In the ongoing legal dispute over the inheritance of the late Andhra Pradesh Congress leader YS Rajasekhara Reddy, his wife, Y S Vijayamma, has addressed a letter to her son, former Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. In her correspondence, she expressed deep concern regarding the treatment of her daughter, YS Sharmila, asserting that it is her “duty” to advocate for Sharmila, whom she believes is being treated unfairly in this matter.
According to The Indian Express report, in a three-page letter to Jagan, Vijayamma alleged that while YSR’s assets were not divided at the time of his death, Sharmila has faced exclusion in inheritance matters.
The letter follows escalating tensions between the siblings, with Jagan filing a petition in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) last month, accusing Sharmila of unlawfully transferring shares in Saraswati Power, previously held by him and his wife YS Bharati, to herself and their mother.
In her letter, Vijayamma wrote that while Sharmila wasn’t involved in the family businesses, she worked hard in politics to support Jagan and followed his direction. She said Sharmila’s efforts helped Jagan rise to power and that, as a mother, she wants all her children to be treated fairly.
“It is painful to see injustice done to one child and it is my duty to speak up for that child who is being treated unfairly,” Vijayamma wrote, urging Jagan to allocate Sharmila’s share in Bharati Cements and Sakshi media once his legal cases are resolved.
She added that some individuals, including YSRCP leaders, were spreading false information that further strained the relationship between the siblings. The letters they have written to each other are bitter and have tarnished the family’s reputation and YSR’s memory, she added, expressing hope that the siblings would eventually resolve their issues privately.
The dispute escalated in September when Jagan filed a petition with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 59 of the Companies Act, seeking to cancel the alleged share transfer in Saraswati Power and restore ownership to himself and his wife. Sharmila countered with an open letter, arguing that Jagan was merely a “guardian” of the properties, that she was entitled to her rightful share, and that he had already gifted the shares to their mother.
Sharmila also dismissed Jagan’s concern that the share transfer could jeopardize his bail in a disproportionate assets case, noting that the shares were not attached by the Enforcement Directorate. She claimed she sought her share solely for her children’s future, given the harassment she had faced, and had no personal interest in the family property.