Hajaresab Goususab Karjagi Age 37 yrs R/o Karadagi Tq Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 406/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023652025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
406/2025
Filing Date
09-10-2025
Registration No
406/2025
Registration Date
09-10-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hajaresab Goususab Karjagi Age 37 yrs R/o Karadagi 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 Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur rejected the compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant on 04-12-2025. The court found that the compromise, which sought to recognize an oral gift (Hiba) of agricultural land portions, violated statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, specifically a 2021 notification prohibiting fragmentation of agricultural land below 5 guntas. The court held that allowing such compromise would indirectly validate unauthorized layouts and defeat public interest in regulated development. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur rejected the compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant on 04-12-2025. The court found that the compromise, which sought to recognize an oral gift (Hiba) of agricultural land portions, violated statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, specifically a 2021 notification prohibiting fragmentation of agricultural land below 5 guntas. The court held that allowing such compromise would indirectly validate unauthorized layouts and defeat public interest in regulated development. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts