IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO.542-L AND 543-L OF 2012 
(Against the judgment dated 29.10.2010 of the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore passed in C.Rs.No.349 & 350/2004) 
 
 
Al-Haj Deewan Bakhtiyar Syed Muhammad 
In C.A.542-L/2012 
Diwan Azmat Said Muhammad 
In C.A.543-L/2012 
 
… Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Deewan Maudood Masood 
In C.A.542-L/2012 
Maudood Masood and another 
In C.A.543-L/2012 
 
… Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
(In C.A.542-L/2012) 
 
Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan, ASC 
(In C.A.543-L/2012) 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
(In both cases) 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
22.1.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- The dispute in these 
appeals with leave of the Court between the parties is primarily 
about the appointment of the 26th sajjadanashin of the famous 
shrine of Baba Farid Ganj Shakkar (RA). Baba Farid Ganj Shakkar 
(RA) is one of the most prominent Sufi mystic figures of the Chishti 
Order of Sufis who came to the Subcontinent in the twelfth century 
and on account of his piety was considered to be one of the most 
outstanding sufi saints of his times, being revered across the 
Subcontinent for his spiritual guidance. During his lifetime he had 
a large number of mureeds, and his Khannakah was soon home to 
many travelers in search of spiritual/Sufi guidance. Many people 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 2 :-
accepted Islam at his hands and till today countless individuals 
turn towards the shrine for the rejuvenation of their faith. 
Unfortunately, like all Sufi mystic personalities, his stay in this 
world was for a limited period and he left for his eternal abode on 
the 5th of Moharrum, 661 A.H., at the age of 92. At the time of his 
demise, he appointed his sajjadanashin and this remains the 
practice till date: that before the passing away of each 
sajjadanashin he nominates an agnate who is also a mureed as the 
next sajjadanashin or on account of any inability of the incumbent 
to act as such a new sajjadanashin is appointed for the shrine. 
This is also apparent from the earlier judgments with regards to 
the sajjadanashin of the same shrine in Sayad Muhammad v. 
Fatteh Muhammad (22 ILR 24 [Calcutta]) and Deewan Ghlam 
Rasul v. Ghualn Qutab-ud-Din (AIR (29) 1942 Lah. 142). The 
significance of the gaddi nashin/sajjadanashin has been explained 
in paragraph 220 of the principles of Muhammadan’s Law by D.F. 
Mullah; the sajjadanashin of a shrine is a spiritual guide, distinct 
from a mutawali who is the manager or administrator of the same. 
A sajjadanashin may not necessarily be a mutawali which latter 
post is an exclusively secular post limited to the matters of 
management of the shrine alone, whereas on the shoulders of the 
sajjadanashin rests the responsibility of the spiritual functions of 
guidance of the mureeds and the performance of rasoomaat etc, 
which require a person of outstanding character and one capable 
of leading the community and inspiring the mureeds. Thus this 
post and the nomination for the same carries immense importance 
in the hearts of a substantial section of the pubic and their 
spiritual guidance/rejuvenation/beliefs rest in the customs and 
rituals of this shrine, the person who guides these in his capacity 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 3 :-
as sajjadanashin must therefore be one who is rightfully entitled to 
the same on the basis of the express declaration/nomination of the 
Dewan/ sajjadanashin who preceded him. It may be pertinent to 
mention here that we have been apprised by the learned counsel 
for 
the 
appellant 
that 
the 
usual 
practice 
of 
succession/appointment of the sajjadanashin is that he holds the 
gaddi nominates his successor himself, and such successor must 
be an agnate and a mureed. The Dewan Ghulam Qutab-ud-Din, 
son of Dewan Said Muhammad who was sajjadanashin of the 
shrine, breathed his last breath on 19.8.1986. During his lifetime 
he 
had 
appointed 
his 
son, 
the 
respondent, 
as 
a 
successor/sajjadanashin and in this regard a press publication 
was also made which appeared on 14.11.1980 in Daily Mashriq 
(Exh.D.1 on pg 318 of CA 542-l/2012). However, subsequently vide another 
publication dated 13.9.1981 appearing in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt and 
Daily Mashriq (Exh.P.2 on pg 307-310 in CA 542-L/2012), Dewan Qutab-ud-
Din revoked the earlier announcement of sajjadanashin and 
declared that the new sajjadanashin would be appointed by him 
from amongst his sons, whom he deemed to be competent to hold 
the gaddi/ sajjadanashinship. Be that as it may, Dewan Qutab-ud-
Din passed away on 19.8.1986 and on 17.10.1986 the appellant (in 
Civil Appeal No. 542-L of 2012) who is the real paternal uncle of the 
respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 542-L of 2012 and respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal 
543-L of 2012) filed a suit for declaration that the appointment of the 
respondent as sajjadanashin was invalid and that he should be 
restrained from acting as such. He asserted that the cancellation of 
the 
sajjadanashinship 
of 
the 
respondent, 
published 
vide 
advertisement dated 13.09.1981 was still intact and that thereafter 
Dewan Qutab-ud-Din had never appointed or nominated the 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 4 :-
respondent as sajjadanashin. In support of his assertions he got 
16 witnesses examined, PW-1 to PW-16 including his own 
statement as PW-6, while also submitting documentary evidence, 
Exh.P1 to Exh.P.13. The respondent on the other hand, contested 
the appellant’s claim, getting 21 witnesses examined, DW-1 to DW-
21 including his own witness statement as DW-19. In the written 
statement filed by the respondent it was mentioned that the late 
Dewan Qutab-ud-Din during his lifetime, but close to his death, 
had orally nominated him as sajjadanashin. Be that as it may, 
after framing of the relevant issues the said suit was decreed in 
favor of the appellant by the learned Trial Court on 19.7.1993 (pages 
113 to 147). However the respondent filed Civil Appeal No.95/ADJ of 
1996 whereby the learned Appellate Court overturned the above 
decision on 8.5.1996 (pages 91 to 107) and decreed the suit in favor of 
the respondent, setting aside the findings of the learned Trial 
Court. On the other hand, during these proceedings the appellant 
in Civil Appeal No. 543-L/2012 (respondent No.2 in CA No.542-L/2012) who 
is the real brother of the respondent, had filed an application 
under Order 1 Rule 10, Section 151 and Section 107 of the CPC for 
being impleaded as party in the proceedings in Civil Appeal 
No.95/ADJ of 1996, which application had been dismissed. 
Thereafter, the appellant (in CA 542-L/2012 and paternal uncle of the 
respondent) assailed the judgment of the learned Appellate Court 
which revision petition was allowed vide judgment dated 29.5.2006 
whereby the judgment of the Trial Court was restored. When the 
respondent filed Civil Petition No.1037-L/2006 (and the brother of the 
respondent, Dewan Azmat Said Muhammad filed CP No. 687/2006 against the dismissal 
of his impleadment application) against the same before this Court, it was 
observed that an alarmingly long period of one year had been 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 5 :-
consumed in the writing of the judgment dated 29.5.2006 which 
was heard on 15.6.2005. Thus by order of this Court dated 
15.01.2007 the said judgment was set-aside and the matter was 
remanded to the learned High Court for expeditious disposal as far 
as possible within a period of three months.  Resultantly, in 
compliance with the said order, the matter was heard by the 
learned High Court on 25.9.2007 and a decision was given on 
25.10.2007 decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent (dismissing 
the application of impleadment of the Dewan Azmat Said Muhammad). This 
judgement has been impugned before us.  
2. 
 
The learned counsel has attacked the judgment of the 
learned Appellate Court as also the learned High Court on the 
grounds of four findings which he claims are absolutely 
misconceived and a result of misreading of evidence;  
(i) 
that the Auqaf department had no authority to appoint 
sajjadanashin;  
(ii) 
Exh.P.1 was found by the learned Single Judge to be an 
‘isolated incident’;  
(iii) 
that the appellant  had produced no cogent evidence to 
support 
his 
claim 
that 
he 
was 
performing 
all 
rasoomats/ceremonies/rituals alongside with the Dewan 
Qutab-ud-Din, in effect being second in command to him;  
(iv) 
that DW-20, Ghulam Fareed Chishti had not been cross-
examined with regards to the material particulars and 
therefore DW-20’s statement remains unrebutted;  
therefore, the declaration of the appointment as sajjadanashin of 
the respondent stands established. It is argued that the learned 
High Court has failed to consider the effect of Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 
and that in the facts and circumstances the learned High Court 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 6 :-
should have remanded the matter back to the learned Appellate 
Court for the decision, rather than reappraising the evidence on 
the record. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgments 
reported as Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Province of East 
Pakistan and others (PLD 1959 SC 272) and Asadullah Khan 
Vs. Abdul Karim (2000 SCJ 441).  
3. 
 
We considered the judgment challenged before us in 
light of the leave granting order which is reproduced below:- 
 
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at 
some length. Learned counsel for the petitioner (in C.P. 
No. 51-L of 2008) who also challenged the proprietary 
and vires of this Court’s judgment dated 15.1.2007 
passed in Civil Petition No. 687 of 2006 and C.P. No. 
1037-L of 2006 which was allowed and the case was 
remanded to the learned High Court to decide Civil 
Revision No. 349 and 350 of 2004 afresh, on a second 
thought, elected not to press this point but confined his 
submissions on the merits of the impugned judgment of 
the learned High Court dated 29.10.2007. 
2. 
 
Leave is granted, inter alia, to consider 
whether there was any custom relatable to succession of 
“Sajjada Nasheen” of the shrine of “Baba Farid Ganj 
Shakkar (R.A.)”; whether the respondent was appointed 
as “Sajjada Nasheen” in terms of the said custom; 
whether the declaration published in two national Dailies 
dated 13.9.1981 on behalf of the then “Sajjada Nasheen” 
to the effect that he had cancelled the appointment of 
respondent as “Sajjada Nasheen” during his life time 
was ever rescinded during the life time of the said 
declarant; whether the finding of the learned High Court 
in Para 16 of the impugned judgment to the effect that the 
testimony of Ghulam Fareed Chishti (DW-20) remained 
unrebutted 
notwithstanding 
the 
lengthy 
cross-
examination to which he was subjected to is tenable in 
law; and whether the petitioner has any justifiable claim 
to be “Sajjada Nasheen” with reference to any custom, 
usage or practice.”  
 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 7 :-
In light of the above, we find that extensive evidence has been led 
by both the parties in support of their respective claims. Reliance 
of the appellant is exclusively founded upon Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 
i.e. a letter by the Auqaf Department and the revocation of the 
nomination of the respondent as the “sajjadanashin”, respectively. 
It is submitted that during the time when the Dewan Qutab-ud-
Din had gone for Hajj it was the appellant who had been appointed 
as sajjadanashin and, therefore, it is he who was competent and 
capable of holding the post of sajjadanashin as evidenced in 
Exh.P1. It further mentioned that in Exh.P.2 it is clearly and 
unequivocally stated by the respondent’s own father that he is not 
capable of holding the sacred office and, therefore, he is being 
removed. We are afraid that from the findings of the Appellate as 
also the learned High Court it is clear that the relationship 
between Dewan Qutab-ud-Din and the appellant was sour and 
they also had some litigation dispute going on during the lifetime of 
the late sajjadanashin/Dewan. It is evident from the record, 
particularly Exh.D.16 which is a copy of the statement of the late 
Dewan Qutab-ud-Din in Qazaf proceedings initiated by the wife of 
the appellant wherein the late sajjadanashin/ Dewan had in very 
clear words expressed his dismay at the behavior of the appellant, 
condemning him for bringing disgrace to the entire family. 
Furthermore, the record in Exh.D.5 shows that there was a 
criminal complaint (page 323 of the 542-L/2012) made by the late Dewan 
Qutab-ud-Din against the appellant under Section 452, 506, 427, 
440, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) which leaves 
no shred of doubt that the terms between the late sajjadanashin 
Dewan Qutab-ud-Din and him (appellant) were such that the 
former was being criminally intimidated by the latter. It is also 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 8 :-
pertinent to note that Ex.P.2 being relied on so vehemently by the 
appellant, in fact when read in detail reflects that the incumbent 
sajjadanashin was to choose the sajjadanashin from amongst his 
agnates/sons, whereas the appellant is the brother of the late 
sajjadanashin. It is further established that at the time of the 
death of Dewan Qutab-ud-Din the appellant was not present 
beside him, moreover in his own witness statement as PW-6 he has 
stated that he only came to know about the demise of the late 
Dewan Qutab-ud-Din through the newspapers. Not only did the 
appellant not attend the Nimaz-e-Jinaza of the late sajjadanashin 
but was also absent from his Qul and Chehlum. As against the 
above, the oral evidence produced by the respondent is 
overwhelming and regardless of whether the material facts stated 
in the statement of DW-20 have been cross-examined or not the 
statement has not at all been shattered or impeached by the 
appellant during cross-examination; besides the statements of DW-
20 and DW-21 have not been subjected to cross-examination, and 
thus stand unrebutted. Moreover, the appellant has also submitted 
that the respondent was incapable of performing the duties of a 
sajjadanashin relying on an incident of stampede during an Urs 
ceremony, which incident has been examined in a judgment of the 
Lahore High Court in WP No. 16974/2001 wherein the learned 
High Court has held that the responsibility of the unfortunate 
incident cannot be attributed to the respondent alone.  Even 
otherwise, it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the 
appellant that Dewan Qutab-ud-Din had never appointed the 
appellant as sajjadanashin and it is also conceded by him that per 
the custom and also a history of over seven hundred years of the 
shrine, the nomination of the successor is always the absolute 
Civil Appeals No.542-L and 543-L of 2012 
-: 9 :-
discretion of sajjadanashin holding the post. In the absence of any 
written evidence of the same and the fact that the respondent has 
successfully been able to prove his case through witness 
statements and documentary evidence produced, the express 
nomination by the late sajjadanashin Dewan Qutab-ud-Din is the 
only 
conclusive 
factor 
of 
determining 
the 
entitlement 
of 
sajjadanashinship of the shrine of Baba Farid (RA).  
4. 
 
We have considered the judgment of the learned High 
Court which is quite elaborate, each and every aspect of the matter 
has been taken into consideration and on the basis of proper 
reading and appreciation of the evidence: factual finding has been 
given by the learned High Court affirming the finding already given 
by the learned Appellate Court which has set aside the factual 
finding of the learned Trial Court, therefore, we do not find that in 
these cases any point which is covered by the leave granting order 
has been established warranting the interference and setting aside 
of the judgment in question. Resultantly, we do not find any merit 
in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. 
5. 
 
Above are the reasons for our short order of even date, 
whereby the titled appeals were dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
22nd of January, 2018 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer 
