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

HEARING

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

Filing Number

411/2025

Filing Date

09-10-2025

Registration No

411/2025

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)

Sayyedrafiq Babajan Mulagund Age 54 yrs R/o Khadarbag 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

HEARING

09-10-2025

SUMMONS

Interim Orders

12-12-2025
Orders

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case