Short Note : 1. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased Khasra No. 583 from Rudranarayan defendant No.2 on 22-10-64 under a registered sale-deed and was placed in possession of the land. The land was recorded in the name of Rudranarayan in revenue papers and he was paying the land revenue. The mutation in favour of the plaintiff was done. The plaintiff contended that he remained in possession till 27-11-64 when defendant No.1 Permanand Pande trespassed over the disputed portion of the land. 2. The two Courts below found that the disputed portion of the land was in possession of the defendant and he bad perfected title by adverse possession over it. In second appeal. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the defendant No. 1 bad failed to prove that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. The land admittedly was of Rudra narayan. The title having been found in Rudranarayan, the burden lay on the defendant No 1 to establish title by adverse possession. No such hostile act had been proved by him as would constitute adverse possession In fact, he had been casually using the plot of land and even if it be held that his father had planted the mango plants over it, such act would not in law, constitute adverse possession. The planting of the plants would at best be considered a user by a neighbour of the land which did not amount to adverse possession. The user and the overt act were not so exclusive as to be referable to the title of the defendant No. 1. It is this contention that, I have to examine in this case. Held: It would be of great importance here to find out as to what was the nature of the use to which the land could be put to, if the land was agricultural, as in the instant case, and if the other party was cultivating it in hostile assertion of his title, it could certainly be said that he was holding it adversely. Now, the land could be used for panting a mango grove over it. The use in the instant Case, could not be said to be casual. Now, the land could be used for panting a mango grove over it. The use in the instant Case, could not be said to be casual. The two Courts having come to the conclusion that the defendant No 1 was continuously in possession of the land for 30 years together with the fact that he had put the land to the use of growing a mango grove over it could be enough to constitute adverse possession. In my opinion, the courts below were right in holding that the defendant No. 1 acquired title by adverse possession. ILR 16 Bom. 338 and 13 NLR 25, distinguished. Appeal dismissed.