The Indian Express ·
Crime, law and justice
Actor Sridevi property dispute: Supreme Court orders status quo in Chennai case
The Supreme Court seeks response from Sridevi's husband Boney Kapoor, and daughters Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor in the Chennai case.
The Supreme Court Wednesday ordered status quo in a dispute over the property of late actor Sridevi’s family in Chennai.
A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice to the late actor’s husband, filmmaker Boney Kapoor, and daughters, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor, on an appeal by M C Sivakami and her brother M C Natarajan challenging an April 20 Madras High Court order.
Sivakami, Natarajan and their mother Chandrabhanu had earlier approached the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu, seeking to declare as null and void the April 19, 1988, sale deeds by which Sridevi, her younger sister Sree Latha and their mother Rajeshwari bought the land from one M C Nithyananda Mudaliar.
Nithyananda Mudaliar, M C Chockalinga Mudaliar, and M C Chandrasekaran Mudaliar were the sons of M C Sambanda Mudaliar.
The plaintiffs contended that the property originally belonged to their paternal grandfather, Sambanda Mudaliar, and that they were entitled to a 1/5th share through Chandrasekaran Mudaliar, their father.
The Chengalpattu court issued summons to the Kapoors, after which they moved the Madras High Court. They contended that Chandrasekaran and Chandrabhanu were only live-in partners and that no court had ever dissolved his first marriage in June 1957 to one M C Banumathi.
As such, the plaintiffs—Sivakami, Natarajan, and their mother Chandrabhanu—were not the legal heirs of Chadrasekaran, the Kapoors contended.
The High Court set aside the trial court order and said, “Only to grab the property, with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they (Sivakami, Natarajan and Chandrabhanu) came forward with the present suit for the relief of partition, which is not permissible under law and on the face of record, it came to light that they came forward with the suit claiming right over the suit property, which is barred by limitation and the alleged cause of action is not sustainable one.”
The High Court also noted that the plaintiffs admitted during revenue proceedings that Banumathi, who was alive till 1998, was Chandrasekaran’s first wife and had no children out of wedlock, but they suppressed this fact.
The High Court also noted that the June 21, 2005, certificate the plaintiffs obtained as Chandrasekaran’s only legal heirs had already been cancelled.
