What is the ruling if both claimants assert they are the wronged party after a vague admission?

Primary text

It is implied that if each of the two claimants asserts he is the one from whom the item was usurped, the possessor must take an oath against each claimant that he did not usurp it from him. If he swears in favor of one claimant, he is obligated to deliver the item to that person, as this is treated as the possessor specifying that person as the owner. If he refuses to take the oath against both of them and the property is handed over to one by lot or other means, he is obligated to compensate the other, because his refusal to swear where an oath was required results in a judgment against him, similar to the case where only one person made the claim.