I don’t understand the logic of YS Sharmila, who is portraying herself as a victim of her brother's greed.
It is well-known that YS Rajasekhara Reddy divided all his properties between his two children long ago, and there is no dispute about that now.
Surprisingly, the current issue revolves around the properties or shares that YS Jagan Mohan Reddy had promised to Sharmila in the form of an MOU, out of love and affection.
This promise does not pertain to inherited property but to assets earned through his own hard work. Legally, Jagan has every right to revoke any such MOU or will as long as he is alive.
The real issue here is that YS Sharmila has no other way to be on good terms with YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and regain his love and affection to receive the promised share. Otherwise, he is within his rights to withhold it.
Even in middle-class families, the property is often given to the one whom the owner loves most towards the end. Sometimes, relationships with sons and daughters may be overridden, and property might be given to someone outside the family if they win the owner's heart.
It is ridiculous to see YS Sharmila demanding her share of Jagan's own properties.
She might be under the impression that, legally, she has the right to demand what was promised to her in a formal agreement. However, what she should understand is that Jagan has the power to revoke any such MOU or will at his discretion.
Making a public fuss about this issue reflects poorly on Sharmila and raises doubts about her basic common sense.
If she truly aspires to grow as a leader, she should maintain some basic decorum while fighting for a share of her brother's property, especially when she has no connection to the business or its success.
Doesn't she feel any shame in demanding a share of her sibling's property when she had nothing to do with his hard work?
Sharmila should think twice, and those supporting her out of their hatred for Jagan Mohan Reddy should think thrice. It looks as if Sharmila's greed has no bounds.
Usha Chowdhary
