Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that children cannot casually approach courts to restrain their aged parents from dealing with or enjoying their property. The Court observed that unless children establish a strong prima facie case proving the existence of coparcenary property and birthright, elderly parents cannot be prevented from exercising ownership rights over their assets.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether children could restrain their 90-year-old father from alienating or dealing with certain properties by claiming that the properties were ancestral coparcenary properties in which they had a birthright. The Court examined whether sufficient prima facie material existed to justify an injunction against the father’s right to enjoy and manage the properties.
Background
The dispute arose from a family partition suit filed by Jai Kumar Kewat against his father and siblings. The plaintiff claimed that certain properties standing in the father’s name were ancestral coparcenary properties and therefore all children had equal rights over them by birth.
The Trial Court initially granted a temporary injunction restraining the father from alienating four properties. However, the Appellate Court later modified the order and vacated the injunction in respect of two properties after finding no prima facie evidence to show that they were coparcenary properties. Two separate petitions were then filed before the High Court challenging the appellate court’s decision.
Court’s Decision
Justice Vivek Jain upheld the appellate court’s order and observed that children seeking to interfere with a father’s enjoyment of property must first establish a strong prima facie case demonstrating the existence of coparcenary rights. The Court stressed that elderly parents should not be deprived of their property rights merely because their children raise claims without adequate proof. It observed that preventing senior citizens from enjoying or alienating property in a casual manner would amount to denial of their basic human rights in the later years of life. The High Court agreed with the appellate court’s reasoning that the father, being around 90 years old, should not unnecessarily face restrictions on his right to deal with his property unless compelling evidence existed. After examining the nature of the disputed properties, the Court found no error in the appellate court’s conclusion and held that the injunction could continue only with respect to those properties where a prima facie case of coparcenary existed.
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that courts must carefully balance property disputes within families against the rights and dignity of senior citizens. The judgment makes it clear that children cannot automatically restrain aged parents from managing or alienating property merely by alleging ancestral ownership without strong supporting evidence. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both petitions and upheld the appellate court’s order partially vacating the injunction.
Case Name
Mukesh Kumar Kewat v. Gaya Prasad Kewat & Jai Kumar Kewat v. Gaya Prasad Kewat
