Judgement PDF source ( official) : https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf

Summary:

• The document is the judgement of the Supreme Court of India on a long-standing dispute over a piece of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims as a sacred site.
• The dispute involved four civil suits filed between 1950 and 1989, seeking declarations of title, possession, and injunctions over the disputed property, where a mosque was built over Temple , on until it was demolished by a mob in 1992.
• High Court’s judgement which divided the land equally among the three main parties; The Supreme Court, after hearing the appeals against the Allahabad High Court’s verdict of 2010, decided to set aside the and ordered that the entire disputed land of 1500 square yards be handed over to a trust for the construction of a Hindu temple.
• The Supreme Court also directed the Central Government to allot a five-acre plot of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque.
• The Supreme Court based its judgement on a comprehensive analysis of the historical, archaeological, documentary, oral, and legal evidence presented by the parties, and applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
• The Supreme Court held that the Hindus have established their possessory claim to the outer courtyard of the disputed property, where they have been worshipping uninterruptedly, and that the Muslims have failed to prove their exclusive possession of the inner courtyard, where the mosque was situated.
• The Supreme Court also held that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was an egregious violation of the rule of law and the constitutional values of secularism, and that the Muslims are entitled to restitution and remedial measures.
• The Supreme Court expressed hope that the resolution of the dispute would heal the wounds of the past and pave the way for peace and harmony among the communities.

Summary of Judgement in simple English

Here is a summary of part 1 of the Judgement PDF :

• Part 1 of the Judgement PDF is the introduction of a judgment by the Supreme Court of India on a long-standing dispute over a piece of land in Ayodhya, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims as a sacred site.
• The dispute involves four suits filed between 1950 and 1989 by different parties, seeking declaration of title, possession, or management of the disputed site, where an old mosque structure existed until 1992, when it was demolished by a Hindu mob.
• The Allahabad High Court, after hearing voluminous evidence and arguments, delivered a split verdict in 2010, dividing the disputed site into three parts among the Hindu and Muslim parties, and dismissing two suits as barred by limitation.
• The parties appealed to the Supreme Court, which had to adjudicate the dispute based on the constitutional values of secularism, justice, and rule of law, and the historical and religious significance of the site for both communities.

Here is a summary of part 2 of the Judgement PDF:

• Background: Part 2 provides an overview of the suits filed by various parties before the Allahabad High Court regarding the disputed site in Ayodhya, known as Ram Janmabhumi or Babri Masjid.
• Suit 1: Filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a Hindu devotee, seeking a declaration of his right to worship and an injunction against interference by the Muslim defendants.
• Suit 3: Filed by Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination, seeking the removal of the receiver and the delivery of the management and charge of the temple to the plaintiff.
• Suit 4: Filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine Muslim residents, seeking a declaration of title and possession of the mosque and the graveyard, or alternatively, the removal of the idols and the restoration of the mosque.
• Suit 5: Filed by the deities of Lord Ram and Ram Janmabhumi, represented by a next friend, seeking a declaration of title and an injunction against obstruction to the construction of a new temple.

Here is a summary of part 3 of the Judgement PDF:

• Part 3 of the current page talks about the evidence and issues in the four suits related to the disputed site of Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, India.
• Documentary evidence: The page lists various exhibits, reports, applications, letters, and maps that were produced by the parties during the trial, covering the period from 1858 to 1949. The evidence shows the history of the site, the communal incidents, the construction of a railing and a platform, the attempts to build a temple, and the placement of idols inside the mosque.
• Oral evidence: The page also mentions the oral depositions of 88 witnesses, who were categorized as witnesses of facts, expert witnesses (historians, archaeologists, epigraphists, and religious matters), and private commissioners. The witnesses testified on various aspects of the dispute, such as the nature and character of the site, the existence of a temple, the status and rights of the deities, the possession and ownership of the property, and the limitation and res judicata issues.
• Statements under Order X Rule 2 CPC: The page records the statements of parties and their pleaders under the provisions of Order X Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which were made to elucidate matters in controversy in the suit¹. The statements reveal the positions of the Hindu and Muslim parties on the faith and belief of the Hindus, the existence of a Ram Janmabhoomi temple, the construction and status of the Babri Masjid, and the claim to worship by the Hindus in the inner courtyard.
  
  Reference: 1. Page 61 – Line 32

Here is a summary of part 4 of the Judgement PDF:

• The desecration of the mosque in 1949: The plaintiffs in Suit 4 claim that the mosque was built by Babur in 1528 and was used by Muslims for prayers until 1949, when Hindu idols were installed under the central dome. They rely on three inscriptions on the mosque to support their claim, but the defendants challenge their authenticity and accuracy. The state authorities attached the disputed site under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898 and appointed a receiver to manage it.
• The points for determination: The court lists 16 points that need to be determined in the appeals, such as whether a Hindu temple existed at the site, whether the mosque was dedicated as a waqf, whether the plaintiffs in Suit 4 and 5 have established their title to the property, and whether the three-way division of the property by the High Court was justified.
• The analysis of the inscriptions: The court examines the evidence and arguments regarding the three inscriptions that are alleged to prove the construction of the mosque by Babur. The court finds that the inscriptions are not authentic, reliable, or consistent, and that they do not match the historical records in the Babur-Nama or other sources. The court also notes the discrepancies and contradictions in the translations and readings of the inscriptions by different authors and experts.
• The conclusion on the inscriptions: The court concludes that the inscriptions cannot be relied upon to establish that the mosque was built by or under the orders of Babur in 1528, and that the plaintiffs in Suit 4 have failed to prove their case on this point. The court also observes that the authors and publishers of the inscriptions should have been more careful and responsible in verifying their accuracy and genuineness.

Part 5 of the current page talks about the following points:

• The High Court entered into the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the inscriptions on the disputed structure, which were claimed to be the sole basis for asserting that the mosque had been constructed by Babur in 1528 A.D.
• The High Court found that the inscriptions were not authentic and hence a finding that the mosque was constructed by or at the behest of Babur could not be arrived at.
• The High Court also noted that the pleadings in Suit 4 and Suit 5 did not dispute the fact that the mosque was raised in 1528 A.D. by or at the behest of Babur, and that the precise date of the construction of the mosque was not relevant to the outcome of the controversy².
• The High Court held that it was inappropriate for the court to enter into an area of theology and to assume the role of an interpreter of the Hadees, and that the true test was whether those who believe and worship have faith in the religious efficacy of the place where they pray³.
  
  References: 1. Page 101 – Line 222 ; 2.Page 103 – Line 143; 3. Page 114 – Line 22

Here is a summary of part 6 of the Judgement PDF :

• The Places of Worship Act: The Act is a law that preserves the religious character of places of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947, and prohibits any conversion of such places. The Act is a constitutional commitment to secularism and equality of all faiths, and a basic feature of the Constitution.
• Justice D V Sharma’s observations: The judge held that the Act does not debar cases where a declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act or for enforcement of a right recognized before the Act. This is contrary to Section 4(2) of the Act, which mandates the abatement of all pending suits and appeals on such matters, except where the conversion took place after 15 August 1947.
• Juristic personality: The concept of juristic personality is a legal fiction that attributes rights and duties to an entity that is not a natural person, such as a corporation, a ship, or a Hindu idol. The purpose of conferring juristic personality is to facilitate the practical adjudication of claims and to regulate the conduct of human beings towards the entity or each other.
• The Hindu idol and divinity: The Hindu idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and being taxed, but it is not the same as the Supreme Being, which is omnipresent and formless. The idol is a manifestation and symbol of the purpose indicated by the donor or the worshipper, and it represents certain interests and benefits of natural persons. The legal personality of the idol is limited by the purpose for which it is conferred.
  
  References: Page 125 – Line 112. Page 125 – Line 133. Page 124 – Line 3

Here is a summary of part 7 of the Judgement PDF :

• Hindu idols and legal personality: The page discusses the historical and legal evolution of the concept of conferring juristic status on Hindu idols and religious endowments.
• Pious purpose and idol worship: The page explains that the idol is not the owner of the property, but the embodiment of the pious purpose for which the property is dedicated. The idol represents the Supreme Being and the object of worship for the devotees.
• Legal fiction and convenience: The page illustrates how the courts created a legal fiction of treating the idol as a juristic person to protect the property and the interests of the worshippers. The page also notes that the choice of the idol as the corpus of the juristic person is a matter of form and not substance, and that the legal personality is not affected by the destruction or absence of the idol.
  
  References: Page 146 – Line 102. Page 155 – Line 13

Here is a summary of part 8 of the Judgement PDF :

• The plaintiffs in Suit 5 claim that the second plaintiff, the Asthan Ram Janma Bhumi, is a juristic person and the owner of the disputed site.
• The defendants in Suit 4 challenge this claim and argue that the faith and belief of the Hindus cannot lead to a proprietary claim in law.
• The court examines the precedents and principles on the conferral of juristic personality on Hindu idols, temples, and other religious objects and institutions.
• The court finds that the recognition of juristic personality is to protect the properties endowed for religious purposes and to ensure the legal protection of the faith and belief of the devotees.
• The court distinguishes between the religious significance of a place as a place of public worship and the recognition of the place as a juristic person.
• The court concludes that the disputed site is not a juristic person and that the second plaintiff has no independent existence apart from the idol.
  
  References: Page 187 – Line 352. Page 172 – Line 18

Here is a summary of part 9 of the Judgement PDF :

• Juristic personality of land: The plaintiffs in Suit 5 claim that the disputed site is a juristic person based on the faith and belief of the devotees that it is the birth-place of Lord Ram. They argue that the land itself is a Swayambhu deity (self-manifested deity) that does not require an idol or a deed of dedication².
• Legal analysis: The court examines the arguments and the precedents cited by the plaintiffs and finds them insufficient to support the claim of juristic personality. The court notes that the conferral of legal personality is a matter of law, not of faith, and that it requires some material manifestation of the divine and some institutional recognition of the worship. The court also notes that the recognition of land as a juristic person would extinguish all competing claims and render the concept of title meaningless.
• Conclusion: The court rejects the contention that the disputed site is a juristic person and holds that the faith and belief of the devotees alone cannot be the basis for the conferral of legal personality. The court observes that the disputed site is a site of religious significance, but not a deity in itself.
  
  References: Page 201 – Line 212. Page 202 – Line 23. Page 206 – Line 22

Here is a summary of part 10 of the Judgement PDF :

• Juristic personality of land: The plaintiffs in Suit 5 claim that the disputed land itself is a juristic person and a manifestation of the deity of Lord Ram. The court examines the validity and consequences of this claim.
• Distinction between property vested in a deity and property as a deity: The court notes that there is a significant difference between property that belongs to a juristic person such as a foundation or a deity, and property that is itself a juristic person¹. The former does not alter the character of the property as immoveable property, while the latter may lead to the loss of essential characteristics of immoveable property, such as divisibility, adverse possession, and limitation.
• No precedent for conferring juristic personality on land: The court observes that the law has not recognised the conferral of juristic personality on immoveable property, and that such a conferral would have unintended and undesirable consequences for the legal system and the constitutional values of secularism and equality.
• No merit in the argument based on faith and belief: The court rejects the argument that faith and belief alone can necessitate the conferral of juristic personality on the disputed land. The court holds that such an argument would render the law biased towards one religion and its methods of worship, and would extinguish the civil rights of other parties over the property. The court also notes that the disputed land was not treated or believed to be the birth-place of Lord Ram until 1989, and that the Hindu parties were in joint possession of the outer courtyard only.
  
  References: 1.Page 216 – Line 52; Page 220 – Line 16

Here is a summary of part 11 of the Judgement PDF :

• Part 11 discusses the pleadings and findings of Suit 3, filed by Nirmohi Akhara, a religious denomination of Ramanand sect of Bairagis, claiming the management and charge of the Janmabhumi temple and the idols of Lord Ram;
• The suit is opposed by the plaintiffs in Suit 4 and Suit 5, who challenge the maintainability and the limitation of Suit 3, as well as the shebaiti rights of Nirmohi Akhara;
• The High Court delivers a split verdict on the issues of limitation, title, possession, shebaiti rights, and relief in Suit 3, with Justice S U Khan dissenting from Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma on some points;
• The main articles of the Limitation Act 1908 that are invoked by the parties are Articles 47, 120 and 142, which prescribe different periods of limitation for suits arising from orders under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898, suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere, and suits for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession;
• The main points of contention between the parties are: (a) whether the proceedings under Section 145 have attained finality and when the limitation period began to run; (b) whether the order of attachment under Section 145 amounted to dispossession of Nirmohi Akhara; © whether the denial of Nirmohi Akhara’s shebaiti rights is a continuing wrong giving rise to a fresh cause of action every day; (d) whether the doctrine of merger applies to the order of the Magistrate under Section 145 and the order of the High Court in the appeal against the interim injunction in Suit 1; and (e) whether Nirmohi Akhara can claim title or ownership in a manner hostile to the claim of the deity.

Here is a summary of part 12 of the Judgement PDF :

• Limitation issue in Suit 3: The defendants in Suit 3 argue that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose on 5 January 1950 when the receiver took charge of the property and denied Nirmohi Akhara the management and charge of the temple.
• Nirmohi Akhara’s claim: Nirmohi Akhara claims that it is not seeking title or possession of the property, but only management and charge as a shebait of the idols of Lord Ram. It contends that the term ‘belongs’ used in its plaint does not imply ownership, but only service and duty to the deity. It also relies on the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898 to assert that the action of the government in depriving it of its shebaiti rights is a continuing wrong.
• Analysis of Section 145 proceedings: The Supreme Court analyses the nature and scope of proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC 1898 and holds that they do not decide or adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to possess or the merits of conflicting claims. The Magistrate’s order is only provisional and preventive, and does not affect the substantive rights of the parties, which can be determined by a civil court. The Court also holds that the proceedings under Section 145 should not continue when a civil suit is filed for possession or declaration of title before a competent court, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Court finds that nothing prevented Nirmohi Akhara from filing a declaratory suit for possession and title after the Magistrate’s order of attachment, and that the order did not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
  
  References: Page 271 – Line 112; Page 271 – Line 133; Page 288 – Line 21

Here is a summary of part 13 of the Judgement PDF :

• Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1898 – It governs suits for possession of immoveable property when the plaintiff has been dispossessed or discontinued possession. The period of limitation is 12 years from the date of dispossession or discontinuance.
• Dispossession and discontinuance of possession – These are two distinct concepts³. Dispossession implies an ouster or deprivation of possession by another person. Discontinuance implies an abandonment or withdrawal of possession by the person who was in possession.
• Nirmohi Akhara’s claim under Article 142 – The plaintiff claims that the Janmasthan temple belongs to it and it has been managing it and receiving offerings. It also claims that it was wrongfully deprived of its management and charge by the order of attachment under Section 145. The plaintiff seeks the removal of the receiver and the restoration of its rights.
• Court’s analysis of Nirmohi Akhara’s claim – The court finds that the plaintiff’s suit is not a suit for possession within the meaning of Article 142. The plaintiff does not seek a declaration of its status or rights, but only a decree against the Magistrate for the handing over of management and charge. The plaintiff’s claim is based on its assertion of being a shebait, which involves both the elements of office and property. The suit is therefore governed by the residuary Article 120, which has a limitation period of six years. The suit is barred by limitation as it was filed more than six years after the cause of action arose. The court also rejects the plaintiff’s argument that the denial or obstruction of its shebait rights is a continuing wrong under Section 23. The court holds that the suit is not maintainable as it does not seek relief against anyone interested in opposing its claim.
  
  References: Page 291 – Line 122; Page 292 – Line 43; Page 304 – Line 2

Here is a summary of part 14 of the Judgement PDF :

• Continuing wrong: A legal concept that allows a claimant to seek remedy for a wrong that is of a continuing nature, even if there is a long delay or limitation period.
• Ouster: A wrongful act that causes a complete injury to the right of the claimant, such as dispossession of property. An ouster does not constitute a continuing wrong, as the injury is complete at the date of the ouster.
• Nirmohi Akhara’s claim: The claim of Nirmohi Akhara to the management and charge of the inner courtyard of the disputed site, based on the principle of continuing wrong, is rejected by the court on several grounds, such as:
  • The order of the Magistrate under Section 145 in 1949 did not create a wrong or a continuing wrong, as it was only meant to prevent a breach of peace and did not adjudicate upon rights or title;
  • The surreptitious installation of the idols on the night of 22/23 December 1949 did not create a right in favour of Nirmohi Akhara, which denied the incident completely;
  • The ouster of Nirmohi Akhara from its role as a shebait had taken place by 5 January 1950, as pleaded by Nirmohi Akhara itself, and hence there was no question of a continuing wrong being attracted; and
  • The evidence of Nirmohi Akhara’s witnesses was contradictory, hearsay, unreliable, and inconsistent with the pleaded case of Nirmohi Akhara.
    
    References: Page 314 – Line 212; Page 316 – Line 173; Page 335 – Line 27

Here is a summary of part 15 of the Judgement PDF :

• Part 15 discusses the oral and documentary evidence of the witnesses who deposed in support of the Nirmohi Akhara in Suit 3, which claimed possession of the inner courtyard and the disputed structure of the mosque.
• The summary highlights the following points:
  • Inconsistencies and contradictions: The witnesses of Nirmohi Akhara gave inconsistent and contradictory accounts of the existence, nature, and management of the disputed structure, and denied the incident of placing the idols inside the structure on 22/23 December 1949.
  • Lack of credible proof: The documentary evidence relied on by Nirmohi Akhara did not establish its exclusive possession of the disputed structure or inner courtyard, nor did it disprove the existence of the mosque or the offering of namaz by Muslims until 1949.
  • Existence and use of the mosque: The documentary evidence produced by the Sunni Central Waqf Board showed that the structure was a mosque that was repaired, maintained, and used by Muslims for prayers from 1934 to 1949, despite the obstructions and harassment by the Hindus³.
  • Rejection of Nirmohi Akhara’s claim: The court concluded that Nirmohi Akhara failed to prove its assertions of being in possession of the disputed structure and that it was a temple, and that Suit 3 was barred by limitation.
    
    References: Page 355 – Line 182; Page 348 – Line 133; Page 348 – Line 7

Here is a summary of part 16 of the Judgement PDF :

• Part 16 describes the plaint filed by the plaintiff-deities in Suit 5, seeking a declaration of their title and ownership over the entire premises of Sri Ram Janmabhumi in Ayodhya, and an injunction against the defendants from interfering with the construction of a new temple at the site.
• The plaintiffs claim that the first plaintiff, Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman, is the presiding deity of the Ram Janmabhumi temple, and the second plaintiff, Asthan Sri Ram Janma Bhumi, is the place itself where Lord Ram was born, and both are juridical persons capable of holding property and instituting suits.
• The plaintiffs allege that the disputed site was the location of an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was destroyed by Babur in 1528 and a mosque was built with the materials of the temple¹. The plaintiffs further allege that the Hindus continued to worship Lord Ram at the site despite the construction of the mosque, and that no valid waqf was ever created by the Muslims.
• The plaintiffs contend that the idols of Lord Ram were installed under the central dome of the disputed structure on the night of 22/23 December 1949, and that the idols and the place have been in their possession ever since². The plaintiffs also claim that they have reacquired title by adverse possession, if any claim of the defendants was extinguished.
• The plaintiffs state that they have instituted the suit through the third plaintiff, Ram Janmabhumi Nyas, as the next friend, as there was no other fit person to represent them. The plaintiffs also state that they have amended their plaint after the demolition of the disputed structure in 1992, and that their suit is not barred by limitation, res judicata, estoppel or any other law.
  
  References: Page 360 – Line 182. Page 361 – Line 9

Here is a summary of part 17 of the Judgement PDF :

• Shebait’s role and interest: A shebait is the manager of the idol’s property and has the right to sue for its protection. A shebait may have some interest in the usufruct of the property, which gives them a proprietary right. The office and property of shebaitship are blended and inseparable.
• Pujari’s position: A pujari is a servant or appointee of the shebait who conducts worship. A pujari does not have any independent right to be a shebait or to claim possession of the property.
• Exclusive right to sue: The right to sue on behalf of the idol vests exclusively in the shebait, unless the shebait is negligent or acts adversely to the idol’s interest. In such cases, a worshipper or a next friend may sue for the protection of the idol and its property.
  
  References: Page 386 – Line 52; Page 384 – Line 123; Page 386 – Line 14

Here is a summary of part 18 of the Judgement PDF :

• Nirmohi Akhara’s conditional statement: Nirmohi Akhara stated that it would not challenge the maintainability of Suit 5 if the plaintiffs in Suit 3 do not question its shebaiti rights over the idols of Lord Ram.
• Court’s rejection of the statement: The Court held that such a position is untenable and does not alter Nirmohi Akhara’s claim that it is the shebait of the idols. The Court said that if Nirmohi Akhara is found to be the shebait, then Suit 5 by a next friend would not be maintainable
• Rights of a de facto shebait: The Court discussed the legal principles governing the rights of a de facto shebait, who is a person in actual possession and management of the debutter property without a legal title. The Court said that a de facto shebait can sue on behalf of the deity for its benefit, but only in the absence of a person with a better title or authority.
• Nirmohi Akhara’s claim as de facto shebait: The Court examined the evidence submitted by Nirmohi Akhara to prove that it was in exclusive possession and exercised all the functions of a shebait over the disputed site. The Court found that Nirmohi Akhara failed to establish its claim as a de facto shebait of the idols of Lord Ram
  
  References: Page 407 – Line 42 ; Page 407 – Line 133 ; Page 420 – Line 14

Here is a summary of part 19 of the Judgement PDF :

• Nirmohi Akhara’s claim as shebait: The page examines the oral and documentary evidence presented by Nirmohi Akhara to establish its status as the shebait of the idols of Lord Ram at the disputed site¹.
• Oral evidence unreliable: The page finds that the oral testimony of the witnesses relied upon by Nirmohi Akhara is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and admissions that undermine their claim of exercising management rights as the shebait.
• Documentary evidence insufficient: The page finds that the documentary evidence produced by Nirmohi Akhara does not show that it was managing the property in question or performing the duties of a shebait. The page notes that Nirmohi Akhara has taken an inconsistent stance regarding Mahant Raghubar Das, who filed suits in the 1880s as the Mahant of Janmasthan.
• Conclusion: The page concludes that Nirmohi Akhara has failed to prove its claim of being a de facto shebait and that Suit 5 is maintainable as a suit instituted by a next friend on behalf of the first and second plaintiffs in the absence of a lawfully recognized shebait.
  
  References: Page 436 – Line 62 ; Page 441 – Line 20

Here is a summary of part 20 of the Judgement PDF :

• Part 20 discusses the issue of limitation in relation to Suit 5 filed by the plaintiffs representing the deity of Ram Lalla Virajman
• The Sunni Central Waqf Board challenges the maintainability of Suit 5 on three grounds:
  • No cause of action: Suit 5 could not have been filed when the deity was well represented by its shebait, Nirmohi Akhara, and no removal of the shebait was sought
  • No perpetual minority: The deity cannot claim the benefit of being a perpetual minor and avoid the bar of limitation, as it was represented by a shebait and a suit by a next friend can lie only when the shebait acts adversely to the deity
  • No exemption from limitation: The deity is subject to the law of limitation and cannot invoke Section 10 of the Limitation Act, which applies only to suits against express trustees and their representatives
• The court rejects the first two grounds as it has already held that Nirmohi Akhara was not a shebait and Suit 5 was maintainable by the next friend of the deity
• The court also rejects the third ground and holds that Section 10 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Suit 5, as the deity is not an express trustee nor a beneficiary of a trust
• The court relies on various precedents to hold that the deity is not a perpetual minor for the purpose of limitation and debutter property can be lost by adverse possession
• The court concludes that Suit 5 is not barred by limitation as the plaintiffs have established a continuous right of worship at the disputed site and have not abandoned their claim to the property
  
  References: Page 451 – Line 32; Page 451 – Line 103; Page 453 – Line 18