The Supreme Court has appointed a retired High Court judge as mediator in the dispute over late actor Sridevi’s 2.7-acre property on Chennai’s East Coast Road, directing her family and the relatives claiming ownership to attempt a negotiated settlement. The court has adjourned the matter to December 18 and said that notices would be issued to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor if no settlement is reached.
The property was purchased by Sridevi in 1988 from the family of Sambandha Mudaliar, according to the report. Her family has remained in possession of the land for 37 years. The dispute began when M.C. Natarajan and M.C. Sivagami, heirs of Sambandha Mudaliar’s son Chandra Sekaran, filed a civil suit in the Chengalpattu Additional Sessions Court claiming rights over the property.
Boney Kapoor, along with his daughters, sought dismissal of the suit. The Chengalpattu court rejected that request, holding that the ownership question could be decided only after a full trial. The Kapoor family then challenged the order before the Madras High Court.
During those proceedings, the Kapoor family argued that the case had been filed with the intention of taking over the property using a false legal-heir certificate. The Madras High Court accepted the challenge, dismissed the suit filed by Sivagami and Natarajan, and set aside the Chengalpattu court’s order.
The petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision. A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli is hearing the appeal. During the latest hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, argued that one-fifth of the East Coast Road property belonged to their father, Chandra Sekaran. He said Chandra Sekaran’s siblings had sold the land without his knowledge and that the sale deeds should therefore be cancelled.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Kapoor family, opposed the claim. He argued that the property had been purchased in 1988, while the ownership case was filed only in 2025. He also pointed out that no case had been filed even while Chandra Sekaran was alive. The Kapoor family maintained that the litigation was intended to take over the property.
Singhvi further argued that Chandra Sekaran was born from a relationship outside Sambandha Mudaliar’s marriage and was therefore not a legally recognised heir to the property. He also said the petitioners were relying on an old survey number, whereas the land had subsequently been partitioned and assigned separate new survey numbers.
The Supreme Court bench did not fully accept the Kapoor family’s position and observed that the petitioners appeared to have some rights in the matter. The judges asked both sides why they could not sit together and try to reach a settlement. The Kapoor family opposed mediation, arguing that the petitioners had no rights over the property.
Despite that objection, the court appointed a retired High Court judge to mediate between the parties. If the mediation does not produce a settlement, the Supreme Court will proceed with the appeal after issuing notices to the Kapoor family. The next hearing is scheduled for December 18.
