S.N. HUSSAIN, J.:- This second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 2. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 35 of 1970, which was filed by the sale plaintiff-respondent-respondent No.1 for declaration of his title over the suit land (Schedule-I) measuring 1 katha 5 dhurs of plot No. 394 (Part) appertaining to khata No. 122 of Mauza Haweli, Thana No. 509, situated in the town of Darbhanga. Furthermore a decree for recovery of possession and in alternative a decree for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,883.40 Ps. (Schedule-II) was also sought besides mesne profit and cost. 3. The claim of the plaintiff was that the suit plot was originally the Bakasht land belonging to Raj Darbhanga and hence after vesting of the Zamindari into the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), Raj Darbhanga remained in possession of the suit land as exclusive owner thereof and subsequently Raj Darbhanga sold the suit land by a registered sale-deed dated 8.1.1962 to one Mukund Jha, who was originally impleaded as a defendant, but he died without contesting the suit. The said Mukund Jha had sold the suit land to the plaintiff by a registered sale-deed dated 15.11.1966, whereafter the plaintiff came in exclusive possession of the suit land as absolute owner thereof. Subsequently the Union of India and other defendant encroached upon the suit land and hence the suit had been filed for recovery of possession. 4. On the other hand, defendants claimed that the suit land originally belonged to one Mahanth Radha Charan Das (respondent No.2), but the Union of India required the same for expansion of the Railway and hence it acquisitioned the same from the said Mahanth by registered deed dated 22.9.1965 executed by the said Mahanth in favour of the Railway Administration and, accordingly, the defendant-appellants had valid title and possession over the suit land. It is, thus, claimed that the plaintiff's claim is not maintainable as it is also barred by limitation because the suit had been tiled in the year 1970 i.e. much after the deed of exchange dated 22.9.1965. 5. On the basis of the claims of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the suit:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? 5. On the basis of the claims of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the suit:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of actions or right to sue? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (iv) Is the suit barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (v) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree against the defendant first party and 2nd party or against any of them for recovery of the amount in question or to any amount? (vi) Did defendant No. 5 ever acquire any valid right, title and interest and possession over any portion of the land in question in this suit by virtue of any exchange of land between him and the Raj Darbhanga as alleged? (vii) Was defendant No. 5 entitled to exchange any portion of the suit land with the defendant first party? (viii) Whether the plaintiff had title to the suit land and whether he is entitled to recovery of possession and mesne profit? (ix) Did the N. E. Railway ever acquire or has it any valid or subsisting right, title or interest over any portion of the land in question in this suit? (x) Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief or reliefs claimed? 6. On the said issues, evidence were led by the parties and after considering the said materials and the arguments made by the parties, learned Munsif-1, Darbhanga, vide his judgment and decree dated 29.1.1982, decreed the suit on contest with cost after arriving at the following findings:- (a) Defendants have miserably failed to establish the story of adverse possession. (b) The claim of defendant first party over the suit land by virtue of deed of exchange is untenable and an after-thought. (c) There is no evidence on record to show that the Mahanth (defendant No. 5) ever acquired any valid title or interest and possession over any portion of the land by virtue of exchange between him and Raj Darbhanga. (d) Plaintiff has a good title to the suit land and as such he is entitled to recovery of possession and mesne profit. (e) Since defendants had failed to establish the story of adverse possession, the suit filed in the year 1970 is not barred by law of limitation? (d) Plaintiff has a good title to the suit land and as such he is entitled to recovery of possession and mesne profit. (e) Since defendants had failed to establish the story of adverse possession, the suit filed in the year 1970 is not barred by law of limitation? (f) Since right, title and interest of the Mahanth over the suit land has not been proved, the Railway did not acquire any valid and subsisting right, title or interest over the suit land. (g) Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mesne profit against the defendant first party to be assessed in a separate proceeding. (h) Issue regarding non-maintainability of the suit and absence of any cause of action or right to sue of the plaintiff as well as the bar to the suit by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence were not pressed by the defendants and as such they are decided in favour of the plaintiff. (i) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits only recoverable from the defendant first party. (j) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of cost of the suit but is not found entitled to the claim of any compensation or damages. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court dated, 29.1.1982, defendant-appellants filed Title Appeal No. 17 of 1982 before the learned court of appeal below and after considering the claims of the respective parties, following points were formulated for deciding the appeal:- (i) Whether Maharaja had title over the suit land after the vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar and the sale deeds Exts. 5 and 5/A conferred title on the vendee Mukund Jha and plaintiff-respondent- Company? (ii) Whether defendant-appellants-Railway are in possession of the suit land with valid right and title? (iii) Whether the suit was barred by law of limitation? (iv) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to decree of ejectment and mesne profits, as claimed? 8. 5 and 5/A conferred title on the vendee Mukund Jha and plaintiff-respondent- Company? (ii) Whether defendant-appellants-Railway are in possession of the suit land with valid right and title? (iii) Whether the suit was barred by law of limitation? (iv) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to decree of ejectment and mesne profits, as claimed? 8. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties on the aforesaid issues, the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga, dismissed the appeal on contest with cost by judgment and decree dated 7.2.1989 after arriving at the following findings:- (a) The suit land became raiyati land of Maharaja after the vesting of Zamindari by force of law as provided under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) in consequence of vesting of the intermediary right and the land being in khas possession of Maharaja at the time of vesting. (b) The sale-deeds by Raj Darbhanga and also by Mukund Jha are registered documents and Exts. 4 series go to show that name of plaintiff-respondent-Company had been mutated in the Government Sarishta in respect of the suit land and the plaintiff-Company had been paying rent after purchasing the land from Mukund Jha, the vendee of the Maharaja. (c) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1963 B.L.J.R. at page-1, is not of any help to the appellants. (d) From the evidence it is proved that the Railway-defendant-appellants acquired some land out of suit plot No. 394 from Maharaja in the year 1962 and the said findings having not been challenged by the defendant-appellants, they have no mouth now to dispute the title of Maharaja over the suit land, which is also a part of plot No. 394, on the plea that it had vested in the State of Bihar along with the Zamindari of Maharaja. (e) The land of plot No. 394 including the suit land was the land in khas possession of Maharaja used for horticultural purposes on the day of vesting of the intermediary right of Maharaja under the Act and after vesting Maharaja had title over the suit land. (f) The title of the suit land was at first conveyed by Maharaja to Mukund Jha by a registered deed and, thereafter, the title was conveyed by said Mukund Jha to the plaintiff-Company by another registered deed. (f) The title of the suit land was at first conveyed by Maharaja to Mukund Jha by a registered deed and, thereafter, the title was conveyed by said Mukund Jha to the plaintiff-Company by another registered deed. (g) The said two sale-deeds, namely Exts. 5 and 5/A are legal and valid documents conferring title over the vendees. (h) From the deed of exchange relied upon by the defendants, it is quite apparent that there was no exchange of any land of plot No. 394, rather exchange was between the land of plot No. 393 of the Mahanth with the land of plot No. 392 of the Railway, hence the said registered documents produced by the defendants did not support their claim that any land of suit plot No. 394 was exchanged. (i) The defendant-appellants-Railway are in possession of the suit land without any valid right and title. U) Even according to the claim of the defendants, Railway came in possession over the suit land on the basis of a deed of exchange, executed in the year 1965, whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1970, hence there is no question of any bar of limitation. (k) Plaintiff-respondent-Company has got title over the suit land, whereas, the defendant-appellant-Railway is in unlawful possession of the suit land without having any right and title. (I) Plaintiff-respondent-Company is entitled to a decree of ejectment and mesne profits against the defendant-appellant-Railway. 9. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below, defendant-appellant-appellants filed the instant second appeal on 3.7.1989, which was admitted by this Court on 24.1.1991 framing following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether Radha Charan Das, who was transferor of the defendant, Union of India had acquired a valid title of the suit property by adverse possession and if that be so whether the plaintiffs can get any relief in respect of the suit property? (ii) Whether the suit property under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act vested in the State of Bihar and if that be so whether the plaintiffs could be given relief in the suit? 10. So far question No. (i) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the suit land measuring 1 katha 5 dhurs (Schedule-1) is a small portion of plot No. 394, which originally belonged to Raj Darbhanga. 10. So far question No. (i) is concerned, it is not in dispute that the suit land measuring 1 katha 5 dhurs (Schedule-1) is a small portion of plot No. 394, which originally belonged to Raj Darbhanga. It is fully approved by a series of evidence that the land was in khas possession of Maharaja for horticultural purposes containing a number of fruit trees standing thereon and at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Act, the Maharaja retained it as his Bakasht land and thereafter remained in possession thereof which is also proved by the Khatian, Exhibit-3. These facts could not be disproved by the defendants. This fact is further proved by a series of evidence showing that 17 kathas 13 dhurs of the said plot No. 394 was acquired by the Railways from Maharaja in the year 1962, which was also not denied by the Railways. Hence it fully proved the title of the Maharaja over the said plot and also that the said plot did not vest in the State of Bihar. In the said circumstances it was rightly held that the suit property never vested in the State of Bihar under the Act and accordingly the plaintiffs claim with respect thereto is hereby upheld. 11. There is no material at all to show that Mahanth Radha Charan Das was the raiyat of the suit land during the Zamindari or he remained in possession of the suit land after vesting of Zamindari as neither any return of the ex-intermediary in that regard nor any valid and satisfactory evidence has been adduced. Hence there is no question of Mahanth Radha Charan Das acquiring any right, title or interest in the suit property even by adverse possession. Furthermore, according to the claim of the defendants themselves, the Railways came in possession over the suit land on the basis of deed of exchange dated 22.9.1965 whereas the suit was filed in the year 1970, hence there is no question at all of the Railways also acquiring any right, title or interest over the suit land by adverse pos-. session. 12. session. 12. So far question No. (ii) raised by the appellants is concerned, there is no reliable material at all to show that Mahanth Radha Charan Das ever had any right, title or possession over the suit land whereas a series of evidences both oral and documentary, including the khatian and the acquisition of Railways fully proved that Raj Darbhanga was the exclusive owner in possession of the said plot after vesting of Zamindari and remained in possession at least upto 1962. 13. The defendants-appellants have based their claim on a registered deed of exchange dated 22.9.1965 but by the said deed Mahanth had exchanged his plot No. 392 with the Railways for plot No. 393. The said deed of exchange did not even referred to the said suit plot No. 394. Furthermore the subject matter of exchange in the said deed was 15 dhurs only whereas the suit land measures 1 katha 5 dhurs of plot No. 394. It is also an admitted fact that the entry in the aforesaid deed of exchange was never corrected nor any word was added or substituted in the same and hence the said deed of exchange clearly and admittedly not being with respect to the suit plot, the defendants-appellants cannot raise any claim over the suit land on its basis. Furthermore there is no other basis on which it could be legally presumed that the suit land was ever acquired or obtained by any deed by the Railways. 14. On the other hand the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has clearly claimed that after vesting of Zamindari the suit plot was retained by Darbhanga Raj and he throughout remained in possession until he sold it by a registered deed dated 8.1.1962 to Mukund Jha (Respondent No.6 now dead) and the said Mukund Jha sold the said land to the plaintiff by registered deed dated 15.11.1966, whereafter the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the Government records and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar throughout. Apart from the aforesaid documents the plaintiff has been able to prove by evidence both oral and documentary that he acquired valid right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the said deeds, which were throughout acted upon. Apart from the aforesaid documents the plaintiff has been able to prove by evidence both oral and documentary that he acquired valid right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the said deeds, which were throughout acted upon. The plaintiff has further claimed that subsequently the Railways encroached upon the suit land and erected a wall thereon, hence the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1970 for declaration of his title over the suit land and for recovery of possession with compensation besides mesne profit and cost. 15. In the said circumstances the learned courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that plaintiffs-respondents have got right, title and interest over the suit land, whereas the defendants-appellants are in unlawful possession over the suit land without any right or title and hence the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to a decree of ejectment and mesne profit against the defendants-appellants. 16. This Court does not find any illegality in the judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find that any substantial question of law is made out in the instant second appeal in the light of the abovementioned facts, materials and findings. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to cost.