Sridevi land dispute: Supreme Court sends Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor’s plea to mediation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred a long-standing property dispute involving film producer Boney Kapoor and actors Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor to mediation, while directing the parties to maintain status quo on a 2.7-acre plot of land in Chennai [MC Sivakami v. Boney Kapoor].

A Bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli suggested that the family dispute be resolved amicably rather than through prolonged litigation.

"We wanted to know if you people were prepared to sit together and sort it out. We will give you a good mediator. Go and come back. We will appoint a retired High Court judge," the Court remarked.

The dispute pertains to 2.7 acres of land located in Sholinganallur, Chennai, which was purchased in April 1988 by late actor Sridevi along with her mother and sister. Following Sridevi's death, her legal heirs - husband Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor - applied for a revenue patta transfer in their names in 2023.

However, a suit was filed in 2025 by MC Sivakami and others, claiming to be the children of late MC Chandrasekaran, one of the original co-owners of the land. They sought a 1/5th share in the property and prayed for the 1988 sale deeds to be declared null and void.

The trial court granted a decree in their favour, but the High Court rejected it in an appeal filed by the Kapoors.

Sivakami then approached the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the Kapoor family, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi today argued that the suit was completely barred by limitation and amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.

"The sale deed is of 1988. Sridevi died, so I sought a name [change in patta] in 2023. It is barred by limitation completely. 19.04.1988 is my sale deed. The petitioners became majors in 1995 and 1999, and the suit is filed in 2025. The entire purpose is to set aside my sale deed after 30 years. Change of patta was in 2023 because Sridevi died. That’s all. They now latch on to that. It’s a complete abuse," Singhvi contended.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Sivakami, on the other hand, argued that the trial court had rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold, but the High Court erred by conducting a "mini-trial" while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

"The trial court did what it was required to do. It looks at the plaint averment... and was prima facie satisfied that I had come within limitation. The High Court conducted a mini-trial. Looked at documents produced by them—whether I am a legal heir or not, whether the previous wife was legitimately married or not," he argued.

Expressing caution over the High Court’s approach, the Bench orally observed that accepting such preliminary rejections easily could set a troubling precedent.

"We can also knock out every suit like this," the Court quipped.

When the Court inquired about the underlying family shares of MC Chandrasekaran, Singhvi clarified that any 1/5th share would revert to the legitimate first wife’s estate, adding that the present claimants were attempting to restart litigation that was already settled decades ago.

After hearing both sides, the top court ultimately directed the parties to explore an amicable settlement through court-monitored mediation.

"Parties to explore if it can be resolved through mediation. Considering the nature of the dispute, we appoint a retired High Court judge... Parties to get in touch with the mediator. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be status quo," the Court ordered.

[Read Live Coverage]