What’s Brewing in the Kapoor Family? Supreme Court Takes on Sridevi's Property Dispute

Supreme Court Involvement in Kapoor Family Property Case

The Supreme Court of India has recently issued notices to renowned producer Boney Kapoor along with his daughters, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor, regarding a long-standing property dispute tied to the estate of the late actress Sridevi. This legal issue revolves around a 2.70-acre land parcel located at Survey No. 11B in Sholinganallur, Chennai, which was acquired in 1988 under the names of Rajeswari, Sheela, and Sridevi.

The petition was initiated by siblings M.C. Shivakami and M.C. Natarajan, who assert their status as legal heirs of the deceased M.C. Chandrasekharan. They are requesting a one-fifth share of the property, advocating for its division into five equal segments. Additionally, they have contested the sale deeds executed on April 19, 1988, along with all subsequent transactions related to the land. The Supreme Court bench, which includes Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Bhansali, has instructed both parties to maintain the current status of the property until the next hearing.

Overview of Legal Proceedings and High Court Decision

This case has escalated to the Supreme Court following a ruling by the Madras High Court on April 20, 2026, which favored the Kapoor family. The High Court accepted the Kapoor family's revision petition and dismissed the civil suit brought forth by the siblings, stating that the challenge to property transactions from 1988 was barred by the statute of limitations. The court also indicated that the claims made by the petitioners lacked a solid legal foundation based on the evidence available at that time.

Mediation and Next Steps in the Case

During the latest Supreme Court session, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Kapoor family, highlighted the considerable time lapse between the original transaction in 1988 and the lawsuit filed in 2025. He noted that the petitioners had reached adulthood by 1995 and 1999. In light of this, the Supreme Court has requested clarification on whether Chandrasekharan possessed a legitimate one-fifth share in the property and if there is any dispute regarding the petitioners' status as his biological children. The court has proposed that both parties engage in mediation facilitated by a retired High Court judge, with the next review of the matter scheduled for December 18.