Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi

Civil AppealDecided 23 Sept 2022
Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022

Background

Kelo Devi (the plaintiff) sued only for a permanent injunction to stop Balram Singh (the defendant) from disturbing her possession of a property, basing her claim on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23 March 1996. She deliberately did not seek specific performance of the agreement itself. The defendant filed a counter-claim seeking possession. The trial court dismissed her injunction suit and allowed the defendant's counter-claim, but the first appellate court and the High Court both reversed this, ruling in the plaintiff's favour and dismissing the counter-claim.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that because the agreement to sell was unregistered, it was inadmissible in evidence, and while an unregistered document can sometimes be used for a limited "collateral purpose," a plaintiff cannot use it to indirectly obtain a benefit (here, effectively securing possession through an injunction) that she could not have obtained directly through a suit for specific performance. It found the plaintiff had used "clever drafting" (suing only for injunction, knowing a specific-performance claim on an unregistered document would fail) and held both the first appellate court and the High Court had erred in accepting this. It restored the trial court's judgment, dismissing the injunction suit and allowing the defendant's counter-claim for possession.

Lesson Learnt

An unregistered agreement to sell cannot be used as a backdoor route to secure possession or ownership-like protection through a mere injunction suit; buyers relying on such agreements should ensure they are properly registered, or seek the correct substantive relief, rather than trying to sidestep the registration requirement through careful drafting of the relief claimed.

Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware