Arguments on whether temple existed on disputed site

New Delhi: Arguments on whether a temple existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya were presented on Tuesday before the Supreme Court which heard the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the fifth day.

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, advanced arguments on whether there was an existing temple over which the mosque came up, before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Three judges of the Allahabad high court had held that there was a temple at the disputed site, Vaidyanathan told the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

"Justice SU Khan of the high court had said that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple," the senior advocate told the bench.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, also appearing for deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman' told the court that it must do "full and complete justice" in all matters before it.

The bench had asked as to whether anyone from the 'Raghuvansha' (descendants of Lord Ram) dynasty still resides in Ayodhya.