Elderly Parents Can't Be Casually Restrained From Alienating Property; Children Must Show Prima Facie Coparcenary Rights: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that children cannot casually approach courts to prevent their aged parents from enjoying or dealing with their property.

It thus affirmed an Appellate Court order, declaring two out of four properties of a father as coparcenary and vacating the injunction restraining his right to deal with or alienate the properties.

The bench of Justice Vivek Jain held that children seeking to interfere with a father's enjoyment or disposition of property must first establish a strong prima facie case proving the existence of a coparcenary and subsisting birthright in the property. 

The bench highlighted;

"This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid logic and reasoning of the lower appellate Court because to prevent the father from enjoyment of property at the instance of his own children, a very strong prima facie case has to be made out by the children to project their birthright and existence of coparcenary in the family". 

The bench further emphasized;

"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 because it would be travesty of justice to the senior citizens and denial of their basic human rights in the evening of their life, if in such a casual manner the senior citizens are prevented from enjoying the property, though it may be inherited by them from their ancestors". 

Two petitions were filed challenging the same order but by different parties, one by the plaintiff Mukesh Kumar Kewat and the other by defendant no 2 Jai Kuman Kewat. The impugned order was passed on February 2, 2026 passed by the appellate court, partly vacating the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. 

The dispute arose from a family partition suit filed by Jai Kumar (plaintiff) against his father (defendant no 1) and other siblings (defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5). Jai Kumar claimed that certain ancestral property held in the father's name was actually a coparcenary property in which all children had a birthright. 

The trial court had initially granted a temporary injunction restraining the father from alienating or dealing with four properties. However, the appellate court later modified the order and restricted the injunction to only two properties, vacating the restraint over the remaining property after finding no prima facie evidence that those lands were coparcenary properties. 

The court noted that the appellate court had rightly held that the father (defendant no 1) is an old man of 90 years and thus any restraint on his right of enjoyment of property should not be put in place. 

The bench concurred with the reasoning of the appellate court, noting that to prevent a father from enjoying property at the instance of his children, a strong prima facie case must be made out by the children to protect their birthright and existence of coparcenary in the family. 

The bench highlighted that children cannot come up "at the drop of a hat" and prevent their elderly parents from alienating and enjoying the property, as it would be a denial of their basic human rights in the "evening of their life". 

Thus, the bench, after carefully examining the status of the properties, concurred with the judgment of the Appellate court and thus dismissed the petitions. 

Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Kewat v Gaya Prasad Kewat, MP No 2688 of 2026 and Jai Kumar Kewat v Gaya Prasad Kewat, MP No 2744 of 2026

For Petitioner: Advocate Girish Shrivastava

For Father: Advocate Naveen Ahuja 

For Defendant no 2: Advocates Akhilesh Kumar Choubey and Balram Yadav 

Click here to read/download the Order