Every corner of the nation is waiting for results of Ayodhya Verdict. And finally, News flashed…
Find the details, which I pasted here below. (Whole Summary of Verdict by Judges is available here for download.)
17:21: VHP welcomes judgment
The VHP today welcomed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title issue saying the faith of Hindus has been endorsed by the judiciary. “We welcome the judgement. The faith of one billion Hindus that Lord Ram was born here has been endorsed by the judiciary”, VHP international general secretary Pravin Togadia said today. He said the judgement would now pave the way for construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.
17:18: Summary of the Ayodhya title suit judgment…
Summary of the Ayodhya title dispute judgement delivered by Allahabad High Court today.
1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?
The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?
The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?
The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.
5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?
O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.
6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyard?
It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
17:10: Verdict is not victory, defeat for anybody: RSS
Addressing the press after the the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya verdict, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said the verdict should not be seen as anybody’s victory or defeat and theefore is not a win or loss for anybody. He said he invited everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple.
16:57: What the judges said today…
The gist of the verdict of the Allahabad High Court on the Ayodhya title suit delivered today.
16:52: What the verdict says
The Allahabad High Court accepts the land under the central dome is Ram Janmasthan. The disputed Ayodhya land to be distributed into three parts. One part to Waqf Board, one to Ram Lalla and one to Nirmohi Akhara. Land goes 1/3 to Muslims and 1/3 to Hindus. Title suit of Sunni Wakf board and Nirmohi Akhara rejected Status quo for next three months
16:45: Babri Masjid Committee will move SC
The Babri Masjid committed said it was disappointed with the verdict and would move the Supreme Court. Meanwhile K N Bhatt lawyer of Ram Lalla said there was no time limit for passing a final decree. The Allahabad HC has decreed that status quo will be maintained at the disputed site for the next three months.
16:31: Ram idols existed on site: Allahabad HC
Lawyer K N Bhatt, who represented the party on behalf of ‘Ram Lalla’ decrees the title suit in favour of Hindus. The Allahabad High Court ruled today that the Ayodhya land is to be divided into three parts — one part goes to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to the Babri Committee and the other to the Ram Janmasthan (the central dome). The title suit of the Sunni Waqf board has been rejected. The HC also ruled that idols of Ram existed in the site.
16:24: Disputed land split into 3 parts
The Allahabad High Court rules by majority that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts to be distributed among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the party for ‘Ram Lalla’, say lawyers.
16:22: HC dismisses Waqf Board title suit
Delivering their verdict that all of India has remained glued to, the three-judge special bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma, today declared that the title suit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board has been dismissed. Two of the three judges – Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma – concurred in the judgment, while Justice S U Khan differed with the majority view. The judgment runs into 8000 pages. Further details are awaited. Meanwhile, the status quo will continue on the land for three more months.
16:16: Judgment delivered in the Ayodhya suit
The three-judge special bench of the Allahabad high court, comprising Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma have delivered the verdict in the Ayodhya title suit. The judgment runs into 8000 pages. Further details are awaited.