'Son cannot claim to have enforceable legal right or entitlement to parents’ flat', rules Bombay HC

A son, living in a different household and not having ever cared for his father, cannot claim to have “enforceable legal right” or “entitlement” to parent’s flats, observed the Bombay High Court.

A division bench of justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar rejected an application filed by a son seeking “enforceable legal right” to his parent’s flats – one is in the mother’s name and the other is in father’s name – stating that the same was “laughable”, “ill-founded” and “illogical”.

The son (Asif Khan) had filed an intervention application in the mother’s (Sonia Khan) petition seeking to be appointed as the guardian of the father’s (Fazal Khan) personal and property.

Sonia had also sought permission to operate the bank account of Fazal, of which she is a joint account holder, and to sell the house which is in her name.

She had sought these permissions to meet the medical expenses of Fazal, who has been in a vegetative state for a decade who had been suffering from dementia and have had multiple strokes and several other medical complications.

Asif claimed that he was the de-facto guardian of his father for many years. He contended that though parents are alive, there are two flats which he described as “a shared household,” which gave him an enforceable legal right to either or both of these flats.

Terming the argument as ill-founded and illogical, the HC said: “The submission is so ill-founded and illogical that it only needs to be stated to be rejected.”

“In any conceptualization of succession law for any community or faith, Asif can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats. 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,” noted the court.

The court also took note that Asif had 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,” added court.

The Court noted that there was no specific provision that dealt with the issue of guardianship of a disabled person and hence decided to deal with the father on the same footing as a minor who holds a share in immovable property.

“We put the case of Fazal practically on the same footing as that of a minor who holds a share in immovable property. This necessarily means that Fazal’s interests are under the care and supervision of the Court and any disposal of his share in any immovable property must be for stated and bona fide purposes that are demonstrably in his interest,” said the Court.

The HC has permitted Sonia to operate a bank account where she was a joint holder. On a court query, it was informed that Sonia wanted to sell the properties and use the money towards Fazal’s treatment. The court has asked her to begin the process of sale and negotiation of the property. However, she has been asked to approach the court before executing any sale deed or memorandum of understanding.