' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The case has been called. None has appeared for the respondents. I note that due intimation of tfle listing of the case has been given to the respondents and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, Abdul Latif, who is the sole contesting respondent, was present in Court on 13-2-2004 when the case was last fixed for hearing but could not be heard and was left over. The respondents Nos.2 and 3, who are brothers of the petitioner, had already transferred their shares in the suit property in favour of the petitioner by means of a registered sale-deed. However, due to their absence today the respondents are proceeded against ex parte.
2. Through this revision petition, Mahmood Ali petitioner/defendant assails the appellate judgment and decree dated 24-4-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad. The learned lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 20-11-2002, whereby a suit seeking simple declaration filed by Abdul Latif respondent/plaintiff had been dismissed. As a consequence of the appellate judgment, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed.
3. The facts of this case are straightforward. Abdul Latif respondent/ plaintiff is the father of Mahmood Ali petitioner/defendant and respondents Nos.2 and 3, namely, Zulfigar All and Iftikhar Ali. Vide gift deed dated 13-8-1995 registered on 18,5-1995 (Exh.P.1), Abdul Latif made a gift of a house 'measuring 5 Marlas, in favour of the petitioner and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 jointly in equal shares. The gift deed Exh.P.1 was duly registered with the competent Sub-Registrar, Faisalabad.
4. On 27-4-2001, Abdul Latif initiated the present litigation asserting that the aforesaid gift deed had been proctred through fraud and was, therefore, void and inoperative as against him. The suit was resisted by the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3. It was dismissed by the learned trial Court, which held that the gift in favour of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3 stood proved. The learned trial Court relied on the statement of Abdul Latif himself, who appeared as P.W.2 and acknowledged that about 6 or 7 years prior, he had gone to the Katchery for executing a document with the object of avoiding tax. This statement was found by the learned trial Court to be sufficient to establish that the gift deed had, in fact, been executed and registered by Abdul Latif himself.
5. After the dismissal of the suit, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have sold their interest in the gifted property, to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 23-12-2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said sale has been effected with the consent of Abdul Latif. However, this circumstance might not have relevance in the present proceedings, except to the extent that the petitioner has become successor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 and 3.
6. Subsequently, Abdul Latif filed an appeal on 29-1-2003 to assail the decree of the learned trial Court dated 20-11-2002. The appeal has been allowed by the learned lower appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has held that the gift deed has not been proved because the marginal witnesses thereto had not been produced to prove execution thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the testimony of Abdul Latif himself, referred to above, coupled with the fact that Exh.P.1 is a registered document showing that Abdul Latif executant had appeared before the Sub-Registrar, was sufficient to prove the execution and registration of the gift-deed.
7. It is further submitted that the suit filed by Abdul Latif was clearly time-barred considering that he had admitted execution of the document 6 to 7 years prior to the filing of the suit. According to learned counsel, Article 91 of the first Schedule to Limitation Act applies in the present case. For ease of reference, the same is reproduced as under:--
8. The above contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are well-founded. The suit quite clearly is time-barred under Article 91 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act reproduced above.
9. Additionally, I am not in any doubt that the registered gift deed (Exh.P.1) stood fully proved through the testimony of Abdul Latif himself, who appeared as P.W.2 as has been noted above, coupled with the fact that Exh.P.1 is a duly registered document and a presumption of authenticity as to its execution attaches to it.
10. In the foregoing circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. As a consequence, the appellate judgment and decree dated 24-4-2003 are set aside.
' The result is that the decree of the learned trial Court dated 20-11-2002 stands restored.