AYODHYA DISPUTE JUDGMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

^^gekjk vkSj gekjs lkFk jgus okys lk/kw&larksa dk ;g iw.kZ fo'okl gS fd Hkxoku jke dk tUe rFkk vorj.k
fookfnr ifjlj ds Hkhrj pcwrjs ij gh gqvk FkkA^^ 1/4ist 1171/2
"It is full belief of ours as well as of saints and sages residing with us that Lord Rama had taken birth and
descended on chabutra itself inside the disputed premises."(E.T.C.)
(xxxiii) OPW 13 - Narad Sharan
^^v;ks/;k Hkxoku jke dh tUe Hkwfe gS] vkSj fookfnr
"Ayodhya is Lord Rama's birthplace, and we consider the middle place of the disputed structure to be His
birthsite." (E.T.C.)
^^Hkxoku jke dk tUe fookfnr Hkou esa gqvk Fkk] ;g ckr eSa ijEijkxr jhfr fjokt ij lquh gqbZ ckr ds vk/kkj ij dj
jgk gwWaA^^ 1/4ist 341/2
"On the basis of hearsay based on conventions and traditions, I am saying that Lord Rama was born in the
disputed building."(E.T.C.)
(xxxiv) OPW 16 Sri Jagadguru Ramnandacharya Swami Rambhadracharya
^^;tqosZn esa tSlk fd eSaus vius 'kiFk&i= iSjk&27 esa fy[kk gS] Hkxoku jke dk tUe v;ks/;k esa gksus dh ckr
fy[kh gS] fdlh LFkku fo'ks"k dk ft+dz ugha gSA^^ 1/4ist 391/2
"As I have written in para 27 of my affidavit, the factum of Lord Rama's birth in Ayodhya finds mention in
Yajurveda; there is no mention of any particular place therein."(E.T.C.)
^^ml v;ks/;k esa ,d fgj.e;% vFkkZr~ Lo.kZ dk e.Mikdkj Hkou gS] tgka izdk'k ls lEiUu lkdsr yksd ls vkdj
ijeczg~e Jh jke tUe fy, FksA mijksDr 'kCnksa ds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus O;kdj.k 'kkL= ds vuqlkj ;g fu"d"kZ
fudkyk gS fd fookfnr LFky ij gh Hkxoku jke dk tUe LFkku gSA^^ 1/4ist 401/2
"There is a canopy-shaped building of gold in that Ayodhya where the Supreme Being Sri Ram Chandra,
illumined with light, had come from Saket Lok and had taken birth. Only on the basis of the aforesaid words, I
have as per grammar inferred that the disputed place itself is the birthplace of Lord Rama."(E.T.C.)
4412. A bare reading of all the above statements makes it 4997
very clear and categorical that the belief of Hindus by tradition was that birthplace of Lord Rama lie within
the premises in dispute and was confined to the area under the central dome of three domed structure, i.e., the
disputed structure in the inner courtyard.
4413. In arriving to this conclusion we do not find any difficulty since the pleadings in general and particular
also do not detract us. When the Hindu parties have referred to the entire disputed site as a place of birth, this
Court can always find out and record a finding for, instead of the entire area, a smaller area within the same
premises. The pleadings are not to be read in a pedantic manner but the Court has to find out substance therein
as to whether the parties knew their case or not. The evidence adduced by the parties and what the witnesses
have said on behalf of Hindu parties fortify the case set up by the defendants.
4414. In Jamshedji Cursetjee Tarachand Vs. Soonabai, ILR (1909) 33 Bom. 122 the Bombay High Court said:
"if this is the belief of the community......a secular judge is bound to accept that belief - it is not for him to sit
in judgment on that belief."
Vol 20: Sunni Central Board Of ... vs Gopal Singh Visharad And Others on 30 September, 2010
WITH CURTECY Indian Kanoon -