What Supreme Court said on five suits filed in Ayodhya land dispute
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court on Saturday said that a temple would be built on the disputed land in Ayodhya and told the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.
Here’s what the top court said on the suits:
FILED BY: Hindu worshipper Gopal Singh Visharad in 1950
SC VERDICT: It has been filed in a personal capacity and no management or possession can be handed over to them. The right of the plaintiff in Suit 1 to worship at the disputed property is affirmed subject to any restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and order and the performance of orderly worship.
HISTORY: The suit was instituted in 1950 before the civil judge at Faizabad by Visharad seeking a declaration that according to his religion and custom, he is entitled to offer prayers at the main Janmabhumi temple near the idols.
FILED BY: Paramhans Ramchandra Das in 1950
STATUS: The suit was allowed to be withdrawn in 1990 after an application was filed. The valuation was identical to Suit 1.
FILED BY: Nirmohi Akhara in 1959
SC VERDICT: The suit is barred by limitation and dismissed. The claim of Nirmohi Akhara is only of management. Nirmohi Akhara is not a Shabait. It will, however, have representation on the new trust to be set up.
HISTORY: The Nirmohi Akhara is a religious denomination of sadhus belonging to the Ramanandi Bairagi sect. The Akhara had moved the Faizabad civil court in December 1959 claiming the ownership of the Babri Masjid structure. It had said it won’t contest the Lord’s plea if his lawyers don’t dispute their rights to maintain and manage it.
FILED BY: Sunni Waqf Board in 1961
SC VERDICT: The Sunni Waqf Board’s suit is maintainable but Muslims can’t assert the right of adverse possession. A suitable plot of five acres must be granted to the board to set up a mosque.
HISTORY: The Sunni Waqf Board was leading the Muslim side in the top court. It had filed a suit in the Faizabad civil court on February 1, 1961, against three pending Hindu cases. The board claimed possession of the mosque.
FILED BY: Ram Lalla Virajman in 1989
SC VERDICT: SC holds that the deity Ram Lalla is a juristic person but Ramjanmabhoomi is not. The suit by Ram Lalla has been decreed.
HISTORY: Ram Lalla Virajman or the child deity is represented by a human, legally called “next friend”, Trilok Nath Pandey. Pandey is a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Devaki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge of Allahabad High Court, was the first “next friend”. Agarwal had filed a suit in 1989 claiming to represent Ram Lalla Virajman and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. Pandey, a senior Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, became the next friend after Agarwal’s death in 2002.