The Rajasthan High Court has penalised a son with an exemplary cost of Rs1 lakh for pursuing baseless litigation against his father over property rights—despite knowing the property was not part of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) or coparcenary but was personally owned by his father.
In a report, Live Law says justice Sudesh Bansal, presiding over the case, observed that while children live in their father's property during childhood due to parental love, affection and duty this arrangement does not automatically grant them legal ownership rights once they reach adulthood and get married.
The Court clarified that even when a father permits his adult son or daughter to live in his property, this does not create any legal entitlement for the child to claim ownership—unless the property is ancestral or belongs to an HUF.
"Once the father becomes dissatisfied with his son's behaviour and conduct and no longer wants the son or his family to continue living in his property, the son's possession cannot be legally protected," the Court stated.
The Court characterised this litigation as nothing but 'sheer harassment' of the father, describing it as a dark stain on society that damages the sacred and trusting bond between father and son.
According to the report, the matter came before the Court as a second appeal against decrees passed by both the trial court and the first appellate court which had ruled in favour of the father in his suit for a permanent injunction and directions to vacate the property.
The dispute centred on a house that was solely and absolutely owned by the father. The son and his wife were living in a portion of the house with the father's permission. When their relationship deteriorated, the father requested the son to vacate. Upon the son's refusal, the father initiated a civil suit for possession and vacation of the property.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled against the son, prompting him to file a second appeal claiming the property was HUF property and that he held coparcenary rights rather than being merely a licencee.
The son also contended that since he was in possession of the property, the father should have filed a suit for possession rather than seeking a mandatory injunction.
After examining the records and the lower courts' findings, the Court confirmed that the property was purchased by the father with his own funds and was not HUF property, the report says.
The Court held that the son's occupation of his father's property was purely gratuitous, based on permission, and he could not assert any independent legal right over it.
"The son's claim for protection of possession is not supported by any absolute legal right vested in him. His possession since childhood stems from love and affection. Once the father is dissatisfied with his son's behaviour and no longer wishes for him or his family to reside in his property, the son's possession cannot be protected," the Court ruled.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court judgement in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, which established that a property owner can file various types of suits to recover possession, including suits for recovery of possession, ejectment, mandatory injunction, or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
The Court also cited a Bombay High Court decision in Conrad Dias of Bombay vs Joseph Dias of Bombay, which dealt with a similar situation and held that when a father and son reside together with joint possession, the father never loses possession, making a suit for injunction against the son permissible.
Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that since the son's possession was purely gratuitous and dependent on his father's permission, without any independent legal right, the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable after the father revoked permission.
The second appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. Furthermore, viewing it as harassment of the father by his son, the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs1 lakh on the appellant.
