She died at the peak of her popularity in 2004, having just made it to Bollywood — acting opposite Amitabh Bachchan. She was one of the most popular stars in the South and was campaigning for the BJP when the Cessna carrying her crashed. She and her brother, K S Amarnath, died. Last year, the four surviving members of the her family started fighting over the properties left behind by the actress. Cases were filed in courts, and at the centre of this dispute was a will, which two members claimed was real while two others alleged was a fake. The family members have now arrived at a compromise and the last of the complaints against each other were withdrawn a few days ago.
Soundarya and Amarnath are survived by their mother, KS Manjula, Soundarya's husband, Raghu GS, Amarnath's wife, B Nirmala, and their son, Sathvik. Soundarya is said to have made the will on February 15, 2003, a year before her death and two months before her marriage. The will divides her five immovable properties in Bangalore and Hyderabad and movable properties including cash, fixed deposits, shares and jewellery to the four people.
The family dispute over property started in 2009, with Sathvik, a minor represented by his mother, Nirmala, filing a case against his grandmother and uncle for alienating property that was his according to the will. Nirmala also filed a case against Manjula and Raghu, alleging domestic violence and seeking share in the property as per the will.
In response to the case, Manjula and Raghu claimed that the will was fake and created by Sathvik and Nirmala's advocate, HS Dhanraj. Dhanraj promptly filed a defamation case against Raghu and Manjula in October 2012, for accusing him of creating the will. A court was hearing this defamation suit.
COMPROMISE
A memorandum of understanding was filed before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate court as far back as February 16, 2013, by Nirmala and Sathvik on one side, and Manjula and Raghu on the other. As per documents obtained from the court, the compromise deal consists of giving by way of gift a property in Hanumantanagar, consisting of two houses and three shops to Sathvik apart from Rs 25 lakh in fixed deposit in his name. Nirmala is given Rs 1.25 crore.
Agricultural property that was in Amarnath's name is to be sold and the proceeds shared between Manjula, Nirmala and Sathvik. In other properties in which Nirmala had a joint ownership, she has given up in Manjula's favour.
In return, the mother and son were to withdraw all the cases filed by them and promise not to make further claimsbasedonthewill.Lastweek,the final process was completed with Nirmala withdrawing a complaint before the Karnataka Women's Commission. The case by Sathvik and the domestic violence case by Nirmala had been withdrawn earlier.
IS WILL REAL OR FAKE?
But the defamation case by advocate Dhanraj against Raghu and Manjula had remained. Dhanraj was the advocate of Nirmala and Sathvik earlier. Raghu and Manjula have arrived a compromise with him as well. In a compromise petition filed in the original suit, they have unconditionally withdrawn the "allegations, derogatory statements with remarks made," and regretted the adverse effect on him.
But here starts the mystery. In the compromise between Raghu-Manjula and Nirmala-Sathvik, the will is called the 'contested will' and Raghu and Manjula maintain that it is fake and Soundarya never made one. But in the compromise with the advocate, they withdraw the allegations that he created it.
When contacted, Dhanraj confirmed that there was a compromise settlement but refused to divulge further. The compromise petition between them even says that they will not go to the media with the details.
THE BOOTY OVER WHICH THEY FOUGHT
In Soundarya's will that was the bone of contention, mention was made of six properties. The first is a building on a 40 x 36 ft building in Hanumanthanagar which had two houses and three shops. The second property is a building on a 28 x15 metres site in RMV II Stage. The third is a office premises of 3,772 sq ft in Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The fourth, a 20 x 24 metres vacant site in HRBR Extension. The fifth is a 30x40 ft vacant site in Bhavani House Building Co-operative Society. The sixth is movable properties including cash, fixed deposits, shares and jewellery.
In the memorandum of settlement between the family members filed in the IV Metropolitan Magistrate court, the family members have settled their claims on all properties including those not mentioned in the will. They are in five schedules. The first schedule is of properties in Soundarya's name when she died and which devolved upon her husband Raghu. This includes the residential house in RMV II Stage, the building in Hanumanthanagar, the share of office property in Hyderabad and a vacant site in HRBR Layout. The second schedule mentions properties in the name of Raghu; a residential house in Malleswaram. The third schedule is of properties jointly owned by Manjula and Raghu that include a corner site in Judicial Layout. The fourth schedule is property jointly owned by Manjula and Nirmala which includes a corner site in Judicial Layout and agricultural land of two acres. The fifth schedule is of properties owned by Amarnath. This includes agricultural land of 5.3 acres in Andhra Pradesh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment