Son can live in Parents house only at the mercy of his Parents, upto the time the Parents allow

>>> Property bought by parents does not belong to son.

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. 

A son, irrespective of his marital status (married or unmarried), has no legal right to live in the self-acquired house of his parents and can reside there only at their mercy,  up to the time the parents allow.

>>> The parents filed a suit seeking a direction to their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the floors in their possession. 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 complaints to the police and also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 debarring them from their self-acquired property.

>>> Both the sons and daughters-in-law had contested the suit before the trial court while denying the allegations. They had also claimed that they were the co-owners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction. However, the trial court had passed the decree in favor of the parents after which one of the sons, along with his wife, had moved the high court!

>>> In the order, Justice Pratibha 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.

>>> 2. On 29th August, 2016 the appellants requested for a date on the ground that the counsel was suffering from fever. This Court passed the following order:-

“1. Only for the reason that counsel for the appellants is said to be down with fever, therefore, this case is adjourned, otherwise prima facie I find no merits in the appeal where appellants/defendants who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondents/plaintiffs have been evicted from the suit premises.

3. On 7th September, 2016 after hearing respondent No.2, mother of the appellant No.1, with the consent of the parties, appellant No.1 Sachin was directed to pay ` 3500/- per month to the respondents/parents with effect from September, 2016. Appellant No.1 Sachin undertook to comply with this obligation. He also agreed not to stop his elder brother Sanjay (Defendant No.1) from using the second floor of the property. Matter was also referred to the mediation. Mediation report dated 17th October, 2016 received with the report that it was ‘Non-Starter’.

4. Today appellant No.1 Sachin was asked as to whether he has complied with the order dated 7th September, 2016 by making payment to his parents, he simply stated that he has no money to pay and sought time to change his counsel. The appellant No.1 was again asked whether he is ready to comply with the directions dated 7th September, 2016 as in that case he can be given time to make the payment to his parents. The appellant No.1 has refused to make any payment to his parents.

7. The Regular Second Appeal No.136/2016 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the concurrent judgment of the Court below i.e. of the trial Court dated 16th March, 2015 and of the First Appellate Court dated 13th January, 2016 whereby Civil Suit No.49/14 filed on 11th February, 2014 by the parents of the appellants (respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein) against their two sons and their wives seeking decree of permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed.

8. The suit was filed by respondent No.1, Sh.Jhabbu Lal and respondent No.2, Smt.Raj Devi pleading that they are senior citizens residing on ground floor in House No.RZ-H-81, Gali No.4, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 and construction on the said plot has been raised upto second floor. Their elder son Sanjay along with his wife Mamta was permitted to live on the second floor whereas the younger son Sachin along with his wife Neetu was permitted to live on the first floor of the said property out of love and affection for their sons. The parents of the appellant No.1 claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property which was self acquired. It was further pleaded by the parents of the appellants that their sons as well their wives made the life hell for them so much so that they were not even paying the electricity bills. The old parents were constrained to make various complaints to the police and also issued public notice on 5th January, 2007 and 17th May, 2012 disowning their sons and debarring them from their self acquired property. It was also pleaded that said property was purchased by them by selling their earlier property being RZ-H-215A, Nihal Vihar, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi-110041. Since the behaviour of the two sons and their wives became unbearable, they filed a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the floors in their possession and also to restrain them from creating any third party interest in the said property.

9. Two separate written statements were filed by the Sanjay and his wife (Defendant Nos.1 & 2) and Sachin and his wife Neetu (Defendant Nos.3 and 4) denying the claims of the plaintiffs to be the exclusive owner of the suit property or that it was their self acquired property. They claimed to be coowner having contributed towards purchase as well as towards costs of construction for the said property.

11. Both the plaintiffs filed their examination-in-chief by way of affidavit in support of the averments made in the plaint. However, all the four defendants failed to appear at that stage thus their right to cross-examine PW-1 & PW-2 was closed by the Court. Even at the stage of defence evidence none of the defendants led any evidence to prove that plaintiffs were not the exclusive owner of the suit property or that they were the coowners. Believing the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiffs which was supported by necessary documentary evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit

13. The appeal was dismissed observing that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the appellants/defendant Nos.3 & 4 in defending the case. It was further held that in the absence of any evidence being led by the appellants and the testimony of the respondents/plaintiffs having remained unchallenged, the impugned order was not suffering from any illegality. Hence the appeal was dismissed.

15. 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 upto the time the parents allow. 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 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th November,2016
RSA 136/2016 & CM No.19123/2016
SACHIN & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Appellant No.1 in person
versus
JHABBU LAL & ANR ..... Respondents
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PRA/judgement/25-11-2016/PRA24112016RSA1362016.pdf

 

Kumar Doab 
on 08 December 2016
Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 607
Other Articles by - Kumar Doab
Report Abuse









×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics