Supreme Court: In a long-standing dispute related to the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, (popularly known as the “Big Makan”) situated at Channapatna, Ramanagara District, where the Karnataka High Court by common judgment dated 16 December 2024 set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court on the ground that civil courts lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified wakf institution as such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Wakf Board, the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi,* JJ., set aside the impugned judgment of High Court and restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court, holding that civil court has jurisdiction to decide appointment of Sajjadanashin of Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the dispute pertains to succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah situated at Channapatna, Karnataka, a notified wakf institution.
Historically, the office traces back to the founder, Hazrath Syed Mohammed Akhil Shah Quadri, and subsequently devolved upon successive Sajjadanashins through hereditary and customary practices. The petitioner’s great-grandfather was recognised as Sajjadanashin in official records, followed by his grandfather, Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Khadri.
In 1964, the grandfather nominated his eldest son (father of the petitioner) as Jan-Nasheen. However, upon the death of the father in 1980 during the lifetime of the incumbent, the grandfather, in a religious congregation held on 26 February 1981, nominated his grandson, the present appellant, as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada. This nomination was formalised through a written Khilafathnama.
After the death of the grandfather in 1988, the appellant claimed succession to the office. A rival claim emerged from another branch of the family, asserting succession based on a 1944 will and alleged recognition by a congregation in 1987.
The litigation commenced in 1988 when the appellant’s uncle filed a suit claiming Sajjadanashinship. The appellant entered as a defendant and filed a counterclaim seeking declaration of his own status. The matter witnessed procedural shifts, including transfer to the Wakf Tribunal and return to civil court, and continued for over three decades before final adjudication by the trial court.
The trial court by judgment dated 20 December 2019 had dismissed the suit filed by the rival claimant and decreed the counterclaim of the present appellant, declaring him as Sajjadanashin. The First Appellate Court by judgment dated 27 February 2023 affirmed these findings in entirety. However, the High Court did not examine the merits and set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and First Appellate Court on the ground that civil courts lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified wakf institution and holding that such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Wakf Board.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, which were granted, resulting in the present appeals.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the office of the Mutawalli and of the Sajjadanashin was the same?
-
Whether the High Court was justified in holding that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to appointment or succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of a notified wakf institution, and consequently setting aside concurrent findings without examining merits?
Court’s Analysis, Discussion and Findings
At the outset, the Court identified the core controversy as one relating to entitlement to the spiritual and hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah at Channapatna. It noted that the claim of the petitioner was founded upon a lineage-based succession coupled with a formal nomination made by the incumbent Sajjadanashin in the year 1981, which was allegedly carried out in a religious ceremony attended by Sajjadanashins, Mujawars, Mutawallis and members of the community.
The Court recorded that the petitioner’s case rested on the assertion that the original Sajjadanashin, after the death of his son had consciously nominated his grandson as the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada, and that such nomination was not only ceremonially performed but also reduced into writing. The presence and attestation of members of the fraternity, including the contesting parties, was treated as a relevant circumstance supporting the genuineness of the act of nomination.
Examining the nature and character of the office of Sajjadanashin, the Court reiterated that the office of Sajjadanashin is not merely administrative but essentially spiritual, involving religious guidance, maintenance of traditions, and continuation of the spiritual lineage of the Dargah. The Court emphasised that such an office cannot be equated in all respects with that of a Mutawalli, whose role is primarily secular and managerial in nature.
While carefully scrutinising the statutory scheme and the distinction between the offices of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin, the Court observed that while the Waqf Board exercises supervisory and administrative control over Waqf properties, the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin is governed by custom and religious practice. The Court highlighted that the inclusive definition of Mutawalli cannot be interpreted in a manner that obliterates the essential distinction between a secular manager and a spiritual head. The statutory provisions, when read harmoniously, indicate that the powers of the Waqf Board pertain primarily to administrative functions and do not extend to determining succession to purely spiritual offices.
Regarding exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, the Court noted that the Waqf Act does not expressly confer upon the Tribunal or the Board the power to decide disputes relating to succession to the office of Sajjadanashin. On the contrary, the earlier transfer of the suit to the Waqf Tribunal and its subsequent return to the civil court reinforce the position that such disputes do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present case and, therefore, the trial court had not committed any error while adjudicating the dispute involved in the present matter.
The Court further stated that the suit, instituted in 1988, had undergone a full-fledged trial and appellate scrutiny over several decades. The issue of jurisdiction was neither raised in the pleadings nor pressed before the trial court or the First Appellate Court. The High Court’s decision to entertain and uphold such an objection at the stage of second appeal, after nearly four decades of litigation, is viewed as highly problematic. The Court underscores that such belated interference undermines the finality of judicial proceedings and causes grave prejudice to the parties who have already undergone a protracted trial.
The Court strongly disapproved the High Court’s approach of raising jurisdictional issues after nearly four decades of litigation, when full trial and appellate adjudication was done, and in absence of objection at earlier stages. The Court asserted that the proceedings remained pending before various courts for a period of 37 years and, therefore, “at this belated stage, it would not be proper to relegate the party to the Waqf Board to decide the issue raised in the present proceedings”.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that —
-
The office of the Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin cannot be said to be one and the same. Sajjadanashin of a waqf can also discharge the function of its Mutawalli, if appointed under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act of 1995, however, Mutawalli under Section 32(2)(g) cannot function as a Sajjadanashin but can only perform the duties as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of Waqf and declaration of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, however, role of Mutawalli of a Waqf only pertains to the administration and management of the Waqf.
-
The present case deals with appointment of Sajjadanashin of a suit Dargah and not with appointment of Mutawalli. Hence, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the present matter.
-
High Court had committed grave error in quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the trial court and the First Appellate Court.
-
The impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed and set aside and the decree passed by the trial court and the First Appellate Court restored. The case was remitted to High Court to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law except the issue of jurisdiction.
Final Determination
The Court ultimately upheld the validity of nomination-based succession to the office of Sajjadanashin, affirmed the concurrent findings of fact, and clarified the legal distinction between spiritual and administrative roles in wakf institutions. It rejected the attempts to reopen factual findings and disapproved the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.
[Syed Mohd. Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohd. Adil Pasha Khadri, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 518, decided on 2-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR, Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv., Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR, Counsel for the Appellant
Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR, Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv., Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR, Mr. Parvez Rahman, Adv., Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Adv., Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Sachin Mintri, Adv., Ms. Nandika Kaushik, Adv., Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv., Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR, Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, AOR, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR, Mr. Junaid Ali Khan, Adv., Mr. Shoaib Khan, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv., Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv., Counsel for the Respondents