JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal arises out of the ceiling proceeding taken in the case of Shri Gopal Singh son of Chand Singh and Smt. Sire Kanwar widow of Shri Pratap Singh who was brother of Gopal Singh. In the instant case, with regard to the land in question, two independent ceiling proceedings were held in the case of both brothers under Chapther III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1995 (for short'the Act'), i.e. Old Ceiling Law and the proceedings stood concluded. 3. On coming into force the Rajasthan Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act 1973 (hereinafter referred as Act 1973') the proceedings took place under Act of 1973. 4. The petitioners are holding agricultural land in village Sonai Lakha in Tehsil and District Pali in the State of Rajasthan. On coming into force of Old Ceiling Law, ceiling proceedings were initiated against late Shri Gopal Singh husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 bearing case No.141/71 and later on another proceedings were initiated against the petitioners number bearing 141/73. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pali vide its order dated 31-10-75 dropped the proceedings holding that the petitioners have no excess land. The transfers made by Shri Gopal Singh and Sire Kanwar were recognised. 5. The State Government under Section 15 (2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act. 1973 directed to reopen both the cases. The learned Additional Collector, Pali (respondent No.3) on reopening of two separate cases, started one case against Shri Gopal Singh and petitioner No. 5. The learned Additional Collector, Pali (respondent No. 3) vide its order dated 12-4-89 decided that each of the persons has 17.8 standard acre of excess land and so ordered for acquisition of the excess land. 6. Against the order dated 12-4-89 the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 21-9-90 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition No. 4607/90. The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6-5-98 and the delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue was condoned and the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue to decide the same on merits. 7. The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6-5-98 and the delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue was condoned and the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue to decide the same on merits. 7. After the judgment of this Court when the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 9-10-2000 dismissed the appeal against this order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The writ petition was also dismissed and the order of Board of Revenue dated 9-10-2000 was confirmed vide judgment dated 2-8- 2001, against which present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that all the gift-deeds in question were valid as illiterate villagers may commit mistake in pointing out their age and difference of 3 and 4 years is common and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that age pointed by illiterate villagers may vary by 3 to 4 years either way. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the moment sources of income is provided to the minor son by the father, minor becomes self supporting and cannot be treated as dependent upon the father. Gift of agricultural land by the father in favour of the minor son by the registered gift deed prior to the cut-off date prescribed in the Ceiling Law cannot be treated as inoperative for the purpose of Ceiling law. 9. This contention requires to be looked into those documents and noticing of the surrounding circumstances. 10. Chapter III B was inserted in Rajasthan Tenancy Act as the first measure of imposing ceiling on agricultural holding as a policy of agrarian reform. In the instant case bona fide transfers of holding after 5-2-58 but before 9- 12-59 under the provisions of the Chapter 3B were not to be recognised and taken into consideration and the burden of proving any such transfers to be bona fide lies on the transferer. The transfers except by way of partition, made after 9th day of December 1959 were not recognised in absolute terms. The holdings by any person as on 1-4-66, after ignoring the transfers made after relevant date were to be determined for the purpose of ceiling. 11. Section 30 DD was inserted in Chapter III B vide notification dated 18-8-70 which reads as under : [ 30 DD. The holdings by any person as on 1-4-66, after ignoring the transfers made after relevant date were to be determined for the purpose of ceiling. 11. Section 30 DD was inserted in Chapter III B vide notification dated 18-8-70 which reads as under : [ 30 DD. Certain transfers to be recognised - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 30 D, for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under Section 30 C- (i) Every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of cultivating land personally and who had attained the age of maturity on or before the said date, and (ii) every transfer to the extent as aforesaid made by a person before the first day of June, 1970 of land comprised in groves or farms of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 J as it stood prior to the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 and acquired before the first day of May, 1959 in favour of his son or brother fulfilling the conditions mentioned in clause (i) and who attains the age of maturity on or before the first of the aforementioned dates, shall also be recognised. 12. On insertion of this provision certain transfers made prior to December 1969 in certain circumstances on fulfillment of conditions mentioned therein were recognised in relaxation of earlier provision for the purpose excluding the same for computing the holding as on 1-4-66. Seen in this light Gift Deed Annexure-4 is executed by appellant Gopal Singh in favour of his son Sawai Singh on 23-12-66. On that very date, two Gift Deeds Annexures P5 and P6 were also executed by Mst. Sire Kanwar widow of Pratap Singh. Gift Deed Ex.P5 was in favour of Narpat Singh alleged to be son of sister of her husband, and Gift Deed Ex.P6 was executed in favour Mst. Jatan Kanwar, her motherin-law. 13. On that very date, two Gift Deeds Annexures P5 and P6 were also executed by Mst. Sire Kanwar widow of Pratap Singh. Gift Deed Ex.P5 was in favour of Narpat Singh alleged to be son of sister of her husband, and Gift Deed Ex.P6 was executed in favour Mst. Jatan Kanwar, her motherin-law. 13. Before proceeding further we may notice that in the returns filed under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the age of Gopal Singh was stated to be 45 years and the age of wife of Gopal Singh has been stated to be 42 years and Sawai Singh and Bheru Singh were not shown to be living with Gopal Singh as members of his family. The age of Sawai Singh on the date of filing return in the year 1974 was stated to be 32 years by overwriting over 22 years and the age of Bheru Singh was stated to be 19 years. However, in the return filed earlier by Gopal Singh in 1971 under the Old Ceiling Act, the age of Bheru Singh was stated to be 10 years only. 14. The learned Additional Collector found that so far as Gopal Singh is concerned, the gift was in favour of his minor son. The learned Additional Collector also found that on the one hand, it is claimed that Sawai Singh was living separately whereas in the returns, he has stated to be living with the family of declarant jointly to claim a separate unit. He also found other gift deeds to be not real, but sham transactions made only for the purpose of ceiling. He found that Gift alleged to be made in favour of Narpat Singh, was stated to be for consideration to repay the debt owed to father of donee and not a transfer without consideration as it is claimed to be, as per the statement of father of Narpat Singh. He also found that donor and donee Jatan Kanwar were incapable of cultivating the land personally and that there was no consent of donees, therefore, these gifts are not in accordance with law. 15. These findings have been challenged on the ground that findings are not supported by the material on record, nor the same are founded on any plausible inferences. 15. These findings have been challenged on the ground that findings are not supported by the material on record, nor the same are founded on any plausible inferences. The learned counsel for the appellants Shri Bhoot has also argued that ordinarily, in the rural area the age is stated on estimation therefore no notice be taken of descripancy in describing of age. He also argued that findings recorded by the Ceiling Authority suffers from errors on the face of record and therefore a writ of certiorari ought to be issued for correcting such errors. 16. Having given our careful consideration we are unable to sustain any of the contentions. 17. It may be noticed that age of the each member of the family was stated in the returns filed by the respective holders in 1974. We have noticed that in the returns, the age of Gopal Singh's was shown to be 45 years, his wife's age was shown to be 42 years, age of Sawai Singh was shown to be 32 years by overwriting the figure 22 and the age of Bheru Singh was shown 19 years. This declaration was not stated to be incorrect by the appellant. It cannot be accepted that the age mentioned in the returns is incorrect because learned counsel wants to draw an inference contrary to case set up at any time before. When at no stage, it has been the case that age of Gopal Singh or his wife were wrongly stated in the returns for any reason, it cannot now be argued to make a physical impossibility a possibility, the Court must assume the dates mentioned in the returns to be erroneous and to hold inference drawn by the authorities to be suffering from an error apparent from record. At best it is a case of appreciation of evidence by drawing plausible inference. 18. In this connection it was contended by the learned counsel that expression used in Section 30 DD is about the transferee of a son who has attained the age of maturity'. Age of maturity cannot be equated with the age of majority. A boy of 14 years can carry out the agriculture operations and therefore transfer to a person of 14 years or above cannot be ignored from consideration under Section 30 DD. 19. We are not impressed with this contention either. Age of maturity cannot be equated with the age of majority. A boy of 14 years can carry out the agriculture operations and therefore transfer to a person of 14 years or above cannot be ignored from consideration under Section 30 DD. 19. We are not impressed with this contention either. The expression used is 'age of maturity' and not simply maturity. The word age in the context refers to attaining a particular age. Maturity in commonsense refers to when a person comes of age and becomes sui juris, that in legal parlance refer to age when a person can be considered to be a major, capable of taking his own decision. Therefore, the expression 'age of maturity' in the context can only refer to age in which a person can be said to have become major so as to become sui juris. Moreover, in the present case, the Additional Collector has come to a plausible finding that as on the date of alleged gifts was only 10 years. There is no warrant to assume, as held above, that he was of 14 years or more on 23-12-66. For this reason also the transfer made in favour of Sawai Singh by Gopal Singh does not come within the purview of Section 30 DD. 20. In these circumstances, finding, it is impossible for a woman of 42 years of age to have a son of 32 years, and on the date of filing return, when the figure 32 years apparently overwritten over figure 22 he accepted 22 years as the correct age of the date of return in 1974, was in consonance with probabilities of human biology. It is physically improbable that a girl of 10 years will give birth to a child. 21. Therefore, in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the Additional Collector about age of donee Sawai Singh do not suffer from any ille gality and no interference is called for by this Court even if it were hearing an appeal, not to say in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, which is not an appellate jurisdiction. 22. 21. Therefore, in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the Additional Collector about age of donee Sawai Singh do not suffer from any ille gality and no interference is called for by this Court even if it were hearing an appeal, not to say in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, which is not an appellate jurisdiction. 22. As regard alleged Gift in favour of Narpat Singh, when the father of the donee himself comes and gives statement contrary to nature of document and denies the want of consideration, it was enough to cast doubt about genuineness of the transaction and to hold that the transaction was made in favour of Narpat Singh with some oblique motive, as an agriculturist and no presumption could be drawn that transferee donee was an agriculturist in whose favour alone transfer was made on 9-4-66 could have been recognised. The ignoring of said transfer does not warrant interference. 23. The last transaction also in our opinion appears to be contrary to ordinary course of human conduct in the social background of Indian Rural Polity. It is very unnatural in any Indian Society that a daughter-in-law would execute a gift deed in favour of her mother-in-law. Moreover it also sounds very suspicious circumstance that a daughter-in-law is alleged to have executed the gift deed Ex.6 in favour of the mother-in-law in lieu of maintenance. Moreover, the basic requirement of Section 30 DD is that transfer to any person other than a son should be in favour of the agriculturists domicile. The learned Additional Collector has found that the donor herself was not in a position to cultivate the land, it is difficult to believe that her mother- in-law who is much older is agriculturist. 24. Apart from the documents on record it is also clear that Narpat Singh is stated to be doing a good service to the donor in her old age which motivated her to transfer the land in question in favour of Narpat Singh. It is noteworthy that gift in favour of Narpat Singh purports to be of 140 bighas. She purports to gift 130 bighas and 10 biswas of land to her mother-in-law. Thus she purports to transfer 270 bighas of land to two persons and denudes herself of almost her entire holding on the same date. She is alleged to be holding 280 bighas of land. She purports to gift 130 bighas and 10 biswas of land to her mother-in-law. Thus she purports to transfer 270 bighas of land to two persons and denudes herself of almost her entire holding on the same date. She is alleged to be holding 280 bighas of land. This makes herself bereft of any maintainance for her. 25. For a lady who herself is an old, and needs to be looked after by her husband's sister's son it sounds very abnormal that she would execute a gift deed in favour of a person who is much older than herself and deprive herself of all her holding to make her totally dependent. These circumstances are enough to warrant an inference against genuineness of transaction. 26. The genuineness and motive on behalf of executing these 3 gift deeds is in doubt. In these circumstance, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 27. Under Section 40 of the Act of 1973 the applicability of Chapter III B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (2) of Section 5, sub-section (12) of Section 15 has been saved. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1973, a person cannot hold more land than what he was entitled to hold under Chapter III B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus even after the Act of 1973, ceiling area for a family will be the same, as could be under the old law. Thus by any provision, the petitioner cannot secure the advantage of the Act of 1973 for retaining more land than what he would retain under Old Act. 28. In these circumstances, the independent examination of ceiling area, under the Act of 1973 for the present purpose is not necessary. 29. Accordingly, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 1,Appeal dismissed. *******