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

Prasanna and Others vs. Mudegowda (D) By LRs.

Civil AppealDecided 27 Apr 2023
Civil Appeal No. 5217 of 2011
Rajesh Bindal · Aravind Kumar

Background

Decades of litigation between two families over land near Mandya, Karnataka: the appellants' father (Srinivas Shetty) had sold the property to Mudegowda, but earlier suits by the appellants for declaration of title and injunction failed, with courts holding Mudegowda had valid title though not necessarily possession. Mudegowda then filed a suit for possession, which after multiple rounds (including a jurisdiction-based transfer between courts) succeeded before the trial court and High Court, but the appellants challenged it before the Supreme Court arguing the suit was time-barred under the 12-year limitation period for possession suits.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since Mudegowda's title had already been conclusively established in the earlier 1987 suit, the fresh possession suit filed within six months of that finding was not barred by limitation. It also held that once title is proved, the burden shifts to the person in possession to prove adverse possession, and the appellants had failed to establish either their possession or an adverse possession claim. The Court found no error in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, confirming the deceased respondent's right to possession.

Lesson Learnt

Once a court has finally decided who holds valid title to a property, a related follow-up suit to recover possession filed promptly after that finding will not be treated as time-barred, and the burden falls on the person resisting possession to prove their own adverse possession claim.

Prasanna and Others vs. Mudegowda (D) By LRs. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware