A 60-year legal battle ends today (Thursday) as the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce the verdict in the Ayodhya title suit in the Babri Masjid and Ram janambhoomi case. The verdict is one of the longest running and contentious cases of independent India
Listed below are the five major questions that was put before the Allahabad HC. The three judges- Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice S U Khan and Justice D V Sharma, delivered three seperate judgements based on these five questions that consisted of over 12,000 pages.
HERE ARE THE QUESTIONS:
First, did a temple exist at the disputed site before 1528 when Mir Baqi constructed the Babri Masjid?
Second, whether the suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board in 1961 was barred by time limitation?
Third, was Ayodhya really the birth place of Lord Ram? And is there evidence to show that Hindus have been worshipping this place for a long time.
Fourth, was the disputed structure a mosque? If so, who built it and when?
Fifth, and was the appearance of Ram Lalla's idols inside the Babri Mosque area really an act of miracle?
For the first question, if the mosque in the disputed site was constucted following the demolition of a Hindu temple and if there did exist a Hindu temple previously, all the three judges have given a more or less the same decision- That there did exist a temple before the construction of the mosque. However, Justice Khan differed on the fact that it was constructed after the demolition of the temple. He said that the mosque was constructed on the ruins of the Ram temple.
Now for the second question, Justice Sharma and Justice Agarwal said that they were time barred, while Justice Khan said that they weren't.
Was Ayodhya really the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram?
For this question, however, none of them replied in the negative.
The fourth question- Was the disputed structure a mosque? If so, who built it and when?
Justice Sharma said that it was built by the first Mughal emperor. But as it was against the tennets of Islam, it was not a mosque.
Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan completely differed on the fact that it was built by Babur, and even if it was, there was a lack of evidence. Khan and Agarwal said that the structure was, after all, a mosque.
The question that whether the idols remained in their position since times immemorial or was it placed there in December 1949.
All of them agreed to the latter.
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.
