"Was this the place of birth of Lord Ram? Was the Babri mosque built after demolition of temple? And whether the mosque in question was built in accordance with the tenets of Islam?"
The answer to these fundamental queries would determine the fate of the issue that has been vexed for centuries and over which litigation was actually pending for a good one- and-a-quarter century.
While the high court were to determine the key issues relating to right over the disputed property, the case relating to the demolition of the mosque was pending before a special CBI court in Lucknow.
Interestingly, as early as on January 19, 1885, when the first suit was filed in the court of sub-judge Faizabad , the plaintiff Mahant Raghubar Das sought 'puja' rights over 'Ram Chabootra' a raised platform universally accepted as the birthplace of Ram and stood right in front of the 16th century mosque named after Babar, the first Mughal emperor.
However in his order dated February 24, 1885 , the judge declined permission on the ground, that even though the land on which the chabootra stands, belonged to the plaintiff, "it was so close to the existing masjid that it would be contrary to public policy to grant a decree authorising him to build a temple as desired by him."
Significantly, this sub-judge was no British or a Muslim, but an upper caste Brahmin Pandit Hari Kishan.
Raghubar Das filed an appeal before Faizabad district judge Colonel J.E.A. Chambier, who after a spot inspection on March 17,1886 dismissed the appeal on the same grounds.
Interestingly the British district judge ruled, "I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babar, stands on the border of the town of Ayodhya ..It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as that occurred 356 years years ago , it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo".
He went on to further observe, "this 'chabootra' is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander."
The matter went up to the Oudh Judicial Commissioner W Young who, while rejecting Das's plea observed in his judgment of November 1, 1886 , "this spot is situated within the precincts of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years ago owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend , as the site of his mosque. The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precinct adjoining the mosque and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure namely (1) Sita ki rasoi (kitchen of Sita) and ( 2 ) Ram Chander ki Janmbhoomi (birthplace of Lord Ram)."
Upholding the earlier decisions, the judicial commissioner only disputed the Mahant's claim to ownership of the said 'chabootra'.
Significantly, even the district gazetteer of 1905 confirmed that both Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers in the same building until 1855.
Other than a communal riot provoked by a cow-slaughter in 1934, all remained quiet on the Ayodhya front there after it was all quiet once again until the night of December 22, 1949 , when the idol of Lord Ram was surreptitiously planted in the middle of the mosque, following which hundreds of Hindus barged into it and started offering prayers.
Even though the crowds were pushed back and a padlock was put on the gates of the mosque building , the deity remained inside and none dared to get it removed despite stern directive from the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru to chief minister Gobind Ballabh Pant.
The then district magistrate KKK Nayyar expressed his inability to get the idols removed and even offered to be relieved of the charge rather than carry out the orders. He later got elected Lok Sabha member on Hindu Mahasabha ticket.
For sometime, it seemed everyone was satisfied with the maintenance of status quo and by December 29,1949 , the additional city magistrate ordered attachment of the property.
Barely two weeks later a suit was filed by a local resident Gopal Singh Visharad before the Civil Judge of Faizabad on January 16, 1950, seeking injunction to offer prayers inside the mosque where the deity of Lord Ram stood installed. Civil Judge N.N.Chadha granted interim injunction with the rider that public could not be allowed to freely offer 'puja' and 'darshan'. The local 'pujari' was allowed to perform the routine daily 'bhog' to the deity.
However the question of ownership of the land remained disputed as yet another local Hindu congregation, Nirmohi Akhara staked claim over its ownership .In the subsequent year, five Muslims from Ayodhya, led by Mohammad Hashim moved a petition before the high court seeking vacation of the injunction order.
In 1961, yet another suit was filed by Mohammad Hashim , pleading restoration of property to Muslims. By 1964, the issues were settled and date was fixed for final hearing. However, the appointment of a new receiver in 1968 was obstructed by yet another appeal before the Allahabad High Court in 1971. Subsequently, the case was not taken up until 1983, when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad launched its temple movement in a big way.
Just as the VHP took the temple movement to a high pitch, Faizabad district judge KM Pandey ordered unlocking of the gates of the disputed site on February 1, 1986. This was done on an application moved by a local lawyer U.C.Pandey, who sought permission to offer prayers.
Judge KM Pandey observed , "After having heard the parties, it is clear that the members of the other community -- namely Muslims-- are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees."
His observation, "heavens will not fall if the locks of the gates are removed", however, fell flat as the order sparked off nationwide rioting and communal violence.
The Sunni Waqf Board and Babri Masjid Action Committee moved the Allahabad High Court against the district judge's order. However, the order was not stayed. Meanwhile, all cases pertaining to the Ayodhya dispute were referred to the Lucknow bench of the court.
Meanwhile, a 'shilaniyas' (laying of foundation stone) for the proposed temple in 1989 gave the whole issue a hype and the police firing ordered on violent karsevaks by the Mulayam Singh government in 1990 polarised votes in favour of the BJP, forging Kalyan Singh to power in 1991. Kalyan ordered acquisition of 2.75 acres of land around the mosque in his bid to show his party's seriousness towards building the temple.
However, BMAC convenor Zafaryab Jilani promptly moved yet another writ to prevent any kind of construction on the acquired land.
Meanwhile, Aslam Bhure moved the Supreme Court against the acquisition. But the apex court transferred the case to high court here directing for maintenance of status quo until the high court decided the five writs that were by then pending there.
But the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992 led the Muslims to move contempt application against which Kalyan Singh was awarded a day's imprisonment.
While January 15 was fixed for the next hearing , the then Central government under PV Narasimha Rao issued an ordinance for acquisition of as many as 67 acres in and around the disputed site.
The Supreme Court in 1994 ordered abatement of all pending suits and nullified all interim orders issued by various courts in Ayodhyarelated cases and said that the land remain under the Centre's custody and status quo be maintained until the Lucknow bench of the high court disposed of the case being heard by a three-judge bench.
Final hearing in the case began on July 23, 1996, concluded on Monday evening.