Short Note : 1. The main question that arises in this appeal is whether possession of the defendants was adverse. Even assuming that the defendant's possession was under a mistake that the suit land was included in the Khasra numbers owned by them, it has to be held that their possession was adverse from the very beginning. Even when possession of land is taken under a mistaken belief by a person that the land belongs to him, the person in possession claims the land in his own right and continues in possession on his own behalf, it is not a possession on behalf of or under the true owner, therefore the possession, even in these circumstances, is adverse to the real owner. 2. Shivdayal and Others vs. Harikishan, S.A. No. 793 of 1968 decided on 6th November 1973, Purshottam vs. Sagaji, 1903 (28) Bombay 87, Dwarkanath Chowdhary vs. Shashti Kinkar Banerjee, 1913 (18) IC 869, Amarnath vs. Ramrakha, AIR 1937 Lahore 811, Aboobucker vs. Sahibkhatoon, AIR 1949 Sind 12, Bhan Mu vs. L.S.M. Somasundaram Chetty, AIR 1925 Rangoon 111, Bhagwan vs. Sadhuram, Jaikishan vs. Sabu, 1933 (144) IC 696, relied on. Appeal allowed.