New Delhi, Oct 14 (IANS): With the Ayodhya title suit entering the last phase of hearing in the Supreme Court, the Muslim parties in the dispute say they hope that "justice will be delivered".

"We aren't astrologers, so can't predict the verdict but I can say that our case is really strong on the documentary evidence. We're hopeful and confident that justice would be delivered," Shakil Ahmed from Sunni Waqf Board told IANS.

"I can't predict about the verdict but I can say our evidence and also the points raised in the hearing are very strong," said senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani who is arguing for the Muslim parties in the case.

The statements came at a point when the matter is in its last leg as the apex court has fixed October 17 as the last date of hearing in the decades-old highly sensitive matter.

This crucial week will see Muslim parties' wrapping up their final submissions before the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, D.Y. Chandrachud and S.A. Nazeer.

Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim parties to the dispute, has contested every strand of argument advanced by Hindu parties' counsels.

After Dhavan's arguments, Hindu parties' counsels are expected to complete their reply on the Muslim side lawsuit by middle of Wednesday followed by arguments by other parties who are yet to place their arguments on the matter.

In 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma, had ruled that there will be an equal division of the disputed land among three parties -- one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for 'Ram Lalla'.

While Justice Khan had then pointed to the unprecedented nature of Hindus and Muslims worshipping together for centuries, Justice Aggarwal had concluded that the inner courtyard of the building belonged to both Hindus and Muslims.

There were two other majority findings, where one judge dissented and two agreed which was that the disputed structure was a mosque and that a temple was demolished to build a mosque.

Justice SU Khan held that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque at the disputed structure. He said the mosque was constructed under orders of Babar over the ruins of temples lying in that state for a very long time.