This revision petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration to the effect that Mst.
Bhagan alias Bhagay, respondent No. l being the divorced Wife of Shera, deceased, was not entitled to succeed as his widow and that the mutation of inheritance No.326/1, dated 30-4-1982 sanctioned by Assistant Commissioner II, Faisalabad, to the extent of share of respondent No .l, in respect of agricultural land measuring 112 Kanals situated in Chak No.45/J.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad was illegal, void, obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, ineffective on the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff with consequential relief for permanent injunction, restraining respondent No. l from alienating the disputed land. The suit was resisted by respondent No. l who pleaded, inter alia, that she was never divorced by her husband Shera and that the certificate of divorce was fictitious and collusive.
2. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--- (1)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own conduct from filing this? OPD (2)Whether the present suit is premature? OPD .
(3) Whether Mst. Baghan defendant No. l was divorced by her husband in his lifetime? OPP
(4) Whether disputed Mutation No.326/1 dated 30-4-1982 is illegal void, obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and ineffective against the plaintiff's rights? OPP.
(5) Relief.
All the issues were decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15-11-1986. Respondent No. l filed an appeal before the District Judge, who accepted the same and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by-his judgment and decree dated 31-3-1990.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that thepetitioner had produced cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, to prove that Mst. Bhagan was divorced by her husband. In this connection he referred to certificate of divorce Exh.P.W.3/1, issued by the Chairman, Union Council o.73, Tehsil Chiniot. The learned District Judge did not rely upon the same for sufficient and cogent reasons. He has rightly held that there was no evidence before the Chairman that the Talaq was at all pronounced by Shera or that the said notice was ever sent to Mst. Bhagan, respondent No. l or that any proceedings were taken by the Chairman after the receipt of the alleged notices of Talaq. Surprisingly even Shera, husband of respondent No. 1, who was said to have issued the notice of Talaq never appeared before the Chairman to state that he had pronounced Talaq. If a certificate of this kind issued by a Chairman is considered sufficient for dissolving a marriage, then marital bonds would remain under constant peril of dissolution because any body can collusively obtain such a certificate from a Chairman without even knowledge of the spouses. In the present case also the certificate appears to have been collusively obtained through the good offices of Muhammad Shafi, a paternal cousin of Mst. Jannat Bibi, petitioner, who was the Chairman of the concerned Union Council. Abdul Hameed Nasir P.W.3, Secretary, Union Council was produced to prove the certificate Exh.P.W.3/1. He admitted that none of the patties or their representatives appeared before the Chairman in connection with the proceedings of Talaq. He also admitted that in the original record only a carbon copy of the certificate was available and that there was nothing to show on the record as to whether Talaq was actually sent by Shera. Ahmad P.W.2 is the only witness who stated that Talaq was orally pronounced in his presence butin the same breath he again stated that Talaq was given in writing and that it was got written by the Secretary of the Union Council. The Secretary who had allegedly scribed the deed of Talaq was never produced to corroborate the assertion made by this witness. Hence, his uncorroborated testimony on this point cannot be accepted. He also admitted that the Chairman did not call upon the parties to appoint their representatives and no efforts were made by him for reconciliation between the parties. Had Shera pronounced Talaq and sent any notice to the Chairman there was nothing to prevent the Chairman from issuing notices to the parties and conducting the necessary proceedings for reconciliation between the parties in accordance with the law. It appears that the Chairman who was closely related to the present petitioner issued a fake certificate to the petitioner to help her garb the entire property left by Shera deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Amna Zakariya v. M.
Zakariya Khan and another 1989 SCM R 170 and Mst. Maryam Bano v. Hussain A.I and another 1984 CLC 1961 to urge that the certificate of effectiveness of Talaq was sufficient to show that marital bond had been dissolved. In the first referred case the point urged before the Court was that notice of Talaq was not served on the wife, hence Talaq never became effective. The High Court held it as a fact that the requisite notice was actually served on Mst. Amna Zakariya, the petitioner. The said finding did not suffer from any infirmity and was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Mst.
Maryam Bano's case the parties belonged to Shia Asna Ashri Sect. The husband divorced the wife through a deed, which was witnessed by two persons. A copy of the divorce was sent to the Chairman, Union Committee who held reconciliation proceedings which failed and thereafter certificate of effectiveness of Talaq was issued on expiry of 90 days. The validity of divorce was challenged through a Constitutional petition which was dismissed on the ground that under the Shia Fiqa Talaq must be orally pronounced in the presence of two witnesses and the wife in a set form of Arabic words and that no written divorce was recognised except in certain circumstances which did not exist in the said case. As there was no oral pronouncement of Talaq in the prescribed form the Talaq was not held to be valid. For that reason, the entire proceedings conducted before the Chairman was held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Both the cases clearly proceeded on distinguishable facts and are of no help to the petitioner.