On 9 October 2010 15:22, Frederick Noronha wrote: The Ayodhya verdict has been based largely or partly on a .....
COMMENT: Not having read the entire judgment of the three judges, I proffer the following thoughts: [A] I am relieved that there was no adverse reaction to the judgment. [B] I am happy that both Hindus and Muslims have been allotted land to build their respective sites of worship. [C] The division of land (while subject to appeal) is a civil issue. It is quite separate and apart from the criminal issue of the destruction of the Babri Masjid. I found the following of interest. Points 1-4 relate to Land Law and are found in the judgment of Justice SU Khan 1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar. 2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed. 3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. 4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque. 5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute. http://c2clive.com/downloads/gist1-GIST%20OF%20THE%20FINDINGS%20by%20S.U.Khan for what it is worth. jc
