Unknown v. Walford 5

that the suit as framed for a declaration simpliciter was not maintainable under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for the defendants are in possession of the 5028 property in suit. In our view the defendants as well as the Court below misconceived the provisions of Section 34 of the S. R. Act. Section 34 of the S. R. Act provides that any person entitled to any loyal character or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right and the Court may in its discretion make such a declaration. There is a proviso attached to Section 34 which contemplates that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so. It is under this proviso that the defendants contended that the suit for mere declaration was not tenable without seeking further relief of possession. In our opinion the present suit does not fall under Section 34 of the Act for the reason that the present suit was not instituted by the Anjuman for a declaration of its own right or title to property in suit, or its right to a legal character. But it was a suit, on the other hand, to challenge the defendants assertion for right to property and their legal character in respect thereof. But assuming the suit falls under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act yet it would he tenable for declaration simpliciter and the plaintiff will have locus standi to bring the suit because the plaintiff was not Mutwalli or trustee of the alleged wakf and it did not claim to possess the property in its own behalf. Therefore, the plaintiff was not legally entitled to possession. The plaintiff therefore could not have asked for any further relief for possession. In such a position it was not necessary at all for the plaintiff to claim 5029 any consequential relief and in our opinion there can be no doubt that in the circumstances of this case the plaintiff had a right to ask for a declaratory relief only that the suit property was wakf and not the private property of the defendants. In this view of the matter we are supported by the decisions in Ram Rup v. Sarn Dayal, AIR 1936 Lah. 283 decided by Coldstream, J.-- and Abdul Rahim v. Faqir Mohd, Shah, AIR 1946 Nag. 401."

4476. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 has been explained by the Apex Court in Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy (supra) and in para 11 it says:

"11. In our opinion, S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the section. It follows, therefore, in the present case that the suit of the plaintiff for a declaration that the compromise decree is not binding on the deity is maintainable as falling outside the purview of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act."

4477. In the context of a suit filed for the benefit of deity by the next friend, the Court held that a mere declaratory suit is proper. In paras 10 and 12 of the judgment the Court held:

"10. The legal position is also well-established that the worshipper of a Hindu temple is entitled, in certain circumstances, to bring a suit for declaration that the alienation of the temple properties by the de jure Shebait is invalid and not binding upon the temple. If a Shebait has improperly alienated trust property a suit can be brought 5030 by any person interested for a declaration that such alienation is not binding upon the deity but no decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the plaintiff in the suit has the present right to the possession. Worshippers of temples are in the position of cestuui que trustent or beneficiaries in a spiritual sense (See Vidhyapurna Thirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi Thirthaswami, 1904 ILR 27 Mad. 435 at page 451). Since the worshippers do not exercise the deity's power of suing to protect its own interests, they are not entitled to recover possession of the property improperly alienated by the Shebait, but they can be granted a declaratory decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity (See for example, Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v.

Kasturiranga Ayyangar, ILR 40 Mad 212:AIR 1917 Mad 112 (FB) and Chidambaranatha Thambiran v. P.S. Nallasiva Mudaliar, ILR 41 Mad 124:AIR 1918 Mad 464). It has also been decided by the Judicial Committee in Abdur Rahim v. Mahomed Barkat Ali, 55 Ind. App. 96: AIR 1928 PC 16 that a suit for a declaration that property belongs to a wakf can be maintained by Mahomedans interested in the wakf without the sanction of the Advocate-General, and a declaration can be given in such a suit that the plaintiff is not bound by the compromise decree relating to wakf properties."

"12. The next question presented for determination in this case is whether the compromise decree is invalid for the reason that the Commissioner did not represent the deity. The High Court has taken the view that the 5031 Commissioner could not represent the deity because S. 20 of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act provided only that the administration of all the endowments shall be under the superintendence and control of the Commissioner. Mr. Babula Reddy took us through all the provisions of the Act but he was not able to satisfy us that the Commissioner had authority to represent the deity in the judicial proceedings. It is true that under S. 20 of the Act the Commissioner is vested with the power of superintendence and control over the temple but that does not mean that he has authority to represent the deity in proceedings before the District Judge under S. 85 of the Act. As a matter of law the only person who can represent the deity or who can bring a suit on behalf of the deity is the Shebait, and although a deity is a juridical person capable of holding property, it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held. The possession and management of the property with the right to sue in respect thereof are, in the normal course, vested in the Shebait, but where, however, the Shebait is negligent or where the Shebait himself is the guilty party against whom the deity needs relief it is open to the worshippers or other persons interested in the religious endowment to file suits for the protection of the trust properties. It is open, in such a case to the deity to file a suit through some person as next friend for recovery of possession of the property improperly alienated or for other relief. Such a next friend may be a person who is a worshipper of the deity or as a prospective Shebait is legally interested in the endowment. In a case where the 5032 Shebait has denied the right of the deity to the dedicated properties, it is obviously desirable that the deity should file the suit through a disinterested next friend, nominated by the court. The principle is clearly stated in Pramath Nath v. Pradymma Kumar, ILR 52 Cal. 809. That was a suit between contending Shebaits about the location of the deity, and the Judicial Committee held that the will of the idol on that question must be respect, and inasmuch as the idol was not represented otherwise than by Shebaits, it ought to appear through a disinterested next friend appointed by the Court. In the present case no such action was taken by the District Court in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and as there was no representation of the deity in that judicial proceeding it is manifest that the compromise decree cannot be binding upon the deity. It was also contended by Mr. P. Rama Reddy on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the compromise decree was beyond was beyond the scope of the proceedings in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 and was, therefore, invalid. In our opinion, this argument is well-founded and must prevail. The proceeding was brought under s. 84(2) of the old Act (Act II of 1927) for setting aside the order of the Board dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswami as a temple defined in S. 6, clause 17 of the Act and for a declaration that the temple was a private temple. After the passing of the new Act, namely Madras Act 19 of 1951, there was an amendment of the original petition and the amended petition included a prayer for a further declaration that the properties in dispute are the personal properties of the petitioner's 5033 family and not the properties of the temple. Such a declaration was outside the purview of S. 84(2) of Madras Act II of 1927 and could not have been granted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contention of respondent no. 1 is correct and that he is entitled to a declaratory decree that the compromise decree in O.P. no. 3 of 1950 was not valid and was not binding upon Sri Kodandaramaswami temple."

4478. No authority is cited by learned counsels to persuade us to take a different view. The suit in question cannot be held barred by Section 34 of Act 1963. The issue 18 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.

4479. (N) Others, if any:

4480. The discussions and the evidences, which we have already considered in respect to the above issues on the question of juridical person, next friend, limitation, possession/adverse possession and relating to characteristics of Mosque and Wakf, etc. there are some other issues which are mostly covered by the findings already recorded above and, hence, the same may also be dealt with hereat.

4481. Issue No. 2 (Suit-3):

"Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff no.1?"

4482. As is evident, the property in suit for the purpose of Suit-3 is the premises within the inner courtyard. The plaintiff, though claimed to be the owner thereof and its counsel has also made a statement to this effect under Order X Rule 2 C.P.C., but not even a single document has been placed on record to show 5034 the title. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff sought to claim acquisition of title by way of adverse possession against the Muslim parties. This claim we have already negatived above. We answer this issue in negative, i.e., against the plaintiff. 4483. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) reads as under:

"Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the said temple?"

4484. The plaintiff claim handing over of charge of the property in suit and the disputed structure to it instead of the Receiver. The basis of the claim is that the property in suit was all through a temple even before 1528 and has always been managed, possessed and owned by the plaintiff. It has however miserably failed to prove this fact. This aspect we have already discussed in detail while considering the issues relating to limitation and possession/adverse possession etc. We have also held that the idols were kept under the central dome inside the inner courtyard in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949. The plaintiffs having disputed this incident being a factitious and fabricated story, the question of their treating as Shebait in respect of the idols placed under the central dome on 22nd/23rd December, 1949 does not arise since according to their own pleadings, they have not admitted any where of taking care of the deity in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the disputed structure. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3), therefore, is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs. 4485. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3):

"Is the suit not maintainable as framed?" 4486. This issue has arisen for the reason that the property in dispute was attached and handed over to the Receiver 5035 pursuant to a statutory order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 29.12.1949. If the plaintiff (Suit-3) had any grievance, it could have filed objection before the Magistrate inasmuch order of attachment was a preliminary order and was subject to the final order under Section 145(2) Cr.P.C., but no such objection appears to have been filed by the plaintiff (Suit-3) before the Magistrate. The plaintiffs did not seek any declaration about its title or status and without determining the same, the Civil Judge could not have directed handing over charge from the Receiver to the plaintiff. It is for this reason, in our view, Suit-3 is not maintainable. The issue is answered accordingly.

4487. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4):

"Whether even after construction of the building in suit Deities of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan, Sri Ram Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and the said places continued to be visited by devotees for purposes of worship? If so, whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said Deities?"

4488. In view of our findings recorded in respect to Issue No. 1 (Suit-5), holding that the place can be a 'deity' and also in view of our finding recorded in respect to the issues relating to possession/adverse possession that the Hindus, believing the place in dispute as birthplace of Lord Rama, had been continuously vising it for the purpose of worship, it is evident that the status of place as deity had continued. We have already held that a deity is not damaged or comes to end due to destruction in any manner, since the spirit of Supreme Being 5036 continue to exist and it will not disappear, particularly when the deity is Swayambhu, i.e. self created. The property in dispute, therefore, has a dual character. Firstly, being birthplace of Lord Rama, as per the beliefs of Hindus, it is a Swyambhu deity and would continue so long as the place continue, but then, being an immovable property, it also has its nature as property. The question of owning the property is different than the status. On this aspect, we have to examine the relevant area. The area of fort of Lord Rama is said to be quite bigger. It is claimed to have several mansions (eight mansions), besides other kinds of structures. In various evidences, which we have already discussed, it is mentioned that the disputed structure was constructed on some part of the area covered by the Fort of Lord Rama. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) in 1989 claiming a much larger area. During the course of arguments, we inquired from the learned counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-5), Sri M.M. Pandey, as to what is his concept of place of birth. Whether he considered the area constituting deity equal to a small room or to a small house or a bigger house or the entire locality, city, province or country, as the case may be. Despite of our repeated query, learned counsel could not tell us as to what is his the concept of place of birth for the purpose of this case. Various religious literature, which have been placed before us, show that Ayodhya is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama. It did not specify any particular area or a particular place in Ayodhya. We have held that a place can be a deity and a Swyambhu deity. It is quite possible that the entire city may be held to be very pious and sacred on account of some occurrence of divinity or religious spirituality. It may happen that a small 5037 place may attain such a status. For example, the tree under which Gautam Buddha attained divine knowledge is considered to be extremely sacred and pious place by Buddhist. When Lord Rama born in Ayodhya and must have played and walked throughout thereat, entire the then territory of city of Ayodhya, from the point of view of all Hindu people, must acquire the status of reverence and piety, but then can it be said that such bigger place cannot absorb and accommodate persons having different faith or religion or those worship differently. No doubt true, if such absorption or accommodation has the result of extinguishing the very place of reverence, meaning thereby the very object of faith and belief may vanish, such absorption may not be allowed, but otherwise, in a country like ours, where unity in diversity is its characteristic, the existence of people or other faith, existence of their place of religion at a place, in wider sense as its known, cannot be ruled out and by necessity they will have to exist, live and survive together. There are several cities in India which are considered to be the place of reverence of highest degree like Kashi, Haridwar, Prayag, Ayodhya, Mathura etc. Can it be said in the independent India governed by a written Constitution the existence of or permissibility to establish or to create place of worship of people of different religion will depend upon undefined, unknown and unclassified kind of faith or belief of another section particularly when it is a case of a majority people in respect of a place. Nobody has ever bothered, the people of different religions in these very places of reverence have been residing thereat since time immemorial and have very well established temples of their faith. In all the places which are 5038 known to be major Tirtha places of Hindus, religious places of other religion are well established and there is complete comity and understanding between all the people. They all mutually respect the places of worship of different religions. At Ayodhya also a large number of Mosques are in existence, which have also came in evidence inasmuch some of the witnesses have estimated the number of Mosques in Ayodhya from 50 to 80. Even in the building in dispute, though the structure was raised as a Mosque known and called a Mosque, yet Hindus continued to visit it and worship thereat on account of their cemented faith and belief which could not be withered due to construction of such building. Simultaneously, Muslims also visited the premises, as we have already noticed, may be occasionally but the fact remains that they visited the premises and offered Namaz. This system and arrangement without any dispute had continued for almost hundred years as evident which we could get and notice above. There do not appear to be any grievance raised by any Hindu that the Muslims cannot visit the premises in dispute, i.e. inner courtyard and offer worship though against the visit of Hindus in the same premises several complaints were made from 1858 and onwards by Muslims, which are part of record.

4489. It has been pleaded and some religious texts have also been placed before us to show that in a place of worship Parikrama is an integral part and, therefore, in every temple around the deity a passage is always made to enable the worshippers to have a Parikrama of deity. In the building in dispute passage for Parikrama was available. It was, therefore, suggested that this Parikrama passage itself suggested that the 5039 building in dispute was not a mosque but the temple. Simultaneously it is also admitted that there are four kinds of Parikrama which the people normally observe at Ayodhya. One is the Parikrama in a particular place of worship for example in the disputed building where the Hindu people believe that Lord Rama was born. The other three kinds of Parikrama are known as "Panchkosi Parikrama", "Chaudahkosi Parikrama" and "Chaurasikosi Parikrama". We may extract statements of some of the witnesses just to illustrate these three later kinds of Parikrama.

‘‘विवादित परिसर के बाहर चारों ओर परिक्रमा मार्ग था जिस पर लोग परिक्रमा करते थे। मैंने भी वहाॅ परिक्रमा किया है।’’ (पेज 14) "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

‘‘मैंने वहाॅं पंचकोसी और चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा भी की है। पंचकोसी परिक्रमा क्षेत्र के अन्तरगत श्री अयोध्या जी और सरयू के ही किनारे-किनारे चलते-चलते राम गुलेला और बहुत से स्थान, जो सन्तो ने वहाॅं बना रखे है और भगवान को वहाॅं रखकर पूजा करते हैं, आते हैं। चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा के अन्तरगत गुप्तारघाट आता है इसके अतिरिक्त चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा के अन्तरगत रामघाट और बहुत सी ऐसी जगहें हैं जिनके नाम मैं नहीं जानता हूॅं, परन्तु हैं वे अवध क्षेत्र में ही। फैजाबाद शहर का काफी भाग चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा क्षेत्र के अन्तरगत आता है। इन दोनों परिक्रमाओं अर्थात चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा और पंचकोसी परिक्रमा का विशेष महत्व अक्षय नवमी को होता है।’’ (पेज 24-25) ''I have also performed 'Panchkosi' and 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation over there. The 5040 'Panchkosi' circumambulation region includes Sri Ayodhya Ji, Ram Gulela and many other places along the banks of Saryu, which have been set up over there by saints and who perform worship of deity installed over there. The Guptar ghat falls under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation. Besides this, under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation are the Ram ghat and many other places, whose names I do not know but they are in the Awadh area. A major part of Faizabad district falls under the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation area. Both these circumambulations i.e. the 'Chaudahkosi' circumambulation and the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation, have special importance on ‘परिक्रमा के समय हजारों लाखों लोग पूरे देशभर से व विदेशों से भी आते हैं। ये लोग रामलला जी के दर्शन करने व परिक्रमा करने आते हैं। सबसे पहले ये लोग सरयू जी में स्नान करते हैं, फिर रामजन्म भूमि के दर्शन करते हैं, उसके बाद परिक्रमा करते हैं। परिक्रमा के समय पूरी अयोध्या, उसके आस-पास के गाॅंव व फैजाबाद भी राम मय हो जाता है।’’ (पेज 26) "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

‘‘अयोध्या में चार प्रकार की परिक्रमा होती है उसमें पहली परिक्रमा 5041 मंदिर की होती है, जो मन्दिर के अन्दर-अन्दर होती है, दूसरी परिक्रमा पंचकोसी परिक्रमा होती है, तीसरी परिक्रमा चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा होती है, चैथी परिक्रमा 84 कोस की होती है, जो 24 दिन में पूर्ण होती है।’’ (पेज 14) "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

‘‘मैंने 14 कोसी तथा पंचकोसी परिक्रमाएं भी की हैं। रामजन्मभूमि की परिक्रमा मैंने कई बार किया है। चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा के अन्तरगत जनकौरा, गौशाला मन्दिर, गुरूकुल, कई ग्राम आते हैं। शीतल अमराई भी आती है। मैंने 84 कोसी परिक्रमा अयोध्या की किया है। इसमें कई क्षेत्र आते हैं। गोण्डा जनपद स्थित जमदग्नि आश्रम इस परिक्रमा के दौरान पड़ता है।’’ (पेज 22-23) ''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.'' महाराजा दशरथ के राजमहल का क्षेत्रफल जैसा कि बाल्मीकी रामायण में उल्लिखित है, अयोध्या के पाॅंच-कोस के अन्तर्गत स्थित है। स्वयं कहा कि यह पाॅंच कोस पंचकोसी परिक्रमा के अन्तरगत है, दशरथ के 5042 राजमहल की ही परिक्रमा होती है। जहाॅ से पंचकोसी परिक्रमा शुरू होती है, वहाॅं से महराजा दशरथ का राजमहल शुरू होता था तथा जहाॅ पर पंचकोसी परिक्रमा समाप्त होती है वहाॅं पर समाप्त होता था। इस समय पंचकोसी परिक्रमा कई स्थानों से शुरू होती है कोई ऋणमोचन घाट से, कोई झुमकी घाट से, कोई राजघाट से, कोई नयाघाट से शुरू करता है। परिक्रमा के पीछे जो लोग बसे हुए हैं, वे लोग परिक्रमा तपसीजी की छावनी के पास से ही शुरू करते हैं। जिन घाटों से परिक्रमा शुरू की जाती है, उन्हीं घाटों पर परिक्रमा समाप्त भी होती है तथा लोग परिक्रमा समाप्त करने के बाद सरयू में स्नान करते हैं। वह सभी घाट जहाॅं से परिक्रमा शुरू करने के बारे में बताया है, वह सभी सरयू के किनारे स्थित हैं। सरयू अयोध्या के उत्तर तरफ स्थित है इस परिक्रमा में दक्षिण तरफ इस समय के शीतलअमराई से लेकर लोग घूमते हैं। यह शीतल अमराई नामक स्थान अयोध्या में है। यह शीतल अमराई का स्थान विवादित स्थल से दो-ढाई किलोमीटर की दूरी पर होगा।’’ (पेज 64) "The area of the palace of King Dashrath, as mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana, extends over five-six 'kose' in Ayodhya. Stated on his own that this five 'kose' falls under the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation, the circumambulation is performed of the palace of King Dashrath. The palace of King Dashrath begins from the same place, from where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation starts, and it ends where the 'Panchkosi' circumambulation concludes. At present, 'Panchkosi' circumambulation starts from many places, some from Rinmochan ghat, some from Jhumki ghat, some from Rajghat and some from Nayaghat. The people residing in back of the circumambulation (path), start the circumambulation from near the 'Tapsiji ki Chavani'. The circumambulation concludes at the same ghat from where it starts and after concluding the circumambulation, people bathe in the Saryu. All these 5043 ghats, from where the circumambulation is stated to start, are situated along the banks of Saryu. Saryu is situated in north of Ayodhya. At present, people pass through Shitalamrai in south. This place called Shital Amrai is in Ayodhya. This place Shital Amrai, would be about 2-2½ kilometers away from the disputed site. ‘‘इस समय जो 84 कोसी परिक्रमा की जाती है, वह वर्तमान समय के अयोध्या को ही परिमापित करती है। यह परिक्रमा उत्तर तरफ जमदग्नि कुण्ड से जो गोण्डा जनपद में है शुरू होती है, जहाॅं पर राजा दशरथ की गौशाला थी।’’ (पेज 66) 84 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

‘‘दर्शन करने के बाद परिक्रमा की जाती थी मैं चैदह कोसी परिक्रमा के बाद पंचकोसी परिक्रमा करता था। पंचकोसी परिक्रमा एकादशी की तिथि को होती है। चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा करने में लगभग पूरा दिन लग जाता है। चैदहकोसी परिक्रमा करने में पूरी अयोध्या पड़ जाती है। परिक्रमा के अन्तरगत हनुमानगढ़ीमंदिर भी आ जाता है। कनक भवन तथा सुमित्रा भवन भी परिक्रमा के अंदर आ जाता है। मणिराम छावनी भी इसके अन्दर आ जाती है।’’ (पेज 6)"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 ‘‘रामजन्मभूमि परिसर में मैं चबूतरे की ही परिक्रमा करता था यह चबूतरा राम चबूतरा था।’’ (पेज 12) premises, I used to perform circumambulation of only the Chabutra. This Chabutra was the Ram Chabutra."(E.T.C.) 4490. If we believe what has been submitted by learned counsel for the Hindu parties to be correct that Parikrama is an integral part of worship of the deity and if this Parikrama passage is available in a place it should be treated in a temple, very interesting result may arrive in respect to these three kinds of large Parikrama. The area covered by Panchkosi Parikrama includes several localities of Ayodhya wherein number of muslim residences as well as their religious places are also covered. Similarly, Chaudahkosi Parikrama not only covered Ayodhya but some part of Faizabad also and there also similar result would arrive. Chaurasikosi Parikrama obviously goes much much beyond that. Can it be said that all the persons residing and the religious places of other religions constitute part and parcel of such a wider concept of temple. This is neither the intention nor can be accepted. When a person believe in respect to a place that it has divine power, Supreme Being exist thereat which may bless happiness, salvation etc. to the worshipper that does mean that this place of worship has to be 5045 identified in narrowest possible area. For example at Gangotri if one goes it is the particular temple or just above it the Gomukh which is considered sacred and not the entire area where the people also reside and do other daily activities. In the case of place in dispute also, unless we ascertain the exact place in respect whereof the belief of such a large Hindu people is continuing by tradition and custom from generations to generation, it cannot allow us to be guided with such kind of arguments which goes much beyond the belief but in the realm of the procedure of worship which is absolutely different. The core belief in the matter of religion which is essential is something different then what is incidental or ancillary. It is the former which is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution. 4491. In view of the above, to suggest that the entire property in dispute shall vest in the deity without there being any specificity regarding the area would neither be just nor rational. Many of the witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiff (Suit-5) as well as plaintiff (Suit-3) and other Hindu parties have averred that according to their faith, the place where the idols are kept, i.e., the area under the central dome of the disputed structure in inner courtyard is the place of birth of Lord Rama. If that be so, it may not be said that the entire property in the inner courtyard would vest in the deity. On this aspect we have already dealt with in detail while considering the issues relating to the place of birth of Lord Rama, i.e., the issues no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-5). 4492. So far as the property in the outer courtyard is concerned, we have already said that there existed several Hindu structures and the Hindu people used to visit thereat regularly 5046 without there being any intervention or interruption by the Muslim people at least for the last more than 90 years till the date of attachment, i.e., since 1856-57. The Hindu religious structures like Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara etc. are claimed to be managed by Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff (Suit-3). Though they have also stated that this is the place of birth of Lord Rama but those temples in outer courtyard, are being managed by them since the last several decades.

4493. The place of birth as we have already held, therefore, would continue to vest in the deity and in view of the fact that deity is indestructible and imperishable, even the construction of the building in dispute would make no impact on its sacredness and otherwise. So far as the religious structure within the outer courtyard are concerned, they cannot be said to be vested in the deity, (plaintiffs 1 and 2) for the reason that they are the temples claim to be possessed and managed by Nirmohi Akhara defendant no. 3, and its status having claimed as Shebait. This status of Nirmohi Akhara qua the religious structures of Hindus existing in the outer courtyard have not been controverted by anyone. Even OPW 1, the witness deposed on behalf of plaintiff (Suit-5) has also supported this case of Nirmohi Akhara.

4494. So far as the continuous visit of devotees concerned, we have already discussed this issue and held that despite of construction of disputed structure, Hindus continued to visit and worship the place which they believe to be the place of birth of Lord Rama. Simultaneously, in the same premises, muslims also offered their worship as we have already discussed in detail above.

4495. We, therefore, hold that so far as the premises which constitute the place of birth of Lord Rama, continue to vest in the deities, but so far as the Hindu religious structures existing in the outer courtyard are concerned, the same cannot be said to be the property of the plaintiffs (Suit-5), i.e., the deity of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Sthan Sri Ram Janambhumi as claimed by the defendant no. 13. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) is answered accordingly.

4496. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5):

"Whether the idol in question had been in existence under the "Shikhar" prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged in paragraph 44 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3?"

4497. We have already held while deciding Issues No 12 (Suit-4) and 3 (a) (Suit-5) that the idols under the central dome in the inner courtyard were placed in the night of 22nd/23rd, December, 1949 and since then are continuing as such in view of interim injunction granted by the Civil Court on 16.1.1950 and the subsequent stay orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court. In view thereof, no doubt that prior to 6th December, 1992, the idols were there but it cannot be said that the same remained there from time immemorial. Besides, this issue is in the context of the para 44 of additional written statement of defendant no. 3 which reads as under:

"That attachment made in the 1949 is only in respect of main building of Garbh Grahya Carrying three "Shikar ¼f'k[kj½ where in the deity of Bhagwan Sri Ram Chanraji is installed by Nirmohi Akhara from time beyond the human memory and are since then is management and possession 5048 of it till the said property attached. Therefore, plaintiff 3 can not claim any right to represent him."

4498. The pleading, however, do not talk of 6th December, 1992. On the contrary, it says when the attachment was made in 1949, at that time idols were installed in the main building much before and beyond the human memory, which we have already negatived. Hence, Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, as the idols in question did remain under the Sikhar prior to 6th December, 1992, but not from time immemorial and, instead, were kept thereat in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949. 4499. Issue No.15 (Suit-5):

"Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was always used by the Muslims only regularly for offering Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. to 22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?

4500. This issue has been framed assuming that the disputed structure was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or his agent. This aspect we have already discussed in detail while considering issues no. 6 (Suit-1), 5 (Suit-3) and 1(a) (Suit-4). We have already answered that the concerned parties have miserably failed to prove that it was so constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or any of his agent. That being so, the question of offering Namaj in the disputed structure since 1528 AD does not arise at all. With respect to the question as to whether Namaj was ever offered in the building in dispute we find that this aspect has also been discussed and answered in issues no. 15 (Suit-4), 1-B(c) (Suit-4) and 2 (Suit-4) wherein it has been held that the evidence which we have on record shows that atleast from 1860 and onwards Namaj has been offered in the building 5049 in dispute in the inner courtyard and the last Namaj was offered on 16th December, 1949. Accordingly issue 15 (Suit-5) is answered. We observe that though it is not proved that Namaj was offered in the building in dispute since 1528 AD, simultaneously it is also not proved that any Namaj was offered in the building in dispute after 16th December, 1949. However, we hold that between 1860 and up to 16th December, 1949 if not regularly, occasionally, intermittently Friday prayers, i.e., Jumma Namaj was offered in the disputed structure which was commonly known as Babri Masjid.

4501. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4):

"Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for possession?"

4502. It has been stated by several witnesses deposing on behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) that one Javvad Hussain was Mutwalli of the building in dispute in 1949 when the property in dispute was attached. Certain documents filed as Exhibit A 55 (Suit-1) (Register 8, page 503); Exhibit A 57 (Suit-1) (Register 8, page 507); and, Exhibit A 59 (Suit-1) (Register 8, page 511) as well as the report of Waqf Inspector dated 10th December, 1949 and 23rd December, 1949 also show that Javvad Hussain represented himself as Mutwalli of the building and the Inspector of Waqf requested Sunni Board to treat him and continue as Mutawalli of the waqf.

4503. Nothing to contradict the above has been placed on record. We need not to doubt the above stand of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) on this aspect but it is really surprising, had he been 5050 Mutawalli of the building in dispute, responsible for its proper management etc. yet at no point of time he took any step for protection of the building in dispute or to contest the cases in the Court in respect to said property. Not only this, but also the so called Imam, named Abdul Gaffar, as also one Ismail, Moazzim are also missing and they have also failed to take any step. Not even a complaint was filed by anyone of them, if anything wrong was done in the night of 22/23rd December, 1949 preventing them from discharging their duties as also preventing Muslims from offering Namaz in the building in dispute. It appears to us that Javvad Hussain was not a properly appointed Mutwalli of the building in dispute but he simply enjoyed the grant of village Bahoranpur and Sholapur and used to call him as "Nambardar" thereof. In order to justify the amount of revenue he used to realize from the said grant, on papers, he had shown the income and expenditures also but as a matter of fact, did not take care of the building in dispute. 4504. Be that as it may, in the absence of any other claimant and also in the absence of any procedure with respect to appointment of Mutwalli, person who ought to have managed the building in dispute, may be on account of the grant of the two villages, can be treated to be a de facto mutwalli. The Management being responsibility of a Mutwalli, the possession of the waqf can also be claimed by him since a worshiper is not entitled for the possession of a waqf property though he may be allowed to file a suit for protection of the property of waqf but possession of such waqf cannot be granted to such worshiper. 4505. In the result we answer Issue No.20(b) (Suit-4) holding that at the time of attachment of the building or when 5051 the suit in question was filed, Javvad Hussain was Mutawalli but in his absence or any other Mutawalli succeeding him, relief of possession cannot be allowed to the plaintiffs (Suit-4) who have come before this Court in the capacity of worshipers and not the person who can claim possession of waqf i.e. a Mutawalli. 4506. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5):

"Whether the defendant no.3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3?"

4507. Basically the objection relates to non service of notice under Section 80 CPC to the State Government. No such objection has been raised by the State Government or its authorities though they are impleaded as defendants no. 7, 8 and 9 to the Suit. Even a written statement has not been filed on behalf of the State Government or its officers. We have already held while considering issue no.10 (Suit-3), that objection regarding notice under Section 80 CPC cannot be taken by a private defendant, if no such objection has been raised and pressed by the State authorities. In view of our discussion and findings recorded in respect to issue no. 10 (Suit-3), we hold that the objection under para 49 of the additional written statement of defendant no. 3 is of no consequence. 4508. Coming to the first part of the issue that the defendant no. 3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the absence of any material to show that the defendant no. 3 was in possession of the property within the inner courtyard and looking after and managing the affairs as Shebait, no such right can be claimed by the defendant no. 3. On this aspect the case of 5052 defendant no. 3, i.e., Nirmohi Akhara has already been considered by us while discussing the issues relating to adverse possession. For the reasons thereof and as discussed, issue 7 (Suit-5) in its entirety is answered in negative. 4509. `Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5):

"Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a mosque on the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the plaint?"

"Whether on the averments made in paragraph 25 of the plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in dispute to constitute it as a mosque?"

4510. These issues are founded on the averments contained in paras 24 and 25 of the plaint which read as under:

"24. That such a structure raised by the force of arms on land belonging to the Plaintiff Deities, after destroying the ancient Temple situate thereat, with its materials including the Kasauti pillars with figures of Hindu gods carved thereon, could not be a mosque and did not become one in spite of the attempts to treat it as a mosque during the British rule after the annexation of Avadh. Some salient points with regard thereto are noted. Below. (A) According to the Koran, Allah spoke to the Prophet thus-

"And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the trangressers. And kill them wherever ye find them; and turn them out of that whereof they have dispossessed you; for temptation to idolatory is more grievous than slaughter. Yet fight not against them in the 5053 holy temple, until they attack you therein;..... (B) According to all the Muslim authorities and precedents and the decided cases also, ALLAH never accepts a dedication of property which does not belong to the Waqif that is, the person who purports to dedicate property to ALLAH for purposes recognised as pious or charitable, as waqf under the Muslim law. By his acts of trespass and violence for raising a mosque on the site of the Temple after destroying it by force, Mir Baqi committed a highly un-Islamic act. His attempt to convert the Temple into a mosque did not, therefore, create a valid dedication of property to ALLAH, whether in fact or in law, and it never became a mosque.

(C) That inspite of all that Mir Baqi tried to do with the Temple, the land always continued to vest in the Plaintiff Deities, and they never surrendered their possession over it. Their possession continued in fact and in law. The ASTHAN never went out of the possession of the Deity and HIS worshippers. They continued to worship HIM through such symbols as the CHARAN and SITA RASOI, and the idol of BHAGWAN SRI RAMA LALA VIRAJMAN on the Chabutra, called the Rama Chabutra, within the enclosed courtyard of the building directly in front of the arched opening of its Southern dome. No one could enter the building except after passing through these places of Hindu worship. According to the Muslim religion and law there can be no Idol worship within the courtyard of a mosque, and the passage to a mosque must be free and unobstructed and open at all times to the 'Faithful'. It can never be 5054 through a Hindu place of worship. There can be no co- sharing of title or possession with ALLAH in the case of a mosque. His possession must be exclusive. (D) A mosque must be built in a place of peace and quiet, but near to a place where there is a sizeable Muslim population, according to the tenets of Islam, and as insisted upon by it, a mosque cannot be built in a place which is surrounded on all sides by Temples, where the sound of music or conch shells or Ghanta Ghariyals must always disturb the peace and quiet of the place. (E) A mosque must have a minaret for calling the Azan. According to Baillie. "When an assembly of worshippers pray in a masjid with permission, that is delivery. But it is a condition that the prayers be with izan. Or the regular call, and be public not private, for though there should be an assembly yet if it is without izan. And the prayers are private instead of public, the place is no masjid. Accouding to the two disciples." (Pt. I. BK.IX, ch. VII Sec. I,p. 605) Indeed, there has been no mosque without a minaret after the first half century from the Flight. (See-P.R. Ganapathi Iyer's Law relating to Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments, 2 nd Edition, 1918. Chap. XVII, P. 388.) (F) According to the claim laid by the Muslims in their suit No. 12 of 1961, the building is surrounded on all sides by grave-yard known as 'Ganj Shahidan'. There is a mention in the Fyzabad Gazetteer also, quoted hereinabove, of the burial of 75 Muslims at the gate of the Janmasthan, and the place being known as Ganj Shahidan. After the battle of 1855. Although there are no graves 5055 anywhere near the building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, or in its precincts, or the area appurtenant thereto, for the last more than 50 years, if the building was surrounded by a grave-yard during the British times soon after the annexation of Avadh by them, the building could not be a mosque, and could not be used as a mosque, for the offering of prayers, except the funeral prayers on the death of a person buried therein, is prohibited in a grave-yard according to the Muslim authorities. (G) As already stated, there is no arrangement for storage of water for Vazoo and there are the Kasauti pillars with the figures of Hindu Gods and Godesses inscribed thereon in the building.

25. That the worship of the Plaintiff Deities has continued since ever throughout the ages at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi. The place belongs to the Deities. No valid waqf was ever created or could have been created of the place or any part of it, in view of the title and possession of the Plaintiff Deities thereon. ALLAH, as conceived by the Muslims, never got any title or possession over the premises or any part of them. Nor has there ever been any person, living or juridical, who might have put forward any claim to ownership of the property or any part of it. Occasional acts of trespass or attempts to get into possession by the muslims were successfully resisted and repulsed by the Hindus from time to time, and there was no blemish or dent in the continuity of title and possession of the Plaintiff Deities. No title could or did vest in ALLAH over any part of Sri Rama Janma Bhumi by adverse 5056 possession or in any other manner. Neither ALLAH nor any person on his behalf had any possession over any part of the premises at any time what-soever, not to speak of any adverse possession."

4511. We have discussed similar issues in the category of those relating to characteristics of mosque, dedication, valid waqf etc. In the light of the findings recorded therein we answer issues 10 and 11 (Suit-5) in affirmative. 4512. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5):

"Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3?"

4513. This issue emanate from the pleading of para 43 of the additional written statement of defendant no. 3 which reads as under:

"Para 43: That outer portion consisting of Bhagwan Ram Lala on Sri Ram Chabutara alongwith other deities, Chathi Pujan Sthan and Bhandar with eastern outer wall carrying engraved image of Varah Bhagwan with southern and northern wall and also western portion of all carries the present municipal no. 10/12/29 old 506, 507 and older 647 of Ram Kot ward of Ayodhya City had been a continuous referred in main litigation since 1885 till Reg. Suit no. 239/82 of the Court of Civil Judge Faizabad and in every case Nirmohi Akhara was held always in possession and management of this temple so the Bhagwan Ram Lalaji installed by Nirmohi Akhara on this Ram Chabutara is a distinct legal entity owned by def. no. 3. That suit is bad for want of impleadment of necessary party as mentioned 5057 above."

4514. What defendants no. 3 is that Bhagwan Ram Lala installed on Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard, though was in possession and management of Nirmohi Akhara, but being a distinct legal entity, ought to have been impleaded separately and in the absence thereof the suit is bad for want of necessary party.

4515. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Once Nirmohi Akhara admits that the deity at Ram Chabutara is managed by Nirmohi Akhara which is a Math, a legal entity, it stands in the position of Shebait to the said deity and in such a case it has well been held that right to sue or be sued vests in Shebait [See, Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (supra) and Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari (supra)]. 4516. We, therefore, find no substance in the above submission. Issue 19 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. 4517. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5):

"Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946 passed in Suit No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs?"

4518. Suit No. 29 of 1945 was an inter se dispute between the Shia Central Waqf Board and Sunni Central Waqf Board in respect to the property in dispute. Both were claiming it to be a waqf which ought to have been placed within their control. In respect to the suit and the judgment dated 30.03.1946 we have already considered the matter in detail while discussing issue no. 6 (Suit-3).

4519. Admittedly, the plaintiffs of suit in question were not party in the said suit. The judgment, therefore, cannot be 5058 said to be binding upon the plaintiffs. No authority on this question has been placed before us which is binding upon us to take a different view. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered holding that the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1946 in Suit No. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (Suit-5). 4520. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4):

"Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the building in question? If the finding is in the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the place in dispute?"

4521. We have already held that there existed a religious place of Non-Islamic character before the construction of the disputed structure. From the travel account of William Finch it is also evident that Hindus were worshipping in the Fort of Lord Rama, as he called it, when he visited Ayodhya between 1608 to 1611 AD. It is not the case of the Muslim parties that in that Fort of Lord Rama, besides the place in dispute, there was any other place known as place of birth of Lord Rama which the people used to worship at that time or thereafter also. The disputed structure, as we have already noticed, came into being after the visit of the William Finch but before the visit of father Joseph Tieffenthaler. He (Tieffenthaler) has also mentioned about the worship at the premises in dispute by Hindus during his visit, and, from the description he has given, we are satisfied that the said worship must have been near the structure itself. The cumulative effect of these facts as also the discussion we have already made in respect of various issues above, leaves no doubt 5059 in our mind that even before the construction of the building in dispute, the place which the Hindus believed the place of birth of Lord Rama, used to be worship. We have also held that according to faith, belief and tradition amongst Hindus it is the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure which they believe to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and worship thereat continuously. Therefore, in the absence of anything otherwise, it can safely be said that only this was the part of the property in dispute which was used as a place of worship by Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the building in question. To this extent the first part of the issue under consideration is answered in affirmative. 4522. So far as the second part is concerned, we do not find that it has any relevance being as a hypothetical question whether a mosque could have come into existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the place of dispute, at such place Hindus were worshiping earlier, for the reason that, as a matter of fact, a building was constructed as a mosque, centuries back, under the Sovereign's command. After its construction, the locals and the other called and treated it, 'a mosque', it was used later, may be intermittently, as we have already held, for offering namaz by Muslims also. It is a different thing that in the same premises Hindus also continued to visit and worship according to their faith and belief but that would not erode in any manner the factual establishment of a structure as a mosque. Whether a person who made this construction or allowed it at that time, acted in accordance with Islamic tenets or not, cannot allowed to be reviewed on judicial side in a court of law which is a creation of much subsequent period. The subsequent statutes not be 5060 applied to a sovereign function as sole Monarch, at a time when his command was supreme and unchallengeable. In our view it is not open to any party to raise such a dispute, which in effect require a judicial review of something which has been done by a king at a time when there was no codified law. We have no doubt in our mind that our jurisdiction to peep into such an objection cannot be stressed to such an extent. Sri Jain sought to refer Article 13 of the constitution and some other provisions but we find all those reference wholly misconceived and in our view the argument is simply noticed to be rejected. 4523. Issue No. 19 (c), Suit-4 is decided accordingly. 4524. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) read as under:

"(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a Chabutara under the canopy?

(c) Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after 6.12.1992 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989 and 15.11.91?

(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity."

4525. After the demolition of the disputed structure, the defendants no. 4 and 5 (Suit-5) filed an additional written statement dated 22nd August, 1995 and in para 3 and 13 thereof pleaded as under:

"3. That the contents of para 35 J of the Amended Plaint are denied as stated and in reply thereto it is submitted that the demolition of the Babri Masjid appeared to be a pre- planned, deliberate and intentional act on the part of the miscreants and criminals who had assembled at the site on 5061 the call of the Vishwa Hindi Parishad, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena etc. All the acts of the said so-called Kar Sewaks were totally illegal, unjustified and in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and amounted to blatant exercise of the Rule of Jungle and the so called construction of make-shift temple and placing of idols in the same on 7.12.92 was all totally illegal and contemptuous and the said idols could not be described as deity under Hindu Law also." "13. That the Plaintiffs have no cause of action and specially so when the idols placed in the Mosque surreptitiously in the night of 22nd -23rd December, 1949 have been removed on 6-12-1992. The claim, if any, regarding the said idols stood extinguished on the removal of the said idols."

4526. The submission of Sri Jilani and Sri Siddiqui is that once the Deity is removed from the place where it was consecrated or where it was being worshipped, it ceased to have the status of a deity on removal unless reconsecrated. Therefore, it is contended that plaintiff no.1 ceased to be a 'juristic personality' after its removal on 6th December, 1992, rendering suit not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the authority of "History of Dharmashatra" by P.V. Kane Chapter XXVI, page 904 which reads as under:

"Punah-pratistha :-(Re-consecration of images in temples). The Brahmapurana quoted by the Devapratisthatattva and the Nirnayasindhu says 'when an image is broken into two or is reduced to particles, is burnt, is removed from its pedestal, is insulted, has ceased to be worshipped, is 5062 touched by beasts like donkeys or falls on impure ground or is worshipped with mantras of other deities or is rendered impure by the touch of outcasts and the like-in these ten contingencies, god ceases to indwell therein.' When an image is polluted by (contact with) the blood of a brahmana or by the touch of a corpse or the touch of a patita it should be re-consecrated. If an image is broken in parts or reduced to particles it should be removed according to sastric rules and another should be installed in its place. When an image is broken or stolen a fast should be observed. If images of metal such as of copper are touched by thieves or candalas, they should be purified in the same way in which polluted vessels of those metals are purified and then they should be re-consecrated. If an image properly consecrated has had no worship performed without pre-meditation (i.e. owing to forgetfulness or neglect) for one night or a month or two months or the image is touched by a sudra or a woman in her monthly illness, then the image should have water adhivasa (placing in water) performed on it, and it should be bathed with water from a jar, then with pancagavya, then it should be bathed with pure water from jars to the accompaniment of the hymn to Purusa (Rg. X. 90) repeated 8000 times, 800 times or 28 times, worship should be offered with sandal- wood paste and flowers, naivedya (food) of rice cooked with jaggery should be offered. This is the way in which the re-consecration is effected."

4527. The matter of reconsecration as and when is required and what is a procedure, how it is to be observed, we 5063 have already discussed in detail while dealing with the issues relating to deities, their rights etc. i.e. issues No.12 and 21 (Suit-

4), issues no.1, 2, 3(a), 6 and 21 (Suit-5). The defendant no.3/1 on page 225, 232 of his statement has admitted of removal of deity, as existed under the central dome of the disputed structure upto 6th December, 1992 for a short while and says that the same were restored after a few hours at the same place. To the same effect is the statement of OPW 1-Mahant Paramhans Ram Chandra Das. Nothing has come on record contradicting the said statements of the two witness. Therefore, a very transition and temporary kind of removal is not disputed. The circumstances in which this removal took place is also known to all. A huge mob, in a most abominable manner, caused demolition of the disputed structure against all norms and principles of a civilized society. It is, however, not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have any role in this matter. Now, the question is whether such removal, whatsoever were the circumstances, is permissible and secondly; its effect in the light of the answer of the former. 4528. Fortunately, the issue is no more res integra. In Hari Raghunath Vs. Antaji Bhikaji (supra) the Bombay High Court considered this question and held:

"It is not disputed that the existing building is in a ruinous condition and that it may be that for the purpose of effecting the necessary repairs the image may have to be temporarily removed. Still the question is whether the defendant as manager is entitled to remove the image with a view to its installation in another building which is near the existing building. Taking the most liberal view of the powers of the manager, I do not think that as the manager 5064 of a public temple he can do what he claims the power to do, viz., to remove the image from its present position and to instal it in the new building. The image is consecrated in its present position for a number of years and there is the existing temple. To remove the image from that temple and to instal it in another building would be practically putting a new temple in place of the existing temple. Whatever may be the occasions on which the installation of a new image as a substitute for the old may be allowable according to the Hindu law, it is not shown on behalf of the defendant that the ruinous condition of the existing building is a ground for practically removing the image from its present place to a new place permanently. We are not concerned in this suit with the question of the temporary removal which may be necessary when the existing building is repaired."

4529. This decision in Hari Raghunath (supra) has been quoted and approved by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (supra) in para 36 and it says:

"The case is an authority for the proposition that the idol cannot be removed permanently to another place, because that would be tantamount to establishing a new temple. However, if the public agreed to a temporary removal, it could be done for a valid reason."

4530. Therefore in a give situation a temporary removal is permissible and that shall not cause any impact upon the authority and status of the deity.

4531. Now coming to the two orders referred to in issue no.3(c) of the Court, we find that this Court on 14th August, 5065 1989 passed the following order on an application filed by the State of U.P. under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. which reads:

"This is an application filed by the State of U.P. under Section 94 read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of injunction:-

(i) Restraining the plaintiffs and defendants from disturbing the status quo and organising any activity which may bring about confrontation between Hindus and Muslims and

(ii) Ensuring that orders passed by the Court are strictly enforced and are not breached.

We have heard Sri S.S.Bhatnagar, learned Advocate General in support of this application. We also heard Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary and Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who submitted in their arguments that the threats expressed by the learned Advocate-General in his application and in his arguments were groundless as no such situation as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application is in existence or is going to arise as the parties represented by them consisted of law abiding citizens and no breach of peace or any order of the court was intended by them. Sri Abdul Mannan, Counsel appearing for the other side, virtually supported by the application for injunction and narrated the dire consequences if the law is taken to hands by the parties.

In this connection, our attention was drawn to the following order dated 3.2.1986 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No.746 of 1986:-

"Until further orders of the Court, the nature of the property in question as existing today shall not be changed."

It was also brought to our notice that another learned single Judge of this Court has passed an order for appointment of receiver for the property in question in F.A.F.O. No.17 of 1977 on 23rd July, 1987.

In view of the order for appointment of receiver and the order dated 3.2.1986 which has become final, we are not inclined to accept that any of the parties will take law to hands and do anything which may culminate in law breaking. However, since in the writ petition, in which the order dated 3.2.1986 was passed, only some of the parties to the present suits were arrayed, we consider it necessary in the interest of justice that a similar order is adopted in each of the injunction applications in the present suits, as a result whereof until further orders of the Court, the parties to suits No.1 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.2 of 1950), 2 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.25 of 1950), 3 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.26 of 1959), 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12 of 1961) and 5 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.236 of 1989) shall maintain status quo and shall not change the nature of the property in question.

Sri V.K.S.Chaudhary strenuously contended that in view of the order appointing receiver, there was absolutely no justification for apprehending that the parties are likely to take the law to their hands, but by way of abundant caution, we have made the above order."

4532. A perusal of this order shows that the parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo, and, that they shall not 5067 change the nature of the property in question. There is no pleading by the defendants (Suit-5) that in demolition of the disputed structure etc., the plaintiffs are responsible or guilty of violation of this Court's order dated 14.08.1989. 4533. So far as order dated 15.11.1991 is concerned, Sri Jilani informed that no such order was passed by this Court but it appears that the Apex Court on some application had passed an order but the same has not been placed before us during the course of argument. Therefore, we are not able to consider and appreciate the same.

4534. In view thereof we answer issues no.3(b) and (d) (Suit-5) in affirmative and issue no.3(c) (Suit-5) in negative. 4535. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) reads as under:

"Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the "Shebait" of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed structure?" 4536. This issue has to be considered in the light of the pleadings of defendant Nirmohi Akhara. Its case is that since time immemorial the disputed structure was a temple. There was no demolition. No construction of mosque. The idol under the disputed structure also continued since time immemorial. This case of the Nirmohi Akhara has not been found correct. They have failed to prove it. We have already held so. It is not their case that the idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of 22/23 December, 1949 by any member or Mahants or Pujaris of Nirmohi Akhara and after such placing they continued to take care of the idols and it is the Nirmohi Akhara which is responsible for all this. In fact Nirmohi Akhara having taken a totally different stand, denied occurrence of any such incident.

4537. In these peculiar facts and circumstances and the stand of Nirmohi Akhara, we have no option but to hold that so far as the idols of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed structure i.e. within the inner courtyard is concerned, the defendant Nirmohi Akhara cannot said to be Shebait thereof. 4538. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) is accordingly answered against Nirmohi Akhara defendant No.3 (Suit-5). 4539. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4) "Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutawallis were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?"

4540. This issue has been framed in view of the plea taken by the defendants no.13, 20 and a few others that the building in dispute having been constructed by Mir Baqi, who was a Shia Muslim, the waqf cannot be a Sunni Waqf and therefore, plaintiff no.1 (Suit-4) has no authority to file the suit. We have already answered this question while considering the issue relating to wakf that if a mosque is constructed, under law of Shariat no distinction is made like Sunni mosque or Shia mosque. Every person, who is a worshipper of Islam, as a matter of right, is entitled to enter the mosque and offer Namaz. This aspect has been considered in three Full Bench decisions of this Court in Jangu & Others Vs. Ahmad Ullah (supra), Queen Empress Vs. Ramzan (supra) as well as in Ata-Ullah & another Vs. Azim-Ullah (supra). The above judgments have been discussed in detail in paras 3254 and 3256 of this 5069 judgment. It is only pursuant to the U.P. Act, 1936 or U.P. Act, 1960, for the effective management and superintendence of waqfs in the State of U.P., two Boards were created and for that purpose only, the waqfs were required to be identified whether a Sunni waqf or Shia Waqf.

4541. Be that as it may, before us, firstly, neither any evidence has been placed to show that Mir Baqi in fact existed during the regime of Babar, and, then nothing is there to prove about his religion, what it was. Some observations here and there by some writers and that too on a sheer guess work would not be sufficient for this Court to investigate into this factual position which relates back to an alleged event of almost 500 years back. Moreover, we have already held that the building in question has not been proved to have been constructed in 1528 AD by Mir Baqi. Therefore the question, whether it was a Sunni waqf or Shia waqf becomes redundant. Moreover, the rights of Hindus would in no manner would be affected whether the building in dispute, if mosque, constitute a 'Sunni Waqf' or 'Shia Waqf' since the consequence, if any, would flow in the same way and would be equal in both the cases. 4542. Our considered opinion is that nature of the waqf whether Sunni or Shia would not cause any impact upon the issues raised by the defendants Hindu parties in these cases. Therefore, for the purpose of suits in question, issue 20(a) (Suit-

4) is wholly irrelevant and need not to be answered. It is ordered accordingly.

4543. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) are as under:

"Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and 5070 if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no longer maintainable?"

"Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer prayer when structure which stood thereon has been demolished?"

4544. Both these issues are interconnected and can be decided together. The submission of the defendants-Hindu parties is that the plaintiffs are the beneficiaries in the sense that they are only the worshippers and in that capacity had filed the suit in question. This right of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) would continue only so long as the disputed structure was there and after its demolition since there cannot be a mosque in existence, the plaintiffs loose right of worship for all times to come and therefore, the suit in question is liable to be dismissed as no longer maintainable.

4545. On the contrary, the plaintiffs (Suit-4) have pleaded that once there is a waqf by construction of a mosque, it is not confined only to the building but to land also and therefore, even if the building is subsequently damaged, collapsed or demolished, it would not affect the rights of the Muslims to offer prayer (Namaz) at the site in dispute. Even if it is a open site, its status of mosque (waqf) will continue. 4546. While considering the issues relating to the mosque, we have already observed that a waqf can be created only when the wakif is the owner of the land and once he creates a waqf, the property in its entirety vest in the almighty and the wakif ceases to have any relation with the property thereafter. In the case in hand, we have already held that the building in dispute was constructed as mosque and it was so treated, believed and 5071 practiced by all concerned, which included the Hindus also. Moreover, in the absence of any claim as to title, the plaintiffs (Suit-4), have approached this Court on the basis of their interest in the property in dispute derived from possession in the sense of a right to offer Namaz at the disputed site. Such right, in our view, cannot be defeated merely by removing the construction, since the plaintiffs if had a right to possess the land in question, they can continue to maintain their suit irrespective of whether building in dispute has been demolished. 4547. In our view, issues no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are answered that as a result of the demolition of disputed structure, Suit-4 of the plaintiffs muslim parties cannot be said to be not maintainable. No further aspect need to be answered. Issues no.25 and 26 (Suit-4) are answered accordingly. 4548. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) read as under:

Issue No.3 "Has the plaintiff any right to worship the 'Charan Paduka' and the idols situated in the site in suit." Issue No.4 "Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in suit?"

4549. As we have already noticed, Charan Paduka i.e. Sita Rasoi is in the outer courtyard, there is no occasion to make any declaration in this regard. This is not within the scope of Suit-1. So far as the idol and right of Darshan of the place concerned, we have already held that place in suit, in so far as it constitute the place of birth of lord Rama can be visited for Darshan and worship by all the Hindus as a matter of right, who believed and aspire for the same. However, it cannot be said that while 5072 visiting a place for worship, the defendant State or others who are responsible for management of the place of worship cannot impose restrictions provided they are reasonable and necessary for the benefit and facility of the worshippers as also for the safety, security, cleanliness etc. of the deity. 4550. Therefore, subject to such reasonable restriction, as may be necessary in the given facts and circumstances, we hold that the plaintiff has a right to worship the place in suit to the extent it has been held by this Court constituting the birthplace of lord Rama, and if an idol is also placed in such a place, the same can also be worshipped accordingly. Both these issues are answered accordingly.

4551. Issues relating to reliefs:

4552. Issue No. 16, Suit-4:

"To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?"

4553. In view of our finding on Issue No. 3 since the suit is barred by limitation, the question of entitlement of any relief to the plaintiff does not arise as the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.

4554. Issue No. 17, Suit-1:

"To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" 4555. Since the site in dispute includes part of the land which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama and has been held to be a deity and place of worship of Hindus, the plaintiff's right to worship cannot be doubted. To this extent the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration, which is ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that such right of the plaintiff is always subject to restrictions which may be found 5073 necessary by the competent authority on account of security, safety and maintenance of the place of worship. Since the place of worship is a "Swayambhu deity", whether an idol is kept there or not, would make no difference and it is the matter to be seen by those who are responsible for management of such place, and according to the majority of the worshippers as to how they intend to keep and maintain the place of worship without disturbing its nature as deity. No individual worshipper can insist that such place of worship be maintained in a particular manner. Therefore, except the declaration as above, the plaintiff (Suit-1) is not entitled to any other relief. 4556. Issue No. 13, Suit-3:

"To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" 4557. In view of our findings in respect of issues no. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 14 the plaintiff, Suit-3, in our view, is not entitled to any relief.

4558. Issue no. 30, Suit-5:

"To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?"

4559. Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the entire premises described vide Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 belonged to the plaintiffs deities and also a permanent injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any objection to or placing any restriction on the construction of the new temple at Sri Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya. We have already held that the area under the central dome of the disputed construction believed and worshipped by the Hindu people as the place of birth of Lord Rama and they were worshiping thereat since time immemorial. This part of the land constitutes 5074 deity, "Sri Ram Janamsthan", and a place of special significance for Hindus. Therefore it has to be treated in a manner where the very right of worship of Hindus of place of birth of Lord Rama is not extinguished or otherwise interfered with. We have simultaneously held that so far as other land within the inner courtyard of the disputed structure is concerned, this open land had been continuously used by members of both the communities for their respective prayers and worship for decades and centuries.

4560. Though the prayer in the suit is worded in the different manner but for complete justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation as also the adjudication which may settled centuries old dispute finally, we are of the view that we can mould the wordings of the reliefs and can pass an order in respect to respective parties in this case which as suuch may not be covered by the form of relief but is within the scope of the case. In this regard we can rely on the provision under Order VII Rule 7 CPC.

4561. We may also referred to earlier decision of this Court in Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR 1954 All. 191, "A" and "B" were co-sharers. "A" sold a land to "C". "B" filed a suit claiming possession of the land stating that he was entitled for exclusive possession of the property as the said land was already in his possession to the exclusion of "A". A Single Judge of this Court held that "A" and "B", being co- sharers, "B" had no right to claim exclusive possession of the plot to the exclusion of "A" and similarly "A" had no right to transfer specific plot to "C" but can transfer his share in plot to "C" and, thereafter "A" and "C" will hold the plot in question as 5075 co-sharers. It also observed that if the prayer clause in a plaint is not properly worded, the Court should give due consideration to the decree which should be passed. This part of the observation is referable to Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. Judgment is relied on to overcome the difficulty in the suits with respect to the relief sought therein. In our view, Order VII Rule 7 can be resorted to by the Court when something can be found within the scope of the relief sought by the plaintiff or where a higher relief is claimed but the Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for a lesser relief but the scope of Order VII Rule 7 cannot be extended by widening the scope of the relief which has actually not been called for or to permit plaintiff to wriggle out of the statutory obstruction like limitation etc. on account of a relief claimed by him which is barred or prohibited or cannot be granted for one or the other reason. The Court will not proide a safe passage to a party by reading the words of the reliefs sought by it in a manner which may help it in overcoming the difficulty it otherwise is facing or is bound to face on account of the mandatory provisions of the statute of limitation etc. The scope of Order VII Rule 7 is not to use it as a leverage to help a party to the extent that the other party stand discriminated in an otherwise matter where other party is entitled to get the issue decided in its favour whether it is in respect to limitation, res judicata or similar other statutory provisions. It is the plaintiff who has to be careful enough to find out as to what grievance he actually has, what the real cause of action and what relief one must claim from the Court. The Court will not provide a comfortable question in the form of rewording of all these things to the extent it may change what has actually been 5076 changed by the plaintiff in its entirety. 4562. In order to mould relief under Order VII Rule 7, reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in Sardar Ali Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali Khan AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243, it was held therein that where more is claimed, the plaintiff may get what is found due to him even though less that what he has claimed. Where more is claimed any smaller amount may be given if found due to the plaintiff. This proposition cannot be doubted but then we may refer to the further observation of the Court that relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. It is not proper for a to Court to displace the case made by a party in his pleading and to give effect to an entirely new case which that party has not made out in his pleading and which he has expressly disclaimed. But where the substantial matters which constitute the title of all the parties are touched, though obscurely, in the issues, and they have been fully put in evidence and have formed the main subject of discussion in the Court, the Court may grant a relief though it may not be founded on the pleadings. Therefore, the mould of relief will depend upon the case and recourse to Order VII Rule 7 can be had only to the extent it do not make violence with the pleadings and reliefs in the suit. 4563. Considering the scope of Order VII Rule 7 C.P.C. in Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 Kar. 45, a Division Bench observed:

"The normal rule that relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted is not without an exception. Where substantial matters constituting the title of all the parities are touched in the issues and have been fully put in 5077 evidence the case does not fall within the aforesaid rule.

The Court has to look into the substance of the claim in determining the nature of the relief to be granted. Of course, the Court while moulding the relief must take care to see that relief it grants is not inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim, and is based on the same cause of action on which the relief claimed in the suit, that it occasions no prejudice or causes embarrassment to the other side; that it is not larger than the one claimed in the suit, even it the plaintiff is really entitled to it, unless he amends the plaint; that it had not been barred by time on the date of presentation of the plaint."

"No doubt the plaintiff has sought for exclusive title and he has not been able to prove his exclusive title; but has been able to prove, that he is entitled to a half share in the suit properties. When a party claims exclusive title to the suit property and is liable to establish that he is entitled to half of the suit property, it will not be unusual for the Court to pass a decree for partition and possession of his half share. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire property. When a larger relief is claimed and what is established, is not the entire relief claimed in the suit but a part of it, as whole includes a part, larger relief includes smaller relief, and it also arises out of the same cause of action. ... Therefore, even if a separate suit has to be filed for partition, the defendant does not have any sustainable defence. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the defendant/ respondent if a preliminary decree for partition 5078 and separate possession is passed in this suit itself." 4564. Relief of declaration and injunction is discretionary but it is the duty of the Court to administer justice between the parties and not to convert itself into instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others Vs. Lakshmi Narain (supra) the Court said:

"27. . . . . . the relief of declaration and injunction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act is purely discretionary and the plaintiff cannot claim it as of right. The relief has to be granted by the court according to sound legal principles and ex debito justitiae. The court has to administer justice between the parties and cannot convert itself into an instrument of injustice or an engine of oppression. In these circumstances, while exercising its discretionary powers the court must keep in mind the well settled principles of justice and fairplay and should exercise the discretion only if the ends of justice require it, for justice is not an object which can be administered in vacuum."

4565. In American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta Steep Co. (supra) the Court said:

"22. Undoubtedly declaration of the rights or status is one of discretion of the court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act is discretionary. The plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. It has to be granted according to sound principles of law and ex debito justicia. The court cannot convert itself 5079 into an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression. While exercising its discretionary power, the court must keep in its mind the well settled principles of justice and fair play and the discretion would be exercised keeping in view the ends of justice since justice is the hall mark and it cannot be administered in vacuum. Grant of declaration and injunction relating to commercial transactions tend to aid dishonesty and perfidy. Conversely refusal to grant relief generally encourages candour in business behaviour, facilitates free Row of capital, prompt compliance of covenants, sustained growth of commerce and above all inculcates respect for the efficacy of judicial adjudication. Before granting or refusing to grant of relief of declaration or injunction or both the court must weigh pros and cons in each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and exercise discretion with circumspection to further the ends of justice."

4566. In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on various issues, following directions and/or declaration, are given which in our view would meet the ends of justice:

(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this judgment.

(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by 5080 letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.

(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in Appendix

7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the absence of any person with better title.

(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places.

(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India.

(v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the 5081 people without disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).

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

(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute. 4567. Before parting with this matter, we find it necessary to place on record our appreciation to learned counsels, Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sri P.R. Ganpathi Ayer, Sri K.N. Bhat, Senior Advocates; Sri Zafaryab Jilani, Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Sri S.I. Ahamad, Sri C.M. Shukla, Sri S.P. Srivastava, Sri M.M. Pandey, Sri R.L. Verma, Sri Tarunjeet Verma, Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri Rakesh Pandey, Sri R.K. Srivastava, Sri P.N. Mishra, Amitabh Shukla, Sushri Ranjana Agnihotri, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sri D.P. Gupta, K.G. Mishra, Sri Fazle Alam, Sri Ved Prakash and Sri Ramakant Srivastava, Advocates who assisted us with ability and it is because of their hard labour in placing voluminous record including religious, historical and other kinds of texts etc., before the Court in a systematic manner that we have been 5082 able to decide one of the most delicate, complicated and cumbersome matter involving almost the entire population of the country. The cordial atmosphere, peaceful and amicable behaviour which they have shown in the Court also deserve our commendation.

4568. This was a gigantic and herculean task. The record of the case was so voluminous that without having a few very competent and expert hands we could not have accomplished our task. We place on record commendation to the able and effective assistance provided by Sri Hari Shankar Dube, O.S.D. Ayodhya Bench, Sri Chintamani Ram, Bench Secretary, and Sri Yusuf Khan, Court's Staff, S/Sri Akhilesh Kumar Nayak, P.S., Awadhesh Kumar, Puneet Srivastava, Kushal Agarwal, Yogendra Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Gupta and Alkesh who are the Court's personal staff and worked almost day-night enabling us to complete this matter.

4569. Since the judgment has become extremely bulky and it may be difficult to find different factual and legal aspects, therefore, for convenience we have prepared three indexes, (i) General Index, (ii) Citation; and, (iii) Reference Books which are appended with this judgment as Appendix Nos. 9, 8 and 10. 4570. The number of issues are 120 (including sub-issues). We, therefore, summarize our findings on different issues, suitwise, as under:

Suit-4

1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building in dispute was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi.

3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27 (Suit-4) are answered in affirmative.

4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative and it is held that the fact that the land in dispute entered in the records of the authorities as Nazul plot would make things difference.

5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered being irrelevant.

6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in question was not exclusively used by the members of muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard exclusively used by Hindu and inner courtyard had been visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both the communities.

7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.

8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs. It is held that Suit-4 is barred by limitation.

9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the erection of partition wall the premises in outer courtyard has not been shown to be used/possessed by muslim parties but so far as the inner courtyard is concerned it has been used by both the parties.

10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered against the plaintiffs.

11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in favour of defendants and Hindu parties in general.

12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22 (Suit-4), are answered in negative.

13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) not pressed by the defendants, 5084 hence not answered.

14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in favour of plaintiffs subject to that issue 6 (Suit-3) is also decided in favour of defendants (Suit-3).

15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held that there is nothing to show that Mahant Raghubar Das filed Suit-1885 on behalf of Janamsthan and whole body of persons interested in Janamsthan.

17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in negative to the extent that there is no admission by Mahant Raghubar Das plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title of Muslims to the property in dispute or any portion thereof. Consequently, the question of considering its effect does not arise.

19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs and muslims in general.

20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) answered in negative holding that no valid notification under Section 5(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 was issued.

23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-it is held that the decision of the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does not affect findings on issue 17 (Suit-4) and on the contrary the same stand supported and strengthen by the said judgment.

24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that the premises which is believed to be the place of birth of Lord Rama continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious structures in the outer courtyard cannot be said to be the property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative to the extent that the building was land locked and could not be reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu worship. However, this by itself was of no consequence.

26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that Hindus were worshipping at the place in dispute before construction of the disputed structure but that would not make any difference to the status of the building in dispute which came to be constructed at the command of the sole monarch having supreme power which cannot be adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted or formed much after, and according to the law which was not applicable at that time.

27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as the first part is concerned, is answered in affirmative. The second part is left unanswered being redundant. In the ultimate result the issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

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 22nd/23rd December, 1949 and prior thereto the same existed in the outer courtyard. Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was filed the said idol existed in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the disputed structure, i.e., prior to the filing of the suit. So far as the Charan Paduka is concerned, the said premises existed in the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is confined only to the inner courtyard, question of existence of Charan Paduka on the site in suit does not arise.

3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held that plaintiffs have right to worship. The place in suit to the extent it has been held by this Court to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if an idol is also placed in such a place the same can also be worshipped, but this is subject to reasonable restrictions like security, safety, maintenance etc.

4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and 11(a) (Suit-1) are answered in negative.

5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit 1885 was decided against Mahant Raghubar Das and he was not granted any relief by the respective courts, and, no more.

6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. The defendants have failed to prove that the property in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.

7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in negative, i.e., against the defendants muslim parties.

8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. Suit is not 5088 barred by proviso to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).

10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).

11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the plaintiffs.

12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs of Suit-1.

13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmative.

14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-1).

15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 as withdrawn.

16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have right of worship at the site in dispute including the part of the land which is held by this Court to be the place of birth of Lord Rama according to the faith and belief of Hindus but this right is subject to such restrictions as may be necessary by authorities concerned in regard to law and order, i.e., safety, security and also for the maintenance of place of worship etc. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any other relief.

Suit-3

1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered in negative.

2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.

3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in negative. The defendants have filed to prove that the property in dispute 5089 was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.

4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence answered in negative.

5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants in Suit-3.

6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in negative.

7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiff. It is also held that a private defendant cannot raise objection of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.

8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.

9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in view of the findings in respect of issues 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19.

10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the suit as framed is not maintainable.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-3).

12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiffs. Nirmohi Akhara is held a Panchayati Math of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its religious faith and pursuit according to its own customs. However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found sometime after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto. Suit-5

1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. Plaintiffs 5090 1 and 2 both are juridical persons.

2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as it is not necessary for the dispute in the case.

3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. The idols were installed under the central dome of the disputed building in the early hours of 23rd December, 1949.

4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and 24 (Suit-5) are answered in affirmative.

5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28 (Suit-5) are answered in negative.

6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. The idol in question kept under the Shikhar existed there prior to 6th December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and instead kept thereat in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.

7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against the defendant no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs.

10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not barred by limitation.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that the muslims at least from 1860 and onwards have visited the inner courtyard in the premises in dispute and have offered Namaj thereat. The last Namaj was offered on 16th December, 1949.

12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished nor the question of reacquisition """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_63"> 5091 thereof ever arise.

13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.

14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered being unnecessary for the dispute in the case in hand.

15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 4 and 5.

16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his the area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the judgment dated 30.03.1946 in Suit No. 29 of 1949 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (suit-5).

18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.

20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly decreed in the manner the directions are issued in para 4566. 4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4 are dismissed. Suit-5 is decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Dated: 30.09.2010 5092 APPENDIX-1 5093 APPENDIX-1A 5094 APPENDIX-1B (A fair copy of Appendix 1A, site plan map with Hindi Translation) 5095 APPENDIX-2 5096 APPENDIX-2A (A FAIR COPY OF APPENDIX-2) 5097 APPENDIX-2B 5098 APPENDIX-2C 5099 APPENDIX-3 61/280/1885 (EX. A-25 in OOS 1/89) 5100 APPENDIX-3A (A Fair of Appendix-3, Site Plan Map with Hindi Translation) 5101 APPENDIX-4 5102 APPENDIX-4A 5103 APPENDIX-4B 5104 APPENDIX-5A 200C1/48 5105 APPENDIX-5B 200C1/50 5106 APPENDIX-5C 200C1/51 5107 APPENDIX-5D 200C1/52 5108 APPENDIX-5E 200C1/54 5109 APPENDIX-5F 200C1/87 5110 APPENDIX-5G 200C1/104 5111 APPENDIX-5H 200C1/105 5112 APPENDIX-5 I 200C1/109 5113 APPENDIX-5 J 200C1/114 5114 APPENDIX-5K 200C1/115 5115 APPENDIX-5L 200C1/141 5116 APPENDIX-5M 200C1/146 5117 APPENDIX-5N 200C1/147 5118 APPENDIX-5O 200C1/166 5119 APPENDIX-5P 200C1/167 5120 APPENDIX-5Q 200C1/181 5121 APPENDIX-5R 200C1/186 5122 APPENDIX-5S 200C1/187 5123 APPENDIX-5T 200C1/195 5124 APPENDIX-5U 200C1/199 5125 APPENDIX-5V 200C1/200 5126 APPENDIX-5W 201C1/55 5127 APPENDIX-5X 201C1/57 5128 APPENDIX-5Y 201C1/76 5129 APPENDIX-5Z 201C1/88 5130 APPENDIX-5AA 201C1/91 5131 APPENDIX-5 BB 201C1/103 5132 APPENDIX-5CC 201C1/104 5133 APPENDIX-5DD 201C1/106 5134 APPENDIX-6 A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF TAHSIL FYZABAD, ZILLAH FYZABAD By P. CARNEGY (PUBLISHED IN 1887) 5135 APPENDIX-7 Copy of site plan (Appendix 2) with marking by the Court 5136 APPENDIX-8 General Index-Judgment Sl.No. Particulars Date Paras Pages

1. Party name and Counsels name 1-10

2. Rig-Veda X.129.1-3, 6, 7 11-13

3. Topography 2-5 13-15

4. Disputed Structure 6 15-16

5. O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989 16.1.1950 7-18 16-25

6. Reliefs (Suit-1) 8 17-18

7. Plaint (Suit-1) 9-11 18-20

8. W.S. of defendants no. 1 to 5 (Suit- 21.2.1950 12-13 20-23

1)

9. Replication to W.S. of defendants 5.12.1952 14-15 23-24 no. 1 to 5 (Suit-1)

10. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-1) 25.4.1950 16 24-25

11. W.S. of defendants no. 8 & 9 (Suit- 17 25

1)

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- 28.3.1960 23 29-31

3)

16. Replication to W.S. of defendants 24 31-33 no. 6 to 8 (Suit-3)

17. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit- 24.8.1995 25 33-34

3)

18. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-3) 21.10.1991 26 34-35 5137

19. Replication to W.S. of defendant 8.11.1991 27-28 35-39 no. 10 (Suit-3)

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- 31.10.1962 37 49-51

4)

24. W.S. of defendant no. 2 (Suit-4) 25.1.1963 38 51

25. Replication to W.S. of defendants 11.9.1963 39 51-52 no. 1 & 2 (Suit-4)

26. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 (Suit- 22/24.8.19 40-43 52-58 4) 62

27. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 4 25.1.1963 44 58 (Suit-4)

28. II Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 3 & 28/29.11.1 45 59 4 (Suit-4) 963

29. III Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 21.8.1995 46-47 59-61 (Suit-4)

30. Replication to W.S. of defendants 11.9.1963 48 61-62 no. 3 & 4 (Suit-4)

31. Application of Defendants no. 5 to 21.4.1962/ 49 62-63 8 (Suit-4) 28.5.1962

32. W.S. of defendant no. 9 (Suit-4) 27/28.7.19 50 63 62

33. W.S. of defendant no. 10 (Suit-4) 16.2.1990 51-53 63-66

34. Replication to W.S. of defendant 18.11.1991 54 66 no. 10 (Suit-4)

35. Supplementary replication to 27.11/3.12. 55 67 amended W.S. of defendant no. 10 1991 (Suit-4) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_113"> 5138

36. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 10 12.9.1995 56 67-70 (Suit-4)

37. W.S. of defendants no. 13 & 14 20.7.1968 57-58 70-73 (Suit-4)

38. W.S. of defendant no. 13 (Suit-4) 4.12.1989 59-62 73-90

39. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 13 29.8.1995 63 90 (Suit-4)

40. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 17 14.9.1995 64 90-91 (Suit-4)

41. W.S. of defendant no. 18 (Suit-4) 18/19.7.19 65 91 69

42. W.S. of defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) 5.11.1989 66-69 91-103

43. Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 20 17.10.1995 70 103-104 (Suit-4)

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- 20.4.1992 85 122-123

5)

49. II Addl. W.S. of defendant no. 3 13.5.1994 86 123-124 (Suit-5)

50. W.S. of defendant no. 4 (Suit-5) 26/29.8.19 87-93 124-139 89

51. W.S. of defendant no. 5 (Suit-5) 14/21.8.19 94 139-141 89

52. Addl. W.S. of defendants no. 4 & 5 22.8.1995 95 141-142 (Suit-5)

53. W.S. of defendant no. 6 (Suit-5) 21/22/8/19 96 142 89 5139

54. W.S. of defendant no. 11 (Suit-5) 97 142

55. W.S. of defendant no. 17 (Suit-5) 14.8.1989 98 142

56. W.S. of defendant no. 23 (Suit-5) 18.9.1989 99 142

57. W.S. of defendant no. 24 (Suit-5) 4.9.1989 100-103 142-148

58. W.S. of defendant no. 25 (Suit-5) 16/18.9.19 104 148-149 89

59. Progress of the suits -- journey in 105-211 149-197 the last almost 61 years and some important stages -- brief resume.

60. (a) Proceeding under Section 145 105-120 149-156 Cr.P.C.

1); 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d) and 8 (Suit-

4); and 23 and 29 (Suit-5)

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 877-1063 1166-1285 8 (suit-4); 23 (Suit-5)

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. 1067-1275 1286-1440 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 5146 9(c) (Suit-1); 7(a), 7(b) and 16 (Suit-3) and 28 (Suit-5)

197. Issues No. 17, 5(a), 5(c), 5(d) 1068-1072 1286-1298 (Suit-4)

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) 1078-1151 1299-1359 (Suit-1)

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 1276-1294 1440-1449 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-

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 3449-4425 3414-5001 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)]

246. (A) Existence of Temple & 3513-4059 3502-4415 Demolition [Issues no. 1(b) (Suit 4) and 14 (Suit 5)]

247. (B) Existence of other Hindu 4060-4067 4415-4435 5149 religious places making the disputed building building landlocked by religious places of Hindus [(Issue No. 19(b) (Suit-4)]

248. (C) Whether the Hindus had 4068-4073 4435-4437 been continuously worshipping at the place in dispute [Issue No. 13, 14 (Suit-4) and 24 (Suit-5)]

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 4074-4078 4437-4438 disputed building [Issue No.2 (Suit-1)]

252. (E) Issues relating to place of 4079-4418 4439-4999 birth of Lord Rama, believed as such by Hindus by tradition etc. [issues no. 11 (Suit-4), 1 (Suit-1) and 22 (Suit-5)]

253. (F) Others [issues no. 27 (Suit- 4419-4425 4999-5001

4) and 1 (Suit-3)]

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 4426-4458 5001-5015 [Issues no. 1(B)(a) (Suit-4) and 5 (Suit-5)]

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 4460-4478 5016-5033 Relief Act [Issues no. 8 (Suit-1) and 18 (Suit-5)]

260. Issue 8 (Suit-1) 4463-4466 5018-5021

261. Issue 18 (Suit-5) 4467-4478 5021-5033

262. (N) Others, if any [Issues no.2, 4 4479-4550 5033-5072 5150 14 (Suit-3); 19(a), 19(c), 20(a), 20(b), 25, 26 (Suit-4); 3(b), (c), (d) 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 19, 25 (Suit-5) and 3 and 4 (Suit-1);

263. Issue no.2 (Suit-3) 4481-4482 5033-5034

264. Issue No. 4 (Suit-3) 4483-4484 5034

265. Issue No. 14 (Suit-3) 4485-4486 5034-5035

266. Issue No. 19 (a) (Suit-4) 4487-4495 5035-5047

267. Issue No. 4 (Suit-5) 4496-4498 5047-5048

268. Issue No.15 (Suit-5) 4499-4500 5048-5049

269. Issue No.20(b)(Suit-4) 4501-4505 5049-5051

270. Issue No. 7 (Suit-5) 4506-4508 5051-5052

271. Issues No. 10 and 11 (Suit-5) 4509-4511 5052-5056

272. Issue No. 19 (Suit-5) 4512-4516 5056-5057

273. Issue No. 25 (Suit-5) 4517-4519 5057-5058

274. Issue No. 19(c)(Suit-4) 4520-4523 5058-5060

275. Issue No.3(b), (c) and (d) (Suit-5) 4524-4534 5060-5067

276. Issue No.8 (Suit-5) 4535-4538 5067-5068

277. Issue No.20(a) (Suit-4) 4539-4542 5068-5069

278. Issue 25, 26 (Suit-4) 4543-4547 5069-5071

279. Issue No.3 and 4 (Suit-1) 4548-4550 5071-5072

280. Issues relating to reliefs: Issues 4551-4566 5072-5081 No. 15 (Suit-4), 17 (Suit-1), 13 (Suit-3) and 30 (Suit-5)

281. Issue No. 16, Suit-4 4552-4553 5072

282. Issue No. 17, Suit-1 4554-4555 5072-5073

283. Issue No. 13, Suit-3 4556-4557 5073 5151

284. Issue no. 30, Suit-5 4558-4566 5073-5081

285. Appendixes -- 5092-5250

286. Appendixes-1, 1A and 1B - 5092-5094

287. Appendixes-2, 2A, 2B, and 2C - 5095-5098

288. Appendixes-3 and 3A - 5099-5100

289. Appendixes-4, 4A and 4B - 5101-5103

290. Appendixes-5A to 5DD - 5104-5133

291. Appendix-6 - 5134

292. Appendix-7 - 5135

293. Appendix-8, General Index - 5136-5151

294. Appendix-9, Citations Referred - 5152-5220 Alphabetically

295. Appendix-10, Reference Books -- 5201-5218 Alphabetically 5152 APPENDIX-9 Index-Citations Referred Alphabetically Sl.No. Citation Para/Page no.

1. A.G. of Bengal Vs. Prem Lal Mullick (1895) ILR 881/1168 22 Cal. 788 (PC)

2. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State of A.P. and 718/1026, 1754/1867, others, 1996(9) SCC 548=AIR 1996 SC 1765 1755/1867,1833/1932, 1857/1958

3. A.S. Vidyasagar Vs. S. Karunanandam 1995 Supp 2774/2668, 2929/2793 (4) SCC 570

4. Abbas Dhali Masabdi Karikar, (1914) 24 I.C. 216 2213/2220 (Cal.)

5. Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Rahmat Ali & others AIR 3262/3141 1930 Oudh 245

6. Abdul Halim Khan Vs. Raja Saadat Ali Khan & 2164/2198, 2946/2803 Ors. AIR 1928 Oudh 155

7. Abdul Latif Vs. Nawab Khwaja Habibullah 1969 2227/2233 Calcutta Law Journal 28

8. Abdul Quadir Vs. Tahira 1997 (15) LCD 379 852/1156, 1046/1273

9. Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and another, AIR 842/1150, 1017/1255 2003 SC 718

10. Abdulla Vs. Kunbammad, AIR 1960 Ker. 123 984/1232

11. Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan Vs. Ganesh Dass, AIR 976/1225 1917 PC 201

12. Abdur Rahim Vs. Narayan Das Aurora AIR 1923 3270/ 3146 PC 44

13. Abinash Ch. Chowdhury Vs. Tarini Charan 2162/2197, 2258/2251 Chowdhury and others AIR 1926 Cal. 782

14. Abubakar Abdul Inamdar & Ors. Vs. Harun 2774/2667, 2904/2766, Abdul Inamdar & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 112 2904/2766

15. Abul Fata Mohammad Vs. Rasamaya, 22 IA 76 1099/1320, 1107/1325

16. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta Vs. 1756/1870 Commissioner of Police AIR 1990 Cal. 336 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_145"> 5153

17. Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and others 736/1034 Vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another 1983 (4) SCC 522

18. Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji 3502/3495 Anandprasadji Maharaj & others Vs. State of Gujarat & others (1975) 1 SCC 11

19. Acharya Maharishi Narendra Prasad ji Vs. State 2600/2551 of Gujarat, (1975) 1 SCC 2098

20. Addangi Nageswara Rao Vs. Sri Ankamma 1703/1821, 1707/1824, Devatha Temple Anantavaram 1973 Andhra 1742/1861 Weekly Report 379

21. Administrator General of Bengal Vs. Balkissen, 1817/1915 ILR 51 Cal 953=AIR 1925 Cal 140

22. Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Yusuf Alli 3500/3493 Ebrahim & others 84 Indian Cases (1921) (Bom.) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_146"> 759

23. Advocate General of Bombay vs. Yusufally 24 3235/3126 Bom. L.R. 1060

24. Aftab Ali Vs. Akbor Ali (1929) 121 IC 209 (All) 2422/2437

25. Afzal Hussain Vs. 1st Additional District Judge, 1162/1365 AIR 1985 All. 79

26. Agency Company Vs. Short (1888) 13 A.C. 793 2224/2232, 2428/2439

27. Agha Turab Ali Khan Vs. Shromani Gurdwara 2241/2241 Parbandhak Committee AIR 1933 Lahore 145

28. Akbar Khan v. Turban (1909) 31 All. 9 2442/2446, 2448/2450

29. Alimiya Vs. Sayed Mohd. AIR 1968 Guj. 257 941/1202

30. All India Shia Conference Vs. Taqi Hadi and 1128/1342 others, AIR 1954 All. 124

31. All Saints High School Vs. Govt of A.P. (1980) 2 2593/2547 SCC 478

32. Allah Jilai v. Umrao Husain (1914) I.L.R., 36 2444/2449 All., 492

33. Amar Chand Vs. Nem Chand AIR (29) 1942 1921/2007 All.150 5154

34. Amar Nath Dogra Vs. Union of India 1963 (1) 637/977 SCR 657

35. Amar Nath Vs. Mrs. Amar Nath AIR (35) 1948 3561/3573 Lahore 126

36. Amarendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur 2774/2667,2778/2670, Prajapati and others, AIR 2004 SC 3782 = (2004) 2883/2754, 2886/2756 10 SCC 65

37. Amarsarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 4448/5012 SC 1305

38. Amena Bibi Vs. S.K. Abdul Haque AIR 1997 Cal. 3753/3791, 3761/3796 59

39. American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Steel 3502/3495, 4565/5078 Co. & others (1993) 2 SCC 199

40. Ammalu Achi Vs. Ponnammal Achi & others AIR 2899/2764 1919 Madras 464

41. Ampthill Peerage Case, (1976) 2 All ER 411 988/1234

42. Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey & another 2245/2243 2000 (4) SCC 440

43. Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti vs. Broja Lal 1782/1885,1942/2027, Singha and others 1923 Calcutta 142 2101/2170,2103/2171, 2854/2734

44. Anantakrishna v. Prayag Das I.L.R (1937) 1 Cal. 1942/2028 84

45. Anantharazu Vs. narayanarazu 1913 (36) Mad. 2448/2450 383

46. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy and others 1049/1275 (2008) 4 SCC 594

47. Angoubi Kabuini and another Vs. Imjao Lairema 1928/2011, 1929/2012 and others AIR 1959 Manipur 42

48. Angurbala Mullick Vs. D. Mullick, AIR 1951 SC 1707/1837, 1821/1918 293

49. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi & 3039/2863 others AIR 1955 SC 566

50. Anjuman Islamia & others Vs. Munshi Tegh Ali 3265/3142, 4475/5027 & others 1971 (3) SCC 814 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_152"> 5155

51. Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali and others, AIR 1166/1368 1982 MP 17

52. Annakili Vs. A. Vedanayagam and others, AIR 2852/2733 2008 SC 346

53. Annamalai Chettiar and others Vs. A.M.K.C.T. 2162/2197, 2163/2198, Muthukaruppan Chettiar & anr. AIR 1931 Privy 2407/2430 Council 9

54. Annapurna Devi Vs. Shiva Sundari Dasi, AIR 1924/2008, 1929/2013 1945 Cal 376

55. Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant (1995) 2 2876/2751 SCC 543

56. Annie Besant Vs. Government of Madras, AIR 1220/1401, 1222/1402 1918 Mad 1210

57. Anuj Garg and others Vs. Hotel Association of 846/1153, 1044/1272 India and others 2008 (3) SCC 1

58. Ases Kumar Misra & others Vs. Kissori Mohan 2263/2258 Sarkar & others AIR 1924 Cal. 812

59. Asita Mohan Vs. Nivode Mohan AIR 1917 Cal 1745/1863 292

60. Asrar Ahmed Vs. Durgah Committee AIR 1947 943/1204 PC 1

61. Ata-Ullah & another Vs. Azim-Ullah & another 3256/3137, 4540/5068 1889 ILR 12 (All.) 494

62. Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal, 1979 SC 1707/1837, 1775/1883, 861 1990/2069

63. B. Jangi Lal Vs. B. Panna Lal and another AIR 2114/2175, 2115/2175 1957 Allahabad 743

64. B. Leelavathi Vs. Honnamma and another, (2005) 2774/2668, 2927/2791 11 SCC 115

65. B.L. Sridhar Vs. K.M. Munireddy 2003 (21) LCD 852/1156, 1027/1262 88 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC 578

66. Babajirao Vs. Laxmandas 1904 ILR 28 Bom. 215 696/1008, 964/1218 at 223)

67. Babu Lal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2774/2668 2009 (7) SCC 161 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_154"> 5156

68. Bachchu Singh Vs. Secretary of State for India in 638/978, 656/986 Council, ILR (1903) 25 All 187,

69. Badrul Islam Vs. The Sunni Central Board of 1118/1331 Waqf, U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1954 Allahabad 459

70. Baiju Lal Vs. Bulak Lal, (1897) 24 Cal 385 956/1211

71. Bailochan Karan Vs. Bansat Kumari Naik 1999 2193/2213 (2) SCC 310

72. Bajya Vs. Gopikabai, 1978 SC 793 2590/2543

73. Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & others 1832/1929,3365/3303, Vs. Charity Commissioner AIR 1995 SC 3367/3304, 3500/3494 167=1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 485

74. Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Hanuman 2282/2270 Seva Trust and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 658

75. Bali Panda Vs. Jadumani 7 I.C. 475 1941/2025

76. Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh, JT 2008(10) SC 3240/3128 98

77. Ballabh Das & another Vs. Nur Mohammad & 3266/3142, 3427/3348 another AIR 1936 PC 83

78. Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura Prasad & Ors. AIR 2287/2272 1968 All. 259

79. Balwant vs. Puran (1883) 10 I.A. 90 2854/2734

80. Bande Ali Vs. Rejaullah 25 Cr.L.J. 303 2239/2240

81. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India AIR 3762/3796 1984 SC 802

82. Bank of Upper India Vs. Mt. Hira Kuer & Ors. 2163/2198 AIR 1937 Oudh 291

83. Barkat Ali and another Vs. Badrinarain 2008 (4) 846/1153, 1044/1272 SCC 615

84. Baroda Prosad Roy Chaudhry Vs. Rai Manmath 2777/2669 Nath Mitra 41 Indian Cases 456

85. Basant Kumar Roy Vs. Secretary of State for 2102/2171, 2222/2231, India & others AIR 1917 PC 18 2842/2728

86. Bazkhan Vs. Sultan Malik, 43 P.R. 1901 2206/2216 5157

87. Behari Lal Vs. Muhammad Muttaki (1898) 20 All 3270/ 3146 482

88. Behari Lal Vs. Narain Das, 1935 Lah. 475 2211/2219

89. Bhagat Ram v. Smt. Lilawati Galib, AIR 1972 HP 2812/2701 125, 130

90. Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj 1929/2012, 1930/2013, etc. AIR 1985 All. 228 1931/2015

91. Bhagchand Dagaduss Vs. Secretary of State for 628/974, 638/978 India in Council AIR 1927 PC 176

92. Bhandara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. 1264/1418 and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 259

93. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. 1058/1281 Union of India & others JT 2006 (3) SC 114

94. Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh 1959 2164/2198, 2246/2246, (Supp.) 2 SCR 798. 2258/2259

95. Bhubaneswari Thakurani Vs. Brojanath Dey AIR 1942/2028 (24) 1937 PC 185

96. Bhupati Nath Smrititir the Bhattacharjee Vs. Ram 1700/1820,1707/1835, Lal Mitra & Ors. 1909 (3) Indian Cases (Cal.) 1745/1863,1777/1884, (FB) 642 1779/1884, 1780/1885

97. Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Vs. Rajeswar Prosad 2774/2668, 2841/2728, Bhakat & Ors. AIR 1931 Privy Council 162 2843/2729

98. Bhyah Ram Singh Vs. Bhyah Ujagar Singh, 13 2587/2541 MIA 373, PC

99. Bibhuti Bhushan Vs. Sadhan Chandra AIR 1965 3753/3792 Cal. 199

100. Bibi Sahodra Vs. Rai Jang Bahadur, (1881) 8 Cl. 2199/2215 224:8 I.A. 210

101. Bidhumukhi Dasi Vs. Jitendra Nath Roy and 1061/1284 others, 1909 Indian Cases (Calcutta) 442;

102. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant 690/1005 Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057

103. Bihari Chowdhary and another Vs. State of Bihar 622/972, 631/975 and others 1984 (2) SCC 627 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_158"> 5158

104. Bihari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and 1925/2009, 1932/2015 another AIR 1961 Allahabad 73

105. Bijoe Emmanuel & others Vs. State of Kerala & 740/1037, 3500/3495 others (1986) 3 SCC 615

106. Bimal Krishna Ghose and Ors. Vs. Shebaits of 2119/2176, 2604/2554, Sree Sree Iswar Radha Ballav Jiu and Ors. AIR 2718/2613 1937 Cal 338

107. Bindyachal Chand Vs. Ram Gharib, AIR 1934 2197/2214, 2211/2219, Alld. 993 (FB) 2214/2220, 2215/2220

108. Biram Prakash Vs. Narendra Das AIR 1961 All. 964/1219 266

109. Bishandayal and sons Vs. State of Orissa and 637/978 others 2001 (1) SCC 555

110. Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad 1054/1279 and another (2006) 4 SCC 432

111. Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (AIR 1707/1830, 1708/1841, 1967 SC 1044) 1807/1910, 1824/1926, 1938/2020, 1945/2033, 1946/2033, 1948/2035, 2139/2185, 2595/2548, 2657/2582, 2707/2607, 2712/2610, 2716/2612, 4515/5057

112. Biswambhar Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Orissa 4452/5013 & Ors. 1964 (1) Supreme Court Journal 364

113. Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa & 1398/1560 another AIR 1954 SC 139

114. Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera & others 2892/2759 JT 2009 (10) SC 538

115. Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 935/1199

116. Board Nageshwar Bux Roy Vs. Bengal Coal Co. 2843/2729 AIR 1931 PC 18

117. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious 1700/1820, 1707/1834, Endowments, Madras Vs. Pidugu Narasimham & 1844/1939, 1846/1940, Ors. AIR 1939 Madras 134 1866/1964

118. Board of Mulim Wakfs Vs. Smt. Hadi Begum and 1146/1357 others, AIR 1992 SC 1083 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_160"> 5159

119. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Vs. State 4442/5011 of Bombay (1958) SCR 1122, 1146,

120. Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of 726/1029, 737/1034 West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089

121. Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) 905/1185 SC 1

122. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury & others Vs. 2164/2198, 2221/2231, Bharat Chandra Roy and others, AIR 1916 2268/2261, 2426/2438, Calcutta 751 2428/2438, 2429/2440

123. Buddha Singh Vs. Laltu Singh, 42 I.A. 208 = ILR 1707/1827 (1915) 37 All 604

124. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. Vs. 1703/1821, 1707/1828 Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others 1991 (4) All ER 638

125. Burns Vs. Ransley, (1944) 79 CLR 101 1221/1401

126. Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum) 950/1208 and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191

127. C. Beepathuma and others Vs., Valasari 2162/2197, 2169/2200, Shankaranarayana Kadambolithaya and others, 2776/2669 AIR 1965 SC 241

128. C. Mohammad Yunus Vs. Syed Unnissa and Ors. 1272/1423, 2409/2432 AIR 1961 SC 808

129. C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai and others JT 2007 2164/2198, 2216/2221, (12) SC 295= AIR 2008 SC 363 2282/2271

130. Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom. 214 923/1194

131. CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar & Ors. 3769/3799 2006 (3) SCC 56

132. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya (2004) 8 3046/2866 SCC 270

133. Chairman & M.D., N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs. M/s Reshmi 2162/2196, 2276/2268 Construction Builders & Contractors AIR 2004 SC 1330

134. Chandan Mull Indra Kumar & Others Vs. Chiman 3757/3794 Lal Girdhar Das AIR 1940 PC 3

135. Chandra Vs Narpat Singh 1906 (29) All 184 (PC) 3549/3566 5160

136. Chandu Lal Vs. Khalilur Rahman, AIR 1950 P.C. 917/1190 17

137. Chedha Singh and others Vs. Additional Civil 1149/1358 Judge, Moradabad and others, 1996 Supp. AWC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_163"> 189

138. Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others 1397/1559, 2872/2750 AIR 1954 SC 575

139. Chhutkao Vs. Gambhir Mal AIR 1931 Oudh 45 3263/3141

140. Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of 1233/1406 Andhra Pradesh Vs. Collector and others, AIR 2003 SC 1805

141. Chitar Mal Vs. Panchu Lal AIR 1926 All.392 1938/2020, 2611/2556, 2663/2584, 2664/2584, 2665/2585, 2673/2589, 2674/2590, 2680/2593

142. Collector of Masulipatam Vs. C. Vencata 4442/5011 Narainapah 8 MIA 500, 525

143. Collector, Gorakhpur Vs. Palakdhari ILR (1899) 3544/3564 12 All 1 at page 43

144. Commissioner For Hindu Religious and 1707/1837, 1830/1929 Charitable Endowments, Mysore Vs. Ratnavarma Heggade, AIR 1977, SC 1848

145. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree 893/1182, 909/1188 Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. JT 2009 (6) SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_164"> 29

146. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. 635/977 Virgo Steels, Bombay and another AIR 2002 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_165"> 1745

147. Commissioner of Endowments and others Vs. 960/1216 Vittal Rao and others (2005) 4 SCC 120

148. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri 1399/1560 Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239

149. Commissioner of Police & others Vs. Acharya 3501/3495, 4417/4998 Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta & another (2004) 12 SCC 770

150. Commissioner of Wakfs and another Vs. 3251/3134, 5161 Mohammad Moshin, AIR 1954 Calcutta 463 3338/3289

151. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, 713/1023, 726/1029, Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of 732/1033, 736/1034, Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282 744/1039, 1709/1842, 3500/3494

152. Cook Vs. Sprigg 1899 AC 572 4442/5011

153. Coral Indira Gonsalves Vs. Joseph Prabhakar 3580/3581 Iswariah AIR 1953 Mad. 858

154. D. N. Venkatarayappa & Anr. Vs. State of 2774/2668, 2907/2769, Karnataka & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 567 2908/2769

155. Dalbir Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 3501/3495 1962 SC 1106

156. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 4446/5012 of Income-tax AIR 1958 SC 816

157. Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan Das (1909-10) 1807/1909, 1809/1911, 37 IA 147 1938/2019, 1942/2027, 2663/2584, 2668/2586, 2678/2591, 2680/2593, 2709/2608

158. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das and 64 I.A. 203 (= 2778/2674, 2855/2734 AIR 1937 PC 185)

159. Damodar Das Vs. Lakhandas 37 I.A. 147=1910 2854/2734 (37) ILR (Cal.) 885

160. Darshan Lal and others Vs. Shibji Maharaj 1811/1912 Birajman, AIR 1923 All. 120

161. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.E.S. Dalliwall & another 3500/3493 AIR 1952 Alld. 825

162. Darshan Singh Vs. Gujjar Singh (2002) 2 SCC 62 2880/2753

163. Dasami Sahu Vs. Param Shameshwar Uma 2855/2734 Bhairabeshwar Bam Lingshar and Chitranjan Mukerji (1929) A.L.J.R. 473

164. Dattagiri Vs. Dattatrya (1904) 27 Bom 236 964/1219, 3270/3146

165. Deewan Singh and others Vs. Rajendra Pd. 846/1153, 1044/1272 Ardevi and others AIR 2007 SC 767 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_167"> 5162

166. Deo Kuer and another Vs. Sheo Prasad Singh and 2163/2197, 2261/2259, others, AIR 1966 SC 359 2262/2259

167. Deo Narain Chowdhury Vs. C.R.H. Webb (1990) 2429/2440 28 Cal. 86

168. Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar & Ors. AIR 1957 1701/1821, 1707/1837, SC 133=1956 (1) SCR 756 1762/1872, 1820/1917, 2661/2583, 2733/2635

169. Des Raj and others vs. Bhagat Ram(Dead) by 2851/2733 LRs. And others 2007 (3) SCALE 371

170. Deutsch Asiatische Bank Vs. Hiralal Burdhan & 2652/2579 Sons 1918 (47) I.C. 122

171. Devi Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan 2902/2766 and others, (1994) 1 SCC 215

172. Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation, 841/1150, 916/1190, U.P. Lucknow and others, AIR 1973 All. 283 917/1190

173. Dharamarajan & Ors. Vs. Valliammal & Ors., 2774/2668, 2928/2791 2008 (2) SCC 741

174. Dharani Kanta Lahiri Vs. Gabar Ali Khan, (1913) 2207/2217 18 I.C. 17

175. Dhian Singh Sobha Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 633/975, 653/985, 1958 SC 274 657/987

176. Dhirendra Nath Gorai and Sabal Chandra Shaw 635/976 and others Vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and others AIR 1964 SC 1300

177. Dinomoni Chowdhrani & Brojo Mohini 2239/2240, 2777/2669, Chowdhrani 29 IA 24 (PC) 3072/2883

178. Director of Endowments, Govt. of Hyderabad Vs. 4450/5013 Akram Ali AIR 1956 SC 60

179. District Basic Education Officer and another Vs. 2291/2273, 3330/3285 Dhananjai Kumar Shukla and another (2008) 3 SCC 481= AIR 2008 SCW 1224

180. Doongarsee Shyamji vs. Tribhuvan Das, AIR 1925/2008, 1926/2009 1947 All 375

181. Doulat Koer Vs. Rameshwari Koeri alias Dulin 2241/2240 Saheba (1899) ILR 26 Cal. 635 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_168"> 5163

182. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. Vs. Union of India and 5/15, 83/119, 190/184, others 1994 (6) SCC 360=AIR 1995 SC 605 191/184, 268/285, 846/1152, 1259/1416, 1708/1841, 2301/2292, 2600/2691, 2609/2555, 2616/2561, 2723/2615 2736/2636, 2870/2650, 3244/3131, 3502/3495, 3585/3583, 4049/4409, 4457/5015, 4566/5081

183. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari 2774/2667, 2889/2758, Sharma & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 869 2909/2772

184. Draupadi Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2162/2197, 2418/2434, (2004) 11 SCC 425 3382/3309, 3383/3309, 3385/3310

185. Dukham Ram Vs. Ram Nanda Singh, AIR 1961 2262/2258 Pat. 425

186. Durgah Committee, Ajmer Vs. Syed Hussain Ali 1860/1960, 1864/1963 AIR 1961 SC 1402

187. Duvvuri Papi Reddi and others Vs. Duvvuri Rami 1936/2019 Reddi AIR 1969 AP 362

188. Dwijendra Narain Roy Vs. Joges Chandra De, 2411/2433, 2712/2610 AIR 1924 Cal 600

189. Dyke Vs. Walford 5 Moore PC 434 = 496-13 ER 4439/5010 557 (580

190. Ejas Ali Qidwai & Ors. Vs. Special Manager, 2774/2667, 2894/2759 Court of Wards, Balrampur Estate & Ors. AIR 1935 Privy Council 53

191. Ellappa Naicken Vs. K.Lakshmana Naicken & 2264/2259 others AIR (36) 1949 Madras 71

192. Emperor Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906) 1219/1400, 1222/1402 ILR 30 Bom 421

193. Emperor Vs. Panchu Das & Ors. AIR 1920 Cal 3544/3564 500 (FB)

194. Everest Coal Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of 2254/2249 Bihar and others, 1978(1) SCC 12

195. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, 3502/3495, 4564/5078 Shamli & others Vs. Lakshmi Narain & others """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_169"> 5164 (1976) 2 SCC 58

196. Fakhruddin Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 3574/3579 1967 SC 1326

197. Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin 2008 (8) SCC 12 3253/3135, 3271/3147, 3302/3238, 3303/3244

198. Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali 46 IC 119 1404/1561

199. Forest Range Officer & others Vs. P. Mohammed 3563/3575, 3583/3582 Ali & others AIR 1994 SC 120

200. Forward Construction Company Vs. Prabhat 1005/1245 Mandal (Regd.) 1986 (1) SCC 100

201. Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh 1394/1558 AIR 1923 Patna 453

202. G.L. Vijan Vs. K. Shankar. 2006 (13) SCC 136 3759/3794

203. Gangu Bai Vs. Soni 1942 Nagpur Law Journal 99 2223/2232

204. Ganpat Vs. Returning Officer (1975) 1 SCC 589 1851/1946

205. Garib Das and others Vs. Munshi Abdul Hamid 2162/2197, 2410/2432, and others AIR 1970 SC 1035 3261/3140, 3421/3342

206. Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly & others (2008) 7 2893/2759, 3041/2864 SCC 85

207. Gedela Satchidananda Murthy Vs. Dy. Commr., 1700/1820, 1707/1834, Endowments Deptt., A.P. & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 1866/1964 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_170"> 677

208. Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Dominion of India 1984 (3) 637/977, 638/978, SCC 46 656/986, 657/987, 661/988, 664/991

209. Girijanund Datta Jha & Anr. Vs. Sailajanund 2649/2576 Datta Jha 1896 ILR 23 Ca1. 645

210. Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. 683/1000, 685/1003 Kandasami Tambiran 1887 ILR Vol. 10 Madras """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_171"> 375

211. Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Velu 964/1219, 1765/1881, Pandaram and another (1899) 27 IA 69 2868/2747

212. Gobinda Narain Singh Vs. Sham Lal, AIR 1931 983/1232 P.C. 98=LR 58 IA 125 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_172"> 5165

213. Gokul Nathji Maharaj & Anr. Vs. Nathji Bhogi 1700/1820, 1707/1834, Lal AIR 1953 All. 552 1849/1944, 1910/1983

214. Gollaleshwar Dev Vs. Gangawwa Kom 1707/1837 Shantayya Math, AIR 1986 SC 231

215. Gopal Datt Vs. Babu Ram, AIR 1936 All 653 2917/2775

216. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar 1396/1559 Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5

217. Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Krishna Sunder Nath Kaviraj 1818/1915 AIR 1929 All. 887

218. Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs. 842/1150, 918/1190, Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 1015/1254 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_173"> 808

219. Gossain Das Chunder Vs. Issur Chunder Nath 2839/2727, 2840/2727 1877 III ILR 3 (Cal.) 224

220. Goswami Ranchor Lalji Vs. Sri Girdhariji (1897) 2425/2438 20 All. 120

221. Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Shah 2930/2794 Ranchhoddas Kalidas, AIR 1970 SC 2025

222. Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. 630/975, 947/1207 Pestonji Ardeshir Wadia and Ors AIR 1949 PC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_174"> 143

223. Government of West Bengal Vs. Nitya Gopal 3573/3578 Basak & others 1985 CRI.L.J. 202

224. Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K.Roy 1048/1274 2004 (1) SCC 347

225. Govind Raghunath Sawant Vs. B.A. Kakade & 2309/2295 Anr. 1975 ILR Bombay 829

226. Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar and others 2851/2733 JT 2006(1) SC 121

227. Govindrao & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3386/3310 & others AIR 1982 SC 1201

228. Greenhalgh Vs. Mallard (1942) 2 All ER 225 1006/1246, 1007/1246 (CA)

229. Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra 924/1195 Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_175"> 5166

230. Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 897/1183, 1169/1369, 2199 1171/1370, 1176/1377, 4570/5085

231. Gulzar Ali Vs. Sate of Himachal Pradesh 1998 (2) 3595/3589 SCC 192

232. Gunga Gobind Mundul Vs. Collector of the 24- 2839/2727 pergunnahs 11 Moore's I.A., 345

233. Guntaka Hussenaiah Vs. Busetti Yerraiah AIR 3566/3576 1954 Andhra 39

234. Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 2812/2700 1756, 1759

235. Gurbinder Singh and another Vs. Lal Singh and 2925/2783 another, AIR 1965 SC 1553

236. Gursharan Singh and others Vs. New Delhi 3119/2966 Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_176"> 1175

237. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Shiromani 1707/1837 GPC, 2004 (4) SCC 146

238. Gurunath Vs.Kamalabai 1955 S.C. 206 2597/2550

239. Guruvayur Devasom Managing Committee Vs. 1707/1831, 1739/1861 C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561

240. H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others 697/1008 Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642

241. Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq Vs. The State of 3582/3582 West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488

242. Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie 929/1197 Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_177"> 63

243. Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 3559/3569 1952 SC 343

244. Har Prasad and others Vs. Fazal Ahmad and 3250/3134 others, AIR 1933 PC 83 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_178"> 5167

245. Hari Chand Vs. Daulat Ram, AIR 1987 SC 94 2774/2667, 2921/2777

246. Hari Khandu Vs. Dhondi Nanth, (1906) 8 2835/2725 Bom.L.R. 96

247. Hari Raghunath Patvardhan Vs. Antaji Bhikaji 1839/1936, 4528/5063, Patvardhan & Others 1919 (XLIV) ILR Bombay 4529/5064 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_179"> 466

248. Hari Singh Vs. Lachmi, 59 IC 220 3596/3589

249. Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. Deo Narain, AIR 1956 982/1232 SC 305

250. Harihor Misra Vs. Narhari Setti Sitaramiah AIR 3760/3795 1966 Orissa 121

251. Health v. Drown, (1972) 2 All ER 561, 573 (HL). 2812/2702

252. Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai 2774/2667, 2906/2768 Harijan & Others AIR 2009 SC 103

253. Henderson Vs. Henderson (1843-60) All ER Rep 1005/1245 378

254. Hira Lal Vs. Hari Narain, AIR 1964 All 302 985/1232

255. Hirachand Himatlal Marwari Vs. Kashinath 640/979 Thakurji Jadhav AIR (29) 1942 Bombay 339

256. Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 895/1182 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.)

257. Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, 903/1185, 922/1194, Peermade, JT 1998 (7) SC 404 995/1241

258. Hukum Chand & Ors. Vs. Maharaj Bahadur 2438/2443, 2955/2810 Singh & Others AIR 1933 Privy Council 193

259. Humayun Begam Vs. Shah Mohammad Khan, 2262/2257 AIR 1943 PC 94

260. Hunooman Persaud Panday Vs. Mmsumat 2648/2576, 2692/2600 Bdbooee Manraj Koonweree 6 Moore's Ind. App. Ca. 243

261. Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, 1699/1819, 1707/1835, Jaipur Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & 1708/1841, 1843/1939, Ors. AIR 1965 SC 906 2596/2549

262. Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. Syed Meharban Ali 1974 (2) 894/1182 5168 SCC 151

263. Inacio Martins Vs. Narayan Hari Naik, 1993(3) 1045/1273 SCC 123

264. Indar Datt Vs. Emperor AIR 1931 Lahore 408. 3576/3580

265. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rajnarain AIR 1975 SC 3323/3272 2299

266. Indra Singh Vs. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 984/1232 1943 Pat. 169

267. Ishtiyaq Husain Abbas Husain Vs. Zafrul Islam 642/979 Afzal Husain and others AIR 1969 Alld. 161

268. Ishwari Bhubanshwari Thakurani Vs. Brojo Nath 2778/2674 Dey

269. Ishwari Prasad Misra Vs. Mohammad Isa AIR 3574/3579 1963 SC 1728

270. J. Jaya Lalitha Vs. Union of India & another AIR 2122/2178 1999 SC 1912

271. Jafar Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nasimannessa Bibi 2166/2199, 2399/2425 AIR 1937 Cal 500

272. Jagadamba Chowdhurani Vs. Dakhina Mohan 2399/2425 (1886) 13 Cal 308

273. Jagadindra Nath Vs. Hemanta Kumari, 31 Ind App 1776/1883, 1822/1919, 203 at p.210 2663/2584, 2668/2586, 2669/2587, 2676/2590, 2677/2591, 2680/2593, 2681/2594, 2707/2607, 2708/2608, 2711/2609, 2712/2610 4515/5057

274. Jagadish Chandra Deo Vs. Debendra Prosad 656/986, 656/987 Bagehi Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1931 Cal 503

275. Jagannath vs. Tirthnanda Das AIR 1952 Orissa 1943/2028 312

276. Jagat Mohan Nath Sah Deo Vs. Pratap Udai Nath 2167/2199, 2447/2450 Sah Deo & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 302

277. Jagdeo Misir Vs. Mahabir Tewari, AIR 1927 All. 915/1189 803 5169

278. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others Vs. Pushpa 844/1152, 846/1153, Devi Saraf and others 2006 (7) SCC 756 1024/1261, 1044/1272

279. Jamal Uddin & Anr. Vs. Mosque at Mashakganj 2162/2197, 2230/2234, & Ors. AIR 1973 Allahabad 328 3422/3343

280. Jamshed Ji Vs. Soonabai, (1909) 22 Bom 122 739/1037

281. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai & 3500/3493 others 1 Indian Cases (1907) 834 (Bom.)

282. Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai, ILR 4414/4997 (1909) 33 Bom. 122

283. Jangu & others Vs. Ahmad Ullah & others 1889- 3254/3135, 3256/3137, 1891 ILR 13 (All.) 419 4540/5068

284. Janki Kunwar Vs. Ajit Singh (1888) ILR 15 Cal 2166/2199, 2398/2424 58

285. Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property 919/1190 1985 (3) SCC 648

286. Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, 1993 (4) SCC 403 3095/2897

287. Jenkins Vs. Robertson, (1867) LRIHL 117 899/1183

288. Jetmull Bhojraj Vs. The Darjeeling Himalayan 2289/2273 Railway Co. Ltd. And others AIR 1962 SC 1879

289. Jindu Ram Vs. Hussain Baksh & Anr. AIR 1914 3269/3145 Lahore 444

290. Jodhi Rai Vs. Basdeo Prasad, 8 ALJ 817=(1911) 1810/1911, 2117/2176, ILR 33 Allahabad 735 2118/2176, 2661/2583, 2711/2609

291. Jogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of 1691/1806, 1701/1820, Income-Tax, Calcutta (1969) 1 SCC 555 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1771/1881, 1789/1888, 1790/1888, 2661/2583, 2704/2605

292. Joseph Pothen Vs. The State of Kerala AIR 1965 3897/4175 SC 1514

293. Jujjuvarapu Vs. Pappala, AIR 1969 A.P. 76 949/1208

294. Jurawan Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramsarekh Singh & 2265/2260 Others AIR 1933 Patna 224

295. K. Ethirajan Vs. Lakshmi and others, AIR 2003 840/1149, 903/1185, 5170 SC 4295 995/1238, 997/1242

296. K. Manahunaitha Desikar Vs. Sundaralingam, 1707/1837, 2116/2175, AIR 1971 Madras 1 (FB) 2594/2547, 2605/2554, 2656/2581

297. K. Sundaresa Iyer Vs. Sarvajana Sowkiabi Virdhi 2262/2257 Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1939 Madras 853

298. K.G. Premshanker Vs. Inspector of Police & 3039/2863, 3040/2863 another JT 2002 (8) SCC 87

299. K.S. Prahladsinhji Vs. Chunilal B. Desai AIR 2239/2240 1950 Saurashtra 7

300. Kadarbhai Mahomedbhai and another Vs. 1282/1443 Haribhari Ranchhodbhai Desai and another, AIR 1974 Gujarat 120

301. Kailasam Pillai Vs. Nataraja Thambiran and Ors. 685/1003 1910 I.L.R. 33 Madras 265 at page 267

302. Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs. The Maharashtra 1701/1821, 1707/1837, Revenue, Tribunal Nagpur and Ors. AIR 1970 SC 1708/1841, 1795/1899 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_188"> 439

303. Kali Charan Mukerji Vs. Emperor (1909) 9 3576/3580 Cr.L.J. 498.

304. Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee & Ors. 1702/1821, 1707/1832, AIR 1974 SC 1932 1800/1901

305. Kali Prasad Misir and others Vs. Harbans Misir 2167/2199, 2444/2448, AIR 1919 All 383 2446/2450

306. Kalikanta Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. Surendra Nath 1840/1937 Chakravarty & Ors. AIR 1925 Calcutta 648

307. Kalipada De Vs. Dwijapada Das, AIR 1930 PC 896/1182 22

308. Kallan Vs. Mohammad Nabikhan, 1933 ALJ 105 2211/2219

309. Kamala and others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and 2282/2271 others AIR 2008 SC 3174

310. Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. Sub- 1707/1837, 1870/1965 Collector, Ongole, AIR 1969 SC 563

311. Kamlesh Babu and others Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma 2282/2270 and others JT 2008 (4) SC 652 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_190"> 5171

312. Kanakku Vs. Neelacanta, AIR 1969 (Kerala) 280 641/979

313. Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Girwar, 1929 ALJ 1106 2210/2218

314. Kanhaya Lal Vs. Hamid Ali, AIR 1933 PC 198 2120/2177

315. Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan AIR 1924 Alld. 355 948/1207

316. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd and others 3120/2967 Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, JT 1997(2) SC 545

317. Kapoor Chand & Others Vs. Ganesh Dutt and 2733/2634 others 1993 (Supp.) 4 SCC 432

318. Karan Singh Vs. Bakar Ali Khan, (1882) 5 All 1 2201/2215

319. Karbalai Begum Vs. Mohd. Sayeed (1980) 4 SCC 2875/2751 396

320. Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of 2934/2798, 2935/2798, India & others (2004) 10 SCC 779 2948/2805, 3049/2869

321. Kasi Mangalath Illath Vishnu Nambudiri & Ors 1702/1821, 1707/1832, Vs. Pattath Ramunni Marar & Ors. AIR 1940 1838/1935 Madras 208

322. Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 2121/2177 733

323. Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. 3118/2966 M.R.F. Limited and others, 1996 (1) SCC 597

324. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, 3239/3128 1951 SC 128

325. Kewal Singh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 947/1207 290

326. Khalil Ahmad and another Vs. Sheikh Mohd. 3260/3140 Askari and others, AIR 1965 Allahabad 320

327. Khaw Sim vs. Chuah Hooi (1922) 49 I.A.37 2854/2734

328. Khetter Chunder Ghose Vs. Hari Das 1702/1821, 1707/1832, Bundopadhya (1890) 17 ILR Cal. 557 1773/1882, 1774/1882, 2695/2602

329. Khetter Chunder Mookerjee Vs. Khetter Paul 3045/2866 Sreeterutno 1880 ILR 5 (Calcutta) 886

330. Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo, AIR 1825/1926 5172 1978 All.-1

331. Krishna Behary Ray Vs. Bunwari Lal Ray, (1875) 886/1175 1 Cal. 144 (146)

332. Krishna Chendra Gajapati Narayana Deo Vs. 841/1150, 1000/1243 Challa Ramanna and others, AIR 1932 P.C. 50

333. Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir AIR 1980 SC 707 3303/3245

334. Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1972 1707/1837 Allahabad 273

335. Kuarmani Singha Vs. Wasif Ali Murza 1915(28) 2652/2579 I.C. 818

336. Kumaravelu Chettiar and others Vs. T.P. 955/1210 Ramaswami Ayyar and others, AIR 1933 PC 183

337. Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja 3772/3802 Shankar Pant 2001 (1) SCC 182

338. Kunwar Darganath Vs. Ramchunder 4 I.A. 52 1940/2025 (P.C.)

339. Kunwar Singh Vs. Sri Thakurji Mahraj, Birajman 1709/1842 Mandir Gauntia Majra Dhamipur, Pargana and Tahsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly, 1992 (2) AWC 890

340. Kuthali Moothavur Vs. P. Kunharankutty AIR 2950/2806 1922 PC 181

341. L.N. Aswathama & another Vs. V.P. Prakash JT 2887/2756 2009 (9) 527

342. Lachhmi Sewak Sahu vs. Ram Rup Sahu & Ors. 2282/2271 AIR 1944 PC 24

343. Lakshmana Pillai and another Vs. Appalwar 845/1152, 1031/1265 Alwar Ayyangar and another AIR 1923 Madras """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_195"> 246

344. Lal Chand Vs. Radha Kishan, AIR 1977 SC 840/1150, 902/1184, 789=1977(2) SCC 88 1008/1247

345. Lala Shiam Lal Vs. Mohamad Ali Asghar Husain 2442/2446, 2448/2450 AIR 1935 All 174

346. Lalji Sahib Vs. Munshi Lal, AIR 1943 All 340 916/1190 5173

347. Lalmani Devi & others Vs. Jagdish Tiwary & 3039/2862 others AIR 2005 Pat. 51

348. Lalta Prasad Vs. Emperor 5 IC 355 3569/3577

349. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue 3046/2866 Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530

350. Laxman Siddappa Naik vs. Kattimani Chandappa 1403/1560 Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929

351. Legal Remembrancer Vs. Corporation of Calcutta 4442/5011 (1967) 2 SCR 170, 204

352. Limba Bin Krishna and others Vs. Rama Bin 4470/5023 Pimplu and anothers, 1889(13) ILR (Bom) 548

353. Lumley Vs. Wagner, (1865) 1 Eq. 411 4465/5020

354. M.P. Peter Vs. State of Kerala & others JT 2009 2272/2265, 2273/2265 (13) SC 1

355. M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal and others Vs. Motilal 843/1151, 846/1153, Lakhotia and others 2003 (5) SCC 1 1020/1256

356. M.V.S. Manikyala Vs. Narashimahwami AIR 2420/2436 1966 SC 470

357. M.V.Vali Press Vs. Fernandee Lopez 1989 SC 2592/2546 2206,

358. M/s Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass and 845/1152, 1028/1263, co. AIR 1968 SC 111 1031/1265

359. M/s Kamakshi Builders Vs. M/s Ambedkar 2777/2669, 2990/2827 Educational Society and others AIR 2007 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_197"> 2191

360. M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & another Vs. 3040/2864 Union of India & others 1970 (3) SCC 694

361. M/s Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra Vs. 734/1034 Commissioner of Income Tax 1992 (1) SCC 659

362. Madan Mohan Saha Banik and Ors. Vs. Rakhal 2699/2604 Chandra Saha Banik and Ors., AIR 1930 Calcutta """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_198"> 173

363. Madhavan Vs. Chathu AIR (38) 1951 Madras 285 948/1207

364. Madho Kunbi Vs. Tilak Singh AIR 1934 Nagpur 2239/2240 5174 194

365. Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 3567/3576 SC 1091

366. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and others Vs. Karia 2916/2774 Bharthi, AIR 1935 PC 44

367. Mahadev Dattatraya Rajarshi Vs. Secretary of 638/978 State for India AIR 1930 Bom 367

368. Mahamaya Devi Vs. Hari Das Haldar AIR (2) 1940/2025 1915 Cal. 161

369. Mahant Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and 958/1214 another, AIR 1967 SC 1415

370. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji Vs. S.P.Sahi, Special 1699/1819, 1707/1835, Officer-in-charge of Hindu Religious Trusts and 1787/1887, 2596/2549 others AIR 1959 SC 951

371. Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs. Surayan 1402/1560, 1406/1561, Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256 3500/3494

372. Mahanth Ram Charan Das. Vs. Naurangi Lal 2652/2580, 2709/2608 (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 124

373. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur V. Rani 2855/2734 2856/2735 Hemanta Kumari Debi (1904) 1 A.L.J.R.585

374. Maharaja Sir Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur Vs. 2774/2667, 2922/2779, Bahuria Mt. Bhagjogna Kuer and others AIR 2950/2806 1937 Privy Council 69

375. Maharana Futtehsangji Vs. Dessai Kullianraiji, 2180/2207 (1873) LR 1 IA 34

376. Maharanee Shibessouree Debia Vs. Mothornath 1771/1881, 2691/2599 Acharjo (1869) 13 M.I.A. 270

377. Mahdav Rao Waman Vs Raghunath Venkatesh, 2778/2671 AIR 1923 PC 205

378. Mahendra Manilal Nanavati Vs. Sushila 1993/2071 Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364

379. Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 1053/1279

380. Manindra Land And Building Corporation Ltd. 2290/2273 Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC 1336 5175

381. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar & Ors. Vs. 1699/1820, 1707/1832, Lakhmiram Govindram & Ors. (1888) ILR 12 1707/1837, 1770/1878, Bom 247 1791/1893, 2704/2605

382. Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja 1037/1269 Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527

383. Manohar Mukherji Vs. Bhupendra Nath AIR 1932 1819/1916 Cal 791

384. Maqbul Ahmad Vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, 2289/2273, 2432/2440 AIR 1935 PC 85

385. Marawthwada Wakf Board Vs. Rajaram Ramjivan 1147/1357 Manthri and others, AIR 2002 Bom. 144

386. Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwira 1945/2033, 2248/2248, Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 67 Ind. App. 2720/2614, 2736/2636 251 at p.264 (P.C.)

387. Mata Palat Vs. Beni Madho AIR 1914 All 184 2167/2199, 2445/2449

388. Mathura Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal and another 1979 2247/2246 (4) SCC 665

389. Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. 907/1186, 908/1187 Dossibai AIR 1971 SC 2355

390. Matuka Mistry Vs. Kamakhaya Prasad, AIR 1958 930/1197 (Patna) 264 (FB)

391. Maulvi Mohammad Fahimal Haq Vs. Jagat Ballav 2439/2443 Ghosh AIR 1923 Patna 475

392. Mayuram Subramanian Vs. CBI, (2006) 5 SCC 2778/2675 752

393. Md. Mohammad Ali Vs. Jagadish Kalita & Ors. 2381/2411, 2881/2753, (2004) 1 SCC 271 2915/2774

394. Meer Mahomed Israil Khan Vs. Sashti Churn 1087/1311 Ghose and others, 19 ILR (Calcutta) (1892) 412

395. Middllings P Co. Vs. Christian, 4 Dillon 448 3592/3587

396. Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh 841/1150, 913/1189, Narayan Roy and others, AIR 1924 P.C. 144 1001/1244

397. Miru & others Vs. Ramgopal AIR 1935 All. 891 3369/3304

398. Miss Talat Fatima Hasan Vs. His Highness 2286/2272 5176 Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Sahib Bahadur and others AIR 1997 All. 122

399. Mitta Kunth Audhicarry Vs. Neerunjun 4470/5023 Audhicarry, 14 Beng. L.R. 166

400. Modi Nathubai Motilal v. Chhotubhai Manibhai 2812/2701 Besai, AIR 1962 Guj. 68

401. Mohabharat Shaha Vs. Abdul Hamid Khan (1904) 2421/2436 1 CLJ 73

402. Mohammad Baqar and another Vs. S. Mohammad 1112/1328, 1140/1349, Casim and others, AIR 1932 Oudh 210 1141/1349

403. Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari & others 2378/2410 AIR 1956 SC 713 2985/2824, 3053/2871

404. Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (1996) 1SCC 2933/2797, 2935/2798 639

405. Mohd. Ata Husain Khan Vs. Husain Ali Khan, 2439/2443 AIR 1944 Oudh 139

406. Mohd. Saleh Vs. Ram Ratan AIR 1924 Nagpur 273/301 156

407. Mohd. Zainulabudeen Vs. Sayed Ahmad 2878/2752 Mohideen (1990) 1 SCC 345

408. Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar & Ors. Vs. 2162/2197, 2204/2216 Mohesh Chundar Neogi & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 23

409. Mohori Bibee Vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1902) 30 2668/2586 I.A. 114 (P.C.).

410. Monindra Mohan Banerjee and others Vs. The 4472/5023 Shamnagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. and another, 1938-39 (43) CWN 1056

411. Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj & Ors. Vs. 2586/2540, 2774/2667, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhan Committee, 2778/2673, 2861/2736, Amritsar and another AIR 1940 Privy Council 2953/2809, 3297/3220, 116 3303/3250, 3562/3574

412. Mosque Known as Masjid Shahid Ganj Vs. 4053/4411 Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR 1938 Lahore 369 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_207"> 5177

413. Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs. 717/1026, 721/1027, Moran Mar Marthoma and another, 1995 (Supple) 976/1225, 977/1226, (4) SCC 286 986/1232, 987/1233, 3500/3494

414. Motichand Vs. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 2192/2212

415. Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs. Union of India and 720/1027 others, JT 2002 (7) SC 103

416. Mst. Bhagwanti Vs. Mst. Jiuti and another, AIR 1282/1443 1975 Allahabad 341

417. Mst. Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan & Ors. 2162/2197, 2408/2431, AIR 1960 SC 335 2420/2436

418. Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and another Vs. Ram Dass 1061/1283 Pandey and others, AIR 1957 All. 270

419. Mt. Bolo Vs. Mt. Koklan and others AIR 1930 2162/2197, 2163/2198, Privy Council 270 2419/2436

420. Mt. Titli Vs. Alfred Robert Jones AIR 1934 All. 3571/3577, 3588/3585 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_208"> 273

421. Muhammad Araf Vs. Satramdas Sakhimal & 2239/2240 others AIR 1936 Sind 143

422. Mukkammal Vs. Kalimuthu Pillay 15 Ind Cas 852 1031/1265, 1036/1269 (Mad)

423. Muktakeshi Patrani & Ors. Vs. Midnapur 2449/2451 Zamindari Co. Ltd. AIR 1935 Patna 33

424. Mukundji Mahraj Vs. Persotam Lalji Mahraj AIR 1702/1821, 1707/1832, 1957 Allahabad 77 1836/1934, 2113/2174, 2698/2603

425. Munesh Kumar Agnihotri and others Vs. Lalli 852/1156, 1046/1273 Prasad Gupta AIR 1989 (Alld.) 202

426. Murarilal Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1980 SC 531 3564/3575

427. Musaheb Khan Vs. Raj Kumar Bakshi, AIR 1938 3259/3139, Oudh 238

428. Musammat Phutania Vs. Emperor 25 Cr.L.J. 1109 2240/2240

429. Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State 3590/3587 of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762

430. Mussammat Lachhmi Vs. Mussammat Bhulli, 882/1169 5178 1927 ILR (VIII) 384

431. Must. Salamat Begam Vs. S.K. Ikram Husain 2422/2437 (1933) 145 IC 728

432. Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore 986/1232 Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128

433. N. Adithayan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, 4416/4997 2002 (8) SCC 106

434. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra 3324/3277 Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 2663

435. N.C. Ramanatha Iyer Vs. Board of 1826/1927, 3252/3135 Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras AIR 1954 Madras 492

436. Nagendra Nath Palit Vs. Robindra Narain Deb, 2708/2608 AIR 1926 Cal. 490

437. Nagubai Ammal and others Vs. B. Shama Rao 2776/2669, 2897/2762 and others AIR 1956 SC 593

438. Nair Service Society Limited Vs. K. C. Alexander 2588/2542, 2774/2667 and others AIR 1968 SC 1165

439. Nallor Marthandam Vellalar and others Vs. 735/1034 Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and others 2003 (10) SCC 712

440. Nanhekhan Vs. Sanpat AIR 1954 Hyd 45 (FB) 2193/2213

441. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs. 1701/1821, 1788/1888, Gopal Vinayak gosavi & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 100 2127/2179, 4529/5064

442. Narayana Dutt and another Vs. Smt. Molini Devi, 930/1197 AIR 1964 (Rajasthan) 269

443. Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs. 1061/1283 Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_210"> 1268

444. Narne Rama Murthy Vs. Ravula Somasundaram 2282/2270 and others 2005 (6) SCC 614

445. Nata Padhan & Ors. Vs. Banchha Baral & Ors. 2451/2452 AIR 1968 Orissa 36

446. Nathoo Lal Vs. Durga Prasad AIR 1954 SC 355 2279/2269 5179

447. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mastan and 2776/2669, 2901/2765 another 2006 (2) SCC 641

448. Naurangi Lal & Others Vs. Ram Charan Das AIR 1938/2019, 2652/2579, 1930 Patna 455 2709/2608

449. Nawab Muhammad Amanulla Khan Vs. Badan 2162/2197, 2205/2216 Singh & Ors. 16 Indian Appeals (1888-1889) 148

450. Nawab Zain Yar Jung and others Vs. Director of 3424/3347 Endowments and another AIR 1963 SC 985

451. Neale Vs. Turton (1827) 4 Bing. 149 1237/1407

452. Nilmony Singh Vs. Jagabandhu Roy (1896) 23 3270/ 3146 Cal 536

453. Norendranath Masumdar, v. The State, AIR 1951 2812/2700 Cal 140.

454. Official Trustee of West Bengal Vs. 1707/1837, 1708/1841, Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1974 SC 1355 1798/1900

455. P. K. Vijayan Vs. Kamalakshi Amma and others, 842/1150, 1012/1251, AIR 1994 SC 2145 1014/1254

456. P. Periasami Vs. P.Periathambi & Ors., 1995 (6) 2774/2668, 2932/2797 SCC 523.

457. P.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L.Lakshmi Reddy AIR 2259/2256, 2412/2433, 1957 SC 314 2713/2610, 2774/2668, 2844/2729, 2873/2750, 2878/2752

458. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma 2282/2271, 2774/2667, & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1753 2849/2731,

459. P.V. Durrairajulu Vs. Commissioner of Hindu 1707/1833 Religious Trusts, AIR 1989 Madras 60

460. P.V. Sadavarty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1707/1837 AIR 1963 SC 510

461. Palani Goundan Vs. Peria Gounden, 1941 Mad 2592/2546 158

462. Palaniappa Chetty and Anr. Vs. Deivasikamony 2650/2577 Pandara 1917 L.R. 44 I.A. 147

463. Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri Vs. State AIR 1968 3572/3578 Bombay 127 5180

464. Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee 1265/1418, 1271/1423 Nidubroly and Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1958 A.P. 773

465. Panchanan Dhara and others Monmatha Nath 2282/2271 Maity and another 2006 (5) SCC 340

466. Pandohi Ahir Vs. Faruq Khan and another AIR 4561/5074 1954 All. 191

467. Pandurang Dhondi Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari 892/1181 Jadhav AIR 1966 SC 153

468. Pandurang Kalu Patil and another Vs. State of 1809/1911 Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 733

469. Panna Lal Biswas Vs. Panchu Raidas AIR 1922 2164/2198, 2425/2437, Cal. 419 2427/2438, 2428/2439, 2429/2439, 2579/2537

470. Pappy Amma Vs. Prabhakaran Nair AIR 1972 2225/2233, 2251/2249 Kerala 1 (FB)

471. Parmanand Vs. Nihal Chand AIR 1938 PC 195 1786/1887

472. Parmeshwari Devi and others Vs. Khusali Mandal 2071/2139 and others, AIR 1957 Patna 482

473. Parsinnin Vs. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 2890/2758, 2949/2806

474. Partab Bahadur Singh, Taluqdar Vs. Jagatjit Singh 2162/2197, 2164/2198, AIR 1936 Oudh 387 2404/2427, 2405/2429

475. Parthasaradi Ayyangar and others Vs. 888/1175 Chinnakrishna Ayyangar and others Vol. V ILR Madras Series (1882) 304

476. Parwatabai Vs. Sona Bai 1996 (10) SCC 266 2889/2758

477. People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. U.O.I. 3771/3802 2005(5) SCC 363

478. Perumal Mudaliar Vs. South Indian Railway 3579/3580 Company Ltd. AIR 1937 Mad. 407

479. Perumal Vs. Devarajan & others AIR 1974 Mad. 3039/2862 14

480. Pierce Leslie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss Violet 2166/2199, 2400/2425, Ouchterlony Wapsnare AIR 1969 SC 843 4441/5011 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_215"> 5181

481. Ponnu Nadar and others Vs. Kumaru Reddiar and 2406/2429 others, AIR 1935 Madras 967

482. Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy Vs. Commissioner, 1699/1819, 1707/1833, H.R. & C.E. AIR 1963 SC 510 1827/1927

483. Pooranchand Vs. The Idol Shri Radhakrishnaji & 1873/1966 another AIR 1979 MP 10

484. Prabhu Narain Singh Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors. 2774/2668, 2912/2772 AIR 1983 All 223

485. Prabodh Verma & others Vs. State of U.P. and 2124/2178 others AIR 1985 SC 167

486. Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji Vs. Ishwarlalbhai 943/1204 Narsibhai 1952 SCR 513

487. Prajapati and others Vs. Jot Singh and others AIR 2167/2199, 2422/2437, 1934 All 539 2446/2450

488. Prakash Das Vs. Janki Ballabha Saran AIR 1926 1938/2020 Oudh 444

489. Pramath Nath Mullick Vs. Pradhyumna Kumar 1700/1820, 1707/1835, Mullick & Anr. AIR 1925 PC 139 1784/1886, 1806/1909, 1814/1913, 1815/1913, 1869/1965, 2604/2554, 2685/2597, 2695/2601, 2711/2609

490. Pranshankar Vs. Prannath Mahanand, 1 Bom H. 4470/5023 C. Rep. 12

491. Prem Narain Vs. Ram Charan and others, AIR 914/1189 1932 P.C. 51

492. Prema Chanda Barik Vs. Prafulla Kumar 1036/1269 Mohanty AIR 1988 Orissa 33

493. Premier Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Government of India 842/1150, 1016/1255 and others, AIR 2002 SC 2418

494. Priddle Vs. Napper 6 Coke IA 1777 893/1182

495. Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara 1834/1933 Prabandhak Committee, AIR 1984 SC 858

496. Profulla Chandra Vs. Prabartak Trust AIR 1954 3031/2853 Cal. 8 5182

497. Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Choron 1876/1969 Requitte AIR 1979 SC 1682

498. Promod Chandra Deb Vs. State of Orissa A.I.R. 4447/5012, 4451/5013 1962 S.C. 1288

499. Prosanna Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo, 1771/1881, 1772/1881, LR 2 IA 145 1940/2025, 2645/2575, 2692/2599, 2693/2600, 3030/2853

500. Province of Bihar Vs. Kamakshya Narain Singh 653/985, 657/987 AIR 1950 Patna 366

501. Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Vs. Capt. Mohar 3264/3142 Singh AIR 1975 SC 1891

502. Purna Chandra Bysack Vs. Gopal Lal Sett & Ors. 1842/1938 1908 (VIII) Calcutta Law Journal 369

503. Purnachandra Chakrabarty Vs. Kaliopada Roy 1745/1863 AIR 1942 Cal. 386

504. Purushotama Reddiar Vs. S Perumal AIR 1972 3554/3567 SC 608

505. Qadir Bux Vs. Ramchand and others AIR 1970 2225/2233, 2774/2667, All. 289 2924/2781

506. Queen-Empress Vs Abdullah ILR (1885) 7 All 3544/3564 385 (FB)

507. Queen-Empress Vs. Ramzan ILR, 7 All. 461 3254/3136, 4550/5068

508. R. Venugopala Naidu and others Vs. 958/1215 Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others, AIR 1990 SC 444

509. R.E.M.S. Abdul Hameed v. Govindaraju 1999 (4) 3326/3280 SCC 663

510. R.H.Bhutani Vs. Miss Mani J. Desai AIR 1968 2228/2233 SC 1444

511. R.N. Dawar Vs. Ganga Saran Dhama AIR 1993 2889/2758 Del. 19

512. R.N. Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir 1992 (4) SCC 683 2776/2669, 2900/2765

513. Rabindra Nath Vs. Chandi Charan AIR 1932 Cal 2119/2176 117 5183

514. Radhakishan and another Vs. State of Rajasthan 1140/1349, 1141/1349, and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1 1146/1357

515. Radhakrishna Das Vs. Radha Ramana Swami & 1939/2020, 1940/2024, others AIR (36) 1949 Orissa 1 2440/2444, 2611/2556

516. Radhamoni Debi Vs. Collector of Khulna, 27 Ind 2844/2729 App. 136 at p. 140 (PC)

517. Radharani Vs. Binodamoyee AIR 1942 Cal. 92 923/1194

518. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag Vs. 1265/1419, 1271/1423 Hanskumar Kishanchand AIR 1959 MP 172

519. Ragho Prasad Gupta Vs. Krishna Poddar AIR 940/1200 1969 SC 316

520. Raghunath Das Vs. Union of India and another 626/973 AIR 1969 SC 674

521. Ragu Thilak D.John Vs. S. Rayappan & Ors. 2435/2442 2001 (2) SCC 472

522. Rahmat-ullah Vs. Shamsuddin 1913 (11) ALJ 877 2444/2449

523. Rais Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & others (1999) 6 3500/3493 SCC 391

524. Raj Kumari Devi Vs. Nirtya Kali Debi (1910) 7 1031/1265, 1036/1269 Ind Cas 892 (Cal)

525. Raja Gopa Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religion 929/1197 Endowment Board, Madras, AIR 1934 Madras """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_219"> 103

526. Raja Muttu Ramalinga Setupati Vs. 1867/1964 Perianayagum Pillai, 1 IA 209

527. Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjit Singh Vs. Raja 2162/2197, 2405/2429, Partab Bahadur Singh AIR 1942 Privy Council 47 2774/2667, 2914/2773

528. Raja Rajinder Chand Vs. Mst. Sukhi and others 4444/5011 AIR 1957 S.C. 286

529. Raja Ram Maize Products Vs. Industrial Court of 2439/2444 M.P. 2001 (4) SCC 492

530. Raja Ramaswami (dead) and Ors. Vs. 2166/2199, 2401/2426 Govindammal and Ors. AIR 1929 Mad 313

531. Raja Shumsher Bahadoor Vs. Mirja Mahomed Ali 1036/1268 5184 (1867) Agra H.C.R. 158

532. Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Isakapalli Subbiah & 2162/2197, 2255/2250, Ors. ILR (26) Madras 410 2425/2438

533. Rajah of Venkatgiri Vs. Provinces of Madras AIR 923/1194 (34) 1947 Madras 5

534. Rajendra Singh & others Vs. Santa Singh AIR 2289/2273 1973 SC 2537

535. Ram Bharos Lall Vs. Gopee Beebee (1874) 6 1031/1265, 1036/1268 NWP 66

536. Ram Chandra Mission Vs. Umesh Chandra 845/1152, 1042/1272 Saxena and others 1997 ACJ 896

537. Ram Chandra Vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1952 1230/1405 All. 520

538. Ram Chandra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 3574/3579 1957 SC 381

539. Ram Charan Das Vs. Naurangi Lal & Ors. AIR 2774/2668, 2856/2735, 1933 Privy Council 75 2905/2767, 2905/2767

540. Ram Gobinda Daw Vs. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala 951/1209 Dassi, AIR 1971 SC 664

541. Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & 1699/1819, 1707/1833, Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 50=AIR 1999 SC 2131 1707/1837, 1708/1841, 1760/1871, 1801/1902, 1802/1904, 1844/1939, 1845/1940, 1880/1971, 1882/1971, 1910/1983, 2106/2173, 2714/2611

542. Ram Kirpal Vs. Rup Kuari (1883) ILR 6 (Alld.) 889/1179 269 (P.C.)

543. Ram Lal & another Vs. Board of Revenue & 2595/2547 Others, 1990 (1) RLR 161

544. Ram Murti Vs. Puran Singh AIR 1963 Punjab 393 2193/2213

545. Ram Nandan Vs. State, AIR 1959 All 101 1222/1402

546. Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (21) LCD 852/1156, 1046/1273 1120

547. Ram Parkash Das Vs. Anand Das and Ors. AIR 686/1003 5185 1916 Privy Council 256

548. Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Kashi Nath Tewari, AIR 1966 1929/2012 Patna 235

549. Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter 3981/4294 College & others AIR 1987 SC 1242

550. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and 2245/2243 others 1985 (1) SCC 427

551. Rama Shankar Singh & another Vs. Shyamlata 2289/2273 Devi & another others AIR 1970 SC 716

552. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport 1215/1398 Authority of India and others, 1979 (3) SCC 489

553. Ramareddy Vs. Ranga 1925 ILR 49 Mad 543 2596/2548

554. Rambrahma Chatterjee Vs. Kedar Nath Banerjee 1781/1885, 1783/1886, AIR 1923 Cal 60 1784/1886, 2685/2596

555. Ramesh B. Desai and others Vs. Bipin Vadilal 2281/2270 Mehta and others 2006 (5) SCC 638

556. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital 3587/3584, 3588/3585, Ltd. & Ors. JT 2009 (12) SC 377 3589/3586

557. Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal 2125/2178 Corporation of Greater Bombay & others (1992) 2 SCC 524

558. Rameswar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and 1036/1269 others AIR 1986 Cal. 19

559. Rami Kuar Mani Singh Vs. Nawab of 2652/2579 Murshidabad AIR 1918 PC 180

560. Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others Vs. 1048/1274 Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497

561. Ramprakash vs. Ananda Das 43 Cal.707 2854/2734

562. Ramzan & Anr. Vs. Mohammad Ahmad Khan 2859/2736 AIR 1936 Oudh 207

563. Ramzan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Gafooran Ors. AIR 2008 2774/2668, 2913/2773, All 37 2923/2780

564. Ranchordas Vandravandas Vs. Parvatibai 29 I.A. 2196/2214, 2289/2211 71 (P.C.) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_223"> 5186

565. Ranee Sonet Kowar Vs. Mirza Himmut Bahadoor 4442/5011 (2) LR 3 IA 92, 101,

566. Ranganayakamma & another Vs. K.S. Prakash JT 3041/2864 2008 (8) SC 510

567. Rao Bahadur Man Singh Vs. Maharani 2855/2734 Nawlakhbati (1926) 24 A.L.J.R. 251

568. Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya 3303/3246 Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394

569. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of 714/1023, 740/1037, Bombay and others, AIR 1954 SC 388 3500/3494

570. Re B. Venkata Row (1913) 36 Mad. 159 3575/3579

571. Re Pachiripalli Satyanarayanan, AIR 1953 Mad 2812/2701

534.

572. Renu Devi Vs. Mahendra Singh and others, 3244/3131 (2003) 10 SCC 200

573. Roop Singh Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708 2879/2752

574. RT. Munichikanna Reddy Vs. Revamma, 2007 2778/2675 (25) LCD 1374 (SC)

575. Run Bahadur Singh Vs. Lucho Koer ILR (1885) 943/1204 11 Cal 301

576. S. Darshan Lal Vs. Dr. R.S.S Dalliwall, 1952 All 2585/2540, 3245/3132 825 (DB)

577. S. R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and 734/1033 others AIR 1994 SC 1918

578. S. Raghbir Singh Gill Vs. S. Gurucharan Singh 635/977 Tohra and others 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 53.

579. S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 2774/2668, 2926/2788, 1254; 2997/2830

580. S.N. Dutt Vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1449. 638/978

581. S.P. Mittal Vs. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 715/1024, 716/1024, 733/1033

582. Saddiq Ali Vs. State 1981 CrLJ 379 3553/3567

583. Sadhuram Bansal Vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar and 2246/2246 5187 others 1984 (3) SCC 410

584. Said Maher Hussain Vs. Haji Alimahomed 3248/3133 Jalaludin and others, AIR 1934 Bombay 257

585. Sailendra Kishore Vs. Harekrishna AIR 1978 3556/3568 Orissa 125

586. Sait Tarajee Khimchand Vs. Yelamarti Satyam 3556/3568 AIR 1971 SC 1865

587. Saiyad Jaffar El Edroos Vs. Saiyad Mahomed El 941/1201 Edroos AIR 1937 Bom. 217

588. Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) By LRS. 941/1200, 942/1204, Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others 2000 (3) 944/1205, 1051/1278 SCC 350

589. Salamat Raj Vs. Nur Mohamed Khan (1934) ILR 2193/2213 9 Lucknow 475

590. Sammantha Pandara Vs. Sellappa Chetti ILR 2 682/999, 684/1002 (1878-81) Madras 175

591. Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 634/976 1955 SC 425

592. Sankar Kumar Vs. Mohanlal Sharma AIR 1998 3753/3792 Orissa 117

593. Saqlain Ahmad Vs. Emperor AIR 1936 Alld. 165 3568/3577

594. Sarabjit Rick Singh Vs. Union of India (2008) 2 3047/2867 SCC 417

595. Sarangadeva Periya Matam Vs. Ramaswami 1707/1837, 1869/1965, Goundar, AIR 1966 SC 1603 2708/2608

596. Saraswathi Ammal & Anr. Vs. Rajagopal Ammal 1699/1819, 1848/1941 AIR 1953 SC 491

597. Sarat Kamini Dasi Vs. Nagendra Nath Pal AIR 2652/2579 1926 Cal. 65

598. Sardar Ali Raza khan Vs. Sardar Nawazish Ali 4562/5076 Khan AIR (30) 1943 Oudh 243

599. Sardar Sarup Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab 744/1039, 3500/3494 and others, AIR 1959 SC 860

600. Sardar Syedna Tahel Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of 741/1037, 3500/3494 5188 Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853

601. Saroja Vs. Chinnusamy (2007) 8 SCC 329 1056/1279, 1057/1280

602. Saroop Singh Vs. Banto and others, 2005(8) SCC 2847/2730 330

603. Sarwarlal Vs. State of Hyderabad AIR 1960 SC 4460/5013 862

604. Satya Charan Sarkar Vs. Mohanta Rudrananda 693/1007 Giri AIR 1953 Cal. 716

605. Satya Narain Kapoor Vs. State of U.P. & others 2126/2179 2007 (2) ARC 308

606. Satya Niranjan Vs. Ramlal, 1925 P.C. 42 2417/2434

607. Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand Vs. Union of India 631/975, 657/987 AIR 1966 SC 1068

608. Sayed Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad Zain Sayad Hasan 941/1201 Edrus ILR (1889) 13 Bom. 555

609. Sayed Mohd. Vs. Alimiya (1972) 13 Guj.LR 285 941/1202

610. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs. Gulam 625/973 Rasul Gyasudin Kuwari (1916) ILR XL (Bom.) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_228"> 392

611. Secretary of State for India In Council Vs. 624/973 Perumal Pillai and others (1900) ILR 24 (Mad.) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_229"> 271

612. Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal 2844/2729, 2858/2735 Khan, AIR 1934 PC 23, page 25

613. Secretary of State Vs. Chelikani Rama Rao, 2209/2217 (1916) 39 Mad. 617

614. Secretary of State Vs. Krishnamoni Gupta (1902) 2429/2439 29 Cal. 518

615. Seshammal Vs. State of T.N. AIR 1972 SC 1586 1761/1872

616. Seth Narainbhai Ichharam Kurmi and another Vs. 2813/2702 Narbada Prasad Sheosahai Pande and others, AIR 1941 Nagpur 357

617. Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad AIR 2009 2999/2838, 3014/2845 SC 2463 3039/2862 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_230"> 5189

618. Sewkissendas Bhatter & others Vs. Dominion of 2102/2171 India AIR 1957 Cal. 617

619. Shakuntalabai and another Vs. L.V. Kulkarni and 3415/3340 another, 1989 (2) SCC 526

620. Shankar Lal & Anr. Vs. Mahbub Shah & Anr. AIR 2310/2295 1923 Oudh 59

621. Shankarrao Sitaramji Satpute & Ors. Vs. 2450/2451 Annapurnabai AIR 1961 Bombay 266

622. Shanker Das Vs. Said Ahmad (1884) P.R. No.153 3268/3144 of 1884

623. Shantha Nand Gir Chela Vs. Basudevanand AIR 881/1168 1930 Alld. 225

624. Shanti Kuamr Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi JT 2271/2262, 2272/2265, 2005 (11) SC 122 2273/2265, 3039/2863

625. Sharadchandra Ganesh Muley Vs. State of 946/1206 Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 61

626. Sharda Vs. Dharampal 2003 (4) SCC 493 3764/3797

627. Sharpe Vs. San Paulo Railway Co., L.R. 8 Ch. 1933/2016 App. 597 at pp.609

628. Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & others Vs. Muldas 1853/1947 Bhundardas Vaishya and another AIR 1966 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_231"> 1119

629. Sheo Raj Chamar & another Vs. Mudeer Khan & 2846/2730 others AIR 1934 All. 868

630. Sheo Ramji Vs. Ridhnath Mahadeo Ji AIR 1923 1813/1912 All. 160

631. Sheodhan Singh Vs. Daryo Kunwar, AIR 1966 1045/1273 SC 1332

632. Sheoparsan Singh and others Vs. Ramnandan 893/1182, 894/1182 Prasad 43 IA 91(PC)= 20 C.W.N. 738 (P.C.)

633. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs. 958/1212, 1061/1284, Mahant Harnam Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 1835/1934 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_232"> 3349

634. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, 1041/1271, 1699/1819, Amritsar Vs. Som Nath Dass & Ors. (2000) 4 1707/1837, 1803/1907, 5190 SCC 146=AIR 2000 SC 1421 1805/1909, 1911/1984, 1914/1987, 1915/1989, 2703/2605

635. Shiv Charan Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 (All.) 981/1231 511

636. Shivagonda Subraigonda Patil Vs. Rudragonda 2229/2234 Bhimagonda Patil 1969 (3) SCC 211

637. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan Vs. Mahadba Romaji 1822/1919, 2681/2594 Bidkar & Others AIR 1953 Bombay 38.

638. Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others 688/1004, 689/1005, 1981 (3) SCC 689=AIR 1980 SC 707 694/1007, 696/1008, 699/1010

639. Shripati Quer Vs. Malti Devi, AIR 1967 (Patna) 930/1197 320

640. Shyam Sunder Prasad & Others Vs. Raj Pal Singh 2162/2196, 2164/2198, & Anr. 1995(1) SCC 311 2212/2219, 2458/2454, 2774/2668

641. Sidram Lachmaya Vs. Mallaya Lingaya AIR (36) 2196/2214 1949 Bom. 137

642. Singhai Lal Chand Jain Vs. Rashtriya Swayam 1061/1284 Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_236"> 1211

643. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others Vs. The Sunni 1137/1345, 2433/2441 Central Board of Waqf U.P. and others, AIR 1959 SC 198

644. Siris Chandra Nandy Vs. Rakhala Nanda AIR 3545/3564 1941 PC 16

645. Sita Nath Basak Vs. Mohini Mohan Singh AIR 3573/3578 1924 Cal. 595

646. Sitaram Vs. Amir Begum (1886) ILR 8 Alld. 324 923/1194

647. Sitaramacharya Vs. Gururajacharya, 1997(2) SCC 1991/2070 548

648. Sm. Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy 2774/2667, 2871/2750 & others AIR 1947 Privy Council 19

649. Smt. Bitola Kuer Vs. Sri Ram Charan & Ors. AIR 2774/2668, 2911/2772 1978 All 555 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_238"> 5191

650. Smt. Dhana Kuer Vs. Kashi Nath Chaubey, 1967 1060/1282 AWR 290

651. Smt. Neelawwa Vs. Smt. Shivawwa AIR 1989 4563/5076 Kar. 45

652. Smt. Panna Banerjee and Ors. Vs. Kali Kinkor 1702/1821, 1707/1832, Ganguli AIR 1974 Cal. 126 1799/1900, 2696/2602

653. Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam and others Vs. Abdul 845/1152, 1029/1263, Qadir and others AIR 1966 Alld. 318 1030/1264, 1031/1265, 1036/1268, 1042/1272

654. Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., AIR 653/985, 658/978 1985 RD 33

655. Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali 901/1184, 952/1209 Sen and others AIR 1953 SC 33

656. Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy AIR 1955 1929/2013 Cal 624

657. Soorjomonee Dayee Vs. Suddanund Mahapatter 885/1175 (1873) 12 BLR 304, 315 (P.C.)

658. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. 3121/2967, 3122/2968 and others 2003 (8) SCC 648

659. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath 727/1029, 1700/1820, Temple, Varanasi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1707/1834, 1852/1947, (1997) 4 SCC 606 1855/1956, 3501/3495

660. Sri Banamali Neogi & others Vs. Sri Asoke 2595/2548 Kumar Chattopadhyayay & others, 96 CWN 886

661. Sri Chand Batra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 3581/3581 639

662. Sri Gopal Vs. Pirthi Singh (1902) ILR 24 Alld. 947/1207 429 (PC)

663. Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani & others Vs. Sm. 1875/1968 Kanchanbala Dutta & others AIR 1977 Cal. 473

664. Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur and others V. 1823/1925, 1929/2013 Gopinath Das and others AIR 1960 Cal. 741

665. Sri Lakhi Baruah & others Vs. Sri Padma Kanta 2356/2366 Kalita & others JT 1996 (3) SC 268

666. Sri Nitai Gour Radheshyam Vs. Harekrishna 1927/2011 5192 Adhikari and others AIR 1957 Cal. 77

667. Sri Ramjee and others Vs. Bishwanath Pd. Sah 953/1209 and others AIR 1978 Patna 129

668. Sri Sri Gopal Jew Vs. Baldeo Narain Singh and 1933/2015, 1934/2016, others, 51 CWN 383 1935/2018

669. Sri Sri Ishwar Lakshi Durga Vs. Surendra Nath 1940/2024 Sarhar 45 C.W.N. 665

670. Sri Thakur Kirshna Chandramajju vs. Kanhayalal 1932/2015 and others AIR 1961 Allahabad 206

671. Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirth Swamigal Vs. 687/1004, 699/1010, Baluswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1922 P.C. 123 1806/1909, 3270/3146, 3303/3253, 3424/3347

672. Srikant Vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others 1055/1279 (2007) 1 SCC 486

673. Srikant Vs. King Emperor (1905) 2 ALJ 444 3576/3580

674. Srikanti Vs. Indupuram (1866) 3 M.H.C.R. 226 955/1210

675. State Bank of India Vs. Firm Jamuna Prasad 845/1152, 1042/1272 Jaiswal and sons and another AIR 2003 (Alld.) """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_241"> 337

676. State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator of 1262/1417 Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and Others 2009 CLC 73

677. State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Pioneer 622/972 Builders AIR 2007 SC 113

678. State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda Ojha 1400/1560 AIR 1959 SC 1073

679. State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma 1992 3768/3798 Supp (1) SCC 222

680. State of Bihar and others Vs. Ramdeo Yadav and 1048/1274 others, 1996(2) SCC 493

681. State of Bihar and others Vs. Sri Radha Krishna 1994/2073, 1996/2076, Singh and others, AIR 1983 SC 684 2155/2194, 2162/2197, 2547/2510, 3342/3292, 4455/5014

682. State of Bombay Vs. Chhaganlal Gangaram 1808/1911 5193 Lavar, AIR 1955 Bom. 1

683. State of Gujarat Vs. Vora Fiddali Badruddin 3380/3308, 3381/3309, Mithibarwala, AIR 1964 SC 1043 3385/3310

684. State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 3578/3580 426,

685. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, 3584/3582, 3622/3639 AIR 1999 SC 3318

686. State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India 840/1150, 906/1185, Manufacturers Organization and others, 2006(4) 1003/1245 SCC 683

687. State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. National 852/1156, 1045/1273 Construction Company, Bombay AIR 1996 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_243"> 2367

688. State of Punjab and others Vs. M/s. Surinder 841/1150, 1011/1250 Kumar and Co. and others, AIR 1997 SC 809

689. State of Punjab Vs. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, 3384/3310 1993(3) SCC 459

690. State of Punjab Vs. Geeta Iron and Brass Works 627/974, 637/977 Ltd. 1978 (1) SCC 68=1978 SC 1608

691. State of Punjab Vs. Okara Grain Buyers 1228/1404 Syndicate Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 669

692. State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna 2001 (2) SCC 3773/3805 330

693. State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Sajjanlal 1861/1962, 4453/5013 Panjawat and Others AIR 1975 SC 706=1974 SCC (1) 500

694. State of T.N. Vs. T. Thulasingam and others 1994 2777/2669 Supp. (2) SCC 405

695. State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 947/1207, 1007/1246 1680

696. State of U.P. Vs. Nemchandra Jain, 1984 (2) SCC 1223/1402 405

697. State of UP & another Vs. Synthetics & 2778/2675 Chemicals Ltd, (1991) 4 SCC 139

698. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Jagdish 1052/1278 5194 Sharan Agrawal and others (2009) 1 SCC 689

699. State of West Bengal and others Vs. Debdas 1048/1274 Kumar and others 1991 (1) Suppl. SCC 138

700. State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar & 1703/1821, 1877/1970 Anr. AIR (39) 1952 SC 75

701. State Vs. Kanhu Charan Barik 1983 Cr.L.J. 133 3565/3576

702. State Vs. S.J. Choudhary AIR 1996 SC 1491 3559/3569

703. Subbaraya Gurukkal Vs. Chellappa Mudali 4 1941/2025 Mad. 315

704. Sudhindra Nath Vs. The King AIR (39) 1952 Cal. 3577/3580 422,

705. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur 1395/1559, 2226/2233 AIR 1951 SC 288

706. Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1674/1793 AIR 1987 Punjab and Haryana 5

707. Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 840/1150, 904/1185, SC 152 943/1205, 1010/1250

708. Sumatibai Wasudeo Bachuwar Vs. Emperor, AIR 2814/2703 (31) 1944 Bom. 125

709. Sundar Vs. Parbati, (1889) 12 All 51 2203/2216

710. Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharm High 2262/2258 School Trust Vs. Managing Committee, AIR 1938 PC 73

711. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608 2778/2675

712. Sunka Villi Suranna. v. Goli Sathiraju AIR 1962 3327/3281 SC 342

713. Sunni Central Board of Waqf Vs. Siraj-ul-Haq 1137/1345 Khan and others, AIR 1954 All. 88.

714. Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West 2836/2725 Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 52

715. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, 2007 (6) 3095/2897 SCC 186 5195

716. Suraj Bhan Vs. Harchandgir 1954 PEPSU 65 273/301 (DB)

717. Surayya and another Vs. Annapurnamma, 4471/5023 1919(42) ILR (Mad.) 699

718. Surayya Begum (Mst) Vs. Mohd. Usman and 1061/1284 others, 1991(3) SCC 114

719. Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Bhubaneswari 1942/2027 Thakurani AIR (2) 1933 Cal. 295

720. Surendra Narayan Sarbadhikari Vs. Bholanath 1940/2024 Roy Choudhuri AIR (30) 1943 Cal. 613

721. Suryanarayana & Ors. Vs. Bullayya & Ors. AIR 2167/2199, 2448/2450 1927 Madras 568

722. Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sri 1401/1560 Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864

723. Syed Ali Mohammad Vs. Collector of Bhagalpur, 1111/1328 AIR 1927 Patna 189

724. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & another 3040/2864 Vs. State (Delhi Administration) & another JT 2009 (4) SC 522

725. Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & others Vs. Mohd. 911/1188, 3234/3124, Hanifa & others AIR 1976 SC 1569 3423/3344 3425/3348, 3426/3348

726. Syed Yousuf Yar Khan and others Vs. Syed 1211/1395, 1212/1396 Mohammed Yar Khan and others, AIR 1967 SC """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_249"> 1318

727. Syndicate Bank. v. Prabha D. Naik (2001) 4 SCC 3328/3283 713

728. T. Anjanappa and others Vs. Somalingappa and 2774/2667, 2848/2730, another 2006 (7) SCC 570 2851/2733

729. T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of A.P., 2004(3) SCC 1998/2077, 2008/2083 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_251"> 753

730. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and another Vs. A.N.S. 895/1182 Ramchandra Rao and others, AIR 1922 PC 80

731. T.K. Gopal alias Gopi Vs. State of Karnataka, 719/1027 2000 (6) SCC 168 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_252"> 5196

732. T.R.K. Ramaswami Servai & Anr. Vs. The Board 1700/1820, 1707/1834, of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious 1740/1861, 1844/1939, Endowments, Madras, through its President AIR 1847/1940, 2106/2172 (38) 1951 Madras 473

733. T.V. Durairajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner, Hindu 1700/1820, 1741/1861, Religious and Charitable Endowments 1831/1929 (Administration) Department, Madras AIR 1989 Madras 60

734. Talluri Venkata Seshayya and others Vs. 839/1149, 920/1191, Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao and others, AIR 1937 993/1237, 1943/2028 P.C. page 1

735. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. Hathija Ammal, AIR 1161/1364 2002 SC 402

736. Tarit Bhusan Rai and another Vs. Sri Sri Iswar 1785/1886, 1944/2028, Sridhar Salagram Shila Thakur by Krishna 2717/2612, 2719/2613 Chandra Chandra and others, AIR (29) 1942 Calcutta 99

737. Temple of Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan & 2595/2548, 2657/2582 others, 1998 Raj 85

738. Thakardwara Sheru Mal Vs. Ishar Das AIR 1928 1737/1860 Lah. 375

739. Thakur Amar Singhji Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 4449/5013 1955 SC 504

740. Thakur Kishan Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR 2845/2730, 2879/2753 1995 SC 73

741. Thamba Vs. Arundel I.L.R. 6 Mad. 287 692/1007

742. Thayarammal Vs. Kanakammal & Ors. (2005) 1 1699/1819, 1707/1837, SCC 457 1874/1967

743. The Advocate- General of Bengal on behalf of 3303/3255 Her Majesty Vs. Ranee Surnomoye Dossee in Moore's Indian Appeals (1863-1864) 9 MIA 387

744. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. 1786/1887 Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das AIR 1971 SC 2057

745. The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan Vs. 1142/1351 Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 SC 289

746. The Delhi and London Bank Vs. Orchard, I.L.R. 3 2177/2204 5197 (1876) Calcutta 47 (PC)

747. The East India Company Vs. Oditchurn Paul 1849 2172/2201 (Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies) 43

748. The Firm of Eng Gim Moh Vs. The Chinese 2162/2197, 2432/2441 Merited Banking Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1940 Rangoon 276

749. The Mayor of the City of Lyons Vs. the Hon'ble 3303/3257 The East India Company, Moore's Indian Appeals (1836-1837) 1 MIA 175

750. The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram 3589/3586 AIR 1979 SC 14

751. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Vs. State of 1829/1928, 3302/3238 Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1638

752. Tracy Perrage Case (1843) 10 CI & F 154 3591/3587

753. Trilochan Das Adhikari & another Vs. Simanchal 2595/2548, 2659/2582 Rath & others, 1994(II) OLR 602

754. Tulsidas Vs. Sidahinath (9) I.C. 650) 1940/2025

755. U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqf Vs. U.P. Sunni 1163/1365, 1164/1367 Central Board of Waqf, AIR 2001 SC 2086

756. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow Vs. 1148/1358, 1149/1358 State of U.P. and others, 2006(6) ADJ 331

757. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional 2123/2178 Member, Board of Revenue AIR 1963 SC 786

758. Umrao Singh v. Union of India; AIR 1975 Del. 2812/2701 188, 191

759. Union of India and Others Vs. SICOM Ltd. and 1261/1417 Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 635

760. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1048/1273, 1050/1278 1

761. Union of India. v. Sudhangshu Mazumdar AIR 3325/3279 1971 SC 1594

762. Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Sardara Singh 929/1197 5198 and others, AIR 1981 (Punjab and Haryana) 354

763. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. 1992/2070 Samir Chandra Chaudhary, 2005(5) SCC 784

764. United States Shipping Board Vs. The Ship "St. 3560/3573 Albans" AIR 1931 PC 189

765. United States v. Juan Prechman, (1831-34) L.Ed. 3325/3279 604

766. Upendra Kumar and others Vs. District Judge, 845/1152, 1042/1272 Azamgarh and others 1997 ACJ 823

767. V. D. Dhanwatey. v. Commissioner of Income 3329/3284 Tax, M. P., Nagpur & Bhandara AIR 1968 SC 683

768. V. Mariyappa Vs. B.K. Puttaramayya, ILR (1957) 1870/1965 Mys 291:AIR 1958 Mys 93

769. V. Padmanabhan Nair Vs. Kerala State Electricity 1231/1405 Board AIR 1989 Kerala 86

770. V. Seethaya & Ors. Vs. P. Subramanya 3044/2865 Somayajulu & Anr. A.I.R. 1929 Privy Council """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_257"> 115

771. Vajesingji Joravarsingji Vs. Secretary of State 3379/3307, 4445/5012 AIR 1924 PC 216

772. Vallabhacharya Swami Varu (Deity) of Swarna 1707/1837 Vs. Deevi Hanumancharyulu, AIR 1979 SC 1147

773. Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar 943/1205, 1050/1278 Uthirasomasundar-eswarar Temple Vs. Rajanga Asari Air 1965 Mad. 355

774. Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese 2004(6) 3758/3794 SCC 378

775. Vasant Ambadas Pandit Vs. Bombay Municipal 636/977, 637/977 Corporation and others AIR 1981 Bombay 394

776. Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Government of Province of 629/974, 657/987 Madras AIR 1947 PC 197

777. Velluswami Vs. Raj Nainar 1959 SC 422 (426) 2592/2546

778. Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru 1707/1837, 1947/2034, Seshu Reddy, AIR 1967 SC 436 4476/5029 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_258"> 5199

779. Vembagounder Vs. Pooncholai Gounder AIR 3751/3791 1996 Madras 347

780. Venkata Chandrayya Vs. Venkata Rama Reddy, 929/1197 (1899) 22 Madras 256

781. Venkataramana Devaru Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 744/1040, 1761/1871, 1958 SC 255 1856/1957

782. Venkataramana Moorthy Vs. Sri Rama 1741/1861, 1845/1940 Mandhiram (1964) 2 An.WR 457

783. Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru 1707/1836 Seshu Reddy, 1966 Supp SCR 270

784. Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496 2877/2752

785. Vidya vs. Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302; 2854/2734

786. Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha 684/1002, 1769/1877 Swami 1904 ILR Vol. XXVII Madras 435

787. Vimla Bai Vs. Hiralal Gupta & others (1990) 2 3363/3302, 3500/3494 SCC 22

788. Vishwambhar & Ors. Vs. Laxminarain & Anr. 2435/2442 2001 (6) SCC 163

789. Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale Vs. Shalinibai 2853/2734, 2947/2804 Nagappa Sabale and others, JT 2009(5) SC 395

790. Vithal Yeshwant Jathar Vs. Shikandarkhan 961/1217 Makhtumkhan Sardesai AIR 1963 SC 385

791. Wahid Ali & another Vs. Mahboob Ali Khan AIR 2227/2233, 3270/3146, 1935 Oudh 425 2858/2736

792. Wali Mohammad V. Mohammad Bakhsh AIR 3267/3144 1930 PC 91

793. Waqf Khudawand Taala Banam Masjid Mauza 957/1212 Chaul Shahabudinpur vs. Seth Mohan Lal 1956 ALJ 225

794. West Rand Gold mining Co. Vs. The King (1905) 2862/2739 2 KB 391

795. Williams Vs. Lourdusamy & another (2008) 5 1051/1278 SCC 647

796. Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead) Vs. Nanilal 1406/1561 5200 Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 404

797. Yeknath Vs. Bahia AIR 1925 Nagpur 236 (1) 2162/2197, 2257/2251

798. Yeshwant Govardhan Vs. Totaram Avasu AIR 1031/1265, 1036/1269 1958 Bom. 28 5201 APPENDIX-10 Index-Reference Books Alphabetically Sl.No Book Para/Page No.

1. A Clash of Culture, Audh, The British and the 3399/3320 Mughals by Michael H. Fisher (published in 1987 by Manohar Publications, New Delhi)

2. A Cultural History of India by A.L. Basham (first 3865/4057, 3866/4057 published in 1975) Oxford University Press (Eighth Indian Impression in 1992)

3. A Digest of Mahommedan Law- Part-First 3178/3007, 3190/3017, (Second Edition 1875) by Neil B.E. Baillie 3223/3113, 3303/3239, 3320/3270, 3503/3496

4. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the 4221/4598, 4222/4598 Government of the East-India Company and of the native States on the Continent of India by Edward Thornton

5. A Gazetteer of the Territories under the 1319/1461, 1410/1563, Government of the East-India Company and of the 3350/3298, 3516/3510, native States on the Continent of India, by Edward 2622/2566, 2960/2813 Thornton first published in 1858 (reproduced in 1993) by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No.

10)

6. A Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah 750/1041, 791/1121, Fyzabad by P. Carnegy printed at the Oudh 1413/1564, 1418/1568, Government Press, Lucknow in 1870. (Book No. 1420/1570, 2212/2297,

154) 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, 3390/3317 13th Impression 2001) bu Romila Thapar

8. A History of the Sikhs by Khushwant Singh, Vol. 4350/4818 I, 1469-1839, first published in 1963 and 9th impression 2002 by Oxford University Press

9. A. Fuhrer's account published in 1891, 3526/3525 5202

10. Aaprajit Prichchha by Bhuwan Dev 3936/4240

11. Agnipuranam Chapter 103 Poona Edition of 1900 1694/1809, AD.

12. Ain-e-Akbari written by Abul Fazal Allami, 1616/1735, 1617/1736, translated in English by H. Blochmann edited by 1618/1744, 1622/1747, Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first published 1927- 4363/4918 1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 24)

13. Ameer Ali Shaheed Aur Marka Hanuman Gari by 1635/1762, 3518/3513 Shekh Mohammad Ajmat Ali Alvi Kakoravi (written in 1886) revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi published in 1987 (Book No. 102)

14. An Advanced History of India by R.C. Majumdar, 3388/3315 H.C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, Fourth Edition 1978, published by Macmillan India Ltd.

15. Anand Ramayana (Navon Khand Sampurna) 4357/4910 edited by Pandit Sri Ramji Sharma published by Sri Durga Pustak Bhandar (Pvt.) Ltd., Bombay

16. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition by F.E. 4155/4550, 4215/4582 Pargiter

17. Archaeological Survey Of India Four Reports 4225/4604 Made During the Years 1862-63-64-65 by Alexander Cunningham

18. Archaeological Survey of India report of Tours in 3667/3729 the Central Doab and Gorakhpur in 1874-75 and 1875-76 by A.C.L. Carlleyle Vol. XII

19. Asiatic Researches Vol-I, first published in 1788, 3777/3809 recently republished in 1979

20. Aspects of our Religion, Bhavan's Book 1763/1872 University by Senior Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeta

21. Atharva-Veda Samhita, Books VIII to XIX, 4090/4444, 4119/4507, translated by William Dwigth Whitney (Revised 4120/4510, 4300/4751 and edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman) first published in Cambridge in 1905 and re-printed in 2001 by Motilal Banarsidass

22. Atherva-Veda Ka Subodh Bhasya 4090/4444, 4299/4751, 5203

23. Aurangzib-and the decay of the Mughal Empire, 1632/1757 by Stanley Lane Poole first published in 1890, reproduced in 1995, published by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 26)

24. Autobiography J.S. Mill, London, reprinted in 4181/4567 1958

25. Ayodhya Archaeology After Demolition by D. 3645/3704 Mandal first published in 1993, reprint in 1994

26. Ayodhya ka Itihas Avam Puratatva Rigved Se 3630/3656 Abtak

27. Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi Lala Sitaram, 752/1049, 1479/1623, first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001, 3531/3528 published by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi (Book No. 46)

28. Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva by Dr. T.P. 1430/1578, 3643/3703, Verma and S.P. Gupta 3869/4064, 3870/4112 (Book No. 141)

29. Ayodhya- Part I & II by Hans Bakker 1986 3535/3535

30. Babar by Dr. Radhey Shyam, first published in 1454/1603, 1555/1664, 1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad (Book No. 1) 3663/3721

31. Babar/ Babur-Nama by John Layden and William 1519/1638, Erskine (Book No. 59)

32. Babari Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians 3609/3604 Report to the Indian Nation

33. Babarnama translated by Yugjeet Navalpuri, first 1476/1617 published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998 and reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi (Book No. 152)

34. Babur-nama (Tuzuk-i-babri) (1493-94 AD) 1486/1626

35. Babur-Nama by A.S. Beveridge, first published in 1314/1458, 1315/1458, 1921 (reprinted in 2006 by Low Price 1316/1459, 1317/1460, Publications, Delhi) 1318/1460, 1341/1478, 1344/1479, 1366/1524, (Book No. 6) 1441/1588, 1442/1589, 1443/1590, 1471/1616, 1477/1619, 1515/1637, 1525/1641, 1528/1644, 5204 1533/1648, 1566/1673

36. Balmiki Ramayan (Book No. 47) 1913/1986

37. Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume XLVIII of 1421/1571, 4276/4712, the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of 4405/4964 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 )

38. Bhagvad Gita As It is by A.C. Bhaktivedanta 3500/3493 Swami Prabhupad

39. Bhagwad-gita 4179/4566

40. Bhai Bale Wali-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji ki Janam 4334/4802 Sakhi, 7th Edn. 1999

41. Bhartiya Sanskriti Ke Char Adhyay by Ramdhari 3500/3493 Singh Dinkar, First Edn. 1956, reprinted 2009 by Lok Bharti Prakashan

42. Bibiotheque Orientale, Art. "Mahmood." Paris, 4040/4397 published in 1697

43. Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition (1999), 2219/2222, 2220/2226, published by West, St. Paul, Minn., 1999 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 3306/3261, 3321/3271 Ameer Ali

52. Commentary on Mohammedan Law by Baillie 3259/3139

53. Complete Works, Vol. 2 by Swami Vivekananda 1756/1870 5205

54. Concise Oxford Dictionary 2700/2604

55. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement 2219/2224, 2220/2227, of the Entire American Law as developed by All 2804/2685 Reported Cases (1956), Vol. 26A, published by Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.

56. Corpus Juris Secundum A Complete Restatement 2111/2220 of the Entire American Law as developed by All Reported Cases (1959), Vol. 27, published by Brooklyn, N.Y. The American Law Book Co.

57. DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE ET 1588/1687, 1916/2006, GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E under the 2621/2565, 3333/3286, title "TOME 1. NOUVELLE EDITION. 3348/3297, 3412/3318, Contenant la Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. 3514/3503, 4308/4764, 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

58. Development of Hindu Iconography' by Jitendra 1716/1845, 1718/1846 Nath Banerjea (First Edition in 1941 and 5th Edition in 2002 published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.)

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 4327/4792 Lal Srivastava

63. DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary published by 1671/1792 Oxford University Press

64. Early Travels in India (1985 First Edition 1585/1682, 2957/2812 distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) by William Foster

65. East India Gazetter by Walter Hamilton first 1407/1562, 1408/1562, published in 1828 (reproduced in 1993 published 2959/2813, 3334/3287, 5206 by Low Price Publications, Delhi containing 4218/4585 particular descriptions of the

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 3519/3517 Asia by Surgeon General Balfour, 1858

69. English translation of Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa by 4314/4766 M.R. Kale

70. Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement 1321/1462, 1324/1464, (in continuation of Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica) 1366/1524, 1445/1591, 1964-1965 (reprinted in 1987) 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 751/1045, 791/1121, District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of 1422/1571, 2626/2568, Agra and Oudh by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 3354/3299, 3402/3331, (Book No. 4) 3527/3526, 4277/4716

73. Fyzabad-A Gazetteer being Volume XLIII of the 1425/1575, 1431/1581, District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of 2626/2568, 3529/3527, Agra & Oudh in 1928 4283/4730, 3356/3300

74. Gazetteer of India (Vol. II ) 3303/3241

75. Gazetteer of Oudh by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S., 1416/1566, 1417/1567, Assistant Commissioner (1877) 2625/2567, 3352/3299, 3402/3331, 3523/3524, 4263/4686,

76. Hadiqa-E-Shabda by Mirza Jan published in 3400/3329, 3517/3511 1855/56 AD

77. Hadith Sahih Bukhari 3311/3264, 3150/2987, 3151/2987, 3166/2999, 3167/2999, 3168/3000, 3170/3002, 3172/3303, 3173/3004, 3174/3005, 3180/3009, 3194/3034, 3195/3038, 3196/3038, 3197/3042, 3198/3043, 5207 3199/3044, 3200/3045

78. Hadith Sahih Muslim 3169/3001, 3186/3011, 3189/3013, 3191/3020, 3204/3048, 3208/3061, 3209/3062, 3309/3262

79. Hadith, Volume 1 3193/3032

80. Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn, Vol 16 2598/2550, 3242/3129

81. Handbook of Architecture (1855) 4240/4611

82. Hanifeea Code of Jurisprudence at page vii-viii 3303/3239 (Second Edition 1875 published by Smith Elder, & Co., London )

83. Hindu and Mahomedan Endowments by Abdur 3217/3109 Rahim 1918

84. Hindu and Mohammaden Endowments by P.R. 3227/3117 Ganapathy Iyer

85. Hindu Law & Usages by Mayne, 16th Edn. 1704/1821

86. Hindu Law of Endowments by Pran Nath 1779/1884, 3392/3317 Saraswati

87. Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts of 1694/1811, 1695/1817, B. K. Mukherjea 5th Edition, Published by Eastern 1696/1818, 1707/1825, Law House 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 4111/4496, 4112/4497, Hinduism by Benjamin Walker, first published in 4114/4503, 4116/4505, 1968 by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London and 4119/4507, 4124/4514, the first Indian Edition was published in 1983 by 4129/4518, 4130/4523 Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

91. Hinduism And Ecology Seeds of Truth 3500/3494

92. Hinduism by Sir Moniar Williams 4289/4743

93. History and culture of the Indian People Bhavan's 3876/4124, 3877/4124 5208 Book University published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Mumbai (first edition 1957), 5th Edition 2001

94. History of Architecture 4240/4611

95. History of Bairagi Akharas by Yadunath Sarkar 748/1041

96. History of British India by James Mill 4169/4558, 4181/4567

97. History of British India edited by H.H. Wilson 4184/4568

98. History of Dharmashastra, translated by Pandurang 1703/1821, 1707/1827, Vaman Kane, Part-IV Third Edition 1991 2596/2548, 2603/2553, published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research 4090/4444, 4305/4759, Institute Poona 4526/5061

99. History of India under Baber by William Erskine 1535/1659, 1536/1650, (May 1845), though published for the first time in 1544/1657, 1545/1658, 1854 1546/1658, 1547/1659

100. History of India-As told by its own Historians by 1426/1575, 1427/1575, Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II 4035/4387, 4037/4388, 4041/4398

101. History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest by 4331/4797 Rama Shankar Tripathi

102. History of Sanskrit Literature (1859) 4178/4565

103. History of Sanskrit Literature (1900) by 4211/4580 Macdonell, Arthur Anthony

104. History of the rise of the Mahomedan Power in 3161/2995 India till the year AD 1612 translated by John Briggs (first published in 1829 reprinted in 2006 by Low Price Publications, Delhi)

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- 3157/2991, 3191/3021 1354 translated and selected by H.A.R. Gibb (first published in 1929 reprinted in 2007 by Low Price 5209 Publications, Delhi)

110. Illustrated History of Indian Architecture 4240/4611

111. Imperial Gazetteer of India Provincial Service 3528/3527, 3357/3300, United Provinces of Agra & Oudh, Vol. II, 4284/4734 published in 1934 Faizabad Division

112. Imperial Gazetteer of India--Provincial Series-- 1423/1573, 4282/4727, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh-Vol. II (1908) 3355/3299 (Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of Government Printing Calcutta

113. India During Muslim Rule by Maulana Hakim 2726/2618 Syed Abdul Hai

114. India in or about 1030 A.D. by Alberuni 1694/1810

115. India in the 17th Century (Social, Economic and 1626/1754, 1628/1755 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

116. Indian Architecture (Islamic Period) by Percy 3430/3350 Brown published by D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. Private Ltd

117. Indian Texts Series-Storia Do Mogor or Mogul 1624/1752 India 1653-1708 by Niccolao Manucci translated in English by Milliam Irvine Vol. III

118. Itihas Darpan Vol. III December 1996 published 4153/4542 by Bhartiya Itihas Sankalan Yojna Samiti, Delhi

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 2112/2226, 2220/2230, Edition-1977, Second Impression-1990, published 2809/2691 by London Sweet & Maxwell Limited

122. Kalhana's Rajatarangini-A Chronicle of the Kings 4142/4535, 4312/4765 of Kasmir """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_272"> 5210

123. Kalidasa's Raghuvamsa 4315/4771, 4318/4772

124. Katyayana 1707/1827, 2603/2553

125. Kitab Al-Aqdiyah 3215/3096

126. Kitab Al-Salat 3205/3055

127. Kong-U-To (Konyodha) 4319/4773

128. Law of Endowment (Hindu & Mahomedan) by A. 3048/2867, 3230/3119, Ghosh, Second Edn. published by Eastern Law 3235/3126 House, Calcutta

129. Law of Endowments, Wakfs and Turst by Dr. 3227/3117 Paras Diwan

130. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by 1733/1857, 1745/1863 Ganapathi Iyer

131. Law of Hindu Religious Endowments by Ghosh 1732/1856

132. Legal Thesaurus Regular Edition-William C. 2810/2694 Burton (1981), published by Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York.

133. Life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li, first 4324/4776 published in 1911 at London, reprinted in 2001 by Low Price Publications, Delhi (Book No. 20)

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 1476/1617, 1520/1638, Great Moghuls, first published in 1909 (first 1522/1640, 1523/1640, Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess Ess 1571/1676, 1578/1680, Publications, Delhi) by F.G. Talbot 1579/1682

141. Meri Jiwan Yatra-1 by Rahul Sankrityayan (First 4393/4959 Paperback Edition:1996)

142. Mimamsa Darshan 1694/1814 5211

143. Minhaju-S 'Siraj's Tabkat-I Nariri 4020/4354

144. Mitra's Legal & Commercial Dictionary 5th Edition 2219 /2222, 2220/2226, (1990) by A.N. Saha, published by Eastern Law 2293/2275, 2811/2697, House Prv. Ltd. 2815/2703

145. Mohammedan Law by Tyabji 3249/3133, 3259/3139

146. Mugalkalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530 AD) 1453/1601, 1549/1659 translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi (first published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first time by Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi)

147. Mughal Documents (A.D. 1628-59) Volume II by 1630/1756, 3318/3268, S.A.I. Tirmizi (first published 1995 by Manohar 3319/3269 Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi)

148. Muslim Vidhi (A Text-Book of Mahomedan Law) 3229/3119 by Mahesh Prasad Tandon

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 2778/2672 Edn 2003

153. Narsingh-Puranam published by Geeta Press, 4310/4765 Gorakhpur 1999 (Samvat 2056)

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. 3503/3496 Fyzee, Second Edition 1955

157. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current 2293/2275, 2294/2277 English first published 1948 by Oxford University Press

158. Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic 3373/3306 Dictionary published by Oxford University Press, first published in 1989

159. Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary 2801/2684 published by Oxford University Press, first published in 2008 """"""""""""""""""""""""""hidden_text"""""""""""""""""""""""""" id="span_274"> 5212

160. P Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon with Legal 2219/2225, 2220/2229, Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases, 2293/2276, 2294/2277, Second Edition 1997), published by Wadhwa and 2812/2699, 3375/3306 Company Law Publishers

161. Parashara 1707/1827

162. Periplus of the Erythraean Sea 4098/4486

163. Perspectives in Social and Economic History of 3864/4055, 3875/4122 Early India by Prof. R.S. Sharma published in 1983 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

164. Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in 4240/4611 India

165. Precedents of Hindu Law Vol. II by Mac Naughton 1940/2024

166. Principles and Precedents of Moohummudan Law 3220/3112, 3503/3496 by W.H. Macnaghten (first published 1825)

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. 3218/3111, 3219/3112, Mulla 3322/3272, 3394/3318, 3503/3496

169. Puranas 4129/4518

170. Purush Sukta 1694/1811

171. Rajasthan Ki Bhakti Parampara Evam Sanskriti by 753/1050 Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla and Onkar Narain Singh published at Rajasthani Granthagar, Jodhpur

172. Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid Revisited by Dr. 4028/4384 S.P. Gupta

173. Ram Janmabhumi Controversy: Passion Apart 4027/4384 What History and Archaeology Have to Say on this Issue

174. Report of Archaeological Survey of North West 3525/3525 Provinces and Oudh 1889

175. Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of 1419/1569, 2626/2568, the Fyzabad District, (Book No. 18) by A.F. 3353/3299, 3402/3331, Millett, C.S., Officiating Settlement Officer, 3524/3525, 4266/4692 5213 published by North Western Provinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880

176. Rigveda 4113/4503

177. Rigveda Samhita 4090/4444, 4295/4749, 4296/4749

178. Riyazu-S-Salatin, A History of Bengal 3165/2998

179. Roscoe Pounde's Jurisprudence, Part, IV, 1959 1911/1985 Edition

180. Sacred Books of East by Max Muller 4189/4571

181. Salmond's Jurisprudence Twelfth Edition by F.J. 1237/1408, 1751/1865, Fitzgerald 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 4309/4765 Williams (first published in 1899) (reprinted in 1997) (by Motilal Banarasidass)

186. Sanskrit Hindi Kosh written by Waman Shivram 4309/4764 Apte, first published in 1966

187. Sanskrit Inscriptions of Delhi Sultanate 1191-1526 3656/3717 by Pushpa Prasad

188. Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 16th Edition, 2007 Vol. 3593/3588 1

189. Sastri's Hindu Law, 5th Edn 2667/2585

190. Shakuntala 4180/4567

191. Shri Guru Granth Sahib (Chauthi Sainchi) 4345/4812 translated by Dr. Manmohan Sehgal

192. Shri Narsinghpuranam, Samvat 2056, published by 1694/1811, 4090/4444, Geeta Press Gorakhpur, 4302/4757

193. Shrimad Bhagwat Gita 1707/1823, 1764/1874, 3500/3493

194. Shukranitih 2637/2571 5214

195. SI-YU-KI, Buddhist Records of the Western World 4319/4772, 4322/4775 translated from Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D.

629) by Samuel Beal

196. Sikhs and Sikhism written by W.H. Mcleod first 4335/4803 published in 1999

197. Skanda-Purana, translated and annotated by Dr. 3500/3493, 4090/4444, G.V. Tagore, Part-VII, first published in Delhi in 4701/4752, 4301/4752, 1995 by Motilal Banarasidas 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 4370/4926 by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal

203. Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Pahli Sainchi) translated 4367/4923, 4368/4924 by Dr. Manmohan Sahgal

204. Sri Guru Granth Sahib with Hindi translation by 4339/4806 Dr. Manmohan Sahgal, 6th Edn. 2001

205. Sri Ram Janambhumi (Sachitra, Pramanik Itihas 754/1054, 4021/4354 by Dr. Radheyshyam Shukla published in 1986

206. Sri Ram Janambhumi Ka Rakt Ranjit Itihas by 4024/4375 Late Pt. Sri Ramgopal Pandey "Sharad", published by Pt. Dwarika Prasad Shivgovind, Ayodhya (1987)

207. Sri Ramacaritamanasa published by Geeta Press 1913/1986, 4090/4444, Gorakhpur, first edition 1968, 11th edition 1999 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 3299/3232 Translated by W.E.Begley and Z.A.Desai published by the University of Washington Press, 5215 1989

213. Tarikh-E-Avadh (Hissa Doyam) by Allama 3520/3518 Muhammad Nazmul Gani Khan Rampuri (1859- 1932 Isvi) Revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi 1983 A.D

214. Tarikh-I-Daudi of Abdulla 4009/4339

215. Tarikh-I-Firishta by Mohammad Kasim Hindu 4007/4337 Shah

216. Tarikh-i-Shahi 3155/2988

217. Tarikhe Feristha by Mahomed Kasim Feristha 3161/2995

218. The Chambers Dictionary (Deluxe Edition) (1993) 2293/2276, 2294/2277, published by Allied Chambers (India) Limited 2803/2685 New Delhi

219. The Classical Law of India by Robert Lingat 1704/1821

220. The Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry by 473/665, 1350/1484, Sushil Srivastava, published in 1991 by Vistaar 1452/1599, 3659/3721, Publications, New Delhi 3660/3721, 3661/3721,

221. The Elementary Principles of Jurisprudence by 2794/2683 G.W. Keeton, II Edition (1949)

222. The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI 4290/4743

223. The English Factories in India (1668-1669) by Sir 3298/3223 William Foster

224. The Evolution of the Sikh Community by W.H. 4348/4817 Mc Leod

225. The Hedaya (A Commentary on the Mussulman 3224/3114 Laws)

226. The Hedaya by Charles Hamilton (edited 1871) 3503/3496

227. The History and Culture of Indian People - The 4096/4486 Vedic Age Vol.-I published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai- Sri R.C.Majumdar, A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar, 6th Edition 1996

228. The History and Culture of the Indian People- 4391/4948 British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance Part II (Vol. 10) edited by R.C. Majumdar

229. The History and Culture of the Indian People; The 4042/4398 5216 Delhi Sultanate publish by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (1st published in 1960, 4th Edition 1990) forwarded and edited by K.M.Munshi, R.C.Majumdar, A.D.Pusalker and A.K.Majumdar

230. The History of British India by James Mill (Vol.1) 3298/3223 published by Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, First Published 1817, Second Edition in 1829 and Second Reprint in 1978

231. The History of Islam by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi, 3225/3114, 3503/3496 revised by Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

232. The History of the Indian Empire by Robert 4249/4633 Montgomery Martin first published in 1983 by Mayur Publications Delhi

233. The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics 1409/1562, 1411/1564, of Eastern India (1838 AD) by Robort Montgomry 1608/1728, 3515/3509 Martin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD)

234. The Indian Antiquary A Journal of Oriental 3669/3737 Research by Sir Richard Carnac Temple, Vol. XXXVII, 1908 published by Swati Publications Delhi, 1985

235. The Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases 2219/2223, 2220/2227, Judicially Interpreted, to which has been added Statutory Definitions by F. Stroud Second Edition Vol. 1 (1903)

236. The Law Relating to Gifts, Trusts and 3222/3113, 3503/3496 Testamentary Dispositions among the Mahommedans (Tagore Law Lectures-1884) by Syed Ameer Ali

237. The Laws of Manu Penguin Classics, Edn 2000 2592/2546, 2606/2554, 2778/2672

238. The Layman's Dictionary of English Law by 1673/1792 Gavin McFarlane (1984), published by Waterlow Publishers Limited

239. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscription In 3668/3734 The North Western Provinces And Oudh published by Indological Book House, Varanasi in 1969

240. The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In 4326/4783 5217 The North-Western Provinces And Oudh by A. Fuhrer

241. The Mughal Empire edited by Sri R.C. Majumdar 3162/2996

242. The Naradasmrti 2635/2571, 2830/2718

243. The New Cambridge History of India II.3 The 4046/4406 Sikhs of the Punjab by J.S. Grewal

244. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 9 3500/3493

245. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the 1672/1792, 2220/2226, English Language (1987), published by Lexicon 2293/2274, 2294/2276, Publications, Inc. 2802/2684, 3372/3306

246. The Philosophy of History by Hegel 4168/4558

247. The Sacred Books Of The east under title 'The 1694/1816 Satpath - Brahmana' Part I on its page 215, Edn. Reprint 2001 Published by Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi 110007

248. The Sacred Scriptures of India, Swami Chidatman 4113/4502, 4115/4505, Jee Maharaj, first published in 2009 by Anmol 4117/4506, 4120/4510 Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

249. The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by A. Fuhrer, 1319/1461, 1320/1461, first published in 1889, reprinted in 1994 1436/1584

250. The Sikh Religion-Its Gurus Sacred Writings and 4341/4808, 4346/4814 Authors by Max Arthur Macauliffe

251. The Sikh World-An Encyclopaedic Survey of Sikh 4349/4817 Religion and Culture by Ramesh Chandra Dogra Urmila Dogra

252. The Song of the Aborable One 4179/4566

253. The Spirit of Islam (A History of the Evolution 3158/2992, 3159/2993, and Ideals of Islam with a Life of the Prophet) by 3160/2994, 3216/3097 Syed Ameer Ali

254. Travels in the Moghal Empire, AD 1656-1668 by 3298/3221 Francois Bernier

255. Treatise on Hindu Law by Golapchandra Sarkar, 1694/1808, Sastri (6th Edition, published by Easter Law House (1927) 5218

256. Tree and Serpent Worship 4240/4611

257. Tri- Vikrama- Nirnaya - Sindhu - Kamalakar 1694/1810 Bhatta, Bombay Edition of 1900 p.264.

258. Upanisads 4123/4511

259. Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad by Smt. 1434/1582, 2627/2568, Esha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published 3358/3300, 3530/3528, in 1960 printed at the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., 4285/4737 Allahabad

260. Uttar Taimoorkalin Bharat Bhag.1 (History of the 3155/2989 Part-Taimoor Sultans of Delhi, Part 1)

261. Vagasaneyee Samhita Chapter XXXI 1694/1811

262. Vaisheshik 1753/1867

263. Valmiki Ramayan (translated by Chaturvedi 3500/3493 Dwarka Prasad Sharma)

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), 2219/2224, published by Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.

269. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 12A 2220/2228, 2808/2690 (1954), published by St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.

270. Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, Vol. 45, 1670/1792 published by St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.

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