JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J - Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. Budi Raghunath Patro, predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1(a) to 1(d) and respondent nos.2 to 4 as plaintiffs, instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that late Raju Patra was the father of plaintiff no.1 and grandfather of the other plaintiffs. Raju had purchased the suit land by means of an unregistered sale deed on 16.05.1936 from one Bimuli Beherani. He was in possession of the same. After his death, the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiffs in the partition. They were in possession of the same. The defendants obstructed the plaintiffs to construct a house over the suit schedule land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that defendant no.1 is a public library. Bimuli Beherani had not alienated the suit land to Raju Patra. No consideration was paid. On 17.08.1937, Bimuli had executed a will and bequeathed her properties in favour of the village committee including the disputed properties. The village committee had constructed a public library for the education of the poor. The villagers are in possession of the same. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. The learned trial court came to hold that Bimuli was ill. She was not in a condition to execute the will, Ext.D. Ext.D has not been properly executed. Ext.D is shrounded in suspicion. Bimuli sold the suit land on 16.05.1936 in favour of the father of plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs were in possession from 1936 till 1982 and as such, they had perfected title by way of adverse possession. The defendants are in possession on the date of institution of the suit. The plaintiffs are not in possession on the date of the suit and have not prayed for recovery of possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed T.A. No. 20/84 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aska. The learned appellate court allowed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the suit land. Hence, this second appeal. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed T.A. No. 20/84 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aska. The learned appellate court allowed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have the right, title and interest over the suit land. Hence, this second appeal. 5. It is apt to state here that the defendants filed T.A. No. 24/84 before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Aska. The same having been allowed in part, they filed S.A. No. 145/86. A Bench of this Court passed an order on 28.07.1986 stating that the substantial questions of law mentioned in S.A. No. 145 of 1986 shall be considered at the time of hearing. S.A. No. 145/86 was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos. 2(f) and 2(g) of the appeal memo. The same are: "2(f) . When the plaintiff based his suit relying on Ext.1, the deed of title, and when the courts below gave the finding that the suit property was not conveyor under Ext.1 was the appellate court justified in giving the finding that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession ? (g) When the learned trial court gave the specific finding that the plaintiff not being in possession, and having not filed a suit for recovery of possession, and the same having not been resumed by the appellate court, and the appellate court having given no finding as to who is in possession, whether the appellate court could have granted injunction. It is suit hit by Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act ?" 6. Heard Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the defendantsappellants. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate for the appellants submits that Bimuli Beherani was the original owner of the suit land. The unregistered sale deed dated 16.05.1936 said to had been executed by Bimuli Beherani in favour of Raju Patra required registration under Sec.17 of the Registration Act, since the value of the property was more than rupees one hundred. The plaintiffs alternatively pleaded that they had perfected title by way of adverse possession. Claim of title to the property and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. To buttress his submission, he relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 . 8. The plaintiffs alternatively pleaded that they had perfected title by way of adverse possession. Claim of title to the property and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. To buttress his submission, he relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 . 8. 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. 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." 9. The plaintiffs claim title by way of adverse possession. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. 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." 9. The plaintiffs claim title by way of adverse possession. 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 plaintiffs have 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 learned appellate court did not delve deep into the matter. It abruptly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have perfected title by way of adverse possession. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 10. In L.N. Aswathama, the apex Court held:- "17. x xx x xx x xx To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence." 11. A priori, the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequentially, the suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed