Area of the disputed premises

The spot position is clear from the two maps prepared by Shiv Shankar Lal, Vakil in May 1950 under orders of Civil Judge, Faizabad passed in the Suit of Gopal Singh Visharad. The first map was of the premises in dispute and the second map was of the premises in dispute and the adjoining area. The map was on the scale of 1 inch = 10 ft. Muslim parties never objected to the dimensions given. The total area is approx. 1480 sq. yards, i.e., 13320 sq. ft. The area of the inner and the outer courtyard is virtually the same. The corners of the map are indicated by A, B, C, D, E, F. Two of the three judges have ordered for allotment of 1/3^rd area to each of the three main Plaintiffs respectively, viz., Nirmohi Akhara, Muslims and Ramlala Virajman while the court has dismissed the suits of Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board.

The Government of India had acquired about 70 acres of land surrounding the disputed premises. This acquired land is other than the disputed area and is still in possession of GOI.

In the suit of Gopal Singh Visharad filed in 1950, a map prepared on 06^th December, 1885 is attached as Annexure. In this map, Parikrama is mentioned very clearly. In this High Court judgment, this map is given as it is as Annexure. This Parikrama means that the whole area covered by Parikrama is the Janmasthan Temple.

TIMELINE OF THE DISPUTE

1853: The first recorded incident of violence over the holy site took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Awadh. Nirmohis, a Hindu sect, claimed that a Hindu temple had been destroyed during Babur’s times to build the mosque.

1859: A fence was built by the British administration to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus.

1949: Idols of Lord Ram appeared inside the mosque, allegedly placed there by Hindus. Muslims protested against the act and both parties file civil suits. The government marked it as a disputed area and locked it up.

1984: A committee was formed lead by Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) to build a temple in Lord Rama’s honour. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Lal Krishna Advani, headed the campaign.

1986: District judge ordered the gates of the disputed area to be opened in order to allow Hindus to worship there. Muslims set up the Babri Mosque Action Committee in protest.

1989: VHP laid the foundation of a Ram temple on land adjacent to the disputed mosque.

1990: VHP volunteers partially damaged the mosque. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar tried to resolve the dispute through negotiations, which failed the next year.

1991: BJP came to power in Uttar Pradesh state, where Ayodhya was located.

1992: Babri mosque was torn down by VHP supporters, the Shiv Sena party and BJP which resulted in riots leading to 2,000 deaths.

1998: BJP formed coalition government under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

2001: Tensions arose on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque. VHP pledged again to build Hindu temple at the site.Jan 2002: Atal Bihari Vajpayee set up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appointed a senior official, Shatrughna Singh, to negotiate with Hindu and Muslim leaders.

Feb 2002: BJP backed out from the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirmed deadline of 15 March to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converged on site. A train returning from Ayodhya carrying Hindu activists was attacked in Godhra and 58 people were killed.

Mar 2002: Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, died in riots in Gujarat following the train attack.

Apr 2002: Three High Court judges began hearings to decide who owned the religious site.

Jan 2003: Archaeologists began a court-ordered survey to find out whether a temple to Lord Ram existed on the site.

Aug 2003: The survey said there was an evidence of a temple beneath the mosque, but Muslims disputed the findings. Mr. Vajpayee, at the funeral of Hindu activist Ramchandra Das Paramhans said that he will fulfill the dying man’s wishes and build a temple at Ayodhya. However, he hoped the courts and negotiations will solve the issue.

Sept 2003: A court ruled that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges were brought against Mr. Advani, who was then deputy prime minister, who was also at the site in 1992.

Oct 2004: Mr. Advani said his party still had commitment to build a temple at Ayodhya.

Nov 2004: Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which exonerated Mr. Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.

July 2005: Suspected Islamic militants attacked the disputed site, using a jeep laden with explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the complex. Security forces killed five people they say are militants, and a sixth who was not immediately identified.

June 2009: The Liberhan commission investigated events leading up to the mosque’s demolition submitted its report – 17 years after it began its inquiry.

Nov 2009: There was uproar in parliament as the Liberhan commission’s report published and it blamed leading politicians from the Hindu nationalist BJP for a role in the mosque’s razing.

Sept 2010: Allahabad High Court ruled that the site should be divided, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the Nirmohi Akhara sect the remainder. Control of the main disputed section, where the mosque was torn down, was given to Hindus. A lawyer for the Muslim community said he will appeal.

May 2011: Supreme Court suspended High Court ruling after Hindu and Muslim groups appeal against the 2010 verdict.

December, 2014: Mohammad Farooq, the oldest litigant in the case, died. He was one of the seven main Muslim litigants in the 1949 Babri Masjid case.

February 26, 2016: The Supreme Court permitted BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to intervene in the pending matters related to the Ayodhya dispute with his plea seeking construction of Ram temple at the site of the demolished disputed structure.

November 09, 2019:

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on November 9 has delivered its judgment in the cross-appeals filed by the Hindu and Muslim sides challenging the three-way partition of the disputed 2.77 acres of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board in September 2010.

In a unanimous judgment, the Bench has ordered that a temple must be constructed at the disputed site and the Muslims must be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya. The court also ordered the Central government to formulate a scheme within three months to implement this order.

SUITS HISTORY

The First Suit was instituted in January 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad as Plaintiff against five Muslim residents of Ayodhya and the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Administrative Officers of Faizabad District as Defendants. In the years 1989 and 1990 respectively the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara were added as Defendants. The plaintiff claimed in the plaint that he was worshipping the Janm Bhumi, idol of Bhagwan Sri Ramchadraji and Charanpaduka (foot impression). But on 14th January, 1950, when he went there for worship and Darshan the government employees prevented the petitioner from going inside where the idols of Ramchandraji and others were placed and that it was done on the undue insistence of local Muslim residents who are Defendants in the Suit. The relief claimed was that it be declared that the Plaintiff is entitled according to his religion and custom to worship and have Darshan of Bhagwan Sri Ram and others at the place of Janm Bhumi by going near the idols without any hindrance. So, the Government has no right to interfere in the said rights. Prohibitory injunction was also sought against Defendants that Defendants should not remove the idols of Bhagwan Ramchandra from the place where the idols were and they should also not close the way leading to that and should not interfere in worship and Darshan in any manner.

Interim injunction order was passed on 19th January, 1950 which confirmed on March 03, 1951. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court on 26th April, 1955.

The Second Suit was filed by Paramhans Ramchandra Das (Plaintiff) in the same year 1950 against five Muslim residents of Ayodhya and State of U.P. and a Government Officer. Sunni Waqf Board was added as Defendant in 1989. The Plaint was identical to the Suit of Gopal Singh Visharad. The Plaintiff Paramhans Ramchandra Das applied for withdrawal of his Suit in 1990 which was allowed on 18th September, 1990.

The Third Suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara of Ramanand Sect through its Mahant as Plaintiff in the year 1959. The Defendants were Babu Priya Dutt Ram (Receiver of the disputed site appointed by the City Magistrate), State of U.P. and local officers and a few local Muslims. Later on in the year 1989, Sunni Central Board of Waqf was added as a Defendant. One Mr. Umesh Chandra Pandey was later on impleaded as Defendant in January, 1989 on his own application. The case of the Plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara was that for a long time in Ayodhya an ancient Mutt and Akhara of Ramanandi Bairagis called Nirmohis existed and the Janmasthan commonly known as Janm Bhumi, the birthplace of Ramachandra, belonged to it and the Akhara had always been managing and receiving offerings made there in the form of money, etc. It was also claimed that the Asthan of Janm Bhumi was of ancient antiquity. The Suit was confined to the inner courtyard and the constructed portion. The prayer in the Suit is that a decree be passed for the removal of Receiver from the management and charge of the said temple of Janm Bhumi and delivering the same to the Nirmohi Akhara through its Mahant.

The Fourth Suit was filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Uttar Pradesh and nine Muslims of Ayodhya as Plaintiffs in the year 1961. The Defendants in the Suit were Gopal Singh Visharad, Paramhans Ramchandra Das, Nirmohi Akhara, State of U.P., its officers, the Receiver, the President of All India Hindu Maha Sabha. About twelve additional Defendants were impleaded afterwards on their own applications some of whom were Sri Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, Baba Abhiram Das of Hanuman Garhi and Sri Madan Mohan Gupta (Convener of  Akhil Bharatiya Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Punaruddhar Samiti, Bhopal, founded by HH Jagadguru

Shankaracharya Swami Swaroopanandaji Maharaj – impleaded in 1989). The Plaintiff Sunni Central Waqf Board claimed that in Ayodhya there existed an ancient Mosque known as Babri Masjid built by Babur about 433 years ago after his conquest of India. That the land adjoining  the mosque on all the four sides was ancient graveyard of Muslims; That the mosque and the graveyard vested in Almighty and the Muslims were offering prayers in the mosque since the time of its construction. The mosque and graveyard were situated in Mohalla Kot Ram Chander in Ayodhya. The relief claimed by the Plaintiff is that the property be declared as a public  mosque commonly known as Babri Masjid. Next prayer is that in case in the opinion of the Court delivery of possession is deemed to be the proper remedy, a decree for delivery of the possession of the mosque by removal of idols, etc., be passed in favour of plaintiff against the defendants. One more prayer was added in the year 1995 that the Receiver be ordered to handover the property in dispute to the plaintiffs. At the same time, in the year 1995, Sunni Waqf Board withdrew its prayer of graveyard.

All the above four suits were consolidated for joint hearing by the orders of the Court in the year 1964.

The Fifth Suit was filed in 1989 by Bhagwan Sri Ramlala Virajman at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya, as Plaintiff No. 1 and Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya as Plaintiff No.

2. Both the plaintiffs were stated to be represented by Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal (Retired Judge of High Court, resident of Allahabad) as Next Friend of Ramlala Virajman. Sri Deoki Nandan Agrawal was the Plaintiff No. 3 in the Suit. The Defendants in this Suit are Rajendra Singh, s/o Gopal Singh Visharad, Paramhans Mahant Ramchandra Das, Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Central Board of Waqf and a few Muslims. In total there are 27 Defendants in this Suit including all the parties of previous four suits. Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Nyas and Shia Central Board of Waqf are also Defendants in this Suit.

It was pleaded in the suit that Sri Ramlala Virajman and Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi both were juridical persons and Deoki Nandan Agrawal is a Vaishnav Hindu seeks to represent the Deity and Asthan as a Next Friend. Sri Ram Janma Bhumi is too well known at Ayodhya and it does not require any description for purpose of identification of the subject matter of dispute.

Twenty-five years have passed since framing of these issues but hearing has not commenced. So the Plaintiff Deities and their devotees are extremely unhappy with the  prolonged delay of the hearing of the suits. Plaintiff deities are desirous of having a new temple constructed. A Trust has been created in December, 1985 by HH Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Swami Shivaramacharya Maharaj. It was also pleaded that earlier suits were inadequate as  neither presiding deity nor Asthan Janma Bhumi were pleaded in earlier suits. Hence fresh suit is being filed. It was also pleaded that place itself being birthplace of Lord Ram is object of  worship as deity.

The Prayer in the suit is for a decree of declaration to the effect that the entire premises of Sri Ram Janma Bhumi belong to the plaintiff deities and for a perpetual injunction against the defendants prohibiting them from interfering with or raising any objection to or placing any obstruction in the construction of the new temple building at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Ayodhya after demolishing and removing the existing buildings and structures.

THE CURRENT SCENARIO

Suggesting an out-of-court rapprochement among rival parties in the 68-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, the then Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar advised peace negotiations instead of a pitched court battle, even offering help to settle the fight amicably. Also a Supreme Court’s Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Rohinton Nariman posted for detailed hearing of the CBI appeal against the dropping of the criminal conspiracy charge against veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani and other top party leaders after two weeks.

The Supreme Court indicated that it will use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the Babri Masjid demolition related trial in Rae Bareilly against top BJP leaders L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi to Lucknow, where a CBI court is hearing conspiracy and other serious criminal charges against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks” for the actual act of razing down the 15th century mosque.

The Supreme Court also revived conspiracy charges against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 others in the 25-year-old Babri Masjid demolition cases. L.K. Advani Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

The Supreme Court had scheduled the hearing of 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi – Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.

Hon’ble Supreme Court finally annouced the judgment after completing 40days of regular hearing.

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on November 9 has delivered its judgment in the cross-appeals filed by the Hindu and Muslim sides challenging the three-way partition of the disputed 2.77 acres of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board in September 2010.

In a unanimous judgment, the Bench has ordered that a temple must be constructed at the disputed site and the Muslims must be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya. The court also ordered the Central government to formulate a scheme within three months to implement this order.

Click Here to Download Hon’ble Allahabad High Court 2010 Verdict full

Click Here to Read Full Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced on 09/11/2019

Published by Shruti Singh, Legal Intern at Legal Desire

The post All You Need To Know about Babari Masjid Case appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

INA (Indian National Army) was a force that comprised of Indian Prisoners of War abroad, and was formed by Subhash Chandra Bose to secure India’s independence from the British. When it was disbanded, INA’s top officers were tried by the British on charges of Sedition etc. The Indian National Congress decided to form a team of legal stalwarts to prepare a thorough legal defense for the officers.  Lord Wavell India’s then Viceroy, promulgated an ordinance with retrospective effect to confer jurisdiction on court-martials in cases related to PoW’s.

The pinnacle of this trial was the legal ingenuity demonstrated by Bhulabhai Desai. Desai’s primary argument was that Bose had formed a provisional government of India, and since the Axis powers had recognized that government, the officers of the INA were representing their country, and not a rebel force. Thus, Desai argued, the municipal law in this case, the Indian Penal Code was not applicable and they ought to be tried under International Law. He placed enormous evidence on record to establish that the INA was representing the Indian State; and thus, the officers were acting in furtherance of their duty as India and Great Britain were at war. Even though he lost the case, he earned his place in the pantheon of legends.

9. The Ayodhya Cases

One of the most controversial cases in Indian constitutional history is the Ayodhya case. The first case was filed in January 1885 by Mahant Raghubir Das seeking permission to construct a temple on the chabutara (a raised platform) outside the Babri Masjid was dismissed. The mandir-masjid issue then remained in suspended animation until the night of December 22, 1949, when trespassers broke into the Babri Masjid and installed an idol of Ram. Subsequently, the city magistrate attached the premises. In the next 12 years, four title suits followed (all still pending before the courts). These include the one filed in December 1950 by Mahant Ramchandra Das Paramhans, who is now the chairman of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and another by the Sunni Central Boards of Waqfs, UP, in December 1961. All the four suits were clubbed together and brought before the Allahabad High Court, which began recording oral evidence in July 1996.

8. Bhawal case – The Princely Imposter

The Bhawal Sanyasi case has been one of the strangest among judicial cases in British India. In the Hindu way of life, a Sanyasi is a person who has taken ‘Sanyas’, or entered the final stage of his life in which he is to seek the Truth and turn his back upon the material word. In more popular parlance, any garden-variety sadhu or mendicant may be called a sanyasi. Bhawal was a large zamindari near Dacca (now Dhaka, Bangladesh). It was, as with the case of many similar Zamindaries, closely supervised by the British bureaucracy. It had an Englishman as a manager. After the Zamindar died, it passed to his three sons. All led lives of ease. The second son, Ramendra, died in Darjeeling in 1905, apparently due to syphilis, and was believed to have been cremated. He left his widow, Bibhavati, behind him. Several years later, in 1921, a Sadhu appeared in Dacca. Soon people noticed many resemblances between him and the supposedly dead Ramendra. Jyotirmayee, one of his sisters was convinced that the sadhu was indeed her brother. Several educated Indians too were convinced of his identity. The British official world, on the other hand, looked upon him as a pretender. Bibhavati refused to accept him as her husband. The claimant (sadhu) claimed his 1/3rd share from the revenues of the zamindari. The Court of Wards which was administering the zamindari refused the claim and the matter went to the court. From the very beginning there was a clear division between the British officialdom and the Bengali elite, the latter siding with the claimant. The claimant filed a suit in 1930.

The judgment in the first trial went in favor of the claimant. The Court of Wards appealed to the Calcutta High Wards. After some delay caused by the Second World War, which kept one of assigned judges stranded in London, the High Court too found in favor of the claimant in 1940. Bibhavati appealed to the Privy Council in London. The Privy Council ruled in favor of the claimant on July 30, 1946. The judgment was telegraphed to Calcutta the next day.

That very day the winner/claimant went to the Kali temple to offer prayers upon his victory and suffered a stroke there. He died two days later, which, according to Bibhavti, was the divinely ordained punishment for the imposter.

7. ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case, 1976

ADM Jabalpur V Shivkant Shukla is one of the landmark cases in Indian constitutional history. Its judgment came on 28th April 1976. This day is known to be the blackest day of India’s constitutional history. Right to move to any court for enforcement of any right conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22 was suspended during the emergency of 1975 by a presidential order. The maintainability of this order was challenged in this case. Several high courts held it not maintainable while Supreme Court’s 4 judges out of 5 declared otherwise and concluded it to be maintainable and valid exercise under emergency provisions of Indian constitution. Anybody who was sought to be a political threat was detained without trial and sent to prison under the MISA, a preventive detention act on the ground of maintaining the internal security in the country. This was case where an attorney general of India wrote, Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless. For the disagreeing opinion, H. R. Khanna J lost his possibility of becoming the C.J. of India when he was the senior most person eligible for it. His Junior Beg J. became instead. P.N. Bhagwati J pleads guilty for the judgement of this case after 30 years

6. Himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police, 1973

This case was recently referenced in the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement when Section 144 of the IPC (unlawful assembly) was imposed by the Delhi Police and the lawyer team of Shanti and Prashant Bhushan argued successfully in the Supreme Court over the unconstitutional nature of this action. The original case dealt with a common citizen’s right to hold public meetings on streets and the extent to which the state could regulate this right. Freedom of expression and assembly is an essential element of democratic system. At the root of this system lies the citizens’ right to meet face to face to discuss problems social, religious or political. This right was upheld in this case.

5. The Shah Bano Case, 1985

Shah Bano, a 62 year old woman from Indore was divorced by her husband in 1978. Unable to support herself and her five children, she moved to courts to be granted maintenance from her ex-husband. Seven years and several judgments later, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting Shah Bano alimony. Largely seen as a threat to Sharia law by some Muslims, what followed a debate over the constitutionality of including different marriage and personal laws for different religion, and resulted in the passing of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, by the government.

The case was significant for several reasons. In giving its judgment, the Court ordered maintenance with an upper limit of Rs. 500 monthly, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which applies to all citizens regardless of caste or religion. Although seen by many as a secular judgment, it invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law. The backlash from the Muslim community prompted the government to begin parliamentary procedures that, in essence, overturned the Supreme Court’s decision. The Muslim Women Act, 1986, was passed amidst great controversy and debate. Many argued that it was a way to appease the minority group that was threatening agitation.

Shah Bano’s case brought the need for a secular Uniform Civil Code into the limelight again. To date, however, individual Personal Laws based on religion are still in effect. The case remains a ground-breaking one in Indian divorce law and is often used as a benchmark by the courts.

4. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain, 1975

Ruling on the case that had been filed by the defeated opposition candidate Raj Narain, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha declared then-PM Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices, invalidated her win from Rae Bareilly and barred her from holding elected office for six years. The decision caused a political storm in India that led to the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira’s government from 1975 to 1977. The decision had galvanized opposition parties and strikes by labour and trade unions, student unions and government unions swept across the country. Protests led by Jayaprakash Narayan and Morarji Desai flooded the streets of Delhi close to the Parliament building and the Prime Minister’s residence. The government argued that the political disorder was a threat to national security. Using the sweeping powers granted by the Emergency decree, thousands of opposition leaders and activists were arrested, press censorship was introduced and elections were postponed. During this period, Indira Gandhi’s Congress (R) used its parliamentary majority to amend the Indian Constitution and overwrite the law that she was later found guilty of violating.

3. Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, 1973

This case is now known as the case that saved the Indian democracy. On April 24, 1973, Chief Justice Sikri and 12 judges of the Supreme Court assembled to deliver the most important judgment in its history. The hard work that had gone into the preparation of this case was breathtaking. Literally hundreds of cases had been cited and the then Attorney-General had made a comparative chart analyzing the provisions of the Constitutions of 71 different countries. All this effort was to answer just one main question: “was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited?” In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights? The judgment revealed a sharply divided court and, by a wafer-thin majority of 7-6, it was held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend “the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.” This was the inherent and implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament. This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed (Indira Gandhi attempting to hijack Indian democracy), saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharati will always occupy a hallowed place in our constitutional history.

2. K. M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra, 1959

This was a high-profile upper class crime of passion, where Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife’s lover. The incident received unprecedented media coverage and Nanavati was at the receiving end of a huge amount of public and community support. Nanavati was initially declared not guilty 8-1 by a jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on referral and the case was retried as a bench trial. Nanavati was convicted of culpable homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. This case was the last to be heard as a jury trial in India, as the government abolished jury trials as a result of the case. Many see this as a progressive step in our justice system as decisions of juries are often colored by societal values and norms. On the side note, Ram Jethmalani, now a prominent lawyer and BJP politician, conducted the prosecution in what was one of his first high-profile cases.

1. Lal Bihari, The Undead Indian

In 1976, when a teenager named Lal Bihari approached a bank to approve a loan, he was informed that he was actually dead. It took Lal Bihari 18 years to get his life and his land back. During that time, he added the word Mritak or Dead, to his name and to prove that he was alive sought arrest, tried to run for parliament, kidnapped the son of his uncle, who had stolen his property, threatened murder, insulted judges, threw leaflets listing his complaints at legislators in the state assembly and demanded a widow’s pension for his wife. Each time he was either beaten up by police or rebuked for wasting officials’ time. Unable to make headway, Lal Bihari, The Dead sought the company of other ghosts in Uttar Pradesh and found an entire underworld of the deceased and dispossessed. It was only in 1994, 18 years after being declared dead, that Azamgarh district magistrate, a Hausla Prasad Verma, declared Lal Bihari finally alive once again and also returned his land to him.

The post Top 10 Most Interesting Indian Court Cases to know appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.