'Akahara' apprised a 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, of its stand following a direction whether it opposes the plea of the deity in view of the fact that its right as 'shebait' (devotee) over the property can only stand if the lawsuit of 'Ram Lalla Virajman' is allowed.
The bench, which was hearing the politically sensitive case on 34th day, asked Parasaran as to whether 'it has been held that any Hindu temple, including the land has been accorded the juristic personality'.
The bench on October 16 had reserved the judgment after marathon hearing of 40 days.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, which started the day-to-day proceedings on August 6 after mediation proceedings failed to find an amicable solution to the vexatious dispute, has revised the deadline for wrapping up the proceedings and has fixed it on October 17.
The Allahabad high court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The Law of Limitation provides for mandatory filing of a lawsuit within a fixed statutory time period after the cause of action arises in favour of an aggrieved person.
A 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in its historic verdict delivered on a court holiday, held that the lawsuit of the deity was "within the period of limitation" and granted the title decree in its favour.
Born in Ayodhya, Ansari was the first to file the suit on the matter in the court of civil judge of Faizabad in 1949.
The ASI, which had found artefacts, idols, pillars and other remains, stated in its report about the existence of a massive structure beneath the 'alleged Babri Masjid'.
'The appearance of idols of deities inside Babri was not a miracle. It was a planned and surreptitious attack to put them on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949'