JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J. - Plaintiff is the appellant against confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Rajnarayan Das and others in 1897 settlement. In 1927 settlement, the same was recorded in the Rakhit Khata. In the major settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff with his illegal note of possession. The classification of the land is Gochar. According to the plaintiff, his father was in possession of the land for more than 42 years peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the knowledge of the State for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendant, the kissam of the suit land is Gochar. The Tahasildar, Balasore initiated proceeding against the plaintiff for illegal occupation of the land under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The plaintiff entered appearance and prayed for settlement of the encroached land in his favour. The Tahasildar passed the order of eviction. Assailing the same, the plaintiff filed L.E. Appeal No. 18 of 1985 before the S.D.O., Sadar Balasore, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Revision No. 04 of 1985 before the Collector, Balasore, which met with the same fate. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Balasore and re-numbered as T.A. No. 16/18 of 1995/92. The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession ?" 6. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 7. Mr. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession ?" 6. Heard Mr. Budhiram Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for more than 42 years peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the State for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. On untenable and unsupportable grounds, the courts below negatived the plea of the plaintiff. The findings of the courts below are perverse. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. 9. 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." 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 true owner 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. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. In the encroachment case, the plaintiff has prayed for settlement of the land in his favour. Thus, the element of hostile animus is absent. The courts below are perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed