☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
Ayodhya Verdict: Babri Mosque Built At Ram Birthplace
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archived_Member16" data-source="post: 134236" data-attributes="member: 884"><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px"><span style="color: navy">High Court of Allahabad</span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: navy">Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement - Gist of Judgement:</span></span></strong></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"><strong><span style="color: navy">Link:</span></strong> </span><a href="http://www.rjbm.nic.in/" target="_blank"><u><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #0000ff"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #0000ff">http://www.rjbm.nic.in/</span></span></span></span></u></a></p><p> </p><p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 22px"><span style="color: navy"><span style="font-size: 18px">Ayodhya site is Lord Ram's birthplace: Justice D.V. Sharma</span> </span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="color: navy"> </span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">IANS</span></span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">Thursday, 30 September 2010</span></span></strong></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"></span><strong><span style="color: navy">LUCKNOW:</span></strong><span style="color: navy"> Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict, based his order on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to say that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">The property in the suit is the site of the birthplace of Lord Ram and the Hindus have the right to worship at the site, he said.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy">The ASI had in a statement before the court said that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">Justice Sharma's key observations are: </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Ram as a child. The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The disputed building was constructed by (Mughal emperor) Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of Dec 22-23, 1949. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* A suit filed in 1989 by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and others vs Gopal Singh Visharad and others and another suit filed in 1989 by Nirmohi Akhara and another vs Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others, are barred by time. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></p><p><span style="color: navy"> </span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 22px"><span style="color: navy"><span style="font-size: 18px">No proof mosque was built in Babar's reign: Justice Sudhir Agarwal</span> </span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="color: navy"> </span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">IANS</span></span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">Thursday, 30 September 2010</span></span></strong></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"></span><strong><span style="color: navy">LUCKNOW:</span></strong><span style="color: navy"> Justice Sudhir Agarwal, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya judgment, in his order differed with his colleague Justice S.U. Khan that the mosque at the disputed site was built in the reign of Mughal emperor Babar.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">"The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar," said Justice Agarwal. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">He observed that the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birth place of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy">"It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants," he said in his order.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy">Some key observations of Justice Agarwal are: </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed. But it is clear that it was constructed before the visit of missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766-71. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure - a Hindu temple. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of Dec 22-23, 1949. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 shall be made available to the concerned parties in such a manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry and exit for people without disturbing each others rights.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 22px"><span style="color: navy"><span style="font-size: 18px">No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan</span> </span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 22px"></span></p><p><span style="color: navy"> </span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 18px"><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">IANS</span></span></span></strong><span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="color: navy">Thursday, 30 September 2010</span></span></strong></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 18px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"></span><strong><span style="color: navy">LUCKNOW:</span></strong><span style="color: navy">Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court in his Ayodhya judgment Thursday said that no temple was demolished for building the Babri mosque and it was constructed over the ruins of temples.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">The other two judges on the bench were of the view that the Babri mosque was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">Justice Khan in his observation said that for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area, of which the premises in dispute is a very small part, the birth place of Lord Ram was situated. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">"However, the belief did not relate to any specified small area, within that bigger area, specifically the premises in dispute," he said. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">"It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside 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 mosque," he said. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">Some of key observations were: </span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: navy">* The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal emperor Babar. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* It is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute, including the constructed portion, belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying there since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* After some time of construction of the mosque, Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as the exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* 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. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* For some decades before 1949, Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the central dome of the mosque (where at present a make sift temple stands) to be the exact birth place of Lord Ram. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* Much before 1855, Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. </span></p><p><span style="color: navy">* For the sake of convenience both Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute, still it did not amount to formal partition. Both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: navy"><strong>source</strong>: Punjabnewsline.com</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archived_Member16, post: 134236, member: 884"] [B][SIZE=5][COLOR=navy]High Court of Allahabad[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE=3][COLOR=navy]Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid Judgement - Gist of Judgement:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=3][B][COLOR=navy]Link:[/COLOR][/B] [/SIZE][URL="http://www.rjbm.nic.in/"][U][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=3][COLOR=#0000ff]http://www.rjbm.nic.in/[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/URL] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [B][SIZE=6][COLOR=navy][SIZE=5]Ayodhya site is Lord Ram's birthplace: Justice D.V. Sharma[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=6] [/SIZE] [COLOR=navy] [/COLOR] [B][SIZE=5][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]IANS[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=5] [B][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]Thursday, 30 September 2010[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [/SIZE][B][COLOR=navy]LUCKNOW:[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=navy] Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict, based his order on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to say that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]The property in the suit is the site of the birthplace of Lord Ram and the Hindus have the right to worship at the site, he said.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]The ASI had in a statement before the court said that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Justice Sharma's key observations are: [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birthplace of Lord Ram as a child. The spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The disputed building was constructed by (Mughal emperor) Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of Dec 22-23, 1949. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* A suit filed in 1989 by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, and others vs Gopal Singh Visharad and others and another suit filed in 1989 by Nirmohi Akhara and another vs Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others, are barred by time. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy] [/COLOR] [B][SIZE=6][COLOR=navy][SIZE=5]No proof mosque was built in Babar's reign: Justice Sudhir Agarwal[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=6] [/SIZE] [COLOR=navy] [/COLOR] [B][SIZE=5][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]IANS[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=5] [B][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]Thursday, 30 September 2010[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [/SIZE][B][COLOR=navy]LUCKNOW:[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=navy] Justice Sudhir Agarwal, one of the three judges who delivered the Ayodhya judgment, in his order differed with his colleague Justice S.U. Khan that the mosque at the disputed site was built in the reign of Mughal emperor Babar.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]"The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar," said Justice Agarwal. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]He observed that the area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birth place of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of Hindus. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]"It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants," he said in his order.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Some key observations of Justice Agarwal are: [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities, Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed. But it is clear that it was constructed before the visit of missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766-71. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure - a Hindu temple. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of Dec 22-23, 1949. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The open area within the outer courtyard shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 shall be made available to the concerned parties in such a manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry and exit for people without disturbing each others rights.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/COLOR] [B][SIZE=6][COLOR=navy][SIZE=5]No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=6] [/SIZE] [COLOR=navy] [/COLOR] [B][SIZE=5][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]IANS[/COLOR][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=5] [B][SIZE=2][COLOR=navy]Thursday, 30 September 2010[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] [/SIZE][B][COLOR=navy]LUCKNOW:[/COLOR][/B][COLOR=navy]Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court in his Ayodhya judgment Thursday said that no temple was demolished for building the Babri mosque and it was constructed over the ruins of temples.[/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]The other two judges on the bench were of the view that the Babri mosque was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Justice Khan in his observation said that for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area, of which the premises in dispute is a very small part, the birth place of Lord Ram was situated. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]"However, the belief did not relate to any specified small area, within that bigger area, specifically the premises in dispute," he said. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]"It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside 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 mosque," he said. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]Some of key observations were: [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal emperor Babar. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* It is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute, including the constructed portion, belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying there since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* After some time of construction of the mosque, Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as the exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* 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. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* For some decades before 1949, Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the central dome of the mosque (where at present a make sift temple stands) to be the exact birth place of Lord Ram. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* Much before 1855, Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy]* For the sake of convenience both Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute, still it did not amount to formal partition. Both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises. [/COLOR] [COLOR=navy][B]source[/B]: Punjabnewsline.com[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
Ayodhya Verdict: Babri Mosque Built At Ram Birthplace
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top