As per case facts, the plaintiffs claimed ownership of land through adverse possession for many years, asserting their possession was open, adverse, and hostile. They filed a suit for declaration ... of ownership and to challenge a partition order obtained by the defendants without their knowledge. The defendants contested this, stating the land was a joint holding with the custodian and they had a share. The Trial Court initially sided with the plaintiffs, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed this, arguing that mere continuous possession does not constitute adverse possession, especially when the custodian was a co-owner, and Section 8(4) of the 1950 Act deemed plaintiffs' possession on behalf of the custodian. The High Court appeal seeks to overturn this decision. The question arose whether the custodian's co-ownership impacted the case's outcome, if defendants (co-owners with the custodian) were deemed in possession, and if plaintiffs could claim adverse possession by asserting hostility in an earlier written statement. Finally, the High Court held that under Section 8(4) of the 1950 Act, the plaintiffs' possession was deemed on behalf of the custodian and thus all co-owners. Plaintiffs failed to prove ouster of defendants, and continuous possession alone was insufficient to establish adverse possession against co-sharers. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Lower Appellate Court's well-reasoned findings and dismissed the appeal.