Thread by @TheLeaflet_in

Day 14

#AyodhyaHearing

A five-judge bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan & Abdul Nazeer has assembled.

PN Mishra continuing his arguments.

PN Mishra is clarifying the issue regarding contradictory directions being shown in Map handed by Mr. Mishra as compared to others.

PNM: First time anyone saw inscription on the wall was first in 1946 when the magistrate went and it has been accepted that inscriptions were placed again in 1934. So these inscriptions are placed in 1934.

Mr. P N Mishra reading out observations of High Court with regard to missing pages of Tuzk-i-Babari or Babarnama. He submits that only pages regarding 3 days in 935 Hijri (1528 AD) is missing and the inscriptions indicate that foundation of mosque was laid in 935 Hijri.

PN Mishra is also laying stress that in Babarnama there is no person referred to as Mir Baqi, while other people by name of Baqi are mentioned, noone by name of Mir Baqi is mentioned.

J. Bobde: What is your case? is there a positive case or just that Babar did not demolish the temple and constructed a mosque.

PNM: My case is positive. They amended their case to delivery of possesion.

CJI: Did you not challenge the order allowing amendment.

J. Bobde: We are also going to consider this that what happens when the subject matter of a suit is destroyed, we want to know that whether the amended prayer clauses (added after demolition in 1992) can be granted.

J. Bobde: Mr. Mishra what is your theory?

PNM: They filed a suit seeking that our temple is mosque. Their case is based on that Babar built it. For waqf by user it has to be shown that since a long time it was used as mosque, they need not show who was waqif, but they have taken a specific stand that Babar was waqif, so

i am disputing their case.

J. Bobde: First listen to the question, we understand that you want to dispute their case that Babar built a mosque but the fact is that the disputed structure has some trappings of a mosque and some features of a temple. What is your theory.

PNM: I will show the account of Niccolo Mannuci who was commander of Aurangzeb.

J. Bobde: Aurangzeb had an Italian commander?

PNM: Yes.

Bobde: We want to hear your positive case as to how this structure came into existence. If you have any theory.

PNM: It was by Aurangzeb, Manucci records that Aurangzeb destroyed 4 famous hindu structures.

J. Bobde: How will you prove it was Aurangzeb. Would you like to list these reasons with evidence that it was Aurangzeb?

PNM: My lords my duty as defendant is to dispute their case.

PNM: In Ain i Akbari, Abul Fazal has mentioned to Ramkot as being birthplace of mosque.

J. DYC: Does Ain I Akbari mention any mosques?

PNM: No, it mentions only 3 graves bit no mosque. This Ain-i-Akbari was written by Abul Fazal upon the insistence of Babar's grandson Akbar

PNM: second Document is Humayun Nama written by Gulbadan Begum, daughter of Babar, which also does not mention any mosque.

PNM: Third document is Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri and it also does not mention any mosque.

PN Mishra was reading the account of Niccolo Manucci, when Dr. Dhawan interjects: My lords, let me point it out for my Ld. friend to answer is that this account of Mannuci was not exhibited before the High Court, it was relied upon in oral submissions.

PN Mishra points that there was a specific order passed by the High Court to the effect that these historical documents referred by him were admitted under Section 57 of Evidence Act.

Bench rises for the lunch.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

Post lunch session. Bench has assembled. Hearing resumed.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

Mishra continuing to read his submissions as recorded by the High Court regarding non mention of Babari Masjid in Ain I Akbari

#AyodhyaHearing

J. DYC: Are any mosques mentioned at any places in Ain I Akbari?

PNM: In other places, but not in Ayodhya.

J. Bobde: Which places, show.

PNM: My lords have asked question that i did not expect, i will tell tomorrow.

#AyodhyaHearing

PN Mishra starts referring to book titled Mughal India.

J. DYC: Is this book available on evidence volumes.

PNM: This book was allowed by High Court order, i told earlier, duri g arguments.

Dr. Dhawan: My lords this book was published in 2010 and several pages were published, it was not placed.

PNM: The book was published later but at that time i had referred to some pages.

Dr. Dhawan: This takes us back to Section 57.

CJI: You will have to show us that order

Having concluded his arguments on the issue as to whether Babar had built the mosque or not, PN Mishra continues his submissions on Islamic Law and its application to the present Suits.

PNM: why have they said in their plaint that there was a battle between emperor of Ayodhya and Babar.

PNM: As per Islamic law, this place was Darul Islam and in Darul Islam when a reigning Muslim ruler is defeated by another Muslim king, land is not taken, only revenue is allowed. Ibrahim Lodi was ruling Oudh so it was Darul Islam.

PNM: Second is Darul Haq where a non muslim ruler is there, then the lands are taken.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

J. DYC: So Mr. Mishra you are saying that this territory was ruled by a Muslim ruler and so that situation will apply, what is the consequence?

PNM: I will impeach the findings of HC that Babar has been said to be absolute sovereign and he could do what he did.

J. Bobde: Mr. Mishra, there was no change in regime, a muslim ruler continued from another, how does it make the mosque invalid.

PNM: Because my lords for making a mosque the waqif should have been the owner of the land, Babar by conquering does not become owner.

CJI: We understand your point we will deal with it tomorrow. What is your argument on Islamic law, deal with it briefly.

PNM: My lords in Islamic Law there is no concept of Limitation. Since rule of Babar till annexation of Oudh in 1856 there was Islamic Law so there could not have been a question of Limitation.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

CJI: What is the revenue record you wanted to show where you said there was large scape forgery? where is that? Show us so that we will read it today.

PNM: It is in the judgment, (refers to a page)

CJI: Where is the translation and show it in exhibit.

PNM: I will show it tomorrow.

CJI: No we want to see it today. Do one thing, take 10 minutes, find out and give details to courtmaster.

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow.