As per case facts, a dispute over agricultural land arose between descendants of two brothers. The original plaintiffs sought title and injunction, but not possession. The trial court initially granted ... title but denied injunction, citing defendants' long possession. Plaintiffs then amended their suit to include recovery of possession. After multiple remands, the trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the first appellate court reversed this, granting recovery. The reason for the appeal is the appellants' contention that the first appellate court erred in reversing the limitation finding and allowing a time-barred amendment. The question arose whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's judgment and decreeing the suit as within limitation. Finally, the court held that mutation entries do not confer title, defendants failed to prove adverse possession, and initial possession was permissive. The amendment for recovery was permissible as it arose from the same cause of action, and the suit was deemed within limitation as the cause of action accrued when the dispute became known, not from older revenue entries. The amendment related back to the original suit filing date.