' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30- 12-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan vide which petitioners/defendants' civil revision against the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran was dismissed. Vide the said judgment and decree the learned Appellate Court had allowed respondents/plaintiffs appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated 28-3-1998 vide which it had dismissed the suit. The concurrent judgments of the Courts below have been challenged through this petition.
2. Facts in brief are that respondents/plaintiffs challenged the gift-deed dated 24-8-1991 purported to have been made by Gul Muhammad in favor of petitioners/defendants being his sons to the exclusion of his fourth son i,e, Ghulam Rasool father of respondents/plaintiffs. It was alleged that no such deed was ever executed; that it was a forged document and that respondents/plaintiffs have been deprived of their rightful share in the inheritance of their father and grandfather. The petitioners/defendants controverted the averments made in the plaint by filing written statement.
3. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit through the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1998 holding the gift to be valid. This judgment and decree was reversed in appeal and the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed. This has been affirmed by Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to appeal on the ground that both the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the gift-deed dated 24-8-1991 was a registered document; that in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 a presumption of truth is attached to the same; that the said gift was never challenged by Ghulam Rasool brother of petitioners/defendants; that latter died on 28-4-1993 and the suit was filed by his sons respondents/plaintiffs on 9-8-1995; that the latters even otherwise are not entitled for the inheritance of their grandfather in view of the law laid down by the Federal Shariat Court in the case of Allah Rakha and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2000 FSC 1.
5. There is no cavil to the proposition that a presumption of truth is attached to registration of a document but if its contents are challenged then the onus shifts on the beneficiary to prove its contents. It was for the petitioners/defendants to prove that Gul Muhammad had validly gifted the suit property in terms of impugned gift-deed but neither any marginal witnesses of said gift-deed nor scribe and even the person who identified Gul Muhammad were produced. The petitioners/defendants miserably failed to prove their case. An attempt was made to prove the gift through D.W.2 Noor Muhammad and D.W.3 Haji Faiz Bakhsh Khan. They are admittedly not witnesses of gift-deed. Their statement that the donor Gul Muhammad in their presence had expressed his desire to gift the property to the petitioners/defendants to the exclusion of father of respondents / plaintiffs is not discrepant nor the place and time of the alleged desire expressed by the donor. On the other hand statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the sons of Ghulam Rasool inspire confidence.
' The trend of cross-examination of P.W. Mukhtiar Ahmad indicates that it was suggested on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs that the relations between donor Gul Muhammad and father of petitioners/defendants Ghulam Rasool were cordial and no circumstances -was brought on record to indicate that the relations were strained to warrant an inference that the donor had any tenable, reasons to exclude his son Ghulam Rasool from the inheritance. So far as the argument of the learned counsel with regard to the law laid down in Allah Rakha and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2000 FSC 1 is concerned the said judgment has been appealed against and by operation of law it stands suspended. Even otherwise this point was never raised either in the written statement or before the Lahore High Court.
6. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any valid ground to grant leave to appeal in this case. The petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and .