Sharmila shifts daughter’s wedding but reasserts claim over Yelahanka property

The property dispute within the YS family over the Yelahanka property in Bengaluru has taken another turn. Following Jagan Mohan Reddy’s objection, YS Sharmila has decided to shift the venue of her daughter Anjali Reddy’s wedding to another location, she announced on social media on Saturday (October 31).

While asserting that the Yelahanka Palace belongs not just partly but “100 per cent” to her and her children, Sharmila announced that the wedding would be held elsewhere. She said the decision was taken to avoid any disputes during the wedding celebrations.

Sharmila maintained that the Yelahanka Palace was allotted to her and her children as part of the family’s property settlement.

The Yelahanka Palace dispute

So, what exactly is the Yelahanka Palace dispute? What were Jagan’s objections? And how has social media reacted to Sharmila’s latest statement? Let us take a look.

Also read: Yelahanka Palace: How Bengaluru property became centre of Jagan-Sharmila feud

Sharmila wanted to conduct her daughter’s wedding at the Yelahanka Palace in Bengaluru. However, Jagan is currently residing in one of the villas on the property. He reportedly objected to holding the wedding there, citing security and privacy concerns.

He expressed his reservations in a letter addressed to Sharmila on October 9, stating that the large number of guests, photographers, and event staff expected during the wedding could create security and privacy issues. He also suggested their Lotus Pond residence in Hyderabad as an alternative venue.

Sharmila, who had initially not agreed to the suggestion, now appears to have changed her decision.

Sharmila’s long post

In a long X post, Sharmila argued that after Jagan became chief minister, the Yelahanka property was allotted entirely to her and her children as part of the family property settlement. She said her daughter has childhood memories associated with the house and that her grandfather, YSR, also spent time there.

Here is what Sharmila said in her social media post (translated): “I do not covet what is not mine. I am not so petty.

Also read: Andhra local body polls: Naidu alleges YSRCP disrupted nominations; Jagan’s party cries foul

“After Jagan Mohan Reddy became chief minister, the Yelahanka property, which until then had been a jointly-owned family asset, came entirely into my and my children’s share as part of the division of properties. This is the truth, and God is my witness.

“Since it is my children’s rightful property, and because it is the house where my father, YSR, lived and spent time, we wanted to conduct my daughter Anjali’s wedding there, as she wished. Any Telugu household will tell you that it is a blessing for parents to celebrate their child’s wedding in their own home.

“However, we are deeply saddened that we could not fulfil our daughter’s wish to have her wedding in the home where she grew up.

“I extend my gratitude to everyone who felt concerned for my daughter after witnessing the developments surrounding the wedding venue. My daughter Anjali’s marriage is an arranged alliance agreed upon by both families. It is our responsibility to ensure that the wedding takes place peacefully, without controversy or conflict.

“Therefore, we have decided to hold the wedding ceremony of YS Anjali Reddy and Somala Raghuram Reddy at a different venue, rather than at the Yelahanka house, in the presence of family members, friends, and loved ones.

“We sincerely hope that the people of Telugu-speaking states will bless and extend their good wishes to the couple as they begin their new life together.”

Social media debate

So far, there has been no response from Jagan’s side to this latest statement. However, their mother and YSR’s wife, Vijayamma, had earlier said that her husband’s wish was for the property to belong to all four of his grandchildren.

Meanwhile, social media has seen sharply differing reactions to Sharmila’s statement. Some users have questioned her claims regarding the property settlement.

Also read: Jagan seeks CBI probe into DSC-2025 ‘irregularities’, Nara Lokesh’s resignation

Some have asked how a wedding could be held at a property they consider jointly owned, while others have argued there is nothing wrong with a mother conducting her daughter’s wedding at her own house. A few have also demanded that Sharmila make the relevant property documents public or approach a court if necessary.

Others, however, have supported Sharmila, arguing that a daughter should have rights over family property and that it is unfortunate for family differences to affect her daughter’s wedding.

Another section is viewing the dispute through a political lens. Some have questioned why the family property issue has surfaced during the election period, while others have urged that family matters should not be mixed with politics.

Two different issues

However, there are two separate issues here. One is Sharmila’s claim of ownership over the Yelahanka Palace. The other is Jagan’s stated concerns about his security and privacy, given that he is currently residing there.

Also read: ED searches premises of YSRCP MP Avinash Reddy, others in murder-linked PMLA case

Who legally owns the property? What do the family settlement agreements and registration documents say? These questions can be settled only on the basis of relevant legal documents.

For now, Sharmila has decided to shift her daughter’s wedding to another venue. But will the dispute end here? Will the property differences between the brother and sister be resolved? Or will their family differences continue to trigger debate on political platforms?

(This article was originally published in The Federal Andhra Pradesh.)