The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with an appellate order that partly lifted an injunction preventing a 90-year-old father from dealing with his property. The court said children cannot block elderly parents’ assets, calling it unjust.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with an appellate court’s order that had partially lifted an injunction restraining a 90-year-old father from dealing with his property.
In doing so, the court strongly remarked that children cannot routinely approach the courts to prevent elderly parents from using or alienating their assets.
Justice Vivek Jain characterized such restraints on senior citizens as a travesty of justice and as a denial of their basic human rights in the evening of their life.
The decision was rendered in two connected petitions filed by Mukesh Kumar Kewat and others, and by Jai Kumar Kewat, challenging an appellate order dated April 2, 2026.
The underlying dispute stemmed from a partition suit instituted by Jai Kumar Kewat against his father, Gaya Prasad Kewat, and other family members regarding multiple ancestral properties.
In the record, the plaintiff’s case was that while the father stood as the recorded owner of the disputed properties, the lands had been inherited from ancestors and, as such, constituted coparcenary property in which the children had a birthright.
Earlier, the trial court granted temporary injunctions limiting possession changes, construction, and alienation concerning four properties identified by Survey Nos. 288/1, 71/1, 277/5, and 446.
Subsequently, the lower appellate court restricted the injunction to only two of the properties and set aside the restraint order for Survey Nos. 288/1 and 71/1. It did so after concluding, at the prima facie stage, that those lands did not appear to be coparcenary properties.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the appellate court had, in effect, decided the suit at an interim stage by holding that the two properties were not coparcenary in character. It was also contended that the father was allegedly favouring one son and intended to transfer the maximum extent of the property to him, which ought not to be permitted during the pendency of the dispute.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court observed that for children to restrain aged parents from dealing with their own property, a very strong prima facie case is required.
The 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,”
Justice Jain further emphasized that imposing restrictions on elderly persons regarding use of property without established entitlement would be unjust particularly when the coparcenary claim had not yet been established.
The court also noted that mere pleadings cannot automatically create a presumption of coparcenary rights in favour of children.
The High Court further drew support from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar (AIR 1987 SC 558), observing that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, the earlier concept of automatic birthright in inherited property does not necessarily apply in every case.
It noted that one disputed property was acquired in 1961, after the Act took effect, making any claim of automatic coparcenary rights doubtful at the preliminary stage. With respect to the other property, the court held that no clear source of title had been shown to establish prima facie coparcenary ownership.
Concluding that the appellate court’s approach disclosed no jurisdictional or legal error, the High Court dismissed both petitions and upheld the partial vacation of the injunction order.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Kewat and Others v. Gaya Prasad Kewat and Others with connected matter