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.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 600Decided 29 May 2026
C.A.No.-008272-008272 - 2026 (@ SLP(C) No.4016 of 2026)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

Amar claimed to be the biological son of Chaturbhuj Pradhan (CP), born in September 1999 out of a relationship between his mother and CP in January 1999. CP denied paternity, pointing to his earlier acquittal in a related criminal case. Both the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directed CP to undergo a DNA test in a civil suit filed by Amar seeking a declaration of paternity and a share in CP's property. CP appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he could not be compelled to give a DNA sample and that the suit was barred by res judicata.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reviewed the settled law on court-ordered DNA tests (including Goutam Kundu, Dipanwita Roy, and related precedents), holding that a DNA test may be ordered only where existing evidence is insufficient to resolve the paternity question and where it serves the best interests of the parties and justice. It found that no other evidence on record could conclusively establish or disprove paternity, and that earlier findings against Amar were not the product of a full trial. Balancing CP's privacy interest against Amar's lifelong need for closure on his parentage, the Court held the balance favoured Amar. The res judicata objection was also rejected since the paternity question had never been finally adjudicated after a full trial. The appeal was dismissed and the matter sent back to the civil court to arrange the DNA test.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not order a DNA test routinely, but only when other evidence cannot settle a genuine paternity dispute and the balance of interests favours it: a party cannot resist such a test merely by invoking privacy or an unrelated criminal acquittal.

Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware