On the ninth day of the Ayodhya hearing, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan for Ram Lalla Virajman resumed arguments and cited legal precedents to persuade the bench that since Hindus have been worshiping the place of birth of Lord Ram with utmost faith and belief for years, it should be considered religious worship.
The submission made was that because it is the birthplace that is worshipped, and not a specific temple, then the entire property is the deity. If the whole property is a deity, then no other side could claim adverse possession. He added that the contention of adverse possession on the basis of Babri masjid being erected was negated as Hindus have always expressed their desire to worship the entire place. Questions regarding whether the deity was alienable from the property were discussed while the senior advocate submitted that the property was the deity in this case.
Further arguments were presented by Vaidyanathan to show how the Ayodhya deity was to be treated as a perpetual minor, and in dividing the property, the Allahabad High Court had virtually given a part of the property to Nirmohi Akhara, which is a Shebait.
"I submit that Nirmohi Akhara and the waqf board have failed to establish their suit, and irrespective of their suit being rejected due to limitation, my contention is they are not entitled to the relief given to them", added Vaidyanathan and proposed that the reliance placed by the High Court on Section 110 of the Evidence Act, to divide the land, was not good in law.
Post lunch CS Vaidyanathan concluded his arguments and Senior Advocate PN Mishra began arguing for "Janam Sthan Punroddhan Samiti's Shankaracharya Surupananda Ji Maharaj of Dwarka Pith". Aggrieved by the 2010 judgment of Allahabad HC, Mishra started arguing that Hindu scriptures, tenets and faith showed the existence of Ayodhya as a temple.
As the lawyer commenced his arguments by quoting the Atharva Ved and went on to quote the Ramayana, Narsingh Puran and Skanda Puran, the bench interjected in parts.
At different occassions, CJI Ranjan Gogoi, J DY Chandrachud and J Bobde told him that there was no dispute regarding Ayodhya being the birthplace, but they required evidence through objective parameters that the exact location of the disputed site was the birthplace.
"We want objective evidence. Show us maps or objective parameters to establish exact location. Scriptures will not do as faith is not in question, it is the disputed location", said CJI Gogoi. After Mishra read a couple of pages from certain accounts, the bench told him to come prepared with references and argue the matter on Friday.
Mr. VN Sinha for the President of Hindu Mahasabha got a chance to argue thereafter, but soon he informed the bench that he did not think his turn to argue would come so soon.
Sr Adv Ranjit Kumar for Gopal Singh Visharad then started his arguments. Soon after he began, the bench rose for the day