Family feud: Properties fairly settled amongst us, gave additional Rs 200 cr, says Jagan but Sharmila disagrees

Hyderabad: Even as YSRCP Chief Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy had approached NCLT over the 'illegal' transfer of shares in a company by his sister YS Sharmila, intriguing details had come out in an exchange of letters between the siblings.

Before filing a petition in NCLT's Hyderabad bench on September 10, Jagan had written a letter to Sharmila on August 27, and she replied to it on September 12. These letters have seen the light in the wake of Jagan's petition in the NCLT.

Sharmila asserted that Jagan had abandoned his commitment to sharing property equally among the four grandchildren, as wished by their father, DR YS Rajasekhar Reddy, while Jagan asserted that he had given her all the family inheritance.

Interestingly, Jagan, in a letter to Sharmila, said that in the last ten years he had given her around Rs 200 crore either directly or through their mother, YS Vijayalakshmi. Notably, Jagan and Sharmila are battling over properties, many of which central agencies have attached and implicated as proceeds of his quid pro quo deals between 2004 and 2009, during DR YSR's tenure as the chief minister of united Andhra Pradesh.

Jagan himself, in the NCLT petition, said that the shares of Saraswathy power and industries Sharmila 'illegally' transferred were in legal attachment, and such a move would create legal troubles for him, like revocation of his bail.

'Family properties fairly settled'

“During the lifetime of our beloved father, all the properties that were purchased by him or properties that are ancestral in nature were fairly and equitably settled amongst us by him as he saw fit. In addition, you are also well aware that I have built up a few businesses on my own initiative, effort, and investment, which have nothing to do with any inheritance. Out of the sheer love and affection I always bore towards you as my sister, I had also expressed my intention that, unrelated to any consideration and purely out of love and affection, I intended to effect the transfer of certain properties to you at a future point in time. This was in addition to the amount of approximately Rs 200 crore already given to you directly or through our mother over the last decade or so. This too was given by me out of my sheer love and affection for you,” said Jagan in the letter.

He further stated that, considering their innate bond, a shared childhood, and numerous cherished memories from the past, should she exhibit any positive shift in her attitude and behavior that could reignite his love and affection for her, he would likely reevaluate his actions after the court cases conclude.

'Not standing on commitment'

In response to his letter, Sharmila wrote back to Jagan, saying, “It is important to remind you that our late father unambiguously instructed that all the properties acquired with the family resources during his lifetime should be divided equally amongst his four grandchildren. You agreed to that command and assured him and us that you would obey his word; but, after our late 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 assets that existed during his lifetime, whether they pertain to Bharathi Cements, Sakshi, or any other ventures initiated prior to his passing. Our mother was not only a witness to these explicit instructions but also observed all interactions and agreements between us to date.”

She further said, “Now, contrary to our father's wishes and your undertaking, you have sought to terminate the MoU unilaterally. Legally, your letter is contrary to the MoU and has no sanctity, but what saddens me is the spirit behind your letter. It undermines every ideal of our late 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 of properties.”

Diversionary tactics

While the letters between the brother and sister and the family dispute have taken center stage in Andhra politics, Jagan said on Thursday that the ruling TDP has exploited these letters and exaggerated the family dispute as a diversionary tactic from the actual problems the people in the state are facing.

During a public interaction, he said family disputes are common and asked N Chandrababu Naidu to focus on public issues.

“Any problem in the state is being diverted by focusing on my family. My mother and sister are being used to shifting attention, but family conflicts are common in every home. Ours is no different,” Jagan said.