An adult son has no legal right to stay in his parents' self-acquired property, the Delhi high court has ruled while upholding the wishes of an elderly couple who wanted their son and daughter-in-lawevicted from their house.
Justice Pratibha Rani said a person can reside in his parent's house only at their "mercy". The court specified that just because parents had allowed the son to live in their house when their relations were cordial did not mean they had to bear his "burden" throughout his life.
"Where the house is self-acquired by the parents, the son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live there. He can live only at the mercy of his parents up to the time they allow it," said the order. The case had come to the high court after the son challenged the order of a trial court in favour of the parents.
Justice Pratibha Rani said a person can reside in his parent's house only at their "mercy". The court specified that just because parents had allowed the son to live in their house when their relations were cordial did not mean they had to bear his "burden" throughout his life.
"Where the house is self-acquired by the parents, the son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live there. He can live only at the mercy of his parents up to the time they allow it," said the order. The case had come to the high court after the son challenged the order of a trial court in favour of the parents.
The parents, both senior citizens, had told the lower court that both their sons and daughters-inlaw, who were living with them on the first and second floors respectively, had made their "life hell". The couple had filed police complaints against them and issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 disowning the children.
"Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with them were cordial does not mean that they have to bear his burden throughout his life," the court observed in its ruling earlier this month.
"Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with them were cordial does not mean that they have to bear his burden throughout his life," the court observed in its ruling earlier this month.
The sons had refuted the allegations and claimed that they were coowners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction. However, the sons failed to produce proof that they invested in the parents' property.
In the order, Justice Rani noted that the sons were unable to prove that they were co-owners of the property , while the parents produced the relevant papers, such as the general power of attorney , agreement to sell, possession letter, affidavit, etc.
In the order, Justice Rani noted that the sons were unable to prove that they were co-owners of the property , while the parents produced the relevant papers, such as the general power of attorney , agreement to sell, possession letter, affidavit, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment