Sridevi property dispute: SC issues notice to Boney, Janhvi, Khushi Kapoor
Advertisement
New Delhi, Sep 16 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters 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 till the next date of hearing.
The Justice Viswanathan-led Bench also indicated that the parties should explore an amicable resolution through mediation and said that 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 the 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 High Court had held that the suit seeking to challenge the 1988 sale transactions was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had not established a legally sustainable claim on the basis of the pleadings.
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 1/5th share. They had also sought declarations that the sale deeds dated April 19, 1988, executed in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi, as well as subsequent transactions concerning the property, were null and void.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel submitted that the High Court had gone into questions concerning the claimants' legal-heir status and the validity of Chandrasekaran's alleged second marriage while deciding whether the plaint itself was liable to 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.
The senior counsel contended that the petitioners had attained majority in 1995 and 1999, while the present suit was instituted only in 2025, and argued that the claim was barred by limitation. During the hearing, the Supreme Court also sought clarification on whether M.C. Chandrasekaran had a 1/5th share in the property and whether there was any dispute regarding the petitioners being his children.
The litigation has its roots in 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 (CPC), holding that the averments in the plaint had to be considered at that stage and that disputed questions could be examined during 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 did not sustain on the material placed before the court and concluded that the suit challenging the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation.
The High Court ordered rejection of the plaint. The Madras High Court order also recorded that the plaintiffs had earlier instituted another suit in 2007 claiming a 1/5th share in family properties, which had been dismissed.
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 till the next date of hearing.
The Justice Viswanathan-led Bench also indicated that the parties should explore an amicable resolution through mediation and said that 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 the 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 High Court had held that the suit seeking to challenge the 1988 sale transactions was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had not established a legally sustainable claim on the basis of the pleadings.
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 1/5th share. They had also sought declarations that the sale deeds dated April 19, 1988, executed in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi, as well as subsequent transactions concerning the property, were null and void.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel submitted that the High Court had gone into questions concerning the claimants' legal-heir status and the validity of Chandrasekaran's alleged second marriage while deciding whether the plaint itself was liable to 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.
The senior counsel contended that the petitioners had attained majority in 1995 and 1999, while the present suit was instituted only in 2025, and argued that the claim was barred by limitation. During the hearing, the Supreme Court also sought clarification on whether M.C. Chandrasekaran had a 1/5th share in the property and whether there was any dispute regarding the petitioners being his children.
The litigation has its roots in 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 (CPC), holding that the averments in the plaint had to be considered at that stage and that disputed questions could be examined during 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 did not sustain on the material placed before the court and concluded that the suit challenging the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation.
The High Court ordered rejection of the plaint. The Madras High Court order also recorded that the plaintiffs had earlier instituted another suit in 2007 claiming a 1/5th share in family properties, which had been dismissed.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.