Delhi District Court
Mrs Kamlesh vs Kishan Sankhla on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Civ DJ 216/21
CNR Number: DLWT01-000926-2021
In the matter of:
Mrs. Kamlesh
W/o Shri Braham Parkash
R/o 51/26, Street no. 14, Nai-Basti,
Anand Parbat,
New-Delhi-110005. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Roop Kishore @ Kishan Sankhla
S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh
2. Shri Devender Singh @ Dara Singh
S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh
Both R/o 51/39A, Street no. 15,
Nai-Basti, Anand Parbat,
New-Delhi-110005. ....Defendants
Date of institution : 06.03.2021
Date of reserved for judgment : 29.01.2026
Date of judgment : 18.02.2026
Suit for recovery of Rs. 18,48,000/-.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. The plaintiff states that the defendants are real brothers and share
close family relations with her, as they refer to her as their aunt (Bua). In
January 2001, the defendants and their mother approached the plaintiff
and requested a loan of Rs. 2,75,000 to repay existing family debts,
assuring her that the amount would be repaid with interest at the rate of
2% per month after four to five years. Relying on their assurances, the
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:22:25 +0530
plaintiff advanced the said loan amount on 3 January 2001.
2. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiff over the years, the
defendants failed to repay the loan and continued to postpone payment on
one pretext or another, assuring the plaintiff that her money was safe. In
January 2018, when the plaintiff again demanded repayment, the
defendants acknowledged their liability and, after recalculating the
interest, agreed to settle the matter for Rs. 14,00,000 instead of Rs.
14,97,000, promising to pay the amount within one year.
3. To secure repayment, defendant no. 1 executed a promissory note
dated 21 January 2018 in favour of the plaintiff, while defendant no. 2
and their mother stood as guarantors and handed over the title documents
of their house as security. After the death of their mother on 26 December
2020, both defendants became the exclusive owners of the said property.
4. Even after expiry of the agreed one-year period, the defendants
failed to make payment and continued to delay repayment. Consequently,
the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20 May 2019 through registered
post and courier, but the defendants neither replied to the notice nor
repaid any amount.
5. As on 20 May 2019, a total sum of Rs.18,48,000 was due and
payable by the defendants, comprising Rs. 14,00,000 as principal and
Rs.4,48,000 as interest calculated at 2% per month for sixteen months.
The plaintiff states that the cause of action arose on 21 January 2018 with
execution of the promissory note, continued with repeated demands, and
finally crystallized on 20 May 2019 upon issuance of the legal notice, and
that the suit is within the period of limitation.
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 2 of 19 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.02.18 17:22:29 +0530
6. The plaintiff further submits that proper Court fees have been paid
and that the Court has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff prays for a decree of Rs.18,48,000
jointly and severally against the defendants, along with past, present, and
future interest, costs of the suit.
Written Statement of defendants.
7. The defendants have raised preliminary objections contending that
the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff
has failed to mention the correct names of defendant no. 1 and defendant
no. 2, despite claiming to be their close relative. It is asserted that the suit
is false, fraudulent, malicious, and a misuse of the judicial process, filed
with the intention to harass and humiliate the defendants. The defendants
further argue that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff
and that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8. The defendants also plead that the suit is barred by limitation, as
the alleged loan was claimed to have been advanced in the year 2001 and
no written demand was made for several years thereafter. It is contended
that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts, including her marital
status and residence, and has failed to prove any loan transaction or
source of income. The defendants denied having borrowed any money
from the plaintiff at any point of time.
8. It is specifically alleged that the promissory note dated 21 January
2018 is forged and fabricated, as it bears an incorrect name of defendant
no. 1 and is inconsistent with his status as a government servant who was
posted in Agra on the said date. The defendants further claim that the title
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 3 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:22:32 +0530
documents of the house were handed over to the plaintiff only for the
purpose of preparation of property documents on the assurance of the
plaintiff’s husband, and that the plaintiff has illegally retained the original
documents since 1999-2000.
9. On merits, the defendants categorically denied all allegations
relating to the advancement of any loan, execution of a promissory note,
delivery of property documents as security, calculation of interest,
issuance of legal notice, or liability to repay any amount. It is contended
that the entire claim is based on false, concocted, and fabricated
documents and that the plaintiff has failed to establish any legally
enforceable debt.
10. The defendants submit that they never received any legal notice
and that no amount is due or payable to the plaintiff. They further
maintain that the suit discloses no cause of action and is liable to be
dismissed with heavy costs.
Replication by the plaintiff to the WS of defendants.
11. In reply to the preliminary objections, the plaintiff submitted that
the objection regarding incorrect names of the defendants has already
been settled, as this Court allowed the amendment of the memo of parties
vide order dated 06 October 2022, and the amended memo is already on
record. The plaintiff denied the allegations of falsehood, fraud, and
misuse of process, and asserted that the claim is genuine and supported
by a duly executed promissory note dated 21 January 2018 and original
title documents of the defendants’ house, both of which are on record.
12. The plaintiff further denied the objection that no cause of action
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 4 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:22:36 +0530
has arisen, stating that the defendants failed to repay the suit amount,
thereby giving rise to a valid cause of action. The allegation that the suit
is based on false or fictitious documents is also denied, and it is stated
that all documents relied upon are genuine and will be proved during
evidence.
13. Regarding limitation, the plaintiff submits that she had repeatedly
demanded repayment and also sent a legal notice dated 20 May 2019 by
registered post and courier at the correct addresses of the defendants. As
the postal and courier covers were not returned, service is deemed to have
been effected. The plaintiff contended that the suit has been filed well
within limitation in view of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act,
1872 and Clause 35 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, since the
promissory note was executed on 21 January 2018 and the suit was
instituted on 18 January 2021.
14. The plaintiff denied having suppressed any material facts and
asserted that she has approached the Court with clean hands. It is stated
that the defendants are fully aware of the plaintiff’s marital status and
residence, and that her permanent address is her parental house at Anand
Parbat, New Delhi, where she holds a share in the property. It is further
stated that the promissory note was executed at the plaintiff’s residence at
Anand Parbat, New Delhi, giving the Court exclusive territorial
jurisdiction.
15. The plaintiff explained that the original loan amount was Rs.
2,75,000 advanced in January 2001, not Rs. 14,00,000 as alleged by the
defendants. She stated that the loan was given out of her stridhan, which
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 5 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:22:40 +0530
she received from her father, a retired Central Government employee, and
that the defendants, being her neighbours, were well aware of these facts.
The plaintiff admitted that defendant no. 1 is a government servant but
asserts that he frequently visited Delhi on weekends and that 21 January
2018, the date of execution of the promissory note, was a Sunday. It is
stated that defendant no. 1 is commonly known in the locality as Kishan
Sankhla, which explains the name mentioned on the promissory note, and
the name has since been amended to Roop Kishore @ Kishan Sankhla
pursuant to the Court’s order.
16. With regard to the original title documents of the house, the
plaintiff admitted possession of the documents but denied the defendants’
version that the documents were handed over in 1999-2000 merely for
preparation of property papers. The plaintiff termed this defence as false,
fictitious, and unbelievable.
17. In replication to the reply on merits, the plaintiff categorically
denied all averments made by the defendants and reiterated the contents
of the plaint as true and correct. The plaintiff reaffirmed the execution of
the promissory note dated 21 January 2018, the handing over of original
title documents as security, and the existence of a legally enforceable
debt. The plaintiff also reiterated that the legal notice dated 20 May 2019
was duly served and that denial of its receipt by the defendants is false
and made only for the sake of evasion. The suit is based on genuine
documents, that a valid cause of action exists in her favour, and that the
defendants are liable to pay the suit amount.
Issues :-
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 6 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:22:44
+0530
18. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following
issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor on 21.03.2024 :-
Issue no. 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 1 has not signed the promissory
note dated 21.01.2018? OPD
Issue no. 3 Whether the mother of the defendant handed over the original
documents of the property (bearing no. 51/39, Seat No. 14, Nai Basti,
Anand Prabat) to the plaintiff in good faith? OPD
Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.
18,48,000/-, as prayed for? OPP
Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum
or at any other rate, if yes then for what period? OPP
Issue no. 6 Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence:-
19. PW1/ Smt Kamlesh tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents promissory note
dated 21.01.2018 Ex.PW1/1, original title documents of the house ie,
receipt, relinquishment deed, GPA, affidavit, all Ex.PW1/2, legal notice
dated 20.05.2019 Ex.PW1/3, postal receipts Ex.PW1/4, courier receipts
Ex.PW1/5.
20. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that she is M.Com and was
married on 28 June 1985. She deposed that her husband has been an
advocate since the time of their marriage and has been practicing at Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi. She clarified that after her marriage she shifted to
Rohtak in the year 1992, but maintained that her parental house at Anand
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 7 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:22:48
+0530
Parbat, Delhi, remained her address.
21. The plaintiff affirmed that she had given a loan to the defendants
and their mother, although no receipt or written loan agreement was
executed at the time of advancing the loan. She denied the suggestion that
no loan was ever given. She further stated that both defendants were
majors at the time the loan was advanced.
22. With respect to the promissory note, the plaintiff stated that Exhibit
PW-1/1 bears the signatures of Kishan Sankhla at the marked point and
clarified that Kishan Sankhla and Roop Kishore are the same person. She
admitted that Exhibit PW-1/1 does not bear signatures in the name of
Roop Kishore but denied the allegation that the document is false or
fabricated. She also denied the suggestion that the promissory note does
not bear the signatures of the defendants.
23. The plaintiff denied the defence version that the original property
documents were handed over to her husband in the year 1999-2000 for
the purpose of transferring the property in favour of the defendants. She
further denied that her husband failed to return the documents or that she
misused the property documents to extort money, asserting that she is
lawfully in possession of the documents.
24. She denied the suggestion that she did not demand repayment of
the loan between 2001 and 2018. The plaintiff admitted that she did not
file a tracking report regarding the legal notice issued to the defendants
but maintained that the notice was duly sent. She denied the suggestion
that defendant no. 1 was not present in Delhi on 21 January 2018 and
stated that although defendant no. 1 is a government servant in the postal
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 8 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:22:52
+0530
department, he joined service after the year 2001.
25. The plaintiff deposed that Ex. PW-1/1 was executed at her parental
house at Anand Parbat, Delhi. She denied the suggestion that she was not
residing at the address mentioned in the plaint or in her evidence
affidavit. She also clarified that Ex. PW-1/1 ddi not bear her signatures.
26. The plaintiff denied all suggestions that the promissory note is
forged, that no loan was advanced to the defendants, or that she was
deposing falsely.
27. PW2/ Sh Devender Khatri tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW2/A and relied upon documents already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2.
28. PW2 stated that he is a graduate and works as a shopkeeper,
running a mobile phone shop at Mangolpuri since the year 2008, which
operates daily from morning till night. He further stated that between
1996 and 2008 he was running a plastic dana factory at the Narela
Industrial Area, where he used to work from morning till evening.
29. PW2 deposed that the plaintiff is his sister and that he appeared in
Court to give evidence at the request of the plaintiff’s Counsel, who is
also the husband of the plaintiff. He stated that he had visited Tis Hazari
Courts two to three times prior to filing his evidence affidavit. He
admitted that he does not remember the exact date on which his evidence
affidavit was prepared and that he had not read the affidavit, though he
claimed to be aware of the facts of the present case.
30. Regarding the promissory note, PW2 stated that Ex. PW-1/1 was
executed at his residence in January 2018. He deposed that at the time of
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 9 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:22:56 +0530
execution of the said document, he himself, his wife, the plaintiff, and the
mother of the defendants were present. He denied the suggestion that Ex.
PW-1/1 is a false or fabricated document.
Defendant Evidence:-
31. DW1/ Sh. Roop Kishore tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents copy of Aadhar
Card Ex.DW-1/1, copy of PAN card Ex. DW-1/2, RTI reply dated
14.10.2024 along with letter issued by Department of Post, Meerut
Division Ex. PW-1/3, RTI reply dated 05.12.2023 Ex. PW-1/4.
32. DW1 stated that his mother, Govindi Devi, died on 26 December
2020. He admitted that his mother had handed over the original property
documents, Ex. PW-1/2, to the husband of the plaintiff in good faith
during the years 1998-1999 for the purpose of preparation of property
documents in the names of the defendants. He further stated that he had
knowledge of the said handing over of documents since that time and that
his brother, defendant no. 2, was also aware of this fact. He deposed that
his mother had informed him about handing over the documents prior to
her death, though he could not recall the exact date.
33. DW1 clarified that Devinder Singh, also known as Dara Singh, is
his elder brother, Dara Singh being his nickname. Upon being shown Ex.
PW-1/2, he stated that the documents pertain to Dhana Ram Sankhla and
Suresh Sankhla, who are relatives of the defendants, and that Dhana Ram
Sankhla is deceased.
34. DW1 stated that he joined government service in October 2007 and
was initially posted as a trainee inspector at the Postal Training Centre,
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 10 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:22:59
+0530
Saharanpur. He further stated that in January 2018 he was posted at the
Agra Postal Division, Uttar Pradesh. He deposed that his family and
children sometimes reside with him and sometimes at his house at Anand
Parbat, Delhi, and explained that the Postal Department follows Central
Government holidays, with administrative duties being five days a week
and operative duties extending to six or seven days.
35. DW1 admitted that he had orally requested the plaintiff and her
husband to return the original property documents but had not made any
written request, nor had he issued any legal notice or lodged any
complaint, stating that he maintained cordial relations with the plaintiff’s
family. He also admitted that no receipt was taken by his mother at the
time of handing over the documents.
36. DW1 stated that whenever holidays permitted and after obtaining
departmental permission, he used to visit Delhi to meet his family. He
admitted that the legal notice Ex. PW-1/3 bears his correct residential
address at Anand Parbat. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing
falsely and maintained the truthfulness of his testimony.
37. DW-2/Sh. Devender Singh tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. DW2/A and replied upon his aadhar card Ex. DW2/1
The witness stated that he is not aware of Ex. PW-1/2 when it was
shown to him. He clarified that only his parents used to call him by the
nickname “Dara Singh.” He deposed that the original property documents
Ex. PW-1/2 were handed over by his mother to the plaintiff and her
husband for the purpose of preparing documents in the names of the
defendants.
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 11 of 19
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:23:03 +0530
38. DW2 further stated that his mother had demanded several times
that the plaintiff return the original property documents as well as the
prepared documents, but the same were not returned by the plaintiff. He
admitted that he is not aware of the exact date and time when he came to
know about the handing over of the documents by his mother. He also
stated that he himself never asked the plaintiff to return the said
documents, though his younger brother had asked for their return.
39. DW2 admitted that the legal notice Ex. PW-1/3 bears his correct
address, but stated that he did not receive the said notice and claimed that
it did not bear his name or his brother’s name. He further stated that his
parents used to call his younger brother Roop Kishore by the name
“Kishan.”
The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and
maintained that his testimony was truthful.
Final arguments
40. I have heard Shri B.P. Lathwal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Shri
Nawal Kishore, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the record.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has filed written synopsis of his arguments
alongwith following case laws : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Kew
Precision Parts Private Limited and ors. Civil Appeal No. 2176 of 2020
decided on 05.08.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Saroop
Singh v. Rattan Singh (dead) through LRs RSA No. 2927 of 2015
decided on 02.09.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana, Thangam and another v. Navamani Ammal 2024 INSC 164,
A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna AIR 2002 SC 985, Sanjabij Tari v.
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 12 of 19
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:23:07
+0530
Kishore S. Borchar and anr.2025 INSC 1158.
Written synopsis of plaintiff
41. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants initially objected to the
incorrect naming of parties, but pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2022,
Court allowed amendment of the defendants’ names as Roop Kishore @
Kishan Sankhla and Devender Singh @ Dara Singh, and the amended
memo of parties is on record. Although the defendants attempted to deny
any association with the names Kishan Sankhla and Dara Singh in their
written statement, they admitted during cross-examination that these are
their nicknames, which is also reflected in the original house documents
Ex. PW-1/2. It is argued that this conduct shows that the defendants
deliberately concealed their identities to mislead the Court, warranting
adverse inference against them.
42. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants falsely pleaded
that defendant no. 1 could not have executed the promissory note dated
21.01.2018 as he was allegedly on duty at Agra. Evidence on record
shows that 21.01.2018 was a Sunday, a government holiday, thereby
exposing the falsity of the defendants’ plea and demonstrating that they
have not approached the Court with clean hands.
43. The suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.18,48,000 based on the
promissory note dated 21.01.2018 Ex. PW-1/1 executed by defendant no.
1, and the original title documents of the defendants’ house Ex. PW-1/2
handed over by defendant no. 2 and their mother as security. These facts
were specifically pleaded in the plaint and reaffirmed in the replication,
which forms part of the plaintiff’s examination-in-chief.
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 13 of 19 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.02.18 DAGAR 17:23:10 +0530
44. The issues framed by the Court place the burden on the defendants
to prove limitation, denial of signature, and alleged good-faith handing
over of property documents. The defendants have failed to discharge this
burden. Even assuming the original loan was advanced in 2001, the
promissory note dated 21.01.2018 constituted a fresh written contract
under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, and limitation runs from
that date. The suit, filed on 19.01.2021, is therefore well within limitation,
as supported by authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and High Courts.
45. The execution of the promissory note has been conclusively proved
by PW-1 /the plaintiff and PW-2 /the attesting witness, whose testimonies
remained unimpeached. The defendants’ denial of signature is evasive
and deemed to be an admission in law. Defendant No. 1 also failed to
give specimen signatures despite an application under Section 73 of the
Evidence Act, giving rise to an adverse presumption under Section 114 of
the Evidence Act.
46. Regarding the property documents, the defendants’ story that their
mother handed over original documents in 1999-2000 for preparation
purposes is inherently improbable and contradictory. Their admissions
that no written demand, legal notice, or complaint was ever made for
return of such important documents clearly demonstrate that this defence
is an afterthought and false.
47. It is argued that the plaintiff has further proved the underlying loan
transaction and her source of funds through consistent oral evidence,
which remained unchallenged in cross-examination. Presumptions under
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 14 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:23:14
+0530
Sections 20 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act squarely apply,
and the defendants have failed to rebut them by any cogent evidence.
48. In conclusion, the plaintiff has proved the promissory note, the
security documents, the loan liability, and her entitlement to interest at
24% per annum beyond any doubt. The defendants have failed to prove
the issues cast upon them, and their defence is false, evasive, and
unreliable.
Defence arguments
49. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the loan amount was
Rs. 2.75 lakhs and the loan was allegedly disbursed in January 2001 @
2% interest. On the day of signing of the loan agreement in January 2018,
defendant no. 1 was in Agra. He is relying upon the RTI record Ex.
DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4. It is submitted that the alleged property
documents are only notarized.
Court observation and findings
Issue no. 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
50. The defendants have contended that the alleged loan was advanced
in the year 2001 and therefore the suit instituted in January 2021 is barred
by limitation.
51. At the outset, it is necessary to appreciate the legal effect of the
promissory note dated 21.01.2018 (Ex.PW1/1). Section 25(3) of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that a written and signed promise to
pay a time-barred debt constitutes a valid and enforceable contract. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, AIR
2002 SC 985 categorically held that even if the original debt has become
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 15 of 19
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:23:17 +0530
time-barred, a written promise signed by the debtor revives enforceability
and creates a fresh cause of action. The same principle has been reiterated
in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Kew Precision Parts Pvt. Ltd. , Civil
Appeal No. 2176 of 2020, decided on 05.08.2021, wherein the Supreme
Court held that a written acknowledgment or promise to pay a barred debt
constitutes a legally enforceable obligation and limitation would run from
the date of such promise. Further, in Thangam & Anr. v. Navamani
Ammal, 2024 INSC 164, the Supreme Court emphasized that once a
written acknowledgment or promise satisfying statutory requirements is
proved, limitation stands extended or revived in terms of the Limitation
Act and Contract Act.
52. In the present case, the promissory note dated 21.01.2018 Ex.
PW1/1 is a written and signed document. Execution has been proved. Suit
has been filed on 18.01.2021, within three years from 21.01.2018. Thus,
even if the original loan of 2001 had become time-barred, the written
promise revived liability. Accordingly, the suit is within limitation. Issue
No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
IIssue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 1 has not signed the promissory
note dated 21.01.2018? OPD
53. The burden to prove forgery lies on the defendants. The plaintiff
examined herself and the attesting witness PW2, both of whom deposed
consistently regarding execution of Ex.PW1/1. Defendant No.1 admitted
his nickname “Kishan Sankhla”, which appears on the promissory note.
Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a statutory
presumption arises that the promissory note was executed for
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 16 of 19
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:23:21
+0530
consideration.
54. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Murthy (supra) held that once
execution is admitted or prima facie proved, presumption operates and
burden shifts to the defendant to rebut it. In Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S.
Borchar & Anr., 2025 INSC 1158, the Supreme Court reiterated that
where a party denies signature but fails to produce cogent rebuttal
evidence or refuses to submit specimen signatures, adverse inference can
legitimately be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
55. In the present case, defendant no.1 refused to give specimen
signatures. No handwriting expert was examined. No complaint of
forgery was lodged. The plea that he was posted in Agra is insufficient,
particularly when 21.01.2018 was a Sunday and he admitted visiting
Delhi during holidays. Therefore, the defence of forgery remains
unsubstantiated. Issue No.2 is decided against the defendants.
Issue no. 3 Whether the mother of the defendant handed over the original
documents of the property (bearing no. 51/39, Seat No. 14, Nai Basti,
Anand Prabat) to the plaintiff in good faith? OPD
56. The defendants asserted that documents were handed over around
1999-2000 merely for preparation purposes and not as security. The
Court finds this defence implausible for several reasons. No written
receipt was produced. No legal notice or complaint was ever issued
seeking return of documents. Documents allegedly remained with
plaintiff for over 20 years without protest.
57. In Saroop Singh v. Rattan Singh (dead) through LRs, RSA No.
2927 of 2015 (P&H High Court), it was held that conduct inconsistent
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 17 of 19
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.02.18
17:23:25
+0530
with ordinary human prudence weakens credibility of defence and failure
to demand return of title documents for years raises adverse inference.
Similarly, in Thangam v. Navamani Ammal (2024 INSC 164), the
Supreme Court emphasized that courts must examine surrounding
circumstances and human probabilities when assessing documentary
disputes. The defendants’ explanation does not inspire confidence.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the property documents were handed
over as security in connection with the financial transaction. Issue No.3 is
decided against the defendants.
Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.
18,48,000/-, as prayed for? OPP
58. The plaintiff has proved execution of promissory note Ex. PW1/1
for Rs. 14,00,000/-, delivery of security documents, service of legal
notice and absence of repayment. The presumption under Section 118 NI
Act stands unrebutted.
59. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court
reaffirmed that once acknowledgment or promissory instrument is
proved, burden shifts and liability must follow unless disproved by
cogent evidence. Further, Sanjabij Tari (supra) reiterates that bald denial
without rebuttal evidence cannot displace statutory presumption. The
defendants have failed to rebut the presumption.
60. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to decree of the amount mentioned in
the promissory note Ex. PW1/1 i.e. Rs. 14,00,000/-. Issue No.4 is decided
in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 18 of 19
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2026.02.18
DAGAR 17:23:28 +0530
or at any other rate, if yes then for what period? OPP
61. The plaintiff claimed interest @24% per annum. Even though there
is a contractual stipulation post-promissory note specifying rate of
interest however, the said rate of interest is too exorbitant.
Courts are required to award reasonable interest under Section 34
CPC. Considering nature of transaction, interest @9% per annum simple
from 21.01.2018 till realization would meet ends of justice. Issue No.5 is
decided partly in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.6 Relief
62. In view of the findings recorded above, it is found that the suit is
within limitation. Execution of promissory note stands proved. Defence
of forgery is unsubstantiated. Security documents were handed over in
connection with the loan and the liability remains unpaid.
Final Order
63. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants jointly and severally for Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen
Lakhs only) along with interest @9% per annum (simple) from
21.01.2018 till realization. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the
suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally
File be consigned to Record Room. signed by
SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA
BALA DAGAR
DAGAR Date:
2026.02.18
17:23:32
+0530
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 18th Day of February 2026 District Judge-08, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 19 pages.)
Civ DJ 216/21 Kamlesh v. Kishan Sankhla and ors. Page no. 19 of 19
