Sridevi family property dispute: Supreme Court orders status quo
The Supreme Court has directed that status quo be maintained in a dispute involving a 2.7-acre property on Chennai’s East Coast Road that is linked to the family of late actor Sridevi.
A Bench comprising Justices K V Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice to filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor. The court also encouraged the parties to attempt a settlement through mediation.
The case was brought before the Supreme Court by M C Sivakami and her brother M C Natarajan, who have claimed an interest in the property at Sholinganallur. The land had been sold to Sridevi’s family in 1988.
The petitioners challenged a Madras High Court decision that had rejected their suit. Their counsel argued that the trial court had initially found grounds for the case and that the claim was within the applicable limitation period.
They further contended that the High Court had gone into the merits of documentary material at a preliminary stage, including questions concerning legal heirship and the validity of an earlier marriage.
Representing the Kapoor family, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the property sale deed was executed on April 19, 1988. He pointed out that following Sridevi’s death in 2018, a mutation application was made in 2023, while the suit challenging the transaction was filed in 2025.
Singhvi argued that the petitioners had become adults decades earlier and that the legal challenge was therefore barred by limitation. He also alleged that important facts had not been disclosed, including issues surrounding an earlier marriage.
The petitioners’ lawyers, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate-on-record Balaji Srinivasan, maintained that at the stage of considering the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court should focus on the pleadings rather than determine the merits of the dispute.
The Supreme Court suggested that the parties attempt to resolve the matter through mediation and indicated that a retired High Court judge could be appointed as mediator.
The court ordered status quo concerning transfer, construction and possession of the disputed property and listed the matter for further hearing on December 18, when it will consider the progress of the mediation process.