JUDGMENT : 1. This is a suit for possession of a small plot of unoccupied land situated in the town of Agra. It adjoins on one side a public thoroughfare and is situated at the back of the house of the defendants. The latter have however no door opening on to it. The plaintiff is the Secretary of State for India in Council claiming this land as part of what is known as nazul lands of the City of Agra, of which the plaintiff is the proprietor. The lower appellate Court has found in favour of the plaintiff's title. The one substantial point taken in appeal is that the plaintiff should have been put to the proof of actual possession within limitation, the limitation period in this case being 60 years. The contention is based on the ruling of this Court in Jafar Husain v. Mashuq Ali, [1892] 14 All. 193 : (1892) A.W.N. 55. 2. The principle that a plaintiff suing in ejectment is bound to prove a subsisting title, that is to say practically both title and possession within limitation, is undoubtedly correct and has been affirmed in a large number of cases. The question however as to what amounts to possession, and what sort of evidence may be required in order to prove possession is one which must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. Thus in Oudh it was ruled that a taluqdar, on proving title and proprietary possession in respect of a particular village, would be presumed to have been in actual or constructive possession of all the waste lands appertaining to that village unless and until it were shown that some portion of such lands had been actually occupied by some person otherwise than his lessee or licensee. 3. In the present case it has been found that the defendants at any rate have not proved their possession over this land prior to the acts of trespass in the year 1909, which have led to the institution of the present snit, nor has it been denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the nazul lands appertaining to the town of Agra. The issue on which the parties went to trial is whether this land formed part of the nazul lands. The issue on which the parties went to trial is whether this land formed part of the nazul lands. The lower appellate Court has found that the land in suit was shown as appertaining to the nazul in certain official records prepared in the year 1879 and that action was taken on behalf of the plaintiff as soon as it was known that the defendants were occupying this land and were claiming possession over it as their own property. It does seem to me that in a case of this sort the plaintiff could not be expected to produce evidence of possession going beyond this. I accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.