Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Second Appeal was allowed on 20.2.2006. Against the said judgment and decree Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court which was converted into Civil Appeal No.5197 of 2007. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on 14.11.2007 on the ground that questions of law had not been framed and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing. Thereafter amendment application was filed on 15.12.2008 containing five substantial questions of law. The application was allowed on 30.1.2009. On 13.12.2011 following order was passed on the order sheet:- "Amendment application filed on 15.12.2008 has formally been allowed on 30.1.2009. It is further clarified that this Second Appeal will be heard on the substantial questions of law A,B,C,D and E given in the said amendment application. List in the next cause list." The questions of law mentioned in the Amendment Application filed on 15.12.2008 are quoted below: A. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was correct in taking the view that inspite of the fact that the plaintiff was minor (2 years old) at the time of Execution of the Gift Deed in his favour by his natural father, express acceptance of the Gift was necessary in order to make it a valid Gift? B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have treated the Gift as deemed accepted and acted upon since Ram Singh, the father of the plaintiff, himself was the guardian and had himself executed the Gift Deed in favour of his minor son (Plaintiff)? C. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the Suit in spite of arriving at a conclusion that the Suit so far as the relief of cancellation of the impugned Sale Deed is concerned is not hit by the bar imposed by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act? D. Whether the conclusion drawn by the Lower Appellate Court that the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act since it involved the question of title to the disputed agriculture land, is correct in view of the fact that plaintiff was minor during consolidation operations and his guardian, his real father, was in collusion with Phool Chand, Vendee of his father? E. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in allowing the Appeal treating the Gift Deed as invalid and Suit barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act without discussing, dealing and discarding the Evidence relief upon by the Trial Court for arriving at a contrary conclusion? 3. This Second Appeal arises out of Original Suit No.358 of 1973 instituted by Ved Prakash minor son of Ram Singh through his guardian Shri Naresh Chand, maternal uncle. In the suit father and mother of the plaintiff minor i.e. Ram Singh and Smt. Prakasho were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 and 3. The defendant no.1 was Phool Chand. It was stated in the plaint that Ram Singh father of plaintiff Ved Prakash had executed registered gift deed of the agricultural land in dispute in his favour on 28.2.1962 when Ved Prakash plaintiff was only two years old. Ram Singh after about two and half years of the Gift Deed i.e. on 3.8.1964 executed a registered sale deed of the agricultural land in dispute in favour of Phool Chand, defendant-respondent no.1. Through the suit cancellation of the said sale deed had been sought. Suit was decreed on 2.6.1975 by City Munsif, Saharanpur and sale deed dated 3.8.1964 was cancelled. Against the said decision defendant-respondent no.1 Phool Chand filed Civil Appeal No.226 of 1975 which was allowed by Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 19.2.1976 through which judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and suit for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed hence this Second Appeal. The Lower Appellate Court held that:- "It could not be established that the alleged Gift Deed was accepted on behalf of donee, no valid Gift Deed was granted in his favour under the Deed (Exhibit-2) it must also be held that the Gift Deed was not acted upon and given effect to by the donar who on 3.8.1964 executed the impugned Sale Deed in respect of land in suit in favour of the defendant-appellant. Not only that in the mutation proceedings taken out by the defendant-appellant on the basis of the impugned sale deed executed in his favour defendant Ram Singh stated before the A.C.O., Saharanpur that in his place the name of his vendee namely Phool Chand may be mutated over plots in question of which he had been delivered possession." Lower appellate court further held that the suit was filed after nine years of execution of the sale deed even though maternal uncle (mama) of the plaintiff was aware of the same since its execution and all these facts further re-enforced the argument that the Gift Deed was in fact a sham transaction and that it was never acted upon. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court reported in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam and Ors. A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 1257 (as was done at the earlier stage when this appeal was allowed.) 5. It is correct that gift in of minor by his guardian can very well be accepted by the guardian himself. However the facts in the above authority of he Supreme Court were somewhat different. In that case mother had gifted the property to her son who was 16 years of age at that time but through the gift possession and right of enjoyment was retained by donor mother. In that scenario it was held that no overt act was required either by the donor or by the donee to show acceptance of the gift and that in normal course acceptance is to be presumed as, unless the gift is onerous, it is for the benefit of the donee. 6. However, in the instant case it can not be said that gift made by the father was accepted by him on behalf of his son who was two years of his age. Main part of the Section 122 Transfer of property Act is quoted below: "Gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donor, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee." 7. After execution of the gift father did not get the name of the donee infant son and two years of age, mutated in the revenue records. After execution of the gift father did not get the name of the donee infant son and two years of age, mutated in the revenue records. After two years of the gift he sold the property and until sale name of the father was continued to be recorded in revenue records. Even though revenue entries do not conclusively prove title, however, they have got lot a value and are a very strong evidence of possession. 8. In fact the entire transition and the suit was nothing but a fraud. The maternal uncle of the minor plaintiff who filed the suit as guardian of the minor no where stated that the minor was not residing along with his parents or that his parents were not taking care of the minor or that there was any dispute between the minor plaintiff (who was 13 years of age at that time) and her parents. All these things clearly go to show that the gift was not intended to be acted upon and it was never accepted by the father owner on behalf of his infant son donee. Mutation of minor in revenue record through his father and guardian would have been the best evidence of acceptance of the gift by the father donor as guardian. 9. Accordingly, question of law no. A and B are decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the appellant. I do not propose to decide substantial question of law no. C, D and E as the decision on question no. A and B is sufficient for decision on the appeal. 10. There is one more substantial question of law involved in this appeal which is to the following effect" F. Whether sale deed is protected on the basis of doctrine of ostensible owner as provided under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act? 11. Father was guardian of the minor. He did not make any effort to get the name of his infant son donee recorded as Bhomidhar of the land in dispute in the revenue records. Accordingly, father as guardian of the minor allowed himself to remain the ostensible owner of the property in dispute hence sale deed is fully protected and valid on the basis of Section 41 of Transfer of property Act. This question is also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 12. Accordingly, father as guardian of the minor allowed himself to remain the ostensible owner of the property in dispute hence sale deed is fully protected and valid on the basis of Section 41 of Transfer of property Act. This question is also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 12. Accordingly, on the basis of decision on substantial question of law no. A and B and additionally on the basis of decision on substantial question of law no. F this Second Appeal is dismissed. _