Karisma Kapoor’s advocate Mahesh Jethmalani calls Sunjay Kapur a ‘Digital Ghost’ as actress’ children challenge businessman’s will – Firstpost

The Delhi High Court continued its scrutiny of the disputed will of late industrialist Sunjay Kapur, with several inconsistencies emerging, weakening its credibility. Appearing for Karisma Kapoor’s children, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued that the document must meet the strictest statutory standards, especially since it sidelines natural heirs, including minors.

He emphasised that Sunjay appears as a “digital ghost” in the entire process—there is no email, message, instruction or acknowledgment tying him to drafting or approving the Will.

What the advocate told the court

Jethmalani noted that even the WhatsApp chats relied on by the defendants lack any participation from
Sunjay, and none of the required digital certifications for these records have been filed.

He questioned the timing of the March 2025 Will, executed when Sunjay was healthy and financially stable, and pointed to missing details on the attesting witnesses, unclear location and time of signing, and an unexplained chain of custody of the original document. He also highlighted contradictions in Priya Sachdeva Kapur’s filings, including the Ben-1 form where she denied any beneficial interest in shares she claims were already willed to her.

Further,
Jethmalani argued that even if Priya’s claim about the trust is assumed true—that the children received shares worth ₹2,500 crore and she received shares worth ₹7,500 crore—this remains only a notional paper value, with the Trust itself controlled by Priya and no money actually received by the children.

He rebutted the “generosity” narrative, clarifying that all payments for the children’s education and expenses arise from Supreme Court-mandated obligations, not voluntary largesse. He also underscored that the unexplained exclusion of natural heirs, especially minor children, raises serious suspicion under succession law. Jethmalani concluded that the defendants’ submissions reflect “stupid fabrication” fortified with unreliable digital evidence.