Ayodhya Live: Bench rises for the day; hearing to continue tomorrow

16:27 August 21

Bench rises for the day

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow.

16:14 August 21

CJI gets angry over unpreparedness of advocate VN Sinha; advocate Ranjeet Kumar sumbits records

Advocate VN Sinha submitted a document on which Bobde asked if it was on record, and CJI got angry over the unpreparedness of Sinha.

Sinha:I did not know my turn will come today.

CJI asks Ranjeet Kumar appearing for Vishal Singh Visharad to begins his submissions.

Visharad is dead and the suit is being represented by his son Gopal Singh Visharad.

Both PN Mishra and VN Sinha are asked to prepare themselves and come to the court.

CJI gets angry, says not a good version of the record placed by advocate Ranjeet Kumar. The records submitted by advocate Kumar were in Hindi language.

CJI - Ranjeet said that Hindi records should be placed before the part of the bench which knows Hindi

Advocate Ranjeet Kumar on behalf of his client: I am a worshipper and the plaint was filed in 1950. The plaint is in Hindi and if my lords permit me to read it on Hindi then I shall proceed.

CJI-But one of our brother Justice Nazeer will not understand. Anyway, you read the English version along with the Hindi plaint.

Ranjeet Kumar reads the plaint.

16:11 August 21

Advocate representing president Hindu Mahasabha submits arguments

Advocate for Defendant number 5 suit number 7 for president Hindu Mahasabha is submitting his arguments now.
 

15:41 August 21

Advocate PN Mishra puts forth his arguments

Advocate PN Mishra submits that Atharva Veda has been relied upon by many witnesses in the High Court. He is defendant no. 20 in suit 4.

In his written statement they have submitted that Babur never constructed a Mosque at the disputed site and the place is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Advocate PN Mishra: We say that it is Janmabhoomi but they say that it is not Janmabhoomi. Sthan and Janmabhoomi are synonyms.

Justice Bode-How can 'Sthan' and 'Janmabhoomi' be synonyms

PN Mishra- 'Sthan' here means the 'Janmabhoomi'. It's not true that Ved Vyas wrote all the 18 Puranas....he was actually an editor.

CJI: Identify the location from the map, don't just read from the scriptures.

PN Mishra: Read out from Ain-i-Akbari or the "Administration of Akbar"

Justice Chandrachud: How is it important to the case whether the mosque was built by Babur or Aurangzeb? Justice Aggarwal has given a long judgement on it.

CJI: Prepare a route in which way you want to present the case. Kindly prepare the chart and then argue. Organise your arguments and put some orders in it.

PN Mishra: I haven't been given documents by the state.

14:34 August 21

Benches reassembles, hearing resumes post-lunch

CS Vaidyanathan:Diety is not a party at all, in suit 3 and 4 diety is not party.... In my opinion, the diety's rights have been affected so it must be the party.

13:51 August 21

Hearing to resume post-lunch

It's time for lunch. Now the bench will hear the Ayodhya matter after lunch.

11:20 August 21

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan makes his submissions with respect to 'what amounts to adverse possession'

New Delhi: The crucial day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in the Supreme Court entered the 10th day on Wednesday.

The Ayodhya case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer. 

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, the counsel for deity 'Ram Lalla' is making his submissions with respect to 'what amounts to adverse possession.' 

CS Vaidyanathan: How can anyone claim by adverse possession say that Hindus don't have ownership rights? Hindus have always desired to worship, it can not be adverse possession. Adverse possession stands only on alienation voluntarily not involuntarily.

Default or inaction of the owner for a period of 12 years will amount to dispossession, however here the owner is the deity and hence there cannot be default or inaction. Throughout the period, the devotees have asserted their right of ownership through their worship and hence there cannot be adverse possession. 

There is no question of ownership, the property is only diety.

Justice Bobde: Which judgement says that the right of an idol is inalienable?

CS Vaidyanathan: if there was a temple, if this submission is right and if the devotees have been worshipping at that place and the temple itself is there even in respect of that nobody can prescribe a title...by putting a structure, which according to me is illegal, nobody can prescribe title...it the waqf which is claiming the title by adverse possession...I am claiming by diety...the fact that people that have been worshipping there is enough for me.

There cannot be the destruction of an idol or temple, that will always remain. Deity is a perpetual possessor and even if the deity is a minor it is considered an inalienable minor and the property is not subject to adverse possession. 

Justice Bobde:You mean that a property owned by an idol is inalienable, therefore a person who grabs such property cannot hold it adverse to the owner because the property is inalienable and hence no title, can pass to the person who grabs such property. 

CS Vaidyanathan: Absolutely Correct My Lord.

It is Res extra commercium, since there was already a temple. I am claiming the title because there was a temple and the deity and I am not claiming adverse possession on the Mosque land. The sanctity of the place will remain...the property can not be traded, sold or occupied in this manner.

Justice Bobde: Where is the evidence that the property is of God and whether it is alienable?

CS Vaidyanathan:  There is a distinction between Mohammadan law and Hindu Law with respect to the Mosque and temple. If a Mosque is destroyed and occupied by another person then it loses its possession however it is not the case in temples.

The view that has been taken is that there has to be dedication. The Mohammadan Law in India does not recognise the inalienability of the Mosque land.

Justice Bobde: An idol is a property which has divine attributes. It is a matter which can be touched, felt and owned. The comparison between Hindu law and Islamic law is misleading.

CS Vaidyanathan: The self categorisation arises in a case where the property of the deity can be alienated for the purpose of worship.

Justice Bobde: In Islam, there is no concept of idol and God itself is considered as divine. Hence there is no question of Mosque Property.

CS Vaidyanathan: The question whether a Mosque can be treated as a juristic person was observed by the Privy Council where it observed that a Muslim institution is not recognised as a juristic person. 

Justice Bobde: The comparison between Hindu Law and Islamic Law is misleading. 

CJI responded to this and said,

Let's not discuss these points and come to the submissions.

CS Vaidyanathan: A temple is immortal and indestructible. When some dams are constructed, nearby areas are submerged and idols are shifted....this is the case where the place is not dignity...when we talk of punyasthala, the place is dignity...

Justice Bobde: (Jokingly) Make sure your arguments don't apply to these structures...immovable, inalienable....