The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Muslim parties whether they would agree that Nirmohi Akahara has been in possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land at Ayodhya as they have accepted the Akahara to be a devotee of Ram Lalla.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for Muslim parties including Sunni Wakf Board and one of the original litigants M Siddiq that Nirmohi Akhara being the ‘shebait’ was only seeking right to manage and offer puja and was not claiming title.

Dhavan said rights of Akahara as a devotee may be “fine”, but they did not change its juristic status and moreover, as a ‘shebait’ it was only seeking right to management and not the title.

Consistent with the submissions, Akahara has been asking for management rights of outer courtyard where at ‘Ram Chabutara’, Hindus claimed to have been worshipping and it has nothing to do with the inner portion, he said.

The Akahara was allowed to perform puja in the outer courtyard and it did not entitle the Hindu body to claim ownership of inner courtyard.The Bench then referred to pleadings of the lawsuit of Sunni Wakf Board and said it had sought title over entire disputed area.

It said by accepting that Akahara has rights as ‘shebait’ ” you are necessarily giving up your claim over ‘Ram Chabutara’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ of outer courtyard…Therefore, the outer courtyard cannot be a mosque.”

“Our case is that in 1885, Akahara had sought enforcement of the right of prayer at ‘Ram Chabutra’ and not title over the property,” he said, adding that it was merely an easement right.

The court then said the right of ‘shebait’ may be related to management only, but “so far as the deity (Ram Lalla Virajman’) is concerned its right is more than the easementary one.”Dhavan objected and said people can say that Hindus were allowed to go to near the railing inside the place to offer prayers, but it did entitle them to the title right.