<p class="title">One of the petitioners on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the place of birth of Lord Ram has become a deity by the faith of people and mere the fact that a mosque was put up there would not make it less divine.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Arguing on the Ayodhya case related to Ram temple and Babri masjid, senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan contended on behalf of Ram Lalla that if some people come to pray at the mosque, they cannot claim title over the Ram Janmabhumi. He maintained that the deity cannot be partitioned.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The place of birth of Lord Ram has become a deity by the faith of the people. The three-domed Babri mosque coming up in the 1500s did not shake their faith in the sanctity and dignity of the Hindus' faith. Besides, the Hindus' right of faith was never taken away,” he submitted before a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan said the mosque was built during the Islamic rule. Hindus could not build a structure then. But the moment they got an opportunity, they put up a structure and worshipped, he added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The counsel submitted that the Allahabad High Court in its judgement in 2010 had also agreed that there were ruins of a temple on which the Babri Masjid was built.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Though the temple went to ruin, the faith of the people about the Janmabhumi never went to ruin. It remained strong throughout,” he said, adding “Mere the fact that a mosque is put up, that does not make Ram Janmabhumi less of a deity. Even if some people come to pray they cannot claim title over the deity”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He cited previous top court verdicts to point out that even property of a deity cannot be partitioned. “So if deity's property cannot be divided, deity itself cannot be divided. If a place is a deity, it continues to be so forevermore. It cannot be mutilated,” the counsel asserted, adding that there cannot be destruction or division or alienation of the deity (Ram Janmabhumi).</p>.<p class="bodytext">His assertion came in response to the bench, which asked him how would he balance two views - one, the place itself personified God, and the other, the Janmabhumi was a place of worship.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan said there cannot be a three-way partition of Ram Janmabhumi, saying “If the Ram Janmabhumi itself is the deity. It is raised to the category of a juristic person. It does not have an owner. So there cannot be a joint possession of a deity (Janmabhumi).”</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the hearing, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim side, objected to the arguments, saying the counsel was putting up no exhibit or evidence as yet. On this, the bench clarified, “We are in no hurry. All the counsels can raise their case as they want.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“I hope you would do,” Dhavan retorted. This was objected by the bench, which had similar sharp exchanges with the counsel earlier.</p>
<p class="title">One of the petitioners on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the place of birth of Lord Ram has become a deity by the faith of people and mere the fact that a mosque was put up there would not make it less divine.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Arguing on the Ayodhya case related to Ram temple and Babri masjid, senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan contended on behalf of Ram Lalla that if some people come to pray at the mosque, they cannot claim title over the Ram Janmabhumi. He maintained that the deity cannot be partitioned.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The place of birth of Lord Ram has become a deity by the faith of the people. The three-domed Babri mosque coming up in the 1500s did not shake their faith in the sanctity and dignity of the Hindus' faith. Besides, the Hindus' right of faith was never taken away,” he submitted before a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan said the mosque was built during the Islamic rule. Hindus could not build a structure then. But the moment they got an opportunity, they put up a structure and worshipped, he added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The counsel submitted that the Allahabad High Court in its judgement in 2010 had also agreed that there were ruins of a temple on which the Babri Masjid was built.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“Though the temple went to ruin, the faith of the people about the Janmabhumi never went to ruin. It remained strong throughout,” he said, adding “Mere the fact that a mosque is put up, that does not make Ram Janmabhumi less of a deity. Even if some people come to pray they cannot claim title over the deity”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He cited previous top court verdicts to point out that even property of a deity cannot be partitioned. “So if deity's property cannot be divided, deity itself cannot be divided. If a place is a deity, it continues to be so forevermore. It cannot be mutilated,” the counsel asserted, adding that there cannot be destruction or division or alienation of the deity (Ram Janmabhumi).</p>.<p class="bodytext">His assertion came in response to the bench, which asked him how would he balance two views - one, the place itself personified God, and the other, the Janmabhumi was a place of worship.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Vaidyanathan said there cannot be a three-way partition of Ram Janmabhumi, saying “If the Ram Janmabhumi itself is the deity. It is raised to the category of a juristic person. It does not have an owner. So there cannot be a joint possession of a deity (Janmabhumi).”</p>.<p class="bodytext">During the hearing, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim side, objected to the arguments, saying the counsel was putting up no exhibit or evidence as yet. On this, the bench clarified, “We are in no hurry. All the counsels can raise their case as they want.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“I hope you would do,” Dhavan retorted. This was objected by the bench, which had similar sharp exchanges with the counsel earlier.</p>
