Khulasa-news


Ayodhya Case: Lord Ram Was Born in Ayodhya Says Ramlala’s lawyer

Ayodhya Disputed land CaseAll National News Politics 

On Wednesday, 14th August, the Supreme Court heard the Ayodhya case for the sixth day. Hindu lawyer S Vaidyanathan presented his arguments before the bench citing the example of Skanda Purana. 

He said that beyond belief and faith in Lord Ram, people cannot go to the fact that they are rational or not. It is a custom that after taking a bath in the river Saryu, one gets the benefit of visiting the Ram Janmabhoomi. 

On this, the Supreme Court asked- When was this Purana written? Vaidyanathan replied – Ved Vyasa wrote this Purana in the Mahabharata period. But, no one knows how old it is.

The Supreme Court asked- what you are saying about the philosophy of Ram Janmabhoomi, not about the deity? 

Legitimation said- that is because the birthplace is a god in itself. French traveler William Finch lived in Ayodhya from 1608 to 1611 and wrote a book in which the existence of Ram Janmabhoomi is clear. 

The other passenger was Joseph Tyan Barrel, who came to Ayodhya and mentioned the Ram Janmabhoomi in the book. In the book, ‘Early Travels in India’ by author William Foster has told about seven British travelers who have written about Ayodhya.

What has happened in the Ayodhya case so far?

The court is hearing since August 6th after the arbitration panel did not resolve the case. This regular hearing will last until they reach a result.

First hearing: On 6th August, on the first day of the hearing, Nirmohi Akhara claimed the entire 2.77 acres of the disputed land. They said that since 1934 Muslims are not allowed to enter the entire disputed land.

Second hearing: On August 7th, the bench asked the parties to produce 2.77 acres of land documents related to the Nirmohi Akhara. At this, the akhara said that in 1982 there was a robbery, in which they lost all the documents.

Third hearing: On August 8th, the Bench asked how the birthplace of a deity should be considered as desirous of getting justice, who is also a party to the case. To this, the lawyer said that idols are not required to consider a place as sacred and worship in Hinduism.

Fourth hearing: On August 9th, the Supreme Court had asked Ramlala’s lawyer- Is there any descendant of Lord Ram in Ayodhya or in the world? The lawyer said on this – We do not know. Later Diyakumari of the Jaipur royal family claimed himself to be a descendant of Kush, the elder son of Sri Rama. The Muslim side objected to the hearing five days a week.

Fifth hearing: On August 13th, the lawyer for the Hindu side, CS Vaidyanathan, argued the existence of the temple. He said- In the Allahabad High Court judgment, there is a mention of having a temple at the disputed place. Justice SU Khan of the High Court had said that they build this mosque on the broken part of the temple.

THERE ARE 14 PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

In 2010, they filed 14 petitions in the Supreme Court against Allahabad High Court’s decision. The High Court had said in its decision that the 2.77-acre area of ​​Ayodhya should be divided equally into three parts. First Sunni Waqf Board, second – Nirmohi Akhara and third – Ramlala Virajman.

Also Read: GOVT CLAIMS KASHMIR IS PEACEFUL, REPORTS SUGGEST OTHER: DIGVIJAY SINGH

Related posts

2 Thoughts to “Ayodhya Case: Lord Ram Was Born in Ayodhya Says Ramlala’s lawyer”

  1. […] Also Read: AYODHYA CASE: LORD RAM WAS BORN IN AYODHYA SAYS RAMLALA’S LAWYER […]

  2. […] Also Read: AYODHYA CASE: LORD RAM WAS BORN IN AYODHYA SAYS RAMLALA’S LAWYER […]

Comments are closed.