Nannesab Akasharsab Dhundashi Age 75 yrs R/o Shiggaon now at Khadarbag Oni Savanur vs Sayyadmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 415/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

O.S. - Original Suit

CNR: KAHV600023742025

HEARING

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

Filing Number

415/2025

Filing Date

09-10-2025

Registration No

415/2025

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)

Nannesab Akasharsab Dhundashi Age 75 yrs R/o Shiggaon now at Khadarbag Oni Savanur

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

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 jointly by the plaintiff and defendant under the Legal Services Authority Act. The court found that accepting the compromise—which sought to recognize an oral gift (Hiba) of agricultural land—would violate statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as the land was being fragmented into unauthorized parcels below the minimum prescribed extent of 5 guntas, thereby facilitating unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and planning regulations. 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 jointly by the plaintiff and defendant under the Legal Services Authority Act. The court found that accepting the compromise—which sought to recognize an oral gift (Hiba) of agricultural land—would violate statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as the land was being fragmented into unauthorized parcels below the minimum prescribed extent of 5 guntas, thereby facilitating unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and planning regulations. 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