A son, irrespective of his marital status, will have no legal right to live in his parent’s self-acquired house

Delhi High Court: While deciding upon an issue related to possession of property between the parties, the Bench of Pratibha Rani, J., held that “in a self-acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.”

As per the facts of the present case, in February, 2014 the parents (respondents) of the appellants filed a civil suit against their two sons and their wives seeking decree of permanent and mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the floors in their possession and also to restrain them from creating any third party interest in the said property. The respondents contended that they allowed their two sons and their wives to stay in their self-acquired house purely out of affection and love; however the sons and their wives made the parents’ life hell, so much so that the parents had to resort to making police complaints against them. To sort out the matter amicably a mediation process between the appellant and the respondents to sort out the issues was initiated which failed to resolve the issue. Perusing the documents and contentions of the parties the Court observed that the appellants could not produce any evidence indicating that their parents have waived their ownership over the property in question. The Court further observed that the respondents have duly established their contention that they would have better rights/entitlement to seek possession of the suit property from their sons who were permitted to live in the house solely out of their love and affection towards them. The Court also berated the appellant for abusing the process of courts by seeking adjournment of the case on flimsy grounds (the present case was filed to request for an adjournment on the ground that he wants to change his counsel, as his present counsel was suffering from fever). [Sachin v. Jhabbu Lal, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6098, decided on 24.11.2016]

 

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 − one =