Dismissed

Ram Rati v. Sat Bir & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Nov 2025FAO/104/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an ad interim injunction under O.39 R.1/2 CPC restraining the appellant from entering disputed property and creating third-party interests. The Court held that since possession was handed over for cultivation, allowing entry would aggravate the dispute. Injunction allowed pending final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order validating the injunction continues till final disposal of the suit; parties restrained from creating third party interest.

Ram Rati Vs Sat Bir & Anr. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 104/2018 & CM APPL. 10179/2018 RAM RATI .....Appellant

¶4

Through: Mr. S.K. Bhaduri and Ms. Neetu Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SAT BIR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. N.K. Aggarwal, Ms. Sanjana Antil, Ms. C. Revathy and Mr. Akash Verma, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

¶8

O R D E R % 11.11.2025

¶9

This is an appeal challenging the order passed by the trial

¶10

court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC as per which the appellant/ defendant has been restrained from creating any third

¶11

party interest in the property or entering into the property. It is quite vehemently and persuasively argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order needs to be interfered with as he has been injuncted/ restrained from entering into his own property. He further submits that he has no objection to the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:11

¶14

part of the order restraining creation of any third party interest in the property. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is no agreement for sale executed by the appellant/ defendant in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs. On the other hand, it is only a mere power of attorney that has been executed which does not confer any right on the respondents/ plaintiffs. He also submits that he continues to be in possession of the property and, therefore, the order restraining him from entering the property needs to be interfered with.

¶15

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs by referring to paragraph 7 in the written statement filed by defendant no.1 in which they have clearly admitted that the possession of the disputed property has been given to the respondents for cultivation. The contentions in the written statement make it obvious that possession has been handed over and hence, there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:11

¶18

When such an argument was advanced, the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submitted that the possession that is admitted in the aforesaid paragraph of the written statement

¶19

is only possession for the purpose for cultivation in the property. Even assuming the case of the respondents/ plaintiffs to be true, they are only his agents, and the appellant/ defendant as the principal has every right to visit the property and to check whether the agent is acting in accordance with his directions.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Going by the contentions in the written statement, even if

¶22

it is for the limited purpose of carrying out cultivations in the property, possession is seen to have been handed over to the respondents/ plaintiffs. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant that the possession that is referred to in paragraph 7 is for the limited purpose of carrying out agricultural operations is recorded. The nature of the agreement and the question whether the respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled to a decree

¶23

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:11

¶24

as prayed for in the plaint are matters that need to be decided after the trial court takes evidence in the matter. Till the disposal of the case, the subject matter of the property needs to be protected and preserved.

¶25

I do not find any infirmity in the order that has been passed by the trial court restraining the parties from creating third party interest and also restraining the appellant/ defendant from entering the property. If the request of the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant that he be permitted to enter the disputed property and conduct supervision is permitted, it would only further aggravate the matter especially as the parties are not in good terms. Any untoward incident in the property will have to be avoided at all costs. Therefore, the impugned order shall continue till the suit is finally disposed of by the trial court. In the meantime, it is made clear that neither of the party shall create any third party interest in the property or do any act(s) which would adversely affect the disputed property.

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:11

¶28

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s),

¶29

if any, shall sand closed.

¶30

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 11, 2025 kd

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 13/11/2025 at 12:20:11

Ram Rati v. Sat Bir & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Rati v. Sat Bir & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Taneja Vs Anurag Budhwar

Anish Anand Vs Ashok Kumar Sinha

Vidya Sinha Vs M/S Center for Equity Studies

Sh Surya Prakash Gupta Vs N.S. Chahal and Ors.

M/S Sanghvi Writing Points Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Marvel Enterprises Vs Kiran Bajaj