Archive · 17 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Orders Status Quo in Sridevi Property Dispute
A woman and her brother say they should receive part of a piece of land in Chennai.
The land is about 2.70 acres and was bought by Sridevi, her sister and their mother in 1988.
The woman and her brother filed a case against Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Khushi.
A trial court initially allowed the case to continue.
The Madras High Court later rejected it, saying the claim was made too late and was not legally supported.
The petitioners say the High Court examined too many disputed facts before a full trial.
The Kapoor family says the sale happened in 1988 and the 2025 case is barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court has paused changes to the property and asked the parties to try mediation before the next hearing.
The Supreme Court issued notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor over a Chennai property dispute.
MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan claim a share in 2.70 acres bought by Sridevi, Sree Latha and Rajeshwari in 1988.
The petitioners challenged the Madras High Court’s April 20, 2026 order rejecting their civil suit.
They argue the High Court improperly examined legal-heir status, marriage-related issues and documents at the preliminary stage.
The Supreme Court ordered status quo, suggested mediation and scheduled the next hearing for December 18.
- Who
- MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan are challenging the dismissal of their property suit against Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor, Khushi Kapoor and other parties.
- What
- The Supreme Court is hearing an appeal concerning claimed shares in a 2.70-acre Chennai property and has ordered the parties to maintain status quo.
- When
- The property was sold on April 19, 1988; the challenged Madras High Court order was dated April 20, 2026; the next Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for December 18.
- Where
- The property is in Survey No. 1/1B at Sholinganallur, on East Coast Road in Chennai; the appeal is before the Supreme Court.
- Why
- The petitioners claim legal shares and say the case should proceed to trial, while the Kapoor family argues that the 2025 challenge to the 1988 transaction is barred by limitation.
Petitioners’ Position
Kapoor Family’s Position
Whether the suit can proceed
Petitioners’ Position
MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan argue that the trial court correctly found a prima facie cause of action and held that the claim could proceed within the limitation period.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The Kapoor family argues that the current suit was filed in 2025 to challenge a sale transaction from April 19, 1988, making it barred by limitation.
High Court’s preliminary review
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners say the Madras High Court effectively conducted a mini-trial by examining documents, legal-heir status and the validity of an alleged second marriage before trial.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The High Court found that the plaintiffs’ claim of learning about the transaction only in 2023 was not supported by the material before it and rejected the plaint.
Entitlement to the property
Petitioners’ Position
The petitioners claim to be legal heirs of M.C. Chandrasekaran and seek partition, including a one-fifth share in the property.
Kapoor Family’s Position
The Kapoor family’s lawyer argued that Chandrasekaran’s one-fifth share would go to the first wife and that other claimants could seek only their respective shares.
- Property size
- 2.70 acres
- Property location
- Survey No. 1/1B, Sholinganallur, Chennai, on East Coast Road
- Original sale date
- April 19, 1988
- Named purchasers
- Sridevi, Sree Latha and Rajeshwari
- Petitioners’ claim
- MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan seek a share, including a claimed one-fifth portion
- Supreme Court action
- Notice issued and status quo ordered
- Next hearing
- December 18, to consider mediation progress
