Ayodhya Dispute

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors

• Hindu religious denomination.
• It is one of the fourteen akharas
recognized by the Akhil
Bharatiya Akhara Parishad and
belongs to the Vaishnava
sampradaya.
• Waqf is a permanent dedication
of movable or immovable
properties for religious, pious or
charitable purposes as
recognized by Muslim Law, given
by philanthropists.
Allahabad HC three way partition
Parties to the Case
• Gopal Singh Visharad • M Siddiq
represented by Rajendra Singh • Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf
Board
• Nirmohi Akhara
• Mohammad Hashim Ansari (Iqbal
• Deoki Nandan Agarwal Ansari)
• Akhil Bharatiya Hindu • Haji Misbahuddeen
Mahasabha • Haji Phenku(Haji Mahboob
• Mahant Suresh Das Ahmad)
• Farooq Ahmad
• Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam
Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti • Shia Central Board of Waqf
Hindu Community Muslim Community
Hindu Party Muslim Party
Hindu Parties Muslim Parties
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde,
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok
Bhushan and Justice S.A. Nazeer
Suit of Nirmohi Akhara barred by limitation
(fall under Art. 120 limitation act 1908 – 6 years
limitation period)
Land
• At the heart of the title dispute were 2.77 acres of land.
• The judgment begins with the mention of “a dispute between two
religious communities both of whom claim ownership over a piece of
land admeasuring 1,500 square yards in the town of Ayodhya”.
• The disputed land has been granted to the Hindus for the
construction of the temple.
• The Sunni Central Waqf Board has been given 5 acres.
Ram Lalla
• One of the five suits before the Court was in the name of the deity
itself, Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, and the birthplace, Asthan Shri Ram
Janmabhoomi.
• This suit was founded on the claim that the law recognises both the
idol and the birthplace as juridical entities.
• The court did not accept the Janmasthan as a juridical entity.
• It awarded the title of the land to Ram Lalla, to be held by the Trust
that the Court has sought to be set up within three months.
Janamsthan as a juridical Entity?
• The bench held that such a conferment would immunise the property
from competing title claims, as well as render laws that could
meaningfully adjudicate upon civil suits, such as limitation,
ownership, possession and division, ineffective.
• The disputed site is a site of religious significance, but that itself is not
sufficient to confer juridical personality on the land
Trust
• The court has directed the Centre to formulate within three months a
scheme to set up a “Trust with a Board of Trustees or any other
appropriate body” under The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya
Act, 1993, with powers “including the construction of a temple”.

• The court has used its powers under Article 142 to direct that
“appropriate representation may be given in the Trust… to the
Nirmohi Akhara”.
Outer Courtyard:
• The wall erected by the British after Hindu-Muslim riots in 1856-57 divided
the disputed premises into two parts: inner portion to be used by Muslims,
and the outer courtyard to be used by Hindus.
• The Supreme Court relied on evidence pointing to exclusive ownership of
the outer courtyard by Hindus, but observed that the possession of the
inner portion (where the domes stood) by Muslims was always contested
by Hindus.
• It also noted that the wall and the railing (around the disputed structure of
the mosque) came about only to prevent a conflagration, and did not
suggest any division of the site.
• The court considered the inner portion and the outer courtyard as a
composite whole, paving the way for a judgment in favour of a temple.
Why did the Muslim parties claim the right of
adverse possession?
• The plea was based on the assumption that even if a Hindu temple
had existed at the site on which the Babri Masjid was constructed
about 500 years ago, the Muslims had “perfected” their title by
adverse possession by “long, exclusive and continuous possession”,
because of which the title of the Hindu parties, if any, stood
extinguished.
What was the counter-argument to that by
Hindu Parties?
• The Hindu parties argued that the disputed property was a juristic
person, which cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
• It was argued that even if the image of the idol is broken, a deity is
immortal — and thus the construction of the mosque on the land did
not take away from its character as a deity.
Why did Muslims parties fail to establish their
case?
• Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India
• The Bench quoted the 2004 judgment:
• A person who claims adverse possession should show:
(a) on what date he came into possession,
(b) what was the nature of his possession,
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party
(d) how long his possession has continued, and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
• Onus on Muslims to prove with facts that the possession was
undisturbed.
• Besides being unable to prove possession between 1528 and 1860,
the Muslims also failed to establish that the possession was
undisturbed.

• The Bench reached its conclusion after Hindus were able to establish
that the outer courtyard was in their possession after the British
erected a railing around the Babri Masjid in 1858.