Judgment :- 1. There is only a short question for decision in this Second Appeal and that concerns whether Ex. P1 settlement deed dated 1-6-1963 executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and 4th defendant has been accepted by the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are the parents of the 4th defendant who is said to have married the plaintiff. Apparently Ex. P-1 settlement deed refers to the plaintiff as wife of the 4th defendant though 4th defendant disputes the factum of the marriage and the validity of the marriage because, according to the 4th defendant, plaintiff had a husband living on the date of the alleged marriage. Whatever that be, it is clear that the settlement deed Ext. P-1 was executed on the basis that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant were living or proposing to live as husband and wife. It is said that the plaintiff has a child by the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant apparently left the plaintiff later in search of pastures new. Thereafter, defendants 2 and 3 are said to have been persuaded to ignore the settlement already effected and to execute a new settlement deed in favour of the 1st defendant, the daughter, and that is said to be the provocation for the suit. 2. That the settlement deed of 1964 in favour of the 1st defendant would not stand in case property had been already gifted admits of no doubt. No vitiating circumstance is pleaded in regard to Ex. P-1. But it is said that though it was executed it was not accepted by the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, so much so, that when a new settlement deed was executed, Ex. P-1 stood revoked. That is how the question of acceptance of Ex. P-1 becomes relevant. 3. Between the date of Ext. P-1 and subsequent settlement deed dated 25-7-1964, there was an interval of more than one year. When the fresh settlement deed was executed, the reason shown for its execution was that the 4th defendant did not look after defendants 2 and 3 as assured to them earlier when executing Ex. P-1, and therefore the document was being cancelled. P-1 and subsequent settlement deed dated 25-7-1964, there was an interval of more than one year. When the fresh settlement deed was executed, the reason shown for its execution was that the 4th defendant did not look after defendants 2 and 3 as assured to them earlier when executing Ex. P-1, and therefore the document was being cancelled. Apart from the fact that at the earliest point of time when they could have said that there was no acceptance of the settlement if that was the truth, they did not do so what is more important is that the statement in the fresh settlement deed Ex. D-2 goes to negative a case of absence of consent. If the earlier settlement deed was executed on an assurance that defendants 2 and 3 will be looked after, that presupposes the knowledge of the gift by the donees and an understanding reached between them at the time of execution of the settlement deed which could be sufficient to support the plea of acceptance especially when there is no question of the donee getting possession of properties since there was reservation of right to enjoy the property in the donors during their life time. 4. The evidence bearing on the question of acceptance of the gift deed will have to be appreciated in the background of the circumstance relating to the execution of such a deed. There may be cases where slightest evidence of such acceptance would be sufficient, There may be still cases where the circumstances themselves eloquently speak to such acceptance. Normally, when a person gifts properties to another and it is not an onerous gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift when once it comes to his knowledge, since normally, any person would be only too willing to promote his own interests. May be in particular cases there may be peculiar circumstances which may show that the donee would not have accepted the gift. But these are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. One would have to look into the circumstances of the case in order to see whether acceptance could be read. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. One would have to look into the circumstances of the case in order to see whether acceptance could be read. Mere silence may sometimes be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift. Essentially, this is a question of fact to be considered on the background of circumstances of each case. 5. In a case, such as the one before me, where the execution of the gift deed was apparently to satisfy the plaintiff and the 4th defendant, who had either married or were intending to marry and the evidence indicates that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant were aware of this gift deed, one would not be wrong in assuming that the gift would have been accepted by them. It is true that while the one and rather the only question in the case is of acceptance of the gift and therefore plaintiff as pw.1 has, in the box, to swear about it when she was examined by her counsel she has failed even to advert to it. Possibly, if the matter was left there, plaintiff could have had a bad time in attempting to support her case. Counsel for the defence has obliged the plaintiff by a rather elaborate cross-examination on acceptance and brought out that the plaintiff had accepted the gift deed. In fact, the cross-examination offered occasion for the plaintiff to say that her father had been taken to the sub-registry office for the purpose of execution of the settlement deed and that the 4th defendant's consent also was taken. The fattier is apparently as attestor of Ext. P-1. These circumstances are more than sufficient to show that the plaintiff was aware of the gift when it was executed and possibly she submitted herself to the 4th defendant on the faith that she was going to get the suit property as one of the donees after the life time of defendants 2 and 3. It would appear that this arrangement was an integral part of the arrangement reached between plaintiff and 4th defendant in regard to the proposed marital relations. This would be sufficient to spell out acceptance of the gift deed. Once that is so found, I have necessarily to declare the right of the plaintiff under Ext. It would appear that this arrangement was an integral part of the arrangement reached between plaintiff and 4th defendant in regard to the proposed marital relations. This would be sufficient to spell out acceptance of the gift deed. Once that is so found, I have necessarily to declare the right of the plaintiff under Ext. P-1 gift and to hold that Ex. D-2 executed as if Ex. P-1 gift had not come into effect or was not valid will not bind the plaintiff or her rights in the suit property. 6. The court below has, by decreeing the suit in terms of the plaint, gone far beyond what would be justified by the findings which I have entered here. There is a prayer in the plaint that in case the 1st defendant gets possession, plaintiff must be given a decree for possession. Whether 1st defendant is in possession or not is immaterial. The right to come into possession will arise only after the death of the 3rd defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff will have no cause of action for recovery until after the death of the 3rd defendant. To that extent, the decree of the court requires modification. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed except in regard to the modification that there will be no decree for recovery in this suit. The right of the plaintiff for recovery will arise only on the death of the surviving donor, namely, the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff will have to be satisfied with such a declaration. In the circumstances of the case, I direct both parties to suffer costs.