The arguments will continue on Friday.
As arguments in the Ayodhya title suit entered day six in the Supreme Court, the Hindu side produced evidence to demolish the Muslim parties' claim of a mosque existing in 1528 which was constructed by Mughal ruler Babar.
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Hindu deity Lord Ram before the five-judge Constitution Bench, presented a maze of books and travelogues recorded by Western writers and historians to buttress his point that Ayodhya was sacred to Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram and was worshipped for this very reason.
Vaidyanathan read from a book, Early Travels In India, which records the travel account of William Finch to Ayodhya during 1608-11. It makes no mention of a mosque at the disputed site. "As per the claim of the Muslim side, if the mosque was built in 1528, surely that should have found mention in the book. Its absence is significant," he said.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Naseer asked Vaidyanathan, "What is the evidence that a command was given by Babar to his commander Mir Baqi to build the mosque? Also, when was it first called as Babri Masjid?"
Vaidyanathan said that the first such evidence on record is from 1838 by British surveyor Robin Montgomery Martin, who refers to the mosque at Ayodhya built by Babar.
Other British gazetteers suggest it was built by Babar or Aurangzeb between 1659 and 1707. But Babarnama, a record of Babar's diary entries, is silent on this aspect.
Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Central Waqf Board, claimed it was because some pages of Babarnama are missing.
Vaidyanathan stated that the documents show people's belief in the place being the birthplace of Lord Ram, to which they attach divinity.
He presented other authors which included 600 BCE texts recording Ayodhya as the place of Lord Ram's birth and a place of worship for Hindus.
The bench replied, "We are not referring to these documents to prove any historical fact but to record the faith and belief that existed at that time."
The Hindu side also cited in their favour a title suit of 1945 filed by Shia Waqf against Sunni Waqf Board, claiming that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram.
The bench asked Sunni Board counsel whether they accepted this claim. But Dhavan said that it was immaterial as it predated the suit filed by Lord Ram in 1989.
But Vaidyanathan said that the Archaeological Survey of India gave a finding of a pre-existing temple at the disputed site.
Travellers and historians also record the view that a temple could have given way to a mosque as pillars found in the mosque contain inscriptions of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman.
If so, any mosque built on such land is against Shariat, Vaidyanathan added.
The arguments will continue on Friday.
){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}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}