Madras High Court Issues Interim Stay in Sridevi Property Dispute The Madras High Court has temporarily halted proceedings in a property dispute involving the late actress Sridevi, granting an interim stay to the case. The order was issued to pause legal actions in a civil court in Chengalpattu, where competing claims over a piece of land along Chennai's East Coast Road were being contested. The court’s decision provides relief to Sridevi’s family, who have been challenging the validity of the claims. The dispute centers on a 4.77-acre plot purchased by Sridevi in 1988 from the family of Sambandha Mudaliar. Court records indicate that the actress and her family have held and used the property for over three decades. The conflict emerged when three individuals, including Natarajan and Sivagami—identified as the son and daughter of Chandrasekaran Mudaliar’s second wife—obtained a legal heir certificate and filed a civil suit in Chengalpattu, asserting their right to a share of the property. Sridevi’s husband, film producer Boney Kapoor, along with their daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor, contested the suit in the Chengalpattu court, requesting its dismissal. However, the court rejected their plea, stating that issues of title and ownership could only be resolved after a full trial. The Kapoor family, dissatisfied with this ruling, appealed to the Madras High Court, arguing that the claimants had fraudulently secured the legal heir certificate through fabricated documents. In their petition, the Kapoors alleged that the claimants misrepresented facts to obtain the certificate from the Tambaram Tahsildar office in 2005.#janhvi_kapoor #madras_high_court #boney_kapoor #khushi_kapoor #sridevi
Boney Kapoor moves Madras High Court over Sridevi’s Chennai property dispute Boney Kapoor and his daughters Jahnvi Kapoor and Kushi Kapoor have filed a petition in the Madras High Court to challenge an order from the additional district court in Chengalpattu. The court had rejected their request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by three individuals claiming rights to a 4.77-acre plot on East Coast Road, which Sridevi purchased in 1988. The petition seeks to overturn the additional district court’s decision, which allowed the case to proceed despite the Kapoor family’s arguments. The petitioners assert that Sridevi acquired the land from Sambandam Mudaliyar in 1988 and has held possession of it since then. However, in 2025, a woman named Chandrababu, along with her children Sivakami and Natarajan, filed a suit against the Kapoor family. Chandrababu claimed to be the wife of Chandrasekharan, the son of Sambandam Mudaliyar, and therefore entitled to a share of the property. The court, however, did not dismiss the suit, despite Chandrababu’s status as the second wife of Chandrasekharan. Chandrasekharan was already married to another woman before Chandrababu, and their marriage is considered invalid under Indian law. The additional district court, presided over by Justice TV Thamilselvi, adjourned the case to March 26, 2026, pending further proceedings. The Kapoor family’s petition argues that the court’s refusal to dismiss the case undermines their legal claim to the property, which they assert was legally transferred to Sridevi. The dispute highlights the complexities of property rights in cases involving multiple claims and contested marital relationships. The Madras High Court’s ruling will determine whether the Kapoor family’s ownership of the land can be upheld against the claims of Chandrababu and her family.#madras_high_court #kushi_kapoor #boney_kapoor #jahnvi_kapoor #chandrababu
Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor, and Khushi Kapoor move Madras High Court over Sridevi’s Chennai property The Kapoor family has filed a petition with the Madras High Court challenging the rejection of a civil suit related to a 4.7-acre property on East Coast Road in Chennai, which was purchased by the late actress A. Sridevi in 1988. The dispute involves a claim by Chandrabanu and her two children, M.C. Sivakami and M.C. Natarajan, who allege they are entitled to a share in the property. The family of Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor, and Khushi Kapoor argues that Chandrabanu’s marriage to the original property owner, M.C. Chandrasekaran, was invalid due to bigamy, as Chandrasekaran was already married to M.C. Banumathi at the time. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi has scheduled a hearing for March 26, 2026, to review the Kapoor family’s joint civil revision petition. The court has stayed all further proceedings in the district court until then. The Kapoor family claims Chandrabanu knowingly misrepresented her marital status in the lawsuit, asserting that her marriage to Chandrasekaran on February 5, 1975, occurred during his first, legally valid marriage. They argue this omission constitutes fraud, undermining the plaintiffs’ claim. The Kapoor family also contends that the plaintiffs failed to disclose this information in their genealogy tree, which they say is a critical legal fact. They emphasize that the property has been in their possession for 38 years, and no disputes were raised during Chandrasekaran’s lifetime, who died in 1995. The family further notes that Sivakami and Natarajan reached majority in 1995 and 1999, respectively, and were unaware of the property’s alleged illegal transactions until 2023.#janhvi_kapoor #boney_kapoor #khushi_kapoor #chandrabanu #mc_chandrasekaran
Boney Kapoor And Daughters Seek Madras High Court To Reject Sridevi Property Suit Film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor, have filed a petition with the Madras High Court challenging an order from the Additional District Judge in Chengalpattu, which refused to dismiss a legal claim over the property of late actress Sridevi. The case centers on a 4.7-acre plot near the East Coast Road, which is the subject of a dispute between Kapoor’s family and MC Sivakami, her sister MC Natarajan, and their mother Chandrabhanu. The plaintiffs argue that the property, acquired by Sridevi and her sister through sale deeds in 1988, was obtained fraudulently and that they have a legal claim to it as descendants of Sridevi’s paternal grandfather. The petition, heard by Justice TV Thamilselvi on March 16, 2026, was scheduled for final resolution on March 26. The court extended an interim stay on the trial, pending further proceedings. Kapoor’s legal team argued that the plaintiffs’ claim lacked legal merit, citing several grounds. They contended that Chandrabhanu’s marriage to Sridevi’s brother was invalid due to bigamy, as it was conducted while her first marriage was still in effect. This, they claimed, rendered the marriage void ab initio, undermining the plaintiffs’ right to the property. Kapoor also asserted that the plaintiffs’ delay in filing the suit—37 years after the sale deeds were executed—barred the case under the Limitation Act. He further questioned the validity of the plaintiffs’ allegations, noting that the patta (land record) issued by the Tahsildar was obtained through proper verification of title documents. The plaintiffs, however, countered that Kapoor’s arguments were speculative and required resolution during the trial.#janhvi_kapoor #boney_kapoor #kushi_kapoor #mc_sivakami #mc_natarajan
