Introduction:
In the matter of Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors., the Delhi High Court has been approached by the children of Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor, namely Samaira Kapur and Kiaan Raj Kapur, who have filed a civil suit seeking their rightful share in the personal assets of their late father Sunjay Kapur. Sunjay Kapur, a prominent industrialist, passed away on June 12, leaving behind a complex family structure including his second wife Priya Kapur, their child, his mother Rani Kapur, and Shradha Suri Marwah, who is purported to be the executor of a contested will allegedly executed by the deceased on March 21, 2025. The plaintiffs, represented by Advocates Shantanu Agarwal and Manas Arora, have argued that despite the divorce between their parents, Sunjay Kapur continued to maintain a close and loving relationship with them. They have claimed that after his demise, his second wife initially informed them that no will existed and that all assets were housed under the R K Family Trust. However, during a subsequent meeting, a document purporting to be Sunjay Kapur’s last will surfaced, which the plaintiffs have labeled as forged and fabricated. The suit seeks partition of the estate, a mandatory injunction for full disclosure of records, and restraint orders against the defendants from alienating or disposing of assets.
Arguments of the Plaintiffs:
The plaintiffs, Samaira Kapur and Kiaan Raj Kapur, through their legal team, presented the case that their father had always acknowledged them as his children and continued to maintain a strong bond of love and affection despite his divorce from their mother, Karisma Kapoor. They contended that he provided for them generously during his lifetime and had included them as integral parts of his family circle. They highlighted that even in recent family trips, Sunjay Kapur, Karisma Kapoor, and his second wife Priya Kapur were all present together, which demonstrated the harmony and inclusiveness of their family structure.
According to the plaintiffs, after the demise of Sunjay Kapur, his second wife informed them that there was no will and that all assets were consolidated within the R K Family Trust. This led both families to agree to a meeting in July, along with legal advisors, to discuss the trust’s matters in New Delhi. However, the plaintiffs allege that during a meeting at Taj Mansingh Hotel, defendant Shradha Suri Marwah briefly flashed a document from a distance claiming it to be the last will of Sunjay Kapur, wherein she was named the executor. The plaintiffs contend that the document was neither shown properly nor given to them for legal scrutiny, making it impossible to understand its contents or implications.
The plaintiffs argue that the alleged will is fabricated and concocted, surrounded by suspicious circumstances. They have accused the attesting witnesses of being employees or individuals under the influence of Priya Kapur, making their credibility questionable. They argue that the so-called will was created only to benefit the second wife and her close associates at the cost of depriving the plaintiffs of their rightful inheritance. They maintain that even if such a document exists, it cannot be treated as legal and valid, as it is forged, fabricated, and inconsistent with the established conduct and intentions of their late father.
The plaintiffs have sought a preliminary decree for partition of their father’s estate, demanding a one-fifth share each in the assets. Additionally, they have sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to provide a full accounting of their father’s personal assets up to his date of death. They have also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, selling, or creating third-party rights over the contested assets until the matter is resolved.
Arguments of the Defendants:
On the other side, the defendants—Priya Kapur (the second wife), her child, Rani Kapur (the mother of the deceased), and Shradha Suri Marwah (purported executor)—are expected to rely heavily on the validity and enforceability of the alleged will dated March 21, 2025. Their stance, as can be discerned from the narrative, would likely be that Sunjay Kapur executed the will lawfully, appointing Marwah as executor, and that the will reflects his true intentions for the distribution of his estate.
The defendants may argue that the presence of attesting witnesses to the will provides it with legal sanctity, as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. They would maintain that allegations of coercion or undue influence are unfounded and designed merely to deprive Priya Kapur and her child of their rightful claims under the testamentary document. They may also emphasize that the plaintiffs, being children from a previous marriage, are attempting to override the deceased’s final wishes in order to secure a larger portion of the estate.
Further, the defendants are likely to contend that the plaintiffs are not being entirely truthful about the family meetings. They may argue that the will was disclosed transparently and that the plaintiffs were provided opportunities to examine it but are now resorting to baseless allegations of forgery. They may also rely on the existence of the R K Family Trust, arguing that much of the estate is already safeguarded within it, and that the plaintiffs’ suit is an attempt to expand their entitlement beyond what is legally due to them.
Lastly, the defense could stress that the authenticity of the will must be examined by following the procedural law, including the testimony of the attesting witnesses and the executor, and that until such adjudication is complete, the plaintiffs cannot claim any partition or injunction as prayed for.
Court’s Judgment:
At this stage, the matter has only reached the filing of the suit, and a final judgment has not yet been delivered by the Delhi High Court. However, the principles likely to guide the Court’s decision will revolve around the validity of the alleged will dated March 21, 2025. The Court will have to determine whether the will was genuinely executed by Sunjay Kapur, whether it was properly attested in compliance with the Indian Succession Act, and whether it is free from suspicious circumstances.
The Court is also likely to evaluate whether the allegations of forgery and fabrication raised by the plaintiffs hold merit, particularly given their claim that the will was never properly disclosed to them and that the witnesses were individuals closely associated with Priya Kapur. The credibility of the attesting witnesses and the role of the executor, Shradha Suri Marwah, will be key factors in this determination.
If the Court finds that the will is invalid, forged, or fabricated, the plaintiffs’ claim for a one-fifth share each in the estate of their father would gain strength, as the distribution of the estate would then proceed according to the laws of intestate succession. Conversely, if the will is upheld as valid, the plaintiffs’ claim to partition may be restricted to what is provided under the terms of that will.
The interim relief sought by the plaintiffs—restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, or selling assets—may be considered by the Court to prevent irreparable harm while the case is pending. Courts often grant such injunctions in inheritance disputes to preserve the estate until a final decision is made.
The Delhi High Court, therefore, finds itself in the middle of a sensitive and high-profile dispute involving allegations of forgery, family discord, and the rights of children to inherit their father’s assets. The eventual judgment will not only affect the parties involved but also set an important precedent in dealing with contested wills in high-value estates.