The jurisdiction over the appointment of Sajjadanashin is exclusively vested in the Karnataka State Board of Waqf, and civil courts cannot adjudicate such matters.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S.Kamal, J.

A suit in O.S.No.92/1988 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as trial Court') is filed by one Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri - the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration declaring him to be the Sajjadanashin of Hazarat Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah, Channapattana (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit dargah’) and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 6 and the Karnataka State Board of Waqf -the defendant No.7, in which nephew of the plaintiff namely Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri, got himself impleaded as defendant No.8 and while denying the case of the plaintiff he made a counter claim to declare him as Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. Thereafter one Syed Usman Pasha Quadri got himself impleaded as defendant No.9 also claiming to have been appointed as Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. By the impugned Judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 the trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff decreed the counter claim made by defendant No.8 with cost.

2. As against the dismissal of his suit plaintiff preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.7/2020 and as against grant of counter claim in favour of defendant No.8, he filed another appeal in R.A.No.8/2020. Similarly defendant No.3 filed R.A.No.19/2020 and the legal representatives of defendant No.9 filed R.A.No.16/2020 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna (hereinafter referred to as `First Appellate Court'). The First Appellate Court by its common Judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 dismissed the aforesaid regular appeals and consequently confirmed the aforesaid Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, plaintiff is before this Court in RSA Nos.1064/2023 and 1069/2023 while defendant No.3 is in RSA No.1004/2023 and legal representatives of defendant No.9 are in RSA No.1141/2023.

4. Case of the plaintiff:

a) That one Janab Syed Mohammed Akhil Shah Quadri was the teacher and mentor of Nawab Hyder Ali Khan Bhadur of Mysore State. His tomb is situated in the outskirts of town of Channapatna (suit dargah). That the father of the plaintiff Janab Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Quadri was the Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. This was recognized by the Karnataka State Board of Waqf by its endorsement dated 12.01.1981. Father of plaintiff passed away on 06.10.1988. During his life time he had appointed plaintiff to succeed as Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. That defendants 1 to 6 who are also the Haqdars have been interfering with the plaintiff's rights in performance of his duties as Sajjadanashin and conducting of Sandal and Urs ceremony of said saint.

b) That the father of defendants 1 to 3, late Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Quadri had caused hindrance and interference even during the life time of father of the plaintiff which had caused intervention of local Tahsildar resulting in a Resolution dated 18.08.1964 being passed reconstituting a Committee. Even after the death of father of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 published pamphlets describing himself as Sajjada though plaintiff had already been nominated by his father. Said act of the defendant No.3 in active support of defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 had caused unrest, law and order situation in the vicinity of suit Dargah. Hence, the suit.

5. The case of the defendant Nos.2 and 3.

(a) Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff contended that father of the plaintiff had been appointed as a Manager of suit Dargah and he was unable to conduct the Sandal and Urs in a proper manner and for the said reason Tahsildar had intervened during which period father of defendants 1 to 3 who was the Muzawar (Sajjada) was conducting the Sandal and Urs.

(b) It is further asserted that father of the plaintiff was never the Sajjada of suit Dargah and he had no right to appoint any