Ayodhya case: Volley of questions by SC irks Muslim side

New Delhi, Oct 14 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Muslim side on Monday objected to a volley of questions targeting it by the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi hearing the Ayodhya title dispute which is in the last phase as the arguments will be wrapped up on October 17.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Sunni Waqf Board, told the bench, "You have never asked them (Hindu parties) a question, but directed all the questions to us. Perhaps, the bench should have asked questions to them."

He was replying to the judges' query on the right to pray for Hindus at the disputed site in 1880s.

Dhavan drew the court's attention to an important aspect in the case, he claimed, "There is no claim of title of the disputed site by Hindus till 1989. And, between 1885 to 1989, no claim on the title of the land has been made....our claim for possession is first, than their (Hindu parties) claim for title. In 1885 their claim for title was denied and till 1989 there was nothing in between."

He told the judges that the Hindu side claimed on adverse possession from 1934. "I have not lost title at all. Hindus have only exercised prescriptive right, but never title", he contended before the bench.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud told Dhavan to make arguments independent of 1885 suit. Dhavan insisted on his arguments in connection with 1885 suit, where a local court denied the permission to Mahant Raghubar Das to construct a temple at the disputed site.

Chandrachud said 'Ram Chabutra' and 'Sita Rasoi' was under the possession of Hindus. Dhavan replied it just gave them right to pray and not possession.

Justice S.A. Bobde queried Dhavan, "does not that dilute your exclusive possession, if Hindus have right to pray. Where is your exclusivity?"

Dhavan quipped, "What credence would the bench give to stories and travelogues cited by Hindu parties supporting their case.....these citations were there merely to support the 1989 suit filed by next friend on behalf of the deity."

The Muslim side claims the 1989 suit was filed at the behest of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which was allegedly created as a special vehicle by VHP to have a footing in the dispute.

Justice Chandrachud cited the evidence pointing at presence of 'Bairagies', virtually living in the outer courtyard of the disputed site.

The series of questions irked Dhavan, and he registered his discontent, and referred to himself being targeted by the bench. He asked the bench to pose similar probing questions to the Hindu parties. "Questions are not put to something which is obvious," replied K. Parasaran, senior advocate, representing Ram Lalla Virajman.

Justice Chandrachud said there is no declaratory relief in the 1885 suit at all. Dhavan said the Hindu side raised the issue on title on the disputed site and it was denied to them in 1885. Dhavan told the bench, "whom does the land belong... belonging is different to possession... Citing travelogues and religious texts could not give them title."

Source: IANS