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

Sabbir (Dead) Through LRs vs. Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRs

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 898Decided 22 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2023
Vikram Nath · Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

In 1975, the appellants (sellers) agreed to sell a property to the respondents (buyers) for Rs. 6,000, with Rs. 1,000 paid as earnest money. Under the agreement, the sellers had 8 days to obtain government permission to sell, and the buyers then had 15 days after being informed of that permission to complete the sale deed. The sellers never applied for permission, and more than five years later, in 1981, the buyers sued for specific performance of the contract. The case went through the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, High Court, and even a prior round before the Supreme Court (which had remanded it), with the High Court finally ruling in the buyers' favour in 2018, prompting this appeal by the sellers' legal heirs.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once the sellers failed to apply for permission within the first 8 days as agreed, the responsibility shifted to the buyers to act promptly and assert their rights. They could not simply wait indefinitely. Because the buyers waited over five-and-a-half years without ever formally demanding performance or showing they were "ready and willing" to pay the balance and complete the sale (a requirement under the law for such suits), their 1981 suit was filed well beyond the 3-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court restored the earlier First Appellate Court ruling dismissing the suit, while ordering the sellers to refund the original Rs. 1,000 earnest money as an inflation-adjusted lump sum of Rs. 1,50,000.

Lesson Learnt

In contracts for sale of property, a buyer cannot wait indefinitely to sue for enforcement after the seller defaults: the buyer must act with reasonable diligence and clearly show, including in their own court pleadings, that they were ready and willing to perform their part, or the claim can be barred by limitation even if the seller was originally at fault.

Sabbir (Dead) Through LRs vs. Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRs – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware