Muslim parties support Akhara’s priestly rights
NEW DELHI: Locked in a 70-year-old litigation with Hindu parties for ownership of the 2.77 acre disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya, Muslim parties on Thursday came out in strong support of Nirmohi Akhara’s priestly rights but relegated it to the outer courtyard of the demolished mosque while claiming the inner courtyard.
To bolster its strategy to drive a wedge between the Hindu parties — Nirmohi Akhara, deity Ram Lalla through next friend, and the suit filed in 1950 by a worshipper Gopal Singh Visharad — Muslim parties through senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan told the Supreme Court that there appeared to be a conflict among the Hindu parties as to who would manage the disputed site in case the SC decided the matter in their favour.
“If Nirmohi Akhara succeeds, it gets only ‘sevait’ right and not ownership right. If the deity gets the right, it cannot manage the place through next friend as sevait rights are with Nirmohi Akhara.
Will Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, which intends to build a temple at the disputed site, manage the place? But under what right?” Dhavan asked a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
Dhavan said the difficult task before the SC was to decide who would get sevait rights, especially when the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the suit filed in 1959 by the Akhara, three decades before the deity approached the HC with a suit through next friend.
When the bench told Dhavan that he had already argued in detail about Muslim parties supporting the Akhara’s sevait rights, Dhavan said, “The Akhara needs a little more support from someone.” He said the Akhara’s sevait rights could not be denied as the deity’s next friend had not even listed a single dereliction of duty in performing priestly rituals by the Akhara.
He said in the suit filed in 1885 by a ‘mahant’ seeking ownership and sevait rights at Ram Chabutra, Sita ki Rasoi and Bhandara in the outer courtyard of the mosque, a court had denied them the title but allowed them the right to worship. “There never was any claim from anyone for title over the inner courtyard of the mosque,” he said. In its judgment, the HC had said, “It is the case of Akhara that since time immemorial, the disputed structure was a temple.
It”s the same 1000 year old story – Muzzies would never dare to get into bull-headed confrontation if they are not egged on by Hindu traitors like Rajeev Dhawan or Kutil was no demolition. No construction of mosque. The idol under the disputed structure also continued since time immemorial. This case of the Nirmohi Akhara has not been found correct. They have failedto prove it. We have already held so. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, and the stand of Nirmohi Akhara, we have no option but to hold that so far as the idols of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the disputed structure, within the inner courtyard, is concerned, the defendant Nirmohi Akhara cannot said to be sevait thereof.
Courtesy : TNN