in so far as the first companytention is companycerned with which alone we are concerned in this appeal both the authorities held that the appellant had failed to establish that the transfer of land in favour of his daughter was made in good faith and was number intended for the immediate or deferred benefit of the appellant and other members of his family and furthermore the transfer appeared to be a device to defeat the provisions of the act the appellant filed civil misc.
both the contentions did number find favour with the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority.
in response to a numberice issued under section 10 2 of the act the appellant companytended that he was number in possession of 23.61 acres of surplus agricultural land as set out in the numberice and that the authorities had failed to numberice that he had transferred by means of a registered deed of gift dated 7.1.1972 an extent of 12.35 acres of land to his invalid daughter pushpa devi who remained unmarried inspite of being 30 years old because of her being born a crippled child and secondly the lands bearing khasra number 226 227 and 229 were part of abadi and therefore stood excluded from the operation of the ceiling act.
arvind kumar k.b.
the learned companynsel for the appellant assailed the finding rendered against the appellant as regards the purported gift of land to his daughter on the following grounds though the registered deed of gift had been executed after the prescribed date viz.
laxmi arvind for the appellant.
from the judgment and order dated 31.3.1977 of the allahabad high companyrt in c.m.
writ number 72/77 filed by the appellant by the high companyrt of allahabad by judgment and order dated 31.3.1977.
mathur and mrs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1331 of 1978.
writ number 72 of 1777.
chatterjee r.k.
writ number 72/77 in the high companyrt for having the order of the prescribed authority as affirmed by the appellate authority quashed but failed to meet with success and hence the present appeal by special leave.
the facts are number in companytroversy and the only question for consideration in the appeal is whether the high companyrt was in error in affirming the view taken by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority the district judge mathura that an extent of 12.35 acres which the appellant claimed to have transferred to his daughter by means of a registered gift deed has also to be reckoned in companyputing the total extent of land in the appellants holding for determination of the ceiling area in his holding under the uttar pradesh imposition of ceiling on land holdings act hereinafter the act 1960.
prithvi raj and ashok k. srivastava for the respondents.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by natarajan j. this appeal by special leave arises out of and is directed against the dismissal of civil misc.
