YS Sharmila says Bengaluru’s Yelahanka Palace was allotted entirely to her and her children during the division of family properties. She has decided to move daughter Anjili’s wedding to another venue following objections from her brother, YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Yelahanka Palace Ownership Claim By Sharmila
YS Sharmila has asserted that the Yelahanka property in Bengaluru belongs entirely to her and her children, bringing fresh attention to the property disagreement within the YS family.
In a statement on X on October 31, Sharmila said the residence was previously a joint family asset. According to her, it was subsequently allotted fully to her family’s share during the division of properties after YS Jagan Mohan Reddy became chief minister. Her statement presents her ownership claim and does not independently establish the property’s legal title.
Yelahanka Palace Wedding Venue Changed
Despite asserting ownership, Sharmila announced that her daughter Anjili Reddy’s wedding would take place elsewhere. She said the family wanted to conduct the ceremony peacefully, without disagreements overshadowing the occasion.
Sharmila also explained the emotional significance of the proposed venue. She said her father, former Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, had spent time at the house and that Anjili had wanted to marry at the home where she grew up. The family expressed disappointment over being unable to fulfil that wish. The ceremony will instead be organised at another location in the presence of relatives, friends and well-wishers.
Yelahanka Palace Dispute And Jagan’s Objections
Jagan had objected to hosting the wedding at the Bengaluru residence, citing security and privacy concerns. His position centred on the movement of numerous guests and service providers through the premises during a large celebration.
Sharmila’s decision changes the wedding arrangements while leaving the ownership disagreement unresolved in the statements available. Her announcement focused on ensuring a peaceful ceremony and seeking blessings for the couple. It did not indicate that she had withdrawn her claim to the property.
