Karisma Kapoor’s ex-husband Sunjay Kapur passed away in June this year. The reason for his death is said to be a heart attack which he suffered after swallowing a bee. His sudden demise left his family and loved ones in grief but his will has led to a legal feud now between his wife at the time of passing, Priya Sachdev and ex-wife Karisma’s children Samaira and Kiaan. Karisma’s children filed a plea in the court alleging that Priya has forged their father’s will. As the matter is subjudice, amidst all the feud, it was Sunjay’s birthday on October 15. While Priya shared a video with him, with an emotional note as she missed him, Karisma dropped a photo of a cake late night on Wednesday. This cake had, “Happy birthday dad” written on it. Kareena Kapoor Khan reshared this photo and wrote, “My sam and kiu, dad is protecting you always and forever” with heart emoji. Kareena has been with her sister and the kids all through as Sunjay passed away and was seen travelling with them for the funeral. Saif Ali Khan was also seen along.
As far as the legal battle is concerned, senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani highlighted multiple “glaring errors” in the alleged will, questioning its authenticity. He pointed out that the document contained repeated grammatical mistakes and feminine pronouns, including the words ‘she’ and ‘her’ used four times, an unlikely oversight for Sunjay.He read further, “Signed and declared by Sunjay Kapur the testatrix above named as and for her last will. ” The advocate said further, “The female form of testator is used… testator is now a she! This is an absurdity… It shows the audacity which people have to present something like this in court… there is no explanation for this clause, there can’t be. Unless Sunjay was of unsound mind incapable of reading English, could never have signed this… In short, Sunjay Kapur has signed this will as a woman. It is replete with feminine pronoun… It says ‘her last will’, ‘her presence’…”Jethmalani added, “What we have is Sunjay Kapur, a meticulous person, has only an alleged digital footprint; that also in the entire conspectus he is a digital ghost. He does not appear physically. There is no handwriting, no evidence of photographs. There is only some oral evidence which is circumspect. The witnesses have not filed a detailed affidavit yet. Nobody knows what was the time and exact location.”
