ORDER A.K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the plaintiff against a confirming judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in a suit for declaration of title. 2. An area of Ac.30.00 appertaining to sabik khata no.150, sabik plot no.695 corresponding to hal khata no.413 under different plots of mouza-Kiada, P.S.-Ersama, Dist-Cuttack is the subject matter of dispute. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to Raja of Burdwan, ex-intermediary. The same was Anabadi land. In the year 1945, the ex-intermediary inducted him as a tenant. He is in possession of the suit land since 1945. In 1950, the ex-intermediary received salami and rent. In the year 1960, some people created disturbance. He filed a petition under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur. His possession was declared. In the hal settlement ROR, the suit land had been wrongly recorded in rakhita khata under the note of possession of Ananta Tangur and others. The said persons were not in possession of the property. He filed Revision Case No.1679 of 1984 for correction of record of right before the Commissioner of Settlement, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack, which is subjudice. The ex-intermediary could not submit the rent roll in his name after vesting of estate in State. He submitted an application before the Tahasildar, Kujanga, defendant no.2, to recognize him as a tenant and accept rent. But the latter refused to accept the rent. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.2 initiated Encroachment Case No.48 of 1969-70 against him. The case was dropped. Again, the defendant no.2 initiated Encroachment Case No.48/693 of 1970-71 against him. The order of eviction was passed on 18.1.74 and penalty of Rs.8285/- was imposed. He filed Appeal No.6 of 1974 before the S.D.O., Jagatsinghpur. The appellate authority instructed the Tahasildar, Kujanga, defendant no.2, to assess the penalty proportionate to the possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he filed Encroachment Revision Case No.2/78 before the A.D.M., Cuttack, which was dismissed. According to the plaintiff, he is a deemed tenant under Sec.8(1) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (in short, "O.E.A. Act") . The defendant no.2 committed a mistake in not recognizing him as a tenant. Initiation of encroachment cases is illegal. 4. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the suit land was Anabadi land and lying vacant. The defendant no.2 committed a mistake in not recognizing him as a tenant. Initiation of encroachment cases is illegal. 4. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the suit land was Anabadi land and lying vacant. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land at any point of time. The settlement authority had correctly recorded the suit land under Rakhita khata in the hal ROR. As the persons were unauthorised occupation of the land, encroachment cases had been initiated against them and penalty was imposed. The plaintiff was not a tenant under the ex-intermediary. No ekpadia was submitted by the ex-intermediary after abolition of the estate. The documents filed in the court are manufactured. No permanent lease can be granted without registration. The plaintiff had not filed any petition before the O.E.A. Collector. 5. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. A contention was advanced before the learned trial court that the plaintiff had perfected title by way of adverse possession. Learned trial court held that plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff was not a tenant. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No.33 of 1995 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, which was eventually dismissed. 6. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. "(1) Whether the appellant was a tenant under the Exintermediary in respect of the suit land before the vesting of the estate in the State Govt. can nonsubmission of the rent-roll of the land in his name to the Tahasildar disentitle him as the tenant under the State Government in view of the Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act ? (2) Whether the alleged lease deed said to have been executed by the Ex-intermediary in favour of the plaintiff requires registration in view of the judgment of this Court in Purna Chandra Naik v. State of Orissa (S.A. No.109 of 2001 disposed of on 11.8.2017) ?" 7. Heard Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 8. Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the appellant, argued with vehemence that the suit property originally belonged to Raja of Burdwan, ex-intermediary. Heard Mr. N.P. Parija, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 8. Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the appellant, argued with vehemence that the suit property originally belonged to Raja of Burdwan, ex-intermediary. He executed hatpatta in the year 1945 in favour of the plaintiff, Ext.1. Plaintiff paid salami and rent to the exintermediary. He is a tenant. He is in possession of the suit land. The ex-intermediary could not submit ekpadia in the name of the plaintiff. After abolition of estate, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. He is a deemed tenant under Sec.8(1) of the O.E.A. Act. He further contended that the defendants have not adduced any evidence. Thus adverse inference should be drawn against them. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the cases of Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bahi Patel vs. Harihar Behera and another, (1999) 2 OrissaLR 42 (SC), Gajendra Mishra vs. Choudhuri Banshidhar Mishra, 1976 CWR 347, V. Krishna Rao Dora vs. Kotini Sitaram Dora, 1973 2 CWR 1283, Radhamani Dibya and others vs. Braja Mohan Biswa, and others, (1984) 57 CutLT 1 (F.B.) . 9. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondent, submitted that both the courts below held that plaintiff was not a tenant. There is no perversity in the finding of the courts below. 10. The sheet anchor of Mr. Parija's submission is the hatpatta is said to have been granted by the ex-intermediary in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1945. The seal of the agent of Burdwan Kujanga of the year 1945 had been affixed on the left side of the hatpatta. But then, the signature on the right hand corner of the bottom, the date had been mentioned as 20.5.1939. On the left side of the hatpatta, the date had been stated as 20.5.1939. The same date had been mentioned above the signature of the person. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 24.11.94. He was 57 years at the relevant point of time. So calculated, it must be held that the plaintiff was born in the year 1937. It is highly inconceivable that the ex-intermediary had granted hatpatta to the plaintiff when he was two years old. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 on 24.11.94. He was 57 years at the relevant point of time. So calculated, it must be held that the plaintiff was born in the year 1937. It is highly inconceivable that the ex-intermediary had granted hatpatta to the plaintiff when he was two years old. Even if the seal of the year 1945 is taken into consideration, then the plaintiff was eight years old. The inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiff was minor. He was not represented by any person. The hatpatta is a forged one. Even otherwise, no title passes on the basis of the unregistered hatpatta. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiff was not a tenant. There is no perversity in the said finding. 11. This Court in the case of Purna Chandra Naiak vs. State of Orissa, 2018 1 CLR 621 held: "9. In Ram Nath Mandal and others vs. Jojan Mandal and others, (1964) AIR(Pat) 1, the Full Bench of Patna held that under Section 117 of the T.P. Act, a lease for agricultural purposes is not necessary to be made by a written instrument and it may be effected by an oral agreement in which case the question of registration will not arise. However, if the transaction is reduced to writing, then in the case of lease from year to year or for any term exceeding a year or reserving a yearly rent, registration would be required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and if unregistered the lease will be inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act and other evidence of its terms will be precluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. In that case, the claim of creating of tenancy on the basis of rent receipts in pursuance of an oral agreement was negatived on the ground that no such case had been put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint. x xx x xx x xx 11. On perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of an unregistered lease deed dated 22.2.1942 value of which was more than Rs.500/-. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Nath Mandal, the same requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. x xx x xx x xx" 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Nath Mandal, the same requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. x xx x xx x xx" 12. The suit land originally belonged to the ex-intermediary. After coming into operation of the O.E.A. Act, the estate vested in the State. The suit land was recorded in the ROR under Rakhita khata. The State is the paramount owner of the land. 13. In the courts below, a contention was raised that the plaintiff was perfected title by way of adverse possession. The claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory. Burden of proof lies on the person who claims to acquire title of the land by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. There is no pleading that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. The courts below rightly negatived the plea of adverse possession. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 14. The decisions cited by Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable on facts. In Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bahi Patel, this Court held that adverse inference has to be drawn against the party not entering into the witness box to prove his case. The plaintiff has to stand or fall on his case. The plaintiff failed to prove his case. 15. In Gajendra Mishra, this Court held that as the tenancy interest does not vest, there is no scope for the intermediary to apply for settlement of the land in possession of a tenant, and if the Estate Abolition Collector chooses to entertain a proceeding for settlement of land with an ex-intermediary though an occupancy tenant is in khas possession thereof, the Collector's order would be void as an act without jurisdiction. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law. 16. In V. Krishna Rao Dora, this Court held that interests of raiyats whether they belong to the proprietors or tenants do not vest in the State as a result of vesting of the estate by notification under Section 3. Such raiyati rights are recognized and saved under Section 8 of the Act. 17. 16. In V. Krishna Rao Dora, this Court held that interests of raiyats whether they belong to the proprietors or tenants do not vest in the State as a result of vesting of the estate by notification under Section 3. Such raiyati rights are recognized and saved under Section 8 of the Act. 17. In Radhamani Dibya and others, this Court held that Section 8(1) of the O.E.A. Act makes no provision for an application. No enquiry is contemplated under this Section. The Section is merely declaratory of the continuity of the tenure of tenants as it was immediately before the date of vesting. 18. Both the decisions are distinguishable on facts. As held above, the plaintiff was not a tenant under the ex-intermediary. 19. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed