Judgment ( 1. ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff who has lost from both the courts below has filed this second appeal. ( 2. ) THE original plaintiff Mst. Puniyabi alleging herself to be the widow of nawab Vilayat Ali Khan has filed the present civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The said Mst. Puniyabi died during the pendency of the suit and present appellant Rehan Mohammad Khan has been brought on record as her legal representative. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect to certain property, the details of which has been mentioned in the plaint, is the subject matter of the suit. The entire case of plaintiff rests upon the pleading that she is the widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. Undisputedly the suit property is of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. Being her wife the plaintiff is claiming her right, title and interest in the suit property as Nawab Vilayat Khan had died. ( 3. ) THE defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Specific pleading of defendants in their written statement is that the plaintiff is not the widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. According to the defendants, Mst. Sugrabi (defendant No. 1) is the legally married wife of Nawab vilayat Ali Khan and after his death on 27-11-1960 she (defendant No. 1)became the absolute owner being the only heir of deceased Nawab Vilayat Ali khan and is possessing the suit property exclusively. Certain persons whose names are referred in para 1 of the written statement, earlier took illegal possession of the suit property from defendant No. 1 and, therefore, she had to file a civil suit No. 58-A/67 before Second Civil Judge, Class-II for restoration of possession and since the suit was dismissed, an appeal was filed by her (Civil appeal No. 50-A/68) which was allowed by District Judge, Chhindwara on 29-6-1969 in her favour. The judgment and decree of District Judge Chhindwara was assailed by Tausif Ali and others by filing second appeal before this Court (S. A. No. 656/69) but it was dismissed on 7-12-1976 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Chhindwara was upheld. The review which was filed by Tausif Ali and others (M. C. C. No. 610/78) was also dismissed by this Court on 14-11-1980. The review which was filed by Tausif Ali and others (M. C. C. No. 610/78) was also dismissed by this Court on 14-11-1980. In execution, the present defendant No. 1 obtained possession of the suit property and since then she is possessing the suit property continuously and peacefully. ( 4. ) IT would be pertinent to mention here that the judgment passed in second appeal of this Court in S. A. No. 656/69 was assailed in the Supreme court but the supreme Court vide its order dated 21-1-1993 dismissed the SLP. ( 5. ) THE question in controversy in the present suit is whether original plaintiff Puniyabi was the legal wedded wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan? This is a pure question of fact and the two Courts below after appreciating and marshalling the oral and documentary evidence came to hold that she is not the legally wedded wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. Much emphasis has been put by learned counsel for appellant on Ex. P/1, P/3, P/5 to P/7, P/9, P/11, P/24, and ex. D/3 and D/9 and has contended that these material documents were misconstrued by learned courts below. After carefully examining the finding of two Courts below, I am of the view that indeed these documents were considered by the two Courts below and thereafter after appreciating and marshalling the oral and documentary evidence including these documents, the learned Courts below arrived at a pure finding of fact that plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. ( 6. ) WHETHER plaintiff Puniyabi is the legally wedded wife of Vilayat Ali khan is to be proved by the plaintiff. In Mahomedan the essential ingredients in order to constitute a valid marriage are :- (a) there should be a proposal made by or on behalf of one of the parties to the marriage; (b) an acceptance of proposal by or on behalf of the other, in the presence and hearing of two male or one male or two female witnesses, who must be sane and adult Mahomedans; (c) the proposal and acceptance must both be expressed at one meeting; in this context section 252 of Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla 17th edition Page 256 may be seen. Similarly section 251 speaks that each party to the marriage should be a Mahomedan and must have attained the age of puberty. Similarly section 251 speaks that each party to the marriage should be a Mahomedan and must have attained the age of puberty. The term "puberty" has been explained that puberty will be presumed, in absence of evidence, on completion of the age of 15 years. The marriage in Mahomedan is prohibited when one party belonging to a community of idolatress or a fire-worshipper. The said marriage would be irregular (see section 259 ). However, the said irregular marriage may become a valid marriage if wife becoming a convert Mahomedan (See section 264 ). ( 7. ) THE only issue in the present case is whether deceased plaintiff was married to Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan? The plaintiff is duty bound to prove his case by placing cogent evidence to prove the Nikah. But there is no evidence of plaintiff in order to prove the Nikah. The plaintiff failed to examine any Kazi who performed the Nikah or the witnesses who have witnessed the Nikah, even the names of those persons are not borne out from the evidence of plaintiff. The plaintiff did not care to examine the witnesses who had attended the marriage of puniyabi and Vilayat Ali Khan. True plaintiff Puniyabi died prior to her examination but her legal representative Rehan Mohammad Khan was legally duty bound to prove all these essential ingredients in order to prove that original plaintiff Puniyabi was the legally wedded wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. The plaintiff has not even examined any of the relative of Puniyabi to prove the marriage. This fact has also not been proved that when and on which date the marriage took place. Thus it is not proved that Puniyabi was the wife of Nawab vilayat Ali Khan. ( 8. ) APART from this, it has borne out from the evidence of DW-1, Shakur khan having age of 70 years that Puniyabi was the wife of Dausa Gond. Thus she was a Hindu and an idolater as well as fire-worshipper and even if it is assumed that she was married to Vilayat Ali Khan it would be an irregular marriage. There is no evidence on record to hold that the irregular marriage became legal on account of conversion of Puniyabi to Mahomedan. ( 9. Thus she was a Hindu and an idolater as well as fire-worshipper and even if it is assumed that she was married to Vilayat Ali Khan it would be an irregular marriage. There is no evidence on record to hold that the irregular marriage became legal on account of conversion of Puniyabi to Mahomedan. ( 9. ) IN the written statement it has been specifically pleaded by defendants that plaintiff Puniyabi was the servant in the family of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. DW-1, Shakur Khan has also stated that she was residing as a servant. Thus, it is difficult to hold that she was the wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan, specially when the evidence of plaintiff side is totally silent on this crucial and the moot controversial issue on the point. ( 10. ) I shall now deal the submission of learned counsel for the appellants in regard to the non-consideration of documents. Ex. P/1 is the order dated 15th march, 1980 of District Election Officer, Chhindwara which pertains to the correction of the voter list. In this order Puniyabi was allowed to cast her vote as the wife of Vilayat Ali Khan. The order of the said authority may be for the purpose of voter list but in the present civil suit, detailed enquiry has been conducted whether Mst. Puniyabi is the wife of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan and it has been held that plaintiff failed to prove that she is the wife of Vilayat Ali khan. Ex. P/3 is the memo of Civil Revision No. 356/1974 filed before this Court in which the name of Mst. Puniyabi has been mentioned as non-applicant No. 8 and she has been described as widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan. The said revision petition was filed against the order dated 11-2-1974 passed by Civil judge, Class-I, Chhindwara in MJC No. 4 of 1966 and merely because her name has been described as the widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan would not suffice because the description of the cause title is being typed on the basis of description of the cause title mentioned in the trial court. Similar is the position of document Ex. P-5 to P/7. ( 11. ) SO far as document Ex. P/9 is concerned, merely on the report of Police station, Chhindwara proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against defendant No. 1 and plaintiff Mst. Similar is the position of document Ex. P-5 to P/7. ( 11. ) SO far as document Ex. P/9 is concerned, merely on the report of Police station, Chhindwara proceedings under section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against defendant No. 1 and plaintiff Mst. Puniyabi in which plaintiff Mst. Puniyabi has been described as the widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali khan ipso facto would not be a ground to hold that she is a widow of Nawab vilayat Ali Khan. Similar is the position of Ex. P/11. The other document ex. P/24 is the copy of the house tax assessment register in which Mst. Puniyabi has been shown as widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan but this document is only having presumptive value. The presumption is always rebuttal and the trial court after framing specific issue conducted a detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that plaintiff Mst. Puniyabi is the widow of Nawab Vilayat Ali Khan is not proved. ( 12. ) SO far as the document Ex. D/3 is concerned, it is not at all helpful to the plaintiff because the same is a receipt of possession given to defendant No. 1 of the suit property. The document Ex. D/9 is the order of Election Officer, chhindwara dated 8-11-1979 and by this order, it has been directed that in the voter list, the name of Ram Prasad be mentioned as fathers name of Puniyabi in place of the name of her husband. In fact, this document is totally against plaintiff and her case. ( 13. ) THE two Courts below after appreciating and marshalling the oral and documentary evidence rightly came to hold that Mst. Puniyabi is the wife of nawab Vilayat Ali Khan is not proved. The findings arrived at by the two Courts below are pure finding of fact and cannot be interfered in this second appeal. ( 14. ) NO substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the same is dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed.