Sridevi’s 2.70 Acres Land Claim: The Madras High Court has dismissed a civil suit filed by three individuals claiming rights over a Chennai property purchased in the name of late actress Sridevi in 1988. The property was later inherited by her husband, film producer Boney Kapoor, and their daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor. The case relates to 2.70 acres of land in Sholinganallur, Chennai. The plaintiffs, MC Sivakami, MC Natarajan and Chandrabhanu, claimed to be legal heirs of the late MC Chandrasekaran and sought partition of the property. They also challenged the validity of sale deeds executed in favour of Sridevi and her family, alleging fraud.
Allegations of Fraud and Discovery
The plaintiffs argued that the land originally belonged to MC Sambanda Mudaliar, who purchased it in 1943. They claimed they discovered the alleged irregularities only in 2023 after a patta was issued in the names of the Kapoor family.
Kapoors Challenge the Suit
Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. They argued that the claim was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs were not legal heirs entitled to the property dispute.
Trial Court vs High Court View
While the trial court earlier refused to dismiss the suit, saying it required detailed examination, the High Court disagreed. It observed that the case was filed nearly 40 years after the sale deeds and was clearly time-barred.
Court Questions Legal Heir Claim
The High Court also noted that the plaintiffs’ claim of being legal heirs was not sustainable. It pointed out that key facts, including the status of Chandrasekaran’s first wife, were not disclosed and that a legal heir certificate relied upon by the plaintiffs had already been cancelled.
Court Rejects “Discovery” Claim
The Court also dismissed the argument that the plaintiffs only learned about the property transaction in 2023, calling it “unbelievable” given that the sale deeds dated back to 1988.
The High Court concluded that the lawsuit was an abuse of legal process and aimed at grabbing property through a vexatious claim. It allowed the civil revision petition filed by the Kapoor family, set aside the trial court’s order, and rejected the plaint.
