Finding grounds for appeal, Board takes hard look at all 3 rulings on Ayodhya suits-03/10/2010

03/10/2010

Finding grounds for appeal, Board takes hard look at all 3 rulings on Ayodhya suits

(Muslims, Hindus build temple together in Begusarai-Bihar-3/10/10

Prabhakar Kumar ,New Delhi:

One part of India has remain untouched by the verdict on Ayodhya. Muslims in a village in Bihar are busy building a temple for their Hindus neighbours - setting a concrete example of real coexistence.

CAN THIS BE AN EXAMPLE TO FIND THE SOLUTIONS 'JOINTLY',LIVE AND LET LIVE,COMMUNAL HARMONY,NATIONAL INTEGRETY AND REAL COEXISTENCE FROM WHICH WE ALL CAN LEARN.WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF RAM AND RAMAYANA AND MENTION OF AYODHYA IN IT IN PEOPLE'S LIFE IN GENERAL IN OUR COUNTRY.SO AS IT VICE-VERSA.THOUGH LAW WANTS PROOF.)




New Delhi: To establish the validity of its claim and not let “faith” take over “facts”, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs is taking a hard look at the three separate rulings in the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the title suits over the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. Zafaryab Jilani, Lucknow-based lawyer and the face of the Waqf Board case, said: “Aspects found in all three judgments will be appealed against. We are still finalising the aspects we want to challenge.”



The most important is the dismissal of the case of the Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara to two portions of the site, described as the Inner Courtyard (housing the Masjid) and Outer Courtyard (where the Ram Chabutra was located) from the 19th Century. There is a view that the law of the land -- possessory law -- entitles to land title those who have uninterrupted and unchallenged possession of an area for twelve years.

Those who back the Board claim point out that the Masjid was at the spot uninterrupted, from 1528 until 1949 (when the namaz was last read there), so its case cannot be denied. The same goes for the Nirmohi Akhara -- puja, bhajan-kirtan just outside the three domes went on uninterrupted for more than twelve years, strengthening its claim to that portion.

There is a view that declaring the land beneath the central dome of the Babri Masjid as the exact spot where Lord Ram was born is also something that should not have been ruled on simply on the basis of "belief" and ought to have been left as "incapable of legal determination". That it cannot be adjudicated upon was something which a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held in 1994 while refusing to answer the Presidential Reference sent to it after the demolition of the Babri Masjid.



According to Zafaryab Jilani, the ASI report does not at any point say that a temple "was destroyed" to build a mosque in the 16th Century. This, Jilani says, "therefore cannot be used as a fact to establish that the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple". This would be one of the points for appeal by the Board. Before this 2002 report, there were at least four topographical reports on Ayodhya by the ASI.

Another point for appeal would be the disqualification of the Waqf Board claim to the central dome. It would be pointed out that all three judges accepted that the idols were placed under the central dome on December 22/23 1949, were cognizant of the FIR filed in the matter, subsequent action (under Section 145) that put the place under lock and the title claim filed by the Waqf Board before the expiry of the 12-year period.

While Hindu law recognises a consecrated idol's rights as a juristic person, a minor in perpetuity, the rights were challenged within hours of the idols being placed. This is being seen by the Board as a legal infirmity in the present judgment.

Source: The Indian Express