A court case filed by real estate developer Samir Bhojwani in 2010 against thespian Dilip Kumar pertaining to his Pali Hill bungalow'redevelopment rights is weighing heavy on the mind of the ailing actor.

Dilip Kumar is recuperating from a recent health scar. The 90-year-old star of Bollywood classics like 'Mughal-e-Azam', 'Ganga Jamuna', 'Shakti' and 'Karma' was hospitalised last month after a heart attack scare.

Friends and relatives of Dilip Kumar have told that the bungalow is constantly on the actor's mind these days. Currently, the thespian lives in the same locality but at his wife Saira Banu's house next to Sanjay Dutt's residence. A source close to Dilip and Saira told, "While we try to keep bad news from him, including the deaths of some of his old colleagues, there is one thing which we cannot bypass, the dispute over the bungalow. His questions on the bungalow under litigation had increased by the day."

"We don't rule out that this stress might have played a role in Dilip Kumar getting the heart attack in mid-September, which landed him in the ICU for 10 days. What is amusing to Dilip Kumar and his family is that Samir Bhojwani is very cordial to them and even sent flowers and gifts on Dilip saab's birthday. "Whenever we tell him that we ought to resolve this as Dilip Kumar's health is failing, he says, Haan kar denge. But no stone is moved by him thereafter," said the source.

When contacted, Saira Banu said, "The bungalow dispute is wearing down Yusuf saab. It has affected his health and it has now started to affect my health too." The land, estimated to be worth Rs 150 crore, housed a two storey bungalow, where Dilip Kumar, lived since 1953.


Flashback... Dilip Kumar started demolishing the bungalow in question three years ago to construct a high rise. Samir Bhojwani objected, claiming ownership of the plot. He said the bungalow property was leased to the actor for 999 years, but with the caveat that the lessee would not alter or demolish the structure without the owner's consent. Sometime later, Bhojwani moved the court against the veteran, who challenged the builder's ownership claim, saying that the builder's claim to the property is "illegal, invalid and untenable".