Judgment S. Ali Ahmad, J. 1. -one Deodhari Singh filed a suit in the court of the additional Munsif, Aurangabad, for a declaration that the deed of gift dated 22nd May, 1962 purported to have executed by him was the result of fraud and, as such, was illegal and that it remained inoperative. The suit was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was thereafter filed by the defendant. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff Deodhari Singh died and he was substituted by the present appellants, who were his nearest agnatic relations. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, gaya. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed in this Court. 2. The plaintiffs case was that he was old and illiterate. He had no brother or sister and, therefore, no nephew or niece, Bhagina or Bhagini and his nearest agnatic relations are the present appellants. Further his case was that he went to Aurangabad to execute a sale-deed on 22nd May, 1962 in favour of one Jabis Kuer, widow of Sukhuram. Nathuni Singh and Kali Singh of his village accompanied him. It is said thal the defendant respondents are the Bhaginas of Kali Singh and close relations of Nathuni Singh, The case of the plaintiff further was that the aforesaid Nathuni Singh and Kali Singh induced the plaintiff to execute a deed of will in favour of the defendants. A deed of will therefore, was scribed and under the influence of the aforesaid two persons, it was executed by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs case, he did not get the deed read over and thinking it to be a deed of will put his thumb-impression on the same which was duly registered. The plaintiff further alleged that the Karamchari of his Elaka told him on 15.8.1964 that a mutation petition had been filed by the defendants before the Anchal Adhikari, Nabinagar. Enquiries in that regard were thereafter made by the plaintiff and it then transpired that the defendants on the basis of a deed of gift purported to have been executed by the plaintiff on 22nd May, 1962. With respect to the suit land had filed an application for mutation. It was only then, according to the plaintiff, that he came to know of the fraud practised upon him. With respect to the suit land had filed an application for mutation. It was only then, according to the plaintiff, that he came to know of the fraud practised upon him. It is said that the recital in the deed was falsely made and the plaintiff had no mind or intention to make any gift of his properties to the defendants at any time. It was also alleged that the defendants did not come in actual possession of the properties mentioned in the deed and that the same was still in possession of the plaintiff. 3. A written statement was filed. It was, inter alia, stated in that written statement that the defendants were the sisters sons of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had developed love and affection for him. He lived with the plaintiff and the plaintiff after fully understanding the contents of the deed executed in favour of the defendants on 22.5.1962 and registered it on the same day. It was also said that the father of these defendants accepted the gift on their behalf as they were minors and that these defendants came in possession of the disputed properties as donees. It was also said that Mohan Singh or his brothers, namely, the appellants were not at all related to the plaintiff The fact that Deodhari Singh had become old was not disputed but it was said that he was in his full sense and could understand the affairs and he executed the deed of gift after fully understanding the contents thereof which were read over to him and thereafter handed over the registration receipt to Debi Singh, uncle of the defendants. It was further said that the mutation petition was filed in due course to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Allegations were also made that since after the execution of the deed of gift the plaintiff was won over by the present appellants, who induced him to file this suit. 4. The trial court came to the conclusion that the deed of gift was the result of fraud committed upon Deodhari Singh, the plaintiff. It, therefore, held that the deed of gift was inoperative. The suit was, therefore, decreed. The lower appellate court reversed these findings and dismissed the suit. It held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the deed of gift in question was obtained by fraud. It, therefore, held that the deed of gift was inoperative. The suit was, therefore, decreed. The lower appellate court reversed these findings and dismissed the suit. It held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the deed of gift in question was obtained by fraud. It also held that the story that the defendants were sisters sons of Deodhari Singh was incorrect and false, but that in the opinion of the court below was not sufficient to hold that the deed of gift was either inoperative or was the result of fraud. Another important finding recorded by the court of appeal below was that the deed of gift was acted upon and the defendants had come in possession of the said properties as donees. It is therefore, as stated above, allowed the appeal. 5. The findings of the lower appellate court, which I have mentioned above, are all findings of facts. Mr. S. C. Ghose, learned counsel for the appellants, being conscious of that did not seriously suggest that those findings were bad. He, however, contended that the alleged deed of gift dated 22nd may, 1962 (Ext. A) was not a deed of gift at all as it was not for consideration and as such, the defendants did not get any title through this deed. Before i discuss this point, I think it useful to determine as to what is gift. gift has been defined in section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act as follows : "gift is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person called the donor, to another called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. " This definition undoubtedly makes it clear that the transaction to be a gift must be gratuitous and there should be complete absence of consideration. In Halsburys laws of England, Vol.18, paragraph 692, the following passage is of significance : "a gift Inter vivas may be defined shortly as the transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously while the donor is alive and not in expectation of death. " Since section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the transfer should be without consideration, we have also to see as to what is meant by consideration. " Since section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act says that the transfer should be without consideration, we have also to see as to what is meant by consideration. Sec.2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration as follows : "when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promisee". Thus on a perusal of the definitions of thegift and consideration, to me it appears that the gift must be a transaction made voluntarily without any stipulation. 6 Is there any stipulation in Ext. A, the alleged deed of gift Mr. S. C. Ghose, learned counsel for the appellants says that there is, Mr. S. B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the gift was free from any stipulation or condition. To support his argument, Mr. Ghose has referred to a portion of Ext. A, the deed of gift itself. This portion recites as follows : "now the claimants should always take care of providing me the executant with food and clothes and should not give me any kind of trouble and they should after my death perform Shradh, Dashma, bhoj, Gaya Shradh according to the customs, under the Hindu shastran. They should not fail or neglect to do this. " Learned counsel on the basis of this statement submits that by this recital a stipulation in the form of duty was cast on the defendants to maintain the donor and to perform the ceremony specified in the deed after his death. It is not possible to accept this contention. The deed before mentioning the aforesaid passage stated as follows : "therefore, I the executant in sound state of my body and mind, in full enjoyment of my senses, without threats intimidation, persuasion, illegal pressure by any body else of my own accord and free will, after thoroughly thinking over my profit and loss, made a gift of the aforesaid lands constituting the property of gift in favour and in the names of the claimants under this deed without deducting or excepting any property or part thereof and put them in possession and occupation of the gift property in. my lifetime and gave up my possession and occupation over the gift property". 7. The passage, I have just quoted above, makes it abundantly clear that the gift was unconditional and free from any consideration. It is true that in the latter portion, a desire has been expressed that the donor will be properly maintained and ceremonies will be performed in accordance with the Hindu shastras after his death. But all these, in my opinion, are mere motives and are no consideration either within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Indian contract Actor within the meaning of section 122 of the Transfer of Property act, In my view, therefore, the argument of Mr. Ghose that the deed dated 22nd May, 1962 was not a deed of gift is not correct, and is rejected. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that the court of appeal below while reversing the judgment of the trial court did not take into consideration the reasonings given by it. It is true that the first appellate court being the final court of fact must consider the entire evidence and also should meet the reason ings given by the trial court in case it disagrees with the findings of the trial court. But nothing such has been shown to me on the basis of which it can be said that the appellate court has failed to perform its duty. I, therefore, see no force in this argument as well. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed ; but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.