Adult, Married Children Have No Right To Stay In Father's Self-Acquired Property Without His Consent: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a son, litigating against his father for legal rights of a coparcener in a property— which he very well knew was not part of the Hindu United Family or co-parcenery, but was purchased by the father in his own name.The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal opined that a child resides on his father's property during his childhood by the virtue of love, affection and parental duty of the father. However, it emphasized that after attaining majority and getting married, if the father allows the son/daughter to possess his house/property, it does not by itself create any legal right in the child's favour to claim that property as his own, unless the property was ancestral or of HUF."The moment father is dissatisfied with the behaviour and conduct of his son and no longer wishes that his son or his family should continue to reside in his property, the defendant's possession, being the son, is not liable to be protected," the Court held.Thus the instant litigation by the son, the Court opined, was nothing less than "sheer harassment" of the father, that leaves a black scar on the society and undermines the pious and trustful relationship of father and son. The Court was hearing second appeal against the decree of permanent injunction and direction to vacate the property granted by the trial court, and upheld by the court of first appeal, in a suit filed by the defendant-father against the appellant-son. The dispute related to a house that belonged solely and absolutely to the father. In one portion of the house, the son, along with his wife was residing with the father's permission. However, when the relation between the two became sour, the father asked the son to vacate the house. When this was not honoured by the son, father filed a civil suit for actual and vacate possession. This suit was decreed against the son by the trial court, and was also upheld by the court of first appeal. Hence, a second appeal was filed by the son, on the ground that the property was part of the HUF and he was the coparcener, instead of a licensee of the father. It was further argued on behalf of the son that since he was in possession of the suit, the father should have filed a suit for possession and not a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession. The Court perused the records, and the rulings of the lower courts that had well reflected that the property in question was not an HUF but was bought by the father from his own money. In this background, the Court held that son's possession of the father's property was purely on gratuitous basis, under the father's permission, and no independent legal right could have been set up by the son in the property. “…defendant's plea for protection of his possession is not backed by his absolute legal right, vested in him, and his possession over the property of his father since childhood is because of love and affection. The moment father is dissatisfied with the behaviour and conduct of his son and no longer wishes that his son or his family should continue to reside in his property, the defendant's possession, being the son, is not liable to be protected”.In this light, the Court held that based on this permissive possession, as a family member and gratuitous licensee in the property, the son could not claim that the father should have filed a suit for possession only. Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria in which it was held that to recover possession of the property, a title holder may file a civil suit which could be suit for recovery of possession or for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction or a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. A further reference was made to a Bombay High Court case of Conrad Dias of Bombay v. Joseph Dias of Bombay that dealt with almost similar fact scenario and held that since the relation between the parties was that of father and son who were residing together, having joint possession of the property, the father never lost the possession. Thus, the suit for an injunction against the son could not be said to be bad. In this background, the Court held that since the appellant's possession of the property, that belonged to his father, was purely gratuitous and based on the father's permission, with no independent legal right of the son, suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable after such permission was revoked by the father. Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the son was held to be not maintainable. Moreover, opining it to be harassment by the son of his father, the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant. Title: Ritesh Khatri v Shyam Sundar KhatriCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 375Click Here To Read/Download Order

Adult, Married Children Have No Right To Stay In Father's Self-Acquired Property Without His Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags