1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10770-10772 OF 2013  

PEER GULAM JILANI            ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

PEER GULAM NASEER AND ORS.            ...RESPONDENT(S)  

J U D G M E N T  

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.  

These appeals have been filed against the judgment  

dated 05.07.2012 of the High Court of Rajasthan at  

Jaipur Bench dismissing three Second Appeals filed by  

the appellant by confirming the judgment and order of  

the First Appellate Court as well as of the trial court.   

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to civil suit  

between the parties and these appeals need to be noted  

are:  

2.1 In the year 1838 Khwaja Haji Muhammed  

Najmuddeen Sahib founded the Dargah in  

Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. During  

his lifetime, he nominated his son Maulana

2  

Naseeruddeen Sahib as his successor to the  

office of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of the  

Dargah. Maulana Naseeruddeen Sahib during his  

lifetime nominated Gulam Najmuddeen Sahib, who  

was aged 3 years at that time as Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli after him. Gulam  

Najmuddeen Sahib after attaining majority  

nominated Gulam Sarwar Sahib as his successor  

to the seat of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli  

of the Dargah. Gulam Sarwar Sahib became the  

third Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of the  

Dargah. Gulam Sarwar Sahib while functioning  

as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli framed a  

Constitution (Zabta) in the year 1932 of the  

Dargah by laying down Rules for nomination of  

Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, for management  

of Dargah and other Rules and Principles for  

Dargah. Original Zabta was in Urdu which has  

been filed as Ex.2 along with translated copy  

in English and Hindi in the suit. Gulam Sarwar  

Sahib, the third Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli  

nominated Nurul Hasan as the 4th Sajjadah

3  

Nashin and Mutawalli during his lifetime by a  

Will dated 02.12.1951.   

2.2 Nurul Hasan, the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli got registered the Dargah in the  

Muslim Wakf Board of Rajasthan, copy of Zabta  

was also submitted at the time of registration  

of the Deed. The Zabta before being submitted  

in the Wakf Board for registration was  

acknowledged by 4th Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli, petitioner and other members of the  

Khandan. Fourth Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli,  

Nurul Hasan made declaration executing Will on  

12.09.1979 nominating his grandson (daughter’s  

son) - Gulam Naseer, the respondent No.1 to  

these appeals, as Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli. The Will was also got registered on  

16.11.1979 at Sub-Registrar, Ajmer. On  

03.08.1982, 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli  

passed away. Before his death, he also made  

declaration and confirmation of nomination in  

favour of respondent No.1.  

4  

2.3 After the death of 4th Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli when certain disturbance in the  

management of Dargah was created by the  

appellant and some other persons, a Suit No.96  

of 1982 (Peer Gulam Naseer vs. Shri Abrar Ahmad  

and 10 others) was filed by the respondent  

through his guardian and father Maujam Ali.  

The suit was filed for the permanent  

injunction. A temporary injunction was granted  

in the suit. Interim injunction granted by the  

trial court although was set aside by the  

Appellate Court but ultimately was restored by  

the High Court on 28.10.1988 in Civil Revision  

Petition No. 657 of 1986. Against the judgment  

of the High Court, SLP(C)No.14030 of 1989 was  

filed, which was dismissed. Review Petition  

also came to be dismissed. Another Suit No. 12  

of 1989(Peer Gulam Jilani vs. Gulam Naseer and  

05 others) was filed by the appellant praying  

for permanent injunction against the  

respondent.   

5  

2.4 Another Suit No.59 of 1986 (Gulam Naseer vs.  

Gulam Jilani and 23 others) was filed by the  

respondent. Suit No.96 of 1982 filed by the  

respondent No.1 was registered as Suit No.13  

of 1989 in the Court of District Judge.  

2.5 The trial court decided all the three suits by  

a common judgment dated 17.04.2003. Suit No.96  

of 1982 filed by the respondent No.1 was  

decreed and defendants of the suit were  

restrained by way of permanent injunction.  

Suit No.96 of 1995 filed by the appellant for  

permanent injunction against the respondent  

was dismissed whereas Suit No.59 of 1986 filed  

by the respondent was decreed. The trial court  

upheld the nomination of the respondent by 4th  

Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli by declaration  

and Will dated 12.09.1979, declaration was  

held proved by the trial court. The trial court  

also held that the respondent No.1 was fully  

eligible to be nominated as Sajjadah Nashin  

and Mutawalli.  

6  

2.6 Aggrieved against the judgment of trial court  

dated 17.04.2003, the appellant filed three  

appeals under Section 96 of the CPC, which  

appeals were heard and dismissed by the First  

Appellate Court vide its judgment dated  

04.09.2004. Aggrieved against the judgment of  

the First Appellate Court dated 04.09.2004  

three second appeals were filed by the  

appellant, which were dismissed by the High  

Court by the impugned judgment dated  

05.07.2012. The appellant aggrieved against  

the judgment of the High Court dismissing the  

three second appeals has come up in these  

appeals.   

3. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned senior  

counsel appearing for the appellant. Smt. Aishwarya  

Bhati, learned senior counsel, has appeared for the  

respondent.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that  

affairs of Dargah are to be managed by the Constitution

7  

(Zabta), English translation of which is filed as  

Annexure-P1 in these appeals. He submits that as per  

Rules 1 and 2 of the Zabta, Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli has to be from the family. The respondent  

No.1 does not belong to the family of the founder of  

the Wakf and he being daughter’s son of 4th Sajjadah  

Nashin & Mutawalli, Nurul Hasan cannot be treated to  

be from the family and could not have been appointed.  

It is submitted that the appellant being brother of  

Nurul Hasan Sahib, 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli,  

he is from the family of the founder and was accepted  

as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli by Murids. He submits  

that the use of words “Sagir Sinn” in Rule 2, which  

means minor son fully re-enforces the submission of the  

appellant that it is only male descendant in the  

family, who can be nominated as Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 was  

not being eligible for the appointment Sajjadah Nashin  

and Mutawalli, all the courts below committed error in  

not appointing the appellant as Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli, and in holding that the respondent No.1 was  

eligible for appointment as Sajjadah Nashin and

8  

Mutawalli.   

5. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the  

submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant  

submits that all the three Courts have correctly  

interpreted the Zabta. It is submitted that the  

appellant is incorrectly interpreting the word  

‘Khandan’ used in Zabta. The word ‘Khandan’ is an  

expansive word, which shall clearly include the  

respondent No.1 in the ‘Khandan’. It is submitted that  

the word ‘Khandan’ used in Zabta refers to a spiritual  

Sect ‘Silsila’ and all those who were included in the  

spiritual Sect are eligible for appointment as Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli. It is further submitted that the  

respondent both by being daughter’s son as well as from  

lineage of Shahabuddeen Sahib great grandfather of the  

respondent No.1, who was real brother of Khwaja Haji  

Najamuddeen, the founder of Dargah is included in  

‘Khandan’. The restricted meaning of ‘Khandan’ as  

sought to be given by the appellant is incorrect. It  

is, further, submitted that the interpretation of word  

‘Sagir Sinn’ as occurring in Rule 2 of Zabta is again

9  

incorrect. It is submitted that the word ‘Sagir Sinn’  

occurring in Zabta has been wrongly translated in  

English as minor son. The word ‘Sinn’ is a Persian word  

which means ‘age, year’ and does not mean son as sought  

to be interpreted by the appellant. He submits that  

Rule 2 meant that Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli can  

declare on his internal spiritual light any person of  

minor age as his successor. The word ‘Sagir Sinn’ never  

meant as minor son. It is submitted that all the Courts  

below have rightly interpreted the Zabta and there is  

no merit in the submission of the appellant.  

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused the records.  

7. The only argument which has been raised before us  

for consideration by the appellant is alleged mis-

interpretation of Zabta by Courts below. Learned  

counsel for the appellant interpreting Rules of Zabta  

contends that person to be nominated as Sajjadah Nashin  

and Mutawalli has to be from family of founder and  

further he has to be a lineal descendant from founder.

10  

The ineligibility of the respondent is canvassed on the  

ground that he was daughter’s son of 4th Sajjadah Nashin  

and Mutawalli, who nominated him and he is not a son  

as lineal descendant. The submission is that he does  

not belong to ‘Khandan’ of founder.  The trial court  

has framed several issues in suits which were decided  

by it. The Issue No.7 which relates to the submission  

raised before us is as follows:  

“7) Whether Nurul Hasan has no authority to  

nominate his successor, who is a stranger to  

the family ?”  

8. The pedigree of founder of Dargah was on the  

record. Gulam Naseer’s father, Maujam Ali traced his  

lineage from Shahabuddeen, the real brother of Khwaja  

Haji Najamuddeen, founder of the Dargah. 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:  

“89…………It is not mentioned in the Japta that  

the succession to the office of Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli should be from the  

descendants or Haji Najmuddin Saheb or  

Maulana Naseerudin Saheb rather it is  

mentioned in the Japta that a trained person

11  

of this “Khandan” should be appointed to this  

post. The further, reference of the words  

“Muntkhib”, “Bait” and “Khilafat” in the  

Japta clarifies the position that the word  

“Khandan” does not refer strictly to the  

family, as it is used for the blood  

relations. But the “Khandan” means “sect”.  

No other conclusion can follow from the  

interpretation of the worse “Muntkhib”,  

“Bhait” and “Khilafat”. I can not accept the  

interpretation of the word “Khandan” to be  

the family succession, as it has been  

disclosed by Gulam Jilani DW1. If the  

intention of the maker of the Japta was that  

the succession to this office shall be  

hereditable, no one prevented him from making  

a clear provision in this regard.  

93. 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. However, it does not  

mean that the descendants of Hazi Najmuddin   

or Maulana Naseerudin have been totally  

excluded for being chosen as the Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli. Their descendant may  

also be nominated to this office. In  

nutshell, the proposed Sajadah-Nashin and  

Mutawalli may be a stranger or he may be a  

descendant from the founder of the Wakf in  

question. The condition is that he should  

confirm to the standards mentioned in the  

Regulations discussed in the Japta and the  

outgoing Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli should  

confer Khilafat on him by doing the Bait on  

the hand and he should also nominate/declare  

him as his successor after his death because  

it is supposed to continue the spiritual  

line, commonly known as “SILSILA”.  

98. Let us now proceed on another assumption

12  

that only a descendant from Khawaja Najmuddin  

or Maulana Nasiruddin can be appointed to  

this post and this stranger has no role to  

play in Gulam Naseer PW2 has stated that his  

father is the descendant of Shahabuddin, who  

was the real brother of Khwaja Najmuddin,  

Maujam Ali PW1 has also confirmed his  

testimony. In this connection two Sajras  

Ex.101 and 102 have been placed on record.  

In this connection Gulam Jilani DW1 has  

stated that:  

“Ahmad baksh saheb ke pote hone ke  

nate vadi unke putra najimuddin saheb  

va unke pote maulana Nasruddin saheb  

ke bhi pote lagte hai”  

Gulam Jilani DW1 has also stated that the  

property rights of the descendants from one  

grandfather are different but the descendants  

constitute one “Khandan”. The above admission  

from the mouth of defendant clearly show that  

the plaintiff also belongs to the “Khandan”  

of Najmuddin Saheb and Maulana Naseeruddin  

Saheb.”  

9. We may extract the relevant portion of Rules 1 and  

2 of Zabta on which much emphasis was given by the  

learned counsel for the appellant. Relevant part of  

Rule 1 is as follows:  

“The Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of this  

abode (Dargah) of exalted highness ought to  

be a trained person from the line of this  

family and formally entered into Bai-

at(murid) in this very spiritual Sect  

(silsila) and should be enlightened with the  

knowledge and sanctity and also well

13  

acquainted with and acting upon the mystic  

path as propagated by the Sulemani Najmi  

family so that he may accordingly educate to  

those who are descrous to search the truth  

and believes himself to be a trustee of the  

poor and the innocent. In case of any  

negligence he shall be answerable to God.”  

10. Relevant portion of Rule 2 on which learned counsel  

for the appellant has given emphasis is to the following  

effect:  

“If the Sajjadah Nashin by virtue of  

revealing his internal spiritual light  

declares any minor son as his successor, in  

that case till attaining majority and  

knowledge,”  

11. Rule 1 of the Zabta cannot be read in a manner as  

suggested by the counsel for the appellant. Had the  

Zabta intended to lay down line of succession through  

lineal descendants, it would have been clearly  

provided. The succession to the Sajjadah Nashin and  

Mutawalli is not hereditary succession but it is  

selection by Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli. Following  

portion of Rule 1 makes it clear:  

“It shall be obligatory upon the Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli to select his successor  

during his life time keeping in view the  

conditions prescribed in the aforesaid lines

14  

so that no faction or dispute arises  

thereafter. If the Sahib-e-Sajjadah expires  

before such a selection, it would then be the  

duty of the main members of this venerable  

family and virtuous murids to select such a  

person who is gifted with the aforesaid high  

qualities and thereby to entrust him with all  

the affairs of the Dargah, and the rights of  

such a Sajjadah Nashin would be the same as  

those of his predecessor-Sajjadah Nashin and  

in case there are several such qualified  

persons the decision will be taken in  

accordance with the customs and traditions  

prevailing in this Dargah since the very  

beginning.”  

12. The Zabta of Dargah refers to spiritual Sect  

“Silsila” and the word family (Khandan)had not been  

used in the limited sense as sought to be contended by  

the appellant.   

13. Rule 1 of the Zabta cannot be read as laying down  

any hereditary succession to the office of Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli nor Rule 1 can be read to lay down  

succession to lineal descendants as sought to contend.  

The respondent who was daughter’s son of 4th Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli and who has also traced his lineage  

from Shahabuddin real brother of founder of Dargah,  

cannot be said to be person not belonging to ‘Khandan’.

15  

All the three Courts below have rightly held him to be  

fully eligible. Furthermore, Sajjadah Nashin who has  

been given right to select his successor, his selection  

and nomination has also to be given weight. There is no  

dispute between the parties that even a person of minor  

age can be selected as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.  

14. Coming to the second submission of the learned  

counsel for the appellant that use of word ‘Sagir Sinn’  

in Rule 2 means ‘minor son’. There are two reasons due  

to which this submission cannot be accepted. Firstly,  

in the Courts below appellant never raised an issue or  

contention that word ‘Sagir Sinn’ used in Rule 2 means  

‘minor son’. When no such issue or submission was  

raised, appellant cannot be allowed to raise this  

submission in this Court for the first time.  

15. Secondly, to satisfy ourselves, we have also looked  

into the Hindi translation, which is actual translation  

of Urdu words in the Zabta. In the counter-affidavit,  

the respondent has brought on the record Hindi  

translation which is in Devnagri translation of actual

16  

Urdu words. The word used is “Sagir Sinn”. The word  

“Sagir Sinn” is a combination of two words ‘Sagir Sinn’.  

Word ‘Sinn’ is a Persian word. In English Persian  

Dictionary by A.N. Wollaston, word age has been  

mentioned as ‘Sinn’. Following is stated in the  

Dictionary:  

 “ ”  

16. In another Persian-English Dictionary by             

S. Steingass one of the meanings to the Persian word  

‘sinn’ is year, age, period of life. Various  

combination of other different words using word ‘sinn’  

has also been defined like ‘sinni balugh, sinni tamiz,  

sinni shaikhukhiyat to the following effect:  

“...sinn, A tooth; nib of a pen; an  

indentation; a horn; year, age, period of  

life; a wild bull; greedy eating; name of a  

mountain near Madinah; also of a place sinni  

balugh(balughat, taklif), Age of puberty,  

mature age;- sinni tamiz(tamyiz, shu'ur), The  

age of discretion;- sinni shabab, Youth;-

sinni shaikhukhiyat, Mature age; old age;-

sinn u sal, Age, (many) years.”  

17. The word ‘Sagir Sinn’ also gives the meaning of  

“minor age”. In no manner the word “Sagir Sinn” can be

17  

read as minor son as contended by the appellant.   

18. All the three Courts have not committed any error  

in reading the Zabta and coming to the conclusion that  

respondent was eligible to be nominated as Sajjadah  

Nashin and Mutawalli. We do not find any merit in these  

appeals which are accordingly dismissed.  

......................J.  

                                 ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )  

......................J.  

                                 ( NAVIN SINHA )  

New Delhi,  

July 24, 2019.