Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jahoor Ahmad and others 389
ought to be the date when the decree is
prepared and signed and not the date of
judgment. Lastly it says that operative part
of the judgment of Sudhir Agarwal, J. as
find mentioned in Para 4566 at pages
5079-5081 should be mentioned in its
entirety and Appendix-7 referred to in the
said judgement i.e. the operative part
should be made part of the decree.
9. Sri Hari Shankar Jain, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Hindu
Mahasabha though is not a party in Suit-1
but during the course of oral arguments
submits that the decree in respect to Suit-1
is not clear and it is not evident whether
the suit has been decreed or not. Therefore,
the manner in which it has been prepared is
not in accordance with Order XX Rule 6
CPC read with Chapter VIII Rule 8 of
High Court Rules.
10. We shall first find out, what relief
has been granted to plaintiff in Suit-1 and
how the suit has been decided by three
judges in their separate decisions. Here we
may mention one more aspect. Since the
judgment of three Judges are running in
several volumes consisting of 8666 pages,
we would refer from the relevant volume,
page number and para number of the
judgment of concerned Judge. Further,
fortunately this judgment has also been
reported in 2010 ADJ page 1 (Special
F.B.) and it is in three volumes. For
convenience we will also refer page number
and para number of the said report.
11. The judgment of S.U. Khan, J. has
dealt with certain issues of Suit-1 separately
but on page 261 (page 109 Volume 1 of the
report) it reads as under:
"In respect of findings on other issues
(except issues relating to relief) I fully agree
with the findings of my brother Sudhir
Agarwal, J. subject to any thing contrary
stated/found in this judgement of mine."
12. Issue No. 17, Suit-1 related to
relief and has been dealt with by S.U. Khan,
J. in his judgement at pages 262 to 276
(pages 109 to 114, Vol. I of the report).
13. However a reading of the
aforesaid shows that S.U. Khan, J. has not
granted any relief to plaintiff of Suit-1. It is
true that specifically nothing has been said
on the issue of relief of Suit-1 but we are of
the view that a relief if not granted, means it
has been rejected.
14. Sudhir Agarwal, J. has dealt with
issue No. 17, Suit-1 relating to reliefs in
paras 4554 and 4555, pages 5072-5073,
Vol. 21 (paras 4554-4555, pages 2867-
2868, Vol. III of the report); para 4570,
page 5088, Vol. 21 (para 4570, page 2876,
Vol. III of the report); and, para 4571, page
5091, Vol. 21 (para 4571, page 2878, Vol.
III of the report). It decrees Suit-1 partly.
The Judge has made a declaration that
plaintiff has right of worship at the site of
dispute including the part of land which is
held by this Court to be the place of birth of
Lord Rama according to the faith and belief
of Hindus but this right is subject to such
restrictions as may be necessary by
authorities concerned in regard to law and
order, i.e., safety, security and also for the
maintenance of place of worship etc. Rest
of the relief has been specifically denied.
15. Dharam Veer Sharma, J. in his
separate judgment in OOS No. 1 of 1989 at
page 33 (page 3489, Vol. III of the report)
has held that plaintiff is not entitled for the
relief claimed and defendants are also not
entitled for special costs as initially the
plaintiff who filed the suit is no more. It