JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Defendants are the Appellants before this Court challenging the Judgment and decree of the Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 27th September, 1993 in T.A. No. 53/15 of 1982 confirming the decree dated 5th March, 1982 of the Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 15/79 of 1982/77-1. 2. The aforesaid O.S. No. 15/79 of 1982/77-1 was filed for declaration of title of Surendra Prasad Naik, the Plaintiff-Respondent, confirmation of his possession, and in the alternative for recovery of his possession as also for permanent injunction against the Gandharba Kumar Mohanty and his wife Jyotirmayee Dei (who were arrayed as Defendants 1 and 2 respectively), restraining them from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property. 3. The suit plot measuring Ac.0.100 decimals appertains to plot No. 2170/4255/4870, Khata No. 1248 of Mouza Bargarh. According to the Plaintiff the said plot belonged to Braja Gopal Chakraverty and Nani Gopal Chakraverty and was lying fallow. The said Chakraverty family sold the same to the Plaintiff for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed of September 19, 1973 along with some other properties situated at Jajpur and delivered possession thereof to him. Later, noticing that the particulars of the land situated at Jajpur which had been sold had not been correctly described in the sale deed, a deed of rectification was executed. After his purchase, the Plaintiff possessed the suit land by putting stone-wall on three sides thereof. Lands appertaining to Plot No. 2170/4255/4306 of Khata No. 947 situated to the west of the suit land belonged to Defendant No. 2 which was demarcated by a boundary-wall. The Plaintiff alleged that when he stacked materials for construction of wall on his land, Defendant No. 1 threatened to dispossess him from a portion of the suit land by removing the western boundary-wall and tried to forcibly possess an area of Ac.0.50 decimals from the middle of that land. Disturbances having cropped up, Defendant No. 1 had initiated a proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was subsequently converted to one u/s 145 CrPC. That proceeding having ended in favour of the said Defendant, being emboldened, he forcibly removed the western boundary-wall of the suit land and encroached upon an area of Ac.0.50 belonging to the Plaintiff. Having no other way, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit. 4. That proceeding having ended in favour of the said Defendant, being emboldened, he forcibly removed the western boundary-wall of the suit land and encroached upon an area of Ac.0.50 belonging to the Plaintiff. Having no other way, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit. 4. After receiving notice the Defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. They denied all the plaint allegations and prayed for dismissal of the suit taking a positive stand that they had perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed six issues to decide the suit. In order to substantiate his case the Plaintiff got himself examined as a witness and exhibited five documents. The Defendants also in their turn got four witnesses examined and exhibited about six documents. The Trial Court after discussing the evidence in extenso came to the conclusion that the Defendants were not possessing the suit property at least till 1969 with hostile animus against the true owner thereof. On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 had made correspondences with aforesaid Braja Gopal and Nani Gopal till 1972 expressing his intention to purchase the suit property, thereby admitting the said persons to be the owners of the suit property. The Trial Court further found that there was no material to arrive at the conclusion that the Defendants were possessing the suit property with hostile animus against the true owners for a prescriptive period of time. Consequently, the Plaintiff was found to have established his title to the suit property through Ext.1 and the Defendants to have failed to establish perfection of their title by adverse possession and thus it was held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the decree sought. The Trial Court also held the suit to have been filed within time and the Plaintiff having cause of action to file the suit. With these findings the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the Defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff within a month from the date of the decree, failing which the latter would be at liberty to recover possession of the suit property through process of law. 6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court the Defendants carried appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 53/15 of 1982. 6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Trial Court the Defendants carried appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 53/15 of 1982. The said appeal was heard by the Learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar. The said Appellate Court considered the question of adverse possession and held that the such question was not specifically pleaded by the Defendants in their written statement. It also found that there was no pleading to the effect that the Defendants possessed the suit land since 1960 asserting their right against the real owners, that too with hostile animus and, as such, the Defendants could not establish their title by adverse possession. The Appellate Court thus dismissed the Title appeal, thereby confirming the decree of the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the said Appellate Judgment, the Defendants filed Second Appeal No. 261 of 1984 before this Court. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties this Court did not accept the reasonings of the Appellate Court in negativing the plea of adverse possession raised by the Defendants. This Court found the Defendants to have pleaded about their perfection of title by adverse possession in para-13 of their written statement and held that if they would succeed to satisfy by materials on record that their possession of the suit property was open, continuous and with hostile animus for a prescriptive period against the true owner thereof, they could be found to have perfected their title by adverse possession. Consequently this Court set aside the Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in Title -Appeal No. 53/15 of 1982 and remanded the matter to the said Court with direction to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the Judgment of this Court. 8. After remand, the Title Appeal was once again heard by the Appellate Court. After perusing the pleadings of the Defendants in para-13 of their written statement and the order passed in the proceeding u/s 145 CrPC besides other materials, the Appellate Court once again came to the conclusion that the Defendants had failed to prove perfection of their title over the suit land by adverse possession and dismissed the Title Appeal, thereby confirming the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court after remand, this Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendants. 9. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court on the question of adverse possession can at all be sustained in view of its taking into consideration certain inadmissible documents and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 707 10. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of this Second Appeal, Defendant No. 1 who was Appellant No. 1 having expired, his legal representatives have been substituted in his place. 11. Law is no more res integra that the plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but is blended with facts and law. Therefore a person who claims adverse possession is required to prove - (1) on what date he came into possession; (2) what was the nature of his possession; (3) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (4) how long his possession has continued; and (5) whether his possession was open and undisturbed. Since a person pleading adverse possession is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. In the case of AIR 1981 707 (SC) the Supreme Court observed all that the law requires is that possession must be open and without any attempt at concealment. It is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner. Such a requirement may be insisted on where an ouster of title is pleaded. It was further held that if a person asserts hostile title over a piece of land belonging to some other person and despite the hostile assertion of title no steps are taken by the owner to evict the trespasser, his title by prescription would be complete after the period specified in the Limitation Act. 12. Examining the facts and circumstances of the case at hand in the touch-stone of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that even the Defendants did not know who was the owner of the suit property till 1969, as would be evident from Ext.4. 12. Examining the facts and circumstances of the case at hand in the touch-stone of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that even the Defendants did not know who was the owner of the suit property till 1969, as would be evident from Ext.4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondents the Defendants had failed to show by clear and unequivocal evidence that their possession was hostile to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that possession of the Defendants over the suit land was with hostile animus for the prescribed period and this Court therefore should hold that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. 13. Law is well settled that the burden lies on the party claiming adverse possession to establish by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title. Ext. 1 is the sale deed of the year 1973 through which the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property. Defendant No. 1, as stated earlier, had initiated a proceeding u/s 144 CrPC which was later converted to one u/s 145 CrPC and Ext.3 is the report of the Executive Magistrate in that proceeding which reveals that the disputed property was bounded by compound wall on three sides and the land of the Defendants was to the adjacent west of that property. 14. Existence of a wall on the suit property was admitted by D.W.2. That apart, as would be evident from Exts.4 and 5, Defendant No. 1 had made correspondences with Braja Gopal and Nani Gopal to purchase the suit property during the period from 1970 to 1972. Thus it is apparent that the Defendants' act of user of the suit property was with consent of the owners thereof and that cannot constitute dispossession of the owners. 15. Law is well settled that there are lots of difference between 'possession' and 'adverse possession', inasmuch as the said two terms do not mean the same thing. A mere user of a property cannot be taken as a definite assertion of proprietary right. There must be some definite quality in the possession before it can be called adverse to the others' interest. There should also be some act of unequivocal character to put the owner on the dark. A mere user of a property cannot be taken as a definite assertion of proprietary right. There must be some definite quality in the possession before it can be called adverse to the others' interest. There should also be some act of unequivocal character to put the owner on the dark. There cannot be any adverse possession if the Defendants themselves did not know that they were occupying somebody else's property and therefore they must have the intention of using the property adversely against other claimants as owners thereof. 16. In the case of The State Bank of Travancore Vs. Aravindan Kunju Panicker and Others, the Supreme Court held that a permissive possession cannot be converted to 'adverse possession' unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted adverse title over the property to the knowledge of its true owner. 17. In the case of B. N. Venkatarayapa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SCW 2947 it was held that in absence of crucial pleadings regarding adverse possession and evidence to show that the Petitioners had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of lands in question claiming right, title and interest of the original owner, the Petitioners cannot claim that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. Burden of proof lies on the Petitioners to establish by cogent evidence that they had been in possession for more than twelve years prior to the date of filing of the suit. In the case of S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, it was held: Adverse possession must be adequate, in continuity, in publicity and extent. And a plea is required at the last to show that possession became adverse, so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. In the case at hand, there is no evidence as to when the possession of the Appellants became adverse if it at all did. Mere pleading that there was uninterrupted possession for several years is not enough to claim adverse possession. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession. 18. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court is satisfied that none of the ingredients required to establish adverse possession is satisfied in this case. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence thoroughly, noticed the position of law appropriately and arrived at conclusions justly. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession. 18. For the aforesaid discussions, this Court is satisfied that none of the ingredients required to establish adverse possession is satisfied in this case. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence thoroughly, noticed the position of law appropriately and arrived at conclusions justly. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment and therefore declines to interfere with the same. This Court dismisses the Second Appeal and directs the parties to bear their respective costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed