The Delhi High Court witnessed significant developments on Thursday in the ongoing legal battle over the estate of late businessman Sunjay Kapur. The hearing featured arguments from representatives of his widow, Priya Sachdev, responding to fresh allegations raised by Kapur's children from his previous marriage to Bollywood actress Karisma Kapoor - Samaira Kapoor and Kiaan Kapoor.
Defense Arguments and Traditional Practices
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya Sachdev, presented arguments emphasizing what he described as a "healthy tradition" of husbands leaving assets to their wives. Referring to Sunjay Kapur's father's will, Nayar stated, "There is nothing suspicious about a husband giving everything in his assets to his wife. As is the case in my father-in-law's will, where everything was given to his wife. It is a healthy tradition which perhaps has been maintained."
The defense provided a timeline for the alleged will's creation, stating that a printout of the draft will was shown to Sunjay Kapur on February 10, 2025. According to Nayar, Kapur suggested changes that were incorporated, with final modifications completed on March 17, 2025 while Sunjay was in Goa. The advocate also noted that Priya Kapur's will and Sunjay's will were prepared on the same day, describing this as customary practice for spouses.
Court Raises Critical Questions About Will Authenticity
The bench repeatedly questioned inconsistencies in the document presented as Sunjay Kapur's will. The court noted several concerning issues including spelling errors, pronoun inconsistencies, and significant omissions that raised doubts about the document's authenticity.
Nayar attempted to explain these errors by claiming they were carried over from a "template" based on a will belonging to Sunjay's mother, Rani Kapur. However, the bench challenged this explanation, asking why a template would include factual inaccuracies relating to Sunjay's own family circumstances.
Significant Omissions and Procedural Gaps
The court highlighted several critical omissions in the contested will. The document failed to list an inventory of Sunjay's assets and notably did not mention his two older children, Samaira and Kiaan. Only Priya and her children, Safira and Azarius, were named as beneficiaries in the will.
Another glaring error pointed out by the court was the misspelling of Sunjay and Priya's son Azarius's name in the document. While Nayar again attributed this to the alleged template from Rani Kapur's will, the court sought clarity on why such personal information would rely on an older document.
The bench also noted significant procedural differences between the documents. While Rani Kapur's will was properly notarised, the will presented for Sunjay was neither notarised nor registered. Although Nayar mentioned that the will had been drafted by Nitin Sharma, the court observed that this detail was absent from Priya's written statement and no affidavit had been submitted by Sharma.
Lack of Direct Evidence Creates Doubts
During Thursday's hearing, the defense acknowledged that no direct evidence exists showing Sunjay reviewed or approved the final draft of the will. The court noted there are no emails, messages, annotations, or written instructions confirming Sunjay's approval of the document's contents.
The bench also observed that while Sunjay's signature appears in a notary register for other documents, the will in question was neither notarised nor registered. A WhatsApp screenshot submitted earlier was discussed, but the court determined it didn't constitute confirmation of the will's contents.
The case continues to remain pending before the Delhi High Court, with further hearings expected as both sides present additional arguments regarding the will's authenticity and validity. The legal dispute highlights the complexities surrounding estate planning and inheritance matters in high-profile family cases.
