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

HEARING

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

Filing Number

408/2025

Filing Date

09-10-2025

Registration No

408/2025

Registration Date

09-10-2025

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR

Judge

361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1,3

Petitioner(s)

MahammedAdam Babajan Hulaguri Age 43 yrs R/o Malaganji Masuti Oni 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

06-03-2026

HEARING

18-12-2025

HEARING

12-12-2025

HEARING

04-12-2025

SUMMONS

09-10-2025

SUMMONS

Interim Orders

12-12-2025
Orders

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case