JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This Second Appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2004, Thassan Begum and others v. Roshan Ara, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannuaj in Original Suit No. 34/70/2000, Roshan Ara v. Thassan Begum and others. 3. The plaintiffs appellants have sought relief of setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by by the Courts below in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2004 as well as in Original Suit No. 34/70/2000 and that the suit of the plaintiffs appellant be allowed with costs. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are challenged on the ground that the Courts below have erred in law in passing the judgment and decree without considering the material on record and that the suit as well as the appeal have been decided without proper framing of the issues. It is submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in law in disbelieving the divorce on 12.10.1999 said to have been given by the husband. It is also stated that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and based on no evidence as well as are against the evidence on record, hence such findings based on surmises and conjectures are liable to be set aside. It is lastly urged that in Muslim Law it is not necessary that the divorce is given in writing, it can be oral and is completed when the husband of a Muslim lady gives Talaq repeatedly saying three times in continuance. 4. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. The facts of the case are that defendant respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 463 of 1999, Smt. Roshan Ara v. Mohammad Shahid and others, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad allegedly without considering their objection filed before the Court. 4. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. The facts of the case are that defendant respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 463 of 1999, Smt. Roshan Ara v. Mohammad Shahid and others, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad allegedly without considering their objection filed before the Court. Thereafter, she filed another Suit No. 34/70/2000, Smt. Roshan Ara v. Thassan Begum and others, for grant of succession certificate in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kannuaj, which was partly allowed vide order dated 29.11.2004 allegedly without application of mind and without considering the facts of the case. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004, the plaintiffs appellant filed an appeal before the First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kannuaj, which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009, hence the instant Second Appeal. 7. It is stated that defendant respondent Smt. Roshan Ara had moved an application paper No. 3-C inter alia, that she was married wife of Shahid Khan who died on 17.11.1999, hence a succession certificate be issued in her favour in accordance with law. The plaintiffs appellant filed objection paper No. 16-C inter alia, that Roshan Ara had no share over any property of late Shahid Khan, who was her husband as he had given divorce on 12.10.1999 prior to his death according to Muslim Law. It is also stated that in the aforesaid application that since Roshan Ara had not participated on his death in any of the last rite and rituals, hence she could not claim any share in the property of late Shahid Khan; and that in order to harass the plaintiffs appellant she had filed the suit under influence of other persons. 8. The Court below has considered the rival contentions of the parties and while deciding the question of validity of Talaq ( divorce) paper No. 37A-1 noted on the ground that it was objected by the counsel for Roshan Ara that it is a manufactured document and in fact neither there was any circumstance for 5 days giving divorce by the husband, Shahid Khan, (since deceased ) to his wife Roshan Ara just prior to his death nor any such divorce was in fact given to her by her late husband. The Court below has considered the fact that Shahid Khan before his death was admitted on 6.10.1999 in Aligarh in a hospital at Aligarh where he was being treated for cancer and was discharged by the Doctor on 11.10.1999 as there was no hope for his survival. 9. The Court below has recorded a finding of fact that from the statement of Mohd. Rahid, O.P.W. 1 it appears that Roshan Ara had gone to her mother’s house with property papers on 9.10.99 whereas witness to the divorce Lajja Ram stated that Roshan Ara was present in the house when divorce was being pronounced by Shahid Khan( since deceased) and that at that time Talaqnama was reduced in writing. 10. In so far as appellate Court is concerned, a categorical conclusion has been arrived at that Shahid Khan deceased husband of Roshan Ara is alleged to have signed the divorce in three languages i.e. Hindi, English and Urdu and it does not bear the name, parentage and address of the witnesses and since the plaintiffs appellant have claimed that Roshan Ara had been divorced by her husband in their presence, therefore, the burden of proof was on them to have proved this fact beyond doubt. The appellate Court has emphasized that late Shahid Khan in the alleged written divorce paper No. 37A-1, is said to have stated 3 times that he is giving Talaq to his wife Roshan Ara and all of them present may hear it and may also communicate the same to her i.e. Roshan Ara his wife which shows that she was not present at that time as has been deposed by one of the witnesses on behalf of plaintiffs appellants. 11. From perusal of the judgment and papers filed along with the appeal it is evident that the appellate Court found the divorce claimed by the plaintiffs appellant to be not above suspicion. It has confirmed the findings of the trial Court that Talaq has not been proved between Roshan Ara and her husband late Shahid Khan. Rather, document of divorce paper No. 37A-1 is a manufactured document. The Court further noted that according to the facts and circumstances of the case and that from the evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiffs appellant have given contradictory statements. 12. Rather, document of divorce paper No. 37A-1 is a manufactured document. The Court further noted that according to the facts and circumstances of the case and that from the evidence on record it is evident that the plaintiffs appellant have given contradictory statements. 12. The relevant portion of the judgment and decree of the appellate Court dated 11.12.2009 is as under : Þbl rykdukesa esa ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd 'kkfgn [kkWa dks fnukad &11&10&1999 dks fMLpktZ fd;k x;kA fnukad 12&10&1999 dks ?kj igWqapk A rks pkpk us bu yksxksa ds ckjsa esa crk;k rc 'kkfgn [kk¡ us ns[kk fd nksuksa vVSfp;ka ys x;h gS esjh vVSph esa esjs diM+s] cgu dk lksus dh vaxwBh] lksus dk ykdsV 7025@& :i;k Ldwy ds lHkh izek.k i= fu;qfDr i= ,y0 vkbZ0 lh0 dk izek.k i= iksLV vkfQl dk ikl cqd Pkkj vnn fdlku fodkl i=] LVsV cSad xqjlgk;xat ds ikl cqd o ewy izek.k i= vius diM+s o lkjk tsoj /kks[kk nsdj ys x;hA eSgj esa igys gh vnk dj pqdk FkkA foi{kh@ vihykFkhZ ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd bl izi= ls rykd nsus dk ea’kk Hkh Li"V gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij rykd fl) gSA blds vykok vihykFkhZ dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd ekSf[kd lk{; ls Hkh rykd dks fl) fd;k x;k gS vks0 ih0 Mcyw0&1 'kkfgn [kka us Hkh viuh lk{; ls bl rykd dks fl) fd;k gS fd ysfdu fo)ku U;k;k/kh’k us rykd dks ugha ekuk ,slh n’kk esa fo)ku U;k;k/kh’k dks fu.kZ; fof/k vuqlkj ugha vkSj fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS blds foijhr izkFkhZ@jsLiksUMsUV us ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd rykd fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fl) ugha gSA tks izi= i=koyh ij nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA og Hkh lafnX/krk ds ?ksjs esa gSA rFkk ekSf[kd lk{; ls Hkh rykd fl) ugha gSA rykd fn;s tkus dh ckr jks’ku vkjk dks dSls irk pyk o fdl izdkj jks’ku vkjk dks rykd dh tkudkjh gqbZ ;g rF; Hkh foi{kh fl) ugha dj lds gSaA tgka rd rgjhj 37&1 dk iz’u gS blesa ;g fy[kk gS fd rqe lc yksx Hkh lqu yks vkSj mldks Hkh crk nsuk blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd rFkk dfFkr rykd ds le; jks’ku vkjk ekStwn ugh Fkh D;ksafd ;fn jks’ku vkjk ekStwn gksrh rks ;g ckr rgjhj esa u fy[kh tkrhA foi{kh dh lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gS fd jks’ku vkjk dks rykd ds laca/k esa fdlds }kjk crk;k x;kA blds vykok izkFkhZ jsLiksaUMsUV dk ;g Hkh rd gS fd vkS0 uh0 Mcyw0&1 jkfgn [kka us tks lk{; izLrqr dh gS og Hkh fo’okluh; ugha gSaA jkfgn [kka ih0MCyw0&1 us ftjg esa Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd jks’ku vkjk ns[kus x;h Fkh ysfdu fnukad 9&10&1999 dks dkxtkr o tsoj ysdj vius HkkbZ ds lkFk ek;ds pyh x;h Fkh 'kkfgn [kka ds bykt dk [kpkZ esjs firk dj jgs FksA vkxs ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgkfd fnukad 11&10&1999 dks eS vius HkkbZ dks ysdj vk;k Fkk tc eSa vyhx<+ ls vk;k Fkk rc jks’ku vkjk esjs ?kj lkFkk esa vk;h Fkh fnukad 12&10&1999 dks rykd ns fn;kA vkxs ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk fd 'kkfgn [kka us tc rykd fn;k rc 'kkfgn [kk¡ djesa esa Fkks jks’ku vkjk xSyjh esa [kM+h Fkh mUgksaus rykd lqu fy;k Fkk] mRRjnkrk dk rdZ gS fd vks0 ih0 Mcyw0&1 jkfgn [kka ds c;kuksa esa Hkh xEHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA ,d vksj ;g lk{kh ;g c;ku nsrk gS fd og fnukad 9&10&1999 dks lHkh dkxtkr vkSj tsoj ysdj ek;ds pyh x;h vkSj nwljh vksj og ;g Hkh c;ku nsrk gS fd fnukad 9&10&1999 dks tc ;g lk{kh vius HkkbZ 'kkfgn [kka dks vyhx<+ ls okil yk;k rc jks’ku vkjk esjs ?kj lkFk esa vk;h A ;g c;ku ijLij ,d nwljs ds fojks/kh gSA tgka ij jks’ku vkjk dk ea’kk lkfgn [kka ds dkxtkrksa o tsoj vkfn dks ysdj tkus dh Fkh ogka ijog iqu% fnukad 11&10&1999 dks D;ks jkfgn [kka ds ?kj ij vk x;h ;g Li"V ugha gksrk gS rc jks’ku vkjk lekuysdj fnukad 9&10&1999 dks gh ?kj NksM+dj pyh x;h rks fnukad 11&10&1999 dks vFkkZr nks gh fnu ckn iqu% okil vkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh FkkA blds vykok ;g Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd bl lk{kh us dgk fd 'kkfgn [kka us tc rykd fn;k Fkk rc 'kkfgn [kka dejs esa Fks vkSj jks’ku vkjk xSyjh esa [kM+h Fkh mlus rykd lqu fy;k FkkA ysfdu rgjhj 37,&1 esa ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd rqe lc yksx Hkh lqu yks vkSj mldks Hkh crk nsukA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd jks’ku vkjk rFkk dfFkr rykd ds le; ekStwn ugha FkhA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh vks0 ih- Mcyw0&1 jkfgn [kka dk c;ku fo’oluh; izrhr ugha gksrkA vihykFkhZ ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd ;gka ij ifjfLFkfr;ka Hkh ns[kk tkuk vko’;d gSA ,d vksj jks’ku vkjk ds ifr dks MkDVj us dSalj crk fn;k ogka ij jks’ku vkjk dks vius ifr dk lsok djuh pkfg;s FkhA ysfdu mlus vius ifr dh lsok ugha dh cfYd og ?kj NksM+dj o lkjs dkxtkr o tsoj ysdj Hkkx x;hA blls ;gka fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd jks’ku vkjk dks vius ifr ls yxko ugha Fkk cfYd mlds tsoj o iSls vkfn ls yxko Fkk vkSj blh ckr dks enns utj j[krs gq;s 'kkfgn [kka us mls rykd fn;kA eSa vihykFkhZ ds bl rdZ ls lger ugh gWwa vihykFkhZ }kjk tks ifjfLFkfr n’kkZ;h x;h gS og Hkh lk{;d ds ek/;e ls fl) djuk pkfg;s Fkk tks foi{kh }kjk fl) ugha fd;k x;kA vks0 ih0 Mcyw0&1 jkfgn [kka ds c;kuksa esa Hkh ijLij fojks/kkHkkl gSA ,d vkSj foi{kh dk ;g c;ku gS fd og lkjs diM+s tsoj o dkxtkr ysdj fnukad 9&10&1999 dks vius HkkbZ ds lkFk ek;ds pyh x;hA vkSj nwljh vksj bldk ;g Hkh c;ku gS fd fnukad 11&10&1999 dks vyhx<+ iqgqph Fkh esjs fopkj ls ;fn jks’ku vkjk fnukad 11&10&1999 dks vyhx<+igqaph Fkh rks vihykFkhZ dk;g rdZ fujk/kkj gks tkrk gS fd jks’ku vkjk dks 'kkfgn [kka dh /ku nkSyr ls yxko Fkk ifr ls yxko ugha Fkk] D;ksafd jks’ku vkjk fnukad 11&10&1999 dks vyhx<+ igqaph Fkh ,slh n’kk esa ;g rdZ cyghu gks tkrk gS fd mldks vius ifr ls yxko ugh Fkk ;fn jks’ku vkjk dks vius ifr ls yxko u gksrk rks og vius ifr dks ns[kus ds fy;s vyhx<+ D;ks igqaprh vkSj ;fn vihykFkhZ dk ;g rdZ ekuk tk;s fd fnukad 9&10&1999 dks lekuysdj pyh x;h rks ,slh n’kk esa rFkk dfFkr rykd ds le; mldk mifLFkfr lafnX/k gks tkrh gSA nksuksa dk vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k rykd dks fl) djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgs gSA vkSj u gh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Hkh rykd fl) gSA ;gka ij ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd mDr rgjhj 37,&1 esa 'kkfgn [kka us fgUnh mnwZ o vaxzsth esa gLrk{kj fd;s gSa vkSj lkr xokg ds Hkh gLrk{kj gSa ftuds uke irs vafdr ugh gSA tgka ij ’kkfgn [kka dk bruh vf/kd rfc;r [kjkc gqbZ fd vyhx<+ ds MkDVjks us tokc ns fn;kA Fkk mldks dSalj cr;kFkk ogka ij ’kkfgn [kka us rhu Hkk"kkvksa esa vius gLrk{kj fd;sA tks lafnX/krk dh {ks.kh esa vkrs gSA xokgksa ds uke irs Hkh iwjs ugha gSA lkr xokgh ds gLrk{kj djkus dk D;k vko’;drk Fkh ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;kx;k gSA esjs fopkj ls foi{kh vihykFkhZ rykd fl) djus ls iw.kZr% vlQy jgs gSaA ;fn rykd fl) ugha gS rks ,slh n’kk esa jks’ku vkjk 'kkfgn [kka dh fof/kd iRuh gS vkSj mldk eqfLye fof/k ds vuqlkj 'kkfgn [kka dk lEifRr esa fgLlk gSA ftldks jks’ku vkjk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkfj.kh gSA mijksDr ifjizs{; esa eSus U;k;k/kh’k ds fu.kZ; dkvoyksdu fd;k A fo)ku U;k;k/kh’k ds fu.kZ; esa dksbZ fof/kd ;k rF; lEcU/kh =qfV ugh gSA fo)ku U;k;kèkh’k us lEiw.kZ i=koyh dk voyksdu djds gh vkns’k ikfjr fd;k gS tks lgh gS ,slh n’kk esa vihy fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS vkSj fo)ku U;k;k/kh’k dk fu.kZ; iq"V gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k fof/kd vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA fo)ku flfoy tt ¼lh0 fM0½ dUukSt ds vkns’k fnukad &29&11&2004 iq"V fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh fof/k U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk;sA i{kdkj voj U;k;ky; esa fnukad &22&12&2009 dks mifLFkr gksA fnukad&11&12&2009 g0&vi0 11&12&2009 ¼HkwisUnz lgk;½ izFke vij ftyk&,oa l= U;k;k/kh’k] dUukStA“ 13. It may be that divorce can be oral but the Courts below have seen the conduct of the plaintiffs appellant and the defendant respondent minutely and have also found that paper No. 37A-1 could not be relied upon. The witness O.P.W.1, Rahid Khan on behalf of the plaintiffs appellant Thassan Begum and others have given contradictory statements which totally belies the factum of divorce said to have been given by Shahid Khan (since deceased) husband of Roshan Ara to her. In this regard, the circumstances explained in her statement ( Annexure-3 to the appeal) as to why she could not present at the time of death of her husband may also be seen. It is evident from reading of paragraph 2 of her written statement that in fact the plaintiffs appellant had tried to snatch and take away the bags containing property papers and had threatened her with dire consequences creating compelling circumstances for her to leave the house immediately. They had forbidden her to enter in the house. However, as her husband was seriously ill she still came to look after him and take care of him. It may also be noted that she had taken her husband for treatment to Kanpur, Agra and Aligarh and that she had sold her ornaments to get medical care and treatment for her husband. Therefore, it can not be said that she had gone away with her brother on 9.11.99 willingly leaving her husband to die on 17.11.99. 14. It may also be noted that she had taken her husband for treatment to Kanpur, Agra and Aligarh and that she had sold her ornaments to get medical care and treatment for her husband. Therefore, it can not be said that she had gone away with her brother on 9.11.99 willingly leaving her husband to die on 17.11.99. 14. In this regard her written statement ( Annexure-3 to the appeal) given in paragraphs 1,2,3,4 and 5 are quoted below : “1& ;g fd okfnuh dk fudkg lqUuh eqfLye 'kfj;r ds vuqlkj fnukad 25&4&1999 dks Q:Z[kkckn esa izfroknh la0 1 ds lkFk lEiUUk gqvk RkFkk mDr 'kknh ds le; fudkgukek rgjhj o rdehy gqvk ftlesa 25000 egj eqvfTty ¼m/kkj½ fu/kkZfjr gqvkA 2& ;gfd nh?kZ dky ls izfrokhn la0 1 xEHkhj :i ls vLoLFk gS rFkk okfnuh vius ifr dk bykt djkus gsrq Q:Z[kkckn] dkuiqj] vkxjk] rFkk vyhx<+ ys x;h rFkk mlus vius leLr vkHkw"k.k izfroknh la0 1 ds bykt esa fodz; dj fn, ijarq lHkh MkDVjksa us chekjh dSalj dh crk dj okil dj fn;kA okfnuh vius ifr dks okil ykbZ rFkk mlus Q:Z[kkckn ds dfri; fo’ks'kKksa ls vkS"kfèk yksus gsrq Hkh iz;kl fd;s A fnukad 12&10&99 dks okfnuh Q:Z[kkckn MkDVjksa dks gky crk dj nok ysus gsrq vkbZ rks mlds lkFk izfroknhx.k la0 2 yxk;r 3 gks fy, rFkk bu yksxksa us okfnuh dk cDlk Nhuus dk iz;kl fd;k ijarq dfri; O;fDr;ksa dh lgk;drk ls okfnuh viuh fj’rsnkjh esa igqap x;h tgka og vius izys[k lqjf{kr j[k ldhA okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k la0 2 o 3 us vius esyh eqjOorh O;fDr;ksa dks cqyk dj ;g /kedh nh fd ;fn og vius ifr ds ikl tk;sxh rks jkLrs esa gh [kRe dj nh tk;sxhA okfnuh us fgEer tqVk dj fnukad 14&10&99 dks cl vM~Ms Q:Z[kkckn igqap dj vius ifr ds ikl tkuk pkgk rks cl vM~Ms ij izfroknh la0 2 o 3 rFkk muds lg;ksxh feys ftUgksaus okfnuh dks vlykg uktk;t fn[kk dj tku ls ekj Mkyus dh /kedh nh RkFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn okfnuh izfroknh la0 1 ds ikl tk;sxh rks og mls dgha ejok dj fQadok nsaxsA mUgksaus okfnuh ls cSad] iksLV vkfQl rFkk chek ds dkxt ns nsus gsrq dgk rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn og dkxtksa dks ugha nsxh rks Hkh og izfroknh la0 1 ls nLr[kr cuok dj lc :i;k fudyok ysxsA 3& ;g fd izfroknh la0&4 izfroknh la0 1 o 2 dh lkft’k esa gS rFkk og Hkh izfroknh la01 ij vuqfpr ncko Mky dj okfnuh dks mls izkIr gksus okys egj dh /kujkf’k rFkk vU; /kujkf’k;ka ftudk fooj.k okni= ds vUr esa vafdr gS] ls oafpr djuk pkgrh gSA 4& ;g fd izfroknh la05 yxk;r 7 dks lwpukFkZ vkSipkfjd izfroknhx.k cuk;k x;k gS rFkk muds fo:) dksbZ vuqrks"k bl le; ;kfpr ugha gS ijarq ;fn vko’;drk gq;h vFkok mUgksaus izfroknh la0 1 yxk;r 4 ds fdlh vfof/kd ÑR; esa lg;ksx iznku fd;k rks muds fo:) Hkh vuqrks"k ;kfpr gksxkA 5& ;gfd dkj.k okn mijksDr o.kZu vuqlkj rFkk fnukad 12&10&99 dks tcfd izfroknhx.k 2 o 3 us ,slh fLFkfr mRiUu dj nh ftlls ;g Li"V gks x;k fd izfroknhx.k la0 2 yxk;r 4 izfroknh la0 1xEHkhj chekjh rFkk ml chekjh ds dkj.k tcfd og viuh LoLFk ekufld fLFkfr esa jg dj dksbZ fu.kZ; ysus esa l{ke ugha gS] ds ek/;e ls okfnuh ds vf/kdkjksa dk guu~ mls Q:Z[kkckn esa jksd dj djk nsxs] bl eku~uh; U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj Q:Z[kkckn tgka fd mldk fudkg gqvk Fkk] ijxuk eksgEenkckn] ftyk Q:Z[kkckn esa mRiUu gqvk RkFkk eku~uh; U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.k dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA” 5& ;gfd okn dk ewY;kadu eku~uh; U;k;ky; ds vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj dh lhek fu/kkZj.k gsrq eqcfyx 1]50]000:i;k vuqekfur lEifRr ftldk fooj.k okni= ds vUr esa vafdr gS ,oe~ eSgj dh /kujkf’k tks mUgha /kujkf’k;ksa ds Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ij fd;k x;k RkFkk nks LFkk;h C;kns’k gsrq vf/kdre U;k; 'kqYd i`Fkd&i`Fkd Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA” 15. Even if, it is assumed to be correct that she had gone with her real brother on 9.11.99 it was not with any oblique motive. It appears that she had sold her jewellery for treatment of her husband. The condition of Shahid Khan was so serious that doctors released him from hospital on 11.10.99 for they could not provide any treatment for cancer to him which had spread to such an extent that he breathed his last on 17.11.99. There was no occasion for the husband at all with she had whom remarried so much has given divorce while breathing his last. The only circumstance for giving of alleged talaq by Sri Shahid Khan (since deceased) is that he was informed by the plaintiffs appellant that she had gone with her brother to her “ Mayka’ on 9.11.99 taking the suitcase in which papers pertaining to his property were kept. 16. It may be that she had gone with her brother to raise money for treatment of her seriously ill husband in a hospital with better facilities and after all she was to inherit the property of her husband in accordance with law. Therefore, her case appears to be believable rather than those of plaintiffs respondents. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant that the Courts below have erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and decree without considering the material on record is not proved. The suit as well as the appeal have been decided by framing of proper issues and that the Courts below have not committed an error in law in disbelieving the divorce said to have been given on 12.10.1999 by the husband is also not proved. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant that the findings recorded by the Courts below were perverse and based on no evidence as well as are against the evidence on record and have been given on surmises and conjectures is not supported from record. It is not necessary that the divorce be given in writing and it can be oral and is completed when the husband of a Muslim lady gives talaq repeatedly saying three times in continuance which is reduced in writing as in the instant case then the Courts have to see the attending circumstances. It is not necessary that the divorce be given in writing and it can be oral and is completed when the husband of a Muslim lady gives talaq repeatedly saying three times in continuance which is reduced in writing as in the instant case then the Courts have to see the attending circumstances. In this case, the Courts below have given findings of fact that plaintiffs appellant failed to prove their case and no reliance can be placed upon the alleged Talaqnama alleged to have been executed on 12.10.99.The Courts below have considered all arguments and the issues framed on basis of the pleadings of the parties. If the plaintiffs appellant had any grievance that issues have not been properly framed, they could have raised this point in the Courts below but cannot raise it for the first time in second appeal. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below on basis of evidence and is not perverse does not require any interference by this Court . 17. I do not find any error of law or misdirection of the Courts below in deciding any issue in the instant case. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 18. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ————