Ownership transfers upon registration of a sale deed, and non-payment of part of the consideration does not invalidate the sale; the transferor's remedy lies in recovery, not cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant first appeal under section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against impugned judgment and decree dated 28.8.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Court No.3 Mathura in O.S. No. 837 of 2023 Smt.Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam and another whereby, the application of defendant no.2 Manoj Agrawal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant filed an O.S. No. 837 of 2023 initially against the defendant no.1 Ashish Kumar Gautam with the averments that she was the owner of the disputed property, a land having area of 240 m², which was purchased through sale deed dated 18.8.2009 from Jonal @ Sonal Kulshreshtha and Rupal Kulshreshtha. She averred that through sale deed dated 30.11.2022, which was registered in the office of the concerned subregistrar on the same day, the disputed property was sold to defendant no.1 for sale consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 32.30 lakhs was paid through post dated cheque No. 936693 dated 10.5.2023 for ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 16.60 lakhs, cheque No. 936694 dated 10.4.2023 for ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 10 lakh and cheque No. 936695 dated 10.3.2023 for ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 5.70 lakhs, which were drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mahavan, Mathura. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the above consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 32.30 lakhs was to be paid subsequently as such, the above post dated cheques were issued by the defendant no.1 which were accepted by her, towards sale consideration of the disputed property.

3. The plaintiff further averred that since the consideration was agreed to be paid subsequently, after the registration of the sale deed, as such, the possession of the disputed property was not transferred to the defendant no.1(vendee/transferee). She further averred that since the defendant failed to arrange the consideration as such, he requested for more time to make the payment and it was further requested by him, that the above cheques be not presented for payment. After sometime, she requested the defendant to make payment then the defendant issued her fresh cheques and assured that he will make the required payment. The plaintiff further averred that acting on the assurance of the defendant, the fresh cheques issued by the defendant bearing No. 936701,936702 and 936703 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mahavan, Mathura dated 25.8.2023 were deposited by her in the HDFC bank, Branch Shastripuram, Agra which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the defendant no.1.

4. The plaintiff further averred that she informed the defendant no.1 regarding dishonour of the cheques issued by him and requested him to make payment of the remaining consideration of the sale deed but he paid no heed, as such, she was compelled to file the instant suit. She further averred that the disputed property was in her possession.

5. The plaintiff claimed the following reliefs from the defendant:-

(A)By a decree of permanent injunction granted in her favour against the defendant, the defendant and his agents be restrained from interfering in her peaceful possession of the disputed property and also from transferring it.

(B)By decree of the court