Daya Nand Butta Vs Gaurav Butta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Daya Nand Butta Vs Gaurav Butta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal and pending applications disposed of, with a direction to the respondent not to create any third-party rights and to maintain status quo as on date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment of a Receiver in respect of Flat No. 16, Khan Market, New Delhi during pendency of the probate case, given the apprehension that the respondents were creating third-party rights. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Considering the status of the case and the appellant's alternative prayer, this Court deemed it fit to direct the respondent not to create any third-party rights and to maintain status quo as on date, rather than revive the receiver application.

Key takeaways

The parties were cautioned not to seek unnecessary adjournments before the concerned court.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.), by order dated 04.02.2026 in FAO 29/2026 (with CM APPL. 7605/2026 and 7606/2026), Daya Nand Butta v. Gaurav Butta & Ors., dealt with an appeal against the order dated 27.01.2026 of the Ld. DJ, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, in Probate case no. 17/2015(9/16) (Sangeeta Butta & Another vs. State & Ors.), dismissing the appellant's application under Order XL Rule 1 of the CPC for appointment of a Receiver over Flat No. 16, Khan Market, New Delhi, on the appellant's suspicion that the respondents were creating third-party rights. With the probate matter at the evidence stage before the Local Commissioner (hearing fixed 11.02.2026, Probate Court listing 23.02.2026), learned counsel for the respondents admitting an Agreement to Sell on the flat (but no executed Sale Deed), and a sister's partition suit expressly not covering the subject property, the Court, considering the appellant's alternative prayer for restraint, directed the respondent not to create any third-party rights and to maintain status quo as on date, and disposed of the appeal alongwith the pending applications, cautioning the parties against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

$~44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- FAO 29/2026, CM APPL. 7605/2026 and CM APPL. 7606/2026 DAYA NAND BUTTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with associate counsel (appearance not given)

versus

GAURAV BUTTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 04.02.2026

By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks setting aside of the order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the LD. DJ, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court , in Probate case no. 17/2015(9/16) titled as “ Sangeeta Butta & Another vs. State & Ors .” whereby the application filed under Order XL Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking appointment of a Receiver in respect of property bearing Flat No. 16, Khan Market, New Delhi was dismissed as the appellant suspected the respondents to be creating third party rights in the aforesaid flat.

Learned counsels for the parties inform that the matter is at the stage of recording the appellant’s evidence, which is now scheduled to be on 11.02.2026 before the Local Commissioner.

Mr. Singla, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant shall appear before the Local Commissioner on the aforesaid date. It is also informed that the matter is listed before the Probate Court on 23.02.2026. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the said

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 06/02/2026 at 12:51:29

application was necessitated as the respondents, who is the grandson of the testator, is trying to create third-party rights during the pendency of the probate case inasmuch as he has entered into an Agreement to Sell with respect to the aforesaid property.

During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, though admits that an Agreement to Sell has been entered into, however, submits that no Sale Deed has been executed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that, considering the aforesaid position, the prayer seeking restraint on creation of third-party rights may be considered.

It is further informed that though the partition suit has been preferred by one of the sisters, however, the subject property is not the subject matter of the said suit.

Considering the status of the case and the alternative prayer made, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent to not to create any third-party rights and to maintain status quo as on date.

In view of the above, the present appeal, alongwith the pending applications, are disposed of.

Needless to state, the parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the concerned court.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

FEBRUARY 4, 2026 na

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 06/02/2026 at 12:51:29