Naginabanu Mahamedgous Mattikatti Age 30 yrs R/o Khadarbag Oni Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyadmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 413/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023722025
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
413/2025
Filing Date
09-10-2025
Registration No
413/2025
Registration Date
09-10-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Naginabanu Mahamedgous Mattikatti Age 30 yrs R/o Khadarbag Oni Savanur Dist Haveri
Adv. P.R.KALAL.
Respondent(s)
Sayyadmeera 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
Summary: The compromise petition filed jointly by plaintiff Naginabanu and defendant Syed Mir on 04-12-2025 has been rejected. The court found the compromise unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because it sought to validate the fragmentation of agricultural land (Sy.No.513*/1) into small portions below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 notification (dated 07-12-2021), which violates statutory protections against unauthorized layouts and unregulated development. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The compromise petition filed jointly by plaintiff Naginabanu and defendant Syed Mir on 04-12-2025 has been rejected. The court found the compromise unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC because it sought to validate the fragmentation of agricultural land (Sy.No.513*/1) into small portions below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 notification (dated 07-12-2021), which violates statutory protections against unauthorized layouts and unregulated development. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts