Muslim petitioners had urged the court to throw out the petition.
Here are 5 big quotes from the verdict:
The main argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs have not sought declaration or injunction over the property. They have not sought the relief for converting the place of worship from a mosque to a temple. The plaintiffs are only demanding right to worship Maa Shringaar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities which were being worshipped incessantly till 1993 and after 1993 till now once a year under the regulation of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs is limited and confined to the right of worship as a civil right, fundamental right as well as customary and religious right. I agree with the counsel for the plaintiffs.
The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Section 85 of The Waqf Act, 1995 because the subject matter of the suit is a Waqf property and only Waqf Tribunal Lucknow has right to decide the suit. In the present case, the plaintiffs have claimed relief that they should be allowed to worship the deities of Maa Sringar Gauri and other Gods and Goddesses in the disputed property, but such relief is not covered under Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72, & 73 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present suit is not barred. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case because the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf created at the disputed property and relief claimed in the suit is not covered under Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Hence, suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.
The learned counsel for the defendant argued that at the disputed property, Gyanvapi Mosque is situated. In para 5 and 6 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that Islamic ruler Aurangzeb got the temple demolished in the year 1669 and constructed a Mosque there, which is situated at plot no. 9130. In the Khasra Bandobast, 1291 Fasali, Gyanvapi Masjid has been shown at plot no.9130. The defendant no.4 filed Khasra Bandobasti of the year 1883-84 which is paper no. 220C. This Gyanvapi Masjid is registered as Waqf no.100, Varanasi in the gazette. Therefore, Gyanvapi Masjid is Waqf property and plaintiffs have no right to worship there. The learned counsel for the defendant no.4 cited Ballabh Das & Anr. v. Nur Mohammad & Anr. AIR 1936 Privy Counsel 83, in which it was held that Khasra itself create rights as instrument of title, and it is not merely a historical material where the Khasra itself is the instrument which confers or embodies the right and there is no other document which creates title. The Khasra and the Map are an instrument of title or otherwise the direct foundation of right. In my view, this argument of defendant no.4 does not hold much water because the plaintiffs are claiming only right to worship at the disputed property. They want to worship Maa Sringaar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities with the contention that they worshipped there till the year 1993 and the plaintiffs are not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They have also not filed the suit for declaration that the disputed property is a temple.
Further, according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they were worshipping Maa Sringaar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993, they were allowed to worship the above-mentioned Gods only once in a year under the regulation of State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August, 1947. Therefore, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act.
The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983). In my view, the defendant no.4 failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the U.P. Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983). Section 5 of the Act declares that the ownership of the temple and its endowment shall vest in the deity of Shri Kashi Vishwanath. Section 6 of the Act provides that, with effect from the appointed date, the administration and governance of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in a Board to be called the Board of Trustees for Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In Section 4 (5) endowment includes all properties, movable or immovable, belonging to or given or endowed for the support or maintenance or improvement of the Temple or for the performance of any worship, service, ritual, ceremony or other religious observance in the Temple or any charity connected therewith and includes the idols installed therein, the premises of the Temple and gifts of property made or intend to be made for the Temple or the deities installed therein to anyone within the precincts of the Temple. In Section 4 (9), "Temple" has been defined as the Temple of Adi Visheshwar, popularly known as Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, situated in the City of Varanasi which is used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindus, as a place of public religious worship of the Jyotirlinga and includes all subordinate temple, shrines, sub-shrines and the Asthan of all other images and deities, mandaps, wells, tanks and other necessary structures and land appurtenant thereto and additions which may be made thereto after the appointed date. From the perusal of above-mentioned provisions of the Act, it is clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act regarding a suit claiming right to worship idols installed in the endowment within the premises of the temple, or outside. Therefore, defendant no.4 failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanth Temple Act, 1983.
