Son Has No Legal Right On Parents’ House Property: Delhi High Court

Reaffirming that sons do not have any legal rights over the self-acquired property of parents, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man who had approached the court to be allowed to stay in his parents’ house.

"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," held the bench of Justice Pratibha Rani in a judgment issued on November 24.

The order was issued on a plea filed by Nangloi resident Sachin, who had challenged the decree by a trial court, which had directed him to vacate the property owned by his parents.

"Where the house is the self-acquired house of the parents, the 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 bench held.

The legal dispute between the parents, who are both senior citizens, and their two sons had started in 2014 when the parents approached a civil court alleging that the two sons had "made their life hell" and were occupying two floors of the house owned by them.

The parents had also said that the sons and their wives did not help with household expenses, and had refused to pay even electricity bills.

Further, they had alleged that they were being treated cruelly by the sons. The parents had also attempted to disown both sons in 2007 and 2012 after filing police complaints against them and their wives.

During the course of the litigation, the parents had sought mediation with the sons, and had sought maintenance from them.

However, the mediation was found to be a "non-starter" after Sachin refused to pay maintenance. The other son had not challenged the trial court order.

The trial court had passed the decree in favour of the parents after which one of the sons, along with his wife, had moved the high court.

In the order, Justice Rani noted that the son and his wife were unable to prove that they were the co-owners of the property, while his parents have established their contention on the basis of documentary evidence.