A son can reside in a self-acquired property of his parents so long as they desire and cannot claim a legal right to stay there, irrespective of his marital status, ruled the Delhi High Court in its latest judgment. Justice Pratibha Rani expressly stated, “Where the house is a self-acquired house of the parents, a 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.”
The judge remarked that it is out of love and affection that the son is allowed to reside in his parents’ household and not as a matter of right and stated, ‘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.’
In the case in point, the parents had filed a suit seeking eviction of their sons and daughters-in-law from their self-owned property. They claimed that they had allowed their sons to put up with their spouses in two top floors out of love and affection. With the passage of time, however, they alleged that their sons as well their wives ‘made their life hell’ and they were, hence, forced to issue public notices on 5th January, 2007, and 17th May, 2012, disowning their sons and debarring them from their self-acquired property. They filed a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the floors in their possession.
The sons, however, denied the allegations and contended that they were the co-owners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction. The trial court, however, decreed in favour of the parents, which was challenged by the sons in the high court. The court dismissed the claim and held that the petitioners had failed to prove their co-ownership in the suit property and the parents had amply proven that the property belonged to them through documentary evidence.
Vidushi Sahani for LiveLaw.in