NEW DELHI: Muslim parties created a flutter on Wednesday during the hearing of cross-appeals for ownership of disputed 2.77-acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya by telling the Supreme Court that if the title of the disputed land was vested in them, Hindus could be allowed to worship deity Ram Lalla in outer courtyard of the demolished mosque.Appearing to dilute demand for exclusive rights over the land, advocate Rajeev Dhavan said on behalf of Muslim parties, "Co-existence is okay. But title should vest in Sunni Waqf Board . We (Muslims and Hindus) may co-exist. But it is my property. Some people came and wanted to pray, so I had allowed them to pray."The concession was the result of a debate sparked by eagerness of Muslim parties to support Nirmohi Akhara 's plea against the suit filed on behalf of the deity. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said evidence suggested that an idol of Lord Ram was worshipped at the 'chabutra' in the outer courtyard of Babri Masjid before it was surreptitiously placed under the central dome on the night of December 22, 1949.Dhavan strategically embarked on defending the Akhara's 'sevait' (priestly) rights to defeat the suit filed in 1989 by Devki Nandan Agrawal as next friend of the deity. He said 'sevait' alone had the right to manage the affairs of the deity and only if it was derelict in its duty, a next friend could file a suit on behalf of the deity. He said there was no pleading in the suit filed on behalf of the deity that there was dereliction in the Akhara's 'sevait' functions.But the bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer caught on to this argument and asked if the Akhara had 'sevait' rights in the outer courtyard of the mosque, then, as a natural corollary, the deity too existed there within the mosque even prior to 1949. "Can Akhara perform sevait rights without the deity?" the benchasked.Gogoi added, "You concede that Ram Chabutra belongs to Akhara." Justice Chandrachud elaborated on it to say, "If you concede sevait rights of Akhara, you necessarily concede the rights of deity, because sevait rights cannot arise without the deity. If you concede that the Hindus have a right to pray at chabutra inside the mosque, then can it still remain a mosque under Quranic law?"Dhavan replied, "The deity was there. The idols were there. We cannot pretend the idols were not there. But in the 1985 suit filed by one Raghuvar Das, the Hindus' right to worship was granted but their claim to title was denied." Having said so, Dhavan said he had deep concern about what interpretation the court would give in this case about right to worship as it could open a Pandora's box.Justice Nazeer asked, "Can Muslims and Hindus pray together? What is the norm under Islamic law in Indian context where Sufism was predominant?" Dhavan said, "It is true Quranic law is the ideal law. But the Supreme Court has to decide how Quranic law is to be applied in the modern sense." Justice Chandrachud asked, "So you are not seeking exclusive right over the disputed land but advocating co-existence with Hindus?"