Allahabad Court's Ayodhya Verdict is Unjust and Unwise

[deckingraj]

This was only one of the thousands of sites where temples and churches or other places of worship were destroyed world wide to facilitate the construction of a mosque at the same place. This trend of Muslim invaders destroying indigenous places of worship and building mosques over them is a universal phenomenon and has been condemned worldwide.

The proposal for construction of mosque near the 9/11 ground zero in New York is just another ill disguised attempt to continue with the same disgusting tradition and that is exactly the reason for the popular opposition to it.

It is high time Pakistanis started paying more attention to the affairs of their own country rather than worrying about what is happening in other countries. It will do them a world of good. All one hears of on this forum is what is happening in India or Afghanistan or Iran or Chechnya or Europe or Palestine. First get your own country in order then worry about others. Who the hell appointed you the international adjudicators? Is anyone really interested in your world view?

If there was a place in Pakistan popularly believed to be the birthplace of Muhammad, would you guys have waited for 600 years after it was defiled, desecrated and destroyed by outsider invaders to stake a legal claim to it though the law of the land?

You don't have a leg to stand on. Don't teach us about judicial impartiality and propriety. Your courts are a bloody farce. Successive military dictators have ensured that. And anyway, it is none of your d@mned business.

Kewl down sir...Very humbly would like to remind you that it is a discussion forum and people are bound to have different views...Better challenge them on merit...

@members

Anyone who is interested in meaningful debate can please suggest what else could have been a better solution then what has been delivered??? Or atleast what is the objectionable part???

 

[RamGorur]

Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

Siddharth Varadarajan

[...]

The three learned judges of the Allahabad High Court may have rendered separate judgments on the title suit in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case but Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S.U. Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma all seem to agree on one central point: that the Hindu plaintiffs in the case have a claim to the disputed site because “as per [the] faith and belief of the Hindus” the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid where the idols of Ram Lalla were placed surreptitiously in 1949 is indeed the “birthplace” of Lord Ram.

[...]

Hogwash.

It is only Justice D.V.Sharma who thinks it is the birth place of Ram. Justice S.U.Khan and Justice S.Agarwal made no such comment. Instead the Hindu plaintiffs have been awarded a claim to the disputed site due to a very well known concept in civil law - adverse possession.

For convenience I am quoting from Wiki.

Adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is a common law concept concerning the title to real property (land and the fixed structures built upon it). By adverse possession, title to another's real property can be acquired without compensation, by holding the property in a manner that conflicts with the true owner's rights for a specified period.

[...]

Adverse possession exists to cure potential or actual defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on possible litigation over ownership and possession.

Because of the doctrine of adverse possession, a landowner can be secure in title to his land. Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property. The doctrine of adverse possession prevents this.

Adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, which states that failing to assert a right or claim in a timely manner can prejudice an adverse party. This doctrine is defined as neglecting to do what should or could have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

This means the law may be used to reward a person who possesses the land of another for a requisite period of time. Failure of a landowner to exercise and defend his property rights for a certain period may result in the permanent loss of the landowner's interest in the property.

 

[Tayyab1796]

This is a joke of a decision . Courts have to decide matters in black and white ... where one party is joyous and the other laments the decisioin ... its what human history teaches us ... besides this decision is a recipe for future conflicts (but preventing that conflict will only be upto the law enforcing agencies and u cannot blame court for the conflicts).

 

[RamGorur]

@members

Anyone who is interested in meaningful debate can please suggest what else could have been a better solution then what has been delivered??? Or atleast what is the objectionable part???

No such suggestion can be made without actually going through the heaps of evidence that have been presented both for and against the case. It took 50 years for the Court to get here.

In fact we are all opining without actually going through the, purportedly, 10,000 page verdict.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

I welcome it as a compromise though as a judgement i have difference of opinion.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

So any hindu can go to any muslim construction and demolish it and later put a idol in and claim that some diety was born there

2 nation theory makes complete sense

lol what a joke of decision

You don't punish the culprits and instead you give 2/3 share to the abusers , and punish the victims and on top you expect them to pray there where blood was shed



I think it was a simple case of property damage , and if Ram can come to court and testity that he was born there or present his birth certificate it can be helpful

Somtimes hindu gods are born in Kashmir sometimes in mosques what next white house is the only place remaining

Rules for destroying buildings are same terrorism is terrorism you can't destroy a building and then own that building lets give osama binladin 2/3 of world trade center lol

Tomorrow someone will demolish another mosque and then claim something else I think Muslim in India the unfortunateones that are stuck there should ask for independent state

 

[fallstuff]

Here's a news story about Ayodhya verdict published in The Hindu today:

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan was critical of the judgment delivered in the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday, saying: “This is panchayati justice which takes away the legal rights of Muslims and converts the moral sentimental entitlements of Hindus into legal rights.”

Mr. Dhavan said the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, had taken place on a Muslim site, and this fact could not be disputed and rendered invisible by pretending that Muslims were not entitled to the site in any way.

“If this panchayati solution is to be endured, the degree of Muslim entitlement should have been left intact so that the site belonged to them,” he said.

Mr. Dhavan said the destruction of the Masjid was akin to the demolition of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and people would say that India's secular justice was majoritarian in nature without lending dignity to India's minority.

Endorsing Mr. Dhavan's views, senior advocate P.P. Rao said: “It is difficult to appreciate how the property can be divided by the court while dismissing the suits. This is nothing but a panchayati type of justice.

“If the court accepts that the Waqf Board is entitled to one-third of the land, it can't dismiss the suit. If the court dismisses the suits, it can't give only a portion of the land. The court has gone beyond the prayers in the suits. When no one had asked for division of the land, how can the court divide the land into three portions? There are prima facie grounds for the parties to go for appeal to the Supreme Court as all of them are aggrieved over the division of the property.”


The Hindu : News / National : Panchayati justice that takes away legal rights of Muslims: Rajeev Dhavan

I agreee with the Hindu. Court delivered something that was not asked for. This is more like a forced mediation, however it was delivered by the Alhabad Court.

This is nothing but a panchayati type of justice.

“If the court accepts that the Waqf Board is entitled to one-third of the land, it can't dismiss the suit. If the court dismisses the suits, it can't give only a portion of the land. The court has gone beyond the prayers in the suits. When no one had asked for division of the land, how can the court divide the land into three portions? There are prima facie grounds for the parties to go for appeal to the Supreme Court as all of them are aggrieved over the division of the property.”

 

[KS]

Read this in Hindu .
Force of faith trumps law and reason in Ayodhya case

Siddharth Varadarajan

What better to expect from a leftist elitist mostly Anti-Hindu newspaper ironically named as the Hindu.?

To all those decrying the judgement tell me one thing:

What better judgement that caters to the sensitivities of all the religions and better than the existing one could have been given..?

IMHO the three judges yesterday were faced with one of the most difficult jobs they ever had to do and have done it in a way that hurts none's sentiments.

 

[RiazHaq]

It seems that the title issue was not that clear cut. Here is what the three judges said on that issue:

6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?

Justice Sibghat Ullah:

Both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to
the share of the Hindus.

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.

However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal:

(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to
plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this judgment.

(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since
decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.

(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the absence of any person with better title.

(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people
for worship at both places.

(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.
(v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach
the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).

(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect to the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.

(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute.

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma:

It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

http://allahabadhighcourt.in/ayodhyabench2.html

 

[sensenreason]

Honestly, I think the decision came as a surprise to many including the lawyers on the BJP side; the reason all along the Muslims were okay going to the court was as they had a good legal case. Unfortunately, multiple factors went against them...

1) BJP initiated a ASI survey of the site during its tenure and its findings have been used by the judges. The process and findings have been challenged by many as partisan.

2) Land laws that are quite complex and do not take into account whether a mosque stood there or not to decide title. Tenants all over the country know that if they live in a house for long they can start claiming it as their own...

3) Mosque was not regularly used to offer prayers; while the idols placed in 49 onwards drew many worshippers

4) All negotiations on the issue had failed; Ayodhya is revered the Hindus and is considered brithplace of Ram especially after the Ram temple movement..

Given, the circumstances and facts I think the court only had the right to declare that its dismissing the title to all three claimants as the land is in joint possession. It had no business in trying to find a compromise formula, however well intentioned it might be..

In the Supreme Court, many findings of Justice Sharma will be revoked and the division formula might be revised...To read anymore or less into the verdict is stupid...with the BJP down and out...no political party wanted to give them a rope to climb back into contention..but with Amit Shah(Ex-HM Gujarat) in custody BJP will be denied the rope...how will it be done is the question Congress must be deliberating..

 

[Fireurimagination]

It has been established that no one destroyed an temple to build Babri masjid, but the masjid was destroyed by Hindu hooligans to build a temple in its place.

This verdict amounts to endorsing and setting a bad precedent of destruction of an ancient mosque to build a temple in its place...it's sowing the seeds of permanent discord between Hindu and Muslim communities in India. It does not augur well for communal harmony in Indian society.

Do you read? The verdict said that a temple was destroyed to build the mosque (2-1)

 

[mrwarrior006]

it has been proved tat babri masjid was built by babar on ruins of ramlala temple

and hence both scientifically and historically it has been proved tat this palce belonged to ramlala temple

still indian muslims get 1/3 of the land

and in the last to my paksitani friends its completely indian issue related completely with indian people so no need to poke ur nose in it

 

[Fireurimagination]

This is a joke of a decision . Courts have to decide matters in black and white ... where one party is joyous and the other laments the decisioin ... its what human history teaches us ... besides this decision is a recipe for future conflicts (but preventing that conflict will only be upto the law enforcing agencies and u cannot blame court for the conflicts).

Nopes court decisions nor necessary have to be in black or white or are in black or white many a times you ask for a compensation of 10k and the court will grant you that of 5k, so on and so forth

 

[arihant]

@fallstuff

because you are constructing real debate than flaming I would answer it.

In real Sunni Waqf board's plea was rejected because of time barred it doesn't stop them to put forward evidence that both Hindus and Muslims use to worship at the same masjid at least or before 1855 which is also noticed by Justice Khan.

So, basically suit of Sunni Board of claiming whole land is rejected while similar claim of Nirmohi Akhara is also rejected. Even though Ram lalla suit is accepted it doesn't mean it will favor them. If you see the result, suit filing didn't resulted in anything.

Judges gave 1/3rd of the disputed site to Hindus while 1/3rd to Muslims while 1/3rd which was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara since or before 18th century get the share.

Now in real dispute is of 2/3rd of land of which 1/3rd is given to Hindus and 1/3rd to Muslims for sake that both community use to pray inside the dome Masjid. Hindus use to pray in center of dome while muslims on the left side of dome.

If you see the reaction of Mohm. Ansari, oldest witness of this case always want this type of partition and he also said that he is very happy with decision, but I guess does are politicians happy ?

 

[arun]

Well, Mulayam Singh is NOT happy. Big surprise?

Muslims feel cheated by Ayodhya verdict: Mulayam
PTI | 04:10 PM,Oct 01,2010

Lucknow, Oct 1 (PTI) Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav today said the Muslim community felt cheated by the Ayodhya title suit verdict, prompting Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister to warn of strict action against any attempt to vitiate the communal atmosphere. "I am disappointed at the judicial verdicts that give precedence to faith over law and evidence. This does not augur good for the country, the Constitution and the Judiciary itself," Yadav said reading out from a written statement. He said the judgement of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court would create problems in the future. "Besides, the Muslims in the country are feeling cheated by the verdict and there is a sense of despair in the entire community," Yadav said. The SP chief said that as per his understanding, the community would move the Supreme Court where the matter would be decided finally on the basis of evidence and the law. Shortly after Yadav made the remarks before the media, the Chief Minister made it clear that any attempt to disturb peace would be dealt with firmly. "...anyone who tries to disturb the communal atmosphere in the state would be dealt with strictly," Mayawati said without making any direct reference to Yadav. She made an appeal to the people of the state not to get influenced by provocative statements being made by some persons. Yadav said that nation is governed not by faith but the Constitution and the rule of law. "I had said this in 1990 when preparations for an attack on Ayodhya had reached their crescendo across the country. At that time, I had told the meeting of the National Integration Council in Chennai, with a heavy heart, that my condition was like that of Arjun in the epic Mahabharata. "In my attempts to protect the Constitution and the rule of law, I may be forced to ask security personnel to fire at my own people. Without dithering, I fulfilled my responsibilities," he said. Taking exception to Yadav''s remarks, Congress Legislature Party leader Pramod Tewari advised him against saying anything that could vitiate the atmosphere. "We request him not to say anything which could spoil communal harmony. Whatever has to be said should be in the Supreme Court," he said. Tewari said he was aware that Yadav was unhappy over the verdict as it would not help him as well as the BJP, which had been together watching each other''s interests for long.

Muslims feel cheated by Ayodhya verdict: Mulayam, IBN Live News