LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     30 September 2010

Ayodhya verdict: HC says divide land into 3 parts

In a much-awaited verdict, the Special Bench of Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts among Hindus and Muslims.

The disputed land will be divided among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for 'Ram Lalla'.


In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure, Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that the area under the central dome of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram's idol exists belongs to Hindus.


The bench also rejected the Sunni Waqf Board's petition claiming title for the disputed site.


The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three months.


As an anxious nation awaited the court verdict in the highly-sensitive issue with lakhs of security personnel being deployed in Uttar Pradesh and other sensitive places across the country.

Perhaps for the first in judicial history, a verdict was delivered in high security with media and lawyers and parties unrelated to the case kept out of the court premises.


 22 Replies


can anyone post the detailed judgement. i want to see evidence details. up hi court website is not working today.

ashish lal (Advocacy)     30 September 2010


This link may be of some help

Anish goyal (Advocate)     30 September 2010

thanks for the link.

Rekha..... ( Practicing lawyer(B.Com LL.M in Business law ))     30 September 2010

My first question is….Can V say now instead of “Disputed land”..it is Now Ram janmabhoomi…??? If yes then n say like that.
N 2nd question is “It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram and Hindus in general had the right to worship.”…………….then y HC says divide land in 3 parts??. Is it contradictory??

Plz explain

unique horn (self)     30 September 2010

thanks Ashish...

Uma parameswaran (lawyer)     30 September 2010

The land is historically belongs to both peoples.Through the   verdiction  the religious groups  can find out a  harmonius path .

ashish lal (Advocacy)     30 September 2010

Court can only resolve disputes. it cannot solve problems.

And Ayodhya is a problem.

The Court has said that 1/3rd belongs to Hindu. Now who is going to represent Hindus and what will be his/its legal sanctity?

Khaleel Ahmed (Legal Advisor)     30 September 2010

We should not comment on the Honourable Court's verdict.Both parties have a legal right to file appeal before Honourable Supreme Court. Mean while the problem may be solved out of court through talks.




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


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 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 some where 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 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 in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were

there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the


8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 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


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.


Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are

declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F

in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in

Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.

However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the

idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is

shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third

share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be

made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by

allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds

within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree

after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui

(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless

this order is modified or vacated earlier.









JUDGMENT GIST OF Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.


G. ARAVINTHAN (Legal Consultant / Solicitor)     01 October 2010

thanks friends

B.N.Rajamohamed (advocate / commissioner of oaths)     01 October 2010

The judgement of the Hon'ble lucnow bench of Allahabad High court is historic not only in the sense of seecurity and anxiety but also in the sense of upholding national integration and communal harmony which is a prime objective behind indiajn independence in the eyes of our father of the nation.

Every true indian and a true mohammedan  will welcome this judgement. A s islam preaches peace and tolerance this judegement certainly paves way for it. At the dsame time this raises the dignity of our nation before the international community as India stands as an icon of communal harmony.

I thank ALLAH for blessing the Hon'ble judges who delivered this judgement with an intrinsic objective  to deliver such a judgement. 

1 Like

Democratic Indian (n/a)     01 October 2010

The judgment appears to be more of a political judgement than a legal judgment. The reasoning in judgment is flawed and even dangerous to the sancity of Constitution. The court should have focused on the actual crime here, which is the demolition of an archeological structure against which there is a specific Constitutional Article passed in the 1940s. The archeological structure was demolished and lives taken by people using the name of a god for politics. How can the court overlook that and adjudicate on a matter which actually defied the law itself? If such demolition is to serve as the basis for settling property disputes today, where do we draw the line?  It is a bit easy for anyone to say we should forget the past and move forward on the basis of myths from thousands of years ago, when a real crime from 1992 is staring us in the face. Rather than upholding the Constitution and giving a legal judgement, court has given a political judgment based on beliefs. If this judgment is left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgment are likely to be extremely damaging for this country in long run.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register