Delhi High Court Rules , Son has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents
A son, irrespective of his marital status, has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and may dwell there only at their "clemency", the Delhi high court has said.<br />
A son, irrespective of his marital status, has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and may dwell there only at their "clemency", the Delhi high court has said.
The court likewise said that only because parents have let the son reside in their house as long as their connections are cordial does not mean they have to bear his "burden" throughout his life.
"Where the house is self-got by the parents, son whether married or single, has no legal right to reside in that house and he can live because of house only at the clemency of his parents up to the time the parents allow," Justice Pratibha Rani said within an order.
"Merely as the parents have let him reside in the home so long as his connections with the parents were cordial does not mean that the parents have to endure his weight throughout his life," the court said.
The parents, both senior citizens, had told the lower court that both their sons and daughters-in-law, who were living with them, have made their "life hell" after which they had given criticisms to the authorities as well as issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 debarring them from their self-acquired property.
Both daughters-in-law and the sons had challenged the suit before the trial court while denying the claims. They'd also asserted that they were the co-owners of the property as they'd contributed towards its purchase and construction.
But, the trial court and the decree had passed in favour of the parents after which the high court, along with his wife, had moved.
In the order, Justice Rani noted that his wife and the son were not able to establish that they were the co-owners of the home, while his parents have created their contention on the idea of documentary evidence.