1. The second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. His case was that he purchased a number of properties and also the B schedule property in the name of his wife. They were issueless. Hence, they were bringing up the 2nd defendant as their foster daughter and after some time, when the question of marriage of the 2nd defendant came, as dispute arose between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, who is his wife. He wanted the 2nd defendant to marry a boy to be chosen by him while the 3rd defendant was insisting on the plaintiff to get the 2nd defendant married to the 1st defendant who is her relative. The 3rd defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, the B schedule property, which originally belonged to Karuppanan Servai, was settled in his name and in the name of the 3rd defendant. Hence, he is entitled to a half share. Since the other half share, which belonged to the 3rd defendant, has been sold away to the defendants 1 and 2, who are strangers, the plaintiff is entitled for direction that the