REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Appellant

V/S

Mahant Suresh Das And Ors Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MANOHAR GANESH TAMBEKAR VS. LAKHMIRAM GOVINDRAM [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS AND JAMES COOK V SIR JAMES SPRIGG [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS,MADRAS VS. PIDUGU NARASIMHAN [REFERRED TO]
PROMOD CHANDRA DEB V STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATI NATH SMRITITIRTHA VS. RAM LAL MAITRA [REFERRED TO]
MADURA,TIRUPPARANKUNDRAM VS. ALIKHAN SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
RAMA REDDY V RANGADASAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT SHRI SRINIVASA RAMANUJ DAS V SURAJNARAYAN DASS [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GHAFOOR V RAHMAT ALI [REFERRED TO]
BUMPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS [REFERRED TO]
RAMPAT VS. DURGA BHARTHI [REFERRED TO]
FIRM SRINIWAS RAM KUMAR VS. MAHABIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BRAJA SUNDAR DEB VS. MONI BEHARA [REFERRED TO]
ANGURBALS MULLICK VS. DEBABRATA MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO LOKMAN LODHI VS. NARMADABAI [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. RAJAGOPAL AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE CHANDRA SINGH DEO VS. BABU GANESH PRASAD BHAGAT [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOW MENTS MADRAS VS. LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SHIRUR MUTT [REFERRED TO]
MONOHAR DAS MOHANTA VS. CHARU CHANDRA PALAND OFHERS [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMA DAS MAHANT VS. DAULAT RAM ASTHANA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SHAH VS. FASIHUDD IN ANSARI [REFERRED TO]
DEOKI NANDAN VS. MARLIDHAR [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA SAVALRAM FUJ ARI WAGHINARE DUTTATRAYA GANGARAM PUJARI WAGHMARE MADHAY TUKARAM PUJARI BABU TUKARAM PUJARI WAGHMARE VS. DHYANESHWAR MAHARAJ SANSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT RAM SAROOP DASJI VS. S P SAHI SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
KALIMATA THAKURANI OF KALIGHAT VS. JIBANDHAN MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
POOHARI FAKIR SADAVARTHY OF BONDILIPU RAM VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:VORA HAKIMUDDIN TAYABALI AMTHANIWALA:VORA FIDDALI BADRUDDIN MITHIBARWALA:MEHTA KANTILAL CHANDULAL:PATHAN ABBASKHAN AHMEDKHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJA MOHAMMAD AMIR AHMAD KHAN VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF SITAPUR [REFERRED TO]
GURANDITTA MAL KAPUR VS. AMAR DASS CHELA MAHANT RAM SARAN [REFERRED TO]
DEO KUER VS. SHEO PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SARANGADEVA PERIYA MATAM VS. RAMASWAMI GOUNDAR DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SHASTRI YAGNAPURUSHDASJI THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA:MULDAS BHUNDARDAS VAISHYA [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH VS. THAKUR RADHA BALLABHJI [REFERRED TO]
KAMARAJU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO VS. SUB COLLECTOR ONGOLE AND AN [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA NATH NASKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
PROFULLA CHORONE REQUITTE SATYA CHORONE REQUITTE VS. SATYA CHORONE REQUITTE:PROFULLA CHORONE REQUITTE [REFERRED TO]
SUPDT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS WEST BENGAL VS. ANIL KUMAR BHUNJA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AMRITSAR VS. SURESH SETH [REFERRED TO]
MAYA RANI PUNJ VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI [REFERRED TO]
S R BOMMAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BALA SHANKAR MAHA SHANKER BHATTJEE VS. CHARITY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT STATE [REFERRED TO]
M ISMAIL FARUQUI MOHD ASLAM HARGYAN SINGH THAKUR VIJAY RAGHO BHAGWAN BIRAJMANMANDIR JAMIAT ULAMA E HIND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD VS. RAJ PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM JANKIJEE DEITIES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. SOMNATH DASS [REFERRED TO]
BRAJA KISHORE JAGDAV VS. LINGRAJ SAMANTARAY [REFERRED TO]
KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. C K RAJAN [REFERRED TO]
K ETHIRAJAN VS. LAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
V RAJESHWARI VS. T C SARAVANABAVA [REFERRED TO]
RAMIAH VS. N NARAYANA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
THAYARAMMAL VS. KANAKAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARSEM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DURGESH SHARMA VS. JAYSHREE [REFERRED TO]
MARREPU VENKATA RAMANA MURTHI VS. DEITY OF SRI RAMA MANDIRAM [REFERRED TO]
PICHAI VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE [REFERRED TO]
SABHANAYAGAR TEMPLE CHIDAMBARAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA GURUKKAL VS. ABHINAVA POORNAPRIYA ASRINIVASA RAO SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
ASRABULLA VS. KIAMATULLA HAJI CHAUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
MIRU VS. RAMGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
CHITAR MAL VS. PANCHU LAL [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN MULL INDRA KUMAR VS. CHIMAN LAL GIRDHAR DAS PAREKH [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. NAURANGI LAL [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA VS. BALUSAMI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIDHAR MISRA VS. RANGALAL [REFERRED TO]
MOSQUE KNOWN AS MASJID SHAHID GANJ VS. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSAR [REFERRED TO]
N SANKARANARAYANA PILLAYAN VS. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
TARIT BHUSAN RAI VS. SRI SRI ISWAR SRIDHAR SALAGRAM SHILA THAKUR BY KRISHNA CHANDRA CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH MUMTAZ ALI KHAN VS. RAJAH KISHENDATT RAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANI RAJROOP KOER VS. SYED ABUL HOSSEIN [REFERRED TO]
PRAMATHA NATH MULLICK VS. PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
T.R.K.RAMASWAMI SERVAI VS. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS [REFERRED TO]
SANKARANARAYANAN IYER VS. SRI POOVANANATHASWAMI TEMPLE, THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ELLAPPA NAICKEN VS. K. LAKSHMANA NAICKEN (DEAD) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Introduction

(2.) This Court is tasked with the resolution of a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself. The events associated with the dispute have spanned the Mughal empire, colonial rule and the present constitutional regime. Constitutional values form the cornerstone of this nation and have facilitated the lawful resolution of the present title dispute through forty-one days of hearings before this Court. The dispute in these appeals arises out of four regular suits which were instituted between 1950 and 1989. Before the Allahabad High Court, voluminous evidence, both oral and documentary was led, resulting in three judgements running the course of 4304 pages. This judgement is placed in challenge in the appeals.

(3.) The disputed land forms part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot at Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site until 6 December 1992. The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur. On the other hand, the Muslims contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.

Click here to view full judgment.

M.SIDDIQ Vs. MAHANT SURESH DAS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address