M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS versus V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, S.A. BOBDE, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · cites 45 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1
1
M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS
V.
MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 09, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, S. A. BOBDE,
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
ASHOK BHUSHAN AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Religion / Religious Structure – Ayodhya Matter – Ram
Janmabhumi – Babri Masjid dispute – Five suits instituted between
1950 and 1989, centering around dispute of ownership between
Hindu community and Muslim community over piece of land
admeasuring 1500 square yards in the town of Ayodhya – Hindu
community claimed the disputed site to be the birth-place of Lord
Ram, referring it as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan and
asserting that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple
dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished by Mughal Emperor
Babur – Muslim community however claimed it as the site of the
Babri Masjid (mosque) built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant
land – Suit 1 was filed by a worshipper for enforcement of his right
to worship Lord Ram at the Janmabhumi – Suit 2 seeking reliefs
similar to those in Suit 1 was however subsequently withdrawn –
Suit 3 filed by Nirmohi Akhara (representing a religious sect amongst
Hindus) was for handing over the management and charge of the
Janmabhumi temple to it – Suit 4 filed by Sunni Central Waqf Board
was for a declaration that the entirety of the disputed site, including
Babri Masjid and the surrounding graveyard, is a public mosque
and for a decree for possession – Suit 5 was filed by the deity of
Lord Ram and the Janmasthan (both of whom were asserted to be
juridical persons) through a next friend impleaded as a third plaintiff
for a declaration that the entire premises constitute Ram Janmabhumi
and for an injunction against interference in construction of new
temple after demolition of the existing building – All the suits were
transferred by the High Court to itself – In a split 2:1 verdict, the
High Court held that the Hindu and Muslim parties were joint holders
of the disputed premises – Each of them was held entitled to one
third of the disputed property – Nirmohi Akhara was granted the
remaining one third – A preliminary decree to that effect was passed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
in the suit brought by the idol and the birth-place of Lord Ram
through the next friend – On appeal, held: Disputed site was one
composite whole – On balance of probabilities, clear evidence to
indicate that worship by Hindus in the outer courtyard of the premises
continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall
in 1857 by British colonial administration – Hindus established a
clear case of a possessory title to the outside courtyard by virtue of
long, continued and unimpeded worship at the Ramchabutra and
other objects of religious significance – As regards the  inner
courtyard, evidence on preponderance of probabilities to establish
worship by the Hindus prior to annexation of Oudh by the British
in 1857 – Muslims offered no evidence to indicate that they were in
exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 – Sunni
Central Waqf Board did not establish its case of dedication by user
or alternate plea of adverse possession – Existence of the structure
of a mosque until 6 December 1992 however does not admit any
contestation – Submission that the mosque did not accord with
Islamic tenets, also not tenable – Muslims have been wrongly
deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450
years ago – While a decree must ensue in Suit 5, Suit 4 (instituted
by Sunni Central Waqf Board) must also be partly decreed by
allotment of alternate land to the Muslims for construction of a
mosque and associated activities – Allotment of land to the Muslims
is necessary because though on a balance of probabilities, evidence
in respect of possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole
of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence
adduced by the Muslims, the Muslims were dispossessed upon the
desecration of the mosque in December 1949 which was ultimately
destroyed on 6 December 1992 – Justice would not prevail if the
Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims – Direction
issued that land admeasuring 5 acres be allotted to Sunni Central
Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired
land or by Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya
– This exercise, and the consequent handing over of the land to the
Sunni C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.