Anil Kumar & Ram Ashish vs. Rangi Lal
Background
A father who owned a Delhi property under a registered 2004 sale deed let his two married sons live rent-free on its ground and first floors. After the relationship soured, with alleged abuse, threats, and pressure to transfer ownership to the sons, the father publicly disowned them and formally revoked their permission to stay, then sued for possession. The sons argued they had financially contributed to the property's construction and that it was ancestral family property, so a lower court's ruling in the father's favour (without a full trial) was unfair.
Decision Breakdown
The Court upheld the possession decree, because the sons themselves had repeatedly admitted in their own written statements that the father was the "absolute owner" under the registered sale deed: an admission that made a full trial unnecessary on that point. Their claim of financial contribution, even if true, did not by itself create ownership rights, and their "ancestral property" argument failed because the property was demonstrably purchased by the father from unrelated third parties, not inherited. Their argument that permission to live there had become "irrevocable" due to construction they funded also failed, since there was no proof the construction was done specifically pursuant to, and in furtherance of, that permission.
Lesson Learnt
Adult children who live in a parent's self-purchased property only by permission (a "licence") can be lawfully asked to leave once that permission is withdrawn: merely contributing money toward upkeep or construction does not, on its own, create ownership rights in someone else's property.