' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioners seek grant of leave to appeal from the judgment dated 5-11-1999 passed bythe Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Civil Revision No,1970-D of 1986 of the respondents was accepted.
2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration challenging the document dated 16-6-1973 purportedly executed by them as also the PTD of the suit property, issued exclusively in the name of Bhooray Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, on the grounds of fraud and forgery etc. The suit as well as the appeal of the respondents was dismissed by judgments and decrees dated 30-4-1983 and 22-6-1986 respectively passed by the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Kasur. However the Civil Revision No,1970-D of 1986 of the respondents was accepted by the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the impugned judgment dated 5-4-1999. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that basically the dispute amongst the real brothers was regarding an evacuee house purchased by all of them from the Settlement Department.
However by document (Exh. P.9) the respondents surrendered their rights in favour of Bhooray Khan the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore, PTD was issued exclusively in the name of Bhooray Khan deceased. It was further argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) (Exh.D.1) regarding the suit property. The onus of proof of fraud and forgery in the execution of document dated 16-6-1973 (Exh.P.9) being forged and fake was shifted on the respondents/plaintiffs which they could not discharge. The provisions of Article 144 of Qanun-e-Shahadat (section 145 of the Evidence Act) had been satisfied to prove the due execution of document (Exh . P.9).
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Admittedly the PTO for the purchase of the suit property had been issued by the Settlement Department in the name of all the brothers. However, PTD was issued exclusively in the name of Bhooray Khan on the strength of document (Exh. P.9) whereby all the brothers were shown to have surrendered their rights in his favour. Two of the respondents appeared before the trial Court and denied the execution of the document in question. The High Court rightly observed that thereafter it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have produced positive evidence to prove due execution of the document. Neither the scribe of the document (Exh.P.9) was produced before the trial Court nor any expert opinion was obtained to prove the thumb-impressions of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in reversing the judgments and decrees of the subordinate Courts. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the High Court.
5. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed If accordingly.