File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

2019 Supreme Court Verdict On Ayodhya Dispute

2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute - (M Siddiq (D) The. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors), 2018 (II) SCALE 667

Case-Number:
  • CA 10866-10867/2010
  • Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, 4768-4771, 2636, 821, 4739, 4905-4908, 2215, 4740, 2894, 6965, 4192, 5498, 7226 and 8096/2011
  • Decided On: 09.11.2019
  • Appellants: M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs. v/s. Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das and Ors.
Lawyer's Name:
Petitioner:
  • Rajeev Dhavan; Raju Ramachandran; & Ors.
Respondent:
  • Tushar Mehta; Subramaniam Swamy; CS Vaidyanathan; Ranjit Kumar; K Parasaran; Harish Salve & Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I., S.A. Bobde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Equivalent Citation:
  • 2019 (6 )ALLMR482 ,
  • (2019 )8 MLJ117 ,
  • 2019 (15 ) SCALE1

What is Legal Method?
Legal method is the study of the basic principles, nature, sources, role of law and the method by which law can be effectively applied or the optimal advantage of the individual and state

What is Civil Law?
Civil law relates to adjudicate the dispute regarding property, marriage, ownership, tittle of individuals and state. We can say that civil law has come in existence to provide legal protection to the citizens. We can say that civil law is other than criminal law. All the civil disputes are adjudicated by the civil courts on the basis of oral, documentary and decisions of higher courts. To protect the people from trespassers the civil law has come in existence. The dispute regarding marriages are also falls under civil law such as restitution of conjugal life, divorce, guardianship, adoption etc. Several criminal acts like defamation is also adjudicated by civil court if the applicant goes in court for damages.

CASE STUDY
M Siddiq (D) The. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors), 2018 (II) SCALE 667)

Introduction
The Ayodhya dispute which is also known as ‘Ram Janmabhoomi Vivad' was one of the famous disputes in the socio-religious history of India. The dispute was related to the plot of land in the district Ayodhya, U.P, which is regarded as birthplace of Bhagwan Ram. Hindus believe that in sixteenth century the Babur demolished the temple situated at the birthplace of Ram and built a Mosque which is known as Babri Masjid.

The mosque was demolished by a Hindu mob in 1992 following a long campaign of religious agitation. over the years the matter has been brought up by both the groups in various Court of the country. The dispute came to end by the verdict of Supreme Court which unanimously ruled that the disputed land be given to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas for construction of Temple and the Muslim side be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent site in Ayodhya to built a mosque. Recently Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has laid Foundation stone for the construction of Ram temple.

Fact of the case
The first recorded legal history of Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was in 1885 when Mahant Raghubar Das has filed a suit before the court. The relief his Sought was permission to build a temple Ram chabutra situated outside the courtyard. He could not succeed because he had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra. in 1934, there was another conflagration between two communities. The mosque was damaged during the incident but it was subsequently repaired by at the cost of the colonial government. In 1949 a dispute arises when Idol of Lord Ram placed in the mosque. Due to law-and-order problem the magistrate lockdown the area for both the communities.

The public were only allowed Darshan from beyond the grill brick wall. in 1950, 1959 a suit was instituted before civil judge at Faizabad claiming absolute right to manage worship place. in 1961 Muslim resident and Sunni waqf board have filed a suit seeking declaration that the entire disputed site of the Babri Masjid was a public Mosque and for the delivery of possession upon removal of the idols. In 1986 a suit was instituted for allowing Darshan within the inner courtyard.

The court allowed to provide access to devotees for Darshan inside the structure. In 1989 another suit was filed by the deity Lord Ram through a next friend for a declaration of title to the disputed site and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of temple. The suits were transferred to the high court of judicature. Allahabad where a three judges' bench was constituted for the trial of the suites. An interim order was passed by High Court to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute.

During the pendency of the proceeding state of U.P. acquired 2.77 acres comprising disputed land. A substantial change took please on 6 December 1992 when a large crowd destroyed the mosque, the boundary wall, and Ram chabutra. A makeshift Structure Temple was constructed at the please under the central dome.

The idol of Ram Lalla were placed there. After the analyzing the various oral, documentary and other scientific evidence from Archaeological Survey of India the full bench of High Court held at all the three sets of parties- Muslims, Hindus and nirmohi Akhara as joint holders of the disputed premises and allotted a one third share to each of them in a preliminary decree.

Other suits were dismissed as Being barred by limitation. The aggrieved parties preferred appeal against the judgement of High Court. The Supreme Court in 2011 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of judgement. The parties were directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the disputed premises.

The court on 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017 issued directions for summoning the digital records of the evidence and pleadings from the Allahabad High Court and for Furnishing translated copies to the parties, after disposing Ismail Farooqui case the court has constituted five judges' bench to hear the appeals in the meantime. Court constituted a panel of mediator to mediate the dispute within stipulated period of time. The panel could not settle the dispute amicably. Ultimately the supreme court held final hearing on the case from 6 August 2019 to 16 October 2019.

The Decision of the court
The five judges' bench of the supreme court unanimously pronounced its verdict on 9 November 2019. The court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to be constituted by government of India to build the Ram Mandir. It also ordered the government to allocate five acres of land to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central waqf Board for the construction of mosque at a suitable place within Ayodhya. The court held that Muslim parties failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land.

At the same time Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindu had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birth place of the Hindu deity Rama. The court rejected the claim made by Shia waqf board against the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid. On 12 December 2019 the supreme court dismissed all the 18 petitions setting a review of the verdict.

Personal opinion
In my opinion it was dispute in between both the religions and it has taken place of a battle. However, the case was concluded by the Allahabad high court. The verdict of Allahabad high court was improper because of the case in hand was matter of tittle. But the Allahabad high court decided it like partition suit. The Allahabad high court partition the land in question (Ramjanmbhoomi) in between both the parties. In a case of civil dispute there are two views.

One case belongs to the pleading of plaintiff and another case is defense of defendant. The court cannot make third case. But in the case of hand the Allahabad high court made third case. Hence, several jurists passed comment against the verdict of Allahabad high court. Which was approved by the Hon'ble supreme court and the judgment and decree of Allahabad high court was reversed. And the Hon'ble supreme court gave decision stating their in that land in question belong to ramjanmbhoomi.

The Supreme Court directed the government to acquire land for construction of mosque. This decision was appreciated by all and the dispute coming in between two communities has been resolved.

The Hon'ble apex court has relied upon the historical facts, Archaeological reports, evidence adduced by the ramjanmbhoomi nyas, and nirmohi akhada and passed judgment. The Hon'ble apex court clearly says that the other side failed to prove its case. The apex courts has decided this case after going through every paper and oral evidences adused by both side then come to the conclusion that the disputed land is actually ramjanmbhoomi.

Of course, eighteen review petitions were filled before the Hon'ble supreme court but all the eighteen petitions where dismissed. The Hon'ble apex court has not found any illegality or mistake in the judgment passed.

Conclusion
The five judge's constitution bench of apex court put an end to the century old religious dispute of Ram Janmabhoomi. In the historic unanimous judgement, the court has tried to reconcile between constitutional democracy and sentiment of majority people of India. The Babri Masjid have been Moot point for communal tension in India. Thousands of people have sacrificed their life in liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi.

The Allahabad High Court has cited that “Here is a small piece of land where angles feared to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. so, the Court To nourish secular value, tolerance and mutual coexistence declare that:
A wrong committed must be remedied. The apex Court verdict thus enhanced the credibility of Indian Judiciary which succeeded in maintaining social harmony, unity and integrity of the nation.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Law of Writs In Indian Constitution

Titile

Origin of Writ In common law, Writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrati...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly