Suspicious Circumstances Around Unregistered Will Cannot Be Overlooked: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Karisma Kapoor’s Children, Orders Status Quo

The Court observed that a full trial is necessary to determine the genuineness of the document before the natural heirs can be deprived of their shares. Consequently, the Court has restrained any alienation or creation of third-party interests in the deceased's movable and immovable assets across India, the UK, and the UAE.

Justice Jyoti Singh while answering in affirmative to whether the estate of Sunjay requires to be preserved during the pendency of the suit, observed, “…I am of the considered view that the suspicious circumstances raised by the Plaintiffs cannot be overlooked and Priya will have to completely dispel and remove all legitimate suspicious circumstances and satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court that the document propounded by her is the last Will of Sunjay. Plaintiffs have thus made out a prima facie case that the assets which are subject matter of the suit need to be protected from dissipation and preserved, pending disposal of the suit…”.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the plaintiffs and Senior Advocates Akhil Sibal, Vaibhav Gaggar, Anuradha Dutt, Rajiv Nayar, Shyel Trehan appeared for the plaintiffs.

The suit was instituted by Ms. Samaira Kapur and Master Kiaan Raj Kapur, children of late Sunjay Kapur and Ms. Karisma Kapoor, seeking partition of their father’s estate.

Sunjay Kapur passed away on June 12, 2025, in the UK, where following his demise, his widow, Priya Kapur (Defendant No. 1), propounded an unregistered Will dated March 21, 2025, which bequeathed the entirety of his personal assets to her, excluding his children and his mother, Mrs. Rani S. Kapur (Defendant No. 3).

The Plaintiffs alleged the Will was forged and fabricated, pointing to glaring typographical errors, unnatural disinheritance despite close family bonds, and the active involvement of the sole beneficiary and interested witnesses in its creation.

The Plaintiffs moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from alienating or encumbering the estate. Priya Kapur opposed the plea, asserting the Will’s genuineness and challenging the Court’s jurisdiction over immovable properties situated abroad.

Defendant No. 3 supported the Plaintiffs, raising further concerns regarding the concealment of assets and the suspicious timing of the Will’s "discovery".

The Court relied on the principles established in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31, holding that a propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions with clear and cogent evidence. It identified several suspicious circumstances requiring trial, including:

-The unnatural exclusion of the deceased’s children and mother despite documented evidence of deep affection.

-Fundamental errors in the Will, such as misspelling the son's name and referring to the male testator as "testatrix".

-The chain of custody of the original Will and the absence of a digital footprint from the deceased in the electronic records provided.

“…This is a suit for partition of Sunjay’s estate filed by two of his Class-I heirs and Rani, who is also a Class-I heir, supports the Plaintiffs. Priya and Azarias are also Class-I heirs and Priya has propounded the alleged Will, wherein she is the sole beneficiary and Samaira, Kiaan and Rani question the Will and have pleaded multiple suspicious circumstances, which as per them shroud the Will…”, the Bench noted.

“…In the ordinary course, if a will is set up and the propounder discharges the onus by proving its due execution, the document can be enforced, however, if objections are raised to the execution of the will and suspicious circumstances are pleaded, the propounder cannot escape the legal obligation of removing the legitimate suspicious circumstances and in such a case, Court must also satisfy its judicial conscious that the will is a genuine document and represents the desire and last wish of the Testator, who is not available to speak the truth. Genuineness of the Will propounded by Priya is now a matter of trial, in light of the plea of suspicious circumstances set forth by Samaira, Kiaan and Rani…”, it noted further.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court noted that while Section 16 CPC and the principles of Private International Law generally bar Indian courts from adjudicating titles to foreign immovable property, the current priority was the preservation of the estate. It held that if the Will is eventually found invalid, the natural heirs would suffer irreparable injury if the assets were dissipated in the interim.

The Court allowed the application for interim injunction, directing the preservation of Sunjay Kapur’s estate pending the disposal of the suit. The assets are to be maintained in status quo to prevent the creation of any third-party rights or encumbrances.

Cause Title: Samaira Kapur & Anr. v. Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3660)

Appearances:

Plaintiffs: Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate, Saurav Agrawal, Adhiraj Harish, Ravi Sharma, Akhil Sachar, Shantanu Agarwal, Madhulika Rai Sharma, Manas Arora, Syed Hamza Ghayor, Ananya Garg, Tapojit Sarker, Anjani Kumar, Prachi Dubey, Mehak Joshi, Samayra Adhlakha, Tushar Nair, Mr. Shivam Mishra, Sunanda Tulsian and Prafull Kumar, Advocates.

Defendant: Rajiv Nayar, Shyel Trehan, Senior Advocates, Meghna Mishra, Ankit Rajgarhia, Tarun Sharma, Rohit Kumar, Prabhat, Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Krishnesh Bapat, Janhvi Sandhu, Aditya, Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocate, Smriti Churiwal, Jaiveer Kant, Vidisha Jain, Meher Thapar, Akash Kumar, Dhruv Dewan, Anuradha Dutt, Divya Bhalla, Raghav Dutt

Click here to read/download the Judgment