Home / Crime and Justice / Father Wins Legal Battle: Son Must Seek Permission to Live at Home

Father Wins Legal Battle: Son Must Seek Permission to Live at Home

Summary

  • Adult married son needs father's permission to reside in his house.
  • Father's sole ownership rights confirmed by Rajasthan High Court.
  • Son failed to prove property was part of HUF or ancestral estate.
Father Wins Legal Battle: Son Must Seek Permission to Live at Home

The Rajasthan High Court has definitively ruled that an adult, married son requires his father's explicit permission to reside in his parent's property. This decision strongly reaffirms a father's sole ownership rights, establishing that his consent is paramount for any family member's occupancy.

The court's judgment underscores that self-acquired property belongs exclusively to the owner, and children, even when adults, do not possess an automatic right to inhabit it. The son's attempt to claim co-ownership through HUF or ancestral property arguments was unsuccessful.

Ultimately, the ruling protects individual property rights while clarifying the boundaries of familial residence, emphasizing that permissive occupancy can be revoked by the property owner. The son was ordered to vacate the premises, with the court imposing significant costs on him.

Disclaimer: This story has been auto-aggregated and auto-summarised by a computer program. This story has not been edited or created by the Feedzop team.
No, an adult son generally needs his father's permission to live in his father's self-acquired property. The Rajasthan High Court confirmed this principle.
HUF property is ancestral and owned by all coparceners by birth, while self-acquired property is owned and controlled by an individual. The court ruled the property was self-acquired.
Yes, if the son is residing with the father's permission and that permission is revoked, the father can seek eviction through legal means, as established by the Rajasthan High Court.

Read more news on