The following are the highlights of the Supreme Court judgment in which it unanimously granted the entire 2.77 acres of disputed Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla.

* Possession of disputed land will be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, one of the three litigants in the case.

* The land will remain with a central government receiver.

* The disputed site was government land in revenue records.

* SC directs allotment of alternative land to Muslims to build a mosque.

* Suitable land of five acres to be handed over to Sunni Waqf Board at a prominent place for building the mosque.

* Centre to frame scheme within three months and set up a trust for construction of a temple.

* SC dismisses plea of Nirmohi Akhara seeking control of entire disputed land.

* Centre, Uttar Pradesh government can monitor together future actions by authorities.

* SC asks the Centre to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara if deemed fit by the government.

* SC holds that Nirmohi Akhara’s suit is barred by limitation, not a shebait (devotee) of deity Ram Lalla.

* Ram Janmabhoomi is not a juristic person.

* Babri mosque, demolished on December 6, 1992, was not built on vacant land. SC says that terming the archeological evidence as merely an opinion would be a great disservice to the ASI. 

* The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure. ASI had not established whether temple was demolished to build the mosque.

* Hindus consider this place as birthplace of lord Ram, even Muslims say this about disputed place. Faith of Hindus that Lord Rama was born at demolished structure is undisputed. The existence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar grah are the testimony of the religious fact of the place.

* Evidence suggest Hindus were in possession of outer courtyard. Extensive nature of Hindus worshipping at outer courtyard at site has been there.

* Evidence suggests Muslims offered Friday prayers at the mosque, which indicates they have not lost possession.

* Despite obstruction caused in offering prayers at the mosque, evidence suggest that there was no abandonment. Iron railing was set up at site in 1856-57, it suggests Hindus kept worshipping at the site.

* Title cannot be established on ground of faith, belief; they are kind of indicator for deciding the dispute.

* Muslims have not adduced evidence they were in exclusive possession of dispute site. Muslims were not in possession of outer courtyard of the site. UP Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute. On the contrary, Hindus established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard.

* Damage to Babri mosque was violation of law.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store