JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Rath, J The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading the respondents as defendants. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was originally recorded in the name of one Manthan Digal of Sindiguda-Raikia in the district of Phulbani. On 15.11.1971, Manthan Digal sold the suit land to plaintiff no.2 by means of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.1000/ and delivered possession. Since the date of purchase, plaintiff no.2 was in possession over the same. During settlement operation of the year 1972, the plaintiffs could not produce the sale deed before the settlement authority. The settlement authority wrongly recorded the suit land in favour of the Government of Orissa with a note of illegal possession of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri initiated Encroachment Proceeding No.11 of 1987 and passed the order of eviction. The plaintiff no.1 assailed the order before the Sub-Collector. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter he filed revision before the Additional District Magistrate. The revisional authority set aside the order and directed for de novo enquiry. The eviction proceeding is pending. The plaintiffs had acquired title under valid registered sale deed in respect of the suit land. They are in possession of the land peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the defendants for more than thirty years and as such, perfected title by adverse possession. Taking advantage of such wrong entry, the Government of Orissa threatened them to dispossess from the suit land. Thus they filed the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land does not belong to Manthan Digal or his ancestors. It belongs to the State of Orissa. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit land at any point of time. Further, the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “the OPLE Act”). 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, eleven documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, eleven documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary as well as pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide the question of title. The proceeding under the OPLE Act neither operates as res judicata nor Section 16 stands as a bar relating to the question of title of the plaintiffs. It further held that unless the property inherited from the ancestor was proved, it cannot be said that the same is the ancestral property of any person. There is no evidence that the suit land is the ancestral property of Manthan Digal. The suit land is the Government land. It is recorded in the name of the Government. It further held that the sale deed vide Ext.1 is void as the land was purchased by a minor boy of four years of age. A minor is not competent to contract for sale. Therefore, such agreement is void in view of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs had filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Phulbani, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the land originally belongs to Manthan Digal. He alienated the same on 15.11.2007 to the plaintiff no.2 by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. Plaintiff no.2 is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the knowledge of the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. The suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State. The initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is bad in law. He further contended that no issue with regard to adverse possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land had been framed by the learned trial court. The suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State. The initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act is bad in law. He further contended that no issue with regard to adverse possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land had been framed by the learned trial court. Learned appellate court framed the issue and decided the appeal and in such contingency, the learned appellate court ought to have remanded the matter to the learned trial court to frame appropriate issue. 7. Per contra, Ms. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, contended that the land belongs to the Government. There is no pleading or evidence on record that Manthan Digal was the owner of the suit land. Any alienation by him cannot confer title. He further contended that there is no perversity in the findings of the courts below. 8. There is no evidence on record that Manthan Digal was the owner of the suit land, except bald assertions in the plaint. Any alienation by Manthan Digal will not confer title on plaintiff no.2. Both the courts below concurrently held that Manthan Digal was not the owner of the land. The record-of-right was published in the name of the Government. The State is the paramount owner of the land. 9. With regard to adverse possession, law is no more res integra. In the celebrated judgment, the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 Privy Council 23 held that the classical requirement of adverse possession is that the possession should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. Their Lordships quoted with approval the decision in the case of Radhamoni Devi v. The Collector of Khulna and others, Indian Appeals 1900 Vol. XXVII at page 140 that “the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to shew that it is possession adverse to the competitor”. 10. The courts below, on a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, negatived the contention of the plaintiffs that they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiffs had perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiffs had perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. The assertion of the plaintiffs is that they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. Evidence was led by the parties knowing fully well the issues. On the available material on record, learned appellate court has decided the appeal. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below. 11. Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.