A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) IT is a second appeal filed by the defendants under Section 100 of c. P. Code against the judgment and decree, dated 27. 04. 1984, passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Camp Agar, District ' shajapur, in C. A. No. 8-A of 1984, which in turn arises out of Civil Suit No. 19-A of 1979, decided by Civil Judge, Class II, Agar, District -shajapur, on 23. 12. 1983. It was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower appellate court has erred in passing a preliminary decree for partition, when the plaintiff had not sought that relief ? ( 2 ) HEARD Shri ZA Khan, learned counsel for the, appellants and Shri SS Garg, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case. I am inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree under appeal, remand the case to first appellate court. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, Since, this court is inclined to remand the case it does not consider it necessary to burden the judgment with detail facts except which are necessary. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFF (respondent herein) brought a suit against the defendants (appellants) for a declaration that she has a half share in the suit house, that defendants be restrained by an injunction not to disturb the plaintiffs possession. It was denied by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in its entirety. In other words, it was held that plaintiff has half share in the suit property and that defendant was restrained from interfering in plaintiff's half share. It is against this decree, the defendant felt aggrieved and filed first appeal. The first appellate court by impugned judgment / decree partly allowed the appeal. It was held that plaintiff is entitled for l/4th share in the suit property in place of 1/2. The learned first appellate judge then proceeded to pass a preliminary decree for partition in respect of l/4th share. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of trial court was modified giving rise to filing of this second appeal by the defendants. It was held that plaintiff is entitled for l/4th share in the suit property in place of 1/2. The learned first appellate judge then proceeded to pass a preliminary decree for partition in respect of l/4th share. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of trial court was modified giving rise to filing of this second appeal by the defendants. ( 6 ) IN my considered opinion, the first appellate court committed an error of law in modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court and further erred in converting the said judgment/decree as preliminary decree for partition. Indeed, it was no body's case much less that of the plaintiff. As observed supra, it was a suit for declaration of half share in the suit property and injunction. In the view of the trial judge, the plaintiff was entitled for half share so too injunction. So the question before the first appellate court was, whether plaintiff is rightly held entitled for half share in the suit property and whether she is entitled to get an injunction. To decide this question, there was no occasion for the first appellate court to decide whether plaintiff is entitled for l/4th share in the suit property, nor it was necessary to grant a decree for partition. The court can not grant a relief which is neither pleaded, nor prayed. In other words, the court must consider to grant or refuse to grant that relief which is pleaded in the plaint and prayed for. When the plaintiff has not pleaded, nor prayed for grant of l/4th share, nor has pleaded and prayed the relief of partition in the plaint, the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to travel outside the case set up by the parties and in particular by the plaintiff and graht the relief. ( 7 ) A relief of partition must be pleaded and then prayed. It requires a specific pleading and for that all the co-sharers must be made parties to the plaint. It is then the question, whether plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share or more or less which can be considered by the courts. It is for the reason that in a case of partition, all parties are in the nature of plaintiff before the court. It is then the question, whether plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share or more or less which can be considered by the courts. It is for the reason that in a case of partition, all parties are in the nature of plaintiff before the court. In a case of partition, the plaintiff is also required to include all the properties belonging to co-owners / co-sharers/coparcener as the case may be so that partition is effected in respect of all the properties. All these nec-assary ingredients are admittedly not present in this case so far as plaintiffs's case is concerned. It is for this reason that this court is unable to uphold the impugned judgment / decree passed by the first appellate court. ( 8 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree is set-aside. The case is remanded to first appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on merits keeping in view the observations made by this court (supra ). Let the appeal be decided within six months from the date of parties appearance before the first appellate court. Parties to appear on 17/3/2003. Registry to send the record of the case forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment. No costs. Appeal allowed. Matter remanded. .