1. Suit for declaration of entitlement to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of a Waqf institution — Dispute regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court versus Waqf Board. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 340
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri Alias Syed Budan Sha Quadri – Appellant
Versus
Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri & Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 4174-4177 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10706-10709 of 2025)
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.
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.
Headnote:(A) Waqf Act, 1995 - Section 32(2)(g), Section 3(i) - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The High Court's ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over the appointment of Sajjadanashin was deemed erroneous. The office of Sajjadanashin is distinct from that of Mutawalli and primarily spiritual, thereby retainable under civil jurisdiction. (Paras 31-32)
(B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - The Civil Court retains plenary jurisdiction unless explicitly barred by statute, which was not established in this case, confirming its competency to adjudicate disputes related to spiritual offices intertwined with Waqf properties. (Paras 8, 12, 31)
Facts of the case:
The litigation revolves around the hereditary appointment of the Sajjadanashin of a Waqf Dargah, contested between parties based on historical claims and nominations made years prior. The Trial Court had recognized one party’s claim based on a customary document (Khilafathnama), while the rival party insisted on jurisdictional barring post-notification of the Dargah.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court and First Appellate Court's decrees, affirming civil jurisdiction in this context, which was erroneously dismissed by the High Court.
Issues: The core issue focused on jurisdiction pertaining to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin within Waqf institutions and the distinction with administrative roles of Mutawallis.
Ratio Decidendi: Distinction between Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli roles clarifies jurisdictional boundaries. Civil Courts can adjudicate spiritual succession where no explicit statutory prohibition exists.
Result: Appeals partly allowed; High Court's previous judgment set aside, restoring prior decrees pending further adjudication on merits within nine months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The office of Sajjadanashin is a distinct spiritual role, separate from the administrative office of Mutawalli, and is not subsumed by the regulatory powers of the Waqf Board. (Para 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 42 )
3. Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred for disputes relating strictly to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin, as such religious appointments fall outside the Waqf Board’s statutory administrative functions. (Para 31 , 36 , 42 )
4. Appeals partly allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Trial and Appellate Court decrees restored — Matter remitted to High Court for decision on merits. (Para 43 , 44 )
5. Is the office of a Sajjadanashin equivalent to that of a Mutawalli under the Waqf Act, 1995?
No. While the Act inclusively defines Mutawalli to include a Sajjadanashin for administrative purposes, the Sajjadanashin holds a distinct, superior spiritual status. A Sajjadanashin manages spiritual affairs, whereas a Mutawalli performs purely administrative and management duties related to Waqf property. (Para 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
6. Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the succession or appointment of a Sajjadanashin?
Yes. The Board's jurisdiction under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act pertains to the appointment of secular administrative managers. As the declaration of a Sajjadanashin involves a religious and spiritual affair, the statutory bar on Civil Court jurisdiction does not extend to this spiritual office. (Para 28 , 31 , 42 )
7. Can a jurisdictional objection to a suit be raised for the first time during a second appeal?
While jurisdictional defects regarding subject matter are significant, a court may exercise inherent powers to prevent injustice when a suit has been fully tried and decreed, particularly when the challenge appears belated and the forum was initially determined through judicial transfer. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
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 Sajjadanashin had devolved to his father through a Will executed in April 1944 by an uncle, Syed Sha Mohammed Ali Basha Khadri. He further contends that his father was selected and recognized as Sajjadanashin by a congregation of Fakirs and Murids on 10 December 1987.
3.8. Respondent No. 1 maintains that he succeeded his father to the office and is the on
