The sibling war made headlines earlier this week when they exchanged letters in which they mentioned their late father, former Chief Minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy. They also accused each other of deceitful (and) deeply hurtful” actions, and belittling their father’s memory.
Jagan and Sharmila were once allies. In fact, Sharmila campaigned hard for her brother’s YSR Congress in the run-up to Assembly by-polls in June 2012, in which the party won 15 of 18 seats. She also worked for the party before the 2019 elections where Jagan won a whooping 151 seats in the 175-seat assembly.
However, cracks in their relationship were evident soon after.
In 2021 Sharmila floated her YSR Telangana party that merged with the Congress before the April-June general election. She was was made the Congress’ Andhra chief, which set up a direct battle against her brother.
The spat has also turned into a legal battle after Sharmila wrote to the National Company Law Tribunal, to red-flag the “illegal” transfer of shares in Saraswati Power.
The legal battle
The legal battle between the two siblings took a news turn after the petition filed in the Hyderabad bench of NCLT, which will be heard on November.
the petition, Jagan said that he had entered into an memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Sharmila, stating that “out of love and affection” he would transfer his and his wife’s shares of Saraswati Power and Industries through a gift deed to his estranged sister, subject to pending cases and attachments by the Enforcement Directorate.
He now wants to the revoke the MoU. He wrote a letter in a letter to his sister, stating that share transfer without fulfilling legal obligations and clearance from the court could have adverse implications. He also agreed that they were not on good terms and formally informed her that he had no further intent to act upon his original intent as expressed in the MoU.
According to Jagan, the properties acquired by their father and the ancestral ones were divided among the family members. He intended to transfer the shares, which were his own property, in addition to the Rs 200 crore he had given to his sister directly or through their mother over the past decade.
Jagan alleged that to his “utter shock and surprise,” the company’s board resolution had transferred the entire shareholding of himself, his wife, and Classic Realty (owned by the family) in favor of Sharmila and their mother, Vijayamma, respectively in his petition.
He further stated that Sharmila had no gratitude and regard for his well being and that she conducted a series of actions that deeply hurt him and made several untrue and false statements publicly.
These actions were only only political but also blatantly untrue and caused him deep personal dissemination, Jagan claimed. As a result, the relationship between the siblings has strained, and there is “no love left between the two siblings.”
Consequently, Jagan decided not to proceed with his expression of intent to transfer the shares and properties as envisaged under the MoU and gift deed. “love and affection” was mentioned nine times in two pages.
Jagan has claimed the shares were “given to me in trust by a gift deed” and that he had “gifted” them to their mother, YS Vijayalakshmi, “with the understanding that the transfer… would happen post court clearance (and) with execution of further appropriate documentation…”
But these shares, Jagan said in his letter had been transferred by his sister to herself in a “deceitful manner (that) creates potential legal complications for me”. These shares, he said, would now “revert to me as the original and continuing owner and beneficiary of the interest…”
Sharmila’s September Reply
A few weeks later Sharmila wrote to Jagan and expressed “serious objection”, flagging their father’s “unambiguous” instruction “that all properties acquired with family resources during his lifetime should be divided equally between his four grandchildren”.
She accused her brother of agreeing to that commitment when their father was alive but “after our late father’s death you refused.” Their mother, she said, was a witness to his promise.
Sharmila also appeared to mock her brother over the “love and affection” protestations, saying any transfer of assets under such claims and listed in the MoU were “only in partial fulfillment” of their father’s wishes.
She dismissed his intention to scrap the MoU, saying it has no legal authority.
“You have done what our dear father would never have imagined… filed cases against his dear wife (our mother) and daughter (myself) to deprive his family of their legitimate share…”
On the vexed issue of Saraswati Power shares, Sharmila claimed the intention had been to transfer on signing of the MoU.
The MoU is a “continuing and binding document”, she said.
