Sridevi and Boney Kapoor File Photo Credit: AFP
India

Supreme Court orders status quo in Sridevi family’s Chennai property dispute

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Kapoor family, said the sale deed for the land was executed on April 19, 1988.

Suchitra Kalyan Mohanty

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered status quo in a dispute over a Chennai property linked to late Bollywood actor Sridevi’s family and issued notice to her husband, film producer and director Boney Kapoor, and daughters Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor. The court also asked the parties to explore a settlement through mediation.

A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli heard a plea filed by M C Sivakami and her brother MC Natarajan, who claimed a share in 2.7 acres of land on ECR in Sholinganallur that was sold to Sridevi’s family in 1988.

Advocate-on-Record Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for the petitioners, said the Supreme Court had issued notice and ordered status quo in the matter. "The case referred for mediation," he added.

Sivakami challenged a Madras High Court order dismissing her suit. She argued that the trial court had found a prima facie cause of action and that the claim was within the limitation period. She contended that the High Court later examined the documents in detail at the preliminary stage, including whether she was a legal heir and whether the first marriage was legally valid.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Kapoor family, said the sale deed for the land was executed on April 19, 1988. He said that after Sridevi’s death in 2018, an application for mutation was filed in 2023 and the suit was filed in 2025 to challenge the transaction nearly four decades later.

"The petitioners became adults 1995 and 1999, suit 2025 barred by limitation," he added.

Singhvi also submitted that the petitioner had suppressed vital facts, including that the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage was contracted on February 5, 1975, which he said constituted fraud.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran and AOR Srinivasan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that at the initial stage the trial court was required to examine only the averments made in the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and not the merits of the case.

The Bench said, "We wanted to know if you people were prepared to sit together and sort it out. We will give you good mediator. Without prejudice to rights, we will appoint retired High Court judge."

The court fixed the matter for further hearing on December 18 to consider the progress of mediation and ordered status quo on transfer, construction and possession.

Cristiano Ronaldo retires from Portuguese national team

‘You don’t allow Parliament to run’: Amit Shah accuses Rahul of making disruptions Congress culture

At least two dead, several feared trapped as three-storey building collapses in Delhi's Chawri Bazaar

'At any cost': Ousted Bangladesh PM Hasina reiterates December return plan

24-hour deadline to produce arrested person before magistrate begins from detention, not formal arrest: SC