P.R. Shivakumar, J.

This appeal has been filed against the decree of the trial court (VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai) dated 06.08.2008 made in O.S.No.963 of 2005 granting the relief of partition and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, therein who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The 4th defendant in the above said suit is the appellant in the appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in accordance with their ranks in the Original Suit and at appropriate places their ranks in the appeal shall also be given.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs filed the plaint in above said suit, containing the following averments :-

The plaintiffs Kalaiselvi and Kalaivani are the daughters of the first defendant Rangaramanujam. Defendants 2 and 3, namely Jothiraman and Punithavalli are the brother and sister of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are twins born on 04.12.1975. An extent of 2 grounds and 159 sq.ft. comprised in R.S.No.421 at Melpathi Muthu Naicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 originally belonged to Kanakasabhai Naicker, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, as he had purchased the said property out of his self-earning. Subsequently, in a family arrangement dated 05.06.1974 among the legal heirs of Kanakasabhai Naicker, namely (1) Nagarathinammal, (2) K. Lakshminarayanan, (3) K. Rangaramanujam, (4) Radhakrishnan, (5) K. Elumalai and (6) C.K. Sudarsanam, the suit property, namely the land and building at Old Door No.32/1, New No.75, Melpathi Muthu Naicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 was allotted to Rangaramanujam, the first defendant. By virtue of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1989 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990), the plaintiffs became entitled to get shares in the said property as coparceners. The plaintiffs were brought up by their aunt Santhalakshmi. Except spending some amount for the livelihood of the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 did not disclose any of the family matters to the plaintiffs. While so, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 1 and 2 have obtained a loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- in 1995 by mortgaging the suit property to Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Limited, the 4th defendant and that they could not pay the instalments and thereby the loan amount got accumulated to the tune of Rs. 14,14,759/-. Since the mortgage was created without getting the consent of the plaintiffs it will not bind the share of the plaintiffs. When the said fact was informed to the 4th defendant, without giving proper reply, the 4th defendant instructed the auctioneer, namely M/s. Balaji & Company (5th defendant) to bring the suit property for sale in public auction on 01.07.2004 at 11.00 a.m. The attempt made by the plaintiffs to stop the auction by approaching the 5th defendant also proved to be ineffective. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit in O.S.No.4121/2004 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, claiming their share in respect of the suit property. In spite of the pendency of the said proceedings, the 4th and 5th defendants have chosen to issue public notice for conducting the auction at 11.00 a.m. on 15.02.2005. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for a declaration that they are entitled to 2/5th share in the suit property and a direction to divide the same by metes and bounds into 5 equal shares and allot two shares to the plaintiffs, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from bringing the plaintiffs' share in the suit property for sale in public auction and for cost.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 did not contest the suit and they remained ex-parte. Defendants 4 and 5 contested the suit based on the written statement of the 4th defendant adopted by the 5th defendant. The contents of the statement of the 4th defendant adopted by the 5th defendant are, in brief, as follows:

The entire extent of 2 grounds and 159 sq.ft. comprised in Old Survey No.260 and R.S.No.421 o