Jayakrishna Sahu
The Delhi High Court in a recent verdict said a major son, irrespective of his marital status, has no legal right to reside in the self-acquired house of his parents without their consent.
The verdict was delivered on a case filed by an aged couple who were staying with their two married sons and daughters-in-law.
The house was registered in the name of the father. A few years ago the parents felt their sons and daughters-in-law were making their lives “hell” and lodged a complaint with the police. In 2007 and 2012 the parents also issued public notices barring the sons from their property.
The aggrieved parents then filed a suit before a civil court seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over the disputed property and a permanent injunction against the sons and daughters-in-law.
The stand of the father was that the house was property he had acquired. One of the sons contested this suit. He pled that the sons were co-owners of the house and that they had contributed towards its purchase and construction.
The trial court decreed in favour of the parents, following which the sons and daughters-in-law filed an appeal before Delhi High Court. Justice Pratibha Rani of Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and made some remarkable observations in her judgement.
“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,” she observed.
“Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relation with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life,” Justice Pratibha added.
The verdict has two important aspects. One is legal, and the other is social. The legal aspect is less important than the social aspect, because legally the verdict is not a landmark one. It is only retention of the existing law.
The present law is that the owner of the property can enjoy his property without being disturbed by anyone who is a stranger to that property, even if they are relatives.
However, we can’t underplay the social impact of this judgement.
It at least removes the prejudice of ignorant sons and daughters-in-law who arrogantly think they have absolute right over the house of their parents or parents-in-law irrespective of their like or dislike.
In the society at present, many aged parents are neglected by their sons and daughters-in-law. Some think that they are showing mercy to their aged parents by “keeping them” with them and serving them.
We often find lonely, aged couples leading very difficult lives, because they don’t have their children close by to take care of them in times of need.
In other cases, children live with their parents forever like parasites. They lead a life dependent on their parents and abuse and exploit the latter taking advantage of their old age. The motive of such children is to usurp property of their parents.
Let us hope the Delhi High Court judgment will sow fear in the minds of mean-minded, selfish and greedy sons who believe it is their birthright to live in and possess their parental house even if the house is self-acquired property.
The wicked sons who abuse and ill-treat their parents must take warning from the verdict that they can be thrown away from their parental house if they don’t behave.
The author is a senior advocate based in Orissa.
