JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession in alternative for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had purchased a piece of land out of Sabik Khata No. 132/01 and Plot No. 258/1 of village Raghunathpali from Sri Praveen Kumar Mehata and remained in possession of the same since 1975-76. According to the plaintiffs, an area measuring Ac.0.20 decimals out of Plot No. 258/1 under Khata No. 132/1 was given to Khursid Ali Khan by virtue of Hukumnama. The said fact was reflected in the maintenance register of the Tahasildar, Panposh. Khursid Ali Khan sold eastern portion of that land measuring an area of Ac.0.10 decimals to one Abdul Qadir. Abdul Qadir sold the western portion of land to Manbir Singh and Gyan Singh. He alienated the land in favour of Praveen Kumar Meheta, a minor in the year 1968. Praveen Kumar Meheta after attaining majority sold an area of Ac.0.10 decimals of land to the plaintiffs by means of a registered sale deed on 17.03.1981 and delivered possession to the vendees. The further case of the plaintiffs is that they were using the suit land for business purpose. Plaintiff no.1 was running one flour mill in the name and style of Bishnu Flour Mill. During settlement operation, the suit land was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and accordingly R.O.R. was published jointly in their names. While matter stood thus, they shifted their business establishment to a different place for convenience. Taking advantage of the same, the defendant association, who was having its office to the adjacent north of the suit land, made an attempt to forcibly possess the suit land, whereafter they initiated a proceeding under section 144, Cr.P.C., which was registered as Crl.Misc. Case No. 911 of 1997. The said proceeding was dropped. Again the defendant made attempt to raise construction over the same. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit contending, inter alia, that the suit is grossly under-valued, barred by law of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the area of Ac.4.98 decimals out of Plot No. 258/1 and 227/1 belonged to Nagra State. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit contending, inter alia, that the suit is grossly under-valued, barred by law of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the area of Ac.4.98 decimals out of Plot No. 258/1 and 227/1 belonged to Nagra State. One Hrusikesh Roy fraudulently procured Hukumnama bearing No. 50/52-53 in respect of the suit land and the said Hukumnama was held to be illegal by the Collector, Sundargarh. Challenging the same, Hrusikesh Roy filed writ petition being OJC 889/74 before this Court. This Court by order dated 12.10.76 dismissed the said writ petition. It is further stated that the possession of the aforesaid land was taken over by the Government. Further in O.J.C. No. 6457 of 91, the alleged possession of Hrusikesh Roy to the extent of Ac.4.08 decimals by virtue of Hukumnama of the year 1952-53 was held to be fraudulent and those lands were included in the Anabadi land of the Government. It is further stated that the defendant-society occupied an area of Ac.0.50 decimals of land in the year 1982 and continued to be in possession over the suit land openly and peacefully. In the year 1997, one Gurumit Kaur falsely initiated a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 943 of 1997. In the said proceeding, the R.I. has reported the possession of the defendant Society over the suit land. It is further stated that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are outcome of forgery and since the plaintiffs have got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and the defendant is in possession of the same, the suit land is liable to be dismissed with cost. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck ten issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs examined one witness and on his behalf nine documents had been exhibited. Defendant examined one witness and on his behalf seven documents had been exhibited. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant filed R.F.A. No.17 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. The suit was decreed. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant filed R.F.A. No.17 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submits that no issue with regard to Hukumnama granted in favour of Hrusikesh Roy has been framed. He further submits that the defendant has perfected the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that knowing fully well that what are the issues, the parties laid the evidence. Further adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The said plea was negatived by the courts below. 8. In the instant case, the parties led evidence knowing fully well that what are the issues. With regard to adverse possession, law is well settled that the same has to be pleaded. Adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. Both the courts negatived the plea of adverse possession. The findings of the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. 9. The second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.