Name – Parbat Singh

University – SRM University. Delhi – NCR. Sonipat

College – SRM University. Delhi – NCR. Sonipat

Course – B.A.LLB (Hons.)

Plagiarism Status - 8 % Plagiarized

 Sachin & ANR V. Jhabbu Lal & ANR

Equivalent Citation – RSA 136 / 2016, CM No. 19123/ 2016

Decided on – 24th November 2016

Name of the Judge – J. Pratibha Rani

Appellant in Person

Counsel of Respondents – Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Contents:

1. Introduction
2. Facts of the Case
3. Issues Raised in the Case
4. Contentions of the Parties
5. Judgement
6. Comments
7. Conclusion
8. References
Introduction:

The Legal Position of the Self acquired property by parents and their usage by their child out of
love and affection is always cleared by judiciary time to time. Sons cannot take parent’s property
for granted. The legislature enacted Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 for the protection of Life and property of Parents and Senior Citizens and for their
maintenance. This case deals with the proprietary rights of parents on Self acquired property
owned by them and the harassment of parents by their sons for the possession and ownership of
property

Facts of the Case:

1. The case was instituted by Jhabbu lal and Raj Devi (Plaintiff) against their sons Sachin and
Sanjay (Defendant)
2. The plaintiffs Resided on Ground floor of H.No. RZH81, Gali No.4, Nihal Vihar. Nangloi.
Delhi. Elder Son Sanjay along with his Wife Mamta was permitted to live on the Second Floor
and the younger son along with his wife Neetu on first Floor out of love and affection as their
sons
3. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owner of the Self acquired property. Sons used to give no
contributions for the house even electricity bills. The behaviour of sons towards parents was also
not too good
4. Parents made various complaints to the police and also issued notice on 5 th January 2007 and
17th May 2012 disowning their sons and debarring them from their Self acquired property
5. As the behaviour of the sons and their wives was unbearable and after continuous harassment
the parents filed a suit in High Court on 11 th February 2014 seeking a decree of mandatory
injunction directing to vacate the floors in their possession and also to restrain them from
creating any Third-party interest in the said property
Issues Raised in the Case:

1. Whether the plaintiff (parents) are entitled to the relief of mandatory and permanent
injunction?
2. Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the said Self acquired property?

Contentions of the Parties:

1. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were the exclusive owner of the Self acquired property
and the sons have contributed none. Even the basic amenities were provided by parents
2. The Defendants contended before the Court that even they contributed to the cost of
purchase as well as the construction of said property
3. As the Defendants failed to appear for cross examination and also not provided any
evidence to prove that they are also co-owners of the property believing the unrebutted
testimony of parents the trail court decided the case in favour of plaintiffs i.e., parents
4. Decree for mandatory and permanent injunction was accordingly passed in favour of
parents i.e., Jhabbu lal and Raj Devi
5. An appeal was filed by Defendants on 13 th January 2016 (hereinafter mentioned as
Appellants) and the High Court dismissed the appeal directing the Appellant Sachin to
pay three thousand five hundred per month to the respondents/parents w.e.f. 7 th
September 2016.
6. Sachin was asked to compile with the order of 7 th September 2016 but he stated has no
money
7. The matter was referred to mediation which was failed and Mediation report was
submitted on 17th Sept, 2016
Judgment:

a. Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellants/ defendants had provided no
evidence to prove their co- ownership in the Self acquired property and there is no substantial
question of law arises for the court to exercise its power under S.100 of Code of Criminal
Procedure

The court also held that as the house was Self acquired property by the parents , sons whether
married or unmarried have no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only
at the mercy of the parents upto the time the parents allow

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court also stated that merely because the parents allow son to live in the house by love and
affection does not mean that the parents have to bear the burden of son throughout the life.

Comments:

The Indian culture of joint family is always considered as be the inspiration for the world and the
respect for elderly persons and parents are also the core principles of the culture we possess. But
whenever there is a conflict in family it is considered best to be vitiated by mediation and mutual
consent so was in this case was to. As the mediation failed and the behaviour of sons towards
parents was intolerable the suit further continued. On legal point also sons failed to prove their
contribution to the costs and construction of the Self acquired property. The court has considered
all the arguments and contentions of both the parties and delivered a balanced judgement stating
the position of Self acquired Property of parents and its usage by the sons.
Conclusion

Yagnavalkya states about Self acquisition that “whatever is acquired by the coparcener himself
without detriment to the father’s estate as present from a friend or a gift at nuptials, does not
appertain to the co-heirs1. It is the discretion of parents to allow their sons to use their Self
acquired property and parents can invoke Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act 2007 (MWPSCA)

Delhi high Court ruled out in Sunny Paul & ANR V. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors 2017 2 that
parents can claim eviction as well as maintenance from the abusive child. It is the right of a
senior citizens to live peacefully in their property and so is the objective of MWPSCA it creates
a legal obligation for children and heirs to provide maintenance to senior citizens. In December
2019 Lok Sabha, the upper house of parliament passed the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens amendment bill 2019 which seeks to raise the maintenance of the senior
citizens and also raises the penalties and punishment

1
Sunipan “Can a Son Be Disowned? If disowned, what are his rights in the ancestral property” (Mar 3, 2017),
<https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-of-the-son-ancestral-property/>

2
W.P.( C) NO. 10463/2015
References

1. Sachin V. Jhabbu lal, 2016 SCC Online Del 6098, (decided on 24.11.2016)
2. Sunny Paul V State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC Online Del 7451
3. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007