The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor on a petition seeking to revive a property dispute over a 2.70-acre parcel of land in Chennai that was purchased by late actress Sridevi and her family. The court also directed all parties to maintain status quo until the next date of hearing.

The Bench and Its Directions

A Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Pillai issued the notice on the petition filed by M.C. Sivakami and her brother M.C. Natarajan, who have claimed a share in the disputed property. The Justice Viswanathan-led Bench further indicated that the parties should explore an amicable resolution through mediation, and stated that a retired High Court judge would be appointed as mediator. The matter has been posted for 18 December to assess the progress of mediation proceedings.

What the Dispute Is About

The litigation centres on 2.70 acres of land in Survey No. 1/1B at Sholinganallur, Chennai. According to pleadings recorded by the Madras High Court, the petitioners — Sivakami and Natarajan — claim to be legal heirs of the late M.C. Chandrasekaran and have sought partition of the property into five equal shares, claiming a 1/5th share each. They also sought declarations that sale deeds dated 19 April 1988, executed in favour of Rajeshwari, Sreelatha, and Sridevi, as well as subsequent transactions concerning the property, were null and void.

The dispute has its roots in a suit originally filed before the Additional District Judge at Chengalpattu. The trial court had initially declined to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that averments in the plaint needed to be considered at that stage and that disputed questions could be examined during trial.

How the Madras High Court Ruled

The Madras High Court overturned the trial court's order on 20 April 2026. A single-judge Bench of Justice T.V. Thamilselvi held that the plaintiffs' claim — that they came to know about the disputed transaction only in 2023 — did not hold up on the material placed before the court. The High Court concluded that the suit challenging the 1988 transactions was barred by limitation and ordered rejection of the plaint. Notably, the High Court also recorded that the petitioners had earlier instituted another suit in 2007 claiming a 1/5th share in family properties, which had been dismissed.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the High Court had improperly ventured into questions concerning the claimants' legal-heir status and the validity of Chandrasekaran's alleged second marriage while deciding whether the plaint itself was liable to be rejected — a threshold question that should not have involved such an inquiry.

Appearing for the Kapoor family, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the sale transaction dates back to 19 April 1988, while the present suit was instituted only in 2025. He contended that the petitioners had attained majority in 1995 and 1999 respectively, making the claim significantly time-barred. During the hearing, the Supreme Court also sought clarification on whether M.C. Chandrasekaran held a 1/5th share in the property and whether there was any dispute regarding the petitioners being his children.

What Happens Next

With the Supreme Court having directed status quo and nudged both sides toward mediation, the immediate legal battle shifts to whether the parties can reach a negotiated settlement before 18 December. If mediation fails, the apex court will take up the substantive question of whether the Madras High Court correctly applied the limitation bar at the plaint-rejection stage — a question with implications beyond this case for how courts weigh limitation against the right to a full trial.