The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that children cannot prevent their elderly parents from dealing with property unless they establish a strong prima facie case showing the existence of coparcenary rights.
Justice Vivek Jain dismissed two petitions challenging an appellate court order that had partially vacated a temporary injunction granted in a family property dispute.
The Court observed that casually restraining senior citizens from enjoying or alienating property in the evening of their lives would amount to a “travesty of justice.”
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by Jai Kumar Kewat against his father, Gaya Prasad Kewat and siblings over several ancestral properties. The plaintiff claimed that the properties were coparcenary assets in which all children had birthrights.
A trial court had initially granted temporary injunction restraining possession changes, construction, and alienation in respect of four properties involved in the suit. However, the appellate court later restricted the injunction to only two properties and vacated it for Survey Nos. 288/1 and 71/1.
What Happened During the Hearing
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the appellate court had virtually decided the suit at an interim stage by holding that two properties were not prima facie coparcenary properties.
They further alleged that the father intended to favour one son by transferring the disputed properties to him.
The appellate court had meanwhile noted that the father was around 90 years old and should not lightly be prevented from enjoying his property.
Court’s Key Observation
Agreeing with the appellate court, the High Court said:
“At the drop of a hat, the children cannot come up to Court and prevent their old aged parents from alienating and enjoying the property.”
The Court stressed that senior citizens cannot be deprived of basic human rights merely on unproven assertions of coparcenary claims.
Justice Vivek Jain also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar to reiterate that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, succession is governed by Section 8 of the Act and the traditional theory of automatic birthright does not readily apply.
The High Court found no error in the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate court and upheld its findings regarding the disputed survey lands. It consequently dismissed both petitions.
Case Details Section
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Kewat & Ors. v. Gaya Prasad Kewat & Ors. connected with Jai Kumar Kewat v. Gaya Prasad Kewat & Ors.
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 2688 of 2026 with Misc. Petition No. 2744 of 2026
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Justice Vivek Jain
Date: April 30, 2026
