ETV Bharat / state

Ayodhya land dispute: Day-to-day hearings will continue, reiterates SC

Ayodhya land dispute: Day-to-day hearings will continue, reiterates SC

Ayodhya hearing

By

Published : Aug 6, 2019, 10:55 AM IST

|

Updated : Aug 9, 2019, 6:47 PM IST

16:08 August 09

Day-to-day hearings will continue, reiterates CJI

Litigant Mahant Dharam Das said the proceedings must go on everyday

Reiterating that hearings will continue on a day-to-day basis, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi assured senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, counsel for Muslim parties including M Siddiq, that it would consider granting him mid-week break for preparing arguments.

Earlier in the day, Dhavan had objected to the five-days-a-week hearing, saying he will 'not be able to assist' the court if the hearing is 'rushed through'.

"It is not possible to assist the court if it is heard on all days of the week. This is the first appeal and the hearing cannot be rushed in this manner and I am put to torture," he told the bench.

13:09 August 09

Arguing in favour of 'Janmasthanam' being a legal person:

K Parasaran says:

A Hindu idol is considered as a juristic person and is capable of holding property as a legal person.

The concept of idol worship came only to enable concentration, however what is important is the deity and not the image.

The deity is treated as a living being and is considered as the master of the house.

12:41 August 09

Senior advocate K Parasaran on behalf of deity Ram Lalla Virajmaan says:

Bench begins hearing the submissions of Parasaran.

The apex court had on Thursday asked the counsel for the deity, which itself has been made a party to the case, as to how the 'Janmasthanam' (birth place of deity) can be regarded as a "juristic person" having stakes as a litigant in the case.

The apex court had said on the third day of the hearing that so far as Hindu deities were concerned, they have been legally treated as juristic person which can hold properties and institute, defend and intervene in lawsuits.

The bench, however, had asked Parasaran as to how 'Janamsthanam' can file the case in the land dispute as a party.

The law suit filed by the deity in the Ayodhya case has also made the birth place of Lord Ram as co-petitioner and has sought claim over the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land at Ayodhya where the structure was razed on December 6, 1992.

11:58 August 09

Senior Advocate K Parasaran says there is no issue in daily hearings and will abide by whatever the court decides.

11:03 August 09

Dhavan demands solution over 5-day hearing, CJI responds

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan:

"If the hearing is 5-days a week then it's inhuman and we won't be able to assist the court.

Hearing can’t be rushed through. I'll be forced to leave this case."

CJI Ranjan Gogoi responds, "We have heard your grievance, we'll inform you soon."

10:59 August 09

5-day hearing in a week is 'inhuman'

Rajiv Dhavan, counsel of the Muslim parties says that there is a rumour that the court will sit all five days to hear the case.

He raises objection to five days hearing.

10:46 August 09

Fourth day of hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case

Hearing begins in Supreme Court: It is the 4th day of the day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case

16:01 August 08

Senior advocate K Parasaran on the issue of Janmasthan being a judicial person

"Janmasthan need not be the exact spot but can also mean the surrounding areas. The whole area is the Janmasthan."

'There is no dispute that it is the 'Janmasthan' of Lord Ram. Both Hindu and Muslim side calls disputed area Janmasthan."

A judicial person is a non-human entity which is authorised by law with duties and rights as a legal person and having a distinct identity.

15:36 August 08

Justice SA Bobde on continuing wrong doctrine

“Placing of an idol may be a completed act but stopping a person from performing his prayer is a continuing wrong.”

Continuing wrong: Law which states that a cause of action accumilates when the wrong is committed, not when its effects continue to be felt in the future.

15:09 August 08

Justice SA Bobde posing questions to K Parasaran

Justice SA Bobde posing questions to K Parasaran on what a continuing wrong is.

Senior advocate K Parasaran qoutes from a judgement- If the wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by the wrongful act continues, then it is a continuing wrong.

14:33 August 08

Senior advocate K Parasaran continues with his submissions

Senior advocate K Parasaran- Suit no 3 and 4 were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation and the Court had passed a decree only with respect to Suit no 1. The continuing wrong should be from the date of occurrence. The running of time does not stop till declaration.

14:12 August 08

Bench reassembles post lunch.

The bench reassembles for hearing of Ayodhya dispute. Senior advocate K Parasaran continues with his submissions.

12:51 August 08

Bench rises for lunch

Hearing on Ayodhya case to continue after lunch.

12:31 August 08

Issue of Janmasthan being a juridical person would be addressed later

Senior advocate K Parasaran- The right to worship can be invoked under the provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

The issue of Janmasthana being a juridical person would be addressed later as Senior advocate K Parasaran has reverted to his submissions.

11:52 August 08

The Bench discusses about Janmasthan's status as a juridical person

Senior advocate K Parasaran- The deity was not made a party when the property was attached by an order of the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC and when civil court granted injunction. There is a temple 300 yards away which is known as the Janmasthan Temple.

Justice Ashok Bhushan- Can "asthan" be a juridical person? Idol can be a juristical person but can a place or Janmasthan be one?

Senior advocate K Parasaran- Presence of an idol isn't the only test for determination of a legal person.

Justice SA Bobde- The Uttarakhand High Court has said that a particular river is a juristic person.

Justice DY Chandrachud- Janmasthan is worshipped due to the belief that Lord Ram was born there. So can a source of worship be the benchmark for deciding whether something is a juristic person?

CJI- Mr. Parasaran you can answer the queries of the bench in your own way while you proceed with your submissions.

11:30 August 08

SC proceeds with submissions of Senior advocate K Parasaran

Senior advocate K Parasaran, lawyer for 'Ram Lalla Virajman'- ‘Janmasthan’ need not be the exact spot but can also mean the surrounding areas. The whole area is the 'Janmasthan'. There is no dispute that it is the 'Janmasthan' of Lord Ram. Both Hindu and Muslim side calls disputed area Janmasthan.

10:58 August 08

The bench assembles for hearing Ayodhya dispute case

The bench has assembled for hearing Ayodhya dispute case for day 3.

Rajeev Dhawan- Suit 3 and 5 are at loggerheads and if one is heard the other has to go.

K Prasaran makes his submissions in respect to cause of action and limitation.

19:21 August 07

Bring evidence to establish possession: SC to Nirmohi Akhara

Mahant Dharam Das on the court proceedings

The Supreme Court today asked the Nirmohi Akhara as to whether it has got any revenue records and oral evidence to establish its possession over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed site in Ayodhya.

A five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked senior advocate Sushil Jain, representing Nirmohi Akhara, that since it was now dealing with the issue of possession, the Hindu body will have to "establish" its case.

"Now, we are dealing with the possession. You have to establish the possession. If you have any revenue record in your favour then it is a very good piece of evidence in your favour," said the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The Akhara has been seeking management and proprietary rights over the disputed site on various grounds including that it was under its possession since time immemorial and it has the status of 'shebaitship' of the deity.

16:20 August 07

Hearing ends for the day

Bench rises for the day, hearing to resume tomorrow.

16:01 August 07

'Wrong snapped on appointment of receiver'

Senior advocate K Parasaran for 'Ram Lalla' said that the wrong regarding the placing of idols was snapped when the court passed the judicial order.

He added that a receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong.

Justice Bobde then asked whether the idols are carbon dated.

Justice Chandrachud asked, "If idols were placed before December 29 1949, then how did they come to Ram Chabutra after the attachment?"

15:32 August 07

'Faith of devotees evidence that Ram was born in Ayodhya'

Senior advocate K Parasaran for 'Ram Lalla', said that at least three instances in the Valmiki Ramayana showed that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya.

However, he added that it is hard to prove where exactly Lord Ram was born, but that the faith of millions of devotees is itself evidence of the same.

To this, Justice Bobde asked whether such a question regarding place of birth of a Prophet or God had arisen before any court in the past.

Parasaran replied that he was not sure and would have to check.

15:18 August 07

SC proceeds with submissions of deity Ram Lalla

SC finds Nirmohi Akhara ill-prepared on oral, documentary evidence to establish claim; proceeds with submissions of deity Ram Lalla.

Senior advocate K Prasaran for deity 'Ram Lalla' starts advancing submissions in the Ayodhya case.

15:03 August 07

CJI asks for oral and documentary evidence

CJI Ranjan Gogoi asks Sushil Kumar Jain, the lawyer for Nirmohi Akahara- In the next two hours, we would like to see the oral and documentary evidence.

Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud- Show us the original documents.

Sushil Jain- Documents are quoted in Allahabad (HC) Judgment.

14:11 August 07

Bench reassembles after lunch

The bench reassembles for hearing of Ayodhya dispute.

CJI to Sushil Jain- Do it in your own way. But we would like to see the documents and oral evidence in the next two hours.

13:15 August 07

Hearing to continue after lunch

CJI- We will come back after lunch and then present the facts. Your statements are here and there.

13:10 August 07

SC asked about the status of possession

SC asks Nirmohi Akhara for documentary evidence to prove its possession.

CJI- Do you have oral or documentary proof, revenue records, of possession of Ramjanmabhoomi before attachment.

Nirmohi Akhara: A dacoity happened in 1982 & they lost records.

12:04 August 07

Sushil Jain and Justice Bobde discuss on limitation period

Sushil Jain: Management's right to immovable property has also been taken away. The property after attachment cannot take my management rights.

Justice Chandrachud: Section 142 of the Limitation Act will not allow performing of religious ceremonies.

Justice Bobde: If you do not have possession over property you cannot perform puja.

Constitution bench asks about the argument of the limitation period.

Sushil Jain is persistent that the limitation period hasn't started.

Justice Bobde- There was no such mention, how are you going to establish this argument?

CJI- You should come prepared!

11:34 August 07

The Constitution bench assembled

The Constitution bench has assembled.

Mr Sushil Kumar Jain appearing for Nirmohi Akhara hands over a copy of the findings of the court on limitation.

Mr Jain- My intention is to make a distinction between the limitation period and cause of action.

CJI- Your argument that limitation period hasn't commenced and therefore you have the right to file suit it correct. We consider it. Proceed with your arguments.

Rajeev Dhawan- I need a copy of reports which Sushil Jain has cited.

The suit is covered by Art 47 of Limitation Act 1908. The property was attached by an order of the Magistrate under Sec. 145 CrPC. The period of limitation commences running only after final order is passed under Sec 145. However the interim order of Magistrate was pending, hence the cause of action did not arise, submits Mr Jain.

Mr. Dhavan intervenes and says that Mr Jain is referring to SCR, a copy of which has not been given to them.

CJI- Whatever is being referred by Mr Jain should be handed over to the other party as well.

11:12 August 07

Hearing in the case has started in SC

Hearing in the case has started in Supreme Court. It is the 2nd day of the day-to-day hearing in the case.

16:41 August 06

Mahant Dharmadas reacting on Ayodhya hearing in SC

Mahant Dharmadas speaking to ETV Bharat

Mahant Dharmadas expressed his views post the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid case hearing in Supreme court.

16:11 August 06

Hearing concludes for the day

Hearing concludes for the day, Nirmohi Akhara to resume its submissions tomorrow.

16:07 August 06

They are examining if the Nirmohi Akhara filed the petition within the limitation period or not.

Sushil jain says that limitation period has not started

16:06 August 06

Dispossession has to be voluntary whereas attachment is an involuntary act, remarks Justice Chandrachud.

15:50 August 06

Justice Bobde questions Mr Jain

Justice Bobde questions Mr Jain “How can you invoke article 47 when you don not have a final order?

From the dates specified in the article. The date is the date of the final order. If there is no final order then how will the time run?”

“For my suit the limitation has not begun. I can file the suit even if the limitation has not started”, Mr Jain

I am invoking article 142 for possession of immovable property.

Hence I am within limitation, submits Mr Jain.

15:22 August 06

SC will take maximum 8 weeks to give its verdict, claims Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay expects that SC will be able to give a decision regarding the Ayodhya Land Dispute in maximum 8 months.

He claimed, "There is enough proof provided to the court that the mosque was built after destroying the temple."

"This case has been dragged by some people for their own benefits but this time I am sure that SC will give the verdict soon," he added.

12:42 August 06

Nirmohi Akhara lays full claim on disputed site

Nirmohi Akhara laid full claim to the core disputed 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid land saying it had been under its possession and the Akhara was also in full control of its management.

The counsel read out the written submission filed by those who opposed the Akhara's claims of mandatory injunctions.
Nirmohi Akhara claims that Muslims stopped praying at Babri Masjid in 1934 and abandoned the "structure" in December 1949.
In 1855 when there was a division the outer portion was given to Nirmohi Akhara. One of the findings is that there is no starting point to determine the time of division says the CJI.

"We have staked our claims since 1934. No namaz has been offered there."

11:56 August 06

Nirmohi Akhara begins argument for possession of inner courtyard

Senior Counsel Sushil Kumar Jain, Nirmohi Akhara's advocate, begins his argument. His suit is for possession of inner courtyard only.

Nirmohi Akhara claims that the undisputed structures in the outer courtyard belong to akhara.

"There is no separate access to main temple areas which was claimed by the Muslims. No Muslims even attempted to enter at least since 1934. Hindus were allowed to enter and worship."

"The Muslim sides have admitted that last prayer was offered at the mosque on Dec 16, 1959. Till 1934, they were offering regular prayer and after that, even Friday prayers were not offered."

10:56 August 06

No audio/video recording or live streaming of the case

Supreme Court turned down plea seeking live streaming or audio/video recording of the day-to-day proceedings in the Ayodhya dispute case saying it was not feasible now.

The plea was filed by former BJP leader and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue K.N. Govindacharya
Govindacharya, in his petition, said, "This case is a matter of national importance. There are crores of persons, including the petitioner, who want to witness proceedings before this court, but cannot do the same due to the present norms of the Supreme Court."

09:34 August 06

Ayodhya Dispute: 'Janmasthan' being a juridical person discussed on Day 3

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed.

"Let us begin the hearing," said a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement.

16:08 August 09

Day-to-day hearings will continue, reiterates CJI

Litigant Mahant Dharam Das said the proceedings must go on everyday

Reiterating that hearings will continue on a day-to-day basis, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi assured senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, counsel for Muslim parties including M Siddiq, that it would consider granting him mid-week break for preparing arguments.

Earlier in the day, Dhavan had objected to the five-days-a-week hearing, saying he will 'not be able to assist' the court if the hearing is 'rushed through'.

"It is not possible to assist the court if it is heard on all days of the week. This is the first appeal and the hearing cannot be rushed in this manner and I am put to torture," he told the bench.

13:09 August 09

Arguing in favour of 'Janmasthanam' being a legal person:

K Parasaran says:

A Hindu idol is considered as a juristic person and is capable of holding property as a legal person.

The concept of idol worship came only to enable concentration, however what is important is the deity and not the image.

The deity is treated as a living being and is considered as the master of the house.

12:41 August 09

Senior advocate K Parasaran on behalf of deity Ram Lalla Virajmaan says:

Bench begins hearing the submissions of Parasaran.

The apex court had on Thursday asked the counsel for the deity, which itself has been made a party to the case, as to how the 'Janmasthanam' (birth place of deity) can be regarded as a "juristic person" having stakes as a litigant in the case.

The apex court had said on the third day of the hearing that so far as Hindu deities were concerned, they have been legally treated as juristic person which can hold properties and institute, defend and intervene in lawsuits.

The bench, however, had asked Parasaran as to how 'Janamsthanam' can file the case in the land dispute as a party.

The law suit filed by the deity in the Ayodhya case has also made the birth place of Lord Ram as co-petitioner and has sought claim over the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land at Ayodhya where the structure was razed on December 6, 1992.

11:58 August 09

Senior Advocate K Parasaran says there is no issue in daily hearings and will abide by whatever the court decides.

11:03 August 09

Dhavan demands solution over 5-day hearing, CJI responds

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan:

"If the hearing is 5-days a week then it's inhuman and we won't be able to assist the court.

Hearing can’t be rushed through. I'll be forced to leave this case."

CJI Ranjan Gogoi responds, "We have heard your grievance, we'll inform you soon."

10:59 August 09

5-day hearing in a week is 'inhuman'

Rajiv Dhavan, counsel of the Muslim parties says that there is a rumour that the court will sit all five days to hear the case.

He raises objection to five days hearing.

10:46 August 09

Fourth day of hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case

Hearing begins in Supreme Court: It is the 4th day of the day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case

16:01 August 08

Senior advocate K Parasaran on the issue of Janmasthan being a judicial person

"Janmasthan need not be the exact spot but can also mean the surrounding areas. The whole area is the Janmasthan."

'There is no dispute that it is the 'Janmasthan' of Lord Ram. Both Hindu and Muslim side calls disputed area Janmasthan."

A judicial person is a non-human entity which is authorised by law with duties and rights as a legal person and having a distinct identity.

15:36 August 08

Justice SA Bobde on continuing wrong doctrine

“Placing of an idol may be a completed act but stopping a person from performing his prayer is a continuing wrong.”

Continuing wrong: Law which states that a cause of action accumilates when the wrong is committed, not when its effects continue to be felt in the future.

15:09 August 08

Justice SA Bobde posing questions to K Parasaran

Justice SA Bobde posing questions to K Parasaran on what a continuing wrong is.

Senior advocate K Parasaran qoutes from a judgement- If the wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by the wrongful act continues, then it is a continuing wrong.

14:33 August 08

Senior advocate K Parasaran continues with his submissions

Senior advocate K Parasaran- Suit no 3 and 4 were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation and the Court had passed a decree only with respect to Suit no 1. The continuing wrong should be from the date of occurrence. The running of time does not stop till declaration.

14:12 August 08

Bench reassembles post lunch.

The bench reassembles for hearing of Ayodhya dispute. Senior advocate K Parasaran continues with his submissions.

12:51 August 08

Bench rises for lunch

Hearing on Ayodhya case to continue after lunch.

12:31 August 08

Issue of Janmasthan being a juridical person would be addressed later

Senior advocate K Parasaran- The right to worship can be invoked under the provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

The issue of Janmasthana being a juridical person would be addressed later as Senior advocate K Parasaran has reverted to his submissions.

11:52 August 08

The Bench discusses about Janmasthan's status as a juridical person

Senior advocate K Parasaran- The deity was not made a party when the property was attached by an order of the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC and when civil court granted injunction. There is a temple 300 yards away which is known as the Janmasthan Temple.

Justice Ashok Bhushan- Can "asthan" be a juridical person? Idol can be a juristical person but can a place or Janmasthan be one?

Senior advocate K Parasaran- Presence of an idol isn't the only test for determination of a legal person.

Justice SA Bobde- The Uttarakhand High Court has said that a particular river is a juristic person.

Justice DY Chandrachud- Janmasthan is worshipped due to the belief that Lord Ram was born there. So can a source of worship be the benchmark for deciding whether something is a juristic person?

CJI- Mr. Parasaran you can answer the queries of the bench in your own way while you proceed with your submissions.

11:30 August 08

SC proceeds with submissions of Senior advocate K Parasaran

Senior advocate K Parasaran, lawyer for 'Ram Lalla Virajman'- ‘Janmasthan’ need not be the exact spot but can also mean the surrounding areas. The whole area is the 'Janmasthan'. There is no dispute that it is the 'Janmasthan' of Lord Ram. Both Hindu and Muslim side calls disputed area Janmasthan.

10:58 August 08

The bench assembles for hearing Ayodhya dispute case

The bench has assembled for hearing Ayodhya dispute case for day 3.

Rajeev Dhawan- Suit 3 and 5 are at loggerheads and if one is heard the other has to go.

K Prasaran makes his submissions in respect to cause of action and limitation.

19:21 August 07

Bring evidence to establish possession: SC to Nirmohi Akhara

Mahant Dharam Das on the court proceedings

The Supreme Court today asked the Nirmohi Akhara as to whether it has got any revenue records and oral evidence to establish its possession over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed site in Ayodhya.

A five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked senior advocate Sushil Jain, representing Nirmohi Akhara, that since it was now dealing with the issue of possession, the Hindu body will have to "establish" its case.

"Now, we are dealing with the possession. You have to establish the possession. If you have any revenue record in your favour then it is a very good piece of evidence in your favour," said the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The Akhara has been seeking management and proprietary rights over the disputed site on various grounds including that it was under its possession since time immemorial and it has the status of 'shebaitship' of the deity.

16:20 August 07

Hearing ends for the day

Bench rises for the day, hearing to resume tomorrow.

16:01 August 07

'Wrong snapped on appointment of receiver'

Senior advocate K Parasaran for 'Ram Lalla' said that the wrong regarding the placing of idols was snapped when the court passed the judicial order.

He added that a receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong.

Justice Bobde then asked whether the idols are carbon dated.

Justice Chandrachud asked, "If idols were placed before December 29 1949, then how did they come to Ram Chabutra after the attachment?"

15:32 August 07

'Faith of devotees evidence that Ram was born in Ayodhya'

Senior advocate K Parasaran for 'Ram Lalla', said that at least three instances in the Valmiki Ramayana showed that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya.

However, he added that it is hard to prove where exactly Lord Ram was born, but that the faith of millions of devotees is itself evidence of the same.

To this, Justice Bobde asked whether such a question regarding place of birth of a Prophet or God had arisen before any court in the past.

Parasaran replied that he was not sure and would have to check.

15:18 August 07

SC proceeds with submissions of deity Ram Lalla

SC finds Nirmohi Akhara ill-prepared on oral, documentary evidence to establish claim; proceeds with submissions of deity Ram Lalla.

Senior advocate K Prasaran for deity 'Ram Lalla' starts advancing submissions in the Ayodhya case.

15:03 August 07

CJI asks for oral and documentary evidence

CJI Ranjan Gogoi asks Sushil Kumar Jain, the lawyer for Nirmohi Akahara- In the next two hours, we would like to see the oral and documentary evidence.

Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud- Show us the original documents.

Sushil Jain- Documents are quoted in Allahabad (HC) Judgment.

14:11 August 07

Bench reassembles after lunch

The bench reassembles for hearing of Ayodhya dispute.

CJI to Sushil Jain- Do it in your own way. But we would like to see the documents and oral evidence in the next two hours.

13:15 August 07

Hearing to continue after lunch

CJI- We will come back after lunch and then present the facts. Your statements are here and there.

13:10 August 07

SC asked about the status of possession

SC asks Nirmohi Akhara for documentary evidence to prove its possession.

CJI- Do you have oral or documentary proof, revenue records, of possession of Ramjanmabhoomi before attachment.

Nirmohi Akhara: A dacoity happened in 1982 & they lost records.

12:04 August 07

Sushil Jain and Justice Bobde discuss on limitation period

Sushil Jain: Management's right to immovable property has also been taken away. The property after attachment cannot take my management rights.

Justice Chandrachud: Section 142 of the Limitation Act will not allow performing of religious ceremonies.

Justice Bobde: If you do not have possession over property you cannot perform puja.

Constitution bench asks about the argument of the limitation period.

Sushil Jain is persistent that the limitation period hasn't started.

Justice Bobde- There was no such mention, how are you going to establish this argument?

CJI- You should come prepared!

11:34 August 07

The Constitution bench assembled

The Constitution bench has assembled.

Mr Sushil Kumar Jain appearing for Nirmohi Akhara hands over a copy of the findings of the court on limitation.

Mr Jain- My intention is to make a distinction between the limitation period and cause of action.

CJI- Your argument that limitation period hasn't commenced and therefore you have the right to file suit it correct. We consider it. Proceed with your arguments.

Rajeev Dhawan- I need a copy of reports which Sushil Jain has cited.

The suit is covered by Art 47 of Limitation Act 1908. The property was attached by an order of the Magistrate under Sec. 145 CrPC. The period of limitation commences running only after final order is passed under Sec 145. However the interim order of Magistrate was pending, hence the cause of action did not arise, submits Mr Jain.

Mr. Dhavan intervenes and says that Mr Jain is referring to SCR, a copy of which has not been given to them.

CJI- Whatever is being referred by Mr Jain should be handed over to the other party as well.

11:12 August 07

Hearing in the case has started in SC

Hearing in the case has started in Supreme Court. It is the 2nd day of the day-to-day hearing in the case.

16:41 August 06

Mahant Dharmadas reacting on Ayodhya hearing in SC

Mahant Dharmadas speaking to ETV Bharat

Mahant Dharmadas expressed his views post the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid case hearing in Supreme court.

16:11 August 06

Hearing concludes for the day

Hearing concludes for the day, Nirmohi Akhara to resume its submissions tomorrow.

16:07 August 06

They are examining if the Nirmohi Akhara filed the petition within the limitation period or not.

Sushil jain says that limitation period has not started

16:06 August 06

Dispossession has to be voluntary whereas attachment is an involuntary act, remarks Justice Chandrachud.

15:50 August 06

Justice Bobde questions Mr Jain

Justice Bobde questions Mr Jain “How can you invoke article 47 when you don not have a final order?

From the dates specified in the article. The date is the date of the final order. If there is no final order then how will the time run?”

“For my suit the limitation has not begun. I can file the suit even if the limitation has not started”, Mr Jain

I am invoking article 142 for possession of immovable property.

Hence I am within limitation, submits Mr Jain.

15:22 August 06

SC will take maximum 8 weeks to give its verdict, claims Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay expects that SC will be able to give a decision regarding the Ayodhya Land Dispute in maximum 8 months.

He claimed, "There is enough proof provided to the court that the mosque was built after destroying the temple."

"This case has been dragged by some people for their own benefits but this time I am sure that SC will give the verdict soon," he added.

12:42 August 06

Nirmohi Akhara lays full claim on disputed site

Nirmohi Akhara laid full claim to the core disputed 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid land saying it had been under its possession and the Akhara was also in full control of its management.

The counsel read out the written submission filed by those who opposed the Akhara's claims of mandatory injunctions.
Nirmohi Akhara claims that Muslims stopped praying at Babri Masjid in 1934 and abandoned the "structure" in December 1949.
In 1855 when there was a division the outer portion was given to Nirmohi Akhara. One of the findings is that there is no starting point to determine the time of division says the CJI.

"We have staked our claims since 1934. No namaz has been offered there."

11:56 August 06

Nirmohi Akhara begins argument for possession of inner courtyard

Senior Counsel Sushil Kumar Jain, Nirmohi Akhara's advocate, begins his argument. His suit is for possession of inner courtyard only.

Nirmohi Akhara claims that the undisputed structures in the outer courtyard belong to akhara.

"There is no separate access to main temple areas which was claimed by the Muslims. No Muslims even attempted to enter at least since 1934. Hindus were allowed to enter and worship."

"The Muslim sides have admitted that last prayer was offered at the mosque on Dec 16, 1959. Till 1934, they were offering regular prayer and after that, even Friday prayers were not offered."

10:56 August 06

No audio/video recording or live streaming of the case

Supreme Court turned down plea seeking live streaming or audio/video recording of the day-to-day proceedings in the Ayodhya dispute case saying it was not feasible now.

The plea was filed by former BJP leader and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue K.N. Govindacharya
Govindacharya, in his petition, said, "This case is a matter of national importance. There are crores of persons, including the petitioner, who want to witness proceedings before this court, but cannot do the same due to the present norms of the Supreme Court."

09:34 August 06

Ayodhya Dispute: 'Janmasthan' being a juridical person discussed on Day 3

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed.

"Let us begin the hearing," said a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement.

Intro:Body:Conclusion:

Last Updated : Aug 9, 2019, 6:47 PM IST

For All Latest Updates

TAGGED:

Ayodhya dispute

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Copyright © 2024 Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.