Indian Law has consistently treated the creation and administration of ‘Trusts’ as a serious legal act rather than a casual family arrangement. Governed by the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, a ‘valid trust’ must satisfy three core requirements: ‘binding intention of creation of Trust’, ‘identifiable trust property’, and ‘definite and identifiable beneficiaries’ and ‘lawful objects and purpose’. Once these conditions are met and the trust is acted upon, courts have repeatedly held that such structures should not be unsettled lightly. This restraint reflects the recognition that trusts often underpin long-term financial planning, commercial stability, and third-party interests.
The Supreme Court of India has emphasised this position in several decisions, including ‘CIT v. Kamla Town Trust’ and ‘Bai Motivahu v. Bai Mamu’, holding that challenges to trusts must rest on strict pleadings and cogent proof, particularly where allegations of fraud, coercion, or undue influence are raised. Mere dissatisfaction with outcomes, or a later change in perspective, is insufficient to invalidate a legally constituted trust.
Alongside trust law operates another foundational principle of civil adjudication: consistency in pleadings. Indian jurisprudence does not permit litigants to approbate and reprobate—to affirm a factual position in one proceeding and deny it in another arising from the same relationship or transaction. This doctrine, grounded in equity and fairness, has been reaffirmed and fortified in cases such as Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao. While alternative legal arguments are permissible, foundational facts are expected to remain stable.
In the present context, submissions before the Court have highlighted that Rani Kapur has adopted materially different positions in two proceedings instituted within a short span. In litigation initiated in 2025 relating to a disputed Will, she relied upon the personal integrity and ethical conduct of her late son, Sunjay Kapur, as a central plank of her case. In contrast, the subsequent challenge to the ‘RK Family Trust’ attributes coercion and impropriety to him. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to assess the truth of either version, but to consider whether such divergent positions engage the doctrine of approbate and reprobate as a matter of law.
These principles are constitutional in character. Article 14 of the Constitution of India embodies fairness and non-arbitrariness, values that inform judicial procedure as much as executive action. Procedural discipline enables courts to assess credibility and evidence meaningfully; as Jeremy Bentham observed, evidence is the basis of justice, and inconsistent pleadings weaken that foundation.
It is against this backdrop that the estate litigation pending before the Delhi High Court assumes wider significance. The RK Family Trust holds an indirect market value of approximately ₹5,521.90 crore in Sona Comstar, a listed entity with a broad shareholder base. Interim judicial intervention therefore carries implications beyond the immediate parties and will send ripples down the line.
Courts have accordingly exercised caution. The refusal to grant interim relief or a status quo order reflects procedural restraint rather than any finding on merits. Parallel proceedings initiated by children of Karisma Kapoor and Sunjay Kapoor, seeking injunctive relief over estate assets, are also being examined under settled principles, with judgment reserved.
Taken together, these proceedings reaffirm a core tenet of civil justice: while legal strategies may evolve, trust law, consistency in pleadings, and procedural restraint remain essential safeguards. As Roscoe Pound observed, Law as an instrument of progress toward civilization cannot stand still, yet it must be stable—and that stability begins with consistency.
Article Written By:
Adv. Arun Panwar
Independent litigator having expertise in civil,property & transactional disputes
Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal to the author and do not reflect the official position of Law Trend.
