The question states that possession is considered prima facie evidence of title to ownership. This means possession creates a presumption of ownership that stands unless proven otherwise.

Understanding Adverse Possession

The principle of 'possession as prima facie evidence of title' leads to the legal concept of adverse possession. This doctrine allows a person who possesses another's land for a specific, statutory period without the owner's permission to potentially gain legal title to that land.

Reasoning for Correct Option

• Option 1: $long adverse possession confers tittle even to a property which originally belonged to another.$
  This option directly follows from the premise. When possession is maintained adversely (openly, continuously, without permission, and hostilely) for the legally defined duration, it extinguishes the original owner's title and vests it in the possessor.

Evaluating Other Options

• Option 2: $in all cases possession leads to ownership.$
  This is incorrect. Possession is only prima facie evidence, meaning it can be rebutted. Not all possession results in ownership.
• Option 3: $transfer of possession is not a mode of transferring ownership.$
  This is incorrect. Transferring possession is often a fundamental part of transferring ownership (e.g., in sales or leases).
• Option 4: $long possession do not confer tittle to the property which originally belonged to government.$
  While specific laws often treat government property differently regarding adverse possession, this option presents an exception rather than the direct consequence of the principle stated in the question. Option 1 states the general principle that adverse possession *can* confer title.

Therefore, the most direct consequence of possession being prima facie evidence of title is that prolonged, legally defined adverse possession can indeed confer title.