Court affirms senior citizens' rights to enjoy property, dismisses petitions challenging appellate court's order
In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Vivek Jain, upheld the appellate court's decision to partially vacate a temporary injunction in a family property dispute. The case, Mukesh Kumar Kewat v. Gaya Prasad Kewat, involved petitions challenging an order concerning the partition suit filed by children against their father, seeking to prevent alienation of properties alleged to be coparcenary.
The court reaffirmed that properties inherited post the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, do not automatically constitute coparcenary properties. The plaintiffs, children of the defendant, argued that their father, Gaya Prasad Kewat, could not alienate ancestral properties without their consent. However, the court emphasized that the concept of birthright in ancestral property was abolished by the 1956 Act. Succession is now governed by statutory provisions under Section 8 and its Schedule.
The case centered around four properties, with the trial court initially granting a temporary injunction on all. The appellate court, however, vacated the injunction for two properties, citing insufficient evidence of coparcenary status. Justice Jain concurred with the appellate court's logic, highlighting the importance of safeguarding senior citizens' rights. The decision underscores the necessity for a strong prima facie case before restricting an elderly parent's enjoyment of property.
Bottom line:-
Partition suit - Temporary injunction - Coparcenary property - Children cannot, without strong prima facie case, prevent aged parents from enjoyment or alienation of property inherited from ancestors.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 8, Civil Procedure Code (related to temporary injunctions).
. Gaya Prasad Kewat, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2898818
