The Orrissa High Court upholds Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, which grants women complete ownership of property in their names, and dismisses the son's "shared household" claim.

A married son has no legal right to live in his parents' self-acquired property against their preferences, according to the Orissa High Court, which recently affirmed the eviction of a son and daughter-in-law from a home that was solely owned by the mother. A second appeal against Sukanti Samal and others, filed by Chandramani Samal and his wife, was dismissed by the bench of Justice A.C. Behera. The court upheld the trial court's and the first appeal court's concurrent rulings, which had mandated the couple's eviction and permanently barred them from returning to the property once they had left it.

The conflict started when the mother launched a civil lawsuit against her son and daughter-in-law in 2019 to get a mandatory and permanent injunction. She claimed to have built a residential home on the suit land after purchasing it with a registered sale deed dated September 8, 1989. She claimed that revenue records showed the property was solely in her name.

Following her son's love marriage, the pair moved in with her and her husband, according to her requests. She said, however, that they harassed the old couple both mentally and physically. The son and daughter-in-law supposedly agreed to leave at one point after village meetings were held to settle the conflict. In spite of this, they kept living in the house and, in the mother's case, even made the parents move temporarily. In March 2019, she also filed a formal complaint, but she said no meaningful police action was taken.

The defendants disputed the accusations, arguing that combined family funds were used to buy the house. They argued that although though the sale document was in the mother's name, they actually owned it jointly with the rest of the family and had equal rights to it. They further contended that the daughter-in-law could not be evicted since the home was a "shared household."

Among the seven questions posed by the trial court were whether the defendants could claim the property as a shared residence and whether it was self-acquired. It determined that the property was the mother's self-acquired property after considering both oral and written testimony. It ordered the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the property within a month and issued a permanent injunction preventing them from returning after vacation.

The supreme court ruled that the mother's exclusive ownership was unmistakably proved by the registered sale deed and record-of-rights.

using Gangamma, etc. In the 2009 case of Vs. G. Nagarathnamma and others, the Supreme Court ruled that property held in a woman's name is her complete and absolute property and cannot be claimed as joint family property based only on contribution, and Marabasappa (dead) by Lrs. and more Vrs. LRs' Ningappa (deceased). and others reported in 2011, which reaffirmed that a female Hindu becomes the sole owner of property standing in her name under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The high court determined that the suit property was the mother's exclusive and self-acquired property.

Regarding residency rights, the court noted that a son, married or not, has no legal right to stay in his parents' self-acquired property against their wishes. Additionally, Court dismissed the argument that the property constituted a shared household, concluding that the exclusive ownership of a senior adult seeking protection from harassment cannot be defeated by such a claim.

The high court dismissed the second appeal on challenge, without costs, and upheld the eviction and injunction orders after finding no legal flaw in the concurrent rulings of the lower courts.
 

Case Title: Chandramani Samal and another vs. Sukanti Samal & Others Order 
Bench: Justice A.C. Behera