India: Janmasthan means whole plot: Ram Lalla's lawyer | India News

NEW DELHI: Claiming ownership of the entire Mas Janid land, Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, located at Ayodhya the lawyer of the deity Ram Lalla affirmed before the Supreme Court that the construction of a mosque has been claimed. on the site did not change the title of the land and "janmasthan" means the whole plot.
Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan, arguing against Allahabad HC's decision to divide the site into three parts, divides the site into divinity,
Nirmohi Akhara and sunni Waqf announces the maintenance of the title. The joint possession of the land by Hindus will be tantamount to the destruction and division of divinity.
Vaidyanathan declared in court of the President of the Supreme Court of India Ranjan Gogoi and judges SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer that the Muslim parties could not claim the title of the land because of their undue improper possession but continued to enter the temple and worship there the deity.
"No evidence that Muslims own a controversial site"
Referring to Allahabad HC's verdict, he stated that the Muslim claim that the mosque was built on vacant land had been rejected and that it was admitted that a temple was there a mosque was built. He referred to the statements of Muslim parties that had accepted before the HC that Ayodhya was as important to Hindus as Mecca for them.
He said that "Janmasthan" (place of birth) of the deity was not confined to the central dome of the structure but that the whole area had to be in its frame. He added that a mosque had been built on the ruins of a temple and some of the material had been used for construction.
"Muslims can not claim a title because of adverse possession, because they have not established that Hindus were removed from the land. There is no documentary evidence to show their possession. In fact, they admitted that, all the time, Hindus continued to go there to worship the deity. It is clear that Hindus have never been condemned to worship and that the possession of the land by Hindus has been accepted. Every document speaks of continued worship of Hindus there, "he said.
He said that the whole site being divinity, no one can claim the title and said that HC's verdict was wrong. Responding to a question from the court about what would happen if there was evidence of joint possession of land, Vaidyanathan argued that it was first necessary to prove that Hindus had been evicted from the land and that their possession common would be to destroy the divinity.

This article appeared first (in English) on THE TIMES OF INDIA