The legal dispute regarding a valuable land purchased by late Bollywood superstar actress Sridevi in Chennai about 38 years ago has once again reached the doorstep of the country's biggest court. The Supreme Court has issued a notice to film producer Boney Kapoor and his two daughters – actresses Jhanvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor and sought their reply. The apex court has given a strict order to maintain the status quo on this 2.70 acre land of Sholinganallur located on East Coast Road (ECR), Chennai, till the next hearing, under which a complete ban has been placed on transfer of land, any kind of construction and change in possession. Justice K.V. While hearing the case, a bench of Justice Vishwanathan and Justice Arun Palli suggested to both the parties that this decades-old dispute should be resolved amicably through mediation instead of a long legal tussle. For this, the Supreme Court has indicated to appoint a retired High Court judge as an arbitrator and has fixed the next hearing of the case for December 18. What is the whole controversy of 2.70 acres of land: Why were questions raised on the sale deed of 1988? The land in question is a plot of about 2.70 acres located under survey number 1/1B in Sholinganallur, a posh area of Chennai. This land was purchased by late actress Sridevi along with her mother Rajeshwari and sister Srilata on 19 April 1988. After Sridevi's sudden demise in 2018, her legal heirs—husband Boney Kapoor, daughter Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor filed an application to transfer this land in their name in the revenue records (Patta) in the year 2023. After this step, members of the original family that sold the land lodged an objection and challenged it in the court. Petitioner M.C. Sivakami and his brother M.C. Natarajan claims that he is the former co-owner of the land, late M.C. Chandrasekaran's legitimate legal heirs. They allege that when this land was sold in 1988, their rights were ignored. The petitioners have demanded their 1/5th share by dividing the property into five equal parts and have sought to declare the sale deed of 1988 as null and void. Why did Madras High Court dismiss the case? This legal dispute started from the trial court located in Chengalpattu. The trial court had initially rejected the Kapoor family's plea seeking quashing of the case prima facie. The trial court believed that the facts of the case should be investigated during the trial. Boney Kapoor and his daughters approached the Madras High Court against this. On April 20, a single bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit completely, ruling in favor of the Kapoor family. The High Court said in its decision that: The claim of the petitioners that they came to know about the deal made in 1988 after almost 40 years i.e. in 2023 is absolutely unbelievable. The land was sold in 1988 and the petitioners had attained majority in 1995 and 1999, but they filed the case in 2025. Under the Law of Limitation, a registered sale deed cannot be challenged after so many decades. The petitioners had tried to mislead the court by hiding the earlier filed case and family facts. Challenging this order of the High Court, Shivakami and his brother filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. Heated debate in the Supreme Court: Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented the side of the Kapoor family. The country's well-known senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of the Kapoor family in the Supreme Court, lodged a strong protest. Singhvi argued that this case is completely outside the statute of limitations and is a blatant abuse of the judicial process. He said that the sale deed is dated 19 April 1988. After Sridevi's death, only the application for lease transfer was made. After lapse of more than 30 years, the petitioners want to get the legal document of 1988 canceled only on the basis of that lease application, which should not be allowed. On the other hand, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the High Court, while deciding the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), conducted a 'mini-trial' and hastily concluded on the validity of the heirship of the petitioners, which could have been decided only after a regular trial. Why did the Supreme Court suggest the path of mediation? After hearing the arguments of both the parties during the hearing, the bench acknowledged that in such long family and property disputes, many generations get entangled in litigation. The bench told both the parties that it would be better if they sit face to face under the supervision of a former High Court judge and find an honorable and amicable solution. The court made it clear that until the mediation process is completed and the report is presented on December 18, the status quo will remain on any kind of purchase, sale or construction work on the disputed land.
