Davood Mahamud Maniyar Age 47 yrs R/o Lalashakatti Oni Savanur Dist Haveri vs Sayyadmeera Abdulkhadar Narayanapur Age 80 yrs R/o Chandani Nagar Tq Savanur Dist Haveri — 418/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7.1.3. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
O.S. - Original Suit
CNR: KAHV600023772025
Filing Number
418/2025
Filing Date
09-Oct-2025
Registration No
418/2025
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.Davood Mahamud Maniyar Age 47 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
Case Summary Outcome: Compromise Petition Rejected The Civil Judge rejected the compromise petition filed by both parties under the Legal Services Authority Act, finding it unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The court held that while oral Hiba (gift) under Muslim personal law may be valid, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The compromise sought judicial recognition of unauthorized fragmentation of agricultural land into parcels smaller than the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the Commissioner's 2021 Notification, which would facilitate unlawful unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and urban planning regulations. No costs 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. 418/2025
Case Summary Outcome: Compromise Petition Rejected The Civil Judge rejected the compromise petition filed by both parties under the Legal Services Authority Act, finding it unlawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The court held that while oral Hiba (gift) under Muslim personal law may be valid, it cannot override statutory restrictions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The compromise sought judicial recognition of unauthorized fragmentation of agricultural land into parcels smaller than the 5-gunta minimum prescribed by the Commissioner's 2021 Notification, which would facilitate unlawful unauthorized layouts contrary to public interest and urban planning regulations. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts