Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu who is on mediation panel wrote a letter to CJI expressing security threat to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board Zufar Ahmad Farooqui.
Supreme Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to provide adequate security.
Ayodhya case: SC directs UP govt to provide security to Sunni Waqf Board chief
Ayodhya hearing begins, Sec 144 imposed till Dec 10
23:42 October 14
Vishnu Shankar Jain, lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha on Ayodhya Hearing
Vishnu Shankar Jai, lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha
23:39 October 14
PN Mishra, Senior Advocate on Ayodhya Hearing
PN Mishra, Senior Advocate
18:29 October 14
Hearing over for the 38th day
18:26 October 14
SC orders UP govt to provide adequate security to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board
18:20 October 14
Counsel for Hindu parties, PN Mishra, objected to Dhavan's submissions that arguments by Hindu parties on Islamic law lacked expertise.
16:51 October 14
They have to prove adverse possession: Dhavan
Rajeev Dhavan claims that demolition can not change the status of the mosque which was present there and said that the Hindu party have to prove adverse possession.
"Telling a few Muslims that they cannot pray there is not adverse possession," said Dhavan.
"My emphasis under Islamic law as Your Lordships have laid down is that even if there is no dedication but it is used, it is good enough to be recognised as a Masjid," he added.
Dhavan also questioned, "How can Muslim rulers be termed illegitimate for building a mosque? Why are we rewriting history whenever new govt comes to power?"
He also claimed that the Hindu party does not have the required knowledge and expertise to delegitimise a ruler.
"Aurangazeb was one of the most liberal rulers," he added.
Rajeev Dhavan concludes his arguments.
16:27 October 14
Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents laying down characteristics of Wakf properties
15:48 October 14
What law are we going to apply to judge Babur: Dhavan
He mentioned that the present-day Islamic law cannot be compared with the law during the Babur's reign as they have evolved over 15 centuries.
15:10 October 14
After the bench reassembled, senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan that there is no mystery as to what 'final order' is, and made his final submissions on the limitation. He also said that there are no facts on foundation was placed by Nirmohi Akhara.
13:02 October 14
In 1950, all that Hindus claimed was the right to pray. The first suit is for right to pray: Dhavan
13:02 October 14
Can't keep pretending that December 1992 did not happen: Dhavan
12:57 October 14
Justice SA Bobde tells Dhavan if they (Hindus) had the right to pray, then will it not dilute your claim of exclusive possession.
12:55 October 14
'They said they have a right to build a temple there. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question'
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said, "Muslims were constantly entering by the eastern gate. Hindus did not, therefore, have possession, only right they had was the right to pray. Most of the judgments cited by the other side are without factual foundation."
He also said that here was no claim of title by Hindus till 1989.
12:54 October 14
Justice Chandrachud asks Dhavan about the possession of outer courtyard by Hindus.
12:51 October 14
We have been in possession throughout. Their claim to the title comes much later. In fact, their claim to title was denied in 1986: Rajeev Dhavan
The main door, the eastern door was used by muslims. Hindus cannot get the outer courtyard. It only gave them a right to pray but does not give them right over the property: Rajeev Dhavan
12:37 October 14
There is no finding of the destruction of the temple by ASI, says senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan
To show title over the disputed land, Dhavan says, there are grants given by the British Govt since 1854 for the upkeep of the Babri masjid. Besides, there was no claim of title by the Hindu side between 1885 and 1989, adds Dhavan.
We have been in possession throughout. Their claim of title came much later. Their claim over title was denied. They claimed adverse possession since 1934 for which there is no proof, says Dhawan.
"Possession creates bar to claim of title against the owner."
12:17 October 14
Ayodhya hearing begins, Sec 144 imposed till Dec 10
Hyderabad: The final leg of hearing of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case is underway in the Supreme Court on Monday.
Also, before today's hearing, Section 144 was imposed in the Ayodhya district till December 10. The Ayodhya District Magistrate said the decision has been taken considering the upcoming festivals in the state.
Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, began today's hearing in the Ayodhya land case.
Today is the 38th day of hearing of the land dispute case.
23:42 October 14
Vishnu Shankar Jain, lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha on Ayodhya Hearing
Vishnu Shankar Jai, lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha
23:39 October 14
PN Mishra, Senior Advocate on Ayodhya Hearing
PN Mishra, Senior Advocate
18:29 October 14
Hearing over for the 38th day
18:26 October 14
SC orders UP govt to provide adequate security to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board
Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu who is on mediation panel wrote a letter to CJI expressing security threat to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board Zufar Ahmad Farooqui.
Supreme Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to provide adequate security.
18:20 October 14
Counsel for Hindu parties, PN Mishra, objected to Dhavan's submissions that arguments by Hindu parties on Islamic law lacked expertise.
16:51 October 14
They have to prove adverse possession: Dhavan
Rajeev Dhavan claims that demolition can not change the status of the mosque which was present there and said that the Hindu party have to prove adverse possession.
"Telling a few Muslims that they cannot pray there is not adverse possession," said Dhavan.
"My emphasis under Islamic law as Your Lordships have laid down is that even if there is no dedication but it is used, it is good enough to be recognised as a Masjid," he added.
Dhavan also questioned, "How can Muslim rulers be termed illegitimate for building a mosque? Why are we rewriting history whenever new govt comes to power?"
He also claimed that the Hindu party does not have the required knowledge and expertise to delegitimise a ruler.
"Aurangazeb was one of the most liberal rulers," he added.
Rajeev Dhavan concludes his arguments.
16:27 October 14
Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents laying down characteristics of Wakf properties
15:48 October 14
What law are we going to apply to judge Babur: Dhavan
He mentioned that the present-day Islamic law cannot be compared with the law during the Babur's reign as they have evolved over 15 centuries.
15:10 October 14
After the bench reassembled, senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan that there is no mystery as to what 'final order' is, and made his final submissions on the limitation. He also said that there are no facts on foundation was placed by Nirmohi Akhara.
13:02 October 14
In 1950, all that Hindus claimed was the right to pray. The first suit is for right to pray: Dhavan
13:02 October 14
Can't keep pretending that December 1992 did not happen: Dhavan
12:57 October 14
Justice SA Bobde tells Dhavan if they (Hindus) had the right to pray, then will it not dilute your claim of exclusive possession.
12:55 October 14
'They said they have a right to build a temple there. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question'
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said, "Muslims were constantly entering by the eastern gate. Hindus did not, therefore, have possession, only right they had was the right to pray. Most of the judgments cited by the other side are without factual foundation."
He also said that here was no claim of title by Hindus till 1989.
12:54 October 14
Justice Chandrachud asks Dhavan about the possession of outer courtyard by Hindus.
12:51 October 14
We have been in possession throughout. Their claim to the title comes much later. In fact, their claim to title was denied in 1986: Rajeev Dhavan
The main door, the eastern door was used by muslims. Hindus cannot get the outer courtyard. It only gave them a right to pray but does not give them right over the property: Rajeev Dhavan
12:37 October 14
There is no finding of the destruction of the temple by ASI, says senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan
To show title over the disputed land, Dhavan says, there are grants given by the British Govt since 1854 for the upkeep of the Babri masjid. Besides, there was no claim of title by the Hindu side between 1885 and 1989, adds Dhavan.
We have been in possession throughout. Their claim of title came much later. Their claim over title was denied. They claimed adverse possession since 1934 for which there is no proof, says Dhawan.
"Possession creates bar to claim of title against the owner."
12:17 October 14
Ayodhya hearing begins, Sec 144 imposed till Dec 10
Hyderabad: The final leg of hearing of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case is underway in the Supreme Court on Monday.
Also, before today's hearing, Section 144 was imposed in the Ayodhya district till December 10. The Ayodhya District Magistrate said the decision has been taken considering the upcoming festivals in the state.
Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, began today's hearing in the Ayodhya land case.
Today is the 38th day of hearing of the land dispute case.
Intro:Body:
Conclusion:
LIVE: Ayodhya...
Conclusion:
Last Updated : Oct 15, 2019, 12:06 AM IST
