JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. 2. Gajendra Pani, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of title. The case of the plaintiff is that the ex-landlord had given schedule ‘A’ land to him 50 years back. The land was lying fallow. He reclaimed the land. He was a tenant under the ex-landlord. He was a settled raiyat of the village. Further the ex-landlord had given schedule ‘B’ land, which is adjacent to his homestead. After reclamation, the plaintiff had amalgamated the land with his ancestral homestead. A portion of his residential house stands over the ‘B’ schedule land. He had planted trees on the ‘B’ schedule land. In the hal settlement yadast as well as the consolidation, his possession had been noted. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of the land for more than statutory period peacefully, continuously to the hostile animus of the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar had initiated encroachment cases against him. Hence the suit was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died, whereafter the appellants, who are the legal heirs and dependants of plaintiff, have been brought on record. 3. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined one witness and on their behalf twenty documents had been exhibited. Learned trial judge came to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove under what circumstances the land was settled with the plaintiffs by the ex-landlord. He disbelieved the rent receipts, Ext.2/a and 2/b on the ground that the rent receipts does not bear any seal or authority of ex-landlord for collection of rent by one Shyam Sundar Naik, to whom the plaintiff has paid rent. Tenancy ledger was not produced. P.W.1 has failed to prove the specific year since when they were in possession of the suit land. Relying on the certified copies of the orders in encroachment case nos.749/90 and 732/90, he held that the plaintiff has unauthorisedly possessed the land since 5 years and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No.13/2003, which was eventually dismissed. 4. Heard Mr. The plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in R.F.A. No.13/2003, which was eventually dismissed. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Samantary, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.K. Dash, learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Mr. Samantary, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land belonged to the ex-intermediary. He inducted the plaintiff as a tenant. The plaintiff planted number of trees. He is in possession of the land for more than statutory period peacefully, continuously to the hostile animus of the defendants and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. His alternative submission is that the original plaintiff was a tenant in the ex-intermediary. After vesting of the estate, he became the deemed tenant. 6. The submission of Mr. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellants is difficult to fathom. Admittedly, the suit land belonged to ex-intermediary. After coming into force of Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the estate vested in the State. Neither any ekpadia nor the tenancy ledger was exhibited before the court below. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. 7. 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. Nonuse 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 court further observed that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. 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) 8. Reliance placed on the rent receipts is totally misplaced. P.W.1 deposed that he has paid rent to one Shyam Sundar Naik, but there is no material on record that he was authorized by the ex-landlord to receive rent. The rent receipts do not bear the seal of the landlord. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.