Property disputes within families, particularly between parents and adult children, are increasingly being heard in Indian courts. A recurring question is whether adult, married sons or daughters can claim a legal right to live in their father’s self-acquired property, particularly when relations sour.
Indian courts have repeatedly clarified that no adult child—married or unmarried—can insist on living in a parent’s self-acquired house as a matter of legal right. Their stay is purely permissive, based on love, affection, and family bonds, and can be withdrawn at any time.
This legal position was emphatically reaffirmed in an important 2025 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Ritesh Khatri v. Shyam Sundar Khatri, where a father sought eviction of his married son from his self-acquired property. The Court upheld the father’s absolute right to seek eviction and imposed costs on the son for pursuing baseless litigation.
Facts of the Case
The 2025 Rajasthan High Court judgment involves an unfortunate litigation between a father, Shyam Sundar Khatri, and his adult married son, Ritesh Khatri, over residential property located in Indra Colony, Sawai Madhopur.
Purchase and Nature of the Property
A plot measuring 90×112 sq. ft. was jointly purchased by the father and his brother in a municipal auction in 1974. The sale deed was registered in their joint names, and the plot was mutually divided in 2003, with the father receiving the western portion of the land. He constructed his residential house on his portion and remained in exclusive ownership and occupation.
Son’s Permissive Occupation
After marriage, the son was permitted by the father to use a portion of the house consisting of two bedrooms, a storeroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom. His stay was permissive, based on the familial relationship and goodwill.
Breakdown of Relationship
As relations deteriorated, the father faced persistent misbehaviour and mental distress due to the son. He issued a legal notice (26.11.2018) revoking permission and demanding that the son vacate the property. The son responded by asserting ownership and claiming the property was part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
Suit and Counterclaim
The father filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction, seeking an order directing his son to vacate the premises. The son resisted by:
- claiming HUF ownership,
- asserting coparcenary rights,
- alleging oral family partition, and
- filing a counterclaim to restrain the father from “interfering” with his possession.
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the son’s claims and decreed the father’s suit. The son then filed a Second Appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, which resulted in the present judgment.
Self-Acquired v. Ancestral Property
Self-acquired property refers to assets purchased from the owner’s personal income, obtained through individual effort, gift or transfer, and not inherited through the undivided male lineage; such property remains under the absolute control of the owner, who may possess, enjoy, dispose of, gift or sell it without any legal claim from children, as they acquire no coparcenary rights by birth and therefore cannot demand residence or partition.
In contrast, ancestral property is inherited through four continuous generations—great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and son—remaining undivided throughout and granting children an inherent birthright, enabling them to seek partition and claim possession independent of the father’s consent.
In the present case, this distinction proved decisive: the son’s assertion that the house formed part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) was unsupported by evidence, as the partnership firm involved was shown to be a partnership and not an HUF; there was no proof of ancestral or joint family funds having been used; the son himself admitted that the income was personal to the partners; and no HUF accounts, records, or returns were produced.
Consequently, the court held that the property was unequivocally the father’s self-acquired asset, and the son’s claim to any right of residence stood completely defeated.
Precedents Referred
The Rajasthan High Court relied on several important decisions that have shaped the law on parental property rights.
- Ramesh Kumar Handoo v. Binay Kumar Basu (2007, Delhi HC): Held that children living in the parent’s property do so under permissive possession, not as licensees with legal rights.
- Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew (2005, SC): Clarified the concept of “license” and held that gratuitous occupation does not create legal rights.
- Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha v. Manhabalal (2013, SC): Discussed the meaning of a gratuitous licensee under Section 52 of the Easements Act.
- Jai Raj v. Shyam Lal (2016, Punjab & Haryana HC): Held that a child’s prolonged stay does not convert permissive occupation into ownership unless the property is ancestral. The Rajasthan HC explicitly relied on this case.
- Sachin & Anr. v. Jhabbu Lal (2017, Delhi HC): Reiterated that adult sons—married or unmarried—have no right to stay in the self-acquired property of parents.
-
Conrad Dias v. Joseph Dias (1995, Bombay HC)
Held:
A son living with his father is not a “licensee” in the strict sense.
A suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable when possession is joint due to a family relationship.
- Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012, SC)
Laid down that:
A person allowed to stay gratuitously does not acquire an interest in the property.
Courts must not protect the possession of relatives or caretakers who overstay.
The Rajasthan HC applied these principles directly.
Issues
Rajasthan High Court framed and addressed the following legal issues:
- Whether an adult son, who is neither a licensee nor a coparcener, can be evicted through a suit for mandatory injunction.
- Whether the absence of a formal licensor-licensee relationship prevents the father from seeking eviction.
- Whether the son had established that the property was HUF property, giving him a birthright and coparcenary interest.
- Whether the findings of the lower courts misread evidence or ignored material facts.
- Whether a suit for possession, rather than a mandatory injunction, was the appropriate remedy.
These issues go to the heart of residence rights in parental property.
Decision and Reasoning of the Court
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the son’s appeal and upheld the father’s right to evict him.
Property Confirmed as Self-Acquired
The Court held:
- The plot was purchased by the father and his brother independently.
- The firm’s income was personal income, not HUF income.
- No document supported the claim of HUF property.
Thus, the father had absolute ownership.
Son’s Possession Was Only Permissive
The son:
entered the property by the father’s permission,
- lived there by virtue of their family relationship,
- never had legal possession.
- Permissive occupation does not confer legal rights.
Suit for Mandatory Injunction was Maintainable
Because father and son were in joint possession as family members, the father could seek eviction through a mandatory injunction. The Court relied on the Conrad Dias ruling.
No Right Accrues to Adult Children in Self-Acquired Property
The Court reaffirmed:
Adult children do not gain ownership by long stay.
No presumption of HUF can be drawn without evidence.
A child cannot assert adverse possession against a parent.
No Substantial Question of Law
All findings of the lower courts were based on evidence. No interference was warranted in a second appeal.
Exemplary Costs Imposed
The son was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to the father for harassment and moral degradation exhibited through unnecessary extended litigation.
Conclusion
The 2025 Rajasthan High Court judgment reaffirms a firmly established legal principle in India that adult, married children have no right to reside in their father’s self-acquired property without his consent.
Self-acquired property remains the exclusive domain of the owner, and children occupy such premises only through permission, not by any legal entitlement—a permission that can be revoked at any point, irrespective of how long they have stayed. Any claim of HUF or coparcenary rights must be supported by concrete documentary evidence, and courts will not shield the possession of children who attempt to misuse familial goodwill.
Fathers are fully empowered to seek eviction through a suit for mandatory injunction, and courts may impose exemplary costs where children drag their parents into frivolous or vindictive litigation.
Ultimately, the judgment reinforces parental autonomy, protects elderly individuals from harassment within their own homes, and underscores that moral expectations within families cannot be converted into enforceable property rights.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams