JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the defendants. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession, in the event he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit plot was part of plot no.31 of mouza-Sana kadab. An area of Ac.1.000 decs. of land was leased out to Iswar Mallik and others. Iswar Mallik sold the same to him by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.7.1990 for a consideration of Rs.10, 000/- and delivered possession. He is in possession of the land. He has constructed a house thereon. The defendants, who have no semblance of right, title and interest over the land, damaged a portion of fence from the western side of the suit plot and claimed an area measuring Ac.0.045 decs. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants was that Iswar Mallik and others were not in possession of the land. The suit plot is a Gochar land having an area of Ac.11.225 decs. The defendants had constructed a residential house over the suit land in the year 1982. While matter stood thus, Encroachment Case No.848/87 was initiated against them. They are in possession of the land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the State for more than thirty years and, as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed T.A.No.19 of 1993 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-respondent died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted. 5. This appeal was admitted on 13.8.2003 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the claim of adverse possession by the defendants was not properly considered with reference to the evidence on record." 6. Heard Mr.D.K.Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondent. 7. Mr.Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the suit plot is a part of plot no.31 of mouza-Sana Kadab. Heard Mr.D.K.Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellants. None appears for the respondent. 7. Mr.Sahu, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the suit plot is a part of plot no.31 of mouza-Sana Kadab. The kissam of land is Gochar. The lease granted in favour of Iswar Mallik and others was illegal. Iswar Mallik and others were not in possession of the suit land. Thus, any alienation made by Iswar Mallik in favour of the plaintiff does not confer title. He further submits that the defendants are in possession of Ac.0.045 decs. of land appertaining to khata no.188/49, plot no.31/772. They have constructed a residential house over the same. Rest of the land has been used for raising rabi crops for which encroachment case was initiated against them. The defendants are in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the State for more than thirty years and, as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. The defendants became the owner of the suit land. 8. Record of right, Ext.3, shows that the land was leased out in favour of Iswar Mallik and others in Lease Case No.244/62-63 on 9.3.1965 by the Tahasildar. Thereafter R.O.R. was issued in favour of Iswar Mallik and others. Lease granted in favour of Iswar Mallik had not been assailed by the defendants or any other person. No counter claim had been filed assailing the lease granted by the Tahasildar. While matter stood thus, Iswar Mallik alienated an area of Ac.1.000 decs. of land in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 20.7.1990 for a valid consideration and delivered possession. Thus the plaintiff became the owner of the suit land. 9. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (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. 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." 10. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the defendants 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 date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. The courts below, on anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, negatived the plea of the defendants. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed