JUDGMENT Desai, C.J.
1. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit for the delay with which this appeal was filed, and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act we treat the appeal as having been filed within time.
2. The question that was raised before the revenue Courts is whether a gift of bhumidari rights is governed by Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 122 defines what is "gift" and it has not been shown that this definition does not apply to gifts of bhumidari rights. It applies to gifts of all immovable properties including bhumidari rights. There cannot be a gift unless there is acceptance and if the appellants failed to prove acceptance by their father it means that they failed to prove that there was a gift. U. P. Act No. X of 1949 does not define "gift" or does not substitute another definition of "gift" for that contained in Section 122, Transfer of Property Act in regard to bhumidari rights; it only states that a gift can be made of bhumidari rights. What amounts to a gift has to be determined in accordance with the definition contained in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the view taken by the Revenue Courts that there was no gift in this case because the acceptance was not proved is quite correct. In any case it cannot be said to be manifestly wrong so as to be amenable to certiorari. We, therefore, dismiss this special appeal summarily.