Ritanwita Dasgupta

I'm just confused cause in nagavalli, the 2010 sequel, the king assassinated his brother, and after annexing the throne convinced chandramukhi that gunsekhar will be there and then killed him, (supposedly) when Chandramukhi swore vengeance and as the story progresses we know the narrative progression where he beheaded gunsekhar and burnt chandramukhi alive, he was subconsciously tormented by chandramukhi so he ordered every other girl in the village to be burnt alive or serve him because apparently nothing could fulfill his void of chandramukhi, so the entire village turned against him. He fled and led the life of a sage and prolonged his existence until 2010 until Gayatri who had DID successfully seeked revenge "as" chandramukhi. But in this movie the narrative got a lil different of the past when Nagavalli 2010 clearly stated the fate of the Raja, it's kind of contradictory considering both are sequels of the same film yet the perception of the past is so different