Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moves SC against HC ruling on Ayodhya

Challenging the High Court's verdict, the JUH submitted in the appeal that the judgement is based on faith and not on evidence.

"It is humbly submitted that the mosque was illegally demolished. However, the ruins still exist. The foundation of the mosque is still intact. Title would not extinguish by demolishing the mosque. Therefore, it was incumbent on the court to uphold the rule of law and not to validate an illegal act," the appeal filed by Anis Suhrawady said.

It was further submitted that the decision to divide the disputed land in three parts was wrong.

"It was nobody's case in the High Court that the Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara were in joint possession of the disputed premises. The claims of the three sets of plaintiffs were mutually exclusive in the sense each set of plaintiffs claimed the entire property as its own and no one sought a decree for partition of the property," the appeal said.

"The core finding in the judgement as regards the alleged place of birth of Lord Shri Ram is based on the professed belief of Hindus and not on evidence," JUH said in its appeal.
A 3-judge bench of the High Court had passed three separate judgements on September 30 but the majority verdict held that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Lord Rama is situated, belongs to Hindus.

All the three judges of the High Court were unanimous on the ownership of the place where the makeshift temple exists.

While two judges were of the view that the entire disputed land should be divided into three equal parts, each to be given to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing 'Ram Lalla Virajman' (seated Baby Ram), one of the judges held that the entire disputed area belonged to Hindus.

Challenging the verdict, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind questioned the HC decision of giving the land under the dome in favour of the Hindu organisation on the ground that it was a mosque prior to installation of the idol in 1949.

"A day prior to the installation of the idols, mosque was used for offering 'Namaz' i.e. even there are ample evidence on record that Muslims had offered the Friday prayer in the mosque on 16.12.1949. Therefore, the High Court in one breath having admitted that both the communities were using the building for offering prayer at their demarcated portions, then the question of exclusive use by the members of Muslim community was hardly of any consequence," it said in the appeal.

"It is further clarified that the Hindus were prayer at Ram Chabutra only. It is absolutely wrong to state that the Hindus were worshipping below the Central Dome," the appeal said.

"The judgement suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record in as much as it treated Nirmohi Akhara as a party different from Hindus and allotted a separate 1/3rd share notwithstanding the evidence on record that this organisation of sadhus was only in possession of two small bits of land called Ram Chabutra measuring 39.6 sq. yards and Sita Ki Rasoi which is much smaller than the area covered by Ram Chabutra while the total area of the disputed premises is about 1500 sq. yards," the appeal said.

Comments (+)