Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over the succession to the office of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of a Dargah in Fatehpur, Rajasthan. The Dargah was founded in 1838 by Khwaja Haji Muhammed Najmuddeen Sahib, who nominated his son as his successor. Over time, a Zabta (Constitution) was framed in 1932 by the third Sajjadah Nashin, Gulam Sarwar Sahib, laying down rules for nomination. The fourth Sajjadah Nashin, Nurul Hasan, by a Will dated 12.09.1979, nominated his daughter's son, Gulam Naseer (respondent No.1), as his successor. After Nurul Hasan's death in 1982, the appellant, Peer Gulam Jilani (brother of Nurul Hasan), challenged the nomination, claiming that the respondent No.1 was not from the 'Khandan' (family) as required by the Zabta and that only male lineal descendants could be nominated. Multiple suits were filed, and the trial court decreed in favor of the respondent, holding that the word 'Khandan' in the Zabta refers to the spiritual sect and includes the respondent, who is also a descendant of the founder's brother. The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeal, focused on the interpretation of the Zabta. The appellant argued that 'Khandan' means blood relations and that 'Sagir Sinn' in Rule 2 means 'minor son', thus excluding the respondent. The respondent countered that 'Khandan' is expansive and includes the spiritual lineage, and 'Sagir Sinn' means 'minor age'. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the trial court had correctly interpreted the Zabta, finding that the word 'Khandan' does not restrict succession to male lineal descendants but includes the spiritual sect. The Court also noted that the respondent's father traced lineage from the founder's brother, further supporting his inclusion. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondent's nomination as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.
Headnote
A) Wakf Law - Succession to Office of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli - Interpretation of Zabta - The word 'Khandan' in the Zabta does not refer strictly to blood relations but means the spiritual sect or 'Silsila', and includes daughter's son and descendants of the founder's brother. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court correctly interpreted the Zabta, holding that the respondent No.1 is eligible for nomination. (Paras 7-10)
B) Wakf Law - Meaning of 'Sagir Sinn' in Zabta - The term 'Sagir Sinn' means 'minor age' and not 'minor son', as 'Sinn' is a Persian word for age. Thus, the rule allows nomination of a person of minor age, not necessarily a son. (Paras 8-9)
C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the three courts below regarding the interpretation of the Zabta and the eligibility of the respondent, as no substantial question of law arose. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.1, being the daughter's son of the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, is eligible for nomination as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli under the Zabta (Constitution) of the Dargah, and whether the courts below erred in interpreting the word 'Khandan' and 'Sagir Sinn' in the Zabta.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the concurrent judgments of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court. The Court held that the interpretation of the Zabta by the lower courts was correct, and the respondent No.1 is eligible for nomination as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.
Law Points
- Interpretation of trust deeds
- Wakf management
- Succession to religious office
- Meaning of 'Khandan' in Zabta
- Inclusion of daughter's son in family
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 10770-10772 of 2013
Shri V.K. Shukla (for appellant), Smt. Aishwarya Bhati (for respondent)
Peer Gulam Naseer and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals arising from second appeals against concurrent judgments in suits concerning succession to the office of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of a Dargah.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and to be declared as the rightful Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, or to have the respondent's nomination set aside.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the nomination of the respondent No.1 as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, claiming that the respondent was not from the family (Khandan) as required by the Zabta and that the courts below misinterpreted the Zabta.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, upholding his nomination. The first appellate court dismissed the appellant's appeals. The High Court dismissed the second appeals, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the respondent No.1, being the daughter's son of the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, is eligible for nomination as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli under the Zabta.
Whether the word 'Khandan' in the Zabta means only male lineal descendants or includes the spiritual sect and daughter's son.
Whether the word 'Sagir Sinn' in Rule 2 of the Zabta means 'minor son' or 'minor age'.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The Zabta requires the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli to be from the family (Khandan) of the founder, and the respondent, being a daughter's son, is not a lineal descendant and thus ineligible. The word 'Sagir Sinn' in Rule 2 means 'minor son', indicating only male descendants can be nominated.
Respondent: The word 'Khandan' is expansive and refers to the spiritual sect (Silsila), which includes the respondent. The respondent is also a descendant of the founder's brother. The word 'Sagir Sinn' means 'minor age', not 'minor son', and does not restrict nomination to sons.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'Khandan' in the Zabta does not restrict succession to male lineal descendants but includes the spiritual sect (Silsila), and a daughter's son can be nominated. The term 'Sagir Sinn' means 'minor age' and not 'minor son'. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on the interpretation of the Zabta are binding and do not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court while considering the Issue No.7, after considering the evidence on record including the oral evidence returned the following findings in paragraph Nos. 89, 93 and 98: ... 'the word “Khandan” does not refer strictly to the family, as it is used for the blood relations. But the “Khandan” means “sect”.'
The use of the words 'Sulemani Sect' and 'Silsila' in the Japta points out that its maker never intended to make succession to this office hereditable.
Procedural History
The dispute originated from three suits filed in the trial court: Suit No.96 of 1982 (later renumbered as Suit No.13 of 1989) by the respondent for permanent injunction, Suit No.12 of 1989 by the appellant for permanent injunction, and Suit No.59 of 1986 by the respondent. The trial court decided all three suits by a common judgment dated 17.04.2003, decreeing the respondent's suits and dismissing the appellant's suit. The appellant filed three appeals under Section 96 CPC, which were dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 04.09.2004. The appellant then filed three second appeals in the High Court, which were dismissed on 05.07.2012. The appellant thereafter filed the present civil appeals in the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
