SC Issues Notice To Boney Kapoor, Daughters In Sridevi Property Dispute

NEW DELHI-The Supreme Court on September 16 issued notice to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor, on a plea seeking to revive a property dispute involving a 2.70-acre parcel of land in Chennai purchased by late actress Sridevi and her family.

A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai issued notice on the petition filed by M.C. Sivakami and her brother M.C. Natarajan, who have claimed a share in the disputed property, and directed the parties to maintain status quo until the next hearing.

The Bench also indicated that the parties should explore an amicable resolution through mediation and said a retired High Court judge would be appointed as mediator.

The matter has been posted for December 18 to consider the progress of the mediation.

The petitioners have challenged an April 20 order of the Madras High Court, which allowed a revision petition filed by Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor and rejected the civil suit instituted by Sivakami and others.

The dispute concerns 2.70 acres of land in Survey No. 1/1B at Sholinganallur in Chennai. According to the pleadings recorded by the Madras High Court, the plaintiffs claimed to be legal heirs of late M.C. Chandrasekaran and sought partition of the property into five equal shares, claiming a one-fifth share.

They also sought declarations that sale deeds dated April 19, 1988, executed in favor of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi, as well as subsequent transactions involving the property, were null and void.

The Madras High Court had held that the suit challenging the 1988 sale transactions was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had not established a legally sustainable claim based on their pleadings.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the High Court had gone into questions concerning the claimants’ status as legal heirs and the validity of Chandrasekaran’s alleged second marriage while deciding whether the plaint itself should be rejected.

Appearing for the Kapoor family, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the sale transaction dates back to April 19, 1988, while the present suit was instituted only in 2025. He also pointed out that the petitioners had attained majority in 1995 and 1999, arguing that the claim was barred by limitation.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court sought clarification on whether M.C. Chandrasekaran had a one-fifth share in the property and whether there was any dispute over the petitioners being his children.

The litigation stems from a suit filed before the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu. The trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing the disputed issues to be examined during the trial.

The Madras High Court subsequently overturned that order on April 20, 2026. A single-judge Bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held that the plaintiffs’ claim that they came to know about the disputed transaction only in 2023 was not supported by the material before the court and concluded that the suit challenging the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation.

The High Court consequently ordered rejection of the plaint. Its order also recorded that the plaintiffs had earlier instituted another suit in 2007 claiming a one-fifth share in family properties, which was dismissed. (IANS)