JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the judgment dated 16.09.1997 passed by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Nohar, Sahawa, Rawatsar ('the Commissioner'), judgment dated 26.05.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA') and judgment dated 27.09.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby all the three courts have concurrently held against the petitioner and have dismissed the suit, first appeal and second appeal respectively. 2. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking declaration and correction in the entries, inter alia, with the averments that a land admeasuring 7.03 Bigha comprised in Khasra No.72 situated at Rohi, Baramsar ('land in question') was purchased by him by a registered sale-deed dated 06.07.1993 and he is in possession of the land since then. A notice dated 19.10.1995 has been issued by the Tehsildar, Rawatsar alleging the petitioner to be trespasser on the land in question. It was submitted that the land was claimed by the respondents as belonging to 'Kund' and when the petitioner obtained copies of the mutation entries, it was found that the same has been recorded in the name of 'Kund' without any information and without hearing him. It was claimed that the petitioner has not gifted/donated the land in question and no one has obtained possession of the land and no one has accepted the gift and as such even if the gift deed exists, the same was void and, therefore, he was entitled for declaration of his tenancy and injunction against the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondents-defendants and the averments made in the plaint were denied; it was indicated that the land in question was purchased on 06.07.1973, which was mutated by mutation entry No.453 and on 07.02.1978 the petitioner gifted the land in question to religious 'Kund' for general public and the gift deed was got registered with the Sub-Registrar; where after, by mutation entry No.454, the land in question was recorded in the name of 'Kund' ; the petitioner has taken back the possession in Samvat 2051 (1994-95) and, therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed three issues. 4. The trial court framed three issues. On behalf of the petitioner, oral and documentary evidence were produced and on behalf of the respondents-defendants only mutation No.545 was produced. No oral evidence was produced. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff voluntarily gifted the land and left his tenancy rights. The plaintiff has not produced any record to show his possession between the period 1978 to 1993 and as the land in question has been used by general public, the procedure of gift has become complete and the mutation in favour of the State Government was legal and, consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed first appeal. The RAA by its judgment dated 26.05.2000 came to the conclusion that the burden to prove that the gift deed was not executed by the petitioner was rightly placed on the petitioner. The gift deed was held valid by holding that by user, the gift has been accepted and the objection in this regard was baseless and, consequently, dismissed the first appeal. 7. In the second appeal filed by the petitioner, the Board observed that though the gift deed dated 07.02.1978 or its copy was not produced before the courts below, however, as reference was made in the plaint itself, the non-production of copy of the registered gift deed or copy of the gift deed was of no consequence, rather it was the duty of the petitioner-plaintiff himself to get produced the gift deed or obtain a copy from the Sub-Registrar. The Board was also of the opinion that till the registered gift instrument was cancelled by a civil court, the revenue court cannot ignore it and, ultimately, dismissed the second appeal. 8. The Board was also of the opinion that till the registered gift instrument was cancelled by a civil court, the revenue court cannot ignore it and, ultimately, dismissed the second appeal. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three authorities below have totally misguided themselves from the cove issue, inasmuch as, even if the existence of the gift deed is accepted, it was the specific case of the petitioner that the document did not comply with the foundational requirements of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act'), inasmuch as, there was no acceptance of the so called gift and in absence thereof, the document even if the same exists, was void and the respondents cannot rely on the said document for displacing the claim of the petitioner and the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration was liable to be decreed. It was submitted that the registered gift deed was not produced before any of the lower courts and all the three authorities have proceeded on assumption regarding gift deed and its contents, and on that count also, the orders passed by the three authorities below are vitiated and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is no substance in the petition filed by the petitioner that all the three authorities below have concurrently held against the petitioner. With reference to the certified copy of the gift deed filed as Annex.-R/1 with reply, learned counsel submitted that the deficiency, if any, before the courts below regarding non-production of the gift deed stands cured, even otherwise, the existence of the gift deed cannot be denied by the petitioner. With reference to the gift deed, it is submitted that the petitioner has not denied its execution and once a registered gift deed exists, the petitioner cannot succeed by pointing out alleged defects in the said gift deed. With reference to the gift deed, it is submitted that the petitioner has not denied its execution and once a registered gift deed exists, the petitioner cannot succeed by pointing out alleged defects in the said gift deed. It was submitted that pursuant to the gift deed, the possession of the land in question was handed over for the purpose of 'Kund' and when the petitioner tried to repossess the land in question, notices were issued to him, where after he has filed the present suit disputing/questioning the gift deed made by him and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to contend otherwise and, therefore, the three authorities below were justified in rejecting the suit and the appeals. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record along with the record of the Commissioner, which was summoned by this Court. 11. A bare look at the plaint filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner took a plea that the he did not execute the gift deed and along with the said plea an alternative plea was also taken that even if a gift deed exists, the same was void for non-acceptance by the donee. Further plea was raised that the possession of the land was never handed over by the plaintiff, which was also indicative of the fact that the document was never executed. 12. The entire controversy revolves around the gift deed said to have been executed by the petitioner. The mutation entry, which was produced before the Commissioner, clearly indicated the endorsement of the Patwari that the gift deed was in favour of the 'Dharmarth Kund' and the same may be accepted and the Sarpanch has indicated that gift deed was perused and based on the said gift deed, the mutation was accepted. 13. The gift deed or its copy was not produced by either of the parties before all the three authorities below. 13. The gift deed or its copy was not produced by either of the parties before all the three authorities below. However, along with reply to the present writ petition, a certified copy of the gift deed has been produced, the relevant part of the gift deed reads as under:- ^nku&i= cnQ~rj lc&jftLVªkj lk0 uksgj euds nkujke oYn dkywjke tkfr lqukj lkfdu jkorlj rs0 lksgj dk gwaA tks fd ekStk cjelj rglhy uksgj ds [kljk uEcj 72@7-03 ch?kk Hkwfe eq> fedj dh ctfj;s cS;ukek eqln~ndk nQ~rj lc&jftLVªkj uksgj fnukad 13-7-1973 dh [kjhn lqnk [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gS ftl ij fedj fcyk 'kjdr dkcht gwa tks vkt ls igys gj izdkj ls jgu o cS; vkfn ls eqDr gS ekStk cjelj esa fedj dh [kjhn lqnk ,d dqUM iq[rk nkukjke lksuh /kekZFk dqUM ds uke ls gSA fedj viuh mDr [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe [kljk uEcj 72 dh 7-03 ch?kk ekStk cjelj rs0 uksgj dks c[kq'kh [kqn vkt dqUM okds ekStk cjelj tks nkukjke lksuh /kekZFk dqUM gS ds ihNs iquFkZnku djrk gwa vkSj bdjkj djrk gwa fd vk;Unk ds fy;s tks Hkh O;fDr dqUM ij jgdj izR;sd O;fDr dks bl dqUM ls eqQ~r ikuh fiyk;sxkA og bl nku lqnk Hkwfe 7-03 ch?kk dks dk'r djsxk rFkk Qk;nk mBk;sxkA bl Hkwfe dks jgu cS; djus dk fdlh dks gd ugha gksxkA dqUM ij jgus okyk O;fDr dqUM dh fgQktr j[ksxk rFkk bl Hkwfe dh iSnkokj esa flok; dqUM ij jgus okys O;fDr ds vU; fdlh dk dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugha gksxkA vk;Unk ds fy, bl nku fgck dh gqbZ 7-03 ch?kk Hkwfe ij esjk o esjh Hkkoh vkSykn dk dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugha gksxkA ;g Hkwfe dqUM ds ihNs eSaus nku dj nh gS tks dqUM dh jgsxhA bl oDr ;g nkulqnk Hkwfe 2]000@& :i;s dh eky;rh dh gSA fygktk ;g nku i= viuh LosPNk ls fcuk fdlh ncko o cgdko ds gks'k gokl esa jg rhu fdrk LVkEi dherh 90@& :i;s ij ceqdke uksgj rgjhj dj fn;k ,d fdrk LVkEi dher 10@& :i;s rdehyu 'kkfey gS fd lun jgs oDr t:jr ij dke vk;sA* 14. The gift deed bears signatures of the petitioner and that of certain witnesses Chanduram and Champalal. There are no indication of anyone signing as donee on the said document. 15. The provisions of Section 122 of the Act deals with gift and provides as under:- "122. "Gift" defined. The gift deed bears signatures of the petitioner and that of certain witnesses Chanduram and Champalal. There are no indication of anyone signing as donee on the said document. 15. The provisions of Section 122 of the Act deals with gift and provides as under:- "122. "Gift" defined. - "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 donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance when to be made.- Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void." 16. The foundational ingredients of gift as indicated under Section 122 of the Act are that the same should be made voluntarily and without consideration by person called the donor to another called the donee and which is accepted by or on behalf of the donee. 17. From the bare reading of the document (Annex.-R/1) gift deed indicates that in the document, there is absolutely no mention of any donee. The crucial part, which can be termed as demise reads as ^c[kq'kh [kqn vkt dqUM okys ekStk cjelj tks nkukjke lksuh /kekZFk dqUM gS ds iquFkZ nku djrk gwa vkSj bdjkj djrk gwaA* wherein the petitioner/donor has only indicated that he was gifting the land and, has thereafter went on to indicate that how the 'Kund' and the land would be utilized. There is apparently no indication of a donee as far as the gift deed (Annex.-R/1) is concerned and, consequently, there is no question of acceptance also. 18. The plea raised by counsel for the respondents and as observed by the RAA that on account of user by the general public, the same would amount to acceptance, has apparently no substance, inasmuch as, once there is no mention of any donee in the gift deed in question, the alleged acceptance by user by general public cannot be assumed as claimed. This is besides the fact that the very proposition that a gift deed can be made to a unascertained number of persons itself is quite doubtful. 19. In the case of Pallaya & Ors. This is besides the fact that the very proposition that a gift deed can be made to a unascertained number of persons itself is quite doubtful. 19. In the case of Pallaya & Ors. v. Ramavadhanulu, 1903 (13) Madras Law Journal 364, it was held as under:- "The word "donee" in that section refers to an ascertained or ascertainable person or persons by whom or on whose behalf the gift can be accepted or refused and has no application to an unascertained number of persons such as the public." 20. In view of the above as the foundational ingredients of gift as required by Section 122 of the Act are missing, the gift deed (Annex.-R/1) is a void document and cannot transfer the land from the petitioner to non-existent/unascertainable donee. 21. So far as the issue raised by counsel for the respondents that as the petitioner has failed to prove that he remained in possession despite execution of the gift in the year 1978 till 1994 and having once gifted the land cannot rely on the so called deficiencies in the document, suffice it to notice that a void document does not create any right in favour of the transferee/assumed transferee and till such time that the foundational ingredients are available regarding the transfer of land, the land cannot be transferred/the ownership does not get transferred. 22. The petitioner was admittedly in possession when the notice was issued to him by the respondent-Colonization Department alleging that he had trespassed on the land and, therefore, the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration, such a suit seeking declaration when admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the land in question cannot be said to be not maintainable and the petitioner cannot be non-suited on account of plea sought to be raised by the respondents based on the gift deed (Annex.-R/1). 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The judgments passed by all the three authorities below are quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and correction in the entries is decreed with consequential reliefs. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.