Amid the legal battle over the Andhra Pradesh Congress stalwart YS Rajasekhara Reddy’s inheritance, his wife has written to her former chief minister's son YS Jagan Mohan Reddy saying that her daughter YS Sharmila was being treated unfairly and that it was her "duty" to stand up for her. In a three-page letter she wrote to Jagan, YS Vijayamma reiterated that assets of their late father were not divided when he was alive, and said that she felt hurt that one child was being treated unfairly. She wrote the letter amidst allegations and counter allegations between Jagan and Sharmila after YSRCP chief Jagan filed a petition in the National Company Law Tribunal last month accusing Sharmila of illegally transferring his and his wife Y S Bharati’s shares in Saraswati Power to her and their mother’s name. In her letter, Vijayamma says that while Sharmila was not involved in the family businesses, she worked very hard in politics for Jagan, and she followed her brother’s instructions. She stated that due to Sharmila’s untiring efforts, Jagan rose to power and that, as a mother, she wants to see that all her children are treated equally and 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,” she wrote, urging Jagan to give Sharmila’s share in Bharati Cements, Sakshi media, after the cases against him. Some people, including YSRCP leaders, were spreading false information that was damaging the relationship between the siblings further, she said, The letters they have written to each other are bitter and have given a bad name to the family and the memory of YSR, she further said, adding that the siblings will resolve their problems on their own. In September, Jagan filed the petition in NCLT under Section 59 of the Companies Act, which deals with the rectification of the register of members and also names former directors at Saraswati power, seeking to nullify the share transfer and restore him and his wife as the owners. Sharmila rebutted by stating in an open letter that he was only the “guardian” of the properties, that she deserved to receive her rightful share, and that her brother had already gifted the shares to his mother. Sharmila also dismissed Jagan's argument that the transfer of shares could lead to the bail granted to Jagan in a disproportionate assets case being cancelled, reminding him the shares were not attached by the Enforcement Directorate. She claimed that she had no interest in the family property due to the harassment she had undergone, and was only seeking her share for her children.
