CRP/1203/2023 of Jamiya Ilahiyat-e-Nooria Vs Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Jeelani on 3 September 2026

: COMMON ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.841 of 2022 in O.S.No.76 of 2022 by the Telangana Waqf Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’), wherein the revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC requesting the Tribunal to grant ad- interim injunction restraining the respondent therein from interfering into the duties of plaintiff No.3 as Sajjadah Nasheen over Khanka-e-Nooria and Rauza-e-Nooria situated at Bandlaguda, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.3’s father, late Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Jeelani @ Syed Noori Shah, created two Waqf institutions, namely, (i) Jamiya Ilahiyaat-e-Nooria and

(ii) Khanqaah-e-Nooria Waqf Alal Aulad. The said Waqf institutions were published in the Gazette and Muntakhabs bearing F.No.17/2/Indiraj-City/1970, dated 23.01.1970, and F.No.19/2/Inderaj-City/1970, dated 10.11.1971. The properties covered by the said documents comprised Sy.Nos.57, 58, 59,

60, 61, 92 and 93, to an extent of Ac.8.33 guntas, in respect of Jamiya Ilahiyaat-e-Nooria, and Sy.Nos.54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 94 and 95, to an extent of Ac.16.02 guntas, in respect of Khanqaah-e-Nooria Waqf Alal Aulad. The two institutions were also registered under Waqf Deeds executed by Petitioner No.3’s father on 14.08.1970. Petitioner No.1 is a registered society established by the father of Petitioner No.3 for promoting education among oppressed and needy persons. The Waqf Deeds provided for the rights and duties of the Mutawallis and Sajjadah Nasheens and prescribed the manner of selection of the Sajjadah Nasheen after the death of the founder, with a view to preserving the legacy and sanctity of the Dargah Shareef.

4. Petitioner No.3, being the fourth son of late Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Jeelani @ Syed Noori Shah, assumed the office of Sajjadah Nasheen after the death of his brother, late Arifuddin Jeelani. His position was accepted by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and other persons associated with the institution. Petitioner No.3 is stated to be well-versed in religious studies and to have authored several religious books. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 conducted meetings and passed resolutions dated 20.03.2022 and 26.03.2022 declaring Petitioner No.3 as the Sajjadah

Nasheen of the institution and recognising his authority to perform the religious ceremonies at the Dargah. The respondent was stated to have no qualification or experience in religious matters and, under the terms of the Waqf Deeds, was not entitled to claim the office of Sajjadah Nasheen. During the lifetime of the respondent’s father, the respondent was never appointed as Sajjadah Nasheen of Silsila-e-Nooria or Rauza-e- Nooria.

5. The respondent, despite having no right or entitlement, allegedly interfered with the day-to-day religious and ritual activities of the Dargah and obstructed Petitioner No.3 in discharging his duties as Sajjadah Nasheen. Hence, the petitioners sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent, his agents and persons claiming through him from interfering with the duties and functions of Petitioner No.3 as Sajjadah Nasheen of Silsila-e-Nooria and Rauza-e-Nooria.

6. The respondent therein filed counter denying the material allegations made in the petition and contended that the father of the petitioner No.3, late Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Jeelani @ Syed Noori Shah (Rh), had established Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and other Waqf institutions, which were registered with the Waqf

Board and for which Muntakhabs were issued. It was contended that the legal heirs of late Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Jeelani @ Syed Noori Shah (Rh), particularly S.M. Nasiruddin Jeelani, failed to carry forward his legacy and were involved in greed, deceit, fraud and misappropriation of Waqf funds. The respondent further stated that the petitioner No.3 was facing criminal cases registered by the Waqf Board in relation to such alleged irregularities and that the Waqf Board had taken the institution under its direct management. The respondent claimed to be the Sajjadah Nasheen and stated that he had been performing the rituals associated with the Dargah and Khankah. According to him, no other person was entitled to interfere with or perform such rituals. He denied that Petitioner No.3 was discharging the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen or that the respondent had interfered with his alleged duties. The respondent further contended that the petitioners had approached the Court with unclean hands and had suppressed material facts, the petitioners had failed to establish prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in their favour. According to the respondent, continuation of the ex parte interim injunction would cause irreparable loss and injury to him and would also create law and order problems. Hence, the respondent sought dismissal of the said petition.

7. On behalf of petitioners Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked and on behalf of respondent, Exs.R.1 to R.6 are marked. After considering the submissions made by both parties, the petition and counter averments, the trial Court disposed of the said petition and allowed petitioner No.3 and respondent to continue with their individual daily prayers and performing rituals separately without interfering with each other keeping in view the peace, tranquility and decorum of the subject institution. Aggrieved by the said order, both the parties filed these two revision petitions.

8. Heard Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in C.R.P.No.1808 of 2023 and respondent in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed learned counsel appearing for petitioners in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 and respondents in C.R.P.No.1808 of 2023.

9. The contention of revision petitioners in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 is that the Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts, the material documents and the applicable law, disposed of the injunction petition by permitting both parties to participate separately in the rituals without interfering with each other, which was erroneous and unsustainable. He contended that, as per the wish of the Waqif and the Waqfnama, the sons of the original Waqif are entitled to perform the religious rituals. The respondent, being the grandson of the original Waqif, could not be permitted to participate in the rituals when the sons were available. The Tribunal failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Waqfnama in this regard. Learned counsel further contended that, as per Ex.P.5-Waqf Deed, only the surviving sons are entitled to hold the office of Sajjadah Nasheen of the Dargah. The Tribunal failed to consider the said document, though it was material for deciding the issue. He also contended that the respondent was neither a scholar nor possessed knowledge of Islamic law or religious practices, whereas Petitioner No.3 is a Ph.D. holder in Islamic Law, a retired Professor of Nooria Arabia College and an author of nine books on various Islamic subjects. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider these aspects.

10. It is further contended that the Tribunal had misunderstood the petitioners’ case. The petitioners claimed the office of Sajjadah Nasheen in accordance with the document executed by the founder of Dargah, whereas the Tribunal had dealt with the issue of Mutawalli and the direct management of the Waqf Board, which was not the subject matter of the dispute. Learned counsel further submitted that Ex.P5 also disclosed existence of the societies and their day-to-day affairs and duties and, therefore, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are necessary and relevant parties to the proceedings. It is further contended that the respondent’s father had never appointed the respondent as Sajjadah Nasheen of Silsila-e-Nooria, during his lifetime as the respondent was not qualified and such appointment was also contrary to the wishes of the founder.

11. Learned counsel further contended that the Waqfnama prohibited the grandchildren from holding the office of Sajjadah Nasheen of Silsila-e-Nooria and Rauza-e-Nooria when the children of the founder were alive. The Tribunal failed to consider this material aspect. He also contended that, though the Tribunal initially granted an injunction against the respondent, it subsequently modified the same without assigning proper reasons. The respondent had no locus standi to interfere with the affairs of Silsila-e-Nooria, Rauza-e-Nooria and the Dargah. Petitioner No.3 had already assumed the office of Sajjadah Nasheen and was recognized by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, had been discharging his duties even prior to institution of the suit. Thus, petitioners had established a prima facie case, but the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the same.

12. The contention of learned counsel for respondent Sri Abdul Najeeb Khyan, is that the Tribunal failed to consider that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a special enactment and that the provisions of the Societies Registration Act have no application to matters relating to the administration, supervision and management of a Wakf institution. The Tribunal failed to consider that the Waqif had formulated a scheme under the Waqf Deed for appointment of a Sajjada Nasheen and, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the alleged resolution passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is contrary to the terms of the Waqf Deed and it also failed to properly consider the Waqf Deed dated 14.08.1970 and, thereby, committed an error.

13. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the respondent’s father, who was the Sajjada Nasheen, died on

10.03.2022 as such, respondent was nominated as Sajjada Nasheen in accordance with the Waqf Deed.

14. The learned Tribunal ought to have examined the pleadings, the reliefs sought, the claims of the parties and the real controversy between them, and ought to have considered whether petitioner No.3 had discharged the initial burden of satisfying the requirements of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The Tribunal failed to consider that petitioner No.3 was guilty of misappropriation of the funds of the Waqf institution, that an enquiry conducted by the Waqf Board had found him guilty, and that he was also involved in criminal cases. Hence, the order of Tribunal is nothing but erroneous, as such, prayed this Court to set aside the same. The learned counsel for petitioners would further contend that petitioner No.3 in I.A.No.841 of 2022 is the son of wakib and according to Waqf deed, the wakib intention is that after his demise his three sons are entitled to be in the institution. According to 20-c of the waqf deed, his three sons are successors and they will become the donors of trust and Mutawallies who will permanently generation by generation having been permanent member of the managing committee will perform the work, whereas the respondent in I.A.No.841 of 2022 is not the son of wakib, therefore, he cannot perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No.3 is a scholar and he did his P.hd and wrote nine books on several topics of islam and he is also a retired professor in Nooria Arabia College whereas the respondent is an illiterate person and he is not entitled to perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. The third contention is that Waqf Board had also appointed petitioner No.3 as Sajjadah Nasheen vide Ex.P.6 and it is a collective decision of committee members. On that ground also petitioner No.3 is entitled for the relief, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same.

15. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is the grandson of the Waqif and that, under Clause 2-C of the Waqf Deed, the Waqif had mentioned his three sons and specifically provided that each of his successors would be entitled to nominate, during his lifetime, a successor from among his male descendants. It was further provided that, in the event of any successor relinquishing his membership of the Board of Trustees, his nominated successor would succeed him from generation to generation. Learned counsel would submit that the said clause clearly demonstrates that the father of the respondent was competent to nominate his son as his successor and, accordingly, nominated the respondent to perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondent is not entitled to act as Sajjadah Nasheen.

16. He would further submit that there is no prescribed qualification for being appointed or recognised as Sajjadah Nasheen. Merely because petitioner No.3 is a Ph.D. scholar, the respondent cannot be disqualified from performing the said duties, as no such educational qualification is prescribed under the Waqf Deed. He would also contend that petitioner No.3 had misappropriated the funds of the Waqf Board and that an enquiry was conducted in that regard, wherein he was found guilty. Therefore, on this ground also, petitioner No.3 is not entitled to perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. Hence, learned counsel requested this Court to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.841 of 2022 and dismiss the said application. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order by dismissing I.A.No.841 of 2022.

17. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute essentially relates to the entitlement of the sons and grandson of the Waqif to perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. The Waqf Deed, particularly Clause 2-C thereof, assumes significance in determining the intention of the Waqif with regard to succession.

18. A plain reading of Clause 2-C of the Waqf Deed shows that the three sons of the Waqif were designated as his successors and that each successor was entitled, during his lifetime, to nominate a successor from among his male descendants. It was further contemplated that such succession would continue from generation to generation. Thus, the terms of the Waqf Deed do not indicate any intention on the part of Waqif to restrict the right of succession exclusively to his sons. On the contrary, the provision specifically recognizes the right of the sons to nominate their male descendants as their successors. Therefore, the contention of petitioners in I.A.No.841 of 2022 that, so long as a son is available, the grandson cannot be permitted to perform the duties of Sajjadah

Nasheen, cannot be accepted at this stage, particularly in view of the specific terms of the Waqf Deed.

19. It is also relevant to note that the Waqf Board appointed petitioner No.3 as Sajjadah Nasheen, apparently taking into consideration his educational qualifications and experience, including the fact that he is a scholar, a retired Professor, holds a Ph.D. and has authored books on Islam. The Waqf Board also appears to have proceeded on the premise that the intention of the Waqif was to confer the right of succession upon his sons. However, such an interpretation does not appear to be consistent with the express terms of Clause 2-C of the Waqf Deed, which specifically provides for nomination of a successor from among the male descendants. When the Waqf Deed itself recognizes succession through nomination of a male descendant, the right cannot be confined only to the sons of the Waqif.

20. However, the present proceedings arise out of I.A.No.841 of 2022, which was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Therefore, while considering the entitlement to interim relief, the petitioners are required to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable injury. In this regard, the petitioners contended that petitioner No.3 had been performing the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen for about two months prior to the filing of suit. On the other hand, the respondent contended that he himself had been performing the said duties. The Tribunal, however, has not recorded any specific finding as to who was actually performing the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen as on the date of filing of I.A.No.841 of 2022.

21. The documents relied upon by the petitioners, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.9, also do not establish that petitioner No.3 was performing the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen as on the date of filing of the said application. Exs.P.1 and P.2 are copies of the registration certificates of Jamiya Ilahiyat-e-Nooria and Khanqaahe Nooria; Ex.P.3 is a copy of the bye-laws of Khanqaahe Nooria; Ex.P.4 is a copy of FIR No.569 of 2021; Ex.P.5 is a copy of the Waqf Deed of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2; Ex.P.6 is a copy of the resolution of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2; Ex.P.7 is a copy of Gazette No.23; Ex.P.8 is a copy of the Muntakab dated 14.08.1970; and Ex.P.9 consists of copies of letters. None of these documents, by themselves, establish that petitioner No.3 was in actual performance of the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen on the date of filing of I.A.No.841 of 2022.

22. More importantly, the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 have not placed any cogent material on record to establish, prima facie, that the respondent, being the grandson of the Waqif, was disqualified from succeeding to or performing the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen. On the contrary, Clause 2-C of the Waqf Deed expressly provides for nomination of a male descendant by the successor during his lifetime. Therefore, the contention that the existence of a son, by itself, excludes the grandson from succession is contrary to the express terms of the Waqf Deed.

23. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 have failed to establish a prima facie case in their favour so as to justify the interim injunction sought by them. The material on record does not support their contention that the respondent is not entitled to perform the duties of Sajjadah Nasheen merely on the ground that he is a grandson of the Waqif. As such, C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed and C.R.P.No.1808 of 2023 is liable to be allowed.

24. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1203 of 2023 is dismissed and C.R.P.No.1808 of 2023 is allowed setting aside the order dated

02.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.841 of 2022 in O.S.No.76 of 2022 by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :03.09.2026 Rds