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
Filing Number
405/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
405/2025
Registration Date
09-Oct-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL Judge and JMFC
Last updated 13-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Makbul Babajan Maktumiyanavar Age 37 yrs R/o Mahantesh Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri
Adv. P.R.KALAL.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri
Case History
-
06-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
18-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
12-Dec-2025
OrdersView PDF
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.
-
12-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
04-Dec-2025
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
09-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 405/2025
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.
Explore other courts