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

Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. vs Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs.

Not available · 2024 INSC 157Decided 1 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Sanjay Karol

Background

In 1980, the defendant agreed to sell a residential property in Chandigarh to Major General (retd.) Darshan Singh for Rs. 3,50,000, with Rs. 30,000 paid as earnest money; the agreement itself capped the buyer's remedy on default to a refund plus Rs. 10,000 damages, expressly barring a suit for specific performance. The plaintiffs claimed the price was later renegotiated down to Rs. 2,90,000 and a draft sale deed was prepared, but the defendant then backed out after property prices rose in the area, prompting the plaintiffs to sue for specific performance instead of just damages.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable remedy, and found that the plaintiffs had made false or materially incorrect statements in their plaint, including continuing to seek a decree over the entire suit property even after plaintiff no. 1 admitted in cross-examination that it was actually joint family (HUF) property, without joining the other co-sharers. Because of this conduct, the Court held the plaintiffs were disentitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court on that point. However, it modified the decree to grant 6% annual interest on the Rs. 40,000 damages already awarded, from the date of the trial court's decree until payment, partly allowing the appeal only to that limited extent.

Lesson Learnt

Specific performance of a property sale agreement is not a guaranteed remedy. Courts can refuse it, even where a valid agreement exists, if the person seeking it has made false or misleading statements or has not disclosed material facts (such as other co-owners' shares) in their claim.

Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. vs Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware