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

Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee & Ors.

Civil AppealDecided 23 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Premlata first went to the Revenue Authority (Tehsildar) under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the defendants (Naseeb Bee and others) objected that the Revenue Authority had no jurisdiction since the dispute was actually about title. The Tehsildar agreed and dismissed her application. Premlata then filed a civil suit for possession and injunction in the ordinary Civil Court, but this time the same defendants took the opposite position, arguing the Civil Court had no jurisdiction because Section 257 of the same Code barred civil suits on such matters. The trial court rejected this objection, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on revision, sided with the defendants and threw out Premlata's plaint entirely, leaving her with no forum to pursue her claim.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the defendants could not be allowed to "approbate and reprobate": that is, take one position (no jurisdiction for the Revenue Authority) to defeat the plaintiff's first case, and then take the opposite position (no jurisdiction for the Civil Court either) to defeat her second case. Having successfully argued before the Tehsildar that the matter involved title and was outside revenue jurisdiction, the defendants could not later claim the Civil Court was also barred, as this would leave the plaintiff with no remedy at all. The Court found the High Court had failed to appreciate this contradiction and had committed a grave error in rejecting the plaint. It set aside the High Court's order, restored the trial court's order (which had refused to reject the plaint), and directed the suit to proceed on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

A litigant cannot blow hot and cold (arguing one forum lacks jurisdiction to defeat a case there, and then arguing a different forum also lacks jurisdiction to defeat the plaintiff's next attempt) courts will not let such inconsistent, self-serving positions leave a genuine claimant without any remedy.

Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware