11/10/2022 0 Comments Asi report on ayodhya pdf![]() ![]() In connection with the inner court yard, there was no evidence in the suit by Sunni Board to show exclusive possession prior to 1857, the court noted. Despite the construction of the wall in 1858 by the British and the setting up of the Ramchabutra in close-proximity of the inner dome, Hindus continued to assert their right to pray inside the three-domed structure,” the order said. The Muslims have not been in possession of the outer courtyard. “Hindu worship at Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and at other religious places including the setting up of a Bhandar clearly indicated their open, exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard. The court rejected the claim and said there was evidence to show Hindus had unimpeded access to the parts of disputed site – thereby disqualifying the possession to be exclusive. Consequently, “Muslims are in possession of that property… by way of an adverse possession,” the petitioners contended.Īlso Watch | Ayodhya verdict: 5 key points from Supreme Court judgment Muslim petitioners claimed that they had possession of the mosque since 1528 and continued to do so till 1949 – when idols of the Hindu god Ram were placed in the mosque illegally. Adverse possession is a principle that gives proprietorship of a property to an entity that had its exclusive control for more than 20 years. One of the key basis for claims by the Muslim side was establishing possession, which can determine proprietorship of land according to Indian law in two ways: by establishing either adverse possession or exclusive possession. ![]() The Supreme Court order giving Hindus the possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya rested on the following key understanding that the judges drew from the suits and the evidence that was presented before them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |