The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition seeking revival of a suit concerning a 4.7-acre property near East Coast Road in Chennai, which was acquired by late actor Sridevi and her sister.

A bench comprising Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Pillai issued notice to Sridevi's husband Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.

The Court also directed the parties to maintain status quo until the next date of hearing.

The petition has been filed by MC Sivakami and MC Natarajan, who have challenged the Madras High Court's decision to reject their suit. They claim a share in the property and have sought cancellation of four sale deeds through which Sridevi and her sister acquired the land.

According to the petitioners, the property originally belonged to their paternal grandfather and the sale deeds executed in relation to it were fraudulent.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court allowed an application filed by Boney Kapoor and his daughters seeking rejection of the plaint.

Before the trial court, Kapoor had invoked Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, along with Section 151 CPC, arguing that the suit was not legally maintainable. He also contended that the marriage of the petitioners' mother, Chandrabhanu, was void as it was solemnised during the subsistence of her first marriage, amounting to bigamy.

The trial court had rejected Kapoor's application, holding that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact which could be examined only during the trial.

Kapoor and his daughters then approached the Madras High Court. They argued that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts, including the alleged first marriage of their mother, and had thereby attempted to mislead the court.

It was also argued that the plaintiffs had previously raised a claim concerning the property, which had been rejected by the courts and ultimately affirmed by the Supreme Court. Kapoor submitted that these developments had not been disclosed in the present proceedings.

Justice TV Tamilselvi of the Madras High Court found merit in the objections and described the suit as a vexatious attempt to claim the property by abusing the legal process.

The High Court noted that the plaintiffs were aware of their mother's first marriage but had failed to disclose the fact in their plaint. It further observed that the relevant sale deeds had been executed in 1988 and were not challenged by Chandrasekaran during his lifetime.

The High Court also held that the plaintiffs were not Class-I legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran and therefore lacked the locus standi to maintain the suit.

On the issue of limitation, the High Court noted that the sale deeds had existed since 1988, making it difficult to accept the plaintiffs' claim that they became aware of them only in 2023. It therefore held that the suit, instituted nearly four decades after the execution of the sale deeds, was barred by limitation.

The High Court consequently allowed Kapoor's application and directed rejection of the plaint.

The matter is now before the Supreme Court, which has issued notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor and ordered maintenance of status quo pending further hearing.

Case: M.C. Sivakami and Anr. v. Boney Kapoor and Ors.
SLP(C) No. 23267/2026