9.No doubt, at the time of marking Exs.A1 to A3, the certified copies of the sale deeds, the defendants have not put forth any objection as such but on that score alone, it cannot be held that the defendants have admitted the entitlement of the executants of the respective documents to convey the property covered therein to the purchasers under the same respectively. When the defendants have totally disputed that Aleema Bi and others had not alienated the suit property in favour of Mohamed Sherif Sahib by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction and on the other hand, they had executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property only in favour of the first defendant on 13.12.1980 by way of Ex.B1 sale transaction and when the original sale deed dated 13.12.1980 has been projected by the defendants and, on the other hand, when only the certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.03.1940 has been projected by the plaintiff as Ex.A1, in such view of the matter, the plaintiff should have endeavoured to sustain its case by examining its previous predecessors in interest for upholding its claim of title to the suit property as put forth by it. The plaintiff should have endeavored to examine the original owners of the suit property, namely, Aleema Bi and others or Mohamed Sherif Sahib, who is said to have obtained the suit property from Aleema Bi and others by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction and further the plaintiff should have also endeavoured to examine either Mohamed Sherif Sahib or Abdul Jabar Sahib to establish the truth and validity of the sale transactions marked as Exs.A1 to A3 for proving the entitlement of her predecessors in title to have acquired a valid title to the suit property as projected by it. As rightly determined by the first appellate court, it is not the case of the plaintiff that its predecessors in interest are not available for aducing evidence in support of its case. In such view of the matter, when the defendants are, in toto, impugning the title of the plaintiff as well as the title of the plaintiff's predecessors in interest in respect of the suit property and furthermore, when the plaintiff has not placed any document evidencing that either its predecessors in interest or the plaintiff as such, had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the lawful owners thereof and other than marking the certified copies of the sale transactions as Exs.A1 to A3, there is absolutely no material placed on the part of the plaintiff to establish either its or its predecessors in interest possession and enjoyment of the suit property following Exs.A1 to A3 sale transactions and when no proper and convincing reasons had been adduced on the part of the plaintiff as to why it had not endeavored to place the original sale transactions marked as Exs.A1 to A3, in such view of the matter, the first
