Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

37. At the same time, Indian courts have consistently held that succession to such religious offices is ordinarily determined by custom, usage, or nomination by the incumbent, depending upon the particular traditions governing the institution. In the context of Muslim religious institutions, the Supreme Court has recognised that offices such as that of a Sajjadanashin or Mutawalli may devolve in accordance with the established _____________________________________________________________________________________________  customs of the institution, including nomination by the predecessor rather than strict rules of inheritance, as held in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (supra). Mulla: Principles of Mahomedan Law (20th Edition) in Chapter XII, provides for the same as under:

42. It is a settled principle that mere suspicion cannot displace a document which has otherwise been duly proved. The burden of establishing forgery or interpolation lies on the party alleging it and this principle has been reiterated in H. Venkatachala Iyengar (supra). In the present case, the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation of interpolation before this Court as well.

43. It is also required to be observed at this stage that the appellant himself had earlier admitted the practice of succession through nomination by the incumbent Sajjadanashin. Thus, the admission of the appellant demonstrated that the office was not confined strongly to succession by a living son and that nomination by the incumbent Sajjadanashin was recognised in practice. Significantly, the material on record does not establish any rigid rule that the office must invariably devolve upon the eldest son of hereditary succession. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant that under Mohammadan law, only a living son may succeed to the office of Sajjadanashin is without factual basis and no material is produced by the appellant to support _____________________________________________________________________________________________  this argument. The extracts produced by the appellant from Mulla (supra) in the course of oral submissions pertain to succession to property and not to appointment of a successor as Sajjadanashin.

 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.

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.