JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, M. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act made by the Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi, in a mutation case. In his reference order dated October 14, 1977 the Addl. Commissioner has recommended that the revision be allowed, the orders of the lower courts be set aside and mutation be ordered in the name of the revisionist. An objection has been filed against this recommendation. 2. The facts of the case are that an application for mutation was filed before the Tahsildar by one Gul Chandra Misra acting on behalf of the revisionists who are minors. By their application mutation was claimed on the land held by Smt. Sahodra, O.P. No. 1, on the basis of a gift deed executed by the latter. Objection was taken by Lallan Prasad and others disputing the right of Smt. Sahodra making gift, disputing her soundness of mind at that time and disputing the genuineness of the gift deed as well as claiming their own possession over the land in dispute. Another objection was entered by Smt. Prabhawati objecting the share of Mst. Sahodra in the joint Khata and also calling in question the genuineness of the gift deed. The trial court after hearing the evidence came to the conclusion that Mst. Sahodra had every right to execute the gift deed; that the question of share was irrelevant as mutation will be ordered only in place of her name; and that the objection taken by the O.Ps. had no merit. He, however, refused mutation on the ground that there was no acceptance of the gift on the part of the guardian of the revisionists who are minors. He, therefore, held that the gift deed could not be acted upon and he dismissed the mutation application. An appeal was filed against this order by the present revisionist but did not succeed. The appellate court namely, the Addl. Collector after discussing the arguments advanced by the contesting learned counsel found that there was no occasion to interfere in the order of the trail court. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The Addl. Commissioner in his present reference found that after being convinced of the genuineness of the gift deed and the right of Mst. Collector after discussing the arguments advanced by the contesting learned counsel found that there was no occasion to interfere in the order of the trail court. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The Addl. Commissioner in his present reference found that after being convinced of the genuineness of the gift deed and the right of Mst. Sahodra to make it, the lower courts should have taken into consideration the fact that within two months an application for mutation was moved which itself would show that the gift was accepted. As the Tahsildar had already found that the dispute about the exact share was irrelevant, the Addl. Commissioner held that the revision deserves to be allowed and mutation be ordered after setting aside the orders of the lower courts. 3. I have gone through the record of the case, the orders of the lower courts and heard the learned counsel for the O.Ps. as well as for the revisionists. On behalf of the O.Ps the main argument centres round the lack of acceptance by the donees as well as on the incompetence of Mst. Sahodra to make a gift of her share in the joint Hindu family property. For the latter proposition my attention was drawn to A.I.R. 1981 Mad. 75 (Allahabad) given on pages 35 and 36. From the notes it appears that this was a case under Hindu Law (Mitakahara) involving the joint Hindu property. Since the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is a self contained Act with its own provisions about the rights of a Bhumidhar, the concept of a joint Hindu family property would not apply to it. No ruling holding that the normal Hindu Law is applicable to agricultural tenancy governed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was placed before me. In the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act itself no restrictions whatsoever have been placed in this regard. Another point made was that the gift deed reads like a will with its observation about uncertainty of life and decision to gift the land in dispute to avoid any dispute after her death. In the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act itself no restrictions whatsoever have been placed in this regard. Another point made was that the gift deed reads like a will with its observation about uncertainty of life and decision to gift the land in dispute to avoid any dispute after her death. It is no doubt true that these sentiments find a place in the gift deed but otherwise its language clearly shows that it was meant to be acted upon as a gift deed and there was nothing to show that it was meant to be contingent on the death of the donor. 4. These points having disposed of, we come to the main point i.e. to the acceptance by or on behalf of the donees. While the O.Ps. relied on the arguments given in the judgment of the trial and appellate courts, it was pointed out on behalf of the revisionists that the gift deed after registration was in the custody of the guardian of the donees. It was also pointed out that it was the guardian who made the report for mutation and this conduct along-with the possession of the document with the guardian of the donees was enough to constitute an acceptance. Reliance was placed in this connection on the ruling given in A.I.R. 1963 Orissa page 50. In that case it was even held that the acceptance of gift by one of the donees was sufficient to constitute acceptance by all of them particularly when they get their names mutated and the deed of settlement came form the custody of the donees. Another case cited was A.I.R. 1953 Travancore-Cochin page 336 in which it has been held that the donees receiving the document from the donor after due execution and getting it registered are sufficient indications of the acceptance of the gift. These rulings would go to show that in the present case also the conduct of the guardian of the donees in having custody of the gift deed and moving for mutation are sufficient indication of his acceptance on behalf of the minor donees. While it is no doubt true that acceptance by the donee is an essential condition for the validity of the gift, the Transfer of Property Act itself does not lay down any particular way in which this acceptance should be signified. While it is no doubt true that acceptance by the donee is an essential condition for the validity of the gift, the Transfer of Property Act itself does not lay down any particular way in which this acceptance should be signified. In the light of the authorities cited above, there is no difficulty in holding that in this particular case the gift was accepted by the donees and the transaction is complete. 5. In this view of the matter, I find myself in agreement with the reference made by the Addl. Commissioner. I, therefore, accept the reference, set aside the orders of the trial and appellate courts and order that the names of the revisionists shall be mutated in place of Smt. Sahodra over the land in dispute.