Introduction:
In a dramatic and emotionally charged legal battle, the children of actress Karisma Kapoor and late industrialist Sunjay Kapur have told the Delhi High Court that the so-called “Will” presented after their father’s death is a forgery, pointing to glaring errors, suspicious modifications, and lack of involvement of the deceased in its execution. The plaintiffs—Ms. Samaira Kapur and her brother (through their mother and guardian)—have filed the suit Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors. (CS(OS)-627/2025) against Priya Kapur (the deceased’s wife), her son, his mother Rani Kapur, and the purported executor of the Will, Shradha Suri Marwah. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the plaintiffs, drew the court’s attention to multiple inconsistencies, mis-spelling, lack of clarity, and deliberate secrecy surrounding the Will, and urged the court to investigate forgery, disinheritance and conspiratorial suppression of the original document. On the other side, the defendants (through their counsel) are expected to assert the authenticity of the Will, its execution in accordance with relevant law, and deny allegations of forgery or collusion. The matter is currently before Justice Jyoti Singh, and has already attracted serious judicial scrutiny, including orders allowing sealed-cover disclosure of assets and requiring the parties to maintain confidentiality.
Factual Background & Parties:
Sunjay Kapur, the late industrialist and former chairman of Sona Comstar, passed away in June 2025. His personal estate is widely reported to be enormous—running into the thousands of crores. After his death, a Will dated March 21, 2025 was produced, which purports to vest most of his personal assets in his widow, Priya Kapur, excluding or severely limiting the share of his children from his earlier marriage to actress Karisma Kapoor—that is, plaintiffs Samaira and her brother (Kiaan). The plaintiffs contend that they were never informed about the making or execution of the Will, were not presented with the original or properly certified copy, and that the Will is replete with errors, suspicious modifications, and lacks any credible linkage to the deceased.
The defendants, including Priya Kapur, her minor son, Sunjay’s mother Rani Kapur, and the designated executor Shradha Suri Marwah, stand to benefit under the Will. Their defense must address the chain of custody of the Will, the authenticity of signatures and witnesses, compliance with procedural and legal formalities (such as affidavits of attesting witnesses), and rebut the allegations of collusion, alteration, and undue influence.
In a prior hearing, the plaintiffs had already alleged that they found it extremely suspicious that a well-educated and meticulous man like Sunjay Kapur would commit such gross mistakes in his own Will—such as mis-spelling his son’s name, giving incorrect address of his daughter in multiple places, and failing to mention key assets like jewellery or crypto holdings, all of which are highly inconsistent with his known practices. They also pointed out that the purported executor was never formally informed by the testator about her appointment—a step that any prudent testator would be expected to follow.
Arguments by Plaintiffs (Samaira & her Brother):
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, on behalf of the plaintiffs, anchored his attack on the Will on a combination of circumstantial evidence, digital forensic anomalies, and manifest inconsistencies that, in his submission, point decisively to forgery and suppression. Below are the core contentions raised:
- Glaring Errors & Uncharacteristic Mistakes
The Will purportedly mis-spelled the son’s name in multiple places and repeatedly gave the daughter’s address incorrectly, using an “office address of Karisma Kapoor” rather than her known residential address. Such “blooper” type errors, Jethmalani argued, are uncharacteristic of Sunjay Kapur, especially given his education, personality, and close relationship with his children.
The Will failed to enumerate or describe major categories of assets—such as jewellery, crypto assets, or other known holdings—despite the high net worth, which strongly suggests a crafted document tailored for expropriation rather than an honest testament.
The document is “so casual” and “demeans” the deceased, the counsel argued, as a person of his standing would not produce a sloppy and error-ridden Will.
- Lack of Testator’s Involvement & Secrecy
The executor (Shradha Suri Marwah) was never affirmatively informed by the deceased of her appointment, which is unusual in testamentary practice—typically a testator tells or acknowledges the executor.
The plaintiffs emphasize that the executor has remained passive, merely accepting the form of execution proffered by Priya Kapur (Defendant No. 1).
The original Will was handed over directly by Priya Kapur to the executor at a time close to the cremation, raising a “race to possession” suspicion and suggesting that the document may have been introduced opportunistically.
- Suspicious Digital & Temporal Modifications
Jethmalani contended that the first Word file of the Will was prepared on February 10, 2025 on a device belonging to one “Nitin Sharma” (who is alleged to be an associate of Priya Kapur). It is asserted to be odd that Sunjay would be modifying wills using Sharma’s device while on holiday with his son.
The file (in its metadata) shows notes like “this file came from another computer and might be blocked,” which undermines the chain of custody and authenticity.
The Will was allegedly modified on March 17, 2025, and again on March 24, 2025—even though the original execution date is March 21. The plaintiffs argue that such post-execution modifications are highly suspicious and unexplained by the defendants.
The claim is made that multiple Wills were concurrently in preparation: one for the husband, one for the wife, and name changes (e.g. PDF file names) being altered in WhatsApp transmissions, which suggests an orchestrated scheme.
A WhatsApp group involving Sunjay, Priya, and Dinesh Agarwal (another alleged associate) is pointed to, where a PDF version of the Will was sent, its name renamed twice, and language of “signed wills” was discussed. The plaintiffs assert these WhatsApp documents are fabrications or manipulated, especially since the defendants did not furnish the necessary electronic evidence certificate under the Evidence Act.
The plaintiffs argue that Sunjay left no credible digital footprints in the Will’s file history, and instead the metadata suggests activity by the alleged conspirators, raising a suspicion of substitution or tampering.
- Absence of Affidavits, Witnesses, Normal Legal Formalities
The attesting witnesses did not appear to have filed affidavits attesting to the proper execution of the Will, which is usually required by courts.
The plaintiffs say that no lawyer drafted or supervised the Will’s preparation—another red flag in a high-value, well-managed testator’s affairs.
The content is so one-sided in favour of one person (Priya Kapur) that it suggests bias or undue influence; it is argued that only a beneficiary could have forged such a document to preempt challenges.
- Circumstantial & Telephone Evidence
Based on alleged phone conversations between Sunjay and his children, the plaintiffs assert that the relationship was cordial and expectations of inheritance were communicated—making the exclusion of the children suspicious.
The circumstantial matrix is claimed to overwhelmingly point to an ex post facto creation of the Will, crafted to deprive the children of their legitimate inheritance.
Jethmalani even invoked Section 467 IPC (forgery of will) as a potential criminal offense, based on the pattern of suspicious signs.
- Burden of Proof & Equity
The plaintiffs insist that the onus of proving the Will’s authenticity lies on the proponent (defendants). Since the document is unregistered, unverified, and laden with anomalies, the defendants must meet a high standard of proof.
They submit that the court should exercise caution and not accept a questionable document, especially when serious doubts are raised in pleadings and hearing.
Through these arguments, the plaintiffs urged the court to (i) refrain from recognizing the Will, (ii) order forensic and digital investigations, (iii) grant access to original documents, (iv) preserve the assets in status quo, and (v) declare the children as lawful Class I heirs entitled to their rightful share.
- Likely Defence & Counterarguments (Defendants):
Though the detailed defence arguments are not yet reported (as of the hearing), we can anticipate the following lines:
- Authenticity & Compliance
The defendants will likely argue that the Will was validly executed in accordance with law (Indian Succession Act, relevant testamentary statutes), including proper attestation, testator’s capacity, and formalities of execution and registration (if applicable).
They may provide affidavits from attesting witnesses confirming their independent role, and demonstrate compliance with procedural norms.
The chain of custody of the Will may be explained—how it came to be in possession, the handing over to the executor, and that the executor’s passive role was legitimate and expected.
- Addressing Errors & Inconsistencies
The defense may contend that typographical or naming errors are clerical slips and do not necessarily undermine the overall integrity of the Will. They might argue that minor inaccuracies do not automatically render the document void if the testator’s intentions are discernible.
They might also introduce plausible explanations for address irregularities—for example, changes, multiple residences, or transcription differences.
As to omissions (e.g. jewellery or crypto), they may assert that those assets were held in separate trusts, extraneous documents, or not meant to be part of the personal estate.
- Digital Metadata & File Modifications
The defense may challenge the significance of the metadata anomalies, arguing that metadata logs can get altered inadvertently or as a function of file transfers, updates, or template conversions.
They may produce expert forensic evidence to show that the modifications were benign (e.g. formatting, security stamping, cloud synchronization) rather than attempts at forgery.
They could assert that those modification dates were not manipulations but artifacts of software processing or saving sequences.
- Legitimate Intent of Testator & Testamentary Freedom:
The defendants may emphasize the testator’s full testamentary freedom—the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit—and argue that the Will represents the genuine intention of Sunjay Kapur at the time of execution.
They may submit that the children were always aware of certain asset distributions or trusts and simply contest this new Will for self-interested motives.
They might argue that the plaintiffs have not shown direct proof of forgery or undue influence; doubts alone may not suffice to displace a document valid on its face.
- Delay, Laches, Estoppel & Procedural Objections
The defense could raise procedural objections, such as limitation, delay in challenging the Will, or laches in asserting rights.
They may also contend that some criticisms are speculative and belong in further trial or cross-examination, not as a threshold rejection of the Will.
They might oppose wholesale circumstantial inferences by emphasizing that not every irregularity leads to a conclusion of forgery.
The defendants will aim to show that the Will, when viewed holistically and supported by credible witnessing and procedural compliance, is entitled to legal weight, and that the plaintiffs’ criticisms are speculative or exaggerated.
Judicial Approach & Likely Issues for Court’s Determination:
Given the contested nature and high stakes, the Delhi High Court under Justice Jyoti Singh is likely to proceed cautiously, balancing prima facie scrutiny with preserving parties’ rights. The court is already engaging in sealing of asset disclosures and restricting public leakages, showing its sensitivity to confidentiality and high-value stakes.
Key judicial issues likely to be framed include:
Whether on the face of the pleadings and documents produced, there is sufficient material raising doubt over the Will’s authenticity to warrant in-depth forensic/digital inquiry.
What standards should be applied to digital metadata, file modification logs, and chain of custody in contested Will disputes.
Whether the manifest errors (name, address, omissions) and timing anomalies amount to fatal defects or are excusable clerical lapses.
Whether the executor’s passive conduct, delay in disclosure, and failure to file witnesses’ affidavits weigh heavily against the proponent.
The scope of interim relief: whether the assets should be frozen or preserved pending final judgment, to avoid irreparable dispossession.
The burden of proof: how strictly the proponent must establish the Will’s legitimacy, especially in the face of serious challenge.
Whether the filing of sealed asset lists and confidentiality orders should endure, or whether transparency must be balanced with privacy in such high-profile cases.
In the earlier hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh opened the sealed envelope containing the asset list and noted that it was not attested, signed or indexed—indicating judicial scrutiny of procedural compliance. The court has already directed Priya Kapur to comply with the formal norms in resubmission.
At present, no final judgment has been reported. The case is being vigorously contested, and further hearings on October 13 and later will likely involve the defense’s rebuttal, forensic evidence, witness cross-examinations, and framing of further issues.
Broader Significance:
This dispute is not only a personal family feud but also holds broader legal and societal significance. In recent years, high-value estate disputes with celebrity or industrialist estates have multiplied in India, raising important questions about:
The interpretation of digital evidence in succession matters—metadata, file histories, cloud storage, WhatsApp/ email logs, etc.
The standard of proof and judicial caution required where forgery is alleged but cannot be disproved easily.
The balance between testamentary freedom and protecting rightful heirs from manipulative exclusion.
The role of executors and fiduciary duties—whether blindly accepting a Will undermines their duty to explore possible heirs.
The courtroom’s approach to confidentiality, sealing orders, and public interest in transparency in high-value estates.
The importance of robust procedural compliance (attestation, affidavits, registration) in drafting wills, especially for wealthy or complex estates.
Should the plaintiffs carry their burden and prove forgery or invalidity, this judgment could vindicate the rights of heirs in similar cases and serve as a caution for those seeking to subvert inheritance through late or suspicious testamentary instruments.