The Delhi High Court heard arguments in the case of late Sunjay Kapur’s children seeking their share in his properties. Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Akhil Sibal clashed over the will and foreign assets.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday saw a high-level court drama in the case filed by the children of late businessman Sunjay Kapur, who are seeking their share in his properties. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing actor Karisma Kapoor’s children, resumed his arguments before the Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh.
During the hearing, Jethmalani strongly questioned the authenticity of the will that is at the centre of the dispute.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani started his argument today by requesting the court to allow him to amend his plea seeking a declaration that the will is completely false.
He said,
“I want to amend my plea to seek a declaration that the will is false. If this were truly the will of a well-established man, it would not be riddled with defects and weaknesses—yet this document has plenty of them.”
Justice Jyoti Singh agreed to Jethmalani’s change request on the plea.
Another major point of contention emerged when Jethmalani dissected Shradha’s claim that she had received the scanned copy of the Will by email from Dinesh Agarwal but later “deleted” the attachment.
Jethmalani argued that this explanation was technically impossible, stating that an email attachment cannot disappear without deleting the entire email. Yet, the email itself was produced in court, while the key attachment—the scanned Will—was missing.
He further pointed out that between Dinesh’s first erroneous email, where he mistakenly attached a trustee document, and his corrected email meant to contain the Will, “an important attachment has vanished,” and Priya Kapur’s own documents reflect this omission.
When inspection was sought, the explanation offered was that the email had been deleted—despite the same email appearing in the record.
The court noted this inconsistency as highly suspicious.
Mahesh Jethmalani told the Bench:
“You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email. Why would she delete it? She said she deleted it because Dinesh Agarwal asked her to delete it. However, the document was produced and mentioned in the written statement.”
The case also involves properties located outside India. Appearing for Priya Kapur’s son, Master Azarious Kapur, Advocate Akhil Sibal told the Delhi High Court that it can deal only with assets that fall within its jurisdiction, i.e. India.
Akhil Sibal submitted before the court that,
“Mylady this court can only decide on the property under it’s jurisdiction, the property outside of the court like UK or USA has to be decided by the court there as per section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.”
He also cited multiple judgments to support his argument.
Responding to this, Jethmalani said,
“my learned friend Akhil is right but only partially mylord.”
Jethmalani then referred to Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, saying the most valuable part of the estate comprised movable assets.
Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
(1) Succession to the immoveable property in India, of a person deceased shall be regulated by the law of India, wherever such person may have had his domicile at the time of his death.
(2) Succession to the moveable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.
“The shares alone constitute Rs 650 crores. These are movable assets and governed by Indian law,”
He then reminded the court that some of the disputed assets include land in the UK and a property in New York, USA.
He added,
“Mylord there is a country land in UK and there is a property in USA Newyork.”
Seeking protection for his clients, Jethmalani argued that the will is questionable and therefore no steps should be allowed in foreign courts based on it. He urged the High Court to pass restraining orders, saying,
“Given this will doesn’t pass judicial conscience as held by you, please pass injunction order stopping them from going to those jurisdictions and asking for partition as per the forged will.”
During the hearing, Jethmalani also stressed that the opposing side was incorrect in claiming that no precedents on interim injunctions had been filed.
“We have already cited judgments on interim injunction—these are all in my compilation,”
he told the court while referring to past rulings in partition matters.
Akhil Sibal and Shyel Trehan, appearing on behalf of Priya Kapur, strongly objected to this request for a Jethmalani injunction order as a fresh plea.
However, Jethmalani clarified that his request for protection was not a new plea. Pointing to his prayer under Order 39, he said,
“It’s already there—your Ladyship may see my prayer. I have asked for restraint against dealing with the estate ‘whether by way of will or intestate’.”
Opposing this request, Advocate Akhil Sibal argued that such a restriction cannot be imposed. He said,
“Mylord it can’t be like this. This is new argument and there can’t be any restraint from the court on the property outside of India.”
Jethmalani immediately insisted that this was not a fresh point, stating,
“Mylord this is nothing new this is part of my already submitted plea.”
Sibal maintained that an injunction of this nature was legally impermissible, saying,
“Mylord you can’t pass such interim order like this. We can’t be stopped from filing a probate in UK court.”
During the heated exchange, Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt, appearing for executor Ms. Shradha Suri complained that new allegations were being made on her, attacking her on credibility as an executor. And this is not being addressed by the court.
Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt submitted that,
“Mylord new allegations made on me, and my lord is ignoring these.”
Justice Jyoti Singh then reprimanded Senior Advocate Dutt to not raise such fresh arguments.
She stated firmly,
“No more arguments and at least I know where I am going. So please don’t make such arguments.”
After hearing all sides, the court adjourned the matter. The case will now be taken up again on 22nd December.
Justice Jyoti Singh further added that
“As far as arguments are concerned we are done. Now each party needs to give a written note to summarise the pleas before this court”
LAST HEARING RECAP
In the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani launched a detailed attack on the authenticity of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s will, alleging manipulation, inconsistencies, and fabrication of supporting evidence.
Jethmalani argued that there was no proof of Sunjay Kapur’s involvement in preparing the will, stating:
“Upto the execution of this will, there is no evidence of him being involved in making the will.”
He dismissed the family WhatsApp chats relied upon by Priya Kapur, stressing that they were inadmissible since no Section 63(4) Evidence Act affidavit was filed. Calling it an attempted but “stupid fabrication,” he said there was no digital, documentary, or oral evidence showing Sunjay took part in the will’s creation.
Jethmalani urged the Court to examine the affidavit on record, alleging that the family’s conduct changed only after the will was challenged. He also clarified financial arrangements, noting that issues over fee payments and parental support were being distorted.
He raised serious concerns regarding the execution of the will, pointing out contradictions in the witness affidavits.
One attesting witness claimed Sunjay signed the will on 21 March 2025 at Aureus Investment Pvt Ltd’s office, but Jethmalani noted that neither the place nor time of execution is mentioned, and even the witness statements do not match the claim that it was signed in Gurgaon.
He argued that the Court must secure Sunjay Kapur’s phone records and devices to establish his location on the day of alleged execution.
Jethmalani highlighted further inconsistencies, including the failure of the affidavits to state that both witnesses were present simultaneously, a mandatory requirement under law.
He rejected the justification that Sunjay excluded his children because they already had trust assets, questioning why a healthy and active Sunjay would suddenly prepare a will without urgency.
He emphasised that Sunjay was working on obtaining Portuguese citizenship for his children and had publicly expressed his desire to secure their future.
According to Jethmalani, Priya Kapur’s conduct reflected greed, particularly her attempts to claim Sunjay’s 6.5% shareholding in Aureus (worth ₹650 crore).
He noted that she appointed Nitin Sharma as additional director immediately after he affirmed the will, and her Ben-1 filings contradicted her own claims, showing she asserted direct ownership only later.
He contended that the will appeared to be “finalised” only after 13 July, once Priya realised the children might challenge the estate distribution.
The Court took note of the submissions and listed the matter for further hearing.
Case Title:
Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.,
CS(OS)-627/2025,
Read Live Coverage:
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
