The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad high court's September 30 ruling on the Ayodhya title suit, which has given one third of the disputed land to Muslims.
Hindu Mahasabha'a national president Swami Chakra Pani has moved the apex court, challenging the verdict which ruled for a three-way division of the disputed land around and underneath the demolished Babri mosque with two parts to Hindus and one to Muslims.
The Sunni Wakf Board and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have already moved the apex court against the verdict.
While seeking partial annulment of the majority verdict by the high court's Lucknow bench, which ruled for handing over one-third of the disputed land to Muslims, the Hindu Sabha sought the apex court's endorsement of the September 30 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who ruled for handing over of the entire land to Hindus.
"Set aside the judgment dated September 30, 2010 by Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal to the extent that one third of the property in dispute has been declared in favour of Muslims and to allot share to them in the decree," said the Hindu Mahasabha petition.
It appealed to the apex court "to maintain the judgment passed by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma" as the effective verdict.
A three-judge bench of the high court's Lucknow bench had passed three separate judgements on September 30 with the majority verdict holding that the area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, where the idol of Lord Rama is situated, belongs to Hindus.
While Justice Khan and Agarwal were of the view that the entire disputed land should be divided into three parts for handing over of one part each to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the parties representing Ram Lalla Virajman (seated Baby Ram), Justice Sharma had held that the entire disputed area belongs to Hindus.
In its petition, the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the provision for handing over one third of the disputed land to Muslims, saying the high court had erred in dividing the land among the three parties as it had only been asked to decide "as to who was the owner of the land and the property in dispute."