The birthplace of Lord Rama is God Himself, it cannot be divided: Ramlala

As Hindus seek puja, the dispute begins

(PTI) New Delhi, Ta. August 13, 2019, Tuesday

The birthplace of Lord Ram is a deity in itself and Muslims cannot claim 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya because the division of property would be equated with 'divining' the deity, Ramalla Virajman told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Ram Janmabhoomi - The controversial site of the Babri Masjid has a joint occupation of both Hindus and Muslims, while Ram Lola Virajman's lawyer advocated the place in response to a question of a five-judge Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on how to remove Muslims.

Meanwhile, while speaking to Muslim Party lawyer Rajiv Dhawan, the Supreme Court said that he was in no hurry to give us a verdict in this case. Lawyers can take as long as they want for arguments.

Judges S.A. Bobday, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. The lawyer for Ram Lala Virajman told a bench comprising Nazir, "There is a belief that if the property itself is a deity you cannot refute the deity.

If the property is a deity, then it remains a deity and if it becomes a mosque at this place then it cannot be separated from the deity. Ramalla Virajman senior counsel c. S. Vaidyanathan argued on the fifth day of hearing a politically sensitive case.

He said that people believe that the birthplace of Lord Ram is a deity. The three-domed Babri Masjid was built in the 1500s, and it did not make any difference to the Hindu faith and the sanctity of the place. Although the mosque was built here, the Hindus did not stop worshiping. Moreover, Muslims could not prove that the mosque belonged to Babar.

Referring to the Allahabad High Court verdict, Vaidyanathan said that the three judges of the high court believed that the temple was demolished and a mosque was built there. Referring to the records, he said Muslims used to perform prayers there from 1856-57 to 1934 and since 1934 they have stopped praying.

For centuries, Hindus have been worshiping Lord Ram there for as long as they are concerned. Many Muslim witnesses have also testified that Hindus have been worshiping there for centuries. Mohammad Hashim, a 72-year-old Muslim witness, said that Ayodhya is just as important to Hindus as it is to Mecca for Muslims.

He added that the Supreme Court, in its ruling, had said that there was no need for an idol for the temple. Now, the belief in Ram Janmabhoomi fulfills all the conditions. On the other hand, the ownership of the land from the Muslims could not be justified. Whenever Hindus seek permission to worship, controversy begins.

Meanwhile, Justice Chandrachud said that your view of the world is only yours, but your point of view may not be the only one. Objecting to the Hindu party's argument on the other hand, Rajiv Dhawan said that no evidence has been presented in court yet. All arguments are being made only at the Allahabad High Court.

The Supreme Court asked Dhawan to represent only the Muslim party. Do not obstruct other party's arguments. We have no hurry to deliver a verdict in this case. Lawyers can take as long as they want for arguments.