1. This appeal is in a suit for recovery of landed property with incidental reliefs. The Munsiff dismissed the suit finding the plaintiff to have failed to prove possession with herself or her predecessor within 12 years of the suit. The Subordinate Judge, on appeal, decreed the suit holding her to have given sufficient evidence to show her possession within 12 years prior to the suit. Hence this second appeal by the 1st defendant.

2. Though the finding of the Subordinate Judge that "there is sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff has been in possession within 12 years prior to the date of the suit" was sufficient for decreeing the suit, he has cited Vaidhyanathaswamy v. Lakshmi Amma 1962 KLT. 577 and observed "if the oral evidence on both sides is to be treated as equally unsatisfactory, the case should have been decided on the basis of the presumption arising from title". Counsel for appellant challenged that proposition and canvassed its reconsideration. Counsel is not prepared to deny existence of a legal presumption of possession going along with title, but urges that such presumption would arise only in cases where proof of actual possession is impossible o