The all-important hearing focused on issues of proof and credibility, with the Court closely examining claims advanced in support of the alleged Will, particularly the manner in which it was executed, attested, and preserved (testing the integrity of both the physical document and its digital footprint) — all of which are central to probate law.
Here are the key points raised in today’s hearing by counsels of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Number one.
Court Flags Unclear Digital Evidence and Late Attestation
A key issue examined was the belated filing of attesting witnesses’ affidavits. Justice Jyoti Singh queried whether attestations placed on record only after repeated objections could conclusively establish the Will’s authenticity.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani asserted that no one has clearly identified who actually drafted the Will. He pointed out that metadata allegedly traces the first digital version of the document to the computer of Nitin Sharma, a person with no documented personal or professional intimacy with Kapur, intensifying doubts over the Will’s origin. Interestingly, Nitin Sharma was appointed to the board of AIPL shortly after Sunjay Kapur’s death. Justice Jyoti Singh closely questioned why such a crucial document would emanate from a third party’s device rather than from Kapur’s own systems or known advisers.
The Court also scrutinised the digital trail relied upon, seeking clarity on authorship, modifications, and statutory certification, indicating that screenshots and informal references cannot substitute formal proof.
Unexplained Movement of Original Will Raises Concerns
The Court expressed concern over the unexplained movement of the original Will, noting that a scanned copy was said to have been created and circulated electronically while the physical original later surfaced with another individual.
Justice Singh underscored that in high value estates, any break in the chain of custody — especially where there is no clear record of how, when, and to whom the original was handed over — inevitably invites judicial suspicion. Jethmalani argued that there is still no coherent timeline explaining when Kapur last held the original, when it was first shared, and how it ultimately reached the present proponent.
Missing Time and Place of Execution Noted
The Court noted that the attesting witnesses failed to specify the precise time and place of execution, offering only a broad reference to “Gurgaon.” Such omissions, the Court observed, can constitute suspicious circumstances.
Sealed Cover Filings and Procedural Discipline
Justice Jyoti Singh questioned the filing of the Will and asset details in sealed cover, reiterating that affidavits cannot ordinarily be shielded from scrutiny once relied upon. Justice Singh also queried the secrecy maintained in the matter, reinforcing the Court’s insistence on procedural transparency.
Court Queries New Explanations Raised During Arguments
The Court further focused on whether certain explanations — including claims of corporate restructuring advanced on behalf of Priya Sachdev Kapur — were being raised without supporting documents on record. Justice Singh underlined that only materials formally filed before the Court can be acknowledged, backing submissions that oral assertions cannot replace documentary proof.
Conclusion
Thursday’s hearing reinforced the Court’s insistence on transparency, consistency, and strict proof. With unanswered questions surrounding authorship, custody, attestation, and disclosure, the proceedings signalled that unresolved gaps — rather than narratives — will weigh decisively in assessing the Will’s validity.
