JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiff was the appellant against an affirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land originally belonged to one Surjyomani Hota. He purchased the same in the year 1936 for a valid consideration. He had constructed a pucca house over the same. He used the vacant portion as threshing floor. While the matter stood thus, the settlement operation in the area, where the land falls, started in the year 1963. ROR was published in the year 1965. The plaintiff could not take steps in the settlement operation. The suit land was recorded in the name of the State under Anabadi khata with a note of possession of the plaintiff in the remarks column. The said recording was erroneous. On the basis of the erroneous entry, the Tahasildar, Kotpad, defendant no.2, initiated Encroachment Case No.190/68 against him. He appeared in the said case. Penalty was imposed and order of eviction was passed. He challenged the same in O.P.L.E. Appeal No.7/83 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Jeypore. The appeal having been rejected, he filed O.P.L.E. Revision No.13/86 before the Additional District Magistrate, which was dismissed on 22.9.88. Assailing the same, he filed writ petition before this Court. It was further pleaded that he was in possession of the land since 1935 and has perfected title by way of adverse possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the suit property originally belonged to ex-zamindar of Jeypore. The estate vested in the State on 29.12.1952. The State of Orissa became the paramount owner of the suit property. The suit property was a part of the village site paramboke. In the settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of the State of Orissa under Anabadi khata. The plaintiff was an encroacher, for which, encroachment case was initiated against him. He appeared in the said case and filed objection. He did not mention that he had purchased the suit plot from Surjyomani Hota. He had not produced any document of title. Order of eviction was passed. The plaintiff paid the penalty. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues. He appeared in the said case and filed objection. He did not mention that he had purchased the suit plot from Surjyomani Hota. He had not produced any document of title. Order of eviction was passed. The plaintiff paid the penalty. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. On an analysis of the evidence and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff had not acquired title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore in T.A. No.12 of 1996, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiff-appellant died. Thereafter, his legal representatives have been substituted. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. “(i) Whether presumption under Sec.90 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable to Ext.3 which is an old document and its original has been proved by the plaintiff ? (ii) Whether the suit for declaration of title, confirmation or in alternative recovery of possession is maintainable notwithstanding the order of eviction passed under the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972 ? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession before 1982 ? (iv) Whether the Act of 1982 is prospective or retrospective when there is a specific finding that the petitioner was in possession since 1947 ? (v) If the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession before the commencement of the 1982 Act, whether the said Act will apply or not ?” 6. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit land originally belonged to Surjyomani Hota. The plaintiff had purchased the same from her on 10.2.1936 by means of an unregistered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.30/-. He had constructed his residential house over a portion of the suit plot. He was in possession of the same since 1936 peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. He had constructed his residential house over a portion of the suit plot. He was in possession of the same since 1936 peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondents submits that the plaintiff was a rank trespasser. Encroachment case was initiated against him. Penalty was imposed. Order of eviction was passed. He paid the penalty. Both the courts held that plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. 9. In Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa (supra), a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. This Court held that the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Sec.16 thereof can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent civil suit by the plaintiffs. 10. Notwithstanding the bar contained in Sec.16 of the OPLE Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of title. 11. The suit land originally belonged to ex-zamindar of Jeypore. The estate vested in the State on 29.12.1952 free from all encumbrances after coming into operation of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. The assertion of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit land originally belonged to one Surjyomani Hota is difficult to fathom. There is no evidence on record that Surjyomani Hota was the owner of the suit land. She has no authority to alienate the land. 12. In Sarbeswar Rath and another vs. Consolidation Officer and others, 1992 (II) OLR-362, this Court held that it is not the law that merely because somebody has obtained a sale deed, he has got title to the property as vendee. The deed may be void for want of title of the vendor and in such a case the deed may be ignored as not worth the paper written on. 13. The plaintiff had taken prevaricative stand. The deed may be void for want of title of the vendor and in such a case the deed may be ignored as not worth the paper written on. 13. The plaintiff had taken prevaricative stand. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was pleaded that he had purchased the suit land in the year 1936, but in paragraph 8, it was pleaded that he was in possession of the land from the year 1935, i.e., one year prior to the alleged purchase. The settlement operation in the area, where the land falls, started in the year 1963. ROR was published in the year 1965 in the name of the State of Orissa. In encroachment case, the plaintiff paid the penalty. 14. Burden of proof lies on the person who claims to acquire title of the land by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is no perversity in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.