123
264. Indar Datt Vs. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 408. 3576/3580
265. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rajnarain AIR 1975 SC
266. Indra Singh Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR
1943 Pat. 169
267. Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain Vs. Zafrul Islam
Afzal Husain and others AIR 1969 Alld. 161
268. Ishwari Bhubanshwari Thakurani Vs. Brojo Nath
269. Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa AIR
1963 SC 1728
270. J. Jaya Lalitha Vs. Union of India & another AIR
1999 SC 1912
271. Jafar Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi
AIR 1937 Cal 500
2166/2199, 2399/2425
272. Jagadamba Chowdhurani Vs. Dakhina Mohan
(1886) 13 Cal 308
273. Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari, 31 Ind App
203 at p.210
1776/1883, 1822/1919,
2663/2584, 2668/2586,
2669/2587, 2676/2590,
2677/2591, 2680/2593,
2681/2594, 2707/2607,
2708/2608, 2711/2609,
2712/2610 4515/5057
274. Jagadish Chandra Deo Vs. Debendra Prosad
Bagehi Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1931 Cal 503
656/986, 656/987
275. Jagannath vs. Tirthnanda Das AIR 1952 Orissa
276. Jagat Mohan Nath Sah Deo Vs. Pratap Udai Nath
Sah Deo & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 302
2167/2199, 2447/2450
277. Jagdeo Misir Vs. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All.
278. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others Vs. Pushpa
Devi Saraf and others 2006 (7) SCC 756
844/1152, 846/1153,
1024/1261, 1044/1272
279. Jamal Uddin & Anr. Vs. Mosque at Mashakganj
& Ors. AIR 1973 Allahabad 328
2162/2197, 2230/2234,
280. Jamshed Ji Vs. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 739/1037
281. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai &
others 1 Indian Cases (1907) 834 (Bom.)
282. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai, ILR
(1909) 33 Bom. 122
283. Jangu & others Vs. Ahmad Ullah & others 1889-
1891 ILR 13 (All.) 419
3254/3135, 3256/3137,
284. Janki Kunwar Vs. Ajit Singh (1888) ILR 15 Cal
2166/2199, 2398/2424
285. Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property
1985 (3) SCC 648
286. Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, 1993 (4) SCC 403 3095/2897
287. Jenkins Vs. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 899/1183
288. Jetmull Bhojraj Vs. The Darjeeling Himalayan
Railway Co. Ltd. And others AIR 1962 SC 1879
289. Jindu Ram Vs. Hussain Baksh & Anr. AIR 1914
Lahore 444
290. Jodhi Rai Vs. Basdeo Prasad, 8 ALJ 817=(1911)
ILR 33 Allahabad 735
1810/1911, 2117/2176,
2118/2176, 2661/2583,
291. Jogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of
Income-Tax, Calcutta (1969) 1 SCC 555
1691/1806, 1701/1820,
1707/1837, 1708/1841,
1771/1881, 1789/1888,
1790/1888, 2661/2583,
292. Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR 1965
SC 1514
293. Jujjuvarapu Vs. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P. 76 949/1208
294. Jurawan Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramsarekh Singh &
Others AIR 1933 Patna 224
295. K. Ethirajan Vs. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 840/1149, 903/1185,
SC 4295 995/1238, 997/1242
296. K. Manahunaitha Desikar Vs. Sundaralingam,
AIR 1971 Madras 1 (FB)
1707/1837, 2116/2175,
2594/2547, 2605/2554,
297. K. Sundaresa Iyer Vs. Sarvajana Sowkiabi Virdhi
Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1939 Madras 853
298. K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police &
another JT 2002 (8) SCC 87
3039/2863, 3040/2863
299. K.S. Prahladsinhji Vs. Chunilal B. Desai AIR
1950 Saurashtra 7
300. Kadarbhai Mahomedbhai and another Vs.
Haribhari Ranchhodbhai Desai and another, AIR
1974 Gujarat 120
301. Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors.
1910 I.L.R. 33 Madras 265 at page 267
302. Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs. The Maharashtra
Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur and Ors. AIR 1970 SC
1701/1821, 1707/1837,
1708/1841, 1795/1899
303. Kali Charan Mukerji Vs. Emperor (1909) 9
Cr.L.J. 498.
304. Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee & Ors.
AIR 1974 SC 1932
1702/1821, 1707/1832,
305. Kali Prasad Misir and others Vs. Harbans Misir
AIR 1919 All 383
2167/2199, 2444/2448,
306. Kalikanta Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. Surendra Nath
Chakravarty & Ors. AIR 1925 Calcutta 648
307. Kalipada De Vs. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC
308. Kallan Vs. Mohammad Nabikhan, 1933 ALJ 105 2211/2219
309. Kamala and others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and
others AIR 2008 SC 3174
310. Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Sub-
Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563
1707/1837, 1870/1965
311. Kamlesh Babu and others Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma
and others JT 2008 (4) SC 652
312. Kanakku Vs. Neelacanta, AIR 1969 (Kerala) 280 641/979
313. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Girwar, 1929 ALJ 1106 2210/2218
314. Kanhaya Lal Vs. Hamid Ali, AIR 1933 PC 198 2120/2177
315. Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355 948/1207
316. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd and others
Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, JT
1997(2) SC 545
317. Kapoor Chand & Others Vs. Ganesh Dutt and
others 1993 (Supp.) 4 SCC 432
318. Karan Singh Vs. Bakar Ali Khan, (1882) 5 All 1 2201/2215
319. Karbalai Begum Vs. Mohd. Sayeed (1980) 4 SCC
320. Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of
India & others (2004) 10 SCC 779
2934/2798, 2935/2798,
2948/2805, 3049/2869
321. Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri & Ors
Vs. Pattath Ramunni Marar & Ors. AIR 1940
Madras 208
1702/1821, 1707/1832,
322. Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC
323. Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs.
M.R.F. Limited and others, 1996 (1) SCC 597
324. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay,
1951 SC 128
325. Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC
326. Khalil Ahmad and another Vs. Sheikh Mohd.
Askari and others, AIR 1965 Allahabad 320
327. Khaw Sim vs. Chuah Hooi (1922) 49 I.A.37 2854/2734
328. Khetter Chunder Ghose Vs. Hari Das
Bundopadhya (1890) 17 ILR Cal. 557
1702/1821, 1707/1832,
1773/1882, 1774/1882,
329. Khetter Chunder Mookerjee Vs. Khetter Paul
Sreeterutno 1880 ILR 5 (Calcutta) 886
330. Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo, AIR 1825/1926
1978 All.-1
331. Krishna Behary Ray Vs. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875)
1 Cal. 144 (146)
332. Krishna Chendra Gajapati Narayana Deo Vs.
Challa Ramanna and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 50
841/1150, 1000/1243
333. Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir AIR 1980 SC 707 3303/3245
334. Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1972
Allahabad 273
335. Kuarmani Singha Vs. Wasif Ali Murza 1915(28)
I.C. 818
336. Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P.
Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183
337. Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja
Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182
338. Kunwar Darganath Vs. Ramchunder 4 I.A. 52
339. Kunwar Singh Vs. Sri Thakurji Mahraj, Birajman
Mandir Gauntia Majra Dhamipur, Pargana and
Tahsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly, 1992 (2)
AWC 890
340. Kuthali Moothavur Vs. P. Kunharankutty AIR
1922 PC 181
341. L.N. Aswathama & another Vs. V.P. Prakash JT
2009 (9) 527
342. Lachhmi Sewak Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors.
AIR 1944 PC 24
343. Lakshmana Pillai and another Vs. Appalwar
Alwar Ayyangar and another AIR 1923 Madras
845/1152, 1031/1265
344. Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC
789=1977(2) SCC 88
840/1150, 902/1184,
345. Lala Shiam Lal Vs. Mohamad Ali Asghar Husain
AIR 1935 All 174
2442/2446, 2448/2450
346. Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 916/1190
347. Lalmani Devi & others Vs. Jagdish Tiwary &
others AIR 2005 Pat. 51
348. Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor 5 IC 355 3569/3577
349. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue
Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530
350. Laxman Siddappa Naik vs. Kattimani Chandappa
Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929
351. Legal Remembrancer Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
(1967) 2 SCR 170, 204
352. Limba Bin Krishna and others Vs. Rama Bin
Pimplu and anothers, 1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548
353. Lumley Vs. Wagner, (1865) 1 Eq. 411 4465/5020
354. M.P. Peter Vs. State of Kerala & others JT 2009
(13) SC 1
2272/2265, 2273/2265
355. M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal and others Vs. Motilal
Lakhotia and others 2003 (5) SCC 1
843/1151, 846/1153,
356. M.V.S. Manikyala Vs. Narashimahwami AIR
1966 SC 470
357. M.V.Vali Press Vs. Fernandee Lopez 1989 SC
358. M/s Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass and
co. AIR 1968 SC 111
845/1152, 1028/1263,
359. M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar
Educational Society and others AIR 2007 SC
2777/2669, 2990/2827
360. M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & another Vs.
Union of India & others 1970 (3) SCC 694
361. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659
362. Madan Mohan Saha Banik and Ors. Vs. Rakhal
Chandra Saha Banik and Ors., AIR 1930 Calcutta
363. Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 948/1207
364. Madho Kunbi Vs. Tilak Singh AIR 1934 Nagpur 2239/2240
365. Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977
SC 1091
366. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and others Vs. Karia
Bharthi, AIR 1935 PC 44
367. Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi Vs. Secretary of
State for India AIR 1930 Bom 367
368. Mahamaya Devi Vs. Hari Das Haldar AIR (2)
1915 Cal. 161
369. Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and
another, AIR 1967 SC 1415
370. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji Vs. S.P.Sahi, Special
Officer-in-charge of Hindu Religious Trusts and
others AIR 1959 SC 951
1699/1819, 1707/1835,
1787/1887, 2596/2549
371. Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs. Surayan
Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256
1402/1560, 1406/1561,
372. Mahanth Ram Charan Das. Vs. Naurangi Lal
(1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 124
2652/2580, 2709/2608
373. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur V. Rani
Hemanta Kumari Debi (1904) 1 A.L.J.R.585
2855/2734 2856/2735
374. Maharaja Sir Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur Vs.
Bahuria Mt. Bhagjogna Kuer and others AIR
1937 Privy Council 69
2774/2667, 2922/2779,
375. Maharana Futtehsangji Vs. Dessai Kullianraiji,
(1873) LR 1 IA 34
376. Maharanee Shibessouree Debia Vs. Mothornath
Acharjo (1869) 13 M.I.A. 270
1771/1881, 2691/2599
377. Mahdav Rao Waman Vs Raghunath Venkatesh,
AIR 1923 PC 205
378. Mahendra Manilal Nanavati Vs. Sushila
Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364
379. Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 1053/1279
380. Manindra Land And Building Corporation Ltd.
Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC
381. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar & Ors. Vs.
Lakhmiram Govindram & Ors. (1888) ILR 12
Bom 247
1699/1820, 1707/1832,
1707/1837, 1770/1878,
1791/1893, 2704/2605
382. Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja
Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527
383. Manohar Mukherji Vs. Bhupendra Nath AIR 1932
Cal 791
384. Maqbul Ahmad Vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh,
AIR 1935 PC 85
2289/2273, 2432/2440
385. Marawthwada Wakf Board Vs. Rajaram Ramjivan
Manthri and others, AIR 2002 Bom. 144
386. Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwira
Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 67 Ind. App.
251 at p.264 (P.C.)
1945/2033, 2248/2248,
2720/2614, 2736/2636
387. Mata Palat Vs. Beni Madho AIR 1914 All 184 2167/2199, 2445/2449
388. Mathura Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal and another 1979
(4) SCC 665
389. Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs.
Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355
907/1186, 908/1187
390. Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958
(Patna) 264 (FB)
391. Maulvi Mohammad Fahimal Haq Vs. Jagat Ballav
Ghosh AIR 1923 Patna 475
392. Mayuram Subramanian Vs. CBI, (2006) 5 SCC
393. Md. Mohammad Ali Vs. Jagadish Kalita & Ors.
(2004) 1 SCC 271
2381/2411, 2881/2753,
394. Meer Mahomed Israil Khan Vs. Sashti Churn
Ghose and others, 19 ILR (Calcutta) (1892) 412
395. Middllings P Co. Vs. Christian, 4 Dillon 448 3592/3587
396. Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh
Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144
841/1150, 913/1189,
397. Miru & others Vs. Ramgopal AIR 1935 All. 891 3369/3304
398. Miss Talat Fatima Hasan Vs. His Highness 2286/2272
Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur
and others AIR 1997 All. 122
399. Mitta Kunth Audhicarry Vs. Neerunjun
Audhicarry, 14 Beng. L.R. 166
400. Modi Nathubai Motilal v. Chhotubhai Manibhai
Besai, AIR 1962 Guj. 68
401. Mohabharat Shaha Vs. Abdul Hamid Khan (1904)
1 CLJ 73
402. Mohammad Baqar and another Vs. S. Mohammad
Casim and others, AIR 1932 Oudh 210
1112/1328, 1140/1349,
403. Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari & others
AIR 1956 SC 713
2985/2824, 3053/2871
404. Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1SCC
2933/2797, 2935/2798
405. Mohd. Ata Husain Khan Vs. Husain Ali Khan,
AIR 1944 Oudh 139
406. Mohd. Saleh Vs. Ram Ratan AIR 1924 Nagpur
407. Mohd. Zainulabudeen Vs. Sayed Ahmad
Mohideen (1990) 1 SCC 345
408. Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar & Ors. Vs.
Mohesh Chundar Neogi & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals
(1888-1889) 23
2162/2197, 2204/2216
409. Mohori Bibee Vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1902) 30
I.A. 114 (P.C.).
410. Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others Vs. The
Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another,
1938-39 (43) CWN 1056
411. Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj & Ors. Vs.
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhan Committee,
Amritsar and another AIR 1940 Privy Council
2586/2540, 2774/2667,
2778/2673, 2861/2736,
2953/2809, 3297/3220,
3303/3250, 3562/3574
412. Mosque Known as Masjid Shahid Ganj Vs.
Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee,
Amritsar, AIR 1938 Lahore 369
413. Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs.
Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple)
(4) SCC 286
717/1026, 721/1027,
976/1225, 977/1226,
986/1232, 987/1233,
414. Motichand Vs. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 2192/2212
415. Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and
others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103
416. Mst. Bhagwanti Vs. Mst. Jiuti and another, AIR
1975 Allahabad 341
417. Mst. Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan & Ors.
AIR 1960 SC 335
2162/2197, 2408/2431,
418. Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and another Vs. Ram Dass
Pandey and others, AIR 1957 All. 270
419. Mt. Bolo Vs. Mt. Koklan and others AIR 1930
Privy Council 270
2162/2197, 2163/2198,
420. Mt. Titli Vs. Alfred Robert Jones AIR 1934 All.
3571/3577, 3588/3585
421. Muhammad Araf Vs. Satramdas Sakhimal &
others AIR 1936 Sind 143
422. Mukkammal Vs. Kalimuthu Pillay 15 Ind Cas 852
1031/1265, 1036/1269
423. Muktakeshi Patrani & Ors. Vs. Midnapur
Zamindari Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Patna 33
424. Mukundji Mahraj Vs. Persotam Lalji Mahraj AIR
1957 Allahabad 77
1702/1821, 1707/1832,
1836/1934, 2113/2174,
425. Munesh Kumar Agnihotri and others Vs. Lalli
Prasad Gupta AIR 1989 (Alld.) 202
852/1156, 1046/1273
426. Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531 3564/3575
427. Musaheb Khan Vs. Raj Kumar Bakshi, AIR 1938
Oudh 238
428. Musammat Phutania Vs. Emperor 25 Cr.L.J. 1109 2240/2240
429. Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762
430. Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 882/1169
1927 ILR (VIII) 384
431. Must. Salamat Begam Vs. S.K. Ikram Husain
(1933) 145 IC 728
432. Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore
Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors.,
AIR 1963 SC 1128
433. N. Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board,
2002 (8) SCC 106
434. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 2663
435. N.C. Ramanatha Iyer Vs. Board of
Commissioners for Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras AIR 1954 Madras 492
1826/1927, 3252/3135
436. Nagendra Nath Palit Vs. Robindra Narain Deb,
AIR 1926 Cal. 490
437. Nagubai Ammal and others Vs. B. Shama Rao
and others AIR 1956 SC 593
2776/2669, 2897/2762
438. Nair Service Society Limited Vs. K. C. Alexander
and others AIR 1968 SC 1165
2588/2542, 2774/2667
439. Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs.
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712
440. Nanhekhan Vs. Sanpat AIR 1954 Hyd 45 (FB) 2193/2213
441. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs.
Gopal Vinayak gosavi & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 100
1701/1821, 1788/1888,
2127/2179, 4529/5064
442. Narayana Dutt and another Vs. Smt. Molini Devi,
AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269
443. Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs.
Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC
444. Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram
and others 2005 (6) SCC 614
445. Nata Padhan & Ors. Vs. Banchha Baral & Ors.
AIR 1968 Orissa 36
446. Nathoo Lal Vs. Durga Prasad AIR 1954 SC 355 2279/2269
447. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and
another 2006 (2) SCC 641
2776/2669, 2901/2765
448. Naurangi Lal & Others Vs. Ram Charan Das AIR
1930 Patna 455
1938/2019, 2652/2579,
449. Nawab Muhammad Amanulla Khan Vs. Badan
Singh & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 148
2162/2197, 2205/2216
450. Nawab Zain Yar Jung and others Vs. Director of
Endowments and another AIR 1963 SC 985
451. Neale Vs. Turton (1827) 4 Bing. 149 1237/1407
452. Nilmony Singh Vs. Jagabandhu Roy (1896) 23
Cal 536
3270/ 3146
453. Norendranath Masumdar, v. The State, AIR 1951
Cal 140.
454. Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs.
Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1974 SC 1355
1707/1837, 1708/1841,
455. P. K. Vijayan Vs. Kamalakshi Amma and others,
AIR 1994 SC 2145
842/1150, 1012/1251,
456. P. Periasami Vs. P.Periathambi & Ors., 1995 (6)
SCC 523.
2774/2668, 2932/2797
457. P.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L.Lakshmi Reddy AIR
1957 SC 314
2259/2256, 2412/2433,
2713/2610, 2774/2668,
2844/2729, 2873/2750,
458. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma
& Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1753
2282/2271, 2774/2667,
459. P.V. Durrairajulu Vs. Commissioner of Hindu
Religious Trusts, AIR 1989 Madras 60
460. P.V. Sadavarty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax,
AIR 1963 SC 510
461. Palani Goundan Vs. Peria Gounden, 1941 Mad
462. Palaniappa Chetty and Anr. Vs. Deivasikamony
Pandara 1917 L.R. 44 I.A. 147
463. Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri Vs. State AIR 1968
Bombay 127
464. Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee
Nidubroly and Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1958 A.P. 773
1265/1418, 1271/1423
465. Panchanan Dhara and others Monmatha Nath
Maity and another 2006 (5) SCC 340
466. Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR
1954 All. 191
467. Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari
Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153
468. Pandurang Kalu Patil and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 733
469. Panna Lal Biswas Vs. Panchu Raidas AIR 1922
Cal. 419
2164/2198, 2425/2437,
2427/2438, 2428/2439,
2429/2439, 2579/2537
470. Pappy Amma Vs. Prabhakaran Nair AIR 1972
Kerala 1 (FB)
2225/2233, 2251/2249
471. Parmanand Vs. Nihal Chand AIR 1938 PC 195 1786/1887
472. Parmeshwari Devi and others Vs. Khusali Mandal
and others, AIR 1957 Patna 482
473. Parsinnin Vs. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 2890/2758, 2949/2806
474. Partab Bahadur Singh, Taluqdar Vs. Jagatjit Singh
AIR 1936 Oudh 387
2162/2197, 2164/2198,
2404/2427, 2405/2429
475. Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others Vs.
Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR
Madras Series (1882) 304
476. Parwatabai Vs. Sona Bai 1996 (10) SCC 266 2889/2758
477. People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. U.O.I.
2005(5) SCC 363
478. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. South Indian Railway
Company Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407
479. Perumal Vs. Devarajan & others AIR 1974 Mad.
480. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet
Ouchterlony Wapsnare AIR 1969 SC 843
2166/2199, 2400/2425,
481. Ponnu Nadar and others Vs. Kumaru Reddiar and
others, AIR 1935 Madras 967
482. Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy Vs. Commissioner,
H.R. & C.E. AIR 1963 SC 510
1699/1819, 1707/1833,
483. Pooranchand Vs. The Idol Shri Radhakrishnaji &
another AIR 1979 MP 10
484. Prabhu Narain Singh Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.
AIR 1983 All 223
2774/2668, 2912/2772
485. Prabodh Verma & others Vs. State of U.P. and
others AIR 1985 SC 167
486. Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai
Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513
487. Prajapati and others Vs. Jot Singh and others AIR
1934 All 539
2167/2199, 2422/2437,
488. Prakash Das Vs. Janki Ballabha Saran AIR 1926
Oudh 444
489. Pramath Nath Mullick Vs. Pradhyumna Kumar
Mullick & Anr. AIR 1925 PC 139
1700/1820, 1707/1835,
1784/1886, 1806/1909,
1814/1913, 1815/1913,
1869/1965, 2604/2554,
2685/2597, 2695/2601,
490. Pranshankar Vs. Prannath Mahanand, 1 Bom H.
C. Rep. 12
491. Prem Narain Vs. Ram Charan and others, AIR
1932 P.C. 51
492. Prema Chanda Barik Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Mohanty AIR 1988 Orissa 33
493. Premier Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Government of India
and others, AIR 2002 SC 2418
842/1150, 1016/1255
494. Priddle Vs. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 893/1182
495. Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee, AIR 1984 SC 858
496. Profulla Chandra Vs. Prabartak Trust AIR 1954
Cal. 8
497. Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Choron
Requitte AIR 1979 SC 1682
498. Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa A.I.R.
1962 S.C. 1288
4447/5012, 4451/5013
499. Prosanna Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo,
LR 2 IA 145
1771/1881, 1772/1881,
2645/2575, 2692/2599,
2693/2600, 3030/2853
500. Province of Bihar Vs. Kamakshya Narain Singh
AIR 1950 Patna 366
653/985, 657/987
501. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Vs. Capt. Mohar
Singh AIR 1975 SC 1891
502. Purna Chandra Bysack Vs. Gopal Lal Sett & Ors.
1908 (VIII) Calcutta Law Journal 369
503. Purnachandra Chakrabarty Vs. Kaliopada Roy
AIR 1942 Cal. 386
504. Purushotama Reddiar Vs. S Perumal AIR 1972
SC 608
505. Qadir Bux Vs. Ramchand and others AIR 1970
All. 289
2225/2233, 2774/2667,
506. Queen-Empress Vs Abdullah ILR (1885) 7 All
385 (FB)
507. Queen-Empress Vs. Ramzan ILR, 7 All. 461 3254/3136, 4550/5068
508. R. Venugopala Naidu and others Vs.
Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others, AIR
1990 SC 444
509. R.E.M.S. Abdul Hameed v. Govindaraju 1999 (4)
SCC 663
510. R.H.Bhutani Vs. Miss Mani J. Desai AIR 1968
SC 1444
511. R.N. Dawar Vs. Ganga Saran Dhama AIR 1993
Del. 19
512. R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir 1992 (4) SCC 683 2776/2669, 2900/2765
513. Rabindra Nath Vs. Chandi Charan AIR 1932 Cal
514. Radhakishan and another Vs. State of Rajasthan
and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1
1140/1349, 1141/1349,
515. Radhakrishna Das Vs. Radha Ramana Swami &
others AIR (36) 1949 Orissa 1
1939/2020, 1940/2024,
2440/2444, 2611/2556
516. Radhamoni Debi Vs. Collector of Khulna, 27 Ind
App. 136 at p. 140 (PC)
517. Radharani Vs. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92 923/1194
518. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag Vs.
Hanskumar Kishanchand AIR 1959 MP 172
1265/1419, 1271/1423
519. Ragho Prasad Gupta Vs. Krishna Poddar AIR
1969 SC 316
520. Raghunath Das Vs. Union of India and another
AIR 1969 SC 674
521. Ragu Thilak D.John Vs. S. Rayappan & Ors.
2001 (2) SCC 472
522. Rahmat-ullah Vs. Shamsuddin 1913 (11) ALJ 877 2444/2449
523. Rais Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & others (1999) 6
SCC 391
524. Raj Kumari Devi Vs. Nirtya Kali Debi (1910) 7
Ind Cas 892 (Cal)
1031/1265, 1036/1269
525. Raja Gopa Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religion
Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras
526. Raja Muttu Ramalinga Setupati Vs.
Perianayagum Pillai, 1 IA 209
527. Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Vs. Raja
Partab Bahadur Singh AIR 1942 Privy Council 47
2162/2197, 2405/2429,
2774/2667, 2914/2773
528. Raja Rajinder Chand Vs. Mst. Sukhi and others
AIR 1957 S.C. 286
529. Raja Ram Maize Products Vs. Industrial Court of
M.P. 2001 (4) SCC 492
530. Raja Ramaswami (dead) and Ors. Vs.
Govindammal and Ors. AIR 1929 Mad 313
2166/2199, 2401/2426
531. Raja Shumsher Bahadoor Vs. Mirja Mahomed Ali 1036/1268
(1867) Agra H.C.R. 158
532. Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Isakapalli Subbiah &
Ors. ILR (26) Madras 410
2162/2197, 2255/2250,
533. Rajah of Venkatgiri Vs. Provinces of Madras AIR
(34) 1947 Madras 5
534. Rajendra Singh & others Vs. Santa Singh AIR
1973 SC 2537
535. Ram Bharos Lall Vs. Gopee Beebee (1874) 6
NWP 66
1031/1265, 1036/1268
536. Ram Chandra Mission Vs. Umesh Chandra
Saxena and others 1997 ACJ 896
845/1152, 1042/1272
537. Ram Chandra Vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1952
All. 520
538. Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1957 SC 381
539. Ram Charan Das Vs. Naurangi Lal & Ors. AIR
1933 Privy Council 75
2774/2668, 2856/2735,
2905/2767, 2905/2767
540. Ram Gobinda Daw Vs. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala
Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664
541. Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 50=AIR 1999 SC 2131
1699/1819, 1707/1833,
1707/1837, 1708/1841,
1760/1871, 1801/1902,
1802/1904, 1844/1939,
1845/1940, 1880/1971,
1882/1971, 1910/1983,
2106/2173, 2714/2611
542. Ram Kirpal Vs. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.)
269 (P.C.)
543. Ram Lal & another Vs. Board of Revenue &
Others, 1990 (1) RLR 161
544. Ram Murti Vs. Puran Singh AIR 1963 Punjab 393 2193/2213
545. Ram Nandan Vs. State, AIR 1959 All 101 1222/1402
546. Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (21) LCD
852/1156, 1046/1273
547. Ram Parkash Das Vs. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 686/1003
1916 Privy Council 256
548. Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Kashi Nath Tewari, AIR 1966
Patna 235
549. Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter
College & others AIR 1987 SC 1242
550. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and
others 1985 (1) SCC 427
551. Rama Shankar Singh & another Vs. Shyamlata
Devi & another others AIR 1970 SC 716
552. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport
Authority of India and others, 1979 (3) SCC 489
553. Ramareddy Vs. Ranga 1925 ILR 49 Mad 543 2596/2548
554. Rambrahma Chatterjee Vs. Kedar Nath Banerjee
AIR 1923 Cal 60
1781/1885, 1783/1886,
1784/1886, 2685/2596
555. Ramesh B. Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal
Mehta and others 2006 (5) SCC 638
556. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital
Ltd. & Ors. JT 2009 (12) SC 377
3587/3584, 3588/3585,
557. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & others (1992)
2 SCC 524
558. Rameswar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and
others AIR 1986 Cal. 19
559. Rami Kuar Mani Singh Vs. Nawab of
Murshidabad AIR 1918 PC 180
560. Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others Vs.
Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497
561. Ramprakash vs. Ananda Das 43 Cal.707 2854/2734
562. Ramzan & Anr. Vs. Mohammad Ahmad Khan
AIR 1936 Oudh 207
563. Ramzan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Gafooran Ors. AIR 2008
All 37
2774/2668, 2913/2773,
564. Ranchordas Vandravandas Vs. Parvatibai 29 I.A.
71 (P.C.)
2196/2214, 2289/2211
565. Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor
(2) LR 3 IA 92, 101,
566. Ranganayakamma & another Vs. K.S. Prakash JT
2008 (8) SC 510
567. Rao Bahadur Man Singh Vs. Maharani
Nawlakhbati (1926) 24 A.L.J.R. 251
568. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya
Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394
569. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of
Bombay and others, AIR 1954 SC 388
714/1023, 740/1037,
570. Re B. Venkata Row (1913) 36 Mad. 159 3575/3579
571. Re Pachiripalli Satyanarayanan, AIR 1953 Mad
572. Renu Devi Vs. Mahendra Singh and others,
(2003) 10 SCC 200
573. Roop Singh Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 2879/2752
574. RT. Munichikanna Reddy Vs. Revamma, 2007
(25) LCD 1374 (SC)
575. Run Bahadur Singh Vs. Lucho Koer ILR (1885)
11 Cal 301
576. S. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.S.S Dalliwall, 1952 All
825 (DB)
2585/2540, 3245/3132
577. S. R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and
others AIR 1994 SC 1918
578. S. Raghbir Singh Gill Vs. S. Gurucharan Singh
Tohra and others 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 53.
579. S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC
2774/2668, 2926/2788,
580. S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449. 638/978
581. S.P. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 715/1024, 716/1024,
582. Saddiq Ali Vs. State 1981 CrLJ 379 3553/3567
583. Sadhuram Bansal Vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar and 2246/2246
others 1984 (3) SCC 410
584. Said Maher Hussain Vs. Haji Alimahomed
Jalaludin and others, AIR 1934 Bombay 257
585. Sailendra Kishore Vs. Harekrishna AIR 1978
Orissa 125
586. Sait Tarajee Khimchand Vs. Yelamarti Satyam
AIR 1971 SC 1865
587. Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos Vs. Saiyad Mahomed El
Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217
588. Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) By LRS.
Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3)
SCC 350
941/1200, 942/1204,
944/1205, 1051/1278
589. Salamat Raj Vs. Nur Mohamed Khan (1934) ILR
9 Lucknow 475
590. Sammantha Pandara Vs. Sellappa Chetti ILR 2
(1878-81) Madras 175
682/999, 684/1002
591. Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR
1955 SC 425
592. Sankar Kumar Vs. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998
Orissa 117
593. Saqlain Ahmad Vs. Emperor AIR 1936 Alld. 165 3568/3577
594. Sarabjit Rick Singh Vs. Union of India (2008) 2
SCC 417
595. Sarangadeva Periya Matam Vs. Ramaswami
Goundar, AIR 1966 SC 1603
1707/1837, 1869/1965,
596. Saraswathi Ammal & Anr. Vs. Rajagopal Ammal
AIR 1953 SC 491
1699/1819, 1848/1941
597. Sarat Kamini Dasi Vs. Nagendra Nath Pal AIR
1926 Cal. 65
598. Sardar Ali Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali
Khan AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243
599. Sardar Sarup Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab
and others, AIR 1959 SC 860
744/1039, 3500/3494
600. Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of 741/1037, 3500/3494
Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853
601. Saroja Vs. Chinnusamy (2007) 8 SCC 329 1056/1279, 1057/1280
602. Saroop Singh Vs. Banto and others, 2005(8) SCC
603. Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC
604. Satya Charan Sarkar Vs. Mohanta Rudrananda
Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716
605. Satya Narain Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. & others
2007 (2) ARC 308
606. Satya Niranjan Vs. Ramlal, 1925 P.C. 42 2417/2434
607. Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand Vs. Union of India
AIR 1966 SC 1068
631/975, 657/987
608. Sayed Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan
Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555
609. Sayed Mohd. Vs. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285 941/1202
610. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs. Gulam
Rasul Gyasudin Kuwari (1916) ILR XL (Bom.)
611. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs.
Perumal Pillai and others (1900) ILR 24 (Mad.)
612. Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal
Khan, AIR 1934 PC 23, page 25
2844/2729, 2858/2735
613. Secretary of State Vs. Chelikani Rama Rao,
(1916) 39 Mad. 617
614. Secretary of State Vs. Krishnamoni Gupta (1902)
29 Cal. 518
615. Seshammal Vs. State of T.N. AIR 1972 SC 1586 1761/1872
616. Seth Narainbhai Ichharam Kurmi and another Vs.
Narbada Prasad Sheosahai Pande and others, AIR
1941 Nagpur 357
617. Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad AIR 2009
SC 2463
2999/2838, 3014/2845
618. Sewkissendas Bhatter & others Vs. Dominion of
India AIR 1957 Cal. 617
619. Shakuntalabai and another Vs. L.V. Kulkarni and
another, 1989 (2) SCC 526
620. Shankar Lal & Anr. Vs. Mahbub Shah & Anr. AIR
1923 Oudh 59
621. Shankarrao Sitaramji Satpute & Ors. Vs.
Annapurnabai AIR 1961 Bombay 266
622. Shanker Das Vs. Said Ahmad (1884) P.R. No.153
of 1884
623. Shantha Nand Gir Chela Vs. Basudevanand AIR
1930 Alld. 225
624. Shanti Kuamr Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi JT
2005 (11) SC 122
2271/2262, 2272/2265,
2273/2265, 3039/2863
625. Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61
626. Sharda Vs. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 3764/3797
627. Sharpe Vs. San Paulo Railway Co., L.R. 8 Ch.
App. 597 at pp.609
628. Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & others Vs. Muldas
Bhundardas Vaishya and another AIR 1966 SC
629. Sheo Raj Chamar & another Vs. Mudeer Khan &
others AIR 1934 All. 868
630. Sheo Ramji Vs. Ridhnath Mahadeo Ji AIR 1923
All. 160
631. Sheodhan Singh Vs. Daryo Kunwar, AIR 1966
SC 1332
632. Sheoparsan Singh and others Vs. Ramnandan
Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N. 738 (P.C.)
893/1182, 894/1182
633. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs.
Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC
958/1212, 1061/1284,
634. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee,
Amritsar Vs. Som Nath Dass & Ors. (2000) 4
1041/1271, 1699/1819,
1707/1837, 1803/1907,
SCC 146=AIR 2000 SC 1421 1805/1909, 1911/1984,
1914/1987, 1915/1989,
635. Shiv Charan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 (All.)
636. Shivagonda Subraigonda Patil Vs. Rudragonda
Bhimagonda Patil 1969 (3) SCC 211
637. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan Vs. Mahadba Romaji
Bidkar & Others AIR 1953 Bombay 38.
1822/1919, 2681/2594
638. Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others
1981 (3) SCC 689=AIR 1980 SC 707
688/1004, 689/1005,
694/1007, 696/1008,
639. Shripati Quer Vs. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna)
640. Shyam Sunder Prasad & Others Vs. Raj Pal Singh
& Anr. 1995(1) SCC 311
2162/2196, 2164/2198,
2212/2219, 2458/2454,
641. Sidram Lachmaya Vs. Mallaya Lingaya AIR (36)
1949 Bom. 137
642. Singhai Lal Chand Jain Vs. Rashtriya Swayam
Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC
643. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others Vs. The Sunni
Central Board of Waqf U.P. and others, AIR 1959
SC 198
1137/1345, 2433/2441
644. Siris Chandra Nandy Vs. Rakhala Nanda AIR
1941 PC 16
645. Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh AIR
1924 Cal. 595
646. Sitaram Vs. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 923/1194
647. Sitaramacharya Vs. Gururajacharya, 1997(2) SCC
648. Sm. Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy
& others AIR 1947 Privy Council 19
2774/2667, 2871/2750
649. Smt. Bitola Kuer Vs. Sri Ram Charan & Ors. AIR
1978 All 555
2774/2668, 2911/2772
650. Smt. Dhana Kuer Vs. Kashi Nath Chaubey, 1967
AWR 290
651. Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989
Kar. 45
652. Smt. Panna Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Kali Kinkor
Ganguli AIR 1974 Cal. 126
1702/1821, 1707/1832,
1799/1900, 2696/2602
653. Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others Vs. Abdul
Qadir and others AIR 1966 Alld. 318
845/1152, 1029/1263,
1030/1264, 1031/1265,
1036/1268, 1042/1272
654. Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., AIR
1985 RD 33
653/985, 658/978
655. Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali
Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33
901/1184, 952/1209
656. Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy AIR 1955
Cal 624
657. Soorjomonee Dayee Vs. Suddanund Mahapatter
(1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C.)
658. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P.
and others 2003 (8) SCC 648
3121/2967, 3122/2968
659. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple, Varanasi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
(1997) 4 SCC 606
727/1029, 1700/1820,
1707/1834, 1852/1947,
1855/1956, 3501/3495
660. Sri Banamali Neogi & others Vs. Sri Asoke
Kumar Chattopadhyayay & others, 96 CWN 886
661. Sri Chand Batra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC
662. Sri Gopal Vs. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld.
429 (PC)
663. Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani & others Vs. Sm.
Kanchanbala Dutta & others AIR 1977 Cal. 473
664. Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur and others V.
Gopinath Das and others AIR 1960 Cal. 741
1823/1925, 1929/2013
665. Sri Lakhi Baruah & others Vs. Sri Padma Kanta
Kalita & others JT 1996 (3) SC 268
666. Sri Nitai Gour Radheshyam Vs. Harekrishna 1927/2011
Adhikari and others AIR 1957 Cal. 77
667. Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah
and others AIR 1978 Patna 129
668. Sri Sri Gopal Jew Vs. Baldeo Narain Singh and
others, 51 CWN 383
1933/2015, 1934/2016,
669. Sri Sri Ishwar Lakshi Durga Vs. Surendra Nath
Sarhar 45 C.W.N. 665
670. Sri Thakur Kirshna Chandramajju vs. Kanhayalal
and others AIR 1961 Allahabad 206
671. Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs.
Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123
687/1004, 699/1010,
1806/1909, 3270/3146,
3303/3253, 3424/3347
672. Srikant Vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others
(2007) 1 SCC 486
673. Srikant Vs. King Emperor (1905) 2 ALJ 444 3576/3580
674. Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 955/1210
675. State Bank of India Vs. Firm Jamuna Prasad
Jaiswal and sons and another AIR 2003 (Alld.)
845/1152, 1042/1272
676. State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator of
Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and Others
2009 CLC 73
677. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Pioneer
Builders AIR 2007 SC 113
678. State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda Ojha
AIR 1959 SC 1073
679. State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992
Supp (1) SCC 222
680. State of Bihar and others Vs. Ramdeo Yadav and
others, 1996(2) SCC 493
681. State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Radha Krishna
Singh and others, AIR 1983 SC 684
1994/2073, 1996/2076,
2155/2194, 2162/2197,
2547/2510, 3342/3292,
682. State of Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal Gangaram 1808/1911
Lavar, AIR 1955 Bom. 1
683. State of Gujarat Vs. Vora Fiddali Badruddin
Mithibarwala, AIR 1964 SC 1043
3380/3308, 3381/3309,
684. State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC
685. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others,
AIR 1999 SC 3318
3584/3582, 3622/3639
686. State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India
Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4)
SCC 683
840/1150, 906/1185,
687. State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. National
Construction Company, Bombay AIR 1996 SC
852/1156, 1045/1273
688. State of Punjab and others Vs. M/s. Surinder
Kumar and Co. and others, AIR 1997 SC 809
841/1150, 1011/1250
689. State of Punjab Vs. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh,
1993(3) SCC 459
690. State of Punjab Vs. Geeta Iron and Brass Works
Ltd. 1978 (1) SCC 68=1978 SC 1608
627/974, 637/977
691. State of Punjab Vs. Okara Grain Buyers
Syndicate Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 669
692. State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna 2001 (2) SCC
693. State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Sajjanlal
Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706=1974
SCC (1) 500
1861/1962, 4453/5013
694. State of T.N. Vs. T. Thulasingam and others 1994
Supp. (2) SCC 405
695. State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC
947/1207, 1007/1246
696. State of U.P. Vs. Nemchandra Jain, 1984 (2) SCC
697. State of UP & another Vs. Synthetics &
Chemicals Ltd, (1991) 4 SCC 139
698. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Jagdish 1052/1278
Sharan Agrawal and others (2009) 1 SCC 689
699. State of West Bengal and others Vs. Debdas
Kumar and others 1991 (1) Suppl. SCC 138
700. State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar &
Anr. AIR (39) 1952 SC 75
1703/1821, 1877/1970
701. State Vs. Kanhu Charan Barik 1983 Cr.L.J. 133 3565/3576
702. State Vs. S.J. Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491 3559/3569
703. Subbaraya Gurukkal Vs. Chellappa Mudali 4
Mad. 315
704. Sudhindra Nath Vs. The King AIR (39) 1952 Cal.
705. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur
AIR 1951 SC 288
1395/1559, 2226/2233
706. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh,
AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 5
707. Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994
SC 152
840/1150, 904/1185,
943/1205, 1010/1250
708. Sumatibai Wasudeo Bachuwar Vs. Emperor, AIR
(31) 1944 Bom. 125
709. Sundar Vs. Parbati, (1889) 12 All 51 2203/2216
710. Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharm High
School Trust Vs. Managing Committee, AIR 1938
PC 73
711. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608 2778/2675
712. Sunka Villi Suranna. v. Goli Sathiraju AIR 1962
SC 342
713. Sunni Central Board of Waqf Vs. Siraj-ul-Haq
Khan and others, AIR 1954 All. 88.
714. Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. AIR 1980
SC 52
715. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, 2007 (6)
SCC 186
716. Suraj Bhan Vs. Harchandgir 1954 PEPSU 65
717. Surayya and another Vs. Annapurnamma,
1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699
718. Surayya Begum (Mst) Vs. Mohd. Usman and
others, 1991(3) SCC 114
719. Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Bhubaneswari
Thakurani AIR (2) 1933 Cal. 295
720. Surendra Narayan Sarbadhikari Vs. Bholanath
Roy Choudhuri AIR (30) 1943 Cal. 613
721. Suryanarayana & Ors. Vs. Bullayya & Ors. AIR
1927 Madras 568
2167/2199, 2448/2450
722. Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri
Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864
723. Syed Ali Mohammad Vs. Collector of Bhagalpur,
AIR 1927 Patna 189
724. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & another
Vs. State (Delhi Administration) & another JT
2009 (4) SC 522
725. Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & others Vs. Mohd.
Hanifa & others AIR 1976 SC 1569
911/1188, 3234/3124,
3423/3344 3425/3348,
726. Syed Yousuf Yar Khan and others Vs. Syed
Mohammed Yar Khan and others, AIR 1967 SC
1211/1395, 1212/1396
727. Syndicate Bank. v. Prabha D. Naik (2001) 4 SCC
728. T. Anjanappa and others Vs. Somalingappa and
another 2006 (7) SCC 570
2774/2667, 2848/2730,
729. T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P., 2004(3) SCC
1998/2077, 2008/2083
730. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S.
Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80
731. T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka,
2000 (6) SCC 168
732. T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai & Anr. Vs. The Board
of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious
Endowments, Madras, through its President AIR
(38) 1951 Madras 473
1700/1820, 1707/1834,
1740/1861, 1844/1939,
1847/1940, 2106/2172
733. T.V. Durairajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments
(Administration) Department, Madras AIR 1989
Madras 60
1700/1820, 1741/1861,
734. Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs.
Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937
P.C. page 1
839/1149, 920/1191,
993/1237, 1943/2028
735. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Hathija Ammal, AIR
2002 SC 402
736. Tarit Bhusan Rai and another Vs. Sri Sri Iswar
Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur by Krishna
Chandra Chandra and others, AIR (29) 1942
Calcutta 99
1785/1886, 1944/2028,
2717/2612, 2719/2613
737. Temple of Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan &
others, 1998 Raj 85
2595/2548, 2657/2582
738. Thakardwara Sheru Mal Vs. Ishar Das AIR 1928
Lah. 375
739. Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR
1955 SC 504
740. Thakur Kishan Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR
1995 SC 73
2845/2730, 2879/2753
741. Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad. 287 692/1007
742. Thayarammal Vs. Kanakammal & Ors. (2005) 1
SCC 457
1699/1819, 1707/1837,
743. The Advocate- General of Bengal on behalf of
Her Majesty Vs. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee in
Moore’s Indian Appeals (1863-1864) 9 MIA 387
744. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs.
Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057
745. The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan Vs.
Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 SC 289
746. The Delhi and London Bank Vs. Orchard, I.L.R. 3 2177/2204
(1876) Calcutta 47 (PC)
747. The East India Company Vs. Oditchurn Paul 1849
(Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the
East Indies) 43
748. The Firm of Eng Gim Moh Vs. The Chinese
Merited Banking Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1940
Rangoon 276
2162/2197, 2432/2441
749. The Mayor of the City of Lyons Vs. the Hon’ble
The East India Company, Moore’s Indian Appeals
(1836-1837) 1 MIA 175
750. The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram
AIR 1979 SC 14
751. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Vs. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1638
1829/1928, 3302/3238
752. Tracy Perrage Case (1843) 10 CI & F 154 3591/3587
753. Trilochan Das Adhikari & another Vs. Simanchal
Rath & others, 1994(II) OLR 602
2595/2548, 2659/2582
754. Tulsidas Vs. Sidahinath (9) I.C. 650) 1940/2025
755. U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqf Vs. U.P. Sunni
Central Board of Waqf, AIR 2001 SC 2086
1163/1365, 1164/1367
756. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2006(6) ADJ 331
1148/1358, 1149/1358
757. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional
Member, Board of Revenue AIR 1963 SC 786
758. Umrao Singh v. Union of India; AIR 1975 Del.
188, 191
759. Union of India and Others Vs. SICOM Ltd. and
Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 635
760. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC
1048/1273, 1050/1278
761. Union of India. v. Sudhangshu Mazumdar AIR
1971 SC 1594
762. Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh 929/1197
and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354
763. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs.
Samir Chandra Chaudhary, 2005(5) SCC 784
764. United States Shipping Board Vs. The Ship “St.
Albans” AIR 1931 PC 189
765. United States v. Juan Prechman, (1831-34) L.Ed.
766. Upendra Kumar and others Vs. District Judge,
Azamgarh and others 1997 ACJ 823
845/1152, 1042/1272
767. V. D. Dhanwatey. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, M. P., Nagpur & Bhandara AIR 1968 SC 683
768. V. Mariyappa Vs. B.K. Puttaramayya, ILR (1957)
Mys 291:AIR 1958 Mys 93
769. V. Padmanabhan Nair Vs. Kerala State Electricity
Board AIR 1989 Kerala 86
770. V. Seethaya & Ors. Vs. P. Subramanya
Somayajulu & Anr. A.I.R. 1929 Privy Council
771. Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary of State
AIR 1924 PC 216
3379/3307, 4445/5012
772. Vallabhacharya Swami Varu (Deity) of Swarna
Vs. Deevi Hanumancharyulu, AIR 1979 SC 1147
773. Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar
Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga
Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355
943/1205, 1050/1278
774. Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese 2004(6)
SCC 378
775. Vasant Ambadas Pandit Vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation and others AIR 1981 Bombay 394
636/977, 637/977
776. Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Government of Province of
Madras AIR 1947 PC 197
629/974, 657/987
777. Velluswami Vs. Raj Nainar 1959 SC 422 (426) 2592/2546
778. Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru
Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436
1707/1837, 1947/2034,
779. Vembagounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder AIR
1996 Madras 347
780. Venkata Chandrayya Vs. Venkata Rama Reddy,
(1899) 22 Madras 256
781. Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR
1958 SC 255
744/1040, 1761/1871,
782. Venkataramana Moorthy Vs. Sri Rama
Mandhiram (1964) 2 An.WR 457
1741/1861, 1845/1940
783. Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru
Seshu Reddy, 1966 Supp SCR 270
784. Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496 2877/2752
785. Vidya vs. Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302; 2854/2734
786. Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha
Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435
684/1002, 1769/1877
787. Vimla Bai Vs. Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2
SCC 22
3363/3302, 3500/3494
788. Vishwambhar & Ors. Vs. Laxminarain & Anr.
2001 (6) SCC 163
789. Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale Vs. Shalinibai
Nagappa Sabale and others, JT 2009(5) SC 395
2853/2734, 2947/2804
790. Vithal Yeshwant Jathar Vs. Shikandarkhan
Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385
791. Wahid Ali & another Vs. Mahboob Ali Khan AIR
1935 Oudh 425
2227/2233, 3270/3146,
792. Wali Mohammad V. Mohammad Bakhsh AIR
1930 PC 91
793. Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza
Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956
ALJ 225
794. West Rand Gold mining Co. Vs. The King (1905)
2 KB 391
795. Williams Vs. Lourdusamy & another (2008) 5
SCC 647
796. Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) Vs. Nanilal 1406/1561
Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC
797. Yeknath Vs. Bahia AIR 1925 Nagpur 236 (1) 2162/2197, 2257/2251
798. Yeshwant Govardhan Vs. Totaram Avasu AIR
1958 Bom. 28
1031/1265, 1036/1269
Index-Reference Books Alphabetically
Sl.No Book Para/Page No.
1. A Clash of Culture, Audh, The British and the
Mughals by Michael H. Fisher (published in 1987
by Manohar Publications, New Delhi)
2. A Cultural History of India by A.L. Basham (first
published in 1975) Oxford University Press
(Eighth Indian Impression in 1992)
3865/4057, 3866/4057
3. A Digest of Mahommedan Law- Part-First
(Second Edition 1875) by Neil B.E. Baillie
3178/3007, 3190/3017,
3223/3113, 3303/3239,
3320/3270, 3503/3496
4. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the
Government of the East-India Company and of the
native States on the Continent of India by Edward
4221/4598, 4222/4598
5. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the
Government of the East-India Company and of the
native States on the Continent of India, by Edward
Thornton first published in 1858 (reproduced in
1993) by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No.
1319/1461, 1410/1563,
3350/3298, 3516/3510,
2622/2566, 2960/2813
6. A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah
Fyzabad by P. Carnegy printed at the Oudh
Government Press, Lucknow in 1870. (Book No.
750/1041, 791/1121,
1413/1564, 1418/1568,
1420/1570, 2212/2297,
2312/2297, 2624/2567,
2986/2825, 3008/3843,
3351/3298, 3403/3332,
3411/3337, 3521/3523,
4251/4656, 4260/4674,
7. A History of India Vol. I (Pelican Books 1990,
13th Impression 2001) bu Romila Thapar
8. A History of the Sikhs by Khushwant Singh, Vol.
I, 1469-1839, first published in 1963 and 9
impression 2002 by Oxford University Press
9. A. Fuhrer's account published in 1891, 3526/3525
10. Aaprajit Prichchha by Bhuwan Dev 3936/4240
11. Agnipuranam Chapter 103 Poona Edition of 1900

12. Ain-e-Akbari written by Abul Fazal Allami,
translated in English by H. Blochmann edited by
Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first published 1927-
1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price
Publications, Delhi (Book No. 24)
1616/1735, 1617/1736,
1618/1744, 1622/1747,

13. Ameer Ali Shaheed Aur Marka Hanuman Gari by
Shekh Mohammad Ajmat Ali Alvi Kakoravi
(written in 1886) revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi
published in 1987 (Book No. 102)
1635/1762, 3518/3513

14. An Advanced History of India by R.C. Majumdar,
H.C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, Fourth
Edition 1978, published by Macmillan India Ltd.
15. Anand Ramayana (Navon Khand Sampurna)
edited by Pandit Sri Ramji Sharma published by
Sri Durga Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay
16. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition by F.E.
4155/4550, 4215/4582
17. Archaeological Survey Of India Four Reports
Made During the Years 1862-63-64-65 by
Alexander Cunningham
18. 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
19. Asiatic Researches Vol-I, first published in 1788,
recently republished in 1979
20. Aspects of our Religion, Bhavan's Book
University by Senior Sankaracharya of Kanchi
Kamakoti Peeta

21. Atharva-Veda Samhita, Books VIII to XIX,
translated by William Dwigth Whitney (Revised
and edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman) first
published in Cambridge in 1905 and re-printed in
2001 by Motilal Banarsidass
4090/4444, 4119/4507,
4120/4510, 4300/4751
22. Atherva-Veda Ka Subodh Bhasya 4090/4444, 4299/4751,
23. Aurangzib-and the decay of the Mughal Empire,
by Stanley Lane Poole first published in 1890,
reproduced in 1995, published by Low Price
Publications, Delhi (Book No. 26)

24. Autobiography J.S. Mill, London, reprinted in
25. Ayodhya Archaeology After Demolition by D.
Mandal first published in 1993, reprint in 1994
26. Ayodhya ka Itihas Avam Puratatva Rigved Se
27. Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi Lala Sitaram,
first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001,
published by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi (Book
No. 46)
752/1049, 1479/1623,

28. Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva by Dr. T.P.
Verma and S.P. Gupta
(Book No. 141)
1430/1578, 3643/3703,
3869/4064, 3870/4112
29. Ayodhya- Part I & II by Hans Bakker 1986 3535/3535
30. Babar by Dr. Radhey Shyam, first published in
1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad (Book No. 1)
1454/1603, 1555/1664,
31. Babar/ Babur-Nama by John Layden and William
(Book No. 59)
32. Babari Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians
Report to the Indian Nation
33. Babarnama translated by Yugjeet Navalpuri, first
published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998 and
reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi
(Book No. 152)

34. Babur-nama (Tuzuk-i-babri) (1493-94 AD) 1486/1626
35. Babur-Nama by A.S. Beveridge, first published in
1921 (reprinted in 2006 by Low Price
Publications, Delhi)
(Book No. 6)
1314/1458, 1315/1458,
1316/1459, 1317/1460,
1318/1460, 1341/1478,
1344/1479, 1366/1524,
1441/1588, 1442/1589,
1443/1590, 1471/1616,
1477/1619, 1515/1637,
1525/1641, 1528/1644,
1533/1648, 1566/1673
36. Balmiki Ramayan (Book No. 47) 1913/1986
37. Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume XLVIII of
the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of
Agra and Oudh compiled and edited by H.R.
Nevill, I.C.S., printed by F. Luker, Supdt.,
Government Press, United Provinces, Allahabad in
1904 (Book No. 4 )
1421/1571, 4276/4712,

38. Bhagvad Gita As It is by A.C. Bhaktivedanta
Swami Prabhupad
39. Bhagwad-gita 4179/4566
40. Bhai Bale Wali-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji ki Janam
Sakhi, 7
Edn. 1999
41. Bhartiya Sanskriti Ke Char Adhyay by Ramdhari
Singh Dinkar, First Edn. 1956, reprinted 2009 by
Lok Bharti Prakashan
42. Bibiotheque Orientale, Art. “Mahmood.” Paris,
published in 1697
43. Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition (1999),
published by West, St. Paul, Minn., 1999
2219/2222, 2220/2226,
2294/2277, 2805/2686,
2806/2687, 2807/2687
44. Book of the Holy Struggle-32 3210/3063
45. Brahmana 4124/4514
46. Brihadaranakya Upanishad by Krishnanand 2596/2549
47. Brihaspati Smriti 1707/1827, 2634/2571,
48. Chambers Dictionary 3374/3306
49. Chhandogyopanishad 1754/1867
50. Code of Manu 4180/4567
51. Commentaries on Mahommedan Law by Syed
Ameer Ali
3306/3261, 3321/3271
52. Commentary on Mohammedan Law by Baillie 3259/3139
53. Complete Works, Vol. 2 by Swami Vivekananda 1756/1870
54. Concise Oxford Dictionary 2700/2604
55. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement
of the Entire American Law as developed by All
Reported Cases (1956), Vol. 26A, published by
Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.
2219/2224, 2220/2227,
56. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement
of the Entire American Law as developed by All
Reported Cases (1959), Vol. 27, published by
Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.
GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E under the
Contenant la Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,.
Planches". English translation of which is
EDITION containing the Geography of Hindustan,
with 39 illustrations by Father Joseph
1588/1687, 1916/2006,
2621/2565, 3333/3286,
3348/3297, 3412/3318,
3514/3503, 4308/4764,

58. Development of Hindu Iconography' by Jitendra
Nath Banerjea (First Edition in 1941 and 5
Edition in 2002 published by Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.)
1716/1845, 1718/1846

59. Dharmasastras 4127/4517
60. Dictionary of Hinduism 4123/4511, 4128/4518,
4131/4524, 4132/4525,
4133/4525, 4134/4527,
4135/4528, 4136/4529,
4137/4532, 4138/4533
61. Digest of Hindu Law 4231/4607
62. Dilli Saltanat (711-1526 A.D.) by Dr. Ashirvadi
Lal Srivastava
63. DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary published by
Oxford University Press

64. Early Travels in India (1985 First Edition
distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
Pvt. Ltd.) by William Foster
1585/1682, 2957/2812

65. East India Gazetter by Walter Hamilton first
published in 1828 (reproduced in 1993 published
1407/1562, 1408/1562,
2959/2813, 3334/3287,
by Low Price Publications, Delhi containing
particular descriptions of the
66. Eastern India by Robert Montgomery Martin 1597/1698, 1614/1732,
3349/3298, 3334/3287,
4220/4598, 4388/4947
67. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15
Edition, 1978 3533/3534
68. Encyclopedia of India and of Eastern and Southern
Asia by Surgeon General Balfour, 1858
69. English translation of Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa by
M.R. Kale
70. Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement
(in continuation of Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica)
1964-1965 (reprinted in 1987)
1321/1462, 1324/1464,
1366/1524, 1445/1591,
1471/1616, 1654/1777,
1655/1780, 1656/1782,
3653/3709, 3654/3709,
71. Friendly Advice 4179/4566
72. 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
(Book No. 4)
751/1045, 791/1121,
1422/1571, 2626/2568,
3354/3299, 3402/3331,
3527/3526, 4277/4716
73. Fyzabad-A Gazetteer being Volume XLIII of the
District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of
Agra & Oudh in 1928
1425/1575, 1431/1581,
2626/2568, 3529/3527,
4283/4730, 3356/3300
74. Gazetteer of India (Vol. II ) 3303/3241
75. Gazetteer of Oudh by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S.,
Assistant Commissioner (1877)
1416/1566, 1417/1567,
2625/2567, 3352/3299,
3402/3331, 3523/3524,
76. Hadiqa-E-Shabda by Mirza Jan published in
1855/56 AD
3400/3329, 3517/3511
77. Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3311/3264, 3150/2987,
3151/2987, 3166/2999,
3167/2999, 3168/3000,
3170/3002, 3172/3303,
3173/3004, 3174/3005,
3180/3009, 3194/3034,
3195/3038, 3196/3038,
3197/3042, 3198/3043,
3199/3044, 3200/3045
78. Hadith Sahih Muslim 3169/3001, 3186/3011,
3189/3013, 3191/3020,
3204/3048, 3208/3061,
3209/3062, 3309/3262
79. Hadith, Volume 1 3193/3032
80. Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn, Vol 16 2598/2550, 3242/3129
81. Handbook of Architecture (1855) 4240/4611
82. Hanifeea Code of Jurisprudence at page vii-viii
(Second Edition 1875 published by Smith Elder, &
Co., London )
83. Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments by Abdur
Rahim 1918
84. Hindu and Mohammaden Endowments by P.R.
Ganapathy Iyer
85. Hindu Law & Usages by Mayne, 16
Edn. 1704/1821
86. Hindu Law of Endowments by Pran Nath
1779/1884, 3392/3317
87. Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts of
B. K. Mukherjea 5th Edition, Published by Eastern
Law House
1694/1811, 1695/1817,
1696/1818, 1707/1825,
1708/1838, 1713/1843,
1714/1844, 1719/1848,
1720/1850, 1721/1851,
1734/1858, 1735/1859,
1736/1860, 2134/2182,
88. Hindu temple by Cramerish 1726/1854
89. Hindu Theatre 4235/4609
90. Hindu World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of
Hinduism by Benjamin Walker, first published in
1968 by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London and
the first Indian Edition was published in 1983 by
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
4111/4496, 4112/4497,
4114/4503, 4116/4505,
4119/4507, 4124/4514,
4129/4518, 4130/4523
91. Hinduism And Ecology Seeds of Truth 3500/3494
92. Hinduism by Sir Moniar Williams 4289/4743
93. History and culture of the Indian People Bhavan's 3876/4124, 3877/4124
Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya
Bhavan Mumbai (first edition 1957), 5
94. History of Architecture 4240/4611
95. History of Bairagi Akharas by Yadunath Sarkar 748/1041
96. History of British India by James Mill 4169/4558, 4181/4567
97. History of British India edited by H.H. Wilson 4184/4568
98. History of Dharmashastra, translated by Pandurang
Vaman Kane, Part-IV Third Edition 1991
published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute Poona
1703/1821, 1707/1827,
2596/2548, 2603/2553,
4090/4444, 4305/4759,
99. History of India under Baber by William Erskine
(May 1845), though published for the first time in
1535/1659, 1536/1650,
1544/1657, 1545/1658,
1546/1658, 1547/1659
100. History of India-As told by its own Historians by
Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II
1426/1575, 1427/1575,
4035/4387, 4037/4388,
101. History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest by
Rama Shankar Tripathi
102. History of Sanskrit Literature (1859) 4178/4565
103. History of Sanskrit Literature (1900) by
Macdonell, Arthur Anthony
104. History of the rise of the Mahomedan Power in
India till the year AD 1612 translated by John
Briggs (first published in 1829 reprinted in 2006
by Low Price Publications, Delhi)
105. Hitopadeca 4179/4566
106. Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah 3202/3047
107. Holy Quran 3179/3008, 3191/3028,
3148/2986, 3149/2987,
108. Ibn Battuta Ki Bharat Yatra 3317/3267
109. IBN BATTUTA Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-
1354 translated and selected by H.A.R. Gibb (first
published in 1929 reprinted in 2007 by Low Price
3157/2991, 3191/3021
Publications, Delhi)
110. Illustrated History of Indian Architecture 4240/4611
111. Imperial Gazetteer of India Provincial Service
United Provinces of Agra & Oudh, Vol. II,
published in 1934 Faizabad Division
3528/3527, 3357/3300,
112. Imperial Gazetteer of India—Provincial Series—
United Provinces of Agra and Oudh-Vol. II (1908)
(Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of
Government Printing Calcutta
1423/1573, 4282/4727,

113. India During Muslim Rule by Maulana Hakim
Syed Abdul Hai
114. India in or about 1030 A.D. by Alberuni 1694/1810
115. India in the 17
Century (Social, Economic and
Politician) Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-
1694) Volume II, Part I (1681/1688) translated by
Lotika Varadarajan first published 1984 by
Manohar Publications, New Delhi
1626/1754, 1628/1755

116. Indian Architecture (Islamic Period) by Percy
Brown published by D.B. Taraporevala Sons &
Co. Private Ltd
117. Indian Texts Series-Storia Do Mogor or Mogul
India 1653-1708 by Niccolao Manucci translated
in English by Milliam Irvine Vol. III

118. Itihas Darpan Vol. III December 1996 published
by Bhartiya Itihas Sankalan Yojna Samiti, Delhi
119. Jami' At-Tirmidhi 3314/3265, 3163/2996,
3171/3003, 3177/3007,
3181/3010, 3182/3010,
3184/3010, 3190/3016,
3191/3020, 3211/3078,
3312/3264, 3313/3265
120. Jarman on Wills, 6
Edn. Page 532 2898/2764
121. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law Vol. 1 Second
Edition-1977, Second Impression-1990, published
by London Sweet & Maxwell Limited
2112/2226, 2220/2230,
122. Kalhana's Rajatarangini-A Chronicle of the Kings
of Kasmir
4142/4535, 4312/4765
123. Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa 4315/4771, 4318/4772
124. Katyayana 1707/1827, 2603/2553
125. Kitab Al-Aqdiyah 3215/3096
126. Kitab Al-Salat 3205/3055
127. Kong-U-To (Konyodha) 4319/4773
128. Law of Endowment (Hindu & Mahomedan) by A.
Ghosh, Second Edn. published by Eastern Law
House, Calcutta
3048/2867, 3230/3119,
129. Law of Endowments, Wakfs and Turst by Dr.
Paras Diwan
130. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by
Ganapathi Iyer
1733/1857, 1745/1863
131. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by Ghosh 1732/1856
132. Legal Thesaurus Regular Edition-William C.
Burton (1981), published by Macmillan Publishing
Co., Inc. New York.
133. Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li, first
published in 1911 at London, reprinted in 2001 by
Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 20)
134. Limits and Punishments set by Allah (Hudood) 3201/3046
135. Mahommedan Law By Syed Ameer Ali 3188/3011, 3249/3133,
136. Manusmriti 1753/1867, 2633/2570
137. Mareechi Samhita 1731/1855
138. Matsya Purana 1725/1853
139. Megha-duta 4235/4608
140. Memoirs of Baber Emperor of India-First of the
Great Moghuls, first published in 1909 (first
Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess Ess
Publications, Delhi) by F.G. Talbot
1476/1617, 1520/1638,
1522/1640, 1523/1640,
1571/1676, 1578/1680,
141. Meri Jiwan Yatra-1 by Rahul Sankrityayan (First
Paperback Edition:1996)
142. Mimamsa Darshan 1694/1814
143. Minhaju-S 'Siraj's Tabkat-I Nariri 4020/4354
144. Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary 5
(1990) by A.N. Saha, published by Eastern Law
House Prv. Ltd.
2219 /2222, 2220/2226,
2293/2275, 2811/2697,
145. Mohammedan Law by Tyabji 3249/3133, 3259/3139
146. Mugalkalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530 AD)
translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi (first
published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first
time by Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi)
1453/1601, 1549/1659

147. Mughal Documents (A.D. 1628-59) Volume II by
S.A.I. Tirmizi (first published 1995 by Manohar
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi)
1630/1756, 3318/3268,
148. Muslim Vidhi (A Text-Book of Mahomedan Law)
by Mahesh Prasad Tandon
149. Muwatta' Imam Malik 3189/3015, 3212/3094
150. Naradiya Dharmasastra 2830/2718
151. Naradiya Sukta 1694/1816,
152. Naradsmriti ("Critical Edition and Translation" 1st
Edn 2003
153. Narsingh-Puranam published by Geeta Press,
Gorakhpur 1999 (Samvat 2056)
154. New English Dictionary, Vo. IX, Part II 2700/2604
155. Nitya Karma Puja Prakash 1694/1814
156. Outlines of Muhammadan Law by Asaf A.A.
Fyzee, Second Edition 1955
157. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current
English first published 1948 by Oxford University
2293/2275, 2294/2277
158. Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic
Dictionary published by Oxford University Press,
first published in 1989
159. Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary
published by Oxford University Press, first
published in 2008
160. P Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon with Legal
Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases,
Second Edition 1997), published by Wadhwa and
Company Law Publishers
2219/2225, 2220/2229,
2293/2276, 2294/2277,
2812/2699, 3375/3306
161. Parashara 1707/1827
162. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea 4098/4486
163. Perspectives in Social and Economic History of
Early India by Prof. R.S. Sharma published in
1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi
3864/4055, 3875/4122
164. Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in
165. Precedents of Hindu Law Vol. II by Mac Naughton 1940/2024
166. Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law
by W.H. Macnaghten (first published 1825)
3220/3112, 3503/3496
167. Principles of Hindu Law, 1958 Edn, of Mulla 1707/1826, 1737/1860,
2588/2542, 2595/2548,
168. Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir D.F.
3218/3111, 3219/3112,
3322/3272, 3394/3318,
169. Puranas 4129/4518
170. Purush Sukta 1694/1811
171. Rajasthan Ki Bhakti Parampara Evam Sanskriti by
Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla and Onkar Narain
Singh published at Rajasthani Granthagar, Jodhpur

172. Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid Revisited by Dr.
S.P. Gupta
173. Ram Janmabhumi Controversy: Passion Apart
What History and Archaeology Have to Say on
this Issue
174. Report of Archaeological Survey of North West
Provinces and Oudh 1889
175. Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of
the Fyzabad District, (Book No. 18) by A.F.
Millett, C.S., Officiating Settlement Officer,
1419/1569, 2626/2568,
3353/3299, 3402/3331,
3524/3525, 4266/4692
published by North Western Provinces and Oudh
Government press, Allahabad in 1880
176. Rigveda 4113/4503
177. Rigveda Samhita 4090/4444, 4295/4749,
178. Riyazu-S-Salatin, A History of Bengal 3165/2998
179. Roscoe Pounde's Jurisprudence, Part, IV, 1959
180. Sacred Books of East by Max Muller 4189/4571
181. Salmond's Jurisprudence Twelfth Edition by F.J.
1237/1408, 1751/1865,
182. Samrangan Sutradhar 1731/1855
183. Samveda 4116/4505, 4117/4506
184. Sanskrit Dictionary 4235/4609
185. Sanskrit English Dictionary by Sir Monier
Williams (first published in 1899) (reprinted in
1997) (by Motilal Banarasidass)
186. Sanskrit Hindi Kosh written by Waman Shivram
Apte, first published in 1966
187. Sanskrit Inscriptions of Delhi Sultanate 1191-1526
by Pushpa Prasad
188. Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 16
Edition, 2007 Vol.
189. Sastri's Hindu Law, 5
Edn 2667/2585
190. Shakuntala 4180/4567
191. Shri Guru Granth Sahib (Chauthi Sainchi)
translated by Dr. Manmohan Sehgal
192. Shri Narsinghpuranam, Samvat 2056, published by
Geeta Press Gorakhpur,
1694/1811, 4090/4444,
193. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita 1707/1823, 1764/1874,
194. Shukranitih 2637/2571
195. SI-YU-KI, Buddhist Records of the Western World
translated from Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D.
629) by Samuel Beal
4319/4772, 4322/4775
196. Sikhs and Sikhism written by W.H. Mcleod first
published in 1999
197. Skanda-Purana, translated and annotated by Dr.
G.V. Tagore, Part-VII, first published in Delhi in
1995 by Motilal Banarasidas
3500/3493, 4090/4444,
4701/4752, 4301/4752,
198. Smriti 4125/4517
199. Smritis of Manu (200 BC) 1707/1827
200. Smrti-Sutra 4126/4517
201. Smrtiti on Vyavahara 1707/1827
202. Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Dusari Sainchi) translated
by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal
203. Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Pahli Sainchi) translated
by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal
4367/4923, 4368/4924
204. Sri Guru Granth Sahib with Hindi translation by
Dr. Manmohan Sahgal, 6
Edn. 2001
205. Sri Ram Janambhumi (Sachitra, Pramanik Itihas
by Dr. Radheyshyam Shukla published in 1986
754/1054, 4021/4354
206. Sri Ram Janambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas by
Late Pt. Sri Ramgopal Pandey "Sharad", published
by Pt. Dwarika Prasad Shivgovind, Ayodhya
207. Sri Ramacaritamanasa published by Geeta Press
Gorakhpur, first edition 1968, 11
edition 1999
1913/1986, 4090/4444,
208. Sri Satpath-Brahman 1694/1814
209. Sri Shukla Yajurvediya 1694/1814
210. Tabkats I Akbari by Khwaja Nizamuddin Ahmad 3155/2988
211. Taittiriya Sanhita 4090/4444, 4115/4505,
212. Tajmahal, the Illumined Tomb compiled and
Translated by W.E.Begley and Z.A.Desai
published by the University of Washington Press,
213. Tarikh-E-Avadh (Hissa Doyam) by Allama
Muhammad Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859-
1932 Isvi) Revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi 1983 A.D
214. Tarikh-I-Daudi of Abdulla 4009/4339
215. Tarikh-I-Firishta by Mohammad Kasim Hindu
216. Tarikh-i-Shahi 3155/2988
217. Tarikhe Feristha by Mahomed Kasim Feristha 3161/2995
218. The Chambers Dictionary (Deluxe Edition) (1993)
published by Allied Chambers (India) Limited
New Delhi
2293/2276, 2294/2277,
219. The Classical Law of India by Robert Lingat 1704/1821
220. The Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry by
Sushil Srivastava, published in 1991 by Vistaar
Publications, New Delhi
473/665, 1350/1484,
1452/1599, 3659/3721,
3660/3721, 3661/3721,
221. The Elementary Principles of Jurisprudence by
G.W. Keeton, II Edition (1949)
222. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI 4290/4743
223. The English Factories in India (1668-1669) by Sir
William Foster
224. The Evolution of the Sikh Community by W.H.
Mc Leod
225. The Hedaya (A Commentary on the Mussulman
226. The Hedaya by Charles Hamilton (edited 1871) 3503/3496
227. The History and Culture of Indian People – The
Vedic Age Vol.-I published by Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan, Mumbai- Sri R.C.Majumdar,
A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar, 6
Edition 1996
228. The History and Culture of the Indian People-
British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance Part
II (Vol. 10) edited by R.C. Majumdar
229. The History and Culture of the Indian People; The 4042/4398
Delhi Sultanate publish by Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan (1
published in 1960, 4
Edition 1990)
forwarded and edited by K.M.Munshi,
R.C.Majumdar, A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar
230. The History of British India by James Mill (Vol.1)
published by Associated Publishing House, New
Delhi, First Published 1817, Second Edition in
1829 and Second Reprint in 1978
231. The History of Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi,
revised by Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri,
published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3225/3114, 3503/3496
232. The History of the Indian Empire by Robert
Montgomery Martin first published in 1983 by
Mayur Publications Delhi
233. The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics
of Eastern India (1838 AD) by Robort Montgomry
Martin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD)
1409/1562, 1411/1564,
1608/1728, 3515/3509

234. The Indian Antiquary A Journal of Oriental
Research by Sir Richard Carnac Temple, Vol.
XXXVII, 1908 published by Swati Publications
Delhi, 1985
235. The Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases
Judicially Interpreted, to which has been added
Statutory Definitions by F. Stroud Second Edition
Vol. 1 (1903)
2219/2223, 2220/2227,
236. The Law Relating to Gifts, Trusts and
Testamentary Dispositions among the
Mahommedans (Tagore Law Lectures-1884) by
Syed Ameer Ali
3222/3113, 3503/3496
237. The Laws of Manu Penguin Classics, Edn 2000 2592/2546, 2606/2554,
238. The Layman's Dictionary of English Law by
Gavin McFarlane (1984), published by Waterlow
Publishers Limited
239. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscription In
The North Western Provinces And Oudh published
by Indological Book House, Varanasi in 1969
240. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In 4326/4783
The North-Western Provinces And Oudh by A.
241. The Mughal Empire edited by Sri R.C. Majumdar 3162/2996
242. The Naradasmrti 2635/2571, 2830/2718
243. The New Cambridge History of India II.3 The
Sikhs of the Punjab by J.S. Grewal
244. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 9 3500/3493
245. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the
English Language (1987), published by Lexicon
Publications, Inc.
1672/1792, 2220/2226,
2293/2274, 2294/2276,
2802/2684, 3372/3306
246. The Philosophy of History by Hegel 4168/4558
247. The Sacred Books Of The east under title ‘The
Satpath - Brahmana’ Part I on its page 215, Edn.
Reprint 2001 Published by Motilal Banarasidass,
Delhi 110007
248. The Sacred Scriptures of India, Swami Chidatman
Jee Maharaj, first published in 2009 by Anmol
Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
4113/4502, 4115/4505,
4117/4506, 4120/4510
249. The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by A. Fuhrer,
first published in 1889, reprinted in 1994
1319/1461, 1320/1461,

250. The Sikh Religion-Its Gurus Sacred Writings and
Authors by Max Arthur Macauliffe
4341/4808, 4346/4814
251. The Sikh World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Sikh
Religion and Culture by Ramesh Chandra Dogra
Urmila Dogra
252. The Song of the Aborable One 4179/4566
253. The Spirit of Islam (A History of the Evolution
and Ideals of Islam with a Life of the Prophet) by
Syed Ameer Ali
3158/2992, 3159/2993,
3160/2994, 3216/3097
254. Travels in the Moghal Empire, AD 1656-1668 by
Francois Bernier
255. Treatise on Hindu Law by Golapchandra Sarkar,
Sastri (6
Edition, published by Easter Law House

256. Tree and Serpent Worship 4240/4611
257. Tri- Vikrama– Nirnaya – Sindhu – Kamalakar
Bhatta, Bombay Edition of 1900 p.264.

258. Upanisads 4123/4511
259. Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad by Smt.
Esha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published
in 1960 printed at the Indian Press (Private) Ltd.,
1434/1582, 2627/2568,
3358/3300, 3530/3528,
260. Uttar Taimoorkalin Bharat Bhag.1 (History of the
Part-Taimoor Sultans of Delhi, Part 1)
261. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXXI 1694/1811
262. Vaisheshik 1753/1867
263. Valmiki Ramayan (translated by Chaturvedi
Dwarka Prasad Sharma)
264. Vedanta 4137/4532
265. Waqiyat-i-Mutaqi written by Rizkulah Mutaqi 3155/2988
266. Wilson's Anglo-Mahomedan Law 3249/3133
267. Words and Phrases by Justice R.P. Sethi 3240/3129
268. Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Vol. 2 (1969),
published by Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.
269. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 12A
(1954), published by St. Paul, Minn. West
Publishing Co.
2220/2228, 2808/2690
270. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 45,
published by St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.
271. Yajnavalkya (1st Century AD –p. 24)) 1707/1827
272. Yajnavalkyasmriti 2636/2571, 3393/3318,
273. Yajurveda 1694/1814, 4114/4503,
274. Yajurveda Samhita 4090/4444, 4298/4750
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion
belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a
very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in
construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by
Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth
place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area
within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises
in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and
Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented
situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were
there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well
as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus
were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to
formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of
Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the
Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early
hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession
of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition
that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree
the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.
Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are
declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in
Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the
idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is
shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third
share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be
made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by
allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.
The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds
within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree
after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui
(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless
this order is modified or vacated earlier.
(Judgment reserved on 26.07.2010)
(Judgment delivered on 30.09.2010)
In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
(Lucknow Bench)
Other Original Suit (O.O.S.) No.1 of 1989
(Regular Suit No.2 of 1950)
Gopal Singh Visharad since deceased and survived by
Rajendra Singh Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others
Other Original Suit No.3 of 1989
(Regular Suit No.26 of 1959)
Nirmohi Akhara and others Vs. Baboo Priya Datt Ram
and others
Other Original Suit No.4 of 1989
(Regular Suit No.12 of 1961)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others Vs.
Gopal Singh Visharad (since deceased) and others
Other Original Suit No.5 of 1989
(Regular Suit No.236 of 1989)
Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.
Rajendra Singh and others
Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.
Description Page
1 Prelude 4
2 Foreword 4
3 Introduction
(i) Suit of 1885 (9)
(ii) Incident of 23.12.1949 (23)
(iii) Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings (36)
4 Pleadings
(I) Suit No.1 (42)
(ii) Suit No.2 (already dismissed) (45)
(iii) Suit No.3 (46)
(iv) Suit No.4 (50)
(v) Written statements in Suit No.4 (59)
(vi) Suit No.5 (69)
5 Important Stages
(i) Consolidation and withdrawal (78)
(ii) Order I Rule 8 and guardian (79)
(iii) Temporary Injunction (81)
(iv) Opening of lock (84)
(v) State Government acquisition (91)
(vi) Demolition (92)
(vii) Central Government acquisition (95)
(viii) Impleadment applications rejected
(ix) Issues (100)
(x) Oral evidence (127)
(xi) Documentary evidence (128)
(xii) A.S.I. Report (129)
6 Findings
(i) Limitation (137)
(ii) Res-judicata/ admissibility of Suit of
1885 (189)
(iii) When and by whom the disputed
structure constructed and its nature (200)
(iv) Whether any temple demolished and
Whether the disputed site was treated/
believed to be birth place (231)
(v) When the idols were placed inside
(vi) When Ram Chabutra etc. came into
existence in outer courtyard (249)
(vii) Possession and title (250)
(viii) Whether the mosque was valid
mosque (255)
(ix) Misc. findings (259)
(x) Relief (262)
7 Epilogue 276
8 Gist of findings 280
9 Operative portion 284
Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards)
where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land
mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane
elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not
propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However
we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life
is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same
Once angels were made to bow before Man.
Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is
one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed?
No one can be a judge in his own cause.
Accordingly, herein follows the judgment for which
the entire country is waiting with bated breath.
Pleadings, issues, evidence oral as well as
documentary, the arguments of learned counsel of all
the parties and cited books gazettes and rulings of Privy
Council, Supreme Court and High Courts have been
mentioned in great detail in the judgment of my
esteemed brother Sudhir Agarwal, J. I am therefore
skipping the details and giving only a bird’s eye view
(Mainly the position till the institution of the first suit on
The principle enunciated in Sections 6, 7 and 9 of
Evidence Act is the reason for this introduction.
In Ayodhya, District Faizabad, there is a premises
consisted of constructed portion and adjoining land
surrounded by a boundary wall (total area about 1500
square yard) used for worshipping purpose(s), which
was undisputedly constructed before 18
Muslims claimed that the entire premises was a mosque
known by the name of Babari Mosque. However, it is
admitted to the Muslims that since middle of 19
Century outer part of the adjoining land was having a
chabootara towards South-East admeasuring 17’ x 21’
(39.6 square yard) on which Hindus were worshipping.
Hindus claim it to be much older. Rival claims of both
the parties over the premises in dispute have been
judicially noticed in 1885. The dispute had earlier also
been noticed in the records of different government
officers since 1855 when a riot took place between
Hindus and Muslims. It is mentioned that on a nearby
temple known by the name of Hanuman Garhi, Muslims
had some claim asserting that to be previously a
mosque. The riot started at Hanuman Garhi and
Muslims were repelled by the Hindus. The retreat and
the fight is stated to have continued till the premises in
dispute whereat several Muslims were killed. They are
said to have been buried around the disputed premises.
After the said riot, a bifurcation was made of the
adjoining land by placing a brick and grill (vertical iron
bars) wall (railing) of 7 or 8 feet height dividing the
adjoining land into two parts, inner courtyard adjacent to
the constructed portion and outer courtyard adjacent to
the boundary wall towards East. The outer Courtyard
also included a flank in between northern side of the
constructed portion and inner courtyard on the one hand
and northern boundary wall on the other hand. The
railing divided the entire premises in two almost equal
parts. The railing/ grill was placed either in 1956 when
Awadh was annexed by the Britishers or immediately
after 1957 war of independence (called mutiny by
Britishers.) This was done with the intention that
Muslims must use the inner portion and Hindus the
outer portion so that chances of quarrel between them
were minimised. Initially there was only one door in the
boundary wall towards East, however in or about 1877
another door was opened towards North by the
government authorities, which was given under the
control and management of Hindus in spite of severe
objection by Muslims. The occasion for opening the
second door was that on two occasions in a year large
number of Hindu devotees gathered to worship at the
Chabootara and in order to control the crowd, it was
essential to have one door for entry and the other for
exit. At what particular place in the northern wall the
door shall be opened was itself a subject of raging
dispute between Hindus and Muslims. Ultimately a
fragile truce was arrived at and it was agreed that the
exact place must be marked by some European Officer.
It was accordingly done.
The spot position is clear from the two maps
prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Vakil under order of
Civil Judge dated 01.04.1950 passed in the first suit.
Muslim parties did not object to the dimensions shown in
the maps, they only objected to the nomenclature given
to different portions by the Commissioner in his report
and the maps e.g. Sita Rasoi, Bhandar, Hanuman Dwar
etc. The objections have been noted in the order dated
20.11.1950 passed in the first suit. The Commissioner
prepared two maps and termed them as Plan-I and
Plan-II. The first was of the premises in dispute and the
other of the premises in dispute and the adjoining
locality. The Plan-I map is on a big page and on the
scale of one inch equal to 10 feet. The map redrawn on
the scale of 0.6 inch equal to 10 feet is reproduced on
page No.10. Plan-II map is given on page No.11. Total
area shown is about 1480 square yards. The portions
inside and outside the railing are about 740 square
yards each.
Suit of 1885:-
Suit No.61/280 of 1885 was filed by Mahanth
Raghubar Das, Mahanth Janam Asthan situate at
Ayodhya against Secretary of State for India in Council.
The suit was instituted on 29.01.1885. Certified copy
of the plaint is Ex. A-22 in the first suit. Mohd.
Ashgar claiming to be Mutawalli of Babari Mosque filed

Reduced Scale 0.6"= 10' or 1" = 16.66'
A.F. =97' E.F. = 140'
B.C.= 9' C.D.= 21'
(A.F. X E.F.) - (B.C. X C.D.) = 1482.5 Sq. Yd.
G.H. = 66' H.J. = 89'
K.L.=21' L.D.= 40'
(G.H. X H.J.) + (K.L. X L.D.) = 746 Sq. Yd.
Exact Dimensions and area has been calculated from the original map with the help of scale. They
are not given in the original map which is on the scale of 1"=10'
impleadment application in the said suit, which was allowed.
Mohd. Ashgar alone mainly contested the suit. Along with
the plaint sketch map was also annexed. The suit was for
permission to construct temple over the Chabutra Janam
Asthan situate in Ayodhya having dimensions of 17’ x 21’
and for restraining the defendant from interfering in the said
exercise of the plaintiff. It was stated in the plaint that Janam
Asthan situate at Ayodhya in the city of Faizabad was a very
old and sacred place of worship and plaintiff was Mahanth
thereof, that on the Chabutra Charan Paduka was affixed
(or lied) and a small temple was kept, which was
worshipped, that chabutra was in possession of the plaintiff
and plaintiff and other (fuqra itinerant monks; c.f. Persian
English Dictionary by F. Steingass) felt great difficulty in
extremely hot, cold and rainy seasons as there was no
building thereupon and if temple was constructed on the
chabutra (platform) no one would suffer any injury, that in
March, 1883, due to certain objections of Muslims, Deputy
Commissioner prohibited the construction of the temple.
Thereafter, in Para-5 of the plaint, it was stated that a well
wisher public man is entitled to construct any type of
building on the land owned and possessed by him and that
a just government was duty bound to protect the said right
of the public and help in obtaining the same and to maintain
the law and order. The map which was annexed along with
the plaint is given on page No.14. (The map was almost
same as the map prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Vakil/
Commissioner in the first suit.) In the map it was clearly
shown that the portion of inner courtyard and the
constructed portion was masjid and in possession of
Mohammedans and outer courtyard including chabutra in
question was shown in possession of Hindus. In the outer
courtyard near the northern gate Sita Rasoi was shown and
towards north of the eastern gate, chhappar (thatch) was
shown. In the said suit, amin was directed to prepare map,
which was accordingly prepared. Certified copy of the same is
Annexure A-25. The said map which substantially tallies with
plaint map of suit of 1885 is also given on page No.15. In this
map hauz ghusal (water tank for bath) is shown in the inner
Certified copy of written statement filed by Mohd.
Ashgar is Ex. A-23. In the written statement, it was
mentioned that Babar constructed mosque and on the
outer door (eastern one), the word ‘Allah’ was inscribed
and thereafter the ownership of any other person did not
remain/ survive hence plaintiff was not owner of the
chabutra or the land beneath that unless the King who got
constructed the mosque or any other King granted
permission for the same and for that no document had
been filed by the plaintiff hence plaintiff was not entitled to
construct the temple. It was further stated in Para-2 that
by merely going inside part of the mosque plaintiff or the
Hindus could not have any right for the reason that often
non Muslims visited Imambaras, mosques and graves for
making offerings and Muslims did not prohibit the same. In
Para-3 of the written statement, it was stated that since
the time of construction of the mosque till 1856, there was
no chabutra and it was constructed in 1857. In Para-4, it
was stated that plaintiff and other Hindus were permitted
to visit the chabutra with certain conditions one of which
was that no new construction should be made
thereupon, hence plaintiff did not become owner. It
was further stated that whenever the plaintiff or
some other Hindus intended to do something new
inside the compound of the mosque the
government stopped them therefrom, and that a
monk had placed a thatch, which was removed. It
was further stated that plaintiff had no right to
construct the temple. However, Mohd. Ashgar, the
subsequently impleaded defendant did not deny
the correctness of the map filed along with the
The trial court/ Sub-Judge, Faizabad decided
the suit on 24.12.1885, certified copy of which is
Ex. A-26 (the Judgment is in Urdu). The Sub-
Judge held that regarding measurement, after
Amin’s report Mohd. Ashgar had no objection
except for view inches. The Sub-Judge further
found that charans (feet) were engrossed on the
chabutra and an idol of Thakurjee was also
installed and these things were being worshipped.
It was also held that from the perusal of the
corrected map of Amin it was clear that in between
mosque and chabutra there was a pucca wall
having grill/ railing which meant that dividing line
between the two was established/ made. It was
also observed that the said fact was amply
substantiated from the gazette which was prepared
before the dispute, which was sub-judice in the
said suit and in the Gazette it was mentioned that
previously both Hindus and Muslims used to offer
prayer and worship at that place, however in 1855
after the fight between Hindus and Muslims, the
grill/ railing wall was constructed to resolve the
dispute so that the Muslims should worship inside the wall
and Hindus outside the wall. In the last paragraph, it was
held that there could not be any question or doubt
regarding the possession and ownership of Hindus over
the chabutra. It was further held that near the chabutra
there was the wall of the mosque and word ‘Allah’ was
inscribed thereupon, hence it was against public policy to
permit construction of temple thereupon as in that
eventuality there would be sound of bells and shankh by
Hindus and as Muslims pass from the same way, it would
lead to great conflict resulting in massacre of thousands of
people. Ultimately, it was held that the Court was of the
opinion that granting permission to construct temple would
amount to laying down foundation of riot between the two
communities. It was also observed that the need of the
hour and the requirement of justice was not to grant the
relief which had been claimed. Reference was made to
the law of contract prohibiting performance of such
contract which is opposed to the public policy (probably
Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872). Ultimately, the suit was
Against the said judgment and decree, Civil Appeal
No.27 of 1886 was filed, which was disposed of by Mr.
F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad on 18.03.1886.
Certified copy of the said judgment is Ex. A-27. On
13.03.1886, the learned District Judge had passed the
order proposing to visit the spot on 17.03.1886. In the
judgment dated 18.03.1886, it is mentioned that the
learned District Judge visited the land in dispute a day
before in the presence of all the parties and he found that
the Masjid built by the Emperor Babar stood on the border
of the town of Ayodhya. Thereafter, it was observed that:
“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have
been built on land specially held sacred by the
Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago it is
too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be
done is to maintain the parties in status quo.”
It was further held that:
“The entrance to the enclosure is under a
gateway which bears the superscription ‘Allah’-
immediately on the left is the platform or chabutra of
masonry occupied by the Hindus. On this is a small
superstructure of wood in the form of a tent. This
chabutra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram
Chandra. In front of the gateway is the entry to the
masonry platform of the masjid. A wall pierced here
and there with railings divides the platform of the
masjid from the enclosure on which stands the
The learned District Judge struck out the words
holding the ownership of Hindus over chabutra from the
judgment of the Sub-Judge as being redundant. In the
said judgment, it was also observed that:
“The true object of the suit was disclosed by B.
Kuccu Mul yesterday when we were standing near
the masjid – namely that the British Government as
no respector of persons was asked through its courts
to remedy an injustice committed by a Mohammadan
Ultimately, appeal was dismissed. Against the said
judgment and decree, Second Civil Appeal No.122 of
1886 was filed, which was dismissed by the Court of
Judicial Commissioner, Oudh on 01.11.1886. Copy of the
said judgment has been annexed along with W.P. No.746
of 1986, which is directed against order dated 01.02.1986
passed in a misc. appeal by D.J. Faizabad directed
against an interim order passed in first suit when it was
pending before Munsif, Faizabad. The said writ petition is
being decided along with these suits. The penultimate
sentence of the judgment in second appeal dated
01.11.1886 is as follows:
“There is nothing whatever on the record to
show that plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the
land in question.”
In the earlier part of the said judgment by Justice, W.
Young, Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, it was observed as
“The matter is simply that the Hindus of Ajodhya want
to create a new temple or marble baldacchino over
the supposed holy spot in Ajodhya said to be the
birthplace of Shri Ram Chandar. Now this spot is
situated within the precinct of the grounds
surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago
owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the Emperor
Babur, who purposely chose this holy spot according
to Hindu legend as the site of his mosque.
The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights
of access to certain spots within the precincts
adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of
years been persistently trying to increase those rights
and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure:
(1) Sita ki Rasoi
(b) Ram Chandar ki Janam Bhumi.
The Executive authorities have persistently
refused these encroachments and absolutely forbid
any alteration of the ‘status quo’.
I think this is a very wise and proper procedure
on their part and I am further of opinion that
the Civil Courts have properly dismissed the
Plaintiff’s claim.”

Incident of 23.12.1949:-
The position continued until 22/23.12.1949. In
the evening (7 p.m.) of 23
December, 1949,
Pandit Sri Ram Deo Dubey, Sub-Inspector
Incharge Thana Ayodhya lodged FIR mentioning
therein that on information received through Mata
Prasad, constable No.7, he (Mr. Dubey) reached
the disputed site at about 7 o'clock in the morning
and learnt that a crowd of 50 or 60 persons had
broken the locks, which were put on the compound
of the Babri Mosque and by climbing the walls
by ladders illegally interfered in the mosque and
had placed the idol of Sri Bhagwan and had written on
the walls inside and outside Sita Ram Ji etc. in red and
yellow. It was also mentioned that constable No.2,
Hansraj, who was on the duty, prohibited them but they
did not pay any heed thereupon, he called the P.A.C.
guard for help, which was there, however by the time,
the guard could reach, the persons had entered the
mosque. It has also been mentioned that thereafter high
officers of the District came to the spot and engaged
themselves in management. It is further mentioned that
afterwards a crowd of 5000 people collected and raised
religious slogans and performed Kirten. It is further
mentioned that Abhay Ram Dass, Ram Shukul Dass,
Sheo Darshan Dass and 50 or 60 other persons had
committed riot, trespassed into the mosque and installed
an idol in the mosque and had desecrated the mosque.
For some time before the incident of 23.12.1949
tension between the two communities had increased
and Muslims were apprehending the incident. It is
evident from the letter of S.P. dated 29.11.1949, letter of
D.M. dated 16.12.1949, diary/ report of the D.M.,
Faizabad of 23.12.1949 and of few subsequent dates.
The report also shows that the idol was placed inside
the mosque at about 4 a.m. on 23.12.1949 and
thereafter under the arrangement made by the D.M.
Bhog and Puja of the idol by two or three pandits was
started and continued.
Under the directions of this Bench, The D.M.
Faizabad brought the original file containing inter alia
the reports regarding the incident of 23.12.1949 of
different officers particularly of Sri K.K.K. Nayar, Deputy
Commissioner/ District Magistrate of Ayodhya. It also
contains some reports regarding riot of 1934 and report
of Special Intelligence Officer, Faizabad of 1961
pertaining to the dispute of two Mahants regarding Puja
etc. in the premises in dispute. By order dated
29.05.2009 passed by this Bench the said file was taken
on record and was directed to be sealed. The relevant
details of the contents of the documents in the file are
given below.
One of the documents in the said file is letter dated
29.11.1949 written by S.P. Faizabad, Sri Kripal Singh
addressed to Sri Nayar, Deputy Commissioner/ D.M.,
Faizabad which is reproduced below:
“My dear Nayar,
I visited the premises of Babri Mosque
and the Janm Asthan in Ajodhya this evening. I
noticed that several ‘Hawan Kunds’ have been
constructed all around the mosque. Some of them
have been built on old constructions already
existing there.
There is a place known as Kuber Qila situated
on a high mound about 2 furlongs from the Janm
Asthan. Several graves have been dismantled
there. Inside an enclosure near the Kuber Qila,
where probably there was a grave, deity of
Mahadeoji has been installed. This place is quite
distant from the place where the police guard is
posted and could not have been noticed by them.
I found bricks and lime also lying near the
Janm Asthan. They have a proposal to construct a
very big Havan Kund where Kirtan and Yagna on
Puranmashi will be performed on a very large
scale. Several thousand Hindus, Bairagis and
Sadhus from outside will also participate. They also
intend to continue the present Kirtan till
Purnamashi. The plan appears to be to surround
the mosque in such a way that entry for the
Muslims will be very difficult and ultimately they
might be forced to abandon the mosque. There is a
strong rumour, that on purnamashi the Hindus will
try to force entry into the mosque with the object of
installing a deity.”
Thereafter, there is the report of Sri K.K.K. Nayar,
D.M. running in scores of pages. The report, which is in
the form of diary mentioning the dates and time starts
from 23.12.1949, 7 a.m. The first entry is that an
ammunition dealer of Faizabad came to the D.M. and
informed him that at about 4 a.m. in the morning an idol
had been installed inside Babari Masjid and some 800
Bairagis were in the Masjid chanting and worshipping. It
is further mentioned that:
“this news came as a great surprise as it had
never been reported or suspected that there was
any move to enter and occupy the Masjid by force.”
The surprise does not appear to be genuine as
there was a clear mention of such a plan in the above
letter of S.P. dated 29.11.1949. Moreover, in the same
records there is a letter by Sri Nayar to Sri Govind
Narayan, Home Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow dated 16.12.1949 in reply to his wireless
message dated 08.12.1949, annexing therewith site
plan showing the position of Babari Masjid and Sri Ram
Chandra Ji Mandir at Janm Bhoomi. In the said letter,
Sri Nayar stated that a magnificent temple at the site
was constructed by Vikramaditya and in 16
Century, it
was demolished by Babar and the mosque known as
Babari Masjid was constructed and in the said process,
building material of the temple was used, and that a long
time before Hindus were again restored to possession of
a site thereinin, i.e. at the corner of two walls. It is further
mentioned that “Muslims who go to the mosque pass in
front of the temple and there has frequently been trouble
over the occasional failure of Muslims to take off their
shoes.” Paras 4, 5 & 6 and part of para-7 of the report
are reproduced below:
“Some time this year probably in October or
November some grave-mounds were partially
destroyed apparently by Bairagis who very keenly
resent Muslim associations with this shrine. On
12.11.49 a police picket was posted at this place.
The picket still continues in augmented strength.
There were since other attempts to destroy
grave-mounds. Four persons were caught and
cases are proceeding against them but for quite
some time now there have been no attempts.
Muslims, mostly of Faizabad have been
exaggerating these happenings and giving
currency to the report that graves are being
demolished systematically on a large scale. This is
an entirely false canard inspired apparently by a
desire to prevent Hindus from securing in this area
possession or rights of a larger character than have
so far been enjoyed. Muslim anxiety on this score
was heightened by the recent Navanh Ramayan
Path, a devotional reading of Ramayan by
thousands of Hindus for nine days at a stretch. This
period covered a Friday on which Muslims who
went to say their prayers at the mosque were
escorted to and from safely by the Police.
As far as I have been able to understand the
situation the Muslims of Ayodhya proper are far
from agitated over this issue with the exception of
one Anisur Rahman who frequently sends frantic
messages giving the impression that the Babri
Masjid and graves are in imminent danger of
Thereafter, it is mentioned that some other
Muslims were inciting general Muslims.
Thereafter, it is mentioned that on 09.12.1949
when Muslims were leaving Babari Masjid after
friday prayers under police help, they shouted
their famous war cry “Allah-O-Akbar” which
created considerable resentment in the minds of
Hindus. Thereafter, it is mentioned that repeated
complaints by Muslims were grossly exaggerated
as the situation was entirely in control and police
picket was functioning efficiently. Thereafter, it
was mentioned that Muslim agitation and
truculence could bring the situation out of control.
The last paragraph stated as follows:
“Lastly I would request that no credence
be given to the false reports carried to
Lucknow and other places from time to time
by Ghulam Husain, Ahmad Beg and persons
under their influence.”
On the one hand in his letter dated
16.12.1949, he requested the State Government
not to give credence to the apprehensions of the
Muslims regarding safety of the mosque and on
the other hand in his diary/ report dated
23.12.1949, he mentioned that the incident came
as a great surprise to him.
Photostat copy of the site plan annexed with
the said letter is given on page No.33.
However, it may be mentioned that the
S.P. Sri Kripal Singh, who had expressed
grave apprehension regarding entry of
Hindus in the mosque for installing a

deity (on full moon which was to fall on 30.11.1949) in
his earlier letter dated 29.11.1949, retracted his steps
and in tune with the D.M. wrote in his letter to the D.I.G.
dated 02.02.1950 that the incident of 23.12.1949 could
not be predicted. Probably he wanted to avoid any
controversy and save his position after realising that
placing of idol inside the mosque was a fait accompli
and almost irreversible.
In the report/ diary of the D.M. it is mentioned that
on 23.12.1949 the crowd was controlled by permitting
two or three persons to offer bhog, i.e. Abhiram Dass,
Ram Shukal Dass and Sudarshan Dass. It was also
mentioned that removal of idol as desired/ directed by
the State Government was not possible and it would
lead to slaughter and would be most inadvisable. In the
entry of 25.12.1949, it is mentioned that Pooja and Bhog
was offered as usual. The noting in the diary/ report of
9.30 a.m. dated 27.12.1949 is that the D.M. outrightly
refused to abide by the direction of the Government to
remove the idol “and that if Government still insisted
that removal should be carried out in the face of these
facts, I would request to replace me by another officer”.
The D.M./ Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad wrote
two letters dated 26
& 27
December, 1949 to Sri
Bhagwan Sahai, Chief Secretary Government of U.P.
Copies of the said letters have been filed by the State
Government in pursuance of orders passed by this
Court on the application of the plaintiffs of the leading
case (Suit No.4) for summoning certain documents from
the State Government and have been marked as
Annexures 66 & 67. In these letters also he insisted that
the incident of 23.12.1949 was unpredictable and
irreversible. He rather castigated the Government for
showing so much interest.
In the report/ diary dated 30.12.1949 it is mentioned
that Chief Secretary visited the spot, he was surrounded
by the crowd which uttered the loud cries of ‘Bhagwan
ka Phatak Khol do.’ It is also mentioned that Chief
Secretary was told by Naga Jamuna Das “that if this
spot would be argued to be different from Janam
Bhoomi, then they were prepared to receive any other
spot for the construction of the Janam Bhoomi temple
which could be proved to be the spot where the lord
was born.”
There is a report of 26
July, 1961 in the said
records by Special Intelligence Officer in which it is
mentioned as follows:
“It is reliably learnt that Baba Ram Lakhan
Sharan gets legal advice in this respect from Sri
K.K.K. Nayar (Ex-D.C. Faizabad) who is his
supporter also.”
The report of 1961 was in relation to the dispute
between different mahants regarding control of Pooja,
which was going on and for receiving the monetary gain
through charawa etc.
Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings:-
On 29
December, 1949, preliminary order under
Section 145, Cr.P.C. was issued by Additional City
Magistrate, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya and simultaneously
attachment order was also passed treating the situation
to be of emergency. The disputed site was directed to
be given in the receivership of Sri Priya Datt Ram,
Chairman, Municipal Board. The complete order is
quoted below:-
“Whereas I, Markendeya Singh, Magistrate
First Class and Additional City Magistrate,
Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, am fully satisfied from
information received from Police sources and from
other credible sources that a dispute between
Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya over the question
of rights of proprietorship and worship in the
building claimed variously as Babari Masjid and
Janam Bhoomi Mandir, situtate at Mohalla Ram Kot
within the local limits of my jurisdiction, is only to
lead to a breach of the peace.
I hereby direct the parties described below
1) Muslims who are bonafide residents of
Ayodhya or who claim rights of proprietorship or
worship in the property in dispute;
2) Hindus who are bonafide residents of
Ahodhya or who claim rights of proprietorship or
worship in the property in dispute;
To appear before me on 17
day of January at
11 A.M. at Ayodhya Police Station in person or by
pleader and put in written statements of their
respective claims with regard to the fact of actual
possession of the subject of dispute.
And the case being one of the emergency I
hereby attach the said buildings pending decision.
The attachment shall be carried out
immediately by Station Officer, Ayodhya Police
Station, who shall then put the attached properties
in the charge of Sri Priya Datt Ram, Chairman
Municipal Board, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya who shall
thereafter be the receiver thereof and shall arrange
for the care of the property in dispute.
The receiver shall submit for approval a
scheme for management of the property in dispute
during attachment, and the cost of management
shall be defrayed by the parties to this dispute in
such proportions as may be fixed from time to time.
This order shall, in the absence of information
regarding the actual names and addresses of the
parties to dispute to be served by publication in:-
1. The English Daily, “The Leader” Allahabad,
2. The Urdu Weekly “Akhtar” Faizabad
3. The Hindi Weekly “Virakta” Ayodhya.
Copies of this order shall also be affixed to the
walls of the buildings in dispute and to the notice
board at Ayodhya Police Station.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court
on this the twenty ninth day of December, 1949 at
At the end of the para beginning with ‘The
attachment’ there was a line which was admittedly
scored off by the Magistrate himself. The Magistrate
admitted it in his reply/ response to the Transfer
Application filed in this Court for transfer of the case
under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate stated that
he scored off the sentence before signing the order as it
was redundant. The original records of proceedings
under Section 145, Cr.P.C. have been summoned in
these suits. The cutting does not bear initials. The
sentence is readable with great difficulty. It is to the
effect that puja darshan shall continue as was being
done at that time (presently).
Sri Priya Datt Ram took charge on 05.01.1950 and
made inventory of the attached properties. Items No.1 to
14 and 16 to 20 relate to movable properties including
idols. Item No.15 relates to building which states the
same to be three-domed building along with courtyard
and boundary wall and eastern boundary is shown as
Chabootara Mandir of Ram Ji under the ownership of
Nirmohi Akhara and courtyard of the same mandir.
Towards north the boundary mentioned is hata chhatti
courtyard and Nirmohi Akhara. The receiver Sri Priya
Datt Ram submitted the scheme of management to the
D.M. (in accordance with preliminary order) stating that
“the most important item of management is the
maintenance of Bhog and puja in the condition in which
it was carried on when I took over charge”.
Muslims admit that since 23.12.1949, they have not
been able to offer the prayers in the mosque
(23.12.1949 was Friday).
According to the Muslims and some Hindu parties
in the suits, the idol of Lord Ram, which was on the
Chabootara in the outer courtyard was placed/
transferred under the central dome of the building.
According to the further case of the Muslims, the idol
was placed on mimbar (pulpit) in the meharab (arch)
under central dome from where on fridays, the Imam
(who leads the congregation prayers) used to read
khutba (Sermon, before friday prayer).
It appears that since 23.12.1949 firstly under the
directions of the executive authorities and thereafter
under the order of the Magistrate passed in
proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. only two or
three Pandits were permitted to go inside the place
where idol was kept to perform religious ceremonies like
bhog and puja etc. and general public was permitted to
have darshan only from beyond the grill-brick wall.
These suits, popularly known as title suits, were
instituted before Civil Judge, Faizabad on 16.01.1950,
17.12.1959, 18.12.961 and 01.07.1989 respectively.
The constructed portion, boundary wall and Ram
Chabootara are no more in existence as they were
demolished by a large crowd of Hindus on 06.12.1992.
After demolition, makeshift structure was constructed by
the same people at the place where till then idol had
been kept and the idol was kept in the said makeshift
structure/ temple.
Pleadings of the Suit:-
Suit No.1:-
The first suit, Other Original Suit (O.O.S.) No.1 of
1989, Regular Suit No.2 of 1950, hereinafter referred to
as Suit No.1 was instituted on 16.01.1950. Sri G.S.
Visharad the plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he was
worshipping the Janam Bhumi, details of which were
given at the end of the plaint, idol of Bhagwan Sri Ram
Chandra Ji and Charan Paduka (foot impression). The
boundaries indicated that in the East there was bhandar
and Chabootara, in the north Sita Rasoi and parti
towards West and South. It presumably related to the
constructed portion and the inner courtyard. It was
further pleaded that for several days due to illness
plaintiff was not going to the disputed place, building/
site for worship and on 14.01.1950 when he went there
for worship and darshan, defendant No.6, i.e. State of
U.P., Lucknow and its employees prevented the
petitioner from going inside where idols of Sri Ram
Chandra and others were placed and that it was done
on the undue insistence of defendants 1 to 5 (all
Muslims residents of Ayodhya, who all have now died
and have not been substituted.) It was also mentioned in
the plaint that the State and its employees, i.e.
respondents No.7 to 9, K.K.K. Naiyar, Deputy
Commissioner, Faizabad, Markandey Singh, Additional
City Magistrate, Faizabad and Ram Kripal Singh, S.P.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful