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
Filing Number
415/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
415/2025
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.Nannesab Akasharsab Dhundashi Age 75 yrs R/o Shiggaon now at Khadarbag Oni Savanur
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 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.
-
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. 415/2025
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.
Explore other courts