Allegations of forgery and conspiracy clouded the inheritance battle over the Rs 30,000-crore estate of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, as Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani told the Delhi High Court on Thursday that the purported will produced by Kapur’s widow Priya Sachdev Kapur was a fabricated document, crafted to exclude his two children --Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, and seize control of his vast fortune.
Appearing before Justice Jyoti Singh, Jethmalani representing Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, the children from Sunjay’s earlier marriage to actor Karisma Kapoor, alleged that Sunjay “had no role in his own will." The counsel said digital evidence and travel logs proved that the industrialist was on holiday with his son Kiaan between March 15 and 18, 2025, when the document was supposedly modified.
“The will was altered on March 17 at 11:54 am, when Sunjay Kapur was not even in the city. His digital footprints are missing, replaced by those of the conspirators, including Priya Kapur,” Jethmalani told the court. “It is a serious crime under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes life imprisonment for forgery of a will.”
At the centre of the controversy is a will dated March 21, 2025, which allegedly bequeaths Sunjay Kapur’s entire personal estate to his third wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur. The children have challenged its authenticity, calling it the result of “a criminal conspiracy” among Priya and three associates. The ‘Cinderella Stepmother’ Allegation The metaphor quickly became the day’s most-quoted line in the courtroom. Jethmalani alleged that Priya Kapur had behaved like “an evil Cinderella mother” to Samaira and Kiaan scheming to sideline them and their grandmother Rani Kapur, while consolidating wealth and power within her own household.
He accused Priya of engineering secrecy around the estate, including insisting that family members sign non-disclosure agreements before discussing assets. “If the will were genuine, why the need for NDAs? Why the haste?” he asked.
Jethmalani also questioned the role of Shradha Suri Marwah, the named executor, claiming that “the person executing the assets was not the executor but Priya herself.” Two witnesses to the will, he said, were later given roles in companies tied to the estate—an “ominously convenient” pattern that, he argued, exposed the forgery. Neither witness has filed an affidavit validating the will, adding to the doubts over its provenance.
Justice Singh, after opening the sealed cover that contained the original document and an asset list, observed that the list bore no signature, and directed Priya Kapur to re-file it with an affidavit. The court will continue hearing Jethmalani’s arguments on October 13 before the defence presents its case.
According to court filings, the will leaves Karisma Kapoor’s children with a residual stake of barely 26% in the family trust, while Priya Kapur and her minor son Azarius command control of nearly three-quarters of the assets. “The tearing hurry was to appropriate everything before the children could act,” Jethmalani told the bench. “This is no benign stepmother; this is Cinderella’s stepmother.”
Jethmalani further questioned the conduct of Shradha Suri Marwah, the named executor of the will, asserting that “the person executing the assets was not the executor but Priya herself.” He told the court that the two witnesses to the will were subsequently rewarded with positions in companies linked to the Kapur estate, an arrangement he described as “ominously convenient.” Neither witness, he said, has filed an affidavit confirming the will’s validity, a silence that “makes the document even more suspicious.” A Will Without Signature Justice Singh on Thursday opened the sealed cover submitted by Priya Kapur containing the original will and a list of assets. The judge observed that the list bore no signature, directing Priya to resubmit a signed version accompanied by an affidavit. The court will continue hearing Jethmalani’s submissions on October 13 before taking arguments from the defence.
Counsel Rajiv Nayar, representing Priya Sachdev Kapur, categorically denied the allegations, maintaining that the will was “executed and attested properly, long before Sunjay Kapur’s death.” He argued that the suit filed by the children was “not maintainable” and that the document’s authenticity was supported by contemporaneous evidence.
The dispute traces back to June 12, 2025, when Sunjay Kapur, chairman of the diversified Sona Group and a familiar face on India’s polo circuit, collapsed during a match in England and died shortly afterwards. In the weeks following his death, Priya initially claimed that all assets were held in the RK Family Trust and that no will existed. Only in late July did she produce the March 21 document, which the children now describe as “forged and fabricated.”
Jethmalani told the court that the alleged forgery amounted to “a conspiracy by four individuals” aimed at usurping complete control of the estate while leaving Sunjay’s elderly mother Rani Kapur and his two children “effectively penniless.” “The mother is the settlor of the trust,” he reminded the bench. “What ungrateful son would ever leave his mother without a rupee? This is not Sunjay’s doing.”
Beyond the personal drama, the case has broader implications for Indian corporate families increasingly relying on digitally executed wills and trust structures to manage intergenerational wealth. Questions over metadata, authentication and electronic signatures, all pivotal to this case, could shape future jurisprudence on digital inheritance documents.
For now, the High Court has ordered Priya Kapur to provide a verified list of assets and frozen any move to create third-party rights. The matter will resume next week, but the high-society feud has already gripped both legal and business circles, a cautionary tale of modern wealth, technology and trust fractured by suspicion.
As one lawyer observing the proceedings remarked, “This is not merely about money. It’s a story of power, betrayal and the perils of digital inheritance where the battle for legacy may outlive the man who built it.”
Meanwhile, Rahul R Shelke, Civil Lawyer, Bombay High Court, expert in succession cases, said, "The assertion that the will was modified while the testator was away with his son is legally significant. When such allegations are supported by an affidavit from the testator’s close kin and contextualised by evidence of marital discord, they lend considerable weight to claims of undue influence or forgery. Courts will generally adopt a cautious stance, prioritising the protection of the legitimate heirs’ interests until a full forensic examination is concluded."
Also Read: Karisma Kapoor battles for her children’s rights in Sunjay Kapur’s Rs. 30,000 crores estate dispute
