30 September 2010

Pin It

Allahabad high court gives final judgment in Ayodhya case – Complete judgment of the Ayodhya case

Allahabad high court gives final judgment in Ayodhya case – Complete judgment of the Ayodhya case

The final verdict in short –

Allahabad high court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits –
The ownership of the disputed site is to be divided into three parts
The site of the Ramlala idol to lord ram,
Nirmohi akhara gets sita rasoi and ram chabutara and Sunni wakf board get the rest
Status quo be maintained for 3 months.
Appeal period time is 3 months.
Sunni wakf board may appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Date of Judgment :- 30.9.2010
Names of the 3 Judges –Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.

Case of details –
1.Original Suit No. 1 of 1989
Gopal Singh Visharad (Now Dead) & Others
Zahoor Ahmad & Others

2.Original Suit No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Others
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and Others

3.Original Suit No. 4 of 1989
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P.& Others
Gopal Singh Visharad (Now Dead) & Others.

4.Original Suit No. 5 of 1989
Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and Others
Rajendra Singh and Others

Judgment –
1.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.

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

3.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.

4.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.

5.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.

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

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

8.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.

Suggested Reading –

Complete Detailed Timeline, Chronology of Ayodhya Ram Mandir and Babri mosque Demolition –

Reality views by sm –

Thursday, September 30, 2010


irainesan September 30, 2010  

It is an unfair judgment. Two primary points that had been neglected are (i) to whom the land belongs to: the title deed case. It was not the court’s business to divide the land based on faithsa (ii) that the demolition was a terrorist act, done illegally, violently and with political motivation. This created insecurity in the minds of Muslims. Blood shed in the name of religion is wrong. Hindus should enlarge their hearts. They should have removed the idols from the disputed site and thereafter talk to the Muslims, rather than acting under duress and forcing the Muslim community to accept a verdict. Hindus have lost the trust of the Muslims by demolishing the Masjid ( and this judgment reinforces their mistrust in the judiciary) and making a makeshift temple doing worship and archana and expect Muslims to accept a compromise and reconciliation. First Hindus should restore the trust of Muslims and then the problem could have been easily solved. After all the real true one Almighty God of humanity does not reside inside a structure.

Amrit September 30, 2010  


Your coverage on this subject is better than any new paper or web site I read. Better than BBC, HT, Times Of India, Indian Express..etc.

Excellent work. Simple and factual.

SG September 30, 2010  

It took them 60 years to tell all the parties to divide the property among themselves?

sm,  October 01, 2010  


sm,  October 01, 2010  

our Indian judiciary needs more courts and more judges.

jamos jhalla October 01, 2010  

All parties are happy because सारी जाती देख के आधी लीजिये बाँट

sm,  October 01, 2010  

jamos jhalla,,