Birthplace cannot be a juristic entity, the petitioners told court (File)

Muslim petitioners on Monday opposed in the Supreme Court the decision to make ''janmbhoomi'' (birth place) of Lord Ram a party besides the deity in the Ayodhya case. They alleged it has been done with the sole motive to ensure that no other person can make a claim over the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri masjid land.

It was earlier alleged by the counsel for ''Ram Lalla Virajman'' that the birth place of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land, as any division of the property would amount to "destruction" and "mutilation" of the deity itself.

A 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan - -appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board and other litigants -- that the birthplace cannot be a juristic entity and moreover, it has been made a party in 1989 to ensure that no law applies to it and other claimants are "knocked off".

"If it was the idol only, then this case could have been resolved much more easily. But, if it is Janmbhoomi, then it means all hands should be off the place including that of this court. There can be no legal remedy," he told the bench, also comprising justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.

On the 24th day of the day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive case, the top court took note of Mr Dhavan's submission on making "corporeal" property also a party.

"This problem would have arisen if they (the next friend of the deity and others) would have filed the (law) suit only in the name of "janmsthan". But they have also made the deity as the first plaintiff," the bench said.

Mr Dhavan responded by saying that the place as a party and as a deity has created all the problems.

The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the Supreme Court against the verdict.