New Delhi: The contentious legal dispute over late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s estimated ₹30,000-crore estate entered its third day on Thursday, with the Delhi High Court hearing an extensive rebuttal from the legal team representing his widow, Priya Sachdev Kapur. The arguments came in response to allegations raised by Sunjay’s children from his marriage with actress Karisma Kapoor — Samaira and Kiaan — who have accused Priya of forging Sunjay’s will.
The dispute concerns Sunjay Kapur’s personal assets, including his 6.5% stake in AIPL and several international properties, and has evolved into one of the most high-profile inheritance battles of the year.
Fee payment dispute clarified
At the outset, senior advocate Sheyl Trehan, appearing for Priya, addressed the allegations made during the previous hearing when counsel for Samaira Kapoor claimed that two months of university fees had not been paid. Trehan produced documentary proof, including a receipt confirming a ₹95-lakh-per-semester payment, and clarified that the next instalment for the second semester was due only in December.
The submission directly contradicted the earlier representation. Acknowledging the heated tenor of the previous session, the court reiterated its reminder to both sides to refrain from melodrama and focus on factual issues relating to the will.
Defence details timeline of the will
After resolving the fee issue, the court turned to the central question — the authenticity of Sunjay Kapur’s will.
Trehan then presented a thorough digital and physical chronology of the will’s creation. According to the defence, the first draft of the will was prepared on the laptop of advocate Nitin Sharma, who was responsible for drafting the document. His affidavit was accompanied by screenshots, version histories and metadata confirming the creation process. Sharma also brought his laptop to the courtroom and offered the bench direct access to verify the records.
The defence stated that the initial draft was reviewed by Sunjay on 10 March 2025. Over the next few days, he conveyed his suggestions, culminating in the final version being completed on 17 March 2025. The timestamp on the document, they said, aligned with the plaintiffs’ own records showing that Sunjay reached Delhi the same day. Travel documents and metadata were said to match “seamlessly”, indicating continuity between Sunjay’s movements and the editing timeline.
Complete chain of custody produced
The chain of custody of the document was also reconstructed in detail. According to the defence, the digital trail covered the drafting of the Word file, its conversion into a signed PDF, internal correspondence between Sharma and accountant Dinesh Agarwal, renaming and forwarding activity, and the moment Sunjay viewed the will at 5.01 pm on the Family Office WhatsApp group.
All steps, the defence claimed, were backed by logs, emails, screenshots and sworn statements.
Signature authenticity challenged — and refuted
The latest argument from the plaintiffs asserts that Sunjay’s signature on the will may not be genuine. Priya’s team countered sharply, saying this very signature had been used without objection by Karisma Kapoor and the children to secure benefits worth ₹2,000 crore from the RK Family Trust.
“It is only now, when the matter pertains to Sunjay’s personal assets, that the signature is being questioned,” Trehan argued.
Both attesting witnesses — Sharma and Agarwal — reaffirmed in their affidavits that the signature was authentic and witnessed as required.
In addition, emails submitted in court showed that Agarwal contacted the executor immediately after Sunjay’s passing. The executor received the original will on 24 June 2025, a handover acknowledged in writing by the plaintiffs. For several weeks following Sunjay’s death, Priya’s counsel noted, the plaintiffs did not request the will, instead focusing on trust-related documents.
Arguments on registration and probate
The plaintiffs have also raised doubts over the fact that the will was not registered. Addressing this, the defence maintained that registration of a will is not compulsory under Indian law. They also pointed out that Delhi does not ordinarily require probate, and since much of Sunjay’s immovable property lies abroad, probate would not have been necessary in any case. Supporting case law was handed over to the bench.
Priya’s conduct highlighted
Before the hearing concluded, the defence emphasised Priya Kapur’s conduct following Sunjay’s death. They stated that she had spent over ₹1 crore on the children’s education, medical needs and welfare, fully in line with his trust and will mandates.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar further argued that it is a “healthy tradition” in Indian families for a husband to leave assets to his wife. Citing Sunjay’s father’s will, he said, “There is nothing suspicious about a husband giving everything to his wife. It is a healthy tradition which perhaps has been maintained.”
Case to continue
The hearing concluded with the bench scheduling the next round of arguments for 21 November. The court is expected to continue examining the digital evidence, testimonies of attesting witnesses and questions raised by the plaintiffs over the will’s drafting and execution.