<p>Hyderabad: The simmering property dispute within the family of former chief minister of <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Andhra%20Pradesh">Andhra Pradesh</a>, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, has now erupted into a full-blown public feud with a notarised affidavit by his mother Y S Vijay Lakhsmi laying bare serious allegations surfaced online.</p><p>Jagan's sister <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Y%20S%20Sharmila">Y S Sharmila</a> has consistently alleged that her rightful share of the family assets was being denied. In a clarification, mother Vijaya Lakshmi on Friday categorically stated in an affidavit submitted in the court that all assets held until the death of Y S Rajasekhara Reddy in 2009 are combined family properties and were never formally divided. </p><p>She underscored that Rajasekhara’s intention was for these assets to be distributed equally among the four grandchildren, a fact she says is known to all close associates. </p>.Tale of two sisters: Sharmila, Kavitha chart independent courses amid family feud.<p>Both Sharmila and Jagan have two children each.</p><p>The affidavit also pointed out that Jagan himself had acknowledged Sharmila’s rightful share through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), yet failed to honour it in both letter and spirit. </p><p>Vijaya Lakshmi also said that even within that MoU, Sharmila was given less than what she is actually entitled to.</p><p>The document also revealed that several significant assets, such as Saraswati Cement and land in Bengaluru's Yelahanka, were kept out of the MoU altogether, despite rightfully belonging to Sharmila. It also said that that the money given to her was merely dividend income from her share, not a settlement.</p><p>She also expressed anguish over the unfair treatment meted out in property matters, not just to Sharmila but to the grandchildren as well. </p>.Transfer of shares in Saraswati never consummated: NCLT on Jagan’s plea against Sharmila.<p>She pointedly remarked that “the truth is known to my God and my son,”. She said that until now Jagan had meted out injustice to his niece and nephew over family assets.</p><p>She appealed to put an end to what she described as false propaganda. The affidavit concludes with a solemn assertion that every word written is true and is stated in the name of god.</p><p>As siblings Jagan and PCC chief YS Sharmila Reddy publicly clashed over the distribution of family assets, their mother, Vijay Lakshmi, first time in October 2024, asserted that Sharmila has a rightful claim to these assets and injustice meted out to her. Vijaya Lakshni said it's her 'Dharma' to stand with the child who was meted out injustice.</p><p>Her assertion comes amid Jagan's claims that family assets have been fairly distributed among the siblings, and that the remaining properties and businesses are his own acquisitions and earnings.</p><p>For the first time, Vijay Lakshmi responded to the ongoing tussle between her children, writing an open letter in October 2024 appealing to the public to refrain from commenting on the controversy.</p>
<p>Hyderabad: The simmering property dispute within the family of former chief minister of <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Andhra%20Pradesh">Andhra Pradesh</a>, Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy, has now erupted into a full-blown public feud with a notarised affidavit by his mother Y S Vijay Lakhsmi laying bare serious allegations surfaced online.</p><p>Jagan's sister <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Y%20S%20Sharmila">Y S Sharmila</a> has consistently alleged that her rightful share of the family assets was being denied. In a clarification, mother Vijaya Lakshmi on Friday categorically stated in an affidavit submitted in the court that all assets held until the death of Y S Rajasekhara Reddy in 2009 are combined family properties and were never formally divided. </p><p>She underscored that Rajasekhara’s intention was for these assets to be distributed equally among the four grandchildren, a fact she says is known to all close associates. </p>.Tale of two sisters: Sharmila, Kavitha chart independent courses amid family feud.<p>Both Sharmila and Jagan have two children each.</p><p>The affidavit also pointed out that Jagan himself had acknowledged Sharmila’s rightful share through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), yet failed to honour it in both letter and spirit. </p><p>Vijaya Lakshmi also said that even within that MoU, Sharmila was given less than what she is actually entitled to.</p><p>The document also revealed that several significant assets, such as Saraswati Cement and land in Bengaluru's Yelahanka, were kept out of the MoU altogether, despite rightfully belonging to Sharmila. It also said that that the money given to her was merely dividend income from her share, not a settlement.</p><p>She also expressed anguish over the unfair treatment meted out in property matters, not just to Sharmila but to the grandchildren as well. </p>.Transfer of shares in Saraswati never consummated: NCLT on Jagan’s plea against Sharmila.<p>She pointedly remarked that “the truth is known to my God and my son,”. She said that until now Jagan had meted out injustice to his niece and nephew over family assets.</p><p>She appealed to put an end to what she described as false propaganda. The affidavit concludes with a solemn assertion that every word written is true and is stated in the name of god.</p><p>As siblings Jagan and PCC chief YS Sharmila Reddy publicly clashed over the distribution of family assets, their mother, Vijay Lakshmi, first time in October 2024, asserted that Sharmila has a rightful claim to these assets and injustice meted out to her. Vijaya Lakshni said it's her 'Dharma' to stand with the child who was meted out injustice.</p><p>Her assertion comes amid Jagan's claims that family assets have been fairly distributed among the siblings, and that the remaining properties and businesses are his own acquisitions and earnings.</p><p>For the first time, Vijay Lakshmi responded to the ongoing tussle between her children, writing an open letter in October 2024 appealing to the public to refrain from commenting on the controversy.</p>