Son cannot claim right on property while parents are alive: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Saturday observed that a son cannot have a right, title or interest in the flats owned by his parents as long as they are alive.

The Bombay high court, while hearing a petition on Saturday, ruled that a son cannot have a right, title or interest in the flats owned by his parents till they are alive.

The petition was filed by a woman named Sonia Khan who was seeking to be declared as the legal guardian of all properties owned by her husband who had been living in a vegetative state for a long time.

Sonia’s son, Asif Khan, had filed an intervention claiming to be the “de-facto guardian” of his father for many years. He contended that though his parents are alive, there are two flats, one owned by each of his parents, which he described as “a shared household” and therefore he had an enforceable legal right or entitlement to either or both of these flats.

The Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar found that there was not even a single piece of document to show that the son had cared for his parents ever and he even lived somewhere else. The court found his submissions to be “ill-founded and illogical”. The bench reasoned that under the succession law for any community, there was no provision for a son to claim right or title to a property of the parent as long as they are alive.

“In any conceptualization of succession law for any community or faith, Asif (son) can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats — one in his father’s name and other in his mother’s name — so long as his parents are alive,” said the bench while adding, “The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable. The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats ‘a shared household’.”

Khan’s application claimed that his mother had ‘alternative remedy’ and hence no writ lied before the Court. However, the bench rejected his application while stating, “Asif has no rights in his father’s flats. He has nothing to show that he has ever cared for his father. We reject his contention that his mother has an ‘alternate remedy’. That submission alone shows us Asif’s true nature, his utterly heartless and avaricious approach. His Interim Application is dismissed.” the Bench held.

Meanwhile, on the wife’s application for guardianship, the Court noted that there was no specific provision which dealt with the issue of guardianship of a disabled person.