Kapur Inheritance Dispute: 'Her Last Will' Becomes Centerpiece of Forgery Allegations in Delhi High Court

New Delhi – A high-stakes legal battle over the multi-crore estate of the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur has taken a dramatic turn in the Delhi High Court, with the authenticity of his purported Will being challenged on the grounds of fundamental grammatical and terminological errors. The plaintiffs, Samaira Kapur and her brother, children of the deceased and actress Karisma Kapoor, have alleged that the Will is a forgery, pointing to the repeated and "incredulous" use of feminine pronouns to describe their father.

Before the court of Justice Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the plaintiffs, built a powerful case around what he termed "suspicious circumstances" that render the Will void. The core of the argument centers on the declaration section of the document dated March 21, 2025, which allegedly contains glaring inconsistencies that, Jethmalani argued, a man of Kapur's "wisdom, education, and meticulousness" could never have overlooked or signed.

The 'Testatrix' Anomaly: An Argument of Incongruity

The proceedings on Tuesday saw Mr. Jethmalani draw the Court's attention to the specific text of the contested document, which states, "'Signed and declared by Sunjay Kapur the testatrix above named as and for her last will'". This single sentence forms the bedrock of the plaintiffs' challenge.

"The female form of testator is used...testator is now a she! This is an absurdity," Jethmalani argued forcefully. "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, [he] could never have signed this."

Jethmalani emphasized that this was not a singular typographical error. He detailed that the feminine form was used five times in the most critical part of the Will—the declaration. He broke down the inconsistency for the court: "The feminine pronoun is used to describe himself in the most crucial part of the Will... 5 times. Testatrix could have been a mistake because it is a term of law. But when you get 'she' and 'her' at 4 different places, it is incredulous."

This line of argument is strategically designed to paint a picture of the deceased's character and capabilities, contrasting it sharply with the document presented. By repeatedly highlighting Kapur's reputation as a meticulous and educated businessman, the plaintiffs aim to create a strong inference that he would not have executed a document with such fundamental flaws. "Anybody who credits him with a Will like this is doing the greatest disservice to him," Jethmalani added, framing the Will not just as legally invalid but as an affront to Kapur's memory.

A Cascade of Suspicious Circumstances

Beyond the issue of gendered language, the plaintiffs' counsel systematically laid out a series of other red flags that, he argued, cumulatively cast a dark shadow over the Will's legitimacy. These "suspicious circumstances," a key doctrine in the law of testamentary succession, include:

• Lack of Registration: Jethmalani questioned why a man of Kapur's stature, intending to bequeath significant personal assets solely to his wife, Priya Kapur (Defendant No. 1), would not take the simple step of registering the Will. "Registration would have severely reduced scope of contestation…why wouldn't he do it?" he posited. He further turned the question on the primary beneficiary, asking why she, too, showed a "complete reluctance" to register a document so heavily in her favor.

• Opaque Drafting Process: A significant point of contention is the conspicuous silence from the defendants regarding the Will's preparation. Jethmalani stressed that neither Priya Kapur nor the two witnesses to the Will have clarified who drafted the document. This lack of a clear chain of custody for the Will's creation is being presented as a major infirmity.

• Absence of Physical Proof: The plaintiffs argued that the defense relies on an "alleged digital footprint" to authenticate the Will, without providing the necessary certifications under the Indian Evidence Act. "What we have is Sunjay Kapur a meticulous person has only an alleged digital footprint... He does not appear physically. There is no handwriting, no evidence of photographs," Jethmalani submitted. The lack of tangible, physical evidence connecting Kapur to the document is a critical void the plaintiffs are seeking to exploit.

• Factual Inaccuracies: The court was previously informed of other errors within the Will, including the misspelling of Kapur's son's name and an incorrect address for his daughter. These factual mistakes, much like the grammatical ones, are being used to argue that the document is "so casual that it demeans him" and is uncharacteristic of the testator.

The High Stakes of Forgery

Jethmalani did not mince words about the potential consequences for the defendants if the allegations are proven. He framed the defendants' alleged actions as a high-risk gamble, undertaken without full knowledge of the evidence the other side possessed.

"If you forge a Will without knowing what the other side has in its possession you are embarking upon an extremely dangerous task," he warned. "Some of the dates they have chosen are silly and can be exploded by what's really going on from the correspondence between the father, children and the mother... If forgery is proved, she (D1) loses all her wealth."

This statement elevates the civil dispute into the realm of potential criminal conduct, significantly raising the stakes for the defendants and underscoring the gravity of the allegations.

Legal Implications for Practitioners

The ongoing case, Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors. , serves as a crucial and cautionary tale for legal professionals, particularly those specializing in wills and estates. It underscores several foundational principles:

• Meticulous Drafting is Paramount: The case is a stark reminder that even seemingly small errors in a testamentary document can be weaponized to challenge its entire validity. The use of incorrect legal terminology or pronouns can open the door to arguments of incapacity, undue influence, or outright forgery.
• The Doctrine of Suspicious Circumstances: This dispute is a textbook example of how a series of individual red flags can be woven together to create a compelling narrative of suspicion. Practitioners must be vigilant in ensuring that the execution of a Will is beyond reproach, with clear evidence of the testator's sound mind, free will, and understanding of the document's contents.
• The Importance of Registration: While not mandatory for a Will to be valid in India, registration provides a strong presumption of genuineness. The failure to register a Will, especially in a high-value estate or where a contest is anticipated, can itself be presented as a suspicious circumstance, as argued by the plaintiffs in this case.
• Navigating Digital Evidence: The reliance on a "digital footprint" without proper certification highlights the evolving challenges of evidence in the digital age. Courts require strict adherence to procedural requirements, such as those under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, for electronic records to be admissible.

As the matter is set to continue, the legal community will be watching closely to see how the Delhi High Court weighs these profound and unusual allegations. The outcome will not only determine the fate of a vast inheritance but will also reinforce long-standing legal principles surrounding the sanctity and scrutiny of a person's final testament.