Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Chandramani Samal and Another - Appellants
Versus
Sukanti Samal & Others – Respondents
RSA No.564 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. P.C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Prabin Dash, Advocate On behalf of Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

Under Hindu Succession Act, property registered in the name of a female owner confers absolute ownership, and eviction of non-owners is justified on the grounds of mental and physical abuse.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction - Appellants (husband and wife) contested eviction from suit properties owned and possessed exclusively by the Plaintiff - Legal status of property in the name of female as absolute owner - Concurrent judgments affirmed by Appellate Courts. (Paras 16 - 19)

(B) Joint Family Properties - Claim of Defendants of equal ownership denied given the exclusive records of property ownership by Plaintiff - Defendants showed no documentation or evidence supporting their claims. (Paras 9, 19)

(C) Legal Rights of Parents - Court asserted that parents retain the right to evict children from self-acquired property due to alleged mental and physical abuse. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed suit C.S. No.20 of 2019 against her husband and daughter-in-law (Defendants) seeking injunction against their eviction from her property purchased with her husband’s income, where she alleges suffering abuse. The learned Trial Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, affirming her sole ownership of the properties.

Findings of Court:
The suit properties and the house standing thereon are owned exclusively by the Plaintiff, and thus, the eviction and injunction sought were justified.

Issues: The court addressed whether the suit was maintainable, ownership of the properties, and rights of the Defendants within the context of family law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a property owned by an individual under the Hindu Succession Act confers full ownership, and past behavior of the Defendants warranted eviction.

Result: The 2nd appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower courts' judgments.

Table of Content
1. ownership and possession of suit properties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants' arguments against the plaintiff's claim. (Para 6)
3. issues framed and their resolution in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 7 , 9)
4. confirmation of lower court’s judgment by the appellate court. (Para 10 , 12)
5. substantial questions of law regarding property ownership. (Para 13 , 15 , 16)
6. legal rights concerning eviction from self-acquired property. (Para 17 , 18)
7. final analysis supporting eviction of defendants. (Para 19)
8. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The Appellants in this Second Appeal being the husband and wife respectively were the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2019 and Appellants before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal.

The Respondent No.1 in this 2nd Appeal was the sole Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2019 and Respondent No.1 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.16 of 2023.

The Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in this 2^nd Appeal were the Defendant Nos.3 to 6 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2019 and Respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.16 of 2023.

3. The suit of the Plaintiff vide C.S. No.20 of 2019 before the learned Trial Court against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (Appellants in this 2^nd Appeal) was a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction.

4. The Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.20 of 2019 are wife and husband respectively.

The Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 are the three sons of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3.

The Defendant No.6 is the married daughter of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3.

The Defendant No.2 is the wife of the Defendant No.1 and daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3.

5. As per the averments made in the plaint of the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 in this 2^nd appeal), the suit properties and the house standing thereon exclusively belong to the Plaintiff. She (Plaintiff) had purchased the same through registered sale No.1191 dated 08.09.1989 from one Chandramani Sethi on payment of due consideration amount. As such, since the date of purchase, she (Plaintiff) is the sole owner and in possession over the entire suit properties. She (Plaintiff) has constructed a house on the part of the suit properties. Therefore, she (Plaintiff) is the exclusive owner of the suit properties and the house standing thereon. She (Plaintiff) along with her husband i.e. Defendant No.3 are residing in the house situated in the suit properties. The Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties and the house standing thereon. The suit properties and the house standing thereon have been recorded exclusively in the name of the Plaintiff. The two sons of the Plaintiff i.e. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are residing in separate places and they are not residing in the house situated on the suit properties. One son of the Plaintiff i.e. Defendant No.1 has made love marriage to the Defendant No.2. After marriage, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing with the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 in the house situated on the suit properties, but, subsequently, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 tortured to the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 mentally and physically. For which, as per the request of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3, a village meeting was convened on dated 27.08.2012 and in the said meeting, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 assured not to ill-treat the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 further, but, again the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 started ill-treating the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3. For which, a meeting was convened for the 2^nd time at the instance of the Plaintiff. In the said meeting, it was decided that, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 will leave the h