Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1985 by 1st Additional District Judge, Purnia. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and confirmation of right, title, interest and their khas possession over the suit land and also sought for declaration that R.S. Khatian of the suit land recording the name of late defendant - Mehar Ali and Dusadh Ali as sikmidars is wrong and incorrect. According to the plaintiffs one Sk. Sahadat son of Mazhar Ali purchased lands of C.S. khata no. 89 bearing C.S. plot nos. 1565, 1566, 1567, 1569 and 1572 comprising total area of 1 acre 54 decimals through registered sale deed dated 19.3.1943, and said Sk. Sahadat came in possession of the said land. Sk. Sahadat gave 25 decimals of land out of C.S. plot nos. 1565, 1566 and 1567 as sikmi settlement to one Sk. Biptu, father of original defendant no. 2-Sk. Dusadh Ali through a registered deed at yearly rent of Rs. 2/- payable to Sk. Sahadat and the rest suit land remained in khas possession of Sk. Sahadat. Plaintiff-Abdul Rahman purchased the entire suit land of Schedule I & Schedule II of the plaint from Sk. Sahadat through a registered sale deed executed on 19.3.1953 and after purchase the plaintiff came in khas possession of the land mentioned in Schedule-I and through sikmi tenant over the lands of Schedule II of the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that R.S. plot nos. 2361, 2364, 2359, 2360, 2361/2690 have been carved out from the purchased lands of the plaintiffs and the same are subject matter of the present suit. R.S. plot nos. 2361 and 2364 of Schedule I of the plaint has been recorded as kaimi land in the name of the plaintiffs, but wrong sikmi entry has been made in the name of Mehar Ali and Dusadh Ali. 3. Defendants 1 to 6 are legal heirs of original defendant no. 1 Mehar Ali and Dusadh Ali, but, these defendants have not contested the suit after filing of the written statement. Defendant no. 7 and defendant no. 8 have contested the suit by filing written statement and adducing evidence denying the claim of the plaintiffs and according to them R.S. Plot nos. 1 Mehar Ali and Dusadh Ali, but, these defendants have not contested the suit after filing of the written statement. Defendant no. 7 and defendant no. 8 have contested the suit by filing written statement and adducing evidence denying the claim of the plaintiffs and according to them R.S. Plot nos. 2361 and 2364 described in Schedule I of the plaint were in sikmi possession of Mehar Ali and Dusadh Ali since long and they have been recorded in sikmi possession in revisional record of rights. It is stated that Mehar Ali while in possession of the said plot sold his eight annas interest in the sikmi land in favour of Dusadh Ali through registered sale deed dated 2.12.1959 and thereafter Dusadh Ali became 16 annas owner of the sikmi land, and, further, it is stated that Dusadh Ali while in possession sold it to the contesting defendants for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 10.6.1972 and since then they claimed to be in possession over the suit land. According to them, the revisional survey record of rights of the suit land has been correctly prepared by the survey authority after proper verification and spot enquiry. Further it is stated that there is a custom in the suit village regarding sale of sikmi land. 4. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed various issues and having found that the right and title of the plaintiffs through Sk. Sahadat is admitted over the entire suit land, and, further, that from the evidence and documents it is the plaintiffs who have proved the right, title, interest and Khas possession over the suit land, and the defendants have miserably failed to prove their legal sikmi interest and khas possession over the suit land, decreed the suit, which have been affirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants has contended that after Section 48C was incorporated in Bihar Tenancy Act, the under-raiyats (sikmidars) have right to transfer the land over which they have been in possession for a period of 12 years. Thus, according to him, both the Courts have grossly erred in holding that sikmi interest is not transferable and on purchase made from sikmidars the contesting defendants could not acquire even sikmi interest in the suit land. Thus, according to him, both the Courts have grossly erred in holding that sikmi interest is not transferable and on purchase made from sikmidars the contesting defendants could not acquire even sikmi interest in the suit land. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Munilal Mandal & ors. V/s. Babuji Mandal & ors., reported in 1963 B.L.J.R. 90 and tried to distinguish the judgment reported in 1981 B.B.C.J. 466 (Bibi Jaloosan V/s. Bhulai Baitha & ors.). 6. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mazumdar. It is now well known that sikmi right is not transferable unless a custom prevailing in the village is pleaded and proved. The defendant-appellants have failed to make out a case of any such custom prevailing in the village. In the case of Padarath Chaudhary & Ors. V/s. Most. Jogtia & ors., reported in 1987 B.L.J. 636, learned Judge of this Court on detailed consideration of various provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act and also the aforementioned decisions on the point has come to the conclusion that under-raiyat having occupancy right by dint of his continuous possession for more than 12 years can have the rights to succession etc. but cannot have the right to transfer. In the case of Bibi Jaloosan vs. Bhulai Baitha (supra) a learned Judge of this Court has clearly held that transfer by an under raiyat under his under-raiyati interest conveys no title to the transferee. 7. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and the present matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of the two courts-below warranting no interference in Second Appeal, moreso, when no substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.