Under Order 7, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has the inherent power to grant general or other relief that appears to be legitimate and proper in any case, even if such reliefs have not been specifically asked for, provided that it does not result in prejudice or injustice to the other party.

LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit was brought for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with the possession of the appellants-plaintiffs.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the appellants' case is that the disputed land is part of plot Nos. 5656 and 5657 and measures 50 cubits of length from North to South and 1 cubits width from East to West and on it stands the western wall of the appellants' row of houses (consisting of courtyard, back row of houses and front row of houses) and a fence in the back yard towards the north of the house. It is the appellants' case that the suit land and the wall constitute the western boundary of the said two plots which are ancestral homestead of the appellants and they have been all along possessing and maintaining the same as also the fence. The thatches of the front row and the back row of the houses of the plaintiffs rest on the said wall. The appellants wanted to demolish the western wall which was necessary for the purpose of reconstruction of the back row of houses which they had already demolished, but however in the process were obstructed by the respondent who claims the wall and the fence to be his own.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit and claimed the suit land, the disputed wall and the fence as belonging to him and as appertaining to plots Nos. 5658 and 6768. His case is that the disputed wall constitutes the eastern wall of his house and which he is in possession all along and has been maintaining it. The thatch of his house rests over wall. He has also created the fence and maintaining it.

( 4 ) A Civil Court Commissioner (D. W. 4) had been deputed to demarcate the suit land and though his report was in favour of the appellants, yet on an analysis of his evidence both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court rejected his report. Both the courts however came to find that the disputed land is partly a wall, and partly fence and both the parties have equal right over the same. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that although it is not the case of either party that the wall and the fence are common to both, yet there is sufficient evidence as discussed by the learned Munsif, to prove that as a matter of fact the wall and the fence are common to both the parties. He found that the evidence of the witnesses examined by both the parties is of no help to determine as to which party is the exclusive owner of the disputed wall and the fence and hence held that they are common to both the parties. It is even the admitted case of the appellants that the face (surface) of the disputed wall on the side of the respondent is maintained by him vide evidence of appellant No. 2 examined as P. W. 2. Having come to such conclusion both the courts below have dismissed the suit, the appellant having failed to establish exclusive title and possession to the disputed land, wall and the fence.

( 5 ) IN view of the above concurrent finding of facts, the only question which falls for consideration is whether, in view of the finding that the disputed property was a common wall and fence, the courts below should have declared the appellants' joint title to the suit property instead of dismissing the suit. During hearing, Miss. R. Das, appearing for the appellants wanted to canvass other questions like admission of P. W. 2 having been wrongly relied upon by the lower appellate court and that such court having not discussed any oral evidence. It was urged that both the courts below have ignored the oral evidence on record and hence the judgments are liable to be set aside. For the purpose, reliance was placed on AIR 1980 SC 1754 (Madan Lal v. Mst. Gopi ). However, on the, fact of it, the decision has no application. It was observed in the very judgment by their Lordships that the judgment properly understood is not a charter for