Delhi High Court Judgment On Son Has No Legal Right To Live in Parents House
Delhi High Court Judgment On Son Has No Legal Right To Live in Parents House
com
$~7
*
%
+
..... Appellants
Appellant No.1 in person
versus
..... Respondents
Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate with
respondents in person
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.
2.
List on 7th September, 2016.
3.
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
RSA 136/2016
Page 1 of 6
LatestLaws.com
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 17 th October, 2016
received with the report that it was Non-Starter.
4.
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 7 th 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.
5.
intended to change their counsel, nothing prevented them from doing so.
The appellants cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by seeking
adjournment on one pretext or the others especially when they are enjoying
ad-interim stay against their dispossession from this Court.
6.
Heard.
7.
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
RSA 136/2016
Page 2 of 6
LatestLaws.com
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.
10.
Page 3 of 6
LatestLaws.com
2.
Whether the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit
property and the defendant are the co-owners? OPD
3.
Relief.
11.
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 interalia on the following grounds:(i)
The documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, receipt and Will being in
favour of the plaintiff No.1 (Father of defendant Nos.1 & 3) though do not
make him absolute owner but he has a better title as compared to the
defendants.
(ii)
It has not been denied by the defendants that the property stands in the
name of the plaintiff No.1 Sh. Jhabbu Lal and have not claimed any
ownership right of their own distinguished from the plaintiffs. No evidence
has been led to prove that they are the co-owners having contributed their
share towards the purchase of the said property.
(iii)
Suit for mandatory injunction being filed within a reasonable time i.e.
within six months period after termination of the license, separate suit for
possession is not mandatory. Decree for mandatory and permanent
injunction was accordingly passed in respect of the suit property.
12.
The first appeal bearing RCA No.63/15 was filed only by defendant
RSA 136/2016
Page 4 of 6
LatestLaws.com
Nos.3 and 4 i.e. younger son Sachin and his wife Neetu. Before the First
Appellate Court the grievance was more towards the learned Presiding
Officer than on merits.
13.
No.1 Jhabbu Lal who has led detailed evidence both oral and documentary
duly corroborated by testimony of his wife, respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2
Smt. Raj Devi to prove their case. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs
may not have proved themselves to the owner of the 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 the suit
property from his sons who were permitted to live on the first floor only out
of love and affection towards them.
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.
16.
acquired
RSA 136/2016
or
co-ownership
in
the
suit
property
whereas
Page 5 of 6
LatestLaws.com
Court to exercise its power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2016
pg
RSA 136/2016
Page 6 of 6