ORDER : 1. This is the plaintiff's appeal. One Bismillah Khan entered into an agreement with the appellant-plaintiff for sale of the property in dispute in the present case. It is alleged that consequent upon the agreement, the plaintiff was put in possession over the property. The plaintiff after taking possession, let out the premises to Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 on his turn sub-let it to Defendant 2 with the permission of the plaintiff. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that Defendant 1 continued to pay the rent to him. 2. Defendant 3 alleged that she had purchased the property in dispute through a sale deed dated 13-2-1976 from one M. Narsimalu. When the said fact came to the knowledge of the appellant-plaintiff, he filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of the property. The said suit was decreed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Consequent upon the decree, a sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the court. The appellant-plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property from the defendants. The said suit was also decreed and the said decree was affirmed by the first appellate court. However, the High Court in the second appeal set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. It is against the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court on a question, which was not in issue before the trial court, allowed the appeal and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the said issue was covered by Issue 3 and Issue 2 of the additional issues. 4. Issue 3 was whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, as prayed for and additional Issue 2 was whether the suit property belongs to the Government and, if so, whether the suit is (sic barred due to) non-joinder of the Government. No issue was framed as to whether Bismillah Khan had a title over the property in dispute and no evidence was led by the parties. In the absence of such an issue and evidence, no finding could have been recorded by the High Court that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of Bismillah Khan. No issue was framed as to whether Bismillah Khan had a title over the property in dispute and no evidence was led by the parties. In the absence of such an issue and evidence, no finding could have been recorded by the High Court that the plaintiff failed to prove the title of Bismillah Khan. In fact the High Court has misdirected itself in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. The judgment under challenge is set aside and the decree of the trial court is restored. 7. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.