SYED MOHAMMED GHOUSE PASHA KHADRI v. SYED MOHAMMED ADIL PASHA KHADRI .
Distinction between spiritual office of Sajjadanashin and secular office of Mutawalli under Waqf law; Civil Court jurisdiction not ousted for spiritual succession disputes.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 314
Decision Date: 02-04-2026
List of Laws
The Waqf Act, 1995; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Mahomedan Law (Principles of Succession to Religious Office); Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017
- Facts: The litigation involves a dispute over succession to the hereditary spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah (Big Makan) in Karnataka. The Petitioner, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri, claimed the office based on a 1981 nomination (Khilafathnama) by his grandfather, following the death of his father who was the previous successor-designate. Rival claims were asserted by other family members based on a 1944 Will and a purported 1987 selection by a congregation. A suit (O.S. No. 92/1988) filed by an uncle led to a counter-claim by the Petitioner. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found in favour of the Petitioner, upholding the 1981 nomination and the hereditary nature of the office. However, the High Court of Karnataka set aside these decrees, holding that under the Waqf Act, 1995, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as the term "Mutawalli" includes "Sajjadanashin", thereby vesting exclusive power in the Waqf Board.
- Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions against the common judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeals. The High Court had declared the lower court decrees a nullity for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Issue: Whether the office of Sajjadanashin is identical to that of a Mutawalli under the Waqf Act, 1995, and whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters pertaining to the appointment of a Sajjadanashin.
- Holding: No, the offices are not the same; the Civil Court retains jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding on jurisdiction and restored the lower court judgments, remanding the case to the High Court only for a decision on merits.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a Sajjadanashin is primarily a spiritual head and preceptor, whereas a Mutawalli is a secular manager of property. While Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act includes Sajjadanashin in the definition of Mutawalli, this is only for administrative purposes. Section 64(2) specifically protects the independent rights of a Sajjadanashin even if removed as a Mutawalli. Since the Waqf Act does not provide a specific statutory mechanism for the Board to adjudicate the spiritual succession of a Sajjadanashin based on custom, the bar under Section 85 does not apply. Furthermore, the High Court erred in entertaining a jurisdictional plea for the first time in the second appeal after 37 years of litigation, especially since the Waqf Tribunal itself had previously returned the matter to the Civil Court.
🔒 For Members Only