The Supreme Court has clarified that the offices of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin are distinct; the Waqf Board’s jurisdiction under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995 is restricted to the appointment and removal of a Mutawalli for administrative and managerial functions, and does not extend to the declaration or appointment of a Sajjadanashin, which is a spiritual office governed by custom and succession. Consequently, the Civil Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide disputes pertaining to the appointment and entitlement to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin.

The Apex Court held that the office of Sajjadanashin is a spiritual office, and succession to it is governed by established custom, usage, or nomination by the incumbent Sajjadanashin, rather than strict rules of inheritance or primogeniture. The Court also cautioned that a General Power of Attorney is merely an instrument of agency that cannot operate as a mode of succession to confer a spiritual office. Concurrent findings of fact regarding the valid nomination of a successor to a religious office cannot be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC unless the findings suffer from manifest illegality or perversity.

As far as Civil Appeal Nos. 13345 – 13346 of 2015 relating to succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah is concerned, a Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is confined to the examination of substantial questions of law; and concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot ordinarily be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The office of Sajjadanashin is fundamentally spiritual in character, responsible for preserving the spiritual lineage (silsila), guiding disciples (murids), and conducting religious ceremonies, which is distinct from the secular office of a Mutawalli.

The Bench opined that the succession to such religious offices is ordinarily determined by custom, usage, or nomination by the incumbent, depending upon the particular traditions governing the institution. The Khilafatnama clearly conveyed the intention of the incumbent Sajjadanashin to confer his spiritual authority upon Respondent No. 1 and to designate him as a successor. Thus, the burden of establishing forgery or interpolation lies on the party alleging it, and mere suspicion cannot displace a document which has otherwise been duly proved.

Further, the Bench observed that a power of attorney creates only an agency relationship, does not transfer title or confer independent rights, and cannot operate as a mode of succession to a religious office as the authority granted is ordinarily co-terminus with the life and authority of the principal. The affidavit cannot be recorded as a valid instrument of nomination in the absence of any other reliable corroborative evidence demonstrating that the affidavit represented such an act of nomination.

Moving ahead, as far as Civil Appeal No(s). 4174-4177 of 2026 pertaining to the entitlement to the spiritual and hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah, is concerned, the Bench observed that Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, 1995 defines Mutawalli to include a Sajjadanashin, but the duties of a Mutawalli under Section 50 of the Act and Rule 57 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules are purely administrative functions, such as maintenance of accounts, budget preparation, and protection of Waqf property. An office of Mutawalli is not a spiritual office, and Section 64(2) of the Act of 1995 clarifies that the removal of a person from the office of Mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights in respect of Waqf property or his right, if any, as a Sajjadanashin.

Further, the Bench explained that the office of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin cannot be said to be one and the same; that Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of a Waqf and declaration of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, whereas the role of Mutawalli only pertains to the administration and management of the Waqf. Hence, a Sajjadanashin can discharge the function of a Mutawalli if appointed under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act of 1995, however, a Mutawalli appointed under Section 32(2)(g) cannot automatically function as a Sajjadanashin.

The Bench also observed that the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was raised for the first time in the second appeal before the High Court after the proceedings remained pending for 37 years. Therefore, applying the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (no one shall be prejudiced by an act of Court), the Bench concluded that a forum shall not be declared as lacking jurisdiction when a plea has been raised subsequently after receiving an adverse verdict, especially when the Waqf Tribunal had previously transferred the case back to the Civil Court and that decision had attained finality.

Briefly, the first dispute concerns succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, Shivasamudram, located in Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka. The original Sajjadanashin, Peer Pasha Khadri, appointed his eldest son, Akhil Pasha Khadri, as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada, who subsequently passed away on Oct 27, 1980, predeceasing his father. On Feb 26, 1981, at a religious function, Peer Pasha Khadri appointed and nominated his grandson, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri (Respondent No. 1), to be the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada, which was reduced in writing as Khilafatnama.

Following the original Sajjadanashin’s death on Oct 06, 1988, Respondent No. 1 became the Sajjadanashin. The appellant, Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri (youngest son of the original Sajjadanashin), asserted a rival claim relying upon a General Power of Attorney, a handwritten Khilafatnama, and an affidavit. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 1, holding the office was hereditary and Respondent No. 1 was validly nominated, while dismissing the appellant’s suit. The First Appellate Court and the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant’s appeals, affirming the concurrent judgments and decrees.

The second controversy pertains to the entitlement to the spiritual and hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah at Channapatna, Ramanagara District, which is a notified Waqf institution. The grandfather of the petitioner nominated his eldest grandson, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri (the petitioner), as the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada on Feb 26, 1981 through a written Khilafathnama, following the death of the petitioner’s father who was the previously nominated successor.

A rival claim was asserted by Respondent No. 1, Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri, based on a 1944 Will and a 1987 selection by a congregation of Fakirs and Murids. The original suit was filed in 1988, and the petitioner filed a counter-claim. The suit was transferred to the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal in 2002, which held the dispute was not maintainable before it and returned the matter to the Civil Court.

The Trial Court decreed the counter-claim of the petitioner, declaring him the rightful Sajjadanashin, and the First Appellate Court affirmed these findings. The High Court of Karnataka set aside the concurrent judgments, holding that under Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the term ‘Mutawalli’ includes a ‘Sajjadanashin’, and thus the power to appoint or recognize a Sajjadanashin falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board, rendering the Civil Court proceedings a nullity.

Appearances:

For the Appellants: AORs Pritha Srikumar Iyer, Rabin Majumder, and Advocate Ankit Swami.

For the Respondents: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, AORs Vikash Singh, P. R. Ramasesh, Vrinda Bhandari, Irshad Ahmad, and Anand Shankar Jha, along with Advocates Junaid Ali Khan, Parvez Rahman, Zeeshan Rizvi, Girish Bhardwaj, Sachin Mintri, Nandika Kaushik, S. Hari Haran, Shoaib Khan, Ashok Kumar, and Suneet Singh, for the Respondents