Ram Mandir Issue Ayodhya Verdict History Of Ram Mandir ...

Over the past week or so, we have seen violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) across many states. The one that was probably reported the most was the protest by Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) students. News channels like NDTV and India Today repeatedly reported how the police used excessive force against “peaceful” protesters. We were told that the students were opposed to the omission of Muslims from the CAA and sought to fight against it to “save” Indian democracy and “secularism”.
​
While going through posts on social media, I came across an interesting piece of information - that JMI reserved 50% of its seats for Muslims. Not having too much faith in the accuracy of social media posts, I wanted to verify if this was really the case. Because if it were, it would clearly show that JMI was anything but secular. And so I started to go through their official websites: www.jmi.ac.in and www.jmicoe.in. What I learnt during my research astounded me. I knew that Muslim institutions gave preferential treatment to Muslims over non-Muslims but I never expected it to be this bad. My article relies solely on the documents and information available on these two official websites. No third parties, no hearsay. All the sources and links are listed at the end of this article.
To begin with, the claim that 50% seats in JMI are reserved for Muslims is absolutely true. The following text has been taken from Page 30 of the 2018-19 prospectus of JMI. (as can be seen in the attached image)
5.1 (i) 30% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for Muslim applicants. (ii) 10% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for Women applicants who are Muslims. (iii) 10% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs) and Scheduled Tribes who are Muslims. Note: If seats remain vacant in any program from amongst the 10% of the total number of seats earmarked as per 5.1 (ii) and (iii) above, such vacant seats shall stand transferred to the category 5.1(i),i.e., Muslim applicants.
In other words, 30% seats for Muslim applicants + 10% for Muslim women + 10% for Muslim OBC. If there are any vacant seats from the Muslim women or Muslim OBC category, then those seats would be transferred to other Muslim applicants. So there would AT LEAST 50% seats for Muslims in JMI. Why do I say at least 50%? Well, apart from the 50% reservation for Muslims, there’s 5% reservation for Persons with Disabilities (or PwD). This reservation for PwDs is not limited Muslims only but since the selection of students would be done by the JMI staff, they could opt for Muslims over PwDs from other religions. And on top of that, there’s 5% reservation for “Internal (Jamia) students” i.e. students of Jamia who have passed their qualifying examination (X or XII) from Jamia Schools. And given that the same 50% reservation policy for Muslims exists in Jamia schools, the students from this category could all be Muslims. So on the whole, there could be up to a maximum of 60% Muslims from the reserved categories.
But wait, it gets a lot worse!! There could be far more than 60% Muslims in a program / course. How? Because Muslims can also get admissions in the General category !!! In other words, 50% seats are reserved for Muslims only i.e. only Muslims can opt for these seats. Of the 5% reserved seats for PwDs, Muslims can be given preference. And 5% reservation for internal jamia students would almost certainly be all Muslims. On top of that, there would be Muslim applicants in the General category i.e. Muslims students who opt for admissions not via reservation but in the general category. So in the end, the percentage of Muslim students could be way more than 60%.
To find out the exact proportion of Muslim students, one would require the list of all admissions in a particular program / course. I did find the list of all admissions for the year 2019-20 but since those lists display only the registration number of the students and not their name and religion, it cannot be used to determine the exact number of Muslim students. However I did find the list of graduated students for the year 2018. This list mentions the name of the candidates in addition to the registration number. Here’s what I found:
a. In B.Tech Computer Engineering, 37 of the 62 graduates are Muslims i.e. 59%. b. In B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering, 40 of the 62 graduates are Muslims i.e. 64%. c. In B.Tech Mechanical Engineering, 43 of the 65 graduates are Muslims i.e. 66%. d. In B.Tech Civil Engineering, 51 of the 65 graduates are Muslims i.e. 78%.
Assuming that the proportion of students in admission and graduation would be more-or-less the same, this data not only confirmed my suspicions that the percentage of Muslim students in various courses would be least 60% but went on to show that it may be as high as 80%. I analysed the data for these four streams of engineering. There are several other courses but I did not spend my time analysing each and every single one. For those who are interested to dig deeper, relevant links can be found at the end of this article.
I then looked into scholarships i.e. what percentage of the total number of students who received scholarships were Muslims. Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI) is tasked with providing scholarships for JMI students. I found the list of the selected candidates for the current year.
In the first list, out of the 325 selected candidates, 303 are Muslims; which is 93% !! And in the second list, 96 out of the 99 candidates are Muslims i.e. 97%. In other words, of all the students who received scholarship in 2019, approximately 95% were Muslims.
This data conclusively proves that an overwhelming majority of students at JMI are Muslims and that Muslims are given preferential treatment. I wondered if the same pattern holds true for the positions of deans and Heads of Department (HODs). And predictably enough, JMI does not disappoint !!
Of the 37 heads of various departments, 32 are Muslim i.e. 86%. And when it comes to the Deans of faculties, 8 of the 9 are Muslim = 89% !! (Annual Report 2017-18)
Finally, I went through the list of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of JMI. By now, I’m sure you can guess what I would have found. Of the 11 Chancellors since 1920, not one is a non-Muslim. And the same holds true for VCs. Not one of the 15 Vice Chancellors since 1920 is a non-Muslim.
So in the end, 60-80% of the students, 95% of scholarship recipients, 86% of the HODs, approximately 90% of the Deans of faculties, and all the past & present Chancellors & Vice Chancellors of JMI are Muslims !! And yet, they claim to fight for "secularism" !!!
Ask yourself these simple questions: 1. How serious can the students of such a university be about “secularism”? 2. Should we as a nation pay any heed to their demands given their shameless hypocrisy? 3. If they indeed were such strong believers in the idea of secularism then wouldn’t they start by secularising their own university first? 4. Do the students and professors of this university have a moral right to oppose ANY act on the grounds of secularism?
For any unbiased reader, this article conclusively proves that the JMI is not interested in secularism in the least. Then why are they protesting CAA? In my opinion, the reasons are: 1. Supreme Court’s decision in favour of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. 2. Belief that Muslims must be loyal to fellow Muslims over the country i.e. Muslim Ummah (or Ummat). 3. Rightly / wrongly concluding that NRC will be bad.
It is also very interesting how leftists / liberals and Muslims have learnt the subtle art of appropriating the Constitution to suit their own agenda. Everybody has heard the accusation that the CAA violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. One can find many Muslims, and non-Muslims, repeating the same crap. It is however very interesting that Muslims are demanding equality and cite Article 14 as the justification. Well, if they are so bent upon equality, then why don’t they accept the demand for Universal Civil Code (UCC)? NO!! You see, when the debate is about UCC, they quote Article 25 of the Constitution which gives the right to practice one’s own religion and claim various special privileges as a religious right; for eg. four wives, triple talaq, etc. And when the discussion pertains to giving citizenship to non-Muslim minorities from neighbouring Islamic countries, they jump to Article 14 !! In other words, they pick and choose that which suits them.
So the next time you meet a leftist/liberal or Muslim who says that they oppose CAA because it goes against Article 14 and the principle of equal treatment, ask him if he supports Universal Civil Code. If he denies or gives you a lengthy nonsensical answer as to why he opposes UCC, then he stands exposed ; proving that he / she is not really interested in secularism.
It is amazing that channels like NDTV who claim to present facts as they are have never seen fit to inform Indians about the vastly disproportionate number of Muslim students in JMI. Nor do they call out the hypocrisy of JMI “students”. If they would have, the whole country would have learnt that these protests have nothing to do with “secularism”.
Now it is up to us to spread the word. Please share / forward this article so that the truth about JMI is known to everyone.
(Original post by Rahul Arya, Right to Recall Party)
Links: 1. JMI Prospectus for the year 2018-19 (see page 30): https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/admission/prospectus2018.pdf 2. JMI Prospectus for the year 2019-20 (see page 29): http://jmicoe.in/pdf18/Prospectus\_2019-20-new.pdf 3. JMI schools prospectus for 2019-20 (see page 9): http://jmicoe.in.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf19/Final%20Prospectus%20JSSS-2019-20%20\_1\_.pdf 4. Annual convocation 2018: https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/EventDetail/annualconvocation2019\_fet\_list\_2018.pdf 5. AAJMI scholarship: https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/notice\_aajmi\_scholarship\_int\_2019february12.pdf https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/scholarship\_aajmi\_fl2\_2019april17.pdf 6. JMI Annual Report 2017-18 (pages 13-15): https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/menuupload/university\_annual\_report\_english\_2017\_2018.pdf 7. List of Chancellors: https://www.jmi.ac.in/aboutjamia/profile/history/past\_chancellors\_profile-15 8. Lisf of Vice Chancellors: https://www.jmi.ac.in/aboutjamia/profile/history/past\_vice\_chancellors\_profile-16

Over the past week or so, we have seen violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) across many states. The one that was probably reported the most was the protest by Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) students. News channels like NDTV and India Today repeatedly reported how the police used excessive force against “peaceful” protesters. We were told that the students were opposed to the omission of Muslims from the CAA and sought to fight against it to “save” Indian democracy and “secularism”.
​
While going through posts on social media, I came across an interesting piece of information - that JMI reserved 50% of its seats for Muslims. Not having too much faith in the accuracy of social media posts, I wanted to verify if this was really the case. Because if it were, it would clearly show that JMI was anything but secular. And so I started to go through their official websites: www.jmi.ac.in and www.jmicoe.in. What I learnt during my research astounded me. I knew that Muslim institutions gave preferential treatment to Muslims over non-Muslims but I never expected it to be this bad. My article relies solely on the documents and information available on these two official websites. No third parties, no hearsay. All the sources and links are listed at the end of this article.
To begin with, the claim that 50% seats in JMI are reserved for Muslims is absolutely true. The following text has been taken from Page 30 of the 2018-19 prospectus of JMI. (as can be seen in the attached image)
5.1 (i) 30% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for Muslim applicants. (ii) 10% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for Women applicants who are Muslims. (iii) 10% of the total number of seats in each Program shall be earmarked for “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs) and Scheduled Tribes who are Muslims. Note: If seats remain vacant in any program from amongst the 10% of the total number of seats earmarked as per 5.1 (ii) and (iii) above, such vacant seats shall stand transferred to the category 5.1(i),i.e., Muslim applicants.
In other words, 30% seats for Muslim applicants + 10% for Muslim women + 10% for Muslim OBC. If there are any vacant seats from the Muslim women or Muslim OBC category, then those seats would be transferred to other Muslim applicants. So there would AT LEAST 50% seats for Muslims in JMI. Why do I say at least 50%? Well, apart from the 50% reservation for Muslims, there’s 5% reservation for Persons with Disabilities (or PwD). This reservation for PwDs is not limited Muslims only but since the selection of students would be done by the JMI staff, they could opt for Muslims over PwDs from other religions. And on top of that, there’s 5% reservation for “Internal (Jamia) students” i.e. students of Jamia who have passed their qualifying examination (X or XII) from Jamia Schools. And given that the same 50% reservation policy for Muslims exists in Jamia schools, the students from this category could all be Muslims. So on the whole, there could be up to a maximum of 60% Muslims from the reserved categories.
But wait, it gets a lot worse!! There could be far more than 60% Muslims in a program / course. How? Because Muslims can also get admissions in the General category !!! In other words, 50% seats are reserved for Muslims only i.e. only Muslims can opt for these seats. Of the 5% reserved seats for PwDs, Muslims can be given preference. And 5% reservation for internal jamia students would almost certainly be all Muslims. On top of that, there would be Muslim applicants in the General category i.e. Muslims students who opt for admissions not via reservation but in the general category. So in the end, the percentage of Muslim students could be way more than 60%.
To find out the exact proportion of Muslim students, one would require the list of all admissions in a particular program / course. I did find the list of all admissions for the year 2019-20 but since those lists display only the registration number of the students and not their name and religion, it cannot be used to determine the exact number of Muslim students. However I did find the list of graduated students for the year 2018. This list mentions the name of the candidates in addition to the registration number. Here’s what I found:
a. In B.Tech Computer Engineering, 37 of the 62 graduates are Muslims i.e. 59%. b. In B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering, 40 of the 62 graduates are Muslims i.e. 64%. c. In B.Tech Mechanical Engineering, 43 of the 65 graduates are Muslims i.e. 66%. d. In B.Tech Civil Engineering, 51 of the 65 graduates are Muslims i.e. 78%.
Assuming that the proportion of students in admission and graduation would be more-or-less the same, this data not only confirmed my suspicions that the percentage of Muslim students in various courses would be least 60% but went on to show that it may be as high as 80%. I analysed the data for these four streams of engineering. There are several other courses but I did not spend my time analysing each and every single one. For those who are interested to dig deeper, relevant links can be found at the end of this article.
I then looked into scholarships i.e. what percentage of the total number of students who received scholarships were Muslims. Alumni Association of Jamia Millia Islamia (AAJMI) is tasked with providing scholarships for JMI students. I found the list of the selected candidates for the current year.
In the first list, out of the 325 selected candidates, 303 are Muslims; which is 93% !! And in the second list, 96 out of the 99 candidates are Muslims i.e. 97%. In other words, of all the students who received scholarship in 2019, approximately 95% were Muslims.
This data conclusively proves that an overwhelming majority of students at JMI are Muslims and that Muslims are given preferential treatment. I wondered if the same pattern holds true for the positions of deans and Heads of Department (HODs). And predictably enough, JMI does not disappoint !!
Of the 37 heads of various departments, 32 are Muslim i.e. 86%. And when it comes to the Deans of faculties, 8 of the 9 are Muslim = 89% !! (Annual Report 2017-18)
Finally, I went through the list of Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of JMI. By now, I’m sure you can guess what I would have found. Of the 11 Chancellors since 1920, not one is a non-Muslim. And the same holds true for VCs. Not one of the 15 Vice Chancellors since 1920 is a non-Muslim.
So in the end, 60-80% of the students, 95% of scholarship recipients, 86% of the HODs, approximately 90% of the Deans of faculties, and all the past & present Chancellors & Vice Chancellors of JMI are Muslims !! And yet, they claim to fight for "secularism" !!!
Ask yourself these simple questions: 1. How serious can the students of such a university be about “secularism”? 2. Should we as a nation pay any heed to their demands given their shameless hypocrisy? 3. If they indeed were such strong believers in the idea of secularism then wouldn’t they start by secularising their own university first? 4. Do the students and professors of this university have a moral right to oppose ANY act on the grounds of secularism?
For any unbiased reader, this article conclusively proves that the JMI is not interested in secularism in the least. Then why are they protesting CAA? In my opinion, the reasons are: 1. Supreme Court’s decision in favour of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. 2. Belief that Muslims must be loyal to fellow Muslims over the country i.e. Muslim Ummah (or Ummat). 3. Rightly / wrongly concluding that NRC will be bad.
It is also very interesting how leftists / liberals and Muslims have learnt the subtle art of appropriating the Constitution to suit their own agenda. Everybody has heard the accusation that the CAA violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. One can find many Muslims, and non-Muslims, repeating the same crap. It is however very interesting that Muslims are demanding equality and cite Article 14 as the justification. Well, if they are so bent upon equality, then why don’t they accept the demand for Universal Civil Code (UCC)? NO!! You see, when the debate is about UCC, they quote Article 25 of the Constitution which gives the right to practice one’s own religion and claim various special privileges as a religious right; for eg. four wives, triple talaq, etc. And when the discussion pertains to giving citizenship to non-Muslim minorities from neighbouring Islamic countries, they jump to Article 14 !! In other words, they pick and choose that which suits them.
So the next time you meet a leftist/liberal or Muslim who says that they oppose CAA because it goes against Article 14 and the principle of equal treatment, ask him if he supports Universal Civil Code. If he denies or gives you a lengthy nonsensical answer as to why he opposes UCC, then he stands exposed ; proving that he / she is not really interested in secularism.
It is amazing that channels like NDTV who claim to present facts as they are have never seen fit to inform Indians about the vastly disproportionate number of Muslim students in JMI. Nor do they call out the hypocrisy of JMI “students”. If they would have, the whole country would have learnt that these protests have nothing to do with “secularism”.
Now it is up to us to spread the word. Please share / forward this article so that the truth about JMI is known to everyone.
(Original post by Rahul Arya, Right to Recall Party)
Links: 1. JMI Prospectus for the year 2018-19 (see page 30): https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/admission/prospectus2018.pdf 2. JMI Prospectus for the year 2019-20 (see page 29): http://jmicoe.in/pdf18/Prospectus\_2019-20-new.pdf 3. JMI schools prospectus for 2019-20 (see page 9): http://jmicoe.in.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf19/Final%20Prospectus%20JSSS-2019-20%20\_1\_.pdf 4. Annual convocation 2018: https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/EventDetail/annualconvocation2019\_fet\_list\_2018.pdf 5. AAJMI scholarship: https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/notice\_aajmi\_scholarship\_int\_2019february12.pdf https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/scholarship\_aajmi\_fl2\_2019april17.pdf 6. JMI Annual Report 2017-18 (pages 13-15): https://www.jmi.ac.in/upload/menuupload/university\_annual\_report\_english\_2017\_2018.pdf 7. List of Chancellors: https://www.jmi.ac.in/aboutjamia/profile/history/past\_chancellors\_profile-15 8. Lisf of Vice Chancellors: https://www.jmi.ac.in/aboutjamia/profile/history/past\_vice\_chancellors\_profile-16

This has been the hottest topic of discussion for as long as I can remember but absolutely no one that I encounter in life seems to know the legal aspects of this case. So buckle up for this long read which I hope you all will find interesting as well as Fargo-level bizzare-
There are 5 parties who are involved in various legal suits against each other. 4 of these claim this 1500 square yards of lands while 5th party Central government or the state which acquired this land by a parliamentary act in 1993 and has attached this property since 1949 when idols were placed inside the mosque. Lets first see who these parties are and their narratives- 1. Sunni Waqf board- The party has been recognised as representatives for Muslims. It presents the narrative that this mosque was built by Babar or on the orders of Babar by his general named Mir Baqi. They are ready to accept that there maybe a temple there in the past but refuse to accept that there was demolition of temple to build this mosque. They have already won a suit in 1885 regarding ownership of this land brought by a Mahant of Ayodhya in British times. 2. The family that placed the idols in the mosque- First of all, the family has accepted to the courts that they placed the idols there and idols did not appear out of a divine miracle. They however say that the orders were given to them in their dreams by Lord Ram. They claim the whole property to be theirs under ADVERSE POSSESSION. In adverse possession the trespasser to the property is recognised as true owner of the property if the trespassesquater has been using the land for 12 years or more and no legal challenge has been brought by the owner in these 12 years. The family says that there happened a great battle between the Hindus and Muslims in 1880s where more than 70 muslims were killed and buried in the mosque premises. The Hindus began worshipping the Chabutra there as it is the place where RamLala was born. The Muslims stopped giving namaaz there. The family now claimed that Hindus have been in regular use of the property and not Muslims this property now belongs to Hindus under adverse possession. Primary place of worship before the idols were placed are the footprints of Lord Rama in the mosque. The family holds the same narrative as Sunni Waqf board that the masjid was built by Babar or by his generals, the difference being that they believe that Babar demolished a temple in order to have it built. 3. Nirmohi Akhara - The Nirmohi Akhara was made a party to the suit in 1980s. The Nirmohi Akhara says that there was no mosque just a structure at the place of birth of Lord Rama. The Muslims never gave namaaz since times immemorial and the property has been under the custody of the Akhara since times immemorial. Their case is both against the Sunni Waqf Board and hindu family. Nirmohi akhara says they bolong to the Vairaagi tradition of Hinduism and their math has been taken and trespassed over by "people". They have told the court that on 6 th December 1992 , "people of no religion, caste or creed" destroyed their place of worship and the place be restored to them.

1. Ram Lala and RamJanamsthan themselves- 😂😂. Yes its true. Ram Lala was recognised as a party to this case by the courts in 80s. Just like a company is a corporate person ,any deity is recognised as a juridical person and the interests of the deity are respresented by the head preist called the shebait. The property of the deity is called debutter property. While the case attracted political attention in 1980s a battery of lawyers approached the courts saying that everybody was bringing his story to the courts but there was no one to represent the interests of Ram Lala himself. So the courts appointed a lawyer as shebait for the deity who has to oversee if best interests of the deity are being kept in mind by the warring parties. The shebait brought the angle of "perpetual minor" to the suit.According to them Ram lala is a minor whose interests have to be protected under special protections granted to minors in the law. So there can be no claimant to the property except Ram lala himself whose interests can only be overseen by his shebait. They brought the suit against Visharads(hindu family), Sunni Waqf board, Nirmohi akhara and Central government for occupying property belonging to Ram lala
   
2. The Central government/ State of Uttar Pradesh/ District Administration of Ayodhya/Municipal Authorities of Ayodhya hereto reffered to as the state- The modern Indian state became a party to the dispute after intervention by the District Magisterate when idols were placed inside the mosque in 1949 and this property was attached by the magisterate citing fears of law and order. Orders were given that hindus be allowed to do darshan from a distance but Muslims wont be allowed inside. In 1986 under orders by the local district court of Ayodhya/ Faizabad locks were broken and Hindus allowed to do darshan. As we all know this was being done covertly by Rajiv Gandhi. The suit to break locks was brought in the morning and the locks broken by afternoon!! Remember that the case was filed in 1949. As it happened all the suitors from that time representing Muslims had died. So there was no one appointed to respresent Muslims that day nor was anyone from their side notified(😂😂). The High Court in its judgement judged the events of that day to be completely illegal but refused to quash the case based on this illegality. After 6 December 1992 Central Government passed a parliamentary act called "THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN AREA AT AYODHYA ACT,1993". So the property was not just attached but now acquired by the Central Government. The Supreme Court struck down a provision of this act where it was ordered that any standing dispute in the courts would be abated after this act and now central government i.e Government of India would decide what would happen of this land. This would have been a severe blow to the "Right to Property" and authority of the courts. The government after this Act could basically declare emergency in a "certain" area, acquire land in that "certain area" and then use it as it wished. So Ayodhya act came very close to take away "Right to Property" completely in India.
   Now that all narratives have been presented the main questions that the High court had to decide were
   
3. Can it be conclusively judged that property in question is really " Babari Masjid" ?Did it really belong to Babur?
   
4. Can it be conclusively judged that the property was a math and since times immemorial belong to Nirmohi Akhara?
   
5. Is the place in question birth place of Ram Lala according to historical or mythological sources?
   
6. Finally, who will be granted ownership of the land? Lets start with the first question
   
7. Is the property really " Babari Masjid" and was it built by Babar?
   

To answer this question first Sunni Waqf board were asked why they believed this was built by Babar. As Most important evidence they cited two inscriptions on the masjid of " Babar" on the masjid which had been destroyed during previous riots of 1885 and 1934. There are three sources which swayed the court's decision in this matter: 1. Babarnama- a diary/memoir of Babar. 2. Reports by British travellers/ administrators of Ayodhya 3. Jadunath Sarkar's works on Aurangzeb.
Babar came to India in 1526 and died in 1530.About 70 odd pages of his memoirs were lost in a storm as mentioned by Babar himself in these memoirs. Sunni waqf board and the Hindu parties supporting the theory of Babari masjid construction by Babar point to passages where Babar writes that he encamped close to Sarayu River. Thats it. According to Sunni Waqf board and also Hindu parties, Babar's account of mosque construction may have been lost in these 70 pages but intelligent minds can make inferences. Plus there is no general by the name of Mir Baqi in his memoirs. Now the court upon finding no mention of Ram Mandir in Babar's own biography went into finding how did this theory of Babari Masjid come to hold currency in collective memory?
The answers according to court lie in travel accounts by British colonial administrators/ travellers. The first account is of 1820s. The account mentions Ayodhya's places by name like Sita Rasoi, Hanumangarhi. The Britisher is astonished by odd presence of a mosque in Hindu holy land. Locals tell him that this mosque was built by Aurangzeb by razing temples. Again in several accounts of 1854 and 1858 by other Britishers, Aurangzeb name is thrown as the perpetrator.
But Britishers in contrast to Ayodhya locals , "based on Persian inscriptions", estimate that it was Babar who would have got this mosque built and not Aurangzeb and start spreading this information.
Now it is a lot easier to find about Aurangzeb than about Babar as there are many first hand accounts of people of the time during Aurangzeb than under Babar like those of Marathas, Sikhs, Britishers, French because of technological development and increased trade. None of these accounts mention the razing of a place as important to hindu faith as the birthplace of Lord Rama. One of the most important historians on Aurangzeb has been Sir Jadunath Sarkar. He had compiled a list of temples razed down by Aurangzeb. This incident of Ram temple destruction finds no mention here. But what was clear from all these gazetteer accounts was that really was historical evidence of inscriptions on the mosque which loosely translated to "built by Babar in year 935 hijri".
Only these inscriptions were admitted as evidence. The conclusion reached was that court respects the consensua of Hindus and Muslims that mosque was built by or under orders of Babar but there was no direct evidence that this mosque belonged to Babar which could be passed on to his inheritors and then to Sunni Waqf board as the custodian of public muslim bodies. There was also no evidence accepted that a temple was destructed to construct the mosque. Another important point that emerged from these gazetteers and British accounts was that this place was used as a place of worship by Muslims and after a riot in 1855 a grill was placed to bifurcate this land so that Hindus could worship too. So there is evidence that from 1855 at least, this place was being jointly used by Hindus and Muslims.
2.The answer to this first question itself answered if this place was a math since times immemorial under custody of Nirmohi akhara. These gazetteers and other accounts mention Nirmohi Akhara as managing hindu mendicants. Plus Sunni Waqf board had accepted the existence of Nirmohi Akhara but contested the claim that Akhara was a body that existed pre-history. So it was accepted that a portion of this land was being used by Nirmohi Akhara too. Ownership claim of Nirmohi Akhara could not be verified.

1. The courts now went into Hindu religious sources to find out if it could be ascertained whether the contested area is the birthplace of Lord Rama?

Another question inquired into was whether there is any evidence in Hindu tradition that the disputed land was believed as " Janamsthaan" before masjid was built there?
Besides Sanskrit editions of Ramayana, most important book in the eyes of the court was RamCharitManas by Tulsidas. What makes it important other than its near univeral use for recitation on Dussehra in hindi heartland is when it was written and where it was written.
Ram Charit Manas was written from 1574 to 1577 in Ayodhya itself within 50 years of Babars death in 1530. There is no mention of a particular place as Janamsthaan being recognised as the spot where Sri Ram was born. Nor is there any mention of a particular temple being razed down to build a mosque on such a place in this epic poem.
The Hindu parties then said that they BELIEVED the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and Sunni Waqf board having submitted in writing that they too believed Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya, must show some other place in Ayodhya where Lord Rama was born.
The court rejected this argument saying that the party making the claim has to prove that claim and not the other. It was noted from Ramayana that the palace of Lord Rama would have been quite spatial and space of 1500 square yards was too small. Moreover brushing these inferences aside, the courts now looked at archeological evidence. There was definite evidence that temple could have existed there or in the vicinities because of objects found there. But there was no scientific evidence of a superstructure being brought down plus nearly every house around this area carried evidence of parts of temple being used in their construction.
And there is one very important point too. The courts had asked that, if we assume that Baba Aurangzeb brought the temple down; why did they leave such important parts as Sri Ram's engraved footsteps untouched?
The Hindu parties explained that there were continual battles and whatever the Mughals built during the day Hindus broke it by night. So a compromise was reached so that certain parts could be preserved. This made the absence of the superstructure of temple very hard to explain for Hindu parties. There was also no evidence of the Mughals appointing/forming a committee/ investigation body/ issuing a firmaan/ order to find out the birthplace of Lord Rama so that at that exact place a mosque could be constructed.
So the conclusion the courts reached was that there was no evidence either historical or mythological "submitted" that could prove theory of a temple being destroyed by Mughals and probably it was the other way round.
That somewhere in time Hindus of Ayodhya came to believe that birthplace of Sri Ram in Ayodhya would most probably be the place where Baba Aurangzeb built this mosque and janamsthaan was neither left nor right but below the central dome of the mosque.
Then remained question of Ram Chabutra inside the premises.
The Waqf board said that Ram Chabutra never existed historically and Hindu parties said that it was always there. The court rejected both the claims, recognised its presence and worship by devotees since "considerable amount" of time. During discussion of this topic it seems that the judges had had enough of blatant lying from both parties and gave it in writing in their judgement that its unfortunate that people of religion have been indulging in clear falsehoods.
So the court came to conclude that this building had been in possession of all the three claimants at least from 1855 and POSSESSION and USE became the key to providing relief via grant/recognition of title to these parties.
Now finally the findings as written by the judge in his judgement: pasting from pdf document of the judgement
GIST OF THE FINDINGS

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.
   
   1. 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.
2. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
   
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.
   4. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
   5. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
   6. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
   7. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
3. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of mosque (where at present make shift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord Ram.
   
   1. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949.
   2. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make shift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
   Order:Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, 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 map of premises submitted in this court.