Thread by @TheLeaflet_in

Day 11

#AyodhyaHearing

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

Jain: My lords had put a question, I'll answer but the matter is serious and I'll need a little time.

CJI: We are looking for pin pointing arguments.

Jain: My lords just give the same courtesy as given in Suit 5.

#AyodhyaCase

CJI: No Mr. Jain you have extensively argued on Limitation already, you have to argue on oral and documentary evidence, for that you take a day, it won't take a week.

CJI: And firstly you have made a case in your WS, now you want to aryue against your own case.

Jain: My lords may plz look at the WS again.

#AyodhyaCase

J. DYC: Mr. Jain, Of course we are hearing you but documentary evidence has been shown by Mr. Vaidyanathan and so you supplement anything that is left.

Jain: My ld. friend has shown those evidence in his way, i want to emphasise, i have prepared a note.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: I say i filed my suit on basis of charge and management and not on basis of title. I am claiming only shebait rights.

Reads WS in Suit 5 where NA has stated that Plaintiff 3 in Suit 5, Devki Nandan Agarwal is not a worshipper and can't represent deities as next friend.

Jain: In their plaint they are not claiming just right of worship like visharad or like us inner courtyard but they are claiming everything.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: I am claiming rights only as a shebait and not as a title holder.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: Idol of Lord Sri Ram is not installed in the Ram Janma Bhumi Ayodhya but in the temple known as Ramjanmabhumi.

J. Bobde: What is this line? aren't both the same.

Jain: Temple is different and Ayodhya is very large.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. Bobde: It is the same as suit temple.
Jain: My lords allow me ...

J.Bobde: We are asking you, what is there to allow.

Jain: My lords will not appreciate unless i read the plaint.

J. Bobde: Ok. Keep this question in mind.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: Sumitra Bhawan was acquired by kalyan singh govt and demolished in 5 days. They want to build toilets there, that is the reason in notice.

J. Bhushan: We are not concerned with that.

Jain: We are, because they (in suit 5) are claiming that too.

Jain: I cannot say when it was divested or given. The outer courtyard had other structures which were equally worshipped and was in my possession.

J. DYC: Mr. Jain when a person claims as a shebait it can only claim rights for the deity but cannot take stand adverse to the deity. When you ask the dismissal of suit by the deity, you are taking a position adverse to deity.

Jain: My Lords..

#AyodhyaCase

J. DYC: One minute, suppose if the suit of deity is dismissed, you cannot maintain Your suit then. You are a shebait, a mutawalli.

Jain: My Lords, hypothetically if i file a suit as next friend to Balaji, supreme court says that possesion cannot be given to next friend. I am not against Plaintiff 1 and 2 but 3 representing them.

J. DYC: You are disputing plaintiff 2 also.

Jain: Thats my plea my lords, all a layman can do is take a plea.

J. Bobde: Are you not saying Suit 5 should be dismissed.

Jain: I am saying Plaintiff 3 cannot maintain.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: Their position is that in 1949 deities have been shifted, that is not my case. This plea is taken first time in 1989. How can i support that plea.The outer part of this temple was acquired and demolished, including birthplace of Lakshman Ji, for making toilets for tourists.

J. Bobde: How is it relevant to this case ?

Jain: Because they are claiming everything.

J.Bhushan: That has not been decreed, no one argued this.

Jain: they are claiming outside area also.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: My name is the only name that appears in Gazetteers and historical documents. Only i can represent Hindu side. I am not challenging plaintiffs 1 and 2, my case is that plaintiff 3 cannot maintain.

#AyodhyaCase

J. DYC: Your case is that you are in management of idols under Central Dome and that deities in outer courtyard are owned by you. You use the term own.

Jain: Owned word has also to be read in context of management. Evwrywhere i am claiming just management.

#AyodhyaCase

Jain: Next my lords the question my lords asked my friend, whether the swayambhu land is a juridical person or not. That plea i am entitled to take, because that is yet not clear.

J. Bobde: All right you are entitled.

Jain is showing pleadings to indicate what has been claimed as Ramjanmabhumi in Suit 5.

#AyodhyaCase

Jain submits that Justice Sharma had given the entire premises to plaintiffs in Suit 5 and that if the argument led by CS Vaidyanathan is to be accepted and entire decree is in suit 5, then they will end up having entire premises, both inside and outside.

Jain: So far as the word belonging is concerned there is a judgment of this court reported in AIR 1965 SC 1923.

#AyodhyaCase

J. DYC: Now most crucial part is to show us that you have been exercising shebait rights, so show us Documents related to that.

Jain: They have not alleged that i am not the shebait.

DYC: You show us documentary and oral evidence.

Jain: In the plaint they claim i am shebait but have not challenged my status as Shebait. They (plaintiff in Suit 5) should have come and supported me but no they want the land, that is the problem. We are fighting for traditions for centuries.

J. Bobde: Is their any documentary evidence stating you are a shebait, no? then show us oral evidence.

Jain: Yes oral, without denial.

#AyodhyaCase

Jain is reading out statements to indicate that Nirmohi Akhara had been in management of temples in ayodhya.

#AyodhyaHearing

J. DYC: Your statement says you had been performing worship at Ram Chabutra.

Jain: It means Ram Chabutra temple, i did not divide.

J. DYC: It is not so. read you have made a distinction between disputed temple and Ram Chabutra.

Jain: In oral examination things are not clearly recorded.

J. Nazeer: Mr. Jain this oral examination on Affidavit verified by an advocate is not the same as in witness box.

Jain: My client is poor.

J. Bobde: Aren't sadhus supposed to be poor, away from wealth?

Jain: 1982 my outer portion goes, in 91 my entire temple goes, my land my power is all gone.

Jain is reading out how statement given in the suit where the entire premises is being described and the performance of rites by Nirmohi Akhara.

J. Bobde: That Nihang Singh Fakir had any connection to you?

Jain: He was a bairagi.

J. Bobde: We are asking if he eas connected to you.

Jain: I do not know.

J. Bobde: So you did not install the idols that he did.

Jain: He installed a nishan, a flag.

J. Bobde: He did not install an image?

Jain: No, it was a flag.

Jain: Kalyan Singh govt. had acquired all property except sanctum sanctorum and Nirmohi Akhara filed a WP in High Court but during pendency of the same many structures were already demolished including Sumitra Bhawan.

Jain: Even after attachment we continued puja Because of the tradition, we were performing puja. After attachment of inner portion worship in outer portion continued.

J. Bhushan: Who is Dharam Das?

Jain: He is the one who commited dacoity in 1982,he was chela of Abhiram Das.

Jain: Since 1934 no muslims came to the place nor any namaz was held. This is the claim in suit 5 too but later they got this story of shifting of idol in 1949. He admits in his statement that he had not seen Documents of 145 proceedings.

J. Bobde: Why are you reading these evidence.

Jain: To show that i am the Shebait and that there was no dispute regarding this by Hindu Parties. None of the Hindu parties chose to cross examine me.

Bench rises for the lunch.

#AyodhyaCase

Post lunch session.

#AyodhyaCase

Bench has assembled.

Senior advocate SK Jain resumes his arguments for Nirmohi Akhara.

Jain: Difference between Suit No. 5 and my suit is not much. They also supported me. Two differences are that they are saying Babar constructed it, i am saying it has been a temple all throughout. Second is that they say temples were shifted inside in 1949, i do not say that.

Jain: Like agricultural land, owner here does not mean ownership in technical sense. It is certain rights that are given.

#AyodhyaCase

Jain: In Suit No. 5, they are all outsiders, in my suit they are all local people. In 2011 when the appeals came here i had given a written note stating that the dispute can be resolved if outsiders are removed. Locals do not dispute me.

#AyodhyaHearing

Jain: So far my right of shebait, my possesion, taking away of possesion, nothing is cross examined.

J. Bhushan: In fact they have relied upon your arguments.

Jain: Yes my lords, all they (plaintiff in suit 5) want is to oust me and my traditions.

#AyodhyaHearing

Bench rises for the day. Hearing to resume on Monday.

#ayodhyadisputehearing