Peace Party moves curative petition against Ayodhya verdict

A curative petition was filed by the president of the Peace Party in the Supreme Court against the Ayodhya verdict. The petition has been filed before the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.  The Supreme Court had awarded the title of the disputed land to the deity of Ram Lalla. It had also granted five acres of land to Muslims at an alternative site in Ayodhya for the construction of a new mosque. The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed in this matter last December.

Grounds for the curative petition:

• Title must be based on exclusive and unimpeded possession which has to be established by evidence. And the Hindu parties have failed to establish the same evidence.
• The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon patent errors and created rights based on illegal acts.
• In the Judgment, there has been a violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the Rule of Law.

Petitioner’s contention:

• Even assuming that underlying structure was, in fact, a Hindu temple which vested title to the disputed site in the original Plaintiff, it must be noted that the Hindu parties did not lead any evidence to even establish that upon the change in legal regime to the Mughal sovereign, such rights were recognized.
• Even the ASI report was not in favor of the Hindu party.
• The legal maxim “Ex dolomalo non-orituractio” meaning ‘no right of action can have its origin in fraud’. The judgment itself holds that Muslims were in possession of the Mosque till it was desecrated and the Hindus came to be in possession of the disputed land by illegal acts. This cannot be equated to lawful possession.

In Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai, AIR 1960 SC 213, this Court held that:

The correct position in law, in our opinion, is that what one has to see is whether the illegality goes so much to the root of the matter that the plaintiff cannot bring his action without relying upon the illegal transaction into which he had entered. If the illegality be trivial or venial, as stated by Williston and the plaintiff is not required to rest his case upon that illegality, then public policy demands that the defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the position. However, the matter is clear and the illegality is not required to be pleaded or proved as part of the cause of action and the plaintiff recanted before the illegal purpose was achieved, then, unless it be of such a gross nature as to outrage the conscience of the Court, the plea of the defendant should not prevail.”