Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Khadri; Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri alias Syed Budan Sha Quadriv.Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Khadri & Ors. Etc.; Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri & Ors. Etc.

J U D G M E N T

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final common judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, in Regular Second Appeal (RSA) Nos. 1004, 1064, 1069, and 1141 of 2023. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the Office of Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf institution, as such power is statutorily and exclusively reserved for the Waqf Board under the provisions of the Waqf Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The detailed facts leading to the present litigation, as adduced from the comprehensive records and written submissions, are as follows:

3.1. The present litigation involves a challenge to the final judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeals (RSA) Nos. 1004, 1064, 1069, and 1141 of 2023. The core of the controversy pertains to the entitlement to the spiritual and hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of the Hazarath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah (popularly known as the “Big Makan”) situated at Channapatna, Ramanagara District.

3.2. The Suit Dargah is a notified Waqf institution, and the office of Sajjadanashin is recognized under Mahomedan Law as that of a spiritual preceptor and teacher of religious doctrine, a post which is governed by long-standing customs and is distinct from the secular office of a Mutawalli.

3.3. The historical pedigree of the institution traces back to the founder, Janab Hazrath Syed Mohammed Akhil Shah Quadri, who was a spiritual mentor to Nawab Hyder Ali Khan Bahadur of the Mysore State. Official Muzrai records dating back to 16 June 1904 (marked as Ex. P-18) reflect that the great-grandfather of the present Petitioner, Syed Sultan Mohadin Sha Khadri, was the recognized Sajjadanashin of the Suit Dargah.

3.4. Upon the demise of the great-grandfather, the office devolved upon his son, Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Khadri (the Petitioner’s grandfather), who served as the presiding Sajjadanashin for several decades. In 1964, in accordance with the custom of nominating a successor-designate (Jan-Nasheen Sajjada), the grandfather nominated his eldest son, Syed Mohammed Akhil Pasha Khadri (the Petitioner’s father), to the office.

3.5. A pivotal vacancy occurred on 27 October 1980, when the Petitioner’s father, while serving as the nominated successor, passed away during the lifetime of the presiding grandfather. To ensure spiritual continuity, the grandfather convened a religious function on 26 February 1981, in the presence of Sajjadanashins, Mujawars, and community heads, where he nominated his eldest grandson the Petitioner, Syed Mohammed Adil Pasha Quadri as the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada. This nomination was formalised in a written Khilafathnama (Ex. D.1).

3.6. The Petitioner’s position in this litigation is anchored in this 1981 nomination and the subsequent devolution of the office upon him following his grandfather's death on 6 October 1988. He asserts that as the eldest grandson of the first branch, his right is superior and consistent with the proved customs of the Dargah, a contention that was upheld by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3.7. Conversely, a rival claim was asserted by the line of the original Defendant No. 3, Mohammad Adil Basha Khadri, who is the father of the current Respondent No. 1, Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri. Respondent No. 1’s position is based on the assertion that the office of Sajjadanashin had devolved to his father through a Will executed in April 1944 by an uncle, Syed Sha Mohammed Ali Basha Khadri. He further contends that his father was selected and recognized as Sajjadanashin by a congregation of Fakirs and Murids on 10 December 1987.

3.8. Respondent No. 1 maintains that he succeeded his father to the office and is the one currently performing the spiritual duties at the Dargah. His primary legal stance throughout the second appeal has been that the Civil Court lacked inherent subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that once the Dargah was notified as a Waqf, all matters of appointment and succession fell within the exclusive domain of the Waqf Board under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act.

3.9. The litigation formally commenced on 28 November 1988, when the Petitioner's uncle, Syed Mohammed Ghouse Pasha Quadri (Respondent No. 30), filed O.S. No. 92/1988 seeking a declaration of his own status as Sajjadanashin based on a competing 1969 nomination. The Petitioner impleaded himself as Defendant No. 8 and filed a counter-claim on 16 January 1990, seeking a formal declaration of his title.

3.10. A significant procedural detour occurred on 22 August 2002, when the suit was transferred to the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Bangalore. However, on 17 December 2002, the Tribunal held that the dispute was not maintainable before it and returned the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication, a decision that went unchallenged for over two decades.

3.11. Following a trial spanning 31 years, during which 8 witnesses and 59 documents were examined for the defense, and 3 witnesses and 27 documents for the plaintiff, the Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge, Channapatna) delivered its judgment on 20 December 2019. The Court dismissed the suit of the uncle and decreed the counter-claim of the Petitioner, declaring him the rightful Sajjadanashin after finding the 1981 Khilafathnama to be genuine and duly proved.

3.12. The Trial Court specifically rejected the 1944 Will and the 1987 selection claims made by Respondent No. 1's father, noting that the office of Sajjadanashin is a spiritual headship that cannot typically be bequeathed via a testamentary document in violation of customary hereditary lines.

3.13. On 27 February 2023, the First Appellate Court (Senior Civil Judge, Channapatna) affirmed the trial court’s findings in their entirety. The Court held that the Petitioner had successfully established his nomination as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada in a public function and that the office of Sajjadanashin occupies a superior status to that of a Mutawalli.

3.14. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the Respondents, including Syed Hasnal Mussanna Sha Khadri (who preferred RSA No. 1004/2023), challenged the decrees before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, while not delving into the merits of the competing Khilafathnamas, set aside the judgments on 16 December 2024.

3.15. The High Court reasoned that under Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the term "Mutawalli" explicitly includes a "Sajjadanashin". Consequently, it held that the power to appoint or recognize a Sajjadanashin of a notified Waqf institution falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Board, rendering the 37-year Civil Court proceedings and decrees a nullity.

3.16. The Petitioner subsequently moved to this Court via the present Special Leave Petition, filed on 17 March 2025. On 13 May 2025, this Court issued notice and directed that "status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties". The Petitioner has since filed an application for clarification, alleging that Respondent No. 1 forcibly took possession and broke the locks of the Dargah on 17.12.2024, a day after the High Court's pronouncement but before the judgment was uploaded.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, primarily contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court holding that there is an implied bar on the jurisdiction of the civil courts in matters relating to appointment of a Sajjadanashin is wholly erroneous in law, contrary to the scheme of the Wakf Act, 1954 and Wakf Act, 1995, inconsistent with settled principles governing exclusion of civil court jurisdiction, and is thus liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has made the following submissions:

4.1. At the outset, it was submitted that the present dispute pertains to the appointment of the Sajjadanashin of Hazrath Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah, Channapatna, Karnataka (“Suit Dargah”), which is a spiritual office. A Sajjadanashin is the spiritual head of a Khanqah/Dargah, a religious teacher and guide, whose position is higher than that of a Mutawalli, who is merely a secular manager. The High Court itself has noted this distinction in the impugned judgment. The status and incidents of the office of Sajjadanashin are recognised in Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law (20th Edn., Chapter XII – Wakfs), which clearly delineates the spiritual character of the office.

4.2. It was contended that the High Court has fundamentally erred in conflating the office of Mutawalli with that of Sajjadanashin and misreading Section 3(j) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (pari materia with Section 3(f) of the 1954 Act). The definition of “Mutawalli” includes a Sajjadanashin only in limited circumstances where the Sajjadanashin performs the functions of a Mutawalli. This does not obliterate the distinction between the two offices. The Wakf Board’s powers are confined to appointment and removal of Mutawallis, i.e., secular managers, and do not extend to appointment or removal of a religious head such as a Sajjadanashin.

4.3. Learned counsel submitted that the Wakf Act itself maintains this distinction. Section 64(2) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (Section 43(3) of the 1954 Act) expressly preserves the rights of a Sajjadanashin even upon removal of a Mutawalli, thereby recognising the independent and distinct status of the Sajjadanashin. It was further pointed out that during oral submissions before the High Court, counsel for the Karnataka Wakf Board (Respondent No. 24) conceded that the Wakf Board has never appointed any Sajjadanashin. This itself demonstrates that the statutory scheme does not vest such power in the Board.

4.4. It was further contended that civil courts possess plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to try all suits of a civil nature unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. The exclusion of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. Even in relation to the Wakf Act, this Court in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 has categorically held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded only in respect of matters which the Act expressly requires to be determined by the Wakf Tribunal. The Wakf Tribunal is a creature of statute and cannot assume jurisdiction beyond what is conferred by Sections 6, 7, 83 and allied provisions of the Act.

4.5. Relying on Ramesh Gobindram (supra), it was urged that Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 does not bar civil court jurisdiction in respect of all disputes relating to wakf property; it bars jurisdiction only in respect of those matters which are required by or under the Act to be determined by the Tribunal. The present dispute-relating to succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin-is not one such matter. Indeed, the suit had earlier been transferred to the Wakf Tribunal and was returned to the civil court on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4.6. The reliance placed by the High Court on S.V. Cheriyakoa Thangal v. S.V.P. Pookoya & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1586 is misplaced, as that case pertained to appointment of a Mutawalli and not a Sajjadanashin. Similarly, reliance on Fakhruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12 is misconceived; in that case, although this Court recognised the distinction between a Mutawalli and a Sajjadanashin, the issue of exclusion of civil court jurisdiction did not arise in the context of appointment of a Sajjadanashin. The bar on jurisdiction in that case arose in a distinct factual matrix and cannot be extended to the present case.

4.7. It was further submitted that the High Court gravely erred in raising and deciding a jurisdictional issue in 2025 in a suit instituted in 1988, after nearly 37–38 years of litigation. The original suit (O.S. No. 92/1988) was filed by Respondent No. 30 seeking declaration and injunction. The Petitioner was impleaded and filed a counter claim asserting his own status as Sajjadanashin. The Trial Court, after full-fledged trial and appreciation of evidence, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and decreed the counter claim in favour of the Petitioner by judgment dated 20.12.2019. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2023, affirmed the findings and dismissed all appeals. These were concurrent findings on facts.

4.8. It was emphasised that no jurisdictional objection had been raised by the original plaintiff or other contesting respondents in their pleadings before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. Despite this, the High Court in second appeal set aside the concurrent judgments solely on the question of jurisdiction, holding that there was an implied ouster of civil court jurisdiction.

4.9. Learned counsel submitted that such an approach is impermissible. The suit had proceeded to full trial; the Wakf Board, though a party, did not challenge the maintainability of the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. Badam Balakrishna Hotel (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1378, this Court held that a remand order ought not to be passed on a belated plea of lack of jurisdiction in a case not involving coram non judice. In the present case, given the wide jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 CPC and absence of an express bar, no question of coram non judice arises.

4.10. It was further submitted that the High Court framed only limited substantial questions of law, of which Question No. 1 related to jurisdiction. Question No. 2 did not arise, as the Petitioner had pleaded and proved his entitlement to the office of Sajjadanashin. Question No. 3 regarding consequential relief also did not arise, as the Petitioner had sought and was granted consequential relief of injunction. No other substantial question of law warranting reconsideration of merits was framed. In such circumstances, remanding the matter after nearly four decades would cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner and amount to prolonging litigation unnecessarily.

4.11. On relief, it was submitted that this Court ought not to remand the matter to the High Court. Instead, the Second Appeals ought to be rejected and the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored. Alternatively, if this Court is inclined to remand the matter for reconsideration, appropriate directions may be issued to restore status quo as on the date of the impugned High Court judgment dated 16.12.2024. It was brought to the notice of this Court that subsequent to the impugned judgment, Respondent No. 1 broke open the lock of the Suit Dargah and entered the premises, claiming authority under the impugned order. Although this Court directed maintenance of status quo while issuing notice in the present SLP, the Petitioner’s application for clarification was not entertained. Hence, protective directions are necessary to safeguard the Petitioner’s entitlement pending final adjudication.

4.12. In sum, learned counsel submitted that: (i) there is no express or implied bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes relating to appointment of a Sajjadanashin; (ii) the High Court erred in conflating the offices of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin; (iii) the Wakf Act does not vest power in the Wakf Board to appoint or remove a Sajjadanashin; (iv) the suit was fully tried and resulted in concurrent findings in favour of the Petitioner; and (v) remand after nearly four decades is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and appropriate relief granted in favour of the appellant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

5. Per contra, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, made the following submissions:

5.1. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 (Syed Hasnal Musanna Sha Khadri) submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court raises substantial questions concerning the statutory powers of Waqf Boards across the country and correctly addresses two core issues, namely: (i) whether “Sajjadanashin” falls within the definition of “Mutawalli” under the Waqf Act, 1954 and Waqf Act, 1995; and (ii) whether the Waqf Board has jurisdiction over appointment and removal of a Sajjadanashin to the exclusion of civil courts.

5.2. It was submitted that the present dispute pertains to the Hazrath Syed Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah, Channapatna, Karnataka (“Channapatna Dargah”), and concerns entitlement to be declared as Sajjadanashin thereof. The original suit (O.S. No. 92/1988) was instituted in 1988. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but granted a declaration in favour of Defendant No. 8 (Petitioner herein). The First Appellate Court dismissed all appeals. In Second Appeal, the High Court framed substantial questions of law including whether the Waqf Board is exclusively authorised under the Waqf Acts to appoint and remove the Mutawalli and whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted, and whether the office of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin are one and the same.

5.3. Learned counsel submitted that Section 3(i) of the Waqf Act, 1995 (pari materia with Section 3(f) of the 1954 Act) defines “mutawalli” in inclusive terms and expressly includes within its ambit “sajjadanashin”, among others. Thus, for the purpose of statutory administration and regulation of Waqf, the office of Sajjadanashin is subsumed within the inclusive definition of Mutawalli.

5.4. It was further submitted that Sections 32(2)(g), 63, 64 and 65 of the 1995 Act (and corresponding provisions of the 1954 Act) vest comprehensive powers in the Waqf Board, including:

• To appoint and remove Mutawallis (including those falling within the inclusive definition, i.e., Sajjadanashin);
• To assume direct management where no suitable person is available; and
• To exercise superintendence over the entire administration of Waqf, including religious offices integrally connected to the Dargah.

5.5. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in S.V. Cheriyakoya Thangal v. S.V.P. Pookoya & Ors., (Supra), wherein it was held that appointment of a Mutawalli under Section 3(i) is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board and not the Civil Court, and that the Waqf Tribunal is only an adjudicatory forum after the Board has exercised its jurisdiction.

5.6. It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the Petitioner on Section 64(2) of the 1995 Act (removal of Mutawalli not affecting personal rights as Sajjadanashin) is misplaced. Section 64(2) merely safeguards independent personal or spiritual rights and does not curtail the statutory power of the Board to regulate the office in its administrative dimension.

5.7. Learned counsel contended that if the Petitioner’s argument is accepted, anomalous consequences would arise, namely:

• Appointment/removal of Mutawalli would lie before the Waqf Board;
• Appointment/removal of Sajjadanashin would lie before Civil Courts;
• Parties would bypass the specialised statutory authority and indulge in forum shopping;
• The entire statutory scheme of the Waqf Act would be rendered meaningless.

5.8. It was also submitted that there can be no estoppel against statute. In Fakruddin (Dead) through LRs v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs., (Supra), this Court held that jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by consent, waiver or acquiescence. Hence, the fact that parties initially approached the Civil Court is legally irrelevant.

5.9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his submission in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 536, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 7 SCC 791 and Aliya Thammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya & Anr. Vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors. (2019) 16 SCC 1.

5.10. On facts, it was pointed out that the Petitioner failed to establish valid nomination or entitlement; the alleged Khilafatnama was not satisfactorily proved; no independent religious authority supported the alleged nomination; and the Petitioner was not residing in Channapatna nor continuously associated with the Dargah. It was submitted that in any event, the factual record does not support the Petitioner’s claim.

5.11. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 submitted that the High Court correctly examined the substantial questions of law and that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction stands ousted in view of the statutory scheme.

6. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 24 has made the following submissions:

6.1. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 24 (Karnataka State Board of Waqf) submitted that the High Court’s finding that disputes qua the position-holder of Sajjada Nasheen lie within the exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction of the Waqf Board is erroneous in part and requires proper statutory interpretation.

6.2. It was submitted that Section 32(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995 provides:

“Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all [auqaf] in a State shall vest in the Board established or the State; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as to ensure that the auqaf under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered…”

6.3. Further, Section 32(2)(g) empowers the Board:

“to appoint and remove mutawallis in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

6.4. It was submitted that these provisions relate to the non-religious and administrative aspects of Waqf, such as appointment of Mutawalli as manager, protection of property, utilisation of income, and supervision of management. A Mutawalli is essentially a manager of Waqf property appointed under Section 32(2)(g), whose duties are enumerated under Section 50 of the 1995 Act and Rule 57 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017. These duties pertain to protection, preservation, maintenance and management of the Waqf institution and its properties.

6.5. On the other hand, a Sajjada Nasheen is the “spiritual superior” of a Dargah and in charge of spiritual affairs. Rule 2(xiii) of the Karnataka Waqf Rules defines Sajjada Nasheen as:

“Sajjada Nasheen means a spiritual superior of Dargah and incharge of spiritual affairs of such Dargah.”

6.6. It was submitted that declaration of a Sajjada Nasheen is a religious affair over which the Waqf Board has no jurisdiction. The inclusive definition of Mutawalli in Section 3(i) must be read contextually, particularly in cases where the same individual holds both posts. A Mutawalli appointed under Section 32(2)(g) cannot automatically function as Sajjada Nasheen unless appointed under custom and succession.

6.7. Section 64(2) of the 1995 Act clarifies:

“The removal of a person from the office of the mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights, if any, in respect of the waqf property either as a beneficiary or in any other capacity or his right, if any, as a sajjadanashin.”

Thus, removal of Mutawalli does not affect independent spiritual rights as Sajjada Nasheen.

6.8. It was submitted that the Waqf Board, being an administrative body, can only sanction the appointment of a Mutawalli. The post of Sajjada Nasheen is customary and must be established according to rules of succession. Any inter se disputes regarding entitlement must be adjudicated by the competent authority in law.

6.9. Without prejudice, it was submitted that if directed by this Court, the Board would adjudicate the dispute between the parties in accordance with customary and succession laws. However, based on the material on record, none of the parties have conclusively established entitlement to the post.

7. Accordingly, Respondent No. 24 has, on distinct yet statutory grounds, supported the interpretation of the Waqf Act within their respective spheres and have prayed that the impugned judgment be sustained or appropriate clarification be issued in accordance with the statutory scheme of the Waqf Act, 1954 and 1995.

ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the controversy in the present matter pertains to the entitlement to the spiritual hereditary office of Sajjadanashin of Hazarat Akhil Shah Quadri Dargah situated at Channapattana (hereinafter referred, to as ‘suit dargah'). It is the case of the present petitioner that Janab Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Quadri was the Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. The grandfather of the petitioner appointed his elder son (father of the petitioner) as Jan-Nasheen Sajjada of suit Dargah as well as Shivanasamudra Dargah, in the year 1964. Thereafter, father of the petitioner died in the year 1980. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 26.02.1981 at a religious function held in presence of Sajjadanashins, Mujawars, Mutawallis of various Dargahs, Devotees and Community Heads, Syed Mohammad Peer Pasha Khadri appointed and nominated the petitioner, his eldest grand son and son of late Syed Akhil Pasha Khadri, to be the Jan-Nasheen Sajjada of the suit Dargah. It is also stated that appointment and nomination was also reduced in writing and signed by Syed Mohammed Peer Pasha Khadri as well as those present at the function including the contesting respondent (original plaintiff). The said document was produced by the petitioner at Ex. D-1 before the concerned Trial Court.

9. It further transpires from the pleadings that the grand father of the petitioner passed away on 06.10.1988 and thereby the petitioner became Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah as well as Shivanasamudra Dargah. Thus, the contesting respondent herein filed suit being O.S. 92/1988 for declaration and injunction asserting his claim as Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement along with counter claim seeking declaration and injunction in his favour in respect of the office of Sajjadanashin of the suit Dargah. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the suit was transferred to the Presiding Officer, Waqf Tribunal, Bangalore Division for adjudication on 22.08.2002. It is also revealed that on 17.12.2002, the Presiding Officer, Waqf Tribunal, Bangalore Division held that suit was not maintainable before the Tribunal and the same is sent back to the Civil Court. After the matter is sent back by the Tribunal to the Civil Court, the Civil Court issued notice to the parties to appear.

10. It further transpires from the record that the Trial Court, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, passed judgment and order on 20th December, 2019 whereby the suit filed by the contesting respondent/original plaintiff came to be dismissed and further decreed the counter claim of the petitioner.

11. The original plaintiff/contesting respondent herein preferred Regular First Appeal No. 7/2020 and 8/2020 against the dismissal of the original suit and decreeing of counter claim in favour of the present petitioner respectively. The other respondents also preferred Regular First Appeal No. 19 and 16 of 2020.

12. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals filed by the concerned respondents herein against which Regular Second appeals were preferred by the concerned respondents before the High Court.

13. As observed herein above, the High Court, by impugned judgment allowed the appeals by holding that there was a implied bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and, therefore, the decree and the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were set aside by observing that the same are nullity. However, liberty has been granted to the parties to approach the Waqf Board. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present appeals.

14. The following questions are posed for our consideration in the present matter:

A. Whether the office of the Mutawalli and of the Sajjadanashin is the same?
B. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the matter?
C. Whether the High Court is right in quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner and also setting aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Court?

15. For considering the aforesaid questions posed before us the relevant provision of the Waqf Act of 1995, Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 are required to be examined.

16. Section 3 (i) of the Waqf Act (Act of 1995) defines the word Mutawalli which provides as under:

“(i) “mutawalli” means any person appointed, either verbally or under any deed or instrument by which a [waqf] has been created, or by a competent authority, to be the mutawalli of a [waqf] and includes any person who is a mutawalli of a waqf by virtue of any custom or who is a naib-mutawalli, khandim, mujawar, sajjadanashin, amin or other person appointed by a mutawalli to perform the duties of a mutawalli and save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person, committee or corporation for the time being, managing or administering any waqf or waqf property:
Provided that no member of a committee or corporation shall be deemed to be a mutawalli unless such member is an office-bearer of such committee or corporation:
Provided further that the mutawalli shall be a citizen of India and shall fulfil such other qualifications as may be prescribed:
Provided also that in case a waqf has specified any qualifications, such qualifications may be provided in the rules as may be made by the State Government;”

17. Section 32 provides for the powers of the Waqf Board which reads as under:

“32. Powers and functions of the Board.—(1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the general superintendence of all auqaf in a State shall vest in the Board established or the State; and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as to ensure that the auqaf under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income thereof is duly applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such auqaf were created or intended... (omitted for brevity)”

18. Section 50 of the Act of 1995 deals with duties of Mutawalli which provides as under:

“50. Duties of mutawalli.—It shall be the duty of every mutawalli—
(a) to carry out the directions of the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder;
(b) to furnish such returns and supply such information or particulars as may from time to time be required by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder;
(c) to allow inspection of [waqf] properties, accounts or records or deeds and documents relating thereto;
(d) to discharge all public dues; and
(e) to do any other act which he is lawfully required to do by or under this Act.”

19. Rule 57 of the Karnataka Waqf Rules also provides for duties of Mutawalli...

20. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1995, it can be said that Mutawalli means any person appointed to manage/administer Waqf which includes naib-mutawalli, Idiadim, mujawar, sajjada nashin, amin or mutawalli.

21. Duties of the Mutawalli, as provided under Section 50... Thus, it can be said that the aforesaid functions of the Mutawalli are purely administrative functions. An office of Mutawalli is not a spiritual office.

22. At this stage, we would like to refer provisions contained in Section 64 of the Act of 1995 which provides as under:

“64. Removal of mutawalli.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or the deed of [waqf], the Board may remove a mutawalli from his office if such mutawalli— […]
(2) The removal of a person from the office of the mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights, if any, in respect of the [waqf] property either as a beneficiary or in any other capacity or his right, if any, as a sajjadanashin. ...”

23. Thus, from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the removal of a person from the office of Mutawalli shall not affect his personal rights in respect of Waqf property either as a beneficiary or in any other capacity or his right if any as Sajjadanashin.

24. At this stage, we would also like to examine the issue whether the office of Mutawalli and Sajjadanashin are one and the same. It is also relevant to observe at the outset that the word Sajjadanashin has not been specifically defined under the Act of 1995, however, under the Rules, it has been defined as under:

“Sajjadanashin means a spiritual superior of a Dargah and incharge of spiritual affairs of such Dargah.”

25. At this stage, it is required to be observed that in the impugned judgment, the High Court has discussed the aforesaid aspect while considering the aforesaid issue at issue no. IV...

26. From the aforesaid observation of the High Court, it is absolutely clear that as per the outlines of “Mohamedan Law (iv edition)”, the special feature of the office of Sajjadanashin is that the original founder has the right to nominate his successor who in turn enjoys the same right...

27. It is relevant to observe that though the High Court has discussed the aforesaid aspect, ultimately while giving the answer to the issue no. IV has wrongly held that claim to the office of Sajjadanashin can neither be made as a matter of right nor any rule of primogeniture...

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the High Court has committed grave error while concluding that Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in assuming the jurisdiction and deciding the matter pertaining the office of Sajjadanashin of suit Dargah and the same is required to be dealt with and adjudicated by the concerned Waqf Board.

29. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present case and, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while adjudicating the dispute involved in the present matter.

30. Even otherwise, it is required to be observed at this stage that it is the contesting respondent, the original plaintiff who has filed O.S. No. 92/1988 before the concerned Civil Court in which the present petitioner filed Written statement and filed his counter claim and after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court decided the matter in favour of the present petitioner...

31. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, if the facts, as discussed hereinabove, are examined we are of the view that the issue of jurisdiction of Civil Court raised by the present contesting respondent before the High Court for the first time in second appeal was not required to be entertained by the High Court.

32. In the case of S.V. Cheriyakoa Thangal Vs. S.V. P Pookoya & Ors. (Supra) the Court was considering question with regard to the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board...

33. We are of the view that the facts of the present case are different. In the present case dispute is with regard to the office of Sajjadanashin. In the said case, the dispute was with regard to the appointment of Mutawalli and in the said case Waqf Board exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 32(2)(g) of the Act.

34. In the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (Supra), this Court has held in para 30 and 32...

35. We cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, however, in view of the discussion made by us in the foregoing paragraphs and looking to the facts of the present case, the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the present case.

36. In the case of Aliya Thammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya & Anr. Vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya & Ors. (Supra) this Court has held in paragraph 43...

37. We are of the view that the High Court has not gone into the merits of the case and decree rendered by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court, has been set aside only on the ground that the same is nullity as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction...

38. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that the civil suit has been filed by the contesting respondents/plaintiff before the Civil Court in the year 1988 and the proceedings remained pending before various Courts for a period of 37 years and, therefore, at this belated stage, it would not be proper to relegate the party to the Waqf Board to decide the issue raised in the present proceedings.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion our answer to the questions posed before us are as under:

A. 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.

B. In the present case issue is with regard to the appointment of Sajjadanashin of a suit Dargah and not with regard to the appointment of Mutawalli. Hence, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the present matter.

C. High Court has committed grave error in quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the petitioner and also the orders passed by the First Appellate Court by holding that the same are nullity as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the present matter.

40. It is required to be observed that the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the case and decided the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and ultimately quash and set aside the decree of the Trial Court as well as the judgment of the First Appellate Court on the aforesaid ground by holding that the same are nullity. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned judgment and order rendered by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal (RSA) Nos. 1004, 1064, 1069, and 1141 of 2023 is hereby quash and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Channapatna in O.S. NO. 92/1988 as well as the judgment and decree dtd. 27.02.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna passed in R.A. NO. 16/2020 stand restored. However, as the High Court has not decided the issue on merits, we remit the matter back to the High Court to decide the case of the parties on its own merits in accordance with law except the issue of jurisdiction as decided by us in this appeal. Further, as the dispute between the parties is pending since the year 1988, we request the High Court to expedite the hearing and make an endeavour to decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of 09 months.

41. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

42. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.