Issue No. 12 Findings

1 ISSUE NO. 12 Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the building in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd December, 1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have been in existence there since before? In either case, effect? FINDINGS Plaintiffs claim that idol and object of worship were placed inside the building, i.e. disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 rd December, 1949 and they were not in existence there since before. The plaintiffs have further submitted that the disputed structure was used as a mosque to offer prayers by Muslims . Oral evidence has been adduced by Muslims. In O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 , the deities as juridical persons through next friend, plaintiff no. 3 assert that in the intervening night of 22/23 rd December, 1949 , the deities were shifted in the disputed structure. The evidence was led on behalf of the plaintiffs of O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 to this effect. On behalf of defendant no. 3 it is submitted that the deities continued to exist and they were not installed as alleged by the plaintiff in para no. 11 of the plaint. Thus,on the basis of evidence available on record, it transpires that right from the report of Vakil Commissioner in O.S.No. 61/280 of 1985 and also O.S.No. 2/ 1950 (O.O.S. 1 of 1989) it is established that inside the disputed structure no idol was found by Vakil Commissioner even in the year 1950. Thus, 2 the contention of defendant no. 3 that the deities continued to exist is incorrect. The plaintiffs have proved that idols and object of worship were installed in the building in the intervening night of 22/23rd December, 1949. The effect of installation will be considered while considering the finding on other issues . Issue No. 12 is decided accordingly. ISSUES NO. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28 2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint? 4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants? 10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged in the plaint? 15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect? 28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its possession?” FINDINGS These issues are inter related and can conveniently be disposed of at one place. It has been claimed by the plaintiffs that they have perfected their rights by their adverse possession as alleged in the plaint as they are in possession of the property in suit from 1528 continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general. It has further been alleged that 3 defendant no.3 was never in possession of the disputed site. On behalf of Hindus, it is urged that Hindus have perfected their rights by adverse possession as they are in continuous possession. Muslims further claim that they were dispossessed from the property in suit in 1949. On behalf of the plaintiffs reliance has been placed on following documents:- 01 – Ext. A 3 (Vol. 6 Page 33) - original sanad granted by the Chief Commissioner of Awadh in favour of Rajjab Ali and Mohd. Asghar, the certified copy of which is filed as Exit. 1 in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 (Vol. 10 P. 27)-showing the cash Nankargrant of Rs. 302-3-6 for maintenance of the grant so long as the object for which the grant has been made is kept intact. 02 – Ext. A 10 (Vol. 6 Page 153-155) - certified copy of the Extract of Register Tahqiqat Mafi bearing orders dated 13-3-1860 and 29-6-1860 etc. referring to Babar Shah Badshah Dehli in column No. 6 and providing for continuance of the grant. 03 – Ext. A 11 (Vol. 6 Page 163-165) – certified copy of the Extract of Register Mafiat bearing Government Order dated 29-6-1860 specifically mentioning that the holder (who was an office bearer of Masjid) possessed a duly attested copy of a decree showing that Rs. 302-3-6 were granted by Nawab Asifuddaula and also providing that 4 the grant may be continued so long as the Masjid is kept up and the Mohamdans conduct themselves properly. The said document gives the name of grantor as Babar Shah Emperor of Delhi and the name of grantee was given as “Maulvi of Masjid Babri.” Another copy of this Register has been filed as Ext. 2 in O.O.S. No. 4. of 1989 (Vol. 10 P. 31) in column 9 of which it is specifically mentioned that this grant is said to have been made for the expenses of Masjid Babri situated in Ayodhya. 04 – Ext. A 12 (Vol. 6 P. 167-169) copy of Register No. 6 (Jeem) regarding Mafi and bearing inspection note dated 9-7-1892 stating about inspection of the Mosque by the officer concerned. 05 - Ext. 3 (Vol. 10 P. 33) copy of Register No. (Jeem)- register Mafi of Mauza Bahoranpur Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tahsil and District Faizabad mentioning in Column 16 about the inspection of the Mosque which was found not in good order and also mentioning that Mohd. Asghar had been given to understand to carry out the repairs as soon as possible. This inspection note was dated 27-9-1902. In column 17 of the said document it was also mentioned that the site was inspected by the officers concerned on different occasions. 5 Annexure-V Pages 194-202 06 – Ext. A-21 (Vol. 7 P. 233-235) - copy of Khasra of Mauza Ramkot regarding 1277 Fasli, part of Misil Haqqiyat Bandobast Sabiq decided on 22-8-1871 by Hakim ¼gkfde½ Bandobast showing plot No. 163 of the first settlement measuring 5 Bigha 4 Biswa as Abadi Masjid. A copy of this very document has been filed as Exibit 9 in O.O.S. No. 4. of 1989 (Vol. 10 P. 45) 07 – Ext. A 14 (Vol. 7, P. 181) - copy of letter of Secretary, Chief Commissioner of Awadh to the Commissioner Faizabad Division dated 25-8-1863 mentioning that the Governor General has sanctioned Chief Commissioner proposal for the commutation of the cash payment of Rs. 302-3-6 granted for the support of the Janam Asthan Mosque to the grant of rent free land near Ayodhya (Vol. 7 P. 181) 08 – Ext. A-15 (Vol. 7, P. 183) - copy of letter of the Financial Commissioner Oudh dated 5/6 September, regarding Janam Asthan Mosque in Ayodhya approving selection of land made by the officiating Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad. 09 – Ext. A-16 (Vol. 7, P. 185-191) - copy of ordersheet of the court of Mr. B. Carnegy, Deputy Commissioner, 6 Faizabad dated 31-8-63 regarding grant of Mafi Nazool land (with income of Rs. 302-3-6) to Masjid Janam Asthan. 10 – Ext. 7 (Vol. 10, P. 41)-copy of ordersheet of the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad dated 13-9-1865 regarding the approval of land selected for Masjid Janam Asthan. 11 - Exibit A-17 (Vol. 7, P. 193-197) - copy of ordersheet of the court of Mr. B. Carnegy, Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad dated 13-9-1865 regarding approval of the grant of land for Masjid Janam Asthan and for delivery possession of the same. Annexure-V Pages 177-189 12 – Ext. A-18 (Vol. 7, P. 199– 205)-copy of sanad from Extra Assistant Commissioner dated 30 October, 1865 with endorsement dated 5-12-1865 regarding allotment of land for khateeb Masjid Janam Asthan. 13 – Ext. A-6 (Vol. 10 P. 39) copy of ordersheet of the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad dated 13-9-1867 regarding the land granted for Masjid Janam Asthan. 14 – Ext. A-19 (Vol. 7 P. 207-213) copy of order / decree of the Settlement Officer dated 3-2-1870 regarding the settlement of land of Sholapur and Bahoranpur in lieu of cash grant of Rs. 302-2-6 paid annually from the Imperial 7 Revenue for the support of Janam Asthan Mosque in Ayodhya. 15 – Ext. A-20 (Vol. 7, P. 231) - copy of order, regarding the settlement, dated 22-8-1871 pertaining to the land of graveyard and Imli trees situated in front of the Babri Mosque and Janam Asthan holding that the trees belong to Mohd. Asghar etc. (plaintiffs) and further holding that graveyard land could not belong to any one. Ext. 8 (Vol. 10 P. 43) is the copy of the judgment and order dated 22- 8-1871 of the same case. 16 – Ext. 4 (Vol. 10 P. 35) is the certified copy of the map of the First Settlement showing symbol of Mosque in plot No. 163 of the first settlement. 17 – Ext. 10 (Vol. 10 P. 47) is the copy of Khasra Abadi of Mauza kot Ram Chand showing entry of Masjid Pukhta against plot No. 163. 18. Ext. 49 (Vol. 11 P. 271-281 and 283-329) is the copy of Tarmeemi Khasra of 1931 showing entry of Nazul plot No.

Load more