M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No. 71 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge (Now, Principal Senior Civil Judge), Chittoor (For short, 'the trial Court') preferred this appeal against the decree and judgment dated 22.07.1996.

2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondent herein was the defendant before the trial Court in O.S. No. 71 of 1983. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S. No. 71 of 1983 will be adopted throughout this judgment.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to him, alleging that plaintiff is the youngest son to his parents Reddyvari Rami Reddy and his wife. The plaintiffs elder brothers Kesavulu Reddy and Rajareddy constituted as members of Hindu joint family, possessing property at Thambuganipalle. As the defendant married the elder sister of the plaintiff, blessed with one daughter and no male children were born to the defendant and his wife, the defendant developed liking towards plaintiff. As there was nobody to look after agricultural work, the defendant wanted the plaintiff to join him to form a composite family; so that the plaintiff may look after the agricultural operations of the composite family being young male person. About 12 years prior to filing the suit, the defendant came to the plaintiff's house and represented before the plaintiffs family members and elders by name J. Venkatrama Reddy, J. Rami Reddy, C. Ramana Reddy, P. Ramachandra Reddy and other relatives expressing his intention to take the plaintiff as member of his family to form a composite family with him, to look after the agricultural work agreeing to give half share in his property to the plaintiff; the family members of the plaintiff accepted the proposal of the defendant. At that time, family members of the plaintiff agreed that the share of the plaintiff in his family property both movable and immovable should be divided and to hand over to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiffs share in the family property in the lands and movable property was divided and handed over to the defendant. The movable and immovable property allotted to the share of the plaintiff is described in D schedule of the property, annexed to the plaint.

The defendant having received the same, took the plaintiff along with him to his house, formed a composite family with the plaintiff and himself and started living together for the last 12 years at Jilledupalle. Since then, the plaintiff has been looking after the agricultural operations, the property of composite family which include the property of the defendant has been utilizing the cash and other movable property that was allotted to the share of the plaintiff for improving the composite family property. The income from the agricultural land allotted to the share of the plaintiff is also being received by the defendant and utilized for the welfare of the composite family. Thus, the property of the defendant and plaintiff has been blended in a common hotchpot and being enjoyed jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, by virtue of the oral agreement, the plaintiff and the defendant constituted composite family and the agreement is binding.

The property described in A schedule is the composite family movable property at Jilledupalle; whereas, the B schedule is immovable property of composite family; the C schedule is the property that was blended with the family of the defendant and D schedule property is allotted to his share. Thus, ABCD schedule property is the composite family property and by virtue of agreement, the defendant and plaintiff are entitled to equal shares.

After formation of composite family, the family property was increased abnormally, the coconut and mango gardens have been planted and since land has been reclaimed, the agricultural income from the composite family property has be