Madras High Court rejects property suit against Boney, Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor over Sridevi's land

The Madras High Court recently rejected a civil suit filed by three persons staking rights in Chennai property purchased in the name of late actress Sridevi in 1988 and bequeathed to her husband, film producer Boney Kapoor and their daughters, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor [Boney Kapoor Vs C Sivakami].

Justice TV Thamilselvi has allowed a civil revision petition filed by Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor to set aside a Chengalpattu court's refusal to reject the plaint filed by MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and Chandrabhanu.

The High Court noted that the suit was filed nearly 40 years after the 1988 sale deeds. It was, therefore, also barred by limitation. The High Court further ruled that the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the case.

The dispute concerned 2.70 acres of land at Sholinganallur in Chennai.

The plaintiffs, MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and Chandrabhanu, claimed to be legal heirs of late MC Chandrasekaran and sought the partition of the property.

They also sought declarations that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sridevi, her mother and sister were null and void.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property originally belonged to MC Sambanda Mudaliar, who had purchased large extents of land at Sholinganallur in 1943.

They claimed that the 2.70 acres had been retained by him and later remained available for partition among his heirs.

They further alleged that sale deeds had been executed in favour of Sridevi and her family members, though the sellers had no title to the land.

According to them, they came to know about the alleged fraud only in 2023, when a patta was issued in favour of Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.

Kapoor and his daughters filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the rejection of the plaint filed by Sivakami, Natarajan and Chandrabhanu.

The Kapoors argued that the plaintiffs were not Class I legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran and that their claim was barred by limitation.

They also contended that Chandrasekaran himself had never challenged the 1988 sale deeds during his lifetime. The Kapoors further pointed out that Chandrasekaran died in 1995, while the suit was filed only in 2025.

The trial court, however, dismissed the application filed by the Kapoors to dismiss the civil suit, opining that the disputed questions of fact would have to be decided at trial.

The High Court, however, disagreed.

It noted that the plaintiffs had not disclosed in the plaint that Chandrasekaran’s first wife, Banumathi, was alive when he died.

The Court found that while the plaintiffs claimed to be the only legal heirs of Chandrasekaran on the basis of a legal heir certificate issued in 2005, that certificate had since been cancelled.

“So, the legitimate claim made by the plaintiffs is that they are legal heirs of deceased Chandrasekaran is also not sustainable in law,” the Court said.

On limitation, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that they came to know about the purchase in Sridevi’s name only in 2023.

“Furthermore, it is totally unbelievable that they came to know about the said purchase in the name of Sreedevi only in the year 2023,” the Court observed.

It noted that the sale deeds had stood in favour of Sridevi from 1988 and that, after her death, Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor became the lawful owners of the property.

The High Court concluded that the suit against the Kapoors was a vexatious claim and an abuse of process.

“Only to grab the property, with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they came forward with the present suit for the relief of partition,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the civil revision petition filed by the Kapoors, set aside the trial court’s order and rejected the plaint.

Advocate P Subba Reddy appeared for Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.

Advocate M Balasubramanian appeared for MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and Chandrabhanu.

[Read Judgment]