JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants-plaintiffs in a suit for cancellation of the sale deed against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Civil Misc. Case No.115/2014 "Smt. Manju & Ors. v. Ranjeet Singh & Ors. " by which, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The suit aforesaid seeking cancellation of the sale-deed was filed in relation to the 15 biswas of agricultural land and the sale-deed was executed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff Smt. Manju Devi W/o late Bheru Lal Sharma in favour of the respondent No.1-defendant-Ranjeet Singh S/o Abhay Singh. The said sale-deed is said to have been executed on 30.08.2011 whereas, the present suit for cancellation of the same, has been filed in the year 2014, on 02.08.2014, approximately after three years. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Nitin Trivedi appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that the sale-deed dated 30.08.2011 is forged and no consideration was received by the plaintiffs-appellants and the defendant-Ranjeet Singh came on the land in question threatening the present appellants to further execute sale deed in respect of 15 biswas of land in favour of third parties and wanted to take forcible possession of the land in question, the appellant-plaintiff Smt. Manju came to know of the sale-deed dated 30.08.2011 and, therefore, the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed. The learned counsel also submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court has wholly erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants and, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned counsel also submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court has wholly erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants and, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 13.05.2015, this Court is satisfied that once a sale-deed with the due signatures/thumb impressions is executed by the appellants-plaintiffs and the same has been got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned, a strong presumption is attached that the land has been transferred and the consideration of the same has been received by the seller. The plaintiffs-appellants has filed the suit aforesaid seeking cancellation of the sale-deed approximately after three years of its execution. No evidence was led by the plaintiffs that the defendant wanted to take forcible possession of the land in question except a bald averment in this regard. 5. The plaintiffs-appellants has filed the suit aforesaid seeking cancellation of the sale-deed approximately after three years of its execution. No evidence was led by the plaintiffs that the defendant wanted to take forcible possession of the land in question except a bald averment in this regard. 5. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 13.05.2015 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- " izFke n'"V;k ekeyk " 6- izkfFkZ;k dk vkus izkFkZuk&i= ds ek/;e ls ;g fuosnu jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 1&j.kthr flag us vizkFkhZ eatw nsoh iRuh HkS:yky dks/kks[ks esa j[kdj iath;u djok fy;k gS vkSj ml iath;u ds vk/kkj ij ukekarjdj.k [kqyok fy;k vkSj vc bl tk;nkn dks iath;u ds vk/kkj ij vU;= varj.k djuk pkgrk gS] tcfd okLro esa izkfFkZ;k tk;nkn dk iath;u djkus ds fy;s lc&jftLV~kj dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gqbZ FkhA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ikl iathd'r nLrkost gSaA/kkjk 91 o 92 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathd'r vkSj fyf[kr nLrkost ekSf[kd lk{; ls vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 us oknxzLr tk;nkn dks jkf'k vnk djds [kjhnh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkfFkZ;k dk ;g dguk fd mls/kks[ks esa j[kdj fodz;&i= dk iath;u djok;k] bl izde ij ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl ckjs esa ftu O;fDr;ksa ds xokgh nh gS] muds 'kiFk&i= Hkh izLrqr ugha gq;s gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa izFken'"V;k ekeyk cuuk ugha ikrk gwaA lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viwj.kh; {kfr 7- lqfo/kk dk larqyu Hkh blh esa esa gS fd tks nLrkost izkfFkZ;k }kjk iathd'r djok;k x;k gS vkSj mls vuqlj.k esa ukekarjdj.k QSly gqvk gSA mldks ns[kk tkos rks vxj vizkFkhZ dks viuh [kjhn'kqnk tk;nkn vU;Fkk varfjr djus ls jksdk x;k rks ;g vizkFkhZ ds fy;s vR;ar vlqfo/kkiw.kZ gksxk] tcfd izkfFkZ;k oknxzLr tk;nkn dks igys gh varfjr dj pqdh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa mls dksbZ {kfr ugha gksxhA 8- pwafd izkfFkZ;k vius i{k esa izFken'"V;k ekeyk] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viwj.kh; {kfr ds fcUnw dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgh gSA vr% izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ckcr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vUrxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk fo:) foi{khx.k vLohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k 9- vr% izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ckcr~ vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vUrxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk fo:) vizkFkhZx.k vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA Sd/- f'ko dqekj O;kl vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k fuEckgsM+k " 6. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference. It is needless to add that any further transaction of the land in question will always subject to the pending litigation as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, subject to the aforesaid legal protection available to the appellants-plaintiffs, no interference is made in the impugned order dated 13.05.2015. The appeal is thus found to be devoid of any merit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeal filed on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs-Smt. Manju W/o late Bheru Lal Sharma & Ors. stands dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******