Judgment :- 1. Taluk Land Board, Mavelikara as per order dated 31-3-1976 determined the surplus land in the hands of the late Madhavan Thangal as 8.89 500 acres. The assessee died on 4-11-1974 and the order was passed against one of his children, Krishna Pillai. The order was set aside in C. R. P No 2573 of 1976 and the case was remanded for fresh consideration. On 9 - 6-1978 the Board again passed a revised order determining the surplus land as 6.40 500 acres. This order also was set aside in O. P. No. 850 of 1979 and the case was remanded again for fresh consideration. On 24-4-1981 the Board passed a revised order determining the surplus land as 2.11 acres. On 12-6-1981 the Board passed yet another order bringing about certain changes in the identity of the land included in part D of the order. The legality of the last two orders is challenged in this revision 2. The assessee, Madhavan Thangal left a registered will No. 12/ 70 bequeathing 30 cents in Sy. No, 132/5B to the first revision petitioner, 39 cents to the second revision petitioner and 261/2 cents to the third revision petitioner. On the same day, he executed a registered gift deed donating 30 cents in Sy. No. 132/5B to another daughter Lakshmikutty Amma. The Board accepted as valid the gift deed in favour of Lakshmikutty Amma under S.84(1A) of Act 1 of 1964 (for short 'the Act) but held that the lands bequeathed under the will cannot be deleted from the account of late Madhavan Thangal. This finding is now challenged 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the will though executed in 1970 came into operation only on 4-11-1974 when the testator died and it must be treated as a gift brought about on 4-11-1974 for the purpose of S.84 (1A) of the Act and since this section saves gifts between 1-1-1970 and 5-11-1974, the lands bequeathed under the will must be deleted from the account of the testator. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Parvathy Nadachi v. Rama-lakshmi Ammal (AIR. 1956 T. C. 127). 4. S.84 (1A) treats as valid certain voluntary transfers effected by means of gift deeds executed during the period from 1-1-1970 to 5-11-1974 by persons owning or holding lands in excess of ceiling area. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Parvathy Nadachi v. Rama-lakshmi Ammal (AIR. 1956 T. C. 127). 4. S.84 (1A) treats as valid certain voluntary transfers effected by means of gift deeds executed during the period from 1-1-1970 to 5-11-1974 by persons owning or holding lands in excess of ceiling area. The section imposes certain other conditions which are not relevant for the purpose of this discussion. Can a will be treated as a transfer by way of gift for the purpose of S.84 (1A) of the Act? The Act does not define transfer or gift. We have to fall back upon the meaning given to the expressions 'transfer' and 'gift' in S.5 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. S.5 of the Transfer of Property Act states that transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys his property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons or to himself, or to himself and one or more other living persons; (living persons include legal persons also). Gift as defined in S.123 of the T. P. Act is a voluntary transfer without consideration. Transfer and gift are essentially acts of conveyances by living persons. 5. S.2 (h) of the Indian Succession Act defines a will as a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death In other words, a will is an expressed intention as to what should happen to the property on the death of the testator. A will, though executed by a living person takes effect only on his death. The idea of conveyance and that too by a living person is totally foreign to a will. Even if it is assumed that a will conveys property, conveyance takes place only on the death of the testator; that is, at the time of conveyance, the person supposed to convey property is not a living person. When a will takes effect, what takes place is not a conveyance but only a succession. Instead of succession taking place in favour of heirs as laid down by the personal law of the testator, in the case of a will succession takes place as pre-determined by the testator in the will. 6. When a will takes effect, what takes place is not a conveyance but only a succession. Instead of succession taking place in favour of heirs as laid down by the personal law of the testator, in the case of a will succession takes place as pre-determined by the testator in the will. 6. The essential differences between a will and a gift have been lucidly brought out by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Parvathy Nadachi's case. The court observed as follows: "The essential characteristic of a will, as is well known, is that it is a mere declaration of an intention so long as the testator is alive, a declaration that may be revoked or varied according to the variations in his intention; a disposition that requires the testator's death for its consummation and is but ambulatory or without fixed effect until the happening of that event. A gift, on the other hand, is a transfer of property that is voluntary, gratuitous and absolute conferring immediate rights:" 7. S.84(1 A) of Act 1 of 1964 saves only transfer by way of gifts. Such a transfer by way of gift cannot take within its ambit a case of testate succession. Under S 83 of the Act, there is a liability incurred on 1-1-1970 by a person to surrender excess land in his hands. That liability is not put an end to by the subsequent death of such a person. The liability continues as is made clear in clause (6A) of S, 85. The proceedings shall be continued against his legal representatives and the legal representatives are bound to surrender the same extent of land as the deceased would have been liable to surrender if he were alive on the date of determination of particulars of excess land. Thus the liability incurred by a person under S.83 is not put an end to by his death after 1-1-1970. The liability passes on to his legal representatives. 8. The position of excess land holders executing gifts before or after 1-1-1970 is totally different. Certain gifts are saved by S.84 and certain other gifts are saved by saved by S.84(1 A). These gifts are valid and the lands so gifted will not be included in the account of the donor for the purpose of determining his accountability under S.83. The position of excess land holders executing gifts before or after 1-1-1970 is totally different. Certain gifts are saved by S.84 and certain other gifts are saved by saved by S.84(1 A). These gifts are valid and the lands so gifted will not be included in the account of the donor for the purpose of determining his accountability under S.83. On a consideration of the provisions of S.84(1A) in the background of the broad scheme of ceiling provisions, it must follow that testamentary succession cannot be treated as a transfer by way of gift under S.84(1A). Therefore the land bequeathed cannot be deleted from the account of the testator. 9. In the order dated 24-4-1981 the Board decided to delete 30 cents in Sy. No. 132/5B and 21/2 cents in Sy No 118/4B from the account of the assessee in part A of the final order. An extent of 32 cents was also deducted from the total extent of land to be surrendered. But by an accidental oversight 321/2 cents of land which was deleted from part A was not deleted from part D. The result was, as the order dated 24-4-1981 stood, though these two plots of land were removed from the account of the assessee, they were to be surrendered. This patent anomaly was set right by the Board as per order dated 12-6-1981. In this order the Board did two things. It deleted these two plots from part D. This part of the order is unexceptionable It only amounted to correcting an accidental mistake. In the place of 321/2 cents so deleted from part D, the Board included some other plot of land in part D. This was done without notice to the persons with liability to surrender excess land. That was certainly not justified. Therefore, to this extent the order dated 12-6-1981 cannot stand and is set aside. The case will go back to the Board for identifying the land necessary to be included in part D in substitution of 321/2 cents to be removed from part D. The Board will give notice to all the legal representatives of the original owner Shri Madhavan Thangal before deciding on the identity of the land. Revision is allowed in this manner but without costs. Allowed.