BABRI MASZID

DEMOLITAION CASE.
IN REF. TO D.- THE AFTERMATH OF 1856-7
D.1 RESPONSE TO THE WALL
D.2 PERIOD BETWEEN 1934-1949
PRESENTED BY : -
BACKGROUND.

 The dispute regarding the civil suit was originally between two religious
communities whose origin is as old as the idea of India itself. The dispute is
over a piece of land admeasuring 1500 square yards in the town of Ayodhya.
The property in dispute has immense importance to Hindus and Muslims. The
contention put by the Hindu community that the disputed property is the place
where Lord Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu has was born. The claims of the
Muslim Community, on the other hand, stated that the disputed property is the
place where the first Mughal Emperor, Babur built the historic Babri
Masjid on vacant land.

The background, in this case, is very historical as it expanded the regime of

Mughal Emperors and the British period. In 1528, Mir Baqi, General of Babur
builds a mosque (Babri Masjid) at the site. The first known communal riots
between the Hindu and Muslim communities happened in 1856-1857 in the
vicinity of the structure.
TIMELINE….

•1528
Babri Masjid was constructed by Emperor Babur, through his commander Mir Baqi.
•1856-57
Disputes broke out between Hindus & Muslims in the vicinity of the structure. The colonial
government tried to resolve it and set up a 7-feet long grill-brick wall dividing the structure into
two parts: the inner portion (given for use to the Muslim community) and the outer courtyard
(given for use to the Hindu community).
•1877 
Another door was opened on the northern side of the courtyard and given to the Hindus to
control and manage. 
•January 1885
Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit (“Suit of 1885”) before the Sub- Judge, Faizabad seeking
permission to build a temple on the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard. 
•24 Dec 1885 
The Suit of 1885 was dismissed by the Judge while noting that there was a likelihood of communal
clashes if such permission was granted. However, the Judge observed that the ownership of
Hindus over the Chabutra was undoubted. Subsequently, an appeal was filed against this decision.
CONTINUE…

•18 Mar 1886
The appeal was dismissed by the District Judge. In addition, the District Judge also struck off the remarks made by the
Sub-Judge on the ownership of Hindus over the Chabutra. Subsequently, an appeal was filed against this decision. 
•01 Nov 1886 
The second appeal was dismissed by Judicial Commissioner of Oudh on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove
the title of Hindus to the Chabutra. 
•1934
More disputes broke out between Hindus and Muslims and the domed structure of the mosque was also damaged and
later repaired at the state’s expense. 
•22-23 Dec 1949 
In the night intervening these dates, some miscreants broke open the locks of the mosque and placed idols of Lord Ram
under the central dome of the mosque. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against them.
•29 Dec 1949 
The Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya issued an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1878 (“CrPC of 1878”) declaring that the disputes over the property in question were likely to cause breach of
peace and requiring parties to file written submissions to stake their claims. Simultaneously, an attachment order was
also passed and Priya Datt Ram, the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Faizabad was appointed receiver, till the
adjudication of title was complete. As per the order, only 2-3 pujaris could enter the property to perform pooja whereas
the general public were allowed darshan from outside, beyond the wall.
•05 Jan 1950 
The receiver took custody of the inner courtyard.
 SUIT OF 1885 (INSTITUTED BY MAHANT RAGHUBAR
DAS)
 FACTS: -
 Mahant Raghubar Das instituted a suit in 1885 before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad seeking
a decree for construction of a temple at Ram Chabutra, in the outer courtyard.
Although the judge accepted the claim of ownership and possession of Ram Chabutra,
he dismissed the suit on the ground that if permission is granted, it will cause serious
communal tensions. While hearing the appeal, the District Judge observed that even
though a Masjid had been constructed on a land that was sacred to Hindus, this
construction happened more than 300 years ago, and it was too late in time to
remedy the situation. The District Judge thus, dismissed the appeal and struck off the
observations made by the Sub-Judge about Hindus’ ownership and possession of Ram
Chabutra, on the ground that such an observation had become redundant. A second
appeal made to the Judicial Commissioner; Oudh also failed. It was argued by the
Muslim parties that the outcome of the Suit of 1885 operated as res judicata to the
appeals in question before the Supreme Court.
WHAT IS RES JUDICATA?
It bars the trial of a suit or an issue which has already been decided in a
former suit. Section 11 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 deals with res
judicata.

Conditions:-
 A court of competent jurisdiction must have given the decision in the
former instituted suit.
 The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be same which is
directly or substantially in issue in the former suit.
 The parties should be same in both the suits.
 The court which gave decision in former suit must be a court of
competent jurisdiction.
 The parties in the former suit must have litigated under the same title or
in other words in the same capacity. 
WHAT THE COURT HELD?
WAS THE LAW OF RES JUDICATA ATTRACTED TO THE
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS?
 A plea of res judicata, simply put, is a defense taken by a person sued in a court, saying that
the dispute has already been decided earlier by a competent court, so a re-trial of the same
dispute should not be permitted. If it were permitted, it would lead to endless litigation. In
this case, the plea of res judicata was raised on the ground that the issues substantially in
question in the existing suits were also substantially in question in the Suit of 1885. It was also
contended that an observation that Hindus do not have ownership or possession of Ram
Chabutra would be applicable in the existing dispute. However, the Court refuted these
arguments and held that Mahant Raghubar Das was suing only in a personal capacity seeking
permission only for him to construct a Mandir on Ram Chabutra. It could not be said that the
Mahant was suing in a representative capacity for all Hindus nor were the issues framed or the
reliefs sought same as those in the existing disputes. As a result, the plea of res judicata was
not allowed.
THANK YOU.