A son, irrespective of his marital status, has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and can reside there only at their mercy, the Delhi High Court has said. The court also said that only because parents have allowed the son to live in their house as long as their relations are cordial does not mean they have to bear his burden throughout his life. Where the house is 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, Justice Pratibha Rani said in an order. 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, the court said.
The decision has been made after rejecting an appeal by a man and his wife objecting the order of a trial court which passed a dictum in favour of his parents who had filed a suit directing their sons and daughters-in-law to vacate the floors in their possession. The parents who are senior citizens told the court that their sons and daughters-in-law were making their life difficult. They had filed a complaint in the police station and also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 barring the sons from occupying the property.
The sons and the daughters in law challenged the trial court denying the allegation and claimed that they contributed to the purchase and construction of the property, and, therefore, they were entitled to get a share in it. Sons along with their wives moved to High Court where their plea was rejected by Justice Rani as they were unable to prove that they were the co-owners of the property whereas their parents had established their contention by evidence.