I am glad that Jose has finally provided some factual information from the source. I have downloaded a zipped copy of the Ayodhya judgment, which I am going to share with Jose and anybody else who is interested. I would request him or someone else with a legal background to study the actual judgment, and summarize it for us. My lay sense from reading it is that the judges tried to make lemonade from a bad lemon that was thrust in their hands.
Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 10/9/10, J. Colaco < jc> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >
