The sibling rivalry became public after the TDP's official X handle released letters that Jagan and Sharmila had shot at each other regarding the shares of Saraswati Power and Industries.
Published Oct 24, 2024 | 1:44 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 24, 2024 | 1:44 PM
YSR siblings squabble over property: Jagan wants Congress’ intervention
The property dispute between Andhra Pradesh’s former chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and his sister, YS Sharmila, the APCC chief, has been simmering even before the former approached the Hyderabad bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 September.
The sibling rivalry became public after the TDP’s official X handle released letters that Jagan and Sharmila had shot at each other regarding the shares of Saraswati Power and Industries. The spat became public 12 years after Sharmila took out the Maro Praja Prasthanam padayatra in October 2012, after Jagan was arrested in a disproportionate assets case.
People had then coined a slogan to describe her, “YS Sharmila is an arrow released by her brother — YS Jagan”. The arrow has now boomeranged, the latest developments indicate.
Before approaching the NCLT, Jagan wrote to Sharmila saying, her actions that brought disrepute to him had pained him. He also mentioned his intention to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding signed with their mother YS Vijayamma, transferring the Saraswati Power shares to be further transferred to Sharmila in the future.
After Jagan had filed his petition, Sharmila went acerbic, recounting how he had gone back on the intention of their father — former chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy — that the property acquired during his lifetime should be divided equally among all his four grandchildren.
In a stinging comment, she said Jagan had fallen to the depths of not hesitating to drag her and their mother to the court and said she was praying to God that he may honour the MoU. If he did not do so, Sharmila said she would proceed against him legally.
Incidentally, the letters bore the signatures of both Sharmila and Vijayamma.
In a letter purportedly written by Jagan on 27 August to Sharmila, he mentioned that they were not in the best of terms.
“I want to formally intimate you and put you on notice that I have no further intent to act on the MoU (under which he had transferred the shares of Saraswati Power to their mother to be put in trust). He said he no longer was bound by the declaration of his intent, originally made under vastly different circumstances, due to the factors and circumstances solely attributable to you (Sharmila),” the letter said.
Given the changed situation, Jagan said he was revoking his intention to transfer the shares of Saraswati Power given in a gift deed which were “deceitfully” transferred by Sharmila. As he was revoking his intention, the shares also should revert to him as he was the original and continuing owner and beneficiary.
Jagan further said that Sharmila had effected the share transfer without the share transfer forms being signed by him or share certificates being handed over to her by him. He recalled putting the shares in the trust of their mother Vijayamma to transfer them to his sister after the court cases were settled.
The former chief minister said that he had intended to transfer some properties to her at a future point in time out of pure love and affection. This was in addition to approximately ₹200 crore already given to her directly or through their mother over the past decade. This, he said, was given out of sheer love and affection.
He said he had signed the MoU to fortify the seriousness of his intent and in evidence of his love and affection for her. The future intent to do so was always subject to the pending cases in respect of the properties where attachments have been wrongfully affected by the Enforcement Directorate and the courts ordering status quo.
Jagan said that despite his disposition of love and affection for her, she, without any shred of gratitude, and giving the least regard to his well-being, had taken up a series of actions that had hurt him deeply.
He said she had also made several untrue and false statements publicly and conducted actions that have not only been politically opposed to me but were also blatantly untrue and had personally defamed him.
In reply, Sharmila in a letter dated 12 September recalled their father late Rajasekhar Reddy instructing that all properties acquired with the family resources during his lifetime be divided equally among his four grandchildren.
“You agreed to that command and assured that you would obey his word but after our father’s death, you refused to stand by that commitment. Our father was unequivocal in his instructions that all four of his grandchildren are to share equally in all the assets that existed during his lifetime whether they pertain to Bharathi Cements, Sakshi, or any other ventures initiated before his passing away. Our mother was not only a witness to these explicit instructions but also observed all interactions and agreements between us to date.”
On a sarcastic note, Sharmila said that the assets mentioned in the MoU as being transferred to her out of “love and affection” were in truth only in partial fulfillment of their father’s directives.
“I must emphasise ‘partial’ as you insisted on retaining a majority share in Bharathi Cements and Sakshi. But since you had the upper hand, you bulldozed your way and we agreed to a settlement as stated in the MoU. Since you are my elder brother and in the interest of resolving family disputes, I agreed to give up my equal share. Thus under the MoU executed on 31/8/2019, only a few properties were assigned to me,” she said.
“You chose to file a case against your mother and deprive your sister and her children of properties to which they are entitled under the MoU. I am appalled at the extent to which you have strayed from the path of our noble father,” the letter further stated.
She said Jagan had sought to terminate the MoU unilaterally.
YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s wife Bharati with Sharmila during the latter’s padayatra, Maro Praja Prasthanam, in 2012.
“Legally, your letter is contrary to the MoU and has no sanctity. What saddened me was the spirit behind your letter. It undermines every ideal of our father. You have done what our father would never have imagined, filed cases against his dear wife (our mother) and daughter (myself) to deprive his family of their legitimate share in the properties.”
Referring to the transfer of Saraswati Power designated as part of her share according to the MoU, Sharmila said that her brother had pledged to transfer all its shares to her immediately following the signing of the MoU.
“However, you failed to fulfill this promise for several years. Furthermore, after our mother acquired Saraswati shares held by Bharathi and Sandur, and following your gifting of the remaining shares — complete with folio numbers as detailed in the gift deeds signed by both you and your wife – it is not right for him to cry foul over it. You executed the gift deeds giving full right over the shares of Saraswati Power to our mother.”
Sharmila said that after agreeing to part with the shares, Jagan had now chosen to raise unnecessary disputes and take the family to court. “This was done with a clear motive to deprive me of the shares in Saraswati Power I am legitimately entitled to,” she said.
She contended that as far as the MoU is concerned, it was a continuing and binding document and his unilateral withdrawal has no legal significance.
Regarding the assets outlined in the MoU, she said he was responsible for executing every term, including the Yelahanka home property (Bengaluru) of 20 acres, which while not explicitly mentioned in the MoU, was verbally agreed upon at the same time.
She further said her political choices should have no bearing on their father’s instructions on dividing the property. “As my older brother, it is your responsibility towards my children who are related to you by blood to execute the MoU signed willingly,” she said.
Sharmila said that she would pray that he would rise from the unethical depths to which he had fallen, and fulfil their late father’s wishes and abide by the MoU.
“If you choose not to do so, I fully reserve my right to seek appropriate legal remedies,” she warned.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
