JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land was originally belonged to Ram Dash Kumbhar @ Prajapati, predecessorin-interest of the defendants. Ram Dash Kumbhar entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 16.2.71 for a consideration of Rs.2400/-. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1000/- on 16.2.71. Thereafter she paid Rs.1400/- on different dates. Possession was duly delivered to her. Thereafter she constructed her residential house over a portion of the suit property. She used to pay holding tax. Ram Dash Kumbhar had not executed any sale deed in her favour. She sent Advocate's notice, Ext.A, to the defendants requesting them to execute the sale deed. But then, the defendants maintained a stony like silence. She is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously with the hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the defendant no.1 permitted the plaintiff to occupy a portion of the suit land, constructed a building at her own cost subject to the condition that the monthly rent of Rs.100/- to be adjusted towards construction of the house. The plaintiff is a tenant. She had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. Learned trial court decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 5/12th share of the entire suit land. It was further held that that in case the residential house of the plaintiff extends beyond the 5/12th of the suit property, which are not in possession of the plaintiff, then the said portion will be purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Rourkela, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela and renumbered as R.F.A. No.16/10/02-04. Learned appellate court came to hold that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the appeal. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Rourkela, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela and renumbered as R.F.A. No.16/10/02-04. Learned appellate court came to hold that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.II(a)(i) of the appeal memo. The same is: "When there is no dispute that the plaintiff started her adverse possession after there was a failure on the part of defendant no.1 to execute and register the sale deed despite receiving full consideration and putting the plaintiff into possession." 6. Heard Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mrs. Sumitra Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned Advocate along with Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Deo, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submits that Ram Dash Kumbhar, husband of the defendant no.1, entered into an agreement to sell of the suit land with the plaintiff on 16.2.71. Pursuant to the same, the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.2400/-. Possession of the suit land was duly delivered to the plaintiff. Thereafter she constructed her residential house and residing thereon with her family. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously with the hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. On untenable and unsupportable ground, the courts below negatived the claim of the plaintiff. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the respondents, submits that adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. 9. 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. 10. In the celebrated judgment, the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, (1934) AIR PC 23 held that the classical requirement of adverse possession is that the possession should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. 10. In the celebrated judgment, the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, (1934) AIR PC 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, (1900) 27 IndApp 136 that "the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to shew that it is possession adverse to the competitor". 11. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. 12. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the apex Court held: "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. 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." 13. The claim of title to the property and adverse possession are in terms contradictory. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others vs. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by Lrs. and heirs and others, (1995) 2 SCC 543 , the apex Court made an in-depth analysis of claim of title and claim to adverse possession over the property. The apex Court in paragraph-15 of the report held: "Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not to be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no tide at all." 14. The apex Court in the case of L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 held : "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." 15. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instant case may be examined. 16. The plaintiff asserts that the husband of the defendant no.1 entered into an agreement. But then, no suit for specific performance of contract was filed. The plaintiff asserts that she had perfected title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff sent a legal notice, Ext.A, calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. The element of hostile animus is absent. On an anatomy pleading and evidence on record, learned appellate court negatived the plea of the plaintiff. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity or illegality in the said finding. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 17. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed