“Vexatious Claim To Grab Property”: Madras High Court Rejects Suit Against Boney Kapoor, Daughters Over Sridevi's Property

Noting that the cause of action raised against the trio is not sustainable, Justice TV Tamilselvi remarked that the “vexatious” claim was made only to grab the property by abusing the process of law, and the same was not permissible under law. The court thus noted that the trial judge's order, refusing to reject the plaint, was liable to be set aside.

“Only to grab the property, with vexatious claim, by abusing process of law they came forward with the present suit for the relief of partition, which is not permissible under law and on the face of record, it came to light that they came forward with the suit claiming right over the suit property, which is barred by limitation and the alleged cause of action is not sustainable one,” the court said.

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.

The trial judge, however, rejected Kapoor's application for rejecting the plaint, noting that the points raised by Kapoor were disputed question of fact which could be gone into only at the time of trial. Challenging this order, Kapoor and his daughters had filed the present plea.

It was argued that the plaintiffs had previously made a claim on the property, which was rejected by the court and confirmed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that these facts were suppressed and the same was not appreciated by the trial court. Kapoor argued that the plaintiffs had played fraud on the court to obtain a favourable order.

The court found force in Kapoor's argument. The court noted that even though the plaintiffs were aware of the first marriage of their father, they had suppressed the fact in their plaint. The court also noted that though the sale deed was executed in 1988, it was not challenged by Chandrasekaran during his lifetime. The court also noted that since the plaintiffs are not class-1 legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran, they had no locus standi to proceed with the suit.

The court also observed that the sale deeds were in existence since 1988, and it was totally unbelievable that the plaintiffs came to know about it only in the year 2023. The court thus ruled that the plea, which was filed after 40 years, was barred by limitation.

Thus, considering all the facts, the court allowed the plea by Kapoor to reject the plaint and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.P.Subba Reddy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.M.Balasubramanian

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200

Case No: CRP No. 227 of 2026