Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan submitted that "there has never been any adverse possession in this case. Hindus have always expressed their desire to worship at this place".
He submitted that question of adverse possession will arise only if the property is alienable. The property itself being birthplace of Ram and a deity, it is res extra commercium. Thus, he said there is no question of anyone putting up a mosque there & claiming adverse possession.
Mr. CS Vaidyanathan, in reference to the impugned Allahabad High Court Judgement, said that the since the Waqf is not a registered Waqf, and their suits have been held as time-barred, plus most of the findings by Allahabad High Court are in favour of Ram Lalla, he questioned how the High Court granted relief to Waqf.
Mr. Vaidyanathan concluded his arguments stating that they are against the relief given by the Allahabad High Court.
Senior Advocate PN Mishra commenced his arguments on behalf of Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti (defendant no. 20 in Suit No. 4), saying that ‘once a mosque always a mosque’ was not said by Prophet Muhammad, it was said much later by Prophet Hanif.
Mr. Mishra in his submissions touched upon inscriptions and the historical account of William Finch which were already referred and discussed earlier by Mr. CS Vaidyanathan earlier.
The Bench told Mr. Mishra to straightaway go to those aspects which have not yet been covered. He was told by the bench that if anything is left out or omitted then he is most welcome to state it.
Mr. Mishra submitted that in Skanda Purana the exact location of Janmabhoomi has been mentioned, he said that it was written prior to construction of the temple since it does not mention about anything about a temple, it just mentions about the Janmabhoomi.
Mr. Mishra tries to established the position of Janmabhoomi in relation with the nearby river.
Mr. Rajeev Dhawan interrupted saying that rivers change course over the time and going by Mr. Mishra’s argument we will have to assume that the river has exactly the same course since 8th century.
The bench told Mr. Mishra that relying on religious texts is a matter of faith, and the faith has not been objected, what the court really needs are objective parameters to decide upon.
Mr. Mishra submitted that the said that the High Court had relied upon the said Purana, when asked by bench to show where it has been referred he sought more time to do so.
Mr. Mishra further submitted that according to Justice Agarwal the mosque was not built by Babur and that as per his informed guess it was built by Aurangzeb.
Justice Chandrachud told Mr. Mishra that it is not relevant that who built the mosque - Babur or somebody else, whether there was a mosque, that's what is relevant.
Bench told Mr. Mishra that they will hear him later, when he is more prepared and asked him to prepare a note and a chart for references.
The Apex Court then moved on to VN Sinha who appeared for Hindu Mahasabha (Suit No. 5 Defendant 11).
Mr. Sinha submitted that once the territory of Awadh got annexed to the British empire, all structures raised on the soil also got annexed to Britain.
Justice Ashok Bhushan objected saying that it is incorrect to say so, territory annexed means sovereignty is lost, it doesn’t mean all structures in the territory are vested with the empire.
Not having the relevant materials to present, Mr. Sinha said that he did not think his turn to argue would come today, he thought he would be asked to argue at the very end.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked if anybody in suit no. 5 was ready to argue.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar commenced his arguments for Gopal Singh who died in 1986 and his son has been substituted (Plaintiff in Suit no. 1, Defendant no. 1 in suit no. 4 and defendant no. 1 in suit 5).
Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that his case is that he is a worshipper, who wants to do darshan and prays for permanent injunction against certain defendants who are not letting him do so.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar will continue his submissions tomorrow, 22nd August 2019.
Picture Source :
