ORDER : A.No.2/2017ANDI.A.No.1/2018 Heard Shri Suresh S.Lokre, learned Advocate for appellant and Shri Anup Seetharama Rao for Shri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned Advocate for respondent. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the plaint. 3. The application, I.A.No.1/2018 under Section 151 CPC is filed with following prayer: “That for the reason sworn in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify the interim order passed in the above case by passing appropriate directions, in order to protect the possession of the appellant in the Schedule Property pending disposal of the above appeal, in the interest of justice and equity”. 4. By order dated 26.2.2018, this Court admitted this appeal and passed an order of ‘status quo’ on I.A.No.2/2017 with regard to possession. Seeking modification of the said order, I.A.No.1/2018 is filed. 5. Arguing in support of I.A.No.1/2018, Shri Suresh S. Lokre, in substance, submitted that the defendant taking advantage of the order dated 26.2.2018, is making efforts to dispossess plaintiff from suit schedule property. Therefore, the said order may be modified and plaintiff be protected from dispossession, pending disposal of the suit. 6. Facts of the case discernable from the submissions of the learned Counsel Shri Lokre are, plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit schedule property. Defendant offered to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.1,39,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). Out of the said amount, defendant paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 28.11.2016. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,27,90,700/- excluding tax was sought to be paid by cheque bearing No.0210098 dated 30.11.2016. Plaintiff executed a sale deed on 30.11.2016. On presentation, the cheque for Rs.1,27,90,700/- was dishonoured. The plaintiff has not handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. Plaintiff is a nonresident citizen. Her father who is also her power agent is presently residing in the suit schedule property. 7. On 7.1.2017, the plaintiff informed defendant’s husband through an e-mail that defendant’s cheque was dishonoured. She sought to know as to when it could be represented. She also enquired as to why defendant was delaying taking possession of the property. Defendant’s husband immediately replied stating that the loan was about to be sanctioned; the building was not ready to take possession; and that he would review the matter and revert back. 8. She sought to know as to when it could be represented. She also enquired as to why defendant was delaying taking possession of the property. Defendant’s husband immediately replied stating that the loan was about to be sanctioned; the building was not ready to take possession; and that he would review the matter and revert back. 8. Defendant’s husband is a former IAS officer. Taking advantage of plaintiff’s absence in the country, defendant attempted to take possession of the property forcibly compelling the plaintiff to file instant suit for injunction. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. Though this Court has ordered ‘status quo’ with regard to possession, defendant is making hectic efforts to take possession of the suit schedule property forcibly. Defendant’s husband attempted to trespass into the property on 9.3.2018 and assaulted plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff’s father filed two complaints with the police on the same day. The first complaint was treated as NCR and an FIR was registered based on the second complaint. Defendant’s husband has also filed a complaint on the following day alleging that he was assaulted on 9.3.2018. 9. Thus, Shri Lokre argued that plaintiff is entitled for protection against forcible dispossession and accordingly prayed for suitable modification of ‘status quo’ order. 10. Opposing the application, Shri Anup Seetharama Rao, learned advocate for the defendant submitted that admittedly, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 30.11.2016 and the same is registered in accordance with law. He argued that it is settled in law that once sale deed is executed, transfer of ownership takes place in terms of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, a suit for injunction is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a suit for recovery of money. Thus, supporting trial Court’s order, he prayed for dismissal of application for modification. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused material papers on record. 12. Incontrovertible facts of the case are, plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The sale consideration is Rs.1,39,30,000/-. Out of the said sum, the cheque for Rs.1,27,90,700/- tendered by the defendant has been dishonoured. 13. 12. Incontrovertible facts of the case are, plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The sale consideration is Rs.1,39,30,000/-. Out of the said sum, the cheque for Rs.1,27,90,700/- tendered by the defendant has been dishonoured. 13. On 7.1.2017, at 11.35 A.M., the plaintiff has sent an e-mail to the defendant’s husband and it is reproduced hereunder: “reach renu<reachrenu22@gmail.com> To:prabhakara.ks22@gmail.com Cc:SanthoshKankanalu >reachskg@yahoo.com> Dear Mr.Prabhakar Good Morning, How are you? In respect of the cheque dated 30.11.16 issued by your wife we were supposed to present it immediately. It is at your instance I was prevented in doing so. When it was presented and it bounced on your instructions of the bank on 26th Dec 16 it was shocking to us. Please tell us when it can be represented. I would like to know why you are delaying in taking possession of the property under the registered deed dated 30th Nov 16 from us and delaying in honouring the cheque. Awaiting your reply. Regards Renuka Santhosh” 14. Within less than two hours, i.e. at 12.58 P.M., defendant’s husband has replied as follows: “Prabhakara K S prabhakara.ks22@gmail.com To:reach renu <reachrenu22@gmail.com> Dear smt Renuka. The loan is abt tonne (sic about to be) sanctioned now. He (sic the) bldg is not ready for taking possession. So we wl(sic will) review it this Monday or Tuesday and come back to u. This is explained to u well and known to u well. Regds. Prabhakara ks Sent from my iPhone [quoted text hidden]” 15. No other material was placed on record either before the trial Court or this Court by the defendant to show that defendant has taken possession of the property after execution of the sale deed. 16. The defendant has averred in the written statement that the plaintiff requested for two months’ time to complete the building and offered to encash the cheque only after the remaining work was completed. The dishonour of cheque is not disputed. In the written statement, the defendant has pleaded thus: “6) …… The allegation that the Defendant requested for some time after registration for honoring cheque amount as there was some shortage in her Bank Account is only half truth. The dishonour of cheque is not disputed. In the written statement, the defendant has pleaded thus: “6) …… The allegation that the Defendant requested for some time after registration for honoring cheque amount as there was some shortage in her Bank Account is only half truth. It had been agreed mutually by the Plaintiff and the Defendant that, the Plaintiff shall present Cheque No.021098 only after the remaining work in the schedule building is completed in all respects. The Plaintiff had requested two months time from the date of registration to complete the building for which the Defendant agreed. That was agreed because the plaintiff offered to encash the cheque only after the remaining work is completed. Further allegation that, the cheque No.021098 was presented with bankers of the Plaintiff on 26122016 and the said cheque was dishonored as there was a stop payment instruction is correct. The Defendant was required to provide the amount in her bank account for clearing the cheque only after completion of the balance work in the building.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. Plaintiff is a nonresident Indian. Sale has been executed. The e-mail sent by defendant’s husband makes it clear that loan was yet to be sanctioned and defendant had not taken possession of the property. 18. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has placed for perusal of this Court two complaints filed by Sheshadri Naidu(Plaintiff’s father) on 9.3.2018 against the defendant, her husband and accomplices. The first complaint was registered as NCR (non cognizable report). An FIR was registered based on the second complaint in Crime No.79/2018 at 19.30 hours on 9.3.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 149, 448 and 323 IPC against defendant’s husband and eight others. It is alleged in the FIR lodged by the defendant’s husband on 10.3.2018, that defendant was in possession of the property; that at 1.00 P.M. on 9.3.2018, Sheshadri Naidu along with 7 to 8 other persons trespassed into the defendant’s house and assaulted him. 19. The conduct of a litigant before Court is vital factor. According to both parties, incident has occurred at 1.00 p.m on 9.3.2018. Plaintiff’s GPA holder has lodged two complaints on the date of incident, whereas defendant’s husband, lodged a complaint on the following day. 19. The conduct of a litigant before Court is vital factor. According to both parties, incident has occurred at 1.00 p.m on 9.3.2018. Plaintiff’s GPA holder has lodged two complaints on the date of incident, whereas defendant’s husband, lodged a complaint on the following day. The conduct of defendant’s husband, prima-facie, is not in consonance with the normal reaction of a citizen complaining of attack on person, more so, because he is a former IAS officer. 20. A copy of the sale deed was placed for perusal of this Court. The relevant recital with regard to payment of consideration in the sale deed reads as follows: “VIII. NOW THIS DEED OF SALE WITNESSETH that in pursuance of the aforesaid understanding between the parties and in consideration of sum of Rs.1,39,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirthy Nine Lakh only) paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor in the following manner; (1) The Purchaser has already paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) by way of by way of Cheque bearing No.0210095 dated 28.11.2016 drawn on Federal Bank, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru; and (2) The balance sale consideration of sum of Rs. 1,27,90,700/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakh Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred only), has been paid by the Purchaser by way of Cheque bearing No. 0210098 dated 30.11.2016 drawn on Federal Bank, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Vendor. The receipt of said Sale consideration is subject to realization of cheque. A sum of Rs. 1,39,30000 being the TDS amount paid on 28112016 Vendor’s PAN No.AMIPP9813C vide BSR Code No.0011352, Challan No. 00967, dated 28112016.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Defendant’s argument is plain and simple to the effect that once the sale deed is executed, transfer of ownership takes place as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and the only remedy available to the plaintiff is to file a suit for recovery of money. Relevant portion of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as follows: “54. "Sale" defined."Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.” 22. The recital in the sale deed is categoric. It states that consideration has been ‘paid’. Therefore, the words ‘promised’, ‘part-paid’ or ‘part promised’ have no application. Hence, applicability of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act must be examined only under one contingency namely, ‘price paid’. The recital in the sale deed is categoric. It states that consideration has been ‘paid’. Therefore, the words ‘promised’, ‘part-paid’ or ‘part promised’ have no application. Hence, applicability of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act must be examined only under one contingency namely, ‘price paid’. Admittedly, the cheque for Rs.1,27,90,700/- stood dishonored. Further, the underlined portion of the sale deed extracted supra, shows that the parties agreed that the cheque tendered by the defendant was ‘subject to realisation’. Therefore, though it is mentioned in the sale deed that consideration was paid, in fact, it was not paid. Hence, the argument that the sale is complete as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act must fail. 23. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application by holding that dishonour of cheque after execution of sale deed is not a ground to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not handed over possession of the property by recording thus: “12. In the present case, as per averments of the plaint, plaintiff has received part sale consideration. When plaintiff himself has admitted with regard to receipt of part sale consideration, prima facie it reveals squarely the transaction took place between plaintiff and defendant coming under the definition of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. So, on the basis of the above said principle, prima facie it is to be held plaintiff has transferred his ownership over the suit schedule property by receiving part sale consideration. Merely because cheque issued by the defendant in respect of the sale consideration is dishonoured after execution of the registered sale deed is not a ground to come to conclusion that plaintiff has not handed over possession of the suit schedule property. …………….” (Emphasis supplied) 24. It is well settled that any attempt to take possession of property by force is impermissible in law. It may be apt to refer to the following passages from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRS. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRS. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 , which read as follows: “5. It may be apt to refer to the following passages from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRS. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRS. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 , which read as follows: “5. Salmond states in Jurisprudence (12th Edn.), “few relationships are as vital to man as that of possession, and we may expect any system of law, however primitive, to provide rules for its protection.… Law must provide for the safeguarding of possession. Human nature being what it is, men are tempted to prefer their own selfish and immediate interests to the wide and long-term interests of society in general. But since an attack on a man's possession is an attack on something which may be essential to him, it becomes almost tantamount to an assault on the man himself; and the possessor may well be stirred to defend himself with force. The result is violence, chaos and disorder.” (at pp. 265-66) “In English law possession is a good title of right against anyone who cannot show a better. A wrongful possessor has the rights of an owner with respect to all persons except earlier possessors and except the true owner himself. Many other legal systems, however, go much further than this, and treat possession as a provisional or temporary title even against the true owner himself. Even a wrongdoer, who is deprived of his possession, can recover it from any person whatever, simply on the ground of his possession. Even the true owner, who takes his own, may be forced in this way to restore it to the wrongdoer, and will not be permitted to set up his own superior title to it. He must first give up possession, and then proceed in due course of law for the recovery of the thing on the ground of his ownership. The intention of the law is that every possessor shall be entitled to retain and recover his possession, until deprived of it by a judgment according to law.” (Salmond, ibid., pp. 294-95) “Legal remedies thus appointed for the protection of possession even against ownership are called possessory, while those available for the protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as proprietary. 294-95) “Legal remedies thus appointed for the protection of possession even against ownership are called possessory, while those available for the protection of ownership itself may be distinguished as proprietary. In the modern and medieval civil law the distinction is expressed by the contrasted terms petitorium (a proprietary suit) and possessorium (a possessory suit).” (Salmond, ibid., p. 295) 6. The law in India, as it has developed, accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond. In Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy [ AIR 1924 PC 144 : 51 IA 293] Sir John Edge summed up the Indian law by stating that in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court. 7. The thought has prevailed incessantly, till date, the last and latest one in the chain of decisions being Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani [ (2003) 7 SCC 350 ]. In between, to quote a few out of several, in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh [ AIR 1968 SC 620 : (1968) 2 SCR 203 ] this Court has held that a landlord did commit trespass when he forcibly entered his own land in the possession of a tenant whose tenancy has expired. The Court turned down the submission that under the general law applicable to a lessor and a lessee there was no rule or principle which made it obligatory for the lessor to resort to court and obtain an order for possession before he could eject the lessee. The Court quoted with approval the law as stated by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohd. v. Lakshmi Das [ AIR 1959 All 1 : 1958 All LJ 628 (FB)] (AIR at p. 4): “Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause.” (AIR p. 5, para 13).” xxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 25. A conspectus of facts recorded above lead to an irresistible inference that the defendant did make unsuccessful attempt to take possession of the property in question by force. Admittedly, plaintiff is a nonresident Indian residing in Dubai. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause.” (AIR p. 5, para 13).” xxxxx (Emphasis supplied) 25. A conspectus of facts recorded above lead to an irresistible inference that the defendant did make unsuccessful attempt to take possession of the property in question by force. Admittedly, plaintiff is a nonresident Indian residing in Dubai. Out of Rs.1.39 crores, she has received only Rs.10 lakhs. The e-mail sent by defendant’s husband makes two things clear. Firstly, that the cheque was dishonoured. Secondly, that she had not taken possession of the property. Thus, unquestionably, plaintiff remained in possession of the property even after execution of the sale deed. It would be a travesty of justice if Courts remain a silent spectator in a case of this nature, which would act in aid of litigants like defendant who belong to the family of coveted Civil Services and resort to illegal means to take possession of the property, without paying consideration, from gullible nonresident citizen. 26. In the light of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge are perverse and therefore, unsustainable. 27. Resultantly, the application for modification of the order dated 26.2.2018 eminently deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: (a) I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff; (b) Order of status quo dated 26.02.2018 passed while considering I.A.No.2/2017 is modified and defendant, or her agent, servant or any person claiming through or under her are restrained from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the suit schedule property pending disposal of this appeal. I.A.No.2/2017 is accordingly disposed of.