“Assets Must Not Be Dissipated”: Delhi HC Freezes Sunjay Kapur’s Estate, Restrains Priya Kapur Over Contested Will

New Delhi: A will, a disputed inheritance, and allegations of forgery—on April 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court stepped into a high-profile estate battle, granting interim protection to the two children of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur by restraining their stepmother, Priya Sachdev Kapur, from dealing with the assets he left behind.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order on an interim injunction application, finding that a prima facie case had been made out for preservation of the estate pending trial.

Sunjay Kapur, who passed away suddenly in June 2025 in the United Kingdom, had two children from his earlier marriage to Bollywood actor Karisma Kapoor, which lasted from 2003 to 2016 and ended in divorce. He subsequently married Priya Sachdev Kapur, his third wife, who is now his widow.

After his death, his children approached the Delhi High Court through their mother, alleging that they had been wrongfully excluded from their father’s estate. At the centre of the dispute is a will dated March 21, 2025, which purportedly bequeaths Sunjay Kapur’s entire personal estate to Priya Kapur alone.

The children alleged that Priya Kapur, along with two associates, Dinesh Agarwal and Nitin Sharma, suppressed the existence of the will for over seven weeks before producing it at a family meeting on July 30, 2025. They contended that the will is forged and fabricated, and that Priya Kapur’s conduct reflects a deliberate attempt to usurp full control of the estate at the expense of other legal heirs.

The suit has been filed against Priya Kapur, her minor son, Sunjay Kapur’s mother Rani Kapur, and the named executor of the will, Shradha Suri Marwah. The children have sought a declaration recognising them as Class I legal heirs, a decree of partition granting them a one-fifth share each in their father’s estate, and, as interim relief, a freeze on all personal assets until the matter is adjudicated.

Justice Singh noted that both Karisma Kapoor and Rani Kapur have raised credible suspicions regarding the will’s validity and authenticity. Given that the genuineness of the will is now a matter to be determined at trial, the court found it necessary to ensure that the estate is not dissipated in the interim.

“Assets should not be dissipated. The assets need to be preserved,” the court observed, while recording its satisfaction that a prima facie case for interim injunction had been established.

The injunction covers a wide range of assets. Priya Kapur has been restrained from alienating, transferring, pledging, or altering the equity or shareholding structure of Sunjay Kapur’s Indian companies. She has also been restrained from withdrawing his provident fund amount and from dealing with personal effects and artwork, both of which, the court noted, were consented to by her side.

On the question of bank accounts, the court restrained withdrawals from three accounts held with two Indian banks, with a limited carve-out permitting withdrawals to the extent necessary to discharge liabilities towards the children under the divorce decree between Sunjay Kapur and Karisma Kapoor.

The order further extends to foreign bank accounts and cryptocurrency holdings of Sunjay Kapur, the operation of which has been stayed. However, the court drew a clear boundary, clarifying that immovable properties held abroad fall outside the scope of the present injunction.

Priya Kapur contested the allegations in their entirety. Her counsel submitted that the will is genuine, that the forgery allegations are baseless, and that errors or irregularities in a will do not, by themselves, render it invalid. It was also pointed out that Karisma Kapoor’s children have already received their entitlement under the Kapur family trust.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Priya Kapur, pushed back against the narrative surrounding the marriage between Karisma Kapoor and Sunjay Kapur, submitting that the marriage had ended in a bitter divorce and that Karisma Kapoor had thereafter been “nowhere to be seen.”

The court, after hearing both sides, ruled in favour of the children and granted the interim injunction.

Case Details:

• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh
• Date of Order: April 30, 2026
• Appearances for Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani with Advocates Saurav Agrawal, Ravi Sharma, and Akhil Sachar; briefed by Lexster Law LLP through Shantanu Agrawal (Partner) and Advocates Manas Arora, Madhulika Rai Sharma, Syed Hamza Ghayour, Ananya Garg, Rasveen Kaur, Prachi Dubey, Samayra Adhlakha, Tushar Nair, and Mehak Joshi
• Appearances for Priya Sachdev Kapur and her minor son: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Akhil Sibal, and Shyel Trehan; briefed by Bahuguna Law Associates through Senior Partner Meghna Mishra, Partner Designate Ankit Rajgarhia, Principal Associate Tarun Sharma, and Associate Rohit Kumar