4764

27. 2 (astacakra navadvara devanam pur-Ayodhya) tasyam

hiranyayah kosah svargo loko Jyotisavrtah II), V. 60. 24-25

and 70. 2 (capital of king Rtuparna and of Rama), Br. IV.

40. 91. Ag. 109. 24 (Ayodya papanasan). According to

Ram, I. 5. 5-7 the country of Kosala had Sarayu flowing

through it; Ayodhya, 12 yojanas long and three broad, was

kosala capital founded by Manu. Kosala was one of the 16

mahajanapadas of India in ancient times (vide Anguttara

Nikaya, vol. IV. p. 252). Later on, Kosala was divided into

two, viz. Uttara Kosala and Daksina Kosala divided by the

Sarju or Ghagra river. The Raghuvamsa holds Ayodhya to

be capital of Uttarakosala (VI. 71 and IX. 1). Vide also Va.

88. 20 ff. For a long line of kings of Ayodhya from Iksvaku

and P. VI. 208. 46-47 (for Daksina Kosala and Uttara

Kosala). Saketa is generally identified with Ayodhya. Vide

T.P. p. 496 (gives its boundaries from SK) and under

Saketa. Dr. B.C. Law contributes a well documented and

learned paper on 'Ayodhya' to J. of the Ganganath Jha R.

Society, vol. I, pp. 423-443.”

4308. Sri Mishra submits that Ayodhya and its relation

with Lord Rama as his place of birth is well recognised and

mentioned in ancient Hindu Literature. The existence of “Vedi”

at the disputed place is mentioned by Father Joseph

Tieffenthaler in his work, translated in French titled as

“Description Historique Et Geographique Del'inde” first

published in 1787 by Jean Bernoulli.

4309. He points out that “Sanskrit Hindi Kosh” written

by Waman Shivram Apte, first published in 1966 (reprinted in

1993) at page 1139 shows that “Vedi” in Sanskrit is known as

4765

“sthandilam” and he also placed reliance on “Sanskrit English

Dictionary” by Sir Monier Williams (first published in 1899)

(reprinted in 1997) (by Motilal Banarasidass) which defines

“sthandila” as “an open unoccupied piece of ground, bare

ground, an open field, a piece of open ground (levelled, squared,

and prepared for a sacrifice)”.

4310. Referring to “Narsingh-Puranam” published by

Geeta Press, Gorakhpur 1999 (Samvat 2056), Adhyaya 62 at

page 263 he submits that “sthandil” and “idols” are also

worshipped as God by Hindus. He placed the Verse No. 6 which

reads in Sanskrit as under:

“vrksvXkzks gn;s lw;sZ LFkf.Mys izfreklq pA ,rs"kq p gjs% lE;xpZua eqfufHk% Lere~AA

blfy, vfXu] lw;Z] g`n;] LFkf.My ¼osnh½ vkSj izfrHkk&bu lHkh

vk/kkjksa esa Hkxoku~ dk fof/kiwoZd iwtu eqfu;ksa }kjk crk;k x;k gSA

Hkxoku loZe; gSa] vr% LFkf.My vkSj izfrekvksa esa Hkh HkxoRoiwtu mRre

gSA”

"The saints have ordained for due worship of God in

all these bases-fire, the Sun, heart, altar and idol. God is

omnipresent; so, it is also a good thing to worship God as

represented in altars and idols." (E.T.C.)

4311. Before proceeding further lest us have some other

history books relied on by learned counsel of the parties.

4312. Sri R.L. Verma, in order to show that Lord Rama

was born at the site in dispute placed before us firstly the

Kalhana's Rajatarangini-A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir

(Book No. 63) translated with an introduction, commentary and

appendices by M.A. Stein. The book was first published in 1900

AD in London and reprinted in Delhi in 1961. We had before us

the reprint of 1989 cited from the aforesaid book para 125, 3rd

4766

book, page 83 which reads as under:

"125. At that period there lived at Ujjayini as the sole

sovereign of the world the glorious Vikramaditya who

(also) bore the second name of Harsa."

4313. From the note given in respect to para 125 at the

bottom he said that Vikramaditya referred to therein was the

same within whose period Kalidasa lived and composed his

legendary works. He said that the Vikramaditya referred to in

Kalhana's Chronicle was the same king who reconstructed

Ayodhya and got 360 temples constructed thereat. However,

despite of our deepest thought and study of the above work we

fail to understand as to how reference to the above book gives

any clue about the birthplace of Lord Rama or whether there

exist temple at the disputed site before construction of the

disputed structure in 1528 AD. Despite of repeated query, Sri

Verma could not throw any light on the question and simply said

that his attempt is to clarify the fact that the Vikramaditya

referred to in Kalhana's Rajatarangini, 3rd Book, para 125 was

the same Vikramaditya who was mentioned by Hiuen-tsiang as

successor of Siladitya who ruled about 580 AD in Malwa.

Meaning thereby king Vikramaditya ruled at Ujjayini in the first

half of the 6th Century and Kalidasa was his contemporary.

4314. Next he cited English translation of the

Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa by M.R. Kale-reprinted in Delhi in

1972, 1991 and 1997 by Motilal Banarasi Dass Publishers Pvt.

Ltd. Delhi (Book No. 48). He placed Chapter 'Introduction' at

page 19 which contains story of King Dasratha and Lord Rama

and reads as under:

"CANTO IX. After his father, Dasaratha rules over

4767

Ayodhya as nobly as his predecessors. His greatness was

such that even Indra himself on occasions asked his

assistance in his own wars. Once, having enjoyed all the

pleasures of the spring season with its attendant festivities,

he plans a long hunting trip. He spends several days in that

engrossing and delightful sport. One morning he starts

after a deer, alone and without followers. In his pursuit he

comes to the river Tamasa, where he hears the noise of a

pot being filled with water. He mistakes it for the trumpet of

a wild elephant, and discharges an arrow in that direction,

aiming at the sound only, as he could not see the mark. As

a matter of fact a young ascetic-boy was filling his jar

there; and the arrow hit him fatally. His parents, who were

blind, were at hand. The King, who was horrified at what

he had unwillingly done, related to them what had

happened. As the boy died, his sorrow-stricken father

cursed the King as the author of his bereavement, with the

words: "You, too, like me, shall die, in your old age,

grieving for your son." The king had no son then; so he

received the curse as a sort of qualified blessing, since it

meant that at any rate a son was bound to be born to him

before he died. The aged couple burned themselves on the

funeral pyre of their son, and Dasaratha returned to his

city, full of grief not unmixed with a little anticipatory joy

at the prospect of a son.

CANTO X. Some ten thousand years pass, but still

Dasaratha remains without the expected son. At last, holy

sages proceed to perform on his behalf a special kind of

sacrifice intended to bring about the birth of a son. Now at

4768

about this time it so happens that the gods, who were

continually harassed and persecuted by the dreaded and

powerful demon Ravana, carry their tale of grievances to

their lord Vishnu, who tells them how, by virtue of a boon

given by Brahma, Ravana was immune from death at the

hands of all except human beings, whom he despised and

hence had left out of the boon. Vishnu, therefore, promises

that he would be born as a man, as a son of King

Dasaratha of Ayodhya, and that at his hands Ravana would

meet death.-Now, out of the fire of that sacrifice which was

being performed for Dasaratha, there arises a being who

gives consecrated food (charu) to the King, who gives it to

his three wives. Into this food Vishnu had entered

spiritually, and thus Dasaratha’s wives, who conceive

afterwards, all bear sons who are partial incarnations

(avataras) of Vishnu. Rama was the eldest of them, born of

Kausalya. Of Kaikeyi was born Bharata, and of Sumitra

were born the twins, Lakshmana and Satrughna.

CANTO XII. King Dasaratha, who had grown old ad

was nearing his end, declares his intention to set Rama on

the throne, when Kaikeyi contrives, by means of two boons

which her husband had promised her, to have Rama exiled

for fourteen years and to have her son Bharata installed

King. Rama quite willingly undertakes to go to the forest,

ad the old King, grieving at being separated from his

beloved son, dies heart-broken, thus fulfilling the old man’s

curse-(Canto IX). Bharata declines to accept the

sovereignty earned by intrigue, and after vainly trying to

persuade Rama to come back, himself remains a sort of

4769

exile at Nandigrama, and from that place he rules the

kingdom as Rama’s representative. In his journey to the

forest Rama is accompanied by Sita and Lakshmana. He

there kills Viradha, Dushana, Khara, and other demons, the

news of whose death is carried to Ravana in Lanka by his

sister Surpanakha, whom Lakshmana had disfigured.

Ravana comes and carries off Sita in Rama’s absence.

Rama makes friends with Sugriva, the monkey-Chief, and

through his retainer Maruti discovers the whereabouts of

Sita. Building a bridge over the sea, Rama with Sugriva’s

army crosses into Lanka, and is engaged in a series of

battles with the hosts of Ravana, whose death he finally

accomplishes. Rama recovers Sita, gives Ravana’s kingdom

to his brother Vibhishana, and starts back for Ayodhya in

the well-known aerial car, Pushpaka, along with Sugriva

and Vibhishana and their armies.

CANTO XIII. The journey of Rama from Lanka to

Ayodhya by air is here described. Rama points out to sita

the various objects and places of interest on the way,

including, in order, Janasthana, the mountain Malyavat,

the lake Pampa, the Godavari, Panchavati, the dwelling-

places of the sages Agastya Satakarni and Sarabhanga, the

mountain Chitrakuta, the stream Mandakini, the rivers

Ganga and Yamuna, and lastly the Sarayu. After they had

seen the Sarayu they observe Bharata advancing with an

army to welcome the home-coming king. Rama gets down

from the Pushpaka, and the meeting of the brothers is

touchingly described. Then Rama again gets into the car

and arrives at last in a garden outside Ayodhya, his capital.

4770

CANTO XIV. There in the garden Rama and

Lakshmana see their mothers who greet them with joy.

Rama is then formally crowned King of Ayodhya with due

pomp and ceremony. He then gives the armies of Sugriva

and Vibhishana leave to depart, and restores Pushpaka to

its original rightful owner, Kubera. In course of time Sita

shows signs of pregnancy. She expresses a desire again to

visit the once-familiar regions along the banks of the

Gangas. While Rama promises her that, a scandal reaches

his ear about his unquestioning acceptance of Sita after her

residence in a stranger’s house for a long time. A strong

sense of duty towards his subjects both as the dispenser of

law and justice ad the up-holder of social order compels

him to abandon Sita as a concession to this scandal,

although he knew her to be pure and innocent. He,

therefore, orders Lakshmana to take Sita away and leave

her on the banks of the Ganges near the hermitage of

Valmiki who, he thinks, would find her and take due care of

her. Lakshmana very reluctantly performs this task; and

when Sita knows why she is abandoned, she cries loud and

long, though she would not blame Rama so much as she

blamed herself. Valmiki takes her to his hermitage where

afterwards in due time she gives birth to twins. Rama

continues to discharge his kingly duties as usual, but

without marrying again.”

4315. Our very sincere reading of the above passages leads

us nowhere to find any support or help for adjudication of the

issues as quoted above with regard to the site of birth of Lord

Rama. He also placed before us page 130 Sl. 31 of Canto V of

4771

the above book to show that the name of Ayodhya is mentioned

in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa. But even that does not help us to

march even a single step either in support or otherwise on the

aforesaid issues. When we made query from the learned counsel

he simply says that the Kalidasa, whose existence relate back to

the 6th Century (first half of 6th Century), has referred to

Ayodhya, King Dasarath and Lord Rama which he wanted to

show to the Court.

4316. With due respect to the learned counsel, we find that

the learned counsel for the Muslim parties have already made

their statement under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C. on 22.04.2009 that

neither they dispute that Lord Rama existed nor that he was born

in Ayodhya nor that the present Ayodhya is the same as is

believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama for the purpose of

present case. We do not find any reason as to why the aforesaid

literary work of legendary Sanskrit Poet of 6th Century has been

relied by Sri Verma though it throws no light on the issues

which are up for adjudication. We may also refer here that in the

Sanskrit verse of Raghuvamsa the word "Ayodhya" as such has

not been used but it is the word "Saket" as is evident from the

following:

"tuL; lkd sr fuokfluLrkS }koI;HkwrkefHkuU~/klRRokS A

xq#izns;kf/kdfu%LigksvFkhZ uiksvfFkZdkeknf/kdizn'p AA"

4317. Since the great scholar has dealt with the story of

Solar Kings i.e., the Kings of the Race of Raghu which rule with

their capital at Ayodhya, the word "Saket" has been read as

Ayodhya in the aforesaid work and translation of Sri Kalidasa.

We also noticed from the very introduction part of the author

where he has discussed the matter to ascertain the date of

4772

Kalidasa and he himself is found that it is a vexed question

which is yet to be finally settled. According to the author Sri

M.R. Kale the period of Kalidasa swing between 1st Century

B.C. to 7th Century B.C. but has expressed his views in favour

of the existence of Kalidasa in the first half of the first century

B.C. for which besides other he has given the following reasons:

"Now, Kalidasa was an original poet borrowing his

subjects from Valmiki and other ancient authors;

Asvaghosha was more a philosopher than a poet, and may,

with greater probability, be supposed to have borrowed his

ideas from Kalidasa, The date of Asvaghosha is given as 78

A.D.; and if we suppose him to have borrowed from

Kalidasa, the latter will have to be placed earlier than 78

A.D. And in this view Dr. Peterson also concurs when he

says 'Kalidasa stands near the beginning of the Christian

era, if, indeed, he does not overtop it.”

4318. For the purpose of the dispute in the case in hand,

however, it is not necessary for us to go into all these aspects for

the reason that whether Kalidasa existed in the first century B.C.

or in 7th Century B.C. it would make no difference since it has

not been disputed by the other side that the existence of Lord

Rama as per belief of Hindus is much more older. The reference

of Lord Rama in Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa (supra) has also not

been disputed by the other side. However, since the said literary

work gives no indication to adjudicate the issue regarding the

exact place of birth of Lord Rama in Ayodhya city as also about

the existence of a Hindu temple and in particular temple of Lord

Rama in 16th Century at the disputed site, we find reference to

the said book and reliance thereon is futile and misconceived.

4773

4319. The next reference book is (Book No. 22) "SI-YU-

KI", Buddhist Records of the Western World (hereinafter

referred to as "Si-Yu-Ki"), translated from Chinese of Hiuen

Tsiang (A.D. 629) by Samuel Beal two volumes (bound in one),

first published in 1884 and reprinted in 1995 published by Low

Price Publications (A Division of D.K. Publishers Distributors

(P) Ltd., Delhi. Sri Verma placed before us Book 10 page 206

under the title "Kong-U-To" (Konyodha) which reads as under:

"KONG-U-T'O (KONYODHA?)This kingdom is about 1000 li in circuit; the capital is

20 li round. It borders on a bay (angle of the sea). The

ranges of mountains are high and precipitous. The ground

is low and moist. It is regularly cultivated and productive.

The temperature is hot, the disposition of the people brave

and impulsive. The men are tall of stature and black

complexioned and dirty. They have some degree of

politeness and are tolerably honest. With respect to their

written characters, they are the same as those of Mid-India,

but their language and mode of pronunciation are quite

different. They greatly respect the teaching of heretics and

do not believe in the law of Buddha. There are some

hundred Deva temples, and there are perhaps 10,000

unbelievers of different sects.

Within the limits of this country there are several tens

of small towns which border on the mountains and are built

contiguous to the sea. The cities themselves are strong and

high; the soldiers are brave and daring; they rule by force

the neighbouring provinces, so that no one can resist them.

This country, bordering on the sea, abounds in may rare

and valuable articles. They use cowrie shells and pearls in

4774

commercial transactions. The great greenish-blue elephant

comes from this country. They harness it to their

conveyances and make very long journeys.

From this going south-west, we enter a vast desert,

jungle, and forests, the trees of which mounts to heaven and

hide the sun. Going 1400 or 1500 li, we come to the

country of Kie-ling-kia (Kalinga)."

4320. He submitted that in 629 AD when the Hiuen Tsiang

visited India, he has noticed in his Travellers Account existence

of 100 of Deva Temples thereat. However, from the very

narration of the passages relied by him it appears to us that it did

not refer to Ayodhya but to a city bordering on the sea near

Kalinga. Meaning thereby a place somewhere in the State of

Orissa in presenti. From the foot note in the aforesaid book this

appear to be a view expressed by Cunningham according to him

this place must be Ganjam. The said foot note being of some use

is reproduced as under:

"Cunningham supposes this place to be Ganjam. The

origin of the name Ganjam is not known. When Hiuen

Tsiang returned to Magadha he found that

Harshavardhana had just returned from a successful

expedition against the king of Ganjam. Cunningham thinks

that Ganjam was then annexed to the province of Orissa

(Robert Sewell, Lists, Vol. i, p.2). Mr. Fergusson remarks

that "Khordhagar in the neighbourhood of Bhuvaneswar is

just 170 miles south-west from Midnapur, and it is

impossible to mistake the Chilka Lake as the great bay and

the two seas of the text. Perhaps Hiuen Tsiang stopped here

to visit the caves in the Khandagiri and Udayagiri hills."

4775

4321. When confronted with the said foot note as also

relied on passages mentioning that the country is bordering on

the sea and contiguous to the sea meaning thereby it cannot be

referable to Ayodhya since there is no sea up to an act which

distance of Ayodhya he could not dispute the same.

4322. However, we find that in above translation "Si-Yu-

Ki (supra), Book-V page 225 deals with 'O-YU-T'O (Ayodhya)

but in the entire report there is no mention about Lord Rama or

his place of birth. The only two lines with respect the temples of

other religion are as under:

"There are ten Deva temples; heretics of different

schools are found in them, but few in number."

4323. The rest of the report is only in respect to Boddha

legend and the religious places of Buddhist. It, however, cannot

be disputed that according to the said report there used to be a

large number of Buddhist religious places at Ayodhya, when

Hiuen Tsiang visited. He appears to be not a general traveller or

historian but from the introductory chapter of the above book

where the detail of Hiuen Tsiang is given, we find that Hiuen

Tsiang born in the year 603 AD at Ch'in Liu in the province of

Ho-nan in China. One of his brother was a Monk belonging to

the Shing-tu temple and Hiuen Tsiang was ordained in the

community of Monk at the age of 13 years. After having fully

ordained as Bhikshu or priest, he began to travel through the

provinces in search of the best instructor, he could get and so

came at length to Chang'an. Here he was strained up by the

recollection of Fa-hian and Chi-yen and resolved to go to

western region to question the sages on points that troubled his

mind. His travelogue, therefore, contains mostly the details of

4776

Buddhist religion i.e. religious places of importance etc. and

throw virtually no light on the other local conditions etc.

particularly in reference to Ayodhya though in respect to some

other places there are some details about the people, there social

and political conditions etc. We need not to go further in these

aspects of the matter since the issue before us is limited i.e.

about the disputed site at Ayodhya and we are not expected to

travel in the history, geography etc. of other places of different

period since neither it germane to the issues nor we should

travel beyond what is necessary for the proper adjudication of

the case.

4324. Sri Verma also placed reliance on page 85, Book-III

of Hiuen Tsiang "Life of Hiuen-Tsiang" by Shaman Hwui Li,

first published in 1911 at London, reprinted in 2001 by Low

Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 20). He placed reliance and

read the following passages from pages 85 to 90 which reads as

under:

“From Ayodhya to Hiranyaparvata.From this, going 600 li or so to the south-east and crossing

the Ganges, on the south of the river we come to the

kingdom of ‘O-yu-to (Ayodhya). There are here about

one hundred temples with several thousand priests, who

study both the Small and the Great Vehicle.

In the capital city is an old Sangharama. Here the

Bodhisattva Vasubandhu composed his treatises on the

Great and Little Vehicle, and preached for the good of the

community.

North-west of the city four or five li, and by the side

of the river Gages, is a great Sangharama, in which is a

Stupa about 200 feet high. This was built by Asoka raja on

4777

the spot where Buddha in old days delivered the Law for

three months.

By the side of this Stupa is a spot where the four

Buddhas of the past age walked for exercise.

To the south-west of the city five or six li, is an old

Sangharama; this is the place where Asangha Bodhisattva

explained the Law. The Bodhisattva, during the night,

ascended to the Tusita heaven, and received from Maitreya

Bodhisattva the Yoga-sastra, the Alamkara-Mahayana-

sastra, and the Madhyanta-vibhangha-sastra. The next day

he descended from the heaven, and declared the Law for

the sake of the community.

Asangha, who is also called Wu-cho, was a man of

Gandhara. He was born in the middle of the thousand

years following the Nirvana of Buddha, and became a

disciple in the school of the Mahisasakas. Afterwards he

joined the school of the Great Vehicle. His brother,

Vasubandhu, became a disciple in the school of the

Sarvastivadins, but afterwards joined the Great Vehicle.

Both these brothers were, in point of endowments, vessels

full of wisdom and holiness. Asangha possessed vast ability

in composition, and wrote many sastras, in explanation of,

and comment on, the Great Vehicle. He was the principal

composer of sastras in India. For example, he wrote the

Mahayana-samparigraha-sastra, the Prakaranaryavacha-

sastra-karika, the Abhidharma sastra, the Vidyamatra-

sastra, the Kosha-sastra, and others.

The Master of the Law left the kingdom of Ayodhya,

having paid reverence to the sacred traces, and following

4778

the course of the river Ganges, proceeded eastward, being

on board a vessel with about eighty other fellow-

passengers. He wished to reach the kingdom of ‘O-ye-mu-

khi (Hayamukha). After going about a hundred li, both

banks of the river were shrouded by the thick foliage of an

Asoka forest, and amid these trees on either bank were

concealed some ten pirate boats. Then these boats,

propelled by oars, all at once burst forth into the

midstream. Some of those in the ship, terrified at the sight,

cast themselves into the river, whilst the pirates, taking the

ship in tow, brought it to the bank. They then ordered the

men to take off their clothes, and searched them in quest of

jewels and precious stones.

Now these pirates pay worship to Durga, a spirit of

heaven, and every year during the autumn, they look out

for a man of good form and comely features, whom they

kill, and offer his flesh and blood in sacrifice to their

divinity, to procure good fortune. Seeing that the Master of

the Law was suitable for their purpose, both in respect of

his distinguished bearing and his bodily strength and

appearance, they exchanged joyful glances, and said, “We

were letting the season for sacrificing to our god pass by,

because we could not find a suitable person for it, but now

this Sraman is of noble form and pleasing features—let us

kill him as a sacrifice, and we shall gain certain good

fortune.”

The Master of Law replied, “If this poor and defiled

body of mine is indeed suitable for the purpose of the

sacrifice you propose, I, in truth, dare not grudge (the

4779

offering), but as my intention in coming from a distance

was to pay reverence to the image of Bodhi and the

Gridhrakuta Mountain, and to inquire as to the character

of the Sacred Books and the Law (or, the Law of the Sacred

Books), and as this purpose has not yet been accomplished,

if you, my noble benefactors (danapatis) kill this body of

mine, I fear it will bring you misfortune (instead of good

fortune).”

Moreover, his fellow-passengers all, with one voice,

asked them to spare him, and some even prayed to be

allowed to die in his stead; but the pirates would not

consent.

Then the captain of the gang dispatched some men

with water to arrange the ground, and to erect in the midst

of the flowering grove an altar besmeared with mud. He

then commanded two of the company to take their drawn

knives ad to bind the Master of the Law upon the altar. And

now, when they were about to use their knives for the

purpose of sacrificing him, the master of the Law showed

no sign of fear in his face, insomuch that all the pirates

were moved to astonishment.

When he saw there was no escape, however, he spoke

to the pirates and begged them to allow him a little time

and not to crowd round him painfully—but “let me”, he

said, “with a joyous mind, take my departure.”

Then the Master of the Law, with an individual mind

bent on the courts of Tusita heaven, thought on the

Bodhisattva Maitreya, and earnestly prayed to be born in

that place, that he might pay reverence and his religious

4780

offerings (to the Bodhisattva), and receive from him the

Yogachariya-bhumi-sastra, and listen to the sound of the

excellent Law. Then having perfected himself throughout in

wisdom, "let me return (he prayed) and be born here below,

that I may instruct and convert these men, and cause them

to practise themselves in doing good and to give up their

evil deeds, and thus by diffusing, far and wide, the benefits

of religion, to give rest to all the world."

Then the Mater of Law, paying worship to the

Buddhas of the ten regions, collected his mind into perfect

composure, and sitting still, fixed his thoughts on Maitreya

without any interruption. Thus he seemed in his innermost

thoughts as if he rose up above Mount Sumeru and

successively ascending one, two, three heavens, he gazed

upon the courts of Tusita, the place of Maitreya, with its

excellently precious adornments (galleries) and the

multitude of devas surrounding him on every side. At this

time his body and soul were ravished with joy, he knew

nothing of the altar on which he was, he had no

recollection of the robbers. And now, whilst hims fellow

passengers gave way to cries and tears, suddenly a black

tempest (typhoon) arose from the four quarters of heaven,

smiting down the trees; clouds of sand flew on every side,

and the lashing waves of the river tossed the boats to and

fro. The robbers and their company, greatly terrified, asked

the companions of the Master, "Whence comes this

Sraman?--what is his name and title? and so on. They,

answering, said: "He comes from the country of China--he

is the renowned person who is in search of the Law; if you,

4781

my masters, kill him, your guilt will be immeasurable; look

now and see the winds and waves--these are but indications

of the anger of the spirits of heaven: haste then to repent!"

The pirates then, filled with fear, urged each other to

repentance and confession of their fault; then with bowed

heads they made profound obeisance (or, they embraced

the religion of Buddha). And now one of the robbers

accidentally touching the Master of the Law with his hand

(or, touching the hand of the Master of the Law), he opened

his eyes and said to the robber, "Has the hour come?" The

robber answered: "We dare not hurt the Master! we pray

you accept our repentance!" the Master then accepted their

reverence and confession of faults, and then preached to

them about the future punishment in Avichi of those who

gave themselves up to murder, robbery, and impious

sacrifices, and other evil deeds. "How would you then risk

the woes of the long-during asankheya of ages for the sake

of this body of yours, which is but in point of time as the

lightning flash of the dew of the morning?"

The robbers then bowed their heads and confessed

their faults, saying: "We indeed, individually, were

perverted by a foolish tone of mind, and led to do what we

ought not to do, and to sacrifice (pay religious rites) to

what we ought not to sacrifice. If we had not met with the

Master--whose religious merit has moved even the

mysterious powers of heaven--how should we ever have

been led to repentance? And now we ask to give up from

the present day these evil ways of ours, and we pray the

Master to be witness to our sincerity!"

4782

On this they each encouraged one another to deeds

of amendment, and collecting their various instruments of

robbery together, they cast them into the river, and

whatever clothes or private property they had taken, they

restored these to their rightful owners, and then they took

on themselves the five obligations of a laybeliever.

Then the winds and the floods subsided, and the

pirates were all overcome with joy, and bowed their heads

in adoration. His fellow voyagers, moreover, were filled

with surprise and admiration more than ever, whilst those

present and absent who heard of the event would not help

exclaiming with wonder at the occurrence: "If it were not

for the power of his high resolve in seeking for the Law,

this could not have come to pass!"

From this, going east about 300 li, after crossing the

Ganges to the north side, we come to 'O-ye-muh-khi

(Hayamukha).

From this, going south-east 700 li or so, after

crossing to the sought side of the Ganges, on the north of

the River Jumna, we come to the country of Prayaga."

4325. However, having gone through the entire passages

and the aforesaid work, we find that in no way it helps us in

deciding the issues up for consideration namely as to whether

Lord Rama was born at the disputed site and whether there

existed any temple at the time when the mosque was constructed

i.e. in 1528 AD at the disputed site. The entire passage from the

book read by Sri Verma nowhere mention at all either about

birthplace of Lord Rama or his temple in Ayodhya. In fact it

could not discern any reason as to why Sri Verma placed before

4783

us and read for days together the above books without showing

as to how they are helpful and gives us some material to find out

the solution and answer to the issues which are up for

consideration.

4326. Existence of temple at the site in dispute, its

destruction and construction of mosque has also been mentioned

in the book published by Archaeological Survey of India “The

Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In The North-

Western Provinces And Oudh” by A. Fuhrer (supra) (Book

No.94) (See Ex.9 Suit-5 Register 20 Pages 67-73). The matter

pertaining to Ayodhya has been dealt with from paged 295 to

300 of the aforesaid book. We find it appropriate to reproduce

the contents thereof as under:

“1. AJUDHYA, famous place of pilgrimage, in pargana

Haveli Audh of tahsil Faizabad, on the right bank of the

river Ghaghra, lat. 26º-47' N., long. 82º-15' E., two miles

east of head-quarters, is the ancient city of Ayodhya,

described in the Ramayana as situated on the bank of the

Sarayu, or Sarju river. It is said to have been 12 yojanas,

or nearly 100 miles in circumference, for which we should

probably read 12 kos, or 24 miles,-an extent which the old

city with all its gardens might once possibly have covered.

The distance from the Guptar Ghat on the west to the Ram

Ghat on the east is just six miles in a direct line; and if we

suppose that the city with its suburbs and gardens formerly

occupied the whole intervening space to a depth of two

miles, its circuit would have agreed exactly with the

smaller measurement of 12 kos. At the present day the

people point to Ram Ghat and Guptar Ghat as the eastern

4784

and western boundaries of the old city, and the southern

boundary they extend to Bharatkund near Bhadarsa, a

distance of six kos. But as these limits include all places of

pilgrimage, it would seem that the people consider them to

have been formerly inside the city, which was certainly not

the case. In the Ain-i-Akbari the old city is said to have

measured 148 kos in length by 36 kos in breadth, or in

other words, it covered the whole province of Audh to the

south of the Ghaghra river. The origin of the larger number

is obvious. The 12 yojanas of the Ramayana, which are

equal to 48 kos, being considered too small for the great

city of Ramachandra, the Brahmanas simply added 100 kos

to make the size tally with their own extravagant notions.

The present city of Ayodhya, which is confined to the north-

east corner of the old site, is just two miles in length by

about three-quarters of a mile in breadth; but not one-half

of this extent is occupied by buildings, and the whole place

wears a look of decay. There are no high mounds of ruins

covered with broken statues and sculptured pillars, such as

mark the sites of other ancient cities, but only a low

irregular mass of rubbish heaps, from which all the bricks

have been excavated for the houses of the neighbouring

town of Faizabad. This Musalman city, which is two miles

and a half in length by one mile in breadth, is built chiefly

of materials extracted from the ruins of Ayodhya. The two

cities together occupy an area of nearly six square miles,

or just about one-half of the probable size of the ancient

capital of Rama.

According to the Ramayana, the city of Ayodhya was

4785

founded by Manu, the progenitor of all mankind. In the

time of Dasaratha, the father of Rama, it was fortified with

towers and gates, and surrounded by a deep ditch. No

traces of these works now remain, nor is it likely, indeed,

that any portion of the old city should exist, as the Ayodhya

of Rama is said to have been destroyed after the death of

Brihadbala, after which it lay deserted until the time of

Vikramaditya of Ujjayini, who, according to tradition,

came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called

Ramgarh, cut down the jangal by which the ruins were

covered, and erected 360 temples on the spots sanctified by

the extraordinary actions of Rama. The Vikramaditya of

this story, General Cunningham takes to be Chandragupta

II, of the Imperial Gupta dynasty, A.D. 395-415, whose rule

certainly extended to Ujjayini, as his inscriptions have

been found at Sanchi and Udayagiri Bhilsa.

There are several very holy Brahmanical and Jaina

temples about Ayodhya, but they are all of modern date and

without any architectural pretensions whatever; but there

can be no doubt that most of them occupy the sites of more

ancient temples that were destroyed by the Musalmans.

Thus Ramkot, or Hanuman Garhi, on the east side of the

city, is a small walled fort surrounding a modern temple on

the top of an ancient mound. This fort is said to have

formerly covered a large extent of ground, and, according

to tradition, it was surrounded by 20 bastions, each of

which was commanded by one of Rama's famous generals

after whom they took the names by which they are still

known. Within the fort were eight royal mansions, where

4786

dwelt Dasaratha, his wives, and Rama, his deified son. The

name Ramkot is certainly old, but the temple of Hanuman

is not older than the time of Aurangzib. Ram Ghat, at the

north-east corner of the city, is said to be the spot where

Rama bathed, and Svargadvaram, also called Ram Darbar,

on the north-west, is believed to be the place where his

body was burned. Treta-ke-Thakur is famous as the place

where Rama performed a great sacrifice, and which he

commemorated by setting up there images of himself and

Sita. Close by is the Lakshmana Ghat, where his brother

Lakshmana bathed, and about one quarter of a mile

distant, in the very heart of the city, stands the

Janmasthanam, or “birth-place temple,” of Rama. Almost

due west, and upwards of five miles distant is the Guptar

Ghat, with its group of modern white-washed temples. This

is the place where Lakshmana is said to have disappeared,

and hence its name of Guptar, from gupta, “hidden or

concealed.” Some say that it was Rama who disappeared

at this place, but this is at variance with the story of his

cremation at Svargadvaram.

There are five Digambara temples at Ayodhya which

were built in Samvat 1781, in the time of Shuja-ad-daulah,

to mark the birth-places of five Tirthamkaras, viz.,

Adinatha, Ajitanatha, Abhinandanatha, Sumatinatha, and

Anantajit, who are said to have been born at Ayodhya. The

temple of Adinatha is situated near the Svargadvaram on a

mound, known as Shah-Juran-ka-tila, on which there are

many Musalman tombs and a masjid. According to the

local Musalman tradition, Makhdum Shah Juran Ghori,

4787

who came to Audh with Shahab-ad-din Ghori, destroyed

the ancient temple of Adinatha and erected on its ruins the

Musalman edifices which gave to the mound the name by

which it is still known. Besides these five temples of the

Digambaras there is a sixth temple of the Svetambaras,

dedicated to Ajitanatha, which was built in Samvat 1881.

It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman

conquest there were three important Hindu temples at

Ayodhya; these were the Janamasthanam, the

Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ke-Thakur. On the first of

these Mir Khan built a masjid, in A.H. 930, during the

reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old

temple must have been a very fine one, for many of its

columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the

construction of Babar's Masjid. These are of strong,

close-grained, dark-coloured, or black stone, called by

the natives kasauti, “touch-stone slate,” and carved with

different devices; they are from seven to eight feet long,

square at the base, centre and capital, and round or

octagonal intermediately. On the second and third

Aurangzib built masjids, which are now mere picturesque

ruins. A fragmentary inscription of Jayachchhandra of

Kanauj, dated Samvat 1241, and recording the erection of

a temple of Vishnu, was rescued from the ruins of

Aurangzib's Masjid, known as Treta-ke-Thakur, and is now

in the Faizabad Museum.

The only remains at Ayodhya that appear to be of any

antiquity are three earthen mounds to the south of the city,

and about a quarter of a mile distant. These are called

4788

Maniparbat, Kuberparbat, and Sugribparbat. The first,

which is nearest to the city, and whose ancient name is said

to have been Chhattarban, is an artificial mound, 65 feet in

height, covered with broken bricks and blocks of kankar.

The old bricks are eleven inches square and three inches

thick. At 46 feet above the ground on the west side there are

the remains of a curved wall faced with kankar blocks. The

mass at this point is about 40 feet thick, and this was

probably somewhat less than the size of the building which

once crowned this lofty mound. According to the

Brahmanas the Maniparbat is one of the hills which the

monkeys made use of when assisting Rama, it was

accidentally dropped here by Sugriva, the monkey-king of

Kishkindhya. But the common people, who know nothing of

this story, say that the mound was formed by the labourers

shaking their baskets on this spot every evening on their

return home from the building of Ramkot. It is therefore

best known by the name of Jhawwajhar, or Orajhar, both of

which mean “basket-shakings.” A similar story is told of

the large mounds near Banaras, Nimkhar, Sahet-Mahet,

and other places. An inscription of Raja Nandivardhana of

Magadha is said to have been discovered buried in this

mound during the reign of Nasir-ad-din Haidar of

Lakhnau; but the inscription has never been published and

the original plate cannot now be traced.

Five hundred feet due south from this large mound

stands the second mound, called Kuberparbat, which is

only 28 feet in height. The surface is an irregular heap of

brick rubbish, with numerous large holes made by the

4789

people in digging for bricks. It is crowned by two old

tamarind trees and is covered with jangal. Close by on the

south-west there is a small tank, called Ganesakund by the

Hindus and Husain Kund or Imam Talao by the

Musalmans. Still nearer, on the south-east, is a large

oblong mound, called Sugribparbat, which is not more than

10 feet above the ground level. It is divided into two

distinct positions, that to the north being upwards of 300

feet square at top, and the other to the south upwards of

200 feet. In the centre of the larger enclosure there is a

ruined mound containing bricks eight and-a-half inches

square, and in the centre of the smaller mound there are the

remains of a baoli, which is said to be the Ganapatikunda

of the Puranas.

Between the Maniparbat and Kuberparbat there is a

small Musalman enclosure, 64 feet long from east to west

and 47 feet broad, containing two brick dargahs, which are

attributed to Sis Paighambar and Ayub Paighambar, or the

“prophets Seth and Job”; the first is 17 feet long and the

other 12 feet. These tombs are mentioned in the Ain-i-

Akbari and in the Ardish-i-Mahfil. About a mile off, near

the police station, there is the dargah of Nuh, or Noah.

The mounds are surrounded by Musalman tombs,

and as it is the Musalman practice to bury the dead along

the sides of the high roads close to their cities, General

Cunningham infers that the road which now runs close to

the westward of the mounds is one of the ancient highways

of the district. This is confirmed by the existence of an old

masonry bridge of three arches over the Tilahi Nala, to the

4790

north-west of the Maniparbat, as well as by the direction of

the road itself, which leads from the south end of the city

straight to Bharatkund, and onwards to Sultanpur or

Kusapura, and Allahabad, or Prayaga.

There can be no reasonable doubt that Hiuen

Tsiang's Pi-so-kia, or Visakha, with its enormous number of

heretics, or Brahmanas, is the same as the Ayodhya of the

Hindus. He describes the city of Visakha as being 16 li or

two and 2/3 miles in circuit. In his time, therefore, the

capital of Rama was not more than half of tis present size,

although it probably contained a greater population, as not

above on-third, or even perhaps less, of the present town is

inhabited. The old city then possessed no less than 20

samgharamas and 3,000 priests, and about 50

Brahmanical temples. From this account we learn that so

early as the seventh century more than 300 of the original

temples of Vikramaditya had already disappeared, and we

may therefore reasonably infer that the city had been

gradually declining for some time previously. The Buddhist

monuments, however, would appear to have been in good

order, and the monks were just as numerous as in the

eminently Buddhist city of Banaras.

The first monument described by Hiuen Tsiang is a

large samgharama without name. This monastery General

Cunningham identifies with the Sugribparbat, being about

500 feet long by 300 feet broad. The great size and

rectangular form of this ruin are sufficient to show that it

must have been a monastery, but this is placed beyond all

doubt by the existence of an interior well and by the

4791

remains of cloistered rooms forming the four sides of the

enclosure. Its position to the south of the city, and to the

east of the road, agrees with the recorded position of the

monastery.

Beside the monastery there was a stupa of Asoka, 200

feet in height, built on the spot where Buddha preached the

law during six years. This monument General Cunningham

identifies with the Maniparbat, which is still 65 feet high,

and which with its masonry facing must once have been at

least as high again, and with the usual lofty pinnacle of

metal may easily have reached a height of 200 feet. He

infers that the earthen or lower part of the mound may

belong to the earlier ages of Buddhism, and that the

masonry or upper part was added by Asoka.

Hiuen Tsiang next describes the sites of the

toothbrush tree and of the monument where the four

previous Buddhas used to sit and take exercise, as being

close to the great stupa. These places General Cunningham

identifies with the courtyard containing the dargahs of Sis

and Ayub, which touches the south side of the Maniparbat.

The two tombs he takes to be the remains of the seats of the

four previous Buddhas, and the paved courtyard to be the

scene of their daily walks, although he was unable to trace

their footmarks which were seen by the Chinese pilgrim.

The last monument described by Hiuen Tsiang is a

stupa containing the hair and nails of Buddha. This was

surrounded by a number of smaller monuments which

followed one another in succession, and by several tanks

which reflected the sacred buildings in their limpid waters.

4792

The stupa General Cunningham identifies with the

Kuberparbat, which touches the south side of the enclosure

round the dargahs of Sis and Ayub, and is close to the west

side of the ruined monastery. One of the tanks described by

the pilgrim may be the Ganesakund; but all the smaller

monuments have disappeared long ago, as they afforded

cheap and ready materials for the construction of the

numerous Musalman tombs, as well as for the

neighbouring bridge and masjid.

The people are unanimous in their assertion that the

old city to the north of these mounds was called Bareta;

Ayodhya, they say, was the capital of Rama, but the latter

city was called Bareta. As this name has no similarity to

Visakha, we can only set it down as another appellation of

the old town, for which we have no authority but

tradition.”

4327. “Dilli Saltanat (711-1526 A.D.)” by Dr. Ashirvadi

Lal Srivastava (Book No. 151), first published in 1952 and the

new revised edition published by Shivlal Agarwal and

Company, Agra is the next book relied by Sri Verma. He placed

before us page-314 to 316 of the book under the heading

“Architecture (LFk kiR;)" which reads as under :

“LFk kiR;;

**lqYrkuksa dks LFkkiR; ls cgqr izse FkkA ftl le; rqdksZa us gekjs

ns'k dks fot; fd;k ml le; rd e/; ,f'k;k dh fofHkUUk tkfr;kWa

LFkkiR; dh ,d fof'k"V 'kSyh fodflr dj pqdh FkhaA og 'kSyh ogkWa dh

LFkkuh; 'kSfy;ksa rFkk VzzkUl&vkWfDl;kuk] bZjku] vQxkfuLrku]

eSlksiksVkfe;k] felz] mRrjh vQzhdk] nf{k.kh&if'peh ;wjksi ds ns'kksa rFkk

eqfLye vjsfc;k dh 'kSfy;ksas ds lfEeJ.k ls cuh Fkha A bl izdkj 13oha

'krkCnh ds vfUre n'kd esa rqdhZ fotstk LFkkiR; dh tks 'kSyh Hkkjr esa

4793

yk;s og u rks iw.kZ:i ls bLykeh Fkh vkSj u vjchA bl LFkkiR; dh

eq[; fo'ks"krk,Wa Fkha& 1- xqEct] 2- ÅWph ehukjsa] 3] esgjkc] rFkk 4]

Hkwfex`g ¼rg[kkuk½A

tc rqdZ gekjs ns'k esa vk;s rks ;gkaW mUgsa LFkkiR; dh ,d

vR;f/kd fodflr 'kSyh feyh] fdUrq fotsrk gksus ds ukrs bl ns'k esa

bekjrksa ds fuekZ.k esa vius fopkjksa rFkk dyk :iksa dks izpfyr djuk

muds fy, LokHkkfod gh FkkA fdUrq oss ,slh bekjrsa cukus esa lQy ugha

gq, tks mudh e/; ,f'k;kbZ bekjrksa dk izk:i gksrhaA mudh bekjrksa ij

ns'kh dyk&ijEijkvksa dk xEHkhj izHkko iM+k] blfy, LFkkiR; dh ftl

ubZ 'kSyh dk tUe gqvk og u rks iw.kZr;k fons'kh Fkh vkSj u 'kq) ns'khA

dqN ,sls rRo dk;Z dj jgs Fks ftuds dkj.k LFkkiR; dh Hkkjrh; rFkk

fons'kh 'kSfy;ksa dk leUo; lEHko gks ldkA loZizFke] fons'kh 'kkldksa

dks Hkkjrh; f'kfYi;ksa vkSj laxrjk'kksa ls dke ysuk iMkA Hkou fuekZ.k ds

lEcU/k esa muds viuss Li"V fopkj rFkk rjhds Fks] blfy, mUgksaus fcuk

tkus eqfLye bekjrksa esa Hkh ltkoV rFkk 'kSyh&lEcU/kh C;kSjs dh mu

vusd phtksa dk lekos'k dj fn;k ftudk bl ns'k esa 'krkfCn;ksa ls

izpkj FkkA nwljs] i z kj f E H kd r qd Z&fot srkvk s a u s yxHkx fcuk

viokn d s viuh efLtnk s a s ] egyk s a vk S j ;gk W a rd fd dc z k s a

dk Hk h fuek Z . k mu fgUn w rFk k t Su ef Unjk s a dh lkex z h l s

fd;k ftUg s a mUgk s au s fun Z;rki wo Zd u"V dj fn;k Fk kA rhljs]

fgUnw rFkk eqfLye 'kSfy;ksa esa Li"V vUrj gksrs gq, Hkh dqN C;kSjs dh

phtksa esa mudh bekjrsa ,d&lh fn[kkbZ nsrh gSa] blfy, dHk h&dHk h

fnYyh l qYrkuk s a u s fgUn w rFk k t Su efUnj sk a dh pk S jl Nrk s a

dk s rk sMdj mud s LFk ku e s a x q Ect rFk k ehukj s a cukdj

mUg s a efLtnk s a dk :i n s fn;kA lj tkWu ek'kZy ds erkuqlkj

fgUnw efUnjksa rFkk eqfLye efLtnksa esa ,d lekurk ;g Fkh fd nksuksa

esa ,d [kqyk gqvk vkWaxu gksrk Fkk ftlds pkjksa vksj dejs rFkk LrEHkksa dh

iafDr;kWa [kMh gksrh FkhaA bl ;k stuk e s a cu s g q, efUnj ljyrk

l s efLtnk s a e s a ifjofr Zr fd; s tk ldr s F k s blfy,

fot srk yk sx k s a u s viuk mn +n s'; i wj k dju s d s fy,

lo Zi z F ke mUgh a e s a :ikUrj fd;k gk sx kA blds vfrfjDr

ltkoV ,d vU; ewy fo'sk"krk Fkh tks fgUnw rFkk bLykeh 'kSfy;ksa dks

4794

feykus ds fy, mHk;fu"B dMh dk dke djrh FkhA ltkoV nksuksa gh

'kSfy;ksa dk izk.k Fkh vkSj mudk vfLrRo gh mu ij fuHkZj FkkA

LFk kiR; d s { k s + + += e s a d qr qcn +n hu , scd dh lo Zi z F ke d ` fr

fnYyh dh dqor&my&bLyke uke dh efLtn Fk h ftldk

fuek Z . k 1195 b Z 0 e s a i z k j EH k vk S j 1199 b Z0 e s a lek Ir g qvk

Fk kA og ,d fgUn w efUnj d s pc wrj s ij rFk k vu sd fgUn w

efUnjk s a dh lkex z h l s cuh F k hA bl efLtn ds vf/kdrj

LrEHk] muds f'k[kj rFkk e/; Hkkx ewyr% fgUnw efUnjksa ds vax jg pqds

Fks vkSj eqfLye efLtn dh vko';drkvksa ds vuqlkj 'kh?kzrk ls muesa

gsj&Qsj dj fy;k x;k FkkA LrEHkksa] muds f'k[kjksa rFkk e/; Hkkxksa ij tks

fp= vkfn mRdh.kZ Fks] mUgsa feVk fn;k x;k Fkk vFkok ykSV&iyVdj

fNik fn;k x;k FkkA bl bekjr esa bLykeh 'kSyh dh dsoy ,d gh

fo'ks"krk gS & lkeus ,d iRFkj dh tkyh gS ftl ij eqfLye <ax dh

fMtk;usa rFkk ltkoV gS vkSj dqjku dh vk;rsa [kqnh gqbZ gSaA vte sj e s a

<kb Z fnu dk >k s aiMk uked r qdh Z bekjr Hk h ,d efLtn gh

g S A bldk fuekZ.k Hkh dqrqcqn+nhu ,scd us gh djok;k FkkA ;g bekjr

okLro e s a ,d l aLd `r fo|ky; Fk k ftl s le z kV fox zgjkt

u s cuok;k Fk kA bld s mijh Hk kxk s a dk s rk sM&Qk sMdj

x q Ect rFk k e sgj kc s a cuk nh xb Z Fk hA LrEHk k s a ij vk S j ;gk W a

rd fd Hk hrj dc z k s a ij Hk h vxf.kr ekuo&fp= g S a ftud s

p sgj s rFk k gkFk&i Sj feV s g q, g S aA dqrqcehukj rqdhZ LFkkiR; dk

rhljk egRoiw.kZ vkn'kZ gSA bldh ;kstuk ,scd us 1199 bZ0 lss dqN

igys rS;kj dh Fkh vkSj bYrqrfe'k us mls iwjk fd;k FkkA ewyr% ;g

ehukj eqvfTtu ds fy, cuk;h xbZ Fkh tks bl ij p<dj eqlyekuksa

dks uekt ds fy, ,d= djus dh vtkWa fn;k djrk FkkA fdUrq vkxs

pydj ;g fot;LrEHk ds #i esa fo[;kr gqbZA bl bekjr dh ;kstuk

rFkk #i ewyr% bLykeh gSA bYrqrfe'k us dqrqcehukj dsk iw.kZ djus ds

vfrfjDr dqN u;h bekjrksa dk Hkh fuekZ.k djk;k] muesa lcls vf/kd

egRoiw.kZ mlds T;s"B iq= dk edcjk gS tks lqYrkux<h ds uke ls

fo[;kr gSA Hkkjr esa rqdksZa }kjk fufeZr ;g igyk edcjk Fkk] blfy,

dqrqcehukj ds foijhr LFkkiR; lEcU/kh C;kSjs dh ckrksa rFkk ltkoV dh

nf"V ls ;g bekjr fgUnw&'kSyh ds vf/kd fudV gSA vU; fdlh edcjs

4795

esa fgUnw&'kSyh dk bruk izHkko ugha nh[k iMrkA bYrqrfe'k ds le; ls

lqYrkuksa dh bekjrksa esa bLykeh rRoksa dk vf/kd lekos'k gksus yxkA

mlus dqor&my&bLyke efLtn dks ifjof)Zr fd;k vkSj mlesa ,d

iRFkj dh tkyh cuok nhA mlus ^<kbZ fnu dk >ksiMk* esa Hkh dqN

ifjo)Zu fd;kA cyou us vius fy, ykyegy uked ,d Hkou dk

fuekZ.k djk;kA fnYyh esa fLFkr mldk edcjk 'kq) bLykeh 'kSyh dk gSA

edcjs ds }kj dh esgjkc Hkkjr dh rqdhZ esgjkcksa esa loksZRre gSA [kyth

lqYrku vykmn+nhu egku fuekZrk FkkA mlus vusd bekjrsa cuok;ha

ftuesa nks vf/kd mYys[kuh; gSa& futkeqn+nhu vkSfy;k ds edcjs ds ikl

teS;r[kkuk efLtn rFkk dqrqcehukj ds ikl vykbZ njoktk uke dh

izfl) efLtnA bu nksuksa esa bLykeh LFkkiR;&fopkjksa dk izk/kkU; gSA

rqxyd&;qx dh bekjrsa bruh 'kkunkj ugha gSa ftruh fd xqyke rFkk

[kyth&;qx dhA os ljy] 'kq"d rFkk ddZ'k gSA bl ifjorZu ds nks

dkj.k izrhr gksrs gSaSA rqxyd lqYrkuksa ds ikl /ku dk vHkko Fkk]

blfy, ;s bekjrksa ij Hkkjh jdesa ugha O;; dj ldrs FksA blds

vfrfjDr vius /kkfeZd fopkjksa rFkk #fp esa os cMs dV+Vj FksA mudh

bekjrksa dh nhokjsa mrkj&p<ko dh rFkk eksVh gSa vkSj ns[kus esa dkyh&lh

yxrh gSaA rqxyd'kkg dk edcjk] rqxydkckn dk uxj rFkk dksVyk

Qhjkst'kkg rqxyd LFkkiR; ds egRoiw.kZ vkn'kZ gSaA lS;+;n rFkk yksnh

lqYrkuksa us [kyth bekjrksa ds vkst rFkk ykfyR; dks iquthZfor djus

dk iz;Ru fd;k fdUrq blesa mUgsa vkaf'kd lQyrk feyhA ,d n{k

dykeeZK dk er gS fd os rqxyd&;qx ds fuLrst djus okys izHkko ls

vius dks eqDr u dj ldsA iBku bekjrksa esa fldUnj yksnh ds othj }

kjk fufeZr eksB dh efLtn loZJs"B gSA vkykspdksa ds erkuqlkj yksnh

LFkkiR; dk ;g loksZRre vkn'kZ gS A **

4328. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that it is an opinion

formed by the author in respect to the Mughal architecture. He

has not referred to any basic material which he consulted and

relied to form the said opinion. At the end of the Chapter, he has

only given reference to certain books under the heading

“BOOKS FOR FURTHER READING” and the reference of the

4796

following books has been given :

(I) Habibullah : The Foundations of Muslim Rule in India.

(ii) Ashraf, Kunwar Mohd. : Life and Condition of the

People of Hindustan (1200-1550)

(iii) Tara Chand : Influence of Islam on Indian Culture.

(iv) Grierson, Sir George : Modern Vernacular Literature

of Hindustan.

(v) Faruqhhar : Outline of the Religious Literature of India.

(vi) Havell : Indian Architecture.

(vii) Haig, Woolseley : Cambridge History of India, Vol.

III.

4329. We have looked into these books also but find no

help for issues in question.

4330. The personal credentials of Dr. Srivastava

mentioned in the earlier part shows that he was M.A., Ph.D. and

D.Lit. from Lucknow and Agra and had written the said book

for the benefit of undergraduate students. It appears that he had

earlier written a book in English under the title “Saltanat of

Delhi” and the present one is the Hindi versions of the said

book. In the absence of any reference material, we are not in

position to verify the correctness of what the author has said but

even otherwise the only thing which he has said in the above

passage is that the Delhi Saltanat rulers destroyed Hindu and

Jain Temples and used the material for construction of Mosque,

pave sages and even graves. In some cases by minor variation or

alternation the Hindu or Jain Temples were converted in

Mosque. It is a general statement but does not show that it has

anything in connection with the disputed site or disputed

construction. In the entire book, we could not find any reference

4797

to Ayodhya and in particular the disputed site, i.e. Ramjanam

Bhumi /Babari Masjid. In fact, this book deals with the period

upto 1526 and, therefore, mentions only about the defeat of

Ibrahim Lodi by Babar in 1526 and does not say anything for

the period subsequent thereto. We, therefore, are not able to

derive any assistance from the above work of Dr. Srivastava for

adjudication of the issues engaging attention of this Court in

these cases.

4331. Next is the (Book No. 76) “History of Kanauj to

the Moslem Conquest” by Rama Shankar Tripathi. It's first

edition came in 1964 and the book available to the Court is a

reprint Delhi 1989 by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. Sri Verma in

particular has placed before us certain passages from page 248,

253 and 305. Page 253 shows that there was a great literary

person Rajasekhara in the Court of King Mahendrapala who has

written several literary productions including “Bala-Ramayana”

relating to the story of Rama from Sita's Svayamvara to the

death of Ravana, and the return to Ayodhya after Sita's fire-

ordeal. He pointed that King Mahendrapala reigned upto about

885 A.D. and the story written by one of his literary courtiers

shows that worship of Lord Rama as incarnation of Vishnu was

well recognised even at that time. However, nothing of these

facts help us to travel our journey towards solution of the

seriously disputed above referred two issues for the simple

reason that the antiquity or genuineness or correctness of Lord

Rama or his birth at Ayodhya has not been disputed by the

learned counsels for the Muslim parties and in this regard, they

have gone to the extent of even making a statement under Order

X Rule 2 C.P.C. Therefore, the factum of recognition of Lord

4798

Rama's story in 9th century is now wholly irrelevant. Sri Verma

also placed before us the following passage from page 324 of

the book :

“As to the north, the phrase “borders of China” may

be presumed to denote that the kingdom extended upto the

foot of the Himalayas; while in the east it must have

comprised the Gaya region, where an inscription

presumably belonging to Jayachandra's reign records that

a hermit named Srimitra served as spiritual guide to the

king of Benares (Kasisa), who was attended by a hundred

Chieftains (nripa-sata-krita-sevah). It is also definitely

known from inscription that Allahabad, Benares, and the

surrounding tracts were included within Jayachandra's

kingdom. The Gahadavala connection with Benares was

more intimate, and perhaps because of the habitual

residence of the kings there, or owing to its religious

importance advantageous situation “in the centre of the

country of Hind,” it became a sort of second capital almost

from the beginning of their rule. Indeed, the Moslem

historians significantly style Jayacandra “Rai of

Benares,”1....” . Ibid., pp. 222, 223, 300, etc. Firishta calls Jayachandra

“the prince of Kanauj and Benares (Briggs, I. p. 178).”

4332. The aforesaid reference has been shown probably in

view of the fact an inscription said to have been obtained from

the time of demolition of the disputed structures on 6.12.1992

which according to the Hindu parties shows that Gahadavala

rulers constructed a Vishnu Hari Temple at the disputed site. The

aforesaid passage shows that the Gahadavala ruler Jayachandra

4799

having its capital at Kanauj had within its reign Allahabad and

Benaras also. The book gives the detail of Gahadavala rulers

from page 292 and onwards of which Chandradev was one. At

this stage, whether Gahadavalas in 11, 12 or in 13 centuries

ruled at Kanauj and exercised their authorities upto Allahabad

and Benaras which included Ayodhya also need not to be

examined further for the reason that for our purpose the

aforesaid facts as such do not meet our requirement necessary

for adjudication of the dispute. Through it appears that

Gahadavala were very religious people and they declared

themselves as Paramamahesvara, i.e. devout worshippers of

God Siva but they constructed large number of temples

including that of Vishnu Temple. In this regard some details we

find on page 351 to 355 under the heading “Religion” as under :

“The Gahadavala kings, like the Pratiharas whose

religion has already been started, did not confine their

devotions to one member only of the great Hindu pantheon.

Thus, while they officially describe themselves as

Paramamahesvara, i.e., devout worshippers of the god

Siva, their records also invoke in the beginning the blessing

of Sri (Lakshmi), the goddess of prosperity, and Damodara

(Ganesa), and on the seals attached to the copper-plates

there are representations of the flying Garuda and conch-

shell (Pancajanya conch?), which may indicate their

predilections towards Vaisnavism. Indeed, one of the

Kamauli inscriptions even asserts that Jayachandra was

initiated, with the consent of his father, as a devotee of the

god Krisna on the 10th tithi of the bright half of the month

of Asadha of the Vikrama year 1224, corresponding to

4800

Sunday, the 16th of June, 1168 A.D.- the day of his

installation to the dignity of Yuvaraja. But so marked was

the royal eclecticism that according to a Bodhgaya

inscription in later life Jayachandra, out of reverence for a

Budhist monk named Srimitra, himself became his disciple

with a pleasing heart and an indescribable hankering.

Moreover, we are uniformly told in their documents that the

Gahadavala monarchs made grants after having

worshipped the sun (surya), after having praised him

(Siva), after having performed adoration to Vasudeva, and

after having sacrificed to the fire an oblation of abundant

milk, rice and sugar, and after having offered oblations to

the manes.

Turning now to the matter of popular religion, the

outstanding features during both the Pratihara and

Gahadavala periods were the worship of idols and the

variety of gods. Temples were built in large numbers, being

known as “devagrihas” or “caityas”. With their lofty

spires, rich ornamental designs, and graceful sculptures,

the construction of these elaborate structures must have

entailed great engineering skill and workmanship.

Sometimes, it is interesting to note, they were even hewn

out of a single piece of rock. But unfortunately almost all

these noble monuments of the liberality and religious zeal

of the princes and peasants alike have disappeared owing

to the ravages of time, or were razed to the ground by the

iconoclastic fury of the victorious Moslems. For instance,

the Taj-ul-Maasir and Firishta's account testify that in

Benares alone Sihabuddin Ghori destroyed more than one

4801

thousand temples, and raised mosques on their

foundations.

Among the gods, Visnu was the most highly

venerated. The Siyadoni inscription gives several names

for him such as Visnubhattaraka, Narayanabhattaraka,

Vamanasvamideva (also mentioned in the Ahar

inscription), Cakrasvamideva, Tribhuvanasvamideva, and

Murari. In the Gwalior inscription of Bhoja, he is called

Narakadvisa, and in the Buckala record the term

Paramesvara occurs for his image. The Pehoa inscription,

however, simply describes him as the god riding on garuda

(Visnu garudasana). The Gahadavala copper plates often

allude to the God Vasudeva and the temple of Adikesava at

the confluence of the Varuna and Ganges. We may also add

here that the Ahar epigraph (No. VII) refers in general

terms to all the ten incarnations of Visnu, but in other

documents there is specific mentions of only three

manifestations of the deity, viz., Krisna or Hrisikesa,

Varaha, and Vamana.

The inscriptions further mention such gods as : 1.Surya, also called Tarunadityadeva, Indrara-

jadityadeva or Indradityadeva, or Gangaditya.

Another form of the sun was Lolarka, whose festival

is even now annually celebrated in Benares during

the rainy season. In the Siyadoni inscription occurs

the term Bhaillasvamideva, which according to a

Bhilsa record was a designation of the sun.

2.Siva (Jhusi inscription), also called Umamahesvara

(Siyadoni inscription) or simply Mahesvara

(Gahadavala plates), Trilocana, Lacchukesvara

4802

Mahadeva, so named after Mathanadeva's mother

(Rajor inscription), Yogasvamin, Pasupati, and

Sambhu (Haddala grant).

3.Vinayaka or Damodara (Gahadavala plates).

4.Kumara (Kartikeya) with his host of Matrikas i.e.,

female companions who performed wonderful deeds.

5.Mahakala (Partabgarh inscription) or Kalapriya

(Cambay plates) in Ujjain.

Among other names and temples of gods we come

across Nityapramuditadeva, Aghoresvara, Indramadhava,

Laudesvara, Panocomkara, Krittivasas etc.

The

inscriptions refer to names of goddesses also, such as

Bhagavati or Durga (Partabgarh inscription) or

Vatayaksnidevi; Sri Amba Lohidevi (Siyadoni inscription);

Kanakadevi or Kancanadevi, Gandhadevi,

Sarvamangaladevi (Ahar inscription); Sri or Lakshmi

(Gahadavala inscriptions); Vasudhara etc.”

4333. Sri Rajendra Singh, DW 1/1 deposed his statement

to show that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya and also had the

benefit of Darshan of Lord Rama at the disputed site, i.e.,

birthplace. To discredit the said statement, a lot of literature

relating to Guru Nanak's visit to Ayodhya has been placed

before us.

4334. Ex. 68 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 208C1/1-4 is an extract

of a book “Bhai Bale Wali-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji ki Janam

Sakhi” 7th Edn. 1999 published by Bhai Chatar Singh Jeevan

Singh, Amritsar. Pages 361 and 263 have been filed. It shows

that Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited Ayodhya and told to the people

4803

who accompanied him that Ayodhya is the city of King Ram

Chandra, who incarnated as Ram in Treta Yug. When enquired

that Ram Chandra taken the entire city of Ayodhya with him

then how it has appeared, Guru Nanak Dev Ji said,

Maryadapurushottam Sri Ram Chandra Ji has not taken the

houses and constructions with him but only the religious men

and women folk has gone with him in his supreme world and if

the people pray for the God and remain in shelter of Guru

Govind they can also achieve the same. Therefrom he proceeded

to Prayagraj (Allahabad). Sri Jilani, in reference to the above,

said that there is no mention of any place of birth of Lord Rama

what to say of place in dispute.

4335. Ex.69 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 210C1/1-10) is an extract

of the book titled as “Sikhs and Sikhism” written by W.H.

Mcleod first published in 1999 paper book 2004 by Oxford

University Press. Pages 5 to 8 and 33 to 36 have been placed

before us. It discussed with the biography of Guru Nanak. From

page 5 and 6, it discern that the author did not find according to

him any reliable data other than what is said in various Janam

Sakhis written or published by different people/institutions to

through light on the life sketch of Guru Nanak. The Adi Granth

contains the work of Guru Nanak but did not give much

assistance to know about the biography of Guru Nanak. It says

that Guru Nanak was born in 1469 at village Talvandi and died

in 1539 during which period he travelled a large number of

places including those of religious importance for Muslims and

Hindus both. About the working of Guru Nanak, at the instance

of third Guru, Amar Das, a collection was prepared which was

ultimately utilized by Sri Guru Arjan while compiling the Adi

4804

Granth, i.e., Guru Granth Sahib. The teachings of Guru Nanak

are discussed through out his works but therefrom it is not

possible to find out anything about his own biography though it

is possible to reconstruct a coherent theology. The basis of his

theology is a belief in a personal God, the omnipotent Creator of

the universe, a Being beyond time and human comprehending

yet seeking by His grace the salvation of man and for this

purpose revealing Himself in His own creation. To the offer of

salvation man is called to respond by a life of meditation on the

divine self-revelation and of conformity to it. If man responds

he progressively grows into the likeness of God and ultimately

into an ineffable union with the Timeless one. If he refuses he

follows the path of spiritual death and remains firmly bound to

the wheel of transmigration.

4336. Chapter 2 starts at page 33 with the heading “The

Sources”. The author has discussed that the obvious place to

seek information concerning the life of Guru Nanak is the Adi

Granth, or Guru Granth Sahib complied by Guru Arjan in 1603-

04. It contains numerous works by Guru Nanak which can

safely be accepted as authentic but it provides little information

concerning the actual events of his life. It contains more than

nine hundred of his compositions and yet the biographical

details therein are negligible. There is no explicit reference at all

to any incident in his life, no sabad or Slok. The author says that

the Chapter Babar-vani though positivity suggests that Guru

Nanak witnesses something of Babar depredations, but nothing

more than that. He, ultimately, says that in the absence of

receiving any information regarding the biography of Guru

Nanak in Adi Granth, the only source which can be relied on for

4805

the same purpose remain the Janam Sakhis. He points out that

several sets of Janam Sakhis are prevalent, i.e., Puratan,

Miharban etc. and, therefore, a cautious and careful approach is

needed to find out the actual reliable informations contained

therein instead several legends mentioned therein lacking

anything to corroborate and to prove their authenticity.

4337. Chapter 3 starting from Page 34 with the heading

“The Life of Guru Nanak According to the Janam-Sakhis” gives

some description of the journeys undertaken by Guru Nanak. It

says that Guru Nanak ascended Mount Sumeru and thereat held

discourse with Gorakhnath and other eighty-three Siddhs who

questioned him about the condition of the world below. Guru

Nanak informed them about the darkness, sin and corruption.

Ultimately, Guru emerged victorious from the debate. Then

there is reference of his visit to Mecca and it gives the following

information :

“Next he proceeded to Mecca and there went to sleep

with his feet pointing towards the mihrab. Observing this

evident blasphemy a Muslim named Jivan kicked him and

dragged his feet away from the direction of the miharab.

When he did this, however, the whole of Mecca

miraculously moved in the same direction as his feet. A

discourse followed in which Guru Nanak emphasized that

Ram and Rahim, Hindu and Muslim names for God,

designate one and the same God.

Having left his sandals in Mecca as a relic, the Guru

proceeded on to Medina, and from there to Baghdad where,

with Mardana the Bard, he camped outside the city. From

there he uttered the call to prayer whereupon the city at

4806

once became silent. A pir named Dastgir went out to

investigate the newcomer's credentials and entered into a

debate with him. In response to Dastgir's request for

enlightenment the Guru took the pir's son, ascended with

him into the air, and in the twinkling of an eye revealed to

him the multitude of heavens and underworlds. The two

then descended into the regions below the earth and from

there brought a bowl of karah prasad, the sacramental food

of the Sikhs.”

4338. Thereafter the reference of his visit to Kartarpur.

Multan etc. is given. In our view, though the above extract of the

document gives some idea about Guru Nanak's visits, but we

find no reason as to how the above extract either way help the

plaintiffs (Suit-4) for adjudication of the questions in dispute.

4339. Ex. 86 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 212C1/1-4 is an extract

of the book “Sri Guru Granth Sahib” with Hindi translation by

Dr. Manmohan Sahgal, 6th Edn. 2001 published by Bhuvan Vani

Trust. Pages 33 and 34 of the said book have been filed. The

verses contained on page 33 and 34 are as under :

^^1 vksa lfruke djrk iqj[kq fujHkm fujoS# vdky ewjfr vtwuh

lSHka xqj izlkfnAA

vksadkj ,d gS] lR; mldk uke gSA og lf"V dk jpf;rk iq#"k

gSA og Hk; ls jfgr gS] mls fdlh ls oSj ugh( ¼Hk; vkSj oSj }Sr dh

mRifRr gSa½] og dkykrhr ¼vFkkZr~ Hkwr Hkfo";] orZeku ls ijs½ gS] blfy,

fuR; gSA og v;ksuh gS vFkkZr~ tUe&ej.k ds pdz ls eqDr gS] og Lo;aHkw

gS ¼Lo;a izdV gksusokyk gS½] mldh yfC/k ek= lfrxq# dh d`ik ls gh

lEHko gSA**

^^lkspS lksfp u gksobZ ts lksph y[kokjA

pqiS pqi u gksobZ ts ykb jgk fyorkjA

Hkqf[k;k Hkq[k u mrjh ts cauk iqjhvk HkkjA

4807

lgl flvk.kik y[k gksfg r bd u pyS ukfyA

fdo lfpvkjk gksbZ,s fdo dwM+S rqVS ikfyA

gqdfe jtkbZ py.kk ukud fyf[kvk ukfyAA1AA

og izHkq ¼okfgxq#½ gh ,e ek= lr;Lo:i gSA tc dqN ugha Fkk]

rks Hkh mldh lRrk Fkh] pkjksa ;qxksa ¼lfr;qx] =Srk;qx] }kij;qx] dfy;qx½

ls Hkh iwoZ og lR;&Lo:i ijekRek fo|eku Fkk] vkt Hkh ¼orZeku esa½

ogh gS vkSj Hkfo"; esa Hkh mlh dh lRrk fLFkj jgsxhA 'kqfpdj.k ¼lkspS½ }

kjk dksbZ ifo= ugha gks ldrk vFkkZr~ 'kkSpkfn ls ;FkkFkZ Kku dh miyfC/k

ugha gksrh] pkgs dksbZ yk[kksa ckj HkkSfrd lQkbZ djrk jgsA Kku&yfC/k eu

dh fueZyrk ls lEHko gS] HkkSfrd fueZyrk ¼'kkSp½ ls lR; dh izkfIr ughaA

ok.kh dh pqIih ls eu ds ladYi] fodYi 'kkar ugha gksrs] pkgs dksbZ

fpRr&ofRr;ksa dks fdruk Hkh la;fer djus dk iz;kl djs] mldk eu

HkVdrk gh jgrk gSA ¼Hkw[kk jgus vFkkZr~ ozr&miokl djus ls r".kk :ih

Hkw[k dk neu ugha gksrkA½ lf"V dh iqfj;ksa ¼cSdq.Biqjh] bUnziqjh vkfn½

ds ;fn lc oSHko Hkh izkIr dj fy, tk;Wa rks Hkh r".kk dk dgha vUr

ughaA ;fn euq"; ds ikl vla[; ckSf)d rdZ vkSj fo'ys"k.k ekStwn gksa]

ijekRek dh jkg ij ,d Hkh lg;ksxh ugha gksrk& rc ¼,sls esa½ lkalkfjd

euq"; dSls lR;&iFk xeu dj ldrk gS\ >wB ls fuLrkj dSls laHko gS\

ek;k dk vkoj.k D;ksadj fonh.kZ gksxk\ ¼blds mRrj esa½ xq#ukud th

dgrs gSa fd tho dks ijekRek ds gqdqe ¼jkth&cj&jtk½ es jguk pkfg,]

lR; dh lR;k dh vuqHkwfr dk ;gh ,d ek= ekxZ gS&tks vuUr dky ls

tho dh mRifRr ls ysdj vkt rd pyk vk jgk gSAA1AA**

4340. From perusal of the above, it says that the real

teachings of Guru Nanak is about the self created supreme being

who has no shape etc. but is beyond all the worldly and other

activities. His existence even prior to the commencement of the

four Yugas is believed by Hindus. However, so far as the

questions in dispute before us are concerned, the reference of

the above verses by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) we find of no use

since they do not help in adjudication of the matter either way. It

is no doubt true that Guru Nanak profest for the existence of a

4808

supreme being, who has no shape behind creation or destruction

etc. but that by itself does not through any light with respect to

the issues up for consideration in these cases.

4341. Exhibit 70 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 229C1; 230C1/1-10)

contains pages No. IV, V, XXII, XXIII, LXX to LXXIII,

LXXXVI, LXXXVII, 261, 322, 382 and 383 of the book titled

as “The Sikh Religion-Its Gurus Sacred Writings and

Authors” by Max Arthur Macauliffe in six volumes, first

published in 1909 and reprinted in 1996, 1998 by Low Price

Publications, Delhi. The extract before the Court is volume-I of

the above book. The pages contains the preface, introduction

and some part of hymns of Guru Nanak. We, however, find that

the said writing is neither a fair nor impartial study of the matter.

In the preface Page No. XXII (Paper No. 230C1/4), learned

author has observed:

“It is admitted that a knowledge of the religions of

the people of India is a desideratum for the British Officials

who administer its affairs and indirectly for the people who

are governed by them so that mutual sympathy may be

produced. It seems, at any rate, politic to place before the

Sikh soldiery their Guru's prophecies in favour of the

English and the texts of their sacred writings which foster

their loyalty.”

4342. The tenor of the book also fortify the same and we

are proposed to refer some extent as under:

“When Taimur had spread anarchy and

devastation over Northern India, a dynasty of Saiyids, or

descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, aspired to rule in

Dihli in the name of Mughal conqueror. To Dihli there was

4809

hardly any territory attached, and Ala-ul-din, the last of the

Saiyid rulers, in contemptuous disregard for the small and

troublesome dominion meted out to him by destiny, retired

to the distant city of Badaun to end his days in religious

and political tranquility. He left Dihli and the fortunes of

empire of Bahlol Khan Lodi, a man whose ancestors had

been enriched by commerce, and whose grandfather had

been Governor of Multan under the favour monarch Firoz

Shah Tughlak.

Bhahol Khan Lodi reigned from A.D. 1450 to A.D.

1488, and it was consequently near the middle of his reign

that Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, was

born. After the accession of Bahlol Khan Lodi, Daulat

Khan, a relative of his, obtained power in the Panjab, and

governed under the paramount authority of his kinsman.

He lived in state at Sultanpur till defeated and deprived of

his possessions by the Emperor Babar. The Panjab appears

to have been already parcelled out to Musalman chiefs who

were retainers of the sovereigns of Dihli. One of these

chiefs, called Rai Bhoi, a Musalman Rajput of the Bhatti

tribe, had been Zamindar or proprietor of Talwandi. After

his death his heritage descended to his son Rai Bular, who

governed the town at the birth and during the youth of

Nanak.

Talwandi is said to have been originally built by a

Hindu king called Raja Vairat. It was sacked and destroyed

by fire and crowbar, like most Hindu towns and cities,

during the Musalman invasions. Rai Bular restored it and

built a fort on the summit of the tumulus, in which he lived

4810

the secure and happy ruler of a small village, some limited

acres of cultivated land, and boundless wilderness.

Although the age was one of religious intolerance

and persecution, Rai Bular appears to have been the very

reverse of a bigot. His father and he were converted

Hindus, doubtless added to the ranks of Islam by a hasty

circumcision and an enforced utterance of some Arabic

sentences which they did not perfectly comprehend.

. . . . . Kartik, there being a considerable difference

between these forms of chronology. The partisons of the

lunar Kartik, however, prevailed, the lunar month being the

earlier form of calculation, and consequently the most

acceptable to all persons whose religion is based on any

form of Hinduism. Generally the confusion of solar and

lunar chronology is the cause of much perplexity and

qualms of conscience to the pious.” (pages lxx, lxxi and

lxxxvi)

“The late Bhai Gurumukh Singh, who first gave the

author these details, afterwards put himself at the head of a

deputation to move the Government of the Panjab to

declare the fictitious anniversary of Guru Nanak's birth a

public holiday. That Government accordingly added a

second Sikh holiday to the already long list of Christina,

Hindu, and Muhammadan holidays sanctioned in its

calendar. The other special Sikh holiday is the Hola

Mahalla, the day on which the tenth Guru held a mimic

battle for the instruction of his troops.” (page lxxxvi)

4343. However, apart of the other aspects of the matter,

author has referred to the preachings of Guru Nanak and also

4811

about his biography. He has referred to a Janamsakhi written by

Sewa Das. He claims to possess the manuscript of the said book

written in 1588 AD, i.e., 16 years before compilation of Granth

Sahib by Guru Arjan Singh which took place in 1604 AD. After

some discussion he found that the said Janamsakhi was most

authentic and he shall made the same basis for giving details of

the life of Guru Nanak but supplementing it whereever

necessary by culling out from the later life of Guru. It is pointed

out that Guru Nanak teaches against idol worship and did not

accept Lord Rama as incarnation of God. Reference is made to

the following hymns of Guru Nank contain on page 382 (Paper

No. 230C1/10):

“If Ram had been God he would not have lost his

queen Sita, and he would himself have healed his half-

brother Lachhman instead of calling on Hanuman to do

so:--

Ram Chandar mourned in his soul for Sita and

Lachhman.

He remembered Hanuman, and he came to meet him.

The misguided demon Rawan did not know it was not

Ram but God who did this.

Nanak, God is independent: Ram could not erase his

destiny.”

4344. The hymns teachings against idol worship are at

page 323 (paper No. 230C1/9) as under:

“Guru Nanak orders man to repeat God's name and

engage not in idol worship:--

If the heart be made the scraper, the Name the

sandal,

4812

And good acts be mixed with it as kungu, that shall

be the real worship of God in the heart.

Worship God by meditating on his name, for without

the name there is no worship.

If any one were to wash his heart as the surface of

the idol is washed,

His impurity should be removed, his soul should

become pure and he should depart to deliverance.

Even beasts have their merits; for the oil-cake they

eat they give milk, but the Brahmans make no return for the

offerings made them.

Without the Name accursed is man's life and the acts

he performeth.

God is near, think Him not distant; He ever careth for

and remembereth us.

Eat what He giveth, said Nanak verily.

The Guru's God is superior to the demigods of the

Hindus:--

Brahma sprang from the lotus of Vishnu's navel, and

having attuned his throat began to recite the Veds;

Yet he could not see God's limits, and remained in the

darkness of transmigration.

Why should I forget the Beloved who is the support of

my soul.”

4345. Preaching contain in “Shri Guru Granth Sahib

(Chauthi Sainchi)” translated by Dr. Manmohan Sehgal 4th

Edition 1995 published by Bhuwan Badi Trust, Lucknow,

Exhibit 71 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 231C1 and 232C1/1-57. It

contains pages no. 101 to 103 and 152 of the said book. The

4813

following part has been referred:

“AAHkSjm egyk 5AA ojr u jgm u eg jenkukA

frlq lsoh tks j[kS funkukAA1AA ,dq xqlkbZ vygq esjkA

fganw rqjd nqgka uscsjkAA1AA jgkmAA gt dkcS tkm u

rhjFk iqtkA ,dks lsoh vo# u nwtkAA2AA iwtk djm u

fuokt xqtkjmA ,d fujadkj ys fjnS ueldkjmAA3AA

uk ge fganw u eqlyekuA vyg jke ds fiaM ijkuAA4AA

dgq dchj bgq dhvk c[kkukA xqj ihj fefy [kqfn [kleq

iNkukAA5AA3AA

eSa ozr&miokl dk vuq"Bku ugha djrk] jetku ds eghus esa jkst+s Hkh ugha

j[krkA eSa rks dsoy vksV nsusokys ijekRek dk uke flaeju djrk

gwWaAA1AA dsoy ijekRek gh esjk ,dek= Lokeh gS] eSaus fgUnw&eqlyeku

nksuksa ls nkeu NqMk fy;k gSAA1AA jgkmAA eS gTt ds fy, dkck vFkok

iwtu ds fy, rhFkksZa ij ugha tkrkA mlh ,d dh lsok esa jr gwWa] vU;

dksbZ ugha LohdkjrkAA2AA eSa u rks iwtk ¼fn[kkos dh½ djrk gwWa] u uekt

i<+rk gwWa] dsoy fujadkj ijekRek dks gh g`n; esa ueu djrk gwWaAA3AA u

eSa fgUnw gwWa] u eqlyeku] gekjs ¼;gkWa lcdh vksj ls dgk tk jgk gS½ rks

nsg&izk.k lc vYykg] ;k jke ds gSaAA4AA dchjth dgrs gSa fd bldh

D;k O;k[;k djsa] geus rks xq# ls feydj Lokeh izHkq dks igpku fy;k gS

¼vki Hkh igpku ysa½ AA5AA3AA**

^^eSyk czgek eSyk banqA jfo eSyk eSyk gS panqAA1AA

eSyk eyrk bgq lalk#A bdq gfj fujeyq tk dk varq u

ik#AA1AA jgkmAA eSys czgeaMkb ds bZlA eSys fuflcklqj

fnu rhlAA2AA eSyk eksrh eSyk gh#A eSyk imuq

ikodq v# uh#A3AA eSys flo ladjk egslA eSys fla/k

lkf/kd v# Hks[kAA4AA eSys tksxh taxe tVk lgsfrA

eSyh dkbvk gal lesfrAA5AA dfg dchj rs tu ijokuA

fujey rs tks jkefg tkuAA6AA 3AA

lalkj esa ¼izHkq ds vfrfjDr½ lc efyu gSA czg~ek efyu gS] bUnz

efyu gS] lw;Z vkSj pUnz efyu gSaAA1AA ;g lewpk lalkj eSyk gS]

dsoy ,d ijekRek gh fueZy gS] ftldk dksbZ vUr ;k ikj

ughaAA1AAjgkmAA czg~ek.M+ksa ds 'kkld efyu gSa] jkr] fnu vkSj eghus ds

4814

rhlksa fnu eSys gSaAA2AA eksrh esa efyurk gS] ghjk Hkh eSyk gS] ikou]

vfXu vkSj ty] lHkh efyu gSaAA3AA f'ko 'kadj egknso Hkh efyu gSa]

fl)] lk/kd vkSj Hkslh lk/kq] lc eSys gSaAA4AA ;ksxh] taxe vkSj tVk/kkjh

lk/kq efyu gSaA 'kjhj vkSj vkRek nksuksa esa eSy gSAA5AA dchj th dgrs gSa

fd dsoy os gh lsod izHkq ds njckj esa Lohdr gSa] tks jke dk ifjp;

ikdj fueZy gks tkrs gSaAA6AA3AA

euq dfj edk fdcyk dfj nsghA cksyugk# ije

xq# ,ghAA1AA dgq js eqyka ckax fucktA ,d elhfr

nlS njoktAA1AA jgkmAA feflfefy rkelq HkSjeq dnwjhA

vkf[k ys iapS gksbZ lcwjhAA2AA fganw rqjd dk lkfgcq ,dA

dg djs eqyka dg djs ls[kAA3AA dfg dchj gm HkbvkA

fnokukA eqfl Hkqfl euwvk lgft lekukAA4AA4AA

eu dks eDdk cukvks vkSj 'kjhj dks dkck le>ksA mlesa vkRek

dks gh cM+k ihj ekuksAA1AA ,s eqYyk] bl nl }kj ds 'kjhj #ih efLtn

esa gh ckax nks vkSj uekt+ i<+ksAA1AAjgkmAA eu dh rkefldrk] xUnxh

rFkk Hkzeksa dks ^fofLeYykg* dgdj ft+cg dj nks ¼ekj nks½A dkekfn ikWapksa

fodkjksa dks [kkdj lUrq"V vkSj /kS;Zoku~ cu tkvksAA2AA fgUnw vkSj

eqlyeku] nksuksa dk ijekRek ,d gh gS] blesa eqYyk ;k 'ks[k D;k dj

ldrs gSaA A3AA dchjth dgrs gSa fd eSa rks I;kjs izHkq dk vkf'kd gwWaA

esjk eu ekjk tkdj ¼ftcg gksdj½ lgt esa gh lek x;k gSAA4AA4AA**

4346. Exhibit 72, Suit-4 (paper no. 233C1 and 234C1/1-7)

also is an extract from the book “The Sikh Religion” by Max

Arthus Macauliffe, Vol. I (supra), i.e., Exhibit 70. The part of the

verses relates to the period when Guru Nanak had travel to

eastern part of India and then some part of Punjab is contain in

Chapter VI and VII. The relevant extract thereof is as under:

“The Guru returned from Kamrup by the great river

Brahmaputra, and then made a coasting voyage to Puri on

the Bay of Bengal, where Vishnu of Krishan under the

name of Jagannath, lord of the world, is specially

worshipped. When the lamps were lit in the evening the

4815

Guru was invited by the high priest to stand up and join in

the god's worship, which was of a gorgeous and imposing

character. In that rich temple offerings to the god were

made on salvers studded with pearls. On the salvers were

place flowers and censers. A fan was employed to excite the

flames of the incense, while the lamps around threw light

over the temple. But the use of these articles showed

artificial worship, while the expanse of the firmament, the

sun and the moon, the procession of the stars, the natural

incense of the sandal, the winds and forests, were the fitting

accessories of Nanak's purer worship of the God of

creation. The Guru therefore, instead of accepting the high

priest's invitation to adore the idol, raised his eyes to

heaven, and gave utterance to the following hymn:--

The sun and moon, O Lord, are thy lamps; the

firmament, Thy salver; the orbs of the stars, the pearls

enchased in it.

The perfume of the sandal is Thine incense; the wind

is Thy fan; all the forests are Thy flowers, O Lord of light.

What worship is this, O Thou Destroyer of birth?

Unbeaten strains of ecstasy are the trumpets of Thy

worship.

Thou hast a thousand eyes and yet not one eye; Thou

hast a thousand forms and yet not one form;

Thou hast a thousand pure feet and yet not one foot;

Thou hast a thousand organs of smell and yet not one

organ—I am fascinated by this play of Thine.

The light which is in everything is Thine, O Lord of

light.

4816

From its brilliancy everything is brilliant;

By the Guru's teaching the light becometh manifest.

What pleaseth Thee is the real arati.

O God, my mind is fascinated with Thy lotus feet as

the bumble-bee with the flower: night and day I thirst for

them.

Give the water of Thy grace to the sarang Nanak, so

that he may dwell in Thy name.

While at Jagannath, Guru Nanak met a Brahman

who kept his eyes and nose closed so as to receive no

pleasure from these organs. He averred that in that state he

with his mental eyes saw the secrets of the world. Nanak

hid his lota and the Brahman could not find it, so Nanak by

the following hymn in the Dhanasari measure twitted him

on his want of omniscience:--

This is not the age, there is no longer acquaintance

with Jog; this is not the way of truth.

The holy places in the world have fallen; the world is

thus ruined.

In this Kal age God's name is the best thing.

Thou closest thine eyes and holdest thy nose to

deceive the world.

Thou holdest they nose with they thumb and first two

fingers, and sayest that thou seest the three worlds.

But thou seest not what is behind thee, this is a

wonderful thing.”

4347. Chapter VII shows that Guru Nanak after coming

back from Eastern India visited shrine of Shaikh Farid a Muslim

saint at Ajodhan (now called Pak Pattan in the southern part of

4817

Punjab Province) and there also he expressed similar sentiments

though in respect to muslim religious shrine.

4348. Exhibit 73, Suit-4 (Paper No. 235C1 and 236C1/1-

5) is the extract of pages no. 20 to 27 from “The Evolution of

the Sikh Community” by W.H. Mc Leod published by Oxford

University press (some other pages of this book are already

exhibited as Exhibit 69, Suit-4). The reference to the travel of

Guru Nanak mention on page 23 of the said book was made. It

says:

“Itineraries are now devised and incidents which

already had a particular location are set in appropriate

places in the travel narrative. Other incidents which

previously had no specific location are now given one. At

first the Guru's travels are relatively modest in extent, but

as the years pass from the eighteenth into the nineteenth

century we find him reaching Peking in the East and

Europe in the West. One relatively recent contribution

relates a meeting with the Pope in Rome, an opportunity

which Guru Nanak utilizes to denounce the sale of

indulgences.”

4349. Exhibit 74, Suit-4 (Paper No. 237C1 and 238C1/1-

5) contains pages no. 221 to 224 of the book titled as “The Sikh

World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Sikh Religion and

Culture” by Ramesh Chandra Dogra Urmila Dogra 2003

Edition published by UBS Publishers' Distributors Pvt. Ltd.,

New Delhi. It also contains the comments of the author with

respect to the various Janamsakhis of Guru Nanak and the

extent of authenticity thereof.

4350. Exhibit 75 contains photocopies of the title page,

4818

preface and pages no. 17, 39, 84 to 87 and 299 to 303 of “A

History of the Sikhs” by Khushwant Singh, Vol. I, 1469-1839,

first published in 1963 and 9th impression 2002 by Oxford

University Press.

4351. Suffice it to mention at this stage about the aforesaid

evidences is neither the authenticity of any of the Janamsakhi is

involved in these matters nor otherwise we have to consider in

any manner about the teachings etc. of Guru Nanak. The

reference of Guru Nanak has been made by learned counsels

appearing for Hindu parties mainly to show that he also visited

Ayodhya and after taking bath at Saryu has visited Janamsthan

also and this fact is mentioned in the books of Sikh religion

while Sri Jilani has tried to show that there is no such reference

in any of the books relating to Sikhism. We may mention that

though at some places it is found that Guru Nanak while

travelling to various places also came to Ayodhya but there is

nothing to show that he at any point of time actually visited the

disputed place and the learned counsel for the defendants in

Suit-4 and plaintiffs in other suits could not show anything to

persuade us to take a different view. In this way we find no

relevance of the above documents in these cases.

4352. Before embarking upon the question as to whether

the site in dispute is that where Lord Rama was born, we have to

first consider the question about the historicity of the matter.

The issue which relates to the faith of Hindus about the birth of

Lord Rama at Ayodhya etc. in so far as relate to the faith, the

learned counsels have already made their statements under

Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. not disputing the same and that being so,

no further enquiry on that aspect need be gone. This by itself

4819

does not end the matter for the reason that the issue with respect

to the birth of Lord Rama at the disputed place has not been

framed merely on the basis of faith of Hindus but is a direct

issue. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Muslim

parties are that so far as the faith is concerned, the things may be

said to be beyond the pail of judicial review but where a positive

issue raises as to whether a particular thing happened or not, that

is a pure question of fact and can be investigated provided the

historicity of the matter is proved. It is suggested that the

Ramayana has been held to be a great epic and therefore, being

a mythical story, the question of actual birth of lord Rama is

beyond any comprehension and hence the question of place of

birth also become redundant.

4353. Sri P.R. Ganpati Ayyier faced with the situation in

fact sought to argue that issue No.11 (Suit 4) needs recast,

inasmuch as, it ought to be whether the property in suit as per

the faith of Hindus is the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram

Chandra Ji and he submits that issue however framed ignoring

the words 'faith of Hindus' has made the said issue faulty for the

reason that something which occurred or said to have

occurred thousands.

4354. It is said that Ayodhya is an ancient city. Goswami

Tulsidas in his renowned work Sri Ramcharit Manas besides

others has also referred to the celebration of Janam Mahotsav of

Lord Rama at Ayodhya and the belief of Hindus about the

Supreme Being therein to fulfil the wishes of the worshippers or

even a person who visit Ayodhya for once and refers to the

following verses from the Chapter of "Uttarkand" (Exhibit T4,

Suit-4), Register Vol. 18, pages 59-71, Paper No. 43A1/29-35:

4820

^^rc rc vo/kiqjh eSa tkÅWaA ckypfjr fcyksfd gjlkÅWaAA

tUe egksRlo ns[kmWa tkbZA cj"k ikWap rgW jgmWa yksHkkbZAA

rc&rc eS v;ks/;kiqjh tkrk gWaw vkSj mudh ckyyhyk ns[kdj

gf"kZr gksrk gwaA ogkWa tkdj eSa jke dk tUe&egksRlo ns[krk gWwa vkSj

yqHkkdj ikap o"kZ rd ogh jgrk gwaA

fut izHkq tUe vo/k lqfu tk;mWaA fuHkZj izse gj"kh mfB /kk;mWaAA

ns[kmWa tUe egksRlo tkbZA tsgh fof/k izFke dgk eSa xkbZAA

tc eSus vius Lokeh dk vo/kiqjh esa tUe gksuk lqu ik;k] rc izse

ls Hkjdj] eS g"kZiwoZd mB nkSM+kA tkdj eSus tUe&egksRlo ns[kk] ftl

izdkj ls fd eSa igys o.kZu dj pqdk gwWaA^^

4355. In support of the submissions that the disputed site is

birthplace of Lord Rama since time immemorial, the idol of

Lord Rama is worshipped thereat since long time and also to

contradict the suggestion of the learned counsel for the Sunni

Central Wakfs Board and other Muslims parties that

Ramjanamsthan Mandir was different, i.e., towards the north of

the disputed site across the road etc., Sri M.M. Pandey, counsel

for the plaintiff (Suit-5) placed reliance on the following part of

the depositions of witnesses:

PW-1, Mohd. Hashim

^^^;g ckr eSaus lquh gS fd v;ks/;k esa T;knkrj tks efUnj gSa os

jke&tkudh ;k lhrkjke ds efUnj gSaA ftl eksgYyk esa fookfnr LFky gS

eksgYyk jkedksV ml eksgYys esa vf/kdrj cgqr izkphu efUnj gSA mlesa

dud Hkou efUnj Hkh gSA^^ ¼ist 38½

"I have heard that most of the temples in Ayodhya are the

temples of Ram-Janaki or Sitaram. The locality in which

the disputed site is situated, that is, the Ramkot locality

mostly have very old temples. Kanak Bhawan temple is one

of them." (ETC)

^^fookfnr LFky ds vykok jke tUeLFkku ds efUnj ds vykok tks e'kgwj

4821

efUnj gSa muds uke gh eSa tkurk gw¡] tks ckcjh efLtn ds bnZ&fxnZ gSA

ckcjh efLtn ds bnZ&fxnZ tUeLFkku efUnj ds vykok eSa vkSj fdlh

efUnj dk uke ugha crk ldrkA ;g Hkh ugha crk ldrk fd ckcjh

efLtn ds bnZ&fxnZ fdrus efUnj gSaA 22@23 fnlEcj] 1949 dks ftl

LFkku dh dqdhZ gqbZ] fgUnw yksx mls jke tUeHkwfe dgrs Fks vkSj eqlyeku

ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSaA xksiky flag fo'kkjn ds nkos esa Hkh fgUnw yksx

bls jke tUeHkwfe efUnj vkSj eqlyeku yksx ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSaA^

¼ist 40½

“Besides the disputed site/Ramjanmsthan temple, I know

only the names of famous temples situated in the vicinity of

the Babri mosque. Except for the Janmsthan temple in the

vicinity of the Babri mosque, I cannot tell the name of any

other temple. I cannot even tell how many temples are

there in the vicinity of the Babri mosque. The Hindus

called the place attached on 22nd - 23rd December, 1949,

Ram Janam Bhumi and the Muslims call it Babri mosque.

In the claim of Gopal Singh Visharad too Hindus call it

Ramjanmbhumi temple and Muslims call it Babri mosque."

(ETC)

^^tSls eDdk eqlyekuksa ds fy, vgfe;r j[krk gS mlh rjg v;ks/;k

Hkxoku jke dks ysdj fgUnqvksa ds fy, egRo j[krk gSA^ ¼ist 44½

“As Mecca holds importance for Muslims, similarly

Ayodhya holds importance for Hindus because of Lord

Rama." (ETC)

^^tks txg ,- ch- lh- Mh- esa fn[kkbZ xbZ gS ;g og gS ftls ge efLtn

dgrs gSa vkSj fgUnw tUeLFkku dgrs gSaA tks txg pcwrjk dh lwjr esa

fgUnw yksxksa ds dCts esa gSA^ ¼ist 113½

“The place which is marked as A. B. C. D. is the place

which we call mosque and Hindus call Janmsthan, which is

in possession of Hindus in the shape of Chabutara.”

4822

(E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dk ,d rhFkZLFky gSA ;g xyr gS fd

22 fnlEcj] 1949 ls jke tUeHkwfe ij fgUnw yksx ns'k&fons'k ls vkdj

iwtk&vpZuk djrs jgs gSaA ¼vt[kqn dgk½ flQZ ,d iqtkjh iwtk djrk

jgk gSA ;g Bhd gS fd 22 fnlEcj] 1949 ls bl Hkwfe ij tks eqdnek esa

eqrnkfo;k gS] fgUnw yksx ns'k&fons'k ls n'kZu djus ds fy, vkrs gSaA eq>s

ekywe ugha fd bl ifjlj esa rc gh ls fgUnw /keZ ds yksxksa ds /kkfeZd

vk;kstu xkg&cxkgs gksrs jgrs gSa ¼ist 120½

“It is true that Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage for

Hindus. It is incorrect that since 22nd December 1949

Hindus have continued to come from within the country

and abroad to perform Pooja-Archana at Ramjanmbhumi.

(Stated on his own) Just one priest has been performing

Pooja. It is true that from 22nd December, 1949, Hindus

come from within the country and from abroad to have

darshan on this land, which is disputed in litigation. I do

not know that religious functions of Hindus are held off

and on in this premises since then.”(E.T.C.)

PW-2, Haji Mahboob Ahmad

^^lfj;kokyh fnokj nfD[ku dh rjQ dh efLtn ds nhoky ls feyh gqbZ

FkhA ge bls efLtn dgrs gSa nwljk Qjhd efUnj dgrk gSA^ ¼ist 54½

“The iron-rod wall adjoined the southern wall of the

mosque. We call it mosque and others call it temple.”

(E.T.C.)

PW-4, Mohd. Yaseen

^^-lkou >wys dk esyk gksrk gS] dkfrZd vkSj pSr ds eghus esa Hkh fgUnqvksa

ds esys gksrs gSaA iapdkslh vkSj pkSngdkslh ifjØek,a Hkh gksrh gSaA buesa

fgUnw ;k=h yksx vkrs gSaA v;ks/;k Hkj tkrh gS] ysfdu eSa ;g ugha dg

ldrk fd og yksx gt+kjksa esa gksrs gSa ;k yk[kksa esaA os fgUnw yksx vius

[;ky ds eqrkfcd bl txg ds n'kZu Hkxoku jke ds tUe LFkku ds rkSj

ij djrs gksaxsA*^ ¼ist 70½

4823

“The Savan Jhula fair is held; fairs of Hindus are held in

the months of Kartika and Chaitra as well. Panchkosi and

Chaudahkosi circumambulations are also performed.

Hindu travelers come to attend them. Ayodhya gets

thronged but I cannot say whether they are thousands or

lakhs in number. In my view, the Hindus must have had the

darshan of this place as birthplace of Lord Rama ” (E.T.C.)

^^---eSa v;ks/;k esa jgrk gwWa] blfy, dqN fgUnqvksa ls vkSj iafMrksa ls Hkh esjh

esy&eqykdkr gksrh jgrh gSA C;kg&'kknh esa nkor&rokt+k Hkh gksrk jgrk

gSA mudk ;g vdhnk gS fd ;g Jh jke dk tUe LFkku gSA ¼vt[kqn

dgk fd mudk vdhnk muds lkFk gS½ fgUnw yksx bl txg dks ikd

vkSj ifo= le>dj bldh iwtk djrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 71½

“I reside at Ayodhya; so, I meet some Hindus and Pandits

(scholarly persons) too. Feasts-dinners are also organized

at weddings. It is their belief that it is the birthplace of

Lord Rama. (Stated on his own that there belief is their

own.) Hindus worship this place taking it to be holy and

sacred.” (E.T.C)

^^-ckcjh efLtn ftls nwljk Qjhd eafnj dgrk gS] esjs edku ls

,d&Ms<+ fdyksehVj nwj FkhA bl chp esa vkcknh Hkh gS] dqN [kqyk eSnku

Hkh gS vkSj ckx Hkh gSA chp esa gkWLihVy Hkh iM+rk Fkk] ckt+kj dksbZ ugha

FkkA^^ ¼ist 76½

“The Babri mosque, which other people call temple, is 1½

kilometer away from my house. In between there is human

inhabitation; there is some open space and there is also a

garden. In between lay a hospital too; there was no

market.” (E.T.C)

PW-5, Abdul Rahman

^^;g Bhd gS fd Jhjke Hkh /keZ ds jkLrs ij gh pys FksA ge mudks [kqnk

ugha ekurs] og nsork gS vkSj gekjs iSxEcj dk ntkZ j[krs gSaA^^ ¼ist 35½

4824

“It is true that Sri Rama also followed only the path of

religion. We do not regard him as God; he is a deity and

has the same status as that of our Prophet. ” (E.T.C)

PW-6, Mohd. Yunus Siddiqui

^^eqrnkfo;k tk;nkn ds bnZfxnZ fgUnqvksa ds eafnj gSA bl tk;nkn ls

guqeku x<+h rd jkLrs esa fgUnqvksa ds cM+s&cM+s eafnj gS tSls dud Hkou]

vkSj jketUe LFkku] guqeku x<+hA eksgYyk jkedksV esa jke tUeHkwfe eafnj

Hkh gSA^^ ¼ist 20½

“There are Hindu temples in the vicinity of the disputed

property. On the way from this property to Hanumangarhi

there are large Hindu temples such as Kanak Bhawan, Ram

Janam Sthan and Hanumangarhi. Ram Janam Bhumi

temple is also situated in Ramkot locality." (ETC)

PW-7, Hasmat Ulla Ansari

^^v;ks/;k esa csrknkn efUnj gSaA eSa eksgYyk jkedksV dk dksbZ e'kgwj

efUnj ugha crk ldrk] vius eksgYys dk crk ldrk gw¡A jkedksV

eksgYyk dksbZ u;k uke gksxk] eSa mls ugha tkurkA guqekux<+h eSa dHkh

x;k ugha] ysfdu m/kj dh lM+d ls t:j xqtjk gw¡A eSa ugha crk ikÅ¡xk

fd guqekux<+h dkSu ls eksgYys esa gSA^^ ¼ist 21½

“There are countless temples at Ayodhya. I cannot name

any famous temple of Ramkot locality; I can name my

locality. Ramkot locality must be a new name, which I do

not know. I have never been to Hanumangarhi but I have

certainly passed through the road running in that direction.

I am not in a position to tell in which locality

Hanumangarhi is situated.”(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k esa ef.k ioZr dk uke eSaus lquk gSA og fookfnr tk;nkn ds

iwjc esa gSA eSa ogk¡ ij x;k gqvk gw¡A ysfdu eSa ml ioZr ds Åij ugha

p<+kA ;g Bhd gS fd mlds Åij efUnj gSA^^ ¼ist 22½

“I have heard the name of Mani Parvat at Ayodhya. It

4825

stands east of the disputed structure. I have gone there but

I did not climb that mountain. It is true that there is a

temple above it. (ETC)

^^;g Bhd gS fd lkou ds eghus esa ef.k ioZr ij Jhjke ds >wys iM+rs

gSaA^^ ¼ist 22½

“It is true that Mani Parvat witnesses swings named after

Sri Ram in the month of Savan” (E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa dq.M cgqr gSaA ysfdu eSa ;g ugha crk ikšxk fd T;knkrj

dq.M fgUnw nsorkvksa ds uke ij gksA eSaus nkrwu dq.M dk uke lquk gS]

ysfdu ns[kk dHkh ughaA^^ ¼ist 23½

“There are many pits in Ayodhya but I am not in position to

tell whether most of them are named after Hindu deities. I

have heard the name of Datun Kund but have never seen

it.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus v;ks/;k ds flyflys esa Jhjke dk uke lquk gS] jktk n'kjFk dk

uke lquk gS] ogk¡ ij mudk jktHkou Hkh gSA^^ ¼ist 23½

“I have heard the name of Sri Rama in connection with

Ayodhya; I have heard the name of king Dashrath; his

royal palace is also located there.” (E.T.C)

^^xksdqy Hkou ls FkksM+k lk dksuk ysrk gqvk mlh Hkou esa of'k"B dq.M gSA

guqekux<+h vkSj dud Hkou dk v;ks/;k esa gksuk eSaus lquk gSA^^ ¼ist 69½

“Taking a slight curve from Gokul Bhawan, Vashishtha

Kund is located in that very building. I have heard of

Hanumangarhi and Kanak Bhawan being located in

Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

PW-8, Abdul Ajij

^^;g Bhd gS fd lkou ds eghus esa ef.k ioZr ij Hkxoku jke dk >wyu

esyk gksrk gSA^^ ¼ist 23½

“It is true that Jhulan fair of Lord Ram is organized at

Mani Parvat in the month of Savan.” (E.T.C)

4826

^^v;ks/;k esa fgUnqvksa ds dkQh eafnj gSA eSaus ns[ks gS mudh cukoV

vkSj :i&js[kk ls eSa okfdQ gw¡A ;g Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dh ,d

rhFkZLFkyh gSA cgqr nwj&nwj ls fgUnw yksx ogka vkrs gSA v;ks/;k ds mRrj

esa lj;w unh gSaA^^ ¼ist 32&33½

“There are a fairly good number of Hindu temples in

Ayodhya. I have seen them; I am acquainted with their

build and shape. It is true that Ayodhya is a place of

pilgrimage for Hindus. Hindus come there from very far-off

places. The Saryu river flows in the north of Ayodhya.”

(E.T.C)

^^eq>s bl ckr dk [;ky ugha fd lnj QkVd ls vUnj nkf[ky gksus ij

chp esa [kM+s gksdj vxj ns[kk tk, rks og nf{k.k okyk pcwrjk fdrus

Qklys ij gksxkA bl pcwrjs ds nf{k.k vkSj if'pe esa D;k gS eSa ugha crk

ldrk D;ksafd eSa m/kj dHkh ugha x;kA eSa bl pcwrjs dh yEckbZ Hkh ugha

crk ldrk bl pcwrjs dh tehu ds Q'kZ ls Å¡pkbZ T;knk ugha Fkh flQZ

,d ;k Ms<+ QqV jgh gksxhA^^ ¼ist 35½

“I do not remember at what distance would be the southern

Chabutara if seen while standing in the middle on entering

through the Sadar gate. I cannot tell what is there in the

south and west of this Chabutara because I have never

been to that side. I also cannot tell the length of this

Chabutara. This Chabutara was not at much height from

the surface of the ground; it would have been only 1 or 1½

feet.” (E.T.C)

^^geus lquk gS fd v;ks/;k esa pS= ds eghus esa jke uoeh dk esyk gksrk gS

ogka dHkh ugha x;s blfy, ugha dg ldrs fd mlesa yk[kksa yksx 'kjhd

gksrs gksA lkou eas >wys dk esyk Hkh gksrk gS ekywe ugha fd mlesa yk[kksa

fgUnw rhFkZ ;k=h 'kkfey gksrs gks D;ksafd eSaus ml esys esa dHkh f'kjdr

ugha dhA bu esyksa ds oDr geus QStkckn esa dHkh HkhM+ ugha ns[kh

cgjgky lM+d ij yksx pyrs jgrs gSA^^ ¼ist 71½

“I have heard that Ramnavami fair is organized at

4827

Ayodhya in month of the Chaitra. I have never gone there;

so, I cannot say whether lakhs of people take part in it.

Jhula Mela (fair mark by swings) is also organized in

Savan. I do not know whether lakhs of Hindu pilgrims take

part in it because I never attended it. On the occasion of

these fairs, I never saw crowd in Faizabad. However,

people are seen moving on the road.” (E.T.C)

^^bl eqdnesa esa ruktk eafnj efLtn dk gSA fgUnw yksx bls Jhjke

tUeHkwfe eafnj ekudj iwtk vpZuk djrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 72½

“Dispute in this case is over temple or mosque. Hindus

worship it taking it to be Shri Ramjanmbhumi temple.

(E.T.C)”

PW-9, Saiyed Ekhalaq

^^VªkUliksVZ dk O;kikj eSaus 1970&71 ds vklikl 'kq: fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist

3½

“I started transport business in or around 1970-71.”

(E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dk rhFkZLFky djds e'kgwj gSA v;ks/;k

esa gtkjksa efUnj rks t:j gSaA^^ ¼ist 3½

“It is true that Ayodhya is famous as a pilgrimage site for

Hindus. There are certainly thousands of temples in

Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

^^bl efUnj vkSj efLtn ;kfu jke tUeHkwfe ckcjh efLtn ds ftrus Hkh

eqdnesa py jgs gSa] gks ldrk gS mu lc esa esjs gyQukes yxs gksaA ;g

Bhd gS fd rkyk [kqyus ds ckn bl eqdnes dh iSjoh esa eSa gkbZdksVZ Hkh

vkrk jgk gw¡A^^ ¼ist 16½

“My affidavits may have been filed in all pending cases

relating to this temple or mosque, i.e. Ramjanmbhumi-

Babri mosque. It is true that since the time of the unlocking

incident I have been coming to High Court too in order to

4828

pursue this case.” (E.T.C)

^^fgUnw gtjkr dk ;g ;dhnk gS fd Hkxoku Jhjke bZ'oj ds vorkj Fks

vkSj os v;ks/;k esa izdV gq, ysfdu ;g mudk ;dhnk gS esjk ughaA eSa

lqurk gw¡ fd fgUnw gtjkr ;g ;dhnk j[krs gSa fd v;ks/;k mudk

tUeLFkku gSA v;ks/;k esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe dks oks mudk tUeLFkku ekurs

gSaA^^ ¼ist 42½

“It is the belief of Hindu community that Lord Shri Rama

was an incarnation of God and he appeared in Ayodhya.

However, it is their belief, not mine. I hear that Hindus

believe that Ayodhya is his birthplace. They regard Shri

Ramjanmbhumi in Ayodhya as his birthplace.” (E.T.C)

^^eq>s T;knk bYe ugha gS] gks ldrk gS fd lkdkj dh iwtk djus okys

fgUnw yksx Qwy&iRrh] o{k vkSj i'kq&i{kh dh iwtk djrs gksaA gks ldrk

gS os ufn;ksa] >juksa dh Hkh iwtk djrs gksaA leqnz dh Hkh iwtk djrs gksa]

lw;Z] pUnzek] u{k=] ok;q] ty] vfXu] ik"kk.k bu lc phtksa dh iwtk djrs

gksaA^^ ¼ist 53½

“I do not have much idea about whether-it may be that-

Hindus worshiping the embodied form of God worshiped

flowers, leaves, trees, animals and birds. May be that they

worship rivers and lakes; seas; and all these things like

the sun, the moon, air, water, fire and stone.” (E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd eqrnkfo;k ckcjh efLtn ds vxy&cxy fgUnqvksa ds

efUnj gSaA buesa ls dqN efUnjksa dks rks eSa tkurk gw¡] tks esjh gks'k ds

igys ls pys vk jgs gSaA^^ ¼ist 99½

“It is true that there are Hindu temples in vicinity of the

disputed Babri mosque. I do know some of these temples,

which have been in existence since before the time of my

attaining understanding.” (E.T.C)

^^vxj vxy&cxy ls eqjkn lVs gq, gksus ls gks rks t:j ogk¡ ij

eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 100½

“If vicinity is taken to mean the adjoining area, there is

4829

certainly no Muslim inhabitation there.” (E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd bl lM+d ds ;kuh jkLrs ds nksuksa rjQ fgUnqvksa ds

iqjkus efUnj gSa tks fd y[kuÅ] xksj[kiqj jksM rd gSaA bl chp esa lM+d

ls feyh gqbZ eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 100½

“It is true that there are old temples of Hindus on both

sides of this road, i.e. route, which stretches upto

Lucknow-Gorakhpur road. There is no Muslim inhabitation

along the road in between.” (E.T.C)

PW-10, Mohd. Idris

^^eSa fookfnr tk;nkn ij dHkh Hkh ugha x;kA eSaus ,slk fdlh rkjh[k esa

ugha i<+k fd v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dk rhFkZ LFkku ekuk tkrk gks ;k ogkWa

Hkxoku~ jke ds tUe gksus dh dksbZ /kkj.kk gksA v;ks/;k ,d et+gch 'kgj

gS] og fgUnqvksa dk Hkh et+gch 'kgj gS vkSj eqlyekuksa dk Hkh et+gch

'kgj gSA v;ks/;k ,d unh ds fdukjs clk gqvk gSA pkgs mldk uke

lj;w dfg, pkgs ?kk?kjkA ;g Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k esa eafnjksa dh Hkjekj

gSA-^^ ¼ist 33½-

"I never went to the disputed site. In any I did not read in

any history that Ayodhya is regarded as a place of

pilgrimage of Hindus or that there is any perception as to

birth of Lord Rama there. Ayodhya is a religious town. It is

a religious town for Hindus and so is it for Muslims.

Ayodhya is established on the bank of river. It may be

called either Saryu or Ghaghra. It is true that Ayodhya is

flooded with temples.”(E.T.C)

PW-11, Mohd. Burhanuddin

^^eSaus fdlh nsoh nsork ds uke ugha lqusA mudh iwjh rQlhy ds lkFk

ugha lqus] jke dk uke lquk gSA^^ ¼ist 19½

“I did not hear the name of any male or female diety. I did

not hear of them with full details; I have heard the name

of Rama.” (E.T.C)

4830

^^-tgkWa rd eq>s ;kn gS ckcj ;gkWa 932 fgtjh esa ;gkWa vk;k Fkk vkSj

'kk;n mldk 937 fgtjh esa bardky gqvk FkkA tgkWa rd eSaus i<+k gS

ckcj dk v;ks/;k vkuk lkfcr ugha gksrkA^^ ¼ist 65½

“As far as remember, Babar came here in 932 hijri and

died perhaps in 937 hijri. As far as I have read, Babar's

arrival at Ayodhya is not proved. ” (E.T.C)

^^rqt+dsckcjh esa v;ks/;k esa dgs x;s tUeLFkku dk ftØ i<+k gSA^^ ¼ist

65½

“I have gone through the mention of Janmsthan stated to

be in Ayodhya, in Tuzuk-e-Babri.” (E.T.C)

PW-12, Ram Shankar Upadhyay

^^tUeHkwfe ee iqjh lqgkofu] mRrj fnf'k rq fg ljtw ikofu^^ ;g pkSikbZ

rqylhnkl us Hkxoku jke ds eq[k ls dgyokbZ gS] ;kfu fd Lo;a Hkxoku

us viuh tUeHkwfe v;ks/;k iqjh dks vius lcls fiz; dgk gSA^^ ¼ist 5½

“Tulsidas has got this quatrain-Janmbhumi Mam Puri

Suhawani, Uttar Dishi Tu Hi Sarju Pawani- spoken from

the mouth of Lord Rama, that is to say, God himself has

stated Ayodhyapuri to be most favorite one. ” (E.T.C)

^^rqylhnkl th us jkepfjr ekul dks jpuk lEor 1631 esa dh FkhA

rqylhnkl th dh ekul vkSj okYehdh dh jkek;.k] nksuksa dk eq[; fo"k;

Hkxoku jke dk gh gSA Hkxoku jke dks ge Hkxoku fo".kq dk lk{kkr

vorkj ekurs gSA^^ ¼ist 6½

“Tulsidas Ji composed the Ramcharit Manas in Samvat

1631. The main subject of both Tulsidas's Manas and

Valmiki's Ramayana is Lord Ram himself. We regard Lord

Rama as a manifest incarnation of Lord Vishnu.” (E.T.C)

^^[kqn dgk fd v;ks/;k Hkxoku dh uxjh gS] mls dksbZ ugha thr ldrk

jkepfjr ekul ;k okYehdh jkek;.k ds vykok eSaus v;ks/;k dk izkphu

bfrgkl ugha i<+kA^^ ¼ist 7½

“(Stated on his own) Ayodhya is a town of God. Nobody

can conquer it. I did not read ancient history of Ayodhya

4831

except the Ramcharit Manas or the Valmiki Ramayana.”

(E.T.C)

^^eSa dud Hkou v;ks/;k ,d&vk/k ckj x;k gw¡A ogk¡ eSaus n'kZu rks fd;s

gSa] ij og fdl nsork dk efUnj gS] bruk /;ku ughaA^^ ¼ist 11½

“I have been to Kanak Bhawan at Ayodhya once or so. I

have certainly had darshan there but I do not remember

which deity that is the temple of.” (E.T.C)

^^vxj fdlh efUnj esa cky Lo:i gks rks Hkxoku jke yyk dh izfrek

gksxhA ,slk dksbZ izfrcU/k ugha gS fd tgk¡ cky Lo:i jke yyk dh ewfrZ

LFkkfir gks ogk¡ ij lhrk th dh ewfrZ j[kh ugha tk ldrh gSaA^^¼ist 11½

“If the child form of a deity exists in a temple, the idol

would be that of Lord Ram Lala. There is no such

restriction that where the idol of Ram Lala in child form is

installed, the idol of Sita Ji cannot be placed there.”

(E.T.C)

^^Hkxoku jke yyk dh ewfrZ pkgs ik"kk.k dh gks pkgs v"V/kkrw dh gks]

LFkkfir gksus ds ckn og vapy gh dgyk;sxhA og ewfrZ lkfyax jke

Hkxoku dgykrh gSaA lkfyx jke Hkxoku dh ewfrZ u rks LFkkfir gksrh gS

vkSj u gh mldk foltZu gksrk gS] u gh mldk izk.k&izfr"Bk gksrh gS]

og Lo;aHkw gSaA^^ ¼ist 11½

“The idol of Lord Ram Lala, whether of stone or

Ashtdhatu, after being installed will only be called

immovable. That idol is called Lord Salig Ram. The idol of

Lord Salig Ram is neither installed nor immersed nor

vivified; it is self-created.” (E.T.C)

^^fookfnr LFky ds mRrj dh rjQ ,d jke tUe LFkku uked txg gSA

og ,d efUnj dh 'kDy esa gSA eSa mlds Hkhrj dHkh ugha x;kA fookfnr

LFky vkSj ml LFkku ds chp esa rdjhcu 60&70 dne dk Qklyk

gksxkA^^ ¼ist 51½

“To the north of the disputed site there is a place called

4832

Ramjanmsthan. That is in the shape of a temple. I never

entered it. The distance between the disputed site and that

place would be nearly 60-70 paces.” (E.T.C)

PW-13, Suresh Chandra Mishra

^^eSa lkbafVfQd VSEijkesaV dk vkneh gw¡] eSa fdlh ewfrZ dh iwtk ugha

djrkA

iz'u& vki vkfLrd gSa ;k ukfLrd \

mRrj& eSa bu nksuksa /kkjkvksa dks ugha ekurkA

eSa osnksa dks bfrgkl ds Jksr ds :i esa gh ekurk gw¡A ojuk mlesa dksbZ

vkLFkk tSlh pht ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 3½

“I am a man of scientific temperament; I do not worship

any idol.

Question:- Are you a theist or atheist?

Answer:- I do not believe in any of these two thoughts.

I consider Vedas only to be the source of history. Except

that I do not have any thing like faith in them.” (E.T.C)

^^j?kqoa'k esa jke ds ckjs esa ftØ gSA eSaus vkfn dfo okYehd dk jke ¼uke½

Hkh lquk gSA jkek;.k mudh izfl) jpuk gSA ,slk ugha gS fd okYehfd us

jkek;.k vius f'k";ksa dks lqukbZ gks vkSj mUgksaus mls tckuh ;kn djds

ckn esa fy[kk gksA^^ ¼ist 14½

“There is mention of Rama in Raghuvansh. I have heard of

the earliest poet Valmiki by the name of Ram as well. It is

not that Valmiki recited the Ramayana to his disciples, who

committed it to their memory and later put it in writing.”

(E.T.C)

^^vuqJqfr vkSj ioZrh xzUFkksa ds fglkc ls okYehfd us bl iqLrd dh jpuk

relk unh ij 'kq: dh FkhA relk unh dks dqN yksx rksel ls lehdr

djrs gSaA ;g v;ks/;k ls dqN Qklys ij nf{k.k esa gSA okYehfd th dk

le; fuf'pr ugha gS ysfdu mudh jkek;.k ls yxrk gS fd ftl oDr

mldh jpuk dh xbZ rc v;ks/;k esa euq";ksa dh vkcknh FkhA^^ ¼ist 14½

“As per Anushruties and Parvati treatises, Valmiki has

4833

started composing this book at the river Tamsa. Some

people associate the river Tamsa with Tomas. It is in the

south at some distance from Ayodhya. The period of

Valmiki is not definite but it appears from his Ramayana

that there was human inhabitation in Ayodhya at the time it

was composed.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus jkek;.k dks i<+k gSA bl iqLrd esa dgha&dgha ml le; ds yksxksa

dh os'kHkw"kk] jgu&lgu] lkekftd O;ogkj o rht&R;ksgkjksa dk ftØ Hkh

vkrk gSA jkek;.k esa eq[; pfj= jke dk gS tks v;ks/;k dk.M ls

,sfrgkfld :i ls 'kq: gksrk gS vkSj mRrj dk.M rd pyrk gSA^^ ¼ist

14½

“I have read the Ramayana. This book also mentions at

certain places about the dress, way of living, social

behaviour and festivals of people of that time. The main

character of Ramayana is that of Rama which,historically,

begins from Ayodhya Kand (Ayodhya canto) and extends up

to Uttar Kand (Uttar canto).” (E.T.C)

^^ftl cLrh] uxj] xkao esa fdlh dk tUe gksrk gS og mldh tUeHkwfe

cksyh tkrh gS] og mldk tUeLFkku gksrk gSA^^ ¼ist 17½

“A hamlet, town or village in which one is born is called

his birthplace; that is his birthplace.” (E.T.C)

^^okYehfd jkek;.k esa Jhjke ds eq[k ls muds tUeLFkku dk ftØ djk;k

x;k gS] tks tUeHkwfe ds uke ls gS] ysfdu ;g ckn esa dh xbZ c<+ksRrjh

gks ldrk gSA esjh rht&R;ksgkjksa esa vkLFkk gS] muesa esjh Hkkxhnkjh Hkh gS

vkSj mudks eSa eukrk Hkh gw¡A tc eSa v;ks/;k x;k rks eSaus bls ,d

bfrgkldkj ds :i esa ns[kkA^^ ¼ist 17½

“The Valmiki Ramayana sees the mention of Janmsthan

(birthplace) coming from the mouth of Sri Rama, which

Janmsthan is known as Janmbhumi but it may be a

subsequent addition. I have faith in festivals; I also take

4834

part in them I also believe in them. When I visited Ayodhya,

I saw it as a hostorian.” (E.T.C)

^^esjs ekrk&firkth v;ks/;k efUnj esa n'kZu ds fy, x, Fks ¼fQj dgk½ os

jke efUnj ds n'kZu ds fy, Hkh x, FksA ;g Bhd gS fd viuh J)k ds

vuqlkj mUgksaus ogk¡ ij fe"BkUu vkSj iq"i p<+k, vkSj n'kZu Hkh fd;kA

eq>s fookfnr LFky ds tkuus ds ckjs esa ftKklk ml oDr Hkh FkhA esjh

ftKklk 'kq: ls gh jgh gSA yxHkx 1960 ls gh eq>s bldks tkuus dh

ftKklk iSnk gks xbZ FkhA eSaus ml le; Jhjke dh dFkk i<+h FkhA^^ ¼ist

17&18½

“My parents had gone to have darshan at the Ayodhya

temple. (Further stated) They had gone to also have

darshan of the Rama temple. It is true that they had as per

their faith offered sweets and flowers and had got darshan

thereat. Even at that time I had curiosity to know about the

disputed site. I have been curious right since the beginning.

Curiosity to know about it developed in me since around

1960 itself. I had read the story of Shri Rama at that time.”

(E.T.C)

^^eSaus ih- dkusZxh }kjk fy[kk bfrgkl i<+k gSA eq>s bl fdrkc ds fy[kus

dh rkjh[k ;kn ughaA os QStkckn fMohtu ds dfe'uj FksA eq>s ekywe

ugha fd bl fdrkc dk banzkt v;ks/;k ds izFke cankscLr esa fd;k x;k

Fkk ;k ughaA ;g Bhd gS fd bl iqLrd dk iwjk uke , fgLVkfjdy

Ldsp vkWQ rglhy QStkckn] ftyk QStkckn bUDywfMax ijxuk gosyh

vo/k ,.M if'pe jkM fon vksYM dSfiVy v;ks/;k ,.M QStkckn ckbZ

ih- dkusZxh gSA ml iqLrd esa mu efUnj&efLtn vkSj xq:}kjksa dk banzkt

fd;k x;k gS tks ml le; rd ekStwn FksA^^ ¼ist 22½

“I have read history written by P. Carnegie. I do not

remember the date on which this book was written. He was

the Commissioner of the Faizabad division. I do not

remember whether this book was recorded in the First

Settlement of Ayodhya or not. It is true that the full name of

4835

this book is: 'A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Faizabad

including Pargana Haveli Awadh and Pashchim Rod with

Old Capital Ayodhya, Faizabad by P. Carnegie. This book

records temples, mosques and Gurudwaras which were

present by that time.” (E.T.C)

^^eq>s ewfrZ;ksa rd tkus ds fy, jksdk x;k Fkk blfy, eSa vius ekrk&firk

ds lkFk vUnj ugha x;kA^^ ¼ist 33½

"I had been forbidden to go up to the idols, that is why, I

could not go inside along with my parents." (E.T.C)

^^egkiqjk.kksa esa LdU/k iqjk.k Hkh ,d iqjk.k gSA LdU/k iqjk.k ,d cM+h

iqLrd gS tks dbZ Hkkxksa esa gSA LdU/k iqjk.k esa v;ks/;k egkRE; ,d [k.M

dk Hkkx gSA izkphu Hkkjrh; bfrgkl esa rhFkksZa vkSj mirhFkksZa dk ftØ

vk;k gSA^^ ¼ist 35½

"Out of the Maha-puranas, Skandha-purana is also a

Purana. Skandha-purana is a voluminous book which has

many parts. In Skandha-purana, Ayodhya Mahatmya is a

portion of one of its parts. 'Teerthas'(sites of pilgrimage)

and 'Up-Teerthas' (minor sites of pilgrimage) have found

mention in ancient Indian history.” (E.T.C)

^^fgUnw yksx ml xqIrkj?kkV dks Hkh rhFkZ ekurs gSa tgk¡ dFkkvksa ds vuqlkj

Jhjke xqIr gq, crk, tkrs gSaA xzUFkksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; vkrk gS fd

Jhjke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gqvkA^^ ¼ist 38½

“Hindus regard the Guptarghat, too, as a place of

pilgrimage where, as per stories, Sri Rama is stated to

have disappeared. From the treatises it is believed that Shri

Rama was born at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

^^eSa ikyh Hkk"kk Hkh tkurk gw¡ ysfdu efy;kyh ugha tkurkA^^ ¼ist 41½

"I also know Pali language but don't know Malyali." (ETC)

^^LdU/k iqjk.k eSaus laLd`r Hkk"kk esa i<+k gSA lwV ua0&5 dk isisj

ua0&107lh&1@75 eSaus ns[k fy;k gSA^^ ¼ist 41½

4836

“ I have read the Skandha-purana in Sanskrit. I have gone

through paper no. 107C-1/75 of the suit no.5." (ETC)

^^lj;w unh ds ty esa Luku djds ikfi;ksa esa eksg mRiUu djus okys rFkk

cqf)eku cukus okys fi.Mkjd dh iwtk djuh pkfg,A bl ¼iwT;½ nsork

dh ;k=k uojkf= ds fnuksa esa djuh pkfg,A mldh fn'kk ds if'pe fn'kk

esa fo?us'k dh fuf'pr gh iwtk djuh pkfg,A^^ ¼ist 41½

“After taking a dip in the river Saryu one should worship

Pindarak, who arouses the sense of attachment in sinners

and makes one wise. One should make a trip to this

(venerated) deity during the days of Navratri. One should

certainly worship Vighnesh located in its western

direction.” (E.T.C)

^^fi.Mkjd 'kCn dk vFkZ gS iwT;uh; nsorkA ftldk mYys[k v;ks/;k

egkRE; esa vk;k gSA^^ ¼ist 42½

“The word Pindarak means 'revered deity', who has found

mention in Ayodhya Mahatmya.” (E.T.C)

^^ftl fo?us'k ds n'kZu djus ls yksxksa dks japek= Hk; ugha gksrkA bl

dkj.k ls lHkh izdkj dh bPNkvksa dks Qy nsus okys fo?us'oj dh iwtk

djuh pkfg,A ml LFkku ds mRrj iwoZ fn'kk esa jke tUe LFkku iM+rk

gSA bl tUeLFkku dks eks{k bR;kfn ds Qy dks nsus okyk dgk x;k gSA

fo?us'oj ds iwoZ Hkkx esa rFkk of'k"B ds mRrj fo?us'oj ds iwoZ Hkkx esa

tUeLFkku gSA ftldks ns[kus ls euq"; dks xHkZ esa ¼jgus½ ls] fcuk nku

fn,] riL;k fd,] fcuk rhFkZ x,] fcuk fdlh ;K ¼gkse½ fd, fot;h gks

tkrk gSA ¼;k eqDr gks tkrk gS½A^^ ¼ist 42½

“One should worship Vighneshwar, after having whose

darshan people do not have even an iota of fear and who

by means of this fructifies all types of desires.

Ramjanmsthan lies in north-west of that place. This place

is called the provider of liberation etc. In the eastern part

of Vighneshwar located in the north of Vashishtha lies

4837

Janmsthan, by having sight of which one conquers the

stage of being in womb (or one is liberated) without

making any gifts, without practising austerities, without

going on pilgrimage and without making any sacrifices.”

(E.T.C)

^^eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk gw¡ fd v;ks/;k ,d /kkfeZd uxjh Hkh gSA bu

iqLrdksa vkSj iqjk.kksa esa dgha ,slk vk;k Hkh gS vkSj dgha&dgha ugha Hkh

vk;k fd Hkxoku fo".kq us jke ds :i esa v;ks/;k esa vorkj fy;kA ;g

Bhd gS fd dqN yksx ekurs gSa vkSj lfn;ksa ls Jhjke dh iwtk Hkxoku ds

:i esa djrs vk, gSa ysfdu ,sls yksx oS".ko lEiznk; ;k jkeHkDr gSaA ;g

Hkh Bhd gS fd ;s yksx v;ks/;k esa rhFkZ ;k=k ds fy, fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij

tkrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 176½

“I have come to a conclusion that Ayodhya is a religious

town as well. In these books and the Puranas, it is

somewhere mentioned and somewhere not mentioned that

Lord Vishnu incarnated himself as Rama in Ayodhya. It is

true that some people believe in him and have been

worshiping Sri Rama as God for centuries but such people

are followers of the Vaishnavite sect or Rama-worshipers.

It is also true that these people visit different places in

Ayodhya as part of their pilgrimage.” (E.T.C)

^^reke ekU;rkvksa esa ls ;g ,d ekU;rk gks ldrh gS dqN yksxksa dh fd

v;ks/;k esa Hkxoku jke us tUe fy;k Fkk blfy, ;g rhFkZLFkku gSA

iz'u& tks yksx Hkxoku Jhjke dh vkjk/kuk djrs gSa os yksx v;ks/;k dks

mudh tUeLFkyh ekurs gSa \

mRrj& ;g Bhd gSA^^ ¼ist 177½

“Of many beliefs it may be a belief of some people that

Lord Rama took birth at Ayodhya and as such it is a place

of pilgrimage.

Question:- Do Rama-worshiping people consider Ayodhya

4838

to be his bithplace?

Answer:- It is true.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus jke tUeHkwfe ds ckjs esa tks fu.kZ; fy;k gS mldk vk/kkj esjk LdUn

iqjk.k dk v/;;u eq[; :i ls vkSj rhFkZ lEcU/kh reke fyVjspj tks

17oha 'krkCnh rd pyrk gS vkSj esjs losZ{k.k ds vk/kkj ij gSA eSaus tks

iqLrd esa estjeSaV fn, gSa mudks psd djus dh dksf'k'k dh gSA eSaus ekSds

ij uikbZ ugha dhA ysfdu vk¡[kksa ls ns[kdj mldh lPpkbZ dk vkadyu

fd;k gSA^^ ¼ist 215½

“My inference in regard to Ram Janam Bhumi, is based

mainly on my study of Skanda Purana and is also based on

plenty of pilgrimage-related literature which extends up to

the 17th century and on my survey. I have tried to check the

measurements given in the book. I did not try to take

measurements on the site. But I have tried to verify its

veracity by observing them with the eyes." (ETC)

^^1966 ;k mlds vklikl tc eSa igyh ckj vius ekrk&firk ds lkFk

fookfnr Hkou esa vk;k vkSj ogk¡ mUgksaus LFkkfir ewfrZ dh iwtk dh rks vc

eq>s ;kn ugha fd og ewfrZ fdl nsoh ;k nsork dh Fkh ;k mUgksaus vius

dkSu ls b"Vnso dh iwtk dh FkhA ml oDr dh eq>s cgqr gh

gYdh&QqYdh ;kn gS blfy, eSa ugha dg ldrk fd mUgksaus eq[; }kj ls

vUnj tkdj fdlh ,d LFkku ;k pht dh iwtk dh gks ftls lhrk jlksbZ

;k pwYgk dgk tkrk gks ;k pwYgs dh 'kDy dh dksbZ pht dgh tkrh gksA

eq>s /;ku ugha fd ogk¡ ij pj.kfpUg Hkh gksa] ftudh esjs ekrk&firk us

iwtk dh gksA tks eq>s ;g lq>ko fn;k tk jgk gS fd esjs ekrk&firk us

ogk¡ ij pj.kfpUgksa dh ;k lhrk jlksbZ esa pwYgs dh iwtk dh Fkh] ;g ckr

eq>s ;kn ugha gS blfy, bls xyr Hkh ugha dg ldrkA esjs ekrk&firk

ml LFkku dh iwtk djus ds fy, x, Fks] ogk¡ ij fdlh ewfrZ dh iwtk

djus ugha x, FksA^^ ¼ist 238½

“In or around 1966, I first went to the disputed structure

along with my parents, and if they had worshiped the idol

installed there I now do not remember which male or

4839

female deity was represented by that idol or which favored

deity was worshiped by them. I have faint memory of that

time, as such I can not tell whether they had gone inside

and worshipped some place or thing called ‘Sita Rasoi’ or

Chulha (hearth) or something shaped like hearth. I do not

remember whether foot prints were there which my parents

worshiped. I am being led to believe my parent worship

foot prints or the hearth in Sita Rasoi there. I do not

remember anything, that's why I cannot term them

incorrect. My parents had gone to worship that place; they

had not gone to worship any idol there.” (ETC)

^^loky % vkids ekrk&firk tc ml LFkku ij iwtk ds fy, x, rks pkgs

ogk¡ ij fdlh Hkh nsoh&nsork dh ewfrZ LFkkfir jgh gks ysfdu os bl

/kkj.kk ls x, Fks fd ogk¡ ij Jhjke gSa vkSj mudh iwtk ;kuh Hkxoku

Jhjke dh iwtk djuh gS \

mRrj % aos v;ks/;k ds reke rhFkZLFkyksa ds lkFk bl LFkku dks Hkh ns[kus

x, Fks vkSj tkfgj gS fd mudh blesa vkLFkk FkhA esjs ekrk&firk ogk¡ ij

iwtk ds fy, x, FksA^^ ¼ist 240½

“Question: Do you think that when your parents went to

that place of worship having idol of any male or female

deity installed there, they had the impression that Sri Rama

existed there and they had to offer worship to him, i.e. Lord

Sri Rama?

Answer: They had gone to see this place besides many

places of pilgrimage at Ayodhya, and it is apparent that

they had faith in them. My parents had gone there to offer

prayer.” (E.T.C.)

^^tks yksx v;ks/;k esa bl rjg ls vkrs gSa] os efUnjksa esa Hkh n'kZuksa ds fy,

tkrs gSa vkSj fookfnr LFky ds n'kZu djus Hkh tkrs gSaA eSaus bu nksuksa

voljksa ij tc ogk¡ x;k Fkk] v;ks/;k esa fookfnr LFky ij gh T;knk

4840

HkhM+ ns[kh FkhA unh ds rV ij Hkh HkhM+ FkhA unh ls esjk vfHkizk; lj;w

rV ls gSA ;g Bhd gS fd tks yksx v;ks/;k esa tkrs gSa] os lj;w esa Luku

djrs gSa] efUnjksa ds n'kZu djrs gSa vkSj fookfnr LFky dk Hkh n'kZu djrs

gSaA os fookfnr LFky ij Hkh tkrs gSa vkSj vU; ,sfrgkfld LFkkuksa ij Hkh

tkrs gSaA

& 1- jkeuoeh dk esyk] 2- cjlkr ds Vkbe >wyk] 3- vWxkjd prqFkhZ] 4-

dkfrZd ds ekl esa lj;w Luku] 5- jkefookg esyk] 6- ukxiapeh

vkfn&vkfn dgs tk ldrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 277½

“People who come to Ayodhya in this manner, come

here to have Darshan at temples as well and they also go

for Darshan of the disputed site. On both of the occasions

when I visited there, I had seen a sizable crowd only at the

disputed site in Ayodhya. There was a crowd on the bank of

the river too. By the river I mean the bank of Saryu. It is

true that people who visit Ayodhya, take a dip in Saryu,

have Darshan of temples and also have Darshan of the

disputed site. They visit the disputed site and also go to

other historical places.

They may be called: (1) Ramnavami Fair, (2) Rainy-

time Swing (3) Angarak Chaturthi (4) Saryu bath in the

month of Kartik (5) Ram Vivah Fair (6) Nagpanchami etc.”

^^lkekU; R;ksgkjksa ij pkj&ikap gtkj yksx bdV~Bk gks tkrs gSa tcfd

eq[; R;ksgkjksa ij 20&25 gtkj yksx ogk¡ bdV~Bk gks tkrs gSaA eSa bl

ckr dks vfr';ksfDr ekurk gw¡ fd jkeuoeh] lkou >wyk vkfn ioksZa ij

ogk¡ yk[kksa dh la[;k esa yksx ,df=r gksrs gksaA^^ ¼ist 278½

“4-5 thousand people assemble there on occasions of

ordinary festivals, whereas 20-25 thousand people

converge there on occasions of main festivals. I consider it

to be an exaggeration that lacs of people assemble there on

the occasions of Ramnavami, Savan Joola, etc.

4841

^^yksdy bUDok;jht ds flyflys esa eSa fookfnr LFky ij x;kA eSa

_.kekspu ?kkV x;k] of'k"B dq.M crk, tkus okys LVªDpj ij x;kA

y{e.k ?kkV] ikiekspu ?kkV] pØVksyk txgksa ij x;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 278½

“ I had gone to the disputed site in connection with local

inquiries. I went to Rinmochan Ghat and also visited the

structure said to be Vashistha Kund. I visited the places

called Lakshman Ghat, Papmochan Ghat, Chakratola etc.

PW-15, Sushil Srivastava

^^fookfnr LFky guqekux<+h efUnj ls if'pe rjQ fLFkr gSA guqekux<+h

dud Hkou o fookfnr LFky dk ysfcy ,d ugha FkkA blesa lcls Å¡pk

LFkku fookfnr LFky Fkk fQj guqekux<+h vkSj mlds ckn dud HkouA

fookfnr LFky o guqekux<+h ,d iBkj ij gS vFkkZr Vhys ij gSaA

fookfnr LFky esa eSa iwjc okys njokts ls Hkhrj x;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 11½

“The disputed site is situated towards western side of

Hanuman Garhi. The level of Hanuman Garhi, Kanak

Bhawan and disputed site was not same. The highest place

amongst these was disputed site, then Hanuman Garhi and

thereafter, Kanak Bhawan.The disputed site and

Hanumangarhi are situate on a plateau, that is,a mound. I

entered the disputed site through the eastern door." (ETC)

^^ml fjiksVZ esa ih- dkusZxh us fy[kk gS fd efLtn ckcj us cuokbZ

Fkh] ;g efLtn 1528&29 esa cuokbZ FkhA ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ;g

efLtn tgk¡ cuokbZ xbZ gS ogk¡ ij igys jke tUe dk efUnj jgk gksxkA

;g ih- dkusZxh dk uksV 1867 esa izdkf'kr gqvk FkkA blds vykok

ogk¡ eSaus vkSj dksbZ fjdkMZ ugha ns[kkA^^ ¼ist 14½

"In that report, P. Carnegie has written that the mosque

was got constructed by Babar in 1528-29. It is also written

that at the place, where this mosque has been got

constructed, there might have been Ram Janam temple

earlier. This note of P. Carnegie was published in 1867.

4842

Except this, I have not seen any other record there.”

^^ijUrq 1850 ds ckn ;g ckr fczfV'k fjdkMZ ls lkQ gqbZ fd igys

;gk¡ efUnj Fkk vkSj mls rksM+dj efLtn cukbZ xbZA ,slk dksbZ vk/kkj

eq>s ugha feyk ftl ij eSa ;g dg ldwa fd fczfV'k yksxksa us 1850 ds

ckn tks fy[kk gS fd ;gk¡ efUnj rksM+dj efLtn cukbZ xbZ gks] og xyr

gksA 1858 ds ckn fczfV'k :y Hkkjr esa ykxw gqvk Fkk vFkkZr Mk;jsDV

ykxw gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 16½

"But after 1850, it became clear from the British record

that earlier here was a temple destroying which mosque

was constructed. I have not found any basis enabling me to

say that post-1850 version of Britishers that mosque was

constructed here after demolishing the temple, is wrong. In

India, the British rule came into force, that is, it was

directly brought into force after 1858" (ETC)

^^tUeLFkku dk esjs fglkc ls eryc ml LFkku ls gS] tgk¡ ij ek¡ us

cPps dks tUe fn;k gksA v;ks/;k egkRE; esa jke ds tUe dh VksiksxzkQh

dk ftØ gSA^^ ¼ist 54½

“ By the word ' Janam sthan I mean a place where mother

has given birth to a child. Topography of Rama's birth

finds mention in Ayodhya Mahatmya.” (ETC)

^^gsal csdj us viuh iqLrd esa ;g fy[kk gS fd fookfnr efLtn dks

ckcj us cuok;k Fkk] blds iwoZ 'kk;n efUnj jgk gksA^^ ¼ist 70½

“Hans Baker has written in his book that the disputed

mosque was built by Babar, and prior thereto, it might have

been a temple.” (ETC)

^^iz'u & D;k vki ;g crk,axs fd ekfVZu dk bl fo"k; ij D;k

fu"d"kZ Fkk \

mRrj& ekmaV eksejh ekfVZu ;g fy[krs gSa fd mudks ;g crk;k x;k fd

ftl LFkku ij fookfnr <kapk gS ogk¡ ij fdlh le; ij foØekfnR; }

kjk fufeZr ,d jke efUnj FkkA^^ ¼ist 96½

“Question: Would you tell what was the finding of Martin

4843

on this subject?

Answer: Mount Gomeri Martin writes that he was told that

there had once been a Rama temple built by Vikramaditya

at the place where the disputed structure stands.

^^bl okn dh fo"k;oLrq ;kuh fookfnr <kapk dks fgUnw yksx Hkxoku jke

dk tUeLFky ekurs gSa rFkk eqlyeku ckcjh efLtn ekurs gSaA fookfnr

<kaps dk fuekZ.k vk/kqfud dky esa ugha gqvk gS cfYd e/;dky esa gqvk

gSA^^ ¼ist 109½

“Hindus consider the subject-matter of this suit, that is, the

disputed structure to be birth place of Lord Rama. The

disputed structure has not been constructed in the modern

period ; rather, it was constructed in the medieval period.”

(ETC)

^^vVkyk efLtn ds ckjs esa LFkkuh; yksxksa }kjk ;g dgk tkrk gS fd

iqjkus efUnj dks u"V djds efLtn cukbZ xbZA^^ ¼ist 110½

“Regarding Atala Mosque, it is said by the locals that the

mosque was built after destroying the old temple.” (ETC)

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; esa jke ds tUe ds ckjs esa fy[kk x;k gSA v;ks/;k

egkRE; esa v;ks/;k esa tks jke ds tUe dk LFky fn;k x;k gS] mlls eSa

lger gw¡A bl iqLrd esa ykse'k _f"k dk vkJe fn;k x;k gSA ;kuh

mldk o.kZu gSA mlesa fo?us'oj LFkku dk Hkh o.kZu fd;k x;k gSA

v;ks/;k egkRE; esa of'k"B eqfu ds vkJe dk Hkh o.kZu fd;k x;k gSA^^

¼ist 124½

“ It is written about birth of Rama in Ayodhya Mahatmya. I

agree with what is mentioned in Ayodhya Mahatmya about

the birth place of Rama. The hermitage of sage Lomash

has found mention in this book, that is, it is described

therein. It also describes Vighneshwar sthan. The

hermitage of seer Vashishtha has also found description in

Ayodhya Mahatmya”. (ETC)

4844

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; esa ykse'k _f"k ds vkJe ,oa of'k"B eqfu fo?us'oj ds

vkJe ds fjÝsUl ls jke tUeHkwfe ds LFkku dks yksdsV fd;k x;k gSA

v;ks/;k egkRE; ds vuqlkj jke tUeLFkku ykse'k _f"k vkJe ds if'pe]

fo?us'oj efUnj ds iwjc vkSj of'k"B eqfu ds vkJe ls mRrj fLFkr

crk;k x;k gSA eq>s fo?us'oj efUnj ugha mldk ,d [kEHkk feyk] ftl

ij ^fo?us'oj* fy[kk FkkA eq>s ykse'k _f"k dk vkJe ugha fn'kkA of'k"B

eqfu dk vkJe Hkh ugha fn[kk] ysfdu mlds ckjs esa yksxksa us crk;kA^^

¼ist 125½

“ From references about the hermitages of sage Lomash

and seer Vashishtha in Ayodhya Mahatmya, the birthplace

of Rama has been located. As per Ayohya Mahatmya, Ram

Janam Sthan is situated west of Lomash Rishi Ashram, east

of the Vighneshwar temple and north of Vashishtha Muni

Ashram. I did not come across the Vigheneshwar temple;

rather, I saw a pillar with the word “ Vighneshwar”

engraved thereon. I did not come across the hermitage of

sage Lomash. I also did not see the hermitage of seer

Vashishtha, but people told me about him”. (ETC)

^^eSaus okYehfd dh jkek;.k dk uke lquk gSA okYehfd jkek;.k esa v;ks/;k

uxjh dk vkSj mlesa jkepUnz ds tUe dk fooj.k gSA eSaus iwjh rjg ls

jkepfjrekul iwjh rjg ls ugha i<+kA jkepfjrekul esa Hkh v;ks/;k uxjh

o jke tUe ds fooj.k gSaA^^ ¼ist 127½

“ I have heard of the Valmiki Ramayan. The Valmiki

Ramayan has description of Ayodhya Nagri as also of the

birth of Ramchandra there at. I did not go through the

whole of the Ramcharitra Manas. The Ramcharitra Manas

has also description of Ayodhya Nagri and the birth of

Rama”. (ETC)

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; esa ;g Hkh fy[kk x;k gS fd v;ks/;k esa Hkxoku jke dk

tUe gqvk vkSj tUeLFkku ds efUnj ij gj rhFkZ ;k=h dks tkuk pkfg,

vkSj ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ml LFkku ij tkus ls ml O;fDr dks eqfDr

4845

fey tk,xhA^^ ¼ist 146½

“It is also written in Ayodhya Mahatmya that in Ayodhya,

Lord Rama was born and every pilgrim should visit the

temple at the birthplace; it is also written that by visiting

that place, a person will atain Mukti (liberation)." (ETC)

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; esa ;g ekuk x;k gS fd ftl LFkku ij Hkxoku dk

tUe ekuk x;k Fkk] ml LFkku ij ,d efUnj gSA^^ ¼ist 147½

“ It is reckoned in Ayodhya Mahamtya that there is a

temple at the place to which the birth of Bhagwan was

attributed”.(ETC)

^^1800 bZ0 ls igys ;g orkUr feyrk gS fd jkedksV esa fgUnw yksx

bdV~Bk gksdj jke ds vfHkuUnu esa vkdj jke dh iwtk djrs FksA^^ ¼ist

171½

“Prior to 1800 AD, we come across such an instance that

Hindu community after assembling in Ramkot in honour of

Rama , used to worship him." (ETC)

^^;g lgh gS fd fookfnr LFky jkedksV ds bykds ds vUnj vkrk gS vkSj

vkrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 172½

"It is true that the disputed site comes and came within the

area of Ramkot." (ETC)

^^djhc&djhc 5oha lnh rd jke dh tUeHkwfe v;ks/;k FkhA ikapoha lnh

ds ckn ;g ckr lekIr gks xbZ vkSj fQj 11oha o 12oha 'krkCnh esa ;g

ckr fQj ls fjokbZo gks xbZA^^ ¼ist 217½

“ Ayodhya was considered to be the birthplace of Rama

upto circa 5th century A.D.. This conception came to an end

after the 5th century and it got revived in the 11th and 12th

centuries”.(ETC)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd Hkkjr esa fgUnqvksa dh /kkj.kk vFkkZr lHkh yksxksa dh

/kkj.k ;g cuh jgh fd v;ks/;k jke dh tUeHkwfe gS vkSj ;g /kkj.kk

cjkcj pyrh jgh gS 'kq: ls vkt rdA^^ ¼ist 217½

4846

“It is correct to say that in India it continued to be the

conviction of Hindus, that is , of all the people that

Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama, and this conception

has been in prevalence all along, that is, from the

beginning until now ." (ETC)

^^;g Bhd gS fd eSa ftrus yksxksa ls feyk v;ks/;k esa muesa ls dqN yksxksa

dk ,slk fopkj Fkk fd Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh fookfnr <kapk esa gqbZ gksA eSa

tc fookfnr LFky ij x;k Fkk ml le; yksxksa dks iwtk djrs ns[kk Fkk

ij eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd og fdl vkLFkk ls iwtk djrs FksA^^ ¼ist

312½

“It is true that some of those whom I met in Ayodhya had

the opinion the birthplace of Sri Rama might have been at

the disputed structure. When I visited the disputed site, I

saw people offering worship but I can not see with what

faith they offered worship.”(ETC)

^^;g lgh gS fd eSaus ftrus vaxzsth lkfgR;ksa dks i<+k mlesa jke dh

tUeLFkyh dks gh jke tUeHkwfe fn[kyk;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 313½

“It is true that Rama's birthplace itself was shown to be

Ram Janam Bhumi in all that English literature I went

through”.(ETC)

PW-16, Prof. Suraj Bhan

^^LdU/k iqjk.k esa eSaus v;ks/;k egkRE; dks i<+k gSA vFkkZr LdU/k iqjk.k esa

v;ks/;k egkRE; ,d Hkkx gSA^^ ¼ist 8&9½

"In Skandha Purana, I have read about the importance of

Ayodhya. That is to say Ayohdya Mahatmya is a part of

Skand Puran.” (ETC)

^^ijUrq efUnj ds fy, vFkkZr gj efUnj ds fy, xHkZx`g dk gksuk

vko';d gSA efUnj ds fy, xHkZxg dk gksuk vko';d gS] tgk¡ nsork

fojkteku gks] ckdh phtksa dk gksuk vko';d ugha gSA efUnj cukus dk

dksbZ ,d Lo:i ugha fn;k x;k gSA^^ ¼ist 9½

4847

“ But it is necessary for a temple, that is, every temple to

have sanctum sanctorum. It is necessary for a temple to

have a sanctum sanctorum. Where a deity is seated, rest of

the things need not be there. No particular shape has been

given for the construction of a temple.” (ETC

^^tc eSa v;ks/;k x;k rc fookfnr LFky dks fu/kkZfjr djus ds fy, ge

yksxksa us ykse"k vkJe dks vk/kkj cuk;k Fkk] ;g vk/kkj ge yksxksa us

v;ks/;k egkRE; ds vk/kkj ij cuk;k FkkA ;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS esjh igyh

;k=k esa esjh Vhe ds lHkh lkFkh lkFk Fks ;k ughaA^^ ¼ist 44½

"When I visited Ayodhya, we made the Lomash

Ashram(hermitage) a basis for determination of the

disputed site. We had chosen this basis on the premise of

Ayodhya Mahatmya.I do not remember whether all my

colleagues comprising my team were with me or not in

course of my first journey." (ETC)

^^eq>s ;kn ugha fd tc eSa fo?us'oj efUnj igq¡pk rks ml LFkku ij ;g

fy[kk gks fd ;g fo?us'oj efUnj gks] ysfdu yksx ogk¡ crk jgs Fks

fd ;g fo?us'oj efUnj gS vkSj feJ th Hkh ;g tkurs Fks fd ;g fo?

us'oj efUnj gSA ,slk ugha fd eSaus feJ th ds dgus ij ;g eku fy;k

fd ;g fo?us'oj efUnj gS cfYd yksxksa us Hkh ,slk gh crk;k vkSj rc eSaus

mls eku fy;kA^^ ¼ist 47½

“ I do not remember whether on reaching the Vighneshwar

temple, the words 'Vighneshwar temple' were found to be

written there at. But people were telling that it was

Vigheshwar temple and Mishraji also knew that it was

Vighneshwar temple. It is not that I took it to be

Vighneshwar temple on being so told by Mishraji; rather,

people also told me such thing and only then I took it to be

such (a temple).“ (ETC)

^^ykSe"k ,d _f"k Fks vkSj mudk vkJe v;ks/;k esa gS vkSj ftldks ykSe"k

4848

vkJe ;k rhFkZ dgrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 50½

“Lomash was a sage with his hermitage in Ayodhya which

is called Lomash Ashram(hermitage) or Teertha." (ETC)

^^;g lgh gS fd vkLFkk dh vaxzsth QsFk (Faith) gksxhA vkLFkk n'kZu dh

ckr gS vkSj ijEijk mls yksxksa esa ys tkrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd ijEijk dh

vaxzsth VªsMh'ku gSA ;g lgh gS fd cgqr lh txgksa ij ewfrZ ugha gksrh gS

ij yksx ml LFkku dh iwtk djrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 106½

It is true that English word for 'Astha' would be 'faith'.

Faith is is a philosophical term and 'parampara' (tradition)

passes it on to people. It is true that 'parampara' is

rendered as tradition in English. It is true that people offer

worship even at those places where idols do not exist."

(ETC)

^^esjs fookfnr LFky ds vUos"k.k ds le; mDr laLFkk ds ps;jeSu izks0

bjQku gchc FksA ;g lgh gS fd blh laLFkk ds ek/;e ls gesa fookfnr

LFky dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, xzkaV feyh FkhA^^ ¼ist 167½

“ At the time of my exploration at the disputed site, Prof.

Irfan Habib was chairman of the said institution. It is true

that we had received grant for exploration of the disputed

site through this very institution”.(ETC)

PW-18, Suvira Jaiswal

^^eSa tc ls gks'k laHkkyk] vius ekrk&firk dks vk;Z lekth gh ik;k FkkA

fQj dgk fd 'kk;n esjs ekrk&firk th 1904 esa vk;Z lekth gh cus FksA

eSa 'kq: ls vFkkZr~ iSnkb'k ls gh vk;Z lekth vius dks ekurh jgh

FkhA ;g lgh gS fd vk;Z lekth yksx bZ'oj dks dksbZ ewfrZ iwtk ugha

ekurs] ij bZ'oj dk vfLrRo ekurs gSaA^^ ¼ist 3½

“ When I came of age, I found my parents to be Arya

Samajist.( Further stated ) my parents became Arya

Samajist perhaps in 1904 A.D. I continued to consider

myself to be an Arya Samajist right since the beginning,

4849

that is, my birth. It is true that Arya Samajists do not have

any faith in idolatry but believe in the existence of God.”

(ETC)

^^esjs fglkc ls fo".kq dk igyk eafnj fofn'kk okyk eafnj gh Fkk vFkkZr

,slk gh lk{; vHkh rd tks feyk gSA^^ ¼ist 7½

"Vidisha- situated temple itself was, in my opinion, the

first temple of Vishnu, that is to say, the evidence available

to date suggest so." (ETC)

^^eSaus ewy f'kyk ys[k ugha i<+k Fkk] cfYd tks fdrkc esa Nik Fkk] mls i<+k

gSA ys[k esa dksbZ rLohj ugha cuh gS] cfYd ;g fy[kk gS fd x#M+/ot

LFkkfir fd;kA^^ ¼ist 8½

“ I had not read the original inscription; rather, I have

gone through what was published in the book. No picture is

carved in the inscription; rather it is written that 'Garudh

Dhwaj' was established”. (ETC)

^^;g lgh gS fd okYehdh jkek;.k dh jkedFkk dk ftØ n'kjFk tkrd

esa feyrk gSa eSaus bls i<+k gSA n'kjFk ds iq= jke ogh jke gS tks okYehdh

jkek;.k esa feyrs gSa vkSj n'kjFk tkrd dFkkvksa esaA^^ ¼ist 11½

"It is true that the story of Rama of Valmiki Ramayana

finds mention in Dashratha Jataka which I have read.

Rama, son of Dashratha, is the same Rama that finds

mention in Valmiki Ramayana and in the fables of

Dashratha Jataka." (ETC)

^^LdU/k iqjk.k esa v;ks/;k egkRE; dk ,d iwjk v/;k; gSA^^ ¼ist 20½

“There is one full chapter of Ayodhya Mahatmay in Skand

Puran”. (ETC)

^^;g Bhd gS fd fgUnw /keZ esa ;fn fdlh txg ij vkLFkk gS rks ml

txg Hkh iwtk ikB gks ldrh gSA ;g t:jh ugha gS fd ogka ij eafnj

cuk gksA^^ ¼ist 27½

“It is true that Puja- Path ( worship-prayer) can be offered

4850

in Hindu religion at a place if people have faith in such a

place. It is not necessary that a temple is built there. "

(ETC)

^^eSaus ,slk ys[k i<+k gS fd vcqy Qty us ;g fy[kk gS fd jkeuoeh

euk;h tkrh FkhA ;g jke ds vFkkZr jkeuoeh ds fnu eukbZ tkrh FkhA^^

¼ist 28½

“I have gone through a write- up that Abul Fazal has

written that Ram Navmi was celebrated. It was celebrated

on the day of Rama, that is, RamNavmi.”(ETC)

^^ewyokn la0 5@89 esa nkf[ky isij la0 118&lh&1@60 dh vksj

fnyk;k ,oa iSjk 3 ,oa QqVuksV 7 dks i<+dj lquk;k ,oa xokg us Lo;a Hkh

i<+k vkSj dgk fd eSa ;g ekurh gw¡ fd Jhjke dks nwljh 'krkCnh esa

ukjk;.k dk vorkj ekuk tkrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 77½

“The attention of the witness was drawn to paper no. 118-

C-1/60 filed in original suit no. 5/89 and its para 3 and

footnote 7 was read over to her. The witness herself went

through the said paper and stated -I consider that Sri

Rama was considered to be an incarnation of Narayan in

the 2nd century A.D.” (ETC)

^^bl ejgys ij xokg dk /;ku ewyokn la0&5@89 esa nkf[ky isij

la0&107lh&1@75 dh vksj fnyk;k] xokg us i`"B 73 dks i<+dj mRrj fn;k

fd 'yksd ua0&13] 14] 15 esa lj;w unh esa Luku djuk vkSj Luku ds ckn tks

Qy feyrk gS] mldk o.kZu fd;k x;k gSA 'yksd ua0&16 esa fo?us'oj dh

fLFkfr crkbZ xbZ gSA 'yksd ua0&17 esa fo?us'oj ds n'kZu dk egRo gS vkSj

mlls D;k Qy izkfIr gksrh gSA 'yksd ua0&18 esa fo?us'oj ls jke tUeHkwfe dh

fLFkfr crkbZ xbZ gSA 'yksd ua0&19 esa fo?us'oj] of'k"B ,oa ykse'k ls fdl

rjg tUeLFkku fLFkr gS] ;g crk;k x;k gS( 'yksd ua0&20 esa n'kZu dk D;k

Qy gksrk gS] ;g ns fn;k x;k gSA 'yksd ua0&21 esa ukSeh ds fnu Luku ds

ckn n'kZu dk D;k Qy gksrk gS] ;g fn;k x;k gSA 'yksd ua0&22] 23] 24

vkSj 25 esa Luku] iwtk djus vkSj vkJe esa jgus ls D;k Qy izkIr gksrk

gS] ;g n'kkZ;k x;k gSA^^ ¼ist 80½

“In this behalf, the attention of the witness was drawn to

4851

paper no. 107C-1/75 filed in original suit no. 5/89.Reading

its page 73 the witness replied- Versus 13, 14 and 15 have

description of taking a dip in the river Saru and of the

results emanating from such dip. The location of

Vighneshwar is mentioned in verse 16. Verse no. 17 speaks

about the importance having Darshan of Vighneshwar and

also about the results derived from such Darshan. Verse no.

18 has pointed out the location of Ram Janam Bhumi from

Vighneshwar. Verse no. 19 has described about the

location of Ram Janam Sthan from the places known as

Vighneshwar , Vashishtha and Lomash Verse no. 20 speaks

about the results derived from Darshan. Verse no. 21

describe what results are obtained from having Darshan

after taking a dip on the 9th day. Verses 22, 23 , 24 and 25

describe about what results are obtained from taking a

dip, offering prayer and dwelling in a hermitage.”(ETC)

^^;g eq>s ekywe gS fd v;ks/;k esa jke dh iwtk ijEijkxr :i ls gksrh

pyh vk jgh gSA ;g Bhd gS fd pS= dh 'kqDy i{k uoeh ds fnu Jhjke

ds vuq;k;h muds tUefnu ds :i esa mls eukrs pys vk jgs gSA v;ks/;k

ds rhFkZ LFkyksa esa eSaus xksizrkj vFkkr~ xqIrkj dk uke lquk gSA orZeku esa

ml txg dks Jhjke dk xqIr gksus dk LFkku ekurs gq, ogka ij ugkuk]

iwtk vkfn djrs pys vk jgs gSA vFkkZr~ jke ds vuq;k;hA^^ ¼ist 86½

"I know that the worship of Rama has been continuing by

way of tradition in Ayodhya. It is true that the followers of

Shri Rama have been observing the ninth day of Shukla

Paksha of Chaitra month as his birthday. Among the sites

of pilgrimage at Ayodhya, I have heard the name of

Gopratar or Guptar. Currently believing that Shri Rama

vanished at this place, they have been taking bath, offering

worship etc. That is to say, they are followers of Rama."

4852

(E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd ijEijkxr :i ls oS".ko /keZ ds ekuus okys jkeuoeh ds

fnu v;ks/;k esa lj;w Luku vkSj Jhjke ds n'kZu gsrq tkrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 93½

"It is true that by way of tradition the followers of

Vaishnavism go to take a dip in Saryu and to have darshan

of Shri Rama at Ayodhya on the occasion of Ram Navami."

(E.T.C)

^^;g lgh gS fd bl eqdnes esa ,d oxZ ds yksx bls vius vkjk/; nso

dh tUeHkwfe ekurs gSA ;g fookfnr LFky v;ks/;k esa fLFkr gSA^^ ¼ist

104½

"It is true that people belonging to one side in this case

consider it to be the birthplace of their adored deity. This

disputed place is situated at Ayodhya." (E.T.C)

^^fo}ku ftjgdrkZ vf/koDrk us xokg dk /;ku ewyokn la0&5@89 esa

nkf[ky isij la0&261lh@1 dh i"B la0&192 dh vksj fnyk;kA xokg

us i<+dj dgk fd 'yksd ua0&3 o 4 esa fo".kq ds vk;ru dk o.kZu gS]

fo".kqgfj efUnj dk o.kZu ugha gSA vk;ru dk eryc efUnj ls gksrk

gSA^^ ¼ist 106½

“Attention of the witness was drawn to page no. 192 of

Paper No. 261C/1, reading which the witness said that in

Verses no. 3 and 4 there is mention of 'Ayatan' of Vishnu

and not of Vishnu Hari Mandir, Ayatan connotes temple."

(ETC)

^^okYehfd jkek;.k esa Jhjke dh tUe frfFk] vkSj mudh tUeHkwfe dk

mYys[k vk;k gSA bl okYehfd jkek;.k esa bl ckr dk ftØ gS fd

bPNokdq oa'k esa jktk ds ?kj esa Jhjke dk tUe gqvk vkSj mudk

ckY;dky v;ks/;k esa chrkA^^ ¼ist 106½

"The date of Shri Rama's birth as well as his place of birth

has found mention in the Valmiki Ramayana. It is

mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana that Shri Rama was

4853

born in royal family belonging to the Ikshwaku dynasty,

and he passed his childhood at Ayodhya." (E.T.C)

^^j?kqoa'k egkdkO; esa jktk vfnfr] Hkxoku jke o muds oa'kt ,oa tUe

vkfn dk fooj.k fn;k gSA ;g Bhd gS fd ml dkO; esa Jhjke ds tUe

ds le; izlwfrx`g vkSj muds tUe ds iwoZ nsorkvksa }kjk nqanqHkh ctkus dk

fooj.k gSA^^ ¼ist 108&109½

"Details about king Aditi and Lord Rama as also about

their descendents, birth etc., have been given in an epic

called Raghuvansh. It is true that this epic has details

about the maternity home as it existed at the time of Shri

Rama's birth and also about trumpets having been sounded

by gods before his birth." (E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd jkepfjrekul esa v;ks/;k ds mRrj lVh gq;h lj;w unh

dk gksuk] jke dk tUe] mudh tUeHkwfe] v;ks/;k esa mudk dk;Zdky

vkfn dk o.kZu gSA^^ ¼ist 113½

"It is true that the Ramcharit Manas depicts the existence

of the river Saryu north of and adjacent to Ayodhya, the

birth of Rama, his place of birth, his tenure etc. in

Ayodhya." (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd okYehdh jkek;.k v;ks/;k dk.M ds vanj Jhjke

ds tUe gksus dk fooj.k gSA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd mDr jkek;.k esa

v;ks/;k esa vkcknh dk gksuk jktk dk gksuk] jkT; dh lhekvksa dk

gksuk ,oa turk dk gksuk mfYyf[kr gSA^^ ¼ist 126½

"It is true to say that details about the birth of Shri Rama

are contained in the Ayodhya canto of the Valmiki

Ramayana. It is also true to say that the said Ramayana

also mentions about there being human inhabitation, king,

state borders and public in Ayodhya" (E.T.C)

^^eSaus 80 ds n'kd esa eSaus jke tUeHkwfe dks tkuus ds fy, 'kks/k dk;Z

fd;kA vFkkZr~ lu~ 80 ls 90 ds chp esA ;g dguk lgh gS fd 1990 ds

4854

ckn ls vkt rd jketUeHkwfe LFky ds fo"k; ij eSaus dksbZ [kkst ;k 'kks/k

dk;Z ugha fd;kA^^ ¼ist 128½

"I did research work to know Rama's birthplace in 80's,

i.e., between 80 and 90. It is true to say from 1990 to date I

did not perform any search or research work on the site of

Rama's birthplace." (ETC)

^^jkedksV uke dk LFkku v;ks/;k esa gS ,slh ekU;rk Hkh gS mlh jkedksV

eksgYys esa Jhjke dk tUe gqvk Fkk vkSj ml LFkku dks iwtuh; ekurs gSa

vkSj iwtk djrs gSA^^ ¼ist 132½

"A place called Ramkot is in Ayodhya. It is also a belief

that Shri Rama was born in that very Ramkot locality and

(they) consider that place to be venerable and worship it."

(E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS xqIrdky ds izkjEHk esa gh v;ks/;k uxjh izfrf"Br gks pqdh

Fkh vFkkZr~ tkuh tkrh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd xqIrdky dh v;ks/;k

ogh gS tks v;ks/;k vkt ftyk QStkckn esa gSA ;g Hkh Bhd gS fd

fookfnr <kapk Hkh mlh v;ks/;k esa fLFkr FkkA^^ ¼ist 145½

"It is true that right at the outset of the Gupta period

Ayodhya Nagari had got established, that is, it was known

as such. It is true to say that the Ayodhya of the Gupta

period is the same as it exists today at Ayodhya in the

Faizabad district. It is also true that the disputed structure

was also situated at that very Ayodhya." (E.T.C)

PW-19, Maulana Atiq Ahmed

^^ftu fdrkcksa dk gokyk fn;k gS] muesa dqN dk uke eq>s ;kn gSA

elyu rqTd ckcjh] vkbZus vdcjh vkSj QStkckn ds eq[krfyQ

xtsfV;lZ ,oa MkW0 jktsUnz izlkn dh fdrkc bf.M;k fMokbMsM

vkfn&vkfn ftu xtsfV;lZ dk gokyk mu fdrkcksa esa fn;k x;k gS

vkSj ,sClVªsDl fn, x, gSa muesa ls ckt esa ;g ckr gksuk eq>s ;kn vkrk

gS fd yksxksa esa e'kgwj ;g gS fd ogk¡ ij jke th dh iSnkb'k gqbZ FkhA^^

¼ist 73½

4855

"I remember the names of some of the books which have

been quoted, for example- Tuzuk-e-Babri, Ain-e-Akbari,

many gazetteers of Faizabad, Dr. Rajendra Prasad's book

'India Divided', etc. I remember that it is known to public

that it is mentioned in some of the gazetteers-which have

been quoted in those books and extracts of which have

been given- that Ram Ji was born over there." (E.T.C)

^^;g ckr ;kn gS fd vkbus vdcjh esa bldk ftØ gS fd v;ks/;k

fgUnqvksa dh rhFkZxkg gS tgk¡ og Luku djus vkrs gSaA ij ogk¡ og efUnjksa

esa iwtk vpZuk djus vkrs gSa ;k ugha ;g ;kn ugha gSA bruk ;kn gS fd

mlesa ;g ftØ gS fd fgUnw ogk¡ ugkus vkrs gSa vkSj os D;k djrs gSa]

;g ;kn ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 76½

"I remember that it is mentioned in Ain-e-Akbari that

Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage for Hindus where they

come to have take dip. I do not remember whether or not

they come over there to offer prayer-worship at the

tmeples. I remember to extent that it is therein mentioned

that Hindus come to that place for taking a dip; I do not

remember what else they do there." (E.T.C)

^^eq>s ;g tkudkjh igys Hkh Fkh vkSj vkt Hkh gS fd v;ks/;k esa fgUnqvksa

ds cgqr ls efUnj gSaA^^ ¼ist 77½

"I knew it earlier and I know it even today that there are

many temples of Hindus in Ayodhya" (E.T.C)

PW-20, Prof. Shirin Musavi

^^vkbus vdcjh vcqy QTy us 1586 ls fy[kuk 'kq# fd;k vkSj 1598 esa

QkeZyh Dykst fd;kA vcqy QTy vdcj ds ,d e'kgwj fefuLVj Fks vkSj

muds vkfQfl;y fgLVksfj;u FksA^^ ¼ist 7½

"Abul Fazal began to write Ain-e-Akbari from 1586 and he

formally completed in 1598. Abul Fazal was a famous

minister of Akbar and he was his official historian."

4856

(E.T.C)

^^bl iqLrd esa Hkh vcqy QTy us v;ks/;k dk nks txg mYys[k fd;k gSA

ml mYys[k esa mUgksaus ,slk dgk gS fd v;ks/;k Jhjke th dk] tks

fgUnqvksa ds vorkj Fks] ,slk ekuk tkrk gS fd og mudk fuokl LFkku

FkkA ml fdrkc esa Hkh v;ks/;k esa jke efUnj rksM+dj efLtn cukus dk

dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA fofy;e fQUo ,d e'kgwj Vªsoyj Fks tks Hkkjr o"kZ

esa 1608 ls 1611 rd jgs FksA mudh bl ;k=k ds ,dkmaV~l dbZ txg

Nis gSaA og fczVsu ds jgus okys FksA vius ml ,dkmaV esa mUgksaus v;ks/;k

dk mYys[k fd;k gSA mUgksaus ,slk fy[kk gS fd v;ks/;k esa Jh jke pUnz

th dk iSysl ,oa QksVZ FkkA^^ ¼ist 7½

"In this book too, Abul Fazal has mentioned about Ayodhya

at two places. In course of that mentioning he has stated

that Ayodhya is believed to be the dwelling place of Shri

Ram Ji, who was an incarnation for Hindus. In that book

also, there is no mention about the construction of a

mosque after demolishing the Rama temple in Ayodhya.

William Finch was a famous traveller who stayed in India

from 1608 to 1611. Accounts of this travel of his are

published at several places. He hailed from Britain. He has

in his account mentioned of Ayodhya. He has written that

Shri Ramchandra Ji's palace and fort stood in Ayodhya."

(E.T.C)

^^cqdkusu 1810 esa v;ks/;k x;s Fks] mldk mYys[k mUgksaus vius ,dkmaV esa

fd;k gSA mUgksaus vius bl ,dkmaV esa ,slk fy[kk gS fd ;g dgk tkrk

gS fd vkSjaxtsc us jkedksV esa efUnj rksM+dj efLtn cukbZA ij

mUgksaus ;g dgk gS fd bl efLtn ij tks baLfØI'ku gS] og ckcj ds

le; dk gSA^^ ¼ist 8½

"Buchanan had gone to Ayodhya in 1810; he has

mentioned about it in his account. He has in his account

written that it is said that Aurangzeb had got a mosque

4857

build by breaking down a temple at Ramkot. But he had

said that the inscription of this mosque is of the time of

Babar." (E.T.C)

^^esa bl ij Hkh dqN ugha dg ldrh fd Hkxoku Jhjke v;ks/;k esa

vorfjr gq, ;k ughaA esa bl ij Hkh dqN ugha dg ldrh fd Hkxoku

Jhjke] v;ks/;k esa tUe fy;s ;k ughaA esa bl ckjs esa Hkh dqN ugha dg

ldrh fd Hkxoku jke us ;fn v;ks/;k esa tUe fy;k gksxk] rks dksbZ

Hkksxksfyd LFky ml ij jgk gksxk ;k ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esa

iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj 'kq# ls vkf[kj rd xyr c;kuh dj jgh gw¡A ;g

Hkh xyr gS fd iwjk lp dgus ds ct; esa lp dks iwjh rjg ls fNik

jgh gw¡A ;g Hkh dguk xyr gS fd ekdZflLV Ldwy vkQ FkkV~l ds

bfrgkldkjksa ds xzqi dh ,d lnL; gw¡A^^ ¼ist 100½

"I can say nothing even on the point as to whether Lord

Shri Rama incarnated himself at Ayodhya or not. I can say

nothing even on the point as to whether Lord Shri Rama

took birth at Ayodhya or not. I can say nothing about

whether or not there would have been a geographical place

if Lord Rama had taken birth at Ayodhya. It is incorrect to

say that I have been giving a wrong testimony out of

prejudice from beginning to end. It is also incorrect that

instead of speaking the whole truth, I am concealing the

truth completely. It is also incorrect to say that I am a

member of a group of historians associated with the

Marxist School of Thoughts." (E.T.C)

^^Lo;a dgk fd eSus esuyh v;ks/;k dk.M o mRrjkdk.M i<+k gSA

mRrjkdk.M esa ;g fy[kk gS fd gS jke rqe 27 ckj ;gka tUes vkSj eSa gj

tUe ds le; FkkA blh rjg dh ckrs fy[kh gSaA mlesa ;g fy[kk gS fd

jke rqe v;ks/;k esa 27 ckj tUesA jkepUnz th ds firk dk uke jktk

n'kjFk FkkA ;g ckr eSus mlh esa vFkkZr jke&pfjr ekul esa gh i<+h Fkh]

ij fdl dk.M esa i<+h] ;g eq>s ;kn ughaA^^ ¼ist 101½

“(Stated on his own) I have mainly read Ayodhya-kand and

4858

Uttara-kand. It is written in Uttara-kand: 'O Rama, you

were born at Ayodhya 27 times and I was present on every

occasion of your birth'. Such type of things are written. It is

therein written: 'O Rama, you were born at Ayodhya 27

times'. The name of Ram Chandra Ji's father was King

Dashrath. I read this thing in that very book, that is, in the

Ram Charit Manas itself, but I do not remember the canto

in which I read it.” (E.T.C)

^^;g eS tkurh gw¡ fd fgUnw /kekZofyEc;ksa dk ekuuk gS fd Jhjke dk

tUe v;ks/;k esa gh gqvkA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe fd lHkh fgUnw ,slk eurs

gS ;k ugha fd v;ks/;k esa Jhjke dk tUe gqvk Fkk ;k ugha ij fgUnqvksa ds

,d oxZ dk er gS fd Jhjke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa fookfnr LFky ij gh

gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 124½

“I know that the followers of Hinduism believe that Sri

Rama was born at Ayodhya itself. I do not know whether or

not all the Hindus believe Sri Rama to have taken birth at

Ayodhya. But a section of Hindus believe that Sri Rama

was born on the disputed site itself in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

^^tUeHkwfe dk eryc fdlh O;fDr fo'ks"k ds tUeLFkku ls gksrk gSA ;g

Bhd gS tSlk fd eS Åij crk pqdh gwa fd jkepfjr ekul esa ljtw unh

dk mYys[k gSA^^ ¼ist 125½

“Janmbhumi (land of birth) means 'Janmsthan'

(birthplace) of a particular person. It is true that the river

Saryu finds mention in the Ram Charit Manas, as I have

stated above.” (E.T.C)

^^Lda/k iqjk.k dk uke lquk gSA Lda/k iqjk.k ds ,d Hkkx dk vuqokn eSus

i<+k gS blesa Jhjke ds tUe LFkku dk fooj.k fy[kk gS vkSj dqN fn'kk,

Hkh nh gqbZ gS Lo;a dgk fd fo}kuksa dk dguk gS fd os osx gS bl lca/k

esa gekjk dksbZ O;fDrxr er ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 126½

“I have heard the name of Skanda Purana. I have read

4859

translation of a portion of Skanda Purana which has

description of Sri Rama's birthplace as also specification

of some directions. (Stated on his own) They are vague; I

do not have any personal opinion in this respect.” (E.T.C)

^^eSus Lda/k iqjk.k ds bl iks'kZu dks fjysosUV le>k blfy, bldk

vuqokn i<+kA ;gk Bhd gS fd LdU/k iqjk.k esa v;ks/;k esa Jhjke ds tUe

LFkku dk o.kZu gS ij mlh [k.M essa tUe LFkku ds ljkZÅfMax VSEiy dk

vuqokn tks eSus i<+k Fkk] mlesa ugha FkkA^^ ¼ist 126½

"I took this portion of Skanda Purana to be relevant, that's

why I studied its translation. It is true that Skanda Purana

describes Sri Rama's birthplace at Ayodhya but the

existence in that very part of any temple surrounding his

birthplace did not find mention in the translation which I

had gone through."(ETC)

^^efUnj vkfn dk yksds'ku fn;k gqvk gS ij blds ckjs esa fuf'pr gksuk

lEHko ugha gSA eq>s ,slk ;kn ugha fd ml [k.M esa tUe LFkku dk

mYys[k gS ;k ughaA esjs vuqlkj loZizFke fookfnr <kaps dk fuekZ.k 1528

esa gqvk gksxkA ;g fookfnr LVªDpj ftl Hkwfe ij cuk Fkk fdlh lkslZ esa

ugha feyrkA^^ ¼ist 126½

“The location of the temple etc. is given but it is not

possible to be sure about it. I do not remember whether or

not Janmsthan finds mention in that part. In my opinion,

the disputed structure would have first been constructed in

1528. Information as to the land on which this disputed

structure was built is not available in any source.”(E.T.C)

^^efLtn ftl ,sfj;k esa gS mls jkedksV ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA fQap

dk iwjk uke fofy;e fQap Fkk ;g Bhd gS ;s ,d baxfy'k ;k=h Fks tks

1608 ls 1611 esa v;ks/;k esa vk;s FksA ;g Hkh Bhd gS fQap lkgc us

vius ,dkmUV esa v;ks/;k esa jke dk fdyk] egy] o [k.Mgj gksus dk

ftØ fd;k gS vkSj lkFk&lkFk v;ks/;k dks fgUnqvksa dk rhFkZ LFky crk;k

gS fQj dgk fd fofy;e fQap us dgk fd ;g yhtsUM Fkk fd ;gka jke

4860

dk fdyk FkkA mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk fd ,slk ekuk tkrk gtS fd Jhjke us

;gka vorkj fy;k gSA^^ ¼ist 127½

“The area in which the mosque is situated, is known as

Rmakot. The full name of Finch was William Finch. It is

true that he was an English traveller who came to Ayodhya

between 1608 and 1611. It is also true that Finch has in his

account mentioned about the existence of Rama's fort,

palace and remains in Ayodhya; besides, he has termed

Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage for Hindus. (Further

stated) William Finch stated that there was a legend that

Rama's fort stood here. He has also stated that Sri Rama is

believed to have incarnated himself here.” (E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa jke tUe LFkku gksus dk yhtsUM 17oh 'krkCnh ls feyrk gS

mlls igys e/;dkyhu bfrgkl eas jke tUe LFkku dk dksbZ yhtsUM

miyC/k ugha gSA tgka rd eq>s ekywe gS v;ks/;k ds jke ls ,slksfl;sVsM

fopkj /kkjk 16oha lnh rFkk mlds ckn feyrh gS mlls igys ds Qkjlh

vkSj baxfy'k ds tks lkslsZt eSus i<+s gS mues v;ks/;k esa Jhjke ls

,slksfl;sVsM fdlh fopkj /kkjk dk ftØ ugha gSA Qkjlh vkSj baxfy'k ds

vykok vkSj dksbZ Jksr miyC/k gS ;k ugha bldk eq>s Kku ugha gSA^^ ¼ist

136½

“A legend about the existence of Ram Janmsthan (Rama's

birthplace) in Ayodhya is available from the 17th century.

Prior to that, in course of the medieval history, we do not

come across any legend about Ram Janmsthan. As far as I

know, a line of thought associated with Rama of Ayodhya is

found in the 16th century and its subsequent period. The

Persian and English sources belonging to earlier period

and which I have read, do not make mention of any line of

thought associated with Sri Rama of Ayodhya. I do not

have the knowledge as to availability or otherwise of any

4861

sources other than Persian and English ones.” (E.T.C)

^^fookfnr LFky ij fookfnr <kaps ds igys dksbZ Hkou Fkk ;k ugha bldh

lk{; vkfdZ;ksyksftdy ,DlIyksjs'ku ls gh fey ldrh gSA ----;g Bhd gS

fd flD[k lkfgR; esa ;g ,d VsMh'ku gS fd xq#ukud v;ks/;k x;s Fks

Jhjke tUe LFkku dk n'kZu fd;k vkSj ljtw esa Luku fd;kA ¼ist

137&138½

“Evidence about the existence or otherwise of any building

at the disputed site prior to the disputed structure, can be

obtained only through archaeological exploration. . . . . . .

It is true that there goes a tradition in the Sikh literature

that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya, had darshan of Sri Ram

Janmsthan and took a dip in Saryu.”(E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS fd ftl LFkku ds lkFk dksV 'kCn yxk gksrk gS mlls

lk/kkj.kr;k ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkrk gS fd ogk¡ ij fdyk jgk

gksxkA¼ist 144½

“It is true that if the word Kot is used with the name of a

place, it is ordinarily inferred that there would have been a

fort over there.” (E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa jkedksV LFkku ds ckjs esa eSus i<+k gSA LdU/k iqjk.k esa

jkedksV dh Hkksxksfyd fLFkr dk o.kZu gS ijUrq] og vLi"V gSA ;g Bhd

gS fd v;ks/;k esa fdlh ,d txg dks 16oh lnh ds vUr ls jkedksV ds

uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA LdU/k iqjk.k dk jpuk dky uoh lsUpqjh dks

,VªhC;wV fd;k tkrk gS vFkkZr crk;k tkrk gSA^^ ¼ist 144½

“I have read about a place called Ramkot in Ayodhya. The

geographical location of Ramkot finds description in

Skanda Purana. But it is not clear. It is true that a certain

place in Ayodhya is known by the name of Ramkot from the

end of 16th century. Skanda Purana is attributed to, that is,

stated to be belonging to the 9th century.”(E.T.C)

^^;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd mlh otg ls eSaus ,sls L=ksrksa dks NksM+ fn;k

gks fd ftlesa fookfnr LFky ij jke tUe LFkku ;k fLFkr eafnj dk

4862

izek.k feyrk gksA^^ ¼ist 145½

“It is also incorrect to say that for this very reason I have

omitted to mention those hymns from which proofs may be

found of Ram Janmsthan at the disputed site or of temple

situated there.”(E.T.C)

^^lckgqn~nhu lkgc us tks iqLrd v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn ds eqrkfyd

fy[kh og fookfnr LFky o <kaps ls gh lacaf/kr FkhA^^ ¼ist 23½

“A book which Sahab-ud-Din Sahib had written in

connection with the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, was only

about the disputed site and structure.” (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd mDr fdrkc esa ys[kd us bl ckr dk

rtfdjk fd;k gS fd fgUnw yksx fookfnr LFky dks jke tUeHkwfe crkrs gSa

vkSj ekurs gSa rFkk eqlyeku mls efLtnA^^ ¼ist 23½

“It is correct to say that the writer has in the said book

mentioned that Hindus term and regard the disputed site as

Rama's Janmbhumi and Muslims take it to be a mosque.”

(E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus dqN fdrkcksa esa bl ckr dk rtfdjk i<+k gS

fd v;ks/;k esa jkepUnz th dk tUe LFkku gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd Jh

jkepUnz th fgUnqvksa ds vjk/; nsork gS ftUgsa fgUnw yksx Hkxoku ekurs gSa

vkSj iwtk djrs gSaA mijksDr lanfHkZr fdrkc ^v;ks/;k esa bLykeh vklkj^

esa eSaus i<+k gS fd 'kgj v;ks/;k ds chpksa chp Jhjke tUe LFkku eafnj

gSA tks jkepUnz th ds tUe LFkku ls e'kgwj gSA^^ ¼ist 24½

“It is correct to say that I have read in some books that

Ram Chandra Ji's birthplace is located in Ayodhya. It is

correct to say that Sri Ram Chandra Ji is a adored deity of

Hindus whom they regard as Bhagwan (Supreme Being)

and worship Him as such. In the above-referred book

'Ayodhya Mein Islami Aasar', I have read that Sri Ram

Janmsthan temple stands right in the centre of Ayodhya

4863

town which is famous as the birthplace of Ram Chandra

Ji.” (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd fdlh Hkh /keZ dh bcknrxkg dks ;fn fxjk fn;k

tk;s rks og mlh /keZ dh bcknrxkg jgsxh ;g dguk lgh gS fd ;fn

eafnj dks rksM+dj efLtn cuk nh tk;s rks mldh gSfl;r ugha cnysxh

vkSj og eafnj gh jgsxk vkSj ;fn efLtn dks rksM+dj eafnj cuk fn;k

tk;s rks og efLtn gh jgsxhA ;fn ;g lkfcr gks tk;s fd fookfnr

LFky ij eafnj Fkk ftls tcju rksM+dj efLtn cuk;h x;h rks og eafnj

gh ekuk tk;sxkA^^ ¼ist 25½

“It is true to say that if a place of worship for any religion

is demolished, that will remain as such for that religion. It

is correct to say that if a mosque is constructed by

demolishing a temple, its status will not change and it will

remain as a temple, nothing else; and if a temple is

constructed by demolishing a mosque, it will continue to be

a mosque, nothing else. If it is proved that at the disputed

site, there was a temple forcibly demolishing which a

mosque was constructed then it will be considered to be a

temple, nothing else.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus vyh fe;k¡ lkgc dk uke lquk gS] esjh muds okfyn lkgc ls

okdkfQ;r gSA^^ ¼ist 25½

“I have heard the name of Ali Miyan Sahib; I have

acquaintance with his father.” (E.T.C)

^^mudh fy[kh iqLrd ^fgUnqLrku bLykeh vgn esa^ gSA ;g dguk lgh gS

fd og fdrkc tks vyh fe;k lkgc ds okfyn gdhe lS0vCnqy gbZ

gjkSuh] us fy[kh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ml fdrkc esa ckcjh efLtn

dk ftØ vk;k gSA^^ ¼ist 25&26½

“'Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein' is a book written by him. It

is true to say that the Babri mosque has found mention in

the book written by Haquim Syed Abdul Haee Harauni son

4864

of Ali Miyan Sahib.” (E.T.C)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd mijksDr fdrkc esa ys[kd us ,slk fy[kk gS fd

yksx ;g dgrs gSa fd ckcjh efLtn v;ks/;k eas ckcj us tgka cuok;h Fkh

mls fgUnw jkepUnz th dk tUe LFky dgrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 26½

“It is true to say that the writer has in the aforesaid book

written that Hindus call the place, where Babur had

constructed Babri mosque in Ayodhya, 'Ram Chandra Ji's

Janmsthal'.” (E.T.C)

PW-21, Dr.M. Hashim Quidwai

^^;g lgh gS fdlh txg fo'ks"k dh efLtn ds fy, dksbZ vfgfe;r ugha

gSA eSa bl ckr ls lger ugha gw¡ fd pwafd JhjkepUnz dk tUe v;ks/;k

esa gqvk Fkk vkSj fgUnw mUgsa Hkxoku ekurs gSa blfy, og Hkwfe iwtuh;

gSA^^ ¼ist 43½

“It is true that a particular place does not have any

importance for a mosque. I do not agree with the view that

since Sri Ram Chandra was born at Ayodhya and Hindus

regard him as Bhagwan (Supreme Being), that land is

venerable.” (E.T.C)

^^;g lgh gS fd fgUnw yksx v;ks/;k esa Hkxoku jke ds tUeLFkku ij

n'kZu djus lfn;ksa ls tkrs gSaA eSaus ;g lquk gS fd jkeuoeh ds fnu

v;ks/;k esa cgqr cM+k esyk yxrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd fgUnw yksx Hkxoku

jke dks fo".kq dk vorkj ekurs gSaA^^ ¼ist 77½

“It is true that for centuries Hindus have been coming to

Ayodhya to have darshan of Lord Rama's Janmsthan

(birthplace). I have heard that a very big fair is held at

Ayodhya on the occasion of Ram Navami. It is true that

Hindus regard Lord Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu.”

(E.T.C)

^^eqdnesa esa ,d i{k jke tUeHkwfe dgrk gS vkSj nwljk ckcjh efLtn

dgrk gSA^^ ¼ist 80½

4865

“One party to the litigation call it Ramjanmbhumi and the

other one call it the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C)

^^eSa tc x;k Fkk ml tekus esa eq>s dksbZ vkcknh fookfnr LFky ds pkjksa

vksj utj ugha vkbZ FkhA fookfnr LFky ds pkjksa vksj esjs [;ky ls Ms<+

nks QykZax rd dksbZ vkcknh ugha FkhA^^ ¼ist 81½

“No human inhabitation was seen by me around the

disputed structure at the time when I went there. I think

that there was no human inhabitation as far as one-a-half

or two furlongs around the disputed site.” (E.T.C)

PW-23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd tks rhFkZ ;k=h ifjØek djrs gSa os guqekux<+h]

dud Hkou vkSj jketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu Hkh djrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 34½

“It is correct to say that the pilgrims, who perform

circumambulation, also have darshan of Kanak Bhawan

and Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^eSa pkSng dkslh ifjØek ds ckjs esa Hkh tkurk gw¡A bl pkSng dkslh

ifjØek ekxZ esa v;ks/;k vkSj QStkckn vkrs gS ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd

pkSng dkslh ifjØek Hkh gksrh gS ;g lky esa ,d ckj gksrh gSA ;g

ifjØek Hkh dkfrZd ds ekg esa gksrh gSA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd bl

ifjØek esa Hkh yk[kksa dh la[;k esa rhFkZ ;k=h vkSj HkDrx.k f'kjdr djrs

gSaA^^ ¼ist 34½

“I also know about the 'Chaudahkosi' (fourteen kose, one

Kose being equal to 2 miles) circumambulation. Ayodhya

and Faizabad fall in this 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation

path. It is also correct to say that 'Chaudahkosi'

circumambulation is also performed. It is performed once

in a year. This circumambulation is also performed in the

month of Kartika. It is also correct to say that pilgrims and

devotees participate in this circumambulation in numbers

going in lakhs.”(E.T.C)

4866

^^;g Bhd gS fd fgUnw yksx ftls eS ckcjh efLtn dgrk gwa mls tUeHkwfe

dgrs gSaA ;g Bhd gS fd tks yk[kksa dh HkhM+ jgrh gS mlesa pkjksa txg

n'kZu djus dk mYykl jgrk gSA^^ ¼ist 37½

“It is true that what I term as Babri mosque, is called

Janmbhumi by Hindus. It is true that the gathering going in

lakhs, is all full of fervour to have darshan.”(E.T.C)

^^nksjkgh dqavk ls tUeHkwfe] ftls ge ckcjh efLtn dgrs gS og yxHkx

20&25 fQV Åaps LFkku ij gSA^^ ¼ist 37½

“The Janmbhumi, which is called Babri mosque by me, is

at a height of about 20-25 feet above the 'Dorahi

Kuan'.”(E.T.C)

^^;g dguk Bhd gS fd mijksDr rhuksa esys eSa viuh ;knnk'r ls ns[krk

pyk vk jgk gwaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ;g rhuksa esys esa yk[kksa dh la[;k

esa J)kyq vkrs gSa dqN jsy ls vkrs gSa] dqN cl ls vkrs gSa vkSj dqN

viuh xkM+h ls vkrs gSa igys dqN yksx cSyxkM+h vkSj ?kksM+ksa ls Hkh vkrs

FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tc yksx cSyxkM+h ls vkrs Fks rks nksjkgh dqvka

ds vklikl iwjs jkedksV esa cSyxkM+h gh cSyxkM+h jgrh FkhA cfYd

cSyxkfM+;ka esjs ?kj ds ikl gh jksd nh tkrh FkhaA ;g Hkh dguk Bhd gS

fd v;ks/;k esa 10&20 gtkj vkneh jkst+ vkrs gSaA^^ ¼ist 39½

“It is correct to say that I have been seeing these three fairs

since my memory. It is true that lakhs of devotees visit on

occasion of these three fairs, some come by train, some by

bus and some by their private vehicles. Earlier some people

used to come by bullock-carts and horses as well. It is

wrong to say that when people used to come by bullock-

carts, then there were bullock-carts all around in Ramkot

near the Dorahi Kuan, and instead the bullock-carts were

stopped near my house. It is correct to say that 10-20

thousand people come to Ayodhya everyday.”(E.T.C)

^^of'k"V dq.M ds mRrj czgedq.M xq:}kjk gSA >xM+s okyh tehu ds iwjc

ekul Hkou gS ftlds iwjc 4&5 eafnj gS ftlesa yksel eafnj vkSj jke

4867

xqysyk eafnj vkfn gSaA ;g lM+d tks fookfnr Hkou ds mRrj ls tkrh gS

og iwjc dh vksj tkdj jktekxZ esa fey tkrh gSA ;g Bhd gS fd

jktekxZ ls >xM+s okyh tehu ds nksuks rjQ fgUnqvksa ds eafnj gSaA blh

lM+d ij v;ks/;k dk izfl) eafnj guqekux<+h Hkh gSA ;g Hkh Bhd gS fd

>xM+s okyh tehu ls iwjc jktekxZ rd fgUnqvksa dh vkcknh gS vkSj muds

reke eafnj gSaA >xM+s okyh tehu ds mRrj ,d fdeh0 dh nwjh ij

lj;w unh gSA ;g Hkh Bhd gS fd >xMs+ okyh tehu ds mRrj Hkh dbZ

eafnj gSA mlh vksj dud Hkou eafnj vkSj dbZ reke izfl) eafnj gSa

ftudk uke eq>s ugha ekywe gSA y{ke.k Vhyk dk uke lquk gS ;g Hkh

>xM+s okyh tehu ds mRrj fn'kk esa unh ds fdukjs gSA ;g Bhd gS fd

gekjs ;knnk'r ls v;ks/;k esa fgUnqvksa dh eqlyekuksa ls T;knk vkcknh gSA

- - - - - - - -;g Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k dks fgUnqvksa dk ,d rhFkZ LFky ekuk

tkrk gSA^^¼ist 41½

“The Brahmkunda Gurudwara is in north of Vashishtha

Kunda. The Manas Bhawan lies in east of the disputed site,

in east of which are 4-5 temples including Lomash temple,

Ram Gulela temple etc. This road in north of the disputed

structure, merges eastwards with the national highway. It is

true that Hindu temples lie on both sides of the road

between the national highway and the disputed site. The

famous Hanumangarhi temple of Ayodhya also lies on this

road. It is also true that Hindu populace exists in east of

the disputed site upto the national highway and their

various temples also lie over there. The Saryu river is one

kilometer in north of the disputed site. It is also true that

there are many temples in north of disputed site. The Kanak

Bhawan temple and many other famous temples, whose

names are not known to me, lie on that side. (I) have heard

about Laxman Tila. It is also along the river bank in north

of the disputed site. It is true that as per my memory, the

4868

Hindus are in majority over the Muslims in Ayodhya.. . . . . .

. . . It is true that Ayodhya is considered a pilgrimage of the

Hindus.”(E.T.C)

^^rhFkZ LFkku igys Hkh Fkk ij igys de yksx vkrs Fks] vc T;knk yksx

vkrs gSaA ;g Bhd gS fd fgUnw yksx Hkxoku jke dks viuk nsork ekurs

gSaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd fgUnqvksa dk ,slk fo'okl gS fd Hkxoku jke

v;ks/;k esa iSnk gq, FksA ;g Hkh dguk Bhd gS fd v;ks/;k esa Hkxoku jke

ls lacaf/kr dbZ dq.M vkSj LFkku gSaA^^ ¼ist 42½

“Earlier also it was a pilgrimage but fewer people used to

come. Now more people come. It is true that Hindus

consider Lord Rama to be their God. It is correct to say

that it is the belief of Hindus that Lord Rama was born in

Ayodhya. It is also correct to say that there are many

Kundas and places related to Lord Rama in

Ayodhya.”(E.T.C)

^^tc ls eSaus gks'k laHkkyk rc ls v;ks/;k dh vkcknh esa x`gLFk vkSj

fojDr ¼oSjkxh½ dks cjkcj&cjkcj ns[k jgk gw¡A ;g dguk lgh gksxk fd

xgLFk vkcknh esa fgUnqvksa dh la[;k yxHkx 90 Qhlnh ds vklikl gSA^^

¼ist 45½

“Since I have attained maturity, I have seen the

householders and recluses to be in equal number in the

populace of Ayodhya. It would be correct to say that

Hindus would be around 90 percent of the householder's

population.”(E.T.C)

^^foHkh"k.k dq.M gSA ---eSa tkurk gw¡ fd Hkxoku jke fgUnqvksa ds vjk/;

nsork gSaA^^ ¼ist 64½

“There is Vibhishan Kunda. . . . . . I know that Lord Rama

is revered God of Hindus.”(E.T.C)

PW-28, Sita Ram Roy

^^eSus ckYehfd jkek;.k i<+h gSA bles v;ks/;k dk ftØ gS] ftldh ppkZ

4869

eSusa vius mij ds c;ku esa fd;kA ckYehfd jkek;.k esa fy[kk gS fd

lj;wunh ls v;ks/;k Ms< ;kstu nwj gS ij fn'kk ugh dgk x;k gSA ;g

Bhd gS ckYehfd jkek;.k esa Hkxoku Jhjke dk eafnj gSA muds }kjk

v;ks/;k ds eafnj esa iwtk vpZuk 'k;u vkfn dk o.kZu gSA ckYehfd

jkek;.k ds ckydk.M esa Hkxoku jke ds tUe] fo'okfe= ds lkFk rkM+dk

jk{klh dk c/k ogk¡ ls mudk fo'okfe= ds lkFk /kuq"k ;K esa tudiqj

tkuk vkSj /kuq"k ;K esa lfEefyr gksuk vkSj ij'kqjke ds lkFk HksVa vkfn

dk o.kZu gSA ;g Bhd gS fd ckYehfd jke;.k ds ckydk.M esa Hkxoku

jke dk v;ks/;k esa tUe gqvk vkSj muds cky#i dk o.kZu gSA^^ ¼ist

11&12½

“I have read Valmiki Ramayana. It mentions about

Ayodhya, which has been discussed by me herein-above in

my statement. It is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana that

Ayodhya was 1½ 'yojan' away from river Saryu, but the

direction has not been given. It is correct that in the

Valmiki Ramayana there is temple of Lord Sri Rama. (It)

contains descriptions of prayer, worship, sleeping, etc. by

Him in temple of Ayodhya. In the Valmiki Ramayana, the

Baalkand contains descriptions of the birth of Lord Rama,

the killing of demoness Tarka along-with Vishwamitra,

thereafter His visit to Janakpur along-with Vishwamitra in

the 'Dhanush Yagya' and participation in the 'Dhanush

Yagya', and meeting with Parashuram, etc. It is correct that

the Baalkanda of the Valmiki Ramayana contains

descriptions of the birth of Lord Rama in Ayodhya as well

as His child-form.”(E.T.C)

^^;g Bhd gS mles ,slk Hkh o.kZu gS fd Hkxoku jke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa

gqvk rks nsorkvksa us nqnfEHk ctkdj mudk Lokxr fd;kA ;g Hkh Bhd gS

fd bles yo vkSj dq'k ds tUe dk mYys[k gSA^^ ¼ist 13½

“It is true that it is also so mentioned in it that when Lord

4870

Rama was born in Ayodhya, the 'Devtas' (Gods) had

welcomed Him by blowing trumpets. It is also correct that

it mentions about the birth of Luv and Kush.”(E.T.C)

^^eSusa LdU/k iqjk.k i<+k gSA blesa v;ks/;k egkRE; psIVj eSus i<+k gSA

v;ks/;k egkRE; esa jketUeHkwfe dh fLFkfr dk o.kZu ugha gSA esjh nf"V esa

,slk dguk lgh ugha gksxk fd v;ks/;k egkRe; esa jketUeHkwfe dh pkSgÌh

,oa mldh fLFkfr nh gqbZ gSA - - - - - - -mDr 'yksd dks i<+dj xokg us

dgk fd eSusa bldk HkkokFkZ le> fy;k gS blesa tUeHkwfe dh pkSgÌh Li"V

ugh gS fQj dgk fd pkSgÌh ugh nh x;h gSA xokg ls fo}ku vf/koDrk

us 'yksd ds 18] 19oh ykbZu nqckjk i<+okbZ ftls i<+dj xokg us dgk

fd bl 'yksd ls mijksDr pkSgÌh Li"V ugh gksrh gSA bu 'yksdksa esa

tUeHkwfe dh pkSgÌh Li"V ugha gSA blesa bldh pkjksa fn'kkvksa dk mYys[k

ugh gS tks pkSgÌh ds fy, gksuk t#jh gSA ;g Bhd gS fd mijksDr 'yksd

esa fi.Mkjd] fo?us'oj] okf'k"B vkSj ykse'k dk mYys[k gSA fo}ku

ftjgdrkZ vf/koDrk ls 18oha 'yksd dh igyh iafDr lqudj xokg us

i<+dj tckc fn;k fd bl LFkku ls bZ'kku dks.k dh vksj tUeHkwfe ds

fy, tkuk iM+rk gS blh 'yksd dh nwljh iafDr dk vFkZ ;g gS fd eks{k

dh izkfIr ds fy, tUeLFkku tk;k tkrk gSA izorZrs 'kCn dk vFkZ ;g

gksxk tks tkrk gSA fo?us'oj% iwoHkkZxs dk vFkZ gS fd fo?us'oj ds iwoZ Hkkx

esaA of'k"Bkr% mÙkjs dk eryc gS vkSj of'k"B ds mRrj esa] yksek'kkr

if'pes Hkkxs dk eryc gS fd ykse'k ds if'pe Hkkx esa] tUeLFkkue~ rr%

dk vFkZ gS ogk¡ ls tUeLFkku] eSusa tks vFkZ mij crk;k gS blls

tUeLFkku tkus dk ldsar gksrk gS u fd mldh pkSgÌh Li"V gksrh gSA^^

¼ist 17&18½

“I have read Skand Puran. I have read Ayodhya Mahatmya

chapter in it. The chapter Ayodhya Mahatmya does not

describe the location of Ramjanmbhumi. In my view, it

would not be correct to say that in Ayodhya Mahatmya, the

boundary of Ramjanmbhumi and its status are

mentioned. . . . . . . After reading the above verse, the

witness stated that I have understood its meaning. The

4871

boundary of Janmbhumi is not clear in it. Then stated that

boundary has not been given. The learned counsel asked

the witness to read again the 18th and 19th lines of the verse,

and after reading them, the witness stated: 'the aforesaid

boundary is not clear from this verse'. The boundary of

Ramjanmbhumi is not evident in these verses. The four

directions which are necessary for a boundary are not

mentioned therein. It is correct that in the aforesaid verse,

Pindarak, Vighneshwar, Vashishta and Lomesh are

mentioned. On hearing the first line of 18th verse from the

learned counsel conducting cross-examination and after

reading the same, the witness replied that one has to go to

the north-east direction from this place for visiting

Janmbhumi (place of birth). The meaning of the second line

of the same stanza is that one has to visit the 'place of birth'

for salvation. The term 'parvartate' means one who goes.

The term 'Vighneshwarah Poorvabhage' means in the

eastern part of Vighneshwar. The term Vashishthatah

Uttare means 'in the north of Vashishtha'; the term

Lomashat Paschime bhage means 'in the western part of

Lomash'; Janmsthanam Tatah means 'the place of birth

from there'. The meaning which I have stated above

indicates the path of the birth-place and not its boundary.

”(E.T.C)

^^eSa v;ks/;k vius ifjokj okyksa ds lkFk tkus ds dkj.k ls tkrk FkkA

vkf[kjh ckj v;ks/;k esa 60&62 dh mez esa x;k FkkA eSaus ;g tkuus dh

dksf'k'k ugha dh] fd esjs ifjokj okys v;ks/;k fdl Hkkouk ls tkrs FksA eSa

v;ks/;k chlksa ckj x;kA eSa ogk¡ Bgjrk ugha FkkA ogk¡ eSaus eafnj esa vUnj

tkdj dHkh n'kZu ugha fd,A xkM+h esa ckgj cSBs&cSBs ns[k ysrk FkkA^^ ¼ist

38½

4872

“I used to go to Ayodhya on account of accompanying my

family members. I last visited Ayodhya at the age of 60-62

years. I did not attempt to know as to with which feeling

did my family members used to go to Ayodhya. I have been

to Ayodhya more than 20 times. I did not stay there. I never

had darshan over there by going inside the temple. I used

to see from outside by sitting in the vehicle.”(E.T.C)

^^pw¡fd eSaus jke ds tUe dks ,sfrgkfld gh ugha ekuk blfy, eSaus ;g

irk yxkus dh dksf'k'k ugha dh] fd jke dk tUe dgk¡ gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist

61½

“Since I did not consider the birth of Rama to be historical,

as such I did not make attempt to learn as to where was

Rama born.”(E.T.C)

^^eq>s bldh tkudkjh gS fd fookfnr <kaps ds fo/oal ds iwoZ jke yyk

dh ewfrZ j[kh x;h Fkh] ij eq>s bldh tkudkjh ugha gS fd ogka dhrZu

gksrk FkkA eq>s ;g ekywe Fkk fd fdl bZ0 lu~ esa Hkxoku jke yyk dh

ewfrZ fookfnr <kaps eas j[kh x;h Fkh] ij bl le; ;kn ugha gS] ,slk

dguk xyr gS fd esjh nf"V esa ;g ckr egRo ghu FkhA^^ ¼ist 103½

“I have knowledge of the fact that prior to demolition of

disputed structure, the idols of Ramlala had been installed,

but I do not have knowledge of the fact as to where was

'kirtan' performed. I knew the year in which the idol of

Ramlala had been installed in the disputed structure, but

do not recollect it at present. It is wrong to say that in my

opinion, this fact had no importance.”(E.T.C)

^^rRdky eq>s ,slh fdlh v;ks/;k dh tkudkjh ugha gS ftlds mRrj esa

lj;w unh cgrh gksA^^ ¼ist 111½

“At present I do not know about any such Ayodhya, to the

north of which flows the river Saryu.”(E.T.C)

^^jke ds ckjs esa dqizpkj djus ds fy, uCcs ds n'kd ds ckn ;g

4873

fdrkcs ;kstukc) rjhds ls fy[kh x;hA^^ ¼ist 127½

“These books were written in the decade of nineties in a

planned manner in order to do wrong publicity about

Rama.”(E.T.C)

OPW-1, Mahant Ram Chandra Das Digambar

^^jkek;.k esa ;g mfYyf[kr gS fd Hkxoku jke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gqvkA

v;ks/;k dk o.kZu gekjs osnksa esa gS] mifu"knksa esa rFkk lafgrkvksa esa ,oa

v"Vkn'k mi iqjk.kksa esa] Lefr;ksa esa gS vkSj Hkkjr ds laLd`r txr esa tks

ekU; lkfgR; miyC/k gS] ml Hkxoku dk tUe LFkku v;ks/;k ekuk x;k

gSA^^ ¼ist 7½

“It is mentioned in the Ramayana that Lord Rama was

born in Ayodhya. The descriptions of Ayodhya are there in

our Vedas, Upnishadas, Samhitas, Smritis of Ashtadash

Up-puranas and the recognised literature available in

Sanskrit in India. The birth place of the Lord has been

taken as Ayodhya in (them).”(E.T.C)

^^;g ogh v;ks/;k gS tks orZeku LFky gSA bl LFky ij Hkxoku jke dk

tUe gqvk] blds lEcU/k esa pkSgn~nh dk mYys[k djrs gq, mijksDr lHkh

fgUnw /keZxzUFkksa esa Li"V :i ls mYys[k gSA dkxt la0 107x@75 esjs

le{k gS] LdU/k iqjk.k ds vUrxZr v;ks/;k egkRE; izdj.k esa bl lEcU/k

esa Li"V mYys[k gSA Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFky ,oa xHkZxg fookfnr

LFky gh gS] tgk¡ ij jkeyyk th bl le; fojkteku gSaA^^ ¼ist 8½

“It is the same Ayodhya, which is the present site. Lord

Rama was born at this place. While giving the boundary in

its behalf, there is clear reference in all the above

mentioned Hindu treatises. The paper no. 107C/75 is

before me, it contains clear mention in this behalf in the

Ayodhya Mahatmya under the Skanda-purana. The

birthplace of Lord Rama and the sanctum sanctorum are

the disputed site, where Ramlala is present at

4874

present.”(E.T.C)

^^okYehfd jkek;.k ds ik=ksa ds uke ij v;ks/;k esa fLFkr fofHkUu LFky

rFkk v;ks/;k esa fLFkr fofHkUu LFkyksa ds lEcU/k esa mi;qZDr o.kZu ds

vk/kkj ij esjk ;g dguk gS fd fookfnr LFky jketUeHkwfe gSA^^ ¼ist

54½

“On the basis of the aforesaid description on several

Ayodhya situated places named after the characters of

Valmiki Ramayan and in regard to the several places

located in Ayodhya, I say that the disputed site is

Ramjanmhbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^;g LFkku jke pcwrjs ds mRrj FkkA f'k[kj ds uhps nks ewfrZ;k¡ rFkk

lkfyxzke dh ,d cfV;k Fkh ftls iqtkjh ckgj vkaxu esa ysdj vk x,

FksA nksuksa ewfrZ;k¡ jkeyyk dh gh Fkh] Øe'k% cM+h rFkk NksVh ewfrZ;k¡ FkhA

ewfrZ;ksa esa tks f'k[kj ds uhps Fks] lhrk th dh ewfrZ ugha Fkh] guqeku th

dh ewfrZ ogk¡ ij Fkh ;k ugha] eq>s ;kn ughaA ftl LFkku ls vFkkZr~ f'k[kj

ds uhps ls iqtkjh ewfrZ;ksa dks gVkdj yk;k Fkk] leryhdj.k ds ckn mu

ewfrZ;ksa dks ogha ij j[k fn;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 82½

“This place was to the north of the Ramchabutra. Beneath

the dome, were two idols and one 'Batiya' of Saligram,

which has been brought out in the courtyard by the priest.

Both the idols were of Ramlala, which were big and small

idols respectively. Out of the idols present beneath the

dome, there was no idol of Sita Ji, I do not remember

whether the idol of Hanuman Ji was there or not. After

levelling, those idols were placed at that very place from

which the priest had removed and brought them i.e. from

beneath the dome.”(E.T.C)

^^iqtkjh lR;sUnz nkl us rFkk vU; yksxksa us eq>ls ;g crk;k fd fookfnr

Hkou ds fxjus ds ckn ewfrZ mlh LFkku ij j[kh xbZ tgk¡ ij igys fLFkr

FkhA ftl fnu fuekZ.k /oLr gqvk mlh fnu 8 cts jkr dks eSaus vkdj

ml LFkku dks ns[kk tgk¡ ij ewfrZ j[kh xbZ FkhA^^ ¼ist 98½

4875

“Priest Satyendra Das and others had told me that after

collapse of the disputed structure, the idols had been

placed at the same place where they existed earlier. At 8

PM of the day on which the structure was demolished, I

had come and seen the place where the idols had been

installed.”(E.T.C)

^^mijksDr dfe'uj }kjk fy, x, QksVksxzkQ la0&10 dkxt

la0&154@13 lk{kh dks fn[kyk;k x;k] ;g ogh LFky gS tgk¡ ij igys

ewfrZ Fkh rFkk ckn esa mlh LFkku ij nqckjk ewfrZ j[kh xbZA ;g ewfrZ

pcwrjs ij j[kh gqbZ fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA pcwrjk fufeZr dj fn;k x;k FkkA og

LFkku tgk¡ ij bl le; ewfrZ j[kh gqbZ gS ogh LFkku xHkZxg 1934 mlds

iwoZ 1949 esa rFkk vc Hkh gSA

iz'u % 1934 esa e/; f'k[kj ds uhps vki ftl LFkku dks tUeHkwfe

le>rs Fks] mldh yEckbZ] pkSM+kbZ D;k Fkh \

mRrj % fookfnr Hkou ds uhps dk lEiw.kZ LFkku e/; f'k[kj ds

uhps rFkk mlds vxy&cxy {ks= dks jke tUeHkwfe ds :i esa eSa le>rk

gw¡A

iz'u % D;k ml Hkwfe dh dksbZ yEckbZ&pkSM+kbZ 100 x 100 fQV

jgh gksxh ;k blls vf/kd \

mRrj % eSa ;g fuf'pr ugha dg ldrk fd ml LFkku dh

yEckbZ&pkSM+kbZ D;k Fkh ijUrq ifjØek ekxZ dks ysdj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe dks eSa

tUeHkwfe dk fgLlk ekudj mldh ifjØek djrk FkkA

& tUeHkwfe mlh LFkku dks le>rk gw¡] tgk¡ ij jke dk tUe

gqvk FkkA ;g tUe jktk n'kjFk ds egy esa izlo xg esa gqvk FkkA

xHkZxg rFkk izlox`g tUe dh nf"V ls ,d gh gSa] esjk rkRi;Z Hkxoku

jke ds tUe ysus ds LFkku ls gSA^^ ¼ist 99½

“The photograph no.10, paper no. 154/13, taken by the

aforesaid Commissioner was shown to the witness. It is the

same place where idols existed earlier and later on idols

were again installed over there. These idols appear to have

been placed above platform. The platform had been built.

4876

The place where idols are installed at present, was the

sanctum sanctorum in 1934 (or) earlier, in 1949 and even

today.

Question: What was the dimension of the place beneath the

Central dome in 1934, which you considered to be

Janmbhumi?

Answer: I consider the entire place beneath the central

dome as well as the adjoining places, to be

Ramjanmbhumi.

Question: Would the length-breadth of any part of that

land, have been 100x100 feet or more?

Answer: I cannot tell definitely the dimension of that place,

but I used to perform circumambulation of the entire land

including the circumambulation path, by treating it to be

part of Janmbhumi.

-(I) consider Janmbhumi to be the same place, where

Rama was born. This birth took place in the labour room of

king Dashrath’s palace. Sanctum sanctorum and labour

room, are the same from the point of view of birth. I mean

the place of birth of Lord Rama. ”(E.T.C)

^^iz'u %& fookfnr Hkou esa xHkZxg mlh LFky ij gksus ds lEcU/k

esa tgk¡ ij vki crkrs gSa] vkidk fo'okl fdl iqLrd o izek.k ij

vk/kkfjr gS \

mRrj %& osnksa esa tUeHkwfe dk o.kZu gSA vFkoZosn ds ea= %&

v"VkpØ uon~}kjk lknsor uke iq% v;ks/;k rL;kefgj.e;% dks"k%

fy[kk gS] ftldk 'kCnkFkZ gS&vkB oØksa ij ;g v;ks/;k uxjh clh gqbZ gS

vkSj vkxs vkBksa oØksa ds vkB nsorkvksa dk o.kZu #nz;key rd esa vkrk

gSA mlls lEcaf/kr 'yksd fuEu gS %&

tUeHkwfea guqeUra ukxs'ka lj;wf'koke~

y{e.ka os.kq rhFkZe cUns gkVd efUnje~ AA

4877

bl 'yksd esa izFke pzd ds nsork jke tUe Hkwfe dk gksuk

mfYyf[kr gSA^^ ¼ist 103½

“Question:- On which book and evidence is your

belief based regarding the existence of 'Garbh-grih'

(sanctum sanctorum) in the disputed structure at the same

place where you claim so?

Answer:- The Janmbhumi is described in the Vedas.

The meaning of Atharvaveda's hymn reading as

‘Ashtachakra Navadwara Shadevnam Puh Ayodhya

Tasyamahiranyamayah Koshah’ is that ‘the city of Ayodhya

exists over eight ‘Chakras’ (wheels)’, and the description of

the eight Gods of the eight ‘Chakras’ (wheels) is found in

Rudrayam. The concerned verse is as under:

‘Janmbhumim Hanumantam Nagesham Saryushivam

Laxmanam Venu Tirthavbande Hatak Mandiram’.

This verse gives the Ramjanmbhumi to be the God of

the first ‘Chakra’ (wheel).”(E.T.C)

OPW-3, Dr. S.P. Gupta

^^1946 esa v;ks/;k vk;k rks Jhjke tUeHkwfe - - - - - vkfn dk n'kZu djus

tk;k djrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 2½

“(When I) came to Ayodhya in 1946, I used to go to have

darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi. . . . . . etc.”(E.T.C)

^^23 fnlEcj] 1949 ds dbZ eghus igys ls jke tUeHkwfe efUnj ds lkeus

eSnku esa fnu esa v[k.M ikB - - - - - dhrZu ds le; dkQh HkhM+ bdV~Bk

gksrh FkhA^^ ¼ist 10½

“For many months before 23rd December, 1949, 'Akhand

Paath' during day time in the ground opposite

Ramjnmbhumi temple. . . . . . . Much gathering used to take

place at time of 'Kirtan'.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr Hkou ds vUnj iqtkjh tkrs FksA lu~ 1995 esa ,d&nks iqtkjh

4878

ogk¡ ij >kM+w oxSjg yxkus ds fy, tkrs FksA^^ ¼ist 15½

“The priests used to go inside the disputed structure. In the

year 1995, a couple of priests used to go there for

brooming etc.”(E.T.C)

OPW-4, Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari

^^v;ks/;k fgUnqvksa dh ,d izkphu ifo=re rhFkZ LFkyh gS tgk¡ ijeczg~e

ijes'oj Hkxoku fo".kq us jktk n'kjFk ds iq= Jhjke ds :i esa vorkj

fy;k FkkA fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa esa vukfndky ls ;g vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl

jgk gS fd Hkxoku fo".kq us Jhjke ds :i esa v;ks/;k esa vorkj fy;k FkkA

;g LFkku iwT; gS] blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij yksx Jhjke

tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu vkSj ifjØek djus vkrs FksA esjs ifjokj ds yksx] esjs

ckck] v;ks/;k esa tc eSa 1934 ls 1938 rd f'k{kk xzg.k ds nkSjku jgk rks

ogk¡ ds cM+s cqtqxZ lk/kq&lUr Hkh crkrs Fks fd Hkxoku fo".kq us Hkxoku

Jhjke ds :i esa ;gha tUe fy;k Fkk] vkSj ;gh Jhjke tUeHkwfe gSA^^ ¼ist

2½

“Ayodhya is an ancient, most sacred pilgrimage of Hindus,

where the 'Param Brahm' Lord Vishnu incarnated as King

Dashrath's son Sri Rama. It has been the faith and belief of

followers of Hinduism from time immemorial that Lord

Vishnu had incarnated in Ayodhya as Sri Rama. This place

is worship-able, it is on basis of this faith and belief that

people used to come over to have darshan of Sri

Ramjanmbhumi and to perform circumambulation. From

1934 to 1938 when I stayed in Ayodhya to receive

education, my family members, my grandfather, the elderly

people over there as well as the saints-sages used to tell

that Lord Vishnu had incarnated at this very place in form

of Lord Sri Rama and this was Sri Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^blh vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij eSa Jhjke tUeHkwfe ij n'kZu

djus tkrk jgk vkSj i<+kbZ lekIr djus ds ckn Hkh tc dHkh v;ks/;k

4879

vkrk Fkk rc Hkh n'kZu djus tkrk Fkk] b/kj yxHkx 8&9 lky ls lqxzho

fdyk] jkedksV] v;ks/;k esa vf/kdka'k le; jgrk gw¡ vkSj jke tUeHkwfe dk

n'kZu djus tkrk jgrk gw¡A^^ ¼ist 3½

“It is on basis of this faith and belief that I kept going to

Sri Ramjanmbhumi to have darshan and after completing

my studies, whenever I went to Ayodhya, I used to go to

have darshan. In last 8-9 years, I mostly stay at Sugriv-

Qila, Ramkot, Ayodhya and keep going to Ramjanmbhumi

to have darshan.”(E.T.C)

OPW-6, Hausila Prasad Tripathi

^^12&13 o"kZ dh vk;q esa 1935 esa fnlEcj esa igyh ckj vius pkpk ds

lkFk v;ks/;k vk;k FkkA esjs pkpk Jhjke tUeHkwfe ls yxHkx vk/kk

fdyksehVj nwj jgrs FksA muds lkFk eSa jke tUeHkwfe efUnj o vU;

efUnjksa dk n'kZu fd;kA^^ ¼ist 3½

“I had first come to Ayodhya along-with my uncle at the

age of 12-13 years, in December, 1935. My uncle used to

live about ½ kilometre away from Sri Ramjanmbhumi. I

had the darshan of Ramjanmbhumi temple and other

temples, along-with him.”(E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa 4 esys gSa] muds uke gSa& dkfrZd iwf.kZek] ifjØek] pS=

jkeuoeh] lkou >wyk o jke fookgA^^ ¼ist 4½

“In Ayodhya, there are four fairs. Their names are–Kartika

Purnima Parikrama, Chaitra Ramnavmi, Sawan Jhoola

and Ram Vivah.”(E.T.C)

^^esjk Hkh n<+ fo'okl vkSj vkLFkk gS fd Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe v;ks/;k

esa mlh LFkku ij gqvk gS] tgk¡ gtkjksa fgUnw rhFkZ;k=h n'kZukFkhZ vkdj

n'kZu] iwtk o ifjØek djrs gSaA blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij eSa

Hkh 1935 ls izfro"kZ lky esa 3&4 ckj v;ks/;k x;k vkSj ogk¡ lj;w Luku

ds ckn dud Hkou] guqekux<+h o Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu o Jhjke

tUeHkwfe dh ifjØek fd;kA ---jke tUeHkwfe ifjlj ij tc eSa igyh ckj

x;k] rks eq>s iwjk ifjlj efUnj tSlk yxkA lu~ 1935 ls 1945 ds chp

4880

tc&tc eSa jke tUeHkwfe efUnj esa x;k ogk¡ ij lHkh /kkfeZd LFky tSls

jke pcwrjk] NBh iwtu LFky] lhrk jlksbZ] eq[; xHkZxg esa Hkxoku dk

n'kZu fd;kA jke pcwrjk vkSj f'ko njckj vkSj lhrk jlksbZ esa izlkn ysrk

Fkk vkSj izlkn p<+krk Hkh Fkk vkSj xHkZxg okys Hkxoku dk n'kZu lha[kps

ds ckgj ls djrk Fkk vkSj lha[kps ds ikl gh izlkn j[k nsrk FkkA^^ ¼ist

5½

“It is my firm faith and belief that Lord Sri Rama was born

in Ayodhya at that very place, where thousands of Hindu

pilgrims, devotees come to have darshan, worship and

perform circumambulation. On basis of this very faith and

belief, I also went to Ayodhya 3-4 times a year from 1935

and after having a dip in Saryu, had the darshan of Kanak

Bhawan, Hanumangarhi and Sri Ramjanmbhumi and

performed circumambulation of Sri

Ramjanmbhumi. . . . . . . When I first visited the

Ramjanmbhumi premises, the entire premises appeared to

me just like a temple. In between the years 1935 to 1945,

whenever I went to Ramjanmbhumi temple, I had darshan

of deity at all religious places such as Ramchabutra,

Chhatthi worship place, Sita Rasoi, main sanctum

sanctorum. (I) used to take 'prasad' at Ramchabutra, Shiv

Darbar and Sita Rasoi, and also used to make offerings

and used to have darshan of the deity in the sanctum

sacntorum through the grills from outside and used to keep

the offerings near the grill.”(E.T.C)

^^1935&45 ds chp HkhM+ esa ykbu yxok dj lk/kq&cSjkxh n'kZu djkrs FksA

;s lk/kq mlh ifjlj esa jgrs FksA^^ ¼ist 10½

“In between 1935-45, the saints-recluses used to organise

queues for darshan. These saints lived in that very

campus.”(E.T.C)

4881

^^eSaus vius 'kiFk i= esa ist la0&8 esa tks ;g dgk gS fd lk/kqvksa rFkk

oSjkfx;ksa ds Mj ds dkj.k dksbZ Hkh eqlyeku bl ifjlj ds vklikl vkus

dh fgEer ugha tqVk ikrk Fkk] og bl dkj.k Fkk fd eqlyeku yksx

lk/kqvksa ls Mjrs FksA^^ ¼ist 12½

“My statement appearing in page 8 of my affidavit as 'due

to fear of saints and recluses, no Muslim was able to gather

the courage to come near this premises', was in view of the

fact that the Muslims were scared of the saints.”(E.T.C)

^^lu~ 1949 okyh ?kVuk ds yxHkx ,d ekg ckn eSa jke tUeHkwfe efUnj

x;k FkkA 1949 dh ?kVuk ds ckn tc eSa fookfnr ifjlj esa x;k rks ogk¡

iqfyl rks Fkh] ijUrq lha[kps ds ikj ls xHkZx`g ds vUnj eSaus n'kZu fd;kA

lha[kps ds igys jkepcwrjk] lhrk jlksbZ] f'ko njckj] "k"Bh iwtk LFky

vkfn ij mlh izdkj ls iwtk vkfn gksrh Fkh] tSls igys gksrh Fkh] cfYd

vUrj ;g Fkk fd iqfyl ogk¡ yxh FkhA esu xsV ij Hkh iqfyl jgrh

Fkh ,oa fxzy ls Hkh iqfyl fn[kkbZ nsrh FkhA xHkZxg ds igys jkepcwrjk]

HkaMkjxg] lhrk jlksbZ] f'ko njckj] "k"Vh iwtk LFky ij oSls gh

lk/kq&oSjkxh jgrs Fks] tSls igys jgrs Fks vkSj n'kZukFkhZ oSls gh n'kZu djrs

Fks] izlkn p<+krs Fks vkSj iwtk vkfn djrs Fks] tSls igys djrs FksA

crk'kk ,oa Qwy eq[; xsV ds lkeus nqdkusa jgrh Fkha] ogk¡ ls fy;k tkrk

FkkA eq>s ugha ekywe fd lhrk dwi dk ty fiykus ds fy, dksbZ

lk/kq&oSjkxh xsV ij jgrk Fkk ;k ughaA^^ ¼ist 13½

“I had gone to the Ramjanmbhumi temple, about a month

after the incident of the year 1949. When I went to the

disputed premises after the incident of the year 1949, the

police was present but I had the darshan of sanctum

sanctorum from outside the grill. The worship at

Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi, Shiv Darbar, Chhatthi worship

place, etc. outside the grill, used to take place as in past,

and the only difference was that police had been deployed

over there. The police was present at the main gate as well

and was visible from the grill also. The saints-recluses

4882

lived at Ramchabutara, store-room, Sita Rasoi, Shiv

Darbar, Chhathi worship place, outside the sanctum

sanctorum, as in past and the devotees also had darshan,

offered offerings, performed worship etc. in the same

manner, as in past. The shops of 'Batasha' and flowers

existed opposite the main gate and they were purchased

from there. I do not know whether there was any saint-

recluse at the gate for giving the water of Sita Koop, or

not.”(E.T.C)

^^1922 esa eSa iSnk gqvk FkkA esjs firk dk nsgkUr 1969 esa gqvkA 1935 ls

1969 ds chp yxHkx 100 ckj v;ks/;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 19½

“I was born in 1922. My father died in 1969. (I) went to

Ayodhya on about 100 occasions between 1935 to

1969.”(E.T.C)

^^eSaus 14 dkslh ifjØek 3&4 ckj vkSj ,d ckj iapdkslh ifjØek dh gSA

ifjØek ges'kk jkr esa dh gSA bl dkj.k fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk FkkA jkLrs esa

dksbZ efLtn iM+h gS ;k ugha] ;k dgk¡&dgk¡ D;k&D;k iM+rk FkkA^^ ¼ist

35½

“I have performed 14 kosi (kose, 1 kose equal to 2 miles)

circumambulation 3-4 times and 'Panchkosi' (of five kose)

circumambulation once. (I) have always performed

circumambulation during night, due to which it could not

be seen (whether) there was any mosque in the path or not,

or as to what fell in between.”(E.T.C)

^^1935 ls 2002 rd -------- eSa jke tUeHkwfe vkSj dud Hkou tk jgk gw¡A

ogk¡ eSaus 1 ;k 2 iqtkjh ns[ks FksA^^ ¼ist 41½

“From 1935 to 2002. . . . . . I have been going to

Ramjanmbhumi and Kanak Bhawan. There, I had seen 1 or

2 priests.”(E.T.C)

^^ftl xHkZxg ds ckjs esa eSaus vius igys c;ku esa crk;k gS ml xHkZxg

4883

ds ckjs esa lu~ 1949 ds igys ls tkurk Fkk] mls esjs pkpk us crk;k FkkA

eSa vius pkpk ds lkFk fookfnr LFky ij lu~ 1935 ds vUr esa fnlEcj

ds eghus esa x;k Fkk] rHkh esjs pkpk us mijksDr ckr crkbZ FkhA lu~ 1949

ds ckn tks ewfrZ;k¡ eSaus xHkZxg esa ns[kh Fkh] og ewfrZ;k¡ 1935 esa ugha FkhA

lu~ 1935 esa dsoy rkd okyh ewfrZ o ,d QksVks Fkh] tks fLFkfr fookfnr

LFky ij xHkZxg esa lu~ 1935 esa eSaus ns[kh Fkh] ogh fLFkfr lu~ 1949 rd

dk;e FkhA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd gj efUnj esa xHkZx`g dk gksuk

vko';d gS ;k ughaA^^ ¼ist 77½

“I knew the sanctum sanctorum, about which I have stated

earlier, from before the year 1949. it was told to me by my

uncle. I had been to the disputed structure along-with my

uncle in last of December, 1995, when my uncle had told

me the aforesaid facts. The idols which I saw in the

sanctum sanctorum after 1949, did not lie there in 1935. In

1935, there was just one niche-placed idol and one

photograph. The position which I had seen in the sanctum

sanctorum on the disputed site in 1935, continued to exist

up to 1949. I cannot tell whether or not it is necessary for

each temple to have a sanctum sanctorum. ”(E.T.C)

OPW-7, Ram Surat Tiwari

^^v;ks/;k o"kZ esa 4&5 ckj tkrk jgk] dud Hkou] guqekux<+h] Jhjke

tUeHkwfe vkfn dk n'kZu djrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 2½

“I kept visiting Ayodhya, 4-5 times in a year. (I) used to

have darshan of Kanak Bhawan, Hanumangarhi, Sri

Ramjanmbhumi, etc.”(E.T.C)

^^vkfndky ls fgUnqvksa esa ;g vkLFkk] fo'okl ,oa yksdekU;rk izpfyr gS

fd bl Hkou ds chp okys f'k[kj ds uhps gh Hkxoku fo".kq us jktk

n'kjFk ds iq= Jhjke ds :i esa vorkj fy;k Fkk blhfy, bls Hkxoku

jke dk xHkZx`g dgk tkrk gSA jke pcwrjk dk n'kZu djus ds ckn

lha[kpksa okyh nhokj ds njokts ls rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou esa fLFkr Jhjke

tUeHkwfe xHkZxg dk n'kZu rhFkZ;k=h&n'kZukFkhZ fd;k djrs Fks rFkk

4884

Qwy&ekyk] nzO;&izlkn vkfn ogha ls xHkZxg dh vksj Mky fn;k djrs

FksA^^ ¼ist 4½

“From ancient times, this faith, belief and public opinion is

prevalent amongst the Hindus that Lord Vishnu had

incarnated beneath the mid dome of this structure as Lord

Rama, son of King Dashrath. Due to this, it is called the

sanctum sanctorum of Lord Rama. After having darshan of

Ramchabutara, the pilgrims-devotees used to have darshan

of Sri Ramjanmbhumi sanctum sanctorum situated in the

three domed structure, from the gate in the grill wall, and

used to make offerings of flowers-garlands, money-sweets,

etc. at the sanctum sanctorum from there.”(E.T.C)

^^cM+s cqtqxZ yksxksa us Hkh crk;k Fkk fd vkLFkk] fo'okl ,oa izpfyr yksd

ekU;rk ds vuqlkj lHkh oS".ko jkeHkDr fgUnw turk chp okys f'k[kj ds

uhps dh Hkwfe dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe gksus ds dkj.k vR;Ur

ifo=] iwT; vkSj n'kZuh; ekurh gSA blh dkj.k esjs HkkbZ lkgc ml LFky

dks Hkxoku jke dh tUeHkwfe ekurs FksA^^ ¼ist 4½

“The elderly persons had also told that according to faith,

belief and prevalent public opinion, the Vaishnavite Rama

devotee Hindu public considers the land beneath the mid

dome to be very sacred, worshippable and reverable on

account of being the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. Due to

this, my brother used to consider that place to be the

birthplace of Lord Rama.”(E.T.C)

^^lha[kps okyh nhoky ds vUnj rhu f'k[kj okys Hkou esa chp okys f'k[kj

ds izos'k }kj esa vkSj mlds vUnj ckjg dlkSVh ds [kEHks yxs gq, Fks] mu

[kEHkksa esa ?kV] iYyo] Qwy&ifRr;k¡] fgUnw nsoh&nsorkvksa dh

ewfrZ;k¡ mRdh.kZ Fkh] muesa ls fdlh ewfrZ dk psgjk] fdlh dk gkFk] fdlh

dk iSj [kqjps gq, FksA^^ ¼ist 6½

“12 touchstone pillars were fixed at and inside the

4885

entrance gate of the mid dome inside the grill wall of the

three domed structure. The idols of Hindu Gods-

Goddesses, 'Ghat', 'Pallav', flowers-leaves were engraved

over those pillars. Out of them, the face or hand or leg of

some idol had been scratched.”(E.T.C)

^^1942 ls 1992 ds njE;ku eSaus fookfnr ifjlj ds pkjksa rjQ ifjØek

de ls de 100&50 ckj t:j dh gksxhA^^ ¼ist 51½

“In between 1942 to 1992, I must have circumambulated

the disputed premises at least 100-150 times.”(E.T.C)

^^lu~ 1949 ds ewfrZ j[ks tkus ds nks&rhu eghus igys ls ifjlj ds ckgj

vkSj jkepcwrjs ds lkeus dhrZu vkSj jkek;.k dk ikB gqvk djrk FkkA og

dhrZu vDVwcj ls 24 ?kaVs pyrk jgrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 101½

“For 2-3 months before the installation of idols in the year

1949, 'Kirtan' and 'Ramayana' oration used to take place

outside the premises and in front of the Ramchabutara.

This 'Kirtan' was performed 24 hours from October

onwards.”(E.T.C)

^^dhrZu ds le; fookfnr ifjlj esa 50&60 yksx jgrs Fks] ifjlj ds

ckgj cgqr HkhM+ jgrh FkhA^^ ¼ist 102½

“At time of 'Kirtan', there used to be about 50-60 persons

in the disputed premises. There used to be large gathering

outside the premises.”(E.T.C)

^^dqN yksx >kfM+;k¡ lkQ djrs Fks] tks Hkou ds iwjc vkSj mRrj rjQ

FkhA budh lQkbZ dk dke vDVwcj rd pyrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 102½

“Few people used to clean the hedges, which were in east

and north of the structure. Their cleansing continued till

October.”(E.T.C)

^^eSaus bu >kfM+;ksa dks lu~ 1942 ls ns[kk FkkA^^ ¼ist 102½

“I had seen these hedges from the year 1942.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr ifjlj ds ckgj 'kkfe;kuk >kfM+;k¡ dVus ds ckn yxk FkkA^^

4886

¼ist 104½

“The tent outside the disputed premises, was fixed after the

cutting of hedges.”(E.T.C)

OPW-9, Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma

^^u;k tUe LFkku efUnj 200&250 lky iqjkukA iqjkuk tUeLFkku nwljksa

ds dCts esa blfy, u;s tUeLFkku ds lkFk lhrk jlksbZ Hkh cukbZ

xbZ&nwljksa ds dCts dk eryc eqfLye 'kkldA^^ ¼ist 138½

“The new Janmsthan temple (is) about 200-250 years old.

The old Janmsthan in possession of others, as such Sita

Rasoi was also built along with new Janmsthan – by

possession of others is meant the Muslim rulers.”(E.T.C)

^^1885 dk okn i= & ftyk tt pkfe;kj & fu.kZ; & ^;g nqHkkZX;iw.kZ gS

fd fgUnqvksa }kjk fo'ks"k :i ls ifo= ekus tkus okys LFky dks rksM+dj

ml ij bekjr [kM+h dj nh xbZ ysfdu 300 o"kZ chrus ij Hkh bl ij

fuf'pr fu.kZ; ugha fn;k tk ldk^ bl izdkj pkfe;kj us ml fookfnr

Hkou dks tUeHkwfe dk ,d va'k ekuk gSA^^ ¼ist 151½

“Plaint of 1885 – District Judge Chamiar – Judgment – 'It

is unfortunate that structure was raised by demolishing the

place, particularly considered sacred by Hindus, but

despite lapse of 300 years no definite decision has been

possible on the same'. Accordingly Chamiar has considered

the disputed structure to be part of Janmbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^203C-1/1&2 ns[kdj igyh ckj Kkr gqvk fd ftl LFkku ij B.M.

Fkh ogk¡ igys fo".kq gfj dk efUnj Fkk ftls fxjkdj 1528 esa efLtn

cuhA^^ ¼ist 209½

“After looking at (paper no.) 203C-1/1&2, it transpired for

the first time that at the place where B.M. stood, there was

Vishnu Hari temple in past, after demolishing which the

mosque was built in 1528.”(E.T.C)

^107C-1/14 (P322) 11th 12th line tUeLFkku dk tks o.kZu gS ;g

4887

fookfnr LFky ij fLFkr Hkou ls lEcaf/kr gSA^^ ¼ist 320½

“The Janmsthan mentioned in 11th 12th line (of paper no.)

107C-1/14(P322), is related to the building situated at the

disputed premises.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr LFky lj;w ds fdukjs izkphudky ¼2000&1000 gtkj lky

igys½ esa FkkA^^ ¼ist 322½

“The disputed site was along the banks of Saryu in the

ancient period (2000-1000 years ago).”(E.T.C)

^^xgM+oky jktoa'k ds laLFkkid pUnznso vius dks v;ks/;k vkfn rhFkZ

LFkkuksa ds laj{kd ekurs FksA^^ ¼ist 325½

“Chandradeo, the founder of Gahadwal Dynasty regarded

himself patron of Ayodhya and other places of pilgrimage

(Teerthsthan).”(E.T.C)

OPW-12, Kaushal Kishore Mishra

^^Jhjke tUeHkwfe v;ks/;k esa tc ls eSa vius ckck vkSj firkth ds lkFk

tkuk izkjEHk fd;k rc ls ogk¡ fgUnqvksa dks gh iwjs ifjlj esa dkfct]

nkf[ky o iwtk ikB djrs lk/kq&cSjkfx;ksa dks ifjlj esa jgrs gq, ns[kkA^^

¼ist 5½

“Since I started going to Sri Ramjanmbhumi Ayodhya

along-with my grandfather and father, I have seen the

Hindus to be in possession over the entire premises, carry

out prayer-worship, and the saints-recluses living in the

premises.”(E.T.C)

^^jke tUeHkwfe efUnj esa tc igyh ckj n'kZu djus x;k Fkk] ml le;

esjs lkFk esjs firkth Hkh FksA lha[kpksa okyh nhokj ds nksuksa njokts [kqys

jgrs FksA mlh njokts ls n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA ogha ij jkeyyk dk

foxzg FkkA^^ ¼ist 15½

“When I first went to Ramjanmbhumi temple to have

darshan, at that time my father was also with me. Both the

gates of the grill wall used to remain open. The 'Vigrah' of

4888

Ramlala existed over there.”(E.T.C)

^^lkfyxzke dh izk.k izfr"Bk ugha gksrh gSA og Lo;aHkw Hkxoku gSaA^^ ¼ist

22½

“Deification of Saligram is not carried out. He is self-

originating God.”(E.T.C)

^^lkfyxzke ds 'ka[k] pØ vkfn fpUgksa ds vk/kkj ij nsorkvksa dk vkdkj

fuf'pr ekudj /;ku fd;k tkrk gSA^^ ¼ist 22½

“Meditation is carried out after assuming the form of Gods

on basis of conch, wheel, etc. symbols of Saligram.”(E.T.C)

^^eSa tUe ls gh v;ks/;k esa jgrk gw¡A^^ ¼ist 30½

“I live in Ayodhya since birth.”(E.T.C)

^^Jh jkepUnz th dk tUe v;ks/;k esa jkedksV eksgYys esa orZeku tUeHkwfe

ifjlj esa gqvk FkkA tgk¡ ij xHkZxg esa vkt jkeyyk th fojkteku gSa]

ogha ij mudk tUe gqvk FkkA rhu xqEcn okyk efUnj] tks jkedksV esa

fLFkr Fkk] mlds e/; Hkkx esa Jhjkeyyk th dk xHkZx`g FkkA^^ ¼ist 42½

“Lord Ram Chandra was born in Ramkot locality of

Ayodhya, the present Janmbhumi premises. Lord Ramlala

was born at the same place where He is present today in

the sanctum sanctorum. The sanctum sanctorum of

Ramlala was in the mid part of the three domed temple,

which was situated in Ramkot.”(E.T.C)

^^tks xHkZxg gS] ogha ij jkepUnz th dk tUe gqvk FkkA iwjk jkedksV

n'kjFk th dk egy Fkk] ftlesa xHkZxg Hkh 'kkfey gSA jkepUnz th dk

tUe n'kjFk th ds egy esa gh gqvk FkkA orZeku le; esa ftls jkedksV

eksgYyk dgk tkrk gS] ogh n'kjFk th ds egy dk vUrxZ`g FkkA f'ko

lafgrk] HkO; mRrj[k.M ds izFke v/;k; ls prqFkZ v/;k; rd Jhjke th

ds jkT;kfHk"ksd ds le; tks v;ks/;k vkSj jkedksV dh fLFkfr Fkh] mldk

o.kZu vk;k gSA^^ ¼ist 43½

“Lord Ram Chandra was born at what is the sanctum

sanctorum. The entire Ramkot was the palace of Dashrath,

which also included the sanctum sanctorum. Lord Ram

4889

Chandra was born in the palace of Dashrath. At present

what is called the Ramkot locality, was the inner part of the

palace of Dashrath. The situation of Ayodhya and Ramkot,

at time of enthronement of Lord Rama, is found in Chapter

1 to 4 of Bhavya Uttrakhand, Shiv Samhita.”(E.T.C)

^^tSls vktdy x.kjkT; gSa] gj izkUr dk 'kklu vyx&vyx gS] vkSj

dsUnzh; 'kklu ,d txg gS] mlh izdkj n'kjFk th dh dsUnzh; 'kklu dh

jkt/kkuh v;ks/;k FkhA jke th dk tUe jktk n'kjFk ds jktegy ds

izlwfr xg esa gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 46½

“As is the case in present days republic where every

province has its independent rule with a separate central

rule, similarly Ayodhya was the capital of the central rule

of King Dashrath. Lord Rama was born in the labor room

of the palace of King Dashrath.”(E.T.C)

^^esjh ;g Hkh vkLFkk gS fd gj ckj jkepUnz th dk tUe mlh LFkku ij

gqvk gksxk] tgk¡ ij ckcjh efLtn FkhA 'kkL=ksa esa ,slk vk;k gS fd tc

jkepUnz th dk igyh ckj tUe gqvk Fkk] ml le; jktk n'kjFk dk

egy iRFkj] ef.k] eksrh] eqDrk ls cuk FkkA 'kkL=ksa esa bl ckr dk Hkh

o.kZu gS fd gj dYi esa jkepUnz th dk tUe ftl v;ks/;k esa gqvk Fkk]

og] ogh v;ks/;k Fkh] tks orZeku esa gSA^^ ¼ist 51½

“It is my faith that every-time Lord Ram Chandra would

have been born at that very place where Babri mosque

stood. It has so been mentioned in the Shashtras that when

Lord Ram Chandra was born for the first time, the palace

of King Dashrath was made up of stones, gems, pearls at

that time. It is also mentioned in the Shashtras that the

Ayodhya in which Lord Ram Chandra was born in every

'Kalpa', was the same Ayodhya which exists today.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr Hkou dh Hkwfe dk egRo vkSj dys.Mj ij yxs fp= ij

ekufld /;ku }kjk vkjk/kuk] Hkksx] iwtk&ikB] vkjrh vkfn fd;k tkrk

4890

FkkA^^ ¼ist 96½

“The prayer, worship, offerings, 'Aarti', etc. were

performed by concentrating on the importance of the land

of the disputed structure as well as the picture contained in

the calendar.”(E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa dksbZ Hkh Hkou ewy :i ls ml le; dk ugha gS] tks Hkxoku

jke ds dky esa fufeZr FksA^^ ¼ist 98½

“In Ayodhya, there is no building in its original form, as

built in the period of Lord Rama. ”(E.T.C)

^^iz'u % D;k vki bl eqdnes ds oknh ds bl dFku ls tks okn

dh /kkjk 23 esa fyf[kr gS fd fookfnr LFky ij egkjktk foØekfnR; }

kjk ,d efUnj cuk;k x;k Fkk] ftls rksM+dj ckcj us efLtn cukbZ Fkh]

lger gSa \

mRrj % oknh ds dFku ds igys Hkkx ls eSa lger gw¡ vFkkZr~

foØekfnR; us fookfnr LFky ij ,d efUnj cuok;k Fkk] ij tgk¡ rd

nwljs Hkkx dk iz'u gS] eSaus ,slk lquk gS fd ogk¡ ij efUnj rksM+us dk dbZ

ckj iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj rksM+dj mls efLtn cukbZ Hkh xbZ] ijUrq

mldk efLtn ds :i esa dHkh bLrseky ugha gqvkA^^ ¼ist 100½

“Question: Do you agree with the contention of the

plaintiff of the suit contained in para 23 of the plaint as – a

temple was built at the disputed site by King Vikramaditya,

after demolishing which Babur had built a mosque?

Answer: I agree with the first part of the plaintiff's

contention i.e. King Vikramaditya had built a temple at the

disputed site but so far as the second part of the question is

concerned, I have so heard that attempts were made on

various occasions to demolish the temple over there and a

mosque was also built by demolishing (the temple), but it

was never used as a mosque.”(E.T.C)

^^ftl le; foØekfnR; us v;ks/;k clk;k Fkk] ml le; v;ks/;k

4891

fcYdqy [kkyh Fkh vkSj [k.Mgj gks xbZ Fkh] flQZ ukxs'oj ukFk th dk

T;ksfrfyZax lj;w th ds fdukjs fLFkr FkkA ,slk eSaus lquk gS fd

foØekfnR; th us Hkxoku 'kadj th dh vkjk/kuk dh vkSj Hkxoku 'kadj

us mudks n'kZu fn;k vkSj ,d xÅ dh cfN;k fn;k vkSj crk;k fd

blds Lru ls vius vki ftl LFkku ij nw/k fxjus yxsxk] mlh LFkku

ij jke th ds tUe dk xHkZxg vkSj efUnj cuokuk] fQj og cfN;k ?

kqekbZ xbZ vkSj mldk nw/k mlh LFkku ij fxjk tgk¡ vkt xHkZxg fLFkr

gSA^^ ¼ist 117½

“At the time when Vikramaditya had settled Ayodhya,

Ayodhya was lying vacant completely and had turned into

ruins. Only the 'Jyotirlinga' of Nageshwar Nath existed

along the banks of Saryu. I have so heard that

Vikramaditya prayed to Lord Shankara, who appeared

before him and gave him a calf and told that (you) build the

sanctum sanctorum of Lord Rama and the temple at that

very place where this calf starts milking on its own. Then

the calf was taken around and she started milking at that

very place where sanctum sanctorum is situated

today.”(E.T.C)

OPW-16, Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami

Rambhadracharya

^^esjs v/;;u vkSj tkudkjh ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k fLFkr fookfnr LFky th

Jhjke tUeHkwfe gS tks fgUnw /kekZuq;kf;;ksa }kjk Hkxoku Jhjke ds tUeHkwfe

ds :i esa vuUr dky ls vkLFkk] ijEijk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj ekU;rk

izkIr gS rFkk ml LFky dh iwtk vuojr gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA^^ ¼ist 5½

“According to my studies and knowledge, the Ayodhya

situated disputed site is Sri Ramjanmbhumi, which has

been recognised as the birthplace of Lord Rama by

followers of Hinduism from time immemorial on basis of

faith, tradition and belief and the said place has been

4892

continuously worshipped. ”(E.T.C)

^^fgUnw /keZ'kkL=ksa esa LFkku fo'ks"k dh fo'ks"k egRrk gS tks Lo;aHkw nso

ds :i esa Lo;a izk.k izfrf"Br ,oa iwT; gSaA bl izdkj ds LFkku

vuUrdky ls tuekul esa vkLFkk] ijEijk ,oa iwtk ds dkj.k loksZRd`"V

iwT; LFky gSaA bl izdkj ds nsoRo izkIr LFkyksa ij f'koSr ;k

loZjkgdkj ;k egar dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gksrh gSA^^ ¼ist 5½

“In Hindu treatises, a place particular has a special

importance, which is self deified and worshipable as self-

originating God. From time immemorial such places are

the top-most worship place of the general public due to

faith, tradition and worship. There is no requirement of any

Shebait or Sarvarahkar or Mahant at such deified

places.”(E.T.C)

^^eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS vkSj bl ij ppkZ Hkh gqbZ Fkh fd cUn

rkys ds vUnj ds LFky dh iwtk vuojr gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA^^ ¼ist

19½

“I have knowledge of the fact and there was also a

discussion on this that worship has been continuing

uninterruptedly at the place under the locks.”(E.T.C)

^^gesa bl ckr dh tkudkjh gS fd rkys ds vUnj dk LFky Lo;aHkw Hkxoku

jkeyyk agSaA fQj dgk fd LFky rks iwT; gS gh] blds vfrfjDr jkeyyk

dh ewfrZ rkys ds vUnj fojkteku FkhA^^ ¼ist 20½

“I have knowledge of this fact that the place under the lock

is self-originating Lord Ramlala. Further stated that the

place is worshipable and besides this, the idol of Lord

Ramlala was also present under the locks.”(E.T.C)

^^vFkoZosn esa jke dk tUe dk fo'ks"k LFkku ij gksuk fy[kk gqvk gSA bl

fo'ks"k LFkku dk vFkoZosn ds fdl v/;k; esa ftØ gS] eq>s ;kn ugha gS]

ij eSa iqLrd ns[kdj crk ldrk gw¡A ij eq>s og ea= ;kn gS tks fuEu

izdkj gS&

^v"VkpØk uo}kjk nsokuka iwj;ks/;k]

4893

rL;ka fgj.;e;% dks'k% LoxksZ T;ksfr"kkor%A

xokg us fdrkc fn[kokdj i i<+okdj ea= la[;k crkbZ] tks n'ke~

dk.M f}rh; vuqokn ea= la[;k 31 gSA^^ ¼ist 39½

“In the Atharvaveda, Lord Rama is mentioned to have been

born at a place particular. I do not remember as to in

which chapter of the Atharvaveda is this place particular

mentioned, but I can tell after going through the book.

However, I remember that hymn, which reads as under:

‘Ashtachakra Navadwara Devnam Puryodhya,

Tasyam Hiranyamayah Koshah Swargo

Jyotishavritah’.

The witness gave the number of the hymn by getting

the book shown and read, which is hymn no.31 of the

'Dasham Kand–II translation'.”(E.T.C)

^^bl ea= esa ^fgj.;e;% dks'k% LoxZ%* bu rhu 'kCnksa ls Hkxoku jke ds

tUeLFky dk Li"V ladsr gksrk gS vkSj pwafd vFkoZosn vikS#"ks; gS

blfy, blesa bruk gh ladsr feyrk gSA dgus dk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd ml

v;ks/;k esa ,d fgj.;e;% vFkkZr Lo.kZ dk e.Mikdkj Hkou gS]

tgk¡ izdk'k ls lEiUu lkdsr yksd ls vkdj ijeczg~e Jhjke tUe fy,

FksA mijksDr 'kCnksa ds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus O;kdj.k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj ;g

fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij gh Hkxoku jke dk tUeLFkku

gSA^^ ¼ist 40½

“The three words 'Hiranyamayah Koshah Swargah' in this

hymn, clearly point towards the birthplace of Lord Rama

and since Atharvaveda is 'Apaurusheya' (not authored by

any Purusha or human mind i.e. they have no human

origin), as such only this much indication is found in it. The

implication of this is that in said Ayodhya there is a

'Hiranmayah' i.e. a golden domed shaped building where

the Supreme Being Lord Rama was born from the radiant

4894

'Saketlok'. It is on the basis of the above words that I have

drawn the conclusion according to grammar that the

birthplace of Lord Rama is at the disputed site.”(E.T.C)

^^eSaus fookfnr Hkou esa 1949 ds igys le; esa iwtk&vpZuk dh ckr lquh

gSA ,slk eSaus vius firkeg ls lquk gSA^^ ¼ist 63½

“I have heard about offering of prayer-worship at the

disputed structure prior to 1949. I have heard so from my

grandfather.”(E.T.C)

^^vkLFkk 'kkL=ksa ij Hkh vk/kkfjr gks ldrh gS vkSj ijEijkvksa ij Hkh

vk/kkfjr gks ldrh gSA iwtk vpZuk dh ckr lu~ 1528 ls ysdj 1949

rd ijEijkvksa ds vk/kkj ij ge lqurs pys vk jgs gSa vkSj ;g ijEijk

yxkrkj lquh gqbZ ckrksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA mijksDr ijEijk eSaus vius

thoudky esa vius iwoZtksa ls lquh vkSj ;g esjs fo'okl dh ckr gS

fd ;g ckr esjs iwoZtksa dks muds iwoZtksa us crkbZ gksxhA Lo;a dgk fd

^^vfofPNUu tuJqfr** dk uke gh ijEijk gSA^^ ¼ist 63½

“Faith can be based on Shastras as well and also on

traditions. I have been hearing about offering of prayer-

worship from the year 1528 to 1949, on basis of traditions

and this tradition is based on facts heard continuously. I

heard this tradition in my life time from my ancestors and it

is a matter of my belief that these facts were told my

ancestors by their ancestors. Stated on his own that

'uninterrupted hearsay' is what is called tradition.”(E.T.C)

DW-1/1, Rajendra Singh

^^lk;adky dks Hkh vkjrh o Hkksx ds le; lifjokj vU; efUnjksa ds

lkFk&lkFk tUeHkwfe efUnj esa Hkh iwtk o n'kZu djrs Fks o fcuk fdlh

jksdVksd ds xHkZxg rd tkdj iwtk o n'kZu djrs FksA o"kZ 1950 ds

edj laØkfUr ls dqN igys esjs firk LoxhZ; Jh xksiky flag fo'kkjn

vLoLFk gks gksus ds dkj.k efUnjksa esa n'kZu o iwtk djus ugha igq¡p ik,A

LoLFk gksus ij edj laØfUr dks tc os iwtk o n'kZu djus gsrq tUeHkwfe

ij x,] rks jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa us mUgsa Hkhrj tgk¡ Jh jkepUnz

4895

vkfn dh ewfrZ fojkteku Fkh] tkus ls jksd fn;kA^^ ¼ist 4½

“In evening also at time of 'Aarti' and 'Bhog', (I) along

with family used to offer prayers and have darshan in the

Janmbhumi temple as well besides other temples and used

to offer prayer and have darshan up to the sanctum

sanctorum without any obstruction. On account of his ill

health for sometime before the Makar Sankranti of the year

1950, my father Late Sri Gopal Singh Visharad could not

go to temples to have darshan and offer prayers. On

recovery, when he went to the Janmbhumi to offer prayer

and have darshan on the occasion of Makar Sankranti, the

employees of State Government restrained him from going

inside, where the idols of Lord Ramlala etc. were

present.”(E.T.C)

^^okni= ds vUr esa tks pkSgn~nh n'kkZbZ xbZ gS ml pkSgn~nh ds vUnj

Hkxoku JhjkepUnz vkfn dh ewfrZ;k¡ Hkou ds e/; f'k[kj ds uhps xHkZxg

esa fojkteku jgh gSa] ftudh iwtk o n'kZu lnSo ls ewyoknh rFkk

oknh ,oa djksM+ksa fgUnw turk o jkeHkDrksa }kjk fuckZ/k :i ls lglzksa o"kksZa

ls gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA^^ ¼ist 5½

“The idols of Lord Ram Chandra and others have existed

in the sanctum sanctorum beneath the mid dome of the

structure, whose boundary has been shown at the foot of

the plaint, and its prayer-darshan has always been

performed uninterruptedly by the original plaintiff, the

plaintiff, crores of Hindu public and devotees of Lord Rama

for thousands of years.”(E.T.C)

^^leLr fgUnw turk vkSj jkeHkDr rFkk ewyoknh o oknh Lo;a bls Jh

jkepUnz th dh tUeHkwfe ekurs pys vk jgs gSaaA tUeHkwfe ifjlj dk

oUnu vkSj ueu djus ds mijkUr leLr ifjlj dh ifjØek djds vius

dks /kU; ekurs gSaA ewyoknh rFkk oknh us Hkh yxkrkj tUeHkwfe ij vkdj

4896

tUeHkwfe dk ueu o oUnu fd;k gS rFkk yxkrkj o"kksZa rd Hkxoku Jh

jkepUnz vkfn dh fojkteku ewfrZ;ksa dk n'kZu djus ds mijkUr Lo;a oknh

us Hkh tUeHkwfe ifjlj dh ifjØek vla[; ckj dh gSA^^ ¼ist 6½

“The entire Hindu public, the devotees of Lord Rama, the

original plaintiff and the plaintiff himself have been

considering it to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. One

considers himself to be blessed by offering reverence at the

Janmbhumi premises and thereafter performing

circumambulation of the entire premises. The original

plaintiff as also the plaintiff have continuously offered

reverence at the Janmbhumi and after continuously having

darshan for years of the idols of Lord Sri Ram Chandra

and others existing over there, the plaintiff has himself

performed circumambulation of Janmbhumi premises on

innumerable occasions.”(E.T.C)

^^eSaus vius 'kiFki= ds iSjk 13 esa ;g fy[kk;k gS fd lnSo ls

ewyoknh ,oa djksM+ksa fgUnw turk o jkeHkDrksa }kjk fuckZ/k xfr ls lglzksa

o"kksZa ls iwtk&n'kZu gksrs pys vk jgs gSa] ;g ckrsa esjh lquh gqbZ gSaA lglzksa

o"kksZa ls iwtk&n'kZu okyh ckr eq>s esjs ckck ,oa firkth us crkbZ FkhA^^

¼ist 20½

“In para 13 of my affidavit, I have got it mentioned that the

original plaintiff, crores of Hindu public and devotees of

Lord Rama have always uninterruptedly carried out

prayer-darshan for thousands of years. These facts have

been heard by me. The fact of prayer-darshan for

thousands of years, were told to me by my grandfather and

father.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr Hkou ij iqfyl dk igjk yxus ds yxHkx ,d lky ckn eSa

igyh ckj fQj x;k FkkA tc rd eSa v;ks/;k esa jgk] vFkkZr~ lu~ 1959

rd eSa fookfnr ifjlj ij yxHkx eghus esa ,d ckj t:j tkrk FkkA

4897

lu~ 1950 ls lu~ 1959 ds chp esa tc eSa fookfnr LFky ij tkrk Fkk rks

lha[kps okyh nhokj ds njokts ds vUnj dqN fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk FkkA ij

dqN j[kk gqvk ekywe gksrk Fkk] ftls eSa jkeyyk ekudj n'kZu dj ysrk

FkkA^^ ¼ist 23½

“I first went to the disputed structure after about one year

since the deployment of police. As long as I remained in

Ayodhya i.e. till the year 1959, I definitely went to the

disputed premises at least once a month. Between the years

1950 to 1959, whenever I went to the disputed site, the

visibility of the inner portion was poor from the gate in the

grill wall but something did appear, of which I used to have

darshan as Lord Ramlala ”(E.T.C)

DW-1/2, Krishna Chandra Singh

^^ijEijkxr vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds dkj.k fgUnw J)kyq jkeHkDr rFkk esjs

ifjokj ds yksx vkSj eSa Hkh ml LFky dks tgk¡ Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe

vukfndky ls ekuk tkrk jgk gS] mls Lo;aHkw nso ekudj n'kZu&iwtk]

lk"Vkax iz.kke djrs gSa rFkk iwjs ifjlj dh ifjØek v;ks/;k esa jgus okys

rFkk ns'k&fons'k ls v;ks/;k vkus okys n'kZukFkhZ&rhFkZ;k=h djrs gSaA^^ ¼ist

5½

“Out of customary faith and belief and by considering it to

be a self-originating God, the Hindu devotees of Lord

Rama, my family members and myself have been offering

reverence, having darshan over there, which has been

considered as the birthplace of Lord Rama since ancient

times, and the circumambulation of the entire premises is

performed by the residents of Ayodhya as well as the

pilgrims-devotees coming over to Ayodhya from country-

abroad.”(E.T.C)

^^iz0 % 22 fnlEcj lu~ 1949 rd fookfnr ifjlj esa vki fdl

LFkku ij j[kh gqbZ ewfrZ;ksa dk n'kZu ,oa iwtk djrs Fks \

4898

m0 % 22 fnlEcj lu~ 1949 esa tc rd Hkxoku dk izknqHkkZo

ogk¡ ugha gqvk Fkk] mlds igys eSa chp okys xqEcn ds uhps lk{kkr~ izHkq

dks mifLFkr ekudj eSa lk"Vkax n.Mor ,oa iwtk djrk jgk gw¡A^^ ¼ist

31½

“Question: Till 22nd December, 1949, at which place

did you offer prayers and had darshan of the idols in the

disputed structure?

Answer: Prior to 22nd December, 1949, by which time

the deity had not appeared over there, I used to offer my

reverence and prayer by taking the God to be Himself

present beneath the mid-dome.”(E.T.C)

^^m0 xqEcn okyk Hkou ckcj ds le; ls igys efUnj ds :i esa gh FkkA

ehjckdh us mldks rksM+us dk iz;kl fd;k vkSj efLtn ds :i esa

ifjofrZr djus dk iz;kl fd;k] ysfdu lQy ugha gqvk vkSj vkt rd

fgUnw mls jketUeHkwfe ekurs pys vk, gSaA^^ ¼ist 40½

“Answer: Prior to the period of Babur, the domed structure

was in form of a temple. Mir Baqi had attempted to

demolish and convert it into a mosque, but had not been

successful in the same and till date the Hindus have been

considering it to be Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^ehjckdh ds le; ls ysdj vkSj mlds igys ls Hkh ysdj 6 fnlEcj

1992 rd lkjs Hkkjr dh fgUnw turk mls jketUeHkwfe efUnj ekudj

pyh vkbZ gS vkSj lnk fgUnw yksx ogk¡ tkdj iwtk] vpZuk] iz.kke vkSj

ifjØek djrs jgs gSa vkSj tc&tc eqlyekuksa us ml ij dCtk djus dk

iz;kl fd;k rc&rc ns'k ds fgUnqvksa us mldk fojks/k fd;k vkSj viuk

dCtk djrs jgs vkSj la?k"kZ cjkcj pyrk jgkA^^ ¼ist 40½

“From the period of Mir Baqi as well as the period before,

upto 6th December, 1992, the Hindu public of India has

been treating it to be Ramjanmbhumi temple and Hindus

have always offered prayer, worship and circumambulation

4899

over there and whenever Muslims have attempted to grab

the same, the Hindus of the country have resisted it and

maintained their possession and the conflict continued

regularly.”(E.T.C)

^^iz'u % vkius vius 'kiFki= ds iSjk 16 esa ftl ijEijkxr

vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl dk mYys[k fd;k gS] og fdruh iqjkuh vkSj fdl

le; ls pyh vk jgh gS \

mRrj % ;g ijEijk jkekorkj ds ckn ls gh pyh vk jgh gSA^^

¼ist 59½

“Question: The 'customary faith and belief'

mentioned by you in para 16 of your affidavit, is how old

and since when it is in practice?

Answer: This custom is in practice after the

'Ramavatar' (incarnation of Lord Rama).”(E.T.C)

^^iz0 % flQZ ckgj ls ns[kus ij fookfnr Hkou vkidks fjgk;'kh

edku] efUnj] efLtn] frtkjrh Hkou ;k dE;qfuVh gky D;k yxrh

Fkh \

m0 % flQZ ckgj ls ns[kus ls gh tSlk fd pkjksa vksj okjkg

Hkxoku dh [kf.Mr izfrek gS vkSj nks 'ksj] xq#M+] tks Hkxoku fo".kq ds

okgu gSa] dh izfrek yxh gS vkSj iwohZ njoktk tks guqer}kj ds uke ls

tkuk tkrk gS] mlds ikl gh ,d iRFkj ij xM+k gqvk iRFkj gS] ftl ij

fy[kk gqvk gS] jketUeHkwfe fuR;&;k=kA bu lcds ns[kus ls Hkh ;g fl)

gksrk gS vkSj izrhr gksrk gS fd ;g ges'kk izkphu jke tUeHkwfe efUnj jgk

gSA esjs fopkj ls ckgj tks iRFkj yxk gqvk eSaus crk;k gS] og Hkh cgqr

izkphu gS vkSj efUnj ds le; dk gh gSA^^ ¼ist 63½

“Question: What does the disputed structure appear

to you from outside–a residential house, temple, mosque,

business place or community hall?

Answer: Merely looking from outside, there is broken

idol of God Varah, the statue of two lions, Garuna, which is

the carrier of Lord Vishnu and there is eastern gate which

4900

is known as Hanumatdwar and near to it is a stone with

'Ramjanmbhumi Nitya Yatra' inscribed over it. By looking

at all these, it is established and transpires that it has

always been an ancient Ramjanmbhumi temple. In my

opinion, the stone told by me to have been fixed outside, is

also very old and is of the period, similar to the

temple.”(E.T.C)

DW-1/3, Dr. Sahdev Prasad Dubey

^^ikSjkf.kd xzUFkksa o yk[kksa o"kksZa dh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k ds jkedksV

eksgYys esa tUeHkwfe o tUeLFkku vofLFkr gSA ;ksa rks leLr v;ks/;k {ks=

gh e;kZnk iq#"kksRre Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh ds :i esa nsorqY;] iwT; gS

fdUrq ftl LFkku dks 'kkL=ksa us Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh ekuk gS mldh

efgek dk c[kku /kkfeZd] lkfgfR;d o ,sfrgkfld iqLrdksa esa fd;k x;k

gSA buds vfrfjDr tuekul dh vkLFkk o fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij

jkedksV fLFkr tUeHkwfe efUnj] ftls fookfnr dj fn;k x;k gS ogh

e;kZnk iq#"kksRre JhjkepUnz th dh tUeHkwfe ekuh tkrh gS] ftls fpfUgr

dj HkO; efUnj dk fuekZ.k vkfndky esa gqvk Fkk] tc ls fujUrj ml

LFkku rFkk ogk¡ fojkteku ,oa LFkkfir Hkxoku Jhjke dh ewfrZ dk

n'kZu&iwtu ,oa tUeLFkku dh ifjØek gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA^^ ¼ist 2½

“As per the ancient treatises and faith of lakhs of years, the

Janmbhumi and Janmsthan are situated in Ramkot locality

of Ayodhya. Although the entire Ayodhya region is

reverable as the birthplace of Maryada Purushottam Lord

Sri Rama, still the praise of importance of the place, which

has been considered as the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama in

the Shashtras, is found in religious, literary and historical

books. Apart from this, on basis of the faith and belief of

the general public, the Ramkot situated Janmbhumi temple,

which has been given in dispute, has been considered as

the Janmbhumi of Marayada Purushottam Lord Sri Ram

4901

Chandra, which was identified in the ancient times and a

grand temple had been built. Since then, the darshan-

prayer of that place and of the idol of Lord Shri Ram,

present and installed over there, as well as the

circumambulation of the Janamsthan has been continuing

continuously.”(E.T.C)

^^ikSjkf.kd rFkk leLr lukru /kekZoyEch tuekul dh vkLFkk ,oa

fo'okl ds vuqlkj bl LFkku ij tUeHkwfe ds izrhd Lo:i efUnj dh

LFkkiuk vla[; o"kksZa iwoZ gqbZ Fkh rFkk dkykUrj esa egku ijkØeh jktk

foØekfnR; dk 'kkludky tks dkyx.kuk ds vuqlkj orZeku le; ls

2060 o"kZ iwoZ ekuk tkrk gS vkSj blh dkyx.kuk dks foØe laor~ ds uke

ls tkuk tkrk gSA mUgksaus mDr LFkku ij HkO; efUnj dk fuekZ.k fd;kA^^

¼ist 3½

“As per the faith and belief of the ancient and entire

'Sanatandharmi' religious minded public, a temple was

built at this place innumerable years ago as symbol of

Janmbhumi and in later period the great brave king

Vikramaditya, whose reign is considered to be 2060 year

ago as per period calculation and this very period

calculation is known as Vikram Samvat, built a grand

temple at the above place.”(E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k fLFkr jkedksV eksgYys esa Jhjke tUeHkwfe efUnj ,d Å¡ps Vhys

esa vofLFkr gS] ftlds uhps /kjkry rd izkphu efUnjksa ds vo'ks"k fo|

eku gSa] ftudk fuekZ.k dky dbZ 'krkfCn;ksa ds vUrjky ij gqvk gSA

D;ksafd efUnjksa dk iqujks)kj ,oa iqufuZekZ.k vko';drkuqlkj fd;k tkrk

jgk gSA 6 fnlEcj] 1992 dks efUnj dk tks Hkou fxj x;k gS] mlds

uhps ckjgoha 'krkCnh ds efUnj ds vo'ks"k fo|eku gSa] ftldk fuekZ.k

xgM+oky oa'kh; jktk us X;kjgoha 'krkCnh ds vklikl fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist

5½

“The Shri Ramjanmbhumi temple is situated over a high

mound in Ramkot locality of Ayodhya, beneath which the

4902

remains of ancient temples exist upto the ground level,

whose periods of construction are separated by many

centuries because the renovation and reconstruction of the

temples used to take place as per necessity. The remains of

twelfth century temple built by Gahadwal dynasty king

around the eleventh century, are present beneath the

structure of the temple, which fell down on 6th December,

1992.”(E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k rhFkZLFkyh vU; lHkh rhFkZLFkyksa esa izeq[k :i ls ekuh tkrh gS

D;ksafd ;gk¡ gh e;kZnk iq#"kksRre Hkxoku Jhjke us ekuo :i esa vorkj

ysdj leLr ekuo tkfr ds fy, dY;k.kdkjh dke fd, gSaA Hkxoku

Jhjke vkSj v;ks/;k esa fLFkr mudh tUeLFkyh ftls jke tUeHkwfe efUnj

o ifjlj ds :i esa dksfV&dksfV Hkkjrh; o jkeHkDr J)k] fo'okl o

vkLFkk dk iwat ekudj iwtk djrk pyk vk jgk gSA^^ ¼ist 7½

“The pilgrimage Ayodhya is considered prime out of all

other pilgrimage because it is here where Maryada

Purushottam Lord Shri Rama had incarnated in human

form and carried out welfare acts for the entire human

race. Lord Shri Rama and His Ayodhya situated birthplace

has been worshipped by crores of Indians and devotees of

Lord Rama as Ramjanmbhumi temple and its premises, by

taking it to be a matter of their devotion, belief and source

of faith.”(E.T.C)

^^eSaus vius fnukad 7-08-2003 ds c;ku ist 47 ds vfUre 2 iafDR;ksa esa

tks ;g dgk gS fd ftl LFkku ij jke dk tUe gqvk] mls ge tUeHkwfe

ds uke ls lanfHkZr djrs gSaA lgh dgk gSA tUeLFkku ml lEiw.kZ ifjlj

dks dgrs gSa] tks tUeHkwfe ds pkjksa rjQ pkjnhokjh ls f?kjk gqvk gksrk gS]

vFkkZr jke th dk ftl egy esa tUe gqvk] og rks tUeHkwfe dgyk,xh

vkSj ml egy ds vklikl dk mlls lEcaf/kr vkSj f?kjk gqvk LFkku

tUeLFkku dgyk,xkA^^ ¼ist 72½

4903

“My statement given yesterday on 07.08.2003 in last two

lines of page-47 as 'the place where Lord Rama was born,

is referred as Janmbhumi by us', is correct. The entire

premises is referred as Janmsthan, which is bounded by the

boundary on all sides of the Janmbhumi i.e. the palace in

which Lord Rama was born would be called Janmbhumi

and the area adjoining, related and covered by that palace

would be called Janmsthan.”(E.T.C)

^^mRrj % jkepfjrekul esa ,d txg ij Li"V fy[kk gqvk gS fd

^^tUeHkwfe ee iqjh lqgkofu] mRrj fnfl lj;w cfg ikofu** blesa ^^iqjh**

'kCn dk iz;ksx v;ks/;k ds fy, gqvk gS] vkSj ^tUeHkwfe* 'kCn dk iz;ksx

ml LFkyh ds fy, gS] tks ml iqjh esa fLFkr gSA^^ ¼ist 95½

“Answer:- It is clearly mentioned at a place in Ramcharit

Manas that 'Janmbhumi Mam Puri Suhawani, Uttar Disi

Saryu Bahi Pawani'. In it, the word 'Puri' has been used for

Ayodhya and 'Janmbhumi' for that place which is situated

in 'Puri'.”(E.T.C)

^^esjs fopkj ls fookfnr ifjlj es jkeyyk dh dsoy ,d ewfrZ LFkkfir

Fkh vkSj og ewfrZ jkeyyk ds izdV gksus ds igys Hkh FkhA tc bl efUnj

dks efLtn cukus dk ckcj ds fliglkykj us vkØe.k fd;k vkSj bldks

/oLr fd;k vkSj ewfrZ dks Hkh xk;c dj fn;k ;k D;k gqvk] bldk eq>s

Kku ugha gSA ckcj ds vkØe.k ds le; Jh jkeyyk dh tks ewfrZ

ogk¡ Fkh] og xk;c gqbZ] ml le; ls tc rd Hkxoku Lo;a ewfrZ ds :i

esa izxV ugha gq, rc rd ml [kkyh LFkku dk gh yksx n'kZu djrs FksA^^

¼ist 99½

“In my opinion, only one idol of Lord Ramlala was

installed at the disputed premises and that idol of a period

earlier than the appearance of Lord Ramlala. I have no

knowledge as to what happened when the commander of

Babar carried out invasion to convert this temple into

4904

mosque and even demolished it and also removed the idol.

The idol of Lord Shri Ramlala, which existed at time of the

invasion by Babar and which had been removed, did not

re-appear till the appearance of the deity Himself and till

that time people used to have darshan of the vacant

place.”(E.T.C)

DW-2/1-2, Ram Saran Srivastava

^^mijksDr xtsfV;j ds v/;;u ls Li"V gksrk gS fd fookfnr LFky

fgUnqvksa ds vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeLFkyh gS tgka fgUnqvksa }kjk

lnSo ls vius vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa iwtk dh

tkrh jgh gS rFkk blh LFky ij Jhjke tUeHkwfe eafnj iwoZ dky esa Hkh

fLFkr Fkk ftls 1528bZa esa /oLr djds fookfnr <kapk ckcj ds vkns'k ij

ehjckdh }kjk cuk;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 4½

“By study of the aforesaid gazetteer, it transpires that the

disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama, revered by

Hindus, where Hindus have always paid their reverence as

the birthplace of their revered Lord Sri Rama and the Sri

Ramjanmbhumi temple existed at this very place in past,

which was demolished in 1528 AD and the disputed

structure was built by Mir Baqi under the command of

Babur.”(E.T.C)

^^esjh iqLrd dk fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd eSa fookfnr LFky dks Jhjke dh tUe

LFkyh ekurk gwaA eSa vius vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij bruk tkurk gwa fd jke

tUeHkwfe ij tks ewfrZ Fkh] mldh iwtk vpZuk] Hkksx] lEeb;k vkfn ogka ds

lk/kq yksx djrs FksA fjlhoj dh fu;qDr ds ckn fjlhoj yksx rFkk muds

fu;qDr deZpkjh yksx ;g dk;Z djrs FksA^^ ¼ist 23½

“The conclusion of my book is that I consider the disputed

site to be the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama. On the basis of

my experience, I know only this much that the prayer,

worship, 'Bhog', 'Sammaiya', etc. of the idols at the

4905

Ramjanmbhumi, were carried by the saints present over

there. After the appointment of Receiver, the said work was

carried out by the Receiver and persons appointed by

him.”(E.T.C)

^^esjk tUe 1918 dk gSA 1933 esa eSa v;ks/;k vk;kA^^ ¼ist 25½

“I was born in the year 1918. I came to Ayodhya in the

year 1933.”(E.T.C)

^^esjs QStkckn esa ftykf/kdkjh fu;qDr gksus ds igys fookfnr LFky ij

uekt i<+us ds fy, dksbZ ugha tkrk FkkA tc eSa QStkckn esa ftykf/kdkjh

ds #i esa fu;qDr gqvk rc eSaus fookfnr LFky dh iwjh tkudkjh izkIr

dhA eq>s ;g tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ fd eqlyeku HkkbZ yksx fookfnr LFky

dks ckcjh efLtn dg jgs Fks rFkk fgUnw yksx bls jketUeHkwfe dg jgs

FksA Lo;a dgk fd blh dkj.k ge yksx iz'kklfud nf"V ls ml LFky dks

fookfnr LFky dgrs FksA eSaus fookfnr LFky dks dbZ ckj ns[kk FkkA

fookfnr LFky dh lgh yEckbZ&pkSM+kbZ] eSa bl le; ugha crk ldrk

gw¡A^^ ¼ist 26&27½

“Prior to my posting as District Magistrate of Faizabad,

none used to go to the disputed site for offering namaz.

When I was posted as District Magistrate of Faizabad, I

gathered complete information about the disputed site. I

came to know that the Muslims used to term it to be Babri

mosque and the Hindus were terming it Ramjanmbhumi.

Stated on his own that it was due to this administrative

reason that we used to call that place, the disputed site. I

had seen the disputed site on number of times. At the

moment, I cannot give the exact dimensions of the disputed

site.”(E.T.C)

^^tks iz'kklfud vf/kdkjh fookfnr LFky ij tkrs Fks] iwtk o n'kZu Hkh

djrs FksA eSa Hkh n'kZu djrk FkkA ml le; eSa bl rF; dh lwpuk j[krk

Fkk fd bl LFky ls lacaf/kr eqdnesa py jgs gSaaA^^ ¼ist 31½

4906

“The administrative officers, who used to go to the

disputed site, used to offer prayer and have darshan over

there. I also used to have darshan. At that time, I did have

the information that cases were pending in respect of this

site.”(E.T.C)

^^tks tkudkjh eSaus gkfly dh vkSj tSlk fd yksx dgrs Fks] og LFkku]

ftl ij ckcjh efLtn [kM+h Fkh] jketUeHkwfe FkkA esjs vuqHko vkSj esjh

jk; ds eqrkfcd yksx ,slk lgh dgrs Fks fd ;g LFkku] jketUeHkwfe

FkhA^^ ¼ist 42½

“According to the information gathered by me and as told

by people, the place where Babri mosque stood was

Ramjanmbhumi. As per my experience and opinion, people

used to rightly say that this place was

Ramjanmbhumi.”(E.T.C)

^^tUeLFkku efUnj jketUeLFkku ds :i esa tkuk tkrk gSA Lo;a dgk fd

jke tUeHkwfe fookfnr LFky FkkA bls xqnM+ry efUnj ugha dgk tkrk

gSA^^ ¼ist 48½

“The Janmsthan temple is known as Ramjanmsthan. Stated

on his own that Ramjanmbhumi was the disputed site. It

was not called Gudadtal temple. ”(E.T.C)

^^rkyk yxus ls igys yksx nhokj ds ikl [kM+s gksdj n'kZu djrs FksA eSa

ogk¡ vUnj tkdj >kM+w&cgk: djrk Fkk] iwtk ikB djrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 49½

“People used to have darshan from near the wall, before

the locks were put. I used to broom the inside portion,

(and) perform prayer-worship over there.”(E.T.C)

^^fookfnr LFky dks eSaus Hkxoku Jhjke dk tUe LFkku] /kkfeZd ekU;rkvksa

,oa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij dgk gSA QStkckn esa ftyk/kh'k dh

rSukrh ds iwoZ ,oa izkjEHk ls gh esjh ;g ekU;rk Fkh fd fookfnr LFkku

Jhjke dk tUe LFkku gSA ;kuh cpiu ls tc ls eSaus gks'k laHkkyk] rc

ls esjh mijksDr /kkfeZd ekU;rk pyh vk jgh gSA eSaus ftu vfHkys[kksa dk

lUnHkZ vius 'kiFk i= dh /kkjk&20 vkSj 21 esa fd;k gS] muesa

4907

xtsfV;j ,oa jsosU;w fjdkM~lZ FksA mDr vfHkys[kksa esa iqfyl fjiksV~lZ o

baVsyhtsUl fjiksV~lZ tks le;&le; ij nkf[ky gqbZ] Hkh lfEefyr gSaA^^

¼ist 54½

“I have stated the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord

Shri Rama, on basis of religious belief and available

records. Prior to (my) posting as District Magistrate in

Faizabad and since beginning, it was my belief that the

disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Shri Rama i.e.

since childhood, when I attained maturity, the aforesaid

religious belief of mine has been continuing. The records

referred to by me in para-20 and 21 of my affidavit, include

gazetteer and revenue records. The aforesaid records also

includes police reports and intelligence reports filed from

time to time.”(E.T.C)

^^xq:}kjk czãdq.M dk mYys[k djrs gq, eSaus xq:ukud nso ds

;gk¡ i/kkjus dk mYys[k fd;k gS] bl izdkj dh ekU;rk v;ks/;k esa FkhA

bl lEcU/k esa eSaus dgha ij i<+k ugha gSA eSa vius v/;;u ds vk/kkj ij

rFkk yksxksa ds crkus ds vk/kkj ij ;g tkurk gw¡ fd xq:ukud nso

v;ks/;k vk, FksA^^ ¼ist 80½

“While mentioning Gurudwara Brahmkund, I have

mentioned about arrival of Guru Nanak Dev over here.

Such a belief existed in Ayodhya. I have not read in this

behalf anywhere. On basis of my studies and as told by

people, I know that Guru Nanak Dev had come to

Ayodhya.”(E.T.C)

^^dkxt la[;k 312lh&1@6 esa dkjusxh us v;ks/;k dks ^vtqf/k;k^

(Ajudhia) ls lEcksf/kr fd;k gSA blesa ijxuk gosyh vo/k ds vUrxZr

v;ks/;k dks fLFkr gksuk fy[kk gSA ^fMjkbos'ku^ 'kh"kZd ds vUrxZr tks

ckrs fy[kh gqbZ gSa] muesa eSa lger gw¡A blds ckn ds 'kh"kZd ^,fj;k^ ds

vUrxZr tks ckrsa fy[kh gqbZ gSa] mu ckrksa ls eSa lger gw¡A^^ ¼ist 90½

4908

“In paper no. 312C-1/6, Carnegie has referred Ayodhya as

'Ajudhiya'. In it, Ayodhya is given to be situated under

Pargana Haveli Awadh. I agree with the facts mentioned

under the heading 'derivation'. I agree with the facts

mentioned after it under the heading 'area'.”(E.T.C)

^^dkxt la[;k 312lh&1@11 esa ^fgUnw ,.M eqlyeku fMQ+jsalsat^ 'kh"kZd

ds vUrxZr fy[kh gqbZ ckr esjh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj lgh gSA bl 'kh"kZd

ds vUrxZr fy[kh gqbZ ckrksa esa pkSFkh ykbu esa tUeLFkku dk mYys[k vk;k

gS] tks fookfnr LFky ds lUnHkZ esa gSA^^ ¼ist 92½

“According to my knowledge, the facts mentioned under

the heading 'Hindu and Musalman differences' in paper no.

312C-1/11, are correct. Janmsthan is mentioned the fourth

line of the facts mentioned under this heading, which is in

context of the disputed site.”(E.T.C)

^^dkxt la0 312 lh&1@23 ds i"B 389 dh nwljh] rhljh ,oa pkSFkh

iafDr;ksa esa jkedksV eksgYys ds ,d LFkku ij jkepUnz th ds tUe ysus

dk mYys[k gS] ijUrq ml LFkku dks fof'k"V :i ls blesa ugha crk;k

x;k gSA blh i"B dh ikapoh rFkk NBh ykbZu esa fy[kh ;g ckr lgh

ugha gS fd ckgjh Hkkx esa ,d NksVs ls pcwrjs ij jkepUnz th dk

tUeLFkku gSA^^ ¼ist 95½

“In the second, third and fourth lines at page 389 of paper

no. 312C-1/23, there is reference about the birth of Lord

Ramchandra at a place in Ramkot locality, however, that

place has not been particularly defined in it. The fact

mentioned in fifth and sixth line of this page that the

birthplace of Lord Ramchandra is at a small platform in

the outer part, is not correct.”(E.T.C)

^^esjs fopkj ls ;g mYys[k lM+d ds mRrj okys eafnj ds laca/k esa ugha

gSA blh LFkku ij tks lhrk jlksbZ eafnj FkkA mldk gh blesa o.kZu gSA^^

¼ist 95½

4909

“In my opinion, this reference is not in context of the

temple in north of the road. It is the Sita Rasoi temple,

which existed at this place, which has been mentioned in

it.”(E.T.C)

^^th gk¡A ml LFkku dks ^yktZj VsfEiy^ dgk tk ldrk FkkA^^ ¼ist 96½

“Yes. That place could have been called 'larger

temple'.”(E.T.C)

^^fVªQsu Fkszyj dh iqLrd ds m)j.k] tks vU; ewy okn la0 5@89 esa

ÝsUp Hkk"kk esa dkxt la[;k 107lh&1@96 yxk;r 107 lh&1@104 ds

#i esa nkf[ky gSa] dks ns[kdj lk{kh us dgk fd ÝsUp Hkk"kk dks eq>s Kku

ugha gSaA^^ ¼ist 132½

“After looking at the extract of the book of Tiffen Thalor,

which has been filed in French as paper no. 107C-1/96 to

107C-1/104 in O.O.S no. 5/89, the witness stated that I do

not have knowledge of French language.”(E.T.C)

^^blh m)j.k dk vaxzsth vuqokn 107lh&1@105 yxk;r 107

lh&1@107 ds #i esa nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS rFkk bu rhuksa i"Bksa dks ,d

gh ist dkxt la0 107lh&1@108 ds #i esa nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA^^

¼ist 132½

“The English translation of this very extract has been filed

as paper no. 107C-1/105 to 107C-1/107 and all these three

pages have been filed in single page being paper no. 107C-

1/108.”(E.T.C)

^^dkxt la[;k 107lh&1@106 ds vafre izLrj rFkk dkxt la[;k

107lh&1@107 ds f}rh; izLrj esa fy[kk gqvk gSA nksuksa LFkkuksa ij Øe'k

% jkedksV rFkk ?kj ds fxjk;s tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA edku dks

Hkxoku fo".kq dk tUeLFkku gksus ds dkj.k bls eafnj gh ekuk tk;sxkA

nksuksa LFkkuksa ij vkSjaxtsc }kjk fxjk;s tkus dh ckr fy[kh xbZ gS rFkk

dqN yksxksa ds }kjk ckcj }kjk bls fxjk;s tkus dh ckr dgh xbZ gSA^^

¼ist 132½

“(It) is mentioned in last paragraph of paper no. 107C-

4910

1/106 and second paragraph of paper no. 107C-1/107. At

the two places, Ramkot and demolition of house

respectively have been mentioned. The house would be

considered a temple on account of being the birthplace of

Lord Vishnu. Demolition by Aurangzeb is mentioned at

both the places and few people have stated it to have been

demolished by Babar.”(E.T.C)

^^Fkkus ds R;kSgkj jftLVj esa fookfnr Hkou ds ckjs esa fooj.k fn;s x;s gSaA

izR;sd o"kZ ds n'kgjk] nhokyh] ifjØek,¡ rFkk fofHkUu /keksZ ds vU;

R;kSgkjksa dk fooj.k blesa jgrk gSaA^^ ¼ist 161½

“The festival register of the police station contains details

of the disputed structure. The details of various festivals of

each year such as Dussehra, Deepawali,

circumambulations and other festivals of other religions,

are found in it.”(E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa tks Hkh ifjØek,a] esyk fookfnr Hkou ls lacaf/kr jgrh gSa] bu

lcdk mYys[k R;kSgkj jftLVj esa jgrk gSaA^^ ¼ist 161½

“The details of the circumambulations, fair in Ayodhya

related to the disputed structure, are found in this festival

register.”(E.T.C)

4356. A few documents were also referred to which, we

also deal at this stage.

4357. Sushri Ranjana Agnihotri, Advocate, to fortify her

submission that disputed place is the place where Lord Rama

was born and later on formed part of the fort of Lord Rama;

referred to a structure called "Varah Image" in the south east

side of the outer wall of the disputed property. Paper No.

200C1/201C1 was claimed to be the photo of Varah Image. She

referred to "Anand Ramayana (Navon Khand Sampurna)

edited by Pandit Sri Ramji Sharma published by Sri Durga

4911

Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay and at page 477 thereof, it

says as under:

^^ml le; foHkh"k.k dh lkjh lEifRr esa ls jketh dks dfiy

okjkg dh e wfr Z vPNh yxh ] ftldh i wtk jko.k Lo; a djrk

Fk kA foHkh"k.k us jketh dks og ewfrZ ns nhA ml ewfrZ ds fo"k; esa ,slk

lquk tkrk gS fd dfiy Hkxoku~ us viuh eu% 'kfDr ls ml ewfrZ dh

jpuk dhA cgqr fnuksa rd dfiy eqfu us Lo;a mldh iwtk dh FkhA

mlds ckn og bUnz ds gkFk yx x;hA tc jko.k us bUnz ls laxzke djds

mUgsa ijkftr fd;k] rc jko.k ml ewfrZ dks bUnz ls Nhu yk;k vkSj cgqr

le; rd mldk iwtu djrk jgkA vkt ml s gh foHk h " k. k u s

jketh dk s vi Z . k dj fn;kA jke u s cM + s i z se l s ml s viu s

i q "id foeku ij jD[k kA**

4358. Exhibit 116 (Suit-5) (Register 20, page 161)

contains verses 13 to 25 from “Ayodhya Mahatmya”

Skandapurana : Vaishnavakhanda edited by Sri Krishnadas

Kshem Raj Shresthi (1910) and reads as under:

^^,rRif'pefnXHkkxs orZrs ijeks equsA

fiaMkjd~ bfr [;krks ohj% ijeiS#"k%AA

iwtuh;% iz;Rusu xa/kiq"ik{krkfnfHk%AA13AA

;L; iwtko'kku~ u.kka fl);% djlafJrk%A

rL; iwtkfo/kkusu drZO;a iwtua ujS%AA14AA

lj;wlfyys LukRok fiaMkjda p iwt;sr~A

ikfiuka eksgdrkZja efrna d`fruka lnkAA15AA

rL; ;k=k fo/kkrO;k lqiw.;k uojkf="kqA

rRif'pefn'kkHkkxs fo?us'k fdy iwt;sr~AA16AA

;L; n'kZurks u.kka fo?uys'kks u fo|rsA

rLekn~ fo?us'oj% iwT;% loZdke Qyizn%AA17AA

rLekRLFkkura ,s'kus jketUe izorZrsA

tUeLFkkrafena izksDra eks{kkfnQylk/kue~AA18AA

fo?us'ojkRiwoZHkkxs okfl"BknqRrjs rFkkA

ykSe'kkRif'pes Hkkxs tUeLFkkua rr%AA19AA

4912

;n"V~ok p euq";L; xHkZoklt;ks Hkosr~A

fouk nkusu rilk fouk rhFksZfoZuk e[kS%AA20AA

uoeh fnols izkIrs ozr/kkjh gh ekuo%A

LukunkuizHkkos.k eqP;rs tUeou/kukr~AA21AA

dfiykxkslglzkf.k ;ks nnkfr fnusfnusA

rRQya leokIuksfr tUeHkwes% izn'kZukr~AA22AA

vkJes olrka iqalka rkilkuka p ;Rqyl~A

jktlw;lglzkf.k izfro"kkZfXugks=r%AA23AA

fu;eLFka uja n"V~ok tUeLFkkus fo'ks"kr%A

ekrkfi=ksxqZ:.kka p HkfDreq}grka lrke~AA24AA

rRQya leokIuksfr tUeHkwes% izn'kZukr~AA25AA^^

Hindi Translation (as provided by DW 2/1-3, Mahant Ram

Vilas Das Vedanti) :

**,rr~¾jke tUeHkwfe ds if'pe fn'kk esa fi.Mkjd bl uke ls

[;krks¾izfl) ije iq:"k chj ije eqfu dk LFkku orZrs¾gSaA ml

iwT;uh; LFkku dk xU/k iq"i vP{kr vkfn ls iz;RuiwoZd iwtu djuk

pkfg,A (13)

**ftlds iwtu ds dkj.k euq";ksa ds gkFk esa flf) izkIr gks tkrh gSA

blfy, mldh iwtk euq";ksa dks fof/k iwoZd djuk pkfg,A (14)

**lj;w ty esa Luku djds fi.Mkjd dh iwtk djuh pkfg,A efrean eksg

ls xzflr ikfi;ksa dks lnk djuk pkfg,A (15)

**mldh ;k=k uojkf= ds iq"; u{k= esa djuh pkfg,A rr~¾jke tUeHkwfe

ds if'pe fn'kk ds Hkkx esa fo/u dks nwj djus okys Jhx.ks'k th dk

iwtu djuk pkfg,A (16)

**ftlds n'kZu ls euq";ksa dk fo?u¾d"V] nq%[k FkksM+k Hkh ugha jgrk

blfy, fo/us'oj lEiw.kZ dkeukvksa ds Qy dks iznku djus okys iwT;k;

%¾iwT;uh; gSaA (17)

**ml LFkku ds bZ'kku dks.k ij jke tUeHkwfe gS ¼tgkWa ij bl le; jke

yyk½ fojkteku gSaA bne~¾blh jke tUeHkwfe dks tUe LFkku¾jke

tUeHkwfe LFkku ds uke ls izkeea&tkuk tkrk gS vFkok mDr izdkj ls

O;Dr fd;k x;k gS tks ewP{kkfn Qy dks nsus okyk gSA (18)

4913

**fo/us'ojkr~¾fo/u dks nwj djus okys x.ks'k th ds iwoZ Hkkx esa rFkk

of'k"Bdq.M ds mRrj Hkkx esa] ykse'k ds if'pe Hkkx esa tUe

LFkkua~¾tUeHkwfe dk Lere~¾Lej.k djuk pkfg,A (19)

**ftl jke tUeHkwfe ij fojkteku Jhjke yyk dk n'kZu djus ds ckn

euq"; dks iqutZUe ls eqfDr fey tkrh gSA fcuk nku] fcuk riL;k vkSj

fcuk ;K ds gh dsoy jke tUeHkwfe ds n'kZu ek= ls gh eqfDr izkIr gks

tkrh gS vFkkZr~ fQj ls xHkZ esa tUe ugha ysuk iM+rkA (20)

**tks euq"; uoeh frfFk dks ozr /kkj.k djrk gS vkSj lj;w esa Luku vkSj

v;ks/;k esa nku djrk gS mlds izHkko ls tUecU/ku ls eqfDr fey tkrh

gSA (21)

**,d gtkj dfiyk xk; tks izfrfnu nku djrk gS ml nku dk tks Qy

euq"; dks feyrk gS ogh Qy Jhjke tUeHkwfe ds n'kZu djus ls izkIr

gksrk gSA (22)

**vkJe esa fuokl djus okys euq";ksa dks vkSj rifLo;ksa dks tks Qy izkIr

gksrk gS] ,d gtkj jktlw; ;K djus okyksa dks vkSj izfr o"kZ vfXugks= esa

gou djus okyksa dks oks Qy izkIr gksrk gSaA (23)

**fu;e esa fLFkr jgdj tks euq"; fo'ks"k :i ls tUeLFkkus¾Jhjke

tUeHkwfe ij fLFkr jke th ds n'kZu ls izkIr gksrk gSA ekrk&firk xq:vksa

vkSj lTtuksa dh HkfDriwoZd lsok djus ls tks Qy izkIr gksrk gS ogha

Qy jketUeHkwfe ds n'kZu ls izkIr gksrk gSA (24)

**ogh Qy Jhjke tUeHkwfe dk ,oa JhjketUeHkwfe es fojkteku Hkxoku

jkeyyk ds n'kZu ls izkIr gksrk gSA (25)

English Translation (By the Court)

“On the west of Ram Janam Bhumi lies a place of Pindara,

a famous and great sage and great human being. We

should worship this adorable place with scent, flowers,

rice-grains, etc. (13)

Due to that worship human beings can attain

Siddhi(accomplishment). Hence, human beings should duly

worship it. (14)

4914

After taking a dip in the water of Saryu one should worship

Pindarak. The sinners suffering from weak understanding

and from attachment should always do the said worship.

(15)

Journey to it should be done in the Pushpa Nakshatra of

Navratri. In the west part of Ram Janam Bhumi, we should

worship Ganesha Ji, remover of obstacles. (16)

As a result of whose darshan human beings do not have

any obstacle and pain, even a little sorrow such

Vighneshwar is worthy of worship as provider of results of

all desires. (17)

On the north-east of that place lies Ram Janam Bhumi

(where at present Ram Lala is presiding). The same Ram

Janam Bhumi is known as Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan or

expressed in the said manner and it is a provider of

liberation, etc. (18)

We should remember Janam Bhumi as located in the east

part of 'Ganesha Ji' , remover of obstacles, and in the north

part of Vashishtha Kunda and in the west part of Lomash.

(19)

After having darshan of Sri Ram Lala presiding at that

very Ram Janam Bhumi one is liberated from rebirth. Even

without making any gift, without practising austerities and

without making sacrifices, one attains liberation only with

darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi, that is to say, one does not

have to take birth from mother's womb again. (20)

One who keeps fast on the ninth day, has a dip in Saryu

and offers gifts in Ayodhya, gets liberated from the

bondage of birth. (21)

4915

The darshan of Sri Ram Janam Bhumi provides the same

results that a man may have by gifting one thousand Kapila

cows everyday. (22)

The result that hermits and ascetics residing in Ashrams

have, is the same that people have on performing one

thousand Rajsuya Yajnas have and on offering 'havans' in

fire-pits. (23)

From the darshan of Ram Janam Bhumi one may get the

same results as one may get from having darshan of Ram Ji

particularly at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or from rendering

dedicated service to parents, teachers and gentle persons.

(24)

One may get the same results from darshan of Lord Ram

Lala presiding at Sri Ram Janam Bhumi. (25)”

4359. Exhibit J-3 (Suit-4) (Register Vol.13, page 13) is a

photocopy of page 39 Part-I of Maharshi Valmiki Praneet Shrimad

Balmikiya Ramayan authored by Maharshi Valmiki published by

Gorakh Press, Gorakhpur, U.P.. It shows Pancham Sarg Shlok 1 to

11. Shlok 6, 9 and 10 was pressed before us which reads as under:

^^v;ks/;k uke uxjh r=klhYyksdfoJqrkA

euquk ekuosUnzs.k ;k iqjh fufeZrk Lo;e~AA6AA

mlh tuin esa v;ks/;k ukedh ,d uxjh gS] tks leLr yksdksa esa fo[;kr~

gSA ml iqjh dks LOk;a egkjkt euq us cuok;k vkSj clk;k FkkAA6AA

^^rka rq jktk n'kjFkks egkjk"Vªfoo/kZu%A

iqjhekokl;kekl fnfo nsoifr;ZFkkAA9AA

tSls LoxZ esa nsojkt bUnz us vejkorhiqjh clk;h Fkh] mlh izdkj /keZ vkSj

U;k; ds cy ls vius egku jk"Vª dh of) djus okys jktk n'kjFk us

v;ks/;kiqjh dks igys dh vis{kk fo'ks"k #i ls clk;k FkkAA9AA

^^dikVrksj.korhZ lqfoHkDrkUrjki.kke~A

loZ;U=k;q/korheqfirka loZf'kfYifHk%AA10AA

og iqjh cM+s&cM+s QkVdksa vkSj fdokM+ksa ls lq'kksfHkr FkhA

4916

mlds Hkhrj iFkd&iFkd cktkjsa FkhaA ogka lc izdkj ds

;U= vkSj vL=&'kL= lafpr FksA ml iqjh esa lHkh dykvksa

ds f'kYih fuokl djrs FksAA10AA

We have another publication of Valmiki Ramayan,

Critical Edition by G.H.Bhatt published by Oriental Institute

Baroda, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda in 1960.

Vol.-1 at page 43 and 44 contends the same Shlokas which are

shown in Ex. J-3. It is not in dispute that Valmiki Ramayana is

the first document, which gives entire details of Lord Rama

known to us. A perusal of the critical edition of Valmiki

Ramayana shows that they collected manuscripts requesting

across the country for publishing a most authentic version of

Valmiki Ramayan and in their endeavor they got the oldest

Manuscripts of 1020 AD said to be in Nepali version. It is said

in the introduction part that there is an entry in the

Manuscripts that it was copied by Sri Gopati, S/o Pt. Shri Shri

Tara on the 4th day of the dark half of the month of Aashad in

Samvat year 1076 (AD 1020). Besides they also received

Manuscripts in different languages i.e. Newari, Maithli,

Bengali, Devnagari, Telgu and Malyalam. The oldest version in

Maithli is of 1360 AD, Bengali 1688 AD, Devnagari 1455 AD,

Malyalam 1512 AD.

4360. Exhibit 77 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 27-29)

contains photocopy of the title page and page no. 49 of "Janam

Sakhi Das Guru Arthat Suraj Prakash" Gyani Gyan Singh Ji first

edition 1995 fifth edition 2002. There it talks of visit of Guru

Nanak to Ayodhya and says:

^^v;ks/;k uxjh

blh izdkj gh igkM+h {ks=ksa esa ls pyrs gq, xq# th Jhjke pUnz

th ds tUe LFkku v;ks/;k uxjh vk x;sA cgqr ls yksx vkSj iafMr xq#

th ds djhc ,d= gks x;sA xq# th us ,d iafMr ls iwNk fd geus lquk

4917

Fkk fd v;ks/;k uxjh dks Jh jke pUnz th vius lkFk gh cSdq.B dks ys

x;s Fks] fQj ;g rks ;gha dh ;gha gS\ iafMrksa us dgk] og dsoy v;ks/;k

uxjh ds thoksa dks gh lkFk ysdj x;s Fks] egy vkfn vkSj lc dqN ;gkWa

gh jgk FkkA xq# th us dgk mu yksxksa us Jh jke pUnz th ds n'kZu fd;s

Fks ftl ds fy, og muds lkFk gh cSdq.B dks pys x;s FksA ijUrq rqe

yksx tc rd xq# mins'k ds }kjk HkfDr /kkj.k ugha djksxs rc rd rqe

cSdq.B ugha tk ldrsA mUgksaus dgk xq# rks dbZ izdkj ds gSa] ge fdl

xq# dks /kkj.k djsa\ xq# th us dgk& ftlds vius eu esa iw.kZ Kku gks]

eksg ek;k ls fuysZi gks] og vki Hkh eqDr gks tkrk gS vkSj nqljs Hkh tks

mlds lkFk pyrs gSa og vUr le; cSdq.B dks tkrs gSaA xq# th ds ;g

opu lqu dj iafMrksa us dgk egkjkt ! gesa vki gh mins'k nksA rc vki

th us mudks lR;uke dk mins'k nsdj lkSHkkX;'kkyh cuk;kA**

4361. Two more exhibits, i.e., Exhibit J-5 (Suit-4)

(Register Vol.13, page 39-45) is a photocopy of pages no.682,

683, 678, 679 and Appendix-U page lxxvi, lxxvii, lxxviii, lxxix

of A.S. Beveridge's Babarnama and Exhibit J-4 (Register

Vol.13, page 101-105) is a photocopy of the pages No.173, 174

of Fyzabad Gazetteer. Vol. XLIII of the District Gazetteers of

the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh by H.R Nevill, 1905.

We have already dealt with these documents and, therefore, no

occasion to refer further.

4362. Reference is also made to Exhibit 118 and 119 (Suit-

5), which are, Exhibit 119 (Suit-5) (Register 23, page 669)

contains some date mentioned on a paper by Pt. Indushekhar

Pandey. It has been filed to show that the placement of idol

under the central dome inside the disputed structure in the inner

Courtyard. The appropriate time was calculated by the experts

and that was the most suitable time. Exhibit 118 (Suit-5)

(Register 23, Page 671) is also to the same effect and this has

been written by one Pt. Harisharan Dwivedi of Allahabad. Both

4918

these documents, however, were not proved and even otherwise

are not relevant for the issue.

4363. One more book, i.e., "Ain-i-Akbari" is also cited. 1.

One of the earliest work wherein Ayodhya has been referred is

the work of Abul-Fazl Allami. It is a Persian treatise titled as A-

in-i Akbari (the Institutes of Akbar) (Akbar-Nama). He was a

Minister of the Mughal Emperor Akbar and has given the

geography, physical and historical descriptions of the Emperor

accompanied by statistical table. It described in detail the

sixteen Subhas of the Government of which the Mughal

Emperor was then composed with minute exactitude Initially, in

1783 Francis Gladwin published unabridged English version of

the said work encouraged by the Governor General Warren

Hastings but it was found to be highly defective. Later on an

English translation was published in 1873 by H. Blochmann.

The original book is said to be in five volumes and with respect

to its contents etc. in the preface stated on 23rd September, 1873,

Blochmann said :

“The A-in-i Akbari is the third volume of the Akbar-

nama, by Shaykh Abu'l Fazal, and is by far the greatest

work in the whole series of Muhammadan histories of

India. The first volume of the this gigantic work contains

the history of Timur's family as far as it is of interest for the

Indian reader, and the reigns of Babar, the Sur Kings, and

Humayun whilst the second volume is devoted to the details

history of nearly forty-six years of the reign of the Great

Emperor. The concluding volume, the A-in-i-Akbari,

contains that information regarding Akbar's reign, which,

though not strictly historical, is yet essential to a correct

4919

understanding of the times, and embodies, therefore, those

facts for which, in modern times, we would turn to

Administration Reports, Statistical compilations, or

Gazetteers. It contains the a-in (i.e. mode of governing) of

Akbar, and is, in fact, the Administration Report and

Statistical Return of his government as it was about A.D.

1590. The contents, therefore, of the A-in are naturally

varied and detailed. The first of its five books treats of

Akbar's household and court, and of the emperor himself,

the soul of every department, who looks upon the

performance of his duties as an act of divine worship, and

who enters into the details of government in order to create

a harmonious whole. Vouchsafed as king with a peculiar

light from on high, his person is prominently p8ut forward

as the guide of the people in all matters temporal and

spiritual; in whose character and temper the governed find

that rest and peace which no constitution can give, and in

whom, as the author of a new and advanced creed, the dust

of intoleration is for ever allayed.

The second book treats of the servants of the throne,

the military and civil services, and the attendants at court

whose literary genius or musical skill receives a lustre from

the encouragement of the emperor, and who in their turn

reflect a brilliant light on the government.

The third book is entirely devoted to regulations for

the judicial and executive departments, the establishment of

a new and more practical era, the survey of the land, the

tribal divisions, and the rent-roll of the great Finance

minister whose name has become proverbial in India.

4920

The fourth book treats of the social condition and

literary activity, especially in philosophy and law, of the

Hindus, who form the bulk of the population, and in whose

political advancement the emperor saw the guarantee of

the stability of his realm. There are also a few chapters on

the foreign invaders of India, on distinguished travellers,

and on Muhammadan saints and the sects to which they

respectively belong.

The fifth book contains the moral sentences and

epigrammatical sayings, observations, and rules of wisdom

of the emperor, which Abu 'l-Fazl has gathered as the

disciple gathers the sayings of the master.”

4364. Blochmann's translation was published second time

in 1927 which was edited by Lieut. Colonel D.C. Phillott and he

has given an explanation in his preface dated written in 1927 as

under :

“Some explanation is needed of the present edition.

Blochmann's original translation has for some time been

out of print. The Asiatic Society of Bengal has asked me

undertake the preparation of a reprint, and I lightly

accepted the task, not realizing the amount of labour

involved. Blochmann's translation and notes form a work

of infinite detail and thorough scholarship; and though it

has seldom been necessary to correct, it has often been

necessary to investigate. This present edition is, however, in

the main a mere reprint. This of itself is no small testimony

to Blochmann's thoroughness. The transliteration, however,

has been brought into line with a more modern system, and

a few additional notes [in a square brackets] have been

4921

added; those with a suffixed B. are Blochmann's own MS.

Notes from a printed copy in my possession; I have not

incorporated all of them, as many I was unable to decipher.

Notes to which a P. is suffixed are my own.”

4365. It appears that after the death of H. Blochmann on

30th July 1878 it was found by Asiatic Society of Bengal which

had published the translation of A-in-i Akbari that the work was

only to the extent of the First Volume and, therefore, it entrusted

the unfinished work to Lieut. Colonel H.S. Jarrett who finished

the printing of translation of the second Volume in 1891. This

work of Jerrutt was revised by Sri Jadunath Sarkar in 1949 and

its latest re-print of 2001 distributed by D.K. Publishers

Distributors P. Ltd., New Delhi has been placed on record before

us. The Subah of Audh is on page 181 and onwards and the

relevant part thereof referred by the parties is as under :

“It is situated in the second climate. Its length from the

Sarkar of Gorakhpur to Kanauj is 135 kos. Its breadth

from the northern mountains to Sidhpur on the frontier

of the Subah of Allahabad is 115 kos. To the east is

Bihar; to the north, the mountains; to the south, Manikpur,

and to the west Kanauj. Its climate is good. Summer and

winter are nearly temperate. Its principal streams are the

Saru (Sarju), the Ghaghar (Gogra) the Sai and the Godi

(Gumti). In the first mentioned, divers aquatic animals and

forms of strange appearance show themselves. Agriculture

is in a flourishing state, especially rice of the kinds called

Sukhdas, Madhkar, and Jhanwan, which for whiteness,

delicacy, fragrance and wholesomeness are scarcely to be

matched. They sow their rice three months earlier than in

4922

other parts of Hindustan. When the drought begins, the Sai

and the Gogra rise high in flood and before the beginning

of the rains, the land is inundated, and as the waters rise,

the stalks of rice shoot up and proportionately lengthen :

the crop, however, is destroyed if the floods are in full force

before the rice is in ear. Flowers, fruits and game are

abundant. Wile buffaloes are numerous. When the plains

are inundated the animals take to the high ground where

the people find sport in hunting them. Some of the animals

remain all day in the water and only at night approach the

dry ground and breathe in freedom. Awadh (Ajodhya) is

one of the largest cities of India. In is situated in

longitude 1180, 6', and latitude 270, 22. It ancient times its

populous site covered an extent of 148 kos in length and 36

in breadth, and it is esteemed one of the holiest places of

antiquity. Around the environs of the city, they sift the

earth and gold is obtained. It was the residence of

Ramachandra who in the Treta age combined in his own

person both the spiritual supremacy and the kingly

office.

At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra,

after its junction with the Sai, [Saraju] flows below the

fort. Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and

seven yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them

to be the resting places of Seth and the prophet job, and

extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at

Ratanpur is the tomb of Kabir, the assertor of the unity of

God. The portals of spiritual discernment were partly

opened to him and he discarded the effete doctrines of his

4923

own time. Numerous verses in the Hindi language are still

extant of him containing important theological truths.

Bahraich is a large town on the banks of the river Sarju. Its

environs are delightful with numerous gardens. Salar

Masud and Rajab Salar are both buried here. The common

people of the Muhammadan faith greatly reverence this

spot and pilgrims visit it from distant parts, forming

themselves in bands and bearing glided banners. The first

mentioned was connected by blood with Mahmud

Ghaznavi, and sold his life bravely in battle and left an

imperishable name. The second was the father of Sultan

Firoz king of Delhi and won renown by the recitude of his

life.”

4366. We find that it only refers to the antiquity of

Ayodhya and about Lord Rama but no further information can

be derived which may throw any light on the issues in question.

253. Sri Jain also refers to the following.

4367. Exhibit 76 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 21-26)

is the photocopy of the title page and pages no. 406 to 411 of the

book "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Pahli Sainchi)" translated by Dr.

Manmohan Sahgal. The following part thereof shows that the

Guru Nanak had taught even Muslims as to who can be a true

follower of Islam and it says:

^^AA lyksdq e01AA fegj elhfr flndq eqlyk gdq gykyq

dqjk.kqA lje laqufr lhyq jkstk gksgq eqlyek.kqA dj.kh dkck lpq ih#

dyek dje fuoktA rlch lk frlq Hkkolh ukud j[kS yktAA1AA

AA lyksdq egyk 1AA okLrfod :i esa eqlyeku cuus ds fy,

xq#th us viuh /kkj.kk bl izdkj izdV dh gS fd thoksa ij n;k] efLtn

o [kqnk ij fo'okl eqlYyk] vius gd ;k viuh dekbZ dk [kkuk gyky

vkSj lp cksyuk gh dqvkZu dk i<+uk gSA tc dqdeksZa ls ladksp djuk

4924

lqUur] la;e /kkj.k djuk jkstk gksxk] rc eqlyeku lPpk eqlyeku

gksxkA 'kq) deZ djuk dkck] lR;:i [kqnk dks tkuuk ihj dh mikluk

gS] d`ikiwoZd fdlh xjhc dk laj{k.k dyek vkSj uekt gSA ukud dgrs

gSa] 'kkfUr:ih ekyk ogh gS] tks mls Hkk,A vFkkZr~ ogh ekyk cuk, tks

ijekRek dks Hkk,] ¼bZ'oj dh jtk esa jgs½A gs dkth] tc ,sls xq.kksa ls

;qDr gksxk] rc rsjh ykt ijes'oj j[ksxkAA1AA^^

^^AA lyksdq e0 1AA eqlyek.kq dgko.kq eqldyq tk gksb rk

eqlyek.kq dgkoSA vofy vmfy nhuq dfj feBk eldyekuk ekyq eqlkoSA

gksb eqlfyeq nhu eqgk.kS ej.k tho.k dk ejeq pqdkoSA jc dh jtkbZ eaus

flj mifj djrk eaus vkiq xokoSA rm ukud ljc thvk fegjaefr gksb

r eqlyekuq dgkoSAA1AA

AA lyksdq egyk 1AA gs dkth] eqlyeku dgykuk dfBu gSA

;fn dksbZ eqlyeku ds xq.kksa ls ;qDr gS rHkh eqlyeku dgk tk ldrk

gSA loZizFke] vkSfy, vFkkZr~ lUrtuksa ds /keZ dks ehBk djds ekusA

rnUrj ftu lUrtuksa us eku nwj fd;k gS] mUgsa viuk eky yqVkosA

eYykg&:ih tks lUrtu gSa] muds /keZ esa fLFkr gks rFkk tUe&ej.k ;k

thou&eR;q ds Hkze dks nwj djsA flj ds Åij jc dh jtk ekus vFkkZr~

bZ'ojsPNk dks loksZifj ekudj izlUu jgs rFkk vgaRo dks xokWadj

drkZ&iq#"k dks ekusA ukud dgrs gSa] leLr thoksa ij d`ik djsa vkSj ,sls

xq.kksa ls la;qDr gks rks eqlyeku dgyk,AA1AA**

4368. Exhibit 78 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 30-40)

contains photocopy of the title page and pages no. 37, 38, 431,

432, 473, 474, 906 to 908 of "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Tisari

Sainchi)" translated by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal. Sri Hari Shankar

Jain placed before us the following part from page 37 to 38

thereof:

^^AA fryax egyk 1AA tSlh eSa vkoS [kle dh ok.kh rSlM+k djh

fxvkuq os ykyksA iki dh ta¥ yS dkcygq /kkbvk tksjh eaxS nkuq os

ykyksA ljeq /kjeq nqbZ Nfi [kyks, dwMq fQjS ij/kkuq os ykyksA dkthvk

cke.kk dh xy Fkdh vxnq iM+S lSrkuq os ykyksA eqlyekuhvk iM+fg

drsck dlV efg djfg [kqnkbZ os ykyksA tkfr lukrh gksfj

4925

fgnok.khvk ,fg Hkh ys[kS ykb os ykyksA [kwu ds lksfgys xkohvfg ukud

jrq dk dqaxw ikbZ os ykyksAA 1AA lkfgc ds xq.k ukudq xkoS ekl iqjh

fofp vk[kq elhykA ftfu mikbZ jafx jpkbZ cSBk ns[kS nf[k bdsyk lpk

lks lkfgcq lpq rikolq lpM+k fuvkm djsxq elksykA dkbvk diMq Vqdq

Vqdq gkslh fgUnqLrkuq lekylh cksykA vkofu vBrjS tkfu lrkuoS gks#

Hkh mBlh ejn dk psykA lp dh ck.kh ukudq vk[kS lpq lq.kkblh lp

dh csykAA2AA3AA 5AA

gs HkkbZ ykyks ! eq>s izHkq&ifr dh vksj ls tSlk vkHkkl gqvk gS]

mlh ds vuqlkj eSa rq>s voxr djkrk gwWaA dkcqy ls ckcj dh QkSt ekuks

iki&vR;kpkj dh ckjkr gS] ftls ,df=r djds og vk p<+k gS vkSj

cyiwoZd fgUnqLrku dh ckxMksj :ih dU;knku dh ekax dj jgk gSA

lS;niqj ls ykt vkSj /keZ foyqIr gks x, gSa] >wB gh loZ+= egRoiw.kZ cuk

fQjrk gSA ¼,slk yxrk gS fd½ 'kSrku fookg lEcU/k djk jgk gS vkSj

czkg~e.kksa rFkk dkft;ksa dh e;kZnk lekIr gks pqdh gS] eqlyeku vkSjrsa Hkh

bl foifRr esa dqvkZu i<+ jgh gS vkSj [kqnk ls izkFkZuk dj jgh gSaA ÅWaph

tkfr rFkk uhph tkfr okyh ,oa vU; nwljh lc fL=;ksa ij vR;kpkj gks

jgs gSaA ukud dk dFku gS fd lc vksj foyki dk laxhr gks jgk gS vkSj

ygw dk dslj fNM+dk tk jgk gSAA1AA ¼lc dqN izHkq dh jtk vuqlkj

gksrk gS] blfy,½ yk'kksa ls Hkjs bl 'kgj esa cSBdj Hkh ukud ml

ekfyd&izHkq ds xq.k gh xkrk gSA ¼gs ykyks!½ rw Hkh izHkq ds vVy fu;e

dks mPpfjr dj fd ftl ekfyd&izHkq us lf"V mRikfnr dh gS] mlh us

bls ek;k&eksg esa izoRr fd;k gS vkSj og vki fufyZIr jgdj lc ?

kVukvksa dks ns[k jgk gSA og ekfyd&izHkq vVy fu;eksa okyk gS] mldk

U;k; vVy gS] og Hkfo"; esa Hkh vVy fu;e vkSj vVy U;k; dk O;ogkj

djsxkA vc ¼lS;niqj esa½ euq"; dk 'kjhj :ih oL= VqdM+s&VqdM+s gks jgk

gSA ;g ,d ,slh Hk;kud nq?kZVuk gS] ftls fgUnqLrku dHkh ugha Hkqyk

ldsxkA vkt eqxy yksx lEcr~ vBgRrj esa vk, gSa] ;s lEcr~ lRrkucsa es

pys tk,Waxs] dksbZ nwljk 'kwjohj buds fo:) mBk [kM+k gksxkA ukud rks

lR;Lo:i izHkq dh xq.kLrqfr djrk gS] vkthou ;g xq.kLrqfr djrk

jgsxk] D;ksafd ;g euq";&tUe dh vof/k xq.kLrqfr ds fy, gh feyh

gSAA2AA3AA5AA**

4369. He contended that the above narration show the

4926

atrocities of Babar when he invaded India. We, however, point

out him that it mentions the treatment of both Hindus and

Muslims of India in the hands of Babar in equally adverse

conditions, meaning thereby Babar killed the people without

caring as to whether he was Muslim or Hindu.

4370. Exhibit 79 (Suit-4) (Register Vol. 16, pages 41-58)

contains title page and pages no. 8 to 17, 226 to 229 and 400 to

401 of "Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Dusari Sainchi)" translated by

Dr. Manmohan Sahgal. Sri Jain, learned Counsel, placed before

us the following Hindi translation from page 226 of the book:

^^¼mudk½ /ku vkSj ;kSou] ftudk mu lqUnfj;ksa dks cgqr vfHkeku Fkk]

vkt nksuksa gh muds cSjh cus gq, gSA ¼ckcj us½ dzwj flikfg;ksa dks gqDe ns

fn;k gS] os mudh izfr"Bk xokWadj mUgsa ys tk jgs gSaA ¼thoksa ds dqN o'k

ugha½ ;fn ijekRek dks mi;qDr yxs rks thoksa dks vknj&lEeku nsrk

gS] ;fn mldh jtk gksos rks ltk nsrk gSAA4AA ;fn igys gh

¼vius&vius drZO; dks½ ;kn djrs jgsa] rks ,slh ltk D;ksa feys\ ¼;gkWa

ds½ gkfdeksa us ,s'k&vkjke ds pko esa viuk drZO; Hkqyk fn;k FkkA ¼vc]

tc½ ckcj dh vkokt vkbZ gS] rks dksbZ iBku 'kgtknk Hkh jksVh ugha [kk

ldrkAA5AA ¼tkfyeksa ds iats esa vkdj½ eqlyekuh fL=;ksa ds uekt ds

oDr fNu x, gSa] fgUnw fL=;ksa dh iwtk dk le; tk jgk gSA ¼tks igys

cM+h gh vkSipkfjd fof/k ds lkFk iwtk djrh Fkh] vc½ os u Luku djds

Vhds yxk ldrh gSa] u gh muds pkSds ifo= jg x, gSaA ¼ftUgksaus

/ku&;kSou ds u'ks esa½ dHkh jke dks Lej.k ugha fd;k Fkk] vc mUgsa [kqnk]

[kqnk dguk Hkh ugha feyrkAA6AA ¼ckcj dh dSn ls½ cpdj tks fojys

euq"; vius&vius ?kj vkrs gSa] os ijLij feydj dq'ky&{kse iwNrs gSaA

mudh fdLer esa ;g foifRr iwoZ&fyf[kr Fkh] os ,d nwljs ds ikl cSBDj

vius&vius nq[k jksrs gSaA ¼ij½ gs ukud! Ekuq"; cspkjs D;k djus ;ksX;

gSa\ ogha dqN gksrk gS] tks mls Hkyk yxrk gSAA7AA**

4371. Here also we find that the act of the Babar was

equally adverse to both Muslims and Hindus of the then

Hindostan.

4927

4372. To our mind instead of puzzling ourselves in so

much literature etc. in view of certain aspects which emerges

from whatever we have mentioned above may be summarised

which probably may give some idea as to how the questions are

to be answers. The antiquity of Ayodhya is not disputed. It is

also not disputed that Ayodhya is known as the principle place

of religion and mainly concerned with Vaishnavites, i.e., the

followers of Lord Rama. Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya and

ruled thereat. The religious texts like Valmiki Ramayan and

Ramcharitmanas of Goswami Tulsidas and others like

Skandpuran etc. mentions that Lord Rama was borne at

Ayodhya and it is his place of birth but do not identify any

particular place in Ayodhya which can be said to be his place of

birth. On the one hand we do not get any idea about the exact

place or site but simultaneously we can reasonably assume that

once it is not disputed that Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya

there must be a place which could be narrowed down at the site

of his place of birth. It is true that a search of a place of birth

after long time even today may not be very easy if one tried to

find out in this regard just three or four generations back.

Therefore, for making such kind of inquiry in a matter of such

an antiquity is almost impossible. But when a dispute in such a

manner is raised then we go by the well accepted principle in

law of evidence particularly as application in civil cases, i.e.,

preponderance of probability.

4373. The Evidence Act defined (proved) vide Section 3 as

under:

"A fact is said to be proved when, after considering

the matters before it the Court either believes to to exist or

4928

considers its existence so probable that a prudent man

ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to

act upon the supposition with it existence."

4374. The only thing the Court should not to do is to base

its conclusion on mere conjectures and surmises. Here we have

not to consider the historicity of Ayodhya or Lord Rama but

only to find out whether the place in dispute according to the

belief, faith and traditions of Hindus is the site where Lord

Rama was borne. Even if we have to draw an inference whether

this is a place where Lord Rama is borne we need not to record

a finding like mathematical calculation but it has to be decided

on the preponderance of probability. As we have already said

that if Lord Rama was borne at Ayodhya then there must be a

place which can be identified for such purpose. It is no where

suggested by plaintiffs (Suit-4) for the muslim parties that

except the property in dispute there was any other place in

Ayodhya which is believed by the Hindu people as place of birth

of Lord Rama. What they submit is that there was another

temple on the north site of the property in dispute which is

called Janamsthan temple and, therefore, that can be the place of

birth. But the antiquity of that temple goes back to only about

200-300 years, i.e., not beyond 18th or 19th century. The

possibility of that area gets ruled out for more than several

reasons.

4375. The first document which is available to us is that of

William Finch Travellers Account who visited Ayodhya

sometimes between 1608-1611 and there he has referred to a

place known as fort of Ramchandra where he is borne. It does

not talk of any Janamsthan temple at this stage but talk of a fort

4929

in a ruined condition. He also mentioned that the people use to

visit it for worship. Therefore, at that time also there was only

one place which the Hindus people known to be a place of birth

of Lord Rama or in any case a place which is related to Lord

Rama. It has referred as Fort obviously must have been quite

bigger when it is said that it was on a mount and was the highest

area in Ayodhya.

4376. The next document available to us was published in

1786, i.e., of Joseph Tieffenthaler who was an Australian

Christian Priest and came to India sometimes in 1740. He

visited Awadh area between the 1766-1771. He was a highly

educated Orientalist knowing several languages including

Sanskrit and Persian. It is he who has given some detail about

the place in dispute as also mentioned in detail the place in

dispute including the disputed building and also says very

clearly that the people believe that Lord Rama was borne here

where exist its house which was demolished and thereafter the

building was constructed. The size of the house whether he

called Hindu temple as a house is not known but for our

purposes it is sufficient that in the bigger area of the fort of Lord

Rama there was a part on which the disputed building was

constructed and in this disputed building the people at that time

also believe that it includes the place of birth of Lord Rama and

use to visit and worship despite knowing that a knew building

has been raised which is a mosque. The territory was reign by

muslim rulers and despite of taking risk the Hindu people if

were entering a mosque for worship believing it to be the place

of birth of Lord Rama, this faith, their determination and their

attitude must have some basis and cannot be taken lightly.

4930

4377. Plaintiffs (Suit-4)'s one of the witness Suvira

Jaiswal, an expert, (Historian) claims to have made special study

on Lord Rama and has represented to have special knowledge in

this regard. With respect to her religious followings, she said:

^^eSa vkfLrd flQZ bl :i esa gwWa fd fo'okl ekuork esa gSA eSa fdlh

ckgjh 'kfDr ;k peRdkj esa fo'okl ;k vkLFkk ugha j[krh gwWaA** ¼ist&3½

“I am theist only in a sense that I believe in humanity. I

have no belief or faith in any external power or miracle.”

(E.T.C.)

^^eSa 'kq: ls vFkkZr iSnkb'k ls gh vk;Z lekth vius dks ekurh jgh

FkhA ;g lgh gS fd vk;Z lekth yksx bZ'oj dks dksbZ ewfrZ iwtk ugha

ekurs] ij bZ'oj dk vfLrRo ekurs gSaA** ¼ist&3½

“ I have been considering myself to be an Arya Samaji

right since the beginning, that is, my birth. It is true that

Arya Samajists do no t have any faith in idolatry but

believe in the existence of God.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa] iwtk&ikB] Hktu vkfn ugha djrh gwWaA** ¼ist&4½

“ I do not perform worship, incantation etc." (E.T.C.)

^^eSa ekDlZoknh fopkj/kkjk ls izHkkfor jgh gWw ---- ekDlZoknh fopkj/kkjk dh

gwWa blfy, eSa /keZ esa fo'okl ugha djrhA** ¼ist 161½

“I have been influenced by Marxism ... Since I am

follower of Marxist theory, I have no faith in religion."

(E.T.C.)

4378. She did her Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr. Ram

Sharan Sharma from Patna University. In respect to Lord Rama,

his historicity, period when his worship started according to her

research and information, she has said as under:

^^jke dk vorkj =srk ;qx esa ekuk tkrk gSA vFkkZr fo".kq dk jke vorkj

=srk ;qx esa ekuk tkrk gSA fo".kq dk jke vorkj] muds nl vorkjks dk

lkrokWa uEcj dk gSA jke dks iwtk djus okyksa dks e/;dky esa jkek;r~

4931

ds uke ls tkuk x;k gSA vkSj mldh jkekuUnh; Hkh dgrs gSaA Lokeh

jkekuUn] jkek;r ;k jkekuUnh lEiznk; ds izorZd ekus tkrs gSaA**¼ist 9½

“ Rama is taken to have incarnated in Treta Yuga, that is to

say, Vishnu is taken to have incarnated as Rama in Treta

Yuga. Incarnation of Vishnu as Rama is the seventh

incarnation out of the ten ones. Worshippers of Rama are

known as Ramayat in the Medieval Period and they are

also called Ramanandiya. Swami Ramanand is considered

to be the progenitor of Ramayat or Ramanandiya school."

(E.T.C.)

^^n'kjFk tkrd esa ewy dFkk dkQh izkphu gSA ;g lgh gS fd ckYehdh

jkek;.k esa jkedFkk dk ftdz n'kjFk tkrd esa feyrk gS eSaus bls i<+k

gSA n'kjFk ds iq= jke ogh gS jke gS tks ckYehdh jkek;.k esa feyrs

feyrs gSa vkSj n'kjFk tkrd dFkkvksa essaA** ¼ist 11½

“The basic story in Dashratha Jataka is fairly old. It is true

that the story of Rama of Valmiki Ramayana finds mention

in Dashratha Jataka which I have read. Rama, son of

Dashratha, is the same Rama that finds mention in Valmiki

Ramayana and in the fables of Dashratha Jataka.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh ugh gS fd ckYehdh jkek;.k cq)dky ls igys dh FkhA n'kjFk

tkrd Hkh cq)dky ls igys dk ugha gS ijUrq jkedFkk ekSf[kd :i ls

igys ls izpfyr Fkh ,slk vuqeku gSA^^ ¼ist 11½

"It is not true that the Valmiki Ramayana preceded the

Buddha Period. Dashratha Jataka, too, does not precede

the Buddha Period but the story of Rama, as I guess, was

verbally in vogue." (E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k dk o.kZu izkphu xzUFkksa esa vk;k gSA v;ks/;k dk mYys[k

ckYehfd dh jkek;.k ,oa iqjk.k vkSj egkHkkjr ds jkeksik[;ku bR;kfn esa

vkrk gSA lkfgR;d iqLrdksa esa j?kqoa'k vkSj mRrj jkepfjr esa v;ks/;k dk

mYys[k gSA ;s iqLrdsa xqIr dky ;k mlds ckn dh gSaA ;g Bhd gS fd

4932

ok;q iqjk.k ,oa fo".kq iqjk.k xqIrdky ds bfrgkl dks tkuus ds fy, dqN

lkexzh miyC/k djkrs gSaA dkyhnkl th dks xqIrdky dk ekuk tkrk gS

vkSj eSa Hkh bl fopkj ls lger gWw fd og xqIrdky esa FksA**

¼ist 17&18½

“The description of Ayodhya is found in ancient books.

Ayodhya also finds mention in Valmiki Ramayana, Purana

and in Ramopakhyan etc of Mahabharata. In literary books

like Raghuvansh and Uttar Ram Charit, there is mention of

Ayodhya. These books are either of Gupta period or

subsequent thereto. It is correct that Vayu Purana and

Vishnu Purana procure some material to know the history

of Gupta Period. Kalidas is considered to be in Gupta

Period and I agree with this view that he was in Gupta

Period.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd ePNdfVd esa ml tekus dh os'kHkw"kk dk o.kZu feyrk

gSA ;g Bhd gS fd mlesa of.kZr os'kHkw"kk ckYehfd jkek;.k esa crk, x,

os'kHkw"kk ls esy [kkrs gSaA 'kwnzd ds ePNdfVd ls dbZ 'krkCnh iwoZ

okRL;k;u dk dkelw= fy[kk x;k gSA blesa Hkkjro"kZ dh HkkSxksfyd

fLFkfr ,oa os'kHkw"kk dk o.kZu gSA** ¼ist 18½

“It is true that in Mrichhakatik description of dress and

attire of that age is found. It is correct that the dress and

attire mentioned therein match with that mentioned in

Valmiki Ramayan. Kamsutra by Vatsyayan had been written

centuries ago Mrichhakatik was written by Shudrak. In it

there is mention of topography as well as dress and attire

of India." (E.T.C.)

^^;g lR; gS fd eSaus viuh iqLrd esa ;g fy[kk gS fd bZloh lu~ dh

izkjfEHkd 'krkfCn;ksa esa jke dks fo".kq ds vorkj ds :i esa ekU;rk feyh A

izkjfEHkd 'krkCnh ls esjk eryc igyh o nwljh 'krkCnh ,0Mh0ls gSA^^

¼ist 59½

4933

“It is correct that in my book I have written that in early

centuries of A.D., Rama was recognized as incarnation of

Vishnu. By early century I mean first and second century

A.D.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk Bhd gS fd jke dks igyh nwljh 'krkCnh ,0Mh0 esa fo".kw

ds vorkj dh ekU;rk feyh ij blds igys jke dFkk ds uk;d

ds :i esa jke ekStwn FksA** ¼ist 59½

“It is correct to say that in I and II A.D. Rama was

recognized as incarnation of Vishnu but prior to that

existence of Rama was there as a hero of Rama's

Story." (E.T.C.)

^^ckS) /keZ ds igys jke] dFkk ds :i esa ekStwn FksA^^ (ist 60)

"Prior to Budha religion, Rama was existent in the form of

a story" (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd bl dFkk ds vuqlkj egkRek cq) us vius dks

jke dk vorkj ekuk FkkA

n'kjFk tkrd dks eSaus bfrgkl ds Jksr ds :i esa izekf.kd ekuk

gSA jke dh dFkkvksa dks Hkh eSaus bfrgkfld Jksr ds :i esa izekf.kd ekuk

gSA n'kjFk tkrd ,oa jke dFkk;sa esjh izkbejh lkslZ gSaA** ¼ist 60&61½

“It is correct that as per this story, Lord Buddha

declared himself incarnation of Rama.

I considered Dasrath Jatak authentic as a source of

history. I recognized the Rama's stories also to be

authentic as a source of history. Dasrath Jatak and Rama's

stories are my primary sources." (E.T.C.)

^^gksyh dzkbZLV dks bZ'oj dk iq= dgk x;k gSA izkQsV eksgEen dks bZ'oj

dk iSxEcj dgk x;k gSA jke dks bZ'oj dk vorkj dgk x;k gSA eSa bu

rhuksa dks lgh ugha ekurh gwaA*^ ¼ist 63½

“Holy Christ has been regarded as the Son of GOD.

Prophet has been regarded as prophet of GOD. Ram has

4934

been said to be incarnation of GOD. I do not believe all the

three to be true" (E.T.C.)

^^eSa ;g ekurh gwa fd Jh jke dks nwljh 'krkCnh esa ukjk;.k dk vorkj

ekuk tkrk FkkA** ¼ist 77½

“I accept that in second century, Sri Ram was regarded as

incarnation of Narayan." (E.T.C.)

^^^esjs vuqlkj jke dFkk dk vkjHHk pkSFkh 'krkCnh bZlk iwoZ ls gqvk FkkA^^

¼ist 77½

“In my view, initiation of Rama's story was from 4th century

B.C." (E.T.C.)

^^vkt rd iqjkrkfRod [kkst ds }kjk fdlh fo".kq gjh dk eafnj ugha

feykA ij v;ks/;k egkRE; esa fo".kq gfj ds eafnj dk o.kZu gSA v;ks/;k

egkRe LdUn iqjk.k dk ,d va'k gSA*^ ¼ist 78&79½

“Till date, by any archaeological survey, no any temple of

Hari Vishnu could be discovered but in Ayodhya

Mahatmya, there is description of the temple of Vishnu

Hari. Ayodhya Mahatmya is a part of Skand Puran."

(E.T.C.)

^^rFkkdfFkr ls esjk vfHkizk; ;g gS fd f'kykys[k rks gS ij og ogka fo".kq

gfj eafnj ls ik;k x;k ;k ugha ;g lansgkLin gSA esjs vuqlkj f'kykys[k

v;ks/;k esa ik;k x;k gS ij fo".kq gfj eafnj esa ik;k x;k ;k ugha ;g

lansgkLin gSA** ¼ist 79½

“By 'alleged', I mean that inscription does exist there but

that was discovered from Vishnu Hari Mandir or not, it is

doubtful. According to me, the inscription stone has been

found in Ayodhya, but whether it was found in Vishnu Hari

Mandir or not, it is doubtful." (E.T.C.)

^^eSa jke dks ,d O;fDr ekurh gwWaA^^ ¼ist 84½

"I consider Rama to be simply a person." (E.T.C.)

^^n'kjFk tkrd dk v/;;u djrs le; eSaus ;g ik;k fd jke n'kjFk ds

4935

iq= FksA^^ ¼ist 85½

"While studying Dashrath Jatak, I found that Ram was the

son of Dashrath." (E.T.C.)

^^;g Hkh lgh gS fd orZeku v;ks/;k ogh iqjkuh v;ks/;k gSA a;g eq>s

ekywe gS fd v;ks/;k esa jke dh iwtk ijEijkxr :i ls gksrh pyh vk

jgh gSA** ¼ist 86½

“It is also true that the present Ayodhya is the same

old Ayodhya. I know that worship of Rama in Ayodhya has

been continuing traditionally.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjh [kkst ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k esa dbZ LFkku ,sls gSa tks Jh jke ds tUe

LFkku gksus dk nkok djrs gSaA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrh fd mu LFkkuksa dk

tgka jke tUe LFkku dk nkok fd;k tkrk gS] dkSu&dksu ls gSa] ;k

dgka&dgka gSaA** ¼ist 86½

“As per my research, there are such several places in

Ayodhya, which claim to be the birthplace of Sri Rama. I

cannot point out specifically as to the places which are

claimed to be the birthplace of Rama." (E.T.C.)

^^eS jke dks ,d dFkk dk ik= ekurh gwa blfy, eS mudks bfrgkl dh

dSVhxjh esa ugha j[k ldrh gwaA eSa mudks ,d bfrgkfld O;fDr ekurh

gwaA^^ ¼ist 96½

“I regard Rama as a character of a story, therefore, I

cannot put him in the category of history. I reckon him as a

historical person." (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk Hkh Bhd gS fd tSu /keZ ds lzksrksa ls ;g irk yxrk gS fd

lkdsr o v;ks/;k ,d gh gSaA ;g eq>s ekywe gS fd 24 osa rhFkkZadj

egkohj v;ks/;k x;s FksA** ¼ist 96½

"It is also true that it is found from the sources of Jain

religion that Saket and Ayodhya are the same. I know that

24th Tirthankar Mahavir went to Ayodhya." (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd Hkxoku jke dks dbZ LFkkuksa ij dks'ky ujs'k

4936

ds uke ls m)r fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd v;ks/;k esa jke ds

tUe ls lacaf/kr LFkyksa dks dq.Mks ds uke lanfHkZr fd;k tkrk gSA**

¼ist 97½

“It is also true to say that at many places, Lord Rama has

been referred as Koshal Naresh (King of Koshal). It is true

to say that the places related to birth of Rama in Ayodhya

are referred with the name of Kunds." (E.T.C.)

^^eSa mijksDr 'krkfCn;ksa ls pyh vk jgh ijEijk dks bfrgkl ds

fo'ys"k.k dk fo"k; ekurh gwWa vkSj mls bfrgkl dh Js.kh esa j[krh gwWaA

esjs fopkj ls jke dFkk dk izkphure mYys[k n'kjFk tkrd esa

gqvk gSA** ¼ist 98&99½

“I consider the traditions continuing from centuries

as the subject of analysis of history and place the same in

the category of history.

In my view, the ancient mention of Rama's story has

been made in Dashrath Jatak." (E.T.C.)

^^;g gks ldrk gS fd xkSM+cgks uked xzUFk esa fo".kq gfj eafnj dk v;ks/;k

esa gksuk of.kZr fd;k x;k gSA** ¼ist 102½

“It may be that in the book Gaurbaho, there is mention of

temple of Vishnu Hari Mandir being situated in Ayodhya."

(E.T.C.)

^^LdU/k iqjk.k ds oS".ko [k.M ds vkf[kj esa v;ks/;k egkRe esa jketUe

LFkku dk o.kZu vk;k gS blfy, ,slk yxrk gS fd ;g ifPNIr va'k

gSA ;g lgh gS fd oS".ko [k.M LdU/k iqjk.k ds e/; esa gSA** ¼ist 106½

“At the end of Vaishnav Part of Skand Puran, description

of birthplace of Rama in Ayodhya has come in Ayodhya

Mahatmya at the end, it so appears because it is maimed

portion. It is true that Vaishnav Part is in the middle of

Skand Puran." (E.T.C.)

4937

^^ckYehfd jkek;.k esa Jhjke dh tUe frfFk mudh tUe Hkwfe dk

mYys[k vk;k gSA bl ckYehfd jkek;.k esa bl ckr dk ftdz gS fd

bPNokdq oa'k esa jktk ds ?kj esa Jhjke dk tue gqvk vkSj mudk

ckY;dky v;ks/;k esa chrkA ckfet ckYehfd jkek;.k dk dky bZlk iwoZ

rhljh 'krkCnh ls nwljh 'krkCnh ekuk tkrk gS ckYehfd jkek;.k esa ,d

v;ks/;k dk.M Hkh gSa blesa mfYyf[kr v;ks/;k dk.M nwljh 'krkCnh bZlk

iwoZ ekuk tkrk gSA ---ij blesa jke ds tUe o tUeHkwfe dk mYys[k

vo'; gSA** ¼ist 106&107½

“It is correct that in Valimiki Ramayan there is

reference of date and place of birth of Rama. In this

Valmiki Ramayan, there is reference of the fact that in

Ikshwaku Dynasty Rama was born in the royal family and

his childhood passed in Ayodhya. Period of Balimiki

Ramayan is regarded as 300 BC-200 BC. There is a

Ayodhya Kand too in Valimiki Ramayan. The Ayodhya

Kand in it, is regarded pertaining to second century

B.C. ... But in it, the reference about Rama's birth and

birthplace does find place." (E.T.C.)

^^ujflag iqjk.k esa v;ks/;k ,oa fo".kq eafnj dk o.kZu gSA** ¼ist 109½

“In Narsingh Puran, there is description of Ayodhya and

Vishnu Mandir." (E.T.C.)

^^fo".kq iqjk.k] fo".kq /keksZRrj iqjk.k dk eq>s Kku gSA ;g Bhd gS fd blesa

Hkh v;ks/;k esa fo".kq ds efnj dk o.kZu fn;k gSA** ¼ist 109½

“I have knowledge of Vishnu Puran, Vishnu Dharmmotar

Puran. It is true that in this also, description is given about

temple of Vishnu in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa euqLefr dks igyh ;k nwljh 'krkCnh dh jpuk ekurh gwWaA eSa bldks

bfrgkl dk ,d izekf.kd lzksr ekurh gwWaA ;g lgh gS fd iqjk.k

egkHkkjr] jkek;.k bfrgkl ds izkekf.kr lzksr gSaA jkek;.k ls esjk rkRi;Z

ckYehfd jkek;.k ls gSA

osnksa dks eSa bfrgkl ds fy, izekf.kd ekurh gwWaA ;g Hkh bfrgkl

4938

ds ,d lzksr gSaA osnksa dh jpuk dky 1500 bZ0iwoZ ls ysdj 800 bZ0iw0

ekuk tkrk gSA^^ ¼ist 114&115½

“I consider the Manusmriti as the creation of first or

second century. I reckon it as an authentic source of

history. It is correct that Puran, Mahabharat and Ramayan

are the authentic sources of history. By Ramayan, I mean

the Balimiki Ramayan.

I regard Vedas authentic for history. These are also a

source of history. Period of creation of Vedas are deemed

from 1500 BC-800 BC." (E.T.C.)

^^fdlh fo'ks"k LFkku dks fufeZr djds iwtk djus dh izFkk ikWpoh NBh

'krkCnh bZ-iw- esa jgh gksxh ijUrq ,slk fuf'pr izek.k ugha feyrk gS

ijUrq ;g Hkh laHko gks fd gM+Iik lH;rk esa jgh gksA** ¼ist 132½

“Custom of worshipping a particular place after creation

thereof, might have been in 5th-6th century B.C. but no

specific evidence thereof is found, but it might be possible

that it would have been prevailing in Hadappan

Civilisation." (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd Jhjke dks Hkxoku ds vorkj ds :i essa iwtus dk izek.k

feyrk gSA Jhjke dks Jh fo".kq dk vorkj 200 ,0Mh0 ls ekuk tkus

yxk FkkA Jh jke dks vorkj :i esa iwtk djus dk izFke izek.k xqIr ;qx

esa feyrk gSA** ¼ist 143½

“This is correct that evidence pertaining to worship of

Rama as incarnation of Vishnu is found. Sri Rama was

used to be regarded as incarnation of Vishnu since 200 AD.

The first evidence in respect of Sri Rama being worshipped

as incarnation, is found in Gupta Period." (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS xqIr dky esa vkus rd Hkxoku~ jke fo".kq ds vorkj ds :i

esa iwts tkus yxs FksA** ¼ist 144½

“It is true that by the commencement of Gupta Period,

4939

Bhagwan Ram was being worshipped as incarnation of

Vishnu." (E.T.C.)

^^;g ckr lgh gS fd vjyh lsUpqjh vkQ fdz'pu ,sjk esa Jh jke fo".kq ds

vorkj ds :i esa izfrf"Br gks pqds FksA** ¼ist 144½

“This fact is correct that in early century of Christian Era,

Sri Rama was established as incarnation of Vishnu."

(E.T.C.)

^^;g ckr va'kr% lgh gS fd fgUnw /keZ esa Kku vFkkZr~ foosd dks egRo

fn;k x;k gSA** ¼ist 159½

“It is partly true that in Hindu religion, knowledge or

discretion has been given importance.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g ckr lgh gS fd fgUnw /keZ gh ,d ,slk /keZ gS tks /kekZpj.k esa foosd

dk iz;ksx djus dh NwV nsrk gSA* ¼ist 159½

“It is true that Hindu religion is such a religion which

provides for liberty to exercise discretion in its execution."

(E.T.C.)

^^vk;ksZ ds nso fofHkUu FksA ;g Bhd gS fd mu fofHkUu vk;ksZ ds nsorkvksa

esa lad"kZ.k jke ij'kq jke] d`".k ,oa Jh jke& lfEefyr gSaA ;g lgh gS

fd budks iwtk ijEijkxr :i ls cgqr fnuksa ls pyh vk jgh gSA vkSj

vkt rd budh iwtk vck/k :i ls gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA** ¼ist 163½

“Aryans' Gods were different. It is correct that amongst

those Gods of Aryans, Samkarshan Ram, Parashu Ram,

Krishna and Sri Ram are included. It is correct that their

worship has been continuing traditionally since long. Till

today their worship has unceasingly been continuing."

(E.T.C.)

4379. Apparently, there are some contradictions, but

broadly she has not been confident in denying the historicity of

Lord Rama and also admits that his worship started much

before the Christian era. It is not said that the worship of Lord

4940

Rama at Ayodhya or the custom of Darshan of birthplace of

Lord Rama started after the construction of the disputed

structure or after 1528 as suggested and argued by learned

counsels for Muslim parties. In the excavation by ASI, artefacts

of religious nature of Gupta period and even earlier thereto have

been found.

4380. Having considered the entire evidence as also the

recorded material including Hindu religious texts, historical

books, gazetteers etc. one thing is clear that Ayodhya though is

held to be a place of much antiquity but its real fame, piety and

sacredness relates with the name of Lord Rama and none else.

He is considered to be a manifestation (Avtar) of Lords of Lord

Vishnu according to the Hindu faith, customs and belief. Is the

concept of Avtar is something a fairy tale or is a kind if deep

spiritual theory and practice, needs to be pondered over.

4381. It is no doubt true that the sentiments, emotions,

faith, belief, confidence etc., whatever term we use, but millions

of people of this country believe that Lords of Lord manifested

in living form in the materialistic world i.e. earth, time and

again. In this vast country, those different forms in different

ways and means, but substantially with the tradition, common

factor of belief, are worshipped. Commonly they are known as

'Avtaar', which means a form of God when He descended into

this materialistic world. Many a places, they are referred to as

incarnations of God. There is some dispute even about the fine

distinction between 'Avtaar' and 'incarnation'. One said that

incarnation is not correct, for it means when someone or

something reincarnates or takes another materialistic body of

flesh and blood. Quite often it is in this context and with this

4941

understanding that people at large use the word incarnation. It is

said by the learned Dharmacharyas that God does not take a

material form. His form is always spiritual, transcendental to the

norms and laws of material nature. He descended from the

spiritual data as He is or in a form to do a specific

activity/mission or carry out a particular purpose. The Supreme

Being has many names considering his form and activities that

he displays in his cosmic creation. In this country we have

different religions and among them also a multi-fold system of

faith, sects etc., but all have a common object of attaining

salvation with the Almighty i.e. Lord of Lords or whatever name

one may call, it as. All the major religions are having some sects

which are the result of some differences in the system of

worship but the common objective of all is indisputably same.

The major religions in this country are Hindu, Muslims and

Christians. Some say that Hindu by itself is not a form of

religion but a way of life, living etc. On this aspect we have also

said something above but at this stage we may clarify that the

term Hindu may intend to use as it is known in common

parlance in contra distinction to the terms used for other

religions i.e. Muslims and Christians. Hindu religion is the

oldest one. Whether it is 3000 year old or 5000 year old or more

than a few lacs year old may not be of much consequence for us.

Today, Christianity is more than 2000 and Islam 143 years old.

We should not be understood saying that before Islam as

propounded by Prophet Muhammad or Christianity as per the

teaching of the Jesus Christ, there was no religion whatsoever,

but this is what normally or commonly understand. The

religious scriptures and literatures of the religions therefore,

4942

though in abundance conform to the point of view, requirement

and necessities of the corresponding period. Because of its own

certain antiquity amongst Hindu scriptures, we find sometimes,

mention of such things which become difficult to digest on our

conceivable notion and logic and the limitation of our

understanding which we have in the light of the information

available to us currently.

4382. May be on account of non availability of the reliable

feed back some of the aspects of Hindu scriptures are termed by

others as Myth, legend, epic etc., doubting its historicity,

ignoring the fact that the common people are so deep embedded

in blood that it is beyond imagination for them to even think of a

situation where those faith and belief can be termed as a mere

fiction and not a matter of historicity. For example, the two of

the world's biggest works known as 'Ramayana' and

'Mahabharatha' of Hindu scriptures, other people started to call

it 'Epic' and that we have followed since the days of British

India and now also. Initially the European writers in their own

understanding find it unthinkable even the existence of such an

antique society and culture and that too so perfect and so well

defined, sophisticated, but complicated in different facets. With

the passage of time the thoughts and approach have undergone a

sea of change and now we find quite a sectionable intelligentsia

who is changing its views and that is not merely on some kind

of altered hypothesis etc., but due to the cemented, reliable

information, they have collected in the mean time. In brief, it

can be said that merely because I am not able to trace my history

of succession it will not mean that I do not have a chain of

succession. One's inability in finding something cannot result in

4943

a conclusion that actually nothing existed. There has to be much

more. The mathematical, astronomical calculation of the learned

people in ancient India have been found to be reasonably correct

though they are presumed to lack so called advanced technology

for arriving at such conclusions. It is easy to discard something

at the threshold but difficult to find reason and logic behind its

existence. Difficulty cannot be a reason to opt for an easier

method instead of the cumbersome one. If Indian culture and

society could have survived for such a long time even though

other ancient cultures, whether Egyptian, Greek or Roman have

lost behind the time, then one has to find out the reason for its

sustenance. It cannot be brushed aside loosely. This is a kind of

approach, thoughts, faith and belief of one part of the litigants

before us and their contemporary opponent wants in existence of

positive material irrespective of the time and antiquity matter

relates to. The reason being that the issue has been brought in a

Court of law which is presently governed by the system we have

inherited from a totally different culture i.e. British legacy

where they have told us to decide the dispute only on getting

evidence and not otherwise. The issues relating to faith and

belief and that too, which had continued from generations to

generations, from hundreds and thousands years neither depend

on the so called existence of evidence nor one can shake such

custom which they have received by tradition for want of

evidence. It is not totally a different concept and notion,

independent in its own ways. In the erstwhile territory of India,

before entry of the far east people or from other parts of world it

appears that natives had their own traditions, system, faith and

belief, and the society had different kinds of religious concept.

4944

The subsequent scholars tried to bifurcate this religious system

of ancient India into that of Aryan and Dravidian but what we

find is that barring a few differences in the matter of system of

worship etc., the core belief and faith remained same. The entire

society remained connected with a common thread of religious

faith. This difference, more or less, was political. It is in this

system, where we find the people in ancient India believed in

the Avtaars of God which found mention in Vedic texts. All

these Avtaars in one or the other way we find had a specific

objective and ultimately helped to save the world, human being

and other creatures and also to guide the living being in lives,

some are to attract the people back to the spiritual domain.

4383. On the one hand when modern day's science believe

in the system of universe controlled by various principle of

energy, then Indian Society was glued with a common platform

by the learned sages and others telling that the Supreme Lord

maintains all the planets and universe. It is He who assume roles

and incarnation to perform pastimes to reclaim those in the

mode of goodness. They were led to believe that throughout the

many millions of Universe in which the Supreme Being appears,

the objective is to apprise Society and bring it to senses, in

particular, one who are in the higher grades of consciousness,

receptive to understand their spiritual relation with him. He also

sends his pure representatives and instruction to guide people.

The object is common i.e. to bind the living beings back towards

the spiritual world. It is also said that source of various Avtaars

within this cosmic creation is the Lord of the Universe i.e.

Garbhodakashayi Vishnu (see Srimad Bhagwatam 1.3.5). The

form of the Lord, that descends to the material world to create,

4945

is called Avtaar.

4384. We are not going into that various Avtars of Lord

Vishnu according to the Hindu tradition and in details thereof.

Since Ayodhya is known by the name of Lord Rama and,

therefore, one can presume that the religious structures must

have connection with Lord Rama in one or the other way. The

stone inscription found in 1992, as we have already discussed, at

least show this much that a temple of Vishnu Hari was

constructed by the erstwhile Gahadwal King in 11th or 12th

century, i.e., much before the visit of Babar near Ayodhya. In no

other record, reference of Vishnu Hari Mandir at Ayodhya has

been pointed out, meaning thereby, before the history of

Hinduism started in writing in a proper way, that temple must

have disappeared for one or the other reason. At Ayodhya, the

people used to visit for Darshan of Lord Rama's places is also

evident from the record of Sikh religion showing that Guru

Nanak Dev Ji came to Ayodhya in 1510 or 1511, told his

companion that it is the birthplace of Lord Rama and then went

for Darshan. Even for a moment we are not drawing any

inference that the Sikhs religious texts anywhere identify the

place of birth of Lord Rama but this is sufficient to point out

that even before the entry of Babar in the then Hindustan,

Ayodhya was already a well established Hindu Tirtha for the

followers and believers of Lord Rama. The custom of worship

of Lord Rama has already begun long back.

4385. Then we find the record of William Finch, who

mentioned about a fort, which is said to be Rama's fort in ruined

condition, but the people were visiting at a particular place and

worshipping thereat. The nature of worship and that specific

4946

place Finch could not point out, may be he might not have been

allowed to go there being a non Hindu person or whatever other

reason, at least this much is evident that in an area which was

covered and known as fort of Lord Rama, there was a place

which used to be visited by the people for worship believing it

the place of birth of Lord Rama.

4386. Then comes, the next record of Joseph Tieffenthaler.

By the time he visited Ayodhya, the building in dispute had

come into existence. Tieffenthaler very categorically said that

locally he was told that the building in dispute was constructed

by demolishing a Temple, which existed at a place believed to

be the birthplace of Lord Rama. Here by custom, tradition and

practice, we narrowed down to the area whereat the place of

birth of Lord Rama was believed to be or existed to be

discovered by the people several hundred years ago and they

used to visit and worship it. It may be a discovery by faith and

belief or discovery by chance or a kind of discovery which we

may term as symbolic discovery, but this faith and custom we

trace back to almost five hundred years from today, which had

continued as such atleast since then.

4387. No one is supposed to point out place of birth of

Lord Rama like finding out a correct residential address in the

present time but one has to adjudge the matter in the given set of

facts and circumstances in a reasonable and plausible manner,

which is not almost impossible.

4388. If history as written about construction of the

disputed structure by Mir Baki in 1528 AD can depend solely on

two inscriptions, which nobody knew whether installed by Mir

Baki himself or came into being as a result of any subsequent

4947

manipulation, we fail to understand why something written

almost two and half century ago by a person who was well

conversant in the local languages at that time, whose motive in

writing those facts is not doubted, ought not to be believed.

Further it may be considered in the light that some facts were

written by different people after about 40 or 50 years from the

visit of Tieffenthaler having no knowledge of his work. They

also repeated except of the distinction that this time they refer to

an inscription also relying whereon the local belief was

discarded by them, i.e., Martin's Eastern India (supra).

4389. Had there been no reason, we fail to understand why

Hindus would have continued to persuade their faith at the site

in dispute particularly when there was muslim rule and they

could have least expected in support therefrom.

4390. In the middle of 19th century, i.e., as we have already

observed, between the 1853 to 1855 there appears to be a major

confrontation between Hindu and Muslims at Ayodhya resulting

in hundreds of deaths. Some says that 75 muslims were slained

while others say that the actual figure was about 200 Hindus and

75 Muslims. Be that as it may, that is not very relevant for the

point in issue. We are concerned as to what impel the two

communities to fought so frightfully that resulted in such a large

number of casualties, if the disputed place was an ordinary place

of worship of muslims having no other history or antiquity

attached with it. The conduct, the attitude, the insistence on the

part of Hindus, continuously, atleast as is evident from the

record, i.e., from the time of Tieffenthaler and onwards, show

that it was for something really serious on account whereof

Hindus were not able to give up their claim. Probably for this

4948

reason, despite all odds, they continued to pursue their claim at

the place in dispute.

4391. Sri Zilani sought to argue that had there been such a

mass casualty, at Ayodhya it would have been noticed by R.C.

Majumdar, a well known, historian in his work. Exhibit D3,

Register 38, Suit-5, page 295 is a photocopy of the extract of

the book "The History and Culture of the Indian People-

British Paramountcy and Indian Revaissance" Part II (Vol.

10) edited by R.C. Majumdar, published by Bhartiya Vidya

Bhawan, Bomday. It contains its frontispiece, pages VII, 325,

326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334. The above

document has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) to

show what has been written by the learned historians on Hindu

Muslim relations during British Rule and that they have referred

to certain communal riots but it did not include alleged right of

Ayodhya in 1855. Hence it is contended that no such riot

actually took place.

4392. It is no doubt true that in the said chapter there is no

reference of the riots of Ayodhya in 1853 or 1855 but having

gone through it carefully, we do not find any claim of the author

that the details contain therein are exhaustive. The chapter

mainly deals with the British policy of divide and rule and how

the members of two communities behaved at that time but

nothing more than that. Some part thereof may be reproduced

herein:

"The contribution of the British rule to the cleavage

between the Hindus and Muslims should be considered in

its proper perspective. It must be frankly admitted that the

roots of the cleavage lay deep in the soil, and it was

4949

already manifest even early in the nineteenth century. The

British did not create it, but merely exploited the patent fact

to serve their own interests. Reference has been made

above to the growing difference between the elites of the

two communities, even before a fillip was given to it either

by the Aligarh Movement or the definite policy of Divide

and Rule adopted by the British Government. The relations

among the masses, though normally cordial, occasionally

took a very ugly turn in the shape of communal riots,

showing that the volcanic mountains, calm on the surface,

had not altogether lost their eruptive tendency and power.

Early in the nineteenth century there was such a violent

outbreak in Varanasi (Banaras). In October, 1809, the

Hindu mob of the city stormed the great mosque of

Aurangzeb. Though well-authenticated details are lacking,

it is reported that about fifty mosques were destroyed, the

city was given up to pillage and slaughter, and a large

number of Muslims were put to death. In 1820 the Muslims

assaulted a Durga Puja procession in Calcutta.

Communal riots and tensions during the great

outbreak of 1857 have been noted above. Hindu-Muslim

riots with heavy casualties occurred at Bareilly and other

localities in U.P. During 1871-2. Two such riots took place

in Bombay.

An article in a magazine, edited by a Parsi youth,

gave an account of the Prophet of Arabia which lacked

"that sentiment of respect and tolerance which is due to a

sister community." The lithographed portrait of the

Prophet, which was given with the article, also gave

4950

umbrage, and "an undiscovered villain added fuel to the

fire by posting a copy of the picture, with ribald and

obscene remarks underneath, on the main entrance of the

principal mosque." Large crowds of Muhammandans

assembled in the mosques of the town with the Qur'an in

one hand and a knife in the other. At a meeting held on

October 7, 1851, they proclaimed a Jihad (holy war)

against the Parsis. They overwhelmed the small police

force on duty and marched triumphantly to the Parsi

quarters of the Bombay town. The Parsis were "belaboured

mercilessly by the rioters". "For weeks together, that part

of Bombay was a scene of pillage and destruction, and the

Parsis had to put up with shocking atrocities such as

defilement of corpses". "Only after the editor had been

compelled to tender a written apology a truce was

declared". "In connection with this disturbance the Parsi

community looked in vain to the police for protection. If not

altogether hostile, they were indifferent. Dadabhai Naoroji,

who witnessed the tragedy, hastened the publication of the

'Rast Goftar' and wrote strong articles against the

Government for indifference and failure of duty. He also

rebuked the cowardly Parsi leaders for having tamely

submitted to such outrages."

Another riot took place in 1874 of which there is an

eye-witness' account by the great Indian leader

Pherozeshah Mehta. In a book written by a Parsi

vaccinator there was a reference to the Prophet which was

regarded as objectionable by the Muslims. The publication

was accordingly suppressed by the Government and the

4951

author was made to apologize for any affront he might

have inadvertently offered. Nevertheless, there was "a

brutal and unwarranted attack on Parsis by a mob of

Mohamedans", on 13 February, 1874. They "invaded Parsi

places of worship, tore up the prayer-books, extinguished

the sacred fires and subjected the fire-temples to various

indignities. Parsis were attacked in the streets and in their

houses and free fights took place all over the city. Thanks

to the weakness and supineness of the police and the

Government, hooliganism had full play and considerable

loss of life and damage to property were caused". The riot

continued for several days till the military was called out.

Pherozeshah Mehta, like Dadabhai Naoroji, none of

whom one would accuse of having any special animosity

against the Muslims or the British Government, has laid

emphasis on the callousness of the police and the

indifference of the Government. "The attitude of the

Commissioner of Police was particularly hostile and

objectionable. The Governor told a Parsi deputation that

waited on him that the conduct of the community had been

injudicious and unconciliatory and advised it to make its

peace with the Muhammadans and to learn the lesson of

defending itself without dependence on the authorities."

Communal disturbances grew in volume and

frequency, particularly between the years 1835 and 1893.

Serious communal riots broke out at Lahore and Karnal

(1885), Delhi (1886) where military had to be

requisitioned, Hoshiarpur, Ludhiana, Ambala, Dera Ghazi

Khan (1889), and Palakod in the Salem District of Madras

4952

(1891). The year 1893 was one of the worst and there were

grave outbreaks over a large area in Azamgarh District

(U.P.), Bombay town (lasted for 6 days) and interior, and

Isa Khel (Mianwalli District, Punjab). Muharram and

Dusserah processions, and cow-killing at Baqr'id were the

causes, and murders, demolition of mosques and temples,

and looting of shops, the chief characteristics of these riots.

Detailed accounts of a few riots are given in the Appendix.

It is not perhaps unreasonable to assume that this

increased tension between the masses of the two

communities was the direct consequence of the growing

cleavage between their leaders.

Thus towards the end of the period under review the

Hindus and Muslims represented almost two opposite

camps in politics, and the ground was prepared for this,

throughout the nineteenth century, by the frankly communal

outlook of the Muslims, both in their general political

evolution as well as in the Wahabi and Aligarh movements.

The Muslim political ideas were generally inspired by the

consideration of purely Muslim interests. But in forming a

proper estimate of the Muslim politics in the nineteenth

century it would be unfair to look at it only from the

standpoint of modern nationalist outlook, and several

important factors, which are generally overlooked, should

be taken into consideration.

In the first place, it should be remembered that

neither the Wahabi nor the Aligarh Movement represented

the Muslim community as a whole. Large elements stood

outside both, and even in the heyday of Aligrah Movement,

4953

the masses were mostly indifferent, and a number of

distinguished Muslims co-operated in political matters with

the Hindus.

Secondly, if the Muslims were communal and lacking

in an all-India outlook, the Hindus were partly responsible

for this. The Hindu intelligentsia cherished a definitely

anti-Muslim bias from the very beginning of the nineteenth

century, as has been noted above, though some of them,

like Peary-chand Mitra, realized the need of a united front

and publicly expressed this view. It is not without

significance that the formation of a Muhammadan

Association in 1856 (or 1855) was welcomed by the British

Indian Association. The Hindus regarded it as quite

natural, and evidently looked upon the Muslims as a

separate political unit. Far more significant is the

justification offered by the authorities of the Hindu Mela

for forming a National Society. To the objection that a

Society with membership confined to Hindus could hardly

be called national, the National paper answered as follows

on December 4, 1872: "We don not understand why our

correspondent takes exception to the Hindus who certainly

form a nation by themselves, and as such a society

established by them can very properly be called a National

Society."

No wonder that soon after the foundation of the Hindu

Mela and National Society, the National Muhammadan

Association was founded in Calcutta. It would be obvious

from the above that while genuinely all-India national

outlook was not altogether absent, there was a general

4954

feeling among large sections of both Hindus and

Muhammandans that they formed two separate political

units or nations.

Thirdly, it is to be considered very carefully why the

Hindus gradually outgrew this narrow separatist tendency

and imbibed a truly national spirit, while the Muslims

failed to do so during the period under review. The Hindus

had a start of at least half a century over the Muslims in

their political evolution, and this margin of time should be

normally allowed for similar development. But there were

special difficulties in the adoption of a national outlook by

the Muslims. They were in a hopeless minority as compared

with the Hindus, and in any democratic form of

government, they were sure to occupy only a position of

secondary importance. As noted above, this view was

publicly expressed at the time of the legislation for local

self-government. This apprehension of the Hindus

obtaining superior authority would naturally increase with

every advance of self-government on democratic lines. The

same fear worked upon the minds of the Muslims even in

comparatively minor matters like recruitment to higher

posts by open competitive examination, which was strongly

advocated by the Hindus. Nobody could deny that it was

the best mode of recruitment that could be conceive, but the

Muslims opposed it on the ground that these were sure to

be filled up mostly by the Hindus, not only because they

were more numerous, but also because they were more

advanced in education.

This feeling was brought to a head at the evidence

4955

given before the Public Service Commission in 1886. In his

evidence Dadabhai Naoroji urged the necessity of holding

simultaneous examinations in England and India. This was,

however, strongly opposed by the Muslims "who feared that

an examination held in India would lead to a

preponderance of Hindus in the Civil Service to the

detriment of the interests of their own community."

With the greatest chagrin Dadabhai learnt, after he

returned to London, that his friend Dazi Shahabuddin had

also joined in the opposition. On July 15, 1887, he wrote to

Dazi in anguish:

"How your action has paralysed not only our own

efforts, but the hands of our English friends and how keenly

I feel this, more so because you have based your action on

selfish interests, that because the Muhammadans are

backward, therefore, you would not allow the Hindus and

all India to go forward......In the House of Commons I think

Mr. Bright has stoutly urged the necessity of an

examination in India to put us on an equality with English

candidates. To-day when he would and could have urged

the same thing with ten times the force, he feels himself

staggered, and owing to your opposition he feels puzzled

and cannot help us. What a blight you have thrown upon

our future and how you have retarded our progress for a

long time to come. This discussion will hurt us in a variety

of ways. I do not know whether I can hope that before the

Commission's work has ended, you will still undo the

mischief in some way."

But the sentiment against which Dadabhai thundered

4956

was not confined to a few individuals; it was shared by the

Muslims in general all over India. The Central

Muhammadan Association, Madras, sent a memorial

requesting the Government that the recommendations of

the Public Service Commission for the abolition of the

Statutory Civil Service and for the introduction of a system

of competitive examination should not be accepted, for in

that case the Hindus would get the full advantage and the

"result would be disastrous to the Muslim Community."

There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Muslim

apprehensions were well-founded, that in all human

probability every advance in democracy in India would

increase the dominance of the Hindus, and an open

competitive examination would give preponderance to the

Hindus over Muslims in all higher posts under the

Government. There is, however, nothing to show that this

patent fact was recognized by the Hindus who were too

much imbued with nationalistic ideas to take a realistic

view of things.

Dadabhai, however, touched the crux of the whole

problem when he observed that the attitude of the Muslims

was "based on selfish interests, that because the

Muhammadans are backward, therefore, they would not

allow the Hindus and all India to go forward". In all

human probability there would never be a time, at least

within measurable distance, when the Muslims would be

equally advanced with the Hindus in point of education. If,

therefore, the Muslims persisted in their present attitude,

nobody could foresee a period, even in distant future, when

4957

they would readily join the Hindus in political fight for

democracy or nationalism. The Hindu political leaders

hoped that a consideration of this dismal prospect would

induce the Muslims to give up communal for national

interest in the hope that ultimately even the communal

interest would be better served by following this course.

But it is easy to explain why the Muslims as a body could

not or would not follow this advice.

As always happens, a community, as a whole, is

guided by the considerations of immediate interest involved

rather than those of a remote ideal of which very few have

any clear conception. Particularly, as in this case, the idea

of an Indian nationality was generally lacking both among

Hindus and Muslims. The Muslims could not forget that

they were masters of the Hindus not long ago. To be subject

to the British was bad enough, but subjection to Hindu

domination would be far worse. This mentality may be

regarded as ignoble from the higher standpoint of Indian

nationality, but it is difficult to say that it is unnatural.

It would have been an act of great sacrifice on the

part of the Muslims to join the Hindus in their political

demands. But what were the inducements to such a

sacrifice? In social and religious matters a deep gulf

separated the two. Historical traditions and memories

created a wide barrier between them. The name of Shivaji

was an inspiration to the Hindus who held Aurangzeb in

open contempt. The reverse was the case with the Muslims.

The Rajput heroes like Rana Pratap were the idols of the

Hindus and enemies of the Muslims. The Third Battle of

4958

Panipat was the occasion of national mourning for the

Hindus but of a great deliverance for the Muslims. Such

instances can be easily multiplied.

It may be argued with a great deal of plausibility,

that in spite of all this a fusion of Hindus and Muslims into

one nation was not an impossible ideal. Even if this be

admitted, it must not be forgotten that what was at best

merely a possible ideal should not have been mistaken for

an actual fact, either already accomplished, or nearing

completion. But the most eminent Hindu political leaders

committed this fatal mistake. They took for granted what

was at best a remote contingency, not to be achieved

without great difficulty. They never understood, nor even

cared to understand, the real feelings and impulses of the

Muslim community. They never appreciated the motives

which guided their policy and actions. The result was that

they could not realize the patent fact that the Hindus and

Muslims were, as yet, two different political units. In their

new-born zeal for democracy and nationalism the Hindus

forgot that large section of the people, for very good

reasons, refused to accept these ideals. They, therefore,

could not conceive any possible opposition to them from

any quarter, far less brook it when it occurred. In the

voluminous political literature of the period one looks in

vain for a just assessment of the Muslim point of view on

the part of the Hindus. The Hindu leaders made the great

mistake of taking Badrudding Tyabji and a few men of his

views as the only real representatives of the Muslims. They

failed to read the sign of the times and had no patience to

4959

listen sympathetically to the grievances of the Muslims,

which might not excuse, but could at least satisfactorily

explain, their attitude towards the Hindus.

The indifference or apathy of the Muslim masses to

all political questions probably contributed largely to the

mistaken notion of the Hindus about the Muslim attitude.

Confronted by the opposition of educated Muslims, they

consoled themselves with the idea that the Muslim masses

were not with the latter, and the opposition was after all

confined to the educated few. In arguing thus they

committed the same mistake as the British rulers did when

they ignored the demands of Indian politicians because

they represented, in their eyes, a "microscopic minority".

But as a prominent Hindu pointed out in reply, "the

educated community represented the brain and conscience

of the country, and were the legitimate spokesmen of the

illiterate masses, the natural custodians of their interests'.

The Hindus, however, forgot that what they urged on

behalf of the country at large applied equally well to a

distinct and strong minority community. They should have

foreseen that ultimately the Muslim masses were bound to

fall in line with the views of their leaders."

4393. He also referred to the work of Rahul Sankritayan.

Exhibit D22, Register 38, Suit-5, pages 325-349, a photocopy

of the extract from the book "Meri Jiwan Yatra-1" by Rahul

Sankrityayan (First Paperback Edition:1996) published by

Radhakrishna Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi containing

preface as also pages no. 163-170. It shows that in the earlier

20th century Rahul Sankrityayan had visited Ayodhya. It is

4960

contended that the learned author has not said anything about

the disputed site which shows that it was not treated to be a

place of importance by Hindu people at that time also. Having

carefully gone through the above document, we do not find that

it intended to give details of various places at Ayodhya. The

purpose and objective was totally different, hence reliance is

totally misconceived.

4394. One of the most crucial document which

corroborates records is the letter dated 30th November, 1858

[Exhibit 20 (Suit-1) (Register 5 Page 65)] of Mohd. Asgar, who

said that in the inner courtyard, Hindus had been worshipping

for several hundred years. We find no reason even to ignore this

document. The statements of several witnesses, we have already

referred above, also fortify this fact.

4395. The place of birth of Lord Rama is not to be

searched elsewhere in Ayodhya but it has to be in the disputed

site or near about is evident from pleadings of the Muslim

parties, which shows that they also do not dispute the existence

of place of birth of Lord Rama along with the temple, though

an attempt is made that such temple is not the disputed one but

one existing on the north side at about 200 meters. In para 27

(Suit-1), the defendants 1 to 5 have said:

^^v;ks/;k esa ,d efUnj ekSlwek cefUnj tUeLFkku Jh jkepUn z dh

tue Hk wfe ij eqn~nr enhn ls dk;e o ekStwn gSA**

"A temple at the birthplace of Lord Rama (known as

'Mandir Janamsthan) has had been in existence from

ancient times " (E.T.C.)

The defendants no. 1 and 2 are co-plaintiffs in Suit-4 also.

4396. In Suit-3 also, the defendants no. 6, 7 and 8 have

4961

made several pleadings in Para 28 of their written statement:

^^v;ks/;k esa ,d efUnj ekSlwek cefUnj tUeLFkku Jh jkepUn z dh

tue Hk wfe ij eqn~nr enhn ls dk;e o ekStwn gSA**

"A temple at the birthplace of Lord Rama (known as

'Mandir Janamsthan) has had been in existence from

ancient times " (E.T.C.)

Here also the defendant no. 7, Mohd. Faiq is a co-plaintiff

in Suit-4.

4397. The existence of birthplace as well as the temple

thereon, therefore, was pleaded as long back as in 1950, i.e., at

the first opportune. Thereafter, in the subsequent pleadings etc.

this has been tried to explain. What is suggested is the temple

which is referred to is the one on the northern side of the

disputed structure across the road. We are not concerned with

the existence of that temple but what we intend to point out that

the existence of birthplace in this very area is an admission by

the plaintiffs. The persons, jointly interested in a suit, are bound

by the admission made by any one of them. The Janamstham

temple along with the place in dispute has also been noticed by

Tieffenthaler and he has called it as "Sita Rasoi', but the fact is

where he has referred to an earlier temple, which was

demolished so as to construct disputed building, he has not

referred to that temple (Sita Rasoi), but the present site which

are in dispute. It could not be explained by the learned counsels

for the plaintiffs (Suit-4) as to how there exist a 'Vedi' in the

premises of the disputed structure known as a mosque and that

'Vedi' in the place in dispute continued to be worshipped by

Hindus by lying prostrate on the ground and going for three

Parikramas.

4962

4398. It is not improbable that the people at that time took

all possible efforts to continue with the worship of the place

which they believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and for

that purpose, whatever attempt they could make, the same were

taken. We can easily understand the difficulty since they were

under Muslim rule and the system, culture, traditions during

such time were totally different.

4399. When the things became a bit easier, the Hindus

succeeded in staking their claim partially inasmuch the British

Government allowed the partition of the building in dispute with

the instructions that the Hindus shall worship in the outer

courtyard. Whether this was a resolution of a dispute between

the two communities or not is a different aspect, but at least it

had recognized the right and belief of Hindus about the place of

birth of Lord Rama at the site in dispute.

4400. As we have further discussed, the Hindus did not

desist from entering inner courtyard and continued not only to

enter therein but to worship the place as well as the images on

the black kasauti pillars. What was the structure of the erstwhile

temple before the construction of the disputed structure is not

known but it appears that due to affixation of black kasauti

pillars mainly at the entry point of central dome after the

construction of the new structure, the Hindu people continued to

worship thereat believing the same as the central point of the

birthplace of Lord Rama. Since, we do not find any detail as to

how it was being worshipped earlier, but from the subsequent

conduct, practice and traditions, in the absence of anything

contrary, one can reasonably believe that the in the past also it

must be the same.

4963

4401. From the subsequent Gazetteers and other records,

we find that while referring to Rama's fort at the mount, the

disputed structure was mentioned as a part of such land. The

entire fort if as per the belief of people was that of Lord Rama,

obviously it was the most sacred and pious place and therein

also by traditions and practice, if the Hindu people worshipped a

particular place believing it to be the place of birth of Lord

Rama, in the absence of any location elsewhere, or existence of

another place of birth at Ayodhya, we find no reason not to

accept and uphold the said belief.

4402. Suvira Jaiswal (PW 18), during cross examination,

though tried to mislead by observing that according to her

research, she found several places claiming birth place of Lord

Rama at Ayodhya, but when asked as to which are those places,

she could not reply and said that she don't know.

4403. Sri Jilani contended that the Gazetteers and other

record of Europeans, wherever they have said that an existing

temple was demolished to construct the mosque in question, did

not refer any basis for such observation and, therefore, he

submits that the same is unreliable. In normal course, his

submission may not have been brushed aside easily, but in a

case like this, where we are concerned with respect to a dispute

going deep in history, the situation is slightly different. We can

look into the matter from this another angle also as to why all of

them have mentioned only this fact if it had no basis at all. Had

the facts been otherwise, when they discard the local belief of

the people that demolition was made by Aurangzeb and sought

to support the stand that the demolition was by Babar, based on

an inscription fixed thereat, if there would have been anything

4964

otherwise, in the same manner, they could have disbelieved

Hindus' version about demolition of a temple.

4404. It is true that several confrontations amongst Hindus

and Muslims in respect to the property in dispute are not on

record of the history books, but there are some indications.

4405. In H.R. Nevill's Barabanki Gazetteer at pages 168-

169 (Exhibit 52, Suit 5), it says, “The cause of the occurrence

was one of the numerous disputes that have sprung up from

time to time between the Hindu priests and the Musalmans of

Ajodhya with regard to the ground on which formerly stood

the Janamasthan temple, …".

4406. The words "disputes that have sprung up from time

to time" clearly refer to some other and earlier disputes also

though the details thereof are not on record.

4407. Once we find that by way of faith and traditions,

Hindus have been worshipping the place of birth of Lord Rama

at the site in dispute, we have no reason but to hold in a matter

relating to such a kind of historical event that for all practical

purposes, this is the place of birth of Lord Rama.

4408. The matter does not end here. Can it be said that it is

the entire premises at the site in dispute which can be said to be

the place of birth of Lord Rama or within this premises there is a

smaller area which actually believed by Hindus to be the place

of birth. There could have been two fold inquiry into this matter.

Whether Hindus by custom, tradition, faith and believe, handed

down from generations to generation, treat the entire area

covered by the disputed structure as well as its outer boundary

wall constituting the place of birth of Lord Rama or Hindus

actually believed a smaller space within this very premises to

4965

be, precisely, the place of birth of Lord Rama. Area of the

premises in dispute is near about 130 feet in length and 80 feet

in width, i.e., roughly about 10400 sq. feet (.2387 acre). This

measurement is not exactly but near about. Suppose within this

area there is another place of 10x10 or 20x20 or as the case may

be, which had been identified by Hindus, believing to be the

place of birth of Lord Rama, then the entire disputed area cannot

be said to constitute the place of birth of Lord Rama for the

purpose of the issues in question.

4409. The reason being that the Hindu parties have

virtually interchangeably used two terms which have different

meaning, i.e., Birthplace temple and the birthplace. On the one

hand they contend that the disputed area is such where existed

temple of Lord Rama, constructed since it was the birthplace

and, therefore, it is of special significance for Hindus,

inalienable and cannot be departed. On the other hand, they

plead that within the area in dispute, there is a small area, which

had been identified by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama

since time immemorial and, therefore, the peculiarity and

speciality vis a vis place is attached with that area only and rest

of the part is of an erstwhile temple whereon a mosque was

constructed but then the label of special significance for the

entire area shall extinguish.

4410. In other words, the precise issue, in terms of the

"birthplace", as we could understand, is in the following terms:

I. According to faith and belief of Hindus, a particular

smallest area in Ayodhya which they treat as the sanctum

sanctorum i.e 'Garbh Grah' that is where Lord Rama was

born.

4966

II. A temple constructed in the area which included sanctum

sanctorum and the place covered by that temple which is

termed as 'Janam Bhumi temple' or 'Ram Janam Bhumi

temple.

III. There is a complete unanimity amongst all Hindu parties

as also deposed by their witnesses that under the central

dome lie the sanctum sanctorum, i.e. 'Garbh-Grah' since

lord Rama was born thereat and it was part of a bigger

holy structure, i.e., a temple, which was constructed and

known as "Janam Bhumi temple" or "Ram Janam Bhumi

temple" which included the rest of the area occupied by

the disputed structure.

4411. The witnesses, produced by Hindu parties to depose

about the custom, tradition, faith and belief in respect to the

place of birth i.e. sanctum sanctorum i.e. Garbh-Grih, where

Lord Rama was born, making a distinction between the said

place as well as the place occupied by the temple which

obviously must have been constructed later on, are as under:

(i) DW 1/1 Rajendra Singh

^^fookfnr LFky gh JhjketUe Hkwfe o tUe LFkku gS - - -mlesa ls

tUeHkwfe ls esjk rkRi;Z ml txg ls gS tgkWa tUe gksrk gS vkSj tks

xHkZxg gS vkSj tUe LFkku ls rkRi;Z iwjs Hkou ls gS ftlesa tUe gksrk

gSA** ¼ist 44½

"It is the disputed place which is the Shri Ram Janam

Bhumi and Janam Sthan. . . .By Janam Bhumi I mean that

place where a birth takes place and which is the sanctum

sanctorum (center place) and by "Janamsthan" I mean the

entire building wherein the birth takes place." (E.T.C.)

^^;g lSdM+ks o"kZ eSaus xHkZxg ds n'kZu ds laca/k esa fy[kk gS ewfrZ;ksa

dh iwtk ds fy, ughaA ewfrZ;ksa dh iwtk lu~ 1950 ls ogkWa ij 'kq: gqbZ

4967

vkSj lu~ 1524 ls igys Hkh ogkWa ij ewfrZ;ksa dh iwtk gksrh jghA**

¼ist 47½

"This hundreds of years, I have written with respect

to Darshan of Garbh Grih (Sanctum Sanctorum) and not in

relation to worship of deities. Worship of deities started

there since 1950 A.D. and prior to 1524 A.D.also worship

of the deities continued there." (E.T.C.)

(ii) DW 1 /2 Krishna Chandra Singh

^^ftlds e/; okys f'k[kj ds uhps dh Hkwfe gh og Hkwfe gS tks

ijEijkxr vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj Hkxoku JhjkepUnz th dh

tueHkwfe ekuh tkrh gS ¼ist&4½

“Only the place below whose middle dome, is the

place which is, as per traditional faith and belief,

considered to be the birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra

Ji.”(E.T.C.)

^^Hkxoku jkeyyk ogkWa ij lu~ 1949 esa fojkteku gq,A tc eSa

ogkWa igys x;k Fkk rks xqEcn ds uhps okys LFkku ij jkeyyk ugha FksA

ijUrq esjs igyh ckj ogkWa tkus vkSj lu~ 1949 ds njE;ku eSa 6&7 ckj

ogkWa x;k FkkA - - -eSa igyh ckj fookfnr LFky ij x;k Fkk rks x q E C kn

d s uhp s oky s LFky dk s tUeHk wfe ekudj J)ky q i z . k ke dj

y sr s Fk sA **

¼ist 12&13½

"Lord Rama was throned there in 1949 AD. For the

first time when I visited there, Ramlala (Lord Rama) was

not there at the place below the dome. But between my first

visit and till 1949 AD, I went there six-seven times. . . When

I visited the disputed site for the first time, the devotees

used to salute the place under the dome regarding it as

Janambhumi (birthplace)." (E.T.C.)

^^lu~ 1949 dh ?kVuk ds ckn Hkh jkepcwrjs ij eSaus iwtk vkfn

4968

gksrs gq, ns[kh gS] ijUrq jkeyyk dh ewfrZ ogka ugha ns[kh vkSj irk pyk

Fkk fd og ewfrZ vUnj FkhA vkSj jkepcwrjs ij lhrk jke vkfn dh ewfrZ;ka

FkhA** ¼ist 20½

"I had seen performance of worship on Ram

Chabutara even after the incident of 1949 but never saw

any idol of Ramlala and I came to know that the idol was

inside. And there was idols of Sita, Ram etc. over Ram

Chabutara." (E.T.C.)

^^fgUnw mls efLtn ugha ekurs Fks vkSj fgUnw yksx mls tUe LFkku

ekudj ifjdzek vkSj iz.kke djrs FksA** ¼ist 25½

“Hindus did not recognize it as a mosque and

treating the same as Janam Sthan, Hindus used to take

round (circumambulation/Parikrama) and salute the

same." (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vius eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk&i= dh /kkjk 14 esa tks ;g

fy[kk gS fd ^^ftldh e/; oky s f' k[kj d s uhp s - - - - -tUeHk wfe

ekuh tkrh g S * * ] og lgh fy[k k g SA** ¼ist 68½

"The words "below the central dome ….is

regarded as birthplace" which I have written in para 14 of

the affidavit of my examination in chief, is written

correctly."(E.T.C.)

(iii) DW 2/1-1 Rajendra Singh

^^bu xzUFkksa ls izkIr tkudkjh ls ;g iw.kZr% izekf.kr gksrk gS fd

fookfnr Hkwfe Hkxoku Jh jkepUnz th dh tUeLFkyh gS & ¼ist&3½

“From the knowledge obtained from these treatises,

it is absolutely proved that the disputed building is the

birthplace of Sri Ram Chandra Ji.”(E.T.C.)

(iv) DW 2/1-3 Mahant Ram Vilas Das Vedanti

^^;g fd fookfnr LFky ns'k fons'k ds vla[; fgUnqvksa }kjk

Hkxoku JhjkepUnz th dh tUe Hkwfe ds :i esa izFkkxr] ijEijkxr vkLFkk

4969

,oa fo'okl ls vukfn dky ls iwftr gksrk pyk vk jgk gSA fgUnw

lukru/kehZ fookfnr LFky dks vius vkjk/; Hkxoku JhjkepUnz th dh

tUeLFkyh o tUeHkwfe efUnj ds :ia esa iwtrs gSaA** ¼ist 3½

"That the disputed site has continuously been

worshipped as the birthplace of Lord Sri Ram Chandra by

innumerable Hindus of country-abroad with customary

faith and belief from time immemorial. Orthodox Hindus

worship the disputed site as the birthplace of their revered

Lord Sri Ram Chandra and as Janam Bhumi

temple."(E.T.C.)

^^e q[; ifjlj e s a fLFkr <k ap k rhu x q Ecn okyk Fk k

ftle s a e/; oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s dh Hk wfe ij Hkxoku Jhjke

dk tUe g qvk Fk k ] ,slk ijEijk vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl fgUnw tuekul

dk gS rFkk osnksa /keZ'kkL=ksa iqjk.kksaa vkfn ds vuqlkj Hkh ;g fl) gSA blh

vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij ijEijkxr <ax ls ns'k fons'k ds vla[;

fgUnw jkeHkDr o tulkekU; }kjk fookfnr LFky dks Hkxoku Jhjke dh

tUeLFkyh o tUeHkwfe efUnj ekurs gq, iwtu n'kZu djrk pyk vk jgk

gS rFkk 'kiFkdrkZ Hkh mls mlh :i esa vfrifo= ,oa Hkxoku jke dh

iwT; tUeLFkyh ekurk gSA** ¼ist 4½

"The structure situated within the main premises,

was of three domes, beneath the mid dome of which was

Lord Rama born. Such is the customary faith and belief of

the Hindu public and the same is supported by Vedas,

treatises, Puranas, etc. as well. It is on basis of this faith

and belief that innumerable Hindu devotees of Lord Rama

and the general public of country – abroad have been

offering prayers and having Darshan of the disputed site as

the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama and as Janam Bhumi

temple, and the deponent also considers it to be the same

very sacred, reverable birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)

4970

^^;g fd e/; oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s fLFkr LFky ij gh

lukru/kehZ fgUnw erkoyfEc;ksa dh izkphu ijEijk ,oa izFkk rFkk mudh

vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vuqlkj egkjkt n'kjFk ds iq= Hkxoku Jhjke

dk tUe g qvk Fk k ] blh fy, ;g LFky vfrifo= ,o a i wT;

g S ,oa blh vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij vukfndky ls djksM+ks

lukru/kehZ fgUnw v;ks/;k vkdj Jhjke tUeHkwfe LFky dk n'kZu

iwtu ,oa ifjdzek djrs pys vk jgs gSaA**¼ist 4&5½

"That as per the ancient custom and practice and the

faith and belief of orthodox followers of Hinduism, the

birth of King Dashrath's son Lord Sri Rama took place

at the place beneath the mid dome. Due to this it is very

sacred and reverable and it is out of this faith and belief

that from time immemorial crores of orthodox Hindus have

been coming over to Ayodhya to have darshan and perform

circumambulation of the Sri Ram Janam Bhumi

site."(E.T.C.)

(v) DW 3/1 Mahant Bhaskar Das

^^Hkxoku jke yyk ds tUeHk wfe gk su s d s dkj.k H k hrjh

Hk kx i wT; g S A ** ¼ist 27½

"On account of being the Janmbhumi of Lord

Ram Lala, the inner part is reverable."(E.T.C.)

(vi) DW 3/2 Shri Raja Ram Pandey

^^;g lgh gS fd fgUnw lekt ds lHkh yksx vf/kdkj&Lo:i jke

tUeHkwfe efUnj n'kZu o iwtk vkfn ds fy, tkrs FksA n'kZu ds fy, fdlh

dh vuqefr dh vko';drk ugha FkhA** ¼ist 21½

"It is correct that all people of the Hindu community

used to come over as a matter of right to have darshan and

offer prayers etc. at the Ram Janam Bhumi temple. No

permission was required to have darshan."(E.T.C.)

^^rhu f'k[kj okyk tk s H kou Fk k ] mld s chp oky s

4971

f' k[kj e s a H kxoku fojkteku Fk s vk S j ogh xHk Zx `g dgykrk

Fk k vk S j fgUn w yk sx xHk Zx `g dk s jketUeHk wfe ekur s g S aA **

¼ist 22½

"Lord (Rama) was present beneath the mid dome

of the three domed structure, and the same was called

the sanctum sanctorum and the Hindus consider the

sanctum sanctorum to be the Ram Janam

Bhumi."(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k esa fookfnr Hkou okyh lhrk jlksbZ ,oa tUeLFkku efUnj

okyh lhrk jlksbZ ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh LFkku dks lhrk jlksbZ uke ls

ugha tkuk tkrk gSA** ¼ist 113½

"Apart from the Sita Rasoi of the disputed structure

and the Sita Rasoi of the Janam Sthan temple, there is no

other place in Ayodhya known as Sita Rasoi."(E.T.C.)

^^esjh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkou ds chp okys xqEcn dk

LFkku dkS'kY;k egy esa xHkZxg Fkk] xHk Zx `g dk s gh i zl wfr x `g

dgr s g S aA ** ¼ist 113½

"According to my faith, the place beneath the mid

dome of disputed structure was the sanctum sanctorum of

the Kaushalya palace, the sanctum sanctorum is also

called the labour room."(E.T.C.)

(vii) DW 3/3 Satya Narayan Tripathi

^^;g lgh gS fd fgUnqvksa dh vkLFkk J)k fo'okl ges'kk ls

lnk ;gh jgh gS fd ftl LFk ku ij or Zeku e s a j keyyk th

fojkteku g S a mlh LFk ku ij n'kjFk th d s i q= d s :i e s a

mudk tUe g qvk Fk kA fgUnw yksx mUgsa Hkxoku fo".kq dk vorkj

ekurs Fks vkSj vkt Hkh ekurs gSaA**¼ist 14½

"It is correct that it has always been the faith, belief

and devotion of Hindus that the place where Ram Lala is

present today, He was born as son of King Dashrath at

4972

the same place. Hindus considered and even today

consider, Him to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu."(E.T.C.)

^^rhu x q Ecn oky s fook fnr Hkou d s chp d s x q Ecn d s

uhp s H kxoku jke dk tUe g qvk Fk k ] ,slk fgUnw yksx ekurs gSaA

fgUnqvksa dh ;g ekU;rk gS fd jke tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus ls eks{k

feyrk gSA** ¼ist 13½

"Lord Rama was born at the place below the

central dome of the three domed disputed building; such

is the belief of Hindus. Hindus believe that by having a

glimpse of birthplace of lord Rama, salvation is attained."

(E.T.C.)

(viii) DW 3/4 Mahant Shiv Saran Das

^^eS a H k hrj oky s xH k Zx `g e s a H kxoku jkeyyk d s n'k Zu

djrk jgk g wW aA ** ¼ist 2½

"I have been taking glimpse (Darshan) of Lord

Ramlala inside the sanctum sanctorum." (E.T.C.)

(ix) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey

^^esjh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj tks fookfnr Hkou gS] mlh dks ge

dkSf'kY;k Hkou ekurs gSaA ¼ist&93½

“As per my faith we consider the disputed building

itself to be Kaushalya Bhawan.”(E.T.C.)

(x) DW 3/6 Sitaram Yadav

^^fookfnr Hkou lkSjh x`g ¼izlwfrx`g½ jgk gksxkA Lo;a dgk fd

fookfnr Hkou ds chp okys Hkkx dks vc Hkh ge lkSjhx`g ¼izlwfrxg½

ekurs gSaA chp okys xqEcn ds Hkkx dks ge fo'ks"k rkSj ij izlwfrxg ekurs

gSa vx+y&cx+y okyk Hkkx Hkh ml dejs dk fgLlk jgk gksxk^^A ¼ist&57½

“The disputed building must have been ‘Sauri Grih

(maternity home). (Stated on his own) we still consider the

middle part of the disputed building to be ‘Sauri Grih’. We

consider particularly the middle dome part to be maternity

4973

home. The adjoining part must also have been part of that

room.”(E.T.C.)

(xi) DW 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das

^^;g fd Hkxoku jke egkfo".kq ds vorkj gSa vkSj Hkxoku jke blh

fookfnr ifjlj essa xHkZ x`g esa izdV gq, gSa blhfy, ;g jketUeHkwfe

dgykrk gSA** ¼ist 8½

"That Lord Rama is an incarnation of Maha Vishnu

and Lord Rama had descended in the sanctum sanctorum

of this very disputed premises, as such it is called Ram

Janam Bhumi."(E.T.C.)

^^fgUnqvksa dh ijEijk vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl pyk vk jgk gS fd rhu

xqEcn okys fookfnr Hkou ds chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s oky s H k kx

e s a j kepUn z th dk tUe g qvk F k k vkSj ;gh vkLFkk o fo'okl esjk

Hkh gSA Jhjke tUeHkwfe LFky jkepUnz th ds tUe ds le; ls iwT; gS

vkSj cjkcj iwftr gksrh pyh vk jgh gSA eSa fookfnr ifjlj ds iwohZ eq[;

}kj ls gksdj vanj n'kZu djus tkrk FkkA tUeHkwfe dk n'kZu djus ds

mijkUr tc ckgj fudyrs Fks rks nf{k.k dh vksj ls ?kwe dj ifjdzek

djrs FksA** ¼ist 23½

"The custom, faith and belief of Hindus has been

continuing that the birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place

beneath the mid dome of the three domed disputed

structure and I also share the same faith and belief. The Sri

Ram Janam Bhumi site is reverable from the time of birth

of Ram Chandra Ji and has been continuously worshipped.

I used to go inside through the eastern main gate of the

disputed premises to have darshan. On coming out after

having darshan of the Janam Bhumi, used to perform

circumambulation by going southwards."(E.T.C.)

^^Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFkku] ;fn ogkWa ewfrZ;k u Hkh gksa] rks Hkh

iwT; gSaA tUeLFkku ds n'kZu ek= ls gh ek{k dh izkfIr gks tkrh gSA**

4974

¼ist 26½

"The birthplace of Lord Rama is reverable, even if

there are no idols over there. Salvation is achieved by mere

darshan of the birthplace."(E.T.C.)

^^bl lwph la[;k&3 ds dkxt la[;k&9@20 ds ist&18 ij tUe

LFkku dk fooj.k gS vkSj jketUeHkwfe Hkh mlh esa of.kZr gSA bl i"B ij

tUeLFkku dk fuf'pr LFkku ,oa lhek;sa ugha fy[kh gSaA ¼ist&50½

“Details of Janamsthan find mention on page 18 of

paper no. 9/20 of this list no. 3, and Ramjanambhumi is

also mentioned therein. Definite location and boundaries of

Janamsthan are not mentioned on this page.”(E.T.C.)

tUeLFkku] ftls xwnM+rM+ ckck us cuok;k Fkk] jkepUnz th dk gh

tUeLFkku ekuk tkrk gSA ¼ist&72½

“Janamsthan, which Gudadtad Baba had raised, is

considered to be the birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji

Himself.”(E.T.C.)

^^fook fnr Hkou e s a H kxoku Jh jke djk sM +k s a o" k Z igy s

i zxV g q, Fk sA ^ ^ ¼ist&77½

“Lord Sri Rama had appeared in the disputed

building crores of years back.”(E.T.C.)

(xii) DW 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sunder Mishra

^^eSa 'kq: ls fookfnr Hkou dks jke tUe Hkwfe eafUnj ds :i esa

ekurk jgk gwWaA vkSj mlh :i esa eSa ogkWa iwtk n'kZu djrk jgk gwWaA chp

oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s dh Hk wfe jke tUe Hk wf e ekuh tkrh

g SA * * ¼ist 10½

"From beginning I have been treating the disputed

structure to be the Ram Janam Bhumi temple and have

been offering prayer-worship over there in the same form.

The land beneath the mid dome, is considered to be Ram

Janam Bhumi." (E.T.C.)

4975

^^tc ls Hkxoku jke jktk n'kjFk ds iq= ds :i esa dkS'kY;k ekrk

ds xHkZ ls iSnk gq, rc ls ml LFky dks jke tUe Hkwfe dgk tkrk gS

vkSj rHkh ls og LFky iwT; gSA fgUnqvksa dh vkLFkk fo'okl ,oa ijEijk ds

vuqlkj rhu x q Ecn oky s fook fnr Hkou d s chp d s LFk ku ij

Hkxoku jke i Snk g q,A blfy, og LFky Lo;a esa iwT; gS vkSj

v;ks/;k Lo;aHkw {ks= gSA jke yyk th dk ogkWa izknqHkkZo gqvk gS] ml iFoh

dks Lo;aHkw {ks= ekuk tkrk gSA** ¼ist 22½

"Since Lord Rama was born from the room of

Kaushalya Mata as the son of King Dashrath, the said

place is called 'Ram Janam Bhumi', and since then it is a

sacred place. As per the faith, belief and tradition of

Hindus, Lord Rama was born at the central part of the

three domed disputed structure. As such this place is

reverable on its own and Ayodhya is a self originating

place. Ram Lala had descended over there, that portion of

the land is considered to be self originating." (E.T.C.)

(xiii) DW 3/9 Ram Asray Yadav

^^fgUnw /keZ ds ekuus okys ;g fo'okl djrs gSa fd fookfnr LFky

ij jkepUnz th dk tUe gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 11½

"The believers of Hindu religion are sure that the

birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place at the disputed

site."(E.T.C.)

(xiv) DW 3/11 Bhanu Pratap Singh

^^jkepUnz th dk tUe dkSf'kY;k th ds egy esa ugha gqvk

FkkA ;g tUe tUeLFkku ij gqvk FkkA ¼ist&68½

"Ramchandra Ji was not born in the palace of

Kaushlya Ji. This birth took place at the

Janmsthan."(E.T.C.)

(xv) DW 3/12 Ram Akshaywar Pandey

^^jketUeHkwfe LFkku ds laca/k esa yksxksa dk J)k&fo'okl rFkk

4976

vkLFkk gS fd Hkxoku jke mlh LFkku ij izdV gq, FksA** ¼ist 13½

"As regards the site of Ram Janam Bhumi, it is the

faith, belief and devotion of people that Lord Ram had

appeared at that very place." (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vius ckck ls ;g lquk Fkk fd tUeLFkku tUeHkwfe ij

Hkxoku jke dk tUe gqvk FkkA blds igys Hkh yksx dgrs Fks fd Hkxoku

jke dk tUe ogkWa agqvk FkkA** ¼ist 16½

"I had heard it from my grandfather that lord Rama

was born at the Janam Sthan Janam Bhumi. Earlier also,

people used to say that lord Rama was born over

there."(E.T.C.)

^^Hkxoku jke dk tUe rhu xqEcn okys Hkou ds chp okys xqEcn

ds uhps okys LFkku ij gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 44½

"The birth of Lord Rama took place beneath the mid

dome of the three domed structure." (E.T.C.)

(xvi) DW 3/13 Mahant Ram Subhag Das Shastri

^^tc ls eSa v;ks/;k vk;k rc ls eSa fu;fer jke tUe Hkwfe n'kZu

djus tkrk Fkk vkSj xH k Z x `g e s a fojkteku jke yyk dk cjkcj

n'k Zu djrk jgkA** ¼ist 6½

"Since I came to Ayodhya, I have been regularly

going to Ram Janam Bhumi to have Darshan and all along

had Darshan of Ram Lala present in the sanctum

sanctorum." (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr xHkZ&xg ;k iwjs ifjlj esa dHkh eqlyekuksa }kjk uekt

ugha i<+k x;kA** ¼ist 9½

"Namaz was never offered by Muslims in the disputed

sanctum sactorum or the entire premises." (E.T.C.)

^^okYehdh jkek;.k esa jketUeHkwfe efUnj dk mYys[k ugha feyrkA

okYehdh jke;.k esa ml fo'ks"k LFkku dk uke ugha fy[kk gS] tgkWa jkepUnz

th dk tUe gqvk FkkA jkepfjr ekul esa Hkh bl LFkku dks fof'k"V :i

4977

ls ugha crk;k x;k gS] tgkWa ij jkepUnz th dk tUe gqvk Fkk] ijUrq

mlesa jkedksV dk mYys[k vk;k gSA ml fuf'pr LFkku] tgkWa ij jkepUnz

th dk tUe gqvk gks] bldk mYys[k ugha gSA jkedksV fdruh yEckbZ

rFkk pkSM+kbZ esa fLFkr gS] bldk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSaA** ¼ist 105½

"Reference of Ramjanmbhumi temple is not found in

Valmiki Ramayana. The particular place where

Ramchandra Ji was born, is not name in the Valmiki

Ramayana. In the Ramcharit Manas as well, this place has

not been particularly defined where Ramchandra Ji was

born, but it does refer about Ramkot. There is no reference

of the particular place, where Ramchandra Ji was born.

There is no mention of the length and breadth in which

Ramkot is situated." (E.T.C.)

(xvii) DW 3/14 Jagadguru Ramanandachrya Swami

Haryacharya

^^esjh ekU;rk ds vuqlkj 1 djksM+ 81 yk[k 60 gtkj 103 o"kZ iwoZ

jkekorkj gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 79½

"As per my belief, the incarnation of Lord Rama had

taken place 1 crore 81 lakhs 60 thousand 103 years

ago."(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ;g crk;k gS fd igys ekuo] euq FksA igys ekuo dk le;

eSaus vkt ls 6 gtkj dYi iwoZ dk crk;k gSA ,d gtkj prq;Zqx ds iwjs

gksus ij ,d dYi gksrk gSA ,d dYi pkj vjc 32 djksM+ o"kksZa dk gksrk

gSA esjs vuqlkj N% dYi O;rhr gks pqds gSa rFkk lkroka dYi py jgk gSA

bl izdkj yxHkx 25 vjc 92 djksM+ o"kZ O;rhr gks pqds gSaA** ¼ist 79½

"I have told that Manu was the first human. I have

given the period of first human to be 6 thousand 'Kalpa'

ago from today. One 'Kalpa' is completed after one

thousand 'Chaturyuga'. One 'Kalpa' is of four arab 32

crore years. According to me, 6 'Kalpas' have lapsed and

4978

the 7th 'Kalpa' is going on. As such around 25 arab 92

crore years have lapsed." (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky ds mRrj&lM+d rFkk mlds ckn tUeLFkku efUnj

gSA og tUeLFkku efUnj 300&400 o"kZ iqjkuk gks ldrk gSA tUeLFkku

eafnj ds vanj eSa x;k gwWaA** ¼ist 105½

"To the north of the disputed site is a road and after it

is the Janam Sthan temple. This Janam Sthan temple can

be 300-400 years old. I have been inside the Janam Sthan

temple." (E.T.C.)

^^v;k s/;k e s a d soy tUeHk wfe ij xHk Zx `g g S A - - -

v;ks/;k esa ftl xHkZxg dk eSaus mYys[k fd;k gS] mls eSa jkepUnz dh

tUeHkwfe ekurk gwWaA**¼ist 107½

"In Ayodhya, the sanctum sanctorum exists only at

the Janam Bhumi. . . . The sanctum sanctorum in

Ayodhya, mentioned by me, is considered by me to be the

birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji." (E.T.C.)

^^okYehdh jkek;.k esa v;ks/;k dks Hkxoku jke }kjk viuh

tUeHkwfe dgk tkuk mfYyf[kr gSA Hkxoku jke us iwjh v;ks/;k dks viuh

tUeHkwfe crk;k gS] blesa fdlh LFkku fo'ks"k dks bafxr ugha fd;k x;k

gSA** ¼ist 144½

"In Valmiki Ramayana, reference is contained about

Lord Rama calling Ayodhya, His Janam Bhumi. Lord Rama

has termed the entire Ayodhya to be His birthplace, no

particular place has been pin pointed in it." (E.T.C.)

(xviii) DW 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh

^^og xHk Zx `g chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s Fk kA* * ¼ist 35½

"That sanctum sanctorum was beneath the mid

dome."(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k esa fookfnr Hkou ds vykok fdlh vkSj efUnj dk uke

tUeLFkku efUnj ugha FkkA** ¼ist 93½

4979

"Besides the disputed structure, there was no other

temple in Ayodhya known as Janam Sthan temple." (E.T.C.)

(xix)DW 3/16 Shiv Bhikh Singh

^ ^chp oky s f' k[kj d s uhp s xHk Zx `g Fk kA* * ¼ist 2½

"Garbh Grih (sanctum sanctorum=place of birth)

existed below the central dome." (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky tgkWa ij jkeyyk fojkteku gSa] mldks tueHkwfe

blfy, dgk tkrk gS] D;ksafd ogha ij jkepUnzth dk tUe gqvk FkkA

blfy, ;g LFkku cgqr ifo= ekuk tkrk gSA fgUnqvksa dk ,slk fo'okl gS

fd bl LFkku ds n'kZu ek= ls gh eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gSA** ¼ist 10½

"The disputed site where Ramlala is installed, is

called Janam Bhumi because it is this place where Ram

Chandra Ji was born. Therefore this place is considered

very pious."

^^blds vykok xHkZx`g gksus ls Hkh eSa ;g ekurk gwWa fd ;gkWa ij

jkepUnzth dk tUe gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 24½

"Except this, on account of it being the Garbhgrih, I

believe that Ram Chandra Ji was born here." (E.T.C.)

(xx) DW 3/17 Mata Badal Tiwari

^^firk th us eq>s ;g crk;k Fkk fd ;g jketUeHkwfe dk efUnj

gSA fgUnqvksa dh ;g vkLFkk gS rFkk ;g fo'okl gS fd jkepUn z th dk

tUe rhu x q Ecn oky s H kou d s chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s

g qvk Fk kA blh fy, bldk s JhjketUeHk wfe dgk tkrk g S A **

¼ist 10½

"My father told me that this was the temple of Ram

Janam Bhumi. This is the faith and belief of Hindus that

the birth of Ram Chandra Ji took place beneath the mid

dome of the three domed structure. Due to this, it is

called 'Sri Ram Janam Bhumi'. (E.T.C.)

^^jketUeHkwfe dgus dk rkRi;Z esjk ;g gS fd ml LFkku ij

4980

jkepUnzth dk tUe gqvk FkkA jkepUnz th dk tUe lkS&nks lkS lky iwoZ]

gtkj&nks gtkj o"kZ iwoZ vFkok yk[k&nks yk[k o"kZ iwoZ gqvk Fkk] blds

ckjs esa eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWaA jketUeHkwfe ij jkepUnz th dk tUe gksrs

eSaus Lo;a ugha ns[kk] eSaus lquk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fookfnr LFky

Hkxoku jke dh tUeHkwfe ugha gSA** ¼ist 53½

"By 'Ram Janam Bhumi', I mean the place where

Ram Chandra Ji was born. I cannot tell whether Ram

Chandra Ji was born hundred-two hundred years ago, or

thousand-two thousand or lakh-two lakh years ago. I did

not myself see the birth of Ram Chandra Ji at Ram Janam

Bhumi, I have heard so. It is wrong to say that the disputed

site is not the birthplace of Lord Rama." (E.T.C.)

(xxi) DW 3/18 Acharya Mahant Banshidhar Das

^^fookfnr LFky Jh jke tUe Hkwfe efUnj gS** ¼ist 2½

"The disputed site is Sri Ram Janam Bhumi

temple."(E.T.C.)

^^fgUnqvksa dh ;g vkLFkk rFkk fo'okl gS fd rhu x q Ecn oky s

fook fnr Hkou d s chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s H kxoku jke dk

tUe g qvk Fk kA ;g vkLFkk rFkk fo'okl ih<+h nj ih<+h pyk vk jgk

gSA yksxksa dh ;g Hkh vkLFkk o fo'okl gS fd bl jketUeHkwfe dk n'kZu

djus ls eks{k dh izkfIr gksrh gSA** ¼ist 14½

"It is the faith and belief of Hindus that Lord Rama

was born beneath the mid dome of the three domed

disputed structure. This faith and belief has been

continuing generation after generation. It is also the faith

and belief of people that by having Darshan of this Ram

Janam Bhumi, one attains salvation." (E.T.C.)

(xxii) DW 3/20 Rajaram Chandracharya

^^fookfnr Hkou ds rhuk s a x q Ecn d s uhp s dk Hk kx xHk Zx `g

Fk kA ^ ^

4981

¼ist&72½

"The portion beneath all the three domes of the

disputed structure, was the sanctum sanctorum.” (E.T.C.)

^^fdlh Hkh osn esa jkepUnz th ds v;ks/;k esa tUeLFkku ds LFkku

dk mYys[k esjs [;ky ls ugha gSA^^ ¼ist&73½

“In my opinion, the site of birth place of

Ramchandra Ji in Ayodhya is not mentioned in any Veda."

(E.T.C.)

(xxiii) DW 13/1-1 Mahant Dharmdas

^^fookfnr Hkou ds chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s d s LFk ku ij

i zl wfrx `g Fk k tks dkSf'kY;k th ds Hkou dk Hkkx Fkk rhu xqEcn okys

Hkou ds mRrj rFkk nf{k.kh xqEcn ds uhps jktk n'kjFk ds fdlh vkSj

jkuh dk izlwfrxg ugha FkkA rhuksa xqEcn okyk Hkou dkS'ky;k Hkou dk

gh Hkkx FkkA^^ ¼ist&199½

“Beneath the middle dome of the disputed building

lay ‘Prasuti Grih’ (maternity home), which was a part of

Kaushalya Ji’s mansion. There was no ‘Prasuti Grih’ of

any other queen of King Dashrath in the north of the three

domed building and below the southern dome. The three

domed building was part of Kaushalya Bhawan

itself.”(E.T.C.)

(xxiv) DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur

^^;g fd esjs v/;;u ,oe~ tkudkjh ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k esa fLFkr

fookfnr Hkwfe dks fgUnqvksa }kjk vukfn dky ls vius vjk/; Hkxoku

Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa izFkkxr ,oa ijEijkxr :i ls iw.kZ

vkLFkk ,oa fo'okl ds lkFk n'kZu&iwtk fd;k tkrk jgk gSA** ¼ist 5½

"That as per my studies and knowledge, the Hindus

have been worshipping the Ayodhya situated disputed site

from time immemorial as the birthplace of their revered

Lord Sri Rama with full faith and devotion."(E.T.C.)

4982

^^esjh vkLFkk v;ks/;k ds izfr gSA Lo;a dgk fd Hkxoku jke dk

tUe LFkku gksus rFkk fgUnw gksus ds dkj.k esjh vkLFkk v;ks/;k esa gSA**

¼ist 9½

"I have faith in Ayodhya. Stated on his own that I

have faith in Ayodhya on account of (it) being the

birthplace of Lord Rama and being a Hindu."(E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd bl iwjs fooj.k esa fofy;e fQ+p us fdlh LFkku

fo'ks"k dks bafxr ugha fd;k gS] tgkWa ij jkepUnz th dk tUe gqvk gksuk

crk;k x;k gks rFkk ftlds lEcU/k esa yksxksa dh ;g vkLFkk gks fd og

jkepUnz th dk tUe LFkku gks] ysfdu mlus v;ks/;k dks cgqr yEch

ijEijk ls lEc) gksuk crk;k gSA** ¼ist 72½

"It is true that in this entire description, William

Finch has not pointed towards any particular place where

Ram Chandra Ji has been given to have taken birth and

about which people had the faith that it was the birthplace

of Ram Chandra Ji, but he has mentioned about

association of a very old custom with Ayodhya."(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ,d rhFkZ LFkku gS] jke tUe LFkyh gS vkSj fookfnr

LFky tUe LFkku gS vkSj bldks eSa ijEijk ds vk/kkj ij ekurk gwWaA**

¼ist 145½

"Ayodhya is a pilgrimage, is Ram Janam Sthali and

the disputed site is the Janam Sthan and I believe this on

basis of custom." (E.T.C.)

^^jkepUnz ds fuf'pr tUe LFkku dks esjs }kjk fpfUgr fd;k tkuk

bl le; Lefr }kjk laHko ugha gSA** ¼ist 145½

"At present, it is not possible for me to point out the

exact birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji, on basis of

memory."(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ,d rhFkZ LFkku gS] jke dh tUeLFkyh gS vkSj fookfnr

LFky tUeLFkku gS vkSj bldks eSa ijEijk ds vk/kkj ij ekurk gwWaA^^

¼ist 145½

4983

“Ayodhya is a site of pilgrimage; it is birthplace of

Rama and the disputed site is Janamsthan and I take it to

be so on the basis of tradition.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vius 'kiFk i= ds izLrj 14 esa vius v/;;u ds vk/kkj ij

;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd v;ks/;k esa fLFkr fookfnr Hkwfe dks fgUnqvksa }kjk

vukfndky ls vius vkjk/; Hkxoku Jhjke dh tUeHkwfe ds :i esa

izFkkxr rFkk ijEijkxr :i ls fo'okl ds lkFk n'kZu fd;k tkrk gS vkSj

vius v/;;u ds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus ^^viuh tkudkjh** 'kCn dk iz;ksx

bl izLrj esa fd;k gSA - - esjs v/;;u ds vuqlkj v;ks/;k esa tUeHkwfe

dks rhFkZ ds :i esa ekuk tkrk gSA bl izFkk esa dHkh cnyko ugha

vk;kA**¼ist 189½

"On basis of my studies, I have mentioned in para 14

of my affidavit that from time immemorial the Hindus have

been having Darshan of the Ayodhya situated disputed site

as Janmbhumi of their revered Lord Sri Rama with full

customary faith and belief, and it is on the basis of my

studies that I have used the words 'apni jaankari' in this

paragraph........According to my studies, the Janmbhumi in

Ayodhya is treated as pilgrimage. This practice never

underwent any change." (E.T.C.)

^^vius 'kiFk i= ds izLrj 14 esa eSaus ftl LFky ls Jhjke dh

tUeHkwfe dk lanHkZ fn;k gS] og fookfnr LFkku gh gS] tks vkt Hkh ifo=

vkSj iquhr ekuk tkrk gSA tUeHkwfe ls esjk vk'k; mlh LFky ls gS tks

fookfnr Hkwfe gS] u fd lM+d ds ikj mRrj esa fLFkr jketUeLFkku eafnj

lhrk jlskbZ ls gSA - - -esjh tkudkjh ds vuqlkj fookfnr <kapsa esa cus

rhu Mkse ds uhps gh Jhjke dk tUe gqvk Fkk] mlh dks jke tUe Hkwfe

ekurs gSaA - - - e S a rhu Mk se oky s H kou d s uhp s dh Hk wfe dk s

jketUeH k wf e ] ekU;rk ] vkLFk k vk S j ijEijk d s vk / k kj ij

ekurk g wW aA

esjs vuqlkj jketUeHkwfe vkSj lkseukFk efUnj esa jketUeHkwfe dk

egRo T;knk gS D;ksafd jke dks fo".kq dk vorkj ekuk x;k gS vkSj ;g

4984

egRo vukfndky ls pyk vk jgk gSA** ¼ist 189&190½

"The site referred as the Janmbhumi of Lord Sri

Rama in para 14 of my affidavit, is the disputed site which

is even today considered pious and scared. By Janmbhumi,

I imply the place which is the disputed site and not the

Ramjanmsthan temple, Sita Rasoi situated in north across

the road...... As per my knowledge, the birth of Lord Sri

Rama had occurred beneath the three domes of the

disputed structure, the same is considered to be

Ramjanmbhumi.......It is on the basis of faith, belief and

custom that I consider the land beneath the three domed

structure, to be Ramjanmbhumi.

According to me, out of Ramjanmbhumi and Somnath

temple, the importance of Ramjanmbhumi is more because

Lord Rama is considered to be an incarnation of Lord

Vishnu and this importance has continued from time

immemorial." (E.T.C.)

^^eSa rhu Mkse okys Hkou ds uhps dh Hkwfe dks jketUeHkwfe] ekU;rk]

vkLFkk vkSj ijEijk ds vk/kkj ij ekurk gwWaA^^ ¼ist&190½

“I consider the underlying part of the three domed

building to be Ramjanambhumi, on the basis of belief, faith

and tradition.”(E.T.C.)

(xxv) DW 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi

^^ftl LFky ij vkLFkk] ekU;rkvksa ,oa ijEijkvksa ds vuqlkj

Hkxoku Jhjke us tUe fy;k og fgUnw /kekZoyfEc;ksa }kjk Hkxoku jke dh

tUe Hkwfe ds :i esa iwftr pyh vk jgh gSA og {ks= tgkWa Hkxoku Jhjke

us tUe fy;k og vkt Hkh uxjikfydk esa eksgYyk jkedksV ds uke ls

rFkk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa xzke&dksVjkepUnz ds uke ls pyk vk jgk

gSA**¼ist 3½

"The place where Lord Sri Rama was born as per

4985

faith, belief and customs, has continued to be worshipped

by followers of Hinduism as the birthplace of Lord Rama.

The region where Lord Sri Rama was born, is still entered

in Municipality in the name of Ramkot locality and in the

revenue records as Village-Kot Ramchandra." (E.T.C.)

^^jke pUnz th dk tUe esjs vuqlkj vkt ls yxHkx ukS yk[k o"kZ

iwoZ gqvk FkkA ukS yk[k o"kZ iwoZ ds dksbZ fpUg vkt fo|eku ugha gSaA vkt

ls ukS yk[k o"kZ iwoZ jktk n'kjFk rFkk mudh jkfu;ksa ds egy dgka ij

fLFkr Fks ;g ugha crk;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq tSlk fo'okl pyk vk jgk

gS ;g egy ogha ij fLFkr Fks tgka ij vkt cus gSaA^^ ¼ist 74½

“According to me, the birth of Ramchandra Ji took

place about nine lakhs years ago. No symbol dating back to

nine lakh years exists today. It cannot be stated where the

palaces of King Dashrath and his queens were located nine

lakh years back. However, as per the continuing belief,

these temples existed at the same place where they exist

today.”(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkwfe ds jketUeHkwfe efUnj gksus ds ckjs esa] tks eSaus

vius 'kiFk&i= rFkk blds ckjs esa vius c;ku esa crk;k gS] mldks eSaus

vius firk th ls lquus o ijEijk ls izkIr Kku o vius }kjk izkIr

tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij dgk gSA ijEijk ds ckjs esa eSaus lqudj gh tkuk

gSA** ¼ist 90½

"The averments made by me in my affidavit about the

disputed land being Ram Janam Bhumi temple and the

statement given by me in this regard, are on basis of

learning from my father, gaining knowledge from customs

and knowledge acquired by me. I have come to know about

customs only by hearing." (E.T.C.)

^^okYehfd jkek;.k rFkk jkepfjr ekul esa jketUeHkwfe eafnj dk

mYys[k] ftruk eSaus i<+k gS] mlesa eq>s izkIr ugha gSA^^ ¼ist&91½

4986

“I have not come across the mention of

Ramjanambhumi temple in the Valmiki Ramayan and the

Ram Charit Manas as much I have gone through

them.”(E.T.C.)

^^ijEijk ls fookfnr LFky ij gh Hkxoku dk tUe LFkku ekuk tk

jgk gSA

ijEijk ls tks pyk vk jgk gS mlh LFky dks tUe LFkku ekurs

gSaA** ¼ist 92½

"By custom, the disputed site has been considered as

the birthplace of Lord (Rama).

Whatever has been continuing by custom, the same

site has been considered as the Janam Sthan."(E.T.C.)

^^og Hkxoku dk tUe LFky gS rFkk LFky gh iwT; gS] ;fn ogkWa

ij ewfrZ ugha jgrh] rc Hkh og iwT; gSA** ¼ist 96½

"It is the birthplace of Lord(Rama) and this place

itself is reverable. Even if there were no idols over there,

then also it is reverable." (E.T.C.)

(xxvi) DW 20/1 Shashi Kant Rungta

^^ijEijkvksa ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkou dks jketUe LFkku ds :i esa

iwtk tkrk jgk gSA** ¼ist 17½

"As per custom, the disputed structure has been

worshipped as Ram Janam Sthan (birthplace of Lord

Rama)." (E.T.C.)

^^esjh vkLFkk ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkou ds chp oky s x q Ecn d s

uhp s dk LFk ku ^ ^tUe LFk ku* * g S A esjs vuqlkj ;g vkLFkk djksM+ksa

o"kksZa ls pyh vk jgh gSA esjs vuqlkj chp okys xqEcn ds uhps dk LFkku

^^jketUe LFkku** gS ;g vkLFkk gS fd djksM+ksa o"kksZa ls ;g LFkku

jketUeLFkku ds :i esa pyk vk jgk gSA bldk eryc ;gh gqvk fd

djksM+ksa o"kZ iwoZ jkepUnz th dk tUe bl LFkku ij gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 19½

"As per my faith, the place beneath the mid dome of

4987

the disputed structure is the "Janam Sthan". According

to me, this faith has been continuing for crores of years.

According to me, the place beneath the mid dome, is the

Ram Janam Sthan. It is the faith that this place has

continued as Ram Janam Sthan for crores of years. It

means that Ram Chandra Ji was born at this place crores

of years ago." (E.T.C.)

^^dkS'kY;k th us jkepUnz th dks tUe fn;k FkkA bl izLrj dh

rhljh iafDr esa ^^mlh LFkku** uked 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS] blls

e sj k rk Ri; Z rhu x q Ecn oky s fook fnr Hkou d s chp oky s

x q Ecn d s uhp s oky s LFk ku l s g S A ;g LFkku jktk n'kjFk ds le;

esa dkS'kY;k th ds egy dk Hkkx FkkA** ¼ist 35½

"Kaushalya Ji had given birth to Ram Chandra Ji.

The words 'Usi Sthan' have been used in third line of this

paragraph, by it I mean the place beneath the mid dome

of the three domed disputed structure. In the period of

King Dashrath, this place was part of the palace of

Kaushalya Ji." (E.T.C.)

^^jketUe Hkwfe iwtuh; gS] ftl izdkj eqlyeku HkkbZ;ksa ds fy,

eDdk&enhuk vkSj bZlkbZ Hkkb;ksa ds fy, ;wjks'kye] blh izdkj fgUnqvksa ds

fy, jketUeHkwfe gSA bZlkbZ;ksa ds fy, ;wjks'kye dk egRo blfy, gS

D;ksafd ogkWa ij thlsl dk tUe gqvk FkkA eDdk rFkk enhuk esjh

tkudkjh ds vuqlkj ,d gh LFkku gSA** ¼ist 52½

"Ram Janam Bhumi is reverable, just as 'Mecca-

Medina' is for Muslims and 'Jerusalem' is for Christians,

'Ram Janam Bhumi' is for Hindus. Jerusalem has

importance for Christians because Jesus was born there.

As per my knowledge, Mecca and Medina are the same

place." (E.T.C.)

(xxvii) DW 20/2 Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati

4988

^^jktk n'kjFk ds tekus esa tks dkSf'kY;k Hkou ;k dkSf'kY;k egy

Fkk og v;ks/;k esa fdl LFkku ij Fkk] bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS

D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa esjk dksbZ v/;;u ugha gSA ijUrq jkepUnz th dk

tUe dkSf'kY;k Hkou esa gh gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist&96½

^^esjh vkLFkk o fo'okl ds vuqlkj jkepUn zth dk tUe rhu

x q acnk s a ¼ f' k[kj½ oky s H kou d s chp oky s x q acn d s uhp s g qvk

Fk kA^^ ¼ist&97½

okYehfd jkek;.k rFkk Jhjkepfjr ekul ,oa Jhen~ Hkkxor~ dk

mYys[k vius 'kiFk&i= ds /kkjk 11 esa fd;k gS Jhen~ Hkkxor~ esa jkepUnz

th dh oa'kkoyh vkSj pfj= rFkk v;ks/;k esa tUe ysus dk mYys[k gS]

ijUrq LFkku fo'ks"k dk mYys[k ugha gS] tgkWa ij jkepUnz th dk tUe

gqvk gksA^^ ¼ist 132½

"I have no knowledge as to where was the Kaushalya

Bhawan or Kaushalya Palace situated in Ayodhaya during

the times of King Dasrath, because I have not undertaken

any studies in this behalf. However, Ramchandra Ji was

born in Kaushalya Bhawan.

As per my faith and belief, the birth of Ramchandra

Ji took place beneath the mid dome of the three domed

structure.

(I) have mentioned about Valmiki Ramayan, Sri

Ramcharit Manas and Srimad Bhagwat in para 11 of my

affidavit. Srimad Bhagwat contains the reference of

Ramchandra Ji's family tree, character and birth in

Ayodhaya but no particular place has been mentioned

where Ramchandra Ji had taken birth." (E.T.C.)

(xxviii) DW 20/3 Brahmchari Ramraksha Nand

^^;g fd rhu f'k[kj oky s H kou d s e/; oky s f' k[kj d s

uhp s oky s H k kx e s a xH k Zx `g g S tgk W a H kxoku jke dk vorkj

g qvk Fk k ftlesa Hkxoku Jhjke yyk dk foxzg lnSo ls fojkteku jgk

gSA** ¼ist 4½

4989

"That there is sanctum sanctorum in the part

beneath the mid dome of three domed structure, where

Lord Rama had incarnated and the Vigrah of Lord Sri Ram

Lala had always remained present." (E.T.C.)

(xxix) OPW1 Mahant Paramhans Ram Chandra Das

^^fookfnr Hkou ds uhps dk lEiw.kZ LFkku e/; f'k[kj ds uhps rFkk

mlds vxy cxy ds {ks= dks tUeHkwfe ds :i esa le>rk gwWaA^^ ¼ist 99½

“I consider the entire place below the disputed

building as also the area below and adjacent to the middle

dome, to be Janmbhumi.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSa ;g fuf'pr ugha dj ldrk fd ml LFkku dh yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ

D;k Fkh ijUrq ifjdzek ekxZ dks ysdj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe dks eSa tUeHkwfe dk

fgLlk ekudj mldh ifjdzek djrk FkkA^^ ¼ist&99½

“I cannot definitely say what was the length and

width of that place, but I used to perform

circumambulation, taking the entire place, including the

path of circumambulation, to be part of

Janmbhumi.”(E.T.C.)

^^pcwrjk tgkWa ij ewfrZ igys LFkkfir Fkh mlds tueHkwfe dk vax

ekurk FkkA^^ ¼ist&100½

“I considered the Chabutra, where an idol was

installed earlier, to be a part of Janmbhumi. ”(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkou dks eSa xHkZxg ekurk gwWaA^^ ¼ist 102½

“I consider the disputed building to be ‘Garbhgrih’

(sanctum sanctorum).”(E.T.C.)

(xxx) OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; laHkor% 400 o"kZ iqjkuk fy[kk gqvk gksxkA

v;ks/;k egkRE; esa Ldan iqjk.k dh fy[kh gqbZ gLrfyfi;kWa tks izkIr gqbZ gSa

og 400 o"kZ ls T;knk iqjkuh ugha yxrh gSA^^ ¼ist 112½

“Ayodhya Mahatmya would perhaps have been

4990

written 400 years back. The Skanda Purana manuscripts

on Ayodhya Mahatmya – as has been discovered – do not

appear to be more than 400 years old.”(E.T.C.)

^^ijEijk;sa ,d ih<+h ls nwljh ih<+h rd ekSf[kd :i ls gh

ladzfdr ¼dUos½ gksrh gS vkSj ;g ijEijk lSdM+ksa ihf<+;ksa ls ekSf[kd :i

ls pyh vk jgh gSa vkSj bZLV bafM;k dEiuh ds le; esa xtsfV;j ys[kdksa

rFkk vU; ;wjksih; fo}kuksa ls ekSf[kd :i ls gh lqudj vk/kqfud iqLrdksa

esa bldk fooj.k fn;k gSA^^ ¼ist&150½

“Traditions orally pass on from one generation to

another, and they have been continuing orally for hundreds

of generations, and their details have been given in modern

books only on the basis of what was heard from the

gazetteer writers and other European scholars during the

time of East India Company.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSa bl ijEijk okyh ckr ls lger ugha gwWa fd jke pcwrjs ij gh

jkepUnz th dk tUe LFkku Fkk] okLro esa H kxoku jke dk tUe

igy s crk; s x; s xHk Zx `g LFky ij gh g qvk F k k vk S j jke

pc wrj s dk s ,d le>k Sr s d s :i e s a j ke tUe LFky d s :i

e s a Lohdkj fd;k x;k gk sx kA - - - - eq>s ;g ugha ekywe gS fd

dHkh ,slh dksbZ ijEijk jgh gS fd jke pcwrjs ij gh jkepUnz th dk

tUe gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist&151½

“I do not agree that there was a tradition that the

birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji’s was on Ram Chabutra

itself. Actually, the birth of Lord Rama had taken place at

the aforesaid Garbh Grih itself and Ram Chabutra must

have been accepted as Rama’s birthplace by way of an

agreement. I do not know whether there had ever been a

tradition that the birth of Ram Chandra Ji had taken place

on Ram Chabutra itself.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSa ;g igys Hkh Li"V dj pqdk gwWa fd jke pcwrjk ,d le>kSrs

4991

ds :i esa LFkkfir vkSj mlesa iwtk djkus okys iqtkfj;ksa vkfn dk LokFkZ

blesa fufgr Fkk vkSj blh dkj.k mUgksaus lEHkor% ;g vkLFkk mRiUu djus

dh dksf'k'k dh gksxh fd ;g jke pcwrjk gh Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFky

gS vkSj ;g vkLFkk o ijEijk jke pcwrjk cuus ds ckn esa iSnk dh x;h

gksxh] tks lu~ 1885 esa Hkh izpfyr FkhA^^ ¼ist&153½

“Priests, etc. performing pooja had vested interest in

it, and due to this very reason they may have tried to

arouse a faith that this Ram Chabutra itself is the

birthplace of Lord Rama, and this faith and tradition must

have been generated after the construction of Ram

Chabutra and it was prevalent in 1885 as well.”(E.T.C.)

^^ijUrq eqx+fy;k 'kklu dky ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh bfrgkl dh

iqLrd esa bl jke pcwrjs vFkok mlds vdcj ds t+ekus esa cuus dk

mYys[k gesa ugha feyrk gSA^^ ¼ist& 154½

“We do not come across the mention of this Ram

Chabutra and that of it being built in the times of Akbar, in

any history book regarding the Mughal rule.”(E.T.C.)

^^fook fnr Hkou d s chp oky s x q Ecn d s uhp s d s LFk ku

dk s ijEijkxr jke tUe LFkyh ekuk tkrk Fk k vk S j ;g

ijEijk dHk h cnyh ugh a Fk h cfYd ,d le>kSrs ds rgr jke

pcwrjs dks jke tUe LFkyh ekudj yksx iwtk&vpZuk djus yxs Fks vkSj

bl rjg esjs vuqlkj chp okys xqEcn ds uhps jke tUe LFkyh gksus dh

ijEijk cjdjkj jghA^^

¼ist 211&212½

“The underlying place of the middle dome of the

disputed building was believed to be Ram Janamsthali

(Rama’s birthplace) by way of tradition, and this

tradition never underwent any change. Rather, under an

agreement people began to perform prayer and worship,

taking Ram Chabutra to be Rama’s birthplace, and in this

way, the tradition of Rama’s birthplace beneath the middle

4992

dome continued to be in vogue.”(E.T.C.)

^^jke pcwrjs ds vykok vkSj dksbZ txg fookfnr ifjlj esa ,slh

ugha Fkh ftldks bl xtsfV;j esa dgh x;h ckr ls lanfHkZr fd;k tk

ldsA ml le; vFkkZr xtsfV;j fy[krs le; bl pcwrjs ds Åij j[kk

dksbZ ikyuk jgk gksxk vkSj pcwrjk u jgk gksA bl xtsfV;j esa pcwrjs dk

mYys[k ugha gS cfYd ikyus dk mYys[k gS blfy, gks ldrk gS fd ml

pcwrjs ds LFkku ij ikyuk j[kk jgk gksA - - - - - bl xtsfV;j dks

fy[krs le; ml pcwrjs dks ns[kk Fkk] rks mldh ÅWapkbZ 5 ls 6 bap

crkbZ x;h Fkh] ij tc eSaus lu~ 1992 esa ml pcwrjs dks ns[kk Fkk] rks

mldh ÅWapkbZ tehu ls 4&5 fQV FkhA ^^ ¼ist&277½

“Except for Ram Chabutra there was no other place

in the disputed premises which may be associated with the

things stated in this gazetteer. At that time, that is, while

writing the Gazetteer, any cradle must have been kept

above this chabutra and there may not have been chabutra.

There is no mention of chabutra in this gazetteer; rather

there is mention of cradle therein. So, cradle may have

been kept in place of that chabutra.. . . . . At the time of

writing this gazetteer, when I had seen this chabutra, its

height was stated to be 5-6 inches; but when I saw that

chabutra in 1992, its height was 4-5 feet from the

surface.”(E.T.C.)

^^,slk fy[kk gS fd ml le; ds yksxksa dk ,slk fo'okl Fkk fd

mlh ikyus esa Jh jke pUnz th dk tUe gqvk FkkA ;g yksd /kkj.kk lu~

1850 ds le; esa yksxksa esa izpfyr FkhA ;g ikyuk lEHkor% ogha j[kk

gqvk gks] tgkWa lu~ 1992 rd jke pcwrjk FkkA - - - - - eSa bl fo"k; ij

dqN ugha dg ldrk fd ;g yksd Jqfr vFkkZr ikyus esa Jh jke pUnz th

ds tUe dh dc lekIr gqbZ esjk ,slk fo'okl gS fd vc ;g yksd /kkj.kk

vFkkZr ikyus okyh ckr vc izpfyr ugha gSA fQj dgk fd eq>s bl

fo"k; ij lansg gS fd ;g vkt Hkh /kkj.kk izpfyr gS ;k ughaA^^

¼ist 278½

4993

“It was belief of people of that time that Sri

Ramchandra Ji was born in that very cradle. This public

perception was prevalent among people in 1850. This

cradle may have been put at the place where there was

Ramchabutra upto 1992. . . . . . I cannot say anything about

when this public hearsay, that is, the one about the birth of

Sri Ram Chandra Ji in cradle ceased to be prevalent. It is

my belief that this public perception, that is, the one about

the cradle is now not in prevalence. (Further stated) I have

doubt as to whether this perception is still prevalent or

not.”(E.T.C.)

(xxxi) OPW 11 – Dr. S.C. Mittal

^^bl lanHkZ esa esjk dFku gS fd] ftl LFkku ij jke dk tUe gqvk

Fkk] ml LFkku ij ,d eafnj Fkk] ftls rksM+dj ckcj }kjk ,d efLtn

dk fuekZ.k gqvkA^^ ¼ist&138½

“In this behalf, it is my statement that at the place

where Rama was born, there lay a temple by demolishing

which a mosque was constructed by Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^jkepUnz th ds tUe dh ckr] izkphu bfrgkl ds igys dh ckr

gSA eSaus bl laca/k esa dgha [kqn ugha i<+k fd jkepUnz th dk tUe dc

gqvk vkSj dgkWa gqvkA^^ ¼ist 138½

“The factum of Ram Chandra Ji’s birth precedes the

times of ancient history. I have not myself read about when

and where Ram Chandra Ji was born.”(E.T.C.)

^^esjs 'kiFk&i= dh /kkjk 8 esa of.kZr iqLrdksa esa vkSj fo'ks"kdj gsal

csdj dh iqLrd esa] rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSaus ;g i<+k] fd jke tue

v;ks/;k esa gqvk vkSj mDr iqLrd esa ml LFkku dks Hkh fn;k x;k gS] tgkWa

jke dk tUe ekuk tkrk gSA og LFky og LFkku ekuk tkrk gS] tgkWa

ckcj }kjk efLtn dk fuekZ.k gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 138½

“I have, in the books as mentioned in para 8 of my

4994

affidavit and particularly in Hans Bakker’s book, read that

Rama’s birth had taken place in Ayodhya and the said book

also specifies the place where is Rama is considered to

have taken birth. This place is considered to be the place

where mosque was erected by Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^jkepUnz th dk tUe LFkku tkuus ds fy, eSaus v;ks/;k dk

izkphu bfrgkl i<+uk vko';d ugha le>kA^^ ¼ist 138½

“I did not consider it to be necessary to read ancient

history of Ayodhya, with a view to know about the

birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji.”(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkou esa fdlh LFkku ij jkepUnz th dk tUeLFkku jgk

gksxk] ;g ckr eSa bl vk/kkj dg jgk gWwa D;ksafd iqLrdksa esa fookfnr LFkku

ij ,d eafnj gksus dk o.kZu gS ftls ijEijk ls vusd yksx ;g ekurs jgs

gSa fd ;gkWa ij jke dk tUe gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 149½

“I am stating about where the birthplace of Ram

Chandra would have been in the disputed building, on this

basis; because books speak of there being a temple, about

which people by way of tradition have been holding that

Rama was born here.”(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k egkRE; ,sfrgkfld nf"V ls egRoiw.kZ iqLrd ugha ekuh

tkrh gS bldk o.kZu jhfr&fjoktksa] v;ks/;k ds izeq[k /kkfeZd LFkyksa]

R;ksgkjksa vkfn ls lacaf/kr yxrk gS] D;ksafd bl iqLrd ds iwjs ,d Hkkx esa

/kkfeZd ckrksa dk gh mYys[k gSA^^ ¼ist 164½

“Ayodhya Mahatmya is not taken to be an important

book from historical point of view. Its description appears

to be about customs and traditions and about important

religious sites, festivals, etc. of Ayodhya, because full one

part of this book mentions only of religious things.”(E.T.C.)

^^gSal csdj lkgc us ^v;ks/;k egkRE;* dk iz;ksx viuh bl iqLrd

esa /kkfeZd nf"V ls fd;k gS vkSj ,sfrgkfld nf"V ls mldk iz;ksx djuk

4995

esjs fopkj ls lgh ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 164½

“Hans Bakker has in his book used ‘Ayodhya

Mahatmya’ from religious point of view, and it is, in my

opinion, not correct to use it from historical view-

point.”(E.T.C.)

(xxxii) OPW 12 - Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra

^^JhjketUeHkwfe ifjlj v;ks/;k fLFkr rhu f'k[kj oky s H kou

d s e/; oky s f' k[kj d s uhp s egjkt n'kjF k d s i q= d s :i

e s a Jhjkeyyk th u s = sr k ; qx e s a tUe fy;k Fk kA^^ ¼ist 41½

“Sri Ramlala Ji had taken birth in Treta Era as

son of King Dashrath, below the middle dome of the

three domed building situated in Sri Ram Janambhumi

premises at Ayodhya.”(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr ifjlj ds vUnj jke pcwrjk dc ls cuk pyk vk jgk

gS] bl fo"k; esa eq>s dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS ij fookfnr Hkou ds cuus ls

igys ;g jke pcwrjk ogkWa FkkA^^ ¼ist 116½

“I do not know since when Ram Chabutra has been

in existence inside the disputed premises, but this Ram

Chabutra was there prior to the construction of the

disputed building.”(E.T.C.)

^^gekjk vkSj gekjs lkFk jgus okys lk/kw&larksa dk ;g iw.kZ fo'okl

gS fd Hkxoku jke dk tUe rFkk vorj.k fookfnr ifjlj ds Hkhrj

pcwrjs ij gh gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 117½

“It is full belief of ours as well as of saints and sages

residing with us that Lord Rama had taken birth and

descended on chabutra itself inside the disputed

premises.”(E.T.C.)

(xxxiii) OPW 13 - Narad Sharan

^^v;ks/;k Hkxoku jke dh tUe Hkwfe gS] vkSj fookfnr <kWapk ds

chp okys LFkku dks ge mudk tUe LFkku ekurs gSaA^^ ¼ist 33½

4996

“Ayodhya is Lord Rama’s birthplace, and we

consider the middle place of the disputed structure to be

His birthsite.” (E.T.C.)

^^Hkxoku jke dk tUe fookfnr Hkou esa gqvk Fkk] ;g ckr eSa

ijEijkxr jhfr fjokt ij lquh gqbZ ckr ds vk/kkj ij dj jgk gwWaA^^

¼ist 34½

“On the basis of hearsay based on conventions and

traditions, I am saying that Lord Rama was born in the

disputed building.”(E.T.C.)

(xxxiv) OPW 16 Sri Jagadguru Ramnandacharya

Swami Rambhadracharya

^^;tqosZn esa tSlk fd eSaus vius 'kiFk&i= iSjk&27 esa fy[kk gS]

Hkxoku jke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gksus dh ckr fy[kh gS] fdlh LFkku

fo'ks"k dk ft+dz ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 39½

“As I have written in para 27 of my affidavit, the

factum of Lord Rama’s birth in Ayodhya finds mention in

Yajurveda; there is no mention of any particular place

therein.”(E.T.C.)

^^ml v;ks/;k esa ,d fgj.e;% vFkkZr~ Lo.kZ dk e.Mikdkj Hkou gS]

tgka izdk'k ls lEiUu lkdsr yksd ls vkdj ijeczg~e Jh jke tUe fy,

FksA mijksDr 'kCnksa ds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus O;kdj.k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj ;g

fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij gh Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFkku

gSA^^ ¼ist 40½

“There is a canopy-shaped building of gold in that

Ayodhya where the Supreme Being Sri Ram Chandra,

illumined with light, had come from Saket Lok and had

taken birth. Only on the basis of the aforesaid words, I

have as per grammar inferred that the disputed place itself

is the birthplace of Lord Rama.”(E.T.C.)

4412. A bare reading of all the above statements makes it

4997

very clear and categorical that the belief of Hindus by tradition

was that birthplace of Lord Rama lie within the premises in

dispute and was confined to the area under the central dome of

three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner

courtyard.

4413. In arriving to this conclusion we do not find any

difficulty since the pleadings in general and particular also do

not detract us. When the Hindu parties have referred to the

entire disputed site as a place of birth, this Court can always find

out and record a finding for, instead of the entire area, a smaller

area within the same premises. The pleadings are not to be read

in a pedantic manner but the Court has to find out substance

therein as to whether the parties knew their case or not. The

evidence adduced by the parties and what the witnesses have

said on behalf of Hindu parties fortify the case set up by the

defendants.

4414. In Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai,

ILR (1909) 33 Bom. 122 the Bombay High Court said:

"if this is the belief of the community......a secular judge is

bound to accept that belief - it is not for him to sit in

judgment on that belief."

4415. We are also of the view that once such belief gets

concentrated to a particular point, and in totality of the facts, we

also find no reason otherwise, it partakes the nature of an

essential part of religion particularly when it relates to a matter

which is of peculiar significance to a religion. It, therefore,

stands on a different footing. Such an essential part of religion is

constitutionally protected under Article 25.

4416. In N. Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board,

4998

2002 (8) SCC 106 on page 123 the Court observed:

"as to what really constitutes an essential part of religion

or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts with

reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or

practices regarded as parts of religion."

4417. In Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Acharya

Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and another, 2004 (12) SCC

770 the Court said:

"9. The protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26

of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or

belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and,

therefore, contains a guarantee for rituals, observances,

ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or

integral part of religion. What constitutes an integral or

essential part of religion has to be determined with

reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets, historical

background etc. of the given religion. (See generally the

Constitution bench decisions in Commr., H.R.E. Vs. Sri

Lakshmindra Swamiar of Sri Srirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC

282, Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V. State of

Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853, and Seshammal Vs. State of

Tamilnadu (1972) 2 SCC 11, regarding those aspects that

are to be looked into so as to determine whether a part or

practice is essential or not). What is meant by "an

essential part or practices of a religion" is now the matter

for elucidation. Essential part of a religion means the core

beliefs upon which a religion is founded. Essential

practice means those practices that are fundamental to

follow a religious belief. It is upon the cornerstone of

4999

essential parts or practices the superstructure of religion is

built. Without which, a religion will be no religion. Test to

determine whether a part or practice is essential to the

religion is - to find out whether the nature of religion will

be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away

of that part or practice could result in a fundamental

change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then

such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.

There cannot be additions or subtractions to such part.

Because it is the very essence of that religion and

alterations will change its fundamental character. It is such

permanent essential parts is what is protected by the

Constitution. No body can say that essential part or

practice of one's religion has changed from a particular

date or by an event. Such alterable parts or practices are

definitely not the 'core' of religion where the belief is based

and religion is founded upon. It could only be treated as

mere embellishments to the non-essential (sic essential)

part or practices."

4418. In view of the above discussion of the matter, we are

satisfied and hold that the place of birth as believed and

worshipped by Hindus is the area covered under the central

dome of three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure, in the

inner courtyard of the premises in dispute. We answer all the

three issues , i.e., issues no. 11(Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-

5) accordingly.

(F) Others:

4419. In this category fall issues no. 27 (Suit-4) and 1

(Suit-3).

5000

4420. Issue No.27 (Suit-4) reads as under:

"Whether the courtyard contained Ram Chabutara,

Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so, whether they were also

demolished on 06.12.1992 along with the main temple?"

4421. While discussing the issues relating to limitation and

possession, as also issue no.24 (Suit-5), it is already held that at

the premises in the outer courtyard, there existed Ram

Chabutara, Bhandar and Sita Raoi, which stand confirmed from

the two maps also i.e. of 1885 and 1950 (Appendix Nos. 3 and

2). The parties also admit during the course of argument that all

these three structures were demolished on 06.12.1992 when the

disputed structure was demolished. Issue 27 (Suit-4) is

accordingly answered in affirmative.

4422. Issue No.1 (Suit-3) read as under:

"Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed

therein as alleged in para 3 of the plaint?"

4423. Before answering it, once again we reiterate that this

suit pertains only to the premises within inner courtyard

including the disputed structure. We have already held that the

disputed structure was constructed as a 'mosque' and always

treated and called 'mosque' by Hindus and Muslims both, alike,

for the last almost one and half century before the date of

attachment. DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava on page 31 of

his statement, has clearly said:

"The disputed structure was a three domed structure. It was

known as Babri Masjid. It was a mosque."

4424. However, we have also held that despite of the

structure constructed as a 'mosque', and, termed and called by

the people at large as 'mosque', the Hindus continuously entered

1

5001

and worshipped the place since according to their belief, it was

the place of birth of Lord Rama and therefore, could not have

been desecrated so as to extinguish in any manner. The idols

were kept in the inner courtyard under the central dome on

22/23 December, 1949. The plaintiffs, however, claim in para 3

of the plaint as under:

"3. That the said Asthan of Janma Bhumi is of ancient

antiquity and has been existing since before the living

memory of man and lies within the boundaries shown by

letters A.B.C.D. in the sketch map appended hereto within

which stands the temple building of Janma Bhumi marked

by letters E.F.G.K. P N M L E and the building denoted by

letters E F G H I J K L E is the main temple of Janma

Bhumi wherein is installed the idol of Lord Ram Chandra

with Lakshmanji, Hanumanji and Saligramji."

4425. Therefore, the manner in which the plaintiff has

depicted the premises in dispute and claimed it to be a temple is

not correct in view of our findings recorded above. The

premises in dispute cannot be treated to be a temple in the

manner it is being pleaded and claimed by the plaintiffs (Suit-3).

Though there are other aspects of the matter which we have

already discussed, subject to those findings, as pointed out

above also, in our view, issue No.1(Suit-3) has to be answered

in negative. It is decided accordingly.

4426. (L) Identity of the property:In this category fall

issues no. 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) and 5 (Suit-5).

4427. Issue No.1(B)(a) (Suit-4):

"Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no.583 of the

Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra

5002

known as Ram Kot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate) Ayodhya?

If so its effect thereon?"

4428. It is not disputed by the parties before this Court that

the Nazul plot, in which the building in dispute existed, was

recorded as Nazul, plot no. 583, Khasra of 1931 of Mohalla Kot

Ram Chandra known as Ramkot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate

Ayodhya). In the revenue records, plot number is different. The

Nazul number of the plot in which the building in dispute situate

is not disputed. It is also admitted by all the parties that the plot

in which disputed building existed was recorded Nazul in the

First Settlement 1861 and had continued so even when the suit

in question was filed.

4429. "Nazul land" means land owned by the Government.

It is the own pleading of Sunni Board in para 24(B) of the

written statement filed in Suit-5.

4430. In the Legal Glossary 1992, fifth edition, published

by the Legal Department of the Government of India at page

589, the meaning of the word "Nazul" has been given as

"Rajbhoomi i.e. Government land". It is an Arabic word and it

refers to a land annexed to Crown. During the British Regime,

immoveable property of individuals, Zamindars, Nawabs and

Rajas when confiscated for one or the other reason, it was

termed as "Nazul property". The reason being that neither it was

acquired nor purchased after making payment. In the old record,

we are told when they used to be written in Urdu, this kind of

land was shown as "Jaidad Munzabta".

4431. For dealing with such property under the authority

of the Lt. Governor of North Western provinces, two orders

were issued in October, 1846 and October, 1848 wherein after

5003

the words "Nazul property" its english meaning was given as

"Escheats to the Government". Sadar Board of Revenue on 20th

May, 1845 issued a circular order in reference to Nazul land and

in para 2 thereof it mentioned "The Government is the proprietor

of those land and no valid title to them can be derived but from

the Government." The Nazul land was also termed as confiscated

estate. Under circular dated 13th July, 1859, issued by the

Government of North Western Provinces, every Commissioner

was obliged to keep a final confiscation statement of each

district and lay it before the Government for orders. The

kingdom of Oudh was annexed by East India Company in 1856.

It declared the entire land as vested in the Government and

thereafter settled the land to various individuals Zamindars,

Nawabs etc.

4432. At Lucknow revolt against the British Company

broke up in May, 1857 which is known as the first war of

independence which very quickly angle a substantial part of

north western provinces. After failure of the above revolution,

the then Governor General Lord Canning on 15th May, 1858

issued a proclamation confiscating propriety rights in the soil

with the exception of five or six persons who had given support

and assistance to British Officers. This land was resettled first

for a period of three years and then permanent propriety rights

were given to certain Talukdars and Zamindars by grant of

'Sanad' under Crown Grants Act. In the meantime we all know

that under the Government of India Act, 1858 the entire Indian

territory under the control of East India Company was placed

under Crown w.e.f. First November, 1858. A kind of first

settlement in summary we undergone in Oudh in 1861 wherein

5004

it appears that the land in dispute was shown as Nazul and since

then in the records, the nature of land is continuously being

mentioned as Nazul.

4433. In respect to Revenue records as well as Nazul, DW

2/1-2, Sri Ram Sharan Srivastava who happened to be Collector,

Faizabad between July 1987 till 1990 and claimed to have seen

the record, made the following statement:

^^esjs v/khu jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa rhu jsosU;w lsfVyesV~l lu~

1861] 1893&94] o 1936&37 ds vfHkys[k miyC/k Fks] ftudk eSaus

v/;;u fd;k FkkA bu vfHkys[kksa esa [kljk] [krkSuh] [ksoV 'kkfey Fks vkSj

rhuksa lsfVyeaV~l dh fjiksVZ buds vykok vyx ls miyC/k FkhaA mijksDr

rhu lsfVyesaV~l o fjiksVZ ds vfrfjDr lu~ 1931 esa gq, ut+wy Hkwfe ds

losZ ls lacaf/kr fjiksVZ Hkh lfEefyr FkhaA mlh 1931 ds losZ ds vk/kkj ij

rS;kj fd;s x;s [kljk] [krkSuh o [ksoV Hkh miyC/k FksA bu rhuksa

cUnkscLrh vkSj ut+wy ds losZ ds vfHkys[kksa esa fookfnr LFkku dks

tUeLFkku fy[kk gqvk gS vkSj dgha&dgha jketUeHkwfe Hkh fy[kk gqvk gSA

bu mYys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd fookfnr LFky

Hkxoku Jh jke dk tUeLFkku gSA mijksDr lanfHkZr rhuksa lsfVyeaV vkSj

1931 ds lHkh vfHkys[kksa dks eSaus ewy :i esa vius ftykf/kdkjh dk;kZy;

esa eaxokdj ns[kk Fkk] vfHkys[kkxkj esa tkdj ughaA lsfVyesaV dh rhuksa

fjiksVZ vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa Fkha vkSj izR;sd fjiksVZ 50 ist rd dh FkhA ;s lHkh

fjiksVZ~lZ Vkbi'kqnk FkhaA rhuksa fjiksV~lZ esa losZdrkZ ;k ys[kd dk uke

fy[kk gqvk Fkk] ijUrq eq>s muesa ls fdlh dk uke ;kn ugha gSA igys ,oa

nwljs lsfVyesaV ds rhuksa vfHkys[k ;kuh [kljk] [krkSuh vkSj [ksoV mnwZ esa

FksA ijUrq tgka rd eq>s ;kn gS] rhljs lsfVyesaV ds vfHkys[k fgUnh esa

FksA** ¼ist 54&55½

“The records of three revenue settlements of year

1861,1893-94 &1936-37 were available in the revenue

record room under me. These records included khasra,

khatauni, khewat and the reports of the three settlements

were available separately besides them. The survey report

5005

of 1931 in respect of nazul land, was also included besides

the three settlements and reports. The khasra, khatauni &

khewat prepared on basis of survey of 1931, were also

available. In the records of all the three settlements and the

nazul survey, the disputed site has been mentioned as

Janmsthan and at places Ramjanmbhumi has also been

mentioned. On basis of the said mentions, I drew the

conclusion that the disputed site was the birth place of

Lord Rama. I had summoned and perused the original

record of the above-referred three settlements & 1931

survey, in my District Magistrate office and did not peruse

them in the record room. The three reports of settlements

were in English language and each report ran into fifty

pages. All these reports were in typed form. All the three

reports bore the name of the surveyor or the scribe, but I

do not remember any of those names. The three records of

the first and second settlement viz. khasra, khatauni and

khewat were in Urdu. However, to the best of my memory,

the records of the third settlement were in Hindi.” (E.T.C.)

^^lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh fgUnh izfr;ka Hkh ekStwn FkhaA og fgUnh izfr;ka

igys ls fjdkMZ ij miyC/k Fkh] eSaus ugha cuokbZ FkhaA ;s fgUnh izfr;ka

Hkh jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj ls gh esjs ikl vkbZ FkhaA 1931 ds ut+wy losZ ds

vfHkys[k Hkh mnwZ esa Fks] ftudh izfr;ka jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj ls ewy

vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk vkbZ FkhaA** ¼ist 55½

“The Hindi copies of all the records were available.

The Hindi copies were already available in the records,

and I had not got them prepared. These Hindi copies had

also come to me from the revenue record room. The records

of nazul survey of 1931, were in Urdu, whose copies had

come along with original records from the revenue record

5006

room.” (E.T.C.)

^^rhuksa lafVyeasV vkSj pkSFks] utwy losZ ds vfHkys[k esa dksV

jkepUnz dk gh uke fy[k gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 55&56½

“Only Kote Ramchandra was mentioned in the

records of three settlements and the fourth , nazul

survey.”(E.T.C.)

^^vk[kjh lsfVyesaV ds uEcjku 159] 160 o 160 , Fks] tks gesa ;kn

ugha gSaA mu lHkh uEcjku esa tUeLFkku fy[kk gqvk FkkA gj lsfVyesaV esa

IykV dh la[;k cny tkrh Fkh] ftu IykV ds uEcjku eSaus 159 o 160

crk;s gSa] os vkf[kjh cUnkscLr ds uEcjku FksA utwy ds losZ esa mlls

lacaf/kr uEcjku 583] 586 Fks] tks eq>s ;kn gSA** ¼ist 56½

"The numbers of the last settlement were 159, 160

and 160A, which I do not remember. Janamsthan was

written against all these numbers. The plot number

changes in every settlement. The plot numbers 159 and 160

given by me, were the numbers of the last settlement. The

numbers concerned to it in the Nazul survey were 583, 586,

which are within my memory." (E.T.C.)

^^utw+y losZ ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[kksa esa fookfnr LFky ls lacaf/kr

uEcjksa esa efLtn 'kkg ckcj ;k efLtn tUeLFkku ugha fy[kk Fkk] cfYd

flQ+Z tUeLFkku fy[kk FkkA fookfnr LFky ls lacaf/kr ut+wy uEcjksa esa

dfczLrku ugha fy[kk FkkA** ¼ist 56½

“In the records related to the nazul survey, neither

‘Masjid Shah Babar’ nor ‘Masjid Janmsthan’ was written

in the numbers related to the disputed site and instead only

Janmsthan was mentioned. Graveyard was not mentioned

in the concerned nazul numbers of the disputed

site.”(E.T.C.)

^^igys o nwljs cUnksacLr ds vfHkys[kksa esa fdlh uEcj esa efLtn]

'kkgh efLtn ;k tUeLFkku efltn ugha fy[kk FkkA rhljs cUnkscLr ds

5007

[kljk] [krkSuh o [ksoV esa fdlh&fdlh fjdkMZ esa bUVjiksys'ku Fks] ftlesa

fookfnr LFky ds dqN uEcjku esa tUeLFkku efLtn ;k dgha tkek

efLtn b.Vjiksys'ku ds }kjk fy[ks x;s FksA bldh fjiksVz eSaus Hksth FkhA

bl laca/k esa eSaus fjiksVZ 1989 esa cksMZ vkQ+ jsosU;w dks Hksth FkhA esjh

fjiksVZ ij tkWap gqbZ FkhA dksbZ vf/kdkjh jsosU;w cksMZ ls vk;s FksA tkWpdrkZ]

cksMZ vkQ jsosU;w ds lfpo ds uhps ds vf/kdkjh Fks] esEcj ughaA ftu

fjdkMZl esa b.Vjiksys'ku fd;s x;s Fks vkSj ftudh fjiksVZ eSaus Hksth Fkh]

mUgsa dHkh Bhd ugha fd;k x;k D;ksafd ekStwnk ekeyk vnkyr esa isafMax

FkkA** ¼ist 56&57½

“In no number of the records of first and second

settlement, there was any mention of mosque, royal mosque

or Janmsthan mosque. In certain records of khasra,

khatauni & khewat of the third settlement, there were

interpolations and Janmsthan Masjid or Jama Masjid were

interpolated in certain numbers of the disputed site. I had

sent its report. I had sent the report in the behalf to the

Board of Revenue in 1989. An enquiry was held on my

report. Some officer of Board of Revenue had come. The

investigator was an officer subordinate to the Secretary,

Board of Revenue and was not a member. The records in

which interpolation had been made and whose report I had

submitted, were never corrected because the matter was

pending in Court.” (E.T.C.)

4434. We may have another aspect. In para 24(B) of the

written statement in Suit-5, Muslim parties (U.P.Sunni Central

Board of Waqf) have said:

"The land in question undoubtedly belonged to the State

when the mosque in question was constructed on behalf of

the State and as such it cannot be said that it could not be

decided for the purposes of the mosque."

5008

4435. The claim of the muslim parties is that the entire

territory which came in the control of Babar after defeating

Ibrahim Lodhi and others became his land since king was the

owner of the land and no system of private ownership was

recognized and therefore, he was at liberty to direct for any kind

of construction on such land and the land could not have been

treated to be owned by any private individual or anyone else.

4436. Let us consider this aspect also in the context of the

theory of 'Nazul'. Such kind of land cannot be a Nazul land. If

the entire territory during Mughal regime would that of a king,

as soon as the territory annexation or otherwise changed its hand

with the East India Company, they would have entered into the

shoes of the Mughal king and got the same rights, obligations,

privileges etc. on the land. The status of the land would not have

changed in such a manner. Such a land could not be confiscated

since it was already the land of the king but when a

proclamation was issued for confiscating the land, meaning

thereby the East India Company or the British Government did

not follow the same principle. In our view, in such a matter,

even the doctrine of "escheat" or "bona vacantia" may not be

applicable

4437. The question as to who could have been owner of

the land in 1528 AD when alleged that the disputed building was

constructed by Babar through his Commander Mir Baqi, the

concept sought to be canvassed is that law, whether Islam or

Hindu Shastras, do not recognise any personal right of

ownership upon immoveable property. The entire property

within the suzerainty of the king belong to him, who had right to

tax its subject in the form of tax or otherwise by realising share

5009

in the agricultural or other income in the immoveable property.

The percentage of share may differ and that may not be relevant

for our purpose.

4438. The second aspect of the matter is that since ancient

time the right of ownership proceeded with possession and is

recognized by the well known principle "possession follows

title". The individual right of ownership therefore was well

recognized in the various personal laws and the only right the

king had to acquire the land in known valid means, namely by

purchase or gift etc. The obligation upon the king is to protect

the subject and his property from enemies and for that purpose

he used to raise revenue from the subject in the form of tax

and/or share from the income of the property etc. It is said that

the King, by virtue of its authority, was not the sole owner of the

entire immoveable property within his suzerainty but though the

immoveable property was subject to his suzerainty, the

individual right of the owner on the property continued to be

recognized. Besides, the fact that the land could have been

acquired by the king by valid means like purchase, gift etc.,

meaning thereby other modes of acquisition of immoveable

property by King existed otherwise no private owner of the land

in question would have been there within his suzerainty.

4439. The learned counsel for the parties in this aspect

referred to the doctrine of Escheat/bona vacantia. We find that

the right of the King to take property by escheat or as bona

vacantia was recognized by common law of England. Escheat

property was the lord's right of re-entry on real property held by

a tenant dying intestate without lawful heirs. It was an incident,

of feudal tenure and based on the want of a tenant to perform the

5010

feudal services. On the tenant dying intestate without leaving

any lawful heirs, his estate came to an end and the lord was in

by his own right and not by way of succession or inheritance

from the tenant to re-enter the real property as owner. In most of

the cases the land escheated to the Crown as the lord paramount,

in view of the gradual elimination of intermediate or mesne

lords since 1290 AD. The Crown takes as bona vacantia goods

in which no one else can claim property. In Dyke Vs. Walford 5

Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER 557 (580) it was said "it is the right

of the Crown to bona vacantia to property which has no other

owner." The right of the Crown to take as bona vacantia extends

to personal property of every kind. Giving a notice at this stage

that the escheat of real property of an intestate dying without

heirs was abolished in 1925 and the Crown cannot take its

property as bona vacantia. The principle of acquisition of

property by escheat i.e right of the Government to take on

property by escheat or bona vacantia for want of a rightful

owner was enforced in the Indian territory during the period of

East India Company by virtue of statute 16 and 17 Victoriae, C.

95, Section 27.

4440. We may recollect having gone through the history

that several estates were taken over by British Company by

applying the doctrine of lapse like Jhansi which was another

kind of the above two principles. The above provisions had

continued by virtue of Section 54 of Government of India Act,

1858, Section 20(3)(iii) of Government of India Act, 1915 and

Section 174 of the Government of India Act, 1935. After the

enactment of the Constitution of independent India, Article 296

now provides :

5011

"Subject as hereinafter provided, any property in the

territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come

into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as

the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat

or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner,

shall if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State,

and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union."

4441. The Apex Court in Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd.

(supra) has considered the above principles in the context of

sovereign India as it stands under its constitution after

independence and has observed that "in this country the

Government takes by escheat immoveable as well as moveable

property for want of an heir or successor. In this country escheat

is not based on artificial rules of common law and is not an

incident of feudal tenure. It is an incident of sovereignty and

rests on the principle of ultimate ownership by the State of all

property within its jurisdiction."

4442. The Apex Court placed reliance on Collector of

Masulipatam Vs. C. Vencata Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525;

Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA

92, 101, Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Vs. State of

Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146, Legal Remembrancer Vs.

Corporation of Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204.

4443. The Judicial Committee in Cook Vs. Sprigg 1899

AC 572 discussing what is an act of state, observed :

“The taking possession by Her Majesty, whether by

cession or by any other means by which sovereignty can be

acquired, was an act of State.”

4444. This decision has been followed in Raja Rajinder

5012

Chand Vs. Mst. Sukhi and others AIR 1957 S.C. 286.

4445. In Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary of State

AIR 1924 PC 216, Lord Dunedin said :

“When a territory is acquired by a sovereign State

for the first time, that is an act of State. It matters not how

the acquisition has been brought about. It may be by

conquest, it may be by cession following on treaty, it may

be by occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a

recognised ruler. In all cases the result is the same. Any

inhabitant of the territory can make good in the municipal

Courts established by the new sovereign only such rights as

that sovereign has, through his officers, recognised. Such

rights as he had under the rule of predecessors avail him

nothing.”

4446. In Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1958 SC 816, the Court

said :

“The expression 'act of State' is, it is scarcely necessary to

say, not limited to hostile action between rulers resulting in

the occupation of territories. It includes all acquisitions of

territory by a sovereign State for the first time, whether it

be by conquest or cession.”

4447. In Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa AIR

1962 SC 1288, the Court said, “ 'Act of State' is the taking over

of sovereign powers by a State in respect of territory which was

not till then a part of its territory, either by conquest, treaty or

cession, or otherwise.”

4448. To the same effect was the view taken by the

Constitution Bench in Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab

5013

AIR 1962 SC 1305 in para 12 as under :

“It is settled law that conquest is not the only mode by

which one State can acquire sovereignty over the territories

belonging to another State, and that the same result can be

achieved in any other mode which has the effect of

establishing its sovereignty.”

4449. In Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan

AIR 1955 SC 504, in para 40, the Court said :

“The status of a person must be either that of a

sovereign or a subject. There is no tertium quid. The law

does not recognise an intermediate status of a person being

partly a sovereign and partly a subject and when once it is

admitted that the Bhomicharas had acknowledged the

sovereignty of Jodhpur their status can only be that of a

subject. A subject might occupy an exalted position and

enjoy special privileges, but he is none the less a

subject ...”

4450. In State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Sajjanlal

Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706 it was held that the

Rules of the erstwhile Indian States exercised sovereign powers,

legislative, executive and judicial. Their firmans were laws

which could not be challenged prior to the Constitution. The

Court relied on its earlier two decisions in Director of

Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs. Akram Ali AIR 1956

SC 60, and Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC

862.

4451. In Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa A.I.R.

1962 S.C. 1288 “act of the State” was explained in the following

words:

5014

“an “act of State” may be the taking over of sovereign

powers either by conquest or by treaty or by cession or

otherwise. It may have happened on a particular date by a

public declaration or proclamation, or it may have been

the result of a historical process spread over many years,

and sovereign powers including the right to legislate in that

territory and to administer it may be acquired without the

territory itself merging in the new State.”

4452. This decision has been followed later on in

Biswambhar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors.

1964(1) Supreme Court Journal 364.

4453. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the applicant,

however, submitted that the State has already given up and is

not contesting the matter though it is a party in the suit. In the

circumstances, whosoever may have in the possession in the

Nazul record of the Government, it would not result in treating

the land in dispute owned by the Government or belonging to

the Government. Hence the matter has to be decided between

the parties other than the Government, who has given up its case

and has made a statement that it is not contesting the matter.

4454. Sri S.P.Srivastava, learned Additional Chief

Standing Counsel has made a statement to this effect before us

that as per his instructions, the State Government is not

contesting the suit.

4455. In view thereof and fortified by the law laid down in

State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh

(supra) despite the fact that building is shown to continued as

Nazul plot no.583 of Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot

Ram Chandra, we find that it will not make any impact upon the

5015

claim of the various parties of the two communities since the

State of U.P. is not claiming any right over the property in

dispute and has specifically taken a stand of no contest. The

issue 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) is answered accordingly.

4456. Issue No.5 (Suit-5) is as under:

"Is the property in question properly identified and

described in the plaint?"

4457. This issue pertains to the identification of the

property in dispute as described in the plaint. Counsel for

defendants No.4 and 5 submitted that the suit as framed show

the property in respect whereto relief was sought as mentioned

in the annexures no.1, 2 and 3 to the plaint and do not specify of

the boundaries of the property in respect whereto Suit-5 was

filed. However, so far as the disputed site and structure is

concerned, there is no dispute between the parties in respect

thereto either about its identification or description. After the

decision of the Apex Court in Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui's case

(supra) holding acquisition of property by the Central

Government under Act, 1993, except the site in dispute, valid,

the only area which is now required to dealt with by us in all

these cases is that which comprises of the of outer and inner

courtyard including disputed structure.

4458. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

since the property in dispute against which now the Court is

required to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief

or not is well identified and known to all the parties, there is no

ambiguity. Issue No.5 is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour

of the plaintiffs.

4459. (M) Issues relating to Specific Relief Act:

5016

4460. Issues no. 8 (Suit-1) and 18 (Suit-5) falls in this

category which read as under:

Issue No. 8 :-"Is the suit barred by proviso to Section

42 Specific Relief Act?"

Issue No. 18:-"Whether the suit is barred by section

34 of the Specific Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of

the additional written statement of defendant no.3 and also

as alleged in paragraph 47 of the written statement of

defendant no.4 and paragraph 62 of the written statement

of defendant no. 5?"

4461. In Suit-1 issue 8 has been framed in view of the

pleadings of defendants no. 1 to 5 (i.e. para 17 of the written

statement) as well as para 17 of the written statement of

defendant no. 10 which read as under:

Written statement of defendants no. 1 to 5

^^nQk 17- ;g fd eqn~nbZ dk dCtk ;k dksbZ gd ckdh ugha jgk vkSj

u gSA bl otg ls nkok bLrdjkfj;k glc nQk 42 dkuqu nknjlh

[kkl ukdkfcy QthjkbZ vnkyr gSA**

"Para 17. That right or possession of the plaintiffs

remained no more and, therefore, this suit for declaration

under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not

maintainable. (E.T.C.)

Written statement of defendant no. 10

"17. That as the plaintiff has never remained in possession

or occupation of the building in suit, he has no right, title

or claim over the said property and as such the suit is even

barred by the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief

Act."

4462. In Suit-5 para 42 of the additional written statement

of defendant no. 3, para 47 of the written statement of defendant

5017

no. 4 and para 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5

read as under:

"42. That site plan annexure II attached to the abovenoted

plaint does not bear any plot no's (settlement or Nazul) nor

it is bounded as to give any definite identity of property.

Temple Shri Vijay Ragho ji Sakshi Gopal has never been

subject matter of the any of the suit O.O.S. 4/89 or O.O.S.

3/89 pending before this Hon'ble Court. Sumitra Bhawan is

another temple shown in the site plan. Which is temple of

Sheshaawatar Laxmanji Maharaj and that is why it is

famous name of his mother Sumitra as Sumitra Bhawan. It

has been in possession and management of Mahant Raj

Mangal Das one of the panch of Nirmohi Akhara. The

Nazul plot no 588 measuring 1-6-13-15 Kachwanceis of

Mohalla Ram Kot is recorded with Deity Laxamanji

Maharaj through Ram Das Nirmohi who is Guru of Raj

Mangal Das. Mah Ram Das of Sumitra Bhwan is recorded

in settlement plot no. 168 to 174 as qubiz. Similarly

Lomash Chaura Mandir, Sita Koop Mandir, Kuti shown is

said map has distinct Deity of Bhagwa Ram Lalaji by the

other panches of Nirmohi Akhara namely and respectively

Mahant Dwarika Das, Mahant Naval Kishore Das and

Ram Gopal Das who are all panches of Nirmohi Akhara.

Sankat Mochan temple have been omitted in the said map

whereas it did exist on the date of this suit. It has its deity

Sankat Mochan Hanomanji and Thakur Ram Janki

represented by Sarbarakar Ram Dayal saran Chela of Ram

Lakhan saran. Late Ram Lakhan Saran and also belong to

the spiritual family of Nirmohi Akhara as he was Naga

5018

chela of Goliki Ram Lakhan Das, one of the old panch of

Nirmohi Akhara. Other Samadhis in the name of famous

sages have been owned and claimed by answering

defendant no. 3 as Samadhies of old Sadhus of Nirmohi

Akhara. Panches and Sadhus of Akhara are living in the

surrounding since before the human memory. The outer

Sahan carried a little temple of Bhagwan Ram Lalaji along

with other place which are regularly worshipped according

to the customs prevailing amongst Rama Nandi Vairagies.

The outer part with this temple of Ram Lallaji and other

deities have ever been in management and charge of

Nirmohi Akhara as sheibiat till this outer portion with

Bhandar was attached U/s 145 Cr. P.C. On 16.2.82 and a

receiver is appointed there vide order of Civil Judge

Faizabad in Reg. Suit 239/82 Sri Ram Rama Nandi

Nirmohi Akhara Versus K.K. Ram Varma etc. due to lootpat

committed by Dharam Das. Mr. Deoki Nandan Agarwal

has named himself to be witness of Dharam Das. Therefore

suit for all these properties by plaintiff 3 is not

maintainable for want of possession and is barred by

provision of sec. 34 of specific Relief Act.

47. That the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of

the Specific Relief Act also.

62. That the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of a real

and subsisting cause of action and not seeking relief of

possession u/s 34 Specific Relief Act and as per plaint

averment there is on surviving cause of action in favour of

the plaintiffs."

4463. Issue 8 (Suit-1) relates to Section 42 of the Specific

5019

Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963"). It

would be useful first to have a glance over the said provision:

42. Injunction to perform negative agreement.-- Notwith-

standing anything contained in clause (e) of Section 41,

where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do

a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express

or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstances that

the court is unable to compel specific performance of the

affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting

an injunction to perform the negative agreement:

Provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the

contract so far as it is binding on him.

4464. Before enactment of Act, 1963 the field was

governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (in short Act, 1877).

The corresponding provision in the earlier enactments was

Section 47 pari meteria with the present Section 42. Section

41(e) of Act, 1963 recognize a general rule that an injunction

ought not to be granted to prevent breach of contract, the

performance of which would not be specifically enforced. For

example a contract of personal service is not specifically

enforceable. Therefore, no injunction should be granted to

restrain its breach and this is what is recognised and specifically

provided in Section 41(e) of Act, 1963.

4465. To this general rule enunciated in Section 41(e), the

legislature has recognised an exception and has embodied it in

Section 42. Where a contract contains both, a negative and an

affirmative stipulation, the Court will interfere by injunction to

restrain breach of the negative portion of the contract without

referring to the question whether or not the whole contract is

5020

capable of specifically enforced. It is said that this provision is

in recognition of the view expressed in Lumley Vs. Wagner,

(1865) 1 Eq. 411. It appears that before the decision in Lumley

Vs. Wagner (supra) the British Courts were of the view when it

may not enforce the positive part of contract, it ought not to

restrain by injunction any breach of the negative part. This view

was overruled in Lumley Vs. Wagner (supra) and Lord St.

Leonards observed:

"Wherever this Court has no proper jurisdiction to

enforce specific performance it operates to bind men's

conscience as far as they can be bound to a true and literal

performance of their agreement and it will not suffer them

to depart from their contracts at their pleasure leaving the

party with whom they have contracted to the mere chance

of any damages which a jury may give."

4466. During the course of the argument learned counsel

for the defendant-muslim parties have not addressed us as to

how Suit-1 deserves to be defeated by virtue of Section 42. The

claim of the plaintiff is neither based on any contract nor

agreement but it is a personal right of his own, enforcement

whereof he has sought by seeking a declaration that he has a

right to worship at the place in dispute, i.e., a place for which

Suit-1 is confined, i.e., the inner courtyard and secondly that the

objects of his worship exist thereat be not disturbed and he

should not be obstructed in observance of his personal right of

worship. It would have been a different thing if the argument

would have been that the obstruction, if any, by the official

defendants is in performance of their official duties and

enforcement of a statutory order passed by the Magistrate under

5021

Section 145 Cr.P.C., hence an injunction restraining them from

creating a so called obstruction which is nothing but the

compliance of the statutory order cannot be granted, which

could have been considered in its context but here the specific

objection is with reference to Section 42 of the Specific Relief

Act which in our view is ex facie not attracted in this case. Issue

8 (Suit-1) is accordingly answered in negative. It is held that

the suit is not barred by proviso to Section 42 of Act, 1963.

4467. Issue 18 (Suit-5) relates to Section 34 of Act, 1963

and here also it would be prudent to have a glance over the

relevant provision:

"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or

right . - Any person entitled to any legal character, or to

any right as to any property, may institute a suit against

any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such

character or right, and the court may in its discretion make

therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff

need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration

where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a

mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation.-A trustee of property is a "person interested

to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not

in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a

trustee.

4468 The basic submission of defendants no. 3, 4 and 5

(Suit-5) in persuading this Court to hold the suit not

maintainable by virtue of Section 34 of Act 1963 is that the

5022

plaintiffs being out of possession of the property for which the

suit in question has been filed, cannot seek a mere declaration

and injunction unless a relief for possession is also claimed in

absence whereof the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Act. This

we have already dealt with in detail at various stages earlier also

but since it is a substantial objection raised by the defendants

and persuaded at length by Sri R.L. Verma, Advocate for

Nirmohi Akhara we shall deal here in detail.

4469. Suit-5 has been filed by two plaintiffs, i.e., the idol

and the place, i.e., Sri Ramjanambhumi Asthan as deity with the

status of juridical personality through next friend for the

protection of themselves and the property vests in them. On the

date when the suit was filed, both the deities were at the site in

dispute despite of the premises under attachment and the

management in the hands of a Receiver. We have already held

that the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are juridical persons. Both are at

the site in dispute. It is nobody's case that the deity is not

existing or present at the disputed site though by its very nature

the management and care has to be taken by a natural person

and since the date of attachment it is in the hands of a Receiver.

The possession of Receiver is, therefore, qua deity is like that of

a shebait or a manager. Since the deities are already there

residing and existing, for their purpose it is sufficient to seek a

declaration about their status as well as that of property and

nothing more is required except where if they have any

apprehension of obstruction etc., in the enjoyment of their status

or property, they can always seek an injunction for prevention of

such obstruction.

4470. Where an action is brought to obtain a declaration of

5023

a person's right vis a vis a property, in such a case bar provided

under Section 34 of Act 1963 would not be attracted. In Limba

Bin Krishna and others Vs. Rama Bin Pimplu and anothers,

1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548 while considering the question of

applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 in a

case where the plaintiffs sought a declaration regarding his right

to perform worship of an idol, it was held that such a suit is

maintainable and not barred by Section 42 of Act 1963. A

Division Bench of Bombay High Court relied on a Calcutta

High Court in Mitta Kunth Audhicarry Vs. Neerunjun

Audhicarry, 14 Beng. L.R. 166, Couch C.J., described the right

of a plaintiff to perform worship of an idol as 'property' subject

to partition, the joint owners being entitled to perform the

worship. It also relied on Pranshankar Vs. Prannath

Mahanand, 1 Bom H. C. Rep. 12 wherein it was held that an

action would lie to obtain a binding declaration of a person's

right to perform the duties of a Pujari and to receive the

proceeds of the Mandir.

4471. In Surayya and another Vs. Annapurnamma,

1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699 the Court held that a suit for declaring

a will allegedly executed by a family member forged is

maintainable and not barred by Section 42 of Act 1877.

4472. In a different context, but involving a similar

situation, a suit by deity seeking a declaration for the property

and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the

user of the property was held maintainable at the instance of

deity. In Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others Vs. The

Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43)

CWN 1056 a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered

5024

a suit filed by the worshippers seeking following reliefs:

"(1) That the land in dispute may be declared to be the

Debsthan of the Shiva Linga deities and a public place of

worship of the Hindu public and that the public had

acquired an absolute and indefeasible right to the use of

the same as a Debsthan by long and uninterrupted user

from time immemorial and to build the temples of the

deities and for a declaration that the Shamnagar Jute

Factory has not right and title thereto or any right to

interfere with the building of the temple on the disputed

land;

(b) for declaration that the action of the Defendant

Municipality in refusing sanction for the construction of the

temple of the deities was illegal and ultra vires;

(c) for declaration that the action of the Defendant in

prosecuting the Plaintiffs under sec. 501 of the Bengal

Municipal Act was illegal;

(d) for an injunction restraining the Defendant

Municipality from proceeding with the prosecution;

(e) for an injunction upon the Defendants from interfering

with the public right of worship and entry on the land;

(f) for costs of the suit and

(g) for any other relief which they might be entitled under

law."

4473. The Court recorded its finding with respect to the

maintainability of suit on pages 1058-1059 and said:

"On hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, it

5025

appears to me that the plaint was undoubtedly defective but

at the same time the defects were not of such a character as

would justify a dismissal of the entire suit. From the plaint

as it is framed it is quite obvious that the suit was not

instituted by or on behalf of the deities. It would have been

quite in order if the deities themselves had brought the suit

through the Plaintiffs as their representatives. They might

have prayed for a declaration of their title to the property

in suit and for an injunction restraining the Defendants

from interfering with their possession and user of the same.

As the plaint stands, however, the Plaintiffs who claim to

represent the Hindu public of Garulia, come in not as

shebaits or as representatives of the idols but as

worshippers and some amount of confusion has been

introduced in the plaint by mixing up the rights of the

deities and those of the worshipping public. From

paragraph 9 of the plaint as well as from prayer (a) it will

appear that the Plaintiffs want in the first place that the

land in suit might be declared to be a Debsthan of the idols

and in the second place they want it to be declared that it is

a public place of worship and that the Hindu public has, by

prescription, acquired an indefeasible right to use the same

and to build temples upon it. The right to build temples is

therefore claimed by the Plaintiffs as members of the public

as a part of their rights as worshippers. It is not claimed by

or on behalf of the deities as a necessary adjunct of the

proprietary right which the deities might have had in the

land in suit. I cannot accept the proposition of law put

forward by Mr. Mukherji that as the deities are said to be

5026

public deities the Hindu public of the locality constitute

shebaits de jure. In case of a public deity the public

undoubtedly have a right of worship but from that it does

not necessarily follow that they are the shebaits of the deity

in the sense that they are the only people to manage the

temporal affairs of the deity and look after its worship. As a

matter of fact no such case was attempted to be made in the

plaint, which proceeds on the footing that it is a public

place of worship and the rights of user which the public

have got, carry with them the right to build temples upon

the land. Accepting therefore the position that the Plaintiffs

have instituted the suit in the capacity of persons interested

in the worship of these deities and not as shebaits or as

representatives of the idols, I think it was quite competent

for them to sue for a declaration that the property in suit

belonged to the idols. This is clear from the decision of the

Judicial Committee in the case of Abdur Rahim Vs.

Mahomed Barkat Ali, L.R. 55 I.A. 96. The deity is not a

necessary party to such a suit though it may be desirable to

make it a party so that the decision might be made

conclusive and binding for all times to come. Similarly the

Plaintiffs are entitled to have a declaration in this suit that

the land in suit is a public place of worship and that they

have a right to use it as such. The deity would also not be a

necessary party to a suit for a declaration of this

character."

4474. Applicability of Section 34 can be seen from another

angle. The deity being an artificial personality, the right of

possession as per the Hindu law text vests in the natural person

5027

who is responsible of taking care, i.e., Sewa, Prarthana etc.

which is normally called Shebait or manager. It is in this context

that it has been held that right to sue or being sued vests in the

Shebait. This phrase we have already considered and explained

above. It means that since an artificial person does not have a

capacity to possess or to act like a natural person, it acts through

a natural person and hence right to possession, management and

also to bring an action, i.e., corporeal activities vest in such

natural person but that does not mean that the deity shall always

depend upon such person. Where the rights of deities are

otherwise affected, a worshipper can also bring an action for the

benefit of the deity and its property but in such a case such next

friend shall not be entitled to claim possession. The position

may have a different colour where the deity is in the nature of a

Swayambhu deity and there is no defined or ascertained natural

person who is employed to take its care. The deity is open for

worship to public at large but no individual is assigned the job

of maintenance of the deity. In such case it is for the Court to

appoint a person to take care but when the deity filed suit for

protection of itself or its property, on which it is continuing to

present/reside or existing, no relief of possession is necessary, a

suit for mere declaration can be filed.

4475. In Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and others

(supra) a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in

para 8 of the judgment said:

"8. It has been contended by the defendants/respondents

that the suit as framed for a declaration simpliciter was not

maintainable under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963, for the defendants are in possession of the

5028

property in suit. In our view the defendants as well as the

Court below misconceived the provisions of Section 34 of

the S. R. Act. Section 34 of the S. R. Act provides that any

person entitled to any loyal character or to any right as to

any property, may institute a suit against any person

denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or

right and the Court may in its discretion make such a

declaration. There is a proviso attached to Section 34

which contemplates that no Court shall make any such

declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further

relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. It is

under this proviso that the defendants contended that the

suit for mere declaration was not tenable without seeking

further relief of possession. In our opinion the present suit

does not fall under Section 34 of the Act for the reason that

the present suit was not instituted by the Anjuman for a

declaration of its own right or title to property in suit, or its

right to a legal character. But it was a suit, on the other

hand, to challenge the defendants assertion for right to

property and their legal character in respect thereof. But

assuming the suit falls under the provisions of Section 34 of

the Act yet it would he tenable for declaration simpliciter

and the plaintiff will have locus standi to bring the suit

because the plaintiff was not Mutwalli or trustee of the

alleged wakf and it did not claim to possess the property in

its own behalf. Therefore, the plaintiff was not legally

entitled to possession. The plaintiff therefore could not

have asked for any further relief for possession. In such a

position it was not necessary at all for the plaintiff to claim

5029

any consequential relief and in our opinion there can be no

doubt that in the circumstances of this case the plaintiff had

a right to ask for a declaratory relief only that the suit

property was wakf and not the private property of the

defendants. In this view of the matter we are supported by

the decisions in Ram Rup v. Sarn Dayal, AIR 1936 Lah.

283 decided by Coldstream, J.-- and Abdul Rahim v. Faqir

Mohd, Shah, AIR 1946 Nag. 401."

4476. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 has been

explained by the Apex Court in Vemareddi Ramaraghava

Reddy and others Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy (supra) and in

para 11 it says:

"11. In our opinion, S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is

not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree

may be made and the courts have power to grant such a

decree independently of the requirements of the section. It

follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the

plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not

binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the

purview of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."

4477. In the context of a suit filed for the benefit of deity

by the next friend, the Court held that a mere declaratory suit is

proper. In paras 10 and 12 of the judgment the Court held:

"10. The legal position is also well-established that

the worshipper of a Hindu temple is entitled, in certain

circumstances, to bring a suit for declaration that the

alienation of the temple properties by the de jure Shebait is

invalid and not binding upon the temple. If a Shebait has

improperly alienated trust property a suit can be brought

5030

by any person interested for a declaration that such

alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for

recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless

the plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the

possession. Worshippers of temples are in the position of

cestuui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense

(See Vidhyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi

Thirthaswami, 1904 ILR 27 Mad. 435 at page 451). Since

the worshippers do not exercise the deity's power of

suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to

recover possession of the property improperly alienated

by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory

decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity (See

for example, Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v.

Kasturiranga Ayyangar, ILR 40 Mad 212:AIR 1917 Mad

112 (FB) and Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. Nallasiva

Mudaliar, ILR 41 Mad 124:AIR 1918 Mad 464). It has also

been decided by the Judicial Committee in Abdur Rahim v.

Mahomed Barkat Ali, 55 Ind. App. 96: AIR 1928 PC 16

that a suit for a declaration that property belongs to a wakf

can be maintained by Mahomedans interested in the wakf

without the sanction of the Advocate-General, and a

declaration can be given in such a suit that the plaintiff is

not bound by the compromise decree relating to wakf

properties."

"12. The next question presented for determination in

this case is whether the compromise decree is invalid for

the reason that the Commissioner did not represent the

deity. The High Court has taken the view that the

5031

Commissioner could not represent the deity because S. 20

of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act

provided only that the administration of all the endowments

shall be under the superintendence and control of the

Commissioner. Mr. Babula Reddy took us through all the

provisions of the Act but he was not able to satisfy us that

the Commissioner had authority to represent the deity in

the judicial proceedings. It is true that under S. 20 of the

Act the Commissioner is vested with the power of

superintendence and control over the temple but that does

not mean that he has authority to represent the deity in

proceedings before the District Judge under S. 85 of the

Act. As a matter of law the only person who can represent

the deity or who can bring a suit on behalf of the deity is

the Shebait, and although a deity is a juridical person

capable of holding property, it is only in an ideal sense that

property is so held. The possession and management of the

property with the right to sue in respect thereof are, in the

normal course, vested in the Shebait, but where, however,

the Shebait is negligent or where the Shebait himself is the

guilty party against whom the deity needs relief it is open to

the worshippers or other persons interested in the religious

endowment to file suits for the protection of the trust

properties. It is open, in such a case to the deity to file a

suit through some person as next friend for recovery of

possession of the property improperly alienated or for

other relief. Such a next friend may be a person who is a

worshipper of the deity or as a prospective Shebait is

legally interested in the endowment. In a case where the

5032

Shebait has denied the right of the deity to the dedicated

properties, it is obviously desirable that the deity should

file the suit through a disinterested next friend, nominated

by the court. The principle is clearly stated in Pramath

Nath v. Pradymma Kumar, ILR 52 Cal. 809. That was a suit

between contending Shebaits about the location of the

deity, and the Judicial Committee held that the will of the

idol on that question must be respect, and inasmuch as the

idol was not represented otherwise than by Shebaits, it

ought to appear through a disinterested next friend

appointed by the Court. In the present case no such action

was taken by the District Court in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and as

there was no representation of the deity in that judicial

proceeding it is manifest that the compromise decree

cannot be binding upon the deity. It was also contended by

Mr. P. Rama Reddy on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the

compromise decree was beyond was beyond the scope of

the proceedings in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and was, therefore,

invalid. In our opinion, this argument is well-founded and

must prevail. The proceeding was brought under s. 84(2) of

the old Act (Act II of 1927) for setting aside the order of the

Board dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri

Kodandaramaswami as a temple defined in S. 6, clause 17

of the Act and for a declaration that the temple was a

private temple. After the passing of the new Act, namely

Madras Act 19 of 1951, there was an amendment of the

original petition and the amended petition included a

prayer for a further declaration that the properties in

dispute are the personal properties of the petitioner's

5033

family and not the properties of the temple. Such a

declaration was outside the purview of S. 84(2) of Madras

Act II of 1927 and could not have been granted. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that the contention of respondent

no. 1 is correct and that he is entitled to a declaratory

decree that the compromise decree in O.P. no. 3 of 1950

was not valid and was not binding upon Sri

Kodandaramaswami temple."

4478. No authority is cited by learned counsels to persuade

us to take a different view. The suit in question cannot be held

barred by Section 34 of Act 1963. The issue 18 (Suit-5) is

accordingly answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants

no. 3, 4 and 5.

4479. (N) Others, if any:

4480. The discussions and the evidences, which we have

already considered in respect to the above issues on the question

of juridical person, next friend, limitation, possession/adverse

possession and relating to characteristics of Mosque and Wakf,

etc. there are some other issues which are mostly covered by the

findings already recorded above and, hence, the same may also

be dealt with hereat.

4481. Issue No. 2 (Suit-3):

"Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff

no.1?"

4482. As is evident, the property in suit for the purpose of

Suit-3 is the premises within the inner courtyard. The plaintiff,

though claimed to be the owner thereof and its counsel has also

made a statement to this effect under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C., but

not even a single document has been placed on record to show

5034

the title. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff sought to claim

acquisition of title by way of adverse possession against the

Muslim parties. This claim we have already negatived above.

We answer this issue in negative, i.e., against the plaintiff.

4483. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) reads as under:

"Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge

of the said temple?"

4484. The plaintiff claim handing over of charge of the

property in suit and the disputed structure to it instead of the

Receiver. The basis of the claim is that the property in suit was

all through a temple even before 1528 and has always been

managed, possessed and owned by the plaintiff. It has however

miserably failed to prove this fact. This aspect we have already

discussed in detail while considering the issues relating to

limitation and possession/adverse possession etc. We have also

held that the idols were kept under the central dome inside the

inner courtyard in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949. The

plaintiffs having disputed this incident being a factitious and

fabricated story, the question of their treating as Shebait in

respect of the idols placed under the central dome on 22nd/23rd

December, 1949 does not arise since according to their own

pleadings, they have not admitted any where of taking care of

the deity in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the

disputed structure. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3), therefore, is answered

in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.

4485. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3):

"Is the suit not maintainable as framed?"

4486. This issue has arisen for the reason that the property

in dispute was attached and handed over to the Receiver

5035

pursuant to a statutory order passed by the Magistrate under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 29.12.1949. If the plaintiff (Suit-3) had

any grievance, it could have filed objection before the

Magistrate inasmuch order of attachment was a preliminary

order and was subject to the final order under Section 145(2)

Cr.P.C., but no such objection appears to have been filed by the

plaintiff (Suit-3) before the Magistrate. The plaintiffs did not

seek any declaration about its title or status and without

determining the same, the Civil Judge could not have directed

handing over charge from the Receiver to the plaintiff. It is for

this reason, in our view, Suit-3 is not maintainable. The issue is

answered accordingly.

4487. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4):

"Whether even after construction of the building in

suit Deities of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan,

Sri Ram Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the property in

suit as alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and the said

places continued to be visited by devotees for purposes of

worship? If so, whether the property in dispute continued

to vest in the said Deities?"

4488. In view of our findings recorded in respect to Issue

No. 1 (Suit-5), holding that the place can be a 'deity' and also in

view of our finding recorded in respect to the issues relating to

possession/adverse possession that the Hindus, believing the

place in dispute as birthplace of Lord Rama, had been

continuously vising it for the purpose of worship, it is evident

that the status of place as deity had continued. We have already

held that a deity is not damaged or comes to end due to

destruction in any manner, since the spirit of Supreme Being

5036

continue to exist and it will not disappear, particularly when the

deity is Swayambhu, i.e. self created. The property in dispute,

therefore, has a dual character. Firstly, being birthplace of Lord

Rama, as per the beliefs of Hindus, it is a Swyambhu deity and

would continue so long as the place continue, but then, being an

immovable property, it also has its nature as property. The

question of owning the property is different than the status. On

this aspect, we have to examine the relevant area. The area of

fort of Lord Rama is said to be quite bigger. It is claimed to have

several mansions (eight mansions), besides other kinds of

structures. In various evidences, which we have already

discussed, it is mentioned that the disputed structure was

constructed on some part of the area covered by the Fort of Lord

Rama. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) in 1989

claiming a much larger area. During the course of arguments,

we inquired from the learned counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-5), Sri

M.M. Pandey, as to what is his concept of place of birth.

Whether he considered the area constituting deity equal to a

small room or to a small house or a bigger house or the entire

locality, city, province or country, as the case may be. Despite of

our repeated query, learned counsel could not tell us as to what

is his the concept of place of birth for the purpose of this case.

Various religious literature, which have been placed before us,

show that Ayodhya is believed to be the place of birth of Lord

Rama. It did not specify any particular area or a particular place

in Ayodhya. We have held that a place can be a deity and a

Swyambhu deity. It is quite possible that the entire city may be

held to be very pious and sacred on account of some occurrence

of divinity or religious spirituality. It may happen that a small

5037

place may attain such a status. For example, the tree under

which Gautam Buddha attained divine knowledge is considered

to be extremely sacred and pious place by Buddhist. When Lord

Rama born in Ayodhya and must have played and walked

throughout thereat, entire the then territory of city of Ayodhya,

from the point of view of all Hindu people, must acquire the

status of reverence and piety, but then can it be said that such

bigger place cannot absorb and accommodate persons having

different faith or religion or those worship differently. No doubt

true, if such absorption or accommodation has the result of

extinguishing the very place of reverence, meaning thereby the

very object of faith and belief may vanish, such absorption may

not be allowed, but otherwise, in a country like ours, where

unity in diversity is its characteristic, the existence of people or

other faith, existence of their place of religion at a place, in

wider sense as its known, cannot be ruled out and by necessity

they will have to exist, live and survive together. There are

several cities in India which are considered to be the place of

reverence of highest degree like Kashi, Haridwar, Prayag,

Ayodhya, Mathura etc. Can it be said in the independent India

governed by a written Constitution the existence of or

permissibility to establish or to create place of worship of

people of different religion will depend upon undefined,

unknown and unclassified kind of faith or belief of another

section particularly when it is a case of a majority people in

respect of a place. Nobody has ever bothered, the people of

different religions in these very places of reverence have been

residing thereat since time immemorial and have very well

established temples of their faith. In all the places which are

5038

known to be major Tirtha places of Hindus, religious places of

other religion are well established and there is complete comity

and understanding between all the people. They all mutually

respect the places of worship of different religions. At Ayodhya

also a large number of Mosques are in existence, which have

also came in evidence inasmuch some of the witnesses have

estimated the number of Mosques in Ayodhya from 50 to 80.

Even in the building in dispute, though the structure was raised

as a Mosque known and called a Mosque, yet Hindus continued

to visit it and worship thereat on account of their cemented faith

and belief which could not be withered due to construction of

such building. Simultaneously, Muslims also visited the

premises, as we have already noticed, may be occasionally but

the fact remains that they visited the premises and offered

Namaz. This system and arrangement without any dispute had

continued for almost hundred years as evident which we could

get and notice above. There do not appear to be any grievance

raised by any Hindu that the Muslims cannot visit the premises

in dispute, i.e. inner courtyard and offer worship though against

the visit of Hindus in the same premises several complaints

were made from 1858 and onwards by Muslims, which are part

of record.

4489. It has been pleaded and some religious texts have

also been placed before us to show that in a place of worship

Parikrama is an integral part and, therefore, in every temple

around the deity a passage is always made to enable the

worshippers to have a Parikrama of deity. In the building in

dispute passage for Parikrama was available. It was, therefore,

suggested that this Parikrama passage itself suggested that the

5039

building in dispute was not a mosque but the temple.

Simultaneously it is also admitted that there are four kinds of

Parikrama which the people normally observe at Ayodhya. One

is the Parikrama in a particular place of worship for example in

the disputed building where the Hindu people believe that Lord

Rama was born. The other three kinds of Parikrama are known

as "Panchkosi Parikrama", "Chaudahkosi Parikrama" and

"Chaurasikosi Parikrama". We may extract statements of some

of the witnesses just to illustrate these three later kinds of

Parikrama.

(a) DW3/3, Sri Satya Narayan Tripathi

^^fookfnr ifjlj ds ckgj pkjksa vksj ifjdzek ekxZ Fkk ftl ij

yksx ifjdzek djrs FksA eSaus Hkh ogkWa ifjdzek fd;k gSA** ¼ist 14½

"There was circumambulation path around all the

sides of the disputed premises, around which people used to

perform the circumambulation. I have also performed

circumambulation over there."(E.T.C.)

(b) D.W. 3/4 Mahant Shiv Sharan Das

^^eSaus ogkWa iapdkslh vkSj pkSngdkslh ifjdzek Hkh dh gSA iapdkslh

ifjdzek {ks= ds vUrjxr Jh v;ks/;k th vkSj lj;w ds gh fdukjs&fdukjs

pyrs&pyrs jke xqysyk vkSj cgqr ls LFkku] tks lUrks us ogkWa cuk j[ks gS

vkSj Hkxoku dks ogkWa j[kdj iwtk djrs gSa] vkrs gSaA pkSngdkslh ifjdzek

ds vUrjxr xqIrkj?kkV vkrk gS blds vfrfjDr pkSngdkslh ifjdzek ds

vUrjxr jke?kkV vkSj cgqr lh ,slh txgsa gSa ftuds uke eSa ugha tkurk

gwWa] ijUrq gSa os vo/k {ks= esa ghA QStkckn 'kgj dk dkQh Hkkx pkSngdkslh

ifjdzek {ks= ds vUrjxr vkrk gSA bu nksuksa ifjdzekvksa vFkkZr

pkSngdkslh ifjdzek vkSj iapdkslh ifjdzek dk fo'ks"k egRo v{k; uoeh

dks gksrk gSA** ¼ist 24&25½

"I have also performed 'Panchkosi' and

'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation over there. The

5040

'Panchkosi' circumambulation region includes Sri Ayodhya

Ji, Ram Gulela and many other places along the banks of

Saryu, which have been set up over there by saints and who

perform worship of deity installed over there. The Guptar

ghat falls under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation.

Besides this, under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation

are the Ram ghat and many other places, whose names I do

not know but they are in the Awadh area. A major part of

Faizabad district falls under the 'Chaudahkosi'

circumambulation area. Both these circumambulations i.e.

the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation and the 'Panchkosi'

circumambulation, have special importance on Akshay

Navmi."(E.T.C.)

^^ifjdzek ds le; gtkjksa yk[kksa yksx iwjs ns'kHkj ls o fons'kksa ls

Hkh vkrs gSaA ;s yksx jkeyyk th ds n'kZu djus o ifjdzek djus vkrs

gSaA lcls igys ;s yksx lj;w th esa Luku djrs gSa] fQj jketUe Hkwfe ds

n'kZu djrs gSa] mlds ckn ifjdzek djrs gSaA ifjdzek ds le; iwjh

v;ks/;k] mlds vkl&ikl ds xkWao o QStkckn Hkh jke e; gks tkrk gSA**

¼ist 26½

"Thousands-lakhs of people from the entire country

and abroad as well, come over on the occasion of

circumambulation. These people come over to have

Darshan and perform circumambulation of Ramlala Ji.

First of all these people bathe in the Saryu and then have

Darshan of Ramjanmbhumi, thereafter perform

circumambulation. At time of the circumambulation, the

entire Ayodhya, its adjoining villages and Faizabad also

are gripped in the fervor of Lord Rama. "(E.T.C.)

(c) D.W. 3/13 Mahant Ram Subhag Das Shastri

^^v;ks/;k esa pkj izdkj dh ifjdzek gksrh gS mlesa igyh ifjdzek

5041

eafnj dh gksrh gS] tks efUnj ds vUnj&vUnj gksrh gS] nwljh ifjdzek

iapdkslh ifjdzek gksrh gS] rhljh ifjdzek pkSngdkslh ifjdzek gksrh gS]

pkSFkh ifjdzek 84 dksl dh gksrh gS] tks 24 fnu esa iw.kZ gksrh gSA**

¼ist 14½

"Four kinds of circumambulations are performed in

Ayodhya. Out of them, the first circumambulation is of the

temple, which is performed in the inside of the temple. The

second circumambulation is the 'Panchkosi'

circumambulation, the third is the 'Chaudahkosi'

circumambulation. The fourth circumambulation is of 84

'Kose', which is completed in 24 days."(E.T.C.)

(d) D.W 3/14 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami

Haryacharya

^^eSaus 14 dkslh rFkk iapdkslh ifjdzek,a Hkh dh gSaA jketUeHkwfe

dh ifjdzek eSaus dbZ ckj fd;k gSA pkSngdkslh ifjdzek ds vUrjxr

tudkSjk] xkS'kkyk efUnj] xq:dqy] dbZ xzke vkrs gSaA 'khry vejkbZ Hkh

vkrh gSA eSaus 84 dkslh ifjdzek v;ks/;k dh fd;k gSA blesa dbZ {ks=

vkrs gSaA xks.Mk tuin fLFkr tenfXu vkJe bl ifjdzek ds nkSjku

iM+rk gSA** ¼ist 22&23½

"I have also performed the 14 'kosi' and 'Panchkosi'

circumambulations. I have performed circumambulation of

Ramjanambhumi on many occasion. Jankaura, Gaushala

temple, Gurukul and many villages fall under the

'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation. I have performed 84

'Kosi' circumambulation of Ayodhya. Many areas fall

under it. The Gonda district situated Jamadgini Ashram

falls during this circumambulation." (E.T.C.)

^^egkjktk n'kjFk ds jktegy dk {ks=Qy tSlk fd ckYehdh

jkek;.k esa mfYyf[kr gS] v;ks/;k ds ikWap&dksl ds vUrxZr fLFkr gSA

Lo;a dgk fd ;g ikWap dksl iapdkslh ifjdzek ds vUrjxr gS] n'kjFk ds

5042

jktegy dh gh ifjdzek gksrh gSA tgkW ls iapdkslh ifjdzek 'kq: gksrh

gS] ogkWa ls egjktk n'kjFk dk jktegy 'kq: gksrk Fkk rFkk tgkW ij

iapdkslh ifjdzek lekIr gksrh gS ogkWa ij lekIr gksrk FkkA bl le;

iapdkslh ifjdzek dbZ LFkkuksa ls 'kq: gksrh gS dksbZ _.kekspu ?kkV ls]

dksbZ >qedh ?kkV ls] dksbZ jkt?kkV ls] dksbZ u;k?kkV ls 'kq: djrk gSA

ifjdzek ds ihNs tks yksx cls gq, gSa] os yksx ifjdzek rilhth dh

Nkouh ds ikl ls gh 'kq: djrs gSaA ftu ?kkVksa ls ifjdzek 'kq: dh tkrh

gS] mUgha ?kkVksa ij ifjdzek lekIr Hkh gksrh gS rFkk yksx ifjdzek lekIr

djus ds ckn lj;w esa Luku djrs gSaA og lHkh ?kkV tgkWa ls ifjdzek 'kq:

djus ds ckjs esa crk;k gS] og lHkh lj;w ds fdukjs fLFkr gSaA lj;w

v;ks/;k ds mRrj rjQ fLFkr gS bl ifjdzek esa nf{k.k rjQ bl le;

ds 'khryvejkbZ ls ysdj yksx ?kwers gSaA ;g 'khry vejkbZ uked LFkku

v;ks/;k esa gSA ;g 'khry vejkbZ dk LFkku fookfnr LFky ls nks&<kbZ

fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gksxkA** ¼ist 64½

"The area of the palace of King Dashrath, as

mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, extends over five-six

'kose' in Ayodhya. Stated on his own that this five 'kose'

falls under the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation, the

circumambulation is performed of the palace of King

Dashrath. The palace of King Dashrath begins from the

same place, from where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation

starts, and it ends where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation

concludes. At present, 'Panchkosi' circumambulation starts

from many places, some from Rinmochan ghat, some from

Jhumki ghat, some from Rajghat and some from Nayaghat.

The people residing in back of the circumambulation

(path), start the circumambulation from near the 'Tapsiji ki

Chavani'. The circumambulation concludes at the same

ghat from where it starts and after concluding the

circumambulation, people bathe in the Saryu. All these

5043

ghats, from where the circumambulation is stated to start,

are situated along the banks of Saryu. Saryu is situated in

north of Ayodhya. At present, people pass through

Shitalamrai in south. This place called Shital Amrai is in

Ayodhya. This place Shital Amrai, would be about 2-2½

kilometers away from the disputed site. "(E.T.C.)

^^bl le; tks 84 dkslh ifjdzek dh tkrh gS] og orZeku le;

ds v;ks/;k dks gh ifjekfir djrh gSA ;g ifjdzek mRrj rjQ tenfXu

dq.M ls tks xks.Mk tuin esa gS 'kq: gksrh gS] tgkWa ij jktk n'kjFk dh

xkS'kkyk FkhA** ¼ist 66½

"The 84 'Kosi' circumambulation performed these

days, measures the Ayodhya of today. This

circumambulation begins in north from the Jamadgini

Kund, which is in Gonda district, where the cattle shed of

King Dashrath existed."(E.T.C.)

(e) D.W.3/17 Sri Mata Badal Tiwari

^^n'kZu djus ds ckn ifjdzek dh tkrh Fkh eSa pkSng dkslh

ifjdzek ds ckn iapdkslh ifjdzek djrk FkkA iapdkslh ifjdzek ,dkn'kh

dh frfFk dks gksrh gSA pkSngdkslh ifjdzek djus esa yxHkx iwjk fnu yx

tkrk gSA pkSngdkslh ifjdzek djus esa iwjh v;ks/;k iM+ tkrh gSA ifjdzek

ds vUrjxr guqekux<+h eafnj Hkh vk tkrk gSA dud Hkou rFkk lqfe=k

Hkou Hkh ifjdzek ds vanj vk tkrk gSA ef.kjke Nkouh Hkh blds vUnj

vk tkrh gSA** ¼ist 6½

"The circumambulation was performed after having

Darshan. I used to perform the 'Panchkosi' (of five kose,

one kose being equal to two miles) circumambulation after

the 'Chaudahkosi' (of fourteen kose) circumambulation.

The 'Panchkosi' circumambulation is performed on

'Ekadashi' (eleventh day of lunar month). It took almost full

day in completing the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation.

5044

The entire Ayodhya is covered in performing the

'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation. The Hanumangarhi

temple also falls within the circumambulation. The Kanak

Bhawan and Sumitra Bhawaan are also covered in the

circumambulation. The Maniram Chavani also falls within

it."(E.T.C.)

^^jketUeHkwfe ifjlj esa eSa pcwrjs dh gh ifjdzek djrk Fkk ;g

pcwrjk jke pcwrjk FkkA** ¼ist 12½

"In the Ramjanmbhumi premises, I used to perform

circumambulation of only the Chabutra. This Chabutra

was the Ram Chabutra."(E.T.C.)

4490. If we believe what has been submitted by learned

counsel for the Hindu parties to be correct that Parikrama is an

integral part of worship of the deity and if this Parikrama

passage is available in a place it should be treated in a temple,

very interesting result may arrive in respect to these three kinds

of large Parikrama. The area covered by Panchkosi Parikrama

includes several localities of Ayodhya wherein number of

muslim residences as well as their religious places are also

covered. Similarly, Chaudahkosi Parikrama not only covered

Ayodhya but some part of Faizabad also and there also similar

result would arrive. Chaurasikosi Parikrama obviously goes

much much beyond that. Can it be said that all the persons

residing and the religious places of other religions constitute

part and parcel of such a wider concept of temple. This is

neither the intention nor can be accepted. When a person believe

in respect to a place that it has divine power, Supreme Being

exist thereat which may bless happiness, salvation etc. to the

worshipper that does mean that this place of worship has to be

5045

identified in narrowest possible area. For example at Gangotri if

one goes it is the particular temple or just above it the Gomukh

which is considered sacred and not the entire area where the

people also reside and do other daily activities. In the case of

place in dispute also, unless we ascertain the exact place in

respect whereof the belief of such a large Hindu people is

continuing by tradition and custom from generations to

generation, it cannot allow us to be guided with such kind of

arguments which goes much beyond the belief but in the realm

of the procedure of worship which is absolutely different. The

core belief in the matter of religion which is essential is

something different then what is incidental or ancillary. It is the

former which is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.

4491. In view of the above, to suggest that the entire

property in dispute shall vest in the deity without there being

any specificity regarding the area would neither be just nor

rational. Many of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the

plaintiff (Suit-5) as well as plaintiff (Suit-3) and other Hindu

parties have averred that according to their faith, the place

where the idols are kept, i.e., the area under the central dome of

the disputed structure in inner courtyard is the place of birth of

Lord Rama. If that be so, it may not be said that the entire

property in the inner courtyard would vest in the deity. On this

aspect we have already dealt with in detail while considering the

issues relating to the place of birth of Lord Rama, i.e., the issues

no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-5).

4492. So far as the property in the outer courtyard is

concerned, we have already said that there existed several Hindu

structures and the Hindu people used to visit thereat regularly

5046

without there being any intervention or interruption by the

Muslim people at least for the last more than 90 years till the

date of attachment, i.e., since 1856-57. The Hindu religious

structures like Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara etc. are claimed to be

managed by Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff (Suit-3). Though they

have also stated that this is the place of birth of Lord Rama but

those temples in outer courtyard, are being managed by them

since the last several decades.

4493. The place of birth as we have already held,

therefore, would continue to vest in the deity and in view of the

fact that deity is indestructible and imperishable, even the

construction of the building in dispute would make no impact on

its sacredness and otherwise. So far as the religious structure

within the outer courtyard are concerned, they cannot be said to

be vested in the deity, (plaintiffs 1 and 2) for the reason that they

are the temples claim to be possessed and managed by Nirmohi

Akhara defendant no. 3, and its status having claimed as

Shebait. This status of Nirmohi Akhara qua the religious

structures of Hindus existing in the outer courtyard have not

been controverted by anyone. Even OPW 1, the witness deposed

on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-5) has also supported this case of

Nirmohi Akhara.

4494. So far as the continuous visit of devotees concerned,

we have already discussed this issue and held that despite of

construction of disputed structure, Hindus continued to visit and

worship the place which they believe to be the place of birth of

Lord Rama. Simultaneously, in the same premises, muslims also

offered their worship as we have already discussed in detail

above.

5047

4495. We, therefore, hold that so far as the premises which

constitute the place of birth of Lord Rama, continue to vest in

the deities, but so far as the Hindu religious structures existing

in the outer courtyard are concerned, the same cannot be said to

be the property of the plaintiffs (Suit-5), i.e., the deity of

Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Sthan Sri Ram Janambhumi as

claimed by the defendant no. 13. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) is

answered accordingly.

4496. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5):

"Whether the idol in question had been in existence

under the “Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial

as alleged in paragraph 44 of the additional written

statement of defendant no.3?"

4497. We have already held while deciding Issues No 12

(Suit-4) and 3 (a) (Suit-5) that the idols under the central dome

in the inner courtyard were placed in the night of 22nd/23rd,

December, 1949 and since then are continuing as such in view

of interim injunction granted by the Civil Court on 16.1.1950

and the subsequent stay orders of this Court as well as the Apex

Court. In view thereof, no doubt that prior to 6th December,

1992, the idols were there but it cannot be said that the same

remained there from time immemorial. Besides, this issue is in

the context of the para 44 of additional written statement of

defendant no. 3 which reads as under:

"That attachment made in the 1949 is only in respect

of main building of Garbh Grahya Carrying three "Shikar

¼f'k[kj½ where in the deity of Bhagwan Sri Ram Chanraji is

installed by Nirmohi Akhara from time beyond the human

memory and are since then is management and possession

5048

of it till the said property attached. Therefore, plaintiff 3

can not claim any right to represent him."

4498. The pleading, however, do not talk of 6th December,

1992. On the contrary, it says when the attachment was made in

1949, at that time idols were installed in the main building much

before and beyond the human memory, which we have already

negatived. Hence, Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative,

as the idols in question did remain under the Sikhar prior to 6th

December, 1992, but not from time immemorial and, instead,

were kept thereat in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.

4499. Issue No.15 (Suit-5):

"Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid

was always used by the Muslims only regularly for offering

Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. to

22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?

4500. This issue has been framed assuming that the

disputed structure was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or his

agent. This aspect we have already discussed in detail while

considering issues no. 6 (Suit-1), 5 (Suit-3) and 1(a) (Suit-4).

We have already answered that the concerned parties have

miserably failed to prove that it was so constructed in 1528 AD

by Babar or any of his agent. That being so, the question of

offering Namaj in the disputed structure since 1528 AD does not

arise at all. With respect to the question as to whether Namaj

was ever offered in the building in dispute we find that this

aspect has also been discussed and answered in issues no. 15

(Suit-4), 1-B(c) (Suit-4) and 2 (Suit-4) wherein it has been held

that the evidence which we have on record shows that atleast

from 1860 and onwards Namaj has been offered in the building

5049

in dispute in the inner courtyard and the last Namaj was offered

on 16th December, 1949. Accordingly issue 15 (Suit-5) is

answered. We observe that though it is not proved that Namaj

was offered in the building in dispute since 1528 AD,

simultaneously it is also not proved that any Namaj was offered

in the building in dispute after 16th December, 1949. However,

we hold that between 1860 and up to 16th December, 1949 if not

regularly, occasionally, intermittently Friday prayers, i.e.,

Jumma Namaj was offered in the disputed structure which was

commonly known as Babri Masjid.

4501. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4):

"Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf

and whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the

suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief

for possession?"

4502. It has been stated by several witnesses deposing on

behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) that one Javvad Hussain was

Mutwalli of the building in dispute in 1949 when the property in

dispute was attached. Certain documents filed as Exhibit A 55

(Suit-1) (Register 8, page 503); Exhibit A 57 (Suit-1) (Register

8, page 507); and, Exhibit A 59 (Suit-1) (Register 8, page 511)

as well as the report of Waqf Inspector dated 10th December,

1949 and 23rd December, 1949 also show that Javvad Hussain

represented himself as Mutwalli of the building and the

Inspector of Waqf requested Sunni Board to treat him and

continue as Mutawalli of the waqf.

4503. Nothing to contradict the above has been placed on

record. We need not to doubt the above stand of the plaintiffs

(Suit-4) on this aspect but it is really surprising, had he been

5050

Mutawalli of the building in dispute, responsible for its proper

management etc. yet at no point of time he took any step for

protection of the building in dispute or to contest the cases in the

Court in respect to said property. Not only this, but also the so

called Imam, named Abdul Gaffar, as also one Ismail, Moazzim

are also missing and they have also failed to take any step. Not

even a complaint was filed by anyone of them, if anything

wrong was done in the night of 22/23rd December, 1949

preventing them from discharging their duties as also preventing

Muslims from offering Namaz in the building in dispute. It

appears to us that Javvad Hussain was not a properly appointed

Mutwalli of the building in dispute but he simply enjoyed the

grant of village Bahoranpur and Sholapur and used to call him

as "Nambardar" thereof. In order to justify the amount of

revenue he used to realize from the said grant, on papers, he had

shown the income and expenditures also but as a matter of fact,

did not take care of the building in dispute.

4504. Be that as it may, in the absence of any other

claimant and also in the absence of any procedure with respect

to appointment of Mutwalli, person who ought to have managed

the building in dispute, may be on account of the grant of the

two villages, can be treated to be a de facto mutwalli. The

Management being responsibility of a Mutwalli, the possession

of the waqf can also be claimed by him since a worshiper is not

entitled for the possession of a waqf property though he may be

allowed to file a suit for protection of the property of waqf but

possession of such waqf cannot be granted to such worshiper.

4505. In the result we answer Issue No.20(b) (Suit-4)

holding that at the time of attachment of the building or when

5051

the suit in question was filed, Javvad Hussain was Mutawalli but

in his absence or any other Mutawalli succeeding him, relief of

possession cannot be allowed to the plaintiffs (Suit-4) who have

come before this Court in the capacity of worshipers and not the

person who can claim possession of waqf i.e. a Mutawalli.

4506. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5):

"Whether the defendant no.3 alone is entitled to

represent plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent

on that account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the

additional written statement of defendant no.3?"

4507. Basically the objection relates to non service of

notice under Section 80 CPC to the State Government. No such

objection has been raised by the State Government or its

authorities though they are impleaded as defendants no. 7, 8 and

9 to the Suit. Even a written statement has not been filed on

behalf of the State Government or its officers. We have already

held while considering issue no.10 (Suit-3), that objection

regarding notice under Section 80 CPC cannot be taken by a

private defendant, if no such objection has been raised and

pressed by the State authorities. In view of our discussion and

findings recorded in respect to issue no. 10 (Suit-3), we hold

that the objection under para 49 of the additional written

statement of defendant no. 3 is of no consequence.

4508. Coming to the first part of the issue that the

defendant no. 3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2 in

the absence of any material to show that the defendant no. 3 was

in possession of the property within the inner courtyard and

looking after and managing the affairs as Shebait, no such right

can be claimed by the defendant no. 3. On this aspect the case of

5052

defendant no. 3, i.e., Nirmohi Akhara has already been

considered by us while discussing the issues relating to adverse

possession. For the reasons thereof and as discussed, issue 7

(Suit-5) in its entirety is answered in negative.

4509. `Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5):

"Whether the disputed structure could be treated to

be a mosque on the allegations contained in paragraph 24

of the plaint?"

"Whether on the averments made in paragraph 25 of

the plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the

structure in dispute to constitute it as a mosque?"

4510. These issues are founded on the averments

contained in paras 24 and 25 of the plaint which read as under:

"24. That such a structure raised by the force of arms on

land belonging to the Plaintiff Deities, after destroying the

ancient Temple situate thereat, with its materials including

the Kasauti pillars with figures of Hindu gods carved

thereon, could not be a mosque and did not become one in

spite of the attempts to treat it as a mosque during the

British rule after the annexation of Avadh. Some salient

points with regard thereto are noted. Below.

(A) According to the Koran, Allah spoke to the Prophet

thus-

"And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight

against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for

GOD loveth not the trangressers. And kill them wherever

ye find them; and turn them out of that whereof they have

dispossessed you; for temptation to idolatory is more

grievous than slaughter. Yet fight not against them in the

5053

holy temple, until they attack you therein;.....

(B) According to all the Muslim authorities and

precedents and the decided cases also, ALLAH never

accepts a dedication of property which does not belong to

the Waqif that is, the person who purports to dedicate

property to ALLAH for purposes recognised as pious or

charitable, as waqf under the Muslim law. By his acts of

trespass and violence for raising a mosque on the site of

the Temple after destroying it by force, Mir Baqi committed

a highly un-Islamic act. His attempt to convert the Temple

into a mosque did not, therefore, create a valid dedication

of property to ALLAH, whether in fact or in law, and it

never became a mosque.

(C) That inspite of all that Mir Baqi tried to do with the

Temple, the land always continued to vest in the Plaintiff

Deities, and they never surrendered their possession over

it. Their possession continued in fact and in law. The

ASTHAN never went out of the possession of the Deity and

HIS worshippers. They continued to worship HIM through

such symbols as the CHARAN and SITA RASOI, and the

idol of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN on the

Chabutra, called the Rama Chabutra, within the enclosed

courtyard of the building directly in front of the arched

opening of its Southern dome. No one could enter the

building except after passing through these places of Hindu

worship. According to the Muslim religion and law there

can be no Idol worship within the courtyard of a mosque,

and the passage to a mosque must be free and unobstructed

and open at all times to the 'Faithful'. It can never be

5054

through a Hindu place of worship. There can be no co-

sharing of title or possession with ALLAH in the case of a

mosque. His possession must be exclusive.

(D) A mosque must be built in a place of peace and quiet,

but near to a place where there is a sizeable Muslim

population, according to the tenets of Islam, and as insisted

upon by it, a mosque cannot be built in a place which is

surrounded on all sides by Temples, where the sound of

music or conch shells or Ghanta Ghariyals must always

disturb the peace and quiet of the place.

(E) A mosque must have a minaret for calling the Azan.

According to Baillie. "When an assembly of worshippers

pray in a masjid with permission, that is delivery. But it is a

condition that the prayers be with izan. Or the regular call,

and be public not private, for though there should be an

assembly yet if it is without izan. And the prayers are

private instead of public, the place is no masjid. Accouding

to the two disciples." (Pt. I. BK.IX, ch. VII Sec. I,p. 605)

Indeed, there has been no mosque without a minaret after

the first half century from the Flight. (See-P.R. Ganapathi

Iyer's Law relating to Hindu and Mahomedan

Endowments, 2 nd Edition, 1918. Chap. XVII, P. 388.)

(F) According to the claim laid by the Muslims in their

suit No. 12 of 1961, the building is surrounded on all sides

by grave-yard known as 'Ganj Shahidan'. There is a

mention in the Fyzabad Gazetteer also, quoted

hereinabove, of the burial of 75 Muslims at the gate of the

Janmasthan, and the place being known as Ganj Shahidan.

After the battle of 1855. Although there are no graves

5055

anywhere near the building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, or

in its precincts, or the area appurtenant thereto, for the

last more than 50 years, if the building was surrounded by

a grave-yard during the British times soon after the

annexation of Avadh by them, the building could not be a

mosque, and could not be used as a mosque, for the

offering of prayers, except the funeral prayers on the death

of a person buried therein, is prohibited in a grave-yard

according to the Muslim authorities.

(G) As already stated, there is no arrangement for

storage of water for Vazoo and there are the Kasauti pillars

with the figures of Hindu Gods and Godesses inscribed

thereon in the building.

25. That the worship of the Plaintiff Deities has

continued since ever throughout the ages at Sri Rama

Janma Bhumi. The place belongs to the Deities. No valid

waqf was ever created or could have been created of the

place or any part of it, in view of the title and possession

of the Plaintiff Deities thereon. ALLAH, as conceived by

the Muslims, never got any title or possession over the

premises or any part of them. Nor has there ever been any

person, living or juridical, who might have put forward any

claim to ownership of the property or any part of it.

Occasional acts of trespass or attempts to get into

possession by the muslims were successfully resisted and

repulsed by the Hindus from time to time, and there was no

blemish or dent in the continuity of title and possession of

the Plaintiff Deities. No title could or did vest in ALLAH

over any part of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi by adverse

5056

possession or in any other manner. Neither ALLAH nor any

person on his behalf had any possession over any part of

the premises at any time what-soever, not to speak of any

adverse possession."

4511. We have discussed similar issues in the category of

those relating to characteristics of mosque, dedication, valid

waqf etc. In the light of the findings recorded therein we

answer issues 10 and 11 (Suit-5) in affirmative.

4512. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5):

"Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties, as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written

statement of defendant no.3?"

4513. This issue emanate from the pleading of para 43 of

the additional written statement of defendant no. 3 which reads

as under:

"Para 43: That outer portion consisting of Bhagwan

Ram Lala on Sri Ram Chabutara alongwith other deities,

Chathi Pujan Sthan and Bhandar with eastern outer wall

carrying engraved image of Varah Bhagwan with southern

and northern wall and also western portion of all carries

the present municipal no. 10/12/29 old 506, 507 and older

647 of Ram Kot ward of Ayodhya City had been a

continuous referred in main litigation since 1885 till Reg.

Suit no. 239/82 of the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad and in

every case Nirmohi Akhara was held always in possession

and management of this temple so the Bhagwan Ram Lalaji

installed by Nirmohi Akhara on this Ram Chabutara is a

distinct legal entity owned by def. no. 3. That suit is bad for

want of impleadment of necessary party as mentioned

5057

above."

4514. What defendants no. 3 is that Bhagwan Ram Lala

installed on Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard, though was

in possession and management of Nirmohi Akhara, but being a

distinct legal entity, ought to have been impleaded separately

and in the absence thereof the suit is bad for want of necessary

party.

4515. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Once

Nirmohi Akhara admits that the deity at Ram Chabutara is

managed by Nirmohi Akhara which is a Math, a legal entity, it

stands in the position of Shebait to the said deity and in such a

case it has well been held that right to sue or be sued vests in

Shebait [See, Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji

(supra) and Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari (supra)].

4516. We, therefore, find no substance in the above

submission. Issue 19 (Suit-5) is answered in negative.

4517. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5):

"Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March

1946 passed in Suit No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the

plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs?"

4518. Suit No. 29 of 1945 was an inter se dispute between

the Shia Central Waqf Board and Sunni Central Waqf Board in

respect to the property in dispute. Both were claiming it to be a

waqf which ought to have been placed within their control. In

respect to the suit and the judgment dated 30.03.1946 we have

already considered the matter in detail while discussing issue

no. 6 (Suit-3).

4519. Admittedly, the plaintiffs of suit in question were

not party in the said suit. The judgment, therefore, cannot be

5058

said to be binding upon the plaintiffs. No authority on this

question has been placed before us which is binding upon us to

take a different view. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered

holding that the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1946 in Suit

No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (Suit-5).

4520. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4):

"Whether any portion of the property in suit was used

as a place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to

the construction of the building in question? If the finding

is in the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into

existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the place in

dispute?"

4521. We have already held that there existed a religious

place of Non-Islamic character before the construction of the

disputed structure. From the travel account of William Finch it

is also evident that Hindus were worshipping in the Fort of Lord

Rama, as he called it, when he visited Ayodhya between 1608 to

1611 AD. It is not the case of the Muslim parties that in that Fort

of Lord Rama, besides the place in dispute, there was any other

place known as place of birth of Lord Rama which the people

used to worship at that time or thereafter also. The disputed

structure, as we have already noticed, came into being after the

visit of the William Finch but before the visit of father Joseph

Tieffenthaler. He (Tieffenthaler) has also mentioned about the

worship at the premises in dispute by Hindus during his visit,

and, from the description he has given, we are satisfied that the

said worship must have been near the structure itself. The

cumulative effect of these facts as also the discussion we have

already made in respect of various issues above, leaves no doubt

5059

in our mind that even before the construction of the building in

dispute, the place which the Hindus believed the place of birth

of Lord Rama, used to be worship. We have also held that

according to faith, belief and tradition amongst Hindus it is the

area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure

which they believe to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and

worship thereat continuously. Therefore, in the absence of

anything otherwise, it can safely be said that only this was the

part of the property in dispute which was used as a place of

worship by Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the

building in question. To this extent the first part of the issue

under consideration is answered in affirmative.

4522. So far as the second part is concerned, we do not

find that it has any relevance being as a hypothetical question

whether a mosque could have come into existence in view of the

Islamic tenets at the place of dispute, at such place Hindus were

worshiping earlier, for the reason that, as a matter of fact, a

building was constructed as a mosque, centuries back, under the

Sovereign's command. After its construction, the locals and the

other called and treated it, 'a mosque', it was used later, may be

intermittently, as we have already held, for offering namaz by

Muslims also. It is a different thing that in the same premises

Hindus also continued to visit and worship according to their

faith and belief but that would not erode in any manner the

factual establishment of a structure as a mosque. Whether a

person who made this construction or allowed it at that time,

acted in accordance with Islamic tenets or not, cannot allowed to

be reviewed on judicial side in a court of law which is a creation

of much subsequent period. The subsequent statutes not be

5060

applied to a sovereign function as sole Monarch, at a time when

his command was supreme and unchallengeable. In our view it

is not open to any party to raise such a dispute, which in effect

require a judicial review of something which has been done by a

king at a time when there was no codified law. We have no

doubt in our mind that our jurisdiction to peep into such an

objection cannot be stressed to such an extent. Sri Jain sought to

refer Article 13 of the constitution and some other provisions

but we find all those reference wholly misconceived and in our

view the argument is simply noticed to be rejected.

4523. Issue No. 19 (c), Suit-4 is decided accordingly.

4524. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) read as under:

"(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same

place on a Chabutara under the canopy?

(c) Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or

after 6.12.1992 in violation of the courts order dated

14.8.1989 and 15.11.91?

(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative,

whether the idols so placed still acquire the status of a

deity."

4525. After the demolition of the disputed structure, the

defendants no. 4 and 5 (Suit-5) filed an additional written

statement dated 22nd August, 1995 and in para 3 and 13 thereof

pleaded as under:

"3. That the contents of para 35 J of the Amended Plaint

are denied as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that

the demolition of the Babri Masjid appeared to be a pre-

planned, deliberate and intentional act on the part of the

miscreants and criminals who had assembled at the site on

5061

the call of the Vishwa Hindi Parishad, Bajrang Dal and

Shiv Sena etc. All the acts of the said so-called Kar Sewaks

were totally illegal, unjustified and in violation of the

orders of this Hon'ble Court as well as of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and amounted to blatant exercise of the

Rule of Jungle and the so called construction of make-shift

temple and placing of idols in the same on 7.12.92 was all

totally illegal and contemptuous and the said idols could

not be described as deity under Hindu Law also."

"13. That the Plaintiffs have no cause of action and

specially so when the idols placed in the Mosque

surreptitiously in the night of 22nd -23rd December, 1949

have been removed on 6-12-1992. The claim, if any,

regarding the said idols stood extinguished on the removal

of the said idols."

4526. The submission of Sri Jilani and Sri Siddiqui is that

once the Deity is removed from the place where it was

consecrated or where it was being worshipped, it ceased to have

the status of a deity on removal unless reconsecrated. Therefore,

it is contended that plaintiff no.1 ceased to be a 'juristic

personality' after its removal on 6th December, 1992, rendering

suit not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is

placed on the authority of "History of Dharmashatra" by P.V.

Kane Chapter XXVI, page 904 which reads as under:

"Punah-pratistha :-(Re-consecration of images in temples).

The Brahmapurana quoted by the Devapratisthatattva and

the Nirnayasindhu says 'when an image is broken into two

or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its

pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is

5062

touched by beasts like donkeys or falls on impure ground or

is worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered

impure by the touch of outcasts and the like-in these ten

contingencies, god ceases to indwell therein.' When an

image is polluted by (contact with) the blood of a

brahmana or by the touch of a corpse or the touch of a

patita it should be re-consecrated. If an image is broken in

parts or reduced to particles it should be removed

according to sastric rules and another should be installed

in its place. When an image is broken or stolen a fast

should be observed. If images of metal such as of copper

are touched by thieves or candalas, they should be purified

in the same way in which polluted vessels of those metals

are purified and then they should be re-consecrated. If an

image properly consecrated has had no worship performed

without pre-meditation (i.e. owing to forgetfulness or

neglect) for one night or a month or two months or the

image is touched by a sudra or a woman in her monthly

illness, then the image should have water adhivasa

(placing in water) performed on it, and it should be bathed

with water from a jar, then with pancagavya, then it should

be bathed with pure water from jars to the accompaniment

of the hymn to Purusa (Rg. X. 90) repeated 8000 times, 800

times or 28 times, worship should be offered with sandal-

wood paste and flowers, naivedya (food) of rice cooked

with jaggery should be offered. This is the way in which the

re-consecration is effected."

4527. The matter of reconsecration as and when is

required and what is a procedure, how it is to be observed, we

5063

have already discussed in detail while dealing with the issues

relating to deities, their rights etc. i.e. issues No.12 and 21 (Suit-

4), issues no.1, 2, 3(a), 6 and 21 (Suit-5). The defendant no.3/1

on page 225, 232 of his statement has admitted of removal of

deity, as existed under the central dome of the disputed structure

upto 6th December, 1992 for a short while and says that the same

were restored after a few hours at the same place. To the same

effect is the statement of OPW 1-Mahant Paramhans Ram

Chandra Das. Nothing has come on record contradicting the said

statements of the two witness. Therefore, a very transition and

temporary kind of removal is not disputed. The circumstances in

which this removal took place is also known to all. A huge mob,

in a most abominable manner, caused demolition of the disputed

structure against all norms and principles of a civilized society.

It is, however, not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs

have any role in this matter. Now, the question is whether such

removal, whatsoever were the circumstances, is permissible and

secondly; its effect in the light of the answer of the former.

4528. Fortunately, the issue is no more res integra. In Hari

Raghunath Vs. Antaji Bhikaji (supra) the Bombay High Court

considered this question and held:

"It is not disputed that the existing building is in a

ruinous condition and that it may be that for the purpose of

effecting the necessary repairs the image may have to be

temporarily removed. Still the question is whether the

defendant as manager is entitled to remove the image with

a view to its installation in another building which is near

the existing building. Taking the most liberal view of the

powers of the manager, I do not think that as the manager

5064

of a public temple he can do what he claims the power to

do, viz., to remove the image from its present position and

to instal it in the new building. The image is consecrated in

its present position for a number of years and there is the

existing temple. To remove the image from that temple and

to instal it in another building would be practically putting

a new temple in place of the existing temple. Whatever may

be the occasions on which the installation of a new image

as a substitute for the old may be allowable according to

the Hindu law, it is not shown on behalf of the defendant

that the ruinous condition of the existing building is a

ground for practically removing the image from its present

place to a new place permanently. We are not concerned in

this suit with the question of the temporary removal which

may be necessary when the existing building is repaired."

4529. This decision in Hari Raghunath (supra) has been

quoted and approved by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court

in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal

Vinayak Gosavi (supra) in para 36 and it says:

"The case is an authority for the proposition that the idol

cannot be removed permanently to another place, because

that would be tantamount to establishing a new temple.

However, if the public agreed to a temporary removal, it

could be done for a valid reason."

4530. Therefore in a give situation a temporary removal is

permissible and that shall not cause any impact upon the

authority and status of the deity.

4531. Now coming to the two orders referred to in issue

no.3(c) of the Court, we find that this Court on 14th August,

5065

1989 passed the following order on an application filed by the

State of U.P. under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1

and 2 C.P.C. which reads:

"This is an application filed by the State of U.P.

under Section 94 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of injunction:-

(i) Restraining the plaintiffs and defendants from

disturbing the status quo and organising any activity which

may bring about confrontation between Hindus and

Muslims and

(ii) Ensuring that orders passed by the Court are strictly

enforced and are not breached.

We have heard Sri S.S.Bhatnagar, learned Advocate

General in support of this application. We also heard Sri

V.K.S.Chaudhary and Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who

submitted in their arguments that the threats expressed by

the learned Advocate-General in his application and in his

arguments were groundless as no such situation as stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the application is in

existence or is going to arise as the parties represented by

them consisted of law abiding citizens and no breach of

peace or any order of the court was intended by them. Sri

Abdul Mannan, Counsel appearing for the other side,

virtually supported by the application for injunction and

narrated the dire consequences if the law is taken to hands

by the parties.

In this connection, our attention was drawn to the

following order dated 3.2.1986 passed by a learned single

Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No.746 of 1986:-

5066

"Until further orders of the Court, the nature of the

property in question as existing today shall not be

changed."

It was also brought to our notice that another

learned single Judge of this Court has passed an order for

appointment of receiver for the property in question in

F.A.F.O. No.17 of 1977 on 23rd July, 1987.

In view of the order for appointment of receiver and

the order dated 3.2.1986 which has become final, we are

not inclined to accept that any of the parties will take law

to hands and do anything which may culminate in law

breaking. However, since in the writ petition, in which the

order dated 3.2.1986 was passed, only some of the parties

to the present suits were arrayed, we consider it necessary

in the interest of justice that a similar order is adopted in

each of the injunction applications in the present suits, as a

result whereof until further orders of the Court, the parties

to suits No.1 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.2 of 1950), 2 of 1989

(Reg. Suit No.25 of 1950), 3 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.26 of

1959), 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12 of 1961) and 5 of 1989

(Reg. Suit No.236 of 1989) shall maintain status quo and

shall not change the nature of the property in question.

Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary strenuously contended that in

view of the order appointing receiver, there was absolutely

no justification for apprehending that the parties are likely

to take the law to their hands, but by way of abundant

caution, we have made the above order."

4532. A perusal of this order shows that the parties to the

suit were directed to maintain status quo, and, that they shall not

5067

change the nature of the property in question. There is no

pleading by the defendants (Suit-5) that in demolition of the

disputed structure etc., the plaintiffs are responsible or guilty of

violation of this Court's order dated 14.08.1989.

4533. So far as order dated 15.11.1991 is concerned, Sri

Jilani informed that no such order was passed by this Court but

it appears that the Apex Court on some application had passed

an order but the same has not been placed before us during the

course of argument. Therefore, we are not able to consider and

appreciate the same.

4534. In view thereof we answer issues no.3(b) and (d)

(Suit-5) in affirmative and issue no.3(c) (Suit-5) in negative.

4535. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) reads as under:

"Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of

Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed structure?"

4536. This issue has to be considered in the light of the

pleadings of defendant Nirmohi Akhara. Its case is that since

time immemorial the disputed structure was a temple. There was

no demolition. No construction of mosque. The idol under the

disputed structure also continued since time immemorial. This

case of the Nirmohi Akhara has not been found correct. They

have failed to prove it. We have already held so. It is not their

case that the idols were kept under the central dome of the

disputed structure in the night of 22/23 December, 1949 by any

member or Mahants or Pujaris of Nirmohi Akhara and after such

placing they continued to take care of the idols and it is the

Nirmohi Akhara which is responsible for all this. In fact

Nirmohi Akhara having taken a totally different stand, denied

occurrence of any such incident.

5068

4537. In these peculiar facts and circumstances and the

stand of Nirmohi Akhara, we have no option but to hold that so

far as the idols of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed

structure i.e. within the inner courtyard is concerned, the

defendant Nirmohi Akhara cannot said to be Shebait thereof.

4538. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered against

Nirmohi Akhara defendant No.3 (Suit-5).

4539. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4)

"Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as

the building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni

Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi

who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged

Mutawallis were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its

effect?"

4540. This issue has been framed in view of the plea taken

by the defendants no.13, 20 and a few others that the building in

dispute having been constructed by Mir Baqi, who was a Shia

Muslim, the waqf cannot be a Sunni Waqf and therefore,

plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4) has no authority to file the suit. We have

already answered this question while considering the issue

relating to wakf that if a mosque is constructed, under law of

Shariat no distinction is made like Sunni mosque or Shia

mosque. Every person, who is a worshipper of Islam, as a matter

of right, is entitled to enter the mosque and offer Namaz. This

aspect has been considered in three Full Bench decisions of this

Court in Jangu & Others Vs. Ahmad Ullah (supra), Queen

Empress Vs. Ramzan (supra) as well as in Ata-Ullah &

another Vs. Azim-Ullah (supra). The above judgments have

been discussed in detail in paras 3254 and 3256 of this

5069

judgment. It is only pursuant to the U.P. Act, 1936 or U.P. Act,

1960, for the effective management and superintendence of

waqfs in the State of U.P., two Boards were created and for that

purpose only, the waqfs were required to be identified whether a

Sunni waqf or Shia Waqf.

4541. Be that as it may, before us, firstly, neither any

evidence has been placed to show that Mir Baqi in fact existed

during the regime of Babar, and, then nothing is there to prove

about his religion, what it was. Some observations here and

there by some writers and that too on a sheer guess work would

not be sufficient for this Court to investigate into this factual

position which relates back to an alleged event of almost 500

years back. Moreover, we have already held that the building in

question has not been proved to have been constructed in 1528

AD by Mir Baqi. Therefore the question, whether it was a Sunni

waqf or Shia waqf becomes redundant. Moreover, the rights of

Hindus would in no manner would be affected whether the

building in dispute, if mosque, constitute a 'Sunni Waqf' or 'Shia

Waqf' since the consequence, if any, would flow in the same

way and would be equal in both the cases.

4542. Our considered opinion is that nature of the waqf

whether Sunni or Shia would not cause any impact upon the

issues raised by the defendants Hindu parties in these cases.

Therefore, for the purpose of suits in question, issue 20(a) (Suit-

4) is wholly irrelevant and need not to be answered. It is

ordered accordingly.

4543. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) are as under:

"Whether demolition of the disputed structure as

claimed by the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and

5070

if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be

dismissed as no longer maintainable?"

"Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to

offer prayer when structure which stood thereon has been

demolished?"

4544. Both these issues are interconnected and can be

decided together. The submission of the defendants-Hindu

parties is that the plaintiffs are the beneficiaries in the sense that

they are only the worshippers and in that capacity had filed the

suit in question. This right of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) would

continue only so long as the disputed structure was there and

after its demolition since there cannot be a mosque in existence,

the plaintiffs loose right of worship for all times to come and

therefore, the suit in question is liable to be dismissed as no

longer maintainable.

4545. On the contrary, the plaintiffs (Suit-4) have pleaded

that once there is a waqf by construction of a mosque, it is not

confined only to the building but to land also and therefore,

even if the building is subsequently damaged, collapsed or

demolished, it would not affect the rights of the Muslims to

offer prayer (Namaz) at the site in dispute. Even if it is a open

site, its status of mosque (waqf) will continue.

4546. While considering the issues relating to the mosque,

we have already observed that a waqf can be created only when

the wakif is the owner of the land and once he creates a waqf,

the property in its entirety vest in the almighty and the wakif

ceases to have any relation with the property thereafter. In the

case in hand, we have already held that the building in dispute

was constructed as mosque and it was so treated, believed and

5071

practiced by all concerned, which included the Hindus also.

Moreover, in the absence of any claim as to title, the plaintiffs

(Suit-4), have approached this Court on the basis of their interest

in the property in dispute derived from possession in the sense

of a right to offer Namaz at the disputed site. Such right, in our

view, cannot be defeated merely by removing the construction,

since the plaintiffs if had a right to possess the land in question,

they can continue to maintain their suit irrespective of whether

building in dispute has been demolished.

4547. In our view, issues no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are

answered that as a result of the demolition of disputed structure,

Suit-4 of the plaintiffs muslim parties cannot be said to be not

maintainable. No further aspect need to be answered. Issues

no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are answered accordingly.

4548. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) read as under:

Issue No.3

"Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka'

and the idols situated in the site in suit."

Issue No.4

"Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in

suit?"

4549. As we have already noticed, Charan Paduka i.e. Sita

Rasoi is in the outer courtyard, there is no occasion to make any

declaration in this regard. This is not within the scope of Suit-1.

So far as the idol and right of Darshan of the place concerned,

we have already held that place in suit, in so far as it constitute

the place of birth of lord Rama can be visited for Darshan and

worship by all the Hindus as a matter of right, who believed and

aspire for the same. However, it cannot be said that while

5072

visiting a place for worship, the defendant State or others who

are responsible for management of the place of worship cannot

impose restrictions provided they are reasonable and necessary

for the benefit and facility of the worshippers as also for the

safety, security, cleanliness etc. of the deity.

4550. Therefore, subject to such reasonable restriction, as

may be necessary in the given facts and circumstances, we hold

that the plaintiff has a right to worship the place in suit to the

extent it has been held by this Court constituting the birthplace

of lord Rama, and if an idol is also placed in such a place, the

same can also be worshipped accordingly. Both these issues are

answered accordingly.

4551. Issues relating to reliefs:

4552. Issue No. 16, Suit-4:

"To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of

them, entitled?"

4553. In view of our finding on Issue No. 3 since the suit

is barred by limitation, the question of entitlement of any relief

to the plaintiff does not arise as the suit itself is liable to be

dismissed.

4554. Issue No. 17, Suit-1:

"To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"

4555. Since the site in dispute includes part of the land

which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and has

been held to be a deity and place of worship of Hindus, the

plaintiff's right to worship cannot be doubted. To this extent the

plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, which is ordered

accordingly. However, it is made clear that such right of the

plaintiff is always subject to restrictions which may be found

5073

necessary by the competent authority on account of security,

safety and maintenance of the place of worship. Since the place

of worship is a "Swayambhu deity", whether an idol is kept

there or not, would make no difference and it is the matter to be

seen by those who are responsible for management of such

place, and according to the majority of the worshippers as to

how they intend to keep and maintain the place of worship

without disturbing its nature as deity. No individual worshipper

can insist that such place of worship be maintained in a

particular manner. Therefore, except the declaration as above,

the plaintiff (Suit-1) is not entitled to any other relief.

4556. Issue No. 13, Suit-3:

"To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"

4557. In view of our findings in respect of issues no. 2, 3,

4, 9 and 14 the plaintiff, Suit-3, in our view, is not entitled to

any relief.

4558. Issue no. 30, Suit-5:

"To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them

entitled?"

4559. Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the entire

premises described vide Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 belonged to the

plaintiffs deities and also a permanent injunction against the

defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any

objection to or placing any restriction on the construction of the

new temple at Sri Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya. We have already

held that the area under the central dome of the disputed

construction believed and worshipped by the Hindu people as

the place of birth of Lord Rama and they were worshiping

thereat since time immemorial. This part of the land constitutes

5074

deity, "Sri Ram Janamsthan", and a place of special significance

for Hindus. Therefore it has to be treated in a manner where the

very right of worship of Hindus of place of birth of Lord Rama

is not extinguished or otherwise interfered with. We have

simultaneously held that so far as other land within the inner

courtyard of the disputed structure is concerned, this open land

had been continuously used by members of both the

communities for their respective prayers and worship for

decades and centuries.

4560. Though the prayer in the suit is worded in the

different manner but for complete justice and to avoid

multiplicity of litigation as also the adjudication which may

settled centuries old dispute finally, we are of the view that we

can mould the wordings of the reliefs and can pass an order in

respect to respective parties in this case which as suuch may not

be covered by the form of relief but is within the scope of the

case. In this regard we can rely on the provision under Order VII

Rule 7 CPC.

4561. We may also referred to earlier decision of this

Court in Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR 1954

All. 191, “A” and “B” were co-sharers. “A” sold a land to “C”.

“B” filed a suit claiming possession of the land stating that he

was entitled for exclusive possession of the property as the said

land was already in his possession to the exclusion of “A”. A

Single Judge of this Court held that “A” and “B”, being co-

sharers, “B” had no right to claim exclusive possession of the

plot to the exclusion of “A” and similarly “A” had no right to

transfer specific plot to “C” but can transfer his share in plot to

“C” and, thereafter “A” and “C” will hold the plot in question as

5075

co-sharers. It also observed that if the prayer clause in a plaint is

not properly worded, the Court should give due consideration to

the decree which should be passed. This part of the observation

is referable to Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. Judgment is relied on to

overcome the difficulty in the suits with respect to the relief

sought therein. In our view, Order VII Rule 7 can be resorted to

by the Court when something can be found within the scope of

the relief sought by the plaintiff or where a higher relief is

claimed but the Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for a

lesser relief but the scope of Order VII Rule 7 cannot be

extended by widening the scope of the relief which has actually

not been called for or to permit plaintiff to wriggle out of the

statutory obstruction like limitation etc. on account of a relief

claimed by him which is barred or prohibited or cannot be

granted for one or the other reason. The Court will not proide a

safe passage to a party by reading the words of the reliefs sought

by it in a manner which may help it in overcoming the difficulty

it otherwise is facing or is bound to face on account of the

mandatory provisions of the statute of limitation etc. The scope

of Order VII Rule 7 is not to use it as a leverage to help a party

to the extent that the other party stand discriminated in an

otherwise matter where other party is entitled to get the issue

decided in its favour whether it is in respect to limitation, res

judicata or similar other statutory provisions. It is the plaintiff

who has to be careful enough to find out as to what grievance he

actually has, what the real cause of action and what relief one

must claim from the Court. The Court will not provide a

comfortable question in the form of rewording of all these

things to the extent it may change what has actually been

5076

changed by the plaintiff in its entirety.

4562. In order to mould relief under Order VII Rule 7,

reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in Sardar Ali

Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan AIR (30) 1943

Oudh 243, it was held therein that where more is claimed, the

plaintiff may get what is found due to him even though less that

what he has claimed. Where more is claimed any smaller

amount may be given if found due to the plaintiff. This

proposition cannot be doubted but then we may refer to the

further observation of the Court that relief not founded on the

pleadings should not be granted. It is not proper for a to Court to

displace the case made by a party in his pleading and to give

effect to an entirely new case which that party has not made out

in his pleading and which he has expressly disclaimed. But

where the substantial matters which constitute the title of all the

parties are touched, though obscurely, in the issues, and they

have been fully put in evidence and have formed the main

subject of discussion in the Court, the Court may grant a relief

though it may not be founded on the pleadings. Therefore, the

mould of relief will depend upon the case and recourse to Order

VII Rule 7 can be had only to the extent it do not make violence

with the pleadings and reliefs in the suit.

4563. Considering the scope of Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. in

Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 Kar. 45, a

Division Bench observed:

“The normal rule that relief not founded on the pleadings

should not be granted is not without an exception. Where

substantial matters constituting the title of all the parities

are touched in the issues and have been fully put in

5077

evidence the case does not fall within the aforesaid rule.

The Court has to look into the substance of the claim in

determining the nature of the relief to be granted. Of

course, the Court while moulding the relief must take care

to see that relief it grants is not inconsistent with the

plaintiff's claim, and is based on the same cause of action

on which the relief claimed in the suit, that it occasions no

prejudice or causes embarrassment to the other side; that it

is not larger than the one claimed in the suit, even it the

plaintiff is really entitled to it, unless he amends the plaint;

that it had not been barred by time on the date of

presentation of the plaint.”

“No doubt the plaintiff has sought for exclusive title

and he has not been able to prove his exclusive title; but

has been able to prove, that he is entitled to a half share in

the suit properties. When a party claims exclusive title to

the suit property and is liable to establish that he is entitled

to half of the suit property, it will not be unusual for the

Court to pass a decree for partition and possession of his

half share. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed

for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire

property. When a larger relief is claimed and what is

established, is not the entire relief claimed in the suit but a

part of it, as whole includes a part, larger relief includes

smaller relief, and it also arises out of the same cause of

action. ... Therefore, even if a separate suit has to be filed

for partition, the defendant does not have any sustainable

defence. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the

defendant/ respondent if a preliminary decree for partition

5078

and separate possession is passed in this suit itself.”

4564. Relief of declaration and injunction is discretionary

but it is the duty of the Court to administer justice between the

parties and not to convert itself into instrument of injustice or an

engine of oppression. In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree

College, Shamli and others Vs. Lakshmi Narain (supra) the

Court said:

"27. . . . . . the relief of declaration and injunction under

the provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely

discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right.

The relief has to be granted by the court according to

sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The court

has to administer justice between the parties and cannot

convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of

oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its

discretionary powers the court must keep in mind the well

settled principles of justice and fairplay and should

exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it,

for justice is not an object which can be administered in

vacuum."

4565. In American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta Steep

Co. (supra) the Court said:

"22. Undoubtedly declaration of the rights or status is one

of discretion of the court under Section 34 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1963. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of

declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act

is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of

right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of

law and ex debito justicia. The court cannot convert itself

5079

into an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression.

While exercising its discretionary power, the court must

keep in its mind the well settled principles of justice and

fair play and the discretion would be exercised keeping in

view the ends of justice since justice is the hall mark and it

cannot be administered in vacuum. Grant of declaration

and injunction relating to commercial transactions tend to

aid dishonesty and perfidy. Conversely refusal to grant

relief generally encourages candour in business behaviour,

facilitates free Row of capital, prompt compliance of

covenants, sustained growth of commerce and above all

inculcates respect for the efficacy of judicial adjudication.

Before granting or refusing to grant of relief of declaration

or injunction or both the court must weigh pros and cons in

each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their

proper perspective and exercise discretion with

circumspection to further the ends of justice."

4566. In the light of the above and considering overall

findings of this Court on various issues, following directions

and/or declaration, are given which in our view would meet the

ends of justice:

(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central

dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed

structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and

place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the

Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be

obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.

This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix

7 to this judgment.

(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by

5080

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

5081

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.

4567. Before parting with this matter, we find it necessary

to place on record our appreciation to learned counsels, Sri Ravi

Shankar Prasad, Sri P.R. Ganpathi Ayer, Sri K.N. Bhat, Senior

Advocates; Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Sri S.I.

Ahamad, Sri C.M. Shukla, Sri S.P. Srivastava, Sri M.M. Pandey,

Sri R.L. Verma, Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri

Rakesh Pandey, Sri R.K. Srivastava, Sri P.N. Mishra, Amitabh

Shukla, Sushri Ranjana Agnihotri, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri

D.P. Gupta, K.G. Mishra, Sri Fazle Alam, Sri Ved Prakash and

Sri Ramakant Srivastava, Advocates who assisted us with ability

and it is because of their hard labour in placing voluminous

record including religious, historical and other kinds of texts

etc., before the Court in a systematic manner that we have been

5082

able to decide one of the most delicate, complicated and

cumbersome matter involving almost the entire population of

the country. The cordial atmosphere, peaceful and amicable

behaviour which they have shown in the Court also deserve our

commendation.

4568. This was a gigantic and herculean task. The record

of the case was so voluminous that without having a few very

competent and expert hands we could not have accomplished

our task. We place on record commendation to the able and

effective assistance provided by Sri Hari Shankar Dube, O.S.D.

Ayodhya Bench, Sri Chintamani Ram, Bench Secretary, and Sri

Yusuf Khan, Court's Staff, S/Sri Akhilesh Kumar Nayak, P.S.,

Awadhesh Kumar, Puneet Srivastava, Kushal Agarwal,

Yogendra Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Gupta and Alkesh who

are the Court's personal staff and worked almost day-night

enabling us to complete this matter.

4569. Since the judgment has become extremely bulky and

it may be difficult to find different factual and legal aspects,

therefore, for convenience we have prepared three indexes, (i)

General Index, (ii) Citation; and, (iii) Reference Books which

are appended with this judgment as Appendix Nos. 9, 8 and 10.

4570. The number of issues are 120 (including sub-issues).

We, therefore, summarize our findings on different issues,

suitwise, as under:

Suit-4

1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. The

plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building in dispute

was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi.

5083

3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27 (Suit-4) are answered in

affirmative.

4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative and

it is held that the fact that the land in dispute entered in the

records of the authorities as Nazul plot would make things

difference.

5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered being

irrelevant.

6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in

question was not exclusively used by the members of

muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard

exclusively used by Hindu and inner courtyard had been

visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both

the communities.

7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against

the plaintiffs.

8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against

the plaintiffs. It is held that Suit-4 is barred by limitation.

9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the

erection of partition wall the premises in outer courtyard

has not been shown to be used/possessed by muslim

parties but so far as the inner courtyard is concerned it has

been used by both the parties.

10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered against the plaintiffs.

11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in favour of

defendants and Hindu parties in general.

12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22 (Suit-4), are answered in

negative.

13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) not pressed by the defendants,

5084

hence not answered.

14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in favour of plaintiffs

subject to that issue 6 (Suit-3) is also decided in favour of

defendants (Suit-3).

15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held

that there is nothing to show that Mahant Raghubar Das

filed Suit-1885 on behalf of Janamsthan and whole body

of persons interested in Janamsthan.

17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) answered in affirmative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in negative to the

extent that there is no admission by Mahant Raghubar Das

plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title of Muslims to the

property in dispute or any portion thereof. Consequently,

the question of considering its effect does not arise.

19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are answered in negative,

i.e., against the plaintiffs and muslims in general.

20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as

believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered

under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,

the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the

premises of dispute.

21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since the suit is liable to

be dismissed being barred by limitation.

22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) answered in negative holding that

no valid notification under Section 5(3) of U.P. Act No. 13

of 1936 was issued.

5085

23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-it is held that the decision of the

Apex Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and

others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does not affect findings on

issue 17 (Suit-4) and on the contrary the same stand

supported and strengthen by the said judgment.

24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that the premises

which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama

continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious

structures in the outer courtyard cannot be said to be the

property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative to the

extent that the building was land locked and could not be

reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu

worship. However, this by itself was of no consequence.

26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that Hindus were

worshipping at the place in dispute before construction of

the disputed structure but that would not make any

difference to the status of the building in dispute which

came to be constructed at the command of the sole

monarch having supreme power which cannot be

adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted or

formed much after, and according to the law which was

not applicable at that time.

27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered in

favour of the plaintiffs.

28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as the first part is

concerned, is answered in affirmative. The second part is

left unanswered being redundant. In the ultimate result the

issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

5086

29. Issue 20(a) being irrelevant not answered.

30. Issue 20(b) (Suit-4)-It is held that at the time of

attachment of the building there was a Mutawalli, i.e., one

Sri Javvad Hussain and in the absence of Mutawalli relief

of possession cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are

before the Court in the capacity of worshippers.

31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) decided in negative, i.e., in favour

of the plaintiffs. The suit is not bad for non-joinder of

deities.

32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held that neither the

Waqf Board is an instrumentality of State nor there is any

bar in filing a suit by the Board against the State. It is also

not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and can

very well represent the interest of one community without

infringing any provision of the Constitution.

33. Issues 25 and 26 (Suit-4)-Held that as a result of

demolition of the disputed structure it cannot be said that

the suit has rendered not maintainable. Nothing further

needs to be answered.

34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that plaintiffs have failed

to prove their possession of the disputed premises, i.e.,

outer and inner courtyard including the disputed building

ever.

Suit-1

1. Issue 1 (Suit-1)-It is held that the place of birth, as

believed and worshipped by Hindus, is the area covered

under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,

the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the

premises of dispute.

5087

2. Issue 2 (Suit-1)- It is held that the idols were kept

under the central dome of the disputed structure within

inner courtyard in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949

and prior thereto the same existed in the outer courtyard.

Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was filed the said

idol existed in the inner courtyard under the central dome

of the disputed structure, i.e., prior to the filing of the suit.

So far as the Charan Paduka is concerned, the said

premises existed in the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is

confined only to the inner courtyard, question of existence

of Charan Paduka on the site in suit does not arise.

3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held that plaintiffs have

right to worship. The place in suit to the extent it has been

held by this Court to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if

an idol is also placed in such a place the same can also be

worshipped, but this is subject to reasonable restrictions

like security, safety, maintenance etc.

4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and 11(a) (Suit-1) are

answered in negative.

5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit 1885 was decided

against Mahant Raghubar Das and he was not granted any

relief by the respective courts, and, no more.

6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. The

defendants have failed to prove that the property in

dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in

1528 AD.

7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in negative, i.e., against

the defendants muslim parties.

8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. Suit is not

5088

barred by proviso to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act,

1963.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour of plaintiffs

(Suit-1).

10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in favour of plaintiffs

(Suit-1).

11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the plaintiffs.

12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in negative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs of Suit-1.

13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmative.

14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1) are answered in

negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-1).

15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after

dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 as withdrawn.

16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have

right of worship at the site in dispute including the part of

the land which is held by this Court to be the place of birth

of Lord Rama according to the faith and belief of Hindus

but this right is subject to such restrictions as may be

necessary by authorities concerned in regard to law and

order, i.e., safety, security and also for the maintenance of

place of worship etc. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any

other relief.

Suit-3

1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered in negative.

2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are answered in negative,

i.e., against the plaintiffs.

3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in negative. The

defendants have filed to prove that the property in dispute

5089

was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528

AD.

4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence answered in

negative.

5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in

negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the

defendants in Suit-3.

6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in negative.

7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiff. It

is also held that a private defendant cannot raise objection

of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section

80 CPC.

8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided in negative, i.e.,

in favour of plaintiffs.

9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is not entitled to any

relief in view of the findings in respect of issues 2, 3, 4, 14

and 19.

10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative. It is

held that the suit as framed is not maintainable.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs (Suit-3).

12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiffs.

Nirmohi Akhara is held a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi

Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its

religious faith and pursuit according to its own customs.

However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found sometime

after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.

Suit-5

1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. Plaintiffs

5090

1 and 2 both are juridical persons.

2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as it is not necessary

for the dispute in the case.

3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. The

idols were installed under the central dome of the disputed

building in the early hours of 23rd December, 1949.

4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and 24 (Suit-5) are

answered in affirmative.

5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28 (Suit-5) are answered in

negative.

6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. The idol in

question kept under the Shikhar existed there prior to 6th

December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and

instead kept thereat in the night of 22nd/23rd December,

1949.

7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour

of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against the defendant

no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs.

10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not barred by

limitation.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that the muslims at least

from 1860 and onwards have visited the inner courtyard in

the premises in dispute and have offered Namaj thereat.

The last Namaj was offered on 16th December, 1949.

12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and

2 ever extinguished nor the question of reacquisition

5091

thereof ever arise.

13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e.,

against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.

14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered being unnecessary

for the dispute in the case in hand.

15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e.,

against the defendants no. 4 and 5.

16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that the place of birth as

believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered

under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e.,

the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the

premises of dispute.

17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. It is

held that the judgment dated 30.03.1946 in Suit No. 29 of

1949 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (suit-5).

18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are answered in negative,

i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in

favour of plaintiffs.

20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly decreed in the

manner the directions are issued in para 4566.

4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4

are dismissed. Suit-5 is decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.

Dated: 30.09.2010

5092

APPENDIX-1

5093

APPENDIX-1A

5094

APPENDIX-1B

(A fair copy of Appendix 1A, site plan map with Hindi Translation)

5095

APPENDIX-2

5096

APPENDIX-2A(A FAIR COPY OF APPENDIX-2)

5097

APPENDIX-2B

5098

APPENDIX-2C

5099

APPENDIX-3

61/280/1885 (EX. A-25 in OOS 1/89)

5100

APPENDIX-3A

(A Fair of Appendix-3, Site Plan Map with Hindi Translation)

5101

APPENDIX-4

5102

APPENDIX-4A

5103

APPENDIX-4B

5104

APPENDIX-5A

200C1/48

5105

APPENDIX-5B

200C1/50

5106

APPENDIX-5C

200C1/51

5107

APPENDIX-5D

200C1/52

5108

APPENDIX-5E

200C1/54

5109

APPENDIX-5F

200C1/87

5110

APPENDIX-5G

200C1/104

5111

APPENDIX-5H

200C1/105

5112

APPENDIX-5 I

200C1/109

5113

APPENDIX-5 J

200C1/114

5114

APPENDIX-5K

200C1/115

5115

APPENDIX-5L

200C1/141

5116

APPENDIX-5M

200C1/146

5117

APPENDIX-5N

200C1/147

5118

APPENDIX-5O

200C1/166

5119

APPENDIX-5P

200C1/167

5120

APPENDIX-5Q

200C1/181

5121

APPENDIX-5R

200C1/186

5122

APPENDIX-5S

200C1/187

5123

APPENDIX-5T

200C1/195

5124

APPENDIX-5U

200C1/199

5125

APPENDIX-5V

200C1/200

5126

APPENDIX-5W

201C1/55

5127

APPENDIX-5X

201C1/57

5128

APPENDIX-5Y

201C1/76

5129

APPENDIX-5Z

201C1/88

5130

APPENDIX-5AA

201C1/91

5131

APPENDIX-5 BB

201C1/103

5132

APPENDIX-5CC

201C1/104

5133

APPENDIX-5DD

201C1/106

5134

APPENDIX-6

A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF TAHSIL FYZABAD, ZILLAH FYZABADBy P. CARNEGY (PUBLISHED IN 1887)

5135

APPENDIX-7

Copy of site plan (Appendix 2) with marking by the Court

5136

APPENDIX-8

General Index-Judgment

Sl.No. Particulars Date Paras Pages

1. Party name and Counsels name 1-10

2. Rig-Veda X.129.1-3, 6, 7 11-13

3. Topography 2-5 13-15

4. Disputed Structure 6 15-16

5. O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 16.1.1950 7-18 16-25

6. Reliefs (Suit-1) 8 17-18

7. Plaint (Suit-1) 9-11 18-20

8. W.S. of defendants no. 1 to 5 (Suit-1)

21.2.1950 12-13 20-23

9. Replication to W.S. of defendants no. 1 to 5 (Suit-1)

5.12.1952 14-15 23-24

10. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-1) 25.4.1950 16 24-25

11. W.S. of defendants no. 8 & 9 (Suit-1)

17 25

12. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-1) 24.2.1989 18 25

13. O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 19-28 25-39

14. Plaint (Suit-3) 17.12.1959 21-22 26-29

15. W.S. of defendants no. 6 to 8 (Suit-3)

28.3.1960 23 29-31

16. Replication to W.S. of defendants no. 6 to 8 (Suit-3)

24 31-33

17. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit-3)

24.8.1995 25 33-34

18. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-3) 21.10.1991 26 34-35

5137

19. Replication to W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-3)

8.11.1991 27-28 35-39

20. O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 29-70 39-104

21. Plaint (Suit-4) 33-35 41-47

22. W.S. of defendant no. 1 (Suit-4) 12.3.1962 36 47-49

23. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 1 (Suit-4)

31.10.1962 37 49-51

24. W.S. of defendant no. 2 (Suit-4) 25.1.1963 38 51

25. Replication to W.S. of defendants no. 1 & 2 (Suit-4)

11.9.1963 39 51-52

26. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)

22/24.8.1962

40-43 52-58

27. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)

25.1.1963 44 58

28. II Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)

28/29.11.1963

45 59

29. III Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-4)

21.8.1995 46-47 59-61

30. Replication to W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)

11.9.1963 48 61-62

31. Application of Defendants no. 5 to 8 (Suit-4)

21.4.1962/

28.5.1962

49 62-63

32. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit-4) 27/28.7.1962

50 63

33. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4) 16.2.1990 51-53 63-66

34. Replication to W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4)

18.11.1991 54 66

35. Supplementary replication to amended W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4)

27.11/3.12.1991

55 67

5138

36. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4)

12.9.1995 56 67-70

37. W.S. of defendants no. 13 & 14 (Suit-4)

20.7.1968 57-58 70-73

38. W.S. of defendant no. 13 (Suit-4) 4.12.1989 59-62 73-90

39. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 13 (Suit-4)

29.8.1995 63 90

40. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 17 (Suit-4)

14.9.1995 64 90-91

41. W.S. of defendant no. 18 (Suit-4) 18/19.7.1969

65 91

42. W.S. of defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) 5.11.1989 66-69 91-103

43. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 20 (Suit-4)

17.10.1995 70 103-104

44. O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 1.7.1989 71-104 104-149

45. Reliefs (Suit-5) 72 105

46. Plaint (Suit-5) 1.7.1989 73-83 106-120

47. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-5) 14.8.1989 84 120-122

48. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-5)

20.4.1992 85 122-123

49. II Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 (Suit-5)

13.5.1994 86 123-124

50. W.S. of defendant no. 4 (Suit-5) 26/29.8.1989

87-93 124-139

51. W.S. of defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) 14/21.8.1989

94 139-141

52. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 4 & 5 (Suit-5)

22.8.1995 95 141-142

53. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-5) 21/22/8/1989

96 142

5139

54. W.S. of defendant no. 11 (Suit-5) 97 142

55. W.S. of defendant no. 17 (Suit-5) 14.8.1989 98 142

56. W.S. of defendant no. 23 (Suit-5) 18.9.1989 99 142

57. W.S. of defendant no. 24 (Suit-5) 4.9.1989 100-103 142-148

58. W.S. of defendant no. 25 (Suit-5) 16/18.9.1989

104 148-149

59. Progress of the suits -- journey in the last almost 61 years and some important stages -- brief resume.

105-211 149-197

60. (a) Proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

105-120 149-156

61. (b) Suit-1 (from 16.1.1950 to 1963) 121-134 156-163

62. (c) Suit-2 135 163

63. (d) Suit-3 (from 1959 to 1963) 136 163-164

64. (e) Suit-4 (from 9.12.1961 to 1962) 137-138 164

65. (f)Suit 1 to 4 (from 6.1.1964 to 10.7.1989)

139-211 164-197

66. Excavation of the Site-Proceedings 212-241 197-261

67. ASI Report-Extract 22.08.2003 242-245 261-266

68. Details of Impleadment application rejected

246 266-270

69. Statement of Party/Party's counsels under order X Rule 2 CPC

247-264 270-283

70. Commissioner/ Receiver appointed for the disputed site

265-266 283-285

71. Issues 267-272 285-301

72. (a) Issues in Suit No.4 269 285-292

73. (b) Issues in Suit No.1 270 292-295

5140

74. (c) Issues in Suit No.3 271 295-296

75. (d) Issues in Suit No.5 272 296-301

76. Evidence adduced 273-606 301-965

77. (a) Oral deposition 274-599 302-921

78. Categorization of Witnesses 286-294 307-311

79. (A) Witnesses of facts on behalf of plaintiffs in Suit-4-Examination-in-Chief (brief)

295-331 311-349

80. PW 1 Mohd. Hashim July 1996 296-298 311-315

81. PW 2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad Sep.1996 299-300 315-317

82. PW 3 Farooq Ahmad October 1996

301-302 317-318

83. PW 4 Mohd. Yaseen October 1996

303-304 318-320

84. PW 5 Abdul Rahman Nov. 1996 305-306 321-323

85. PW 6 Mohd. Yunus Siddiqui 28.11.1996 307-308 323-326

86. PW 7 Hasmat Ulla Ansari 05.12.96 309-310 326-328

87. PW 8 Abdul Ajij 20.01.1997 311-312 328-330

88. PW 9 Saiyed Ekhalaq 18.02.1997 313-314 330-333

89. PW 14 Jalil Ahmad 16.02.1999 315-316 333-335

90. PW 21 Dr.M. Hashim Quidwai 22.11.2001 317-320 335-340

91. PW 22 Mohd. Khalid Nadvi 9/10.01.2002

321-323 340-341

92. PW 23 Mohd. Qasim Ansari 16.01.2002 324-325 341-345

93. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naquvi 5/6.03.2002

326-331 345-349

94. (B) Regarding birthplace of Lord Rama, Continuous worship by

332-466 349-658

5141

Hindus and demolition of temple

95. DW 1/1 Rajendra Singh 22.07.2003 332-333 349-360

96. DW 1/2 Krishna Chandra Singh 28.07.2003 334-335 360-367

97. DW 1/3 Dr. Sahdev Prasad Dubey 04.08.2003 336-338 367-378

98. DW 2/1-1 Rajendra Singh 01.12.2004 339-340 378-391

99. DW 2/1-2 Ram Saran Srivastava 20.01.2005 343-349 391-398

100. DW 2/1-3 Mahant Ram Vilas Das Vaidanti

16.02.2005 350-354 398-419

101. DW 3/1 Mahant Bhaskar Das 29.08.2003 355-359 419-430

102. DW 3/2 Raja Ram Pandey 22.09.2003 360-363 430-437

103. D/W 3/3 Satya Narayan Tripathi 30.10.2003 364-367 437-445

104. D/W 3/4 Shiv Saran Das 14.11.2003 368-370 445-447

105. D/W 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey 18.11.2003 371-372 447-458

106. D/W 3/6 Sita Ram Yadav 06.01.2004 373-375 458-464

107. D/W 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das 30.01.2004 376-377 464-474

108. D/W 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sundar Mishra 30.01.2004 378-380 474-482

109. D/W 3/9 Ram Ashrey Yadav 22.03.2004 381-384 482-494

110. D/W 3/11 Bhanu Pratap Singh 28.04.2004 385-388 494-499

111. D/W 3/12 Ram Akshaybar Pandey 24.05.2004 389-391 499-504

112. D/W 3/13 Mahant Ram Shubhag Das Shastri

05.07.2004 392-394 504-518

113. D/W 3/14 Jagadguru Ramandacharya Swami Haryacharya

23.07.2004 395-403 518-526

114. D/W 3/15 Narendra Bahadur Singh 17.08.2004 404-407 526-532

115. D/W 3/16 Shiv Bheekh Singh 24.08.2004 408-410 532-538

116. D/W 3/17 Mata Badan Tiwari 31.08.2004 411-413 538-542

5142

117. D/W 3/18 Acharya Mahant Banshidhar Das alias Uriya Baba

15.09.2004 414-416 542-546

118. D/W 3/19 Ram Milan Singh 12.10.2004 417-419 546-554

119. D/W 3/20 Mahant Raja Ram Chandracharya

27.10.2004 420-424 554-568

120. D/W 13/1-1 Mahanta Dharma Das 10.03.2005 425-429 568-578

121. D/W 17/1 Ramesh Chandra Tripathi

09.05.2005 430-433 578-585

122. D/W 20/1 Shashikant Rungata 26.05.2005 434-436 585-593

123. D/W 20/2 Swami Avimukteshewaranand Saraswati

27.06.2005 437-441 593-603

124. D/W 20/3 Brahmachari Ram Rakshanand

18.07.2005 442-444 603-606

125. OPW 1 Mahant Ram Chandra Das Digambar

23.12.1999 445-449 606-614

126. OPW 2 Deoki Nandan Agarwal 16-20.06.2001

450-451 614-615

127. OPW 4 Sri Harihar Prasad Tewari 06.08.2002 452-453 615-620

128. OPW 5 Ramnath Mishra alias Banarasi Panda

6/7.08.2002

454-455 620-629

129. OPW 6 Hausila Prasad Tripathi 13.08.2002 456-457 629-638

130. OPW 7 Ram Surat Tiwari 19.09.2002 458-459 637-646

131. OPW 12 Kaushal Kishore Mishra 16.12.2002 460-463 646-653

132. OPW 13 Naradsharan 27.01.2003 464-466 653-658

133. (C) Temple (Existence & Demolition)

467-531 658-804

134. PW 12 Ram Shankar Upadhyay 20.01.1998 468-469 658-660

135. PW 13 Suresh Chandra Mishra 13.07.1998 470-471 660-663

136. PW 15 Sushil Srivastava 15.04.1999 472-473 663-666

5143

137. PW 16 Prof. Suraj Bhan 22.02.2000 474-478 666-686

138. PW 18 Suvira Jaiswal 19.02.2001 479-480 686-688

139. PW 20 Prof. Shirin Musavi 24.07.2001 481-483 688-694

140. PW 24 Prof. Dhaneshwar Mandal 25.02.2002 484-487 694-705

141. PW 27 Prof. Dr. Shereen F. Ratnagar

08.04.2002 488-503 705-716

142. PW 28 Sita Ram Roy 22/23.04.2002

504-511 716-725

143. OPW 3 Dr. S.P. Gupta 28.06.2001 512-514 725-757

144. OPW 9 Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma 31.10.2001 515-518 757-767

145. OPW 11 Satish Chandra Mittal 25.11.2002 519-524 767-780

146. OPW 16 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya

15.07.2003 525-526 780-788

147. DW 13/1-3 Dr. Bishan Bahadur 07.04.2005 527-529 788-793

148. DW 20/4 Madan Mohan Gupta 16.05.2005 530-531 793-804

149. (D) ASI Report 532-568 804-869

150. PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon 28.09.2005 533-535 805-806

151. PW 30 Dr. R.C. Thakran 07.11.2005 536-537 806-830

152. PW 31 Dr. Ashok Datta 20.01.2006 538-540 830-839

153. PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma 27.03.2006 541-545 839-843

154. OPW 17 Dr. R. Nagaswamy 17.08.2006 546-547 843-850

155. OPW 18 Arun Kumar Sharma 28.08.2006 548-555 850-855

156. OPW 19 Sri Rakesh Datta Trivedi 03.10.2006 556-557 855-859

157. DW 6/1-1 Hazi Mahmood Ahmad 29.08.2005 558-559 859-860

158. DW 6/1-2 Mohd. Abid 12.09.2005 560-562 860-863

159. DW 20/5 Jayanti Prasad Srivastava 15.01.2007 563-568 863-869

5144

160. (E) Characteristics of Mosque 569-585 869-896

161. PW 10 Mohd. Idris 28.02.1997 569-571 869-875

162. PW11 Mohd. Burhanuddin 16.09.1997 572-574 876-880

163. PW 19 Maulana Atiq Ahmed 21.05.2001 575-577 880-885

164. PW 22 Mohd. Khalid Nadvi 9/10.01.2002

578-579 885-887

165. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naqvi 05/6.03.2002

580 887

166. PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad 2/3.04.2002

581-585 887-896

167. (F) Sanskrit Inscriptions found in 1992

586-592 896-911

168. OPW 8 Ashok Chandra Chaterjee 03.10.2002 586-587 896-905

169. OPW 10 Dr. Koluvyl Vyassrayasastri Ramesh

11.11.2002 588-590 905-909

170. OPW 15 Dr. M.N. Katti 31.03.2003 591-592 909-911

171. (G) Artifacts in debris 593-595 911-915

172. OPW 14 Dr. Rakesh Tiwari 07.02.2003 593-595 911-915

173. (H) Commissioner/ Survey Report

596-599 915-921

174. PW 17 Zafar Ali Siddiqui 20.10.2000 596-597 915-919

175. DW 3/10 Sri Pateshwari Dutt Pandey

23.03.2004 598-599 919-921

176. (b) Documentary Evidence 600-606 921-965

177. List of documents filed/exhibited by the parties

600-606 921-965

178. Totaling of the exhibits 607 965

179. On Merits-General Observations 608-4576 965-5081

5145

180. Categorization of issues 611 967-968

181. Issues-Discussion and findings on merit

614-4576 968-5081

182. (A) Issues relating to Notice under Section 80 C.P.C.-Issues No. 10 (Suit-3), 13, 14 (Suit-1) and 26, 27 (Suit-5)

614-668 969-992

183. Issue No. 10 (Suit-3) 614-644 969-980

184. Issues No. 13 and 14 Suit-1 645-666 980-991

185. Issues no. 26 and 27 of Suit-5 667-668 991-992

186. (B) Religious Denomination-Issue no. 17 (Suit-3)

669-799 992-1127

187. (C) Relating to Suit-1885 and its effect on present suits, i.e., res judicata and estoppel etc.-Issues No. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d) (Suit-1); 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d) and 8 (Suit-4); and 23 and 29 (Suit-5)

800 1127

188. Issue No. 5 (a) (Suit-1) 853-860 1156-1159

189. Issue No. 5 (b) (Suit-1) 861-868 1159-1162

190. Issue No. 5 (c) (Suit-1) 869-870 1162-1164

191. Issue No. 7 (a) (Suit-4) 871-874 1164-1165

192. Issue No. 7 (d) (suit-4) 875-876 1165-1166

193. Issues No. 5 (d) (Suit-1); 7 (c) and 8 (suit-4); 23 (Suit-5)

877-1063 1166-1285

194. Issue No. 29 (Suit-5) 1064-1065 1285

195. Issue No. 7 (b) (Suit-4) 1066 1285-1286

196. (D) Relating to Waqfs Act No. 13 of 1936, 16 of 1960 and certain incidental issues-Issues No. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f), 17, 18, 23, 24 (Suit-4); 9, 9(a), 9(b) and

1067-1275 1286-1440

5146

9(c) (Suit-1); 7(a), 7(b) and 16 (Suit-3) and 28 (Suit-5)

197. Issues No. 17, 5(a), 5(c), 5(d) (Suit-4)

1068-1072 1286-1298

198. Issue No. 9 (Suit-1) 1073-1075 1298-1299

199. Issues No. 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) 1076-1077 1299

200. Issues No. 5(b) (Suit-4) and 9(a) (Suit-1)

1078-1151 1299-1359

201. Issue No. 5(e) (Suit-4) 1152-1167 1359-1369

202. Issue No. 18 (Suit-4) 1168-1176 1369-1377

203. Issue No. 9(b) (Suit-1) 1177-1181 1377-1379

204. Issue No. 9(c) (Suit-1) 1182-1192 1379-1387

205. Issue No. 16 (Suit-3) 1193-1198 1387-1390

206. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) 1199-1202 1390-1391

207. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) 1203-1243 1391-1410

208. Issue 28 (Suit-5) 1244-1275 1410-1440

209. (E) Misc. issues like representative nature of suit, Trust, Section 91 C.P.C., non-joinder of parties, valuation/ insufficient Court fee/under valuation and special costs.[Issues No. 6, 22 (Suit-4), 11 (a), 11 (b), 12, 15, 16 (Suit-1), 11, 12, 15 (Suit-3) and. 20 (Suit-5)]

1276-1294 1440-1449

210. Issue No. 6 (Suit-4) 1276-1277 1440-1441

211. Issue No. 22 (Suit-4) 1278 1441

212. Issue No. 11 (a) and 11 (b) (Suit-1) 1279-1282 1441-1444

213. Issue No. 12 (Suit-1) 1283-1285 1444-1445

214. Issue No. 15 (Suit-1) 1286-1287 1445-1446

5147

215. Issue No. 16 (Suit-1) 1288-1290 1446-1447

216. Issue No. 11, 12 and 15 (Suit-3) 1291-1292 1447-1448

217. Issue No. 20 (Suit-5) 1293-1294 1448-1449

218. (F) Issues relating to the Person and period- who and when constructed the disputed building [Issue No.6 (Suit-1), 5 (Suit-3) and 1 (a) (Suit-4)]

1295-1682 1449-1797

219. (G) Issues relating to Deities, their status, rights etc. [Issues no. 12 and 21 (Suit-4); 1, 2, 3(a), 6 and 21 (Suit-5)]

1683-2141 1797-2187

220. Issue No. 12 (Suit-4) 2109 2173

221. Issue No. 3 (a), 1 (suit-5) and 21 (Suit-5)

2110 2174

222. Issue 21 (Suit-4) 2131 2181

223. Issues no.2 and 6 (Suit-5) 2132-2141 2181-2187

224. (H) Limitation [Issue No. 3 (Suit-4); 10 (Suit-1); 9 (Suit-3); and 13 (Suit-5)]

2142-2738 2187-2637

225. Issue No. 3 (Suit-4) 2144-2565 2187-2533

226. Issue No. 10 (Suit-1) 2566-2567 2533

227. Issue No. 9 (Suit-3) 2568-2580 2533-2538

228. Issue No. 13 (Suit-5) 2581-2738 2538-2637

229. (I) Issues relating to Possession/ Adverse Possession [Issues no. 7 (Suit-1); 3 and 8 (Suit-3); 2, 4, 10, 15 and 28 (Suit-4); and 16 (Suit-5)]

2739-3123 2637-2969

230. Issues No. 7 (Suit-1) 2740-2993 3637-2829

231. Issue No. 3 (Suit-3) 2994-3024 2829-2851

5148

232. Issue no. 8 (Suit-3) 3025-3075 2851-2886

233. Issue no. 2 (Suit-4) 3076-3111 2886-2962

234. Issue No. 10 and 15 (Suit-4) 3112 2962

235. Issue 28 (Suit-4) 3113-3114 2962-2964

236. Issue No. 4 (Suit-4) 3115 2964

237. Issue No. 16 (Suit-5) 3116-3123 2964-2969

238. (K) Issues relating to characteristics of Mosque, dedication by Babur and whether a valid waqf was created. [Issues no. 6 (Suit 3), 1, 1(B)(b), 1(B)(c), 19(d), 19(e), 19(f) (Suit 4) and 9 (Suit 5)]

3124-3448 2969-3414

239. Issue no.6 (Suit 3) 3332-3345 3286-3297

240. Issues No. 1 (Suit-4) and 9 (Suit-5) 3346-3409 3297-3336

241. Issues no. 1(B)(b) (Suit-4) 3410-3429 3336-3350

242. Issues no. 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) 3430-3433 3350-3359

243. Issue No.19(f) (Suit-4) 3434-3447 3359-3413

244. Issue No. 1-B (c) (Suit-4) 3448 3413-3414

245. (j) Issues relating to site as birthplace, existence of temple, worship on the disputed site as birthplace of Lord Rama since time immemorial; demolition of some structure; in particular a Hindu temple, [Issues No.1 and 2 (Suit-1); 1 (Suit-3); 1 (b), 11, 13, 14, 19(b) and 27 (Suit 4); 14, 15, 22 and 24 (Suit 5)]

3449-4425 3414-5001

246. (A) Existence of Temple & Demolition [Issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4) and 14 (Suit 5)]

3513-4059 3502-4415

247. (B) Existence of other Hindu 4060-4067 4415-4435

5149

religious places making the disputed building building landlocked by religious places of Hindus [(Issue No. 19(b) (Suit-4)]

248. (C) Whether the Hindus had been continuously worshipping at the place in dispute [Issue No. 13, 14 (Suit-4) and 24 (Suit-5)]

4068-4073 4435-4437

249. Issue No. 13 and 14 (Suit-4) 4069-4070 4435-4436

250. Issue No. 24 (Suit-5) 4071-4073 4436-4437

251. (D) The presence of idol in the disputed building [Issue No.2 (Suit-1)]

4074-4078 4437-4438

252. (E) Issues relating to place of birth of Lord Rama, believed as such by Hindus by tradition etc.[issues no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-5)]

4079-4418 4439-4999

253. (F) Others [issues no. 27 (Suit-4) and 1 (Suit-3)]

4419-4425 4999-5001

254. Issue No. 27 (Suit-4) 4420-4421 5000

255. Issue No.1 (Suit-3) 4422-4425 5000-5001

256. (L) Identity of the property [Issues no. 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) and 5 (Suit-5)]

4426-4458 5001-5015

257. Issue No.1(B)(a) (Suit-4) 4427-4455 5001-5015

258. Issue No.5 (Suit-5) 4456-4458 5015-5015

259. (M) Issues relating to Specific Relief Act [Issues no. 8 (Suit-1) and 18 (Suit-5)]

4460-4478 5016-5033

260. Issue 8 (Suit-1) 4463-4466 5018-5021

261. Issue 18 (Suit-5) 4467-4478 5021-5033

262. (N) Others, if any [Issues no.2, 4 4479-4550 5033-5072

5150

14 (Suit-3); 19(a), 19(c), 20(a), 20(b), 25, 26 (Suit-4); 3(b), (c), (d) 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 25 (Suit-5) and 3 and 4 (Suit-1);

263. Issue no.2 (Suit-3) 4481-4482 5033-5034

264. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) 4483-4484 5034

265. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3) 4485-4486 5034-5035

266. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) 4487-4495 5035-5047

267. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) 4496-4498 5047-5048

268. Issue No.15 (Suit-5) 4499-4500 5048-5049

269. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4) 4501-4505 5049-5051

270. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5) 4506-4508 5051-5052

271. Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5) 4509-4511 5052-5056

272. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5) 4512-4516 5056-5057

273. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5) 4517-4519 5057-5058

274. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4) 4520-4523 5058-5060

275. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) 4524-4534 5060-5067

276. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) 4535-4538 5067-5068

277. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4) 4539-4542 5068-5069

278. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) 4543-4547 5069-5071

279. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) 4548-4550 5071-5072

280. Issues relating to reliefs: Issues No. 15 (Suit-4), 17 (Suit-1), 13 (Suit-3) and 30 (Suit-5)

4551-4566 5072-5081

281. Issue No. 16, Suit-4 4552-4553 5072

282. Issue No. 17, Suit-1 4554-4555 5072-5073

283. Issue No. 13, Suit-3 4556-4557 5073

5151

284. Issue no. 30, Suit-5 4558-4566 5073-5081

285. Appendixes -- 5092-5250

286. Appendixes-1, 1A and 1B – 5092-5094

287. Appendixes-2, 2A, 2B, and 2C – 5095-5098

288. Appendixes-3 and 3A – 5099-5100

289. Appendixes-4, 4A and 4B – 5101-5103

290. Appendixes-5A to 5DD – 5104-5133

291. Appendix-6 – 5134

292. Appendix-7 – 5135

293. Appendix-8, General Index – 5136-5151

294. Appendix-9, Citations Referred Alphabetically

– 5152-5220

295. Appendix-10, Reference Books Alphabetically

-- 5201-5218

5152

APPENDIX-9

Index-Citations Referred Alphabetically

Sl.No. Citation Para/Page no.

1. A.G. of Bengal Vs. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 788 (PC)

881/1168

2. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996(9) SCC 548=AIR 1996 SC 1765

718/1026, 1754/1867, 1755/1867,1833/1932,

1857/1958

3. A.S. Vidyasagar Vs. S. Karunanandam 1995 Supp (4) SCC 570

2774/2668, 2929/2793

4. Abbas Dhali Masabdi Karikar, (1914) 24 I.C. 216 (Cal.)

2213/2220

5. Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Rahmat Ali & others AIR 1930 Oudh 245

3262/3141

6. Abdul Halim Khan Vs. Raja Saadat Ali Khan & Ors. AIR 1928 Oudh 155

2164/2198, 2946/2803

7. Abdul Latif Vs. Nawab Khwaja Habibullah 1969 Calcutta Law Journal 28

2227/2233

8. Abdul Quadir Vs. Tahira 1997 (15) LCD 379 852/1156, 1046/1273

9. Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and another, AIR 2003 SC 718

842/1150, 1017/1255

10. Abdulla Vs. Kunbammad, AIR 1960 Ker. 123 984/1232

11. Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan Vs. Ganesh Dass, AIR 1917 PC 201

976/1225

12. Abdur Rahim Vs. Narayan Das Aurora AIR 1923 PC 44

3270/ 3146

13. Abinash Ch. Chowdhury Vs. Tarini Charan Chowdhury and others AIR 1926 Cal. 782

2162/2197, 2258/2251

14. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar & Ors. Vs. Harun Abdul Inamdar & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 112

2774/2667, 2904/2766, 2904/2766

15. Abul Fata Mohammad Vs. Rasamaya, 22 IA 76 1099/1320, 1107/1325

16. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta Vs. Commissioner of Police AIR 1990 Cal. 336

1756/1870

5153

17. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another 1983 (4) SCC 522

736/1034

18. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj & others Vs. State of Gujarat & others (1975) 1 SCC 11

3502/3495

19. Acharya Maharishi Narendra Prasad ji Vs. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 2098

2600/2551

20. Addangi Nageswara Rao Vs. Sri Ankamma Devatha Temple Anantavaram 1973 Andhra Weekly Report 379

1703/1821, 1707/1824, 1742/1861

21. Administrator General of Bengal Vs. Balkissen, ILR 51 Cal 953=AIR 1925 Cal 140

1817/1915

22. Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Yusuf Alli Ebrahim & others 84 Indian Cases (1921) (Bom.) 759

3500/3493

23. Advocate General of Bombay vs. Yusufally 24 Bom. L.R. 1060

3235/3126

24. Aftab Ali Vs. Akbor Ali (1929) 121 IC 209 (All) 2422/2437

25. Afzal Hussain Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, AIR 1985 All. 79

1162/1365

26. Agency Company Vs. Short (1888) 13 A.C. 793 2224/2232, 2428/2439

27. Agha Turab Ali Khan Vs. Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee AIR 1933 Lahore 145

2241/2241

28. Akbar Khan v. Turban (1909) 31 All. 9 2442/2446, 2448/2450

29. Alimiya Vs. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 941/1202

30. All India Shia Conference Vs. Taqi Hadi and others, AIR 1954 All. 124

1128/1342

31. All Saints High School Vs. Govt of A.P. (1980) 2 SCC 478

2593/2547

32. Allah Jilai v. Umrao Husain (1914) I.L.R., 36 All., 492

2444/2449

33. Amar Chand Vs. Nem Chand AIR (29) 1942 All.150

1921/2007

5154

34. Amar Nath Dogra Vs. Union of India 1963 (1) SCR 657

637/977

35. Amar Nath Vs. Mrs. Amar Nath AIR (35) 1948 Lahore 126

3561/3573

36. Amarendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, AIR 2004 SC 3782 = (2004) 10 SCC 65

2774/2667,2778/2670, 2883/2754, 2886/2756

37. Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1305

4448/5012

38. Amena Bibi Vs. S.K. Abdul Haque AIR 1997 Cal. 59

3753/3791, 3761/3796

39. American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. & others (1993) 2 SCC 199

3502/3495, 4565/5078

40. Ammalu Achi Vs. Ponnammal Achi & others AIR 1919 Madras 464

2899/2764

41. Ampthill Peerage Case, (1976) 2 All ER 411 988/1234

42. Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey & another 2000 (4) SCC 440

2245/2243

43. Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti vs. Broja Lal Singha and others 1923 Calcutta 142

1782/1885,1942/2027, 2101/2170,2103/2171,

2854/2734

44. Anantakrishna v. Prayag Das I.L.R (1937) 1 Cal. 84

1942/2028

45. Anantharazu Vs. narayanarazu 1913 (36) Mad. 383

2448/2450

46. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy and others (2008) 4 SCC 594

1049/1275

47. Angoubi Kabuini and another Vs. Imjao Lairema and others AIR 1959 Manipur 42

1928/2011, 1929/2012

48. Angurbala Mullick Vs. D. Mullick, AIR 1951 SC 293

1707/1837, 1821/1918

49. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi & others AIR 1955 SC 566

3039/2863

50. Anjuman Islamia & others Vs. Munshi Tegh Ali & others 1971 (3) SCC 814

3265/3142, 4475/5027

5155

51. Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and others, AIR 1982 MP 17

1166/1368

52. Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam and others, AIR 2008 SC 346

2852/2733

53. Annamalai Chettiar and others Vs. A.M.K.C.T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar & anr. AIR 1931 Privy Council 9

2162/2197, 2163/2198, 2407/2430

54. Annapurna Devi Vs. Shiva Sundari Dasi, AIR 1945 Cal 376

1924/2008, 1929/2013

55. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543

2876/2751

56. Annie Besant Vs. Government of Madras, AIR 1918 Mad 1210

1220/1401, 1222/1402

57. Anuj Garg and others Vs. Hotel Association of India and others 2008 (3) SCC 1

846/1153, 1044/1272

58. Ases Kumar Misra & others Vs. Kissori Mohan Sarkar & others AIR 1924 Cal. 812

2263/2258

59. Asita Mohan Vs. Nivode Mohan AIR 1917 Cal 292

1745/1863

60. Asrar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee AIR 1947 PC 1

943/1204

61. Ata-Ullah & another Vs. Azim-Ullah & another 1889 ILR 12 (All.) 494

3256/3137, 4540/5068

62. Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal, 1979 SC 861

1707/1837, 1775/1883, 1990/2069

63. B. Jangi Lal Vs. B. Panna Lal and another AIR 1957 Allahabad 743

2114/2175, 2115/2175

64. B. Leelavathi Vs. Honnamma and another, (2005) 11 SCC 115

2774/2668, 2927/2791

65. B.L. Sridhar Vs. K.M. Munireddy 2003 (21) LCD 88 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 578

852/1156, 1027/1262

66. Babajirao Vs. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215 at 223)

696/1008, 964/1218

67. Babu Lal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (7) SCC 161

2774/2668

5156

68. Bachchu Singh Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council, ILR (1903) 25 All 187,

638/978, 656/986

69. Badrul Islam Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1954 Allahabad 459

1118/1331

70. Baiju Lal Vs. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385 956/1211

71. Bailochan Karan Vs. Bansat Kumari Naik 1999 (2) SCC 310

2193/2213

72. Bajya Vs. Gopikabai, 1978 SC 793 2590/2543

73. Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & others Vs. Charity Commissioner AIR 1995 SC 167=1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 485

1832/1929,3365/3303, 3367/3304, 3500/3494

74. Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Hanuman Seva Trust and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 658

2282/2270

75. Bali Panda Vs. Jadumani 7 I.C. 475 1941/2025

76. Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh, JT 2008(10) SC 98

3240/3128

77. Ballabh Das & another Vs. Nur Mohammad & another AIR 1936 PC 83

3266/3142, 3427/3348

78. Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad & Ors. AIR 1968 All. 259

2287/2272

79. Balwant vs. Puran (1883) 10 I.A. 90 2854/2734

80. Bande Ali Vs. Rejaullah 25 Cr.L.J. 303 2239/2240

81. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802

3762/3796

82. Bank of Upper India Vs. Mt. Hira Kuer & Ors. AIR 1937 Oudh 291

2163/2198

83. Barkat Ali and another Vs. Badrinarain 2008 (4) SCC 615

846/1153, 1044/1272

84. Baroda Prosad Roy Chaudhry Vs. Rai Manmath Nath Mitra 41 Indian Cases 456

2777/2669

85. Basant Kumar Roy Vs. Secretary of State for India & others AIR 1917 PC 18

2102/2171, 2222/2231, 2842/2728

86. Bazkhan Vs. Sultan Malik, 43 P.R. 1901 2206/2216

5157

87. Behari Lal Vs. Muhammad Muttaki (1898) 20 All 482

3270/ 3146

88. Behari Lal Vs. Narain Das, 1935 Lah. 475 2211/2219

89. Bhagat Ram v. Smt. Lilawati Galib, AIR 1972 HP 125, 130

2812/2701

90. Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj etc. AIR 1985 All. 228

1929/2012, 1930/2013, 1931/2015

91. Bhagchand Dagaduss Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council AIR 1927 PC 176

628/974, 638/978

92. Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 259

1264/1418

93. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India & others JT 2006 (3) SC 114

1058/1281

94. Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh 1959 (Supp.) 2 SCR 798.

2164/2198, 2246/2246, 2258/2259

95. Bhubaneswari Thakurani Vs. Brojanath Dey AIR (24) 1937 PC 185

1942/2028

96. Bhupati Nath Smrititir the Bhattacharjee Vs. Ram Lal Mitra & Ors. 1909 (3) Indian Cases (Cal.) (FB) 642

1700/1820,1707/1835, 1745/1863,1777/1884, 1779/1884, 1780/1885

97. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs. Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat & Ors. AIR 1931 Privy Council 162

2774/2668, 2841/2728, 2843/2729

98. Bhyah Ram Singh Vs. Bhyah Ujagar Singh, 13 MIA 373, PC

2587/2541

99. Bibhuti Bhushan Vs. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965 Cal. 199

3753/3792

100. Bibi Sahodra Vs. Rai Jang Bahadur, (1881) 8 Cl. 224:8 I.A. 210

2199/2215

101. Bidhumukhi Dasi Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy and others, 1909 Indian Cases (Calcutta) 442;

1061/1284

102. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057

690/1005

103. Bihari Chowdhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and others 1984 (2) SCC 627

622/972, 631/975

5158

104. Bihari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and another AIR 1961 Allahabad 73

1925/2009, 1932/2015

105. Bijoe Emmanuel & others Vs. State of Kerala & others (1986) 3 SCC 615

740/1037, 3500/3495

106. Bimal Krishna Ghose and Ors. Vs. Shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiu and Ors. AIR 1937 Cal 338

2119/2176, 2604/2554, 2718/2613

107. Bindyachal Chand Vs. Ram Gharib, AIR 1934 Alld. 993 (FB)

2197/2214, 2211/2219, 2214/2220, 2215/2220

108. Biram Prakash Vs. Narendra Das AIR 1961 All. 266

964/1219

109. Bishandayal and sons Vs. State of Orissa and others 2001 (1) SCC 555

637/978

110. Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad and another (2006) 4 SCC 432

1054/1279

111. Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (AIR 1967 SC 1044)

1707/1830, 1708/1841, 1807/1910, 1824/1926, 1938/2020, 1945/2033, 1946/2033, 1948/2035, 2139/2185, 2595/2548, 2657/2582, 2707/2607, 2712/2610, 2716/2612,

4515/5057

112. Biswambhar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa & Ors. 1964 (1) Supreme Court Journal 364

4452/5013

113. Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa & another AIR 1954 SC 139

1398/1560

114. Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera & others JT 2009 (10) SC 538

2892/2759

115. Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 935/1199

116. Board Nageshwar Bux Roy Vs. Bengal Coal Co. AIR 1931 PC 18

2843/2729

117. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Pidugu Narasimham & Ors. AIR 1939 Madras 134

1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1844/1939, 1846/1940,

1866/1964

118. Board of Mulim Wakfs Vs. Smt. Hadi Begum and others, AIR 1992 SC 1083

1146/1357

5159

119. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Vs. State of Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146,

4442/5011

120. Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089

726/1029, 737/1034

121. Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) SC 1

905/1185

122. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury & others Vs. Bharat Chandra Roy and others, AIR 1916 Calcutta 751

2164/2198, 2221/2231, 2268/2261, 2426/2438, 2428/2438, 2429/2440

123. Buddha Singh Vs. Laltu Singh, 42 I.A. 208 = ILR (1915) 37 All 604

1707/1827

124. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others 1991 (4) All ER 638

1703/1821, 1707/1828

125. Burns Vs. Ransley, (1944) 79 CLR 101 1221/1401

126. Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum) and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191

950/1208

127. C. Beepathuma and others Vs., Valasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and others, AIR 1965 SC 241

2162/2197, 2169/2200, 2776/2669

128. C. Mohammad Yunus Vs. Syed Unnissa and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 808

1272/1423, 2409/2432

129. C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai and others JT 2007 (12) SC 295= AIR 2008 SC 363

2164/2198, 2216/2221, 2282/2271

130. Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214 923/1194

131. CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar & Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 56

3769/3799

132. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya (2004) 8 SCC 270

3046/2866

133. Chairman & M.D., N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs. M/s Reshmi Construction Builders & Contractors AIR 2004 SC 1330

2162/2196, 2276/2268

134. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others Vs. Chiman Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3

3757/3794

135. Chandra Vs Narpat Singh 1906 (29) All 184 (PC) 3549/3566

5160

136. Chandu Lal Vs. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C. 17

917/1190

137. Chedha Singh and others Vs. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and others, 1996 Supp. AWC 189

1149/1358

138. Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others AIR 1954 SC 575

1397/1559, 2872/2750

139. Chhutkao Vs. Gambhir Mal AIR 1931 Oudh 45 3263/3141

140. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Collector and others, AIR 2003 SC 1805

1233/1406

141. Chitar Mal Vs. Panchu Lal AIR 1926 All.392 1938/2020, 2611/2556, 2663/2584, 2664/2584, 2665/2585, 2673/2589, 2674/2590, 2680/2593

142. Collector of Masulipatam Vs. C. Vencata Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525

4442/5011

143. Collector, Gorakhpur Vs. Palakdhari ILR (1899) 12 All 1 at page 43

3544/3564

144. Commissioner For Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore Vs. Ratnavarma Heggade, AIR 1977, SC 1848

1707/1837, 1830/1929

145. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC 29

893/1182, 909/1188

146. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and another AIR 2002 SC 1745

635/977

147. Commissioner of Endowments and others Vs. Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120

960/1216

148. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239

1399/1560

149. Commissioner of Police & others Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & another (2004) 12 SCC 770

3501/3495, 4417/4998

150. Commissioner of Wakfs and another Vs. 3251/3134,

5161

Mohammad Moshin, AIR 1954 Calcutta 463 3338/3289

151. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282

713/1023, 726/1029, 732/1033, 736/1034, 744/1039, 1709/1842,

3500/3494

152. Cook Vs. Sprigg 1899 AC 572 4442/5011

153. Coral Indira Gonsalves Vs. Joseph Prabhakar Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad. 858

3580/3581

154. D. N. Venkatarayappa & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 567

2774/2668, 2907/2769, 2908/2769

155. Dalbir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1106

3501/3495

156. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1958 SC 816

4446/5012

157. Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan Das (1909-10) 37 IA 147

1807/1909, 1809/1911, 1938/2019, 1942/2027, 2663/2584, 2668/2586, 2678/2591, 2680/2593,

2709/2608

158. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das and 64 I.A. 203 (= AIR 1937 PC 185)

2778/2674, 2855/2734

159. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhandas 37 I.A. 147=1910 (37) ILR (Cal.) 885

2854/2734

160. Darshan Lal and others Vs. Shibji Maharaj Birajman, AIR 1923 All. 120

1811/1912

161. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.E.S. Dalliwall & another AIR 1952 Alld. 825

3500/3493

162. Darshan Singh Vs. Gujjar Singh (2002) 2 SCC 62 2880/2753

163. Dasami Sahu Vs. Param Shameshwar Uma Bhairabeshwar Bam Lingshar and Chitranjan Mukerji (1929) A.L.J.R. 473

2855/2734

164. Dattagiri Vs. Dattatrya (1904) 27 Bom 236 964/1219, 3270/3146

165. Deewan Singh and others Vs. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and others AIR 2007 SC 767

846/1153, 1044/1272

5162

166. Deo Kuer and another Vs. Sheo Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 359

2163/2197, 2261/2259, 2262/2259

167. Deo Narain Chowdhury Vs. C.R.H. Webb (1990) 28 Cal. 86

2429/2440

168. Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar & Ors. AIR 1957 SC 133=1956 (1) SCR 756

1701/1821, 1707/1837, 1762/1872, 1820/1917, 2661/2583, 2733/2635

169. Des Raj and others vs. Bhagat Ram(Dead) by LRs. And others 2007 (3) SCALE 371

2851/2733

170. Deutsch Asiatische Bank Vs. Hiralal Burdhan & Sons 1918 (47) I.C. 122

2652/2579

171. Devi Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others, (1994) 1 SCC 215

2902/2766

172. Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283

841/1150, 916/1190, 917/1190

173. Dharamarajan & Ors. Vs. Valliammal & Ors., 2008 (2) SCC 741

2774/2668, 2928/2791

174. Dharani Kanta Lahiri Vs. Gabar Ali Khan, (1913) 18 I.C. 17

2207/2217

175. Dhian Singh Sobha Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 274

633/975, 653/985, 657/987

176. Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Sabal Chandra Shaw and others Vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and others AIR 1964 SC 1300

635/976

177. Dinomoni Chowdhrani & Brojo Mohini Chowdhrani 29 IA 24 (PC)

2239/2240, 2777/2669, 3072/2883

178. Director of Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs. Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60

4450/5013

179. District Basic Education Officer and another Vs. Dhananjai Kumar Shukla and another (2008) 3 SCC 481= AIR 2008 SCW 1224

2291/2273, 3330/3285

180. Doongarsee Shyamji vs. Tribhuvan Das, AIR 1947 All 375

1925/2008, 1926/2009

181. Doulat Koer Vs. Rameshwari Koeri alias Dulin Saheba (1899) ILR 26 Cal. 635

2241/2240

5163

182. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. Vs. Union of India and others 1994 (6) SCC 360=AIR 1995 SC 605

5/15, 83/119, 190/184, 191/184, 268/285,

846/1152, 1259/1416, 1708/1841, 2301/2292,

2600/2691, 2609/2555, 2616/2561, 2723/2615 2736/2636, 2870/2650, 3244/3131, 3502/3495, 3585/3583, 4049/4409, 4457/5015, 4566/5081

183. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 869

2774/2667, 2889/2758, 2909/2772

184. Draupadi Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 425

2162/2197, 2418/2434, 3382/3309, 3383/3309,

3385/3310

185. Dukham Ram Vs. Ram Nanda Singh, AIR 1961 Pat. 425

2262/2258

186. Durgah Committee, Ajmer Vs. Syed Hussain Ali AIR 1961 SC 1402

1860/1960, 1864/1963

187. Duvvuri Papi Reddi and others Vs. Duvvuri Rami Reddi AIR 1969 AP 362

1936/2019

188. Dwijendra Narain Roy Vs. Joges Chandra De, AIR 1924 Cal 600

2411/2433, 2712/2610

189. Dyke Vs. Walford 5 Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER 557 (580

4439/5010

190. Ejas Ali Qidwai & Ors. Vs. Special Manager, Court of Wards, Balrampur Estate & Ors. AIR 1935 Privy Council 53

2774/2667, 2894/2759

191. Ellappa Naicken Vs. K.Lakshmana Naicken & others AIR (36) 1949 Madras 71

2264/2259

192. Emperor Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906) ILR 30 Bom 421

1219/1400, 1222/1402

193. Emperor Vs. Panchu Das & Ors. AIR 1920 Cal 500 (FB)

3544/3564

194. Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1978(1) SCC 12

2254/2249

195. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & others Vs. Lakshmi Narain & others

3502/3495, 4564/5078

5164

(1976) 2 SCC 58

196. Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326

3574/3579

197. Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin 2008 (8) SCC 12 3253/3135, 3271/3147, 3302/3238, 3303/3244

198. Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali 46 IC 119 1404/1561

199. Forest Range Officer & others Vs. P. Mohammed Ali & others AIR 1994 SC 120

3563/3575, 3583/3582

200. Forward Construction Company Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) 1986 (1) SCC 100

1005/1245

201. Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh AIR 1923 Patna 453

1394/1558

202. G.L. Vijan Vs. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136 3759/3794

203. Gangu Bai Vs. Soni 1942 Nagpur Law Journal 99 2223/2232

204. Ganpat Vs. Returning Officer (1975) 1 SCC 589 1851/1946

205. Garib Das and others Vs. Munshi Abdul Hamid and others AIR 1970 SC 1035

2162/2197, 2410/2432, 3261/3140, 3421/3342

206. Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly & others (2008) 7 SCC 85

2893/2759, 3041/2864

207. Gedela Satchidananda Murthy Vs. Dy. Commr., Endowments Deptt., A.P. & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 677

1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1866/1964

208. Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Dominion of India 1984 (3) SCC 46

637/977, 638/978, 656/986, 657/987, 661/988, 664/991

209. Girijanund Datta Jha & Anr. Vs. Sailajanund Datta Jha 1896 ILR 23 Ca1. 645

2649/2576

210. Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Kandasami Tambiran 1887 ILR Vol. 10 Madras 375

683/1000, 685/1003

211. Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Velu Pandaram and another (1899) 27 IA 69

964/1219, 1765/1881, 2868/2747

212. Gobinda Narain Singh Vs. Sham Lal, AIR 1931 P.C. 98=LR 58 IA 125

983/1232

5165

213. Gokul Nathji Maharaj & Anr. Vs. Nathji Bhogi Lal AIR 1953 All. 552

1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1849/1944, 1910/1983

214. Gollaleshwar Dev Vs. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math, AIR 1986 SC 231

1707/1837

215. Gopal Datt Vs. Babu Ram, AIR 1936 All 653 2917/2775

216. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5

1396/1559

217. Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Krishna Sunder Nath Kaviraj AIR 1929 All. 887

1818/1915

218. Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 808

842/1150, 918/1190, 1015/1254

219. Gossain Das Chunder Vs. Issur Chunder Nath 1877 III ILR 3 (Cal.) 224

2839/2727, 2840/2727

220. Goswami Ranchor Lalji Vs. Sri Girdhariji (1897) 20 All. 120

2425/2438

221. Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas, AIR 1970 SC 2025

2930/2794

222. Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors AIR 1949 PC 143

630/975, 947/1207

223. Government of West Bengal Vs. Nitya Gopal Basak & others 1985 CRI.L.J. 202

3573/3578

224. Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K.Roy 2004 (1) SCC 347

1048/1274

225. Govind Raghunath Sawant Vs. B.A. Kakade & Anr. 1975 ILR Bombay 829

2309/2295

226. Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar and others JT 2006(1) SC 121

2851/2733

227. Govindrao & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others AIR 1982 SC 1201

3386/3310

228. Greenhalgh Vs. Mallard (1942) 2 All ER 225 (CA)

1006/1246, 1007/1246

229. Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143

924/1195

5166

230. Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 2199

897/1183, 1169/1369, 1171/1370, 1176/1377,

4570/5085

231. Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (2) SCC 192

3595/3589

232. Gunga Gobind Mundul Vs. Collector of the 24-pergunnahs 11 Moore's I.A., 345

2839/2727

233. Guntaka Hussenaiah Vs. Busetti Yerraiah AIR 1954 Andhra 39

3566/3576

234. Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 1756, 1759

2812/2700

235. Gurbinder Singh and another Vs. Lal Singh and another, AIR 1965 SC 1553

2925/2783

236. Gursharan Singh and others Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC 1175

3119/2966

237. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Shiromani GPC, 2004 (4) SCC 146

1707/1837

238. Gurunath Vs.Kamalabai 1955 S.C. 206 2597/2550

239. Guruvayur Devasom Managing Committee Vs. C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561

1707/1831, 1739/1861

240. H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642

697/1008

241. Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq Vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488

3582/3582

242. Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63

929/1197

243. Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343

3559/3569

244. Har Prasad and others Vs. Fazal Ahmad and others, AIR 1933 PC 83

3250/3134

5167

245. Hari Chand Vs. Daulat Ram, AIR 1987 SC 94 2774/2667, 2921/2777

246. Hari Khandu Vs. Dhondi Nanth, (1906) 8 Bom.L.R. 96

2835/2725

247. Hari Raghunath Patvardhan Vs. Antaji Bhikaji Patvardhan & Others 1919 (XLIV) ILR Bombay 466

1839/1936, 4528/5063, 4529/5064

248. Hari Singh Vs. Lachmi, 59 IC 220 3596/3589

249. Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. Deo Narain, AIR 1956 SC 305

982/1232

250. Harihor Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah AIR 1966 Orissa 121

3760/3795

251. Health v. Drown, (1972) 2 All ER 561, 573 (HL). 2812/2702

252. Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others AIR 2009 SC 103

2774/2667, 2906/2768

253. Henderson Vs. Henderson (1843-60) All ER Rep 378

1005/1245

254. Hira Lal Vs. Hari Narain, AIR 1964 All 302 985/1232

255. Hirachand Himatlal Marwari Vs. Kashinath Thakurji Jadhav AIR (29) 1942 Bombay 339

640/979

256. Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.)

895/1182

257. Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404

903/1185, 922/1194, 995/1241

258. Hukum Chand & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh & Others AIR 1933 Privy Council 193

2438/2443, 2955/2810

259. Humayun Begam Vs. Shah Mohammad Khan, AIR 1943 PC 94

2262/2257

260. Hunooman Persaud Panday Vs. Mmsumat Bdbooee Manraj Koonweree 6 Moore's Ind. App. Ca. 243

2648/2576, 2692/2600

261. Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, Jaipur Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 906

1699/1819, 1707/1835, 1708/1841, 1843/1939,

2596/2549

262. Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) 894/1182

5168

SCC 151

263. Inacio Martins Vs. Narayan Hari Naik, 1993(3) SCC 123

1045/1273

264. Indar Datt Vs. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 408. 3576/3580

265. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rajnarain AIR 1975 SC 2299

3323/3272

266. Indra Singh Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1943 Pat. 169

984/1232

267. Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain Vs. Zafrul Islam Afzal Husain and others AIR 1969 Alld. 161

642/979

268. Ishwari Bhubanshwari Thakurani Vs. Brojo Nath Dey

2778/2674

269. Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728

3574/3579

270. J. Jaya Lalitha Vs. Union of India & another AIR 1999 SC 1912

2122/2178

271. Jafar Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi AIR 1937 Cal 500

2166/2199, 2399/2425

272. Jagadamba Chowdhurani Vs. Dakhina Mohan (1886) 13 Cal 308

2399/2425

273. Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari, 31 Ind App 203 at p.210

1776/1883, 1822/1919, 2663/2584, 2668/2586, 2669/2587, 2676/2590, 2677/2591, 2680/2593, 2681/2594, 2707/2607, 2708/2608, 2711/2609,

2712/2610 4515/5057

274. Jagadish Chandra Deo Vs. Debendra Prosad Bagehi Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1931 Cal 503

656/986, 656/987

275. Jagannath vs. Tirthnanda Das AIR 1952 Orissa 312

1943/2028

276. Jagat Mohan Nath Sah Deo Vs. Pratap Udai Nath Sah Deo & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 302

2167/2199, 2447/2450

277. Jagdeo Misir Vs. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All. 803

915/1189

5169

278. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and others 2006 (7) SCC 756

844/1152, 846/1153, 1024/1261, 1044/1272

279. Jamal Uddin & Anr. Vs. Mosque at Mashakganj & Ors. AIR 1973 Allahabad 328

2162/2197, 2230/2234, 3422/3343

280. Jamshed Ji Vs. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 739/1037

281. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai & others 1 Indian Cases (1907) 834 (Bom.)

3500/3493

282. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai, ILR (1909) 33 Bom. 122

4414/4997

283. Jangu & others Vs. Ahmad Ullah & others 1889-1891 ILR 13 (All.) 419

3254/3135, 3256/3137, 4540/5068

284. Janki Kunwar Vs. Ajit Singh (1888) ILR 15 Cal 58

2166/2199, 2398/2424

285. Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1985 (3) SCC 648

919/1190

286. Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, 1993 (4) SCC 403 3095/2897

287. Jenkins Vs. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 899/1183

288. Jetmull Bhojraj Vs. The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. And others AIR 1962 SC 1879

2289/2273

289. Jindu Ram Vs. Hussain Baksh & Anr. AIR 1914 Lahore 444

3269/3145

290. Jodhi Rai Vs. Basdeo Prasad, 8 ALJ 817=(1911) ILR 33 Allahabad 735

1810/1911, 2117/2176, 2118/2176, 2661/2583,

2711/2609

291. Jogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta (1969) 1 SCC 555

1691/1806, 1701/1820, 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1771/1881, 1789/1888, 1790/1888, 2661/2583,

2704/2605

292. Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR 1965 SC 1514

3897/4175

293. Jujjuvarapu Vs. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P. 76 949/1208

294. Jurawan Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramsarekh Singh & Others AIR 1933 Patna 224

2265/2260

295. K. Ethirajan Vs. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 840/1149, 903/1185,

5170

SC 4295 995/1238, 997/1242

296. K. Manahunaitha Desikar Vs. Sundaralingam, AIR 1971 Madras 1 (FB)

1707/1837, 2116/2175, 2594/2547, 2605/2554,

2656/2581

297. K. Sundaresa Iyer Vs. Sarvajana Sowkiabi Virdhi Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1939 Madras 853

2262/2257

298. K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police & another JT 2002 (8) SCC 87

3039/2863, 3040/2863

299. K.S. Prahladsinhji Vs. Chunilal B. Desai AIR 1950 Saurashtra 7

2239/2240

300. Kadarbhai Mahomedbhai and another Vs. Haribhari Ranchhodbhai Desai and another, AIR 1974 Gujarat 120

1282/1443

301. Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors. 1910 I.L.R. 33 Madras 265 at page 267

685/1003

302. Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs. The Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 439

1701/1821, 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1795/1899

303. Kali Charan Mukerji Vs. Emperor (1909) 9 Cr.L.J. 498.

3576/3580

304. Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1932

1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1800/1901

305. Kali Prasad Misir and others Vs. Harbans Misir AIR 1919 All 383

2167/2199, 2444/2448, 2446/2450

306. Kalikanta Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. Surendra Nath Chakravarty & Ors. AIR 1925 Calcutta 648

1840/1937

307. Kalipada De Vs. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC 22

896/1182

308. Kallan Vs. Mohammad Nabikhan, 1933 ALJ 105 2211/2219

309. Kamala and others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and others AIR 2008 SC 3174

2282/2271

310. Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Sub-Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563

1707/1837, 1870/1965

311. Kamlesh Babu and others Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and others JT 2008 (4) SC 652

2282/2270

5171

312. Kanakku Vs. Neelacanta, AIR 1969 (Kerala) 280 641/979

313. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Girwar, 1929 ALJ 1106 2210/2218

314. Kanhaya Lal Vs. Hamid Ali, AIR 1933 PC 198 2120/2177

315. Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355 948/1207

316. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd and others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, JT 1997(2) SC 545

3120/2967

317. Kapoor Chand & Others Vs. Ganesh Dutt and others 1993 (Supp.) 4 SCC 432

2733/2634

318. Karan Singh Vs. Bakar Ali Khan, (1882) 5 All 1 2201/2215

319. Karbalai Begum Vs. Mohd. Sayeed (1980) 4 SCC 396

2875/2751

320. Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India & others (2004) 10 SCC 779

2934/2798, 2935/2798, 2948/2805, 3049/2869

321. Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri & Ors Vs. Pattath Ramunni Marar & Ors. AIR 1940 Madras 208

1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1838/1935

322. Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 733

2121/2177

323. Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. M.R.F. Limited and others, 1996 (1) SCC 597

3118/2966

324. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, 1951 SC 128

3239/3128

325. Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 290

947/1207

326. Khalil Ahmad and another Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Askari and others, AIR 1965 Allahabad 320

3260/3140

327. Khaw Sim vs. Chuah Hooi (1922) 49 I.A.37 2854/2734

328. Khetter Chunder Ghose Vs. Hari Das Bundopadhya (1890) 17 ILR Cal. 557

1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1773/1882, 1774/1882,

2695/2602

329. Khetter Chunder Mookerjee Vs. Khetter Paul Sreeterutno 1880 ILR 5 (Calcutta) 886

3045/2866

330. Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo, AIR 1825/1926

5172

1978 All.-1

331. Krishna Behary Ray Vs. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875) 1 Cal. 144 (146)

886/1175

332. Krishna Chendra Gajapati Narayana Deo Vs. Challa Ramanna and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 50

841/1150, 1000/1243

333. Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir AIR 1980 SC 707 3303/3245

334. Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1972 Allahabad 273

1707/1837

335. Kuarmani Singha Vs. Wasif Ali Murza 1915(28) I.C. 818

2652/2579

336. Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183

955/1210

337. Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182

3772/3802

338. Kunwar Darganath Vs. Ramchunder 4 I.A. 52 (P.C.)

1940/2025

339. Kunwar Singh Vs. Sri Thakurji Mahraj, Birajman Mandir Gauntia Majra Dhamipur, Pargana and Tahsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly, 1992 (2) AWC 890

1709/1842

340. Kuthali Moothavur Vs. P. Kunharankutty AIR 1922 PC 181

2950/2806

341. L.N. Aswathama & another Vs. V.P. Prakash JT 2009 (9) 527

2887/2756

342. Lachhmi Sewak Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors. AIR 1944 PC 24

2282/2271

343. Lakshmana Pillai and another Vs. Appalwar Alwar Ayyangar and another AIR 1923 Madras 246

845/1152, 1031/1265

344. Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789=1977(2) SCC 88

840/1150, 902/1184, 1008/1247

345. Lala Shiam Lal Vs. Mohamad Ali Asghar Husain AIR 1935 All 174

2442/2446, 2448/2450

346. Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 916/1190

5173

347. Lalmani Devi & others Vs. Jagdish Tiwary & others AIR 2005 Pat. 51

3039/2862

348. Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor 5 IC 355 3569/3577

349. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530

3046/2866

350. Laxman Siddappa Naik vs. Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929

1403/1560

351. Legal Remembrancer Vs. Corporation of Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204

4442/5011

352. Limba Bin Krishna and others Vs. Rama Bin Pimplu and anothers, 1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548

4470/5023

353. Lumley Vs. Wagner, (1865) 1 Eq. 411 4465/5020

354. M.P. Peter Vs. State of Kerala & others JT 2009 (13) SC 1

2272/2265, 2273/2265

355. M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal and others Vs. Motilal Lakhotia and others 2003 (5) SCC 1

843/1151, 846/1153, 1020/1256

356. M.V.S. Manikyala Vs. Narashimahwami AIR 1966 SC 470

2420/2436

357. M.V.Vali Press Vs. Fernandee Lopez 1989 SC 2206,

2592/2546

358. M/s Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass and co. AIR 1968 SC 111

845/1152, 1028/1263, 1031/1265

359. M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar Educational Society and others AIR 2007 SC 2191

2777/2669, 2990/2827

360. M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & another Vs. Union of India & others 1970 (3) SCC 694

3040/2864

361. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659

734/1034

362. Madan Mohan Saha Banik and Ors. Vs. Rakhal Chandra Saha Banik and Ors., AIR 1930 Calcutta 173

2699/2604

363. Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 948/1207

364. Madho Kunbi Vs. Tilak Singh AIR 1934 Nagpur 2239/2240

5174

194

365. Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091

3567/3576

366. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and others Vs. Karia Bharthi, AIR 1935 PC 44

2916/2774

367. Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi Vs. Secretary of State for India AIR 1930 Bom 367

638/978

368. Mahamaya Devi Vs. Hari Das Haldar AIR (2) 1915 Cal. 161

1940/2025

369. Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SC 1415

958/1214

370. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji Vs. S.P.Sahi, Special Officer-in-charge of Hindu Religious Trusts and others AIR 1959 SC 951

1699/1819, 1707/1835, 1787/1887, 2596/2549

371. Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs. Surayan Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256

1402/1560, 1406/1561, 3500/3494

372. Mahanth Ram Charan Das. Vs. Naurangi Lal (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 124

2652/2580, 2709/2608

373. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur V. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi (1904) 1 A.L.J.R.585

2855/2734 2856/2735

374. Maharaja Sir Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur Vs. Bahuria Mt. Bhagjogna Kuer and others AIR 1937 Privy Council 69

2774/2667, 2922/2779, 2950/2806

375. Maharana Futtehsangji Vs. Dessai Kullianraiji, (1873) LR 1 IA 34

2180/2207

376. Maharanee Shibessouree Debia Vs. Mothornath Acharjo (1869) 13 M.I.A. 270

1771/1881, 2691/2599

377. Mahdav Rao Waman Vs Raghunath Venkatesh, AIR 1923 PC 205

2778/2671

378. Mahendra Manilal Nanavati Vs. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364

1993/2071

379. Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 1053/1279

380. Manindra Land And Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC 1336

2290/2273

5175

381. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar & Ors. Vs. Lakhmiram Govindram & Ors. (1888) ILR 12 Bom 247

1699/1820, 1707/1832, 1707/1837, 1770/1878, 1791/1893, 2704/2605

382. Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527

1037/1269

383. Manohar Mukherji Vs. Bhupendra Nath AIR 1932 Cal 791

1819/1916

384. Maqbul Ahmad Vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85

2289/2273, 2432/2440

385. Marawthwada Wakf Board Vs. Rajaram Ramjivan Manthri and others, AIR 2002 Bom. 144

1147/1357

386. Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwira Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 67 Ind. App. 251 at p.264 (P.C.)

1945/2033, 2248/2248, 2720/2614, 2736/2636

387. Mata Palat Vs. Beni Madho AIR 1914 All 184 2167/2199, 2445/2449

388. Mathura Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal and another 1979 (4) SCC 665

2247/2246

389. Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355

907/1186, 908/1187

390. Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 (Patna) 264 (FB)

930/1197

391. Maulvi Mohammad Fahimal Haq Vs. Jagat Ballav Ghosh AIR 1923 Patna 475

2439/2443

392. Mayuram Subramanian Vs. CBI, (2006) 5 SCC 752

2778/2675

393. Md. Mohammad Ali Vs. Jagadish Kalita & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 271

2381/2411, 2881/2753, 2915/2774

394. Meer Mahomed Israil Khan Vs. Sashti Churn Ghose and others, 19 ILR (Calcutta) (1892) 412

1087/1311

395. Middllings P Co. Vs. Christian, 4 Dillon 448 3592/3587

396. Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144

841/1150, 913/1189, 1001/1244

397. Miru & others Vs. Ramgopal AIR 1935 All. 891 3369/3304

398. Miss Talat Fatima Hasan Vs. His Highness 2286/2272

5176

Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur and others AIR 1997 All. 122

399. Mitta Kunth Audhicarry Vs. Neerunjun Audhicarry, 14 Beng. L.R. 166

4470/5023

400. Modi Nathubai Motilal v. Chhotubhai Manibhai Besai, AIR 1962 Guj. 68

2812/2701

401. Mohabharat Shaha Vs. Abdul Hamid Khan (1904) 1 CLJ 73

2421/2436

402. Mohammad Baqar and another Vs. S. Mohammad Casim and others, AIR 1932 Oudh 210

1112/1328, 1140/1349, 1141/1349

403. Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari & others AIR 1956 SC 713

2378/2410

2985/2824, 3053/2871

404. Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1SCC 639

2933/2797, 2935/2798

405. Mohd. Ata Husain Khan Vs. Husain Ali Khan, AIR 1944 Oudh 139

2439/2443

406. Mohd. Saleh Vs. Ram Ratan AIR 1924 Nagpur 156

273/301

407. Mohd. Zainulabudeen Vs. Sayed Ahmad Mohideen (1990) 1 SCC 345

2878/2752

408. Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar & Ors. Vs. Mohesh Chundar Neogi & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 23

2162/2197, 2204/2216

409. Mohori Bibee Vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1902) 30 I.A. 114 (P.C.).

2668/2586

410. Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others Vs. The Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43) CWN 1056

4472/5023

411. Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj & Ors. Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhan Committee, Amritsar and another AIR 1940 Privy Council 116

2586/2540, 2774/2667, 2778/2673, 2861/2736, 2953/2809, 3297/3220, 3303/3250, 3562/3574

412. Mosque Known as Masjid Shahid Ganj Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1938 Lahore 369

4053/4411

5177

413. Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple) (4) SCC 286

717/1026, 721/1027, 976/1225, 977/1226, 986/1232, 987/1233,

3500/3494

414. Motichand Vs. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 2192/2212

415. Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103

720/1027

416. Mst. Bhagwanti Vs. Mst. Jiuti and another, AIR 1975 Allahabad 341

1282/1443

417. Mst. Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 335

2162/2197, 2408/2431, 2420/2436

418. Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and another Vs. Ram Dass Pandey and others, AIR 1957 All. 270

1061/1283

419. Mt. Bolo Vs. Mt. Koklan and others AIR 1930 Privy Council 270

2162/2197, 2163/2198, 2419/2436

420. Mt. Titli Vs. Alfred Robert Jones AIR 1934 All. 273

3571/3577, 3588/3585

421. Muhammad Araf Vs. Satramdas Sakhimal & others AIR 1936 Sind 143

2239/2240

422. Mukkammal Vs. Kalimuthu Pillay 15 Ind Cas 852 (Mad)

1031/1265, 1036/1269

423. Muktakeshi Patrani & Ors. Vs. Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Patna 33

2449/2451

424. Mukundji Mahraj Vs. Persotam Lalji Mahraj AIR 1957 Allahabad 77

1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1836/1934, 2113/2174,

2698/2603

425. Munesh Kumar Agnihotri and others Vs. Lalli Prasad Gupta AIR 1989 (Alld.) 202

852/1156, 1046/1273

426. Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531 3564/3575

427. Musaheb Khan Vs. Raj Kumar Bakshi, AIR 1938 Oudh 238

3259/3139,

428. Musammat Phutania Vs. Emperor 25 Cr.L.J. 1109 2240/2240

429. Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762

3590/3587

430. Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 882/1169

5178

1927 ILR (VIII) 384

431. Must. Salamat Begam Vs. S.K. Ikram Husain (1933) 145 IC 728

2422/2437

432. Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128

986/1232

433. N. Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2002 (8) SCC 106

4416/4997

434. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 2663

3324/3277

435. N.C. Ramanatha Iyer Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras AIR 1954 Madras 492

1826/1927, 3252/3135

436. Nagendra Nath Palit Vs. Robindra Narain Deb, AIR 1926 Cal. 490

2708/2608

437. Nagubai Ammal and others Vs. B. Shama Rao and others AIR 1956 SC 593

2776/2669, 2897/2762

438. Nair Service Society Limited Vs. K. C. Alexander and others AIR 1968 SC 1165

2588/2542, 2774/2667

439. Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712

735/1034

440. Nanhekhan Vs. Sanpat AIR 1954 Hyd 45 (FB) 2193/2213

441. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak gosavi & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 100

1701/1821, 1788/1888, 2127/2179, 4529/5064

442. Narayana Dutt and another Vs. Smt. Molini Devi, AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269

930/1197

443. Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC 1268

1061/1283

444. Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram and others 2005 (6) SCC 614

2282/2270

445. Nata Padhan & Ors. Vs. Banchha Baral & Ors. AIR 1968 Orissa 36

2451/2452

446. Nathoo Lal Vs. Durga Prasad AIR 1954 SC 355 2279/2269

5179

447. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and another 2006 (2) SCC 641

2776/2669, 2901/2765

448. Naurangi Lal & Others Vs. Ram Charan Das AIR 1930 Patna 455

1938/2019, 2652/2579, 2709/2608

449. Nawab Muhammad Amanulla Khan Vs. Badan Singh & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 148

2162/2197, 2205/2216

450. Nawab Zain Yar Jung and others Vs. Director of Endowments and another AIR 1963 SC 985

3424/3347

451. Neale Vs. Turton (1827) 4 Bing. 149 1237/1407

452. Nilmony Singh Vs. Jagabandhu Roy (1896) 23 Cal 536

3270/ 3146

453. Norendranath Masumdar, v. The State, AIR 1951 Cal 140.

2812/2700

454. Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1974 SC 1355

1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1798/1900

455. P. K. Vijayan Vs. Kamalakshi Amma and others, AIR 1994 SC 2145

842/1150, 1012/1251, 1014/1254

456. P. Periasami Vs. P.Periathambi & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 523.

2774/2668, 2932/2797

457. P.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L.Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314

2259/2256, 2412/2433, 2713/2610, 2774/2668, 2844/2729, 2873/2750,

2878/2752

458. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1753

2282/2271, 2774/2667, 2849/2731,

459. P.V. Durrairajulu Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Trusts, AIR 1989 Madras 60

1707/1833

460. P.V. Sadavarty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1963 SC 510

1707/1837

461. Palani Goundan Vs. Peria Gounden, 1941 Mad 158

2592/2546

462. Palaniappa Chetty and Anr. Vs. Deivasikamony Pandara 1917 L.R. 44 I.A. 147

2650/2577

463. Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri Vs. State AIR 1968 Bombay 127

3572/3578

5180

464. Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee Nidubroly and Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1958 A.P. 773

1265/1418, 1271/1423

465. Panchanan Dhara and others Monmatha Nath Maity and another 2006 (5) SCC 340

2282/2271

466. Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR 1954 All. 191

4561/5074

467. Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153

892/1181

468. Pandurang Kalu Patil and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 733

1809/1911

469. Panna Lal Biswas Vs. Panchu Raidas AIR 1922 Cal. 419

2164/2198, 2425/2437, 2427/2438, 2428/2439, 2429/2439, 2579/2537

470. Pappy Amma Vs. Prabhakaran Nair AIR 1972 Kerala 1 (FB)

2225/2233, 2251/2249

471. Parmanand Vs. Nihal Chand AIR 1938 PC 195 1786/1887

472. Parmeshwari Devi and others Vs. Khusali Mandal and others, AIR 1957 Patna 482

2071/2139

473. Parsinnin Vs. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 2890/2758, 2949/2806

474. Partab Bahadur Singh, Taluqdar Vs. Jagatjit Singh AIR 1936 Oudh 387

2162/2197, 2164/2198, 2404/2427, 2405/2429

475. Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others Vs. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR Madras Series (1882) 304

888/1175

476. Parwatabai Vs. Sona Bai 1996 (10) SCC 266 2889/2758

477. People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. U.O.I. 2005(5) SCC 363

3771/3802

478. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. South Indian Railway Company Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407

3579/3580

479. Perumal Vs. Devarajan & others AIR 1974 Mad. 14

3039/2862

480. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet Ouchterlony Wapsnare AIR 1969 SC 843

2166/2199, 2400/2425, 4441/5011

5181

481. Ponnu Nadar and others Vs. Kumaru Reddiar and others, AIR 1935 Madras 967

2406/2429

482. Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy Vs. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. AIR 1963 SC 510

1699/1819, 1707/1833, 1827/1927

483. Pooranchand Vs. The Idol Shri Radhakrishnaji & another AIR 1979 MP 10

1873/1966

484. Prabhu Narain Singh Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors. AIR 1983 All 223

2774/2668, 2912/2772

485. Prabodh Verma & others Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 1985 SC 167

2124/2178

486. Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513

943/1204

487. Prajapati and others Vs. Jot Singh and others AIR 1934 All 539

2167/2199, 2422/2437, 2446/2450

488. Prakash Das Vs. Janki Ballabha Saran AIR 1926 Oudh 444

1938/2020

489. Pramath Nath Mullick Vs. Pradhyumna Kumar Mullick & Anr. AIR 1925 PC 139

1700/1820, 1707/1835, 1784/1886, 1806/1909, 1814/1913, 1815/1913, 1869/1965, 2604/2554, 2685/2597, 2695/2601,

2711/2609

490. Pranshankar Vs. Prannath Mahanand, 1 Bom H. C. Rep. 12

4470/5023

491. Prem Narain Vs. Ram Charan and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 51

914/1189

492. Prema Chanda Barik Vs. Prafulla Kumar Mohanty AIR 1988 Orissa 33

1036/1269

493. Premier Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Government of India and others, AIR 2002 SC 2418

842/1150, 1016/1255

494. Priddle Vs. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 893/1182

495. Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 1984 SC 858

1834/1933

496. Profulla Chandra Vs. Prabartak Trust AIR 1954 Cal. 8

3031/2853

5182

497. Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Choron Requitte AIR 1979 SC 1682

1876/1969

498. Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1288

4447/5012, 4451/5013

499. Prosanna Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo, LR 2 IA 145

1771/1881, 1772/1881, 1940/2025,

2645/2575, 2692/2599, 2693/2600, 3030/2853

500. Province of Bihar Vs. Kamakshya Narain Singh AIR 1950 Patna 366

653/985, 657/987

501. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Vs. Capt. Mohar Singh AIR 1975 SC 1891

3264/3142

502. Purna Chandra Bysack Vs. Gopal Lal Sett & Ors. 1908 (VIII) Calcutta Law Journal 369

1842/1938

503. Purnachandra Chakrabarty Vs. Kaliopada Roy AIR 1942 Cal. 386

1745/1863

504. Purushotama Reddiar Vs. S Perumal AIR 1972 SC 608

3554/3567

505. Qadir Bux Vs. Ramchand and others AIR 1970 All. 289

2225/2233, 2774/2667, 2924/2781

506. Queen-Empress Vs Abdullah ILR (1885) 7 All 385 (FB)

3544/3564

507. Queen-Empress Vs. Ramzan ILR, 7 All. 461 3254/3136, 4550/5068

508. R. Venugopala Naidu and others Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others, AIR 1990 SC 444

958/1215

509. R.E.M.S. Abdul Hameed v. Govindaraju 1999 (4) SCC 663

3326/3280

510. R.H.Bhutani Vs. Miss Mani J. Desai AIR 1968 SC 1444

2228/2233

511. R.N. Dawar Vs. Ganga Saran Dhama AIR 1993 Del. 19

2889/2758

512. R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir 1992 (4) SCC 683 2776/2669, 2900/2765

513. Rabindra Nath Vs. Chandi Charan AIR 1932 Cal 117

2119/2176

5183

514. Radhakishan and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1

1140/1349, 1141/1349, 1146/1357

515. Radhakrishna Das Vs. Radha Ramana Swami & others AIR (36) 1949 Orissa 1

1939/2020, 1940/2024, 2440/2444, 2611/2556

516. Radhamoni Debi Vs. Collector of Khulna, 27 Ind App. 136 at p. 140 (PC)

2844/2729

517. Radharani Vs. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92 923/1194

518. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag Vs. Hanskumar Kishanchand AIR 1959 MP 172

1265/1419, 1271/1423

519. Ragho Prasad Gupta Vs. Krishna Poddar AIR 1969 SC 316

940/1200

520. Raghunath Das Vs. Union of India and another AIR 1969 SC 674

626/973

521. Ragu Thilak D.John Vs. S. Rayappan & Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 472

2435/2442

522. Rahmat-ullah Vs. Shamsuddin 1913 (11) ALJ 877 2444/2449

523. Rais Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & others (1999) 6 SCC 391

3500/3493

524. Raj Kumari Devi Vs. Nirtya Kali Debi (1910) 7 Ind Cas 892 (Cal)

1031/1265, 1036/1269

525. Raja Gopa Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religion Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras 103

929/1197

526. Raja Muttu Ramalinga Setupati Vs. Perianayagum Pillai, 1 IA 209

1867/1964

527. Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Vs. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh AIR 1942 Privy Council 47

2162/2197, 2405/2429, 2774/2667, 2914/2773

528. Raja Rajinder Chand Vs. Mst. Sukhi and others AIR 1957 S.C. 286

4444/5011

529. Raja Ram Maize Products Vs. Industrial Court of M.P. 2001 (4) SCC 492

2439/2444

530. Raja Ramaswami (dead) and Ors. Vs. Govindammal and Ors. AIR 1929 Mad 313

2166/2199, 2401/2426

531. Raja Shumsher Bahadoor Vs. Mirja Mahomed Ali 1036/1268

5184

(1867) Agra H.C.R. 158

532. Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Isakapalli Subbiah & Ors. ILR (26) Madras 410

2162/2197, 2255/2250, 2425/2438

533. Rajah of Venkatgiri Vs. Provinces of Madras AIR (34) 1947 Madras 5

923/1194

534. Rajendra Singh & others Vs. Santa Singh AIR 1973 SC 2537

2289/2273

535. Ram Bharos Lall Vs. Gopee Beebee (1874) 6 NWP 66

1031/1265, 1036/1268

536. Ram Chandra Mission Vs. Umesh Chandra Saxena and others 1997 ACJ 896

845/1152, 1042/1272

537. Ram Chandra Vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1952 All. 520

1230/1405

538. Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381

3574/3579

539. Ram Charan Das Vs. Naurangi Lal & Ors. AIR 1933 Privy Council 75

2774/2668, 2856/2735, 2905/2767, 2905/2767

540. Ram Gobinda Daw Vs. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664

951/1209

541. Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 50=AIR 1999 SC 2131

1699/1819, 1707/1833, 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1760/1871, 1801/1902, 1802/1904, 1844/1939, 1845/1940, 1880/1971, 1882/1971, 1910/1983, 2106/2173, 2714/2611

542. Ram Kirpal Vs. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.) 269 (P.C.)

889/1179

543. Ram Lal & another Vs. Board of Revenue & Others, 1990 (1) RLR 161

2595/2547

544. Ram Murti Vs. Puran Singh AIR 1963 Punjab 393 2193/2213

545. Ram Nandan Vs. State, AIR 1959 All 101 1222/1402

546. Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (21) LCD 1120

852/1156, 1046/1273

547. Ram Parkash Das Vs. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 686/1003

5185

1916 Privy Council 256

548. Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Kashi Nath Tewari, AIR 1966 Patna 235

1929/2012

549. Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & others AIR 1987 SC 1242

3981/4294

550. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and others 1985 (1) SCC 427

2245/2243

551. Rama Shankar Singh & another Vs. Shyamlata Devi & another others AIR 1970 SC 716

2289/2273

552. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 (3) SCC 489

1215/1398

553. Ramareddy Vs. Ranga 1925 ILR 49 Mad 543 2596/2548

554. Rambrahma Chatterjee Vs. Kedar Nath Banerjee AIR 1923 Cal 60

1781/1885, 1783/1886, 1784/1886, 2685/2596

555. Ramesh B. Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others 2006 (5) SCC 638

2281/2270

556. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. JT 2009 (12) SC 377

3587/3584, 3588/3585, 3589/3586

557. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & others (1992) 2 SCC 524

2125/2178

558. Rameswar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and others AIR 1986 Cal. 19

1036/1269

559. Rami Kuar Mani Singh Vs. Nawab of Murshidabad AIR 1918 PC 180

2652/2579

560. Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others Vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497

1048/1274

561. Ramprakash vs. Ananda Das 43 Cal.707 2854/2734

562. Ramzan & Anr. Vs. Mohammad Ahmad Khan AIR 1936 Oudh 207

2859/2736

563. Ramzan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Gafooran Ors. AIR 2008 All 37

2774/2668, 2913/2773, 2923/2780

564. Ranchordas Vandravandas Vs. Parvatibai 29 I.A. 71 (P.C.)

2196/2214, 2289/2211

5186

565. Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA 92, 101,

4442/5011

566. Ranganayakamma & another Vs. K.S. Prakash JT 2008 (8) SC 510

3041/2864

567. Rao Bahadur Man Singh Vs. Maharani Nawlakhbati (1926) 24 A.L.J.R. 251

2855/2734

568. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394

3303/3246

569. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1954 SC 388

714/1023, 740/1037, 3500/3494

570. Re B. Venkata Row (1913) 36 Mad. 159 3575/3579

571. Re Pachiripalli Satyanarayanan, AIR 1953 Mad 534.

2812/2701

572. Renu Devi Vs. Mahendra Singh and others, (2003) 10 SCC 200

3244/3131

573. Roop Singh Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 2879/2752

574. RT. Munichikanna Reddy Vs. Revamma, 2007 (25) LCD 1374 (SC)

2778/2675

575. Run Bahadur Singh Vs. Lucho Koer ILR (1885) 11 Cal 301

943/1204

576. S. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.S.S Dalliwall, 1952 All 825 (DB)

2585/2540, 3245/3132

577. S. R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1994 SC 1918

734/1033

578. S. Raghbir Singh Gill Vs. S. Gurucharan Singh Tohra and others 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 53.

635/977

579. S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254;

2774/2668, 2926/2788, 2997/2830

580. S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449. 638/978

581. S.P. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 715/1024, 716/1024, 733/1033

582. Saddiq Ali Vs. State 1981 CrLJ 379 3553/3567

583. Sadhuram Bansal Vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar and 2246/2246

5187

others 1984 (3) SCC 410

584. Said Maher Hussain Vs. Haji Alimahomed Jalaludin and others, AIR 1934 Bombay 257

3248/3133

585. Sailendra Kishore Vs. Harekrishna AIR 1978 Orissa 125

3556/3568

586. Sait Tarajee Khimchand Vs. Yelamarti Satyam AIR 1971 SC 1865

3556/3568

587. Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos Vs. Saiyad Mahomed El Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217

941/1201

588. Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) By LRS. Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3) SCC 350

941/1200, 942/1204, 944/1205, 1051/1278

589. Salamat Raj Vs. Nur Mohamed Khan (1934) ILR 9 Lucknow 475

2193/2213

590. Sammantha Pandara Vs. Sellappa Chetti ILR 2 (1878-81) Madras 175

682/999, 684/1002

591. Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425

634/976

592. Sankar Kumar Vs. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998 Orissa 117

3753/3792

593. Saqlain Ahmad Vs. Emperor AIR 1936 Alld. 165 3568/3577

594. Sarabjit Rick Singh Vs. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 417

3047/2867

595. Sarangadeva Periya Matam Vs. Ramaswami Goundar, AIR 1966 SC 1603

1707/1837, 1869/1965, 2708/2608

596. Saraswathi Ammal & Anr. Vs. Rajagopal Ammal AIR 1953 SC 491

1699/1819, 1848/1941

597. Sarat Kamini Dasi Vs. Nagendra Nath Pal AIR 1926 Cal. 65

2652/2579

598. Sardar Ali Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243

4562/5076

599. Sardar Sarup Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1959 SC 860

744/1039, 3500/3494

600. Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of 741/1037, 3500/3494

5188

Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853

601. Saroja Vs. Chinnusamy (2007) 8 SCC 329 1056/1279, 1057/1280

602. Saroop Singh Vs. Banto and others, 2005(8) SCC 330

2847/2730

603. Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC 862

4460/5013

604. Satya Charan Sarkar Vs. Mohanta Rudrananda Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716

693/1007

605. Satya Narain Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. & others 2007 (2) ARC 308

2126/2179

606. Satya Niranjan Vs. Ramlal, 1925 P.C. 42 2417/2434

607. Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand Vs. Union of India AIR 1966 SC 1068

631/975, 657/987

608. Sayed Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555

941/1201

609. Sayed Mohd. Vs. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285 941/1202

610. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs. Gulam Rasul Gyasudin Kuwari (1916) ILR XL (Bom.) 392

625/973

611. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs. Perumal Pillai and others (1900) ILR 24 (Mad.) 271

624/973

612. Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 PC 23, page 25

2844/2729, 2858/2735

613. Secretary of State Vs. Chelikani Rama Rao, (1916) 39 Mad. 617

2209/2217

614. Secretary of State Vs. Krishnamoni Gupta (1902) 29 Cal. 518

2429/2439

615. Seshammal Vs. State of T.N. AIR 1972 SC 1586 1761/1872

616. Seth Narainbhai Ichharam Kurmi and another Vs. Narbada Prasad Sheosahai Pande and others, AIR 1941 Nagpur 357

2813/2702

617. Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad AIR 2009 SC 2463

2999/2838, 3014/2845

3039/2862

5189

618. Sewkissendas Bhatter & others Vs. Dominion of India AIR 1957 Cal. 617

2102/2171

619. Shakuntalabai and another Vs. L.V. Kulkarni and another, 1989 (2) SCC 526

3415/3340

620. Shankar Lal & Anr. Vs. Mahbub Shah & Anr. AIR 1923 Oudh 59

2310/2295

621. Shankarrao Sitaramji Satpute & Ors. Vs. Annapurnabai AIR 1961 Bombay 266

2450/2451

622. Shanker Das Vs. Said Ahmad (1884) P.R. No.153 of 1884

3268/3144

623. Shantha Nand Gir Chela Vs. Basudevanand AIR 1930 Alld. 225

881/1168

624. Shanti Kuamr Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi JT 2005 (11) SC 122

2271/2262, 2272/2265, 2273/2265, 3039/2863

625. Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley Vs. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61

946/1206

626. Sharda Vs. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 3764/3797

627. Sharpe Vs. San Paulo Railway Co., L.R. 8 Ch. App. 597 at pp.609

1933/2016

628. Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & others Vs. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another AIR 1966 SC 1119

1853/1947

629. Sheo Raj Chamar & another Vs. Mudeer Khan & others AIR 1934 All. 868

2846/2730

630. Sheo Ramji Vs. Ridhnath Mahadeo Ji AIR 1923 All. 160

1813/1912

631. Sheodhan Singh Vs. Daryo Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332

1045/1273

632. Sheoparsan Singh and others Vs. Ramnandan Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N. 738 (P.C.)

893/1182, 894/1182

633. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs. Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 3349

958/1212, 1061/1284, 1835/1934

634. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Som Nath Dass & Ors. (2000) 4

1041/1271, 1699/1819, 1707/1837, 1803/1907,

5190

SCC 146=AIR 2000 SC 1421 1805/1909, 1911/1984, 1914/1987, 1915/1989,

2703/2605

635. Shiv Charan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 (All.) 511

981/1231

636. Shivagonda Subraigonda Patil Vs. Rudragonda Bhimagonda Patil 1969 (3) SCC 211

2229/2234

637. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan Vs. Mahadba Romaji Bidkar & Others AIR 1953 Bombay 38.

1822/1919, 2681/2594

638. Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others 1981 (3) SCC 689=AIR 1980 SC 707

688/1004, 689/1005, 694/1007, 696/1008,

699/1010

639. Shripati Quer Vs. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna) 320

930/1197

640. Shyam Sunder Prasad & Others Vs. Raj Pal Singh & Anr. 1995(1) SCC 311

2162/2196, 2164/2198,

2212/2219, 2458/2454, 2774/2668

641. Sidram Lachmaya Vs. Mallaya Lingaya AIR (36) 1949 Bom. 137

2196/2214

642. Singhai Lal Chand Jain Vs. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC 1211

1061/1284

643. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf U.P. and others, AIR 1959 SC 198

1137/1345, 2433/2441

644. Siris Chandra Nandy Vs. Rakhala Nanda AIR 1941 PC 16

3545/3564

645. Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh AIR 1924 Cal. 595

3573/3578

646. Sitaram Vs. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 923/1194

647. Sitaramacharya Vs. Gururajacharya, 1997(2) SCC 548

1991/2070

648. Sm. Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy & others AIR 1947 Privy Council 19

2774/2667, 2871/2750

649. Smt. Bitola Kuer Vs. Sri Ram Charan & Ors. AIR 1978 All 555

2774/2668, 2911/2772

5191

650. Smt. Dhana Kuer Vs. Kashi Nath Chaubey, 1967 AWR 290

1060/1282

651. Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 Kar. 45

4563/5076

652. Smt. Panna Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Kali Kinkor Ganguli AIR 1974 Cal. 126

1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1799/1900, 2696/2602

653. Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others Vs. Abdul Qadir and others AIR 1966 Alld. 318

845/1152, 1029/1263, 1030/1264, 1031/1265, 1036/1268, 1042/1272

654. Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., AIR 1985 RD 33

653/985, 658/978

655. Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33

901/1184, 952/1209

656. Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy AIR 1955 Cal 624

1929/2013

657. Soorjomonee Dayee Vs. Suddanund Mahapatter (1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C.)

885/1175

658. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others 2003 (8) SCC 648

3121/2967, 3122/2968

659. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 606

727/1029, 1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1852/1947, 1855/1956, 3501/3495

660. Sri Banamali Neogi & others Vs. Sri Asoke Kumar Chattopadhyayay & others, 96 CWN 886

2595/2548

661. Sri Chand Batra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 639

3581/3581

662. Sri Gopal Vs. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld. 429 (PC)

947/1207

663. Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani & others Vs. Sm. Kanchanbala Dutta & others AIR 1977 Cal. 473

1875/1968

664. Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur and others V. Gopinath Das and others AIR 1960 Cal. 741

1823/1925, 1929/2013

665. Sri Lakhi Baruah & others Vs. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita & others JT 1996 (3) SC 268

2356/2366

666. Sri Nitai Gour Radheshyam Vs. Harekrishna 1927/2011

5192

Adhikari and others AIR 1957 Cal. 77

667. Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129

953/1209

668. Sri Sri Gopal Jew Vs. Baldeo Narain Singh and others, 51 CWN 383

1933/2015, 1934/2016, 1935/2018

669. Sri Sri Ishwar Lakshi Durga Vs. Surendra Nath Sarhar 45 C.W.N. 665

1940/2024

670. Sri Thakur Kirshna Chandramajju vs. Kanhayalal and others AIR 1961 Allahabad 206

1932/2015

671. Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123

687/1004, 699/1010, 1806/1909, 3270/3146, 3303/3253, 3424/3347

672. Srikant Vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others (2007) 1 SCC 486

1055/1279

673. Srikant Vs. King Emperor (1905) 2 ALJ 444 3576/3580

674. Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 955/1210

675. State Bank of India Vs. Firm Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal and sons and another AIR 2003 (Alld.) 337

845/1152, 1042/1272

676. State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and Others 2009 CLC 73

1262/1417

677. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Pioneer Builders AIR 2007 SC 113

622/972

678. State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda Ojha AIR 1959 SC 1073

1400/1560

679. State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222

3768/3798

680. State of Bihar and others Vs. Ramdeo Yadav and others, 1996(2) SCC 493

1048/1274

681. State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and others, AIR 1983 SC 684

1994/2073, 1996/2076, 2155/2194, 2162/2197, 2547/2510, 3342/3292,

4455/5014

682. State of Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal Gangaram 1808/1911

5193

Lavar, AIR 1955 Bom. 1

683. State of Gujarat Vs. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala, AIR 1964 SC 1043

3380/3308, 3381/3309, 3385/3310

684. State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426,

3578/3580

685. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318

3584/3582, 3622/3639

686. State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683

840/1150, 906/1185, 1003/1245

687. State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. National Construction Company, Bombay AIR 1996 SC 2367

852/1156, 1045/1273

688. State of Punjab and others Vs. M/s. Surinder Kumar and Co. and others, AIR 1997 SC 809

841/1150, 1011/1250

689. State of Punjab Vs. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, 1993(3) SCC 459

3384/3310

690. State of Punjab Vs. Geeta Iron and Brass Works Ltd. 1978 (1) SCC 68=1978 SC 1608

627/974, 637/977

691. State of Punjab Vs. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 669

1228/1404

692. State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna 2001 (2) SCC 330

3773/3805

693. State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706=1974 SCC (1) 500

1861/1962, 4453/5013

694. State of T.N. Vs. T. Thulasingam and others 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 405

2777/2669

695. State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680

947/1207, 1007/1246

696. State of U.P. Vs. Nemchandra Jain, 1984 (2) SCC 405

1223/1402

697. State of UP & another Vs. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd, (1991) 4 SCC 139

2778/2675

698. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Jagdish 1052/1278

5194

Sharan Agrawal and others (2009) 1 SCC 689

699. State of West Bengal and others Vs. Debdas Kumar and others 1991 (1) Suppl. SCC 138

1048/1274

700. State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar & Anr. AIR (39) 1952 SC 75

1703/1821, 1877/1970

701. State Vs. Kanhu Charan Barik 1983 Cr.L.J. 133 3565/3576

702. State Vs. S.J. Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491 3559/3569

703. Subbaraya Gurukkal Vs. Chellappa Mudali 4 Mad. 315

1941/2025

704. Sudhindra Nath Vs. The King AIR (39) 1952 Cal. 422,

3577/3580

705. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288

1395/1559, 2226/2233

706. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 5

1674/1793

707. Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152

840/1150, 904/1185, 943/1205, 1010/1250

708. Sumatibai Wasudeo Bachuwar Vs. Emperor, AIR (31) 1944 Bom. 125

2814/2703

709. Sundar Vs. Parbati, (1889) 12 All 51 2203/2216

710. Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharm High School Trust Vs. Managing Committee, AIR 1938 PC 73

2262/2258

711. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608 2778/2675

712. Sunka Villi Suranna. v. Goli Sathiraju AIR 1962 SC 342

3327/3281

713. Sunni Central Board of Waqf Vs. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others, AIR 1954 All. 88.

1137/1345

714. Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 52

2836/2725

715. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, 2007 (6) SCC 186

3095/2897

5195

716. Suraj Bhan Vs. Harchandgir 1954 PEPSU 65 (DB)

273/301

717. Surayya and another Vs. Annapurnamma, 1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699

4471/5023

718. Surayya Begum (Mst) Vs. Mohd. Usman and others, 1991(3) SCC 114

1061/1284

719. Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Bhubaneswari Thakurani AIR (2) 1933 Cal. 295

1942/2027

720. Surendra Narayan Sarbadhikari Vs. Bholanath Roy Choudhuri AIR (30) 1943 Cal. 613

1940/2024

721. Suryanarayana & Ors. Vs. Bullayya & Ors. AIR 1927 Madras 568

2167/2199, 2448/2450

722. Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864

1401/1560

723. Syed Ali Mohammad Vs. Collector of Bhagalpur, AIR 1927 Patna 189

1111/1328

724. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) & another JT 2009 (4) SC 522

3040/2864

725. Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & others Vs. Mohd. Hanifa & others AIR 1976 SC 1569

911/1188, 3234/3124, 3423/3344 3425/3348,

3426/3348

726. Syed Yousuf Yar Khan and others Vs. Syed Mohammed Yar Khan and others, AIR 1967 SC 1318

1211/1395, 1212/1396

727. Syndicate Bank. v. Prabha D. Naik (2001) 4 SCC 713

3328/3283

728. T. Anjanappa and others Vs. Somalingappa and another 2006 (7) SCC 570

2774/2667, 2848/2730,

2851/2733

729. T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P., 2004(3) SCC 753

1998/2077, 2008/2083

730. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80

895/1182

731. T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 (6) SCC 168

719/1027

5196

732. T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai & Anr. Vs. The Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, through its President AIR (38) 1951 Madras 473

1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1740/1861, 1844/1939, 1847/1940, 2106/2172

733. T.V. Durairajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras AIR 1989 Madras 60

1700/1820, 1741/1861, 1831/1929

734. Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 P.C. page 1

839/1149, 920/1191, 993/1237, 1943/2028

735. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Hathija Ammal, AIR 2002 SC 402

1161/1364

736. Tarit Bhusan Rai and another Vs. Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur by Krishna Chandra Chandra and others, AIR (29) 1942 Calcutta 99

1785/1886, 1944/2028, 2717/2612, 2719/2613

737. Temple of Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, 1998 Raj 85

2595/2548, 2657/2582

738. Thakardwara Sheru Mal Vs. Ishar Das AIR 1928 Lah. 375

1737/1860

739. Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1955 SC 504

4449/5013

740. Thakur Kishan Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73

2845/2730, 2879/2753

741. Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad. 287 692/1007

742. Thayarammal Vs. Kanakammal & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 457

1699/1819, 1707/1837, 1874/1967

743. The Advocate- General of Bengal on behalf of Her Majesty Vs. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee in Moore’s Indian Appeals (1863-1864) 9 MIA 387

3303/3255

744. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057

1786/1887

745. The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan Vs. Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 SC 289

1142/1351

746. The Delhi and London Bank Vs. Orchard, I.L.R. 3 2177/2204

5197

(1876) Calcutta 47 (PC)

747. The East India Company Vs. Oditchurn Paul 1849 (Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies) 43

2172/2201

748. The Firm of Eng Gim Moh Vs. The Chinese Merited Banking Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1940 Rangoon 276

2162/2197, 2432/2441

749. The Mayor of the City of Lyons Vs. the Hon’ble The East India Company, Moore’s Indian Appeals (1836-1837) 1 MIA 175

3303/3257

750. The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram AIR 1979 SC 14

3589/3586

751. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1638

1829/1928, 3302/3238

752. Tracy Perrage Case (1843) 10 CI & F 154 3591/3587

753. Trilochan Das Adhikari & another Vs. Simanchal Rath & others, 1994(II) OLR 602

2595/2548, 2659/2582

754. Tulsidas Vs. Sidahinath (9) I.C. 650) 1940/2025

755. U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqf Vs. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, AIR 2001 SC 2086

1163/1365, 1164/1367

756. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006(6) ADJ 331

1148/1358, 1149/1358

757. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue AIR 1963 SC 786

2123/2178

758. Umrao Singh v. Union of India; AIR 1975 Del. 188, 191

2812/2701

759. Union of India and Others Vs. SICOM Ltd. and Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 635

1261/1417

760. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1

1048/1273, 1050/1278

761. Union of India. v. Sudhangshu Mazumdar AIR 1971 SC 1594

3325/3279

762. Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh 929/1197

5198

and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354

763. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary, 2005(5) SCC 784

1992/2070

764. United States Shipping Board Vs. The Ship “St. Albans” AIR 1931 PC 189

3560/3573

765. United States v. Juan Prechman, (1831-34) L.Ed. 604

3325/3279

766. Upendra Kumar and others Vs. District Judge, Azamgarh and others 1997 ACJ 823

845/1152, 1042/1272

767. V. D. Dhanwatey. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, M. P., Nagpur & Bhandara AIR 1968 SC 683

3329/3284

768. V. Mariyappa Vs. B.K. Puttaramayya, ILR (1957) Mys 291:AIR 1958 Mys 93

1870/1965

769. V. Padmanabhan Nair Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board AIR 1989 Kerala 86

1231/1405

770. V. Seethaya & Ors. Vs. P. Subramanya Somayajulu & Anr. A.I.R. 1929 Privy Council 115

3044/2865

771. Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary of State AIR 1924 PC 216

3379/3307, 4445/5012

772. Vallabhacharya Swami Varu (Deity) of Swarna Vs. Deevi Hanumancharyulu, AIR 1979 SC 1147

1707/1837

773. Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355

943/1205, 1050/1278

774. Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese 2004(6) SCC 378

3758/3794

775. Vasant Ambadas Pandit Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others AIR 1981 Bombay 394

636/977, 637/977

776. Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Government of Province of Madras AIR 1947 PC 197

629/974, 657/987

777. Velluswami Vs. Raj Nainar 1959 SC 422 (426) 2592/2546

778. Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436

1707/1837, 1947/2034, 4476/5029

5199

779. Vembagounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder AIR 1996 Madras 347

3751/3791

780. Venkata Chandrayya Vs. Venkata Rama Reddy, (1899) 22 Madras 256

929/1197

781. Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255

744/1040, 1761/1871, 1856/1957

782. Venkataramana Moorthy Vs. Sri Rama Mandhiram (1964) 2 An.WR 457

1741/1861, 1845/1940

783. Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy, 1966 Supp SCR 270

1707/1836

784. Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496 2877/2752

785. Vidya vs. Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302; 2854/2734

786. Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435

684/1002, 1769/1877

787. Vimla Bai Vs. Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2 SCC 22

3363/3302, 3500/3494

788. Vishwambhar & Ors. Vs. Laxminarain & Anr. 2001 (6) SCC 163

2435/2442

789. Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale Vs. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale and others, JT 2009(5) SC 395

2853/2734, 2947/2804

790. Vithal Yeshwant Jathar Vs. Shikandarkhan Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385

961/1217

791. Wahid Ali & another Vs. Mahboob Ali Khan AIR 1935 Oudh 425

2227/2233, 3270/3146, 2858/2736

792. Wali Mohammad V. Mohammad Bakhsh AIR 1930 PC 91

3267/3144

793. Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225

957/1212

794. West Rand Gold mining Co. Vs. The King (1905) 2 KB 391

2862/2739

795. Williams Vs. Lourdusamy & another (2008) 5 SCC 647

1051/1278

796. Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) Vs. Nanilal 1406/1561

5200

Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 404

797. Yeknath Vs. Bahia AIR 1925 Nagpur 236 (1) 2162/2197, 2257/2251

798. Yeshwant Govardhan Vs. Totaram Avasu AIR 1958 Bom. 28

1031/1265, 1036/1269

5201

APPENDIX-10

Index-Reference Books Alphabetically

Sl.No Book Para/Page No.

1. A Clash of Culture, Audh, The British and the Mughals by Michael H. Fisher (published in 1987 by Manohar Publications, New Delhi)

3399/3320

2. A Cultural History of India by A.L. Basham (first published in 1975) Oxford University Press (Eighth Indian Impression in 1992)

3865/4057, 3866/4057

3. A Digest of Mahommedan Law- Part-First (Second Edition 1875) by Neil B.E. Baillie

3178/3007, 3190/3017, 3223/3113, 3303/3239, 3320/3270, 3503/3496

4. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East-India Company and of the native States on the Continent of India by Edward Thornton

4221/4598, 4222/4598

5. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East-India Company and of the native States on the Continent of India, by Edward Thornton first published in 1858 (reproduced in 1993) by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 10)

1319/1461, 1410/1563, 3350/3298, 3516/3510, 2622/2566, 2960/2813

6. A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad by P. Carnegy printed at the Oudh Government Press, Lucknow in 1870. (Book No. 154)

750/1041, 791/1121, 1413/1564, 1418/1568, 1420/1570, 2212/2297, 2312/2297, 2624/2567, 2986/2825, 3008/3843, 3351/3298, 3403/3332, 3411/3337, 3521/3523, 4251/4656, 4260/4674,

4266/4692

7. A History of India Vol. I (Pelican Books 1990, 13th Impression 2001) bu Romila Thapar

3390/3317

8. A History of the Sikhs by Khushwant Singh, Vol. I, 1469-1839, first published in 1963 and 9th

impression 2002 by Oxford University Press

4350/4818

9. A. Fuhrer's account published in 1891, 3526/3525

5202

10. Aaprajit Prichchha by Bhuwan Dev 3936/4240

11. Agnipuranam Chapter 103 Poona Edition of 1900 AD.

1694/1809,

12. Ain-e-Akbari written by Abul Fazal Allami, translated in English by H. Blochmann edited by Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first published 1927-1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 24)

1616/1735, 1617/1736, 1618/1744, 1622/1747,

4363/4918

13. Ameer Ali Shaheed Aur Marka Hanuman Gari by Shekh Mohammad Ajmat Ali Alvi Kakoravi (written in 1886) revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi published in 1987 (Book No. 102)

1635/1762, 3518/3513

14. An Advanced History of India by R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, Fourth Edition 1978, published by Macmillan India Ltd.

3388/3315

15. Anand Ramayana (Navon Khand Sampurna) edited by Pandit Sri Ramji Sharma published by Sri Durga Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay

4357/4910

16. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition by F.E. Pargiter

4155/4550, 4215/4582

17. Archaeological Survey Of India Four Reports Made During the Years 1862-63-64-65 by Alexander Cunningham

4225/4604

18. Archaeological Survey of India report of Tours in the Central Doab and Gorakhpur in 1874-75 and 1875-76 by A.C.L. Carlleyle Vol. XII

3667/3729

19. Asiatic Researches Vol-I, first published in 1788, recently republished in 1979

3777/3809

20. Aspects of our Religion, Bhavan's Book University by Senior Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeta

1763/1872

21. Atharva-Veda Samhita, Books VIII to XIX, translated by William Dwigth Whitney (Revised and edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman) first published in Cambridge in 1905 and re-printed in 2001 by Motilal Banarsidass

4090/4444, 4119/4507, 4120/4510, 4300/4751

22. Atherva-Veda Ka Subodh Bhasya 4090/4444, 4299/4751,

5203

23. Aurangzib-and the decay of the Mughal Empire, by Stanley Lane Poole first published in 1890, reproduced in 1995, published by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 26)

1632/1757

24. Autobiography J.S. Mill, London, reprinted in 1958

4181/4567

25. Ayodhya Archaeology After Demolition by D. Mandal first published in 1993, reprint in 1994

3645/3704

26. Ayodhya ka Itihas Avam Puratatva Rigved Se Abtak

3630/3656

27. Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi Lala Sitaram, first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001, published by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi (Book No. 46)

752/1049, 1479/1623, 3531/3528

28. Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva by Dr. T.P. Verma and S.P. Gupta

(Book No. 141)

1430/1578, 3643/3703, 3869/4064, 3870/4112

29. Ayodhya- Part I & II by Hans Bakker 1986 3535/3535

30. Babar by Dr. Radhey Shyam, first published in 1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad (Book No. 1)

1454/1603, 1555/1664, 3663/3721

31. Babar/ Babur-Nama by John Layden and William Erskine

(Book No. 59)

1519/1638,

32. Babari Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians Report to the Indian Nation

3609/3604

33. Babarnama translated by Yugjeet Navalpuri, first published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998 and reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi (Book No. 152)

1476/1617

34. Babur-nama (Tuzuk-i-babri) (1493-94 AD) 1486/1626

35. Babur-Nama by A.S. Beveridge, first published in 1921 (reprinted in 2006 by Low Price Publications, Delhi)

(Book No. 6)

1314/1458, 1315/1458, 1316/1459, 1317/1460, 1318/1460, 1341/1478, 1344/1479, 1366/1524, 1441/1588, 1442/1589, 1443/1590, 1471/1616, 1477/1619, 1515/1637, 1525/1641, 1528/1644,

5204

1533/1648, 1566/1673

36. Balmiki Ramayan (Book No. 47) 1913/1986

37. Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume XLVIII of the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh compiled and edited by H.R. Nevill, I.C.S., printed by F. Luker, Supdt., Government Press, United Provinces, Allahabad in 1904 (Book No. 4 )

1421/1571, 4276/4712, 4405/4964

38. Bhagvad Gita As It is by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad

3500/3493

39. Bhagwad-gita 4179/4566

40. Bhai Bale Wali-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji ki Janam Sakhi, 7th Edn. 1999

4334/4802

41. Bhartiya Sanskriti Ke Char Adhyay by Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, First Edn. 1956, reprinted 2009 by Lok Bharti Prakashan

3500/3493

42. Bibiotheque Orientale, Art. “Mahmood.” Paris, published in 1697

4040/4397

43. Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition (1999), published by West, St. Paul, Minn., 1999

2219/2222, 2220/2226, 2294/2277, 2805/2686, 2806/2687, 2807/2687

44. Book of the Holy Struggle-32 3210/3063

45. Brahmana 4124/4514

46. Brihadaranakya Upanishad by Krishnanand 2596/2549

47. Brihaspati Smriti 1707/1827, 2634/2571, 2831/2720

48. Chambers Dictionary 3374/3306

49. Chhandogyopanishad 1754/1867

50. Code of Manu 4180/4567

51. Commentaries on Mahommedan Law by Syed Ameer Ali

3306/3261, 3321/3271

52. Commentary on Mohammedan Law by Baillie 3259/3139

53. Complete Works, Vol. 2 by Swami Vivekananda 1756/1870

5205

54. Concise Oxford Dictionary 2700/2604

55. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement of the Entire American Law as developed by All Reported Cases (1956), Vol. 26A, published by Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.

2219/2224, 2220/2227, 2804/2685

56. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement of the Entire American Law as developed by All Reported Cases (1959), Vol. 27, published by Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.

2111/2220

57. DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE ET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E under the title "TOME 1. NOUVELLE EDITION. Contenant la Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches". English translation of which is "HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF INDIA" VOLUME 1 NEW EDITION containing the Geography of Hindustan, with 39 illustrations by Father Joseph Tieffenthaler

1588/1687, 1916/2006, 2621/2565, 3333/3286, 3348/3297, 3412/3318, 3514/3503, 4308/4764,

58. Development of Hindu Iconography' by Jitendra Nath Banerjea (First Edition in 1941 and 5th

Edition in 2002 published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.)

1716/1845, 1718/1846

59. Dharmasastras 4127/4517

60. Dictionary of Hinduism 4123/4511, 4128/4518, 4131/4524, 4132/4525, 4133/4525, 4134/4527, 4135/4528, 4136/4529, 4137/4532, 4138/4533

61. Digest of Hindu Law 4231/4607

62. Dilli Saltanat (711-1526 A.D.) by Dr. Ashirvadi Lal Srivastava

4327/4792

63. DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary published by Oxford University Press

1671/1792

64. Early Travels in India (1985 First Edition distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) by William Foster

1585/1682, 2957/2812

65. East India Gazetter by Walter Hamilton first published in 1828 (reproduced in 1993 published

1407/1562, 1408/1562, 2959/2813, 3334/3287,

5206

by Low Price Publications, Delhi containing particular descriptions of the

4218/4585

66. Eastern India by Robert Montgomery Martin 1597/1698, 1614/1732, 3349/3298, 3334/3287, 4220/4598, 4388/4947

67. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1978 3533/3534

68. Encyclopedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia by Surgeon General Balfour, 1858

3519/3517

69. English translation of Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa by M.R. Kale

4314/4766

70. Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement (in continuation of Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica) 1964-1965 (reprinted in 1987)

1321/1462, 1324/1464, 1366/1524, 1445/1591, 1471/1616, 1654/1777, 1655/1780, 1656/1782, 3653/3709, 3654/3709,

3655/3711

71. Friendly Advice 4179/4566

72. Fyzabad A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4)

751/1045, 791/1121, 1422/1571, 2626/2568, 3354/3299, 3402/3331, 3527/3526, 4277/4716

73. Fyzabad-A Gazetteer being Volume XLIII of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra & Oudh in 1928

1425/1575, 1431/1581, 2626/2568, 3529/3527, 4283/4730, 3356/3300

74. Gazetteer of India (Vol. II ) 3303/3241

75. Gazetteer of Oudh by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S., Assistant Commissioner (1877)

1416/1566, 1417/1567, 2625/2567, 3352/3299, 3402/3331, 3523/3524,

4263/4686,

76. Hadiqa-E-Shabda by Mirza Jan published in 1855/56 AD

3400/3329, 3517/3511

77. Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3311/3264, 3150/2987, 3151/2987, 3166/2999, 3167/2999, 3168/3000, 3170/3002, 3172/3303, 3173/3004, 3174/3005, 3180/3009, 3194/3034, 3195/3038, 3196/3038, 3197/3042, 3198/3043,

5207

3199/3044, 3200/3045

78. Hadith Sahih Muslim 3169/3001, 3186/3011, 3189/3013, 3191/3020, 3204/3048, 3208/3061, 3209/3062, 3309/3262

79. Hadith, Volume 1 3193/3032

80. Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn, Vol 16 2598/2550, 3242/3129

81. Handbook of Architecture (1855) 4240/4611

82. Hanifeea Code of Jurisprudence at page vii-viii (Second Edition 1875 published by Smith Elder, & Co., London )

3303/3239

83. Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments by Abdur Rahim 1918

3217/3109

84. Hindu and Mohammaden Endowments by P.R. Ganapathy Iyer

3227/3117

85. Hindu Law & Usages by Mayne, 16th Edn. 1704/1821

86. Hindu Law of Endowments by Pran Nath Saraswati

1779/1884, 3392/3317

87. Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts of B. K. Mukherjea 5th Edition, Published by Eastern Law House

1694/1811, 1695/1817, 1696/1818, 1707/1825, 1708/1838, 1713/1843, 1714/1844, 1719/1848, 1720/1850, 1721/1851, 1734/1858, 1735/1859, 1736/1860, 2134/2182,

2602/2553

88. Hindu temple by Cramerish 1726/1854

89. Hindu Theatre 4235/4609

90. Hindu World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Hinduism by Benjamin Walker, first published in 1968 by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London and the first Indian Edition was published in 1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

4111/4496, 4112/4497, 4114/4503, 4116/4505, 4119/4507, 4124/4514, 4129/4518, 4130/4523

91. Hinduism And Ecology Seeds of Truth 3500/3494

92. Hinduism by Sir Moniar Williams 4289/4743

93. History and culture of the Indian People Bhavan's 3876/4124, 3877/4124

5208

Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Mumbai (first edition 1957), 5th Edition 2001

94. History of Architecture 4240/4611

95. History of Bairagi Akharas by Yadunath Sarkar 748/1041

96. History of British India by James Mill 4169/4558, 4181/4567

97. History of British India edited by H.H. Wilson 4184/4568

98. History of Dharmashastra, translated by Pandurang Vaman Kane, Part-IV Third Edition 1991 published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Poona

1703/1821, 1707/1827, 2596/2548, 2603/2553, 4090/4444, 4305/4759,

4526/5061

99. History of India under Baber by William Erskine (May 1845), though published for the first time in 1854

1535/1659, 1536/1650, 1544/1657, 1545/1658, 1546/1658, 1547/1659

100. History of India-As told by its own Historians by Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II

1426/1575, 1427/1575, 4035/4387, 4037/4388,

4041/4398

101. History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest by Rama Shankar Tripathi

4331/4797

102. History of Sanskrit Literature (1859) 4178/4565

103. History of Sanskrit Literature (1900) by Macdonell, Arthur Anthony

4211/4580

104. History of the rise of the Mahomedan Power in India till the year AD 1612 translated by John Briggs (first published in 1829 reprinted in 2006 by Low Price Publications, Delhi)

3161/2995

105. Hitopadeca 4179/4566

106. Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah 3202/3047

107. Holy Quran 3179/3008, 3191/3028, 3148/2986, 3149/2987,

3503/3496

108. Ibn Battuta Ki Bharat Yatra 3317/3267

109. IBN BATTUTA Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354 translated and selected by H.A.R. Gibb (first published in 1929 reprinted in 2007 by Low Price

3157/2991, 3191/3021

5209

Publications, Delhi)

110. Illustrated History of Indian Architecture 4240/4611

111. Imperial Gazetteer of India Provincial Service United Provinces of Agra & Oudh, Vol. II, published in 1934 Faizabad Division

3528/3527, 3357/3300, 4284/4734

112. Imperial Gazetteer of India—Provincial Series—United Provinces of Agra and Oudh-Vol. II (1908) (Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of Government Printing Calcutta

1423/1573, 4282/4727, 3355/3299

113. India During Muslim Rule by Maulana Hakim Syed Abdul Hai

2726/2618

114. India in or about 1030 A.D. by Alberuni 1694/1810

115. India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and Politician) Memoirs of Francois Martin (1670-1694) Volume II, Part I (1681/1688) translated by Lotika Varadarajan first published 1984 by Manohar Publications, New Delhi

1626/1754, 1628/1755

116. Indian Architecture (Islamic Period) by Percy Brown published by D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. Private Ltd

3430/3350

117. Indian Texts Series-Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-1708 by Niccolao Manucci translated in English by Milliam Irvine Vol. III

1624/1752

118. Itihas Darpan Vol. III December 1996 published by Bhartiya Itihas Sankalan Yojna Samiti, Delhi

4153/4542

119. Jami' At-Tirmidhi 3314/3265, 3163/2996, 3171/3003, 3177/3007, 3181/3010, 3182/3010, 3184/3010, 3190/3016, 3191/3020, 3211/3078, 3312/3264, 3313/3265

120. Jarman on Wills, 6th Edn. Page 532 2898/2764

121. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law Vol. 1 Second Edition-1977, Second Impression-1990, published by London Sweet & Maxwell Limited

2112/2226, 2220/2230, 2809/2691

122. Kalhana's Rajatarangini-A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir

4142/4535, 4312/4765

5210

123. Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa 4315/4771, 4318/4772

124. Katyayana 1707/1827, 2603/2553

125. Kitab Al-Aqdiyah 3215/3096

126. Kitab Al-Salat 3205/3055

127. Kong-U-To (Konyodha) 4319/4773

128. Law of Endowment (Hindu & Mahomedan) by A. Ghosh, Second Edn. published by Eastern Law House, Calcutta

3048/2867, 3230/3119, 3235/3126

129. Law of Endowments, Wakfs and Turst by Dr. Paras Diwan

3227/3117

130. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by Ganapathi Iyer

1733/1857, 1745/1863

131. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by Ghosh 1732/1856

132. Legal Thesaurus Regular Edition-William C. Burton (1981), published by Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York.

2810/2694

133. Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li, first published in 1911 at London, reprinted in 2001 by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 20)

4324/4776

134. Limits and Punishments set by Allah (Hudood) 3201/3046

135. Mahommedan Law By Syed Ameer Ali 3188/3011, 3249/3133, 3259/3139

136. Manusmriti 1753/1867, 2633/2570

137. Mareechi Samhita 1731/1855

138. Matsya Purana 1725/1853

139. Megha-duta 4235/4608

140. Memoirs of Baber Emperor of India-First of the Great Moghuls, first published in 1909 (first Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess Ess Publications, Delhi) by F.G. Talbot

1476/1617, 1520/1638, 1522/1640, 1523/1640, 1571/1676, 1578/1680,

1579/1682

141. Meri Jiwan Yatra-1 by Rahul Sankrityayan (First Paperback Edition:1996)

4393/4959

142. Mimamsa Darshan 1694/1814

5211

143. Minhaju-S 'Siraj's Tabkat-I Nariri 4020/4354

144. Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary 5th Edition (1990) by A.N. Saha, published by Eastern Law House Prv. Ltd.

2219 /2222, 2220/2226, 2293/2275, 2811/2697,

2815/2703

145. Mohammedan Law by Tyabji 3249/3133, 3259/3139

146. Mugalkalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530 AD) translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi (first published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first time by Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi)

1453/1601, 1549/1659

147. Mughal Documents (A.D. 1628-59) Volume II by S.A.I. Tirmizi (first published 1995 by Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi)

1630/1756, 3318/3268, 3319/3269

148. Muslim Vidhi (A Text-Book of Mahomedan Law) by Mahesh Prasad Tandon

3229/3119

149. Muwatta' Imam Malik 3189/3015, 3212/3094

150. Naradiya Dharmasastra 2830/2718

151. Naradiya Sukta 1694/1816,

152. Naradsmriti ("Critical Edition and Translation" 1st Edn 2003

2778/2672

153. Narsingh-Puranam published by Geeta Press, Gorakhpur 1999 (Samvat 2056)

4310/4765

154. New English Dictionary, Vo. IX, Part II 2700/2604

155. Nitya Karma Puja Prakash 1694/1814

156. Outlines of Muhammadan Law by Asaf A.A. Fyzee, Second Edition 1955

3503/3496

157. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English first published 1948 by Oxford University Press

2293/2275, 2294/2277

158. Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary published by Oxford University Press, first published in 1989

3373/3306

159. Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary published by Oxford University Press, first published in 2008

2801/2684

5212

160. P Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases, Second Edition 1997), published by Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers

2219/2225, 2220/2229, 2293/2276, 2294/2277, 2812/2699, 3375/3306

161. Parashara 1707/1827

162. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea 4098/4486

163. Perspectives in Social and Economic History of Early India by Prof. R.S. Sharma published in 1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

3864/4055, 3875/4122

164. Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in India

4240/4611

165. Precedents of Hindu Law Vol. II by Mac Naughton 1940/2024

166. Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law by W.H. Macnaghten (first published 1825)

3220/3112, 3503/3496

167. Principles of Hindu Law, 1958 Edn, of Mulla 1707/1826, 1737/1860, 2588/2542, 2595/2548,

3500/3492

168. Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir D.F. Mulla

3218/3111, 3219/3112, 3322/3272, 3394/3318,

3503/3496

169. Puranas 4129/4518

170. Purush Sukta 1694/1811

171. Rajasthan Ki Bhakti Parampara Evam Sanskriti by Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla and Onkar Narain Singh published at Rajasthani Granthagar, Jodhpur

753/1050

172. Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid Revisited by Dr. S.P. Gupta

4028/4384

173. Ram Janmabhumi Controversy: Passion Apart What History and Archaeology Have to Say on this Issue

4027/4384

174. Report of Archaeological Survey of North West Provinces and Oudh 1889

3525/3525

175. Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of the Fyzabad District, (Book No. 18) by A.F. Millett, C.S., Officiating Settlement Officer,

1419/1569, 2626/2568, 3353/3299, 3402/3331, 3524/3525, 4266/4692

5213

published by North Western Provinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880

176. Rigveda 4113/4503

177. Rigveda Samhita 4090/4444, 4295/4749, 4296/4749

178. Riyazu-S-Salatin, A History of Bengal 3165/2998

179. Roscoe Pounde's Jurisprudence, Part, IV, 1959 Edition

1911/1985

180. Sacred Books of East by Max Muller 4189/4571

181. Salmond's Jurisprudence Twelfth Edition by F.J. Fitzgerald

1237/1408, 1751/1865, 2788/2681

182. Samrangan Sutradhar 1731/1855

183. Samveda 4116/4505, 4117/4506

184. Sanskrit Dictionary 4235/4609

185. Sanskrit English Dictionary by Sir Monier Williams (first published in 1899) (reprinted in 1997) (by Motilal Banarasidass)

4309/4765

186. Sanskrit Hindi Kosh written by Waman Shivram Apte, first published in 1966

4309/4764

187. Sanskrit Inscriptions of Delhi Sultanate 1191-1526 by Pushpa Prasad

3656/3717

188. Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 16th Edition, 2007 Vol. 1

3593/3588

189. Sastri's Hindu Law, 5th Edn 2667/2585

190. Shakuntala 4180/4567

191. Shri Guru Granth Sahib (Chauthi Sainchi) translated by Dr. Manmohan Sehgal

4345/4812

192. Shri Narsinghpuranam, Samvat 2056, published by Geeta Press Gorakhpur,

1694/1811, 4090/4444, 4302/4757

193. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita 1707/1823, 1764/1874, 3500/3493

194. Shukranitih 2637/2571

5214

195. SI-YU-KI, Buddhist Records of the Western World translated from Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629) by Samuel Beal

4319/4772, 4322/4775

196. Sikhs and Sikhism written by W.H. Mcleod first published in 1999

4335/4803

197. Skanda-Purana, translated and annotated by Dr. G.V. Tagore, Part-VII, first published in Delhi in 1995 by Motilal Banarasidas

3500/3493, 4090/4444, 4701/4752, 4301/4752,

4302/4753

198. Smriti 4125/4517

199. Smritis of Manu (200 BC) 1707/1827

200. Smrti-Sutra 4126/4517

201. Smrtiti on Vyavahara 1707/1827

202. Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Dusari Sainchi) translated by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal

4370/4926

203. Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Pahli Sainchi) translated by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal

4367/4923, 4368/4924

204. Sri Guru Granth Sahib with Hindi translation by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal, 6th Edn. 2001

4339/4806

205. Sri Ram Janambhumi (Sachitra, Pramanik Itihas by Dr. Radheyshyam Shukla published in 1986

754/1054, 4021/4354

206. Sri Ram Janambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas by Late Pt. Sri Ramgopal Pandey "Sharad", published by Pt. Dwarika Prasad Shivgovind, Ayodhya (1987)

4024/4375

207. Sri Ramacaritamanasa published by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, first edition 1968, 11th edition 1999

1913/1986, 4090/4444, 4304/4758

208. Sri Satpath-Brahman 1694/1814

209. Sri Shukla Yajurvediya 1694/1814

210. Tabkats I Akbari by Khwaja Nizamuddin Ahmad 3155/2988

211. Taittiriya Sanhita 4090/4444, 4115/4505, 4297/4750

212. Tajmahal, the Illumined Tomb compiled and Translated by W.E.Begley and Z.A.Desai published by the University of Washington Press,

3299/3232

5215

1989

213. Tarikh-E-Avadh (Hissa Doyam) by Allama Muhammad Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859-1932 Isvi) Revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi 1983 A.D

3520/3518

214. Tarikh-I-Daudi of Abdulla 4009/4339

215. Tarikh-I-Firishta by Mohammad Kasim Hindu Shah

4007/4337

216. Tarikh-i-Shahi 3155/2988

217. Tarikhe Feristha by Mahomed Kasim Feristha 3161/2995

218. The Chambers Dictionary (Deluxe Edition) (1993) published by Allied Chambers (India) Limited New Delhi

2293/2276, 2294/2277, 2803/2685

219. The Classical Law of India by Robert Lingat 1704/1821

220. The Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry by Sushil Srivastava, published in 1991 by Vistaar Publications, New Delhi

473/665, 1350/1484, 1452/1599, 3659/3721, 3660/3721, 3661/3721,

221. The Elementary Principles of Jurisprudence by G.W. Keeton, II Edition (1949)

2794/2683

222. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI 4290/4743

223. The English Factories in India (1668-1669) by Sir William Foster

3298/3223

224. The Evolution of the Sikh Community by W.H. Mc Leod

4348/4817

225. The Hedaya (A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws)

3224/3114

226. The Hedaya by Charles Hamilton (edited 1871) 3503/3496

227. The History and Culture of Indian People – The Vedic Age Vol.-I published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai- Sri R.C.Majumdar, A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar, 6th Edition 1996

4096/4486

228. The History and Culture of the Indian People-British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance Part II (Vol. 10) edited by R.C. Majumdar

4391/4948

229. The History and Culture of the Indian People; The 4042/4398

5216

Delhi Sultanate publish by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (1st published in 1960, 4th Edition 1990) forwarded and edited by K.M.Munshi, R.C.Majumdar, A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar

230. The History of British India by James Mill (Vol.1) published by Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, First Published 1817, Second Edition in 1829 and Second Reprint in 1978

3298/3223

231. The History of Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi, revised by Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

3225/3114, 3503/3496

232. The History of the Indian Empire by Robert Montgomery Martin first published in 1983 by Mayur Publications Delhi

4249/4633

233. The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India (1838 AD) by Robort Montgomry Martin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD)

1409/1562, 1411/1564, 1608/1728, 3515/3509

234. The Indian Antiquary A Journal of Oriental Research by Sir Richard Carnac Temple, Vol. XXXVII, 1908 published by Swati Publications Delhi, 1985

3669/3737

235. The Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases Judicially Interpreted, to which has been added Statutory Definitions by F. Stroud Second Edition Vol. 1 (1903)

2219/2223, 2220/2227,

236. The Law Relating to Gifts, Trusts and Testamentary Dispositions among the Mahommedans (Tagore Law Lectures-1884) by Syed Ameer Ali

3222/3113, 3503/3496

237. The Laws of Manu Penguin Classics, Edn 2000 2592/2546, 2606/2554, 2778/2672

238. The Layman's Dictionary of English Law by Gavin McFarlane (1984), published by Waterlow Publishers Limited

1673/1792

239. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscription In The North Western Provinces And Oudh published by Indological Book House, Varanasi in 1969

3668/3734

240. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In 4326/4783

5217

The North-Western Provinces And Oudh by A. Fuhrer

241. The Mughal Empire edited by Sri R.C. Majumdar 3162/2996

242. The Naradasmrti 2635/2571, 2830/2718

243. The New Cambridge History of India II.3 The Sikhs of the Punjab by J.S. Grewal

4046/4406

244. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 9 3500/3493

245. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (1987), published by Lexicon Publications, Inc.

1672/1792, 2220/2226, 2293/2274, 2294/2276, 2802/2684, 3372/3306

246. The Philosophy of History by Hegel 4168/4558

247. The Sacred Books Of The east under title ‘The Satpath - Brahmana’ Part I on its page 215, Edn. Reprint 2001 Published by Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi 110007

1694/1816

248. The Sacred Scriptures of India, Swami Chidatman Jee Maharaj, first published in 2009 by Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

4113/4502, 4115/4505, 4117/4506, 4120/4510

249. The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by A. Fuhrer, first published in 1889, reprinted in 1994

1319/1461, 1320/1461, 1436/1584

250. The Sikh Religion-Its Gurus Sacred Writings and Authors by Max Arthur Macauliffe

4341/4808, 4346/4814

251. The Sikh World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Sikh Religion and Culture by Ramesh Chandra Dogra Urmila Dogra

4349/4817

252. The Song of the Aborable One 4179/4566

253. The Spirit of Islam (A History of the Evolution and Ideals of Islam with a Life of the Prophet) by Syed Ameer Ali

3158/2992, 3159/2993, 3160/2994, 3216/3097

254. Travels in the Moghal Empire, AD 1656-1668 by Francois Bernier

3298/3221

255. Treatise on Hindu Law by Golapchandra Sarkar, Sastri (6th Edition, published by Easter Law House (1927)

1694/1808,

5218

256. Tree and Serpent Worship 4240/4611

257. Tri- Vikrama– Nirnaya – Sindhu – Kamalakar Bhatta, Bombay Edition of 1900 p.264.

1694/1810

258. Upanisads 4123/4511

259. Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad by Smt. Esha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published in 1960 printed at the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., Allahabad

1434/1582, 2627/2568, 3358/3300, 3530/3528,

4285/4737

260. Uttar Taimoorkalin Bharat Bhag.1 (History of the Part-Taimoor Sultans of Delhi, Part 1)

3155/2989

261. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXXI 1694/1811

262. Vaisheshik 1753/1867

263. Valmiki Ramayan (translated by Chaturvedi Dwarka Prasad Sharma)

3500/3493

264. Vedanta 4137/4532

265. Waqiyat-i-Mutaqi written by Rizkulah Mutaqi 3155/2988

266. Wilson's Anglo-Mahomedan Law 3249/3133

267. Words and Phrases by Justice R.P. Sethi 3240/3129

268. Words and Phrases Legally Defined, Vol. 2 (1969), published by Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

2219/2224,

269. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 12A (1954), published by St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.

2220/2228, 2808/2690

270. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 45, published by St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.

1670/1792

271. Yajnavalkya (1st Century AD –p. 24)) 1707/1827

272. Yajnavalkyasmriti 2636/2571, 3393/3318, 3500/3492

273. Yajurveda 1694/1814, 4114/4503, 4115/4505

274. Yajurveda Samhita 4090/4444, 4298/4750

Dated:30.09.2010

GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

Order:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Judgment reserved on 26.07.2010)(Judgment delivered on 30.09.2010)

In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad(Lucknow Bench)

Other Original Suit (O.O.S.) No.1 of 1989(Regular Suit No.2 of 1950)

Gopal Singh Visharad since deceased and survived by Rajendra Singh Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others

AND

Other Original Suit No.3 of 1989(Regular Suit No.26 of 1959)

Nirmohi Akhara and others Vs. Baboo Priya Datt Ram and others

AND

Other Original Suit No.4 of 1989(Regular Suit No.12 of 1961)

The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad (since deceased) and others

AND

Other Original Suit No.5 of 1989(Regular Suit No.236 of 1989)

Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others

Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.

1

INDEXSl.No. Description Page

No.

1 Prelude 4

2 Foreword 4

3 Introduction

(i) Suit of 1885 (9)

(ii) Incident of 23.12.1949 (23)

(iii) Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings (36)

5

4 Pleadings

(I) Suit No.1 (42)

(ii) Suit No.2 (already dismissed) (45)

(iii) Suit No.3 (46)

(iv) Suit No.4 (50)

(v) Written statements in Suit No.4 (59)

(vi) Suit No.5 (69)

42

5 Important Stages

(i) Consolidation and withdrawal (78)

(ii) Order I Rule 8 and guardian (79)

(iii) Temporary Injunction (81)

(iv) Opening of lock (84)

(v) State Government acquisition (91)

(vi) Demolition (92)

(vii) Central Government acquisition (95)

(viii) Impleadment applications rejected

(98)

78

2

(ix) Issues (100)

(x) Oral evidence (127)

(xi) Documentary evidence (128)

(xii) A.S.I. Report (129)

6 Findings

(i) Limitation (137)

(ii) Res-judicata/ admissibility of Suit of

1885 (189)

(iii) When and by whom the disputed

structure constructed and its nature (200)

(iv) Whether any temple demolished and

Whether the disputed site was treated/

believed to be birth place (231)

(v) When the idols were placed inside

(246)

(vi) When Ram Chabutra etc. came into

existence in outer courtyard (249)

(vii) Possession and title (250)

(viii) Whether the mosque was valid

mosque (255)

(ix) Misc. findings (259)

(x) Relief (262)

137

7 Epilogue 276

8 Gist of findings 280

9 Operative portion 284

3

Prelude

Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards)

where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land

mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane

elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not

propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However

we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life

is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same

arises.

Once angels were made to bow before Man.

Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is

one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed?

No one can be a judge in his own cause.

Accordingly, herein follows the judgment for which

the entire country is waiting with bated breath.

Foreword

Pleadings, issues, evidence oral as well as

documentary, the arguments of learned counsel of all

4

the parties and cited books gazettes and rulings of Privy

Council, Supreme Court and High Courts have been

mentioned in great detail in the judgment of my

esteemed brother Sudhir Agarwal, J. I am therefore

skipping the details and giving only a bird’s eye view

thereof.

Introduction:-(Mainly the position till the institution of the first suit on

16.01.1950)

The principle enunciated in Sections 6, 7 and 9 of

Evidence Act is the reason for this introduction.

In Ayodhya, District Faizabad, there is a premises

consisted of constructed portion and adjoining land

surrounded by a boundary wall (total area about 1500

square yard) used for worshipping purpose(s), which

was undisputedly constructed before 18th Century.

Muslims claimed that the entire premises was a mosque

known by the name of Babari Mosque. However, it is

admitted to the Muslims that since middle of 19th

5

Century outer part of the adjoining land was having a

chabootara towards South-East admeasuring 17’ x 21’

(39.6 square yard) on which Hindus were worshipping.

Hindus claim it to be much older. Rival claims of both

the parties over the premises in dispute have been

judicially noticed in 1885. The dispute had earlier also

been noticed in the records of different government

officers since 1855 when a riot took place between

Hindus and Muslims. It is mentioned that on a nearby

temple known by the name of Hanuman Garhi, Muslims

had some claim asserting that to be previously a

mosque. The riot started at Hanuman Garhi and

Muslims were repelled by the Hindus. The retreat and

the fight is stated to have continued till the premises in

dispute whereat several Muslims were killed. They are

said to have been buried around the disputed premises.

After the said riot, a bifurcation was made of the

adjoining land by placing a brick and grill (vertical iron

bars) wall (railing) of 7 or 8 feet height dividing the

6

adjoining land into two parts, inner courtyard adjacent to

the constructed portion and outer courtyard adjacent to

the boundary wall towards East. The outer Courtyard

also included a flank in between northern side of the

constructed portion and inner courtyard on the one hand

and northern boundary wall on the other hand. The

railing divided the entire premises in two almost equal

parts. The railing/ grill was placed either in 1956 when

Awadh was annexed by the Britishers or immediately

after 1957 war of independence (called mutiny by

Britishers.) This was done with the intention that

Muslims must use the inner portion and Hindus the

outer portion so that chances of quarrel between them

were minimised. Initially there was only one door in the

boundary wall towards East, however in or about 1877

another door was opened towards North by the

government authorities, which was given under the

control and management of Hindus in spite of severe

objection by Muslims. The occasion for opening the

7

second door was that on two occasions in a year large

number of Hindu devotees gathered to worship at the

Chabootara and in order to control the crowd, it was

essential to have one door for entry and the other for

exit. At what particular place in the northern wall the

door shall be opened was itself a subject of raging

dispute between Hindus and Muslims. Ultimately a

fragile truce was arrived at and it was agreed that the

exact place must be marked by some European Officer.

It was accordingly done.

The spot position is clear from the two maps

prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Vakil under order of

Civil Judge dated 01.04.1950 passed in the first suit.

Muslim parties did not object to the dimensions shown in

the maps, they only objected to the nomenclature given

to different portions by the Commissioner in his report

and the maps e.g. Sita Rasoi, Bhandar, Hanuman Dwar

etc. The objections have been noted in the order dated

20.11.1950 passed in the first suit. The Commissioner

8

prepared two maps and termed them as Plan-I and

Plan-II. The first was of the premises in dispute and the

other of the premises in dispute and the adjoining

locality. The Plan-I map is on a big page and on the

scale of one inch equal to 10 feet. The map redrawn on

the scale of 0.6 inch equal to 10 feet is reproduced on

page No.10. Plan-II map is given on page No.11. Total

area shown is about 1480 square yards. The portions

inside and outside the railing are about 740 square

yards each.

Suit of 1885:-

Suit No.61/280 of 1885 was filed by Mahanth

Raghubar Das, Mahanth Janam Asthan situate at

Ayodhya against Secretary of State for India in Council.

The suit was instituted on 29.01.1885. Certified copy

of the plaint is Ex. A-22 in the first suit. Mohd.

Ashgar claiming to be Mutawalli of Babari Mosque filed

9

Reduced Scale 0.6"= 10' or 1" = 16.66'A.F. =97' E.F. = 140'

B.C.= 9' C.D.= 21'(A.F. X E.F.) - (B.C. X C.D.) = 1482.5 Sq. Yd.

G.H. = 66' H.J. = 89'K.L.=21' L.D.= 40'

(G.H. X H.J.) + (K.L. X L.D.) = 746 Sq. Yd. Exact Dimensions and area has been calculated from the original map with the help of scale. They

are not given in the original map which is on the scale of 1"=10'

10

11

impleadment application in the said suit, which was allowed.

Mohd. Ashgar alone mainly contested the suit. Along with

the plaint sketch map was also annexed. The suit was for

permission to construct temple over the Chabutra Janam

Asthan situate in Ayodhya having dimensions of 17’ x 21’

and for restraining the defendant from interfering in the said

exercise of the plaintiff. It was stated in the plaint that Janam

Asthan situate at Ayodhya in the city of Faizabad was a very

old and sacred place of worship and plaintiff was Mahanth

thereof, that on the Chabutra Charan Paduka was affixed

(or lied) and a small temple was kept, which was

worshipped, that chabutra was in possession of the plaintiff

and plaintiff and other (fuqra itinerant monks; c.f. Persian

English Dictionary by F. Steingass) felt great difficulty in

extremely hot, cold and rainy seasons as there was no

building thereupon and if temple was constructed on the

chabutra (platform) no one would suffer any injury, that in

March, 1883, due to certain objections of Muslims, Deputy

Commissioner prohibited the construction of the temple.

Thereafter, in Para-5 of the plaint, it was stated that a well

12

wisher public man is entitled to construct any type of

building on the land owned and possessed by him and that

a just government was duty bound to protect the said right

of the public and help in obtaining the same and to maintain

the law and order. The map which was annexed along with

the plaint is given on page No.14. (The map was almost

same as the map prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Vakil/

Commissioner in the first suit.) In the map it was clearly

shown that the portion of inner courtyard and the

constructed portion was masjid and in possession of

Mohammedans and outer courtyard including chabutra in

question was shown in possession of Hindus. In the outer

courtyard near the northern gate Sita Rasoi was shown and

towards north of the eastern gate, chhappar (thatch) was

shown. In the said suit, amin was directed to prepare map,

which was accordingly prepared. Certified copy of the same is

Annexure A-25. The said map which substantially tallies with

plaint map of suit of 1885 is also given on page No.15. In this

map hauz ghusal (water tank for bath) is shown in the inner

courtyard.

13

14

15

Certified copy of written statement filed by Mohd.

Ashgar is Ex. A-23. In the written statement, it was

mentioned that Babar constructed mosque and on the

outer door (eastern one), the word ‘Allah’ was inscribed

and thereafter the ownership of any other person did not

remain/ survive hence plaintiff was not owner of the

chabutra or the land beneath that unless the King who got

constructed the mosque or any other King granted

permission for the same and for that no document had

been filed by the plaintiff hence plaintiff was not entitled to

construct the temple. It was further stated in Para-2 that

by merely going inside part of the mosque plaintiff or the

Hindus could not have any right for the reason that often

non Muslims visited Imambaras, mosques and graves for

making offerings and Muslims did not prohibit the same. In

Para-3 of the written statement, it was stated that since

the time of construction of the mosque till 1856, there was

no chabutra and it was constructed in 1857. In Para-4, it

was stated that plaintiff and other Hindus were permitted

to visit the chabutra with certain conditions one of which

16

was that no new construction should be made

thereupon, hence plaintiff did not become owner. It

was further stated that whenever the plaintiff or

some other Hindus intended to do something new

inside the compound of the mosque the

government stopped them therefrom, and that a

monk had placed a thatch, which was removed. It

was further stated that plaintiff had no right to

construct the temple. However, Mohd. Ashgar, the

subsequently impleaded defendant did not deny

the correctness of the map filed along with the

plaint.

The trial court/ Sub-Judge, Faizabad decided

the suit on 24.12.1885, certified copy of which is

Ex. A-26 (the Judgment is in Urdu). The Sub-

Judge held that regarding measurement, after

Amin’s report Mohd. Ashgar had no objection

17

except for view inches. The Sub-Judge further

found that charans (feet) were engrossed on the

chabutra and an idol of Thakurjee was also

installed and these things were being worshipped.

It was also held that from the perusal of the

corrected map of Amin it was clear that in between

mosque and chabutra there was a pucca wall

having grill/ railing which meant that dividing line

between the two was established/ made. It was

also observed that the said fact was amply

substantiated from the gazette which was prepared

before the dispute, which was sub-judice in the

said suit and in the Gazette it was mentioned that

previously both Hindus and Muslims used to offer

prayer and worship at that place, however in 1855

after the fight between Hindus and Muslims, the

grill/ railing wall was constructed to resolve the

18

dispute so that the Muslims should worship inside the wall

and Hindus outside the wall. In the last paragraph, it was

held that there could not be any question or doubt

regarding the possession and ownership of Hindus over

the chabutra. It was further held that near the chabutra

there was the wall of the mosque and word ‘Allah’ was

inscribed thereupon, hence it was against public policy to

permit construction of temple thereupon as in that

eventuality there would be sound of bells and shankh by

Hindus and as Muslims pass from the same way, it would

lead to great conflict resulting in massacre of thousands of

people. Ultimately, it was held that the Court was of the

opinion that granting permission to construct temple would

amount to laying down foundation of riot between the two

communities. It was also observed that the need of the

hour and the requirement of justice was not to grant the

relief which had been claimed. Reference was made to

the law of contract prohibiting performance of such

contract which is opposed to the public policy (probably

Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872). Ultimately, the suit was

19

dismissed.

Against the said judgment and decree, Civil Appeal

No.27 of 1886 was filed, which was disposed of by Mr.

F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad on 18.03.1886.

Certified copy of the said judgment is Ex. A-27. On

13.03.1886, the learned District Judge had passed the

order proposing to visit the spot on 17.03.1886. In the

judgment dated 18.03.1886, it is mentioned that the

learned District Judge visited the land in dispute a day

before in the presence of all the parties and he found that

the Masjid built by the Emperor Babar stood on the border

of the town of Ayodhya. Thereafter, it was observed that:

“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have

been built on land specially held sacred by the

Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago it is

too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be

done is to maintain the parties in status quo.”

It was further held 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

20

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.”

The learned District Judge struck out the words

holding the ownership of Hindus over chabutra from the

judgment of the Sub-Judge as being redundant. In the

said judgment, it was also observed that:

“The true object of the suit was disclosed by B.

Kuccu Mul yesterday when we were standing near

the masjid – namely that the British Government as

no respector of persons was asked through its courts

to remedy an injustice committed by a Mohammadan

emperor.”

Ultimately, appeal was dismissed. Against the said

judgment and decree, Second Civil Appeal No.122 of

1886 was filed, which was dismissed by the Court of

Judicial Commissioner, Oudh on 01.11.1886. Copy of the

said judgment has been annexed along with W.P. No.746

21

of 1986, which is directed against order dated 01.02.1986

passed in a misc. appeal by D.J. Faizabad directed

against an interim order passed in first suit when it was

pending before Munsif, Faizabad. The said writ petition is

being decided along with these suits. The penultimate

sentence of the judgment in second appeal dated

01.11.1886 is as follows:

“There is nothing whatever on the record to

show that plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the

land in question.”

In the earlier part of the said judgment by Justice, W.

Young, Judicial Commissioner, Oudh, it was observed as

follows:

“The matter is simply that the Hindus of Ajodhya want

to create a new temple or marble baldacchino over

the supposed holy spot in Ajodhya said to be the

birthplace of Shri Ram Chandar. Now this spot is

situated within the precinct of the grounds

surrounding a mosque erected 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 mosque.

22

The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights

of access to certain spots within the precincts

adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of

years been persistently trying to increase those rights

and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure:

(1) Sita ki Rasoi

(b) Ram Chandar ki Janam Bhumi.

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.”

Incident of 23.12.1949:-

The position continued until 22/23.12.1949. In

the evening (7 p.m.) of 23rd December, 1949,

Pandit Sri Ram Deo Dubey, Sub-Inspector

Incharge Thana Ayodhya lodged FIR mentioning

therein that on information received through Mata

23

Prasad, constable No.7, he (Mr. Dubey) reached

the disputed site at about 7 o'clock in the morning

and learnt that a crowd of 50 or 60 persons had

broken the locks, which were put on the compound

of the Babri Mosque and by climbing the walls

by ladders illegally interfered in the mosque and

had placed the idol of Sri Bhagwan and had written on

the walls inside and outside Sita Ram Ji etc. in red and

yellow. It was also mentioned that constable No.2,

Hansraj, who was on the duty, prohibited them but they

did not pay any heed thereupon, he called the P.A.C.

guard for help, which was there, however by the time,

the guard could reach, the persons had entered the

mosque. It has also been mentioned that thereafter high

officers of the District came to the spot and engaged

themselves in management. It is further mentioned that

afterwards a crowd of 5000 people collected and raised

religious slogans and performed Kirten. It is further

24

mentioned that Abhay Ram Dass, Ram Shukul Dass,

Sheo Darshan Dass and 50 or 60 other persons had

committed riot, trespassed into the mosque and installed

an idol in the mosque and had desecrated the mosque.

For some time before the incident of 23.12.1949

tension between the two communities had increased

and Muslims were apprehending the incident. It is

evident from the letter of S.P. dated 29.11.1949, letter of

D.M. dated 16.12.1949, diary/ report of the D.M.,

Faizabad of 23.12.1949 and of few subsequent dates.

The report also shows that the idol was placed inside

the mosque at about 4 a.m. on 23.12.1949 and

thereafter under the arrangement made by the D.M.

Bhog and Puja of the idol by two or three pandits was

started and continued.

Under the directions of this Bench, The D.M.

Faizabad brought the original file containing inter alia

the reports regarding the incident of 23.12.1949 of

different officers particularly of Sri K.K.K. Nayar, Deputy

25

Commissioner/ District Magistrate of Ayodhya. It also

contains some reports regarding riot of 1934 and report

of Special Intelligence Officer, Faizabad of 1961

pertaining to the dispute of two Mahants regarding Puja

etc. in the premises in dispute. By order dated

29.05.2009 passed by this Bench the said file was taken

on record and was directed to be sealed. The relevant

details of the contents of the documents in the file are

given below.

One of the documents in the said file is letter dated

29.11.1949 written by S.P. Faizabad, Sri Kripal Singh

addressed to Sri Nayar, Deputy Commissioner/ D.M.,

Faizabad which is reproduced below:

“My dear Nayar,

I visited the premises of Babri Mosque

and the Janm Asthan in Ajodhya this evening. I

noticed that several ‘Hawan Kunds’ have been

constructed all around the mosque. Some of them

have been built on old constructions already

existing there.

26

There is a place known as Kuber Qila situated

on a high mound about 2 furlongs from the Janm

Asthan. Several graves have been dismantled

there. Inside an enclosure near the Kuber Qila,

where probably there was a grave, deity of

Mahadeoji has been installed. This place is quite

distant from the place where the police guard is

posted and could not have been noticed by them.

I found bricks and lime also lying near the

Janm Asthan. They have a proposal to construct a

very big Havan Kund where Kirtan and Yagna on

Puranmashi will be performed on a very large

scale. Several thousand Hindus, Bairagis and

Sadhus from outside will also participate. They also

intend to continue the present Kirtan till

Purnamashi. The plan appears to be to surround

the mosque in such a way that entry for the

Muslims will be very difficult and ultimately they

might be forced to abandon the mosque. There is a

strong rumour, that on purnamashi the Hindus will

try to force entry into the mosque with the object of

installing a deity.”

Thereafter, there is the report of Sri K.K.K. Nayar,

27

D.M. running in scores of pages. The report, which is in

the form of diary mentioning the dates and time starts

from 23.12.1949, 7 a.m. The first entry is that an

ammunition dealer of Faizabad came to the D.M. and

informed him that at about 4 a.m. in the morning an idol

had been installed inside Babari Masjid and some 800

Bairagis were in the Masjid chanting and worshipping. It

is further mentioned that:

“this news 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.”

The surprise does not appear to be genuine as

there was a clear mention of such a plan in the above

letter of S.P. dated 29.11.1949. Moreover, in the same

records there is a letter by Sri Nayar to Sri Govind

Narayan, Home Secretary, Government of U.P.,

Lucknow dated 16.12.1949 in reply to his wireless

message dated 08.12.1949, annexing therewith site

plan showing the position of Babari Masjid and Sri Ram

28

Chandra Ji Mandir at Janm Bhoomi. In the said letter,

Sri Nayar stated that a magnificent temple at the site

was constructed by Vikramaditya and in 16th Century, it

was demolished by Babar and the mosque known as

Babari 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 thereinin, i.e. at the corner of two walls. It is further

mentioned that “Muslims who go to the mosque pass in

front of the temple and there has frequently been trouble

over the occasional failure of Muslims to take off their

shoes.” Paras 4, 5 & 6 and part of para-7 of the report

are reproduced below:

“Some time this year probably in October or

November some grave-mounds were partially

destroyed apparently by Bairagis who very keenly

resent Muslim associations with this shrine. On

12.11.49 a police picket was posted at this place.

The picket still continues in augmented strength.

There were since other attempts to destroy

29

grave-mounds. Four persons were caught and

cases are proceeding against them but for quite

some time now there have been no attempts.

Muslims, mostly of Faizabad have been

exaggerating these happenings and giving

currency to the report that graves are being

demolished systematically on a large scale. This is

an entirely false canard inspired apparently by a

desire to prevent Hindus from securing in this area

possession or rights of a larger character than have

so far been enjoyed. Muslim anxiety on this score

was heightened by the recent Navanh Ramayan

Path, a devotional reading of Ramayan by

thousands of Hindus for nine days at a stretch. This

period covered a Friday on which Muslims who

went to say their prayers at the mosque were

escorted to and from safely by the Police.

As far as I have been able to understand the

situation the Muslims of Ayodhya proper are far

from agitated over this issue with the exception of

one Anisur Rahman who frequently sends frantic

messages giving the impression that the Babri

Masjid and graves are in imminent danger of

demolition.”

30

Thereafter, it is mentioned that some other

Muslims were inciting general Muslims.

Thereafter, it is mentioned that on 09.12.1949

when Muslims were leaving Babari Masjid after

friday prayers under police help, they shouted

their famous war cry “Allah-O-Akbar” which

created considerable resentment in the minds of

Hindus. Thereafter, it is mentioned that repeated

complaints by Muslims were grossly exaggerated

as the situation was entirely in control and police

picket was functioning efficiently. Thereafter, it

was mentioned that Muslim agitation and

truculence could bring the situation out of control.

The last paragraph stated as follows:

“Lastly I would request that no credence

be given to the false reports carried to

Lucknow and other places from time to time

31

by Ghulam Husain, Ahmad Beg and persons

under their influence.”

On the one hand in his letter dated

16.12.1949, he requested the State Government

not to give credence to the apprehensions of the

Muslims regarding safety of the mosque and on

the other hand in his diary/ report dated

23.12.1949, he mentioned that the incident came

as a great surprise to him.

Photostat copy of the site plan annexed with

the said letter is given on page No.33.

However, it may be mentioned that the

S.P. Sri Kripal Singh, who had expressed

grave apprehension regarding entry of

Hindus in the mosque for installing a

32

33

deity (on full moon which was to fall on 30.11.1949) in

his earlier letter dated 29.11.1949, retracted his steps

and in tune with the D.M. wrote in his letter to the D.I.G.

dated 02.02.1950 that the incident of 23.12.1949 could

not be predicted. Probably he wanted to avoid any

controversy and save his position after realising that

placing of idol inside the mosque was a fait accompli

and almost irreversible.

In the report/ diary of the D.M. it is mentioned that

on 23.12.1949 the crowd was controlled by permitting

two or three persons to offer bhog, i.e. Abhiram Dass,

Ram Shukal Dass and Sudarshan Dass. It was also

mentioned that removal of idol as desired/ directed by

the State Government was not possible and it would

lead to slaughter and would be most inadvisable. In the

entry of 25.12.1949, it is mentioned that Pooja and Bhog

was offered as usual. The noting in the diary/ report of

9.30 a.m. dated 27.12.1949 is that the D.M. outrightly

refused to abide by the direction of the Government to

34

remove the idol “and that if Government still insisted

that removal should be carried out in the face of these

facts, I would request to replace me by another officer”.

The D.M./ Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad wrote

two letters dated 26th & 27th December, 1949 to Sri

Bhagwan Sahai, Chief Secretary Government of U.P.

Copies of the said letters have been filed by the State

Government in pursuance of orders passed by this

Court on the application of the plaintiffs of the leading

case (Suit No.4) for summoning certain documents from

the State Government and have been marked as

Annexures 66 & 67. In these letters also he insisted that

the incident of 23.12.1949 was unpredictable and

irreversible. He rather castigated the Government for

showing so much interest.

In the report/ diary dated 30.12.1949 it is mentioned

that Chief Secretary visited the spot, he was surrounded

by the crowd which uttered the loud cries of ‘Bhagwan

ka Phatak Khol do.’ It is also mentioned that Chief

35

Secretary was told by Naga Jamuna Das “that if this

spot would be argued to be different from Janam

Bhoomi, then they were prepared to receive any other

spot for the construction of the Janam Bhoomi temple

which could be proved to be the spot where the lord

was born.”

There is a report of 26th July, 1961 in the said

records by Special Intelligence Officer in which it is

mentioned as follows:

“It is reliably learnt that Baba Ram Lakhan

Sharan gets legal advice in this respect from Sri

K.K.K. Nayar (Ex-D.C. Faizabad) who is his

supporter also.”

The report of 1961 was in relation to the dispute

between different mahants regarding control of Pooja,

which was going on and for receiving the monetary gain

through charawa etc.

Section 145, Cr.P.C. proceedings:-

On 29th December, 1949, preliminary order under

36

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 of emergency. The disputed site was directed to

be given in the receivership of Sri Priya Datt Ram,

Chairman, Municipal Board. The complete order is

quoted below:-

“Whereas I, Markendeya Singh, Magistrate

First Class and Additional City Magistrate,

Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, am fully satisfied from

information received from Police sources and from

other credible sources that a dispute between

Hindus and Muslims in Ayodhya over the question

of rights of proprietorship and worship in the

building claimed variously as Babari Masjid and

Janam Bhoomi Mandir, situtate at Mohalla Ram Kot

within the local limits of my jurisdiction, is only to

lead to a breach of the peace.

I hereby direct the parties described below

namely:-

1) Muslims who are bonafide residents of

Ayodhya or who claim rights of proprietorship or

37

worship in the property in dispute;

2) Hindus who are bonafide residents of

Ahodhya or who claim rights of proprietorship or

worship in the property in dispute;

To appear before me on 17th day of January at

11 A.M. at Ayodhya Police Station in person or by

pleader and put in written statements of their

respective claims with regard to the fact of actual

possession of the subject of dispute.

And the case being one of the emergency I

hereby attach the said buildings pending decision.

The attachment shall be carried out

immediately by Station Officer, Ayodhya Police

Station, who shall then put the attached properties

in the charge of Sri Priya Datt Ram, Chairman

Municipal Board, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya who shall

thereafter be the receiver thereof and shall arrange

for the care of the property in dispute.

The receiver shall submit for approval a

scheme for management of the property in dispute

during attachment, and the cost of management

shall be defrayed by the parties to this dispute in

such proportions as may be fixed from time to time.

This order shall, in the absence of information

regarding the actual names and addresses of the

38

parties to dispute to be served by publication in:-

1. The English Daily, “The Leader” Allahabad,2. The Urdu Weekly “Akhtar” Faizabad3. The Hindi Weekly “Virakta” Ayodhya.

Copies of this order shall also be affixed to the

walls of the buildings in dispute and to the notice

board at Ayodhya Police Station.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court

on this the twenty ninth day of December, 1949 at

Ayodhya.”

At the end of the para beginning with ‘The

attachment’ there was a line which was admittedly

scored off by the Magistrate himself. The Magistrate

admitted it in his reply/ response to the Transfer

Application filed in this Court for transfer of the case

under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate stated that

he scored off the sentence before signing the order as it

was redundant. The original records of proceedings

under Section 145, Cr.P.C. have been summoned in

these suits. The cutting does not bear initials. The

sentence is readable with great difficulty. It is to the

39

effect that puja darshan shall continue as was being

done at that time (presently).

Sri Priya Datt Ram took charge on 05.01.1950 and

made inventory of the attached properties. Items No.1 to

14 and 16 to 20 relate to movable properties including

idols. Item No.15 relates to building which states the

same to be three-domed building along with courtyard

and boundary wall and eastern boundary is shown as

Chabootara Mandir of Ram Ji under the ownership of

Nirmohi Akhara and courtyard of the same mandir.

Towards north the boundary mentioned is hata chhatti

courtyard and Nirmohi Akhara. The receiver Sri Priya

Datt Ram submitted the scheme of management to the

D.M. (in accordance with preliminary order) stating that

“the most important item of management is the

maintenance of Bhog and puja in the condition in which

it was carried on when I took over charge”.

Muslims admit that since 23.12.1949, they have not

been able to offer the prayers in the mosque

40

(23.12.1949 was Friday).

According to the Muslims and some Hindu parties

in the suits, the idol of Lord Ram, which was on the

Chabootara in the outer courtyard was placed/

transferred under the central dome of the building.

According to the further case of the Muslims, the idol

was placed on mimbar (pulpit) in the meharab (arch)

under central dome from where on fridays, the Imam

(who leads the congregation prayers) used to read

khutba (Sermon, before friday prayer).

It appears that since 23.12.1949 firstly under the

directions of the executive authorities and thereafter

under the order of the Magistrate passed in

proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. only two or

three Pandits were permitted to go inside the place

where idol was kept to perform religious ceremonies like

bhog and puja etc. and general public was permitted to

have darshan only from beyond the grill-brick wall.

These suits, popularly known as title suits, were

41

instituted before Civil Judge, Faizabad on 16.01.1950,

17.12.1959, 18.12.961 and 01.07.1989 respectively.

The constructed portion, boundary wall and Ram

Chabootara are no more in existence as they were

demolished by a large crowd of Hindus on 06.12.1992.

After demolition, makeshift structure was constructed by

the same people at the place where till then idol had

been kept and the idol was kept in the said makeshift

structure/ temple.

Pleadings of the Suit:-

Suit No.1:-

The first suit, Other Original Suit (O.O.S.) No.1 of

1989, Regular Suit No.2 of 1950, hereinafter referred to

as Suit No.1 was instituted on 16.01.1950. Sri G.S.

Visharad the plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he was

worshipping the Janam Bhumi, details of which were

given at the end of the plaint, idol of Bhagwan Sri Ram

42

Chandra Ji and Charan Paduka (foot impression). The

boundaries indicated that in the East there was bhandar

and Chabootara, in the north Sita Rasoi and parti

towards West and South. It presumably related to the

constructed portion and the inner courtyard. It was

further pleaded that for several days due to illness

plaintiff was not going to the disputed place, building/

site for worship and on 14.01.1950 when he went there

for worship and darshan, defendant No.6, i.e. State of

U.P., Lucknow and its employees prevented the

petitioner from going inside where idols of Sri Ram

Chandra and others were placed and that it was done

on the undue insistence of defendants 1 to 5 (all

Muslims residents of Ayodhya, who all have now died

and have not been substituted.) It was also mentioned in

the plaint that the State and its employees, i.e.

respondents No.7 to 9, K.K.K. Naiyar, Deputy

Commissioner, Faizabad, Markandey Singh, Additional

City Magistrate, Faizabad and Ram Kripal Singh, S.P.

43