Babri Masjid Case Ruling Today

[Aslan]

No, Jains are not Hindus

Ok fair enough but then what their affiliation to the dispute.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Can some one tell me/Us that why the land was split 3 ways I understand the hindus and Muslims being the party to it, what about the Jains.
Also are the Jains not hindus and if they are why use their sect and not the religion that they belong to.

Jains are as Hindu as Buddhists, similar but not same. It is not a sect.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Can some one tell me/Us that why the land was split 3 ways I understand the hindus and Muslims being the party to it, what about the Jains.
Also are the Jains not hindus and if they are why use their sect and not the religion that they belong to.

Not sure where the Jains come in the lawsuit. Can someone throw some light on this? I'm sure none of us who are talking here know ANYTHING aboiut the civil suit.

However Jains are NOT Hindu.

 

[KS]

Also are the Jains not hindus and if they are why use their sect and not the religion that they belong to.

Jains are not hindus,They are a different religion though we both share more than 95% of the traditions.

Some Jain member can enlighten us further.

 

[raw@war]

Download the Judgement:

ram janmbhoomi babri masjid jugedment

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Finally a temple will be built for Lord Rama.
-- Jai Sriram.

 

[justanobserver]

Some Jain member can enlighten us further.

I wish I could, but I'm not the pious type (more of the butter-chicken-eating type)

 

[temujin]

It would have been far more fair if the court had given the land to custody of the government for construction of a hospital instead of accepting the belief on religious grounds of Hindus which even could not prove if ram was born there or not.

Pakshaheen, I believe the previous poster was basing his opinion on speculative comments aired on NDTV about the judgement being 'Puchayati' or whatever..

However, what I understand from the summary of the judgement is that-

a) The Sunni Wakf Board's petition claiming the whole of the land has been dismissed due to the principle of limitation i.e. the petition was filed too late

b) the court has decided unanimously that the site has been considered as holy by Hindus from time immemorial and there is archeological evidence to support the existence of a temple underneath the destroyed masjid. Please note that the court has made the distinction between fact and belief, stating that the site is indeed the one that Hindus have BELIEVED for centuried to be the birth place of Ram

c) However, the court has also observed that it is ill equipped to make judements on matters of faith and has recommended a three way split of the land

 

[tyagi]

We have more to worry about than the Ayodhya verdict.Kalmadi just announced that India is ready to bid to host the Olympics

 

[sob]

Gist of findings by the Hon SU Khan

GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.
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
constructed.
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
mosque.
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
Ram.
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.
Order:-
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.

http://rjbm.nic.in/suk.pdf

 

[Aslan]

Not sure where the Jains come in the lawsuit. Can someone throw some light on this? I'm sure none of us who are talking here know ANYTHING aboiut the civil suit.

However Jains are NOT Hindu.

Jains are not hindus,They are a different religion though we both share more than 95% of the traditions.

Some Jain member can enlighten us further.

I understand, but My curiousity is that its actually the first time I am hearing any thing about them being related to the Babri dispute. Does any one have any ideas on how did they get involved in it.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

Why should people rejoice when they are attacked, wronged, stolen from and then thrown the leftovers after 18 years of an uphill struggle.

The Babri masjid was attacked and demolished by a MOB with no court order to back them. This in itself was an illegal act. Before anything else can be discussed or decided, this injustice must be reversed. This court has made a mockery of justice by snatching 2/3rds of the land of the mosque and meting out no punishment on the mob that not only destroyed the mosque but also caused the deaths of 900 people.

If someone did this to your house or your place of worship, would you rejoice? Or is your standard for muslim indians such that you require them to "rejoice" in the injustice being handed out to them, while you expect nothing but unfair dividends to accrue to the perpetrators of this crime.

Breaking down the mosque was wrong, I am not condoning that.

BUT - this case was to decide on the title of the land, it had nothing to do with anything else. All the court is saying is that, it is established based on certain evidence, that even before the mosque came up, Hindus were historically of the belief that this is lord Rama's birthplace. And that this land had significance for them. On the other hand, the mosque which came up, also has a rightful claim since it has been there for hundreds of years, and was erected long back.

Keeping this in mind, would you not say that both the parties have a strong claim to this piece of land?

 

[ambidex]

http://rjbm.nic.in/dv1.pdf

http://rjbm.nic.in/suk.pdf

http://rjbm.nic.in/sa.pdf

http://rjbm.nic.in/dv2.pdf

 

[Kinetic]

Ok fair enough but then what their affiliation to the dispute.

Jains (Nirmohi) claimed that there was also a Jain temple. Actually that land was sacred to many religions for thousand of years.

A 3 Judge Bench at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court today passed the verdict in the 60 year old Ayodhya title suit case. The Bench comprising of Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma heard over 70 counsels in the case.



The main counsels in the title issue are advocate Zafaryab Jilani who is the lead counsel for the Sunni Board who has been fighting this legal battle since its inception and Mahant Bhaskar Das, who represents Nirmohi Akhada, the oldest petitioner in the title suit. Other big names who are involved in the suit at the Supreme Court are Senior Counsels Soli Sorabjee, Krishnan Venugopal among several others.

Ayodhya: Allahabad High Court?s verdict expected any time; Summary of the case so far

 

[sob]

Gist of findings by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal

(Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued)
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 title.
(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 be.
(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.
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.
(From the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal)

http://rjbm.nic.in/sa.pdf