By TCN News,
Lucknow: Following is the gist of separate views of the three judges of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on the Babri Masjid/Ram Janambhoomi title suit that was delivered on 30th September 2010.
Q. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
Justice Dharamveer Sharma: The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for anyone to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Justice SU Khan: For a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that somewhere 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. 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.
Justice Sudheer Agarwal: The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.
Q. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
Justice Dharamveer Sharma: The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
Justice SU Khan: The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. 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.
Justice Sudheer Agarwal: Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.
Q. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
Justice Dharamveer Sharma: The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
Justice SU Khan: No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. 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.
Justice Sudheer Agarwal: The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-
Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.
Q. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
Justice Dharamveer Sharma: The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
Justice SU Khan: That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
Justice Sudheer Agarwal: The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.