$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010014612026 + FAO 14/2026 and CM APPL. 3880/2026 SACHIN BATRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind Vats, Mr. Ravi Vats, Mr.Vishesh Goel, and Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocates versus SATPAL BATRA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Chhabra, Ms. Gauri Batra, and Mr. Samarth Talwar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 wherein the application filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter “plaintiff no. 1”) came to be allowed and the appellant (hereinafter “defendant”) and his family members were restrained from entering the ground floor and dispossessing plaintiff no. 1 without following due process of law. Further, the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property till the disposal of the underlying suit. 2. The defendant’s grievance is primarily based on the contention that his mother (wife of plaintiff no. 1) left behind a registered Will dated This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 16:19:10 19.09.2019, thereby bequeathing the ground floor (without roof rights) and 3rd floor (with roof rights up to the sky) along with car parking rights on the ground floor, in his favour. 3. Notably, the underlying suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid Will, mandatory injunction against the defendant restraining him from executing any sale deed, and permanent injunction restraining him from inducting any other person or parting with the possession of the suit property. In the plaint, it has been averred that plaintiff no. 1 is a senior citizen and bought the suit property in the name of his wife. It was further averred that plaintiff no. 1 had been residing on the ground floor along with his wife since the purchase of the property, and had continued to reside there even after her death. Doubting the execution of the concerned Will, plaintiff no. 1 has expressed apprehension of being forcibly evicted by the defendant. 4. The defendant filed his written statement, but failed to state any specific portion on the ground floor which was under his possession. Though, before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that the defendant is in possession of two rooms however, on being asked, learned counsel has failed to disclose any such averment in the W.S. where this aspect has been stated. 5. The Trial Court in the impugned order noted that the defendant had admitted the possession of plaintiff no. 1 over the ground floor of the suit This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 16:19:10 property. The plaint was accompanied by photographs showing possession of plaintiff no. 1. Finding a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff no. 1, the aforesaid order came to be passed. 6. This Court completely agrees with the prima facie finding recorded by the Trial Court and thus finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 7. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed. 8. The pending application is also disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 sn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/09/2026 at 16:19:10