JUDGMENT These are two appeals from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Bankura on 26.4.71 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif of the said court passed on 14.9.70. These appeals of reversal arise in the following way : – 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, title and/or permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit land said to be acquired by the said plaintiff by deed of gift executed in its favour by the defendant no. 2 Basanti Kumari Dey. The learned Munsif held the said deed of gift was a bona fide transfer. The said deed of gift was a valid document duly executed and attested and the plaintiff was a bona fide transferee of the same, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff further declaring that he is in possession of the suit land. The learned Munsif held the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land on payment of rent to Government and he has worked out in detail giving the reasons which led him to believe and to come to a finding that the plaintiff was at all material time in possession of the land in suit and the gift was a bona fide one. By analysing the evidence and considering the probability of the case at pages 10 and 11 of the paper book he firmly has come to a finding that the plaintiff at the relevant time was in possession. At page 7 it appears that the fact of transfer is corroborated by the fact that after the transfer the plaintiff paid rent to the Government, notices of such transfer was given to JLRO and the name of the plaintiff was mutated in place of defendant no .2. 3. Learned Subordinate Judge however set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif on the ground that although there was mutation and acceptance of rent but the deed of gift was not a bona fide one and it was executed by her not for transferring the title to the plaintiff but for avoiding the vesting of her excess land and the plaintiff was a mere 'name lender'. The learned Subordinate Judge first of all held that the deed of gift was not a genuine one because the defendant no. The learned Subordinate Judge first of all held that the deed of gift was not a genuine one because the defendant no. 2 Basanta Kumari executed it at his request and the learned Additional District Judge further writes at page 7 of the paper book that Basanta Kumari herself has stated that she had executed the document concerned on the advice of the plaintiff's father in law for the sake of avoiding vesting and so he did not accept the learned Munsif's finding that the said deed of gift was a voluntary one. In this regard the learned Munsif's analysis may be looked into–the plaintiff was residing with the said Basanta Kumari, the defendant no. 2, deed of gift was made on 24.5.60 and there is evidence that this man was looking after her. At that time Dhananjoy, son-in-law of her husband's brother not having good relationship with her stayed away and Panchkari, the plaintiff resided with her and attended to her. She filed a 'B' Form and in the said 'B' Form the land gifted to the plaintiff was not included. The mutation was effected in favour of the plaintiff, rent was paid by the plaintiff and duly accepted by the State, and notice was given of such transfer to JLRO. But it is said that the said deed was executed to avoid the operation of law of vesting. Learned Munsif has correctly said that before such deed of gift was made a 'Mazlis' took place, 5/6 persons were called and thereafter the said deed of gift was executed. Learned Munsif observed at page 9 of the Paper Book "I cannot understand why defendant No. 2 (Basanta Kumari) called on such 5/6 persons when she intended to do something in order to avoid the operation of law. If he actually intended to avoid the operation of law would certainly create the deed nut by calling Mazlis of persons" This is not at all a probable fact and I agree with the learned Munsif in his finding. 4. Regarding the second aspect of the matter learned Additional Subordinate Judge disregarded the legality of such transfer even if the deed of gift were a bona fide one. 4. Regarding the second aspect of the matter learned Additional Subordinate Judge disregarded the legality of such transfer even if the deed of gift were a bona fide one. According to him, the first 'B' Form was not a proper one and so he was called upon to give another 'B' Form and in the said fresh 'B' Form he did not exercise her option to retain those lands ill suit gifted away. The learned Subordinate Judge says "admittedly the revenue officer was within his jurisdiction to ask defendant no. 2 to exercise her option afresh for coming to know as to which land she was willing to retain within the ceiling. In my opinion, defendant no.2 (Basanta Kumari) was also within her rights to exclude the suit lands in respect of execution of the deed of gift, Ext. 2". (Page 12 and 13 of the lower Appellate Court's judgment in the Paper Book). But in my opinion, if once the deed was executed with free will and for natural love–which I hold on evidence agreeing with the learned Munsif that it was so–she would not exercise her option not to vest because in that case it would have affected the interest of the donee. Basanta Kumari’s evidence was not accepted by the learned Munsif. Learned Munsif said that Dhananjoy the brother's son-in-law had a sort of reconciliation and there was hitch between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 because the defendant no. 2 was transferring other properties to other relatives ; the plaintiff was driven away from the house by defendant no. 2 several years before. As I find there was love, affection and concern but Basanta Kumari's such affection was frittered away by the course of subsequent events but that will not prejudice this right of the donee already accrued. Learned Subordinate Judge has questioned the legality of such transfer and set aside the decree but the question is can the defendant no. 2 after making deed of gift which was otherwise a valid one and held to be so by the learned Munsif in the facts and circumstance of this case can repudiate it and learned Subordinate Judge can set it aside on the evidence of defendant no. 2 who had without any doubt fallen apart from the plaintiff due to subsequent course of events arising out of hostility between the parties. 2 who had without any doubt fallen apart from the plaintiff due to subsequent course of events arising out of hostility between the parties. If in such a case a gift is allowed to be set aside, no donee could be in peace lest the donor should repent his doing and repudiate the deed subsequently. The deed of gift once established to be executed lawfully cannot be set aside only on the allegation/alleged ground that it was contaminated by some ulterior motive. It is very easy for a donor when placed awkwardly to set forward grounds for repudiating the gift to wriggle out from such a position. This evidence of defendant no.2 that she did not understand what it was or it was done for some illegal purpose must be scrutinized and to be viewed with great caution and not be thrown overboard casually by simply saying that the widow was pardanasin and she was influenced unduly and it was motivated. Then in that case any person making deed of gift when he or she finds that the matter required rethinking can invent some grounds to evade it. 5. Learned Subordinate Judge says that Second ‘B’ Form was quite a complete on. It could be, But she could not submit such a ‘B’ Form which will prejudice one who has set up him right and acted on the basis of her action by her executing the deed of gift. Learned Subordinate Judge has said that notice of transfer was served upon JLRO and not on the Revenue Officer and he observed : “We should remember that the State acting through the Revenue Officer cannot be burdened with the knowledge of its act though JLRO”. But I am not convinced by such an argument. They are all State officials and the retention, payment of rent, submission of ‘B’ Forms, notice of transfers and mutation of record are all parts of one ultimate thing. That is to say, distribution, allotment, rejection, vesting and title of the lands. They are the component parts of one integrated whole. It cannot be said that notice of one is not the notice for the other when the subject matter of the thing is quite clear. Mr. That is to say, distribution, allotment, rejection, vesting and title of the lands. They are the component parts of one integrated whole. It cannot be said that notice of one is not the notice for the other when the subject matter of the thing is quite clear. Mr. Mitra has cited to me a judgment reported in 81 CWN page 1026 (Provesh Mondal v. State of West Bengal) where Sudhamoy Bose, j. held that the transferees whose names have been mutated and from whom rent has been accepted by the State must be deemed to have acquired independent status apart from the rights as transferees Bose, J. relied upon another unreported of judgment of Justice Anil Kumar Sen in Civil Rule No. 2488(W) of 1970 to come to such a finding. Similar finding has been made in the decision reported in 1980(2) CLJ page 1 (Panchu Molla v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) In the said judgment G.N. Ray, J. held that when the State Government has mutated the name of the petitioner as a tenant and has accepted rents from him s a tenant, the State Government cannot treat the said land as a vested land and settle the same to other persons. Even assuming that the right of the vendor of the petitioner had vested in the State of West Bengal but because of its subsequent acts on its part it cannot turn round and repudiate its own acts. The learned Judge further stated that the State Government is such cases can be said to have recognised the tenancy right of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. 6. Mr. Dasgupta, counsel for the State shows from order sheet that the land was taken possession of on 20th April, 1968 and the suit was filed on 8th July, 1968 but learned Munsif has held by assessing the evidence that plaintiff was in possession of the lands in question. Therefore, on that point too I cannot accept the argument of Mr. Dasgupta. Moreover law will take its own course in that regard. 7. One must know about his position, one gets certain lands, takes possession, pays rent, down mutation and suddenly after 8 years the authority who has received rent, mutated him name in the records comes forward and says that was not so. Dasgupta. Moreover law will take its own course in that regard. 7. One must know about his position, one gets certain lands, takes possession, pays rent, down mutation and suddenly after 8 years the authority who has received rent, mutated him name in the records comes forward and says that was not so. There must be very strong evidence to disregard his right and in this case that is lacking. I agree with Mr. Justice Bose that there must be finality at some point of time. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the learned Counsels of both the parties and considering the records. I am inclined to allow these appeals. Hence it is ordered : The appeals are allowed, judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge are set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif are restored. There will be no order as to costs. 9. After the judgment is delivered Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the State respondent prays that the operation of this order be stayed for a period of eight weeks from date. Prayer is allowed. Appeals allowed.