News By/Courtesy: Pushpit Singh | 10 Nov 2019 10:31am IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board in 1961 is time barred. - Arguments by Ramlalla, Nirmohi Akhara etc.
  • Mere belief of devotees cannot confer title over the disputed land. References in ancient scriptures will also not give title. - Arguments by Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim appellants
  • 'Once a mosque always a mosque' - there is no concept of abandoning of mosque. Muslims stopped namaz in the mosque only after 1950, when the property was attached by the District Magistrate.

The key arguments made by the parties in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid title dispute case are summarized below:

Arguments by Ramlalla, Nirmohi Akhara etc.

The key arguments are:

  • The main Hindu parties in the case were Ramlalla Virajman (the deity), Nirmohi Akhara and the legal representatives of Gopal Singh Visharad, a believer who filed a suit in 1950 seeking right of worship in the disputed land.
  • The main points urged by Senior Advocates K Parasaran and C S Vaidyanathan on behalf of the deity are :
  • The entire disputed area of 2.77 acres is the Janmasthan, the birthplace of Lord Ram.
  • Janmasthan has a juridical personality of its own.
  • It is the centuries old belief of millions of Hindus that Lord Ram's spirit resides in the Janmasthan. The faith of the devotees is itself the evidence that the Janmasthan is the birthplace of Lord Ram.
  • There cannot be adverse possession against, or joint possession of Janmasthan, which by itself is a juridical personality. Janmasthan is indivisible.
  • Claim of possession can be based on ancient custom, religious practices and beliefs.
  • Idol is not necessary for conferring juristic personality. In Hindu belief, objects other than idols, such as sun, rivers, trees etc., are given divinity. Therefore, a land can be given divinity in Hindu faith.
  • The Archaeological Survey of India report shows that the Masjid was built on a land over a massive structure which dated back to 2nd century BC.
  • ASI report showed that there were images of humans and animals inside the structure. Islamic faith prohibits depiction of such images in a mosque. So Babri Masjid cannot be regarded as a mosque as per Islamic tenets.
  • Babri Masjid cannot be regarded as a mosque built in accordance with the tenets of Islamic law, which prohibits construction of mosque by demolishing other structures.
  • Ancient texts and scriptures refer to Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram. There is unshakeable faith of devotees that it is the Janmasthan.That by itself is the greatest evidence.
  • Ayodhya, being the birthplace of Lord Ram, holds particular significance for Hindus. They believe that visiting the Janmasthan will help them attain moksha.
  • Babri Masjid ceased to be a mosque as Muslims had ceased to offer namaz.
  • The decree in 1855 suit does not operate as res judicata as the plaintiff Mahant Raghubar Das did not represent entire Hindus. Also, the claim in that suit was confined to the outer courtyard and chabuthara.
  • The suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board in 1961 is time barred.

Arguments by Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim appellants

The key arguments are:

  • Mere belief of devotees cannot confer title over the disputed land. References in ancient scriptures will also not give title.
  • Juristic personality cannot be ascribed to a thing, if there is no object of manifestation of belief, such as an idol. Therefore, a piece of land cannot be given juristic personality without an object of manifestation of belief.
  • Hindus' claim is barred by res judicata as the suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in 1855 was dismissed.
  • Hindus were worshiping only in the outer courtyard. The idols were placed under the central dome of the mosque only in December 1949.
  • The claim of possession by Hindu parties is based on a wrongful act of trespass committed on December 23, 1949, when idols were placed inside the mosque. Right of possession cannot be based on trespass.
  • It is not possible to assess the legality of Babur's acts after several centuries.
  • Court cannot enter into theological examination of the legality of construction of Babri Masjid as per Islamic law.
  • Legality of mosque construction should be based on historical facts and not theology.
  • ASI report has several contradictions. It is only an opinion. It does not conclusively state that Masjid was built over a temple.
  • In the 1950 suits, Hindus only claimed the right to worship, and not title. Title is claimed only in the belated suit filed in 1989 by the deity.
  • 'Once a mosque always a mosque' - there is no concept of abandoning of mosque. Muslims stopped namaz in the mosque only after 1950, when the property was attached by the District Magistrate.

 

Section Editor: Prithvijit Mukherjee | 11 Nov 2019 23:12pm IST


Tags : #Supreme Court of India ; #Ayodhya Verdict

Latest News







Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.