JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 1 has filed this second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the disputed Land with an area of 44 decimals. Defendant No. 2 is the husband of Defendant No. 3. The facts which transpire from the records are the No. 2 executed a deed of gift in favour of Defendant No. 3 (Ex. F/1) on 19-4-1947 in respect of 1.73 acres including the disputed property. Defendant No. executed a sale-deed (Ex. 1) dated 31-10-1950 in respect of Ka schedule land for a consideration of Rs. 50/- and other sale deed (Ex. 2) dated 10-11-1950 for a consideration of Rs. 50/- in respect of Kha schedule land. Both the Kobalas are in favour of the present Plaintiff who claims title on the basis of these two transactions. The controversy is on account of the reason that Defendant No. 3 has executed a sale-deed (Ex. E) dated 15-5-1951 in favour of Defendant No. 1, the present Appellant, who was contesting the suit all along. This sale-deed is in respect of all the lands covered by the deed of gift which purports to be for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. From the facts stated above it is to be found that the only question which will determine the decision of the case is whether the deed of gift (Ex. F/1) dated 19-4-1947 executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3 is a nominal transaction or that Defendant No. 2 really intended to divest himself of all interest in the property. 2. The trial Court found that the deed of gift was a genuine and bonafide transaction which was acted upon, and as such he dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff as after the deed of gift Defendant No. 2 had no title to convey in favour of the present Plaintiff. The lower appellate Court, however, has reversed the finding of the trial court observing that the deed of gift was a nominal transaction and the Plaintiff?s vendor has full title to execute the sale-deeds in favour of the Plaintiff. 3. The lower appellate Court, however, has reversed the finding of the trial court observing that the deed of gift was a nominal transaction and the Plaintiff?s vendor has full title to execute the sale-deeds in favour of the Plaintiff. 3. The position is clear and has not been disputed that mere registration of a deed of gift does not convey title in respect of the properties, which are the subject matter of deed of gift, in favour of the donee unless it is proved that the donor had the intention of completely divesting himself of all interests in the properties which were to be gifted (sic) that in fact he so divested himself. The circumstances that are very significant and are entitled to great weight are the following : The deed of gift was executed by the husband in favour of the wife in the year 1947 when the husband was, aged only 33 and the wife a tender age like 20 it is admitted by Defendant No. 1 that the husband was hale and hearty at the time of the execution of deed of gift it is also significant to note that the deed of gift is in respect of almost the entire property belonging to the husband including the homestead. These circumstances are telling to the effect that at this tender age when the husband was not in the least apprehensive of death, as admittedly be was hale and hearty, he would not intend to divest himself of all interests in respect of whatever property he had on Earth, and particularly of the homestead. It would be against the course of human conduct of the present age that the husband could be leaving himself completely at the mercy of the wife by executing a deed of gift in respect of the entire property owned by him. He would be taking the risk of being dispossessed from the residential house. The learned lower appellate Court apart from these significant circumstances has also discussed a few other circumstances which remotely throw some light over the tenure of the transaction. He would be taking the risk of being dispossessed from the residential house. The learned lower appellate Court apart from these significant circumstances has also discussed a few other circumstances which remotely throw some light over the tenure of the transaction. This Defendant No. 1 is a relative of Defendant No. 3 and has obtained this Kabala from Defendant No. 3 in respect of the entire properties which are the subject matter of the deed of gift, that is to say, the entire properties belonging to the husband at one time and enjoyed by the husband and the wife. The deed of gift has been scribed by this Defendant No. 1, who is a deed writer, and the attesting witness to the deed of gift is another deed writer. He has also observed that the Kabala in favour of Defendant No. 1 which purports to be for a consideration of Rs.1000/- is not a real transaction as the value of the properties as given in the deed of gift appears to be Rs. 200/- only. The lower appellate Court also has found that the deed of gift came into existence on account of a motive on the part of the Plaintiff to defraud the creditors. Some of these circumstances, as I have already mentioned, may be a little remote but the first few circumstances that I have narrated are telling enough to convince a Court of Justice that the donor had no intention to divest himself of the entire property. 4. Mr. G.K. Misra, appearing on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant No. 1), however, relies upon the features that after the deed of gift was executed, the landlord had made an endorsement of his consent on the deed of gift on 22-5-1947 (Ext. F) the Bahel properties also were mutated in the name of the donee by the Land Registration Officer on 15-11-1949, and the rent-receipts stand in the name of the Defendant No. 3. To me it appears these do not show that Defendant No. 2 at the time of deed of gift did intend to divest himself completely of all the interests in the properties. The judgment of the lower appellate Court which is based upon consideration of various circumstances, both major and minor, does not appear to be assailable in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed