REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010 M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs …Appellants Versus Mahant Suresh Das & Ors …Respondents WITH Civil Appeal Nos 4768-4771/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 2636/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 821/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 4739/2011 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by WITH CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2019.11.09

11:47:46 IST Reason:

Civil Appeal Nos 4905-4908/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 2215/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 4740/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 2894/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 6965/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 4192/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 5498/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No 7226/2011 AND WITH Civil Appeal No 8096/2011

J U D G M E N T

INDEX A. Introduction B. An overview of the suits C. Evidence: a bird‘s eye view D. The aftermath of 1856-7 D.1 Response to the wall D.2 Period between 1934-1949 E. Proceedings under Section 145 F. Points for determination G. The three inscriptions H. Judicial review and characteristics of a mosque in Islamic law I. Places of Worship Act J. Juristic personality J.1 Development of the law J.2 Idols and juristic personality J.3 Juristic personality of the first plaintiff J.4 Juristic personality of the second plaintiff K. Analysis of the suits L. Suit 1: Gopal Singh Visharad L.1 Pleadings L.2 Issues and findings of the High Court L.3 Analysis M. Suit 3: Nirmohi Akhara M.1 Pleadings M.2 Conflict between Suit 3 and Suit 5 M.3 Issues and findings of the High Court M.4 Limitation in Suit 3 M.5 Oral testimony of the Nirmohi witnesses M.6 Nirmohi Akhara‘s claim to possession of the inner courtyard Documentary evidence in regard to the mosque (1934-1949)

N. Suit 5: The deities N.1 Array of parties N.2 No contest by the State of Uttar Pradesh N.3 Pleadings N.4 Written statements N.5 Issues and findings of the High Court N.6 Shebaits: an exclusive right to sue?

A suit by a worshipper or a person interested Nirmohi Akhara and shebaiti rights N.7 Limitation in Suit 5 The argument of perpetual minority N.8 The Suit of 1885 and Res Judicata N.9 Archaeological report N.10 Nature and use of the disputed structure: oral evidence N.11 Photographs of the disputed structure N.12 Vishnu Hari inscriptions N.13 The polestar of faith and belief Travelogues, gazetteers and books Evidentiary value of travelogues, gazetteers and books N.14 Historian‘s report O. Suit 4: Sunni Central Waqf Board O.1 Analysis of the plaint O.2 Written statements O.3 Issues and findings of the High Court O.4 Limitation in Suit 4 O.5 Applicable legal regime and Justice, Equity and Good Conscience O.6 Grants and recognition O.7 Disputes and cases affirming possession Impact of Suit of 1885 Incidents between 1934 and 1950 O.8 Proof of namaz O.9 Placing of idols in 1949 O.10 Nazul land O.11 Waqf by user O.12 Possession and adverse possession O.13 Doctrine of the lost grant O.14 The smokescreen of the disputed premises – the wall of 1858 O.15 Analysis of evidence in Suit 4 O.16 The Muslim claim to possessory title P. Analysis on title P.1 Marshalling the evidence in Suit 4 and Suit 5 P.2 Conclusion on title Q. Reliefs and directions A. Introduction

1. These first appeals centre around a dispute between two religious communities both of whom claim ownership over a piece of land admeasuring 1500 square yards in the town of Ayodhya. The disputed property is of immense significance to Hindus and Muslims. The Hindu community claims it as the birth- place of Lord Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The Muslim community claims it as the site of the historic Babri Masjid built by the first Mughal Emperor, Babur. The lands of our country have witnessed invasions and dissensions. Yet they have assimilated into the idea of India everyone who sought their providence, whether they came as merchants, travellers or as conquerors. The history and culture of this country have been home to quests for truth, through the material, the political, and the spiritual. This Court is called upon to fulfil its adju