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
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
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
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
SUMMONS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 18-12-2025 | HEARING |
| 12-12-2025 | HEARING |
| 04-12-2025 | HEARING |
| 09-10-2025 | SUMMONS |
Interim 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.
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
Explore other courts