15:28 August 27
Babar had nothing to do with it?: Justice Bobde
Justice Bobde asked Mishra whether the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti's entire case was that Babar did not build the mosque.
"Then he (Babar) did not even demolish the temple, if any existed. Babar had nothing to do with it?" he asked, to which Mishra replied, "Yes."
15:26 August 27
Mishra points out discrepancies in inscriptions
Pointing out that there were several discrepancies in inscriptions that are used to establish that the Mosque was built by Babar, Mishra submits that in 1885 the civil Judge of Faizabad visited the site and saw an inscription on the door written 'Allah'. However, there was nothing engraved on the door of the Mosque.
"In 1888 Alexander Fuhrer published two inscriptions on Babri Masjid in which one incription says that the Mosque was built by Mir Khan in AD 930," he added.
14:00 August 27
Makes no difference whether Babar or Aurangzeb built the structure: Mishra
Continuing his submissions, Mishra said that his party had submitted before the High Court that Babar did not construct the mosque.
He added, "Perhaps later during Aurangzeb's rule there was some demolition."
Mishra further submitted that it did not make any difference for his party whether Babar erected the structure or Aurangzeb. "It matters for the Muslim parties as they claimed that Babar arrived in 1528, and the mosque was built following a battle. They have to prove it," he said.
12:29 August 27
Mishra shows existence of janmabhoomi through Skanda Purana
Mishra reads Skanda Purana to demonstrate the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi.
Justice Chandrachud says that the use of Skanda Purana to demonstrate faith is bona fide, but to demonstrate the existence of Janmasthan through Skanda Purana is a huge leap.
11:57 August 27
Counsel for Akhara concludes submissions
Jain concludes his arguments on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.
PN Mishra begins his submissions on behalf of Ramjanmabhoomi Puranuddhar Samiti.
11:39 August 27
Revenue records prove Akhara held possession of land: Jain
Saying that the suit map which has been filed does not tally with the original place, Jain submits that the inner courtyard was landlocked and was occupied by the worshippers.
He further submits that the revenue records clearly show that the land was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara.
11:34 August 27
Constitution bench assembles on day 13 of the hearing.
Sushil Kumar Jain, the counsel for Hindu body Nirmohi Akhara, starts reading a note prepared about the maintainability of the suit.
11:29 August 27
Akhara 'unnecessarily' opposing plea of 'Ram Lalla', SC said on day 12
New Delhi: Hindu body 'Nirmohi Akhara' is "unnecessarily" opposing the plea of deity 'Ram Lalla' for the title of disputed Ramjanma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid land as both the parties will "stand" or "fall" together, the Supreme Court had said on Monday.
The five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was critical of the submission of 'Akhara' that being the 'shebait' (devotee), only its lawsuit was maintainable and the case filed by deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman', through next friend Deoki Nandan Agrawal, should not be allowed.
"There is no conflict between your (Akhara’s) suit and the suit filed by plaintiff number 1 (Ram Lalla)... Even if the suit of plaintiff (deity and others) is allowed, your right as 'shebait' stands," the bench said while hearing the arguments on the 12th day of the decades-old, politically sensitive case.
"You (Akhara) can claim your 'shebait' right independently. Unnecessarily, you are entering into the conflicting territory. It is for Sunni Waqf Board to do that," said the bench, comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S A Nazeer.
The bench asked senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for 'Nirmohi Akhara', that if the lawsuit of the deity was disallowed then for whom will the Akhara be 'shebait' of.
The bench asked Jain to apprise it of the view of 'Akhara' on Tuesday as to whether it was still seeking dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the deity and others.
15:28 August 27
Babar had nothing to do with it?: Justice Bobde
Justice Bobde asked Mishra whether the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti's entire case was that Babar did not build the mosque.
"Then he (Babar) did not even demolish the temple, if any existed. Babar had nothing to do with it?" he asked, to which Mishra replied, "Yes."
15:26 August 27
Mishra points out discrepancies in inscriptions
Pointing out that there were several discrepancies in inscriptions that are used to establish that the Mosque was built by Babar, Mishra submits that in 1885 the civil Judge of Faizabad visited the site and saw an inscription on the door written 'Allah'. However, there was nothing engraved on the door of the Mosque.
"In 1888 Alexander Fuhrer published two inscriptions on Babri Masjid in which one incription says that the Mosque was built by Mir Khan in AD 930," he added.
14:00 August 27
Makes no difference whether Babar or Aurangzeb built the structure: Mishra
Continuing his submissions, Mishra said that his party had submitted before the High Court that Babar did not construct the mosque.
He added, "Perhaps later during Aurangzeb's rule there was some demolition."
Mishra further submitted that it did not make any difference for his party whether Babar erected the structure or Aurangzeb. "It matters for the Muslim parties as they claimed that Babar arrived in 1528, and the mosque was built following a battle. They have to prove it," he said.
12:29 August 27
Mishra shows existence of janmabhoomi through Skanda Purana
Mishra reads Skanda Purana to demonstrate the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi.
Justice Chandrachud says that the use of Skanda Purana to demonstrate faith is bona fide, but to demonstrate the existence of Janmasthan through Skanda Purana is a huge leap.
11:57 August 27
Counsel for Akhara concludes submissions
Jain concludes his arguments on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara.
PN Mishra begins his submissions on behalf of Ramjanmabhoomi Puranuddhar Samiti.
11:39 August 27
Revenue records prove Akhara held possession of land: Jain
Saying that the suit map which has been filed does not tally with the original place, Jain submits that the inner courtyard was landlocked and was occupied by the worshippers.
He further submits that the revenue records clearly show that the land was in possession of Nirmohi Akhara.
11:34 August 27
Constitution bench assembles on day 13 of the hearing.
Sushil Kumar Jain, the counsel for Hindu body Nirmohi Akhara, starts reading a note prepared about the maintainability of the suit.
11:29 August 27
Akhara 'unnecessarily' opposing plea of 'Ram Lalla', SC said on day 12
New Delhi: Hindu body 'Nirmohi Akhara' is "unnecessarily" opposing the plea of deity 'Ram Lalla' for the title of disputed Ramjanma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid land as both the parties will "stand" or "fall" together, the Supreme Court had said on Monday.
The five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was critical of the submission of 'Akhara' that being the 'shebait' (devotee), only its lawsuit was maintainable and the case filed by deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman', through next friend Deoki Nandan Agrawal, should not be allowed.
"There is no conflict between your (Akhara’s) suit and the suit filed by plaintiff number 1 (Ram Lalla)... Even if the suit of plaintiff (deity and others) is allowed, your right as 'shebait' stands," the bench said while hearing the arguments on the 12th day of the decades-old, politically sensitive case.
"You (Akhara) can claim your 'shebait' right independently. Unnecessarily, you are entering into the conflicting territory. It is for Sunni Waqf Board to do that," said the bench, comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S A Nazeer.
The bench asked senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for 'Nirmohi Akhara', that if the lawsuit of the deity was disallowed then for whom will the Akhara be 'shebait' of.
The bench asked Jain to apprise it of the view of 'Akhara' on Tuesday as to whether it was still seeking dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the deity and others.
Ayodhya
