‘Pursue mediation’: SC to Boney Kapoor, daughters on Sridevi's disputed Chennai land parcel

 The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed late Bollywood actress Sridevi’s family to pursue mediation for settlement of rival claims over a land parcel in Chennai that came into her possession under a 1988 sale deed.

After the actor’s death in 2018, her husband and Bollywood producer Boney Kapoor transferred the 2.7-acre plot in his name and in the names of his two daughters, Jhanvi and Khushi. However, three people challenged Kapoor’s ownership of the land, claiming to be legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran, who originally possessed the plot.

They filed a suit before a Chennai court in January 2025 to cancel the 1988 sale deed in favour of Sridevi. Kapoor sought dismissal of the suit but could not succeed before the trial court. Later, he approached the high court, which allowed his petition in April 2026. An appeal was filed against this verdict in the Supreme Court.

A bench of justices KV VIswanathan and Arun Palli, which took up the case, on Wednesday said, “We want to know if you can sit down and sort out the matter... We will give you a good mediator.”

“Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, we will appoint a retired high court judge. Parties are directed to get in touch with the mediator,” the bench said, posting the matter for hearing on December 18.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Kapoors while the legal heirs of Chandrasekaran were represented by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran along with advocate Balaji Srinivasan.

Singhvi said filing the suit was an abuse of law since Chandrasekaran was one of the sons of MC Sambanda Mudaliar who possessed over 206 acres of land in Sholinganallur village. Of this, he retained only 2.7 acres and released the remaining land in favour of the joint family. This 2.7-acre land parcel was enjoyed by the Mudaliar’s family. One of Mudaliar’s sons, Nithyanandam, later executed a sale deed in favour of Sridevi.

Kapoor questioned the status of the opposite side’s claims that they were the legal heir of Chandrasekaran.

It was further contended that Chandrasekaran did not contest the 1988 sale deed until his death in 1995 and that the suit, filed nearly 40 years after its execution, was barred by limitation.

The bench told Singhvi, “You do not dispute the fact that Chandrasekaran had ownership over the land in question. You also do not dispute that the plaintiffs are children of Chandrasekaran. The question is whether he had a one-fifth share over the land”.

In its April 20 verdict, the high court held that the persons who filed the suit were not the Class-1 legal heirs of Chandrasekaran and questioned why the suit was being filed after so many years. The high court observed that it was “totally unbelievable” that they came to know about the said land purchase in the name of Sridevi only in 2023 when the title was to be changed to the name of Kapoor and his daughters following the actor’s death.

In their appeal, the opposite side contended that the high court conducted a “mini trial” by accepting documents produced by Kapoor and raised doubts about the legal heir status of the suit claimants that should have been dealt with only during the suit proceedings.