New Delhi, September 16, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor, in a long-running property dispute involving a 2.70-acre parcel of land in Chennai that was purchased by late actress Sridevi and her family in 1988.
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai directed the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property and asked them to explore an amicable settlement through mediation. The court indicated that a retired High Court judge would be appointed as mediator and fixed December 18 for the next hearing to consider the progress of the mediation.
The petition has been filed by M.C. Sivakami and her brother M.C. Natarajan, who claim a share in the property. They have challenged the Madras High Court’s April 20, 2026 order that rejected their civil suit challenging the 1988 sale transactions.
The disputed land is located in Survey No. 1/1B at Sholinganallur, Chennai. According to the pleadings, the petitioners claim to be legal heirs of late M.C. Chandrasekaran and have sought partition of the property into five equal shares, including a 1/5th share for themselves. They have also sought declarations that the sale deeds executed on April 19, 1988, in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi, along with subsequent transactions, are null and void.
The Madras High Court had held that the challenge to the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had not established a legally sustainable claim. It also noted that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a 2007 suit seeking a 1/5th share in family properties, which had been dismissed.
Before the Supreme Court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Kapoor family, argued that the sale deed dates back to April 19, 1988, while the present suit was filed only in 2025. He contended that the claimants had attained majority in 1995 and 1999 and that the suit was therefore barred by limitation.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the High Court had gone beyond the scope of proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by examining disputed issues, including the claimants’ legal-heir status and questions surrounding Chandrasekaran’s alleged second marriage.
The Supreme Court also sought clarification on whether Chandrasekaran had a 1/5th share in the property and whether there was any dispute over the petitioners being his children.
The litigation originated before the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu, where the trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the averments in the plaint had to be considered at that stage and disputed questions could be examined during trial. The Madras High Court subsequently overturned that decision on April 20, 2026.
FOLLOW NOW
