Ram Mandir Dispute and Highlights of Courts Judgment in Babri Masjid Case

Описание к видео Ram Mandir Dispute and Highlights of Courts Judgment in Babri Masjid Case

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, located in Ayodhya district, IN THE STATE OF Uttar Pradesh. The issues revolve around access to a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Masjid at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create the mosque.
DISPUTE IN THE WORDS OF THE JUDGES:
EXPLAINING THE GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE THE HONORABLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT EXCLAIMED IN THE PRELUDE SECTION OF THE JUDGMENT THE FOLLOWING
Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same arises. Once angels were made to bow before Man.Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause. Accordingly, herein follows the judgment for which the entire country is waiting with bated breath.

SO WE PRESENT THE 13 MOST IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:
1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque BEGIN and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area, of which premises in dispute is a very small part, birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area ALSO THEIR WAS NO BELIEF WITH RESPECT TO specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside the boundary wall and compound of the mosque, Hindu religious places were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
8. Both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.

Комментарии

Информация по комментариям в разработке