In Delhi High Court, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani highlighted irregularities in the Sunjay Kapur will, calling the family’s claims an “attempted but stupid fabrication,” strengthening Karisma Kapoor’s position in the inheritance dispute. The matter is now posted for next week’s hearing.
New Delhi: In a high-profile inheritance dispute involving the estate of the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani began his submissions in court today, questioning the authenticity of the will and the actions of the family challenging it.
Jethmalani started his arguments by stating,
“Upto the execution of this will there is no evidence of him being involved in making the will.”
He emphasised that there was no indication of Sunjay Kapur’s engagement in the will’s creation process before it was executed.
He further added,
“Sunjay Kapur doesn’t reply to this family WhatsApp chat at all. The WhatsApp chat relied upon by Priya regarding will being sent to the Family IC Group cannot be looked at as per Law since the supporting affidavit under Section 63(4) of the Evidence Act certifying the chats is not filed. This is all evidence of an attempted but stupid fabrication. First of all they forge the will. The unimpeachable digital evidence cannot be looked into – Sunjay Kapur was neither marked on any email nor any digital/documentary or oral assertion has been placed by the Defendants to show that Sunjay was personally involved in making of the will.”
Jethmalani highlighted what he described as clear signs of manipulation and fabrication of evidence by the opposing side.
Referring to the legal affidavits submitted, he urged the court,
“Please look at the affidavit,”
indicating that the documents contained crucial evidence supporting his submissions.
Jethmalani also shared personal context to underline the inconsistency in family claims, saying,
“My father used to pay my school fees. Once the will is being challenged the whole attitude has changed.”
He suggested that the family’s behavior shifted only after the will came under legal scrutiny.
Responding to the court, he noted,
“They paid it later when it was raised in this court.”
However, the opposing counsel contested this, asserting,
“The fee was paid before.”
Jethmalani clarified the financial arrangements, stating,
“I was asked for proof of the money my father gave me to do whatever. He said if you want to blow it away or invest it it’s your choice.”
The court acknowledged the point, replying,
“point taken.”
Concluding his submissions, Jethmalani said,
“But the short point is I am not grieving, my mother is not grieving but her actions were motivated by grief. Her whole attitude change after this challenge of will.”
He implied that the emotional responses cited by the challenging side were not genuine but influenced by the ongoing legal dispute.
One of the attesting witnesses has stated in his affidavit that Sunjay Kapur signed the will on 21 March 2025 and that he later scanned and emailed the document from the office of Aureus Investment Private Limited.
But Jethmalani questioned
“this version and told the Court that there is confusion about the basic facts. He pointed out that neither the place nor the exact time of execution is clearly mentioned anywhere, and said that even the witness’s statements do not match the claim that the will was signed in Gurgaon.”
He argued that
“more inquiry is needed to know whether Sunjay was even in Gurgaon that day, or whether the witnesses were there at all.”
He repeated that,
“in their view, the will is a clear forgery and said that the hesitation to disclose the place of execution itself raises suspicion.”
He told the Court that,
“Sunjay’s phone records and devices should be taken into custody to confirm where he actually was on the day the will was supposedly signed.”
He said that,
“although Priya Kapur claims the will was signed at AIPL’s Gurgaon office, the witness affidavits do not support this.”
He also added that,
“neither attesting affidavit mentions that both witnesses were present at the same time, which is a mandatory legal requirement.”
Jethmalani also criticised,
“the argument that the children were excluded because they already had enough property from the trust.”
He questioned,
“why Sunjay, who was extremely fit and active, would suddenly decide to make a will at that time when there was no urgency.”
He said,
“Sunjay was busy arranging Portuguese citizenship for his children to save them from US inheritance tax, and a video played during his funeral showed him saying his only aim was to secure his children’s future, which goes against the claim that he wanted to exclude them.”
He reminded the Court that,
“on the day the will was allegedly modified, Sunjay was actually holidaying in Goa with his son and rushed back only because he was worried about his mother.”
He said,
“Priya Kapur’s conduct shows that she was motivated by greed and tried to take personal property even after receiving trust assets.”
He explained that,
“the three-week delay in challenging the will was only because the plaintiffs wanted their beneficial interests (Ben Forms) to be properly recorded.”
He explained,
“Ben-1 and Ben-2 forms and said they acted cautiously after the suspicious will was shown.”
He stated,
“With respect to Trust, even if Priya’s version is to be believed that the children got 2500 crores worth of shares, by that logic, Priya was given 7500 crores worth of shares. Be that as it may, No monies have come to the children at all. It is just a notional value.”
He accused,
“Priya Kapur of trying to take control of Sunjay’s 6.5% personal shareholding in Aureus, worth ₹650 crore, and pointed out that she quickly appointed Nitin Sharma as an additional director on 30 July, just after he affirmed the will.”
He added that,
“she claimed these shares only after 8 August, even though she had already taken control earlier. According to him, this suggests that the will may have been prepared only after 13 July, when she realised that the children might challenge the distribution of property.”
He argued that,
“Priya Kapur’s actions from the day of Sunjay’s death show inconsistency and greed, including uploading a Ben-1 form where she declared that she had no direct holding, and then filing a revised Ben-1 where she suddenly claimed 6.5% direct ownership, which directly contradicts the alleged will.”
He said this contradiction clearly shows that the will was still being “finalised” even after it had supposedly been shown to the plaintiffs.
The court has posted the matter for further hearing next week.
Last Hearing
In the previous hearing of the high-profile inheritance dispute over the estate of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Jyoti Singh, closely scrutinized the disputed Will.
The Court raised concerns over missing records, unexplained timelines, digital inconsistencies, and procedural gaps in the Will’s drafting, execution, attestation, and custody.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the children of Karishma Kapoor, highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the Will’s drafter, questioned the role of the second attesting witness Nitin Sharma—appointed to AIPL’s board shortly after Kapur’s death—and pointed to the Will’s digital file stored on Sharma’s computer without any evidence of Sunjay Kapur’s discussion about it.
He argued that these factors
“deepen doubts about the Will’s provenance.”
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya Kapur, refuted these claims, asserting that all assets and transactions were properly disclosed and describing the allegations as
“baseless and reckless.”
The Court noted procedural lapses, such as the witnesses failing to specify the exact time and place of execution, and emphasized that only formally recorded evidence can be considered, warning against reliance on oral arguments or sealed cover filings that might undermine transparency.
Case Title:
Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors.,
CS(OS)-627/2025,
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
