LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Rahimal Bathu & Others vs. Ashiyal Beevi (2023 INSC 861)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 861Decided 26 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Manoj Misra · J.B. Pardiwala on the bench · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha in his place alongside Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The respondent sued for declaration of exclusive ownership (or, alternatively, a one-sixth share) of a property, alleging that a 1982 gift deed by her grandmother in favor of the appellants' predecessor was obtained by undue influence and was a nullity. The trial court held the gift deed invalid and a later 1990 sale deed in the respondent's favor valid, but paradoxically decreed only a one-sixth share to her instead of full ownership; her review application against this inconsistency was rejected by the trial court. Instead of filing an appeal against the decree, she filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC against the rejection of her review, and the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the revision and itself modified the decree to grant her full ownership, prompting the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that although the word "case" in Section 115 CPC is broad enough to cover an order rejecting a review application, exercising revisional jurisdiction over such an order is discretionary, not automatic. Distinguishing its earlier three-judge ruling in Major S.S. Khanna (which concerned an interlocutory order with no appealable decree yet in existence), the Court held that once an appealable decree already exists and a review of that decree is rejected on merits, the proper remedy is to file a regular appeal against the decree itself, not a revision against the review rejection, because allowing revision would cause the trial court's decree to merge into the High Court's revisional order, unfairly stripping the other side of its normal right of appeal (including the right under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to contest adverse findings). The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order, but clarified this does not bar the respondent from now filing a proper appeal against the trial court's decree, with any delay in doing so eligible for condonation given the time she spent pursuing the review.

Lesson Learnt

When a court rejects a review petition against a decree that itself could be appealed, a litigant should file a regular appeal against the original decree, not a revision petition against the review's rejection, since using the revision route to challenge an already-appealable decree can unfairly compromise the other party's appellate rights.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Rahimal Bathu & Others vs. Ashiyal Beevi (2023 INSC 861) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware