Succession to the office of Sajjadanashin is determined by nomination and established hereditary practice, affirmed by concurrent judicial findings.

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