ORDER M. P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. The facts in brief are these: 3. The petitioner was issued the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-6-1976, a true copy whereof is Annexure No. 1 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was decided by the appellate court by its judgment dated 18-7-1978, a true copy whereof is annexure 2 to the petition. A certified copy of the judgment is also on the record. 4. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has also made his submission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed two contentions before me. Firstly, he contended that certain V plots were wrongly treated as single crop land though they should have been treated as un-irrigated. He contended that a chart had been given to the appellate court and in the same, such plots were disclosed. It should be seen that this contention is not there in the appellate courts judgment. Certain plots which were treated as irrigated by the Prescribed Authority were pressed to be either single crop land or un-irrigated land. Such plots were 9 in number and the appellate court dealt with them in its judgment. Six out of such nine plots were held to be single crop land and they were held to be un-irrigated. The appellate court observed in its judgment. "No other point was pressed before me." 6. It is, therefore, obvious that the contention that certain plots treated as single crop land were wrongly treated so, was not pressed before the appellate court. The judgment of a court is normally the best proof of the contentions which have been pressed before the court. There is nothing in the instant case to suggest that there was deviation from the normal practice. Accordingly, the first contention raised by the petitioner is rejected. 7. Learned counsel next contended that the gift which was made by him in favour of his son Ram Saran was wrongly ignored by the authorities below. There is nothing in the instant case to suggest that there was deviation from the normal practice. Accordingly, the first contention raised by the petitioner is rejected. 7. Learned counsel next contended that the gift which was made by him in favour of his son Ram Saran was wrongly ignored by the authorities below. The gift deed was executed on 2-4-1970 and according to the learned counsel the controversy should have been examined in the light of the Division Bench pronouncement in Yadunath Singh v. State (1979 All WC 187). In the order of the Prescribed Authority it was observed that the donee Ram Saran was a minor and in view of this finding, the gifted land was bound to be clubbed with the holding of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in pointing out that the appellate court did not enter into that controversy as to whether on the relevant date. i.e. 8-6-1973 Ram Saran was a minor or major. The appellate court undoubtedly was wrong in thinking that the requirements of good faith and passing of adequate consideration were necessary to be proved in respect of the document in question. In the case of a gift deed there is no question of any consideration or adequate consideration. Further, the requirement of good faith in the special sense of that expression is relevant under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. The mere fact that such mutation was effected after 24-1-1971 though the document was executed before the said date will not attract the provisions of Section 5 (6) of the Act. Therefore, the appellate court was wrong in ignoring the document on the ground which has relevance under Section 5 (6) of the Act. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the judgment of the appellate court is quashed in so far as the aforesaid gift deed dated 2-4-1970 is concerned. The case is remanded to the appellate court for a fresh determination of the controversy in respect of the said gift deed. The appellate court will first decide whether the donee Ram Saran was major or minor on 8-6-1973. The case is remanded to the appellate court for a fresh determination of the controversy in respect of the said gift deed. The appellate court will first decide whether the donee Ram Saran was major or minor on 8-6-1973. If he be found to be a minor on the said date, then it will not be necessary to examine the document any further because then the gifted land would have to be clubbed with the holding of the father, i.e. the petitioner. However, if the donee is found to be a major on 8-6-1973 then the appellate court shall examine the said document in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Yadunath Singh v. State (supra) and then decide whether the same should be accepted or should be ignored. The ceiling area and the surplus land shall be redetermined thereafter. No other controversy shall be allowed to be raised hereafter before the appellate court. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.