Which one of the following is not correct, related to offence of theft?

IPC Section 378 defines theft: Theft—Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1— A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2 — A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3—A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it. Explanation 4 —A  person,  who  by  any  means  causes  an  animal  to  move,  is  said  to  move  that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanation 5—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be  given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either  express or implied.  Option b is  incorrect  because  in  theft;  property  can  be  removed  out  of  the  possession  of  any person and not only out of the possession of owner of property. The offence of theft is against possession and not ownership