LAW DECODED

Ayodhya judgement resolved the long pending tussle  between Hindus and Muslims. Resolving this religious fight was not an easy task for Hon'ble Supreme Court (" SC "). Drawing  evidences from the muted history were the most herculean task for the SC, though observations of High Court was very much helpful for the SC to end this religious fight which started from 1856-7 . Writing crux of this judgement was not any easy task for me as well because this judgement spreaded over 1045 pages   and discussed numerous issues  and when I was reading and making summary, the problem before me was what to include or what not? But to reduce this judgement into readable strength, I mainly focused on core question which was the bone of contention.  Further, for the sake of authenticity I have written page numbers of this judgement against paragraphs ( wherever required ) so that you can cross-verify or read in detail if you feel so. The bone of contention before the SC was  " Whethe

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