LEGALITY OF THE DECREE FOR PARTITION BY THE HIGH COURT-AYODHYA JUDGEMENT-BY CS ROHIT KUMAR

Most of the readers are aware that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (the "HC") directed to divide the disputed land into three equal parts to the Muslim, hindus and Nirmohi Akhara. But the HC forgot that none of the suits filed in past were related to partition because: 

(i) a suit by a worshipper [Gopal Singh Visharad] seeking the enforcement of the right to pray at Ram Janma Bhumi (Suit 1); 

(ii) a suit by Nirmohi Akhara asserting shebaiti rights to the management and charge of the temple (Suit 3); 

(iii) a declaratory suit on title by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and Muslims (Suit 4); and 

(iv) a suit for a declaration of title to disputed premises by the deity ("Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman") and the birth-place ("Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya") through next friend in which an injunction has also been sought restraining any obstruction with the construction of a temple (Suit 5).

HC granted the relief which were not the subject matter of the prayer in the above suits. Order VII, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code does not entitle a court in a civil trial to recast the contents of suits.

In Srinivas Ram Kumar v Mahabir Prasad, a three judge Bench of the hon'ble SC Court held that it is not open to the court to grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which there is no basis in the pleadings. Justice B K Mukherjea held:

9...The question, however, arises whether, in the absence of

any such alternative case in the plaint it is open to the court to

give him relief on that basis. The rule undoubtedly is that the

court cannot grant relief to the plaintiff on a case for which

there was no foundation in the pleadings and which the other

side was not called upon or had an opportunity to meet.‖

Another flaws were that followings suits were barred by the limitation:

1. Suit 3 filed by Nirmohi Akhara
2. Suit 4 filed by Sunni Central Waqf Board

But, still HC proceeded to grant relief in Suit 5 to plaintiff in Suit 3 & 4 which was beyond legal principles. Moreover, the claim of Nirmohi Akhara was that of Shebiat but HC allotted them 1/3rd land. Don't you think it was strange?

These were few points which I brought to your notice in a summary way and that's why that battle was not settled at forum and reach to the SC to its verdict which is know as Ayodhya Judgement.

P.S.

For those who don't understand the phrase "barred by the limitation", let me explain this. Limitation Act is a law according to which you can file a suit with a time limit given in this Act. If you are not able to file a suit(case), then you can not enforce your right because you are debarred to file a suit by the limitation.

To read this in detail, you may read from page 915 onwards in the Judgement...

To get more articles like this join the groups:

Whatsapp: Link

Telegram: Link