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 Maruti Jadhav & Anr. vs. Amit Tatoba Sawant

Not available · 2024 INSC 345Decided 26 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellants owned a property that they had given to the respondent under a leave-and-licence agreement. The respondent alleged that the appellants forcibly and illegally evicted him from the property without following due legal process. Within six months of being dispossessed, he sued for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows a person dispossessed without due process to recover possession quickly regardless of title.

Decision Breakdown

The trial court decreed the suit in the respondent's favour, disbelieving the appellants' claim that possession had been handed over voluntarily and relying on a possession receipt. The High Court, in revision, affirmed this finding. The Supreme Court held that these were concurrent findings of fact by two courts, based on the evidence on record, and found no error or perversity warranting interference. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

Even a property's rightful owner cannot take the law into their own hands and forcibly evict an occupant: Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects even a licensee's actual possession against forcible, extra-legal dispossession, and a suit for immediate recovery of possession succeeds regardless of who ultimately holds title.

Sanjay Maruti Jadhav & Anr. vs. Amit Tatoba Sawant – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware