<p>“The disputed area is the birth place of Lord Ram... place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity... it is personified as the spirit of divine worshiped as birth place of Lord Ram as a child,” said Justice D V Sharma, one of the three judges on the Bench, in his order.<br /><br />“It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure.. the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram janamsthan and the place of birth of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants (Muslims),” said Justice Sudhir Agarwal, another judge in his order.<br /><br />Justice Sharma went on to say that the disputed building was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur and the year of its construction was certain. “But it was built against the tenets of Islam... thus it cannot have the character of a mosque,” he said.<br /><br />Justice Sharma said the disputed structure was constructed on the site of an old structure after demolition of the same. “The Archeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure,” he added.<br /><br />He went on to add that the idols of Ram Lala and others were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22/23 in 1949.<br /><br />He said the suit of the Sunni Central Waqf Board was barred by time and added that the property in the suit was the site of janambhoomi of Ram Chandraji and the Hindus had the right of worship there.<br /><br />“It is also established that the Hindus have been worshipping the place of dispute as a janma sthan (birth place) as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial,” he said.<br /><br />“It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of the Hindus and they were worshipping throughout also in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure),” Justice Sharma added. He said the disputed structure could not be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.<br /><br />His colleague Justice Agarwal, however, differed with him on this point and said the inner courtyard, the area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities.. Hindus and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.<br /></p>
<p>“The disputed area is the birth place of Lord Ram... place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity... it is personified as the spirit of divine worshiped as birth place of Lord Ram as a child,” said Justice D V Sharma, one of the three judges on the Bench, in his order.<br /><br />“It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure.. the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram janamsthan and the place of birth of Lord Ram as per faith and belief of the Hindus and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants (Muslims),” said Justice Sudhir Agarwal, another judge in his order.<br /><br />Justice Sharma went on to say that the disputed building was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur and the year of its construction was certain. “But it was built against the tenets of Islam... thus it cannot have the character of a mosque,” he said.<br /><br />Justice Sharma said the disputed structure was constructed on the site of an old structure after demolition of the same. “The Archeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure,” he added.<br /><br />He went on to add that the idols of Ram Lala and others were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of December 22/23 in 1949.<br /><br />He said the suit of the Sunni Central Waqf Board was barred by time and added that the property in the suit was the site of janambhoomi of Ram Chandraji and the Hindus had the right of worship there.<br /><br />“It is also established that the Hindus have been worshipping the place of dispute as a janma sthan (birth place) as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial,” he said.<br /><br />“It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of the Hindus and they were worshipping throughout also in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure),” Justice Sharma added. He said the disputed structure could not be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.<br /><br />His colleague Justice Agarwal, however, differed with him on this point and said the inner courtyard, the area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities.. Hindus and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries.<br /></p>