The case of Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri v. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. (2026 INSC 314) centers on the long-standing dispute over succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin at two Dargahs in Karnataka and whether civil courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate such religious appointments.
Factual Background
- The Dispute: Rival claims were asserted for the office of Sajjadanashin at the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah (Shivasamudram) and the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah (Channapatna). The litigation commenced in 1988 and has spanned nearly 37-38 years.
- Competing Claims: One party (Respondent No. 1/Petitioner) claimed succession based on a 1981 nomination (Khilafatnama) by his grandfather, the original Sajjadanashin. The rival claimant (Appellant/Respondent No. 30) relied on alternative documents, including a Power of Attorney and a 1969 nomination.
- Concurrent Findings: The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court consistently found in favor of the 1981 nomination, declaring it genuine and validly executed according to the hereditary customs of the Dargahs.
- High Court Intervention: In 2024, the High Court of Karnataka set aside these concurrent findings in the Channapatna case. It held that civil court proceedings were a nullity because the Waqf Board has exclusive statutory jurisdiction under the Waqf Act, 1995, to appoint or recognize Sajjadanashins.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court identified several fundamental errors in the High Court’s reasoning regarding the interpretation of the Waqf Act and the nature of religious offices:
- Sajjadanashin vs. Mutawalli: The Court emphasized that these are distinct offices. A Mutawalli is a secular manager responsible for the administrative and financial aspects of Waqf property. A Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head and preceptor of the shrine, responsible for preserving the spiritual lineage (silsila) and guiding disciples.
- Limited Jurisdiction of Waqf Board: Under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, the Board’s power is limited to the appointment and removal of Mutawallis. Although the definition of “Mutawalli” in the Act includes Sajjadanashins for administrative purposes, this does not grant the Board the power to adjudicate the spiritual succession to a religious office.
- Plenary Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Under Section 9 of the CPC, civil courts have jurisdiction over all suits of a civil nature unless expressly barred. The Court found no express bar in the Waqf Act regarding the appointment of a spiritual head, noting that even the Waqf Board admitted it had never exercised such power.
- Abuse of Process: The Court noted that the jurisdictional objection was raised at a belated stage (second appeal) after decades of trial. Relegating parties to the Waqf Board after 37 years of litigation would cause “grave prejudice” and unnecessary prolongation.
- Invalid Modes of Succession: The Court clarified that a Power of Attorney creates only an agency relationship and cannot act as a valid mode of succession to a religious office.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a “grave error” in declaring the civil court decrees as nullities. The Court partly allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court’s jurisdictional findings, and remitted the matters back to the High Court to decide the cases on their merits. The High Court is requested to expedite the hearing and deliver a final decision within nine months.
2026 INSC 314
Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri V. Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc. D.O.J. 02.04.2026)
