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
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
414/2025
Filing Date
09-10-2025
Registration No
414/2025
Registration Date
09-10-2025
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAVANUR
Judge
361-CIVIL JUDGE and JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Hasina Asif Shekh Age 37 yrs R/o Lalashakatti 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 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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts