Supreme Court: The Court has sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, after it contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.
Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, Jof that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.
“Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away … There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights,”
The Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, the Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.
The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as “Janamasthan” are in the possession of the Akhara.
A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.
Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
More from the day-to-day hearing:
No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara
Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]
Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]
Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC