Judgment :- 1. The only question arising for decision in this Second Appeal is whether the appellant (first defendant) has perfected a title by adverse possession as regards the disputed plot which is delineated in the plan Ext. B. The lower appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the possession of the defendant was not adverse to the plaintiff "as both parties were not aware of the exact extent of the property owned by them until 1116" and dealt with the question as follows: it .......admittedly both parties were not aware of the exact extent of the property in their possession till 1116 when the plaintiff had the properties measured. This fact is clearly admitted in para 8 of the written statement. The properties are adjoining paddy fields. The plaintiff enjoyed the portion to the west of the common bund under the impression that it was 77 cents in extent and the defendant who was in possession of the portion to the east took it that the area of the plot in his possession is only 33 cents. The defendant had no intention to be in possession of any plot in excess of his 33 cents and was not also aware of such possession. This is apparent from Ext. D lease deed for the property executed by him in 1111 wherein he gives the extent of the property in his possession as 33 cents. Under such circumstances the adverse possession would begin to run only from 1116". 2. The view adopted, namely, that possession under a mistaken impression that the land belonged to the claimant himself cannot be deemed to be adverse is not correct. Under such circumstances the adverse possession would begin to run only from 1116". 2. The view adopted, namely, that possession under a mistaken impression that the land belonged to the claimant himself cannot be deemed to be adverse is not correct. The law on the subject is summarised as follows in Wood, Limitation of Actions, Volume 2, page 1276: "As to whether a party can set up an adverse possession to lands occupied by him under a mistake supposing the same to belong to him, when in point of fact they are outside of his real claim, the doctrine evidently is that, where a grantee, in taking possession under his deed, goes unintentionally and by mistake beyond his proper boundaries, and enters upon and actually occupies and improves lands not included in the deed, claiming and supposing it to be his, this occupation is to be deemed adverse within the meaning of the statute of limitation, and, if continued the requisite length of time, will bar the right of the true owner". 3. In 46 Indian Cases 964 Bhadilal, J. said: "But the criterion of adverse possession is, whether a person possesses land, claiming it as his own; if he does, he must be held to be in adverse possession. He may be mistaken in his right or he may be conscious that he is an usurper, but his possession is for himself and against all others". 4. In AIR 1925 Rangoon 111 it was held: "Possession of plaintiff's land taken by an adjoining landowner under mistaken knowledge on the part of both parties as to the true boundary is adverse to the plaintiff;" in AIR 1930 Madras 679 that: "an enjoyment, though under the mistaken notion of right would still be adverse to the real owner of the property;" and in AIR 1937 Lahore 811: "By putting up a building on the site in dispute the defendant claimed this site as his own. His adverse possession started from that date, even though he may have been under the impression that the land belonged to him. The observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in 61 Cal. 262 lead to the same conclusion". 5. His adverse possession started from that date, even though he may have been under the impression that the land belonged to him. The observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in 61 Cal. 262 lead to the same conclusion". 5. In AIR 1947 Privy Council 19 it was stated: "On the supposed death of the second Kumar the appellant entered on her widow's estate in the undivided one-third share of the Ehowal estate, which belonged to her husband and she thereafter enjoyed it-after 1911, though the Court of Wards- for the period much exceeding the necessary twelve years and the question is whether her possession was adverse to her husband, he being in fact alive. Possession must be adverse to a living person, and, as she was possessing under a mistake as to his death, it is difficult to see how she can claim that by her possession one was ascertaining a right adverse to one whom she regarded as dead". I do not think that there is anything in the passage which affects the issue before me. 6. The second appeal has to be allowed and I do so with costs. Allowed.