Supreme Court Upholds Nomination of Sajjadah Nashin: Peer Gulam Jilani vs. Peer Gulam Naseer (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2019. Citation: 2019 INSC 729. Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J. This judgment addresses the question of who can be appointed as the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli of a Dargah, specifically focusing on whether the appointee must be a direct male descendant of the founder or if a broader definition of “family” applies. The Supreme Court of India, in this civil appeal, examined the interpretation of a Dargah’s constitution (Zabta) to determine the eligibility of the nominated successor. The bench comprised of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion for the court.

Case Background

The case revolves around the Dargah founded in 1838 by Khwaja Haji Muhammed Najmuddeen Sahib in Fatehpur, Rajasthan. He nominated his son, Maulana Naseeruddeen Sahib, as his successor. Maulana Naseeruddeen Sahib then nominated Gulam Najmuddeen Sahib, who in turn nominated Gulam Sarwar Sahib. Gulam Sarwar Sahib framed a constitution (Zabta) in 1932, laying down rules for the Dargah’s management. Gulam Sarwar Sahib nominated Nurul Hasan as the fourth Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli through a Will dated 02.12.1951.

Nurul Hasan registered the Dargah with the Muslim Wakf Board of Rajasthan, submitting the Zabta. Nurul Hasan nominated his grandson (daughter’s son), Gulam Naseer (Respondent No.1), as his successor through a Will dated 12.09.1979, which was registered on 16.11.1979. Nurul Hasan passed away on 03.08.1982. Following his death, disputes arose, leading to multiple suits.

The appellant, Peer Gulam Jilani, who is the brother of Nurul Hasan, contested the nomination of Gulam Naseer, claiming that only a direct male descendant of the founder could be appointed as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, and that Gulam Naseer, being a daughter’s son, did not qualify.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Suit No. 96 of 1982 was filed by Gulam Naseer seeking a permanent injunction. A temporary injunction was granted, which was later restored by the High Court. Subsequently, Peer Gulam Jilani filed Suit No. 12 of 1989 seeking a permanent injunction against Gulam Naseer. Additionally, Gulam Naseer filed Suit No. 59 of 1986. The trial court decided all three suits through a common judgment on 17.04.2003, decreeing Suit No. 96 of 1982 and Suit No. 59 of 1986 in favor of Gulam Naseer, and dismissing Suit No. 12 of 1989 filed by Peer Gulam Jilani. The trial court upheld Gulam Naseer’s nomination as the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.

Peer Gulam Jilani appealed the trial court’s judgment, but the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals on 04.09.2004. Subsequently, Peer Gulam Jilani filed second appeals, which were also dismissed by the High Court on 05.07.2012. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Peer Gulam Jilani appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Zabta (constitution) of the Dargah, framed in 1932. The relevant rules from the Zabta are:

• Rule 1: “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 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.”
• Rule 2: “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,”

The key legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the terms “family” and “minor son” as used in the Zabta. The appellant interpreted “family” to mean direct male descendants of the founder, and “minor son” to mean a male child. The respondent argued that “family” should be interpreted more broadly to include those within the spiritual sect and that “minor son” should be interpreted as a person of minor age.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Zabta requires the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli to be from the family of the founder and a lineal descendant.
• The appellant contended that the respondent, being the daughter’s son of the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, does not belong to the family of the founder and therefore is ineligible for appointment.
• The appellant submitted that the use of the words “Sagir Sinn” in Rule 2, which he translates to mean “minor son,” reinforces the argument that only a male descendant can be nominated.
• The appellant argued that he, being the brother of the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli, is from the family of the founder and was accepted by the Murids.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the word ‘Khandan’ used in the Zabta is an expansive term that includes the respondent, and refers to a spiritual sect (‘Silsila’).
• The respondent submitted that all those included in the spiritual sect are eligible for appointment as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.
• The respondent argued that he is included in the ‘Khandan’ because he is the daughter’s son and also from the lineage of Shahabuddeen Sahib, the brother of the founder.
• The respondent contended that the word ‘Sagir Sinn’ has been wrongly translated as ‘minor son,’ and that ‘Sinn’ is a Persian word meaning ‘age’ or ‘year,’ not ‘son.’
• The respondent submitted that Rule 2 means that the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli can nominate any person of minor age as his successor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the primary issue raised by the appellant, which was:

1. Whether the lower courts misinterpreted the Zabta regarding the eligibility criteria for the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli. Specifically, whether the nominated successor must be a direct male descendant of the founder or if a broader definition of “family” applies.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 1 of the Zabta: The court interpreted this rule to mean that the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli should be a trained person from the spiritual lineage, not necessarily a direct male descendant.
• Rule 2 of the Zabta: The court clarified that “Sagir Sinn” means “minor age,” not “minor son,” thereby allowing for the nomination of a person of any gender who is of minor age.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Persian-English Dictionaries by A.N. Wollaston and S. Steingass were cited to support the interpretation of the word “Sinn” as “age” or “year,” thus rejecting the appellant’s claim that it meant “son.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the Zabta, specifically the terms “Khandan” and “Sagir Sinn.” The court emphasized that the Zabta should not be interpreted in a narrow, literal sense but rather in the context of the spiritual traditions and practices of the Dargah. The court’s reasoning was driven by the following key points:

• Broad Interpretation of “Khandan”: The court rejected the appellant’s argument that “Khandan” should be narrowly interpreted as direct male descendants of the founder. Instead, it accepted the respondent’s contention that “Khandan” refers to the spiritual sect (“Silsila”) and includes those who are part of that lineage, even if not direct male descendants.
• Interpretation of “Sagir Sinn”: The court clarified that “Sagir Sinn” means “minor age” and not “minor son,” as argued by the appellant. This interpretation was supported by the Persian-English dictionaries, which defined “Sinn” as “age” or “year.” This interpretation removed the restriction that only a male child could be nominated.
• Emphasis on the intention of the Zabta: The court noted that if the Zabta intended to establish a hereditary line of succession, it would have explicitly stated so. The absence of such a provision indicated that the selection of the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli was not limited to direct male descendants.
• Weight to the Nomination: The court also gave weight to the fact that the 4th Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli had the right to select his successor, and his selection and nomination should be given due consideration.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that “Khandan” meant direct male descendants and “Sagir Sinn” meant “minor son,” but rejected it based on the broader context of the Zabta and the spiritual traditions of the Dargah. The Court also relied on dictionary definitions to clarify the meaning of “Sinn.”

The decision was that the respondent was eligible to be nominated as Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.

The Court reasoned that the Zabta does not mandate a lineal descendant but rather a person from the spiritual sect. The Court also clarified that “Sagir Sinn” means “minor age” and does not restrict nomination to male descendants.

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha agreeing on the interpretation of the Zabta and the eligibility of the respondent.

The court held that, “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.”

The court also stated that, “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.”

Further, the court clarified that, “The word ‘Sagir Sinn’ also gives the meaning of “minor age ”. In no manner the word “Sagir Sinn ” can be read as minor son as contended by the appellant.”

Key Takeaways

• The term “family” in religious trusts can be interpreted broadly to include those within the spiritual lineage, not just direct blood relatives.
• The term “Sagir Sinn” means “minor age,” not “minor son,” allowing for the nomination of a person of any gender who is of minor age.
• The interpretation of religious documents should consider the context and traditions of the institution.
• The nomination by the previous Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli carries significant weight.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “family” (Khandan) in the context of religious trusts can be interpreted broadly to include those within the spiritual lineage, and the term “Sagir Sinn” means “minor age,” not “minor son.” This clarifies the eligibility criteria for the position of Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli in the context of the Dargah’s Zabta. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the interpretation of the Zabta.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision and affirming the eligibility of Gulam Naseer as the Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli. The Court clarified the interpretation of the Zabta, emphasizing that the term “family” should be understood in a broader spiritual context and that “Sagir Sinn” refers to “minor age,” not “minor son.” This judgment underscores the importance of contextual interpretation in religious matters and the significance of the nomination by the previous Sajjadah Nashin and Mutawalli.