Makbul Babajan Maktumiyanavar Age 37 yrs R/o Mahantesh Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 405/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,3. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHV600023642025

HEARING

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

Filing Number

405/2025

Filing Date

09-10-2025

Registration No

405/2025

Registration Date

09-10-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR

Judge

361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,3

Petitioner(s)

Makbul Babajan Maktumiyanavar Age 37 yrs R/o Mahantesh Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri

Adv. P.R.KALAL.

Respondent(s)

Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri

Hearing History

Judge: 361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC

06-03-2026

HEARING

18-12-2025

HEARING

12-12-2025

HEARING

04-12-2025

HEARING

09-10-2025

SUMMONS

Interim Orders

12-12-2025
Orders

Summary The compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant on 04-12-2025 is rejected. The court found that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law is valid if certain conditions are met, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that accepting the compromise would indirectly validate the illegal fragmentation of agricultural land into unauthorized plots below the minimum prescribed extent (5 guntas), thereby facilitating unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant on 04-12-2025 is rejected. The court found that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law is valid if certain conditions are met, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that accepting the compromise would indirectly validate the illegal fragmentation of agricultural land into unauthorized plots below the minimum prescribed extent (5 guntas), thereby facilitating unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case