Rabbani Mahammedjafar Farash Age 25 yrs R/o Khadriya Nagar Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 407/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023662025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
407/2025
Filing Date
09-10-2025
Registration No
407/2025
Registration Date
09-10-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rabbani Mahammedjafar Farash Age 25 yrs R/o Khadriya Nagar 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
Case Summary Outcome: Compromise petition dismissed/rejected The Civil Judge rejected the compromise petition filed by plaintiff Rabbani and defendant Syed Mir in O.S. No. 407/2025. The court found that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law may be valid, the compromise sought to record fragmentation of agricultural land into plots smaller than 5 guntas, which violates the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and a 2021 statutory notification prohibiting such subdivision. The court held that no lawful compromise could be recorded that would indirectly validate unauthorized layouts and defeat land conservation regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Outcome: Compromise petition dismissed/rejected The Civil Judge rejected the compromise petition filed by plaintiff Rabbani and defendant Syed Mir in O.S. No. 407/2025. The court found that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law may be valid, the compromise sought to record fragmentation of agricultural land into plots smaller than 5 guntas, which violates the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and a 2021 statutory notification prohibiting such subdivision. The court held that no lawful compromise could be recorded that would indirectly validate unauthorized layouts and defeat land conservation regulations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts