JUDGMENT : (Sathish Ninan, J.) The suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with an alternate relief for recovery of market value of the property and mesne profits, was decreed by the trial court granting the alternate relief. The defendants 2 to 4 are in appeal. 2. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 25.203 cents. It is situated in Old Survey 26/7B of Edappally North village. It is a portion of a larger extent of 57 cents. The plaintiffs are brothers. According to the plaintiffs, a larger extent of property including the plaint schedule property belonged to their great grandfather, Meethiyan. From out of the larger extent of property some extent was surrendered by him for the formation of Shornur-Ernakulam Railway. The entire extent surrendered was not utilized by the Railway. The excess land (57 cents) was categorised as “Railway 'B' class property” and was assigned back in favour of Meethiyan. He and his successors were paying tax for the property. In the year 2002, for the purpose of widening National Highway-17, defendants 2 to 4 took over the plaint schedule property without payment of any compensation. Though the plaintiffs approached this Court in writ petition, they were relegated to the civil court. It was accordingly that the present suit was filed. 3. The first defendant Union of India remained ex parte. Defendants 2 to 4, the State, denied the title of the plaintiffs and their predecessors. It was contended that the plaint schedule property is a Railway 'puramboke', and that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors have any title over the same. 4. The trial court upheld the plaintiffs title. However, finding that the property has already been utilised for a public purpose, the relief of recovery of possession was declined and the alternate reliefs for recovery of market value and mesne profits were granted. 5. We have heard Sri.C.P.Pradeep, the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants- defendants 2 to 4 and Sri.P.Sathisan on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs. 6. The points that arise for determination are:- (i) Is the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs have proved their title over the property sustainable on the evidence? (ii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference ? 7. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 25.203 cents is part of a larger extent of 57 cents. (ii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference ? 7. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 25.203 cents is part of a larger extent of 57 cents. The title and possession of the remaining extent excluding the plaint schedule, is not in dispute. It is the plaintiff's case that, even prior to the year 1900, their great grandfather Meethiyan had surrendered a larger extent of property for the formation of Shornur-Ernakulam Railway line and that since the entire extent of property surrendered was not utilised, the remaining extent of 57 cents was reassigned in his favour and 'patta' issued. It is claimed that the 'patta' is lost. The surrender and the re-conveyance was more than 100 years back. Thus, the document of title under which the plaintiffs claim the property is not before the court. The issue would be whether, even on the failure of the plaintiffs to produce their title deed it could be held that they have title over the plaint schedule property. 8. Ext.A2 is a Partition Deed dated 12.08.1089 ME (corresponding to the year 1914) executed between the legal heirs of Meethiyan, the great grandfather of plaintiffs. Therein the 57 cents of property in Sy. 26/7B, of which the plaint schedule property is a part, is included in the 'B' schedule and was allotted to Abdul Khader, the son of Meethiyan. The surrender in favour of the Railway and the re-assignment is claimed to have been prior to the year 1902. The formation of the relevant railway line was prior to that period is not in dispute. Therefore, Ext.A2 partition is after the re-conveyance as claimed by the plaintiffs. Though Ext.A2 does not recite the manner in which title over the plaint schedule property was obtained by Meethiyan it has been affirmed therein that he is the title holder of the property. 9. Exts.A3 series, A6, A7, A8, A10 series, are all tax receipts for the period from 25.09.1115 ME onwards. Ext.A3 series evidence payment of tax with regard to the property by Abdul Khader. As noticed above, under Ext.A2 partition, title over the property vested with Abdul Khader, the son of Meethiyan. It is not in dispute that mutation of the property was effected in the name of Meethiyan Abdul Khader in the revenue records. Ext.A3 series evidence payment of tax with regard to the property by Abdul Khader. As noticed above, under Ext.A2 partition, title over the property vested with Abdul Khader, the son of Meethiyan. It is not in dispute that mutation of the property was effected in the name of Meethiyan Abdul Khader in the revenue records. In Ext.X1, the basic tax register, the name of the owner of the property is shown as Meethiyan Abdul Khader. The Transfer of Registry Rules require production of title deed to effect mutation. Necessarily the authorities must have verified the title of the plaintiffs’ predecessor before effecting mutation in his name. 10. Ext.A4 is a Gift Deed of the year 1955 executed by Abdul Khader and his wife in favour of their children wherein also this property is included. Based on the said Gift Deed, the children of Abdul Khader entered into Ext.A5 Partition Deed in the year 1994. Even taking it to be that Ext.A5 is a document of comparatively recent origin and need not be relied upon, as was noticed, Ext.A2 partition is of the year 1098 ME and Ext.A4 gift is of the year 1955. 11. Ext.A16 is a communication from the Village Office to the 2 nd plaintiff wherein the surrender of the property for railway and its reassignment as excess land by including it in 'B' class category, are acknowledged. In many of the tax receipts produced by the plaintiffs and in Ext.X1 Basic Tax Register, an endorsement is seen made to the effect that the property is railway 'B' class category land. Admittedly, the 'B' class category lands which formed the excess lands after the laying of the railway line were assigned and 'pattas' issued. Ext.A24 is a communication from the District Collector to the plaintiffs’ counsel, wherein also the assignment of railway 'B' class category of lands is acknowledged. It is further acknowledged that the 57 cents, of which the plaint schedule is a part is a railway 'B' class category land and that it stands mutated in the name of Meethiyan Abdul Khader. On the same lines is Ext.A25 communication by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). 12. From the above it is evident that the plaint schedule property is a railway 'B' class category property. Such category of lands were admittedly assigned to various persons. On the same lines is Ext.A25 communication by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition). 12. From the above it is evident that the plaint schedule property is a railway 'B' class category property. Such category of lands were admittedly assigned to various persons. The plaint schedule property has been mutated in the name of the plaintiffs’ predecessors. Coupled with the same is that the fact that this property is included in Ext.A2 Partition Deed executed as early as in the year 1089 ME, and in the subsequent documents. Incidentally, we also acknowledge that Ext.A2 Partition Deed being more than thirty years old carries with it the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act (Section 92 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). These materials are sufficient enough to find that the plaintiffs and their predecessors have title over the plaint schedule property. The sole ground that the basic title deed viz. 'patta' which was issued 100 years back is not traceable, cannot be a ground to hold that the plaintiffs does not have title over the property. The evidence on record are overwhelming to uphold the plaintiffs title. The trial court has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and has upheld the title of the plaintiffs. 13. The learned Senior Government Pleader would rely on a host of decisions including Guru Amaijt Singh v. Rattan Chand ( 1993 (4) SCC 349 ), State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram ( 1996 (11) SCC 257 ), to contend that mere entries in the revenue records cannot confer title. While the said proposition of law is beyond dispute, as noticed above, the entire evidence on record sufficiently establish the title of the plaintiffs and their predecessors over the property. The finding of the trial court in the said regard warrants no interference. 14. With regard to the quantum of compensation fixed as land value, there is no challenge. It is not in dispute that the property is situated in an important locality. The trial court relied on Ext.A26 Sale Deed to fix the value. The said property is situated less than 600 metres away from the plaint schedule property. The executant of the document was examined as PW2. It is having due consideration of the same that the trial court fixed the value of the property. The same warrants no interference. 15. The trial court relied on Ext.A26 Sale Deed to fix the value. The said property is situated less than 600 metres away from the plaint schedule property. The executant of the document was examined as PW2. It is having due consideration of the same that the trial court fixed the value of the property. The same warrants no interference. 15. On the claim for mesne profits, the trial court has granted mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per year from 04.02.2012 til date of decree. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 15,30,000/- per year. They relied on the oral evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who deposed that the property if leased out would fetch that much rent. The trial court found their evidence to be unacceptable. The court however held that even though there is no evidence available, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh per year would be reasonable. We are of the view that the court was not justified in awarding mesne profits. “Mesne Profits” is the profits which the person in wrongful possession of the property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. In Fateh Chand v. Balkrishna Dass ( AIR 1963 SC 1405 ) , the Apex Court observed, “The normal measure of mesne profits is therefore the value of the user of land to the person in wrongful possession”. In P.L.Kapur v. Jia Rani ( AIR 1973 Del 186 ) it was held, “Though mesne profits are awarded because the rightful claimant is excluded from possession of immovable property by a trespasser, it is not what the original claimant loses by such exclusion but what the person in wrongful possession gets or ought to have got out of the property which is the measure of calculation of the mesne profits”. Therefore, the criteria for calculation of mesne profits is not what the owner loses by reason of deprivation from possession but, what the trespasser received or might have received with ordinary diligence. Admittedly, even at the time when the property was taken over by the State for widening the road, it was lying as a barren land. There is no claim that even the remaining extent of land was put by the plaintiff to any use from which any income is derived. The property was taken over for widening the road. Admittedly, even at the time when the property was taken over by the State for widening the road, it was lying as a barren land. There is no claim that even the remaining extent of land was put by the plaintiff to any use from which any income is derived. The property was taken over for widening the road. It cannot be said that any income could have been raised therefrom. Hence we are of the opinion that the grant of mesne profits was unwarranted. The decree for mesne profits is thus liable to be interfered with. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. The decree and judgment of the trial court, in so far as it granted a decree for mesne profits, is set aside. The claim for mesne profits will stand dismissed. In all other respects the decree and judgment of the trial court will stand affirmed. No costs.