Struggle for Hindu Existence
*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.
‘No proof to show that Muslims owned disputed Ram Janmasthan & Janmasthan means entire plot’
Ayodhya Row in SC: Janmasthan means entire plot and there is no proof to show that Muslims owned disputed site, says Ram Lalla counsel.
- Counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land case argued before the SC that “janmasthan” means the entire plot
- Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, argued against the ruling of the Allahabad HC dividing the site three-ways between the deity, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board
- There is no proof to show that Muslims owned disputed site and every single document talks about continued worshipping by Hindus at that place, argued Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan
Amit Anand Choudhary | TNN | New Delhi | Aug 14, 2019:: Claiming ownership over the entire 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya, counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla argued before the Supreme Court that construction of a mosque at the site did not alter the title of the land and “janmasthan” means the entire plot.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, arguing against the ruling of the Allahabad HC dividing the site three-ways between the deity, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board, said the title was held by Hindus and joint possession of the land will amount to destruction and division of the deity.
Vaidyanathan told a bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that Muslim parties could not claim title of the land due to adverse possession as Hindus were ousted but continued to access the temple and worshipped the deity there.
‘No proof to show Muslims owned disputed site’
Referring to the Allahabad HC verdict, he said the Muslim claim that the mosque built on vacant land was rejected and it was accepted that a temple was there at the site where a mosque was built. He referred to statements by Muslim parties who had accepted before the HC that Ayodhya is as important for Hindus as Mecca for them.
He said ‘Janmasthan’ (birth place) of the deity is not confined to central dome of the structure but the entire area needs to be within its ambit. He said a mosque was built on the ruins of a temple and some of the material was used for construction.
“Muslims cannot claim title due to adverse possession as they have not established that Hindus were ousted from the land.
There is no documentary evidence to show their possession. They have, in fact, admitted that all the time Hindus kept visiting the place to worship the deity. It is a clear finding that Hindus were never kept out for worship and it shows that possession of the land by Hindus has been accepted. Every single document talks about continued worshipping by Hindus at that place,” he contended.
He said as the entire site is the deity, no one can claim title over it and said the HC verdict was wrong. Responding to a question put by the bench on what will happen if there is evidence on joint possession of land, Vaidyanathan submitted that it has to be proved first that Hindus were ousted from the land and said joint possession would amount to destruction of deity.
Read also in Live Law / Bar & Bench / SCC online:
Donate to Hindu Existence Forum
Global Viewers
My Community
!।!।!| ॐ हरि ॐ |!।!।!
Aum once all the days, Be happy always.
!!!!..वन्दे मातरम..!!!!
|| भारत माता की जय ||
N_/\_ M_/\_N
Hindu Existence Campaign
Rs . £ . € . $ . ¥
PIC TO CLICK
Struggle for Hindu Existence 
Recent Comments