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

Mohammed Khaleel (D) Thr. LRs v. Jayamma

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 651Decided 23 Jun 2026
C.A. No.-002187-002187 - 2011
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria · Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva

Background

The original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs) entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent in 1990 for a vacant site, paying earnest money with the balance due and sale deed to be registered within four months. The sale fell through amid disputes over an approach road to the property and the plaintiff's failure to obtain permission required under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The respondent rescinded the agreement and forfeited the earnest money, and the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance only after a delay of nearly three years. The trial court decreed in the plaintiff's favour, but the Karnataka High Court reversed this and dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that specific performance is a discretionary, equitable relief which requires the plaintiff to show continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform his own obligations under the contract, and also to approach the court without undue delay. Relying on a line of its own precedents, the Court reiterated that filing a suit within the three-year limitation period is not enough by itself. Courts will scrutinize whether the plaintiff acted promptly and diligently, since unexplained delay can defeat the equitable relief even if the suit is technically within time. On the facts, the Court found the plaintiff had failed to tender the balance sale consideration on time, failed to obtain the required statutory permission, and only filed suit after a delay of two years and nine months from the respondent's refusal: conduct inconsistent with continuous readiness and willingness. Accordingly, the Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the specific performance claim and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

In property disputes seeking specific performance of a sale agreement, merely filing suit within the three-year limitation period is not sufficient: a buyer must also act promptly and demonstrably remain ready and willing to fulfil their own contractual obligations (such as paying the balance amount and securing any required permissions) to be entitled to this discretionary relief.

Mohammed Khaleel (D) Thr. LRs v. Jayamma – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware