Parties and roles: M. Siddiq (D) through LRs is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Hindu and Muslim parties asserted competing title and worship rights over 2.77 acres in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood until its unlawful demolition in 1992. The litigation required deciding civil title from pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, travel accounts, archaeology and patterns of possession—not resolving theology. The High Court's equitable three-way division was challenged by all principal parties. Procedural and real-world context: 1885: First recorded suit regarding worship at disputed site. | 1949: Idols placed inside mosque; premises attached. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve who proved title and possessory rights on the balance of probabilities? Was the deity/juristic person entitled to sue? What weight attached to ASI evidence, worship and unlawful dispossession? Could the High Court partition land without a pleaded case? The outcome mattered immediately because the Court unanimously awarded the entire disputed land for construction of a Ram temple through a Central Government trust, finding the Hindu parties' possessory claim stronger on the total evidence. The Sunni Waqf Board received five acres of suitable alternative land under Article 142 because the 1949 desecration and 1992 demolition were serious violations of law. Procedural setting: 1885: First recorded suit regarding worship at disputed site. | 1949: Idols placed inside mosque; premises attached. | 1992: Babri Masjid demolished. | 2010: Allahabad High Court divided land three ways. | 2019: Supreme Court heard appeals for forty days. | 09 Nov 2019: Unanimous final judgment. The central problem before the Court was who proved title and possessory rights on the balance of probabilities? Was the deity/juristic person entitled to sue? What weight attached to ASI evidence, worship and unlawful dispossession? Could the High Court partition land without a pleaded case? The controversy was considered in the framework of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872; Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993; waqf and limitation laws, together with Constitution arts.25, 26, 32, 136, 142 and 300A. The wider importance of the case lies in civil title on preponderance of probabilities; juristic personality; possession; rule of law; restitution; Article 142 complete justice.

Hindu parties: long, continuous belief and worship identified the inner and outer courtyards as Lord Ram's birthplace; evidence supported possession and pre-existing structure. | Sunni Waqf Board: mosque construction, grants, records and prayer established title/possession; faith could not substitute proof. Nirmohi Akhara claimed management rights as shebait. Competing positions in context: M. Siddiq (D) through LRs's position: as the appellant/applicant, M. Siddiq (D) through LRs sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Civil title on preponderance of probabilities; juristic personality; possession; rule of law; restitution; Article 142 complete justice. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872; Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993; waqf and limitation laws and Constitution arts.25, 26, 32, 136, 142 and 300A, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court unanimously awarded the entire disputed land for construction of a Ram temple through a Central Government trust, finding the Hindu parties' possessory claim stronger on the total evidence. The Sunni Waqf Board received five acres of suitable alternative land under Article 142 because the 1949 desecration and 1992 demolition were serious violations of law. The High Court's three-way partition was set aside; Nirmohi Akhara's suit was time-barred. The decision repeatedly affirmed that title was decided by secular legal evidence and that demolition was unlawful. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Civil title on preponderance of probabilities; juristic personality; possession; rule of law; restitution; Article 142 complete justice and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867/2010 and connected appeals. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872; Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993; waqf and limitation laws. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872; Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993; waqf and limitation laws

Constitution arts.25, 26, 32, 136, 142 and 300A

Civil title on preponderance of probabilities; juristic personality; possession; rule of law; restitution; Article 142 complete justice