New Claims by Shradha Suri Deepen Doubts Over Priya Kapur’s Role and the Authenticity of Sunjay Kapur’s Controversial Will

Fresh testimony before the Delhi High Court has pushed the long-running high-profile dispute over Sunjay Kapur’s estate into even murkier territory, with arguments presented by Shradha Suri Marwah’s counsel, Anuradha Dutt inadvertently sharpening questions about the legitimacy of the Will submitted by Kapur’s third wife, Priya Sachdev Kapur.

Instead of providing clarity, Suri’s shifting statements and the disjointed timeline she offered appear to have intensified concerns that the document might not reflect Kapur’s true intentions—raising the stakes for his biological children, Samaira and Kiaan, who stand entirely excluded from the Will Priya seeks to enforce.

At the centre of the latest twist is Suri’s acknowledgment that she had incorrectly informed the court about how she first received the Will. What she had earlier attributed to Priya Kapur, she now says was actually sent by one Dinesh Agarwal on 14 June—an email that purportedly attached the Will and instructed her to act as executor. Yet, according to Suri, Agarwal later claimed he had “mistakenly” attached Kapur’s trust deed instead and re-sent the alleged Will later the same day.

Originally Shradha stated she received the alleged Will from Dinesh in her original statement and then after seeing Priya’s statement, she has changed her stance and said Priya gave her the alleged Will.

Agrawal’s unexplained authority to send this to Shradha and inform her that she’s the executor raises further questions about the authenticity of the will and Priya Kapur’s real intentions, according to a top High Court lawyer.

According to Suri’s counsel’s argument today, Shradha even emailed Dinesh that it would be helpful to speak to the lawyer or any other person who drafted the Will as and when the need arises but receives no response from Dinesh Agarwal to this question.

The sequence is highly irregular. Legal experts say that such confusion over attachments—combined with Agarwal’s unexplained authority to appoint an executor—raises more red flags than answers. Why would an executor learn of her own appointment not from the testator, but from an intermediary, after his death? And why only one day before the supposed execution of the Will?

Far from establishing her neutrality, Suri’s own account heightens skepticism. She admits she did not know she was named executor, did not have access to a lawyer despite asking for one, and had no clarity on the Will’s contents or its legitimacy. Her argument that she was “trying to figure out what was going on” suggests an executor thrust into place post-facto rather than one entrusted by Sunjay Kapur himself.

More troubling is Suri’s claim that on 24 June—two weeks after Agarwal’s involvement—Priya Kapur assured her that the document was Sunjay’s “last and only Will.” The insistence stands in contrast to Priya’s own confirmation on 11 August that she is merely the sole nominee, not the beneficiary, of Sunjay’s assets. In Indian succession law, nominees hold assets only in trust; they do not inherit them. That distinction, now publicly acknowledged by Priya, sharply undermines her efforts to claim full ownership and casts further doubt on the motivations behind presenting such a Will.