Delhi High Court
Ms. Samaira Kapur & Anr vs Mrs. Priya Kapur & Ors on 30 April, 2026
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30th April, 2026
+ CS(OS) 627/2025
MS. SAMAIRA KAPUR & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Adhiraj
Harish, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Akhil Sachar, Mr.
Shantanu Agarwal, Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma,
Mr. Manas Arora, Mr. Syed Hamza Ghayor, Ms.
Ananya Garg, Mr. Tapojit Sarker, Mr. Anjani
Kumar, Ms. Prachi Dubey, Ms. Mehak Joshi, Ms.
Samayra Adhlakha, Mr. Tushar Nair, Mr. Shivam
Mishra, Ms. Sunanda Tulsian and Mr. Prafull
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
MRS. PRIYA KAPUR & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Ms. Shyel
Trehan, Senior Advocates with Ms. Meghna
Mishra, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Mr. Tarun Sharma,
Mr. Rohit Kumar and Mr. Prabhat, Advocates for
D1.
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Meghna Mishra, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Mr. Tarun
Sharma, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Mr. Krishnesh Bapat,
Ms. Janhvi Sandhu and Mr. Aditya, Advocates for
D2.
Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Smriti Churiwal, Mr. Jaiveer Kant, Ms. Vidisha
Jain, Ms. Meher Thapar, Mr. Akash Kumar and
Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Advocates for D3.
Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Ms. Divya Bhalla and Mr.
Raghav Dutt, Advocates for D4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 1 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
I.A. 22292/2025 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)
1. This judgment will dispose of an application filed by the Plaintiffs
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of
interim injunction.
2. Plaintiff No.1/Ms. Samaira Kapur (‘Samaira’) is the daughter of Late
Shri Sunjay Kapur (‘Sunjay’) and Plaintiff No.2/Master Kiaan Raj Kapur
(‘Kiaan’) is the minor son. Both Plaintiffs are born out of wedlock between
Sunjay and Ms. Karisma Kapoor (‘Karisma’), which marriage was dissolved
by mutual consent in the year 2016. It is stated in the plaint that mother of
the Plaintiffs has no interest adverse to the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1/Ms.
Priya Kapur (‘Priya’) married Sunjay after dissolution of his marriage with
Karisma and Defendant No.2/Master Azarias S. Kapur (‘Azarias’) is the
minor son born out of the said wedlock and is impleaded through Priya, his
next friend and natural guardian. Defendant No.3/Ms. Rani S. Kapur
(‘Rani’) is the mother of Sunjay and Defendant No.4/Shradha Suri Marwah
(‘Shradha’) is the executor of the alleged Will dated 21.03.2025,
propounded by Priya.
3. The case set out on behalf of Samaira and Kiaan in the plaint is that
Sunjay is the son of Late Dr. Surinder Kapur (‘Surinder’) and Rani and has
two sisters. Karisma and Sunjay got married on 29.09.2003 and Samaira and
Kiaan were born from the said wedlock. Sunjay married Priya on
13.04.2017 and they were blessed with a son, namely, Azarias. Even after
the divorce, Sunjay continued to have very good relations with Karisma and
the children and both were co-parenting. Samaira and Kiaan were always in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 2 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
touch with Sunjay and travelled on holidays, celebrated festivals together
and spoke to each other regularly on video and audio calls and were also
connected as part of many WhatsApp groups. When they visited Delhi,
Samaira and Kiaan often stayed with Sunjay at his Rajokri House, where
they had designated rooms for themselves and this is a matter of common
knowledge. Most festivals like Diwali as also weekends were spent by the
children at Delhi, which is fortified by photographs, WhatsApp chats and
videos. Sunjay often travelled to Mumbai and stayed with them at their
residence and after Samaira went to the University in USA, Sunjay visited
her in Boston and many times Samaira travelled to New York to meet her
father.
4. It is stated in the plaint that Sunjay, Samaira and Kiaan also went
together on many holiday trips, both in India and abroad, such as the trip to
England in June-July, 2022; New York in July, 2022; Thailand in
December-January, 2023; Spain in July-August, 2024; New York in
November-December, 2024; and South Africa in December, 2024. On these
trips, the entire family, including Karisma was together and Rani also
accompanied them for holiday in Thailand. Sunjay also took Kiaan
separately for holidays on many occasions, especially to England, where
father and son shared special moments. In fact, just prior to Sunjay’s
untimely demise, Kiaan and Sunjay were in Goa for a holiday from
15.03.2025 to 17.03.2025. Prior thereto, in 2023, Kiaan visited Doon
School, Dehradun, from where Sunjay had done his schooling and thereafter
both proceeded for a holiday to Rishikesh. In July, 2024, Sunjay took Kiaan
to see some parcels of land in United Kingdom, which he was proposing to
buy. Both Samaira and Kiaan were always a part of most of the important
events in Sunjay’s life which included his 50th birthday in 2021; NSE and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 3 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
BSE listings in Mumbai for M/s Sona BLW Precision Forging Limited
(‘Sona Comstar’); and celebration of completion of 25 years of Sona
Comstar.
5. It is stated that Sunjay and Karisma were equally and fully involved in
the day-to-day affairs and needs of Samaira and Kiaan related to their
education, hobbies, courses and travel etc. Sunjay was constantly guiding
the children about educational courses, possible career prospects and
passions they could pursue and often discussed his businesses and assets,
both personal and also those part of the Family Trust and re-assured that
being beneficiaries of several assets, they had no reason to be financially
insecure. Around April-May, 2025, Sunjay informed Karisma, Samaira and
Kiaan that he had acquired assets in Europe and was in the process of
applying for and obtaining Portuguese citizenship for the children as his
dependents, owing to tax benefits on inheritance. In fact, Power of Attorneys
were executed by Samaira and Kiaan for this purpose and copies were sent
to Sunjay’s representative on 07.06.2025 on WhatsApp, followed by the
original.
6. It is stated that the unexpected turn of events on 12.06.2025 left
Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan in a state of shock when they heard of the
untimely demise of Sunjay. All the three reached England on 14.06.2025
and later left for India for Sunjay’s last rites. While in England, Priya on her
own informed Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan that Sunjay had not left any Will
and all assets were part of the RK Family Trust (‘Trust’) as also that some
regulatory forms were required to be filled in relation to the Trust, however,
no document was shared by her. Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan attended the
funeral and all other ceremonies and the final rites of Sunjay were
performed by Kiaan, being his eldest son.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 4 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
7. It is stated that on 07.07.2025, Priya informed Karisma that Samaira
and Kiaan were required to attend the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of
Sona Comstar on 25.07.2025 and Form BEN-1 in respect of five companies
was to be signed, since they were the beneficiaries of the Trust albeit at that
time, they did not have a copy of the Trust Deed. Samaira and Kiaan were
told that their accountant should contact one Mr. Dinesh Agarwal (‘Dinesh’)
who was CFO and Director of a company called Aureus Investment Private
Limited (‘AIPL’) for documentation, however, despite contacting Dinesh
many times on 11.07.2025 and 12.07.2025, no documents were shared.
Subsequently, Karisma was informed that there was no requirement to
attend the AGM.
8. It is averred that in furtherance of the decision between the parties to
have a joint meeting with legal advisors, Priya organised a meeting on
30.07.2025 at Taj Mansingh Hotel in Delhi to discuss matters relating to the
Trust. The meeting was attended by Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan along with
their legal advisors, Priya and her legal advisors as also Shradha, Dinesh and
Mr. Nitin Sharma (‘Nitin’). At the start of the meeting, Samaira and Kiaan
were asked to sign a declaration of confidentiality, whereby they could share
any information with prior permission of Priya, which they refused to sign.
Thereafter, Shradha flashed a document in her hand, purportedly a Will
executed by Sunjay on 21.03.2025, in which she was named as the Executor
and declared that she had learnt of the Will on the previous day i.e.,
29.07.2025 from Dinesh and Nitin, who were attesting witnesses in the
document. She hurriedly read some parts of the document, which conveyed
that the entire personal assets of Sunjay had been bequeathed entirely to
Priya, to the exclusion of Samaira and Kiaan and even Rani. She refused to
share the copy of the document and the meeting ended.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 5 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
9. It is stated that on 22.08.2025, Karisma addressed an e-mail to
Shradha asking her for copy of the alleged Will, in response to which on
26.08.2025, Shradha sent an e-mail stating that it was a confidential and
private document and only inspection will be allowed subject to signing a
Declaration of Confidentiality, which was objected to vide e-mail dated
08.09.2025, since being Class-I legal heirs children could not be denied
access to the document. However, the purported Will was not shared and
thereafter, present suit was filed.
10. By the present application, Plaintiffs seek interim injunction
restraining Priya and all those acting on her behalf from creating any lien,
charge, encumbrance, mortgage or third party interests in or otherwise
dealing with, transferring or disposing of, in whole or in part, the estate
(movable and immovable), left behind by Sunjay, pending the disposal of
the present suit. Multiple contentions were canvassed on behalf of all
parties, which are encapsulated in brief hereunder:-
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS
11. Samaira and Kiaan are Class-I heirs of Sunjay and have a vested right
to their respective 1/5th share in his estate under the law of succession since
Sunjay died intestate. Priya has propounded the alleged Will dated
21.03.2025, wherein she is the sole beneficiary, but the document is clearly
forged, fabricated and unregistered and is propounded only to deprive
Samaira and Kiaan of their legitimate shares in their father’s estate and
hence, till the Will is proved by Priya in accordance with law and pending
disposal of this suit, assets of Sunjay, both movable and immovable, must be
preserved. It is settled law that in exercise of powers under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Court can grant all interim reliefs and protections which
are necessary to preserve the subject matter of the suit and prevent abuse of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 6 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
process of law. Interim relief sought is preventive in nature and intended to
maintain status quo on Sunjay’s vast estate so that assets do not dissipate
and fait accompli is not created and must be construed purposively and not
pedantically. At this stage, if assets are alienated by Priya basis the forged
Will and third party rights are created, irreparable damage and harm shall be
caused to the Plaintiffs but if the assets are preserved, no prejudice will be
caused to Priya. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of Samaira and
Kiaan, being Class-I legal heirs.
12. It is trite that ordinarily, Will has to be proved like any other
document and is required to be attested by two attesting witnesses of which
one attesting witness must prove the execution, if alive and capable of
giving evidence. The initial onus lies on the propounder to prove the
genuineness of the Will and the onus is primarily discharged on proof of
facts which are essential to the making of the Will. However, if suspicious
circumstances surround the Will, then the case stands on an entirely
different footing and this makes the onus heavier on the propounder, which
he/she must discharge before the document can be accepted as last Will of
the Testator. In the present case, the alleged Will is shrouded in suspicious
circumstances and Priya will have to lead evidence at the stage of trial to
remove all the legitimate suspicious circumstances and thus during the
pendency of the suit, other Class-I legal heirs are entitled to seek
preservation of Sunjay’s assets. [Ref: H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.
Thimmajamma and Others, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 31; Kavita Kanwar v.
Pamela Mehta and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 209; Shivakumar and Others v.
Sharanbasappa and Others, (2021) 11 SCC 277; and Bharpur Singh and
Others v. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687].
13. Gravamen of the case of Samaira and Kiaan is that the alleged Will is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 7 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
fabricated and surrounded by grave and suspicious circumstances and once
the Will is questioned, no reliance can be placed on the document by Priya,
until the same is probated. There are several circumstances which are
pointers to the truth of assertions made by the Plaintiffs that Sunjay did not
execute the document purported to be his testamentary disposition. In the
first interaction with Priya in England soon after the demise of Sunjay, she
categorically told Karisma that Sunjay had not left behind any Will and
Samaira and Kiaan will be required to sign some documents being the
beneficiaries under the Trust. However, later in the meeting held on
30.07.2025 at the Taj Mansingh Hotel, there was a shocking revelation of
the alleged Will, which was hurriedly read out by Shradha, but copy was not
shared. Shradha specifically stated that she was made aware of the Will only
a day before i.e., 29.07.2025 by Dinesh and Nitin and this factual statement
made by Karisma in her e-mail dated 22.08.2025 to Shradha was not
disputed by her in reply e-mail dated 26.08.2025.
14. In the first purported e-mail by Dinesh to Shradha sent on 14.06.2025,
he attached copy of the Trust Deed and not the Will. Shradha responded
vide e-mail dated 15.06.2025 and sought the original Will as an executor
and also enquired the name of the lawyer who had drafted. Shradha is stated
to be a close friend of Sunjay for over two decades as also an executor, yet
she did not know about the existence of the Will until 29.07.2025 and/or its
draftsman. As per material on record, Dinesh never responded to this e-mail.
It was only during one of the hearings in Court that a position was taken that
Will was drafted by Nitin and not a lawyer, an assertion not found anywhere
in the pleadings in the first instance. In Smt Jaswant Kaur v. Smt Amrit
Kaur and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 369, the Supreme Court held that lack of
evidence on who drafted the Will and who typed it, is a suspicious
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 8 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
circumstance. It was also observed that normally executors are not appointed
without their consent or at least without prior consultation. Both these
anomalies assume greater significance in this case since Sunjay was a highly
educated and well read person with a legal team and there was no reason for
him to ask Nitin to draft his Will as also not inform or consult Shradha
before alleged execution when she is stated to be an old friend. Moreover,
Nitin has not stated in his affidavit dated 13.10.2025 that he drafted and
prepared the Will. Clause 3 of the Will ordained Shradha to probate the Will
and if the Will was genuine, she ought to have acted accordingly, which she
has not done till date, despite it being challenged.
15. Shradha purportedly sent an e-mail to Priya on 24.06.2025 informing
her of the receipt of the original Will as also seeking information if the Will
was registered and/or probated. The e-mail is conspicuously silent on who
delivered the original document to her as also the time and place of delivery.
Additionally, if Shradha had custody of the original Will, she would have
known from paragraph 3 thereof that the Will was not registered/probated
and as an executor she was authorised to collect all assets and defray
therefrom various expenses for administration including for obtaining a
probate of the Will such as Court fees, Attorney fees etc.
16. The chain of custody of the purported original Will casts a further
cloud on the document propounded. Priya’s case is that the Will was created
on a device controlled by Nitin on 10.02.2025 and was later modified on the
same device on 17.03.2025 and finally executed on 21.03.2025 in front of
two witnesses, Dinesh and Nitin in the office of AIPL, Gurgaon albeit in the
affidavits, the two witnesses have not disclosed the place where the Will was
executed. After the execution, Will was purportedly scanned by Nitin and a
PDF file was created on 24.03.2025 and on the same day he sent an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 9 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
e-mail to Dinesh, attaching copy of the Will. There is not a whisper in the
pleading as to who delivered the hard copy of the original Will to Dinesh.
Nitin’s attesting affidavit is silent on when and how Dinesh got the original
Will. There is also a glaring contradiction on how the original came into the
custody of Shradha. Shradha has stated in her written statement that original
Will was handed over to her on 24.06.2025 by Dinesh but in her e-mail
dated 26.08.2025, which was in response to Karisma’s e-mail dated
22.08.2025, she did not contest the assertion that in the meeting held on
30.07.2025, Shradha had informed all presents therein that she had received
the Will only on 29.07.2025 from Dinesh. Priya, on the other hand, asserts
in paragraph 15(c) of her written statement that original Will was handed
over to Shradha by Priya herself on 24.06.2025. Affidavit of Dinesh is silent
in this regard and date of 24.06.2025 is itself suspect, given that this was a
date of Rasam Pagdi of Kiaan on the occasion of Tervi ceremony of Sunjay
at Rajokri House in Delhi. If this plea is to be accepted, it would also imply
that during the Tervi ceremony when family and friends were mourning the
tragic death of Sunjay, handing over of Will was taking place, wherein even
Kiaan was disinherited. There is an unexplained vital gap in the chain of
custody of the original Will.
17. The computer device, of which screenshot has been filed and on
which the Will is claimed to have been prepared, belongs to Nitin. The draft
of the Will prepared on 10.02.2025 is stated to have been modified on
17.03.2025 at 11:14:54. Albeit the reason for modification was not disclosed
in the pleadings and it was only revealed during the course of hearing that
the draft was modified to include the name of Ms. Safira Chatwal (‘Safira’)
Priya’s daughter from her first marriage as also the name of the executor, the
date of 17.03.2025 itself reveals the falsity of Priya’s stand inasmuch as on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 10 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
the said day, Sunjay was in Goa on a holiday trip with Kiaan and travelled to
Delhi later in the day after he learnt that Rani had fallen and hurt herself. In
these circumstances, it is inconceivable that Sunjay was suggesting
modifications to a Will on 17.03.2025, wherein he had disinherited both the
persons whom he loved so much and cared for. Most importantly, there is no
sign of any response from Sunjay in the entire trail of preparation,
modification and/or execution of the final document either through e-mail or
a message in the WhatsApp group of Sunjay, Priya and Dinesh, where he
allegedly approved the final draft.
18. The stated theory of modification in the Will is also false and
fabricated and this is clearly evident from the glaring errors in the Will,
which are on very fundamental aspects. Illustratively, name of Sunjay’s son
is misspelt as ‘Master Azrias’ instead of ‘Master Azarias’ and the
declaration clause refers to the male Testator as ‘Testatrix’ and ‘her’. The
document mentions incorrect residential address of Samaira and Kiaan,
where Sunjay stayed several times when he visited Mumbai. There is a
reference in the Will to a schedule of artworks but there is no such schedule
appended to the Will and the Will refers to three bank accounts while listing
six bank accounts. The document also incorrectly identifies Safira as
Sunjay’s daughter. With Sunjay’s known educational and family
background, fluency in English, business experience etc., there was no way
that he would have made such fundamental errors in the first place and then
overlooked the same while suggesting modifications, if Priya is to be
believed. Sunjay was very meticulous in documentation and was handling
and managing a large empire and business and could never have signed on a
document with such blatant errors, especially, when it was his own
testamentary disposition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 11 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
19. The disposition is completely unnatural, considering that all Class-I
heirs, except Priya have been excluded and that too in the backdrop of
the facts and circumstances of this case. Sunjay was with Samaira in
Boston shortly before 10.02.2025 and was with Kiaan on 17.03.2025, on
which day he rushed to Delhi on learning of Rani’s fall, cutting short his
trip. On 21.03.2025, Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan were in constant
touch with Sunjay on calls, as pleaded in paragraph 40 of the plaint
and corroborated by texts of WhatsApp messages as also timing of the calls
and call durations. It would be wholly unnatural for Sunjay to execute
a Will excluding the Plaintiffs as beneficiaries/legatees to his personal
estate, while he was engaging with them with such fondness,
affection and concern. Priya has not denied the calls in her written
statement knowing that the original devices i.e., mobile phones will
substantiate this position. In fact, Priya is in possession of Sunjay’s mobile
phones and can verify these calls and the messages exchanged,
unless messages been deliberately deleted. Equally unbelievable is the
exclusion of Rani, looking to the unconditional love and respect Sunjay had
for his mother and knew that his estate was largely built from her husband’s
assets.
20. The alleged execution of the Will is itself surrounded by suspicious
circumstances. Priya has asserted in the written statement that the Will was
executed on 21.03.2025 by Sunjay in presence of Dinesh and Nitin at the
office of AIPL, Gurgaon and she was also present at the time. Neither of the
attesting witnesses have stated in their attestation affidavits that the Will was
executed in Gurgaon, much less at AIPL’s office. In fact, neither Sunjay nor
Priya were present in Gurgaon on 21.03.2025 and this will be eventually
proved during trial. As of now it is sufficient to note that even the attesting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 12 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
witnesses have not stated in their affidavits that Sunjay had signed the Will
in their presence.
21. Other suspicious circumstances shrouding the Will are: (a) Priya, who
has played a prominent role in the making of the Will, is the propounder,
custodian and sole beneficiary of the Will; (b) there is complete silence on
what transpired between 10.02.2025, when the Will was allegedly created
and 17.03.2025, the date of alleged modification; (c) signatures of Sunjay do
not match with his actual signatures and the forgery is evident from a bare
look at the document with a naked eye; (e) a document purporting to dispose
of a substantial estate of a well-educated and well-read person such as
Sunjay is unregistered; (f) the document is neither executed on non-judicial
stamp paper nor notarized; (g) a very crucial fact is missing in the pleadings
as to who drafted the alleged Will; and (n) document is purportedly created
on 10.02.2025 on Nitin’s computer and screenshot shows it was imported
from some other device but the source is not disclosed.
22. Both the attesting witnesses Dinesh and Nitin are interested persons.
Dinesh is a Director while Nitin is the Additional Director in AIPL, a
holding company of Sona Comstar. Dinesh facilitated and played an active
role in appointment of Priya as Managing Director (MD) of this company on
20.06.2025 with a lucrative salary of Rs. 1 crore per month, perquisites upto
Rs. 50 lakhs per annum and performance bonus, apart from other facilities
such as vehicles, house etc. This appointment was a step towards gaining
unlawful control over substantial assets of the Trust and needless to state for
mutual benefit of both. Dinesh and Nitin also aided in misappropriating
Sunjay’s assets from the time of his death, starting from the monies lying in
the banks and Demat Account. Form MGT-14, downloaded from MCA’s
website and filed as Document No.8 with the plaint, evidences that notice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 13 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
was issued on 18.06.2025, one day before Sunjay’s cremation, calling for
Board meeting of AIPL on 20.06.2025 under Section 196 of the Companies
Act, 2013, for appointment of MD and Priya was appointed. Strangely,
while the Minutes of Shareholders’ Meeting purportedly called on
18.07.2025 at 12:30 PM, which are part of MCA records and in which there
is a reference to Minutes of Meeting of Board of Directors of AIPL held on
20.06.2025, reflect that appointment of Priya was as a Director in AIPL
against a Casual Vacancy owing to death of Sunjay, but the actual Minutes
of 20.06.2025 show that Priya was appointed as a MD with financial pay out
and not as a Director in a Casual Vacancy under Section 161(4) of the
Companies Act, 2013. Pertinently, neither notice of the meeting of
shareholders was given to Samaira and Kiaan nor the identity of the
shareholders was disclosed and for an obvious reason that these
meetings were never convened and Priya’s appointment was an outcome of
a well planned and orchestrated conspiracy between her, Dinesh and
Nitin and to cover up the misdeeds, a paper trail was created. Nitin was also
given a lucrative appointment as Additional Director in AIPL on
02.08.2025, just two days after the meeting on 30.07.2025 at a hotel, where
Samaira and Kiaan were present but were not informed of the intended
appointment.
23. Even the monies were withdrawn by Priya in connivance with the
attesting witnesses. Documents No. 62 and 63 filed by Priya make it evident
that Dinesh filled the forms for withdrawal of money from the accounts in
Kotak Mahindra Bank and curiously though the forms were filled in August,
2025, the amounts were appropriated by Priya as a nominee and not as a
legatee under the Will, which was allegedly signed and witnessed earlier on
21.03.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 14 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.3/RANI
24. Present suit and interlocutory application have been filed by Samaira
and Kiaan owing to sudden demise of their father on 12.06.2025 and
compelled by the unlawful and unexpected actions taken by Priya to take
exclusive control of the business and assets of Sunjay, basis a purported
Will dated 21.03.2025, whereby all other Class-I heirs have been divested
from their shares in Sunjay’s estate. Under the applicable provisions of
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’), Rani, Samaira, Kiaan, Priya and
Azarias are all Class-I legal heirs of Sunjay. The Kapur Family Chart is as
follows:-
25. Rani being one of the natural Class-I heir of Sunjay has a legal right
to succeed to his personal estate since he died intestate. All assets forming
part of the estate of Kapur Family including the assets of Sunjay including in
the alleged Will were created, acquired and/or developed entirely out of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 15 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
wealth, funds, resources and estate belonging to Surinder, who began his
entrepreneurial journey in 1980s in the automative industry, incorporating
various companies that today form the renowned Sona Group. In 2006,
Sunjay was inducted into the already flourishing business and appointed as
Director in AIPL. Unfortunately, on 30.06.2015 Surinder died but by a Will
dated 06.02.2013 he bequeathed all movable and immovable assets, held
exclusively by him, in favour of Rani and hence, she is the true owner of all
properties, investments and holdings forming part of the entire estate, since
she never divested herself of any asset by way of Trust or otherwise. After
the demise of Surinder, Rani was appointed as Chairperson of AIPL and
Sona Comstar, however, due to her old age she entrusted Sunjay with the
responsibility to manage the day-to-day affairs of Sona Group.
26. Surinder never approved of Sunjay’s relationship with Priya till he
was alive albeit he had not met her. While Sunjay was married to Karisma,
he developed a relationship with Priya but Surinder was not in a favour of
the two getting married since Sachdev Family did not enjoy a good
reputation and also that he was deeply disapproving of Priya’s conduct and
demeanour. Consequently, till he was alive they did not marry and it was
post his demise that the marriage was solemnized on 13.04.2017. The
marriage was however not successful as Priya and Sunjay had repeated
fights over every other issue and from 2023 onwards things worsened. Priya
projected to the public as if she played a pivotal role in forming a
harmonious blended family but the fact was that she constantly complained
to Rani regarding visits of Karisma to their house as also her accompanying
them on vacations. In these circumstances, it is improbable that Sunjay
would have made Priya the sole beneficiary of his entire personal estate, to
the exclusion of Samaira and Kiaan as also Rani.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 16 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
27. The circumstances in which Sunjay died on 12.06.2025 remain
suspect till date. When Sunjay passed away suddenly while playing a Polo
match in UK, only Priya was present with him and it is her narrative that a
bee sting had caused a cardiac arrest. Priya did not even attempt to seek
proper investigation into the true cause of death, which was so sudden and
untimely. Strangely, instead of mourning Sunjay’s death, she got busy in
securing Board positions and appointments in various entities associated
with Sunjay in connivance with Dinesh and Nitin. Even the post-mortem
report was not shared by Priya with Rani. She hurriedly manoeuvred to get
herself appointed as Director of AIPL on 13.06.2025 itself, which is the very
next day of Sunjay’s death. She was appointed as MD of AIPL on
20.06.2025 i.e., within 7 days of the death and next day of the funeral and
soon thereafter, as Additional Director of Sona Comstar on 23.06.2025,
when the entire family was mourning and was in deep shock and grief due to
untimely demise of Sunjay. In fact, taking undue and unconscionable
advantage of Rani’s grief, vulnerability and diminished capacity, Priya
coerced and defrauded Rani to execute several documents, the contents and
implications of which were neither explained to her nor understood by her.
28. The alleged Will was forged and fabricated by Priya in connivance
with Dinesh and Nitin and the unnatural disposition excluding and
disinheriting Samaira, Kiaan and Rani and depriving them of their legitimate
inheritance, is suspicious considering the bond of love between them. The
purported signatures of Sunjay on the Will are forged, a fact which will
come true after evidence is led by the parties. Will is unregistered and
neither notarized nor stamped. Sunjay was highly educated and extremely
meticulous with documentation in the ordinary course of things. He was
advised by a legal team compromising of competent professionals, on both
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 17 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
personal and business matters and it is most unexpected of him to have
executed and signed on a Will with glaring spelling mistakes and other
blatant errors as fundamental as errors in the spellings of his son’s name or
reference to Safira as his daughter or ‘Testatrix’ and ‘her’ instead of
‘Testator’ and ‘him’. The fact that Nitin was awarded by appointing him as a
Director in AIPL on 02.08.2025 speaks volumes of the collusion between
Priya, Dinesh and Nitin to usurp all assets of Sunjay and deprive the other
heirs of their legitimate rights.
29. The list of personal assets owned by Sunjay on the date of his demise
filed by Priya is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. Sunjay owned
substantial assets, both in India and abroad and the assets disclosed are not
even close to what he actually owned and possessed such as several luxury
watches of Omega and Rolex brands, more than 20 fine arts in the house,
horses, illustratively. The crypto accounts disclosed by Priya are
unbelievably valued at approximately Rs.1.29 crores and the bank accounts
show meagre deposits of Rs.1.72 crores only. These assets can be only a
miniscule percentage of assets of a person whose yearly income was Rs.60
crores from AIPL alone for financial year 2024-2025, in addition to
income/salary from other companies and dividends from Sona Comstar. It is
unfathomable that a man of Sunjay’s stature and high net worth will have no
life insurance policies, Key Mans Insurance Policy, mutual funds,
investments in stock markets etc. and in any event, his investments in
various startups and rental incomes were publicly known. The list also does
not include several immovable properties, which amounts to concealment. It
is also learnt that family members and friends of Priya have started
siphoning off the assets and Sachdev Family is actively engaged in acquiring
assets in India and abroad using funds of Kapur Family.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 18 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
30. The alleged Will was purportedly executed in Gurgaon on 21.03.2025
with the sole beneficiary being Priya. There is a wide gap in the pleadings
on the chain of custody inasmuch as it is unknown how the signed Will was
handed over to Nitin and then to Dinesh and thereafter to Priya. In fact,
Sunjay was travelling abroad on the same day as the date of execution of the
Will. Dinesh hurriedly sent an e-mail to Shradha on 14.06.2025 sharing
copy of the alleged Will and requesting her to execute the same at a time
when the rest of the family was in UK and even post-mortem had not taken
place. There is no explanation for the haste shown and no plausible reason
for attaching a Trust Deed with the e-mail instead of the alleged Will in the
first instance. E-mail fails to disclose how Dinesh got the coordinates of
Shradha and/or who authorized him to correspond with her sans any
instruction from the family members. Dinesh in his e-mail to Rani sent on
17.06.2025 stated that he was not working with or associated with Kapur
Family until 2022, which contradicts the stand taken by Priya that Dinesh
was closely associated with the family since 1998. Will was disclosed to
Samaira and Kiaan on 30.07.2025 but shockingly not to a mother.
31. Priya’s repeated stand that Samaira and Kiaan are beneficiaries under
the Trust and have received shares worth Rs. 1900 crores, which explains
and justifies their disinheritance from Sunjay’s estate, is wholly
misconceived and factually false. Admittedly, Rani is the Settler of the Trust
and therefore, neither Priya nor Sunjay can have any role in granting those
shares to the children albeit as a matter of fact, they have never received the
said amount.
32. Priya’s argument to justify the exclusion of Rani from the Will that it
is family tradition, is preposterous to say the least. The comparison between
Surinder’s Will with the alleged Will of Sunjay is wholly inapt. Rani and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 19 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
Surinder were happily married for 45 years and she was his only wife, in
comparison to Priya, who was married for 7 years and has the history of
broken marriages and moreover, Priya and Sunjay had an unhappy marriage
since 2023 and were consulting marriage counsellors.
33. The Will is alleged to be executed at Gurgaon in presence of two
attesting witnesses at the office of AIPL. However, affidavits of both
attesting witnesses do not specify the place of execution and there is no
material on record which substantiates presence of Priya in the office at the
time of execution of the alleged Will. Strangely, the Will states that it is in
supersession of earlier Wills and testaments, however, in e-mail dated
26.06.2025 sent by Priya to Shradha, she confirms that the alleged Will is
the only and last Will of Sunjay.
34. It is trite that burden to prove a Will lies squarely on the propounder,
who must establish its due execution, the testamentary capacity of the
Testator and be compliant with provisions of Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (‘1925 Act’) and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (‘1872 Act’). In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao
and Others, (2006) 13 SCC 433, the Supreme Court held that where
suspicious circumstances attend the execution of the Will, such as exclusion
of natural heirs, unnatural dispositions, secrecy, active involvement of
beneficiary etc., the burden on the propounder becomes substantially heavier
and mere proof of signature or attestation is insufficient. In such a case,
propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicious circumstances by clear,
cogent and satisfactory evidence so as to satisfy the conscience of the Court
that the will represents the free and voluntary act of the Testator, before the
document is accepted as a will.
35. Priya has taken an objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to deal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 20 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
with foreign assets of Sunjay, but the same is devoid of merit. Section 16
CPC deals with jurisdiction of Courts pertaining to various suits, including
partition of immovable property and provides that suits for partition shall be
instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
property is situate. Proviso to the Section is an exception and stipulates that
the suit can be instituted even where the property is not situated, if the relief
can be entirely obtained through personal obedience of the Defendant and
since in the instant case, admittedly Priya resides in Delhi, the relief can be
obtained through her personal obedience. The Supreme Court in Harshad
Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Another, (2005) 7 SCC 791,
held that Proviso to Section 16 will be applicable, where the relief sought
can be entirely obtained through personal obedience of the Defendant and is
based on the maxim ‘equity acts in personam’ which in turn is based on the
principle that Courts can grant relief in respect of immovable property
situate abroad by enforcing their judgments by process in personam i.e., by
arrest of the Defendant or by attachment of his/her property. To the same
effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul
Infrastructure Developers Ltd. and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3584.
36. Priya has made all efforts to exclude Rani from the affairs of Sona
Comstar and to siphon off and misappropriate monies/assets left behind by
Sunjay. Even the post-mortem report dated 28.06.2025 was not shared with
Rani, who is the mother of the deceased. The report was purportedly sent on
WhatsApp on 01.08.2025, which stand assuming to be correct, is rather
strange as the gap between the date of the report and sending the same to the
mother is over a month. In fact, Priya falsely informed employees of Sona
Group that e-mail ID of Rani had been hacked and compromised and this
was to ensure that all information and documents pertaining to business and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 21 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
Kapur family were withheld from Rani. Multiple e-mails were sent by Rani
to Priya, Dinesh and Nitin asking for copy of the alleged Will and other
financial information but the same was denied on the pretext that the e-mail
had been compromised and hence, it was not secure to share documents and
any information. Out of the five bank accounts of the deceased disclosed in
the List of Assets, two of them were closed by Priya and all monies from
remaining three banks were transferred to herself at an extraordinary speed
and after having done so, the alleged Will was disclosed. In light of all these
suspicious circumstances in which the alleged Will is shrouded, an
interlocutory injunction needs to be granted to preserve the assets of Sunjay
pending the partition suit, filed at the instance of Class-I legal heirs of the
deceased seeking share in their father’s estate.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO.1 AND 2
37. Without prejudice and without entering into the merits of the case,
Priya has taken a stand in her written submissions that she has no intention
to create third party interests in the Indian assets forming part of the estate of
Sunjay viz. (a) shares in three Indian companies; (b) employees provident
fund amounting to Rs.5,22,53,980/-; (c) various personal effects, including
watches and jewellery; and (d) various artworks and will not sell or alienate
or create third party rights in these assets, without the leave of the Court. As
regards money lying deposited in the accounts of the two Indian Banks,
cumulatively amounting to Rs. 1,73,52,930.39/-, Priya will only withdraw
money to the extent of discharging the liabilities relating to: (i) balance
repayment of loans amounting to Rs. 18,63,41,085.97/- cumulatively as on
12.06.2025; (ii) expenses on higher education of Samaira and Kiaan,
whether in India or overseas including expenses for boarding, lodging and
travel and payments towards 50% of their marriage expenses, which Sunjay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 22 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
was required to do under the divorce decree between Karisma and Sunjay;
and (iii) expenses towards administration of the Will including expenses
incurred in obtaining probate, Court fees, Attorney fees etc. Hence, no
interim relief is warranted in these circumstances.
38. Insofar as, foreign assets of Sunjay, as brought forth in the pleadings
and the List of Assets are concerned, this Court lacks jurisdiction to pass any
order, much less interlocutory order. Samaira and Kiaan have invoked
territorial jurisdiction of this Court inter alia on the grounds that one of the
assets of Sunjay is the shares of a company with registered office at Delhi,
Defendants reside in Delhi and Sunjay was domiciled in Delhi as also that
the meeting in which they learnt of the alleged Will was held at Delhi on
30.07.2025. This stand is, however, misconceived in light of Section 16(b)
CPC which provides that suits for partition of immovable property are
required to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the property is situate. Proviso to Section 16 stipulates that a suit
to obtain relief in respect of or compensation for wrong to immovable
property held by or on behalf of the Defendant, where relief can be entirely
obtained through personal obedience of the Defendant, may be instituted
either in the Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situate or where
Defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
However, Explanation to Section 16 expressly provides that ‘property’ as
referred to in the Section ‘means property situate in India’ and therefore, it
is clear that immovable property referred to in Section 16(b) as also the
Proviso, is property situate in India and not immovable property outside
India. Under well settled principles of Private International Law, questions
of title, partition etc., in respect of immovable property can only be
determined by Courts in whose jurisdiction the property is situate and as per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 23 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
applicable laws of that country. [Ref.: R. Viswanathan and Others v. Rukn-
ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid Since Deceased and Others, 1962 SCC OnLine
SC 112; M.Y.A.A. Nachiappa Chettiar v. M.Y.A.A. Muthukaruppan
Chettiar and Five Others, 1945 SCC OnLine Mad 310; and Abdullabhoy
Esoofally Chas and others v. Akberally Samsuddin Raja and others, 1943
SCC OnLine Bom 39]. Therefore, this Court cannot direct partition qua
immovable assets of Sunjay situated in a foreign jurisdiction and thus no
interlocutory injunction can be granted in aid thereof.
39. It is equally settled that interlocutory orders can only be granted in aid
of final orders. In the plaint, Samaira and Kiaan have sought relief of
declaration of title inter alia in relation to foreign estate of Sunjay, which
declaration is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and consequently, the
preliminary and final decrees of partition will also be beyond the
jurisdiction. Relief of permanent injunction sought in paragraph 56(e) of the
plaint is consequential to the aforesaid prayers and cannot survive
independently and hence, temporary injunction cannot be granted.
Moreover, Sunjay, Priya and Azarias as also Samaira and Kiaan are all
American citizens and thus personally subject to jurisdiction of the US
Courts and Senior Counsel for Samaira and Kiaan conceded to this position
of law in the hearing on 09.12.2025. The interlocutory prayer is beyond the
reliefs sought in the plaint and hence, what cannot be granted directly cannot
be granted indirectly. If Court grants any relief with respect to immovable
assets in the foreign jurisdiction, the impact will be to restrain Priya from
relying on the Will in legal proceedings in foreign jurisdictions including in
probate proceedings qua foreign assets of Sunjay and would amount to anti-
suit injunction, contrary to the principle of comity of Courts. Reliance on
Proviso to Section 16 by Rani is misplaced inasmuch as Courts have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 24 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
consistently held that Section 16 bars the jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain a suit in respect of immovable property, which is situate outside its
jurisdiction and the only amendment to the Section so far is the substitution
of the words ‘British India’ to ‘India’ in 1951.
40. In any event, there is no prayer in the suit to declare the Will dated
21.03.2025 null and void and the question whether Samaira and Kiaan are
entitled to share in Sunjay’s estate is yet to be adjudicated. Albeit it is
admitted in the plaint that Plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the
Will before the filing of this suit and Will was disclosed during the first
hearing itself, till date no application has been filed for amendment of the
plaint. Relief of injunction at this stage in favour of Samaira and Kiaan
will require the Court to render a prima facie finding that they are entitled to
a share in the estate of Sunjay and the Will is prima facie invalid,
which cannot be done at this stage and is a matter of trial. Moreover,
shares of Indian companies already stand transferred to Priya being the
nominee designated by Sunjay and any interim order with respect to the
shares, will amount to passing an order status quo ante, which is
impermissible.
41. Will dated 21.03.2025 is the last and final testament of Sunjay,
whereby he has bequeathed his entire personal estate in favour of Priya as
his sole beneficiary. Priya is Sunjay’s widow and disposition of properties in
her favour is only natural, more particularly, looking at the family tradition
where Surinder had willed his estate in favour of Rani. There are no
suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Will was duly executed by
Sunjay in sound state of mind and he had the testamentary capacity to do so.
Will is attested by two attesting witnesses, both of whom have filed
affidavits in this regard. Therefore, Priya has discharged the onus of proving
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 25 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
the Will in consonance with the requirements of Section 63 of 1925 Act and
Section 68 of 1872 Act.
42. The sequence of events and documents on record clearly indicate and
substantiate the steps taken by Sunjay in executing the Will as also the chain
of custody of the original Will dated 21.03.2025 and are sufficient at this
stage to prove its genuineness. On 10.02.2025, draft of the Will was
prepared as word document and screenshot of the properties section of the
word document fortifies that the draft was prepared at 15:10:16 IST on
Nitin’s device. On 17.03.2025 certain modifications were carried out in the
Will to include the names of Safira and the executor and this is also
demonstrated from the screenshot of the word document which evidences
modification on Nitin’s device at 11:14:54 IST. Will was executed by
Sunjay on 21.03.2025 at AIPL’s office in presence of two attesting
witnesses Nitin and Dinesh, where Priya was also present. PDF version of
scanned copy of the Will was created on 24.03.2025 at 10:06 AM, which
can be seen from the screenshot of the properties section of the PDF
document. On the same day at 10:10 AM, Nitin shared executed copy of the
Will with Dinesh through an e-mail. Screenshots show that the document
attached to this e-mail is the same as the Will filed before the Court. Dinesh
shared the executed Will on WhatsApp group named ‘Family Office IC’
including Sunjay, Dinesh and Priya on 24.03.2025 at 10:15 AM. Video
showing opening of the document circulated on the WhatsApp group has
been filed on record. Sunjay saw the WhatsApp message on the group on
24.03.2025 at 05:01 PM and in his message sent on the same day, Dinesh
stated ‘Sir, Above is signed will for both. I will hand over the original
documents to you in our next meeting’. On 01.04.2025, Dinesh met Sunjay
and Priya at Rajokri Farms and handed over the original Will to Sunjay,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 26 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
whereafter it was kept in safe custody by them at their house. On 14.06.2025
at 07:44 PM, Dinesh sent an e-mail to Shradha, after the sudden demise of
Sunjay on 12.06.2025 and while replying to the e-mail at 21:49 PM, Shradha
flagged that the document attached in the e-mail was not a Will.
Immediately at 22:00 hours, Dinesh through another e-mail on the same
thread correcting the inadvertent mistake and attaching copy of the Will. On
24.06.2025, Shradha visited Priya at her house and the original Will was
handed over to her by Priya. On the same day at 06:54 PM, Shradha sent an
e-mail to Priya acknowledging the receipt of the original Will. Sunjay had
constituted the WhatsApp group, where IC stands for ‘Investment
Committee’ on 03.04.2022 and he was the admin of the group. Limited
composition of the group clearly reflects his trust and confidence in Priya
and more importantly in Dinesh, who is also a witness to his Will, to
manage and take investment decisions for the family. The mobile number
used by Sunjay in this group is the same number through which Samaira and
Kiaan communicated with him throughout. The group was totally active and
Sunjay consistently participated by responding to requests, forwarding
newspaper articles and engaging in discussions including shortly after
execution of the Will and even on the day of his demise. Will is duly
accompanied by affidavits of both the attesting witnesses albeit in terms of
Section 281 of 1925 Act, only a probate petition is required to be
accompanied by an affidavit of at least one attesting witness. The entire
electronic record in support of the affidavits filed by Priya and two
witnesses under Section 63(4)(c) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (‘BSA’)
has been filed, wherein witnesses have supported and affirmed the aforesaid
electronic chain of events including the e-mails and WhatsApp
communications.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 27 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
43. Plaintiffs’ contention that the bequest by Sunjay is unnatural
inasmuch as he could never have excluded Samaira, Kiaan and Rani, is
misconceived. On Sunjay’s demise, Samaira and Kiaan admittedly became
beneficiaries of substantial assets under the Trust, valued at several times
over and above the value of entire personal estate of Sunjay. Under the
Trust, they and Azarias are named as beneficiaries of income of the Trust to
the extent of 13.33% each, while Priya is named as beneficiary of 60%. This
shows that even under the Trust settled by Rani during the lifetime of
Sunjay, through which he exercised control over family companies and Sona
Comstar, distribution was not equal. Even otherwise, bequest of a Testator
in favour of his spouse is per se not unnatural. Additionally, under the
divorce decree dated 13.06.2016, as part of the settlement between Karisma
and Sunjay, financial liability albeit limited, for education and marriages of
Samaira and Kiaan is to be met from the estate of Sunjay. In any event, both
were not entirely excluded from the estate inasmuch as it was provided in
the Will that in the event Priya pre-deceased Sunjay, the children would be
the beneficiaries under the Will.
44. When the suit was filed, no question was raised on the authenticity/
genuineness of the Will but as the case proceeded, Samaira and Kiaan
changed their case entirely to argue that the Will was shrouded in suspicious
circumstances. It is trite that no new case can be set up at the stage of filing
of replication, if it has no foundation in the plaint.
45. The Will is genuine and not surrounded by any suspicious
circumstances, as alleged. It is undisputed that Sunjay was of sound mind
and body when he died and no material has been placed on record, which
even suggests that his signatures are forged. Clear electronic evidence on
record establishes the creation and execution of the Will and though not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 28 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
required, affidavits of both the attesting witnesses have been filed. Trial is
yet to take place and at that stage the witnesses would depose and will be
cross-examined on this aspect. At the stage of interlocutory application, no
prima facie view can be taken by the Court on the alleged suspicious
circumstances, which will be a matter of trial and onus is on Samaira and
Kiaan to prove the allegations by leading cogent evidence.
46. The fact that the Will surfaced only on 30.07.2025 in a meeting held
at a hotel in Delhi, where Karisma, Priya, Shradha and respective legal
representatives were present, is hardly a suspicious circumstance.
Admittedly, during the said meeting Shradha read out the contents of the
Will in everybody’s presence and in fact, Priya was in constant touch with
Karisma for planning the meeting. Will did not surface on 30.07.2025 for
the first time since it was sent as an e-mail attachment by Dinesh to Shradha
vide e-mail dated 14.06.2025, which was soon after the sudden demise of
Sunjay. The screenshot preview of the Will as an attachment filed by Priya,
appears right from the inception of the e-mail of Nitin dated 24.03.2025,
whereby he sent scanned copy of the Will to Dinesh and was received in the
inbox of Dinesh till the attachment was uploaded on the Family Office IC
WhatsApp group by Dinesh and thereafter, sent on e-mail dated 14.06.2025
to the executor. This dispels any unsubstantiated insinuation of Samaira and
Kiaan or Rani that Will dated 21.03.2025 is different from the one read out
on 30.07.2025 or that it is shrouded in suspicious circumstances.
47. Much has been highlighted on behalf of Samaira and Kiaan that there
are glaring mistakes in the Will which cast a cloud, but these allegations are
baseless and irrelevant. Spelling mistakes of the nature flagged in the Will
are not unprecedented in wills and in fact, even in the Will dated 19.03.2024
executed by Rani, name of Azarias is misspelt as Azrias. Sunjay’s Will was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 29 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
made as a template of Rani’s Will and consequently, mistakes have
inadvertently crept in. It is a settled law that typographical errors in the Will
do not undermine the credibility of the Will. [Ref.: Sanjay Kalra v. State,
2025 SCC OnLine Del 3820 and Priya Jain v. State and Others, 2025 SCC
OnLine Del 5520].
48. The chain of custody of the Will dated 21.03.2025 is over emphasized
by Samaira and Kiaan to falsely urge that the Will is forged and fabricated.
Will was executed on 21.03.2025 but was scanned on 24.03.2025 for the
simple reason that 21st was a Friday and scanning was done on the following
Monday i.e. the next working day. Plaintiffs also seek to doubt the
authenticity of the Will, owing to its custody with Priya since 01.04.2025.
This can have no bearing on the genuineness of the document and it is clear
from the documents that Dinesh had messaged in the WhatsApp group on
24.03.2025 that he will hand over the original in the next meeting, which
was on 01.04.2025 and where the original was handed over to Sunjay and
Priya. The initial stand taken by Shradha that original Will was handed over
to her by Dinesh is merely an error for which an application has been filed
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment. The correct position is that
original Will was handed over to Shradha by Priya on 24.06.2025 when
Shradha visited her house and this stands acknowledged in the e-mail dated
24.06.2025 sent by Shradha to Dinesh and Priya.
49. It is wrong to level allegations against the attesting witnesses. Both
witnesses were employed in AIPL during the lifetime of Sunjay and in
particular, association of Dinesh in companies owned by Kapur Family dates
back to 1998 and he was also a trusted employee of Surinder. Dinesh’s
position in AIPL has been of Chief Financial Officer and Director since
April, 2022. He is a renowned Chartered Accountant with experience of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 30 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
more than 29 years and has been a witness to various key family documents.
Nitin joined Raghuvanshi Investment Private Limited (‘RIPL’) in May,
2022 during lifetime of Sunjay as a Company Secretary with designation of
General Manager, Legal and CS. He was later promoted as Assistant Vice
President, Legal in RIPL during lifetime of Sunjay. In fact, Nitin was
appointed as Additional Director of AIPL on 02.08.2025, without any
remuneration and does not receive sitting fees as Director. Pertinently, Nitin
has been a Director in other companies under the Trust since 2022, which
are BRS Finance Investment Private Limited, Pune Heat Treat Private
Limited and Osborne Sports and Nutrition Private Limited. All these
positions of directorship were offered to him during lifetime of Sunjay. It is
relevant that first witness of the Will of Surinder was the then Company
Secretary and even Sunjay has chosen a Company Secretary as a witness.
There is nothing on record to substantiate that any unnatural benefits have
been bestowed on the witnesses, so as to cast a cloud on the Will on this
basis.
50. It is wrong to contend that affidavits filed by Priya and witnesses are
non-compliant with Section 63(4)(c) of BSA. The affidavits contain a clear
deposition that digital record has been taken from device/digital record
source i.e., laptop. Notably, affidavits filed by Samaira and Kiaan along with
the plaint in support of WhatsApp chats are identical inasmuch as they also
only refer to a laptop/computer operated by Karisma albeit several chats of
Samaira and Kiaan have also been filed. In any event, at this stage of
proceedings, defects in the affidavits, if any, are curable.
51. There is nothing unnatural in excluding Rani from the Will inasmuch
as Sunjay would never have anticipated pre-deceasing his 79 year old
mother and even otherwise, Rani was well taken care of by both Sunjay and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 31 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
Priya as also her two daughters. The allegation that assets have been
concealed by Priya is unfounded and merely speculative, not supported by
any documentary evidence. Rani has failed to place on record a single
document evidencing ownership of undisclosed personal assets of Sunjay.
Mere photographs showing watches or paintings in the background do not
establish Sunjay’s personal ownership, more so, when such items may have
belonged to the corporate entities and present proceedings concern only
personal estate of Sunjay and not corporate assets. The claim by Rani that
Sunjay was receiving Rs. 60 crores as a salary, is misleading. He received
Rs.10 crores as Director remuneration and a one-time bonus of Rs.50 crores,
which is duly supported by Board Resolution. After statutory deductions,
Rs. 36.5 crores remained of which Rs. 28.5 crores was utilized during his
lifetime for acquisition of disclosed immovable assets in UK. The personal
spendings/earnings of Sunjay during his lifetime have no bearing on this
case and cannot be questioned. Much was argued on the Rolex watches and
its concealment in the List of Assets. The allegation is based on screenshots
from a fake Instagram account that does not belong to Sunjay and this fact is
well known to Rani. All bank accounts and fund position, post-demise of
Sunjay, have been fully disclosed by Priya in a sealed cover in the List of
Assets. Funds from two bank accounts were lawfully transmitted to Priya
being a nominee and no one can claim a right over transactions carried out
by Sunjay during his lifetime. The two bank accounts referred to by Rani
had zero balance since their inception, which is evidenced by the banking
records.
52. The assertion by Rani that Sunjay held 6.5% shareholding in Sona
Comstar is factually incorrect since he held 6.5% in AIPL, which translated
to approximately 2.18% indirect shareholding in Sona Comstar and these
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 32 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
shares have lawfully devolved on Priya. The claim that Priya was removed
as Director due to marital discord is demonstrably false. She voluntarily
resigned from AIPL and was simultaneously appointed President of the
operations of RIPL, which is another group company. Parallel corporate
restructuring involving both spouses occurred in 2023, negating any
suggestion of marital discord, which is further disproved by public records,
travel history and social media posts. Nomination of Priya as the sole
nominee of all bank accounts and the DEMAT account are in line with the
bequest made in the Will. Had there been any marital discord, Priya would
not have remained the sole nominee of Sunjay’s accounts during his
lifetime. Sunjay applied for Portugal residency for the entire family
including Priya’s daughter from the earlier marriage and this was only a step
towards tax planning since family members were American citizens and
Samaira and Kiaan stood to receive substantial benefits under the Trust. In
fact, at the behest of Karisma, Sunjay also initiated a conversation on her
proposed citizenship application.
53. Priya has placed on record electronic proof of the executed copy of
the Will being circulated to Sunjay along with electronic record of his
having seen the executed copy. The WhatsApp group on which the copy was
circulated, was created by Sunjay as administrator and he was active on the
group after such circulation until his demise and the alleged suspicious
circumstances are thus only a figment of imagination of Samaira, Kiaan and
Rani. Rani continues to receive the same financial support which she did
prior to Sunjay’s demise, including monthly payment of Rs. 21.5 lakhs. It
appears that she has no personal grievance and is under influence of third
parties to contest Sunjay’s Will and/or every legal action taken by him
during his lifetime.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 33 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4
54. Shradha is an entrepreneur and runs an automobile company. She has
been an independent Director in one of the companies in Sunjay’s group of
companies. She was appointed as the Executor of Will dated 21.03.2025 left
behind by Sunjay and is neither the beneficiary under the Will nor has
personal or pecuniary interest in the estate of Sunjay. Her role is limited to
acting as an Executor in accordance with law and directions of this Court.
Shradha has at all time confined herself to her duties as Executor, ensuring
due administration of the estate as per law and is a neutral party, who has
acted with complete fairness. Shradha facilitated reading of the Will in the
meeting held on 30.07.2025 in presence of Samaira, Kiaan and Karisma and
their legal representatives as also Senior Counsels and did not withhold or
conceal any fact.
55. The suit as framed is not maintainable. Having knowledge of the Will,
Samaira and Kiaan have not sought a declaration regarding invalidity of the
Will and it is wrong for them to contend that no declaration is required.
Reliance on the judgment in Venigalla Koteswaramma v. Malampati
Suryamba and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 246, in this context is also misplaced
since in the facts of that case, Plaintiff was unaware of the Will, which was
propounded for the first time in the written statement. This is more so when
the entire argument of suspicious circumstances allegedly surrounding the
Will are predicated around the invalidity of the Will. The glaring fallacy of
the argument of Samaira and Kiaan is that they emphasize on the suspicious
circumstances in the conduct of the Executor, whereas suspicious
circumstances that have to be substantiated are in the making and execution
of the Will and not the conduct of the Executor, after receiving the Will.
[Ref.: Kavita Kanwar (supra)]. It is a misconceived submission that conduct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 34 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
of Shradha in reading the Will or exchanging e-mails with Priya or the
attesting witnesses casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the Will.
The judgments relied upon by Samaira and Kiaan are wholly inapplicable to
the instant case. In the said cases, evidence was concluded when the
decisions were rendered and more importantly, there was total exclusion of a
close relative from the entire inheritance of the deceased. In the present case,
Sunjay has given a beneficial interest to Samaira and Kiaan in the Trust,
which controls entire group of companies. Samaira and Kiaan have a
significant share in the Trust and it is thus not correct to argue that they are
totally excluded from inheritance. Even in the Will, it was envisaged that if
Priya pre-deceased Sunjay then, personal estate of Sunjay would vest in all
children, including Samaira and Kiaan, however, if Sunjay pre-deceased
then his personal estate in the Will, will devolve on Priya and moreover, it is
not unnatural for a husband to leave his personal wealth to his wife,
particularly, when in this case, Samaira and Kiaan are taken care of through
the Trust.
56. Samaira and Kiaan have relied on the judgment in Jaswant Kaur
(supra) for the proposition that normally Executors are not appointed
without consent or at least without prior consultation and/or knowledge of
the Will being executed. In the said case, the Supreme Court found that the
allegation that the first wife had strained relation was not correct and the fact
that witnesses were strangers was a suspicious circumstance. Paragraph 20
of the judgment has to be read in this context where the Supreme Court
observes that normally the Executor is informed and the word ‘normally’
cannot be construed to mean that in all cases, Executor must be informed. In
any case, one of the Executors in the said case was the father-in-law of the
sole beneficiary and none of the Executors entered the witness box, which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 35 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
was found to be a suspicious circumstance. Sections 229 to 231 of 1925 Act
clearly establish the power of the Executor to renounce after the Will is
disclosed and this statutory scheme also shows that Executor may not be
aware of his/her appointment as an Executor before the Will is disclosed,
after the death of the deceased. The observation in Jaswant Kaur (supra)
has to be read in the context of the facts of the case and does not retract from
the statutory framework of 1925 Act. Samaira and Kiaan have failed not
only to show prima facie case but also failed to establish the balance of
convenience and irreparable injury, the trinity test for grant of interlocutory
injunction and this is more so when they have a stake in the Trust, which is
worth Rs. 2,465 crores.
57. Contentions of Samaira and Kiaan that: (a) on 14.06.2025, Will was
e-mailed to Shradha but with Trust Deed as an attachment and not the Will;
(b) Shradha did not ask for the Will and Dinesh rectified the error after
about one and a half hour by e-mailing the scanned Will; and (c) in e-mail
dated 22.08.2025, Karisma took a stand that Shradha was informed of the
Will only one day prior to 30.07.2025 and there was no denial to this in
reply dated 26.08.2025, are unfounded. On 14.06.2025, Dinesh e-mailed to
Shradha intimating that he was enclosing Sunjay’s Will and informed her of
her appointment as Executor. Shradha immediately pointed out the error and
requested for certified copy of the Will, whereafter Dinesh e-mailed a
scanned copy on the same day. On 15.06.2025, Shradha sought the original
Will, which she received on 24.06.2025 from Priya, who had custody of the
original. In e-mail dated 22.08.2025, Karisma wrongly stated that the Will
was disclosed on 30.07.2025 and Shradha learnt of it one day prior. This e-
mail was sent 22 days after the meeting on 30.07.2025 and was an
afterthought. On 26.08.2025, Shradha sent a reply stating that she was the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 36 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
Executor and copy of the Will could not be provided to non-beneficiaries
albeit inspection was permissible upon execution of an NDA. E-mail
correspondences are not pleadings and cannot be construed as admissions or
confessions. Shradha has filed contemporaneous e-mail on record to
establish that she had knowledge of the Will from 14.06.2026.
58. The allegations that Shradha’s conduct is such that she is acting in
collusion with Priya are sought to be substantiated by Samaira and Kiaan
through documents such as e-mail dated 15.06.2025, whereby Shradha
asked Dinesh for contact details of lawyer who drafted the Will, using
inverted commas, allegedly suggesting the Will was fabricated and e-mail
dated 24.06.2025, whereby Shradha sought confirmation if Priya had any
knowledge of any other Will or instrument executed by Sunjay modifying or
superseding the Will. Some of the e-mails exchanged between Shradha and
Priya were sent before any formal legal advice was sought by Shradha and
e-mails exchanged between non-legal persons cannot be construed to
suggest sinister design. In Delhi, probate is not mandatory as can be seen
from Section 57 of 1925 Act and thus no steps were taken to seek probate of
the Will. [Ref.: Mahalakshmi Pavani v. UCO Bank and Another, 2023
SCC OnLine Del 7741 and Clarence Pais and Others v. Union of India,
(2001) 4 SCC 325]. In fact, by e-mail dated 15.06.2025, Shradha sought
copy of the Will, certified to be true copy by a witness and registered by a
Notary, as the same would be required before acting as an Executor and/or
to seek legal assistance from the lawyer who drafted the Will. The original
Will was given to Shradha on 24.06.2025 by Priya on which date, the former
confirmed its receipt and sought information if this was the last Will. Priya
confirmed by e-mail dated 25.06.2025 that Will dated 21.03.2025 was the
only and last Will of Sunjay, duly witnessed and stated that the same could
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 37 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
be probated. On 08.07.2025, Priya informed Shradha of the funeral related
payments and sought advice on the next steps as she was the nominee in the
Banks’ and DEMAT accounts. Post this, a meeting was held on 30.07.2025
in which the Will was disclosed to all.
59. Shradha permitted Priya to proceed with transferring the Geojit
Financial Services Ltd. account as she was the sole nominee and beneficiary
under the Will and hence, the transfer was in consonance with the wishes of
the deceased. Similarly, even for the Kotak Mahindra Bank account, Priya
was the sole nominee and beneficiary under the Will and entitled to deal
with the account in the manner she desired. Under law, a nominee is entitled
to effect transfer of assets subject to rights of legal heirs. Samaira and Kiaan
raised no objection till 22.08.2025, thereby making Shradha believe that
there was no challenge to the Will and transfers were valid.
60. The allegations of Samaira and Kiaan that Will was not disclosed to
Karisma, Samaira and Kiaan immediately after Sunjay’s death and surfaced
a month later or that she read out the contents of the Will in a haste and did
not provide a copy etc., are baseless. The allegations are even otherwise of
no consequence as all these actions are post execution of the Will, albeit
vehemently denied. Non-furnishing of copy of the Will or seeking execution
of NDA cannot be a suspicious circumstance. Shradha has acted bona fide
and believes the Will to be genuine, particularly, since no party has disputed
the signatures appearing on the Will. There is no bar in law that a close
friend of a deceased cannot be an Executor of the Will. There is no
substance in the argument that being a close friend, Shradha ought to have
had prior knowledge of her proposed appointment as an Executor. If prior
knowledge was mandatory, Sections 229 to 231 of 1925 Act would not have
contemplated a situation where a named Executor refuses to act and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 38 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
provision relating to renunciation by an Executor would be redundant. [Ref.:
Rabinder Singh & Others v. State, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1395].
61. Heard learned Senior Counsels and counsels for the respective parties
and examined their rival submissions.
62. This suit is instituted by Samaira and Kiaan inter alia seeking
partition of the estate of Sunjay as his Class-I legal heirs on the ground that
Sunjay passed away intestate and on his demise being the daughter and son,
respectively, they are entitled to 1/5th share each, in the estate of Sunjay.
Priya has propounded an unregistered Will dated 21.03.2025 wherein Priya
is the sole beneficiary of the personal assets of Sunjay. In law, the onus to
prove that the Will was validly executed by Sunjay and is a genuine
document, is on Priya. As held in Niranjan Umeshchandra (supra), it is the
propounder, who is required to prove that the Testator has signed the Will
and had put his signatures out of his own free will with sound disposition of
mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in
this regard is brought on record the onus of the propounder may be
discharged. However, where suspicious circumstances attend the execution
of the will, the burden on the propounder becomes substantially heavier and
mere proof of signature or attestation is insufficient. In such cases, the
propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions by clear, cogent and
satisfactory evidence so as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the will
represents the free and voluntary act of the Testator. In the instant case,
Samaira, Kiaan and Rani have questioned the very execution of the Will and
flagged circumstances, which according to them are suspicious and hence,
the onus on Priya to prove the validity of the Will becomes substantially
heavier. In this context, it would be useful to allude to the exposition of law
by the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala (supra), as follows:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 39 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
“19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills
from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the
death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a
court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether
it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of
solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document
propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed
testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on
the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder
would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was
signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound
and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the
dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will.
Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is
disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing
state of the testator’s mind and his signature as required by law, courts
would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In
other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on
proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may
be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the
testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the
propounder’s case that the signature, in question is the signature of the
testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the
signature; the condition of the testator’s mind may appear to be very
feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in
removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the
dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or
unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise
indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator’s
free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all
legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document
is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious
circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and,
unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the
document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed
alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of
the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by
the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a
doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in
executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the
initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just
referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity.
Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills
which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 40 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and
has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as
a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the
propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and
satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such
suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention
the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the
reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from
similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they
exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use
of the word “conscience” in this context would, in our opinion, be purely
technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that,
in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before
the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn
question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by
the testator who is no longer alive.
22. It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in
applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard and fast or
inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It
may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to
prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any
suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the
propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by
cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the
result of the application of these two general and broad principles would
always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the
nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true
that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson1 “where a will
is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an
obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge,
even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable
incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth”. It would
sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering
truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though
vigilant, cautious and circumspect.”
63. In one of the earliest judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Jaswant
Kaur (supra), pertaining to suspicious circumstances, the Supreme Court
held as follows:-
“9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its
proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant.
What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a
matter of the court’s conscience and then the true question which arises
for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the willSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 41 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly
executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless
the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation
of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will.”
64. In Shivakumar (supra), the Supreme Court affirmed that the initial
onus to prove the Will lies on the propounder but can be taken to be finally
discharged on proof of essential facts that go into the making of the Will and
cases in which suspicious circumstances are pleaded by the objector to the
Will, stand on different footing and make the onus heavier on the
propounder and in which case the propounder must remove all legitimate
suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the
Testator and it is at this stage that the test of satisfaction of the judicial
conscious comes into operation. Court is then required to address itself to
the solemn questions as to whether the Testator had signed the Will, being
aware of its contents etc. It was also held that a circumstance is ‘suspicious’
when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is
not expected of a normal person. In other words, the suspicious features
must be real, germane and valid and not merely fantasy of the doubting
mind.
65. It is trite that whether any particular circumstance qualifies as
suspicious would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and
illustratively, some of the judicially recognised suspicious circumstances
are: shaky or doubtful signature of the deceased; unnatural and unfair
disposition of property; unjust exclusion of legal heirs, particularly, the
dependents; active or leading part played in the making of the will by the
beneficiary; manner of writing and execution of the will, using words which
were doubtful or not expected from the deceased; attesting witnesses are
unreliable; the will is unregistered and comes from the custody of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 42 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
person, who is the major beneficiary under the will etc.
66. It is equally settled that if the propounder succeeds in removing the
suspicious circumstances, Court must give effect to the will even if the will
might be unnatural in the sense that it has deprived natural heirs from the
benefit of the estate since a will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of
succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either
reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his
property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity to execute the will.
[Ref.: Uma Devi Nambiar and Others v. T.C. Sidhan (Dead), (2004) 2
SCC 321 and P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar
and Others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 664]. In given facts and circumstances of a
case, Courts have accepted wills even though they were unregistered and
therefore, to this effect proposition of law propounded on behalf of Priya
cannot be debated. [Ref.: Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi and
Others, (1953) 1 SCC 295]. It bears repetition to state that Courts have
recognised circumstances such as the will being unregistered and the
beneficiary taking substantial part in the will as also unnatural and unfair
disposition of the assets, more particularly, where most legal heirs are
excluded, as suspicious circumstances, which of course are triable issues.
When a cloud is cast on the will, test of judicial conscious comes in and
Supreme Court has cautioned that since the will speaks from the death of the
Testator, who has departed from the world and is unavailable to state
whether he had executed the will or not, Courts must tread cautiously while
dealing with the document.
67. Coming to the instant case, suspicious circumstances have been raised
by Samaira, Kiaan and Rani in respect of the alleged Will. Therefore, as a
propounder of the Will, Priya will have to dispel and remove all legitimate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 43 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
suspicious circumstances by clear, cogent and satisfactory evidence and
satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will represents the free and
voluntary act of Sunjay, before the document is accepted as a will. The
suspicious circumstances set up by Samaira, Kiaan and Rani are under three
broad heads: (a) unnatural disposition; (b) circumstances obtaining at the
pre-execution and execution stage of the alleged Will; and (c) chain of
custody of the original Will.
68. Under the first head, succinctly put, it is urged that Sunjay was very
close to Samaira, Kiaan and Rani and yet all the three Class-I legal heirs
have been completely divested from the estate of Sunjay, which is an
unnatural disposition given the bond of love and affection between them.
Sunjay had profound and unwavering love and affection for the two children
and was actively involved in their education and other co-curricular and
development activities. Several vacations were spent together and Sunjay
often visited Mumbai and stayed with the children, where all three spent
quality time and the WhatsApp chats and photographs placed on record,
bear testimony to this fact. Sunjay was also in the process of applying for
and obtaining Portuguese citizenship for the family including the Plaintiffs
as his dependents for the benefit of seeking tax exemption at the time of
inheritance. Sunjay shared a very special bond of love and affection with
Rani also and held her in high esteem, revered her deeply and constantly
supported her in every way, including emotionally. In fact, on 17.03.2025,
when the Will was allegedly modified on the instructions of Sunjay, he was
with Kiaan in Goa on a holiday trip and cut short his trip to come back to
Rani, who had suffered a fall. It is improbable that Sunjay would disinherit
the three, despite sharing a close and enduring bond of love and deep
affection.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 44 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
69. Under the other two heads inter alia Samaira, Kiaan and Rani have
formulated the following circumstances, which according to them dent
Priya’s claim that Sunjay desired to deviate from the path of natural
succession and has left behind a Will, maki ng her the sole beneficiary:-
(a) Will was not disclosed till the meeting at Taj Mansingh Hotel on
30.07.2025 and even during the meeting, copy of the Will was not
shared;
(b) Shradha informed everyone present in the meeting that she was
made aware of the Will only on 29.07.2025 by Dinesh and Nitin
and does not deny this fact in her e-mail dated 26.08.2025 sent in
response to Karisma’s e-mail dated 22.08.2025;
(c) Dinesh attaches a Trust Deed with his purported e-mail dated
14.06.2025 instead of copy of the alleged Will for unexplained
reason;
(d) Being the alleged Executor of the Will, Shradha is unaware of the
identity of the person who drafted the Will and seeks information
on 15.06.2025 from Dinesh, to which there is no response and
even after receiving the original Will, does not execute the same;
(e) It is strange and improbable that Sunjay did not even inform
Shradha of the Will executed by him, leave alone consulting her,
more so, when she was a close friend of Sunjay for the last 20
years, as urged by Priya;
(f) Shradha informs Priya vide e-mail dated 24.06.2025 that she was
in receipt of the original Will and yet seeks confirmation from
Priya whether the Will was registered or probated, especially in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 45 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
light of paragraph 3 of the alleged Will, wherein Shradha was
authorized to pay the expenses that she may incur on execution of
the Will and the e-mail is conspicuously silent on who gave the
original Will to her and when and where, considering that original
Will cannot be sent as an attachment to an e-mail;
(g) There is glaring contradiction on how the original Will came into
custody of Shradha inasmuch as Priya claims that it was she, who
handed over the original Will to Shradha at Priya’s residence while
Shradha claims that the Will was handed over by Dinesh on
24.06.2025, albeit she later tries to cover up this stand by filing an
amendment application. The initial draft of the Will is stated to
have been created on Nitin’s device on 10.02.2026 and modified
on the same device on 17.03.2025 but Nitin is completely silent in
his attesting affidavit as to how the original Will came into
Dinesh’s possession;
(h) Will is stated to have been executed and signed by Sunjay on
21.03.2025 at the office of AIPL, Gurgaon in the presence of
Dinesh and Nitin, whereafter hard copy was scanned by Nitin and
pdf was created on 24.03.2025. At best, Nitin could have attached
the copy of the Will for forwarding to Dinesh but there is no
material or explanation as to how the hard copy of the original
Will came to Dinesh. Dinesh’s affidavit is silent on the date and
the mode of receiving the original Will as also the identity of the
person from whom it was received;
(i) Neither Sunjay nor Priya were in Gurgaon on the date of execution
of the alleged Will and the omission to so state by the attesting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 46 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
witnesses in their affidavits speaks volumes of forgery committed
by Priya in collusion with the alleged witnesses. No material is
placed on record to show the presence of Priya and Sunjay in
Gurgaon on 21.03.2025;
(j) Will was allegedly modified on 17.03.2025 at 11:14:54 AM on
Nitin’s computer device. Admittedly, on the said day Sunjay was
in Goa holidaying with Kiaan and came back to Delhi by a 03:00
PM flight on learning that Rani had suffered a fall. It is improbable
that on 17.03.2025, Sunjay would suggest modification to a Will
which disinherits both Kiaan and Rani, given his love and concern
for them as also given the fact that a few days before 17.03.2025,
Sunjay was with Samaira in Boston;
(k) If the story of modification of the Will at the instance of Sunjay is
to be believed, it implies that Sunjay had thoroughly read the draft
before suggesting changes. Given Sunjay’s educational
qualifications, his business acumen, command over English
language and known reputation for being meticulous in handling
documentation, it is hardly open to debate that he would have
overlooked glaring errors in the Will, especially those relating to
spellings of his son’s name Azarias, incorrect identification of
Safira as his daughter, wrong address of Samaira and Kiaan’s
residence, reference to him as ‘Testatrix’ and ‘her’ instead of
‘Testator’ and ‘him’, missing artwork in the schedule as also
incomplete disclosure of his personal assets and also keeping in
view that Sunjay had a team of legal advisors and consultants etc.,
which are clear pointers to the Will being forged;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 47 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
(l) Propounder, custodian and sole beneficiary of the Will is Priya and
the Will is unregistered and has come from her custody after a
significant time gap from the date of its alleged execution;
(m) Signatures of Sunjay on the Will do not match with his actual
signatures even on a bare perusal by naked eye;
(n) Both the attesting witnesses are interested witnesses and were
offered high posts in the concerned firms of Sunjay, soon after his
demise; and
(o) There is no digital footprint of Sunjay in the digital record relied
upon by Priya. The early digital trail is based on the screenshots of
computer device belonging to Nitin, where initial preparation and
modification of the Will is stated to have taken place but there is
no input from Sunjay. The digital trail was then shifted to Dinesh’s
device and finally to prove involvement of Sunjay, reference was
made to a WhatsApp group ‘Family Group IC’ of which Sunjay,
Priya and Dinesh were members. The shift in stand also does not
aid Priya as even on this group there is no message from Sunjay
and hence, reliance on the ‘Blue Ticks’ is of no consequence.
Strangely, there is no input from Sunjay in connection with the
Will, either through e-mail or WhatsApp message and this is
evidence of the collusion between Priya, Dinesh and Nitin,
whereby they have prepared a document allegedly a Will of Sunjay
and forged his signatures on it.
70. Priya has refuted the stand of Samaira, Kiaan and Rani and has taken
a position that the Will is a genuine document and expresses the true and the
last wish and desire of Sunjay, whereby he has made her the sole beneficiary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 48 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
of his entire personal estate and emphasized that there is nothing unusual in
a husband willing his estate to his wife and historically, this has been the
tradition of the family since Sunjay’s father had also executed a Will making
Rani as the sole beneficiary. All parties have canvassed extensive arguments
and counter arguments.
71. The question that arises for consideration in this application is
whether the estate of Sunjay requires to be preserved during the pendency of
the suit. In my considered view, the answer to the question is in the
affirmative. This is a suit for partition of Sunjay’s estate filed by two of his
Class-I heirs and Rani, who is also a Class-I heir, supports the Plaintiffs.
Priya and Azarias are also Class-I heirs and Priya has propounded the
alleged Will, wherein she is the sole beneficiary and Samaira, Kiaan and
Rani question the Will and have pleaded multiple suspicious circumstances,
which as per them shroud the Will. In the ordinary course, if a will is set up
and the propounder discharges the onus by proving its due execution, the
document can be enforced, however, if objections are raised to the execution
of the will and suspicious circumstances are pleaded, the propounder cannot
escape the legal obligation of removing the legitimate suspicious
circumstances and in such a case, Court must also satisfy its judicial
conscious that the will is a genuine document and represents the desire and
last wish of the Testator, who is not available to speak the truth.
Genuineness of the Will propounded by Priya is now a matter of trial, in
light of the plea of suspicious circumstances set forth by Samaira, Kiaan and
Rani. Trial will take time and in the meantime, assets of Sunjay should not
dissipate. It is therefore, imperative that the assets of Sunjay are preserved,
pending disposal of the suit. It needs no reiteration that if the assets are not
preserved and Priya fails to prove the validity and genuineness of the alleged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 49 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
Will at the end of trial, Samaira, Kiaan and Rani would be deprived of their
legitimate shares as Class-I heirs.
72. The only other question that needs consideration is whether this Court
can exercise jurisdiction over the foreign assets of Sunjay’s estate in light of
the objections raised by Priya under Section 16 CPC. Rani has strenuously
contested this objection relating to the jurisdiction of this Court.
73. Section 16 CPC provides that subject to pecuniary or other limitations
prescribed by any law, suits inter alia for partition of immovable property
shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the property is situate. Proviso thereto provides that suit relating to
immovable property may be instituted either in the Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate or in the Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant actually and voluntarily
resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, where the relief
sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience. There is,
however, an Explanation to the Section which provides that ‘property’
means property situate in India. This issue came up for consideration before
the Madras High Court in M.Y.A.A. Nachiappa Chettiar (supra). Court
observed that treating the suit as one for partition of immovable property, it
would fall directly within Section 16(b) CPC, according to which a suit for
partition of immovable property should be instituted in Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, but the Explanation
is important which states that ‘property’ is property situate in British India
(now India). It was further observed that the suit for partition of immovable
property outside British India would not be covered by this provision and
therefore, to determine the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit for
partition of immovable properties outside British India, one must go to well
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 50 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
established rule of private international law.
74. Reference was made by the Madras High Court to Halsbury’s Laws of
England (Hailsham Edition, Vol. VI page 218), which states that “The
English Courts have, in general, no jurisdiction to determine directly the
title to a foreign immovable, nor can they entertain any action which
substantially involves the determination of such title.”. Reference was also
made to the observations in Deschamps v. Miller, [1908] 1 Ch. 856: “In my
opinion, the general rule is that the Court will not adjudicate on questions
relating to the title to or the right to the possession of immovable property
out of the jurisdiction.”. Having noted so, the Madras High Court observed
that this rule is founded on the general principle that Courts of a country
have no jurisdiction over i.e. have no right to adjudicate upon any matter,
with regard to which they cannot give an effective judgment. No Nation can
execute its judgment against immovable property in the country of another.
Moreover, if the Sovereign of a country has, in fact, the power to transfer the
ownership or possession of property in that country, it could only be the
judgment of his Courts in regard to such property which would be decisive
as to the right to such property. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as
follows:-
“Treating the suit as one for partition of immovable property, it would fall
directly within section 16(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to
which a suit for the partition of immovable property should be instituted in
the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is
situate. But the explanation is important. It says that in this section
“property” means “property situate in British India”. The result is that a
suit for partition of immovable property outside British India would not be
covered by this provision. To determine, therefore, whether the Court of
the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah has jurisdiction to entertain this suit
in so far as it is, or as it must be deemed to be, for partition of immovable
properties in Ceylon, that is, outside British India, one must go to the well-
established rules of private international law.
The basic rule appears to us to be undisputed. It is stated thus by Dicey
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 51 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
(Conflict of Laws, Fifth Edition, page 203):
“Subject to the exception hereinafter mentioned, the Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain an action for (i) the determination of the title
to, any immovable situate out of England (foreign land); or (ii)
recovery of damages for trespass to such immovable; or (iii) the
administration of a foreign charity under the supervision of the Court
or the settlement of a scheme for such a charity.”
In Halsbury’s Laws of England (Hailsham Edition, Vol. VI page 218) the
rule is stated in the following terms:–
“The English Courts have, in general, no jurisdiction to determine
directly the title to a foreign immovable, nor can they entertain any
action which substantially involves the determination of such title.”
Parker, J. in Deschamps v. Miller states the rule in similar terms:
“In my opinion, the general rule is that the Court will not adjudicate
on questions relating to the title to or the right to the possession of
immovable property out of the jurisdiction:”
This rule is founded on the general principle that the Courts of any
country have no jurisdiction over, that is, have no right to adjudicate
upon, any matter with regard to which they cannot give an effective
judgment. No nation can execute its judgment against immovable property
in the country of another. Moreover, if the Sovereign of a country has, in
fact, the power to transfer the ownership or possession of property in that
country, it could only be the judgment of his Courts in regard to such
property which would be decisive as to the right to such property. This
rule has been uniformly applied both in England and in India. In British
South Africa Company v. Companhia De Mocambique it was held by the
House of Lords that the Supreme Court of Judicature had no jurisdiction
to entertain an action to recover damages for a trespass to land situate
abroad even in a case when there was no competent Court in the country
in which it was situate. In re Hawthorne Graham v. Massey the title to
certain, immovable property in Saxony was in dispute between A and B. A
sold the property in Saxony, received part of the purchase money and took
a mortgage for the balance. Both A and B being in England, an action was
brought by B to make A account for the purchase money, but the suit was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In Deschamps v. Miller it was held
that the English Court will not adjudicate on a question of title to
immovable property situate in Madras. In that case the plaintiff sought to
impeach a settlement made by his father of immovable property in
Madras.
The Judicial Committee in Nilkanth Balwant v. Vidya Narasinh held that a
Court in the Bombay-Presidency had no jurisdiction to try a suit on a
mortgage so far as it related to properties in Kolhapur State, which is
outside British India. At page 502 their Lordships say:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 52 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
“Inasmuch as the properties in Kolhapur are not within the
jurisdiction of any Court in British India, the learned Subordinate
Judge of Satara had no jurisdiction to try this suit so far as it related
to the mortgaged properties situate in Kolhapur.”
Courts have refused to entertain applications to file an award, which dealt
with immovable properties outside British India; vide Krishna
Iyer v. Subbarama Iyer and Upendranath Basu v. Het Lal.
Cases of partition are more apposite. The rule in England is stated
in Halsbury’s Laws of England, First Edition, Vol. XXI, at page 838 thus:
“The Chancery Division has no jurisdiction to order partition of
immovable property outside the jurisdiction.”
The early case of Cartwright v. Pettus is considered authority for this rule.
In that case the Lord Chancellor refused to direct a partition of lands in
Ireland, though the parties were in England. Cheshire in his Private
International Law, Second Edition, at page 539, refers to this case as
exemplifying the general principle that no action raising the question of
the title to foreign immovables can be entertained by an English Court.
In Keshav v. Vinayak the plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration of their
title to a third share in what they alleged was joint family property, viz.,
certain annual allowances from the Government of the Nizam charged on
two villages, and to recover their share from the defendants to whom the
allowances had been paid. While the plaintiffs alleged that the allowances
were joint ancestral property, the defendants contended that they were the
exclusive property of their grandfather, to which the plaintiffs’ branch had
no right. It was held by Parsons and Ranade, JJ. that the District Court of
Nasik in which the suit was filed had no jurisdiction to try the suit,
because the allowances were in the nature of immovable property and
there was a bona fide dispute as to the title to them and that the plaintiffs
could not claim a declaration of title, or ask for the refund of the
allowances in a British Court, merely because the defendants happened to
be residents in British territory. In Krishnaswami v. Venugopala one K
filed in 1932 a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly
for recovery of possession of certain properties movable and immovable,
or in the alternative for partition of those properties. A large part of the
immovable properties was situated in Burma, the others being within the
jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly. On 1st
April 1937, when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation,
Burma ceased to be part of India and a question was raised that the Court
of Trichinopoly ceased to have jurisdiction thereafter in respect of the
properties situated in Burma, and it was held by Mockett and
Kunhiraman, JJ. that the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly could
continue to pass a decree affecting the properties situated in Burma also,
because the right to continue I a suit properly filed in a British Indian
Court before) 1st April 1937 had not been, taken away by the Government
of India Act, 1935. But it is clear from the judgment that the decision
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 53 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
would have been just the other way if the suit had been commenced after
1st April 1937, i.e., after Burma had ceased to be part of British India. At
page 381 Mockett, J. says:
“It is a basic principle of private international law that no British
Court will entertain a suit affecting immovable property in a foreign
country, nor will a foreign judgment adjudicating on the title to
immovable property within British jurisdiction receive recognition in
a British Court…………The decisions of the highest Courts are
unanimous.”
Confronted with what certainly appears to be an insuperable obstacle in
his way, the learned Counsel for the appellant had to concede that the
appellant could not pray for the relief of partition in specie of the
immovable properties in Ceylon. He also conceded that the Court could
not adjudicate on the title to the immovable properties, or direct delivery
of possession of such properties situate in Ceylon…..”
75. The same view was taken earlier by the Bombay High Court in
Abdullabhoy Esoofally Chas (supra), where the question that arose before
the Court was whether the Bombay High Court could order administration
and partition of the properties situated out of India, namely, partly at
Sidhpur within the territory of Baroda State and partly in Siam. It was held
by the Bombay High Court, after referring to several judicial precedents
cited by counsel for Defendant No.1 therein, that Bombay High Court had
no jurisdiction to administer immovable property out of British India.
Therefore in my prima facie view, if part of the properties of the estate of
the deceased is outside India, in a suit for partition this Court can exercise
jurisdiction only in respect of properties in India and not with respect to
those situated outside India.
76. Senior Counsel for Defendant No.3 contested this objection and
placed reliance on two judgments as above noted, however, none of these
judgments are of any aid. In Harshad Chiman (supra), the suit was for
specific performance of an agreement relating to immovable property by
directing Defendant No.1 to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 54 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
and deliver possession. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to
Section 16 is based on a well-known maxim ‘equity acts in personam’
which means that Courts can grant relief in suits respecting immovable
property situate abroad by enforcing their judgment by process in
personam i.e., by arrest of the Defendant or by attachment of his property
and is an exception to the main part of Section 16. The Supreme Court
observed that proviso cannot be interpreted to enlarge the scope of
principle provision and since the suit related to specific performance of an
agreement of immovable property situated outside Delhi and its
possession, it was rightly held by the Trial Court that it had no
jurisdiction. It is not understood, how this judgment is relevant to this case
and aids Rani.
77. The judgment in Rohit Kochhar (supra) is also of no help. The
pivotal question before the Supreme Court was whether the relief sought by
the Plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction and specific performance of
the contract in connection with commercial property situated in Gurgaon
could be entirely obtained through personal obedience of the Defendants.
Referring to the judgment in Harshad Chiman (supra), the Supreme Court
reiterated that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum
where the res is situate. It was observed that proviso to Section 16 will be
applicable to a case where relief sought by the Plaintiff could be obtained
through personal obedience of the Defendant, which means that Defendant
has not to go out of the jurisdiction of the Court for purpose of grant of
relief. Since the property was in Gurgaon, Defendants would require to go
out of Delhi to execute the Sale Deed and hence, the proviso will be
inapplicable. This judgment nowhere suggests or holds that in a partition
suit, Court will have jurisdiction over immovable property situate outside
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 55 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
India and this prima facie also emerges from a plain reading of the
Explanation to Section 16, which categorically stipulates ‘property’
means property situate in India. Accordingly, the objection raised by
Priya is prima facie tenable and no injunction can be granted qua the
immovable properties, which are part of Sunjay’s estate, situated
outside India. It is left open to Samaira, Kiaan and Rani Samaira to take
recourse to appropriate remedies in this regard, in accordance with law.
However, I am of a prima facie view that the bar under Section 16
cannot extend to moveable properties, from a plain reading of the provision
itself.
78. Having heard and on examination of the material on record, I am of
the considered view that the suspicious circumstances raised by the
Plaintiffs cannot be overlooked and Priya will have to completely dispel and
remove all legitimate suspicious circumstances and satisfy the judicial
conscious of the Court that the document propounded by her is the last Will
of Sunjay. Plaintiffs have thus made out a prima facie case that the
assets which are subject matter of the suit need to be protected from
dissipation and preserved, pending disposal of the suit. Balance of
convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and in case the assets in
question are not preserved and Priya is not restrained from
alienating/transferring/parting with the assets in question, irreparable harm
and injury shall be caused to the Plaintiffs. Be it reiterated that in her written
submissions, Priya has given some concessions with respect to alienation of
some Indian assets and this has been captured in the earlier part of this
judgement.
79. Accordingly, this application is partially allowed granting injunction
in favour of the Plaintiffs pending disposal of the suit. To balance the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 56 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
equities and preserve the corpus of the estate the following directions are
issued:-
(a) Priya is restrained from alienating, transferring, pledging,
liquidating and/or in any manner, changing the equity
shareholdings in the three Indian companies, namely, AIPL, BRS
Finance and Investment Company Private Limited and JTEKT
India Limited;
(b) Priya is restrained from withdrawing any money from Employees’
Provident Fund, which on the date of filing of the List of Assets
had a deposit of Rs.5,22,53,980/-;
(c) Priya is restrained from alienating, selling, transferring or pledging
personal effects of Sunjay enumerated in the List of Assets/Will
including watches, jewellery and artworks;
(d) Priya is restrained from withdrawing and/or transferring or
encumbering the money lying in the three bank accounts in the two
Indian banks, namely, HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank,
save and except, to the extent of discharging liabilities towards
Samaira and Kiaan under the decree of divorce between Sunjay
and Karisma and for which quarterly accounts statement shall be
filed on an affidavit in this Court;
(e) Priya is restrained from withdrawing, transferring or in any manner
encumbering the money in the foreign bank accounts, namely, JP
Morgan Chase Bank and HSBC UK, as detailed in the List of
Assets, without leave of the Court; and
(f) Priya is restrained from selling and transferring and/or in any
manner dealing with the cryptocurrency disclosed in the List of
Assets, including moving it to another wallet.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 57 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
80. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with a usual
caveat that the observations and findings in the present judgment are only
prima facie and will not effect the adjudication of the case on merits.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
APRIL 30 , 2026/YA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(OS) 627/2025 Page 58 of 58
Signing Date:01.05.2026
21:52:57
