The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JHU), one of the parties to the Ayodhya title suits in the Allahabad High Court, on Monday moved the Supreme Court, contending that the core finding in the judgment “as regards the alleged place of birth of Lord Ram is based on the professed belief of Hindus and not on evidence,” and that such a finding was illegal.

The first appeal, filed through lawyer Anis Suhrawardy, contended that the High Court while deciding the cases pertaining to the Babri Masjid “has travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties because in none of the suits was there any prayer for partition; therefore, the High Court ought not to have decided the suit like a partition suit pertaining to the land in question.”

Also, the High Court could not have gone by a report of the Archaeological Survey of India which had no evidentiary value.

The appeal raised several questions — whether a myth, belief or faith could substitute history for purposes of application of law in force for the time being; whether in view of the fact that devotees of Ram demolished the building during the pendency of their suit, relief could be granted to such plaintiffs; whether the High Court, on the basis of belief and faith, could have competently decided the issue in the light of the fact that with respect to the structure all supportive evidence was available with effect from 1528 till December 6, 1992, whereas for the evidence prior to 1528, religious text and scriptures were taken into conspectus; whether the demolition of the structure (on December 6, 1992) was an act of vandalism; if the demolition was illegal, then certainly the relief was to return all plaints; also, if it was an act of vandalism then it should not have been given the seal of approval. It should have been deprecated by the court with all force at its command.

The appeal said the High Court had lost sight of facts simply on the basis of some materials alleged to have been recovered from underneath the mosque. It was not justified in forming its views that a temple might have been demolished and a mosque constructed thereafter.

The JHU said the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that admittedly there was the Babri Masjid constructed in 1528 A.D. and that Muslims were offering prayers regularly until the idols were brought from the courtyard and installed there at dead of night on December 22-23, 1949 and worship started thereafter.

On these admitted facts, the proper relief ought to have been restoring status quo ante as obtained prior to December 22, 1949.

Further, the High Court could not have mixed the entire area of Ayodhya with the central dome of the structure, holding the same birthplace of Lord Ram.

Both parties had definitely admitted that Ayodhya was the Ram Janmabhoomi but none identified a specific place or exact location of the birth of Ram, nor the same could be pointed out specifically by any of the parties.

On the basis of ASI report, the central dome of the site in question could not be declared birthplace of Ram.

The appeal prayed for quashing the judgment and an interim stay of its operation.