A Will dispute before the Delhi High Court took a dramatic turn after Priya Sachdev Kapur opposed the forensic verification of the Will she relies on. The court also saw objections to a co-defendant’s attempt to amend statements after inconsistencies were exposed.
New Delhi: In an important development before the Joint Registrar of the Delhi High Court today, several applications were taken up for hearing in the ongoing Will dispute, bringing to light serious concerns about the conduct, credibility, and authenticity of key documents presented to the court.
The matter was presented before Mr. Gagandeep Jindal, Joint Registrar.
The most significant application discussed today related to the inspection and forensic verification of the original Will that has been filed in the court record.
Karishma Kapoor’s children had sought inspection of the original Will so that its genuineness could be independently verified through scientific and forensic methods. This request according to them, is essential to establish whether the Will is genuine or fabricated.
However, what stood out during the proceedings was the strong opposition to this request by Priya Sachdev Kapur herself. Priya Sachdev Kapur is the person who is claiming rights and benefits under the very same Will.
Her resistance to allowing forensic examination of the will document has raised a few concerns. It raises uncomfortable questions about whether there is something in the document that cannot withstand independent scrutiny. A forensic verification is a neutral and transparent process meant to confirm authenticity. If the Will is genuine, such an examination would only strengthen her claim.
Karishma Kapoor’s children have argued that the resistance appears deliberate and calculated, suggesting an attempt to prevent the truth from coming out rather than to protect a genuine legal claim.
The second major development that came up today involved an application filed by Shradha Suri Marwah seeking permission to amend her Written Statement.
This is significant because both are co-defendants and their versions are expected to be consistent if their claims are truthful.
Karishma Kapoor’s children strongly objected to this move, arguing that the amendment is not bona fide and appears to be an attempt to correct mistakes only after contradictions were exposed in the court. As per them, this effort looks like an afterthought aimed at aligning Marwah’s version with that of Priya Sachdev Kapur to present a unified story.
They further submitted that such late-stage amendments damage the credibility of the defence and show that the narrative is being adjusted to suit convenience rather than reflect the truth as it originally stood.
After hearing the submissions on both applications, the Joint Registrar has listed the matter for further consideration on 20 January 2026.
While the legal process will continue, today’s proceedings have made one thing clear — the dispute is no longer limited to questions of inheritance alone. It has now become a serious contest over honesty, consistency, and the authenticity of crucial documents placed before the court.
As the case moves forward, the outcome of the inspection request and the amendment application may play a decisive role in determining not only who succeeds to Sunjay Kapur’s estate, but also whose version of events the court finds credible and trustworthy.
Last Hearing
During the last hearing before the Delhi High Court, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the children of late businessman Sunjay Kapur through actor Karisma Kapoor, resumed his arguments before Justice Jyoti Singh and mounted a strong challenge to the authenticity of the disputed will.
At the outset, Jethmalani sought permission to amend his pleadings to specifically seek a declaration that the will was false.
He argued that the document suffered from serious defects and inconsistencies, stating that a will purportedly executed by a well-established businessman could not be so fundamentally flawed. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the amendment.
A key issue highlighted was the alleged disappearance of the scanned copy of the will sent by email. Jethmalani questioned the claim made by executor Shradha Suri that the email attachment containing the will had been deleted, while the email itself remained intact.
He contended that such deletion was technically impossible and pointed out discrepancies between Dinesh Agarwal’s emails and Priya Kapur’s documents. The court took note of these inconsistencies and observed that the explanation appeared suspicious.
On the issue of jurisdiction, Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Priya Kapur’s son, Master Azarious Kapur, argued that the Delhi High Court could only adjudicate properties situated in India, citing Section 16 of the CPC.
Jethmalani agreed in part but relied on Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, submitting that the most valuable assets—shares worth approximately Rs 650 crore—were movable assets governed by Indian law, notwithstanding the existence of immovable properties in the UK and the USA.
Seeking interim protection, Jethmalani urged the court to restrain the opposite parties from initiating proceedings in foreign jurisdictions based on the disputed will, arguing that the document failed to pass judicial scrutiny.
While Akhil Sibal and Shyel Trehan objected, calling the request a fresh plea and legally impermissible, Jethmalani maintained that the relief was already part of his prayer under Order 39 CPC.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt, appearing for executor Shradha Suri, objected to what she described as fresh allegations affecting her credibility.
Justice Jyoti Singh firmly declined to entertain new arguments at that stage, stating that the court had already heard sufficient submissions.
After concluding the arguments, the High Court adjourned the matter to 22 December, directing all parties to file concise written notes summarising their submissions.
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
