Amaravati, March 20 (IANS) Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister late Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy’s wife Y. S. Vijayalakshmi clarified that no formal division of family assets has ever taken place and said that her son Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy had been unfair to his sister Y.S. Sharmila and her children in matters related to asset distribution.

Amid the ongoing dispute over family assets in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Vijayalakshmi, popularly known as Vijayamma, on Friday issued a notarised clarification.

She hoped that at least now, Jagan Mohan Reddy would do justice to his sister and her children.

Countering allegations made by YSR Congress Party leaders claiming a settlement over family assets, Vijayamma termed the claims ‘misleading’ and ‘far from the truth’.

Former Chief Minister and YSR Congress Party president Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy is locked in a legal dispute with his sister Sharmila, who is the president of the Congress party in Andhra Pradesh, over the division of family assets.

Vijayamma stated that all properties held by the family until 2009 have been treated as combined family assets. She clarified that even after YSR’s demise, these assets continue to remain undivided.

Stating that an MoU was drafted only as a framework for future distribution, she clarified that it was neither registered nor legally implemented.

She claimed that YSR’s intention had been to divide the assets equally among his grandchildren. According to her, properties mentioned in the MoU in favour of Sharmila rightfully belong to her, even though those allocations are less than what she deserves.

Vijayamma stated that assets like Saraswati Cement and land in Yelahanka belong to Sharmila. She clarified that the funds reportedly given to Sharmila are merely dividends, not a share of the actual assets.

Reacting to Vijayamma’s clarification, YSRCP spokesperson Rachamallu Shivaprasad Reddy said her remarks against Jagan Mohan Reddy were ‘unfair’ and ‘hurtful’.

He questioned why she did not express concern over the comments being made against her son and instead appeared to support the narrative against him.

He criticised the narrative that injustice had been done to Sharmila and her family, asking whether it was appropriate to lower Jagan’s image in the process of defending her.

Claiming that property distribution had taken place before the death of YSR in 2009, he questioned the claims, denying them. He added that Jagan had given more than his share to his sister out of affection and had even entered into an MoU after becoming Chief Minister in 2019.

He said the MoU was later withdrawn due to Sharmila’s actions and certain developments, including legal complications. He pointed out that such disputes should be resolved within the family or through the courts instead of public allegations.

–IANS

ms/uk