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

Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 18Decided 2 Jan 2025
C.A. No.-013192-013192 of 2024 (arising from SLP (C) No. 25645 of 2018)
Justice C.T. Ravikumar · Justice Sanjay Karol

Background

A childless man, Sanjhi Ram, lived with his nephew Gopal Krishan and executed a Will in Gopal Krishan's favour the day before he died in 1990. Other relatives sued, claiming the Will was forged, and the trial court agreed it was suspicious. The first appellate court upheld the Will, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed again, holding it was not proved because the attesting witness never said he saw the thumb impression put "by the direction of the testator": a phrase used in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 63(c) lists three alternative ways attestation can be proved, joined by the word "or": a witness only needs to have seen the testator himself sign or affix his mark, OR seen someone else sign at the testator's direction, OR received a personal acknowledgment from the testator. Here, the attesting witness clearly testified he saw Sanjhi Ram himself put his thumb mark on the Will, which independently satisfied the first alternative; the "direction of the testator" requirement only matters when someone else signs on the testator's behalf. The High Court had wrongly treated the requirements as cumulative rather than alternative, so the Will was held valid and the appeal was allowed.

Lesson Learnt

To prove a Will's execution, a witness generally only needs to satisfy one of the three routes set out in Section 63(c) of the Succession Act. Courts should not read the law's "or" as if it were "and" and demand proof of every alternative at once.

Gopal Krishan v. Daulat Ram – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware