The Orissa High Court upheld eviction of a married son and daughter-in-law from their mother’s self-acquired house, ruling they have no legal right to stay against her wishes. Justice A.C. Behera dismissed their second appeal, affirming earlier courts’ eviction orders.
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court recently upheld the eviction of a son and daughter-in-law from a house solely owned by the mother, asserting that a married son has no legal right to remain in his parents’ self-acquired property against their wishes.
Justice A.C. Behera dismissed the second appeal filed by Chandramani Samal and his wife against Sukanti Samal and others, affirming the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the first appellate court, which had mandated the couple’s eviction and permanently barred them from re-entering the property.
The conflict originated from a civil suit initiated by the mother in 2019, in which she sought both mandatory and permanent injunctions against her son and daughter-in-law. She claimed to have purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated September 8, 1989, and constructed a residential house on it, which is recorded solely in her name.
According to her allegations, after her son’s love marriage, the couple moved in with her and her husband. However, she accused them of subjecting the elderly couple to physical and mental harassment. Village meetings were held in an attempt to resolve the issue, during which the son and daughter-in-law reportedly agreed to vacate.
Despite this, they continued to occupy the house and, according to the mother, even forced her and her husband to temporarily leave their own home. She also filed an FIR in March 2019 but claimed that no effective police action was taken.
The defendants refuted her allegations, asserting that the property was bought using joint family funds. They argued that although the sale deed was in the mother’s name, the property was effectively joint family property and that they held equal rights to it.
They further contended that the house should be treated as a “shared household,” making the eviction of the daughter-in-law impermissible. The trial court framed seven issues, including whether the property was self-acquired and whether the defendants could claim it as a shared household.
After evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, the court determined that the property was indeed the mother’s self-acquired property. It ordered the son and daughter-in-law to vacate within one month and issued a permanent injunction to prevent their entry thereafter.
The first appellate court upheld this decree. Upon reviewing the case in the second appeal, the high court examined three substantial questions of law, including the applicability of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and whether the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act granted any enforceable residence rights.
Observations of the Court:
The high court concluded that the registered sale deed and record of rights clearly indicated that the mother held exclusive ownership of the property.
Drawing from the ruling in Gangamma etc. Vs. G.Nagarathnamma and others (2009), which established that property in a female’s name is her full and absolute property and cannot be claimed as joint family property based solely on contributions, as well as Marabasappa (dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Ningappa (dead) by LRs. (2011), which reiterated that a female Hindu becomes the absolute owner of property in her name per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the high court affirmed that the suit property was the mother’s self-acquired and exclusive property.
Regarding the issue of residence rights, the court noted that a son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to remain in his parents’ self-acquired property against their will. It also dismissed the claim that the premises constituted a shared household, asserting that such a claim could not undermine the exclusive ownership of an elderly person seeking protection from harassment.
Finding no legal deficiencies in the concurrent rulings of the lower courts, the high court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the eviction and injunction orders without imposing any costs.
Case Title: Chandramani Samal and another vs. Sukanti Samal & Others
Read Attachment: