On the third day of the legal battle over late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s will, the Delhi High Court heard a detailed rebuttal from Priya Kapur’s legal team regarding allegations made by Karisma Kapoor’s side. For those not in the know, Karisma’s children and Sunjay Kapur’s widowed wife are in the midst of a legal battle for the inheritence of his Rs 30,000 crore estate. Karisma’s children filed a plea alleging that Priya has forged his will. In the last hearing, Karisma’s daughter alleged that two months of her fees were unpaid. This led to the court to remind both the parties to avoid melodrama. However, Priya’s lawyer, Sheyl Trehan, presented extensive documentation to counter the earlier claim that the children’s university fees had not been cleared. She produced a Rs 95-lakh-per-semester receipt, confirming the payment was already made, and clarified that the next instalment for the second semester is only due in December.This directly contradicted the previous hearing, during which the lawyer representing Karisma’s daughter alleged that two months of fees were unpaid. Once the issue of fees was addressed, the court turned to the core issue, the authenticity of Sunjay’s will, which Karisma and the children are disputing. The defence then walked the court through the entire sequence of how the will came into being.They stated that the first draft was created on the laptop of Nitin Sharma, the lawyer responsible for preparing the document. His affidavit confirmed this, supported by screenshots, file histories and metadata. Sharma even brought his laptop to court and invited the bench to verify everything directly.The defence then broke down the timeline of edits: Sunjay reviewed the draft on March 10, 2025, sent his feedback over the next few days, and the final version was completed on March 17, 2025. This timestamp aligned perfectly with the plaintiffs’ own admission that Sunjay had reached Delhi on the same day. Travel records submitted in court matched the metadata, creating a seamless digital and physical chronology.The chain of custody of the document was also laid out in full, from the creation of the Word file to its conversion into a signed PDF, from the email trail between Sharma and accountant Dinesh Agarwal to the renaming, forwarding, and eventual moment when Sunjay viewed the will at 5.01 pm on the Family Office WhatsApp group. All these steps were supported by logs, screenshots and sworn statements.The plaintiffs’ new claim — that the signature on the will might not be genuine — was firmly refuted. The defence highlighted that this very signature had been used by Karisma and the children to obtain benefits worth Rs 2,000 crore from the RK Family Trust. They had never questioned its authenticity until the dispute over the will, which pertains only to Sunjay’s personal remaining assets, including his 6.5% stake in AIPL and certain international properties.Both attesting witnesses, Sharma and Agarwal, reaffirmed in their affidavits that the signature was authentic and properly witnessed. Emails presented in court also showed that after Sunjay’s death, Agarwal immediately reached out to the executor. The executor received the original will on June 24, 2025 — a handover that the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged in writing. For several weeks after Sunjay passed away, the plaintiffs did not request the will, focusing instead on trust papers, weakening their claim that it had been concealed.Another argument, that the will was suspicious because it was not registered, was dismissed as well. The defence clarified that registration of a will is not compulsory under Indian law, and Delhi does not require probate. Since much of Sunjay’s immovable property is located abroad, probate would not have been needed regardless. Relevant case law was submitted to support these points.Before the hearing concluded, the defence underscored Priya Kapur’s conduct since Sunjay’s passing, pointing out that she had spent over Rs 1 crore on the children’s education, healthcare and overall welfare, entirely in accordance with the mandates of the trust and the will.The matter will continue with the next round of arguments on November 21. Go to Source
