Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim litigants have failed to prove that Mughal emperor Babur constructed the mosque at the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, a Hindu party told the Supreme Court Wednesday.
A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Hindu party, that it was the case of the Muslim party that the mosque in question was built by the state (Babur) on the land belonging to the state, but it has not been proved by them.
He was responding to the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf board and other Muslim individuals seeking title claim over the entire 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya.
Vaidyanathan further said that if the Muslim side claimed title over the disputed land under the doctrine of adverse possession then they will have to accept that the deity or the temple was the previous real owner.
"They cannot claim benefit of adverse possession. If they claim so then they will have to show the ouster of the prior owner that is temple or the deity in this case," Vaidyanathan told the bench, also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
The Muslims may have several places for offering namaz in Ayodhya but for Hindus the place of birth of Lord Ram remains the same which cannot be changed, he argued.
He further said that the arguments of Muslim side that the land was dedicated as a 'waqf' on the ground of being long user is not sustainable because they did not have the exclusive possession over the property as Hindus and Muslims both were sitting there.
Another senior lawyer Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Hind devotee Gopal Singh Visharad, said that Muslims have failed to prove their case and the lawsuit filed by the Sunnni Waqf board and others ought to be dismissed as Visharad and other Hindu devotee have "pre-existing rights to worship" at the site.
The character of the disputed site cannot be decided on the basis of the faith of the Muslims, he said while concluding his submissions.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha, referred to various aspects of the Allahabad High Court judgement and said there has been long faith and belief on the part of Hindus with regard to the scared nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties, objected when Singh attempted to refer a book on Ayodhya written by former IPS officer Kishore Kunal, saying such attempts should be disallowed.
The bench then asked Singh to proceed with the hearing saying, "Mr Dhavan, we have taken note of your objection."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
