Thread by @TheLeaflet_in

Day 9

#AyodhyaHearing

Bench has assembled.

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan resumes his arguments for that deity (Ram Lalla).

CSV: High Court having held that the suits are barred by time could not have granted the relief it granted. This is my submission. Relief granted to waqf board and Nirmohi Akhara is nothing contemplated in any law.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV now citing cases in support of submission that if hindus are having the belief and faith to worship the place of birth, it should be treated as religious worship.

#AyodhyaHearing

citing AIR 1940 Mad 41 CSV submits that there cannot be any adverse possession of property that is not alienable. CSV submits that there could not have been any adverse possession of a property that is res nullius or res extra commercium.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: Hindus always expressed their desire to worship, there cannot be adverse possesion. Right of adverse possesion is only for property that is alienable and not res nullius or res extra commercium.

CSV: Only property that is voluntarily capable of being alienated can be covered by adverse possession.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: Have you cited any decisions to the effect that property if a deity in inalienable?

CSV: I have, 1999 (5) SCC 50, I'll read that again.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: In case of a lunatic, can there be no adverse possesion? If he is nit able to alienate property?

J. Nazeer: And what about if the property is a waqf, it vests with god, can there be adverse possesion?

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: In Ismail Faruqui case, it has been held that law of Limitation would apply on waqf property.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: ur argument is founded on premise that property owned by an idol is inalienable, impartable, so any person grabs property cannot hold it by adverse possession. Title can pass only with respect to property that is alienable&not property that is not alienable.

CSV: Yes

J..Bobde: So provision of Limitation that suit will be barred after Limitation period is not applicable?

CSV: That question would not arise.

J. Gogoi: What if your argument is not accepted.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: My second argument is that temple is always there & a temple if it was there it is res extra commercium. ......

CSV: By putting a structure over it, which is illegal in my view, in any case title cannot be claimed.If there was a temple& people have been worshipping i dont have to prove anything.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. DYC: I'll need clarification. Your first submission was that the property was itself a deity & so inalienable. keeping that aside completely, your second submission that if there was a temple it remained res extra commercium, what is the authority in this?

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: My argument is my lords that if there has been a temple, a deity there then it cannot be destroyed. It will always remain there.

J. DYC: Isn't it going back to your first argument?

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: No, this is independent. The place was sanctified by the temple being there and the Idols being installed and it remains to be sanctified.

J. DYC: Are there any decisions on this?

CSV: Yes, i will cite.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: Brother Nazeer's question is that if a property is voluntarily dedicated to God, can such property be inalienable? Can a trustee sell such property?

CSV: In Hindu Law, a shebait or a trustee cannot alienate the property, in mohemadan law position is not the same.

J. Bobde: We will come back to this, there is a difference between what brother nazeer is asking.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: Idol cannot be alienated but property of deity can be. There are 3 categories, first is idol itself, second is property that is abode of the idol and third property of idol. Only the third is alienable.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: There is no comparison between hinduism and islam. Islam does not talk about idols and thats why perhaps privy council had held.
And in a sense there may be divinity in it but an idol is property with divine features.

CSV: I am not sure if an idol could be property.

J. Bobde: Not in that sense, but it is corporeal, it can be seen.

CSV: yes.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: The comparison between islamic law and hindu law is misleading.

CSV: They are not comparing in this judgement.

J.Bobde: No, what we are doing. The submission is wrong to start with. It is misleading.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: Ok i will not refer to Ismail Faruqui then.

CJI: Mr. Vaidyanathan, continue with other cases.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: (citing AIR 1959 SC 951) If i am right in the submission that the place of birth itself is a deity, that is permanent, character cannot be altered, by putting a mosque, its character cannot change.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: i have two submission, first that the court has a duty to ensure that trust property is protected&second that i have the locus to file the suit which has been objected to by Nirmohi Akhara and waqf board. In essence i am espousing the cause of the devotees.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: When a dam is put up there is always some temple gets submerged, the idol is taken and put somewhere else. But it is the case where the place is not having such divinity, in this case the place is having that divinity.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: This argument won't be available in road widening. U see people of all religions put up places of worship on road.

CSV: Yes my lords but such places are not having such divinity.
Bobde: But it must be pointed out, be careful that your argument is not applied there.

CJI: Mr. Vaidyanathan, my brother is entitled to lighter moments.

#AyodhyaHearing

J.Bobde: Is church treated as a juridical person?

CSV: Yes.

J. Bobde: Show us those precedents. And what is treated as juridical, the building or the congregation?

CSV: I believe it the place where the Cross is put. I'll show precedent.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: (Citing AIR 1953 All 552) submits that idol is not necessary for worship in Hinduism. An idol indicates the deity, the worship performed is really to the deity.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV:Notwithstanding the fact that their suits have been rejected on Limitation, in my suit it is the relief that is given to them. My submission is that if they failed to establish their suit, they are entitled to no relief. By mere section 110, you dont get title.

#AyodhyaCase

Note: "they" referred in above tweet are Nirmohi Akhara and Waqf Board. Section 110 is of Indian Evidence Act.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: (Referring to reliance by High Court on Section 110 Evidence Act, to divide the property between 3 parties) This is a proposition unknown to law and totally not supported by 110.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: I had referred to Gazetteers during my arguments. I am now citing cases to establish evidentiary value of Gazetteers. citing 1966 Supp SCR 436

#AyodhyaHearing

Regarding Gazetteers CSV submits that they can be relied upon in matters of history since they are official records compiled by experienced officials and therefore van be relied upon in matters of public history.

#AyodhyaHearing

Bench rises for the lunch. Hearing to resume at 2 pm.

#AyodhyaHearing

Post lunch session.

Bench has assembled.

#AyodhyaCase
#AyodhyaHearing

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan resumes his arguments for the deity (Ram Lalla)

CSV: One of their arguments is that the 1885 judgment acts as res judicata but deity was not made a party there. Neither in Suit 3 nor Suit 5, the deity is made a party.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: My lords had asked about the church. Churches are different in ecclesiastical church. Churches can be Episcopal. There is spiritual power and temporal power. The episcopa, head of the church, is having spritual power but the temporal power is divine.

#AyodhyaHearing

J.Gogoi: We have heard your arguments now.

CSV: I'll just summarise in 5 mins. I just want to show the prayer.

#AyodhyaHearing

CSV: I have scrupulously avoided going into any new material. The pilgrimage has been going on and the place is held important is to be seen from sufficient historical material available. I am making this caveat so that no new material should be placed.

CSV: There are 2-3 aspects i have not gone into but will be dealt. One is waqf. It is not a registered waqf. Secondly, the revenue records, one of the ld judges has found that there are interpolations, other judges have not relied.

CSV: Third, on 1885 suit being res judicata, idols were not party and suit was not filed in representative capacity. Fourth, regarding maintainability, since Nirmohi Akhara has objected to my suit, it is submitted that Nirmohi Akhara cannot take a stand contrary to the deity.

CSV: Lastly, though this is a first appeal, a full bench was constituted by the High Court. Normally even in ordinary matters in a first appeal my Lords will look at evidence and finding.

CSV: It is only in cases where my lords find that findings are so wrong that they cannot stand that my lords will interfere. In a matter like this my lords will be reluctant to interfere where findings are in my favour and i am supporting them.

CSV concludes.

#AyodhyaHearing

Senior advocate P N Mishra (PNM) commences arguments for Ram Lalla Virajman.

Mishra submits that Quran, Holy Prophet and Hadith also do not support the reasoning in once a mosque always a mosque.

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM: Second, i want to clarify upon the inscription referred to by Mr. Vaidyanathan and my lords were asking what is the relevance. It is relevant because the inscription was mentioning Janmabhumi.

#AyodhyaHearing

Confusion about page numbers of compilation referred to by PN Mishra. PN Mishra reading, bench stops him again.

CJI: where are you reading from?

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM: I will start by Atharva Ved to prove that there has been a temple. I will quote from Atharva Ved, Ramayan, Narsingh Puran, Skanda Puran.

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM Reading Atharva Ved and translation that Atharva Ved mentions there are 3 roads and 3 domes in Ayodhya.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Gogoi: All Documents you are relying upon is it on record?

PNM: Judicial notice has been taken and is relied upon by the High Court.

Nazeer J.: You are defendant no. 20 in suit 4. In your WS have you mentioned all this?

PNM: I'll read that.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. DYC: Judges throughout the judgment have said that genuineness of Ram having born in Ayodhya is not disputed, the site is disputed.

PNM: Yes that is there but it is being disputed about what i call janmabhumi.

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM: In Skanda Purana, exact location is given. (Reads Skanda Purana). First there is bath in Saryu, then we should go to Pindara and to its west is Janmasthan. There is no mention of a temple but it says bh visiting the place, by seeing the place of birth.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bhushan: What is period of compilation of Skanda Purana

PNM: It is said that it was told by Narada to Skanda, Son of Shiva& from there it was told to Sage Agast & was finally compiled by Ved Vyas. There is a misconception that Ved Vyas wrote all puranas, he was just editor.

J. Bhushan: When did it come into light in published form.

PNM: It is believed to have been discovered during Gupta Period. The tradition has been oral.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bhushan: See it is necessary to know the period of compilation because you are relying on it to show exact location so it becomes relevant.

#AyodhyaHearing

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan interjects (from other side)

Dhawan: It was first compiled in 8th century in Nepal. If my Ld. Friend takes recourse of Skanda Purana we also have to take into account that river Ghagra has changed its course two times.

Dhavan: So if Skanda Purana is being relied upon then we are assuming that the river did not change course since 8th century.

J. DYC: If you are relying on religious texts for argument on faith its different, but if you are establishing existence of temple at the place, please bear in mind that more objective evidence is required.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. DYC: If you are relying on religious texts for argument on faith its different, but if you are establishing existence of temple at the place, please bear in mind that more objective evidence is required.

J. Bobde: Show us the location from any map that is on record.

PNM: One map was exhibited in Hans Bakkers book, Ayodhya.

J. Bobde: Then show us.

CJI: Mr. Mishra, faith is not into question. What is in dispute is location. What we need is objective parameters. Reading out from scriptures will not do, show us a map or evidence for location.

CJI: You can show it later, if you cannot show it now

PNM: I will.

#AyodhyaHearing

PNM reading Sri NarsinghPuranam

CJI: Where is this in the judgment.

PNM: It is quoted, in hindi and translation.

CJI: Show us.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: Mr. Mishra, this whole exercise is to find out the location of RJB. What is the location of this site.

PNM: It is better to go through the contemporary Evidence. First book referred was of Wiliiam Finch.

#AyodhyaHearing

CJI: Mr. Mishra that has been dealt with, if there is something else, mention that.

PNM: In Ain I Akbari, Abul Fazal has written that Ram's birthplace was in Ramkot and there was a festival on Navami.

J.Bobde: Has the High Court mentioned it?

PNM: yes

Bobde: Show us

#Ayodhya

CJI: PN Mishra: You argue your case in day or two and in meantime you prepare a chart as to what you want to argue and what you rely upon.

#AyodhyaHearing

CJI: Next, Mr. V N Sinha.

V N Sinha starting now: I am appearing for Defendant All India Hindu Mahasabha in Suit 5

#AyodhyaHearing

VNS: Once Territory of Oudh was annexed by British in 1856 and territory continued to be so and became nazul land and remains so. If this is nazul property, any structure can be made with grant of land by the sovereign.

J..Bhushan: Mr. Sinha, construction was prior.

VNS: Title to the structure was also annexed by british.

J. Bhushan: You are wrong, if Oudh was annexed it would not mean the structures were annexed too.

VNS: From the Documents i have.

CJI: Show us the Documents.

#AyodhyaHearing

VNS: I have one annual register of History and Politics.

J. Bobde: Is it exhibited?

VNS: (Silent)

J. Bobde: Please dont refer to any thing that is not exhibited.

VNS: Those documents are referred in the book.

#AyodhyaHearing

CJI: What is this Mr. Sinha. You are citing a book that cites a Document on record.

VNS: My lords i did not expect that my turn would come.

CJI: Is any appeal arising out of Suit 5 ready?

#ayodhyadisputehearing

CJI: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, you are in suit 1? plz argue.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar starts

RK: I am for the plaintiff in suit 1, after death of Gopal Visharad, son was replaced. I am also Defendant in Suit 4. My father when he filed the suit in 1950 used to worship at this place.

RK: My lords may see the plaint. But the translation is not good. My lords may permit me to read in Hindi.

CJI: How will this happen. How will my brother J. Nazeer understand, how will I understand?

#ayodhyadisputehearing

J. Bhushan: You may read english version and point out where translation is not correct.

#ayodhyadisputehearing

Bench has rises for the day.

Hearing to continue tomorrow.

#AyodhyaHearing