JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 1. This is plaintiff’s appeal against the confirming judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that one Iswar Chandra Choudhury of Balighati and Sansak Sekhar Choudhury of Medinpur of the State of West Bengal were the ex-intermediary in respect of Sabik Khata No.221 corresponding to Sabik Plot No.1329 of Mouza- Ranapada. The former had got 12 anas interest and the latter had got 4 anas in the said property. They had inducted different tenants and collected rent. The father of the plaintiff and his uncle Udayanath Swain and Budhanath Swain took the land on lease for agriculture and horticultural purpose on rayati basis on payment of salami. They also took some property out of Sabik Plot No.1290 on raiyati basis to build up residential house. The suit properties were leased out to them as tenants. There was a partition between the plaintiff’s father and his uncle by registered partition deed of the year 1960. The suit land vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short “the OEA Act”). The rent was collected from the plaintiff’s father by the State Government. It is further pleaded that his father had been possessing the suit land peacefully and uninterruptedly as a rayiat. After his father, he is in possession of the suit land. During the last settlement operation, the settlement authority instead of recording the suit land in his name has noted forcible possession. Defendant no.2 initiated Encroachment Case No.112 of 1985 against him. Initiation of encroachment case is illegal and liable to be struck down. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit for declaration of right, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction impleading the respondents as defendants. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant no.2 entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation and hit under the OEA Act. It is further pleaded that no notice under Section 80 CPC was served prior to the institution of the suit and as such, the suit is not maintainable. The suit land belonged to ex-intermediary Sri Iswar Chandra Choudhury and Sasanka Sekhar Choudhury of West Bengal. Neither plaintiff’s father nor his brother were inducted as tenants by the said ex-intermediary. The suit land vested in the State in the year 1953. The suit land belonged to ex-intermediary Sri Iswar Chandra Choudhury and Sasanka Sekhar Choudhury of West Bengal. Neither plaintiff’s father nor his brother were inducted as tenants by the said ex-intermediary. The suit land vested in the State in the year 1953. No tenant ledger had been maintained in respect of the suit plot. Although tenant ledger was opened in the year 1964-65 and the State Government collected rent from the plaintiff, the same was under a misconception and it was stopped in the year 1979-80. During the last settlement operation, the suit land was recorded in the name of the State Government and the dispute is pending before the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement in Revision Case No.98 of 1990. It is further pleaded that the suit property is not properly identifiable. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on his behalf, seven documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined one witness. Learned trial court came to hold that except plot number, khata number and area, no other identifying matter has been mentioned. It further held that the rent receipts have not been proved by the concerned authority. In absence of the same, the rent receipts cannot be believed. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Puri, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned 1st Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Puri and renumbered as Title Appeal No.126/66 of 2002/2000. Learned 1st Ad hoc Addl. District Judge affirmed the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.a, b and c. The same are- “(a) Wehther the learned courts below were correct in dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellant’s suit on the ground of the purported absence of identity of the lease hold suit land. (i) When the Defendant/Respondent had never disputed the identity in their written statement. (ii) When there is no dispute regarding identity of the suit property as the same has been subject matter of adjudication by the settlement authorities in Appeal Case No.2610/83 (Ext.3) and has been identifiable reflected in the partition deed of 1960 (Ext.2). (i) When the Defendant/Respondent had never disputed the identity in their written statement. (ii) When there is no dispute regarding identity of the suit property as the same has been subject matter of adjudication by the settlement authorities in Appeal Case No.2610/83 (Ext.3) and has been identifiable reflected in the partition deed of 1960 (Ext.2). (iii) When the total area of the suit plots and the fractions there of forming the present suit property were never an issue at any stage of the litigation. (b) Whether the learned courts below were correct in dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit on the ground that the Plaintiff/Appellant was not a tenant under the Exintermediary. (i) When the rent receipts granted from 1938-39 to 1953-54 were produced before the settlement authority in Appeal Case No.2610/83 (Ext.3) and had not been challenged in any forum. (ii) When admittedly the State after vesting has accepted rent under Ext.1 series from the plaintiff/appellant. (iii) When the Plaintiff/Appellant by virtue of his admitted possession from 1938 has acquired the status of a settled raiyati with occupancy status u/s. 23 and 24 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 which in turn has been protected u/s. 8(1) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. (c) Whether the learned courts below were correct particularly the lower appellate court. (i) In not affording opportunity to the Plaintiff/Appellant to prove the rent receipts filed in court which were not exhibited by inadvertence but had faced legal scrutiny and acceptance inter parties in Ext.3. (ii) In not drawing adverse inference against the Defendant/Respondents for not producing the Zambandi register admittedly in their possession which would have clinched the issue, as envisaged u/s.114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 6. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mrs. Sumita Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued with vehemence that the finding of the courts below that the suit schedule land is not identifiable is perverse. The suit schedule property is identifiable. With regard to the findings of the courts below pertaining to rent receipts, he further submitted that the rent receipts were filed in the courts below, but inadvertently the same could not be exhibited. Learned trial court ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff to prove the same. The suit schedule property is identifiable. With regard to the findings of the courts below pertaining to rent receipts, he further submitted that the rent receipts were filed in the courts below, but inadvertently the same could not be exhibited. Learned trial court ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff to prove the same. He further submitted that the father of the plaintiff is the settled raiyat of the village. Thus he is an occupancy raiyat. He further submitted that the plaintiff has otherwise perfected title by way of adverse possession by remaining in possession over the suit property openly, peacefully and with hostile animus to the knowledge of all concerned and thereby perfected title by way of adverse possession. 8. Per contra Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submitted that the assertion of the plaintiff that he is an occupancy raiyat has negatived by both the courts. There is no material on record that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. 9. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 . The apex Court at para 11 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 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) 10. There is no pleading or evidence that the father of the plaintiff was the settled raiyat of the village. In view of the same, the plaintiff cannot claim right of occupancy in respect of the suit land. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. Further, mere filing of documents in the courts below is not suffice, unless the same are admitted in evidence. Both the courts, on an anatomy of pleading and evidence on record, negatived the plea of the plaintiff with regard to the occupancy raiyat. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 11. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.