JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against the confirming judgment in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. The dispute pertains to the land appertaining to Khata No.1, Plot No. 6, area Ac.0.06 and Khata No.100, Plot No. 7, area Ac.0.12, total Ac.0.18 dec. of Mouza Gopa. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that his father had acquired the suit land from ex-intermediary, Raja of Aul in the year 1931-32. His father had constructed a house thereon. He raised vegetables and planted coconut trees over the same. After the death of his father, he is in possession over the same. His possession as well as his father over the suit land was within the knowledge of the defendants and the officials of the Ex-intermediary Raja of Aul. He has acquired title by way of adverse possession. The defendants-Collector and Tahasildar, Aul threatened to demolish the house standing over the suit land. A show cause notice was issued to him on 24.08.1985. When steps were taken to demolish the house on 26.08.1985, he instituted the suit seeking reliefs mentioned supra. 4. Though summons were issued to the defendants, but they had chosen not to contest the case and as such set ex parte. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and on his behalf, three documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court held that plaintiff had not been able to establish title by adverse possession. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, he filed T.A. No. 23/90/46/98 before the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.1 & 2. The same are:- “1. Whether the appellant has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession in the suit land in view of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exts.1 to 3? 2. Whether the appellant has proved his occupancy status in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that originally the land belongs to ex-intermediary of Aul estate. The suit land was lying fallow. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that originally the land belongs to ex-intermediary of Aul estate. The suit land was lying fallow. The father of the plaintiff was in possession of the land in question since the time of ex-intermediary. He constructed a house over a portion of the land and planted trees. Since then the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff were in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and as such, they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Both the courts below have committed manifest illegality and impropriety in dismissing the suit. 8. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. He submits that adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. Both the courts below have negatived the plea of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 9. The date of entry into the suit land by the father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff has not been mentioned. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the apex Court observed as under :- "In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The court further observed that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he 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.” (emphasis laid) 10. Adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact. On an anatomy of pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned trial court negative the plea of adverse possession over the suit property. The findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. 11. The matter may be examined from another angle. The assertion of plaintiff is that he has perfected title by way of adverse possession. When the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud of suspicion, whether a simple suit for permanent injunction is maintainable ? In Anathula Sudhakar (supra), the apex court summarised the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property. Paragraph 17 of the report held thus: “17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.” 12. Thus the inescapable conclusion is that the simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. In the result, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.