Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live on self acquired house of parents MANU/DE/3221/2016 - (24 Nov 2016) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal & Anr.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Regular Second Appeal impugns concurrent judgment of Court below whereby civil suit filed by parents of Appellants (respondent Nos.1 & 2) against their two sons and their wives seeking decree of permanent and mandatory injunction has been decreed. Parents of Appellant No.1 claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property which was self acquired. It was further pleaded by parents of 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 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. Since, behaviour of two sons and their wives became unbearable, they filed a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing them to vacate floors in their possession and also to restrain them from creating any third party interest in the said property.

Appellant No.1 is younger son of Respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 who has led detailed evidence both oral and documentary duly corroborated by testimony of his wife, respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 to prove their case. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs may not have proved themselves to the owner of suit property as may be established in a case of acquiring title under a registered sale deed but surely they would have better rights/entitlement to seek possession of suit property from his sons who were permitted to live on first floor only out of love and affection towards them.

Where house is self acquired house of parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because parents have allowed him to live in house so long as his relations with parents were cordial, does not mean that, parents have to bear his burden throughout his life.

In present case, Appellants/defendant Nos.3 & 4 have led no evidence to prove that it waived self acquired or co-ownership in suit property whereas Respondents/plaintiffs No.1 & 2 have proved their case on basis of documentary evidence i.e. copies of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt possession letter Affidavit etc., trial Court was justified in decreeing suit which was upheld by First Appellate Court.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Property, Right, Evidence</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>