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 ProcedureSupreme Court of India

Kapil Kumar vs. Raj Kumar

Civil AppealDecided 14 Oct 2022
Civil Appeal No. 5854 of 2022
M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari · Sudhanshu Dhulia as the second judge

Background

Kapil Kumar (plaintiff) sued Raj Kumar (defendant) to recover Rs. 1,36,550, claiming the defendant had borrowed Rs. 1 lakh from him in 2007 and executed a promissory note and receipt. The defendant denied taking any loan from the plaintiff, claiming the money transaction was actually with the plaintiff's father, who he said he had already repaid. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court believed the plaintiff's evidence and decreed the suit in his favour. The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed this solely because the attesting witness to the promissory note had not been examined, and ruled for the defendant.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in disturbing concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts, since a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can only be entertained on a genuine substantial question of law, not merely on a differing view of evidence. On the merits, the Court found that the plaintiff had proved both the defendant's signature (via a handwriting expert) and execution of the note (via the deed writer's testimony, in which the defendant himself admitted receiving the money), and that Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes consideration for a promissory note unless rebutted, which the defendant failed to do. The Court therefore restored the Trial Court's decree in the plaintiff's favour.

Lesson Learnt

A promissory note carries a legal presumption that consideration (money) was actually paid, and it is the borrower's burden to rebut that presumption with evidence; courts hearing second appeals cannot overturn matching factual findings of two lower courts simply by re-weighing evidence, only on a genuine question of law.

Kapil Kumar vs. Raj Kumar – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware