Please read live update on this important Judgment day. Allahabad High Court updated. Judgment has been updated on the HC website (Click here). A consolidated 285 Page Judgment available here. A brief summary of the judgment of the three Judges are also available here.
9.26 PM: Times of India reports that Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the early litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, said it would challenge the Allahabad High Court order. \"We have decided to challenge the decision to divide the Ramjanambhoomi land in three parts\", said state president of ABHM Kamlesh Tiwari. \"Our fight for the Ramjanmbhoomi was acknowledged by the entire bench unanimously\", he said. He said the legal battle was initiated by Mahasabha president of Faizabad Gopal Singh Visharad in Janauary 16, 1950.
8.45 PM: NDTV claims that the entire judgment of the High Court runs into 8,189 pages. NDTV runs a feature on all the judges and their personal profiles.
8.00 PM: Observations
That both parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession
Order: Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the Map Plan 1 (see below) to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
It is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.
It is further clarified that even though all three parties are declared to have one share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portions of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.
The Parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partion by metes and bounds within three months.
List immediately after filing of any suggestion / application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994) 6 Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.
7.00 PM: 60 years of fight in the map
6:50 PM - Judgment has been updated on the HC website (Click here). A consolidated 285 Page Judgment available here. A brief summary of the judgment of the three Judges are also available here.
6.45 PM: The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs has commented that they will appeal the Allahabad High Court judgment before the Supreme Court at the earliest available opportunity.
Initial reading indicate that Justice DV Sharma has written the dissenting judgment while Justices Khan and Agarwal have written the majority judgment to divide the disputed property into three parts. Justice Sharma in his dissent has dismissed the suit filed by The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs on several grounds including that the suit is barred by limitation.
The gist of Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s summary:
the three structures of Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar are placed in an area in the outer courtyard, that area is the share of Nirmohi Akhara (in absence of a better title to the suit)
6.15 PM: Tweets and Facebook updates - Did we need so many years, so many riots, so many innocent killings to divide the place into three portions!
5.30 PM: Senior Counsel Harish Salve, Mukhul Rohtagi and Krishnan Venugopal argue that we need to wait for the judgment before making any reactions. Media releases indicate that no temple was demolished for building a mosque.
5.20 PM: A brief summary of the judgment is available here. Justice SU Khan (pictured center), Justice Sudhir Agarwal (pictured right), Justice DV Sharma (pictured left) -Brief Summary, Issues for briefing
5.10 PM: Senior Counsels react that the summary given to the media is very sketchy. Rajeev Dhawan claims that the High Court has over stepped its jurisdiction. PP Rao claims that the summary is very different from what Ravishankar Prasad claimed. Therefore lets wait for the Judgment.
4.55PM: Senior Advocates PP Rao and Rajeev Dhawan claim that on the basis of what they know from media reports, the judgment looks like panchayat way of finding solution.
4.55 PM: All lawyers are coming out and strangely arguing before the media!
4.45 PM: Ravi Shankar Prasad speaking to the media and who is also a lawyer in the Ayodhya title dispute has come out and spoken to the media. He claims that 2 judges (Justices SU Khan and Sudhir Agarwal) have held that 1/3rd land would belong to Ram Lala and the 1/3 rd belongs to the Sunni Board and 1/3 rd land would belong to Nirmohi Akhara. Still no clarity exists on the judgment.
4.35 PM: Lawyers representing various groups are arguing before the media, about whom they represent and what they argued before the Court! Most Senior lawyers are flaying the decision of lawyers to come before the media and place their arguments
3.30 PM: The 3 Judge Bench, which was supposed to deliver its verdict, is supposed to come out at 4 PM.