Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. He then contended that the Mosque in question is a Waqf as has already been held in the judgment of Din Mohammad (supra). Section 4 of the Act of 1991 clearly bars the suit filed by plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.

44. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (2020) 1 SCC 1 also known as Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case (Ayodhya Case). Relevant paras 92, 97.2, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105 are extracted hereasunder:-

45. Sri Gupta contended that Hon'ble Apex Court in Ayodhya Case had clearly held that where a declaration is sought for a period prior to enforcement of Places of Worship Act or where enforcement is sought of a right which was recognised before the enforcement of Places of Worship Act is directly contrary to provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1991. Thus, once the provisions of Section 4 has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the suit at the behest of plaintiffs claiming the same relief in the instant suit is also hit by provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1991.

60. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of Apex Court in case of Venkataramana Devaru and others vs. State of Mysore and others, 1958 SCR 895. According to him, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be neither legal nor just to refer to evidence adduced with reference to a matter which was actually in issue and on the basis of that evidence, to come to a finding on a matter which was not in issue, and decide the rights of parties on the basis of that finding. Thus, according to him, the Court could not have gone into any issue touching upon the status/character of any temple in the Ayodhya case, other than Ram Janmabhoomi. The observations relied upon by petitioner cannot be ratio of the judgment and is clearly obiter dicta and are not authoritative.

69. In Ayodhya case, Section 4(3)(d) of the Act of 1991 was not under consideration, as Section 5 of the Act specifically exempted Ramjanmabhumi- Babri Masjid case, and any observation to the contrary not concerned with the present dispute will not affect the suit in which declaratory relief has been sought for determining religious character of disputed place.

70. According to the counsels, the Court can adjudicate upon private property claims that were expressly or impliedly recognised by British sovereign and subsequently not interfered with our Indian independence. With respect to disputed property, it is evident that British sovereign recognised and permitted the existence of both Hindu and Muslim community at the disputed property when riot happened in the city of Banaras in respect of place in dispute and Hindus completely ousted Muslims. A report was submitted by then District Magistrate, Mr. Watson on 30.12.1809 to the Vice-President in Council stating that in the disputed place Gyanvapi, there existed very pious temple of Lord Vishwanath of Hindus which was demolished due to religious antipathy by orders of Aurangzeb. But, thereafter, District Magistrate, Mr. Bird on 12.03.1810 stated that it should be opened for both communities, the rights of parties though recognised, but not decided. This continued basis of the legal rights of the parties in the present suit and it is these acts that Court must evaluate to decide in view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in para no. 997 of Ayodhya case. The change of legal regime between British sovereign and Republic of India, there exists a line of continuity, Article 372 of the Constitution embodies the legal continuity between the British sovereign and independent India in general as has been decided in para no. 996 and 996.3 of Ayodhya judgment, which are extracted hereasunder:-