JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner in possession of an area of Ac.0.10 decimal of land described in ‘A’ schedule of the plaint. The backyard is encroached by a compound. She purchased the land from one Rangalal and others by means of a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1967 for a valid consideration. The ROR was issued by the settlement authority in her favour on 23.6.1979. She constructed a building over the same after obtaining permission from the municipality. The defendants have no semblance right, title and interest over the same. The defendants claimed an area of 1207 sq. ft. which is in her occupation. While the matter stood thus, the defendants by letter dated 2.5.1984 directed her to vacate the area by 20.5.1984, failing which, the encroachment shall be removed by the municipality. The municipal authority has no jurisdiction to invoke provision of Sec.254 of Orissa Municipal Act for removal of encroachment. On 26.7.1982, she issued a letter stating that there is no encroachment of any municipal area and as such the municipality can refer the matter to the encroachment committee and till the matter is finalized, the municipality cannot demolish the area. Since the municipality has issued notice to demolish the encroachment by 20.5.84, there is no time to comply the provisions of Sec.349 of the Orissa Municipal Act. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff has unauthorisedly tried to grab Anabadi land of area Ac.0.016 decimals appertaining to plot no.998. The specific case of the defendants is that Survey No.351/1A of mouza Bijipur has been assigned to the municipality by notification no.378 of the year 1927. The plaintiff has purchased an area Ac.0.10 dec. of land and constructed a residential house. But then, she has encroached upon an area of 1207 sq. ft. of land belonging to the defendants. No notice under Sec.349 of the Orissa Municipal Act has been served on the defendants and as such the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has purchased an area Ac.0.10 dec. of land and constructed a residential house. But then, she has encroached upon an area of 1207 sq. ft. of land belonging to the defendants. No notice under Sec.349 of the Orissa Municipal Act has been served on the defendants and as such the suit is not maintainable. Since the plaintiff admitted that the suit land belongs to the defendants and filed a petition before the municipality to settle the land in her favour, she cannot questioned the title of the defendants. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. They are:- “1. Whether the suit is maintainable ? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and if the plaintiff and her vendor acquired title by adverse possession in respect of the area in excess as shown by the Commissioner ? 4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?” 5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on her behalf eight documents had been exhibited. The defendant nos.1 and 2 had examined two witnesses and on their behalf nine documents had been exhibited. One witness was examined and two documents had been exhibited by the defendant no.3. 6. Learned trial court came to hold that pursuant to the order dated 11.5.84, notice was issued to the defendants and it must be held that notice on the defendants has been validly served. The suit is not bad for mis-joinder of parties and accordingly answered issue nos.1 and 2 in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. It further held that the registered sale deed vide Ext.2 shows that the extent of land was Ac.0.10 cents only. The Civil Court Commissioner found that the suit property was an area Ac.13.7 cents. It further held that ROR neither creates title nor extinguishes title. The claim of the plaintiff that she acquired title by way of adverse possession was negatived. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of learned trial court before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in T.A. No.17/91, which was eventually dismissed. 7. The claim of the plaintiff that she acquired title by way of adverse possession was negatived. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of learned trial court before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in T.A. No.17/91, which was eventually dismissed. 7. The second appeal was admitted on 11.11.93 on the following substantial question of law enumerated in the ground of the appeal memo. The same is quoted hereunder. “Whether the Municipality after having approved the building plan and given permission to construct the building where the plaintiff constructed the building and resided on the suit land, the Municipality is estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff and issue of demolition notice.” 8. Heard Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent no.3. None appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 9. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit land originally belong to Rangalal. The plaintiff has purchased an area Ac.0.10 dec. of land from the said Rangalal by means of a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1967. She constructed a residential house over the same after obtaining permission from the Berhampur Municipality. The backyard has been encroached by the plaintiff by a compound. She is in possession of the excess land peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus of the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. The settlement authorities have issued ROR in faovur of the plaintiff. The same have not been challenged. In view of the fact that the municipal authorities accorded permission for construction of house over the land in question, the defendants are estopped to initiate any encroachment proceeding and disturb in the peaceful possession. 10. Per contra, Miss Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the judgments. 11. Admittedly the plaintiff has purchased an area of Ac.0.10 dec. from one Rangalal by means of a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1967. With regard to the excess area of 1207 sq. ft., she claims that she is in possession of the same peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus to the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. The question does arise whether the plaintiff can institute the suit for permanent injunction ? 12. With regard to the excess area of 1207 sq. ft., she claims that she is in possession of the same peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus to the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. The question does arise whether the plaintiff can institute the suit for permanent injunction ? 12. In Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 2008 SC 2033 , the apex Court in paragraph 11 held thus: “11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 11.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 11.2 Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 11.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.” 13. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), when the title of the plaintiff is in cloud of suspicion, she cannot maintain the suit for permanent injunction. 14. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), when the title of the plaintiff is in cloud of suspicion, she cannot maintain the suit for permanent injunction. 14. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. The person claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, the courts negatived the plea of adverse possession. There is no perversity in the findings of the courts below. 15. The plea of the plaintiff is mutually destructive. Though she asserts title by way of adverse possession, but then she applied to the municipality for lease. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Reliance placed on settlement record of right is totally misconceived. The ROR neither creates title nor extinguishes title. 16. The matter may be examined from another angle. The plaintiff has not examined herself as a witness. Her husband had deposed as a power of attorney. In Sankarsan Mohapatra (dead) vs. Smt. Sailabala Mishra, 2015 (2) CLR 820, this Court held that: “6. The question does arise as to whether a power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument can depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal ? 7. The subject of dispute is no more res integra. The apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others, AIR 2005 SC 439 , in paragraph-13 held as follows:- “13. Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.” 17. In the ultimate analysis, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.