9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1396 - SC - Indian LawsNatural person v/s artificial legal person - rights and duties conferred on artificial legal persons - legal personality and the physical corpus on which legal personality is conferred - HELD THAT - A legal person possesses a capability to bear interests rights and duties. Salmond makes a crucial distinction between legal personality and the physical corpus on which legal personality is conferred. Legal persons being the arbitrary creations of the law may be of as many kinds as the law pleases. Legal personality is not human nature. Legal personality constitutes recognition by the law of an object or corpus as an embodiment of certain rights and duties. Rights and duties which are ordinarily conferred on natural persons are in select situations conferred on inanimate objects or collectives leading to the creation of an artificial legal person. An artificial legal person is a legal person to the extent the law recognizes the rights and duties ascribed to them whether by statute or by judicial interpretation. Salmond presciently notes that the rights and duties conferred on artificial legal persons ultimately represent the interests and benefits of natural persons.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment revolve around the title and possessory claims over the disputed site in Ayodhya, India, which is claimed by both Hindu and Muslim parties. The issues include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Faith and Belief of Hindus Regarding the Birthplace of Lord Ram The court examined ancient religious texts, historical records, and oral testimonies to determine if there was a longstanding belief among Hindus that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The court found that religious texts like the Valmiki Ramayana and Skanda Purana, as well as oral testimonies, support the Hindu belief that the site is sacred. The court noted that this belief has been consistent over centuries, even before the construction of the mosque in 1528. 2. Construction of the Mosque on a Demolished Temple The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report was crucial in this context. It indicated the presence of an underlying structure of Hindu religious origin beneath the mosque. However, the report did not conclusively determine whether the mosque was built by demolishing a temple. The court acknowledged the ASI findings but noted the absence of evidence about the destruction of a pre-existing temple specifically for constructing the mosque. 3. Title and Possession of the Disputed Site The court analyzed historical records, including travelogues and gazetteers, which consistently referred to the site as the birthplace of Lord Ram and indicated that the mosque was built at that location. The court also considered oral evidence from both Hindu and Muslim witnesses. It found that Hindus have been in possession of the outer courtyard and have worshipped there continuously. The inner courtyard was a contested site with both communities asserting rights. 4. Doctrine of Adverse Possession and Lost Grant The court rejected the claim of adverse possession by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, as they failed to establish exclusive, peaceful, and continuous possession. The doctrine of lost grant was also found inapplicable due to the absence of evidence supporting a presumption of a historical grant. 5. Legality of the High Court's Decree for Partition The High Court's decision to partition the site into three parts was deemed legally unsustainable. The court noted that the High Court was not adjudicating a suit for partition and that the relief granted was outside the ambit of the pleadings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the division of the site would not serve the interests of justice or public peace. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Supreme Court held that the disputed site is one composite whole and cannot be divided. The court decreed in favor of the Hindu parties, recognizing their possessory title to the outer courtyard. It directed the Central Government to formulate a scheme for the construction of a temple at the site and to allot an alternative plot of land measuring 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, emphasizing the need for restitution to the Muslim community for the unlawful destruction of their place of worship. The judgment seeks to uphold constitutional values of justice, equality, and fraternity among all faiths.
|
