The Allahabad High Court concluded that both Muslims and Hindus had joint possession of the site. It dismissed many of the claims of the parties, and in some cases the whole case. However, it divided the site into three. One part for Sunni Wakf Board, another for Nirmohi Akhara and the third for the Ram deity. The portion under the central dome would go to the deity as that was believed to be the Janmasthan.

None of the parties were happy. They claimed the entire site. They appealed that since none of them asked for partitioning the site, the High Court cannot divide the site.

The Supreme Court also agreed that the High Court was wrong in dividing the site, since neither side asked for it.

Source: Pages 916-918

Picture Credit: First page of Allahabad High Court Judgement

All page numbers in the Sources refer to Supreme Court judgement unless mentioned otherwise. All pictures are from Allahabad High Court Judgement unless mentioned otherwise.

The first case was filed in January 1885. Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan, filed a case. He sought permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra situated in the outer courtyard. By that time, Hindus had been regularly worshipping Bhagwan Ram on a small open platform outside the three domes of the Masjid. The British Government had also given Hindus access to the site through a separate gate at the north of the complex.

The Mahant’s case was rejected apprehending “there was a possibility of riots breaking out between the two communities due to the proposed construction of a temple.” However the court acknowledged that the Ramchabutra was owned and was in possession of Hindus.

The district judge F.E.A Chamier agreed with the order but deleted the reference to ownership. However Chamier observed that “it was most unfortunate that the Masjid should have been built on the land especially held sacred by the Hindus but since the construction had been made 358 years earlier, it was too late in the day to reverse the process.”

Another higher court also agreed with the original order and the deletion of reference to ownership. It also noted that Hindu legends that the mosque was constructed some 350 years ago owing to the bigotry and tyranny of Babur who purposely chose the holy spot as the site of the mosque.

Source: Pages 10, 70 and 487
Paper No. 95 Ext.A-27 of Allahabad High Court Judgement

Picture Credit: Order of the District Judge

A British officer Carnegy, posted in Faizabad, records that there was violence between Hindus and Muslims in 1855. Muslims attempted to charge at the Hanuman Garhi complex. This was repulsed by Hindus. The Hindus are then stated to have taken over Janmasthan after three attempts. 75 muslims are recorded to have died in this fight.

After this, a railing was erected dividing the courtyard, so that Muslims may worship inside it and Hindus may worship outside it.

In 1934 the dome of the Masjid was damaged. The cost of repair was recovered from Hindus. In 1949, deities were placed under the dome. The gates of the complex were officially opened in 1986.

Source: Pages 675, 486

Picture Credit: Excerpts of Carnegy Report presented in Allahabad High Court

In November 1858, three years after the riots of 1855, Nihang Singh Faqir Khalsa, resident of Punjab, organized a Havan and Puja of Guru Gobind Singh within the Masjid. He also placed a deity of Ram in the Janmasthan.

A few days later, the Moazzin of Babri Masjid complained that the Nihang Sikh is creating a riot in the Masjid. He stated that the Sikh has forcibly made a chabutra inside the masjid. He had placed a picture of the idol inside the masjid, lit a fire and was conducting puja. He had also written the words “Ram Ram” with coal within the walls of the Masjid.

British officers also recorded that the Sikh was creating nuisance and refusing to vacate the site.

These incidents formed a record which was relied on by the court to establish that Hindus never gave up their claim to the whole site.

Separately, the evidence of Janma Sakhis were also presented to the Allahabad High Court. They contain a description of Guru Nanakji’s visit to Ayodhya for darshan of Ram Janma Bhumi in 1510-11; and later on by Guru Tej Bahadurji and Guru Govind Singhji.

Source: Pages 799, 993

Picture Credit: Copy of Complaint filed in 1858

In 1945, there was a litigation between Shias and Sunnis regarding Babri Masjid. The Shias objected to the Waqf Commissioner recording Babri Masjid as a Sunni Mosque. In the complaint, the Shias mention that the Masjid was located at Janmasthan Ayodhya. Shias lost the case.

Documents submitted to the court by Sunni Waqf Board in other matters also refer the site as Janmasthan Masjid. The report submitted by the Thanedar in 1858 also refers to the site as Masjid Janma Sthan. These official documents and several historical accounts strengthened the case that the site had always been known as Janmasthan also.

Source: Pages 815, 239, 1016

Picture Credit: Judgement in Shia Sunni Case

A deity was placed inside the Masjid in 1873. Despite orders, the deity was not removed. In 1877, the British Government allowed Hindus to open a door on the northern wall of the Masjid. Muslim objections to this were rejected and the officials observed that not allowing the door would make Hindu community dependent on muslims to access the site.

The British administration in other words recognised and accepted the independent right of the Hindu worshippers over the area as a part of their worship of the deities. This factor was acknowledged by the Supreme Court as a legal right provided by British to Hindus.

An earlier act of Britishers erecting a railing in 1855 also enabled Hindus to hold exclusive possession over the outer courtyard.

Source: Pages 806, 808

Picture Credit: Order approving opening of a new door for Hindus

The Skanda Purana (not later than 7th/9th century AD) is the earliest work presented in the case. The Hindus argued, by citing Skanda Purana, that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama and the Janmasthan is the actual place of birth worshipped by Hindus. The detailed description of the birthplace in Skanda Purana was also quoted by Hindu side to narrow down the site of birth to the Janmasthan.

The Supreme Court said it has no reason to conclude that the faith was not genuine and was only a pretence. The court commented that in this case the faith is not a veneer only for the purposes of litigation. However it observed that, only legal evidence will be used to conclude the actual place where worship was offered. The faith of Hindus will not play a role in that.

The portions of Babur Nama related to his visit to Ayodhya are missing and therefore his personal account of Ayodhya could not figure in the case.

Janma Sakhis which contain a description of the visit of Sikh Gurus to Ramam Janma Bhumi starting from that of Guru Nankji on 1510-11 were also presented the court. Several traveller accounts and Gazetteers have been used as supporting evidence to corroborate that both Hindus and muslims worshipped at the site and held claims to the site.

The Historians’ claim of Skanda Purana only being a 18th/19th century text was rejected by the court.

Source: Pages 652, 658, 96, 954, 993

Picture Credit: William Hodges, Ayodhya in 18th Century, Yale Centre of British Art

The excavation found a partly damaged east facing brick shrine. It was a circular structure on the outside and was squarish on the inner side. It had an entrance to the east. A chute was also found on the northern side. The chute is V shaped as a pranala to drain out water, obviously after the abhisheka of the deity which is not present in the shrine now.

The brick shrine is similar to the findings of the excavation carried out by ASI at Sravasti and at Rewa. On a comparative analysis, ASI inferred that the circular shrine can be dated to 10th century AD.

The report also concluded that public buildings were at the site from the Kushana period (1st to 3rd century AD).

Source: Pages 511, 520

Picture Credit: Picture of excavated Pranala, YouTube Lecture of Prof KK Muhammed, Sangam Talks

The ASI report concludes that, based on the analogy of carbon dating, the antiquarian remains in the site can be dated to 1250 BC. It concludes that human activity at the site dates back to 13th Century BCE on the basis of scientific dating method providing the only archeological evidence of such an early date of occupation of the site.

Source: Page 24 of ASI Report from the Allahabad High Court Judgement

Picture Credit: General map of Ramayana sites in Ayodhya region, Sangam Talks

ASI found evidence of temples. However, from archeological principles, ASI did not find conclusive evidence that the temple was for Ram or that the temple was destroyed to build the mosque or that Babur built the mosque.

The ASI report found conclusive evidence of buildings of public status from Kushana period (1st to 3rd Century AD) and a circular temple of 10th century or earlier. It also found evidence for a massive temple of 12th century of three floors and built over three structural phases. It also observed that there were continuous additions from the 12th century till the 16th century and that the site was for public use.

The Supreme Court, based on the ASI report, concluded that,

The mosque was built using the walls of a large pre-existing 12th century structure as a foundation.

The underlying structure is suggestive of a Hindu religious origin comparable to the temple excavations in the region and pertaining to the era.

The court rejected the claim that the underlying structure is non religious or was Islamic in nature.

Source: Pages 594, 595

Picture Credit: Sketch of excavated remains, Outlook Magazine, June 2003

The major claim on Masjid side was that they had continuous and exclusive possession of the site since the mosque was built. They claimed the whole site on this basis. They could not prove this in the court. This was contrary to all available records. There was adequate evidence that Hindus had possession of a part of the site since 1855 and had continuously agitated for the whole site.

The Historians Report to the Nation, provided as evidence by the Masjid side for their claim, was not considered as relevant by the Supreme Court. It deemed the inferences in the report as their opinion and said since ASI findings are available, the report is not relevant. Therefore, it did not comment on the oral depositions of historians. The deposition and the report had been severely condemned by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had also noted that Prof. D.N. Jha did not sign the report, even though he was claimed as one of the authors. The Annexure to the Supreme Court judgement also observes that the Historians had not treated the subject dispassionately and objectively.

The court did not consider it relevant if the mosque was built as per Islamic tenets or not. The court observed that even if the mosque was built after destroying a temple, it could not correct a historical but immoral act.

Even though there was no evidence that Namaz was offered from 1528 till 1855, there was adequate evidence of Namaz since 1855 till 1949.

Source: Pages 792, 899, 903, 904, 706, 983

Picture Credit: Traveller accounts including that of Teiffenthaler

The court concluded that neither party had title to the site. The site was also shown as Nazul (Government) land in records.

The court concluded that the Hindus had established a clear case for the outer courtyard due to long, continued and unimpeded worship. The court concluded that Hindus and Muslims had competing claims to worship under the dome in the inner courtyard. The court also documented evidence that Hindu claim of worship had been recognized under British rule; and that British had provided a grant to support worship at the Masjid.

On the balance, it concluded that the evidence of Hindus for possession of whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence of Muslims. It noted that both sides wanted the whole site and not just a share of it. Therefore it could not divide the side between the parties. In any case the court considered division of the small site impractical.

The court did not consider faith of the Hindus about the birthplace (or) the evidence of a 12th century temple (or) that the mosque was built on top of the temple as relevant legal factors. It categorically stated that courts cannot correct immoral historical acts legally.

It considered the installation of deities in 1949 and demolition of Masjid in 1992 as an illegal act that must be corrected. Therefore it awarded alternative land to Muslims to build a mosque. The Supreme Court recognized the historical presence of Nirmohi Akhara at the site and its role.

Source: Pages 838, 839, 915, 922, 923

Picture Credit: 1950 Sitemap documenting structure in the inner and outer courtyard