SC clarifies distinction between spiritual and administrative roles; restores civil court jurisdiction in dargah succession dispute
The Supreme Court has held that the office of a Sajjadanashin (spiritual head of a dargah) is distinct from that of a Mutawalli (manager of waqf property), clarifying that disputes relating to succession to the former fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and not exclusively under the Waqf framework.
The ruling came in Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri v. Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 13345–13346 of 2015 and SLP (C) Nos. 10706–10709 of 2025), decided on April 2, 2026, by a Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
The dispute concerned succession to the office of Sajjadanashin of dargahs in Karnataka, including the Hazarath Mardane-e-Gaib Dargah at Shivasamudram and Hazarat Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah at Channapatna.
Following the death of the original Sajjadanashin in 1988, competing claims arose between family members. The predecessor had executed a Khilafatnama (1981) nominating his grandson (Respondent No. 1) as successor. The appellant, the youngest son, challenged this based on documents including a General Power of Attorney and other materials.
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the nomination and declared Respondent No. 1 as the lawful Sajjadanashin. However, the High Court set aside these findings, holding that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and Tribunal.
The appellant questioned the validity of the Khilafatnama and argued that succession could not be based on nomination in the manner claimed. It was also contended that the dispute fell within the statutory domain of the Waqf authorities. (Verdictum)
The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, argued that succession to the office of Sajjadanashin is governed by custom and valid nomination, and that civil courts retain jurisdiction over such disputes. Advocate Pritha Srikumar Iyer appeared for the appellant.
The Bench drew a clear distinction between the two offices under the Waqf Act, 1995, particularly Section 32(2)(g), observing:
“The office of the mutawalli and Sajjadanashin cannot be said to be one and the same… Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head… whereas the role of Mutawalli pertains to administration and management.”
The Court held:
- A Sajjadanashin is a spiritual office, involving preservation of religious traditions, guidance of disciples, and conduct of ceremonies.
- A Mutawalli performs secular, administrative functions relating to waqf property.
- While a Sajjadanashin may also discharge functions of a Mutawalli if appointed, a Mutawalli cannot assume the role of a Sajjadanashin.
On jurisdiction, the Court held that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not apply to disputes concerning succession to the spiritual office. Civil courts retain jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Bench further reiterated that succession to such religious offices is governed by custom, usage, or nomination, rather than strict hereditary rules.
Rejecting the appellant’s challenge, the Court found no merit in the allegation that the Khilafatnama was fabricated and held that it sufficiently conveyed the intention of the predecessor to appoint the respondent as successor.
It also held that a General Power of Attorney cannot confer succession to a spiritual office.
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s judgment which had held civil court jurisdiction to be barred
- Restored the decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court declaring Respondent No. 1 as Sajjadanashin
- Remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration of remaining issues on merits
- Requested expeditious disposal within nine months
The ruling reaffirms the legal distinction between spiritual and administrative roles in waqf institutions and clarifies that civil courts retain jurisdiction over disputes concerning religious succession.
