' On the death of one flakeem Nazar Muhammad it was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner, Okara, District Sahiwal, that a mutation of inheritance in respect of the land left by him be attested in favour of his two widows, namely, Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Anwar alias Anwari Begum and his children from Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by Mst. Ghulam Fatima and her children, who are appellants before me, by means of a declaratory suit alleging that respondent No, I, Mst. Anwar alias Anwari Begum, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, had never been married to Hakeem Nazar Muhammad and was, therefore, not entitled to inherit his property. Their plea did not find favour with the Civil Judge, who decided their suit, with the result that the suit was dismissed. The appellants then tiled an appeal base an Additional District Judge but that too had met the same fate. They leave, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.
2. One of the documents produced by the respondent to establish her marriage with Hakeem Nazar Muhammad was Kabeennama, Exh. D. W. I/A. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Kabeennama was a fictitious document because according to one of ber witnesses, namely. Muhammad Jafar, the Kabeennama was drawn up at 8 or 9 a. m. But the nikah was performed in the evening at 8 or 9 p. m. It is not uncommon that marriage documents are drafted before the marriage ceremonies take place but they are actually signed at the time when th A ceremonies are held or thereafter. Therefore, the mere fact that the Kabeennama was drafted before the nikah ceremony does not, by itself, justify a conclusion that it is not a genuine document.
3. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that although the appellants had denied the execution of the Kabeennama by Hakeem Nazar Muhammad yet no Handwriting Expert was produced by the respondent to establish that the signatures purporting to have been affixed by Haktem Nazar Muhammad on the Kabeennama were, in fact, his signatures. The respondents had produced the scribe and marginal witnesses of the Kabeennama to prove its execution. It was, therefore, for the appellants to examine a Handwriting Expert to rebut the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and if they did not do so they cannot turn round and say that the respondent should suffer for non-examination of the Handwriting Expert. In this view of the matter the failure of the respondent to enlist the support of a Handwriting Expert is of no consequence.
4. Another plea raised by the learned counsel was that the respondent's marriage with Hakeem Nazar Muhammad was not registered under section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance, nor he had obtained permission of the Arbitration Council under section 6 of the said Ordinance before contracting marriage with the respondent in the presence of his first wife, namely, hist. Ghulam Fatima, who is the first appellant herein, and, therefore, his marriage with the respondent was not valid. Contravention of the said provisions of law can be visited with punishments provided therein but it has not been laid down any where in the said Ordinance that a marriage a which is not registered under section 5 of the said Ordinance or is contracted in contravention of the provisions of section 6 thereof would be invalid. Learned counsel for the appellants also could not cite any law or-authority for the proposition that non- observance of the requirements of sections 5 and 6 of the said Ordinance, in respect of a marriage, would make the marriage void and of no consequence. I am, therefore, unable . To agree with him that the respondent could not be treated as a validly c wedded wife of Hakeem Nazar Muhammad because her marriage with him was not registered or had not been contracted after obtaining previous permission of the Arbitration Council.
5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed in 1imine.