Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin despite statutory considerations under the Waqf Act, emphasizing the distinct nature of spiritual versus administrative roles.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final common judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, in Regular Second Appeal (RSA) Nos. 1004, 1064, 1069, and 1141 of 2023. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the Office of Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf institution, as such power is statutorily and exclusively reserved for the Waqf Board under the provisions of the Waqf Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The detailed facts leading to the present litigation, as adduced from the comprehensive records and written submissions, are as follows:

3.1. The present litigation involves a challenge to the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeals (RSA) Nos. 1004, 1064, 1069, and 1141 of 2023. The core of the controversy pertains to the entitlement to the spiritual and hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah (popularly known as the “Big Makan”) situated at Channapatna, Ramanagara District.

3.2. The Suit Dargah is a notified Waqf institution, and the office of Sajjadanashin is recognized under Mahomedan Law as that of a spiritual preceptor and teacher of religious doctrine, a post which is governed by long-standing customs and is distinct from the secular office of a Mutawalli.

3.3. The historical pedigree of the institution traces back to the founder, Janab Hazrath Syed Mohammed Akhil Shah Quadri, who was a spiritual mentor to Nawab Hyder Ali Khan Bahadur of the Mysore State. Official Muzrai records dating back to 16 June 1904 (marked as Ex. P-18) reflect that the great-grandfather of the present Petitioner, Syed Sultan Mohadin Sha Khadri, was the recognized Sajjadanashin of the Suit Dargah.

3.4. Upon the demise of the great-grandfather, the office devolved upon his son, Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Khadri (the Petitioner’s grandfather), who served as the presiding Sajjadanashin for several decades. In 1964, in accordance with the custom of nominating a successor-designate (Jan-Nasheen Sajjada), the grandfather nominated his eldest son, Syed Mohammed Akhil Pasha Khadri (the Petitioner’s father), to the office.

3.5. A pivotal vacancy occurred on 27 October 1980, when the Petitioner’s father, while serving as the nominated successor, passed away during the lifetime of the presiding grandfather. To ensure spiritual continuity, the grandfather convened a religious function on 26 February 1981, in the presence of Sajjadanashins, Mujawars, and community heads, where he nominated his eldest grandson the Petitioner, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri as the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada. This nomination was formalised in a written Khilafathnama (Ex. D.1).

3.6. The Petitioner’s position in this litigation is anchored in this 1981 nomination and the subsequent devolution of the office upon him following his grandfather's death on 6 October 1988. He asserts that as the eldest grandson of the first branch, his right is superior and consistent with the proved customs of the Dargah, a contention that was upheld by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3.7. Conversely, a rival claim was asserted by the line of the original Defendant No. 3, Mohammad Adil Basha Khadri, who is the father of the current Respondent No. 1, Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri. Respondent No. 1’s position is based on the assertion that the office of Sa