In the Ayodhya Verdict, it remains a confusion, whether it was a Legal Judgment or a Political Judgment. Afterall, a suit is either to be decreed or dismissed. It was nobody’s case to divide the disputed land (suit property) into three parts and allocate it to the different claimants. But the Trial Court has returned to the finding, which was nobody’s claim. Another question which lurks in my mind is what has dismissed the plea of Adverse possession by the Babri Masjid. It is accepted fact that the Babri Masjid was constructed in the year 1528 and uptill 1949 the Hindus not ever whispered or moved their little finger to object the adverse, hostile, open, continuous possession of the Babri Masjid over the suit property, (which according to law of easements, only 12 years’ continuous, open & hostile possession is required to be established) then how come the claim of the Muslims has been turned down. In such manner, I am not supporting the claim of the Muslims, but I simply want to know the interpretation of law and how the same was applied in the present set of circumstances. Without prejudice to anybody, and with utmost respect to the Judicial verdict, I want to state here that the Courts are not expected to pass Judgments on the policy of appeasement. The rule of law howsoever rigour may be, is to be delivered and Justice is not only been done, it should shown to have been done. The Public has great faith in the pious institution of Justice and I donot think a single verdict will shake this faith. However, what I try to maintain is that the logical conclusion of the matter is always expected of a civil litigation and if something goes against the logic, it shatters the faith in Judicial system. Now, the role of the Hon’ble Apex Court of the land is awaited. Reader’s comments are invited.