Recently i did an experiment considering gravity and magnetism and it goes on as follows.?

Your experiment should have used a scale with more digits (minimum significance = 0.1 gram) for determining a mass difference of 1.0 gram.  Other than that,  the number times the object was weighed should have been at least 30, for both cases.  This in order to *try* to find a difference of 1 gram with a minimum scale reading of 1 gram.  

In short your experimental method is flawed for the degree of accuracy claimed.  Also it is necessary to explain just how U are sure that the magnetic field had no influence on the digital scale reading?

Jim is absolutely correct.  You must use at least one order of magnitude more precise measuring devices than the results you are looking for.  Several orders more precision would be even better.  That 30 he mentioned is a rule of thumb for the number of trials (measurements) to minimize measuring errors...it's a statistics thing.  You use the average and standard deviation of your 30 results to draw your conclusions.

Then you left off a critical step in your experiment.  How'd you measure the magnetic force to show it had been reduced?  And what was the attraction target of that force?  I mean, is that magnet just pointing out into space or is there metal around for it to pull on?  And how did you account for the very touchy f ~ 1/r^2 inverse of the square of the distance relationship between the force and the source?

Then there is the issue of weight vs mass.  If your weighing machine is in grams, that's a surrogate measure for w = mg where weight ~ m and the constant of proportionality is g, the gravity field.  But the magnetic force, f, is a real force, in Newtons.  How did you match the real force with the mass surrogate for gravity force (weight)?  And what g value did you use?  Was it calculated for the site of the experiment or just a big average 9.81 m/s^2 (N/kg)

What Jim and I are suggesting is that your experiment is highly flawed, like the OPERA experiment at CERN that overlooked relativistic effects when it found neutrinos going faster than light.  Tsk.

You've done a good experiment but found a wrong conclusion.
First statistically just because anything goes up/comes when another goes up/comes down doesn't mean that they both're the same.  

Second thing's the possibility of the error in your experiment. You had used a weighing machine that shows weight only in grams i.e. the minimum weight it could show's 1g and so there could be an error due its low accuracy. For example the actual weight could be 502.4g and the machine would have shown 503g in the first due to higher air pressure and other reasons because it could have realized the weight as 502.9g. Also you would have touched the magnet so many times while doing the experiment and so some particles from that could have fallen.

Third heating causes loss of magnetism and its a known fact and its because by heating you actually increase the energy of electrons which forms the domains of magnets and due to extra energy electrons could get into more random motion thus weakening the domains of magnet.
But it doesn't change the mass of the object.

So its only loss of magnetism due to heat and not what you've concluded.