Son, Daughter-in-Law Have No Legal Right Over Mother’s Self-Acquired Property: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently upheld the eviction of a son and daughter-in-law from a house exclusively owned by the mother, ruling that a married son has no legal right to reside in the self-acquired property of his parents against their wishes.

The bench of Justice A.C. Behera dismissed a second appeal filed by Chandramani Samal and his wife against Sukanti Samal and others. Court confirmed concurrent findings of both the trial court and the first appellate court, which had ordered the couple’s eviction and permanently restrained them from entering the property after vacating it.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed in 2019 by the mother, who sought mandatory and permanent injunction against her son and daughter-in-law. She asserted that she had purchased the suit land through a registered sale deed dated September 8, 1989, and constructed a residential house over it. The property, she said, stood exclusively in her name in revenue records.

According to her pleadings, after her son had a love marriage and the couple began residing with her and her husband in the house. However, she alleged that they subjected the elderly couple to physical and mental harassment. Village meetings were convened to resolve the dispute, and at one stage, the son and daughter-in-law allegedly agreed to vacate. Despite this, they continued to occupy the house and, as per the mother’s case, even forced the parents to temporarily reside elsewhere. She also lodged an FIR in March 2019, but claimed no effective police action followed.

The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the property was purchased from joint family funds. They contended that although the sale deed stood in the mother’s name, it was in fact joint family property and that they had equal rights over it. They further argued that the house constituted a “shared household”, and therefore the daughter-in-law could not be evicted.

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 oral and documentary evidence, it concluded that the property was the mother’s self-acquired property and decreed eviction of the son and daughter-in-law within one month, along with a permanent injunction restraining their entry after vacation.

The first appellate court affirmed the decree. In second appeal, the high court examined three substantial questions of law, including whether Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied, and whether provisions of the Domestic Violence Act conferred any enforceable right of residence.

The high court held that the registered sale deed and record-of-rights clearly established exclusive ownership in favour of the mother.

Relying on Gangamma etc. Vs. G.Nagarathnamma and others reported in 2009, where the Supreme Court held that property standing in the name of a female is her full and absolute property and cannot be claimed as joint family property merely on the ground of contribution, and Marabasappa (dead) by Lrs. and others Vrs. Ningappa (dead) by LRs. and others reported in 2011, which reiterated that by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a female Hindu becomes the absolute owner of property standing in her name, the high court concluded that the suit property was the mother’s self-acquired and exclusive property.

On the question of residence rights, court observed that a son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal entitlement to remain in the self-acquired property of his parents against their will. It also rejected the plea that the premises constituted a shared household, holding that such a claim cannot defeat the exclusive ownership of a senior citizen seeking protection from harassment.

Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the high court dismissed the second appeal on contest, without costs, and confirmed the eviction and injunction orders.

Case Title: Chandramani Samal and another vs. Sukanti Samal & Others

Order Date: February 19, 2026

Bench: Justice A.C. Behera