Priya B wrote:
[quote]The Allahabad High Court in 2002 commissioned the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate part of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For nearly six months, from March 12, 2003, to August 7, 2003, the country's best excavators worked on the premises - though under instructions to dig 10 feet "around" the spot under the central dome where the idol of Shri Ram Lala existed -- to verify claims about the presence of a previous structure, allegedly a Hindu temple.

The ASI report in 2003 concluded that there is "architectural evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure". The survey body said the remains of the "massive structure" pre-dating the construction of the mosque indicated "distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India".

The report factored in both Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma determining individually that a Hindu temple was "demolished" to construct a mosque.

Sudhir Agarwal the judge banks on the Hindu "belief", which has "lasted more than 200 years", pre-dating the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Justice Sharma holds that the report only "confirms" that the disputed site "was and is" the site of a temple believed by the Hindus to have been "always the birthplace of Lord Ram".[/quote]

The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.

I seriously doubt the Court reached its verdict based on the number of parties to the suit! Each of them had a valid legal claim over the property, which is why this decision was reached, not because the Court felt that all parties should have some consideration in the end.

The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.

Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...

Sorry, forgot to mention that the above post was in reply to Abid Areacode's second post...

[quote] Plain facts are that there was a mosque and not temple when demolished... [/quote]

Actually I think one of the judges claims that there is some doubt about whether what Babur constructed was actually a mosque... But we're really in no position to argue on that issue.


[quote] But the majority community believes that Ayodhya and the particular site is birth place of Rama. court had no option but to act in the way they did. But the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three.[/quote]

It's not really a case of the court having no option. The fact that most people believe that Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram plays a very important role, because law is, in essence, based on customary principles and belief. The court had to give this belief the due importance it deserves under law.

I'm curious as to why you claim that the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three?

gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]

The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]

The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):

A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.

B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.

C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.

D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.

E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.

F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.

The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.

Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I seriously doubt the Court reached its verdict based on the number of parties to the suit! Each of them had a valid legal claim over the property, which is why this decision was reached, not because the Court felt that all parties should have some consideration in the end.

The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.

Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...[/quote]

This was not a family dispute requiring distribution of land between certain individuals. The number of parties to the case is not so relevant. Actually, this was a dispute about temple and mosque. So, the verdict could be- the entire structure is mosque, temple or both. It was rightly decided that both existed. It is improper to give verdict on action of Babar who cannot be subjected to current judicial system. Distribution of land on basis of number of litigants is improper. So, giving only one third to Muslims is unfair. It should be equal share.

The point I'm trying to make is that the distribution of land was NOT on the basis of the number of litigants. The judges have passed the verdict passed on who had a legitimate claim to the land. Since all parties did have some legitimate claim, they all had to be given some portion of the land. The claim of the Hindus happened to be stronger, so they got a larger portion of the land.

Pallavi,
That is OK.But if there was a second claimant from Muslim side also I think they will also have some part.Isn't it the current verdict inject to our commonsense ?

Like I said earlier, there can't be any more claimants.

But, hypothetically, if there was another claimant from the Muslim side he would most likely have been clubbed with the first Muslim claimant, and the end decision would have been the same. Unless he had a separate claim over the property, which he would then have to prove. If he was successful in proving the same, then the court's decision might have been different.

Pallavi wrote:
[quote]The point I'm trying to make is that the distribution of land was NOT on the basis of the number of litigants. The judges have passed the verdict passed on who had a legitimate claim to the land. Since all parties did have some legitimate claim, they all had to be given some portion of the land. The claim of the Hindus happened to be stronger, so they got a larger portion of the land.[/quote]

Not Hindus but three parties (1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) (2) Nirmohi Akhada (3) Muslim organization have been given the parts. If Hindus were straight way given more part and Muslim less, this was understandable. But giving more to Hindus by recognizing two parties namely Ram lala Virajman and Nirmohi akhada is not understandable.