Thread by @TheLeaflet_in

Day 21

#AyodhyaHearing

Bench has assembled.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan resumes his arguments for Sunni Waqf Board.

RD: I was on the cusp of the most important argument in Suit 3. Does the suit stand or falls. I have 3 submission.

#AyodhyaHearing

RD: 1st is the word "belonging to". We are extracting it from pleadings and we are saying that the word belonging to extends the Limitation. This does not belong to them. It is not a question of loose or crafty drafting but if it can ever be said to belong to them. It cannot.

RD: I'd like to begin with one judgment of public law. This is the All India Bank Employees' case. 1962 (3) SCR 269 and i am inviting the attention of my lords to page 290, which is applicable to the case.

#AyodhyaHearing

RD: My submission is this. Let us not interpret continuing wrong and possesion in such manner that it leads to rights to concomitant rights to more concomitant rights to grotesque.

RD: My Lord Justice Bobde had asked when does it (continuing wrong) snap.

J. Bobde: One thing there Dr. Dhavan. I asked when does it snap assuming that before it snaps it was continuing.

RD: Any right they got in nature of continuing wrong on 5.01.50 goes back to when? 22/23.12.1949. They have to prove their possession beyond that. What did they have 10 days? 10 days of possession? acts of 22/23rd were an illegality.

RD: Can on the basis of that illegality my lords can say that there was a continuing wrong?

RD: Now what was the wrong that the magistrate committed. In the pleadings, they say you have taken it away on 5th of january and give it now. There is a continuous wrong and by whom? by the magistrate? can you sue the magistrate? you cannot.

RD: Consider the consequences of this. Continuous wrong will not only take them to 1953 but till the suit continues. That is not the interpretation of continuing wrong.

RD: Nirmohi Akhara had been worshiping on Ram Chabutra in outer courtyard. They were never in inner courtyard. How do they come there? in 1949 by an illegal act. Can we go to magistrate and say give it to me you owe me a duty. The only duty he owes is to law.

Dr. Dhavan is again referring to the 1933 Judicial Commission verdict in the case of Sir Seth Hukum Chand vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh.

Next case being relied upon is Maharani Rajroop Koer and Syed Abdul Hussein (1880).

Dr. Dhavan now refers to State of Bihar vs. Deokaran Nenshi 1972 (2) SCC 890

Further reliance being placed on CWT vs. Suresh Seth 1981 (2) SCC 790

RD further refers to Maya Rani Punj Vs. CIT (1986) 1 SCC 445

Bench rises for the day.

#AyodhyaHearing