New Delhi, Sept. 17 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the late Bollywood actress Sridevi's family to pursue mediation for settlement of rival claims over a land parcel in Chennai that came into her possession under a 1988 sale deed. After the actor's death in 2018, her husband and Bollywood producer Boney Kapoor transferred the 2.7-acre plot in his name and in the names of his two daughters, Janhvi and Khushi. However, three people challenged Kapoor's ownership of the land, claiming to be legal heirs of MC Chandrasekaran, who originally owned the plot. They filed a suit before a Chennai court in January 2025 to cancel the 1988 sale deed in favour of Sridevi. Kapoor sought dismissal of the suit but could not succeed before the trial court. Later, he approached the high court, which allowed his petition in April 2026. An appeal was filed against this verdict in the Supreme Court. A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli, which took up the case, on Wednesday said, "We want to know if you can sit down and sort out the matter... We will give you a good mediator." "Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, we will appoint a retired high court judge. Parties are directed to get in touch with the mediator," the bench said, posting the matter for hearing on December 18. While the mediator judge's name was unavailable as the order was not uploaded till late in the day, the court ordered status quo with regard to all proceedings concerning the land in question. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Kapoors said filing the suit was an abuse of law since Chandrasekaran was one of the sons of MC Sambanda Mudaliar who possessed over 206 acres of land in Sholinganallur village. Of this, he retained only 2.7 acres and released the remaining land in favour of the joint family. This 2.7-acre land parcel was enjoyed by the Mudaliar's family. One of Mudaliar's sons, Nithyanandam, later executed a sale deed in favour of Sridevi. The bench told Singhvi, "You do not dispute that Chandrasekaran had ownership over the land. You also do not dispute that the plaintiffs are Chandrasekaran's children. The question is whether he had a one-fifth share over the land"....