Son harassing mother to take possession of the house what can be done

what is the law if father is died and no will made. Religion : Hindu. Mother & sister is facing a lot of harassment from her own son. Domestic violence at home. Son wants home and mother not want to stay with son. Son is not married. Mother wants from son take your share price with equal rigths and stop harass us. Mother say her son behaviour is very badly with family member's with 2 sisters and mother. She wants 4 equal share at home. one share of son to give him and wants no more harassment. She cannot live with son. What mother will do. case is going on civil matter as well domestic matter. court ordered to stop sons entry at home. Mother at age of above 60 years. she wants settlement as early. Son wants to enter at home at any cost. What we do. we are fighting but how much time it will running. We are facing lot of harassments directly indirectly from son. son is not ready for any settlement he wants home.

Answers (2)

186 votes

You have taken correct action by way of filing DV and civil suit. You may seek help of mediation where the said son may come for settlement. DV act is very wide and strong you may file application in respect of reliefs you are in need of.

Googling your legal issue online?

The internet is not a lawyer and neither are you.
Talk to a real lawyer about your legal issue.

314 votes

Removing any misgiving about the claim of a share in the joint family property, the Supreme Court has held that the parents have every right to deny the share to the negligent children who simply do not take care of them in old age when they need their help the most, but are virtually left in the lurch.

The apex court gave the ruling in dispute among three brothers over the property of their father Harishankar from Madhya Pradesh inherited by him as his share form joint Hindu family property in two partitions held earlier in 1965 and 1985.

Harishankar’s two sons —Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar — did not bother to take care of their old parents. The parents lived with their third son Mahesh Kumar, who along with his wife, looked after them. A bench of Justices G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadyaya said: “There was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to appellant.”

Pointing out that Mr Vinod Kumar and Mr Anand Kumar even did not spend any money on the funeral and other last rites of their mother when she died in 1992, the Supreme Court said, “Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children form his or her share in the property.”

“Neither of them bothered to look after the parents in their old age. The attitude of the two left Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with Mahesh, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness,” the top court said while declaring the Will executed by Harishankar in favour of Mahesh as valid in law even in respect of the joint family property.

The judgement is being seen as “innovative” by legal experts, especially in the context of the accepted principle of succession in the joint Hindu family property that makes every member entitled of his or her share as per the family tree. The principle so far established in several judgements of the top court was that the parents can give their self-acquired property to any one but cannot “bequeath” their share in joint family property in a Will contrary the legitimate hereditary share of each person in the family tree.

The judges said that they were not required to go so deep into the evidence about the manner Harishankar signed the Will in favour of Mahesh, which was challenged by Vinod and Anand. Their main focus was rather on the “unmistakably” clear evidence, which showed that the two sons had separated from the family and even had taken certain properties as their share, but after that they simply did not “bothered to take care of the old parents.”

The apex court also criticised the MP High Court for overlooking the vital fact that the parents needed the care by their all the children. The HC had overturned the lower court verdict declaring Harishankar’s Will in favour of Mahesh as valid. “We hold that the HC was clearly in error in reversing the well-reasoned finding recorded by the trial court,” the top court judges in their verdict recorded.

However, the son has the right in the property and if the mother is ready to give it to him then she can file a partition suit and thus, the property will be divided equally among all the legal heirs.

Popular Property Lawyers

Advocate Gouri Shankar Hemekari
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
23 years Experience
Advocate Ricky Chopra
Sector - 49, Gurgaon
18 years Experience
Advocate Ricky Chopra
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
18 years Experience
Advocate Rajesh Rai
Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi
19 years Experience

Disclaimer: The above query and its response is NOT a legal opinion in any way whatsoever as this is based on the information shared by the person posting the query at and has been responded by one of the Property Lawyers at to address the specific facts and details. You may post your specific query based on your facts and details to get a response from one of the Lawyers at or contact a Lawyer of your choice to address your query in detail.

Related questions

" has handpicked some of the best Legal Experts in the country to help you get practical Legal Advice & help."

Related Articles