JUDGMENT : This Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2023 made in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. 2. The sole Defendant in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, is the Appellant in this Appeal. The suit was instituted by the Plaintiffs namely the Respondents herein. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, the second Plaintiff died. Since the first Plaintiff alone is the legal heir of the second Plaintiff and he is already on record, the death of the second Plaintiff has not resulted in any change in the cause title of the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this Appeal are referred to as “Plaintiffs” and “Defendant” as has been referred to in the suit before the trial Court. 4. The Plaintiffs have instituted the suit praying for granting a preliminary decree for partition and for separate possession. As the second Plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, an amended plaint was filed praying to grant a preliminary decree for partition and to allot 1/2 share to the first Plaintiff in the suit property, to divide the suit property by appointing an Advocate Commissioner into two equal shares by metes and bounds in the final decree proceedings and to allot half share to the first Plaintiff, to put him in separate possession of the same and to grant a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit scheduled property till partition is effected and the share of the first Plaintiff is allotted separately. 5. As per the plaint averments, the suit scheduled property was purchased by Shri. V. Vaithyanathan through a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1978 out of his own funds. It is stated that the said Vaithyanathan had two wives and the first wife is Kamala and the second Plaintiff is the second wife. It is further stated that due to the wedlock with Mrs. Kamala, two sons were born and they are V. Venkatraman and V. Ganesan. After the death of Kamala, the said Vaithyanathan married the second Plaintiff as his second wife. Out of such wedlock with the second Plaintiff, two sons were born and they are the Defendant herein and the first Plaintiff. Kamala, two sons were born and they are V. Venkatraman and V. Ganesan. After the death of Kamala, the said Vaithyanathan married the second Plaintiff as his second wife. Out of such wedlock with the second Plaintiff, two sons were born and they are the Defendant herein and the first Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Vaithyanathan died on 15.11.1981. After the death of Vaithyanathan, the children born through the first wife namely Venkataraman and Ganesan were unable to enjoy the property jointly with the second wife viz., second Plaintiff due to incompatibility. Therefore, they have released their share in the suit scheduled property in favour of the Defendant through two registered release deeds dated 05.08.1992 and 10.04.1995. According to the Plaintiffs, they have demanded equal share and partition of the suit scheduled property including the shares of Venkataraman and Ganesan released in favour of the Defendant, but such a demand was denied by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant made attempts to alienate the suit scheduled property and therefore, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition. 6. On notice, the Defendant filed a detailed written statement and repudiated the plaint averments. According to the Defendant, he was born on 01.07.1957 and at the age of 12, he resided along with his grandmother. It is stated that the Defendant did not like the character of his mother, the second Plaintiff, as she had entertained one Chandran in his house and he was often seen in the company of the second Plaintiff. The Defendant therefore mostly stayed along with his grandmother and continued his studies. Thus, from the year 1980, the Defendant lived separately. It is stated that during the year 1971-1972, the Defendant studied tuition from one Vaidhyanatha Iyer at Ekkattuthangal and engaged himself in the house hold work of Vaidhyanathan and got attached with his family. During 1974, the Defendant, at the invitation of the second Plaintiff, lived along with her at Ekkattuthangal, however, the third person Chandran once again started visiting the second Plaintiff and it was not to the liking of the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant continued to reside in the house of the said Vaidhyanathan and his sons Venkataraman and Ganesan were also affectionate towards him. It is the assertive submission of the Defendant that from his childhood he had never seen his father and he do not know who his father is. Therefore, the Defendant continued to reside in the house of the said Vaidhyanathan and his sons Venkataraman and Ganesan were also affectionate towards him. It is the assertive submission of the Defendant that from his childhood he had never seen his father and he do not know who his father is. Based on the release deeds executed by Venkataraman and Ganesan, sons of Vaithyanathan, the Defendant constructed a house out of his own funds by obtaining planning permit. He lived with his family consisting of wife, sons, daughters-in-law and grand children in his own right. The Plaintiffs have not filed the legal heir certificate to prove that they are the son and wife of Vaidyanathan Iyer. Even the date of death of Kamala, the so-called first wife of Vaidyanathan Iyer is not mentioned in the plaint. The Plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property as alleged. The Plaintiffs have not impleaded the above said Venkataraman and Ganesan who have executed release deed in favour of the Defendant and therefore, the suit has to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The Defendant is residing in the suit property on his own right and the question of any partition will not arise. The Defendant has independently filed a suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur and the same was dismissed on 16.06.2014, against which he has filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Tambaram and it is pending. Accordingly, the Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 filed by the Plaintiffs. 7. A reply statement was filed by the first Plaintiff contending that the written statement filed by the Defendant is contrary to facts. The Defendant accepted the relationship with the Plaintiffs in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2010. It is further stated that for the release deeds executed by Venkataraman and Ganesan in favour of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs contributed considerably and paid amount to them and therefore, there is no necessity to implead them as parties. The averments in the written statement in the present suit are contrary to the pleadings in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 filed by the Defendant and therefore, the Plaintiffs prayed for a preliminary decree to be passed in the suit. 8. The averments in the written statement in the present suit are contrary to the pleadings in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 filed by the Defendant and therefore, the Plaintiffs prayed for a preliminary decree to be passed in the suit. 8. In order to prove the plaint averments, the first Plaintiff examined himself as P.W-1, second Plaintiff examined herself as P.W-2 and one Mr.Rajendran, Head Master of Boys Higher Secondary School, Saidapet was examined as P.W-3. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 have been marked by the Plaintiffs. On the side of the Defendant, the Defendant examined himself as D.W-1 and marked Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-13 as documents on his side. Transfer Certificate of Defendant was marked as Ex.X-1. 9. The trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the Defendant admits that the second Plaintiff is his mother, but denied that his father name is Vaithyanatha Iyer and not Vaithyanatha Naicker. In fact, in the written statement, he has stated that he do not know who his father was but in the very same written statement, he admitted that the second Plaintiff is his mother. By pointing out Ex.B-2, Ration Card, the trial Court held that the Defendant is the son born to Vaithiyanatha Naicker. Ultimately, it was held that the first Plaintiff is the brother of the Defendant and the second Plaintiff is the mother of the first Plaintiff and Defendant. The suit scheduled property was purchased by Vaidyanathan on 04.12.1978 in which the Plaintiffs and Defendant have got equal share. As the second Plaintiff died after evidence was recorded in the suit and the plaint was appropriately amended, the trial Court held that the first Plaintiff and Defendant are entitled to half share equally in the suit scheduled property and accordingly passed a preliminary decree for partition. 10. Assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2023 passed in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, the present Appeal Suit is filed by the Defendant. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant herein, as Defendant, disputed the claim of the Plaintiffs by stating that there is no such person as V. Vaidhyanatha Naicker and it is only a fictitious name. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant herein, as Defendant, disputed the claim of the Plaintiffs by stating that there is no such person as V. Vaidhyanatha Naicker and it is only a fictitious name. It is the submission of the Counsel for Appellant that there was a dispute between the Appellant/Defendant and second Plaintiff-mother and therefore, he was living separately as a menial worker in the house of one Vaidhyanatha Iyer and because of the love and affection towards the Defendant, the said Vaidhyanatha Iyer treated him as his son. The sons of Vaidyanatha Iyer also executed release deeds in favour of the Defendant and based on the same, the Defendant is residing in the suit property in his own right. Therefore the claim of the Plaintiffs for partition is not maintainable. 12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to Articles 64 and 65 of Limitation Act and contended that the suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiffs did not challenge the Release deeds executed in favour of the Defendant by the above said Venkataraman and Ganesan. In the absence of the same, the suit is not maintainable and it is liable only to be dismissed. 13. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent objected to the line of arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and submitted that in a partition suit, there cannot be limitation as argued by the Counsel for the Appellant. He invited the attention of this Court to the earlier suit filed by the Appellant/Defendant in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 before the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur. He also invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of the Plaintiff in the earlier suit before the learned District Munsif, Alandur. By placing reliance on the same, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in a partition Suit, there cannot be limitation. The claim of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Suit is barred under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act is not at all applicable to the Suit for partition. It is also contended that the principles of ouster is not enforceable against the Respondent as the possession of the Appellant/Defendant is for and on behalf of the other co-owners as well. It is also contended that the principles of ouster is not enforceable against the Respondent as the possession of the Appellant/Defendant is for and on behalf of the other co-owners as well. The learned Counsel also referred to the deposition recorded in the suit and it reads as follows:- 14. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also produced the relevant documents in the earlier Suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 and also invited the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the Appellant, as Plaintiff, in O.S. No. 20 of 2010. The relevant portion reads as follows:- 15. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs invited the attention of this Court to the cross examination of mother of the first Respondent herein in O.S.No.20/2010. The relevant portion reads as follows:- 16. In the cross-examination, the second Plaintiff claims that the sons born to Vaidyanathan had executed release deed in favour of the Defendant for which the Plaintiffs have paid amount to them. 17. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also invited the attention of this Court to the written statement filed by the Defendants in O.S. No. 20 of 2010/the Respondent in this Appeal and the Judgment of the learned District Munsif, Alandur in O.S.No.20 of 2010. The relevant portion reads as follows:- “The release deeds are executed by the issue of the second wife. Neither this Defendant or his mother had executed any document of release in favour of the Plaintiff. It shows that the Plaintiff and the Defendants are having equal rights over the Suit property. Being the eldest son in the family, the Defendants have allowed him to reside in the house. Taking advantage of the same the Plaintiff claims the entire property which is totally incorrect. Since the Plaintiff started to deny the shares of the Defendants a Complaint was lodged and that the Police have directed to seek remedy before the Court of law. For the legal notice issued by he Plaintiff a suitable reply was issued in which the Defendants have prayed for partition and separate possession. The Plaintiff has spent entire amount for putting pucca construction is denied. The Plaintiff has failed to mention the property details.” 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that in the present suit the first Plaintiff and Defendant have equal rights. The demand of the first Plaintiff is towards his legitimate share of property. The Plaintiff has spent entire amount for putting pucca construction is denied. The Plaintiff has failed to mention the property details.” 18. The learned Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that in the present suit the first Plaintiff and Defendant have equal rights. The demand of the first Plaintiff is towards his legitimate share of property. Therefore, the question of ouster or adverse possession does not arise. Further, the Appellant, as Plaintiff, in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 admitted before the learned District Munsif, Alandur that Vaidyanathan had two wives and four children. The relevant portion reads as follows:- 19. However, in the present suit, when the Defendant was examined, as D.W-1, he had given contrary evidence. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Respondent invited the attention of this Court to the finding of the learned District Munsif, Alandur. The relevant portion reads as follows:- “As the Court is not accepting the release deed marked as Ex.A-1, the other documents filed by the Plaintiff i.e., Approved Lay out plan is marked as Ex.A-2, Legal Notice to the Defendants with Acknowledgment cards is marked as Ex.A-3, Copy of Caveat petition filed by the Plaintiff in COP.No.553/09 of District Munsif, Alandur is marked as Ex.A-4....... ........... E.B. Charge receipts in the name of Plaintiff is marked as Ex.A-14 are not supportive to the case of the Plaintiff.” 20. According to the learned Counsel, even subsequent to the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, there were Complaints given against each other for which CSR receipt was issued by the Pallikkaranai Police Station. The learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpet discussed the above facts as regards admission of the Appellant, as D.W-1 that he is the son of Vaidyanathan and his father has two wives and each of them had two sons. However, D.W-1/Appellant wanted to usurp the entire property without giving any share thereof. The learned Additional District Judge on proper appreciation of evidence, held that the first Plaintiff and the Defendant are the sons of late Vaidyanathan. There was no family arrangement in the property. The second Plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 2013, the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant died on 20.05.2017. Therefore, the properties of the second Plaintiff has to be equally divided among the first Plaintiff and Defendant. There was no family arrangement in the property. The second Plaintiff in O.S. No. 109 of 2013, the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant died on 20.05.2017. Therefore, the properties of the second Plaintiff has to be equally divided among the first Plaintiff and Defendant. This Appeal Suit has no merit and is to be dismissed with heavy costs to the Appellant under Section 35 (a) of Civil Procedure Code. 21. Referring to the contents of Ex.X-1 it is a document summoned by Respondents/Plaintiffs and marked as Ex.X-1, in which the name of Vaidyanathan was described as Vaidyanatha Naicker and it is erroneous. The Appellant was a small boy at that time and the information given by the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant, is recorded under Ex.X-1. The Court has to take a neutral view, under Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act and hold that the Defendant is the son of the said Vaithyanathan and consequently to uphold the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by dismissing this appeal. 22. By way of reply, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that on the death of Vaidyanathan, the right to claim partition commences but the Plaintiff had not approached the Court within time. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have abandoned their right and that they have not approached the Court within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpet granting preliminary decree for partition of half share is perverse and is to be set aside. Therefore, the Appeal is to be allowed and the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is to be set aside. 23. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, including the plaint, written statement, reply statement and the judgment of the trial court in O.S. No. 109 of 2013. Point for determination: Whether the judgment of the trial Court, granting a preliminary decree in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 is perverse and is liable to be set aside? 24. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of the property, which was in possession of the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is the brother of the first Plaintiff and son of the second Plaintiff. 24. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of the property, which was in possession of the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is the brother of the first Plaintiff and son of the second Plaintiff. It is also stated that out of the wedlock between Vaithyanathan and the second Plaintiff, the first Plaintiff and the Defendant were born. It is also stated that Vaithyanathan earlier married one Kamala as his first wife and out of such wedlock Venkataraman and Ganesan, two sons, were born. The suit property is the self-acquired property of Vaithyanathan. After the death of Vaithyanathan, the sons born through the first wife have no inclination to live in the suit property and therefore they have executed two release deeds in favour of the Defendant in exchange of money paid by the Plaintiffs. However, when the Plaintiffs demanded a share in the suit property, the Defendant asserted it to be in possession of such property in his own right without giving any share to the Plaintiffs. 25. The suit was contested by the Defendant by stating that the suit properties was released in his favour by the sons of one Vaithyanatha Iyer out of true love and affection. It is stated that he worked as a menial servant in the house of Vaithyanatha Iyer and he was taken care of well by him. Subsequent to the death of Vaithyanatha Iyer, his two sons Venkataraman and Ganesan have settled the suit property in his favour. The specific case of the Defendant is that he do not know who his father is. However, the Defendant accepts that the second Plaintiff is his mother. Accordingly, the Defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 26. On perusal of the release deed dated 10.04.1995 executed in favour of the Defendant by V. Venkataraman, son of Vaithyanathan it is clear that the Defendant who is also referred to as son of Vaithyanathan is the brother of the said V. Venkataraman and Ganesan, sons of Vaithyanathan. In other words, the Defendant is also the son born to Vaithyanathan. This is more so that the Defendant himself admits the second Plaintiff as his mother. Therefore, it is too big a pill to be swallowed by the Defendant now to contend that he do not know who his father is. In other words, the Defendant is also the son born to Vaithyanathan. This is more so that the Defendant himself admits the second Plaintiff as his mother. Therefore, it is too big a pill to be swallowed by the Defendant now to contend that he do not know who his father is. In this context, the recitals in the release deed dated 10.04.1995 is to be looked into, wherein it was recited as follows:- 27. This portion of recitals in the release deed dated 10.04.1995 would make it abundantly clear that Venkataraman and Ganesan are the brothers of the Defendant. The defence of the Defendant that Venkataraman and Ganesan are sons of one Vaithyanatha Iyer in whose house he worked as a menial servant is hard to be believed. The Defendant has accepted the release deed and is in possession of the property. The averments in the release deed had spilled the beans out to show that Venkataraman and Ganesan are the brothers of the Defendant. However, the Defendant feigned ignorance as if he do not know who his father is. Thus, it is abundantly clear that for the purpose of resisting the suit filed by the Plaintiffs the Defendant has come forward with a false averment, that he had disowned his own father. 28. The release deed dated 10.04.1995 also makes it clear that the property covered therein is the self-acquired property of Vaithyanathan. The Plaintiffs also, in the plaint, specifically plead that the property was purchased by Vaithyanathan out of his own funds. The pleadings in the plaint also confirms the relationship between the parties, as disclosed in the release deed dated 10.04.1995. The Defendant also admits it in the written statement that the second Plaintiff is his mother. Similarly, the Plaintiffs say that the second Plaintiff is the second wife of Vaithyanathan and out of such wedlock, the first Plaintiff and Defendant was born. When the averments in the release deed dated 10.04.1995 are read as a whole, it would make the relationship between the parties clear. The release deed also makes it clear that the property released in favour of the Defendant is not his self-acquired property but it was purchased by his father Vaithyanathan out of his own funds. In such circumstances, the Defendant is not right in refusing a share in the suit property to the first Plaintiff, who is his brother. The release deed also makes it clear that the property released in favour of the Defendant is not his self-acquired property but it was purchased by his father Vaithyanathan out of his own funds. In such circumstances, the Defendant is not right in refusing a share in the suit property to the first Plaintiff, who is his brother. However, for the purpose of denying a share in the suit property, the Defendant has come forward with false version which was rightly taken note of by the trial court. 29. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1940 Mad 798 in the case of Official Receiver of East Godavari at Rajahmundry Vs. Chava Govindaraju and another to contend that the Plaintiff has to prove that he has been in possession of the suit property for 12 years and such burden is not on Defendant/Appellant. The relevant portion reads as follows:- “Limitation Act (9 o 1908), Art. 142 – Suit for ejectment by person out of possession – He cannot succeed unless he, in addition to title, proves that be has been in possession within 12 years of suit – Burden is not on Defendant to prove adverse possession:21 MLW 398 – AIR 1925 Mad 834 : 87 IC 386 and 25 MLW 127 – AIR 1927 Mad 287 : 99 IC 312, Overruled.” 30. In this case, the Suit is filed for partition and not for ejectment. The discussion in the reported decision are not in relation to a Suit for partition and it is a Suit for ejectment where the Plaintiff claimed adverse possession against the Defendant. Therefore, the observations in the reported ruling will not help the case of the Appellant herein and consequently, it has to be rejected. 31. The learned Counsel for Appellant also relied on the another ruling reported in AIR 1973 SC 2537 in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Santha Singh and other. Therefore, the observations in the reported ruling will not help the case of the Appellant herein and consequently, it has to be rejected. 31. The learned Counsel for Appellant also relied on the another ruling reported in AIR 1973 SC 2537 in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Santha Singh and other. The relevant portion reads as follows:- “Brief Note; - (A) The doctrine of lis pendens is intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a Court, in which a dispute on rights or interest in immovable property is pending joy private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the Court's power to decide a pending dispute or frustrate its decree.” 32. The facts of this ruling will not help the Appellant's case. It is a Suit for partition. Earlier, the Appellant herein, as Plaintiff, filed the Suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 seeking injunction against the Defendants who are the mother and son. During the pendency of the Suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010, the present suit for partition was filed. Therefore, the claim of the Plaintiff that the Suit is barred by limitation will not hold good as far as partition is concerned. The Members of the family are within their right to file partition at the earliest point of time. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the period of limitation cannot be invoked in filing a Suit for partition. A co-owner who is in possession of the joint property is presumed to be in joint possession on behalf of other co-owner also. As and when partition and separate possession is demanded by one co-owner, it is the duty of the other co-owner to effect partition as per law. 33. In the course of evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu had observed that the release deed executed by the legal heirs of first wife in O.S.No.20 of 2010 in favour of the Defendant and the properties covered thereof are also liable for partition. As discussed above, the property in question is not the self acquired property of the Defendant. It was purchased by his father and after his death, two of the sons born to the first wife have released it in favour of the Defendant. As discussed above, the property in question is not the self acquired property of the Defendant. It was purchased by his father and after his death, two of the sons born to the first wife have released it in favour of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendant have equal rights over the Suit property. The release deeds indicate that the Suit property was in possession and enjoyment of Venkatraman and Ganesan until the execution of release deeds dated 10.04.1995 and only later, it came to be possessed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff specifically contends that as children of first wife they have executed release deed relinquishing their right over the property and such release will also enure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs as well. Whereas the Defendant contends that Venkataraman and Ganesan are not his blood brothers and he worked as a Menial servant in the house of one Vaithyanathan Iyer. This defence of the Defendant is contrary to the release deed dated 10.04.1995 as well as the pleadings in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2010. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by the trial court while granting a preliminary decree for partition. 34. The facts pleaded by the parties in this case unfolds that Vaithyanathan married one Kamala out of such wedlock two sons were born namely V.Venkatraman and V.Ganesan. After the death of Kamala, the said Vaithyanathan married Kannammal, second Plaintiff in the suit. Out of such wedlock, two sons have born namely V. Sankarraman (first Plaintiff) and V.Sundararajan (Defendant). This is also clear from the deposition of the Defendant himself who admitted that he born to the second wife of his father and that he heard that his father got two wives, which reads as follows:- 35. It is also seen that the Defendant herein, as Plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 20 of 2010 to restrain the Plaintiffs in the present suit by way of a bare injunction. The learned District Munsif, Alandur dismissed the suit on 11.06.2014 against which an appeal is said to have been filed and pending. It is needless to mention that O.S. No. 20 of 2010 was filed for a bare injunction. On the other hand, the present suit is filed for partition. The pleadings contained in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 are contrary to the defence raised by the Appellant/Defendant in this appeal. It is needless to mention that O.S. No. 20 of 2010 was filed for a bare injunction. On the other hand, the present suit is filed for partition. The pleadings contained in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 are contrary to the defence raised by the Appellant/Defendant in this appeal. In any event, it is established that the property described in the plaint is not the self-acquired property of the Defendant. Rather, the property was settled in favour of the Defendant by the sons born to the first wife of Vaithyanathan, who referred the Defendant as their brother. It is also established by the Plaintiffs that they have paid Rs.40,000/- to the said V. Venkataraman and V. Ganesan for executing the release deed in favour of the Defendant. It is also clearly made out and rather admitted by the Defendant himself that the second Plaintiff is his mother. If it is so, naturally, it has to be presumed and inferred that the Defendant is the son born to Vaithyanathan and the second Plaintiff. The second Plaintiff, mother of the first Plaintiff and Defendant has also stepped into the witness box and categorically asserted that the Defendant is the son born to her out of the wedlock between her and her husband Vaithyanathan. In such circumstances, the claim of the Plaintiffs for partition of the suit scheduled property is legal, legitimate and bona fide. The trial court, on proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence has rightly granted a preliminary decree for partition and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. 36. In the light of the above discussion, the point for determination is answered in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and against the Appellant/Defendant. The judgment of the trial Court, granting a preliminary decree in O.S. No. 109 of 2013, dated 14.02.2023, is found proper and the same is to be confirmed. 37. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 14.02.2023 made in O.S. No. 109 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu is confirmed. No costs.