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

Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 707Decided 19 Sept 2024
Not available
Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

A plot of land in Delhi was split into a front portion (A) and a back portion (B) and sold to two different buyers on the same day, for the same price. Because portion B had no independent road access, the sale deed for portion A required its buyer to leave a 15-feet-wide "common passage" for the use of both portions, but the sale deed for portion B carried no matching obligation. The buyer of portion A (respondent's predecessor) later sued for an injunction claiming a wider stretch of passage, including parts running through portion B, was also "common." The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this, and the High Court upheld that reversal in second appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that only the specific passage which the portion-A owner was contractually bound to leave open (for portion B's access to the road) qualified as the "common passage" described in the deeds. The remaining stretch running through portion B could not be treated as common just because it happened to align with that passage: portion B's sale deed imposed no such reciprocal obligation. The first appellate court had erred by reading the phrase "common passage" too broadly and ignoring the deeds' actual wording. The Court set aside the first appellate court's and High Court's decisions and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Rights over a "common" passage or similar shared feature must be determined strictly from what the relevant sale deed actually says. Courts cannot extend such an obligation to bind land whose own deed imposed no such condition, however logical it might seem.

Kamal Kishore Sehgal (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. vs. Murti Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware