DHARAM VEER SHARMA,J. - (1.) The suit was initially filed by Sri Gopal Singh Visharad. After his death, his son Sri Rajendra Singh was substituted at his place. The plaintiff has sought following reliefs; Annexure -II Pages 30 -59 It be declared that plaintiff is entitled for worship and offering prayers without any interruption of the deity of Lord Rama installed at Ram Janam Bhumi for which particulars are available at the foot of the plaint and further defendant nos.1 to 6 or their heirs and defendant nos. 7 to 9 and defendant no.10 be restrained not to interfere in the aforesaid right of the plaintiff. The defendants be restrained from removing the idols from the disputed place and be further restrained not to cause any hindrance in the entry of the plaintiff and also be prohibited not to close the entry door causing hindrance in the worship and Darshan of the plaintiff. The plaintiff be granted any other relief deemed fit by court along with costs.
(2.) The details of the disputed property are as under :- East ­ Bhandar and platform of Janam Bhoomi. West - -Parti land North - -Sita Rasoi South - -Parti land Plaintiff claims that he is the follower of Sanatan Dharm and used to worship and Darshan of God and Goddesses like his father. The plaintiff in the birth spot of Lord Rama was worshipping the deity of Lord Ram Chandra at foot steps etc. and was continuing visiting the spot for offering prayers and for Darshan without any interruption and hindrance and he is also entitled to perform his religious duties in future also. On 14.1.1950, late Gopal Singh Visharad, the original plaintiff, visited Ram Janam Bhumi site but the employees of defendant no.6 restrained him from entering into the place where the deity of Lord Ram Chandra Ji was installed and the same was done under the influence of defendant nos. 1 to 5 and persons of their community. Thus they have restrained Hindus from worshipping the above deity without any justification. They have also declared that they would interfere in the prayers and worship of Hindus which amounts to interference in religious rights illegally. Employees of defendant no.6 are defendants no. 7 to 9 and they are illegally pressurizing the Hindus to remove the idols installed at the birth place of Lord Ram. It is further averred that in view of the declaration of Queen Victoria which she made and under the Government of India Act, 1935 the act on the part of the defendants no.1 to 5 and further of defendant nos. 6 to 9 is contrary to the declaration and also against the law which has compelled the plaintiff to file the suit. The cause of action arose on 14.1.1950 within the jurisdiction of the court when the defendants interfered with the rights of the plaintiff and restrained him from discharging his various religious obligations. After the death of the plaintiff, his son is entitled to maintain the present suit. Defendant nos. 1 to 5 are also no more and it is not necessary to implead his successors. Defendant no.10 has been arrayed in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 17.10.88 and the relief has also been sought against him. Defendants no. 1 to 5 have died. Plaintiff has not substituted any person on their place. Prior to their death the defendants no. 1 to 5 had filed their written statement on 21.2.50 wherein they stated that the land in suit is not Ram Janam Bhumi but it is a mosque constructed by emperor Babar. This mosque was constructed by Emperor Babar through his minister Mir Baqi in the year 1528 and dedicated it as waqf for use of Muslim community. Every Muslim has a right to worship in this Mosque. The grant of Rs. 60 was allowed by Emperor Babar from Royal Treasury which continued during Mughal period and during the reign of Nawabs of Oudh. This amount was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 302, 3 ana and 6 pai. This continued even during the British Government. During the period of settlement, the British Government granted rent free land in the villages Solapuri and Bahoranpur. In the year 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das had filed a suit against Secretary of State for India in Council and Mohd. Asgar Mutwalli of Babri Mosque in the Court of Sub -Judge, Faizabad for the declaration of his title.A map was appended with the plaint wherein the mosque was clearly shown and was not denied and only relief was sought regarding a platform, therefore, the plaintiff is estopped from saying that entire land in suit belongs to Ram Janam Bhumi temple. This fact is completely false and groundless. The Sub -Judge, Faizabad had dismissed the suit on 24.12.1885.
(3.) This verdict was upheld by appellate court and the remark of Sub -Judge in favour of the plaintiff regarding title over the platform in suit was also struck off and so many Mahants of Ayodhya on behalf of the Hindu public had contested the suit and all the Hindus had full knowledge of this litigation. As per provision of Act No.13 of 1936, the Chief Commissioner of Waqf was appointed who after inspection of the site of Babri Mosque declared that this mosque was built by Emperor Babar and is a Sunni Waqf. Accordingly requisite notification was issued. The Muslim community is in continuous possession over Babri Mosque since 1528 and therefore if plaintiff or any other Hindus succeed in proving that at any point of time there was a temple over the land in suit, in that event also having been in possession for more than 400 years over the land in suit as public mosque no right or title remained with the plaintiff and the same has been extinguished by the lapse of time and plaintiff had no right of possession over the property in suit. Therefore, the suit is barred by Section 42 Specific Relief Act and is also time barred of which no application has been moved by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and no right has been claimed through the Hindu community. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The suit is barred for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Namaz was offered in the Babri Mosque on 16.12.1949 and there was no idol in it. If any, idol has been installed surreptitiously and stealthily in that event also no Hindu has right to enter into the mosque for having Darshan of the said idol or worship over there. Accordingly civil court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief in favour of the plaintiff. There is mis - joinder by defendants no.6 to 9 in the present suit. The proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been commenced with ulterior motive with the aid and knowledge of the then City Magistrate. There is a temple known as Janam Sthan Sri Ram Chandra Ji where idols of Ram Chandra Ji and other Gods are installed. The suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has filed replication reiterating the facts given in the plaint.;