Legal battle won, Dilip Kumar’s bungalow to give way to multi-storeyed building, will include museum

Having won the court case over the Pali Hill bungalow, Dilip Kumar’s bungalow will now make way for multi-storeyed building, which will also house a museum dedicated to Dilip Kumar.

The prime property will now be developed by M/s Black Rock. “Dilip Sahab is the owner of the property and of course the developers will have their share in the redeveloped property, be it their residences or anything else they wish for,” said Saira Banu.

Dilip Kumar wins legal battle against brothers over disputed land, elated Sair Banu shares pictures

Legendary Bollywood actor Dilip Kumar, who was fighting a legal battle against his brothers Ahsaan and Aslam over a property dispute, must be a relieved man; the court has ruled in his favour.

When Dilip ji wanted to renovate the iconic house in Pali Hill, his brothers, who were staying with him then, were not ready to leave the house and claimed ownership over the house. The veteran actor went to court and claimed his brothers had no legal claim on his Bungalow. The court’s decision has now come out in his favour. His wife Saira Banu was full of joy and happiness, as she stepped out of the court.

Later, Saira Banu posed inside their disputed house and was seen recording every moment, as Dilip Kumar wasn’t present due to his ill health.


Here are some of the photographs that Saira Banu shared.

Saira Banu on Dilip Kumar's disputed property

Also Read: Dilip Kumar, big influence on Indian cinema, inspires actors of all ages

Dilip Kumar Moves Court Over Property Dispute, Says Brothers Have No Legal Claim on His Bungalow

Veteran actor Dilip Kumar might be grabbing headlines because of his ill health lately. And although its because of old age, not many are aware that a prolonged legal case with his brothers over a property is also taking a toll on his health. Some time back, Dilip kumar had moved court over property dispute, says his brothers had no legal claim on his bungalow in Mumbai’s posh Pali Hill area.

An affidavit filed by the actor’s wife Saira Banu in Bombay High Court states that Dilip Kumar’s brothers-Ahsan and Aslam, have no rights over the bungalow.

Ahsan and Aslam, who resided with their brother at the iconic bungalow till it was demolished in 2007 for redevelopment, have approached the High Court seeking implementation of the 2007 agreement, as per which Dilip Kumar was to provide accommodation of 1,200 sq ft flat to Ahsan and 800 sq ft flat to Aslam. T

Here are some details about the case.

  • The rights for the bungalow and the plot were procured by Dilip Kumar in 1953. Ahsan and Aslam have been residing with their brother at the bungalow for six decades.
  • The deal to redevelop the bungalow was made in 2006. The veteran actor had then approached his brothers to vacate the bungalow to allow a builder start work. The brothers were said to be against it.
  • Ahsan and Aslam then spoke to their sister-in-law Saira Banu, who on humanitarian grounds, had taken the initiative to accommodate her two brothers-in- law, leading to the agreement in 2007.

So is Dilip Kumar going back on his words?
Not really! Because the agreement could be fulfilled only when the redevelopment project gets completed, and currently there’s a legal dispute with the plot owners, Khatau Trust.

Ahsan and Aslam, however, want Dilip Kumar to fulfil his promise irrespective of the project.

In the affidavit, Dilip Kumar has stated that he arranged for their accommodation at Malad, but his brothers refused to shift to Malad.

In their legal suit, Ahsan and Aslam claimed that the monthly payments has stopped after December 2012 and currently they are facing problems of accommodation as they have nowhere to go.

How strong is the case of the brothers?
Well, the plain reality is that Until now there is nothing on record to show that the brothers are also co-owners of the bungalow.

Ahsan and Aslam are not even tenants which would endow them with tenancy rights. Dilip Kumar also challenged his brothers to produce any document which would show they resided with him on the terms of leave and license. He stated that there was no legal binding to continue with the monthly payments.