JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. 2. Muralidhar Patra, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, instituted T.S. No.328 of 1987 for declaration of occupancy right over the suit land in the court of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was Anabadi land. It was lying fallow with thorny bushes and hills. The then Landlord and their employees allowed his father to reclaim and convert the land into cultivable land with mutual understanding to settle the same in favour of his father on occupancy basis for the purpose of agriculture. His father reclaimed the land, spent huge amount and made it fit for cultivation in the year 1940. He raised pagara and green fence all around it and made it a compact block. For raising of various crops, he constructed a farm house over the suit land and cowshed. He planted coconut trees over the said land in the year 1945. His father died in the year 1945. After his father he became the successor-in-interest. He constructed a building thereon. In the settlement, the Settlement Officer wrongly recorded the suit land as Abada Jogya Anabadi. The same is illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff is not bound by it. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village and, as such, he had acquired occupancy right over the land. For any reason and for want of written document, the right and title of the plaintiff is not upheld, then indefeasible title by way of adverse possession as a tenant had been acquired by efflux of time and by operation of law. He is in peaceful possession of the land since 1952 with hostile animus to the defendant. Since recording by the settlement authority caste a cloud on his title, he instituted the suit seeking reliefs mentioned supra after issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land is a Government land. The same was lying fallow. The plaintiff has illegally constructed the house and planted trees without permission of the Ex-landlord. The Ex-landlord has not submitted ekpaid in favour of the father of the plaintiff after abolition of ex-intermediary. The case of the defendants is that the suit land is a Government land. The same was lying fallow. The plaintiff has illegally constructed the house and planted trees without permission of the Ex-landlord. The Ex-landlord has not submitted ekpaid in favour of the father of the plaintiff after abolition of ex-intermediary. The plaintiff had not put forth his claim before the settlement authority at any point of time. The land was rightly recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi in the settlement. The plaintiff has no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf, twelve documents had been exhibited. The learned trial court came to held that the suit land has been obtained by his father from the ex-landlord on the strength of temporary/permanent lease It is pleaded that his father had reclaimed the suit land with the permission of ex-landlord and his employees. There is no pleading with regard to the name of the ex-landlord from whom his father obtained the suit land. No scrap of paper had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to support his contention with regard to re-claimation of the suit land. It further held that the plaintiff’s father is not the settled raiyat of the village, so the question that the plaintiff acquired the occupancy status being the sole successor-in-interest of his father in respect of the suit land, does not arise at all. As the plaintiff claims right of occupancy through his father by succession and his father was not the settled raiyat of the village and acquisition of right of occupancy over the same has no basis at all. Held so, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree before the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara in T.A.No.30 of 1992, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the first appeal, the original plaintiff died whereafter his legal heirs, present appellants, have been brought on record. During pendency of this appeal, appellants 1 and 2 died leaving behind their legal heirs, who are already on record. In view of the same, the names of appellants 1 and 2 have been deleted. 5. During pendency of this appeal, appellants 1 and 2 died leaving behind their legal heirs, who are already on record. In view of the same, the names of appellants 1 and 2 have been deleted. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on 8.1.1996 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the Courts below committed an error in holding that the appellants did not acquire any occupancy right in respect of the disputed land although the courts observed that they are settled raiyats under Section 23 read with Section 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act; and (2) Whether the courts below committed an error in holding that the occupancy right cannot be acquired by adverse possession.” 6. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Damodar Patra, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ms. S.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants argued with vehemence that the suit land belonged to ex-landlord. In the written statement, it is pleaded that the father of the original plaintiff possessed the suit property forcibly without permission. The said admission however cannot be extended to possession with permission. The ancestors of the plaintiffs are the settled raiyats of the suit village. Even though no rent was paid and rent roll was submitted, the raiyati right of the original plaintiff cannot be extinguished. Referring to the averments made in the plaint, he submitted that the foundation for claiming a case of raiyati status as envisaged under Sections 23 and 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been laid. It is averred that the suit property was reclaimed in the year 1940. The suit land has been used for agricultural purpose, but same has been illegally recorded in the name of the Government. The plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village and acknowledges the Government as the landlord. He is ready to pay rent. He further submitted that a conjoint reading of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act clearly envisages that a person who for a period of 12 years has continuously held as a raiyat land situated in any village whether under a lease or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a settled raiyat of the village. He further submitted that a conjoint reading of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act clearly envisages that a person who for a period of 12 years has continuously held as a raiyat land situated in any village whether under a lease or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a settled raiyat of the village. As a sequel, Sec. 24 provides that every such settled raiyat shall have a right of occupancy over the land held by him as raiyat of that village. Raiyat U/s 5(2) of the Act inter alia means a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it. Thus, the analogy that in the absence of any document of lease, the father of the original plaintiff could not have become a raiyat is fallacious. 8. Per contra, Ms.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that both the courts held that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact. There is no perversity in the findings of the court below. 9. The word ‘raiyat’ has been defined in Sec. 5(2) of Orissa Tenancy Act. It means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants, or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors-in-interest or persons who have acquired such a right. Sec. 23 (1) of the Act provides that every person who, for a period of twelve years whether wholly or partly before or after the commencement of Act, has continuously held as a raiyat land situate in any village, whether under a lease or otherwise, shall be deemed to have become, on the expiration of that period, a settled raiyat of that village. Sec. 24 (1) postulates that every person who is a settled raiyat of a village within the meaning of Sec. 23 of the Act shall have a right of occupancy in all land for the time being held by him as a raiyat in that village.” 10. The assertion of the plaintiff is that the ex-landlord allowed his father to reclaim the suit land in 1940. The assertion of the plaintiff is that the ex-landlord allowed his father to reclaim the suit land in 1940. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. The words “whether under a lease or otherwise” appearing in Sec.23(1) of the Act mean the person must have held the land either under a lease or under any other instrument. Admittedly, there is neither any lease nor any other document granted by the ex-intermediary to the father of the plaintiff. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. It is pleaded that the residential house of the plaintiff stands over a portion of the suit land. Thus, the land was not used for agriculture purpose. There is no foundational fact with regard to the plea of the plaintiff that his father was a settled raiyat. Both the courts below on analysis of the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, and pleadings negatived the plea of the plaintiff occupancy raiyat, so also adverse possession. There is no perversity with the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 11. 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) 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.