M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
(2.) The facts are these : The petitioner No. 1, Vijay Bahadur Singh, is the father of the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The notices under Section 10 (2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner. As certain lands standing in the names of the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were also included in the holding of the petitioner No. 1, therefore, notices were issued to the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also. Objections were filed by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 17-6-1969 decided the said objections. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter two appeals were filed - one by the petitioner No. 1 and the other by petitioner No. 2. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated May 4, 1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai. A certified copy of the said judgment is Annexure 3 to the petition. Now, the petitioners have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Shri V. K. S. Chowdhry, learned counsel for the petitioners. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. Counsel contended before me that the lands which stood respectively in the names of the petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 should not have been included in the holding of the petitioner No. 1. In this connection the learned counsel emphasised that the gift deed dated 20-9-1969 had been executed by the father in favour of his four sons and on the basis of the said document the names of the four sons as the donees had been separately recorded over separate lands gifted by the said document. The mutation was effected prior to 24th January, 1971. It was emphasised that mutation was a clear proof of the fact that the donees were in separate possession of the lands gifted to each of them. A reference was made to Sections 40 and 44 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and reliance was placed on the following cases: Mt. Anandi Devi v. Mohan Lal, (AIR 1932 All 444) ; Om Prakash v. Jugal Kishore, (AIR 1934 All 847) ; Kashi Prasad v. Ambika Prasad, (AIR 1930 All 611) ; Beni Prasad v. Gauhar Ali, (AIR 1945 All 347) .
(3.) In AIR 1932 All 444 the head note is as follows: "There is nothing in Section 122 to limit acceptance of a gift to an express acceptance. But the acceptance of a gift may be express or implied. In the case of a gift actual or constructive possession by the donee is undoubtedly proof of acceptance, and in zamindari property, and in especially a case concerning husband and wife, mutation means delivery of possession, and the acts of the husband after mutation are acts on behalf of the wife." It should be seen that in the said case it was observed: "The learned Judge has found that the gift was a real gift intended to be acted upon but the wife having never accepted the gift it was void against subsequent vendees." The Appellate Court laid down that under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act acceptance by the donee need not necessarily be express. It can be by implication also.;