‘This will is so ridiculous..’: Sunjay Kapur’s children allege forgery, point at wrong addresses, misspelt names in will
The Delhi High Court on Monday (October 13) revisited the high-profile inheritance case surrounding the will of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, scion of the Sona BLW automotive group, as allegations of digital fabrication came to the forefront.
The petition, filed by Samaira and Kiaan Kapur — his children with his second wife, actor Karisma Kapoor — claims that the will diverting Sunjay’s ₹30,000-crore estate to his third wife, Priya Kapur, was “manufactured” and digitally altered. To be more specific, the late industrialist’s children have moved court against Priya Kapur, her son, as well as Rani Kapur, the deceased’s mother, and Shradha Suri Marwah, who has been named as the executor of a will dated March 21, 2025. The petition challenges the authenticity of the document and questions the role of those associated with it.
“Who prepared the will?”
Appearing on behalf of the two children, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani told the court that the will “was not the product of the deceased’s hand or mind” but rather a “manufactured document” created and edited on another person’s device. According to Jethmalani, metadata analysis shows that the document originated from the computer of one Nitin Sharma, a person with no formal connection to Sunjay Kapur.
“Who prepared this will?” he asked. “The file was created and altered on Sharma’s system on March 17, 2025 — the very day Sunjay was in Goa with his son Kiaan. It defies logic that he would rewrite his will on holiday while disinheriting his own children.”
Jethmalani further claimed that the file was converted into a PDF on March 24 at 10:06 a.m., just hours before a WhatsApp group named ‘Family Office IC’ was allegedly created to circulate it among a limited circle that included Sharma, Priya Kapur, and Dinesh Agarwal of Aureus Investment Pvt Ltd, part of the Sona BLW promoter group. He also submitted that there was a modification on March 24, and the defendants have not explained it.
He said, “There was a WhatsApp group with Sunjay and Priya Kapur, and Dinesh Agarwal, where the Will was sent as a PDF file, and its name was again changed twice. Two Wills were being simultaneously prepared of husband and wife. These were not mutual Will, so they have to be explained…they had also spoken about signed wills, and the message was acknowledged by Priya. Not Sunjay.”
Jethmalani further stated, “If we see Dinesh’s phone, it can be seen that there is no group chat name or the phone numbers, and then separately it can be checked that the ‘SK Will’ was only seen, not read. This is an ominously uncertified document. It is surprising they moved from emails to WhatsApp chats. He certifies only the emails and not the WhatsApp chats.”
Jethmalani further claimed that the WhatsApp documents were a fabrication. “This is a case where almost every circumstance which could be suspicious is present. No lawyer drafted the will. A layman witness was taken. The contents of the Will are so ridiculous,” he said.
Digital footprints and missing links
The petitioners’ counsel alleged that the electronic records reflect multiple unidentified edits before and after Sunjay Kapur’s death, suggesting “a secretive and coordinated effort.” He also pointed out that the will surfaced only on the 13th day following the cremation. “There is no explanation for where this document was stored or who had possession of it,” he said. “The entire chain of custody is broken.”
Contradictions and omissions
Jethmalani told the court that the will contains “glaring internal contradictions” — including inconsistent listings of bank accounts and the omission of key properties such as Kapur’s New York apartment, a 2010 family trust, and holdings in jewellery, artwork, and precious metals.
“These are not clerical errors,” he said. “A Harvard-educated industrialist of Sunjay Kapur’s precision could not have drafted a document this casual.” He also pointed out discrepancies such as incorrect addresses for Samaira and Kiaan, and five variations in the spelling of the youngest son Azarias’ name. “A meticulous and affectionate father would never commit such mistakes,” he said.
Another key issue raised was the absence of a schedule of assets, a standard annexure detailing the testator’s holdings. The court noted this as “a serious procedural lapse”. “Without it,” Jethmalani said, “this will stands on air. It lists no inventory of what the deceased owned, and even the named executor appears unaware of the estate’s scale.”
A matter of character and credibility
To strengthen his argument, Jethmalani described Sunjay Kapur as “a devoted father and a perfectionist in both business and life,” citing his education at the University of Buckingham and Harvard Business School. “He never missed Kiaan’s birthdays,” he said. “The idea that such a man would exclude his children is beyond belief.”
Concluding his submissions, he stated: “This will should be cast into the dustbin of history. It bears no mark of the deceased’s hand or heart.”
The court’s observation
The bench noted that the evidence presented raised “substantial questions” about the will’s authenticity and coherence. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 14, for further scrutiny of the digital trail and the document’s physical custody.
Meanwhile, Priya Kapur’s counsel maintained that “unimpeachable electronic evidence” supports the will’s validity and denied any fabrication.
