In a notable legal development, Boney Kapoor, alongside his daughters Janhvi and Khushi, has escalated their ongoing battle over a valuable 4.7-acre property owned by the late iconic actress Sridevi. The Kapoor family has approached the Madras High Court after an additional district court in Chengalpattu declined to dismiss a civil suit concerning the land, which has been embroiled in controversy for nearly a year. This high-profile case has drawn significant public and media attention, reflecting the complexities surrounding celebrity estates and inherited assets.
The roots of the dispute trace back to 2025 when Boney Kapoor first contested claims made by three individuals—MC Sivakami, her sister MC Natarajan, and their mother Chandrabhanu—who assert rights over part of the land acquired by Sridevi. The case has seen various legal maneuvers, culminating in a recent hearing where Justice TV Thamilselvi agreed to hear the Kapoor family's petition, temporarily halting trial proceedings. The plaintiffs seek to invalidate four sale deeds related to the property, alleging that the original transactions were tainted by fraud and misrepresentation.
Understanding the gravity of the situation requires delving into the history of the land itself, which Sridevi purchased in 1988. The Kapoor family's petition argues that the land was initially owned by M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar and had been legally parceled out among family members in 1960. The Kapoors contend that the plaintiffs have failed to disclose vital information about Chandrabanu's marriage to M.C. Chandrasekaran, arguing that it was invalid due to prior legal constraints against bigamy. This omission, they claim, constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, potentially undermining the very foundation of the plaintiffs' claims.
Compounding the drama, the Kapoor family asserts they have possessed the property for nearly four decades, raising questions about the timing of the plaintiffs' lawsuit, which emerged only in 2025. They point out that no objections were raised during the lifetime of M.C. Chandrasekaran, who died in 1995, and that the plaintiffs had reached adulthood long before initiating their claims. The plaintiffs, however, counter that the 1988 sale deeds are inherently flawed and that their discovery of the land's disputed status—and its alleged illegal transactions—came to light only recently. As this legal saga unfolds, the implications of the case extend far beyond personal grievances, spotlighting the intricate dynamics of inheritance and ownership within the realm of celebrity estates.
