R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE substantial question of law that requires determination in this Regular second Appeal filed by the defendant is that:"without a plea of Joint ownership regarding Suit wall, whether the Appellate Court was justified in declaring that the suit wall is a common wall as between the parties?" ( 2 ) FOR proper appreciation of this question of law, the facts and circumstances of the case placed before the trial Court and before the first Appellate Court is absolutely necessary. ( 3 ) THE property bearing CTS Nos. 1814 and 1814/1 is at Belgaum. There was an open space lying in front of this house numbered as CTS 1814/a. One Smt. Krishnasani, original owner, sold the property to one Gangadhar Govind under a registered Sale Deed dated 16-9-1885. A wall situated in the Eastern side was described as of the ownership of the owner. This property was again given to one smt. Umabai Godbole under "farakat Patra" dated 23-12-1889. Umabai's daughter inherited after the death of her mother by name Kashibai. Later on, the grandson of smt. Kashibai, one Krishnaji inherited the same. Later on, it was sold to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- under a registered Sale Deed dated 8-5-1962. It is the contention of the plaintiff that by mistake, the Eastern wall was described as of the common ownership of plaintiff and defendant. During March 1968, the defendant tried to raise the wall by closing the window. When the plaintiff protested, the defendant agreed to execute a document admitting the ownership of the plaintiff. Believing this promise, the defendant was allowed to carry out the work. But the defendant failed to execute the agreement inspite of legal notice. ( 4 ) HENCE the plaintiff prayed the Court to issue adirection to the defendant to execute the agreement and mandatory injunction to remove the roof. ( 5 ) THE defendant has not admitted the measurement of the Suit wall as per the Sale Deed dated 16-9-1885 and also the ownership of plaintiff. He has contended that the Sale Deed dated 16-9-1885 regarding the ownership of the Wall was also denied. He has denied the common ownership under the Document dated 23-12-1889. ( 5 ) THE defendant has not admitted the measurement of the Suit wall as per the Sale Deed dated 16-9-1885 and also the ownership of plaintiff. He has contended that the Sale Deed dated 16-9-1885 regarding the ownership of the Wall was also denied. He has denied the common ownership under the Document dated 23-12-1889. Since his title is established in the Sale Deed dated 8-5-1962 regarding common ownership of the defendant and plaintiff, he was estopped from pleading what is contained in the Sale Deed. It is the case of the defendant that he is the owner of the suit wall. 4. The trial Court framed issues and Additional issues as hereunder: " (1) Whether the plaintiff proves his title over suit Eastern wall? (2) Is he entitled for mandatory injunction sought? (3) What decree or order?" additional issues: " (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant raised Eastern wall and put an extended roof on it in June, July 1968? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves the oral agreement between him and the defendant as mentioned in para 5 of the plaint? (3) Whether the Court-fee paid is proper" 5. 'the trial Court having found both by oral and documentary evidence that the Suit wall is in the ownership of defendant, dismissed the suit with costs. ( 6 ) WHEN this finding was questioned in R. A. No. 144/72 the first Appellate Court formed the following points for determination:" (1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (2) Whether plaintiff has proved his exclusive title to the Suit wall? (3) Whether plaintiff-appellant has proved the oral agreement mentioned in para 5 of the plaint? (4) Whether plaintiff-appellant has proved that defendant raised Eastern wall and extended the roof? (5) Can it be held that plaintiff is a co-owner of the Suit wall with defendant? (6) If Pointno. 5 is answered in the affirmative, whether plaintiff- appellant is entitled to any relief on the basis of common ownership of the property?" ( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge answered Point Nos. 1 to 4 in the negative and Point No. 6 was answered declaring that the plaintiff and defendant are joint owners of the suit wall. 5 is answered in the affirmative, whether plaintiff- appellant is entitled to any relief on the basis of common ownership of the property?" ( 7 ) THE learned Civil Judge answered Point Nos. 1 to 4 in the negative and Point No. 6 was answered declaring that the plaintiff and defendant are joint owners of the suit wall. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the reasoning adopted by the first Appellate Court to arriveata conclusion that the Suit wall was in the joint ownership of plaintiff and defendant, this Court at the time of admission of this Appeal, framed the following question as substantial question of law to be decided in this Appeal:"whether on facts and circumstances of the case and without a plea of joint ownership regarding the Suit wall, the appellate Court was justified in declaring that the Suit wall is common wall as between the parties?" ( 9 ) THE grievance of the learned Advocate for the appellant-defendant is that the Appellate Court was not justified to grant a relief not sought by the plaintiff before the trial Court. ( 10 ) AGAINST this submission, the learned Advocate for the Respondent-plaintiff Smt. Ujwala Ananth Mandagi has submitted that plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his title over the Suit wall and failed to prove the same. But the first Appellate Court having regard to the materials placed by the parties, awarded joint ownership which is a lesser right conferred. Since it is permissible under law for the grant of lesser relief, there is absolutely no error in the impugned order. The plaint averments and the evidence placed before the trial Court shows that the parties are trying to establish their ownership on the basis of the Documents which are hundred years old. There are several changes took place from the year 1885 the date on which the Sales Deeds have been executed. ( 11 ) THE first Appellate Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion for awarding lesser relief than what was sought by the plaintiff. This relief was granted after appreciating the oral evidence placed by both the parties as both were claiming ownership on the Suit wall. ( 11 ) THE first Appellate Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion for awarding lesser relief than what was sought by the plaintiff. This relief was granted after appreciating the oral evidence placed by both the parties as both were claiming ownership on the Suit wall. Since the decision of the first Appellate Court is purely a question of fact, the same cannot be gone into a second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 12 ) WITH regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant lesser relief than the relief sought by the party, the learned Advocate for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Krishna Devappa Madival v Ramachandra Narayan cholvekere and L. Rs. , 1960 Mys. L. J. 622. ( 13 ) IN that case, the plaintiff's suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up the building claiming that be is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the suit property, but that the plaintiff and defendant were the joint owners of the suit property and that defendant No. 2 is entitled to put up the building in question. The Courts-below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is riot the sole owner of the suit property, but he is the co-owner of the same along with defendants 1 to 6. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge K. S. Hegde, J. , as be then was, held "that the lesser right in plaintiff's favour was sufficient to grant the relief prayed for". ( 15 ) UNDER Order 7, Rule 7 the plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative. If any general or other relief is not asked in the plaint, if the Court thinks just and proper, such relief can be granted as if the plaintiff has asked for such rel ief. This rule applies to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. ( 16 ) THE respondent claimed for full ownership of the Suit wall and a direction to the appellant to execute a Deed admitting his ownership and for mandatory injunction. This rule applies to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. ( 16 ) THE respondent claimed for full ownership of the Suit wall and a direction to the appellant to execute a Deed admitting his ownership and for mandatory injunction. The Appellate Court having regard to the materials placed by the parties, has granted an equitable relief of joint ownership, which the Court was entitled to grant as a lesser relief. For the reasons discussed above, the substantial question of law is held in the affirmative and the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. --- *** --- .