The Supreme Court has upheld the appointment of a Sajjadanashin (spiritual head) of a Dargah, reiterating that nomination by the incumbent, backed by established custom, prevails over rival hereditary claims.
The bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi has observed that the office of the mutawalli and Sajjadanashin cannot be said to be one and the same in view of the aforesaid discussion. Sajjadanashin of a Waqf can also discharge the function of its Mutawalli, if appointed under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act of 1995, however, Mutawalli under Section 32(2)(g) cannot function as a Sajjadanashin but can only perform the duties as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of Waqf and declaration of Sajjadanashin is a religious affair, however, role of Mutawalli of a Waqf only pertains to the administration and management of the Waqf.
The case arose from a long-standing family dispute over succession to the office of Sajjadanashin, a position that carries both spiritual authority and certain administrative responsibilities in a Dargah.
The original Sajjadanashin, Peer Pasha Khadri, had initially appointed his son as successor. However, after the son’s death, he nominated his grandson, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri, through a Khilafatnama dated February 26, 1981.
Following the death of the original Sajjadanashin in 1988, competing claims emerged from another family member, Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri, leading to multiple civil suits.
The Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and the Karnataka High Court consistently ruled in favour of the grandson, holding that the office of Sajjadanashin is hereditary but governed by nomination and custom. The 1981 Khilafatnama validly appointed the respondent as successor. Documents relied upon by the rival claimant did not confer succession rights
The High Court dismissed the second appeals, noting that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding succession to the religious office.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC, holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such perversity.
The Court elaborated on the nature of the office a Sajjadanashin is primarily a spiritual head, not merely an administrator. Succession is governed by custom, usage, and nomination, rather than rigid inheritance rules
The Court held that the Khilafatnama was duly proved through witnesses and surrounding circumstances. Even if specific terminology was absent, the document clearly reflected intent to nominate a successor. Mere suspicion could not invalidate an otherwise proven document.
The Court also noted that the appellant failed to substantiate claims of interpolation or seek expert examination at the appropriate stage.
The Court dismissed reliance on Power of Attorney (GPA): held to create only an agency relationship, not succession rights; Affidavit: not a valid mode of appointing a spiritual successor; and Past management activities: insufficient to establish legal entitlement to the office
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the respondent as the rightful Sajjadanashin. The judgment provides important clarity on succession disputes in religious institutions, particularly within the framework of Wakf and Islamic traditions.
Case Details
Case Title: Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri Versus Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc.
Citation: JURISHOUR-577-SC-2026Â
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13345 – 13346 Of 2015
Date: 02/04/2026
