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

Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead) vs Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath)

Civil AppealDecided 9 May 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3794 of 2022
S. Abdul Nazeer · Vikram Nath

Background

The appellant had a compromise decree in his favour for specific performance of an agreement to purchase agricultural land from the respondent-Trust, on payment of the balance sale consideration within one month. He was about five days late but obtained the trial court's permission to deposit the balance amount, which he did, and the sale deed was then executed in his favour. Roughly three years later, the Trust applied to cancel the sale deed and recover possession, but the trial court dismissed that application. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), however, allowed the Trust's writ petition and cancelled the sale deed for the delay in payment.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which lets a court retain control over a specific-performance decree and, in its discretion, extend time for payment even under a consent/compromise decree, citing its own precedent (Periyakkal v. Dakshyani) that courts may enlarge time to prevent manifest injustice and relieve against a forfeiture clause. Since the trial court had already exercised its discretion to permit the short delay and extend time for payment, giving cogent reasons, the Supreme Court held the High Court was not justified in overturning that discretionary order and cancelling the sale deed. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's order permitting the deposit was restored.

Lesson Learnt

A court that has passed a decree for specific performance retains the power to extend the time fixed for payment of the balance sale price, even under a compromise decree, in order to prevent manifest injustice from a short delay, and a higher court should not lightly upset that discretionary, reasoned extension.

Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead) vs Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware