Heavy Burden on Propounder to Dispel Suspicious Circumstances Vests Jurisdiction in Court to Preserve Domestic Assets

The Plaintiffs, daughter and minor son of Late Sunjay Kapur from his marriage to Karisma Kapoor, filed a suit for partition of their father’s estate, claiming a 1/5th share as Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Upon Sunjay’s sudden death in June 2025, Defendant No. 1 (Priya Kapur, Sunjay’s second wife) propounded an unregistered Will dated 21.03.2025, naming herself the sole beneficiary of his personal assets to the exclusion of Sunjay’s children and mother (Defendant No. 3)

The Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 3 alleged the Will was forged and shrouded in suspicious circumstances, including glaring typographical errors (misspelling Sunjay’s son's name, referring to the male Testator as "Testatrix"), the active role of the beneficiary, and a questionable digital trail

Defendant No. 1 moved the court to dismiss the application regarding foreign assets, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 16 CPC

1. Whether the estate of the deceased needs to be preserved via interim injunction pending the trial on the genuineness of the propounded Will

2. Whether the High Court of Delhi has jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders/injunctions regarding the immovable property of the deceased situated in foreign jurisdictions

The court applied the principles of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of interim injunction

Regarding the proof of Wills, it relied on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, which requires the propounder to dispel "suspicious circumstances" surrounding a Will to satisfy the "judicial conscience"

It further applied Section 16 of the CPC, specifically its Explanation, which clarifies that "property" for jurisdictional purposes means property situate in India

The court also invoked the principle of equity acts in personam from Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., though noting its limitations regarding foreign immovable property

The Court observed that since the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 3 raised several "real and germane" suspicious circumstances—such as the exclusion of natural heirs despite a close bond, technical errors in the document, and the questionable chain of custody—the onus on Priya Kapur to prove the Will is "substantially heavier" and requires a full trial

To prevent the dissipation of assets and a fait accompli before the Will is proved, preservation of the corpus is necessary

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court reasoned that under the Explanation to Section 16 CPC and Private International Law, Indian courts generally cannot adjudicate title or partition for immovable property situate abroad as they cannot provide an effective judgment

However, the Court distinguished between immovable and movable assets, finding that the jurisdictional bar under Section 16 does not extend to movables, such as foreign bank accounts or cryptocurrency, which can be controlled through orders against the person (Priya)

The Court held that while it lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctions over foreign immovable property, it was necessary to protect the remainder of the estate.

The Court ordered Priya Kapur to be restrained from: (a) alienating shares in Indian companies (AIPL, BRS Finance, JTEKT); (b) withdrawing Provident Fund amounts; (c) selling personal effects (watches, jewelry, art); and (d) withdrawing or encumbering funds in both Indian and specified foreign bank accounts (JP Morgan, HSBC UK) or cryptocurrency, except for discharging specific legal liabilities towards the Plaintiffs