JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the order of refusal of prayer for ad-interim injunction passed in Civil Suit No. 15/2006 on 04.09.2018. 2. The plaintiff M/s Shri Govind Real Infra India Pvt. Ltd through its Director Smt. Suman Gurjar brought civil suit No 15/06 for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.05.2013 and for declaration that the said sale deed executed by plaintiff company in favour of defendant No. 1 Shri Govind Town Planers Pvt. Ltd is null and void having no effect due to want of transfer of consideration money. Plaintiff further sought for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.10.2015 executed by defendant No. 1 in respect of some of the plots which were subject matter of registered sale deed dated 17.05.2013 in favour of some others as null and void, without jurisdiction and the same also be cancelled. Next prayer was for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 3. It is worth to mention that Mr. Shiv Pratap Harshana defendant No. 8 was the Director of plaintiff company who had executed the registered sale deed on behalf of the company and Smt. Suman Gurjar another Director of the plaintiff company who is wife of Mr. Shiv Pratap Harshana has filed the suit aforesaid. It is also worth to be noted that the transaction of sale deed dated 19.10.2015 executed by defendant No. 1, the purchaser are not party to the suit. 4. Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal learned counsel for the appellant contends that the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that sale deed dated 17.05.2013 was created by playing fraud as consideration money disclosed to be paid through cheques could not be transferred to the bank account of the appellant company rather it was kept pending to be presented in the bank till expiry of the validity time of cheques and there was interpolation made in the cheques in the year portion, making 2013 as 2015. Learned counsel contends that in fact, the cheques dated 16.05.2013 were re-validated on 16.05.2015 and before its presentation, the respondents had already closed the bank account on 30.09.2013 itself. Hence, on presentation of the cheques on 30.05.2015 the same were dishonored. Learned counsel contends that in fact, the cheques dated 16.05.2013 were re-validated on 16.05.2015 and before its presentation, the respondents had already closed the bank account on 30.09.2013 itself. Hence, on presentation of the cheques on 30.05.2015 the same were dishonored. Learned counsel contends that in the event of non-payment of consideration money, the plaintiff appellant would have charge on the property which was subject matter of sale deed in view of the provisions of Section 55 (4) (b) and 55 (5) (b) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the circumstance, it would be just and proper to restrain the respondents from transferring the said property to anyone else, till adjudication of the suit. 5. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the transferor of plaintiff company through registered sale deed dated 17.05.2013 was none else than the husband of Smt. Suman Gurjar who has filed the suit on behalf of the same company. Learned senior counsel submits that recitals in the sale deed would clearly depict that the entire consideration money, i.e. one crore was paid through four cheques dated 16.05.2013 and remaining two lakhs was paid through cash on the date of execution of the sale deed, it is recited specifically that from the date of execution of the sale deed, title would pass to defendant No. 1 and possession was also handed over to defendant No. 1 in respect of the said property. Learned senior counsel next contends that there is no reasonable justification to not present the cheques soon after its receipt and keep it to expire and get it validated by making interpolation in the year of issuance and thereafter presenting the same to the bank after expiry of two years. Learned counsel contends that entire exercise of interpolation was done with intent to avoid the statutory bar to bring a suit for recovery of consideration money. Learned counsel has referred para-3 of the written statement filed in the suit which is being reproduced below:- "That without prejudice to defence otherwise of defendants, it is submitted that as per contents of plaint and documents annexed therewith the cheques are ex-facie vitiated by illegal and unauthorised material alteration countersigned by Directors of plaintiff company while the instrument remained in possession of plaintiff company and apparently after two years of purported date of issue i.e. 16.05.2013. It is for this reason that plaintiff company deliberately avoided suit for recovery which ought to have been remedy as per law if at all plaintiff company was aggrieved by dishonor of said cheques. It is pertinent to mention that no notice of dishonor or demand for payment was ever sent by plaintiff company." 6. In the interim injunction matter, the plaintiff appellant filed a rejoinder, to the reply of the defendant respondent, on 08.08.2017. In para 3, the plaintiff appellant stated that in fact, after execution of the sale deed, there was cordial relationship with the Directors of the defendant No.1 company and financial condition of defendant No. 1 was not good therefore soon after execution of sale deed it was decided between the parties to the sale that let the land under transaction be mutated in the name of defendant company and the defendant would get the nature of land converted from agricultural use to residential and commercial use. Thereafter, the defendant would advertise for sale of the land and for completing this exercise atleast a period of two years was required. Therefore, the Directors of defendant No. 1 changed the date of issuance of cheques and handed over to the plaintiff, since husband of the plaintiff namely Shiv Pratap Harshana was also there as one of the Directors of defendant No. 1 company, there was no reason to doubt on the action/ inaction of defendant No. 1. The aforesaid admission of the plaintiff appellant makes it abundantly clear that it was conscious of the circumstances under which cheque amount of consideration money of the sale deed was not given effect to and the sale deed was given effect to. Therefore atleast for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for ad-interim injunction, it cannot be argued that fraud was played in the execution of sale deed in as much as consideration money was not fully paid. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Mittal and Others v. Nupour Housing Development Private Limited reported in 2020 (20) SCC 158 . Question involved therein was whether the Revenue Court has jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that this jurisdiction is with the Civil Court. Question involved therein was whether the Revenue Court has jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that this jurisdiction is with the Civil Court. Learned counsel next relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar and Others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 1097 for her submission that a suit for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable where consideration money did not pass. In that case, the seller had created two sale deeds, one in favour of his minor son and another in the name of his wife. Only token consideration money was mentioned in the sale deed. The court held that sale without consideration could have been cancelled. In the case of Hasti Vement Pvt. Ltd v. Sandeep Charan reported in 2018 (1) RLW 826, a Bench of this court was considering the scope of Rajastshan Tenancy Act and Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Rajra) reported in 2020 (7) SCC 366 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the nature of sale transaction as defined in Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and stated as follows:- "The definition of "sale" indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of the interest or right in the property, or else it would not be a sale. The definition further indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a "price paid or promised or part paid and part promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 this Court held that the words "price paid or promised or part paid and part promised" indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record. In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed. We find that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)." 9. On careful consideration of material available on the record:- (a) it is evident that the operation of the sale deed dated 17.05.2013 was not in any way restricted to the payment of entire consideration money rather, the sale deed speaks about payment of entire consideration money at the time of execution of the sale deed and title and possession passed to the purchaser soon on registration of the sale deed. (b) all the four cheques mentioned in the sale deed were not produced before the bank for being honored for two years, the explanation for non-presentation is cozy relations amongst the Directors of the two companies which included husband of Director who had brought the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. (b) all the four cheques mentioned in the sale deed were not produced before the bank for being honored for two years, the explanation for non-presentation is cozy relations amongst the Directors of the two companies which included husband of Director who had brought the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. (c) the admission of the plaintiff appellant in their reply dated 08.08.2017 goes to show a different reason for non-presentation of the cheques of the consideration money of the sale deed for clearance and awareness of the plaintiff appellant about the factual situation, whereunder the cheques were not produced before the bank. Therefore, allegation of any fraud in getting the sale deed cannot be prima facie accepted for, atleast for considering the interim prayer for injunction. Therefore, this court is in agreement with the learned trial Judge that plaintiff has got no prima facie case to get any interim protection. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.