Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Mediation in Sridevi Property Dispute

The Supreme Court on September 16, 2026, ordered a status quo on a property dispute involving late actor Sridevi's estate in Chennai while directing the parties to pursue mediation. A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice to Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor on an appeal filed by M C Sivakami and her brother M C Natarajan, challenging an April 20, 2026, Madras High Court order that rejected the siblings' suit.

The dispute centers on a 2.7-acre plot (Survey No. 1/1B) in Sholinganallur, Chennai, purchased on April 19, 1988, through four sale deeds by Sridevi, her mother Rajeshwari, and her sister Sree Latha from M C Nithyananda Mudaliar. Sivakami and Natarajan, along with their mother Chandrabhanu, claim they are legal heirs of M C Chandrasekaran Mudaliar and are entitled to a one-fifth share of the property. They contend that the 1988 sale deeds should be declared void and seek partition of the land. The Kapoor family argues the purchase was lawful and that Sridevi's family has maintained open and continuous possession for nearly four decades.

The Madras High Court rejected the plaintiffs' suit on multiple grounds, including that the claim was barred by limitation—nearly 40 years after the 1988 transaction—and that the plaintiffs were not legal heirs. The High Court noted that Chandrasekaran's first marriage to M C Banumathi in 1957 was never dissolved, and that Banumathi lived until 1998, meaning Chandrabhanu and her children lacked Class-I heirship status. The court also found that the plaintiffs had suppressed this fact and that a 2005 certificate naming them as sole legal heirs had been cancelled.

The Supreme Court directed both parties to maintain the current status of the land and proposed appointment of a retired High Court judge as mediator. The bench asked all parties to explore settlement possibilities and scheduled the next hearing for December 18, 2026, to review mediation progress. The court has not ruled on the merits of the competing claims.