The Supreme Court has issued notices to family members of late actress Sridevi including film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor, in connection with a plea seeking to reopen a long-running property dispute involving land purchased by late actress Sridevi and her family in Chennai.
The disputed property measures 2.70 acres.
Sridevi property dispute: Where is the disputed Chennai land located?
The property at the centre of the dispute is located at Survey No. 1/1B in Sholinganallur, Chennai.
How the property dispute began
The legal dispute originated with a suit filed before the Additional District Judge in Chengalpattu. The trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the allegations and claims in the plaint required examination during the trial rather than at the preliminary stage.
The Madras High Court later overturned that decision in its April 20, 2026 ruling.
Read more: Personality rights going out of hand, says Delhi High Court while hearing Janhvi Kapoor's plea
Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, sitting on a single-judge bench, held that the petitioners’ claim that they had discovered the disputed transaction only in 2023 was not supported by the evidence on record.
The High Court concluded that the challenge to the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation and ordered rejection of the plaint.
The court also noted that the same plaintiffs had previously filed a suit in 2007 seeking a one-fifth share in family assets. That suit had been dismissed.
What did SC order?
According to media reports, a bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai heard a petition filed by M.C. Sivakami and her brother, M.C. Natarajan, who have claimed a share in the disputed property.
The Supreme Court directed both parties to maintain the status quo with respect to the property until the next hearing. The bench also suggested that the dispute be taken up for mediation and proposed the appointment of a retired High Court judge to oversee the process.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on December 18, when the court is expected to review the progress of the mediation.
Madras High Court had ruled in favour of Kapoor family
The Sivakami siblings moved the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court, in its April 20 ruling, allowed the Kapoor family’s revision petition and rejected the civil suit filed by the siblings.
The High Court held that the challenge to property transactions dating back to 1988 was barred by limitation. It also found that the claims made by the petitioners did not have sufficient legal basis based on the material presented before the court.
What is the Chennai property dispute?
The property at the centre of the dispute is located at Survey No. 1/1B in Sholinganallur, Chennai.
According to the Madras High Court records, the petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of late M.C. Chandrasekaran and sought partition of the property into five equal shares, claiming a one-fifth share for themselves.
They also sought to have sale deeds executed on April 19, 1988, in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi declared invalid, along with subsequent transactions involving the property.
What was argued before the Supreme Court?
Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the High Court had dealt with several complex issues, including whether the petitioners were legitimate legal heirs and the validity of Chandrasekaran’s alleged second marriage.
The petitioners’ side argued that such issues should not have been conclusively examined at the stage of deciding whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Kapoor family, pointed to the considerable delay between the original transaction and the filing of the present suit. He noted that the property transaction dates back to 1988, while the current suit was filed only in 2025.
Singhvi also submitted that the petitioners had attained adulthood in 1995 and 1999, respectively, and argued that the suit was therefore barred by the applicable limitation period.
The Supreme Court also sought clarification on whether Chandrasekaran had a one-fifth share in the property and whether there was any dispute over the petitioners being his biological children.
