Connect with us

Entertainment

Bombay High Court Steps In: Why Rajesh Khanna’s Legendary ‘Aashirwad’ Bungalow Can No Longer Be Called ‘Haunted’ or ‘Cursed’…

The court observed that sensational claims about the iconic Mumbai property are prima facie defamatory, granting interim relief to its current owner ahead of the next hearing.

Published

on

Dainik Diary Zaid 2026 07 31T215854.588
Bombay High Court has restrained media and online platforms from referring to Rajesh Khanna's iconic Aashirwad property as "haunted" or "cursed", calling such claims prima facie defamatory.

For decades, Rajesh Khanna’s iconic Aashirwad bungalow in Mumbai’s Bandra has been surrounded by stories of mystery, superstition, and alleged misfortune. But now, the Bombay High Court has made it clear that media outlets and digital platforms cannot casually label the property as “haunted”, “cursed”, or “unlucky.”

In an important interim order, Justice Arif S. Doctor restrained media organisations, websites, and online content creators from publishing or circulating such descriptions about the property, observing that they are prima facie defamatory and infringe upon the current owner’s right to live with dignity and peace.

Why Did the Court Intervene?

The case was brought before the court by businessman Shashi Shetty, the present owner of the property. Shetty argued that despite the original bungalow being demolished nearly a decade ago and replaced with a modern four-storey family residence, several reports, videos, and social media posts continued to portray the property as “haunted.”

Representing Shetty, senior advocate Birendra Saraf informed the court that while the structure had completely changed, the property retained its historic name—Aashirwad. The continued circulation of sensational stories, he argued, unfairly affected the family’s reputation and peaceful enjoyment of their home.

Agreeing with these submissions, the court observed that such claims appeared to have no legal or factual basis and were largely intended to create unnecessary sensationalism.

Court Calls Such Claims ‘Unjustified’

In its observations, the court noted that publications describing the property as cursed or haunted were “wholly unjustified” and appeared to prioritise sensational headlines over the rights of the homeowner.

The interim protection granted by the court will remain in force until the next hearing, which has been scheduled for August 21, 2026.

The order reinforces the principle that speculative or unverified narratives, even about famous landmarks, cannot come at the cost of an individual’s dignity or reputation.

ALSO READ : Allu Arjun’s Raaka may release in 2 parts… Here’s why the makers are reportedly changing their strategy

The Fascinating History of Aashirwad

Long before the legal dispute, Aashirwad had already become one of Bollywood’s most recognised homes.

The sea-facing bungalow was originally purchased by legendary actor Rajendra Kumar in the late 1950s for around ₹65,000. Later, Rajesh Khanna acquired the property for approximately ₹3.5 lakh, making it his iconic residence during the peak of his unprecedented stardom.

Dainik Diary Zaid 2026 07 31T215904.720


Interestingly, the bungalow witnessed the rise of two of Hindi cinema’s biggest stars. Rajendra Kumar earned the nickname “Jubilee Kumar” for delivering a string of blockbuster films, while Rajesh Khanna became Bollywood’s first-ever superstar, dominating the industry throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s.

How Did the ‘Haunted’ Rumours Begin?

Over the years, as the careers of both actors experienced downturns, rumours began circulating that Aashirwad was somehow “unlucky” or even “haunted.” These claims gradually became part of Bollywood folklore, despite the absence of any credible evidence.

Although the original bungalow no longer exists, the property’s historic name has remained intact, allowing these long-standing myths to continue resurfacing online.

The latest court order now seeks to curb the spread of such speculative narratives, emphasising that sensational storytelling should not override factual reporting or the legal rights of private individuals.