The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step in a prolonged property dispute involving renowned film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor. On Wednesday, the Court opted for mediation, aiming to resolve the contention surrounding a 2.7-acre plot in Chennai, originally purchased by the late actor Sridevi and her family in April 1988 [MC Sivakami v. Boney Kapoor].
A Bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli suggested mediation as a means to amicably settle the family dispute, which has been lingering through the courts. The Bench expressed a preference for mediation over litigation, noting, “We wanted to know if you people were prepared to sit together and sort it out. We will give you a good mediator. Go and come back. We will appoint a retired High Court judge.”
Background of the Dispute
The contested land is located in Sholinganallur, Chennai, and was initially bought by Sridevi, her mother, and her sister. Following Sridevi’s passing, her husband Boney Kapoor, along with their daughters, sought to transfer the land’s revenue patta to their names in 2023. However, in 2025, MC Sivakami and others, claiming descent from MC Chandrasekaran, one of the land’s original co-owners, filed a suit. They demanded a 1/5th share of the land and sought to nullify the 1988 sale deeds.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of Sivakami, but the decision was overturned by the High Court upon appeal from the Kapoor family. Sivakami subsequently approached the Supreme Court, seeking redress.
Arguments Presented
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Kapoor family, argued that the lawsuit was barred by limitation and constituted an abuse of the judicial process. He stated, “The sale deed is of 1988. Sridevi died, so I sought a name [change in patta] in 2023. It is barred by limitation completely. 19.04.1988 is my sale deed. The petitioners became majors in 1995 and 1999, and the suit is filed in 2025. The entire purpose is to set aside my sale deed after 30 years. Change of patta was in 2023 because Sridevi died. That’s all. They now latch on to that. It’s a complete abuse.”
More Read
Conversely, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Sivakami, argued that the trial court had correctly refused to reject the plaint outright and criticized the High Court for conducting what he termed a “mini-trial” while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). He asserted, “The trial court did what it was required to do. It looks at the plaint averment… and was prima facie satisfied that I had come within limitation. The High Court conducted a mini-trial. Looked at documents produced by them—whether I am a legal heir or not, whether the previous wife was legitimately married or not.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court expressed caution over the High Court’s methodology, warning that easily accepting preliminary rejections could establish an unfavorable precedent. “We can also knock out every suit like this,” the Court remarked.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the parties to engage in court-monitored mediation, appointing a retired High Court judge as a mediator. The Court ordered that the status quo be maintained until the next hearing date. “Parties to explore if it can be resolved through mediation. Considering the nature of the dispute, we appoint a retired High Court judge… Parties to get in touch with the mediator. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be status quo,” the Court instructed.
