The creation of a composite family requires an express or implied agreement between the parties and evidence of a merger of interests so as to give rise to contractual obligations arising out of the pooling of the resources viz., labor and property.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff who claimed to be entitled to a 1/3rd share in the plaint B and C schedule properties did not succeed in establishing that he is a member of a composite family consisting of two Vakati families and one Pelleti family. Hence the appeal by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE relationship between the parties needs mention to explain their array in the suit. The 1st defendant is Pelleti Pitchamma, Her brothers were Vakati Venkatasubba Reddi and Subbaraghava Reddi. Their father wag Venkata Kumundara Reddi. The plaintiff is the son of Subbaraghnva Reddi who died in 1941. Venfcatasubba Reddi predeceased Subbaraghava Reddi leaving his wile Subbalakshmamma. Pitchamma (1st defendant) married Pelleti Muniswami Reddi, the son of Pelleti Venkata Narayana Reddi and Mahalakshmamma, who died in 1930. Pitcbamma had a son Munirami Reddi who died in 1939. Her daughter Muniamma is married to one Rami Reddi. Pitchammas aunt Vengarnma i. e. , Pelleti Venkata Narayana Reddis sister, was married to one Vekati Appa Reddi. These bad a son Ramaswami Reddi and his wife is the 2nd defendant. The genealogical table of the three families is set out herennder for purposes of amplification.

( 3 ) THE case for the plaintiff is that Kumundara Reddi, the grand-father of the plaintiff, married Ammakkamma the daughter of one Rami Reddi of Arthamala. Rami Reddi had no male issue. Mumundara Reddi mixed up his properties with that of Rami Reddi and was living with his father-in-law. Mumundara Reddi predeceased Rami Reddi and after Rami Reddis death, Ammakkamma enjoyed the entire properties and on her death, Venkatasubba Reddi and Subbaraghava Reddi succeeded to the properties of their father and maternal grant-father. The 1st defendant, Pitchamma who had been married to Kumundara Reddis sisters son joined this Pelleti family with some properties. Pelleti Muniswami Reddi, the husband of the 1st defendant, was managing the affairs of the composite family and therefore the patta stood in his name and on his death, that patta was transferred to Pitchamrna. According to the plaintiff, it was his uncle Venkatasubba Reddi and thereafter his father that managed the properties after the death of Pelleti Muniswami Reddi. It is also alleged that since Pitchammas sister-in-law i. e. , her husbands fathers sister Venagamma, was married to Vekati Appa Reddi, they also lived with the plaintiffs (Pelleti family ). Thus it is averred that the three families blended their properties together more than sixty years ago and constituted themselves into a composite family as per the custom and usage prevailing among the cultivating Reddi families. It is also pointed out that Subbalakshmamma, the widow of the, plaintiffs uncle Venkatasubba Reddy, was receiving maintenance from the plaintiffs lather Subbaraghava Reddi who was managing the composite family. It is stated that white matters stood thus, the 1st defendant executed Ex. B. 1 a release deed on 27-7-1950 in favour of her daughter Mmiiamma and that Rami Reddi, the husband of the 3rd defendant, thereafter denied the rights of the plaintiff and also falsely filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff,pitchannna, the 1st defendant, denied the right of the plaintiff and of the 2nd defendant in the suit properties (except items 49 to 60 of the plaint B schedule which according to her belonged to the plaintiff), and claimed them as having belonged to her husband and her father-in-law and that she succeeded to the same on their death. She stated that her brothers Venkatasubba Reddi and Subbaraghava Reddi had been assisting her until her only daughter Muniamma, was married and thereafter her son-in-law Rami Reddi has been assisting her in the management of the properties. She disputed the custom and usage regarding the constitution of composite families and also the fact that the plaintiff and the defendants constituted such a family.

( 4 ) THE question both in the suit and in the appeal has been whether the plaintiff as represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document