"Vexatious Claim to Grab Property": Madras HC Sides with Boney Kapoor in Sridevi Land Battle

In a decisive ruling, the Madras High Court has thrown out a suit challenging ownership of a prime 2.70-acre plot near Chennai's East Coast Road, once linked to late superstar Sridevi. Filmmaker Boney Kapoor and daughters Janhvi and Khushi—defendants in the case—successfully argued for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Justice T.V. Thamilselvi termed the plaintiffs' claims "vexatious," time-barred after nearly 40 years, and rooted in questionable legitimacy as legal heirs.

As reported in legal circles, the court slammed the attempt as a ploy "to grab the property" in this high-profile inheritance tussle involving Bollywood legacies and a tangled Hindu family property history.

Tangled Roots: A 1960s Land Legacy Unravels

The dispute traces back to 1943, when M.C. Sambanda Mudaliar bought 206.61 acres in Sholinganallur village. In 1960, he executed a release deed, retaining 2.70 acres in Survey No. 1/1 (later subdivided as 1/1B) for himself, while releasing the rest to his three sons, including M.C. Chandrasekaran.

Plaintiffs—claiming descent from Chandrasekaran—sought to declare 1988 sale deeds (executed by co-heirs like Nithyanantham to Sridevi, her mother Rajeshwari, and sister Sree Latha) null and void, alleging prior 1981 sales to Industrial Gas and fraud. They demanded a 1/5th partition share, saying they learned of the "fraud" via a 2023 patta issuance to the Kapoors.

But revenue records showed the property mutated post-1988 sales, with patta confirming Kapoor possession after Sridevi's family transactions, including a 1992 release deed. No challenge arose during Chandrasekaran's lifetime (died 1995) or for decades after.

Kapoors Strike Back: "Illegitimate Heirs, Decades-Late Suit"

Defendants Boney, Janhvi, and Khushi Kapoor filed I.A. No. 3/2025 to reject the plaint in O.S. No. 29/2025, arguing:

  • No Locus Standi : Plaintiffs aren't Class-1 heirs under Hindu Succession Act Section 8. Chandrasekaran had a first wife, Banumathi (died 1998), with no dissolution. Plaintiffs' mother was a later "live-in partner"; their legal heir certificate was canceled post-enquiry.
  • Barred by Limitation : Sales from 1988 unchallenged for 37+ years; suit filed 2025. Knowledge can't plausibly start in 2023 with a developed bungalow on site.
  • Suppressed Facts & Prior Loss : Plaintiffs hid first marriage, lost a 2007 suit (C.S. No. 253) claiming heir status elsewhere, rejected up to Supreme Court.
  • Vexatious & Fraudulent : No possession proof since 1960; mismatched survey numbers (1/1B vs. 1/1C/1); patta lawfully obtained with taxes paid.

Trial court dismissed, but High Court intervened via CRP No. 227/2026.

Plaintiffs' Counter: "We're Heirs, Fraud Uncovered Recently"

Plaintiffs countered they were legitimate Chandrasekaran offspring post-customary divorce from Banumathi, with Adangal extracts proving Sambanda's possession. They admitted 1981 sales but hit back: vendors lacked title post-release deed, making 1988 sales to Sridevi's family void. Cause arose on 2023 patta "fraud," within limitation for declaration suits.

Legitimacy and title disputes, they urged, needed full trial—not plaint rejection.

Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Facts on Plaint's Face Doom Suit

Justice Thamilselvi held rejection under Order VII Rule 11 hinges solely on plaint averments. Key flaws:

  • Suppression Exposed : Plaint omitted Banumathi's marriage; plaintiffs admitted it in revenue enquiry but hid it here—fraud on court.
  • No Heir Status : Death certificates confirm Banumathi survived Chandrasekaran; plaintiffs lack Class-1 standing.
  • Limitation Kills It : 1988 deeds public; no credible 2023 "discovery." unchallenged by Chandrasekaran (died 1995). Citing T. Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal (1997 SCC), vexatious plaints warrant early exit.
  • Precedents Seal Fate : | Case | Relevance | |------|-----------| | T. Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal (1997 (4) SCC 467) | Courts must nix manifestly meritless, vexatious suits to save time. | | Shipping Corpn. of India v. Machado Bros. (2004 (11) SCC 168) | Strict limitation enforcement. | | R. Nagaraj v. Rajamani (CA 5131/2025) | Long delay + bona fide purchaser protection bars relief. | | Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi (CA 2025) | Mandatory dismissal if time-barred on face. | | Correspondance, RBANMS v. B. Gunashekar (CA 5200/2025) | Don't trial frivolous claims. |

Survey mismatch and prior suit loss underscored illusionary cause.

Key Observations from the Bench

"Suppressing all those aspects, they came forward with the plaint... the legitimate claim made by the plaintiffs is that they are legal heirs of deceased Chandrasekaran is also not sustainable in law."

"Nearly about 40 years later, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit to declare those sale deeds as null and void as such is clearly barred by limitation."

"The alleged cause of action is also illusionary one... with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they came forward with the present suit."

"When the plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless, the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and not... waste judicial time on matters that are legally barred and frivolous."

Final Verdict: Plaint Rejected, Dispute Ends Abruptly

The High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowed the CRP, and rejected the plaint outright. No costs awarded.

This shields bona fide successors like the Kapoors, reinforcing that stale, shaky heir claims can't unsettle settled titles. Future litigants note: disclose fully, act timely, or face early doors under Order VII Rule 11—especially in property rows where decades of possession speak volumes.