' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision, petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21-7-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar , whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was accepted, by way of which, judgment and decree dated 26-11-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mankera, decreeing the suit of petitioners-plaintiffs for declaration were set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs on 18-6-1998 filed a suit for declaration wherein they challenged the mutation of Gift bearing No,1797 attested on 27-11-1963 by their paternal grandfather Khanan in favour of their two real uncles namely Ghulam Hussain and Gul Muhammad, stating that their grandfather died in the year 1974 and they were being paid share of inheritance as their father was entitled to 1/3rd share in the legacy of,Khanan and they were Sheia by sect, therefore, they were entitled to receive whole of the property i,e, 1/3rd from the legacy of Khanan, which their father was to receive.
' The written statement was filed and suit was contested. Learned trial court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial, suit of petitioners- plaintiffs was decreed by the learned trial court vide jridgment and decree dated 26-11-2004.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the learned first appellate court, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 21-7-2005. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argues that the suit property was situated in joint Khata and the respondents-defendants were used to pay share of produce after the death of their paternal grandfather Khanan, therefore, they could not know about the mutation in question and when they came to know about the same in the year 1998 they filed the suit which is subject- matter of this civil revision; that it was the duty of respondents-defendants to prove the fact of gift as well as attestation of mutation in accordance with law but they miserably failed to prove the same, as such, judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is not sustainable under the law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants argues that the mutation in question is of the year 1963, whereas the suit was filed after more than 30 years; that as the document was of 30 years old, therefore, it has the evidentiary value and onus of proof was on the plaintiffs but they failed to prove the case pleaded by them; that the evidence led by the petitioners-plaintiffs with regard to the age of Khanan is not believable, as the witnesses of plaintiffs told a lie which is visible from the scrutiny of evidence; that it is admitted position that Khanan appeared on the same day before the revenue officials with regard to attestation of other mutations. Learned counsel has lastly argued that previous to the suit in hand a suit was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs on 12-8-1997 which was later on dismissed as withdrawn on 8-10-1997, copy of statement of learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the order have been produced as Exh.D-12 and Exh . D-13.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.
6. It is a case whereby the predeceased son's daughters have challenged the gift by their paternal grandfather Khanan in favour of his two real sons. The mutation of gift was attested on 27-11-1963, whereas the suit in hand has been filed on 18-6-1998. I have noticed that when the previous suit was filed on 12-8-1997, which was subsequently withdrawn on 8-10-1997 and Exh.P-9 shows that the donor died on 8-4-1972 and according to the plaintiffs their father was predeceased of his father, in this situation, it is not a case of inheritance and the plaintiffs are not party to the mutation, rather they are third party and it was their responsibility to prove that mutation is forged and fictitious one when the donor remained alive more than-nine years of the attestation of mutation and admittedly the donor never challenged the mutation in his life time. When the plaintiffs challenged this mutation of gift through a suit which was filed on 12-8-1997 and subsequently it was withdrawn on 8-10-1997, extension in limitatkon for filing the suit was to be pleaded in accordance with Order VII, Rule 6 of the C.P.C.
7. It is not a case where the ladies have challenged the mutation of gift showing gift of property on their behalf. This is a mutation by their paternal grandfather in favour of his real sons and the donor remained alive after nine years of the attestation of mutation and he never challenged the mutation in his life time. The plaintiffs were required to produce the solid and convincing evidence to prove that mutation is fraudulent one but no such evidence has been produced. It is not a case of shifting the onus to prove valid attestation of mutation by the beneficiary just after the statement on oath made in the court in favour of pleadings by the plaintiffs. In this case initial burden of proof was upon C the plaintiffs to prove their case pleaded by them but they failed to substantiate their pleadings through reliable evidence. Therefore, no question of shifting of onus to prove the mutation arises. The mutation has been admittedly incorporated in the subsequent Jamabandies and further that certified copy of mutation has been produced by the plaintiffs themselves in their evidence as Exh.P-1. The order passed by the revenue officer while, attesting the mutation shows that "Salim Khata" has been gifted to the donees, therefore, argument of learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs that part of "joint Khata" was mutated through gift is factually incorrect. Even the copy of Jamabandi Exh.P-4 shows that "Salim Khata" measuring 560-kanals was gifted, same is the position of Exh.P-6. When the plaintiffs filed previous suit in the year 1997, at least the bonus of extension in limitation can be given to a party one time and by withdrawal of previous suit even if the permission to file fresh suit was granted, the bonus of extension in limitation cannot be granted D to the plaintiffs with the permission to file fresh suit. In this view, even if the permission was granted to file a fresh suit, limitation cannot be extended second time and bonus of extension in limitation cannot be granted to a party second time. The original limitation if claimed from the knowledge of filing of first suit, though it has not been pleaded in the second suit that they have previously filed any suit and any such permission was granted to them and even one of the plaintiffs when appeared in the witness box has denied the filing of said suit but it is proved that the previous suit was got filed by the plaintiffs through Ch. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate and the present suit was also filed through the same learned counsel; as is visible from the stamp endorsed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at the time of filing of suit in hand as well as from Exh.D-12. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs has not been able to show any misreading or non-reading of evidence in the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court. Therefore, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Has been made out. I see no force in this civil revision, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.