No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan
September 30th, 2010 - 11:38 pm ICT by IANSLucknow, Sep 30 (IANS) Justice S.U. Khan of the Allahabad High Court in his Ayodhya judgment Thursday said that no temple was demolished for constructing a mosque, differing with his two colleagues on the bench.
The other two judges on the bench were of the view that the Babri mosque was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple.
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.
“However, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute,” he said.
Some of key observations were:
* The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal emperor Babar.
* 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.
* No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
- No temple was demolished for mosque: Justice S.U. Khan (Lead) - Oct 01, 2010
- Is disputed Ayodhya site the exact birthplace of Ram? - Oct 03, 2010
- Ayodhya verdict: Okay to Ram temple, land to Muslims too (Roundup) - Sep 30, 2010
- What structure should disputed site have - Some views - Sep 23, 2010
- No proof mosque was built in Babar's reign: Justice Sudhir Agarwal - Sep 30, 2010
- Why didn't Tulsidas mention Ram temple demolition? - Oct 04, 2010
- Ayodhya was Ram's birthplace, mosque against Islamic tenets: court - Sep 30, 2010
- Ayodhya dispute: claims and counter-claims - Sep 29, 2010
- Apex court stays 'strange, surprising' Babri verdict (Intro Roundup) - May 09, 2011
- Babri demolition anniversary passes off peacefully (Roundup) - Dec 06, 2010
- RSS prefers out of court settlement on Ayodhya: Spokesperson - Oct 08, 2010
- Supreme Court stays 'strange' Babri Masjid verdict (Roundup) - May 09, 2011
- Rashtrawadi Shiv Sena demands construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya - Oct 25, 2010
- Ayodhya site is Lord Ram's birthplace: Justice D.V. Sharma - Sep 30, 2010
- Kalyan Singh to launch Ram temple movement - Sep 07, 2010
Tags: allahabad high court, babri mosque, bench, birth place, central dome, commencement, demolition, direct evidence, emperor, evidence act, exact birth, hindu temple, hindus, judgment, lord ram, lucknow, possession, premises, temples, virtue