A nearly four-decade-old property transaction linked to late actor Sridevi has survived a fresh legal challenge, with the Madras High Court firmly shutting the door on a partition suit targeting film producer Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.
The dispute centred on 2.70 acres in Chennai’s Sholinganallur area, purchased through sale deeds executed in 1988 in the names of Sridevi, her mother and sister. After the actor’s death, ownership devolved upon Boney Kapoor and their daughters.
Three individuals — MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and Chandrabhanu — approached the court seeking partition rights over the land, claiming lineage from one MC Chandrasekaran. They also sought to invalidate the decades-old sale deeds, alleging the original vendors lacked legal title.
But Justice TV Thamilselvi found the challenge hopelessly delayed and legally unsustainable.
The Court noted that the plaintiffs surfaced only in 2025, long after the transactions had taken place and nearly thirty years after Chandrasekaran’s death in 1995. Their attempt to explain the delay — by claiming they discovered the alleged fraud only in 2023 after a patta was issued in the Kapoor family’s favour — failed to impress the Court.
The judge remarked that it was “totally unbelievable” that the plaintiffs became aware of the transactions only recently when the documents had existed openly since 1988.
The High Court also dismantled the plaintiffs’ claim of legal heirship. It observed that they had suppressed the fact that Chandrasekaran’s first wife, Banumathi, was alive at the time of his death. The legal heir certificate on which they relied had already been cancelled, further weakening their standing.
According to the Court, the plaintiffs lacked the legal right even to maintain the suit.
Earlier, a Chengalpattu trial court had refused to reject the plaint at the preliminary stage, holding that factual disputes required a full trial. Challenging that order, the Kapoor family moved the High Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The High Court overturned the trial court’s view and described the litigation as a misuse of judicial process aimed at wresting control of valuable land.
The Court ultimately concluded that the suit was a vexatious attempt to “grab the property” and formally rejected the plaint, bringing the challenge against the Kapoor family to an end.
