Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit
 
 
News Headlines »
 Directions under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
 Securities excluded from GST ambit in revised Bill
 GST dilemma: Hope fades for new tax regime
 5nance.com launches tax investment platform
 Is government tapping your phone?
 Income tax department to use analytics to look for discrepancies in bank accounts
 GST Council fails to break deadlock over indirect tax regime, next meet on Dec 11 and 12 to hammer out differences
 Invoking Writ Jurisdiction For Income Tax Matters
 How to file income-tax returns online
 How Income Tax Returns Are Scrutinised
 All About New Income Disclosure Scheme to make Demonetisation successful

Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J. - Gist of Judgment
September, 30th 2010

GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion

belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was

constructed.

3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.

4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a

very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in

construction of the mosque.

5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by

Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part 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.

6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises

in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.

7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and

Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented

situation that in side 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.

8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well

as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus

were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to

formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

10. That 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.

11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the

Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord

Ram.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early

hours of 23.12.1949.

13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession

of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition

that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree

the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to

the share of the Hindus.

Order:-

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are

declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F

in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in

Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.

However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the

idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is

shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third

share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be

made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by

allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds

within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree

after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui

(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless

this order is modified or vacated earlier.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions