Muslims failed to prove construction of mosque by Babur at vacant govt land, Hindu body to SC


PTI | New Delhi | Updated: 16-10-2019 21:18 IST | Created: 16-10-2019 21:18 IST
Muslims failed to prove construction of mosque by Babur at vacant govt land, Hindu body to SC
  • Country:
  • India

Hindu parties vehemently sought from the Supreme Court on Wednesday the dismissal of the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim litigants, saying they could not prove that Mughal emperor Babur created a valid 'wakf' and constructed a temple on vacant land at the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Hindu party, that it was the case of the Muslim side that the mosque in question was built by the state (Babur) on the land belonging to it, which has not been proved by them.

Besides Vaidyanathan, senior lawyers Ranjit Kumar, Sushil Jain, Jaideep Gupta, Vikas Singh, P N Mishra, all appearing for various Hindu parties, responded to the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf board and other Muslim individuals and said that the case, seeking title claim over the entire 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya, be dismissed as being devoid of any merits. Vaidyanathan further said that if the Muslim side claimed title over the disputed land under the doctrine of adverse possession then they will have to accept that the deity or the temple was the previous real owner.

"They cannot claim benefit of adverse possession. If they claim so then they will have to show the ouster of the prior owner that is temple or the deity in this case," he told the bench, also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer. The Muslims may have several places for offering 'namaz' in Ayodhya but for Hindus the place of birth of Lord Ram remains the same which cannot be changed, he argued, adding that taking into the account of unshakeable faith and belief of Hindus, the title of the properties be given to the Hindus.

He further said the arguments of Muslim side that the land was dedicated as a 'waqf' on the ground of being long user is not sustainable because they did not have the exclusive possession over the property as Hindus and Muslims both were sitting there. Vaidyanthan said the plea of Muslim parties that Mughals, Nababs of Awadh and Britishers gave the grants for upkeep of the masjid did not help their case as it did not prove their title.

Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Hind devotee Gopal Singh Visharad, said that Muslims have failed to prove their case and the lawsuit filed by the Sunni Waqf board and others ought to be dismissed as Visharad and other Hindu devotee have "pre-existing rights to worship" at the site. The character of the disputed site cannot be decided on the basis of the faith of the Muslims, he said while concluding his submissions.

He gave the illustration of Kailash Mansarovar and said that deity or idol was necessary for considering a place to be religious as Hindus worship the entire mountan as abode of Lord Shiva. Vikas Singh, representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha, referred to various aspects of the Allahabad High Court judgement and said there has been faith and belief for long on the part of Hindus with regard to the scared nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram.

He said the plea of Muslim parties that grants were given by a Board in 1860 during British regime to Babri mosque for its upkeep was untenable as the Board was dissolved by the Government of India Act two years before in 1858. He said Hindus kept worshipping at the Central dome believing it to be the birth place of Lord Ram and justified the prayers by Hindus at the iron railings at the site, submitting that even at Tirupati, devotees are not allowed to enter into the temple beyond a point.

The counsel for Nirmohi and Nirvani Akhara also advanced arguments in the case to claim management and "shebaithi right" (devotee right) over the disputed land in Ayodhya and said that they have been in possession of the property since 1885 and this has been fairly admitted by the Muslim side also. P N Mishra, also appearing for a Hindu party, said that in Mohammedan law, holy Quran is the primary source of Islamic law and Muslims have no evidence of use of land before 1856.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim parties, advanced rejoinder arguments and said they were entitled to "restoration of the mosque as it was existing on December 5, 1992, a day before the demolition. "The destroyed building belonged to Muslims and the right to reconstruct also belonged to us," he said, adding that their case was that the Muslims perfected their title on account of long and uninterrupted possession over the land in question.

He said building or no building, the place remains a mosque after it was dedicated to the almighty as wakf. He objected to the submission of the Hindu parties that the Babur was a foreigner and his act amounted to historical wrong needing reparation, and said even Aryans were foreigners and one should not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim foreigner.

"Hindus had no title but only had prescriptive right to pray," he said, adding that even the Hindus were conquerors and there were thousands of conquests in history. He concluded the hearing by reciting couplets of famous poet Iqbal and said that these are the testing times for the country and the citizens.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback