M Siddiq (D) Thr LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (Ayodhya, 09 Nov 2019)
Quick Summary
This is the Ayodhya land dispute decision. The Court weighed historic records, worship patterns, and evidence. It granted the entire disputed site to Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman for a temple. Using Article 142, it also directed that 5 acres be given to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya for a mosque. The judgment discusses limitation, who can sue for a deity, and the idea that a deity is a perpetual minor.
- Possessory title and long, open worship in the outer courtyard favored the Hindu side.
- Deity treated as a perpetual minor—affects limitation & representation.
- Equitable relief: 5 acres to Muslims within Ayodhya.
Issues
- Was Suit 3 barred by limitation?
- Do Shebaits have an exclusive right to sue for the deity?
- Is Suit 5 within limitation because a deity is a perpetual minor?
Rules
- Article 142 — Supreme Court may pass orders to do complete justice.
- Limitation principles — Special treatment where a deity (perpetual minor) is concerned.
- Shebait law — Shebait represents the deity; exceptions allow next friend/devotees when needed.
Facts (Timeline)
Site: Disputed land at Ramkot, Ayodhya (Faizabad); mosque stood till 6 Dec 1992.
Claims: Hindus—an ancient Ram temple existed; Muslims—Babri Masjid built by/for Babur on vacant land.
1993: Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act; President’s Reference under Art. 143; in Ismail Faruqui (1994), Section 4(3) struck down; rest of the Act upheld.
2002–2003: Allahabad HC directed ASI for GPR survey and excavation by a 14-member team with mapped trenches.
2010: Allahabad HC delivered judgment (voluminous record: 533 exhibits, 87 witnesses, thousands of pages).
2017–2018: SC declined reference to larger bench on Ismail Faruqui; appeals listed for hearing.
09 Nov 2019: SC pronounced final judgment in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.
Arguments
Appellant/Deity Side
- Long, open, and continuous worship in outer courtyard shows possessory title.
- Deity is perpetual minor → suits for deity not hit by usual limitation rules.
- Shebait not the only voice if representation fails; next friend/devotees can sue.
Respondents/Muslim Side
- Exclusive possession not proved by Hindus for the inner courtyard.
- Challenge based on limitation and representation by proper shebaits.
- Relief must consider the Rule of Law given the 1992 demolition.
Judgment
The Supreme Court awarded the entire disputed 2.77 acres to Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman (Suit 5) for building a Ram Mandir. It recorded that the status quo assurance was breached when the mosque was demolished in 1992—an egregious violation of Rule of Law. Therefore, using Article 142, the Court directed the allotment of 5 acres within Ayodhya to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for a mosque.
- Sunni Waqf Board did not establish exclusive possession; Hindu side proved long, unimpeded worship in the outer courtyard.
- Orders to create a trust and manage construction and allotment.
Ratio
Title and possession were tested on the full record. Continuous worship and control of the outer courtyard favored the deity’s side. A deity’s perpetual minor status shaped limitation and representation. Article 142 supplied equitable balancing through the separate 5-acre grant.
Why It Matters
- Explains how courts weigh worship-based possession and historical materials.
- Clarifies shebait representation and deity as a juristic person.
- Shows the Court’s use of Article 142 to secure orderly and just outcomes.
Key Takeaways
- Deity is a perpetual minor → affects limitation & locus.
- Evidence of long, open worship matters in possessory claims.
- Article 142 can deliver balanced reliefs for both communities.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “WORSHIP → TITLE; DEITY → MINOR; 142 → BALANCE”
- Spot the claimant: deity, devotees, or shebait?
- Check possession: long, public, and peaceful worship?
- Balance reliefs: can Art. 142 ensure complete justice?
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suit 3 limitation? | Limitation Act principles | Assessed with possession and worship evidence | Not decisive against final relief |
| Exclusive shebait right? | Shebait law & representation | Where shebait fails/conflicts, next friend may sue | Not exclusive in all cases |
| Suit 5 within limitation? | Deity as perpetual minor | Deity’s status affects limitation clock | Suit 5 sustained |
| Reliefs and balance | Article 142 | Temple land to deity; 5 acres to Waqf Board | Equitable final orders |
Glossary
- Shebait
- Person who manages a Hindu deity’s property and worship.
- Perpetual minor
- A deity is legally always a minor; the Court protects its interests.
- Article 142
- Power of the Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now