Template Theory Backfires, Raises Fundamental Questions
Nayar insisted that mistakes—including referring to Sunjay as “testatrix,” misspelling names and misgendering the testator—were carried over from a template of Rani Kapur’s Will. But this explanation collapses under scrutiny. A lawyer asked why a billionaire with a complex estate would base his final Will on an elderly parent’s document while failing to correct basic facts about his own family.
If the Will relied on Rani’s template, it only highlights what it omits: no inventory of Sunjay’s substantial assets, no mention of his first two children Samaira and Kiaan, and only Priya and her children Safira and Azarius named as beneficiaries—raising serious questions about motive. As Mahesh Jethmalani has argued, this selective inclusion suggests “a manufactured document tailored to benefit one side.”
Why Would Parents Need Their Mother-in-Law’s Will to Spell Their Child’s Name?
Nayar’s claim that the misspelling of Azarius Kapur (“Azarias”) was copied from Rani’s Will prompted disbelief: why would parents rely on a mother-in-law’s testamentary document to remember their own child’s name? The argument reinforces the plaintiffs’ charge that neither Sunjay nor Priya drafted or reviewed the Will. Sunjay’s sister Mandhira Kapur echoed this in a recent podcast: “My brother was a particular human being. He can’t misspell his son’s name. These are giveaways.”
Mother’s Will Was Notarised—So Why Not Sunjay’s?
The defence’s reliance on the template also collapses against procedure. Rani Kapur’s Will is notarised. The Will Priya produced for Sunjay—covering a far larger estate—is neither notarised nor registered. If the template was followed, why abandon its safeguards? If not followed, how can it justify the errors?
Nayar said today that Nitin Sharma drafted Sunjay’s Will, yet this is missing from Priya’s Written Statement and from Nitin’s affidavit—raising further doubts about authenticity.
No Evidence of Sunjay’s Participation
The defence admitted there is no email, message, instruction or annotation showing Sunjay reviewed or approved the Will. Documents show Sunjay signed the notary register, indicating familiarity with notarisation, yet neither Nitin, Dinesh nor Sunjay notarised the alleged Will executed on 21 March 2025. A WhatsApp screenshot, the bench noted, does not constitute affirmation and the record contains “not even a single note” from the testator.
Kalra Judgment Not Helpful—and Under Review
The defence’s reliance on the Sanjay Kalra judgment is weakened because the case was decided after a full trial, unlike the interim stage here, and is currently under Supreme Court review. Jethmalani has argued the issues in the Kapur Will go far beyond typographical slips, striking at the question of authorship.
Digital Trail Raises More Suspicion
Though Nayar argued the Will was drafted and saved by employee Nitin Sharma, this does not address the plaintiffs’ forensic allegation that the document originated on an unknown machine with no link to Sunjay. The template-import explanation does not cure the absence of any communication from him, nor does it explain why employees—but not the testator—handled the entire process.
As the matter returns to court on Friday, the defence faces an escalating challenge: to explain not just the Will’s errors, but the Will itself.
