JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit filed by him for cancellation of a gift deed dated 22-11-1965 executed by Smt. Kalari in favour of the National Defence Fund through Collector, Meerut, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the same. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal in brief are that one Smt. Kalari was the owner of the land in question. She was alleged to have taken the plaintiff in adoption on 28-11-1960 in respect of which a registered deed was executed on 6-12-1960. Smt. Kalari died on 26-11-1965 but before her death she had filed a civil suit No. 2 of 1961 against the plaintiff for setting aside the plaintiffs adoption. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court on 30-7-1964. Ever since Smt. Kalari bore a grudge against the plaintiff and under the influence of same persons inimical to the plaintiff and in order to make adoption ineffective, she executed a gift deed dated 22-11-1965 in favour of the National Defence Fund through defendant No. 2. It was contended that Smt. Kalari was a co-Bhumidhar and as such she could not execute the gift deed ; the National Defence Fund, the donee, was not a juristic person and was incapable of accepting the gift and, lastly, that the gift was neither accepted by any person nor the possession of the property was transferred by the donor to the donee and the property remained in possession of Smt. Kalari till her death. On these allegations, the plaintiff sought the relief which has already been adverted to in the earlier part of this judgment. 3. The suit was contested by the Union of India and it was contended that the gift deed was valid and had been duly accepted by the Collector, Meerut on 25-11-1965 and the crop which was standing on the land was given in the custody of the village Pradhan and was auctioned on 6-4-1966 for Rs. 2,776/- by the Naib Tehsildar. It was also said that the suit was not cognisable by the civil courts. Several other pleas were also taken with which we are not concerned in this second appeal. The trial court decreed the suit but on appeal he suit was dismissed. 2,776/- by the Naib Tehsildar. It was also said that the suit was not cognisable by the civil courts. Several other pleas were also taken with which we are not concerned in this second appeal. The trial court decreed the suit but on appeal he suit was dismissed. The trial court held that the National Defence Fund was not a juristic person and the acceptance of the gut deed was also not held to be proved. The lower appellate court, however, held that a circular was produced before that court in which it was laid down that the funds raised for the National Defence Fund, either in the shape of money or the immovable property, shall remain in the charge of the District Magistrate concerned and shall be maintained by him. It was also mentioned in the said circular that the District Magistrate was competent to accept any gift towards the National. Defence Fund. The lower appellate court also held that Shri Anand Swaroop Lekhpal who had been examined on behalf of the Union of India had proved the acceptance of the gift by the Collector. Meerut and on that basis it came to the conclusion that the gift was valid and it accordingly allowed the appeal. 4. In the appeal before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the National Defence Fund is not a juristic person and the Collector was not competent to accept the gift unless the Collector was empowered to accept any gift on its behalf. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act which defines a gift. The said section reads as under: "Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the life-time of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void." Before a transfer may be a gift, it is necessary that there must be in respect of existing movable or immovable property and must have been given by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of the latter. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void." Before a transfer may be a gift, it is necessary that there must be in respect of existing movable or immovable property and must have been given by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of the latter. The actual giving and the acceptance must be done by the parties before any of them dies If, however, either the donee or the donor is not a juristic person, capable of holding the property, then such a transfer would not be valid Here a reference may also be made to Section 5 of the T.P. Act which defines the transfer of property as under : "Transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, and one or more other living persons, and to "transfer property" is to perform such Act. In this section "living person" includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, Associations or bodies of individuals." 6. Reading the above two provisions together it will be found that the donor and the donee must be living persons including companies, associations or bodies of individuals, As defined in Section 5 of the T.P. Act the gift deed, a copy of which is Ex. 6 on the record, shews that the transfer has been made by Smt. Kalari in favour of "Rashtriya Suraksha Kosh" and the relevant portion of the gift deed reads as under : "Is Samay Desh Par Shatru Akraman Kar Rahe Hain our Bharat Mata Ke Veer Senani Apne Pranon Kee Ahuti Dekar Desh Kee Suraksha Karke Desh Ka Nam Badha Rahen Hain. Inheen Samacharon Ko Sunkar Mere Hriday Men Bhee Ek Bhawana Utpann Hui Ki Kyon Na Main Apni Ukt Sampatti Desh Ke Pradhan Mantri Kee Ghosna Par Desh Hit Arpan Kar Doon Jisase Suraksha Men Kuch Yogdan Ho Sake. Isliye Prasannata Poorwak Apnee Antaratma Kee Prerana Se Apnee Samast Bhumidhari Ukt Ko Usme Khari Jins Sahit Jinka Mulya Rs. 2,500/- Hota Hai Bina Koi Mulya Wa Pratikar Liye Rastriya Suraksha Kosh Men, Jiske Sanrakshak Shreeraan Jiladhish Mahodaya Meerut Honge Samarpit Kartee Hoon. Isliye Prasannata Poorwak Apnee Antaratma Kee Prerana Se Apnee Samast Bhumidhari Ukt Ko Usme Khari Jins Sahit Jinka Mulya Rs. 2,500/- Hota Hai Bina Koi Mulya Wa Pratikar Liye Rastriya Suraksha Kosh Men, Jiske Sanrakshak Shreeraan Jiladhish Mahodaya Meerut Honge Samarpit Kartee Hoon. Jisse Apna Adhikar Hatakar Unke Adhikar Men De Diya Hai Bas Ab Mera Koi Sambandh Pradatt Bhumidhari Aadi Ukt Se Naheen Raha. Khatauni Men Mere Naam Kee Jagah Rastriya Suraksha Kosh Likha Jayega". 7. A reading of this document goes to show that the deed of gift has been made in favour of the National Defence Fund under the control of the Collector, Meerut and the latter part of the document also shows that the donors intention was that the name of the "National Defence Fund" may be mutated in place of her name. From this it is quite evident that the donee is neither the Collector nor the union of India but on the contrary it is the "National Defence Fund". As such the question that arises for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the "National Defence Fund" is a legal entity and whether the,said fund has any juristic existence. The learned counsel for the respondents, in spite of sufficient time being given to him, was unable to show me any circular to which a reference was made by the lower appellate court or any other Act or notification under which the "National Defence Fund" may have been given the status of the juristic person. Unless it is found that the "National Defence Fund" was capable of holding property in its own name, it cannot be regarded as a competent person to receive the property gifted. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show me anything which may go to show that the "National Defence Fund" was a statutory body or a registered or unregistered association or a like body of individuals in whose favour a transfer could be made under the provisions of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the absence of any such thing, it is not possible to hold that the gift could have been made by Smt. Kalari in favour of the National Defence Fund. In the absence of any such thing, it is not possible to hold that the gift could have been made by Smt. Kalari in favour of the National Defence Fund. It is entirely of a secondary importance as to whether or not the Collector or the District Magistrate was authorised by the Central Government under its notification to accept the gift on behalf of the 'National Defence Fund'. When a person, in whose favour the gift has been made, was not a competent person to receive the gift, the mere fact that someone, in his behalf, has been authorised to receive and accept the gift will not make the gift deed valid. 8. It was next contended on behalf of the Union of India that the National Defence Fund was raised in the national interest on a call by the then Prime Minister and in fact such gifts should be deemed to be gifts or donations made in favour of the Union of India. The National Defence Fund was merely one of the heads under which the fund was being raised by the Government from the public by voluntary donations for the purpose of the account. This argument is also of no help to the respondents inasmuch as the gift deed clearly states that the gift was not being made in favour of the Union of India through the President but was being made in the name of the 'National Defence Fund' and in the later part of the deed also it was stated that the name of the National Defence Fund was to be mutated after the removal of the name of the donor. This clearly goes to show that the intention of the donor was not to transfer the property in favour of the Union of India but to the National Defence Fund itself. 9. As I have already held above, the National Defence Fund is not a juristic entity and, therefore, it was incapable of holding the property in its own name and as such it is to be held that the gift deed in question was not made in favour of a person capable of holding the property and was, therefore, invalid. 10. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The gift deed dated 22-11-1965 executed by Smt. Kalari in favour of the 'National Defence Fund' is cancelled. 10. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The gift deed dated 22-11-1965 executed by Smt. Kalari in favour of the 'National Defence Fund' is cancelled. However, under the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Appeal.