Priya Sachdev Kapur told the Delhi High Court that leaving assets to a spouse is a normal family practice and not suspicious. Her counsel dismissed all objections, asserting the will is genuine and legally valid.
New Delhi: In today’s proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the executor of Sunjay Kapur’s will was grilled by the Court and Senior Advocate Anuradha Dutt, appearing for Mrs Shradha Suri Marwah — the Executor of the Will, denied all accusations questioning her role and motives in the testamentary matter.
Though, as per the executor’s submission today before the Delhi High Court, it is clear that if the will is proven wrong, the distribution of the property will be as per the law.
Mrs Shradha Suri’s statements appear to raise concerns that the document might not reflect Kapur’s true intentions—raising the stakes for his biological children, Samaira and Kiaan, who stand excluded from the will Priya seeks to enforce.
However, Anuradha Dutt, appearing for the executor, asserted that the objections raised were not grounded in any legally recognised parameters for determining suspicion in a will and instead focused on subjective interpretations of the executor’s post-execution conduct.
She emphasised that settled law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in authoritative judgments including H. Venkatachala Iyengar, makes it clear that suspicious circumstances must relate strictly to the execution of the will itself and not to the subsequent behaviour of the executor.
The court was reminded that suspicion arises only where there is doubt regarding the testator’s mental capacity, free will, authenticity of signature, or evidence of coercion or undue influence at the time of execution.
Allegations regarding the executor allegedly acting hurriedly, imposing procedural requirements, or failing to pre-inform stakeholders were categorically described as irrelevant to the legal test for suspicion.
Addressing the argument that the executor was unaware of her appointment and that this constituted a suspicious circumstance, Dutt relied on Sections 229 to 231 of the Indian Succession Act to assert that prior knowledge or consent of an executor is not a legal prerequisite.
The statute expressly provides for the executor’s right to accept or renounce the role post-appointment, thereby negating the claim that lack of prior intimation invalidates the will.
Further, reliance on Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act to suggest that the executor had a beneficial interest in the estate was strongly countered.
It was clarified that an executor functions solely as the legal representative of the deceased and holds no proprietary or personal rights over the estate merely by virtue of the position.
Senior counsel also cited multiple Supreme Court precedents to reiterate that when suspicious circumstances are alleged, the burden lies on the challenger to establish credible evidence showing irregularity in execution — not vague allegations or conjecture about motives.
It was submitted that no such evidence exists in the present case and that claims of conspiracy or manipulation are speculative and unsupported.
Dutt further contended that probate was not mandatory in the present matter, as neither the place of execution nor the location of the properties fell within territories requiring compulsory probate under law.
She maintained that the executor has acted bona fide and strictly within the framework of settled jurisprudence.
The Delhi High Court continues to examine whether the objections raised reveal any genuine suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Sunjay Kapur’s will or merely represent an attempt to cast aspersions on the executor without legal foundation.
The case increasingly highlights the fine balance between legitimate scrutiny and unwarranted character attacks in sensitive inheritance disputes.
Background
In the last hearing before the Delhi High Court in the ongoing legal battle over the will of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, detailed arguments were advanced by the side of his widow Priya Kapur, strongly opposing the challenge raised by Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira Kapur and her minor brother.
The plaintiffs have questioned the authenticity of their father’s alleged will and sought an interim injunction to restrain Priya Kapur from dealing with or transferring the assets, which are reportedly worth around Rs 30,000 crore.
Sunjay Kapur had passed away on June 12 after collapsing during a polo match in England, reportedly due to sudden cardiac arrest.
Appearing for Priya Kapur’s six-year-old son, senior advocate Akhil Sibal submitted that there was no delay in presenting the will, stating that it was produced by the executor on July 30 during a family meeting, which, according to him, was a normal timeline.
He argued that the case put forward by Karisma Kapoor’s children was based on “speculation and guesswork” and that their challenge arose solely because they were excluded as beneficiaries.
Sibal further informed the court that despite allegedly knowing about the will on July 30, the plaintiffs made their first formal request for a copy only on August 22.
He also highlighted that Karisma Kapoor continued to coordinate with Priya Kapur regarding documentation during this period, even while being aware of the will, but later refused to sign a confidentiality agreement required to access it.
It was submitted that the plaintiffs were fully aware of their exclusion and therefore adopted a legal strategy to challenge the will “come what may.”
The counsel also clarified that the issue of Sunjay Kapur’s foreign assets did not fall within Indian jurisdiction and that no sustainable case had been made on that front.
Priya Kapur reiterated before the court that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and that it was a normal practice for a husband to leave his assets to his wife.
Read More Reports On Sunjay Kapur
