Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 6 of 14

1278

injunction. But where the issue of title involves

complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or

where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the

basis that title was at issue, the Court should not decide

the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course

is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged

suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. Referring to

the Madras High Courts' decision in Vanagiri (supra), the

Apex Court in Pramod Gupta (supra) observed that the

second suit would be barred only when the facts relating

to title are pleaded, when an issue is raised in regard to

title and parties lead evidence on the issue of title and the

Court instead of relegating the parties to an action for

declaration of title decides upon the issue of title and that

decision attains finality. However, the Apex Court made it

clear in para 20 of the judgment that the question relating

to res judicata was not before it but the question whether a

finding regarding title could be recorded in a suit for

injunction simpliciter, in the absence of pleadings and

issue relating to title is up for consideration. The said

judgment, in our view as such lends no credence to the

plaintiff's (Suit-4).

1051. To the same effect is the judgment in Williams Vs.

Lourdusamy & another (2008) 5 SCC 647 wherein the Apex

Court relied its decision in Sajjadanashin Sayed (supra).

1052. In State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Jagdish

Sharan Agrawal and others (2009) 1 SCC 689 where a suit

was dismissed for non prosecution and there was no decision on

merits and also where the Court found that order IX Rule 9 was

not applicable, it was held that the principle of res judicata will

1279

not bar a subsequent suit being inapplicable.

1053. In Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 in

order to attract doctrine of res judicata, it was held that a

decision on an issue that has been and substantially in issue in

the former suit between the same parties which has been heard

and finally decided would be considered as res judicata and not

merely finding on every incident or collateral question to

arrive at such a decision that would constitute res judicata.

1054. In Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra Prasad

and another (2006) 4 SCC 432 a deposit made under Section 83

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was held to be procedural

in nature and not to constitute a decision on an issue directly and

substantially arises in an earlier suit so as to operate res judicata

even if before allowing the deposit to be made under Section 83,

the Court has passed a detailed order dealing the rival

submissions.

1055. In Srikant Vs. District Magistrate, Bijapur and others

(2007) 1 SCC 486 referring to its earlier judgments, the Court

held that the doctrine of constructive res judicata is confined to

civil action and civil proceedings and inapplicable to illegal

detention and the action brought for a writ of habeas corpus.

However, where an earlier application for habeas corpus has

been rejected, a second application on the same ground may not

be permissible but if there are some fresh grounds even such a

bar would not apply. This judgment, therefore, has nothing to do

with the issue of res judicata engaging attention in the present

suits.

1056. In Saroja Vs. Chinnusamy (2007) 8 SCC 329, the

Court summarized conditions to attract the doctrine of res

judicata under Section 11 C.P.C. as under :

1280

(i) There must be two suits-one former suit and the other

subsequent suit;

(ii) The Court which decided the former suit must be

competent to try the subsequent suit;

(iii) The matter directly and substantially in issue must be

in the same either actually or constructively in both the

suits.

(iv) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the

subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided

by the Court in the former suit;

(v) The parties to the suits or the parties under whom they

or any of them claim must be the same in both the suits;

(vi) The parties in both the suits must have litigated under

the same title.

1057. In Saroja's case (supra) the interesting thing is that a

suit no. 233 of 1989 was filed on 19.4.1989 by one Saroja, her

minor children Suganthamani and Ramesh against her husband

Kuppusamy and his tenant for declaration of title and permanent

injunction in respect of a property “A”. During the pendency of

the suit, Kuppusamy, husband of Saroja, sold the suit property

by a registered sale deed dated 13.6.1990 for a consideration of

rupees one lac to the appellant Saroja. She (appellant) filed

another suit being O.S. No. 493 of 1990 for declaration of title

and permanent injunction claiming absolute ownership and

possession of the suit property purchased by her from

Kuppusamy claiming that she had been in continuous

possession of the suit property from the date of purchase and the

Patta, Chittha and adangal also stood in her name. The suit was

contested. When the later suit was pending, the earlier suit was

decreed ex-parte in favour of respondent no. 3 and her minor

1281

children. The subsequent suit was also decreed but in appeal the

decree was reversed and the judgment of the first Appellate

Court was confirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The

Apex Court also confirmed the above judgment holding that a

decree which is passed ex parte is as good as a decree passed

after contest.

1058. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another Vs. Union

of India & others JT 2006 (3) SC 114, the application of

principle of res judicata in tax matters was considered and it was

held that every assessment year gives a new cause of action

since different assessment orders are to be passed and, therefore,

the order in respect to one assessment proceedings shall not

operate as res judicata for the subsequent assessment years. The

Court further held as under :

“20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res

judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for

different assessment years because res judicata applies to

debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of

action whereas the cause of action for each assessment

year is distinct. The courts will generally adopt an earlier

pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless

there is a new ground urged or a material change in the

factual position. The reason why courts have held parties

to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment

year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not

because of any principle of res judicata but because of the

theory of precedent of the precedential value of the earlier

pronouncement. Where facts and law in a subsequent

assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi

judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a

1282

different view. This mandate is subject only to the usual

gateway of distinguishing the earlier decision or where the

earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are fetters

only on a coordinate bench which, failing the possibility of

availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the

view expressed and refer the matter to a bench of superior

strength or in some cases to a bench of superior

jurisdiction.

1059. The discussion made above as also in the light of the

principles of law laid down in the various precedents, some of

which are discussed above, the conclusion is inevitable that in

no manner, it can be said that anything in Suit-1885 may be

construed or taken as to operate as res judicata in the suits up for

consideration before us. In fact, neither the principles of res

judicata nor estoppel is attracted in any manner as the conditions

precedent for attracting the said principles are completely

lacking. It cannot be said that either the suits are barred by

principle of res judicata or that Suit-1885 was filed on behalf of

the whole body of persons interested in Janam Asthan and,

therefore, all the Hindus are barred by the same. It also cannot

be said that the defendants are estopped from denying the title of

Muslim community including the plaintiff of Suit-4 to the

property in dispute in view of the judgments of Suit-1885.

1060. In Smt. Dhana Kuer Vs. Kashi Nath Chaubey, 1967

AWR 290 a Single Judge upheld the decision of the courts

below holding that the suit was barred by Section 11

Explanation VI. An earlier suit was filed by Kashi Nath,

Vindhayachal and Bindeshwari seeking a declaration that Lt.

Jadunandan, husband of Smt. Asharfa has no interest of the

property in suit except a right of maintenance. The trial court

1283

dismissed the suit but in appeal the suit was decreed and the

judgment was confirmed in second appeal also. Thereafter Smt.

Dhana Kuer, daughter of Jadunandan and Smt. Asharfa filed

another suit seeking a declaration that Jadunandan died as

separate member of the family. The Court held that the earlier

suit was contested in respect of a private right claimed in

common for oneself and others and, therefore, the judgment was

binding upon the successors who can be validly said to be

represented in the earlier case through the superior member. In

our view, this judgment has no application in the case in hand as

is evident from the facts noted above.

1061. Mst. Sudehaiya Kumar and another Vs. Ram Dass

Pandey and others, AIR 1957 All. 270 sought to be relied by

referring para 6 to contend that Explanation VI Section 11

C.P.C. is not confined only to the representative suits governed

by Order 1 Rule 2 but is applicable to other suits as well. This

principle has been explained by the Apex Court in Narayana

Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs. Narayana Prabhu Krishna

Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC 1268 giving an illustration where each

party in a partition suit claiming that the property, the subject

matter of the suit, is joint, asserts a right or title common to

others to make identical claims. If that very issue is litigated in

another suit and decided, the others making the same claim

cannot be held to be claiming a right in common for themselves

and others. Each of them in such a case must be deemed to

represent all those, the nature of whose claims and interests are

common and identical. The crux of the matter to attract

Explanation VI is that interest of a person concerned has really

been represented by the other; in other words his interest has

been protected after in a bonafide capacity. If there be any clash

1284

of interest between the persons concerned and is assumed

representative, or if the later deem to collusion, or, for any other

reason mala fide involves to defend the claims, it cannot be

considered to be a representative interest as held in Surayya

Begum (Mst) Vs. Mohd. Usman and others, 1991(3) SCC 114.

Sri Siddiqui is also relied upon Bidhumukhi Dasi Vs. Jitendra

Nath Roy and others, 1909 Indian Cases (Calcutta) 442;

Singhai Lal Chand Jain Vs. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh,

Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC 1211 (para 13); and

Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Vs. Mahant

Harnam Singh C. (Dead), M.N. Singh and others, AIR 2003

SC 3349 (paras 17 and 19) but we find nothing therein to help

him on this aspect of the matter.

1062. What we notice from the contentions of Sri Siddiqui is

that his plea of res judicata is not limited to the suit or issue in

suit having been raised, heard and decided but it is in respect to

certain facts which are contained in the record of Suit-1885 with

respect to the nomenclature of site or building or object and its

location etc. He claims that mention of the above amounts to an

admission by the plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title, nature

etc. of the said building or site or locality even if it was not in

issue or nothing was decided on this aspect. Ignoring the issues

raised in Suit-1885 and the decision of the Court, certain

observations of the learned District Judge made during his

personal visit of the site are also being claimed as a finding of

fact binding on the parties not only to Suit-1885 but also to all

those who go and intend to visit the aforesaid entire site either

as worshipper or otherwise. The submissions is extremely far

fetched and too remote to be accepted and applied in the case in

hand.

1285

1063. We answer the Issues No. 5 (d) (Suit-1), 7(c) and 8

(Suit-4), and 23 (Suit-5) in negative.

1064. The Issue No. 29 (Suit-5) is:

“Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing

the present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of

1978 (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. State) of the Court of

Munsif Sadar, Faizabad?”

1065. It is not disputed that Suit No. 57 of 1978 was

dismissed for non compliance of Court's order with respect to

payment of Court fees. Neither any issue was raised nor argued

nor decided by the said Court. Therefore, bar of res judicata is

not at all attracted by the order dismissing Suit 57 of 1978

inasmuch as the said order dismissing the suit on technical

ground does not come within the purview of judgment or a

decision or issue as defined in Section 2 (9) CPC. The issue no.

29 (Suit-5) is therefore answered in negative and in favour of

plaintiffs.

1066. Issue no. 7(b) (Suit-4) only pertains to the capacity of

Mohammad Asghar in which he contested Suit-1885. It is not

disputed by the parties that initially when the suit was filed by

Mahant Raghubar Das there was only one defendant, i.e., the

Secretary, Council of India. Mohammad Asghar later on filed an

impleadment application claiming himself to be the Mutwalli of

Babari Masjid and the said application was allowed whereupon

he was impleaded as defendant no. 2. He pursued the case

accordingly before the trial court and the appellate court. It is

thus matter of record that in Suit-1885 Mohammad Asghar was

allowed to pursue the matter as Mutawalli of Babari Masjid. No

party has disputed this factum which is purely a matter of

record. What has been in fact suggested by the counsel for

1286

Hindu parties is that mere factum that Mohammad Asghar's

application was allowed in Suit-1885 permitting him to pursue

the matter as defendant no. 2 in his alleged capacity of

Mutawalli as Babari Masjid, whether it would bind the Hindu

parties in the present cases. This, however, is not the issue. The

only issue before us whether he was impleaded and pursued

Suit-1885 as Mutawalli of Babari Masjid which is a fact derived

from the record of Suit-1885 and, therefore, has to be decided in

affirmance particularly in view of the fact that nothing has been

said by the defendants (Suit-4) to disprove or contradict it.

Issue No. 7(b) (Suit-4) is decided accordingly in affirmance

and in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

(D) Relating to Waqfs Act No. 13 of 1936, 16 of 1960 and

certain incidental issues:

1067. Under this category fall Issues No. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c),

5(d), 5(e), 5(f), 17, 18, 23, 24 (Suit-4); 9, 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c)

(Suit-1); 7(a), 7(b) and 16 (Suit-3) and 28 (Suit-5).

1068. Issues No. 17, 5(a), 5(c) and 5(d) (Suit-4) stood

decided on 21.04.1966. The said issues read as under:

“Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the

U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the

property in suit was ever done? If so, its effect?”

“Are the defendants estopped from challenging the

character of property in suit as a waqf under the

administration of plaintiff no.1 in view of the provision of

5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of 1936?”

“Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?”

“Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as

alleged in written statement?”

1069. Learned Civil Judge considered issues no. 17, 5(a) and

1287

5(c) (Suit-4) in detail vide his order dated 21.04.1966 and in

view of his findings recorded thereon, issue no. 5(d) (Suit-4)

was not pressed by the defendants.

1070. The order dated 21.4.1966 is as under :

“All the above four suits were consolidated together

on 6.1.1964 on the basis of the joint statement of the

parties to all the above suits, which is available at paper

No. 184A, of the leading case Original Suit No.12 of 1961.

Issues covering the subject matter of all the above

mentioned four suits were commonly framed in the leading

case, Original Suit No. 12 of 1961 on 5.3.64, which are 16

in number. An additional issue No. 17 was framed on

17.4.65, which is available in the English Notes of the said

date in the leading case.

Issue No. 5 (d) was initially taken-up for disposal as

a preliminary issue for determination whether the question

involved in issue No. 5 (d) should be referred to the

Hon'ble the High Court, under Section 113 (Proviso)

C.P.C.; or not. Before an answer to issue No. 5 (d) could

be given by this court, the defendants of the leading case

presented an application paper No. 239/C; whereby they

prayed that the plaintiff be called upon to produce the

notification contemplated in Section 5 of the U.P. Moslim

Waqf Act. In response to the said application, the plaintiffs

through their application 242/G filed two papers 243/C

and 243/1A as the alleged Government Gazette

Identification made under Section 5 of the U.P. Moslims

Waqf Act. Paper No. 243/C is the attested copy of the

supplement to the Government Gazette of the United

Provinces, dated February 26, 1944-Part VIII; and paper

1288

No. 243/1A is the annexure to the said gazette notification

printed in Urdu title: “Fehrist Sunni avaqaf wakai suo me

Muthadda Agra wa Oudh, jinpar bamoojib report

Commissioner Avaqaf, U.P. Moslims Waqf Act No.XIII of

1936 ki Dafat Aayad hoti hai”.

Its title page further contains the following words :-

“Fehrist hasl Dafa 5 Act XIII/1936.....................”

In the said list of waqf property paper No.243/1A, the

property in dispute in the above four suits as alleged by the

plaintiffs of the leading case is mentioned at serial No. 26,

of page 11. The entire list of Sunni Waqf property of

Faizabad is mentioned at pages 10 and 11 of paper No.

243/1A. The proforma of the list as well as the entries

against item No. 26 of the said list are reproduced below :-

No.

Sumar

Name waquif

ya Waqf.

Name Mutwalli

Maujooda

Nauip (sic.

Nawyyet)

Jaidad

Mauqoofa

26 Badshah

Babar

Syed

Mohammad

Zaki Mutwalli

Masjid Babari

Qasba

Shahnawa,

Dak-Khana

Darshan Nagar

This column

stands blank

against entry

No. 26 of the

list paper No.

243/1A

Subsequently, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 of the

leading case filed their objections 247/C and 248/C against

the plaintiffs' aforesaid papers 243/C, 243/1A and 244/C.

In reply to the said objections of the defendants, the

plaintiffs filed their reply 250/C and 251/C against the

1289

defendants' aforesaid objections 248/C and 247/C

respectively.

In connection with the subject matter of applications

239/C, 240/C, 251/C and the alleged Gazette Notification

243/C and the list of waqf property 243/1A, leaned counsel

for the parties jointly stated that the following additional

issue may be framed and issue No. 17 which should be

decided first, because issue No. 5, with all its part recedes

to a secondary position in face of the following additional

issue No. 17. Their aforesaid joint request appears to be

sound, and, therefore, the following additional issue No. 17

was framed :-

ADDITIONAL ISSIUE NO. 17 :

“Whether a valid notification under Section 5 (1) of

U.P. Moslims Waqf act No. XIII of 1936, relating to the

property in suits was ever done? Its effect?”

Naturally issue No. 17, thus, become primarily the

preliminary issue.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length

in respect of issue No. 17. My findings under issue No. 17,

are given here-under :-

FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.17

The words “Waqf” and “Waqif” have been defined

in Section 3(1) of Act XIII of 1936 Muslims Waqfs Act, U.P.

as below :-

“Waqf” means the permanent dedication or grant of

any property for any purposes recognized by the Mosalman

law or usage as religious, pious or charitable and where

no deed of waqf is traceable includes waqf by user; and a

waqif means any person, who makes such dedication or

1290

grant”.

It will be evident from the above definition that the

word “waqf is inseparably connected with the word “any

property”, because the 'Waqf' can come into existence only

in relation to any property. In this way, whenever the word

'Waqf” is conveyed to any person, it must necessarily

convey simultaneously the idea or description or a tangible

connotation about the existence of “any property” covered

or included in the 'Waqf'. What I mean to say, is that if

some one wants another to know that a particular property

is waqf, it will be necessary for him to mention

simultaneously the description of at least tangible

connotation about the identity of the property of the waqf.

In the instant case, at hand, item No.26 (page 2 of the

list paper No.243/1A) is totally blank in its last column,

which was prescribed for mentioning the particulars of the

property to be known as 'waqf'' created by Badshah Babar.

The absence of any mention of the tangible identity of the

alleged waqf property of item No. 26, is a fatal-flaw in the

alleged Government Notification paper No.243/C read with

paper No. 243/1A; because no body living in the extensive

district of Faizabad or for that matter living in any part of

India, could or can reasonably make-out as to what is that

specific property, which was proposed to be enlisted as

Sunni Waqf'' property in item No. 26, page 11, of paper No.

243/1A. Consequently, a person interested in the property

in suits-living in a distant tract of Faizabad District or in

any other State of India could never understand that the

existing entries of item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A,

unequivocally relate to the present property in suits. That

1291

being so, proviso No. 1, to clause 2 of Section 5 of U.P.

Moslims Waqf Act, 1936 and clause 3 of Section 5 of the

said Enactment cannot come into play, in respect of the

present property in suits; because the alleged Government

Gazette Notification paper No. 243/C read with paper No.

243/1A, at item No. 26, page 11, of paper No. 243/1A, was

meaningless; and because of the blankness of its last

column, the same did not and could not convey to the

public at-large or to for that matter to any one that the said

item No. 26 of 243/1A, related to the present property in

suits. The principle laid down in the ruling 'Harla. Vs. The

State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1951, Supreme Court, p. 467

clearly goes to show that such a notification is no effective

notification in the eyes of law or equity.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs of the leading case

cited before me the ruling AIR 1959, Supreme Court, P.

198, 'Sirajul Haq Khan and Others Vs. The Sunni Central

Board of Waqf, U.P. and Others” to show that it was

incumbent upon any Hindu also interested in the property

of item No. 26 or 243/1A, to bring a regular suit for

declaration within one year from 26.2.1944 when 243/1A

was published in the U.P. Government Gazette, according

to the provisions of clause 2, of Section 5 of Act XIII of

1936, and since none of the Hindus of India or Faizabad

District or the defendants of the leading case or the

plaintiffs of the connected three cases had brought any suit

for declaration within one year of 25.2.1944, challenging

the validity of item No. 26, page 11, of notification No.

243/1A; hence the defense of the defendants of the leading

case and the suits of the plaintiffs of the connected three

1292

cases are barred by clause 3, of Section 5 of Act XIII/1936;

whereby the aforesaid declaration of waqf by the waqf

Commissioner, U.P. at item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A,

had become final and conclusive.

Bowing down to the principle laid down in the

aforesaid ruling of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I

respectfully wish to point-out that the said ruling is

distinguishable from the facts of the present cases at-hand;

because in the aforesaid ruling, it was taken for granted

that a valid notification of the proposed waqf property was

duly made in the U.P. Government Gazette under Section

5(1) of Act XIII of 1936; whereas in the present cases, at-

hand, the alleged notification as contemplated in Section 5,

clause (1) of Act XIII of 1936, i.e. item No. 26 of the list

paper No. 243/1A, does not amount to a valid notification;

because the same does not convey the idea or the identity

or necessary particulars about the property proposed by

the waqf Commissioner to be listed as Sunni Waqf Property

dedicated by Badshah Babar. I have already pointed out

above that the definition of the word “Waqf” in Section

3(1) of Act XIII of 1936, necessarily relates to some

specific property. This means that a clear mention of the

property included in a waqf must necessarily be made

when making a mention of a particular waqf. This has not

been done in item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A, inspite of

the fact that column No. 4, of the above noted proforma

was specifically prescribed for that end. In this connection,

I may profitably refer to the aforesaid ruling itself, which

has been cited on behalf of the plaintiffs of the leading

case, in which their Lordships of Hon'ble The Supreme

1293

Court have themselves held as under :-

“That expression 'any person interested in a waqf'',

must mean 'any person interested in what is held to

be a waqf'. It is only persons, who are interested in a

transaction, which is held to be a waqf, who could

sue for declaration that the decision of the

Commissioner of Waqfs in that behalf is wrong and

that the transaction in fact is not a waqf under the

Act.”

The above under-lined words, as used by their

Lordships of Hon'ble The Supreme Court, clearly point-out

that persons interested in a property held as waqf by the

Waqf Commissioner, will be duty bound to bring a suit for

declaration within one year from the date of notification

against the decision of the Waqf Commissioner if the

notification had conveyed to them, the identity or the

particulars of the proposed waqf property; and not

otherwise. As pointed out above, item No. 26, of the

notification list paper No.243/1A is utterly blank in its

column No. 4 due to which no body could understand as to

what property was intended to be included in the said item

No. 26. That being so, the said notification is meaningless;

and does not carry the sanctions provided in clause 3 of

Section 5 of Act XIII of 1936 with it.

The entry of the name of Badshah Babar as Waqif, of

a property in Faizabad District, as given in column No. 2,

of item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A, is not enough to

convey the idea of the identify of the present property in

suits, because Badshah Babar was the Emperor of the

Moghal empire in India, who never resided in Faizabad

1294

District according to the pages of history of which a

judicial notice can be taken by this Court, Secondly, there

is no knowing as to how many waqfs were created by

Badshah Babar in various parts of Faizabad District.

In column No. 3 of item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A

is given the name of the Mutwalli as Syed Mohammed Zaki

Mutwalli Masjid Babari, Qasba Shah Nawa, Dak-Khana

Darshan Nagar. A judicial notice of this fact can be taken

by this Court, that qasba Shah Nawa lying within the

jurisdiction of Post Office Darshan Nagar is at a distance

of about 8 to 10 miles from Ayodhya. As the said entry of

the particulars of the Mutwali stands in column 3 of item

No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A, it shows on the face of it that

Syed Mohammed Zaki might have been a Mutawalli of a

mosque built by emperor Babar in Qasba Shah Nawa, Post

Office Darshan Nagar. In this way, the entries of columns 2

and 3 also of item No. 26 of paper No. 243/1A are so vague

and mis-leading that a number of the public at-large,

residing in any part of our vast country India, who might

be interested in the present property in suits, could never

understands from the same that by the notification of item

No. 26, of paper No. 243/1A, which was the present

property in suits, which was proposed to be listed and

declared as Sunni Waqf property by the Commissioner of

Waqf U.P.

No explanation, whatsoever, has been offered on

behalf of the plaintiffs of the leading case at the time of

arguments on issue No. 17 or in the plaintiffs' reply, paper

No. 250/C as to why column No. 4, of item No. 26 of paper

No. 243/1A was left blank. In para 5 of the plaintiffs' reply

1295

paper No. 250/C, all that has been contended in that

connection is that there is no vagueness in the entry

relating to the mosque in suit at item No. 26, of paper No.

243/1A; because in its column No. 2, the name of Badshah

Babar is clearly mentioned and in its column No. 3, the

name of present Mutwalli Syed Mohammed Zaki Mutwalli

Masjid Babari, is mentioned with his residential address as

Qasba Shah Nawa, Post Office Darshan Nagar. It is

noteworthy that in column No.3, of entry No. 26, of paper

No. 243/1A, it is nowhere mentioned that Qasba Shah

Nawa, Post Office Darshan Nagar was the residential

address of Syed Mohammed Zaki. Consequently, it has

been simply twisted at the end of para 1 of paragraph 5, of

the plaintiffs' reply paper No. 250/2C, contains the

'Sakoonat' of residence of Syed Mohammed Zaki. As a

matter of fact, a perusal of column No. 3 of item No. 26 of

the notification list paper No. 243/1A, will clearly convey

to the reader that Syed Mohammed Zaki was a Mutwalli of

some mosque built by Babar in Qasba Shah Nawa Post

Office Darshan Nagar. As such, the aforesaid explanation

of the plaintiffs has no force.

At the end of para 5, in paper No. 250/3C, another

explanation of the above was offered on behalf of the

plaintiffs of the leading case as under :

“The plaintiffs' allegation being that the building in

suit is mosque built by King Babar whose dynasty and

accounts of his conquest are matters of history well known

to all educated persons in India.”

The aforesaid explanation in the first place, conveys

the impression that the plaintiffs of the leading case are

1296

themselves conscious of the fact that it was a fatal lacuna

in the aforesaid notification paper No. 243/C read with

paper No. 243/1A whereby the description or particulars

or identity of the waqf property mentioned in item No. 26,

of paper No. 243/1A was omitted in column No. 4 or for

that matter in any of the columns of item No. 26, of paper

No. 243/1A. Secondly, the aforesaid explanation is

confined to the alleged presumed knowledge of the

educated persons only-totally ignoring that even

uneducated persons whose number surpasses the number

of education persons in this country, had also a right

vested in them to assail the entries of item No. 26 of paper

No. 243/1A.

Thirdly, it will be too remote to presume that the

factum of the conquest of Emperor Babar over certain

parts of India, which one can derive from the pages of

popular books of history taught in schools and colleges

must necessarily convey the details of those properties or

buildings also, which were built by Emperor Babar in

various parts of this vast country at different times.

Lastly, it is to be remembers that it is not the case of

the plaintiffs of the leading case that property in suit was

originally a temple, which was ever conquered by Emperor

Babar, who got it remodeled in the shape of a mosque. The

case of the aforesaid plaintiffs is contained in their plaint

in leading case, as well as in the statement of the plaintiffs'

learned counsel made under order X, rule 2 C.P.C. on

20.1.64, at paper No. 187A, is that the property in suits is

the originally mosque, which was built for the first time at

its place, by Emperor Babar in 1528 AD in the shape of a

1297

mosque which he had dedicated to the followers of Islam

thereafter. That being so, the knowledge of the educated

persons regarding the conquest of Emperor Babar derived

from the pages of popular history books cannot profitably

utilized by the plaintiffs of the leading case because

according to the plaintiffs' own case, the property in suits

was not conquered property but a property which was

originally and for the first time built at its place by

Emperor Babar for use of the Moslim public.

In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, I

hold under issue No.17 that no valid notification under

Section 5(1) of U.P. Moslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 was

ever made so far relating to the specific disputed property

of the present suits at-hand. The alleged Government

Gazette Notification paper No. 243/C read with the list

paper No. 243/1A do not comply with the requirements of a

valid notification in the eyes of law and equity as I have

already discussed above. The aforesaid two papers,

therefore, serve no useful purpose to the plaintiffs of the

leading cases.

In view of my above findings I hold that the bar

provided in Section 5(3) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1936 does

not hit the defence of the defendants of the leading case

and their suits which are connected with the aforesaid

leading case. Issue No. 17 is answered accordingly.

In view of my findings given above, the subject

matter of issue No. 5 (a) also stands automatically decided

against the plaintiffs of the leading case; and in favour of

the defendants of the leading case and the plaintiffs of the

connected cases. Issue No. 5(a) also, therefore, stands

1298

answered accordingly.

My findings under issue No. 17, given above,

automatically answer issue No. 5(c) also, accordingly.

Consequently, issue No. 5(c) is answered in the negative.

In this way, only two parts (b and D) of issue No. 5

stand for decision now. Issue No. 5 (b) will be taken up for

disposal along with the remaining issues.

As regard issue No. 5 (d) counsel for the defendants

of the leading case to report today whether issue No. 5 (d)

is still prepared in face of my above findings under issues

Nos. 17, 5 (a) and 5(c)?”

1071. After delivery of the aforesaid order, the learned

counsels for defendants in Suit-4 made the following noting :

“In view of the finding of Court it is not necessary to

press Issue no. 5 (d) at present. As such Issue No. 5 (d) is

not pressed.”

1072. After referring to the above statement of the learned

counsels for defendants (Suit-4), learned Civil Judge passed

following order in respect to Issue No. 5(d) (Suit-4).

“Learned counsel for the defendants of the leading

case has endorsed above that he does not press issue no. 5

(d) in view of the findings on issue nos : 17, 5(a) and 5(c),

hence issue no. : 5(d) need not be answered by this Court.

Consequently put up on 25.5.66 for final heading of

the above mentioned cases.”

1073. Issue No. 9 (Suit-1) is similar to Issue No. 5(a) (Suit-4).

It reads as under:

“Is the suit barred by provision of Section 5(3) of the

Muslim Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936)?”

1074. With respect to Issue No. 5(a) (Suit-4) the learned Civil

1299

Judge in his order dated 21.04.1966 has recorded the following

findings:

“In view of my findings given above, the subject

matter of issue No. 5 (a) also stands automatically decided

against the plaintiffs of the leading case; and in favour of

the defendants of the leading case and the plaintiffs of the

connected cases. Issue No. 5(a) also, therefore, stands

answered accordingly.”

1075. Issue No. 9 (Suit-1) being similar, also stands decided

accordingly in terms of the judgement dated 21.04.1966 of the

learned Civil Judge, i.e., in favour of the plaintiff (Suit-1).

1076. Issues No. 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) pertain to the

notification under 1936 Act and read as under:

“Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act Act

No. 13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni

Waqf?”

“Is the said notification final and binding? Its effect?”

1077. Issue No. 17 (Suit-4) which has been decided by the

detailed order dated 21.04.1966 of the learned Civil Judge is

similar to both the above issues. Since it has already been held

that no valid notification under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act in

respect to the property in dispute has been issued, both the

issues no. 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., in

favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-3) and against the defendants

therein.

1078. Issues No. 5(b) (Suit-4) and 9(a) (Suit-1) are similar

which read as under:

“Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in

general and defendants in particular, to the right of their

worship?”

1300

“Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in

general and plaintiff of the present suit , in particular to his

right of worship?”

1079. In the plaint (Suit-4) referring to 1936 Act, the plaintiffs

have averred in paras 9 and 10 as under:

“9. That in 1936 the U.P. Muslim Wakfs Act XIII of 1936

was passed and under the provisions of the said Act, the

Commissioner of Wakfs made a complete enquiry and held

that Babari Masjid was built by Emperor Babar who was a

Sunni Mohammedan and that the Babari Mosque was a

public wakf. A copy of the Commissioner's report was

forwarded by the State Government to the Sunni Central

Board of Wakfs and the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs

published the said report of the Commissioner of Wakfs in

the Official Gazette dated 26.2.1944.

10. That, no suit, challenging the report of the

Commissioner of Wakfs was filed by the Hindus or by any

person interested in denying the correctness of the report

of the Commissioner of Wakfs, on the ground that it was

not a Muslim Wakf or that it was Hindu temple.”

1080. In the Additional Written Statement of defendants No.1

and 2 (Suit-4) para (g), (h) and (i) read as under.

“(g) That the Commissioner of Wakf only has to make an

enquiry about number of Shia and Sunni Waqfs in the

district the nature of each waqf, the gross income of

property transferred in the Waqf, the Govt. revenue, the

expenses and whether it is one expected u/s 2. The

Commissioner of Wakf has only to see whether any

transaction is Waqf or not and that to which sect the Waqf

belongs and further whether such Waqf is or is not

1301

exempted by sec.2 of the Act. All these things he has to do

in accordance with the definition of Waqf in Section 3(1) of

the Act XIII of 1936, an Act which is exclusively meant for

certain clauses of Muslim Waqfs. The finality and

conclusiveness in intended to give effect to the scheme of

administration under the Muslim Waqfs Act and does not

and cannot confer jurisdiction to decide question of title as

against non-Muslims. The legislature u/s 5(3) does not say

that the court shall take judicial notice of the reports of the

Commissioner of Waqfs and shall regard them as

conclusive evidence that the Waqf mentioned in such

reports are Muslim Waqfs, as was done in Section 10 of the

O.E. Act.

(h) That there has been no legal publication of alleged

report and hence no question of any finality arises.

(i) That the purpose of publication is only to show to

which sect. the waqf belongs. It does not call upon

objections or suit by persons not interested in what is held

to be a Waqf or not viz. by non muslims.”

1081. The written statement dated 25th January, 1963 of

defendant no.2, para 32 (g), (h) and (i) read as under :



District the nature of each waqf, the gross income of

property comprosed in the Waqf, the Government Revenue,

the expenses and whether it is one expected U/s 2. The

Commissioner of Waqf has only to see whether any

transaction is Waqf or not, and that, to which sect the Waqf


exempted by sec.2 of the Act. All these things he has to do

1302

in accordance with definition of Waqf in Section 3(1) of the

Act XIII of 1936, an Act which is exclusively meant for

certain clauses of Muslim Waqfs. The finality and

conclusiveness is intended to give effect to the scheme of


and cannot confer jurisdiction to decide question of title

as against non-Muslims. The legislature U/s 5(3) does not

say that the court shall take judicial notice of the reports of

the Commissioner of Waqfs and shall regard them as

conclusive evidence that the Waqf mentioned in such

reports are Muslim Waqfs as was done in Section 10 of the

O.E. Act.

(h) That there has been no legal publication of alleged

report and hence no question of any finality arises.


which sect. the Waqf belongs. It does not call upon


to be a Waqf or not viz. by non muslims.”

1082. Defendant No.13 and 14 Baba Abhiram Dass and

Pundarik Misra also in para 32(g) have said :



District, the nature of each waqf, the Government Revenue,

the expenses and whether it is one excepted U/s 2. The

Commissioner of Waqf has only to see whether any

transaction is Waqf or not, and that, to which sect the Waqf


exempted by Section 2 of the Act. All these things he has to

do in accordance with definition of Waqf in Sec. 3(1) of the

Act XIII of 1936, an Act which exclusively meant for

1303

certain clauses of Muslim Waqfs. The finality

conclusiveness is intended to give effect to the scheme of


and cannot confer jurisdiction to decide question of title as

against non-Muslims. The legislature under Section 5(3)

does not say that the court shall take judicial notice of the

reports of the Commissioner of Waqfs and shall regard

them as conclusive evidence that the Waqf mentioned in

such reports are Muslim Waqfs as was done in Section 10

of the Taluqdari Act.

(h) There has been no legal publication of alleged report

and hence no question of any finality arises.


which section the Waqf belongs. It does not call upon


to be waqf or not viz. by non Muslims.”

1083. Defendant No.13 again in his written statement in paras

33 and 36 has pleaded as under :

33. THAT in 1936 the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, was

passed. It established two Central Boards of Waqfs in U.P.,

namely the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and the Shia

Central Board of Waqfs, to supervise and control the

Muslim Waqfs of the two sects respectively. All the existing

Waqfs were required to be surveyed and classified into

Sunni and Shia Waqfs by a Commissioner of Waqfs, who

was required to submit his report to the local Government,

and the Government in its turn was required to send that

report to the Central Board concerned, according to the

sect to which the waqf belonged, whereafter the Central

Board concerned was required to notify in the Gazette the

1304

Waqfs of its respective sect. There was no such notification

in respect of the 'waqf' of the 'mosque' in dispute.

Allegation to he contrary is wrong. The Plaintiff Waqf

Board, has had no jurisdiction in respect of the premises

even if it were a 'mosque'. Further, it took no action or

positive steps for the custody or the care of the building or

its establishment as a 'mosque'. No one acted as its

Mutwalli, or Mauzin, or Imam, or Khatib, or Khadim. The

descendant of Mir Baqi who was sought to be planted as

the Mutwalli by the British was an opium addict. He denied

that the grant of revenue free land was waqf for the

purposes of the 'mosque', and instead claimed that it was

his Nankar for services rendered to the British, and did not

look after or manage the 'mosque' at all.

36. THAT the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. has

no jurisdiction or competence to meddle with the alleged

'waqf ; or the alleged 'mosque', or to sue in respect thereof

for want of a proper and valid notification in its favour, in

respect thereof, under Section 5 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs

Act, 1936, the notification published in the Official Gazette

dated 26.2.1944, having already been held to be invalid by

the Court's finding dated 21.4.1966 on issue No.17, in this

Suit, which has become final and irreversible between the

parties. Further, the suit when filed in 1961, was barred by

the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 ; only

the Tribunal constituted under that Act had the jurisdiction

to entertain a suit of this nature, if filed within the

limitation prescribed by it, and the Civil Court had no

jurisdiction to entertain it.

1084. Defendant No.17 in his (Additional) written

1305

statement dated 14th September, 1995 in para 11 has pleaded as

under :

“11. That Sunni Central Board of Waqfs has no legal

authority to file the suit and as such the suit is liable to be

dismissed.”

1085. With respect to Issue No. 9(a) (Suit-1) we find

pleadings in paras 25 and 26 of the written statement of

defendant no. 10 which read as under:

“25. That the ownership of the mosque in question vests in

the God Almighty and the said mosque is a waqf property

and the waqf character of the said mosque cannot be

challenged by the plaintiff in this suit specially so when the

plaintiff had never challenged the entry of the said waqf

which was made in pursuance of the gazette notification

issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh under

provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1936.

26. That the plaintiff's suit is barred even by the

provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1936.”

1086. With respect to applicability of Wakfs Act, Sri M.M.

Pandey, counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-5) has submitted:

(A) The Act needs a close examination. The Preamble

aims at providing better governance and administration of

certain classes of Wakfs and supervision of Mutawalli's

management. S. 3(1) does not create any 'new' class of

Wakf and recognises only those known to the

Mahommedan Law; the Statement of Objects and Reasons

also says so and adds that the Act "is not intended to

deprive the Mutawallis of any authority lawfully vested in

them, nor it aims at defining all the powers, duties and

liabilities of the Mutawallis…" S. 4(1) provides for

1306

appointment of a District Commissioner of Wakf "for the

purpose of making survey of all wakfs". Procedural

powers of Civil Court are conferred on the Commissiioner

for summoning witnesses, production of documents, local

inspection/ investigation u/s 4(4) while making inquiries,

but there are no guidelines how to 'initiate' an inquiry,

what notices are required to be issued and to whom. S. 4(3)

confers power on him to make 'such inquiries as he

consider necessary'; there is no guideline for the manner in

which he should proceed. This seems to be 'arbitrary' and

violates the Constitutional requirement of fairness. The

word 'necessary' will make Wakf Commissioner's

discretion to be objective and open to judicial review.The

Act does not provide for framing Rules of procedure for the

Wakf Commisioner to observe before initiating an inquiry.

If on particular facts or situation, Notice to a particular

person is essential in the interests of justice and fairness,

the Wakf Commissioner cannot plead that he had

unrestricted discretion whether or not to issue Notice; in

law, every fair procedure is permissible unless specifically

probited. The Act does not prohibit the Wakf Commissioner

to issue notices for giving opportunity to persons interested

while conducting the inquiry. The proceeding before the

Wakf Commissioner is quasi judicial as held in the case of

Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan Vs. Radha Kishen

(1979)2 SCC 468 (para 25). Further the SC has held in

paras 37 to 39 that where a stranger who is a non - muslim

is in possession of a certain property, his right, title and

interest therein cannot be put to jeopardy merely because

the property is included in the list prepared by the Wakf

1307

Commissioner under the U.P. Wakf Act. Although this

decision concerns Section 6(1) of the Wakf Act of 1960, the

SC has observed in para 35 that that Section "is based on

Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of U.P. Muslim Wakf Act of

1936". This distinguishes the decision from that in 1959 SC

198, Sirajul Haq Khan Vs Sunni Central Board of Wakf

where both Plaintiff and Defendants were Muslims. Thus

Hindus, Nirmohi Akhara and any of the Defdts in OOS 4 of

1989, cannot be treated to be a 'person interested in a

wakf' u/s 5(2) of the Wakf Act of 1936. It will also be

appreciated that if Nirmohi Akhar and others were to be

treated to be 'person interested in a wakf', it was incumbent

upon the Wakf Commissioner to issue notices at that very

time before deciding the issue. Even if it be treated to be

administrative, an opportunity of hearing ought to have

been given to Nirmohi Akhara and Hindu Community as

held, after considering several decisions of Supreme Court,

in the case of Muzaffar Hussain Vs. State of U.P, 1982

Allahabad Law Journal 909 (DB).

(B) Wakf Commissioner submits his report of inquiry to

State Government u/s 4(5). The State Govt. has to 'forward

a copy' of the report to Shia as well as Sunni Boards of

Wakf u/s 5(1) and commands the Boards, as soon as

possible, to 'notify in the Gazette the Wakfs relating to the

particular sect to which, according to such report, the

provisions of this Act apply'. This signfies that Shia and

Sunni Boards are required to publish notices, in the

Gazette, of only those Wakfs which relate respectively to

Shia and Sunni Wakfs; further, only the particulars of the

Wakf, without the report, are required to be published.

1308

Mere publication of the particulars of Wakf without the

report cannot constitute notice of Wakf Commissioner's

finding/report to Public, much less to any particular

individual.

(C) Over and above the procedure contained in Ss 4 and

5 for the Wakf Commisioner in making survey and

preparing lists of Wakfs and their publication by concerned

Wakf Boards, S. 38 authorises the Wakf Board concerned

also to register a Wakf at its Office. This registration may

be made on an application by Mutwalli under sub-section

(2), or by wakif, his descendants, beneficiary or any

Muslim of the sect under sub-section (3) or by 'any person

other than the person holding possession' of wakf property

under sub-section (6). In an application under sub-section

(6), the Wakf Board is required to give notice of the

application to the person in possession and hear him. The

Board will make an inquiry and pass final orders. The

question is that since the Act specifically provides for issue

of notice by Wakf Board to a person in possession of wakf

property (whoever he may be – even a stranger), why no

provision is made for Wakf Commissioner to issue similar

notice to person in possession for the purpose of inquiry

u/ss 4 and 5? An essential distinction is that while Wakf

Commissioner is an officer of the State, the Wakf Board is

not; hence while Wakf Commissioner may be presumed to

act in a fair and just manner, the Wakf Board may not be

presumed so to act, hence specific procedural methodology

is prescribed for it in the matter of deciding a matter. As

mentioned above, the proceedings before the Wakf

Commissioner are quasi-judicial. 'Natural justice' would

1309

require such notice to be given to person in possession;

failure to do so would render Wakf Commissioner's

findings and list of Wakfs to be ineffective against

strangers. In this case, Wakf Commissioner did not issue

notice to Nirmohi Akhara who were admittedly in

possession of Eastern half of the platform of DS itself as

settled by the British Administration in 1885, in addition to

Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi Chabutra and other portions of

DA within the campus of DS. Admittedly, in 1934 during

Hindu-Muslim riots, Hindus had demolished certain

portions of DS, thereby exerting their rights over the

property to the knowledge of everyone concerned with DS.

The Govt. of U.P. even imposed punitive fine on Hindus for

demolishing portions of DS which was repaired by the

Govt. Thus the Hindu public in general (in addition to

Nirmohi Akhara) was interested in DS, and a general

public notice for Hindu worshippers too was called for.

None was given, hence the entire proceeding of the Wakf

Commissioner, declaring DS to be Sunni Wakf, was illegal.

(D) Then follows the provision which is most important

for the purposes of these cases: S. 5(2) and 5(3). According

to S. 5(2), the Mutawalli of a Wakf, or any person

interested in a Wakf may bring a suit in a Civil Court for a

declaration that any transaction held by the Commissioner

of Wakfs to be Wakf is not Wakf, but no such suit by a

person interested in the Wakf shall be instituted "after more

than one year of the notification referred to in subclause

(1)". Sub-section (3) provides that subject to the final result

of such suit "the report of the Commissioner of Wakfs shall

be final and conclusive". Subsection (4) commands that the

1310

Commissioner shall not be made a Defendant to the suit

and no suit shall be instituted against him for anything

done by him in good faith under colour of this Act. This

bar cannot be made applicable to Plaintiffs of OOS 5 of

1989. Firstly, there is no valid Wakf of DS. Secondly, the

Plaintiffs were neither Parties to the proceedings before,

nor were given an opportunity by Wakf Commissioner to

contest the claim of declaration of DS to be Wakf. Thirdly,

neither Nirmohi Akhara, who were admittedly in

possession of almost half portion of Platform (Chabutra) of

DS lying towards East of a grilled partition wall erected by

British administration in 1855 in addition to considerable

portions of campus of DS, including Ram Chabutra, was

given notice of the proceedings, nor Hindu

devotees/community were given general notice although

since 1934 riots they were admittedly asserting rights over

it. If the requirements of Section 5 of the Wakf Act of 1936

applied to Nirmohi Akhara/Hindu devotees on the ground

that they were 'persons interested in the wakf', then that

was all the more reason for the Wakf Commissioner to

have given notice to these persons. The action and decision

of Wakf Commissioner, or by Sunni Central Board of Wakf

on its basis, therefore, could not be binding on Plaintiffs,

Nirmohi Akhara or Hindu devotes/community.

(E) When Wakf Act of 1960 came into force, the Sunni

Board made 'Registration' of some of the disputed

properties as Sunni Wakf u/s 29 of 1960-Act. Supreme

Court held that any Survey report made and Registration of

Wakf thereon was "futile and of no avail" because

Registration of Wakf under 1936-Act had been kept alive

1311

by 1960-Act and the latter Act permitted Registration of

only those Wakfs which were 'other than' those already

Registered under 1936-Act. The claim of Shia community

was upheld and Sunni Community were restrained

permanently from interfering with exercise of rights by

Shias. Now, there is absolutely nothing in common between

Ghulam Abbas' case and the present cases.

1087. The creation of waqf was held valid and lawful by

the Prophet Mohammad. It is said that this rule was laid down

by Prophet himself and handed down in succession by Ibn Abu

Nafe and Ibn Omar. Omar got piece of land in Khaiber

whereupon he came to the Prophet and sought his counsel to

make the most pious use of it. The Prophet said “if you like you

may make a waqf of it, as it is, and bestow it in benification”.

Omar thereupon bestowed it in charity on his relatives, the poor

and slaves and in the path of God, and travellers in a way that

the land itself might not be sold, nor conveyed by gift, nor

inherited. It is said that waqf continued in existence for several

century until the land became waste. The prophet of Islam not

only declared such works to be valid and lawful but also

encourage their creation by dedicating his own property, the

little that he had, in favour of posterity. It would be useful to

refer as to what constitute a lawful waqf under Muslim Law. A

Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Meer

Mahomed Israil Khan Vs. Sashti Churn Ghose and others, 19

ILR (Calcutta) (1892) 412 where Justice Ameer Ali answering

the question as to what constitute a lawful waqf under

Mussulman law observed that there must be a substantial

dedication for charitable or pious purpose. His Lordship further

observed:

1312

“In the Mussulman system law and religion are

almost synonymous expressions, and are so intermixed with

each other that it is wholly impossible to dissociate the one

from the other: in other words, what is religious is lawful;

what is lawful is religious. The notions derived from other

systems of law or religion form no index to the

understanding or administration of the Mussalman law.

The words “piety” and “charity” have a much wider

signification in Mussalman law and religion than perhaps

in any other. Every “good purpose,” wujuh-ul-khair (to

use the language of the Kiafaya), which God approves, or

by which approach (kurbat) is attained to the Deity, is a

fitting purpose for a valid and lawful wakf. A provision for

one's children, for one's relations, and under the Hanafi

Sunni law for one's self, is as good and pious an act as a

dedication for the support of the general body of the poor.

The principle is founded on the religion of Islam, and

derived from the teachings of Prophet.”

1088. Thereafter Justice Ameer Ali proceeded to quote

from “Hedaya” a commentary by “Fath-ul-kadir” said to be

frequently quoted in “Fatawa-i- Alamgiri” in great detail and it

would be useful to reproduce the same as under:

“I will give here a few passages from some of the

best known authorities to show how utterly opposed the

view taken in this case is to the Muhammadan law. The

Fath-ul-kadir says--” Literally, it (the word wakf) signifies

detention, . . . . in law . . . according to the Disciples, the

tying up of property in such a manner that the substance

(asl=corpus) does not belong to anybody else excepting

God, whilst the produce is devoted to human beings, or is

1313

spent on whomsoever he [the wakif] likes; and the reason

of it is that, though a desire to approach the Deity (kurbat)

should form the ultimate motive of all wakfs, yet if, without

such an (immediate) desire, a person were to dedicate a

property in favour of the affluent (aghnia), the wakf would

be valid in the same way as a wakf in favour of the indigent

or for the purposes of a mosque: for, in giving to the

affluent there is as much kurbat as in giving to the poor or

to a mosque, and though the profit may not have been given

to the poor on the extinction of the affluent [still] it is wakf

and will be treated as wakf even before their extinction.

This principle is founded on the reason that the motive in

all wakfs is to make one's self beloved by doing good to the

living in this world and to approach the Almighty in the

next . . . . .

“In wakf Islam is not a condition; consequently if a

Zimmi makes a wakf on his children and his posterity and

gives it at the end to the indigent, it is lawful [equally with

that made by a Moslem]. And it is lawful in such a case to

give the usufruct conditioned for the indigent to the poor of

both Moselms and Zimmis. The wakif may lawfully

condition to give the usufruct solely to the poor of the

Zimmis, and in that will be included Jews and Christians

and Magians; or he may condition that a special body of

them may get the produce . . . . whatever condition the

wakif makes if it is not contrary to the Sharaa, will be

lawful. And so long as the object is not sinful, the wakif

may give to whomsoever he likes . . . According to Abu

Yusuf the mention of perpetuity [or dedication to an object

of a permanent nature] is not necessary to constitute a

1314

valid wakf, for the words wakf and sadakah conjunctively

or separately imply perpetuity . . . In the Baramika it is

stated that, according to Abu Yusuf, when a wakf is made

in favour of specific individuals, on their extinction the

profits of the wakf will be applied to the poor . . . Among

the wakfs created by the Sahaba [Companions of the

Prophet], . . the first is the wakf of Omar (may God be

pleased with him) of his land called Samagh [at Khaibar] .

. that created by Zobair bin Awwam of his house for the

support of his daughter who had been divorced (by her

husband); . . that of Arkam Mukhzumi, on his children of

his house called Dar-ul-Islam at Safar (near Mecca),

where the Prophet used to preach Islam, and where many

of the disciples, among them Omar, accepted the Faith . . .

Baihaki in his Khilafiat has stated upon the authority of

Abu Bakr Obaidulla bin Zubair that [the Caliph] Abu Bakr

(may God be pleased with him) had a house in Mecca

which he bestowed in charity upon his children, and that it

is still in existence . . . And Saad ibn Abi Wakkas

bestowed in charity his houses in Medina and Egypt upon

his children, and that wakf is still in existence, and [the

Caliph] Osman (may God be pleased with him) made a

wakf of Ruma, which exists until to-day, and Amr Ibn al-

Aas [the Amru of European history], of his lands called

Wahat in Tayef and of his houses in Mecca and Medina

upon his children, and that [wakf] also is still continuing . .

. According to Abu Yusuf the wakif may lawfully retain the

governance of the trust, or reserve the profits for himself

during his lifetime. This has been fully dealt with by Kuduri

in two parts . . The jurists, Ahmed ibn-i-Abi Laila, Ibn

1315

Shabarma, Zahri, and others, agree with Abu Yusuf.

Mohammed alone holds a contrary opinion . . . Abu Yusuf

bases his rule upon the practice and sayings of the Prophet

himself who used to eat out of the produce of the lands

dedicated by him …. Another proof in support of Abu

Yusuf's rule is that the meaning of wakf is to extinguish the

right of property in one's self and consign it to the custody

of God. Therefore, when a person reserves the whole or a

portion of the profits for himself, it does not interfere with

the dedication, for that also implies the approval of the

Almighty and is lawful . . . For example, if a man were to

dedicate a caravanserai and make a condition that he may

rest in it, or a cistern and condition that he should take

water from it, or a cemetery, and say that he may be buried

there, all this would be lawful. [Further] our Prophet (may

the blessings of God be with him) has declared that a man's

providing for his subsistence is a sadakah [an act of piety

or charity]. This Hadis has been substantially handed

down by a large number [of people] and is authentic, and

Ibn Maja states from Mikdam bin Maadi Karib that the

Prophet declared that no gain of a man is so meritorious as

that which he earns by the labour of his hands; and that

which he provides for the maintenance and support of

himself, the people of his household, his children, and his

servants, is a sadakah. And Imam Nisai from Balia and he

from Buhair has given the same tradition in these

words:-'Whatever thou providest for thyself is a sadakah.'

Ibn Haban in his Sahih states that Abu Said reports from

the Prophet that any one who acquires property in a lawful

manner, and provides therewith for his maintenance and

1316

for that of the other creatures of God, gives alms in the way

of the Lord. . . . And Dar Kutni reports from Jabir that the

Prophet (may God's blessing be with him) . . . declared

that all good acts are sadakah and that a man providing

subsistence for himself and his children and his belongings,

and for the maintenance of his position, is giving charity in

the way of God. . Tibrani has reported from Abi Imama

that the Prophet of God declared that a man making a

provision for his own maintenance, or of his wife, or of his

kindred, or of his children, is giving sadakah. And in the

Sahih of Muslim it is stated from Jabir that the Prophet

told a man to make a beginning with himself and give the

remainder to his kinsfolk.”

1089. Justice Ameer Ali further on page 434 of the report

observed that the words “charitable” and “religious” must be

understood from a Mussulman and not from an English point of

view. His view was concurred by Justice O'Kinealy and His

Lordship also observed on page 437 of the report that “it must

be an endowment for religious or charitable purposes; and if we

want to interpret a document of that kind, what we must naturally

look to is what is really meant by the words “religious” or

“charitable” among Muhammadans. As an example, we know

that the words “charitable purpose” in Scotland have quite a

different meaning from that in which they are used in England.

And so in India, in judging of what is really meant by the words

“religious” and “charitable” by a Muhammadan, we must take

the view which their law takes, and not what is to be found in the

English Dictionary.”

1090. The term “waqf” literally means detention. The legal

meaning of waqf according to Abu Hanifa, is the detention of a

1317

specific thing in the ownership of the wakif or appropriator, and

the devoting or appropriating of its profits or usufruct “in

charity on the poor or other good objects.” According to the two

disciples, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, waqf signifies the

extinction of the appropriator's ownership in the thing dedicated

and the detention of the thing in the implied ownership of God,

in such a manner that its profits may revert to or be applied “for

the benefit of mankind”. A waqf extinguishes the right of the

wakif or dedicator and transfers ownership to God. By

dedication and declaration the property in the wakif is divested

and vests in the Almighty.

1091. For the present purpose an idea of what constitute

waqf in Islam is sufficient and we need not to go into further

details. With respect to 'waqf' as recognised in Islamic Law,

since hereat we are concerned with the relevant legislative

aspect of the matter as it operated in India, we shall deal with

Islamic Law in this respect in detail while dealing with the issue

of validity of creation of waqf with respect to the property in

dispute.

Administration of Waqfs

1092. The concept of waqf in India got introduced with the

establishment of Muslim rule. It appear that earlier 'Sultan' was

the supreme authority over the administration of waqf properties

and ultimate power vested in him. There was some

decentralisation of the actual administration, control and

supervision of waqf institutions. At the Centre, the Sadar-us-

Sadar was entrusted with the overall control of waqfs

administration in the empire. His main work was to supervise

waqfs' administration and its properties. At the provincial level,

it was Sadr-e-Subha and in District, Sadre-e-Sarkar used to look

1318

into the administration of waqfs. At the local level, the waqfs

used to be looked after by Qazis who also looked after waqf

cases. The administration of individual waqf was the

responsibility of Mutawalli, which is still continuing. This kind

of arrangement finds mention in detail in Fatwai Alamgiri said

to be prepared under the command of Mughal Emperor

Aurangzeb.

1093. During the reign of Indian sub-continent by East

India Company, in the territory under their command so far as it

had charitable and religious institutions of Hindus and

Mohammedans, they were regulated by British Government

exercising visitatorial powers. In exercise of this power, the

British Government enacted several laws to prevent fraud and

waste, and to secure honest administration of such institutions.

The British Government did not interfere with the personal laws

of Hindus and Muslim like inheritance, succession, marriage

and religious institutions.

1094. In 1810, the general superintendence of religious

and charitable endowments vested in Board of Revenue and the

Board of Commissioners. Vide Bengal Regulations XIX of 1810

(The Bengal Charitable Endowment Public Building and

Escheats Regulations, 1810), the Board of Revenue was put in

possession of landed and other properties of charitable and

religious endowments, of both Muslims and Hindus. The

Regulations were obviously applicable to the area under the

authority of East India Company. The said Regulations,

however it appears, had no application to the area or to

properties situated in Oudh for the reason that under the

agreement of the East India Company with Nawab of Awadh

(Lucknow), the said area of Oudh continued to be ruled by the

1319

“Nawabs” till its annexation in 1856.

1095. After the transfer of power from East India

Company to British Government in 1857, a series of legislation

came including those which were enacted with an object of

proper administration of religious and charitable endowment.

The Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (Act 20 of 1863) was

passed and the properties relating to religious, charitable and

public endowments were placed under the control of trustees,

managers or superintendents. Local Committees were appointed

which exercise the powers of the Board of Revenue or local

agents.

1096. In respect to the Muslim in Oudh area, Oudh Laws Act

XVIII of 1876 was enacted. Vide Section 3 thereof, the laws to

be administered in the case of Mohammadans would be the

same as in East Panjub. The East Punjab was governed by

Punjab Laws Act IV of 1872 and Sections 5 and 6 thereof

provide as under:

“5. In questions regarding succession, special property of

females, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, adoption,

guardianship, minority, bastardy, family relations, wills,

legacies, gifts, partitions or any religious usage or

institution, the rule of decision shall be--

(1) any custom applicable to the parties concerned

which is not contrary to justice, equity or good

conscience and has not been, by this or any

other enactment, altered or abolished, and has

not been declared to be void by any competent

authority;

(2) the Mahomedan law, in cases where the parties

are Mahomedans,.... except in so far as such

1320

law has been altered or abolished by

legislative enactment, or is opposed to the

provisions of the Act, or has been modified by

any such custom as is above referred to.”

“6. In cases not otherwise specially provided for, the

Judges shall decide according to justice, equity and good

conscience.”

1097. In respect to certain specified waqfs in Husainabad

area in Lucknow (Oudh), Husainabad Endowment Act, 1878

(Act 15 of 1878) was enacted.

1098. In 1908, by enacting new Code of Civil Procedure,

Sections 92 and 93 were incorporated for the proper

administration of trusts. Under these sections two or more

persons having any interest in a trust could file a suit with the

prior permission of the Advocate General in relation to a matter

regarding the appointment and removal of trustees, matters

relating to the sale, exchange or mortgage of trust property, etc.

1099. Upto 1913 a waqf was valid if the effect of the deed

of wqkf was to keep the property in substance to charitable uses.

In Abul Fata Mohammad Vs. Rasamaya, 22 IA 76 it was held

by Privy Council that if the primary object of the waqf was the

aggrandizement of the family and the gift to charity was illusory

whether from its small amount or from its uncertainty and

remoteness, the waqf, for the benefit of the family was invalid

and no effect could be given to it. This decision caused lot of

protest and dissatisfaction amongst the Muslim communities in

India since the said decision in particular paralyzed the power of

Muslims to make a settlement in favour of family, children and

descendants or what is known as waqf-alal-aulad. Consequently,

the matter was represented by the Indian Muslims before Lord

1321

Curzon, the then Viceroy and Governor General of India

canvassing that for family settlement by way of waqf from the

time of Prophet Mohammad down to the present time an

unbroken chain of evidence existed to show that the law of

waqf-alal-aulad existed in all countries having Muslim

population like Arabia, Central Asia, Persia, Afghanistan and

India. It was represented that the precepts of the Prophet support

the family settlement amongst Muslim by way of waqf. It is said

that the following precepts of the Prophet were cited:

“The apostle of God said:

“When a Mussalman bestows on his family and

kindered, for the intention of rewards, it becomes

alms, although he has not given to the poor, but to

his family and children.”

The apostle of God said:

“There is one Dinar which you have bestowed

in the Road of God, and another in freeing a slave,

and another in alms to the poor, and another given to

your family and children; that is the greatest Dinar

in point of reward which you gave to your family.”


“The most excellent Dinar which a man

bestows is that which he bestows upon his own

family. Omme Salma says, “I said to the Prophet, is

there any good thing for me of rewards, for my

bestowing on the Sons of Abu Salmas. His sons are

no otherwise than mine.” The Prophet said: “Then

give to them, and for you are rewards of that you

bestow upon them”


1322

“Giving alms to the poor has the reward of

one alms, but that given to kindered has two

rewards; one the reward of alms, the other the

reward of relationship. “The Prophet of God

declared that a pious offering to ones family (to

provide against their getting into want) is more pious

than giving alms to beggars.”

1100. Accepting the claims of Muslims in India, Mussalman

Waqf Validating Act, 1913 (Act No. 6 of 1913) (hereinafter

referred to as the “1913 Act”) was enacted to validate the waqf

created for the benefit of the members of family i.e. waqf-alal-

aulad. This Act came into force on 07.03.1913. The preamble of

1913 Act shows that it was enacted to declare the rights of

Muslims to make settlements of property by way of waqf in

favour of their family, children and decedents. The term “waqf”

was defined in Section 2 (1) as under :

“2. .......................

(1) “Waqf” means the permanent dedication by a

person professing the Mussalman faith of any

property for any purpose, recognized by the

Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable.”

1101. Section 5 of 1913 Act states that nothing therein shall

affect any custom or usage whether local or prevalent among

Musalman or any particular class or sect. The definition of

'Waqf' under 1913 Act recognises the concept of waqf as known

in Shariyat Law.

1102. As already stated, a waqf therefore is an unconditional

and permanent dedication of property with implied detention in

the ownership of God in such a manner that the property of the

owner may be extinguished and its profit may revert to or be

1323

applied for the benefit of mankind except for purposes

prohibited by Islam.

1103. It may, however, be clarified at this stage that a waqf is

distinct from Sadaqah, Hiba and trust. In Islamic Law- Personal

by B.R.Verma first published in 1940 (6th Edition published in

1986) (reprinted in 1991 by M.H.Beg and S.K.Verma) identify

the above distinction on page 630-631 of the book as under :

Sadaqah Wakf

(1)The corpus itself may be consummed.

(2)It is only a donation.(3)The legal estate and not

merely beneficial interest passes to charity to be held by trustees appointed by the donor. The trustee can dispose of the corpus itself.

(1)The income only can be sent.

(2)It is an endowment.(3)The legal estate is

transferred to God. It does not vest in the trustee or mutawalli who cannot deal with the corpus.

1104. The distinction between waqf and sadaqah is that in the

case of former the income only can be spent while in the case of

latter the corpus of the property may be consumed.

Hiba Wakf

(1)It relates to absolute interest in the subject of the gift, the donee having a right not only to spend the usufruct but also the property itself.

(2)The donee is a human being.

(3)There are no limitations as to the object for which it can be made.

(4)A hiba to an unborn person is invalid.

(1)It is only the usufruct which can be spent and the corpus cannot be disposed of except under very limited conditions.

(2)The ownership is transferred to God.

(3)It is made for the benefit of mankind.

(4)A wakf may be made in favour of a succession of unborn persons.

Trust Wakf

(1)No particular motive is (1)It is generally made with a

1324

necessary.

(2)The founder may himself be a beneficiary.

(3)It may be for any lawful object.

(4)the property vests in the trustee.

(5)A trustee has got larger power than a mutawalli.

(6)It is not necessary that a trust maybe perpetual, irrevocable or inalienable.

(7)It results for the benefit of the founder when it is incapable of execution and the property has not been exhausted.

pious, charitable or religious motive.

(2)The wakf cannot reserve any benefit for himself (except to some extent under Hanafi law).

(3)The ultimate object must be some benefit of mankind.

(4)The property vests in God.

(5)A mutawalli is only a manager or superintendent.

(6)A wakf is perpetual, irrevocable and inalienable.

(7)The cypres doctrine is applied and the property may be applied to some other object.

1105. Apparently, Islam is not a necessary condition for

constitution of a waqf. It may be made by a Muslim or a non

Muslim but the necessary condition for creation of a waqf is the

object thereof. Ameer Ali in his book on Mohammedan Law

(Fourth Edition) Volume I at page 200 has said “Any person of

whatever creed may create wakf, but the law requires that the

object for which the dedication is made should be lawful

according to the creed of the dedicator as well as the Islamic

doctrines. Divine approbation being the essential in the

constitution of a wakf if the object for which a dedication is made

is sinful, either according to the laws of Islam or to the creed of

the dedicator it would not be valid.” Thus a non Muslim may

also create a waqf for any purpose which is religious under the

Mohammedan Law. But the object of the waqf must be lawful

according to the religious creed of the maker as well.

1325

1106. Section 3 of 1913 Act empowers any person

professing muslim faith to create a waqf in all other respects in

accordance with the provisions of Muslim Law for the following

among other purposes, i.e., for the maintenance and support,

wholly or partially of his family, children and descendants etc. It

would be useful to reproduce Section 3 as under :

“3. It shall be lawful for any person professing the

Mussalman faith to create a waqf which in all other

respects is in accordance with the provisions of Mussalman

law, for the following among other purposes :-

(1)for the maintenance and support wholly or partially

of his family, children or descendants, and

(2)where the person creating a waqf is a Hanafi

Mussalman, also for his own maintenance and

support during his lifetime or for the payment of his

debts out of the rents and profits of the property

dedicated :

Provided that the ultimate benefit is in such cases

expressly or implicitly reserved for the poor or for

any other purpose recognised by the Mussalman law

as a religious, pious or charitable purpose of a

permanent character.”

1107. 1913 Act, however, having not been given retrospective

effect did not remove the hardship in its entirety created by the

decision of Privy Council in Abul Fata Mohammad (supra)

and in some later cases it was held that 1913 Act could not be

construed as validating deeds executed before 07.03.1913.

1108. On 05.08.1923 the Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923 (Act

No. XLII of 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”) was

enacted with the object of better management of waqf property

1326

and ensuring maintenance of proper accounts and its publication

in respect of such properties. The aforesaid Act was applicable

to the whole of British India at the relevant time and in 1948 the

said words were substituted by the words “all the Provinces of

India”. The term “benefit”, “mutwalli” and “waqf” were defined

in Section 2 (a) (c) and (e) of 1923 Act, as under :

“2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the

subject or context,-

(a)“benefit” does not include any benefit which a

mutwalli is entitled to claim solely by reason of his being

such mutwalli;

(b) ............................................

(c)“mutwalli” means any person appointed either

verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a

wakf has been created or by a Court of competent

jurisdiction to be the mutwalli of a wakf, and

includes a naib-mutwalli or other person appointed

by a mutwalli to perform the duties of the mutwalli,

and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, any

person who is for the time being administering any

wakf property;

(d).............................................

(e)“wakf” means the permanent dedication by a

person professing the Mussalman faith of any

property for any purpose recognised by the

Mussalman law as religious, pious or charitable, but

does not include any wakf, such as is described in

section, 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act,

1913, under which any benefit is for the time being

claimable for himself by the person by whom the

1327

wakf was created or by any of his family or

descendants.”

1109. Section 3 of 1923 Act placed an obligation on a

Mutwalli to furnish certain particulars in respect to waqf

property, income and expenses etc. within a period of six

months from the date of commencement of the 1923 Act to the

Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property

of the waqf, for which the said person is mutwalli, is situated.

Non compliance of Section 3 was made penal vide Section 10 of

the said Act.

1110. Section 10 of 1923 Act provides consequences on

failure to comply with the provisions of Sections, 3, 4 and 5 and

reads as under:

“10. Penalties.--Any person who is required by or

under Sec. 3 or Sec. 4 to furnish statement of particulars or

any document relating to a wakf, or who is required by Sec.

5 to furnish a statement of accounts, shall, if he, without

reasonable cause the burden of proving which shall lie

upon him, fails to furnish such statement or document, as

the case may be, in due time, or furnishes a statement

which he knows or has reason to believe to be false,

misleading or untrue in any material particular, or, in the

case of a statement of accounts, furnishes a statement

which has not been audited in the manner required by Sec.

6, be punishable with fine which may extend to five

hundred rupees, or, in the case of a second or subsequent

offence, with fine which may extend to two thousand

rupees.”

1111. A question arose as to whether the Court while

exercising power under Section 10 can proceed to look into the

1328

question as to whether any property which is denied to be a

waqf property can be investigated and looked into so as to find

out whether it is a waqf property within the meaning of Section

2(e) of the Act or not. This question came to be considered

before a Hon'ble Single Judge of Patna High Court in (Syed) Ali

Mohammad Vs. Collector of Bhagalpur, AIR 1927 Patna 189.

The question was that of application of 1923 Act in respect to

property where there was a dispute whether it was a waqf

property or not. The petitioner before the High Court return a

notice issued by the Collector including petitioner's property in

the list of waqf properties stating that he was not incharge of

any waqf property as defined in Section 2(e) of 1923 Act

whereupon the Collector referred the matter to the District Judge

who held the property as a waqf property and the question was

whether the order of District Judge was within jurisdiction or

not. It was held by the Hon'ble Patna High Court that there is no

provision in the Act authorizing the Court, as defined in the Act,

to determine as to whether any property which if denied to be a

waqf property, is waqf property, within the meaning of the Act.

The Act neither authorizes the Court to summon witnesses or to

take evidence nor any procedure is prescribed for determining

the question as to whether any property is a waqf property and

no provision of appeal or revision is made if any such decision

is made. It held that the Act applies to admitted waqfs and not to

the properties which are denied to be the waqf properties.

1112. However, this view did not find favour with a Full

Bench decision of Oudh Chief Court in Mohammad Baqar and

another Vs. S. Mohammad Casim and others, AIR 1932

Oudh 210 where it was held that mere denial of a property as

constituting a waqf property by a person would not deprive

1329

jurisdiction to the Court to consider whether the property is a

waqf property under 1923 Act or not, otherwise, it would defeat

the very objective of the Act. In the majority decision, the Court

said that it is a recalcitrant Mutawalli to whom the Act intends

to reach and if the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted as soon as a

Mutawalli who has failed to observe the provisions of the Act

denies the alleged waqf that would defeat the very objective of

the legislature. It was held that the application of 1923 Act does

not depend upon the attitude which a Mutawalli may take with

regard to origin of an alleged waqf. The Court said:

“From the definition of the word “wakf” in Cl. (e), S.

2 of the Act it is clear that a wakf of the nature described in

S. 3, Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, is excluded

from the operation of the Act of 1923. With a view to

determine whether an alleged waqf is inside or outside the

scope of the Act the Court must make some inquiry. The

inquiry may be limited merely to an interpretation of the

instrument creating the wakf if there is any or to the

scrutinizing of the terms of an oral wakf.” (page211)

1113. The Court further held:

“It is true that the Act does not lay down any

obligation on the Court as to the limits to which it should

carry any inquiry which it may wish to make and no party

is entitled to compel the Court to carry inquiry up to any

particular stage. Indeed the Court may refuse to enter into

any inquiry on the ground that the allegations of the parties

disclose a controversy fit to be determined in a regular

suit, and this, in my judgment, explains the absence of any

special rule of procedure. The Court is invested with a

discretion but it cannot, in my opinion, refuse to look into

1330

the merits of the case and stay its hands on the sole ground

that the alleged mutawalli does not admit the alleged

wakf.” (page 213)

1114. It is not the case of any of the parties that any such

statement was furnished in respect to the property in dispute in

the Court as defined under Section 2 (b) of the said Act and the

provisions of the said Act were complied with at all. It is not the

case of the parties, i.e., the plaintiff, Suit-4, or in general,

Muslim parties, that the aforesaid Act was applicable to the

property in dispute or that the compliance of the said Act was

made by the concerned Mutawalli. In the absence of any

pleadings in respect to 1923 Act, we have no hesitation in not

considering the matter in the light of 1923 Act inasmuch as if

that be so first of all it would be necessary to consider whether

the property in question was a waqf made in 1528 and continued

to be so thereafter and secondly whether any person as

Mutawalli was in possession of the property in question in 1923

and thereafter. We have not been shown any material to show

the existence of the above facts and even if so then why and in

what circumstances the provisions under 1923 Act were not

complied with is also not explained. We also find that it is case

of none that Section 12 or 13 of 1923 Act at the relevant time

were attracted to the property in dispute and/or that the said

property was exempted by the competent government from the

operation of 1923 Act.

1115. The next legislation is Mussalman Waqf Validating

Act (XXIII) of 1930 which made 1913 Act applicable to waqfs

created before the commencement of 1913 Act with the rider

that the transactions already completed in respect to right, title,

obligations, liability etc. shall not be affected in any manner.

1331

1116. Then came the 1936 Act (Act No. 13 of 1936)

published in U.P. Gazette dated 20.03.1937. The above

enactment was made for the better governance, administration

and supervision of certain classes of Muslim waqf in the United

Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Section 1 of 1936 Act provides for

the commencement, and extent; and reads as under:

“(1) Short title, commencement and extent.--(1) This

Act shall be called “the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs

Act, 1936.”

(2) This section and sections 2 to 4 shall come into

force at once. The rest of the Act shall not come into force

until such date as the local Government may, by

notification in the Gazette, appoint in this behalf.

(3)It shall extend to the whole of the United

Provinces of Agra and Oudh.”

1117. We may mention at this stage that Section 1(2)

enforces only Sections 2 to 4 at once and the rest of the Act was

to come into force on such date as the local Government by

notification in the gazette may appoint in this behalf. Sections 5

to 71 of the said Act came into force on 01.07.1941vide

notification dated 20.06.1941 published in Government Gazette

of the United Provinces Vol. LXIII, No. XXVI, Part-1, page 311

dated 20.06.1941 which reads as under:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section

(2) of section 1 of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act,

1936 (U.P. XIII of 1936), the Governor of the United

Provinces is pleased to declare that sections 5 to 71 of the

said Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1941.”

1118. The reason for delay in notification giving effect to

Sections 5 to 71 of 1936 Act came to be noticed in Badrul

1332

Islam Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. Lucknow,

AIR 1954 Allahabad 459 in para 8 of the judgement as under:

“It is true that the provisions of Ss. 5 to 71 of the Act did

not come in force till some time in 1941. This fact has no

bearing because it appears that the late enforcement of

these provisions was due to the fact that what was provided

by these provisions could not have been given effect to till

the Central Board had found on investigation through

proper agency the waqfs which were subject to the Act. It

was no use enforcing these provisions which could not

have been given effect to. It was for this reason that these

sections were later enforced.”

1119. It is said that the Commissioner of Waqf made

survey under Section 4 and submitted his report. The Boards

proceeded further by issuing notifications in respect to Sunni

Waqfs on 26.02.1944 and in respect of Shia Waqfs on

15.01.1954 published in the gazette dated 23.01.1954, we are

proceeding further presuming as if the rest of the provisions of

the Act were made operative and will try to find out the answer

to the above issues accordingly.

1120. Section 2 of 1936 Act provides for applicability of

the Act to certain category of waqfs and inapplicability to some

other category of waqfs and reads as under:

“2. Applicability of the Act.-(1) Save as herein

otherwise specifically stated, this Act shall apply to all

waqfs, whether created before or after this Act comes into

force, any part of the property of which is situated in the

United Provinces.

(2) This Act shall not apply to-

(i) a waqf created by a deed, if any, under the

1333

terms of which not less than 75 per cent, of the total

income after deduction of land revenue and cesses

payable to Government of the property covered by

the deed of waqf, if any, is for the time being payable

for the benefit of the waqif or his descendants or any

member of his family.

(ii) a waqf created solely for either of the

following purposes :

(a) the maintenance and support of any person

other than the waqif or his descendants or any

member of his family,

(b) the celebration of religious ceremonies

connected with the death anniversaries of the waqif

or of any member of his family or any of his

ancestors,

(c) the maintenance of private immabaras,

tombs and grave yards, or

(d) the maintenance and support of the waqif

or for payment of his debts, when the waqif is a

Hanafi Musalman; and

(iii) the waqfs mentioned in the schedule :

Provided that if the Mutawalli of a waqf to which this

Act does not apply wrongfully sells or mortgages, or

suffers to be sold in execution of a decree against

himself, or otherwise destroys the whole or any part

of the waqf property, the Central Board may apply

all or any of the provisions of this Act to such waqf

for such time as it may think necessary.

Explanation. A waqf which is originally exempt

from the operation of this act may, for any reason

1334

subsequently, become subject to such operation, for

example, by reason of a higher percentage of its

income becoming available under the terms of the

deed for public charities.”

1121. The Schedule referred to in Section 2(2)(iii) of 1936

Act is as under :

1. Waqfs governed by Act XV of 1878.

2. Wazir Begam Trust, Lucknow.

3. Agha Abbu Sahib Trust, Lucknow.

4. Shah Najaf Trust, King's side, Lucknow, and Queen's

side, Lucknow.

5. Kazmain Trust, Lucknow.

1122. Section 3 contains certain definitions as under:

“3. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in

the subject or context--

(1) Interpretation clauses.--“Waqf” means the

permanent dedication or grant of any property for any

purpose recognized by the Musalman law or usage as

religious, pious or charitable and, where no deed of waqf is

traceable, includes waqf by user, and a waqif means any

person who makes such dedication or grant.”

(2) “Beneficiary” means the person or object for

whose benefit a waqf is created and includes religious,

pious or charitable objects, and any other object of public

utility established for the benefit of the Muslim community

or any particular sect of the Muslim community.”

(3) “Mutawalli” means a manager of a waqf or

endowment and includes an amin, a sajjadanashin, a

khadim, naib mutawalli and a committee of management,

and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person

1335

who is for the time being in charge of or administering, any

endowment as such.

(4) “Family” includes--

(a) Parents and grand-parents.

(b) Wife or husband.

(c) Persons related through any ancestor, male

or female.

(d) Persons who reside with, and are

maintained by, the waqif, whether related to him or

not.

(5) Property includes Government securities and

bonds, shares in firms and companies, stocks, debentures

and other securities and instruments.

(6) “Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made

under this Act.

(7) “Court” means, unless otherwise stated either

expressly or by implication, the court of the District Judge

or any other court empowered by the local Government to

exercise jurisdiction under this Act.

(8) “Net income” means the total income minus the

land revenue and other cesses payable to Government and

to local bodies:

Provided that in the case of land paying land revenue

the recorded income shall be deemed to be the total

income.”

1123. Chapter I which has Sections 4 to 24 deals with

Survey of Waqfs and Central Board of Waqfs. Section 4 deals

with the Survey of Waqfs; Section 5 deals with the

Commissioner's report and its publication in the Gazette; and,

read as under:

1336

“4. (1) Survey of waqfs.--Within three-months of the

commencement of this Act the local Government shall by

notification in the Gazette appoint for each district a

gazetted officer, either by name or by official designation

for the purpose of making a survey of all waqfs in such

district, whether subject of this Act or not. Such officer

shall be called the Commissioner of waqfs.”

(2) The Local Government may, from time to time

when necessary cancel any appointment under sub-section

(1) or make a new appointment.

(3) The “Commissioner of waqfs” shall, after making

such inquiries as he may consider necessary, ascertain and

determine--

(a) the number of all Shia and Sunni waqfs in

the district;

(b) the nature of each waqf;

(c) the gross income of property comprised in

the waqf;

(d) the amount of Government revenue, cesses

and taxes payable in respect of waqf property;

(e) expenses incurred in the realization of the

income and the pay of the mutawalli of each waqf if

the waqf is not exempted under section 2; and

(f) whether the waqf is one of those exempted

from the provisions of this Act under section 2:

Provided that where there is a dispute whether a

particular waqf is Shia waqf or Sunni waqf and there are

clear indications as to the sect of which it pertains in the

recitals of the deed of waqf, such dispute shall be decided

on the basis of such recitals.

1337

(4) In making such inquiries as aforesaid the

Commissioner of waqfs shall exercise all the powers of a

civil court for summoning and examining witnesses and

documents, making local inspections, appointing

commissioners for examination of witnesses, examining of

accounts and making local investigations.

(5) The Commissioner of waqfs shall submit his

report of inquiry to the local Government.

(6) The total cost of carrying out the provisions of

this section shall be borne by the mutawallis of all waqfs to

which the Mussalmans Waqfs Act, 1923, applies in

proportion to the income of the property of such waqfs

situated in the United Provinces.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in the deed or

instrument creating any waqf, any mutawalli may pay from

the income of the waqf property any sum due from him

under sub-section (6).

(8) Any sum due from a mutawalli under sub-section

(6) may, on a certificate issued by the local Government, be

recovered by the Collector in the manner provided by law

for recovery of an arrear of land revenue.

5. Commissioner's report.--

(1) The local Government shall forward a copy of the

Commissioner's report to each of the Central Boards

constituted under this Act. Each Central Board shall as

soon as possible notify in the Gazette the waqfs relating to

the particular sect to which, according to such report, the

provisions of this Act apply.

(2) The mutawalli of a waqf or any person interested

in a waqf or a Central Board may bring a suit in a civil

1338

court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that any

transaction held by the Commissioner of waqfs to be a

waqf is not a waqf, or any transaction held or assumed by

him not to be a waqf is a waqf, or that a waqf held by him

to pertain to a particular sect does not belong to that sect,

or that any waqf reported by such Commissioner as being

subject to the provisions of this Act is exempted under

section 2, or that any waqf held by him to be so exempted is

subject to this Act:

Provided that no such suit shall be instituted by a

Central Board after more than two years of the receipt of

the report of Commissioner of waqfs, and by a mutawalli

or person interested in a waqf after more than one year of

the notification referred to in sub-clause (1):

Provided also that no proceedings under this Act in

respect of any waqf shall be stayed or suspended merely by

reason of the pendency of any such suit or of any appeal

arising out of any such suit.

(3) Subject to the final result of any suit instituted

under sub-section (2) the report of the Commissioner of

waqfs shall be final and conclusive.

(4) The Commissioner of waqfs shall not be made a

defendant to any suit under sub-section (2) and no suit

shall be instituted against him for anything done by him in

good faith under colour of this Act.”

1124. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of 1936 Act show that there shall

be two Waqf Board namely, Shia Central Board and Sunni

Central Board of Waqf. The constitution etc. thereof is provided

from Section 6 to 17. Section 18 deals with the functions of the

Central Board and reads as under:

1339

“18. Function of the Central Board.- (1) The general

superintendence of all waqfs to which this Act applies shall

vest in the Central Board. The Central Board shall do all

things reasonable and necessary to ensure that waqfs or

endowments under its superintendence are properly

maintained, controlled and administered and duly

appropriated to the purposes for which they were founded

or for which they exist.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the

provisions of sub-section (1) the powers and duties of the

Central Board shall be-

(a) to complete and maintain and authentic

record of rights containing information

relating to the origin, income, object, and

beneficiaries of every waqf in each district;

(b) to prepare and settle its own budget;

(c) to settle and pass budgets submitted by the

mutawallis direct to the Board and any budget

submitted to, but not approved by, a District

Waqf Committee, provided that it is in

accordance with the wishes of the waqif and

the terms of the deed of waqf;

(d) to settle and pass the annual budgets of

the District Waqf Committees;

(e) to institute and and defend suits and

proceedings in a court of law relating to-

(i) administration of waqfs,

(ii) taking of accounts,

(iii) appointment and removal of

mutawallis in accordance with the deed

1340

of waqf if it is traceable,

(iv) putting the mutawallis in possession

or removing them from possession,

(v) settlement or modification of any

scheme of management;

(f) to sanction the institution of suits under

section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, relating to waqfs to which this Act

applies;

(g) to take measure for the recovery of lost

properties;

(h) to settle scheme of management and

application of waqf funds in accordance with

the doctrine of cypres in case of those waqfs,

the objects of which are not evident from any

written instrument or in cases in which the

objects for which they were created have

ceased to exist;

(i) to enter upon and inspect waqf properties;

(j) to investigate into the nature and extent of

waqfs and waqf properties and call from time

to time for accounts and other returns and

information from the mutawallis and give

directions for the proper administration of

waqfs;

(k) to arrange for the auditing of accounts

submitted by the mutawallis;

(l) to direct the deposit of surplus money in

the hands of the mutawalli in any approved

bank and to utilize it on the objects of waqf;

1341

(m) to supervise and control the District Waqf

Committees;

(n) to administer the waqf fund;

(o) to keep regular accounts of receipts and

disbursement and submit the same in the

matter prescribed;

(p) to institute when necessary an inquiry

relating to the administration of a waqf:

Provided that in the appointment of mutawallis

or in making any other arrangement for the

management of waqf property the Central Board

shall be guided as far as possible by the directions of

the waqif, if any.”

1125. A careful reading of 1936 Act as also all the earlier

enactments make it very clear that neither they create a waqf nor

diminish or terminate a waqf nor affect a waqf in any other

manner. On the contrary, the provisions have been made only to

provide a statutory body for the better governance,

administration and supervision of the waqfs to which the said

Act apply. Further vide Section 2(1) of 1936 Act though it

applies to all waqfs, whether created before the commencement

of the Act or thereafter, if any part of the property of which

waqf is situate in the United provinces but by virtue of Sub-

section (2) of Section 2 certain classes of waqfs have been

excluded. The exclusion under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of

1936 Act is specific and has been categorized with precision. It

would mean that only to the extent the waqfs are excluded by

virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 2 all other waqfs, if a waqf

validly created, would be governed by 1936 Act.

1126. The term 'Waqf' under 1936 Act has also been

1342

defined as a permanent dedication or grant of any property for

any purposes recognized by the Musalman law or usage as

religious, pious or charitable including waqf by user where no

deed of waqf is traceable.

1127. However a cumulative reading of the entire 1936

Act shows that it does not govern the right of worship of Hindus

or Muslims. as the case may be. The object of enactment is to

provide better governance and administration in supervision of

certain classes of Muslim Waqfs. The Waqfs to which the

aforesaid Act applies are to be supervised and maintained by the

Central Boards, namely, Shia Central or Sunni Central Board, as

the case may be, constituted under Section 6 of the said Act.

1128. At this stage it may be pointed out that there was

some ambiguity between Section 8(1)(i) and Section 12.

Noticing the same, vide U.P. Muslim Waqfs (Amendment) Act

9 of 1953 which received the assent of the President on

26.02.1953, Section 12 was deleted and Section 8-A was

inserted which was held valid by this Court in All India Shia

Conference Vs. Taqi Hadi and others, AIR 1954 All. 124.

1129. In 1954, the Parliament enacted Waqf Act, 1954

(Act XXIX of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as '1954 Act'). The

aforesaid Act though extended to whole of India except the

State of Jammu and Kashmir but proviso to Section 1(3) thereof

provides for the State of U.P., Bihar and West Bengal as under :

“Provided that in respect of any of the States of Bihar,

Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, no such notification shall

be issued except on the recommendation of the State

Government concerned.”

1130. Consequently, 1954 Act did not apply to the State of

U.P. since the State of U.P. had its own Act of 1936.

1343

1131. Though not necessary for the category of the issues,

with which we are concerned at this stage, but just to complete

the legislative history, we find that the State legislature enacted

U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act 1960 (U.P. Act No.XVI of 1960)

(hereinafter referred to '1960 Act'). This U.P. Act, 1960 received

assent of the President of India on 27th August, 1960 and was

published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary on 3rd September, 1960.

Vide Section 1(3) of 1960 Act, it came into force at once.

Section 2 of 1960 Act provides for the application of the Act

and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under :

“2. Application of the Act.-(1) Save as herein otherwise

specifically stated, this Act shall apply to all waqfs,

whether created before or after the commencement of this

Act, any part of the property comprised in which it situate

in Uttar Pradesh, and to all the waqfs which at the time of

the coming into force of this act were the superintendence

of the Sunni Central Board or the Shia Central Board

constituted under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1936 (U.P.

Act XIII of 1936).

1132. Vide Section 85 (2) of 1960 Act, 1936 Act as well

as Husainabad Endowment Act, 1878 were repealed. Some

more enactments were repealed by insertion of Section 11 of

U.P. Act No.28 of 1971 whereby the following was inserted in

Section 85(2) of 1960 Act :

“The following enactments are also hereby repealed in

their application to any waqf to which this Act applies :

(1) the Bengal Charitable Endoments, Public Buildings and

Escheats Regulation, 1810 (Act XIX of 1810) ;

(2) the Religious Endoments Act, 1863 (Act XX of

1863) ;

1344

(3)the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (Act XX of 1890) ;

(4) the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 190 (Act

XIV of 1920):”

1133. There was saving provisions in Section 85 by way of

proviso which read as under :

“Provided that this repeal shall not affect the operation of

those Acts in regard to any suit or proceeding pending in

any Court or to an appeal or an application in revision

against any order that may be passed in such suit or

proceeding and subject thereto, anything done or any

action taken in exercise of powers conferred by or under

those Acts shall unless otherwise expressly required by any

provision of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken

in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as

if this Act were in force on the day on which such thing was

done or action was taken.”

1134. Besides, Section 28 of 1960 Act provides saving of

waqfs already registered and provides as under :

“Savings U.P. Act XIII of 1986.- A waqf registered before

the commencement of this Act under the U.P. Muslim Waqf

Act 1936, shall be deemed to have been registered under

the provisions of this Act.”

1135. 1960 Act now stands repealed by the Waqf Act,

1995 (Central Act) which has come into effect w.e.f. 1st January,

1996.

1136. Now reverting to 1936 Act, the general power of

superintendence vested in the Central Board is to ensure that the

waqfs or endowments under its superintendence are maintained,

controlled, administered and duly appropriated to the purposes

for which they were founded or for which they exist. The very

1345

functions of the Central Board, as such, do not relate directly to

the right of worship of either the Hindus or Muslims in any

manner. To some extent, however, it may be said that if a

religious Waqfs is not properly maintained and administered,

and, it causes hindrance or obstruction in observance of such

religious activities for which the Waqf was created, the right of

people in general who are entitled to use Waqf property for the

purposes it is created, to that extent may be obstructed, but

directly it cannot be said that 1936 Act in any manner deals with

the right of worship of any of the member of the community for

whose benefit the Waqf is created. It is moreso when the

question of a member(s) of a community other than Muslim

arises since neither his right of worship in any manner is sought

to be affected by 1936 Act nor otherwise it does appear to do so.

1137. In respect to 1936 Act this question came to be

considered by the Apex Court in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan and others

Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf U.P. and others, AIR

1959 SC 198 in an appeal taken against the judgment of this

Court in Sunni Central Board of Waqf Vs. Siraj-ul-Haq Khan

and others, AIR 1954 All. 88. The matter pertains to Darga

Hazarat Syed Salar Mahsood Ghazi situated in the Village

Singha Parasi, District Bahraich. The appellants were members

of the Waqf Committee, Darga Sharif, Bahraich and filed a suit

seeking a declaration that the properties of suit were not covered

by the provisions of 1936 Act. The Court considered the words

“the Mutawalli of a waqf or any person interested in a waqf”

under Section 5(2) of 1936 Act, and, construing the same, it

held that it would mean “any person interested” in what is held

to be a waqf and in order to find out so it is open to the

Commissioner of the Waqf to find out whether a property is a

1346

waqf or not and if he includes such a property in the list of waqf,

the person challenging such decision would be included by the

words “any person interested in a waqf” under Section 5(2). It

would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations in

para 16 of the judgment:

“The word 'waqf' as used in this sub-section must be

given the meaning attached to it by the definition in S. 3

(1) of the Act and since the appellants totally deny the

existence of such a waqf they cannot be said to be

interested in the 'waqf'. The argument thus presented

appears prima facie to be attractive and plausible; but on a

close examination of S. 5(2) it would appear clear that the

words "any person interested in a waqf" cannot be

construed in their strict literal meaning. If the said words

are given their strict literal meaning, suits for a

declaration that any transaction held by the Commissioner

to be a waqf is not a waqf can never be filed by a mutawalli

of a waqf or a person interested in a waqf. The scheme of

this sub-section is clear. When the Central Board assumes

jurisdiction over any waqf under the Act it proceeds to do

so on the decision of three points by the Commissioner of

Waqfs. It assumes that the property is a waqf, that it is

either a Sunni or a Shia waqf, and that it is not a waqf

which falls within the exceptions mentioned in S. 2. It is in

respect of each one of these decisions that a suit is

contemplated by S. 5, sub-s. (2). If the decision is that the

property is not a waqf or that it is a waqf falling within the

exceptions mentioned by S. 2, the Central Board may have

occasion to bring a suit. Similarly if the decision is that the

waqf is Shia and not Sunni, a Sunni Central Board may

1347

have occasion to bring a suit and vice versa. Likewise the

decision that the property is a waqf may be challenged by a

person who disputes the correctness of the said decision.

The decision that a property does not fall within the

exceptions mentioned by S. 2 may also be challenged by a

person who claims that the waqf attracts the provisions of

S. 2. If that be the nature of the scheme of suits

contemplated by S. 5(2) it would be difficult to imagine

how the mutawalli of a waqf or any person interested in a

waqf can ever sue for a declaration that the transaction

held by the Commissioner of the waqfs to be a waqf is not a

waqf. That is why we think that the literal construction of

the expression "any person interested in a waqf" would

render a part of the sub-section wholly meaningless and

ineffective. The legislature has definitely contemplated that

the decision of the Commissioner of the Waqfs that a

particular transaction is a waqf can be challenged by

persons who do not accept the correctness of the said

decision, and it is, this class of persons who are obviously

intended to be covered by the words "any person interested

in a waqf ". It is well-settled that in construing the

provisions of a statute courts should be slow to adopt a

construction which tends to make any part of the statute

meaningless or ineffective; an attempt must always be

made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance

the remedy intended by the statute. In our opinion, on a

reading of the provisions of the relevant sub-section as a

whole there can be no doubt that the expression "any

person interested in a waqf" must mean "any person

interested in what is held to be a waqf ". It is only persons

1348

who are interested in a transaction which is held to be a

waqf who would sue for a declaration that the decision of

the Commissioner of the Waqfs in that behalf is wrong, and

that the transaction in fact is not a waqf under the Act. We

must accordingly hold that the relevant clause on which

Mr. Dar has placed his argument in repelling the

application of S. 5(2) to the present suit must not be strictly

or literally construed, and that it should be taken to mean

any person interested in a transaction which is held to be a

waqf. On this construction the appellants are obviously

interested in the suit properties which are notified to be

waqf by the notification issued by respondent 1, and so the

suit instituted by them would be governed by S. 5, sub-s. (2)

and as such it would be barred by time unless it is saved

under S. 15 of the Limitation Act.”

1138. The above decision, however related to a matter

where all the parties before the Court were Muslim and there

was no question about the rights of non Muslim being affected

by a decision of the Commissioner of Waqf or Central Board

constituted under Section 6 of 1936 Act. In other words the

decision noted above covered the persons following the same

religious namely, Mohammadan Law but where such a dispute

is raised by another party namely a person of different religion

like, Hindu, Christian etc. whether 1936 Act at all will apply in

that case or not, is not touched by the above judgment.

1139. In our view, since 1936 Act does not provide or

control the right of worship of Hindu or Muslims, the rival

dispute between the persons who are not Muslims, in the matter

of an immovable property, whether it is waqf or not would not

be governed by the provisions of 1936 Act but it would be open

1349

to non-muslim party to stake his claim without being affected in

any manner by the provisions of 1936 Act.

1140. Our view find support from a Division Bench

decision of Rajasthan High Court in Radhakishan and another

Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 1.

This case had arisen from the Waqfs Act, 1954 (in short “1954

Act”) and interpretation of the words “any person interested

therein” appearing in Section 6(1) came to be considered. The

Court held that it would not empower the Board of Waqfs to

decide the question whether a particular property is a waqf

property or not if such a dispute is raised by a person who is

stranger to waqf. The Division Bench therein referred to our

Full Bench decision in Mohammad Baqar (supra) and

observed that in reference to 1923 Act Patna, Lahore, Bombay

and Madras High Court took a view that the District Judge has

no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry into the nature of property

where the alleged Mutawalli deny existence of waqf though the

Allahabad Chief Court of Oudh took a different view.

1141. We may notice hereat that in the Full Bench

judgment of Chief Court of Oudh in Mohammad Baqar

(supra) there was no question with respect to jurisdiction of the

District Judge where the existence of alleged waqf is denied by

a stranger and not the Mutawalli, therefore, we do not find that

the decision in Radhakishan (supra) in any way can be

construed as a dissenting view to the decision of Oudh Chief

Court in Mohammad Baqar (supra). This is evident from what

has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in paras 24 and 25

reproduced as under:

“24. The present Act No. 29 of 1954 is, no doubt, an

improvement on the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, but, in our

1350

view, this also does not empower the Board of Wakfs to

decide the question whether a particular property is a wakf

property or not, if such a dispute is raised by a person who

is a stranger to wakf. This view is further confirmed by the

provisions of section 59 of the Act which lays down that in

any suit or proceeding in respect of a wakf or any wakf

property by or against a stranger to the wakf or any other

person, the Board may appear and plead as a party to the

suit or proceeding.

25. To sum up the position, the Wakf

Commissioner, though he is invested with the powers of a

civil court in respect of certain matters, is not a civil court

empowered to decide a disputed question whether a

particular property is a wakf property or not. He has only

to make a survey of wakf property existing in the State at

the date of commencement of the Act and to make a report

of survey to the State Government. When the State

Government forwards the report to the Board of Wakfs, it

becomes the duty of the Board to examine it. Thereafter the

Board should publish, in the official gazette, a list of wakfs

existing in the State. The law does not require the

Commissioner to make a survey of wakf properties which

have already become extinct as such. If he mentions in his

report that certain properties were once wakf properties

and can still be recovered as such, then the proper course,

in our opinion for the Board is to file a suit, get them

declared as wakf properties and to recover their

possession. If a dispute about existence of a wakf is raised

by a person who is stranger to the wakf, then it is neither

fair nor proper for the Board to include such properties in

1351

the list published in the official gazette. Section 6, in our

opinion, refers only to those triangular disputes which

exists between the Board of Wakf, the mutawalli and a

person interested in the wakf. If there is a dispute between

these three on a question whether a particular property is a

wakf property or whether a wakf is a Shia wakf or a Sunni

wakf, it is open to any one of them to institute a suit in a

civil court of competent jurisdiction. If a suit is instituted,

the decision of the Civil Court will be final. If no such suit

is filed by any one of them within a year from the date of

publication of the list of wakfs the Court would not

entertain the suit thereafter and the list of the wakf shall be

final and conclusive between them. The object of Section 6

is to narrow down the dispute between the Board of Wakf,

the Mutawalli and the person interested in the wakf as

defined in section 3. In our view, it does not concern a

dispute if it is raised by a person who is an utter stranger

to the wakf. The list cannot be final and conclusive as

against a non muslim who is not covered by Section 6(1) of

the Act. Again, if a dispute whether a particular property is

a wakf property or not, is raised by a non-muslim and a

stranger to the wakf, the Board of Wakfs has no

jurisdiction to decide the matter in its own favour under

Section 27 and enter it in the register. The Board's decision

under section 27 would not be binding against such

persons. For the same reason, the Board would not be able

to recover possession of the property from such persons

under Section 36B of the Act.”

1142. The judgment of Rajasthan High Court was taken in

appeal before the Apex Court in The Board of Muslim Wakfs,

1352

Rajasthan Vs. Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1979 SC 289.

Two questions raised in appeal. Firstly, the meaning of the

words “any person interested therein” in Section 6(1) and (4) of

Waqf Act, 1954 and secondly, the power of Waqf

Commissioner to make survey of waqf properties whether it

includes an inquiry about certain property as a waqf property or

not. The Apex Court referring to the various judgments

considered by the Rajasthan High Court held that they would be

of no assistance in interpreting the provisions of Waqf Act,

1954. However, it was held in para 23 of the judgment that the

High Court was right in determining the scope of Section 6(1) of

1954 Act but fell in error in curtailing the ambit and scope of an

inquiry by the Commissioner of Waqf under Section 4(3) and by

the Board of Waqfs under Section 27 of the Act.

1143. For our purpose, the meaning assigned by the Apex

Court in Section 6(1) to the words “any person interested

therein” would be relevant to answer the issues noticed above

and in this regard it would be appropriate to notice hereunder

paras 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the judgment as under:

“31. That leaves us with the question as to the scope of

sub-s. (1) of S. 6. All that we have to consider in this

appeal is, whether if the Commissioner of Wakfs had

jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide against the

respondents Nos. l and 2 that the property in dispute was

wakf property, the list of wakfs published by the Board of

Wakfs under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 would be final and

conclusive against them under S. 6(4) in case they had not

filed a suit within a year from the publication of the lists.

The question as to whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2

can be dispossessed, or their possession can be threatened

1353

by the Board of Wakfs by proceeding under S. 36B

without filing a suit in a civil court of competent

jurisdiction does not arise for our consideration.”

“32. In the present case, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2

who are non Muslims, contended that they are outside the

scope of sub-s. (1) of S. 6, and consequently, they have no

right to file the suit contemplated by that sub-section and,

therefore, the list of wakfs published by the Board of Wakfs

under sub-s. (2) of S.5 cannot be final and conclusive

against them under sub-s. (4) of S. 6, It was urged that

respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were wholly outside the purview

of sub-s. (1) of S. 6 and they must, therefore, necessarily

fall outside the scope of the enquiry envisaged by sub-s. (1)

of S. 4, as the provisions contained in Sections 4, 5 and 6

form part of an integrated scheme. The question that arises

for consideration, therefore, is as to who are the parties

that could be taken to be concerned in a proceeding under

sub-s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act, and whether the list published

under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 declaring certain property to be

wakf property, would bind a person who is neither a

mutawalli nor a person interested in the wakf.”

“33. The answer to these questions must turn on the true

meaning and construction of the word 'therein' in the,

expression 'any person interested therein' appearing in

sub-s. (1) of S. 6. In order to understand the meaning of

the word 'therein' in our view, it is necessary to refer to the

preceding words 'the Board or the mutawalli of the wakf'.

The word 'therein' must necessarily refer to the 'wakf'

which immediately precedes it. It cannot refer to the 'wakf

property'. Sub-section (1) of S. 6 enumerates the persons

1354

who can file suits and also the questions in respect of

which such suits can be filed. In enumerating the persons

who are empowered to file suits under this provision, only

the Board, the mutawalli of the wakf, and 'any person

interested therein', thereby necessarily meaning any

person interested in the wakf, are listed. It should be borne

in mind that the Act deals with wakfs, its institutions and its

properties. It would, therefore., be logical and reasonable

to infer that its provisions empower only those who are

interested in the wakfs to institute suits.”

“34. In dealing with the question, the High Court

observes:

"In our opinion, the words "any person

interested therein" appearing in sub-section (1) of S.

6 mean no more than a person interested in a wakf as

defined in clause (h) of S. 3 of the Act..........

It is urged by learned counsel for the

petitioners that the legislature has not used in

Section 6(1) the words "any person interested in a

wakf" and, therefore, this meaning should not be

given to the words "any person interested therein".

This argument is not tenable because the words "any

person interested therein" appear soon after "the

mutawalli of the wakf" A and therefore the word

'therein' has been used to avoid re petition of the

words "in the wakf" and not to extend the scope of

the section to persons who fall outside the scope of

the words "person interested in the wakf". The

purpose of section 6 is to confine the dispute between

the wakf Board, the mutawalli and a person

1355

interested in the wakf."

That, in our opinion, is the right construction.

35. We are fortified in that view by the decision of this

Court in Sirajul Haq Khan v. The Sunni Central Board of

Wakf, U.P. 1959 SCR 1287:(AIR 1959 SC 198). While

construing S. 5(2) of the United Provinces Muslins Wakf

Act, 1936, this Court interpreted the expression "any

person interested in a wakf" as meaning 'any person

interested in what is held to be a wakf', that is, in the

dedication of a property for a pious, religious or

charitable purpose. It will be noticed that sub-s. (1) of S.6

of the Act is based in sub-s. (2) of S. 5 of the United

Provinces Muslims Wakf Act, 1936, which runs thus:

"The mutawalli of a wakf or any person interested in

a wakf or a Central Board may bring a suit in a civil court

of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that any

transaction held by the Commissioner of Wakfs to be a

wakf is not a wakf, or any transaction held or assumed by

him not to be a wakf, or that a wakf held by him to pertain

to a particular sect does not belong to that sect, or that

any wakf reported by such Commissioner as being subject

to the provisions of this Act is exempted under section 2,

or that any wakf held by him to be so exempted is subject to

this Act."

The proviso to that section prescribed the period of one

year's limitation, as here, to a suit by a mutawalli or a

person interested in the wakf.

36. The two provisions are practically similar in content

except that the language of the main enacting part has

been altered in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 of the present Act and put

1356

in a proper form. In redrafting the section, the sequence,

of the different clauses has been changed, therefore, for the

expression "any person interested in a wakf" the legislature

had to use the expression "any person interested therein".

The word 'therein' appearing in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 must,

therefore, mean 'any person interested in a waker' as

defined in S. 3(h). The object of sub-s. (1) of S. 6 is to

narrow down the dispute between the Board of Wakfs, the

mutawalli and the person interested in the wakf, as defined

in S. 3 (h).”

1144. The Apex Court having said so as noticed above

quoted the findings of the Rajasthan High Court with reference

to Section 6 in para 37 of the judgment and in para 38 it says

that it is in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court. The

answer has further been crystallized by the Apex Court in paras

39 and 43 of the judgment as under:

“39. It follows that where a stranger who is a non-

Muslim and is in possession of a certain property his right,

title and interest therein cannot be put in jeopardy merely

because the property is included in the List. Such a person

is not required to file a suit for a declaration of his title

within a period of one year. The special rule of limitation

laid down in proviso to sub s. (1) of S. 6 is not applicable

to him. In other words, the list published by the Board of

Wakfs under sub-s. (2) of S. 5 scan be challenged by him by

filing a suit for declaration of title even after the expiry of

the period of one year, if the necessity of filing such suit

arises.”

“43. In view of the foregoing, the right of the respondents

Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the disputed property, if at all

1357

they have any, will remain unaffected by the impugned

notification. They are at liberty to bring a suit for the

establishment of their right and title, if any, to the

property.”

1145. As noticed above the Apex Court also referred to

Section 5(2) of 1936 Act and observed that it is pare materia to

Section 6(1) and (4) of Waqf Act, 1954.

1146. The above decision of the Apex Court in

Radhakishan (supra) was followed in Board of Mulim Wakfs

Vs. Smt. Hadi Begum and others, AIR 1992 SC 1083 where in

para 10 of the judgment the Court briefly reproduced what was

held in Radhakishan (supra) regarding the right, title and

interest of a non-muslim with reference to the Waqf Act, 1954

which also contain the provisions, pari materia with 1936 Act,

and held:

“The right, title and interest of a person who is non-muslim

and is in possession of certain property is not put in

jeopardy simply because that property is included in the

list published under sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 and he is not

required to file a suit in a Civil Court for declaration of his

title within the period of one year and the list would not be

final and conclusive against him. Sub-sec. (4) of S. 6 makes

the list final and conclusive only between the Board, the

mutawalli and the person interested in the wakf.” (para 10)

1147. To the same effect is a decision of an Hon'ble Single

Judge in Marawthwada Wakf Board Vs. Rajaram Ramjivan

Manthri and others, AIR 2002 Bom. 144. With reference to

Waqf Act 1954, in para 19 of the judgement, it observed:

“Therefore, from the above, it is extremely clear that the

respondent No. 1, who is a non-Muslim, being a Hindu,

1358

could not file a suit u/S. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, but he

cannot be barred from filing a suit especially in view of the

fact that his right, title and interest have been jeopardised

in view of the notification issued by the Government of

Maharashtra aforesaid.”

1148. Another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in U.P.

Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and

others, 2006(6) ADJ 331 considering Act No.XVI of 1960

which contain similar provisions as that of 1936 Act, in para 9

of the judgment, observed:

“There is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 by virtue of

sale deed became the owner of the property is dispute. The

respondent No. 3 being non Muslim, the provisions of U.P.

Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 was not applicable as held by this

Court in the case of Chedda Singh and others Vs.

Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad and others.”

1149. A similar view was taken in an earlier decision of

this Court in Chedha Singh and others Vs. Additional Civil

Judge, Moradabad and others, 1996 Supp. AWC 189 which

has been followed in U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board,

Lucknow (supra).

1150. Now, therefore, it is well settled that Section 5 of

1936 Act would have no application qua the rights of Hindus in

general and plaintiff (Suit-1) in particular in respect to his right

of worship. He would not be bound mere by inclusion of the

property in a notification issued under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act.

Moreover, in this particular case since the notification itself has

been held invalid so far as the property in question is concerned,

meaning thereby, in the eyes of law, there was no notification

under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act and, therefore, also the

1359

restriction or benefit if any under the Act would not be

applicable to either of the parties. No further provision has been

shown to us from 1936 Act to affect the rights of Hindus in

general and plaintiff (Suit-1) in particular affecting their/his

right of worship etc..

1151. Therefore, both the issues are answered in favour of

plaintiff (Suit-1) and defendants (Suit-4) in particular and in

favour of Hindu parties in General. Issues No. 5(b) (Suit-4) and

9(a) (Suit-1) are answered accordingly.

1152. Issue No. 5(e) (Suit-4) reads as under:

“Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned

Civil Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no.17 to the effect that

“No valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim

Waqf Act ( No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of

the property in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board

of Waqf has no right to maintain the present suit?”

1153. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) raises a very basic question about

the maintainability of Suit-4 pursuant to the finding recorded by

the leaned Civil Judge where no valid notification has been

issued under Section 5(1) of the Act in respect to the property in

dispute. The question is whether in such circumstances,

plaintiff, Sunni Central Board of Waqf (Suit 4) has any right to

maintain the present suit or not. This leads us to examine about

the Waqfs covered by 1936Act as also when the Sunni Central

Board of Waqf can file a suit.

1154. Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant

No.20 in suit 4 submitted that once it is held that there is no

valid notification issued under Section 5 of 1936 Act and in

view of the further fact that no attempt was made by any person

including the alleged Mutawalli to get the alleged waqf

1360

registered under Section 38 with the plaintiff No.1 in Suit-4 and

the Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to take any steps to get

the alleged waqf registered by issuing necessary directions, as

the case may be, under Section 39/40 of 1936 Act, it is evident

that the disputed building in suit is never treated to be waqf by

them and therefore, since it was not a waqf, the Act itself is not

applicable. Hence suit-4 by plaintiff No.1 is not maintainable.

He also submitted that even otherwise there was no waqf at all,

hence 1936 Act is inapplicable. Sunni Central Waqf Board has

no right to file the above suit.

1155. We find that though under the various provisions of

1936 Act, the legislature has attempted and made various

provisions so that any waqf in the State of U.P., if existed, may

be known to the Sunni Central Waqf Board so that it may be

properly supervised and administered. However, the Act does

not contain any provision that even though a waqf has been

created in accordance with Islamic Law yet it would not be

governed by the Act and shall be beyond the power of

supervision, administration of Sunni Central Waqf Board or

Shia Central Waqf Board, as the case may be for the mere

reason that it was not notified under Section 5 of the 1936 Act,

not registered due to fault of the Mutawalli, if any or due to

inaction of the Board itself. It is, however, admitted by learned

counsel for the defendant No.20 that the Act neither creates a

waqf nor extinguish the same if the same is already in existence.

In these circumstances, particularly in the absence of any

provision in the Act, we have to consider whether there is any

intrinsic indication in the Act to necessarily exclude such a waqf

from the purview of 1936 Act merely for its non notification or

registration etc. with the Board. If we find that there is no such

1361

intrinsic hint in the Act also then to accept the submission, wide

enough, as advanced by Sri Mishra that even though there is a

valid waqf, if it is not notified or registered with the Board or if

no person has filed a suit for declaration that there is no waqf

within the prescribed limitation, such waqf even if validly

created would not be covered by 1936 Act, would mean that we

have read certain words in the statute which do not actually

exist. It travels in the realm of casus omissus which normally

this Court shall not presume unless there is a necessary

compulsion to do so. Considering the basic purpose for which

the 1936 Act was enacted we find it difficult to read any such

words in the statutes.

1156. The Waqf Act, 1954 though not applicable to the

State of U.P. but therein the provisions are mostly pari materia

with 1936 Act. To start with there also was no provision which

restrain the Central Board or anyone to initiate proceedings for

enforcing rights on behalf of a waqf not registered with the

Board but later on Section 55-E was inserted therein by Act No.

69 of 1984 which bar enforcement of right on behalf of

unregistered waqf by anyone which included the Waqf Board

also. It reads as under:

“55-E. Bar to the enforcement of right on behalf

of unregistered waqfs.-(1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force, no

suit, appeal or other legal proceeding or the enforcement

of any right on behalf of any waqf which has not been

registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act,

shall be instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided

by any Court after the commencement of the Waqf

(Amendment) Act, 1984, or where any such suit, appeal or

1362

other legal proceeding had been instituted or commenced

before such commencement, no such suit, appeal or other

legal proceeding shall be continued, heard, tried or

decided by any Court after such commencement unless

such waqf has been registered, after such commencement

unless such waqf has been registered, after such

commencement, in accordance with the provisions of this

Act.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply, as

far as may be, to the claim for set-off or any other claim

made on behalf of any waqf which has not been registered

in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

1157. We may notice that neither any similar provision

was made in 1936 Act nor in Act No. XVI of 1960, therefore, it

would not be appropriate to read something in U.P. Waqf Act,

1936 which actually did not find mention therein.

1158. We may clarify at this stage that a provision pari

materia with Section 55-E of 1954 Act has been included in

Waqf Act, 1995 in Section 87 but we are not concerned thereto

in this case.

1159. A collective reading of various provisions of 1936

Act shows that any 'waqf' defined under Section 3(1), whether

existed at the time when 1936 Act came into force, or, came into

existence subsequently, unless excluded under Section 2(2),

would be covered by Section 2(1). In the present suits, there is

an issue no. 6 (Suit-3) questioning the very existence of a 'Waqf'

and, therefore, unless that issue is answered in favour of the

plaintiffs (Suit-4), it can obviously be not said that the property

in dispute constituted 'a Waqf' under Section 3(1) of 1936 Act

and, therefore, will be covered by Section 2(1) of 1936Act since

1363

it is not excluded by Section 2(2). Apparently the purpose of

survey and notification under Section 5(1) is to identify the

Waqfs as also the concerned Central Board which would

exercise the power of superintendence over the Waqf concerned

i.e. whether it is Sunni or Shia. Absence of a notification under

Section 5(1) in respect to a property which is a 'Waqf' otherwise

would not result in exclusion of other provisions of 1936 Act.

The function of Central Board and its power of superintendence

is not circumscribed to the 'Waqfs' as notified under Section

5(1) of the Act.

1160. A perusal of Section 18 on the contrary shows that

general power of superintendence of all Waqfs to which “the

Act applies” is vested in the Central Board. Similarly, Section

38 of the Act also says that there is an obligation regarding

registration of 'Waqf' whether it is subject to 1936 Act or not

and whether created before or after the commencement of the

Act, at the office of Central Board of the sect to which the Waqf

belongs, namely, if the Waqf is a sunni Waqf, with Sunni

Central Board of Waqf, otherwise, with the Shia Central Board

of Waqf. The obligation for making application for registration

is upon the Mutwalli. Non compliance of Section 38 is an

offence punishable under Section 60. In case of failure of a

Mutwalli to get the Waqf registered, the power is also conferred

upon the Central Board itself to issue such a direction vide

Section 40 of 1936 Act. Section 39 provides for maintaining a

register of Waqfs by the Central Board containing particulars in

respect to each Waqf. The said provision is not confined to only

such Waqfs as are notified under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act.

Section 47 confers power upon the Central Board to apply the

Court seeking direction in cases of undisposed Waqf funds or

1364

where the directions in the deed of waqf are no longer sufficient

to carry out the intention of the waqif or where is a case for the

application of doctrine of cypres. Here also the entitlement of

the Central Board to approach the Civil Court is not confined to

the waqfs notified under Section 5(1). Section 48 and 49 also

are applicable to “any waqf” to which 1936 Act applies and not

confined to the waqfs notified under Section 5(1) of the Act.

Similarly, Section 52 also provides for notice of suits to the

Central Board where any suit relating to title to any waqf

property or to the rights of a Mutwalli is instituted in any civil

Court. It is also not confined to the waqfs notified under Section

5(1) of the Act. Same is the position under Section 53 and 54 of

the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that subject to Issue No.

6 (Suit-3), if answered in positive, i.e. in favour of plaintiffs

(Suit-4) or against the plaintiffs (Suit-3),i.e. if it is held that

mosque was dedicated by emperor Babar for worship by

Muslims in general and results in creation of a public waqf

property, in that condition, Issue No. 5 (e) has to be answered in

favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) and it is to be held that the

plaintiff, Sunni Central Board of Waqf, has a right to maintain

the suit even though a valid notification under Section 5(1) of

1936 Act was never issued in respect to the property in question.

Otherwise, this suit at the instance of Sunni Central Board of

Waqf would not be maintainable.

1161. It is true that in Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs.

Hathija Ammal, AIR 2002 SC 402 which was a case arising

out of the provisions of Waqf Act, 1954 and in particular

Sections 4, 5, 6 and 27 thereof, the Court held that since the

Board itself possess power to decide whether a particular

property is waqf property or not and its decision is final unless it

1365

is revoked or modified by a civil court by virtue of Section 27 of

1954 Act and, therefore, the Board cannot file a suit for

declaration that any property is a waqf property and for its

possession. However, in our view, the above judgment does not

apply to a case governed by 1936 Act which contain no

provision pari materia to Section 27 of 1954 Act.

1162. At this stage we may also refer an earlier decision of

this Court in Afzal Hussain Vs. 1st Additional District Judge,

AIR 1985 All. 79 where it was held that before taking an action

under Section 57A, for recovery of possession of waqf property

from unauthorised occupants, the first inquiry which the Board

has to make is whether the immovable property in respect of

which action is to be taken is entered as property of waqf in the

register of waqfs maintained under S. 30 of 1960 Act being a

jurisdictional issue. The above judgment also is not applicable

for the reason that Section 57A provides for summery eviction

of unauthorised occupants and is applicable only in such cases

where the property is entered in the register of waqfs maintained

under Section 30. Therefore, the dictum laid down therein

cannot be extended to a case where a suit is to be filed by the

Waqf Board for declaration of possession of a waqf even though

it is neither notified under Section 5(1) nor registered with it

under 1936 Act.

1163. Sri Siddiqui, however, tried to overcome the

difficulty as a result of invalidation of the notification by the

Civil Judge by contending that neither it afects the power of

Sunni Board to maintain the suit nor shall bring into the

question of limitation. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's

decision in U.P. Shia Central Board of Waqf Vs. U.P. Sunnir

Central Board of Waqf, AIR 2001 SC 2086, he contended that

1366

mere non-availability of the notification shall not deprive the

Board from registering a property as a waqf property on its own

inquiry. He further submits that the Hindu parties have also filed

certain documents after obtaining certified copies thereof from

the Sunni Board and that being so, it is not open to them to

challenge that the waqf in question is not registered.

1164. The submissions of Sri Siddiqui, however, are not

sustainable. It is though not disputed that U.P. Act 1936

contemplated enlistment of waqfs in the register of concerned

Waqf Board in three ways, i.e., based on the list prepared by the

Commissioner of Waqfs and consequential notification; on the

application of the Mutwalli of the concerned waqf and

registration by the concerned waqf after issuing notice by the

Waqf Board itself but we have to look all these aspects in the

light of the U.P. Act 1936 which continued to hold the field till

1960. Sections 1 to 4 came into force on 20.3.1937 but rest of

the provisions, i.e., Sections 5 to 71 were enforced with effect

from 1.7.1947. The only way in which the disputed waqf

claimed to have been registered by the Waqf Board was the

notification dated 26.2.1944 based on the report of the

Commissioner. That notification was found invalid by the Civil

Judge in its judgment dated 21.4.1966. It is nobody's case and

even the counsel for the Waqf Board do not claim that till issue

no. 17 was decided by the Civil Judge except of the notification

dated 26.2.1944, there was any other procedure or method

followed by the Sunni Board to enlist or register the concerned

waqf in the register of the Waqf Board. Neither it is pleaded nor

there is any material on record to substantiate the same. U.P.

Act 1936 was substituted by U.P. Act 1960. This continued to

hold the field till the Waqf Act 1995 was enacted by the

1367

Parliament. It is only in the pleadings which the Waqf Board

filed after 1989, wherein for the first time it has pleaded that the

waqf in question was registered by the Board under Section 30

of U.P. Act 1960. Till then there was no pleading, no material to

show that the waqf in question was registered with the Board in

any other manner except the notification dated 26.2.1944. That

was declared invalid on 21.04.1966 by the Civil Judge. In the

case of Shia Waqf Board (Supra) there was reference made

under section 8 of U.P. Act 1960 since there was a dispute

whether the concern waqf was a Sunni waqf or Shia waqf. The

Apex Court held that where a dispute arose about the nature of

the waqf whether it is a Shia waqf or a Sunni waqf, the only

requirement under section 8 is the existence of dispute and not

the existence of notification. Referring to section 6 (4) it further

observed that if a notification has already been issued, then the

restriction is that such dispute can be referred only within a

period of one year and not after expiry thereof but so long the

notification is not there, outer limit will not be attracted. We do

not find this judgment to lend any help to the plaintiff (Suit-4)

or Sunni Board in any manner.

1165. Similarly the pleading with respect to section 29 (8)

also has no relevance in the case in hand since it is not the case

of the Sunni Waqf Board that except the notification dated

26.02.1944 there was any other order of the waqf board which

existed declaring the waqf in question as a waqf registered with

the Board and the same having not been challenged under

section 29(8) within time prescribed and thereafter could not

have been raised in this regard. This pleas wholly baseless and

is not attracted in these matters.

1166. Even otherwise, Suit-4 has been filed not only by

1368

the Sunni Central Waqf Board but there are nine more

individual muslim parties being plaintiffs no. 2 to 10. It is

obvious that they are muslims and, therefore, would be

interested in the property in dispute to which they claim to be a

waqf property. The right to file a suit by a muslim in respect to a

property claimed to be a “waqf property” came to be considered

before a Division Bench in Anjuman Islamia Vs. Najim Ali

and others, AIR 1982 MP 17 and in para 7 of the judgement it

held:

“7. We shall first consider the question whether the

suit was not tenable at the instance of the plaintiff. In brief

S. 195 of the Principles of Mohammedan Law by Mulla

(18th Edition), is the complete answer to this question,

which contemplates that a suit for a declaration that

property belongs to a wakf can be brought by

Mohammedans interested in the wakf. Anjuman is a society

of Mohammedans registered under the Societies Act (Act

No. 21 of 1860), as per registration certificate No. 104 of

1960-61 (Exhibit P-5). Admittedly the members of plaintiff

Anjuman and its president Shri Mohd. Abdul Qadir (PW 1)

are residents of Chhatarpur and belong to Muslim

community. They are, therefore, persons very much

interested in the property in suit which they claim to be

wakf property. The suit, therefore, instituted at their

instance would be perfectly competent and tenable and the

learned District Judge was wrong in holding otherwise.”

1167. In the absence of any other precedent persuading us

to take a different view, we find ourselves in respectful

agreement thereto. We therefore hold that Suit-4 cannot be said

to be not maintainable provided the issue regarding the very

1369

nature of the disputed property whether it is a waqf or not is

decided in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) i.e. subject to the

issue as to whether the disputed property is a waqf or not, i.e.,

issue no. 6 (Suit-3) if decided in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4),

i.e., defendants (Suit-3).

1168. Issue No. 18 (Suit-4) is as under:

“What is the effect of the judgment of their Lordships of the

Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others vs. State of

U.P. and others AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the

finding of the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April,

1966 on issue no. 17?”

1169. Issue No. 18 (Suit-4) relates to the effect of the

judgement of the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas (supra) on the

Issue No. 17 (Suit-4) decided by the learned Civil Judge vide his

judgement dated 21.4.1966. Sri Jilani argued that the

notification dated 26.02.1944 under Section 5 (1) of 1936 Act

was relied by the Apex Court in the above judgment meaning

thereby the notification cannot be said to be void ab initio and it

would be deemed as if the decision of the leaned Civil Judge is

no more a good law in view of the fact that the law laid down by

the Apex court is the law of the land vide Article 145 of the

Constitution of India.

1170. Sri M.M. Pandey, counsel for plaintiffs (Suit-5),

however, submitted that the decision in Ghulam Abbas's case

may be considered. In respect of Doshipura Mosque and other

properties, the Wakf Commissoner, after survey and inquiry,

made a report dt 28/31.10.1938 u/s 4(5) of Wakf Act 1936 with

Appendix VIII of Sunni Wakfs, excluding the Mosque, and

Appendix X of Shia Wakfs including the Mosque; copies of the

report were sent to both Shia and Sunni Boards of Wakf. On

1370

receipt of the report, Shia Board published Notification dt.

15.1.1954 of Appendix X in Gazette dt. 23.1.1954 u/s 5(1).

Neither Sunni Board nor any person interested in the Wakf filed

suit u/s 5(2), within the period prescribed, to challenge the

omission of disputed properties from Appendix VIII. However,

Sunni Board published Notification dt. 26.2.1944, u/s 5(1),

including disputed properties, obviously not based on Appendix

VIII (which had excluded the properties). Supreme Court held

Sunni Board's Notification dt. 26.2.1944 to be invalid on the

ground that it was not based on Appendix VIII while S.5(1)

required the Notification to be 'in accordance with'

Commissioner's report and that Wakf Commisioner's report with

Appendix X became 'final and conclusive' in favour of Shia

Wakf.

1171. We have perused the above judgment very carefully.

The dispute before the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas (supra)

was between the members of Shia and Sunni communities of

muslims. In Mohalla Doshipura of Varanasi City, both sects of

muslims, namely, Shias and Sunnis reside. Both revere the

martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain and Hazrat Imam Hasan,

grandsons of Prophet Mohammad during Moharram but in

different manner. The members of Shia sect in Mohalla

Doshipura numbering about 4000 constitute a religious

denomination having a common faith and observe Moharram

for two months and eight days in a year in memory of Hazrat

Imam Hussain who along with his 72 followers attained

martyrdom at Karbala. The said religious belief is practised by

the men-folk and the women-folk of the Shia community by

holding Majlises (religious discourses), Recitations, Nowhas,

Marsia, doing Matam (wailing) and taking out processions with

1371

Tabut Tazia, Alams, Zuljinha etc. For performing these religious

rites, practices and observances, the Shia community has been

customarily using from time immemorial nine plots in Mohalla

Doshipura and the structures on some of them, particulars

whereof are as under :

“Plot No. 246; on which stands a Mosque which, it is

common ground, belongs to both the sects as it was

constructed out of general subscription from members of

both the sects and every Mohammadan is entitled to go in

and perform his devotions according to the ritual of his

own sect or school.

Plot No. 247/1130: on which stands the Baradari

(Mardana Imambara- A structure of white stone having 12

pillars) constructed by Shias in 1893 used for holding

Majlises, Recitations, Marsia and doing other

performance.

Plot No. 245: on which there is a Zanana Imambara

used by Shia ladies for mourning purposes and holding

Majlises etc.

Plot No. 247: on which there is Imam Chowk used

for placing the Tazia thereon (said to have been

demolished by the Sunnis during the pendency of the

instant proceeding).

Plot No. 248/23/72: a plot belonging to one

Asadullah, a Shia Muslim, with his house standing thereon.

Plot No. 246/1134: on which stands a Sabil Chabutra

(platform for distributing drinking water) belong to one

Nazir Hussain, a Shia Muslim.

Plots Nos. 602/1133, 602 and 603 : being vacant

plots appurtenant to the Baradari in plot No. 247/1130

1372

used for accommodating the congregation assembled for

Majlises etc. when it over-lows the Baradari.”

1172. The manner in which the religious rights, practices

and functions used to be performed by the members of Shia

community is mentioned in the judgment. The claim of Shia

community to perform their religious rights on the said nine

plots and structures thereon based on two foundations' (1)

decisions of competent Civil Court adjudicating rights in their

favour in earlier litigations and (2) registration of Shia Waqfs

concerning the plots and structure for performance of theses

practices and functions under Section 5 and 38 of 1936 Act,

which had become final as no suit challenging the

Commissioner's report and registration was filed within two

years by any member of Sunni community or the Sunni Central

Board of Waqf.

1173. For the purpose of issue no. 18 (Suit-4), we need not

to go into the details of the first aspect of the matter, i.e., the

various suits and proceedings which became final between the

two sects and instead straight way come to that part of the

judgment which deals with the notification dated 26.02.1944

issued under 1936 Act. The Shia sect claim that the

Commissioner of Waqf submitted his report dated

28/31.10.1938 to the State government under Section 4(5)

showing the plots and structures referred to above as Shia

Waqfs. This was followed by notification dated 15.1.1954

issued under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act by the Shia Central Board

of Waqf and published in the U.P. Gazette dated 23.1.1954. No

suit challenging to the said notification was filed either by Sunni

Central Board of Waqf or any Sunni Muslim within the period

prescribed under Section 5(2) of 1936 Act. The Sunni sect,

1373

however, relied on the notification dated 26.2.1944 issued by

the Sunni Central Baord of Waqf under Section 5(1) of 1936

Act following the report of Commissioner of Waqf in respect to

the waqfs which he identified a Sunni Waqf.

1174. After analysing the provisions of 1936 Act as well

as Muslim Waqf Act 1960 (Act No.14 of 1960) (hereinafter

referred to as “1960 Act”), the Apex Court discusses the facts

pertaining to preparation of report by Commissioner and

notifications issued under 1936 Act, in para 16 of judgment as

under :

“It appears that the Government of Uttar Pradesh

appointed Shri Munshi Azimuddin Khan, A deputy

Collector, as a Chief or Provincial Commissioner of Wakfs

under Section 4A of the 1936 Act for the purpose of making

a survey of all the Wakfs in all the districts of the State. ...

After making the necessary inquiries Shri Munshi

Azimuddin Khan submitted to the State Government his

Report dated 28th/31st October, 1938 and annexed several

appendices to his Report; Appendix VIII referred to Waqfs

pertaining to Sunnis and declared as subject to the 1936

Act and Appendix IX mentioned Waqfs pertaining to Sunni

sect which were exempted from the Act; Appendices X and

XI contained corresponding information about the Shia

Waqfs which were respectively declared as subject to the

Act or exempt from the Act. The original Report bearing

the signature of Shri Munshi Azimuddin Khan, Chief Waqfs

Commissioner was produced before us marked Exh. A) for

our inspection by Mr. Rana, Counsel for the State of U.P.

and the same was made available for inspection to the

parties. There is a slip attached to the Report placed in

1374

between Annexure VII and Annexure XIII containing an

endorsement to the effect : “Appendices VIII and IX sent to

the Sunni Board” and “Appendices X and XI sent to the

Shia Board” with the signature of the Chief Commissioner

of Waqfs below it......Presumably the aforesaid action of

sending the relevant appendices along with a copy of the

Commissioner's report to the respective Sunni Central

Waqf Board and the Shia Central Waqf Board was taken as

required by Section 5(1) of the Act. ....... after receiving the

aforesaid documents (Report together with the appendices

X and XI), the Shia Central Waqf Board, as required by

Sec. 5(1) of the Act, took steps to notify in the Official

Gazette all the waqfs relating to their sect on the basis of

the Appendices annexed to the Report; the relevant

Notification under Section 5 (1) was issued on 15th

January, 1954 and published in the Government Gazette on

23rd January, 1954. .........Admittedly, no suit was filed

either by the Sunni Central Board or any other person

interested in those Wakfs challenging the decision recorded

in his Report by the Chief or Provincial Commissioner for

Wakfs within the time prescribed under Section 5 (2) of the

Act, and, therefore, the Chief Commissioner's Report

together with the appendices X and XI thereto dated

28th/31st October 1938, on the basis of which the

Notification dated 15th January, 1954 was issued and

published in Official Gazette on 23rd January, 1954, must

be held to have become final and conclusive as between the

members of the two communities.”

1175. Thereafter, in para 17 of the judgement, the Apex

Court dealt with the notification dated 26th February, 1944 relied

1375

by the members of Sunni community and said:

“As against the aforesaid material respondents 5 and

6 and through them the Sunni community have relied upon

a Notification dated 26th February, 1944 issued by the

Sunni Central Wakfs Board under Section 5(1) of the U.P.

Muslim Wakfs Act, 1936 following upon the receipt of the

Report of the Chief or Provincial Commissioner of Wakfs

in respect of mosque in Doshipura showing the same as

Sunni Wakf, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure

S-2 to the affidavit dated 6th February, 1980 of Mohd. Basir

Khan filed on behalf of the Sunni Central Waqfs Board as

its “Pairokar'. This Notification on which reliance has

been placed by the Sunnis appears to us of doubtful validity

and probative value for the reasons which we shall

presently indicate. Though issued and published earlier in

point of time than the Notification of Shia Central Waqfs

Board, it is admittedly not based on Appendices VIII and

IX annexed to the Chief Commissioner's Report dated

28th/31st October, 1938 but on the basis of some Registers

of Waqfs (meaning lists of Waqfs) said to have been

received by the Sunni Board from the Commissioner of

Wakfs. Curiously enough the Sunni Central Waqfs Board

had stated through two affidavits dated 6th January, 1980

and 9th January, 1980 of their Pairokar Shri Mohd. Basir

Khan that along with the copy of the Commissioner's

report Registers of Waqfs were received but no appendices

like Appendices VIII and IX were received from the

Commissioner, that according to the Registers of Waqfs

there were 245 charitable Sunni Waqfs in the District of

Banaras which were covered by the 1936 Act and all such

1376

Waqfs were accordingly notified by the Sunni Board in the

government Gazette by issuing the Notification dated 26th

February, 1944 under Section 5(1) of the Act. The original

Report of the Commissioner does not refer to anything like

Registers of Waqfs but, as stated earlier, it refers to

Appendices Nos. VIII, IX, X and XI and the endorsement on

the slip under the signature of the Chief Commissioner

shows that the former two appendices were sent to the

Sunni Board and the latter two to the Shia Board. In face of

this endorsement and having regard to the fact that the

Shia Board had received Appendices X and XI along with

the Commissioner's Report which that Board offered to

produce, it is difficult to accept the Statement of the

Pairokar of the Sunni Board that no appendices were

received by the Board along with a copy of the

Commissioner's Report. It seems that relevant appendices,

though received, are being withheld as their production

would be adverse to the Sunnis. Apart from that aspect it is

clear on their own admission that the Notification under

Sec. 5 (1) of the 1936 Act was issued by the Sunni Central

Waqfs Board not on the basis of Appendices VIII and IX

which formed part of the Commissioner's Report but on the

basis of some Registers of Waqfs said to have been

received by it. The notification regarding the Sunni Waqfs

issued on the basis of material which did not form part of

the Chief Commissioner's Report would be in violation of

Section 5(1) of the Act which required issuance of a

Notification thereunder 'according to' the Commissioner's

Report and as such the Notification dated February 26,

1944 relied upon by respondents 5 and 6 and members of

1377

the Sunni community would be of doubtful validity. ... ....We

are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Notification

dated 26th February, 1944 issued under Section 5(1) of the

1936 Act by the Sunni Board is of no avail to the Sunnis for

the purpose of defeating the customary rights of the Shias

to perform their religious ceremonies and functions on the

other plots and structures thereon.”

1176. From the above judgment, thus, it is evident that the

Apex Court, in fact, did not rely on the notification dated

26.2.1944 but instead held it to be of doubtful validity and

probative value having not been issued in accordance with the

procedure prescribed under Section 5 of 1936 Act. In our view,

instead of upsetting the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, it,

in fact, strengthened the said decision which has held that the

notification dated 26th February 1944 was not a valid

notification in respect to property in dispute. In view of the

above discussion, we have no manner of doubt that the Apex

Court's decision in Gulam Abbas (supra) does not affect the

finding of the learned Civil Judge on Issue No. 17 (Suit-4) as

contained in his judgement dated 21.4.1966, but on the contrary,

support and strengthen his said finding. Issue No. 18 (Suit-4) is


1177. Issue No. 9(b) (Suit-1) reads as under:

“Were the proceedings under the said Act referred to in

written statement para 15 collusive? If so its effect?”

1178. Issue No. 9(b) (Suit-1) is based on the pleadings of

the plaintiffs in para 15 of his replication which reads as under:

^^15- ,sDV ua0 13 lu~ 1936 fcYdqy ultra vires gS v©j mlds

lEcU/k ;fn dksbZ dk;ZokbZ dh xbZ rks og lc void gS oknh fdlh

uksfVl ds cU/ku esa ugha gS vkSj u fdlh dk;Zokgh ftldk o.kZu /kkjk 15

1378

esa fd;k x;k gS bl vfHk;ksx ij dksbZ izHkko gS oknh dk vuqeku gS fd

og vfHk;ksx eqlRek ijLij "kM;U=h Hkkouk ¼ lkft'kh ½ ls ;ksftr fd;k

FkkA^^

“15. Act no.13 of 1936 is ultra vires and the proceeding, if

any, in its pursuance is void. The plaintiff is not bound by

any notice nor does any proceeding, mentioned in para-15,

have any bearing on this case. According to the plaintiff,

this case has been filed collusively.” (E.T.C.)

1179. In this paragraph reply contain with respect to para

15 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 5

which reads as under:

^^15- ;g fd ce©ftc eqLkfye oDQ ,sDV 13 lu 1936 phQ dfe'uj

vkSdkQ eqdjj gq, vkSj phQ dfe'uj et+dwj us ckn rgdhdkr o

eqvk;uk ekSdk elftn ckcjh ;g r; fd;k fd elftn ckcjh dk rkehj

dqfuUnk 'kgU'kkg ckcj lqUuhmy etgc Fkk vkSj oDQ eqrkfYyd

elftn etdwj lqUUkh oDQ gS vkSj blh flyflys esa dkuwuh

uksVhfQds'ku Hkh tkjh dj fn;kA^^

“15. That a Chief Commissioner of ‘Aukaf’ (plural of

Waqf) was appointed under the Muslim Waqf Act 13 of

1936, and after investigation and inspection of the disputed

site Babri mosque the Chief Commissioner decided that

emperor Babar, the builder of Babri mosque, was of Sunni

sect and the Waqf in respect of the disputed mosque is a

Sunni Waqf, and (he) also issued a legal notification in this

behalf.” (E.T.C.)

1180. To the same effect the defendant No.10 has also

pleaded in paras 14 and 16 which reads as under:

“14. That after the promulgation of U.P. Muslim Waqf

Act, 1936, the Chief Commissioner of Waqfs had got a

survey made in respect of the waqf properties and in that

connection survey of the mosque in question was also

1379

conducted and the same was registered as a waqf and a

gazette notification had also been issued in respect thereto

under the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1936.”

“16. That the said mosque stands registered as a mosque

in the office of the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf,

hereinafter referred to as the Board, as Waqf No. 26

Faizabad even in the Register of Waqfs maintained under

section 30 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960.”

1181. In para 15 of the written statement of defendants no.

1 to 5 the statement of fact with respect to the inquiry made by

the Chief Commissioner of Waqf and the notification dated

26.02.1944 has been made. This notification has already held to

be invalid, so far as the disputed property is concerned. No

material has been placed before this Court to show that the

alleged proceedings under 1936 Act in any manner were the

result of any conspiracy, mala fide etc. of the muslim parties. In

fact the plaintiff (Suit-1) could not substantiate the plea of

conspiracy taken in para 15 of his replication and during the

course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff (Suit-

1), in fact, gave up the said plea and neither advanced any

submission nor could substantiate the same. In the

circumstances, issue no. 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the

plaintiff (Suit-1) and it is held that the proceedings referred to

in para 15 of the written statement (Suit-1) cannot be said to be

collusive in the absence of placing anything before this court to

substantiate the same. In these circumstances, the question of

considering its effect does not arise.

1182. Issue No. 9(c) (Suit-1) is as under:

“Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ultra

vires for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff's

1380

counsel dated 9.3.62 recorded on paper no. 454-A?”

1183. Sri P.D. Goswami, counsel for the plaintiff (Suit-1)

on 08/09.03.1962 made the following statement:

"Sri P.D. Goswami advocate for the plffs state that

the report of the commissioner spoken of in para 15 of the

W.S. has no effect on the rights of the plff nor do the

provisions of Sec 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of 1936 apply to the

present suits as they are based on a right of worship of plff

who is a Hindu. According to him the provisions of this Act

are applicable to the property and the rights of the Muslims

only.

He does not give up the plea taken by him in the

replication in that connection.

According to him the said Act has been repealed by

U.P. Act 16 of 1960. He further adds that in case the said

Act be considered applicable to the present suits it is ultra

vires the provisions of the Govt of India Act 1935 and is in

conflict with the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (Act

No. VII of 1904)."

1184. As we have already held that firstly, there was no valid

notification under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act regarding the

property in dispute, and secondly, that the said Act does not

apply to non muslims, we do not find any occasion to go into

this issue further since the statement of the learned counsel itself

was conditional, i.e., if 1936 Act is held applicable to Suit-1 and

2 then it is ultra vires of the provisions of the Government of

India Act, 1935 and is in conflict with the Ancient Monument

Preservation Act (Act No. 7 of 1904).

1185. Even otherwise, we do not find as to how Act No. 7

of 1904 would come into picture in the case in hand. The

1381

aforesaid Act of 1904 was promulgated on 18.03.1904 with the

preamble as under:

“Whereas it is expedient to provide for the

preservation of ancient monuments, for the exercise of

control over traffic in antiquities and over excavation in

certain places, and for the protection and acquisition in

certain cases of ancient monuments and of objects of

archaeological, historical or artistic interest.”

1186. The statement of objects and reasons of 1904 Act

reads as under:

“The object of this measure is to preserve to India its

ancient monuments in antiquities and to prevent the

excavation by unauthorised persons of sites of historic

interest and value.

2. In 1898 the question of antiquarian exploration

and research attracted attention and the necessity of taking

steps for the protection of monuments and relics of

antiquity was impressed upon the Government of India. It

was then apparent that legislation was required to enable

the Government to discharge their responsibilities in the

matter and a Bill was drafted on the lines of the existing

Acts of Parliament modified so as to embody certain

provisions which have found a place in recent legislation

regarding the antiquities of Greece and Italy. This draft

was circulated for the opinions of local Governments and

their replies submitted showed that the proposals

incorporated in it met with almost unanimous approval, the

criticism received being directed, for the most part, against

matters of detail. The draft has since been revised, the

provisions of the Draft Bill prepared by the Government of

1382

Bengal have been embodied so far as they were found

suitable and the present Bill is the result.

3.The first portion of the Bill deals with protection of

“Ancient monuments” an expression which has been

defined in clause 2 (now section 2). The measure will apply

only to such of these as are from time to time expressly

brought within its contents though being declared to be

“protected monuments”. A greater number of more famous

buildings in India are already in possession or under the

control of the Government; but there are others worthy of

preservation which are in the hands of private owners.

Some of these have already been insured or are fast falling

into decay. The preservation of these is the chief object of

the clause of the Bill now referred to and the provisions of

the Bill are in general accordance with the policy

enunciated in section 23 of the Religious Endowments Act,

1863 (20 of 1863), which recognises and saves the right of

the Government “to prevent injury to and preserve

buildings remarkable in their antiquity and for their-

historical or architectural value or required for the

convenience of the public”. The power to intervene is at

present limited to cases to which section 3 of the Bengal

Regulation 19 of 1810 or section 3 of the Madras

Regulation VII of 1817 applies. In framing the present Bill

the Government has aimed at having the necessity of good

will and securing the co-operation of the owners concerned

and it hopes that the action which it is proposed to take

may tend rather to the encouragement than to the

suppression of private effort. The Bill provides that the

owner or the manager of the building which merits greater

1383

care than it has been receiving may be invited to enter into

an agreement for its protection and that in the event of his

refusing to come to terms the collector may proceed to

acquire it compulsorily or take proper course to secure its

application. It has been made clear that there is to be no

resort to compulsory acquisition in the case the monument

is used in connection with religious observances or in other

case until the owner has had an opportunity of entering

into an agreement of the kind indicated above; and it is

expressly provided that the monument maintained by the

Government under the proposed Act, shall not be used for

any purpose inconsistent with its character or with purpose

of its foundation, and that, so far as is compatible with the

object in view the public shall have access to it free of

charge. By the 4th proviso of clause 11 (now section 10) it

is laid down that in assessing the value of the monument

for the purpose of compulsory acquisition under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) its archaeological,

artistic or historical merits shall not be taken into account.

The object of the Government as purchaser being to

preserve at the public expense and for the public benefits

an ancient monument with all its associations, it is

considered that the value of those associations should not

be paid for.

4. The second portion of the Bill deals with movable

objects of historical or artistic interest and these may be

divided into two classes; the first consists of ornaments,

enamels, silver and copper vessels, Persian and Arabian

Manuscripts, and curios general. These are for the most

part portable and consequently difficult to trade; they are

1384

as a rule artistic; are of historic interest and it would be

impracticable even were it desirable to prevent a dealer

from selling and a traveller from buying them. The

sculptural carvings, images, bas-reliefs, inscriptions and

the like form a distinct class by themselves, in that their

value depends upon their local connection. Such antiquities

may, as in the case of those of Swat, be found outside India

or in Native States and this the Legislature cannot reach

directly; while as regards the British territory and under

the existing law, it is impossible to go beyond the

provisions of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 (6 of

1878). (In these circumstances, it is proposed, by clause 18

of the Bill to take power to prevent the removal from

British India of any antiquities which it may be deemed

desirable to retain in the country, and at the same time to

present importation. By thus putting a stop on draft in such

articles it is believed that it will be possible to protect

against spoilation a number of interesting places situated

without and beyond British territory. Clause 19 aims at

providing for antiquities such as sculptures and

inscriptions which belong to another place and ought

therefore to be kept in situ or deposited in local museums.

The removal of these, it is proposed to enable the local

Government to prohibit by notification and the clause also

provides that, if the object is movable, the owner may

require the Government to purchase it outright and that, if

it is immovable the Government shall compensate the

owner for any loss caused to him by the prohibition. Clause

20 (now section 19) deals with the compulsory purchase of

such antiquities if that is found to be necessary for their

1385

preservation and the owner is not willing on personal or

religious grounds to part with them. In such cases it is

proposed that the price to be paid should be assessed by

the Collector, subject to a right of appeal to the local

government but it is for consideration whether the Land

Acquisition Act of 1894 should be followed and reference

to the Courts allowed.

5. The third portion of the Bill deals with excavations

and gives power to make rules to prohibit or regulate such

operations.”

1187. The term “ancient monument” and “antiquities” are

defined in Section 2(1) and (2) of 1904 Act which read as under:

“2(1) “Ancient monument” means any structure,

erection or monument or any tumulus or place of

interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or

monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic

interest, or any remains thereof, and includes--

(a) the site of an ancient monument;

(b) such portion of land adjoining the site of an

ancient monument as my be required for fencing or

covering in or otherwise preserving such monument;

and

(c) the means of access to and convenient inspection

of an ancient monument;

(2) “antiquities” include any movable objects which

the Central Government, by reason of their historical or

archaeological associations, may think it necessary to

protect against injury, removal or dispersion;”

1188. The term “owner” is also defined in Section 2(6) as

under:

1386

“2(6) “owner” includes a joint owner, invested with

power of management on behalf of himself and other joint

owners, and any manager or trustee exercising powers of

management over an ancient monument, and the successor

in title of any such owner and the successor in office of any

such manager or trustee:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to

extend the powers which may lawfully be exercised by such

manager or trustee.”

1189. Section 3 provides for “protected monuments”. It is

not the case of any of the parties that the disputed building was

ever notified by the Government as a “protected monument”

under Section 3 of 1903 Act.

1190. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are

applicable to a “protected monument”, i.e., an “ancient

monument” which is declared to be “protected monument” by

notification in the official gazette under Section 3 and, therefore,

ex facie would have no application to the property in dispute.

1191. Section 10A which was inserted in 1932 is only in

respect to control of the Central Government where it finds that

mining, quarrying, excavation, blasting and other operations of a

like nature needs to be restricted and regulated for the purpose

of protecting or preserving any “ancient monument”. This also

has nothing to do with the disputed property as there is no such

case of either party. We, therefore, find nothing in 1904 Act in

any manner to affect the provisions of 1936 Act.

1192. So far as the Government of India Act, 1935 is

concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff (Suit-1) could not

show anything therein to substantiate his plea of ultra vires of

1936 Act. It is no doubt true that 1936 Act was repealed by U.P.

1387

Act No. XVI of 1960 but that by itself would not make anything

already done under 1936 Act redundant or illegal or non est. In

fact the transactions already taken place are duly protected

therein i.e. in 1960 Act. The counsel for the plaintiffs in fact

could not substantiate the plea so as to persuade this Court to

answer issue no. 9(c) (Suit-1) in his favour and it is accordingly

decided in negative.

1193. Now comes Issue No. 16 (Suit-3) which reads as

under:

“Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of

1936?”

1194. We find that there is no pleading to this effect i.e.

requirement of such notice, in the written statements of

defendants in Suit-3. In fact in para 27 of written statement of

defendant no. 10 (Suit-1) a plea of want of notice under Section

56 of 1936 Act has been taken which reads as under:

“27. That the suit is not maintainable even on account of

the reason that no notice was served upon the Board as

required by section 56 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1936

and the suit is liable to be dismissed even on this account.”

1195. Learned counsel for the defendant (Suit-3) neither

could substantiate their case to support the above issue nor in

fact could place anything before this Court to assist us to

consider the above issue in an effective manner.

1196. In fact there is no Section 83 in 1936 Act. In the

written statement filed in Suit-3 by the defendants No.6 to 8

there is no such pleading with reference to any provision of

1936 Act alleging that the same bars the suit. The defendant

No.9, however, has stated before the Court that the plaint of

Suit-4 be treated as his written statement and there also we do

1388

not find any such pleading referring to any provision of 1936

Act on the basis whereof it is said that the suit is barred for want

of any notice. The only objection with reference to 1936 Act

taken is in para 9 and 10 of the plaint (Suit-4) which states that

the Commissioner of Waqfs made an enquiry with reference to

the disputed building as a public waqf and based thereon the

State Government issued a notification on 26th February, 1944

which having not been challenged by the Hindus or any person

interested denying the report of the Commissioner of the Waqfs

on the ground that it was a Muslim waqf or it was a Hindu

temple hence now it cannot be challenged. It is only in Suit-1,

the defendant No.10 in para 27 of its written statement has said

that due to absence of notice, as required by Section 56 of 1936

Act, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Even if we read issue 16 (Suit-3) that instead of Section 83 of

1936 Act, it ought to be Section 56 of 1936 Act, we do not find

that it requires any notice before filing a suit and in fact

reference to Section 56 is not correct, as is evident from a bare

perusal thereof, which is reproduced as under:

“56. Appointment of mutawalli.- When there is vacancy in

the office of mutawalli of a waqf and there is no one

competent to be appointed under the terms of the deed of

waqf, or where the right of any person to act as mutawalli

is disputed, the Central Board may appoint any person to

act as a mutawalli for such period and on such conditions

as it may think fit.”

1197. However, there is another Section 53 in 1936 Act

which contain some provision with reference to notice and reads

as under :

“53. No suit shall be instituted against a Central Board in

1389

respect of any act purporting to be done by such Central

Board under colour of this Act or for any relief in respect

of any waqf, until the expiration of two months next after

notice in writing has been delivered to the Secretary, or left

at the office of such Central Board, stating the cause of

action, the name, description and place of residence of the

plaintiff and the relief which he claims ; and the plaint

shall contain a statement that such notice has been so

delivered or left.”

1198. From a bare perusal of Section 53 of 1936 Act, it is

evident that its scope and purpose is wholly different. Even

otherwise, the requirement of notice under Section 53 in 1936

Act is akin to Section 80 CPC. The Apex Court in para 25 of the

judgment in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan (supra) has considered Section

53 and its effect and has observed that this Section is similar to

Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and thereafter having

said so further says that it was incumbent upon the appellants to

have given the requisite notice under Section 53 before

instituting the suit and failure to do so would bar the suit being

not maintainable. The parties before us were required to show as

to how Section 53 in the case in hand would be attracted to

which none has assisted the Court. However, as observed by the

Apex Court in Siraj-ul-Haq Khan (supra), the compliance is

mandatory where Section 53 is applicable. Without considering

the question as to whether the relief sought in Suit-3 would

attract Section 53 or not; and, proceeding by assuming that

Section 53 would apply, we are of the view that this provision

has been made for the benefit of Central Board concerned in

particular and Muslim communities in general. It is always open

to a party for whose benefit the provisions has been made to

1390

waive such benefit. This aspect we have already considered in

respect to the issues relating to Section 80 CPC above and

following the reasons as are applicable to Section 80 CPC, we

are of the view that the benefit under Section 53 can also be

waived. If non-issuance of notice and defect under Section 53 is

not pressed by the concerned Board before the Court, non-

compliance of Section 53 would not vitiate the suit. The issue is


1199. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) relates to U.P. Act XVI of 1960

and reads as under:

“Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is

barred on account of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as

it was filed after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim

Waqf Act, 1960?”

1200. In the written statement dated 20th July, 1968, filed

by defendants No.13 and 14 (Suit-4), it has been pleaded that

after the enforcement of U.P. Act XVI of 1960, the suit in

question having been filed in 1961, is not saved under Section

85(2) thereof. They further say that Section 9(2) of 1960 Act

also would not save the finality of the decision of the

Commissioner of Waqfs since 1936 Act itself having vanished

after repeal and therefore, the suit on behalf of Sunni Central

Waqf Board is wholly without jurisdiction.

1201. During the course of arguments, however, learned

counsel for the defendants could not substantiate the above

objection and could not show as to how Section 85(2) and

Section 9(2) of 1960 Act would be attracted in the case in hand

to make the suit without jurisdiction and beyond limitation. It is

true that notification issued under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act has

been held to be invalid so far as the property in dispute is

1391

concerned but in case the property in dispute is found to be

waqf, no provision in U.P. Act XVI of 1960 has been shown

which may deprive the Sunni Central Waqf Board or other

plaintiffs of Suit-4 to maintain the suit in respect to a property

which they claim to be a 'waqf property' and to claim its

possession in case it is not otherwise impermissible in law. At

least we are not able to find any provision under U.P. Act XVI

of 1960 which may prohibit either plaintiff No.1 (Suit-4) or

other plaintiffs from maintaining Suit-4 in question provided the

property in dispute is a “waqf” within the meaning of Shariyat

Law.

1202. In view of above, we do not find any substance and

decide issue 5 (f) (Suit-4) against the defendants and in favour

of the plaintiffs (Suit-4) holding that the suit in question is not

barred having been filed after the commencement of U.P. Act

No.XVI of 1960.

1203. Now we come to Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) which

can be considered together, and read as under:

“Whether the Waqf board is an instrumentality of State? If

so, whether the said Board can file a suit against the State

itself?”

“If the Waqf Board is State under Article 12 of the

Constitution? If so, the said Board being the State can file

any suit in representative capacity sponsoring the case of

particular community and against the interest of another

community?”

1204. The learned counsels for the defendants could not

point out any pleadings raising such objection therein. However,

they contended that since the Sunni Central Waqf Board has

been constituted under 1936 Act and therefore, being a statutory

1392

body, its constitution, function etc. can be looked into from the

various provisions of the statutory enactment and that itself

would be sufficient to give necessary information. Though

prima facie we find it difficult to accept the above proposition,

but, however, we proceed to consider the above issues analyzing

the relevant provisions of 1936 Act as well as 1960 Act to find

out whether there is any substance in these issues.

1205. It is not in dispute that Sunni Central Waqf Board

has been established under Section 6(1) of 1936 Act. Its

constitution is provided in Section 7 thereof. The two provisions

read as under:

“6. Establishment of Central Boards.-(1) there shall be

established in the United Provinces two separate Boards to

be called the “Shia Central Board” and the “Sunni

Central Board” of waqfs. Each such Board shall be a body

corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a

common seal and shall by its said name sue or be sued.”

“7. Constitution of Sunni Central Board.- The Sunni

Central Board shall consist of-

(i) five members to be elected in the manner prescribed

by Sunni members of the local legislature,

(ii) four members to be elected in the manner prescribed

by the District Waqf Committees.

(iii) three members to be co-opted by the above nine

members from persons whom they regard as ulamas, and

two members from among mutawallis, and

(iv) the President, if he is not one of the above fourteen

members :

Provided that the first Sunni Central Board shall be

established by the local Government within three months of

1393

the date on which this section comes into force and shall

consist of-

(i) five members to be elected, in such manner as the

local Government may direct, by the Sunni members of the

local legislature;

(ii) two members to be elected, in such manner as the

local Government may direct, by the Sunni members of

Executive Committee of the Provincial Muslim Educational

Conference ;

(iii) three members to be co-opted by the above seven

members from persons whom they regard as ulamas ; and

(iv) three members to be co-opted by the above ten

members.”

1206. Section 10 of 1936 Act provides that the members of

Central Board shall hold office for five years. Section 13 of

1936 Act provides for the place where the office of the Central

Board shall be located and Sections 14 to 17 of 1936 Act are in

respect to manner of function and requisite staff of such Board.

Section 18 of 1936 Act provides for the functions of the Central

Board which we have already referred to.

1207. Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1936 Act contain

provisions with regard to registration of waqfs, audit of

accounts, enquiry and supervision, legal proceedings and

administration charges. Chapter 8 of 1936 Act provides for

Mutawalli and Section 58 of 1936 Act confers powers upon the

Board to remove Mutawalli from his office in certain

circumstances. Section 68 of 1936 Act provides that the

Government shall not be liable for any expenditure incurred in

the administration of 1936 Act.

1208. From a perusal of 1936 Act, it is evident that the

1394

Central Sunni Waqf Board is a statutory body constituted in

accordance with the provisions of the said Act. By no stretch of

imagination it can be said to be either a Department of the State

Government or an instrumentality of the State Government.

1209. A similar question came up for consideration in

respect to the employees of certain statutory bodies like Jal

Nigam, Banks, Local Bodies etc. where the employees claim

themselves to be the Government employees as the bodies are

controlled by the Government but negativing the said contention

it was held by the Apex Court that the statutory bodies are

neither a Department or part and parcel of the State Government

nor the employees of the statutory bodies can be said to be the

Government employees.

1210. Being a statutory body constituted under statute

having powers, functions and duties, which the Waqf Board is

liable to perform, it may be covered by the term 'Other

Authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India but that

by itself would neither make it an instrumentality of the State

Government of U.P. nor would deprive it to file a suit where it is

aggrieved against some action of the State Government or its

authorities. The Waqf Board having been constituted with a

particular objective i.e. for the better governance, administration

and supervision of certain classes of Muslim Waqfs, from its

very nature, its duty is confined for the welfare of certain special

kind of properties of the persons of a particular community and

in particular religion i.e. Muslims. It will wholly be

misconceived to suggest that by representing or sponsoring the

cause of members of a particular community against another

community i.e. Muslims against Hindus, the Waqf Board is

causing discrimination though it is a “State” under Article 12 of

1395

the Constitution. No authority could be placed before this Court

binding upon us to take a view different than what we have

discussed above.

1211. On the contrary, we find support from a decision of

the Apex Court in Syed Yousuf Yar Khan and others Vs. Syed

Mohammed Yar Khan and others, AIR 1967 SC 1318 where a

somewhat similar contention was raised that the “Waqf Board”

is an agent of Central Government but rejecting the same the

Apex Court in para 4 of the judgment held as under:

“(4) Counsel submitted that the present suit was a

suit by or on behalf of the State Government and was

therefore governed by art. 149 of the Indian Limitation Act

1908. He submitted that the Board of Muslim Endowments,

Hyderabad, which according to him was the Board of

Wakfs constituted under the Muslim Wakfs Act 1954, was

an agent of the Central Government. By s. 9(2) of the

Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954, the Board of Wakfs is a body

corporate and by s. 15 of this Act, the Board is vested with

the right of general superintendence of wakfs and is

empowered to take measures for the recovery of the lost

properties of any wakf and to initiate and defend suits and

proceedings relating to wakfs. Counsel submitted that a

corporation may be an agent of the State Government, and

in support of this contention relied upon Halsbury’s Laws

of England, 3rd Ed., Vol. 9, p. 10-Tamlin v. Hannaford

(1949) 2 All E. R. 327, and the observations of Shah, J. in

State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. The

Commercial Tax Officer, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 811, 849, 850,

paras. 115-117. He submitted that the State Government

has delegated its functions of superintendence over wakfs

1396

to the Board of Wakfs and the Board should therefore be

regarded as an agent of the State Government. We are

unable to accept this contention. By the Religious

Endowments Act 1863, the Government divested itself of

the management and superintendence of religious

endowments which was vested in it under Regn. 19 of 1810

and Regulation 7 of 1817. The Board of Wakfs though

subject to the control of the State Government, is a

statutory corporation and is vested with statutory powers,

functions and duties. The Board has power to hold property

and is in control of the wakf fund (ss. 9 and 48). The State

Government has no concern with the property vested in the

Board save during the period of supersession of the Board

under s. 64. Nor is the State Government liable for any

expenditure incurred by the Board in connection with the

administration under the Act (S. 54). The Board of Wakfs is

not discharging a governmental function. The Act nowhere

says that the Board would act as the agent of the State

Government. It rather indicates that the Board is not the

agent of the Government and the Government is not

responsible for its acts. We must, therefore, hold that the

Board of Wakfs is not an agent of the State Government

and a suit instituted by it for the recovery of a wakf

property is not a suit by or on behalf of the State

Government.”

1212. In Syed Yousuf Yar Khan (supra) the issue of

identifying mutawalli with the State Government was also

raised by contending that the mutawalli is an agent of the

“Government” in order to take the benefit of Article 149 of the

Limitation Act but that was also rejected by the Apex Court by

1397

observing:

“5. Counsel next submitted that the mutawalli is the

agent of the State Government and that in any event the

limitation for a suit by the mutawalli starts on the date of

his appointment. In support of this contention counsel

relied upon the decision in Jewun Doss Sahoo v. Shah

Kubeer-ood-Deen, (1837-41) 2 Moo Ind. App. 390 at p.

422 (PC) where the Privy Council held that under the law

then in force it was the duty of the Government to protect

endowments and the mutawalli in that case was the

procurator of the Government and his right to sue arose on

his being appointed mutawalli. This ruling of the Privy

Council was given under Regulation 19 of 1810. Since the

passing of the Religious Endowments Act 1863, the

mutawalli cannot be regarded as a procurator of the

Government. He is not appointed by the Government, nor

does he manage the endowment on its behalf and a suit by

him for the recovery of the wakf property cannot now be

regarded as a suit on its behalf, see Shaikh Laul Mahomed

v. Lalla Brij Kishore, (1872) 17 Suth WR 430 and Behari

Lal and Ors. v. Muhammad Muttaki, (1898) ILR 20 All.

482 at p. 488 (FB).”

1213. In view of the above, we find it difficult to hold that

the Waqf Board is an instrumentality of the State. However,

even if it is an instrumentality of State, we do not find any

disability for the Board to file a suit against the State if there is

any wrong done by the State or its authorities. In our view, the

issue which has been raised to suggest as if the Sunni Central

Waqf Board if held as an instrumentality of the State, would be

incompetent to maintain a suit against the State is thoroughly

1398

misconceived.

1214. The concept of instrumentality of the “State” came

to be noticed in the light of considering the applicability of Part

III of the Constitution of India dealing with fundamental rights

vis a vis the meaning of the words “other authority” under

Article 12 of the Constitution. To find out the bodies to whom

Part III of the Constitution would apply, and if there is any

infringement etc., the complaint may be raised before the High

Court or the Supreme Court directly under writ jurisdiction also

this concept was developed. To understand the concept, it would

be prudent to have a perusal of Article 12 of the Constitution :

“Article 12. In this Part, unless the context otherwise

requires, “the State” includes the Government and

Parliament of India and the Government and the

Legislature of each of the States and all local or other

authorities within the territory of India or under the control

of the Government of India.”

1215. The Central and State Governments, the legislatures,

Central and Provincial, and, Local authorities are obviously

covered by the term “the State” under Article 12. The question

arose as to what are the bodies which would answer the

description of “other authorities” so as to qualify to be within

the ambit of the word 'the State' to attract Part-III of the

Constitution. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International

Airport Authority of India and others, 1979 (3) SCC 489 the

question arose as to whether “International Airport Authority of

India” is “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 so as to

attract the provisions under Part-III of the Constitution.

Admittedly, “International Airport Authority of India” was

neither the Government, Central or State, nor Legislature nor a

1399

Local authority. The question arose as to whether the words

“other authorities” within the territory of India or under the

control of the Government of India would include “International

Airport Authority of India” so as to attract the provisions under

Part-III of the Constitution. In this context the matter was

examined. The Apex Court held that “International Airport

Authority of India” is 'the State' within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the provisions of

Article 14 are attracted. If the act or omission on the part of

International Authority of India is found to be arbitrary or

discriminatory.

1216. There are catena of decision on this aspect but it

may not be necessary for us to consider in detail all such

authorities laying down various tests to determine when a body

or authority can be said to be an “instrumentality” of the State

so as to be within the ambit of the words “other authorities” for

the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the

reason that in case a body qualify such tests and becomes an

“instrumentality of the State” and, therefore, becomes “an

authority” within the words “other authorities” under Article 12

of the Constitution, the result would be that provisions of Part-

III of the Constitution would be applicable to it and any

infringement thereof would be subject to judicial review directly

before the superior courts in writ jurisdiction, i.e., under Article

226 of the Constitution of India as also under Article 32 of the

Constitution. For our purposes suffice it to mention that an

“instrumentality of the State” does not mean a “department of

the State Government”.

1217. The learned counsels for the defendants, despite of

repeated query, could not tell us as to how an instrumentality of

1400

the State cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for

enforcing its common law rights by filing a civil suit. It appears

that misconception on the part of the defendants in Suit-4 is that

an instrumentality of the State, if comes within the words 'the

State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, the distinction of

personality between the State Government as well as such

instrumentality disappear and, therefore, one may not file suit

against another. This is apparently fallacious and lacks

substance. A body incorporated in accordance with the

procedure prescribed by statute or a statutory body, i.e.,

constituted under a statute or by a statute, on its own is a juristic

personality, i.e., legal person, who can possess property, enter

into transactions by executing contract with the other persons

(including natural, legal or juristic persons) and also to sue or be

sued. An authority or statutory body which can be said to be an

instrumentality of the State does not become necessarily a part

and parcel of the Government.

1218. The term 'Government' in its wider sense includes

all the wings of Government, viz., executive, legislative or

judicial but in narrower sense, it is normally the executive wing

of the State.

1219. Bombay High Court in Emperor Vs. Bhaskar

Balwant Bhopatkar, (1906) ILR 30 Bom 421 observed:

“What is contemplated under this section is the

collective body of the Government . . . . . It means that the

person or persons collectively, in succession, who are

authorized to administer the Government for the time

being. One particular set of persons may be open to

objection and to assail them, and to attack them and excite

hatred against them, is not necessarily exciting hatred

1401

against the Government, because they are only individuals

and not representatives of that abstract conception which is

called Government . . . . . The individual is transitory and

may be separately criticized but that which is essentially

and inseparably connected with the idea of Government

established by law cannot be attacked without coming

within this section.”

1220. In Annie Besant Vs. Government of Madras, AIR

1918 Mad 1210, Madras High Court said:

“Government denotes an established authority entitled and

able to administer the public affairs of the country. On the

other hand, 'Government' is not identical with any

particular individuals who may be administering the

Government.”

1221. Dixon J. in Burns Vs. Ransley, (1944) 79 CLR 101

explaining the word “Government” as under:

“I take the word “Government” to signify the

established system of political rules, the governing

powers of the country consisting of the executive and

the Legislature considered as an organized entity and

independently of the persons of whom it consists from

time to time. Any interpretation which would make

the word cover the persons who happen to fill

political or public offices for the time being, whether

considered collectively or individually, would give

the provision an application inconsistent with the

parliamentary and democratic institutions and with

the principles of the common law as understood in

times, Governing the freedom of criticism and of

expression.”

1402

1222. A Full Bench of this court in Ram Nandan Vs.

State, AIR 1959 All 101 observed that the term “Government”

has not been defined anywhere. Considering various provisions

of the Constitution this Court observed that the “Government”

means the executive machinery of the Union and of the States. It

means the President acting with the advice of the Council of

Ministers and the Governors acting with the advice of their

Councils of Ministers. It is the system of Government or

institution consisting of the President and the Governors acting

with the advice of their Councils of Ministers and not the actual

persons holding the offices of Presidents or Governors and the

Ministers advising them. This Court quoted the approval and

followed the observations of Bombay and Madras as noted

above in Bhaskar Balwant Bhopatkar (supra) and Annie

Besant (supra) respectively.

1223. In State of U.P. Vs. Nemchandra Jain, 1984 (2)

SCC 405 the term “Government” was analyzed by the Apex

Court observing that from the legal point of view, Government

may be described as the exercise of certain powers and the

performance of certain duties by public authorities or officers,

together with certain private persons or corporations exercising

public functions. The structure of the machinery of Government,

and the regulation of the powers and duties which belong to

different parts of this structure, are defined by the law, which

also prescribes, to some extent, the mode in which these powers

are to be exercised or those duties are to be performed.

Government generally connotes three estates, namely, the

Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. In a narrow sense it

connotes executive only.

1224. The word “Government” has been defined in

1403

Section 3(23) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as under:

“3(23). “Government”.--This sub-section says that

the terms “Government” or “the Government”, shall

include both the Central Government and any State

Government.”

1225. The term “State Government” has also been defined

in the General Clauses Act, 1897 in Section 3(60). The above

definition of General Clauses Act in fact does not give any exact

meaning except of referring the words, in general and in broader

sense.

1226. The Constitution declares the “Government” being

entitled to file a suit or to be sued by virtue of Article 300 of the

Constitution which reads as under :

“Article 300. (1) The Government of India may sue

or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the

Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of

the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be

made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such

State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this

Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective

affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the

corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian

States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had

not been enacted.

(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution--

(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the

Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India

shall be deemed to be substituted for the

Dominion in those proceedings; and

(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a

1404

Province or an Indian State is a party, the

corresponding State shall be deemed to be

substituted for the Province or the Indian State in

those proceedings.”

1227. Similarly, Section 79 C.P.C. provides for suits to be

filed by or against the Government, as under :

“Section 79. Suits by or against the Government—

In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be

named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall

be—

(a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central

Government, the Union of India, and

(b) in the case of a suit by or against a State

Government, the State.”

1228. Interpreting Article 300 of the Constitution of India

the Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Okara Grain Buyers

Syndicate Ltd. and others, AIR 1964 SC 669 observed that this

Article does not give rise to any cause of action but merely says

that the State can sue or be sued as a juristic personality. The

juristic personality of the State is conferred as a whole which

consists of the executive government headed by the Governor

and it is not divided into various branches or department of the

Government so as to result constituting such number of juristic

personality as are the departments in a State Government.

1229. Nothing has been brought to us and neither any

authority has been cited nor anything else has been placed

before us to persuade us to take a view that the Sunni Central

Waqf Board can be held to be a department of the State

Government so as to bar a suit against the State Government.

Had it been a department of the “Government” obviously a civil

1405

suit under Section 9 CPC would not be maintainable for the

reason that the State Government is a juristic personality as a

whole which consists of all its limbs, i.e., various departments

etc. Each and every department of the State Government cannot

be said to be an “independent juristic personality” which can

sue or be sued.

1230. The term “department of a State Government” also

came to be considered before this Court in Ram Chandra Vs.

District Magistrate, AIR 1952 All. 520 and this Court held that

a department is a unit or branch of the Government, either

Union or State, under the political control of a Minister or

Secretary of State or President of the Board. Individual officers

serving under a department do not constitute a department. The

department has an entity distinct and separate from the officers

serving under it.

1231. Drawing distinction between the “Government” and

“Instrumentality of the State” within meaning of Article 12 of

the Constitution in reference to Section 80 C.P.C. the question

arose as to whether notice before filing a suit is a condition

precedent to Electricity Board or not. The High Court of Kerala

in V.Padmanabhan Nair Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board

AIR 1989 Kerala 86 held that the statutory bodies like

Electricity Board, Food Corporation, Urban Development

Corporation etc. may be an “Instrumentality of the State” within

the meaning of “Article 12” of the Constitution, nevertheless

would not answer the description of “Government” as

understood in law and has understood in the context of Section

80 C.P.C.

1232. We have referred to the term “Government” in detail

only to demonstrate that the personality of the Government for

1406

the purpose of being sued or to sue is not to be looked into as

further divided in various departments but it is the entire

executive government including all its departments which

constitute the “Government”, a legal personality, having status

to sue or be sued in that capacity.

1233. Where there is a dispute between two “States” of the

Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of

India, Article 131 of the Constitution confers original

jurisdiction upon the Apex Court in regard to resolution of such

dispute. In this context, the Apex Court in Chief Conservator of

Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Collector and

others, AIR 2003 SC 1805 observed that neither the

Constitution of India nor CPC contemplates that two

departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a

litigation in a Court of law. It is neither appropriate nor

permissible for two departments of the “State” to fight litigation

in a Court of law. Various departments of the Government are

its limbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in

confrontation. Although that was a case with respect to the

justification of filing a writ petition yet the Apex Court

deprecated the attempt of filing writ petition by one department

against another and invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the

High Court. The Court observed that it smacks of indiscipline. It

also held to be contrary to the basic concept of law that requires

for suing or be sued there must be either a natural or juristic

person.

1234. In para 13 of the judgment, the Court held:

“ Every post in the hierarchy of the posts in the

Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not

recognised as a juristic person nor can the State be treated

1407

as represented when a suit/proceeding is in the name of

such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts,

therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties,

the cause will be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary

party to the lis...”

1235. It was made clear that the above principle does not

apply to a case where an official of the Government acts as a

statutory authority and sues or pursues further proceeding in its

name because in that event, it will not be a suit or proceeding

for or on behalf of a State /Union of India but by the statutory

authority as such.

1236. With respect to the two departments fighting with

each other, in para 14 of the judgment, the Court observed:

“It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution

or the C. P. C. that two departments of a State or the Union

of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither

appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State

or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law.

Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the

public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of

public money and time. Various departments of the

Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in

co-ordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ

petition by one department against the other by invoking

the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only

against the propriety and polity as it smacks of undiscipline

but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which

requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a

natural or a juristic person.”

1237. Best C.J. in Neale Vs. Turton (1827) 4 Bing. 149 at

1408

page 151 observed that there is no principle by which a man can

be at the the same time plaintiff and defendant. Sometimes it

may happen that a person may be having different capacities in

which he may act but as opined by Salmond in Salmond On

Jurisprudence (supra) a man having two or more capacities

would not derive a power to enter into a legal transaction with

himself. Double capacity does not connote double personality.

In certain circumstances, now by statute this concept has been

diluted but so far as the two departments of the Government are

concerned, the law of the land as already noticed above, is

holding the field and we need not deal into this aspect any

further.

1238. Thus, it is now settled that a department of the

Government by itself has no legal personality and, therefore, it

lacks capacity to sue or be sued ignoring the personality of the

State. A department of the Government can always sue or be

sued under the cover of the personality of the State and not of its

own.

1239. This concept, however, would not apply to the cases

where a statutory body or an incorporated body on its own enjoy

the capacity of legal persona and, therefore, is well within its

right to sue or be sued under its own name.

1240. Nobody could suggest in these cases that the Sunni

Central Waqfs Board can be said to be a department of the

Government. It cannot thus be identified with the Government.

Once it is clear that the Waqfs Board has a different and

independent juristic personality than the “Government”, in the

absence of any prohibition or bar either specifically or by or

necessary implication in the statute, filing of a suit by one

individual juristic personality against another cannot be

1409

objected. Exclusion of remedy by way of filing a civil suit

cannot be assumed easily and unless there is an express or by

necessary implication a bar provided by the statute, a suit under

Section 9 cannot be held “not maintainable”. Though we have

expressly held that Sunni Central Waqfs Board is not an

instrumentality of the State, yet even if it is so, we are clearly of

the view that there is no impediment in its way in filing a suit in

its own name against the State or its authorities for redressal of

its grievance, if there is anything wrong by such authority.

1241. So far as the second issue that if it is a “State" within

Article 12 of the Constitution, it may not act in a manner which

may amount to discrimination against one set of community, we

have already said and at the pain of repetition hold that the

statutory functions of the Waqfs Board is to supervise the

management of the Waqfs registered in various manners as

provided in the statute and in such discharge of duty, it can take

all such steps as permissible in law irrespective of fact whether

such step is against an individual of a different religion or the

entire community of different faith.

1242. Looking the matter in a wider concept, the act of the

Sunni Central Central Waqfs Board in filing Suit-4 even

otherwise cannot be said to be an act discriminatory to a

community inasmuch treating the disputed property as a Waqf

created in accordance with the Islamic laws, the Board is trying

to protect the same from being usurped by anybody else, be that

it is an individual or a group of individuals or the entire

community and in this respect if in a particular manner all such

persons constitute members of a particular community, that will

not make the act of the Sunni Central Waqfs Board

discriminatory or/and against a particular community.

1410

1243. We answer both the above issues accordingly. We

hold that neither the Waqf Board is “an Instrumentality of the

State” nor it suffers any disability of filing a suit against State

Government or its authorities nor there is anything wrong in the

Waqf Board to file a suit representing the cause of Muslim

community particularly for protection of a property which it

claims to be a “waqf property”. This is the principal function

under the Act 1936, substituted by various subsequent Acts, as

discussed above. Even if the Waqf Board is treated to be an

“other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution and

covered by the term 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the

Constitution, there is no impediment in the way of Sunni Central

Waqfs Board in maintaining its suit.

1244. Issue 28 (Suit-5) reads as under:

“Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section

65 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by

defendants 4 and 5? If so, its effect.”

1245. Defendant No.4-Sunni Central Waqf Board (Suit-5)

in para 45 of the written statement dated 26/29 August, 1989 has

pleaded about the non-maintainability of suit for want of notice

and it reads as under:

“That as the subject matter of the instant suit is a waqf

property and stands registered as a waqf in the Register of

Waqf maintained by the Sunni Waqf Board under section

30 of the Waqf Act and a Gazette notification in respect

thereto has also been issued by the State Government in

1944 and the same stands recorded as a mosque even in

the revenue record and other government records and the

same is even accepted as a mosque by the State

Government and its officers in the written statements filed

1411

in Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 as well as in Regular Suit No.

25 of 1950, (the instant suit could not be instituted against

the answering defendants until the expiration of two

months next after notice, in writing, had been delivered or

left at the office of the Board as per requirement of Section

65 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 and no such notice

having been given to the answering defendants by the

plaintiffs, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed).”

1246. To examine the correctness of the above objection,

let us consider Section 65 of U.P. Act No.XVI of 1960 which

reads as under :

“Notice of suits by parties against the Board.- No suit

shall be instituted against the Board in respect of any act

purporting to be done by it in pursuance of this Act or of

any rules made thereunder until the expiration of two

months, next after notice in writing has been delivered to

or left at the office of the Board, stating the cause of action

the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff

and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain

a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.”

1247. From a bare reading of Section 65 of 1960 Act it is

evident that the same would apply where a suit is filed

questioning the validity of any action of the Waqf Board. It

clearly says that in respect of any act purporting to be done by

the Board in pursuance of 1960 Act or of any rules made

thereunder, if a suit is filed, the same would not be maintainable

unless a two months' notice has been given in writing to the

Board giving the details, as mentioned in the aforesaid

provision. Suit-5 does not challenge any action of the Waqf

1412

Board taken under 1960 Act or the rules framed thereunder. Ex

facie, the above provision is inapplicable considering the relief

sought by the plaintiffs (Suit-5) which is confined to a

declaration that the property in dispute therein belong to

plaintiffs themselves and have sought a permanent injunction

against the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or

raising any objection or placing any obstruction in construction

of a new temple at the disputed site.

1248. Learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 (Suit-5)

could not show as to how Section 65 would be attracted in

respect of Suit-5. In fact they could not show that any action of

the Waqf Board taken under 1960 Act or rules framed

thereunder has been the cause of action for filing Suit-5. We

therefore, have no hesitation in holding Section 65 of U.P. Act

No.XVI of 1960 has no application in respect to the reliefs

sought in Suit-5 and therefore, the suit cannot be held “not

maintainable” for want of notice.

1249. Since the provisions itself is not applicable, as we

have said, the question of considering its effect does not arise.

The issue is answered accordingly.

1250. Though no such issue specifically has been framed,

but during the course of argument Sri P.N.Mishra, learned

counsel appearing for defendant No.20 (Suit 4) pointed out that

U.P. Act No.XVI of 1960 has been repealed by Central Act No.

43 of 1995 i.e. Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as '1995

Act')which has came into force on 01.01.1996. He drew our

attention to Section 112 of 1995 Act which read as under :

“Repeal and savings.-(1) The Waqf Act, 1954 (29 of 1954)

and the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 1984 (69 of 1984) are

hereby repealed.

1413

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any

action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have

been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of

this Act.

(3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act,

in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which

corresponds to this Act that corresponding law shall shall

stand repealed;

Provided that such repeal shall not affect the

previous operation of that corresponding law, and subject

thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise

of any power conferred by or under the corresponding law

shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise

of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act

was in force on the day on which such things were action

was taken.”

1251. He submits that since all State Laws have also been

repealed by sub-section (3) of Section 112, U.P. Act No.XVI of

1960 is no more operative since 1st January, 1996. He also drew

our attention to Section 87 of 1995 Act which reads as under :

“87. Bar to the enforcement of right on behalf of

unregistered waqfs.-(1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in any other law for the time being in force, no

suit, appeal or other legal proceeding for the enforcement

of any right on behalf of any waqf which has not been

registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act,

shall be instituted or commenced or heard, tried or decided

by any Court after the commencement of this Act, or where

any such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding had been

instituted or commenced before such commencement, no

1414

such suit, appeal or other legal proceeding shall be

continued, heard, tried or decided by any Court after such

commencement unless such waqf has been registered, in

accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as far as

may be, to the claim for set-off or any other claim made on

behalf of any waqf which has not been registered in

accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

1252. It is contended by him that the notification dated 26th

February, 1944 in respect to the property having been held

invalid, no suit in respect to an unregistered waqf is

maintainable and Section 87 encompass even the pending suits.

He submits that even hearing or trial of the pending suit in

respect to an unregistered waqf is not permissible.

1253. Sri Jilani, learned counsel for the plaintiffs (Suit-4)

raised serious objection to the above argument pointing out that

since no such issue has been framed, it would not be permissible

for this Court to look into this aspect of the matter and the above

argument has to be rejected outright as not entertainable.

1254. We gave our serious thought to the matter. Since

Section 87 of 1995 Act prohibits even pending suits from being

heard and tried in respect to an unregistered waqf and this being

a mandate of law, this Court cannot ignore the same merely

because there is no formal issue framed in this respect

particularly considering the fact that enactment of 1995 Act is a

subsequent event and the said Act has come into force during

the pendency of this matter i.e. at the stage when this Court

started recording evidence. However, we find that the question

whether Suit-4 cannot proceed by virtue of the mandate contain

in Section 87 of 1995 Act is not a pure question of law since

1415

condition precedent for attracting the said provision is that the

waqf has not been registered with the Board at all.

1255. Despite our enquiry from the learned counsel for the

defendant No.20, Sri Mishra could not show any such pleading

in the written statement or additional written statement. In fact

no such averment has been made in any of the written statement

or additional written statement of any of the defendants that the

property in dispute is not a registered waqf.

1256. On the contrary, Sri Jilani drew our attention to his

written statement dated 26/29 August, 1989, para 45 (quoted

above) (Suit-5) and para 16 of the written statement dated

24.2.1989 of defendant no. 10 (Suit-1) wherein it is averred that

the property in question is a waqf property registered as a waqf

in the register of waqf maintained by the Sunni Waqf Board

under Section 30 of Act XVI of 1960. Sri Jilani pointed out that

Section 30 of U.P. Act No.XVI of 1960 provides for register of

waqfs, which is to be maintained by the Board containing details

of each such waqfs.

1257. It is not the case of any of the defendants (Suit-4)

that there is no registration or that registration was not done

validly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the

Act or the averments contained in para 45 of the written

statement of defendants No.4 (Suit-5) or para 16 of the written

statement of defendant no. 10 (Suit-1) is factually incorrect.

Since the question as to whether a particular waqf property is a

registered one or unregistered one is a question of fact and there

being an averment stating that the disputed property is a

registered waqf, which has not been pleaded to be incorrect by

the other side, we are of the view that Suit -4 filed by the Waqf

Board and others cannot be held not maintainable by virtue of

1416

Section 87 of 1995 Act.

1258. It would also be important to notice that the

Notification under Section 5 of Act of 1936 was held invalid by

the learned Civil Judge in 1966, to be more precise on 21st April,

1966. The defendant No.4 had filed its written statement in Suit

5 on 26/29 August, 1989 stating that the property in question is

registered as waqf in the register of waqfs maintained by the

Board under Section 30 of Act 16 of 1960. There are three ways

in which details of Muslim waqfs can be collected and thereafter

they are to be entered in the register maintained by the Board;

(i) pursuant to the notification issued by the Board after enquiry

made by the Waqf Commissioner; (ii) On an application made

by the Mutwalli of the concerned waqf; and (iii) Suo moto by

issuing notice by the Board to the Mutawalli of the Waqf..

1259. The averments that the disputed building is

registered as 'waqf' in the Board under Section 30 of Act 16 of

1960 having not been seriously challenged by the plaintiffs

(Suit-5), no issue on this aspect has been framed. Lots of

amendments were made in the pleadings after the decision of

the Apex Court in Dr. Mohammad Ismail (supra) but no

amendment or addition of any issue in this regard has been

found necessary by any of the parties opposing the authority of

the Sunni Board in pursuing Suit-4 as plaintiff or other suits as

defendant. Mere declaration of the Notification issued under

Section 5 of Act 1936 as invalid would not deprive the Sunni

Board to take steps for registration of the building in dispute as

waqf in the register maintained by it under Act 16 of 1960. In

the absence of any factual foundation, it would not be justified

for this Court to take recourse of Section 87 of 1995 Act and

non suit Sunni Board or other muslim parties.

1417

1260. Sri Mishra, however, made some detailed legal

arguments on this aspects hence we propose to consider such

submissions to find out substance, if any, therein.

1261. It is said that Section 87 has a non obstante clause

and therefore its mandate shall prevail not only over any

contract but to any other law for the time being in force.

Reliance is placed on Union of India and Others Vs. SICOM

Ltd. and Anr. 2009 AIR SCW 635 (at page 638) where para 3

reads as under:

“3. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,

submitted that principle that a crown debt prevails over

other debt is confined only to the unsecured ones as

secured debts will always prevail over a crown debt. Our

attention in this behalf has been drawn to the non obstante

clause contained in Section 56 of the 1951 Act. It was

furthermore contendd that for the self-same reason Section

529A in the Companies Act was inserted in terms by way of

special provisions creating charge over the property and

some of the State Government also amended their Sales

Tax Laws incorporating such a provision. The Central

Government also with that view, amended the Employee’s

Provident Funds and (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1952

and Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948.

The learned counsel appears to be right.”

1262. Reliance is also placed on State Bank of India Vs.

Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Co. and

Others 2009 CLC 73 where Gujrat High Court in para 13 of the

judgement observed:

“Section 529-A of the Act opens with a non obstante

1418

clause… Therefore, the said provision has an over writing

effect not only qua the provisions of the act but also any

other law for the time being in force...”.

1263. The proposition with respect to a provision having

non obstante clause being a well established legal principal

admits no doubt. However this by itself may not result in any

consequence to the suits in question.

1264. Sri Mishra further submitted that the prohibition

contained against unregistered waqf is quite reasonable and in

accord with the judgement of the Apex Court in Bhandara

District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State

of Maharashtra and Anr. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 259 wherein

Section 145 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1996,

which barred an unregistered society from using the word

‘cooperative’ in its name or title, was held reasonable and in the

interest of general public. There is no challenge to the

correctness of Section 87 of 1995 Act and therefore, in our

view, the aforesaid submission and the authority cited would

have no application in this case.

1265. Relying on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High

Court in Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College Committee

Nidubroly and Ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors. AIR 1958 A.P. 773, it was submitted that registration of

waqf confers right upon the Sunni Central Board of Waqf to sue

or be sued in respect of the affairs and properties of the

registered waqf while in case of unregistered waqf of alleged

Babari Masjid, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no right to

maintain Suit-4. In the above decision it was held that if a

society is not registered under the Act, it would have the

character of an association which cannot sue or be sued except

1419

in the name of all the members of the association. Registration

of the society confers on it certain advantages. Once the society

is registered, it enjoins the status of a legal entity apart from the

members constituting the same and is capable of suing or being

sued. To the same effect is another authority relied by Sri

Mishra i.e. Radhasoami Satsang Sabha Dayalbag Vs.

Hanskumar Kishanchand AIR 1959 MP 172 wherein the

Court said that the registration under the Societies Registration

Act confers on a society a legal personality and make it

corporation or quasi corporation capable of entering into

contracts.

1266. In our view, the submission as well as the reliance

on the aforesaid judgments in the case in hand is thoroughly

misconceived though the ratio of the said authorities is

unexceptionable. It is not the case of defendant No.20 that the

Sunni Central Waqf Board, a statutory body, was not constituted

in accordance with the provisions contained in U.P. Act, 1936.

The U.P. Muslims Waqf Act whether of 1936 or 1960 or the

Central Waqf Acts of 1954 or 1995 neither create a waqf nor

extinguish one, if it already exists. They recognize the waqfs

created and existing in accordance with the law of Islam and

make provisions for proper administration and maintenance

thereof primarily so as to avoid any maladministration,

misfeasance of waqf property. Registration of waqf in effect,

considering in the light of the provisions of the aforesaid

enactments, only means that the waqf is known to the concerned

Waqf Board as to whether it is a Shia waqf or Sunni waqf and

having entered their name in the register, the concerned Board

should be in a capacity to supervise management and

administration etc. of such waqfs. The purpose of enactment is

1420

public interest so that the waqf property may not be

misappropriated or misused. With this objective the legislature

intend to compel so as to have a complete picture of all existing

valid waqfs created in accordance with Islamic law, has made

such provision. By itself, it neither affects the existence of a

waqf which though created in accordance with the Islamic law

but for one or the other reason could not have been entered in

the register of the concerned Waqf Board nor extinguish it.

Besides, Section 87 it does not say that a pending suit in respect

of a waqf which has not been registered shall stand abated or be

dismissed but provides that it shall not be tried, or heard or

decided by the Court, after the commencement of the Act,

unless such waqf has been registered in accordance with the

provisions of 1995 Act. Meaning thereby even during pendency

of a matter, such a waqf can be registered by the Waqf Board

and thereafter the suit, if pending but deferred, would continue

and can be heard and decided.

1267. It is also contended that under U.P. Act, 1936, a

waqf can be registered by the Sunni Board pursuant to its name

find mention in the gazette issued by the Central Board under

Section 5(1) or if it is registered on an application of Mutawalli

under Section 38(2) or where the Central Waqf Board has issued

direction to concerned Mutawalli to apply for registration of a

waqf or supply any information regarding waqf. It is said that

the notification dated 26th February 1944 qua the alleged waqf in

question having been declared invalid, registration based

thereon also becomes null and void. Further that there is no

registration as per the procedure prescribed in Section 38 or 40

of 1936 Act, it cannot be said that the Sunni Board can maintain

a suit on behalf of such a waqf since Section 18(1) and (2)

1421

enable the concerned Board to maintain suit in respect of

administration and recovery of lost properties only of those

waqfs to which the provision of the Act applies. It is contended

that the Act being inapplicable to waqf in question due to its non

registration, the plaintiffs have no right to maintain Suit-4 and it

is liable to be dismissed.

1268. In our view, there is no occasion to consider this

aspect of the matter for reasons more than one. The notification

under Section 5(1) of 1936 Act has been held invalid so far as

the alleged waqf in question is concerned. This is not disputed

by the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiffs (Suit-4).

However, there is a presumption on the part of the defendant

No.20 that the alleged registration claimed by the plaintiffs

(Suit-4) in para 45 of written statement in Suit-5 is based on the

notification dated 26th February, 1944 and none else though

defendant 4 (Suit-5) (Central Sunni Waqf Board) has taken this

stand in para 45 of their written statement by referring to

Section 30 of Act 16 of 1960 and not that of U.P. Act, 1936.

There is no averment in pleadings of any of the Hindu parties

including defendant No.20 that this averment of defendant No.4

in Suit No.5 is incorrect or that there is no registration of the

waqf in question at all. In the absence of any such facts pleaded

by the concerned parties and in particular defendant no. 20, we

find no reason to consider this aspect of the matter merely on

the presumption of defendant No.2 particularly when the

question is a mixed question of fact and law and in the absence

of specific factual pleading, it would not be appropriate to

presume certain facts and thereafter decide the applicability of

Section 87 of 1995 Act in this case.

1269. In the written submissions Volume 2 at page 254

1422

para 11 it has been contended by Sri Mishra:

"As after invalidation of notification under Section 5(1) of

the United Provinces Act, 1936 neither fresh survey of the

waqf in question was caused under Section 6 of the

Uttar Pradesh Muslim Wakfs Act, 1960 nor application

for registration was made under Section 29(2) of the

said Act of 1960 within a period of three months nor the

Board did take any steps for registration of the said wakf

under Section 31 of the said Act of 1960. The alleged

wakf remained unregistered wakf to which neither 1936 Act

nor 1960 Act or 1995 Act are applicable as such the

Plaintiff Wakf Board has no locus standi and instant Suit is

hit by the provision of Section 87(1) of the Wakf Act, 1995.

As such, the instant suit is not fit for being continued,

heard, tried or decided and is liable to be dismissed on this

score alone."

1270. In respect to the procedure to be followed under

1960 Act without there being any pleading, the learned counsel

has presumed that neither any registration was made under

Section 29(2) nor any steps were taken under Section 31 of Act

16 of 1960 nor any fresh survey of the waqf in question was

made under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, hence the waqf in

question remain unregistered. In the absence of any pleading,

we find it difficult to entertain the above submission involving

pure factual aspects which ought to have been pleaded.

Reference is also made to Section 66E of Waqf Act, 1954 but

Sri Mishra, learned counsel could not dispute that Waqf Act,

1954, which was a Central Act, was not made applicable to the

State of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, reliance on the said

provision is wholly misplaced.

1423

1271. Sri Mishra referred to Section 6 of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 and Section 69(2) of Partnership Act,

1932 which are concerned to registered Society or Firm but in

our view, the same would have no application to the case in

hand for the reason we have already discussed above with

reference to the decisions in Pamulapati Buchi Naidu College

Committee Nidubroly (supra) and Radhasoami Satsang

Sabha Dayalbag (supra).

1272. Referring to Section 2 of Shariyat Act, 1937 as

amended by Madras Act 18 of 1949 as also the Apex Court's

decision in C.Mohammad Yunus Vs. Syed Unnissa and Ors.

AIR 1961 SC 808, it is contended that the Act was applied to all

cities and provinces but in our view, neither the aforesaid

provisions nor the decision of the Apex Court in C. Mohammad

Yunus (supra) has any relevance with the point in question.

1273. Referring to certain documents, which are on record,

and the translation provided thereof, Sri Mishra has submitted in

his written arguments as under:

A. In the application for registration of waqf made

under section 38 of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs

Act, XIII of 1936 being exhibit 38 on pages 199 to 205 of

the Volume No.11 of the documents filed in the instant

suit by the Plaintiffs in its column no.3 it has been stated

that there is no waqf but the waqifs are Emperor Babar

and Nawab Sa'-a-Dat Ali Khan. Below column no.16

there is a note which says that the claim of the alleged

Mutwalli's family is that the within mentioned property

said to be granted for maintenance of the alleged Babari

Mosque at somewhere else is not a waqf but a Service

Grant in their favour. The aforesaid application tells the

1424

Emperor Babar and Nawab Sa'-a-Dat Ali Khan as joint

waqifs which is quite impossible because the Emperor

Babar died in 1530 AD while Nawab Sa'a-Dat Ali Khan

ascended on throne in 1732 AD as such the persons who

were not contemporary and there was a gap of 202 years

between the former and later they cannot be joint waqifs

of same of one waqf alleged to be Babri Masjid Waqf.

This fact alone totally falsify the claim of the plaintiffs

that the alleged waqf was created by the Emperor Babar.

The grant in question was also a service grant not a waqf.

The person who made application namely, Syed Kalbe

Hussain had also his vested interest as it appears from the

note of the application that his intention was to file a case

against the persons who were enjoying their property

claiming the same to be a service grant; from being

motivated with such spirit and he made the aforesaid

application for registration making fraudulent dishonest

false and frivolous statements.

B. Be it mentioned herein that the plaintiffs have used

fraud upon this Hon'ble Court by producing wrong

transliteration of the note contained in said application for

registration. Though in its original Urdu text it has been

recorded that the persons recorded in revenue records do

not consider it waqf but in Hindi transliteration thereof the

plaintiffs by deleting the word 'nahi' of vital importance

which finds place in between the words 'waqf' and

'tasleem' have made it meant that those persons says that it

is waqf and nankar mafi. This fact came into light when

the original text was read over in open Court by the

Hon'ble Justice S.U.Khan, J. during my argument.

1425

C. In the list of Sunni Waqfs published in supplement

to the Government Gazette of United Provinces dated 26th

February, 1944 under Section 5 of U.P. Muslim Waqfs

Act, XIII of 1936 to which, according to the report of the

Commissioner of waqfs, the provisions of the said Act

apply; on page 11 at serial no.26 (being the volume No.12

of the documents filed in the instant suit) it has been

notified that Babri Mosque is located at Qasba Shahnawa

not at Ramkot in Ayodhya. Hindi transliteration of

relevant page of the said gazette notification containing

the name of Badshah Babar on serial No.26 is on page

no.341 to 345 of volume 12 of the documents filed in the

instant suit. Hindi Transliteration of the proforma of the

list as well as the entries against item no.26 of the said

reads as follows:

ukes okfdQ ;k oDQ

uke&,&eroyh ekStwnk ukS b;rs tk;nkn edwQk

26 ckn'kkg ckcj lS;n eksgEen tdh ercyh efLtn ckcjh dLck 'kkguck Mkd[kkuk n'kZuxj

From the above Gazette notification dated 26th

February, 1944 it appears that Badshah Babar had erected

a Mosque in Shahnawa town within the postal jurisdiction

of Darshan Nagar of which Syed Mohammed Zaki was

Mutawalli. The said gazette notification did not say that

there was a mosque in Ramkot Pargana Havelli, Ayodhya

in the district of Faizabad. As such said Babri Mosque

Waqf cannot be construed to be waqf of any other Babri

Mosque located anywhere else.

D. In the said gazette notification dated 26th February,

1944 (on page 479 of the volume 12 of the documents

filed in the instant suit) another Babri Mosque along with

1426

the Mausoleum of the Emperor Babur has been mentioned

in some other district perhaps in the district of Kanpur. It

is well known recognized and admitted fact that the

Mausoleum of the Emperor Babur is in Kabul, Afganistan

not in India. This is glaring example of the facts of fraud,

forgery and fabrication.

E. From the above mentioned relevant entries of the list

of the gazette notification dated 26th February, 1944 it

becomes clear that the waqf commissioners had not

discharged their duties as it was cost upon them under the

provisions of the United Provinces Muslim Waqfs Act,

1936 and in very casual manner either on hearsay they

have listed several properties as of waqfs or the concern

Waqf Commissioner were active participant in the fraud,

forgery and fabrication.

F. The Waqf Commissioner Faizabad's report dated 8th

February, 1941 says that it appears that in 935 A.H.

Emperor Babar built Babari or Janam Asthan Mosque at

Ajudhya and appointed one Syed Abdul Baqi as the

Mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque and for its

maintenance an annual grant of Rs.60 was allowed by the

said Emperor which continued till the fall of the Mughal

kingdom. Later on said grant was increased by Nawab Sa-

a-Dat Ali Khan to Rs.302/3/6 but no original papers about

this grant by the king of Oudh are available. Relevant

extract of said report reads as follows:

"It appears that in 935 A.H. Emperor Babar built

this mosque and appointed Syed Abdul Baqi as the

mutwalli and khatib of the Mosque (vide clause 2

statement filed by Syed Mohammad Zaqi to whom a

1427

notice was issued under the Wakf Act.) An annual

grant of Rs.60/- was allowed by the Emperor for

maintenance of the mosque and the family of the

first mutwalli Abdul Baqi. This grant was continued

till of the fall of the Moghal Kingdom at Delhi and

the ascendancy of the Nawabs of Oudh.

According to Cl. 3 of the written statement of

Mohammad Zaki Nawab Sa'adat Ali Khan, King of

Oudh increased the annual grant to Rs.302/3/6. No

original papers about this grant by the king of Oudh

are available."

From the aforesaid extract it is crystal clear that the

Commissioner on the basis of mere statement of Syed

Mohammed Zaki found that the Disputed Janam Asthan

Structure was a mosque built by Emperor Babar which is

in total discard to his duty cast upon him under said Act

XIII of 1936.

G. Commissioner's said report dated 8th Feb. 1941 says

that after the mutiny the British Govt. continued the above

grant in cash upto 1864 and in the later year in lieu of cash

some revenue free land in village Bhuraipur and

Sholeypur was granted. The said report further records

that Syed Mohammed Zaki produced a copy of the grant

order of the British Govt. which was made on condition

that Rajab Ali and Mohammad Asghar would render

Police, Military or Political service etc. Thereafter the

commissioner records that the above-mentioned object is

elucidated in Urdu translation as follows:

"After the Mutiny, the British Government, also

continued the above grant in cash upto 1864, and in

1428

the latter year in lieu of the cash grant, the British

Government ordered the grant of some revenue free

land in villages Bhuraipur and Sholeypur. A copy of

this order of the British Government has been filed

by the objector Syed Mohammad Zaki (vide Flag

A). This order says that 'the Chief Commissioner

under the authority of the Governor General in

Council is pleased to maintain the Grant for so long

as the object for which the grant has been made is

kept up on the following conditions'. These

conditions require Rajab Ali and Mohammad

Asghar to whom the sannad was given, to perform

duties of land holder in the matter of Police Military

or political service etc. Thus the original object of

the state grant of Emperor Babar and nawab Sa'adat

Ali Khan is continued in this Sunnad by the British

Government also i.e. maintenance of the mosque.

The Nankar is to be enjoyed by the grantees for so

long as the object of the grant i.e. the mosque is in

existence."

H. In fact, this Urdu elucidation is creation of the said

Waqf Commissioner as it is not in the alleged Sunned

being page 33 of the volume 6 of the documents filed in

the instant suit. Hindi transliteration and meaning of the

said elucidative Urdu text as incorporated in the Waqf

Commissioner's said report reads as follows:

**ml ukudkj dks tcrd fd efLtn ftlds okLrs ;s ukudkj nh

x;h Fkh cjdjkj gSA glcs 'kjk;r]ntZ tSy dk;e Qjekrs gSa ¼tks

'krsZa fy[kh x;h gSa mls dgrs gSa½**

1429

A handwritten copy of the said sunnad with some

error has been reproduced at page 27 of volume 10 of the

documents filed in the instant suit. In the said alleged

original version of the grant Urdu elucidation did not find

place. From the said alleged original version of the alleged

grant, it becomes crystal clear that the grant, if any, it was

a service grant for rendering police, military and political

services to the British Govt. against the enemies of the

British Govt. Be it mentioned herein that in those days in

the eyes of the Britishers the persons who were fighting

against them for liberation of their motherland i.e. India

they were considered to be mutineers and enemies of the

Britishers. As such it can be inferred that the said service

grant was given for helping the Britishers to defeat and

rout the freedom fighters, not for a good cause of

maintaining any Mosque. Full text of the alleged

SUNNAD from page 33 of Vol. 6 (hand written copy on

page 27 of Vol. 10 that is not accurate) is reproduced as

follows:

"Chief commissioner's

It having been established after due enquiry, that

Rajub ally and Mohamad Usgar received a Cash

Nankar of (Rs.302.3.6) Rupees three hundred to and

three annas and six pie from Mouzah Shanwah Zila

Faizabad from former Government. The Chief

Commissioner, under the authority of the Governor

General in Council is pleased to maintain the grant

for long as the object for which the grant has been

made is kept the following conditions. That they shall

have surrendered all sunnads, title deeds, and other

1430

documents relative to the grant. That they and their

successor shall strictly (illegible) all the duties of

land-holder in matter of police, and an (torn) or

political service that they may be required of them by

the authorities and that they shall never fall under

the just suspicion of favouring in any way designs of

enemies of the British Government. If any one of

these conditions is broken by Rajub ally and

Mohamad Usgar or their successor the grant will be

immediately resumed."

I. From the aforesaid alleged to be original text of the

grant as produced by the plaintiffs it becomes crystal clear

that Urdu interpolation has been done by the said

Commissioner with sole motive to deprive the Hindus

from their sacred shrine of Sri Ramjanamsthan which has

been described as Babri Mosque in the plaint as well as

Janam Asthan Mosque in the said Commissioner's report.

From the words 'Janam Asthan Mosque' itself it becomes

clear that the alleged Mosque was erected over the birth

place of someone, and since time immemorial said place is

being worshipped by the Hindus asserting that it is the

birth place of the Lord of Universe Sri Ram it is needless

to say that according to the said Commissioner, the

alleged Mosque was erected over the janamasthan of Sri

Ramlala.

J. The said Waqf Commissioner after recording the

facts that Syed Mohammed Zaki had submitted before him

that the said British grant was a service grant in favour of

his predecessors for rendering police, military and

political services to the Britishers subject to resumption on

1431

non-fulfillment of the aforesaid conditions thus it was not

a waqf property granted for maintenance of the alleged

mosque; the commissioner without any cogent evidence

rejected his said contention simply stating that he did not

agree to that view because the grant was not originally

granted by the Britishers but it was continuation of

original grant granted by the Muslim rulers as also for the

reasons that after the Ajodhya riot of 1934 Syed

Mohammad Zaki had presented an application to Deputy

Commissioner in which he had described himself as

Mutawalli or trustee of the mosque and of the trust

attached thereto. In fact, prior to coming on this reference,

in the preceding paragraphs of his said report the said

commissioner himself has recorded that no paper of old

grant even of the Nawabs of Oudh was available and

placed before him. It is contrary to the law of evidence to

draw inference on the basis of the statement of a person

whose credibility was found suspicious, doubtful and non-

reliable. As in his report the commissioner records that

said Syed Mohammed Zaki was an opium addict and most

unsuited for the proper performance of the duties expect

of a Mutwalli of an ancient and historical mosque, which

was not kept even in proper repairs for which reason he

recommended to discharge the said Mutwalli. Relevant

extract from said report is reproduced as follows:

"Syed Mohammad Zaki, the objector, who is known

as the Mutwalli of the Babari mosque, and also

called himself as such raises an objection to the land

in Sholeypur and Bhuranpur being regarded as a

waqf, because he says the grant has been made for

1432

his substenance only (in Urdu). In do not agree with

this view of his. The written statement filed by

Mohammad Zaki himself is sufficient to show that

the grant has been continued ever since 935 A.H.

only because he and his ancestors were required to

look after the mosque and keep it in proper

condition out of the income allowed to them and

also to provide for the maintenance of himself and

his ancestors out of a part of the same grant.

Clearly then the grant of land to Mohammad Zaki

must be regarded as a Waqf, the purpose of which is

the maintenance of the religious building known as

the Babari Mosque.

The learned counsel for Mohammad Zaki has also

argued.

1) That the particular grant of land in Sholeypur and

Bhureypur has been made by the British

Government. A Non-Muslim body and hence the

grant cannot be regarded as Muslim Waqf.

2) That the grant is a conditional one, being subject

to resumption on non fulfillment by the grantee of

any of the police Military or duties enjoined in the

Sunnad, and that on account of these conditions the

grant cannot be classed as a Muslim Waqf.

I do not agree with either view. firstly the British

Government only continued a grant which had been

made by the Muslim Government originally and in

these circumstances, I cannot but regard the grant as

a waqf.

3) As for the second point the conditions have been

1433

imposed upon the grantee, and not upon the way in

which the grant to be utilized, which latter purpose

is recognised as maintenance of the mosque. It is

clear that if the conditions are broken the enjoyment

of the grant by the Mutwalli himself for his sustence

is to be withdrawn apparently implying that any

other mutwalli will then be appointed to administer

the grant for the original purpose of maintaining the

mosque. I am strengthened in this view because I

find the mention of the object of the grant i.e.

maintenance of the mosque at the very outset of the

Sunnad and the desirability thereof seems to be clear

from the whole Sunnad.

I also find that after the Ajodhya riot of 1934,

Syed Mohammad Zaki presented an application

(Flag Ex. A) to Deputy Commissioner, in which he

clearly described himself as Mutwalli or trustee of

the mosque and of the trust attached thereto.

I also find that this same Mohammad Zaki

submitted accounts in 1925 in Tahsildar's court in

which he stated that the income from the grant

managed by him was utilized for maintenance of the

mosque, pay of Imam Muezzin and the provisions of

Iftari etc., during Ramzan after deduction of Rs.20/-

per month for sustence of the Mutwalli himself. The

pay of the Mutwalli spends a much greater portions

of the income on his own personal needs.

K. The Wakf Commissioner Faizabad in his said report

dated 8th Feb. 1941 says that he examined Abdul Ghaffar,

the then pes Niwaz who deposed that the imam was not

1434

being paid for last 11 years and thereafter the said

commissioner says that the then Syed Mohammud Zaki

was an opium addict and most unsuited to the proper

performance of the duties expected from an Mutwalli of

an ancient and historical mosque, thus he was liable to be

discharged from his duties. Relevant extract from the said

report which is on page nos. 45 to 48 of the volume No. 6

of the documents filed in the instant suit read as follows:

"The present Mutwalli is of course a Shia. There is

no information as to the sect to which Abdul Baqi

himself belonged, but the founder Emperor Babar-

was admittedly a Sunni, the Imam and Muezzin at

the mosque are Sunni and only Sunnis say their

prayer in it. Abdul Ghaffar the present Pesh Niwaj

was examined by me. He swear that the ancestors of

Mohammad Zaki were Sunnis who latter on was

converted to Shia. He further said that he did not

receive his pay during the last 11 years. In 1936 the

Mutwalli executed a pronote promising to pay the

arrear of pay by installment but upto this time

nothing actually was done. I think therefore that this

should be regarded as a Sunni Trust.

I must say in the end that from the reports that

I have heard about the present Mutwalli, he is an

opium addict (vide his statement flag Ez) and most

unsuited to the proper performance of the duties

expected of a Mutwalli of an ancient and historical

mosque, which is not kept even in proper repairs. It

is desirable that, if possible, a committee of

management should be appointed to supervise the

1435

proper maintenance and repairs of the mosque and

discharge of his duties by the Mutwalli."

L. From the second report of the Commissioner of

Waqf Faizabad being report dated 8th February, 1941 it

becomes clear that the Imam was not being paid since

1930 and the alleged Mutwalli was an opium addict and

most unsuitable person and in 1934 riots on 27th March,

the alleged Mosque was demolished it can be safely

inferred that Sri Ramjanamsthan temple structure was

being used as a mosque because it cannot be imagined that

a person will discharge duty of imam without getting

salary for such a long period as according to Islamic law,

only salary is the prescribed means of livelihood no imam

can survive for want of salary as such in fact neither there

was any mosque nor there was any mutwalli or imam.

M. From exhibit-62 being page nos.367 to 405 of

volume 12 of the documents filed in the instant suit which

is a report of the four historians it becomes crystal clear

that how said report has been prepared having some

design in mind or inadvertently and negligently which

reflects from page 397 of the said volume where the

dimension of the vedi described by Tieffenthaler has been

wrongly reproduced as "a square platform 5 inches above

ground, 5 inches long and 4 inches wide, constructed of

mud and covered with lime. The Hindus call it Bedi, that

to say, the birth place. The reason is that here there was a

house in which Beschan (Bishan = Vishnu) took the form

of Ram". Though correct dimension given by Tiffenthaler

reads "a square chest, raised five inches from the ground,

covered with lime, about five ells in length by not more

1436

than four in breadth. The Hindoos call it bedi, the cradle;

and the reason is, that there formerly stood here the house

in which Beshan (Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram."

This correct translation is given in the book 'Modern

Traveller' volume 3, published by James Duncan in 1828.

It is crystal clear that in the report of said historians the

word 'ells' has been translated as 'inches' in fact, ells

means yards which has been correctly translated in the

translation made available by the Govt. of India to this

Hon'ble Court. Tieffenthelar has not stated that the Bedi

was of mud, it is creation of the mind of the aforesaid

historians, as such said report of the historians is not

reliable for the reasons of being prepared by incompetent

persons or for being biased, motivated.

N. The page No. 155 of volume 6 of the documents

filed in the instant suit purported to be copy of a folio of a

register contains a pedigree wherein it has been written

that the mafi was created for the muezzin and khattib of

masjid Babari of Oudh date and year of the waqf is

unknown to Syed Baqi therefore his son Syed (illegible)

Ali, his son Syed Hussain Ali who was in possession for

about 60 years now his son-in-law Rajab Ali and his

daughter's son Muhammad Asgar are in existence and

were in receipt of cash from village Shahnawa vide receipt

(illegible) till fasali year 1263. In the year 1264 fasali

enquiry about mafi was started but riot took place

(illegible) crop (illegible) year 63 fasali was found

(illegible) original (illegible) of and is document

(illegible) in respect of mafi (illegible) settlement of

village versus (illegible). A copy of the said contents has

1437

also been compiled in the said volume no.6 of the

documents filed in the instant suit on its page nos. 157 to

161.

O. From the said enquiry report it appears that during

the period of 332 years people of five generations

including Syed Baqi held the office of muezzin and

khattib of alleged Babri mosque during the period of 1528

to 1860 which means 66½ years was average of each

generations which is quite impossible as according to Life

Insurance Corporation's assessment average span of a

change of generation is 26 years. And this pedigree is

completely false, forged and fabricated one. During this

period 16 generations of the Mughal rulers elapsed

average whereof comes about 20 ¾ years. In the matter of

Radha Krishan v. State of Bihar the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has laid down the principle of law to evaluate and

judge authenticity of a pedigree which has been

reproduced in this argument at relevant place.

P. The alleged documents and/or transliteration thereof

being page nos. 53 to 61 of the volume no.6 of the

documents filed in the instant suit tells that the alleged

Babri Mosque was demolished by the rioters and Bairagis

on 27th March, 1934. The damaged domes were beyond

repair. The allege list of damages says that apart from

damaging the building, the Hindus either burnt or took

away with them three pieces of mats, six pieces of

matress, one piece of box, two pieces sandal, six pieces of

curtains, five pieces of pitchers, hundred places badhana

mitti, four pieces of small earthen pot, one piece chahar,

water pot (illegible) three pieces Kasauti Patthar Tarikhi, 3

1438

x 1½ sq. ft. one piece, ladder two pieces, large iron jar two

pieces. From the said list it is crystal clear that no

engraved stone i.e. inscription was either carried away by

the rioters or destroyed by the rioters. As such the story of

the destruction of inscription is wholly concocted and the

inscription which was prepared by the contractor was done

at the instance of the Britishers to deprive the Hindus from

their religious place and make the said place as bone of

contention between Hindus and Muslims to facilitate their

policy of divide and rule. As it has been written in the East

India Gazetteer 1828 p. 352, 2nd column last para as well

as the preface of the Neil B.E. Baillie's Digest of

Moohummudan Law Vol.2 Edn. 1875 Introduction p. xi

and xii.

Q. In Waqf Commissioner's report dated Feb. 8 1941, it

has been recorded that the alleged Babri Mosque was built

by one Abdul Baqi on being ordered to do so by the

Emperor Babur. He records that there is no document to

show that grant was sanctioned to the said Mosque either

by the Mughal Emperors or Nawabs of Oudh, but as in

1864 a sunnud was issued stating that the grant was given

to the grantee for rendering military, police and political

services. It may be presumed that it was granted in

continuance of the grants of Mughal Emperors to Nawabs

of Oudh right from the Emperor Babur. The said

Commissioner in his waqf report has committed forgery

and fabrication by inserting certain words in Urdu

transcript to show that the grant was given for

maintenance of the alleged Babri Mosque. In fact, said

sunnud is on record and entire sunnud is in English

1439

language and nothing is written in the said sunnud in Urdu

transcript as such question of grant for maintenance of

Babri Mosque cannot and does not arise at all. He says

that some return submitted in the office of Tahsildar in

1995 shows that though major expenses was done by the

grantee for his own maintenance, but a portion thereof was

spent on maintaining alleged Babri Mosque. Be it

mentioned herein that if grant would have been spent on

maintaining alleged Babri Mosque its account would have

been submitted to the District Civil court which was made

mandatory under the provisions of The Mussalman Wakf

Act, 1923 under Section 3 of the said Act. Report also

says that the Imam was not paid for last 11 years i.e. since

1930 as also that the Mutwalli is a drug addict and the

alleged Mosque is in not good condition as such Mutwalli

should be removed.

1274. Suffice it to say that Section 87 would be attracted

where a waqf is not registered under the Act. If there was some

irregularity or discrepancy in the procedure observed, whether

that would make a waqf otherwise registered by the Central

Sunni Waqf Board as unregistered, is neither an issue framed

nor there is requisite pleadings by the concerned parties giving

an opportunity to plaintiffs (Suit-4) to place on record the

relevant evidence. So far as the appreciation of the documents,

referred to above in sub paras A to Q, we are clearly of the view

that the same would not negate an otherwise positive assertion

by defendant 4 (Suit-5) which is not disputed at all by the other

side by challenging the said pleading. Moreover no issue on this

aspect has been framed. In our view, the suits in question cannot

be held to be barred by Section 87 of the Act.

1440

1275. There is another aspect. There are specific issues

concerning the very existence of the waqf and creation of a valid

waqf in accordance with Shariyat Law. Where such a basic issue

is involved about the very existence of a waqf, whether in such a

case also Section 87 would have any application or not, we have

our serious doubts but on this aspect in the absence of any

pleadings or arguments on the part of the respective parties

we find no occasion to express a final opinion. We are not

inclined to widen the scope of the suits in question, the canvass

whereof is already enlarged extraordinarily and we have enough

complicated issues to consider and decide having wider

ramifications. In the totality of the circumstances, as also the

discussion as above, we are clearly of the view that the suits in

question cannot be held untriable at this stage by virtue of

Section 87 of 1995 Act. The submission of Sri P.N.Mishra,

learned counsel for defendant 20 in Suit-4 with reference to

Section 87 of 1995 Act is hereby rejected. We, however, make

it clear that the submissions with respect to various documents

in the above mentioned paragraphs F to Q are in fact not

relevant to the above aspect of the matter. We intend to consider

it later on while deliberating on the concerned issues involving

those documents and their effect.

(E) Miscellaneous issues like representative nature of suit,

Trust, Section 91 C.P.C., non joinder of parties, valuation/

insufficient Court fee/under valuation and special costs.

1276. Issue no. 6 (Suit-4) reads as under:

"Whether the present suit is a representative suit,

plaintiffs representing the interest of the Muslims and

defendants representing the interest of the Hindus?"

1277. Issue no. 6 (Suit-4) pertains to the nature of the suit

1441

in a representative capacity in respect to both the parties, i.e.,

plaintiffs and defendants. It is not disputed by learned counsel

for the parties that the Civil Judge passed order dated

08.08.1962 under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC permitting plaintiffs to

represent the interest of Muslims and the defendants to represent

the interest of Hindus. The relevant part of the order says:

"I therefore allow appln 4-C and reject the objections 77-C

& 97-C. The pltffs are permitted to sue representing the

entire Muslim community and the pltffs are also permitted

to sue the defdts no. 1 to 4 on behalf of and for the benefit

of the entire Hindu community."

None has made any submission otherwise. The issue is

answered accordingly in affirmance.

1278. Issue No.22 (Suit-4) relates to special costs in case

suit is dismissed. It reads as under:

"Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with

special costs?"

Learned counsel for the defendants have fairly stated that

they do not press for any special costs and for they it would be

sufficient if the suits are decided on merits expeditiously.

In the circumstances and in view of the above statement

made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the

defendants in Suit-4, we answer Issue no.22 in negative i.e. no

special costs need be awarded.

1279. Issues no. 11(a) and 11(b) (Suit-1) reads as under:

"(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C.

applicable to present suit? If so, is the suit bad for want of

consent in writing by the Advocate General?

(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit

independent of the provisions of section 91 CPC? If not, its

1442

effect."

1280. These issues are in respect to Section 91 CPC which

reads as under:

"91. Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting

the public.--(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other

wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit

for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as

may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may

be instituted,-

(a) by the Advocate General, or

(b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons,

even though no special damage has been caused to

such persons by reason of such public nuisance or

other wrongful act.]

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or

otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist

independently of its provisions."

1281. The onus to prove the above issue initially lie upon

the defendants but no arguments have been advanced in respect

to the above issue. Besides, we find from the record that Sri

Chaudhary Kedarnath, Advocate, counsel of the plaintiff, Gopal

Singh Visharad, who initially filed Suit-1, made a statement on

15.09.1951 under Order 10 Rule 2 stating that he is filing the

above suit for enforcement of his individual right of worship

and, therefore, has a right to maintain the above suit in his

individual capacity. The relevant part of his statement is as

under:

"Q. In what capacity does the plaintiff seek to exercise the

relief which he seeks in the plaint.

Ans. In my individual capacity.

1443

Q. What is your individual capacity.

Ans. My individual capacity is distinct from public capacity

and in this matter an idol worshipper."

1282. It also appears that an application was filed on

behalf of defendants no. 1 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC before

the Civil Judge, Faizabad praying that the suit be treated to be in

a representative capacity but the said application was rejected on

27.10.1951. The order has attained finality as nothing has been

placed before us to show that the matter was taken up before the

higher Court assailing the order dated 27.10.1951. Section 91

CPC does not take away the independent right of a person where

such right partly relates to a public right of others also. It lays

down merely the procedure to be adopted in a representative suit

where a right of suit already exist. It did not confer or extinguish

a new right on its own. In Kadarbhai Mahomedbhai and

another Vs. Haribhari Ranchhodbhai Desai and another, AIR

1974 Gujarat 120 a suit was filed by a person affected by public

nuisance praying for removal of the public nuisance alleging

special damage to him and it was held that such a suit is not

barred either by Section 91 CPC or Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. To the

same effect is the view taken by this Court in Mst. Bhagwanti

Vs. Mst. Jiuti and another, AIR 1975 Allahabad 341. In view

of the above we answer issue no. 11(a) (Suit-1) in negative and

hold that neither Section 91 CPC is applicable to Suit-1 nor it is

bad for want of consent in writing by Advocate General. Issue

No. 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmance, i.e., the right of

the plaintiff is independent as set up by him in the plaint as also

in view of the statement under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC and has

nothing to do with Section 91 CPC. The question of the

subsequent part of the issue 11(b) need not be decided in view

1444

or our answer in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., in affirmance.


"Is the suit bad for want of steps and notice under

Order 1, Rule 8 CPC? If so, its effect?"

1284. This issue is with reference to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC

which reads as under:

"8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all

in same interest.--(1) Where there are numerous persons

having the same interest in one suit,-

(a) one or more of such persons may, with the

permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend

such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons

so interested;

(b) the Court may direct that one or more of such

persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit,

on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so

interested.

(2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or

direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiffs

expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all

persons so interested either by personal service, or, where,

by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such

service is not reasonably practicable, by public

advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.

(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit

is instituted or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to

the Court to be made a party to such suit.

(4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned

under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn

under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no

1445

agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in

any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court

has given, at the plaintiffs expense, notice to all persons so

interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2).

(5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit

does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence,

the Court may substitute in his place any other person

having the same interest in the suit.

(6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding

on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit

is instituted, or defended, as the case may be.

Explanation.-For the purpose of determining whether

the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same

interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such

persons have the same cause of action as the person on

whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or

defend the suit, as the case may be."

1285. As we have already discussed above the application

filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 5 under Order 1 Rule 8

CPC was rejected by Civil Judge, Faizabad by order dated

27.10.1951. The plaintiff had also made statement under Order

10 Rule 2 CPC that the right of worship, he is claiming by

means of Suit-1, is his individual and personal right hence Order

1 Rule 8 CPC has no application. That being so, the question of

taking steps and notice under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not

arise. Issue no. 12 (Suit-1) is accordingly answered in

negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiff (Suit-1).

1286. Issue no. 15 (Suit-1) pertains to non-joinder of

defendants and says:

"Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants?"

1446

1287. It is not pointed out by any of the defendants as to

who has not been impleaded as defendant though a necessary or

proper party in the suit. No arguments have been advanced on

this aspect and in the absence thereof we answer issue no. 15

(Suit-1) in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs (Suit-1).


"Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special

costs under Section 35-A C.P.C."

1289. It relates to special costs. Section 35A CPC says:

"35A. Compensatory costs in respect of false or

vexatious claims or defenses.--(1) If any suit or other

proceedings including an execution proceedings but

excluding an appeal or a revision any party objects to the

claim of defence on the ground that the claim or defence or

any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious

to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put

forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such

claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in

whole or in part, the Court, if it so thinks fit] may, after

recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to

be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment the

object or by the party by whom such claim or defence has

been put forward, of cost by way of compensation.

(2) No Court shall make any such order for the

payment of an amount exceeding three thousand rupees or

exceeding the limits of it pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever

amount is less:

Provided that where the pecuniary limits of the

jurisdiction of any Court exercising the jurisdiction of a

Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause

1447

Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) or under a corresponding law

in force in any part of India to which the said Act does not

extend and not being a Court constituted under such Act or

law, are less than two hundred and fifty rupees, the High

Court may empower such Court to award as costs under this

section any amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty

rupees and not exceeding those limits by more than one

hundred rupees:

Provided, further, that the High Court may limit the

amount or class of Courts is empowered to award as costs

under this Section.

(3) No person against whom an order has been made

under this section shall, by reason thereof, be exempted

from any criminal liability in respect of any claim or defence

made by him.

(4) The amount of any compensation awarded under

this section in respect of a false or vexatious claim or

defence shall be taken into account in any subsequent suit

for damages or compensation in respect of such claim or

defence."

1290. Learned counsels for the defendants have at the

outset stated that they do not press any cost whatsoever and for

them the biggest compensation would be the decision of the

matter at the earliest and, therefore, none has pressed the above

issue. In the result issue 16 (Suit-1) is answered in negative,

i.e., in favour of the plaintiff (Suit-1).

1291. Issues no. 11, 12 and 15 (Suit-3) read as under:

"Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary

defendants?"

"Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35

1448

CPC?"

"Is the suit property valued and court fee paid

sufficient?"

1292. None has pressed the above issues inasmuch as

neither any submissions have been advanced as to who is the

necessary party not impleaded in the suit rendering it bad for

non-joinder nor the learned counsels for the defendants have

pressed for special cost and on the contrary very fairly have said

that the decision of the suit at the earliest is itself the biggest

cost to them. No arguments have been advanced with respect to

the valuation and the Court fees in the matter. We, therefore,

answer issues no. 11 and 12 (Suit-3) in negative, i.e., in favour

of the plaintiffs (Suit-3). Issue no. 15 (Suit-3) is answered in

affirmance, i.e., in favour of the plaintiff (Suit-3).


"Whether the alleged Trust creating the Nyas ,

defendant no.21, is void on the facts and grounds stated in

paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no.3?"

1294. Defendant no. 3 represented by Sri R.L. Verma,

Advocate has not placed anything before this Court to show as

to how the alleged trust defendant no. 21 is void. Besides,

defendant no. 21 is not seeking any relief as such before us. The

question as to whether the alleged trust is void or not would

have no material bearing on the matter to the relief sought in

Suit-5 which has been filed on behalf of two deities through

next friend. We, therefore, find no reason to answer the

aforesaid issue in the present case. Issue no. 20 (Suit-5),

therefore, remain unanswered since it is unnecessary for the

dispute in the present case to adjudicate on the said issue. The

learned counsel for defendant no. 3 (Suit-5) also could not make

1449

any submission persuading us to take a different view.

(F) Issues relating to the Person and period- who and when

constructed the disputed building:

1295. Mainly there are three issues under this category

which requires adjudication on the question whether the

building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD and whether the

construction was made by Babar or under his orders by any of

his agent including Mir Baki.

1296. To be more precise, issues no. 6 (Suit-1), 5 (Suit-3)

and 1(a) (Suit-4) fall in this category.

1297. Issue No.6 (Suit-1) reads as under:

“Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by

Shahanshah Babar commonly known as Babri Mosque, in

1528 A.D.?”

1298. Defendants no.1 to 5 (Suit-1) in para 9 of their

written statement said:

* *nQk 9- ;g fd ftl tk;nkn dk eqn~nbZ us nkok fd;k gS og

'kgU'kkg fgUn ckcj 'kkg dh rkehj djnk efLtn ekSlwek ckcjh efLtn

gSA ftldks 'kga'kkg etdwj us ckn Qrsgvkch fgUnqLrku nkSjku d;ke

v;ks/;k vius othj o eqnk:y eksgke ehj ckdh ds ,greke ls lu~

1528 bZ0 esa rkehj djk;k vkSj rkehj djds reke eqlyeku ds fy,

o+DQ vke dj fn;kA ftlesa reke eqlyeku dk gd bcknr gSA**

“Para 9. That the property regarding which the plaintiff

has filed the suit, is the mosque built by Babar, emperor of

India, which is called Babri Masjid. It was built by the

aforesaid emperor, after his conquest of India, in the year

1528 through his Governor and confederate (eqnk:y eksgke )

Mir Baqi during his stay at Ayodhya and after building the

same, he created a universal Waqf in favour of Muslims in

general, and all the Muslims have the right of worship over

1450

there.” (E.T.C.)

1299. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, he denied the

existence of Babri Masjid in para 9 and said:

^^ckcjh efLtn gksus ls bUdkj gSA**

"Its existence as Babri Mosque is denied" (E.T.C.)

1300. The defendant no.10 (Suit-1) in para 2 and 10 of the

written statement have said:

"2. .... and the same was constructed during the regime

of Emperor Babar....."

"10. That the property in suit is an old mosque

constructed around the year 1528 A.D. during the regime

of Emperor Babar under the supervision of Mir Baqi and

the same has always been used as a mosque and it was

never used as a temple or as a place of worship for any

other community except muslims."

1301. Issue No.5 (Suit-3) reads as under:

“Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar

known as Babari Masjid?”

1302. In Suit-3, defendants no. 6 to 8 in written statement

dated 28th March, 1960 in para 15 have said:

**/kkjk 15-. ;g fd ftl tk;nkn dk eqn~nS;ku us nkok fd;k gS og

'kgu'kkg fgUn ckcj ckn'kkg ds rkehj djnk eLkthn ekSles ckcjh

elftn gS ftldks 'kgu'kkg etdwj us vius othj o enk:y eksgke

ehjckdh ds ,greke ls 1528 bZ0 esa rkehj djk;k vkSj eqlyekuku ds

fy;s od~Q vke dj fn;k ftlesa reke eqlyeku dk gd bcknr gSA**

“Para 15. That the property regarding which the plaintiff

has filed a claim, is a mosque built by Babur, Emperor of

India, and is known as Babri Masjid. The mosque was built

by the afore-named Emperor through his Secretary and

Commander, Mir Baqi in 1528 and was given in public

waqf to Muslims in which Muslims in general have a right

1451

of worship.” (E.T.C.)

1303. The plaintiffs (Suit-3), in replication, have denied

para 15 of the written statement and said:

“15. The allegations contained in para 15 of the written

statement are totally incorrect and are denied. The

property in suit is neither a mosque nor is it known as

Babri Mosque, nor was it built by Emperor Babar nor is it

known as Babri Mosque, nor was it built by Emperor

Babar through Mir Abdul Baqi. Nor was it made wakf. The

property in suit is the temple of Janma Bhumi."

1304. Issue No.1(a) (Suit-4) reads as under:

"When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as

alleged by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by

defendant no.13?"

1305. Plaintiffs (Suit-4) in para 1 and 2 of the plaint have

said:

“1. That in the town of Ajodhiya, Pergana Haveli Oudh

there exits an ancient historic mosque, commonly known

as Babri Masjid, built by Emperor Babar more than 433

years ago, after his conquest of India and his occupation

of the territories including the town of Ajodhiya, for the

use of the Muslims in general, as a place of worship and

performance of religious ceremonies.”

“2. That in the sketch map attached herewith, the main

construction of the said mosque is shown by letters A B C

D, and the land adjoining the mosque on the east, west,

north and south, shown in the sketch map attached

herewith, is the ancient graveyard of the Muslims, covered

by the graves of the Muslims, who lost the lives in the

battle between emperor Babar and the previous ruler of

1452

Ajodhiya, which are shown in the sketch map attached

herewith. …..The mosque and the graveyard are in

Mohalla Kot Rama Chander also known as Rama Kot

Town, Ayodhya. The Khasra number of mosque and the

graveyard in suit are shown in the Schedule attached

which is part of the plaint.”

1306. Defendants no.1 and 2 (Suit-4) while denying paras

1 and 2 of the plaint, in written statement dated 12th March,

1962 have in para 2 pleaded:

“2. That para 2 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and is

denied. There was never any battle between Babar and the

ruler of Ajodhya on any graveyard or mosque built as

dictated by the said Babar.”

1307. Defendant no.2 (Suit-4) in his written statement

dated 25th January, 1963 while denying paras 1 and 2 (Suit-4),

has further pleaded in para 2 of his written statement:

“2. That para 2 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and is

denied, there was never any battle between Babar and the

ruler of Ajodhya on any grave yard or Mosque alleged to

the built (as dictated) by the said Babar.”

1308. Defendants no. 3 and 4 (Suit-4), in their written

statement dated 22/24 August, 1962 have pleaded in paras 1 and

2 as under:

“1. The allegations contained in para one of the plaint

are totally incorrect and are denied. There does not exist

any mosque known as ‘Babri Masjid’ in Ajodhya – Nor

was any mosque built by Emperor Baber in Ajodhya more

than 460 years ago as alleged- Nor did Babar made any

conquest or occupation of any territory in India at the time

alleged in the plaint- The story of the mosque as narrated

1453

in plaint para 1 is a pure fiction.”

“2. The allegations contained in Para 2 of the plaint are

totally incorrect and are denied. The alleged sketch map is

entirely false and imaginary and is the outcome of the

plaintiffs fancy. On the Khasra no mentioned in the sketch

map there stands neither any mosque nor any grave. The

story of the alleged battle between Emperor Babar and any

previous ruler of Ajodhya, whose name the plaintiffs are

unable to mention in the plaint is pure canard. Neither did

any Muslim lose his life in any battle on the land of the said

Khasra Nos nor is there any grave or grave yard of any

Muslim at the said place. . . . The real facts are that the

said Khasra numbers pertain to the ‘Temple of Janam

Bhumi’ and other land appurtenant thereto.”

1309. In the additional written statement dated 28/29

November, 1963, the defendants no.3 and 4 (Suit-4) in para 38

said:

"Emperor Babar never built a mosque as alleged by

the plaintiffs and...."

1310. Defendant No.13/1 (Suit-4) Dharam Das in his

written statement dated 24th December, 1989 in para 1 said:

"1. That the contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint are

denied. It is submitted that Babar was not a fanatic but a

devout Muslim who did not believe in destroying Hindu

temples, it was Mir Baqi, who was a Shia and commanded

Babar's hords, who demolished the ancient Hindu temple

of the time of Maharaja Vikramaditya of Sri Rama Janma

Bhumi, and tried to raise a mosque-like structure in its

place with its materials."

1311. Doubting the very factum whether the disputed

1454

building was constructed by Babar during his regime the

defendant no.20 (Suit-4) in his written statement dated 5th

November, 1989 in paras 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 has said:

"32. ...There appears to be no description of any so called

Baburi Masjid allged to have been constructed by Emperor

Babur.

“33. That the Faizabad Gazetteer, Volume 43 (XLIII) of

the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and

Avadh compiled by Sri H.R. Nevill, I.C.S., published by

Government Press in 1905 under the topic ‘Directory’

while dealing with Ayodhya (at page 12-F) affirmed that

“The Janmsthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace

of Ram”. Later on, it is said, “The Mosque has two

inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on the pulpit;

both are in Persian and bear the date 935 Hizri, of the

authensity of the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no

record of the visit to Ayodhya is to be found in the

Musalman historians. It must have occurred about the time

of his expedition to Bihar.” It is to be noted that nothing

has been found so far to establish the visit of Babur to

Ayodhya. Only on the basis of these two inscriptions, the

conclusion is being drawn all round that the mosque was

built by Babur. It is very doubtful that it was so built. It

appears to be a creation of Britishers sometimes in the

Nineteenth century in order to create hatred between the

two communities of India viz. Hindus and Muslims and

thereby implement an effective policy of communal

disharmony, and thereby create problems of law and order

so that their annexation of Avadh may be justified on moral

grounds. The script on the outer inscription of the mosque

1455

is pretty bold and more artistic, a style which was

developed sometimes in the middle half of the Nineteenth

century while the inner inscription is very fine and thin, a

style developed in the latter half of the Nineteenth century.

It is therefore absolutely certain that on the basis of these

two inscriptions it cannot be concluded that either the

mosque was build in 1528 AD or in 935 Hizri, or it was

built by Emperor Babur or his Governor Mir Baqui, as

stated therein.”

“34. That in the U.P. District Gazetteers Faizabad

published by U.P. Government in 1960 and edited by Smt.

Esha Basanti Joshi at page 47 quotes the inscription inside

the mosque and relies on it for the date of construction of

the mosque. The translation of the inscription in Persian

given by her is as follows-

“By the command of Emperor Babur whose justice is an

edifice reaching upto the very height of the heavens. The

good hearted Mir Baqui built this alighting- place of

angels; Buvad Khair Baqi: (May this goodness last for

ever). The year of building it was made clear when I said

Buvad Khair Baqi (=935).”

This also shows that for both the things i.e. for year of

construction and for naming Emperor Babur as the builder

of the mosque, authorities have relied upon only on two

inscriptions found in the mosque.”

“35. That in the Babur Nama translated by Annette

Susannah Beveridge, Vol. II published by Sayeed

International, New Delhi, in appendix ‘U’ the heading is

‘The Inscriptions of Babur’s mosque in Ayodhya (Awadh)’.

While reproducing the inscription inside the mosque, and

1456

translating it at page IXXVIII after quoting the cuplets and

giving its translation and working out the number 935 to

identify the year, the author at the bottom appended the

following notes, which is very important-

‘Presumably the order for building the mosque was given

during Babur’s stay in Aud (Ayodhya) in 934 A.H. at

which time he would be impressed by the dignity and

sanctity of the ancient Hindu shrine- it (at least in part)

displaced and like the obedient follower of Muhammad he

was in intolerance of another Faith, would regard the

substitution of a temple by a mosque as dutiful and worthy.

The mosque was finished in 935 A.H. but no mention of its

completion is in the Babur Nama. The diary for 935 A.H.

has lost much matter, breaking off before where the

account of Aud might be looked for. On the next page the

author says, ‘The inscription is incomplete and the above

is the plain interpretation which can be given to the cuplets

(aforesaid) that are to hand.”

“36. That the Britishers in achieving their object got a

book published in 1813 by Laiden and known as Memoirs

of Badruddin Mohd. Babur, Emperor of Hindustan and for

the first time in this book it was stated that Babur in March

1528 passed through Ayodhya and even though Laiden has

not mentioned that Babur in Ayodhya demolished the

Hindu temples and built the mosque in their place, yet the

British rulers gave currency to this false news that Babur

demolished the Ram Janma Bhumi Mandir and

constructed the Baburi Masjid thereon. The translated

Babur Nama, Memoirs of Babur, published in 1921 and

translated by M.A.S. Beveridge has mentioned that Babur

1457

never interfered with the religion of others and even

though he visited various Hindu temples he appreciated

their archaeological beauties. It appears there are no

evidences that Babur ever visited Ayodhya or demolished

any Hindu temple in Ayodhya. To claim the disputed

mosque as one built by Babur 400 years ago by the

plaintiffs is therefore wholly wrong. In fact, in Faizabad

Gazetteers 1960 at page 352, it is said ‘It is said that at the

time of Muslim conquest there were three important Hindu

shrines (Ayodhya) and little else, the Janmasthan temple,

the Swargadwar and the Treta-ke-Thakur. The Janmasthan

was in Ramkot and marked the birth place of

Ram.............”

1312. In para 41, 46, 49 and 50, defendant no.20 though

has given some other reasons to show that the building in

dispute was not constructed in 1528 AD by Babar but they are

more in the nature of characteristics of mosque etc. and

therefore, we propose to refer while considering those issues.

1313. Sri Zafaryyab Jilani submitted that it has never been

doubted by any authoritative Historian and others that the

building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD under the

command of Babar by one of his commander Mir Baki. He

admits that the said findings are based on the inscriptions fixed

on the disputed building, which came to be noticed for the first

time by Dr. Buchanan in the earlier part of 19th century and has

consistently been acknowledged and affirmed thereafter by

several authorities like Robort Montgomry Martin, P. Karnegi,

Alexander Cunningham, W.C.Benett, A.S.Beveridge as well as

the ASI. He contends that for the first time this novel argument

has been advanced by defendant no. 20 raising doubt over

1458

whether the building in dispute was constructed by Babar or not

though nothing has been placed on record to prove the same.

1314. Per contra, challenging the very basic submission of

the plaintiffs (Suit-4) about construction of the disputed building

by Babar in 1528 AD based on the inscriptions installed thereat,

Sri Misra very ably argued that the basic premise itself is

unsubstantiated, baseless and false. He said that it is an admitted

position that Babar was a Sunni Muslim governed by Hanafi

school of law as mentioned by A.S. Beveridge in her work titled

as “Babur-Nama” (hereinafter referred to as the “Babur-Nama

by Beveridge”) translated in English from original Turki text,

first published in 1921 (reprinted in 2006 by Low Price

Publications, Delhi). On page 15, faith of Babur is described in

the following manner:

“He was a true believer (Hanafi mazhablik) and pure

in the Faith, not neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life

through, making up his omissions. He read the Qur'an very

frequently and was a disciple of his Highness Khwaja

'Ubaidu'l-lah (Ahrari) who honoured him by visits and

even called him son.”

1315. Sri Misra points out that in “Babur-Nama by

Beveridge” the daily description of Babar by two days in Hijra

934 has not been given though for the entire earlier part a de

die-diem description is given. However, in Hijra 935, narration

of events for about 5 months and more is missing. Babar when

invaded India entered from the northern front and defeated

Sultan Ibrahim Lodi, Emperor of Delhi in the battle of Panipat

in April, 1526 AD. He became king/Emperor of the entire area

of which Sultan Ibrahim Lodi was exercising his authority as

Emperor of Delhi. There was no change of reign in the matter of

1459

religion inasmuch as Ibrahim Lodi was also a Muslim and Babar

defeated him, therefore, the Muslim rule continued. There was

only a change of the Ruler. So far as Oudh is concerned, it was

ruled directly by Delhi Emperor, i.e., Ibrahim Lodi and with his

defeat the said area immediately fell within the authority of

Babar. In “Babur-Nama by Beveridge” the arrangement of

Oudh area, has been narrated at page 527 under the head

“Action against the rebels of the East” as under:

“Sl. Ibrahim had appointed several amirs under

Mustafa Farmuli and Firuz Khan Sarang-khani, to act

against the rebel amirs of the East (Purab). Mustafa had

fought them and thoroughly drubbed them, giving them

more than one good beating. He dying before Ibrahim's

defeat, his younger brother Shaikh Bayazid-Ibrahim being

occupied with a momentous matter-had led and watched

over his elder brother's men. He now came to serve me,

together with Firuz Khan, Mahmud Khan Nuhani and Qazi

Jia. I shewed them greater kindness and favour than was

their claim; giving to Firuz Khan I krur, 46 laks and 5000

tankas from Junpur, to Shaikh Bayazid I krur, 48 laks and

50,000 tankas from Aud (Oude), to Mahmud Khan 90 laks

and 35,000 tankas from Ghazipur, and to Qazi Jia 20

laks.”

1316. Sri Mishra says that Shaikh Bayazid, was an

appointee of Babar but soon after appointment he (Bayazid)

revolted and declared himself independent. About the

appointment of Bayazid, on page 544, “Babur-Nama by

Beveridge”, it says:

“Humayun, in accordance with my arrangements,

left Shah Mir Husain and Sl. Junaid with a body of effective

1460

braves in Juna-pur, posted Qazi Jia with them, and placed

Shaikh Bayazid (Farmuli) in Aude (Oude).”

1317. When Bayazid revolted, to defeat him and some

other rebel commanders, the Babar while proceeded towards

Bihar moved via Ayodhya, Jaunpur etc. On 28th March, 1528 he

reached near Ayodhya. However there is nothing in Babur-

Nama to show that he ever entered the city. When Babar came

near Ayodhya, the name of his commander was “Chin Timur”.

There is no mention of any person as “Mir Baqi” in the entire

Babur-Nama by Beveridge, who ever entered Ayodhya as a

commander of Baber’s army or otherwise. Bayazid fled away

from Ayodhya hearing arrival of Babar and his army. Baber’s

commanders chased him from one place to another. Bayazid

was ultimately killed by Humayun. There is no mention of a

battle between Babar or his army and the then ruler of Ayodhya

in 1528 AD. There was no occasion of burying muslims who

were killed in the alleged battle in the graves, claimed to exist

near the disputed site.

1318. “Babur-Nama by Beveridge” shows that Babar was

not fond of destroying temples and instead he visited temples

having idols at Gwalior and appreciated the Artistry thereof. It is

only at one place where he found naked idols being extremely

indecent which he ordered to destroy but not otherwise. Sri

Mishra says that the very basis of the pleadings of Muslim

parties that there was a battle between Babar and the then ruler

of Ayodhya in 1528 AD is false and unsubstantiated.

1319. Referring to the inscriptions which are the basis of

identifying the period of construction of disputed building by

Babar i.e. 1528 AD, he said that the alleged inscriptions are

1461

nothing but a subsequent forgery. They were not installed in

1528 AD as claimed. He submits that the first reference of the

inscription is found in “Gazetteer of Territories under the

Government of East India Company and of the Native States

on the Continent of India” by Edward Thornton, first

published in 1858 AD (reproduced in 1993 by Low Price

Publications, Delhi) and at page 739 it says that according to

native tradition the temples were demolished by Aurangzabe,

who build a mosque on the part of the site. The falsehood of the

tradition is however, proved by an “inscription on the wall of

the mosque”, attributing the work to the conqueror Babar, from

whom Aurangzabe was fifth in descent. He says that the said

inscription has not been quoted in the said gazetteer. However,

the Archaeological Survey of India in its book titled as “The

Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur” by A. Fuhrer, first published

in 1889, reprinted in 1994 has reproduced the “inscriptions” said

to be found on the disputed building at Ayodhya and whatever is

mentioned therein has much difference to the text of the

inscriptions quoted by Beveridge in her book i.e. “Babur-

Nama”. This difference fortify the fact that they were

subsequently implanted. Some words are different which show

that the said building was not constructed at the instance of

Babar in 1528 AD.

1320. Fuhrer in Chapter X of the book “The Sharqi

Architecture of Jaunpur” has given details of inscriptions

found at the disputed building at Ayodhya. He points out that

Beveridge claimed that texts of the inscriptions on Babar's

Mosque in Ayodhya were received by her through her husband's

inquiry made from the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad. She

has given details of the said inscriptions in Appendices 'U' at

1462

page lxxvii in 'Babur-Nama by Beveridge' (supra). The footnote,

item two, says that a few changes in the turm of expressions

have been made for clearness sake. Again with respect to the

date of building she has tried to read it as 935 and in the

footnote she says that presumably the order for building the

mosque was given during Babur's stay in Aud (Ajodhya) in 934

A.H. though Babur-Nama itself shows that Babar reached near

Ayodhya at the end of 934 A.H. and only two days of Hizra

934’s description is missing.

1321. Sri Misra then referred to the third version of

inscriptions published by ASI in “Epigraphia Indica Arabic

and Persian Supplement (in continuation of Epigraphia Indo-

Moslemica) 1964-1965” (reprinted in 1987). The chapter under

the heading “Inscriptions of Emperor Babar” is said to have

been written by Late Maulavi M. Ashraf Husain. The

inscriptions dated A.H. 935 from Ayodhya are at page 58, 59,

60, 61 and 62. The opening part of the Chapter make certain

comments about writer in the following words:

“A rough draft of this article by the author, who was

my predecessor, was found among sundry papers in my

office. At the time of his retirement in 1953, he had left a

note saying that it might be published after revision by his

successor. Consequently, the same is published here after

incorporation of fresh material and references and also,

extensive revision and editing. The readings have been

also checked, corrected and supplemented with the help of

my colleague, Mr. S.A. Rahim, Epigraphical Assistant,-

Editor.”

1322. On page 58 the author refers to the reading of

inscriptions by A. Fuhrer and says that he (Fuhrer) has

1463

incorrectly read it. In the last paragraph it says that the mosque

contains a number of “inscriptions”. On the eastern facade is a

chhajja below which appears a Quranic text and above an

inscription in Persian verse. On the central mihrab are carved

religious texts such as the Kalima (first Creed), etc. There was

another inscription in Persian verse built up into right hand side

wall of the pulpit. Of these, the last two mentioned epigraphs

have disappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the

communal vandalism in 1934 AD but the writer of the chapter

Sri Ashraf Husain managed to secure an inked rubbing of one of

the them from “Sayyid Badru'l-Hasan of Faizabad”. He further

says that the present inscription restored by the muslim

community is not only in “inlaid Nasta'liq” characters, but is

also slightly different from the original, owning perhaps to the

incompetence of the restorers in deciphering it properly. The

author further declare the translation and reading of inscription

by “Fuhrer” and Beveridge both incomplete, inaccurate and

different from the text. Sri Hussain has based his entire

conclusions from the estampage claimed to have been received

from Saiyyid Badru's Hasan of Faizabad whose credentials have

not been given. In the bottom note it has said that the tablet was

found in 1906-07 AD by Maulavi M. Shuhaib of the office of

the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra (Annual

Progress Report of the Office of the Archaeological Surveyor,

Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-07, Appendix-D. The author

had deciphered the three inscriptions on pages 59, 60, 61 and

62.

1323. Sri Mishra submits that the differences in

inscriptions appear for the reason that the same were not

installed in 1528 AD for the simple reason that no such

1464

construction at all took place at that time. He refers to the record

of Tieffenthaler and submits that Tieffenthaler himself was a

fine scholar with an unusual talent for languages. Besides his

native tongue (Austrian) he understood Latin, Italian, Spanish,

French, Hindustani, Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit. He argued

with vehemence that had such inscriptions been available when

Tieffenthaler visited Ayodhya after arriving in India in 1740

AD, he himself could have read it and would not have said in

his work that an existing temple was demolished by Aurangzabe

to construct three domed structure thereat (also mention that

some says that the demolition and construction was made by

Babar). Had the inscriptions been there, he would have clearly

written that the said work was of Babar and not by Aurangzabe.

1324. Sri Mishra says that the actual demolition and

construction, as the case may be, took place later on and was not

done by Babar. He says that Mir Baqi is not a name but 'Baqi'

means 'Bakshi', i.e., commander of an army of 100 men and

'Mir' is a title used to be given to civilian muslims at that time.

Besides, there is no mention of any one named “Mir Baqi” who

stayed at Ayodhya and undertook the above job. He submits that

forgery of inscriptions by replacing and travelling from one

place to another is not unknown. In this regard he referred to the

inscriptions of “Rajputon Ki Masjid”. He also points out that

“Fuhrer” mentions of only two inscriptions while in

“Epigraphia Indica 1964-65” there is mention of three/four

inscriptions. According to him the inscription might have been

installed between 1776 to 1807 though the building in dispute

might have been raised earlier but neither by Babar nor during

his time nor by anyone at his instance.

1325. The other learned counsels appearing on behalf of

1465

Hindu parties adhered to their stand that a Hindu temple was

demolished in 1528 AD under the command of Babar and

thereafter building in dispute was constructed. However, the

learned counsels submitted that their stand is not taken to be in

refuting or challenging the stand taken by Sri P.N.Mishra,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.20 (Suit-4)

and the same be examined by this Court on the basis of its own

merits, in the light of the arguments advanced by him as also

contradicted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of

Muslim parties and they (Hindu parties) be not treated to have

joined this issue with the Muslim parties. They however submit

that their basic premise continue that is demolition of temple at

the birthplace of Lord Rama and construction of disputed

building.

1326. The question as to whether the building in dispute

was constructed in 1528 AD at the command of Babar or by

Babar himself is a very important and pivotal issue, which may

have its reflection on several other issues in all these connected

suits. We proceed to examine this aspect of the matter very

carefully.

1327. The root of the entire controversy is the disputed

building which is said to have been constructed by Emperor

Babar through his Commander/ Governor/Confederator, Mir

Baqi. In the pleadings of muslim parties, though there is some

difference in the language, but in an undisputed manner it has

been pleaded that the building in dispute got constructed in 1528

AD by Emperor Babar after his conquest of India through his

Commander/Governor/Confederator, Mir Baqi. This is what is

the stand also taken by plaintiffs (Suit-5) and some other Hindu

Parties.

1466

1328. Though already referred, but in a concised

recapitulation, we may tell hereat that in para 1 of the plaint

(Suit-4) it is averred that in Ayodhya there exist an ancient

historic mosque commonly known as “Babri Masjid”, built by

Emperor Babar more than 433 years ago after his conquest of

India and his occupation of the territories including the town of

Ajodhya. It is also said in para 2 that on the land adjoining the

said mosque, on all the four sides, there existed graveyard of

Muslims who lost lives in battle between Emperor Babar and

the previous ruler of Ajodhya. Suit having been filed in 1961,

433 years took it back to 1528 AD.

1329. In Suit-1, defendants No.1 to 5 in para 2 of their

written statement dated 21st February, 1950, have said that the

disputed building is a mosque constructed by Emperor Babar. In

para 9, (additional pleas), it is averred that the disputed building

is Babri mosque constructed by Emperor Babar of India, after

conquest of India, during his stay at Ayodhya through his

Minister/Commander Mir Baqi. The building in dispute was

constructed in 1528 AD. Similar averments are made by

defendant no.10 i.e. Sunni Central Waqf Board (Suit-1) in paras

2 and 10 of their written statement.

1330. In Suit-3, defendants No.6 to 8 in para 15 of their

written statement, have said that the disputed building is a Babri

Mosque constructed by Emperor of India through his

Minister/Commander Mir Baqi in 1528 A.D.

1331. In Suit-5, defendant No.4 Sunni Central Waqf Board

in para 13 of written statement dated 26/29 August, 1989, has

said that the property in dispute is an old mosque known as

Babri Mosque constructed during the regime of Emperor Babar.

This has been reiterated in para 24. However, in para 24-B

1467

defendant No.4 states that the land in question undoubtedly

belong to the State when the mosque in question was

constructed on behalf of the State. He further says that Emperor

Babar built the Babri Mosque on a vacant land lay in his State

territory and did not belong to any one . It could very well be

used by his officers for the purpose of mosque especially when

the Emperor himself consented and gave approval for

construction of the said mosque.

1332. The defendant No.5 (Suit-5) in para 40 of written

statement dated 14/21st August, 1989, has averred that according

to the inscription in the mosque, the same was constructed by

Mir Baqi, one of the Commander of Babar in 1528. The

existence of mosque in 1528 AD has been reiterated in para 67.

The written statement of defendant No.5 has been adopted by

defendant No.6 vide his application dated 21/22 August, 1989.

1333. Defendant No.24 (Suit-5)in para 12 has referred to

the period of construction of the disputed building as 1528 AD.

However, in para 15 there is slight change in the stand to the

effect that Emperor Babar never came to Ayodhya and the Babri

Mosque was built by Mir Baqi and not Babar. The period of

construction as 1528 has been reiterated in para 22.

1334. Defendant No.25 (Suit-5) though in general

supported the claim of other Muslim parties but in the written

statement dated 16/18 September, 1989 it has not disclosed any

particular date of construction of the building in dispute. The

pleading therefore is that the building in dispute was constructed

in 1528 AD by Babar or with his consent by Mir Baqi, a senior

officer of Emperor Babar, but the basis on which the said date is

mentioned is not given in the pleadings.

1335. Except the defendant No.5 (Suit-5) who in written

1468

statement has given the basis of such averment i.e. the

inscription installed on the building in dispute, no further details

of such inscription has been given either by him or anyone else.

We however find that the only foundation is the inscription on

the disputed building to claim the period of construction as

would appear hereinafter.

1336. On behalf of the plaintiffs (Suit-4), 32 witnesses

have been examined in all which include Expert Historians (as

they claimed) namely Suresh Chandra Mishra, PW 13; Sushil

Srivastava, PW 15; Prof. Suvira Jaiswal, PW 18; and Prof.

Shirin Musvi, PW-20. Besides, a large number of witnesses

examined on facts have deposed mainly about continuous

offering of Namaz in the disputed building till December, 1949,

possession of Muslims on the disputed building but some of

them have also said about date of construction of the disputed

building being 1528 AD based on their knowledge derived from

various sources but basically derived from the inscriptions said

to be existed in the disputed building, inside and outside, and

some on the basis of History books without referring any name.

Some others who claimed Expert Archaeologists have also said

same thing on this aspect.

1337. It would thus be appropriate to see what has been

said by these witnesses about the date/period of construction of

the disputed building as also the basis of such

information/opinion.

1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross

examination has said:

^^ckcj esjk pqfuank fo"k; FkkA*^ ¼ist 54½

“Babur was my favourite subject.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjs v/;;u ds vuqlkj ckcj vo/k ls gksdj xqtjs FksA ;g ?kVuk

lu~ 1528 ds vklikl dh gSA - - - fookfnr <kWaps dk fuekZ.k lu 1528

1469

esa gqvk FkkA bl ckr dk ftdz Hkh vkrk gS fd lu~ 1528 esa ;g fdl

le; fuekZ.k gqvk Fkk] ysfdu eq>s vc ;kn ugha vk jgkA vfHky s[ k d s

ifjf' k "B e s a bldk ftdz vkrk g SA * * ¼ist 69½

“As per my study, Babur had passed through Oudh.

This incident occurred in and around 1528 . . . The

disputed structure was constructed in 1528. There is also a

mention as to which time in 1528 this construction was

raised but I do not remember that at present. It is

mentioned in the appendix to the document.” (E.T.C.)

^^ftl le; eSa ekSds ij x;k Fkk] rks e S au s bl vfHky s[ k ;kuh

bUlfd z Ilut dk s H k h egRoi w. k Z le>k Fk kA y sfdu ;g vjch

e s a F k sA D;ksafd ;g vfrfjDr lwpuk gS vkSj fo'oluh; lwpuk gS blfy,

bls eSa vc crk jgk gwWaA igys egRoiw.kZ crk;s x;s fpUgksa vkSj phtksa esa

budk ftdz eSaus ugha fd;k FkkA** ¼ist 71½

“At the time when I visited the site, I considered

only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But

they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional

and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not

make mention of these things in the symbols and objects

earlier stated to be important.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g vfHkys[k vjch esa Fks vkSj eSa vjch Hkk"kk ugha tkurkA , slk

ugh a g S fd e S a vknru > wB ck syrk g wW aA 14-07-98 dks bl vnkyr

esa esjk c;ku gqvk FkkA mlesa eSaus ;g okD; fy[kok;k Fkk fd ^^ogkWa ij

tks f'kykys[k Fkk] og Qkjlh esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk ysfdu mlds ckjs esa eq>s

igys ls irk FkkA esjk vkt okyk c;ku Bhd gS fd og vfHkys[k vjch

esa fy[kk gqvk FkkA okLro esa og f'kykys[k ugha] vfHkys[k FkkA esjk

ifgyk okyk c;ku fd og Qkjlh esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk] xyr FkkA ;g esjs

le>us esa xYrh ds dkj.k ls gks ldrh gSA D;k s afd e S a u gh rk s

Qkjlh tkurk g wW a vk S j u vjchA eSa ySfVu Hkh ugha tkurkA**

¼ist 72½

“These records were in Arabic and I do not know

1470

Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on

14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I

had caused it to be recorded that 'the inscription which was

there, was written in Persian language but I had been in

the know of that from earlier'. My today's statement is

correct that the record was written in the Arabic language.

Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier

statement to the effect that it was written in Persian

language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in

understanding it, because I know neither the Persian

language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin

either.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vius vUos"k.k ds le; tc igyh&igyh ckj ogkWa ij

bUlfdzIlu ns[ksa rks eSaus fdlh dks cqyokdj mUgsa ugha i<+ok;kA eSaus ml

bUlfdzIlu dh fdlh dkxt ij udy ugha mrkjhA eSaus dksbZ QksVks Hkh

ugha fy;kA eSa iqLrd lkFk ysdj x;k FkkA eSa flQZ felst csojht dh

fdrkc ysdj x;k FkkA - - - ;s ogh bfUdzIlu gSa] tks eq>s dy fn[kkbZ

xbZ iqLrd ds jkseu i"B &77 ls 79 ij n'kkZ;h x;h gSaA eSaus ekSds ij

mu bUlfdzIlUl dk feyku bl iqLrd esa fn;s x;s bUlfdzIlUl ds lkFk

fd;k vkSj fQj bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWap x;k fd ;g ogh efLtn gSA ;g

ckrsa 1989 ;k 1990 dh gSa] ysfdu ,DtsDV frfFk eSa ugha crk

ikÅWaxkA**¼ist 79½

“In course of my investigation, when I for the first

time saw inscriptions there, I did not call anybody to read

them out to me. I copied the inscription on paper. I did not

take any photograph either. I had gone there with a book. I

had gone there only with the book written by Mrs.

Beveridge. . . . . These are those inscriptions that are

shown on Roman pages from 77 to 79 of the book shown to

me yesterday. On the site I tallied those inscriptions with

the inscriptions given in this book, and then I came to an

1471

inference that it was that very mosque. This incident

pertains to 1989 or 1990 but I am not in a position to tell

the exact dates.” (E.T.C.)

^^vUos"k.k ds fy, eSa viuk lkjk lkeku bl ifjlj ds ckgj

j[kdj [kkyh gkFk vUnj ifjlj esa x;k Fkk vkSj ckgj vkdj eSaus viuk

lkeku okil ys fy;kA eSa viuk lkjk lkeku ftlesa esjh iqLrd Hkh

'kkfey Fkh] vius ,d lkFkh ds ikl ifjlj ls ckgj ml LFkku ij NksM+

x;k Fkk] tgkWa iqfyl psd dj jgha FkhA** ¼ist 79&80½

“In order to carry out investigation, I had gone

inside the premises empty-handed and after keeping all my

belongings out of the premises, and after coming out I took

all the belongings. I had left all my belongings, including

my book also, with a friend at a place outside the premises

where the police was checking.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz'u% D;k vkius ifjlj ls ckgj j[kh gqbZ viuh iqLrd esa nh

xbZ vfHkys[kksa dh 'kSyh vkSj fyfi dk eqdkcyk ifjlj esa okdk Hkou ij

yxs vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk ckgj vkdj dj fy;k Fkk\

mRrj% eSaus ckgj vkdj esy&feyku fd;k FkkA vkSj vUnj tkus ls

igys mls le>dj x;k FkkA

;g nksuksa izfdz;k;sa mlesa 'kkfey Fkh fd vUnj tkus ds igys ml

iqLrd esa fn;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dks mudh 'kSyh vkSj fyfi ds lkFk vius

ekul iVy ij vafdr fd;k vkSj vUnj tkdj Hkou ij yxs vfHkys[kksa

ds lkFk mldk feyku fd;k vkSj blh rjg ls vUnj yxs vfHkys[kksa dks

ns[kdj mudh 'kSyh vkSj fyfi dks vius ekul iVy ij vafdr dj

fy;k vkSj ckgj iqLrd esa fn;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ls mudk feyku dj

fy;kA** ¼ist 80½

“Question:- After coming outside, did you tally the

style and script of the records given in your book kept

outside the premises with the inscriptions at Waqua

Bhawan in the premises?

Answer:- After coming outside I tallied the records

1472

and before going inside I had understood them.

This exercise included two processes, which were

that before going inside I had recorded the style and script

of the records in my mind and on going inside I tallied

them with the inscriptions in the building and that I

registered the style and script of the inside inscriptions in

my mind and on coming out I tallied them with records

given in the book.” (E.T.C.)

^^iz0 & ;fn vkidks ,ihxzkQh dk ,DliVZ dgk tk;s rks lgh

gksxk ;k xyr\

m0& 'kkyhurk ls eSa ,ihxzkQh dk tkudkj gksuk Lohdkj djrk

gwWA

iz0& vki ls iz'u fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ;g tkuuk pkgrk gwWa fd

vki vius dks ,ihxzkQh dk fo'ks"kK ekurs gSa ;k ugha\

m0& ;g ;fn vkRe'yk?kk ;k viuh rkjhQ u le>h tk;s rks eSa

fouezrkiwoZd dg ldrk gwWa fd vki eq>s bl oxZ esa j[k ldrs gSaA**

¼ist 111½

“Question:- If you are called an expert in epigraphy,

will it be correct or incorrect to say such?

Answer:- With humility I accept my being conversant

with epigraphy.

Question:- You were queried and I want to know

whether you consider yourself to be a specialist in

epigraphy or not ?

Answer:- If it is not taken to be self-praise, I can

humbly say that I can be placed under this

category.”(E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ds ckjs esa eSaus tks v/;;u fd;k gS] og xgu v/;;u

Hkh gS vkSj 'kks/k Hkh gSA** ¼ist 170½

“The study which I have made with regard to

Ayodhya, is no only a deep study but a research

1473

also.”(E.T.C.)

^^eq>s ;kn ugha vk jgk fd ckcjukesa esa mlds }kjk ;k mlds

jkT;dky eas v;ks/;k esa fdlh efLtn ds fuekZ.k dk ftdz vk;k gS ;k

ughaaA ckcjukek e sa ftdz ehjckdh dk g S u fd ^ ^ckdh * *

dkA * * ¼ist 196&197½

“I fail to remember whether or not the Baburnama

makes mention of the construction of any mosque in

Ayodhya by him or during his reign. The Baburnama

makes mention of Mir Baqi, not of 'Baqi'.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s bl le; Lej.k ugha vk jgk fd ckcjukek esa

^^ckdhrk'kdUnh** vkSj ^^ckdh'kxkoy** dk Hkh ftdz vk;k gS ;k ughaA

vxj ,slk dksbZ ftdz vk;k gS rks og mlds lsukifr ehjckdh ds fy,

ugha gks ldrkA** ¼ist 197½

“At present I fail to remember whether

'Baqitashkandi' and 'Baqisadwal' find mention or not in

Baburnama. If there is any such reference, it cannot be for

his army-chief Mir Baqi.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk xyr gS fd ijf'k;u Hkk"kk dk vfHkys[k 1934 esa dgs

x;s naxksa ds ckn yxk;k x;k gksA** ¼ist 198½

“It is wrong to say that an inscription in Persian

language was engraved after the riots which allegedly

erupted in 1934.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj us ckdhrk'kd an h dk s vo/k dk i z ' k kld cuk

fn;k Fk kA eq>s ;g ckr Li"V ugha gS fd ;g ckdhrk'kdanh ogh O;fDr

Fkk ;k ugha ftls ehjckdh ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA lEHkkouk rks ;gh gS

fd ckdhrk'kdanh vkSj ehjckdh ,d gh O;fDr ds 2 uke gksaA eSa bl ckr

dks fuf'pr :i ls ugha dg ldrk flQZ lEHkkouk gh gS fd ;g nksuksa

uke ,d gh O;fDr ds FksA

bUlfd z I' ku d s ckj s e s a ,d tuZy bihx z k fQdk b afMdk

i zdk f' kr g qb Z g S a mldk s e S au s i< +k g SA okLro esa ;g ,d tjuy

gS tks gj lky izdkf'kr gksrk gSA blds ,d vad esa ,d baldzsi'ku

1474

vk;k gS] ,d ys[k vk;k gS ftlesa ckcjh efLtn ds vanj 14 ykbZuksa ds

vfHkys[kksa dk ftdz gSA blesa 3 f'kykys[kksa dk ftdz gSA eSaus dy blh

vnkyr esa c;ku fn;k Fkk fd ogka ij dsoy ,d f'kykys[k FkkA okLro

e s a e sj k og c;ku tcku d s fLyi dju s d s dkj.k g qvkA

vk S j bl bEi z s' ku e s a g qvk fd ogk a fdlh u; s tkyh

bUldzi' ku dk ftdz rk s ugh a gk s jgkA* *

¼ist 213½

“Babur appointed Baquitashkandi administrator

of Oadh. I am not clear whether or not this Baquitashkandi

was the same person that has come to be known as Mir

Baqi. The possibility is that Baquitashkandi and Mir Baqi

are two different names of one and the same person. I

cannot say this definitely. It is just a possibility that these

two names were of the same person.

I have read a journal 'Epigraphica Indica' in

regard to inscription. Actually, it is a journal published

every year. One of its editions makes mention of an

inscription and contains an article which makes mention of

inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes

mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a

statement in this very court that there was just one pillar

inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was

due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there

should not be any mention of any new fake

inscription.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus tc fookfnr Hkou dk fujh{k.k fd;k rks ek Sd s ij 2

f'kyky s[ k n s[ k s F k sA ,d f'kyky s[ k rk s ckgjh }kj ij yxk

Fk k vk S j n wljk lEHkor% i syfiV feEcj ij yxk Fk kA mlds

Åij yxk gqvk FkkA fujh{k.k ls igys eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha Fkh fd ogka

ij 3 f'kykys[k gSaA eq>s dsoy 2 dk gh irk FkkA eq>s 1990&91 ds ikl

;g yxk Fkk fd ogka ij 3 f'kykys[k gSaA ;g tkuus ds ckn fd ogka ij

1475

3 f'kykys[k gS eq>s fujh{k.k djus dk ekSdk ugha feyk vkSj oSls Hkh i<+us

ds i'pkr esjh rlYyh gks x;h fd 3 f'kykys[k gSa vkSj mlls gh esjh

ftKklk dh larqf"V gks x;hA f'kykys[kksa dk fujh{k.k djus ls igys gh

eq>s ;g tkudkjh gks pqdh Fkh fd mu ij D;k dqN fy[kk gqvk gSA**

¼ist 214½

“When I observed the disputed building, I saw two

pillar inscriptions on the site. One pillar inscription was

at the exterior door and the other one was perhaps at fall

fiat member. It was above it. Prior to my observation, I did

not have the knowledge that three pillar inscriptions were

there. I had knowledge only of two ones. In and around

1990-1991 I came to know that three inscriptions are there.

After knowing that three pillar inscriptions are there I did

not have the opportunity for observation. As a matter of

fact, after reading I got satisfied that three inscriptions are

there and that alone satisfied my curiosity. Even before

observation of the pillar inscription, I had got the

information what was written on them.” (E.T.C.)

^^tgka rd eSa le>rk gwWa] eq>s bl vnkyr esa xokgh ds fy, bl

fo"k; ij cqyk;k x;k gS fd ftl Hkwfe ij fookn gS vk;k fd ogkWa fdlh

efUnj dks rksM+dj efLtn cukbZ xbZ Fkh ;k ughaa eSaus ;g c;ku fn;k

gS**¼ist 224½

“As far as I understand, I have been summoned in

this court to depose whether or not a mosque was

constructed by demolishing a temple on the disputed site. I

have given this statement,” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus dqN dne mBk;s Fks fookfnr Hkou dh ,sfrgkfldrk dks

tkuus ds fy,A ----ml LFky ij ,d vfHky s[ k Fk k ] tks ckcjh

efLtn esa Fkk] mldks ns[kkA ---- vfH ky s[ k l s e sj k eryc ckcjh

efLtn e a s yx s g q, bUlfd z Ilu l s g SA ^^ ¼isst 276½

“I had made some attempts to know the history of the

1476

disputed structure. …. I had seen a record at that place,

which was within the Babri mosque. …. By record, I mean

the inscription at the Babri mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s ijf'k;u ugha vkrhA** ¼ist 287½

"I do not know Persian." (E.T.C.)

1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert

Historian and on page 111 has also claimed that he may be

placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement

on page 54 shows that Babar was his favourite subject. He is

M.A. in Ancient History (Culture and Archeology) and Ph.D.

He claims that having undergone a deeper inquiry and study on

the dispute he concluded that the mosque was constructed by

Mir Baqi and for this purpose there was no destruction of any

kind at the disputed site. He referred to Skand Puran,

Baburnama, his visit to Ayodhya before 1992 and the report

(Exhibit D25, Suit-5) (Paper No. 110C1/96) submitted to the

Government of India by Prof. R.S. Sharma, Prof. D.N. Jha and

Prof. Suraj Bhan alongwith Prof. Athar Ali being his study

material. However, he admits that he did not find any reference

of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in

Baburnama and it also contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On

the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111)

but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor

Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand

the language in which the alleged inscription was written. In his

statement dated 14.07.1998 he claims that the inscriptions were

written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that

the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement

was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor

Arabic. He attempted this Court to believe in his knowledge of

1477

History being an Expert Historian in Ancient History and that he

has made a deep study on the subject which is like a research

and therefrom he has come to know that the building in dispute

was constructed in 1528 AD by Mir Baqi but his cross

examination shows that for arriving at the said conclusion,

without any further inquiry into the matter, what was written

about the inscriptions in Epigraphica Indica (1964-65) as well as

Baburnama by Beveridge and on that basis he believed and

concluded as above. The slipshod and casual manner in which

he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On

page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the

book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the

script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book

and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the

correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for

security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left

outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building

empty handed. The book was also left outside where police

checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about

comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was

further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the

book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This

wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of

the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian

nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know

Urdu language.

1340. The correctness of his statement can further be

scrutinised in the light of what has been written by Maulvi F.

Ashraf Hussain in his paper published in Epigraphica Indica

(1965) where he admits that the original two inscriptions were

1478

damaged in 1934 and replaced by new one. Therefore, in

1989/90 what PW 13 saw, were the inscriptions replaced in

1934 and not that text which was available to Mrs. Beveridge,

she has quoted in her book published in 1921. The difference

between the text of the inscriptions quoted by Beveridge and

that which was available to Maulvi Ashraf Hussain which he

published in Epigraphica Indica, we would be demonstrating a

bit later. Suffice it to mention at this stage that the inscriptions

which were available in 1989/1990, having been replaced in

1934 contains lot of difference. The alleged deep study/research

of PW 13 thus become seriously suspicious and make this

witness wholly unreliable.

1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by

Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names

Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein or

not. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the

fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi

Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir

Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi

Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in

Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir

Baqi. He also says that there is reference of Mir Baqi in

Baburnama but during the course of arguments the learned

counsel for the plaintiff (Suit-4) admits that the words “Mir

Baqi” as such are not mentioned in the entire Baburnama

translated by Mrs. Beveridge or others but what he submits that

most of the Historians are of the view that “Baqi Tashkandi”

was “Mir Baqi” since he was given the command and made

incharge of Awadh by Babar.

1342. In fact PW 15 another expert historian witness on

1479

page 85 has clearly said that “Mir Baqi's” name does not find

mention in Baburnama. He also says that there is nothing in

Baburnama which may co-relate “Baqi Tashkandi” with “Mir

Baqi”.

1343. From the entire statement of PW 13 this much is

evident that in his opinion for the period of construction of the

building, i.e., 1528 AD, and the person who got it constructed,

i.e., Mir Baqi, the ultimate reliance is on the inscriptions

(whether two or three, that would be discussed later on) and no

other authentic material. The opinion of PW 13 in this regard,

however, is based on the information which he received from

the book “Baburnama” by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge and Epigraphica

Indica (1965) from which he was satisfied and concluded his

opinion. Beside that, he had no other reliable information to

form the said opinion.

1344. At this stage we may also mention that Dr. S.C.

Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and

claims to be closely acquainted with him. On page 44 he has

also admitted that except Baburnama by A.S. Beveridge he has

read no other translation at all. On page 31 he says that he has

intellectually analysed and contemplated whether God is a

reality or not and has come to the conclusion that there is no

existence of God, since, he had no occasion to come face to face

with God. On page 53, he says that he has also studied the

“History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also

consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the

dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is

correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific

temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the

matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to a

1480

concrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the

basis of general conception among majority of people and also

because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that

Islam emerged through revelation. From reading of the books

enumerated he came to a conclusion that scholars opined that

Islam appeared through revelation. On page 57 he admits that

neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the

process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance

of the term "revelation" and its meaning. At several places he

sought to correct his statement made earlier which throw light

on his knowledge of the matter, his confidence as also his

memory. One of such aspect is about the constitution of ASI

which he stated to be in 1934 on 14.07.1998 but later, on page

73/74, he admits the incorrectness in the earlier statement and

rectify the same by stating that it was constituted in 18th century.

In his research he admits of having not read any gazetteer or

Government gazette (page 74-75). On page 88 he further

contradicted to some extent his statement about his scientific

temperament and says that in respect to “Allahoupanishad” he

has made statement only on secondary basis. He also admits the

falsity of statement that in 1968 he went to the disputed site

alongwith his parents but did not go inside although the parents

went (page 33) and on page 93 in this regard he has said:

^^;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd eSaus mlesa ;g xyr c;kuh dh gks

fd tc esjs ekrk&firk bl Hkou ds vUnj pys x;s rks eSa ckgj [kM+k jg

x;k FkkA oSls ;g Bhd gS fd lu~ 66 vkSj lu~ 68 esa Hkh bl fookfnr

ifjlj ds ckgjh eq[; }kj ij rkyk cUn Fkk vkSj dksbZ Hkh O;fDr vUnj

ugha tk ldrk FkkA** ¼ist 93½

“It is wrong to say that in the said testimony I have

wrongly stated that when my parents went inside this

building, I was left standing outside the building. However,

1481

it is true that even in 1966 and 1969 the main outdoor of

this disputed premises was locked and none could go

inside.” (E.T.C.)

1345. On page 167 PW 13 said that there is nothing like

Sanatan Dharm and on the same page he said that the word

“Hindu” is a mixed term which comprises several type of people

including those who had their origin somewhere outside and

who have assimilated in it. Nobody was original Hindu. It is

subsequent concept. It commenced from circa 4th or 3rd BC.

1346. Learned counsel for the defendants (Suit-4) pointed

out to us that PW 13 was not an expert of Medieval History

and this is evident from his admission on page 152/153 where

he says that he is teaching students Ancient History and his

Ph.D. was limited to the study of Kautilya's Arthshastra. The

relevant part of his statement on page 152/153 is:

^^ftl dkyst esa eSa v/;;u djrk gwa] ogkWa Hkkjrh; izkphu

bfrgkl esa dsoy eSa gh ,d ,slk O;fDr gwa tks jhMj ds in ij dk;Zjr

gSA gekjs dkyst esa bl foHkkx esa izksQslj ij ij dksbZ O;fDr ugha gSA

gekjs dkyst esa izkphu Hkkjrh; bfrgkl dk dksbZ vyx foHkkx ugha

gS] ;g bfrgkl ds fo"k; esa gh lfEefyr gS vkSj bl rjg ls bfrgkl dk

,d lkewfgd foHkkx gS] ftlds gsM vkQ n fMikVZes.V Jh ds0 HkkX;k

jko gSaA** ¼ist 152½

“In the college where I am a teacher, I am the only

person who is working as a reader of Ancient history. No

person is posted on the psot of professor in this department

in our college. There is no separate department of ancient

Indian history in our college. It is comprised in the history

subject itself and in this way there is a combined

department of history, which is headed by Sri K.Bhagya

Rao.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjh 'kks/k ;kuh MkDV~sV dkSfVY; ds vFkZ'kkL= rd lhfer gS]

1482

ftlesa vfHkys[kh; v/;;u Hkh lekfgr gSA ;g Bhd gS fd ;g

vfHkys[kh; v/;;u Hkh dkSfVY; ds vFkZ'kkL= rd lhfer gSA

eSa ch0,0 ds fo|kfFkZ;ksa dks i<+krk gwWa vkSj ,e0,0 Qkbuy ds

fo|kfFkZ;ksa dks Hkh i<+krk gwWaA e S a d soy i z kphu bfrgkl i< +krk g wW aA

izkphu bfrgkl esa ge yksx Hkkjrh; lUnHkZ esa] bl Hkwfe ij loZizFke

vorfjr euq"; ds lk{; feyus ds le; ls 750&800 ,-Mh- rd dk

bfrgkl i<+krs gSaA** ¼ist 153½

“My research i.e. doctorate is limited to the study of

Kautilya's 'Arthashastra and it also comprises

documentary study. It is true that this documentary study is

limited to the study of Kautilya's Arthashastra.

I teach the students of B.A. and also those of M.A.

final. I teach ancient history only. In ancient history, we

teach history, in Indian context, from the time we get the

earliest traces of human beings on this earth up to 750-800

AD.” (E.T.C.)

1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW

13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the

manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said:

^^eSa fnYyh ls y[kuÅ bl eqdnesa esa xokgh nsus ds fy, dbZ ckj

vk;k gwa vkrh nQk dHkh gokbZ tgkt ls ugha vk;k ysfdu okilh ij

y[kum ls fnYyh 2 nQk gokbZ tgkt ls x;k gwaA vkt Hkh eSa gokbZ

tgkt ls okil tkuk pkgrk gwaA ;g Bhd gS fd bl le; vnkyr esa

esjk gS.M cSx j[kk gqvk gS vkSj ml ij bafM;u ,;j vkSj lgkjk ,;j

ykbZal ds dbZ ¼fQj dgk½ ,d&,d Vsx dqy 2 Vsx gSaA** ¼ist 185½

“I have been to Lucknow from Delhi several times in

order to depose in this litigation. I never came by air but

on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two

times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. It is true

that at present my hand bag is kept with the court and it

has many tags (then stated) one tag each of Indian Airlines

1483

and Sahara Airlines totalling two tags.” (E.T.C.)

1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different

statement on page 201 as under:

^^eSa dHkh Hkh xokgh nsus ds fy, gokbZ tgkt ls ugha vk;k eSa tc

dHkh xokgh ds fy, vkrk gwa rks ;k rks vius ikl ls [kpZ djrk gwa ;k

vnkyr ls feyh gqbZ /kujkf'k dk iz;ksx djrk gawA eSa jsy ;k=k djrk gwa

vkSj vkus tkus dh fjtosZ'ku djk dj pyrk gwaA eSa lsds.M ,0lh0]

ftlds fy, eSa gdnkj gwa }kjk gh ;k=k djrk gwaA ;g Bhd gS fd eSaus

fiNyh ckj vnkyr dks cryk;k Fkk fd eSa 2 ckj gokbZ tgkt ls Hkh

okil fnYyh x;k gwaA** ¼ist 201½

“I never came by air to give my testimony. Whenever

I come for deposition I bear expenses either on my own or

from the amount received from the court. I travel by rail

and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I

travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true

that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi

by aeroplane two times.” (E.T.C.)

1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack

independent, fair and impartial opinion. He admits to have done

Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha who according to him was one of the

signatory to the document “A Historians Report to the Nation”

alongwith three others and on page 142 he admits that all these

four persons he considered to be the top historians of the

country and, therefore, place them above the published research

of Hans Baker of Ayodhya. Prof. D.N.Jha in fact did not sign

the letter. The other three took a partisan stand as we shall

demonstrate later. He do not agree with Baker's conclusions

though reason for such disagreement could not be given by him.

1350. PW 15, Sushil Srivastava is a Historian working on

the post of Professor in Maharaja Saya Ji Rao University

Baroda. During the course of examination, he rejoined

1484

Allahabad University. He deposed to have seen inscriptions and

has further said that the same appears to have been written in

Persian. The script is in Arbo-Persian. He is also author of a

book on the subject titled as “The Disputed Mosque – A

Historical Enquiry” which was published in 1991.

1351. With regard to the date of construction of the

disputed building, inscriptions and his book, PW 15 in his cross


^^eSaus fookfnr LFky ds lEcU/k esa tks iqLrd fy[kh gS] mldks fy[kus ds

le; eq[; xtsfV;j vkSj tks vU; fons'kh ;k=hx.k ds ys[k gSa] mudks

vk/kkj cuk;k gSA** ¼ist 9½

“While writing the book, which I have written about

disputed site, I made main gazetteers and articles of other

foreign travellers, the basis of my book.” (E.T.C.)

^^ogk a ij e S a H k hrj o ckgj i z kphu o jktdh;

vfHky s[ k n s[ k s F k s nk s ckgj Fk sA ,d vanj FkkA ;g y s[ k nhokj

ij fy[k s Fk sA ;g ys[k fookfnr <kaps ij cgqr Åaps ij fy[ks FksA ;g

ys[k iRFkj ij [kqnk FkkA eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd iRFkj ij ckgj dh

rjQ ;g 'kCn fudys gq, Fks ;k Hkhrj [kqns gq, FksA eSaus fookfnr LFky ds

lEcU/k esa iqjkus eqdneksa esa nkf[ky fjdkMZ bl lEcU/k esa ugha ns[ksA eSaus

dysDV~sV esa bl lEcU/k esa j[ks fjdkMZ dk v/;;u fd;k FkkA eSaus

ih0dkusZxh fMIVh dfe'uj QStkckn }kjk fyf[kr fjiksVZ ogka i<+h FkhA

dysDV~sV dpgjh ds fjdkMZ :e esa eSaus ;g vfHkys[k ns[kk FkkA ih0

dkusZxh }kjk v;ks/;k Ldsp eSus ,d ikVZ esa ns[kk FkkA bl fjiksVZ esa

v;ks/;k ds eafnj efLtn dq.M vkfn dk ftdz vk;k gSA fookfnr LFky

dk ftdz eSaus ml fjiksVZ esa i<+k gSA fookfnr LFky ds ckjs esa ml fjiksVZ

esa ih0 dkusZxh us fy[kk gS fd efLtn ckcj us cuok;h Fkh ;g efLtn

1528&29 e s a cuok;h Fk hA ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ;g efLtn tgka

cuok;h x;h gS ogka ij igys jke tUe dk eafnj jgk gksxkA ;g ih0

dusZxh dk uksV 1867 esa izdkf'kr gqvk FkkA blds vykok ogka eSus vkSj

dksbZ fjdkMZ ugha ns[kkA eSaus ts0MCyw0 gkst fMIVh dfe'uj QStkckn dk

1485

dksbZ uksV 1905 okyk ugha ns[kkA^^ ¼ist 13&14½

“There I had seen inside and outside ancient and

official inscriptions, two were outside, one was inside.

These inscriptions were written on the wall. These

inscriptions were written on much height of the disputed

structure. I cannot say whether these words were engraved

projecting outside or engraved inside the stone. In this

connection, I have not seen the records filed in old cases

regarding disputed site. I had studied the records kept in

Collectorate in this connection. There I had read the report

of P.Karnegi, Dy. Commissioner, Faizabad. I had seen this

record in the Record Room of Collectorate. I have seen the

sketch of Ayodhya in one of the Parts. In this report there is

reference of temple, mosque, Kund etc. I have read in that

report reference of the disputed site. In that report,

regarding the disputed site, P. Karnegi has written that the

mosque was got constructed by Babar in 1528-29. It is

also written that at the place, where this mosque has been

got constructed, there might have been Ram Janam temple

earlier. This note of P. Karnegi was published in 1867.

Except this I have not seen any other record there. I have

not seen any note of 1905 by J.W. Hose, Deputy

Commissioner, Faizabad.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj v;ks/;k uxjh dHkh ugha vk;k FkkA** (ist 14½

“Babar never came to Ayodhya city.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky esa tks f'kyk ys[k eSaus tks crk;s gSa og fdl lu~ ds

Fks ;k fdl dky ds Fks eSa ugha tkurk A eq>s ;g ugha ekywe fd mu

f'kykys[kksa ij dkSu lk lu~ ;k lEcr~ fy[kk gqvk FkkA eSaus viuh fdrkc

esa ;g ftdz fd;k gS fd fookfnr LFky dks f'kykys[k ij dkSu lk

lu ;k lEcr fy[kk gSA fookfnr <kaps ds Åij tks ys[k fy[kk Fkk ml

ij tks lu ;k lEor fy[kk Fkk og c soj st lkgc u s viuh i q Lrd

1486

e s a n'k k Z;k g S e S au s mlh dk s viuh fdrkc e sa fy[k fn;k g SA

mle sa 935&,0,p0 vFk k Zr 1528&29 ,0Mh0 fy[k k g qvk Fk kA

ckgj ;k Hkhrj okys f'kykys[k ,d ls ugha FksA ckgj okyk f'kykys[k

dkQh yEck Fkk mldk iRFkj Lysc dkQh yEck Fkk Hkhrj okyk iRFkj ;k

iRFkj Lysc NksVk FkkA ;g ckgj okyk iRFkj dk Lysc ftl ij f'kykys[k

Fkk og 10&12 fQV yEck gksxk fQj dgk fd 8&10 gksxkA bl iRFkj ds

Lysc dh pkSM+kbZ djhc Ms< fQV jgh gksxhA vanj okyk f'kykys[k ckgj

okys iRFkj ds Lysc ls vk/ks ls Hkh NksVk FkkA** ¼ist 14&15½

“I do not know as to which year or period the stone

inscriptions of the disputed site, which I have referred,

pertained. I do not know as to which year or Samvat is

written on those inscriptions. I have referred in my book as

to what year or Samvat is written on the stone inscriptions

of the disputed site. The year or Samvat written in

inscriptions over disputed structure was mentioned by

Bevrez Saheb in his book. I have written that matter in

my book. Therein 935 A.H., i.e., 1528-29 A.D. was

written. Stone inscriptions of outside and inside were not

similar. The outer stone inscription was too much lengthy

and its stone slab was very lengthy and inside stone or

stone slab was small. This outer stone slab containing the

inscription was 10-12 ft in length (Then said) might be 8-10

ft. The inside stone inscription was smaller than half of the

outer stone slab.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcjukek esa fookfnr <kaps ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ftdz ugha gSA efLtn ds

lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ ftdz ugha gSA ckcjukek esa 2 efLtnksa dk ;kuh lEHky

okyh efLtn vkSj 'kk;n ikuhir okyh efLtn dk ftdz fd;k x;k

gSA**¼ist 17½

"There is no reference of disputed structure in Babarnama.

Nor any reference is there with regard to mosque. In

Babarnama, there is reference of two mosques, i.e., of

1487

Sambhal Mosque and perhaps, Panipat Mosque." (E.T.C.)

^ê S a ijf' k;u Hk k " k k u i< + ldrk g a w vk S j u fy[k

ldrk g w aA e S a vjch Hk h u i< + ldrk g w a vk S j u fy[k

ldrk g w aA laLdr dk Hkh eq>s dksbZ vPNk Kku ugha gSA^^ ¼ist 32½

“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also

not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no

sound knowledge of Sanskrit also." (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd ftl ijf'k;u Hkk"kk dks eSa u i<+ ldrk gwWa vkSj u fy[k

ldrk gwa mldks i<+us fy[kus ij vFkkZr bUVjfzizV djus esa esjs llqj us

cgqr enn dhA** ¼ist 33½

“It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in

reading and1366 writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian

language, which neither I can read nor write, " (E.T.C.)

^êsjs llqj th vjch Hkk"kk vkSj Qkjlh Hkk"kk ds fo}ku gSaA** ¼ist 36½

“My father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian

languages." (E.T.C.)

^êSaus fookfnr LFky ij tks ys[k ;k f'kykys[k ns[ks Fks og Qkjlh

Hkk"kk esa Fks rFkk Qkjlh fyfi esa FksA ;g lgh gS fd eq>s Qkjlh Hkk"kk vkSj

fyfi ds ckjs esa eq>s esjs llqj lkgc ls Kku izkIr gqvkA fQj dgk

fd ;g dguk lgh gS fd ;g Kku eq>s fookfnr LFky ij ik;s x;s ys[kksa

vkSj f'kykys[kksa ds lEcU/k esa llqj th ls izkIr gqvk FkkA** ¼ist 37½

“The script or inscriptions which I had seen at the

disputed site, were in Persian language and script. It is

correct that I acquired knowledge about Persian language

and script from my father in law. Further said, it is correct

to say that I acquired knowledge from my father in law,

about script and inscriptions found at the disputed

site."(E.T.C.)

^^;g gks ldrk gS fd eSaus fdrkc esa bfrgkldkj gksrs gq, Hkh

yksxksa dh Ldkyjyh Qhfyax dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, mu ij fo'okl fd;k

vkSj mudks fo'okl djds fdrkc esa fy[kkA eSaus viuh fdrkc dks fy[krs

1488

le; bldk uke fgLVkfjdy bUDok;jh j[kkA ;g gks ldrk gS fd eSaus

bls ,d eksM bfrgkfld tkap dk ekudj fdrkc fy[kh gksA** ¼ist 38½

“It might be that despite being a historian, keeping in

view the scholarly feeling of the people, I relied on them

and noted down in my book. At the time of authoring my

book , I titled it as Historical Inquiry. It may be that

treating it as a turning point of historical investigation, I

have written the book." (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh g S fd e sj s ll qj th u s ;g egl wl fd;k Fk k

fd c soj st d s }kjk fook fnr LFky d s y s[ k k s a dk tk s vu qokn

fd;k x;k g S og fcYdqy i wj h rjg l s lgh ugh a g SA **¼ist 38½

“It is true that my father in law felt that the

translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage

is not wholly correct." (E.T.C.)

^^lu~ 1988 esa esjk 'kks/k dk;Z iwjk ugha Fkk vkSj py jgk FkkA** ¼ist 39½

“In 1988 my research was not complete and was under

process." (E.T.C.)

^^e sj s 1988 d s i zdk'ku d s ckn l s gh e sj s mlh d s

dkj.k H k k X; tx x; s vkSj eq>s MkDVj dh fMxzh fey x;h vkSj eq>s

jhMj Hkh cuk fn;k x;kA ftl le; eSa jhMj gqvk Fkk vkSj ih0,p0Mh0

dh fMxzh feyh Fkh ml le; bykgkckn fo'ofon;ky; d s

d qyifr Jh oghnmnhu efyd Fk sA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd ml le;

m0iz0 ds eq[;ea=h eqyk;e flag ;kno FksA^^ ¼ist 39½

“It was only after 1988 publication that my luck

brightened up, I acquired degree of Doctorate and I was

appointed Reader also. When I became Reader and was

conferred Ph.D. Degree, Sri Wahiuddin Malick was the

Vice Chancellor of Allahabad University. It is also

correct that, at that time the Chief Minister of U.P. was

Mulayam Singh Yadav." (E.T.C.)

^^e S a ;g ugh a dg ldrk fd rhu f'kyky s[ k k s a e s a

1489

l s ,d f'kyky s[ k Qkjlh e s a F k k vk S j nk s vjch e sa F k s]

D;k s afd e q> s bu nk su k s a H k k " k kvk s a dk Kku ugh a Fk kA ** ¼ist 51½

“I can not say whether out of three inscriptions

one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no

knowledge of these two language.” (E.T.C.)

^êSus viuh iqLrd esa bu rhuksa f'kykys[kksa dk vaWaxzsth vuqokn

djokdj fy[kk gSA vaxzsth vuqokn ds fy, eSaus vius llqj th ls

fuosnu fd;k Fkk vkSj mUgh ls djok;k FkkA** ¼ist 51½

“In my book I have written about the three

inscriptions after getting the same translated in English.

For English transcription I have requested my father-in-

law and got it done from him.” (E.T.C.)

^îjUrq og vjch rFkk ijfl;u tkurs gSaA** ¼ist 51½

“But he know Arabic and Persian.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd esa ;g fy[kk gS fd LVkby vkQ dSyhxzkQh

tks f'kykys[kksa ij gS] mlls ;g lUnsg iSnk gksrk gS fd ;g efLtn ckcj

}kjk cuokbZ xbZ Fkh ;k ughaA ;g lgh gS fd bl mijksDr ckr dk

vk/kkj ;g gS fd esjs llqj 'ke'kqy jgeku Qk:dh lkgc ;g eglwl

djrs FksA ;gh ckr eSaus viuh fdrkc esa fy[kh gSA** ¼ist 51½

“I have written in my book that the style of

Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this

mosque was constructed by Babar or not. It is correct that

the basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law

realized so. I have written this fact in my book.” (E.T.C.)

^ê S au s lkbUl vkQ dSyhx z kQh ugh a i< +h g SA ,ihx z kQh

dk fo" k; Hk h e S au s ugh a i< +k g SA ** ¼ist 51½

“I have not studied Science of Calligraphy. I have

also not studied the subject of Epigraphy.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gk s ldrk g S fd fook fnr efLtn

1501 ,-Mh - e s a cukb Z xb Z gk sA ** ¼ist 52½

“It may be right to say that disputed mosque was

1490

built in 1501 AD.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g gk s ldrk g S fd fook fnr efLtn dk s ckcj l s

igy s fdlh vk S j u s cuok;k gk sA ckcj u s 1526 l s 1530

,-Mh - rd Hk kjr d s d qN v a' k ij gh fot; i z k Ir dh Fk hA **

¼ist 52½

“It is possible that the disputed mosque might have

been built by someone else prior to Babar. Between 1526

to 1530 AD, Babar conquered over only certain parts of

India.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky ij ftu rhu f'kykys[kksa dk ftdz eSaus fd;k gS]

muesa ls nks cgqr Åij Fks] tks djhc 20&22 fQV Åaps FksA rhljk

f'kykys[k uhps Fkk] mldks eSaus 4&5 fQV dh nwjh ls ns[kk FkkA ijfl;u

Hkh fLdzIV gksrh gSA vjsfcd o Qkjlh fLdzIV esa fy[kh tkrh gSA ;g

dguk xyr gksxk fd Qkjlh dksbZ Hkh fyfi ugha gSA ;g lgh gks ldrk

gS fd Qkjlh Hkk"kk vjsfcd fyfi esa fy[kh tkrh gSA vjch vkSj ijfl;u

fyfi esa dqN vYQkcsV dk vUrj gS] ckdh ,d gh gS bl lEcU/k esa tks

Hkh eSaus viuh iqLrd esa fy[kk gS] eSa lsd.M~h lkslZ ds vk/kkj ij fy[kk

gSA lsds.M~h lkslZ nks izdkj ds gksrs gSaA igys okys esa fyf[kr :i esa

v[kckj vkfn vkrs gSa] vkSj nwljs esa] fy[kh gqbZ iqLrdsa vkrh gSaA**¼ist 52½

“Out of the three disputed inscriptions on disputed

site which I have mentioned, two were at great height,

approximately at the height of 20-22 ft. Third inscription

was downward side which I viewed from a distance of 4-5

ft. Persian is also a script. Arabic and Persian is written in

script. It will be wrong to say that Persian is not any script.

It may be that Persian language is written in Arabic script.

There is difference of few alphabets in Arabic and Persian

script, remaining are the same. Whatever I have written in

this regard in my book is based on secondary source. There

are two sorts of secondary source. In the first category

comes written newspapers etc. and in the second category

1491

comes written books.” (E.T.C.)

^^mDr fookfnr <kapk 16oha 'krkCnh ds vykok 15oh0 'krkCnh dk

cuk;k gks ldrk gSA fo'k s" kK d s :i e s a e sj h jk; e s a ;g lEH ko

g S fd fook fnr <k ap k ckcj dk cuok;k g qvk u gk sA ,d

fo'ks"kK ds :i esa eSa ;g dg ldrk gaw fd ;g fookfnr <kapk tkSuiqj ds

lqYrku dk Hkh cuok;k gks ldrk gSA** ¼ist 57½

“The aforesaid disputed structure might be a

construction of fifteenth century besides sixteenth century.

As an expert, in my opinion, it is probable that the

disputed structure was not constructed by Babar. As an

expert I can say that, it may be that the disputed structure

was constructed by the Sultan of Juanpur.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus viuh fdrkc lR; ds [kkst ds fy, fy[kkA bl iqLrd

esa ,d v/;k; ^^fMM ckcj fCYV fn efLtn** gSA bl iqLrd dks fy[kus

ds igys eSaus dkQh Nkuchu fd;k FkkA Nkuchu d s i'pkr e S a bl

urht s ij ig q W ap k fd fook fnr <k ap k ;k rk s r qxyd 'k kldk s a

}kjk cuk;k x;k Fk k ;k 'kdh Z ' k kldk s a }kjk cuk;k x;k

Fk kA eSa bl urhts ij ugha igWaqpk fd ;g vo/k ds uokcksa }kjk Hkh dqN

Hkkx cuk;k x;kA vo/k d s uokck s a dk ,Ecye ¼ljdkjh fu'k ku½

nk s eNfy;k W a F k h aA orZeku le; esa izns'k jkT; dk ,Ecye Hkh nks

eNfy;kWa gSaA** ¼ist 62½

“I have written my book for discovery of truth. This

book contains a chapter entitled “Did Babar Build the

Masjid”. Before authoring this book, I had made a

thorough probe. After the investigation, I came to the

conclusion that the disputed structure had been built

either by Tughlaq rulers or Shirky rulers. I did not reach

the conclusion that some part of it was constructed by

Nawabs of Avadh. The emblem of Nawabs of Avadh was

“two fish”. Presently also, the emblem of the State

Government is two fish." (E.T.C.)

1492

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds i"B 74 ,oa 75 ij vjsfcd vkSj ijfl;u

ds ysVlZ ds fLdzIV~l ds ckjs esa jk; fn;k gSA eSaus viuk jk; ;g fn[kkus

ds fy, fn;k gS fd ckcj v;ks/;k ugha x;k FkkA** ¼ist 63½

“At pages 74 and75 of my book I have recorded my

opinion with respect to scripts of Arabic and Persian

letters. I have given this opinion in order to demonstrate

that Babar never visited Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds i"B la[;k&89 esa ckcjh efLtn ds

dSyhxzkQh ds LVkby ij viuh jk; O;Dr fd;k gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij

;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd bl ckr ij xzhfo;l lUnsg mRiUu gksrk gS

fd ;g efLtn ckcj us cuokbZA e q> s vkV Z ;k lkbUl vkQ

dSyhx z kQh dk Kku tjk Hk h ugh a g SA * * ¼ist 65½

“At page 89 of my book I have recorded my opinion

regarding the style of calligraphy of Babari Mosque, and

on that basis came to this conclusion that on this point, a

grievous doubt emerges if Babar had built this mosque. I

have not the least knowledge of art or science of

calligraphy.” (E.T.C.)

^êSus viuh iqLrd ds dkye&6 i"B &92] 93 ,oa 94 esa mu

iqLrdksa dk fooj.k fn;k gS ftuds ckjs esa eq>s tkudkjh gSA eSaus mDr

lHkh iqLrdksa dks iwjh rjg ls ugha i<+k gSA buesa ls eSaus ysuiwy] ysMsu]

csofjt ,oa j'kcqd fofy;e dh iqLrdsa eSaus i<+h gSaA ckdh iqLrdsa dsoy

FkksMh&FkksM+h i<+h gSaA muesa dqN iqLrdsa ,slh gSa tks eSaus ugha i<+h gSaA**

¼ist 68½

“In column 6 of pages 92,93 and 94 of my book, I

have given description of those books about which I know.

I have not read wholly all the aforesaid books. Out of

these, I have read the books of Lenpool, Laden, Baverige

and Rushbook William. I have studied a little the remaining

books. There are certain books therein, which I have not

studied.” (E.T.C.)

1493

^^;g lgh g S fd e S au s ftu fdrkck s a dk s ugh a i< +k

mudk Hk h ftdz e S au s viuh fdrkc e s a Q qVuk sV e s a fd;k g SA **

¼ist 68½

“It is true that, in the foot note of my book, I have

mentioned those books too which I have not

read.”(E.T.C.)

^êSaus ftu rhu xkaoksa dk ftdz ,sisfMDl esa fd;k gS mls eSaus

jsosU;w ds vfHkys[kksa esa ugha ns[kk gS dsoy xtsfV;j ds vk/kkj ij fy[kk

gSA eSaus ;g Kkr ugha fd;k fd fookfnr LFky fdl ekSts esa fLFkr gSA

e S au s xt sfV;j e s a n s[ k k fd fook fnr LFky ut wy e sa g S A **

¼ist 71½

“I had not seen in revenue records, the three

villages, which I have mentioned in the appendix and have

written only on the basis of Gazetteer. I did not find out as

to in which village the disputed site lay. I saw in Gazetteer

that the disputed site is in Nuzul.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk xyr gS fd xtsfV;j ekSfyd 'kks/k dk;Z ds Js.kh esa

ugha vkrk gSA ;g izkbejh lkslZ ekuk tkrk gSa ;g dguk lgh gS fd

xtsfV;j dk ewy L=ksr ftys esa j[ks gq, jsosU;w fjdkMZ gksrs gSaA** ¼ist 73½

“It is wrong to say that the gazetteer does not come

within the category of original research work. It is

considered a primary source. It is true to say that the basic

source of gazetteer is revenue records maintained in the

District.” (E.T.C.)

^ê S au s bl ckr ij xk S j ugh a fd;k fd f'kyky s[ k 'k q:

l s yx s g S a ;k ckn e s a yxk fn, x, g S aA ** ¼ist 77½

“I did not pay attention on this fact, as to whether

the inscriptions were installed from the beginning or

installed subsequently.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus ckcjh efLtn ds fgLVksfjlVh ds ckjs esa dksbZ izekf.kr

iqLrd ugha i<+k dsoy iz'kklfud vaxzst vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fgLVkfjdy

1494

,dkmaV ,oa xtsfV;j gh i<+k gSA eSaus fdlh Hkkjrh; ;k rqdhZ ;k fons'kh

eqlyeku ys[kd dh izekf.kd iqLrd dsoy ckcjh efLtn ij ugha i<+hA**

¼ist 77&78½

“I have not read any authoritative book about the

historicity of Babari Masjid, read historical accounts of

British Administrative Officers and gazetteers only. I have

not read any authentic book of any Indian or Turkish or

Foreign Muslim on the Babari Mosque only.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s lkbal vkQ ,ihxzkQh dh tkudkjh ugha gSA if'kZ;u vkSj

vjsfcd Hkh ugha vkrh gSA** ¼ist 78½

“I have no knowledge of Science of Epigraphy. I do

not know even Persian and Arabic.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky ij tks f'kykys[k eSaus ns[ks ml ij fxurh vafdr

ugha Fkha ns[kus ij eq>s ;g Kkr ugha gqvk fd f'kykys[k fdl o"kZ esa

fy[ks x,A ckn esa eq>s fdlh us crk;k fd ;g 935 ,0,p0ds fy[ks gq,

gSa fQj dgk fd izks0 jk/ks';ke us eq>s ;g ckr crk;h fd ;g f'kykys[k

935 ,0,p0ds fy[ks gq, gSa vkSj eSaus mUgsa lgh eku fy;k ;g ckr eSaus

csofjt lkfgck dh fdrkc ls Hkh i<+hA mijk sDr nk su k s a y s[ kdk s a u s

f' kyky s[ k d s ,ihx z kQh dk s i< +dj mijk sDr urhtk fudkyk

Fk kA vk S j e S au s mlh dk s lgh eku fy;kA ** ¼ist 78&79½

“There was no figure indicated on the inscriptions

which I saw on the dispute site. On seeing, it could not be

known as to in which year the inscriptions were written.

Later on, someone told me that these are written in 935

AH, further said, Prof. Radhey Shyam had told me this fact

that these inscription were written in 935 A.H. and I took

the same to be true. I also read this fact in the book of

Beverige. The aforesaid two writers had drawn the said

conclusion on deciphering the epigraphy of the

inscriptions and I considered the same to be

true.”(E.T.C.)

1495

^^f'kykys[k ij ehjckdh dk uke fy[kk Fkk ij mu ehj ckdh

dk ftdz ckcjuke s a e s a ugh a vkrk g SA ** ¼ist 85½

“On the inscription, the name of Mir Baqi was

written but reference of the said Mir Baqi does not find

place in Babarnama.” (E.T.C.)

^^,slk ckcjukesa esa dqN Hkh ugha feyrk fd f'kykys[k esa ftl

ckadh dk ftdz vk;k gS og ckadh rk'kdanh jgk gksA** ¼ist 85½

“In Babarnama nothing of the sort is found to

indicate that Baqi mentioned in the inscriptions would have

been Banki Tashkandi.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa fuf'pr :i ls bl fu"d"kZ ij ugha igqap ldk fd ;g

fookfnr <kapk fdl ihfj;M dk gS ijUrq ;g e qxy dky d s igy s

dk g SA ** ¼ist 106½

“I could not reach with certainty to the conclusion

as to which period the disputed structure pertains but it

relates prior to the Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)

^^,ihxzkQh dk Kku eq>s ugha gSA U;wfelesfVd dk Kku eq>s ugha

gSA vkdksZykth esa eSaus dksbZ fo'ks"k Kku izkIr ugha fd;kA losZ vkQ yS.M

dk dksbZ Kku eSaus izkIr ugha fd;kA lkbZal vkQ vkdhZVsDpj dk eSaus dksbZ

fo'ks"k Kku izkIr ugha fd;kA rqdhZ vjch Qkjlh dk Hkh dksbZ Kku eSaus

izkIr ugha fd;kA** ¼ist 106½

“I have no knowledge of Epigraphy. I have no

knowledge of Numismatic. I did not acquire any

specialization in archaeology. I did not acquire knowledge

about survey of land. I did not acquire any specialized

knowledge in Science of Architecture. I did not acquire any

knowledge of Turkish, Arabic and Persian too.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr <kaps dk fuekZ.k vk/kqfud dky esa ugha gqvk gS cfYd

e/; dky esa gqvk gSA** ¼ist 109½

“This disputed structure has not been constructed in

modern period, instead, it has been constructed in

1496

Medieval period.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjh jk; dfu?kae dh fjiksVZ rFkk Q~;wjj dh fjiksVZ tks 1891 dh

gS ij gh vk/kkfjr gSA** ¼ist 113½

“My opinion is based only on Cunningham's Report

and Fuhrer's report of 1891.” (E.T.C.)

^^ fook fnr <k ap s d s fuek Z . k d s le; d s ckj s e s a dk sb Z

i q Lrd miyC/k ugh a g SA * * ¼ist 114½

“There is no book available with respect to

construction of disputed structure.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjh iqLrd dk uke ^^fMLi;wVsM ekLd , fgLVksfjd bUdok;jh**

gSA esjh iqLrd esjs 'kks/k dk urhtk gSA bl iqLrd ds vykok e/;

dkyhu bfrgkl ds ckjs esa esjk dksbZ vU; 'kks/k ugha gS vkSj u izdkf'kr

gqvk gSA** ¼ist 131½

“The title of my book is 'Disputed Mosque, a Historic

Enquiry'. My book is the outcome of my research. Except

this book, there is no any other research of mine nor

published, about Medieval history.” (E.T.C.)

^^viuh iqLrd fy[kus ds fy, eSaus rhuksa iqLrdksa ;kuh ckcj ukek

vkbZus vdcjh vkSj vdcjukek ds vykok vU; iqLrdsa Hkh i<+hA ftuds

fooj.k fuEufyf[kr gS%& xtsfV;j ¼1868½] usfoy dk xtsfV;j ¼1901½ ls

1905 g.Vj }kjk bEihfj;y xtsfV;j] bjfou dh iqLrd] fiyfxzest ls

lEcfU/kr rFkk dqN vU; iqLrdsa ns[kh gSaA blds vykok rhFkZ foospu

dk.M ns[kk gS] rkjh[k Qjk cD'k ns[kk gS] dfy?ke dh fjikVZ] Q;wjj dh

fjiksVZ lekpkj i= Hkh ns[ksa gSaA** ¼ist 134½

“For the purpose of writing my book, Except these

three books, i.e. Babarnama, Aine Akbari and Akbarnama,

I read other books also, particulars whereof are:

Gazetteer(1868), Gazetteer of Nevil (1901 to 1905),

Imperial Gazetteer by Hunter, Irvin's book and some other

books related to pilgrimage. Except this, I have also seen

Tirth Vivechan Khand, Tarikh Fara Bux, I have seen the

1497

Report of Cunningham, Report of Furher as also the

Newspapers.” (E.T.C.)

^^1526 igys ds v;ks/;k dk bfrgkl eSaus mruk gh i<+k gS tks

xtsfV;j esa fn;k x;k gSA xtsfV;j 1905 esa Nik Fkk oks v;ks/;k ds ckjs

esa igyk L=ksr FkkA** ¼ist 137½

“I have read History of Ayodhya of the period prior

to 1526 only to the extent which has been given in the

gazetteer. What was published in Gazetteer 1905, was the

first source about Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^^ftu ckrksa dks eSaus xyr ik;k oks fuEufyf[kr gSa%& 1- ckcj u s

efLtn ugh a cuok;k D;k s afd ckcj v;k s/;k dHk h ugh a vk;kA

ckcj ds v;ks/;k u vkus ds izek.k fuEufyf[kr gSA ckcjukek esa

ckcj ds v;ks/;k ds vkus dk ftdz ugha gSA ckcjukek esa ;g ftdz ugha gS

fd ckcj us v;ks/;kesa efLtn cukus dk gqDe fn;kA** ¼ist 137&138½

“The facts which I found wrong are: 1. Babar did

not get the mosque constructed since he never visited

Ayodhya.

The following is the evidence showing that Babar did

not visit Ayodhya. In Babarnama there is no reference of

Babar's visit to Ayodhya. There is no mention in

Babarnama that Babar commanded for construction of a

mosque in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^^v;ks/;k ds ckjs esa iqjkrRo ls laca/kh lcls igyh lkexzh dfua?ke

dh fjiksVZ esa gh gSA mlds ckn nwljh fjikVZ Q;qjj dh fjiksVZ gSA tks

1891 dh laHkor% gSA ;s vkD;kZykftdy losZ vkQ bf.M;k ds MkbjsDVj

vkSj vaxzst vQlj FksA** ¼ist 150½

“Regarding Ayodhya, the foremost material

pertaining to archaeology is in Cunningham's report only.

Thereafter, the second report is of Fuhrer, which is

probably of 1891. They were British Officers and Director

of Archaeological Survey of India.” (E.T.C.)

1498

^êsjk fu"d"kZ gS fd ckcj v;ks/;k dHkh ugha vk;k FkkA** ¼ist 156½

“My conclusion is that Babar never came to

Ayodhya” (E.T.C.)

^êsjs bl fu"d"kZ fd ckcj v;ks/;k dHkh ugha vk;k dk vk/kkj ;g

gS fd ftl :V ls ckcj 1528 esa py jgk Fkk og :V v;ks/;k gksdj

ugha FkkA ckcj ds :V dk vk/kkj ckcjukek gSA ;g vk/kkj ckcjukek ds

ml vuqokn dk gS tks cscfjt us fd;k FkkA eSaus cscfjt dk iwjk vuqokn

tks mlus ckcjukek dk fd;k gS eSaus i<+k gSA czscfjt ds vuqokn dks

ns[kdj dgk fd cscfjt us ^^, ;w Mh** vo/k ekuk gSA czscfjt ds vuqokn

ds i"B 401 ,oa 402 dk QksVks izfr esjs lkeus gSaA** ¼ist 156½

“The basis of my inference that Babar never came to

Ayodhya, is that the route by which Babar was proceeding

in 1528 was not via Ayodhya. The basis of Babar's route if

Babarnama. This basis is the translation of Babarnama by

Beverige. I have read the entire transcription of

Babarnama, which was made by Beverige. Seeing the

transcription of Beverige, he (witness) said that Beverige

has considered “AUD' as Awadh. Photocopy of pages 401

and 402 of Beverige's translation is before me.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds i"B 71 ij ;g fy[kk gS fd ckcj dks ,d

eq[; [kyuk;d ds :i esa n'kkZ;k tkrk gS fdUrq ;g vkjksi mlds

O;fDrrRo ls esy ugha [kkrk gSA** ¼ist 206½

“I have written at page 71 of my book that Babar is

described as a main villain but this charge does not match

with his personality.” (E.T.C.)

^^j'kcqzd fofy;e rFkk jk/ks';ke nksuksa us ckcj ds O;fDrRo ds ckjs

essa rkjhQ dh gSA blds vfrfjDr vkj0ih0f=ikBh vkSj cukjlh izlkn

lDlsuk us Hkh ckcj dh rkjhQ fd;k gSA** ¼ist 206½

“Rushbrook Willian and Radhey Shyam both have

commended about Babar's personality. Besides, R.P.

Tripathi and Banarsi Prasad Saxena also have praised

1499

Babar.” (E.T.C.)

^^j k / k s'; ke e sj s x q: 1968 l s 1996 rd jg sA eSa mudh

fopkj/kkjk ls izHkkfor vkSj lger gwWA esjh iqLrd ds fy[kus esa Hkh esjs

xq: jk/ks';ke lkgc dk lg;ksx feyk vkSj le; le; ij eSa iqLrd

fy[krs le; muls fMldl djrk FkkA** ¼ist 207½

“Radhey Shyam had been my teacher from 1968 to

1996. I agree and am influenced with his thought. While

writing my book, I got cooperation from my teacher

Radhey Shyam and while writing the book, I used to

discuss with him from time to time.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds ist la0 88 ij tks fy[kk gS fd ckcj

us ;fn efLtn cukus ds fy, gqDe fn;k gksrk rks ,slk fy[kk gksrk fd

^^ckgqDe tghjmn~nhu eks0 ckcj xkth**A tks eSaus Åij dgk gS ;g eSaus

dgha i<+k ugha gS cfYd eSaus ;g vius vki dgk gS fd ;fn ckcj us dgk

gksrk rks ,slk gksrkA** ¼ist 216½

“I have written at page no. 88 of my book, had Babar

commanded to construct the mosque, it would have been

written “Under the Command of Zahiruddin Mohd. Babar

Ghazi”. The fact which I stated above, I have not read it

anywhere, instead, I have said of my own that if Babar had

commanded, it would have been so.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds i"B la0 89 ij ;g fy[kk gS fd bldh

cg qr lEHk kouk g S fd f'kyky s[ k ckn e s a yxk;k x;k gk s

ftle sa fy[k k g S fd ;g efLtn ckcj u s cuk;h gk sA **

¼ist 217½

“I have written at page no. 89 of my book that there

is great probability that the inscription, wherein it is

written that this mosque had been built by Babar, might

have been installed subsequently.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus bl ckr ij 'kks/k fd;k fd ;g f'kykys[k fdrus iqjkus gSa

vkSj dc ds gSaA tks f'kykys[k ckcjh efLtn ds ckgjh nhokj ij yxk Fkk

1500

og f'kykys[k iqjkuk yxrk Fkk ij vUnj okyk f'kykys[k dh fy[kkoV

19oha lnh dh yxrh FkhA esjh jk; esa og 19oha lnh dk f'kykys[k gks

ldrk FkkA ckcjh efLtn esa dqy rhu f'kykys[k Fks ftuesa nks ckgj

Fks ,d vUnjA** ¼ist 218½

“I conducted research on the point as to how much

old and of which period these inscriptions are. The

inscription engraved on the outer wall of the mosque

appeared to be old. But the calligraphy of the inner

inscription appeared to be of 19th Century. In my opinion, it

could be an inscription of 19th Century. The Babri mosque

had three inscriptions in all of which two were outside and

one was inside.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g ckr fd Hkhrj okyk f'kykys[k u;k izrhr gksrk Fkk eSaus bl

vk/kkj ij fy[kk D;ksafd eq>s dSfyxzkQh dh LVkby ls ,slk izrhr gqvk

FkkA dSyhxzkQh LVkby ij eSaus dksbZ v/;;u ugha fd;k gSA eSaus dqN

,DliVZl ls ckr djus ds i'pkr~ bl dSfyxzkfQd LVkby dh ckr

fy[kh FkhA** ¼ist 219½

“I have written the fact that the inner inscription

appeared to be new, because it so appeared from the style

of caligraphy. I have not undertaken any study on

Caligraphy. After having discussion with few experts, I

wrote about this caligraphic style.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh g S fd e q> s bfrgkl dk Kku cg qr de g SA* *

¼ist 222½

“It is true that I have a very little knowledge of

history.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd mijksDr rhuksa iqLrdksa esa fofy;e fQUp ds

orkUr ,d gh gSa ;kuh muds Hkkjr ;k=k ds orkUr rhuksa iqLrdksa esa ,d

gh gSaA** ¼ist 228½

“It is correct that in the aforesaid three books,

description of William Finch is the same, i. e., their

1501

description regarding India's Travel is the same.” (E.T.C.)

^^fofy;e fQUp us vius ;k=k orkUr esa ;g fy[kk gS fd tc og

v;ks/;k x;k Fkk] mlus v;ks/;k dk fdyk] fxjh&iM+h gkyr esa ik;kA ;g

lgh gS fd fofy;e fQUp ds vuqlkj ml fdys dks jkek iSysl dgrs Fks]

;g fy[kk gSA** ¼ist 229½

“William Finch has written in his travel account that

when he visited Ayodhya, he found the Fort of Ayodhya in a

dilapidated condition. It is correct that according to

William Finch, that fort was called Rama's Palace, it is

written.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd ftl le; fofy;e fQUp us v;ks/;k ;k=k

fd;k] ml le; ckcjh efLtn cu pqdh Fkh vkSj jke tUe LFkku efUnj

Hkh ekStwn Fkh] fdUrq fofy;e fQUp us bu nksuksa phtksa dk o.kZu vius

;k=k orkUr esa ugha fd;kA** ¼ist 229½

“It is true that by the time William Finch travelled

Ayodhya, Babari mosque had already been constructed and

Ram Janmasthan Mandir (Temple of Rama's birthplace)

was also existent, but William Frinch did not mention these

two facts in his travel account.” (E.T.C.)

^êsjs vuqlkj ckcjh efLtn v;ks/;k ds dsUnz LFkku ij cuh

gSA ;g lgh gS fd ckcjh efLtn jke dksV ds bykds ds yxHkx

chpkschp fLFkr gSA ;g esjh jk; gSA** ¼ist 236½

“According to me, Babri mosque has been built at

the centre place of Ayodhya. It is correct that Babri

mosque is situated almost in the middle of Ram Kot area.

This is my opinion.” (E.T.C.)

êSaus VkbQu Fksyj dk orkar ugha i<+kA** ¼ist 237½

“I did not read the description of Tiffenthaler.”(E.T.C.)

^êSaus tkstsQ lkgc iknjh lkgc dk orkar iwjk i<+k ugha gSA** ¼ist 258½

“I have not studied entire description of Father

Joseph.”(E.T.C.)

1502

^^fofy;e fQUp lkgc d s o `rk ar dk s e S a ,d L=k sr

ekurk g wW aA e S a fofy;e fQUp lkgc d s o `rk ar dk s ck;l~M

ekurk g wW aA **

¼ist 258½

“I regard the description of William Finch as a

source. I consider the description of William Finch to be

biased.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk xyr g S fd C; wdkuu lkgc u s tk s

bUlfd z I' ku n s[ k s F k s og 1855 d s ckn fook fnr LFky ij

ugh a Fk s vk S j ogk a ij n wlj s bUlfd z I' ku yxk fn; s x; sA ;g

Hkh dguk xyr gS fd 1855 esa dksbZ u;s bUlfdzI'ku yxs ;k mudks Hkh

1934&35 ds naxs esa rksM+ fn;k x;k gksA ij 1934^35 ds naxs esa fookfnr

LFky dks ,oa iqjkus yxs bUlfdzI'ku dks {kfr t:j igqaph FkhA** ¼ist

282½

“It is wrong to say that the inscriptions seen by

Mr. Buchanan, were not present on the disputed site

after 1855 and some other inscriptions had been

installed there. It is also wrong to say that any new

inscription was installed in 1855 or the same was

destroyed in the riot of 1934-35. However, in the riot of

1934-35, damage was certainly caused to the disputed site

and previously installed inscription.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSus viuh iqLrd ds ist 91 ij ;g Bhd fu"d"kZ fudkyk Fkk

fd ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k rqxyd ;k 'kdhZt ds le; gqvk gksA

bldk vFkZ ;g Hkh gS fd 'kk;n ;g efLtn ckcj ds le; ;k ckcj }kjk

ugha cukbZ xbZ FkhA - - - - -esjk ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ blesa gS fd ckcj v;ks/;k

dHkh ugha vk;kA ;g Hkh esjk fu"d"kZ Bhd gS] tks eSaus ist 92 ij fy[kk

gS fd pwWafd ckcj v;ks/;k ugha vk;k] blfy, mldk jke tUeHkwfe efUnj

fxjkus dk loky iSnk ugha gksrkA** ¼ist 295½

“I had drawn correct conclusion at page 91 of my

book that Babari mosque might have been constructed

1503

during the time of Tughlaq or Sharkies. It also means that

probably this mosque was not built during the period of

Babar or by Babar... It is also my conclusion that Babar

never came to Ayodhya. This inference of mine is also

correct, as I have written at page 92, that since Babar did

not visit Ayodhya, no question of demolishing Ram Janma

Bhumi Mandir arises.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g esjh jk; lgh gS fd vxj efLtn 'kdhZ 'kkldksa us cuok;k

gksxk rks og vo'; 1504 ds igys cuh gksxhA** ¼ist 300½

“My this opinion is correct that if the mosque had

been built by Shirky rulers, it must have been built prior to

1504.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjh jk; o fo'okl esa okn la[;k &489 ds izlrj 8 i"B 5 vkSj

6 iSjkxzkQ 2 esa ;g dFku fd uD'kk utjh esa fn[kk, izkphu dfczLrku

mu eqlyekuksa ds gSa tks ckcj vkSj v;ks/;k ds iwoZ 'kkld dh yM+kbz esa

ekjs x, lgh ugha gSA** ¼ist 300½

“In my opinion and belief, the statement contained in

paragraph no. 8 at page 5 and paragraph no. 2 of suit

no.4/89 to the effect that the old graveyard shown in the

site plan related to those Muslims who were killed during

the battle between Babar and previous ruler of Ayodhya, is

not correct.” (E.T.C.)

^^bfrgkldkj ds :i esa eSa ;g dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g ckrsa xyr

gSaA efLtn ,o a dfc z Lrku d s ckj s e s a okn&i= e sa fd, x,

vfHkdFku e sj h , sfrgk fld tk ap vk S j rF;k s a l s e sy ugh a

[k kr s g S a rFk k e sj h jk; l s f H k Uu g S aA *^ ¼ist 300½

“As a historian, I can say that these things are

incorrect. The averments regarding mosque and

graveyard made in the plaint do not tally with my

historical research and facts and differ from my

opinion.” (E.T.C.)

1504

^ûsfoy lkgc us vius xtsfV;j esa fookfnr <kaps dks 'kk;n ckcjh

efLtn dgk gSA mUgksaus vius xtsfV;j esa bl <kaps dks ckcj dh efLtn

dgk gSA esjh jk; esa bldk vfHkizk; ^^ckcjh efLtn** ls gSA** ¼ist 309½

“Mr. Nevil in his gazetteer has probably termed the

disputed structure as Babri Mosque. In his gazetteer, he

has termed the structure as the Mosque of Babar. In my

opinion, it means “Babri Mosque”. (E.T.C.)

1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed

upon the motive of this witness and in furtherance thereof they

drew our attention to certain facts antecedents to the publication

of his book “The Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” in

1991:

^êsjh iRuh dk uke esgj vQ'kkW Qk:dh gSA esjk fookg flfoy

eSfjt ;kuh Lis'ky eSfjt ,DV ds vUrxZr gqvk gSA mlds ckn esjk

fudkg Hkh gqvk FkkA esjs llqj dk uke 'ke'kqy jgeku Qk:dh gSA^^

¼ ist 26½

“The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My

marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under

Special Marriage Act. Thereafter my Nikah too was

performed. Name of my father in law is Shamshul Rehman

Farooqui." (E.T.C.)

^êSaus fudkg ds le; bLyke /keZ dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA^^ ¼ist 26½

“I have adopted Islam religion at the time of my

Nikah.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus tc bLyke /keZ dcwy fd;k Fkk ml le; esjk uke Hkh j[kk

x;k Fkk tks fd lkftn FkkA eSa u fgUnw gwa vkSj u eSa bl le; eqlyeku

gwaA - - - -- - 'kknh eSaus bLykfed rkSj ij dh gSA^^ ¼ist 27½

“When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was

given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu

nor a Muslim................ I married according to Islamic

rites." (E.T.C.)

1505

^^eSaus vius cPpksa dk uke Qkjlh tqcku esa j[kk gSA ,slh dksbZ ckr

ugha gS fd eq>ss Qkjlh tqcku ls dksbZ [kkl yxko gksA^^ ¼ist 28½

“ I made nomenclature of my children in Persian

language. It is not so that I have some special interest in

Persian Language.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ch0,0 1970 esa ikl fd;k Fkk] ,e0,0 ikfyfVdy lkbZal esa

1972 esa ikl fd;k vkSj mlds ckn ekMZu fgLV~h ls ,e0,0 lu~ 1974 esa

ikl fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 28½

“I passed B.A. in 1970, M.A. in 1972 in Political

Science and thereafter, passed M.A. in Modern History in

1974." (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd 11 o"kksZ ds lrr iz;kl ds ckn eq>s ih0,p0Mh0

dh fMxzh 1989 esa feyh FkhA blh chp esjh fu;qfDr rnFkZ :i esa 1974 esa

bykgkckn fo'ofon;ky; esa gks x;h FkhA ;g rnFkZ fu;qfDr izodrk

ds :i esa gqbZ FkhA 1989 esa eSa jhMj Hkh gks x;k FkkA** ¼ist 28½

“It is true that after 11 years of continuous efforts I

secured Ph.D. Degree in 1989. Meanwhile, I was

appointed on ad hoc basis in Allahabad University in 1974.

This ad hoc appointment was made as a Lecturer. In 1989 I

became Reader also." (E.T.C.)

^^tuojh] 87 ls ysdj 1990 rd Jh cghmn~nhu efyd lkgc

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr FksA Jh cghmn~nhu lkgc Hkh eq>s

tkurs FksA - - - - - 6 Qjojh] 79 dks esjh 'kknh esgj vQ'kka Qk:dh

lkfgck ls gqbZ FkhA** ¼ist 29½

“From January 1987 to 1990 Sri Bahiuddin Malik

Saheb was the Vice Chancellor. Sri Bahiuddin Saheb also

knew me........On 6th February 79 my marriage took place

with Mehar Afshan Farooqi." (E.T.C.)

^^;g 'kknh esjh vkSj esjh iRuh ds ifjokj okyksa dh lgefr ls

ugha gqbZ FkhA^^ ¼ist 29½

“This marriage did not take place with the consent of

1506

my wife and family members." (E.T.C.)

^^viuh 'kknh ds jftLV~s'ku ds ckn fudkg dh t:jr blfy,

iM+h fd esjs lqljky okyksa dh Lohd`fr ds fy, ,oa lkekftd ekU;rk ds

fy, ,slk djuk mfpr FkkA** ¼ist 30½

“Necessity of Nikah after registration of marriage,

arose with a view to obtain approval of my in-laws and for

social recognition it was essential to do so." (E.T.C.)

^^mUgksaus ;g Pokbl vo'; nh Fkh fd eSa fudkg dj yWwA ;gh esjs

llqjky okyksa dh Pokbl gh esjh Pokbl FkhA ¼fQj dgk½ esjh Hkh ;gh

PokbZl gks ldrh FkhA^^ ¼ist 30½

“They had given me a choice that I should perform

Nikah. This choice of my in-laws was, in fact, my choice.

(Further said). Choice of mine too could be only

this."(E.T.C.)

^^fudkg djus ds fy, eqlyeku gksuk vko';d FkkA blfy, eS

eqlyeku gqvk FkkA" ¼ist 30½

“ For materialization of Nikah it was necessary to be

a Musalman. Therefore, I got converted as a

Muslim."(E.T.C.)

^êq>s esjh iRuh us bl dk;Z esa budjst fd;k FkkA^^ ¼ist 33½

“ My wife encouraged me for this work." (E.T.C.)

^êsjs llqj 'ke'kqy jgeku Qk:[kh ds buh'kh;y ,l0vkj0

Qk:dh gSA^^ ¼ist 33½

“ Initial of my father in law, Shamshul Rehman

Farooqi, is S.R. Farooqi.” (E.T.C.)

^êSaus viuh iqLrd ds izhQsl esa ;g fy[kk gS fd esgj vQ'kka

Qk:dh blVksVZM ijlw;sMhx eh Vw ikiwykbfjt fn fgLVkfjdy

VqFkA^^¼ist 33½

“ In the Preface of my book I have written that

Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to

popularize the historical truth." (E.T.C.)

1507

1353. They also pointed out that though he was registered

for Ph.D. in 1978 having passed M.A. in Modern History in

1974 but could not complete Ph.D. for a decade. It is only in

1988 when Sri Vahiuddin Mullick was the Vice Chancellor of

Allahabad University and Chief Minister of U.P. was Sri

Mulayam Singh Yadav he was conferred Ph.D. in 1989. Sri

M.M. Pandey, Sri H.S. Jain and Sri R.L. Verma all the learned

counsels stated that PW 15 converted himself a 'muslim' for the

purpose of marriage and also changed his name as 'Sajid' but has

appeared in the witness box mentioning his name as Sushil

Srivastava and this also shows lack of bonafide on his part and

refers to his statement on page 49 and 50:

^^;g lgh gS fd ;Fkk vko';drkuqlkj eSa vius dks lkftn Hkh

dg ysrk gwa vkSj lq'khy Hkh eku ysrk gwaA** ¼ist 49½

“It is correct that as per requirement I use to say

myself Sajid as well as Sushil.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus [kqnk dh dle ugha yh gS bZ'oj dh dle yh gSA**¼ist 49½

“I have not sworn in the name of 'Khuda', instead I

have sworn in the name of 'Ishwar'.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjk uke lkftn ugha gSA eSaus /keZ ifjorZu fd;k gS vkSj

eqlyeku gqvk gwWaA ij esjs fy, /keZ dk dksbZ egRo ugha gSA eSa v/keZ esa

fo'okl djrk gwWaA** ¼ist 50½

“My name is not Sajid. I have got converted my

religion and have become a Muslim but to me, the religion

has no significance. I believe in Adharma

(atheism).”(E.T.C.)

1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well

qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with

specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate” which

she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian and instead a

Government servant, a member of Indian Postal Service and

1508

retired therefrom as is evident from page 50:

^^esjs llqj bf.M;u iksLVy lfoZl esa dk;Zjr FksA esjs llqj Hkh

fyVjsjh fdzfVd gSa] dke Hkh djrs gSaA** ¼ist 50½

“My father-in-law was posted in Indian Postal

Services. He also is a literary critic and work as

such.”(E.T.C.)

1355. About his conduct in the University the learned

counsel drew our attention to the statement of PW 15 at page

55/56:

^^;g dguk lgh ugha gS fd esjs vkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ tkap

gqbZ ;k ml tkap ds ckn eSa ogka ls gVk fn;k x;kA^^ ¼ist 55½

“It is not correct to say that any enquiry was

conducted regarding my character or that I was removed

from there after the enquiry.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk xyr gS fd 'kkg us esjs vkpj.k ds ckjs esa ,d

lnL;h; desVh ds :i esa esjh tkap fd;s FksA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh

ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us eq>s xyr c;ku nsus dk nks"kh ik;k FkkA

eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mijksDr deh'ku us mDr

fo'ofo|ky; dh efgyk v/;kid dks rFkk efgyk Nk=kvksa ds izfr

v'yhy vkpj.k ;k muds izfr v'yhy Hkk"kk O;Dr djus dk nks"kh ik;k

gksA e>ss bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mDr deh'ku us 13-4-99 dks

viuh vk[;k izLrqr fd;k vkSj ;g lq>ko fn;k fd eq>s ogka ls fudky

fn;k tk;sA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd fo'ofo|ky; ds

flMhdsV us 30-4-99 dks vius izLrko la0 46 }kjk eq>s gsM vkQ fn

fMikVZesaV vkSj DokMhZusVj vkSj Mh0vkj0,l0 izksxzke ls gVk fn;kA Lor%

dgk fd e>s 5-5-99 dks flMhdsV }kjk bl vk'k; dk i= izkIr gqvk fd

eSa gsM vkQ fMikVZeasV rFkk DokMhZusVj dk pktZ vU; v/;kid dks lkSai

nwWaA eSaus fn0 11-6-99 dks vius izks0 in ls R;kxi= lkSai fn;k eSaus ;g

dkj.k n'kkZ;k fd eSa xqtjkrh Hkk"kk ds VsLV dks ikl djus esa vleFkZ jgk

gwWa vkSj pwafd mDr ijh{kk dks ikl fd;s cxSj eSa dUQeZ ugha fd;k tk

ldrk FkkA rFkk bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky; esa esjh vodk'k dh vof/k

lekIr gksus okyh FkhA eq>s bl dkj.k 28 twu] 99 dks dk;ZeqDr dj

1509

fn;k x;k FkkA** ¼ist 55½

“It is wrong to say that Shah as a one member

Committee conducted the enquiry about my conduct. I am

not aware of the fact that the aforesaid Commission found

me guilty of tendering false statement. I have no knowledge

of this fact whether the Commission found me guilty of

indulging in scrofulous conduct or using salacious

language with lady teacher and students of the said

University. I have no knowledge of the fact that the

aforesaid Commission submitted its report on 13.04.1999,

recommending for my expulsion from there. I have no

knowledge of the fact that the Syndicate of the University

on 30.04.99, vide agenda No. 46, ousted me from the office

of the Head of the Department, Coordinator and DRS

programme. Of his own said that on 05.05.99 a letter of

Syndicate was received to the effect that I should hand over

the charges of the Head of Department and Coordinator to

another teacher. On 11.06.99 I submitted my resignation

from the post of Professor showing the reason that I have

been unable to qualify to the test of Gujarati language in as

much as, I could not be confirmed without clearing the

aforesaid test. And period of my leave was about to

exhaust. For this reason I was discharged from duty on

28.06.99.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g lgh gS fd eSa Jh oh0,e0'kkg bUDok;jh desVh ds le{k

O;fDrxr :i ls mifLFkr gqvk FkkA^^ ¼ist 56½

“It is correct that I appeared in person before Sri

V.M. Shah Enquiry Committee.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd foHkkx ds lHkh v/;kidksa us esjs

fo:) ;g f'kdk;r fd;k Fkk fd og yksx esjs lkFk dke ugha dj ldrs

gSaA cfYd dsoy dqN v/;kidksa us gh bl izdkj dk izLrko fd;k FkkA

1510

¼fQj dgk½ fd os yksx esjs gsM ds dk;Z ls larq"V ugha FksA ;g dguk

xyr gS fd eq>s nqjkpj.k ds dkj.k fo'ofo|ky; ls fudkyk x;k vkSj

ml vkns'k dks izkIr u djs eSaus bLrhQk ns fn;k vkSj okil bykgkckn

pyk vk;kA^^ ¼ist 56½

“It is correct to say that all the teachers of the

Department complained against me that they could not

work with me. Rather, only few teachers made such

proposal. (Further said ) that they were not satisfied with

my work as Head. It is wrong to say that due to

misconduct, I was expelled from the University and

without receiving that order, I resigned and returned to

Allahabad.” (E.T.C.)

1356. For our purposes, however, suffice it to mention that

PW 15 has make out a new case and says that according to his

study there is grievous doubt whether Babar built the mosque in

dispute. He says that neither there is any material to show that

Babar ever visited Ayodhya nor the name “Mir Baqi” finds

mention in Baburnama. On page 217 he admits that as a result

of his research he has written on page 89 of his book that

inscriptions might have been fixed on the disputed building later

on mentioning that the disputed building was built by Babar and

on page 295 he refers to page 91 of his book where he has said

that the disputed building might have been constructed at the

time of Tughlaqs or Sharkis and may not have been built by

Babar. On page 300 he further says that if constructed by Sharki

Rulers, the disputed building might have been constructed prior

to 1504. He also says that averments in para 2 and 8 of the plaint

(Suit-4) that graves around the disputed building were of those

muslims who died in battle between Babar and the erstwhile

ruler of Ayodhya are incorrect statements (page 300). The

witness, therefore, has not supported the case of plaintiff (Suit-

1511

4) and on the contrary has taken a totally different stand. In fact

by reaching such inference, he has stated in his examination-in-

chief that the disputed building was not constructed after

demolishing a temple by Babar.

1357. Here one more aspect we need to mention. Though

the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page

222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history.

That being so according to own statement of the witness his

statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian

and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence

Act. Even otherwise, the extract of his statement we have

noticed above make it clear that neither the witness has made

any threadbare inquiry into the matter nor has done his job

honestly yet has written a book based on hearse and has claimed

it to be a book written by an Expert. He admits that he cannot

read Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit and Urdu (Page 33). He admits

that despite being historian he has accepted whatever said by

others on the basis of their alleged scholarly feeling and wrote it

in his book as a statement of fact (page 38). He has never

studied either Calligraphy or Epigraphy (Page 51) but has made

statement and recorded finding in this regard in his book. On

page 65 he admits that he has raised doubt on the Calligraphy

style of the text of the inscription at Babri mosque but

simultaneously admits that he had not the least knowledge of art

and science of Calligraphy. We in fact find it surprising with the

kind of dishonesty, such person has shown. In his book he has

given in the footnote reference of a number of books which he

admits that he had never studied (page 68). On page 77 he says

that he did not pay attention on the fact whether the inscriptions

were installed from the beginning or installed subsequently but

1512

on page 217 admits that he has written on page 89 of his book

that there is a possibility that the inscriptions might have been

installed subsequently. On page 106 on the one hand he admits

that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic,

Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish,

Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that

though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he

could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to

Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15

has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter

without having made an in-depth study on the subject and has

deposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian

though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge

of history. On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier

statement he said that he has made research on the question as to

how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and

found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style

of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the

fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such

comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not

expected from a responsible Expert Historian. Besides his

statement ex facie appears to be incorrect in view of the

admitted position as also mentioned in Epigraphica Indica

(1965) published by ASI that there were three inscriptions out of

which two got misplaced in 1934 and were restored by new one

which had some mistakes and did not contain the correct

original text.

1358. The lack of expertise of PW 15 in respect to

Medieval History has also been commented by plaintiff's (Suit-

4)'s another witness, i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi on page 129 of

1513

her statement where she said:

^^eSa Jh lwjtHkku tks ,d vkfd;ksZykftLV gS Mk0 lqohjk

tk;loky tks ,slh;UV bf.M;u fgLVksfj;u gSa vkSj Jh l q' k hy

JhokLro tk s ekM Zu bfrgkldkj g S a mudh bl jk; ls ;fn

mUgksaus ,slk dgk gS fd ehjckdh ,d f'k;k Fkk mudh bl jk; ls lger

ugha gwWa pwwafd ok s yk sx e sfMoy fgLV ~ h d s ,Fk k fjVh ugh a g SA **

¼ist 129½

“I do not agree with the opinion of Sri Surajbhan, an

Archaeologist, Dr. Suvira Jaiswal, Ancient Indian

Historian and Sri Sushil Srivastava, Modern Historian

and if they have said so that Mir Baqi was a Shiya, I do not

agree with their opinion because they are not authority

on Medieval History.” (E.T.C.)

1359. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination

has said:

^^e q> s fook fnr LFky ij f'kyky s[ k tk s ehjckdh }kjk

yxok;k x;k Fk k mld s vykok vk S j dk sb Z ,ihx z k fQdy

bohM s al ugh a feyh ftld s vk/ k kj ij ;g dgk tk ld s fd

fook fnr <k ap k dk uke ckcjh efLtn gk sA ;g f'kykys[k mruk

gh iqjkuk Fkk ftruh efLtnA^^ ¼ist 157½

“Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I

did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on

the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri

Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr <kaps esa 2 txg ij bUlfdzI'ku yxs gq, FksA ;g nksuksa

bUlfdzI'ku iRFkj esa [kqns gq,s Fks ijUrq ckgj okys bUlhdzI'ku dk Lysc

nhokj esa fQDl FkkA ;g nksuksa mijksDr bUlfdzI'ku Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa fy[ks

Fksa eSa Qkjlh ugha tkurk ;g lgh gS fd eSa Qkjlh ugha i<+ ldrk

blfy, ekSds ij eSa mu nksuksa bUlfdzI'ku dks ugha i<+ ldrk Fkk vkSj

vanj okyh bUlfdzI'ku dks ns[k Hkh ugha ik;kA** ¼ist&175½

“Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the

1514

disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved

in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed

in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian

language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not

read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at

the site and could not even see the inside

inscription.”(E.T.C.)

^^;g efLtn ckcj dh viuh cuokbZ gqbZ ugha Fkh] cfYd ;g

ehjckdh }kjk ckcj dh btkt+r ls cuokbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj blh dkj.k ckcjh

efLtn ehjckdh ds lk/kuksa ds vuq:i gh cuh FkhA^^ ¼ist 334½

“This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather,

it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and

for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per

the means of Mir Baqi.” (E.T.C.)

^^efLtn esa fy[ks f'kykys[k esa ;g fy[kk Fkk vkSj efLtn ds rksM+s

tkus ls igys eSaus mls ns[kk Hkh Fkk vkSj mlds ckjs esa dbZ fjdkMZl gSa]

tks Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk gesa fn, x, Fks] muesa i<+k gS rFkk v;ks/;k ds

Åij fy[kh xbZ fdrkc esa Hkh i<+k gSA

;g ,ihxzkQ+] efLtn ds eq[; }kj] iqu% fd] ;kuh efLtn ds

eq[; xqEcn esa tkus okys }kj ds Åij yxk FkkA bl f'kykys[k esa ckcjh

efLtn ds cuk, tkus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gS] tks eSa vius igys ds c;kuksa esa

crk pqdk gwaA ;g f'kyky s[ k Q +k jlh e s a g S A bl f'kykys[k esa ;g

ugha fy[kk gS fd ;g efLtn fdlh vkSj Hkou dks rksM+dj cukbZ xbZ gSA**

¼ist 334&335½

“It was so written in the stone inscription at the

mosque and the same had also been seen by me before

demolition of the mosque. There are several records in this

behalf, which have been provided to us by the Government

of India. I have read it in them and also in the books

written about Ayodhya.

This epigraph was engraved at the main gate of the

1515

mosque (again stated) that is to say, above the gate leading

to the main dome of the mosque. This stone inscription

refers about the construction of the Babri mosque, about

which I have already stated. This inscription is in

Persian. This inscription does not mentioned that this

mosque was built by demolishing any other

building.”(E.T.C.)

^^ckcjh efLtn d s f' kyky s[ k l s ;g Li"V g S fd ;g ckcj

d s le; e sa lu ~ 1528 b Z Loh e s a cuk;h x;h Fk hA* * ¼ist 433½

“From the inscriptions of Babri mosque, it is clear that

it was built in the year 1528 AD during the times of

Babar.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g fo}kuksa us r; dj fn;k gS fd ;g <kWapk ckcj ds le; esa

lu~ 1528 bZ0 esa cuk;k x;k Fkk] eSa Hkh bldks lgh ekurk gwWaA**¼ist 433½

“It has been determined by the scholars that this

structure had been built in the year 1528 AD during the

times of Babar. I also consider it to be correct.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcjh efLtn dk fuekZ.k izkIr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj lu~ 1528&29

bZLoh esa gqvk FkkA tks eqxy dky esa iM+rk gSA** ¼ist 457½

“According to the facts determined, Babri mosque

was built in the year 1528-29 AD, which falls in the

Mughal period.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjk bl <kWaps dks ckcjh efLtn dgus ds ihNs vkSj dksbZ fo’ks"k

mn~ns’; ugha gS] flok; blds fd eSa iqjkrRoosRrk gwWa vkSj ckcjh efLtn

dk <kWapk iqjkrkfRod gSfjVst Fkk] blh uke ls tkuk tkrk FkkA eSaus bls

ns[kk Fkk] bldks blh uke ls eSaus vius ys[kksa esa fy[kk gSA ;g vf/kd

MsQfuV vkSj vf/kd fizlkbZt <ax ls ml <kWaps dks crkus dk rjhdk eq>s

ekywe nsrk gSA** ¼ist 457½

“I have no special motive in calling this structure

Babri mosque, except for the fact that I am an

archaeologist and the structure of Babri mosque was a

1516

archaeological heritage and was known by this name. I had

seen it and have mentioned it so in my articles. It appears

to me, to be a more definite and precise method of

describing the said structure.” (E.T.C.)

1360. The statement of PW 16 in respect to period of

construction and the person by whom, is solely based on two

inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed

building in Persian language though neither the witness can read

Persian nor could see the inner one. Here also on page 157 read

with 334 and 335 though the witness claims that the inscriptions

which were installed when he visited the premises were the

same as were installed at the time of construction of the building

and this shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as

published in different books from time to time and had no

occasion to compare the same but the statement has been made

on pure conjecture and surmises.

1361. The expertise of PW 16 on the matter relating to

Medieval History has been doubted by another witness of

plaintiff (Suit-4), i.e., PW 20, Shirin Musvi in her statement on

page 129.

1362. Further the witness do not claim to be an Expert

Historian but he is an Expert Archaeologist. Since he has written

an Article on the disputed building i.e. Paper No. 110C1/8

(Exhibit D37, Suit-5), it appears that to support its contents, he

came in witness box in his first appearance. For our purposes

suffice it to mention that here also the sole foundation for

claiming the period of construction of the building as “1528

AD” by Mir Baqi, the entire stress is on the said inscriptions and

nothing else.

1363. Another Expert Historian Suvira Jaiswal-P.W.18, in

1517

her cross-examination with respect to the aforesaid aspect, has

said :

^^ckcj vo/k ds {ks= esa vk;k Fkk ,slk eSaus i<+k gS ysfdu v;ks/;k

vk;k ;k ugha eSa ugha crk ldrh gwWaA** ¼ist 24½

“Babur had come in the region of Awadh, I have

read so, but in fact, came to Ayodhya or not, I cannot

say.”(E.T.C.)

^^ysfdu crk S j bfrgkldkj eSa crk ldrh gWaw fd 16oha 'krkCnh

esa ckcj us v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuokbZA** ¼ist 103½

“but as a historian I can tell that in 16th century

Babar got constructed Babari Mosque in

Ayodhya.”(E.T.C.)

^^e Su s ckcjh efLtn d s ckj s e s a d qN ugh a i< +k

fo'k s" k :i l s ugh a i< +k blfy, e S a ugh a crk ldrh fd

ckcjh efLtn dc vfLrRo e s a vk;hA eSa ;g Hkh ugha crk ldrh

fd ckcjh efLtn ds vfLrRo esa vkus ds igys ml LFkku ij D;k

FkkA**¼ist 105½

“ I have read nothing about Babari Mosque, I did

not study thoroughly, therefore, I cannot say as to when

Babari Mosque came into existence. I cannot say as to

what was there at the site before coming into existence of

Babari Mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ckcjukek ugha i<+k gSA** ¼ist 121½

“I have not read Babarnama.” (E.T.C.)

^^ ;g Bhd gS fd e S a i z kphu bfrgkl dh fo'k s" kK g w aA ;g

Hkh Bhd gS fd eSa bl vnkyr esa i z kphu bfrgkl d s fo'k s" kK

d s :i e sa xokgh n su s vkb Z g a wA ** ¼ist 122&123½

“This is correct that I am expert in Ancient History.

It is also correct that I have come to this Court to tender

evidence as specialist in Ancient History.” (E.T.C.)

1364. PW 18 admits that she has come to depose her

1518

statement as Expert Historian being specialist in Ancient

History (page 122-123). However, while on one hand she claims

that the disputed building was constructed in 16th century by

Babar at Ayodhya called Babari mosque and this statement she

is making as a historian but simultaneously on page 105 she said

that she has not read anything about Babari mosque and did not

study thoroughly and, therefore, cannot say as to when Babari

mosque came into existence. On page 121, she also admits of

having not read “Baburnama” at all.

1365. Shrin Musvi-P.W.20 in her examination with

respect to the aforesaid aspect has said:

(Examination-in-chief)

“There was an inscription at Babari Masjid

divided in three parts and its some part were printed in

Beveridge's Babar-Nama. The entire inscription is

published in 1965, Epigraphia Indica published by A.S.I. It

is in Persian language and Nask-script. It mentions that

Mir Baqi got the mosque constructed in 1528-29 AD on the

orders and intention of Babar. The date of his construction

is found from its script by numerical calculation. (page2-3)

Buchanan visited Ayodhya in 1810 and described

about the same in his accounts. He has said that it is

alleged that Aurangzeb demolished a temple in Ram Kot

and constructed a mosque but he said that the mosque has

an inscription of the period of Babar, therefore, the

aforesaid view is ill founded.” (page-4)

(Cross-examination)

^^;g Bhd gS fd ckcj us ehjckdh dks vo/k dk dek.Mj fu;qDr

fd;k FkkA** ¼ist 29½

“It is true that Babar had appointed Mir Baqi

1519

Commander of Awadh.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj dk v;ks/;k tkus dk jsQzsUlst gS] exj ,slk mlds eseksvkj

esa ugha gSA ;g jsQzssUlst nwljs ledkyhu vkSj ledkyhu ds ikl ds

lzksrksa esa i<+k gSA lEHkor% eSaus ;g ckr [okUnehj dh fy[kh gqbZ fdrkc esa

i<+k gSA og ckcj ds ledkyhu gSA og lsUV~y ,f'k;k ds jgus okys Fks

vkSj ckcj ds vkfQlj FksA mudh ;g fdrkc Qkjlh fyfi esa gSA eSa

Qkjlh tkurh gwWaA nwljk fu;j daVsijsjh lkslZ bl le; eq>s ;kn ugha

gSA** ¼ist 30&31½

“References of visit of Babar to Ayodhya are there

but it is not so in his Memoir. I have read these references

in other contemporary and nearby sources. Perhaps I have

read this in the book written by Khwand Mir. He was

contemporary to Babar. He was resident of Central Asia

and an officer of Babar. His book is in Persian script. I

know Persian. I do not remember presently any other near

contemporary source.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcjukek esa eq>s tgkWa rd ;kn gS] dgha Hkh efLtn cuokus dk

ftdz ugha gSA vt[kqn dgk fd rc ml tekus esa efLtn cuokuk dkWeu

izSfDVl FkhA** ¼ist&31½

“In Babarnama so far as I remember, there is no

reference anywhere of of getting any Mosque constructed.

Then of her own, she said that those days, to get mosque

constructed was a common practice.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj v;ks/;k dc vk;k Fkk] eSa ugha crk ldrh] D;ksafd

ckcjukek esa mlds ;gkWa vkus dk dksbZ ftdz ugha gSA** ¼ist&33½

“I cannot say as to when Babar came to Ayodhya

because in Babarnama there is no reference of his visit

there.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd lkuh ds eryc nh vnj ;kfu nwljk gSA ;g

Bhd gS fd fookfnr <kaps ds Åij yxs gq, bUldzsi'ku ij ehj ckdh ds

fy;s ,d VkbZfVy vkflQs lkuh fy[kk x;k ftls cuthZ us ^blQgkuh^

1520

i<+k FkkA 'kk;n cuthZ us viuh iqLrd ^ckcjl fjyhtu^ esa ,slk

fy[kkA** ¼ist 58½

“It is true that 'Sani' means "the other" or 'second'. It

is true that in inscription on disputed structure, the title for

Mir Baqi was written as 'Asife sani' which was read as

Isfehani by Banerji. Perhaps Banerji has written this in his

book Babar's religion.” (E.T.C.)

^^tSlk eSaus Åij c;ku fn;k gS fookfnr LFky ij yxs f'kykys[k

dks lu~ 75 ls 1980 ds chp esa i<+k Fkk ,oa ml ij v/;;u fd;k FkkA

mu f'kykys[kksa dk v/;;u esjs 'kks/k ds fy, vko';d FkkA eSaus viuh

Fkhlhl esa fookfnr LFky ij ik;s x;s f'kykys[k dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha

fd;k gS blesa dkLV vkQ dkaLVªD'ku ds ckjs esa ugha fy[kk gSA^^

¼ist 120&121½

“As I have stated above, I had deciphered the epigraph on

the disputed site between 1975 and 1980 and had studied

on this point also. The study of those epigraphs was not

necessary for my research.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g Bhd gS fd 1975 d s igy s fook fnr LFky ij yx s

f' kyky s[ k k s a dh e q> s dk sb Z tkudkjh ugh a Fk hA ^ ^ ¼ist 121½

“It is true that I had no knowledge of the epigraphs on

the disputed sites before 1975.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus vk sj htuy bUlfd zi'ku dh Qk sV k s , si hx z k fQ;k

bf.M;k 1964&65 e s a n s[ k k g SA ** ¼ist 121½

“She had seen the photograph of the original

inscription in Epigraphia Indica in 1964-65.” (E.T.C.)

^^ml fookfnr LFky ij rhu f'kykys[k yxs gq, Fks bl le; iwjh

rkSj ls ;kn ugha gS fd og rhuksa f'kykys[k fdu fdu LFkkuksa ij yxs Fks

oks Qkjlh Hkk"kk esa FksA** ¼ist 122½

“Three inscriptions were installed on the disputed site.

Presently I do not fully remember at which places those

three inscriptions written in Persian language were

1521

installed.” (E.T.C.)

^^mlesa tks [kkl ckr fy[kh gS og ;g gS fd mls ckcj ds vkns'k

ij ehjckdh us cuok;k vkSj ^^[kSj ckdh** 'kCn ls blds cuok;s tkus dh

rkjh[k fudyrh gSA** ¼ist 122½

“It is particularly mentioned therein that it was

installed by Meer Baqi under the orders of Babar and the

date of its installation is inferred by the word “Khair

Baki.” (E.T.C.)

^^e sj s vu qlkj lo Zi z F ke fook fnr <k ap s dk fuek Z . k 1528

e sa g qvk gk sx kA ^ * ¼ist 126&127½

“In my opinion, first of all, the disputed structure

may have been constructed in 1528.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g dguk fcydqy xyr gksxk fd fookfnr <kWaps dk fuekZ.k

1501 esa fd;k x;k gksA** ¼ist 127½

“It will be totally wrong to say that the disputed

structure may have been constructed in 1501.” (E.T.C.)

^^isij ua0 2@15&d&1 ij vafdr 18&12&61 dh frfFk dh vksj

fnyk;k ftls i<+dj xokg us dgk iSjk 1 esa ,slk fy[kk x;k gS fd

ckcjh efLtn ckcj }kjk yxHkx 460 o"kZ igys cuokbZ x;h Fkh ;g 460

lky ls T;knk ugha gks ldrk vxj ;g ckr 1961 esa dgh x;h gSA pwafd

1501 esa ckcj fgUnqLrku vk;k gh ugha Fkk blfy, ml le; ckcjh

efLtn cuokus dk iz'u gh ugha Fkk blds iSjk 1 esa tks ckdh ckrs fy[kh

gS og lgh gS ysfdu ;g dguk fd ;g ckr 1961 ls 460 lky igys

dh gS xyr gSA** ¼ist 127&128½

“Attention was drawn to the date of 18-12-61 shown

on Paper No. 2/15-Ka-1 seeing which the witness stated

that it is written in para 1 that the Babri Masjid was built

by Babur nearly 460 years ago. It can not be older than

460 years if such statement was made in 1961. As Babur

did not even come to Hindustan in 1501, there was no

question of Babri Masjid being built at that time. Other

1522

things written in its para 1 are correct but it is wrong to

say that this statement was made 460 years prior to 1961.”

(E.T.C.)

^^esjs vuqlkj ;g efLtn ehj ckdh us cuokbZ Fkh vkSj mlus ,slk

dgk gS fd ckcj ds gqDe ls cuokbZ x;h blfy, eSa ;g ugha crk ldrh

fd ckcj dk ,slk vkns'k Fkk ;k ugha D;ksafd fdlh vkSj lkslZ esa mldk

mYys[k ugha gSA** ¼ist 128½

“According to me, this mosque was got constructed

by Mir Baqi and he has said that it was constructed under

the commands of Babur, therefore, I can not tell whether

Babur had given any such command or not because it is

not referred to in any other source.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckdh rk'kcUnh ehjckdh dk gh uke g S [kqn ckcj us

ckcjukek esa bl uke dk mi;ksx fd;k gSA ckdh 'kxkoy uke eSus ugha

lquk fQj dgk fd ,slk eq>s ;kn ugha gSA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrh fd

ckdh lxkoy ehjckdh dk gh uke Fkk fQj dgk fd lxkoy dksbZ uke

ugha gksrk Fkk dksbZ iksLV gksrh Fkh lxkoy ,d vkfQl Fkk mldh D;k

M;wVh vkSj ,DtSDV uspj D;k D;k Fks eq>s ugha ekyweA** ¼ist 130½

“Baqi Tashkandi is the name of Mir Baqi, Babur

himself has used this name in Baburnama. I have not heard

the name of Baqi Sagawal, then said, I do not remember

so, I can not tell as to whether Baqi Sagawal was the name

of Mir Baqi, then said, Sagawal was not a name but was a

post, Sagawal was an office. I do not know what was his

duty and exact nature.” (E.T.C.)

^ ^;g dguk xyr gS fd tks bafLdzI’ku fookfnr <kaps ij yxs gq,

Fks oks 1934 ds naxs ds ckn yxk fn;s x;s Fks]cfYd ;g lgh gS fd og

igys ls yxs gq, Fks ftldk ftdz cqdkuu us lu 1810 ds vius

,dkm.V esa fd;k gSA dqy feykdj rhu bUlfdzI’ku fookfnr <kaps ij

yxs gq, FksA rhuksa bUlfdzI’ku vyx&vyx vYQkt esa Fks ijUrq muds

dUVsUV ;kuh mudk eryc dekscs’k ,d FkkA ;kuh rhuksa bUlfdzI’ku ,d

1523

gh le; ds yxs gq, Fks] tks lu 1580 ds igys ds FksA ,ihxzkfQDl dh

LVMh ds vuqlkj rhuksa bUlfdzI’ku dh fyfi 1580 ds igys dh gS A ;g

e S au s *,ihx z k fQ;k bf.Mdk o SY; we 1964&65 e s a i<k g S fd

rhuk s a bUlfd z I’ ku 1528 e sa gh yx s Fk sA ,sihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk

vkfdZ;ksykftdy foHkkx dk ,d tjuy gS vkSj dkQh fo’oluh; tjuy

gSA^^ ¼ist 136&137½

“It is wrong to say that the inscriptions which stood

at the disputed structure were installed after the 1934 riot.

However, it is true that they were installed from before, as

Buchanan has mentioned in his account of 1810 AD. In all,

there are three inscriptions on the disputed structure. They

had different wordings but their meaning was almost same.

That is to say, the three inscriptions were installed at one

and the same time. They all belong to pre-1580 period. As

per the study of epigraphics, the script of all the three

inscriptions preceded 1580. I have read in Epigraphia

Indica Vol 1964-65 that the inscriptions was installed in

1528 itself. Epigraphia Indica is a Journal from the

Archaeological Deptt and it is fairly worth

relying.”(E.T.C.)

^^eSaus cuth Z dh i q Lrd ckcj ,UM fn fgUn wt e s a H k h nk s

bUlfd z I’ ku d s ckj s e s a i<k g S rhljs ds ckcr mUgksaus ugha fy[kk gS

D;ksafd og {kfrxzLr gks x;k FkkA cuthZ }kjk fy[kh xbZ iqLrd esjh

viuh ykbczsjh esa ekStwn gS vkSj VSxksj ykbczsjh y[kuÅ esa Hkh gksuh

pkfg,A^* ¼ist 137½

“In Banerjee's book “Babur and the Hindus” also

I have read about two inscriptions but he has written

nothing in regard to the third one because it was

damaged.”(E.T.C.)

^^ckcj us v;ks/;k ds ckjs esa dksbZ [kkl ckr ugha dghA*^¼ist 138½

“Babur did not say anything specific about

1524

Ayodhya.” (E.T.C.)

^^,DthfcV 53 dks ns[kdj xokg us dgk blesa fy[ks vuqlkj

ehjckdh ckcjh efLtn dk QkmUMj FkkA esjs fglkc ls QkmUMj dk

eryc mlls gS ftlus bls cuk;kA^^ ¼ist 146½

“Seeing Exhibit 53, the witness said that Mir Baqi

was, as per its contents, the founder of Babri Mosque.

According to me, founder means the person who got it

built.” (E.T.C.)

1366. PW 20 in her examination-in-chief, besides other,

has said that the inscription fixed at Babari mosque is divided in

three, and some part thereof was published in “Baburnama” by

Mrs. Beveridge and the entire inscription is in Epigraphica

Indica (1965) and this shows that the building in dispute was

constructed by Mir Baqi in 1528-29 AD. It is in Persian and

script is Nask. The inscription also shows that the construction

was made under the orders and as per the intention of Babar.

The first of her statement that there was one inscription divided

in three itself is not supported with what is pleaded and sought

to be proved by plaintiffs (Suit 4). Further the text of the

inscriptions as quoted in Baburnama by Beveridge and in

Epigraphica Indica (1965) differs. On page 121 of her

statement she claims to have seen the photo of original

inscription in Epigraphica Indica (1964-65) while the author has

said something else which we shall be discussing a bit later. On

page 29 she claims that Mir Baqi was appointed commander of

Awadh by Babar and on page 130 she says that Baqi Tashkandi

was another name of Mir Baqi and this name has been used by

Babar in Baburnama but we do not find mention of Mir Baqi or

the fact that Baqi Tashkandi was also called as Mir Baqi in the

Baburnama though some of the writers on their own have tried

to identify “Baqi Tashkandi” with Mir Baqi but without giving

1525

any material to justify such inference. She further said that

Buchanan in his account in 1810 has mentioned about three

inscriptions (page 136-137) but we do not find any such

publication or book written by Buchanan mentioning the same.

On the contrary we find that Dr. Francis Buchanan though made

certain survey for about seven years starting from 1807 but

could not get himself published any material in this regard and

later on his material was processed and a report was published

in 1838 by "Robert Montgomery Martin".

1367. In any case despite so many reasons some of which

we have already discussed, we find that the statement of the

above mentioned Expert witnesses suffer serious flaws and

make it extremely delicate situation for this Court to rely on

their opinion. The only thing which consistently emerges is that

the statement about the period of the construction and the person

who got the disputed building constructed is solely founded

upon the text of the inscriptions fixed on the disputed building.

There is no other material either to corroborate or to support it.

1368. Besides above expert historians, some other

witnesses have also deposed about construction of mosque, the

period and the persons who got it constructed.

1369. PW-1-Mohd Hashim in this regard has said:

^^eSaus ehjckdh dk uke [kwc vPNh rjg ls lquk gSA ----ehjckdh

ckcj dk dek.Mj FkkA** ¼ist 84½

“I have heard of the name of Mir Baqi very well. ….

Mir Baqi was a commander of Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^iz'u& vkius vius vthZ nkok ds iSjk 1 esa ;g fy[kok;k gS

fd ;g efLtn ftls ckcjh efLtn dgk tkrk gS 'kag'kkg ckcj us

cuok;h Fkh\

mRrj& tks fy[kk gS og lgh fy[kk gS esjk eryc gS fd ;g

efLtn ckcj ds gqDe ls rkehj gqbZ FkhA^^ ¼ist 92½

1526

“Question:- Have you got it written in para 1 of your

claim that emperor Babur built this mosque, which is

called Babri mosque.

Answer:- Whatsoever is written, is correctly written.

I mean to say that this mosque was constructed at the

behest of Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^ckcjh efLtn curs oDr tax ugha gqbZA** ¼ist 92½

“There was no struggle while the construction of the

mosque was under way.” (E.T.C.)

^^fdlh rkjh[k ds eqrkfcd ckcj vkSj v;ks/;k ds ml oDr ds

jktk ;k gqdqer ds chp esa dksbZ tax ugha gqbZa ftl oDr efLtn cuh rc

Hkh dksbZ tax ugha gqbZA** ¼ist 93½

“As per a narrative, no battle took place between

Babur and the then King or Kingdom of Ayodhya. When

the mosque was built even then no battle took place

there.”(E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkou ftls ge ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSa lu~ 1528 esa

rkehj gqvk FkkA esjs vthZ nkok ds iSjkxzkQ 1 esa bl bekjr dh tks mez

fy[kh x;h gS og lgh gSA** ¼ist 100½

“The disputed building, which we call Babri mosque,

was constructed in 1528. The age of this building as

mentioned in paragraph 1 of my claim application, is

correct.”(E.T.C.)

^^ckcj lqUuh eqlyeku FkkA ehjckdh f'k;k eqlyeku FkkA ckcj

vCckl dyanj lqUuh eqlyeku FksA eSa ugha dg ldrk fd ehjckadh buds

eqjhn FksA 'kkg'kkag ckcj dHkh Hkh v;ks/;k ugha vk;sA ckcj dh gdwer nks

lky dh Fkh ysfdu eSa ;g ugha dg ldrk fd dkSu dkSu lh [kkl lu~

esa ;g gdwer jghA** ¼ist 109½

“Babur was a Sunni Muslim. Mir Baqi was a Shia

Muslim. Babur Abbas Qalandar was a Shia Muslim. I

cannot say Mir Baqi was his disciple. Emperor Babur

1527

never went to Ayodhya. The reign of Babur lasted for two

years but I cannot tell in which particular years this rule

was.”(E.T.C.)

^^bl efLtn ij ,d iRFkj yxk g qvk Fk k ] ftl

ij ;g reke tkudkjh nh xb Z Fk h fd ;g efLtn ckcj u s

cuokb Z g S ] ctfj; s ehjck Wdh a vt[kqn dgk ml ij fy[kk gqvk Fkk

^^cQj eqnS'kkg ckcj us vnylr**A mlds vykok Hkh vkSj dqN fy[kk Fkk

tks eq>s vc ;kn ughaA

iz'u& D;k ml ij vkxs ;g Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS ^^fcuk dcZ bZ

eqgcRrs dqfnf'k;kW*

mRrj& ;g Bhd gS] ,slk Hkh fy[kk gqvk FkkA vkt [kqn dgk fd

Qkjlh esa iwjh rkjh[k fgLV~h fy[kh gqbZ FkhA** ¼ist 120½

“This mosque had a stone detailing that this

mosque was built by Babur through Mir Baqi. (Himself

stated) It had written on it 'Emperor Babur built it.' Apart

from this, it had something more written on it which I

cannot recall at present.

Question:- Has it something further written which

runs as 'bina karb ei muhabatte kudishian' ?

Answer:- It is true that it was so written. (Stated on

his own) The entire history was written in

Persian.”(E.T.C.)

^^ckcj dh reke fdrkcksa esa bldk ftdz vkrk gS vkSj vke yksxksa

esa ppkZ gS fd ;g efLtn ckcj us cuokbZ FkhA** ¼ist 120½

“It finds mention in many books of Babur and it is a

public talk that Babur built this mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^bl efLtn ij tks fy[kk gqvk Fkk fd ;g Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dh

txg gS] og ehjckadh us fy[kok;k FkkA** ¼ist 136½

“It was Mir Baqi who had got it engraved on this

mosque that it is a descending place of angels.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjk dguk gS fd 1528 ls ;g ges'kkk efLtn jgk gS]**¼ist 164½

1528

“I have to say that it has always been a mosque since

1528,” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj v;ks?;k ugha vk;s ] v;ks/;k ds lkFk yxrh lj;w ds mRrj

dh rjQ ikWp & nl dksl ij ckcj us dksbZ Msjk ugha yxk;k A ;g

dguk xyr gsS fd og gQ~rsa &nl jkst dk d;ke djus ds fy, ogkW

vk;k djrs FksA** ¼ist 179½

“Babur had not come to Ayodhya and he had not

camped five-ten kosas north of the river Saryu flowing

along Ayodhya. It is wrong to say that he used to come

there to do work lasting a week or ten days.” (E.T.C.)

^^;g xyr gS fd ckcj'kkg us ehjckWdh dks efLtn cukus ds fy,

dksbZ gqDe ugha fn;k FkkA** ¼ist 180½

“It is wrong that emperor Babar had given no

command to Mir Baqi for constructing a mosque." (E.T.C.)

1370. P.W.2 Haji Mahboob Ahmad has said:

^^'kga'kkg ckcj v;ks/;k dHkh ugha vk,A ----ehjckdh ckcj dk

lsukifr FkkA** ¼ist 27½

“Emperor Babur did not come to Ayodhya. …. Mir

Baqi was Babur's army chief.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj dh dk sb Z yM +k b Z v;k s/; k e sa ugh a g q;hA vkSj

blfy, ,slk dksbZ loky iSnk ugha gksrk fd bl efLtn ds vkl&ikl

dh dczsa mu yksxksa dh gksa tks ckcj ls yM+kbZ esa ekjs x, gksaA** ¼ist 76½

“No battle with Babur had taken place in Ayodhya

and hence there is no question that the graves located in

the vicinity of this mosque may be of those persons who

may have have been killed in the battle with

Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^efLtn e s a iRFkj t:j yx s g q, Fk s] ,d iRFkj ij dqN

fy[kk gqvk Hkh Fkk] ysfdu eq>s ekywe ugha fd D;k dqN fy[kk gqvk

FkkA**¼ist 107½

“Stones had certainly been used in the mosque;

1529

one stone had something written on it but I cannot tell what

was written on it.” (E.T.C.)

1371. P.W.3 Farooq Ahmad in his cross examination has

said:

^^ckcj fgUnqLrku dk ckn’kkg FkkA ckcj ds othj ehjckdh us ;g

efLtn cuokbZ FkhA** ¼ist 16½

“Babar was emperor of India. This mosque was built

by Babar’s Wazir Mir Baqi.” (E.T.C)

^^v;ks/;k esa lcls iqjkuh efLtn ;gh Fkh ftldks ckcjh efLtn

dgk tkrk gSA ckcjh efLtn ls iqjkuh vkSj dksbZ efLtn v;ks/;k esa ugha

gSA** ¼ist 18½

“It was the oldest mosque in Ayodhya, which was

called Babri Masjid. There is no other mosque older than

Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.” (E.T.C)

1372. P.W.4 Mohd. Yaseen also in his cross examination

said:

^^eqrnkfo;k efLtn dks 'kga’kkg ckcj us cuok;k Fkk blfy, mls

ckcjh efLtn dgk tkrk FkkA ckcj us [kqn vkdj efLtn ugha cuok;h

mldk gqDe Fkk mlds othj us cuok;h FkhA ,slh ckr rokjh[kksa esa fy[kh

gksxhA eSaus ,slh ckr [kqn bfrgkl dh fdrkcksa esa ugha i<+h ysfdu yk sx k s a

l s l quk g SA * * ¼ist 60 ½

“The disputed mosque was built by emperor Babar,

due to which it is called Babri mosque. Babar himself did

not come over to build the mosque, and it was on his

command that his Wazir had got it built. Similar references

are found in history. I have not so read myself in history

books, but I have heard so.” (E.T.C)

^^e qrnk fo;k bekjr e s a e sEcj l s lVk g qvk ,d iRFkj

yxk g qvk Fk k ] ftl ij Qkjlh e sa d qN fy[k k g qvk Fk kA ;g

Bhd gS fd ml ij fy[kk gqvk Fkk ^^cQjewns 'kkg ckcj**A eSaus bl ckr

dk xkSj ugha fd;k fd mlh iRFkj ij 935 fgtjh ckcr rkehj bekjr

1530

fy[kh gksA** ¼ist 74½

“A stone was affixed adjacent to the member of the

disputed structure, which had something inscribed in

Persian. It is true that ‘Bafarmude Shah Babar’ was

inscribed over it. I did not pay attention to the fact that on

that very stone, 935 Hizri was inscribed regarding the

construction of the building.” (E.T.C)

1373. P.W.6 Mohammad Unus Siddiqi in his cross


^^eSa ckcjh efLtn ,D'ku desVh dk ps;jeSu gwWa QStkckn czkap

dkA** ¼ist 8½

“I am chairman of the Faizabad branch of the Babri

Masjid Action Committee.” (E.T.C.)

^^1957 vkSj 1965 ds chp eq>s bl tk;nkn ds ckcr ekywe gqvk

Fkk fd ;g dc vkSj fdlus cuokbZ FkhA eSa ugha crk ikÅWaxk fd cqfu;knh

rkSj ij bl tk;nkn dk fdruk jdck FkkA** ¼ist 9½

“Between 1957 and 1965 I came to know as to when

this property was erected and by whom. I am not in the

position to tell how much area this property basically

had.”(E.T.C.)

^^vt[kqn dgk fd esjh ;kn'r detksj gS ¼fQj dgk fd lu~

1987 ls 'kq: gqbZ gSA½ ;g Bhd gS fd vc vkye ;g gS fd oktodkr eSa

vius yM+dksa ds uke Hkh Hkwy tkrk gwWaA** ¼ist 33½

“(Stated on his own) my memory is weak. I began to

develop weakness in my memory from 1986. (Again stated

that it has started from 1987). It is true that condition has

now become so serious that I forget even the name of my

sons.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus ckcj ukek ugha i<+kA tks fgLV~h dh fdrkcsa geus vius dkslZ

esa i<+h Fkh muesa dgha ckcjh efLtn dk ftdz ugha vk;kA eSa D;ksafd ogha

dk jgus okyk gwWa blfy, eq>s ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa tkudkjh izkIr gks

1531

x;hA** ¼ist 55½

“I did not read 'Baburnama'. In the history books

which I studied as a part of my course, I did not come

across the mention of the mosque anywhere. As I hail from

that very place, I came to have knowledge of the Babri

mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^efLtn d s e s ac j ij ,d iRFkj yxk g qvk Fk k ftl ij

,slk rgjhj Fkk fd ckcj ds gqDe ij bldh rkehj ehjckdh us djk;h

FkhA - - ;g iRF kj e s ac j ij yxh g q;h Fk hA - - ;g rgjhj

Qkjlh esa FkhA eSa dqn gn rd Qkjlh i<+k gqvk gwWaA ml rgjhj dks eSaus

i<+k FkkA fefMy Dykl ds ckn eSaus vjfc;k dkyst esa nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk

vkSj ogka dqN gn rd Qkjlh i<+h FkhA** ¼ist 62½

“On the member of the mosque was placed a

stone with an inscription that it was built by Mir Baqi at

the diktat of Babur. . . This stone was fixed to the

member. . . This inscription was in Persian. I have read

Persian to some extent. I read the inscription. After doing

my middle, I sought admission in Arabia College and

studied Persian to some extent there.” (E.T.C.)

1374. PW 10, Mohammad Idris has said:

^^tgkWa rd eSa tku ik;k gwWa] fdrkcsa i<+dj vkSj yksxksa ls lqudj]

og ;g gS fd bl efLtn dh rkehj ehjckdh us djokbZ FkhA D;ksafd

bldk ftdz v[kckjksa esa vkrk jgk gS] blfy, eSa dg ldrk gwWa fd ;g

efLtn lu~ 1528 e s a cuokb Z xb Z Fk hA* * ¼ist 32½

“As far as I have come to know by reading the books

and by hearing people that this mosque had been built by

Mir Baqi. Since this fact has continued to be published in

newspapers, I can say that this mosque was built in

1528.”(E.T.C)

^^ckcj ds fliglykj ds ckjs esa rks eSa ugha tkurk ysfdu eSaus

ehjckdh dk uke t:j lquk gSA ;g ml tekus ds ;kuh 1525&26 ds

1532

vklikl ds ,d cgqr cM+s vkneh FksA oks ,d QkSth Fks mudk

rk:QZ ,d QkSth dh gSfl;r ls gSA oks eqlyeku Fks bLyke ds gkeh FksA

oks eqlyeku Fks blfy, tkfgj gS fd oks Hkh cqrijLrh ds f[kykQ

FksA**¼ist 49½

“I do not know about the commanders of Babar, but

have certainly heard the name of Mir Baqi. He was a very

big personality of that time i.e. around 1525-26. He was a

soldier and he is known as a soldier. He was Muslim and

follower of Islam. Since he was Muslim, naturally he was

against idolatry.” (E.T.C)

^^ckcj us fgUnqLrku esa fdlh efLtn dks ugha rksM+kA fdlh efUnj

dks Hkh ugha rksM+kA** ¼ist 90½

“Babar did not demolish any mosque in India. Did

not demolish any temple as well.” (E.T.C)

^^fdlh Hkh rkjh[k dh fdrkc esa eSaus ,slk ugha i<+k fd ckcj dHkh

v;ksa/;k vk;k gksA og vo/k izkUr ds gkf’k;s ls gksdj fcgkj t:j x;k

Fkk] - - tgkWa rd ehjckdh dk loky gS] og v;ks/;k esa t:j vk;k vkSj

eqLrfdy rkSj ij ;gkWa jgkA - - fdrkcksa esa eSaus i<k gS fd ftl tehu

ij ;g efLtn cukb Z xb Z ] og bldh rkehj l s igy s ,d

[k qy s g q, e Snku dh l wjr e s a iM +h g qb Z Fk hA ** ¼ist 98&99½

“I have not read so in any history book that Babar

ever came to Ayodhya. He did go to Bihar along the border

of Awadh province, ... So far as Mir Baqi is concerned, he

did come to Ayodhya and remained here permanently. ... I

have read in books that the land over which this mosque

was built, was in form of an open space prior to its

construction.” (E.T.C)

^^935 fgtjh lky esa v;ks/;k ij fdlh fgUnw jktk dh gdwer

ugha FkhA - - - - - ;g Bhd gS fd ckcj us v;ks/;k dCtk djus ds fy,

dksbZ [kkl tax ugha dhA 'kdhZ lqYrku tkSuiqj okys dh gdwer ckcj ds

vkus ij [kRe gks x;h FkhA mudh ;g gdwer 932 vkSj 937 fgtjh lky

1533

ds chp esa [kRe gqbZ FkhA mudh NksVh&eksVh taxs gqbZ Fkh eSa bl ckcr

lgh lu~ ugha crk ldrkA bl ckr dk ftdz Mk0 fcyxzkeh dh fy[kh

gqbZ fdrkc esa gSA** ¼ist 111½

“No Hindu king ruled over Ayodhya in 935 Hizri era.

. . . . It is true that Babar did not contest any important

battle to conquer Ayodhya. The reign of Sherky Sultan of

Jaunpur came to an end on arrival of Babar. His reign

ended between 932 and 937 Hizri era. He had small

battles. I cannot correctly tell about them. This fact is

mentioned in the book written by Dr. Bilgrami.” (E.T.C)

1375. P.W.12 Ram Shankar Upadhyay has said:

“e sj k fjlp Z dk vk/ k kj Fk k fd 1528 e sa ckcjh efLtn

cuh ] bl ij fdlh dk dk sb Z fookn ugh Fk k ^ ^ (ist&30)

“The premise of my research was that there was no

dispute on the point of the Babri mosque being built in

1528 and also on its date,” (E.T.C.)

1376. P.W.19 Maulana Atiq Ahmad has said:

^^ckcjukek esa fookfnr LFky ;kuh ckcjh efLtn cuokus dk dksbZ

ftdz ugha gSA^* ¼ist 37½

“‘Baburnama’ does not have mention of building the

disputed structure, that is, Babri mosque.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s ;g Bhd ls ;kn ugha gS fd eSaus fdl iqLrd esa igyh ckj

ckcjh efLtn dk uke i<+k gksA ;g Hkh ;kn ugha fd eSaus dc bls igyh

ckj i<+k FkkA** ¼ist 46½

“I do not properly remember in which book I read

the name of Babri mosque for the first time. I also do not

remember when I read it for the first time.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcjh efLtn ds ckjs esa eSaus i<+k gSA ckcj us fookfnr LFky ds

vykok vkSj Hkh efLtns fgUnqLrku esa cuokbZ gS ftldk ftdz rkjh[kksa esa

vkrk gSA ,slk ugha gS fd ckcj dh cuokbZ x;h lHkh efLtn ckcjh

efLtn ds uke ls gh tkuh tkrh gSA eq>s eqrbZ;u rkSj ls fdlh efLtn

1534

dks ftls ckcj us cuokbZ] ;kn ugha vFkkZr bl efLtn ;kfu dh ckcjh

efLtn ds vykokA ;g Bhd gS fd ckcjh efLtn fookfnr LFky ij

ehjckdh us cuok;k FkkA ij ckcj ds gqDe lsA ckcjh efLtn ij og

dRck yxk g qvk Fk k mle sa ;g ckr fy[k h g qb Z Fk h fd ;g

efLtn ehjckdh us ckcj ds gqDe ls cuokbZ gSA og dRck eSaus [kqn ugha

ns[kk ij mijksDr fdrkc ckcjh efLtn esa mldk gokyk gS dRcs ds

vklkj mlesa fNis gq, gSA ;g Bhd gS fd mlh fdrkc ds vk/kkj ij vkSj

nwljs vkVhZdyl ds fcuk ij eSa ,slk dg jgk gwWa fd , slk dRck ogk a

yxk g qvk g SA ** ¼ist 76½

“I have read about Babri mosque. Babar had built

many other mosques in India besides the one at the

disputed site, whose references are found in history. It is

not that all the mosques built by Babar are known as Babri

mosque. I definitely do not remember any mosque built by

Babar i.e. besides this mosque or the Babri mosque. It is

true that Mir Baqi had built Babri mosque at the disputed

site, but on the command of Babar. An inscription was

fixed at the Babri mosque in which it was mentioned that

this mosque had been built by Mir Baqi on command of

Babar. I did not see this inscription myself, but the contents

of the inscription have been published in the aforesaid

book ‘Babri Masjid’. It is true that on basis of said book

and other articles, I am saying that such inscription had

been fixed over there.” (E.T.C.)

1377. PW 23, Mohd. Qasim Ansari has said:

^^Qkjlh esa 'kk;n dqN vUnj fy[kk FkkA ij eSa mls i<+ ugha

ldkA vjch esa vYykg] eksgEen o dqjku dh dqN vk;rs <+kaps ds vanj

fy[kh FkhA ;g eq>s ;kn ugha gS fd fdruh txg dqjku dh vk;rsa o

vYykg] eksgEen fy[kk FkkA tks vjch esa fy[kk gqvk Fkk og lc [kqnk

gqvk fy[kk FkkA ;g vk;rsa iRFkjksa ij Hkh fy[kh Fkh vkSj nhokjksa ij Hkh

fy[kh FkhaA ,d ,d txg ij nks&nks] rhu&rhu ykbZusa fy[kh gqbZ

1535

FkhaA ;g fy[kkoVsa 15&20 fQV dh ÅWapkbZ ij fy[kh gqbZ FkhaA dgha dgha

ij vkB nl fQV dh uhpkbZ ij fy[kh Fkh vkSj blls Hkh uhps fy[kh

FkhaA ---** ¼ist 72&73½

“There was something written in Persian outside.

But I could not read that. The words ‘Allah’ and

‘Muhammad’, and some Ayats (verses) of the Quran were

written in Arabic language, inside the structure. I do not

remember at how many places verses of the Quran and the

words ‘Allah’ and ‘Muhammad’ were written . Whatsoever

was written in Arabic, was all engraved. These Ayats were

engraved on stones as well as on walls. 2-3 lines were

engraved on every place. These engravings were on the

elevation of 15-20 feet. At certain places these engravings

were at the depth of 8-10 feet or even at greater depth.”

(E.T.C.)

1378. PW 26 Kalbe Jawwad in his cross examination has

said as under:

^^tgka rd eq>s [;ky gS ckcjh efLtn ckcj d s xo Zuj

ehjckdh u s 1528 e sa cuokb Z Fk hA ---ckcjh efLtn vktdy ftls

v;ks/;k dgk tkrk gS ogka gSA igys ;g ekywe gqvk Fkk fd igys ;g

ohjku txg Fk h ckn e s a vkckn g qb Z A ** ¼ist 41½

“To the best of my memory, the Babri mosque was

built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, Governor of Babar. ... Babri

mosque exists at the place which, these days, is called

Ayodhya. It so transpired that earlier this was a deserted

place and was inhabited subsequently.” (E.T.C.)

^^ 1528 ds iwoZ fook fnr LFky ,d [k kyh tehu Fk h vk S j

ftl ij ;g efLtn rkehj dh x;hA * ¼ist 42½

“Prior to 1528, there was vacant land at the

disputed site over which the mosque was built.” (E.T.C.)

“fookfnr LFky ds ckjs esa tks iqLrd eSaus ^^ckcjh efLtn** uked

1536

i<+h gS vkSj dksbZ iqLrd esa ugha i<+k gS] dsoy v[kckjkr vkSj ys[kksa esa

i<+k gSA bl fo’k; ij fy[kh ugha xbZ gSaA” ¼ist 51½

“I have read only the book titled ‘Babri Masjid’ as

regards the disputed site and have not read any other book.

I have only read newspapers and articles. I have no special

study on this topic, because not much books have been

written on this topic.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSa lqudj vkSj i<+dj ckcjh efLtn dks ckcjh efLtn dgrk

gwWaA - - - eSaus vyx ls bl ckr ij dksbZ fjlpZ ugha fd;k fd fookfnr

<kapk ckcjh efLtn Fkh ;k ughaA** ¼ist 58½

“I call the Babri mosque as Babri mosque on the

basis of hearsay and my studies. ... I have not carried out

any separate research as to whether the disputed structure

was Babri mosque or not.” (E.T.C.)

^^eq>s flQZ bruk ekywe gS fd ckcj dHkh v;ks/;k ugha vk;kA

fygktk muds geyk djds [kqn thrus dk loky ugha mBrkA ;g

LVSfCy’M gS fd efLtn ehj ckdh us cuok;h u fd ckcj usA** ¼ist 87½

“I know only this much that Babar never came to

Ayodhya. Hence, the question of he being victorious does

not arise. It is established that the mosque was built by Mir

Baqi and not Babar.” (E.T.C.)

“ckcjh efLtn ds ckcjh efLtn gksus dk bYe eq>s dqN i<+us ls

gqvk vkSj dqN ekrscj xokgksa ls gqvkA ;g bYe eq>s lckgqn~nhu vCnqy

jgeku dh fdrkc ckcjh efLtn vkSj dqN ys[kksa ls gqvkA --- lckgqn~nhu

lkgc ,d vkfye FksA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe mudk Lis’kykbts’ku dkgs esa

FkkA** ¼ist 88½

“I gathered the knowledge of the Babri mosque being

Babri mosque from certain studies and few ‘Matebar’

witnesses. I gathered this knowledge from Sabahuddin

Abdul Rehman’s book Babri Masjid and certain

articles .... Sabahuddin was a scholar. I do not know his

1537

topic of specialization.” (E.T.C.)

1379. PW 29 Dr. Jaya Menon though had appeared to

depose her statement against A.S.I. report dated 22nd August

2003 but in her cross-examination she has also made statement

about the period of construction of disputed building and also

the person according to her who had constructed it. She said:

“I do not know the total number of mosques

constructed in Ayodhya during 15th and 16th century but I

know that Babri Masjid was constructed during 16th

Century.” (Page 146-147)

“I know that Babri Mosque was erected in the year

1528 by Mir Baqi. . ... I do not exactly know as to who Mir

Baqi was, but as I think, he was a commander possibly in

Babar's army.” ( Page 154-155)

“I don't know whether Babar had come to Ayodhya

and Faizabad. I have heard about Meer Baqi who is

supposed to have built Babri Masjid.” (Page 219-220)

1380. PW 30 Dr. R.C. Thakran in his cross examination

said:

^^lu~ 1528 bZ0 esa v;ks/;k QStkckn dk :yj dkSu Fkk] bldh

tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA** ¼ist 193½

“I do not know as to who was the ruler of Ayodhya,

Faizabad in 1528.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkou ckcj }kjk cuokbZ xbZ efLtn gSA** ¼ist 194½

“The disputed building is a mosque built by

Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^bl ckjs esa fd v;ks/;k esa ckcj us efLtn cuok;k Fkk] eSaus

lekpkj&i=ks rFkk if=dkvksa esa i<+k FkkA eSa ,d bfrgklK d s :i

e sa v[k+ckjksa vkSj if=dkvksa dks Kku dk lzksr ekurk gwWaA Lo;a dgk fd

bu lzksrksa ls izkIr ,sfrgkfld tkudkjh lR;kfir gS ;k ugha bldks

bfrgkldkj v/;;u o fo'ys"k.k ds }kjk r; djrs gSaaA v[k+ckjksa vkSj

1538

if=dkvksa ls izkIr bl tkudkjh dk lR;kiu eSaus fdlh iqLrd ls ugha

fd;k] --- bu ys[kksa o eksuksxzkQ+ksa dh vkFksaVhflVh dks eSaus lR;kfir ugha

fd;kA Lo;a dgk fd igys gh bfrgkldkjksa ds }kjk ;g ckr lR;kfir

dh tk pqdh FkhA bl lEcU/k esa fdlh bfrgkldkj dh iqLrd dks eSaus

ugha i<+k gSA** ¼ist 195½

“In news-papers and magazines, I read that Babur

had built a mosque in Ayodhya. As a historian, I consider

news-papers and magazines to be a source of knowledge.

(Himself stated) Historians through study and analysis

determine whether historical information obtained from

these sources is true or not. I did not through any book

verify the veracity of this information, obtained from the

news-papers and magazines. ... I did not certify the

authenticity of these articles and monographs. (Himself

stated) This fact had already been certified by the

historians. I have not read a book of any historian in this

regard.” (E.T.C.)

^^esjs fopkj ls fook fnr Hkou lu ~ 1528 b Z Loh d s yxHkx

cuk gk sx kA ** ¼ist 358½

“In my opinion, the disputed structure may have

been built around 1528 AD.” (E.T.C.)

1381. PW 32 Dr. Supriya Verma in his cross examination

said:

“The inscriptions found at the disputed site of excavation

refer that Meer Baqi, the commander of Babar has built

this mosque as I remember now.” (Page 34)

1382. D.W.2/1-1 Sri Rajendra Singh in his cross


^^lu ~ 1528 e s a fook fnr LFky ij Hkxoku jke ds eafnj dks

fxjkus ds ckn ,d <k W ap s dk fuek Z . k fd;k x;k Fk k ] ftls dqN

yksx ckcjh efLtn dgrs gSaaA** ¼ist 26½

1539

“In the year 1528, a structure had been built at the

disputed site after demolishing the temple of Lord Rama,

which is called Babri mosque by few persons.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus viuh iqLrd esa ^^bihxzkfQ;k bafMdk vjsfcd ,.M ijf'k;u

LiyhesaV 1965** dk gokyk fn;k gS] ftls eSaus i<+k gSa ftl ,ihxzkfQ;k

bafMdk dks eSaus i<+k gS] ml iqLrd esa fookfnr bekjr esa yxs rhu iRFkj]

ftu ij [kqnkbZ Fkh] ds fp= Nis gSa vkSj [kqnkbZ esa fy[ks et+ewu dk

vuqokn Hkh Nik gSA** ¼ist 36&37½

“I have referred ‘Epigraphia Indica Arabic and

Persian Supplement 1965’ in my book and I have read the

same. The Epigraphia Indica, which has been read by me,

contains photographs of the three engraved stones fixed in

the disputed structure as well as the translation of the

Epigraph.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcj tc v;ks/;k x;k Fkk] rc mlds iwoZ jk.kklkaxk dks ijkftr

dj pqdk FkkA ;g lEHko gS fd ftl le; ckcj v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;s]

ml le; v;ks/;k] vo/k ds vUrxZr vkrk Fkk vkSj ogka dk xouZj

bczkfge yksnh }kjk fu;qDr jgk gksA ckcj tc v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;s Fks]

rks og v;ks/;k ugha x;s Fks] v;ks/;k ls dqN dksl dh nwjh ij ?kk?kjk

unh ds fdukjs mUgksaus viuk iM+ko Mkyk FkkA eq>s bl laca/k esa

dqN&dqN Lej.k vk jgk gS fd ml LFkku ij iM+ko Mkyus ds ckn ckcj

us vius dqN lkfFk;ksa dks v;ks/;k Hkstk] blds ckn bczkfge yksnh }kjk

fu;qDr xouZj 'ks[k ck;thn v;ks/;k NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA ck;thn ds

v;ks/;k NksM+dj Hkkxus dh ;g ?kVuk 1527&1528 bZ0 esa gqbZ] tks 930

fgtjh ds rqY; gSA blesa dksbZ lUnsg ugha gS fd bl ?kVuk ds ckn ds

dbZ eghuksa dh ?kVukvksa dk fooj.k ckcjukesa esa miyC/k ugha gSA 28 ekpZ]

1528 ds ckn ckcjukek esa 2 vizSy] 1528 dh ?kVuk dk fooj.k feyrk

gSA mlds ckn dk fooj.k gks ldrk gS fd 18 flrEcj] 1528 ls feyrk

gksA - - - - - -25&26 flrEcj] 1528 esa ckcj Xokfy;j mjok ?kkVh esa

mrjk Fkka mjok ?kkVh ds iwoZ og cgqr ls 'kgjksa ls gksdj xqt+js Fks] gks

ldrk gS fd blds iwoZ og vkxjk ls gksdj xqtjs gksaA Lo;a dgk fd

ckcjukek esa bl laca/k esa tkudkjh fey ldrh gSA** ¼ist 79&81½

1540

“By the time Babar went to Ayodhya, he had

defeated Rana Sanga. It is possible that when Babar went

towards Ayodhya, it fell under Oudh and its Governor may

have been appointed by Ibrahim Lodi. When Babar had

gone towards Ayodhya, he had not gone to Ayodhya and

instead had halted few kose (distance of two miles) away

from Ayodhya along the banks of Ghaghra river. I am able

to recollect a bit that after halting at that place, Babar had

sent few of his associates to Ayodhya due to which Sheikh

Baijeed, the Governor appointed by Ibrahim Lodi, fled

away from Ayodhya. This fleeing incident of Baijeed

occurred around 1527-1528 AD, which is equivalent to 930

Hizri era. There is no doubt that details of incidents

occurring many months after this incident, are not

available in the Babarnama. After 28th March, 1528, the

next detail contained in Babarnama is of 2nd April, 1528. It

is possible that the next details commence from 18th

September, 1528. . . . . . . . . On 25-26th September, 1528

Babar had been to Urva valley in Gwalior and before

reaching Urva valley, he had passed through many cities.

It is possible that he may have passed through Agra. (The

witness) stated on his own that information in this behalf

can be had from Babarnama.” (E.T.C.)

^^Lo;a dgk fd igyh ckj v;ks/;k dh rjQ vkus ds ckn og

Xokfy;j dh rjQ pyk x;k Fkk] ogka ls ykSVdj iqu% ij tc og

v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;k] tks mDr izLrj dh nwljh rFkk rhljh ykbu esa

crk;k x;k gSA tgka rd eq>s Lej.k gS] ;g ckr flrEcj 1528 ds ckn

dh gSA nwljh ckj tc ckcj v;ks/;k dh rjQ x;k Fkk] rc Hkh og

v;ks/;k ds vUnj ugha x;k FkkA v;ks/;k ls nl dksl dh nwjh ij mldk

iM+ko FkkA Lo;a dgk fd eSa lUnHkZ ns[kdj gh iwjh ckr crk

ikÅWaxkA**¼ist 82½

1541

“(The witness) stated on his own that at time of his

first visit to Ayodhya, he had proceeded towards Gwalior,

from where he returned and went to Ayodhya, which is

mentioned in second and third line of the said paragraph.

To the best of my memory, this incident is subsequent to

September, 1528. On the other occasion as well when

Babar went towards Ayodhya, he did not enter Ayodhya

and halted at a distance of 10 kose from Ayodhya. (The

witness) stated on his own that I would be able to give the

complete facts only after looking at the reference.”

(E.T.C.)

1383. D.W.2/1-2 Sri Ram Saran Srivastava in this regard,

has said:

^^fjdkMZ ds fglkc ls fook fnr Hkou lu ~ 1528 e s a cuk

Fk k ] bl izdkj dk yksx dFku djrs gSa rFkk fjdkMZ ls Hkh ;gh lkfcr

gksrk gSA** ¼ist 27½

“According to records, the disputed structure was

built in the year 1528. This is claimed by people and the

records also prove it.” (E.T.C.)

^^, slk crk;k tkrk g S fd fook fnr LFky ij fook fnr

Hkou lu ~ 1528 e s a efLtn d s :i e sa cuk;k x;k Fk kA* *

¼i st 31½

“It is said that in the year 1528 AD, the disputed

structure was built at the disputed site as a

mosque.”(E.T.C.)

^^ysfdu fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij irk pyrk gS fd lu~ 1528 esa

ckcj us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cuokbZ FkhA bfrgkl dh iqLrdksa ls irk

pyrk gS fd ckcj ogha dgha lehi esa :ds gq, Fks vkSj muds ,ts.V ehj

ckdh+ us eafnj rksM+dj efLtn cukus dk dke fd;kA** ¼ist 35½

“But from the records it appears that in the year

1528 Babar had built the mosque after demolishing the

1542

temple. It is gathered from history books that Babar was

staying at a nearby place and his agent Mir Baqi had gone

ahead to demolish the temple and build a mosque.”(E.T.C.)

^^tgka rd eSaus i<+k gS] ckcj ds lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij

igqapus dh ckr ugha feyrh gS vkSj dksbZ vU; ek/;e Hkh ,slk ughsa gS fd

ftlls irk pyrk gks fd ckcj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr LFky ij x;k

gksA** ¼ist 36½

“From my studies, no reference is found about Babar

going to the disputed site in the year 1528 and there is no

such source from which it is found that Babar had been to

the disputed site in the year 1528.” (E.T.C.)

^^fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj mDr efLtn ehj ckd +h u s lu ~ 1528

e sa cuokb Z A ** ¼ist 36½

“According to records, the above mosque was built

in year 1528 by Mir Baqi.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr LFky ij yxs f' kyky s[ k o fjdkM Z dk s n s[ ku s

l s ;g ekywe gqvk fd ckcj ds gqDe ls muds ,ts.V ehj ckdh us bl

Hkou dk fuekZ.k nso iq:"kksa ¼Qfj'rksa½ ds vkus ds fy, djok;k FkkA

ehjckd+h us ftl efLtn dks cuok;k Fkk] mlesa ehukjsa ugha FkhA**¼ist 37½

“From perusal of records and inscriptions at the

disputed site, it transpired that under the order of Babar,

his agent Mir Baqi had built this structure for descension

of angels. There were no minarets in the mosque built by

Mir Baqi.” (E.T.C.)

“fookfnr Hkou efLtn ds :i esa lu~ 1528 esa cukbZ x;h”

¼ist 39½

“The disputed structure was built as a mosque in

1528 A.D.” (E.T.C.)

^^og fookfnr Hkou 1528 esa fufeZr fd;k x;k Fkk A eSaus ;g ckr

QStkckn ds xts+fV;lZ ls i<+dj viuh iqLrd esa fy[kh FkhA** ¼ist 52½

“ The disputed structure was built in 1528. I have

1543

written this in my book after reading the gazetteers of

Faizabad.” (E.T.C.)

^^eSaus viuh iqLrd dkx+t la0 260 lh&1@1 esa fookfnr Hkou

dh if'peh nhokj ij fy[ks f'kykys[k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] tks Qkjlh esa

Fkk vkSj ftlesa bl LFkku dks Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku crk;k x;k

gSA bl dks eSaus dbZ fdrkcksa esa i<+k Fkk vkSj mlh ls viuh fdrkcksa esa

i<+k Fkk vkSj mlh ls viuh fdrkc esa fn;k FkkA** ¼ist 61½

“ In my book, paper no. 260 C-1/1, I have mentioned

about the inscription over the western wall of the disputed

structure, which was in Persian and in which this place

was termed as the place of descension of angels. I had read

this in many books and wrote it in my books on basis

thereof.” (E.T.C.)

^^fookfnr Hkou dks ehj ckd+h us efLtn ds :i esa cuok;k Fkk

rFkk blesa ,d f'kyky s[ k yxk g qvk Fk k fd ;g Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus

dk LFkku gSa lk{kh us dgk fd eSaus Åij ;g c;ku ugha fn;k gS fd

ehjckd+h us fookfnr Hkou dks efLtn ds :i esa cuok;k Fkk] cfYd

eSaus ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd tSlk fd f'kykys[k esa mfYyf[kr Fkk ;g

i+fj'rksa ¼,safty½ ds mrjus dk LFkku FkkA** ¼ist 74&75½

“ The disputed structure was built as a mosque by

Mir Baqi and there was an inscription reading that it was

the place of descension of angels. The witness stated that I

have not stated above that Mir Baqi had built the disputed

structure as a mosque and instead I had stated that as

contained in the inscription, it was a place of descension of

angels.” (E.T.C.)

^^tSlk fd f'kykys[k esa mYys[k Fkk] ;g Hkou LoxZ ls mrjus okys

Q+fj'rksa ds fy, cuok;k x;k FkkA

eq>s bl ckjs esa Kku ugha gS fd Q+fj'rksa ds mrjus dh txg dks

efLtn dgk tk ldrk gS ;k ughaA** ¼ist 75½

“As contained in the inscription, this structure was

1544

built for descension of angels.

I have no knowledge of the fact whether the place of

descension of angels can be called mosque or not.”

(E.T.C.)

^êSaus bl laca/k esa ftruh Hkh iqLrdksa dk v/;;u fd;k gS] mu

lc esa fy[kk gS fd ckcj us fookfnr Hkou dks efLtn ds :i esa cuok;k

Fkk] vFkkZr~ ehj ckdh us tks Hkou cuok;k Fkk] og ckcjh efLtn gh

gSA**¼ist 76½

“In all those books I have studied in this respect, it is

written that Babur got the disputed building built as a

mosque, that is to say, the building which Mir Baqui built,

is the Babri mosque itself.” (E.T.C.)

^êsjh ;g tkudkjh fd efUnj dks rksM+dj lu~ 1528 esa fookfnr

Hkou cuk;k x;k Fkk] fu;qfDr ds iwoZ ls jgh FkhA Nkuchu ds ckn

mijksDr nksuksa ckrksa dh iqf"V gks xbZA** ¼ist 173½

“My knowledge of the disputed building being built

in 1528 by demolishing the temple, preceded my

appointment. Both of the afore-said things came to be

substantiated after enquiry.” (E.T.C.)

1384. OPW 9 Dr. T.P. Verma in his cross examination

has said:

“lu~ 1528 esa v;ks/;k esa ckcjh efLtn cuk;s tkus dk mYys[k

feyrk gSA ;g ckr eSaus i<+h Hkh gS fd lu~ 1528 esa v;ks/;k esa ckcjh

efLtn cukbZ xbZA** ¼ist 12½

“There is a reference of the Babri mosque being built

at Ayodhya in 1528. I have also read that Babri mosque

was constructed at Ayodhya in 1528 AD,” (E.T.C.)

^îz0& tc ckcjh efLtn cuh] rc D;k vki ogkWa ekStwn Fks\

m0 th ughaA** ¼ist 12½

“Question:- Were you present there at the time when

the Babri mosque was built ?

1545

Answer:- No, Sir.” (E.T.C.)

^^ckcjh efLtn cuku s d s ckn ckcj d s fliglkykj

ehjckdh rk'kdUnh u s ogk W a ij rhu f'kyk[k.M +k s a ij

vfHky s[ k fy[kok; sA ftu rhu f'kyk[k.Mk s a ij ehjckdh u s

ogk W a fy[kok;k Fk k ] o s Qkjlh Hk k " k k e s a fy[kok; s Fk sA ftu

f'kyk[k.M+ksa ij ehjckdh us ijf'k;u esa dqN fy[kk;k Fkk] muesa ls ,d

f'kyk[kaM vkf[kjh le; rd ckcjh efLtn ij yxk Fkk] ckdh nks

f'kyk[kaM mlds igys gh dHkh xk;c gks pqds FksA bu f'kykys[kksa dk

fooj.k ,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ijf'k;u [kaM esa vuqokn lfgr izdkf'kr gqvk

gS] ftldk mYys[k eSaus viuh iqLrd ^^v;ks/;k dk bfrgkl ,oa iqjkrRo**

esa fd;k gSA - - - - -,ihxzkfQ;k bafMdk ,oa esjh mijksDr iqLrd nksuksa esa

gh mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa dk o.kZu gSA rhuksa gh f'kykys[k ijf'k;u

Hkk"kk esa fy[ks x;s FksA mu f'kykys[kksa ls ;g izxV gksrk gS fd og

efLtn FkhA** ¼ist 12½

“After the construction of the Babri mosque, Mir

Baqi Tashkandi, commander of Babur, got three stone-

blocks inscribed there. The inscriptions engraved on the

three stone-blocks at the instance of Mir Baqi, were in

Persian language. Among the stone-blocks which Mir

Baqi had got inscribed in Persian, one stone-block was

fixed to the Babri mosque till the last time, but the

remaining two stone-blocks had disappeared some time

earlier. Accounts of these stone-blocks has been published

with their translation in the Persian part of 'Epigraphia

Indica', which fact I have made mention of in my book

titled 'Ayodhya Ka Itihaas Evam Puratatva'. . The

aforesaid three inscriptions find description both in

'Epigraphia Indica' and the aforesaid book of mine. All the

three inscriptions were written in Persian language. From

these inscriptions it is evident that it was a mosque.”

(E.T.C.)

1546

^^Qfj'rksa ds mrjus dk LFkku**

esjs b.VjfizVs'ku ds vuqlkj bldk vFkZ ;g gksuk pkfg, fd ;gkWa ij

nsorkvksa dk vorkj gqvk FkkA

nsorkvksa dk vorkj Hkxoku jke ds :i esa gqvk FkkA ;g ckr

ijf'k;u esa fy[kh xbZ FkhA**¼ist 13½

“The place of descension of angels.”

As per my interpretation, it ought to mean that deities

incarnated themselves at this place.

Deities incarnated in the form of Lord Rama. This

thing was written in Persian.” (E.T.C.)

^^mijksDr rhuksa f'kykys[kksa esa ls fdlh Hkh f'kykys[k dks eSaus ns[kk

ugha Fkk] muds ckjs esa i<+k FkkA eSaus f'kykys[k ugha i<+k Fkk f'kykys[kksa ds

ckjs esa i<+k FkkA** ¼ist 13½

“I saw none of the aforesaid three inscriptions, but I

read about them. I did not decipher the inscriptions; I read

about them.”(E.T.C.)

yxHkx lHkh f'kykys[kksa esa ckcj dk uke vkSj mlds fy, nqvk,a

vkSj mlds fy, vkns'k dk myys[k fd;k x;k FkkA mijksDr f'kykys[kksa

esa ls fdlh esa Hkh ckcj ds vkus dk mYys[k ugha FkkA eSa ijf'k;u Hkk"kk

fcydqy ugha le>rk gwWaA ftu iqLrdksa dks eSaus dalYV fd;k Fkk

muesa ;gh fy[kk Fkk fd ;s ijf'k;u Hkk"kk esa fy[ks x, FksA mu iqLrdksa esa

,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk ijf'k;u [k.M felst csofjt }kjk rS;kj

^^ckcjukek** dk vuqokn gSA - - - ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk** esa ;g fy[kk

gqvk gS fd ;s vfHkys[k ;kuh f'kykys[k ckcj ds gqDe ls ehjckdh us

fy[kok, FksA** ¼ist 14½

“Almost all the inscriptions have made mention of

Babur's name, blessings for him as also orders for him. The

arrival of Babur did not find mention in any of the

aforesaid inscriptions. I do not at all understand the

Persian language. Whichever books I consulted, said that

these inscriptions were written in the Persian language.

1547

Out of those books, 'Epigraphia Indica', Persian part is a

translation of 'Baburnama' scripted by Mrs. Beveridge. . . .

It is written in 'Epigraphia Indica' that Mir Baqi got these

inscriptions prepared at the behest of Babur.”(E.T.C.)

^^198lh&2@90 yxk;r 198lh&2@99

iz0& D;k ;g mlh ,ihxzkfQ;k bf.Mdk dh izfr gS] ftlds ckjs esa vkius

Åij mYys[k fd;k gS\

mRrj& th gkWaA blh dkxt la[;k& 198lh&2@95 ij mijksDr

f'kykys[kksa ds QksVksxzkQ Nis gSaA dkxt la[;k&198lh&2@96 ij igys

f'kykys[k dk VsDlV ,oa vuqokn Nik gSA nwljs f'kykys[k dk VsDLV ,oa

vuqokn dkxt la[;k &198lh&2@97 ij Nik gS vkSj rhljs f'kykys[k

dk VsDLV ,oa vuqokn dkxt la[;k & 198lh&2@97 ,oa dkxt

la[;k&198&lh&1@98 ij Nik gSA ;s f'kykys[k ckcj ds tekus esa fy[ks

x, gSaA bu f'kykys[kksa ij fgtjh lu~ dh frfFk 935 oka o"kZ fy[kk x;k gS

tks bZLoh lu~ ds vuqlkj 15228&29 iM+rk gSA blhfy, eSa ;g le>rk gwWa

fd ;s f'kykys[k lu~ 1528 esa fy[ks x;s gSaA** ¼ist 14&15½

“198C- 2/ 90 to 198C-2/99

Question:- Is this a copy of that very 'Epigraphia Indica'

you have referred to above ?

Answer:- Yes, Sir. Photographs of the aforesaid

inscriptions are published on this very paper no. 198 C –

2/95. The text and translation of the first inscription is

published on paper no. 198 C-2/96. Paper no. 198 C-2/97

carries the text and translation of the second inscription

and paper nos. 198 C – 2/97 & 198 C – 1/98 carry the text

and translation of the third inscription. These inscriptions

date back to the reign of Babur. These inscriptions have

935th year of the Hizri calendar written on them which

comes to be 1528 – 29 AD. That is why I have the

impression that these inscriptions were written in 1528.”

(E.T.C.)

1548

^^eSa bl ckr ls rks lger gwWa fd fookfnr Hkou 1528 bZLoh esa

efLtn ds :i esa cuk;k x;k Fkk]**¼ist 255½

“I do agree that the disputed structure was built a

mosque in 1528 AD,” (E.T.C)

^^ckcj Lo;a v;ks/;k ugha x;k] cfYd mlds vU; lsukifr;ksa ds

lkFk ckdh 'kxk+koy ¼ehj ckdh csx½ us bl dke dks vatke fn;k] vFkkZr

ckcj ehj ckdh dks vo/k dk pktZ nsdj Xokfy;j dh vksj jokuk gks

x;kA ckcj ds nksckjk v;ks/;k dh rjQ vkus dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha

feyrk gSA ckcjh efLtn rkehj djkus dk okD;k ehjckdh dks vo/k dk

izHkkjh cukdj ckcj ds Xokfy;j pys tkus ds ckn dh ?kVuk gS]

ijUrq ;g ÄVuk fdrus ckn dh gS] ;g eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWaA bl laca/k

esa ,d ek= vk S j lcl s egRoi w. k Z lk{; o s rhu f'kyky s[ k g S a]

tk s ckcjh <k ap s ij yx s g q, Fk s] , slk ekuk tkrk g S fd vk S j

bue s a l s nk s f'kyky s[ k k s a e s a 935 fgt +j h vFk k Zr ~ 1528 b Z0 dh

frfFk iM +h g qb Z g SA fdlh f'kyky s[ k e sa mud s fuek Z . k dk

eghuk vk S j frfFk ugh a feyrh g S ] d soy lu~ feyrk g SA eSaus

viuh iqLrd ds ist 114 ds igys dkye esa dzekad&6 ds lkeus rhu

ek sgj Ze 935 fgtjh dk s 18 flrEcj 1528 b Z0 ekuk g SA blh

d zek ad &6 ij e S au s rhu ek sgj Ze 936 fgtjh dk s 7 flrEcj

1529 b Z0 ekuk g SA bl x.kuk ds vuqlkj 935 fgtjh dk o"kZ vxLr

1529 rd vo'; pyk gksxkA esjs dzekad 6 ds fooj.k ds vuqlkj

ckcjuke s a e s a 18 flrEcj 1528 l s lkr flrEcj 1529 rd

dk i wj k o.k Zu feyrk g SA ckcjukek esa 18 flrEcj 1528 bZ0 ls 7

flrEcj 1529 rd ds fooj.k esa fdlh Hkh eafnj dks fxjk;s tkus dk dksbZ

mYys[k ugha feyrk gSA** ¼ist 344&345½

“Babar himself did not go to Ayodhya and instead

Baqi Shagaval (Mir Baqi), along with other commanders,

completed this task i.e. occupied Ayodhya and established

the administration and thereafter Babar proceeded towards

Gwalior after handing over charge of Awadh to Mir Baqi.

No reference is found about Babar’s re-visit to Ayodhya.

The incident of construction of Babri mosque is subsequent

1549

to the incident of Babar proceeding towards Gwalior after

making Mir Baqi in-charge of Awadh, but I cannot tell as

to how much later. The sole and the most important

evidence in this behalf are the three inscriptions,

believed to be fixed in the Babri structure, and two of

these inscriptions are dated 935 Hizri or 1528 AD. The

month and date of construction is not found in any

inscription, and only the year is found. At serial no. 6 of

first column at page 114 of my book, I have taken three

Moharram 935 Hizri to be 18th September, 1528. At this

very serial no. 6 I have taken three Moharram 936 Hizri

to be 7th September, 1529. As per this calculation, the 935

Hizri year must have continued till August, 1529.

According to the details of my serial no. 6, the Babarnama

contains complete descriptions from 18th September,

1528 to 7th September, 1529. The Babarnama does not

contain any reference of demolition of any temple between

18th September, 1528 to 7th September, 1529.” (E.T.C)

1385. OPW 11 Dr. Satish Chandra Mittal in his cross


^^ckcjh efLtn lu~ 1528 e sa cuh Fk hA ml le; ckcj

ftUnk FksA xtsfV;j ds vuqlkj ckcj ml le; v;ks/;k ds fudV 6&7

dksl dh nwjh ij dSEi fd;s gq, Fkk] ftl le; bl efLtn ds fuekZ.k

dh mlus vkKk nh FkhA ;g vkKk mlus ehjckdh dks nh FkhA vkSj mlds

ckn ehjckdh us ckcjh efLtn dh rkehj djokbZ FkhA** ¼ist 18-19½

“Babri mosque was built in the year 1528. At that

time, Babar was alive. According to the gazetteer, Babar

had camped near Ayodhya at distance of about 6-7 kose

(one kose being equal to two miles) at the time when he had

given the command for construction of this mosque. He had

given this command to Mir Baqi, and thereafter Mir Baqi

1550

had got Babri mosque constructed.” (E.T.C)

^^eSaus vius gyQukesa ds iSjk&17 esa tks dkxt

la[;k&107lh&1@109 ls 110 dk lanHkZ fn;k gs] ;g ml fdrkc ds

i"B dk lanHkZ ugha gS] laHkor% ;g dkxt la[;k xyrh ls fy[kk x;k

gSA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe gS fd izfl) fczfV'k losZ;j ek.V xksejh ekfVZu

ftUgksaus lu~ 1838 esa viuh iqLrd ^^fgLV~h ,UVhfDoVht Vksiksxzkih

LVSfVfLVDl vkQ bZLV bafM;k okY;we&2** fy[kh gS] os vo/k {ks= esa rSukr

Fks ;k dgha vkSjA ek.V xk sej h ek fV Zu t Sl s db Z lo sZ ;j Hk kjr

e sa mu fnuk s a db Z LFk kuk s a ij crk S j lo sZ ;j r Sukr Fk sA - -

e wyr% fc z fV'k lo sZ ;j ek.V xk sej h ek fV Zu bfrgkldkj ugh a

Fk s] ijUrq muds }kjk fy[kh iqLrd dks ,sfrgkfld nf"V ls egRoiw.kZ

ekuk tkrk gSA ek.V xksejh ekfVZu us viuh iqLrd esa bl ckr dk

gokyk fn;k gS fd ckcj us 1528 esa jketUeHkwfe efUnj fxjkdj mlh

LFkku ij efLtn dk fuekZ.k fd;k FkkA - - - - -eSaus vius 'kiFk&i= ds

iSjk&17 esa ckcj }kjk efUnj fxjkdj efLtn fuekZ.k djkus dk c;ku

ek.V xksejh ekfVZu }kjk fyf[kr fdrkc ftlds mn~?k`r

i"B&107lh&1@109 ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj vkt dk c;ku Hkh eSaus blh

fdrkc ds gokys ls fn;k gSA** ¼ist 26&27½

“The paper nos. 107C-1/109 to 110, mentioned by

me in para-17 of my affidavit, are not the references of the

pages of that book and possibly this paper number has

been mentioned inadvertently. I do not know whether the

famous British surveyor Montgomery Martin, who wrote

the book ‘History, Antiquities, Topography, Statistics of

East India Vol.-II’ in the year 1838, was posted in Awadh

or elsewhere. In those days, many surveyors like

Montgomery Martin were posted at many places in India

as surveyor. ... The British surveyor Montgomery Martin

was basically not a historian, but the book written by him

is considered important from historical point of view. In

this book of his, Montgomery Martin has referred that in

1551

the yaer 1528 Babar had demolished Ramjanmbhumi

temple and built a mosque at that very place. ... The

contention in para-17 of my affidavit regarding demolition

of temple by Babar and building of mosque in its place, is

based on the book written by Montgomery Martin, whose

excerpt is at page 107C-1/109, and my statement of the day

is also based on that very book.” (E.T.C)

1386. O.P.W.12 Kaushal Kishor Mishra in his cross


^^esjh Lefr vc cgqr vPNh ugha gSA ikap &N% lky ls esjh Lefr

detksj gks xbZ gSA*^ ¼ist 114½

“Now my memory is not very good. My memory has

weakened for five-six years.” (E.T.C.)

^^bl eafUnj dks ehj ckdh uke ds ,d lsukifr us rqM+ok;k Fkk

vkSj efLtn dk fuekZ.k djk;k FkkA ehjckdh ml le; eqxy lezkV

ckcj ds lsukifr FksA ;g efLtn fdrus lkS lky igys ehjckdh us

cuok;h bldh tkudkjh esjs firk o ckck th dks Fkh ysfdu eq>s Lej.k

ugha gSA** ¼ist 118&119½

“This temple was demolished and a mosque was

erected in its place by a commander called Mir Baqi. Mir

Baqi was at that time commander of Emperor Babur. How

many years ago this mosque had been constructed, was

known to my father and grandfather; but I do not have any

recollection of it.” (E.T.C.)

1387. Most of the above witnesses are not experts yet what

discern undoubtedly that everybody's impression and opinion

about the period of construction is based on inscriptions and

nothing else. Therefore, scrutiny and study on inscription

become vital.

1388. The written material which throws some light on this

aspect consists of Gazetteers (published from time to time);

1552

settlement and survey reports; History books and certain other

books pertaining to the disputed site/building though strictly

speaking not written by well known historians but those persons

claim to have collected information on the basis of their own

inquiry or investigation etc. or had acquired knowledge in the

capacity in which they were working or otherwise or due to the

interest generated in the matter after dispute spread

countrywide. We would place on record what has been said in

such published material and also consider their credibility etc.

simultaneously.

Gazetteers-Settlement/Survey Reports:

1389. 'Gazetteers', mostly published in 19th and 20th

century during the pre-independence period, and, one after

independence, published under the auspices of U.P. Government

and another by the Government of India are the documents

heavily relied in these cases. It is not in dispute that 'Gazetteers'

are not the documents published under some statutory provision.

In order to understand their evidenciary value and authority we

have to first consider what 'Gazetteer' means.

1390. Learned counsels have placed before us a printout

taken from internet from the site “Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia” under the heading “Gazetteer”. It says that a

'gazetteer' is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important

reference for information about places and place names, used in

conjunction with a map or a full Atlas. It geographically

contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a

country, regions or continent as well as the social statistics and

physical features such as mountains, waterways, or roads.

Examples of information provided by gazetteers include the

location of places, dimensions of physical features, population,

1553

literacy rate, etc. The “Oxford Dictionary” defines the

“gazetteer” as a geographical index or dictionary. It refers to a

document published by British Historian “Laurence Echard” in

1693 bears the title “Gazetteer's or Newman's Interpreter: Being

a Geographical Index”. Echard wrote that the title “gazetteers”

was suggested to him by a very eminent person whose name

was not disclosed. The next part was published by Echard in

1704 as “the Gazetteer simply”. This is considered to be the

introduction by the word gazetteer into the English language. It

is said that since 18th century the word gazetteer has been used

interchangeably to define either its traditional maning (i.e., a

geographical dictionary or directory) or a daily news paper such

as London Gazetteer. Tracing the history of gazetteer

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says:

“Gazetteers of ancient Greece existed since the

Hellenistic era. The first known gazetteer of China

appeared by the 1st century, and with the age of print

media in China by the 9th century, the Chinese gentry

became invested in producing gazetteers for their local

areas as a source of information as well as local pride.

Although existent only in fragments, the geographer

Stephanus of Byzantium wrote a geographical dictionary in

the 6th century which influenced later European compilers

of gazetteers by the 16th century. Modern gazetteers can be

found in reference sections of most libraries as well as on

the Web.

In his journal article "Alexander and the Ganges"

(1923), the 20th century historian W.W. Tarn calls a list

and description of satrapies of Alexander's Empire written

between 324 and 323 BC as an ancient gazetteer. Tarn

1554

notes that the document is dated no later than June 323

BC, since it features Babylon as not yet partitioned by

Alexander's generals. It was revised by the Greek historian

Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. In the 1st century

BC, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentioned the chronicle-

type format of the writing of the logographers in the age

before the founder of the Greek historiographic tradition,

Herodotus (i.e. before the 480s BC), saying "they did not

write connected accounts but instead broke them up

according to peoples and cities, treating each separately."

Historian Truesdell S. Brown asserts that what Dionysius'

describes in this quote about the logographers should be

categorized not as a true "history" but rather as a

gazetteer. While discussing the Greek conception of the

river delta in ancient Greek literature, Francis Celoria

notes that both Ptolemy and Pausanias of the 2nd century

AD provided gazetteer information on geographical terms.

Perhaps predating Greek gazetteers were those made

in ancient Egypt. Although she does not specifically label

the document as a gazetteer, Penelope Wilson (PhD,

Lecturer in the Department of Archaeology at Durham

University) describes an ancient Egyptian papyrus found at

the site of Tanis, Egypt (a city founded during the

Twentieth dynasty of Egypt) which provides the following

for each administrative area of Egypt at the time.

The Domesday Book initiated by William I of

England in 1086 was a government survey on all the

administrative counties of England; it was used to assess

the properties of farmsteads and landholders in order to

tax them sufficiently. In the survey, numerous English

1555

castles were listed; scholars debate on exactly how many

were actually referenced in the book. However, the

Domesday Book does detail the fact that out of 3,558

registered houses destroyed in 112 different boroughs

listed, 410 of these destroyed houses were the direct result

of castle construction and expansion. In 1316, the Nomina

Villarum survey was initiated by Edward II of England; it

was essentially a list of all the administrative subdivisions

throughout England which could be utilized by the state in

order to assess how much military troops could be

conscripted and summoned from each region. The

Speculum Britanniae (1596) of the Tudor era English

cartographer and topographer John Norden (1548–1625)

had an alphabetical list of places throughout England with

headings showing their administrative hundreds and

referenced to attached maps. Englishman John Speed's

Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine published in 1611

provided gazetteers for counties throughout England,

which included illustrative maps, short local histories, a

list of administrative hundreds, an index of parishes, and

the coordinates of longitude and latitude for county towns.

Starting in 1662, the Hearth Tax Returns with attached

maps of local areas were compiled by individual parishes

throughout England while a duplicate of their records were

sent to the central government offices of the Exchequer. To

supplement his 'new large Map of England' from 1677, the

English cartographer John Adams compiled the extensive

gazetteer "Index Villaris" in 1680 that had some 24,000

places listed with geographical coordinates coinciding with

the map. The "Geographical Dictionary" of Edmund Bohun

1556

was published in London in 1688, comprising 806 pages

with some 8,500 entries. In his work, Edmund Bohun

attributed the first known Western geographical dictionary

to geographer Stephanus of Byzantium (fl. 6th century)

while also noting influence in his work from the Thesaurus

Geographicus (1587) by the Belgian cartographer

Abraham Ortelius (1527–1598), but stated that Ortelius'

work dealt largely with ancient geography and not up-to-

date information. Only fragments of Stephanus'

geographical work Ethnica (Εθνικά) have survived and

were first examined by the Italian printer Aldus Manutius

in his work of 1502.

The Italian monk Phillippus Ferrarrius (d. 1626)

published his geographical dictionary "Epitome

Geographicus in Quattuor Libros Divisum" in the Swiss

city of Zurich in 1605. He divided this work into overhead

topics of cities, rivers, mountains, and lakes and swamps.

All placenames, given in Latin, were arranged in

alphabetical order for each overhead division by

geographic type;. A year after his death, his "Lexicon

Geographicum" was published, which contained more than

9,000 different entries for geographic places. This was an

improvement over Ortelius' work, since it included modern

placenames and places discovered since the time of

Ortelius.

Pierre Duval (1618–1683), a nephew of the French

cartographer Nicolas Sanson, wrote various geographical

dictionaries. These include a dictionary on the abbeys of

France, a dictionary on ancient sites of the Assyrians,

Persians, Greeks, and Romans with their modern

1557

equivalent names, and a work published in Paris in 1651

that was both the first universal and vernacular

geographical dictionary of Europe. With the gradual

expansion of Laurence Echard's (d. 1730) gazetteer of

1693, it too became a universal geographical dictionary

that was translated into Spanish in 1750, into French in

1809, and into Italian in 1810.

Following the American Revolutionary War, United

States clergyman and historian Jeremy Belknap and

Postmaster General Ebenezer Hazard intended to create

the first post-revolutionary geographical works and

gazetteers, but they were anticipated by the clergyman and

geographer Jedidiah Morse with his Geography Made

Easy in 1784. However, Morse was unable to finish the

gazetteer in time for his 1784 geography and postponed it.

Yet his delay to publish it lasted too long, as it was Joseph

Scott in 1795 who published the first post-revolutionary

American gazetteer, his Gazetteer of the United States.

With the aid of Noah Webster and Rev. Samuel Austin,

Morse finally published his gazetteer The American

Universal Geography in 1797. However, Morse's gazetteer

did not receive distinction by literary critics, as gazetteers

were deemed as belonging to a lower literary class. The

reviewer of Joseph Scott's 1795 gazetteer commented that

it was "little more than medleys of politics, history and

miscellaneous remarks on the manners, languages and arts

of different nations, arranged in the order in which the

territories stand on the map." Nevertheless, in 1802 Morse

followed up his original work by co-publishing A New

Gazetteer of the Eastern Continent with Rev. Elijah Parish,

1558

the latter of whom Ralph H. Brown asserts did the "lion's

share of the work in compiling it."

1391. In 19th Century it is said that gazetteers were widely

popular in Britain with publishers such as Fullarton, Mackenzie,

Chambers and W & A.K. Johnston, many of whom were

Scottish, meeting public demand for information on an

expanding Empire.

1392. The above discussion gives us an idea and broad feature

of documents published and termed as “Gazetteer”. There is

distinction between Gazette and Gazetteer. The British

Government enacted “Official Gazette Act, 1863” (Act No.

XXXI of 1863) and published various Gazettes thereunder. The

Gazetteer, as said about is not founded on a statute but being a

document published under the authority or auspices of the

Government, deserve much more reliability and confidence. It

constitute an important source of historical and other

informations in general and most authenticated data about the

then existing affairs.

1393. The extent to which informations contained in

Gazetters can be believed, relied and considered has been

subject matter of Courts time and again wherein the information

contained in the Gazetters has also been utilized in one or the

other manner. Some of such cases may be referred as under. It

appears that the consensus of the judicial opinion is that

information contained in a Gazetteer can be considered but

carrectness thereof may need corrorroboration. It all depend on

the nature of dispute in every case.

1394. In Fulbati Kumari Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Singh

AIR 1923 Patna 453 a Division Bench of Patna High Court

relied upon the Bengal District Gazetteer, Volume XVII in order

1559

to gather some information about what happened at Dumri when

Captain Brown took over charge of the operations in the jungle

terry tracts in 1774.

1395. In Sukhdev Singh Vs. Maharaja Bahadur of

Gidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288 Bengal District Gazetteer, Vol.

XVII was referred and in para 10 the Apex Court held:

“The statement in the District Gazetteer is not necessarily

conclusive, but the Gazetteer is an official document of

some value, as it is compiled by experienced officials with

great care after obtaining the facts from official records.”

1396. In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Jaffar

Hussein AIR 1954 SC 5 a dispute regarding management of a

Darga known as Haji Malang came to be considered before the

Apex Court. The Darga had two tomb, one of a Hindu and

another of Muslim saint. The Court referred to the Gazetteer of

Bombay to find out the history which is said to have lost an

antiquity and from the gazetteer it appears that a Muslim saint

came to India as an Urban missionary in 13th century and after

his death, he was buried in the said Darga. There was another

tomb called Mayi's tomb where the body of a Hindu Raja's

daughter treated by Bawa Malang as his daughter was buried. In

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court

observed that such matter cannot be governed either by Hindu

or Muslim law but should be governed by its own special

customs or by general law of public religious and charitable

trust.

1397. In Chhote Khan & others Vs. Mal Khan & others

AIR 1954 SC 575, the Court referred to Gazetteer Gurgaon

District (1910) with respect to the properties owned by Meos of

Ferozepore Tehsil and others villages in Gurgaon. It also

1560

referres to the settlement record of 1877 observing that it is an

important document.

1398. In Biswambhar Singh & others Vs. State of Orissa

& another AIR 1954 SC 139, the Court referred to Hunter's

Imperial Gazetter, Volume 4, page 478 which mentions certain

facts about the origin of Bhuyans as also the Settlement Report

of 1907-1911.

1399. In Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri

Ramakrishna Deo AIR 1959 SC 239, the Court referred to the

District Gazetteer, Vishakhapatnam, 1907 in para 3 of its

judgment.

1400. In State of Bihar & others Vs. Bhabapritananda

Ojha AIR 1959 SC 1073, the Court referred to Bihar District

Gazetteer relating to Santal Parganas, 1938.

1401. In Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt & Anr. AIR 1963 SC 864 the

Court resorted to rely on “Madras District Gazetteers, Madurai”

in respect to certain statistical data published therein in support

of the claim of the State observing that this is the information

furnished from authorized Government publication.

1402. In Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs.

Surayan Dass & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 256 the Court said:

“These statements in the Gazetteer are not relied on as

evidence of title but as providing historical material and

the practice followed by the Math and its head. The

Gazetteer can be consulted on matters of public history."

1403. In Laxman Siddappa Naik vs. Kattimani

Chandappa Jampanna and others AIR 1968 SC 929 the Apex

Court approved the consultation of Bombay Karnatak Gazetteer

of 1893 and certain other similar documents to find out the

1561

distinguishing customs and manners of different tribes.

1404. Sri R.L.Verma, however, submits that in a suit

where the question of title of temple or property is involved, it

cannot be said to be a question of history and therefore, neither

the Gazetteers nor the report of Archaeological Survey etc. can

be an appropriate book of reference for deciding such a

controversy and placed reliance on Farzand Ali Vs. Zafar Ali

46 IC 119 where it is observed:

“We are inclined to think that the use of the

historical works to establish title to the property cannot be

justified on the strength of Section 57 of the Indian

Evidence Act. The question of title between the trustee of a

mosque, though an old and historical institution, and a

private person, cannot, in our opinion, be deemed to be a

'matter of public history' within the meaning of the said

section."

1405. The submission, in our view, is totally misconceived

and travels much beyond the point for which the various copies

of gazetteers have been filed before us by the parties and in fact

some observations therefrom are also relied by Sri Verma. For

the purpose of historical events and fact as they were centuries

ago, the manner in which they have taken are detailed in the

documents published under the authority of the then

Government in the form of Gazetteers.

1406. Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das (supra)

dictum has been followed in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (Dead)

Vs. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (Dead) & Ors. 2002 (6) SCC

404.

1407. The first gazetteer in respect to Indian sub-continent

came to be published in 1828 under the title “East India

1562

Gazetteer” by Walter Hamilton (second edition reprint 1993

by Low Price Publications, Delhi) containing particulars and

descriptions of the Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities,

Provinces, Cities, Towns, Districts, Fortresses, harbours, rivers,

lakes and, C. of Hindostan and the adjacent Countries, India

beyond the Ganges and the eastern Archipelago.

1408. Hamilton's "Gazetter" of 1828 on page 353 under

the heading 'Oude' gives following information about Ayodhya :

"Pilgrims resort to this vicinity, where the remains of the

ancient city of Oude, and capital of the great Rama, are

still to be seen; but whatever may have been its former

magnificence it now exhibits nothing but a shapeless mass

of ruins. The modern town extends a considerable way

along the banks of the Goggra, adjoining Fyzabad, and is

tolerably well peopled; but inland it is a mass of rubbish

and jungle, among which are the reputed site of temples

dedicated to Rama, Seeta, his wife, Lakshman, his

general, and Hanimaun (a large monkey), his prime

minister. The religious mendicants who perform the

pilgrimage to Oude are chiefly of the Ramata sect, who

walk round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools,

and perform the customary ceremonies.”

1409. Thereafter Robert Montgomery Martin, for the first

time sought to contradict local belief or tradition about the

person who made construction by referring to an inscription on

the wall of the disputed building according to which it was the

work of the conqueror Babar falsifying the local tradition of its

construction by Aurangzabe in his work "The History,

Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India"

(1838 AD) (Ex. 20, Suit 5-Paper No.107C1/109-110). The copy

1563

of the book in all 6 volumes available to the Court is the first

Indian reprint 1976 by Cosmo Publications, Delhi. The details

of inscription referred to in the above passage have not been

given. It says at page 334/335, Vol.II, as under:

".... if these temples ever existed, not the smallest trace of

them remains to enable us to judge of the period when they

were built; and the destruction is very generally attributed

by the Hindus to the furious zeal of Aurungzebe, to whom

also is imputed the overthrow of the temples in Benares

and Mathura. What may have been the case in the two

latter, I shall not now take upon myself to say, but with

respect to Ayodhya the tradition seems very ill founded.

The bigot by whom the temples were destroyed, is said to

have erected mosques on the situations of the most

remarkable temples; but the mosque at Ayodhya, which is

by far the most entire, and which has every appearance of

being the most modern, is ascertained by an inscription on

its walls (of which a copy is given) to have been built by

Babur, five generations before Aurungzebe."

1410. Edward Thornton in “A Gazetteer of the

Territories under the Government of the East-India

Company and of the native States on the Continent of India”,

first published in 1858 (reproduced in 1993) by Low Price

Publications, Delhi (Book No. 10) on page 739 (Paper

No.107C1-10 i.e. Ex.5 Suit 5) under the heading “Oudh”

observed as under:

“According to native tradition, they were demolished

by Aurungzebe, who built a mosque on part of the site. The

falsehood of the tradition is, however, proved by an

inscription on the wall of the mosque, attributing the work

1564

to the conqueror Baber, from whom Aurungzabe was fifth

in descent. The mosque is embellished with fourteen

columns of only five or six feet in height, but of very

elaborate and tasteful workmanship, said to have been

taken from the ruins of the Hindoo fanes . . . . .” (emphasis

added)

1411. We do not find from the above Gazetteer whether

Thornton himself had viewed the alleged inscription, whether

there was only one inscription or more than one and whether

Thornton was capable of himself reading Persian/Arabic or the

said information is based on secondary evidence, i.e.,

information he might have received from somebody else whose

authenticity is also not known. To us it appear that the above

observations are founded on what has been noticed by Robert

Montgomery Martin in “The History, Antiquities, Topography

and Statistics of Eastern India” by Robort Montgomry

Martin (Vol-II) (first published in 1838 AD) (Supra) (Ex. 20,

Suit-5-Paper No. 107 C1/109-110) where referring to the survey

made by the Dr. Buchanan, Martin referred the inscription and

contradicted local belief and tradition of demolition by

Aurangzeb and said that it must have been the work of Babar.

1412. However, from the words “an inscription”, to us it

appears that according to his information there existed only one

inscription on the wall of the mosque which attributed the work

to Emperor Babar.

1413. Then comes P. Carnegy's “A Historical Sketch of

Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzabad” (hereinafter referred to as

“P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch”). He was an Officiating

Commissioner and Settlement Officer at Faizabad and in 1967

prepared the said report which was published in 1870. Copies

1565

of frontispiece, pages 5, 6, 7, 19, 20 and 21 have been filed as

paper No.107C1/17-23 i.e. Ex.49, Suit 5 (Register 20, page 35-

47). Appendix-A containing the list of sacred places in and

about Ajudhia has been filed as Ex. A-10 (Suit4) (Register 16,

pages 67 to 78). With respect to construction of the disputed

building, on page 20 and 21 of the book, (Paper No.107C1/22-

23), P. Carnegy has said:

“The Janamasthan and other temples.- It is locally

affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there were three

important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees attached, at

Ajudhia, which was then little other than wilderness. These

were the “Janamasthan,” the “Sargadwar mandir” also

known as “Ram Darbar” and the “Tareta-ke-Thakur.”

On the first of these the Emperor Babar built the

mosque which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the

second Aurangzeb did the same A.D. 1658-1707; and on

the third that sovereign, or his predecessor, built a mosque,

according to the well known Mahomedan principle of

enforcing their religion on all those whom they conquered.

Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's memoirs of

Babar that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa

and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajudhia, on

the 28th March1528, and there he halted 7 or 8 days setting

the surrounding country. A well known hunting ground is

spoken of in that work, 7 or 8 kos above Oudh, on the

banks of the Surju. It is remarkable that in all the copies of

Babar's life now known, the pages that relate to his doings

at Ajudhia are wanting. In two places in the Babari mosque

the year in which it was built 935 H. corresponding with

1528 A.D. is carved in stone, along with inscriptions

1566

dedicated to the glory of that Emperor.

1414. The reference of inscriptions in Carnegy's Historical

Sketch is also at page 27, Section VI under the heading

“Buildings” at Serial Item 5 which states as under:

“Babar's mosque with stone inscriptions in Ajudhia, date

A.D. 1528, and stone columns of infinitely greater

antiquity.”

1415. Here Carnegy has referred two inscriptions on the

disputed building to infer that the same was constructed in 935

Hizra (corresponding with 1528 AD). He has also not said

anything further. He also gave no details or the text of the

alleged inscriptions.

1416. In “Gazetteer of Oudh” by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S.,

Assistant Commissioner (1877) (Book No. 11), the factum of

the construction of disputed building is given on page 6/7 which

is a virtual reproduction of what is said in P. Carnegy's

Historical Sketch (supra) as evident from the following:

"The Janamasthan and other temples.--It is locally

affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were

three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees

attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a

wilderness. These were the "Janamasthan," the

"Swargaddwar mandir" also known as "Ram Darbar,"

"Treta-ke-Thakur."


mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the

second, Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and

on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a

mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan

principle of enforcing their religion on all those whom they

1567

conquered.

Babar's mosque.--According to Leyden's Memoirs of

Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa

and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya, on

the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight

days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known

hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos

above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable

that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the

pages that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting.

In two places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it

was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is

carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the

glory of that Emperor.

If Ajodhya was then little other than a wilderness, it

must at least have possessed a fine temple in the

Janamasthan; for many of its columns are still in

existence and in good preservation, having been used by

the Musalmans in the construction of the Babari

Mosque. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-colored

or black stone, called by the natives kasauti (literally

touch-stone slate,) and carved with different devices. To my

thinking these more strongly resemble Buddhist pillars

than those I have seen at Benares and elsewhere. They are

from seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and

capital, and round or octagonal intermediately." (emphasis

added)

1417. Next is the “Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh” Vol. I

(three volumes in one) published by Low Price Publications,

Delhi (first published in 1877-78) (reprinted in LPP 1993)

1568

(Book No. 11). Copy of pages No.6 and 7 of the aforesaid

Gazetteer have been filed as Papers No.107C1/25-26 i.e. Ex.7,

Suit-5 (Register 20, Page 51-53). The 'introduction' of the above

gazetteer has been written by Mr. W.C. Benett, C.S., Assistant

Commissioner. Therefore, to us it appears that the above

gazetteer was prepared by or under the supervision of Mr.

Benett who might have been assisted with a number of other

offers contributing write ups on different items. On page

XXXIX, chapter I, “Introduction”, it says:

“The great Afghan captains whom that prince

defeated in Oudh have left no representatives, and the four

pages describing the events which attended his entry to

Ajodhya, where it is possible that the Hindu chiefs rallied

round the centre of their religion, are missing from all the

known copies of his memoirs. The only record remaining

is an ancient mosque, which preserves the invader's

name on the holiest spot of all—the birthplace of

Rama.”

1418. Thereafter on page 6/7, under the headings “The

Janamasthan and other temples” and “Babar's mosque” it

mentions about the inscriptions at two places in the disputed

building to show the period of construction and the person by

whom it was constructed. It is again a repetition of what was

said in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no

substantial difference therein:

“The Janamasthan and other temples—It is locally

affirmed that at the Muhammadan conquest there were

three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees

attached, at Ajodhya, which was then little other than a

wilderness. These were the “Janamasthan” the

1569

“Swargaddwar mandir” also known as “Ram Darbar,”

“Treta-ke-Thakur”.


mosque, which still bears his name, A.D. 1528. On the

second, Aurangzed did the same, A.D. 1658 to 1707; and

on the third, that sovereign or his predecessors built a

mosque, according to the well-known Muhammadan


conquered.”

Babar's mosque—According to Leyden's Memoirs of

Babar, that Emperor encamped at the junction of the Serwa

and Gogra rivers two or three kos east from Ajodhya on

the 28th March 1528, and there he halted seven or eight

days, settling the surrounding country. A well-known

hunting ground is spoken of in that work, seven or eight kos

above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is remarkable

that in all the copies of Babar's life now known, the pages

that relate to his doings at Ajodhya are wanting. In two

places in the Babari Mosque, the year in which it was

built, 935 H. corresponding with 1528 A.D. is carved in

stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the glory of

that Emperor.”

1419. "Report on the settlement of the Land Revenue of the

Fyzabad District", (Book No. 18) by A.F. Millett, C.S.,

Officiating Settlement Officer, published by North Western

Provinces and Oudh Government press, Allahabad in 1880

(hereinafter referred to as “Millet's report, 1880”). The book on

the very first page mentions that it contains partly, reports and

notes of P. Carnegy, late Settlement Officer, and J. Woodborn,

late Officiating Settlement Officer. Copies of the frontispiece as

1570

well as page No.218, 231, 235 and 236 have been filed as Paper

No.107C1/27-30A i.e. Ex.8, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20 Pages 55-

62).

1420. Here also reference of the disputed building, the period

of its construction by Emperor Babar is in the same language as

stated in P. Carnegy's Historical Sketch (supra) and there is no

substantial difference in the two except of some addition as is

evident from para 666 and 667, read as under:

“666. The Janmasthan and other temples.- It is

locally affirmed that at the Mahomedan conquest there

were three important Hindu shrines, with but few devotees

attached, at Ajudhya, which was then little other than a

wilderness. These were the “Janmasthan,” the

“Sargadwar mandir,” also known as “Ram Darbar,” and

“Tareta-Ke-Thakur.” On the first of these the Emperor

Baber built the mosque which still bears his name, A.D.

1528; on the second Aurangzeb did the same, A.D. 1658-

1707; and on the third that sovereign, or his predecessor,

built a mosque according to the well-known Mahomedan


conquered. The Janmasthan marks the place where

Ramchandar was born. The Sargadwar is the gate

through which he passed into Paradise, possibly the spot

where his body was burned. The Tareta-Ke-Thakur was

famous as the place where Rama performed a great

sacrifice, and which he commemorated by setting up there

images of himself and Sita.

“667. Babar's mosque.- According to Leyden's

Memoirs of Babar, that emperor encamped at the junction

of the Serwu and Gogra rivers, two or three kos east from

1571

Ajudhya, on the 28th March, 1528, and there he halted

seven or eight days, settling the surrounding country. A

well-known hunting-ground is spoken of in that work, seven

or eight kos above Oudh, on the banks of the Sarju. It is

remarkable that in all the copies of Babar's life now known

the pages that relate to his doings at Ajudhya are wanting.

In two places in the Babari mosque the year in which it

was built, 935 H., corresponding with 1528 A.D., is

carved in stone, along with inscriptions dedicated to the

glory of that emperor.”

1421. Next comes “Barabanki: A gazetteer being Volume

XLVIII of the District Gazetteer of the United Provinces of

Agra and Oudh” compiled and edited by H.R. Nevill, I.C.S.,

printed by F. Luker, Supdt., Government Press, United

Provinces, Allahabad in 1904 (hereinafter referred to as

“Nevill's Barabanki Gazetteer 1904”). Copy of pages No.168-

169 have been filed as Paper No.107C1/40-41; Ex.52, Suit-5.

He does not refer to any inscription etc. but while describing

Hindu Muslim clash said to have occurred in 1853, he observed:

“The cause of the occurrence was one of the numerous

disputes that have sprung up from time to time between the

Hindu priests and the Musalmans of Ajodhya with regard

to the ground on which formerly stood the Janamasthan

temple, which was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a

mosque.”

1422. In “Fyzabad-a Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII of the

District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and

Oudh” by H.R. Nevill published in 1905 (Book No. 4)

(hereinafter referred to as “Fyzabad Gazetteer, 1905”), page

173 refers to two inscriptions with the details of their place of

1572

installation:

"Ajodhya is pre-eminently a city of temples, and

apart from these there are but few points of interest in the

place. Not all of these places of worship are connected with

the Hindu religion. There are six Jain shrines which have

been already mentioned in Chapter III in connection with

Jainism in this district; and there are also the Musalman

mosques and tombs. It is locally affirmed that at the time

of the Musalman conquest there were three important

Hindu shrines at Ajodhya and little else. These were the

Janamasthan temple, the Swargaddwar, and the Treta-

ka-Thakur, and each was successively made the object

of attention of different Musalman rulers. The

Janamsthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace

of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and

halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple

and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar'

mosque. The materials of the old structure were largely

employed, and many of the columns are in good

preservation; they are of close grained black stone,

called by the natives Kasauti, and carved with various

devices. Their length is from seven to eight feet, and the

shape square at the base, centre and capital, the rest being

round or octagonal. The mosque has two inscriptions, one

on the outside and the other on the pulpit; both are in

Persian and bear the date 935 Hijri. Of the authenticity of

the inscriptions there can be no doubt, but no record of the

visit to Ajodhya is to be found in the Musalman historians.

It must have occurred about the time of his expedition to

Bihar." (emphasis added)

1573

The copy of the frontispiece and pages No.172, 173, 171,

175, 176 and 177 have been filed as paper No.107C1/42-48;

Ex.11, Suit-5; Register Vol.20 page 85-97.

1423. Next is “Imperial Gazetteer of India—Provincial

Series—United Provinces of Agra and Oudh”-Vol. II (1908)

(Book No. 16) published by Superintendent of Government

Printing Calcutta, where at page 388-389 (Ex.10 Suit-5; Paper

No.107C1/37-39) it says:

“At one corner of a vast mound known as Ramkot,

or the fort of Rama, is the holy spot where the hero was

born. Most of the enclosure is occupied by a mosque

built by Babar from the remains of an old temple, and in

the outer portion a small platform and shrine mark the

birthplace. Close by is a larger temple in which is shown

the cooking-place of Sita, the faithful wife of Rama. A lofty

temple stands on the bank of the Gogra at the place where

Lakshmana bathed; and Hanuman, king of the monkeys, is

worshipped in a large temple in the town, approached by

an immense flight of steps, which bears the name Hanuman

Garhi. Other noticeable temples built during the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries are the Kanakbhawan, a fine

building erected by a Rani of Tikamgarh, the

Nageshwarnath temple, Darshan Singh's temple, and a

small marble temple built by the present Maharaja,

Ajodhya also contains a number of Jain temples, five of

which were built in the eighteenth century to mark the

birthplaces of the five heirarchs who are said to have been

born at Ajodhya. Besides the mosque of Babar, two

ruined mosques, built by Aurangzeb, stand on the sites

of celebrated Hindu shrines--the Swargadwara, where

1574

Rama's body was cremated, and the Treta-ka-Thakur,

where he sacrificed.” (emphasis added)

1424. The above gazetteer only refers the name of Emperor

Babar that he constructed disputed building but neither the

period nor the basis of such information is mentioned.

1425. H.R. Nevill, I.C.S., published another gazetteer in

1928 under the title “Fyzabad: A Gazetteer being Vol. XLIII

of the District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and

Oudh”. Copy of the frontispiece and pages no.178, 179, 180

and 181 have been filed as Paper No.107C1/49-53 (Register 20,

pages 99-107). In the preface written by Nevill in February,

1905 he said that in the earlier gazetteer of the province of

Oudh, articles dealing with District Fyzabad and its various

other divisions, towns and villages were taken almost wholly

from the valuable and defuse Settlement Report of Mr. A.F.

Millett, which embodied a large proportion of the remarkable

notes and reports of Mr. Patrick Carnegy and the late Sri John

Woodburn. These contain much that is now obsolete and still

more of a purely traditional and speculative character. After

collecting fresh materiel he found the necessity of publication of

the said gazetteer. Chapter V deals with ‘History’. For the

present purpose we are confining to that part of the Gazetteer

which deals with the period of construction of the disputed

structure. On pages 151-152 the facts about the first Muslim

invasion of Oudh is mentioned as under:

“The first Musalman invasion of Oudh was,

according to the popular tradition, that of Saiyid Salar

Masaud. The Mirat-i-Masaudi states that the youthful

invader went from Multan to Ajodhya, where, after taking

the city without a struggle, he remained hunting for some

1575

time and then set out for Delhi in 1030 A.D. The route

taken is remarkable and the story must be confused in some

manner. There is no mention of his passing through

Ajodhya on his march from Satrikh to Bahraich, where he

met his death; but popular legend steps in to fill the gap.”

1426. The above narration is sought to be supported by

referring to the “History of India-As told by its own

Historians” by Sir H.M. Elliot and John Dowson, Vol. II, page

531. We have with us all the eight volumes of the book of Elliot

and Dowson which was first published in 1866-1877 and

reprinted in 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2008. In the appendix

Chapter III which starts from page 528 of Vol. II it appears that

Salar Masud son of Sultan Mahmud Subuktagin came to India

by crossing the river Indus. Having conquest Multan he led his

army against 'Ajudhan'. A few lines from page 530-531 of

Elliot and Dowson's book are as under:

“The rainy season had now set in, so they remained

at Multan the next four months. After the rains, Mas'ud led

his army against Ajudhan. Although, in those days, that

place and its vicinity was thickly peopled, it was subdued

without a struggle. Mas'ud was delighted with the climate

of Ajudhan, and as, moreover, it was a good sporting

country, he remained there till the end of the following

rains, when he set off for Delhi.”

1427. On page 530, footnote, the authors (Elliot and Dowson)

have said:

“Ajudha or Ayodhya is the old form of the name

Oudh. The scene of Mas'ud's later exploits is laid in the

neighbourhood of Oudh.”

1428. This narration claims to be an English translation of

1576

“Mir-at-i-Masaudi” written by Abdu-r Rahman Chishti. On page

513 the editor of the book “History of India” has mentioned

about the author and the book “Mir-at-i-Masaudi” as well the

following facts in order to enhance the degree of reliability on

the aforesaid work in respect to life story of Salar Masaud:

“This is professedly a life of Mas'ud the Ghaznivide,

and finds an appropriate place here after the story books.

The author of this extraordinary work was by name' Abdu-r

Rahman Chirsti. He explains the motives which impelled

him to its composition, and the sources of his information

after the following manner: “The history of the King of

Martyrs, Salar Mas'ud, the facts of his birth, of his coming

to Hindustan, and of his martyrdom, are told by different

men in various ways, which have not found a place in any

historical work of repute. The writer had long endeavoured

to ascertain the real facts; and, after much research he

obtained possession of an old book written by Mulla

Muhammad Ghaznawi. This man was servant of Sultan

Mahmud Subuktigin. He was also in the service of Salar

Sahu, and of the Prince of Martyrs, whom he survived. The

writer perused this old book from beginning to end with the

greatest pleasure, and the doubts which he had entertained

were dispelled. The book was very long, it entered into

details about the wars of Sultan Mahmud, and Salar Sahu,

mentioning incidentally here and there the King of

Martyrs, and closing with an account of his martyrdom.

Several of the beloved friends and attendants of the Martyr

Sultan, in the abodes of the blessed, have urged the writer

to the task which he has undertaken; but no one has made

the same demand on behalf of Sultan Mahmud. It therefore

1577

seemed expedient to him that he should select and commit

to writing all that related to the Martyr King. He would

not, however, have been able to succeed, even in this,

without the directions he graciously received from the

spirit of the departed. When he had set about his selection,

and had engaged earnestly in the work, one night the spirit

of the deceased martyr appeared to the writer in a vision,

and most condescendingly expressed, with his blessed

tongue, his approval of the work. Being thus graciously

honoured, the author humbly replied that he had begun the

work, and begged for assistance wherever his narration

might be too high, or too low, too short, or too long. The

spirit, with great affability, directed the author to write,

and that he would attend to him and assist him. The present

work is the result, to which the author has given the name

Mir-at-i Mas'udi. May the reader of it also be (mas'ud)

blessed. This is the author's prayer. The biography of the

King of Martyrs having been derived from the aforesaid

history, is here related in five chapters (dastans). Sundry

incidents, and miraculous statements, which have been

found in trustworthy books, have been selected, and, after

being verified by oral communications with the author's

spiritual visitors, have been inserted in the present work.”

1429. The editor of “History of India” thereafter has termed

the book as a historical romance and says that the book mainly

seems to rest on the last word “Tawarikh-i-Mahmudi” of Mulla

Muhammad Ghaznawi but at places it is difficult to rely on the

narration. We do not find it expedient to go further except to

point out that in all the subsequent Gazetteers, this history of

invasion of Ayodhya by “Syed Salar Masud” has been followed

1578

referring to Elliot and Dowson's “History of India” Vol. II page

530/531 where the learned authors got confused by identifying

“Ajudhan” as “Ayodhya” though the two are different places.

“Ajudhan” was a place in “Punjab” while “Ayodhay” is much

far therefrom. This mistake unfortunately has continued in a lot

of History books also which have been published until recently.

1430. Dr. T.P. Verma, Historian and author of the book

“Ayodhya Ka Itihas Evam Puratatva” (Exhibit 3-Suit 5)

(Book No. 141) who has also written the same fact at page

110/111 in his above titled book, in his cross examination has

admitted this error. He admits that “Salar Masud” never came

to “Ayodhya” and he has wrongly mentioned the same in his

book as is evident from the following:

^^bl ckr dh lEHkkouk de gS fd 11oha 'krkCnh esa v;ks/;k esa

eqlyekuksa dh vkcknh jgh gksxhA lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf/kdkjh

[oktk feV~Bs 1032 bZLoh ds djhc v;ks/;k esa vk;s jgs gksxsaA esjs fopkj

ls v;ks/;k dh lcls iqjkuh efLtn ogh efLtn Fkh] tks ckcjh efLtn

dgh tkrh FkhA ---13oha ls 17 oha 'krkCnh ds chp esa v;ks/;k dh x.kuk

Hkkjr o"kZ ds cM+s 'kgjksa esa gksrh Fkh] tks vkt dh v;ks/;k ls cM+h jgh

gksxhA ml le; QStkckn uke dk dksbZ 'kgj ugha FkkA --- fejkrs &

elwnh esa 10 & 12 jktkvksa ds uke fn;s gSa ijUrq ;g ugha fn;k x;k gS

fd v;ks/;k esa ml le; jktk dkSu FkkA** ¼ist 347&348½

“There is least probability that Muslim populace

may have existed in Ayodhya in the 11th century. Salar

Masood’s army officer Khwaja Miththe may have visited

Ayodhya around 1032 AD. In my view, the oldest mosque

in Ayodhya was the same mosque, which was called Babri

mosque ... Ayodhya was considered to be a major city of

India between 13th to 17th century, which was bigger than

Ayodhya of today. At that time there was no city named

Faizabad. ... The Mirate-Masoodi contains names of 10-12

1579

kings, but it has not been given as to who was the king at

that time.” (E.T.C)

^^xokg us viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0 5 &3 ds ist 158 ds

f}rh; dkye dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g okD; fd ^^blds iwoZ mlus

lrj[k ¼lkdsr vFkok v;ks/;k½ esa Msjk Mkyk Fkk**] dFku xyr gS]lgh

ugha gS] vkSj ,slk dksbZ o.kZu ehjkr&,&elwnh esa ugha feyrk gSA

^^ehjkr&,&elwnh** esa lrj[k esa Msjk Mkyus dh ckr dgh x;h gS] ysfdu

;g lrj[k] lkdsr ;k v;ks/;k gS ;g ckr lgh ugha gSA lrj[k

¼lrfj[k½ QStkckn vkSj ckjkcadh ds chp esa fLFkr ,d LFkku dk uke gS

tks vo/k {ks= esa iM+rk gSA ftldh nwjh orZeku v;ks/;k ls 50 ehy ls

vf/kd gksxhA ---- {ks= ls esjk rkRi;Z u rks v;ks/;k gS vkSj u lrfj[k

cfYd blls esjk rkRi;Z lEiw.kZ vo/k {ks= ls gSA** ¼ist 349&350½

“After looking at second column of page 158 of his

book, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, the witness stated that the

sentence reading as ‘prior to this he had camped at

Satrakh (Saket or Ayodhya)’ , is wrong and is not correct

and no such reference is found in Mirat-e-masoodi. The

Mirat-e-masoodi mentions about camping at Satrakh, but it

is not correct that this Satrakh is Saket or Ayodhya.

Satrakh (Satrikh) is a place situated between Faizabad and

Barabanki, which falls in Awadh area and whose distance

would be more than 50 miles from the present Ayodhya. ...

By area, I neither mean Ayodhya nor Satrikh and instead I

mean the complete Awadh zone.” (E.T.C)

^^ehjkrs , elwnh esa lkykj elwn ds v;ks/;kk vkus dh ckr ugha

dgh x;h gS ;g eSa Lohdkj dj pqdk gwa ysfdu bl ckr dh lEHkkouk

vHkh Hkh cuh gqbZ gS fd mlds lSfudksa dh fdlh Vksyh us tUe Hkwfe eafnj

dks {kfr igqapkbZ gks D;ksafd vkt gh eSa FkksM+h nsj igys crk pqdk gwa fd

guqeku x<+h esa lkykj elwn ds lSfud vf/kdkjh [oktk feV~Bs dh dcz

gksus dh ckr dgh gSA** ¼ist 350½

“The Mirat-e-masoodi nowhere mentions about

1580

Salar Masood visiting Ayodhya. I have admitted this, but

this probability still exists that certain group of his soldier

may have caused damage to Janmbhumi temple because I

have stated a short while ago that the existence of the

grave of Khwaja Miththe, an army officer of Salar

Masood, has been claimed at Hanumangarhi.” (E.T.C)

^^[oktk feV ~B s dh dc z v;k s/; k e sa gk su s vFkok mud s

lkykj el wn d s l S fud vf/ kdkjh gk su s dh ckr

ehjkr s&,&el wn h e s a ugh a vkrh g SA 1955 esa fcgkj ls izdkf'kr

guqeku x<+h dk bfrgkl** uked iqLrd ftlds ys[kd veR;Z & flag gSa]

us bl ckr dk gokyk viuh iqLrd esa fn;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd [oktk

feV~Bs ds dcz dh ckr dks ,d b';w cuk;k x;k Fkk blh vk/kkj ij eSaus

v;ks/;k esa elwn ds lsukvksa ds vkdze.k dh ckr vkSj mlds eafnjksa ds

{kfrxzLr djus ds ckjs esa fy[kk gSA eSaus viuh iqLrd izn'kZ vks0vks0,l0

5&3 esa veR;Z flag dh iqLrd ^6 guqeku x<+h ds bfrgkl dk gokyk

ugha fn;k gS vkSj u gh eSaus viuh iqLrd esa [oktk feV~Bs ds dcz ds gksus

dk gokyk fn;k gSA** ¼ist 351½

“The Mirat-e-masoodi neither mentions about

existence of the grave of Khwaja Miththe at Ayodhya nor

about he being an army officer of Salaar Masood. This fact

has been referred in the book titled ‘Hanumangarhi Ka

Itihas’, published in 1955 from Bihar and written by

Amartya Singh, and it has been mentioned that the fact of

Khwaja Miththe’s grave had also been made an issue. On

this basis, I have written about Ayodhya’s invasion by the

army of Masood and the destruction of its temples. In my

book, exhibit O.O.S 5-3, I have neither referred to Amartya

Singh’s book ‘Hanumangarhi Ka Itihas’ nor have I

referred about existence of grave of Khwaja

Miththe.”(E.T.C)

^^Lo;a dgk fd ehjkr&,&elwnh dks bfrgkl dh iqLrd dk ntkZ

1581

ugha izkIr gSA bls fgLVksfjdy jksekal ;k ,sfrgkfld miU;kl dgk x;k

gS ftlesa rF; ,oa dYiukvksa dk [kqydj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ,slk

bfy;V ,.M Mkmlu us dgh gSA** ¼ist 354½

“Stated on his own that the Mirat-e-masoodi is not

recognized as a history book. It is said to be historical

romance or historical novel, in which facts and

imaginations have been used liberally, which is so claimed

by Elliot and Dawson.” (E.T.C)

^^bl i"B ij dze la0 5 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ls eSa vc bl

le; iwjh rjg lger ugha gwWaA --- xokg us viuh iqLrd ds i"B 176

ds dze la0 21 ds uhps nh x;h fVIi.kh ds izFke okD;ka'k ^^lkykj elwn

ds vkdze.k ds yxHkx lkr n'kdksa ds ckn** dks ns[kdj dgk fd e S a vc

bll s H k h lger ugh a g wW aA ** ¼ist 355&356½

“At present, I do not completely agree with the

comment contained below serial no.5 of this page. . . . . . . .

. . . . .After looking at part of the first sentence of the

comment under serial no.21 of page 176 of his book

reading as ‘after about seven decades of invasion of Salar

Masood’, the witness stated that now I do not agree with

this as well.” (E.T.C)

1431. Now coming back to “Fyzabad Gazetteer 1928”

(supra) page 155, it mentions:

“In 1528 Babar built the mosque at Ajudhya on the

traditional spot where Rama was born.”

1432. Again in the later part a directory is appended and

deals with Ayodhya at page 179/180, it says:

“It is locally affirmed that at the time of the

Musalman conquest there were three important Hindu

shrines at Ajodhya and little else. There were the

Janamsthan temple, the Swargaddwar and the Treta-ka-

Thakur, and each was successively made the object of

1582

attention of different Musalman rulers. The Janamasthan

was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In

1528 A.D. Babar came to Ajodhya and halted here for a

week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built

a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of

the old structure were largely employed, and many of the

columns are in good preservation; they are of close-

grained black stone, called by the natives kasauti, and

carved with various devices. Their length is from seven to

eight feet, and the shape square at the base, centre and

capital, the rest being round or octagonal. The mosque

has two inscriptions, one on the outside and the other on

the pulpit; both are in Persian and bear the date 935

Hiji. Of the authenticity of the inscriptions there can be

no doubt, but no record of the visit to Ahodhya is to be

found in the Musalman historians. It must have occurred

about the time of his expedition to Bihar.”

1433. Here also Nevill in the footnote has placed reliance

on Elliot and Dowson's “History of India” Vol. 4 page 283

which is english translation of “Tuzak-I Babari” which is said to

be Leyden and Erskine's translation as per the preface of the

book. We have gone through the entire page 283 of the said

book but do not find any fact mentioned about the construction

of disputed site or building mentioned therein.

1434. After independence under the authority of

Government of Uttar Pradesh (Revenue Department) District

Gazetteers of Uttar Pradesh in the revised form were published.

The "Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers-Faizabad" by Smt.

Esha Basanti Joshi (Book No. 17) was published in 1960 printed

at the Indian Press (Private) Ltd., Allahabad. Copy of the

1583

frontispiece and pages No.34, 36, 46, 47, 352 and 354 have been

filed as paper No.107C1/54-61 i.e. Ex.13, Suit-5 (Register 20,

pages 109-123). With reference to the construction of disputed

building by Babar and the period it says:

“The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the

birthplace of Rama. It seems that in 1528 A.D. Babur

visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple

was destroyed and on the site was built what came to be

known as Babur's mosque. The material of the old temple

was largely employed in building the mosque and a few of

the original columns are still in good preservations; they

are of cloe grained black stone (kasauti) bearing various

Hindu bas-reliefs (see Plate I), the outer beam of the main

structure being of sandal wood. The height of the columns

is seven to eight feet, the shape of the base, the middle

section and the capital is square, the rest being round or

octagonal. There are two inscriptions in Persian, one on

the outside and the other on the pulpit bearing the date

935 Hijri.”

1435. Broadly, we find and in fact it is even admitted by Sri

Jilani that the sole basis for determining the period of

construction of the disputed building and to co-relate it with

Emperor Babar is/are the inscription(s) said to be installed in the

disputed building referred to in certain Gazetteers etc. The text

of these inscriptions have been given in different books which

needs threadbare scrutiny to find out whether the disputed

building was constructed in 1528 by or under the order of

Emperor Babar is correct or not.

1436. The first document which has reproduced the text of

said inscription(s) is the publication of Archaeological Survey

1584

of India titled as “The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur; with

notes on Zafarabad, Sahet-Mahet and Other Places in the

North-Western Provinces and Oudh by A. Fuhrer; Original

edition 1889 (reprinted in 1994) by the Director General

Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi (hereinafter referred

to as “Fuhrer's Report”). This is edited by Z.A.Desai. Chapter-

X thereof refers to the inscriptions i.e., no. XL; XLI; XLII found

at Ayodhya and is supported with the inscriptions found by

Fuhrer at Ayodhya. It says that there were three inscriptions

wherefrom he (Fuhrer) formed the opinion that the said building

was constructed at Ayodhya in A.H. 930, or A.D. 1523, by Mir

Khan, on the very spot where the old temple Janam Asthanam

of Ramachandra was standing.

1437. The inscription No. XL was over the central mihrab,

written in Arabic characters and gives twice the Kalimah as

under:

ہل ال الل محمد رسول الل ہ ہل ال الل محمد رسول الل ہ “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet.”

(English Translation by “the Author”)

1438. Inscription No. XLI was found on the mimbar (right

hand side of the disputed building) written in Persian poetry,

the metre being Ramal, in six lines:

ا ںبمنشا بابر خد یو ج ہ ے

ںبشانیک با کاخ گردو عنا ں ہہبناکرد ای خا ن پایدار ں ہںامیر سعادت نشان میر خا

میش چنی باینش ںبماند ہ ہ ہر یار زمین و زما ںچنا ش ہ ں

**1- cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka

c'kkus fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buka

2- fcuk dnkZ&,&[+kku&,&ik;snkj

1585

vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj [kka

3- cekun ges'kk pquka ckfu;'k

pquka 'kgfj;kjs t+ehuks t+eka**

(Hindi Transliteration)

**1- fo'o lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj vkdk'k tSls egy ds HkO; ds

lkFkA

2- lqn<+ ?kj dk vk/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA

3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj iFkoh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo

ftfor jgsA”

(Hindi Translation)

“1. By order of Babar, the kind of the world,

2. This firmament-like, lofty,

3. Strong building was erected.

4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.

5. May ever remain such a foundation,

6. And such a king of the world.”

(English Translation by “the Author”)

1439. Inscription XLII was found above the entrance door

of the disputed building written in Persian poetry, the metre

being Ramal in ten lines. He further says that some characters of

the second and whole third lines are completely defaced:

من الرحیم بسم الل الرح ہہ۔۔۔بنججججججججججججام انکجججججججججججج کنججججججججججججد خججججججججججججالق بقلججججججججججججم جججججججججججججاودانی

۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ور اقلیججججم زمیجججج را چججججو مثججججال شججججادمانی نشجججج مشجججج ا ںچنججججا ش ں ہ ہ ہ ہ ہہدرا حضججرت یکججی میججری معظججم کجج خاقججان دولججت و فعفججور ثججانی ںجججرت بججدانی صججد سججی بججود د دیجج تاریججخ میمججو کجج ن ھبنججا ع ہ ہ ں ں ہ ےا باشججججا بججججادا بچججججترو تخججججت بخججججت زنججججدگانی ہخججججدایا در ج ں ہا بجججابر گجججل خیجججر کجججد در دور گیجججتی کجججامرانی ںفشجججاند در ج ہسجججت بجججانی ھمشیرسجججلطنت تجججدبیر ملکجججش کزیججج مسججججد حصجججاری ںہذالقط ع التاریخ و صفت مسجد بخط نحیف عبد ضعیف فتح الل غوری ۃ ھ

1586

محرر

^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe

1- cukes vka fd--------------------------------

dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh

2- ---------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

3- pquka 'kkga'kgs e'kgwjs vd+yhe

t+eha jk pwa felkyss 'kknekuh

4- njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e

fd [k+kdk+u nkSyrks o Q+x+Qwjs&lkuh

5- fcuk;s egns nha rkjh[+ksa eSewa

uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh**

6- [kqnk;k gj tgka ck 'kkg cknk

cfp=ks r[+rks c[+rs ft+Unxkuh

7- Q+'kukn nj tgka ckcj xqys [k+Sj

dqun nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuh

8- eq'khjs lyrur rnchjs eqyd'k

dt+ha efLtn fglkjs gLr ckuh

gkt+y fdrvrqRrkjh[k+ o flQ+rs efLtn c&[k+rs ughQ+ vCns t+bZQ

Q+rgqYykg x+kSjh eqgjZj^^

(Hindi Transliteration by Court)

^^1- ml gLrh ds uke ls tks --------------------- mRifRrdrkZ mldks dye }kjk

vej dj nsrk gSA

2- --------------------------------

3- fo'o dk ,slk izfl} lezkV ftldk vfLrRo iFkoh ds fy;s izlUurk

dk mnkgj.k gSA

4- ml 'kkgh njckj dk ,d fo'kky uokc gS tk [k+kd+ku ¼phuh 'kkldksa

dh mikf/k½ tSlk lkSHkkX;o'k vkSj }rh; Q+x+dqj ¼phuh 'kkldksa dh

mikf/k½ gSA

5- /keZ ds bl egn ¼xgokjs vFkkZr efLtn½ ds vk/kkj dh 'k q H k frfFk

930 fgtjh i zrhr djksA

6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj ds ckn'kkg ds lkFk mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj

1587

thou lnSo ckdh jgs

7- ckcj lezkV lalkj esa usfd;ksa ds iq"iksa dh o"kkZ djrk jgs vkSj mls

lQ+yrk feyrh jgs

8- 'kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj ns'k dk iz'kkld tks bl efLtn ds fd+ys

dk vk/kkj j[kus okyk gSA

frfFk dk ;g fdrk vkSj efLtn dk fooj.k fucZy xqyke QrgqYykg xkSjh

ds dEt++ksj fyfi }kjk fy[kk x;kA^^

(Hindi Translation by Court)

“1. In the name of God, the merciful, the element.

2. In the name of him who …...; may God perpetually

keep him in the world.

3. …........

4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in

person of delight for the world.

5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another

king of Turkey and China.

6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious

Hijra 930.

7. O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and

life with the king.

8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness;

may remain successful.

9. His counsellor and minister who is the founder of

this fort masjid.

10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written

by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghorl,

composer.”

(English Translation by Author)

1440. After referring the aforesaid inscriptions and text,

Fuhrer on page 68, Chapter X has made the following

observations:

1588

“The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthanam must

have been a very fine one, for may of its columns have been

used by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar's

masjid. These are of strong, close-grained, dark-coloured

or black stone, called by the natives kasauti, “touch-stone

slate,” and carved with different devices. They are from

seven to eight feet long, square at the base, centre and

capital, and round or octagonal intermediately.”

1441. The second extremely relied work is "Babur-

Nama" by A.S. Beveridge (first published in 1921) (reprinted

in LPP 1989, 1997, 2000), two volumes in a single bound book

(Book No. 6). Besides the book itself, extract of some of the

pages of the said book (of different editions) have also been

filed by the parties which are exhibits as under:

(i) Paper No. 78 A-2/ 21-24 (Ex. J5, Suit-4) (Register

Volume 13, page 39-45)

(ii) Paper No. 87 B-1/ 7 (Ex. J8, Suit-4)

(iii) Paper No. 87 B-1/ 8 (Ex. J9, Suit-4)

(iv) Paper No. C2-163/ 1-2 (Ex. J13, Suit-4) (Register

Vol. 34 page no. 73-74)

(v) Paper No. 43A1/ 22-24 (Ex. T3, Suit-4) (Register

Vol. 18 page 45-49)

(vi) Paper No. C2-156/ 1-5 (Ex. Q2, Suit-5) (Register

Vol. 34 page 37-45)

(vii) Paper No. 107C1/ 71-74 (Ex.16, Suit-5) (Register

20 page 145-159)

1442. Appendix U at page LXXVII, LXXVIII and LXXIX

refers to two such inscriptions, one inside the mosque and

another outside the mosque. Photocopy of the aforesaid pages of

Appendix U have been placed on record as Exhibit T3 (Suit-4)

1589

(Paper No. 43A-1/22-24), (Register 18 page 45-49). It appears

from Appendix U that she got the text of the two inscriptions

through the Deputy Commissioner of Fyzabad on an enquiry

made by her husband about two inscriptions mentioned by

several Gazetteers said to be existed on the Babar mosque at

Ayodhya. However, at the bottom, note 2, she says that while

reproducing the text a few slight changes in the turm of

expression have been made for clearness sake. The text of the

inscription inside the mosque as quoted in Babar-Nama by

A.S. Beveridge is as under:

ہبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقیبط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ں

امیر سعادت نشان میر باقی

بود خیر باقی چو سال بنایش

ہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر باقی ں**¼1½ cQjewn&,&'kkgs ckcj fd vny'k] fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW

eqykdh+A

¼2½ fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj ckd+h

¼3½ cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb'k v;ka 'kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj

ckd+h**

(Hindi Transliteration by Court)

**1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks

vkdk'k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA

2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj'rksa ds mrjus ds bl LFkku dh

vk/kkj f'kyk j[khA

3- blds vk/kkj dk o"kZ pwafd ,d [kSj ckd+h ¼'kk'or HkykbZ½ gSA vr% esjk

;g dFku Li"V gqvk **coqn [kSj ckd++h** ¼;g Hkyk dkjukek lnSo ckdh

jgs½^^

(Hindi Translation by Court)“(1) By the command of the Emperor Babur whose justice

1590

is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens.

(2) The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting place

of angles.

(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the

date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will

remain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)

1443. The text of the inscription outside the mosque

quoted in Beveridge's "Babar-Nama" is as under:

ست اکبر ک خالق جمل عالم لمکانی ہبنام أنک دانا ہ ھ ہانی ی بعد ازستایش ک سرور انبیائ دو ج ہدرود مصطف ہ ا بابر قلندر ک شد در دورگیتی کامرانی ہفسان در ج ں ہ ہ**1- cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj

fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh

2- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;'k

fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh

3- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj

fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**


**1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk

L="Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS

2- mldh iz'kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYyYykgks vySfg olYye ij

n:n gks tks nksuksa lalkj ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA

3- ckcj dyanj dk ;g pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d

lQy lezkV gSaA**

(Hindi Translation)

“1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who

is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage

of space.

2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet

Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the

worlds.

1591

3. In the world, it is widely talked about Qalandar Babur

that he is a successful emperor.” (E.T.C.)

1444. With respect to the second inscription that is outside

the mosque, the Beveridge said that it is incomplete.

1445. The third set of text of inscription we are confronted

with, is that published in "Epigraphia Indica-Arabic &

Persian Supplement (In continuation of Epigraphia Indo-

Moslemica) 1964 and 1965" reprinted 1987 published by the

Director General Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi.

On page 49, the chapter begins with the heading “Inscriptions of

Emperor Babur” said to be written by the Late Maulvi M.

Ashraf Husain and edited by Z.A.Desai. Editor's note in the

aforesaid Chapter is of some importance:

“A rough draft of this article by the author, who was my

predecessor, was found among sundry papers in my office.

At the time of his retirement in 1953, he had left a note

saying that it might be published after revision by his

successor. Consequently, the same is published here after

incorporation of fresh material and references and also,

extensive revision and editing. The readings have been also

checked, corrected and supplemented with the help of my

colleague, Mr. S.A.Rahim, Epigraphical Assistant,-Editor.”

1446. On page 58 under sub-chapter VIII-X, "Inscriptions

Dated A.H. 935, from Ajodhya", the author has referred to three

inscriptions said to have existed at Babur's mosque. The author's

comments about those inscriptions are:

“These three records are from Ajyodhya, in Fyzabad

district of Uttar Pradesh. Ajodhya, called Ayodhya in

ancient works, is a place of great antiquity. It was the

earliest capital of the kingdom of Kosala in the later Vedic

1592

period, which may be traced down to 600 B.C. In the fifth

and sixth centuries after Christ, the Gupta dynasty ruled

over it and called it Saket, by which name it is also known

in the Ramayana. From the seventh century onwards, a

period of neglect ensued and according to Muslim

historians, parties enjoyed hunting in its vicinity.”

The chief fame of Ajodhya lies in its being the birth-

place of Sri Rama, the deified son of Raja Dasaratha and

hero of the Ramayana. At the Muslim conquest, three

important temples are reported to have existed here, viz.

Janmasthana or birth-place Temple, the Treta-ki-Thakur or

the place where Sri Rama performed a great sacrifice in

commemoration of which he set up images of himself and

his wife Sita, and the Svargadvaram or Rama-Darbar,

which is believed to be the place where he was cremated.

The second and third are popularly believed to have been

pulled down by Aurangzeb, and on the site of the first the

present Baburi mosque is stated to have been built. The

supposition is apparently anachronistic inasmuch as

Aurangzeb was born about a century after A.H. 935, the

date of Babur's record, and so the demolition could not

have taken place so late.

The Baburi-Masjid, which commands a picturesque

view from the riverside, was constructed according to

A.Fuhrer in A.H. 930 (1523-24 A.D.) but his chronology,

based upon incorrect readings of inscriptions supplied to

him, is erroneous. Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi only in

A.H. 933 (1526 A.D.), and moreover, the year of

construction, recorded in two of the three inscriptions

studied below, is clearly A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.). Again, it

1593

was not built by Mir Khan as stated by him. The order for

building the mosque seems to have been issued during

Babur's stay at Ajodhya in A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.), but

no mention of its completion is made in the Babur Nama.

However, it may be remembered that his diary for the year

A.H. 934 (1527-28 A.D.) breaks off abruptly, and throws

the reader into the dark in regard to the account of Oudh.

The mosque consists of three compartments, each

crowned by a dome. The squinch-arches and stalactite

pendentives turn each aisle of the prayer-chamber into a

squarish room. The drums of the domes inside were

originally relieved by arched recesses, and the central

dome was embellished with ornamental incised plaster

discs, but the present domes were only reconstructed in

the thirties of this century and are devoid of any original

features.

The mosque contains a number of inscriptions. On

the eastern facade is a chhajja, below which appears a

Quranic text and above, an inscription in Persian verse.

On the central mihrab are carved religious texts such as

the Kalima (First Creed), etc. On the southern face of the

pulpit was previously fixed a stone slab bearing a Persian

inscription in verse. There was also another inscription in

Persian verse built up into the right hand side wall of the

pulpit. Of these, the last-mentioned two epigraphs have

disappeared. They were reportedly destroyed in the

communal vandalism in 1934 A.D., but luckily, I

managed to secure an inked rubbing of one of them

from Sayyid Badru'l Hasan of Fyzabad. The present

inscription, restored by the Muslim community, is not only

1594

in inlaid Nasta'liq characters, but is also slightly different

from the original, owing perhaps to the incompetence of

the restorers in deciphering it properly.

The readings and translations of the historical

epigraphs mentioned above, except in the case of one, were

published by Fuhrer and Mrs. Beveridge, but their

readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different from

the text that their inclusion in this article is not only

desirable but also imperative.

The epigraph studied below was inscribed on a slab

of stone measuring about 68 by 48 cm., which was built up

into the southern side of the pulpit of the mosque, but is

now lost, as stated above. It is edited here from the

estampage obtained from Sayyid Badru'l Hasan of

Fyzabad. Its three-line text consists of six verses in

Persian, inscribed in ordinary Naskh characters within

floral borders. It records the construction of the mosque by

Mir Baqi under orders from emperor Babur and gives the

year A.H. 935 (1528-29 A.D.) in a chronogram.”

1447. The inscriptions found at the southern side of the

pulpit of the mosque is said to be found inscribed on a slab of

stone measuring about 68 by 48 cm. He says that the original is

lost. The quoted inscription is one edited from the estampage

obtained from Sayyid Badru'l Hasan of Fyzabad. Further

explanation at note 4 at the bottom at page 59 given by author is

as under:

“It may be argued that since this epigraph is not quoted in

Fuhrer's SAJ, the slab had already disappeared before he

wrote. But that is not the case, since the tablet was found

there in 1906-07 A.D. by Maulavi M. Shuhaib of the office

1595

of the Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra

(Annual Progress Report of the Office of the

Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Circle, Agra, for 1906-

07.”Appendix-D

1448. The first inscription's text which author has

mentioned at plate XVII (b) is as under:

ںبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلس بنائ است بأ کاخ گردو ملقی ہ ہ ہبط قدسیا امیر سعادت نشا میر باقی ںبنا کرد ای م ں ہ ں ہںبود خیر باقی و سال بنایش عیا شد چو گفتم بود خیر باقی**¼1½ cQjewn&,&'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]

fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A

¼2½ fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk

vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj ckd+h

¼3½ cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb'k]

v;ka 'kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h**


**1- lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj ftldk U;k; ,d ,slh bekjr gS tks

vkdk'k ds egy ls tk feyh gSA

2- HkkX;oku uokc ehj ckd+h us Qfj'rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dh vk/kkj

f'kyk j[khA

3- og [kSj ckdh ¼lnSo jgus okyk ,d Hkyk dkjukek½ gS vkSj mlds

vk/kkj dk o"kZ ;wa Li"V gqvk tc eSaus dgk **coqn [kSj ckd+h^^A^^


“(1) By the order of king Babur whose justice is an

edifice, meeting the palace of the sky (i.e. as high as the

sky).

(2) This descending place of the angels was built by the

fortunate noble Mir Baqi.

(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty, and (hence) the

date of its erection became manifest from my words: It will

remain an everlasting bounty.”

1596


1449. The Fuhrer’s inscription no. XLI which he mentions

that the same was found inside the mosque on the mimbar (right

hand side of the disputed building) has been turmed as second

inscription by Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain. It consists of three

couplets arranged in six lines. He (Hussain) clearly admits non

existence of the said inscription by observing “the epigraphical

Tablet” which was built up into right hand side wall of the pulpit,

does not exist now, and, therefore, the text of the inscription is

quoted here from Furher’s work, for the same reason, its

illustration could not be given.” Sri Husain/Desai however, did

not agree to the reading of the inscription by Fuhrer and

observed that Furher’s reading does not appear free from

mistakes.

1450. About the third inscription, on page 60/61 of the

book, the author has given narration as follows:

“The third record of Babur in the Ajodhya mosque,

comprising a fragment of eight Persian verses of mediocre

quality and a colophon, appears over the central entrances

to the prayer-chamber above the chajja. The four-line text

is executed in fairly good Naskh characters in relief amidst

floral borders, on a slab measuring about 2 m. by 55 cm.

The text is fairly well preserved, and Fuhrer must have

been misinformed to affirm that 'a few characters of the

second and the whole third lines are completely defaced'.

The purport of the record is the same as that of the

previous epigraphs, but here an additional edifice is also

mentioned : In verse six, in line three, a fort-wall (hisar) is

said to have been built along with the mosque in A.H. 935

(1528-29 A.D.), by Mir Baqu, who is here called the second

1597

Asaf and councillor of the state.”

1451. The text of the third inscription is as under :

ےبسم الل الرحمن الرحیم و ب ثقت ہ ہےبنام آنک او داناست اکبر ک خالق جمل عالم ل مکان ہ ہ ہا ںےدور مصطف بعد ازثنایش ک سرور انبیا زبد ج ہ ہ ہ ے

ان بابر قلندر ک شد دردور گیتی کا مران ےفسان در ج ہ ہ ہفت کشوردر گرفت زمین راچو مثال آسمان ےچنا کش ں ہ ہ ںےدرآ حضرت یکی میر معظم ک نامش میر باقی آصف ثان ہ ںست بان ےمشیر سلطنت تدبیر ملکش کزین مسجد و حصار ہا پایند بادا ک چتروتخت و بخت و زندگان ےخدایا در ج ہ ہ ں ہصد سی پنج بود نشان د زین تاریخ میمون ک ن ےبناء ع ہ ہ ہان خط عبدالضعیف ذا لتوحید و نعت و مدح و صفت نورالل بر ہتمت ھ ہ ہ

ےنحیف فتح الل محمد غود ہ**1- nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;'k

fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh

2- Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj

fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh

3- pquka d'k gQ~+r fd'koj nj fxjQ+rk

t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh

4- njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e

fd uke'k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh

5- eq'khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd'k

dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh

6- [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk

fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh

7- fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[+k eSewa

fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu'kkuh

rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [kRrs

vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**


**1- ml ¼[kqnk½ dh iz'kalk ds ckn eksgEen eqLrQk lYykYykgks vySfg

1598

olYye ij n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj nqfu;k ds loZJs"B gSA

2- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa gS fd og ,d lQ+y lezkV gSA

3- og ,slk lezkV gS fd ftlus lkrksa ns'kksa ij fot; izkIr dj fy;k]

vkdk'k ds leku iFoh dks Hkh vius dCts esa dj fy;kA

4- ml 'kkgh njckj dk ,d fo'kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh gS

f}rh; vkflQ ¼vkflQ+ mikf/k j[krk gS½S

5- 'kklu dk lykgdkj vkSj mlds ns'k dk iz'kkld tks bl efLtn

vkSj fdys dk vk/kkj j[kus okyk gSA

6- ,s! [kqnk lalkj esa mldk rkt] flagklu] HkkX; vkSj thou lnSo ckd+h

jgsA

7- bl ;qx ds bl bekjr dh cqfu;kn dh 'kqHk frfFk dh fu'kkuh 935

gSA**

(Hindi Translation)

“(1) In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

And in Him is my trust.

(2) In the name of One who is Wise, Great (and) Creator

of all the universe (and) is spaceless.

After His praise, blessings be upon the Chosen one (i.e. the

Prophet), who is the head of prophets and best in the

world.

The Qalandar-like (i.e. truthful) Babur has become

celebrated (lit. a story) in the world, since (in his time) the

world has achieved prosperity.

(3) (He is) such (an emperor) as has embraced (i.e.

conquered) all the seven climes of the world in the manner

of the sky.

In his court, there was a magnificent noble, named Mir

Baqi the second Asaf, councillor of his government and

administrator of his kingdom, who is the founder of this

mosque and fort-wall.

(4) O God, may he live for ever in this world, with fortune

1599

and life and crown and throne. The time of the building is

this auspicious date, of which the indication is nine

hundred (and) thirty five (A.H. 935=1528-29 A.D.).

Completed was this praise of God, of Prophet and of

king. May Allah illumine his proof. Written by the weak

writer and humble creature, Eathu'llah Muhammad

Ghori.”


1452. PW-15, Sushil Srivastava in his book “The

Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” published in 1991 by

Vistaar Publications, New Delhi has also given text of two

inscriptions at page 86 of the book which are as under:

(A) Inscription above the pulpit inside the mosque

ہبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقیبط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ں



ہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر ں**c Qjewn;s 'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]

fcuk;sLr rk dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA

fcuk dnZ bZa eqgcrs dqnfl;ka]

vehjs lvknr fu'kku ehj ckdhA

cqon [kSjs ckdh! Pkw lkys fcuk;'k]

v;ka 'kqn fd xqQ~re cqon [kSj ckdhA**

(Hindi Transliteration by Author)

**'kkg ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj ftldk U;k;]

,d ,slh ,ekjr gS tks vkdk'k dh ÅapkbZ rd igqaprh gSA

fuekZ.k djk;k bl fQfj'rksa ds mrjus ds LFkku dks]

lkSHkkX;'kkyh vehj] ehj ckdh us]

con [kSjs ckdh ¼;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgs½ tks mlds fuekZ.k dk o"kZ

1600

gS-

;g Li"V gks x;k tks eSa dgwa fd ;g lnkpj.k vuUr rd jgsA**


“(1) By the order of king Babar whose justice is an edifice

meeting the pace of sky (i.e. as high as the sky).

(2) this descending place of the angels was built by the


(3) it will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the

date of its erection became manifest from my words: it will

remain an everlasting bounty.” (English Translation by

Author)

(B) Inscription at the entrance of the mosque i.e. the

outer inscription

ست اکبر ہبنام ا ک دانا ہ ںہک خالق جمل عالم لمکانی ہی بعد ازستایش درود مصطفانی ہک سرور انبیائ دو ج ہا بابر قلندر ںفسان در ج ہ ہہک شد در دورگیتی کامرانی**cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj

fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh

nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrk;'k

fd ljoj vafc;k;s nks tgkuh

Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj

fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh**


**1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk

lz"Vk ,oa LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS


n:n gks tks nksuksa tgka esa ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA

3- ckcj dyanj dk ppkZ lalkj esa gS tks lalkj esa ,d lQy lezkV gqvk

1601

gSA**

(Hindi Translation)

“1. In the name of One who is Great (and) Wise (and) who

is Creator of the whole world and is free from the bondage

of space.

2. After His praise, peace and blessings be on Prophet

Muhammad, who is the head of all the Prophets in both the

worlds.

3. The world has the house of Qalandar Babur, who has

been a successful emperor in the world.” (E.T.C.)

1453. The text of two inscriptions has also been given in

Appendix “Gha” on page 659 and 660, “Mugalkalin Bharat-

Babar (1526-1530 AD)" translated by Syed Athar Abbas Rizvi

(first published in 1960 and in 2010 published for first time by

Rajkamal Prakashan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi). The photocopy of

Appendix D (Parishisht Gha) page 659 and 660 of the above

book along with its title page has been filed as Exhibit 91 (Suit-

4) (Register 16, Pages 164-166) and the same reads as under:

(A) ہبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقیبط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ں



ہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر ں*c Qjewn;s 'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]






1602







gS-


(Hindi Translation by Author)





(3)It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the date

of its erection became manifest from my words: it will

remain an everlasting bounty.” (E.T.C.)

(B) ست اکبر ھبنام انک دانا ہہک خالق جمل علم ل مکانی ہی بعد اذ ستایش درود مصطفانی ہک سرور انبیای دو ج ہا بابر کلندر ںفسان در ج ھ ہہک شد در دور گیتی کامرانی^^ cuke vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj]

fd [kkfyds tqeyk vkye yk edkuhA

n:ns eqLrQk ckn vt lrkb'k]

fd ljojs vfEc;k;s nks tgkuhA

Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj]

fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xsrh dkejkuhA**


**mlds uke ls tks fd egku~ Kkuh gS]

tks leLr lalkj dk l"Vk vkSj fcuk ?kj dk gSA

1603

mldh Lrqfr ds mijkUr eqLrQk ij n:n]

tks nksuksa yksdksa ds ufc;ksa ds ljnkj gSaA

lalkj esa ppkZ gS fd ckcj dyUnj]

dky pdz esa mls lQyrk izkIr gqbZA**

(Hindi Translation by Author)“ In His name who is all wisdom,

Who is creator of the entire universe and who is abodeless.

After His praise peace be on Prophet Mohammad,

Who is the head of all the Prophets in both the worlds.

It is the talk of the world that Qalandar Babur,

Attained success with the movement of the time-wheel.”

(E.T.C.)

1454. In another book titled as “Babar” by Dr. Radhey

Shyam, first published in 1978 by Janaki Prakashan Allahabad,

the text of three inscriptions at the building in dispute in

Appendix VI, Item VIII-X at pages 505 and 506 is given as

under :

(A) ہبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقیبط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ں



ہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر باقی ں*c Qjewn;s 'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]

fcuk;sLr ck dk[ks xnwZa eqykdhA







1604





gS-


(Hindi Translation)





(3) It will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the




(B) ا ںبمنشا بابر خد یو ج ہ ے

ںبشانیک با کاخ گردو عنا ں ہہبناکرد ای خا ن پایدار ں ہںامیر سعادت نشان میر خا

میش چنی باینش ںبماند ہ ہ ہر یار زمین و زما ںچنا ش ہ ں

**1- ce'kk;s ckcjs [kn;w tgka

clkus fd ck dk[k xjnwW bukW

2- fcuk dnkZ bZaa [kku&,&ik;snkj

vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj [kka

3- cekang ges'kk pquha ckfu;'k

pquka 'kgfj;kjs tehuks teka**


**1- fo'o lezkV ckcj ds vkns'kkuqlkj vkdk'k tSls egy ds lekuA

2- bl lqn<+ ?kj dk vk/kkj j[kk HkkX;oku uokc ehj [kka usA

3- mldk ,slk laLFkkid vkSj iFoh vkSj ;qx dk ,slk lezkV lnSo ftfor

1605

jgsA”

(Hindi Translation)

“(1) Under the commands of Babar, emperor of the world,

a sky-like palace

(2) (that is to say) this strong house of God was founded by

the fortunate noble Nawab Mir Khan

(3)May ever remain such a founder of edifice, and such a

king of the world and age.” (E.T.C)

(C) ہبسم الل الرحمن الرحیم و ب ثقت ےہ

ےبنام آنک او داناست اکبر ک خالق جمل عالم ل مکان ہ ہ ہا ںےدور مصطف بعد ازثنایش ک سرور انبیا زبد ج ہ ہ ہ ے

ان بابر قلندر ک شد دردور گیتی کا مران ےفسان در ج ہ ہ ہفت کشوردر گرفت زمین راچو مثال آسمان ےچنا کش ں ہ ہ ںےدرآ حضرت یکی میر معظم ک نامش میر باقی آصف ثان ہ ںست بان ےمشیر سلطنت تدبیر ملکش کزین مسجد و حصار ہا پایند بادا ک چتروتخت و بخت و زندگان ےخدایا در ج ہ ہ ں ہصد سی پنج بود نشان د زین تاریخ میمون ک ن ےبناء ع ہ ہ ہان خط عبدالضعیف ذا لتوحید و نعت و مدح و صفت نورالل بر ہتمت ھ ہ ہ

ےنحیف فتح الل محمد غود ہ**¼1½ fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o c&fld+rh

¼2½ cukes vkafd Å nkukLr vdcj & fd [k+kfyd+ tqeyk vkye

ykedkuh

nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;'k & fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh

Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj & fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh

¼3½ pquka d'k gQ~Qr fd'koj nj fxjQ+rk & t+eha jk pwa felkys

vklekuh

njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e & fd uke'k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh

eq'khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd'k & dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh

¼4½ [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk & fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh

fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[k+ eSewa & fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu'kkuh

rEer gkt+RrkSghn o ukr eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [+kRrs

1606

vCnqTt+bZQ+

ughQ+ Q+ugqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**


**vYykg ds uke ls tks vR;Ur d:.kke; vkSj n;koku gS] vkSj mlds

Hkjksls ij

1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l"Vk ,oa

LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS


n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs"B O;fDr gSA

3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy

lezkV gqvk gSA


iFoh dks Hkh vkdk'k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA

5- ml 'kkgh njckj dk ,d fo'kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh

f}rh; vkflQ gS


vkSj fdys dk f'kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA


jgsA


gSA**

(Hindi Translation)

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,

and in Him is my trust.

(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of

all the universe and is spaceless.

(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.

the Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in

the world.

(3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the

whole world to the effect that he has been a successful

1607

emperor.

(4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven

climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case

of sky.

(5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble

named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.

(6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator

of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-

wall.

(7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown

and throne and fortune and life.

(8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious

date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)

1455. From perusal of the text of the inscription said to be

found inside the mosque i.e., the 6-lines inscription it is evident

that the text quoted by Fuhrer, Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf

Hussain has apparent and demonstrable differences. The first

line of the text by the three reads as under:

*cea'kk;s ckcj [kn;w tgka” (Fuhrer)

**cQjewn&,&'kkgs ckcj fd vny'k]** (Beveridge)

**cQjewn&,&'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

1456. Similarly, we find difference in line 2 which is

demonstrated as under:

**c'k ku s fd ck dk[k+ xjnwW buk a ** (Fuhrer)

**fcukbLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A** (Beveridge)

**fcukbsLr ck&dk[k+ xjnwW eqykdh+A** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

1457. The third line is also not the same.

**fcuk dnk Z&,&[ +k ku&,&ik; sn kj * * (Fuhrer)

**fcuk dnZ&,&egcrs dqnfl;ka jk** (Beveridge)

**fcuk dnZg bZa egcrs dqnfl;ka jk** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

1608

1458. The fourth line of Fuhrer is different than what is

contained in Beveridge and Maulvi Ashraf Hussain as is evident

from the following:

**vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj [kka** (Fuhrer)

**vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj ckd+h** (Beveridge)

**vehjs lvknr fu'kka ehj ckd+h** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

1459. Fifth line of all the three is different as demonstrated

below:

**cekun ge s' k k p quk a ck fu;'k * * (Fuhrer)

**cqon [kSjs ckd+h fd rkjh[+k efLtn]** (Beveridge)

**cqon [kSjs ckd+h o lkys fcukb'k]** (Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

1460. Sixth line of Beveridge and Maulvi F. Ashraf

Hussain is the same but different from Fuhrer as seen below:

**p quk a ' kgfj;kj s t +e huk s t +e k a ** (Fuhrer)

**v;ka 'kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h** (Beveridge)

**v;ka 'kqn pwa xqQre cqon [k+Sj ckd+h** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

1461. The next inscription which according to Fuhrer was

a ten-line Persian poetry, Beveridge could get only three lines

thereof and termed incomplete, Maulvi M.Ashraf Husain

however found complete and running in about 10/11 lines. The

distinction therein are:

Line-1 ^^fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe” (Fuhrer)

No such line is found in Beveridge’s text.

^*fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o fcgh fldrh**

(Maulvi F. Ashraf Hussain)

Line-2 ^^cukes vka fd------------------------------^^ (Fuhrer)

**cukes vkafd nkuk gLr vdcj** (Beveridge)

^^cukes vkafd Å nkukLr vdcj**

(Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

Line-3 ^^dqun [kkfyd+ cdyes tkosnkuh** (Fuhrer)

1609

^^fd [+kkfyd+ tqeyk vkye ykedkuh** (Beveridge)

**fd [kkfyd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh**


Line- 4: completely defaced in the text of Furher but

Beveridge and Maulvi F.Ashraf have given the following

text:

^^n w:n eqLrQk ckn vt+ lrk;'k * * (Beveridge)

^^nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;'k** (Maulvi F.Ashraf

Hussain)

Line-5 : Completely defaced in Furher’s text but in

Beveridge’s and Maulvi F.Ashraf’s text it is quoted as

under:

^^fd ljoj vafc;k&,&nks tgkuh** (Beveridge)

^^fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh** (Maulvi F.Ashraf

Hussain)



under:

^^Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj** (Beveridge)

^^lkuk nj tgka ckcj dyUnj** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)



under:

^*fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh** (Beveridge)

^*fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

1462. After Line-7 Beveridge does not give any further

text but has given remark that the inscription was incomplete

but Furher and Maulvi F.Ashraf Husain have given the

following text:

Line-8 ^^pquka ' k kg a' kg s e'kg wj s vd +yhe ** (Fuhrer)

1610

^^pquka d'k gQ~+r fd'koj nj fxjQ+rk**


Line-9 ^^t+eha jk pwa fu'k ku s ' k knekuh * * (Fuhrer)

^^t+eha jk pwa felkys vklekuh** (Maulvi F.Ashraf

Hussain)

Line-10 *^njka gt++jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt++e** (Fuhrer)

^^njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

Line-11 ^^fd [k +kdk + a&n k Syrk s Q +x +Q wj s&lkuh ** (Fuhrer)

*^fd uke'k ehj ckd +h vkLQ + lkuh**


Line-12 ............................... (Fuhrer)

*eq'khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd'k*^ (Maulvi F.Ashraf

Hussain)

Line-13 ............................... (Fuhrer)

^^dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh**


Line-14 ............................... (Fuhrer)

^^[kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk** (Maulvi F.Ashraf

Hussain)

Line-15 ............................... (Fuhrer)

^*fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh**


Line-16 *^^fcuk;s egn s nh a rkjh[+ksa eSewa** (Fuhrer)

^^fcuk;s vgn s t +h a rkjh[+k eSewa**


Line-17 *uqg ln lh cqon fgtjr cnkuh * * (Fuhrer)

*fd uqg ln lh i at cqon fu'k kuh **


Line-18 ............................... (Fuhrer)

*rEer gkt+RrkSghnq o ukr o eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq

1611

cqjgkugq [kRrs vCnqTt+bZQ+ ughQ+ Q+rgqYykg eksgEen

x+kSjhA** (Maulvi F.Ashraf Hussain)

1463. We are extremely perturbed by the manner in which

Ashraf Husain/Desai have tried to give an impeccable authority

to the texts of the alleged inscriptions which they claim to have

existed on the disputed building though repeatedly said that the

original text has disappeared. The fallacy and complete

misrepresentation on the part of author in trying to give colour

of truth to this text is writ large from a bare reading of the write

up. We are really at pains to find that such blatant fallacious

kind of material has been allowed to be published in a book

published under the authority of ASI, Government of India,

without caring about its accuracy, correctness and genuineness

of the subject. We have already given write up of Ashraf

Husain. Firstly, he said that the mistake was committed in

number of inscriptions. He claims that on the eastern façade is a

Chhajja below which appears a Quranic text and above thereto

an inscription in Persian verse. Then he says that on the central

mehrab are carved religious text such as Kalma (First creed),

etc. Then he says that on the southern face of the pulpit

previously there affixed a stone slab bearing a Persian

inscription in verse and another inscription in Persian verse was

built up into right hand side wall of the pulpit. Both these

inscriptions i.e., the one claimed to be on the southern face of

the pulpit and the other on the right hand side wall of the pulpit

are said to be non-available by observing “of these the last

mentioned two epigraphs have disappeared”. The time of

disappearance according to Maulvi Ashraf Husain was 1934

A.D. when a communal riot took place at Ayodhya. However,

he claimed to have got an inked rubbing on one of the two

1612

inscriptions from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. The

whereabouts of Syed Badrul Hasan , who he was, what was his

status, in what way and manner he could get that ink rubbing of

the said inscription and what is the authenticity to believe it to

be correct when original text of the inscription are not known.

There is nothing to co-relate the text he got as the correct text of

the inscription found in the disputed building claimed to have

lost in 1934.

1464. He also admits that the existing inscription which was

restored by Muslim community was 'inlaid nastaliq' character

but simultaneously says that the restored inscription is slightly

different from the original and this distinction he attributes

perhaps to the incompetence of the restorer in deciphering it

properly. When the original was already lost and there was

nothing to verify the text of restored inscription with the

original, neither the restored one can be relied upon nor it is

understandable as to how he could have any occasion to

compare the restored one with the alleged nonest/lost original

one. It appears that the text which he got from Syed Badrul

Hasan of Faizabad treated by him to be correct and taking it as

the original text he has proceeded accordingly. It is also

interesting to note that in the footnote realising this difficulty at

item no.4, he has said that this tablet was found in 1906-07 A.D.

by Maulvi M. Suhaib of the office of Regional Archaeological

Surveyor, Northern Survey (Annual progress report of the

office of Archaeological Surveyor, Northern Survey Agra for

1906-1907), Appendix ‘D’). We however, find it difficult to

understand this reference if the inscription was fixed on the wall

of the disputed building, the question of finding tablet by

Maulvi M.Ashraf Husain does not arise. If what he intends to

1613

suggest is that the inscription was noticed by Maulvi M. Suhaib

in 1906-07 and he has made some reference in the annual

progress report of 1906-1907, the text of the inscription if was

published in the said report, the author ought to have taken

material from such report and not from a stranger namely Syed

Badrul Hasan of Faizabad whose credentials and authenticity is

unknown and whether any such person actually existed or not,

even this is doubtful, as has been argued by Sri Mishra and we

find substance therein.

1465. The matter does not rest here. Ashraf Husain has

critically commented upon the reading of one or two

inscriptions as published by Fuhrer and Beveridge stating that

“....their readings are so incomplete, inaccurate and different

from the text that their inclusion in this article is not only

desirable but also imperative.”

1466. Once the alleged two inscriptions are lost and one of

such inscriptions according to Sri Husain was found by Fuhrer

who has published its text, without having either the inscription

itself with him (Husain) or the authenticated stampage of the

text of such inscription, how there could be any occasion for

Husain to claim that the text given by Fuhrer is incorrect.

Similarly, he also could not have any occasion to compare that

text with that of Beveridge. Admittedly, the date of publication

of such inscription by Fuhrer and A.S. Beveridge is before the

date of disappearance i.e. 1934 as alleged by Ashraf Hussain.

Therefore, so far as Fuhrer and Beveridge are concerned they

could have an occasion to peruse the inscription that was

installed before 1934 but so far as Maulvi M. Ahsraf Husain is

concerned, this occasion in his own words, could not have

arisen. The text, description and whatever had been set up by

1614

Ashraf Husain in respect of the above inscription is unbelievable

and lacks trustworthiness. We are constrained to observe at this

stage that in the matter of historical events and that too, when it

bears a religious importance and the matter has also seen serious

disputes between two communities, the persons who are

connected with history etc. must behave responsibly and before

making any write up, should check up, cross check and verify

very carefully what they are writing since the consequences of

their write up may be dangerous and irreparable.

1467. We move on to one more aspect. Even the text of the

inscription which Ashraf Husain has given in plate 17(b), he

says that the same is not what was printed in the existing

inscription as restored by Muslim community after 1934 riots

but the same is an added version from the stampage obtained

from Syed Badrul Hasan of Faizabad. At this stage, we are

unable to compare even the restored text of the inscription as the

same is not available and Maulvi M. Ashraf Hussain instead of

giving the existing text as it is of the restored inscription has

changed it according to his whims and caprices.

1468. Coming to the authenticity of the text of the two

inscriptions given by Beveridge, we find that she herself had

neither read the said texts nor visited Ayodhya at any point of

time. She claims to have received copy of the text through some

correspondence made by her husband, Henry Beveridge, an

I.C.S. Officer in British India Government.

1469. The text of two inscriptions are the copy which she

claims to have received from Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad

on an inquiry made by her husband. In this regard at page 656,

foot note 3 at the bottom she has said:

“that he spent a few days near Aud (Ajodhya) to settle its

1615

affairs. The D.G. Of Fyzbaa (H.E. Nevill) p.173 says “In

1528 AD, Babur came to Ajodhya (Aud) and halted a week.

The destroyed the ancient temple” (marking the birth-place

of Rama) “and on its site built a mosque, still known as

Babur’s Mosque..... It has two inscriptions, one on the

outside, one on the pulpit; both are in Persian; and bear

the date 935 AH.” This date may be that of the competition

of the building.--(Corrigendum:-On f.339 n. 1, I have too

narrowly restricted the use of the name Sarju. Babur used

it to describe what the maps of Arrowsmith and Johnson

shew, and not only what the Gazetteer of India Map of the

United Provinces does,. It applies to the Sarda (f.339) as

Babur uses it when writing of the fords.”.

1470. Perhaps she went through the description of the

disputed site in the light of the observations made by Sri Nevill

who wrote 1904 -1905 Gazetteer (Supra). Whether the alleged

text made available to her by the Dy. Commissioner, Faizabad

was an ink stampage of the text of the alleged two inscriptions

or it was obtained by him through somebody else by reading the

contents or the manner in which the said text was collected, is

not known. Rather there appears to be something otherwise.

Footnote 2 on page lxxvii , Appendics ‘U’ of Baburnama

(Memoirs of Babur) shows that some changes were made by

Beveridge also:

“2. A few slight changes in the turn of expressions

have been made for clearness sake.”

1471. To what extent the corrections have been made and

what was necessity thereof is not ascertainable. Why a verbatim

reproduction could not be made is also not understandable. At

least there is nothing on record enabling us to examine this

1616

aspect of the matter. The second inscription, text whereof is

quoted at page lxxviii, Appendices ‘U’ of Baburnama by

Beveridge, we find that the same is incomplete and the reason

assigned by Beveridge is that it is not now legible. The text of

second inscription was not legible to Beveridge whose book was

first published in 1914/1921. We fail to understand how its

complete text could be available to Maulvi M. Ashraf Husain

after more than forty years thereafter who got it published in

Epigraphia Indica -Arabic and Persian Supplement 1965

(supra).

1472. From the text of A. Fuhrer the period of construction

of the disputed building is not 1528 AD and it also does not say

that the same was built by Mir Baqi. The inscription no. XLI,

line four mentions the name of Mir Khan and inscription no.

XLII shows the period of construction as Hijra 930. The text

given by Sri Sushil Srivastava, PW 15 in his book “The

Disputed Mosque-A Historical Enquiry” is based on the text of

two inscriptions given by A.S. Beveridge and Prof. Radhey

Shyam as is evident from page 78-79 of his statement. Athar

Hussain's text is the reproduction from Beveridge. Dr. Radhey

Shyam has taken the text of three inscriptions from M. Ashrat

Hussain's write-up published in Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and

Persian Supplement in 1964-65.

1473. The apparent distinction, as appear from Fuhrer's

reading of the inscription, is:

(a) There is no mention of word of "honour" before the

name of Babar.

(b) Instead of "Mir Baqi" it mentions "Mir Khan".

(c) There is no use of the word "mosque" but it

mentions "lofty building" and also shows no

1617

dedication to Almighty.

This is in respect to the first inscription.

1474. Then comes the second inscription, where the marked

distinction is the date i.e. 930 A.H. (1523 AD). It is a well

known fact that in 1523 AD Babar was not in Hindustan but in

Kandhar/Kabul.

1475. Archaeological Survey of India also published a book

“The Monumental Antiquities And Inscriptions In The North-

Western Provinces And Oudh” described and arranged by A.

Fuhrer published by the Superintendent, Government Press, N.-

W. Provinces and Oudh, 1891. Copy of the frontispiece as well

as pages No.295, 296 and 297 thereof have been filed as Paper

No.107C1/33-36 i.e. Ex.9, Suit-5 (Register Vol.20, Pages 67-

73). We have the entire book published in 1967 by Rameshwar

Singh, Indological Book House, Varanasi (Book No.94). Pages

No.295-297 are verbatim the same filed as paper Nos.107C1/34-

36. About construction of building in dispute, on page 297 it

says, “It is locally affirmed that at the Musalman conquest there

were three important Hindu temples at Ayodhya; these were the

Janamasthanam, the Svargadvaram, and the Treta-ke-Thakur.

On the first of these Mir Khan built a masjid, in A.H. 930,

during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name.” The

reference has been made to Archaeological Reports (New

Series), Vol.1, page 67.

1476. Ex. 81 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 216C1/1-21) consists of

certain pages from book “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet

Navalpuri, first published 1974, third publication 1996, 1998

and reprint 2002 by Sahitya Academy, New Delhi. The Editorial

Note says that the book consist of Hindi translation by

Navalpuri of F.G. Talbot's Edition of the “Memoirs of Baber”.

1618

However, the Chapter “Introduction” running from Page 9 to 18,

pages 438 to 456 giving history from AH (1527 AD) and then

for the year AH 936, page 510 has been filed. Sri Jilani from the

above extract of the book has sought to submit that there is no

mention either of entry of Babar to Ayodhya or any act of

demolition of any temple or construction of a Mosque. For the

date of construction of the disputed building in 1528 AD, he

refers to Footnote 48 on page 447 which refers two inscriptions

at the disputed building as under :

^^48- ¼usfoy½ ^ftyk xtsfV;j Q+Stkckn* esa fy[kk gS% ^^1529 bZ0 esa

ckcj v;ks/;k ¼vo/k½ vk;k vkSj ,d lIrkg jgkA mlus izkphu eafnj

¼jke&tUeLFkku½ rqM+okdj mlds LFkku ij elftn cuokbZA - - -** bl

elftn ij nks vfHkys[k gSaA ¼1½ elftn d s H k hrj %

^^cQ+jewn;s 'kkfg ckcj fd vny'k cukbZLr rk dkf[k+ xjnwa eqykdh

cuk djnbZ eqgfcrs dqnfl;kWA vehjs lvknr&fu'kkWa ehj ckdh

cqon [kS+j ckd+h pq lkys cukb'k v;kWa 'kq) fd xqQ~re cqon [kS+j ckd+h!

¼^^xxu&rqax gS U;k; dk lkS/k ftldk mlh 'kkg ckcj dk vkns'k ikdj

cuh nsonwrksa dh ;g vorjf.kdk ! fej ehj ckd+h dks lkSHkkX; dk oj !

^cqon [kS+j ckd+h !* & dgk Li"V eSaus%^cqon [kSj ckd+h* gS fuekZ.k&oRlj!**

¼v;ks/;k ds ^f'kd+nkj*½ ehjckdh ¼'kd+koqy] ^ehM~0ck'kh* ;kuh ^gtkjk*]

¼rk'kdanh½ us ckcj ds vkns'k ij elftn cuk;h FkhA ;gkWa igyk ^cqon

[kSj ckd+h* ¾ ¼1½ ;g vPNkbZ vej jgs*] ¼2½ ^ckd+h ehj&0*½ dk

dq'ky&{kse fpjLFkk;h gks* ¼dqjku&opu ^ekuo eR;Z gS] ij mlds 'kqHkdeZ

vej gSa* ds vk/kkj ij 'kqHkdkeuk½A nwljk ¾ fuekZ.k &frfFk &o.kkZadA

^cqon % ¼os $ oko $nky ¾ 2$6$4¾½ 12] $^[kSj*% ¼[ks $ ;s $ js ¾ 600

$ 10 $ 200 ¾½ 810] $ ^ckd+h*% ¼css $ vfyQ+ d+kQ $ ;s¾ 2 $ 1 $

100 $10 ¾½ 113% ¾935 ¼fg0½A

¼2½ elftn d s ckgj%

^^cukes vkaW fd nkuk gLr vdcj fd [k+kfyfd tqeyk vkye ykedkuh

nq:ns eqlrQ+k cknt+ flrk;'k fd ljokj vkSfo;k;s nks&tgkuh

Q+lkuk nj tgkWa ckcj d+yanj fd 'kqn nj nkSfj xhrh dkejkuhA**

¼^^mlh ds uke ij ftlus pjkpj jpk] tks gS egRre] fdUrq os& ?kj(

1619

fo#n fQj eqlrQ+k dk½ ftlds vuqpj mHk; yksdksa ds Ik;x+ecj ijkRij(

txr~ esa dhfrZer~ ckcj dyanj ldy ykSfdd&Ligk&ifjrq"V&varj !**½

Li"V gS fd vfHkys[k viw.kZ gSA

^eqlrQ+k* ¼ekuo&lgt nqxqZ.kksa ls vNwrk½ eqgEen lkgc dk fo'ks"k.k&uke

gSA ckcj ^dyanj* ¼ns0 ½ blfy, gS fd Hkkjr&lkezkT;&ykHk ds ckn

mlds fy, fdlh ykSfdd Ligk dk vodk'k gh u jgk ¼jkx&^unh ikj

djds* fojkxh gqvk og½A vFkok ¼Q+fj'rk ds vuqlkj½ blfy, fd Hkkjr esa

^mikftZr* vikj /kudks"kksa esa ls mlus vius fy, dqN Hkh u j[kkA**

1477. The language of the inscriptions is same as that is

quoted in Baburnama by Beveridge (supra) who claimed to

have text of the two inscriptions from the Deputy Commissioner

of Faizabad and has referred to Nevill's Gazetteer of 1905 on

page 556 of the book. Reading of the words “Mir Baqi” as

“Shaghawal”, “Tashkandi” appears to be the understanding of

the author himself inasmuch it is not in dispute that both the

names i.e. Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi have been

mentioned separately in “Baburnama” and there is nothing to

co-relate the two being name of the same person or that to

corelate with 'Mir Baqi'. Sri Jilani also could not place anything

to co-relate Mir Baqi with Baqi Shaghawal or Baqi Tashkandi to

show that they were the names of one and the same person. We

also find that on page 11 (Paper No. 216C1/5, the writer has

mentioned : ^^'kdkoqy us11, ,d lkS chl bZxkp12 dh nwjh pkj fnu esa gh r;

dj yh FkhA^^ Statistics 11 has been explained on page 15 (Paper

No. 216C1/7) as under :

^^11- csxksa ds uke jkti= fy[kus okyksa dk iz/kku] eq[; lfpo]

lapkj&O;oLFkk dk vf/kdkjh rFkk lHkh dkft;ksa ¼U;k;k/kh'kksa½ vkSj

eqYykvksa dk izeq[kA ehj&eaq'kh vkSj MkdikyA

1478. In Regular Suit No. 29 of 1945 (Shia Central Waqf

Board of Waqf Vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf), it appears

that the Court issued a direction to record the text of the

1620

inscriptions found at the disputed building. On 26.3.1946, Sri A.

Akhtar Abbas went to read the inscriptions and noted on his

inspection note as under :

"Inspection Notes

26.3.46

Present ... Mussama Khoja M. Yaqub, counsel of

parties (besides others)

Inspected the mosque in suit & found the following

inscriptions on a stone table near the pulpit-

ہبفرد موذ شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقیبط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ں



ہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر باقی ں**c Qjewn;s 'kkg ckcj fd vny'k]












gS-


(Hindi Translation by Author)


1621


(2) this descending place of the angels was built by the


(3) it will remain an everlasting bounty and (hence) the




According to both parties this katba was replaced &

new in place of the original tablet which was demolished

during the communal riot in 1934.

There is another tablet at the central arch of the

mosque facing the court-yard and it contains the following

couplets:-

ےبسم الل الرحمن الرحیم و ب ثقت ہ ہےبنام آنک او داناست اکبر ک خالق جمل عالم ل مکان ہ ہ ہا ںےدور مصطف بعد ازثنایش ک سرور انبیا زبد ج ہ ہ ہ ے

ان بابر قلندر ک شد دردور گیتی کا مران ےفسان در ج ہ ہ ہفت کشوردر گرفت زمین راچو مثال آسمان ےچنا کش ں ہ ہ ںےدرآ حضرت یکی میر معظم ک نامش میر باقی آصف ثان ہ ںست بان ےمشیر سلطنت تدبیر ملکش کزین مسجد و حصار ہا پایند بادا ک چتروتخت و بخت و زندگان ےخدایا در ج ہ ہ ں ہصد سی پنج بود نشان د زین تاریخ میمون ک ن ےبناء ع ہ ہ ہ

برھان لہ نورال صفت و مدح و نعت و لتوحید ہذا ہ خطتمت

غودے محمد لہ ال فتح نحیف عبدالضعیف

**¼1½ fclfeYykfgjZgekfujZghe o c&fld+rh

¼2½ cukes vkafd Å nkukLr vdcj & fd [k+kfyd+ tqeyk vkye

ykedkuh

nw:ns eqLrQk ckn vt+ luk;'k & fd ljoj vafc;k tqCnk tgkuh

Qlkuk nj tgka ckcj d+yUnj & fd 'kqn nj nkSjs xhrh dkejkuh

¼3½ pquka d'k gQ~Qr fd'koj nj fxjQ+rk & t+eha jk pwa felkys

1622

vklekuh

njka gt+jr ;ds ehjs eqvTt+e & fd uke'k ehj ckd+h vkLQ+ lkuh

eq'khjs lyrur rnchj eqyd'k & dt+ha efLtnks fglkj gLr ckuh

¼4½ [kqnk;k nj tgka ikbUnk cknk & fd fp=ks r[+rks c[+rks ft+Unxkuh

fcuk;s vgns t+ha rkjh[k+ eSewa & fd uqg ln lh iat cqon fu'kkuh

rEer gkt+RrkSghn o ukr eng o flQ+r uOojYykgq cqjgkugq [+kRrs

vCnqTt+bZQ+

ughQ+ Q+ugqYykg eksgEen x+kSjhA**


**vYykg ds uke ls tks vR;Ur d:.kke; vkSj n;koku gS] vkSj mlds

Hkjksls ij

1- mlds uke ls tks lcls egku cqf}eku gS tks lkjs lalkj dk l"Vk ,oa

LFkku dh dSn ls eqDr gS


n:n gks tks ufc;ksa ds ljnkj vkSj lalkj ds loZJs"B O;fDr gSA

3- ckcj dyanj dk pjpk lkjs lalkj esa O;kid gS fd og ,d lQy

lezkV gqvk gSA


iFoh dks Hkh vkdk'k ds leku dCts esa dj fy;kA

5- ml 'kkgh njckj dk ,d fo'kky uokc gS ftldk uke ehj ckdh

f}rh; vkflQ gS


vkSj fdys dk f'kykfu;kl djus okyk gSA


jgsA


gSA** (Hindi Translation)

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the merciful,

and in Him is my trust.

(1) In the name of One who is Wise, Great and Creator of

all the universe and is spaceless.

(2) After he praise, blessing be upon the Choosen one (i.e.

1623

the Prophet) who is the head of the Prophets and best in

the world.

(3) The Qalandar like Babar has attained fame in the

whole world to the effect that he has been a successful

emperor.

(4) He is such an emperor as has conquered all the seven

climes of the world and also captured the earth as in case

of sky.

(5) In that royal court there was a magnificent noble

named Mir Baqi, the second Asaf.

(6) (He is) councillor of the Government and administrator

of his kingdom, who is the founder of this mosque and fort-

wall.

(7) O! God, may he live for ever in this world, with crown

and throne and fortune and life.

(8) The time of this building of this age is this auspicious

date, of which the indication is 935.” (E.T.C.)

Note: The above inscription was read by Shukh

Karamatullah (D.W. 5) who climbed up the arch by means

of a ladder and ?the verses are written in Arabic

characters."

1479. In the book Ayodhya Ka Itihas by Sri Avadhwasi

Lala Sitaram, first published in 1932, reprinted in 2001,

published by Arya Book Depot, New Delhi, the transcript of the

in-script has been mentioned at page 115/116 which is a

verbatim copy of the text quoted by A.S. Beveridge. The learned

author has given, however, totally different reasons and history

of the construction of the disputed building. There is nothing to

show the basis on which he has written the said history. Sri

Jilani has castigated the contents of this entire book of Lala

1624

Sitaram contending that neither he was a historian nor there is

any authority mentioned in his book to generate confidence for

what has been written therein, therefore, this book is not

reliable. This author retired from the office of Deputy Collector

as appearing from the Forward of his book written by Sri

Devendra Swaroop.

1480. The above discussion tells us that basically there are

three version in respect to the text or transcript of the

inscriptions fixed on the disputed building. The text available to

A.Fuhrer says that "a firmament-like lofty strong building was

erected by an auspicious noble Mir Khan under the command of

Babar in the year 930 AH i.e. 1523 AD and foundation of the

said building was laid down by the King of China and Turkey in

presence of Babar". The transcript made available to Beveridge

reveal that "under the command of Emperor Babar, good

hearted Mir Baki built that alighting place of angels in 935 AH

i.e. 1528-29". The last one is that of ASI report of 1964-65

edited by Z.A.Desai, the transcript whereof says that “by the

order of King Babar that descending place of Angles was built

by the fortunate noble Mir Baki". In respect to another

inspection, Desai text says that "a lofty building and lasting

house (of God) was founded by Mir (and) Khan (Baqi)". The

words placed within brackets are that of Mr. Husain or Dr.

Desai's own insertion and do not find place in the text of the

inscription as such.

1481. The fourth one, which can be said to be very recent

and inspire more confidence than other is the one when pursuant

to the order of the learned Civil Judge, Faizabad, Sri A. Akhtar

Ahasan made inspection of the disputed structure on 26th March,

1946 and obtained text of two inscriptions fixed on the disputed

1625

building at that time. This text, as is reproduced in judgment

dated 30.03.1946 (Ex. A42, Suit-1) in R.S. No.29/1945 says that

in the first inscription the words are “by the order of Shah

Babar, Amir Mir Baki built the resting place of angles in 923

A.H. i.e. 1516-17 AD". In respect to second inscription, he says

that “Mir Baki of Isphahan in 935 AH i.e. 1528-29 AD”. We

find that the reading of text of inscriptions by Civil Judge,

Faizabad was earlier than Dr. Z.A.Desai's publication yet there

is a good variance with the text of the estampage procured and

transcribed by Desai.

1482. In the entire Babar-Nama i.e. all the translations made

by various writers, we are not informed that the words “Mir

Baki Isfahani" has been mentioned at any place. What has been

said is Baki Tashkendi and various other Bakis but not Mir Baki

Isfahani. We are informed by Sri P.N.Mishra, which is not

disputed by other learned counsels, that Taskend is a city of

Uzbekistan while Isfahan is a province of Iran.

1483. Sri Mishra, on the basis of the above facts submits that

Baki Isfahani and Baki Taskandi cannot be regarded as one and

the same person. Baki Isfahani a person not known to Babar

having not been mentioned in Babarnama could not have any

kind of authority at all in the period of Babar. It is therefore safe

to presume that it is fictitious name which adds and fortify the

argument that the inscription has been implanted later on with a

transcription which is fictitious and false and had no factual

authenticity.

1484. The above discussion raises a serious doubt over the

genuinity and authenticity of the text or transcript of the

inscriptions and the time when they were fixed on the disputed

building. To base a finding in a judicial proceeding while

1626

adjudicating a dispute of this nature, it would be improper and

against the all cannons of the principles applicable in such

matter. However, there are some more facts and material which

needs to be considered before recording a final opinion on the

matter.

1485. The very first document/historical book in this regard

is “Tuzuk-i-babri”, i.e., “Baburnama” or “daily diary of Babar”

which has been translated and published by several well known

authors and some of them are considered to be the authentic

work internationally also. Broadly the learned counsels for the

parties and the Expert Historians have also not disputed

authenticity of such work which we now propose to refer.

1486. Babur-nama (Tuzuk-i-babri) commences its

description from 899 Hizra (1493-94 AD). In the total life span

of 47 years and 10 months, the description of only 18 years of

Babur's life is available and that too in various spans. The

period, for which the details are not available, are as under:

1. History from the birth (14th February, 1483 AD) till

Singhasanarohan Ramazan 899 Hijri (June 14, 1494 AD)

2. Description from 908 Hijri (1503 AD) till 909 Hijri

(1504 AD)

3. Description from 914 Hijri (1508 AD) till 925 Hijri

(1519 AD)

4. Description from 4 Safar 926 Hijri(15th January 1520

AD) till 30 Muharram 932 Hijri (16th November, 1525

AD)

5. Description from 13 Rajab 934 Hijri (3rd April 1528

AD) till 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (17th September, 1528 AD)

6. History of following days of 934 Hijri (1528-29 AD):

(a) 1, 2 Muharram 934 Hijri (16, 17th September

1627

1528 AD)

(b) 21 Muharram 934 Hijri (6th October 1528 AD) to

26 Muharram 934 Hijri (11th October 1528 AD)

(c) 6 Safar 934 Hijri (20th October 1528 AD) to 8

Safar 934 Hijri (22nd October 1528 AD)

(d) 11 Safar 934 Hijri (25th October 1528 AD) to 20th

Safar 934 Hijri (3rd November 1528 AD)

(e) 29 Safar 934 Hijri (12th November 1528 AD) to 8

Rabi-ul-Avval (20th November 1528 AD)

(f) 15 Rabi-ul-Avval (27th November 1528 AD) to

18 Rabi-ul-Avval (1st December 1528 AD)

(g) 24 Rabi-ul-Avval (7th December 1528 AD) to 28

Rabi-ul-Avval (11th December 1528 AD)

(h) 13 Rabi-ussani (25th December 1528 AD) till 15

Rabi-ussani (27th December 1528 AD)

(i) 6 Jamadi-ul-Avval (16th January 1529 AD) till 9

Jamadi-ul-Avval (19th January 1529 AD)

(j) 19 Shavval (25th June 1529 AD) till 30 Shavval

(6th July 1529 AD)

(k) 5 Zikad (11th July 1528 AD) till 11 Zikad (17th

July 1529 AD)

(l) 20 Zikad (27th July 1529 AD) till 4 Zilhijja (10th

August 1529 AD)

(m) 11 Zilhijja (17th August 1529 AD) till 29 Zilhijja

(4th September 1529 AD)

7. 4 Muharram 936 Hijri (8th September 1529 AD) till 6

Jamadi-ul-Avval 937 Hijri (26th December 1530 AD).

1487. In India, Babar came in 1526 AD and the description

available of that period till his death is as under:

1. From 1 Safar 932 Hijri (17 November 1525 AD) till 12

1628

Rajab 934 Hijri (2nd April 1528 AD)

2. From 3 Muharram 934 Hijri (18th September 1528 AD)

till 3 Moharram 936 Hijri (7th September 1529 AD). In

this way the description of only three days of first month

of 936 Hijri is available. The description of many days in

between 935 Hijri is also not available.

1488. The missing record is of the period 2nd April, 1528

A.D. to 17th September, 1528 A.D. which is crucial for this

matter. Out of this period, 2nd April, 1528 to 15th April, 1528

was part of 934 A.H. and 15th September, 1528 to 17th

September, 1528 was part of 935 A.H. It means in the crucial

year i.e. 935 A.H., the missing record is only of three days.

Therefore, non mention of anything about disputed in 935 A.H.

building in Babar-Nama does not sound to any reason.

1489. On crossing of the Babar's army led by his commander

Sultan Chin Taimur, they found that Bayazid and Biban had

already fled away and therefore, no fight at Ayodhya could have

occurred. That being so, the question of killing of any Muslim

and making of grave at the disputed site does not arise.

1490. The Manuscripts (in short “MS”) of Baburnama, as

available has been noticed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge based on the

magazine published by Royal Asiatic Society, Landon in 1900

AD:

1. MS written by Babur

2. MS sent to Khwaja Kalan

3. MS written by Humaun

4. MS possessed by Alphinston

5. MS kept at British Museum, Landon

6. MS in the India office of British Government

7. MS of Asiatic Society, Bengal

1629

8. MS at Mysore

9. MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana.

10. MS at Hyderabad

11. MS of St. Peteres Berg University.

12. MS kept at foreign office of St. Peters Berg

13. MS kept at Asiatic Society Museum of St. Peters

Berg

14. MS of Bukhara

15. MS of Nazerbe Turkistan

1491. It is said that probably Babur got prepared two MS but

presently none is available / traceable. Similarly MS sent to

Khwaja Kalan, which is referred in his (Babur's) description

dated 4th March, 1529 is also not available/traceable. Even

otherwise since it is said to have been sent on 4th March, 1529, it

could not have been completed after 4th March, 1959. MS of

Mysore that is possessed by Tepu Sultan is also not available /

traceable.

1492. Elphinston purchased the MS of Babur at Peshawar in

1809 AD, which probably was prepared between 1543 to 1593

AD and the said MS is kept in the Advocate's library, Edimbara.

1493. Dr. Leyden translated some of the part of Babur's

autobiography from the MS of Elphinston and Erskin made

corrections in his translation on the basis of the said MS.

1494. MS of Biblothika Lindesiyana was purchased in 1865

AD and is incomplete.

1495. MS of Hyderabad was made available to Mrs.

Beveridge from the library of Sir Salar Jang. It is said to be

prepared in 1700 AD. It is most complete available MS, as

claimed by Mrs. A.S. Beveridge. She has written her translation

of 'Baburnama' on the basis thereof.

1630

1496. MS of St. Petersberg is said to have been prepared

from another MS copied in 1617 AD. Dr. George Jaikab Kehar

prepared the said MS in 1737 but the MS where from it was

prepared is not traceable. Elminski published Turkish Edition

of Baburnama in 1857 AD on the basis of the said MS and

French translation of Babur-nama made by Dr. Pevet Kotele

was also based on the said MS.

1497. From the reading of translation of 'Babur-nama' we do

not find any title thereof. However, now it is commonly known

as “Babur-nama” or “Tuzuk-i-babri” by all.

1498. In the earlier part of Babur-nama i.e. upto 1508-09

AD, it is in the form of history where the details have been

given of various events occurred in different years but from

1519 AD till end, it is a day to day description.

1499. Baburnama was originally written in Turkish. Initially,

it was translated in Persian prose by Sheikh Zain Wafai Kwafi.

One of the MS of the said translation is in Raza Library,

Rampur, U.P. (India) and another is in British Museum, Landon.

Another Persian translation was made by Mirza Payanda Hasan

Gajnavi in 1586 AD under the orders of Behroz Khan Gajnavi,

who in fact made a partial translation and it was completed by

Mohd. Kuli Mugul Hisari. The most universal popular Persian

translation was made by Mirza Abdurrahim Khane Khana Bin

Bairam Khan (Abul Fazal) in 1589 AD.

1500. The first English translation of Babur-nama was

attempted by “Dr. John Leyden” in 1810 AD. However, he

could not complete the same and died in August, 1811 AD. At

the same time “William Erskine” also commenced his English

translation from Persian under the instructions of General Sir

John Malcom and Elphinstone and completed his work in 1813

1631

AD. Thereafter he found that there was a lot of differences in

the work of Dr. John Leyden. Since Leyden had commenced

his translation from Turkish MS, Erskine made corrections in

his translation and this work was published in 1826 AD under

the title “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammad Babur” by

“John Laden and William Erskine”.

1501. Another translation was made in English by Mrs.

Annette Susannah Beveridge, (hereinafter referred to as

“Beveridge”) under the title “Babur-nama (Memoirs of Babur)”.

Initially her translation was published in four parts as under :-

i. History prior to Babur's victory of Kabul (the period

relating to Phargana) – published in 1912 AD.

ii. From Kabul Victory till India victory ; published in

1914 AD

iii. From India's victory till end ; published in 1917 AD

iv. Introduction, Glossary etc. ; published in 1921 AD

1502. The complete four parts in two volumes were

published collectively in 1922 under the title “The Babar Nama

in English”.

1503. French translation was made by Pevet-de-Kotele

published in 1871 AD.

1504. The learned counsels for the parties have not disputed

that the contents of the book of Beveridge's translation of

Babur-Nama available to the Court has no difference with the

photocopies of some of the pages filed as Exhibits, detailed

above.

1505. The parties agree that amongst various books

translating “Babur-nama, Mrs. Beveridge's translation is the

most authentic and complete. The 'Affairs of Hindustan'

commences from page 439 which says:

1632

“The centre of interest in Babur's affairs now moves from

Qandahar to a Hindustan torn by faction, of which faction

one result was an appeal made at this time to Babur by

Daulat Khan Ludi (Yusuf-khail) and 'Alau'd-din 'Alam

Khan Ludi for help against Ibrahim.”

1506. The details of meeting of Dilawar Khan and Babur

giving an occasion to him to come to India has been written by

Mrs. Beveridge on page 440 as under :

“b. Reception of Dilawar Khan in Kabul.

Wedding festivities were in progress when Dilawar

Khan reached Kabul. He presented himself, at the Char-

bagh may be inferred, and had word taken to Babur that an

Afghan was at his Gate with a petition. When admitted, he

demeaned himself as a suppliant and proceeded to set forth

the distress of Hindustan. Babur asked why he, whose

family had so long eaten the salt of the Ludis, had so

suddenly deserted them for himself. Dilawar answered that

his family through 40 years had uphelf the Ludi throne, but

that Ibrahim maltreated Sikandar's amirs, had killed 25 of

them without cause, some by hanging, some burned alive,

and that there was no hope of safety in him. Therefore, he

said, he had been sent by many amirs to Babur whom they

were ready to obey and for whose coming they were on the

anxious watch.”

“c. Babur asks a sign.

At the dawn of the day following the feast, Babur

prayed in the garden for a sign of victory in Hindustan,

asking that it should be a gift to himself of mango or betel,

fruits of that land. It so happened that Daulat Khan had

sent him, as a present, half-ripened mangoes preserved in

1633

honey ; when these were set before him, he accepted them

as the sign, and from that time forth, says the chronicler,

made preparation for a move on Hindustan.”

1507. Babur's expedition to India (Hindustan) this time was

the fourth one and commenced in 930 AH i.e. 10th November,

1523 AD. The first battle ensued between Babur and Bihar

Khan leaving a section of army of Ibrahim Ludi at Lahor since

Daulat Khan had already fled therefrom. Babur defeated Bihar

Khan and his troops followed Bihar Khan fugitive men into

Lahor, plundered the town and burned some of the bazars.

Thereafter Babur moved to Dibalpur and samething happened

thereat also i.e. it was stormed, plundered and put to the sword.

We need not go into further details about other battles except the

major battle against Ibrahim Lodi son of Sikundar Lodi (An

Afghan) at Panipat which he (Babar) won on 20th April, 1526

A.D. This battle resulted in killing of about 40-50 thousand

soldiers. Babur immediately appointed Humayun to reach Agra

and take over the palace as also to mount guard over the

Treasure. Some of the confidents of Babur were directed to keep

watch on the Treasuries at Delhi.

1508. On 21st April, 1526, Babur visited bank of Jumna, on

24th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Sheikh Nizamud-din Auliya's

Tomb on the bank of river Jumna at Delhi and also made an

excursion into the Fort of Delhi where he spent night. On next

day i.e. 25th April, 1526 A.D., he visited Khwaja Qutbud-din's

Tomb, and the Tombs and residences of Suleman Ghiyasu'd-din

Balban and Suleman Alauud-din Khilji and his Minar, the Hoze-

shamsi, Hoze-i-khas and the Tombs and gardens of Suleman

Buhlul Ludi and Sikandar Ludi. On page 476, Mrs. Beveridge

mention:

1634

“We bestowed the Military Collectorate (shiqdarlighi) of

Dihli on Red Wali, made Dost Diwan in the Dihli district,

sealed the treasuries, and made them over to their charge.”

1509. On 28th April, 1526 A.D. Babur moved on for Agra

and also made an excursion to Tughluqabad. He reached near

Agra on 4th May, 1526 A.D. and stayed at the mansion of

Sulaiman Farmuli in a suburb of Agra and moved on the next

day to Jalal Khan's house. At Agra the garrison did not

surrender to Humayun, and, therefore he sat down to watch the

roads out of Agra till the arrival of Babur.

1510. The king of Gualiar (Gwaliar) had died in the battle of

Panipat but his son and other family members were at Agra at

that time. When Humayun reached Agra, they tried to flee away,

but could not due to the close guard of outside ways by

Humayun's army. They offered a mass of jewels and valuables

including the diamond Koh-i-nur to Humayun which was

offered by Humayun to Babur on his arrival but Babur gave it to

Humayun back. It is said that the said diamond weigh about 320

ratis (8 misqals). On 10th May, 1526 AD, Babur entered the fort

of Sultan Ibrahim Ludi at Agra.

1511. The biography though said to have been written de die

in diem, but the record of some period being not available, the

biography in respect to those dates is admittedly missing.

Regarding his activities at Ayodhya, from a perusal of Page 602

of the book, it appears that he reached at some distance above

the junction of rivers Ghaghara and Saryu on 28.3.1528, i.e.,

Saturday the 7th Rajab 934 A.H. The area reigned by Shaikh

Bayazid Baqi Shaghawal, along with some others crossed the

river and conquered the place. Babur stayed on the Bank of

Saryu for sometimes. The autobiography contains the date 2nd

1635

April 1528 but thereafter there is a break of narrative between

2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD, i.e. Jumada II 12th, 934

A.H. and Moharram III 935 A.H.

1512. What happened at Ayodhya, whether Babur actually

visited Ayodhya or not, nothing is mentioned about it in the said

autobiography. The contents of his autobiography of dated

28.3.1528 and 2.4.1528 as contained on Page-602 are

reproduced as under :

"(March 28th) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted

2 or 3 kurohs from Aud above the junction of the Gagar

(Gogra) and Sird(a). Till today Shaikh Bayazid will have

been on the other side of the Sird(a) opposite Aud, sending

letters to the Sultan and discussing with him, but the Sultan

getting to know his deceitfulness, sent word to Qaracha at

the Mid-day Prayer and made ready to cross the river. On

Qaracha's joining him, they crossed at once to where were

some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could

make no stand; they fled, a few having been dismounted,

the heads cut off were sent in.

Following the Sultan there crossed over Bi-khub

(var. Ni-khub) Sl. and Tardi Beg (the brother) of Quj Beg,

and Baba Chuhra (the Brave), and Baqi Shahghawal,

Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh

Bayazid till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into

the jungle and escaped. Chin-timur dismounted late on the

bank of standing-water, rode on at mid-night after the

rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to

where Shaikh Bayazid's family and relations (nisba?) had

been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in

all directions from that place; Baqi Shaghawal and a few

1636

braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook

the family and brought in some Afghan prisoners.

We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aud) in

order to settle the affairs of Aud. People praised the land

laying along the Sird(a) 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 m.) above

Aud, saying it was hunting-ground. Mir Muhammad the

raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the

crossing over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sird(a)-

water (Chauka?).

(April 2nd) On Thursday the 12th of the month I rode out

intending to hunt." (emphasis added)

1513. Page 617 of the above book, mentions activities of

22.10.1528 as under :

"(Oct. 22nd) By this time the treasure of Iskandar and

Ibrahim in Dihli and Agra was at an end. Royal orders

were given therefore, on Thursday the 8th of Safar, that

each stipendiary (wajhdar) should drop into the Diwan, 30

in every 100 of his allowance, to be used for war-material

and appliances, for equipment, for powder, and for the pay

of gunners and matchlockmen."

1514. For the period, i.e., 2.4.1528 to 18.9.1528, the record

of biography whereof is not available, during this period of five

and half months, the Babur is said to have proceeded to Junpur

(Jaunpur), Chausa, Baksara (Baksar) etc. and was ill for 40

days. Beveridge on Pages 603 and 604 of Babur-Nama has said:

"Mr. Erskine note (Mems. p.381n.) that he found the gap in

all MSS. he saw and that historians of Hindustan throw no

light upon the transactions of the period. Much can be

gleaned however as to Babur's occupations during the 5½

months of the lacuna from his chronicle of 935 AH. which

1637

makes several references to occurrences of "last year" and

also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this

source it becomes know that the Afghan campaign the

record of which is broken by the gap, was carried on and

that in its course Babur was at Jun-pur (f. 365), Chausa (f.

365b) and Baksara (f. 366-366b); that he swam the Ganges

(f. 366b) bestowed Sarun on a Farmuli Shaikh-zada (f.

374b and f. 377), negociated with Rana Sanga's son

Bikramajit (f. 342b), ordered a Char-bagh laid out (f. 340),

and was ill for 40 days (F. 346b). It may be inferred too

that he visited Dulpur (f. 353b), recalled "Askari (f. 339),

sent Khwaja Dost-i-khawand on family affairs to Kabul (f.

345b), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state of

Kabul (see his letters to Humayun and Khawaja Kalan

written in 935 AH.).

It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH.

because in many instances only the day of the week or a

"next day" is entered. I am far from sure that one passage

at least now found s.a. 935 AH. does not belong to 934 AH.

It is not in the Hai. Codex (where its place would have

been on f. 363b), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with

the dates of 935AH. It will be considered with least trouble

with its context and my notes (q.v. f.363b and ff. 366-

366b)."

1515. From Page 679 of 'Babur-Nama' by Beveridge, it

further appears that Babur received message on 27.5.1529 about

taking of 'Luknur' by Baqi and one Abdullah (kitabdar). The

extract of the autobiography dated 27.5.1529 is reproduced as

under :

"(May 27th) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpur

1638

and Kharid. Today came matters written by 'Abdu'l-lah

(kitabdar) and Baqi about the taking of Luknur."

(emphasis added)

1516. On 28.5.1529, it is mentioned that the Babur sent one

Kuki along with a troop to join Baqi.

1517. At Page 680 the author (Beveridge) has mentioned

about a surprise survival of some record of 934 A.H. and has

written that this part of the writing appears to be in respect to

Aud (Ayodhya) where Babur spent some days in 934 A.H. It

reads as under :

"After spending several days pleasantly in that place where

there are gardens, running waters, well-designed

buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various

birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be

towards Ghazipur." (emphasis added)

1518. Pages 684 and 685, refer the dates 13th June 1529

A.D., 17th June 1529 A.D. and 20th June 1529 A.D., and say that

Baqi joined Babur in pursuit of Biban and Bayazid near Dalmud

(Dalmau) and Baqi was given leave along with his army of Aud

(Ayodhya) on 20th June 1529 A.D.

1519. “John Layden and William Erskine's” book on

“Babar/ Babur-Nama” also does not throw any light on this

aspect.

1520. “Lieut.-Colonel F.G. Talbot” in his book “Memoirs

of Baber Emperor of India-First of the Great Moghuls”, first

published in 1909 (first Indian reprint 1974 published by Ess

Ess Publications, Delhi) has said that with an intent to set up an

Empire in India, he set out on march in 1525 A.D. along with

about 12 thousands men. On 29th December, 1525 A.D., he

reached at Sialkot. Here he has given his experience with Jats

1639

and Gujers in the following words :

“Every time that I have entered Hindustan, the Jats

and Gujers have regularly poured down in prodigious

numbers, from their hills and wilds, in order to carry off

oxen and buffaloes. These were the wretches that really

inflicted the chief hardships, and were guilty of the severest

oppressions on the country.” (Page 174)

1521. Therefrom he proceeded to Panipat where he defeated

Ibrahim Lodi, Sultan of Delhi in April 1526 A.D. On page 187

to 188, Talbot has narrated Baber's memoirs after defeating

Ibrahim Lodi as under :

“On Thursday, the 28th of Rejeb, about the hour of

afternoon prayers, I entered Agra, and took up my

residence at Sultan Ibrahim's palace. From the time when I

conquered the country of Kabul, which was in the year

1504, till the present time I had always been bent on

subduing Hindustan. Sometimes, however, from the

misconduct of my Amirs and their dislike of the plan,

sometimes from the cabals and opposition of my brothers, I

was prevented from prosecuting any expedition into that

country, and its provinces escaped being overrun. At length

these obstacles were removed. There was now no one left,

great or small, noble or private man, who could dare to

utter a word in opposition to the enterprise. In the year

1519, I collected an army, and having taken the fort of

Bajour by storm, put all the garrison to the sword. I next

advanced into behreh, where I prevented all marauding

and plunder, imposed a contribution on the inhabitants,

and having levied it to the amount of four hundred

thousand shahrukhis in money and goods, divided the

1640

proceeds among the troops who were in my service, and

returned back to Kabul. From that time till the year 1526, I

attached myself in a peculiar degree to the affairs of

Hindustan, and in the space of these seven or eight years

entered it five times at the head of an army. The fifth time,

the Most High God, of his grace and mercy, cast down and

defeated an enemy so mighty as Sultan Ibrahim, and made

me the master and conqueror of the powerful empire of

Hindustan.”

1522. The Empire of Hindustan on Page 189 of Talbot's

Memoirs of Baber (supra) is described in the following words :

“The empire of Hindustan is extensive, populous and

rich. On the east, the south, and even the west, it is

bounded by the Great Ocean. On the north, it has kabul,

Ghazni, and Kandahar. The capital of all Hindustan is

Delhi.”

1523. He also narrated that on one hand Baber criticised the

country he has recently invaded and conquered but

simultaneously he has expressed very high opinion. Page 190 of

the Book 'Memoirs of Baber' (supra) says:

“Hindustan is a country that has few pleasures to

recommend it. The people are not handsome. They have no

idea of the charms of friendly society, of frankly mixing

together, or of familiar intercourse. They have no genius,

no comprehension of mind, no politeness of manner, no

kindness or fellow-feeling, no ingenuity or mechanical

invention in planning or executing their handicraft works,

no skill or knowledge in design or architecture; they have

no good horses, no good flesh, no grapes or musk-melons,

no good fruits, no ice or cold water, no good food or bread

1641

in their bazars, no baths or colleges, no candles, no

torches, not even a candlestick.

The chief excellency of Hindustan is, that it is a large

country, and has abundance of gold and silver. Another

convenience of Hindustan is, that the workmen of every

profession and trade are innumerable, and without end.

For any work, or any employment, there is always a set

ready, to whom the same employment and trade have

descended from father to son for ages.”

1524. Though it is not necessary for the present purpose to

discuss Babur-nama at great length since we are not concerned

with the history of Babur or his invasion to India, laying of

empire here-at, and its other political, social and other

consequences but in the light of the respective arguments

advanced by the parties it may be of some importance to have a

bird eye view of some incidental relevant aspects borne out

from the description given in Babur-nama. Sri Mishra said that

Babar was a thorough religious person. In fact the submission of

Sri Misra that Babar was a deeply indulged religious man, had

no hatred towards idols, never visited Ayodhya and, therefore,

had no occasion to order for construction of any

building/disputed building, i.e., mosque at Ayodhya, are duly

concurred and in fact in the line of what has been argued by Sri

Jilani and other counsels appearing for various Muslim parties.

This however is in direct contradiction to the arguments of Sri

H.S.Jain, M.M. Pandey, A.K.Pandey etc.

1525. In Beveridge's Babur-Nama on page 15, the quality

and habits of Babar are described:

“He was a true believer (Hanafi mazhablik) and pure in

the Faith, not neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life

1642

through, making up his Omissions. He read the Quran very

frequently and was a disciple of his Highness Khawaja

'Ubaidu'l-lah (Ahrari) who honoured him by visits and

even called him son. His current readings were the two

Quintets and the Masnawi of histories he read chiefly the

Shah-nama. He had a poetic nature, but no taste for

composing verses. He was so just that when he heard of a

caravan returning from Khitai as overwhelmed by snow in

the mountains of Eastern Andijan, and that of its thousand

heads of houses (awiluq) two only had escaped, he sent his

overseers to take charge of all goods and, though no heirs

were near and though he was in want himself, summoned

the heirs from Khurasan and Samarkand, and in the course

of a year or two had made over to them all their property

safe and sound.

He was very generous; in truth, his character rose

altogether to the height of generosity. He was affable,

eloquent and sweet-spoken, daring and bold. Twice out-

distancing all his braves, he got to work with his own

sword, once at the Gate of Akhsi, once at the Gate of

Shahrukhiya. A middling archer, he was strong in the fist,-

not a man but fell to his blow. Through his ambition, peace

was exchanged often for war, friendliness for hostility.

In his early days he was a great drinker, later on

used to have a party once or twice a week. He was good

company, on occasions reciting verses admirably. Towards

the last he rather preferred intoxicating confects and,

under their sway, used to lose his head. His disposition was

amorous, and he bore many a lover's mark. He played

draughts a good deal, sometimes even threw the dice.”

1643

1526. The treasure, Baber received at Agra was distributed to

his son Humayun and other relatives, army men and also sent to

his relatives in Samarkand and Khurasan:

“(May 12th) On Saturday the 29th of Rajab the examinations

and distribution of the treasure were begun. To Humayun

were given 70 laks from the Treasury, and, over and above

this, a treasure house was bestowed on him just as it was,

without ascertaining and writing down its contents. To

some begs 10 laks were given, 8, 7, or 6 to others. Suitable

money-gifts were bestowed from the Treasury on the whole

army, to every tribe there was, Afghan, Hazara, 'Arab,

Biluch etc. to each according to its position. Every trader

and student, indeed every man who had come with the

army, took ample portion and share of bounteous gift and

largess. To those not with the army went a mass of treasure

in gift and largess, as for instance, 17 laks to Kamran, 15

laks to Muhammad-i-zaman Mirza, while to 'Askari, Hindal

and indeed to the whole various train of relations and

younger children went masses of red and white (gold and

silver), of plenishing, jewels and slaves. Many gifts went to

the begs and soldiery on that side (Tramontana). Valuable

gifts (saughat) were sent for the various relations in

Samarkand, Khurasan, Kashghar and 'Iraq. To holy men

belonging to Samarkand and Khurasan went offerings

vowed to God (nuzur); so too to Makka and Madina. We

gave one Shahrukhi for every soul in the country of Kabul

and the valley-side of Varsak, man and woman, bond and

free, of age or non-age.”

1527. The revenue of the country held by Babar in 1528

A.D. from Bhira to Bihar was 52 krurs (judged by Erskine in

1644

1854 A.D. at about Pound 4,212,000).

1528. At the time Babar invaded India, it was governed by

five Musalman Rulers and two Pagans which he described as

respected and independent Rulers. Besides them, there were

many Rais and Rajas in the hills and jungles, held in little

esteem. The seven Principle Rulers are described on page 481 to

484 of Babur-Nama by Beveridge:

“At the date of my conquest of Hindustan it was

governed by five Musalman rulers (padshah) and two

Pagans (kafir). These were the respected and independent

rulers, but there were also, in the hills and jungles, many

rais and rajas, held in little esteem (kichik karim).

First, there were the Afghans who had possession of

Dihli, the capital, and held the country from Bhira to

Bihar. Junpur, before their time, had been in possession of

Sl. Husain Sharqi (Eastern) whose dynasty Hindustanis

call Purabi (Eastern). His ancestors will have been cup-

bearers in the presence of Sl. Firuz Shah and those

(Tughluq) sultans :they became supreme in Junpur after his

death. At that time Dihli was in the hands of Sl. 'Alau'u'-din

(Alam Khan) of the Sayyid Dynasty to whose ancestor

Timur Beg had given it when, after having captured it, he

went away. Sl. Buhlul Lodi and his son (Sikandar) got

possession of the capital Junpur and the capital Dihli, and

brought both under one government (88I AH.--1476 AD).

Secondly, there was Sl. Muhammad Muzaffer in

Gujrat; he departed from the world a few days before the

defeat of Sl. Ibrahim. He was skilled in the Law, a ruler

(padshah) seeking after knowledge, and a constant copyist

of the Holy Book. His dynasty people call Tank. His

1645

ancestors also will have been wine-servers to Sl. Firuz

Shah and those (Tughluq) sultans; they became possessed

of Gujrat after his death.

Thirdly, there were the Bahmanis of the Dakkan

(Deccan, i.e., South), but at the present time no

independent authority is left them; their great begs have

laid hands on the whole country, and must be asked for

whatever is needed.

Fourthly, there was Sl. Mahmud in the country of

Malwa, which people call also Mandau. His dynasty they

call Khilij (Truk). Rana Sanga had defeated Sl. Mahmud

and taken possession of most of his country. This dynasty

also has become feeble. Sl. Mahmud's ancestors also must

have been cherished by Sl Firuz Shah; they became

possessed of the Malwa country after his death.

Fifthly, there was Nasrat Shah in the country of

Bengal. His father (Husain Shah), a Sayyid styled

'Alau'u'd-din, had ruled in Bengal and Nasrat Shah

attained to rule by inheritance. A surprising custom in

Bengal is that hereditary succession is rare. The royal

office is permanent and there are permanent offices of

amirs, wazirs and mansab-dars (officials). It is the office

that Bengalis regard with respect. Attached to each office

is a body of obedient, subordinate retainers and servants. If

the royal heart demand that a person should be dismissed

and another be appointed to sit in his place, the whole body

of subordinates attached to that office become the (new)

officeholder's. There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal

office itself that any person who kills the ruler (padshah)

and seats himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself;

1646

amirs, wazirs, soldiers and peasants submit to him at once,

obey him, and recognize him for the rightful ruler his

predecessor in office had been. Bengalis say, “We are

faithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies

it”. As for instance, before the reign of Nasrat Shah's

father 'Alau'u'd-din, an Abyssinian (Habshi, named

Muzaffar Shah) had killed his sovereign (Mahmud Shah

Ilyas), mounted the throne and ruled for some time.

'Alau'u'd-din killed that Abyssinian, seated himself on the

throne and became ruler. When he died, his son (Nasrat)

became ruler by inheritance. Another Bengali custom is to

regard it as a disgraceful fault in a new ruler if he expend

and consume the treasure of his predecessors. On coming

to rule he must gather treasure of his own. To amass

treasure Bengalis regard as glorious distinction. Another

custom in Bengal is that from ancient times parganas have

been assigned to meet the charges of the treasury, stables,

and all royals expenditure and to defray these charges no

impost is laid on other lands.

These five, mentioned above, were the great

Musalman rulers, honoured in Hindustan, many-legioned,

and broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater both in

territory and army, is the Raja of Bijanagar.

The second is Rana Sanga who in these latter days

had grown great by his own valour ans sword. His original

country was Chitur; in the downfall from power of the

Mandaus Sultans, he became possessed of many of their

dependencies such as Rantanbur, Sarangpur, Bhilsan and

Chandiri. Chandiri I stormed in 934 AH. (1528 A.D.)

and, by God's pleasure, took it in a few hours; in it was

1647

Rana Sanga's great and trusted man Midni Rao; we

made general massacre of the Pagans in it and, as will

be narrated, converted what for many years had been a

mansion of hostility, into a mansion of Islam.

There are very many rais and rajas on all sides and

quarters of Hindustan, some obedient to Islam, some,

because of their remoteness or because their places are

fastnesses, not subject to Musalman rule.”

1529. From the above it does appear that Babar's visit to

India for its conquest was a well intended plan and fulfillment of

a dream which he had. At page 478 Mrs. Beveridge has written:

"From the date 910 at which the country of Kabul

was conquered, down to now (932 AH.) (my) desire for

Hindustan had been constant, but owing sometimes to the

feeble counsels of begs, sometimes to the non

accompaniment of elder and younger brethren, a move on

Hindustan had not been practicable and its territories had

remained unsubdued. At length no such obstacles were left;

no beg, great or small (beg begat) of lower birth, could

speak an opposing word. In 925 AH. (1519 AD.) we led an

army out and, after taking Bajaur by storm in 2-3 gari (44-

66 minutes), and making a general massacre of its

people, went on into Bhira. Bhira we neither over-ran nor

plundered; we imposed a ransom on its people, taking

from them in money and goods to the value of 4 laks of

shahrukhis and having shared this out to the army and

auxiliaries, returned to Kabul. From then till now we

laboriously held tight to Hindustan, five times leading

an army into it. The fifth-time, God the Most High, by his

own mercy and favour, made such a foe as Sl. Ibrahim the

1648

vanquished and loser, such a realm as Hindustan our

conquest and possession." (emphasis added)

1530. It also appears therefrom that Babur treated himself to

be the third invader who have conquered and ruled Hindustan.

First according to him was Mahmud of Ghazni (also called

Mahmud Ghaznavi), a "Turk" by race, who invaded India on

several occasions and though died in 1030 AD but his

descendants set long on the seat of Government in Hindustan.

The second was Shihabuddin of Ghur (also known as

"Muhammad Ghori") who died in 1206 AD and then the third

was Babur.

1531. It thus appear that Babur did not came to Hindustan

with an intention to spread Islam religion but he had intention to

conquer and rule the country. It is true that Hindustan in the

present form under a single hand could not have been there in

1526 AD and on the contrary it was independently ruled by

several Rulers treating each part as a country but as a whole also

it used to be called by Babar as “Hindustan”. This is also

evident from page 479 of the aforesaid book where it is

mentioned:

"All Hindustan was not under one supreme head

(padshah), but each Raja ruled independently in his own

country."

1532. It thus cannot be doubted that most of the persons,

who ruled Indian sub-continent at that time were followers of

Islam with whom Baber fought to set up his empire.

1533. About the construction of buildings in general and the

workmen for construction work, on page 520 of "Babur-

Nama" by Beveridge, she said:

“Another good thing in Hindustan is that it has

1649

unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind. There is a

fixed caste (jam'i) for every sort of work and for every

thing, which has done that work or that thing from father to

son till now. Mulla Sharaf, writing in the Zafar-nama about

the building of Timur Beg's Stone Mosque, lays stress on

the fact that on it 200 stone-cutters worked, from

Azarbaijan, Fars, Hindustan and other countries. But 680

men worked daily on my buildings in Agra and of Agra

stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily

on my buildings in Agra, Sikri, Biana, Dulpur, Gualiar

and Kuil. In the same way there are numberless artisans

and workmen of every sort in Hindustan.”

1534. There is mention of buildings in Babur-Nama at

different places including temple of Gwalior, mosque at Delhi,

Agra, Gwalior and other several places but it is true that neither

there is mention of demolition of any religious place by Babar in

Awadh area nor there is anything to show that he either entered

Ayodhya or had occasion to issue any direction for construction

of a building and in particular a Mosque at Ayodhya.

1535. The Babar's camping at Ghaghar has also been

described by William Erskine in his book “History of India

under Baber” (May 1845), though published for the first time

in 1854 after his death (Book No. 65) (Published in 1994 by M/s

Atlantic Publishers and Distributors). Erskine came to India in

1803 AD as Secretary of Sri James Mackintosh at Bombay and

later came to be appointed as Master in equity in the Recorder

of Bombay Court but had to leave India in 1823 on suspicion of

embezzlement. He was born in 1773 and died in 1852. After

return from India he spent rest of his life in Scotland occupying

the post of Provost of Saint Andrews in 1837-38 AD. It says:

1650

“Baber, having brought the war of Chanderi to a

conclusion, lost no time in marching to meet the danger

that threatened him in the East. Having repassed the

Jamna, he proceeded without intermission towards Kanauj.

On the road, he learned that his suspicions of Sheikh

Bayezid's fidelity had not been unfounded. That chief had

joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt, with

his whole army; so that Baber's troops had been compelled

to retreat across the Ganges, to evacuate even Kanauj and

to fall back on Raberi, movements that had enabled the

enemy to take Shemsabad, a rich town in the Doab, by

storm.”

1536. In “History of India under Baber” by William

Erskine (Supra) on page 87, there is a footnote showing that

Mir or Mirza was a title:

“The princes of Taimur's family, even those who held

the supreme power, had not yet assumed the title of shah or

padshah, king of emperor; they were called Mir or Mirza,

and often Sultan. In the text, however, the ruling prince is

often called King, for distinction's sake; following the

usage of historians in general, and even of Baber himself.

The title of Sultan was not confined to the sovereign, many

chiefs, and children of chiefs, especially among the Moghul

tribes, being called by that name, which is an Arabic term,

nearly equivalent to Lord. The titles, Mir, Mirza, and Shah,

came also, in process of time, to be very commonly given to

religious guides and holy men, or mendicants, and, from a

sort of flattery, were often continued to the descendants as

part of the family name. The title of Mirza, in later times,

has been lavished by common usage on secretaries and

1651

clerks; and in general on all who pretend to learning.

Mirza is merely mirzadeh, son of a Mir.”

1537. The reference of Oudh in the said book of Earskine is

on page 406, 443 and 450. Referring Lodhi dynasties

expansions on page 406-407 Easrskine has written:

“Behlul's son, Sultan Sekander Lodi, a prince of

talent, in a reign of thirty years, enlarged the kingdom still

farther. In the Est, he subdued Behar, the last province that

remained in the possession of the Sherki kings; and even

advanced into Bengal, where Sultan Husein Shah had

taken refuge. By a convention concluded with Sultan Ala-

ed-din of Bengal, it was agreed, that Sekander should

retain Behar, Tirhut, Sirkar Saran, and all that he had

conquered; that he should not again invade Bengal; and

that neither prince should support the enemies of the other.

On the west, he gained possession of Dhulpur and

Chanderi, and received the submission of the Raja of

Gualiar and and other princes; so that, at his death, his

kingdom had attained a very great extent, containing the

Penjab, the Doab, the provinces of Oud, Laknau, Juanpur

and Behar, besides a wide tract of country to the west of

the Jamna, from the Satlej to Bandelkand. These extensive

possessions, however, though under one king, had no very

strong principle of cohesion. The monarchy was a

congeries of nearly independent principalities, jagirs and

provinces, each ruled by a hereditary chief, or by a

zemindar or delegate from Delhi; and the inhabitants

looked more to their immediate governors, who had

absolute power in the province, and in whose hands,

consequently, lay their happiness or misery, than to a

1652

distant and little known sovereign. It was the individual,

not the law, that reigned. The Lodi princes, not merely to

strengthen their own power, but from necessity, had in

general committed the government of the province, and the

chief offices of trust, to their own countrymen, the Afghans;

so that men of the Lodi, Fermuli, and Lohana tribes, held

all the principal jagirs; which, from the habitual modes of

thinking of their race, they considered as their own of right,

and purchased by their swords, rather than as due to any

bounty or liberality on the part of the sovereign.”

1538. Again on page 441-443 while referring political

condition of the area under rule of Ebrahim Lodhi who was

defeated by Babar in April 1526 AD, Earskine has said

(including the description of political sovereignty on Ayodhya):

“But, though Baber had been victorious in the field,

and was in possession of the two great capitals of the

kingdom, it soon appeared that his situation, far from being

one of safety or ease, was surrounded with difficulty and

danger. He and his army were strangers to the people

whom he had subdued; and a mutual dislike soon

manifested itself between his soldiers and the inhabitants of

Agra, his head-quarters. The peasantry, as well as the

fighting men of the country, shunned and fled from his

followers. The north of India, at the time of Baber's

conquest, still retained much of its original Hindu

organization; its system of village and district

administration and government; its division into numerous

little chieftainships, or petty local governments; and, in

political revolutions, the people looked much more to their

own immediate rulers, than to the prince who governed in

1653

the capital. Except at Delhi and Agra, the inhabitants

everywhere fortified their towns, and prepared to resist.

The invasion was regarded as a temporary inundation, that

would speedily pass off. Every man in authority raised

troops, and put himself in a condition to act. Those who

held delegated authority or jagirs, being generally

Afghans, were consequently hostile to the new state of

things. They soon came to an understanding among

themselves, and took measures for mutual co-operation.

Raja Hasan Khan of Mewat, in the neighborhood of Agra,

was the grand instigator of the opposition; which was

supported by Nizam Khan, in Biana; Muhammed Zeitun, in

Dhulpur; Tatar Khan Sarang-Khani, in Gualiar; Husein

Khan Lohani, in Raberi; Kutb Khan, in Etawa; Alim Khna

Jilal Khan Jighat, in Kalpi; Kasim Sambhali, in Sambhal;

and Marghub, a slave, in Mahawan, within twenty kos of

Agra. Indeed, all of these chiefs were immediately around

Agra, or close upon its borders. They looked for aid from

Rana Sanga, the powerful chief of Cheitur; who, on his

part, laid claim to a great part of the right bank of the

Jamna. These Western Afghans wished to place Sultan

Mahmud Lodi, a Brother of the late Sultan Ibrahim, on the

throne of Delhi; and so to preserve the Afghan and the

Lodi dynasty.

In the Eastern provinces of Juanpur and Oud, the

opposition presented even a more regular form. There, the

confederacy of Afghan chiefs, who had been in open

rebellion against Ibrahim for two years before his death,

still continued. The revolt was originally headed by Nasir

Khan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli, and others. The insurgents,

1654

we have seen, had elected Baber Khan Lohani, the son of

Deria Khan of Behar, for their king; and proclaimed him,

under the name of Sultan Muhamed Shah. They now

possessed, not only Behar, but nearly the whole territories

of the old Sherki monarchy, especially the country on the

left bank of the Ganges; and had even crossed to the right

bank of the river, and taken possession of Kanauj, and

advanced into the Doab. Sultan Ibrahim had sent an army,

under Mustafa Fermuli and Firuz Khan Sarang-khani, to

reduce the rebels to obedience. Mustafa had met the

revolted chiefs, and defeated them in some well-contested

actions. On his death, which occurred some time before the

defeat of Sultan Ibrahim, he was succeeded in the

command by Sheikh Bayezid, his younger brother. The

army under his orders was formidable; and it was

naturally to be expected, that, changed as circumstances

now were, the two armies opposed to each other in the

field, being both Afghans, would lay aside their mutual

animosities, and, animated by national feelings, unite to

expel Baber, the common enemy.”

1539. The Afghan Chiefs who rule in various territories of

India without any subordination, when realized that the Babar

may settle in India ending their unlimited authority, their further

action is described at page 443/444:

“It was clear that the Afghan chiefs, who till now had

ruled with nearly unlimited authority both in Delhi and

Behar, must be ruined if Baber settled in Hindustan, They,

therefore, stirred up, with great success, the apprehensions

of the natives, whether Musulman or Hindu, by the most

false and groundless reports. The people of the country

1655

were told, that they had every thing to dread from their

barbarous invaders; that they would be robbed of their

property; that their wives and children would be

dishonoured; their temples profaned or destroyed. Baber

and his army had reached Agra in May, in that climate the

hottest season of the year. The inhabitants, in terror, fled

before them, and abandoned their dwellings, so that no

grain or provender could be procured for man or beast.

The villagers fled to the waste, and infested the highways,

plundering and robbing on every side. The roads became

impassable. Baber's force was so small that he was unable

to send out detachments sufficient to protect the different

districts. To add to these difficulties, the heats that year

happened to be uncommonly intense, so that many of his

men, who were from more temperate climates,

unaccustomed to the burning sun of India, dropped down

and died on the spot.”

1540. However, the manner in which the Babar manage the

things has been said on page 446 showing that Awadh was

assigned to Bayazid Fermuli. To take possession of the assigned

territory, Humayun moved alongwith army and on page 450 it

has mentioned:

“Humayun, after putting to fight the Afghan army,

crossed the Ganges and took possession of Juanpur. He

next marched to Ghazipur, intending to attack Nasir

Khan's army, which had retired into that neighborhood.

But the Afghans, on his approach, retired behind the

Gogra, as it would appear, into the territory of Bengal; and

a detachment that he sent to pursue them returned, after

plundering the country of Kherid and Behar. Having thus

1656

expelled them from the Juanpur territory, he left Shah Mir

Husein, in the city of Juanpur, supported by Sultan Juneid

Birlas with some of his best troops; and Sheikh Bayezid in

Oud, with every means of maintaining the country; and

then, in compliance with orders which he received from his

father, recrossed into the Doab; and marching back by

Kalpi, of which he gained possession by the submission of

Alim Khan, rejoined the Emperor at Agra, bringing Alim

Khan along with him.”

1541. The movement of Babar in the last week of March

1528 AD near Awadh is described on page 487:

“The Emperor sending Sultan Chin Taimur, with a strong

force to pursue them, himself advanced and occupied

Laknau on the 21st, and passed the Gumti. Moving again in

pursuit of the retreating enemy, he encamped, on the 28th,

four or five miles above Oud, at the junction of the Gogra

and Sirwu. Till then, Sheikh Bayazid had maintained his

ground beyond the Sirwu, and had prevented Sultan Chin

Taimur, Baber's general, from crossing. Being now

reinforced, however, Chin Taimur effected a passage, and

found the Afghans in full retreat. He followed them with

great alacrity, slew numbers of them, and dispersed their

army. Sheikh Bayezid threw himself into a jungle and

escaped. Chin Taimur, after a pursuit of sixty miles,

reached a spot which the families of the fugitives had left

but a short time before. The light force was now divided

into several parties, who followed the flying enemy in

different directions. Their baggage and families were

overtaken and seized; and several Afghans brought in as

prisoners. The success was complete.”

1657

1542. Here also there is no mention of anyone as Mir Baqi or

about entry of Babar in Awadh. It was submitted that there was

no occasion for Babar either to demolish a temple or to

construct a mosque at Ayodhya in 1528 AD.

1543. On page 443, he has described the state of affairs at

Ayodhya in 1526 that the Afghan Chief at Oud revolted against

Ibrahim Lodi about two years back his death and the revolt was

originally headed by Nasir Khan Lohani, Maaruf Fermuli and

others. After the death of Mustafa Fermuli, Sheikh Bayezid

succeeded him in his command who was his younger brother.

1544. On page 450, he mentions that Humayun after taking

possession of Jaunpur left Shah Mir Husein thereat supported by

Sultan Juneid Birlas along with some of his best troops and

Sheikh Bayezid in Oud along with every means of maintaining

the country and thereafter crossed Doab and marched towards

Kalpi of which he gained possession after surrender of Alim

Khan and immediately thereafter he rejoined the Emperor at

Agra. In 1527, Babar proceeded on his march to fight against

Rajputs where he defeated Rana Sanga. This victory has been

described on page 473, Erskine's History of India (supra) as

under :

“No victory could be more complete. The enemy were quite

broken and dispersed. The whole fields around were

strewed with the dead, as well as the roads to Biana and

Alwar. Among the slain were Hasan Khan Mewati, who fell

by a matchlock shot; Raul Udi Singh, of Dongerpur; Rai

Chanderbhan Chohan; Manikchand Chohan, and many

other chiefs of note. Baber directed a tower of heads to be

erected; on a rising ground near the camp; and henceforth

assumed the proud title of Ghazi, Victorious in a Holy War.

1658

Rana Sanga himself escaped; it is said by the devotion of

some of his followers, who threw themselves in the way of

the pursuers, and sacrificed their lives for his safety; and

the regret expressed by Baber for not having urged the

pursuit in person has reference probably to the escape of

his illustrious rival. It is remarkable that, since this defeat

of Rana Sanga, no Rana of Cheitur has ever taken the field

in person against any of the princes of the House of

Taimur. When these princes were along with their armies,

the Rana's troops have been entrusted to some eminent

Rajput chief, the Rana himself withdrawing to some one of

the hill-forts of his country.”

1545. Baber returned to Agra on 25th April, 1527 and,

thereafter, gained Chandwar, Raberi and Etawa which were

surrendered by Kutb Khan who held it. The victory of Babar

within a year after defeat of Ibrahim Lodi against Rajputs and

others has been described on page 477 of Erskine's History of

India (supra) as under :

“That battle has broken the power of the Afghans in India,

as that of Kanwa had since broken that of the Hindu

confederacy. He had evinced, to every class of men in the

country, the decided superiority of his arms; and, with his

mental resources, the awe inspired by his hardly northern

troops, and his own bravery and conduct, the conquest of

every part of India seems to lie open to his arms.”

1546. Baber took some rest as mentioned on page 478 of

Erskine's History of India:

“During the rains he visited Sikri, Dhulpur, and

Bari, proceeding as far as the Chambal; he thence returned

to Agra; and went to Kol or Koel in the Doad, and on to

1659

Sambhal, beyond the Ganges, returning by a different

route.”

1547. He, thereafter, planned to march against Afghans of

the East, who still held out, in considerable force, beyond the

Ganges and in Behar and some of the Hindu chiefs in the West

whose confederacy he had felt to be so formidable, i.e. Medini

Rai of Chanderi. After defeating Medini Rai at Chanderi, he

proceeded to East, i.e., Kanauj. On page 484, Erskine's History

of India, it is said that the Baber got information that his

suspicion of Sheikh Bayezid's fidelity are not unfounded.

Bayezid had joined Baban and Maaruf, the leaders of the revolt

with his whole army. As we have already noticed Sheikh

Bayezid was posted at Oudh by Humayun to look after that area

but on joining revolt, Baber had to move to Oudh. He reached

near Ayodhya (Oudh) on 28th March 1528 A.D. and has narrated

the events which took place thereafter as under :

“The light force was now divided into several parties, who

followed the flying enemy in different directions. Their

baggage and families were overtaken and seized; and

several Afghans brought in as prisoners. The success was

complete.”

1548. Here also we do not find anything so suggest that

Baber either entered Ayodhya or gave direction to anyone to

construct a Mosque or to demolish a temple so as to construct a

mosque.

1549. Lastly, we have Hindi Translation, i.e. “Mughal

Kaleen Bharat Baber (1526-1530)” by Sayed Athar Abbas

Rizvi (Supra). In the chapter titled as “Review” Rizvi has

observed that due to lack of confidence on Afghans, Baber

already separated them from his army except a few one of

1660

confidence. Commenting on construction activities and

available revenue on page 44, Chapter “Review”, Rizvi has said:

^^ikuhir ds ;q) ds iwoZ tks dqN Hkh /ku lEifRr izkIr gksrh Fkh

mldk vf/kdka'k Hkkx og yksxksa esa ckaV fn;k djrk FkkA 5 ekpZ dks gqek;wW

ds gehn ij fot; izkIr djds ykSVus ds mijkUr mlus mls fglkj

Q+hjkst+k rFkk mlds v/khuLFk LFkku ,oa ,d djksM+ ud+n /ku iqjLdkj

LOk#Ik iznku dj fn;kA vkxjk ds [kt+kus dks Hkh mlus blh izdkj cM+h

mnkjrk ls yksxksa dks ckaV fn;k vkSj vius vkidks d+yUnj dgykus esa xoZ

dk vuqHko fd;k djrk FkkA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus izpfyr 'kklu Ik)fr

dk vuqlj.k fd;k vkSj fofHkUu izns'kksa dks iw.kZ #Ik ls vf/kdkj esa djus

rFkk ogka 'kkfUr LFkkfir j[kus ds fy, vD+rknkj ,oa f'kd+nkj fu;qDr

fd;sA dqN izns'k [kkylk esa lfEefyr dj fy;s x;sA fdUrq fQj Hkh

mld s fuek Z . k dk;k s a Z rFk k nku i q .; d s dkj.k ml s / ku d s

vHk ko dk lo Znk gh lkeuk djuk iM +k A 22 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0

dsssss orkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^bl chp esa fldUnj rFkk bczkfge ds

nsgyh ,oa vkxjk ds [kt+kukaas dk vUr gks x;kA vr% cgLifrokj 8 lQ+j

dks ;g 'kkgh vkns'k gqvk fd izR;sd otgnkj ;q) dh lkexzh]

vL+=&'kL= ,oa cUnwd+ rFkk rksi pykus okyksa ds osru gsrq viuh otg esa

ls 100 esa ls 30 nhoku esa nkf[ky dj nsaA**

1550. On page 46 Rizvi says :

^^ckcjukek esa rRdkyhu fofHkUu izkUrksa dh tek ¼jktLoa½ dh Hkh

ppkZ dh xbZ gSA bl dkj.k fd vkbus vdcjh ds vfrfjDr vdcj ds

iwoZ ds bfrgklksa esa jktLo ds lEcU/k esa bruk Hkh Kku fdlh xzUFk ls

ugha izkIr gksrk ckcjukek dk ;g orkUr vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ gSA ckcjukek

ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd ml le; rd fgUn q Lrku d s leLr

vkfey] dkjhxj ,o a Jfed fgUn w gk sr s Fk sA ekyxqtkjh dh

olwyh esa rqdksZa ds jkT; esa Hkh cM+h dfBukbZ gksrh FkhA vykmn~nhu ds

rRlEcU/kh dBksj fu;e cM+s izfl) gSaA ckcjukek ds orkUrkuqlkj

fgUnqLrku ds eSnku ds cgqr ls Hkkxksa esa cM+s cM+s dkaVsnkj taxy gksrs Fks

tgka ijxuksa ds fuoklh 'kj.k ys ysrs Fks vkSj fonzksg dj nsrs Fks rFkk dj

ugha vnk djrs FksA nsgyh ds lqYrkuksa ds bfrgklksa esa eokl 'kCn dk

blh izlax esa cM+k vf/kd iz;ksx gqvk gS ftldk vFkZ ;gh dkaVsnkj taxy

1661

gSA blds vfrfjDr gypy ,oa v'kkafr ds le; Hkh blh izdkj ds

lqjf{kr LFkkukas dk iz;ksx gksrk FkkA dksVyk dh cM+h >hy dh ppkZ djrs

gq, og fy[krk gS fd]^^blds ,d vksj ls nwljs vksj ¼dh dksbZ oLrq½ ugha

fn[kkbZ iM+rhA blds e/; esa ,d Vhyk gSA blds pkjksa vksj cgqr ls

NksVh&NksVh ukSdk;sa FkhaA >hy ds lehi ds xzkeksa ds fuoklh gypy rFkk

v'kkafr ds le; ukSdkvksa ij cSBdj mlh Vhys ij pys tkrs gSaA gekjs

vkxeu ij Hkh ukSdkvksa esa cSBdj dqN yksx >hy ds e/; esa pys x;sA**

ckcjukek ls ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd lqYrku fldUnj us vius

jkT;dky esa /kkSyiqj esa ,d cka/k dk fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk tgka ÅWapkbZ ij

o"kkZ dk ty ,d= gksrk Fkk] ftlls ,d cgqr cM+h >hy cu tkrh FkhA

bl >hy ds iwoZ esa ,d m|ku Hkh FkkA^^

1551. Again on page 48, the Rizvi has mentioned about

Baber's observation regarding workmen in India and says:

^^og fy[krk gS fd ^^fgUnqLrku dk ,d cgqr cM+k xq.k ;g gS fd ;gka gj

izdkj ,oa gj dyk ds tkuus okys vla[; dkjhxj ik;s tkrs gSaA izR;sd

dk;Z rFkk dyk ds fy, tkfr;ka fuf'pr gSa tks vius firk vkSj firk ds

firk ds le; ls ogh dk;Z djrh pyh vk jgh gSaA eqYyk 'kjQ+ us rhewj

csx dh iRFkj dh efLtn ds fuekZ.k ds fo"k; esa bl ckr ij cM+k vf/kd

tksj fn;k gS fd blesa vt+jckbZtku] Q+kjl] fgUnqLrku rFkk vU; ns'kksa ds

200 iRFkj dkVus okys jksst+kuk dke djrs Fks fdUrq dsoy vkxjk esas gh

blh vkxjk ds iRFkj dkVus okyksa esa ls 680 O;fDr esjs vkxjk ds Hkouksa

ds fuekZ.k esa dk;Z djrs FksA esjs vkxjk] lhdjh] O;kuk] nkSyiqj] Xokfy;j

rFkk dksy ds Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k esa 1491 iRFkj dkVus okys jkst+kuk dk;Z

djrs FksA blh izdkj fgUnqLrku esa izR;sd izdkj ds vxf.kr f'kYidkj

rFkk dkjhxj gSaA**

1552. The constrtuction activies in India have been detailed

on page 49-50 by Rizvi in Mughalkalin Bharat as under :

^ ^ fgUn q Lrku e s a fuek Z . k&dk; Z

mls gkSt+] pcwrjs] ugj] cka/k ,oa Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k ls cM+h #fp FkhA

dkcqy rFkk x+t+uh esa vkSj fgUnqLrku vkrs gq, mlus fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij

cgqr lh bekjrsa] pcwrjs bR;kfn cuok;sA fgUnqLrku igaqpdj mlus vkxjk]

lhdjh] /kkSyiqj] dksy] Xokfy;j rFkk vU; LFkkuksa ij vusd fuekZ.k&dk;Z

1662

djok;sA

mldh jkt/kkuh vkxjk dk orZeku #Ik lqYrku fldUnj yksnh ds

le; ls gh izkjEHk gqvk FkkA blls iwoZ jkt/kkuh nsgyh esa jgrh FkhA

lqYrku Q+hjkst 'kkg rqx+yqd+ ds jkT;dky ds vfUre o"kksZa ls gh mRrjh

Hkkjr ds fofHkUu izns'k Lora= gksus yxs FksA vfUre lSf;n lqYrku dh

ckn'kkgh rks nsgyh ls ikye rd gh lhfer jg xbZ FkhA lqYrku cgyksy

dk vf/kd le; fonzksfg;ksa ds neu esa O;rhr gqvkA lqYrku fldUnj

yksnh ds le; esa ;|fi cgqr ls Hkkx fonzksfg;ksa ls eqDr gks x;s Fks fdUrq

mlds jkT; esa 'kkfUr LFkkfir u gks ldh FkhA vius iwohZ jkT;ksa dks o'k

esa j[kus ds fy, rFkk bVkok] Xokfy;j] O;kuk] dkyih ,oa esokr ds

vf/kd fudV jgus vkSj ekyok rFkk jktiwrksa ds LOkra= jkT;ksa ij nf"V

j[kus ds mn~ns'; ls lqYrku fldUnj yksnh dks vkxjk dks clkus dh

vko';drk iM+h fdUrq yksfn;ksa ds jkT;dky esa vkxjk dks vf/kd mUufr

u izkIr gks ldhA ogka ds Hkou Hkh lEHkor% nsgyh ds Hkouksa dh vis{kk

lqUnj u Fks vr% ckcj dh muds izfr ?k`.kk LokHkkfod gh FkhA yksnh

lqYrkuksa us mi;ksfxrk dh nf"V ls tks Hkh fuekZ.k&dk;Z fd;s gksaxs os ckcj

dks viuh vksj vkd"V u dj lds vr% mlus vkxjk esa fo'ks"k #Ik ls

m|ku] Hkouk s a] gEeke] d qvk s a bR;k fn dk fuek Z . k djk;kA

mlus vius fuekZ.k&dk;Z ds fy, fldUnj yksnh ds vkxjk ds fudV

gh ;equk ds ml ikj mfpr Hkwfe dh Lo;a [kkst dhA ;|fi tks Hkwfe pquh

xbZ og mls ilUn u Fkh fdUrq fdlh vU; vPNh Hkwfe ds vHkko ds

dkj.k mls ogh Hkwfe pquuh iM+hA mlus ogka tks pkjckx+ vFkok 'kkgh ckx+

yxok;k mldk uke g'r cfg'r jD[kkA vkxjk esa mlus egy cuok;sA

gEekeksa ds fuekZ.k ls rks mls cM+h [kq'kh gqbZA og fy[krk gS] ^^eq>s

fgUnqLrku dh rhu ckrksa ls cM+h ?k`.kk Fkh& xjeh] vka/kh rFkk /kwyA bu

rhuksa ls gEekeksa }kjk gh j{kk gks ldrh gSA ;gka /kwy rFkk vka/kh dgWk

izos'k\ xjeh esa ;g bruk vf/kd BaMk gks tkrk gS fd yksx BaMd ds

dkj.k dkaius yxrs gSaA **[kyhQ+k] 'ks[k+ tSu] ;wlqQ+ vyh rFkk vU; vehjksa

dks Hkh tgka dgha dksbZ vPNh Hkwfe feyh ogha mUgksaus gkSt+ lfgr cM+s

lqMkSy rFkk mRre dqvksa ,oa Hkouksa bR;kfn dk fuekZ.k djk fy;kA ykgkSj

rFkk nhckyiqj ds leku jgWaV ;gka Hkh eaxokdj yxok;s x;sA ,d izdkj

ds cM+s dq,a ftls ckbZ dgrs gSa] ml le; cM+s izpfyr FksA bcus crwrk us

1663

dksy ds vfrfjDr tqjQ+Rru dh Hkh ,d ckbZ dk mYys[k fd;k gSA ckcj

us Hkh vius vkxjk ds pkjckx ds fuekZ.k ds iwoZ gh ,d ckbZ dk fuekZ.k

izkjEHk djk fn;k FkkA blesa jgWaV Hkh yxok;k x;k ftlds }kjk ty

fd+ys pgkjnhokjh ls gksrk gqvk Åij ds m|kuksa esa tkrk FkkA / k k Syi q j esa

mlus 22 vxLr 1527 bZ0 dks igkM+h dks dVokdj ,d Nrnkj v"Vkdkj

gkSt+ ds fuekZ.k dk vkns'k fn;kA mlu s ogk a ,d efLtn Hk h

cuokb ZA 5 vDVwcj 1528 bZ0 dks og ml Nrnkj gkSt+ dk fujh{k.k

djus ds fy, Lo;a igaqpkA mldk izos'k }kj HkyhHkkWafr lh/kk u gqvk FkkA

mlus dqN iRFkj dkVus okyksa dks cqyokdj vkns'k fn;k fd os gkSt+ ds

uhps dh lrg fpduh djds mlesa ty Hkj nsa vkSj ty dh lgk;rk ls

nhokj dks ,dlk dj nsaA bl izdkj ckcj us LOk;a viuh ns[k&js[k esa

nhokjska dks fpduk djk;kA blh izdkj lhdjh esa Hkh mlus vizSy 1527

bZ0 ds iwoZ gh ckx+ yxokus dk vkns'k ns fn;k Fkk fdUrq tc 14 vDVwcj

1528 bZ0 dks og lhdjh igqapk rks og ckx+ dh nhokj rFkk dq,a ds

fuekZ.k&dk;Z ls lUrq"V u gqvk vr% ftu yksxksa ds fliqnZ ;g dk;Z fd;k

x;k Fkk] mudks mlus rkM+uk Hkh nhA**

ckx+ksa esa Qy rFkk ikS/ks yxkus ls Hkh mls cM+h #fp FkhA dkcqy esa

igqapus ds mijkUr mlus ogka vkyw ckyw dh d+yesa yxokbZaA 1523&24bZ0

esa mlus tc igkM+ [kka dks ijkftr djds ykgkSj rFkk nhikyiqj dks

fot; fd;k rks ckx+s& oQ+k esa] tks mlus dkcqy esa lEHkor% 1508&9bZ0 esa

yxok;k Fkk] dsys ys tkdj yxok;sA blds iwoZ mlus ogka xUUks Hkh

yxok;s Fks vkSj mls vius bl iz;kl esa cM+h lQyrk fey pqdh FkhA

mlus xUus cq[kkjk rFkk cn['kka esa Hkh fHktok;sA fgUnqLrku esa Hkh mlus

dkcqy dh vksj ds Qyksa dks yxokus dk iz;Ru fd;kA mlus cY[k+ ds

[kjcwtk cksuss okyksa dks cqyokdj vkxjk esa [kjcwts yxok;sA 24 twu 1529

bZ0 dks tc og dqN [kjcwts ysdj mifLFkr gqvk rks ckcj cM+k izlUu

gqvkA blh izdkj izdkj mlus vkxjk ds g'r cfg'r uked m|ku esa

mRre vaxwj dh csyksa ds yxkus dk Hkh vkns'k fn;k FkkA 24 twu 1529

bZ0 ds orkUr esa og fy[krk gS fd ^^ 'ks[k xwju us eq>s Vksdjh Hkjdj

vaxwj Hksts tks cqjs u FksA fgUnqLrku esa bl izdkj ds [kjcwts rFkk vaxwj

mxkdj eq>s cM+h izlUurk gqbZA**

1553. Rizvi has also not found Babar's entry in Ayodhya or

1664

construction of a mosque or direction to anyone including Mir

Baqi for construction of any building at Ayodhya.

1554. Some of the authors have appreciated the character of

Babar depicting him a holy, religious, kind hearted brave man

having respect for all the religions etc. This is placed before us

to deny even a possibility that Babar could have ordered to

construct a mosque in a religious place of others.

1555. Dr. Radhey Shyam in his book "Babar" (supra) on

page 441 has observed that Babar was what his fortune and

misfortune, man and environment, his foes and friends, his joys

and sorrows had made him. He was a soldier, a born warrior, a

seasoned statesman and an accomplished diplomat, a loving

husband and a man of many virtues seldom to be found in one

single individual. Dr. Radhey Shyam thereafter referred to the

comments of Abul Fazl about the qualities of Babar, describing

him as "bakht buland, himmat arjumand, Qudarat Kishwar

kushai, mulkdai, Koshish dar mamulai balad, Sarfi niyat bar

Rifayat abad, Khushdil wakhtan sipahi, zabt ashar az tabahi

(Akbar Nama)". This appreciation by Abul Fazl is

understandable since he had to show great regards to the

grandfather of the Emperor in whose regime, he was employed.

1556. Dr. Radhey Shyam has further referred to the

comments of Nizamuddin Ahmad (Tabqat-i-Akbari), translation

II, page 40, Mirza Haidar Doghlat, the author of Tarikh-i-

Rashidi. Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded to characterise Babar as

charitable, benevolent, liberal, kind, just, adjustable

temperament, robust vigour and dynamic personality. On page

443 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that "he was deeply imbued with

humen feelings." On page 444 Dr. Radhey Shyam said that "he

followed his religion like a comman man without allowing it to

1665

prejudice his mind against the followers of other religions. Even

after the conquest of Hindustan he continued to maintain such an

attitude." On page 447 he observed that "he never worked under

the influence of religion. . . . . . To him Shias and Sunnis were all

alike."

1557. We would not like to make any comment on the above

observations as if we are sitting in appeal over the work of

learned author but suffice it to mention that the learned author

has ignored what is contained on page 554-555 of Beveridge's

Baburnama (supra) where the breaking of the wine couplets in

pieces has been compared with the dashing of the God of the

idolaters. To the same effect is what has been translated by

Rizvi (supra) also.

1558. Besides, we may refer at this stage the own

observations of Dr. Radhey Shyam on page 451 of the book:

"As regards the destruction of the HIndu temples

there is historical evidence both in Babar's support and

against him. During the course of his campaigns or

pleasure trips Babar occasionally came across large

number of Hindu temples. These temples provoked great

interest in him. Some of them he visited and appreciated

their architectural beauty. While at Gwalior in 1528 Babar

visited the fort, wherein he saw the places of Raja Man

Singh and Vikramaditya. On the west of Rahim Dad's

garden he saw a "Lofty idol house." This was famous Teli

Mandir which is said to have been constructed by Raja

Man Singh's Gujari wife Mrignaini. Then in the Urwa

valley he saw the idol statues and he writes, "three sides of

the Urwa valley are solid rock, not the red rock of

Bayana but one paler in colour. On these sides people

1666

have cut out idol - statues, large and small. One large on

the south side being perhaps 20 qari (yards) high. These

idols are shewn quite naked without covering for the

privaties, " writes that, "we rode ....to visit the idol-

houses of Gualiar. Some are two, and some are three

storeys high, each storey rather low, in the ancient

fashion. On their stone plainths are sculptured images.

Some idol-houses in College fashion, have portico, large

high cupola. In the lower celles are idols carved in the

rock. Except in the case of Jain idols in the Urwa valley,

Babar never gave orders for the destruction of the

temple of other places. As regards the Jain statutes of

the Urwa Valley he himself has mentioned, in his

Memoirs that the, "naked idols are its defect, I for my

part ordered them to be destroyed." It is rather doubtful

whether this order was ever carried out. Mrs. Beveridge

in a brief note writes that, "they were already in a

mutilated conditions and they continue to be so until the

Jains repaired them with coloured plaster." (emphasis

added)

1559. Thereafter, he has considered an inscription found at

Jami Masjid at Sambhal (in the State of U.P.), which is said to

have been constructed by demolishing Hari Mandir out of the

debris of that temple:

“It is related that at his orders famous Hari Mandir

at Sambhal was demolished and a Jami mosque was

constructed out of the debris of that temple by his famous

general Hindu Beg. An inscription on one of the walls of

the mosque reads :

1667

ہرافع الوی ملک وملل یم فضل و کمال جامع اش ۱

ہباقی انبی علم وعمل ہباسط اجنح امن و امان ۲

ہحفظ الل عزو جل ہشا جم جا محمد بابر ہان شد سنبل روشن از پر تو ند ہشمع دولت چوبرافروخت ب ۳

ہک مصون بادزنقصان وخلل ںاز پ ساختن ای مسجد ے ۴

ہک بود عمد ارکان و دل ہ ہکرد فرمان بکمی بند خویش ںہآ باخلق نکو گشت مثل ں ندو بیگ ہمیر با عقل و خرد ۵

ہیافت اتمام ب توفیق ازل ا نشا ج ںچو زفرمان ش ہ ہ ہ ں ۶

ر ربیع الول ہیکم از ش ہسال تاریخ و م دوزش گشت ہ “ Translation by author"

The Collector of the buildings of grace and beauty the

raiser

of the standards of rule and faith,

the spreader of the wings of peace and tranquillity, the builder

of the buildings of knowledge and deed,

Muhammad Babar, a Jam in dignity—May God Almighty have

him in His protection,

Kindled in India the lamp of power, when a ray of it fell

upon Sambhal,

To build this mosque may it be protected from destruction

and decay,

He gave orders to his mean slave, who is one of the principal

officers,

Mir Hindu Beg, the intelligent and wise who is an example to

others in polite manners,

And when in consequence of the order of the sovereign of the

world by guidance of Providence to the mosque was

completed.”

1560. Its date is first day of the month of Rabi L 933 H.

(December 1526 A.D.)

1561. Dr. Radhey Shyam, however, has then doubted

1668

correctness of the contents of the said inscription on pages 454-

457:

“This inscription clearly mentions that at Babar's

orders the mosque was built and completed on the first day

of the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal 933 H./6th December 1526

by Hindu Beg. But it is quite surprising that Babar who

was quite festidious in mentioning about everything that

concerned him or even others, has not mentioned about the

construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg at Sambhal. Nor

did he mention that he gave orders to Hindu Beg to

demolish any Hindu temple and construct a mosque over it.

There is no reference to any order for the destruction of a

Hindu temple and construction of a mosque by Hindu Beg

at Sambhal in his Memoirs. Babar visited Sambhal in

Sept.-Oct. 1527 and stayed there for three days but in his

Memoirs he does not say a word about the fanatical

activities of Hindu Beg there. His annoyance at the

destruction of the Hindu temple by Hindu Beg at Sambhal

is reflected in his silence and his indifference towards the

whole affair. During the years 1526-27 his position in

Hindustan was so precarious that it was not possible for

him to take any drastic action against any general, Hindu

Beg being one of them; even though they might have

continued to commit gruesome acts in the name of their

master. However, it is definite that though Babar's name

was associated with the construction of the mosque, as was

the prevailing practice, the Hindu temple was not

demolished at his orders. Hindu Beg might have

demolished the temple on his own account and even did not

care to refer this matter to his master.

1669

Nevertheless, the whole affair has aroused

controversy. Mr. Carlleyele is of the opinion that the Jami

mosque which is still standing amidst the beautiful

surrounding was not constructed by Hindu Beg and it is of

much earlier period. The district Gazetteer of United

Provinces (Moradabad) mentions that “Babar's inscription

in the mosque is a great historical forgery of all times.”

And the account of the temple and the mosque given in it is

as follows: 'The erection of Hari Mandir is variously

ascribed to Prithviraj, to a Raja named Jagat Singh and

one Nar Singh, the grandson of Raja Vikram Sen one of the

Dors of Baran. This temple no longer exists and its place is

taken by a striking mosque, which forms the conspicuous

feature in the landscape for miles around. This building is

mainly of stone, which is certainly the material employed

for the great central dome, for the outer walls and porch

and for the flooring of the broad courtyard.” In 1874 Mr.

Carlleyele visited and inspected the mosque and was

convinced that the dome was of Hindu workmanship, but

the bricks were of Musalman workmanship. The whole of

the mosque is coated with plaster so that it is impossible to

ascertain the material. The wings are divided by a lateral

row of pillars into two aisels and each had three arched

openings on the courtyard. A flight of stone steps on either

side gives access to the roof of the mosque, from which fine

view of the town and the surrounding country can be

obtained. Mr. Carlleyele came to the conclusion that the

conversion of the temple into a mosque was of very

recent date. He based his decision on the fact that there

has been recent litigation on the subject of the site between

1670

the Musalmans and Hindus and appears to have been

influenced by the arguments of the latter to the effect that

the old inscriptions on the mosque walls were impudent

forgeries. This claim of the Hindus was of course rejected

in the civil courts. Mr. Carlleyele could not see the

documents going back to the days of Jahangir, now in

possession of the guardians of the mosque. General

Cunningham has repudiated the suggestion that the

inscription were not genuine. The most important of these,

states that the mosque was built by Hindu Beg at the orders

of Babar in December 1526. It is certainly curious that the

temple should have remained till that date, for Sambhal

had long been the seat of the Muslim government, and it is

even more surprising that a noted inconoclast like Sikandar

Lodi should have allowed a building of such sanctity to

stand in his temporary capital. . . . . . But the mosque at

Sambhal might well be older than Babar, to judge from its

appearance. The architecture resembles that of Pathan

buildings such as great mosque of Badaon and the huge

sloping bastions on the west. The whole structure is very

plain, severe, and massive, and if the Hindu materials have

been employed the ornamentation has been very effectively

concealed, since the only traces of Hindu covering visible

are two rosettes on the stone slabs of the steps leading from

the eastern gateway to the quadrangle. In the middle of the

latter is a tank and fountain, filled from a large well

outside the gateway. Whether Babar built it or simply

repaired the mosque cannot be positively stated, but it is

curious that the Ain-i-Akbari has referred to the celebrated

temple of Vishnu at Sambhal. An inscription in the south

1671

wing states that Rustam Khan Deccani repaired the

mosque in 1657, while a similar tablet in the north wing

was erected by one Sayyid Qutb in 1626. The two

inscriptions above the outer and inner arches of the central

chamber record the restorations affected by the Musalmans

of the town and district about 1845.” Thus Carlleyele's

report asserts that Jami Masjid of Sambhal is of earlier

date (ii) the inscription is fake (iii) that it was constructed

much later.

But the arguments given against the construction of

the mosque by Hindu Beg are not tenable. Had the mosque

been of earlier date there should have been an inscription

on it bearing the date of its construction. The grounds on

which the inscription which assigns the construction of the

mosque to Hindu Beg, has been declared fake, have not

been indicated. Then the report itself records that in the

mosque at places the use of the debris of a Hindu temple is

visible. In addition to it may also be observed that ever

since the occupation of Sambhal by the Mughals in

December 1526 or a little earlier till the date when it was

conferred on Humayun in jagir, the position of the Mughals

there had always been very precarious. This is borne out

by the fact that after its occupation Ali Yusuf was appointed

to hold its charge. After his death Abdullah Kitabdar was

sent and thereafter Hindu Beg and both of them returned to

Agra after a few days and waited on Babar. Why did they

return from there without being summoned to emperor's

presence? Babar does not mention the reason which forced

them to return from Sambhal. Nor does any other

authority. It can however be presumed that the Hindu

1672

population which was so hostile to Hindu Beg did not

permit him to stay there any longer and to continue to

display the zeal of a fanatic. Nor did Babar like to send him

again to Sambhal. Even if it is conceded that the mosque is

of the earlier date, it can be presumed that its repair by

Hindu Beg was not liked by the Hindu population.”

1562. In the subsequent part Dr. Radhey Shyam proceeded

to consider Ayodhya dispute also as a parrelel to the Sambhal's

building.

1563. But if we consider what has been writeen in

Babarnama by the Babar in straight words without twisting or

mincing them we find that like any other brave, couragious,

tactful but brutal warrior, Babar also possess all these qualities.

It is true that he was truly religious but it means that he was a

complete Islamic person and lacked tolerance atleast to the idol

worshippers. He had no hitch in destroying idols worshipped by

the inhabitants of India at that time and this we find very visibly

from the words which are translated by Mrs. Beveridge from

Babar's manuscript of "Tuzuk-i-babri" as is evident from page

554-555 as under:

"And I made public the resolution to abstain from

wife, which had been hidden in the treasury of my breast.

The victorious servants, in accordance with the

illustratious order, dashed upon the earth of contempt and

destruction the flagons and the cups, and the other utensils

in gold and silver, which in their number and their

brilliance were like the stars of the firmament. They

dashed them in pieces, as, God willing! soon will be

dashed the gods of the idolaters,--and they distributed the

fragments among the poor and needy." (emphasis added)

1673

1564. In respect to the inhabitants of Hindustan, at page 518

of the aforesaid book it says as under:

"Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;

they call a pagan a Hindu. Most Hindus believe in the

transmigration of souls. All artisans, wage-earners, and

officials are Hindus. In our countries dwellers in the wilds

(i.e. nomads) get tribal names."

1565. Like other invaders whenever he defeated the local

Rulers, his army did all such acts of loot, general massacre etc.

While conquering Sambhal on page 528 the act of the army of

Babur is mentioned as under:

"Malik Qasim cut off the heads of part of his force,

took many horses, a few elephants and mass of booty."

1566. After defeating Rana Sanga and his other supporters,

at page 576 of the Babarnama by Beveridge it is mentioned

that as a trophy of victory an order was given to set up a pillar of

pagan heads on the infact-hill (koh-Bacha) between which and

his camp the battle had been fought.

1567. Similarly, on page 587 of the aforesaid book on 27th

September, 1527 AD he mentions:

"Humayun had left Darwish (-i-ali) and Yusuf-i-ali in

Sambal; they crossed one river, fought Qutb Sirwani and a

party of rajas, beat them well and killed a mass of men.

They sent a few heads and an elephant into Kul while we

were there." (emphasis added)

1568. Though in the army of Babur Hindustani soldiers were

also included but it appears that he did not repose much

confidence therein as is evident from page 547 of the aforesaid

book:

"As little confidence was placed in Hindustani

1674

people------------"

1569. As an invader Babar entered the Indian subcontinent,

conquered it and did what he could or found necessary to claim

victory which nobody can comment atleast today. It is said that

all is fair in love and war and laws of war are not set by pen

since they are decided in a war field by those who are fighting

or by their commanders. Discussion may be held as to whether

the manner in which a war took place, fought and the action of

the soldiers therein was justified or not but the fact remains that

before the matter has been taken in 20th Century by various

countries to lay down certain principles to be observed during

war and also recognise certain rights of prisoners of war, prior

thereto no such principle in general were observed by the Rulers

of different countries though at local level some kind of practice

with respect to time etc. might have been followed. What had

been done several hundreds years back by a king invading a

country or between war of two kings is obviously beyond the

pale of judicial review of this Court and of any Court

functioning in independent India after the promulgation of our

Constitution on 26.01.1950. We have not been shown of any

authority by any learned counsels that we can examine the

legality, correctness or genuinity of an action of a Ruler prior to

the enforcement of British enactments in the subcontinent.

1570. However, the attempt by some of the authors to glorify

or justify brutal massacre or action of some of the invaders or

Rulers even if they might have conquered the subcontinent, by

providing justification, explanation etc. is not understandable for

the reason that the things which are evident and straight cannot

be clothed with a velvet cover and would not provide a shell to

give it a different colour. It shall only mislead the public at large

1675

and in particular the students of history. In our view, the

historical events must be placed straight without any distortion,

without any addition of words and without providing any

explanation or justification in the words of the author as the

same would be nothing but a sheer conjecture and surmise. If

we claim that Babar felt happy having seen the mound of human

heads and still we tell somebody that he was a kind hearted

religious man, had no love for violence it would a blatant lie.

This kind of attitude on the part of some of authors whose work

has been placed before us for our consideration shows that these

authors can go to the extent of glorification of any kind of

misdeed which in the present day's civilised society can never

appreciate or swallow. If innocent persons are killed either in

terrorist activities or naxalite activities, in our view the action of

these persons ex facie is inhuman, amounts to henious offence,

deserved to be condemned without mincing words so as not to

dilute the degree of violence and atrocity committed by them

irrespective of the purpose, objective or whatever is behind such

activity. Any other view is nothing but a serious contempt to the

very mankind and would be a clear disrespect to those innocents

who become victim of such incidents. Though the present days

activities may not have any comparison with the wars and

battles fought hundreds and thousands years back but to find out

a positive character in such activities of the the Ruler/Kings

under whom the army had done all these kind of brutalities

would be a thought of abnormal minds. The lack of respect of

Emperor Babar to idols meant for worship has already been

demonstrated above and is fortified from what has been

mentioned at page 611 of the Book “Baburnama” by Beveridge

stating that he did not hesitate in destroying the idols on

1676

28.09.1528 at Uruwa (Gwalior) where he found three sites

occupied by a solid rock wherein the people had cut out idols

statue large and small and he ordered for destruction thereof.

1571. Ex. 82 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 218C1/1-20) contain certain

pages from “Memoirs of Baber- Emperor of India” by Lieut.

Colonel F.G. Talbot, first published 1974 by Ess Ess

Publications, Delhi. This work is mainly based on the English

translation of “Tuzuk-I-Babari” by John Leyden and William

Erskine, first published in 1826 and it is said that the book being

out of print for many years, therefore the Memoirs of Babar are

practically now unknown. The author, however, has also taken

help from Stanley Lane-Poole's Introduction to Babar. Pages no.

I to XV from Chapter “Introduction”, 1 to 3, 46 to 49 and 196 to

213 are before us. The attempt on the part of Sri Jilani is that

from no part of the book it does appear that Babar ever

encouraged destruction of Hindu temple or religious place of

other religions. Sri H.S. Jain, on the contrary, submitted that his

disliking to Hindus and other religions is writlarge from the fact

that he addressed Hindus as 'Pagans' and declared war against

Rana Sanga as 'Holy war' which shows his character and

extreme religious fervour towards 'Islam'. He referred to the

following passage from page 207 of the book (Paper No.

218C1/16) :

“From the eleventh year of my age till now, I had

never spent two festivals of the Ramza in the same place.

Last year's festival I had spent in Agra. In order to keep up

the usage, on Sunday night the thirtieth, I proceeded to

Sikri to keep the feast there. A stone platform was erected

on the north-east of the Garden-of-Victory, on which a set

of large tents was pitched, and in them I passed the festival.

1677

The night on which we left Agra, Mir Ali departed. He was

extremely fond of playing cards, and had asked for some,

which I sent him.”

1572. The issues need to be decided by this Court does not

get any help from the above documents. One thing, however, is

clear that the Babar came to India with a clear intention to stay

and rule. In furtherance therefor, for keeping the morale of his

force high and for other reasons, he took all necessary steps as

he found expedient. It is evident from page 208 (Paper No.

218C1/17) and page 210 (Paper No. 218C1/18) :

“Hitherto the peoples of India had regarded Baber

as a temporary raider who would depart as soon as he had

gathered enough spoil; but when they found he had come to

stay they began to consider what policy to pursue, and in

weariness of incessant warfare began to see the merits of a

master.

Three thousand Afghans from the Doab were the first

to come over to him, and were rewarded with territories in

Oudh, which was still in revolt.

One of the first acts of the Conqueror was to lay out

a road from Agra to Kabul, and the distance having been

actually measured, a tower twenty-four feet in height was

erected at every fourteen miles, while at every sixteen miles

a post-house for six horses was built, and an allowance

fixed as a provision for post-house keeper, courier,

grooms, and the keep of horses. Where the road lay

through a rich man's territory he was made to pay all the

costs of maintenance.” (Page 208)

“The affairs of Hindustan had now been reduced to a

certain degree of order. The revenue from land was

1678

returned at 4,212,000/-. This was from land alone and by

no means represented the total income.” (Page 210)

1573. The life of Babar after his conquest was very short

inasmuch it is not in dispute that he died on 26th December 1530

AD at Agra. Thereafter in the light of his last wish, he was

buried in the garden on the hillside at Kabul.

1574. Ex. 83 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 220C1/1-11) and Ex. 84

(Suit-4) (Paper No. 222C1/1-5) are also the photocopies of

certain pages from “Babarnama” translated by Yugjeet

Navalpuri Edn. 2002 and nothing has been referred therefrom

by the learned Counsels for the parties. We also do not find any

thing therefrom which may throw any light for deciding the

issues in question.

1575. Next in this context is about the persons whose name

is claimed to have been mentioned on the inscriptions at the

disputed site, i.e., “Mir Baqi”. In the transcript of Fuhrer it

mentions “Mir Khan” while in other transcript it is mentioned as

“Mir Baqi”.

1576. Sri P.N. Misra, Advocate has vehemently argued that

the entire Baburnama does not mention any person in the army

or otherwise relating to Babar with the name of Mir Baqi. He

says that Baqi was a military decoration in the army of Babar

and Mir was a civil honour to the persons of respectability etc.

He says that the part of the army sent to Ayodhya was headed

with Timur Begh, Baqi Tashkindi etc. but it does not mention

any person as Mir Baqi.

1577. Sri P.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

defendant no. 20 (Suit-4) supported the above stand and also

contended that there is nothing in the said diary maintained by

Babar that he ever entered Ayodhya either in March 1528 or in

1679

April 1528. It is common ground that the Babar-Nama misses

the text between 2nd April to 18th September 1528 AD. The

reason we are not concerned. Sri Jilani raised the above

argument in order to buttress his submission that the Babar

when did not enter Ayodhya himself there was no question of

any demolition of a temple by him and construction of mosque.

The pleadings of Hindu parties in connected suits to this effect

are not correct, is what he tried to persuade us. Sri Misha,

however, agree so far as the former part is concerned that there

was no occasion for Babar himself to direct for demolition of

any temple and construction of mosque since he did not enter

Ayodhya but he tried to explain the things otherwise by

submitting that this also shows that the disputed building was

not constructed in 1528 AD and there is no historical document

of contemporary period to substantiate the above claim of

defendants no. 6 to 8 and 10 in Suit-1, the plaintiffs of Suit-4

and all muslim defendants in Suit-3 and 5. Sri Mishra also

pointed out that Shaikh Bayazid was then governing

Awadh/Ayodhya. The Army Commanders of Babar who

crossed the river so as to enter Ayodhya were Tardi Beg of Quj

Beg, Baba Chuhra, Baqi Shaghawal and Chin Timur. It is

pointed out that there is no person named as Mir Baqi in the

entire Babur-Nama. Sri Mishra placed before the Court Babur-

Nama by Beveridge to show that it mentions Baqi Beg

Chaghaniani; Qib Chaq Turk; Baqi Gagiani Afghan; Baqi Hiz;

Kwaja Baqi son of Yahiya son of Ehrari who was murdered in

1500 AD; Baqi Beg Taskindi; Baqi Beg Shaghawal; Baqi Beg

Mingbashi; Baqi Takhan. Sri Mishra submitted that there is no

mention of any Mir Baqi in Babur-Nama. Our attention was also

drew to page 684 of Beveridge's Babur-Nama to show that it is

1680

Baqi Tashkindi who came from Awadh (Ayodhya) on

13.06.1529 AD to meet Babar. Page 685 of Babur-Nama shows

that Babar sent Baqi Shaghawal on 16.06.1529 while camping

near Kalpi to collect information about his enemy, i.e., Biban

and Bayazid. On 17.06.1529 AD it is mentioned that one of

Baqi Beg's retainers came informing that Baqi had beaten scouts

of Biban and Bayazid, killed one of their good men, Mubarak

Khan Jalwani and some others, sent in several heads, and one

man alive. He says that Baqi Shaghawal has been addressed as

Baqi Beg and Baqi Tashkindi who came from Ayodhya has

been addressed as Baqi but there is no mention of any of the

person addressed as Mir Baqi. It is contended by Sri Mishra,

Advocate that the later historians/translators, of their own,

identified Baqi Tashkindi as Baqi Shaghawal as well as Mir

Baqi though in the entire Babur-Nama, Babar has not addressed

anybody or any one as Mir Baqi. He drew our attention to

certain persons whose name started with the word Mir, namely,

Mir Bujurg Tirmizi; Mir Khurd Bakawal; Mir Mughul son of

Abdul Wahab Saghawal; Mir Sang-Tarash; Mir Zadas of

Khwast and none of these persons, he submit, can be said to be

possibly addressed as Mir Baqi.

1578. In Lieut. Colonel F.G. Talbot's under the title

“Memoirs of Baber Emperor of India First of the Great

Moghuls” (Supra) on page 90, with respect to the events of the

year 1504 AD there is a reference of Baqi Beg and on page 91

for the same period there is reference of Baqi Beg as well as

Baqi Chaghiani. The relevant extract whereof are mentioned as

under:

“At this same period, Baki Beg repeatedly, and with

much earnestness, urged his sentiments, that to have two

1681

sovereigns in one country, and two generals in one army,

was an unfailing source of confusion and ruin, and

inevitably productive of rebellion, mutiny, and finally of

dissolution; as the poet says—

'Ten dervishes may repose on one cloak,

But two sovereigns cannot be contained in the same

climate.

The man of God, when he eats half a loaf,

Divides the other half among the poor and needy.

If a king subdues a whole kingdom, nay a climate,

Still, as before, he covets yet another.”

At this period, information arrived that Sheibani

Khan had taken Andejan. On hearing this news, Khosrou

Shah, unable to support himself in Kundez, took the route

of Kabul with his whole force. No sooner had he left

Kundez, than one of his old and confidential servants

occupied that fortress, and declared for Sheibani Khan.

Just as I reached the Red River, three or four thousand

heads of houses of the Moghul clans, who had been

dependent on Khosrou Shah, came and joined me, with

their whole families. Here, in order to gratify Baki Beg, I

was obliged to discharge Kamber Ali, the Moghul, who has

been so often mentioned. He was a thoughtless and rude

talker; and Baki Beg could not put up with his manners.

When Khosrou Shah learned that the Moghul tribes

had joined me, he felt his own helplessness; and, seeking

no remedy left, sent his son-in-law as his envoy, to make

professions of submission and allegiance, and to assure me

that, if I would enter into terms with him, he would come

and submit himself. As Baki Cheghaniani, a man of much

1682

weight, though steadily attached to my service, yet was not

without a natural bias in favour of his brother, he

recommended a compromise to be made, on condition that

Khosrou's life should be spared, and his property left

entirely to his own disposal. A treaty was accordingly

concluded on these terms.”

1579. Another name, namely, Baqi Tarkhan is mentioned at

page 11 of Talbot's Memoirs of Baber (supra) and that is also

with reference to a much earlier period. The extract wherein the

above name is mentioned on page 11 is as under:

“Baki Terkhan was another. In the time of Sultan

Ali Mirza, he rose to great consequence, his retainers

amounting to five or six thousand. He was far from being in

a proper state of subjection or obedience to Sultan Ali

Mirza. He was very fond of hawking, and is said to have

had seven hundred falcons at one time. His manners and

habits were such as cannot well be described; he was

educated and grew up in the midst of magnificence and

state.”

1580. Besides, on page 4 it mentions the name of Mir Ghias

Taghai; on page 26 it mentions about Mir Shaha and has

appreciated about his gallantries; on page 114 there is a

reference of Mir Beder and his dancing in the events relating to

the year 1506 AD; on page 116 there is reference of Mir Jaan

and his singing; on page 174/175 Mir Miran is mentioned and

on page 207 Mir Ali is referred but there is no reference of any

Mir Baqi. Talbot has not said anything about the Ayodhya visit

except that of page 208 where he has referred to Awadh once

only in the following manner:

“Thee thousand Afghans from the Doab were the

1683

first to come over to him, and were rewarded with

territories in Oudh, which was still in revolt.”

1581. On behalf of plaintiffs (Suit-4) copies of certain pages

of "Mughal Kalin Bharat-Babar (1526-1530) by Syed Athar

Abbas Rizvi (Supra) have been filed which are marked as

Exhibit 85, Suit-4 (paper No. 223C1 and 224C1/1-62). These

photocopies are from the 1960 edition of the book. Pages No.

19-20, 49-50, 232-233, 272-281, 310-313, 318-320, 328-341,

353, 375, 380-387 and 420-421 have been filed. We, however,

are referring from 2010 reprint since this book in its entirety is

available to the Court. On page 272, the book narrates the

incidents of 28.03.1528 and 02.04.1528 which is almost similar

to what is contained in Beveridge's Babur-Nama for the said

date but since it is a translation by a Muslim writer having

authority on the subject which is admitted to the plaintiffs of

Suit-4 also, we reproduce the same as under:

“vo/k igaqpuk

vo/k ls nks ,d iM+ko iwoZ phu rhaewj lqYrku ds ikl ls vkdj

fdlh us lwpuk nh fd] '' 'k=q ljnk ds ml ikj MVk gqvk gS vr%

dqed Hskth tk;sA " 1000 ohjksa dks I`kFkd djds d+jkpk ds v/khu dqed

gsrq Hkstk A

¼28 ekpZ½& 'kfuokj 7 jtc dks geus vo/k ls 2&3 dqjksg ij

xxj ,oa ljnk ds laxe ds Åij iM+ko fd;k A ml fnu rd 'ks[k

ck;t+hn ljnk ds ml ikj vo/k ds lkeus jgk gksxk A og lqYrku ds

ikl Ik= Hkstrk ,oa ¼laf/k ds fo"k; esa ½ okrkZ djrk jgk fdUrq lqYrku us

mldh /kwrZrk ls voxr gksus ds dkj.k d+jkpk dks e/;kUgksRrj dh uekt+

ds le; lwpuk fHktok;h vkSj unh ikj djus dh O;oLFkk djus yxk A

tc d+jkpk lqYrku ds ikl igqap x;k rks mUgksaus rRdky unh ikj dh A

ogka yxHkx 50 v'okjksgh rFkk 3 ;k 4 gkFkh FksA os ;q) u dj lds vkSj

Hkkx [kMs+ gq, A dqN yksxksa dks ?kksM+s ls fxjkdj muds flj dkV Mkys

x;s vkSj mUgsa ¼ esjs ikl ½ Hskt fn;k x;k A

1684

lqYrku ds ihNs&ihNs ch[kwc lqYrku] d++wt csx ds ¼HkkbZ ½ rjnh

csx] ckck pqgjk rFkk ckd +h 'kx +k oy us Hkh unh ikj dh A ftu yksxksa

us buds iwoZ unh ikj dh Fkh] mu yksxksa us 'ks[k ck;t+hn dk lk;adky

dh uekt+ rd ihNk fd;k fdUrq og taxy esa ?kqldj Hkkx x;k A phu

rhewj jkf= esa caWa/ks gq, ty ds rV ij Bgjk vkSj vk/kh jkr esa

fonzksfg;ksa ds ihNs jokuk gqvk A og 40 dqjksg dh ;k=k djds ml LFkku

ij] tgka 'ks[k ck;t+hn ds ifjokj okys ,oa lEcU/kh Bgjs Fks] igqap x;k A

os Hkh Hkkx x;s gksaxs A mlus ml LFkku ls nzqrxkeh v'okjksfg;ksa dks

izR;sd fn'kk esa mudk ihNk djus ds fy, Hkstk A ckd +h 'kx +k oy us

dqN ohjksa lfgr 'k=qvksa dks HksM+ ds leku Hkxk fn;k vkSj muds ifjokjksa

ds ikl igaqp dj dqN vQx+kuksa dks cUnh cuk fy;k A ge dqN fnu rd

vo/k rFkk ml {sk= ds 'kklu izcU/k dks lqO;ofLFkr djus ds fy, ml

iM+ko ij Bgjs jgs A vo/k ds 7&8 dksl nwj ljnk unh ds rV ij ,d

LFkku Fkk ftlds fo"k; esa dgk tkrk Fkk fd og cM+h vPNh f'kdkj&xkg

gS A ehj eqgEen tkykcku dks bl vk'k; ls Hkstk x;k fd og xxj

unh rFkk ljnk unh ds ?kkV dk fujh{k.k djds ykSV vk;sa A

¼2 vizSy½& ogLifrokj 12 jatc dks geus f'kdkj ds mn~ns';

ls izLFkku fd;kA”

1582. The Rizvi's translation has referred to a large number

of persons whose names have the title of 'Mir' on pages 716 and

717 as under:

“ehaj vrk mYykg; ehaj vcqy cd+k; ehaj vCnqy x+Q+wj; ehj

vykmyeqYd frjfet+h; ehj vyh; ehj vyh csx; ehj vyh 'ksj; ehj vyh

'ksj uokbZ; ehj bczkghe; ehj bczkghe d+kuwuh; ehj [k+yhQ+k; ehj [kqnZ; ehj

[kqnZ cdkoy; ehj x+;kl; ehj x+;kl rx+kbZ; ehj x+;klqn~nhu; ehj xslw;

ehj tku; ehj tku bZjnh; ehj rhewjh [kjcwt+k; ehj njos'k eqgEen

l+kjcku; ehj Q+kft+y; ehj cnz; ehj ehjku; ehj eqx+wy; ehj eqjrkt+; ehj

eqgEen; ehj eqgEen vyh taxtax; ehj eqgEen tkykcku; ehj eqgEen

ukfod; ehj eqgEen c[+'kh; ehj eqgEen ;wlqQ+; ehj 'kkg d+wphu; ehj 'kkg

csx; ehj 'ksjhe; ehj laxrjk'k; ehj ljs cjguk; ehj lqYrku vyh

[+okcchu; ehj lSf;n vyh genkuh; ehj lSf;n jQ+hmn~nhu eqgfn~nl

1685

lQ+oh; ehj geg; ehj gek; ehj gqlsu; ehj gqlsu eqvEekbZ”

1583. On page 659 he has mentioned the words Amir Mir

Baqi but that is with reference to his translation of stone

inscriptions said to be there on the disputed building with which

we have already discussed. In the entire translation of Babur-

Nama and other description there is no mention of anyone as

Mir Baqi. The aforesaid work also nowhere mention or shows

that Babar at any point of time did enter Ayodhya or Awadh

after reaching near thereto on 28.03.1528 though it is said that

he stayed thereat for about a few days.

Traveller's Account

1584. There are two travellers account which have to be

considered at this stage. One that of "William Finch" and

another is that of "Father Joseph Tieffenthaler".

1585. William Foster published a book, namely, “Early

Travels in India” (1985 First Edition distributed by Munshiram

Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) which contains the narratives

of seven Englishmen who traveled in northern and western India

during the reigns of Akbar and Jahangir. These travelers are

Ralph Fitch (1583-91); John Mildenhall (1599-1606); William

Hawkins (1608-13); William Finch (1608-11); Nicholas

Withington (1612-16); Thomas Coriyat (1612-17) and Edward

Terry (1616-19). William Finch came to India in August 1608

and landed at Surat with Capt. Hawkins. With respect to

Ayodhya, Finch has written on page 176 of the book as under :

“To Oude (Ajodhya) from thence are 50 c.; a citie of

ancient note, and seate of a Potan king, now much ruined;

the castle built foure hundred yeeres agoe. Heere are

also the ruines of Ranichand(s) castle and houses,

which the Indians acknowled(g)e for the great God,

1686

saying that he tooke flesh upon him to see the tamasha

of the world. In these ruines remayne certaine Bramenes,

who record the names of all such Indians as wash

themselves in the river running thereby; which custome,

they say, hath continued foure Iackes of yeeres (which is

three hundred ninetie foure thousand and five hundred

yeeres before the worlds creation). Some two miles on the

further side of the river is a cave of his with a narrow

entrance, but so spacious and full of turnings within that a

man may well loose himself there, if he take not better

heed; where it is thought his ashes were buried. Hither

resort many from all parts of India, which carry from

hence in remembrance certaine graines of rice as blacke as

gun-powder, which they say have beene reserved ever

since. Out of the ruines of this castle is yet much gold

tryed. Here is greate trade, and such abundance of Indian

asse-horne that they make hereof bucklers and divers sorts

of drinking cups. There are of these hornes, all the Indians

affirme, some rare of great price, no jewell comparable,

some esteeming them the right unicornes horne.”

Photocopy of page 176 of the book is Exhibit 19 Suit-5

(Register 21 Page 271)

1586. William Finch who visited Ayodhya between 1608-

1611 AD neither found any building of importance of Muslim

nor Muslim population nor any activity of Muslims noteworthy

in Ayodhya. Had the building in dispute been constructed in

1528 i.e. just about 80 years back, it is quite difficult to

understand that would not have been considered to be a place of

importance and could have gone unnoticed by Finch. He has

specifically referred to Castle of Lord Ram Chandra Ji which, in

1687

his understanding, constructed about 400 years ago. Obviously,

it could not be related to the building in dispute as such. Here

also what he says that there existed ruins of Ram Chandra's

castle and houses which the Indians acknowledge the Great

God. He also says that in these ruins certain Brahmins used to

record the names of visiting Indians which is a practice still in

continuance in various holy places and those Brahmin people

are normally called as Panda/Mahraj where one can find the

record of hundreds of years back belonging to their predecessors

who had earlier visited these holy places.

1587. Sri Jilani sought to argue that write up of William

Finch lends no credence for it does not mention very clearly as

to which place in Ayodhya he visited. However, Sri Jilani also

could not suggest that in Ayodhya there is any place other than

that which included the disputed site which may or could be

considered to be the fort of King Dashrath or Lord Rama in

ancient times. At least this much cannot be disputed that

William Finch's travel account did not find mention of any big

building known as “Babri Mosque” to have existed in Ayodhya

having been constructed just about 80 years ago before his visit.

His travel account suggests that the number of Muslim

inhabitants in Ayodhya city in earlier 17th Century was

negligible.

1588. Next comes another travel account of “Father Joseph

Tieffenthaler” who visited India sometime in 1740 and

remained here for about 20-25 years. He also visited Ayodhya

during his above stay and had written travel account which was

written in Latin in the book "DESCRIPTION : HISTORIQUE

ET GEOGRAPHIQUE : D E L' I N D E" under the title

"TOME 1. NOUVELLE EDITION. Contenant la

1688

Geographic de l'Ind-Uftan, avec. 39,. Planches". English

translation of which is "HISTORICAL AND

GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF INDIA" VOLUME 1

NEW EDITION containing the Geography of Hindustan, with

39 illustrations". The account of Tieffenthaler was translated in

French and was published by M. Jean Bernoulli in 1786, photo

copy of the first two pages of the French publication as well as

pages no. 252 to 255 was provided to this Court which has been

marked as Exhibit No. OOS 5-133 (Paper No. 107 C/96-104)

(Register 21 page 273-289).

1589. The aforesaid documents were written in French

(except of very few words which were in Lati). Since the

English translation supplied by plaintiffs (Suit-5) was seriously

disputed, we directed the Government of India to get an

authenticated English Translation of the aforementioned pages

which have been made available to us and after giving

opportunity to the parties to file their objection has been

admitted vide order dated 10.03.2010. The relevant part in the

aforesaid report, i.e.,pages 253 is reproduced as under:

"L'empereur Aurengzebe a fait demolir la fortereffe

appelee ramcot, & a eleve au meme lieu un temple

mahometan, a triple coupole. D'autres difent qu'il a etc

conftruit par Babor. On y voit I 4 colonnes de pierre

noire, hautes de 5 empans, qui occupoient l'emplacement

de la fortereffe. Douze de ces colonnes portent maintenant

les arcades intericures de la Mosquee: deux (de ces I 2)

font placees a la porte du cloitre. Les deux autres font

partie du tombeau d'un certain Maure. On raconte que ces

colonnes, ou plutot ces debris de colonnes artiftement

travaillees ont etc apportees de l'ile de Lanca ou Selendip

1689

[appelee Ceylan par les Europeens] par Hanumann, Roi

des Singes."

Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called

Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple

domes, constructed at the same place. Others say that is

was constructed by 'Babor'. Fourteen black stone pillars

of 5 span high, which had existed at the site of the

fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now

support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these

12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister. The two

others are part of the tomb of some 'Moor'. It is narrated

that these pillars, or rather this debris of the pillars

skillfully made, were brought from the island of Lanca or

Selendip (called Ceylan by the Europeans) by Hanuman,

King of Monkeys.

(English transliteration)

1590. Sri Mishra pointed out that there appears to be an

english translation also of the travel record of Tieffenthaler. He

refers to the english translation of Tieffenthaler in para 5 of his

written argument and gave a brief biodata of father Tieffenthaler

in para 6 which read:

"5. Father Josef Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit Missionary and

noted geographer on Hindustan visited Ayodhya in 1770

did not find any Inscriptions even that superscription

“Allah” mentioned by the Ld. District Judge in 1886.

From Josef Tiffenthaler’s description it appears that at that

time also Hindus were worshipping inside the

Ramjanmsthan Temple alleged to be converted into

mosque either by Aurangzeb or by Babar. As he was not

only a Missionary but an excellent Historian, Geographer

1690

and great linguistic having mastery over several languages

including Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit, there was no

possibility of overlooking the alleged Inscriptions by him

as it would have enabled him to tell the people with

certainty the name of the Tyrant Emperor who attempted

to convert Sri Ramajanmasthan Temple into Mosque.

English translation of a portion of his book “Descriptio

Indiae” being description of Oude including the Sri

Ramajanmasthan has been published on pages 312 to 317

in the “ Modern Traveller, a Popular Description,

Geographical, Historical, and Topographical of the

Various Countries of the Globe- India. Vol. III” ; London

Edn.1828 published by James Duncan and has been

digitalised by Google. Relevant extracts thereof read as

follows:

"Its appearance, in 1770, is thus described by Tieffen

Thaler: “Avad with Ajudea by the learned Hindoos, is

a city of the highest Antiquity.” ......... (Ibid.312)

“The most remarkable place is that which is called

Sorgodoari, that is to say, the heavenly temple;

because they say, that Ram carried away from thence

to heaven all the inhabitants of the city. The deserted

town was repeopled and restored to its former

condition by Bikaramajit, the famous King of Oojein.

There was a temple here on the high bank of the river;

but Aurangzebe, ever attentive to the propagation of

faith of Mohammed, and holding the heathen in

abhorrence, caused it to be demolished, and replaced it

with a mosque with minarets, in order to abolish the

very memory of Hindoo superstition. Another mosque

1691

has been built by the Moors, to the East of this near

the Sorgodoari in an edifice erected by Nabalroy, a

former Hindoo governor. But a place more particularly

famous is that which is called Sitha Rassoce, a table of

Sitha (Seeta), wife of Ram; situated on an eminence to

the south of the city. The emperor Aurangzebe

demolished the fortress called Ramcote, and erected

on the site of Mohammedan temple with a triple dome.

According to others, it was erected by Baber. There

are to be seen fourteen columns of black stone, five

spans in height, occupied the site of the fortress.

Twelve of these columns now support the interior

arcades of the mosque: the two other form part of the

tomb of a certain Moor. They tell us that these

columnsms, are rather these remains of skillfully

wrought columns, were brought from the Isle of Lanca

or Selendip (Ceylon) by Hanuman, King of the

Monkeys. On the left is seen a square chest, raised

five inches from the ground covered with lime about 5

ells in length by not more than four in breadth. The

Hindoos call it Bedi. The cradle; and the reason is, that

there formerly stood here the house in which Beshan

(Vishnoo) was born in the form of Ram, and were

also, they say, is three brothers were born. Afterwards,

Aurangzebe or, according to others, Baber caused the

place to be destroyed, in order to deprive the heathen

of the opportunity of practising there their

superstitions. Nevertheless, they still pay superstitious

reverence to both these places; namely, to that on

which the Natal dwelling Ram stood, by going three

1692

times around it, prostrate on the earth. The two places

are surrounded with a low wall adorned with

battlements. Not far from this is a place where they

dig up grains of black rice changed into little stones,

which are affirmed to have been hidden under ground

ever since the time of Rama. On the 24th of the month

of Tshet (Choitru), a large concourse of people

celebrate here the birth-day of Ram, so famous

throughout India.”…… (Ibid. 313- 314)

6. Josef Tieffenthaler was born at Bozen in the Tyrol, on

27th August, 1710 and died at Lucknow on 5 July, 1785.

He entered the Society of Jesus 9 October, 1729, and went

in 1740 to the East Indian mission where he occupied

various positions, chiefly in the empire of the Great

Moghul. After the suppression of the Society he

remained in India, and on his death was buried in the

mission cemetery at Agra, where his tombstone still

stands. He was a fine scholar with an unusual talent for

languages; besides his native tongue he understood Latin,

Italian, Spanish, French, Hindustani, Arabic, Persian, and

Sanskrit. He was the first European who wrote an exact

description of Hindustan. A brief list of his works is the

best proof of his extraordinary power of work and his

varied scholarship. In geography, he wrote a “Descriptio

Indiae”, that is a circumstantial description of the twenty

two provinces of India, of its cities, fortresses, and the

most important smaller towns, together with an exact

statement of geographical positions, calculated by means

of a simple quadrant. He wrote a large book on the courses

of the Ganga. In history, he wrote many books. He wrote

1693

on the origin of the Hindus and their religion in Latin,

expeditions of Nadir Shah to India in German, the Deeds

of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam in Persian, Incursions

of the Afghans and the Conquest of Delhi in French. He

wrote a book on contemporary history 1757-64. In

linguistics he prepared a Sanskrit-Parsee Lexicon, treatises

in Latin on the language of the Parsees, on the proper

pronunciation of Latin, etc.. In the area of religion, he

wrote ‘Brahmanism’ and works on Indian polytheism,

Indian asceticism, the religion of Parsee Islam and

relations of these religions to one another.In the field of

the natural sciences he wrote on astronomical observations

on the sunspots and zodiacal light, studies on the Hindu

astronomy, astrology and cosmology. In addition, he

wrote on the descriptions and observations of the flora and

fauna of India. Thus he was an intellectual giant and a

linguistic wizard and not mere a traveller or a merchant

who made casual remarks. His published works along

with biographical notes can be lucidly gleaned from

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and ‘Christianty in India’

through Wikisource and Wikipedia’s website respectively.

His writings and contributions also find place in the books

-HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre des 17. und

18. Jahrh. (Freiberg, 1899), 179; NOTI. Jos.Tieffentaller,

S. J., A Forgotten Geographer of India (Bombay, 1906);

HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in Northern India (Calcutta,

1907).

1591. Sri P.N. Mishra argued that Father Joseph

Tieffenthaler himself was a linguist knowing Persian and Arabic

very well. Had the inscriptions two or three, as the case may be,

1694

whatever, fixed to the disputed building till the time he visited

Ayodhya including the disputed site, he could have himself read

the same and would have mentioned categorically that the

building in dispute was constructed by Babur. There could not

have been any occasion in such a case to mention that there was

a demolition by Aurangzeb and construction of mosque by him

and thereafter further that some says that it was done by Babur.

Sri Mishra suggested that Aurangzeb died in 1707 A.D. and had

ruled the most part of the country for about forty-eight years.

Whether he himself visited Ayodhya or not is irrelevant for the

reason that his Farman (command) for demolition of Hindu

temples is referred to in several history books including some of

the contemporary Muslim literature written by Muslim authors.

He argued that the existing Hindu temple was demolished by

Aurangzeb and it is during his regime, the disputed building was

constructed but at that time no inscription was installed thereat.

These inscriptions did not exist till Father Joseph Tieffenthaler

visited Ayodhya including the disputed site between 1740 to

1760-65. He pointed out that the inscriptions on the disputed

building came to be noticed for the first time by Dr. Francis

Buchanan who was appointed by the Governor General in

Council to undergo a survey of the Provinces ruled by the

Presidency of Bengal in 1807 AD visited Ayodhya in 1810 AD.

1592. Here it would of some importance to have an idea of

biography of Dr. Francis Buchanan. He was borne at Bardowie,

Callander Perthshire on 15th February, 1762. His family

originated in Spittal and claim the Chiefdom of the name of

Buchanan. He studied medicines at the University of Edinburgh.

He also studied Botany under John Hope in Edinburgh. After

several voyages on merchant navy ship to area, he served in the

1695

Bengal Medical Service from 1794 to 1815 AD. From 1803 to

1804 AD he was Surgeon to the Governor General of India,

Lord Wellesley in Calcutta. There he organised a Zoo, later

known as Calcutta Alipore Zoo. He worked on Indian Fish

Species entitled “An account of fishes found in the river Ganges

and its branches (1822)” which describes over 100 species not

formerly recognised scientifically. He also collected and

described very new plants in the region and collected a series of

Watercolours of Indian and Nepalese plants and animals,

probably painted by Indian artists, which they say that they are

now in the library of Linnean Society of London. After Tipu

Sultan's defeat in 1799 AD he was asked to survey Southern

India resulting in a journey from Madras through the countries

of Mysore, Canara and Malabar (1807 AD). From 1807 to 1814

AD under the instructions of the Governor General and Council,

Bengal he made a survey of the areas within the jurisdiction of

the British East India Company, i.e., the provinces subject to the

Presidency of Bengal. He became Superintendent of the

Calcutta Botanical Garden in 1814 but due to his ill health

return to Britain in 1815 AD. In the same year he inherited his

mother's estate and in consequence took her surname of

Hamilton, referring himself as “Francis Hamilton, formerly

Buchanan” or simply “Francis Hamilton”. However, he is

variously referred to by others as “Buchanan Hamilton”,

“Francis Hamilton Buchanan” or “Francis Buchanan Hamilton”.

He is considered to be Scottish Physician who made significant

contribution as a Geographer, Zoologist and Botanist while

living in India. He died on 15.06.1829.

1593. Apparently work of Dr. Buchanan could not be given

final shape by him. However, it appears that three journals were

1696

published by the government of Bihar and Orissa sometime in

1923 AD and onwards. One was published relating to Patna and

Gaya districts sometimes in 1923 AD under the editorship of

Mr. Jackson, another was published soon thereafter dealing with

the district of Sahabad under the care of Mr. Oldham and third

one was published narrating the survey of District Bhagalpur

conducted in the cold weather of 1810-11 AD edited by Mr.

Oldham.

1594. As already said, in 1807 AD under the orders of

Governor General and Council, East India Company Dr. Francis

Buchanan was directed to conduct survey of all the provinces

subject to the Presidency of Bengal. He was required to collect

information upon the general topography of each districts; the

condition of the inhabitants, their religious customs, the natural

productions of the country, fisheries, forests, mines and

quarries; the state of agriculture; the condition of landed

property and tenures; the progress made in the arts and

manufactures; the operations of commerce, and every particular

that can be recorded, as forming an element, in the prosperity or

depression of the people. The survey was pursued for seven

years and in 1816 AD the results were transmitted to England.

1595. Due to bad health of Dr. Buchanan the matter could

not proceed and it appears that the East India Company

thereafter took the help of Mr. Robert Montgomery Martin. The

Court of Directors permitted Mr. Martin to inspect the

manuscripts with a view to selection for publication. It was

sometimes in 1836 or 1838 Mr. Martin was required to study the

material collected by Dr. Buchanan, prepare a report so as to

place before the British public.

1596. This leads us to look into the biography of “Robert

1697

Montgomery Martin”. Born in Dublin of Protestant Irish Stock

in 1801 AD he spent 10 years in medical practice in Shillong,

East Africa and New South Wells and working as journalist in

Calcutta. There he helped, found and edit “The Bengal Herald”

before he return to Britten. He wrote on the colonies and

colonial policy. On return he become embroiled in domestic,

political and economic debate. In politics he initially supported

Repeal of the Act of Union between England and Ireland but

later switched to pro-unionism on religious and economic

grounds. In economics he was an opponent of popular

recardianism. He called for repeal of the 1819 AD currency

legislation; vigorously advocated protectionism for British

agricultural; concern himself with the principle of taxation. Due

to limited personal finances and an interest in policy matters he

sought Government patronage for official employment or

financial support.

1597. Buchanan made survey in the then territory of District

Behar, Shahabad, Bhagulpoor, Goruckpoor, Dinajpoor,

Puraniya, Ronggopoor and Assam. Mr. Martin found that the

time when the survey was made and when he was required to

inspect the manuscripts has made certain matters irrelevant. He,

therefore, in his wisdom confined his views to an examination

of the geography and physical aspect of the country; to its

traditional or recorded history, to the monuments or relics of

antiquity; physical and moral conditions of the people

amounting (according to the survey estimates) to 1.6 crore and

to the resources of the soil which they till; the manufactures

which carry on; and to the products and profits of agricultural

and commercial industry. In his views the survey depicted a

painful picture of human poverty, debasement and

1698

wretchedness. The report was submitted by Mr. Martin in

February' 1838 which was first published in 1838. It has now

been reprinted in 1976 in India by Cosmo Publications, Delhi.

Martin's report has been published under the title “Eastern

India” and is running in six volumes. It is a matter of

importance that Martin has not claimed to have visited North

West Provinces of India under East India Company. His entire

opinion is based only on the perusal of record sent by Buchanan.

1598. In the Chapter “District Gorukhpoor”, certain facts

about Ayodhya have been given. District Gorukhpoor (now

spelt as “Gorakhpur”) at that time situated to the left or north of

the river Ghoghra. According to survey map published in Vol-2

and printed between page 290 and 291, book titled as “Eastern

India” by Mortin, we find that on the western and southern side,

the boundary wall is depicted by the rivers Gharghara/Ghaghara

and Saryu; and on the northern and western side, the entire area

termed as Domain of Nawab Vazir of Oudh. About river

Ghaghra, description is on page 297 as under :

“Ghaghra. - The accounts of the great river, which

passes the ancient city of Ayodhya, that I have received,

differ not only very much from the maps of Danville and

Rennell, but disagree very much among themselves. The

confusion is increased to the most perplexing degree by

very different names being not only given to different parts

of the same river ; but even the very same portion by

different people and tribes is called by different names.

Finally the native maps, that I have received of the

country; through which the remote branches of this river

flow, are more imperfect than those of the country either to

the east or west, so that what I have to advance on the

1699

subject is liable to great doubt ; but as the information, if

true is curious, I think, that until more accurate

information is obtained, it should not be neglected.

At the city of Ayodhya this great river among the

Hindus is usually called Sarayu (Soorjew, Rennell), and

this name is in use in their sacred language; but by the

Muhammedans it is called Ghaghra, from the Sangskrita

word Gharghara. This name Mr. Gladwin (Ayeen Akbery)

wrote sometimes Gehgher, sometimes Goghar; and Major

Rennell writes it Gogra. The mountaineers from the east

side of this river assure me, that neither name is known on

the hills, and that the Sarayu celebrated in their legends is

formed by the junction of the Bheri river, which I take to be

the Soorjew of Major Rennell, with the Karanali Salasu, or

Sanbhadrik, which is no doubt the Gogra of that eminent

geographer, as the remarkable fountains emitting flame at

Dulubasandra are situated near its bank. The inhabitants

of the low country also in general agree with Major

Rennell, in calling the eastern branch the Sarayu, and the

western the Ghaghra, but the western branch which they

mean, is quite different from that on which Dulubasandra

is situated, and at any rate its principal branch on the

mountains is the Kalinadi. Both these authorities therefore,

that is, the mountaineers east from the river, and the people

of the low country agree, that a great river coming from the

west, and named the Ghaghra, unites with the Sarayu,

coming from the east, and that this latter among the Hindus

is considered as the principal river, and communicates its

name to the united stream while the Muhammedans adopt

the opposite opinion, and continue the name Ghaghra to

1700

the river at Ayodhya. A learned and intelligent Brahman,

however, Hariballabh of Kuman, from the mountains on

the west side of the river, and perfectly acquainted both

with the country and the legends, says, that the names

Sarayu and Ghaghra are applicable to the same river,

through the whole length of its course. That it rises by

two petty sources in the Pergunahs of Karuvirpoor and

Danapoor, on the hills north form Almorha ; but far

removed from the snowy peaks of Emodus. These two

torrents uniting at Bagheswar form the Sarayu, which

continues to run east, receiving the Panar a small channel

producing gold, and the Ramagangga of considerable size.

Some way east from the junction of the latter, the Sarayu

receives a river much larger than itself, which rises from

the perennial snows of Emodus, and is called the Kalinadi.

The united stream is the Sarayu, or Gharghara, and passes

south-westerly towards the plains, nor does my informant

know more of its course ; but, that it passes by Ayodhya to

join the Ganges at Dadri, he has learned from legend.

The account of the most intelligent boatmen that I

could procure at Ayodhya, is as follows. The boats which

load timber, can proceed no higher up the Ghaghra than

Mundiya ghat, which is in the Bareli district, about 18

coss, or 27 miles, road measure, from Pilibhit. The channel

is there very wide, but the stream is not large, and is not

above two cubits deep. The territory of Gorkha commences

about seven or eight coss from Mundiya, at a large forest

named Langsar, from which much timber comes. About

twelve coss below Mundiya the Ghaghra receives from the

mountains a branch called Neaula, down which much

1701

timber comes from the territory subject to Gorkha. Twelve

coss lower down, it receives the Kauriya, and immediately

below its mouth a third named the Geruya enters. Timber

is brought down both these rivers, and on the latter, in the

dominions of Gorkha, are two great forest, Amba and

Palamu. I suspect, that the Kauriyar and Geruya, and

perhaps even the Neaula are only different mouths of the

same river, which in the mountains is called Setigangga, or

the white river. The Hindus have given the preference to

the Sarayu, which is said to be the smallest, nor is the

larger branch any where fordable below the mouth of the

Bhakosa. The united channel begins to form the

boundary between this district and the territories of the

Nawab Vazir, just at the city of Ayodhya, where its

channel and stream seem fully larger than that of the

Ganges at Chunar. For about 18 miles below Ayodhya

its width is from one to three miles, as it surrounds two

very large islands, the property of the upper of which is

disputed by the landholders of the two governments; but

the lower is the undisputed property of the

Muhammedan prince. About ten miles above where the

Ghaghra comes to be the boundary, it sends off a channel

merely called the Sota, or branch, which runs parallel to

the main river for above six miles, forming for more than

four the boundary between the two governments, when it

joins the Teri river. I crossed this branch on the 11th of

December, where it was about a quarter of a mile wide,

and perhaps a fourth of the channel might be covered with

water knee deep, but nearly stagnant.

The Teri comes to the boundary of this district, about

1702

14 miles from where it receives the above-mentioned

branch of the Ghaghra, and, at the boundary receives from

the north-west a marshy channel called the Nawara jhil,

which forms the boundary for about four miles. The united

channel called Teri is inconsiderable, and winds much,

partly along the boundary, and partly on both sides of it,

until about four miles from where it receives the branch of

the Ghaghra called Sota. It there joins with a similar

branch of that river called Bhagala, which for some way

serves as the boundary. The united channel is called the

Teri.” (pages 297-300)

1599. Dealing with historical and topographical part of

District Gorakhpur, on page 325 and onwards it says :

“This district forms a considerable part of the

territory, which in ancient legend is called Maha Kosala.

….... This very extensive and fertile region has always been

considered as the proper patrimony of the family of the

sun, as it is called, which for a very long period governed

large portions of India and at times produced its

paramount lords.” (page 325)

1600. The study which was conducted by Martin, the source

of his information etc. in writing this chapter and in particular

what he has observed on pages 325 to 337 can not be well

understood unless we go through details of his entire discussion

on the matter and, therefore, it would be necessary to reproduce

the following from his book :

“The history of the Hindus has been thrown into such

confusion by an attempt to reconcile the actual

succession of their princes with a modern system of

astronomy, as most ably explained by Mr. Bentley in the

1703

eighth volume of the Asiatic Researches, that the utmost

difficulty attends all attempts to reconcile with any thing

like reason such ancient accounts as have been preserved

in the monstrous and modern legends called the Purans.

The difficulties attending this subject may be fully

appreciated by examining the different attempts of Sri

William Jones in the second volume, of Major Wilford in

the fifth volume, and of Mr. Bentley in the eighth volume of

the Asiatic Researches, although in the latter the real

source of the difficulties seems to have been fully

discovered. Still, however, many great difficulties exist,

which these authors have not fully explained, and of which

the two first do not seem to have been fully aware. Sir

William Jones seems, without examination, to have

adopted the account given of the Indian dynasties by

Radhakanta, in his Puranartha-prakasa, as the doctrine

generally received by the Hindus on the subject, and

alleges (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 26), that it begins

with an absurdity so monstrous as to overthrow the

whole system, he then endeavours to turn the whole of

the early pedigree into an allegory, denying altogether

the existence of many princes, because their names

signify light, sky, sun, moon and so forth; although he

might have considered, that such names are sometimes

used for men among ourselves, and among the present

Hindus are very common. The grand objection to the

system of Radhakanta is, however, his having adopted as a

maxim, that there was always a supreme king of each of the

families of the sun and moon, so that India, according to

him, was governed like Lacedaemon, by two chiefs of two

1704

families possessing equal power ; and that each dynasty

contained exactly the same number of generations in the

respective periods, into which the history is divided. This is

a fable like many others, usually called opinions

universally received among the Hindus, which Mr. Bantley

(Asiatic Researches, vol. 8, page 244) so justly exposes.

But the receiving it, as an universally acknowledged

opinion, led Sir William Jones, from the imperfect lists

composed by Radhakanta, to doubt whether any such

personages as the Indian princes of the families of the sun

and moon existed (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, page 131).

Had Sir Willam consulted the various genealogies

contained in the different Purans, he would have found,

that this opinion, by which he was staggered, rested

entirely on the imagination of Radhakanta, or of some

person from whom he borrowed it, and could not be

supported by the remains of history in the Purans. So far

as I can learn from Pandits, that I have employed to

extract the Hindu genealogies from their books, there

was only one paramount king admitted at a time, and in

general the succession to this power was totally irregular,

not only between the tow great families, but among the

branches of the same family, and, as I have mentioned in

the account of Shahabad, was as irregular as the

succession in Ireland during the government of the families

descended of Heber and Heremon. It would even appear,

that the succession to the supremacy was not strictly

confined to the two families of the sun and moon, as Pandu

and his successors were in fact descended of Vayasa ; and

also that many intervals occurred, in which no one king

1705

possessed paramount authority.

The table given by Major Wilfort is highly valuable ;

although, when he says, that it is extracted from the Vishnu

Puran, the Bhagawat, and other Puranas, without the least

alteration whatever, we are only to understand, that Major

Wilford made no alteration on the table, after it was

extracted by his assistants from the Hindu records ; for the

genealogies contained in the different books, to which he

alludes, differ so much from each other, that no one table

could be constructed from them without making numerous

alterations. This interesting table is however exceedingly

valuable in showing how nearly these genealogies, by

taking the human age at a just valuation may be reconciled

with the real eras pointed out by Mr. Bentley, on

astronomical data. It must however be evident, that both

systems are liable to some doubt. In the first place there is

a very great difficulty in establishing any calculation upon

the number of generations contained in the Hindu

genealogies, owing to the very great carelessness, with

which they have been constructed. Besides numerous

transpositions it would seem, that in many parts, what in

one Genealogy is detailed as a succession of several

generations, is given in another genealogy as a list of

brothers, so that by the former process the length of a

dynasty is monstrously enlarged. Again in some

genealogies a whole dynasty is represented by a single

name, which occasions the most absurd anachronisms to

be commonly received as canonical, by such as have

studied only a part of these genealogies. These

anachronisms are so distressing, that some learned persons

1706

have considered as quite vain the attempt of founding any

thing like a regular chronology on the Hindu genealogies. I

hope however, that this judgement is too harsh, and that a

careful perusal of all the remains may lead to something as

satisfactory as chronologies of equal antiquity usually

admit. So far as I can at present judge, for I have not yet

procured any thing like a full copy of the genealogies,

the eras, even as curtailed by Major Wilford and Mr.

Bentley, would require to be considerably reduced. I

consider it necessary to reduce the former from the

numerous interpolations of brothers and collaterals in

place of sons. The argument of Mr. Bentley goes only to

show the manner, in which some former systems of

chronology, detailed in the Graha Mangjari, have been

deformed by the present system of Varaha Mihira ; but

these ancient systems were also mere astronomical

fictions, and, although their application to history was

not attended with such monstrous difficulties, as the

present system, there is nothing in its nature to show,

that it is in any degree connected with what actually

happened. One great difficulty occurs relative to the

deluge, which Mr. Bentley and Major Wilford agree in

placing immediately before the government of the family of

the Sun in Kosala commenced, so that they consider the

government of Swayambhuwa and his successors, kings of

Vithora (Betoor Rennell) near Kanpoor, as in the

antediluvian age, while Swayambhuwa they call Adam,

and Vaiwaswata father of the first king of Kosala, they

call Noah. One of the legends, on which this opinion

rests has been given by Sir William Jones (Asiatic

1707

Researches, vol.2, page 117); but this, as explained by

the Pandits, whom I have consulted, is not reconcilable

with the opinion above mentioned; and these Brahmans

insist, that no general deluge (Pralaya) has taken place

since the time of Swayambhuwa. The mistake consists in

supposing, that Satyabrata (Satjavrata) and Vaiwaswata

are the same person, and that whatever is related of one,

may be attributed to the era of the other. But the Brahmans

say, that these two personages, although the same soul in

different transmigrations, lived at very remote periods,

Satyavrata having been saved in an ark by God, when the

deluge happened, while in his subsequent birth as

Vaiwaswata, after an interval of many ages, he became a

law-giver (Manu or Mamu), and founded the city of

Ayodhya. It must be farther observed, that although the

legend concerning the escape of Satyabrata or Satyarupa

has a strong resemblance to the history of Noah, he is far

from being considered by the Hindus as being like Noah

the second father of the human race ; but he is said to have

died without children, and was born again in the family of

the Sun ; while Swayambhuwa was created to people the

world after the deluge ; and from him were descended the

first kings of India, who governed at Vithora, and who were

perhaps natives, although it is possible, that they may

have been Assyrians. In place therefore of allowing the

family of the Sun to have governed from the time of the

deluge, and that the Treta yug or silver age extended to

that event, we must, I imagine, allow the golden age or

Satya yug, and the government of the descendants of

Swayambhuwa to be subsequent to that period, and of

1708

course must bring the time, when the kingdom of Kosala

was founded, much latter than Major Wilford and Mr.

Bentley do. Could we depend on the accuracy of the

numbers, as Sir William Jones observes, there is

circumstance mentioned by Abul Fazil, that could throw

much light on this subject. It would appear that, the

Brahmans, whom that person consulted, had not always

applied to the history of their princes the astronomical

fictions of Varaha Mihira, and they placed the birth of

Budha, I presume the grandson of Atri, and son in law

of Vaiwaswata first king of Ayodhya, in the year 1366

before the birth of Christ (Asiatic Researches vol.

2.p.125). This entirely coincides with the opinion I have

above stated, and places the commencement of the

historical silver age, commencing with Budha, in the

1366th year before Christ, in place of the 2204th as given

by Mr. Bentley from the astronomical systems of the Graha

Mungjari. Such a reduction on the era of the silver age,

and foundation of the kingdom of Kosala I am far from

thinking absolutely necessary; but on the whole I am

inclined to believe, that it approaches near the truth than

the systems of Major Wilford or Mr. Bentley, although I

must confess, as I have mentioned, that the coincidence of

the two systems, founded on principles totally different,

affords a strong presumption in favour of the result.

In Hindu legend the appearance of certain persons

named Brahmadikas created by God, and commonly

called the progenitors of every living thing, forms a

remarkable era, but the accounts concerning these

personages are totally dissonant, as may be seen in the

1709

account of Major Wilford (Asiatic Researches, vol. 5, page

246). One authority makes the three sons of Swayambhuwa

to have been the Brahmadikas, placing them thus at the

commencement of the golden, and not at the beginning of

the silver age; and I have already stated my opinion, that

these were the aboriginal inhabitants or earliest

conquerors of India, but other authority give another

class totally different, and always containing Marichi, Atri,

Anggirasa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kritu, and Vasishtha, while

others add Daksha, Bhrigu and Narada. The descendants

of these personages governed India both in spirituals and

temporals from the commencement of the silver age until

about the time when the Greeks made their appearance,

and numerous chiefs still claim to be of their family. They

are all called Brahmans, either as being created by the

God of that name, or perhaps more probably as being

persons more intelligent than those who preceded them; far

from being all of the sacred order, the greater part of their

descendants were princes, statesmen and soldiers, and one

in particular is stated to have been a merchant (Vaisya).

We have seen that Swayambhuwa, the founder of the

kingdom of Vithora, by the whole of what is called the

golden age (Satya yug), preceded Vaiwaswata, the founder

of the kingdom of Kosala, and the latter was the great

grandson of Marichi, while Budha, who founded the

adjacent kingdom of Kuru, and reigned at Pratisthan,

opposite to Prayag, about the same time with Vaiwaswata,

whose daughter he married, was the grandson of Atri. I

look upon these Brahmadikas, therefore, as the leaders

of a colony, which at the end of the golden age, settled in

1710

India, and assumed the name of Brahmans , as being

farther advanced in the arts than the descendants of

Swaymbhuwa, its more early princes. I look upon it also

as probable, that these personages came from western

Asia, introducing with them the Sangskrita language,

generally admitted to be radically the same with the

Persian dialect, while the languages spoken among all

the rude tribes that inhabit the fastnesses of India, and

which are probably remains of its ancient tongue, have

no sort of analogy to the languages of the west. In the

history of Kasmira, preserved by Abul Fazil, Kasyap, who

was the son of Marichi, is said to have introduced the

Brahmans (that is, a colony of civilized men) into that

country, and the traditions of Behar state, that he there

founded a city, of which I was shown some of the remains.

These no doubt were of much later date than the time of

Kasyap, although he may have been the founder of the city

to which they once belonged. One of the sons of Kasyap,

named Viwaswa, is supposed to be now the deity

presiding over the sun, owing probably to his having

introduced from Persia the worship of that luminary,

and, from flattery, his descendants were usually called

the family of the sun (Suryabangsa). His son

Vaiwaswata, who, in a former transmigration, had been

Satyabrata (perhaps Noah), founded the kingdom of

Kosala, long one of the most powerful in India, and built

the city of Kosalapoori, or Ayodhya.

If I am right in supposing that Budha was born about

1366 years before Christ, he being the son-in-laws of

Vaiwaswata, it is probable that this prince may have been

1711

born about the year 1399, and we may allow him to have

been 33 years old when he founded Ayodhya, and the

kingdom of Kosala. In the genealogies may be found

several different lists of his successors, who are commonly

supposed by Pandits to have succeeded each other from

father to son, by right of primogeniture, nor did one prince

fail to leave his kingdom to his eldest son for many

generations (Asiatic Researches, vol. 2, p. 130). This,

however, seems to be a mere supposition taken for granted,

because in some of the genealogies the names follow each

other without any remark, for the direct line failed in

Ambarisha, and went to the descendants of his brother;

and Bharata usurped the government for 14 years from his

elder brother Rama. The genealogies differ so much in the

names, number of persons, and order of succession, that

without a very careful examination of all that is to be found

concerning each person, little reliance can be placed on

the particulars, although it is evident, that these

genealogies have been taken from some common source;

and I have no doubt, that a careful examination would

enable the intelligent antiquary to remove many difficulties

and contradictions, that now appear.

Far from the princes of Ayodhya having enjoyed an

uninterrupted succession of supreme power for numerous

ages, and from father to son, very few of them would

appear to have been Chhatradharis, or lords paramount of

India; and there is even reason to suspect, that the family

at different periods was subject to great disasters, and

repeatedly lost the dominion of even Kosala. The learned

of Ayodhya informed the Pandit of the Mission, that

1712

their city had been three times destroyed, and that on

these occasions all the people were carried to heaven with

their Rajas Harischandra, Ambarisha, and Rama. The

successors of these princes again collected people to

occupy the city. The Pandits, whom I have employed,

have not been able to trace the passages in which the

two first catastrophes are mentioned; but the third is

known to every one. Several traditions, however, that I

have heard, confirm the opinion of Harischandra having

been expelled from Ayodhya, as he is said to have removed

the seat of government to Ellora, while his son Rohitaswa

lived at Rautas, and his grandson founded Champa, at

Bhagulpoor in Bengal. That Ambarisha also met with some

misfortune is probable; as in the Sri Bhagwat, he is not

succeeded by his son, and the line is carried on by

Sindhudwipa, his brother, while in the Bangsalata, his

immediate successor is Ritaparna, who, according to the

Sri Bhagwat was the grandson of Sindhudwipa, and until

the time of Ritaparna it is probable that the family did

not recover from its misfortune. The severe treatment of

his wife Sita, is said to have induced that princes to

excite her sons to rebel against their father Rama, and

this, more probably than his piety, sent him and his

adherents to heaven. Ayodhya, however, was rebuilt by

the son Kusha, who left a numerous offspring, that held the

until the reign of Vrihadbala. From Vaiwaswata to Rama

inclusive, the Sri Bhagwat reckons 55 princes, the

Mahabharat reckons 69, and the Bangsalata 78; but the

Ramayana of Valmika reckons only 36. This being it is

supposed by far the most ancient account, is probably the

1713

most correct, and we may suppose it to be free from the

interpolations of collateral successions and dynasties

introduced by later writers, and to be the actual succession

of the kings of Ayodhya; unfortunately Valmiki gives no

list of Rama’s successors and the Purans, as usual, are

filled with numerous discordance. Vrihadbala, killed by

Abhimanaya in the great war at the commencement of the

iron age, was one of the most remarkable successors of

Rama. According to the Sri Bhagwat, he was the 27th

descent from Rama. In the Mahabharat he is the 33rd, and

in the Bangsalata he is the 25th. As, owing to similar causes

these numbers are probably as much increased as the

predecessors of Rama, the number of princes, taking the

scale of the Sri Bhagwat reduced by that of Valmiki as a

guide, from Rama to Vrihadbala may have been 17, or

from the commencement of the silver to the commencement

of the iron age, 53 princes, which, they were also

generations of 3 to a century, would give a duration of

1766 years. There is no impossibility in admitting such a

duration; but I think, as I have said, that in all

probability it must be reduced. Major Wilford (table in 5th

Vol. of Asiatic Researches ) has found in the Purans. 59

princes from the time of Rama to that of Chandragupta,

contemporary nearly with Alexander. Reducing these by

the scale of Rama’s predecessors, we shall have 31

princes, which added to Rama and his predecessors, will

give in all 67 princess, if these commenced their

government 1366 years before Christ and ended it 300

years before this event, there will be on an average about

15 ½ years for each prince which can only be understood

1714

of reigns, and not of generations. On these grounds,

Vaiwaswata being placed in the year before Christ, 1366,

Rama will be placed in 775, and Vrihadbala, or the

commencement of the historical iron age in the year

512. But, if the antiquary prefers with Major Wilford to

consider these 67 as generations, we must double the

length of each period; that is, we must say, that Ayodhya

was founded 2732 years before Christ, that Rama

flourished 1550 years before that event, and that

Vrihadbala was killed in the 1024.

It must be observed, that in the Purans, little

amplification seems to have been made in the family of the

moon, as from Budha, one generation after Vaiwaswata to

Krishna, contemporary with Vrihadbala, the Sri Bhagwat

reckons 55 persons, a difference of only two persons from

that which is given by the correction that is required in the

list of the family of the sun, by comparing Valmiki with the

Sri Bhagwat; and this coincidence, I consider as in a great

measure proving, that the nature of the correction which I

have adopted is not subject to material error, so far as

relates to the number of successions; but it decides nothing

as to the points of whether we are to consider these as

reigns or as generations.

The people of Ayodhya imagine, that after the

death of Vrihadbala, their city was deserted, and

continued so until the time of Vikrama of Ujjain, who

came in search of the holy city, erected a fort called

Ramgar, cut down the forests by which the ruins were

covered, and erected 360 temples on the places sanctified

by the extraordinary actions of Rama, of his wife Sita, of

1715

his brother Lakshman, and of his General Mahavira. The

only foundation probably for such a tradition is, that

Vikrama may have erected some temples, and that in the

Mahabharata the genealogy of the family it continued no

lower than the time of Vrihadbala, as being foreign to the

subject of the book; but in the Sri Bhagwat Vrihadbala is

succeeded by 29 princes, and in the Bangsalata by 24.

These, taken according to the scales of Ramas

predecessors in Valmiki and the Sri Bhagwat, would give

18 princes, and this will give us 279, or 558 years,

according as we call these successions reigns or

generations, brining the existence of the family down to the

time nearly of Alexander; but none of the latter princes

rose to considerable power, and they were vassals of the

Kings of Magadha. Their existence, however, throws a

great doubt on the whole story concerning Vikrama.

This Vikrama is usually suppose to have been the

personage from which the era called Sambat is derived,

and, according to the reckoning used in Kosala, this era

commences 57 years before the birth of Christ, so that

the city had been then deserted about 280 years. How the

places remarkable for the actions of the God could be

traced after such a long interval, and amidst the forest,

seems rather doubtful; and the doubt will be increased,

if it supposed that they latter Vikarama, the son in law of

the Emperor Bhoja, was the person who constructed the

temples at Ayodhya. This I am inclined to think was

probably the case, for although Rama was probably

worshipped before the time of elder Vikrama, yet his

worship as that peculiarly distinguishing a sect of

1716

begots, seems to have been first established by

Ramanuja about the time of the latter Vikrama, who

may from thence be supposed peculiarly eager to

discover the traces of the deity of his own sect.

Unfortunately if these temples ever existed, not the smallest

trace of them remains to enable us to judge of the period

when they were built; and the destruction is very

generally attributed by the Hindus to the furious zeal of

Aurangzebe, to whom also is imputed the overthrow of

the temples in Benares and Mathura. What may have

been the case in the two latter, I shall not now take upon

myself to say, but with respect to Ayodhya the tradition

seems very ill founded. The begot by whom the temples

were destroyed is said to have erected mosques on the

situations of the most remarkable temples; but the

mosque at Ayodhya, which by far the most entire, and

which has every appearance of being the most modern,

is ascertained by an inscription on its walls (of which a

copy is given) to have been built by Babur, five

generations before Aurangzebe. This renders the whole

story of Vikrama exceedingly doubtful, specially as what

are said to be the ruins of his fort, do not in any essential

degree differ from those said to have belong to the ancient

city, that is consist entirely of irregular heaps of broken

bricks, covered with soil, and remarkably productive of

tobacco; and, from its name, Ramgar, I am inclined to

suppose that is was a part of the building actually

erected by Rama.

Although I did not fail to visit the place, and

whatever the Hindus reckon remarkable, I did not choose

1717

to take any measurements, so as to draw with any

accuracy of plan of the space which the ruins occupy, as

the doing so might have given offence to government of

the Nawab Vazir, in whose territory, separated from this

district only by the river Sarayu, they are situated.

I may in a general manner observe, that the heaps of

bricks, although much seems to have been carried away by

the river, extend a great way, that is, more than a mile in

length, and more than half a mile in width; and that

although vast quantities of materials have been removed

to built the Muhammedan Ayodhya or Fyzabad, yet the

ruins in many parts retain a very considerable elevation;

nor is there any reason to doubt, that the structure to

which they belong, has been very great; when we

consider, that it has been ruined for above 2000 years.

None of the Hindu buildings at present existing are in the

least remarkable either for size or architecture, and they

are all not only evidently, but avowedly, quite modern, that

is, they have been all erected since the reign of

Aurangzebe, or most of them even within the memory of

man. Although they are built on what I have no doubt

are the ruins of the palace that was occupied by the

princes of the family of the sun, their being built on the

spots, where the events which they are intended to

celebrate, actually happened, would have been extremely

doubtful, even had the elder Vikrama built temples on

the various places which had been destroyed by

Aurangzebe, so that the spots selected by Vikrama might

be known by tradition; but the whole of that story being

liable to strong suspicion, we may consider the present

1718

appropriation of names to different places as no better

founded than the miracles, with several of them are said to

commemorate.

It is said that in digging for bricks many images

have been discover, but the few which I was able to trace

were too much broken to ascertain what they were meant to

represent, except one at the convent (Akhara) of Guptar,

where Lakshman supposed to have disappeared. This

represents a man and women carved on one stone. The

latter carries somewhat on her head, and neither has

any resemblance to what I have before seen. The only

thing except these two figures and the bricks, that could

with probability be traced to the ancient city, are some

pillars in the mosques built by Babur. These are of black

stone, and of an order which I have seen nowhere else,

and which will be understood from the accompanying

drawing. That they have been taken from a Hindu

building, is evident, from the traces of images being

observable on some of their bases; although the images

have been cut off to satisfy the conscience of the begot.

It is possible that these pillars have belonged to a temple

built by Vikrama; but I think the existence of such temples

doubtful; and, if they did not exist, it is probable that the

pillars were taken from the ruins of the palace. They are

only 6 feet high. There is a Shiva Lingga called

Nageshwar, which is called on by all the pilgrims to

witness their faith, when they have performed the usual

ceremonies; and this supposed to be the oldest image of the

place. As Lakshman the brother of Rama is supposed to

have founded one of the orders of Yogis, there is a

1719

probability that the great God was a principal object of

worship at the court of his brother, and this image may

actually have then existed, as from its form, if kept from the

weather, it may have lasted from the first origin of

things; but it leads to no conclusions, and may be of very

modern date. Could we believe what is said of the chief

objects of worship now at the place, they would be of

singular curiosity. They are images said to the present

Rama, Lakshman, and Sita, made by the first personage,

and thrown by him into the Sarayu, when he was about to

proceed on an expedition to the Indus. In modern times

they were divulged to a fortunate merchant by the

ordinary course of dreaming. He drew them from the

river, and built temple for them, which was destroyed by

Aurangzebe, but the images were allowed to escape, and

Ahilya, the widow of Holkar, lately built for them a

small temple, which is only opened at peculiar times,

and only to the faithful. Sitting aside the dream, the

escape of the images from Aurangzebe, as they are made of

gold, renders the story very problematical. They are about

a span high, and were so covered with flowers, and shown

in so dark a place, that my people who went to worship

could form no opinion either as to their shape or

materials.

I procured a good many old copper coins, and many

were said to be of the Hindu Kings; but on examination,

except two, all appear to contain Arabic inscriptions, but in

very old characters, and I had similar ones at Agra. One

said to have been found in the Sarayu retains a defaced

figure in the human form; and another the figure of a

1720

lion. These are probably Hindu coins, but they contain

no legend, nor anything to indicate that they belonged to

princes of the family of the sun.

The person who finally expelled the family of the sun

from Ayodhya, is not stated by tradition, nor, so far as I

can learn, in legend, but the learned of this district have

heard of the dominion of the Cheros, although this impure

tribe has here left no monuments of its power, the place

being far removed from the seat of government.” (pages

325-337)

1601. What is apparent from the above report of Martin is

that he was the first person to tell us about inscriptions on the

wall of the disputed building to say that it was built by Babar.

We have also noticed that Buchanan must have visited the area

between 1807 to 1814, i.e. after about 280 years (if the disputed

building was constructed by Babar in 1528 AD). Martin

however, has observed that the building appears to be most

modern. He also found that locally the people said that after

destructing a temple, the Mosque was constructed by

Aurangzeb. It is difficult to believe that till 1807 there was no

Hindu person capable of reading and writing Persian or Arabic,

as the case may be, to find out what was written in the said

inscriptions in the Mosque and to tell others that the disputed

building was actually constructed by Babar. Buchanan also does

not appear to have actually visited the disputed building in order

to collect the details as is evident from the next para that he did

not do so (collect measurement) for the reason that it might have

offended the Government of Nawab Vazir. We may notice

hereat that upto 1814 and even thereafter, the entire area of

Avadh was within the sovereignty of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow

1721

though for some part of defence etc. Nawab Vazir has entered

into a treaty with East India Company in 1801 but only the area

which was in the territory of Banaras was within the authority of

East India Company and rest of the part, particularly Avadh,

was not within the reigning territory of East India Company.

The text of the alleged inscriptions, the number of inscriptions

etc. are not mentioned in the report. The language, however,

shows that there was only one inscription which could be seen

by Buchanan. The text of the inscription, as existed when

Buchanan visited Ayodhya between 1807 to 1814, has not been

placed before us in an authentic manner though plaintiffs (Suit-

5) has sought to rely on a text of the inscription which he claims

to have collected from British Museum but the same having not

been proved in accordance with Evidence Act, we find it

difficult to place any reliance thereon. Even if we place reliance

thereon, nothing helps us to form an opinion that the building in

dispute was actually constructed in 1528 by Mir Baqi under the

command of Babar.

1602. The affidavit dated 17th December, 1999 was filed by

Sri Deoki Nandan Agarwala plaintiff no.3 (Suit-5) where in para

3, 4 and 5 he said:

"3. That the English documents written in hand script

prevalent in the past and Persian/Arabic and Nustalik

annexures thereto were obtained by Vishwa Hindu

Parishad, New Delhi through the Vishwa Hindu Parishad

(U.K.) during the course of negotiations for resolving the

tangle relating to the Sri Rama Janma Bhumi, by mutual

dialogue through the mediation of the then Prime Minister

of India in the year 1992, from the British Library where

the original manuscript of the document is lodged. The

1722

original leter from the General Secretary of the VHP U.K.

Dated 23 Sept. 1992 to the VHP New Delhi is also being

filed with this affidavit.

4. That the documents obtained from the British Library

U.K. are not available anywhere else and appear to be

unpublished. The originals cannot be moved from the

Library and cannot therefore be produced. Their copies

supplied by the Library are thus admissible in evidence.

5. That the documents in English are in old style hand

written script of the early nineteenth century, with which I

am well acquainted. I have deciphered them and made a

typescript of the same, which is also being filed. I say that

the type script of the handwritten documents in English is a

correct copy of the same."

1603. The letter dated 23rd September, 1992 referred to in

para 3 of the aforesaid affidavit appears to have been sent by

one Sri Kishor Ruparelia- Gen. Sec. 48 Wharfedale Gardens,

Thornton Heath, Surrey UK addressed to Sri Jashwant Rai

Gupta, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Sankat Mochan Ashram, New

Delhi. The relevant extract thereof is as under:

"I am sending herewith photocopies, obtained from the

British Library, of the following documents kept under Ref

MSS. EUR. E73 and filed as records by Dr Buchanan

1. Pages 1 & 2, written by Dr. Buchanan, heading:

Translation Gorakhpur Inscript No. 1

2. Pages 3 & 4, a letter written by Dr Buchanan

3. Page 5, a Sanskrit inscription – this does not seem to

relate to Ayodhya, but I am sending this because the page

is part of continuation

4. Page 6, heading: Inscription on a mosque at

1723

Ayodhya Gorakhpur No.1.

5. Page 7, this page seems to contain Persian and

Arabic writing but no heading or description i.e. om

English written on the page.

1604. This letter is paper No.189C2/3. Paper No.189C2/4-5

appears to be translation of some Persian or Arabic words by

somebody at Gorakhpur. In respect to the period Paper

no.189C2/4-5 the following extract refers to AH935.

"N.B. The words باقی خیر signifying "There is lasting بود

charity" or "good works are lasting" also mean "the

charity of Baqee" and form an anagram of the year of the

erection viz : 935."

1605. Thereafter paper no.189C2/8-9 contains the Persian or

Arabic text to which we are not clear as to whether it is in

respect to the inscriptions said to be fixed on the building in

dispute or else.

(Caligraphy page-1)

ہصاحب قران میرتیمور ابن میران شا ای سلطان محمد شا ابن سلطان ابو ں ہ

مججایون بادشججا ابججن اکججبر ہسعید شا ابن عمرشیخ شا ابن بججابر بادشججا ابججن ہ ہ ہ ہ

ان بادشا ابن ابو المظفججر محججی الججدین انگیربادشا ابن شا ج ہبادشا ابن ج ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ

ہعالم کبر بادشا غازی(Translation not available)

بسم ال الرحمن الرحیم

اشهد ان ل اله ال ال و اشهد ان محمد اعبده ورسوله

و بخط عبد ضءیف محمد فاتح) ہربنل الل ہ )(Transliteration)

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

Ašhadu an la ilaha ill lallah, wa ašhadu anna

Muhammadun Aabduhu wa rasuluhu.

(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)

(English Translation)

1724

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, and the Most Merciful.

I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear

witness that Muhammad is Allah's devotee and His

Messenger (Prophet)

(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)

(Name of the Calligrapher)

ی بود ن وبادشا ہازقدیمان و وافغان ای احوال چنان بدریافت رسید پیشترازی ہ ں ں

ہک اورسیف خان عالی مسند میکقندوزیراوردختری بود ک باموسججی عاشججقان ہ

ہنامزدکرد بونجد بعجد ازچنجدی وزیراردارالنفججا یجدارلبقا رحلجت کجرد بادشجا ہ

ر فرستک بموبججوقت موسججی ہبرای ضبط کرو کالبی خان وزیرطلقی و پ ہ ہ ہ ں

ست فرموند ک پر چ نقججد و جنججس و دخججان ہعاشقان را خیال کذشت را دنیا ب ہ ہ ھ

میجج مردمججان کردنججد بعججد م کسججان غججار تکججرد ببرنججدبفرمود ںاست او را ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ

ہازغارت برون دریافت نمودند ک حال چیزی با قسبت یججان ملزمججان عججرض ہ

ی فرمودند م بغارت برند ںکرند ک ازقسم غل چیزی باقیست فرمودند ک اورا ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ

ا ہٹہرا لحال کدام خیر با قیست مردمان عرض نمودند یک پرچ بلس یعنی ٹ ہ

د انججدلیس ہا یزان اسبان و ب میخوردند با قیست فرمودنججد کجج اوبکججار مججا خوا ہ ہ

ہاورا بیادر د اردرمیان دری در کال وا خت دردیشججی اختیججا کردنججد نیداراسجج ہ ں ہ

ای بودند پوشید اواز در دیش و معجز را نشججین درخججدمت خضججرت ہلو ے ہ ہ ہ

خججبری شججیرنی ۔۔۔۔۔حاضرشججدند حضججرت حججال بججار را پریشججان ملحظجج ہ

ی شند بججابر بججر خواشججت تسججلیم کعبجج روانجج ہخوارنی فرمدند ک بودبادشا خوا ہ ہ ہ ہ ہ ں

ندوا ک نافوس نوارند ہےنشدند باد حضرت فرمودند ک من و را بجا باعث ہ ں ہ ہ

ی کججر و بعججد ازخنججد ہجرایم وجبک بوبابر شا فتوی و را یجا نسججندی بنججاخوا ہ ہ

ی رسید بابر نام شا تندید و فرمود حضرت رفراموش ہفربابر بر تخت شا ہ ہ

انندب الججوقت حکججم بججابر ہکعند موسی عاشقان ازرا شخص را فرسا ک بابر و ہ ہ

ںشا بر سوب دار رشید و درا الوقت میر نقاالل خان صوب بود ند او نشان ایجج ہ ہ ہ ہ

مسجد را بنا نمودند

(Translation not available)

(Calligraphy page-2)

ہبفرمود شا بابر ک عدلش ہ ہںبنایست تأ کاخ گردو ملقی

1725

بط قدسیا ںبنا کرد ای م ہ ںامیر سعادت نشان میر باقیبود خیر باقی سال بنایشہعیا شد ک گفتم بود خیر باقی ں

(Translation not available)

ل اله ال ال محمد رسول البسم ال الرحمن الرحیم

٢ ال الصمد --١-قل هو ال أحد ٤- ولم یكن له كفوا أحد - ٣-لم یلد ولم یولد

Transliteration

La ilaha illa-llah, Muhammadu-rasulu-llah

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

Qul huwa Allahu ahad (1)

Allahus-samad (2)

Lam yalid walam yulad (3)

Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad (4)

( Englidh Translation)

There is no God except the Allah, Muhammad is the devotee

and Prophet of Allah.

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Say: He is God, the One and Only; (1)

God, the Eternal, Absolute; (2)

He does not beget, nor is He begotten; (3)

And there is none comparable to Him. (4)

(Surah 112: Al-Ikhlas)

1606. The English translation (interpretation) of the aforesaid

verses (though incomplete) has been given in paper no.

189C2/10-11, which has also been checked by the Court since

one of us fortunately is conversant in Persian and Urdu. It reads

as under:

"By order of King Babur whose Justice is a building

reaching to the mansions of heaven, this alighting place of

the angels was erected by Meer Baqee a nobleman

1726

impressed with the seal of happiness.

There is lasting charity in the year of its construction

what declares is manifest "that good works are lasting"

N.B. The words بباقی خیر Bavad) بود Khair Baqee)

signifying "There is lasting charity" or "good works are

lasting" also mean "the charity of Baqee" and form an

anagram of the year of the erection viz : 935.

From the Tughra

There is no God but God, and Moohammad is the

Prophet of God -

Say, O'Moohammad, that God is one, that God is

holy, unbegetting and unbegotten, and that he hath no

equal.

(Rab-un-Allahu Bakkhittin Abdezaif Mohammad Fateh)(Name of the Calligrapher)

2d

Nustalick

The victorious lord, Moohey ood Deen, Aulumgir,

Badshah, the destroyer of Infidels; the son of Shah

Juhan; the son of Juhangeer Shah; the son of Ukbar

Shah; the son of Humayoon Shah; the son of Babur

Shah; the son of OOmar Sheikh Shah; the son of

Soolatan Uboo Saeed; the son of Sooltan Moohummad

Shah; the son of Meeran Shah; the son of the Shahib i

Qiran Meer Tymoor-

N.B. Sahib i qiran is applied to a Prince who has

reigned above 30 years.

From the Tughra

In the name of God, most merciful. I testify that there

is no God but God- He is one, and without equal- I also

testify that Moohummad is his Servant and Prophet.

1727

This was engraced/ upon the propitious date of this

noble erection, by this weak slave Moohummud Funa Ullah

– N.B. The words in the parenthisis are not on the Insc., but

understood.

Nustalick writing

We are informed by the ancients who were acquainted

with the these facts that there was formerly a Prince named

Tugli Khan Oimyeed throne. His Wuzeer had a daughter

betrothed to Moosa Ashiquan. (Lit. The comforter of

Lovers). After some time the Wuzeer departed from this

dwelling of mortality to the abode of Eternity. --

The king having sent written orders for the purpose of

sezing the property in the Wuzeer's house; at that moment

Moosa Ashiqan was struck with the reflection that "This

World is nothing". He gave orders that all the people should

plunder and carry off whatever money and effects were in

his house' – The people did as he directed. As soon as the

plundering was over, he enquired whether anything

remained. The attendants told him that there remained some

grain. He directed them to carry off that also. After this he

again made enquiry, if anything was yet left. The servants

replied that there was only a piece of coarse canvas or Taut,

upon which the horses were wont to eat their gram". "That"

said he "will be of use to me". In short having taken and

torn althrough the middle and threw it over his shoulders

(or neck) he became a Durwish. --

Babur one of the Princes, hearing the report of his

becoming a Durwish and the other circumstances, privately

presented himself before his Highness. Beholding the

wretched condition of Babur, he gave him some sweetmeats

to eat and (addressing him) "Thou", said his Highness"

shalt be King "Babur arose and having made his Salam,

1728

was departing. His Highness again said "I am annoyed by

the Hindoos who are constantly ringing their Bells- When

thou becomest King thou shalt build a Musjid at this place.

Sometime afterwards Babur mounting the royal

throne was created King; but forgot His Highness's

directions. Moosa Ashiqan sending a person from himself

reminded him of it. Upon this the Soobadar received His

Majoxty's commands--Meer Buqaoola Khan then Soobedar,

and he erected this Massjid."

1607. Sri Ravi Shankar, Senior Advocate, Sri P.N.Mishra,

Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Sri R.L.Verma, Advocates, learned

counsels for Hindu parties sought to refer to the above

documents to show that this is the extract of the report and

documents of Dr. Buchanan himself and makes it very clear that

the building in dispute was constructed much later what is being

claimed as it contains the name of Emperor Alamgir

(Aurangzab) also. As we have already said, the above

documents were not proved by the concerned party and a

properly obtained document from British Library, Oriental

and India Office Collections has also not been produced. It is

therefore difficult for us to place any reliance on the said

documents.

1608. The worship of places by Hindus, however, has been

noticed in the History, Antiquities, Topography And Statistics

of Eastern India (supra) published in 1838. In Vol. I at page

195, Martin has observed:

"It must be observed, that the Hindus very often worship

(Puja) without any temple or images. … There are places,

however, that are reckoned more holy than the house..."

1609. The long passage we have quoted from several pages

of Martin's Eastern India, Vol. II above has some reason. We

1729

have no bias or prejudice against the agents of East India

Company or the then British Government, but the manner in

which they have dealt with the Indian ancient scriptures and

have written down about its culture, religion, society etc. needs

some deeper consideration. In fact, the history of India, which is

substantially embodied in ancient religious scriptures, has been

initially attempted to be penned down by the western writers

after advent of East India Company. In 18th and 19th century a

mass of work has been undertaken by them which has aroused

anxiety and has drawn attention of the people abroad to know

more about India. Before making further comments, one thing

which is a matter of appreciation, we cannot forget is that

whatever was written by western so called intelligentsia mainly

in the two centuries as said above, at least has given a

foundation or a point of commencement to others, whether in

India or outside, to go for further research in the matter and

endeavour to place the correct history of this sub-continent

before the world at large.

1610. The ancient scriptures in India was basically written in

Sanskrit irrespective of the script. It was not a language of the

common man. Therefore, virtually substantial section of the

sub-continent comprising Hindustan at that time was in dark

about the contents, meaning and the message derivable from

those scriptures. It was confined to a particular class, i.e.,

Brahmans and there also a very few were learned having some

deeper knowledge of those scriptures, otherwise general class

was more satisfied with the superficial working knowledge

sufficient for their day to day earning and survival.

1611. The East India Company after its initial few steps

towards India, brought such a huge revenue to England that the

1730

people thereat were simply stunned and shocked to find out as

to how this part of the Country could muster such a huge wealth.

Another surprising aspect was that the Indian sub-continent was

under the attack/invasion by outsiders for almost a thousand and

more years in the past and had continuously been looted by

them. Massive wealth continuously was driven off from the

Country, yet when the merchant companies of Britishers in the

form of East India Company visited India, in the first one and

half decade i.e. upto 1613, it showed remarkable earning to their

shareholders and public at large in England. This created great

anxiety amongst the Britishers to know more about India. It also

inspired other European Countries as we have seen that almost

simultaneously the merchant ships travelled India through sea

routes from the Countries like Portugal, France and England

obvious. Trade from India to other Countries, i.e. Africa, Arab,

China etc. had been going on since long and time immemorial

as a result whereof merchants were able to garner extraordinary

wealth by exporting several things like spices, sandalwood etc.

from India. Besides fertile land of this Country also help in

producing wealth. They also found that amongst the Hindus, age

old traditions, religious faith carried down from generations to

generations from time immemorial and had not got diluted

despite several religious attacks, conversions, etc. All these

things, which were really surprising, aroused lot of anxiety

amongst the Europeans to know more about this Country.

1612. According to their concept, the oldest culture in the

world was Roman and Greek and they knew nothing more than

that. It was really difficult for them to believe that a much more

advanced and that too more ancient culture could have existed

in this part of the world for such a long time and has

1731

successfully faced all bad times to survive while the Roman and

Greek culture has perished long back. With this idea lots of

people from Europe came to India and tried to find out the

source of its cultural and religious history from the written work

whatever was available. Since, the work was mainly in Sanskrit,

thus the written material was also available with the selected

Brahmans. Several kinds of manuscripts they possessed which

were collected by these western people in one or other way.

They tried to find out in their own way the most authenticated

and original manuscripts on the subject concerned. A language,

a culture which was several thousands and more years old, it is

surprising that these western intelligentsia class claim to have

learnt and understood and that too achieved mastery. They dealt

with the above collected material in their own way. Without

making any serious comment on this aspect, suffice to mention

that the spirit, the context of real intention of a culture which has

developed in several thousand years is improbable, if not

impossible, to be understood in such a short time. Even today

those who are constantly studying and dealing with those

matters, are still undergoing rigorous discussion, research and

investigation to understand the correct and real intention behind

the particular words, sentences, phrases and verses, as the case

may be.

1613. The only thing which we really find commendable is

that the zeal of the western intelligentsia to know more about the

Indian ancient culture brought out the ancient literature from the

confines of the Brahmans and as a result of its translation in

English and other languages, the things became accessible to the

entire lot so that they may also look into the matter, ponder over

it so as to appreciate and understand. In fact this translation

1732

attracted the world people to go for more indepth research,

discoveries and investigation and that is how the things started

and today in 21st century we find several new and startling facts

which belie a lot of settled concepts of the western writers of

18th or 19th century.

1614. The casual manner in which the long genealogy

covering a very long period was found inconceivable by these

writers and has been shortened at their whims and conjectures

only because they could not have a complete chain is really

startling. It means that if I am unable to tell the chain of my

ancestors to five or seven or ten generations, that would mean

that I have no such past chain of generation or it can be reduced

to the extent of missing part. Non-availability does not mean

non existent. No one can accept that merely because somebody

could not give the detail of past generations, that would mean

that he has no such ancestry. The casual and contemptuous

manner in which Dr. Buchanan or Martin in the above work,

i.e., Eastern India (supra) have dealt with the things we have

quoted give a few example. If some needs a little more can be

demonstrated from page 433 and onwards, some part of which

we may notice hereunder :

"The highest science is here reckoned the theology of

the Vedas, which is more studied, than would appear from

the reports of the Pandit of the survey, who like other

Bengalese holds this science, if such it can be called, in

great contempt. The doctrines of Sangkara are chiefly

followed; and the works most commonly studied are the

Vedantasar, composed by a pupil of Awaitananda, a

Brahman of the south, who dedicated his life to religion;

the Pangchadasi, and the ten Upanishad Bhashyas of

1733

Sangkara. The theologians here insist, that every word,

sentence and verse in the Vedas, as they now exist, was

formed by Brahma before the earth, and that Vyasa did not

alter a syllable; but only arranged the original parts into

four books, which previously had been comprehended in

one. All mention therefore of events, that have happened

since the creation, is supposed to be prophetical. Such, I

believe, is the opinion, that very generally prevails among

the Brahmans of the south, as well as those here; and,

having been communicated to the learned in Europe, was

supposed by them to imply, that the books now called the

Vedas were the work of a great lawgiver named Brahma,

who formed the laws of the Hindu nation, and introduced

science. When it was discovered, that these works

mentioned many personages, who lived very long after the

commencement of the Hindu government, as the power of

prophecy could not be received by any one but a Hindu, it

was justly concluded, that they were not the works of the

lawgiver Brahma, who in fact is a mere creature of

imagination; and Mr. Pinkerton is fully justified in calling

the Vedas modern forgeries, even had Mr. Colebrooke

proved that they were written by Vyasa, and that Vyasa

lived 12 centuries before the birth of Christ; for in

comparison of the commencement of the Hindu history,

before which the Vedas are alleged to have been written,

even this distant period of Vyasa is but as yesterday. But

that the Vedas, which now exist, were written by Vyasa the

son of Parasara, or so early, seems to me completely

incompatible with the mention made in them of the success,

that had attended the ceremony used at the coronation of

1734

Janmejaya the son of Parikshita, by which he had

conquered the world; for Janmejaya was grandson of

Abhimanya, who was the great grandson of Vyasa the son

of Parasara, and it is altogether impossible, that so remote

an ancestor should live to celebrate the conquest of the

world by his descendant. But besides this conquest is not

likely to have been mentioned by any contemporary author;

for in all probability the supreme government of India was

not then vested in the spurious offspring of Vyasa, but in

the house of Jarasandha. Mr. Colebrooke indeed states,

that besides the descendant of Vyasa he has heard from the

Brahmans of another Janmejaya son of Parikshita; but on

a careful examination of the genealogies, extracted from

the Purans by Manogyadatta, I can find no such person;

nor can that learned Pandit recollect any such, although

there are many Janmejayas, especially the son of Puru,

kind of Pratishthan, and the names are so alike, that they

may readily have misled the Pandits consulted by Mr.

Colebrooke, speaking from recollection. If a Vyasa,

therefore, was author of the present Vedas, it was not the

son of Parasara, but some person, who probably lived

shortly before Sangkara Acharya; and many in fact allege,

that the instructor of this great doctor was named Vyasa. If

so, the author, or compiler, or perhaps rather corrupter of

the Vedas, lived about the ninth or tenth century of the

Christian era, in the age emphatically called dark, and to

judge from the account given of the Vedas by Mr.

Colebrooke, the work is worthy of the age.

It is probable, however, that before this time, there

existed a system of science (Veda), extending, according to

1735

a passage quoted by Mr. Colebrooke, not only to the four

kinds of sacred knowledge, detailed in the present Vedas,

but to grammar and history, the first of which in the

passage alluded to is called the chief of the (Vedas)

sciences, although the books now called Vedas do not treat

on the subject. The historical part, there is reason to think,

was valuable; but being irreconcilable with doctrines,

which the author wished to establish, was totally new

modelled in separate works called the Purans. Although all

these go under the name of Vyasa, there is certain grounds

to doubt of his having composed the whole, as it seems

scarcely possible, that any one man in his senses would

attempt to pass on the credulity of mankind a number of

books, treating on the same subject in manners totally

discordant and contradictory, as happens in these works.

Many circumstances mentioned in these Purans, would

show the time in which Vyasa actually lived, could any of

these works be traced with certainty to him; and I suspect,

that not only the historical part (Purana) of the ancient

system of science, but that written by Vyasa has been new

modelled in the various works now called Purans, all

probably very modern, and composed by various persons."

1615. The long observations, we have just made are in the

context of the fact that the Buchanan's survey relates to the

earliest part of 19th century, i.e., 1807 to 1814. Aurangzeb died

in 1707 after having ruled for about 50 years. Therefore, the

memory of the people in respect to the incidents which took

place during Aurangzeb were just 100 to 150 years old in

comparison to that of Babar who was there about more than 275

years back. The people's memory is better reliable in respect to

1736

the recent incidents in comparison to ancient one. The belief of

the local people about the destruction or construction at the

disputed site, in the same way noticed by Tieffenthaler about 50

years back from the period of Buchanan and same thing noticed

by Buchanan, in our view, ought to have been given more

reliability than simply discarding the same on the basis of an

inscription, the possibility whereof was always to be installed at

any later point of time. In the absence of any material or

anything to show that it was fixed almost 272 years back and the

belief of the local people was perverse, we find it difficult to

rely only on the observations of Buchanan based on inscriptions,

the language whereof was not known to him and there is nothing

to show that he could read or understood it.

1616. Sri P.N. Mishra, learned counsel further submitted that

had the building in dispute constructed in 1528 and that too at

the command of Emperor Babar, it would be inconceivable that

Abul Fazal Allami in his work “Ain-e-Akbari” would have

failed to notice the same though, if correct, it would have been

the work of Akbar's grandfather. He refers to the “Ain-e-

Akbari” written by Abul Fazal Allami, translated in English by

H. Blochmann edited by Leiut. Colonel D.C. Phillott, first

published 1927-1949 reprint 1989 published by Low Price

Publications, Delhi. He pointed out that Abul Fazal Allami has

referred to "Ayodhya" and its religious importance for Hindus

and also certain religious places of Muslims. Therefore, it is

improbable that he would have missed or ignored to mention

about a grand mosque constructed by grandfather of Emperor

Akbar though has mentioned about other places of Ayodhya.

This shows that till the date when the aforesaid work was

written by Abul Fazal, building in dispute had not came into

1737

existence and it is incorrect to suggest that it was constructed in

1528 AD. He explained that this is the reason why we do not

find any such mention in the work of Goswami Tulsidas, a great

follower of Lord Ram. From Volume 1 of “Ain-e-Akbari”, Sri

P.N.Mishra placed certain extracts from page 162 and onwards

to show that a large number of places of worship were

constructed in 983 AH and onwards (see page 179, “Ain-e-

Akbari”) and that tax levelled on non-Muslims was abolished in

987 AH. About the abolition of tax on non-Muslims, page 198

of “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 quote as under :

“In this year the Tamgha (inland tolls) and the Jazya

(tax on infidels), which brought in several krors of dam

were abolished, and edicts to this effect were sent over the

whole empire.”

1617. He also referred to pages 201, 202 and 203 to show

that the policy of Akbar was not so fanatic and was judicious to

Hindus also. Had there been such a construction at the religious

place of Hindus, the Akbar would have allowed it to be

removed. The various orders and actions as noticed by Allami

in “Ain-e-Akbari” Vol.-1 on pages 201 and onwards are as

under:

"His majesty was now [990] convinced that the

Millenium of the Islamitio dispensation was drawing near.

No obstacle, therefore, remained to promulgating the design

which he had planned in secret. The Shaykhs and Ulamas

who, on account of their obstinacy and pride, had to be

entirely discarded, were gone, and His Majesty was free to

disprove the orders and principles of the Islam, and to ruin

the faith of the nation by making new and absurd

regulations. The first order which was passed was that the

coinage should show the era of the Millenum, and that a

1738

history of the one thousand years should be written, but

commencing from the death of the Prophet. Other

extraordinary innovation were devised as political

expedients, and such orders were given that one's senses got

quite perplexed. Thus the sijda, or prostration, was ordered

to be performed as being proper for kings; but instead of

sijda, the word zaminbos was used. Wine also was allowed,

if used for strengthening the body, as recommended by

doctors; no mischief or impropriety was to result from the

use of it, and strict punishments were laid down for

drunkenness, or gatherings and uproars. ....

"Beef was interdicted, and to touch beef was

considered defiling. The reason of this was that, from his

youth, His Majesty had been in company with Hindu

liberation, and had thus learnt to look upon a cow- which

in their opinion is one of the reasons why the world still

exists- as something holy. Besides the Emperor was subject

to the influence of the numerous Hindu princess of the

Harem, who had gained so great ascendancy over him as to

make his forswear beef, garlic, onion, and the wearing of a

beard, which things His majesty still avoids. He had also

introduced, though modified by his peculiar views, Hindu

customs and heresies into the court assemblies, and

introduces them still, in order to please and win the

Hindus and their castes; he abstained from everything

which they think repugnant to their nature, and looked upon

shaving the beard as the highest sign of friendship and

affection for him. Hence this custom has become very

general. Pandering pimps also expressed the opinion that

the beard takes its nourishment from the testicles; for no

eunnch had a beard; and one could not could exactly see of

what merit or importance it was to cultivate a beard.

1739

Moreover, former ascetics and looked upon carelessness in

letting the beard grow as one way of mortifying one's flesh,

because such carelessness exposed them to the reproach of

the world; and so, at present, the silly lawyers of the Islam

looked upon cutting down the beard as reproachful, it was

clear that shaving was now a way of mortifying the flesh,

and therefore praiseworthy, but not letting the beard grow.

(But if any one considers this argument calmly, he will soon

detect the fallacy.) Lying, cheating Muftis also quoted an

unknown tradition, in which it was stated that 'some Qasis'

of Persia had shaved their beards. But the words ka-ma gaf

alu ba'z' 'l-quzdt (as some Qasis have done), which occur in

this tradition, are based upon a corrupt reading, and should

be ka-ma yaf 'a' u ba l-gusat (as some wicked men have

done). . .

"The ringing of bells as in use with the Christians,

and the showing of the figure of the cross, and . . . . . . and

other childish anything of theirs; were daily in practice. The

words Kufr shay shud, or 'heresy' 'became common',

express the Tdrikh (985). Ten or twelve years after the

commencement of these doings, matters had gone so far that

wretches like Mirza Jani, chief of Tattah, and other

apostates, wrote their confessions on paper as follows :- 'I,

such a one, son of such a one, have willingly and cheerfully

renounced and rejected the Islam in all its phases, whether

low or high, as I have witnessed it in my ancestors and have

joined the Divine Faith of Shah Akbar, and declare myself

willing to sacrifice to him my property and life, my honour

and religion'. And these papers- there could be no more

effective letters of damnation- were handed over to the

Mujtahid ( Abu'l Fazl) of the new creed, and were

considered a source of confidence or promotion. The

1740

Heavens might have parted as under, and earth might have

opened her abyss and the mountains have crumbled to dust!

"In opposition to the Islam, pigs and dogs were no

longer looked upon as unclean. A large number of these

animals was kept in the Harem, and in the vaults of the

castle, and to inspect them daily was considered a religious

exercise. The Hindus, who believe in incarnations, said

that the boar belonged to the ten forms which God

Almighty had once assumed.

"God is indeed Almighty- but not what they say."

"The saying of some wise men that a dong had ten

virtues, and that a man, if he possesses one of them, was

saint, was also quoted as a proof. Certain courtiers and

friends of His Majesty, who were known for their excellence

in every department, and proverbial as court poets, used to

put dogs on a tablecloth and feed them, whilst other

heretical poets. Persians and Hindustanis, followed this

example, even taking the tongues of dogs into their own

mouths, and then boasting of it.

"Tell the Mir that thou hast, within thy skin, a dog and

a carcass.

"A dog runs about in front of the house; don't make

him a messmate.

"The ceremonial ablution after emission of semen was

no longer considered binding, and people quoted as proof

that the essence of man was the sperma genitale, which was

the origin of good and bad man. It was absurd that voiding

urine and excrements should not require ceremonial

ablutions, whilst the emission of so tender a fluid should

necessitate ablution; it would be far better, if people would

first bathe, and then have connexion.

"Further, it was absurd to prepare a feast in honour

1741

of a dead person; for the corpse was mere matter, and could

derive no pleasure from the feast. People should therefore

make a grand feast on their birthdays. Such feasts were

called Ash i haydt, food of life.

"The flesh of a wild boar and the tiger was also

permitted, because the courage which these two animals

possess would be transferred to any one who fed on such

meat.

"It was also forbidden to marry one's cousins or near

relations, because such marriages are destructive of mutual

love. Boys were not to marry before the age of 16, nor girls

before 14, because the offspring of early marriages was

weakly. The wearing of ornaments and silk dresses at the

time of prayer was made obligatory.

"The prayers of the Islam, the fast, nay even the

pilgrimage, were henceforth forbidden. Some bastards, as

the son of Mulla Mubarak, a worthy disciple of Shaykh

Abu'l Fazl wrote treatises, in order to revile and ridicule

our religious practices, of course with proofs. His Majesty

liked such productions, and promoted the authors.

"The era of the Hijrah was now abolished, and a

new era was introduced, of which the first year was the

year of the emperor's accession (963). The months had the

same names as at the time of the old Persian kings, and as

given in the Nisab" 's.sibniyan'. Fourteen festivals also were

introduced, corresponding to the feasts of the Zoroastrians;

but the feasts of the Musalmans, and their glory were

trodden down, the Friday prayer alone being retained

because some old, decrepit, silly people used to go to it. The

new era was called Tdrikh I llahi, or 'Divine Era'. On

copper coins and gold muhrs, the era of the Millennium was

used, as indicating that the end of the religion of

1742

Muhammad, which was to last one thousand years, was

drawing near. Reading and learning Arabio was looked

upon as a crime; and Muhammadan law, the exegesis of the

Quran, and the Tradition, as also those who studied them,

were considered bad and deserving of disapproval.

Astronomy, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, poetry,

history and novels, were cultivated and thought necessary.

Even the letters which are peculiar to the Arabic language,

as the ص،ح،ع،ث۔ and ض، were ظ۔ avoided. Thus for لہ عببدال

people wrote لہAbdullah; and for ابدال Ahadi اھد,Ahadi احدی

etc. All this pleased His Majesty. Two verses from the

Shahnama, which Firdawsi gives as part of a story, were

frequently quoted at court-

From eating the flesh of camels and lizards

The Arabs have made such progress,

That they now wish to get hold of the kingdom

of Persia.

Fie upon Fate! Fie upon Fate!

"Similarly other verses were eagerly seized, if they

conveyed a calumny, as the verses from the …........, in

which the falling out of the teeth of our prophet is alluded

to.

"In the same manner, every doctrine and command of

the Islam, whether special or general as the prophetship,

the harmony of the Islam with reason, the doctrines of Ru

yat, Taklif, and Takwin, the details of the day of

resurrection and judgment- all were doubted and ridiculed.

And if anyone did object to this mode of arguing, his answer

was not accepted. But it is well known how little chance a

man has who cite proofs against one who will reject them,

especially when his opponent has the power of life and

death in his hands; for equality in condition in a sine qud

1743

won in arguing.” (Page 201-206)

"Here Bada, on mentions the translations from

Sanscrit into Persian, which have been alluded to above,

p.110. It is not quite certain whether the translation were

made from Sanscrit or from Hindi translations, or from

both. Bada, on clearly states that for some translations, as

at the Atharban, Hindus were used as interpreters. For

other works as the Mahabharat, there may have been Hindi

translations or extracts, because Akbar himself (vide p.111,

note 2) translated passages to Naqib Khan. Abu'l-Fazl also

states that he was assisted by Pandits when writing the

fourth book of the A-in. Compare Sir H. Elliott's Index to

the Historians of India, p. 259.” (Page 209)

"In these days (991) new orders were given. The

killing of animals on certain days was forbidden as on

Sundays, because this day is sacred to the Sun; during the

first eighteen days of the month of Farwardin; the whole

month of Ahan (the month in which His Majesty was born);

and on several other days to please the Hindus. This order

was extended over the whole realm, and capital punishment

was inflicted on every one who acted against the command.

Many a family was ruined. During the time of those fasts,

His Majesty abstained altogether from meat, as a religious

penance, gradually extending the several fasts during a

year over six months and even more, with the view of

eventually discontinuing the use of meat altogether.” (Page

209-210)

"In the same year (991) His Majesty built outside the

town two places for feeding poor Hindus and

Muhammadans, one of them being called Khayrpura and

the other Dharmpura. Some of Abu'l-Fazl's people were put

in charge of them. They spent His Majesty's money in

1744

feeding the poor. As an immense number of Jogis also

flocked to this establishment, a third place was built, which

got the name of Jogipura.” (Page 210)

"His Majesty once ordered that the Sunnis should

stand separately from the Shiahs, when the Hindustanis,

without exception, went to the Sunni side, and the Persians

to the Shiah side.” (Page 212)

1618. Vol. 2 “Ain-e-Akbari” Page 181 and onwards deals

with “Oudh” and Sri Mishra placed the following part thereof :

“It is situated in the second climate. Its length from

the Sarkar of Gorakhpur to Kanauj is 185 kos. Its breadth

from the northern mountains to Sidhpur on the frontier of

the Subah of Allahabad is 115 kos. To the east is Bihar; to

the north, the mountains; to the south, Manikpur, and to the

west Kanauj. Its climate is good. Summer and winter are

nearly temperate. Its principal streams are the Saru (Sarju),

the Ghaghar (Gogra) the Sai and the Godi (Gumti). In the

first mentioned, divers aquatic animals and foms of strange

appearance show themselves. Agriculture is in a flourishing

state, especially rice of the kinds called Sukhdas, Madhkar,

and Jhanwan, which for whiteness, delicacy, fragrance and

wholesomeness are scarcely to be matched. They sow their

rice three months earlier than in other parts of Hindustan.

When the drought begins, the Sai and Gogra rise high in

flood and before the beginning of the rains, the land is

inundated, and as the waters rise, the stalks of rice shoot up

and proportionately lengthen: the crop, however, is

destroyed if the floods are in full force before the rice is in

ear. Flowers, fruits and game are abundant. Wild buffaloes

are numerous. When the plains are inundated the animals

take to the high ground where the people find sport in

1745

hunting them. Some of the animals remain all day in the

water and only at night approach the dry ground and

breathe in freedom. Awadh (Ajodhya) is one of the largest

cities of India. In is situated in longitude 118°, 0', and

latitude 27°, 22'. It ancient times its populous site covered

an extent of 148 kos in length and 86 in breadth, and it is

esteemed one of the holiest places of antiquity. Around the

environs of the city, they sift the earth and gold is

obtained. It was the residence of Rama Chandra who in

the Treta age combined in his own person both the

spiritual supremacy and the kingly office.

At the distance of one kos from the city, the Gogra,

after its junction with the Sai, [Saraju] flows below the fort.

Near the city stand two considerable tombs of six and seven

yards in length respectively. The vulgar believe them to be

the resting places of Seth and the prophet Job, and

extraordinary tales are related of them. Some say that at

Ratanpur is the tomb of Kabir, the assertor of the unity of

God.” (Page 181-182)

1619. The above contents are published on pages 170-172 of

"Ain-e-Akbari" by Abul Fazal Allami, translated by Colonel

H.S. Jarrett, Vol. 2, published in 1891 at Calcutta and the

photocopy thereof alongwith its frontispiece has been filed as

Exhibit T6 (Suit-4) (Paper No. 43A-1/25-28) (Register 18,

pages 51-57).

1620. He also referred to the two footnotes one of which is

with respect to Ram and another with respect to Sant Kabir and

read as under : .

"The 7th avatar, who in this capital of the solar

dynasty founded on the chariot wheel of Brahma,

consummated the glories of sixty generations of solar

1746

princes and as the incarnate Rama, i.e. the hero of the

famous epic that bears his name.” (Page 182)

"His doctrines were preached between A.D. 1380 and

1420 and attempted the union of Hindu and Muhammadan

in the worship of one God whether invoked as Ali or Rama.

On his deceased both these sects claimed the body and

while they contested it, Kabir suddenly stood in their midst

and commanding them to look under the shoud, vanished. A

heap of beautiful flowers was there discovered, which,

divided among the rival worshippers, were buried or burnt

according to their respective rites. Pilgrims from upper

India to this day beg a spoonful of rice water from the Kabir

Monastery at Puri in Orissa.” (Page 182)

1621. He also pointed out to page 184 which gives certain

other statistics of Oudh showing that main castes residing

therein were "Brahmans" and "Kumbi". Then on page 311 of

Vol. 2 Sri Mishra says that Abul Fazal has also taken note of

various incarnations of Lord Vishnu in the form of Varahavatara

or Boar-Incarnation, Nara-Sinha or Man-Lion Incarnation,

Vamana or Dwarj-Incarnation, Parasurama or Incarnation of

Ram with axe, then Ramavatara or Ram Incarnation,

Krishnavatara or Incarnation as Krishna, Buddhavatara or

Buddha Incarnation, Kalkyavatara or Kalki Incarnation. On

pages 316-317, Ramavatara has been described as under :

“They relate that Ravana one of Rakshasas two

generation in descent from Brahma, had ten heads and

twenty hands. He underwent austerities for a period of ten

thousand years in the Kailasa mountain and devoted his

heads, one after another in this penance in the hope of

obtaining the sovereignty of the three worlds. The deity

appeared to him and granted his prayer. The gods were

1747

afflicted by his rule and as in the former instances, solicited

his dethronement which was vouchsafed, and Rama was

appointed to accomplish this end. He was accordingly born

during the Treta Yuga on the ninth of the light half of the

month of Chaitra (March-April) in the city of Ayodhya, of

Kausalya wife of Raja Dasaratha. At the first dawn of

intelligence, he acquired much learning and withdrawing

from all worldly pursuits, set out journeying through wilds

and gave a fresh beauty to his life by visiting holy shrines.

He became lord of the earth and slew Ravana. He ruled for

eleven thousand years and introduced just laws of

administration.” (Page 316-317)

1622. Chapter IX Vol. 2 of “Ain-e-Akbari” deals with

sacred places of pilgrimages and it includes a number of rivers

as well as several places including Ayodhya as under :

“CHAPTER IX

SACRED PLACES OF PILGRIMAGE

Although profound and enlightened moralists are

convinced that true happiness consists in the acquisition of

virtue and recognise no other temple of God but a pure

heart, nevertheless the physicians of the spiritual order,

from their knowledge of the pulsation of human feeling,

have bestowed on certain places a reputation for sanctity

and thus rousing the slumberers in forgetfulness and

instilling in them the enthusiastic desire of seeking God,

have made these shrines instruments for their reverencing

of the just, and the toils of the pilgrimage a means of

facilitating the attainment of their aim.

These holy places are of four degrees.

The first is termed deva or divine and dedicated to

Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva. The greatest among these

1748

are twenty-eight rivers in the following orders:- [P.177] (1)

Ganges, (2) Sarasvati, (3) Jamuna, (4) Narbada, (5) Vipasa,

Known as Biah (Hyphasis), (6) Vitasta (Hydaspes or

Bidaspes) known as the Bihat, (7) Kausiki, a river near

Rhotas in the Panjab, but some place it in the neighborhood

of Garhi in the eastern districts (8) Nandavati (9)

Chandrabhaga, known as the Chenab, (10) Sarayu (Sarju)

known as the Sarau, (11) Satyavati, (12) Tapi known as

Tapti upon the (north) bank of which is Burhanpur. (13)

Paravati, (14) Pasavati (15) Gomati (Gumti) near Dvaraka.

(16) Gandaki, upon the banks of which is Sultanpur of the

Subah of Oudh, (17) Bahuda, (18) Devika (Deva or Gogra).

(19) Godavari, called also Banganga. Pattan of the Dekhan

is situated on its bank. (20) Tamraparni at the extremity of

the Dekhan. Here pearls are found. (21) Charmanvati (22)

Varana, near Benares (23) Iravti, known as the Ravi

(Hydraotes), Lahor is on its bank. (24) Satadru (the

hundred-Channelled), known as the Sutlej. Ludhiana is

upon its bank. (25) Bhimarathi, [178] called also the

Bhima, in the Dekhan. (26) Parnasona. (27) Vanjara, in the

Dekhan, (28) Achamiyya, Some include the Indus, but it is

not of the same sanctity.

Each of these rivers as dedicated to one of these deities,

has peculiar characteristics ascribed to it: Some of the

places situated on their banks are esteemed holy, as, for

example, the village of Soron on the Ganges, to which

multitudes flock on the twelfth of the month of Aghan (Nov-

Dec). Some regard certain cities as dedicated to the

divinities. Among these are Kasi, commonly called

Benares. The Adjacent country for five kos around the city

is held sacred. Although pilgrimages take place throughout

1749

the year, on the Siva-ratri multitudes resort thither from

distant parts and it is considered one of the most chosen

places in which to die. Final liberation is said to be

fourfold: (1) Salokya passing from the degrees of paradise

to Kailasa. They say that when a man goes to heaven

through good works, he must return to earth, but when

after various transmigrations, he attains that region, he

returns no more (2) Sarupya (assimilation to the deity);

when a man partakes of the divine elementary form, he

does nor revisit the earth. (3) Samipya (nearness to the

deity) is when a man after breaking the elemental bonds,

by the power of good works is admitted into the presence

of God's elect, and does not return to earth. (4) Sayuiya

(absorption into the deity); after passing through all

intermediate stages, he obtains the bliss of true liberation.

They have likewise divided the territory of Benares into

four kinds. The characteristic of two parts is that when a

being dies therein, he attains the fourth degree of Mukti; if

he dies in one of the others, he reaches the third degree,

and if in the remaining one, the second degree.

Ayodhya, commonly called Awadh. The distance of

forty kos to the east, and twenty to the north is regarded as

sacred ground. On the ninth of the light half of the

month of Chaitra a great religious festival is held.

Avantika, Ujjain. All around it for thirty-two kos is

accounted holy and a large concourse takes place on the

Siva-ratri.

Kanchi (Conjervaram) in the Dekhan. For twenty

kos around it is considered sacred. On the eighth of every

Hindu month that falls on a Tuesday, there is a great

concourse of pilgrims.

1750

Mathura is sacred for forty-eight kos around, and

even before it became the birthplace of Krishna, was held in

veneration. Religious festivals are held on the 23rd of the

month of Bhadra (Aug-Sept) and the 15th of Karitika (Oct-

Nov).

Duaraka. The country for forty kos in length and

twenty in breadth is esteemed holy. On the Dlwalt festival,

crowds resort hither.

Maya, known as Haridvra (Hardwar) on the Ganges.

It is held sacred for eighteen kos in length. Large numbers

of pilgrims assemble on the 10th of Chaitra.

These seven are called the seven (sacred) cities.

Prayaga now called Illahabas. The distance for

twenty kos around is venerated. They say that the desires

of a man that dies here are gratified in his next birth. They

also hold that whoever commits suicide is guilty of a great

crime except in this spot where it meets with exceeding

reward. Throughout the year it is considered holy, but

especially so during the month of Magha (Jan-Fab).

Nagarkot For eight kos round it is venerated. On the

eighth of the months of Chaitra and Kartika, many

pilgrims assemble.

Kashmir is also accounted of this class and is

dedicated to Mahadeva. Many places in it are held in great

veneration.

The second are the shrines of the Asuras, which are

temples dedicated to the Daitya race. In many things they

share the privileges of the devatas; but the latter are more

pure, while the others are filled with the principle of tamas

(darkness). Their temples are said to be in the lower

regions (Patala).

1751

The third are called Arsha, or shrines of the great

Rishis, men who by virtue of austerities and good works

are in near proximity to the deity. [180] Their shrines are

counted by thousands. Amongst them are Nimkhar

(Nimishara), Pukhra (Pushkara), Khushab, and Badiri.

The fourth are called Manusha, or appertaining to

men who by their power of good works are superior to

mankind in general, though they do not obtain the rank of

the third degree. Their shrines also are numerous. Among

them is Kurkushetra, which for forty kos around is

considered holy, and numerous pilgrims resort thither

during eclipses of the sun and moon.

Ceremonies are laid down for each pilgrimage and

their various meritorious results are declared.

O THOU! That seekest after divine knowledge, learn

wisdom of these Hindu legends! Each particle among

created atoms is a sublime temple of worship. May the

Almighty deliver mankind from the wanderings of a vain

imagination troubles over many things.” (Page 332-336)

“...taken from the letter which is therewith connected

and a name of more than four letters is considered

blameworthy. In the fourth month they bring it into the sun

before which time it is never carried out of the house. In

the fifth month they bore the lobs of the right ear. In the

sixth month, if the child be a boy, they place various kinds

of food around him, and feed him with that for which he

shows a preference. If it be a girl, this is not done till the

sixth or seventh month. When it is a year old, or in the third

year, they shave his head, but by some this is delayed till

the fifth year, by others till the seventh, and by others again

1752

till the eighth year, when a festival is held. In the fifth year

they send him to school and meet together in rejoicing.

They observe the birthday and annually celebrate it

with a feast, and at the close of each year make a knot on a

thread of silk. He is invested with the sacred string at the

appointed time. At each of these occasions they perform

certain works and go through some extraordinary

ceremonies.” (Page 349)

1623. On page 349, the important religious festivals of

Hindus are also discussed which include Rama-Navami on page

350. Sri Mishra says, while acknowledging Ayodhya at length

on various aspects of the matter, Abul Fazal having not noticed

any building said to have been constructed by or under the

command of Babar in 1528 AD proves that the same was not

actually built in that manner and did not exist till then also.

1624. Sri Mishra, when asked that the building in dispute ex

facie appears to be a Mosque, then how it came into existence if

not constructed in 1528, submitted that it was actually attacked

and damaged at the time of Aurangzeb and attempt was made to

give it shape of a Mosque and inscriptions on the said building

were fixed by someone much thereafter. He placed before us

“Indian Texts Series-Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India 1653-

1708” by Niccolao Manucci translated in English by Milliam

Irvine Vol. III pages 244/245 where it deals with the Hindu holy

places and reference to destruction of chief temple of Ayodhya

by Aurangzeb and reads as under :

“In this realm of India, although King Aurangzeb

destroyed numerous temples, there does not thereby fail to

be many left at different places, both in his empire and in

the territories subject to the tributary princes. All of them

1753

are thronged with worshippers; even those that are

destroyed are still venerated by the Hindus and visited for

the offering of alms. The Hindus assert that in the world

there are seven principal places where it is possible to

obtain what one has imagined and desired-that is to say, in

cases where a person wishes to become emperor or king,

wealthy, powerful, or to attain other positions of the same

order. Now they ordinarily hold that on dying a person's

soul is transferred according to the deeds he has done; if

he has done good, his soul will pass into some one of

consideration or of wealth, and should the deceased have

done evil, his soul will be sent into some animal- an

elephant, camel, buffalo, cow, tiger, wolf, a bird, a snake, a

fish, et cetera. Now, some great sinner, deserving of hell,

may be anxious for delivery therefrom, and want to become

an emperor or great noble, or whatever he fancies; it can

be done by sacrificing his life by drowning himself in a

river or in the tanks found near temples at the foot of the

gates.

The principal temples referred to above are these-

that is to say:

1. The first, Maya, to be found among the mountains

of the north.

2. Matura (Mathura), which is near the city of Agrah.

3. Caxis (Kashi), which is on the Ganges, in the city

of Benaras.

4. Canchis (Kanji), in the Karnatik

5. Evantica, in the mountains of Tartary.

6. Puris (Puri), on the borders of Cochin China.

7. Darahotis (? Gangotri), at the source of the

1754

Ganges, as they suppose it to be [+5].

Bands of interested persons make these lengthy

pilgrimages, enduring a thousand hardships on the way,

only at the end to drown by their own choice, without

considering where they are about to take up their abode.

The chief temples destroyed by King Aurangzeb

within his kingdom were the following:

1. Maisa (? Mayapur),

2. Matura (Mathura),

3. Caxis (Kashi)'

4. Hajudia (Ajudhya),

and an infinite number of others; but, not to tire the reader,

I do not append their names.” (Page 244-245)

1625. Niccolo Mauucci was a traveller, who came to India

during the reign of Aurangzeb and had written his account of

travel in the aforesaid book.

1626. Sri Mishra pointed out that the reign of Emperor

Aurangzeb was a total Islamic reign and all actions to cause

damage to Hindu religion and religious places were taken by

him. He not only revived Jizya which was a tax payable by non-

Islamic people but also caused damage to Hindu religious places

at a large scale. Sri Mishra refers to “India in the 17th Century

(Social, Economic and Politician) Memoirs of Francois

Martin (1670-1694)” Volume II, Part I (1681/1688) translated

by Lotika Varadarajan first published 1984 by Manohar

Publications, New Delhi and on page 880 where it discusses

about the rate of 'Jizya' increased by the Emperor in October

1683 AD and says :

“Towards the beginning of October, the principal

bania merchants assembled to discuss the orders to

1755

increase the rate of jizya which had been sent by the

Emperor to the Governor. I have already spoken about this

tax which is similar to the carage paid by Christians in

Turkey. During the remaining part of the month, several

more meetings took place but these met with small success.

If the entire amount due from this tax had been properly

collected and paid into the imperial exchequer, the amount

obtained by the Emperor under this head alone would have

been far larger than the entire revenue accruing to him

from the many kingdoms which made up his vast empire.”

(Page 880)

1627. About the destruction of religious places, Sri Mishra

referred to Page 914 which says :

“When it had come to the knowledge of the Emperor

that many rich Gujarati banias had built temples within

their homes to perform their devotions, in his religious

fervour, he ordered that the Governors of the province

should carry out an inspection. All the temples in the

cities and villages had been destroyed. Now these inner

sanctums were also to be laid low and the least sign of

the practice of Hindu religion was to be wiped out. The

members of this community, particularly at Hyderabad and

Cambay where they were to be found in large numbers,

were greatly alarmed at these instructions. It was said that

the banias managed to circumvent the Mughal orders by

giving presents to the Governors who thereupon took their

inspection tours very lightly.” (Page 914)

1628. Volume II, Part II or “India in the 17th Century

(Social, Economic and Politician) Memoirs of Francois

Martin (1670-1694)” first published in 1985 page 1249 was

1756

relied by Sri Mishra which reads as under :

“Following the Emperor's orders with regard to the

destruction of temples, the Moors brought one down in the

Carnatic. This incited the Hindus to revolt in an attempt to

prevent this action. The two communities clashed openly

and both sides sustained loss of life. As a result, the Moors

were forced to postpone their demolition activities to a

later date.”

1629. He also referred to footnote 31 on page 1249 which

says :

“31. According to French archival sources, B.N.,

N.A., 6213 (16), the Emperor had ordered all Hindu

temples to be destroyed including that of Jagannath at

Puri. This had brought about a Hindu rebellion as a result

of which the edict was not enforced.”

1630. He also referred to “Mughal Documents (A.D. 1628-

59) Volume II by S.A.I. Tirmizi (first published 1995 by

Manohar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi). On page 142

at sl. no. 426 there is a reference of a Farman of Aurangzeb of

15th March 1659 AD, which reads as under :

“426. Manshur of Aurangzeb addressed to Abul

Hasan states that it has been brought to the notice of the

royal court that the Brahmins of Banaras are being

removed from their ancient offices and that Hindus of

Banaras and its neighbourhood are harassed. In

accordance with the sharia the ancient temples, are not to

be destroyed and new ones are not to be built and since our

innate kindness of disposition and natural benevolence, the

whole of our untiring energy and our upright intentions are

engaged in promoting the public welfare and bettering the

1757

condition of all classes, high and low, it is ordered that no

person should interfere with or disturb the Brahmins and

other Hindus so that they may, as before, remain in their

ancient occupation and engage themselves with peace of

mind in offering prayers for the continuance of our God-

gifted empire so that it may last forever (JPHS, V(1)., pp.

247-48).

20 Jumada II/1069 A.H./15 March, 1659 A.D.”

1631. He contended that initially the existing policy of

Akbar, Jahangir and Shahjahan was followed by Aurangzeb, i.e.

neither to destroy existing Hindu religious places nor to allow

them to construct any new religious building but later on he took

a different stand and pursuant thereto demolished a large

number of Hindu temples.

1632. The total change of heart in reversing the earlier policy

said to have taken place almost after 10 years, i.e., with the start

of 11th year of his reign in April 1669. It has been discussed in

detail by Stanley Lane Poole in his book "Aurangzib-and the

decay of the Mughal Empire", first published in 1890,

reproduced in 1995, published by Low Price Publications, Delhi

on page 135-137. The relevant extract is as under:

"It seems to have been 1669 that the storm began to

gather. In April of that year Aurangzib was informed that

the Brahmans of Banares and other Hindu centers were in

the habit of teaching their 'wicked sciences,' not only to

their own people but to Muslims. This was more than the

orthodox Emperor could tolerate; but the severity of his

measures shows that he had been only waiting for a pretext

to come down like a thunderbolt upon the unfortunate

'heathen.' 'The Director of the Faith,' we are told, 'issued

1758

orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a

willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and

they were strictly enjoined to put an entire stop to the

teaching and practising of idolatrous forms of worship.' It

is not for a moment to be supposed that these orders were

literally carried out. Even the English Government would

not dare to risk such an experiment in India. All that was

done was to make a few signal examples, and thus to warn

the Brahmans from attempting to make proselytes among

the True Believers. With this object the temple of Vishnu at

Benares was destroyed and a splendid shrine at Mathura

was razed to the ground, to make room for a magnificent

mosque. The idols found in the temples were brought to

Agra and buried under the steps of the mosque, so that

good Muslims might have the satisfaction of treading them

under foot." (para 135-136)

"It is very difficult to trace the cause and effect of

Aurangzib's successive steps in his reactionary policy

towards the Hindus. In the eleventh year of his reign he

suddenly put a stop to the system of official chronicles,

which had been minutely recorded by historiographers

royal since the time of Akbar. Now, it was strictly forbidden

to write any chronicles at all, and those that have come

down to us were recorded in secret, or merely treasured in

the memory, and have all the confusion and fragmentary

character of haphazard reminiscences. There are probably

several links missing in the chain of events which

connected the first destruction of Hindu temples in 1669

with the imposition of the hated jizya or poll-tax on

unbelievers, a few years later. The revolt of the Satnamis is

1759

one of the few links that have been preserved by the secret

chroniclers, who were naturally disinclined to soil their

pens with the doings of 'unclean infidels.' Another event is

the rash interference of the Emperor in the matter of

Jaswant Singh's children." (pares 137-138)

1633. Sri P.N.Mishra also tried to take help from the

judgment of the District Judge Fyzabad in Suit 1885 since he

himself has visited the disputed premises on 18th March, 1886.

In para 7 and 8 of his written argument Sri Mishra formulated

his argument based on the above as under:

7. The District Judge of Faizabad who visited Sri

Ramjanmasthan/alleged Baburi Masjid on 18th March

1886 did not find any of the Inscriptions published by A.

Fuhrer in 1989 and by A. S. Beveridge in 1921. Said Ld.

Judge in his Judgment has recorded that the entrance to

the enclosure was under a gateway which bore the

superscription “Allah” immediately on the left as the

platform or Chabootra of masonary occupied by the

Hindus. His said finding is recorded in Judgment and

Order dated 18th March 1889 passed in Civil Appeal

No.27 of 1886 Mahanta Raghubardass, Mahant Janam

Asthan City Oudh VS. Secretary of State of India, Court

of Council and Mohd. Asghar by the said Judicial Officer

Mr. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge Faizabad which

constitute pages 87 to 91 of the volume 10 of the

Documents of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989 being Volume I of

the plaintiffs’ documents. Relevant portion from page 89

of the said Volume being an extract of the said judgment

reads as follows:

“I visited the land in dispute yesterday, in the presence

1760

of all parties.

I found that the Masjid built by the Emperor Babar

stands on the border of the town Ajudhia-that is to say

to the west and south it is clean of inhabitations. It is

most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built

on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as the

event occurred 356 years ago it is too late now to

remedy the grievance all that can be done is to

maintain the parties in status quo. In such a case as the

present one any (Sic) would cause more harm and

damage (Sic) of order than benefit. The entrance to the

enclosure is under a gateway which bears the

superscription “Allah” immediately on the left as the

platform or Chabootra of masonary occupied by the

Hindus. On this is a small superstructure of wood in

the form of a tent. This “Chabootra” is said to indicate

the birthplace of Ram Chan deer. Infront of the

gateway in the entry to masonary Platform of the

Musjid. A wall pierced (illegible) and therewith

railings divides the platform of the Musjid from the

enclosure in which stands the “Chabootra”.”

Be it mentioned herein that said judgment is Judgment

per Incuriam as it has been passed in ignoratum of law.

Prior to annexation of Oudh to British Rule the Law of

Shar was law in force which law neither had rule of

Limitation nor did recognise adverse possession. Apart

from this Hindu law in respect of Debutter property also

did not recognise adverse possession. This principle of

Law had already been laid down by the Indian Courts of

Record as well as Privy Council, London as such said

1761

judgment passed in ignoratum of those judicial

pronouncement has no force of law. Moreover in the said

Suit the Disputed Structure was not subject matter of that

suit nor was declaration of title in respect thereof prayed

for.

8. In the aforesaid judgment recording of the Ld. Judge

the superscription “Allah” leaves no doubt that he had

inspected the disputed premises and Structure very

minutely and it is needless to say that if there would have

been alleged Inscriptions that would not have gone

unnoticed by him. Be it mentioned herein that according

to Hindus’ sacred book “Allopanisad” “Allah” is one of

the several names of the almighty. Be it mentioned herein

that the “Allopanishad” has been reproduced by the

founder of Arya Samaj Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati in

his book “Satyarthaprakash” 2nd revised edition published

in Vikram Samvat 1939 i.e. 1882 A.D.. According to him

it was written during the reign of Emperor Akbar. The text

of “Allopanishad” as published on pages 556-67 of

‘Satyarthaprakash’ in “Dayanand-Granthmala published

by Srimati Paropakarini Sabha, Ajmer 1983 Edn. reads as

follows:

^ ^vFk kYyk si fu" kn z O;k[;kL;ke%A

vLekYyka bYys fe=ko#.kk fnO;kfu HkÙksA

bYyYys o#.kks jktk iquÌZnq%A

gek fe=ks bYyka bYyYys bYyka o#.kks fe=LrstLdke%AA1AA

gksrkjfeUnzks gksrkjfeUnz egklqfjUnzk%A

vYyks T;s"Ba ijea iw.kZ czkg~e.ka vYyke~AA2AA

vYyksjlwyegkenjdcjL; vYyks vYyke~AA3AA

vknYykcwdesdde~A vYykcwd fu[kkrde~AA4AA

vYyks ;Ksu gqrgqRokA vYyk lw ;ZpUnzloZu{k=k%AA5AA

1762

vYyk _"kh.kka loZfnO;ka bUnzk; iwoZ ek;k ijeeUrfj{kk%AA6AA

vYy% ifFkO;k vUrfj{ka fo'o:ie~AA7AA

bYyka dcj bYyka dcj bYyka bYyYysfr bYyYyk%AA8AA

vkse~ vYykbYyYyk vukfnLo:ik; vFkoZ.kk';kek gaq àha tukui'kwufl)ku~

typjku~ vn"Va dq# dq# QV~AA9AA

vlqjlagkfj.kh gqa àha vYyksjlwyegenjdcjL; vYyks vYyke~ bYyYysfr

bYyYyk%AA10AA

bR;Yyk si fu" kr ~ lek IrkAA

1634. Be that as it may, the above discussion and the

material considered by us make it very clear that the foundation

of the entire history regarding construction of disputed building

by Babar in 1528 AD is based upon the inscriptions said to be

fixed thereon. The original text of the said inscriptions is not

available at all. At least it has not been produced before us from

any authentic source. The text of the said inscriptions published

in different books and historical work, we have discussed, show

several crucial discrepancies therein. The historians, it appears

being aware that Babar came to India in 1526 AD and visited

Ayodhya in 1528 AD formed opinion in majority and read the

text of the inscriptions that the date of construction of the

building therein is 1528 AD i.e. 935 AH. However, in the

earliest Journal of ASI, the text is not only different but the

period mentioned is also different i.e. 930 AH.

1635. Interestingly there are some work written in Urdu in

the 19th Century by some Muslim writers. Therein mostly they

have mentioned the period of construction of the disputed

building as 923 Hijri and further that it was constructed by the

Babar at the instance of Syed Musa Ashikan. One of such

document is titled as "Ameer Ali Shaheed Aur Marka

Hanuman Gari" by Shekh Mohammad Ajmat Ali Alvi

Kakoravi (written in 1886) revised by Dr. Zaki Kakoravi

1763

published in 1987 and on page 9/10 it says:

^^dqrqc ¼iqLrdsa½ lkfcdk ¼iwoZ½ ls ekywe gS fd ckn rlYyqr ¼dCtk½

l;~;n lkykj elÅn x+kt+h ds

lykrhus bLykfe;k us fcykn ¼'kgjksa½ fgUnqLrku tUur fu'kku esa tgka

dgha uewnh ¼volj½

- -- - ikbZ ogka #Du ¼lnL;½ bLykeh ds rkSj ij efLtn o [kkudkg o

eqlkfQj [kkus cuok fn, vkSj eqvfT+t+u ¼ckaxh½ o eqnfjZl j[k dj nhus

eksgEenh dks 'kk;k fd;k vkSj lkeku

fcnvr ¼u;k dk;Z½ - - - fd;k pqukaps ftl rjg eFkqjk fcUnjkcu ox+Sjg

dks [klks[kklkd ¼?kkl Qwl½

fcnvr ls lkQ fd;kA blh rjg QS+t+kckn vo/k esa tks cM+k -- - dk

edke Fkk] r[rxkg finj y{eu o jke Fkk cqr[kkus tUeLFkku esa

923 fgtjh e s a l; ~;n e wlk vk f' kdk W a d s ,greke e sa efLtn

ljc qy an ckcjh r S;kj g qb Z A i q ju wj jghA og fganqvksa esa lhrk dh

jlksbZ- - - -e'kgwj FkhA

rkjh[k + fcuk ^ ^[k S j ckd +h * * ¼923 fgtjh½ g S g qTtr ;knxkj

l s feykrh g SA * *

1636. Thus the very basis of forming the view that the

disputed building was constructed in 1528 AD by Babar or at

his command by his agents founded solely on inscriptions

whose authenticity itself is not creditworthy.

1637. Unlike the historians who without any further probe,

Proceeded on the observations of Dr. Buchanan as published by

Martin in 1838, we do not find it possible to record a finding

that the building in dispute was constructed in 1528 AD by

Babar or any of his agents.

1638. If we summarize our reasons, we find firstly that

Babar in his chronological detail (to the extent it is available) in

"Baburnama" has mentioned various buildings which he got

constructed mainly at Agra where he stayed and made his

headquarter and in the nearby areas or else. Obviously, if some

1764

construction or alteration in an existing building was made by

any of his army officer or non-army officer who accompanied

him from Farghana, there could not have any occasion for him

to mention about the same in a work in which he recorded his

daily affairs. His period of rule in the then Hindustan is very

short, i.e., slightly more than four years. He being the founder of

the dynasty, later known as Mughal dynasty, obviously was

more interested in expansion of his reigning territory and not to

indulge in avoidable confrontation which strategically may have

added to his agony. A careful study of Baburnama show that

wherever possible he made friends among non-muslims also so

as to lessen rebels. Of course this was subject to the acceptance

of those non-muslim Rulers about his supremacy. Besides the

fact that no army commander of the name of "Mir Baqi", as

such is mentioned in Baburnama, we find that Baqi Shaghawal

who was made incharge of Oudh (Ayodhya) territory did not

have any rest at Ayodhya. From 28.03.1528 and onwards, for a

sufficiently long time, he remain on his toes chasing Bayazid

and others. He was granted leave in June 1529 AD by Babar. It

is the admitted case of the muslim parties that in a legendary

work of Goswami Tulsidas on Lord Rama, i.e.

'Ramcharitmanas' which came into existence in a very short

time after Babar, there is no mention of construction of a huge

mosque at Ayodhya by Babar or anyone else. We are using the

term "huge mosque" in the context of the place where the

disputed building was constructed.

1639. Then in two traveller's account of Finch and

Tieffenthaler also, this conspicuous miss cannot be overlooked.

The first reference of Ayodhya and in particular the fort of Lord

Rama at Ayodhya in the travellers account just after about 75

1765

years and more, i.e., of "William Finch" who visited India

between 1608 to 1611 AD. It is nobody's case that besides the

area which is known today as Mauja Ramkot there was any

other place where it was ever believed or seen by anybody the

alleged house or fort of Lord Rama. On the contrary, what has

been pointed out that in the first settlement of 1861 the site in

dispute was part of plot no. 161 which had a total area of more

than 9 Bighas. William Finch did not mention about any

recently constructed Islamic building or mosque in this area and

instead has referred to a house or fort which according to him

was constructed about 400 years ago and belief of Hindus as

birthplace of Ramchandar (Lord Rama). The period he mention

may be approximate, i.e., may or may not be very accurate but it

carries the period of the then existing building to 11th or 12th

century when Ayodhya was under the rule of Gaharwals. He

also mentions about Pooja and worship being performed by

Hindus (Brahmans) in the said area but there is no mention

about the existence of muslims or their religious place of a

recent construction in the said area. It is difficult to believe if

such a huge construction was existing at that time, the same

would have gone unnoticed by a person who has given so much

details of the area he visited at Ayodhya.

1640. Then comes the next available version of Nicolo

Minouchi who travelled India during the reign of Aurangzeb.

On the one hand it cannot be disputed that he has mentioned

about demolition of a temple at Ayodhya during the aforesaid

period but further particulars have not been given. It gives an

occasion to the learned counsels for the plaintiff (Suit-4) to

contend that the travellers account of Minouchi does not throw

any light that the alleged destruction of temple mention in his

1766

travellers account relates to the alleged Janambhumi temple and

none else. This argument is unexceptionable since Minouchi's

travellers account does not pin point any building or the area but

then there are some further material.

1641. Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, an Austrian traveller

visited India and remain here for more than two decades. In fact

he stayed in India till his death. His credentials which have been

made available to us through an internet printout of Wikipedia

site shows that he was a linguist and well conversant with the

languages like Persian and Sanskrit. It is this account which for

the first time mentions about the alleged temple at the birthplace

as well as its demolition by a muslim Ruler, in particular

Mughal Ruler and construction of a mosque thereat.

Tieffenthaler, however, say when he visited, the people in

locality said that the demolition caused by Emperor Aurangzeb

though some people said that it was Babar. Had the inscriptions

alleged to be fixed on the building in dispute at the time of its

construction would have existed thereat when Tieffenthaler

visited the site, it is difficult to conceive that he could have

written in his work whether it was Aurangzeb or Babar since he

himself could have noticed the correct facts by reading the

inscriptions for which he did not require any external help.

Tieffenthaler's work which though written like a travellers guide

between 1740-1760 and onwards but could not be seen by

subsequent historians or those who prepared historical data

perhaps for the reason that it remain unpublished in English. It

might have been published in the Latin itself, the language in

which Tieffenthaler wrote his diary but the publically known

work is the "French translation" which is said to have been

published in 1786. To us it appears that the building in dispute

1767

by the time Tieffenthaler came to Ayodhya had already been

constructed but the inscriptions were not there. Besides, even at

that time, inside the building in dispute, the Hindu religious

structure in the form of a 'Vedi' existed which was being

worshipped by Hindus. Here also it is remarkable that

Tieffenthaler though has noticed worship by Hindus but is

conspicuously silent about worship by muslims in the disputed

building.

1642. We tried to enquire from learned counsel for the

plaintiffs (Suit-4) as to how it could happen that a mosque was

constructed but inside the premises a Hindu religious structure

was allowed to remain as to be worshipped by Hindu public. In

the absence of any source material on this aspect no reply

obviously was forthcoming but to us it appears that though the

building in dispute was constructed but immediately thereafter

or after sometime it stood deserted by muslims. Hindus made

their entry and raised a religious structure in order to continue

with the sanctity of their belief that the place in dispute was the

birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how their worship

continued. It is inconceivable that at the time when the disputed

building was constructed the people who did so would have

allowed a Hindu religious structure inside the premises

particularly when the building which they constructed was an

Islamic religious place, i.e., mosque. We also find that Islamic

religious scriptures clearly prohibit same place fit for worship

by the persons of different faith and religion. We make it clear

our use of the word mosque herein these issues be not treated as

our finding since it being a separate issue shall be dealt with

later.

1643. Though it amounts to delving into some kind of

1768

conjectures but since here is a case which necessarily goes in

history and particularly when for sufficiently long time the

things are in dark, in the absence of anything contrary, we do

not find it impermissible to think in this manner. It would comes

within the domain of preponderance of probability.

1644. The position appears to be that when the building in

dispute was constructed, obviously the Islamic people, were in

power who constructed the building in dispute. They did not

allow or could not have allowed any Hindu religious structure to

exist within the premises of the disputed building. If it was done

after demolition of a Hindu religious structure, it is

inconceivable while demolishing such structure, some part

thereof would have been allowed to remain so as to be

worshipped continuously by Hindu people after entering the

premises of the mosque. Thus initially when it was constructed

no such structure could have existed but as soon as the local

Hindu people got opportunity, they created or made a symbolic

structure to continue with the worship according to their belief

with regard to the birthplace of Lord Rama and that is how

structure in the form of Vedi was there and noticed by

Tieffenthaler in his work which relates to the period of 1740-

1760 AD.

1645. The building in dispute, therefore, not constructed in

1528 AD or during the reign of Babar, the preponderance of

probability lie in favour of the period when Aurangzeb was the

Emperor since it is again nobody's case that such an action

could have been taken during the reign of Humaun, Akbar or

Shahjahan. Without entering into the wild goose chase on this

aspect suffice it to say that the building in dispute must have

come into existence before 1707 AD when the reign of

1769

Aurangzeb ended on his death. Tieffenthaler's visit to Ayodhya

is 35-55 years thereafter and this gave sufficient time in which

the things as we have indicated above could have happened. The

inscription on the disputed building either inside or outside was

not there otherwise there was no occasion that the same could

not have been noticed and seen by Tieffenthaler who himself

was quite conversant with the language in which these

inscriptions were written and found subsequently.

1646. Then comes the person who for the first time noticed

the above inscription, i.e., Dr. F. C. Buchanan. He was a

medicine man and, as his autobiography says, worked as

personal physician of Lord Wellesley at the end of 18th century.

He was entrusted with the work of survey of the territory within

the hold of East India Company in North-West provinces at the

commencement of 19th century. Obviously this was not his field

of expertise and, therefore, it can well be conceived that he

actually functioned as an overall Observer or Supervisor but in

effect must have been assisted/attended by a team of the persons

knowing the work of survey and also quite conversant with the

local tradition, languages etc. The survey continued for about 7

years, i.e., 1807-1814. The survey report said to have been

submitted in more than one set. It appears that the record of the

said survey sent to Calcutta office of East India Company as

also to its main office in London. At the time he conducted

survey, the area of Oudh as such was not within the reining

territory of East India Company but was part of the reining

territory of Nawab Vazir of Lucknow with whom East India

company had a kind of agreement entered in 1801. The area

towards Gorakhpur, Varanasi etc. was in the territory of East

India Company and the demarkating land appears to be the bank

1770

of river Saryu near Ayodhya as is evident from the observations

of Buchanan where he said that he did not undertook the

exercise of measurement etc. at Ayodhya as it would have

offended Nawab Wazir of Lucknow who was the reigning

authority of that area. It is Buchanan who for the first time

referred to an inscription wherefrom he could notice that the

disputed building was erected in 1528 AD at the command of

Babar though local people still at that time believed and said

that the same was constructed at the time of Emperor Aurangzeb

after demolishing a Hindu temple. When Buchanan visited

Ayodhya, i.e. between 1807-1814, the period of Aurangzeb was

about 100 years back while the period of Babar was about 275

years and more. It is difficult to conceive that the local people

were not conversant as to who was responsible for construction

or during whose reign the construction was made particularly

when the matter was comparably recent. The people's memory

is not so short and fade away with such a pace that they cannot

recollect the events of just 50-60 years back. During the period

of Buchanan it was a matter of just 100 years or more.

Comparatively period of Aurangzeb was quite recent. Therefore,

Buchanan's approach to ignore local belief that the building in

dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzeb, in the

absence of any concrete material, and not to make any further

probe cannot be appreciated. However some margin has to be

given to him since he was not an expert historian. It may happen

that on plain reading of text, the period mentioned therein found

923 AH or 930 AH but he, knowing the period of Babar took

upon himself to correct it.

1647. Moreover, Buchanan also cannot be said at fault since

he had a reason to contradict this local belief based on an

1771

inscribed document which he found fixed on the building in

dispute. To us it appears that this inscription must have been

fixed in the building in dispute sometimes between the visit of

Tieffenthaler and survey of Dr. Buchanan. In order to give

importance and antiquity to the building so as to avoid local

hatred and conflict the inscript writer or the person responsible

for it tried to co-relate it with the reign of Babar but due to lack

of information or mistake, the period got written wrongly, i.e.,

923 A.H. or 930 A.H. and he also mention a name i.e. Mir Baki

or Mir Khan which did not find mention in Babar's "Tuzuk-i-

Babri".

1648. Whether Buchanan actually noticed 923 A.H. or 935

A.H., we find difficult to record any concrete finding in the

absence of any authenticated text of such inscription as was

available to Buchanan. To us it appears when he noticed the

name of Babar mentioned in the inscription even if the period in

the inscription would have written as 923 A.H. he might have

got it corrected in the light of the known period of visit of Babar

at Ayodhya. This part of our observation as to what Buchanan

might have done at that time is obviously in the realm of

conjecture and we are conscious about it, but for us it is suffice

to mention that in the absence of an authenticated text of the

inscription as noticed by Buchanan, the only thing relevant for

us is that the inscription was noticed for the first time by

Buchanan and at that time he tried to contact the local people

with respect to the period and person who constructed the

disputed building. He was told about Aurangzeb but he

discarded it on the basis of inscription and said that it is Babar

and not Aurangzeb as locally believed. It is again nobody's case

that the inscription of the period of Buchanan was replaced or

1772

changed at any later point of time atleast when it was so noticed

and read by A. Fuhrer.

1649. In the meantime, we find that this text has been

referred to in certain books written by muslim writers after 1855

AD. Without entering into the question whether those writers

were well known Historians or merely story writers or whatever

the case may be, for us suffice it to mention that in all these

books they have mentioned the period of construction contained

in the inscription as 923 A.H. Obviously it cannot be said that

those writers who have written their books in Persian and

Arabic were not capable of correctly reading the inscription and

they committed a mistake in reading.

1650. In brief, we summarize the things and the position

boils down as under:

i. Dr. Fransis C. Buchanan said to be first person who

read and collect the transcription but this text duly proved

in accordance with law is not available to us. However,

this found the basis of contradicting the local belief as it

prevail till then i.e. around 1810 AD that the building in

dispute was constructed during the reign of Aurangzebe

after demolition of a temple was wrong and it was actually

Babar, as borne out from the inscription.

ii. Next is A. Fuhrer. He was the first archaeologist

who read and translated in 1889/1891 and got published

three inscriptions alleged to be fixed on Babari Masjid

which was alleged to be built under command of Emperor

Babur at the site of Sri Ramjanmasthan.

A. Fuhrer’s translations and introductory notes thereto

read as follows:

“Babar’s- Masjid at Ayodhya was built in A.H. 930,

1773

or A. D. 1523, by Mir Khan, on the very spot where the

old temple Janamasthanam of Ramchandra was

standing . The following inscriptions are of interest.

Inscription No.XL written in Arabic character over the

mihrab of the masjid it gives twice the Kalimah:-

“There is no God but’ Allah, Muhammad is His

Prophet”

Inscription no.XLI is written in Persian poetry, the

meter being Ramal, in six lines on the member, right-

hand side of the masjid.

“1.By order of Babar, the king of the world,

2. This firmament-like, lofty,

3. Strong building was erected.

4. By the auspicious noble Mir Khan.

5. May ever remain such a foundation,

6. And such a king of the world.”

Inscription No.XLII is written in Persian poetry ,the

metre being Ramal, in ten lines, above the entrance

door of the masjid. A few characters of the second and

whole third lines are completely defaced.

“1. In the name of God, the merciful, the clement.

2. In the name of him who…; may God perpetually

keep him in the world.

3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Such a sovereign who is famous in the world, and in

person of delight for the world.

5. In his presence one of the grandees who is another

king of Turkey and China.

6. Laid this religious foundation in the auspicious Hijra

930.

1774

7. O God ! May always remain the crown, throne and

life with the king.

8. May Babar always pour the flowers of happiness;

may remain successful.

9. His counselor and minister who is the founder of this

fort masjid.

10. This poetry, giving the date and eulogy, was written

by the lazy writer and poor servant Fath-allah-Ghori,

composer.”

The old temple of Ramachandra at Janamasthan must

have been a very fine one, for many of its columns

have been used by the Musalmans in the construction

of Babar’s masjid. These are of strong, close-grained,

dark- coloured or black stone, called by the natives

Kasauti, “touch-stone slate,” and carved with different

devices. They are from seven to eight feet long, square

at the base,centre and capital, and round or octagonal

intermediately.

(The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur by

A.Fuhrer Ph.D. p 67-68)

ii. Third is Annette Susannah Beveridge was the

second british scholar who in 1921 published texts of

two Inscriptions purported to be of alleged baburi Mosque

which were supplied by the Deputy- Commissioner of

Fyzabad alongwith English Translation and

Transliteration thereof done by a Muslim. In her said book

A.S. Beveridge before giving Text and Translation of the

alleged two Inscriptions writes as follows:

“ Thanks to the kind response made by the Deputy-

Commissioner of Fyzabad to my husband’s enquiry

1775

about two inscriptions mentioned by several

Gazetteers as still existing on ‘Babur’s Mosque” in

Oudh, I am able to quote copies of both.”

After giving text and transliteration of an Inscription he

gives Translation with her exaggerating value thereof as

follows:

“The translation and explanation of the above,

manifestly made by a Musalman and as such having

special value, are as follows:-”

“The inscription inside the Mosque is as follows:-”

After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates the

alleged First Inscription as follows:

“1. By the command of the Emperor Babur whose

justice is an edifice reaching up to very height of the

heavens,

2. The good-hearted Mir Baqi built this alighting-place

of angels;

3. Bavad khair baqi ! (May this goodness last for

ever!) The year of building it was made clear likewise

when I said Buvad khair baqi (=935).”

“The inscription outside the Mosque is as follows:-”

After giving its Text and Transliteration she translates

the alleged Second Inscription as follows:

“The explanation of the above is as follows:-”

“In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the

second Muhammad, in the third Babur - there is a

peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word la-

makani in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the

mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although

he has no fixed abiding-place. - In the first hemistich

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 6 of 14

Documents

Transcript of Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 6 of 14