The Supreme Court on 02 April 2026 dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 13345-13346 of 2015 filed by Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the High Court of Karnataka declaring his nephew, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri (grandson of the original Sajjadanashin), as the rightful Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, Shivasamudram, Chamarajanagar District. A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi held that the 26.02.1981 Khilafatnama (Ex. P-72) validly nominated the respondent as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada in accordance with the hereditary custom and established practice of the Dargah. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s challenge based on a General Power of Attorney (Ex. D-1), a 1969 handwritten Khilafatnama (Ex. D-13) and an affidavit (Ex. D-23), observing that none of these documents conferred succession to the spiritual office.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the office of Sajjadanashin is fundamentally spiritual in character — involving religious teaching, conduct of Urs, Sandal ceremonies and spiritual guidance — and is distinct from the secular administrative role of a Mutawalli. While a Sajjadanashin may also perform mutawalli functions if specifically appointed under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995, a Mutawalli cannot discharge the spiritual duties of a Sajjadanashin. Succession to the office is governed by custom, usage and nomination by the incumbent, not by strict rules of inheritance under Mohammedan law. The Court held that the nomination by the original Sajjadanashin Peer Pasha Khadri was duly proved through the religious ceremony and contemporaneous documentation, and the appellant’s allegations of interpolation in Ex. P-72 were unsubstantiated.
In the connected batch of appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 4174-4177 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10706-10709 of 2025), the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 16.12.2024 which had held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over the appointment of Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf. The Court clarified that the dispute concerned the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin and not merely the secular administration of Waqf property, and therefore the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was not ousted. It restored the decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and remitted the matter to the High Court for expeditious disposal on merits, preferably within nine months.
The Supreme Court emphasised that concurrent findings of fact on the validity of nomination and the hereditary nature of the office, based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, do not give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. No interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution. All interim orders were vacated.
Case Title (Main Appeal): Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13345-13346 of 2015
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Connected Matter: Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri alias Syed Budan Sha Quadri v. Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 4174-4177 of 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 