Boney Kapoor And Daughters Move Madras High Court To Reject Plaint Claiming Sridevi's Property

When the plea came up before Justice TV Thamilselvi on Monday (16 March), the court decided to take up the matter for final disposal on March 26, 2026 and extended the interim order staying the trial in the case.

The case before the Chengalpattu court was filed by MC Sivakami, her sister MC Natarajan, and their mother Chandrabhanu, 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.

Seeking to reject the suit, Kapoor had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (b) and Section 151 of CPC. Kapoor 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 law, constituting an act of bigamy.

Kapoor claimed that this fact was suppressed in the plea, and such suppression of a vital and legally relevant fact constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. He claimed that the act amounted to fraud, vitiating the very foundation of the claim.

Kapoor had also questioned the filing of the plaint after a period of 37 years challlenging the deeds of 1988, making the plaint barred by limitation. He also submitted that though the plaintiff claimed that the sale deed and patta was obtained through fraudulent means, the patta was issued by the Tahsildar after conducting due diligence and verifying all relevant title documents.

The plaintiff challenged the application and submitted that the points raised by Kapoor were disputed question of facts, which could be gone into only at the time of trial. It was submitted that Kapoor had no document to prove that they had purchased the property legally, and in order to cover up the same, was indulging in a personal attack over paternity.

Regarding the contention on 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. It was submitted that without valid documents, Kapoor and his family could not seek to reject the plaint using illegal and bogus patta.

The Trial Court noted that a plaint could be rejected only in certain cases – (i) when the plaint does not disclose cause of action (ii) where the relief claimed is undervalued (iii) where the plaint is insufficient stamped (iv) where the suit is barred by law (v) where the plaint is not in duplicate and (vi) where there is noncompliance with statutory provisions.

The Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff's had a clear cause of action to file the suit and that it was filed during the period of limitation. The judge had thus refused to reject the plaint, against which the present plea has been filed.

It may be noted that earlier, a writ petition was also filed by Sivakami alleging that Kapoor and his family were paid enhanced compensation by the State Highways Department for land acquired for widening the road. The said plea was disposed by the court, directing the Highways Department to consider Sivakami's representation and pass suitable orders.

Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others

Case No: CRP 227 of 2026