recorded as owners of the suit land in the jamabandi for the year 1980–81 (Ex. P1), whereas the appellant/defendant is reflected in possession merely as a Gair Marusi and that too bila lagan bawaja kabza . The khasra girdawari entries (Ex. P2, P9, P10 and P11 of the courts below ) further establish that prior to the year 1976, the land was in possession of Jagan Nath and it is only from the year 1976 that the defendant came to be recorded in possession, that too as an unauthorized occupant. These consistent revenue entries unmistakably demonstrate that the appellant/defendant’s possession commenced only in the year 1976 and not earlier, as vaguely alleged by her. In the absence of any cogent revenue record substantiating continuous and hostile possession for the statutory period of 12 years, the plea of adverse possession cannot be sustained. The appellant/defendant’s self-serving statement in the witness box, wherein she inconsistently claimed possession for 35 to 40 years, is wholly unreliable and does not satisfy the legal requirements of adverse possession. Mere long possession without proof of its hostile character is insufficient to confer title. Thus, it stands conclusively established that at best the defendant was in possession for about a decade prior to the institution of the suit in 1986, which falls short of the statutory requirement.