by The ongoing legal battle over the late industrialist Sunjay Kapur’s estate has captured intense public attention. With connections to his children with actress Karisma Kapoor, Samaira and Kiaan, the case has become one of the most closely watched inheritance disputes in India. Over the past months, new court developments have cast serious doubt on the credibility of Priya Kapur’s defence, making the matter far more complex than a simple family feud.
At the center of the controversy is the allegation that Priya, Sunjay’s third wife, attempted a corporate and inheritance power grab following his death in June 2023. The Delhi High Court (DHC) has now flagged several inconsistencies in her claims, creating a situation fraught with legal, financial, and familial implications.
⸻
The Origins of the Dispute
Sunjay Kapur, a prominent industrialist with a reputed estate valued at over ₹30,000 crore, passed away in June 2023. His children from his first marriage, Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, immediately raised concerns regarding the authenticity of the Will that purportedly left the majority of his assets to Priya Kapur.
The Will, allegedly executed in 2023, became the focal point of controversy due to its timing, content, and procedural irregularities. Samaira and Kiaan contended that the document seemed contrived and suspiciously timed, raising doubts about whether it genuinely reflected Sunjay’s intent. These challenges gained momentum as more corporate documents and digital evidence were examined by legal experts.
⸻
Priya Kapur’s “Position Swap” Claim
Priya’s initial defence hinged on what she called a “position swap” in 2023: she claimed she had voluntarily exited her role as Managing Director of Automotive India Pvt Ltd (AIPL) and had agreed to assume a position at Raghuvanshi Investment Pvt Ltd (RIPL). The arrangement, according to Priya, was meant to reflect a planned corporate restructuring rather than an ouster caused by marital or familial discord.
However, this claim has come under intense scrutiny. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Samaira and Kiaan, dismantled the narrative during hearings, citing official corporate records. He pointed out that Priya was removed from AIPL on May 31, 2023, and there is no record of her appointment as Managing Director of RIPL.
Jethmalani argued that this absence of documentation undermines Priya’s claim of a smooth transition, revealing that her removal was likely a result of marital discord rather than a consensual business strategy. He noted, “Priya was never made the MD of RIPL… She was removed from AIPL,” highlighting the gaps between her narrative and official filings.
⸻
Corporate Moves After Sunjay Kapur’s Death
The events following Sunjay’s passing intensified suspicions. Documents presented in court show that Priya was appointed as a director of AIPL just a day after Sunjay’s death and reinstated herself as Managing Director within a week.
While Priya’s defence argues this was necessary to ensure business continuity, Jethmalani and the plaintiffs describe it as opportunistic, emphasizing the timing:
“She was not in control when Sunjay was alive. She sought control only after his passing.”
The court noted that this corporate maneuvering aligns too conveniently with the sudden emergence of the contested Will, suggesting that her actions were strategically aimed at consolidating control over Sunjay’s estate and business holdings.
⸻
The Contested Will
The Will itself lies at the heart of the dispute. Priya’s claim that it was Sunjay’s genuine testament has been challenged on multiple fronts, including authenticity, procedural compliance, and timing.
Metadata and Digital Footprint
The Will reportedly has digital inconsistencies. Metadata reveals modifications on devices not directly associated with Sunjay, raising doubts about whether he personally authored or reviewed it. Furthermore, certain versions of the document have conflicting dates, with drafts apparently edited before and after the Will’s official date.
These inconsistencies, the plaintiffs argue, suggest that the Will may have been manufactured or altered posthumously to favour Priya and her children. Legal experts emphasize that metadata and digital records are critical in modern estate disputes, especially when high-value assets are involved.
Beneficiaries and Missing Assets
The Will is reported to exclude Samaira and Kiaan entirely, listing only Priya and her children. Many major assets were allegedly not accounted for, raising further questions about the Will’s completeness and authenticity. Observers in court also noted spelling errors in the document, such as the incorrect spelling of Priya’s child Azarius’ name — an error unlikely for a meticulous businessman like Sunjay.
Additionally, the Will lacks notarisation or registration, which, while not mandatory, is highly unusual for a multi-thousand-crore estate. This absence of procedural safeguards has fueled claims that the Will could be invalid.
⸻
Missing Attachment and Executor Conduct
Another critical aspect involves the Will’s executor, Shradha Suri Marwah. Court submissions indicate she did not pursue probate nor manage Sunjay’s assets as required.
A particularly striking claim is that she deleted a crucial email attachment containing the Will, though the email itself remains. Jethmalani described this as “impossible”, arguing:
“You cannot delete the attachment without deleting the email.”
This suspicious suppression of evidence raises serious questions about the executor’s conduct and casts a shadow over the legitimacy of the Will itself.
⸻
Priya Kapur’s Counterarguments
Priya and her legal team have countered with several arguments:
1. Rightful spousal inheritance: They assert that it is customary and legally acceptable for a spouse to inherit the majority of a husband’s estate.
2. Foreign assets: Some assets lie outside India, and Priya argues that they fall beyond the jurisdiction of local legal scrutiny.
3. Beneficial trusts: Samaira and Kiaan have reportedly already received significant portions through a family trust, which her lawyers argue offsets any potential dispute.
4. Sealed-cover submissions: Priya’s team submitted the estate’s full asset list to the court under a sealed cover, citing confidentiality concerns.
While these points form a defence, critics argue they do not fully address the timing, procedural irregularities, or suspicious deletion of evidence.
⸻
Court Concerns and Implications
The Delhi High Court has flagged several critical issues:
• Selective documentation and exclusion of heirs
• Digital inconsistencies and metadata anomalies
• Corporate power consolidation immediately after Sunjay’s death
• Missing or deleted attachments of critical documents
• Absence of notarisation and registration for a massive estate
These concerns suggest that the court views the case not merely as a family dispute but as a matter with broader legal and corporate governance implications.
The outcome could set precedent for digital evidence verification in estate cases, corporate succession in family-run businesses, and legal protections for heirs in blended families.
⸻
What to Expect in Upcoming Hearings
The next hearing, scheduled for December 22, 2025, will likely focus on:
1. Corporate filings verification: Did Priya hold any formal role in RIPL, and were the AIPL transitions legitimate?
2. Forensic examination of the Will: Metadata, device origin, and authenticity will be analyzed.
3. Executor’s conduct: Justification for the deleted attachment and failure to pursue probate.
4. Asset evaluation: Examination of the sealed-cover submissions and potential unsealing.
5. Preliminary injunctions or asset freezing: To prevent dissipation before the final ruling.
Any shift in one of these areas could dramatically affect the inheritance, corporate control, and legal precedent.
⸻
Stakes for the Parties
Samaira and Kiaan
• Potential to reclaim their rightful share of Sunjay’s estate
• Protection against unilateral corporate control by Priya
• Preservation of family legacy and legal precedent
Priya Kapur
• Consolidation of control over AIPL, RIPL, and other assets
• Legal validation of a spouse’s exclusive right to inherit
• Protection of privacy for her and her children’s financial information
⸻
Broader Implications
The case transcends celebrity news:
• Digital forensics in estate disputes: Courts may increasingly rely on metadata and device logs.
• Corporate governance in family-run businesses: Demonstrates the risks of posthumous consolidation of control.
• Blended family inheritance laws: Could influence how courts view rights of stepchildren and firstborn heirs.
• Confidentiality vs. transparency: Balancing privacy of assets with legal accountability.
Ultimately, the case may redefine high-net-worth estate planning, setting benchmarks for how assets are documented, wills are executed, and disputes are resolved.
⸻
Conclusion
The Sunjay Kapur Will case is not just a family inheritance dispute. It is a landmark legal battle encompassing corporate manoeuvring, digital evidence scrutiny, executor accountability, and blended family inheritance rights.
For Priya Kapur, the challenge is to demonstrate the authenticity of the Will, the legitimacy of her corporate role, and the appropriateness of her posthumous actions. For Samaira and Kiaan, the goal is to reclaim what they believe is rightfully theirs and to hold accountable those who may have manipulated the system.
The Sunjay Kapur Will case underscores the growing complexities of inheritance disputes in the modern era, where traditional family dynamics intersect with corporate governance and digital evidence. Priya Kapur’s defence, centered on the notion of a consensual “position swap,” faces significant challenges as court records reveal inconsistencies in corporate appointments and suspicious posthumous actions. The sudden appearance of a contested Will, combined with the executor’s questionable conduct and the alleged deletion of critical attachments, raises serious concerns about transparency and intent. Beyond the immediate family, this case sets a broader precedent for how courts scrutinize spousal claims, stepchildren’s rights, and the role of digital documentation in validating high-value estates, highlighting the necessity for meticulous estate planning in blended families and the legal safeguards required to prevent opportunistic manoeuvres after the death of a wealthy individual.
The December 22 hearing could be a defining moment — not only for this family but also for estate jurisprudence in India, especially in the context of digital documentation and corporate succession. As this legal drama unfolds, all eyes remain on the Delhi High Court, awaiting a verdict that may set precedent for generations to come.
