Karisma Kapoor’s children question gaps in Priya Kapur's assets list, say 'Sunjay Kapur had Polo Horses'

Karisma Kapoor’s children question gaps in Priya Kapur's assets list, say 'Sunjay Kapur had Polo Horses'

• Karisma Kapoor's children challenge Priya Kapur's asset disclosure in court
• Court orders Priya to reveal all assets as of Sunjay Kapur's death in June 2025
• Children claim missing valuables, demand transparency before settling inheritance.

Did our AI summary help?

Karisma Kapoor’s children, Samaira and Kiaan, have intensified their challenge to the asset disclosure filed by their late father Sunjay Kapur’s widow, Priya Kapur, telling the Delhi High Court that the inventory does not reflect the full picture of what he owned at the time of his death.

The dispute stems from a partition suit in which the siblings are seeking a share in Sunjay’s personal estate and raising doubts over an alleged will said to be dated March 21, 2025.

The court has directed Priya to disclose all movable and immovable assets known to her as of June 12, 2025, the date Sunjay died, and has also dealt with requests around filing details in sealed cover due to privacy and security concerns.

As per NDTV, what’s now driving the children’s argument is the gap between Sunjay’s public lifestyle and the value and scope of assets they believe should exist on paper.

Their side has pointed to his deep involvement in elite polo, a sport where participation at that level typically comes with high-value horse-related costs and assets, from stables and training arrangements to a “string” of competition horses that can be worth a fortune.

Sunjay was the owner and patron of the Aureus polo team and died during a match at Guards Polo Club in the UK, making polo central, not incidental, to how he lived.

Also Read: Randeep Hooda takes a leap into entrepreneurship with a health and wellness focused venture

In court filings and arguments reported so far, allegations of “incomplete” disclosure have included missing or under-reported valuables and financial instruments, such as artworks, watches, bank accounts, insurance policies, rental income, and other investments. These omissions are being cited to argue that the list submitted does not match the scale of wealth being discussed in the case. Priya’s side has denied concealment and maintained that a complete inventory supported by records has been placed before the court.

For now, the core fight is simple: the children want transparency and protection against any asset movement until the will and the true extent of the estate are tested, while Priya argues the disclosures are adequate and the claims are inflated. The court’s next steps on interim relief will shape how much of this estate remains frozen while the bigger inheritance questions play out.