{"id":65634,"date":"2019-08-09T17:52:37","date_gmt":"2019-08-09T12:22:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/apnlive.com\/?p=65634"},"modified":"2019-08-10T10:13:41","modified_gmt":"2019-08-10T04:43:41","slug":"ayodhya-case-supreme-court-day-4-day-day-hearing-continue-rules-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/apnlive.com\/india-news\/ayodhya-case-supreme-court-day-4-day-day-hearing-continue-rules-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Ayodhya case in SC Day 4: Day-to-day hearing to continue, rules court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, who is hearing the case along with Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and SA Nazeer, said that he had taken note of Dhavan\u2019s submission and will revert.<\/p>\n

Later, the Court cleared the air that it will continue to hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute on a day-to-day basis. The apex court assured Dhavan that it would consider granting him mid-week break for preparing arguments.<\/p>\n

The five-judge Bench had decided yesterday to sit for all five days, including Monday and Friday, for a fast-track hearing in the case. Normally, Mondays and Fridays are reserved for miscellaneous matters \u2014 fresh cases and those on which notices have been issued.<\/p>\n

During the hearing yesterday, the counsel of Ramlalla Virajman, senior advocate K Parasaran, told the apex court that both Hindu and Muslim parties in the case consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram and thus, there is no difference of opinion in this regard.<\/p>\n

Parasaran told the five-judge Constitution bench that \u201cjanmasthan (birthplace) need not mean just the spot, and can mean the entire surroundings\u201d.<\/p>\n

Justice Bhushan told Parasaran that one of the petitioners in the suit was janmasthan \u2013 birthplace \u2013 and wondered whether a place could be regarded as a juristic person having stakes as a litigant in the case.<\/p>\n

The apex court had said on the third day of the hearing that so far as Hindu deities were concerned, they have been legally treated as juristic persons who can hold property, defend and intervene in lawsuits. It asked Parasaran how Janamsthanam can file the case in the land dispute as a party.<\/p>\n

The law suit filed by the deity in the Ayodhya case has also made the birth place of Lord Ram as co-petitioner and has sought claim over the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land at Ayodhya where the structure was razed on December 6, 1992.<\/p>\n

Continuing the argument today, senior advocate K Parasaran appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman told the apex court that Hindus do not worship Gods in any definite form, they worship them as the divine incarnation which does not have any form and the Hindus worshipped Lord Ram before the deity was placed and the temple was built.<\/p>\n

Also Read :\u00a0Ayodhya case: Supreme Court asks Nirmohi Akhara for evidence to establish possession<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parasaran said that one such example is the temple of Kedarnath which does not has an idol.<\/p>\n

Parasaran further submitted: \u201cA Hindu idol is considered as a juristic person and is capable of holding property as a legal person. A juridical person is a corporate person. The deity is treated as a living being and is considered as the master of the house in the same way as servants treat their masters. The concept of idol worship came only to enable concentration, however what is important is the deity and not the image or its form. There is a Parikrama marg where the people used to do parikrama and there was no idol. This may lead to the inference that the parikrama was for the whole Janmasthan.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"