NEW DELHI: With just two more days to go before arguments in the Ayodhya land dispute case concludes, the Hindu parties pleaded with the Supreme Court on Tuesday to "correct a historical wrong" committed by Mughal invader Babur by erecting a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Appearing for Hindu parties, former attorney general K Parasaran told a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer that Hindu kings never went beyond the boundaries of India to invade foreign lands but India suffered multiple invasions. "The richest country in the world has been reduced to poverty and difficulties because of the invaders," he said.

While pleading for a decision in favour of the Hindu parties for construction of a Ram temple at Lord Ram's birthplace at the 2.77 acre disputed land in Ayodhya, Parasaran said, "For Hindus, it is the sacred birthplace of Lord Ram. For Muslims, it is a historic mosque. There are 52 other mosques in Ayodhya."

Dhavan objected to the 'invader and number of mosque' argument and said, "This entirely new argument based on conquests was never argued before the high court and hence cannot be pleaded now." Justice Chandrachud termed the argument irrelevant for deciding the title based on conquests and invasions. Other judges too peppered Parasaran with queries and Dhavan joined in to say, "They must also say how many temples are there in Ayodhya."

Parasaran ignored the interjection by Dhavan and told the bench, "For us, we cannot change the birthplace of Lord Ram. For them, there are enough mosques in Ayodhya not to disrupt offering of namaz. So, their religious rights will not be affected. About the number of temples in Ayodhya, they were much less compared to the population of Hindus."

After putting numerous questions to Parasaran, the CJI turned to Dhavan and asked, "Are we asking enough questions to them (Hindu parties)?" This was in reference to Dhavan's barb at the bench on Monday that it was asking questions only to Muslim parties and not to Hindu parties.

With the parties resorting to meeting the pleadings of each other, there was some concern among those unaware of court proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code that the arguments lacked a legal cloak. As these are first appeals, since the Allahabad high court decided the title suits, the parties are expected to cite evidence backing the relief sought by them and then articulate the submissions. Unlike in a PIL or a constitutional issue, the proceedings appear drab and boring given the discussion around the evidence already pleaded by both sides before the HC.

But the bench asked an important question, "If the suit property ( Babri Masjid ) has been destroyed and at present non-existent, can there be a declaration (by the court that it was either a mosque or temple) with regard to a nonexistent property? Can we give a declaration about the character of a building if it is non-existent today?"

Parasaran said, "Their (Muslim parties) whole argument is that once a mosque, always a mosque. I do not support this. Muslims can offer prayers even in open space. My only argument is that once a temple, always a temple."

