📌 Key Points
- Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi & Khushi seek to protect Sridevi’s Chennai property.
- A woman and her children claim a share, alleging fraudulent sale deeds.
- Boney Kapoor argues the claim is unsustainable and barred by limitation.
- The plaintiffs assert no time limit exists for partition suits on undivided property.
Boney Kapoor, along with daughters Janhvi and Khushi, have turned to the Madras High Court to challenge a claim regarding Sridevi’s Chennai property. The family is contesting a lawsuit that alleges entitlement to a share of the land.
Kapoor Family Fights for Sridevi’s Property
Producer Boney Kapoor and his actor-daughters Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor have approached the Madras High Court to protect the Chennai property, which belonged to late actor Sridevi. As per the report by Live Law, the three of them have sought the legal route against an order of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, refusing to reject a plaint filed in connection with the late actor Sridevi’s property near the East Coast Road.
A woman named Chandrabanu and her two children, M.C. Sivakami and M.C. Natarajan, had filed the suit claiming they were entitled to a share in the Chennai property. They are claiming a share in the land and seeking to declare 4 sale deeds, through which Sridevi and her sister had acquired the 4.7-acre property, as null and void. It was claimed that the sale deeds were fraudulent and that they had a share in the property since it belonged to their paternal grandfather.
Chandrabanu’s Family Claims Share in Chennai Land
It was reported that last year Boney filed a legal plea detailing what he describes as an attempted “fraud” by the trio. He had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (b) and Section 151 of CPC. He claimed that the plaintiffs’ claim was not legally sustainable and the marriage of Chanrabhanu itself was void as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, thus rendering it void ab initio under the law, constituting an act of bigamy. He went on to add that suppression of a vital and legally relevant fact constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
Boney Kapoor Alleges Fraud, Challenges Claim
He had also questioned the filing of the plaint after 37 years, challenging the deeds of 1988, making the plaint barred by limitation. The plaintiff had argued that there was no time limit for filing a suit for partition in respect of immovable property which remained undivided.
The Madras High Court will now need to consider the arguments from both sides to determine the validity of the property claim against Sridevi’s estate. The legal battle adds another layer to the Sridevi’s lasting legacy.
