Sajjadanashin Of Dargah & Mutawalli Of Waqf Not Same : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the office of a Sajjadanashin of a Dargah is fundamentally distinct from that of a Mutawalli of a Waqf, emphasizing that the former is primarily a spiritual position while the latter is a secular administrative role.

A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi made this observation while deciding a dispute concerning succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah in Karnataka.

The Bench 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 Waqf 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."

Tthe Court was considering the issue of succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of Hazarat Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah situated at Channapattana. Respondent No.1 therein argued that the Civil Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the property was a notified Waqf and the issue fell in the domain of the Waqf Tribunal. The High Court, on considering the aspects, set aside the lower Court decisions, noting that the power to appoint Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf institution was with the Waqf Board.

On hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that the office of Mutawalli is not the same as office of Sajjadanashin.

It was observed that the issue pertained to appointment of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah, not Mutawalli, and the High Court erred in setting aside the lower Court decisions for lack of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court decision and restored those of the lower Courts. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for consideration on merits, with a request for expeditious disposal (preferably in 9 months).

Dispute as to appointment of Sajjadanashin 

The bench noted that succession to religious offices is ordinarily governed by custom, usage or nomination by the incumbent. In the case of Muslim religious institutions, it said, the Supreme Court has recognized that offices of Sajjadanashin or Mutawalli may devolve in accordance with established customs of the institution, including nomination by the predecessor rather than strict lines of inheritance.

The bench also decided a connected appeal pertaining to succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, Shivasamudram, located in Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka.

The original Sajjadanashin appointed his eldest son as his successor, however, the latter pre-deceased his father. Thereafter, as per a Khilfatnama of 1981, the original Sajjadanashin appointed respondent No.1 - his grandson (late son's son) - as the successor. In 1988, the original Sajjadanashin passed away and respondent No.1 took office. However, a rival claim was raised by the appellant, the original Sajjadanashin's youngest son, based on a General Power of Attorney, a handwritten Khilafatnama, etc.

The Courts below passed decrees in favor of respondent No.1-Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri and declared him as the lawful Sajjadanashin of the Dargah. They held in favor of respondent No.1 on the ground that the office was hereditary in nature.

The appellant's regular appeals and regular second appeals were rejected by the appellate court/High Court. The High Court agreed that the succession was hereditary in nature and governed by nomination. It further observed that the 1981 Khilafatnama was duly proved, while the documents relied upon by the appellant did not confer Sajjadanashin-ship. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, which directed status quo in 2009.

Vide the present judgment, on examining the material and hearing the parties, the Supreme Court did not find force in the appellant's submission that the 1981 Khilfatnama was a fabricated document. It observed that though the word "Sajjadanashin" was not expressly used in the document, it conveyed the original Sajjadanashin's intention to confer his spiritual authority onto respondent No.1.

The Court also rejected the appellant's submissions regarding succession devolving only upon a living son, for lack of material. On the contrary, the Court observed, there was material before the Courts below to support nomination of a successor by the incumbent Sajjadanashin.

Insofar as the appellant's reliance on a GPA, the Court held, "a document which merely authorises another person to act on behalf of the executant cannot be construed as conferring succession to a spiritual office such as that of a Sajjadanashin."

Notably, the appellant also contended that recognition of the respondent no. 1 as Sajjadanashin would extinguish the rights of other family members or stakeholders in the Waqf property. In this regard, the Court said, "The recognition of one individual as Sajjadanashin does not determine or extinguish the independent legal rights of other beneficiaries under Wakf law."

Ultimately, it was held that no question of law arose before the High Court and the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The interim orders (for status quo) were vacated.

Case Title: SYED MOHAMMED GHOUSE PASHA KHADRI versus SYED MOHAMMED ADIL PASHA KHADRI & ORS. ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13345 - 13346 OF 2015

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 334

Click here to read judgment