The court also said that only because parents have allowed the son to live in their house as long as their relations are cordial does not mean they have to bear his “burden” throughout his life.

“Where the house is self-acquired by the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow,” Justice Pratibha Rani said in an order.

“Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout his life,” the court said.

It said this while dismissing an appeal by a man and his wife challenging the order of a trial court which had passed a decree in favour of his parents, who had filed a suit seeking a direction to their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the floors in their possession.

The parents, both senior citizens, had told the lower court that both their sons and daughters-in-law, who were living with them, have made their “life hell” after which they had given complaints to the police and also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 debarring them from their self-acquired property.

Both the sons and daughters-in-law had contested the suit before the trial court while denying the allegations. They had also claimed that they were the co-owners of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction.

However, the trial court had passed the decree in favour of the parents after which one of the sons, along with his wife, had moved the high court.

In the order, Justice Rani noted that the son and his wife were unable to prove that they were the co-owners of the property, while his parents have established their contention on the basis of documentary evidence.