Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Oct 30: Washing their dirty linen in the public, the Reddy family, which has provided two chief ministers to Andhra Pradesh, has exposed their bitter internal feuds over division of family assets between the siblings on political line.
Joining the fray was their mother who has taken her daughter’s side mildly chiding the son, the former chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, for “unfairly treating” his sister YS Sharmila over an inheritance worth in crores.
Amid the dispute between the brother and sister. their mother YS Vijayamma has written an open letter, putting her weight behind her daughter and Congress leader Ms Sharmila and saying that it’s her “duty to speak up for the unfairly treated child.”
In response, the YSR Congress Party also released an open letter regretting that “mother has not been neutral.” The Jagan Reddy-led party said Vijayamma backed Sharmila and the Congress before and after the Andhra Pradesh Assembly polls. In the state polls held earlier this year, YSRCP suffered a rout and Jagan Reddy lost power to arch-rival, TDP’s N Chandrababu Naidu. The YSRCP also regretted that YS Sharmila joined the party that had put her brother in jail.
Ms Vijayamma wrote that Sharmila was not involved in the family business but worked selflessly in politics on Jagan Reddy’s instructions. “Jagan’s rise to power owes much to Sharmila’s efforts. As a mother, all children are equal. It’s painful to see injustice done to one child. As a mother, it’s my duty to speak up for the unfairly treated child,” Vijayamma wrote.
She said it was “deeply painful” for her to watch these events unfold. “My late husband, Rajasekhara Reddy, a former chief minister of undivided Andhra Pradesh, our children, and I were a happy family. I’m unable to comprehend why our family is facing such difficulties. Despite my efforts to stop it, unfortunate events are unfolding before my eyes,” she wrote.
Vijayamma slammed baseless claims being spread about her family and said this must stop. “It’s not good for my children, nor for the state. I hesitated to bring this up, but the situation demands it. I implore those who have spoken wrongly about our family to cease.” “Blood is thicker than water. My children will answer for themselves. I trust in God, who will provide solutions to their problems,” she wrote.
Dismissing claims that YSR distributed his assets among his children while he was alive, she wrote, “YSR had transferred some assets to my younger daughter, Sharmila’s name, and some to my son, Jagan’s name, while he was alive. That’s not dividing assets; it’s just allocating them.” YS Rajasekhara Reddy died in a helicopter crash in 2009.
“YSR’s wish was for his children to have equal shares, and that’s the truth. Jagan worked hard to grow our assets, but all assets belong to the family,” Vijayamma wrote. “After YSR’s untimely passing in 2009, Jagan and Sharmila lived together until 2019. Jagan gave Sharmila 200 crores from his share as per their agreement. According to the MoU, Jagan would get 60%, and Sharmila 40%. However, before the MoU, they shared equal dividends since Sharmila had an equal share,” she wrote.
Vijayamma wrote that Jagan Reddy proposed a division in assets after he became Chief Minister in 2019. She said he cited concerns about their grown children potentially not getting along. “After that, in Vijayawada, in my presence, they decided to divide the assets, saying ‘this is Jagan’s and this is Sharmila’s’. The MoU written in 2019 is the same one. This is the MoU written and signed by Jagan himself. Since Sharmila had rights, Jagan gave her 200 crores as dividends. Sharmila had rights, which is why they wrote the MoU. It was written officially.”
“The properties mentioned in the MoU to be given to Sharmila are not gifts from Jagan but his responsibility. Since there were no attachments, Jagan promised and signed that he would give Sharmila 100% of Saraswathi shares mentioned in the MoU and 100% of the Yelahanka property not mentioned in the MoU immediately,” Vijayamma wrote.
“Sharmila was also unfairly treated regarding the unattached properties. Shaarmila’s share included Bharati Cements, Sakshi Media, and YSR’s house, which should be given after the cases,” she added. She said she had to speak up to clarify the truth “amidst the falsehoods spread by many.” “The truth is this… Still, they are siblings. This is their issue; they will resolve it,” she wrote.
“If Rajasekhara Reddy were alive, this asset issue wouldn’t have arisen, and there wouldn’t be such controversy. I wouldn’t have had to speak out if it weren’t for the ongoing chaos. I believe only my words can stop this. Please, I request you all, as my children, to refrain from speaking irresponsibly,” Vijayamma wrote.
YSRCP responded to Vijayamma’s letter, saying that Jagan Reddy never asked for the assets back. “YS Jagan has shared his assets with his sister Sharmila out of goodwill. She isn’t a director in any of Jagan’s businesses. Jagan treated Sharmila with kindness, just like any brother would. Late CM Rajasekhara Reddy had already transferred assets to Sharmila and Jagan. Jagan never asked for those assets back. He only sent a notice regarding the exchange of attached properties in ED cases without his knowledge,” YSRCP state secretary SV Satish Reddy said in a statement.
The verbal duel among the siblings broke out after they exchanged bitter letters amid the dispute and accused each other of “deceitful (and) deeply hurtful” actions that belittle their father’s memory.
Jagan Reddy earlier wrote to the National Company Law Tribunal to red-flag the “illegal” transfer of shares in Saraswathi Power. He said the shares were “given to me in trust by a gift deed” and that he had “gifted” them to their mother, YS Vijayalakshmi, “with the understanding that the transfer… would happen post court clearance (and) with execution of further appropriate documentation…”
But these shares, the former Chief Minister wrote, had been transferred by his sister to herself in a “deceitful manner (that) creates potential legal complications for me.” These shares, he said, would now “revert to me as the original and continuing owner and beneficiary of the interest…” The YSR Congress boss also declared void the MoU he signed in 2019. The MoU mentioned his intention “to effect transfer of certain properties to you… out of my love and affection for you as my sibling, at a point of time in future”.
In response, Ms Sharmila flagged their father’s “unambiguous” instruction “that all properties acquired with family resources during his lifetime should be divided equally between his four grandchildren.” She dismissed Jagan Reddy’s intention to scrap the MoU, saying it has no legal authority.
“You have done what our dear father would never have imagined… filed cases against his dear wife (our mother) and daughter (myself) to deprive his family of their legitimate share,” she wrote. On the vexed issue of Saraswathi Power shares, Ms Reddy claimed the intention had been to transfer on signing of the MoU “but you (Jagan Reddy) failed to fulfill this promise for several years…”
The company law tribunal will be hearing the matter on November 8. The inheritance dispute comes after the siblings parted ways politically. From campaigning extensively for her brother till the 2019 Assembly polls, YS Sharmila moved away in 2021 to float her YSR Telangana party. This merged with the Congress before the general election this year. The Congress named YS Sharmila the party’s Andhra Pradesh chief, pitting her as her brother’s challenger.
In September, Jagan filed the petition in NCLT under Section 59 of the Companies Act, which deals with the rectification of the register of members and also names former directors at Saraswathi power, seeking to nullify the share transfer and restore him and his wife as the owners. Sharmila rebutted by stating in an open letter that he was only the “guardian” of the properties, that she deserved to receive her rightful share, and that her brother had already gifted the shares to his mother.
Sharmila also dismissed Jagan’s argument that the transfer of shares could lead to the bail granted to Jagan in a disproportionate assets case being cancelled, reminding him the shares were not attached by the Enforcement Directorate. She claimed that she had no interest in the family property due to the harassment she had undergone, and was only seeking her share for her children.
