ORDER : M.M. Das, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment & Order Dated 17.12.1998 passed by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision Case No. 40 of 1993 by which the Learned Joint Commissioner of Consolidation reversed the finding of the Learned Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur Road in Appeal Case No. 46 of 1993 & directed the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur to record the case land in favour of the legal heirs of late Gopinath & Ramachandra. The disputed land was recorded in the name of Narayan Rana, son of late Daitari Rana, who is the predecessor of the present Petitioners under L.R. Khata No. 88, but in the Sabik Settlement Record, the same was recorded in the name of Daitari Rana alone. The legal heirs of Gopinath Rana including the present Opp. Party No. 2 & Rama Chandra Rana, who is the deceased Opp. Party No. 7 as objectors filed Objection Case No. 2193 of 1992 under Section 9(3) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 before the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur to delete the name of Narayan Rana & record their names in respect of the same. The objectors claimed to be the rightful owners of the disputed property on the basis of a registered gift deed bearing No. 2874 dated 9/10.04.1951 executed by Daitari Rana in favour of both Gopinath Rana & Rama Chandra Rana. The case of the objectors was that Daitari Rana purchased the disputed property from the rightful owner by a registered sale deed dated 26.9.1923 & while in possession, he gifted the same along with other lands & delivered possession thereof to the donees. Both the donees while in possession had mortgaged the same by executing a registered deed of mortgage dated 11.7.1961 & got the mortgage discharged on 6.7.1963 by paying the loan amount with interest to the mortgagee. The objectors filed all the documents in support of their case & the Learned Consolidation Officer, Jajpur after considering the documents by his Order Dated 6.1.1993 allowed the objection case directing to delete the name of Narayan Rana & to record the name of the objectors in respect of the disputed property. 2. The legal heirs of late Narayan Rana as Writ Petitioners carried Consolidation Appeal No. 46 of 1993 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur Road. 2. The legal heirs of late Narayan Rana as Writ Petitioners carried Consolidation Appeal No. 46 of 1993 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Jajpur Road. It was alleged in the appeal that deed of gift deed bearing No. 2874 dated 9/10.4.1951 executed by Daitari Rana is a Will & not a gift deed or settlement deed for which the objectors had no right, title, interest & possession in respect of the disputed property. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties, by its Order Dated 19.10.1 993, allowed the appeal & set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur on the ground that the said deed of gift is a Will & without probate the alleged donees cannot get exclusive title & if the said deed is taken out from consideration, then the disputed property shall devolve upon the Appellants & the objectors as successors of late Daitari Rana. The objectors thereafter challenged the aforesaid order of the Appellate Court before the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision Case No. 40 of 1993. By Order Dated 17.12.1998, after hearing the parties, the Learned Joint Commissioner of Consolidation allowed the revision. Being aggrieved by the order of Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, the present Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 3. In view of the rival claims as well as the findings of the Courts below, the sole question arises for consideration is whether the registered deed of gift bearing No. 2874 dated 9/10.4.1951 executed by Daitari Rana is to be construed as a Will or a deed of gift or a deed of settlement & if it is held that the said deed is a gift deed, then the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur in Objection Case No. 2193 of 1992 is to be restored/maintained. 4. Law is well settled that the nomenclature in a document is not decisive to hold the document as such but it is the duty of every Court to find out the intention of the Donor or executants of the deed from the recitals contained in the document. A copy of the registered deed of gift bearing No. 2874 dated 9/10.4.1951 executed by Daitari Rana has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. From the recitals of the deed, it would be clear that the document is a gift deed & not a Will. A copy of the registered deed of gift bearing No. 2874 dated 9/10.4.1951 executed by Daitari Rana has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. From the recitals of the deed, it would be clear that the document is a gift deed & not a Will. From such recitals, it will be crystal clear that the donor has gifted the property declaring the beneficiaries of the deed to be the absolute owner in possession & the intention of the executant is further clear that he has given full power to the beneficiaries to record their names in the Record of Rights in place of his name, in future. In view of such description, it can easily be concluded that the deed in question is a deed of gift & not a Will. The present Petitioners or any other successors of the executants have no right to challenge the deed as the property covered under the said deed exclusively belonged to the executant who had acquired the same by a registered sale deed dated 26.9.1923. The Learned Deputy Director has, therefore, wrongly construed the document as a Will in place of a deed of gift. The finding of the Learned Deputy Director to the effect that the deed had not been acted upon & no delivery of possession was effected in favour of the donees, was absolutely without any basis. The conduct of the donees after the deed, was not taken into consideration. The fact that donees after the deed had mortgaged the same for obtaining loan in the year, 1961 & subsequently the mortgage was redeemed & payment of rent in respect of the land was not considered by the Appellate Court. But, after considering the materials available on record as well as the decision cited by the objectors, the Learned Joint Commissioner of Consolidation has held that the document is a deed of gift & except the objectors, no other persons had any right, title & interest in respect of the property in question. 5. The Opp. Party No. 7 was admittedly a minor when the gift was executed & registered in his favour along with other donee. 5. The Opp. Party No. 7 was admittedly a minor when the gift was executed & registered in his favour along with other donee. It is a well accepted principle of law under Section122 of the Transfer of Property Act that relevancy of delivery of possession to a donee whereby donee accepts the deed becomes irrelevant when the donee if found, was living with the donor on the date of gift & was a minor. (See Smt. Sunder Bai died by L.R. Kishorilal v. Anandi Lal died & after him Smt. Mohaniwali & others, AIR 1983 ALLAHABAD 23). This Court also ruled to the similar effect that when the donor & donee are closely related & living together & making over the deed of gift & its acceptance may be sufficient & delivery of possession of the property may not be necessary. (See Vaikuntam Mamikyamma v. Puppala, AIR 1971 Orissa 49). It is also well settled that where the executant of a document intended to convey & confer immediate title on a person subject to his right of residence for the life time & no right of revocation was reserved, the document should be construed as a "Gift" & not a "Will". 6. Even with regard to a deed of settlement & a Will, it has been well propounded by various High Courts that when the deed is turned as settlement & registered but beneficial interest is postponed, the deed is a deed of gift & not a Will. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam & others, AIR 2004 SC 1257 , laid down that in a gift in favour of minor, there is implied acceptance even though right of enjoyment was retained by donor, ownership of the property by minor can be presumed by silent acceptance. With the above background, this Court is of the considered view that the deed in question was a deed of gift as has been held by the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur under Annexure-2, which finding has been upheld in Consolidation Revision Case No. 40 of 1993 by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack. With the above background, this Court is of the considered view that the deed in question was a deed of gift as has been held by the Consolidation Officer, Jajpur under Annexure-2, which finding has been upheld in Consolidation Revision Case No. 40 of 1993 by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack. This Court, therefore, finds that there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Consolidation, Odisha, Cuttack in Annexure-5 nor there is any illegality therein so as to be interfered with by issuance of a writ of certiorari. This Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.