Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 589

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, Adv.
For the Respondents:Mr. Prabin Dash, Advocate On behalf of Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv.

A property in a female's name is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act; joint family claims cannot assert ownership over it.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Second appeal challenging eviction order - Plaintiff proved ownership of property; court finds no merit in defendants' claims of joint ownership - Suit properties recorded exclusively in the plaintiff’s name, thus establishing her title. (Paras 16-20)

(B) Legal principles regarding self-acquired property - A property standing in the name of a female is considered her absolute property, and joint family claims cannot stand. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves a property purchased by the plaintiff, who alleges ongoing ill-treatment by her son and daughter-in-law, who continue to reside in her house despite her objections. The plaintiff seeks eviction of her son and daughter-in-law from the property.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's findings that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the property and ordered the defendants' eviction, confirming this decision in the first appeal.

Issues: The significant issues concerned the maintainability of the suit, ownership of the property, the nature of the property as joint or joint family property, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek eviction of the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the property is self-acquired by the plaintiff, emphasizing her legal right to evict the defendants and denying their claim to joint ownership based on family background.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's ownership and claims regarding suit properties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants challenge plaintiff's claims and argue rights. (Para 6)
3. court resolved issues in favor of plaintiff. (Para 7 , 9)
4. assessing legal status of plaintiff's property ownership. (Para 13 , 16 , 17)
5. court's determination on eviction of defendants. (Para 18 , 19)
6. 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 house of the Plaintiff situated on the suit properties, but, still then, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not leave the house of the Plaintiff, rather they (