1. A plot of land was acquired for the purposes of the East Indian Railway Company on the 23rd March 1912, and a certain sum of Rs. 580 odd was assessed as the compensation to be paid for the land. For this sum there were two rival claimants, Rai Mahabir Prasad and Rajbans Sahay. The plot was originally held by Rai Gudar Sahay Rai Mahabir Prasad claimed to be the reversioner to the estate left by Rai Gudar Sahay who appears to have died in March 1897, leaving a widow and a daughter, both of whom are since dead. The other claimant, Babu Raibans Sahay, claimed to have been the family mukhtear and to have been in possession of the plot rent-free. His case was that his father had been in possession before him. The finding of the learned District Judge, which is based apparently upon evidence common to both sides, is that Rajbans Sahay took possession of the property soon after the death of Rai Gudar Sahay during a dispute between the widow of Rai Gudar Sahay and Rai Gudar Sahay's daughter-in-law, Sahodra Koer. The respondent has not appeared, but upon the evidence offered on either side there can be no doubt that Rajbans Sahay had been in possession of the property for at least twelve years before the 23rd March 1912, when the property was acquired, and that during that period he has paid no rent for it. He asserts now that the landlord's title lies with Sahodra Koer. It is not clear when he first asserted this, but it is clear that he has been in possession for twelve years, and, therefore, Rai Mahabir Prasad had lost his right to recover possession from him before the land was acquired. At the time of the acquisition Rajbans Sahay appears to have acquired by adverse possession the title to hold the land without paying any rent for it. We are of opinion that the learned District Judge was wrong in awarding the full amount of compensation to Raj Mahabir Prasad, and we set aside that direction, and we direct that the amount be paid to the appellant, Rajbans Sahay.