The evidence of PW.1 clearly goes to show that the schedule property originally belongs to one Mahaboob Bee and by the date of purchase of the said property by his father, the original owner was alive. PW.4 is said to be the person, who has sold the property and there is no material as to how he got rights in the property. Though the sale deed is said to have executed by one Mahaboob Sab, the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he is not a party to the sale deed. Therefore, the fact remains that from the admission of the plaintiff that when the original owner of the property is alive, either of her sons having the right to alienate the property does not arise under Muslim Law, since it is her absolute property. Though a pleading was made that Mahaboob Bee died about 30 years prior to the filing of the suit, there is no such material and on the other hand, the evidence of PW.1 deposed the same. The theory of tenancy or permanent possession of the 1st defendant after the purchase by the plaintiff is disbelieved in the earlier suit O.S.No.91 of 1984 and when once the 1st defendant is the legal heir of Mahaboob Bee, unless and until the plaintiff proves a better conveyance of title under a valid transaction, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of possession of the property. Even otherwise, from 1984 till 1998, for a period of 14 years after ascertaining title and interest in the schedule property, the 1st defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment and it is a case where the title of the 1st defendant in the schedule property could be treated as perfect by adverse possession even otherwise. Therefore, I do not find
