Boney Kapoor and the Sridevi Chennai Land Dispute: Why the Supreme Court Stepped In

Boney Kapoor is trending in India because of a court case, not a film. On 16 September 2026, the Supreme Court issued notices to the producer and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor over a 2.70-acre plot in Chennai that the late actor Sridevi's family bought in 1988. The bench ordered both sides to leave the property untouched, suggested mediation and fixed 18 December 2026 as the next date. Importantly, no court has ruled on who owns the land — the case has only just been reopened at the top court, as reported by The Times of India and Bar and Bench.

What the Supreme Court did on 16 September 2026

Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai heard an appeal by M.C. Sivakami and her brother M.C. Natarajan — the case is titled MC Sivakami v. Boney Kapoor. The siblings say they are legal heirs of the late M.C. Chandrasekaran and want the Sholinganallur property (Survey No. 1/1B) split into five equal shares, with one-fifth going to them. They also want the sale deeds of 19 April 1988 — executed in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha and Sridevi — declared invalid.

The bench issued notice to the Kapoor family, directed that the status quo be maintained, and proposed that a retired High Court judge mediate. It will check the mediation's progress on 18 December 2026. The judges also asked for clarity on two points: did Chandrasekaran genuinely hold a one-fifth share, and is there any real dispute about the petitioners being his biological children?

Why the Madras High Court had thrown the suit out

The siblings reached the Supreme Court because they lost in the Madras High Court on 20 April 2026. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held that a suit filed in 2025 cannot challenge transactions from 1988 — it is barred by limitation, the legal deadline for bringing claims. The judge also found no evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that they discovered the transaction only in 2023, and noted that a similar 2007 suit by the same plaintiffs had already been dismissed.

Earlier, a trial court in Chengalpattu had refused to reject the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reasoning that its contents should be tested at trial. The High Court reversed that view, and it is that reversal the siblings are now challenging.

The core arguments on each side

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the Kapoor family, stressed the timeline: the sale happened in 1988, the petitioners came of age in 1995 and 1999, yet the suit arrived only in 2025 — far beyond the limitation period.

The petitioners' counsel argued the High Court overstepped its role. At the plaint-rejection stage, a court should only decide whether the case can proceed at all — not settle complex questions like the validity of Chandrasekaran's alleged second marriage or the claimants' legitimacy as heirs.

What status quo and mediation mean here

Status quo is a freeze: neither side may sell, mortgage, build on or otherwise alter the land while the case is pending. It protects the property, not either party's claim. Mediation is a structured negotiation led by a neutral person — here, possibly a retired High Court judge — aimed at a settlement both families can accept. If talks fail, the Supreme Court will decide the appeal on merits, starting with the limitation question that decided the High Court round.

For now, the practical position is simple: the Kapoor family retains the High Court victory in its favour, but the Supreme Court's notice keeps the dispute alive. The next milestone is the 18 December 2026 hearing.