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

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand

Civil AppealDecided 10 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1760 of 2022

Background

The appellant's land was acquired in 1980 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and he was awarded compensation of only Rs. 92,121. His request for enhanced compensation was rejected by the Reference Court, and only one sale deed (which was disallowed) was on record to prove the land's fair market value. When he appealed to the Jharkhand High Court, he tried to bring on record additional sale deeds and related judgments to help establish a fair market value, but the High Court refused to allow this additional evidence and dismissed his appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to apply the correct legal test for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code: the real question is whether the appellate court needs the additional evidence to pronounce judgment properly, not merely whether the party could have produced it earlier. Since the only other evidence on record had already been rejected, leaving no material to assess fair compensation, the Court held the High Court should have allowed the additional documents in the interest of justice. It set aside the High Court's order, allowed the additional evidence to be brought on record, and sent the matter back to the Reference Court, directing that the appellant must still formally prove the authenticity and genuineness of these documents before they can be relied upon.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can allow new evidence at the appeal stage in exceptional situations, especially where without it the court simply cannot arrive at a fair and just decision (such as fixing fair compensation for acquired land), but permission to file such evidence is not the same as it being accepted as true; it still must be proved.

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware