Sridevi's 2.7-acre Chennai property dispute case explained: Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor get notice from Supreme Court

A property dispute involving late actress Sridevi's family has reached the Supreme Court. The case is about land on Chennai's East Coast Road, where the petitioners reportedly claim they have a share. They have also challenged the sale deeds through which Sridevi and her sister acquired the property.

The Supreme Court has now issued notice to Sridevi's husband Boney Kapoor and their daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor. The case has been brought before the apex court by MC Sivakami and her brother MC Natarajan, who are challenging a Madras High Court order that rejected their suit against the Kapoor family.

What is the Chennai property dispute about?

The dispute relates to 2.7 acres of land on East Coast Road in Chennai. According to the petitioners, the land forms part of a larger 4.7-acre property that was acquired by Sridevi and her sister through four sale deeds in 1988.




According to Live Law report, MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and their mother Chandrabhanu claim that the property originally belonged to their paternal grandfather. They have therefore sought a declaration that the four sale deeds are invalid. The petitioners have alleged that the documents through which the property was transferred were fraudulent.

The case is not a fresh dispute over a recently acquired property. The transactions being challenged date back to 1988, which has become one of the key issues in the legal proceedings.

Why did the case reach the Supreme Court?

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court rejected their suit against Boney Kapoor, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor.

According to the proceedings, before the trial court, Boney Kapoor had earlier moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). His side argued that the plaintiffs' claims were not legally sustainable and raised questions about the circumstances surrounding Chandrabhanu's marriage.

The trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint at that stage. It held that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact, which would require examination during the trial rather than being decided while considering an application to reject the plaint.

The Bollywood producer subsequently challenged the trial court's decision before the Madras High Court.

The High Court eventually accepted Kapoor's arguments and rejected the suit. The court questioned why the 1988 sale deeds had not been challenged earlier and noted that the plaintiffs claimed to have become aware of the transactions only in 2023.

The High Court also referred to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to disclose certain facts relating to their father's first marriage. It held that these circumstances were relevant to their claim.

The court further held that the plaintiffs were not Class I legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran and therefore did not have the necessary locus standi to pursue the case. It also concluded that the challenge to documents executed in 1988 was filed after an excessive delay and was barred by limitation.

What has the Supreme Court ordered now?

A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Pillai has issued notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor on the petition challenging the Madras High Court order.

The Supreme Court has also directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing. This means the existing position concerning the disputed property is to be maintained while the matter is before the court.

The latest order does not finally decide the ownership dispute. The Supreme Court will now hear the petition challenging the High Court's decision and consider the issues raised by the petitioners.

For the Kapoor family, the case brings a long-running dispute over the Chennai property back before the judiciary. For the petitioners, the Supreme Court proceedings provide an opportunity to challenge the High Court's decision and press their claim over the disputed land.