R. Subbiah, J.

This appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 371 of 2009 as against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.2013 passed in O.S. No. 371 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 herein for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property into four equal shares and to allot three such shares to them.

2. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 371 of 2009 are the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The first defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The second defendant in the suit is arrayed as third respondent in this appeal. For easy reference, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial court.

3. The Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant are the daughters and son of one Y.N. Vijaya Pillai and Nappin Ammal, second defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule mentioned property bearing Plot No.18, Door No.34, New Colony 8th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088 measuring 1 ground 1278 square feet was purchased by Mr. Y.N. Vijaya Pillai from and out of his earnings from one Audilakshmi Ammal and Rajabathar Mudaliar through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1965 for a sum of Rs.3,500/-. After such purchase, Y.N. Vijaya Pillai constructed a house in the suit property out of his earnings and he was living there along with his wife and children. While so, on 27.01.1981, the father of the plaintiffs and first defendant namely Vijaya Pillai died leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. As the suit property is the self-acquired property of the deceased Vijaya Pillai, on his death, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to 1/4 shares each.

4. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that on 28.12.2005, the second defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiffs and first defendant, had executed a registered release deed on receipt of a sum of Rs.25,000/- whereby the second defendant has released her undivided 1/4th share in the suit property in favour of her two daughters i.e., the plaintiffs in the suit. Thus, the plaintiffs became entitled to 3/4 share in the suit property and the first defendant is entitled for 1/4 share thereof. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the second defendant has been running a Typewriting institute in the first floor of the house for the past 47 years. After execution of the release deed, the second defendant continued to run the typewriting institute with the permission of the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the first defendant are in joint possession of the suit property and such possession is deemed to be the joint possession along with the plaintiffs. The second defendant, who is running the typewriting institute, has been in possession of the portion occupied by the typewriting institute with the permission from the plaintiffs after the execution of the release deed. While so, the first defendant exhibited hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs and therefore, finding that the joint ownership of the suit property is no longer possible, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 09.06.2008 calling upon the first defendant to effect division of the suit property and to handover 3/4 share to them. On receipt of such notice, the first defendant sent a reply notice dated 30.06.2008 containing untrue averments inter alia denied the due share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. In the reply notice dated 30.06.2008, it was falsely contended by the first defendant that he had contributed for the seemanthamm marriage and delivery of the child of the first plaintiff and also spent amount for conducting betrothel, marriage and delivery of the children for the second plaintiff. It was also falsely claimed in the reply notice that the first defendant has been maintaining the second defendant and spending for