Introduction: A High-Stakes Inheritance Dispute
The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a high-profile inheritance dispute surrounding late businessman Sunjay Kapur. Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, have challenged the authenticity of their father’s alleged will, raising questions about its language, origin, and the authority behind its creation. Senior advocates and the court are scrutinizing every clause as the matter unfolds in a jurisdiction known for complex civil litigation and celebrity-linked cases.
Key Point of Contention: Feminine Pronouns in the Will
A central claim from Sunjay Kapur’s critics concerns the will’s linguistic form. During argument, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani highlighted that the document uses feminine pronouns to refer to Sunjay Kapur. He noted, in particular, that phrases such as “ Signed and declared by Sunjay Kapur the testatrix above named as and for her last will” employ the female form repeatedly. Jethmalani argued that such language could not realistically reflect a will authored by a man known for precision, calling the use of “she” and “her” in multiple places not just implausible but deeply incriminating.
At issue is whether the reference to Sunjay Kapur as “testatrix”—a term traditionally associated with a female testator—is consistent with the deceased’s identity and intent. The defense contends that the language undermines the document’s credibility, while supporters of the will urge that typographical or drafting errors cannot alone cancel a will’s validity. The court has asked for a careful examination of the document’s drafting history and whether the language was the product of a genuine author or an impostor seeking to alter the inheritance outcome.
Origin, Drafting, and Digital Footprint
A further battleground concerns the will’s origin. Jethmalani questioned who prepared the document, noting the lack of a clear signature or handwriting, and pointing out that the will exists only in a digitally executed form with limited accompanying evidence. He argued that there is no verifiable time, place, or physical presence of Sunjay Kapur at the moment of signing. The absence of a traditional, fully executed document raises questions about who drafted the will, who witnessed it, and whether the digital version accurately reflects the deceased’s intent.
Defense counsel representing Priya Kapur and other respondents contended that the petition is driven by contentious family dynamics and a desire to control the estate. They urged the court to focus on the substantive rights of the beneficiaries and to assess the document on its merits, including any corroborating testimony from witnesses. The court has signaled its intent to scrutinize the entire chain of custody surrounding the will, the witnesses’ affidavits, and any extrinsic evidence offered by the parties.
Family Dynamics and Alleged Takeover
Jethmalani asserted that Priya Kapur currently exercises broad control over a significant portion of the estate, describing the arrangement as a “takeover under the guise of widowhood.” He criticized the will for inconsistencies such as misspelled names, incorrect addresses, and an informal tone that he said did not align with Sunjay Kapur’s character or his typical business documents. He further questioned why the will was not registered, arguing that a person of Sunjay Kapur’s stature would likely ensure legal formalities were observed to protect his legacy.
In response, the other side has argued that contributors to the will’s drafting included individuals connected to the estate, and that the disputes over who drafted the document should not overshadow the substantive aims of the will—namely, the distribution of assets in accordance with Sunjay Kapur’s wishes as communicated through the purported instrument.
What Comes Next in the Delhi High Court
As the hearing resumes, the court will weigh the will’s authenticity, the legal sufficiency of the language used, and the credibility of witnesses who attest to the draft’s creation and signing. The judge’s task is to determine whether the document represents Sunjay Kapur’s true testamentary intent or if it has been manipulated to alter the distribution of assets to family members and other beneficiaries.
Conclusion: A Case That Mirrors Media-Fueled Debates
Beyond the specifics of the will, the case underscores how identity, language, and provenance can become charged symbols in modern inheritance disputes. The court’s forthcoming rulings will not only resolve the dispute over Sunjay Kapur’s estate but may also influence how digital wills are scrutinized in future high-profile cases in India.
