[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Azeemuddin Junaidi vs Karnataka State Board Of Auqaf on 23 February, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753
                                                     MFA No. 200796 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200796 OF 2026 (RES)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   MOHAMMED AZEEMUDDIN JUNAIDI,
                        AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                        S/O LATE MOHAMMED NAYEEMUDDIN JUNAIDI,
                        R/ AT NO.9-590, SHAIKH-E-DECCAN DARGAH,
                        SHAIKH ROZA, NEAR QUADRI CHOWK,
                        KALABURAGI-585101.

                   2.   ULFAT JUNAIDI,
                        AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                        S/O DR. MOHAMMED SHAFIUDDIN JUNAIDI,
Digitally signed        R/AT NO.9-594, SHAIKH ROZA,
by SHILPA R             NEAR QUADRI CHOWK,
TENIHALLI               KALABURAGI-585 101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                        ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF,
                        NO.6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
                        BANGALORE-560 052,
                        REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
                           -2-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753
                                  MFA No. 200796 of 2026


HC-KAR




2.   MOHAMMED AFZALUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     S/O LATE MOHD. TAJUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     SHAIKH ROZA, KALABURAGI-585 101.

3.   MOHAMMED QIWAMUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     S/O LATE MOHD. TAJUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     SHAIKH ROZA, KALABURAGI-585 101.

4.   MOHAMMED GULAM MOHIUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     S/O LATE MOHD. TAJUDDIN JUNAIDI,
     SHAIKH ROZA, KALABURAGI-585 101.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

      THIS MFA IS   FILED UNDER ORDER 83(9) WAKF ACT
AMENDMENT ACT 2025 PRAYING TO A) SET -ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.1 AND I.A NO.
6 IN OS NO.5/2025 DATED 21.04.2025 BY THE LEARNED
PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE KARNATAKA WAKF TRIBUNAL
KALABURAGI DIVISION, KALABURAGI AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW IA. NO.1 BY ALLOWING THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL. B)
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S DIRECTION/S IN THE MATTER AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND THINKS PROPER UNDER
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT      ON    21.02.2026,   COMING        ON     FOR
                                    -3-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753
                                          MFA No. 200796 of 2026


HC-KAR




'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                       CAV JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for orders, with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties,

the appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on

account of the exigency expressed by the learned counsel

appearing for the parties in view of Ramzan (Ramadan)

holds supreme importance of culture as a sacred, blessed

month of fasting (Roza), spiritual reflection, and divine

mercy.

2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs

challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in O.S.

No.5/2025 on I.A. No.1 and I.A. No.6, on the file of the

Presiding Officer, Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi

Division, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as "the

Tribunal").

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

3. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the

appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and

ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of this

appeal are that, the plaintiffs have preferred

O.S.No.5/2025 before the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal

Kalaburagi ((hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), seeking

the relief of permanent injunction in respect of performing

rituals of their parents and grand parents in the suit

schedule graveyard, as detailed in the plaint at Annexure-

H. The plaintiffs have filed application in I.A.No.1, seeking

ex-parte temporary injunction and the said application was

considered on 03.03.2025 by the Tribunal and an ad-

interim temporary injunction was granted, restraining

defendant Nos.2 to 4 from interfering with the

performance of rituals to the grave of Mohammed

Shafiuddin Junaidi.

5. After entering appearance, the defendants filed

objections. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 also filed I.A. No.6 under

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking

to vacate the ad-interim order of injunction. The said

application was considered by the Tribunal and passed the

impugned order dated 21.04.2025, allowing I.A.No.6 and

as such, the interim order of temporary injunction granted

on 03.03.2025, came to be vacated. Hence, the plaintiffs

have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Sri. Harshvardhan R. Malipatil, the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri.

Sachin M. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant Nos.2 to 4 and Sri.

Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1/defendant No.1.

7. Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs argued that,

the plaintiffs have sought for performance of rituals of

their grandparents, who have been laid down to rest in the

suit schedule graveyard. It is further submitted that since

the month of Ramzan has commenced, the plaintiffs

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

intend to perform the annual death ceremonies of their

grandparents. Therefore, it is submitted that, the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal required to be

interfered with. It is also argued that, the Tribunal has

committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that, the

respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has been discharging his

duties as a Muthavalli and it will be difficult for the

Muthavalli to discharge his duties and therefore, sought for

interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, Sachin M. Mahajan, the learned

counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4/defendant

Nos.2 to 4 argued that, the Tribunal after considering the

material on record has rightly passed the impugned order,

which does not calls for in interference in this appeal. He

further contended that, the father of the plaintiffs was

arraigned as defendant in O.S.No.345/1986, filed by the

contesting defendants herein before the Court of Munsiff

at Kalaburagi, seeking relief of declaration and the said

suit came to be decreed on 05.12.1988, which has

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

reached finality. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing

respondent Nos.2 to 4 that, the respondents herein have

preferred O.S.No.7/2025 before the Tribunal, seeking

relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent

injunction against the plaintiffs herein and in the said suit,

an order of injunction has been granted and as the said

order is in operation, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed

the application (I.A.No.1), filed by the plaintiffs herein in

O.S.No.5/2025. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

9. In the light of the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in

dispute that, the plaintiffs in OS No.345/1986 has filed suit

seeking relief of declaration with permanent injunction,

claiming that, the plaintiffs claims to be the Sajjada and

Mutavalli, of Dargah Hazrath Shaik Junnadi, of Roza Shaik

Gulbarga, and the said suit came to be decreed on

05.12.1988. It is also to be noted that on 16.07.1974, the

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

graveyard at Shaik Roza has been notified as Waqf as per

the Gazette notification dated 16.07.1974. It is not in

dispute that, the ancestors and father of the plaintiffs have

been buried in the subject matter of the graveyard. The

respondents herein, have filed OS No.7/2025, seeking

relief of declaration that, the succession of Sajjada Nashin

and Hereditary Mutavalli is vested in spiritual line of

succession in elder son among the sons in the family of

Sufi Saint Hazrath Shaikh Sirajuddin Junaidi, Shaikh Roza

Kalaburgi and said suit is pending consideration before the

Tribunal. The rights of the parties, as to the performance

of the rituals of the ancestors, in which the claim of the

plaintiffs and defendants in the OS Nos. 5/2025 and

7/2025 are yet to be decided by the Tribunal. It is to be

noted that, though the relief claimed in the

aforementioned suit are distinct, however, the entire

gammet of the facts as to decide the rights of the parties

to perform the rituals of their ancestors/deceased parents.

Therefore, though it is argued by the learned counsel

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

appearing for the respondents that, the plaintiffs in OS No.

6 / 2025 have admitted as to the performance of rituals by

the defendants, however, by looking into the interim order

dated 03.03.2025 in which, the Tribunal has permitted the

plaintiff to perform the rituals of their grandparents, father

of the plaintiffs and such, ritual has to be performed by

the plaintiffs after the completion of rituals by the

Mutavalli, (respondents herein) and same was continued

on the previous year. Since the rights of the parties are

yet to be crystallized in the aforementioned suits, I am of

the opinion, the said practice allowed by the Tribunal as

per the order dated 03.03.2025 shall be continued till the

conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal, so that,

the essential requirement of performing the rituals by the

children of deceased whose grave is being situated in the

graveyard including the grand parents of the plaintiffs and

the defendants. It is not in dispute that plaintiffs and

contesting defendants have common lineal ascendants and

propositus. It is also to be noted that, the deprivation of

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1753

HC-KAR

performing of the rituals by the children towards their

deceased parents would not only affect their legal right but

also performing rituals as per their religion, which cannot

be interfered with by way of interim order by the Courts

till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal,

in which, the rights of the parties will be adjudicated by

the Tribunal after conducting a full fledged enquiry. Hence,

balance of convince lies in favour of the plaintiffs to

perform the rituals as being done during the previous

year. Therefore, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed;

ii) Order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure-A) passed in

OS No.5 of 2025 on IA No.1 and IA No.6, on the

file of the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Waqf

Tribunal, Kalaburgi, are hereby set aside.