JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. 2. The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.17 of 1997 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phulbani for declaration of right, title and interest of plaintiff no.1 over Schedule-A property, plaintiffs 2 and 3 over Schedule-B property, confirmation of possession and correction of ROR impleading the respondents as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that Khata No. 226, Plot No.726 area Ac.0.029R was recorded in the name of State. Sk. Abdul Gaffur was in possession. He had constructed two rooms over Plot No. 724. In RMC No. 14 of 1951, he was directed to vacate the suit land and apply for lease. He could not apply for lease. He died issueless. While the matter stood thus, Ghesi Singh, father of defendant no.2, claiming to be the adopted son of Sk. Abdul Gaffur changed his name as Gulam Rassul. He died in the year 1974. Mohammedian Law does not permit adoption. Thus defendant no.2 could not succeed to the property of Abdul Gaffur. Defendant nos.2 to 10 have no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit property. They disturbed the possession of plaintiff no.1. On 27.9.1997, defendant no.2 served a notice on plaintiff no.1 asking him to vacate the land. According to the plaintiffs, the branch office of Central Cooperative Bank, Boudh was functioning in a building standing over the suit plot since 1965. Plaintiff no.1 had taken over possession of the suit land with building in February, 1965 and inducted plaintiff nos.2 and 3 as tenants. When defendant no.1 demolished the front room of plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 10 threatened to damage the house, they filed the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The State of Orissa-defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is pleaded that the suit land is recorded under Anabadi Khata in the name of the State Government. The State is the paramount owner of the land. The possession of the plaintiffs is unauthorised and illegal. At different point of time, different persons had encroached upon the suit land for which several legal actions had been taken against them for eviction. Defendant nos.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit land is the ancestral property of defendant no.2. The possession of the plaintiffs is unauthorised and illegal. At different point of time, different persons had encroached upon the suit land for which several legal actions had been taken against them for eviction. Defendant nos.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit land is the ancestral property of defendant no.2. During settlement, it was wrongly recorded under Anabadi Khata with note of possession of grandfather of defendant no.2. Encroachment Case No. 14 of 1951 was initiated against him. The Revisional authority recommended for settlement of the land in the name of defendant no.2. It is further pleaded that in OJC No. 16085 of 1998, this Court directed the concerned authority to prepare ROR in the name of defendant no.2. The ancestor of defendant no.2 had let out the suit property to the Central Cooperative Bank, Boudh. After the Bank vacated the house, the father of defendant no.2 took over possession of the property. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 was inducted as a tenant. Plaintiff nos.2 and 3 are also tenants under defendant no.2 in respect of Schedule-B land. While the matter stood thus, Sk. Abdul Gaffur died leaving behind his only son Sk. Abdul Gulam who succeeded to the property and continued to be in possession. It is further pleaded that defendant no.2 had issued notice to plaintiff no.1 to vacate the suit premises. Instead of vacating the premises, plaintiff no.1 has filed the suit claiming his title over the same. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the same in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2001 before the learned District Judge, Phulbani, which was eventually dismissed. 5. Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the issues in proper perspective. The counter claim filed by the defendant nos.2 and 3 is not maintainable, but the same was entertained. Learned lower appellate court has committed manifest illegality in not remanding the matter to the learned trial court for de novo trial. The learned court below has erred in law in misconstruing Exts.1 to 10 which show that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit land since 1955. Learned lower appellate court has committed manifest illegality in not remanding the matter to the learned trial court for de novo trial. The learned court below has erred in law in misconstruing Exts.1 to 10 which show that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the suit land since 1955. The plaintiffs were not parties in R.P No. 140 of 1993 and as such, not bound by the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms. 6. Admittedly, the suit land stood recorded as Anabadi land in the name of the State. According to the plaintiffs, a building was standing over a portion of the suit land. The Central Cooperative Bank was in occupation of the same. Thereafter, he entered into possession of the said building in 1965. He is in possession of the property since then. Though it is pleaded that plaintiff no.1 was aware that the property belonged to the State, yet a plea is taken that during their stay in the premises, one Laxmi Bibi executed the lease deeds from time to time for occupation of the land in their favour by mis-representation that she was the owner of the building. Learned appellate court came to hold that plaintiffs admit that from time to time they had executed the lease deeds in favour of either Laxmi Bibi or Sk. Abdul Usman, defendant no.2, for their occupation. Initial entry of the appellants into the said building is permissive. Held so, it negatived the plea of adverse possession. 7. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (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. 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. 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. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiff 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. Both the courts on a threadbare analysis of record both oral and documentary as well as pleadings negatived the plea of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the finding of the courts below. 9. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.