Children Can't Casually Stop Elderly Parents From Enjoying Their Property: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with an appellate court order that partially lifted an injunction restraining a 90-year-old father from dealing with his property, while strongly observing that children cannot casually approach courts to stop elderly parents from enjoying or alienating their assets.

Justice Vivek Jain said such restrictions on senior citizens would amount to a “travesty of justice” and denial of their “basic human rights in the evening of their life.”

The ruling came in two connected petitions filed by Mukesh Kumar Kewat and others, and Jai Kumar Kewat, challenging an appellate court order dated April 2, 2026. The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by Jai Kumar Kewat against his father, Gaya Prasad Kewat, and other family members over several ancestral properties.

Appearing for the petitioners in one matter was Advocate Girish Shrivastava, while Advocates Akhilesh Kumar Choubey and Balram Yadav represented the petitioner in the connected case. Panel Lawyer Naveen Ahuja appeared for the State.

According to the case records, the plaintiff claimed that although the father was the recorded owner of the disputed properties, the lands were inherited from ancestors and therefore formed part of a coparcenary property in which all children had a birthright. The trial court had earlier granted temporary injunctions restraining possession changes, construction, and alienation in relation to four properties bearing Survey Nos. 288/1, 71/1, 277/5 and 446.

However, the lower appellate court later restricted the injunction only to two properties and vacated the restraint order concerning Survey Nos. 288/1 and 71/1 after holding that those lands did not prima facie appear to be coparcenary properties.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the appellate court had effectively decided the suit at an interim stage by concluding that the two properties were not coparcenary in nature. It was also argued that the father was allegedly favouring one son and intended to transfer maximum property in his favour, which should not be permitted during pendency of the dispute.

Rejecting the challenge, the High Court observed that a very strong prima facie case is required before children can restrain aged parents from dealing with their own property. “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 said.

Justice Jain further observed that lightly imposing restrictions on elderly persons regarding use of property would be unjust, especially when the claim of coparcenary has not yet been established. The court underlined that bare pleadings alone cannot automatically create a presumption of coparcenary rights in favour of children.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar, reported in AIR 1987 SC 558, to reiterate that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional theory of birthright in inherited property no longer automatically survives in every case.

The High Court noted that one of the disputed properties had been acquired in 1961 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, making the claim of automatic coparcenary doubtful at the preliminary stage. In relation to another property, the court observed that no clear source of title had been shown to establish prima facie coparcenary ownership.

Holding that the appellate court’s reasoning suffered from 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

Date of Order: April 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain