Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
Powered by cricketnext logo
News18 » India
1-min read

Ayodhya Verdict: One Unnamed Judge Held Disputed Structure as Ram's Birthplace & Mosque Was Built over it

On September 30, 2010, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had held Hindus and Muslims as joint title holders of the disputed land.

News18.com

Updated:November 9, 2019, 3:49 PM IST
facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp
Ayodhya Verdict: One Unnamed Judge Held Disputed Structure as Ram's Birthplace & Mosque Was Built over it
Representative image.

New Delhi: Although the five-judge bench in the Ayodhya case unanimously ruled in favour of Hindu parties for the disputed land, while ruling that Muslims will get five acres of land at a separate site, one unnamed judge has held that the three-domed structure was where Lord Ram was born and that Babri Masjid was constructed on the “janmasthana” (birthplace).

The apex court’s agenda was the issue of whether “the property in suit is the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra” and whether “the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged”.

On this, the final judgement said the “three-dome structure” was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram in place of which a mosque was created.

“It was only during the British period that grilled wall was constructed dividing the walled premises of the mosque into inner courtyard and outer courtyard. Grilled iron wall was constructed to keep Hindus outside the grilled iron wall in the outer courtyard,” read the final judgement, underlining the “documentary and oral evidence” established in the case.

 

It added that it was because of the grilled wall that “worship and puja started in Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard”. The suit of 1885, the judgement reasoned, was filed seeking permission to construct temple on the said place.

“Faith and belief on the Hindus as depicted by the evidence on record clearly establish that the Hindus belief that at the birth place of Lord Ram, the Mosque was constructed and three-dome structure is the birth place of Lord Ram,” said the judgement.

The Ayodhya title suit verdict came nine years after the 2:1 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of land between the three parties — Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

On September 30, 2010, the Lucknow Bench of the high court had held Hindus and Muslims as joint title holders of the disputed land.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

facebookTwitter Pocket whatsapp

Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results