JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. This appeal by the plaintiff assails the affirming judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak in Title Appeal No.15 of 1998 in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. An area ad measuring Ac.4.340 dec. of land appertaining to M.S.Khata No.820, Plot No.753 of Mouza- Apartibindha, Tahasil-Bhadrak, Dist-Balasore corresponding to C.S.Khata No.57, plot no.624 is the subject of matter of dispute in the suit. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, Marfat Kanhu Charan Das. It was recorded as Amba-Bagayat in the current settlement of 1928. The other plot has been recorded as Ghara. In the M.S.R.O.R., the same has been recorded as Bebandobasta with a note of possession of the plaintiff. In the year 1944, he requested the then Mahanta to lease out the suit land by means of a permanent lease. To press the legal necessity, the Mahanta granted an unregistered rayati patta in his favour on receipt of salami. He has also acquired right of occupancy over the suit land. He is in possession of the suit land for more than 50 years peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. When they threatened to dispossess him, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 4. The defendants 1, 2 & 4 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur is a public religious endowment and managed by a trust board. The Commissioner of Endowments should have been made as a party. The suit land was not leased out in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. Plot Nos.624 and 625 under C.S. Khata No.57 are bahel nijdakhal land of Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, marfat Mahanta Kanhu Charan Das. The estate has been declared as trust estate. The Commissioner of Endowments is managing the affairs of the institution. During the years 1981 to 1983, the plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks on the vacant portion on payment of certain amount to the deity by way of compensation. The plaintiff paid Rs.2312/- to the deity. The estate has been declared as trust estate. The Commissioner of Endowments is managing the affairs of the institution. During the years 1981 to 1983, the plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks on the vacant portion on payment of certain amount to the deity by way of compensation. The plaintiff paid Rs.2312/- to the deity. The plaintiff filed Objection Case No.18657 of 1978 before the settlement authorities claiming his possession over Ac.4.340 dec. of land. The same was rejected. 5. Defendant no.3, interim trustee, filed a written statement pleading inter alia that the property belongs to Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur. The plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks over the suit land on payment of compensation during the years 1981-1987. He paid Rs.2,312/- to the deity. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. The entry in the R.O.R. is wrong. Defendant no.5 was set ex parte. 6. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court held that mere recording of plaintiff's forcible possession in Ext.2 of 1983 R.O.R. will not prove adverse possession. The same is illegal. The plaintiff is not entitled to permanent injunction. It further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit land was leased out. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.15 of 1998 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak. Learned appellate court held that the suit property has been declared Trust Estate as per the notification dated 18.3.1974 issued by the Government of Orissa. Trustee has been appointed to look after the same. Leave of the Court is required for instituting the suit under Section 92 CPC. The Commissioner of Endowments has not been impleaded U/s 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the O.H.R.E. Act"). The suit should not have been admitted for non-compliance of Section 92 CPC and Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act. Held so, it it dismissed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted. 7. The appeal was admitted on 7.9.2006 on the following substantial question of law. Held so, it it dismissed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted. 7. The appeal was admitted on 7.9.2006 on the following substantial question of law. "(1) Whether the lower appellate court's finding that the suit is barred under Section 92 CPC and under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act is wholly misconceived ?" In course of hearing, the following substantial questions of law were formulated : "(1) Whether the Marfatdar of Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, defendant no.5 had right to grant permanent patta in favour of the father of the plaintiff ? (2) Whether the patta said to have been granted by the Mohanta in favour of the plaintiff is void since no permission from the Commissioner of Endowments was accorded ? (3) Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable in the absence of Commissioner of Endowments ? (4) Whether the plaintiff can institute the suit for permanent injunction that he has acquired title by way of adverse possession?" 8. Heard Mr. Mr.Satyabadi Mantry, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.P.Mohapatra, learned Additional Government for respondents 1 to 4. 9. Mr.Mantry, learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the learned appellate court are perverse. Learned appellate court has made out a third case. He further submits that in the notes of possession of the R.O.R., name of the plaintiff finds place. Presumption of correctness of the R.O.R. is attached. The Commissioner of Endowments is not a necessary party. The land vested in the State. The suit was instituted against the State. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and to the hostile animus of the state for more than the statutory period and, as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. 10. Conversely, Mr.Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the plaintiff has no title over the suit land. The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The land vested in the State in the year 1973. Permission of the Commissioner of Endowments was not taken under Section 58 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1939. The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has no title over the suit land. 11. The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The land vested in the State in the year 1973. Permission of the Commissioner of Endowments was not taken under Section 58 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1939. The Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has no title over the suit land. 11. Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec. 58 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1939 postulates that no exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple or of any specific endowments attached to a math or temple shall be valid or operative unless it is necessary or beneficial to the math or temple and is sanctioned by the commissioner and two persons, who shall be officers in the service of the Crown, appointed by the Provincial Government in this behalf. 12. The plaintiff asserts that the then Mahanta had executed a permanent unregistered lease deed in his favour in the year 1944. Under Section 58 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1939, permission of the Commissioner of Endowments was a sine qua non to grant lease. No permission was accorded by the Commissioner of Endowments. The alleged lease deed is void. The same has not seen the light of the day. The land was recorded in the name of Sri Sri Gopal Jew Thakur, Marfat Mahanta Kanhu Charan Das. Further the plaintiff was permitted to prepare bricks over the suit land for the years 1981-1987 on payment of salami to the deity. The element of hostile animus is absent. There is also no pleading that the plaintiff has acquired occupancy raiyat over the suit land. 13. In Sarbeswar Mohanty v. Chintamani Sahoo,1999 88 CutLT 433 (S.C), popularly known as Masta Ram Matha case, the question arose before the apex Court was when a person is delivered possession in pursuance of a lease deed by the lessor even if such deed is void is permissive possession as a fact on that date then how such possession would become adverse ? The apex Court held : "A possession is adverse only if in fact one holds possession by denying title of the lessor or by showing hotility by act or words or in cases of trespassers as the case may be as against lessor or other owner of the property in question. The apex Court held : "A possession is adverse only if in fact one holds possession by denying title of the lessor or by showing hotility by act or words or in cases of trespassers as the case may be as against lessor or other owner of the property in question. This is not the case of the respondent in fact possession in this case was permissive on the date lessor delivered the possession. This permission cannot turn into hostile only because the document rendering possession is executed in violation of any provision of law. This has to be pleaded and proved as a fact." 14. The ratio in the said case applies with full force to the facts of this case. 15. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs & Ors, (2008) AIR SC 2033, the apex Court held that where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. 16. A cloud of suspicion is raised over the plaintiff's title. There is no prayer for declaration of title. In view of the same, the simple suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. 17. Sec.69(1) of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 stipulates that whenever the trustee or any religious institution issued in any Civil or Revenue Court in respect of any property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institution notice of such Suit shall be given by the Court concerned the Commissioner at least a month before commencement of the hearing. 18. The suit is not maintainable in the absence of the Commissioner of Endowments. Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act is not bar for filing of the suit. It provides alienation of immovable trust property. It empowers the Commissioner to accord sanction to sale, mortgage and lease out for a term not exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution. Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act is not bar for filing of the suit. It provides alienation of immovable trust property. It empowers the Commissioner to accord sanction to sale, mortgage and lease out for a term not exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution. Section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 operates in different filed. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 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.