India Today ·
Crime, law and justice
Sridevi’s Chennai property row: SC orders status quo, issues notice to Kapoor family
The Supreme Court ordered status quo in the dispute over Sridevi's Chennai property and issued notices to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor. The bench also suggested mediation and kept restrictions on transfer, construction and possession changes in place till the next hearing on December 18.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to actor Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor on a plea seeking revival of a suit claiming rights over late actor Sridevi's property near Chennai's East Coast Road (ECR).
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Pillai directed the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property until the next hearing. The court also suggested mediation to resolve the dispute.
The petition has been filed by MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan, who have challenged a Madras High Court order that rejected their suit following a plea by Boney Kapoor, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor.
The next hearing in the Supreme Court has been scheduled for December 18. Until then, the status quo order will cover matters including transfer, construction and possession of the property.
WHAT IS THE PROPERTY DISPUTE?
The dispute concerns immovable property belonging to the family of MC Chandrasekaran, located on Chennai's ECR.
The petitioners had approached the courts claiming rights over the property. However, Boney Kapoor and his daughters contested the claim and sought rejection of the suit.
According to details reported by LiveLaw, a trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint at the preliminary stage. The judge held that the issues raised by Kapoor involved disputed questions of fact that could be examined during the trial.
Kapoor and his daughters subsequently challenged that decision before the Madras High Court.
WHY DID MADRAS HC REJECT THE SUIT?
Before the High Court, Kapoor argued that the petitioners had suppressed material facts relating to an earlier claim over the property.
He contended that the earlier claim had already been rejected by a court and the decision had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. Kapoor argued that withholding these facts amounted to misleading the court and was an attempt to obtain a favourable order.
Justice TV Tamilselvi of the Madras High Court accepted Kapoor's arguments and described the claim as "vexatious", according to LiveLaw.
The High Court noted that the petitioners were aware of their father's first marriage but had not disclosed the fact in their plaint. It also noted that the relevant sale deed had been executed in 1988 and was not challenged by Chandrasekaran during his lifetime.
The Madras High Court also held that the petitioners were not Class-I legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran and therefore lacked the locus standi to pursue the suit.
The court further observed that the sale deeds had existed since 1988 and found it difficult to accept the claim that the petitioners became aware of them only in 2023.
Since the suit was instituted nearly 40 years after the execution of the sale deeds, the High Court held that the claim was barred by limitation. It consequently allowed Kapoor's plea seeking rejection of the plaint.
The Supreme Court is now hearing the petition challenging the High Court's decision to reject the suit at the preliminary stage.
The petitioners are seeking revival of their claim over the property, while the Kapoor family had argued before the High Court that the suit was legally untenable because of the earlier proceedings, suppression of material facts and the delay in raising the claim.
The Supreme Court's notice seeks the response of Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor before the matter is considered further. The court has also kept the property protected through its status quo order until the next hearing.