Sridevi Chennai Property Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Mediation for Kapoor Family

The Supreme Court of India has intervened in a long-standing legal battle over a 2.70-acre plot of land in Chennai originally purchased by the late actress Sridevi. On September 16, 2026, a bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai issued notices to producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor, directing all parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property [1].

Supreme Court's Directive and Mediation Process

Rather than issuing an immediate judgment, the Apex Court has suggested that the dispute be resolved through mediation. To ensure a fair process, the court proposed that a retired High Court judge oversee the mediation proceedings [2]. This move aims to find an amicable settlement between the Kapoor family and the petitioners, M.C. Sivakami and M.C. Natarajan.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for December 18, 2026, to review the progress of the mediation and the current status of the property [1].

Core of the Dispute: Heirship vs. Limitation

The conflict centers on land located at Survey No. 1/1B in Sholinganallur, Chennai. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the late M.C. Chandrasekaran, are seeking a one-fifth share of the property. They have challenged the validity of sale deeds executed on April 19, 1988, in favor of Sridevi, Rajeshwari, and Sreelatha [1].

The Madras High Court Ruling

Before reaching the Supreme Court, the case was heard by the Madras High Court. On April 20, 2026, Justice T.V. Thamilselvi dismissed the civil suit filed by the siblings. The High Court ruled that the challenge to transactions from 1988 was "barred by limitation," meaning the legal window to contest the sale had long expired [1]. The court noted that the petitioners' claim of discovering the transaction only in 2023 lacked sufficient evidence, especially since they had filed a separate suit for family assets back in 2007.

Arguments from Both Sides

Party	Primary Argument
Petitioners	Argue that the High Court prematurely dismissed the case without properly examining if they are legitimate legal heirs [1].
Kapoor Family	Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the suit was filed in 2025 for a 1988 transaction, far exceeding the permissible limitation period [1].

The Supreme Court is now seeking specific clarity on whether M.C. Chandrasekaran actually held a one-fifth share in the property and whether the petitioners are indeed his biological children [1].