Court Preserves Assets Amid Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Alleged Will
In a significant ruling on April 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an interim injunction in a partition suit filed by Ms. Samaira Kapur and Master Kiaan Raj Kapur against Mrs. Priya Kapur and others. The case, involving an alleged will purportedly executed by the deceased Mr. Sunjay Kapur, was shrouded in suspicious circumstances, prompting the court to intervene to preserve the assets of the estate pending trial.
The plaintiffs, Samaira and Kiaan, asserted their rights as Class-I heirs to the estate of their father, Sunjay Kapur, who allegedly died intestate. Their claims were challenged by Priya Kapur, who propounded a will dated March 21, 2025, designating her as the sole beneficiary of Sunjay's personal assets. The plaintiffs contended that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including unnatural disposition and anomalies in its execution and custody.
In her judgment, Justice Singh emphasized the need for the propounder of the will, Priya Kapur, to dispel all legitimate suspicions surrounding the document to satisfy the judicial conscience that it represents the free and voluntary act of Sunjay Kapur. The court noted several suspicious circumstances, including the late disclosure of the will, the lack of consultation with the executor, and inconsistencies in the chain of custody of the original document.
The court's decision to grant an interim injunction was based on a prima facie case established by the plaintiffs, highlighting the need to preserve the estate's assets pending a thorough examination of the will's validity. Justice Singh restrained Priya Kapur from alienating, transferring, or encumbering both movable and immovable assets within India and abroad, including shares in Indian companies, funds in bank accounts, and personal effects like watches and jewelry.
However, the court acknowledged its limitations in exercising jurisdiction over immovable properties situated outside India, citing provisions under Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Justice Singh left open the possibility for the plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedies concerning foreign assets in accordance with international law.
The judgment marks a critical juncture in the high-profile legal battle, as the court seeks to safeguard the estate's assets amidst ongoing disputes over the alleged will's authenticity. As the case proceeds to trial, the parties involved will be tasked with presenting further evidence to substantiate their claims and counterclaims regarding Sunjay Kapur's estate.
Bottom line:-
Partition suit involving alleged Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances - Interim injunction granted to preserve assets pending trial - Court restrained defendant from alienating, transferring, or encumbering assets, both movable and immovable, situated in India and abroad.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 16, Proviso; Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 63(4)(c)
Ms. Samaira Kapur v. Mrs. Priya Kapur, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892103
