Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J.-Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 171 of 1984 against defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession over northern portion of Holding No. 1798 in Ranchi town, consisting of a shed, which was converted into two temporary rooms. 2. Admittedly the said holding standing over municipal plot no. 2286 measuring 44 Karis belonged to plaintiff's father, Abdul Hamid, which after his death was inherited by his widow, Haliman, sons, Abdul Mazid & Azizur Rahman, plaintiff and daughter, Basiran, defendant no.1. All of them jointly executed a mortgage deed dated 06.05.1951 in respect of the said holding in favour of one Md. Sayeed. 3. Plaintiff filed Partition Suit No. 60 of 1956 wherein a compromise decree (Exhibit 9) was passed on 18.11.1995. Holding No. 1798 was allotted to plaintiff's share and he had to pay a sum of Rs. 562.50 paise to his sister Basiran (defendant no. 1 in the present suit) in lieu of her share therein. 4. Plaintiff on 01.07.1964 redeemed mortgage dated 16.05.1951 and came in possession of holding No. 1798 and made new constructions therein. 5. Plaintiff's further case was that for the purpose of new constructions he had made a temporary shed for storing building materials on the Northern side. Sometime in 1971 defendant no. 1 approached him to allow her son, defendant no. 2 to utilize the shed for selling vegetables in daily market. On 10.02.1984 plaintiff paid Rs. 1600/-, including Rs. 562.50 against receipt (Exhibit 3) to defendant no. 1 in terms of aforesaid compromise. Meanwhile, defendants 1 and 2 converted the shed into two temporary rooms and inducted defendants 3 and 4 as tenants therein. Hence, on 16.04.1984 plaintiff sent a registered notice to those tenants to vacate the premises and thereafter present suit was filed. 6. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. According to them, in terms of compromise decree plaintiff expressed his inability to pay Rs. 562.50 paise to her in lieu of her share and in November, 1964 requested her to pay him a. sum of Rs. 1700/more and thereafter he would transfer part of municipal plot No. 2286, measuring 32 from North to South and 18 from East to West, i.e. the suit premises to her. Accordingly defendant no. 2 paid Rs. 1700/- to the plaintiff in the last week of October, 1964 and he assured to execute and register the sale deed. 1700/more and thereafter he would transfer part of municipal plot No. 2286, measuring 32 from North to South and 18 from East to West, i.e. the suit premises to her. Accordingly defendant no. 2 paid Rs. 1700/- to the plaintiff in the last week of October, 1964 and he assured to execute and register the sale deed. Defendants claimed to have constructed two rooms thereafter. Alleged payment of Rs. 1600/- by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 and ITI of defendant no. 1 on alleged receipt (Exhibit 3) granted therefor were denied and claimed their possession over the suit premises on the basis of alleged purchase. 7. Trial court decreed the suit holding that by virtue of compromise decree, plaintiff's title over the suit premises was admitted by defendants and they failed to prove transfer thereof to them sometime in October, 1964, as also construction of the two rooms over it. It was also held that on 10.02.1984 plaintiff paid the amount in terms of the compromise decree to defendant no. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 were found in permissive possession of the premises and their claim for perfecting title by adverse possession was negatived. 8. On appeal by defendants 1 and 2 First Appellate court affirmed trial courts findings that case of purchase of suit premises by defendants was not proved and they admitted their permissive possession over it. However, without discussing evidence on record and considering reasonings given for trial court's finding that two rooms in question were not constructed by defendants 1 and 2, it was observed that from the evidence on record it was clear that defendants 1 and 2 constructed those two rooms, 13-14 years before institution of the present suit. The court of appeal below applied provisions of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and treated defendants as licensees, which was a third case made out by it. 9. Trial court's decree was set aside on the ground that licence granted by plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 became irrevocable after they were allowed to make construction of two rooms. It was further, held that plaintiffs failed to prove their subsisting title over the suit premises. 10. 9. Trial court's decree was set aside on the ground that licence granted by plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 became irrevocable after they were allowed to make construction of two rooms. It was further, held that plaintiffs failed to prove their subsisting title over the suit premises. 10. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal on 12.12.1989 following substantial question of law was framed :- "In view of the finding of the court below that the defendants entered into possession of the property on the basis of permission of the plaintiff, whether they have acquired any interest in the property merely because they have constructed pucca construction on the same can be sustained." 11. Practically, defendants 1 and 2 admitted plaintiff's title over the suit premises by virtue of compromise decree (Exhibit 9) and themselves to be in permissive possession. They also failed to prove transfer thereof in October-November, 1964 to them. So even if it was proved that they had converted the shed into two rooms on new construction, they can't claim their title over it. 12. There was no question of relinquishing her interest in Holding no. 1894 by defendant no. 1 on the basis of (Exhibit 3); rather pursuant to Compromise decree (Exhibit 9) she had no interest and was merely enjoying permissive possession over a part of it and construction of two rooms was done on her own risk and was without any claim of equity. 13. In my opinion, court of appeal below clearly travelled beyond pleadings and evidence of parties on record and made aforesaid observations, which were unwarranted. 14. I, therefore, set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the court of appeal below and confirm that of the trial court. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs. There shall be no order to costs. Lower court records may be sent down.