Legal News

Karisma Kapoor’s Kids Accuse Step-Mom of Grabbing Father’s ₹2000 Crore Assets in Delhi HC: “Priya Sachdev Kapur Is Like Cinderella’s Stepmother”

Kids Accuse Step-Mom of Grabbing Father’s Assets

Karisma Kapoor’s children have accused their stepmother Priya Sachdev Kapur of forging their father Sunjay Kapur’s will and rushing to take over his vast estate. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani compared her to “Cinderella’s stepmother” during the Delhi High Court hearing.

NEW DELHI: Karisma Kapoor’s children have taken their stepmother, Priya Sachdev Kapur, to court over a major property dispute concerning their late father Sunjay Kapur’s assets.

The case, being heard by the Delhi High Court, turned dramatic on Thursday when the children compared their stepmother to the infamous character from the fairytale world — “Cinderella’s stepmother.”

Appearing on behalf of the Kapoor children, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani launched sharp allegations against Priya Kapur. He told the Court that right after Sunjay Kapur’s death, Priya was in a “tearing hurry” to gain control over her late husband’s wealth and limit the children’s rightful share.

“The tearing hurry was so that the children’s share is restricted to 26% and she appropriates the rest. Therein lies the veneer. This is no benign stepmother. This is Cinderella’s stepmother,”

Jethmalani said, referring to Lady Tremaine, the cruel stepmother from the Cinderella story. He alleged that Priya Kapur and her minor son control nearly 75% of the family trust, leaving Karisma Kapoor’s children with only 26%.

He also accused Priya of publicly spreading misinformation about the children’s inheritance, saying that she had claimed they received nearly ₹2,000 crore, which now makes them targets for criminals.

“These children are made targets of any kidnapper,”

he told the court, warning that such statements endanger their safety.

The case was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh. The Kapoor siblings have sought an injunction to stop Priya Kapur from creating third-party rights over their father’s properties until the partition case is resolved.

They have also alleged that Priya forged Sunjay Kapur’s will in collusion with two witnesses to take complete control of the assets.

Jethmalani questioned the validity of the alleged will dated March 21, 2025, which supposedly leaves Sunjay Kapur’s entire personal estate to Priya Sachdev Kapur.

“All these documents indicate that the person who was executing these assets was not the executor but Priya,”

he said, referring to Shradha Suri Marwah, who was named as the executor of the will.

Jethmalani further alleged that Priya had manipulated the witnesses for personal gain.

“These witnesses are then appointed to positions in the company. The will is forged. It is a crime under Section 464 IPC, which is forgery. It carries life imprisonment,”

he asserted, adding that neither of the two witnesses had filed affidavits supporting the will.

“They have not and that makes it more suspicious,”

he said.

However, Advocate Anuradha Dutt, appearing for the executor, strongly disputed Jethmalani’s claims, arguing that the suit itself was not maintainable and that the will had not even been formally challenged.

The Court was informed that Jethmalani had been personally present during the formal reading of the will, which, according to Priya’s counsel, proves the document’s legitimacy.

During Thursday’s hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh opened the sealed envelope containing the will and the list of assets submitted by Priya Kapur. The Court noted that the list of assets did not bear any signature, which raised further concerns. The judge then directed Priya Kapur to resubmit the list with her signature and an affidavit.

The hearing will continue on Monday, when Jethmalani will resume his arguments. After that, the lawyers representing Priya Kapur, Shradha Suri Marwah, and Rani Kapur (Sunjay’s mother) will present their side.
Karisma Kapoor and Sunjay Kapur were married from 2003 to 2016 and share two children. After their divorce, Sunjay married Priya Sachdev Kapur.

The family dispute now centers on the authenticity of the will, the distribution of over ₹2,000 crore in assets, and the alleged forgery under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a serious offence carrying life imprisonment if proven.

Delhi High Court

Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Involved

Law / SectionStatute / ActExplanation in Simple TermsRelevance to This Case
Section 464 IPCIndian Penal Code, 1860Defines “forgery” — creating, altering, or using a false document intending to cause harm or deceive. Punishable with imprisonment up to life.Allegation by Jethmalani that Priya Kapur forged Sunjay Kapur’s will
with help from witnesses.
Forgery under IPC (Sections 463–471)Indian Penal Code, 1860Covers a series of offences related to false documents, forged
signatures, and fraudulent intent.
Supports the main charge that the will was not genuine and was
fabricated.
Succession and WillsIndian Succession Act, 1925Governs the validity, execution, and attestation of wills, and defines
executor’s duties.
Central to the dispute: authenticity of the will dated 21 March 2025.
Partition and Property RightsCivil Procedure Code, 1908Partition suits allow heirs to claim their rightful share in inherited
property.
Karisma’s children have filed a partition suit to secure their share in
Sunjay Kapur’s estate.
Interim Relief / InjunctionOrder XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPCAllows the court to temporarily restrain a party from transferring or
selling disputed property.
The children sought interim relief to stop Priya Kapur from creating
third-party rights.
Affidavit & VerificationCode of Civil Procedure / Evidence ActAny list or claim must be verified under oath through an affidavit.Court directed Priya Kapur to refile the list of assets with her
signature and affidavit.

Case Details

Counsels Appearing

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised

Exit mobile version