The Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit claiming rights over late actress Sridevi’s Chennai property, ruling the plea legally unsustainable and barred by limitation, while granting relief to Boney Kapoor and daughters.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a civil suit filed by three individuals who claimed rights over a valuable property in Chennai, which was purchased in 1988 in the name of the late actress Sridevi and later devolved on her husband, Boney Kapoor, and her daughters, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor.
Justice T.V. Thamilselvi allowed a civil revision petition brought by the Kapoor family challenging an earlier order of a Chengalpattu court. The trial court had refused to reject the plaint filed by M.C. Sivakami, M.C. Natarajan, and Chandrabhanu. The High Court ultimately ruled that the suit was legally unsustainable and barred by limitation.
The dispute concerned about 2.70 acres of land located in Sholinganallur, Chennai. The plaintiffs claimed that the land originally belonged to M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar, who had purchased extensive parcels in the area in 1943. They asserted that the disputed land remained available for partition among the legal heirs of the family.
According to the plaintiffs, they were the legal heirs of late M.C. Chandrasekaran and therefore entitled to seek partition of the property. They also sought declarations that the 1988 sale deeds executed in favour of Sridevi, her mother, and her sister were null and void, alleging that the sellers had no valid title.
The plaintiffs further contended that they came to know of the alleged fraudulent transactions only in 2023, after a patta was issued in favour of Boney Kapoor and his daughters. On that basis, they filed the suit in 2025 seeking partition and other reliefs.
In response, the Kapoor family moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint itself, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and were not “Class I” legal heirs of Chandrasekaran. They also noted that Chandrasekaran never challenged the 1988 sale deeds during his lifetime and died in 1995.
However, the Chengalpattu trial court initially dismissed the Kapoor family’s application, observing that the matter involved disputed facts that would require examination during trial. That decision was challenged before the Madras High Court.
After reviewing the pleadings and the case record, the High Court found serious inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ version of events. It observed that the plaint did not disclose that Chandrasekaran’s first wife, Banumathi, was alive when he died. The Court also noted that while the plaintiffs relied on a legal heir certificate issued in 2005, the certificate had later been cancelled.
The High Court rejected the plaintiffs’ explanation that they learned of the irregularities only in 2023, holding it to be unconvincing.
The Court observed,
“Furthermore, it is totally unbelievable that they came to know about the said purchase in the name of Sreedevi only in the year 2023,”
The Court emphasised that the sale deeds had existed since 1988 and remained undisputed for decades, including during Chandrasekaran’s lifetime, as he had never raised any dispute over the transactions. It further held that the plaintiffs had suppressed material facts relating to Chandrasekaran’s first wife, Banumathi, who was alive at the time of Chandrasekaran’s death in 1995 and died only in 1998.
The High Court noted that although the plaintiffs obtained a legal heir certificate in 2005 claiming to be the only heirs, it was cancelled after the revenue authorities conducted an inquiry.
The Court said,
“So, the legitimate claim made by the plaintiffs is that they are legal heirs of deceased Chandrasekaran is also not sustainable in law,”
The High Court also accepted the Kapoor family’s argument that the plaintiffs did not meet the criteria of Class-I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore lacked locus standi to maintain the suit.
The Court further criticised the extreme delay in approaching the court nearly four decades after the sale deeds were executed. Relying on established principles regarding limitation, it reiterated that stale claims cannot be revived after unreasonable time.
The Court held,
“But nearly about 40 years later, they came forward with the suit to declare the sale deeds as such is barred by limitation,”
Justice Thamilselvi relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings dealing with limitation and the rejection of vexatious suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court underscored that frivolous litigation should not occupy judicial time when the pleadings themselves demonstrate that the claim is legally untenable.
Quoting a Supreme Court decision, the High Court observed:
“Where the plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, courts should exercise their power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and not waste judicial time on matters that are legally barred and frivolous.”
The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had earlier instituted litigation in 2007 involving partition claims over related properties, which had already failed and where courts had rejected their claim to the property rights of Chandrasekaran.
Concluding that the present proceedings were instituted only to unlawfully claim property belonging to the Kapoor family, the Court remarked:
“Only to grab the property, with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they came forward with the present suit for the relief of partition,”
Holding that the trial court had failed to appreciate the legal defects apparent on the face of the record, the High Court set aside the Chengalpattu court’s order, allowed the revision petition filed by Boney Kapoor and his daughters, and directed the rejection of the plaint.
Case Title: Boney Kapoor Vs C Sivakami
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
