In the case of Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri v. Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court judgment and reaffirmed the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to adjudicate disputes over the spiritual office of a Sajjadanashin.
Case Background and Spiritual Succession
The dispute involves the entitlement to the hereditary and spiritual office of Sajjadanashin at the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah (known as the “Big Makan”) in Channapatna, Karnataka.
- The Appellant’s Claim: He asserted his title based on a 1981 nomination (Khilafathnama) executed by his grandfather (the then-Sajjadanashin) during a religious ceremony after his father, the original nominee, had passed away.
- The Respondent’s Claim: He claimed the office through his father based on a 1944 Will executed by an uncle and a subsequent 1987 selection by a congregation of disciples.
Procedural History and the Jurisdictional Conflict
The litigation began in 1988. A significant procedural issue arose in 2002 when the case was transferred to the Waqf Tribunal, which subsequently returned the matter to the Civil Court, stating that such a dispute was not maintainable before the Tribunal.
The Trial Court (2019) and the First Appellate Court (2023) both ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring him the rightful Sajjadanashin. However, the Karnataka High Court reversed these findings in 2024, ruling that Civil Courts lacked inherent jurisdiction because the power to appoint or recognize a Sajjadanashin was exclusively reserved for the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act.
Key Legal Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and clarified the boundaries between secular and spiritual offices in Islamic religious institutions:
- Sajjadanashin vs. Mutawalli: The Court emphasized the fundamental legal distinction between these two roles. A Mutawalli is a secular manager of property, whereas a Sajjadanashin is a spiritual superior and teacher.
- Scope of Waqf Board Authority: The Court ruled that the Waqf Board’s statutory power to appoint and remove Mutawallis does not extend to the declaration of a Sajjadanashin, which is a religious and spiritual affair. While a Sajjadanashin may also act as a Mutawalli, a Mutawalli appointed by the Board cannot automatically function as a spiritual head.
- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: The Court reaffirmed that Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide disputes involving the appointment of a Sajjadanashin.
- Abuse of Process and Belated Objections: The Court criticized the High Court for entertaining a jurisdictional objection for the first time in a second appeal after 37 years of litigation. Applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man), the Court noted that the parties should not be penalized for following the Waqf Tribunal’s own 2002 direction to proceed in the Civil Court.
Conclusion and Relief
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment regarding the lack of jurisdiction and restored the lower court’s findings on that point. However, since the High Court had set aside the decrees solely on jurisdictional grounds without examining the merits of the competing claims, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the case on its actual merits. The High Court was requested to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within nine months.
(Note: The sources provided do not contain information regarding a case titled “Parmjit Singh v. State of H.P.: Quashing of HRA Fraud Case”; the summary above is based strictly on the provided material regarding the Khadri Dargah succession dispute.)
2026 INSC 438
Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri V. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc.(D.O.J. 02.04.2026)
