Sushil Kumar Jain accepted this proposition formulated by the bench but then put the judges at odds to understand his next submission that the deity cannot claim title over the entire Ram Janmsthan.
The Nirmohi Akhara's repeated attempts to claim solitary title right to the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed site fell flat for the second consecutive day as the Court told the counsel arguing for Akhara that it could not seek any right by ousting the right of the deity Bhagwan Ram Lala.
Even the bench was incensed over shifting of stand by the Akhara counsel senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, who made a submission that it did not doubt the title of the deity over the entire Ram Janmbhoomi but in the same breath doubted whether the suit filed by the deity could be maintainable through a person Deoki Nandan Agarwal, claiming to be the next friend of deity being a perpetual minor.
The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer told Jain, "Before you, we heard the deity and the worshipper of the deity. You cannot survive if the title right of the deity does not exist since all that you are claiming are management rights of the deity being a shebait (agent of the deity)."
Jain accepted this proposition formulated by the bench but then put the judges at odds to understand his next submission that the deity cannot claim title over the entire Ram Janmsthan. According to him, the Janamsthan is the Janmasthan temple having the idols and not the outer courtyard and adjacent area.
The Court said that the dispute was with regard to the inner courtyard alone. It even sought a clarification from Jain as his written submission given to Court indicated that while he claimed to have possession of management rights of the idol kept in the inner courtyard, of the outer courtyard which included idols kept in Ram Chabutra, Akhara was shown as the "owner". Jain told the Court to read ownership right in the context of management.
There was again a point of uncertainty among the bench when Jain said that the disputed property rests in Waqf. "I am not denying the property of Waqf." A confused bench asked Jain, "Waqf is a concept under Muslim law, Can you use it in the context of Hindu property." Jain stated Waqf is generally used to mean endowment. The bench asked him not to introduce the term Waqf in hindu context as that was never the pleading before the HC.
Jain argued that Deoki Nandan Agarwal is not a worshipper of Lord Ram and if such person is "next friend" of deity Lord Ram, title cannot be given to such a person. The bench said, "You are taking a position contrary to the deity. How can you be Shebait of an entity of whose suit you say should be dismissed?" Jain continued that he was not disputing deity's title claim while claiming sole Shebait rights over the inner and outer courtyard of the 2.77 acre disputed site.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Lord Ram Janmbhoomi temple in Ayodhya")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}