Hasina Asif Shekh Age 37 yrs R/o Lalashakatti Oni Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyadmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 414/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023732025
Filing Number
414/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
414/2025
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.Hasina Asif Shekh Age 37 yrs R/o Lalashakatti Oni Savanur Dist Haveri
Adv. P.R.KALAL.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sayyadmeera 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 was rejected. The court found that while an oral Hiba (gift) is valid under Muslim personal law, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court refused to recognize the compromise because it would facilitate unauthorized fragmentation of agricultural land into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the 2021 notification, thereby violating public interest and urban planning regulations. No costs were 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
Hearing
CIVIL Judge and JMFC
-
09-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 414/2025
Summary: The compromise petition filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant was rejected. The court found that while an oral Hiba (gift) is valid under Muslim personal law, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court refused to recognize the compromise because it would facilitate unauthorized fragmentation of agricultural land into parcels below the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the 2021 notification, thereby violating public interest and urban planning regulations. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts