Film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor, have approached the Madras High Court 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 Chennai’s East Coast Road.

As per a report in LiveLaw, 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 plea 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 four 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, Boney 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 Chandrabhanu 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.

He had also questioned the filing of the plaint after a period of 37 years challenging 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 Boney were disputed question of facts, which could be gone into only at the time of trial. It was submitted that Boney 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.

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.