Gopal Singh Visharad v. Zahoor Ahmad

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 (LFkkiR;)” which reads as under: “LFkkiR;;

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 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 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 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 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 10 tithi of the bright half of the month of Asadha of the Vikrama year 1224, corresponding to Sunday, the 16 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 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 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” 7 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 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 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 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 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, 6 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 :

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 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. I V, 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 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 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 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, 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 following part has been referred:

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 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.

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 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, 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 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:

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

“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)

“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)

“As Mecca holds importance for Muslims, similarly Ayodhya holds importance for Hindus because of Lord Rama.” (ETC)

“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.” (E.T.C)

“It is true that Ayodhya is a place of pilgrimage for Hindus. It is incorrect that since 22 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 22 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

“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

“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)

“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)

“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

“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

“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

“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. ”(ETC.)

“I have heard the name of Mani Parvat at Ayodhya. It 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)

“It is true that Mani Parvat witnesses swings named after Sri Ram in the month of Savan ” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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.” (ETC)

PW-8, Abdul Ajij

“It is true that Jhulan fair of Lord Ram is organized at Mani Parvat in the month of Savan. ” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“I have heard that Ramnavami fair is organized at 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)

“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

“I started transport business in or around 1970–71.” (E.T.C)

“It is true that Ayodhya is famous as a pilgrimage site for Hindus. There are certainly thousands of temples in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

“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 pursue this case. ” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“If vicinity is taken to mean the adjoining area, there is certainly no Muslim inhabitation there. ” (E.T.C)

“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

“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

“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)

“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)

“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

“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)

“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)

“(Stated on his own) Ayodhya is a town of God. Nobody can conquer it. I did not read ancient history of Ayodhya except the Ramcharit Manas or the Valmiki Ramayana. ” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“To the north of the disputed site there is a place called 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. ” (ETC)

PW-13, Suresh Chandra Mishra

“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)

“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. ” (ETC)

“As per Anushruties and Parvati treatises, Valmiki has 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)

“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)

“A hamlet, town or village in which one is born is called his birthplace; that is his birthplace. ” (E.T.C)

“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 part in them I also believe in them. When I visited Ayodhya, I saw it as a hostorian.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“I also know Pali language but don't know Malyali.” (ETC)

“I have read the Skandha-purana in Sanskrit. I have gone through paper no. 107C-1/75 of the suit no. 5. “ (ETC)

“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)

“The word Pindarak means ‘revered deity’, who has found mention in Ayodhya Mahatmya. ” (E.T.C)

“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 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)

“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)

“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 to be his bithplace?

Answer:— It is true.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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.”

“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.

“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

“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)

“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. Except this, I have not seen any other record there. ”

“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)

“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)

“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)

“Question: Would you tell what was the finding of Martin 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.

“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)

“Regarding Atala Mosque, it is said by the locals that the mosque was built after destroying the old temple. ” (ETC)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“It is reckoned in Ayodhya Mahamtya that there is a temple at the place to which the birth of Bhagwan was attributed”.(ETC)

“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)

“It is true that the disputed site comes and came within the area of Ramkot.” (ETC)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“In Skandha Purana, I have read about the importance of Ayodhya. That is to say Ayohdya Mahatmya is a part of Skand Puran. ” (ETC)

“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

“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)

“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)

“Lomash was a sage with his hermitage in Ayodhya which is called Lomash Ashram (hermitage) or Teertha.” (ETC)

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)

“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

“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, 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“There is one full chapter of Ayodhya Mahatmay in Skand Puran”. (ETC)

“It is true that Puja Path (worship-prayer) can be offered 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)

“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)

“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 2 century A.D” (ETC)

“In this behalf, the attention of the witness was drawn to 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)

“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.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 born in royal family belonging to the Ikshwaku dynasty, and he passed his childhood at Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“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)

“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)

“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

“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.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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 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)

“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)

“(Stated on his own) I have mainly read Ayodhya-kand and 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)

“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)

“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)

“I have heard the name of Skanda Purana. I have read 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 sources other than Persian and English ones. ” (E T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 town which is famous as the birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“I have heard the name of Ali Miyan Sahib; I have acquaintance with his father. ” (E.T.C)

“‘Hindustan Islam 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 of Ali Myan Sahib.” (E.T.C)

“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

“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)

“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)

“One party to the litigation call it Ramjanmbhumi and the other one call it the Babri mosque. ” (E.T.C)

“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

“It is correct to say that the pilgrims, who perform circumambulation, also have darshan of Kanak Bhawan and Ramjanmbhumi.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 Hindus are in majority over the Muslims in Ayodhya

… It is true that Ayodhya is considered a pilgrimage of the Hindus.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“There is Vibhishan Kunda I know that Lord Rama is revered God of Hindus.” (E.T.C)

PW-28, Sita Ram Roy

“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)

“It is true that it is also so mentioned in it that when Lord 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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“At present I do not know about any such Ayodhya, to the north of which flows the river Saryu.” (E.T.C)

“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

“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)

“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 present.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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.

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 100×100 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)

“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

“(When I) came to Ayodhya in 1946, I used to go to have darshan of Sri Ramjanmbhumi etc.” (E.T.C)

“For many months before 23 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)

“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

“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)

“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

“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)

“In Ayodhya, there are four fairs. Their names are-Kartika Purnima Parikrama, Chaitra Ramnavmi, Sawan Jhoola and Ram Vivah.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“In between 1935–45, the saints-recluses used to organise queues for darshan. These saints lived in that very campus.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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)

“From 1935 to 2002 I have been going to Ramjanmbhumi and Kanak Bhawan. There, I had seen 1 or 2 priests.” (E.T.C)

“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

“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)

“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)

“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)

“12 touchstone pillars were fixed at and inside the 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)

“In between 1942 to 1992, I must have circumambulated the disputed premises at least 100–150 times.” (E.T.C)

“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. ”(ETC)

“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)

“Few people used to clean the hedges, which were in east and north of the structure. Their cleansing continued till October.” (E.T.C)

“I had seen these hedges from the year 1942.” (E.T.C)

“The tent outside the disputed premises, was fixed after the cutting of hedges.” (E.T.C)

OPW-9, Dr. Thakur Prasad Verma

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“The disputed site was along the banks of Saryu in the ancient period (2000–1000 years ago).” (E.T.C)

“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

“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)

“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 Ramlala existed over there.” (E.T.C)

“Deification of Saligram is not carried out. He is self-originating God.” (E.T.C)

“Meditation is carried out after assuming the form of Gods on basis of conch, wheel, etc. symbols of Saligram.” (E.T.C)

““I live in Ayodhya since birth.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“In Ayodhya, there is no building in its original form, as built in the period of Lord Rama.” (E.T.C)

“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 plaintiffs 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. ”(ET.C)

“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

“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 continuously worshipped.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 ‘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)

“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)

“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

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“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)

“Question: Till 22 December, 1949, at which place did you offer prayers and had darshan of the idols in the disputed structure?

Answer: Prior to 22 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)

“Anwer: 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)

“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 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)

“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)

“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 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

“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 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)

“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)

“The Shri Ramjanmbhumi temple is situated over a high mound in Ramkot locality of Ayodhya, beneath which the 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 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

“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)

“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 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)

“I was born in the year 1918. I came to Ayodhya in the year 1933.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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. ”(ETC)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“According to my knowledge, the facts mentioned und er 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)

“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)

“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)

“Yes. That place could have been called ‘larger temple’.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“(It) is mentioned in last paragraph of paper no. 107C-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)

“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)

“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 Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay and at page 477 thereof, it says as under:

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:

Hindi Translation (as provided by DW 2/1–3, Mahant Ram Vilas Das Vedanti):

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)

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)

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:

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:

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 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 23 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 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 put 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.

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 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 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 27, 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 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:

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:

4369.. He contended that the above narration show the 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:

4371. Here also we find that the act of the Babar was equally adverse to both Muslims and Hindus of the then Hindostan.

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 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 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.

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:

“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)

“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)

“I do not perform worship, incantation etc.” (E.T.C)

“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:

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“Prior to Budha religion, Rama was existent in the form of a story” (E.T.C)

“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)

“Holy Christ has been regarded as the Son of GOD. Prophet has been regarded as prophet of GOD. Ram has been said to be incarnation of GOD. I do not believe all the three to be true” (E.T.C)

“I accept that in second century, Sri Ram was regarded as incarnation of Narayan.” (E.T.C)

“In my view, initiation of Rama's story was from 4th century B.C” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“I consider Rama to be simply a person.” (E.T.C)

“While studying Dashrath Jatak, I found that Ram was the son of Dashrath.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 Ti rthankar Mahavir went to Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“It may be that in the book Gaurbaho, there is mention of temple of Vishnu Hari Mandir being situated in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“In Narsingh Puran, there is description of Ayodhya and Vishnu Mandir.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“It is true that by the commencement of Gupta Period, Bhagwan Ram was being worshipped as incarnation of Vishnu.” (E.T.C)

“This fact is correct that in early century of Christian Era, Sri Rama was established as incarnation of Vishnu.” (E.T.C)

“It is partly true that in Hindu religion, knowledge or discretion has been given importance. ” (E.T.C)

“It is true that Hindu religion is such a religion which provides for liberty to exercise discretion in its execution.” (E.T.C)

“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 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 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, 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:

“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 made several pleadings in Para 28 of their written statement:

“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.

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.

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 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 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 10×10 or 20×20 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.

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

“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)

“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

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“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

“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)

“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)

“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

“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

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“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 the same place. Hindus considered and even today consider, Him to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. “(E T.C)

“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

“I have been taking glimpse (Darshan) of Lord Ramlala inside the sanctum sanctorum.” (E.T.C)

(ix) DW 3/5 Raghunath Prasad Pandey

“As per my faith we consider the disputed building itself to be Kaushalya Bhawan. ” (E.T.C)

(x) DW 3/6 Sitaram Yadav

“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 home. The adjoining part must also have been part of that room.” (E.T.C)

(xi) DW 3/7 Mahant Ramji Das

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“Janamsthan, which Gudadtad Baba had raised, is considered to be the birthplace of Ram Chandra Ji Himself. ” (E.T.C)

“Lord Sri Rama had appeared in the disputed building crores of years back.” (E.T.C)

(xii) DW 3/8 Pt. Shyam Sunder Mishra

“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)

“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

“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

“Ramchandra Ji was not born in the palace of Kaushlya Ji. This birth took place at the Janmsthan.” (E.TC)

(xv) DW 3/12 Ram Akshaywar Pandey

“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)

“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)

“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

“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)

“Namaz was never offered by Muslims in the disputed sanctum sactorum or the entire premises.” (E.T.C)

“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

“As per my belief, the incarnation of Lord Rama had taken place 1 crore 81 lakhs 60 thousand 103 years ago.” (E.T.C)

“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 the 7th‘Kalpa’ is going on. As such around 25 arab 92 crore years have lapsed.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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)

“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

That sanctum sanctorum was beneath the mid dome.“(E.TC)

“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

“Garbh Grih (sanctum sanctorum=place of birth) existed below the central dome.” (E T.C)

“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.”

“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

“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)

“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

“The disputed site is Sri Ram Janam Bhumi temple.” (E.T.C)

“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

“The portion beneath all the three domes of the disputed structure, was the sanctum sanctorum. ” (E.T.C)

“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

“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

“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)

“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)

“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)

(fa 145) “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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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

“The place where Lord Sri Rama was born as per 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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.” (ET.C)

(xxvi) DW 20/1 Shashi Kant Rungta

“As per custom, the disputed structure has been worshipped as Ram Janam Sthan (birthplace of Lord Rama).” (E.T.C)

“As per my faith, the place beneath the mid dome of 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)

“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)

“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

“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

“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

“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)

“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)

“I considered the Chabutra, where an idol was installed earlier, to be a part of Janmbhumi. ”(ETC.)

“I consider the disputed building to be ‘Garbhgrih’ (sanctum sanctorum).” (E.T.C)

(xxx) OPW 9 Dr. T.P Verma

“Ayodhya Mahatmya would perhaps have been 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. ”(ET.C)

“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)

“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. ”(ETC.)

“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)

“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)

“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 dome continued to be in vogue.” (E.T.C)

“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)

“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

“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)

“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)

“I have, in the books as mentioned in para 8 of my 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)

“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)

“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)

“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)

“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 viewpoint.” (E.T.C)

(xxxii) OPW 12 - Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra

“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)

“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)

“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

“Ayodhya is Lord Rama's birthplace, and we consider the middle place of the disputed structure to be His birthsite.” (E.T.C)

“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

“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)

“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 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 v. 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 v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. 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 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).

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 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 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 the words “Nazul property” its english meaning was given as “Escheats to the Government”. Sadar Board of Revenue on 20 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 13 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 15 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 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:

“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 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)

“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 room.” (E.T.C)

“Only Kote Ramchandra was mentioned in the records of three settlements and the fourth , nazul survey.”(E.T C.)

“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)

“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)

“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.”

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 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 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 v. 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 :

“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 v. C. Vencata Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525; Ranee Sonet Kowar v. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA 92, 101, Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146, Legal Remembrancer v. Corporation of Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204.

4443. The Judicial Committee in Cook v. 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 Chand v. Mst. Sukhi and others AIR 1957 S.C 286.

4445. In Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. 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. v. 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 v. 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 v. State of Punjab 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60, and Sarwarlal v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC 862.

4451. In Promod Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa A.I.R 1962 S.C 1288 “act of the State” was explained in the following words:

“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. v. 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 v. 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 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:

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

“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 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 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 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.-- Notwithstanding 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 capable of specifically enforced. It is said that this provision is in recognition of the view expressed in Lumley v. Wagner, (1865) 1 Eq. 411. It appears that before the decision in Lumley v. 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 v. 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 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 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 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. 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 v. The Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43) CWN 1056 a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered 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 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 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 v. 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 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 v. 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 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 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 v. 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 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 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 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 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 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 22/23 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 22/23 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 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 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 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 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 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

“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

“I have also performed ‘Panchkosi’ and ‘Chaudahkosi’ circumambulation over there. The ‘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)

“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

“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

“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)

“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 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)

“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

“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. 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)

“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 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 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.

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 22/23, 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 6 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 fiw) 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 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 6 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 6 December, 1992, but not from time immemorial and, instead, were kept thereat in the night of 22/23 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 22 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 in dispute in the inner courtyard and the last Namaj was offered on 16 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 16 December, 1949. However, we hold that between 1860 and up to 16 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 10 December, 1949 and 23 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 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 22/23 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (supra) and Jagadindra Nath v. 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 30 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 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 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 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 22 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 preplanned, deliberate and intentional act on the part of the miscreants and criminals who had assembled at the site on 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 22-23 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 6 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 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 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 6 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 v. 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 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 v. 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 14 August, 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:—

“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 23 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 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.

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 v. Ahmad Ullah (supra), Queen Empress v. Ramzan (supra) as well as in Ata-Ullah & another v. Azim-Ullah (supra). The above judgments have been discussed in detail in paras 3254 and 3256 of this 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 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 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 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 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 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 v. 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 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 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 v. 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 v. 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 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 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 v. 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 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 letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e, Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.

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

(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places. (iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.

(v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).

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

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

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 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.

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, 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.

23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-it is held that the decision of the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas v. 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).

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.

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 22/23 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 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 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 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 23 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 6 December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and instead kept thereat in the night of 22/23 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 16 December, 1949.

12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished nor the question of reacquisition 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

APPENDIX-1

APPENDIX-1A

APPENDIX-1B

(A fair copy of Appendix 1A, site plan map with Hindi Translation)

APPENDIX-2

APPENDIX-2A

(A FAIR COPY OF APPENDIX-2)

APPENDIX-2B

APPENDIX-2C

APPENDIX-3

APPENDIX-3A

(A Fair of Appendix-3, Site Plan Map with Hindi Translation)

APPENDIX-4

APPENDIX-4A

APPENDIX-4B

APPENDIX-5A

APPENDIX-5B

APPENDIX-5C

APPENDIX-5D

APPENDIX-5E

APPENDIX-5F

APPENDIX-5G

APPENDIX-5H

APPENDIX-5 I

APPENDIX-5 J

APPENDIX-5K

APPENDIX-5L

APPENDIX-5M

APPENDIX-5N

APPENDIX-5O

APPENDIX-5P

APPENDIX-5Q

APPENDIX-5R

APPENDIX-5S

APPENDIX-5T

APPENDIX-5U

APPENDIX-5V

APPENDIX-5W

APPENDIX-5X

APPENDIX-5Y

APPENDIX-5Z

APPENDIX-5AA

APPENDIX-5 BB

APPENDIX-5CC

APPENDIX-5DD

APPENDIX-6

APPENDIX-7

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 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) 22/24.8.19 62 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) 28/29.11.1 963 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) 27/28.7.19 62 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 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) 18/19.7.19 69 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) 26/29.8.19 89 87-93 124-139 51. W.S of defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) 14/21.8.19 89 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) 21/22/8/19 89 96 142 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) 16/18.9.19 89 104 148-149 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 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 9/10.01.20 02 321-323 340-341 92. PW 23 Mohd. Qasim Ansari 16.01.2002 324-325 341-345 93. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naquvi 5/6.03.200 2 326-331 345-349 94. (B) Regarding birthplace of Lord Rama, Continuous worship by 332-466 349-658 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 411-413 538-542 117. 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 6/7.08.200 2 454-455 620-629 129. 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 472-473 663-666 137. 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 22/23.04.2 002 504-511 716-725 143. 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 563-568 863-869 160. (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 9/10.01.20 02 578-579 885-887 165. PW 25 Sibte Mohammad Naqvi 05/6.03.20 02 580 887 166. PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad 2/3.04.200 2 581-585 887-896 167. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 – 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

APPENDIX-9

Index-Citations Referred Alphabetically

Sl. No. Citation Para/Page no. 1. A.G of Bengal v. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR 22 Cal. 788 (PC) 881/1168 2. A.S Narayana Deekshitulu v. 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 v. 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 v. Rahmat Ali & others AIR 1930 Oudh 245 3262/3141 6. Abdul Halim Khan v. Raja Saadat Ali Khan & Ors. AIR 1928 Oudh 155 2164/2198, 2946/2803 7. Abdul Latif v. Nawab Khwaja Habibullah 1969 Calcutta Law Journal 28 2227/2233 8. Abdul Quadir v. Tahira 1997 (15) LCD 379 852/1156, 1046/1273 9. Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai and another, AIR 2003 SC 718 842/1150, 1017/1255 10. Abdulla v. Kunbammad, AIR 1960 Ker. 123 984/1232 11. Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, AIR 1917 PC 201 976/1225 12. Abdur Rahim v. Narayan Das Aurora AIR 1923 PC 44 3270/3146 13. Abinash Ch. Chowdhury v. Tarini Charan Chowdhury and others AIR 1926 Cal. 782 2162/2197, 2258/2251 14. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar & Ors. v. Harun Abdul Inamdar & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 112 2774/2667, 2904/2766, 2904/2766 15. Abul Fata Mohammad v. Rasamaya, 22 IA 76 1099/1320, 1107/1325 16. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police AIR 1990 Cal. 336 1756/1870 17. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another 1983 (4) SCC 522 736/1034 18. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj & others v. State of Gujarat & others (1975) 1 SCC 11 3502/3495 19. Acharya Maharishi Narendra Prasad ji v. State of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 2098 2600/2551 20. Addangi Nageswara Rao v. Sri Ankamma Devatha Temple Anantavaram 1973 Andhra Weekly Report 379 1703/1821, 1707/1824, 1742/1861 21. Administrator General of Bengal v. Balkissen, ILR 51 Cal 953=AIR 1925 Cal 140 1817/1915 22. Advocate General of Bombay v. Yusuf Alli Ebrahim & others 84 Indian Cases (1921) (Bom.) 759 3500/3493 23. Advocate General of Bombay v. Yusufally 24 Bom. L.R 1060 3235/3126 24. Aftab Ali v. Akbor Ali (1929) 121 IC 209 (All) 2422/2437 25. Afzal Hussain v. 1st Additional District Judge, AIR 1985 All. 79 1162/1365 26. Agency Company v. Short (1888) 13 A.C 793 2224/2232, 2428/2439 27. Agha Turab Ali Khan v. 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 v. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 941/1202 30. All India Shia Conference v. Taqi Hadi and others, AIR 1954 All. 124 1128/1342 31. All Saints High School v. 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 v. Nem Chand AIR (29) 1942 All. 150 1921/2007 34. Amar Nath Dogra v. Union Of India. 1963 (1) SCR 657 637/977 35. Shri Amar Nath Satya… v. Shri Amar Nath Satya…. AIR (35) 1948 Lahore 126 3561/3573 36. Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, AIR 2004 SC 3782 = (2004) 10 SCC 65 2774/2667,2778/2670, 2883/2754, 2886/2756 37. Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1305 4448/5012 38. Amena Bibi v. S.K Abdul Haque AIR 1997 Cal. 59 3753/3791, 3761/3796 39. American Express Bank Ltd. v. Calcutta Steel Co. & others (1993) 2 SCC 199 3502/3495, 4565/5078 40. Ammalu Achi v. Ponnammal Achi & others AIR 1919 Madras 464 2899/2764 41. Ampthill Peerage Case, (1976) 2 All ER 411 988/1234 42. Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey & another 2000 (4) SCC 440 2245/2243 43. Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti v. 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 v. narayanarazu 1913 (36) Mad. 383 2448/2450 46. Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and others (2008) 4 SCC 594 1049/1275 47. Angoubi Kabuini and another v. Imjao Lairema and others AIR 1959 Manipur 42 1928/2011, 1929/2012 48. Angurbala Mullick v. D. Mullick, AIR 1951 SC 293 1707/1837, 1821/1918 49. Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi & others AIR 1955 SC 566 3039/2863 50. Anjuman Islamia & others v. Munshi Tegh Ali & others 1971 (3) SCC 814 3265/3142, 4475/5027 51. Anjuman Islamia v. Najim Ali and others, AIR 1982 MP 17 1166/1368 52. Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam and others, AIR 2008 SC 346 2852/2733 53. Annamalai Chettiar and others v. A.M.K.C.T Muthukaruppan Chettiar & anr. AIR 1931 Privy Council 9 2162/2197, 2163/2198, 2407/2430 54. Annapurna Devi v. Shiva Sundari Dasi, AIR 1945 Cal 376 1924/2008, 1929/2013 55. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant (1995) 2 SCC 543 2876/2751 56. Annie Besant v. Government of Madras, AIR 1918 Mad 1210 1220/1401, 1222/1402 57. Anuj Garg and others v. Hotel Association of India and others 2008 (3) SCC 1 846/1153, 1044/1272 58. Ases Kumar Misra & others v. Kissori Mohan Sarkar & others AIR 1924 Cal. 812 2263/2258 59. Asita Mohan v. Nivode Mohan AIR 1917 Cal 292 1745/1863 60. Asrar Ahmed v. Durgah Committee AIR 1947 PC 1 943/1204 61. Ata-Ullah & another v. Azim-Ullah & another 1889 ILR 12 (All.) 494 3256/3137, 4540/5068 62. Avadh Kishore Dass v. Ram Gopal, 1979 SC 861 1707/1837, 1775/1883, 1990/2069 63. B. Jangi Lal v. B. Panna Lal and another AIR 1957 Allahabad 743 2114/2175, 2115/2175 64. B. Leelavathi v. Honnamma and another, (2005) 11 SCC 115 2774/2668, 2927/2791 65. B.L Sridhar v. K.M Munireddy 2003 (21) LCD 88 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 578 852/1156, 1027/1262 66. Babajirao v. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215 at 223) 696/1008, 964/1218 67. Babu Lal Sharma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (7) SCC 161 2774/2668 68. Bachchu Singh v. Secretary of State for India in Council, ILR (1903) 25 All 187, 638/978, 656/986 69. Badrul Islam v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P Lucknow, AIR 1954 Allahabad 459 1118/1331 70. Baiju Lal v. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385 956/1211 71. Bailochan Karan v. Bansat Kumari Naik 1999 (2) SCC 310 2193/2213 72. Bajya v. Gopikabai, 1978 SC 793 2590/2543 73. Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & others v. Charity Commissioner AIR 1995 SC 167=1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 485 1832/1929,3365/3303, 3367/3304, 3500/3494 74. Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 658 2282/2270 75. Bali Panda v. Jadumani 7 I.C 475 1941/2025 76. Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh, JT 2008(10) SC 98 3240/3128 77. Ballabh Das & another v. Nur Mohammad & another AIR 1936 PC 83 3266/3142, 3427/3348 78. Balmiki Singh v. Mathura Prasad & Ors. AIR 1968 All. 259 2287/2272 79. Balwant v. Puran (1883) 10 I.A 90 2854/2734 80. Bande Ali v. Rejaullah 25 Cr.L.J 303 2239/2240 81. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 3762/3796 82. Bank of Upper India v. Mt. Hira Kuer & Ors. AIR 1937 Oudh 291 2163/2198 83. Barkat Ali and another v. Badrinarain 2008 (4) SCC 615 846/1153, 1044/1272 84. Baroda Prosad Roy Chaudhry v. Rai Manmath Nath Mitra 41 Indian Cases 456 2777/2669 85. Basant Kumar Roy v. Secretary of State for India & others AIR 1917 PC 18 2102/2171, 2222/2231, 2842/2728 86. Bazkhan v. Sultan Malik, 43 P.R 1901 2206/2216 87. Behari Lal v. Muhammad Muttaki (1898) 20 All 482 3270/3146 88. Behari Lal v. 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 v. Laxminathji Maharaj etc. AIR 1985 All. 228 1929/2012, 1930/2013, 1931/2015 91. Bhagchand Dagaduss v. Secretary of State for India in Council AIR 1927 PC 176 628/974, 638/978 92. Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 259 1264/1418 93. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another v. Union of India & others JT 2006 (3) SC 114 1058/1281 94. Bhinka and others v. Charan Singh 1959 (Supp.) 2 SCR 798. 2164/2198, 2246/2246, 2258/2259 95. Bhubaneswari Thakurani v. Brojanath Dey AIR (24) 1937 PC 185 1942/2028 96. Bhupati Nath Smrititir the Bhattacharjee v. 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 v. Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat & Ors. AIR 1931 Privy Council 162 2774/2668, 2841/2728, 2843/2729 98. Bhyah Ram Singh v. Bhyah Ujagar Singh, 13 MIA 373, PC 2587/2541 99. Bibhuti Bhushan v. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965 Cal. 199 3753/3792 100. Bibi Sahodra v. Rai Jang Bahadur, (1881) 8 Cl. 224:8 I.A 210 2199/2215 101. Bidhumukhi Dasi v. Jitendra Nath Roy and others, 1909 Indian Cases (Calcutta) 442; 1061/1284 102. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057 690/1005 103. Bihari Chowdhary and another v. State of Bihar and others 1984 (2) SCC 627 622/972, 631/975 104. Bihari Lal v. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and another AIR 1961 Allahabad 73 1925/2009, 1932/2015 105. Bijoe Emmanuel & others v. State of Kerala & others (1986) 3 SCC 615 740/1037, 3500/3495 106. Bimal Krishna Ghose and Ors. v. Shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiu and Ors. AIR 1937 Cal 338 2119/2176, 2604/2554, 2718/2613 107. Bindyachal Chand v. Ram Gharib, AIR 1934 Alld. 993 (FB) 2197/2214, 2211/2219, 2214/2220, 2215/2220 108. Biram Prakash v. Narendra Das AIR 1961 All. 266 964/1219 109. Bishandayal and sons v. State of Orissa and others 2001 (1) SCC 555 637/978 110. Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad and another (2006) 4 SCC 432 1054/1279 111. Bishwanath v. 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. v. The State of Orissa & Ors. 1964 (1) Supreme Court Journal 364 4452/5013 113. Biswambhar Singh & others v. State of Orissa & another AIR 1954 SC 139 1398/1560 114. Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & others JT 2009 (10) SC 538 2892/2759 115. Blair v. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 935/1199 116. Board Nageshwar Bux Roy v. Bengal Coal Co. AIR 1931 PC 18 2843/2729 117. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Pidugu Narasimham & Ors. AIR 1939 Madras 134 1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1844/1939, 1846/1940, 1866/1964 118. Board of Mulim Wakfs v. Smt. Hadi Begum and others, AIR 1992 SC 1083 1146/1357 119. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146, 4442/5011 120. Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others v. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089 726/1029, 737/1034 121. Brij Narain Singh v. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) SC 1 905/1185 122. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury & others v. Bharat Chandra Roy and others, AIR 1916 Calcutta 751 2164/2198, 2221/2231, 2268/2261, 2426/2438, 2428/2438, 2429/2440 123. Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh, 42 I.A 208 = ILR (1915) 37 All 604 1707/1827 124. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others 1991 (4) All ER 638 1703/1821, 1707/1828 125. Burns v. Ransley, (1944) 79 CLR 101 1221/1401 126. Byathaiah (Kum) and others v. Pentaiah (Kum) and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191 950/1208 127. C. Beepathuma and others v., Valasari Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and others, AIR 1965 SC 241 2162/2197, 2169/2200, 2776/2669 128. C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 808 1272/1423, 2409/2432 129. C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai and others JT 2007 (12) SC 295= AIR 2008 SC 363 2164/2198, 2216/2221, 2282/2271 130. Cassomally v. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214 923/1194 131. CEAT Ltd. v. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar & Ors. 2006 (3) SCC 56 3769/3799 132. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. Purya (2004) 8 SCC 270 3046/2866 133. Chairman & M.D, N.T.P.C Ltd. v. M/s Reshmi Construction Builders & Contractors AIR 2004 SC 1330 2162/2196, 2276/2268 134. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others v. Chiman Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3 3757/3794 135. Chandra v. Narpat Singh 1906 (29) All 184 (PC) 3549/3566 136. Chandu Lal v. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C 17 917/1190 137. Chedha Singh and others v. Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and others, 1996 Supp. AWC 189 1149/1358 138. Chhote Khan & others v. Mal Khan & others AIR 1954 SC 575 1397/1559, 2872/2750 139. Chhutkao v. Gambhir Mal AIR 1931 Oudh 45 3263/3141 140. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector and others, AIR 2003 SC 1805 1233/1406 141. Chitar Mal v. 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 v. C. Vencata Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525 4442/5011 143. Collector, Gorakhpur v. Palakdhari ILR (1899) 12 All 1 at page 43 3544/3564 144. Commissioner For Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Ratnavarma Heggade, AIR 1977, SC 1848 1707/1837, 1830/1929 145. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC 29 893/1182, 909/1188 146. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and another AIR 2002 SC 1745 635/977 147. Commissioner of Endowments and others v. Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120 960/1216 148. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239 1399/1560 149. Commissioner of Police & others v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & another (2004) 12 SCC 770 3501/3495, 4417/4998 150. Commissioner of Wakfs and another v. 3251/3134, Mohammad Moshin, AIR 1954 Calcutta 463 3338/3289 151. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. 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 v. Sprigg 1899 AC 572 4442/5011 153. Coral Indira Gonsalves v. Joseph Prabhakar Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad. 858 3580/3581 154. D. N. Venkatarayappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 567 2774/2668, 2907/2769, 2908/2769 155. Dalbir Singh & others v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1106 3501/3495 156. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income Tax AIR 1958 SC 816 4446/5012 157. Damodar Das v. 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 v. Lakhan Das and 64 I.A 203 (= AIR 1937 PC 185) 2778/2674, 2855/2734 159. Damodar Das v. Lakhandas 37 I.A 147=1910 (37) ILR (Cal.) 885 2854/2734 160. Darshan Lal and others v. Shibji Maharaj Birajman, AIR 1923 All. 120 1811/1912 161. Darshan Lal v. Dr. R.E.S Dalliwall & another AIR 1952 Alld. 825 3500/3493 162. Darshan Singh v. Gujjar Singh (2002) 2 SCC 62 2880/2753 163. Dasami Sahu v. Param Shameshwar Uma Bhairabeshwar Bam Lingshar and Chitranjan Mukerji (1929) A.L.J.R 473 2855/2734 164. Dattagiri v. Dattatrya (1904) 27 Bom 236 964/1219, 3270/3146 165. Deewan Singh and others v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi and others AIR 2007 SC 767 846/1153, 1044/1272 166. Deo Kuer and another v. Sheo Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 359 2163/2197, 2261/2259, 2262/2259 167. Deo Narain Chowdhury v. C.R.H Webb (1990) 28 Cal. 86 2429/2440 168. Deoki Nandan v. 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 v. Bhagat Ram(Dead) by LRs. And others 2007 (3) SCALE 371 2851/2733 170. Deutsch Asiatische Bank v. Hiralal Burdhan & Sons 1918 (47) I.C 122 2652/2579 171. Devi Singh v. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others, (1994) 1 SCC 215 2902/2766 172. Dhan Singh v. Jt. Director of Consolidation, U.P Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283 841/1150, 916/1190, 917/1190 173. Dharamarajan & Ors. v. Valliammal & Ors., 2008 (2) SCC 741 2774/2668, 2928/2791 174. Dharani Kanta Lahiri v. Gabar Ali Khan, (1913) 18 I.C 17 2207/2217 175. Dhian Singh Sobha Singh v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 274 633/975, 653/985, 657/987 176. Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Sabal Chandra Shaw and others v. 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 v. Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60 4450/5013 179. District Basic Education Officer and another v. Dhananjai Kumar Shukla and another (2008) 3 SCC 481= AIR 2008 SCW 1224 2291/2273, 3330/3285 180. Doongarsee Shyamji v. Tribhuvan Das, AIR 1947 All 375 1925/2008, 1926/2009 181. Doulat Koer v. Rameshwari Koeri alias Dulin Saheba (1899) ILR 26 Cal. 635 2241/2240 182. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. v. 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 v. Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 869 2774/2667, 2889/2758, 2909/2772 184. Draupadi Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 425 2162/2197, 2418/2434, 3382/3309, 3383/3309, 3385/3310 185. Dukham Ram v. Ram Nanda Singh, AIR 1961 Pat. 425 2262/2258 186. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali AIR 1961 SC 1402 1860/1960, 1864/1963 187. Duvvuri Papi Reddi and others v. Duvvuri Rami Reddi AIR 1969 AP 362 1936/2019 188. Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Joges Chandra De, AIR 1924 Cal 600 2411/2433, 2712/2610 189. Dyke v. Walford 5 Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER 557 (580 4439/5010 190. Ejas Ali Qidwai & Ors. v. Special Manager, Court of Wards, Balrampur Estate & Ors. AIR 1935 Privy Council 53 2774/2667, 2894/2759 191. Ellappa Naicken v. K.Lakshmana Naicken & others AIR (36) 1949 Madras 71 2264/2259 192. Emperor v. Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906) ILR 30 Bom 421 1219/1400, 1222/1402 193. Emperor v. Panchu Das & Ors. AIR 1920 Cal 500 (FB) 3544/3564 194. Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, 1978(1) SCC 12 2254/2249 195. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & others v. Lakshmi Narain & others 3502/3495, 4564/5078 (1976) 2 SCC 58 196. Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326 3574/3579 197. Faqruddin (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Tajuddin (Dead) Through Lrs. 2008 (8) SCC 12 3253/3135, 3271/3147, 3302/3238, 3303/3244 198. Farzand Ali v. Zafar Ali 46 IC 119 1404/1561 199. Forest Range Officer & others v. P. Mohammed Ali & others AIR 1994 SC 120 3563/3575, 3583/3582 200. Forward Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) 1986 (1) SCC 100 1005/1245 201. Fulbati Kumari v. Maheshwari Prasad Singh AIR 1923 Patna 453 1394/1558 202. G.L Vijan v. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136 3759/3794 203. Gangu Bai v. Soni 1942 Nagpur Law Journal 99 2223/2232 204. Ganpat v. Returning Officer (1975) 1 SCC 589 1851/1946 205. Garib Das and others v. Munshi Abdul Hamid and others AIR 1970 SC 1035 2162/2197, 2410/2432, 3261/3140, 3421/3342 206. Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly & others (2008) 7 SCC 85 2893/2759, 3041/2864 207. Gedela Satchidananda Murthy v. Dy. Commr., Endowments Deptt., A.P & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 677 1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1866/1964 208. Ghanshyam Dass v. Dominion of India 1984 (3) SCC 46 637/977, 638/978, 656/986, 657/987, 661/988, 664/991 209. Girijanund Datta Jha & Anr. v. Sailajanund Datta Jha 1896 ILR 23 Ca1. 645 2649/2576 210. Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran 1887 ILR Vol. 10 Madras 375 683/1000, 685/1003 211. Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram and another (1899) 27 IA 69 964/1219, 1765/1881, 2868/2747 212. Gobinda Narain Singh v. Sham Lal, AIR 1931 P.C 98=LR 58 IA 125 983/1232 213. Gokul Nathji Maharaj & Anr. v. Nathji Bhogi Lal AIR 1953 All. 552 1700/1820, 1707/1834, 1849/1944, 1910/1983 214. Gollaleshwar Dev v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math, AIR 1986 SC 231 1707/1837 215. Gopal Datt v. Babu Ram, AIR 1936 All 653 2917/2775 216. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Jaffar Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5 1396/1559 217. Gopalji Maharaj…Plaintiff Applicant; v. Krishna Sunder Nath Kaviraj…Defendant Opposite Party. AIR 1929 All. 887 1818/1915 218. Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another v. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 808 842/1150, 918/1190, 1015/1254 219. Gossain Das Chunder v. Issur Chunder Nath 1877 III ILR 3 (Cal.) 224 2839/2727, 2840/2727 220. Goswami Ranchor Lalji…(Plaintiff); v. Sri Girdhariji…(Defendant).* (1897) 20 All. 120 2425/2438 221. Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas, AIR 1970 SC 2025 2930/2794 222. Government of the Province of Bombay v. Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors AIR 1949 PC 143 630/975, 947/1207 223. Government of West Bengal v. Nitya Gopal Basak & others 1985 CRI.L.J 202 3573/3578 224. Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K.Roy 2004 (1) SCC 347 1048/1274 225. Govind Raghunath Sawant v. B.A Kakade*. 1975 ILR Bombay 829 2309/2295 226. Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar and others JT 2006(1) SC 121 2851/2733 227. Govindrao & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others AIR 1982 SC 1201 3386/3310 228. Greenhalgh v. Mallard (1942) 2 All ER 225 (CA) 1006/1246, 1007/1246 229. Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 924/1195 230. Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P, AIR 1981 SC 2199 897/1183, 1169/1369, 1171/1370, 1176/1377, 4570/5085 231. Gulzar Ali v. Sate of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (2) SCC 192 3595/3589 232. Gunga Gobind Mundul v. Collector of the 24-pergunnahs 11 Moore's I.A, 345 2839/2727 233. Guntaka Hussenaiah v. Busetti Yerraiah AIR 1954 Andhra 39 3566/3576 234. Gunwantlal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh ., AIR 1972 SC 1756, 1759 2812/2700 235. Gurbinder Singh and another v. Lal Singh and another, AIR 1965 SC 1553 2925/2783 236. Gursharan Singh and others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC 1175 3119/2966 237. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. Shiromani GPC, 2004 (4) SCC 146 1707/1837 238. Gurunath v. Kamalabai 1955 S.C 206 2597/2550 239. Guruvayur Devasom Managing Committee v. C.K Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561 1707/1831, 1739/1861 240. H.H Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642 697/1008 241. Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State Of West Bengal , AIR 1959 SC 488 3582/3582 242. Hansraj Gupta and others v. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63 929/1197 243. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 3559/3569 244. Har Prasad and others v. Fazal Ahmad and others, AIR 1933 PC 83 3250/3134 245. Hari Chand v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1987 SC 94 2774/2667, 2921/2777 246. Hari Khandu v. Dhondi Nanth, (1906) 8 Bom.L.R 96 2835/2725 247. Hari Raghunath Patvardhan v. Antaji Bhikaji Patvardhan & Others 1919 (XLIV) ILR Bombay 466 1839/1936, 4528/5063, 4529/5064 248. Hari Singh v. Lachmi, 59 IC 220 3596/3589 249. Harihar Prasad Singh v. Deo Narain, AIR 1956 SC 305 982/1232 250. Harihor Misra v. 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 v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others AIR 2009 SC 103 2774/2667, 2906/2768 253. Henderson v. Henderson (1843-60) All ER Rep 378 1005/1245 254. Hira Lal v. Hari Narain, AIR 1964 All 302 985/1232 255. Hirachand Himatlal Marwari v. Kashinath Thakurji Jadhav AIR (29) 1942 Bombay 339 640/979 256. Hook v. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C) 895/1182 257. Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404 903/1185, 922/1194, 995/1241 258. Hukum Chand & Ors. v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh & Others AIR 1933 Privy Council 193 2438/2443, 2955/2810 259. Humayun Begam v. Shah Mohammad Khan, AIR 1943 PC 94 2262/2257 260. Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mmsumat Bdbooee Manraj Koonweree 6 Moore's Ind. App. Ca. 243 2648/2576, 2692/2600 261. Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, Jaipur v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 906 1699/1819, 1707/1835, 1708/1841, 1843/1939, 2596/2549 262. Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) 894/1182 SCC 151 263. Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik, 1993(3) SCC 123 1045/1273 264. Indar Datt v. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 408. 3576/3580 265. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rajnarain AIR 1975 SC 2299 3323/3272 266. Indra Singh v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1943 Pat. 169 984/1232 267. Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain v. Zafrul Islam Afzal Husain and others AIR 1969 Alld. 161 642/979 268. Ishwari Bhubanshwari Thakurani v. Brojo Nath Dey 2778/2674 269. Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa AIR 1963 SC 1728 3574/3579 270. J. Jaya Lalitha v. Union of India & another AIR 1999 SC 1912 2122/2178 271. Jafar Ali Khan & Ors. v. Nasimannessa Bibi AIR 1937 Cal 500 2166/2199, 2399/2425 272. Jagadamba Chowdhurani v. Dakhina Mohan (1886) 13 Cal 308 2399/2425 273. Jagadindra Nath v. 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 v. Debendra Prosad Bagehi Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1931 Cal 503 656/986, 656/987 275. Jagannath v. Tirthnanda Das AIR 1952 Orissa 312 1943/2028 276. Jagat Mohan Nath Sah Deo v. Pratap Udai Nath Sah Deo & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 302 2167/2199, 2447/2450 277. Jagdeo Misir v. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All. 803 915/1189 278. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and others 2006 (7) SCC 756 844/1152, 846/1153, 1024/1261, 1044/1272 279. Jamal Uddin & Anr. v. Mosque at Mashakganj & Ors. AIR 1973 Allahabad 328 2162/2197, 2230/2234, 3422/3343 280. Jamshed Ji v. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 739/1037 281. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand v. Soonabai & others 1 Indian Cases (1907) 834 (Bom.) 3500/3493 282. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand v. Soonabai, ILR (1909) 33 Bom. 122 4414/4997 283. Jangu & others v. Ahmad Ullah & others 1889-1891 ILR 13 (All.) 419 3254/3135, 3256/3137, 4540/5068 284. Janki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh (1888) ILR 15 Cal 58 2166/2199, 2398/2424 285. Jaswant Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1985 (3) SCC 648 919/1190 286. Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, 1993 (4) SCC 403 3095/2897 287. Jenkins v. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 899/1183 288. Jetmull Bhojraj v. The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway Co. Ltd. And others AIR 1962 SC 1879 2289/2273 289. Jindu Ram v. Hussain Baksh & Anr. AIR 1914 Lahore 444 3269/3145 290. Jodhi Rai v. Basdeo Prasad, 8 ALJ 817=(1911) ILR 33 Allahabad 735 1810/1911, 2117/2176, 2118/2176, 2661/2583, 2711/2609 291. Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Cit, Calcutta , 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 v. State Of Kerala AIR 1965 SC 1514 3897/4175 293. Jujjuvarapu v. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P 76 949/1208 294. Jurawan Singh & Ors. v. Ramsarekh Singh & Others AIR 1933 Patna 224 2265/2260 295. K. Ethirajan v. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 840/1149, 903/1185, SC 4295 995/1238, 997/1242 296. K. Manahunaitha Desikar v. Sundaralingam, AIR 1971 Madras 1 (FB) 1707/1837, 2116/2175, 2594/2547, 2605/2554, 2656/2581 297. K. Sundaresa Iyer v. Sarvajana Sowkiabi Virdhi Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1939 Madras 853 2262/2257 298. K.G Premshanker v. Inspector of Police & another JT 2002 (8) SCC 87 3039/2863, 3040/2863 299. K.S Prahladsinhji v. Chunilal B. Desai AIR 1950 Saurashtra 7 2239/2240 300. Kadarbhai Mahomedbhai and another v. Haribhari Ranchhodbhai Desai and another, AIR 1974 Gujarat 120 1282/1443 301. Kailasam Pillai v. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors. 1910 I.L.R 33 Madras 265 at page 267 685/1003 302. Kalanka Devi Sansthan v. The Maharashtra Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 439 1701/1821, 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1795/1899 303. Kali Charan Mukerji v. Emperor (1909) 9 Cr.L.J 498. 3576/3580 304. Kali Kinkor Ganguly v. Panna Banerjee & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1932 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1800/1901 305. Kali Prasad Misir and others v. Harbans Misir AIR 1919 All 383 2167/2199, 2444/2448, 2446/2450 306. Kalikanta Chatterjee & Ors. v. Surendra Nath Chakravarty & Ors. AIR 1925 Calcutta 648 1840/1937 307. Kalipada De v. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC 22 896/1182 308. Kallan v. Mohammad Nabikhan, 1933 ALJ 105 2211/2219 309. Kamala and others v. K.T Eshwara Sa and others AIR 2008 SC 3174 2282/2271 310. Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao v. Sub-Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563 1707/1837, 1870/1965 311. Kamlesh Babu and others v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and others JT 2008 (4) SC 652 2282/2270 312. Kanakku v. Neelacanta, AIR 1969 (Kerala) 280 641/979 313. Kanhaiya Lal v. Girwar, 1929 ALJ 1106 2210/2218 314. Kanhaya Lal v. Hamid Ali, AIR 1933 PC 198 2120/2177 315. Kanhiya Lal v. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355 948/1207 316. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd and others v. U.P State Electricity Board and others, JT 1997(2) SC 545 3120/2967 317. Kapoor Chand & Others v. Ganesh Dutt and others 1993 (Supp.) 4 SCC 432 2733/2634 318. Karan Singh v. Bakar Ali Khan, (1882) 5 All 1 2201/2215 319. Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed (1980) 4 SCC 396 2875/2751 320. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & others (2004) 10 SCC 779 2934/2798, 2935/2798, 2948/2805, 3049/2869 321. Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri & Ors v. Pattath Ramunni Marar & Ors. AIR 1940 Madras 208 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1838/1935 322. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 733 2121/2177 323. Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. 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 v. Smt Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 290 947/1207 326. Khalil Ahmad and another v. Sheikh Mohd. Askari and others, AIR 1965 Allahabad 320 3260/3140 327. Khaw Sim v. Chuah Hooi (1922) 49 I.A 37 2854/2734 328. Khetter Chunder Ghose v. Hari Das Bundopadhya (1890) 17 ILR Cal. 557 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1773/1882, 1774/1882, 2695/2602 329. Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Paul Sreeterutno. 1880 ILR 5 (Calcutta) 886 3045/2866 330. Kishore Joo… v. Guman Behari Joo Deo…., AIR 1825/1926 1978 All.-1 331. Krishna Behary Ray v. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875) 1 Cal. 144 (146) 886/1175 332. Krishna Chendra Gajapati Narayana Deo v. 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 v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1972 Allahabad 273 1707/1837 335. Kuarmani Singha v. Wasif Ali Murza 1915(28) I.C 818 2652/2579 336. Kumaravelu Chettiar and others v. T.P Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183 955/1210 337. Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182 3772/3802 338. Kunwar Darganath v. Ramchunder 4 I.A 52 (P.C) 1940/2025 339. Kunwar Singh v. Sri Thakurji Mahraj, Birajman Mandir Gauntia Majra Dhamipur, Pargana and Tahsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly, 1992 (2) AWC 890 1709/1842 340. Kuthali Moothavur v. P. Kunharankutty AIR 1922 PC 181 2950/2806 341. L.N Aswathama & another v. V.P Prakash JT 2009 (9) 527 2887/2756 342. Lachhmi Sewak Sahu v. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors. AIR 1944 PC 24 2282/2271 343. Lakshmana Pillai and another v. Appalwar Alwar Ayyangar and another AIR 1923 Madras 246 845/1152, 1031/1265 344. Lal Chand v. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 789=1977(2) SCC 88 840/1150, 902/1184, 1008/1247 345. Lala Shiam Lal v. Mohamad Ali Asghar Husain AIR 1935 All 174 2442/2446, 2448/2450 346. Lalji Sahib v. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 916/1190 347. Lalmani Devi & others v. Jagdish Tiwary & others AIR 2005 Pat. 51 3039/2862 348. Lalta Prasad…Accused Applicant; v. Emperor…Opposite Party. 5 IC 355 3569/3577 349. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530 3046/2866 350. Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chandappa Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929 1403/1560 351. Legal Remembrancer v. Corporation of Calcutta (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204 4442/5011 352. Limba Bin Krishna and others v. Rama Bin Pimplu and anothers, 1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548 4470/5023 353. Lumley v. Wagner, (1865) 1 Eq. 411 4465/5020 354. M.P Peter v. State of Kerala & others JT 2009 (13) SC 1 2272/2265, 2273/2265 355. M.T.W Tenzing Namgyal and others v. Motilal Lakhotia and others 2003 (5) SCC 1 843/1151, 846/1153, 1020/1256 356. M.V.S Manikyala v. Narashimahwami AIR 1966 SC 470 2420/2436 357. M.V Vali Press v. Fernandee Lopez 1989 SC 2206, 2592/2546 358. M/s Hulas Rai Baij Nath v. Firm K.B Bass and co. AIR 1968 SC 111 845/1152, 1028/1263, 1031/1265 359. M/s Kamakshi Builders v. M/s Ambedkar Educational Society and others AIR 2007 SC 2191 2777/2669, 2990/2827 360. M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & another v. Union of India & others 1970 (3) SCC 694 3040/2864 361. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659 734/1034 362. Madan Mohan Saha Banik and Ors. v. Rakhal Chandra Saha Banik and Ors., AIR 1930 Calcutta 173 2699/2604 363. Madhavan v. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 948/1207 364. Madho Kunbi v. Tilak Singh AIR 1934 Nagpur 2239/2240 194 365. Magan Bihari Lal v. State Of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091 3567/3576 366. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and others v. Karia Bharthi, AIR 1935 PC 44 2916/2774 367. Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi v. Secretary of State for India AIR 1930 Bom 367 638/978 368. Mahamaya Devi v. Hari Das Haldar AIR (2) 1915 Cal. 161 1940/2025 369. Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1967 SC 1415 958/1214 370. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. 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 v. Surayan Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256 1402/1560, 1406/1561, 3500/3494 372. Mahanth Ram Charan Das. v. 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 v. Bahuria Mt. Bhagjogna Kuer and others AIR 1937 Privy Council 69 2774/2667, 2922/2779, 2950/2806 375. Maharana Futtehsangji v. Dessai Kullianraiji, (1873) LR 1 IA 34 2180/2207 376. Maharanee Shibessouree Debia v. Mothornath Acharjo (1869) 13 M.I.A 270 1771/1881, 2691/2599 377. Mahdav Rao Waman v. Raghunath Venkatesh, AIR 1923 PC 205 2778/2671 378. Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. . Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364 1993/2071 379. Mahila Bajrangi v. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 1053/1279 380. Manindra Land And Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC 1336 2290/2273 381. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar & Ors. v. Lakhmiram Govindram & Ors. (1888) ILR 12 Bom 247 1699/1820, 1707/1832, 1707/1837, 1770/1878, 1791/1893, 2704/2605 382. Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527 1037/1269 383. Manohar Mukherji v. Bhupendra Nath AIR 1932 Cal 791 1819/1916 384. Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85 2289/2273, 2432/2440 385. Marawthwada Wakf Board v. 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 v. Beni Madho AIR 1914 All 184 2167/2199, 2445/2449 388. Mathura Lal v. Bhanwar Lal and another 1979 (4) SCC 665 2247/2246 389. Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355 907/1186, 908/1187 390. Matuka Mistry v. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 (Patna) 264 (FB) 930/1197 391. Maulvi Mohammad Fahimal Haq v. Jagat Ballav Ghosh AIR 1923 Patna 475 2439/2443 392. Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. Cbi., (2006) 5 SCC 752 2778/2675 393. Md. Mohammad Ali v. Jagadish Kalita & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 271 2381/2411, 2881/2753, 2915/2774 394. Meer Mahomed Israil Khan v. Sashti Churn Ghose and others, 19 ILR (Calcutta) (1892) 412 1087/1311 395. Middllings P Co. v. Christian, 4 Dillon 448 3592/3587 396. Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C 144 841/1150, 913/1189, 1001/1244 397. Miru & others v. Ramgopal AIR 1935 All. 891 3369/3304 398. Miss Talat Fatima Hasan v. His Highness 2286/2272 Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur and others AIR 1997 All. 122 399. Mitta Kunth Audhicarry v. 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 v. Abdul Hamid Khan (1904) 1 CLJ 73 2421/2436 402. Mohammad Baqar and another v. S. Mohammad Casim and others, AIR 1932 Oudh 210 1112/1328, 1140/1349, 1141/1349 403. Faqir Mohamad Shah v. Qazi 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 v. Husain Ali Khan, AIR 1944 Oudh 139 2439/2443 406. Mohd. Saleh v. Ram Ratan AIR 1924 Nagpur 156 273/301 407. Mohd. Zainulabudeen v. Sayed Ahmad Mohideen (1990) 1 SCC 345 2878/2752 408. Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar & Ors. v. Mohesh Chundar Neogi & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 23 2162/2197, 2204/2216 409. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1902) 30 I.A 114 (P.C). 2668/2586 410. Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others v. The Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43) CWN 1056 4472/5023 411. Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj & Ors. v. 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 Know as Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1938 Lahore 369 4053/4411 413. Most Rev. P.M.A Metropolitan and others v. 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 v. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 2192/2212 415. Ms. Aruna Roy and others v. Union of India and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103 720/1027 416. Mst. Bhagwanti v. Mst. Jiuti and another, AIR 1975 Allahabad 341 1282/1443 417. Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 335 2162/2197, 2408/2431, 2420/2436 418. Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and another v. Ram Dass Pandey and others, AIR 1957 All. 270 1061/1283 419. Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan and others AIR 1930 Privy Council 270 2162/2197, 2163/2198, 2419/2436 420. Titli Alias Tereza…(); v. Alfred Robert Jones…(Petitioner).* AIR 1934 All. 273 3571/3577, 3588/3585 421. Muhammad Araf v. Satramdas Sakhimal & others AIR 1936 Sind 143 2239/2240 422. Mukkammal v. Kalimuthu Pillay 15 Ind Cas 852 (Mad) 1031/1265, 1036/1269 423. Muktakeshi Patrani & Ors. v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Patna 33 2449/2451 424. Mukundji Mahraj… v. Persotam Lalji Mahraj…. AIR 1957 Allahabad 77 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1836/1934, 2113/2174, 2698/2603 425. Munesh Kumar Agnihotri and others v. Lalli Prasad Gupta AIR 1989 (Alld.) 202 852/1156, 1046/1273 426. Murarilal v. State of M.P AIR 1980 SC 531 3564/3575 427. Musaheb Khan v. Raj Kumar Bakshi, AIR 1938 Oudh 238 3259/3139, 428. Musammat Phutania v. Emperor 25 Cr.L.J 1109 2240/2240 429. Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762 3590/3587 430. Mussammat Lachhmi v. Mussammat Bhulli, 882/1169 1927 ILR (VIII) 384 431. Must. Salamat Begam v. S.K Ikram Husain (1933) 145 IC 728 2422/2437 432. Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128 986/1232 433. N. Adithayan v. 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 v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras AIR 1954 Madras 492 1826/1927, 3252/3135 436. Nagendra Nath Palit v. Robindra Narain Deb, AIR 1926 Cal. 490 2708/2608 437. Nagubai Ammal & Others v. B. Shama Rao & Others AIR 1956 SC 593 2776/2669, 2897/2762 438. Nair Service Society Limited v. K. C. Alexander and others AIR 1968 SC 1165 2588/2542, 2774/2667 439. Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712 735/1034 440. Nanhekhan v. Sanpat AIR 1954 Hyd 45 (FB) 2193/2213 441. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak gosavi & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 100 1701/1821, 1788/1888, 2127/2179, 4529/5064 442. Narayana Dutt and another v. Smt. Molini Devi, AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269 930/1197 443. Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu v. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC 1268 1061/1283 444. Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram and others 2005 (6) SCC 614 2282/2270 445. Nata Padhan & Ors. v. Banchha Baral & Ors. AIR 1968 Orissa 36 2451/2452 446. Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1954 SC 355 2279/2269 447. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan and another 2006 (2) SCC 641 2776/2669, 2901/2765 448. Naurangi Lal & Others v. Ram Charan Das AIR 1930 Patna 455 1938/2019, 2652/2579, 2709/2608 449. Nawab Muhammad Amanulla Khan v. Badan Singh & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 148 2162/2197, 2205/2216 450. Nawab Zain Yar Jung and others v. Director of Endowments and another AIR 1963 SC 985 3424/3347 451. Neale v. Turton (1827) 4 Bing. 149 1237/1407 452. Nilmony Singh v. 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 v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1974 SC 1355 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1798/1900 455. P. K. Vijayan v. Kamalakshi Amma and others, AIR 1994 SC 2145 842/1150, 1012/1251, 1014/1254 456. P. Periasami v. P. Periathambi & Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 523. 2774/2668, 2932/2797 457. P. Lakshmi Reddy v. 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. v. Revamma & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1753 2282/2271, 2774/2667, 2849/2731, 459. P.V Durrairajulu v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Trusts, AIR 1989 Madras 60 1707/1833 460. P.V Sadavarty v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1963 SC 510 1707/1837 461. Palani Goundan v. Peria Gounden, 1941 Mad 158 2592/2546 462. Palaniappa Chetty and Anr. v. Deivasikamony Pandara 1917 L.R 44 I.A 147 2650/2577 463. Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri v. State AIR 1968 Bombay 127 3572/3578 464. Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee Nidubroly and Ors. v. 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 v. Faruq Khan and another AIR 1954 All. 191 4561/5074 467. Pandurang Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153 892/1181 468. Pandurang Kalu Patil and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 733 1809/1911 469. Panna Lal Biswas v. Panchu Raidas AIR 1922 Cal. 419 2164/2198, 2425/2437, 2427/2438, 2428/2439, 2429/2439, 2579/2537 470. Pappy Amma v. Prabhakaran Nair AIR 1972 Kerala 1 (FB) 2225/2233, 2251/2249 471. Parmanand v. Nihal Chand AIR 1938 PC 195 1786/1887 472. Parmeshwari Devi and others v. Khusali Mandal and others, AIR 1957 Patna 482 2071/2139 473. Parsinnin v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 2890/2758, 2949/2806 474. Partab Bahadur Singh, Taluqdar v. Jagatjit Singh AIR 1936 Oudh 387 2162/2197, 2164/2198, 2404/2427, 2405/2429 475. Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others v. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR Madras Series (1882) 304 888/1175 476. Parwatabai v. Sona Bai 1996 (10) SCC 266 2889/2758 477. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. U.O.I 2005(5) SCC 363 3771/3802 478. Perumal Mudaliar v. South Indian Railway Company Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407 3579/3580 479. Perumal v. Devarajan & others AIR 1974 Mad. 14 3039/2862 480. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. v. Miss Violet Ouchterlony Wapsnare AIR 1969 SC 843 2166/2199, 2400/2425, 4441/5011 481. Ponnu Nadar and others v. Kumaru Reddiar and others, AIR 1935 Madras 967 2406/2429 482. Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy v. Commissioner, H.R & C.E AIR 1963 SC 510 1699/1819, 1707/1833, 1827/1927 483. Pooranchand v. The Idol Shri Radhakrishnaji & another AIR 1979 MP 10 1873/1966 484. Prabhu Narain Singh v. Ram Niranjan & Ors. AIR 1983 All 223 2774/2668, 2912/2772 485. Prabodh Verma & others v. State of U.P and others AIR 1985 SC 167 2124/2178 486. Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513 943/1204 487. Prajapati and others v. Jot Singh and others AIR 1934 All 539 2167/2199, 2422/2437, 2446/2450 488. Prakash Das v. Janki Ballabha Saran AIR 1926 Oudh 444 1938/2020 489. Pramath Nath Mullick v. 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 v. Prannath Mahanand, 1 Bom H. C. Rep. 12 4470/5023 491. Prem Narain v. Ram Charan and others, AIR 1932 P.C 51 914/1189 492. Prema Chanda Barik v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanty AIR 1988 Orissa 33 1036/1269 493. Premier Cable Co. Ltd. v. Government of India and others, AIR 2002 SC 2418 842/1150, 1016/1255 494. Priddle v. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 893/1182 495. Pritam Dass Mahant v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 1984 SC 858 1834/1933 496. Profulla Chandra v. Prabartak Trust AIR 1954 Cal. 8 3031/2853 497. Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Choron Requitte AIR 1979 SC 1682 1876/1969 498. Promod Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa A.I.R 1962 S.C 1288 4447/5012, 4451/5013 499. Prosanna Kumari Debya v. 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 v. Kamakshya Narain Singh AIR 1950 Patna 366 653/985, 657/987 501. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala v. Capt. Mohar Singh AIR 1975 SC 1891 3264/3142 502. Purna Chandra Bysack v. Gopal Lal Sett & Ors. 1908 (VIII) Calcutta Law Journal 369 1842/1938 503. Purnachandra Chakrabarty v. Kaliopada Roy AIR 1942 Cal. 386 1745/1863 504. Purushotama Reddiar v. S Perumal AIR 1972 SC 608 3554/3567 505. Qadir Bux v. Ramchand and others AIR 1970 All. 289 2225/2233, 2774/2667, 2924/2781 506. Queen-Empress v. Abdullah ILR (1885) 7 All 385 (FB) 3544/3564 507. Queen-Empress v. Ramzan ILR, 7 All. 461 3254/3136, 4550/5068 508. R. Venugopala Naidu and others v. 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 v. Miss Mani J. Desai & Others AIR 1968 SC 1444 2228/2233 511. Wg. Cdr. (Rtd) R.N Dawarplaintiff; v. Shri Ganga Saran Dhama.Defendant. AIR 1993 Del. 19 2889/2758 512. R.N Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir 1992 (4) SCC 683 2776/2669, 2900/2765 513. Rabindra Nath v. Chandi Charan AIR 1932 Cal 117 2119/2176 514. Radhakishan and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1 1140/1349, 1141/1349, 1146/1357 515. Radhakrishna Das v. Radha Ramana Swami & others AIR (36) 1949 Orissa 1 1939/2020, 1940/2024, 2440/2444, 2611/2556 516. Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna, 27 Ind App. 136 at p. 140 (PC) 2844/2729 517. Radharani v. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92 923/1194 518. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag v. Hanskumar Kishanchand AIR 1959 MP 172 1265/1419, 1271/1423 519. Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Shri Krishna Poddar AIR 1969 SC 316 940/1200 520. Raghunath Das v. Union of India and another AIR 1969 SC 674 626/973 521. Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan & Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 472 2435/2442 522. Rahmat-ullah v. Shamsuddin 1913 (11) ALJ 877 2444/2449 523. Rais Ahmad v. State of U.P & others (1999) 6 SCC 391 3500/3493 524. Raj Kumari Devi v. Nirtya Kali Debi (1910) 7 Ind Cas 892 (Cal) 1031/1265, 1036/1269 525. Raja Gopa Chettiar v. Hindu Religion Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras 103 929/1197 526. Raja Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai, 1 IA 209 1867/1964 527. Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh v. Raja Partab Bahadur Singh AIR 1942 Privy Council 47 2162/2197, 2405/2429, 2774/2667, 2914/2773 528. Raja Rajinder Chand v. Mst. Sukhi and others AIR 1957 S.C 286 4444/5011 529. Raja Ram Maize Products v. Industrial Court of M.P 2001 (4) SCC 492 2439/2444 530. Raja Ramaswami (dead) and Ors. v. Govindammal and Ors. AIR 1929 Mad 313 2166/2199, 2401/2426 531. Raja Shumsher Bahadoor v. Mirja Mahomed Ali 1036/1268 (1867) Agra H.C.R 158 532. Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Isakapalli Subbiah & Ors. ILR (26) Madras 410 2162/2197, 2255/2250, 2425/2438 533. Rajah of Venkatgiri v. Provinces of Madras AIR (34) 1947 Madras 5 923/1194 534. Rajendra Singh & others v. Santa Singh AIR 1973 SC 2537 2289/2273 535. Ram Bharos Lall v. Gopee Beebee (1874) 6 NWP 66 1031/1265, 1036/1268 536. Ram Chandra Mission v. Umesh Chandra Saxena and others 1997 ACJ 896 845/1152, 1042/1272 537. Ram Chandra v. District Magistrate, AIR 1952 All. 520 1230/1405 538. Ram Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381 3574/3579 539. Ram Charan Das v. Naurangi Lal & Ors. AIR 1933 Privy Council 75 2774/2668, 2856/2735, 2905/2767, 2905/2767 540. Ram Gobinda Daw v. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664 951/1209 541. Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors. v. 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 v. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.) 269 (P.C) 889/1179 543. Ram Lal & another v. Board of Revenue & Others, 1990 (1) RLR 161 2595/2547 544. Ram Murti v. Puran Singh AIR 1963 Punjab 393 2193/2213 545. Ram Nandan v. State, AIR 1959 All 101 1222/1402 546. Ram Naresh v. State of U.P 2003 (21) LCD 1120 852/1156, 1046/1273 547. Ram Parkash Das v. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 686/1003 1916 Privy Council 256 548. Ram Ratan Lal v. Kashi Nath Tewari, AIR 1966 Patna 235 1929/2012 549. Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College & others AIR 1987 SC 1242 3981/4294 550. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP. and others 1985 (1) SCC 427 2245/2243 551. Rama Shankar Singh & another v. Shyamlata Devi & another others AIR 1970 SC 716 2289/2273 552. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 (3) SCC 489 1215/1398 553. Ramareddy v. Ranga 1925 ILR 49 Mad 543 2596/2548 554. Rambrahma Chatterjee v. Kedar Nath Banerjee AIR 1923 Cal 60 1781/1885, 1783/1886, 1784/1886, 2685/2596 555. Ramesh B. Desai and others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others 2006 (5) SCC 638 2281/2270 556. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. JT 2009 (12) SC 377 3587/3584, 3588/3585, 3589/3586 557. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & others (1992) 2 SCC 524 2125/2178 558. Rameswar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and others AIR 1986 Cal. 19 1036/1269 559. Rami Kuar Mani Singh v. Nawab of Murshidabad AIR 1918 PC 180 2652/2579 560. Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497 1048/1274 561. Ramprakash v. Ananda Das 43 Cal. 707 2854/2734 562. Ramzan & Anr. v. Mohammad Ahmad Khan AIR 1936 Oudh 207 2859/2736 563. Ramzan & Ors. v. Smt. Gafooran & Ors.. AIR 2008 All 37 2774/2668, 2913/2773, 2923/2780 564. Ranchordas Vandravandas v. Parvatibai 29 I.A 71 (P.C) 2196/2214, 2289/2211 565. Ranee Sonet Kowar v. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor (2) LR 3 IA 92, 101, 4442/5011 566. Ranganayakamma & another v. K.S Prakash JT 2008 (8) SC 510 3041/2864 567. Rao Bahadur Man Singh v. 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 v. 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 v. Mahendra Singh and others, (2003) 10 SCC 200 3244/3131 573. Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 2879/2752 574. RT. Munichikanna Reddy v. Revamma, 2007 (25) LCD 1374 (SC) 2778/2675 575. Run Bahadur Singh v. Lucho Koer ILR (1885) 11 Cal 301 943/1204 576. S. Darshan Lal v. Dr. R.S.S Dalliwall, 1952 All 825 (DB) 2585/2540, 3245/3132 577. S. R. Bommai and others v. Union of India and others AIR 1994 SC 1918 734/1033 578. S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurucharan Singh Tohra and others 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 53. 635/977 579. S.M Karim Alias Tamanna Sabeb v. Mst Bibi Sakina . AIR 1964 SC 1254; 2774/2668, 2926/2788, 2997/2830 580. S.N Dutt v. Union Of India , AIR 1961 SC 1449. 638/978 581. S.P Mittal v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 715/1024, 716/1024, 733/1033 582. Saddiq Ali v. State 1981 CrLJ 379 3553/3567 583. Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar and 2246/2246 others 1984 (3) SCC 410 584. Said Maher Hussain v. Haji Alimahomed Jalaludin and others, AIR 1934 Bombay 257 3248/3133 585. Sailendra Kishore v. Harekrishna AIR 1978 Orissa 125 3556/3568 586. Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam AIR 1971 SC 1865 3556/3568 587. Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos v. Saiyad Mahomed El Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217 941/1201 588. Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E Edr. (D) By LRS. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3) SCC 350 941/1200, 942/1204, 944/1205, 1051/1278 589. Salamat Raj v. Nur Mohamed Khan (1934) ILR 9 Lucknow 475 2193/2213 590. Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti ILR 2 (1878-81) Madras 175 682/999, 684/1002 591. Sangram Singh v. 1. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 634/976 592. Sankar Kumar v. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998 Orissa 117 3753/3792 593. Saqlain Ahmad…Applicant; v. Emperor…Opposite Party. AIR 1936 Alld. 165 3568/3577 594. Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union Of India. (2008) 2 SCC 417 3047/2867 595. Sarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar, AIR 1966 SC 1603 1707/1837, 1869/1965, 2708/2608 596. Saraswathi Ammal & Anr. v. Rajagopal Ammal AIR 1953 SC 491 1699/1819, 1848/1941 597. Sarat Kamini Dasi v. Nagendra Nath Pal AIR 1926 Cal. 65 2652/2579 598. Sardar Ali Raza khan v. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243 4562/5076 599. Sardar Sarup Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1959 SC 860 744/1039, 3500/3494 600. Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb v. State of 741/1037, 3500/3494 Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 601. Saroja v. Chinnusamy (2007) 8 SCC 329 1056/1279, 1057/1280 602. Saroop Singh v. Banto and others, 2005(8) SCC 330 2847/2730 603. Sarwarlal v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC 862 4460/5013 604. Satya Charan Sarkar v. Mohanta Rudrananda Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716 693/1007 605. Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U.P & others 2007 (2) ARC 308 2126/2179 606. Satya Niranjan v. Ramlal, 1925 P.C 42 2417/2434 607. Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India AIR 1966 SC 1068 631/975, 657/987 608. Sayed Abdula Edrus v. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555 941/1201 609. Sayed Mohd. v. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285 941/1202 610. Secretary of State for India In Council v. Gulam Rasul Gyasudin Kuwari (1916) ILR XL (Bom.) 392 625/973 611. Secretary of State for India In Council v. Perumal Pillai and others (1900) ILR 24 (Mad.) 271 624/973 612. Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 PC 23, page 25 2844/2729, 2858/2735 613. Secretary of State v. Chelikani Rama Rao, (1916) 39 Mad. 617 2209/2217 614. Secretary of State v. Krishnamoni Gupta (1902) 29 Cal. 518 2429/2439 615. Seshammal v. State of T.N AIR 1972 SC 1586 1761/1872 616. Seth Narainbhai Ichharam Kurmi and another v. Narbada Prasad Sheosahai Pande and others, AIR 1941 Nagpur 357 2813/2702 617. Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad. AIR 2009 SC 2463 2999/2838, 3014/2845 3039/2862 618. Sewkissendas Bhatter & others v. Dominion of India AIR 1957 Cal. 617 2102/2171 619. Shakuntalabai and another v. L.V Kulkarni and another, 1989 (2) SCC 526 3415/3340 620. Shankar Lal & Anr. v. Mahbub Shah & Anr. AIR 1923 Oudh 59 2310/2295 621. Shankarrao Sitaramji Satpute & Ors. v. Annapurnabai AIR 1961 Bombay 266 2450/2451 622. Shanker Das v. Said Ahmad (1884) P.R No. 153 of 1884 3268/3144 623. Shantha Nand Gir Chela v. Basudevanand AIR 1930 Alld. 225 881/1168 624. Shanti Kuamr Panda v. Shakuntala Devi JT 2005 (11) SC 122 2271/2262, 2272/2265, 2273/2265, 3039/2863 625. Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61 946/1206 626. Sharda v. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 3764/3797 627. Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway Co., L.R 8 Ch. App. 597 at pp. 609 1933/2016 628. Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & others v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another AIR 1966 SC 1119 1853/1947 629. Sheo Raj Chamar & another v. Mudeer Khan & others AIR 1934 All. 868 2846/2730 630. Sheo Ramji v. Ridhnath Mahadeo Ji AIR 1923 All. 160 1813/1912 631. Sheodhan Singh v. Daryo Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332 1045/1273 632. Sheoparsan Singh and others v. Ramnandan Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N 738 (P.C) 893/1182, 894/1182 633. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 3349 958/1212, 1061/1284, 1835/1934 634. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass & Ors. (2000) 4 1041/1271, 1699/1819, 1707/1837, 1803/1907, SCC 146=AIR 2000 SC 1421 1805/1909, 1911/1984, 1914/1987, 1915/1989, 2703/2605 635. Shiv Charan v. State of U.P, AIR 1965 (All.) 511 981/1231 636. Shivagonda Subraigonda Patil v. Rudragonda Bhimagonda Patil 1969 (3) SCC 211 2229/2234 637. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan v. Mahadba Romaji Bidkar & Others AIR 1953 Bombay 38. 1822/1919, 2681/2594 638. Shri Krishna Singh v. 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 v. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna) 320 930/1197 640. Shyam Sunder Prasad & Others v. Raj Pal Singh & Anr. 1995(1) SCC 311 2162/2196, 2164/2198, 2212/2219, 2458/2454, 2774/2668 641. Sidram Lachmaya v. Mallaya Lingaya AIR (36) 1949 Bom. 137 2196/2214 642. Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC 1211 1061/1284 643. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf U.P and others, AIR 1959 SC 198 1137/1345, 2433/2441 644. Siris Chandra Nandy v. Rakhala Nanda AIR 1941 PC 16 3545/3564 645. Sita Nath Basak v. Mohini Mohan Singh AIR 1924 Cal. 595 3573/3578 646. Sitaram v. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 923/1194 647. Sitaramacharya v. Gururajacharya, 1997(2) SCC 548 1991/2070 648. Sm. Bibhabati Devi v. Ramendra Narayan Roy & others AIR 1947 Privy Council 19 2774/2667, 2871/2750 649. Smt. Bitola Kuer v. Sri Ram Charan & Ors. AIR 1978 All 555 2774/2668, 2911/2772 650. Smt. Dhana Kuer v. Kashi Nath Chaubey, 1967 AWR 290 1060/1282 651. Smt. Neelawwa v. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 Kar. 45 4563/5076 652. Smt. Panna Banerjee and Ors. v. Kali Kinkor Ganguli AIR 1974 Cal. 126 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1799/1900, 2696/2602 653. Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others v. Abdul Qadir and others AIR 1966 Alld. 318 845/1152, 1029/1263, 1030/1264, 1031/1265, 1036/1268, 1042/1272 654. Smt. Raj Kumari v. Board of Revenue U.P, AIR 1985 RD 33 653/985, 658/978 655. Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others v. Banamali Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33 901/1184, 952/1209 656. Smt. Sushma Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy AIR 1955 Cal 624 1929/2013 657. Soorjomonee Dayee v. Suddanund Mahapatter (1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C) 885/1175 658. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P and others 2003 (8) SCC 648 3121/2967, 3122/2968 659. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors. v. 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 v. Sri Asoke Kumar Chattopadhyayay & others, 96 CWN 886 2595/2548 661. Sri Chand Batra v. State of U.P AIR 1974 SC 639 3581/3581 662. Sri Gopal v. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld. 429 (PC) 947/1207 663. Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani & others v. 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 v. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita & others JT 1996 (3) SC 268 2356/2366 666. Sri Nitai Gour Radheshyam v. Harekrishna 1927/2011 Adhikari and others AIR 1957 Cal. 77 667. Sri Ramjee and others v. Bishwanath Pd. Sah and others AIR 1978 Patna 129 953/1209 668. Sri Sri Gopal Jew v. Baldeo Narain Singh and others, 51 CWN 383 1933/2015, 1934/2016, 1935/2018 669. Sri Sri Ishwar Lakshi Durga v. Surendra Nath Sarhar 45 C.W.N 665 1940/2024 670. Sri Thakur Kirshna Chandramajju v. Kanhayalal and others AIR 1961 Allahabad 206 1932/2015 671. Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C 123 687/1004, 699/1010, 1806/1909, 3270/3146, 3303/3253, 3424/3347 672. Srikant v. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others (2007) 1 SCC 486 1055/1279 673. Srikant v. King Emperor (1905) 2 ALJ 444 3576/3580 674. Srikanti v. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R 226 955/1210 675. State Bank of India v. Firm Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal and sons and another AIR 2003 (Alld.) 337 845/1152, 1042/1272 676. State Bank of India v. Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and Others 2009 CLC 73 1262/1417 677. State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Pioneer Builders AIR 2007 SC 113 622/972 678. State of Bihar & others v. Bhabapritananda Ojha AIR 1959 SC 1073 1400/1560 679. State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 3768/3798 680. State of Bihar and others v. Ramdeo Yadav and others, 1996(2) SCC 493 1048/1274 681. State of Bihar and others v. 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 v. Chhaganlal Gangaram 1808/1911 Lavar, AIR 1955 Bom. 1 683. State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala, AIR 1964 SC 1043 3380/3308, 3381/3309, 3385/3310 684. State Of Haryana v. Ram Singh. (2002) 2 SCC 426, 3578/3580 685. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318 3584/3582, 3622/3639 686. State of Karnataka and another v. All India Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) SCC 683 840/1150, 906/1185, 1003/1245 687. State of Maharashtra v. M/s. National Construction Company, Bombay AIR 1996 SC 2367 852/1156, 1045/1273 688. State of Punjab and others v. M/s. Surinder Kumar and Co. and others, AIR 1997 SC 809 841/1150, 1011/1250 689. State of Punjab v. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, 1993(3) SCC 459 3384/3310 690. State Of Punjab v. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd. 1978 (1) SCC 68=1978 SC 1608 627/974, 637/977 691. State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 669 1228/1404 692. State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna 2001 (2) SCC 330 3773/3805 693. State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sajjanlal Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706=1974 SCC (1) 500 1861/1962, 4453/5013 694. State of T.N v. T. Thulasingam and others 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 405 2777/2669 695. State Of U.P v. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680 947/1207, 1007/1246 696. State of U.P v. Nemchandra Jain, 1984 (2) SCC 405 1223/1402 697. State of UP & another v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd, (1991) 4 SCC 139 2778/2675 698. State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Jagdish 1052/1278 Sharan Agrawal and others (2009) 1 SCC 689 699. State of West Bengal and others v. Debdas Kumar and others 1991 (1) Suppl. SCC 138 1048/1274 700. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar & Anr. AIR (39) 1952 SC 75 1703/1821, 1877/1970 701. State v. Kanhu Charan Barik 1983 Cr.L.J 133 3565/3576 702. State v. S.J Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491 3559/3569 703. Subbaraya Gurukkal v. Chellappa Mudali 4 Mad. 315 1941/2025 704. Sudhindra Nath v. The King AIR (39) 1952 Cal. 422, 3577/3580 705. Sukhdev Sing v. Maharaja Bahadur Of Gidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288 1395/1559, 2226/2233 706. Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 5 1674/1793 707. Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair., AIR 1994 SC 152 840/1150, 904/1185, 943/1205, 1010/1250 708. Sumatibai Wasudeo Bachuwar Accused 2…Applicant; v. Emperor, AIR (31) 1944 Bom. 125 2814/2703 709. Sundar v. Parbati, (1889) 12 All 51 2203/2216 710. Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharm High School Trust v. Managing Committee, AIR 1938 PC 73 2262/2258 711. Sunita Devi v. 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 v. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others, AIR 1954 All. 88. 1137/1345 714. Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 52 2836/2725 715. Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, 2007 (6) SCC 186 3095/2897 716. Suraj Bhan v. Harchandgir 1954 PEPSU 65 (DB) 273/301 717. Surayya and another v. Annapurnamma, 1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699 4471/5023 718. Surayya Begum (Mst) v. Mohd. Usman and others, 1991(3) SCC 114 1061/1284 719. Surendra Krishna Roy v. Bhubaneswari Thakurani AIR (2) 1933 Cal. 295 1942/2027 720. Surendra Narayan Sarbadhikari v. Bholanath Roy Choudhuri AIR (30) 1943 Cal. 613 1940/2024 721. Suryanarayana & Ors. v. Bullayya & Ors. AIR 1927 Madras 568 2167/2199, 2448/2450 722. Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864 1401/1560 723. Syed Ali Mohammad v. Collector of Bhagalpur, AIR 1927 Patna 189 1111/1328 724. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & another v. State (Delhi Administration) & another JT 2009 (4) SC 522 3040/2864 725. Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & others v. Mohd. Hanifa & others AIR 1976 SC 1569 911/1188, 3234/3124, 3423/3344 3425/3348, 3426/3348 726. Syed Yousuf Yar Khan and others v. 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 v. Somalingappa and another 2006 (7) SCC 570 2774/2667, 2848/2730, 2851/2733 729. T. Shankar Prasad v. State Of A.P., 2004(3) SCC 753 1998/2077, 2008/2083 730. T.B Ramachandra Rao and another v. A.N.S Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80 895/1182 731. T.K Gopal Alias Gopi v. State Of Karnataka, 2000 (6) SCC 168 719/1027 732. T.R.K Ramaswami Servai & Anr. v. 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 v. 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 v. Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 P.C page 1 839/1149, 920/1191, 993/1237, 1943/2028 735. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal, AIR 2002 SC 402 1161/1364 736. Tarit Bhusan Rai and another v. 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 v. State of Rajasthan & others, 1998 Raj 85 2595/2548, 2657/2582 738. Thakardwara Sheru Mal v. Ishar Das AIR 1928 Lah. 375 1737/1860 739. Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1955 SC 504 4449/5013 740. Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar., AIR 1995 SC 73 2845/2730, 2879/2753 741. Thamba v. Arundel I.L.R 6 Mad. 287 692/1007 742. Thayarammal v. Kanakammal & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 457 1699/1819, 1707/1837, 1874/1967 743. The Advocate-General of Bengal on behalf of Her Majesty v. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee in Moore's Indian Appeals (1863-1864) 9 MIA 387 3303/3255 744. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v. Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057 1786/1887 745. The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan v. Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 SC 289 1142/1351 746. The Delhi and London Bank v. Orchard, I.L.R 3 2177/2204 (1876) Calcutta 47 (PC) 747. The East India Company v. Oditchurn Paul 1849 (Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies) 43 2172/2201 748. The Firm of Eng Gim Moh v. The Chinese Merited Banking Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1940 Rangoon 276 2162/2197, 2432/2441 749. The Mayor of the City of Lyons v. the Hon'ble The East India Company, Moore' Indian Appeals (1836-1837) 1 MIA 175 3303/3257 750. The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram. AIR 1979 SC 14 3589/3586 751. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. 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 v. Simanchal Rath & others, 1994(II) OLR 602 2595/2548, 2659/2582 754. Tulsidas v. Sidahinath (9) I.C 650) 1940/2025 755. U.P Shia Central Board of Waqf v. U.P Sunni Central Board of Waqf, AIR 2001 SC 2086 1163/1365, 1164/1367 756. U.P Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow v. State of U.P and others, 2006(6) ADJ 331 1148/1358, 1149/1358 757. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. 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 v. SICOM Ltd. and Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 635 1261/1417 760. Union of India v. 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 v. Sardara Singh 929/1197 and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354 763. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Samir Chandra Chaudhary, 2005(5) SCC 784 1992/2070 764. United States Shipping Board v. 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 v. 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 v. B.K Puttaramayya, ILR (1957) Mys 291:AIR 1958 Mys 93 1870/1965 769. V. Padmanabhan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board AIR 1989 Kerala 86 1231/1405 770. V. Seethaya & Ors. v. P. Subramanya Somayajulu & Anr. A.I.R 1929 Privy Council 115 3044/2865 771. Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State AIR 1924 PC 216 3379/3307, 4445/5012 772. Vallabhacharya Swami Varu (Deity) of Swarna v. Deevi Hanumancharyulu, AIR 1979 SC 1147 1707/1837 773. Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple v. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355 943/1205, 1050/1278 774. Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese 2004(6) SCC 378 3758/3794 775. Vasant Ambadas Pandit v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others AIR 1981 Bombay 394 636/977, 637/977 776. Vellayan Chettiar v. Government of Province of Madras AIR 1947 PC 197 629/974, 657/987 777. Velluswami v. Raj Nainar 1959 SC 422 (426) 2592/2546 778. Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436 1707/1837, 1947/2034, 4476/5029 779. Vembagounder v. Pooncholai Gounder AIR 1996 Madras 347 3751/3791 780. Venkata Chandrayya v. Venkata Rama Reddy, (1899) 22 Madras 256 929/1197 781. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 744/1040, 1761/1871, 1856/1957 782. Venkataramana Moorthy v. Sri Rama Mandhiram (1964) 2 An.WR 457 1741/1861, 1845/1940 783. Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy, 1966 Supp SCR 270 1707/1836 784. Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496 2877/2752 785. Vidya v. Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302; 2854/2734 786. Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435 684/1002, 1769/1877 787. Vimla Bai v. Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2 SCC 22 3363/3302, 3500/3494 788. Vishwambhar & Ors. v. Laxminarain & Anr. 2001 (6) SCC 163 2435/2442 789. Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale v. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale and others, JT 2009(5) SC 395 2853/2734, 2947/2804 790. Vithal Yeshwant Jathar v. Shikandarkhan Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385 961/1217 791. Wahid Ali & another v. 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 v. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225 957/1212 794. West Rand Gold mining Co. v. The King (1905) 2 KB 391 2862/2739 795. Williams v. Lourdusamy & another (2008) 5 SCC 647 1051/1278 796. Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) v. Nanilal 1406/1561 Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 404 797. Yeknath v. Bahia AIR 1925 Nagpur 236 (1) 2162/2197, 2257/2251 798. Yeshwant Govardhan v. Totaram Avasu AIR 1958 Bom. 28 1031/1265, 1036/1269

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 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, 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, 36. Balmiki Ramayan (Book No. 47) 1533/1648, 1566/1673 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 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, 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, 78. Hadith Sahih Muslim 3199/3044, 3200/3045 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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