The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of determining the intention of the donor or executants from the recitals in the document, and the relevance of delivery of possession in the case of a minor donee living with the donor at the time of the gift.

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. 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 deci