LUCKNOW, India, Sept 30, 2010 (AFP) - An Indian court ruled Thursday that a disputed holy site in Ayodhya with a history of triggering Hindu-Muslim clashes should be divided -- a judgment seem as favouring the Hindu litigants.
"All three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and (Hindu religious organisation) Nirmhoi Akhara are declared joint holders of the property in dispute," Justice S.U. Khan said in a ruling on the website of the Allahabad High Court.
Several of the litigants in the case said they would appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court, meaning the already 60-year dispute will continue in India's notoriously slow justice system.
The process to divide the site would begin in three months, the court said.
A third will go to Muslims, a second part will become a temple for Hindus who claim the spot as the birthplace of their god Lord Ram, while another third will go to the Ayodhya-based Nirmhoi Akhara.
Hindu lawyers said the court's verdict backed Hindu beliefs that the site was the birthplace of the deity Lord Ram.
"I am very happy the court has accepted the historic fact and this is a matter of great happiness for Hindus," Nritya Gopaldas Maharaj, president of Ram Janam Bhoomi trust, told reporters in Ayodhya.
But Maharaj said his group would appeal in the Supreme Court against the court's decision to give a proportion of the site to Muslims.
"The court has respected the Hindu belief but we will take the matter to the Supreme Court as the fight still remains," he said.
The main Muslim group contesting the case said it was "partly disappointed" by the verdict, which dismissed its claim to ownership of the entire site.
Zafaryab Jilani, the lawyer for the Muslim group Babri Masjid Action Committee, also said he would appeal the decision in the Supreme Court.
"We can hold talks (with Hindus) if any proposals come to us. The court has accepted there was a mosque, but we are not accepting this one-third formula and we are going to the Supreme Court," he told reporters.
The High Court ruling turned on three key questions: whether the disputed spot was Ram's birthplace, whether the mosque was built after the demolition of a Ram temple and if the mosque had been built in accordance with the tenets of Islam.
Noted constitutional lawyer Rajeev Dhawan said he was disappointed with the ruling and felt the court had shirked its primary responsibility of discerning ownership of the site.
"If you seek to divide property, you should at least first find out who owns it," Dhawan told the NDTV news network.
"This judgement seems to be a judgement where the court has done what it was not supposed to do and said 'We cant answer this question. So we must split it three ways'."
