MahammedAdam Babajan Hulaguri Age 43 yrs R/o Malaganji Masuti Oni Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 408/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,3. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023672025
Filing Number
408/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
408/2025
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.MahammedAdam Babajan Hulaguri Age 43 yrs R/o Malaganji Masuti Oni 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 has been rejected. The court held that while oral gifts (Hiba) are valid under Muslim personal law, the proposed compromise violated the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as it sought to fragment agricultural land into parcels below the statutory minimum of 5 guntas without proper conversion and authorization. Allowing such compromise would indirectly facilitate unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and urban 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
Summons
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
09-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 408/2025
Summary: The compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant has been rejected. The court held that while oral gifts (Hiba) are valid under Muslim personal law, the proposed compromise violated the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as it sought to fragment agricultural land into parcels below the statutory minimum of 5 guntas without proper conversion and authorization. Allowing such compromise would indirectly facilitate unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and urban planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts