Mere Living Together Doesn't Create a Composite Family: Andhra Pradesh High Court Overturns Partition Decree, Upholds Validity of Century-Old Sale Deed

“A written agreement to partition the properties in future is unknown to law” , Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a decisive ruling in Pamidipati Satyanarayana Rao (died) per LRs & Ors. v. Navuluri Saraswathi & Ors., Appeal Suit No.2802 of 1999, reversing a 1999 decree of partition granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a composite family or the nominality of century-old registered sale deeds and accordingly dismissed the partition suit while allowing a permanent injunction in favour of the defendant.

"Proof of Composite Family Must Go Beyond Cohabitation": Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Finding as Perverse

The Court began by setting out the legal principle that mere cohabitation and joint enjoyment of property does not, by itself, constitute a composite family under Hindu law. Observing that the trial court erred in granting a partition decree based solely on long-term co-residence of the parties, Justice Rao clarified:

“The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that since the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived together, therefore, both of them lived as a composite family. The said finding is... nothing but a perversive finding.”

The Court referred to the authoritative decision in Kakarla Subbayya v. Makkena Sitaramamma, 1957 SCC OnLine AP 342, reiterating that:

“In the absence of an express agreement, the formation of a composite family cannot ordinarily be inferred from the mere circumstances of two different families living together and cultivating jointly, unless the conduct and mutual relations of the component units are wholly incompatible with the preservation of their individuality.”

Applying this test, the High Court found that the plaintiff had "not produced any oral or documentary evidence to prove either the formation of a composite family or that the disputed properties were purchased from family funds."

Centenarian Sale Deed Found Genuine; Plaintiff’s Claim of Nominality Rejected as Baseless

At the heart of the dispute was a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1906 (Ex.B-54), executed by the plaintiff’s ancestors in favour of defendant’s father, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, for ₹440. The plaintiff alleged that this transaction was a sham and that Chenchuramaiah was a penniless person incapable of purchasing property.

However, the Court categorically rejected this claim, finding:

“In those days i.e., in the year 1906... ₹440 was a huge and substantial amount. The contention of the plaintiff that Chenchuramaiah was penniless is nothing but false and without any basis.”

Furthermore, the Court noted that no steps had been taken to cancel Ex.B-54 in over 100 years, nor was any evidence presented to establish that the property remained in the possession of the plaintiff’s ancestors after the sale. On the contrary, the defendant had filed extensive revenue records and Cist receipts from Ex.B-63 to Ex.B-119, conclusively demonstrating possession.

Ex.X-1 Agreement Is Not a Title Document – "Admission of Signature Not Proof of Ownership"

The plaintiff relied heavily on a document marked Ex.X-1, allegedly signed by the defendant in 1976, agreeing to divide properties equally. The Court held this document to be legally ineffective, stating:

“Mere admission of signature in the Ex.X-1 is not a conclusive proof... A written agreement to partition the properties in future is unknown to law.”

Importantly, the Court pointed out that Ex.X-1 lacked any mention of property details or survey numbers, and therefore could not be considered a valid agreement under property law. Citing R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple [(2003) 8 SCC 752], the Court emphasized that title to immovable property must be through registered conveyances, not informal family understandings.

Documentary Evidence Tips the Scale: Plaintiff's Oral Claims Collapse under Cross-Examination

The High Court thoroughly analyzed the plaintiff’s evidence, including his own admissions during cross-examination, where he conceded lack of personal knowledge of events before 1924. The Court noted that the plaintiff failed to examine any villagers or independent witnesses to prove the existence of a composite family.

“Though the plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex.X-1, who is none other than the co-brother of the plaintiff... there is no whisper in his evidence about the existence of composite family.”

In contrast, the defendants had meticulously produced sale deeds, agreements, tax records, and revenue documents spanning several decades, which painted a consistent picture of individual and exclusive ownership and enjoyment of the suit properties by the defendant and his predecessors.

Suit for Permanent Injunction Decreed – Defendant’s Possession Is Lawful and Protected

The Court also reversed the trial court's dismissal of O.S. No.07 of 1981, the suit filed by the defendant seeking a permanent injunction against interference. It found that the defendant had:

“Proved settled and exclusive possession of the plaint schedule properties through registered sale deeds and payment of Cist.”

As such, the High Court granted the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the plaintiffs in that suit (defendants in O.S. No.15 of 1981) from disturbing the defendant’s peaceful possession.

Trial Court's Partition Decree Set Aside; Defendant’s Title and Possession Affirmed

In summation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere cohabitation does not create a composite family, and that registered sale deeds backed by revenue records and possession are paramount in determining title. The plaintiff, lacking evidence and relying on speculative claims, failed to discharge the burden of proof.

The High Court allowed both appeals, declaring:

“For the aforesaid reasons, this Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the partition... and the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 17... is allowed. The appeal for permanent injunction... is also allowed.”

Date of Decision: 24.12.2025