A fresh layer of legal complexity has emerged in the ongoing inheritance dispute over the estimated Rs 30,000 crores estate of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, with senior advocates questioning the validity of the Will produced by his third wife, Priya Kapur, on grounds of non-compliance with probate requirements and absence of executor consent.

Delhi HC examines validity of Sunjay Kapur will over absence of probate and executor action; details inside

During proceedings on December 10, 2025, counsel representing Sunjay Kapur’s children, Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, argued before the Delhi High Court that the alleged Will suffers from structural and legal infirmities that go beyond procedural lapses. At the centre of the challenge is the conduct of the named executor, Shradha Suri Marwah, who, according to the Will’s own clauses, was required to immediately assume custody of the estate’s assets and initiate probate proceedings following Kapur’s death.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani contended that neither step was taken. “Defendant no. 4 has acted in complete dereliction of the alleged Will,” he submitted, pointing out that no probate has been sought and no assets were taken under the executor’s control, despite the document making probate a mandatory requirement. Clause 3 of the Will, he argued, leaves no discretion on the matter.

The issue was further complicated by a June 24, 2025 communication in which Suri reportedly wrote to Priya Kapur, asking her to initiate probate proceedings. According to the children’s counsel, this correspondence implicitly acknowledges that the legal obligation to seek probate lay with the executor herself. They maintain that this contradiction undermines the document’s credibility and raises questions about whether the Will was ever intended to be acted upon as claimed.

Adding to the challenge is Suri’s earlier statement that she had no prior knowledge of being appointed executor until she allegedly received an email from Dinesh Agarwal, a witness to the purported Will. Jethmalani argued that under settled law, an executor cannot be appointed without consent or at least prior consultation, calling the lack of such consent a “serious red flag” in the Will’s execution and presentation.

Legal experts echoed these concerns. Bombay High Court lawyer Rahul R. Shelke said the inconsistencies strike at the root of enforceability. “If a Will mandates probate and custodial transfer and the executor ignores both, the court is entitled to question whether the Will existed in the manner claimed. You cannot selectively rely on a Will—either it is followed in full or its credibility collapses,” he noted.

Alongside questions over probate, the children’s counsel also pressed the court to appoint an independent administrator to safeguard Sunjay Kapur’s overseas assets until the Will’s validity is conclusively determined. Jethmalani warned that without court oversight, foreign assets could be sold, refinanced or otherwise dealt with, potentially dragging the parties into multiple overseas legal battles.

“There should be a receiver or an administrator appointed for Sunjay’s assets. If this Will is used overseas, we could be forced to litigate in several jurisdictions,” he told the court, stressing that unlike domestic assets, foreign holdings can be moved or encumbered with little real-time supervision.

Sunjay Kapur’s international portfolio reportedly includes residential properties in New York and the United Kingdom, as well as overseas-linked investments connected to Aureus Investments Pvt Ltd. According to the children’s side, ownership claims to these assets currently rest on the disputed Will.

Senior advocate Pratik Thadani observed that ambiguity becomes particularly risky when foreign assets are involved. “It is neither wise nor equitable to leave control with a single beneficiary when a Will is under challenge and executor obligations remain unfulfilled. Appointing an independent administrator is not about choosing sides but about protecting the estate until the court reaches a final view,” he said.

The concern, as outlined before the court, is that once transactions based on an unverified Will take place abroad, they may be difficult or impossible to reverse, even if an Indian court later rejects the document. For Samaira and Kiaan Kapur, the demand for an administrator is positioned as a protective measure to preserve the estate and ensure that the final adjudication is not rendered meaningless by irreversible cross-border actions.

As the Delhi High Court continues to scrutinise the alleged Will, the dispute now hinges not just on signatures and witnesses, but on whether the document was ever acted upon in the manner the law requires.

Also Read:Priya Kapur’s ‘position swap’ defence faces major setback in Sunjay Kapur Will case: Court flags power grab, missing attachment and “suspicious suppression”

Tags : Bollywood, Children, Death, Delhi High Court, Demise, Karisma Kapoor, Kiaan Kapur, Kids, Legal case, News, Priya Kapur, Priya Sachdev, Samaira Kapur, Sunjay Kapur, Sunjay Kapur Will Case