JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal against an affiring judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, upholding the dismissal of his suit for title, confirmation of possession and recovery of damages. 2. The disputed property is 61 decimals of agricultural land. The Plaintiff' case was that the disputed property was a part of the 21 decimals on the west of R.S. plot No. 136. These 21 decimals were purchased by his father Gangadhar in the name of his mother Gouri Dei under a registered sale deed dated 23-12-1907, from the previous recorded owners. By another sale deed dated 17-2-1908, another 25 decimals of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 134 was also purchased. These 46 decimals stood recorded in the name of the Plaintiff's mother. The Plaintiff, after the death of his father dug a tank at considerable expenses and by improving the remaining portion converted it in to a homestead. In the Current Settlement, these lands came to be included in plot Nos. 172 and 173. The disputed property is a part of the holding of the Plaintiff and his predecessors and he has been in possession thereof ever since the acquisition. On this property, the Samadhis of his parents exist. A plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession in case there was any defect in the title was also raised. It was alleged that the bamboo clumps standing on this property was out down by the Defendants on 2-4-1961 without any right, title or interest. A criminal case followed and it ended in acquittal. At that stage, upon enquiry, the Plaintiff came to find that this area by mistake got included in plot No. 175, though actually it forms a part of the Plaintiff's holding and he has been in possession at all material times. On verification of the record it appeared that the total area of the two new plots in the Current Settlement has been shown to be 40 decimals, and 6 decimals out of his lands have been included erroneously in the neighbouring plot of the Defendants. 3. The defence was a complete denial of the Plaintiff's allegation and it was contended that title inhered in them. 4. 3. The defence was a complete denial of the Plaintiff's allegation and it was contended that title inhered in them. 4. In the Courts below a finding was reached that the entry in the C.S. record was a mistake and since the record itself was a mistake, the presumption arising out of it became week or was rebutted. But they found that the Plaintiff was Dot in possession and had no subsisting title. Accordingly, they have dismissed the suit. This second appeal is against the concurrent decision of the lower appellate court negativing the Plaintiff's claim. 5. Mr. Mohapatra for the Plaintiff-Appellant contends that the Plaintiff bad anterior title and it was further found that the C.S. recorded was a mistake and resumption arising u/s 117 of the O.T. Act was lost and that the evidence of possession was equally unsatisfactory. The Courts below should have given a decree to the Plaintiff drawing up the presumption of possession following title. In support of his proposition he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Maharaja Sudhanshu Sekkar Singh Deo v. Haribansha Singh Deo 1960 C.L.T. (Notes 100) 56, and a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Jaldhari Mahto and Others Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others. This Court quoted with approval the following from the Full Bench of the Patna High Court: The rule propounded in the Full Bench decision of Raja Shiva Prasad Singh Vs. Hira Singh and Others is not of universal application and should no" be extended beyond the facts of that case...The full Bench decision does not purport to lay down that in a suit for ejectment on the ground of dispossession, the presumption of possession arising from admitted or proved title Is not at all available. It is incontrovertible that ordinarily in a suit for ejectment the Plaintiff must prove his antecedent title and possession within the statutory period. But oases may arise where possession may be inferred only from title and other circumstances of the case, even though the evidence may not conclusively establish actual physical possession. The presumption of possession arising from title is not available where the land is capable of actual possession by cultivation or other wise and there is no evidence of possession or the evidence adduced is unworthy of credit. The presumption of possession arising from title is not available where the land is capable of actual possession by cultivation or other wise and there is no evidence of possession or the evidence adduced is unworthy of credit. But this presumption is available in all cases : (I) where the evidence is equally strong and apparently equally well-balanced on both sides so that it is difficult to determine where the truth lies; (2) where the evidence on both sides is weak or unsatisfactory, but not valueless or wholly incredible; (3) where the land is of such a peculiar nature that the evidence of actual user and enjoyment in the ordinary manner could hardly be expected, e.g. lands which are waste, jungle, parti, gora, submerged under water or any other kind of land incapable of cultivation. To this extent the general rule laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Raja Shiva Prasad Singh Case, must be deemed to be modified, and in such cases the Plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his title alone. 6. In this case, there is no clear finding of the lower appellate Court that the evidence of possession on the Plaintiff's side was not worthwhile though not very acceptable. The learned appellate judge dealt with the question of possession and has recorded the following finding. Thus it would be seen that not only the p. ws. are not wholly disinterested witnesses, but some of them also are not able to give a correct description of the suit land. Further, the details and manner of possession of this land by the Appellant were developed from stage to stage and from witness to witness. On such evidence and in the absence of any intervening fence separating the disputed land from rest of the Defendants' homestead, it is quite difficult to accept the Appellants claim of possession of the disputed land. After having stated so, the learned appellate judge proceeded to discuss the defence evidence and stated: As such, it will not at all be necessary to go into the merits of the defence evidence on possession which I feel is also not satisfactory. Mr. Mohapatra emphasises upon the word, '& 180' and says that the assessment of the Plaintiff's evidence is unsatisfactory as that of the Defendants and therefore, the evidence on the Plaintiff's side is though not satisfactory, not worthless. Mr. Mohapatra emphasises upon the word, '& 180' and says that the assessment of the Plaintiff's evidence is unsatisfactory as that of the Defendants and therefore, the evidence on the Plaintiff's side is though not satisfactory, not worthless. I do not think the learned appellate Judge really came to that conclusion. In the preceding paragraph which I have extracted, he found that no credence could be given to the evidence. The reasons were clearly indicated. As such, in the facts of the present case, the second dictum laid down in the above decision cannot be applied and on the basis of presumption, subsisting title cannot be found. 7. Mr. Dasgupta contended that the record of rights was no basis of title and as such, the Plaintiff should have led evidence to establish anterior title by showing, independent of the record of rights, the vendor's title under the two sale deeds (Exts. 4 and 5). A, record of rights may not tantamount to title. But where it is asserted that title inheres in a particular person, and in support of such claim of title, old records of rights are shown, Courts have considered it prudent to attach importance to such documents and in certain oases have even gone to treat such entries as basis of title. Therefore, it may be difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Dasgupta that in the facts of this case anterior title of the Plaintiff had not been established. The Courts below have come to find such title and I do not think I would be Justified to adopt a different view. 8. I would accordingly uphold the appellate decision and dismiss this appeal. I think it is a fit case where both parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this litigation throughout. Final Result : Dismissed