Sajjadanashin Of A Waqf Different From Mutawalli U/S 32(2)(g) Waqf Act; Civil Court Has Jurisdiction Over Succession: Supreme Court
Bench clarified that the Waqf Board’s power to appoint Mutawallis does not extend to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin, which remains governed by custom and nomination.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the office of Sajjadanashin is a spiritual position fundamentally distinct from the secular office of a Mutawalli as contemplated under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (the Act). The Bench noted that while a Sajjadanashin of a Waqf can act as a Mutawaali, however, the contrary is not true.
Consequently, the Court held that the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 85 of the Act does not apply to suits seeking a declaration of succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin, as such matters are governed by the specific customs and usage of the shrine or the power of nomination vested in the incumbent rather than statutory appointment by a Board.
Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi holding the Respondent No. 1 as the lawful successor of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, observed, “The office of the mutawalli and Sajjadanashin cannot be said to be one and the same in view of the aforesaid discussion. 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”.
“In the present case issue is with regard to the appointment of Sajjadanashin of a suit Dargah and not with regard to the appointment of Mutawalli. Hence, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the present matter”, it noted further.
Advocate Pritha Srikumar Iyer appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the dispute centred around the death of the original Sajjadanashin, Peer Pasha Khadri, in 1988. In 1981, Peer Pasha Khadri had nominated his grandson, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri (Respondent No. 1), as his successor (Jan-Nasheen) during a formal religious ceremony, a fact recorded in a Khilafatnama (Ex. P-72).
The appellant, the youngest son of the original Sajjadanashin, challenged this, asserting his own claim based on a General Power of Attorney, an affidavit, and a separate Khilafatnama from 1969, alleging he had managed the Dargah’s affairs for decades.
Subsequent to which, two civil suits were instituted in 1988 and 1989. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s suit and decreed in favor of Respondent No. 1 in 2000, a decision affirmed by the First Appellate Court in 2005.
The Karnataka High Court subsequently dismissed the Regular Second Appeals in 2008, finding no substantial question of law and upholding the concurrent factual findings.
Now, the Supreme Court held that the Khilafatnama (Ex. P-72) clearly conveyed the incumbent’s intention to confer spiritual authority upon Respondent No. 1. It rejected the appellant's allegation of interpolation in the document, noting that the appellant had failed to provide forensic evidence or effectively cross-examine witnesses on this point.
It rejected reliance on S.V. Cheriyakoa Thangal v. S.V.P. Pookoya & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1586 noting it to be misplaced, since it pertained to appointment of a Mutawalli and not a Sajjadanashin. The Bench observed, “We are of the view that the facts of the present case are different. In the present case dispute is with regard to the office of Sajjadanashin. In the said case, the dispute was with regard to the appointment of Mutawalli and in the said case Waqf Board exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act”.
The Bench clarified that while a Sajjadanashin may perform administrative duties, their primary role is as a spiritual preceptor responsible for preserving the silsila (spiritual lineage) and guiding murids (disciples). The Court noted that under Mohammadan Law, succession to such an office is regulated by custom or nomination rather than strict rules of inheritance applicable to personal property.
“The office of Sajjadanashin occupies a distinctive position in Islamic religious institutions connected with Dargahs and Sufi shrines. The Sajjadanashin is not merely an administrative manager of Wakf property but is primarily the spiritual head of the shrine, responsible for preserving the spiritual lineage (silsila), guiding disciples (murids), conducting religious ceremonies such as Urs and Sandal, and maintaining the spiritual traditions associated with the shrine”, it noted.
The Court further held that a General Power of Attorney creates only an agency relationship and cannot serve as a mode of succession to a spiritual office. It reiterated that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India unless there is manifest illegality.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the civil appeals, finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court’s judgment. All interim orders were vacated, and the declaration of Respondent No. 1 as the rightful Sajjadanashin was upheld.
Cause Title: Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 314]
Appearances:
Appellant: Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Ankit Swami, Rabin Majumder, AOR, Advocates.
Respondents: Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR, Ankit Swami, Rabin Majumder, AOR, Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Anand Shankar Jha, AOR, Parvez Rahman, Zeeshan Rizvi, Girish Bhardwaj, Sachin Mintri, Nandika Kaushik, S. Hari Haran, Vikash Singh, AOR, P. R. Ramasesh, AOR, Vrinda Bhandari, AOR, Irshad Ahmad, AOR, Junaid Ali Khan, Shoaib Khan, Ashok Kumar, Suneet Singh, Advocates.