Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—Proceedings for ceiling were initiated against Ujagar Singh which were decided on 31.8.1971, finding that he is not having any land in excess of Ceiling limit. However, thereafter the matter was reopened vide order dated 14.7.1981. The reopening proceedings were decided vide Annexure-1 dated 20.3.1986, holding Ujagar Singh having to be 75.15 Bigha land in excess of Ceiling limit. It may be observed that during the pendency of those proceedings Ujagar Singh had expired and the present appellants did come to be brought on record as legal representatives. 2. Appeal was filed against that order, inter-alia contending, that the Additional Collector Tamlik Nama dated 19.5.1955, a registered document, he had given 99.14 Bigha of land to his four sons Jag Singh, Chand Singh, Nand Singh and Harnek Singh. This being a registered document, and being prior to 25.2.1958, was required to be recognised, which has wrongly not been recognised. This contention was accepted, and it was found that all the four sons were major as on 19.5.1955, and as on 1.4.1966 they were not members of family of Ujagar Singh, and were not dependent on him. However, it was found that in that event family of Ujagar Singh comprised to two members only, and out of 67.17 Bigha he could retained only 46.8 Bigha, and thus 21.9 Bigha of land was found to be surplus. It was contended in the appeal that half of the land out of 167.11 Bigha was ancestral, and remaining half should be treated to be self-acquired property, having been received by him on the death of his brother, and therefore out of the land covered by Tamlik Nama it should be held that 83 Bigha of self-acquired land was given, and remaining ancestral was given, and thus, the entire remaining land being ancestral property, the sons have their notional share in the property, which was required to be taken into account, in which event land would not have remained in excess of Ceiling limit. This contention was negatived, on the ground, that after recognising the Tamlik Nama, the Sons did not retain any right of partition. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed by the Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 26.6.1989, and it was held, that instead of 74.15 Bigha 21.9 Bigha of land only he resumed as surplus. 3. Then a review petition was filed, which was dismissed on 14.5.1989. 4. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed by the Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 26.6.1989, and it was held, that instead of 74.15 Bigha 21.9 Bigha of land only he resumed as surplus. 3. Then a review petition was filed, which was dismissed on 14.5.1989. 4. For challenging these orders, the writ petition was filed, which has been dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned Single Judge the proceeded on the basis, that the document dated 19.5.1955 is a document of settlement i.e. a settlement deed. Then the learned Single Judge proceeded to examine the definition and meaning of "deed of settlement" and ultimately at pg. 8 concluded that "settlement" amounts to giving the share in the properties to a person, based on his antecedent title, as a full and final settlement of his rights, i.e. in lieu of undivided right in the family properties as a measure of fair and equitable distribution of family properties among its members. Inter-alia with this conclusion it was held, that after the settlement to allow the sons to claim share in the property in the hands of Ujagar Singh, on 1.4.1966 is preposterous, and would lead to absurdity, and defeat the basic purpose for which the Ceiling Act had been enacted. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. 6. At our direction learned counsel for the appellant made available for our perusal the original registered document dated 19.5.1955, and has produced photocopy thereof on record. 7. A bare reading of the document, shows it to be a Tamlik Nama, it purports to be a Tamlik Nama and specifically recited that the land has been given so as to enable the sons to maintain their family. It is not in dispute, the Tamlik Nama is a "gift deed", and is not a "family settlement." 8. In our view, thus, the basic assumption of the learned single Judge, about the land having been given by Ujagar Singh to his four sons by way of giving share in the properties based on antecedent title, as a full and final settlement of his rights i.e. in lieu of undivided right in the family properties, as a measure of fair and equitable distribution of family properties among its members, is misplaced. 9. 9. As on the date when Tamlik Nama was executed even Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not come into force, much less and Ceiling law came into force, the document is a registered document and has rightly been recognised by the authorities below. Under the provisions of Transfer Property Act, the gift has the effect of divesting the title of donor, and vesting it in the donee. That being the position, since with executing the deed of gift, Ujagar Singh did not retain any right, title and interest in the property, and recipients received the property only as a gift, as contra-distinguished from having been received as, or, in view of their share in the ancestral property, or as a share in the father's property. 10. The obvious consequence that flows is, that by executing document dated 19.5.1955, only Ujagar Singh divested himself of the right, title and interest in the property conveyed, but correspondingly the recipients did not divest themselves of all or any of their rights, that otherwise vested in them, in the property of Ujagar Singh, as his sons. 11. To understand the thing properly, if the Tamlik Nama were to be executed in favour of the stranger, even then the sons of the donor would not have divested themselves of their right in the property, as such, simply because the recipients of the gift happended to be sons, cannot have any adverse consequence on their otherwise existing legal rights. 12. Thus, we are enable to sustain the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, so also the Board of Revenue, obviously the order of the Additional Collector has already been set-aside. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the matter is sent back to the Additional Collector, for fresh decision of the matter in accordance with law, keeping in view the conclusions arrived at above.