Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/38465957/GIST-of-the-FINDINGS-by-Sudhir-Agarwal-Ayodhya-Verdict
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 21:40:58
Document Index: 524402680

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 14', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 14', 'art 4', 'art 1']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin(Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued) 4566.In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on various issues, following directions and/or declaration, are given which in our view would meet the ends of justice: (i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this judgment. (ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included. (iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the absence of any person with better title. (iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places. (iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India. (v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra). (vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect to the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be. (vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute. 4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4 are dismissed. Suit-5 is decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. (From the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal)
More From This UserSkip carouselFIFA 2014 - Time TableList of Engineering, Pharmaceuticals and Architecture Colleges in MumbaiEligibility for change of name for Property TransferList of Biotech Companies in MumbaiAlchemy Game Base ElementsBlackBerry Bold 9780 - User GuideGeneral Knowledge 2013Incredible India - Calendar 2013Union Budget 2012 - 13bh1Railway Budget - 2012 -13 HighlightsRailway Budget - 2012 -13 Speechik onkar99 AcresBMMWhat the Quant !Gist of the Findings by s.u.khan j. - Ayodhya VerdictRam Janm Bhoomi Case - Ayodhya VerdictAyodhya Verdict Result - Ram Janm Bhoomi Babri MasjidAyodhya Verdict Result - Ram Janm Bhoomi Babri MasjidSocial Media Strategy20 Rules of Social Business SuccessMarketing Concepttata leather industry
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulGIST of the FINDINGS by Sudhir Agarwal - Ayodhya Verdict by [A] [K] [I] 0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Government & Politics, Public NoticesRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedIssue Wise Summaryby Kapil SethiIssues for Briefingby Kapil SethiJustice S U Khanby Kapil SethiHonsaj Gistby Abhinav Kumardecision on ayodhya verdict original copyby NatwarrText of Allahabad High Court Order on Ayodhya Disputeby Abhishek RaiText of Ayodhya Erdictby arpconsultant2874Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 14 of 14by satyabhashnamBabari Verdictby irshad3Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 4 of 14by satyabhashnamRam Janm Bhumi Babri Masjid - Ayodhya Benchby Naresh KadyanShri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 1 of 14by satyabhashnamBrief Summary of the Ayodhya Title Suit Judgement Delivered on 30.09.20101by monuaryanav-101005094648-phpapp02by Nakul Dashora In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow O.O.S.3 of 1989by Naresh Kadyan In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow O.O.S.No.1/1989 (R.S.No.2-50)by Naresh KadyanAyodhya -Justice Sibghat Ullah Khanby sundeepdougalJudgment RJB BM Vol 01by gvdrsMamlatdars Court Act and Rulesby Vividh PawaskarTranscribed Lectures of Dean Riano 2011 CIVPROby Niña Cylen Briguera CelestialComer Lesson Planby laurahelenkingHISTORY & JUDGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN RAMJANMABHUMI–BABRI MASJID CASEby ALIGARHHISTORIANSGreat Northern R. Co. v. Reed, 270 U.S. 539 (1926)by Scribd Government DocsRules of Civil Procedureby Jesus M. Meneses IIISettlement Loansby Popescu SilviuMananquil vs. Moicoby Anonymous KaNu0py71Geiger v. Kitzhaber: State's Response to Consolidationby Law Works LLCFarouk v Pista Ugandaby fellyshesheSimilar to Justice Sudhir AgarwalSkip carouselIssue Wise SummaryIssues for BriefingJustice S U KhanHonsaj Gistdecision on ayodhya verdict original copyText of Allahabad High Court Order on Ayodhya DisputeText of Ayodhya ErdictShri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 14 of 14Babari VerdictShri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 4 of 14Ram Janm Bhumi Babri Masjid - Ayodhya BenchShri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 1 of 14Brief Summary of the Ayodhya Title Suit Judgement Delivered on 30.09.20101av-101005094648-phpapp02 In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow O.O.S.3 of 1989 In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow O.O.S.No.1/1989 (R.S.No.2-50)Ayodhya -Justice Sibghat Ullah KhanJudgment RJB BM Vol 01Mamlatdars Court Act and RulesTranscribed Lectures of Dean Riano 2011 CIVPROComer Lesson PlanHISTORY & JUDGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN RAMJANMABHUMI–BABRI MASJID CASEGreat Northern R. Co. v. Reed, 270 U.S. 539 (1926)Rules of Civil ProcedureSettlement LoansMananquil vs. MoicoGeiger v. KitzhaberFarouk v Pista Ugandaal battutaACLU v. TiZa 4 11Justice Sudhir Agarwal