Legal Suits

This was followed by suit No. 2 of 1950, filed on 16th January 1950 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad, for an injunction restraining the Government of U.P., and the then Deputy Commissioner, the City Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Faizabad, along with five Muslims named therein, from removing the Idols installed in the building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, and from closing the entrance and the passage thereto, or from interfering in any manner with the Pooja and Darshan, with the declaration that the plaintiff was entitled as of right to perform the Pooja and have Darshan of Bhagwan Sri Rama Chandra Virajman at Sthan Janma Bhoomi, with due ceremony in accordance with his Faith, by going near them, without any obstruction or interruption, and that the Defendants or their representatives had no right to interfere with the exercise of his said right by the Plaintiff. An application for the issue of a temporary injunction in the same terms was also made. The Civil Judge directed issue of notice to the defendants, and in the meanwhile ordered on 16th January, 1950 the issue of an interim injunction as prayed. On an application moved by the District Magistrate for clarification of its terms, the Civil Judge passed the following order on 19th January, 1950:

"The parties are hereby restrained by means of temporary injunction to refrain from removing the Idol in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with Puja etc., as at present carried on.”

This injunction was confirmed by the Civil Judge on 3rd March 1951. On appeal by the Muslims the order was upheld by the Allahabad High Court, vide - Judgment dated 26th April, 1955 per - Mootham C.J., and Raghubar Dayal J. It continues to operate till date.

In the meanwhile Paramhans Ramchandra Das, now Mahant of Digambar Akhara, Ayodhya, filed an identical suit, No. 25 of 1950 in the Court of the Civil Judge Faizabad, against the Government of U.P. and the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad, and the same five Muslim individuals who were defendants in Suit No. 2 of 1950. The two suits were connected and consolidated with each other.

After these suits had been filed and the injunction issued and confirmed by the Civil Judge, as aforesaid, the City Magistrate passed an order on 30th July, 1953, closing the inquiry into possession of the parties and consigning the record of the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Receiver appointed by him was, however, allowed to continue to look after and manage the worship of the Deity of Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman under the central dome of the building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi.

The suits having remained pending without any further proceedings worth the name, a third Suit No. 26 of 1959, was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya, through its Mahant, for the discharge of the Receiver appointed as aforesaid by the City Magistrate, and delivery of possession over the Rama Janma Bhoomi Temple to them. This was followed by Suit No. 12 of 1961, filed on 18.12.1961 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, by the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and eight Sunni Muslim individuals. A ninth one was added later as Plaintiff No. 10. That was the only suit filed by the Muslims and has been made the leading suit. The relief claimed is a declaration that the building in suit is a mosque and its surrounding area a Muslim grave-yard, and, in case the Court deems it necessary, possession by the removal of the Idol and other objects of Hindu worship.

None of the Plaintiffs of the leading suit are or have claimed to be the Mutawalli of the alleged mosque or the graveyard in suit. The substantive case set out in the plaint is that the premises is an ancient historic mosque built more than 450 years ago. A grant, now comprising of a Nankar of revenue free land in villages Sholepur and Bahoranpur near Ayodhya, is alleged to have been made for the upkeep of the 'mosque'. There is then a reference to the existence of a Chabutra "in the mosque, but outside the main building", 17'x21', on which there is "a small wooden structure in the form of a tent", followed by a reference to the dismissal of a suit of 1885 for permission to build a temple in its place, which it is claimed operated as res-judicata against the Hindus. The communal riot of 1934, at Ayodhya, is then mentioned, during which, it was alleged, the 'mosque' was extensively damaged, but was rebuilt and reconditioned by the Government at its own expense. Significantly there is no mention of any Mutawalli or waqf from the income of which the alleged mosque might have been rebuilt, as it ought to have been if there was any waqf with such valuable revenue free grant of zamindari attached for its maintenance and upkeep. The Plaint, then proceeds to mention an enquiry by the Commissioner of Waqfs under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, and publication of his report by the Plaintiff Waqf Board in the Official Gazette dated 26.2.1944. The Court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad has found it as a fact on issue No. 17, which was tried as a preliminary issue, that the notification does not specify the property in suit as waqf property and that it is of no legal effect, vide-Judgment dated 21.4.1966. This finding has become final between the parties. The Supreme Court has also found the said notification dated, 26.2.1944 to be "of doubtful validity and probative value" and held it to be of no effect in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of U. P.: AIR 1981 SC2196: (at pages 2217 - 18, paragraph 17).

None of the Plaintiffs of the leading suit are or have claimed to be the Mutawalli of the alleged mosque or the graveyard in suit. The substantive case set out in the plaint is that the premises is an ancient historic mosque built more than 450 years ago. A grant, now comprising of a Nankar of revenue free land in villages Sholepur and Bahoranpur near Ayodhya, is alleged to have been made for the upkeep of the 'mosque'. There is then a reference to the existence of a Chabutra "in the mosque, but outside the main building", 17'x21', on which there is "a small wooden structure in the form of a tent", followed by a reference to the dismissal of a suit of 1885 for permission to build a temple in its place, which it is claimed operated as res-judicata against the Hindus. The communal riot of 1934, at Ayodhya, is then mentioned, during which, it was alleged, the 'mosque' was extensively damaged, but was rebuilt and reconditioned by the Government at its own expense. Significantly there is no mention of any Mutawalli or waqf from the income of which the alleged mosque might have been rebuilt, as it ought to have been if there was any waqf with such valuable revenue free grant of zamindari attached for its maintenance and upkeep. The Plaint, then proceeds to mention an enquiry by the Commissioner of Waqfs under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936, and publication of his report by the Plaintiff Waqf Board in the Official Gazette dated 26.2.1944. The Court of the Civil Judge, Faizabad has found it as a fact on issue No. 17, which was tried as a preliminary issue, that the notification does not specify the property in suit as waqf property and that it is of no legal effect, vide-Judgment dated 21.4.1966. This finding has become final between the parties. The Supreme Court has also found the said notification dated, 26.2.1944 to be "of doubtful validity and probative value" and held it to be of no effect in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of U. P.: AIR 1981 SC2196: (at pages 2217 - 18, paragraph 17).