1 2026:CGHC:3627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 152 of 2010 1 - Kartik Ram (Died) Through Legal Representatives- 1.1 - (A) Smt. Chhat Bai Dewangan, W/o Late Kartikaram Dewangan, Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Akharabhantha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Hariprasad Dewangan, S/o Late Kartikram Dewangan, Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Akharabhantha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C) Bhagatram Dewangan, S/o Late Kartikram Dewangan, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Akharabhantha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - (D) Bharat Lal Dewangan, S/o Late Kartikaram Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Akharabhantha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 1.5 - (E) Ustad Dewangan, S/o Late Kartikram Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Akharabhantha, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Ram Kumar And Ors. S/o Yadav Prasad Sahu (Since Dead) Legal Representatives- 1.1 - (A) Smt. Gaytri Sahu Wd/o Ram Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Bade Seepat, Tahsil Malkharod, Distt. Janjgir Champa At Present R/o Jamnipali, Jelgaon Chowk, P.S. And Tahsil District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Bhavesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ram Kumar Sahu, Aged About 7 Years (Minor) Through Guardian Mother Smt. Gaytri Sahu Wd/o Ram Kumar Sahu, R/o Bade Seepat, Tahsil Malkharod, Distt. Janjgir Champa, At Present R/o Jamnipali, 2 Jelgaon Chowk, P.S. And Tahsil District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shyamlal Sahu, S/o Yadav Prasad Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Bade Seepat, Tahsil Malkharod, Distt. Janjgir Champa, At Present R/o Jamnipali, Jelgaon Chowk, P.S. And Tahsil District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 21.01.2026 1. By the present appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 04-B/2003 [Kartikram v. Ramkumar (died) through his legal heirs Smt. Gayatri Sahu & Ors], whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiff has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. (a) The original plaintiff Kartikram preferred the Civil Suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 92,237/- from the respondents/defendants pleading inter alia that the deceased defendant No.1, Ramkumar Sahu, and defendant No.2, Shyamlal, are real brothers. The suit house fell to the share of Ramkumar Sahu (deceased defendant 3 No.1) in a partition, and he is the owner thereof. Ramkumar Sahu and his brother Shyamlal (defendant No.2) were residing together and had a common mess. The plaintiff had taken on rent one room and a verandah situated in front of the suit house from Ramkumar Sahu for a period of 12 years with effect from 17.01.1994 at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, and in this regard an agreement was executed before the Notary. At the time of the marriage of Ramkumar Sahu, with his consent, defendant No.2- Shyamlal, took a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.03.1996 and issued a written receipt on revenue stamp in acknowledgment thereof. Further, Ramkumar Sahu himself, at the time of his marriage, purchased clothes worth Rs.8,500/- from the plaintiff’s shop and also took a cash amount of Rs.20,000/- on 25.03.1996, in respect of which he executed a written acknowledgment on a stamp paper of Rs.10/-. In respect of the aforesaid amounts, the defendants orally assured the plaintiff that they would sell the suit house to the plaintiff and that the said amounts would be treated as advance consideration towards the sale of the suit house. Accordingly, the plaintiff, through the legal notice dated 17.06.1999, called upon the defendants to execute and register the sale deed of the suit house in his favour; however, the defendants failed to do so. (b) Subsequently, on 15.05.2000, the deceased defendant Ramkumar Sahu, while acknowledging receipt of all the amounts previously taken and admitting the same to be advance towards 4 the total sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, executed a written Mahadanama/Agreement to Sell in favour of the plaintiff for renewal of the sale transaction, with the consent of defendant No.2 Shyamlal. At the time of execution of the said Mahadanama, Ramkumar Sahu further received an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff as advance. Thus, the defendants have received a total sum of Rs.78,500/- from the plaintiff towards the sale transaction of the suit property. Despite this, defendant No.1 did not execute and register the sale deed of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff; rather, defendant No.1 instituted Civil Suit No. 685A/2002 before the Civil Court against the plaintiff for eviction from the suit house and recovery of arrears of rent. Owing to the said proceedings, it has now become impossible to have the sale deed of the suit house executed and registered on the basis of the aforesaid sale transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed in the suit that the defendants are liable to pay him the total amount of Rs.78,500/- being the value of clothes supplied and cash advanced, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum amounting to Rs.13,737/- for the period from 15.05.2000 to 15.04.2003, aggregating to Rs.92,237/-, and further interest on the said amount till its actual realization. 3. In the said Civil Suit, the defendants submitted their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They stated that the plaintiff had taken only one room of the suit house on rent; 5 however, his tenancy was terminated with effect from 01.04.1997. Thereafter, no rent agreement whatsoever was entered into with the plaintiff. Despite this, the plaintiff has been in illegal occupation of the room and verandah of the suit house. Consequently, the Ramkumar instituted Civil Suit No. 685A/2002 against the plaintiff for eviction from the suit house and recovery of arrears of rent. It has further been averred that even after service of notice in the said eviction suit, the plaintiff herein failed to file his written statement for more than 90 days, and during this period, he cooked a false story of an alleged sale transaction and prepared a forged and fabricated Mahadanama in the name of defendant No.1 Ramkumar Sahu, on which he himself affixed or caused to be affixed a forged signature. In fact, Ramkumar never entered into any oral or written agreement to sell the suit house to the plaintiff. It has also been averred that the defendants never received any amount from the plaintiff, nor did they ever take clothes on credit from his shop. It is further pleaded that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff with mala fide intention only to frustrate the eviction and arrears of rent suit filed by Ramkumar and to evade payment of the arrears of rent payable therein. Since defendant No.1 never entered into any agreement for sale of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff, and even if any such alleged agreement exists bearing the signatures of the defendants, the same is forged and fabricated. Had there been any genuine agreement for sale, the proper remedy available to 6 the plaintiff was to file a suit for specific performance of the contract; however, instead, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the alleged advance amount, which in fact was never paid to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed against the defendants. 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had advanced clothes and cash on credit amounting to ₹58,500/- to the defendants Ramkumar and Shyamlal, or that he had paid ₹20,000/- as earnest money towards a house transaction, aggregating to a total sum of ₹78,500/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of trial Court mainly on the ground that the finding of the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is bad in law, as there was an agreement to sale dated 15/05/2000. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 7. In the present appeal, with respect to the suit house, defendant Ramkumar (deceased) had filed a civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the plaintiff Kartikram before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Sakti, registered as Civil Suit No. 685A/02. In that case, one Madangopal has been examined 7 as PW-2 wherein he stated that negotiations had taken place between the parties for the purchase and sale of the said house for a consideration of ₹3,00,000/-. However, subsequently, the witness did not state that the alleged agreement was executed between the parties on 15/05/2000 in his presence, nor did he mention that on the same day the agreement (Ex.P-1) was reduced into writing. Had there actually been an agreement between the plaintiff Kartikram and the defendant Ramkumar on 15/05/2000, and had Ramkumar executed the agreement Ex. P-1 on that date in the presence of Madangopal (P.W.-2) as a witness, Madangopal would certainly have mentioned these facts in his affidavit dated 08/12/2003 filed in the said Civil Suit (Ex. D- 4). The omission of any such mention in Ex.D-4 renders the testimony of Madangopal regarding the alleged agreement between the plaintiff Kartikram and the deceased defendant Ramkumar, and the execution of Ex.P-1 in relation thereto, wholly unreliable and doubtful. This witness was unaware of the cash amount of ₹58,000/- and the goods mentioned in Ex.P-1. He also stated that there was no discussion in his presence regarding when the registry was supposed to be done according to the written agreement, nor was there any conversation in his presence about the consequences of not completing the registry. 8. On a careful perusal of the record and the evidence adduced, it is evident that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement dated 15/05/2000 for the sale of 8 the suit house. The affidavit of witness Madangopal, filed in the earlier eviction suit by the defendant Ramkumar, refers only to negotiations between the parties for the sale of the house for ₹3,00,000/-, but is silent about any executed agreement on 15/05/2000, or the execution of Ex. P-1 in his presence. Had such an agreement been executed, and the terms of Ex. P-1 witnessed by Madangopal, it is reasonable to expect that he would have specifically mentioned these facts in his affidavit dated 08/12/2003. Furthermore, Madangopal was unaware of the cash sum of ₹58,000/- and goods allegedly advanced, the discussion regarding registry, or the consequences of non- completion of registry. The plaintiff has also failed to provide credible evidence of having advanced ₹78,500/- as claimed, either in the form of cash, clothes, or earnest money. In view of these omissions and contradictions, the testimony regarding the alleged agreement and transactions is wholly unreliable. 9. It has been established that the defendant Ramkumar (deceased) did not enter into an agreement to sell the house to the plaintiff, nor did he receive the alleged advance amount and execute the acknowledgment document (Ex.P-1) in his favor. Furthermore, it has not been proven that Ramkumar and Shyamlal, received clothes and cash to the tune of ₹78,500/- on credit from the plaintiff. 10. Even if it is assumed that the defendants took the alleged 9 clothes and cash on credit, it is evident from the plaintiff’s own statements and documents that the said transaction took place in the year 1996 and was, in fact, a credit transaction. Therefore, under Article 19 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff was required to file the suit regarding this matter within three years from the date of the transaction in 1996. However, the plaintiff did not file the said suit within this period and as such the said suit relating to this credit transaction is barred by limitation. According to Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, a debt or liability that is barred by limitation cannot be revived later through a written acknowledgment. Therefore, the plaintiff’s argument in this regard is not acceptable; rather, the plaintiff’s claim is clearly barred by limitation. 11. Be that as it may, it is a settled principle that once the period of limitation expires, nothing short of an express promise will provide a fresh period of limitation, an implied promise is not sufficient. A promise to pay a time-barred debt can be inferred by necessary implication, the promise nevertheless has to be clear and unconditional. 12. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered views that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper, warranting no interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 13. The parties shall bear their own cost(s). 10 14. A decree be drawn accordingly. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep