- The Bombay High Court has declared that a son has no right, title, or enforceable share in his parents' flat until they are alive. The Court was considering a plea submitted by Sonia Khan, who wanted to be named the legal guardian of her husband's property, who had been in a vegetative condition for a long period.
- During the hearing, their son Asif Khan attempted to intervene, claiming to be his father's de facto guardian for many years. He claimed that, even though his parents were still living, he had an enforceable legal title to any or both of the flats since they were "a shared home." The submission was judged to be unfounded and irrational by Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar. The Court reasoned that no provision existed in any community's succession rules for a son to claim right or title to a parent's property while the parent was 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,” the order stated.
- “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’,” the Bench added.
- Asif's application, as well as the annexures that accompanied it, did not convince the Bench that he was his father's guardian. His motion further argued that his mother had a "alternative remedy," and hence there was no writ in front of the Court. This was also turned down.
- “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, the Court noticed that there was no particular clause dealing with the problem of guardianship of a handicapped person in the wife's application for guardianship. The Division Bench, on the other hand, opted to treat the spouse as if he were a juvenile with a portion in immovable property. This meant that the spouse in this case was under the Court's care and control.
- “…any disposal of his share in any immovable property must be for stated and bona fide purposes that are demonstrably in his interest. It is for this reason that we find ourselves unable to grant an open-ended permission in cases like this,” the order remarked.
- The wife was allowed to manage a bank account in which she was a joint holder, according to the Court. Furthermore, the Bench was informed that the wife planned to sell the homes and use the proceeds to pay for her husband's treatment. As a result, the Court ordered her to start the process of selling and negotiating the property.
- Before signing any sale deed or memorandum of agreement, the wife was required to file a separate application with the Court detailing the facts of the transaction.
"Loved reading this piece by Sushmita?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
