The Rajasthan High Court ruled that adult children living in their parents’ self-acquired property cannot claim ownership rights. The Court imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on a son for harassing his father despite having only permissive possession.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RAJASTHAN: In a ruling reinforcing the rights of parents over their self-acquired property, the Rajasthan High Court has held that adult children have no legal right to claim ownership or continued residence in a parent’s property unless it is ancestral or part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Court also imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a son who attempted to assert ownership over property in which he had only permissive possession.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sudesh Bansal, who dismissed the second appeal filed by the son and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Adult sons or daughters residing in a parent’s self-acquired property have no legal claim unless they prove the property is ancestral or HUF property.
Case Background
A civil dispute arose between a father (plaintiff) and his son (defendant) over a residential portion of a plot jointly purchased by the plaintiff and his brother through a Nagar Palika auction. After mutually dividing the plot, the plaintiff constructed his house on his share.
The son continued living in part of the house with permission, effectively as a licensee. Over time, disputes escalated, and the father sought a mandatory injunction directing the son to vacate the premises.
Proceedings Before Lower Courts
- Trial Court: Held that the father had a vested right to evict his son, who failed to prove the house was HUF property.
- First Appellate Court: Affirmed the Trial Court’s findings.
- Second Appeal: Filed under Section 100 of the CPC, challenging concurrent findings.
High Court’s Observations and Reasoning
Justice Sudesh Bansal emphasized several crucial legal principles:
1. No Automatic Rights Over Self-Acquired Property
The Court clearly stated:
Allowing a child to stay in the property—out of love, affection, or parental duty—does not confer ownership rights.
Once a child becomes an adult and gets married, continued residence is purely at the father’s discretion unless:
- The property is ancestral, or
- part of an HUF (Hindu Undivided Family).
2. Son Failed to Prove HUF Claim
The defendant:
- failed to produce any documentary evidence proving HUF ownership
- could not establish himself as a coparcener
- produced no proof of family funds being used for the property
Hence, his claim was rejected entirely.
3. Permissive Possession Can Be Revoked
Since the son stayed in the house under permission (as a gratuitous licensee), the father was legally entitled to revoke the permission. After revocation, the son became liable to vacate.
4. Mandatory Injunction Was the Correct Remedy
The Court upheld that:
- A suit for mandatory injunction (not possession) was appropriate because the son never had legal possession—only permissive occupation.
The Rajasthan High Court:
- dismissed the second appeal filed by the son
- affirmed the mandatory injunction ordering him to vacate
- imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the son for harassing his father and prolonging litigation
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R.K. Agarwal, Advocates Mamoon Khalid, Dharmesh Jain, Adhiraj Modi
Respondent: Senior Advocate Ajeet Bhandari, Advocate Atul Bhandari
Case Title:
Ritesh Khatri v. Shyam Sundar Khatri
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 177/2025
READ JUDGMENT
READ MORE REPORTS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS