1 hr ago
Supreme Court Reviews Sridevi Family's Chennai Property Dispute
A woman and her brother say they should receive a share of land in Chennai.
The land was sold to Sridevi’s family in 1988.
They filed a case against Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor.
A lower court had allowed the case to move forward at the initial stage.
The Madras High Court later dismissed it.
The woman says the High Court examined too much evidence before a full trial.
The Kapoor family says the case was filed too late.
The Supreme Court has paused changes to the property and asked everyone to try mediation.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking a share in 2.7 acres of Chennai land sold to Sridevi’s family in 1988.
MC Sivakami challenged the Madras High Court’s dismissal of her suit against Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.
The petitioner argued that the High Court improperly examined evidence and legal-heir issues at the preliminary stage.
The Kapoor family argued that the 2025 suit was barred by limitation because the sale deed was executed on April 19, 1988.
The Supreme Court ordered status quo and directed the parties to explore mediation before the matter returns on December 18.
- Who
- MC Sivakami and her brother are seeking a share from Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor, Khushi Kapoor and other parties.
- What
- The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the dismissal of a suit over a claimed share in 2.7 acres of land.
- Where
- The disputed property is on East Coast Road in Chennai; the case is before the Supreme Court.
- When
- The land was sold on April 19, 1988; the suit was filed in 2025, and the matter is next listed for December 18.
- Why
- The petitioners claim a legal share in the property, while the Kapoor family argues that the claim is barred by limitation.
Petitioners’ Position
Kapoor Family’s Position
Whether the suit can proceed
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners say the trial court correctly found a prima facie cause of action and held that the claim was within the limitation period.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The Kapoor family says the 2025 suit improperly seeks to challenge a transaction completed in 1988, making it barred by limitation.
High Court’s preliminary review
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners argue that the Madras High Court conducted a mini-trial by closely examining documents, legal-heir status and the validity of a first marriage.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The Kapoor family relies on the transaction history and limitation argument in opposing the claim.
Share in the property
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners claim a legal share in the 2.7-acre property.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The Kapoor family argued that any one-fifth share belonging to MC Chandrasekaran would go to the first wife, with other claimants limited to their respective shares.
Key facts
- Property size
- 2.7 acres
- Property location
- East Coast Road, Chennai
- Sale date
- April 19, 1988
- Supreme Court action
- Notice issued and status quo ordered
- Petitioner
- MC Sivakami
- Respondents named
- Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor
- Next listing
- December 18
Sources
Related news
Tajdar Amrohi Challenges Preity Zinta’s Rs 2 Crore Claim
Supreme Court Rejects Telangana Plea Over Shantha Sriram Land
Mumbai Commission Upholds Recovery From Daughters’ Flats
Bachupally Plot Dispute Reaches Civic Authorities Over Construction
Vadodara Royal Family Land Dispute Continues After Home Demolitions
Bombay High Court Rejects Split Legal Challenges to Redevelopment
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge Over Tax Reassessment Notices
Supreme Court Tells Lawyer to Seek Video Takedown First
Chhattisgarh High Court Restores Challenge to Ex Parte Divorce Decree
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea to Suspend Murder Sentence
