1. Competing claims over the hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah, involving alleged succession by nomination through a Khilafatnama versus inheritance by the youngest son. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 339
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri – Appellant
Versus
Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 13345 - 13346 of 2015 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13229 - 13230 of 2009)
Decided On : 02-04-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Mr. Parvez Rahman, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Adv. Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sachin Mintri, Adv. Ms. Nandika Kaushik, Adv. Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Junaid Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Shoaib Khan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Ankit Swami, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Mr. Parvez Rahman, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Adv. Mr. Girish Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Sachin Mintri, Adv. Ms. Nandika Kaushik, Adv. Mr. S. Hari Haran, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Junaid Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Shoaib Khan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Suneet Singh, Adv.
Succession to the office of Sajjadanashin is determined by nomination and established hereditary practice, affirmed by concurrent judicial findings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Succession to religious office - Dismissal of second appeals affirming concurrent judgments declaring respondent as rightful Sajjadanashin - Appointment validly made through Khilafatnama dated 26.02.1981 - Finding of fact that the office was hereditary and respondent was duly nominated. (Paras 1, 10, 30, 52)
(B) Legal principles - Jurisdiction of High Court limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot generally be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or erroneous. (Paras 31, 54)
Facts of the case:
The original Sajjadanashin appointed his grandson as his successor via a Khilafatnama. The appellant claimed the office based on competing documents. The Trial Court upheld the respondent's nomination, a decision supported by the First Appellate Court and later the High Court. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed that the respondent was validly nominated as Sajjadanashin, noting that the appointment was supported by concurrent factual findings across all courts. (Paras 10, 11, 54)
Issues: Whether the High Court appropriately dismissed the appeals asserting the alleged non-recognition of competing claims to the religious office and misinterpretation of nomination documents. (Paras 30, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the appointment of Sajjadanashin is based on nomination and hereditary customs, rejecting assertions of illegitimacy regarding the nomination documents and confirming the validity of concurrent rulings by lower courts. (Paras 30, 54)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- wakf and religious endowments
- practice and procedure
- civil law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contests the validity of the nomination as a mere religious act, asserting traditional management rights; respondent claims lawful appointment via documented nomination supported by established spiritual custom. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
3. The High Court correctly identified concurrent findings of fact, affirmed the hereditary nature of the office, and confirmed the valid nomination through a proved Khilafatnama. (Para 10 , 11 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 55 )
4. The office of Sajjadanashin is spiritual in nature and its succession is determined by established custom or nomination by the predecessor, enforceable when duly proved. (Para 35 , 37 , 43 , 46 , 47 )
5. The Regular Second Appeals are dismissed, and the respondent is declared the lawful Sajjadanashin of the Dargah. (Para 9 , 11 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 )
6. Is the office of Sajjadanashin purely administrative or spiritual in nature?
The office of Sajjadanashin is fundamentally spiritual, involving the preservation of spiritual lineage and religious ceremonies, though it may include incidental administrative duties regarding Wakf property management, resembling a Mohant of a Hindu Math. (Para 35 , 36 )
7. Can an incumbent Sajjadanashin validly nominate a successor in the absence of written trust directions?
Yes, in the absence of specific trust deed directions, succession to the office is governed by custom or nomination by the incumbent Sajjadanashin, which is a recognized and valid mode of appointment for such religious institutions. (Para 37 , 44 )
8. Does a Power of Attorney granted by a Sajjadanashin confer any right of succession to the spiritual office?
No, a Power of Attorney is merely an instrument of agency co-terminus with the authority of the principal and cannot be construed as an instrument that transfers title or confers independent rights of succession to a spiritual office. (Para 46 , 47 )
9. What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC regarding concurrent findings of fact?
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to determining substantial questions of law; it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by ignoring material evidence. (Para 11 , 31 , 53 , 54 )
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. These are the civil appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1574 of 2005 and 1575 of 2005, whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), and affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, which had declared Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri (Respondent No. 1 herein) as the lawful Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, Shivasamudram, located in Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The present dispute concerns succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah, Shivasamudram, located in Chamarajanagar District, Karnataka.
3. The original Sajjadanashin of the Dargah was Peer Pasha Khadri, as per the Wakf Board’s Notification dated 01.04.1965. Thereafter, Peer Pasha Khadri appointed his eldest son, Akhil Pasha Khadri, as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada (i.e. successor of the Sajjadanashin) of the Dargah. On 27.10.1980, Akhil Pasha Khadri passed away, predeceasing his father.
4. On 26.02.1981, at a religious function held in the presence of Sajjadanashins of other dargahs and elders in the community, Peer Pasha Khadri appointed and nominated Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri (respondent no. 1 herein), his grandson and son of late Akhil Pasha Khadri, to be the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada of the Dargah. The appointment and nomination was reduced in writing as Khilafatnama dated 26.02.1981 (Ex. P-72). On 06.10.1988, the original Sajjadanashin passed away and the respondent no. 1 became the Sajjadanashin of the Dargah.
5. The appellant (Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri), being the youngest son of the original Sajjadanashin, asserts a rival claim to the office of the Sajjadanashin, relying upon certain documents, including a General Power of Attorney (Ex. D-1), a handwritten Khilafatnama (Ex. D-13) and an affidavit (Ex. D-23) executed by the predecessor. Whereas, the respondent no. 1, being the grandson of the original Sajjadanashin, claims succession to the same office on the basis of a nomination made by the predecessor in Khilafatnama dated 26.02.1981 (Ex. P-72).
6. Thus, two civil suits came to be instituted before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysuru:
A. O.S. No. 724 of 1988 (renumbered as O.S. No. 342 of 1995), instituted by the appellant, asserting his claim as Sajjadanashin of the Dargah. Respondent No. 1 was not made a party to the suit and later filed an impleadment application.
B. O.S. No. 233 of 1989, instituted by the respondent no. 1, seeking declaration that he was the duly nominated Sajjadanashin of the Dargah and for consequential reliefs.
7. By a common judgment and decree dated 14.11.2000, the Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 233 of 1989 and dismissed O.S. No. 342 of 1995, holding that the office of Sajjadanashin was hereditary in nature, and thus, the respondent no. 1 had been validly nominated through Khilafatnama dated 26.02.1981 (Ex. P-72) and the documents relied upon by the appellant, including Ex. D-1, Ex. D-13 and Ex. D-23, did not confer Sajjadanashin-ship.
8. The appellant preferred two separate appeals, namely R.A. No. 8 of 2004 (against the decree in O.S. No. 233 of 1989) and R.A. No. 9 of 2004 (against the dismissal of O.S. No. 342 of 1995). Both the Regular Appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the findings of the Trial Court were upheld, by a common judgment and order dated 07.07.2005.
9. The Regular Second Appeals preferred by the appellant, namely R.S.A. Nos. 1574 and 1575 of 2005, were dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka, by the impugned common judgment and order dated 15.04.2008.
10. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court recorded that the Trial Court had decreed O.S. No. 233/1989 in favour of the respondent no. 1 and O.S. No. 342/1995 (appellant’s suit) was dismissed,
