WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

[Seeking review of the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil
Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010.]

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. … REVIEW PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS. ETC. ETC. … RESPONDENTS

WITH
I. A. No. of 2019 : Application for permission to file lengthy List of
Dates.

AND WITH
I. A. No. of 2019 : Application for exemption from filing the typed
copy of the impugned judgment and order
passed by this Hon’ble Court dated November
9, 2019 and also the judgment and order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated September
30, 2010 and the relevant documents which are
already on record before this Hon’ble Court.

AND WITH
I. A. No. of 2019 : Application for Stay.

PAPER BOOK
(Please see index inside)

FILED BY: -
EJAZ MAQBOOL, ADVOCATE FOR THE REVIEW PETITIONER
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars of Document Page No. of part to Remarks

which it belongs

Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1. Court Fees

2. Office Report on Limitation A A

3. Listing Proforma A1 - A2 A1 - A2

4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3

5. Index of Record of A-4

Proceedings

6. Limitation Report prepared A-5

by the Registry

7. Defect List A-6

8. Note Sheet NS1 to ..

9. Synopsis and List of Dates B - HHH

10. Review Petition with Affidavit. 1 - 95

11. ANNEXURE P-1

A copy of the impugned Please
judgment and final order see the
dated November 9, 2019 book in a
passed by this Hon’ble Court separate
rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. volume
10866-10867 of 2010 2019 (15)
reported in 2019 (15) SCALE SCALE 1
1.

12. I.A. NO. _____ OF 2019

Application for permission to 96 - 97
file lengthy List of Dates.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13. I.A. NO. _____ OF 2019

Application for exemption
from filing the typed copy of
the impugned judgment and
order passed by this Hon’ble
Court dated November 9,
2019 and also the judgment
and order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of 98 - 101
Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench dated
September 30, 2010 and the
relevant documents which
are already on record before
this Hon’ble Court.

14. ANNEXURE P-2

A copy of the List of
Pleadings/Documents on 102 - 118
record before this Hon’ble
Court in the Civil Appeals.

15. ANNEXURE P-3

A copy of the List of A series
documents which were
tendered during the course of 119 - 139
the final hearing by the Senior
Advocates/Advocates.

16. I.A. NO. _____ OF 2019

Application for Stay. 140 - 142

17. ANNEXURE P-4

A copy of the order passed by
this Hon’ble Court dated May 143 - 152
9, 2011 in Civil Appeal Nos.
10866-10867 of 2010.

18. F/M 153

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. … REVIEW PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS. ETC. ETC. … RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Review Petition is/are within time.

2. The Review Petition is barred by time and there is delay of _____

days in filing the same against the order/judgment dated

09.11.2019 and Review Petition for Condonation of ______ days

delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of _______ day in refilling the Review Petition and

Review Petition for Condonation of _______ days delay in

refilling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
New Delhi
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

A1
LISTING PROFORMA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SECTION - (III-A)

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

Central Act: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Sections: Sections 96, 109, 151, of the CPC

Central Rule: NA

Rule No(s): NA

State Act: NA

Section : NA

State Rule : NA

Rule No(s) : NA

Impugned Interim order: (Date) NA

Impugned Final Order/Decree : (Date) – 09.11.2019

High Court : - NA

Names of Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde,
Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan &
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Tribunal/Authority : NA

1. Nature of matter : – Civil matter

2. (a) Petitioner : – M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs.

(b) e-mail ID: – NA

(c) Mobile phone number: – NA

3. (a) Respondent No. 1: – Mahant Suresh Das

(b) e-mail ID: – NA

(c) Mobile phone number: – NA

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

A2
4. (a) Main category classification: 18 – Ordinary Civil Matter
(b) Sub classification: 1807 – Others

5. Not to be listed before: – NA

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter with citation, if any, & case details: Civil Appeal
Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

(b) Similar pending matter with case details: – No Similar matter is pending

7. Criminal Matters:–

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: ❑ Yes ❑ No

(b) FIR No. NA Date: NA

(c) Police Station: – NA

(d) Sentence Awarded: – NA
(e) Period of sentence undergone including period of Detention/Custody
Undergone: NA

8. Land Acquisition Matters: –

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: – NA

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: – NA
(c) Date of Section 17 notification: – NA

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: – NA

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):

❑Senior citizen > 65 years ❑ SC/ST ❑ Woman/child ❑ Disabled
❑ Legal Aid case ❑ In custody NA

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Review Petitioner
Code No.: 180
New Delhi E-mail ID:- emaqbool@gmail.com
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

B
SYNOPSIS

The Review Petitioner above named is filing the present Review Petition in

this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India seeking

review of the judgment and order dated November 9, 2019 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010. By virtue of the

impugned judgment, this Hon’ble Court has effectively granted a mandamus

to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said

place. Further though in the impugned judgment, this Hon’ble Court has

acknowledged few of the several illegalities committed by the Hindu Parties,

particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949

(desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid),

however, this Hon’ble Court has proceeded to condone those very illegal

acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its

claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts. Consequently, this Hon’ble

Court has disregarded the settled legal principle of ex dolo malo non oritur

actio by lending its aid to a party which based its cause of action upon an

illegal act. Further, this Hon’ble Court has, in an attempt to balance the

reliefs between the parties, while condoning illegalities of the Hindu parties,

has allotted alternate land admeasuring 5 acres to the Muslim parties, which

was neither pleaded nor prayed for by the Muslim parties.

The Review Petitioner is conscious of the sensitive nature of the issue and

understands the need to put a quietus to the issue in dispute so as to

maintain peace and harmony in our country, however, it is submitted that

there can be no peace without justice. In this regard, a poignant passage

written by M. Cherif Bassiouni entitled as Justice and Peace: The

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

C
Importance of Choosing Accountability over Realpolitik published in 35 Case

W. Res. J. Int'l L. 191 (2003) bears reference: -

“Peace…. is the restoration of justice, and the use of law to mediate

and resolve intersocial and inter-personal discord. The pursuit of

justice and accountability fulfills fundamental human needs and

expresses key values necessary for the prevention and deterrence of

future conflicts. For this reason, sacrificing justice and accountability

for the immediacy of realpolitik represents a short-term vision of

expediency over more enduring human values.”

For the sake of clarity, it must be noted that the Review Petitioner is not

challenging the entire the judgment and is not filing the present Review

Petition to challenge the following findings:-

(i) Suit 3 is barred by limitation.

(ii) Plaintiff No. 2 in Suit 5 does not have juristic personality.

(iii) Method of offering worship unique to one religion cannot result in

conferral of an absolute title to the parties from one religion over

parties from another religion.

(iv) Deity is not a perpetual minor for the purposes of limitation.

(v) Vishnu Hari Inscriptions were not recovered from the disputed site.

(vi) Suit 4 is not barred by limitation.

(vii) Courts cannot correct Historical wrongs.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

D
(viii) Acts subsequent to the annexation of Oudh in 1856 form the

continued basis of the legal rights of the parties in the present suits

and only these acts need to be evaluated for the purposes of the

present dispute.

(ix) There is nothing to explain the intervening period of nearly 4 centuries

between the underlying structure of 12th Century (as per the ASI) and

the construction of the Babri Masjid.

(x) No evidence that the preexisting structure was demolished to

construct the Babri Mosque.

(xi) A finding on title cannot be based on archeological findings.

(xii) When there is a dispute regarding the title and possession between

the parties, historical accounts (i.e. the accounts of travelers and

gazetteers) cannot be regarded as conclusive. The accounts of

travelers and gaetters must be read with caution.

(xiii) The acts of the Hindu parties in 1934 (damaging the domes of the

Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992

(demolition of the Babri Masjid) constituted a serious violation of the

rule of law.

(xiv) The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1993 in instrisically

related to the obligations of a secular state. It reflects the commitment

of India to the equality of all religions.

Despite the above findings, it is submitted that the impugned judgment

suffers from errors apparent on record and warrants a review under Article

137 of the Constitution of India. The following are apparent errors which
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

E
warrant the Review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this

Hon’ble Court reported in 2019 (15) SCALE 1: -

(i) This Hon’ble Court erred in granting a relief which virtually amounts to

a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid.

(ii) This Hon’ble Court erred in rewarding the crimes committed in 1934,

1949 and 1992, by giving title to the Hindu parties, when it had already

ruled that the said acts were illegal.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the basic principle that no

person can derive benefit out of an illegality while granting title to the

Hindu parties.

(iv) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the settled principle of law

that a tainted cause of action cannot be sustained or decreed in a civil

suit.

(v) This Hon’ble Court erred in wrongly applying Article 142 of the

Constitution as doing complete justice or restituting the illegality could

only be done by directing the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.

(vi) This Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by elevating a mere

look at the central dome by the Hindu parties to a claim of possessory

title.

(vii) This Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by not appreciating

that the structure in question had always been a mosque and had

been in exclusive possession of the Muslims.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

F
(viii) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the rule of presumption under

Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 on the question of namaaz in

the Babri Masjid between 1528-1856.

(ix) This Hon’ble Court committed grave error by elevating the mere

prescriptive rights of the Hindu parties, which were settled as far back

as in 1886, to those of possessory title.

(x) This Hon’ble Court erred in entertaining Suit No. 5 of 1989, which was

based on mere ‘impatience’, which can never be a valid cause of

action for any lis.

(xi) This Hon’ble Court erred in relying on travelers’ accounts and

archaeological findings in order to decide issues of title, despite noting

that travelers accounts were not conclusive and archaeological

findings could not be the basis of deciding a title dispute. Further,

despite noting that only the facts after the annexation of Oudh in 1856

were to be considered for adjudicating the present dispute, this

Hon’ble Court proceeded to rely upon the facts prior to 1856.

(xii) This Hon’ble Court erred in equating wanton acts of destruction and

trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of assertion of claim

over the disputed site.

(xiii) This Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the Babri mosque

was a Waqf property.

(xiv) This Hon’ble Court erred in unevenly appreciating evidence and giving

precedence to oral testimonies of the Hindu parties vis a vis the

contemporary documentary evidence of the Muslim parties, which

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

G
resulted in incorrect application of doctrine of preponderance of

probabilities.

Hence, the present Review Petition.

LIST OF DATES

1528 A Masjid commonly known as Babri Masjid was

constructed under the orders of Emperor Babur in

1528. Since its construction the Muslim community

started offering prayers at the said Mosque which

continued from the time it was built and the last Friday

prayers were offered on 22.12.1949. The land

adjoining the Babri Masjid on three sides was an

ancient Muslim graveyard. (Please see Paras 53-68,

at Pages 67-76, 2019 (15) SCALE 1). The Review

Petitioner is giving all references of the impugned

judgment from the SCALE citation.

1857 From 1528 to 1857 there is no whisper and/or demand

of any place called Sri Ram’s birthplace within the

precincts of Babri Masjid. For the first time a Chabutra

was illegally constructed within the boundary but

outside the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid.

(Please see Para 46 at Page 58)

28.11.1858 S.O. Sheetal Dubey filed an application dated

November 28, 1858, revealing that one Mr. Nihang

Singh Faqir Khalsa resident of Punjab, organized

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

H
Hawan and Puja of Guru Govind Singh and erected a

Symbol of Sri Bhagwan within the premises of the

Masjid. It was requested that action, as deemed

necessary, maybe taken. (Please see Para 46(i) at

Page 58)

30.11.1858 Syed Mohammad, Khateeb and Moazzin of the Babri

Masjid, lodged a Complaint being Case No. 884 to

Station House Officer about installation of a Nishan by

a Nihang Fakir and requested for its removal thereof.

Moreover, Mohammad Asghar, Mutawalli of the Babri

Masjid complained that an earthen Chabutra and a

symbol of idol was made by the Fakir and adjacent to

that a ditch was dug and fire was lit for puja and ‘Ram’

was written by him with coal within the Masjid

Compound. It was further complained that since the

Babri Masjid is the place of offering Namaz by

Muslims, if Puja is held at the same place, it would lead

to communal clash. (Please see Para 46(ii) at Page

58)

30.11.1858 An order was passed, pursuant to which Sheetal

Dubey, Thanedar visited the disputed premises and

informed Nihang Faqir about the order but he replied

that the entire place is of Nirankar and the government

of the country should impart justice. (Please see Para

46(iii) at Page 59)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

I
06.12.1858 A Report was submitted by Sheetal Dubey Thanedar

Oudh recording the presence of Faqir. (Please see

Para 46(iv) at Page 59)

09.04.1860 An application was made by Mohammadi Shah

seeking postponement of the grant of a lease in

respect of village Ramkot until a decision was taken

on whether the land is Nazul land. (Please see Para

46(v) at Page 59)

05.11.1860 An application was filed by Mir Rajab Ali in Case No.

223. The application sought the relief that the newly

constructed Chabootra in the graveyard, adjacent to

Babri Masjid be demolished and a bond be executed

by the opposite parties that they will not interfere in the

masjid properties and will not blow conch at the time

of Azan. (Please see Para 46(vi), (vii) & (ix) at Pages

59-60)

03.04.1877 Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad granted permission

to Hindus to open a new door in the northern outer wall

of the disputed building.

Memo of Appeal No. 56 was filed by Syed Mohd.

Asghar Ali being Appeal No. 56 before the

Commissioner Faizabad against the Order dated April

3, 1877 by Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, whereby

he had granted permission to Hindus to open a new

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

J
door in the northern outer wall of the disputed building.

It was complained that the wall being that of the

Mosque, this alteration could not be allowed to be

made on behest of the Hindus. It was further stated

that when the appellant himself had requested that he

be permitted to open the said door on his own

expenses and was ready & willing to open the said

door, in such circumstances, the defendants-

belonging to other religion could not have been

accorded permission to construct the door. (Please

see Para 46(viii) & (ix) at Page 59)

14.05.1877 Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Deputy

Commissioner, who in his report stated that if the other

door was not opened then human life would be

endangered as there was great rush.

13.12.1877 Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on the ground

that opening of the outer door was in the interests of

‘public safety’.

22.10.1882 Plaint of Suit No. 1374/943 of 1882 filed by Mohd.

Asghar against Raghubar Das entitled as Mohd.

Asghar v. Raghubar Das Mahant and Nirmohi Akhara

claiming rent for use of Chabutara and Takht situated

near the door of Babri Masjid Oudh and for organizing

Kartik Mela at the occasion of Ram Navami for the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

K
period of 1881-1882 AD. (1288 and 1289 Fasli).

(Please see Para 46(x) at Page 60)

18.06.1883 Subsequently, the Learned Court of the Sub Judge,

Faizabad was pleased to dismiss Suit No. 1374/943 of

1882. Though the Suit was dismissed, Mohd. Asghar’s

capacity as a mutawalli of the Babri Mosque was not

challenged.

29.01.1885 A suit being Suit No. RS 61/280 of 1885 was filed by

one Mahanth Raghubar Das, Mahanth Janam Asthan

against Secretary of State for India in Council, seeking

permission to construct temple over the Chabutra

admeasuring 17’ * 21’ Janam Asthan situated in

Ayodhya and for restraining the defendant from

interfering in the said exercise of the Plaintiff. In the

map annexed to the Plaint it was clearly shown that

the portion of inner Courtyard and the constructed

portion was the Masjid and was in possession of the

Muslims.

In the aforesaid suit a sketch map was filed along with

the plaint wherein the building at the western side of

Chabutra 17ft/21ft was admitted to be Masjid and was

shown as such. Therefore, the existence of Babri

Masjid was admitted by the said Plaintiff. (Please see

Para 46(xii) at Page 60)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

L
6.12.1885 The Court of Faizabad in Suit No.61/280 of 1885

appointed Gopal Sahai Amin’s Commission and

directed him to prepare a map of the site by conducting

spot inspection and submit a report. Accordingly, a

report dated December 6, 1885 was submitted by that

Commission alongwith a map of the disputed site. In

this Map also, the Masjid was specifically shown in the

western side of the Chabutra (platform).

22.12.1885 Written statement was filed by Mohd. Asghar

(Mutawalli of Babri Masjid) in Suit No. 61/280 of 1885,

entitled as Mahant Raghubir Das v. Secretary of State

stating that it was the emperor Babar who got

constructed the said Babri Masjid and above the door

of the boundary of the Babri Masjid the word ALLAH

was inscribed. It was submitted therein that mere

passage inside the courtyard of the Babri Masjid by

plaintiff could not create rights in his favour. It was

further submitted that since the construction of the

Masjid till 1856 no Chabootra was in existence at its

place and it came to be built in the year 1857, wherein

the Muslims opposed the construction of Chabootra

and filed a suit, wherein order for digging of Chabootra

was issued.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

M
It was also stated that the limitation had expired, as is

evident from the Order dated February 23, 1957.

(Please see Para 46(xii) at Page 60)

24.12.1885 The Sub-Judge rejected the prayer of construction of

temple at the Chabutara. The following observations

are relevant:-

i. Muslims were praying inside in the Masjid and

the Hindus were praying outside at the

Chabutara. Between the Masjid and Chabootra

is well built wall with railings.

ii. Before this a controversy had arisen both

Hindus and Muslims were worshipping in the

place and therefore in 1855, a wall in the form

of railing was erected to avoid controversy, so

that Muslims worship inside it and Hindus

worship outside it.

iii. It was erroneously recorded that Chabutara was

in the possession of the Plaintiffs and belonged

to Hindus. However, this finding was set aside

in the appeal.

iv. It is further relevant to note that this Judgment

records the written proofs submitted by the

Plaintiff and notes only the following:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

N
• Copy of the selection of Gazetteer of Avadh

State page 7 printed by the order of the

Government, May

• Journal of the Asiatic Society relating to the

translation of Ayodhya Mahant.

(Please see Para 46(xii) at Page 60)

18.03.1886 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and judgement dated

24.12.1885, Mahant Raghubar Dass filed an appeal

being Civil Appeal No. 27/1886 before the District

Judge, Faizabad which was dismissed by the Learned

District Judge, vide Judgment and Decree dated March

18, 1886 and it was held inter alia:

“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

chabutra”.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

O
Further, the Decree dated March 18, 1886 in Civil

Appeal No. 27/85 also held the following:

“ …It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed

that the remarks of the sub-judge granted on the

judgments of this Court declaring right of

property to vest in Plaintiff be cancelled and the

cost of this appeal amounting to Rs. 12/5 as

noted below are to be apid by the Plaintiff

excepting 16/…..”

(Please see Para 46(xii) at Page 60)

01.11.1886 Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of Civil Appeal

No.27/1886 vide Order dated March 18, 1886, the

Plaintiff therein namely Mahant Raghubar Dass filed

Second appeal being Second Appeal No. 122/1886

before the Judicial Commissioner, Oudh which was

dismissed vide Order dated November 1, 1886 passed

by the Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, wherein it was

held inter alia, as under:-

“The matter is simply that the Hindus of Ajodhya

want to erect a new temple of marble over the

supposed holy spot in Ayodhya said to be the

birth place of Shri Ram Chander. Now this spot

is situated within the precincts of the grounds

surrounding a Babri Masjid constructed some

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

P
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 Babri Masjid.

The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights

of access to certain spots within the precincts

adjoining the Babri Masjid and they have for a

series of years been persistently tying to

increase those rights and to erect buildings on

two spots in the enclosure:

(1) Sita Ki Rasoi

(2) Ram Chander Ki Janam Bhoomi.

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.…

There is nothing whatever on the record to show

that the plaintiff is in any sense, the proprietor of

the land, in question”.

(Please see Para 46(xii) at Page 60)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Q
1934 In 1934, due to communal riots, the domes of the

disputed structure and its substantial part was

destroyed. However, it was renovated at the cost of the

British Government through a Muslim Thekedar

(Contractor). (Please see Para 47 at Page 41)

27.03.1934 An Application was moved by Mohd. Zaki and others

for compensation of the losses caused in the riot held

on March 27,1934. In this application it was mentioned

that:-

➢ The Bairagis of Ayodhya and Hindu people

attacked the Babri Masjid intentionally and have

caused great damage.

➢ The repair of the masjid will require a huge sum of

money.

➢ It was therefore prayed that the estimated cost of

repairs, i.e. Rs. 15000 be recovered from the

Bairagis and other Hindu people of Ayodhya as per

Section 15 of the Police Act,1861

6.10.1934 The Dy. Commissioner Faizabad dated 6.10.1934

allowed the aforesaid amount of compensation to be

paid for damages to the Babri Mosque subject to any

other objections.

22.12.1934 Thereafter on 22.12.1934, Notice was published by

District Magistrate, Faizabad with respect to fine

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

R
imposed under Section 15A(2) of the Police Act and for

its realization from the Hindu resident of Ayodhya.

12.05.1934 Meanwhile, vide the Order dated May 12, 1934 the

Mohammadans were permitted to start the work of

cleaning of Babri Mosque from Monday i.e. May 14,

1934, so that it could be used for religious purposes.

26.02.1944 U.P. Gazette dated February 26, 1944 showed the

Babri Mosque in the list of Waqf properties.

19.03.1949 Agreement was entered into by Panchas of Nirmohi

Akhara laying down the constitution, functioning etc. of

Nirmohi Akhara and was registered in Sub Registrar’s

Office. (Please see Para 48 at Page 62)

12.11.1949 Word got around that some unlawful elements would

attack the controversial building that is Babri Masjid,

the district officers were informed who increased the

number of Guards on the spot who began locking the

Masjid after every Namaz. (Please see Para 49(i) at

Page 62)

29.11.1949 The Superintendent of Police, Faizabad informed the

Deputy Commissioner Shri KK Nayar that:

“…there is a strong rumour that on puranmashi

the Hindus will try to force entry into the Babri

Masjid with the object of installing a deity...”

(Please see Para 49(ii) at Page 62)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

S
10.12.1949 Mohd. Ibrahim, Waqf Inspector submitted a report

detailing that Numberdar was the Mutawalli and that

Javed Hussain’s name was proposed as the

Mutawalli. It was further stated Muslims were sought

to be harassed by Hindus but the prayers continued at

the Masjid. (Please see Para 49(iii) at Page 62)

16.12.1949 Shri KK Nayar (Deputy Commissioner & D.M.

Faizabad) sent letter addressed to the Govind

Narayan (Home Secretary, Government of Uttar

Pradesh) dated December 16, 1949 wherein he stated

that a magnificent temple at the site was constructed

by Vikaramaditya in 16th Century and was demolished

by Babur and the mosque known as Babri 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

therein i.e. at the corner of two walls. It was further

mentioned that Muslims who go to the mosque pass in

front of the temple an there has frequently been

troubles over the occasional failure of the Muslims to

take off their shoes. Lastly, he requested the State

Government to not give credence to the

apprehensions of the Muslims regarding safety of the

Babri mosque. (Please see Para 49(iv) at Page 63)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

T
22/23.12.1949 As feared by the Superintendent of Police, Faizabad -

Sri Kripal Singh (which is evident from his letter dated

November 29,1949), on the intervening night of

December 22/23, 1949, around 50-60 members of the

Hindu Community trespassed into the Babri Masjid and

placed idols below the Central Dome of the Babri

Masjid.

After the said incident, of the night of December 22/23,

1949, Pandit Sri Ram Deo Dubey, Sub-Inspector In-

charge, Thana Ayodhya was informed about the

incident by Mata Prasad constable and then he had

himself visited the site and lodged an FIR that in the

intervening night of December 22-23,1949, a crowd of

50-60 persons had broken the locks of the compound

of Babri Mosque and by climbing the walls by ladders

illegally entered in the Mosque and had placed the idol

of Sri Bhagwan and had written various slogans such

as Sita Ram Ji etc. on the walls, inside and outside.

This FIR has been marked as Exhibit 51 in OOS No. 4

of 1989. (Please see Para 49(v) at Page 63)

25.12.1949 KK Nayar recorded that Puja and Bhog were being

offered as usual. (Please see Para 49(vi) at Page 63)

26.12.1949 On December 26, 1949, after the desecration of the

mosque on the intervening night of December 22/23,

1949, Shri K.K. Nayar, D.M. wrote to Bhagawan Sahai

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

U
(Chief Secretary Government of U.P.) noting that the

news of desecration 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. It is

submitted that in view of the previous communications,

this surprise did not appear to be genuine.

Further, in the same letter, Shri K.K. Nayar refused to

carry out the orders of the Government to have the

idols removed from the mosque and stated that if the

government still insisted that the removal should be

carried out he would request that he be replaced by

another officer.

27.12.1949 Subsequently on December 27, 1949, Shri K.K. Nayar

again wrote to Shri Bhagwan Sahai stating that he had

been informed by the Commissioner of the outline of a

scheme for removing the idol from the mosque

surreptitiously to Janambhoomi Temple, outside the

mosque. He stated in his letter that he did not agree

with the said idea. He further stated that:-

➢ He would be unable to find any Hindu, let alone a

qualified priest who will be prepared on any

inducement to undertake the removal of the idol.

➢ The installation of the idol in the mosque is certainly

an illegal act, which has placed not only local

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

V
authorities but also the Government in a false

position.

➢ I have a solution to offer:-

a) Mosque should be attached and both Hindus

and Muslims should be excluded form it with

the exception of minimum number of Pujaris.

b) Parties will be then referred to the Civil Court

for adjudication of rights and no attempt will

be made to hand over possession to the

Muslims until the Civil Court, decrees the

claim in their favour.

c) This solution is open to criticism that it

perpetuates an illegal position created by

force and subterfuge and that it does not

immediately restore the status quo which

existed before the illegal act.

d) During the pendency of Civil Proceedings, it

may be possible to reach a compromise,

Muslims could be induced to give up the

mosque voluntarily to the Hindus.

29.12.1949 A 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 that of an

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

W
emergency. Additionally, the disputed site (i.e. the

inner portion of the mosque) was also directed to be

given in the receivership of Sri Priya Datt Ram,

Chairman, Municipal Board. (Please see Para 50 at

Page 64)

05.01.1950 In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, on January 5,

1950, Sri Priya Datt Ram took charge and made an

inventory of the attached properties. He also

submitted the scheme of management (in accordance

with preliminary order). (Please see Para 51 at Page

65)

16.01.1950 Suit 1:

On January 16, 1950, Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950

(renumbered as OOS No. 1 of 1989) titled as ‘Gopal

Singh Visharad v. Zahoor Ahmad and Ors.’ was filed

in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. The relief sought

by the Plaintiff was that it be declared that the plaintiff

according to his religion and custom is entitled to

worship and have ‘darshan’ of Sri Bhagwan Ram

Chandra and others at the place of Janam Bhumi by

going near the idols without any hindrance and

Defendants have no right to interfere in the said rights.

The plaintiff also sought an injunction against

Defendants that, they should not remove the idols of

Bhagwan Ram Chandra and others from the place

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

X
where the idols were and also that they should not

close the way of entry and should not interfere in

worship and ‘darshan’ in any manner.

Further, on the same day, i.e. on January 16,1950, an

ad-interim ex-parte injunction order was passed in

Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 (renumbered as OOS No.

1 of 1989) which was later modified by an ad-interim

ex-parte injunction order dated January 19,1950. In

the Order dated January 19,1950, the opposite parties

(being Muslim parties) were restrained by means of

temporary injunction to refrain from removing idols in

question from the site in dispute and from interfering

with puja etc. (Please see Paras 34-35 at Pages 44-

45, Analysed from Para 207 at Page 132 onwards

(Part L))

19.01.1950 The ad-interim injunction was modified on January 19,

1950 in Suit No. 1 of 1989 which read as under:

“The parties are hereby restrained by means of

temporary injunction to refrain from removing

the idols in question from the site in dispute and

from interfering with Puja etc. as at present

carried on.”

13.02.1950 The Defendants in R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of

1989) (i.e. the Muslim parties) filed objections in order

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Y
to get the interim Order dated January 16, 1950

vacated.

25.03.1950 After hearing the parties on the objections filed against

ex-parte injunction dated 16.01.1950, the Civil Judge

decided to get a map of the locality and building

prepared through a Commissioner. Shiv Shankar Lal

was appointed as Commissioner to prepare the map.

Bashir Ahmad, Vakil was appointed as Commissioner

to take photographs.

01.04.1950 Order passed in OOS No. 1 of 1989 (i.e. R.S. No. 2 of

1950) directing the preparation of maps. Muslim

parties objected to the nomenclature for example

usage of nomenclature such as Sita Rasoi, Bhandaar,

Hanuman Dwar etc. in the map prepared by Shiv

Shankar Lal Pleader.

25.04.1950 The United Province (Uttar Pradesh State) filed its

Written Statement in Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950

(renumbered as OOS No.1 of 1989) admitting that on

the night of December 22, 1949, the idols of Lord Ram

were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside the Babri

Masjid. The State Government clearly stated that

property in suit is known as Babri Mosque, and it has,

for a long period has been used as a mosque for the

purpose of worship by Muslims. It has not been used

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Z
as temple of Shri Ram Chandra Ji. (Please see Para

215 at Page 138)

01.05.1950 Defendant No.9 (Shri Tam Kripal Singh,

Superintendent of Police, Faizabad) filed his Written

Statement in R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989)

and admitted that on the night of December 22, 1949,

the idols of Ram were surreptitiously and wrongly put

inside Babri Masjid.

25.05.1950 Shiv Shankar Lal Pleader (who was appointed as a

commissioner in OOS No. 1 of 1989 to prepare a site

plan of the locality and building in suit on scale)

submitted his Report. The Report described the two

plans prepared by him- Plan No. I representing the

building in the suit and Plan No. II which represents

the building within the locality. It is relevant to note that

in the Report, he mentions that the names of various

samadhis and other structures as Noted in Plan No. II

were given by sadhus and others present on the spot.

03.08.1950 Report was submitted by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan,

Pleader Commissioner in OOS No. 1 of 1989 which

contained descriptions of the Babri Masjid and the

area surrounding it. The report noted that there were

number of Islamic inscriptions on the Masjid and a

number of pucca graves in the disputed site. The

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

AA
report also attached 13 photographs of the disputed

site.

05.12.1950 Regular Suit No. 25 of 1950 (renumbered as OOS No.

2 of 1989) entitled as ‘Paramhans Ramcharan Dass v.

Zahoor Ahmed and Ors.’ was filed. The prayers in the

said suit were similar to the prayer and reliefs claimed

in R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989). Notably,

while R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) had

been filed without the mandatory notice under Section

80 of the CPC to the State Government and its

officers, the second suit was filed after giving the

aforesaid notice. (Please see Para 14 at Page 35)

03.03.1951 The interim injunction dated January 16, 1950, which

was modified on January 19, 1950, was confirmed on

March 3,1951. It was directed that the order of the

interim injunction dated January 16, 1950 as modified

on January 19, 1950 will remain in force till the

disposal of the suits as on the date of filing the R.S.

No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) the idols of Shri

Ram Chandra and others were already present and

worship was performed. The appeal against this order

(dated March 3, 1951) was dismissed by the Hon’ble

High Court on April 26,1955.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

BB
30.07.1953 The Learned City Magistrate, Faizabad vide Order

dated July 30, 1953 passed in the matter of State v.

Janam Bhumi & Babri Mosque (Section 145 CrPC

Proceedings) consigned the file to the record. The

relevant portion of the order is extracted below:-

"This case under Section 145 has been

lingering on unnecessarily and dates are being

fixed in the hope that the Civil Suit might be

disposed of or the temporary injunction vacated.

The disputed property i.e. Babri

Masjid/Janmabhumi premises are already in

possession of the receiver. Sri Priya Dutt Ram

appointed by the Additional City Magistrate

under his order dated 29th December, 1949

referred to above and the said receiver has

been looking after the property since 5.1.1950,

the date of assuming charge. As the finding of

the civil court will be binding on the criminal

court it is no use starting proceedings in this

case under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and regarding

evidence specially when a temporary injunction

stands, as it cannot be said what may be the

finding of this court after recording the evidence

of parties. From the administrative point of view

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

CC
the property is already under attachment and no

breach of peace can occur.

I therefore order that the file u/s 145 Cr.P.C. be

consigned to records as it is and will be taken

out for proceeding further when the temporary

injunction is vacated."

26.04.1955 The Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated April 26,

1955 passed in F.A.F.O. No. 154 of 1951 dismissed

the appeal preferred against the Order dated March 3,

1951 and suit was directed to be decided

expeditiously.

17.12.1959 Suit 3:

Regular Suit No. 26 of 1959 (renumbered as O.O.S.

No. 3 of 1989) titled ‘Nirmohi Akhara vs. Babu Priya

Dutt Ram & Others’ was filed, alleging that the

disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and the

building on it was a temple of Janma Bhumi which has

always been in the possession of Nirmohi Akhara. It

was prayed that a decree be passed for removal of the

Defendant No.1 (Receiver) from the management and

charge of the said temple of Janma Bhoomi and

delivering the same to the Plaintiff through its Mahant.

(Please see Paras 36-37 at Pages 46-47, Analysed

from Para 217 at Page 139 onwards (Part M))

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

DD
21.12.1959 Application under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC was allowed in

R.S. No. 26 of 1959 (later renumbered as OOS No. 3

of 1989) and the plaintiff was permitted to sue Muslim

parties in the suit.

18.12.1961 Suit 4:

On December 18, 1961, another suit being Regular

Suit No.12 of 1961 (renumbered as OOS No. 4 of

1989) was filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs,

U.P. and 9 Muslims of Ayodhya (including inter alia

Plaintiff No. 2, who was later substituted by Plaintiff

No. 2/1- Mohd. Siddiq who is the Review Petitioner in

the present Review Petition). The relief claimed was

as follows:

a) A declaration to the effect that the property

indicated by letters ABCD in the sketch map

attached to the plaint is pubic mosque commonly

known as ‘Babari Masjid’ and that the land

adjoining the mosque shown in the sketch map

by letters EFGH is a public Muslim graveyard as

specified in para 2 of the plaint may be decreed.

b) That in case in the opinion of the Court delivery

of possession is deemed to be the proper

remedy, a decree for delivery of possession of

the mosque and graveyard in suit by removal of

the idols and other articles which the Hindus may

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

EE
have placed in the mosque as objects of their

worship be passed in Plaintiff’s favour, against

the defendants.

c) Costs of the Suit be decreed in favour of the

Plaintiffs.

d) Any other or further relief which the Hon’ble

Court considers proper may be granted”

Thereafter the following prayers were added in the

plaint by moving an amendment application which was

allowed by the Hon’ble Court on May 25,1995:-

“bb) That the Statutory receiver be commanded

to hand over the property in dispute described

in the Schedule ‘A’ of the Plaint by removing the

unauthorized structures erected thereon.

(Please see Paras 38-40 at Pages 48-50, Analysed

from Para 599 at Page 364 onwards (Part O))

28.04.1962/ The Defendant Nos. 5 to 8 being State of Uttar

28.05.1962
Pradesh, Collector Faizabad, City Magistrate

Faizabad and Superintendent of Police, Faizabad

respectively in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 filed common

Written Statement stating that the Government is not

interested in property in dispute and as such not

contesting the Suit and that they are State Officials

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

FF
and the action taken by them was under official duty

and therefore, they may be exempt from the cost of

the suit.

08.08.1962 The Learned Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad vide Order

dated August 8, 1962 passed in R.S. No. 12 of 1961

allowed the Plaintiffs therein to sue on behalf of the

entire Muslim community and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4

therein were allowed to be sued as representatives of

the entire Hindu Community.

06.01.1964 The Learned Civil Court, Faizabad passed an order

consolidating all the four suits and made the R.S. No.

12 of 1961 (OOS No. 4 of 1989) as leading case.

(Please see Para 18 at Page 39)

21.04.1966 The Learned Civil Judge Faizabad passed an order

holding that the Defendants in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989

were not estopped from challenging the character of

property in suit as a Waqf under the administration of

Plaintiff No. 1 in view of provision of Section 5(3) of the

U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936. Further, the

Learned Civil Judge also held that the proceedings

under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 are

not conclusive and that there was no valid notification

under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No.

XIII of 1936.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

GG
1978 A Suit No 57 of 1978 entitled Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala

vs State was filed in the Court of Munsif Sadar,

Faizabad but the same was dismissed for non-

compliance of Court’s order with respect to payment of

Court fees.

18.12.1985 In order to improve the administration of the purported

temple, to purportedly re-construct a temple at the

Ram Janambhoomi and to perform all religious

ceremonies/rites at the temple, a trust named, Sri Ram

Janmabhoomi Nyas, was formed vide the Trust deed

of 18.12.1985 registered with the Sub-Registrar, S.D.

No. 1 at Delhi, Vide No. 16510 in Additional Book No.

4, Volume 1156 at Pg. Nos. 64-69.

21.01.1986 Two applications filed by one Umesh Chandra Pandey

25.01.1986
were listed before the Learned Munsif:-

• First application was filed in Suit 1 alleging that

the state authorities were violating the injunction

order by not permitting unobstructed worship.

On 21.01.1986, the Learned Munsif referred to

the order dated 09.05.1975 in the FAFO No. 17

of 1977 whereby the order dated 18.03.1975

was stayed and directed the parties to inform

the latest position about the continuance of the

interim Order dated May 9, 1975 and fixed the

matter on February 1, 1986.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

HH
• Second application was also filed in Suit 1 and

a direction was sought to direct Defendant Nos.

6-9 (State Authorities) to not to create any

obstruction in Darshan, pooja etc. On

25.01.1986, the Learned Munsif directed the

District Government Counsel to file objections

and fixed the matter for 28.01.1986.

It is relevant to note that at this stage, this Applicant-

Umesh Chandra Pandey, was not a party to the Suits.

28.01.1986 The District Government Counsel informed the High

Court that vide Order dated May 9, 1975 the Hon’ble

High Court had only stayed the Order dated March 18,

1975 and there is no stay on further proceedings and

stated that Defendant No. 6-9 in O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989

were not creating any obstruction.

However, the Learned Munsif deferred the matter as

the original records of the leading suit being O.O.S. No.

4 of 1989 had already been summoned by the Hon’ble

High Court.

01.02.1986 A revision was filed before the Learned District Judge,

Faizabad against the order dated 28.01.1986, who

treated the said revision as appeal and passed an

order directing to open the locks placed on the gate of

Inner Courtyard. Challenging the order dated

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

II
01.02.1986, WP No. 746 of 1986 was filed by Md.

Hashim, and WP No. 3106 of 1986 was filed by UP

Sunni Central Board of Wakf. (Please see Para 19 at

Page 39)

03.02.1986 The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.02.1986

in WP No. 746 of 1986 directed that until further orders

of the High Court the nature of the property as existing

on that day shall not be changed. (Please see Para

19 at Page 39)

12.05.1986 WP No. 3106 of 1986 filed by the Sunni Central Waqf

Board was tagged alongwith WP No. 746 of 1986.

Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed as infructuous

after pronouncement of the Judgment dated

September 30, 2010.

23.03.1987 FAFO No. 17 of 1977 was decided on 23.03.1987. The

Court directed that record of all the four suits pending

in the lower court to be placed before the District

Judge, Faizabad. The stay orders of these suits were

vacated but, the site position continued in view of the

order dated 03.02.1986 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in WP No. 746 of 1986.

10/15.12.1987 State of Uttar Pradesh filed an application being Misc.

10.07.1989
Case No. 29 of 1989 under Section 24 read with

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

JJ
before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of

Judicature at Lucknow on the ground that due to

importance of the matter the suits may be withdrawn

from the Civil Court, Faizabad and be transferred to

High Court and gave an under taking to meet the

expenses of the witnesses etc.

Thereafter, the above application was allowed and the

cases were directed to be disposed off by the full

bench of the Hon’ble High Court and the matter was

placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Hon’ble

High Court for constituting the full bench.

1989 The suits were re-numbered as O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989

(previously R.S No. 2 of 1950), O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989

(previously Regular Suit No. 25 of 1950), O.O.S. No.

3 of 1989 (previously R.S. No 26 of 1959), O.O.S. No.

4 of 1989 (previously R.S. No. 12 of 1961) and O.O.S.

No. 5 of 1989 (Previously R.S. No. 236 of 1989).

However, the O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989 was subsequently

withdrawn.

01.07.1989 Suit 5:

Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989 (renumbered as OOS

No. 5 of 1989) was filed and an application for transfer

of the said suit to the Hon’ble High Court was also filed

by the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs sought the relief

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

KK
of a decree of declaration to the effect that the entire

premises of Sri Ram Janama Bhoomi at Ayodhya as

described and delineated in Annexures I, II and III

belong to the Plaintiff Deities and for a perpetual

injunction against the defendants prohibiting them

from interfering with, or raising any objection to or

placing any obstruction in the construction of the new

Temple building at Sri Ram Janama Bhoomi,

Ayodhya, after demolishing and removing the existing

buildings and structures etc. (Please see Paras 40-42

at Pages 50-54, Analysed from Para 308 at Page

190 onwards (Part N))

10.07.1989 The Plaintiff in O.O.S. No. 5 moved an application

under S. 24 of CPC for transfer Suit No.5 to the

Hon’ble High Court alongwith the other suits. The

Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.07.1989

allowed the said application.

21.07.1989 The Hon’ble Chief Justice constituted a Special Bench

of three Judges.

23.10.1989 An application being Application No. 5(o) of 1989 was

filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Order 39 Rule

1 and 2 read with Section 94 of CPC. On October

23,1989, the Hon’ble High Court directed the parties

to maintain status quo until further orders in all the five

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

LL
connected suits and also directed the parties to not

change the nature of property in question. In the same

order, the Hon’ble High Court also expressed doubt

about some of the questions involved in the suit, if they

were solvable by a judicial process.

24.10.1989 The Hon’ble High Court stayed the proceedings of

O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 till the final disposal of the four

previous suits. The said order was recalled on

05.02.1992 and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 proceeded

alongwith the other four suits.

21.12.1989 The plaintiffs in Suit No. 3 were allowed to sue the

defendants (Muslims) in representative capacity under

Order 1 Rule 8.

08.02.1991 and The Commissioner submitted his supplementary

08.08.1991
report dated February 8, 1991 after surveying and

locating the disputed property with reference to

settlement maps of 1861 and 1937. The

Commissioner instead of surveying the land had

accepted the fresh map supplied by the Plaintiff (in

OOS No. 4 of 1989). Ultimately, on 08.08.1991, the

Hon’ble Court described the map as absurd and

refused to accept the Commissioner’s report.

7/10.10.1991 By virtue of notifications dated 7.10.1991 and

10.10.1991, under the provisions of the Land

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

MM
Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of UP acquired the

premises in dispute alongwith some adjoining area

(Total Area-2.77 Acres) for “development of tourism

and providing amenities to Pilgrims in Ayodhya”.

(Please see Para 22 at Page 39)

16.10.1991 The said acquisition was challenged before the High

Court by means of several Writ Petitions, the lead

petition being Writ Petition No 3540 (MB) of 1991

entitled as Mohd Hashim v. State of U.P & Ors. Two

more Writ Petitions were filed being W.P. No. 3541

(M/B) of 1991 entitled as Panch Ramanand Nirmohi

Akhara and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others and the Writ Petition No. 3542 (M/B) of 1991

entitled as Khalid Yusuf v. Union of India and others.

(Please see Para 22 at Page 39)

25.10.1991 An interim order was passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in Mohd Hashim v. State of U.P & Ors. [Writ

Petition No 3540 (MB) of 1991] and other connected

matters, staying the operation of the notifications

dated 7.10.1991 and 10.10.1991.

15.11.1991 Another Writ being Writ Petition No 1000 of 1991 had

been filed before this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of

the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of

land by the State of U.P. On November 15, 1991, this

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

NN
Hon’ble Court passed an order in the said Writ

Petition, recording that the Government of Uttar

Pradesh had undertaken that it will hold itself

completely responsible for the protection of Ram

Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid structures till the time a final

solution is arrived at. This Hon’ble Court also directed

that the Writ Petitions pending before the Hon’ble High

Court will decide the legality of acquisition by the State

of UP.

July 1992 Several temples situated in the vicinity of Babri Masjid

were demolished including the Janamsthan Temple.

20.11.1992 In view of the apprehension of the Muslims that a large

25.11.1992
28.11.1992 crowd of Kar Sevaks was assembling in Ayodhya and
30.11.1992
01.12.1992 they had the plan to demolish the Babri Masjid,

Applications in the pending contempt petitions were

filed against the State of U.P. for violating the orders

of this Hon’ble Court and the High Court. In one of the

applications being I.A. No. 5 in Contempt Petition 97

of 1992, it was prayed that directions be issued to the

Union Government to step in and prevent a violation

of the orders of the Court and also place property in

custodia legis by appointment of receiver who will act

under the control and directions of the Union

Government. The application was considered on

20.11.1992 [(1994) 6 SCC 751], 25.11.1992 [(1994) 6

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

OO
SCC 752]. Ultimately on 28.11.1992, an order was

passed [reported in Acchan Rizvi (III) Vs. State of U.P.

and Others (1994)6 SCC 756] wherein it was recorded

that the State of U.P. filed an Affidavit and Undertaking

emphatically ensuring that no constructional activity

would be carried on or permitted to be carried out by

anyone. In view of the undertaking given, this Hon’ble

Court abstained from granting the prayer in I.A. No. 5

but kept the application pending and observed that if

the complexion of the problem changed then the

application maybe considered. It was also directed

that a Judicial Officer be appointed as an Observer of

the situation.

The matter was again listed on 30.11.1992 for

appointment of Observer [(1994) 6 SCC 760] and on

1.12.1992 an order was passed by this Hon’ble Court

directing that the both the State and the Central

Government give due publicity about the undertaking

given by the state government that no constructional

activity would be carried out and no building material

would be moved on the acquired land [(1994) 6 SCC

761].

06.12.1992 Babri Masjid was demolished in utter violation of the

solemn undertaking given to this Hon’ble Court.

Consequently, the President of India issued a

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

PP
proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of

India dismissing the U.P. Government. (Please see

Para 23 at Page 39, Finding in Para 788, XVII at

Page 457)

11.12.1992 The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, quashed the

notifications issued by the State of U.P. acquiring the

areas under the notifications, inter-alia on the ground

that the purpose of the notifications was primarily

construction of a temple hence mala fide.

The Writ Petitions being 3540 of 1991 (M/B) and the

connected matters challenging the notifications dated

07.10.1990 and 10.10.1991 were allowed by a Full

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and the notifications

dated 07.10.1990 and 10.10.1991 issued by the State

of UP were quashed, accepting the argument that the

purpose of notification was mala fide and against

secularism. (Please see Para 22 at Page 39)

15.12.1992 The President of India issued three proclamations

under Article 356 of the Constitution of India

dismissing all the three BJP run State Governments in

Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh,

inter-alia, for instigating the Kar Sevaks to participate

in demolition of Babri Masjid and/or felicitating

Karsevaks who participated in the demolition.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

QQ
07.01.1993 The Government of India issued the Acquisition of

Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 for

acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram

Janambhumi-Babri Masjid complex. It was later

replaced by Act No. 33 of 1993, and in view of Section

4(3) of the aforesaid Act, all pending suits and legal

proceedings abated. (Please see Para 24 at Page 39,

Analysis in Paras 802-803 at Pages 461-462,

Findings in Para 805 (ii) at Page 462)

1993 The Special Reference No.1 of 1993 was made by the

President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution

of India, in the following terms:-

"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious

structure existed prior to the construction of the

Ram Janam Bhoomi and Babari Masjid

(including the premises of the inner and outer

courtyards on such structure) in the area on

which the structure stands or not?"

The Acquisition of Certain Area at Act Ordinance,

1993 was also challenged by Dr. Ismail Faruqui in

Transferred Case (C) Nos. 41, 43 and 45 of 1993,

Jamiat-Ulama-E-Hind and another v. Union of India

and others, in Writ Petition (C) No. 208 of 1993, Mohd.

Aslam v. Union of India and others and in Transfer

Case No. 42 of 1993 Thakur Vijay Ragho Bhagwan

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

RR
Birajman Mandir and another v. Union of India and

others and in Special Reference No. 1 of 1993,

Hargyan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others.

(Please see Paras 24, 25 at Pages 39-40)

24.10.1994 On October 24, 1994, this Hon’ble Court decided the

reference as well as the challenge to the Acquisition of

Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (arising out of the

Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance,

1993 (No. 8 of 1993)) matter through judgment

reported in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqi Vs. Union of India,

1994 (6) SCC 360. This Hon’ble Court refused to

answer the reference and struck down Section 4(3) of

the Acquisition Act, 1993 which had directed

abatement of all pending suits, as unconstitutional and

invalid and upheld the validity of the remaining Act.

The result was that the suits, which had abated in view

of the aforesaid provision of the Acquisition Act, 1993,

stood revived. It was also directed that the vesting of

the disputed area described as inner and outer

courtyard (in dispute in these suits) in the Central

Government would be as the statutory receiver with

the duty for its management and administration

requiring maintenance of status quo. It was further

directed that the duty of the Central Government as

the statutory receiver would be to hand over the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

SS
disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of the Act

in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for

implementation of the final decision therein as it was

the purpose for which the disputed area had been so

acquired. It was also clarified that disputed area (inner

and outer courtyards) alone remained the subject

matter of the revived suits. The claim of Muslims

regarding adjoining graveyard was, therefore, not left

to be decided.

The Judgment is reported as Dr. M. Ismail Farooqi Vs.

Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 360.

(Please see Para 25 at Page 40)

25.05.1995 The Hon’ble High Court permitted certain

amendments to be made in the plaints of OOS No. 3

of 1989 and OOS No. 4 of 1989.

Nirmohi Akhara, inter alia added the following

averments in its plaint by way of amendment: -

• On December 6,1992, the Temples of Nirmohi

Akhara were also demolished.

• The main temple was also demolished on

December 6,1992

• The customs of Nirmohi Akhara have been

reduced to writing vide a Registered Deed dated

March 19,1949.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

TT
Additionally, the plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of 1989 made

a few amendments and added the following prayer:-

“(bb) That the statutory Receiver be

commanded to hand over the property in

dispute described in the Schedule “A” of the

Plaint by removing the unauthorised strictures

erected thereon.”

(Please see Para 26 at Page 41)

13.03.2002 In a Writ Petition No 160 of 2002 filed under Article 32

of the Constitution of India by one Mohd Aslam inter-

alia praying for preservation of adjacent land till the

final decision in the title suit pending in the High Court

of Allahabad, this Hon’ble Court while issuing rule,

passed the following order:

“In the meantime, we direct that on 67.703 acres

of land located in Revenue Plot Nos 159 and 160

in Village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the

Central Government, no religious activity of any

kind by any one either symbolic or actual

including bhoomi puja or shila puja shall be

permitted or allowed to take place.

Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall

be handed over by the Government to anyone

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

UU
and the same shall be retained by the

Government till the disposal of the writ petition

nor shall any of this land be permitted to be

occupied or used for any religious purpose or in

connection therewith…”

This order is reported in Mohd Aslam v Union of

India (2003) 4 SCC 1

14.03.2002 This Hon’ble Court clarified the aforesaid order dated

March 13, 2002 by another order dated 14.03.2002 in

the following terms:

“After hearing the learned Attorney General as

there was some ambiguity in para 3 of our order

dated 13.03.2002 we correct para 3 of our order

as follows;

In the meantime, we direct that on 67.703 acres

of acquired land located in various Plots detailed

in the Schedule to the Acquisition of Certain

Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 which is vested in

the Central Government, no religious activity of

any kind by any one either symbolic or actual

including bhoomi puja or shila puja shall be

permitted or allowed to take place…”

This order is reported in Mohd Aslam v Union of

India (2003) 4 SCC 1 [Please See (2003) 2 SCC 576]

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

VV
01.08.2002 The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at

Lucknow vide Order dated August 1, 2002 in O.O.S.

No. 4 of 1989 proposed the following terms in relation

to the excavation of the disputed site:

“If it is ultimately decided to excavate the

disputed land, in that event the excavation will

be done by the Archaeological Survey of India

under the supervision of five eminent

Archaeologists (Excavators), even though

retired, including two Muslims and the following

procedure may be adopted:

(1) The videography of excavation work be

done and if any artefacts are found their

photographs (coloured as well as black and

white and slides) may be taken. Such

artefacts/materials, if found, may be kept under

the custody of the State of U.P.

(2) Complete documentation as sites,

artifacts be done properly.

(3) The debris of disputed structure as

existing after its demolition shall be removed.

(4) The excavation or removal of the debris

may be done between 9.00 A,M. to 5.00 P.M.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

WW
(5) The Court may appoint observer for the

excavation work.

(6) At present at the disputed site the idol of

“Shri Ramlala” has been placed and its

devotees are worshipping, it may be placed at

the Chabutra situate east of the site till the

excavation work is complete”.

The Hon’ble High Court invited all the parties to submit

in writing within two weeks, their suggestions/ views

on the aforesaid proposal and also as to why the

disputed land should not be allowed to be excavated

by the ASI. Further, till decision in this Respect, the

Court directed ASI to get the disputed site surveyed by

Ground Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology (GPR)

and obtain a report. (Please see Para 447 at Page

262 onwards (Part N.9), Findings in Para 788 at

Page 454)

23.10.2002 After considering the objections raised by the Parties,

the Hon’ble High Court passed an order that a report

has to be made on the structures which exist on the

disputed premises after hearing the objections of the

parties and held inter alia:

“Having heard the Learned Counsel for the

parties we are of the opinion that we should get

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

XX
the report in regard to the foundation, if any, of

any structure at the site in question. One of the

issues in the suit is whether there was any

Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structures

existed and the alleged Babri Masjid was

constructed after demolishing such temple/

structure at the site in question.”

(Please see Para 26 at Pages 41, 448 at Page 262)

17.02.2003 Survey Report was submitted by M/s Tozo through

ASI before the Hon’ble High Court. (Please see Para

448 at Page 262)

18.03.2003 An Application being CMA No. 19 of 2003 in O.O.S.

No. 4 of 1989 was filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf

Board objecting to the excavation by the ASI alongwith

letter dated 18.03.2003 addressed to the ASI wherein

they had requested Sri. B.R. Mani, Team Leader, ASI

Excavation Team to include appropriate number of

Muslim labourers.

12.03.2003 ASI commenced work on excavation.

21.03.2003 ASI Submitted a report on 21.3.2003 showing some

23.03.2003
preliminary findings. Further, Sri B.R. Mani,

Superintendent (Archaeology) and Team Leader, ASI

submitted a brief report to the Hon’ble High Court

through the Director General of ASI in which it was

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

YY
also requested that 2 months’ extension maybe

granted for excavation and 15 days more for writing

the report. Further, Sri B.R. Mani vide his letter dated

23.3.2003 gave a pointwise reply to the application

filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, stating that

ASI had no role in engaging of the labour force.

26.03.2003 The Hon’ble High Court passed an order noting that to

maintain the faith of both the Communities, it is

desirable that adequate representation of both the

communities may be maintained in respect of the

functioning of the ASI team and engagement of the

labourers. (Please see Para 449 at Page 263)

31.03.2003 A Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 160 of 2002

(Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India) had been filed as a

Public Interest Litigation and the issue raised before

this Hon’ble Court was whether the land adjacent to

the disputed area should be preserved till the final

decision in the Suits pending before the Hon’ble High

Court of Allahabad. On March 31,2003, this Hon’ble

Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 160/2002 vide

its judgment reported as (2003) 4 SCC 1 by directing

that the order of this Hon’ble Court passed on 13.03.02

as modified by the order made on 14.03.02 should be

operative until disposal of the suits in the High Court

of Allahabad. It was observed that status quo has been

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

ZZ
maintained from 1992 onwards and no activities as are

set out in the course of the application have been

required to be done so far. When for a long time, a

particular state of affairs has prevailed- as in the

present case for over a decade- and when the

adjudication of the disputes which are pending before

the High Court are reaching final stages, it will not be

appropriate to disturb that state of affairs. It is well

known that preservation of property in its original

condition is absolutely necessary to give appropriate

reliefs to the parties on the termination of the

proceedings before the courts and, therefore, we do

not think that this is one of those cases in which it

becomes necessary to disturb that state. [Please see:

(2003) 4 SCC 1]

14.04.2003 Several objections were by the parties during the

to
26.07.2003 course of excavation by ASI. Thirty-two objections

were filed by the Muslim Parties and two were filed on

behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.

22.08.2003 The Archaeological Survey of India submitted its

report in compliance of the Order dated March 5, 2003

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of

Judicature at Lucknow in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 and

stated inter alia:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

AAA
“Now, viewing in totality and taking into account

he archaeological evidence of a massive

structure just below the disputed structure and

evidence of continuity in structural in structure

phases from the tenth century onwards up to the

construction of the disputed structure along with

the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well

as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and

carved architectural members including foliage

patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with

semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of

black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine

having pranala (waterchute) in the north, fifty

pillar bases in association of the huge structure,

are indicative of remains which are distinctive

features found associated with the temples of

north India.”

(Please see Para 449 at Page 263)

03.02.2005 Several parties filed objections to the report submitted

by the Archaeological Survey of India. The Hon’ble

High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at Lucknow vide

order dated February 3, 2005 passed in O.O.S. No 1

of 1989/ O.O.S. No. 3/1989 and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989

disposed of the objections to the report of the ASI on

the ground that the ASI report shall be subject to the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

BBB
objections and evidences produced by the parties at

the time of final decision of the Suit.

30.09.2010 The Special Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad vide three separate judgments decided the

Suits in the following manner Each of the Hon’ble

Judges wrote a separate judgment. As per the

Impugned judgment: -

(i) OOS No. 4 of 1989 was dismissed as barred by

limitation in view of the majority view of Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr.

Justice D.V. Sharma.

(ii) OOS No. 5 of 1989, was partly decreed as per

the majority view of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U.

Khan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal,

whereby all three parties, namely the Muslim

side (i.e. Plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of 1989), the

Hindu side (i.e. the Plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of

1989) and Nirmohi Akhara were joint title

holders and entitled to 1/3rd portion each.

It was further clarified that the portion below the central

dome be allotted to Hindu Parties while Nirmohi

Akhara will be allotted the part which is shown by the

words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the map. The

Muslim side was decreed to be entitled to some area

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

CCC
of the Outer Courtyard and further the land available

with the Government of India, acquired under the

Ayodhya Act, 1993 was to made available to the

successful parties so that all the three parties may

utilize the area to which they are entitled to by having

separate entry for egress and ingress so as to not to

disturb each other’s rights. (Please see Para 8 at

Page 33, Para 28 at Page 42)

30.09.2010 The Hon’ble High Court passed two separate

preliminary decrees in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 and

O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 vide Order dated September 30,

2010.

10.12.2010 The High Court passed an order correcting various

mistakes in its impugned judgements.

The High Court vide another order of the same date

after hearing the arguments of the parties and while

reserving order on the draft decree prepared by the

office of the High Court, inter alia modified its

directions in respect of operation of status quo for

three months from 30.09.2010 in the following terms;

“Learned counsels for the parties stated that

the order of status quo passed by this Court vide

judgement dated 30.09.2010 is going to expire

by the end of this month and the proceedings of

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

DDD
finalization of preliminary decree is likely to take

some time. Therefore, it would be in the interest

of justice that the order of extension be passed.

Considering the facts and circumstances, we

direct that the status quo order passed vide

judgment dated 30.09.2010 shall remain in

operation until 15.02.2011 unless modified,

vacated or is directed otherwise earlier.”

15.11.2010 Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 was

filed before this Hon’ble Court.

09.05.2011 A two-judge bench of this Hon’ble Court admitted the

Civil Appeal being C.A. Nos. 10866-67 of 2010 and

stayed the operation of the judgment & decree dated

30.09.2010. During the pendency of the appeal, the

parties were directed to maintain status quo, with

respect to the disputed premises.

10.09.2013, This Hon’ble Court issued directions for summoning

24.02.2014,
31.10.2015, the digital record of the evidence and pleadings from
11.08.2017
the Allahabad High Court and for furnishing translated

copies to the parties. (Please see Para 30 at Page 43)

10.08.2015 This Hon’ble Court allowed the Commissioner,

Faizabad Division to replace the old and worn out

tarpaulin sheets over the makeshift structure under

which the idols were placed with new sheets of the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

EEE
same size and quality. (Please see Para 30 at Page

43)

05.12.2017 This Hon’ble Court rejected the plea that the appeals

against the impugned judgement be referred to a

larger Bench in view of certain observations of the

Constitution Bench in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of

India (1994)6 SCC 360 (Please see Para 31 at Page

43)

14.03.2018 This Hon’ble Court asked the Counsel for the

Appellants, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan to address the court on

whether the judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union

of India (1994) 6 SCC 360 requires reconsideration by

a larger bench. (Please see Para 31 at Page 43)

27.9.2018 On September 27, 2018, the judgment was passed

declining the reference to larger bench. The Majority

Judgment was rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok

Bhushan and the then Chief Justice- Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Dipak Misra. The majority judgment, however,

clarified that the reference to the status of the mosque

was made in the context of vulnerability to acquisition

by State.

Justice Nazeer disagreed that the questionable

observations made in paragraph 82 of the judgment in

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. v. Union of India and

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

FFF
Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 360 were not relevant for deciding

these appeals. Therefore, he took the view case had

been made out for reference of these appeals to a

Constitution Bench of this Court. (Please see Para 31

at Page 43)

08.01.2019 This Hon’ble Court vide administrative order made

pursuant to the provisions of Order VI Rule 1 of the

Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Chief Justice of India

constituted a five judge Bench to hear appeals.

(Please see Para 32 at Page 44)

10.01.2019 The Registry of this Hon’ble Court was directed to

inspect the records and if required, engage official

translators. (Please see Para 32 at Page 44)

26.02.2019 This Hon’ble Court referred the parties to a Court

appointed and monitored mediation to explore the

possibility of bringing about a permanent solution to

the issues raised in the appeals. (Please see Para 32

at Page 44)

08.03.2019 This Hon’ble Court constituted a panel of mediators

comprising of (i) Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim

Kalifulla, a former Judge of this Court; (ii) Sri Sri Ravi

Shankar; and (iii) Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior

Advocate. The time granted to the panel was extended

on 10.05.2019. (Please see Para 32 at Page 44)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

GGG
02.08.2019 Since no settlement was reached, this Hon’ble Court

directed the hearing to commence on 06.08.2019.

(Please see Para 32 at Page 44)

06.08.2019 Hearing in the appeals commenced before this

Hon’ble Court. (Please see Para 32 at Page 44)

18.09.2019 This Hon’ble Court passed order observing that while

the hearings will proceed, if any parties desired to

settle the dispute, it was open for them to move the

mediators and place a settlement, if it was arrived at,

before this Hon’ble Court. (Please see Para 32 at

Page 44)

16.10.2019 Final arguments were concluded in the hearing. Also,

“Final Report of the Committee” was submitted by the

mediation panel which did not reflect a final, binding

and/or concluded settlement agreement. (Please see

Para 32 at Page 44)

09.11.2019 This Hon’ble Court passed the Impugned Judgment

and order holding that since the Hindu parties had

exclusive possession of the outer courtyard and the

claims regarding possession of the inner courtyard

were conflicting, the entire suit property, which had not

been partitioned till date, be handed over to the Board

of Trustees of a Trust which was to be set up by the

Central Government within 3 months from the date of

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

HHH
this judgment. Further this Hon’ble Court

acknowledged that the Muslims were wrongly

dispossessed from the mosque upon its desecration

on December 22/23, 1949 and ultimately its

destruction on December 6, 1992. Accordingly, in

order to remedy the said wrong this Hon’ble Court

directed that alternate land admeasuring 5 acres be

allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the

Central Government or by the Government of Uttar

Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya.

02.12.2019 Hence, the present Review Petition.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

[REVIEW PETITION ARISING OUT OF

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10866 OF 2010]

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS

(i) MAULANA SYED ASHHAD RASHIDI, Review Petitioner

S/o. Maulana Syed Rashiduddin Hamidi,
President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Subhash
Marg, Ahata Shaukati Ali, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh

-VERSUS-

1. MAHANT SURESH DAS, Contesting

Chela of Sri Param Hans Ram Chandra Respondent No. 1
Das, R/o. Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

2. NIRMOHI AKHARA, Contesting

Through Mahant Rameshwar Das, Respondent No. 2
Mahant Sarbarakar, R/o. Nirmohi Akhara,
Mohalla Ram Ghat, City Ayodhya, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

3. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, Contesting

Through its Chief Secretary to the State Respondent No. 3
Government, Uttar Pradesh

4. THE COLLECTOR, Contesting

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 4

5. THE CITY MAGISTRATE, Contesting

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 5

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Contesting

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 6
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2
7. B. PRIYA DUTT (SINCE DECEASED)
Through his Legal Heir

(i) JYOTI PATI RAM Contesting

Mohalla Rakabganj, Faizabad, Uttar Respondent No. 7
Pradesh

8. PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA HINDU MAHA Contesting

SABHA, Read Road, New Delhi Respondent No. 8

9. PRESIDENT, ARYA MAHA PRADESHIK Contesting

SABHA, Baldan Bhawan, Shradhanand Respondent No. 9
Bazar, Delhi.

10. PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA SANATAN Contesting

DHARAM SABHA, Shop No.35, Geeta Respondent No. 10
Bhawan, Ground Floor, A-Block, Kirti
Nagar, Delhi

11. DHARAM DAS ALLEGED CHELA BABA Contesting

ABHIRAM DAS, Resident of Hanuman Respondent No. 11
Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

12. SRI PUNDRIK MISRA, Contesting

S/o. Raj Narain Misra, Resident of Respondent No. 12
Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

13. RAMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, Contesting

S/o. Sri Parsh Rama Tripathi, Resident of Respondent No. 13
Village: Akbarpur, Pargana Mijhaura,
Tahsil Akbarpur, District: Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

14. MADAN MOHAN GUPTA, Contesting

Convener of Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Respondent No. 14
Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti,
E-7/45, Bangla, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh

15. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY, Contesting

S/o. Sri R.S. Pandey, R/o. Ranupalli Respondent No. 15
Ayodhya, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

16. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY, Contesting

S/o. Sri R.S. Pandey, R/o. Ranupalli Respondent No. 16
Ayodhya, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

17. THE SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF Proforma

WAQFS, through its Secretary, Shah Respondent No. 17
Ghayas Alam, Moti Lal Bose Road, P.S.
Kaiserbagh, City Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3
18. MISBAHUDDEEN, Proforma
S/o. Late Shri Ziauddin, R/o. Mohalla Respondent No. 18
Angoori Bagh, Awadh City, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

19. MOHAMMAD HASHIM (DEAD) THR.

LRS.

(i) MOHAMMAD IQBAL ANSARI Proforma

S/o. Late Mohammad Hashim, Respondent No. 19
Residing at 4/318, Kotia, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

20. MAULANA MAHFOOZURAHMAN, Proforma

S/o. Late Maulana Vakiluddin, Resident of Respondent No. 20
Village Madarpur, Pargana and Tahsil
Tanda, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

21. FAROOQ AHMAD, Proforma

S/o. Late Sri Zahoor Ahmad, Resident of Respondent No. 21
Mohalla Naugazi Qabar, Ayodhya City,
District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

[REVIEW PETITION ARISING OUT OF

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10867 OF 2010]

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS

(i) MAULANA SYED ASHHAD RASHIDI, Review Petitioner

S/o. Maulana Syed Rashiduddin Hamidi,
President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Subhash
Marg, Ahata Shaukati Ali, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh

-VERSUS-

1. BHAGWAN SRI RAM VIRAJMAN AT SRI Contesting

RAMA JANAM BHUMI AYODHYA, also Respondent No. 1
called Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman,
Represented by next friend, Sri Trilok Nath
Pandey, S/o. Late Askrut Pandey, R/o.
Karsewak Puram, District Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

2. ASTHAN SRI RAM JANAM BHUMI Contesting

AYODHYA, Represented by next friend, Respondent No. 2
Sri Triloki Nath Pandey, S/o. Late Askrut
Pandey, R/o. Karsewak Puram, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4
3. TRILOKI NATH PANDEY, Contesting
S/o. Late Askrut Pandey, R/o. Karsewak Respondent No. 3
Puram, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

4. SRI RAJENDRA SINGH, Proforma

S/o. Late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, at Respondent No. 4
present residing at Gonda, Care of the
State Bank of India, Gonda Branch,
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

5. MAHANT SURESH DAS, Proforma

Chela of Late Mahant Param Ramchandra Respondent No. 5
Das, R/o. Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

6. NIRMOHI AKHARA MOHALLA RAM Proforma

GHAT, AYODHYA, through its Mahant Respondent No. 6
Jagannath Das, Chela of Vaishnav Das
Nirmohi, R/o. Mohalla Ram Ghat, Nirmohi
Bazar Pargana Haveli Awadh, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

7. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS, Proforma

through its Chairman, Moti Lal Bose Road, Respondent No. 7
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

8. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, Proforma

through the Secretary, Home Department, Respondent No. 8
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

9. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT Proforma

MAGISTRATE, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 9

10. THE CITY MAGISTRATE, Proforma

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 10

11. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF Proforma

POLICE, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh Respondent No. 11

12. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA HINDU Proforma

MAHASABHA, New Delhi Respondent No. 12

13. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA ARYA Proforma

SAMAJ, Dewan Hall, Delhi Respondent No. 13

14. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA SANATAN Proforma

DHARMA SABHA, Delhi Respondent No. 14
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5
15. DHARAM DAS, Proforma
Chela Baba Abhiram Das, Resident of Respondent No. 15
Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

16. SRI PUNDRIK MISRA, Proforma

S/o. Raj Narain Misra, Resident of Respondent No. 16
Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

17. RAMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, Proforma

S/o. Sri Parsh Rama Tripathi, Resident of Respondent No. 17
Village: Akbarpur, Pargana Mijhaura,
Tahsil Akbarpur, District: Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

18. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY, Proforma

S/o. Sri Uma Shanker Pandey, R/o. Respondent No. 18
Ranopali Ayodhya, District Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

19. SRI RAMA JANAM BHUMI NYAS, Proforma

Through its Trustee, Mr. Champat Rai, Respondent No. 19
having its office at Sankat Mochan
Ashram, Sri Hanuman Mandir, Rama
Krishan Puram, Sector VI, New Delhi

20. SHIA CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS, Proforma

U.P. LUCKNOW, through its Chairman, Respondent No. 20
817, Indra Bhawan, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

21. VAKEELUDDIN (DEAD)

through his Legal heir

(i) MAULANA MEHFOOZ REHMAN, Proforma

S/o. Late Shri Vakeeluddin, R/o. Respondent No. 21
Madarpur Pargana and Tehsil Tanda,
District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

IN
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10866 OF 2010]

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS

(i) MAULANA SYED ASHHAD RASHIDI,

S/o. Maulana Syed Rashiduddin Hamidi,
President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Subhash
Marg, Ahata Shaukati Ali, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh … Petitioner
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

6
-VERSUS-

1. MAHANT SURESH DAS,

Chela of Sri Param Hans Ram Chandra
Das, R/o. Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

2. NIRMOHI AKHARA,
Through Mahant Rameshwar Das,
Mahant Sarbarakar, R/o. Nirmohi Akhara,
Mohalla Ram Ghat, City Ayodhya, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

3. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,

Through its Chief Secretary to the State
Government, Uttar Pradesh

4. THE COLLECTOR,
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

5. THE CITY MAGISTRATE,

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

7. B. PRIYA DUTT (SINCE DECEASED)

Through his Legal Heir

(ii) JYOTI PATI RAM

Mohalla Rakabganj, Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

8. PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA HINDU MAHA

SABHA, Read Road, New Delhi

9. PRESIDENT, ARYA MAHA PRADESHIK

SABHA, Baldan Bhawan, Shradhanand
Bazar, Delhi.

10. PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA SANATAN

DHARAM SABHA, Shop No.35, Geeta
Bhawan, Ground Floor, A-Block, Kirti
Nagar, Delhi

11. DHARAM DAS ALLEGED CHELA BABA

ABHIRAM DAS, Resident of Hanuman
Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

7
12. SRI PUNDRIK MISRA,
S/o. Raj Narain Misra, Resident of
Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

13. RAMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,

S/o. Sri Parsh Rama Tripathi, Resident of
Village: Akbarpur, Pargana Mijhaura,
Tahsil Akbarpur, District: Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

14. MADAN MOHAN GUPTA,

Convener of Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram
Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti,
E-7/45, Bangla, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh

15. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY,

S/o. Sri R.S. Pandey, R/o. Ranupalli
Ayodhya, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

16. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY,

S/o. Sri R.S. Pandey, R/o. Ranupalli
Ayodhya, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

17. THE SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF

WAQFS, through its Secretary, Shah
Ghayas Alam, Moti Lal Bose Road, P.S.
Kaiserbagh, City Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

18. MISBAHUDDEEN,
S/o. Late Shri Ziauddin, R/o. Mohalla
Angoori Bagh, Awadh City, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

19. MOHAMMAD HASHIM (DEAD) THR.

LRS.

(ii) MOHAMMAD IQBAL ANSARI

S/o. Late Mohammad Hashim,
Residing at 4/318, Kotia, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

20. MAULANA MAHFOOZURAHMAN,

S/o. Late Maulana Vakiluddin, Resident of
Village Madarpur, Pargana and Tahsil
Tanda, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

21. FAROOQ AHMAD,

S/o. Late Sri Zahoor Ahmad, Resident of
Mohalla Naugazi Qabar, Ayodhya City,
District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh … Respondents
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

8
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10866 OF 2010]

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS

(i) MAULANA SYED ASHHAD RASHIDI,

S/o. Maulana Syed Rashiduddin Hamidi,
President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Subhash
Marg, Ahata Shaukati Ali, Lucknow, Uttar … Petitioner
Pradesh

-VERSUS-

1. BHAGWAN SRI RAM VIRAJMAN AT SRI

RAMA JANAM BHUMI AYODHYA, also
called Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman,
Represented by next friend, Sri Trilok Nath
Pandey, S/o. Late Askrut Pandey, R/o.
Karsewak Puram, District Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

2. ASTHAN SRI RAM JANAM BHUMI

AYODHYA, Represented by next friend,
Sri Triloki Nath Pandey, S/o. Late Askrut
Pandey, R/o. Karsewak Puram, District
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

3. TRILOKI NATH PANDEY,

S/o. Late Askrut Pandey, R/o. Karsewak
Puram, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

4. SRI RAJENDRA SINGH,

S/o. Late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, at
present residing at Gonda, Care of the
State Bank of India, Gonda Branch,
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh

5. MAHANT SURESH DAS,

Chela of Late Mahant Param Ramchandra
Das, R/o. Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

6. NIRMOHI AKHARA MOHALLA RAM

GHAT, AYODHYA, through its Mahant
Jagannath Das, Chela of Vaishnav Das
Nirmohi, R/o. Mohalla Ram Ghat, Nirmohi
Bazar Pargana Haveli Awadh, Ayodhya
City, District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

7. SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS,

through its Chairman, Moti Lal Bose Road,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

9
8. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,
through the Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

9. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

10. THE CITY MAGISTRATE,

Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

11. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF

POLICE, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh

12. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA HINDU

MAHASABHA, New Delhi

13. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA ARYA

SAMAJ, Dewan Hall, Delhi

14. THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA SANATAN

DHARMA SABHA, Delhi

15. DHARAM DAS,

Chela Baba Abhiram Das, Resident of
Hanuman Garhi, Ayodhya, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

16. SRI PUNDRIK MISRA,

S/o. Raj Narain Misra, Resident of
Balrampur Sarai, Rakabganj, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

17. RAMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,

S/o. Sri Parsh Rama Tripathi, Resident of
Village: Akbarpur, Pargana Mijhaura,
Tahsil Akbarpur, District: Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh

18. UMESH CHANDRA PANDEY,

S/o. Sri Uma Shanker Pandey, R/o.
Ranopali Ayodhya, District Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh

19. SRI RAMA JANAM BHUMI NYAS,

Through its Trustee, Mr. Champat Rai,
having its office at Sankat Mochan
Ashram, Sri Hanuman Mandir, Rama
Krishan Puram, Sector VI, New Delhi
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

10
20. SHIA CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS,
U.P. LUCKNOW, through its Chairman,
817, Indra Bhawan, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

21. VAKEELUDDIN (DEAD)

through his Legal heir

(ii) MAULANA MEHFOOZ REHMAN,

S/o. Late Shri Vakeeluddin, R/o.
Madarpur Pargana and Tehsil Tanda,
District Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh … Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
and his companion justices of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The humble Petition of the
Review Petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Review Petition is being filed by the above named

Petitioner in this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India

seeking review of the Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated November

9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10866-10867 of

2010. The Review Petitioner is not filing the typed copy of the impugned

judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated November 9, 2019

as it is a long judgment of 1045 pages and the same has already been

printed in 2019 (15) SCALE 1. A copy of the said book which carries the

entire impugned judgment is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-1

[Please see the book in a separate Volume 2019 (15) SCALE 1] to this

Review Petition.

2. That the Review Petitioner is also not filing the judgment and order of

the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated September 30,

2010 as the same is on record published by Malhotra Law House, Allahabad

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11
in 3 Volumes (2nd Edition 2016). Similarly, the Review Petitioner is relying

on the List of Pleadings running Volumes 1 to 150. The Review Petitioner is

also relying upon the submissions and documents which were tendered on

behalf of the Senior Advocates/Advocates by both the set of parties during

the course of final hearing which were numbered as A1 to A145. The Review

Petitioner is not filing these documents to avoid the duplication of the huge

record which is already on record before this Hon’ble Court.

3. The present Review Petition is being filed on behalf of the Appellant

in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 who is a legal heir of the Original

Plaintiff No.2 in Suit No. 4 of 1989. The present Appellant Maulana Syed

Ashhad Rashidi is presently the President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Uttar

Pradesh.

4. The Review Petitioner humbly submits that the Original Suit No.4 of

1989 was filed and was tried under Order I Rule 8 of CPC and even if the

Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P. which was the Original Plaintiff No.1 in

O.S. No. 4 of 1989 is not preferring a Review Petition before this Hon’ble

Court but the said Suit was filed in a representative capacity for the entire

Muslim Community and the Review Petitioner is entitled to approach this

Hon’ble Court because there are patent errors on the face of the record in

the impugned judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court dated November 9,

2019 reported in 2019 (15) Scale 1.

5. That this Hon’ble Court by the impugned judgment and order has

virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a

temple of Lord Ram in the said place. The Hon’ble Court by virtue of the

impugned order has though acknowledged few of the several illegalities

committed by the Hindu Parties, particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

12
of the Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992

(demolition of the Babri Masjid), but this Hon’ble Court has proceeded to

condone the said illegal acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very

party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts. Further,

this Hon’ble Court has in an attempt to balance the reliefs between the

parties, while condoning illegalities of the Hindu parties, has allotted

alternate land admeasuring 5 acres to the Muslim parties, which was neither

pleaded nor prayed for by the Muslim parties.

6. That the present petition raises the following substantial questions of

law which needs to be decided by this Hon’ble Court:

(i) Whether this Hon’ble Court has erred in granting a relief which

virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid?

(ii) Whether this Hon’ble Court, while acknowledging the wrongs

committed by the Hindu parties in 1934, 1949 and 1992, erred in

rewarding the said illegal acts by giving title to the Hindu parties?

(iii) Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in wrongly applying Article 142 of

the Constitution of India as doing complete justice or restituting the

illegality could only be done by directing the reconstruction of the

Babri Masjid?

(iv) Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the rule of

presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 on the

question of namaaz in the Babri Masjid between 1528-1856?

(v) Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by elevating

a mere look at the Central Dome by the Hindu parties to a claim of

possessory title?
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13
(vi) Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by not

appreciating the exclusive possession of the Muslims of the inner

courtyard?

(vii) Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by elevating

the mere prescriptive rights of the Hindu parties, which were settled

as far back as in 1886, to those of possessory title?

(viii) Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent in

entertaining Suit No. 5 of 1989, which was based on mere

‘impatience’, which can never be a valid cause of action for any lis?

(ix) Whether this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent in relying

upon accounts of various travelers to decide a title suit?

(x) Whether this Hon’ble Court on one hand while deciding the

possession of the dispute property could take into consideration its

two separate portions, i.e. the inner courtyard and the outer courtyard

and on the other hand hold that the area was a composite area?

(xi) Whether the ASI report could be relied upon for other facts, when in

fact it has not noted that any structure whatsoever was destroyed for

building the Babri Mosque?

(xii) Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in considering facts prior to 1856 is

against the law laid down in the case entitled as Masjid Shahidganj

Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar reported

in AIR 1940 PC 116?

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

14
(xiii) Whether in this Hon’ble Court erred in equating wanton acts of

destruction and trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of

assertion of claim over the disputed site?

(xiv) Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the Babri

mosque was Wakf property?

(xv) Whether the appreciation of evidence by this Hon’ble Court based on

preponderance of probabilities was contrary to the record and per

incuriam?

(xvi) Whether this Hon’ble Court erred in not holding the Hindu parties in

the present matter, who were appearing in representative capacity,

responsible for the series of illegal acts committed by the Hindu

Community?

(xvii) Whether Parikrama can be a factor to be considered while

adjudicating a title dispute?

7. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present Review

Petition are as follows:

(i) That a Masjid commonly known as Babri Masjid was constructed

under the orders of Emperor Babur in 1528. Since its construction the

Muslim community started offering prayers at the said Mosque which

continued till 22.12.1949. The land adjoining the Babri Masjid on three

sides was an ancient Muslim graveyard.

(ii) That from 1528 to 1857 there is no whisper and/or demand of any

place called Sri Ram’s birthplace within the precincts of Babri Masjid.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

15
For the first time a Chabutra was illegally constructed within the

boundary but outside the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid.

(iii) That the Thanedar, Sheetal Dubey, filed an application dated

November 28, 1858 revealing that one Mr. Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa

resident of Punjab, organized Hawan and Puja of Guru Govind Singh

and erected a symbol of Sri Bhagwan within the premises of the

Masjid. It was requested that action, as deemed necessary, may be

taken. (Please see Exhibits 21 and 22 at Pages 95-102 of Running

Volume 87)

(iv) That Syed Mohammad, the Khateeb and Moazzin of the Babri Masjid,

lodged a Complaint being Case No. 884 to Station House Officer

about installation of a Nishan by a Nihang Fakir and requested for the

removal thereof. Moreover, Mohammad Asghar, who was the

Mutawalli of the Babri Masjid also complained that an earthen

Chabutra and a symbol of idol was made by the Fakir and adjacent to

that a ditch was dug and fire was lit for puja and ‘Ram’ was written by

him with coal within the Masjid Compound. It was further complained

that since the Babri Masjid is the place of offering Namaz by Muslims,

if Puja is held at the same place, it would lead to communal clash.

(Please see Exhibit 22 at Pages 90-94 of Running Volume 87)

(v) That after the complaint an order was passed, pursuant to which

Sheetal Dubey, Thanedar visited the disputed premises and informed

Nihang Faqir about the order but he replied that the entire place is of

Nirankar and the government of the country should impart justice.

(Please see Exhibit A-69 at Pages 1332-1333 of Running Volume

10)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

16
(vi) That in the meanwhile, an application was made by Mohammadi Shah

seeking postponement of the grant of a lease in respect of village

Ramkot until a decision was taken on whether the land is Nazul land.

(Please see Exhibit 23 at Pages 103-106 of Running Volume 87)

(vii) That an application dated November 5, 1860 was filed by Mir Rajab

Ali in Case No. 223 seeking a relief that the newly constructed

Chabootra in the graveyard, adjacent to Babri Masjid be demolished

and a bond be executed by the opposite parties that they will not

interfere in the masjid properties and will not blow conch at the time

of Azan. (Please see Exhibit 31 at Pages 145-152 of Running

Volume 87)

(viii) That Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad vide Order dated April 3, 1877

granted permission to Hindus to open a new door in the northern outer

wall of the disputed building. (Please see Exhibit 30 at Pages 136-

144 of Running Volume 87)

(ix) That a Memo of Appeal No. 56 being Appeal No. 56 was filed by Syed

Mohd. Asghar Ali before the Commissioner, Faizabad against the

Order dated April 3, 1877 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Faizabad, whereby he had granted permission to Hindus to open a

new door in the northern outer wall of the disputed building. It was

complained that the wall being that of the Mosque, this alteration could

not be allowed to be made on behest of the Hindus. It was further

stated that when the appellant himself had requested that he be

permitted to open the said door on his own expenses and was ready

& willing to open the said door, in such circumstances, the

defendants- belonging to other religion could not have been accorded

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

17
permission to construct the door. (Please see Exhibit 30 at Pages

136-144 of Running Volume 87)

(x) That a report dated May 14, 1877 was submitted by the Deputy

Commissioner stating that if the other door was not opened then

human life would be endangered as there was great rush. (Please

see Exhibit 15 at Pages 61-65 of Running Volume 87)

(xi) That the Appeal being Appeal No. 56 filed by Syed Mohd. Asghar Ali

was dismissed vide order dated December 13, 1877 on the ground

that opening of the outer door was in the interests of ‘public safety’.

(Please see Exhibit 16 at Pages 66-68 of Running Volume 87)

(xii) That the Plaint of Suit No. 1374/943 of 1882 dated October 22,1882

was filed by Mohd. Asghar against Raghubar Das entitled as Mohd.

Asghar v. Raghubar Das Mahant and Nirmohi Akhara claiming rent

for use of Chabutra and Takht situated near the door of Babri Masjid

Oudh and for organizing Kartik Mela at the occasion of Ram Navami

for the period of 1881-1882 AD. (1288 and 1289 Fasli). (Please see

Exhibit 24 at Pages 107-111 of Running Volume 87)

(xiii) That the Learned Court of the Sub Judge, Faizabad dismissed the

Suit No. 1374/943 of 1882 vide order dated June 18, 1883. It is

submitted that though the Suit was dismissed, Mohd. Asghar’s

capacity as a mutawalli of the Babri Mosque was not challenged.

(Please see Exhibit 17 at Pages 69-79 of Running Volume 87)

(xiv) That a Suit being Suit No. RS 61/280 of 1885 dated January 19/21,

1885 was filed by one Mahanth Raghubar Das, Mahanth Janam

Asthan against Secretary of State for India in Council, seeking

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

18
permission to construct a temple over the Chabutra admeasuring

17’*21’ Janam Asthan situated in Ayodhya and for restraining the

defendant from interfering in the said exercise of the Plaintiff.

Pertinently, in the map annexed to the Plaint it was clearly admitted

that the portion of inner courtyard and the constructed portion situated

at the western side of Chabutra 17ft/21ft was the Masjid and was

shown to have been in possession of the Muslims. Therefore, the

existence of Babri Masjid was admitted by the said Plaintiff. (Please

see Exhibit A-22 at Pages 51-54 of Running Volume 3)

(xv) That the Court of Faizabad in Suit No.61/280 of 1885 appointed Gopal

Sahai Amin’s Commission and directed him to prepare a map of the

site by conducting spot inspection and submit a report. Accordingly, a

report dated December 6, 1885 was submitted by that Commission

alongwith a map of the disputed site. In this Map also, the Masjid was

specifically shown in the western side of the Chabutra (platform).

(Please see Exhibit A-25 at Pages 60-62 of Running Volume 3)

(xvi) That a Written Statement dated December 22, 1885 was filed by

Mohd. Asghar (Mutawalli of Babri Masjid) in Suit No. 61/280 of 1885

stating that it was the emperor Babar who got constructed the said

Babri Masjid and above the door of the boundary of the Babri Masjid

the word “ALLAH” was inscribed. It was submitted therein that mere

passage inside the courtyard of the Babri Masjid by plaintiff therein

could not create rights in his favour. It was further submitted that since

the construction of the Masjid till 1856 no Chabootra was in existence

at its place and it came to be built in the year 1857, wherein the

Muslims opposed the construction of Chabootra and filed a suit,

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

19
wherein order for digging of Chabootra was issued. It was also stated

that the limitation had expired, as is evident from the Order dated

February 23, 1957. (Please see Exhibit A-23 at Pages 55-58 of

Running Volume 3)

(xvii) That the Learned Sub-Judge vide order dated December 24, 1885

rejected the prayer of construction of temple at the Chabutara in Suit

No. RS 61/280 of 1885. It is submitted that the Learned Sub-Judge,

inter alia, made the following observations: -

i. Muslims were praying inside in the Masjid and the Hindus were

praying outside at the Chabutara and between the Masjid and

Chabootra is well built wall with railings.

ii. Before this a controversy had arisen both Hindus and Muslims

were worshipping in the place and therefore, in 1855 a wall in

the form of railing was erected to avoid controversy, so that

Muslims worship inside it and Hindus worship outside it.

iii. It was erroneously recorded that Chabutara was in the

possession of the Plaintiffs and belonged to Hindus. However,

this finding was set aside in the appeal.

iv. It is further relevant to note that this Judgment records the

written proofs submitted by the Plaintiff and notes only the

following:

• Copy of the selection of Gazetteer of Avadh State page 7

printed by the order of the Government, May

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

20
• Journal of the Asiatic Society relating to the translation of

Ayodhya Mahant.

(Please see Exhibit A-19 at Pages 63-70 of Running Volume 3)

(xviii) That being aggrieved by the aforesaid order and judgement dated

December 24, 1885 Mahant Raghubar Das filed an Appeal being Civil

Appeal No. 27/1886 before the District Judge, Faizabad which was

dismissed by the Learned District Judge, vide Judgment and Decree

dated March 18, 1886 and it was held, inter alia, 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 chabutra”.

(Please see Exhibit A-27 at Pages 71-74 of Running Volume 3)

Further, the decree dated March 18, 1886 in Civil Appeal No. 27/85

also held the following:

“…It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed that the remarks

of the sub-judge granted on the judgments of this Court

declaring right of property to vest in Plaintiff be cancelled and

the cost of this appeal amounting to Rs. 12/5 as noted below

are to be apid by the Plaintiff excepting 16/…..”

(Please see Exhibit A-28 at Pages 75-77 of Running Volume 3)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

21
(xix) That being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of Civil Appeal

No.27/1886 vide Order dated March 18, 1886, the Plaintiff therein

namely Mahant Raghubar Das filed Second Appeal being Second

Appeal No. 122/1886 before the Judicial Commissioner, Oudh which

was dismissed vide Order dated November 1, 1886 passed by the

Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, wherein it was held inter alia, as

under:-

“The matter is simply that the Hindus of Ajodhya want to erect

a new temple of marble over the supposed holy spot in Ayodhya

said to be the birth place of Shri Ram Chander. Now this spot

is situated within the precincts of the grounds surrounding a

Babri Masjid constructed 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 Babri

Masjid.

The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to

certain spots within the precincts adjoining the Babri Masjid and

they have for a series of years been persistently tying to

increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the

enclosure:

(1) Sita Ki Rasoi

(2) Ram Chander Ki Janam Bhoomi.

The Executive authorities have persistently refused these

encroachments and absolutely forbid any alteration of the

‘status quo’.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

22
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.…

There is nothing whatever on the record to show that the

plaintiff is in any sense, the proprietor of the land, in question”.

(Please see Page 769 at Para 867 of Volume 1 of the High Court

Judgment)

(xx) That in 1934, due to communal riots, the domes of the disputed

structure and its substantial part was destroyed. However, it was

renovated at the cost of the British Government through a Muslim

Thekedar (Contractor).

(xxi) That an Application was moved by Mohd. Zaki and others for the

compensation of the loss caused in the riot held on March 27, 1934

and the same was allowed and granted by the Dy. Commissioner

Faizabad vide dated October 6, 1934 subject to any other objections.

Thereafter on December 22,1934 a Notice was published by District

Magistrate, Faizabad with respect to fine imposed under Section

15A(2) of the Police Act and for its realization from the Hindu resident

of Ayodhya. Pertinently, in this application it was mentioned that:-

i. The Bairagis of Ayodhya and Hindu people attacked the Babri

Masjid intentionally and have caused great damage.

ii. The repair of the masjid will require a huge sum of money.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

23
iii. It was therefore prayed that the estimated cost of repairs, i.e.

Rs. 15000 be recovered from the Bairagis and other Hindu

people of Ayodhya as per Section 15 of the Police Act,1861

(Please see Exhibits A-6, A-43 at Pages 23-25, 109-110 of

Running Volume 3 and Exhibit C11, Annexures P-21, 22 at Pages

125-126 of Running Volume 92)

(xxii) That in the meanwhile, vide the order dated May 12, 1934 the

Mohammadans were permitted to start the work of cleaning of Babri

Mosque from Monday i.e. May 14, 1934, so that it could be used for

religious purposes. (Please see Exhibit A-49 at Pages 124-125 of

Running Volume 3)

(xxiii) That the U.P. Gazette dated February 26, 1944 showed the Babri

Mosque in the list of Wakf properties. (Please see Exhibit A34 at

Page 92 of Running Volume 3)

(xxiv) That an agreement dated March 19, 1949 was entered into by

Panchas of Nirmohi Akhara laying down the constitution,

functioning etc. of Nirmohi Akhara and was registered in Sub

Registrar’s Office. (Please see Exhibit 1 at Pages 1-17 of

Running Volume 90)

(xxv) That on November 12, 1949, word got around that some unlawful

elements would attack the controversial building, i.e. Babri Masjid

and the district officers were informed who accordingly increased

the number of guards on the spot who began locking the Masjid

after every namaz. The said information was also forwarded by the
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

24
Superintendent of Police, Faizabad to the Deputy Commissioner

Shri KK Nayar.

(xxvi) That Mohd. Ibrahim, Waqf Inspector submitted his Report dated

December 10, 1949 wherein it was detailed that Numberdar was

the Mutawalli and that Javed Hussain’s name was proposed as the

Mutawalli. Moreover, on investigation it was revealed that Muslims

were harassed by Hindus and Sikhs if they go and pray in the

Masjid. (Please see Exhibit A-63 at Pages 1330-1331 of Running

Volume 10)

(xxvii) That Shri KK Nayar (Deputy Commissioner & D.M. Faizabad) sent

letter dated December 16, 1949 addressed to the Govind Narayan

(Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh) wherein it was

stated that a magnificent temple at the disputed site was

constructed by Vikaramaditya in 16th Century which was

demolished by Babur and the mosque known as Babri Masjid was

constructed. It was further stated that in the said process of

construction, building material of the Temple was used, and that a

long time before Hindus were again restored to possession of a site

therein i.e. at the corner of two walls. It was further mentioned that

Muslims who go to the mosque pass in front of the temple an there

has frequently been troubles over the occasional failure of the

Muslims to take off their shoes. Lastly, he requested the State

Government to not give credence to the apprehensions of the

Muslims regarding safety of the Babri mosque.

(xxviii) That on the intervening night of December 22/23, 1949, around 50-

60 members of the Hindu Community trespassed into the Babri

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

25
Masjid and placed idols below the Central Dome of the Babri

Masjid. That Pandit Sri Rao Deo Dubey, (Sub-Inspector In-charge,

Thana: Ayodhya) was informed about the incident by Mata Prasad

constable and then he had himself visited the site and lodged an

FIR that in the intervening night of December 22/23,1949, a crowd

of 50-60 persons had broken the locks of the compound of Babri

Mosque and by climbing the walls by ladders illegally entered in the

Mosque and had placed the idol of Sri Bhagwan and had written

various slogans such as Sita Ram Ji etc. on the walls, inside and

outside. (Please see Exhibit 51 at Pages 1201-1205 of Running

Volume 78)

(xxix) That on December 25, 1949, Shri KK Nayar recorded that Puja and

Bhog were being offered as usual at the disputed site.

(xxx) That on December 26,1949, after the desecration of the mosque on

the intervening night of December 22/23,1949, Shri K.K. Nayar,

D.M. wrote to Bhagawan Sahai (Chief Secretary Government of

U.P.) noting that the news of desecration 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. It is submitted that in view

of the previous communications, this surprise did not appear to be

genuine. Further, in the same letter, Shri K.K. Nayar refused to carry

out the orders of the Government to have the idols removed from

the mosque and stated that if the government still insisted that the

removal should be carried out, he would request that he be replaced

by another officer. (Please see Exhibit 66 at Pages 1758-1763 of

Running Volume 11)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

26
(xxxi) That on December 27, 1949, Shri K.K. Nayar again wrote to Shri

Bhagwan Sahai stating that he had been informed by the

Commissioner of the outline of a scheme for removing the idol from

the mosque surreptitiously to Janambhoomi Temple, outside the

mosque. He stated in his letter that he did not agree with the said

idea. He further stated that:-

i. He would be unable to find any Hindu, let alone a qualified

priest who will be prepared on any inducement to undertake

the removal of the idol.

ii. The installation of the idol in the mosque is certainly an illegal

act, which has placed not only local authorities but also the

Government in a false position.

iii. He offered the following solution:-

a) Mosque should be attached and both Hindus and

Muslims should be excluded form it with the exception of

minimum number of Pujaris.

b) Parties will be then referred to the Civil Court for

adjudication of rights and no attempt will be made to hand

over possession to the Muslims until the Civil Court,

decrees the claim in their favour.

c) This solution is open to criticism that it perpetuates an

illegal position created by force and subterfuge and that it

does not immediately restore the status quo which existed

before the illegal act.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

27
d) During the pendency of Civil Proceedings, it may be

possible to reach a compromise, Muslims could be

induced to give up the mosque voluntarily to the Hindus.

(Please see Exhibit 67 at Pages 1764-1770 of Running Volume

11)

(xxxii) That on December 29, 1949, a 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 that of an emergency. Additionally, the

disputed site (i.e. the inner portion of the mosque) was also directed

to be given in the receivership of Sri Priya Datt Ram, Chairman,

Municipal Board. (Please see Exhibit 1 at Pages 1-2 of Running

Volume 91)

(xxxiii) That in pursuance of the aforesaid orders, on January 5, 1950, Sri

Priya Datt Ram took charge and made an inventory of the attached

properties. He also submitted the scheme of management in

accordance with preliminary order of attachment. (Please see

Exhibit 3 at Pages 9-13 of Running Volume 91)

(xxxiv) That on January 16, 1950, Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 (renumbered

as OOS No. 1 of 1989 – Suit 1) titled as ‘Gopal Singh Visharad v.

Zahoor Ahmad and Ors.’ was filed in the Court of Civil Judge,

Faizabad. The relief sought by the Plaintiff was that it be declared

that the plaintiff according to his religion and custom is entitled to

worship and have ‘darshan’ of Sri Bhagwan Ram Chandra and

others at the place of Janam Bhumi by going near the idols without
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

28
any hindrance and Defendants have no right to interfere in the said

rights. The plaintiff also sought an injunction against Defendants

that, they should not remove the idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra

and others from the place where the idols were and also that they

should not close the way of entry and should not interfere in worship

and ‘darshan’ in any manner. (Please see Exhibit 42 at Pages

1672-1678 of Running Volume 11)

(xxxv) That, further, on the same day, i.e. on January 16,1950, an ad-

interim ex-parte injunction order was passed in OOS No. 1 of 1989

(i.e. R.S. No. 2 of 1950) which was later modified by an ad-interim

ex-parte injunction order dated January 19, 1950. In the Order

dated January 19, 1950, the opposite parties (being Muslim parties)

were restrained by means of temporary injunction to refrain from

removing idols in question from the site in dispute and from

interfering with puja etc.

(xxxvi) That on February 13, 1950, the Defendants in OOS No. 1 of 1989

(i.e. R.S. No. 2 of 1950) (i.e. the Muslim parties) filed objections in

order to get the interim Order dated January 16, 1950 vacated.

(Please see Exhibits 1-14 at Pages 1-60 of Running Volume 87)

(xxxvii) That on March 25, 1950 after hearing the parties on the objections

filed against ex-parte injunction dated 16.01.1950, the Civil Judge

decided to get a map of the locality and building prepared through

a Commissioner. Shiv Shankar Lal was appointed as

Commissioner to prepare the map. Bashir Ahmad, Vakil was

appointed as Commissioner to take photographs.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

29
(xxxviii) That on April 1, 1950 an order was passed in OOS No. 1 of 1989

(i.e. R.S. No. 2 of 1950) directing the preparation of maps. Muslim

parties objected to the nomenclature for example usage of

nomenclature such as Sita Rasoi, Bhandaar, Hanuman Dwar etc.

in the map prepared by Shiv Shankar Lal Pleader.

(xxxix) That the United Province (Uttar Pradesh State) filed its Written

Statement in Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 (renumbered as OOS No.1

of 1989) admitting that on the night of December 22, 1949, the idols

of Lord Ram were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside the Babri

Masjid. The State Government clearly stated that property in suit is

known as Babri Mosque, and it has, for a long period has been used

as a mosque for the purpose of worship by Muslims. It has not been

used as temple of Shri Ram Chandra Ji. (Please see Page 34 of

Running Volume 72)

(xl) That on May 1, 1950, the Defendant No. 9 (Shri Tam Kripal Singh,

Superintendent of Police, Faizabad) filed his Written Statement in

R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) and admitted that on the

night of December 22, 1949, the idols of Ram were surreptitiously

and wrongly put inside Babri Masjid. (Please see Exhibit 43 at

Pages 1679-1682 of Running Volume 11)

(xli) That on May 25, 1950, Shiv Shankar Lal Pleader (who was

appointed as a commissioner in OOS No. 1 of 1989 to prepare a

site plan of the locality and building in suit on scale, submitted his

Report. The Report described the two plans prepared by him- Plan

No. I representing the building in the suit and Plan No. II which

represents the building within the locality. It is relevant to note that

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

30
in the Report, he mentions that the names of various samadhis and

other structures as Noted in Plan No. II were given by sadhus and

others present on the spot. (Please see Annexures A-210, A-211

at Pages 1841-1842 of Running Volume 12)

(xlii) That on August 3, 1950, a report was submitted by Mr. Bashir

Ahmad Khan, Pleader Commissioner in OOS No. 1 of 1989 which

contained descriptions of the Babri Masjid and the area surrounding

it. The report noted that there were number of Islamic inscriptions

on the Masjid and a number of pucca graves in the disputed site.

The report also attached 13 photographs of the disputed site.

(Please see Volume A54 tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,

Senior Advocate)

(xliii) That on December 5, 1950, Regular Suit No. 25 of 1950

(renumbered as OOS No. 2 of 1989 – Suit 2) entitled as

‘Paramhans Ramcharan Dass v. Zahoor Ahmed and Ors.’ was

filed. The prayers in the said suit were similar to the prayer and

reliefs claimed in R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989).

Notably, while R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989) had been

filed without the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the CPC to

the State Government and its officers, the second suit was filed

after giving the aforesaid notice.

(xliv) That on March 3, 1951, the interim injunction dated January 16,

1950, which was modified on January 19, 1950, was confirmed. It

was directed that the said order will remain in force till the disposal

of the suits as on the date of filing the R.S. No. 2 of 1950 (O.O.S.

No. 1 of 1989) the idols of Shri Ram Chandra and others were
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

31
already present and worship was performed. The appeal against

this order (dated March 3, 1951) was dismissed by the Hon’ble High

Court on April 26,1955. (Please see Para 128 at Page 200/Vol.1

of the High Court Judgment)

(xlv) That on July 30, 1953 The Learned City Magistrate, Faizabad vide

Order dated July 30, 1953 passed in the matter of State v. Janam

Bhumi & Babri Mosque (Section 145 CrPC Proceedings) consigned

the file to the record. The relevant portion of the order is extracted

below:-

"This case under Section 145 has been lingering on

unnecessarily and dates are being fixed in the hope that the

Civil Suit might be disposed of or the temporary injunction

vacated.

The disputed property i.e. Babri Masjid/Janmabhumi premises

are already in possession of the receiver. Sri Priya Dutt Ram

appointed by the Additional City Magistrate under his order

dated 29th December, 1949 referred to above and the said

receiver has been looking after the property since 5.1.1950, the

date of assuming charge. As the finding of the civil court will be

binding on the criminal court it is no use starting proceedings in

this case under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and regarding evidence

specially when a temporary injunction stands, as it cannot be

said what may be the finding of this court after recording the

evidence of parties. From the administrative point of view the

property is already under attachment and no breach of peace

can occur.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

32
I therefore order that the file u/s 145 Cr.P.C. be consigned to

records as it is and will be taken out for proceeding further when

the temporary injunction is vacated."

(Please see Exhibit 25 at Pages 1633-1634 of Running Volume

11)

(xlvi) That the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated April 26, 1955 passed

in F.A.F.O. No. 154 of 1951 dismissed the appeal preferred against

the Order dated March 3, 1951 and suit was directed to be decided

expeditiously. (Please see Page 3681/Vol.3 of the High Court

Judgment]

(xlvii) That on December 17, 1959, Regular Suit No. 26 of 1959

(renumbered as O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989) titled ‘Nirmohi Akhara vs.

Babu Priya Dutt Ram & Others’ was filed, alleging that the disputed

site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and the building on it was a

temple of Janma Bhumi which has always been in the possession

of Nirmohi Akhara. It was prayed that a decree be passed for

removal of the Defendant No.1 (Receiver) from the management

and charge of the said temple of Janma Bhoomi and delivering the

same to the Plaintiff through its Mahant. (Please see Pages 48-53

of Running Volume 72)

(xlviii) That on December 21, 1959, the application under Order 1, Rule 8

CPC was allowed in R.S. No. 26 of 1959 (later renumbered as OOS

No. 3 of 1989) and the plaintiff was permitted to sue Muslim parties

in the suit. (Please see Page 51/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

33
(xlix) That on December 18, 1961 another suit being Regular Suit No.12

of 1961 (renumbered as OOS No. 4 of 1989 – Suit 4) was filed by

the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and 9 Muslims of Ayodhya

(including inter alia Plaintiff No. 2, who was later substituted by

Plaintiff No. 2/1- Mohd. Siddiq, who is the Review Petitioner in the

present Review Petition). The relief claimed was as follows:

a) A declaration to the effect that the property indicated by

letters ABCD in the sketch map attached to the plaint is pubic

mosque commonly known as ‘Babari Masjid’ and that the

land adjoining the mosque shown in the sketch map by

letters EFGH is a public Muslim graveyard as specified in

para 2 of the plaint may be decreed.

b) That in case in the opinion of the Court delivery of

possession is deemed to be the proper remedy, a decree for

delivery of possession of the mosque and graveyard in suit

by removal of the idols and other articles which the Hindus

may have placed in the mosque as objects of their worship

be passed in Plaintiff’s favour, against the defendants

c) Costs of the Suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs

d) Any other or further relief which the Hon’ble Court considers

proper may be granted”

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

34
Thereafter the following prayers were added in the plaint by moving

an amendment application which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court

on May 25,1995:-

bb) That the Statutory receiver be commanded to hand over the

property in dispute described in the Schedule ‘A’ of the Plaint

by removing the unauthorized structures erected thereon.

(Please see Pages 82-95 of Running Volume 72)

(l) That on April/May 28, 1962, the Defendant No. 5 to 8 being State

of Uttar Pradesh, Collector Faizabad, City Magistrate Faizabad and

Superintendent of Police, Faizabad respectively in O.O.S. No. 4 of

1989 filed common Written Statement stating that the Government

is not interested in property in dispute and as such not contesting

the Suit and that they are State Officials and the action taken by

them was under official duty and therefore, they may be exempt

from the cost of the suit. (Please see Page 131 of Running

Volume 72)

(li) That the Learned Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad vide Order dated

August 8, 1962 passed in R.S. No. 12 of 1961 allowed the Plaintiffs

therein to sue on behalf of the entire Muslim community and

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 therein were allowed to be sued as

representatives of the entire Hindu Community. (Please see Issue

No.6, Page 3020 of the High Court Judgment]

(lii) That on January 6, 1964, the Learned Civil Court, Faizabad passed

an order consolidating all the four suits and made the R.S. No. 12
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

35
of 1961 (OOS No. 4 of 1989) as leading case. (Please see Page

50/Vol. 1 of the High Court Judgment)

(liii) That the Learned Civil Judge Faizabad vide order dated April 21,

1966 held that the Defendants in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 were not

estopped from challenging the character of property in suit as a

Waqf under the administration of Plaintiff No. 1 in view of provision

of Section 5(3) of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936.

Further, the Learned Civil Judge also held that the proceedings

under the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 are not conclusive

and that there was no valid notification under Section 5(1) of the

U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936. (Please see Para 142 at

Page 205/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(liv) That in 1978, Suit No 57 of 1978 entitled Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala vs

State was filed in the Court of Munsif Sadar, Faizabad but the same

was dismissed for non-compliance of Court’s order with respect to

payment of Court fees. (Please see Para 94 at Page 190/Vol.1 of

the High Court Judgment)

(lv) That in order to improve the administration of the purported temple,

to purportedly re-construct a temple at the Ram Janambhoomi and

to perform all religious ceremonies/rites at the temple, a trust

named, Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, was formed vide the Trust

deed of December 18, 1985 registered with the Sub-Registrar, S.D.

No. 1 at Delhi, vide No. 16510 in Additional Book No. 4, Volume

1156 at Pg. Nos. 64-69. (Please see Pages 3682-3684/Vol.3 of

the High Court Judgment)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

36
(lvi) That on January 21, 1986, two applications filed by one Umesh

Chandra Pandey were listed before the Learned Munsif:-

(a) First application was filed in Suit 1 alleging that the state

authorities were violating the injunction order by not permitting

unobstructed worship. On 21.01.1986, the Learned Munsif

referred to the order dated 09.05.1975 in the FAFO No. 17 of

1977 whereby the order dated 18.03.1975 was stayed and

directed the parties to inform the latest position about the

continuance of the interim Order dated May 9, 1975 and fixed

the matter on February 1, 1986. (Please see Para 149 at

Page 207/ Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(b) Second application was also filed in Suit 1 and a direction was

sought to direct Defendant Nos. 6-9 (State Authorities) to not

to create any obstruction in Darshan, pooja etc. On

25.01.1986, the Learned Munsif directed the District

Government Counsel to file objections and fixed the matter for

28.01.1986. (Please see Paras 149-150 at Page 207/Vol.1

of the High Court Judgment)

(c) It is relevant to note that at this stage, this Applicant- Umesh

Chandra Pandey, was not a party to the Suits.

(lvii) That on January 28, 1986, the District Government Counsel

informed the High Court that vide Order dated May 9, 1975 the

Hon’ble High Court had only stayed the Order dated March 18, 1975

and there is no stay on further proceedings and stated that

Defendant No. 6-9 in O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 were not creating any
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

37
obstruction. However, the Learned Munsif deferred the matter as

the original records of the leading suit being O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989

had already been summoned by the Hon’ble High Court. (Please

see Para 150 at Page 207/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lviii) That on February 1, 1986, a revision was filed before the Learned

District Judge, Faizabad against the order dated 28.01.1986, who

treated the said revision as appeal and passed an order directing

to open the locks placed on the gate of Inner Courtyard.

Challenging the order dated 01.02.1986, WP No. 746 of 1986 was

filed by Md. Hashim, and WP No. 3106 of 1986 was filed by UP

Sunni Central Board of Wakf. (Please see Para 151 at Page

207/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lix) That the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 03.02.1986 in WP No.

746 of 1986 directed that until further orders of the High Court the

nature of the property as existing on that day shall not be changed.

(Please see Para 152 at Page 207/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment)

(lx) That on May 12, 1986, WP No. 3106 of 1986 filed by the Sunni

Central Waqf Board was tagged alongwith WP No. 746 of 1986.

Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed as infructuous after

pronouncement of the Judgment dated September 30, 2010.

(Please see Para 153 at Page 207/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment)

(lxi) That on March 23, 1987, FAFO No. 17 of 1977 was decided. The

Court directed that record of all the four suits pending in the lower
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

38
court to be placed before the District Judge, Faizabad. The stay

orders of these suits were vacated but, the site position continued

in view of the order dated 03.02.1986 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in WP No. 746 of 1986. (Please see Para 154 at Page

207/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lxii) That on December 10/15, 1987, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed an

application being Misc. Case No. 29 of 1989 under Section 24 read

with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at Lucknow on the

ground that due to importance of the matter the suits may be

withdrawn from the Civil Court, Faizabad and be transferred to High

Court and gave an under taking to meet the expenses of the

witnesses etc. Thereafter, the above application was allowed, and

the cases were directed to be disposed of by the full bench of the

Hon’ble High Court and the matter was placed before the Hon’ble

Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court for constituting the full

bench. (Please see Page 2917/Vol.3 of the High Court

Judgment)

(lxiii) That in 1989, the suits were re-numbered as O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989

(previously R.S No. 2 of 1950), O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989 (previously

Regular Suit No. 25 of 1950), O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 (previously R.S.

No 26 of 1959), O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (previously R.S. No. 12 of

1961) and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (Previously R.S. No. 236 of 1989).

However, the O.O.S. No. 2 of 1989 was subsequently withdrawn.

(Please Page 2917/Vol.3 of the High Court Judgment)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

39
(lxiv) That on July 1, 1989, regular Suit No. 236 of 1989 (renumbered as

OOS No. 5 of 1989) was filed and an application for transfer of the

said suit to the Hon’ble High Court was also filed by the plaintiffs

therein. The plaintiffs sought the relief of a decree of declaration to

the effect that the entire premises of Sri Ram Janama Bhoomi at

Ayodhya as described and delineated in Annexures I, II and III

belong to the Plaintiff Deities and for a perpetual injunction against

the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with, or raising any

objection to or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new

Temple building at Sri Ram Janama Bhoomi, Ayodhya, after

demolishing and removing the existing buildings and structures etc.

(Please see Pages 234-260 of Running Volume 72]

(lxv) That on July 10, 1989, the Plaintiff in O.O.S. No. 5 moved an

application under S. 24 of CPC for transfer Suit No.5 to the Hon’ble

High Court alongwith the other suits. The Hon’ble High Court vide

order dated 10.07.1989 allowed the said application. (Please see

Para 157 at Page 208/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lxvi) That on July 21, 1989, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad

High Court constituted a Special Bench of three Judges. (Please

see Para 158 at Page 208/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lxvii) That on October 23, 1989, an application being Application No. 5(o)

of 1989 was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Order 39 Rule

1 and 2 read with Section 94 of CPC. On October 23,1989, the

Hon’ble High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo until

further orders in all the five connected suits and also directed the

parties to not change the nature of property in question. In the same

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

40
order, the Hon’ble High Court also expressed doubt about some of

the questions involved in the suit, if they were solvable by a judicial

process. (Please see Para 162 at Page 208/Vol.1 of the High

Court Judgment)

(lxviii) That on October 24, 1989, the Hon’ble High Court stayed the

proceedings of O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 till the final disposal of the four

previous suits. The said order was recalled on 05.02.1992 and

O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 proceeded alongwith the other four suits.

(Please see Para 163 at Page 208/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment)

(lxix) That on December 21, 1989, the plaintiffs in Suit No. 3 were allowed

to sue the defendants (Muslims) in representative capacity under

Order 1 Rule 8. (Please see Para 166 at Page 209/Vol.1 of the

High Court Judgment)

(lxx) That on February 8, 1991, the Commissioner submitted his

supplementary report after surveying and locating the disputed

property with reference to settlement maps of 1861 and 1937. The

Commissioner instead of surveying the land had accepted the fresh

map supplied by the Plaintiff (in OOS No. 4 of 1989). Ultimately, on

August 8, 1991, the Hon’ble Court described the map as absurd

and refused to accept the Commissioner’s report. (Please see Para

20 at Page 3183/Vol.3 of the High Court Judgment]

(lxxi) That by virtue of notifications dated October 7, 1990, and October

10, 1991, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

the State of UP acquired the premises in dispute alongwith some

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

41
adjoining area (Total Area-2.77 Acres) for “development of tourism

and providing amenities to Pilgrims in Ayodhya”. (Please see

Paras 170-172 at Pages 209-210/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment]

(lxxii) That on October 16, 1991, the said acquisition was challenged

before the High Court by means of several Writ Petitions, the lead

petition being Writ Petition No 3540 (MB) of 1991 entitled as Mohd

Hashim v. State of U.P & Ors. Two more Writ Petitions were filed

being W.P. No. 3541 (M/B) of 1991 entitled as Panch Ramanand

Nirmohi Akhara and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and

the Writ Petition No. 3542 (M/B) of 1991 entitled as Khalid Yusuf v.

Union of India and others. (Please see Para 172 at Page 210/Vol.1

of the High Court Judgment)

(lxxiii) That another Writ being Writ Petition No. 1000 of 1991 was filed

before this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India challenging the acquisition of land by the State of U.P. On

November 15, 1991, this Hon’ble Court passed an order in the said

Writ Petition, recording that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had

undertaken that it will hold itself completely responsible for the

protection of Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid structures till the time

a final solution is arrived at. This Hon’ble Court also directed that

the Writ Petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court will decide

the legality of acquisition by the State of UP. (Please see Para 4533

at Page 2864/Vol.3 of the High Court Judgment)

(lxxiv) That in July 1992, several temples situated in the vicinity of Babri

Masjid were demolished including the Janamsthan Temple.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

42
(Please see Para 180 at Page 211/Vol.1 of the High Court

Judgment)

(lxxv) That in view of the apprehension of the Muslims, a large crowd of

Kar Sevaks was assembling in Ayodhya and they had the plan to

demolish the Babri Masjid, Applications in the pending contempt

petitions were filed against the State of U.P. for violating the orders

of this Hon’ble Court and the High Court. In one of the applications

being I.A. No. 5 in Contempt Petition 97 of 1992, it was prayed that

directions be issued to the Union Government to step in and prevent

a violation of the orders of the Court and also place property in

custodia legis by appointment of receiver who will act under the

control and directions of the Union Government. The application

was considered on November 20, 1992 [(1994) 6 SCC 751],

November 25, 1992 [(1994) 6 SCC 752]. Ultimately on November

28, 1992, an order was passed [reported in Acchan Rizvi (III) Vs.

State of U.P. and Others (1994) 6 SCC 756] wherein it was

recorded that the State of U.P. filed an affidavit and undertaking

emphatically ensuring that no constructional activity would be

carried on or permitted to be carried out by anyone. In view of the

undertaking given, this Hon’ble Court abstained from granting the

prayer in I.A. No. 5 but kept the application pending and observed

that if the complexion of the problem changed then the application

maybe considered. It was also directed that a Judicial Officer be

appointed as an Observer of the situation. The matter was again

listed on November 30, 1992, for appointment of Observer [(1994)

6 SCC 760] and on December 1, 1992, an order was passed by this

Hon’ble Court directing that both the State and the Central
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

43
Government give due publicity about the undertaking given by the

state government that no constructional activity would be carried

out and no building material would be moved on the acquired land

[(1994) 6 SCC 761].

(lxxvi) That on December 6, 1992, Babri Masjid was demolished in utter

violation of the solemn undertaking given to this Hon’ble Court.

Consequently, the President of India issued a proclamation under

Article 356 of the Constitution of India dismissing the U.P.

Government.

(lxxvii) That on December 11, 1992, The Full Bench of Allahabad High

Court, quashed the notifications issued by the State of U.P.

acquiring the areas under the notifications, inter-alia on the ground

that the purpose of the notifications was primarily construction of a

temple hence mala fide.

The Writ Petitions being 3540 of 1991 (M/B) and the connected

matters challenging the notifications dated 07.10.1991 and

10.10.1991 were allowed by a Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court

and the notifications dated 07.10.1991 and 10.10.1991 issued by

the State of UP were quashed, accepting the argument that the

purpose of notification was mala fide and against secularism.

(Please see Page 54/Vol.1 of the High Court Judgment)

(lxxviii) That on December 15, 1992, the President of India issued three

proclamations under Article 356 of the Constitution of India

dismissing all the three BJP run State Governments in Madhya

Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, inter-alia, for

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

44
instigating the Kar Sevaks to participate in demolition of Babri

Masjid and/or felicitating Karsevaks who participated in the

demolition.

(lxxix) That on January 7, 1993, the Government of India issued the

Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 for

acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janambhumi-Babri

Masjid complex. It was later replaced by Act No. 33 of 1993, and in

view of Section 4(3) of the aforesaid Act, all pending suits and legal

proceedings abated.

(lxxx) That in 1993, the Special Reference No.1 of 1993 was made by the

President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, in

the following terms:-

"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure

existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janam Bhoomi and

Babari Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer

courtyards on such structure) in the area on which the structure

stands or not?"

The Acquisition of Certain Area at Act Ordinance, 1993 was also

challenged by Dr. Ismail Faruqui in Transferred Case (C) Nos. 41,

43 and 45 of 1993, Jamiat-Ulama-E-Hind and another v. Union of

India and others, in Writ Petition (C) No. 208 of 1993, Mohd. Aslam

v. Union of India and others and in Transfer Case No. 42 of 1993

Thakur Vijay Ragho Bhagwan Birajman Mandir and another v.

Union of India and others and in Special Reference No. 1 of 1993,

Hargyan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

45
(lxxxi) That on October 10, 1994, this Hon’ble Court decided the reference

as well as the challenge to the Acquisition of Certain Areas at

Ayodhya Act, 1993 (arising out of the Acquisition of Certain Area at

Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 (No. 8 of 1993)) matter through judgment

reported in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqi Vs. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC

360. This Hon’ble Court refused to answer the reference and struck

down Section 4(3) of the Acquisition Act, 1993 which had directed

abatement of all pending suits, as unconstitutional and invalid and

upheld the validity of the remaining Act. The result was that the

suits, which had abated in view of the aforesaid provision of the

Acquisition Act, 1993, stood revived. It was also directed that the

vesting of the disputed area described as inner and outer courtyard

(in dispute in these suits) in the Central Government would be as

the statutory receiver with the duty for its management and

administration requiring maintenance of status quo. It was further

directed that the duty of the Central Government as the statutory

receiver would be to hand over the disputed area in accordance

with Section 6 of the Act in terms of the adjudication made in the

suits for implementation of the final decision therein as it was the

purpose for which the disputed area had been so acquired. It was

also clarified that disputed area (inner and outer courtyards) alone

remained the subject matter of the revived suits. The claim of

Muslims regarding adjoining graveyard was, therefore, not left to be

decided.

The Judgment is reported as Dr. M. Ismail Farooqi Vs. Union of

India, 1994 (6) SCC 360. (Please see Running Volume 129)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

46
(lxxxii) That on May 25, 1995, the Hon’ble High Court permitted certain

amendments to be made in the plaints of OOS No. 3 of 1989 and

OOS No. 4 of 1989. Nirmohi Akhara, inter alia added the following

averments in its plaint by way of amendment: -

i. On December 6,1992, the Temples of Nirmohi Akhara

were also demolished.

ii. The main temple was also demolished on December

6,1992

iii. The customs of Nirmohi Akhara have been reduced to

writing vide a Registered Deed dated March 19,1949.

Additionally, the plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of 1989 made a few

amendments and added the following prayer:-

“(bb) That the statutory Receiver be commanded to hand over

the property in dispute described in the Schedule “A” of the

Plaint by removing the unauthorised strictures erected

thereon.”

(lxxxiii) That on March 13, 2002, in a Writ Petition No 160 of 2002 filed

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by one Mohd Aslam

inter-alia praying for preservation of adjacent land till the final

decision in the title suit pending in the High Court of Allahabad, this

Hon’ble Court while issuing rule, passed the following order:

“In the meantime, we direct that on 67.703 acres of land located

in Revenue Plot Nos 159 and 160 in Village Kot Ramchandra

which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

47
of any kind by any one either symbolic or actual including

bhoomi puja or shila puja shall be permitted or allowed to take

place.

Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over

by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained

by the Government till the disposal of the writ petition nor shall

any of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any

religious purpose or in connection therewith…”

This order is reported in Mohd Aslam v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC

1.

(lxxxiv) That on March 14, 2002, This Hon’ble Court clarified the aforesaid

order dated March 13, 2002 by another order dated 14.03.2002 in

the following terms:

“After hearing the learned Attorney General as there was some

ambiguity in para 3 of our order dated 13.03.2002 we correct

para 3 of our order as follows;

In the meantime, we direct that on 67.703 acres of acquired

land located in various Plots detailed in the Schedule to the

Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 which is

vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any

kind by any one either symbolic or actual including bhoomi puja

or shila puja shall be permitted or allowed to take place…”

This order is reported in Mohd Aslam v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC

1. [Please see (2003) 2 SCC 576]

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

48
(lxxxv) That the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at Lucknow

vide Order dated August 1, 2002 in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 proposed

the following terms in relation to the excavation of the disputed site:

“If it is ultimately decided to excavate the disputed land, in that

event the excavation will be done by the Archaeological Survey

of India under the supervision of five eminent Archaeologists

(Excavators), even though retired, including two Muslims and

the following procedure may be adopted:

(1) The videography of excavation work be done and if any

artefacts are found their photographs (coloured as well as

black and white and slides) may be taken. Such

artefacts/materials, if found, may be kept under the

custody of the State of U.P.

(2) Complete documentation as sites, artifacts be done

properly.

(3) The debris of disputed structure as existing after its

demolition shall be removed.

(4) The excavation or removal of the debris may be done

between 9.00 A,M. to 5.00 P.M.

(5) The Court may appoint observer for the excavation work.

(6) At present at the disputed site the idol of “Shri Ramlala”

has been placed and its devotees are worshipping, it may

be placed at the Chabutra situate east of the site till the

excavation work is complete.”

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

49
The Hon’ble High Court invited all the parties to submit in writing

within two weeks, their suggestions/ views on the aforesaid

proposal and also as to why the disputed land should not be allowed

to be excavated by the ASI. Further, till decision in this Respect, the

Court directed ASI to get the disputed site surveyed by Ground

Penetrating Radar or Geo-Radiology (GPR) and obtain a report.

(lxxxvi) That After considering the objections raised by the Parties, the

Hon’ble High Court passed an order that a report has to be made

on the structures which exist on the disputed premises after hearing

the objections of the parties and held inter alia:

“Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties we are of

the opinion that we should get the report in regard to the

foundation, if any, of any structure at the site in question. One

of the issues in the suit is whether there was any Hindu temple

or any Hindu religious structures existed and the alleged Babri

Masjid was constructed after demolishing such temple/

structure at the site in question.”

(lxxxvii) That on February 17, 2003, Survey Report was submitted by M/s.

Tozo through ASI before the Hon’ble High Court.

(lxxxviii) That on an Application being CMA No. 19 of 2003 in O.O.S. No. 4

of 1989 was filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board objecting to

the excavation by the ASI alongwith letter dated 18.03.2003

addressed to the ASI wherein they had requested Sri. B.R. Mani,

Team Leader, ASI Excavation Team to include appropriate number

of Muslim labourers.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

50
(lxxxix) That on March 12, 2003, the ASI commenced work on excavation.

(xc) That on March 21, 2003, the ASI Submitted a report showing some

preliminary findings. Further, Sri B.R. Mani, Superintendent

(Archaeology) and Team Leader, ASI submitted a brief report to the

Hon’ble High Court through the Director General of ASI in which it

was also requested that 2 months’ extension maybe granted for

excavation and 15 days more for writing the report. Further, Sri B.R.

Mani vide his letter dated March 23, 2003, gave a pointwise reply

to the application filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, stating

that ASI had no role in engaging of the labour force.

(xci) That on March 26, 2003, the Hon’ble High Court passed an order

noting that to maintain the faith of both the Communities, it is

desirable that adequate representation of both the communities

may be maintained in respect of the functioning of the ASI team and

engagement of the labourers.

(xcii) That on March 21, 2003, a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 160

of 2002 (Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India) had been filed as a Public

Interest Litigation and the issue raised before this Hon’ble Court

was whether the land adjacent to the disputed area should be

preserved till the final decision in the Suits pending before the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. On March 31, 2003, this Hon’ble

Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 160/2002 vide its judgment

reported as (2003) 4 SCC 1 by directing that the order of this

Hon’ble Court passed on 13.03.02 as modified by the order made

on 14.03.02 should be operative until disposal of the suits in the

High Court of Allahabad. It was observed that status quo has been
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

51
maintained from 1992 onwards and no activities as are set out in

the course of the application have been required to be done so far.

When for a long time, a particular state of affairs has prevailed- as

in the present case for over a decade- and when the adjudication

of the disputes which are pending before the High Court are

reaching final stages, it will not be appropriate to disturb that state

of affairs. It is well known that preservation of property in its original

condition is absolutely necessary to give appropriate reliefs to the

parties on the termination of the proceedings before the courts and,

therefore, we do not think that this is one of those cases in which it

becomes necessary to disturb that state. [see: (2003) 4 SCC 1]

(xciii) That between April 14, 2003 and July 26, 2003, several objections

were filed by the parties during the course of excavation by ASI.

Thirty-two objections were filed by the Muslim Parties and two were

filed on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.

(xciv) That on August 22, 2003, the Archaeological Survey of India

submitted its report in compliance of the Order dated March 5, 2003

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at

Lucknow in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 and stated inter alia:

“Now, viewing in totality and taking into account he

archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the

disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural in

structure phases from the tenth century onwards up to the

construction of the disputed structure along with the yield of

stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of

divine couple and carved architectural members including

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

52
foliage patterns, amalaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-

circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar,

lotus motif, circular shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the

north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are

indicative of remains which are distinctive features found

associated with the temples of north India.”

(Please see Running Volumes 83, 84 and 85)

(xcv) That in furtherance of the several objections filed by the parties to

the report submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India. The

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad of Judicature at Lucknow vide

order dated February 3, 2005 passed in O.O.S. No 1 of 1989/

O.O.S. No. 3/1989 and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 disposed of the

objections to the report of the ASI on the ground that the ASI report

shall be subject to the objections and evidences produced by the

parties at the time of final decision of the Suit.

(xcvi) That on September 30, 2010, the Special Bench of the High Court

vide three separate judgments decided the Suits in the following

manner. Each of the Hon’ble Judges wrote a separate judgment.

As per the said judgment:-

(a) OOS No. 4 of 1989 was dismissed as barred by limitation in

view of the majority view of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir

Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma.

(b) OOS No. 5 of 1989, was partly decreed as per the majority

view of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.U. Khan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Sudhir Agarwal, whereby all three parties, namely the Muslim

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

53
side (i.e. Plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of 1989), the Hindu side (i.e.

the Plaintiffs in OOS No. 4 of 1989) and Nirmohi Akhara were

joint title holders and entitled to 1/3rd portion each.

It was further clarified that the portion below the Central Dome be

allotted to Hindu Parties while Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted the

part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in

the map. The Muslim side was decreed to be entitled to some area

of the Outer Courtyard and further the land available with the

Government of India, acquired under the Ayodhya Act, 1993 was to

made available to the successful parties so that all the three parties

may utilize the area to which they are entitled to by having separate

entry for egress and ingress so as to not to disturb each other’s

rights. (Please see the publication of the said judgment by

Malhotra Law House, Allahabad in 3 Volumes (2nd Edition 2016)

(xcvii) That on September 30, 2010, the Hon’ble High Court passed two

separate preliminary decrees in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 and O.O.S.

No. 5 of 1989 vide Order dated September 30, 2010.

(xcviii) That on December 12, 2010, the Hon’ble High Court passed an

order correcting various mistakes in the impugned judgements. The

High Court vide another order of the same date after hearing the

arguments of the parties and while reserving order on the draft

decree prepared by the office of the High Court, inter alia modified

its directions in respect of operation of status quo for three months

from 30.09.2010 in the following terms;

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

54
“Learned counsels for the parties stated that the order of status

quo passed by this Court vide judgement dated 30.09.2010 is

going to expire by the end of this month and the proceedings of

finalization of preliminary decree is likely to take some time.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the order of

extension be passed.

Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the

status quo order passed vide judgment dated 30.09.2010 shall

remain in operation until 15.02.2011 unless modified, vacated

or is directed otherwise earlier.”

(xcix) That on November 15, 2010, Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal Nos.

10866-10867 were filed before this Hon’ble Court.

(c) That on May 9, 2011, a two judge bench of this Hon’ble Court

admitted the Civil Appeal being C.A. Nos. 10866-67 of 2010 and

stayed the operation of the judgment & decree dated 30.09.2010.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties were directed to

maintain status quo with respect to the disputed premises.

(ci) That, in the meanwhile, this Hon’ble Court issued several directions

for summoning the digital record of the evidence and pleadings

from the Allahabad High Court and for furnishing translated copies

to the parties.

(cii) That on August 8, 2015, this Hon’ble Court allowed the

Commissioner, Faizabad Division to replace the old and worn out

tarpaulin sheets over the makeshift structure under which the idols

were placed with new sheets of the same size and quality.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

55
(ciii) That on December 5, 2017, this Hon’ble Court rejected the plea that

the appeals against the impugned judgement be referred to a larger

Bench in view of certain observations of the Constitution Bench in

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360.

(civ) That on March 14, 2018, this Hon’ble Court asked the Counsel for

the Appellants, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan to address the court on whether

the judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) 6

SCC 360 requires reconsideration by a larger bench.

(cv) That on September 27, 2018, the judgment was passed declining

the reference to larger bench. The Majority Judgment was rendered

by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and the then Chief Justice-

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra. The majority judgment, however,

clarified that the reference to the status of the mosque was made in

the context of vulnerability to acquisition by State. (Please see

2018 SCC OnLine SC 1677)

(cvi) Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer disagreed that the

questionable observations made in paragraph 82 of the judgment

in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994)

6 SCC 360 were not relevant for deciding these appeals. Therefore,

he took the view case had been made out for reference of these

appeals to a Constitution Bench of this Court.

(cvii) That on January 8, 2019, this Hon’ble Court vide administrative

order made pursuant to the provisions of Order VI Rule 1 of the

Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Chief Justice of India constituted

a five judge Bench to hear appeals.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

56
(cviii) That on January 10, 2019, the Registry of this Hon’ble Court was

directed to inspect the records and if required, engage official

translators.

(cix) That on February 26, 2019, this Hon’ble Court referred the parties

to a Court appointed and monitored mediation to explore the

possibility of bringing about a permanent solution to the issues

raised in the appeals.

(cx) That on March 8, 2019, this Hon’ble Court constituted a panel of

mediators comprising of (i) Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim

Kalifulla, a former Judge of this Hon’ble Court; (ii) Sri Sri Ravi

Shankar; and (iii) Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate. The time

granted to the panel was extended on 10.05.2019.

(cxi) That by August 2, 2019, since no settlement was reached, this

Hon’ble Court directed the hearing to commence from 06.08.2019.

(cxii) That on August 6, 2019, hearing in the appeals commenced before

this Hon’ble Court.

(cxiii) That on August 8, 2019, this Hon’ble Court passed order observing

that while the hearings will proceed, if any parties desired to settle

the dispute, it was open for them to move the mediators and place

a settlement, if it was arrived at, before this Hon’ble Court.

(cxiv) That on October 16, 2019, final arguments were concluded in the

hearing. Also, “Final Report of the Committee” was submitted by

the Mediation Panel which did not reflect a final, binding and/or

concluded settlement agreement.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

57
(cxv) That on November 11, 2019, this Hon’ble Court passed the

Impugned Judgment holding that since the Hindu parties had

exclusive possession of the outer courtyard and the claims

regarding possession of the inner courtyard were conflicting, the

entire suit property, which had not been partitioned till date, be

handed over to the Board of Trustees of a Trust which was to be

set up by the Central Government within 3 months from the date of

this judgment. Further this Hon’ble Court acknowledged that the

Muslims were wrongly dispossessed from the mosque upon its

desecration on December 22/23, 1949 and ultimately its destruction

on December 6, 1992. Accordingly, in order to remedy the said

wrong this Hon’ble Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

142 of the Constitution, directed that alternate land admeasuring 5

acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the

Central Government or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within

the city of Ayodhya.

8. That aggrieved by the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 the Review Petitioner is filing the present Review Petition

in this Hon’ble Court on the following amongst other grounds:-

A. For that this Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that there can be no

lasting peace without justice and accountability. The Review

Petitioner in this regard is relying upon the following quote by M. Cherif

Bassiouni entitled as Justice and Peace: The Importance of Choosing

Accountability over Realpolitik published in 35 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L.

191 (2003) which reads as follows: -

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

58
“Peace… is the restoration of justice, and the use of law to

mediate and resolve intersocial and inter-personal discord. The

pursuit of justice and accountability fulfills fundamental human

needs and expresses key values necessary for the prevention

and deterrence of future conflicts. For this reason, sacrificing

justice and accountability for the immediacy of realpolitik

represents a short-term vision of expediency over more

enduring human values”.

It is in this spirit that the Review Petitioner urges this Hon’ble Court to

review the impugned judgment and order dated November 9, 2019

reported in 2019 (15) SCALE 1.

B. For that this Hon’ble Court ought to have appreciated that the present

suits were filed in representative capacity and that the parties herein

ought to be held responsible for the illegal acts of desecration and

demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1934, 1949 and 1992 respectively.

C. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in supposedly providing restitution to

the Muslims by directing the grant of five acres alternate land in

exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India. The same is also erroneous in view of the law of

restitution as recognised under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure,

1908. It is submitted that the Babri Masjid was demolished in brazen

violation of multiple orders of this Hon’ble Court. Further, this Hon’ble

Court has also confirmed the same in the impugned judgment by

holding that the events of December 6, 1992 were an egregious

violation of the rule of law. In such circumstances, complete justice

under Article 142 and restitution of the illegality, can only be done by
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

59
directing the Central Government as well as the State of Uttar

Pradesh for the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid. Therefore, this

Hon’ble Court erred in wrongly applying Article 142 of the Constitution

and the law of restitution.

D. For that this Hon’ble Court committed grave error in granting relief to

a party who had not approached the Court with clean hands and

indulged in repeatedly flouting the orders of this Hon’ble Court.

E. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent on record by

decreeing a suit which had prayed for the Babri Masjid (which was still

existing at the time of filing of Suit 5) to be razed down so that a temple

of Lord Ram can be constructed in its place.

F. For that this Hon’ble Court has committed an error apparent on record

by passing the impugned judgment and order directing for a temple to

be built at the disputed land, which virtually amounts to a mandamus

to destroy, because had the Babri Masjid not been illegally

demolished on December 6, 1992, the execution of the present order

would have required the destruction of an existing mosque to make

space for a proposed temple.

G. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by not

awarding the disputed site to the Muslim parties despite noting that

the claim of the Hindu parties were based on three outlining

illegalities, i.e. in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid),

1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri

Masjid). Further in addition to not granting the Muslim parties their

due, this Hon’ble Court erred further when it directed allotment

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

60
alternate land of 5 acres, erroneously exercising its jurisdiction under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India as it was neither pleaded or

prayed for by any of the parties.

H. For that this Hon’ble Court noted three of the several illegalities

committed by the Hindu parties, but committed an error apparent

when it proceeded to not only condone the said illegal acts but to

award the same by allotting the disputed site to the Hindu Parties.

I. For that this Hon’ble Court grossly erred in disregarding the settled

and basic principle of law that no person should not be able to take

advantage of his/her wrongful actions. It is submitted that a party

approaching the court for any relief(s) whatsoever must come with

clean hands. Accordingly, it is submitted that a cause of action which

arises out of an illegality cannot be sustained in a civil suit.

J. For that this Hon’ble Court grossly erred in ignoring the settled

principle of law i.e. ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no right of action can

have its origin in fraud). The acts of the Hindu parties including but not

limited to 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949

(desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri

Masjid) were not only serious violations of the law but amounted to a

fraud on the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, no right

whatsoever could have been claimed or sustained on the basis of

such acts. In this regard, the Review Petitioner relies on the oft quoted

dictum of Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341 at

page 343:
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

61
“The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur

actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause

of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's

own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise

ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this

country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It

is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the

defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a

plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides,

and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff,

the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both

are equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.” (See also

Kedar Nath Motani v Prahlad Rai and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 213

at para 14; Immani Appa Rao and Ors. V Gollapalli

Ramalingamurthi and Ors., AIR 1962 SC 370)

K. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in ignoring the settled principle of law

i.e. ex turpis causa non oritur actio (from a dishonorable cause an

action does not arise). In the present case, the cause of action of the

Hindu parties arises from the illegal placing of the idol under the

Central Dome on the intervening night of December, 22/23 1949.

Despite agreeing that such ouster of Muslims was calculated to

deprive them of their place of worship, this Hon’ble Court has

committed an error apparent by validating such dispossession.

(Please See Narayanamma v Govindappa, (2019) SCCOnline SC

1260)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

62
L. For that this Hon’ble Court grossly erred in ignoring the settled

principle of law i.e. commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet – a

wrongdoer should not be enabled by law to take any advantage from

his actions. This Hon’ble Court has at several places in the Impugned

Judgment and Order dated November 9, 2019, admonished the illegal

acts of the Hindu community. However, this Hon’ble Court has still

proceeded to rely upon these wanton acts of trespass/destruction and

on the basis of such acts awarded the title of the disputed site to the

very party that indulged in such wrongful acts. By doing so, this

hon’ble Court has permitted the Hindu parties to take benefit of their

illegal actions which is also prohibited by settled rule of nullus

commodum capere potest de iniuria sua propria (no man can take

advantage of his own wrong). The dictum of this Hon’ble Court in

Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 at

page 511, is extremely relevant in this regard:

“It is a settled proposition that one cannot be permitted to take

advantage of his own wrong. The doctrine commodum ex

injuria sua nemo habere debet means convenience cannot

accrue to a party from his own wrong. No person ought to have

advantage of his own wrong. A litigant may be right or wrong.

Normally merit of lis is to be seen on date of institution. One

cannot be permitted to obtain unjust injunction or stay orders

and take advantage of own actions. Law intends to give redress

to the just causes; at the same time, it is not its policy to foment

litigation and enable to reap the fruits owing to the delay caused

by unscrupulous persons by their own actions by misusing the

process of law and dilatory tactics.” (See also Mrutunjay Pani v.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

63
Narmada Bala Sasmal, (1962) 1 SCR 290 at 291; Kusheshwar

Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447 at 451)

M. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that any relief

whatsoever, granted in exercise of power under Article 142 cannot

transgress any illegality.

N. For that this Hon’ble Court in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of

India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 has held that Article 142 does not confer this

Court with the jurisdiction to ignore the express substantive rights of

the parties or to ignore express statutory provisions. In the present

case the exercise of the power under Article 142 to allot the disputed

site to the Hindu parties, comes in conflict with several statutory

provisions in as much as it condones the acts of 1934 (damaging the

domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid) and

1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid). It further permits the Hindu

parties to take the benefit of their own wrongs. Lastly, the impugned

judgment by allotting Wakf Land for alternate purposes, comes in

direct conflict with Section 104A of the Wakf Act, 1995.

O. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent when it held

that the Hindus had exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer

courtyard.

P. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent when it

observed that exclusive and unimpeded possession of the Hindus

over the outer courtyard was evident from the prayers being offered

by them at the Ram Chabutara, Sita Rasoi and Bhandara in the outer

courtyard. It is submitted that while making the above observation,

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

64
this Hon’ble Court failed to take notice of the fact that the construction

of Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard was itself illegal and the

same was ordered to be dug out by the authorities. [See Para 3 of the

Written Statement dated December 22, 1885 at pages 1433/Vol. II of

the High Court Judgment]

Q. For that this Hon’ble Court further erred in not considering that the

right of the Hindus over these three places (i.e. the Ram Chabutara,

Sita Rasoi and Bhandara) have been affirmed to be a prescriptive

right by the Learned District Judge on March 18/26, 1886 and also

subsequently by the Learned Judicial Commissioner on 2.9.1886.

[Please see judgment dated March 18/26, 1886 at pages 42/4201 of

Vol. III of High Court Judgment and the Order of the Judicial

Commissioner dated November 2, 1886 at page 487 of the impugned

judgment dated November 9, 2019]

R. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in relying upon the oral testimonies

of Hindu witnesses stating that they used to pray at the grill-brick wall

in reverence of the alleged grabh-griha (i.e. the place under the

Central Dome). It is submitted that in a series of litigations concerning

the disputed site, beginning from 1858 till the present proceedings it

was never the case of the Hindu parties that the place under the

Central Dome of the Babri Masjid was believed to be the birthplace of

Lord Ram. In fact, all of these litigations beginning from 1858,

concerned only the outer courtyard and never was any claim laid

specifically on the place under the Central Dome of the Babri Masjid.

S. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in accepting the oral testimonies of

the Hindu witnesses to conclude that the Hindus had always believed
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

65
the alleged garbha griha to be the birth place of Lord Ram. It is

submitted even in the 1885 Suit, it was held pleaded by the Hindu

parties that Ram Chabutara was being worshipped as the birthplace

of Lord Ram. Accordingly, it was held that Ram Chabutra was the

birthplace of Lord Ram. In such circumstances, this Hon’ble Court

erred in relying upon the testimonies of Hindu witnesses, which were

obviously given to justify the illegal act of placing the idol under the

Central Dome. Needless to say, that had the belief regarding the

birthplace of Lord Ram being under Central Dome been genuine, it

would have definitely been reflected in these litigations, particularly in

the 1885 suit. [Please see judgment dated March 18/26, 1886 at

pages 42/4201 of Vol. III of High Court Judgment]

T. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the entire

case that the place under the Central Dome was being worshipped as

the birthplace of Lord Ram was developed as an afterthought to justify

the illegal desecration of the mosque. It is relevant to note that even

in the Plaints filed in the present proceedings by the Hindu parties in

Suit Nos. 1, 3 and 5 of 1989, it was not averred that the place under

the Central Dome was worshipped as the birthplace of Lord Ram.

U. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the case that

the place under the Central Dome was worshipped as the birthplace

of Lord Ram was created as an afterthought, in order to justify the

illegal act of placing of the idol under the Central Dome on December

22/23.1949. This stand was substantiated by mere oral testimonies

which were recorded as late as in the year 1999.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

66
V. For that even if the testimonies of the Hindu witnesses are to be

considered, it is submitted that a mere look at the Central Dome will

not create any right(s) whatsoever in the same.

W. For that this Hon’ble Court erred concluding that opening of the Singh

Dwar on the northern side of the Babri Mosque in 1877 depicted that

the Hindu parties were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard.

It is submitted that when the Singh Dwar was directed to be opened

on the north side, the Muslims challenged the opening of the said gate

by filing an Appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 56). In this Appeal it was

categorically stated that:-

i. Each place within the boundary wall of the mosque is the

mosque.

ii. General principle is that the matters relating to masjid should

be handed over to the Muslims while matters relating to the

temple should be handed over to the Hindus. Thus the

permission accorded to the defendants for opening the gate is

in contravention of this basic principle.

iii. Previously also on 7.11.1873, an order was passed directing

the Hindus to remove the idols. Therefore, when there is no

permission to install idols, how can a right over the wall of the

masjid be given to the defendants.

iv. On the door of the outer wall of the masjid, the word – Allah is

engraved.

v. When the appellant himself had requested that he be permitted

to open the said door on his own expenses and was ready &
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

67
willing to open the said door, in such circumstances, the

defendants- belonging to other religion could not have been

accorded permission to construct the door.

vi. The defendant with the intention of occupying, continues to

indulge in several activities on the wall and on being restrained

by someone, he becomes aggressive and is bent to fight with

him. [See Vol. A-113 @ pgs. 39-40; Also at Pgs. 143-144/Vol.

87]

It is therefore clear that the Muslims objected to the opening of the

Singh Dwar on the Northern side and even offered to open the said

door on their own account. Further it has also been stated in this

appeal that the Hindus were time and again trespassing into the

boundary of the mosque, which attempts were constantly being

resisted by the Muslims. This shows that the Muslim parties were in

possession of the entire property and were asserting/defending their

rights as and when the need arose. The opening of northern gate by

the British in no way granted and/or recognised any rights whatsoever

of the Hindu Parties.

X. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent on the face

of record in observing that there was absence of any evidence to

indicate any assertion of rights by Muslim Parties over the outer

courtyard. It is submitted that the Muslim parties had always asserted

and defended their rights as and when the need arose, which is

evident from the following: -

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

68
i. Case No. 884, which concerned Nihang Singh Faqir who had

trespassed into the Babri Mosque and affixed a flag therein. On

December 10,1858, an order was passed recording that Jhanda

(flag) was uprooted from the Masjid and the Faqir residing therein

was ousted. [Please see Pages 1370-71 @ Para 2325-2326/Vol.

II of the High Court Judgment]

ii. Case 2: Case No. 223 filed on 5.11.1860 by Mir Rajab Ali: This

case concerned a small Chabootra which had been constructed in

the graveyard adjacent to Babri Masjid by one Nihang. Initially, an

application was filed on 5.11.1860, which was followed by another

application on March 12,1861, wherein it was stated that stated

that Imkani Sikh had illegally occupied the lands of the Muslims

and had erected a chabootra without permission near Babri Masjid.

On March 18,1861, Subedar tendered a report regarding the

execution of an order dated 16.03.1861 wherein it was stated that

not only has Imkani Sikh has been evicted from the Kutir (hut) but

the hut has also been demolished. [Please See Vol. A-113 @ pg.

30; Also at Pg.1713/Running Volume 11]

iii. Bairagis (Included in Case No. 223 already decided on

18.03.1861) On 25.9.1866, an application was filed by Mohd. Afzal

(Mutwalli Masjid Babri) against Tulsidas and other Bairagis,

praying for demolishing the new Kothari which has been newly

constructed by the Respondent for placing idols etc. inside the

door of the Masjid where Bairagis have constructed a Chabootra.

On October 12,1866, Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad passed an

order, on the application of Mohd. Afzal (included in Case No. 223)

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

69
against Tulsi Das directing consignment of records. [Page 1398 @

Para 2348/Vol. II of the High Court Judgment]

iv. Case 3: (Niyamat Ali and Mohd. Shah v. Gangadhar Shastri): On

August 26,1868, an Order was passed by Major J. Reed

Commissioner, Faizabad against the order dated 25.6.1868

passed by the Officiating Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad in the

case of Niyamat Ali and Mohd. Shah Vs. Gangadhar Shastri. This

case was filed by the Muslims against one Ganga Dhar alleging

that he was encroaching on the North West Corner of the Masjid.

The order dismissed the appeal as no encroachment was proved,

however the following observations were made:-

a) The maps show that the house of Ganga Dhar touched the

wall on the Masjid and nothing intervenes.

b) There could be no encroachment until the wall of the Masjid

itself had been dug into, however it has not been alleged so.

c) Previous order of Commissioner Simsons dated 27.2.1864

directed that Hindus should not encroach on the boundaries

of the Mosque and Chabutara. However, since no such

encroachment has been proved, there is no reason to

interfere. [Please See Page 1931 @ Para 3406/Vol. II of

the High Court Judgment]

v. Case 4: (Mohd. Asghar v. Government): On February 22,1870,

Plaint was filed by Mohd. Asghar (Mutawalli of Babri Masjid)

praying to evict defendants (Faqir) from trees of Imli, (Bagh Imli),

Khandhal and graveyard. On August 22,1871, an order was

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

70
passed, observing that possession of Plaintiffs over the tamarind

trees was established, but right of ownership cannot be of the

Plaintiffs as this is general graveyard and courtyard in front of the

door of the Masjid Janamsthan. [See Vol. A113 @ pg. 37; Also at

Pgs. 115/Running Volume 87]

vi. Case 5: Placing of Idol on the Platform (Chabutara):

a) In November 1873, an Appeal was filed by Mohd. Asghar

against placing of an Idol on platform of Janamsthan. [Page

2540/ Vol. II of the High Court Judgment (11th line from

the top)]

b) On November 7,1873, an order was passed in the case of

Mohammad Asghar V Mahant Baldeo Das, directing Mahant

Baldev Das to remove the idol i.e. Charan Paduka which he

failed to comply with. [Page 1657 @ Para 2978/Vol. II of the

Impugned Judgment]

c) Subsequently, on November 10,1873, Baldeo Das was

ordered in writing by the Deputy Commissioner to remove

an image placed on the Janam Asthan platform. [Para 2353

(Point No.3) @ Page 1409/Vol.II of the High Court

Judgment]

d) However, these orders were not complied with. [See Vol. A

113 @ Pages 39-40 (At Page 40-Section 6); Also at Page

144 (section 6)/Running Volume 87 and Para 2563 @

Page No. 1513 of Vol. II of the High Court Judgment]

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

71
vii. Case No. 6- Appeal against the permission of opening of the Singh

Dwar in 1877

viii. Case No. 7: Dispute regarding whitewash of the wall of the

Mosque

a) On November 2,1883 Sayyed Mohd. Asgar filed a case

(being Case No. 19435) before Learned Assistant

Commissioner stating that he is entitled to get the wall of the

mosque white-washed but is being obstructed by Raghubar

Das. [Please See Vol. A-113 @ pgs. 69-72; Also at

Pgs.83-85/Running Vol. 87]

b) On January 22,1884, the Assistant Commissioner, Faizabad

passed an order restricting Raghubar Das from carrying out

repairs etc. in the inner as well as the outer part of the

compound. [Please see Page 1420 @ Para 2365/Vol. II of

the High Court Judgment]

ix. Case No. 8: The 1885 suit- In this case the Hindu parties pleaded

that the Ram Chabutara was being worshipped as the birthplace

of Lord Ram and that they be permitted to construct a temple on

the same. The case of the Hindu parties was dismissed by the

Learned Sub Judge on December 24,1885 and subsequently even

the first appeal and second appeal were dismissed on March

18/26,1886 and November 2,1886 respectively. While the suit of

the Hindu parties was dismissed, it was categorically held that

Ram Chabutara was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that the Hindu
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

72
parties had very limited prescriptive rights over the Ram

Chabutara, Sita Rasoi and Bhandara.

Y. For that this Hon’ble Court though appreciated that the Muslims were

continuously offering Namaz at the Babri Mosque and noted that the

last Friday Namaz took place on December 16,1949, it passed a

contradictory direction when it directed that the inner courtyard

alongwith the outer courtyard by handed over to the Hindu parties.

Z. For that this Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that there could be only

two possibilities, either the Muslims were having prescriptive rights

over the disputed site or the Hindus were having prescriptive rights

over the disputed site. It is submitted that right from 1858, there is

documented evidence that the Hindu parties have been time and

again been indulging in illegal acts of trespass over the disputed site.

Each of these attempts were resisted by the Muslim parties and the

Hindus were time and again reprimanded by the authorities. Further

while dismissing the second appeal in the 1885 suit, the Learned

Judicial Commissioner categorically noted that the rights of the

Hindus over the disputed site were merely prescriptive. It is therefore

clear that the rights of the Hindu parties were merely prescriptive while

the entire mosque compound, i.e. the disputed structure, the inner

courtyard and the outer courtyard were Wakf properties and therefore

the rights of the Muslims were those of title and not merely

prescriptive.

AA. For that this Hon’ble Court though observed that the only the acts

subsequent to the annexation of Oudh in 1856 ought to be evaluated

to decide the present dispute, however it goes on to consider

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

73
traveller’s accounts and the ASI report, both of which concern the

period prior to 1856.

BB. For that without prejudice to the foregoing, even if the situation prior

to 1856 is considered, it can be clearly concluded that the entire

disputed site, particularly the inner courtyard was in exclusive

possession of the Muslim parties. This is evident as:-

i. The Babri Masjid was built under the command of Babur in the

year 1528. This fact has been accepted by even the Hindu

parties, as mentioned in para 68 of the Impugned Judgment.

ii. From 1528 till 1856:- During this period Oudh was under Muslim

rule (Mughal/Nawab) and thus, namaz was being offered

continuously at the Babri Mosque.

iii. There is indirect record, in the form of Register of Enquiry,

available to show the grant made by Emperor Babur. It is relevant

to note that the Register of Inquiry of rent free land dated March

14,1860, records that Emperor Babar granted revenue grant of

Rs. 302/3/6 for meeting the expenses of salary of Khatib and

Muezzin. [See Vol. A 113 @ pgs. 1-4; Also at. 30-33/Running

Volume 3]

CC. For that this Court committed an error apparent on record when it

failed to appreciate that the British government recognised the title of

the Muslim parties when it continued the grant (cash Nankar of Rs.

302/3/6) which had originally been granted by Emperor Babur for

meeting the expenses of salary of Khatib and Muezzin. It is submitted

that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent on record when it

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

74
rejected the said grant on the basis that there was no enquiry

conducted by the British Government. It is submitted that copy of the

certificate of grant which bears the seal of the Chief Commissioner,

records that- “It having been established after due inquiry that Rajjab

Ali and Mohd. Asghar received a Cash Nankar of (Rs. 302-3-6) Rupee

Three Hundred and two three annas six pie from Mauza Shahanwa

District Fyzabad, in rent free tenure under the former Government.

The Chief Commissioner, under the authority of the Governor General

in Council is pleased to maintain the grant for so long as the object for

which the grant has been made is kept up on the following

conditions…...”. It is submitted that when the Certificate of grant itself

records that the grant is being continued after due inquiry has been

conducted, this Hon’ble Court erred in observing otherwise on the

basis of mere allegations of the Hindu parties. [Please see certificate

of grant at Pages 1379-80 @ Para 2335/Vol. II of the High Court

Judgment]

DD. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not considering that this certificate

of grant, on a bare perusal, shows that the grant originally given by

Emperor Babur was being continued by the subsequent governments

until the annexation of Oudh by the British. Further, the grant was

continued so long as the object of the grant was maintained. As

mentioned above, the Register of Inquiry of rent-free land dated

March 14,1860, recorded that the purpose of the grant was to meet

the expenses of salary of Khatib and Muezzin. It is relevant to note

that a Muezzin is the person who gives a call for namaz, which shows

that the namaz was being continuously offered since 1528, or else the
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

75
grant whose purpose was to meet the salary of the Muezzin would not

have been continued.

EE. For that the possession and use by the Muslims from the period of

1856-1949 is evident as:-

a) British Government continued the grant originally given by

Emperor Babur for meeting the expenses of salary of Khatib

(Imam, Prayer Leader) and Muezzin. Needless to say, that the

grant would not have been continued if namaz was not being

continuously offered at the Babri Masjid.

b) The grill brick wall installed in 1856 ensured that the Hindus

who had been trespassing into the masjid compound, exercise

their easementary rights only in the outer courtyard, while

Muslims could exercise their exclusive rights of title over the

entire property, with exclusive possession of the inner

courtyard.

c) Further, after the 1934 riots, an Order was passed on May 12,

1934 the Mohammadans were permitted to start the work of

cleaning of Babri Mosque from Monday i.e. May 14, 1934, so

that it could be used for religious purposes. [See Convenience

Compilation @ Page 19; Also at Page 124/Running Vol.3]

d) Agreement for payment of salary to Pesh Imam and a

subsequent application to the Wakf Commissioner regarding

the same showed that continuous Namaz was being offered, as

no need for payment of Pesh Imam would have arisen during

1936-1938 if no prayers were happening, since the Pesh Imam

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

76
is the one who leads prayers. [Please see Vol. A113 @ pgs.

107-108; Also at Pgs. 26-27/Running Vol. 3 and see Vol.

A113 @ pgs. 109-110; Also at Pgs. 137-138/Running Vol. 3]

e) In the judgment dated March 30,1946, passed in the title suit

no. 29/1945 between Shia and Sunnis, it has been recorded

that both Shias and Sunnis were offering Namaz at the disputed

site. [Pages 4202-4208/Vol. III of the High Court Judgment]

FF. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in observing that installation of the

grill brick wall was to recognize the rights of the Hindus leading to their

exclusive possession in the outer courtyard. It is submitted that the

grill brick wall was installed to maintain peace between the

communities, one of which had title to the property, while the other

community had mere prescriptive rights.

GG. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not considering that on December

24,1885, the Learned Sub Judge had also given a finding that the after

the grill brick wall was installed, the Hindus worshipped outside while

the Muslims worshipped inside, and that after such grill brick wall was

installed, the Chabutara belonged to the Hindus. It is submitted that

this finding was categorically reversed in the First Appeal decided on

March 18/26, 1886. Further, in the Second Appeal, the Learned

Judicial Commissioner in his judgment dated November 2,1886,

clarified that the rights of the Hindus were ‘very limited prescriptive

rights’. Needless to say, had the installation of grill brick wall conferred

any more right than those of easement to the Hindus, the same would

have been recorded by the Courts.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

77
HH. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the 1885 suit

was filed mainly against the State. It is relevant to note that the stand

of the State in this case was that the Hindus had no right to the

remedies claimed by them. Needless to say, that had the installation

of the grill brick wall by the British in 1856 been to recognise the

alleged rights of the Hindus, the same would have been pointed out

by the State. The proceedings of the 1885 suit show that while the

Muslim parties were owners of the entire masjid compound, the Hindu

parties were exercising easementary rights at some portions in the

outer courtyard. These proceedings further affirm the fact that the

installation of grill brick wall was only for the purpose of ensuring

peace between the communities and not for elevating the limited

prescriptive rights of Hindus to those of exclusive possession or of

title.

II. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in observing that the Hindus had

exclusive possession over the outer courtyard, while the inner

courtyard was a matter of continuous dispute. It is submitted that all

the litigation relating to the disputed site was concerning the outer

courtyard until Suit No. 1 of 1989 was filed in January 1950. The only

two exceptions to this were, the incident of construction of Chabutara

admeasuring 4 fingers in November 30,1858 and the damage to the

domes of Babri Masjid in 1934. Regarding the incident of construction

of Chabutara by Nihang Sikh, it is relevant to note that the order was

passed on December 5, 1858 whereby he was ousted from the Masjid

and the flag affixed by him was uprooted. Further, as far as the riots

of 1934 are concerned, this Hon’ble Court in para 781 (vi) has been

wrongly observed that those riots were indicative of serious

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

78
contestation regarding the inner courtyard. It is submitted that the riots

of 1934 were not a result of the dispute regarding the inner courtyard

but were due to an incident of ‘cow slaughter’ as mentioned in para

26 of the plaint in Suit 5. Thus, it is submitted that these two isolated

incidents in no way show that the inner courtyard was the subject

matter of continuous dispute between the communities, nor do these

isolated incidents establish that Hindus had any semblance of right

over the inner courtyard.

JJ. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in observing that the Hindu parties

asserted rights over the inner courtyard based on the incident of

construction of Chabutra Nihang Sikh. It is submitted that the said

incident was reported by the Muslim parties by filing a complaint on

November 30,1959 and in furtherance of the said complaint, Nihang

Sikh was evicted from the Masjid and the flag affixed by him was

uprooted. Thus, an illegal act of trespass, which was reprimanded by

the Government authorities recgonising the rights of the Muslim

community can hardly be said to be an assertion of right by the

Hindus.

KK. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in observing that the Hindu parties

kept on asserting their rights over the inner courtyard despite the

installation of the grill brick wall, based on the 1934 riots wherein parts

of the domes of Babri Mosque were destroyed. It is submitted that

wanton acts of destruction, such as the ones in 1934, for which fine

was imposed upon the members of Hindu community, can hardly be

equated to an act of assertion of rights of title and/or possession over

the inner courtyard.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

79
LL. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not considering that the inner

courtyard was in the exclusive possession of the Muslim parties and

that the assertions of claims by the Hindu parties was limited to certain

portions in the outer courtyard, which also had been declared by the

Courts to be in the nature of mere prescriptive rights. It is therefore

submitted that the Hindu parties cannot even be said to be in

possession of the Outer courtyard, let alone the exclusive possession.

MM. Further the exclusive possession of the Muslim parties over the

disputed site is evident from the written statement filed by the State of

Uttar Pradesh in Suit No. 1, wherein it has been categorically stated

that the property in suit is known as Babri Mosque, and it has, for a

long period has been used as a mosque for the purpose of worship

by Muslims; It has not been used as temple of Shri Ram Chandra Ji.

[ Please see Para 12 @ Page 25, Running Volume 72; Para 12 @

Page 33/ Running Volume 72]

NN. That this Hon’ble Court erred in holding that Suit No. 5 was within

limitation. It is relevant to note that at the time of institution of Suit 5,

a suit by the Shebait i.e. the Nirmohi Akhara was already pending. In

fact, in the plaint of Suit 5, in para 31 it has been categorically stated

that the pendency of the previous suits may prove to be a hindrance

to the institution of suit 5. It is not the case of the Plaintiffs in Suit 5

that they were unaware of the previous facts and suits, however it is

their pleaded case that the filing of Suit 5 became imperative due to

the delay in the hearing and disposal of the previous suits. It is

therefore submitted that a case based on ‘impatience’ ought to be

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

80
dismissed at the threshold as ‘impatience’ can never be a cause of

action.

OO. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not considering that the Suit 5 did

not have a valid cause of action. As per para 36 of the Plaint, it has

been stated that the cause of action arose when the plans of temple

construction at the disputed site were obstructed by violent action

from Muslim fundamentalists. It is submitted that at the time of filing

of Suit 5, the entire disputed property was in the possession of the

receiver, therefore there could not have been any construction nor

could there have been any obstruction as alleged. Further if a mere

plan to construct the temple was opposed by Muslim Parties, then the

suit was premature. Therefore, in both these circumstances, the Suit

No. 5 ought to have been dismissed as there was no real cause of

action and a suit based on an illusory cause of action was not

maintainable.

PP. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in considering the accounts of

travelers despite observing that the only the acts subsequent to the

annexation of Oudh in 1856 ought to be evaluated to decide the

present dispute, however it goes on to consider Traveller’s accounts

and the ASI report, both of which concern the period prior to 1856.

QQ. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in concluding that the account of

Tieffenthaler indicated the existence of the faith and belief of the

Hindus that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram. It is

submitted that Tieffenthaler mentioned a bedi (craddle) and stated

that it was on this where Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of

Ram. Pertinently, this Bedi was situated at the Ram Chabootara and
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

81
this fact has been admitted by the witnesses of the Hindu parties. [See

testimony of DW 3/18 at Page 10663/ Running Vol. 58]

RR. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in concluding that the account of

Tieffenthaler indicated the existence of the faith and belief of the

Hindus that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and the

historical presence of the worshippers therein. It is submitted that the

account of Montgomery Martin as reproduced in para 562 of the

judgment doubts the entire story of an earlier temple being built by

King Vikaramaditya.

SS. For that this Hon’ble Court ought to have read the accounts of

travelers with circumspection and ought to have appreciated that the

entire theory about the birth place of Lord Ram being in or around the

disputed site was only hearsay for the travelers. However, what the

travelers actually noticed was an actual mosque standing at the

disputed site. It is submitted that almost all travelers i.e. Tieffenthaler,

Montgomery Martin, Edward Thornton, Carnegi, W.C. Benett, A.F.

Millet, Balfour, A. Fuhrer, Nevill and Hans Baker have themselves

seen the Babri Mosque at the disputed site. In any event,

notwithstanding the foregoing, any reliance on the accounts of

travelers is misplaced as travelers only tell stories.

TT. For that this Hon’ble Court failed to appreciate that the using the

remnants of a previous structure to construct a mosque does not lead

to the conclusion that the previous structure was in fact destroyed,

particularly when the ASI in its report has refrained from making any

specific observation about such destruction (despite that being the

direct question which was put to it). Without prejudice to the foregoing,
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

82
even if it is admitted that a temple was destroyed to erect the Babri

Mosque, this Hon’ble Court has rightly noted that this Court cannot

correct historical wrongs and thus the alleged destruction would have

no bearing on the adjudication of the rights of the parties in the present

case.

UU. For that in any event there was an intervening period of almost 4

centuries between the structure discovered by ASI and the

construction of Babri Mosque. This time gap as has been rightly noted

by this Hon’ble Court has not been explained by the Hindu parties.

Further, as noted by this Hon’ble Court a finding of title cannot be

based on archaeological findings. Additionally, the ASI report was

concerned with the period even before 1528 and as observed by this

Hon’ble Court in order to determine the rights of the parties in the

present case, only the events subsequent to 1856- when Oudh was

annexed by the British ought to be considered. In view of the

foregoing, it is submitted that the ASI report is irrelevant for the

adjudication of the present dispute and the findings rendered therein

ought to be disregarded for the purposes of the present case.

VV. For that though this Hon’ble Court noted the illegal acts committed by

the Hindu parties in 1934,1949 and 1992, it committed an error

apparent and proceeded to not only condone the said violations, but

also award them by decreeing the suit of the very parties who indulged

in such serious violation of the rule of law.

(i) For that this Hon’ble Court further condoned a series of illegal

acts of the Hindu parties, which are as follows:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

83
(ii) Preventing, and indeed flaunting that they prevented/harassed

the Muslims when they went to offer Namaz in the Babri

Mosque.

(iii) Destroyed part of the Babri Mosque in 1934, for the repairs of

which fine was imposed on Hindus.

(iv) Criminal trespass in the Mosque.

(v) Desecration of the mosque on December 22/23,1949.

(vi) Complete defacement of the entire mosque by putting of

vermillion on all pillars.

(vii) Photos were hung inside the Babri Mosque (Cf. Photos of 1950

& 1990) – even though the mosque was in the charge of the

receiver.

(viii) Using the mosque for sleeping.

(ix) Tampering of evidence relating to inscriptions

(x) Demolition of the mosque on December 6,1992 in utter violation

of the status quo orders of this Hon’ble Court and the ensuing

violence

WW. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the Babri

Mosque was a Wakf property. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court

has itself noted at para 68 of the Impugned Judgment, both Hindus

and Muslims were in agreement on the fact that the Babri Mosque

was built in 1528, by or on behest of Emperor Babur. In such

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

84
circumstances, it is incomprehensible that the king would order a

mosque to be constructed without a valid dedication as Wakf.

XX. For that as mentioned above, the Muslims were using the Babri

mosque continuously to offer namaz and therefore, alternatively, the

said mosque was a Wakf by user.

YY. For that this Hon’ble Court in rejecting Wakf by user of the Babri

Masjid by taking a narrow and pedantic view of the performance of

namaz. This is in teeth of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in

Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, (1976) 4 SCC 780, para

34 qua requirement of namaz for a mosque to be a public Wakf:

“As Islam is an extremely modern and liberal religion, there is

no question of any person being denied admission in a mosque

for the purpose of offering prayers and that is why the law is so

strict that the moment a person is allowed to offer his prayers

in a mosque, the mosque becomes dedicated to the public.

Finally, it is not necessary for the dedication of a public mosque

that a mutawalli or a Pesh imam should be appointed which

could be done by the members of the Muslim community. All

that is necessary is that there should be a declaration of the

intention to dedicate either expressly or impliedly and a

divestment of his interest in the property by the owner followed

by delivery of possession. Here also the delivery of possession

does not involve any ritual formality or any technical rule. For

instance in the case of a mosque if the Mahomedans of the

village, town or the area are permitted to offer their prayers

either on the vacant land or in a mosque built for the said

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

85
purpose that amounts to the delivery of possession and

divestment and after the prayers have been offered the

dedication becomes complete.”

It is clear from this judgment that the after the construction of a

mosque, even if one person performs namaz in it, it becomes a public

Wakf. It is incomprehensible that subsequent to the construction of

the Babri Masjid in 1528 there was not a single person who performed

namaz in it. In such circumstances, this Hon’ble Court erred in holding

that there was no namaz in the Babri Masjid before 1856 and hence

it is not a Wakf property.

ZZ. For that this Hon’ble Court grossly erred in disregarding the Islamic

inscriptions on the Babri Masjid as evidence of dedication of the

mosque as a public wakf. It is submitted that the Islamic inscription

stating that the Masjid was built by the command of Emperor Babar

was a clear evidence that there was a valid dedication and that the

disputed structure was constructed with the intention of creating a

public wakf which would be used for namaaz as a mosque. In such

circumstances, this Hon’ble Court erred in holding that there was no

valid dedication of the mosque and hence it was not a wakf property.

AAA. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in allotting alternate land

admeasuring 5 acres to the Muslim parties, which was neither

pleaded nor prayed for by the Muslim parties.

BBB. For that this Hon’ble Court has committed error apparent by

appreciating evidence unevenly and has wrongly evaluated the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

86
preponderance of probabilities, which on the face of it is contrary to

record.

CCC. For that this Hon’ble Court grossly erred in disregarding the rule of

presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 on the

question of namaaz in the Babri Masjid between 1528-1856. Under

the said provision, the Court may presume the existence of events

which are likely to have happened in the common course of natural

events, human conduct and public and private business. It is

submitted that once the Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528, it was

in the common course of natural events and human conduct that the

Muslims started praying in the mosque. A mosque is a place for

namaaz and hence it is inconceivable that a prominent mosque

constructed over an area of 1500 square yards was not used for

namaaz at all during the Muslim rule between 1528-1856 and

suddenly began to be used as such after the annexation by the British.

In such circumstances, the entire finding falls foul of the rule of

presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 and is an

error apparent on the face of the record. It is further submitted that

Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 should have been the guiding

principle in determining the title to the disputed site on a

preponderance of probabilities.

DDD. For that the uneven appreciation of evidence is apparent from the fact

that the following witnesses of the Hindu parties have been relied

upon by this Hon’ble Court as the sole evidence of the fact that the

place under the Central Dome was the birthplace of Lord Ram :-
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

87
a. The testimony of OPW1 has been believed to be true despite the

fact that he stated that the whole of the Parikrama was under the

Garbh Grih (See page 37/Volume 16) when in fact the in Para 23

of the Plaint in Suit 5 it has been stated that the Hindus were

forbidden access to the inner courtyard (See Para 23 @ page

245/Volume 72)

b. The testimony of OPW2 whose testimony has been relied upon

by this Hon’ble Court in Para 516-518 of the impugned judgment

to reach the conclusion that Hindus considered that the Garbh

Grih located inside the Babri Masjid was believed by the Hindus

to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, has himself stated that:

• His belief was based on hearsay. (pgs. 448-449/Vol. 17)

• Some Hindus believed that the Janamsthan Temple on the

northern side was the birthplace of Lord Ram. (pg. 407/Vol.

17)

• He was unable to recall as to which deity’s idol was kept at

the Garbh Grih when he visited the disputed site in 1984-85.

(Pg. 394/Vol. 17)

c. OPW4 stated that during 1934-38, he worshipped from outside

the locked gate but could see a photo of Lord Ram which was

hung on a wall inside (Para 519 at pg. 610 of the impugned

judgment). His testimony has been believed by this Hon’ble Court

despite the fact that when namaz was continuing in the Babri

Masjid, no photo whatsoever could have been hung on any part

of the disputed structure. Further, his testimony was believed

inspite of the fact that he was unable to identify if any of the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

88
pictures shown to him were related to the disputed site. (pgs.

827-829/Vol. 19)

d. The testimony of OPW5 about the worship at Garbh Grih is the

same person has been believed despite the fact that he was

unable to identify more than 50 photographs of the disputed site.

In fact, upon seeing one picture of the disputed site, he statee

that the grill-brick wall was inside the disputed structure. Further,

he was also unable to recognize whether the pillars belonged to

the disputed structure at all. (See pgs. 889-900/ Vol. 19.)

Furthermore, he has stated that in 1990, a single monkey caused

the demolition of the entire disputed structure (Pg. 906-907/Vol.

19).

e. The testimony OPW6 was believed despite the fact that he was

unable to identify over 10 photos of the disputed site (Pg. 1037-

1040/Vol. 20). Further, he stated in 1934, some fish incarnation

destroyed the entire building (Pg. 1041/Vol. 20).

f. The testimony of OPW 7 has been believed despite the fact that,

on one hand he stated that there were idols of Gods and

Godesses inscribed on the Kasauti pillars but when he was

shown pictures of the pillars he stated that no human image,

image of any gatekeeper or of any God/Goddess was visible on

the pillars. [Pgs. 1176/Vol. 20] He further stated that he believed

that Hanuman Ji had motivated people for demolition of the

disputed building and that he would not be able to tell whether

Hanumanji knew about the status quo imposed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. [Pg. 1205/Vol. 20]

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

89
g. The testimony of OPW 12 regarding the belief that Lord Ram

was born under the Central Dome was believed to be true

despite the fact that in his cross examination he had stated that

Lord Ram was born at the Chabutara [Pg. 2295/Vol. 25].

Further he has himself stated that his memory had become

weak for the last 5-6 years. My memory is not sound. [Pg.

2293/Vol. 25]

h. The testimony of OPW 13 regarding the belief that Lord Ram

was born under the Central Dome was believed to be true

despite the fact that he himself admitted that when ‘Allah’ was

written on the wall it could not have been the wall of the temple

[Pg. 2335/Vol. 25].

EEE. For that the testimonies of the Hindu witnesses were accepted despite

the fact that they were unable to identify any pictures of the disputed

site, however the testimonies of the Muslim witnesses were rejected

due to flimsy reasons which did not concern the issue in relation to

which they were deposing, this is evident from the following:-

a) Testimony of PW1 was rejected as he was unable to re-collect as

to what age he had mentioned in the affidavit he filed with the 1986

Writ Petition, which was filed after the opening of the locks and

also because he was unable to remember the date of his two

marriages. (Para 705 of the Impugned Judgment)

b) Testimonies of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 were also rejected because

of minor discrepancies in their age.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

90
c) Testimony of PW 14 is rejected as he is unable to tell the

boundaries of the disputed site in detail. [Para 716 of the

Impugned Judgment]

FFF. For that the uneven appreciation of evidence is apparent from the

following:-

Particulars Evidence of Hindu Evidence of Muslim

Parties that Lord Ram parties that the Babri
was believed to have Mosque was wafk
been born under the property and had been
Central Dome continuously used by
Muslims to offer Namaz
Nature of Oral Evidence Documentary and Oral
Evidence Evidence
Appreciation Testimonies of Hindu Testimonies of Muslim
of Oral witnesses accepted Witnesses rejected
Evidence despite:- because:-
• They were unable to • Minor discrepancies
identify any pictures in their age
of the disputed site. • Inability to remember
• They stated the date of their
Monkey/fish marriage
incarnation • Inability to describe
demolished the Babri boundary of the
Masjid disputed site in detail.
• They were unable to
prove their statement
regarding the belief
that Lord Ram was
born under the
Central Dome, and
admitted that Lord
Ram was born at the
Chabutara. (OPW 12)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

91
• They stated that their
belief was based on
hearsay.
• They stated that a
wall where ‘Allah’ was
written could not have
been the wall of a
mosque
Documentary None, except travelers • Indirect record of
Evidence and ASI, both of which grants by Babur, due
documents pertain to to the record of the
period prior to 1856 and same in Register of
are irrelevant for the Enquiry.
adjudication of the • Continuance of the
present dispute. grant by the British
Government, when
the purpose of the
grant was to pay
salary to Muezzin –
who gives the call for
prayer. This
document was
disregarded on the
allegation that no
enquiry was
conducted before
continuing the grant,
despite the certificate
of grant itself noting
that the grant was
being given after due
enquiry.
• Agreements
regarding payment of
salary to Pesh Imam-
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

92
who leads the
prayers.
• Orders in 1934 to
clean the masjid and
resume its use for
religious purposes.
• Testimony in the
1945 Shia-Sunni suit
that namaz was being
offered in the Babri
Mosque.

GGG. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in considering the fact of parikrama

in adjudicating the present title dispute, particularly when this Hon’ble

Court has itself accepted that method of offering worship unique to

one religion cannot result in conferral of an absolute title to the parties

from one religion over parties from another religion.

HHH. For that this Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent in granting

title on the basis of oral testimonies in complete disregard to the

documentary evidence, which was contemporaneous. Such an

approach is contrary to the settled principles of law which require

precedence to be given to documentary evidence over oral evidence.

[Please see Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad (1975) 1 SCC

212 at para 21 ; Mahant Bhagwan Bhagat v. G.N. Bhagat (1972) 1

SCC 486 at pg. 490]

III. For that since the matters before this Hon’ble Court wherein the

impugned judgment has been passed arose out of first appeal it is

submitted that the same must have a bearing on the present Review

Petition.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

93
9. That the Review Petitioner states that he has not filed any other

Review Petition in this Hon’ble Court seeking review of the impugned

judgment and final order dated November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble

Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-67 of 2010.

10. It is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -

PRAYER

a) allow the Review Petition seeking review of the impugned judgment

and final order dated November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court

rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010; and/or

b) pass such other/further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE REVIEW PETITIONER AS IN

DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn & Filed by:-

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Review Petitioner
Drafted on: 14.11.2019

New Delhi
Filed on: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

94
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. … REVIEW PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS. ETC. ETC. … RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE

“Certified that the Present Review Petition is the first application for the

review of the impugned judgment and final order dated November 9,

2019 and it is based on the grounds admissible under the Rules. No

additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or

relied upon in the Review Petition which was not part of the Special

Leave Petition earlier.

Filed by:

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Review Petitioner

New Delhi
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

95
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019

IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. … REVIEW PETITIONER

-VERSUS-

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS. ETC. ETC. … RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, S/o. Maulana Syed Rashiduddin Hamidi,

aged about 48 years, President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Subhash Marg, Ahata
Shaukati Ali, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, presently at Moradabad, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:-
1. That I am the President, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Uttar Pradesh in the
above mentioned Review Petition and as such I am well conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear
the present Affidavit on my own behalf.
2. That I have gone through a copy of the Synopsis and List of Dates
running from pages B to HHH and a copy of the Review Petition from
paragraphs 1 to 10 running from pages 1 to 93 and I state that the
contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
3. That I have gone through copies of the Interlocutory Applications and
state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge
and belief.
4. That the annexures annexed to the present Review Petition are true
and correct copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at Moradabad on this 16th day of November, 2019 that the contents
of the above Affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

96
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I. A. NO. OF 2019
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. … Applicant/Review Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. Etc. Etc. … Respondents

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE

LENGTHY LIST OF DATES

To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
and his companion judges of the
Supreme Court of India.

The humble application of the above

named Applicant/Review Petitioner:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :

1. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner above named is filed the present

Review Petition in this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of

India seeking review of the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil Appeal

Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010.

2. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner submits that the present petition

involves series of events starting from the year 1528 till the impugned

judgment and order was passed by the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble

Court of November 9, 2019. The Applicant/Review Petitioner has to take all

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

97
the relevant dates for filing the present Review Petition and therefore it has

become very lengthy and consists of 59 pages. The Applicant/Review

Petitioner is seeking permission of this Hon'ble Court to file the Synopsis

and List of Dates containing 59 pages from B to HHH.

3. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner submits that the facts narrated

in the Synopsis and List of Dates are necessary for proper adjudication of

the present Review Petition and, therefore, the Applicant/Review Petitioner

is seeking the permission of this Hon'ble Court to file the Synopsis and List

of Dates containing 59 pages from B to HHH and file the Synopsis and List

of Dates to detail all the necessary dates and events.

4. The Applicant/Review Petitioner states that the present Application is

being filed bona fide and in the interests of justice.

5. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully

pray: -

PRAYER

(a) permit the Applicant/Review Petitioner to file Synopsis and the List of

Dates containing 59 pages from B to HHH; and/or

(b) pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem

just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT/REVIEW

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by:-

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Applicant/Review Petitioner
New Delhi
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

98
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I. A. NO. OF 2019
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. … Applicant/Review Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. Etc. Etc. … Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE TYPED COPY OF

THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE
COURT DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2019 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 AND
THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT

To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
and his companion judges of the
Supreme Court of India.
The humble application of the above
named Applicant/Review Petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner above named is filed the present

Review Petition in this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of

India seeking review of the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil Appeal

Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010.

2. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner is not filing the typed copy of the

impugned judgment and order dated November 9, 2019 passed by this

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

99
Hon’ble Court as the same has been printed in a book form in scale and the

citation of the same is 2019 (15) SCALE 1 and the entire book is being filed

as Annexure P-1 to the accompanying Review Petition.

3. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner submits that the above

mentioned Civil Appeals and other connected matters have been disposed

of by this Hon’ble Court by its judgment and order dated November 9, 2019.

The Applicant/Review Petitioner humbly submits that all the documents

which were on record before this Hon’ble Court be taken as part of forming

part of the present Review Petition.

4. That during the hearing of the Civil Appeals before the Constitution

Bench of this Hon’ble Court that judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble

High Court dated September 30, 2010 was relied upon on the publication of

the said judgment by Malhotra Law House, Allahabad in 3 Volumes (2nd

Edition 2016) and the Applicant/Review Petitioner would rely upon the said

volumes as forming part of the present Review Petition.

5. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner submits that in the Civil Appeals

the List of Pleadings and Documents were serially numbered as volume

numbers 1 to 150 which are in the record of the Civil Appeals. The

Applicant/Review Petitioner would rely upon the said volumes as forming

part of the present Review Petition. A copy of the List of

Pleadings/Documents on record before this Hon’ble Court in the Civil

Appeals is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-2 [Page Nos. 102

to 118] to this application.

6. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner submits that during the course

of final hearing of the Civil Appeals the documents which were tendered on
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

100
behalf of the Senior Advocates/Advocates by both the parties were numbers

as A series documents and the final list goes from A1 to A145 and the

Applicant/Review Petitioner would pray that the said documents the treated

as forming part of the present Review Petition. A copy of the List of A series

documents which were tendered during the course of the final hearing by

the Senior Advocates/Advocates is annexed hereto and marked as

Annexure P-3 [Page Nos. 119 to 139] to the present application.

7. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner is filing the present application

to avoid the duplication of documents for filing of the present Review Petition

and to avoid filing of bulk of documents which will un necessarily burden the

record of this Hon’ble Court.

8. This application is being filed to avoid the filing of the huge paperwork

for the purposes of present Review Petition. The Scale Volume contains the

entire impugned judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated

November 9, 2019. The publication by Malhotra Law House, Allahabad in 3

Volumes (2nd Edition 2016) is already on record before this Hon’ble Court

and the reference of these books will be convenient for the Hon’ble Judges

to decide the present Review Petition.

9. The Applicant/Review Petitioner states that the present Application is

being filed bona fide and in the interests of justice.

10. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances the

Applicant/Review Petitioner would humbly prays from this Hon’ble Court:-

PRAYER

a) exempt the Applicant/Review Petitioner from filing the typed copy of

the impugned judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

101
November 9, 2019 and take on record the printed book 2019 (15)

SCALE 1; and/or

b) exempt the Applicant/Review Petitioner from filing the order passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated

September 30, 2010 which is already on record before this Hon’ble

Court in 3 volumes published by Malhotra Law House, Allahabad in 3

Volumes (2nd Edition 2016); and/or

c) exempt the Applicant/Review Petitioner from filing the all the

documents which were forming part of the record of the Civil Appeals

as pleadings and documents Volumes from Serial Numbers 1 to 150;

and/or

d) exempt the Applicant/Review Petitioner from filing the A series

documents from A1 to A145 which were the documents tendered by

the Senior Advocates/Advocates at the time of the hearing of the Civil

Appeals; and/or

e) pass such other/further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT/REVIEW

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by: -

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Applicant/Review Petitioner
New Delhi
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

102
ANNEXURE P – 2

LIST OF PLEADINGS/DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE

PARTIES IN CIVIL APPEALS

S.No. Document’s/Description Dates of Volume No.

filing

1. Impugned judgment and order dated -

30.9.2010 in 3 Volumes printed by
Malhotra Law House, Allahabad. This
is the 2nd edition (2016) - [In Three
Volumes]

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate

in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

2. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] 15.11.2010 1

3. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXV] 1.12.2010 2

4. I.A. No. 112071 of 2017 31.10.2017 3

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-I) filed
by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate for the
Appellant.

5. I.A. No. 114905 of 2017 03.11.2017 4

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-II) filed
by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate for the
Appellant.

6. I.A. No. 114905 of 2017 03.11.2017 5

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-III)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

7. I.A. No. 114905 of 2017 03.11.2017 6

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-IV)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

103
8. I.A. No. 114905 of 2017 03.11.2017 7
Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-V)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

9. I.A. No. 114906 of 2017 03.11.2017 8

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-VI)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

10. I.A. No. 122952 of 2017 17.11.2017 9

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-VII)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

11. I.A. No. 128482 of 2017 28.11.2017 10

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-VIII)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

12. I.A. No. 136587 of 2017 12.12.2017 11

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-IX)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

13. I.A. No. 7459 of 2018 16.01.2018 12

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-X)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

14. I.A. No. 15028 of 2018 30.01.2018 13

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-XI)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

15. I.A. No. 24476 of 2018 15.02.2018 14

Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-XII)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

16. I.A. No. 117751 of 2017 09.11.2017 15

Application for directions filed by Mr.
Ejaz Maqbool Advocate on 9.11.2017.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

104
Documents filed by Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocate
in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

17. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 16

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-I @ pages 1 to
250).

18. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 17

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-II @ pages 251 to
500).

19. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 18

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-III @ pages 501
to 750).

20. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 19

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-IV @ pages 751
to 1000).

21. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 20

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-V @ pages 1001
to 1250).

22. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 21

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-VI @ pages 1251
to 1500).

23. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 22

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-VII @ pages 1501
to 1750).

24. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 23

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-VIII @ pages
1751 to 2000).

25. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 24

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-IX @ pages 2001
to 2250).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

105
26. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 25
Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-X @ pages 2251
to 2500).

27. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 26

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XI @ pages 2501
to 2750).

28. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 27

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XII @ pages 2751
to 3000).

29. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 28

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XIII @ pages
3001 to 3250).

30. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 29

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XIV @ pages
3251 to 3500).

31. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 30.10.2017 30

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XV @ pages 3501
to 3734).

32. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 31

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XVI @ pages
3735 to 4000).

33. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 32

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XVII @ pages
4001 to 4250).

34. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 33

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XVIII @ pages
4251 to 4500).

35. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 34

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XIX @ pages
4501 to 4750).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

106
36. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 35
Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XX @ pages 4751
to 5000).

37. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 36

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXI @ pages
5001 to 5250).

38. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 37

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXII @ pages
5251 to 5500).

39. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 38

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXIII @ pages
5501 to 5750).

40. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 39

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXIV @ pages
5751 to 6000).

41. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 40

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXV @ pages
6001 to 6250).

42. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 41

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXVI @ pages
6251 to 6500).

43. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 42

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXVII @ pages
6501 to 6750).

44. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 17.11.2017 43

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXVIII @ pages
6751 to 7000).

45. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 44

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXIX @ pages
7001 to 7203).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

107
46. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 45
Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXX @ pages
7206 to 7450).

47. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 46

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXI @ pages
7451 to 7700).

48. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 47

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXII @ pages
7701 to 7950).

49. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 48

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXIII @ pages
7951 to 8200).

50. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 49

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXIV @ pages
8201 to 8450).

51. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 50

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXV @ pages
8451 to 8700).

52. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 51

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXVI @ pages
8701 to 8950).

53. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 52

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXVII @ pages
8951 to 9200).

54. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 53

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXVIII @ pages
9201 to 9450).

55. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 54

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XXXIX @ pages
9451 to 9700).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

108
56. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 55
Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XL @ pages 9701
to 9950).

57. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 56

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLI @ pages
9951 to 10200).

58. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 57

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLII @ pages
10201 to 10450).

59. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 58

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLIII @ pages
10451 to 10700).

60. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 59

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLIV @ pages
10701 to 10950).

61. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 60

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLV @ pages
10951 to 11200).

62. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 61

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLVI @ pages
11201 to 11450).

63. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 62

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLVII @ pages
11451 to 11700).

64. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 63

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLVIII @ pages
11701 to 11950).

65. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 20.11.2017 64

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLIX @ pages
11951 to 12026).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

109
66. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 22.01.2018 65
Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLX @ pages
12027 to 12300).

67. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 22.01.2018 66

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLXI @ pages
12301 to 12575).

68. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 22.01.2018 67

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLXII @ pages
12576 to 12850).

69. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 22.01.2018 68

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-XLXIII @ pages
12851 to 13125).

Application filed by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate

in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

70. I.A. No. 123293 of 2017 18.11.2017 69

Applications for permission to file
settlement proposal made by UP Shia
Central Waqf Board alongwith
application for exemption from filing
official translation filed on 18.11.2017
by Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate (R24)).

Application filed by Mr. Amit Pawan, Advocate

in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010

71. I.A. No. 131189 of 2017 04.12.2017 70

Application for directions on behalf of
Respondent No.12 (Dharam Das) filed
on 04.12.2017 by Mr. Amit Pawan,
Advocate.

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 4768-4771 of 2011

72. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 71

73. Pleadings Volume filed by Mr. P.V. 30.1.2018 72

Yogeswaran, Advocate. [New
Pleadings
Volume]
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

110
74. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 14.10.2017 73
No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-I @ pages 1 to
269).

75. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 14.10.2017 74

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-II @ pages 270
to 544).

76. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 14.10.2017 75

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-III @ pages 545
to 797).

77. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 14.10.2017 76

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-IV @ pages 798
to 991).

78. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 14.10.2017 77

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-V @ pages 992
to 1158).

79. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 19.01.2018 78

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-VI @ pages
1159 to 1419).

80. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 19.01.2018 79

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-VII @ pages
1420 to 1678).

81. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 19.01.2018 80

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-VIII @ pages
1679 to 1918).

82. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 23.01.2018 81

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-IX @ pages
1919 to 2163).

83. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 22.02.2018 82

No.5 by Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran,
Advocate – (Volume-X @ pages 2164
to 2367).
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

111
84. I.A. No. 125640 of 2017 22.11.2017 83
Application for permission to file
additional documents filed by Mr. P.V.
Yogeswaran, Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4768-71 of 2011.
[Archaeology Survey Report]
(Volume-I @ Pages 1 to 200)

85. I.A. No. 125640 of 2017 22.11.2017 84

Application for permission to file
additional documents filed by Mr. P.V.
Yogeswaran, Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4768-71 of 2011.
[Archaeology Survey Report]
(Volume-II @ Pages 201 to 389)

86. I.A. No. 125640 of 2017 22.11.2017 85

Application for permission to file
additional documents filed by Mr. P.V.
Yogeswaran, Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4768-71 of 2011.
[Archaeology Survey Report]
(Volume-III @ Pages 1 to 167)

Pleadings/Documents filed by Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2011

87. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 86

88. Exhibits filed by the Plaintiff in Suit 13.11.2017 87

No.1 of 1989 by Ms. Ruchi Kohli,
Advocate in a Single Volume.

89. I.A. No. 30560 OF 2017 - 88

Application for directions filed by Ms.
Ruchi Kohli, Advocate for Appellant.

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 4905-4908 of 2011

90. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 89

91. Exhibits and Relevant Documents 04.12.2017 90

filed by Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Advocate
for the Appellant/ Plaintiff Nirmohi
Akhara in Original Suit No.3 of 1989 –
(Volume-I)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

112
92. Exhibits and Relevant Documents 04.12.2017 91
filed by Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Advocate
for the Appellant/ Defendant No.3
Nirmohi Akhara in Original Suit No.4 of
1989 – (Volume-II)

93. Exhibits and Relevant Documents 04.12.2017 92

filed by Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Advocate
for the Appellant/ Defendant No.3
Nirmohi Akhara in Original Suit No.5 of
1989 – (Volume-III)

94. Exhibits and Relevant Documents 07.02.2018 93

filed by Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Advocate
for the Appellant/ Defendant No.3
Nirmohi Akhara in Original Suit No.4 of
1989 – (Volume-IV)

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No.2215 of 2011

95. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 94

96. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXVI] - 95

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2011

97. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXIV] - 96

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No.2894 of 2011

98. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXIII] - 97

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No.7226 of 2011

99. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 98

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 4192 of 2011

100. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXIII] - 99

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

113
Applications filed by Mr. Yashpal Dhingra, Advocate
in Civil Appeal No. 4192 of 2011

101. I.A. Nos. 113267 and 113268 of 01.11.2017 100

2017
Application for permission to file
additional documents and exemption
from filing official translation filed on
1.11.2017 by Mr. Yashpal Dhingra,
Advocate for R17).

102. I.A. No. 17236 of 2018 01.11.2017 101

Application for direction u/s 41 Rule 27
read with section 151 CPC filed on
1.11.2017 by Mr. Yashpal Dhingra,
Advocate for R17.

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 8096 of 2011

103. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 102

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Irshad Ahmed, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2011

104. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 103

Pleadings/Documents filed by M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., Advocates

in Civil Appeal No. 6965 of 2011

105. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXIV] - 104

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 4739 of 2011

106. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 105

Pleadings/Documents filed by Mr. R. C. Gubrele, Advocate

in Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 2011

107. Civil Appeal – [Volume-I] - 106

108. Civil Appeal – [Volume-XXXV] - 107

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

114
109. I.A. No. ____ of 2018 12.03.2018 108
Application for permission to file
additional documents (Volume-XIII)
filed by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Advocate
for the Appellant.

110. Short Affidavit on behalf of 12.03.2018 109

Respondent No.12 – Mahant Shri
Dharam Das filed by Mr. Amit Pawan,
Advocate.

111. Book Srimadbhagwad Gita published 12.03.2018 110

by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, C.M. Appl.
No. 83(O) of 2003 – (Volume-I, Pages
1 to 529).
[Exhibit No. 20 in Suit No.3 of 1989]

112. Book Srimadbhagwad Gita published 12.03.2018 111

by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, C.M. Appl.
No. 83(O) of 2003 – (Volume-II,
Pages 530 to 1071).
[Exhibit No. 20 in Suit No.3 of 1989]

113. Book Srimadbhagwad Gita published 12.03.2018 112

by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, C.M. Appl.
No. 83(O) of 2003 – (Volume-III,
Pages 1 to 450).
[Exhibit No. 20 in Suit No.3 of 1989]

114. Book Srimadbhagwad Gita published 12.03.2018 113

by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, C.M. Appl.
No. 83(O) of 2003 – (Volume-IV,
Pages 451 to 1021).
The book is incomplete.
[Exhibit No. 20 in Suit No.3 of 1989]

115. Book “Rajasthan Ki Bhakti 12.03.2018 114

Paramparaevam Sanskriti” writer
Dinesh Chandra Shukla evam Omkar
Narain Singh Jodhpur, C.M. Appl. No.
83(O) of 2003.
Hindi version of the book filed
[Exhibit No. 21 in Suit No.3 of 1989]

116. Geetawali by Goswami Tulsi Das filed 12.03.2018 115

in O.O.S. 4/89 by Deponent No.3
through his witness R.P. Pandey.
Marked Exhibit as per order of Court
dt. 8.7.08. Sanskrit/Hindi version of
the book filed
[Exhibit No. A9 in Suit No.4 of 1989]
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

115
117. (“Sikh Itihas Mein Sri Ram Janam 12.03.2018 116
Bhumi”)
Hindi version of the book filed
[Exhibit No. B4 in Suit No.4 of 1989]

118. “Puratattva” Bulletin of the 12.03.2018 117

Archaeological Society of India.
[Exhibit No. T-1 in Suit No.4 of 1989]

119. Book written by S.P. Gupta and T.P. 12.03.2018 118

Verma “Ayodhya Ka ltihas Evam
Puratattva Rig Ved Se Abtak”.
Hindi version of the book filed
[Exhibit No. 3 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

120. The book “Ayodhya” by Hans Bakker. 12.03.2018 119

(Volume-A, Pages 1 to 164).
[Exhibit No. 23 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

121. The book “Ayodhya” by Hans Bakker. 12.03.2018 120

(Volume-B, Pages 165 to 471).
[Exhibit No. 23 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

122. “Sri Ram Janam Bhumi Ka Pramanik 12.03.2018 121

Sachitra Itihas” by Dr. Radhey Shyam
Shukla, published by Bal Krishna
Goswami, 590 Ramkot Ayodhya 1986.
Hindi version of the book filed
[Exhibit No. 24 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

123. Book written by Patrick Thomas 12.03.2018 122

Hughes “A Dictionary of Islam”.
[Exhibit No. 34 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

124. Book written by Percy Brown “Indian 12.03.2018 123

Architecture”.
[Exhibit No. 35 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

125. “Itihas Darpan” 12.03.2018 124

[Exhibit No. 36 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

126. Book “Ram Charit Manas” 12.03.2018 125

(Volume-I, Pages 1 to 720).
[Exhibit No. 42 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

127. Book “Ram Charit Manas” 12.03.2018 126

(Volume-II, Pages 721 to 1200).
[Exhibit No. 42 in Suit No.5 of 1989]
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

116
128. Book “Satyarth Prakash” 12.03.2018 127
Hindi version of the book filed
[Exhibit No. 44 in Suit No.5 of 1989]

129. Deposition filed by Mr. Kamlendra 13.03.2018 128

Mishra, Advocate for the State of Uttar
Pradesh - (Volume-LIV @ pages
13126 to 13426).

130. A separate compilation of the 27.04.2018 129

judgment entitled as Dr. M. Ismail
Faruqui Vs. Union of India reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 360.

131. Note submitted by Mr. Raju 27.04.2018 130

Ramachandran, Senior Advocate.

132. Compilation of judgments on behalf of 27.04.2018 131

Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior
Advocate by Mr. Ejaz Maqbool,
Advocate.

133. Note submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, 15.05.2018 132

Senior Advocate in relation to
reference to a larger bench of some
aspects in Ismail Faruqui Case (1994)
6 SCC 360 and Its impact on the suits
in appeal.

134. Note submitted by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, 15.05.2018 133

Senior Advocate on Islamic Religious
Text on Mosque.

135. Compilation of judgments filed on 06.07.2018 134

behalf of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate
[Volume-I]

136. Compilation of judgments filed on 06.07.2018 135

behalf of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate
[Volume-II]

137. Compilation of judgments filed on 06.07.2018 136

behalf of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate
[Volume-III]

138. Written Submissions of Mr. K. 15.05.2018 137

Parasaran, Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

117
139. List of Dates & Compilation of relevant 15.05.2018 138
documents filed by Mr. P.V.
Yogeswaran, Advocate alongwith the
Written Submissions of Mr. Mr. K.
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

140. Compilation of Judgments submitted 15.05.2018 139

by Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

141. Notes on argument against reference 06.07.2018 140

to larger bench submitted by Mr. P.N.
Mishra, Advocate on behalf of M/s.
Fox Mandal & Co., Advocates &
Solicitors.

142. Compilation of Islamic Laws submitted 06.07.2018 141

by Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate on
behalf of M/s. Fox Mandal & Co.,
Advocates & Solicitors.

143. Compilation of Supplementary Islamic 06.07.2018 142

Laws submitted by Mr. P.N. Mishra,
Advocate on behalf of M/s. Fox
Mandal & Co., Advocates & Solicitors.

144. Submissions on behalf of the State of 06.07.2018 143

Uttar Pradesh by Mr. Tushar Mehta,
Additional Solicitor General.

145. Reply Submissions of Dr. Rajeev 13.07.2018 144

Dhavan, Senior Advocate to the
arguments made by the Hindu Parties.

146. Compilation of judgments filed on 13.07.2018 145

behalf of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.
[Volume-IV]

147. Reply Submissions of Dr. Rajeev 13.07.2018 146

Dhavan, Senior Advocate to the
arguments made by Mr. Tushar
Mehta, Advocate Solicitor General.

148. I.A. No. ______ of 2019 25.03.2019 147

Application for Directions in
furtherance of the order dated March
8, 20109 filed by Ms. Pratibha Jain,
Advocate for Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya
in Civil Appeal Nos.4905-4908 of
2011.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

118
149. I.A. No. 96279 of 2019 04.07.2019 148
In
Civil Appeal No. 4740 of 2011
Application for Directions praying that
the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
directed that the Mediation
Proceedings stand concluded and the
matters be listed for final hearing.

150. I.A. No. 102786 of 2019 15.07.2019 149

In
Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of
2010
Application for Directions seeking
permission to point out discrepancies
in the translations, if any, at the time of
referring the relevant document during
the final arguments of the matter.

151. Counter Affidavit filed by Mr. L.R. 26.07.2019 150

Singh, Advocate on behalf of the
Respondent No.19 in Civil Appeal No.
821 of 2011.

// TRUE COPY //
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

119
ANNEXURE P – 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF: -

M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. … Appellant

-VERSUS-

Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. etc. etc. … Respondents

AND
OTHER CONNECTED CIVIL APPEALS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED BY SENIOR

ADVOCATES DURING THE COURSE OF FINAL HEARING

S.No. Description Date on which Tendered by

document
was tendered

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 06.08.2019

A1. A copy of the Written 6.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Submissions on behalf of the Senior Advocate
Appellant – Nirmohi Akhara by
Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate
in Civil Appeal Nos. 4905-4908
of 2011.

A2. A copy of the Map tendered by 6.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate Senior Advocate
in Civil Appeal Nos. 4905-4908
of 2011.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 07.08.2019

A3. A copy of the Note on Limitation 7.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

tendered by Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4905-4908 of 2011.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

120
A4. A copy of the Note on 7.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,
Possession and Possessory Senior Advocate
Title (Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 8 of
OOS No. 3 of 1989 tendered by
Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate
in Civil Appeal Nos. 4905-4908
of 2011.

A5. A copy of the Summary of 7.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

finding in the judgment of the Senior Advocate
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad
in OS-3, OS-4 and OS-5
tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran,
Senior Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4768-4771 of 2011.

A5.1 A copy of the Compilation of 7.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

relied upon legislations Senior Advocate
tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran,
Senior Advocate in Civil Appeal
Nos. 4768-4771 of 2011.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 08.08.2019

A6. A copy of the coloured map 8.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A7. A copy of the another coloured 8.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

map tendered by Mr. K. Senior Advocate
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A8. A copy of the Compilation of 8.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

judgments tendered by Mr. K. Senior Advocate
Parasaran, Senior Advocate in
Civil Appeal No. 4768-4771 of
2011.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 09.08.2019

A9. (2001) 4 SCC 492 - Raja Ram 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Maize Products Vs. Industrial Senior Advocate
Court & M.P. & Ors.

A10. (1999) 5 SCC 50 - Ram 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Jankijee Deities & Ors. Vs. Senior Advocate
State of Bihar & Ors.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

121
A11. (1966) 3 SCR 242 - Sastri 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,
Yagnapurushadji & Ors. Vs. Senior Advocate
Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya &
Anr.

A12. (1969) 1 SCR 624 - Kamaraju 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. The Senior Advocate
Sub-Collector, Ongole & Ors.

A13. (2005) 1 SCC 457 - 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Thayarammal (Dead) by Lr. Vs. Senior Advocate
Kanakammal & Ors.

A14. 1931 SCC OnLine PC 47 - 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Madura, Tirupparankundram, Senior Advocate
Etc., Devasthanams Vs.
Alikhan Sahib & Ors.

A15. (2000) 4 SCC 146 - Shiromani 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Gurdwara Prabandhak Senior Advocate
Committee, Amritsar Vs. Som
Nath Dass & Ors.

A16. (1969) 1 SCC 555 - Yogendra 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner Senior Advocate
of Income Tax, Calcutta

A17. Extract from Srimad Valmiki 9.8.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Ramayana. Senior Advocate

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 13.08.2019

A18. A map was tendered by Mr. C. 13.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Vaidyanathan,
Advocate showing the building Senior Advocate
in the suit with its locality.

A19. A copy of the Compilation of 13.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

judgments tendered by Mr. C. Vaidyanathan,
S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 16.08.2019

A20. A set of black and white 16.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

photographs were tendered in Vaidyanathan,
the Court by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

122
A21. A set of coloured photographs 16.8.2019 Mr. C. S.
were tendered in the Court by Vaidyanathan,
Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 20.08.2019

A22. A photograph of a slab 20.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

containing certain inscriptions Vaidyanathan,
tendered by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

A23. A copy of the Compilation of 20.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

Judgments (Volume-II) Vaidyanathan,
tendered by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 21.08.2019

A24. A copy of the Compilation of 21.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

Judgments (Volume-III) Vaidyanathan,
tendered by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

A25. A copy of the Compilation of 21.8.2019 Mr. C. S.

Relevant Documents relating to Vaidyanathan,
145 Cr.PC tendered by Mr. C. Senior Advocate
S. Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 22.08.2019

A26. A copy of the Written 22.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Submissions on behalf of the Senior Advocate
Appellant – Nirmohi Akhara by
Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate
in Civil Appeal Nos. 4905-4908
of 2011.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 23.08.2019

A27. A copy of the Supplementary 23.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

note on the Written Statement Senior Advocate
of Nirmohi Akhara in OOS No.5
of 1989 tendered by Mr. S.K.
Jain, Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

123
DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 26.08.2019

A28. A copy of the Compilation of 26.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Judgments (Part-II) tendered Senior Advocate
by Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 27.08.2019

A29. A copy of the Statement on the 27.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

stand of Nirmohi Akhara on the Senior Advocate
maintainability of Suit No.5 of
1989 tendered by Mr. S.K. Jain,
Senior Advocate.

A30. A copy of the Note on Issue of 27.8.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Possession & Conclusion of Senior Advocate
High Court of ‘Joint Possession’
tendered by Mr. S.K. Jain,
Senior Advocate.

A31. A map from the book ‘Ayodhya’ 27.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,
written by Hans Baker tendered Advocate
by Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 29.08.2019

A32. A copy of the order dated 29.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

18.3.2010 passed by the Advocate
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad
tendered by Mr. P.N. Mishra,
Advocate.

A32.1 A copy of the Compilation titled 29.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

as “Temple Parts” tendered by Advocate
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

A32.2 A copy of the Notes on 29.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

Arguments Part-I tendered by Advocate
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 30.08.2019

A33. A copy of the Notes of 30.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

Arguments Part-II tendered by Advocate
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

124
A34. A copy of the Compilation of 30.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,
Islamic Law Part-II tendered by Advocate
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

A35. A Compilation of Judgments on 30.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

Prescription/Limitation and Advocate
Hindu Law on Jirnoddhar
tendered by Mr. P.N. Mishra,
Advocate.

A36. Extracts from the book “Al- 30.8.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,
Sharia’ A” deduced from various Advocate
authorities Volume-II by S.C.
Sircar, Tagore Professor of Law
pages 466 - 476 tendered by
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

A37. Extracts from the book 30.8.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar

“Glorious Quran” Text, Jain, Advocate
Translation and Commentary
by Abdullah Yusuf Ali -
introduction to Sura VIII (Anfal)
pages 414-435 tendered by Mr.
Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate for
Hindu Mahasabha in Civil
Appeal No.4739 of 2011.

A38. A copy of the Dates & Events 30.8.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar
tendered by Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
Jain, Advocate for Hindu
Mahasabha in Civil Appeal
No.4739 of 2011.

A39. Extracts from the book “Babur- 30.8.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar
Nama” by Annette Susannah Jain, Advocate
Beveridge Volume-I pages 518,
554, 555, 559, 560, 576 & 596
tendered by Mr. Hari Shankar
Jain, Advocate for Hindu
Mahasabha in Civil Appeal
No.4739 of 2011.

A40. Extracts from the book 30.8.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar

“Pakistan or the Partition of Jain, Advocate
India” by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
tendered by Mr. Hari Shankar
Jain, Advocate for Hindu
Mahasabha in Civil Appeal
No.4739 of 2011.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

125
A41. A copy of the noted submitted 30.8.2019 Mr. Varinder
by Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Kumar Sharma,
Advocate appearing in Civil Advocate
Appeal No. 4739 of 2011.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 02.09.2019

A41.1 A copy of the Notes of 2.9.2019 Mr. Anoop Bose,

arguments on behalf of Akhil Advocate
Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
tendered by Mr. Anoop Bose,
Advocate

A42. A copy of the SUBMISSION 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

NO.1 - Compilation on English Dhavan, Senior
Law in India and Justice Equity Advocate
and Good Conscience in
Modern Indian Law tendered by
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A43. A copy of the SUBMISSION 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

NO.1A - Compilation on English Dhavan, Senior
Law in India and Justice Equity Advocate
and Good Conscience in
Modern Indian Law tendered by
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A44. A copy of the Preliminary 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Submission on Cases tendered Dhavan, Senior
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A45. A copy of the Note on 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Methodology tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A46. A copy of the List of Travellers 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Accounts & Gazetteers/Reports Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A47. A copy of the Miscellaneous 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Compilation in response to Dhavan, Senior
submissions made by Mr. P.N. Advocate
Mishra, Advocate and Mr. H.S.
Jain, Advocate tendered by Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

126
A48. A copy of the Compilation of 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev
Cases on Res Nullius tendered Dhavan, Senior
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A49. A copy of the SUBMISSION 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

NO.3 -Compilation Containing Dhavan, Senior
Extracts from B.K. Mukherjea: Advocate
The Hindu Law of Religious and
Charitable Trusts tendered by
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A50. A copy of the SUBMISSION 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

NO.4 - Compilation of Essays in Dhavan, Senior
Classical and Modern Hindu Advocate
Law by J. Duncan M. Derrett
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A51. A copy of the Compilation of 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Cases on Parens Patriae Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A52. A copy of the SUBMISSION 2.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

NO.2 - Compilation containing Dhavan, Senior
extracts from Advocate
P.V. Kane: History of
Dharmasastra tendered by Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 03.09.2019

A53. A copy of the Note on Planned 3.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Desecration of Mosque - Reply Dhavan, Senior
to no desecration on December Advocate
22-23, 1949 tendered by Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A54. A copy of the Report of Mr. 3.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Bashir Ahmad Khan, Pleader Dhavan, Senior
Commissioner dated Advocate
03.08.1950 alongwith 13
photographs tendered by Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

127
A55. A copy of the Articles published 3.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev
in the Journal of the Indian Law Dhavan, Senior
Institute tendered by Dr. Rajeev Advocate
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 04.09.2019

A56. A copy of the Note on 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

conclusions derived from Dhavan, Senior
pleadings in Suit No. 3 of 1989 Advocate
& Civil Appeal No. 4908 of 2011
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A57. A copy of the Propositions on 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Religious Endowments and Dhavan, Senior
Shebaits in Hindu Law tendered Advocate
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A58. A copy of the Note on Exhibits 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

and Relevant Documents filed Dhavan, Senior
by Nirmohi Akhara tendered by Advocate
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A59. A copy of the Short Note on 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Exhibits of Nirmohi Akhara Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A60. A copy of the Response to 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Exhibits relied upon by Nirmohi Dhavan, Senior
Akhara tendered by Dr. Rajeev Advocate
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

A61. A copy of the Response to 4.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Submissions made by Nirmohi Dhavan, Senior
Akaraha tendered by Dr. Rajeev Advocate
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 05.09.2019

A62. A copy of the Note on Witness 5.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Statements in Suit 3 of 1989 Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

128
A63. A copy of the extract from the 5.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev
books “The Elementary Dhavan, Senior
Principles of Jurisprudence by Advocate
G.W. Keeton” and “Snell’s
Principles of Equity by The Hon.
Sir Robert Megarry” tendered
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A64. A copy of the Compilation of 5.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Judgments on Meaning of Dhavan, Senior
‘Belonging To’ tendered by Dr. Advocate
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A65. A copy of the Note on 5.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Continuous Wrong tendered by Dhavan, Senior
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 12.09.2019

A66. A copy of the Note and 12.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Compilation on Limitation & Dhavan, Senior
Possession in Suit 3 of 1989 Advocate
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A67. A copy of the Compilation on 12.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Shebait tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Dhavan, Senior Advocate. Advocate

A68. A copy of the Note and 12.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Caselaws on Illegal Acts cannot Dhavan, Senior
be the foundation of rights Advocate
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A69. A copy of the Compilation of 12.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Statutes tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Dhavan, Senior Advocate. Advocate

A70. A copy of the Note on Clarity of 12.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Pleadings tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

129
DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 13.09.2019

A71. A copy of the Documentary 13.9.2019 Mr. Zafaryab

Evidence/Oral Evidence Jilani, Senior
showing the user of Babri Advocate
Mosque by Muslims between
1934 and 1949 tendered by Mr.
Zafaryab Jilani, Senior
Advocate.

A72. A copy of the Summary Note on 13.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Preliminary Submissions Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A73. A copy of the Summary Note on 13.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Submissions in Reply to Suit 3 Dhavan, Senior
of 1989 tendered by Dr. Rajeev Advocate
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 17.09.2019

A74. A copy of the Issue based 17.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Summary of the Judgment(s) of Dhavan, Senior
Allahabad High Court in OOS Advocate
Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of 1989
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A75. A copy of the Note on Exhibits 17.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

and other relevant documents Dhavan, Senior
filed by Plaintiffs in Suit 5 of Advocate
1989 tendered by Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 18.09.2019

A76. A copy of the Note on Proof of 18.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Belief-I (Skanda Purana, Dhavan, Senior
Travelers, Gazetteers) Advocate
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A77. A copy of the Compilation on 18.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Law relating to Gazetteers Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

130
A78. A copy of the Note on Witness 18.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev
Statements in Suit 5 of 1989 Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 19.09.2019

A79. A copy of the Note on Prayer at 19.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

the Grill Wall tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A80. A copy of the Note on Proof of 19.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Belief-II (Inscriptions) tendered Dhavan, Senior
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 20.09.2019

A81. A copy of the Note on Juristic 20.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Personality of Idols and Areas Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 23.09.2019

A82. A copy of the Compilation on 23.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

the Issue of Limitation in Suit 5 Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A83. A copy of the Submission in 23.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Reply to Mr. P.N. Mishra, H.S. Dhavan, Senior
Jain and Mr. M.C. Dhingra (Shia Advocate
Waqf Board), Advocates
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A84. A copy of the Summary Note on 23.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Suit No. 5 tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

131
DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 24.09.2019

A85. A copy of the Compilation of 24.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Judgments regarding Sri Dhavan, Senior
Sabanayagar Temple, Advocate
Chidambaram tendered by Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A86. A copy of the Miscellaneous 24.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Note on Temples and Dhavan, Senior
Sadachara tendered by Dr. Advocate
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A87. A copy of the Submissions in 24.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Reply to Suit 1 of 1989 tendered Dhavan, Senior
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A88. A copy of the Note on Historical 24.9.2019 Mr. Zafaryab

Documents & Gazetteers Etc. Jilani, Senior
tendered by Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 25.09.2019

A89. Clear copy of certain pages of 25.9.2019 Mr. Zafaryab

Exhibit-6. Running Volume-73 Jilani, Senior
tendered by Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A90. A copy of the Compilation 25.9.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

tendered by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior
Arora, Senior Advocate. Advocate

A91. A copy of the Note on 25.9.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

Stratigraphy / Periodisation, Arora, Senior
Pillar Bases, Walls, Circular Advocate
Shrine, Divine Couple & Other
Artefacts, Glazed Ware &
Glazed Tiles; Animal Bones [A]
tendered by Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, Senior Advocate.

A92. A copy of the Note on 25.9.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

Stratigraphy / Periodisation, Arora, Senior
Pillar Bases, Walls, Circular Advocate
Shrine, Divine Couple & Other
Artefacts, Glazed Ware &
Glazed Tiles; Animal Bones [B]
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

132
tendered by Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 26.09.2019

A93. A copy of the Note on 26.9.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Interpretation of Rule 10 (A) Dhavan, Senior
read with Rule 10 (2) of Order Advocate
26, CPC tendered by Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 27.09.2019

A94. A copy of the Reply to the 27.9.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

Submissions of Mr. C. S. Arora, Senior
Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate
Advocate, on ASI Report Vol-III
[Vol-85] tendered by Ms.
Meenakshi Arora, Senior
Advocate.

A95. A copy of the Submissions and 27.9.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

Case Laws tendered by Ms. Arora, Senior
Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 30.09.2019

A96. Copies of the Judgements and 30.9.2019 Mr. Shekhar

Documents tendered by Mr. Naphade, Senior
Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A97. A copy of the Written 30.9.2019 Mr. Shekhar

Submissions tendered by Mr. Naphade, Senior
Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A98. A copy of the Written 30.9.2019 Mr. Mohd.

Submissions tendered by Mr. Nizamuddin
Mohd. Nizamuddin Pasha, Pasha, Advocate
Advocate.

A99. A copy of the Compilation of 30.9.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Submissions on Land as a Senior Advocate
Juristic Entity tendered by Mr.
K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

133
DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 01.10.2019

A100. A copy of the Compilation-II of 01.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

the Judgments tendered by Mr. Senior Advocate
K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A101. A copy of the Submissions on 01.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Res Judicata tendered by Mr. K. Senior Advocate
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A101.1 The Parallel Codes of Civil 01.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Procedure 1882 & 1908 from Senior Advocate
the book written by A.S.
Cowdell and S.K. Chariar
tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran,
Senior Advocate.

A102. A copy of the Compilation of 01.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Proceedings in Case No. Senior Advocate
61/280, Year 1885 tendered by
Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior
Advocate.

A103. A copy of the Compilation of 01.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Submissions on Limitation in Senior Advocate
Suit No.5 tendered by Mr. K.
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A104. A copy of the Submissions on 01.10.2019 Mr. C. S.

behalf of Plaintiff in Suit No.5 Vaidyanathan,
tendered by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate

An enlarged copy of the map which is at page 70 of Mr. C. S.

Volume-83 tagged along in the same volume tendered by Vaidyanathan,
Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate. Senior Advocate

An enlarged copy of the coloured map which is at page 72 Mr. C. S.

of Volume-83 tagged along in the same volume tendered Vaidyanathan,
by Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate. Senior Advocate

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 03.10.2019

A105. A copy of the List of some 03.10.2019 Mr. C. S.

important plates of ASI Report Vaidyanathan,
tendered by Mr. C. S. Senior Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

134
A105.1 A copy of the Question and 03.10.2019 Mr. C. S.
Answer on Bhumi/Juridical Vaidyanathan,
Personality tendered by Mr. C. Senior Advocate
S. Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

A106. A copy of the Submissions 03.10.2019 Mr. Ranjit Kumar,

tendered by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A107. A copy of the Submissions 03.10.2019 Mr. P.S.

tendered by Mr. Narasimha, Senior
P.S. Narasimha, Senior Advocate
Advocate on behalf of
Defendant No.2 in OOS No.5 of
1989.

A108. A copy of the Comprehensive 03.10.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Written Submissions on Suit Senior Advocate
OOS No.3 of 1989 and OOS 5
of 1989 along with Rejoinder
Arguments tendered by Mr. S.K.
Jain, Senior Advocate.

A109. A copy of the Compilation of 03.10.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Judgments tendered by Mr. Senior Advocate
S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate.

A110. A copy of the Notes of 03.10.2019 Mr. P.N. Mishra,

Argument Part-III tendered by Advocate
Mr. P.N. Mishra, Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 04.10.2019

A111. A copy of the Response to 04.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Arguments made in Rejoinder Dhavan, Senior
and their Applicability on both Advocate
sides tendered by Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

A112. A copy of the Note on Title 04.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Dhavan, Senior
Senior Advocate. Advocate

A112.1 A copy of the Note on the 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

factual basis of the cases cited Dhavan, Senior
on Title and Doctrine of Lost Advocate
Grant tendered by Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

135
A113. A copy of the Convenience 04.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev
Compilation of Exhibits Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A114. A copy of the Compilation of 04.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Cases on the Issue of Title Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A115. A copy of the Compilation of 04.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Judgments on Doctrine of Lost Dhavan, Senior
Grant tendered by Dr. Rajeev Advocate
Dhavan, Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 14.10.2019

A116. A copy of the Submissions on 14.10.2019 Mr. C. S.

behalf of the Appellants by Mr. Vaidyanathan,
C. S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Senior Advocate
Advocate on “The Existence of
Temple Beneath & Demolition
thereof for Construction of
Disputed Structure”.

A117. A copy of the Reply by Ms. 14.10.2019 Ms. Meenakshi

Meenakshi Arora to Arora, Senior
Submissions of Mr. C. S. Advocate
Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate
on “The Existence of Temple
Beneath & Demolition thereof
for Construction of Disputed
Structure”.

A118. A copy of the Notes in 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Response to Queries raised by Dhavan, Senior
this Hon’ble Court tendered by Advocate
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A119. A copy of the Notes on 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Response – with the Permission Dhavan, Senior
of the Court tendered by Dr. Advocate
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate.

A120. A copy of the Summary Note on 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

OOS 4 of 1989 tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

136
A121. A copy of the Note on Limitation 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev
and Adverse Possession Dhavan, Senior
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A122. A copy of the Compilation of 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Judgments on Limitation and Dhavan, Senior
Adverse Possession (Suit 4) Advocate
tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
Senior Advocate.

A123. A copy of the Note on the Issue 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

of Wakf tendered by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Dhavan, Senior Advocate. Advocate

A124. A copy of the Compilation of 14.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Judgments on Waqf tendered Dhavan, Senior
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 15.10.2019

A125. A copy of the Submissions on 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

behalf of Sri K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate in Re. Suit 4.

A126. A copy of the Compilation of 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Judgments tendered by Mr. K. Senior Advocate
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A127. A copy of the Compilation 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A128. A copy of the Compilation of 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

Judgments tendered by Mr. K. Senior Advocate
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.

A129. A copy of the Judgment entitled 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,

as “M. Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Senior Advocate
Secretary of State represented
by Collector of Tanjore & Ors”.
reported in [AIR (30) 1943
Madras 15] tendered by Mr. K.
Parasaran, Senior Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

137
A130. A copy of the relevant extract 15.10.2019 Mr. K. Parasaran,
from the book “The Principal Senior Advocate
Upanisads” edited with
Introduction, Text, Translation
and Notes by S. Radhakrishnan
tendered by Mr. K. Parasaran,
Senior Advocate.

DOCUMENTS/JUDGMENTS TENDERED ON 16.10.2019

A131. A copy of the Supplementary 16.10.2019 Mr. Shekhar

Submissions tendered by Mr. Naphade, Senior
Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

A132. A copy of the Notes of 16.10.2019 Mr. Anoop Bose,

Arguments on behalf of Akhil Advocate
Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
tendered by Mr. Anoop Bose,
Advocate.

A133. A copy of the relevant extract 16.10.2019 Mr. C. S.

from the book “The History of Vaidyanathan,
Islam” (Volume One) by Akbar Senior Advocate
Shah Najeebabadi - (Revised
by: Safi-ur-Rahman
Mubarakpuri) tendered by Mr.
C. S. Vaidyanathan, Senior
Advocate.

A134. A copy of the Submissions on 16.10.2019 Mr. Ranjit Kumar,

behalf of Hindu Parties Senior Advocate
tendered by Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
Senior Advocate.

A135. A copy of the Written 16.10.2019 Mr. Jaideep

Submission on behalf of the Gupta, Senior
Respondent No.12 – (Mahanth Advocate
Shri Dharam Das) tendered by
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior
Advocate.

A136. A copy of the Application of 16.10.2019 Mr. Vikas Singh,

Mohammad Khatib Moazzin of Senior Advocate
the Masjid dated November 30,
1858 in Case No. 884 tendered
by Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior
Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

138
A137. A copy of the Brief List of Dates 16.10.2019 Mr. Vikas Singh,
tendered by Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate
Senior Advocate.

A138. A copy of the Submissions on 16.10.2019 Mr. Vikas Singh,

behalf of President, All India Senior Advocate
Hindu Mahasabha, Swami
Chakrapani tendered by Mr.
Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate.

A139. A copy of the Note on behalf of 16.10.2019 Mr. V. Shekhar,

Umesh Chandra Pandey, Senior Advocate
Respondent No.19 in Civil
Appeal No. 821 of 2011
tendered by Mr. V. Shekhar,
Senior Advocate.

A140. A copy of the Written 16.10.2019 Mr. Barun Kumar

Submission on behalf of Sinha, Advocate
Respondent Nos. 9 & 15 i.e.
Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
& All India Hindu Mahasabha
tendered by Mr. Barun Kumar
Sinha, Advocate.

A141. A copy of the Comprehensive 16.10.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Written Submissions on Suit Senior Advocate
OOS No.4 of 1989 tendered by
Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate.

A142. A copy of the Statement of 16.10.2019 Mr. S.K. Jain,

Advocate for the Plaintiff in Senior Advocate
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 namely
Mohd. Ayub recorded before
the Learned Civil Judge,
Faizabad in R.S. No. 12 of 1961
tendered by Mr. S.K. Jain,
Senior Advocate.

A143. A copy of the Written 16.10.2019 Mr. M.C. Dhingra,

Submissions tendered by Mr. Advocate
M.C. Dhingra, Advocate.

A144. A copy of the Submissions 16.10.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar

tendered by Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate
Jain, Advocate.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

139
A144.1 A copy of the Reply to the Note 16.10.2019 Mr. Hari Shankar
on Issue of Waqf submitted by Jain, Advocate
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior
Advocate on 14.10.2019 -
(Volume-II) tendered by Mr.
Hari Shankar Jain, Advocate.

A145. A copy of the Response to the 16.10.2019 Dr. Rajeev

Reply in Suit 4 tendered by Dr. Dhavan, Senior
Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Advocate.

// TRUE COPY //
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

140
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I. A. NO. OF 2019
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:-

M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. … Applicant/Review Petitioner

-VERSUS-

Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. Etc. Etc. … Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY

To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
and his companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India
The humble Application of the above
named Applicant/Review Petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner above named is filed the present

Review Petition in this Hon’ble Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of

India seeking review of the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil Appeal

Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010.

2. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner craves to rely on the averments

made in the accompanying Review Petition as a part and parcel of the

present stay application and the said averments are not being repeated

herein for the sake of brevity.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

141
3. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner humbly submits that this Hon’ble

Court has committed apparent errors on the face of the record and therefore

the present Review Petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble

Court to consider the contents of the Review Petition and the Grounds as

forming part of the present application.

5. That the Applicant/Review Petitioner humbly submits that grave

injustice will be caused if the operation of the impugned judgment and order

passed by the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated November 9,

2019 is not stayed and a status quo order is directed during the pendency

of the present Review Petition. This Hon’ble Court during the pendency of

the Civil Appeals had granted status quo while passing the order dated May

9, 2011. A copy of the said order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated May 9,

2011 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 is annexed hereto and

marked as Annexure P-4 [Page Nos. 143 to 152] to this application.

6. That in the light of the averments made in the accompanying Review

Petition and the above mentioned facts, it is submitted that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to grant ad interim ex parte stay in favour of the

Review Petitioner herein.

7. The Applicant/Review Petitioner state that the present Application is

being filed bona fide and in the interests of justice.

8. In the light of the above, the Applicant/Review Petitioner most

respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to:
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

142
PRAYER

(a) stay the operation of the judgment and order dated September 30,

2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

rendered in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (Regular Suit No.12 of 1961) and

O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989); and/or

(b) stay the operation of the impugned judgment and final order dated

November 9, 2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court rendered in Civil

Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010; and/or

(c) restrain the Central Government from taking any steps pursuant to the

impugned order passed by the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble

Court dated November 9, 2019; and/or

(d) pass such other and further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT/REVIEW

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by:-

EJAZ MAQBOOL
Advocate for the Applicant/Review Petitioner

New Delhi
Dated: 02.12.2019
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

143
ANNEXURE P – 4

ITEM NO. 6+51 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10866-10867 OF 2010

(for Prel. Hearing)

M. SIDDIQ @ H.M. SIDDIQ, JAMIAT ULAMA-I-HIND … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS. ETC. ETC. … Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay, substitution, exemption from filing c/c of the
impugned Judgment, exemption from filing O.T., intervention, c/delay in
filing substitution appln., permission to file lengthy list of dates and office
report)

With
Civil Appeal NO. 821 of 2011 (for Prel. Hearing)
(With appln. for ex-parte stay and exemption from filing O.T. and office
report)

S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 3600 of 2011 (for Prel. Hearing)

(With appln. for exemption from filing c/copy as well as plain copy of the
impugned order and permission to file SLP without c/copy as well as plain
copy of impugned order and office report)

With
Civil Appeal NO. 2215 of 2011 (For Prel. Hearing)
(With appln. for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report)

SLP(C) NO. 7815-7818 of 2011 (For Prel. hearing)

(With appln. for exemption and permission to file lengthy list of dates and
office report)

Civil Appeal NO. 2636 of 2011 (For Prel. Hearing)

(With applns. For ex-parte styay and substitution and exemption from filing
O.T. and c/delay in filing substitution appln. and permission to file synopsis
and list of dates and office report)

(With I.A, Nos. 7 & 8 applns. For permission to file additional documents
and directions)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

144
Civil Appeal NO. 2894 of 2011 (For Prel. Hearing)
(With appln. for ex-parte stay and substitution and exemption from filing O.T.
and c/delay in filing substitution appln. and office report)

Appeal Civil D NO. D38217 of 2010 (For Prel. Hearing)

(With applns. for permission to file appeal and office report)

Civil Appeal No.4192/2011

(With appln. for substitution and interim relief and permission to file synopsis
and list of dates and exemption from filing O.T. and office report)

Appeal Civil D NO. D3828 of 2011

(With office report)

Date: 09/05/2011 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA

For Appellant(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Ms. Shamama Anis, Adv.
Mr. S. Mehdi Imam, Adv.
Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv.

C.A. No.821/2011 Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Adv.
Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, Adv.
Mr. Syed Kafeel Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Syed Ahmad Saud, Adv.
Mr. M. Taiyab Khan, Adv.
Mr. Shuaib-uddin, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas Adv.
Mr. Zaki Ahmed Khan, Adv.

C.C. No.3600/2011 Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv.

C.A. No.2215/2011 Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi, Adv.
Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Dewan, Adv.
Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Khan, Adv.
Mr. Jawed Patel, Adv.
Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Mrigan Prabhaker, Adv.
Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

145
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Adv.
Mr. U.N. Goyal, Adv.
Ms. Trishna Mohan, Adv.

C.A. No.2636/2011 Mr. P.S. Narasima, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Bankim K. Kulshreshtha, Adv.
Mr. R.C. Gubrele, Adv.

C.A. No.2894/2011 Mr. Rakesh Dwiwedi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Zafaryab jilani, Adv.
Mr. Mushtaque Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sibal, Adv.
Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv.
Mr. Md. Taiyab Khan, Adv.
Mr. Ahmad S. Azhar, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Faisal Sherwani, Adv.
Mr. T. Ahmad, Adv.
Ms. F. Iqbal, Adv.
Mr. Aamir Naseem, Adv.

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. C.S. Vaidaianathan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.N. Bhat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Madan M. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Adv.
Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv.

C.A.D.No.3828/2011 Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.

C.A. No.4192/2011 Mr. Anup George Chaudhari, Sr. Av.

Ms. June Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi,Adv
Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Adv.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Taiyyab Khan, Adv.
Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv.
Mr. T. Srinivasa Murthy, Adv.
Mr. Md. Irshad Hanif, Adv.
Ms. Rifat Ara, Adv.
Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv.
Ms. Sumita, Adv.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

146
For Respondent(s)

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. R.C. Gubrele, Adv.

C.A.D.No.38217/2010
C.A. No.2215/2011
C.A. No.2894/2011
C.A. No.821/2011
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Adv.
C.A.D.No.3828/2011 Ms. Pratibh Sinha, Adv.
C.C. No.3600/2011 Mr. Chander Prakash Kaushik, Adv.
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Adv

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. Md. Irshad Hanif, Adv.
C.A. No.2215/2011 Ms. Rifat Ara, Adv.
C.A. No.2894/2011 Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv.
C.A. No.821/2011 Mr. Manoj V. George, Adv.
C.C. No.3600/2011 Mr. Alex Joseph, Adv.
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv.

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
C.A. No.2215/2011 Mr. P. Parmeshwaran, Adv.
C.A. No.2894/2011 Mr. Sharad Singhania, Adv.
C.A.D.No.3828/2011 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
C.A. No.2636/2011 Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Asr. Adv.
C.A. No.821/2011 Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.
C.C. No.3600/2011 Mr. Balasubramanyam Kumarsu, Adv.
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011 Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv.
Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. Amit Pawan, Adv.

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. Prafulla Behera, Adv.
C.A. No.2894/2011 Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, Adv.
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011 Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Dolly Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Prakash T.A., Adv.
Mr. Brahmajeet Mishra, Adv.

C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Md. Shahid Anwar, Adv.

C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Mr. Minhajul Rashid, Adv.
C.A. No.2215/2011 Mr. Aamir Naseem, Adv.
C.A. No.821/2011 Mr. Syed Rehan, Adv.
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011 Mr. Naved Khan, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Adv.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

147
C.A.Nos.10866-67/2010 Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv.
C.A.D.No.38217/2010 Ms. F. Iqbal, Adv.
C.A. No.2215/2011 Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Adv.
C.A.D.No.3828/2011 Mr. Aamir Naeem, Adv.
C.A. No.2636/2011 Mr. T. Ahmad, Adv.
C.A. No.821/2011
C.C.No.3600/2011
SLP(C)Nos.7815-7818/2011

C.C. No.3600/2011 Mr. A.S. Pundir, Adv.

For Interveners Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Adv.
Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10866-10867 OF 2010

The appeals are admitted for hearing.

During the pendency of the appeals, the operation of the judgment

and decree passed by the Allahabad High Court shall remain stayed.

Further, we are pleased to note that there is complete unanimity on

maintaining status quo and all the parties are in agreement that order may

be passed for maintaining status quo on the disputed site and on the

adjoining land.

We, therefore, pass the following orders :-

During the pendency of the appeals, the parties shall maintain status

quo in regard to suit land, as directed by an earlier judgment and order

passed by this Court in 'Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui & Ors. vs. Union of India &

Ors.' (1994) 6 SCC 360 vide. paragraphs 86, 87, which are reproduced

below :-
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

148
86. The best solution in the circumstances, on revival of suits is,

therefore, to maintain status quo as on 7-1-1993 when the law

came into force modifying the interim orders in the suits to that

extent by curtailing the practice of worship by Hindus in the

disputed area to the extent it stands reduced under the Act

instead of conferring on them the larger right available under

the court orders till intervention was made by legislation.

87. Section 7(2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim

arrangement for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this

extent and curtails the larger right they enjoyed under the court

orders, ensuring that it cannot be enlarged till final adjudication

of the dispute and consequent transfer of the disputed area to

the party found entitled to the same. This being the purpose and

true effect of Section 7(2), it promotes and strengthens the

commitment of the nation to secularism instead of negating it.

To hold this provision as anti-secular and slanted in favour of

the Hindu community 420 would be to frustrate an attempt to

thwart anti-secularism and unwittingly support the forces which

were responsible for the events of 6-12-1992.

Further, as regards the land adjacent to the suit land which was the

subject matter of acquisition by the Central Government, the parties shall

maintain status quo, as directed by the order of this Court in 'Mohd. Aslam

Alias Bhure vs. Union of India and Others', (2003) 4 SCC 1 vide. paragraphs

4 and 5 read with paragraph 17 of the report, which read as follows :-

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

149
4. In this proceeding, which is initiated as public interest petition,

several reliefs were claimed but after the interested parties

were impleaded and their pleading were put forth what has

crystallized is as to the manner in which the adjacent land

should be (SIC) final decision in the title suit pending in the High

Court of Allahabad.

This Court, on 13.3.2002, while issuing the rule, made the

following order:

"In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land

located in revenue plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot

Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no

religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual

including bhumi puja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed

to take place.

Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over

by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained

by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall

any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any

religious purpose or in connection therewith.

This is subject to further orders which may be passed in this

case."

5. The aforesaid order was clarified by another order dated

14.3.2002 in the following terms:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

150
"After hearing the learned Attorney General, as there was some

ambiguity in para 3 of our order dated 13-3-2002, we correct

para 3 of our order as follows:

'In the meantime we direct that on the 67.703 acres of acquired

land located in various plots detailed in the Schedule to

Acquisition or Central Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which is

vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any

kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumi puja

or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place."

17. On consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that

the order made by this Court on 13.3.2002, as modified by the

order made on 14.3.2002, should be operative until disposal of

the suits in the High Court of Allahabad not only to maintain

communal harmony but also to fulfil other objectives of the Act.

The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant

requested the Court to make some further directions. There is no objections

from any side to the request made by Mr. Rao. Hence, we make the following

directions :

Call for the records of other Original Suit No.4/1989 and other

connected suits (being OOS No.1/1989, OOS No.3/1989 and OOS

No.5/1989) from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;

Call for the digitized versions of the impugned judgment and order

dated 30.9.2010 in Microsoft Word format and not in PDF format;

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

151
Call for the digitized versions of the record prepared by the Registry

of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, containing the scanned copies

of the record in OOS No.1/1989, OOS No.3/1989, OOS No.4/1989 and OOS

No.5/1989, and compact discs (CDs) containing the same;

The Registry of this Court is directed to provide to the parties CDs

containing electronic copies of the digitized record summoned.

Applications for substitutions, that are free from defects will be taken

up for orders after the ensuing summer vacation.

In the meanwhile, the other side(s) may examine the question whether

or not they would raise any objection in regard to any substitution petitions.

Appropriate directions for translation of the High Court records will be

given later on.

Permission to file lengthy list of dates and events is granted.

Application for exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order

is allowed.

Copies of the judgment is not required to be accompanied with the

process fee and spare copies.

Application for intervention is rejected.

Caveat filed by Mr. R.C. Gubrele, and Mr. B.K. Satija, counsel is

rejected.

Civil Appeal NO. 821 of 2011

Civil Appeal NO. 2215 of 2011
Civil Appeal NO. 2636 of 2011
Civil Appeal NO. 2894 of 2011
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

152
Civil Appeal NO.4192 of 2011

Appeals are admitted for hearing.

Interim orders in the same term as passed in appeal nos. 10866-

10867/2010.

S.L.P.(C) NOS. 7815-7818 of 2011

S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 3600 of 2011

Permission to file Special leave petition is granted.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Interim orders in the same term as passed in Appeal Nos. 10866-

10867/2010.

Civil Appeal D NO. D38217 of 2010

Civil Appeal D NO. D3828 of 2011

Permission to file civil appeals is granted.

Delay in refiling is condoned.

The appeals are admitted for hearing.

Interim orders in the same term as in appeal nos.10866-10867/2010.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna)
Sr. P.A. Court Master

// TRUE COPY //