2 Jagannath Memorial Moot Court Competition-2020: Versus

2ND JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
JMNMCC-02
2ND JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION- 2020
UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND
SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN THE MATTER OF
The Board of Oswalians...……………………………………………………...... Appellant
Versus
Mr. G …………………………………………………………………….…... Respondent 1.
Anand Asharam……………………………………………………….……... Respondent 2.
Lord Gamma ……………………………………………………….…….…. Respondent 3.
Janmasthan ………………………………………………………….….……. Respondent 4.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
ON SUBMISSION TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF BOSAMA

Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………......... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………...………….6
A. LIST OF CASES
B. LIST OF BOOKS
C. LIST OF STATUTES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….......9
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………….…11
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………. …...........…13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………....14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………............15
[ISSUE 1:] WHETHER “LORD GAMMA’ IS A JURIDICAL PERSON?
A. THAT JURISPRUDENCE ALSO CONFERS LEGAL RIGHTS TO AN ARTIFICIAL
PERSON……………………………………………………………………………….15
B. THAT IDOLS HAVE A JURISTIC PERSONALITY AS ESTABLISHED BY VARIOUS
COURTS…………………………………………………………………………….…16
[ISSUE 2:] WHETHER LORD GAMMA, BEING A JURIDICAL PERSON, HAS A RIGHT
TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A AND CAN THE DISPUTED SITE BE
ACQUIRED THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION?
A. THAT THE INDOOS HAVE A RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY THROUGH ADVERSE
POSSESSION…………………………………………………………………………..18
B. THAT LORD GAMMA HAS THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE
300A………………………………………………………………………………….19
C. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASB REPORT INDICATE THAT THE DISPUTED SITE
BELONGED TO THE INDOOS HISTORICALLY………………………………………….20
[ISSUE 3:] WHETHER MR. G AND ANAND ASHRAM HAVE A RIGHT TO WORSHIP
AND TO MAINTAIN THE “JANMASTHAN” RESPECTIVELY?

Page 2
A. THAT THE INDOOS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE, PROFESS AND PROPAGATE THEIR
RELIGION…………………......………………………………………………………21
B. THAT ANAND ASHRAM HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE DISPUTED
PROPERTY……………………………………………………………......…………...22
C. THAT THE DOCTRINE OF INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA WAS USED WHILE GIVING THE
RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE INDOOS………………………………………..23
[ISSUE 4:] WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER SECTION 11 OF

CPC OPERATE IN THE CURRENT REVIEW PETITION?.................................................25
PRAYER…………………………….………………………………………………............29

Page 3
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
s/. Section
u/s. Under section.
Art. Articles
AIR All India Report
UOI Union of India
WLR Weekly Law Reports
SCR Supreme Court Reports
LT Law Tribunal
Corpn. Corporation.
v. Versus
Hon’ble Honorable
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
U. P Uttar Pradesh
M.P Madhya Pradesh
W. B West Bengal
T. N Tamil Nadu
KER Kerala
All Allahabad
Mad Madras
Guj Gujarat
Ori Orissa
CWL Calcutta Weekly Notes.
Mys. Mysore
P&H Punjab and Haryana
Kar Karnataka

Page 4
Ltd. Limited
FIR First Information Report
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure.
ACM. Additional City Magistrate
ASB Archaeological Survey of Bosama
GPR Ground Penetrating technology

Page 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES:
1. Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1969) 1 SCC 555.
2. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram, ILR (1888) 12 BOM 247.
3. M Siddiq (D) Thr LRS v. Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal Nos 4768-4771/2011.
4. Vidya Purana Tirtha swami v. Vidhya Nidhi Tirtha, ILR (1904) 27 Mad 435.
5. Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra, ILR (1909- 1910) 37 Cal 128.
6. Manmohan Das v. Bahauddin, AIR 1957 All 575.
7. Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum v. Gul Mohammed, 1972 MPLJ 769.
8. Hemchand v. Peary Lal, AIR 1942 PC 64.
9. Kumar Krishna Nandi v. Lokenath Mukherjee, (1932) ILR 59 Cal 334.
10. Mohatap Bahadur v. Kali Pada Chatterjee, AIR 1914 CAL 200.
11. State of Mysore v. K.C. Adiga Aur, 1976 SC 853.
12. Elizabeth Samnuel Aaron v. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 Ker 162.
13. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of UP, AIR 1982 SC 33.
14. State of Mysore v. K.C. Adiga Aur, 1976 SC 853.
15. Ismail faruqui v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 605 A.
16. State of Kar v. DR. Parveen Bhai Thagadia, AIR 2004 SC 2081.
17. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bom, AIR 1954 SC 388.
18. T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 255.
19. Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Mad v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
20. Acharya Jagdishworananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1983 SC 1125.
21. Brahmachari v. State OF W.B, AIR 1995 SC 2089.
22. Azeez Basha, S. v. UOI, AIR 1968 SC 662.
23. Khajamian Estates v. State of Mad, AIR 1971 SC 161.
24. Saifuddin Saheb Sardar Syedna Taher v. State of Bom, AIR 1962 SC 853.
25. Adam Chaki v. Govt of India, AIR 2013 Guj 66.
26. Chmpakana v. State of Mad, AIR 1951 Mad 120.
27. Anjali v State of W. B, (1952) 56 CWN 801.
28. Narasappa v. Hazart, AIR 1960 Mys 59.
29. Vasundara S. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1439.

Page 6
30. Satyandra KumarTripathi v. State Of UP, AIR 2005 All 147.

31. M.C Sharma v. Punjab university, AIR 1997 P&H 87.
32. Govind Shanker Gupta v. Suggi Devi, 1982 All LJ 17.
33. Krishna Kumar v. J.N. Bhan, AIR 1971 Cal 332.
34. Chandra Kumar v. Ashwini Kumar, AIR 1918 Cal 125.
35. Mahabir Prasad Chaudhary v. Chedi Singh, AIR 1924 Pat 769.
36. K. Ethirajan v. Lakshmi, AIR 20013 SC 2546.
37. Satya Dhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941.
38. Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commr. K.D. Nainital, AIR 2004 SC 2186
39. Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457
40. Duchess of Kingstone case, (1776) 1 Leach 146.
41. Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, [1053] S.C.R. 154.
42. Lal Chand v. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1977 SC 789.
43. Syed Mohammed SalieLabbai v. Mohammed Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569.
44. Venkataswara Prabhu v. Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC 1268.
45. Madhavi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunji kutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, AIR 2000 SC
2301.
46. Management of Sonepat Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1050.
47. A.L Ltd. v. State of T.N., AIR 2004 SC 2836.
48. Sardarbai v. Mathribai, AIR 2005 NOC 251 (MP).
49. State of M.P v. Mulamchand, AIR 1973 MP 293.
50. Nityanand Kar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 SC 1134.
51. R. Venugopala Naidu v. V.N. Charites, AIR 1990 SC 444.
52. Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2693 (MP-DB).
53. M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 CC 1702.
54. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri J. S. R. Tendolkar and ors., 1958 AIR 130.
55. Ramnarayan Mor and another vs. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 949.
56. Sarjug Singh and Ors. v. Basisth Singh and Ors, AIR 1970 Patna 237.
57. Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty, SLP (C) NO. 25649 OF 2017.
58. Prafull Goradia v. UOI, (2011) 2 SCC 568.

Page 7
LIST OF BOOKS:
Constitutional law:
▪ Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Jagadish Swarup: constitution of India (3rd edition).

▪ Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap, Constitutional law of India (2nd edition).
▪ Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (15th edition).
▪ Durga Das Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India (8th edition).
▪ Durga Das Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India (9th edition).
▪ M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (17th edition).
Code of Civil Procedure:
▪ B. V. Viswanatha Aiyer, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (8th edition).

▪ Foreword by: Hon’ble Justice P. Sathasivam (Supreme Court), Mulla’s Code of Civil
Procedure: along with high court, central and state Amendments (3rd edition).
▪ Majumdar, Commentary on The Code of Civil Procedure (16th edition).
▪ S. C. Sarkar and P. C. Sarkar, Sarkar: The Code Of Civil Procedure (12th edition).
▪ Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla: The Code of Civil Procedure (18th edition).
▪ Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Mulla: The Code of Civil Procedure (19th edition).
Central Acts:
▪ Universal’s Encyclopedia of Important: Central Acts and Rules (16th edition).
Limitation Law:
▪ Upendra Nath Mitra and Justice S. S. Subramani, Laws of Limitation and Prescription
(14th edition).
LIST OF STATUTES:
▪ The Constitution of India.

▪ The Code of Civil Procedure.
▪ Limitation Act.

Page 8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent has approached the Hon’ble court of law under Article 137 of the constitution
of India and Section 114 read with order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code.
ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READS:
137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court subject to the provisions of any law
made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power
to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
SECTION 114 AND ORDER XLVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READS:
114. Review. -
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code' or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make
such order thereon as it thinks fit
Order XLVII - Review
1. Application for review of judgment.
2. To whom applications for review may be made.
3. Form of applications for review.
4. Application where rejected.
Application where granted.
5. Application for review in Court consisting of two or more Judges.

Page 9
6. Application where rejected.
7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application.
8. Registry of application granted, and order for re-hearing.
9. Bar of certain applications.

Page 10
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
HISTORY OF THE DISPUTED SITE

1. INDOOS and OSWALIANS are two main communities of BOSAMA, a country known for its
culture and secularism. Due to the separation of Oswalians Republic of ATLANTIS from
Bosama, a treaty of accession was signed between both the countries regarding WANKA.
Oswalians were the strongest community of Wanka.
2. In the middle of Wanka there was a land in dispute. Indoos claimed it to be the birth place of
Lord Gamma, while the Oswalians claimed it to be a site of their historic PAGODA build by
Emperor King Abar.
3. The major part of the Pagoda was destroyed, on 21st November 1949 and an Idol of Lord
Gamma was placed inside the Pagoda. From the very first morning Indoos started offering
prayer there; FIR was registered in relation to the incident. On 23rd November 1949, the
Additional city Magistrate passed a preliminary order under s/145 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC), and only two to three saints were permitted to go inside the remaining pagoda for
offering prayers.
4. Further, on 3rd March 1950, a blast took place on the disputed land of Wanka which destroyed
the major part of the Pagoda. Before this incident there was an intelligence report showing the
supply of arms and other information from Oswalian republic of Atlantis to the militants of
Wanka. In same year a suit 1, was instituted by Mr. G, a member of the Anand Asharam,
declaring his rights to offer prayers and other ceremonies at the disputed site. Simultaneously,
suit 2 was instituted by the Anand Asharam claiming for maintenance of the disputed site.
CLAIM FOR TITLE OVER THE DISPUTED SITE
5. Suit 3 was instituted by the Board of Oswalians for a declaration of their title on the disputed
land. As per them there were uninterrupted prayers offered by the Oswalians within the pagoda
until 21st November 1949, that is, before the pagoda was defiled by the Indoos with an act of
placing the idol of lord gamma inside the pagoda.
6. Later, Suit 4 was instituted by the next friend (as third plaintiff) of Lord Gamma and the
Janmasthan, declaring the entire premises as the Birth land.
INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT
7. All the suits were transferred to the High Court on 10th June 1989. The high court passed an
interim order on 14th July 1989, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the
property in dispute. Remaining pagoda was brought down in 1991 by a group of Indoos.

Page 11
8. The High Court on 23rd September 2002, asked the Archaeological Survey of Bosama (ASB)
for the investigation and survey of the disputed site by Ground Penetrating technology (GPR).
On 17th January 2003, the GPR in its report stated that many anomalies which could be
associated with ancient and contemporaneous structure such as pillars, foundations, wall slabs
et cetera. On 5th February 2003, High court directs the ASB to undertake excavation. The final
report by the ASB was submitted on 22nd July 2003.
JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT
9. In another judgment, the High court decided that, the Oswalians do not need a pagoda in order
to offer prayers to their god. Depending upon all these facts and circumstances in reference to
the current case, the High court decided that, the disputed land must be divided into two parts,
one for the Indoos and the other for the Oswalians. This judgment was again questioned in the
Supreme Court of Bosama. The court went ahead and stated that the disputed land must remain
with the Indoos as corroboratory evidence have been find in their favor. Also, the court
sanctioned a different land of eight acres to the Oswalians in the state of Wanka. Further not
being satisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bosama a review petition was filed
by the Oswalians.
ASB REPORT
10. Antiquities, glazed pottery, other object of interest were excavated from the site. Various
pillars were also found during the excavation.
a. North- Decorated stone blocks and 50 pillars with concrete foundation were found,
within regular intervals.
b. South- Cannot be discovered because of a steep slope.
11. Excavation of the disputed site showed a continuous cultural sequence. Weights, wheel made
on discs, broken animal figurines were also excavated. The 50 pillar and some other
archeological design suggested that, it was temple. As, this archeological design is very similar
to that of temples in North India.
12. Mutilated sculptures of divine couples and carved architectural members including foliage
patters were excavated. Simultaneously, the ASB Report explicitly states that there were
evidences suggesting that, structural phrases continued in the disputed site since the 10th
century.

Page 12
ISSUES RAISED
The following issues have been raised before this Hon’ble Court to be considered:
Issue 1:
Whether “Lord Gamma’ is a juridical person?
Issue 2:
Whether Lord Gamma, being a juridical person, has a right to property under Article 300A and
can the disputed site be acquired through adverse possession?
Issue 3:
Whether Mr. G and Anand Ashram have a right to worship and to maintain the “Janmasthan”
respectively?
Issue 4:
Whether the doctrine of res judicata under section 11 of CPC operates in the current review
petition?

Page 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[ISSUE 1:] WHETHER “LORD GAMMA’ IS A JURIDICAL PERSON?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that (A) jurisprudence also confers legal
rights to an artificial person and as (B) idols have a juristic personality as established by various
courts. The counsel further contends that Lord Gama being a juridical person can be
represented by the next friend.
[ISSUE 2:] WHETHER LORD GAMMA, BEING A JURIDICAL PERSON, HAS A

RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A AND CAN THE DISPUTED SITE
BE ACQUIRED THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that (A)the indoos have a right over the
property through adverse possession and (B)that lord gamma has the right to property under
Article 300A. (C)The counsel further contends that the findings of the ASB report indicate that
the disputed site belonged to the indoos historically.
[ISSUE 3:] WHETHER MR. G AND ANAND ASHRAM HAVE A RIGHT TO

WORSHIP AND TO MAINTAIN THE “JANMASTHAN” RESPECTIVELY?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that (A)the indoos have a right to practice,
profess and propagate their religion and (B) the Anand Ashram has the absolute right to
maintain the disputed property. The counsel further contends that the doctrine of intelligible
differentia was used while giving the right over the property to the indoos.
[ISSUE 4:] WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER SECTION 11

OF CPC OPERATE IN THE CURRENT REVIEW PETITION?
The counsel humbly submits before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Bosama that the current
review petition filed by the Oswalians are barred by res judicata.

Page 14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER “LORD GAMMA’ IS A JURIDICAL PERSON?
It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, ‘Lord Gamma’ and the
‘Janmasthan’ are both juridical persons. The counsel will prove beyond reasonable doubt that,
both ‘Lord Gamma’ and the ‘Janmasthan’ can be represented through a next friend in the Court
of Law. In the current case, ‘Suit 4’ was filed by a next friend on behalf of the deity and the
‘Janmasthan’ claiming that the entire premise to be declared as a land of the Indoos.1
A. THAT JURISPRUDENCE ALSO CONFERS LEGAL RIGHTS TO AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON
The capacity of the court to create a legal person and also the ability to provide legal rights to
an object or a thing which is not a natural person is known and can be witnessed, once an
individual goes through the historic events.
With this modernizing legal system, the court has complete authority to provide legal rights to
an individual who itself is not a natural person, in order to meet the ends of justice. Renowned
jurist Roscoe Pound has stated that, in Jurisprudence2, the court has the sole authority of
granting as well as denying the legal rights to a non- natural person.3
Any person, natural or non- natural can have legal rights, on the basis of duties and interests
for which it can be made liable for.4 No one is capable of withholding rights until and unless
that individual has interests which might affect the public in general.5
The counsel contends, an idol can at all circumstances be considered as juridical person, with
all rights intact as that of a natural person.6 It is consistent with sound principles of
Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolizes a particular purpose
1
Statement of facts, Para 6.
2
John W. Salmond, Jurisprudence, available at: https://archive.org/details/jurisprudence00salm/page/n4 (last
visited on: 12/01/2020, 16:07).
3
Roscoe Pound, Jurisprudence, pg. 216 (Part IV, 1959).
4
J W Salmond, Jurisprudence, (Steven and Haynes, 1913).
5
Id, pg. 36.
6
Supra note 4.
Page 15
can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is
dedicated to it.7
In the present case, it has already been stated by the final report of the ASB that the disputed
site historically belonged to the Indoos. The above-mentioned idea is being used by numerous
judges in order to determine whether an individual being a natural person or a non-natural
person is capable of holding legal rights and ultimately being termed as a legal person.
B. THAT IDOLS HAVE A JURISTIC PERSONALITY AS ESTABLISHED BY VARIOUS COURTS
It is contended a Hindu idol can be stated as a juridical person under situations where, the health
of the entire public is concerned. In the case of Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram
Govindram8 it was first stated that the idol of a Hindu lord should be considered as a juridical
person because there were two clear interests of the public that needed lawful protection. One
of them was to restrict the shebaits from misusing the land endowed for a particular pious
purpose. The second reason was to restrict the temple authority from causing hindrance to other
religious benefits.
In the current case the idol of Lord Gamma should be considered as a juridical person because
it is important in order to restitute the rights of the Indoos over the disputed property.
Yogendra Nath Naskar v Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta,9 states, an idol is a

juridical person and is also the owner of the endowment. Hence the legal position of the idol is
that, it has all the legal rights in order to hold the endowment even after being an artificial
person. The counsel submits, Lord Gamma being an idol of the Indoos can be given the status
of a legal person and granted all the legal rights.10
It has been stated by the Supreme Court that the State with the assistance of law courts, grants
rights to an artificial person only when it is in interest of the community. It simultaneously
guards property and rights as devoted.11 The choice of corpus in which law will breathe is a
matter of form than of substance.12
7
B.K. Mukherjea, The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, pg. 28 (Eastern Law House, 5th Edition
1983).
8
Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram, ILR (1888) 12 BOM 247.
9
Yogendra Nath Naskar v Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1969) 1 SCC 555.
10
Id.
11
Yogendra Nath Naskar v Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, (1969) 1 SCC 555.
12
Supra note 2.
Page 16
It is submitted that an idol which is constituted as an idea of a pious or a benevolent idea

(dedication of the devotees) must be considered as a matter of form. The idol constitutes the
embodiment or expression of the pious purpose upon which legal personality is conferred.13
The High Court of Wanka has adjudicated that the Oswalians do not need a pagoda for worship
but it is not the same for Indoos as they need idols for worship.14 In cases where the temple or
any religious institution is made, for the sole reason of placing an idol there. The pious and
benevolent idea will always be protected by the state.15 The counsel contends that, Lord
Gamma was placed in the endowment with a religious and benevolent idea in mind.
The power to ascertain the personality of the devotees is conferred with the court which can be
applied under certain circumstances. Under all situations the idol will always be considered as
the center for legal relations and also as the physical manifestation of the pious purpose.16
The counsel submits that in 1949, the idol of Lord Gamma was placed in the Pagoda. The
Indoos have been worshiping on that endowment ever since 1949.17 For this entire period the
Indoos are capable of proving their continuous possession. The true beneficiaries of a religious
endowment are not the idols but the worshippers, and that the purpose of the endowment is the
maintenance of the right to worship.18
By confirming the legal personality of an idol for a pious purpose ensures that there always
exists an entity under whose right the religious endowment can vest in an ideal sense.19 It was
a very essential step taken by the law courts as this issue deals with the right of the devotees in
the past, present and the future.
The recognition of the Hindu idol as a legal or a juridical person is therefore based on two
premises employed by courts. The first is to recognise the pious purpose as an entity, who can
be competent enough as a legal entity, capable of holding property in an ideal sense in the
absence of the creation of a trust. The second is to intertwine the pious purpose itself and the
idol which embodies the pious purpose to ensure the fulfillment of the pious purpose.20
13
Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra, ILR (1909- 1910) 37 Cal 128.
14
Statement of facts, Para 9.
15
M Siddiq (D) Thr LRS v. Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal Nos 4768-4771/2011.
16
Supra note 13.
17
Statement of facts, para 3.
18
Vidyapurana Tirtha swami v. Vidhya Nidhi Tirtha, ILR (1904) 27 Mad 435.
19
Supra note 4.
20
Supra note 13.
Page 17
In the light of the above stated, the counsel humbly submits that an idol is a juristic person
capable of holding property.21 Since an idol is a representation of a deity of a religious
denomination, status of a juristic person must be granted to the idol of Lord Gamma.
Simultaneously, the “Janmasthan” will also be protected by the state under the rights of the
idol.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER LORD GAMMA, BEING A JURIDICAL PERSON, HAS A

RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A AND CAN THE DISPUTED SITE
BE ACQUIRED THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION?
The Counsel humbly submits that Lord Gamma being a juridical person has a right to property
under Article 300A of Constitution of India.22
A. THAT THE INDOOS HAVE A RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY THROUGH ADVERSE
POSSESSION
According to the Limitation Act, 1963 23 under Section 2724 an individual failing to file a suit
for possession of property within the determined time will extinguish his right to sue. As per
Article 6525 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the counsel submits the limitation period within which
the aggrieved party can file a suit for recovery of possession is 12 years from the date of adverse
possession. A land which has been wrongfully possessed and the owner is not filing a suit, after
the completion of 12 years the right to sue will be extinct.26
Taking into consideration Section 27 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963,27 the Indoos
entered the premises of the disputed site and maliciously placed an idol of Lord Gamma inside
the Pagoda,28 the counsel contends that the period of limitation for remedy has expired on the
part of the Oswalians.
21
Gautam Patel, Idols in Law, page 49(Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No.50, 2010).
22
The Constitution of India (1950), art. 300-A. “No person shall be denied of property save by authority of
law.”22
23
Limitation Act, 1963 (Act no. 36 of 1963).
24
At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any
property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.
25
Supra note 23, art 65, for the possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on the title – period
of limitation is twelve years – when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
26
Id.
27
Supra note 23.
28
Statement of facts, para 5.
Page 18
It is submitted that when an individual in adverse possession has “perfected his title” it means
the owner having the right to possession has allowed his right to be extinguished by his
inaction.29 It is contented that the Oswalians have extinguished their title to the site. As
established with the case of Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum v. Gul Mohammed30. The Indoos,
who were in adverse possession, can hold their title to the disputed site.
In the case of Hemchand v. Peary Lal31, an executor held a property adversely to the heir for
upwards of 12 years on behalf of a charity. The heir could no longer claim for the possession
of the property as the right to possession is already extinguished.32
The counsel contends, that the Indoos took adverse possession of the property in question
during which the Oswalians did not file any suit for title to the disputed site.33 It was only after
12 years, in 1961, the Oswalians filed the suit, waving off their right over the disputed
property.34
B. THAT LORD GAMMA HAS THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A
According to Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, 35 no person shall be deprived of a

property, which is saved by law.36 It is formulated to include private property in all its forms.37
Thus, it is clear that no person can be deprived of their private property without proper legal
procedure. It can be only curtailed, abridged or modified by the State by exercising its
Legislative power.38
The counsel submits that the right of the Indoos to the disputed site can be modified or abridged
only by Legislative power and the Judiciary should not encroach the territory of the Legislature.
Mohatap Bahadur v. Kali Pada Chatterjee39 states, even if the idol of a particular
endowment is destroyed the endowment can never be terminated. The counsel humbly submits,
29
Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum v. Gul Mohammed, 1972 MPLJ 769.
30
Id.
31
Hemchand v. Peary Lal, AIR 1942 PC 64
32
Id.
33
Supra note 28.
34
Id.
35
Supra note 22.
36
Id.
37
Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Mad v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,
AIR 1954 SC 282.
38
State of Mysore v. K.C. Adiga Aur, 1976 SC 853; Elizabeth Samnuel Aaron v. state of Kerala AIR 1991 Ker
162; Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan V. State of UP AIR 1982 SC 33.
39
Mohatap Bahadur v. Kali Pada Chatterjee, AIR 1914 CAL 200.
Page 19
as per the ASB report mutilated sculptures of divine couples were found. Hence, the
endowment can never be terminated.
C. THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASB REPORT INDICATE THAT THE DISPUTED SITE BELONGED
TO THE INDOOS.
The fact remains that the site belonged to the Indoos prior to the Pagoda was constructed in the
sixteenth century,40 and that the Oswalians could not prove possession over the site after 03rd
March, 1950. The High Court of Wanka had decided in another matter that the Oswalians do
not need a Pagoda to offer prayers.41
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ismail Farooqui v. UOI42 stated, Muslims don’t
need an idol to offer prayers. Their worship can be done anywhere and is not hindered on
account of absence of any specific place of worship.43 The counsel contends that since the
Indoos need idols to offer prayers and for performing various rituals, the disputed site be vested
with the Indoos.
In the case of Ramnarayan Mor and another v. state of Maharashtra 44 it was established
that documentary evidences are admissible in the Court of Law. It was further stated that
documentary evidences can be considered as evidences under Sec. 3 of Indian Evidence Act.45
The counsel submits that the ASB report is a documentary evidence admissible in the Court of
Law.
The Indoos have been offering prayers there since 194946 believing it to be the birthplace of
Lord Gamma genuinely and in good faith. The counsel humbly submits, with all the statutes
stated and precedents mentioned, the Idol of Lord Gamma must be given the entire ownership
of the disputed land.
40
Statement of Facts, para 2.
41
Supra note 14.
42
Ismail Farooqui v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 605 A.
43
Id.
44
Ramnarayan Mor and another vs. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 949.
45
Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), sec. 3- interpretation clause.
46
Supra note 17.
Page 20
ISSUE 3: WHETHER MR. G AND ANAND ASHRAM HAVE A RIGHT TO WORSHIP

AND TO MAINTAIN THE “JANMASTHAN” RESPECTIVELY?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mr. G and Anand Ashram have a right
to worship and to maintain the Janmasthan respectively.
A. THAT THE INDOOS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTICE, PROFESS AND PROPAGATE THEIR
RELIGION.
The Indian Constitution47 under Article 25(1)48 states that, every individual has the freedom of
conscience and to freely practice, profess, propagate provided that none of the actions go
violative to public health or morality.49
Article 25(2)(a)50 contemplates that no State regulation of the religious practices as such which
are protected unless they run counter to public health or morality but of activities which are
really of an economic, commercial or political character.51 It is humbly contended that the State
can only interfere in matter related to secular considerations like economic, commercial or
political character.
The counsel submits that a person practicing a religion must get an assurance from the State
that his rights are protected by the Law Courts. Otherwise, the rule of law will be replaced by
an individual perception of one’s own presumptions of good social order.52
In the case of Prafull Goradia v. Union of India53 stated that no group or individual must be
deprived if their right as mentioned under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Indoos
should be deprived of their right to practice, profess and propagate their own religion.
Hence in the light of the above stated, it is contented that there is no secular consideration
attached in not granting the right to worship to Mr. G as it is a matter of personal religion and
47
Supra note 22.
48
Id. art 25(1): Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons
are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
49
Id.
50
Supra note 22. art 25(2)(a): Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the
State from making any law (a), regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular
activity which may be associated with religious practice.
51
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bom, AIR 1954 SC 388.
52
State of Kar v. DR. Parveen Bhai Thagadia, AIR 2004 SC 2081.
53
Prafull Goradia v. UOI, (2011) 2 SCC 568.
Page 21
faith and not remotely connected with any economical, commercial, political or any other
secular consideration.
B. THAT ANAND ASHRAM HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE DISPUTED
PROPERTY
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution54 states that –
“Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section
thereof shall have the right
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.”55
It is submitted that Article 26 gives religious denominations the right to exercise the rights
contained therein.56
As defined in the landmark judgment of Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Mad
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt57 a denomination is a collection
of individuals, classed together under the same name. Under most circumstances, a body
(specifically a religious sect) having a common faith can be mentioned as a denomination. In
order to constitute religious denomination, three conditions are to be fulfilled58 -
a) It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which
they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith.
b) A common organization.
c) Designation by a distinctive name.
From the given definition of a denomination, it is stated that Anand Ashram is a religious
denomination having a common faith, organization and name. A religious sect must belong to
the same religion of which it claims to be a denomination.59 The counsel submits that Anand
Ashram is a denomination which belongs to the Indoo religion.
54
Supra note 22, art 26.
55
Id.
56
T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Kar AIR 2003 SC 255.
57
Supra 37.
58
Acharya Jagdishworananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police AIR 1983 SC 1125.
59
Brahmachari v. State OF W.B AIR 1995 SC 2089.
Page 22
The words ‘establish’ and ‘maintain’ in Clause (a) of the said Article has to be read
conjunctively. The right to maintain will arise only when the institution has been established
by the religious denomination which claims that right.60 In Clause (d) of the said Article, a
religious denomination is entitled to own, acquire and to administer the property for the
purposes for which it was dedicated.61
Thus, it is submitted that Anand Ashram has a right of maintenance over the disputed land and
to manage such property in accordance with law. Further, Anand Ashram being a religious
denomination of the same faith as the Indoos, has a right to maintain the disputed site.
C. THAT THE DOCTRINE OF INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA WAS USED WHILE GIVING THE
RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE INDOOS
As mentioned in Article 14,62 read with Article 15(1),63 it is demonstrated that no

discrimination must be practiced on the ground of religion, race, sex, caste, place of birth or
any of them. Under special reasons and circumstances, special treatment must be meted out to
a group of people. It is the duty of the court to examine whether the classification was based
on intelligible differentia.
It distinguishes persons or things that are groups together from others left out of the group and
that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. 64 In the
present case, it is submitted that the favorable treatment given to Indoos stands on intelligible
differentia. It is contended that ground is different from any ground based on religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
The counsel humbly submits that the special treatment given to the Indoos is because of the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Bosama. The two requirements for intelligible
differentia which are to be fulfilled are: -
I. It must be founded on intelligible differentia.
60
Azeez Basha, S. v. UOI, AIR 1968 SC 662; Khajamian Estates v. State of Mad, AIR 1971 SC 161.
61
Saifuddin Saheb Sardar Syedna Taher v. State of Bom, AIR 1962 SC 853.
62
Supra note 22, Art 14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India.
63
Supra note 22, Art 15. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
64
Adam Chaki v. Govt of India, AIR 2013 Guj 66.
Page 23
II. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.65
In the light of the above stated ground the judgment was passed by the Supreme Court.
The counsel states, all these considerations have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved that is a just and final solution to the dispute regarding the plot of land. It is submitted
that, by granting the property rights to the Indoos, no injustice will be done to the Oswalians
under Article 1566 or 1467.
The counsel humbly submits one must not be discriminated on the ground that he belongs to a
particular religion or caste etc.68 The significance of the word ‘only’ is that other qualifications
being equal, the race, religion, sex and place of birth of a citizen shall not be ground of
preference or disability. If there is any other ground or consideration other than those prohibited
by the said Article, the discrimination will not be unconstitutional.69
Therefore, in light of the above stated, it is clear that any other ground other than those
mentioned under article 15(1) is valid and constitutional. Thus, the grounds stated by the SC in
its judgment is rationally sound. The counsel contends that, Mr. G and Anand Ashram have a
right to worship and maintenance of the disputed land respectively.
65
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri J. S. R. Tendolkar and ors., 1958 AIR 130.
66
Supra note 63.
67
Supra note 62.
68
Chmpakana v. State Mad, AIR 1951 Mad 120.
69
Anjali v. State Of W.BengaL, (1952) 56 CWN 801; Narasappa v. Hazart, AIR 1960 Mys 59; Vasundara S.
State Of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1439; Satyandra Kumar Tripathi v. State Of UP AIR 2005 All 147; M.C
Sharma v. Punjab university, AIR 1997 P&H 87.
Page 24
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER SECTION 11

OF CPC OPERATE IN THE CURRENT REVIEW PETITION?
The Counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the doctrine of res judicata under
section 11 of CPC70 would operate in the current review petition.
In the case of Syed Mohammed Salie Labbai v. Mohammed Hanifa71, the essentials of res
judicata were established which are as follows-
• First, that the litigating parties must be the same;

• Second, that the subject-matter of the suit also must be identical;
• Third, that the matter must be finally decided between the parties;
• Fourth, that the suit must be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
The counsel humbly contends, that the present case of the review petition fulfils these
conditions. The Counsel humbly submits that, neither of the parties would be allowed for future
suit or proceeding between the same parties on same question of laws, if the matter between
them has been decided.72
The Hon’ble SC in the case of Venkateshwara Prabhu v. Krishna Prabhu73 explained the
term ‘former suit’, as defined under Explanation 1 of Section 11 of CPC. The court observed
that if a suit which has been previously instituted and decided by the court on all issues, the
decision will be deemed as final. Such suit is barred by res judicata.74 The counsel submits, in
the present case the review petition, filed after the previous suit was disposed of, is barred by
res judicata.
It is an established law that where the question has been raised in a suit and which has already
been decided, the same cause of action cannot be reopened in a civil suit on the principle of res
70
The code of civil procedure, 1908 (act 5 of 1908). Sec 11, Res judicata— No Court shall try any suit or issue
in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit
between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same
title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently
raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
71
Syed Mohammed Salie Labbai v. Mohammed Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569.
72
Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Comr. K.D. Nainital, AIR 2004 SC 2186.
73
Venkateshwara Prabhu v. Krishna Prabhu, AIR 1977 SC 1268
74
Id.
Page 25
judicata.75 In the present case, the former proceeding was decided against the appellant, i.e.,
the Oswalians and a suit with same cause of action cannot be filed as a review petition.
As per the case of Satya Dhyan Ghosal v. Deor jin Debi76, it was held that the principle of res
judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions, if res judicata is
applied, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily, it applies in case of past and future litigation.
In the case of Daryao v. State of U.P77, the SC approved an observation made Sir William De
Grey in the Duchess of Kingstone case78-
“From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these
two deductions seem to follow as generally true; first, that the judgment of a Court of
concurrent jurisdiction directly upon the point is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence conclusive,
between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court;
secondly, that the judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly on the point, is, in like
manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming, incidentally in
question in another Court, for a different purpose.”79
The Supreme Court observed that the binding character of judgments pronounced by Courts of
competent jurisdiction is an essential part in itself.80 The doctrine of res judicata applies in
cases where the issue is consonance with the violation of fundamental rights.81
In reference to the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bosama gave its final decree
on substantial issues, placed by the same parties.
The counsel submits the case of Sarjug Singh and Ors. v. Basisth Singh and Ors.82 which
stated that the doctrine of res judicata can be applied in review petitions. Provided that all the
essential ingredients as already established are fulfilled
75
Govind Shanker Gupta v. Suggi Devi, 1982 All LJ 17; Krishna Kumar v. J.N. Bhan, AIR 1971 Cal 332;
Chandra Kumar v. Ashwini Kumar, AIR 1918 Cal 125; Mahabir Prasad Chaudhary v. Chedi Singh, AIR 1924
Pat 769.
76
Satya Dhyan Ghosal v. Deor jin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941.
77
Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
78
Duchess of Kingstone case, (1776) 1 Leach 146.
79
Id.
80
Id.
81
Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, [1053] S.C.R. 154.
82
Sarjug Singh and Ors. v. Basisth Singh and Ors, AIR 1970 Patna 237.
Page 26
It is stated in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty83 that the doctrine of res judicata can be
applied in review petitions. Provided that there is no new cause of action on the part of the
appellant. It is contended that there is no new cause of action on the part of the appellants.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Lal Chand v. Radha Krishnan84 explained the
principle of res judicata and observed that, s/11 of CPC is not exhaustive in nature and was
introduced in favor of public interest. The principle of res judicata is based on the principle of
equity and justice, that is, once a decision is made in favor of a party it should not be permitted
to be harassed by multiple suits or proceedings.85
As mentioned in the case of Madhavi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai

Meenakshi Pillai86, a decision in proceedings for grant of succession certificate not being final
adjudication of rights of parties, cannot operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. The
counsel contends that in the present case, the adjudication of the rights of parties is complete.
Management of Sonepat Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh87 and A.L Ltd. v. State of
T.N.88, it was observed that the principle of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure it
is not attracted when decision involves question of jurisdiction. However, in the present case
there are is no question of jurisdiction involved.
In the case of Sardarbai v. Mathribai89, the question of perfection of title by adverse

possession, which was already settled in a previous suit, was directly and substantially in issue
between parties in previous suit. It was held that judgment of previous suit would operate as
res judicata in present case.
The Indoos claimed for a perfection of title through adverse possession, which was passed by
the Court. A subsequent review petition between the same parties, involving the same issue as
the previous one would not be maintainable.
Proceedings initiated in breach of res judicata is prima facie a proceeding which amounts to
abuse of process of Court.90 Thus the counsel points out that as it has been established that res
83
Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty, SLP (C) NO. 25649 OF 2017.
84
Lal Chand v. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1977 SC 789.
85
Supra Note 70.
86
Madhavi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 2301.
87
Management of Sonepat Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1050.
88
A.L Ltd. v. State of T.N, AIR 2004 SC 2836.
89
Sardarbai v. Mathribai, AIR 2005 NOC 251 (MP).
90
M. Nagabhushana v. State of Kar AIR 2011 CC 1702.
Page 27
judicata would apply in this review petition, it will be an abuse of process of Court to entertain
this petition any further.

Page 28
PRAYER
IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS

HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT TO HOLD, ADJUDGE AND DECLARE
THAT-
1. “Lord Gamma’ is juridical person.

2. Lord Gamma, being a juridical person, has a right to property under Article 300A and
the disputed site can be acquired through adverse possession.
3. Mr. G and Anand Ashram have a right to worship and to maintain the “Janmasthan”
respectively.
4. The doctrine of res judicata under section 11 of CPC operates in the current review
petition.
OR/AND
Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the interest of justice and good
conscience.
And for this act of kindness the respondent shall forever be duty bound.
Date: **
Place: Bosama
Counsel on behalf of Respondents.

Page 29

2 Jagannath Memorial Moot Court Competition-2020: Versus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Jagannath Memorial Moot Court Competition-2020: Versus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ND JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2ND JAGANNATH MEMORIAL MOOT COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND

SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Board of Oswalians...……………………………………………………...... Appellant

Mr. G …………………………………………………………………….…... Respondent 1.

Anand Asharam……………………………………………………….……... Respondent 2.

Lord Gamma ……………………………………………………….…….…. Respondent 3.

Janmasthan ………………………………………………………….….……. Respondent 4.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

THE SUPREME COURT OF BOSAMA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………. …...........…13

A. THAT JURISPRUDENCE ALSO CONFERS LEGAL RIGHTS TO AN ARTIFICIAL

B. THAT IDOLS HAVE A JURISTIC PERSONALITY AS ESTABLISHED BY VARIOUS

B. THAT LORD GAMMA HAS THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE

BELONGED TO THE INDOOS HISTORICALLY………………………………………….20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[ISSUE 4:] WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER SECTION 11 OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

30. Satyandra KumarTripathi v. State Of UP, AIR 2005 All 147.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

▪ Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Jagadish Swarup: constitution of India (3rd edition).

Code of Civil Procedure:

▪ B. V. Viswanatha Aiyer, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (8th edition).

▪ Universal’s Encyclopedia of Important: Central Acts and Rules (16th edition).

▪ The Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READS:

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code' or

Order XLVII - Review

1. Application for review of judgment.

2. To whom applications for review may be made.

3. Form of applications for review.

4. Application where rejected.

Application where granted.

5. Application for review in Court consisting of two or more Judges.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. Application where rejected.

7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order granting application.

8. Registry of application granted, and order for re-hearing.

9. Bar of certain applications.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

HISTORY OF THE DISPUTED SITE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Whether “Lord Gamma’ is a juridical person?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[ISSUE 1:] WHETHER “LORD GAMMA’ IS A JURIDICAL PERSON?

[ISSUE 2:] WHETHER LORD GAMMA, BEING A JURIDICAL PERSON, HAS A

[ISSUE 3:] WHETHER MR. G AND ANAND ASHRAM HAVE A RIGHT TO

[ISSUE 4:] WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA UNDER SECTION 11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER “LORD GAMMA’ IS A JURIDICAL PERSON?

A. THAT JURISPRUDENCE ALSO CONFERS LEGAL RIGHTS TO AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON

B. THAT IDOLS HAVE A JURISTIC PERSONALITY AS ESTABLISHED BY VARIOUS COURTS

Yogendra Nath Naskar v Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta,9 states, an idol is a