B.K. Mullick, J.

1. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have proved their title to the land. The only question is whether the plaintiffs have proved possession within 12 years of the suit. The land is arable land and capable of the ordinary modes of possession. Both parties adduced evidence of cultivation and the Munsif found the plaintiffs' evidence worthless and that of the defendant good, and held that the plaintiffs had not proved possession within 12 years. On appeal the District Judge finds that the evidence for the defendant is very poor", by which I presume he means that it cannot be believed, and then he says that the plaintiff has the misfortune of not having anything better on his own side and his oral evidence of possession is not good enough to support a decree." By this he means, I presume, that the plaintiffs' evidence is equally unworthy of credit. Therefore, the position which the learned Vakil for the appellant maintains before me is that the evidence of possession being equally balanced on both aides, the presumption of possession following title should prevail. But that presumption arises only in cases where the evidence is equally strong on both sides, that is to say, when there is some evidence on both sides which the Court believes and where, by reason of that evidence being equally balanced on both sides, it is extremely difficult to decide the dispute satisfactorily. But the principle does not apply to cases in which the evidence is equally unworthy of credit on both sides except in respect of land of a special character, such as waste, jungle or land under water. The case of Thakur Singh v. Bhogeraj Singh 27 C 25, following the Full Bench ruling in Mahomed Ali Khan v. Khaja Abdul Gunny 9 C. 744 (F.B.) : 12 C.L.R. 257, is authority for this proposition. So also is the judgment of the Privy Council in Bahu Kasturi Singh v. Rajkumar Balm Bissun Pragas Narain Singh S.C.W.N. 876, but there is no case which goes so far as to lay down that when there is an absence of evidence on both sides in respect of arable lands, the presumption from title is to operate to save limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. It may be said that in principle there is no difference between ordinary lands and waste and jungle lands, but we are bound by the decisions of the Court, and although there are some expressions in Bahu Kastui Singh v. Rajkumar Balm Bissua Pragas Narain Singh S.C.W.N. 876, which might support the argument of the learned Vakil for the appellant before me, I do not think that the case goes as far as the learned Vakil maintains.