2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
Samaira Kapur – Appellant
Versus
Priya Kapur – Respondent
CS(OS) 627/2025|I.A. 22292/2025

When a testamentary document is challenged due to registered doubts or suspicious circumstances, the propounder bears a substantial burden to prove its validity. To prevent irreparable harm, courts may grant interim injunctions to preserve the estate's assets in statu quo until the document is proven genuine during trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 16 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63, 229-231 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Partition suit - Interim injunction - Testamentary disposition - Principles governing suspicious circumstances - Burden of proof on propounder - Jurisdictional limits over foreign immovable property.

(B) Suspicious circumstances - Wills speak from death, introducing element of solemnity - If execution is shrouded in mystery, burden on propounder increases, requiring judicial conscience to be satisfied - Mere proof of signature is insufficient when suspicious circumstances are pleaded, necessitating clear and cogent evidence to dispel doubts.

(C) Jurisdiction - Proviso to Section 16 of CPC allows relief in personam, but cannot enlarge jurisdiction to adjudicate title or partition of immovable properties located outside domestic territory as clarified by the explanation to the section - Courts cannot entertain actions affecting title of foreign immovable property. (Paras 62, 66, 75, 76)

Facts of the case:
A suit for partition was filed by children of the deceased against the widow and other family members, challenging a registered document propounded as the last testament of the deceased. Plaintiffs claimed intestacy while the widow asserted the document conferred full ownership upon her. Major grounds for challenge included unnatural distribution, active involvement of the beneficiary in the drafting process, glaring inaccuracies in the document, and a suspicious chain of custody.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that where legitimate suspicious circumstances are raised, the propounder bears a heavy burden to satisfy the judicial conscience. Prima facie, the unexplained timing, lack of independent drafting, and exclusion of natural legal heirs created significant doubt. The court held that assets must be preserved during trial to prevent irreparable injury to the heirs, although it declined jurisdiction over foreign immovable assets based on private international law principles.

Issues: Whether the disputed testamentary document is prima facie genuine and whether an interim injunction is warranted to preserve the estate pending final adjudication, including the scope of territorial jurisdiction over foreign assets.

Ratio Decidendi: When a testamentary document is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder must prove its valid execution through cogent evidence to satisfy the judicial conscience. Where the document is challenged, the court acts as a protector of the estate, mandated to preserve assets in status quo until the validity of the document is established at trial to avoid irreversible dissipation of the estate.

Result: Application partially allowed; interim injunction granted protecting Indian assets, pending disposal of the suit.