New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Oct 19, 2019-Saturday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Saturday, Oct 19, 2019

Muslim parties question birthplace

They alleged this has been done to ensure that no other person can make a claim over the disputed land in Ayodhya.

india Updated: Sep 17, 2019 03:59 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
New Delhi
The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman (child deity) earlier said that the birthplace of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land as any division of the property would amount to “destruction” and “mutilation” of the deity itself.
The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman (child deity) earlier said that the birthplace of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land as any division of the property would amount to “destruction” and “mutilation” of the deity itself.(HT FILE)
         

On the 24th day of hearing in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case in Supreme Court, the Muslim parties on Monday opposed the decision to make Lord Ram’s “birthplace” (Janmabhoomi) a party to the case.

They alleged this has been done to ensure that no other person can make a claim over the disputed land in Ayodhya.

The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman (child deity) earlier said that the birthplace of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land as any division of the property would amount to “destruction” and “mutilation” of the deity itself.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M Siddiq, that the birthplace cannot be a legal entity and moreover, it was made a party in 1989 to ensure that no law applies to it and other claimants are “knocked off”.

“If it was idol only, then this case could have been resolved much more easily. But, if it is Janmabhoomi [birthplace], then it means all hands should be off the place including that of this court. There can be no legal remedy,” he told the bench.

The top court took note of Dhavan’s submission on making “corporeal” property also a party.

“This problem would have arisen if they [the next friend of the deity and others] would have filed the [law] suit only in the name of ‘janmasthan’. But they have also made the deity as the first plaintiff,” the bench said.

Dhavan responded by saying that the place as a party and as a deity has created all the problems.

Neither the Limitation Law, nor the doctrine of adverse possession nor the acquisition of land would apply on the land as it has the status of the deity on account of Hindu belief, he said.

Dhavan said that the idols, through its “shebait” (devotee), can sue and be sued and all the legal principles would apply.

(With PTI inputs)

First Published: Sep 17, 2019 03:59 IST

top news