"After initially denying that there was even a temple at the site, contesting that it was not even Aurangzeb who got this temple demolished, and even denying the legitimacy of the Masir-i-Alamgiri, the plaintiff side tried other tactics to deflect the issue. In the process, they ended up exposing the demolition of so many temples by Aurangzeb that it contradicted their original claims, and also those of Faruki in his hagiographical account that Aurangzeb was a very tolerant and inclusive ruler. For instance, the plaintiffs argued that there was another temple on the banks of the Ganga called Madhodaska Dharahara, which too was demolished by Aurangzeb in his time and a mosque with high minarets constructed over it. The Muslim side argued that it is possible that it was this temple that might have been the one spoken about in Masir-i-Alamgiri."