"Once he says he is Mahant of place of worship, he is legal representative of Math and automatically becomes representatives of Hindu worshippers"
Justice Bobde disputes the submission.
Title to property claimed by Hindus in 1885 suit same as in present suit.
Cause of action was right to construct temple in both cases.
Hence constructive res judicata applies, Nahpade.
The legal validity of title is determined by law of land. Once title is proved then, the governance of wakf will be based on wakf law.
It does not affect the character of mosque, Nizam Pasha.
Sr adv. K Parasaran commences rejoinder arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla.
worshipped in different forms in different modes in different temples, K Parasaran.
"My friend is here on reply to our reply. But his examples are out of context. We could also cite examples but Your Lordships specifically stopped us"
Parasaran responds to Dhavan; Says Dhavan gave an article to Bench which was not part of evidence.
"Give it back My Lord. Dont take it as part of record", Dhavan retorts.
It is a form which helps to think about God especially for a layperson, K Parasaran.
the physical manifestation of the deity sought to be worshipped, Parasaran.
Rejoinder arguments to be concluded by Thursday.
Rajeev Dhavan will start arguments in suit no. 4 on Friday morning.