Sayyedrafiq Babajan Mulagund Age 54 yrs R/o Khadarbag Oni Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyedmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 411/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023702025
Filing Number
411/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
411/2025
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.Sayyedrafiq Babajan Mulagund Age 54 yrs R/o Khadarbag 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 court rejected the compromise petition filed by both parties dated 04-12-2025. The judge ruled that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law requires three elements, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Since the agricultural land was being illegally fragmented into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the 2021 Notification, the compromise sought judicial recognition of a prohibited transaction. The court found that accepting the compromise would facilitate unauthorized layout formation and defeat public interest in land regulation, making it unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. 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. 411/2025
Summary The court rejected the compromise petition filed by both parties dated 04-12-2025. The judge ruled that while an oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim personal law requires three elements, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Since the agricultural land was being illegally fragmented into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the 2021 Notification, the compromise sought judicial recognition of a prohibited transaction. The court found that accepting the compromise would facilitate unauthorized layout formation and defeat public interest in land regulation, making it unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts