Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jahoor Ahmad and others 401
purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under
this direction the area which is covered by
(i) above shall also be included.
(iii) The area covered by the
structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF
GG HH in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN
OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ
KK LL in Appendix 7) in the outer
courtyard is declared in the share of
Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they
shall be entitled to possession thereof in the
absence of any person with better title.
(iv) The open area within the outer
courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7)
(except that covered by (iii) above) shall be
shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no.
3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been
generally used by the Hindu people for
worship at both places.
(iv-a) It is however made clear that the
share of muslim parties shall not be less
than one third (1/3) of the total area of the
premises and if necessary it may be given
some area of outer courtyard. It is also
made clear that while making partition by
metes and bounds, if some minor
adjustments are to be made with respect to
the share of different parties, the affected
party may be compensated by allotting the
requisite land from the area which is under
acquisition of the Government of India.
(v)The land which is available with the
Government of India acquired under
Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the
parties who are successful in the suit for
better enjoyment of the property shall be
made available to the above concerned
parties in such manner so that all the three
parties may utilise the area to which they
are entitled to, by having separate entry for
egress and ingress of the people without
disturbing each others rights. For this
purpose the concerned parties may
approach the Government of India who
shall act in accordance with the above
directions and also as contained in the
judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail
Farooqi (Supra).
(vi)A decree, partly preliminary and
partly final, to the effect as said above (i to
v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the
above extent. The parties are at liberty to
file their suggestions for actual partition of
the property in dispute in the manner as
directed above by metes and bounds by
submitting an application to this effect to
the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench
at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.
(vii) For a period of three months or
unless directed otherwise, whichever is
earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo
as on today in respect of property in
dispute."
88. The summary of findings on
different issues is contained in para 4570,
page 5091, Vol. 21 (para 4570, at page
2878, Vol. III of the report) and it says:
"20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly
decreed in the manner the directions are
issued in para 4566."
89. In para 4571 it concludes by
saying that Suit-5 is decreed partly.
90. A wholesome reading of above
makes it clear that suit has been partly
decreed in the decision of Agarwal, J. in the
manner the directions/declarations
contained in para 4566 and cost has been
made easy on parties vide para 4571.
Therefore, in our view, the decree must